or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Freescale CEO: Jobs wanted to move to Intel 5 years ago
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Freescale CEO: Jobs wanted to move to Intel 5 years ago

post #1 of 89
Thread Starter 
In a recent interview with CNet News.com, Freescale Semiconductor chief executive Michel Mayer spoke of his company's evolving business model and revealed that Apple chief Steve Jobs was itching to switch the Mac to Intel processors over five years ago.

The Austin, Texas-based company, a recent spin-off from Motorola, is one of the 10 largest microchip manufacturers in the world. However, Mayer said Freescale is in the midst of an "evolution of existing businesses" that will distance the company from the personal computer market.

"Desktop is a very small piece of our business, and it's going away," said Mayer. "Our only customer is Apple (for laptops), and they are switching to Intel sometime next year."

While Freescale was not happy to lose Apple as a customer, Mayer conceded that "frankly, with all of the growth opportunities that we have in front of us, it was not a good use of our resources to try to defend half a percent market share, which is how much desktop we have against Intel."

"OK, Intel has the PC, that's fine," Mayer said. "There are so many opportunities outside the PC that it's much better using our resources to try to go into spaces where we are really leaders."

Mayer believes innovation is moving away from the PC space, and towards consumer electronics, game consoles, cars, phones and the iPod. "That's where innovation is," said Mayer. "So desktop is not a market that we want to serve."

Asked if he was present five years ago during the discussions when IBM convinced Apple to adopt the G5, Mayer said: "In my previous job, I ran IBM's semiconductor business. So I've seen both sides of the Apple story, because I sold the G5 to Steve (Jobs) the first time he wanted to move to Intel."

Mayer said that he first I told IBM that it should adopt the G5 project with Freescale, and then I sold the chip to Apple. "The G5 was good and it was going to be the follow-on of the PowerPC road map for the desktop. It worked pretty well," he said. "And then IBM decided not to take the G5 into the laptop and decided to really focus its chip business on the game consoles."

Mayer's comments about Apple's transition add fuel to implications that the Mac maker's move to the Intel artchitecture had been planned as early as five years ago. Recent statements by Steve Jobs himself indicated that Apple worked hard to keep its half-decade long Mac OS X for Intel project under wraps.

"So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for both PowerPC and Intel," Jobs said in June as he announced Apple's plans to go Intel. "This has been going on for the last five years," he said.?
Looking ahead, Mayer said Freescale will likely revitalize its PowerPC business, but possibly under a different name. "I don't know if it's going to be called PowerPC. A lot of people have questions on the PowerPC architecture and what's going on," Mayer said. "I think IBM and us need to make a very strong statement that, 'Hey, a lot of applications are using that architecture, it's alive, it's there to last, don't get confused because there are many more PowerPC chips than IBM's Power architecture chips sold in the world.'"

Mayer said that most people would be shocked to learn that the PowerPC drives the engine control power train application in some automobiles. He mentioned that there are currently 52 Freescale chips in both the BMW 7 Series and the 5 series. The BMW 7 Series v6 currently uses a 16-bit PowerPC chip and will be moving to a 32-bit chip next year, Mayer said.

The chips control air bag deployment, moving the seats, the power train, Telematics, OnStar, entertainment systems, the transmission, and more.

"Next year, 50 percent of car (models) in the world will have PowerPCs," Mayer said.
post #2 of 89
Well now, this figures, doesn't it?

Now it's clear. IBM didn't want to make a laptop G5. Otherwise we could have had one.

I still think that Apple should have gone x86 when OS X first came out.

Everything had to be rewritten back then anyway. This way they wouldn't have had two transitions to make.

It would have been cheaper and easier for everyone involved.
post #3 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Well now, this figures, doesn't it?

Now it's clear. IBM didn't want to make a laptop G5. Otherwise we could have had one.

I still think that Apple should have gone x86 when OS X first came out.

Everything had to be rewritten back then anyway. This way they wouldn't have had two transitions to make.

It would have been cheaper and easier for everyone involved.

Maybe. But then OS X originally was something of an extra to run on the existing (PowerPC) architecture, until it really reached active maturity at the release of Jaguar or thereabouts.

Basically Jobs was talked into staying with PPC because of the promise of the G5 which was still far away at the time. It could well have gone to laptops too, but IBM only later changed their mind about that. So I can't say I think Apple made the wrong decision at the time.

However keeping OS X dual platform all that time (what we used to call Marklar) was very cunning and definitely astute!

I like this bit from the article:
Quote:
Next year, 50 percent of car (models) in the world will have PowerPCs

Does that mean if you get the traction control busy enough on a slippery surface, you can expect to hear some air cooling fan come on to chill the busy G4's? Poor BMW customers, this PowerBook owner sympathises with their prospective plight!
post #4 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by fuyutsuki
Maybe. But then OS X originally was something of an extra to run on the existing (PowerPC) architecture, until it really reached active maturity at the release of Jaguar or thereabouts.

Basically Jobs was talked into staying with PPC because of the promise of the G5 which was still far away at the time. It could well have gone to laptops too, but IBM only later changed their mind about that. So I can't say I think Apple made the wrong decision at the time.

However keeping OS X dual platform all that time (what we used to call Marklar) was very cunning and definitely astute!

I like this bit from the article:

Does that mean if you get the traction control busy enough on a slippery surface, you can expect to hear some air cooling fan come on to chill the busy G4's? Poor BMW customers, this PowerBook owner sympathises with their prospective plight!

From the article it doesn't sound like IBM waited very long to decide about a laptop chip. But they didn't have one then, and that should have been enough.

After all, isn't that the main reason why Apple hasn't gone to AMD?

Yes, yes, I know there are others as well.
post #5 of 89
This is a good move for freescale. The PPC is very well suited to the high-end embedded market, and the 7400 series, which is evolving into interesting dual core SoC's, is really a top-in-class performer. Altivec makes it a wicked DSP.

Quote:
After all, isn't that the main reason why Apple hasn't gone to AMD?

The thing we know is that Apple is going Intel because it's a better total package, including a wider range of products, and better fab, and, most of all, a much more heavily funded and talented long-term research department than what anyone else in the industry has.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #6 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
This is a good move for freescale. The PPC is very well suited to the high-end embedded market, and the 7400 series, which is evolving into interesting dual core SoC's, is really a top-in-class performer. Altivec makes it a wicked DSP.


The thing we know is that Apple is going Intel because it's a better total package, including a wider range of products, and better fab, and, most of all, a much more heavily funded and talented long-term research department than what anyone else in the industry has.

Sure. But if they didn't have Yonah coming out now, and Merom coming out second half of 2006, and AMD did, the rest wouldn't matter.
post #7 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by fuyutsuki
I like this bit from the article:
"Next year, 50 percent of car (models) in the world will have PowerPCs"

Does that mean if you get the traction control busy enough on a slippery surface, you can expect to hear some air cooling fan come on to chill the busy G4's? Poor BMW customers, this PowerBook owner sympathises with their prospective plight!

Yeah, but can you imagine the magnitude of the disaster if he had said, "Next year, 50 percent of car (models) in the world will run Windows"? It would give new meaning to the phrases "system crash" and "blue screen of death."
post #8 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by Kolchak
Yeah, but can you imagine the magnitude of the disaster if he had said, "Next year, 50 percent of car (models) in the world will run Windows"? It would give new meaning to the phrases "system crash" and "blue screen of death."

Look to BMW, some of their cars DO run Windows, you know, the ones that wouldn't allow the doors to be unlocked or turned the engine off on the motorway when someone used a cell phone.
post #9 of 89
I guess now we know who promised Steve Jobs that the G5 would be at 3GHz by last summer.
post #10 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Sure. But if they didn't have Yonah coming out now, and Merom coming out second half of 2006, and AMD did, the rest wouldn't matter.

But AMD does not, and the reason why they do not is because they don't have a great long-term R&D dept. AMD is a second tier technology company. There are plenty of tiers below second, but it makes a lot more business sense to stay with the first tier.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #11 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I still think that Apple should have gone x86 when OS X first came out.

Everything had to be rewritten back then anyway. This way they wouldn't have had two transitions to make.

It would have been cheaper and easier for everyone involved.

It would have been cheaper and easier overall, but without OS X being a proven entity in 1999, were Adobe & MS too averse to risk to make the double jump back then?

Didn't both Microsoft and Adobe balk at migrating to the then-unproven OS X? Didn't they push hard for Carbon so they'd have to change their apps as little as possible for OS X?

Would Adobe & MS have rewritten their code for OS X and for X86 all at once? How hard would that have been without XCode in 1999? Would they have invested the $$$ in a completely new operating system running on a different processor?

Rhetorical questions, all, but worth thinking about.
post #12 of 89
I think it was the Sony and MS deals that IBM picked up for PS3 and 360 processors that killed Apple's ride with PPC. IBM must have had some plan for a low power version of the G5 (even today they claim they have them should Apple have been patient enough) as surely a roadmap must have the basic corners for a chip maker to appear professional! Clearly Freescale weren't going to make 970's ... the responsibility was IBM's.

But then, like all good roadmaps and other vapourware, the idea was chucked out of the window as soon as IBM had learned what dealing with Apple and Steve Jobs was really like, how much of a pain it was to make a low power G5 and crucially that Sony and MS were now going to be their cash cows. Tens of millions of identical chips for the consoles are soooo much a tastier target for a fabber like IBM. No need to ramp the clock every quarter, just cheap and easy mass manufacture to care about. After the design of course.

So in short: IBM cared a lot more about selling the G5 several years ago, just at the time Steve Jobs decided to take it. The current PowerBook situation where the G4 is without a doubt the system's Achilles heel (and also the entire Mac lineup's!) came about gradually, and during the era where IBM switched priorities to consoles.

I've also heard a good argument that the Xserve was competing too hard with IBM's own server models, which did NOT go down well with the chip maker!

As for AMD vs. Intel...

I like AMD. I've bought about six of their cpu's over the years compared to just one Intel. Their chip design is good, the Opteron is an impressive processor, and their David and Goliath like battle with Intel is THE driving force behind the CPU industry, especially for x86.

But Intel was the right choice. They are simply in a league of their own for manufacturing. You need a ton of cpu's on a given date? Intel will deliver where AMD can't and IBM can't be bothered! The fact they're at a finer nanometer production from everyone else already is good news for Apple, and the fact the Yonah/Merom based designs appear Athlon64 contenders is even better. Intel are very likely to strike back to the top of the charts for performance in 2006 and 2007. IBM will be third provided they would even still count. And AMD will be making competent, attractive processors that Apple could switch to seamlessly at some point, if they ever get into the habit of supplying enough!

I expect a great deal from the ENTIRE NEW RANGE of Macs coming out. I'm sure Apple do too. This should be exciting!
post #13 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
But AMD does not, and the reason why they do not is because they don't have a great long-term R&D dept. AMD is a second tier technology company. There are plenty of tiers below second, but it makes a lot more business sense to stay with the first tier.

I can't agree with that. They are a smaller company, yes. But certainly not second tier. Their chips are used in supercomputers, large servers, many business class workstations, and of course, high performance PC's.

They and IBM have had technology sharing deals going back years, and have just extended it to 2011.

There is no argument against the statement that AMD's chips perform better than Intels, as well as using less power.

A second tier technology company? Hardly.
post #14 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
It would have been cheaper and easier overall, but without OS X being a proven entity in 1999, were Adobe & MS too averse to risk to make the double jump back then?

Didn't both Microsoft and Adobe balk at migrating to the then-unproven OS X? Didn't they push hard for Carbon so they'd have to change their apps as little as possible for OS X?

Would Adobe & MS have rewritten their code for OS X and for X86 all at once? How hard would that have been without XCode in 1999? Would they have invested the $$$ in a completely new operating system running on a different processor?

Rhetorical questions, all, but worth thinking about.

We could argue both ways about this. I don't remember MS and Adobe balking. Companies will always do the least they can. If they think they can get away with it.

I would have been willing to bet that both would have come through. There is a big advantage to them in Apple going to x86. It makes their programming easier, not harder. Yes, the initial change would have been tougher. But for Adobe, at least, Apple had a bigger share of their market than they do now.

Apple's sales languished because of the poor performance of the G4 which just sat there for years. Even the G5 only got us close.

They could have written the OS for both X and x86 at the same time. It's not that they would be writing it twice. And they had a good deal of knowledge about x86. They were very familliar with it.

Apple had X Code then. If they would have done this changeover, they could have done more.

After all, you might remember that 10.0 was called the final beta. It wasn't very usable. Instead of coming out with that, Apple could have had the changover with the later version of 10.1, which was usable. So X would have come out a year later. Apple would have lost the publicity war against 2000, but would have been on a par with PC performance.

None of us really know whether this could have worked, no matter what we say. But, I think it could have.

And, as the article says, Jobs was interested in doing it then. IBM persuaded him not to.
post #15 of 89
So this is how I see it:

Apple: We are thinking about going with Intel
IBM: Oh, no. You should go with the G5. It's a GREAT chip!
Apple: Will it scale okay?
IBM: Sure!
Apple: Okay, we'll stick with PowerPC.

*jump ahead*

MS: Hey, IBM, we need some really great stuff for the XBox 360.
IBM: Well, we've already got this deal with Apple...
MS: We'll give you oodles of money, but we need to be your #1 customer.
IBM: Okay! Hey Apple?
Apple: What?
IBM: We're not going to be able to give you those 3Ghz chips as soon as you wanted.
Apple: What about the low-power chips for Powerbooks?
IBM: Yeah, those may be a while, too.
Apple: Fuck that! Hey Intel?
Intel: Yeah?
Apple: Remember that talk we had a few years ago?
Intel: Oh, about switching to x86. Yeah, so?
Apple: Can you give us lots of really fast chips for a long time?
Intel: Sure!
Apple: Where do we sign?

And here we are.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #16 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
There is no argument against the statement that AMD's chips perform better than Intels, as well as using less power.

The "using less power" part is the only questionable part of your post. AMD proved itself as a first-tier CPU design house since the original Athlon, and their agreement with IBM ensures they have first-tier fabs (at least in technology... IBM still seems to have issues with volume for desktop-level complexity CPUs.) When compared against the Pentium 4's they are also better in power consumption, but they have absolutely nothing to compare to the Pentium M and Yonah that I've seen or heard coming down the line. While their recent announcements show they're staying on top of the overall power consumption issue, with Intel moving the entire line over to Yonah derivatives they're in danger of losing this battle in a big way next year.
post #17 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by Booga
The "using less power" part is the only questionable part of your post. AMD proved itself as a first-tier CPU design house since the original Athlon, and their agreement with IBM ensures they have first-tier fabs (at least in technology... IBM still seems to have issues with volume for desktop-level complexity CPUs.) When compared against the Pentium 4's they are also better in power consumption, but they have absolutely nothing to compare to the Pentium M and Yonah that I've seen or heard coming down the line. While their recent announcements show they're staying on top of the overall power consumption issue, with Intel moving the entire line over to Yonah derivatives they're in danger of losing this battle in a big way next year.

Excuse me?

Until recently, AMD hasn't shown an interest in making laptop chips, except for the mobile Tureon (I spelled that wrong).

But with the Opteron's and Athlon's, there is no question that they consume less power. Just go to any PC site and look at the tests and comparisons.

They don't have chips for handheld units, but that was a choice, not a lack of technology.
post #18 of 89
You guys are misinterpreting the meaning of "tier." I simply mean that they don't have the installed volumes of, say, Intel, Samsung, Moto/Freescale, or IBM in each of their respective markets.

Being first tier means that you shape the way the industry goes. AMD does not. The fact that they are married to someone else's instruction set and general dogma is evidence enough.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #19 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
You guys are misinterpreting the meaning of "tier." I simply mean that they don't have the installed volumes of, say, Intel, Samsung, Moto/Freescale, or IBM.

Being first tier means that you shape the way the industry goes. AMD does not. The fact that they are married to someone else's instruction set and general dogma is evidence enough.

Not really. Some of the biggest players in the industry use AMD's chips, including IBM, Hp, etc. Dell doesn't - yet. But they do sell their chips.

AMD is the second biggest cpu manufacturer in the world.

The 64 bit extention technology Intel uses for their chips was developed by AMD.

MS wrote their 64 bit OS around AMD design, and then said that Intel had better use the same one, because that was what they were going to support, and no other. That's shaping. AMD's designs are their own. Intel is now moving their chip line to function more like AMD's not the other way around.

Apple uses Hypertransport in its G5 machines - developed originally by, AMD!

A great deal of SSE was done by, uh, AMD.

Intel still hasn't been able to duplicate the on-board memory controller that guess who uses?

I could go on.
post #20 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by people
(speculation as to what if Apple had gone with Intel back in the day....)

We'd also have the possible advantage that it would have been one less time that Apple yanked Metrowerks' chain, and there may have been some possibility of MacOS having a first-rate development environment for Intel instead of XCode.
post #21 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Being first tier means that you shape the way the industry goes. AMD does not. The fact that they are married to someone else's instruction set and general dogma is evidence enough.

x86-64 is AMD's instruction set (the one Intel now refers to as EM64T).
post #22 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Well now, this figures, doesn't it?

Now it's clear. IBM didn't want to make a laptop G5. Otherwise we could have had one.

I still think that Apple should have gone x86 when OS X first came out.

Everything had to be rewritten back then anyway. This way they wouldn't have had two transitions to make.

It would have been cheaper and easier for everyone involved.

Apple had one thing to get OS9-->OSX switchers back then, and that was basically impossible in my eyes if we were going Intel - Classic.
Quote:
Originally posted by Booga
I guess now we know who promised Steve Jobs that the G5 would be at 3GHz by last summer.

Good one.
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
post #23 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
You guys are misinterpreting the meaning of "tier." I simply mean that they don't have the installed volumes of, say, Intel, Samsung, Moto/Freescale, or IBM in each of their respective markets.

Being first tier means that you shape the way the industry goes. AMD does not. The fact that they are married to someone else's instruction set and general dogma is evidence enough.

One other thing. A first tier company is not one who shapes the industry, but one that is looked to first when large companies do their buying.

When Boeing buys computers, they are likely to look first at Dell and Hp. IBM too, for other machines these days. Gateway would be second tier.

When those manufacturers look to buy chips, more of them are first looking to AMD for their top of the line servers and workstations. Dell has other reasons to stay with Intel, but that seems as though it's going to change.

By the way. I'm not arguing that Apple should have gone to AMD. I've been saying the opposite. It's just that AMD isn't big enough, and it hasn't produced laptop chips until recently.
post #24 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
Apple had one thing to get OS9-->OSX switchers back then, and that was basically impossible in my eyes if we were going Intel - Classic.

Good one.

I wasn't suggesting that Apple go Intel/Classic.

I was looking at what the article said, that Jobs was thinking about going to Intel five years ago. That would have been Intel/OS X.
post #25 of 89
Interesting thing about all this is that whatever process was going on between IBM and Jobs, and whatever the motivation of the parties, in the final analysis it was IBM that played Jobs like a fiddle. In retrospect, it seems like IBM was interested in owning the console market all along, and needed a showcase for the G5 architecture as a PR device towards that end. Apple provided the showcase. IBM got the contracts. IBM stopped delivering for Apple, almost instantly - assuming they ever had any intention to deliver at all. Jobs doesn't often get played like that. It's remarkable he's been as (publicly) good-humored about it as he has.
post #26 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
There is no argument against the statement that AMD's chips perform better than Intels, as well as using less power.

Actually, AMDs chips so far have used vastly more power, especially in areas where power usage is important (laptops).

The Turion64 is a nice improvement, but so far I still don't see it massively used in laptops. The Celeron M / Pentium M set of chips is quite a good design (though I personally still prefer the G4's, if only it would scale).

Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I don't remember MS and Adobe balking.

They did. The original Rhapsody plans (which didn't have anything Carbon-like -- remember yellow box, blue box, red box?) did not make developers happy.
post #27 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by Towel
Interesting thing about all this is that whatever process was going on between IBM and Jobs, and whatever the motivation of the parties, in the final analysis it was IBM that played Jobs like a fiddle. In retrospect, it seems like IBM was interested in owning the console market all along, and needed a showcase for the G5 architecture as a PR device towards that end. Apple provided the showcase. IBM got the contracts. IBM stopped delivering for Apple, almost instantly - assuming they ever had any intention to deliver at all. Jobs doesn't often get played like that. It's remarkable he's been as (publicly) good-humored about it as he has.

Oh, that's an interesting take on events!

Maybe Steve's seeing it as a win/win situation: He eventually got what he wanted (Intel chips) and IBM got what it wanted (the games console business) and Apple and IBM both got respect again in the meantime. Well, except for the 3 GHz fiasco...
post #28 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Actually, AMDs chips so far have used vastly more power, especially in areas where power usage is important (laptops).

The Turion64 is a nice improvement, but so far I still don't see it massively used in laptops. The Celeron M / Pentium M set of chips is quite a good design (though I personally still prefer the G4's, if only it would scale).



They did. The original Rhapsody plans (which didn't have anything Carbon-like -- remember yellow box, blue box, red box?) did not make developers happy.

I'm not talking about those laptop chips. Remember I said that AMD had nothing much there yet. I specifically said Opteron and Athlon. In the high end chip market, AMD has been walking all over Intel. But, go check the ratings of the desktop lines.
post #29 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I wasn't suggesting that Apple go Intel/Classic.

I was looking at what the article said, that Jobs was thinking about going to Intel five years ago. That would have been Intel/OS X.

Re-read T'hain Esh Kelch's post and replace the final "Intel - Classic" with "Intel: Classic". Then I think you'll understand what he's saying (i.e., that OS9/Classic doesn't run on OSX/Intel and thus would not have been a viable transition to OS X; without Classic, Apple would have a hard time convincing users to move to OS X).
post #30 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I wasn't suggesting that Apple go Intel/Classic.

I was looking at what the article said, that Jobs was thinking about going to Intel five years ago. That would have been Intel/OS X.

Right, but managing the transition to OS X required backward compatibility with the installed user base.

Transitioning to OS X and Intel at the same time would have been like going to OS X without classic or Intel without Rosetta.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #31 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
Re-read T'hain Esh Kelch's post and replace the final "Intel - Classic" with "Intel: Classic". Then I think you'll understand what he's saying (i.e., that OS9/Classic doesn't run on OSX/Intel and thus would not have been a viable transition to OS X; without Classic, Apple would have a hard time convincing users to move to OS X).

Ok, I see what you mean.

But that was a choice by Apple. Perhaps a bit underhanded, eh? Their way of finally killing off classic and all of the old stuff they no longer want to support, but that millions still use. Sort of like MS discontinuing support for 98.
post #32 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Right, but managing the transition to OS X required backward compatibility with the installed user base.

Transitioning to OS X and Intel at the same time would have been like going to OS X without classic or Intel without Rosetta.

But not only don't we know what Apple had in the labs then, they could have come up with something if they needed to.

They didn't do the switch, so they didn't need come up with something.
post #33 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by fuyutsuki
Does that mean if you get the traction control busy enough on a slippery surface, you can expect to hear some air cooling fan come on to chill the busy G4's? Poor BMW customers, this PowerBook owner sympathises with their prospective plight!

And next week, BMW will announce they're dropping Freescale for Intel.
My computer can beat up your computer.
Reply
My computer can beat up your computer.
Reply
post #34 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
But not only don't we know what Apple had in the labs then, they could have come up with something if they needed to.

They didn't do the switch, so they didn't need come up with something.

True, but the OS 9-OS X switch was plenty complicated without throwing in a processor switch, and it's hard to imagine Apple could have managed an OS 9 emulation layer within an OS X Intel port. Even if they did, you have to figure it would be a fair sight harder slog than Classic.

Imagine it-- "Please buy our new Intel machines. We have software that will allow you to kinda sorta run your OS 9/Motorola apps within a somewhat flakey environment that you've never seen and which we're still working the kinks out of and for which there is little native software".

That is one tough sell.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #35 of 89
But it looks all pretty and stuff, so I'll buy it.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #36 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
True, but the OS 9-OS X switch was plenty complicated without throwing in a processor switch, and it's hard to imagine Apple could have managed an OS 9 emulation layer within an OS X Intel port. Even if they did, you have to figure it would be a fair sight harder slog than Classic.

Imagine it-- "Please buy our new Intel machines. We have software that will allow you to kinda sorta run your OS 9/Motorola apps within a somewhat flakey environment that you've never seen and which we're still working the kinks out of and for which there is little native software".

That is one tough sell.

It may have been. But it wouldn't have been my sell.

The article clearly said that JOBS was interested in doing it, and was apparently talked OUT of doing it.

So they must have thought it through. Then they must of had a way of doing it then. What if he wasn't promised those chips?

We would be using Mactels today.
post #37 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
The thing we know is that Apple is going Intel because it's a better total package, including a wider range of products, and better fab, and, most of all, a much more heavily funded and talented long-term research department than what anyone else in the industry has.

No. We do not know this is why Apple is going Intel instead of AMD. We know that Apple is going Intel, and we know these things are true, but connecting them is speculation. It may be informed speculation, but it is still speculation unless you can find a press release from Apple stating such.
post #38 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It may have been. But it wouldn't have been my sell.

The article clearly said that JOBS was interested in doing it, and was apparently talked OUT of doing it.

So they must have thought it through. Then they must of had a way of doing it then. What if he wasn't promised those chips?

We would be using Mactels today.

Good point, although who knows where Steve's head was at 5 years ago.

He might have been thinking it would be poetic justice if he just basically turned Apple into Next by another name, keeping OS 9 legacy support in older machines only and bringing out all new Intel/Next/OS X machines, no OS 9 at all, thereby validating his choices while in exile.

Crazed, no doubt, but then our Steve has never been one to hesitate at the big gesture if he thinks he's right.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #39 of 89
Had Apple made this transition five years ago, making Classic work on Intel would probably have been a priority. Don't be misled; it's possible. With enough knowledge (which Apple has since lost some of, no doubt) and enough motivation (which Apple doesn't have much of anymore) it could have been sluggish but flawless.
post #40 of 89
I don't know why this is being treated as major news, since the death of the Mac was foreshadowed back in 2002. If you look back you'll find Rothenberg and Ciarelli's "Apple Keeps x86 Torch Lit With Marklar" that confirmed the Marklar project, Apple's threats to Motorola of an Intel switch and the Power4 derivative that turned out to be the 970. It was all there, back in 2002 - admittedly I too missed the article and was shocked to see it foretell the future after I stumbled on it in the aftermath of WWDC '05. Oh the horror, the technological horror.
PPC4EVER
Reply
PPC4EVER
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Freescale CEO: Jobs wanted to move to Intel 5 years ago