- Apple is probably tracking Itanium's progress and is prepared to launch a line of machines in addition to the PowerPC lineup.
- Its debatable whether it'll be a desktop lineup or a server lineup. Itanium is simply not ready for the desktop market, and fragmenting Mac software between PPC & EPIC would be bad. Server software is mostly open source or ported anyhow, so its not such an issue.
- He doesn't mention IBM's 9x0 series at all which is a significant oversight.
- He implies this has something to do with Pixar's choice to buy x86 boxes. I doubt that it does.
- While Apple may not be talking to AMD, they are talking to IBM and IBM is definitely talking to AMD. So what? At the most that would likely be a 2nd source fab arrangement.
- He doesn't bother to mention that Apple talked about support EPIC several years ago. This is more likely than x86 support, IMO, because it gives them high powered iron which is probably capable of running a PPC emulator. Judging by the x86 emulator on Itanium, however, it won't attract any fans... but it'll be better than a PPC emulator on x86.
- Itanium certainly doesn't help in the "MHz Wars" as its clock rates are far less than the Pentium4 / Athlon lines. Performance is higher though.
I really think that if Apple is going to go to the x86 platform it will be for the Servers only. I don't see the desktops moving to the x86 archtecture anytime soon and especially with the 970 on the horizon. Apple would most likely create two lines of servers one with a 970 and a Pentium or AMD chip. That way, they would give their server market a choice if they wanted a PPC or x86 chip.
Is there a reason why Apple would switch to X86 when x86 is finally starting to switch away from IA32 and the path is anything but clear???
Itanic is a long way away from the desktop. Wintelon world will have to decide if it's going IA32 or X86-64 first. Is M$ even going to support X86-64? Seems a little pointless withou a windows version that supports it in 64 bit mode. 32bit will owrk just fine, but... you get the picture.
970 looks like a good chip, any possible switches will happen only after 970-9xx's lifespan is over (4-5 years from now)
Servers? Is there a market for Apple built Itanic machines?
Dvorak. pageview whore! hahaha... Here's an idea. Someone will check out his antics from time to time, rather than unlease a raft of pageviews, copy the article text in the thread so that there's no need to hit his page. Imagine if the 7000 odd readers of AI didn't hit the page, and neither did many of the other mac heads on the net?
"Prediction: Apple Computer Corp. will switch to Intel processors within the next 12 to 18 months.
The story starts with January's Intel sales conference. The surprise keynote speaker was Steve Jobs. And then, in the front row of Steve Jobs's keynote address at the last Macworld Expo were top Intel executives. Shortly thereafter, Pixar announced that it would become an Intel shop. That was all step one. Step two is coming.
Apple has been concerned about Motorola dragging its heels in the processor wars and failing to achieve clock speeds that are even half of what AMD and Intel are achieving. Apple has attempted to rationalize clock-speed issues, but the company knows that it cannot do this forever. Worse is the feud between Motorola and Apple, which began after Apple suddenly pulled the plug on the license it gave Motorola to clone the Mac.
Change is good. Apple has a unique ability to get away with changing processors radically. It has used the 6502, then the 68K, and now the PowerPC. Each transition happened almost flawlessly. On the PC side of the fence, no Z-80 maker survived even the transition to the 8080. Apple has also cultivated a fanatical following, who have long since accepted the fact that Apple eschews long-term backward compatibility. The legacy concept does not hold the power over Apple users that it does in the PC universe.
Apple's only concern is cannibalization. It cannot change architectures with a pipeline full of PowerPC products. So expect a slow transition that will start with the high-end workstations. Apple's concern is that Motorola may muddy the situation, so Jobs will have to convince Motorola and customers that the PowerPC will not be phased out but will remain as part of a dual-processor architecture.
Scenario. Apple will announce its Intel initiative by showing a transition machine that uses both the Intel and Motorola processors. "So current Mac owners will not have to worry." This will be a high-end machine optimized to run Photoshop. Apple is adept at creating dual-processor architectures, so this won't be too radical. We've heard rumors of this kind of scenario for some time, under the code name Marklar.
Itanium. What will be radical is the company's choice of processor. Apple will announce its use of the Itanium chip, which can be used in such a multiprocessor design and will become the first desktop use of the chip. The choice of the Itanium is suggested by four factors. First, there is zero evidence that Apple is talking to AMD?and it would if it were staying with the x86 legacy chips. Second, Apple likes to make jazzy announcements in which it claims to be the first or the most aggressive in a market. The Itanium fills the bill perfectly, because Jobs can lord it over current PC makers with all sorts of performance claims.
Third, if Apple optimizes the OS X kernel for the Itanium, the likelihood of the Apple OS being ripped off by normal PC users is nil. And finally, by choosing the Itanium, Apple will have an ally in Intel, who will put its design team to work for Apple and perhaps even invest in the company, knowing AMD is not in the picture.
The Apple switch cannot be just a short-term fix for the megahertz dilemma. Jobs is part of the anti-Microsoft Silicon Valley clique, and despite the fact that Microsoft helped Apple financially, the favor was designed to benefit Microsoft more than Apple. Jobs is a peer of Bill Gates. He sees the numbers Microsoft has racked up. Apple has enough confidence in its hardware designs that it can again risk licensing the Mac OS to the Intel platform. The perfect ploy would be to make an Itanium-only Mac OS with some sort of backward compatibility with Microsoft code. The fact that Apple recently released Keynote as a standalone software product says the company is ready to go after the Microsoft cash cows: Office and Windows.
Timing is everything. Announcing the new architecture in July at the next Macworld Expo would be ideal, since it takes place in the media center, New York City. Whether Apple can actually have a working unit by July is questionable, but Jobs has been known to drive his people hard. Waiting until 2004 is too risky, but that might be the reason Apple is upset about the 2004 Macworld show being moved back to Boston. And consider the fall 2003 possibility: Comdex. Now that would get some attention.
And another thing that would get some attention? I like little boys.
Personally, I think Apple switching to Intel would be the worst move ever. That would be like Jesus selling out the the Devil. NEVER going to happen....and if it does, then the Bills will win the SuperBowl.
He doesn't even seem to know that Apple is mostly switching to IBM chips. Being a jerk and full of himself, he needs to be sent back to his room - the one with the padded walls.
C'mon you people are actually thinking about this article and slightly ondering when you know that this guy has no sources whatsoever. He wrote a wild guess from some of Steves' old friends showing up at a conference.
...despite the fact that Microsoft helped Apple financially...
#1 way to tell this guy is an ignorant dummass. I hate it when people bring this up. It was a lousy 150M investment. To put that in perspective, that would be like me walking up to my friend and asking if i could borrow 50 bucks. Ive been pissed about that titdbit since Pirates of Silicone Valley came out and at the very end they state "Microsoft now owns part of Apple", everyone i knew was convinced that microsoft OWNED Apple, telling me i was full of shit to say otherwise because they 'saw it on TV'
- He doesn't mention IBM's 9x0 series at all which is a significant oversight.
Not only does Mr. Dvorak show himself to be cluelessly unaware of the 970 (a necessary thing to mention even if you're going to dismiss it for some reason), he talks about the July 2004 MacWorld Expo in New York as the ideal time to make this fanciful Intel announcement -- he doesn't seem to have caught on that MacWorld is headed for Boston next year either.
Like someone else suggested, looks like Dvorak just got lazy and simply republished an old article of his, maybe bumping 2003 to 2004.
Comments
Moving right along...
- Apple is probably tracking Itanium's progress and is prepared to launch a line of machines in addition to the PowerPC lineup.
- Its debatable whether it'll be a desktop lineup or a server lineup. Itanium is simply not ready for the desktop market, and fragmenting Mac software between PPC & EPIC would be bad. Server software is mostly open source or ported anyhow, so its not such an issue.
- He doesn't mention IBM's 9x0 series at all which is a significant oversight.
- He implies this has something to do with Pixar's choice to buy x86 boxes. I doubt that it does.
- While Apple may not be talking to AMD, they are talking to IBM and IBM is definitely talking to AMD. So what? At the most that would likely be a 2nd source fab arrangement.
- He doesn't bother to mention that Apple talked about support EPIC several years ago. This is more likely than x86 support, IMO, because it gives them high powered iron which is probably capable of running a PPC emulator. Judging by the x86 emulator on Itanium, however, it won't attract any fans... but it'll be better than a PPC emulator on x86.
- Itanium certainly doesn't help in the "MHz Wars" as its clock rates are far less than the Pentium4 / Athlon lines. Performance is higher though.
Itanic is a long way away from the desktop. Wintelon world will have to decide if it's going IA32 or X86-64 first. Is M$ even going to support X86-64? Seems a little pointless withou a windows version that supports it in 64 bit mode. 32bit will owrk just fine, but... you get the picture.
970 looks like a good chip, any possible switches will happen only after 970-9xx's lifespan is over (4-5 years from now)
Servers? Is there a market for Apple built Itanic machines?
Dvorak. pageview whore! hahaha... Here's an idea. Someone will check out his antics from time to time, rather than unlease a raft of pageviews, copy the article text in the thread so that there's no need to hit his page. Imagine if the 7000 odd readers of AI didn't hit the page, and neither did many of the other mac heads on the net?
The story starts with January's Intel sales conference. The surprise keynote speaker was Steve Jobs. And then, in the front row of Steve Jobs's keynote address at the last Macworld Expo were top Intel executives. Shortly thereafter, Pixar announced that it would become an Intel shop. That was all step one. Step two is coming.
Apple has been concerned about Motorola dragging its heels in the processor wars and failing to achieve clock speeds that are even half of what AMD and Intel are achieving. Apple has attempted to rationalize clock-speed issues, but the company knows that it cannot do this forever. Worse is the feud between Motorola and Apple, which began after Apple suddenly pulled the plug on the license it gave Motorola to clone the Mac.
Change is good. Apple has a unique ability to get away with changing processors radically. It has used the 6502, then the 68K, and now the PowerPC. Each transition happened almost flawlessly. On the PC side of the fence, no Z-80 maker survived even the transition to the 8080. Apple has also cultivated a fanatical following, who have long since accepted the fact that Apple eschews long-term backward compatibility. The legacy concept does not hold the power over Apple users that it does in the PC universe.
Apple's only concern is cannibalization. It cannot change architectures with a pipeline full of PowerPC products. So expect a slow transition that will start with the high-end workstations. Apple's concern is that Motorola may muddy the situation, so Jobs will have to convince Motorola and customers that the PowerPC will not be phased out but will remain as part of a dual-processor architecture.
Scenario. Apple will announce its Intel initiative by showing a transition machine that uses both the Intel and Motorola processors. "So current Mac owners will not have to worry." This will be a high-end machine optimized to run Photoshop. Apple is adept at creating dual-processor architectures, so this won't be too radical. We've heard rumors of this kind of scenario for some time, under the code name Marklar.
Itanium. What will be radical is the company's choice of processor. Apple will announce its use of the Itanium chip, which can be used in such a multiprocessor design and will become the first desktop use of the chip. The choice of the Itanium is suggested by four factors. First, there is zero evidence that Apple is talking to AMD?and it would if it were staying with the x86 legacy chips. Second, Apple likes to make jazzy announcements in which it claims to be the first or the most aggressive in a market. The Itanium fills the bill perfectly, because Jobs can lord it over current PC makers with all sorts of performance claims.
Third, if Apple optimizes the OS X kernel for the Itanium, the likelihood of the Apple OS being ripped off by normal PC users is nil. And finally, by choosing the Itanium, Apple will have an ally in Intel, who will put its design team to work for Apple and perhaps even invest in the company, knowing AMD is not in the picture.
The Apple switch cannot be just a short-term fix for the megahertz dilemma. Jobs is part of the anti-Microsoft Silicon Valley clique, and despite the fact that Microsoft helped Apple financially, the favor was designed to benefit Microsoft more than Apple. Jobs is a peer of Bill Gates. He sees the numbers Microsoft has racked up. Apple has enough confidence in its hardware designs that it can again risk licensing the Mac OS to the Intel platform. The perfect ploy would be to make an Itanium-only Mac OS with some sort of backward compatibility with Microsoft code. The fact that Apple recently released Keynote as a standalone software product says the company is ready to go after the Microsoft cash cows: Office and Windows.
Timing is everything. Announcing the new architecture in July at the next Macworld Expo would be ideal, since it takes place in the media center, New York City. Whether Apple can actually have a working unit by July is questionable, but Jobs has been known to drive his people hard. Waiting until 2004 is too risky, but that might be the reason Apple is upset about the 2004 Macworld show being moved back to Boston. And consider the fall 2003 possibility: Comdex. Now that would get some attention.
And another thing that would get some attention? I like little boys.
Even Apple goes Intel it will only for OS X Server. Period
Originally posted by Kecksy
Apple might switch to Intel.... in 2035.
After Intel finally gives up on IA-64 and x86 and switches to PPC before IBM drives them out of business.
Originally posted by Leonis
Not again
It is really getting monotonous.
its a shame you can't make people like this stop writing
haha makes u rethink the 1st ammendment
C'mon you people are actually thinking about this article and slightly ondering when you know that this guy has no sources whatsoever. He wrote a wild guess from some of Steves' old friends showing up at a conference.
Originally posted by TJM
After Intel finally gives up on IA-64 and x86 and switches to PPC before IBM drives them out of business.
In 2035, PPC will probably be considered old and archaic like x86 is today. Apple will have moved on.
...despite the fact that Microsoft helped Apple financially...
#1 way to tell this guy is an ignorant dummass. I hate it when people bring this up. It was a lousy 150M investment. To put that in perspective, that would be like me walking up to my friend and asking if i could borrow 50 bucks. Ive been pissed about that titdbit since Pirates of Silicone Valley came out and at the very end they state "Microsoft now owns part of Apple", everyone i knew was convinced that microsoft OWNED Apple, telling me i was full of shit to say otherwise because they 'saw it on TV'
</rant>
Originally posted by Programmer
- He doesn't mention IBM's 9x0 series at all which is a significant oversight.
Not only does Mr. Dvorak show himself to be cluelessly unaware of the 970 (a necessary thing to mention even if you're going to dismiss it for some reason), he talks about the July 2004 MacWorld Expo in New York as the ideal time to make this fanciful Intel announcement -- he doesn't seem to have caught on that MacWorld is headed for Boston next year either.
Like someone else suggested, looks like Dvorak just got lazy and simply republished an old article of his, maybe bumping 2003 to 2004.
Originally posted by rogue27
I think he wrote almost the same article about a year ago.
I thought he did also. In fact, I thought this is like the 3rd time. Anybody know for sure?