Rumor: Apple switch to Intel arch

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
In his blog today, Paul Thurrott reported that he heard a rumor from colleges at WinHEC that Apple may switch to an Intel Architecture.



"This one's bizarre, but we heard at lunch today that Apple is unhappy with the PowerPC production at IBM and will be switching to Intel-compatible cheaps this very year. Yeah, seriously." (Thurrott WinHEC Blog)



Suppose there's truth to this?
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 78
    zenatekzenatek Posts: 203member
    Nope.
  • Reply 2 of 78
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,307member
    Not that Apple couldn't but no one has really been able to ascertain just what benefit Apple would have by X86.



    IBM has erased any real speed difference between the platforms with the 970. Apple's hardware isn't particularly more expensive they just charge more for their iron.



    Typically the OS X on Intel crowd loves this topic because it's their way of fantasizing about low cost hardware with a great OS.
  • Reply 3 of 78
    I would think that if they did this, they would take a big hit since all the applications would have to be recompiled. So older apps would not be able to be installed.
  • Reply 4 of 78
    ipodandimacipodandimac Posts: 3,273member
    let me get this straight: a guy heard about a RUMOR saying that apple MIGHT switch to Intel? Are we in high school?
  • Reply 5 of 78
    Well, Thurrott is sort of an important guy as far as computer technology goes. I though his review of Tiger was pretty realistic, so maybe he knows something about this type of stuff. I'm not saying I know their going to do it, just maybe they were considering that.



    And the rumor actually said will not might.
  • Reply 6 of 78
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ipodandimac

    let me get this straight: a guy heard about a RUMOR saying that apple MIGHT switch to Intel? Are we in high school?



    Yeah, it's unlikely, but this is a rumor site and it is a rumor.
  • Reply 7 of 78
    dave jdave j Posts: 84member
    Trial balloon? To encourage IBM to devote 1% of its resources to developing Apple chips?
  • Reply 8 of 78
    rolorolo Posts: 686member
    Mac OS on X86 rumors have been around for at least 15 years all the way back to the Star Trek project daze. About 10 years ago there was discussion of a Red Box (Windows compatibility environment) in Rhapsody. Old timers will remember Copeland, Taligent, and Pink.



    Could the Mac OS be adapted to X86? Simple answer: yes. Not so simple answer: it'd take a lot of time and expense and may not be worth doing.



    An alternative solution, discussed some years ago, would be for Intel and/or AMD to make chips for Apple based on their latest iron but tailored for the Mac in such a way as to reduce software development costs. This last bit is a real possibility. Maybe Jobs is fed up with PowerPC after being embarrassed over the Motorola 500 MHz G4 fiasco and over the IBM 3 GHz fiasco. Not being able to deliver dual core technology at NAB, as AMD and Intel did, is also a major embarrassment and that may have been the last straw.



    Who the hell knows? Anything's possible.
  • Reply 9 of 78
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by audiopollution

    Yeah, it's unlikely, but this is a rumor site and it is a rumor.



    Plus Thurrott probably needs some hits for increased advertising revenue.
  • Reply 10 of 78
    Paul's dreaming again.



    Apple is better off with IBM.



    Right now, 2.7 GHZ is faster than any AMD CPU and real world performance trounces Intel.

    2.5 was on par. 2.7 has got to be superior. I hope barefeats is quick with a review. So far, the 2.5 G5 comes up even with the best from wintel and amd.



    A move to Intel would be a backwards step. Even a move to AMD would be, but AMD is better than Intel at this point.



    Microsoft will be getting 3.5 GHZ multicore PPCs from IBM very soon for the xenon (remember, it launches this fall), so it is safe to say Apple will not be far behind. No doubt there will be precious few of the high end multicore PPCs to go around until the next gen console gets going a little as it will likely sell millions in the first 6 months.



    It is not that IBM is not producing faster chips, it is a matter of resource allocation to the highest revenue prospect. Game consoles outsell anything in the world 10 times over, so it is simply a lucrative business move for IBM. Apple will soon enough recieve even more sophisticated CPUs than the xenon will have.



    Even with the windows world finaly aobut to recieve very limited dual core cpus, it is only just now catching up to Apple, which has had dual proc systems for quite some time. Dual core makes sense and it will come in time, but it will not be a huge improvement over dual CPU, unless you are talking dual-core, dual proc, or quad core. It is more cost effective though.
  • Reply 11 of 78
    Quote:

    Originally posted by WhiteRabbit

    In his blog today, Paul Thurrott reported that he heard a rumor from colleges at WinHEC that Apple may switch to an Intel Architecture.



    That's provocative, but I heard an even bigger rumor a few days ago. A few college students in my class said that they overheard at another lecture that tech writer Paul Thurrott may like to fondle young boys between the ages of 7 and 9 1/2. I'm SHOCKED I tell you, SHOCKED!



    I think these "OS X on x86" rumors are started primarily by Wintel marketing and/or Microsoft fan boys who feel threatened by Apple and want to make them look bad. See, it's like, Powermacs really aren't very fast, because even Apple has had it with them! They're going to switch to the superior x86 ISA! OMFG, MACS suck so bad that Apple doesn't even use them to develop OS X on!!!!
  • Reply 12 of 78
    dhagan4755dhagan4755 Posts: 2,151member
    Not a snowball's chance in hell.



    Not after all of the R&D Apple has dumped into IBM and the PowerPC platform.



    Apple may start putting out feelers for x86 stuff, but you know sure as shit they have had this groundwork laid out for quite some time now.



    This is one of the lamest rumors in awhile. What next iWalk is real?
  • Reply 13 of 78
    benzenebenzene Posts: 338member
    Ha Ha Ha!



    This "Apple moving to x86" crap never ceases to amuse me.



    ....oh wait, that got tired three years ago. My bad.
  • Reply 14 of 78
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by WhiteRabbit

    In his blog today, Paul Thurrott reported that he heard a rumor from colleges at WinHEC that Apple may switch to an Intel Architecture.



    "This one's bizarre, but we heard at lunch today that Apple is unhappy with the PowerPC production at IBM and will be switching to Intel-compatible cheaps this very year. Yeah, seriously." (Thurrott WinHEC Blog)



    Suppose there's truth to this?




    yep i hear that one every year, and it keeps getting funnier every time i hear it.
  • Reply 15 of 78
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Maybe he's just trying to make his blog more interesting. All that crap about going to Intel parties was a bore, so he needed to find something so that users would respond to it.



    See? He got people to talk here about his blog. For him, it's a win-win situation.
  • Reply 16 of 78
    r3dx0rr3dx0r Posts: 201member
    heh, how original.

    the current slowdown in cpu development is nothing compared to the 500mhz fiasco in the 90's. so it's not as bad as some (thurrot) would like it to be.
  • Reply 17 of 78
    Thurrot predicted 3 times in 2004 that Apple would go out of business.



    source: http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/



    He is a wintel idiot trying to make money from rabid Mac fans clicking on his website. In short, he is a troll.
  • Reply 18 of 78
    rara Posts: 623member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by WhiteRabbit

    Well, Thurrott is sort of an important guy as far as computer technology goes.

















  • Reply 19 of 78
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    We are a rumor site, but this one is idiot.



    The PPC 970 architecture is nice, and there is a lot of room for improvement.

    IBM has both the multicore and the hyperthreading technology. The PPC technology is a sucess, and the three majors actors of gamebox have choosen an IBM ppc derived chip for their next generation product.



    The only difference between the X86 and the Apple word is communication. Apple never said much in advance, and thus is open to rumor and speculation contrary to the X86 world where the two big players Intel and AMD are always announce things in advance.



    This is the case with the dual core technology : Intel and AMD announced it a long time ago, and are beginning to ship some samples around. It will not be the case for IBM, and the PPC 970 MP will only appear in big numbers when Apple will officially present his new line of computer.



    Note also, that the IBM technology is probabily superior for dual core, than the X86 counterpart and especially Intel (basically in case of Intel : the two cores communicate via the mobo, wich is a shame for latency and bandwitch), and that mac OS X shine at MP.



    It's also obvious, that a major switch like this between a PPC code to an another one, will be nightmare for all software applications. Big corps like Adobe will refuse to make an another special versions of their soft for Apple.





    Let me tell this straight : there is more chance that Steve Jobs change of sex than that Apple switch of CPU in the next coming years. In other words, Apple is not ready for suicide
  • Reply 20 of 78
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    Let me tell this straight : there is more chance that Steve Jobs change of sex than that Apple switch of CPU in the next coming years. In other words, Apple is not ready for suicide



    What!? Steve's geting a sex change?!



    Am I at the right website? This is insane!
Sign In or Register to comment.