Apple To Debut Intel-Based Computers At MW SF 2004?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
According to this from www.Smarthouse.com.au



Quote:







Apple set to go Intel



August 2003



By David Richards



Apple is set to announce an Intel based PC that will run on an Apple operating system.



The first system is expected to shown at Macworld San Francisco in January 2004 according to an Apple US source. The initial plan will involve Apple offering both existing RISC processor systems and an Intel based system with the RISC processor from IBM system being phased out as new software is developed. An original idea to release a duel platform MAC has been scrapped according to Apple insiders in San Francisco.



Software companies like Adobe, who develop for the Mac platform and Intel based system have already been briefed on the proposed move. One victim of the move could be Apple?s relationship with Microsoft. Currently Microsoft develops the Office suite of programs for the Mac platform however Microsoft are not happy with sales and have asked Apple to invest in further development of the Mac Office offering.



This could trigger a move by Apple to offering the Star Office suite of software from Sun particularly if Microsoft refuses to develop for an Intel based PC running a Mac operating system



If Apple were to go solely with the Intel based system the biggest problems would be that every existing Mac program would have to be recompiled to work under Intel. For new versions of current programs that would be fairly simple, but for older software it would not be worthwhile.



By releasing an Intel based system Apple will be able to offer the best of both worlds.



A gradual adoption by Apple of the Intel architecture would give time for the costs to drop and software to be upgraded. Eventually all Macs would be Intel.



An Apple source told SmartHouse Magazine ?Apple and Intel have been in discussions for a while. We are looking at delivering a series of solutions that run on Intel's Itanium chip. The issue right now are software related as a great deal of code will have to be re written for both the Mac operating system and the Intel Itanium chip?. They added ?This initiative is will happen, but when depends on how quickly the software issues are resolved?.











«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 80
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacsRGood4U

    According to this from www.Smarthouse.com.au



    That is completely bogus. Has to be.



    There is absolutely no reason whatsoevah for Apple to go with Intel now that the IBM relationship is real.



    Nothing to see here. Move on.
  • Reply 2 of 80
    Probably bogus. But, this is a rumor site and what would it be if there weren't rumors of every kind.
  • Reply 3 of 80
    ... sure...-



    we invest in a totally new motherboard, pipes, G5, serial ata etc.pp.



    then we compile our unix to another processor type... why not... just for fun... it's easy, especially all that stuff which connects a gazillion hardware possibilities in this world.



    one word:



    NEVEREVER
  • Reply 4 of 80
    first of all, the Apple is set to announce an Intel based PC that will run on an Apple operating system. is gramatically incorrect for what they want to say. It could be Apple is set to announce an Intel pased PC that will run an Apple Operating System

    this is besides the point.

    As previously said, apple is not going to have spent the past 3 years developing the g5 to use it for half a year.. come on
  • Reply 5 of 80
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Right, just when they are - after 2.5 years - have arrived at making OS X not only crawl but actually perform, have just found a replacement for the G4 chips they are going to port to itanium - a chip that is largely incompatible with existing x86 software *and* in the process declare war on MS.



    Nothing to see here, people, move on. Just the annual "Apple goes intel" thread.
  • Reply 6 of 80
    Not going to happen. Mac OS X is doing well and IBM's G5 brings new respect to the platform. Besides, Linux has already been adopted as the alternative to Windows on x86. There's simply no need for Mac OS X on x86, no matter how much marketing Apple engaged in.
  • Reply 7 of 80
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Well, it's about time Apple smartened up...
  • Reply 8 of 80
    The transitions from 68xxx to PowerPC, OS 9 to OS X, from G4 to G5, and now from G5 to x86, even the "Switch" campaign (a semantic clue for our future) have just been for the purpose of gearing up to Apple's new business strategy, code named "Manic", expected to be implemented sometime in early 2005.



    The purpose of "Manic", like the soon-to-occur switch from the G5 to x86, would serve the dual purpose of driving up R&D costs while also giving Mac-users an extremely incoherent roadmap. Under Manic, instead of making significant changes every few years or so, Apple will be making major changes to both hardware and software every few days.



    We've already seen the precursor to "Manic": Within the span of 18 months Apple went from the Apple VGA port, to the standard VGA port, to the DVI port to the ADC. While these changes occurred in PowerMacs, similar changes did not take place in PowerBooks until sometime later; and though changes occurred in the monitor lineup, there was no cosmetic change to the monitors alerting users as to which monitor was right for their computer. This constant state of tranisition and port confusion was an early implementation of "Manic", code named "Wha??!"



    Manic Revealed!

    Under Manic, MacOS X.5.1.003 (expected release date 3/15/05) will not support any protocols implemented in MacOS X.5.1.002 (expected release date 3/12/05). X002 will have to be run in Classic mode inside of X003, and then only if you have a G5+ co-processor card that fits the custom made 1.2" PCI-X2 slot (not the 19.5mm PCI-YZ slot in your PowerMac Gx86 as some have said). Of course both the PCI-X2 and PCI-Y slots will only be available in the Rev C PowerMac Gx86 (release date 3/14/05) and neither will support standard PCI or PCI-X cards, nor will either slot be included on the PowerMac Gx86+ (release date 3/18/05).
  • Reply 9 of 80
    jrcjrc Posts: 805member
    My reply as the person who has been registered the longest...



    BULLSHIT!
  • Reply 10 of 80
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,393member
    "The initial plan will involve Apple offering both existing RISC processor systems and an Intel based system with the RISC processor from IBM system being phased out..."[/QUOTE]



    Two things came to my mind when I read this article.

    1) The author is trying to put doubt into the minds of people who are thinking of buying a G5.

    2) The article is true.



    I agree with the reasons stated above on why the article is bs. But becuse the article sounds genuine, it has put some doubt in my mind on whether or not I should shell out 3 grand for a computer with a processor that Apple is going to phase out.



    I guess the only thing I can do is call my local Apple stores (and Apple computer sales) and press them on why I should buy a G5 when they are going to phase it out in place of an Intel processor.
  • Reply 11 of 80
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    nerV:



    This is just more horsepuckey. Why would Apple phase out PPC in favor of Itanium? What on earth are the advantages to that strategy? Apple just got a robust, backward compatible, scalable, VMX-capable, high-performing, (relatively) cool and inexpensive 64 bit platform with a long-term roadmap, sporting a processor bus that Apple designed, and they just built a gorgeous architecture around it. So they're going to do what? What are the odds that Apple could persuade Intel to make a special version of Itanic with VMX and Apple PI on board? Would that realize Intel's economies of scale, or defeat them? Or would they use a stock Itanium, and eliminate any possibility of differentiating themselves performance-wise, or having any say in the nature and direction of the architecture they use? Would it benefit them to give Microsoft a tremendous say in the nature and direction of the architecture they use?



    This rumor is dumb.



    Now, as moki has pointed out, Apple could introduce a server based on another CPU family, with a special version of OS X Server. But again, why Itanium? Not for the applications! Not for a power/watt advantage. Not for cost reasons. Apple could be far more subversive by building an Opteron server. The advantage here is that the Opteron can run 32-bit x86 apps. Now, combine that with the Linux compatibility getting rolled into Panther, and you have an Apple machine that can run all Linux applications in binary form seamlessly. And then you have an effective trojan horse. (As well as yet another reason to keep the Other Side chained to the x86 legacy instead of adopting Itanium. Muahahahahahaha!)
  • Reply 12 of 80
    addisonaddison Posts: 1,185member
    There are only two reasons why Apple would do this:-



    1. No further supplies of PowerPc baseed processors.



    2. They think they would make more money selling software than hardware.



    Frankly I don't believe it will happen.
  • Reply 13 of 80
    Quote:

    The initial plan will involve Apple offering both existing RISC processor systems and an Intel based system with the RISC processor from IBM system being phased out as new software is developed.



    So let me get this straight-- the 970 is an interim processor? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!



    This has got to be the stupidest damn rumor since... well, EVAR. Five or six months ago, this would have struck fear into the hearts of the Apple faithful everywhere, but now, it's just comic relief.
  • Reply 14 of 80
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    You forgot to mention the accessories with the new MACS that include a soldering iron, small ballpeen hammer, hack-saw, small MAC-TRAX type screwdriver (recently patented by S. Jobs) and other assorted goodies (mostly fuse blocks and extra wire)...
  • Reply 15 of 80
    i went to that website and read the article.

    i dont believe it for a second,you know why?

    its says apple is going to migrate to the ITANIUM architecture.WHAT!?

    why would they move to a slower performing more expensive and not very popular chip?

    they wouldnt.

    if anything they would go with a more mainstream chip.

    add to that the fact that it would piss off their developers.

    what would apple put in their laptops? intel chips?

    NOT HARDLY!

    im not saying that if apple developed a non-PPC version of PANTHER it would be a bad idea,im just saying that it would be IN ADDITION TO ppc based macs.

    very bad rumour indeed!
  • Reply 16 of 80
    <comic book guy>



    worst rumor ever



    </comic book guy>
  • Reply 17 of 80
    mMMMmMMm.... AMD "Appleseed" running at 1.4, 1.6 & 1.8 Ghz...



    MmMMmmm....
  • Reply 18 of 80
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    How come this rumour just will not die?
  • Reply 19 of 80
    Absolute, total BS. And very poorly written BS at that.



    As Nebagakid pointed out there is a technical, or simply grammatical error in the sub head (the OS runs on the processor, not the other way around).



    "duel platform"



    Mac spelled correctly and as "MAC"



    Their Apple source quote "This initiative is will happen?" is a train wreck. Even if the source said exactly this, then the use of (sic) is required.



    Basic editorial errors such as these are a dead giveaway. This is NOT a professionally written article. It's either very poor FUD or a pathetic attempt for cheap hits on the site.



    As Gamblor said, the G5 is interim?! Puh-leeze!
  • Reply 20 of 80
    My proposal:



    We ignore any posts relating to Apple flirting with Intel, Intel flirting with Apple, or Steve Jobs flirting with Bill Gates.



    The first two are always unfounded, provoke way too much discussion, and are basically ridiculous, and the last is just disgusting.



    Agreed?
Sign In or Register to comment.