Pressed about security by Mr. Mossberg, Mr. Otellini [CEO of Intel] had a startling confession: He spends an hour a weekend removing spyware from his daughter's computer. And when further pressed about whether a mainstream computer user in search of immediate safety from security woes ought to buy Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh instead of a Wintel PC, he said, "If you want to fix it tomorrow, maybe you should buy something else."
My prediction - Intel will produce a RISC chip for Apple that is not PPC, but really close (just different enough to avoid legal trouble). . .
I would imagine that Apple has some rights to PPC and AltiVec, since Apple was part of its original development at AIM. Maybe Apple cannot build the chips to sell, but it's likely that Apple can contract to have such chips built for use in Macintosh computers.
It's 1997. Apple has just bought NeXT and announced plans for the next-generation Mac OS called "Rhapsody." The first developer previews are released, not for PowerPC, but for Intel. In fact, the openly acknowledged strategy at the time was that Apple would release Rhapsody in variants for both Intel and PowerPC.
The diagrams of the OS architecture talked about Yellow Box (what eventually became known as Cocoa) and Blue Box (what eventually became known as Classic). There was rampant speculation and rumor about a third "box" in development called Red Box, which would run Windows .EXE applications natively when run on Intel hardware.
They have the technology. They can rebuild it. Better, stronger, faster than it was before.
I think it's safe to assume that what ever Apple has in store will be something moving forward. Perhaps even groundbreaking.
Apple's hardware designers have certainly proven that they are capable of some
amazing visionary concepts. That Work!
OSX working with an Intel MANUFACTURED chip does not mean that Apple
is porting to X86 architecture.
It's really not all that much different than BMW subbing out their Mini Cooper
engine designs to Latin America.
We have to keep in mind that most of Apple's own hardware is sub-contracted to their strict design specifications, but it's not built by Apple.
In fact most of the innards or your chassis are probably put together by people making less per day than you spend on a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Very little if any Apple hardware is "purely" Apple, other than the motherboards and chassis.
What sets Apple apart is OSX and how it optimizes the use of any hardware configuration.
In reality none of us have a friggin clue about what secret legal and licensing aggreements Apple, IBM, Sony, Pioneer, BenQ, Samsung, LaCie, Maxtor, ATI, Nvidia, Motorola, Intel, AMD, Microsoft and so on....
x86 does have its problems, but a lot of PPC and IA64 supporters honestly couldn't tell you what these problems are, only that they exist. OS elitism (from all players) sometimes leaks over into architecture.
We're past most of what made x86 suck. Modern x86 CPUs are just RISC in sheep's clothing. The only reason x86 is said to drag users down is that the CPUs basically have to translate x86 instructions into an easier-to-digest form. Do they lose some speed doing this? Sure. A lot? Doubtful. The problem hasn't gotten worse with time, as some believe. It's gotten even less relevant. The x86 vs. RISC era died a decade ago. Intel has been adopting RISC and has used it where it made sense in their chips, whether you knew it or not.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that Intel can fab customized versions of their chips, stripped of the so-called "x86 layer", and still have a perfectly powerful and functional RISC chip.
My question is whether or not it's worth the cost for Apple to pay for the engineering of a customized solution just to strip the "icky x86" layer. I don't think it matters at the end of the day. The seediness of such a proposition is in the heads of PPC fans, as a result of the IBM/Apple marketing and PR. But eventually you'll be reprogrammed again by his Majesty. Don't worry.
Now, Altivec? Whether it's worth preserving remains to be seen I guess, assuming the switch will happen and has to happen.
For those people still worried about Apple's Hardware. Not a whole lot really changes from that standpoint. APPLE NEVER MADE THEIR HARDWARE. IBM supplied the chips, Asus provided motherboards, Hitachi/Seagate/WD/etc provide hard drives, etc. The majority of the box is no different from a PC. They can still control the hardware that goes inside the boxes. They can still design their own enclosures. If you're concerned that Macs will suddenly turn into ugly Dells, your concerns are unfounded. There are a number of creative form factors out there for PCs, and Apple can still outclass them.
I think some of the sentiments in this thread are based on severe misconceptions.
-Apple is going ditch hardware and release OS X for all x86 boxes. Never will happen, since Microsoft would eat Apple alive. That's why Apple is talking to Intel about chips - they are going to use Intel CPUs, maybe even a specialized Intel chipset/mobo.
-Windows will run on Intel-based Macs. Never. Apple will buy Intel CPUs for their own Mac hardware, and will use custom mobo configurations that will not support Windows. Conversely, OS X will ONLY run on Mac hardware. Some h4XX04s may adapt OS X to run on their generic home-built x86 boxes, but that's good for Apple, it generates interest in OS X and makes Apple a rare and valuable commodity.
-Macs will be forced to sport gaudy "Intel Inside" stickers on their beautiful mugs. We can be sure that Steve will negotiate an agreement that lets Apple keep their hardware looking cool. In fact I bet Apple would rather pay a premium for the Intel chips than put that butt-ugly sticker on the box.
Disclaimer: I don't know squat, so maybe this is all BS. But I don't think so.
If Apple can facilitate a smooth transition for developers to Intel-based OS X development, then the transition should work out fine for Apple. This seems to be a real challenge, but I don't much about what would be required of developers. It's hard to see how they would welcome another sea change after migrating their software to OS X.
What I find most stunning is that IBM cannot put out for Apple. Just look at Cell, Power, and even the current PPC - IBM clearly has the technical expertise to supply Apple with competitive chip designs. Perhaps Intel simply offered Apple a deal on CPUs they couldn't refuse? Or maybe there is more at play here than we see. I could see IBM pushing Apple aside since they have a full plate with Sony and Microsoft, and since Apple has such a high overhead and low volume. Maybe this wasn't really Apple's decision.
Opteron and G5 set ups are practically the same. Hypertransport is used also. the only issue is that look at the prices of an Opteron system. there is no cost advantage compared to Intel. an Opteron based PM would cost the same or more than the current G5.
There actually may be a BIG price advantage THAT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT.
Since multiple core Opterons are out now, and looking at those Apple engineers maybe saying will could build a killer laptop with these because of the power management.
And then on the IBM side they maybe making no comparable proposals for power management, thus what they are planning would raise costs in a laptop.
The temptation to switch would be too great.
There is also a good chance that the prices Intel gives to the press is much higher, to save face and boost the stock price, than what they actually end up charging, i.e. prices drop faster then IBM as quantities go up.
No matter whether Apple will try to restrict the OS to run only on Apple hardware. If Windows boxes have the same CPU, it's only a matter of time until someone develops a crack and all Apple will end up is selling OS X. Too few will pay the design premium for Apple's hardware. And from then on the NeXT circle will start to repeat itself.
Actually unless Apple starts doing M$ like Activation Keys and Anti Piracy measures they don't sell anything. Most of the Home/Hobbyist/Student segment would be using burned copies of OS X .
If Apple is going to have Intel make the G5 or some PPC native chip I can see announcing now just to avoid the FUD that would be flowing at developers with a possible processor switch. If Apple didn't say anything until the Stevenote introducing the All Singing All dancing PPC running Intel chip in a Mac then every leak about Intel chips coming to a Mac makes Joe Developer wonder "Is all my work going down the can soon."
If the CNet story is accurate it sounds like low power low cost chips are coming first.
"Posted on Monday, April 18 2005 @ 01:10:54 PDT by samc
After years of anticipation and a somewhat painful labor, Intel today announced the delivery of their WiMax Rosedale chip (now called the PRO/Wireless 5116), which some observers expect will kick-start the fledgling wireless broadband industry. Though the chip has been shipping to test sites for six months, Monday (April 18) marks the official launch,
Intel's new WiMax chip (white papers), weighing in at $45 a pop, supports channel bandwidths up to 10 MHz, 256 OFDM carriers, integrates the 802.16-2004 MAC and OFDM PHY, inline security processing and a TDM controller. WiMax is expected to compete with DSL and cable modems for high speed data and may eventually compete with cellular for voice."
""Wherever you see WiFi today we envision seeing WiMax tomorrow," said Scott Richardson, general manager of Intel's broadband wireless solutions division."
"WiMax can ratchet speeds up and down automatically to maintain a connection. WiMax range and speed will vary all over the map; between a few miles (in point to multipoint mode) up to fifty miles (in point to point mode). Data rates will vary from 1 Mbps to 70 Mbps. Bandwidth can also vary, from narrow cellular-like 1.25 Mhz channels, to more common 5 and 10 Mhz bandwidths and 20 Mhz wide channels, commonly used in WiFi channel spacing."
"QuickTransit allows software that has been compiled for one processor/operating system to be run on another processor/operating system without any source code or binary changes."
While much discussion here has focused on OS X running on an Intel Chip, what about the possibility that concurrently with this address is the addition of Transitive software on Tiger so that you could simply load Windows software (or software for any OS) right into Tiger and it works?
At that point, what's the compulsion to stay with Windoze?
And what's the block for transitioning from PowerPC to Intel?
with intel knowhow why not a custom chip to apple's specs???? or chips for other not released yet media device. could intel make a power pc clone chip???
So I have a few thoughts on why Apple is talking to Intel. First, let me quote this Reuters article to provide context:
"To port to an x86 platform would be a massive undertaking and I'm highly suspicious of that," said Tim Bajarin, an analyst at Creative Strategies, referring to Intel chips.
Apple always has a lot of projects in the works and could be evaluating Intel chips for use in future products, Bajarin said, adding that when Apple co-founder and chief executive Steve Jobs was asked Sunday night at a Wall Street Journal technology conference whether Apple would use Intel chips, "Jobs basically said no."
So I'm going to assume that porting the Mac OS is not a high priority at Apple these days. What I think is a high priority is wireless. Apple launched its Wi-Fi-power Airport way back in 1997. Here we are eight years later and Wi-Fi is everywhere, particularly in the home.
There have been lots of speculation about Apple launching an A/V equivalent of iTunes. Now, connecting the cable or DSL modem to the TV is a hurdle we're seeing lots of companies tackle, with limited success.
I've spoken to a number of techs who see WiMAX as the next-generation home wireless technology. That's because only WiMAX can stream multiple streams of HDTV content in difficult RF environments to all ends of the home.
Apple is also rumored to be getting into the smart phone business. I'd certainly love to see how they could simplify my Palm Treo 650. But what wireless technology are they going to support if and when they do get into this business? I wouldn't bet on EV-DO and I don't think they want to bother with EDGE or HSDPA either. Apple likes to lead with wireless technology, not follow.
I think Apple sees a lot of opportunities with WiMAX. And I think Intel sees a lot of opportunity in getting Apple to support WiMAX. Because the applications that WiMAX will support don't really exist yet. Sure, we're going to see wireless last-mile proliferate using WiMAX, but that's the easy part.
Perhaps all that Apple and Intel are talking about right now is processors. But I have to believe that there are people on both sides of the room thinking WiMAX."
Around 2001 I was imploring Apple to do a cable TV service with wireless. I also told them to let their users relay it with wireless boxes as a low cost franchise business.
THEY ALWAYS DO WHAT I TELL THEM TO DO...
Maybe NOT the franchise thing, maybe YES the franchise thing.
UltraWideBand is EXTREMELY low power, low radiation, maybe WiMax is too.
Coupled with recent speculation that Apple wants to get into the business of selling downloadable video, John Yunker of Byte Level Research sees WiMAX as a solution more viable than the current 802.11b/g standard employed by AirPort and AirPort Extreme, which he said "could do the trick, but the concern is over interference."
When the news broke last week that Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) and Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) have been involved in discussions of some type, most industry watchers assumed Apple was interested in porting the Mac OS to run on Intel chips. John Yunker of Byte Level Research, however, has a much different take: he believes the companies are getting together to discuss WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access), as he explains in a recent blog post.
"Intel is betting a lot on WiMAX right now," Yunker told The Mac Observer.
WiMAX is a broadband wireless technology that many believe could replace cable and DSL Internet access as a last-mile solution, especially in areas that don't already have copper lines laid down.
Good Indoor Solution
Inside the home, however, Yunker explained that "many techs believe WiMAX will make a good indoor solution for streaming things like high-definition TV."
Coupled with recent speculation that Apple wants to get into the business of selling downloadable video, he sees a solution more viable than the current 802.11b/g standard employed by AirPort and AirPort Extreme, which he said "could do the trick, but the concern is over interference. WiMAX is optimized to avoid interference, even with multiple transmitters operating at the same frequency."
Yunker envisions a scenario in which Apple creates a device that uses an Intel chip -- Intel is already promoting the technology on its Web site.
"I'm an Apple proponent," he explained. "They sell sole-service solutions, and they like to be a few steps ahead of everyone else. Apple could build WiMAX into computers, or have a WiMAX transmitter that plugs in, and there could be a WiMAX plug-in for the TV. It could be a two-piece solution, similar to AirPort Express."
Yunker acknowledged that "price could be the barrier there initially, but AirPort wasn't that cheap when it debuted in 1997."
WiMAX Economics
Strategy Analytics analyst Phil Kendall agreed that Apple "looking into the role of WiMAX for home networking -- not exactly a priority area for most WiMAX proponents -- would be in character. It would make sense for Apple to look to stay near the front of the wireless pack."
However, Kendall said that his firm "expects 802.11n to play the stronger role in connected homes." That wireless standard is the successor to 802.11a/b/g, and Kendall sees it "establishing itself for video in the home."
"In the home networking domain," he explained, "a strong role for WiMAX is built entirely on the assumption that it becomes a default technology on laptops. However, we do not expect it to displace WiFi there. Given the continued explosion in the number of WiFi access points, it would take a phenomenal level of WiMAX network investment to make WiFi obsolete on laptops. We are more optimistic about the economics behind WiFi's continued evolution than we are about the economics of WiMAX, which are built on a lot of ifs."
However, Yunker noted that "there is a lot of upheaval in the wireless market right now. What is the next-gen solution?"
WiMAX Standard Approved
Recent news reports state that creation of the 802.11n standard has stalled because neither of the two groups competing to set that standard has won the 75 percent of the vote required by the rules of the IEEE standards process. In contrast, the WiMAX standard was approved in June 2004, although Yunker said that Intel and Apple working together to create products using the technology "could be years in the making. WiMAX isn't ready for prime time yet."
Kendall summed up his position: "We are not ruling out WiMAX in this domain. We just believe it will not be this decade which sees any significant proliferation of in-home WiMAX deployments. But WiMAX would definitely be a good bet for Apple as it looks to where its wireless strategy goes in the future."
"The WiMAX chip itself, approximately $45, is significantly more expensive than any of the 802.11 variants currently used. Further, setting up and maintaining a WiMAX network over a metropolitan area would not be something that could be done by individuals, but rather would require a sizable investment. Still, cities like San Francisco are currently investigating setting up such networks, be they WiFi or WiMAX, municipally owned and operated networks, and that has raised concerns in some quarters.
"That could be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard," said Ivan Seidenberg, chief executive officer of Verizon Communications, during a meeting with Chronicle editors and writers on Friday. "It sounds like a good thing, but the trouble is someone will have to design it, someone will have to upgrade it, someone will have to maintain it and someone will have to run it."
And you can bet that someone won't be Verizon, which is why you can also expect the Telcos to fight WiMAX tooth and nail. Robert Cringely expects them to grab up the spectrum rights for WiMAX, to either own or kill the nascent technology before it eats their lunch. His solution? Eat at McDonalds, or, better yet, Wal-Mart.
The area of the continental United States is approximately three million square miles, which suggests that 3,000 WiMax networks could cover the entire country. And it just so happens that between its discount stores, supercenters, Sam's Clubs, and distribution centers, Wal-Mart has 3,756 U.S. locations, all of which are presently served by a hearty network.
The idea is that large corporations could build, nearly overnight, WiMAX networks capable of competing with giant telecommunication companies. While the Telcos might be able to fight and win against single municipalities, it would be quite another thing to take on a corporation like Wal-Mart. There are so many possible outcomes of this struggle, such as the effective end of fiber to the premise services like Verizon's Fios, or the start of individual cities suddenly becoming telecommunication providers, that it's impossible to say what the future holds. However, given the value of what is at stake -- the telecommunications revenue from those living near metro areas -- the future probably won't take long to get here."
THERE ARE CURRENTLY 103 APPLE STORES IN THE US !!!
I don't think that Apple would port all of their machines to x86 hardware. I think that they may have contracted Intel to build PPC chips instead. This would give IBM some competition and maybe they would finally get their @$$ in gear.
I have read all that anyone has to say and that cool some good ideas and fears.
But I would like to ask a couple of questions and please try to answer objectively.
1) Am I right in thinking that all the PPC ships MHz aside are much faster and allow you to multitask better, then normal Wintel CPU's?
2) Was the meeting with Intel just a little to soon to be a complete crossover announcement for the WWDC?
3) Did we or did we not see a full range of PPC derivatives in the next gen consoles, witch to my mind would make them quite affordable, now so and if so what cost would this mean to apple?
4) Was there some talk about a tablet Mac not to long ago? So unless I am mistaken would a PPC chip be a bit hard to put in to a 1" tablet with all the other electronics as well?
ok its my feeling that apple won't give up power pc note that soon infect there more likely go more of the same and get in bed with Sun Microsystems then go Intel, who are showing ground braking technologies with silicon. But that dose not mean they won't use Intel or others for more smaller devices to keep heat down and cost that makes more sense to me, as many here have stated to change would be to much, and there is much going on the PPC market to need to turn its back on it.
And who knows that Intel Mac mini thing might be a development between Intel and apple as a trade of technologies who knows and Intel and apple still get a cut of that?
Why are you so quick to comment on things you are ignorant of ???
WiMax should be a vast improvement for home networking because the radiation level is lower by a factor of 10.
If WiMax is not ultimately used in the home then some other ultra-wide band tech should replace it.
WiFi SUCKS FOR THE HOME THE RADIATION LEVEL IS TOO HIGH, ESPECIALLY FOR CHILDREN, there is too much interference, and the power usage is too high.
Any ultra-wide band technology fixes all these.
I notice on these forums at least half of the posters act the same. If some new tech replaces what they currently have they comment against it and MAKE THINGS UP TO SAY ITS NO GOOD.
The reason they do this is simply because they want to have the latest and greatest and don't want to have to pay for new stuff, and they don't have the courage to go against the crowd and stick with what they have, so if the new thing does come out they buy it anyway, even while their hatred for technology grows.
They hate tech because it controls their life, but really they should hate the crowd which they don't have the courage to break from.
Comments
Pressed about security by Mr. Mossberg, Mr. Otellini [CEO of Intel] had a startling confession: He spends an hour a weekend removing spyware from his daughter's computer. And when further pressed about whether a mainstream computer user in search of immediate safety from security woes ought to buy Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh instead of a Wintel PC, he said, "If you want to fix it tomorrow, maybe you should buy something else."
Originally posted by e1618978
My prediction - Intel will produce a RISC chip for Apple that is not PPC, but really close (just different enough to avoid legal trouble). . .
I would imagine that Apple has some rights to PPC and AltiVec, since Apple was part of its original development at AIM. Maybe Apple cannot build the chips to sell, but it's likely that Apple can contract to have such chips built for use in Macintosh computers.
It's 1997. Apple has just bought NeXT and announced plans for the next-generation Mac OS called "Rhapsody." The first developer previews are released, not for PowerPC, but for Intel. In fact, the openly acknowledged strategy at the time was that Apple would release Rhapsody in variants for both Intel and PowerPC.
The diagrams of the OS architecture talked about Yellow Box (what eventually became known as Cocoa) and Blue Box (what eventually became known as Classic). There was rampant speculation and rumor about a third "box" in development called Red Box, which would run Windows .EXE applications natively when run on Intel hardware.
They have the technology. They can rebuild it. Better, stronger, faster than it was before.
Apple's hardware designers have certainly proven that they are capable of some
amazing visionary concepts. That Work!
OSX working with an Intel MANUFACTURED chip does not mean that Apple
is porting to X86 architecture.
It's really not all that much different than BMW subbing out their Mini Cooper
engine designs to Latin America.
We have to keep in mind that most of Apple's own hardware is sub-contracted to their strict design specifications, but it's not built by Apple.
In fact most of the innards or your chassis are probably put together by people making less per day than you spend on a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Very little if any Apple hardware is "purely" Apple, other than the motherboards and chassis.
What sets Apple apart is OSX and how it optimizes the use of any hardware configuration.
In reality none of us have a friggin clue about what secret legal and licensing aggreements Apple, IBM, Sony, Pioneer, BenQ, Samsung, LaCie, Maxtor, ATI, Nvidia, Motorola, Intel, AMD, Microsoft and so on....
have tucked away in their vaults.
All we know is that what ever it is.
It will kick ass running OSX.
We're past most of what made x86 suck. Modern x86 CPUs are just RISC in sheep's clothing. The only reason x86 is said to drag users down is that the CPUs basically have to translate x86 instructions into an easier-to-digest form. Do they lose some speed doing this? Sure. A lot? Doubtful. The problem hasn't gotten worse with time, as some believe. It's gotten even less relevant. The x86 vs. RISC era died a decade ago. Intel has been adopting RISC and has used it where it made sense in their chips, whether you knew it or not.
It's not out of the realm of possibility that Intel can fab customized versions of their chips, stripped of the so-called "x86 layer", and still have a perfectly powerful and functional RISC chip.
My question is whether or not it's worth the cost for Apple to pay for the engineering of a customized solution just to strip the "icky x86" layer. I don't think it matters at the end of the day. The seediness of such a proposition is in the heads of PPC fans, as a result of the IBM/Apple marketing and PR. But eventually you'll be reprogrammed again by his Majesty. Don't worry.
Now, Altivec? Whether it's worth preserving remains to be seen I guess, assuming the switch will happen and has to happen.
For those people still worried about Apple's Hardware. Not a whole lot really changes from that standpoint. APPLE NEVER MADE THEIR HARDWARE. IBM supplied the chips, Asus provided motherboards, Hitachi/Seagate/WD/etc provide hard drives, etc. The majority of the box is no different from a PC. They can still control the hardware that goes inside the boxes. They can still design their own enclosures. If you're concerned that Macs will suddenly turn into ugly Dells, your concerns are unfounded. There are a number of creative form factors out there for PCs, and Apple can still outclass them.
-Apple is going ditch hardware and release OS X for all x86 boxes. Never will happen, since Microsoft would eat Apple alive. That's why Apple is talking to Intel about chips - they are going to use Intel CPUs, maybe even a specialized Intel chipset/mobo.
-Windows will run on Intel-based Macs. Never. Apple will buy Intel CPUs for their own Mac hardware, and will use custom mobo configurations that will not support Windows. Conversely, OS X will ONLY run on Mac hardware. Some h4XX04s may adapt OS X to run on their generic home-built x86 boxes, but that's good for Apple, it generates interest in OS X and makes Apple a rare and valuable commodity.
-Macs will be forced to sport gaudy "Intel Inside" stickers on their beautiful mugs. We can be sure that Steve will negotiate an agreement that lets Apple keep their hardware looking cool. In fact I bet Apple would rather pay a premium for the Intel chips than put that butt-ugly sticker on the box.
Disclaimer: I don't know squat, so maybe this is all BS. But I don't think so.
If Apple can facilitate a smooth transition for developers to Intel-based OS X development, then the transition should work out fine for Apple. This seems to be a real challenge, but I don't much about what would be required of developers. It's hard to see how they would welcome another sea change after migrating their software to OS X.
What I find most stunning is that IBM cannot put out for Apple. Just look at Cell, Power, and even the current PPC - IBM clearly has the technical expertise to supply Apple with competitive chip designs. Perhaps Intel simply offered Apple a deal on CPUs they couldn't refuse? Or maybe there is more at play here than we see. I could see IBM pushing Apple aside since they have a full plate with Sony and Microsoft, and since Apple has such a high overhead and low volume. Maybe this wasn't really Apple's decision.
Originally posted by ghiangelo
Opteron and G5 set ups are practically the same. Hypertransport is used also. the only issue is that look at the prices of an Opteron system. there is no cost advantage compared to Intel. an Opteron based PM would cost the same or more than the current G5.
There actually may be a BIG price advantage THAT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT.
Since multiple core Opterons are out now, and looking at those Apple engineers maybe saying will could build a killer laptop with these because of the power management.
And then on the IBM side they maybe making no comparable proposals for power management, thus what they are planning would raise costs in a laptop.
The temptation to switch would be too great.
There is also a good chance that the prices Intel gives to the press is much higher, to save face and boost the stock price, than what they actually end up charging, i.e. prices drop faster then IBM as quantities go up.
WHAT IF Intel knows how to build chips out of plastic ???
WHAT IF Intel's polymer RAM production is finally up to speed ???
WHAT IF this new guy that is the CEO of Intel is an alien hybrid ???
WHAT IF this new guy that is the CEO of Intel is a Mac LOVER ???
WHAT IF Steve Jobs is an alien hybrid ???
WHAT IF Steve Jobs brain is made out of plastic ???
WHAT IF this new plastic chip technology is safe for human implantation ???
WHAT IF Steve Jobs brain is made out of alien plastic chip technology ???
WHAT IF Pixar were to put out a movie called "MIND CONTROL MOVIE" ???
WHAT IF the "MIND CONTROL MOVIE" took control of your mind and forced you to buy Mac OS Xntel and the new plastic chip technology.
Originally posted by hobBIT
No matter whether Apple will try to restrict the OS to run only on Apple hardware. If Windows boxes have the same CPU, it's only a matter of time until someone develops a crack and all Apple will end up is selling OS X. Too few will pay the design premium for Apple's hardware. And from then on the NeXT circle will start to repeat itself.
Actually unless Apple starts doing M$ like Activation Keys and Anti Piracy measures they don't sell anything. Most of the Home/Hobbyist/Student segment would be using burned copies of OS X .
If Apple is going to have Intel make the G5 or some PPC native chip I can see announcing now just to avoid the FUD that would be flowing at developers with a possible processor switch. If Apple didn't say anything until the Stevenote introducing the All Singing All dancing PPC running Intel chip in a Mac then every leak about Intel chips coming to a Mac makes Joe Developer wonder "Is all my work going down the can soon."
If the CNet story is accurate it sounds like low power low cost chips are coming first.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/23/apple_intel/
This is the Register talking about the Wall Street Journal article which is a good source.
The article was simply making one point -- "Apple is close to signing a deal with Intel to buy its processors."
Then they are quick to point out THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF PROCESSORS.
So this deal IS VERY LIKELY TO BE FOR WiMax CHIP SETS !!!
Intel Shipping WiMax Silicon
http://www.dailywireless.org/modules...ticle&sid=3976
"Posted on Monday, April 18 2005 @ 01:10:54 PDT by samc
After years of anticipation and a somewhat painful labor, Intel today announced the delivery of their WiMax Rosedale chip (now called the PRO/Wireless 5116), which some observers expect will kick-start the fledgling wireless broadband industry. Though the chip has been shipping to test sites for six months, Monday (April 18) marks the official launch,
Intel's new WiMax chip (white papers), weighing in at $45 a pop, supports channel bandwidths up to 10 MHz, 256 OFDM carriers, integrates the 802.16-2004 MAC and OFDM PHY, inline security processing and a TDM controller. WiMax is expected to compete with DSL and cable modems for high speed data and may eventually compete with cellular for voice."
""Wherever you see WiFi today we envision seeing WiMax tomorrow," said Scott Richardson, general manager of Intel's broadband wireless solutions division."
"WiMax can ratchet speeds up and down automatically to maintain a connection. WiMax range and speed will vary all over the map; between a few miles (in point to multipoint mode) up to fifty miles (in point to point mode). Data rates will vary from 1 Mbps to 70 Mbps. Bandwidth can also vary, from narrow cellular-like 1.25 Mhz channels, to more common 5 and 10 Mhz bandwidths and 20 Mhz wide channels, commonly used in WiFi channel spacing."
"QuickTransit allows software that has been compiled for one processor/operating system to be run on another processor/operating system without any source code or binary changes."
While much discussion here has focused on OS X running on an Intel Chip, what about the possibility that concurrently with this address is the addition of Transitive software on Tiger so that you could simply load Windows software (or software for any OS) right into Tiger and it works?
At that point, what's the compulsion to stay with Windoze?
And what's the block for transitioning from PowerPC to Intel?
Just crazy, crazy thoughts...
http://www.transitive.com/index.htm
http://www.corante.com/unwired/archi...pple_wimax.php
"May 24, 2005
Intel + Apple = WiMAX?
Posted by John Yunker
So I have a few thoughts on why Apple is talking to Intel. First, let me quote this Reuters article to provide context:
"To port to an x86 platform would be a massive undertaking and I'm highly suspicious of that," said Tim Bajarin, an analyst at Creative Strategies, referring to Intel chips.
Apple always has a lot of projects in the works and could be evaluating Intel chips for use in future products, Bajarin said, adding that when Apple co-founder and chief executive Steve Jobs was asked Sunday night at a Wall Street Journal technology conference whether Apple would use Intel chips, "Jobs basically said no."
So I'm going to assume that porting the Mac OS is not a high priority at Apple these days. What I think is a high priority is wireless. Apple launched its Wi-Fi-power Airport way back in 1997. Here we are eight years later and Wi-Fi is everywhere, particularly in the home.
There have been lots of speculation about Apple launching an A/V equivalent of iTunes. Now, connecting the cable or DSL modem to the TV is a hurdle we're seeing lots of companies tackle, with limited success.
I've spoken to a number of techs who see WiMAX as the next-generation home wireless technology. That's because only WiMAX can stream multiple streams of HDTV content in difficult RF environments to all ends of the home.
Apple is also rumored to be getting into the smart phone business. I'd certainly love to see how they could simplify my Palm Treo 650. But what wireless technology are they going to support if and when they do get into this business? I wouldn't bet on EV-DO and I don't think they want to bother with EDGE or HSDPA either. Apple likes to lead with wireless technology, not follow.
I think Apple sees a lot of opportunities with WiMAX. And I think Intel sees a lot of opportunity in getting Apple to support WiMAX. Because the applications that WiMAX will support don't really exist yet. Sure, we're going to see wireless last-mile proliferate using WiMAX, but that's the easy part.
Perhaps all that Apple and Intel are talking about right now is processors. But I have to believe that there are people on both sides of the room thinking WiMAX."
Around 2001 I was imploring Apple to do a cable TV service with wireless. I also told them to let their users relay it with wireless boxes as a low cost franchise business.
THEY ALWAYS DO WHAT I TELL THEM TO DO...
Maybe NOT the franchise thing, maybe YES the franchise thing.
UltraWideBand is EXTREMELY low power, low radiation, maybe WiMax is too.
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/Vs...to-WiMAX.xhtml
Apple, Intel Looking to WiMAX?
By Brad Cook
The Mac Observer
06/02/05 5:00 AM PT
Coupled with recent speculation that Apple wants to get into the business of selling downloadable video, John Yunker of Byte Level Research sees WiMAX as a solution more viable than the current 802.11b/g standard employed by AirPort and AirPort Extreme, which he said "could do the trick, but the concern is over interference."
When the news broke last week that Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) and Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) have been involved in discussions of some type, most industry watchers assumed Apple was interested in porting the Mac OS to run on Intel chips. John Yunker of Byte Level Research, however, has a much different take: he believes the companies are getting together to discuss WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access), as he explains in a recent blog post.
"Intel is betting a lot on WiMAX right now," Yunker told The Mac Observer.
WiMAX is a broadband wireless technology that many believe could replace cable and DSL Internet access as a last-mile solution, especially in areas that don't already have copper lines laid down.
Good Indoor Solution
Inside the home, however, Yunker explained that "many techs believe WiMAX will make a good indoor solution for streaming things like high-definition TV."
Coupled with recent speculation that Apple wants to get into the business of selling downloadable video, he sees a solution more viable than the current 802.11b/g standard employed by AirPort and AirPort Extreme, which he said "could do the trick, but the concern is over interference. WiMAX is optimized to avoid interference, even with multiple transmitters operating at the same frequency."
Yunker envisions a scenario in which Apple creates a device that uses an Intel chip -- Intel is already promoting the technology on its Web site.
"I'm an Apple proponent," he explained. "They sell sole-service solutions, and they like to be a few steps ahead of everyone else. Apple could build WiMAX into computers, or have a WiMAX transmitter that plugs in, and there could be a WiMAX plug-in for the TV. It could be a two-piece solution, similar to AirPort Express."
Yunker acknowledged that "price could be the barrier there initially, but AirPort wasn't that cheap when it debuted in 1997."
WiMAX Economics
Strategy Analytics analyst Phil Kendall agreed that Apple "looking into the role of WiMAX for home networking -- not exactly a priority area for most WiMAX proponents -- would be in character. It would make sense for Apple to look to stay near the front of the wireless pack."
However, Kendall said that his firm "expects 802.11n to play the stronger role in connected homes." That wireless standard is the successor to 802.11a/b/g, and Kendall sees it "establishing itself for video in the home."
"In the home networking domain," he explained, "a strong role for WiMAX is built entirely on the assumption that it becomes a default technology on laptops. However, we do not expect it to displace WiFi there. Given the continued explosion in the number of WiFi access points, it would take a phenomenal level of WiMAX network investment to make WiFi obsolete on laptops. We are more optimistic about the economics behind WiFi's continued evolution than we are about the economics of WiMAX, which are built on a lot of ifs."
However, Yunker noted that "there is a lot of upheaval in the wireless market right now. What is the next-gen solution?"
WiMAX Standard Approved
Recent news reports state that creation of the 802.11n standard has stalled because neither of the two groups competing to set that standard has won the 75 percent of the vote required by the rules of the IEEE standards process. In contrast, the WiMAX standard was approved in June 2004, although Yunker said that Intel and Apple working together to create products using the technology "could be years in the making. WiMAX isn't ready for prime time yet."
Kendall summed up his position: "We are not ruling out WiMAX in this domain. We just believe it will not be this decade which sees any significant proliferation of in-home WiMAX deployments. But WiMAX would definitely be a good bet for Apple as it looks to where its wireless strategy goes in the future."
© 2005 The Mac Observer, Inc.. All rights reserved.
© 2005 ECT News Network. All rights reserved.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050418-4820.html
Intel introduces WiMAX wireless technology
4/18/2005 10:38:44 PM, by Charles Jade
"The WiMAX chip itself, approximately $45, is significantly more expensive than any of the 802.11 variants currently used. Further, setting up and maintaining a WiMAX network over a metropolitan area would not be something that could be done by individuals, but rather would require a sizable investment. Still, cities like San Francisco are currently investigating setting up such networks, be they WiFi or WiMAX, municipally owned and operated networks, and that has raised concerns in some quarters.
"That could be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard," said Ivan Seidenberg, chief executive officer of Verizon Communications, during a meeting with Chronicle editors and writers on Friday. "It sounds like a good thing, but the trouble is someone will have to design it, someone will have to upgrade it, someone will have to maintain it and someone will have to run it."
And you can bet that someone won't be Verizon, which is why you can also expect the Telcos to fight WiMAX tooth and nail. Robert Cringely expects them to grab up the spectrum rights for WiMAX, to either own or kill the nascent technology before it eats their lunch. His solution? Eat at McDonalds, or, better yet, Wal-Mart.
The area of the continental United States is approximately three million square miles, which suggests that 3,000 WiMax networks could cover the entire country. And it just so happens that between its discount stores, supercenters, Sam's Clubs, and distribution centers, Wal-Mart has 3,756 U.S. locations, all of which are presently served by a hearty network.
The idea is that large corporations could build, nearly overnight, WiMAX networks capable of competing with giant telecommunication companies. While the Telcos might be able to fight and win against single municipalities, it would be quite another thing to take on a corporation like Wal-Mart. There are so many possible outcomes of this struggle, such as the effective end of fiber to the premise services like Verizon's Fios, or the start of individual cities suddenly becoming telecommunication providers, that it's impossible to say what the future holds. However, given the value of what is at stake -- the telecommunications revenue from those living near metro areas -- the future probably won't take long to get here."
THERE ARE CURRENTLY 103 APPLE STORES IN THE US !!!
802.16 ( wimax) = home wireless networking = no
802.11g is just fine for home networking.
Macaddict16
But I would like to ask a couple of questions and please try to answer objectively.
1) Am I right in thinking that all the PPC ships MHz aside are much faster and allow you to multitask better, then normal Wintel CPU's?
2) Was the meeting with Intel just a little to soon to be a complete crossover announcement for the WWDC?
3) Did we or did we not see a full range of PPC derivatives in the next gen consoles, witch to my mind would make them quite affordable, now so and if so what cost would this mean to apple?
4) Was there some talk about a tablet Mac not to long ago? So unless I am mistaken would a PPC chip be a bit hard to put in to a 1" tablet with all the other electronics as well?
ok its my feeling that apple won't give up power pc note that soon infect there more likely go more of the same and get in bed with Sun Microsystems then go Intel, who are showing ground braking technologies with silicon. But that dose not mean they won't use Intel or others for more smaller devices to keep heat down and cost that makes more sense to me, as many here have stated to change would be to much, and there is much going on the PPC market to need to turn its back on it.
And who knows that Intel Mac mini thing might be a development between Intel and apple as a trade of technologies who knows and Intel and apple still get a cut of that?
What do you think?
Who am i?????????????????????? 8) 8) 8)
Originally posted by oh_the_humanity
802.16 ( wimax) = broadband deployment = yes
802.16 ( wimax) = home wireless networking = no
802.11g is just fine for home networking.
Why are you so quick to comment on things you are ignorant of ???
WiMax should be a vast improvement for home networking because the radiation level is lower by a factor of 10.
If WiMax is not ultimately used in the home then some other ultra-wide band tech should replace it.
WiFi SUCKS FOR THE HOME THE RADIATION LEVEL IS TOO HIGH, ESPECIALLY FOR CHILDREN, there is too much interference, and the power usage is too high.
Any ultra-wide band technology fixes all these.
I notice on these forums at least half of the posters act the same. If some new tech replaces what they currently have they comment against it and MAKE THINGS UP TO SAY ITS NO GOOD.
The reason they do this is simply because they want to have the latest and greatest and don't want to have to pay for new stuff, and they don't have the courage to go against the crowd and stick with what they have, so if the new thing does come out they buy it anyway, even while their hatred for technology grows.
They hate tech because it controls their life, but really they should hate the crowd which they don't have the courage to break from.
SAD !!!
I hope you are like this half, nice name !