*CONFIRMED* Mac OS X on x86 after this year!
Well, kinda 
From Reuters Internet Report:
<a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/ri/020717/tech_apple_1.html"; target="_blank">http://biz.yahoo.com/ri/020717/tech_apple_1.html</a>;
"Some analysts have also urged Apple to move to microchips from Intel Corp. (NasdaqNM:INTC - News) from those made by Motorola Inc. (NYSE:MOT - News) and International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM - News) to cut costs.
Asked about that possibility, Jobs said that first the company had to finish the transition to the OS X operating system, expected around the end of this year.
"Then we'll have options, and we like to have options," he said. "
From Reuters Internet Report:
<a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/ri/020717/tech_apple_1.html"; target="_blank">http://biz.yahoo.com/ri/020717/tech_apple_1.html</a>;
"Some analysts have also urged Apple to move to microchips from Intel Corp. (NasdaqNM:INTC - News) from those made by Motorola Inc. (NYSE:MOT - News) and International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM - News) to cut costs.
Asked about that possibility, Jobs said that first the company had to finish the transition to the OS X operating system, expected around the end of this year.
"Then we'll have options, and we like to have options," he said. "
Comments
Still, it would trouble me if Intel had a total monopoly on CPUs. For this reason, I think it would be much better if Apple went with IBM, or at least AMD.
Wow. Good catch. I think after the bitchery with Intel over the years, though, that Apple would rather go with HT partner AMD......
2003 == OSX86?
TING5
this is interesting because i have never heard any reliable information before, but this looks like a good sign
when do you think the transition to OSX will be complete? 10.2 comes out on Aug. 24. I would say the latest time would be MWNY 03. thats just my guess
This is big. Real big. Maybe its the "David's Stone" rumor.
... for one reason and one reason only: registers. You can't emulate a processor with many registers (PPC) with one with few registers (x86). If you tried, you'd get PPC601 66MHz performance (tops) on a P4 3GHz. It just won't work if you want to have backwards compatability, and it would be suicide not to have it; and that doesn't even get into the nightmare of emulating Altivec on SSEII.
Don't put too much stock (hehe
Throw all your software away and get new stuff.
Makes sense to me. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
There are a hundred reasons against, and maybe one or two short term reasons in favor.
Not gonna happen.
This does put some light on "options" for processors doesn't it? Maybe a big fat GPU designed by IBM and Nvidia with Apple owning the license for Altivec.
If anybody can do it, IBM can and Nvidia wants their chips to be the heart instead of CPUs .... makes you kinda smile that Apple is not sitting around waiting for Moto (who loses a billion plus dollars every quarter ).....
<strong>There you go JD.
Throw all your software away and get new stuff.
Makes sense to me. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Huh? Where did you get THAT from my post??? My response was positive.
<strong>Yeah, moving to x86 would cut costs... not.
There are a hundred reasons against, and maybe one or two short term reasons in favor.
Not gonna happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed ... remember, these are analysts that Jobs is talking to , so he's probably going to humour them a little. There could also be some sabre rattling going on here. These conference calls arew more "political" then anything else.
If anything, it means Apple will keep its options open to move to [b]any[/i] other chip architecture, but I doubt they would consider moving to x86 for very long when you consider that Intel, AMD and the other software platforms are (finally) starting to move away from it. Get x86 out of your head and think ahead instead.
<strong>Well, kinda
From Reuters Internet Report:
<a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/ri/020717/tech_apple_1.html"; target="_blank">http://biz.yahoo.com/ri/020717/tech_apple_1.html</a>;
"Some analysts have also urged Apple to move to microchips from Intel Corp. (NasdaqNM:INTC - News) from those made by Motorola Inc. (NYSE:MOT - News) and International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM - News) to cut costs.
Asked about that possibility, Jobs said that first the company had to finish the transition to the OS X operating system, expected around the end of this year.
"Then we'll have options, and we like to have options," he said. "</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's an interesting quote -- the financial people like Apple having options as well, so saying this appeases them. Moto and IBM don't like Apple having options, and on hearing Jobs say this it will make them worry. If they are concerned about losing Apple as a customer one or both of them may try harder to please.
I don't think we'll see Apple drop PowerPC, at least not in the next year or two. Having the ability to move to another processor, however, gives them leverage on their suppliers.
The comment above about emulation, however, is quite correct... we don't want to end up emulating software again!
Also for those who will start saying that apple will never do this cause the are a hardware company blah blah blah. first, apple does not have to liscence its os to any pc maker. second, there are probably ways to make sure it only installs on apple boxes (and probably ways to hack it to make it install one a home made pc). anyway this wont stop them from switching if they feel like they have to switch to stay alive. that is the bottom line, staying alive and well. please do not get attached to a certain processor and say its impossible to switch. its always possible to switch and apple will switch to keep making money. thats what companies do.
If Apple does decide to use X86 processors in the future, I hope they don't follow the path that IBM went with OS/2. OS/2 was far superior to windows some years back, ran windows apps great and was backed by IBM who I heard spent 4 billion dollars trying to get it to fly. And this when microsoft wasn't as big and nasty as they are today.
Of course I don't even know if I've used the right terms to express myself, but I think you get the idea. Any tech smart people care to comment on the feasibility of such a scheme?
The second one I am leery of but he swears on the first, and this is the same guy who told me about the solid state scroll on thhe new iPods about two weeks ago. I don't think Apple is looking to go x86, they would piss off too many developers. But a PowerPC made by AMD would work well.
I mean compatability with any piece of software written for the Mac to date. It's all designed to run on PPC. If Apple switches to x86, they'd have to provide some sort of emulation in order to run that software, and it's gonna be sloooowwwww.....
I wonder how well emulation would work on Itanium or x86-64. Both provide a wagonload of registers, so perhaps performance might not be so bad... If Apple is in fact looking at jumping to Intel, they may be looking at the Itanium.
If Apple is going to jump to another chip maker, I think the most likely candidate is IBM. Using some sort of Power [4|5] derivitive would be easy from the compatability standpoint, since the Power processors are supersets of PPC.
Another possibility is they might "jump ship" to... Motorola. Don't forget-- they just went through a MASSIVE restructuring, and may be more willing or just plain in a better position to provide Apple with the processors they need to compete with Intel/AMD.
anyways they will do what ever they need to to keep making money that is the driver.