What will Apple/Intel finally do?

pbpb
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
With this storm of opinions on the subject, just one day before WWDC starts, here is people your chance to vote. Please feel free to explain the reasons of your choice.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    ok i voted i don't now as i now for a fact the inquirer is known to make things up and just blantly lie but c-net are usaly pritty good.



    having said that the BBC said the same thing not to long ago now there is to many difficltys suronding the switch from what i read here to be viable i think in may be a missunderstanding as in yes apple will use intel for wifi, tablet, and possabley the mac mini, or ipod but i don't think that they will replace anything above that ie the imac powermac and so on. or may be there just looking for options for there laptop rang?
  • Reply 2 of 28
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Here's the issue I see with Apple moving to Intel.



    It doesn't have to do with X running on Intel, I have no doubt Apple (if they were to make the move) would have some fairly elegant solution in place to make the PPC --> Intel move as painless as possible (or it wouldn't be considered in the first place).



    The issue I see Apple having is it's desire to keep as many aspects of it's new hardware/software secret until such a time that Apple decides to reveal their plans.



    For the most part, Apple has had the ability to keep it's chip supplier MUM on the CPU it was using in its computers. Be it MOT 68k, IBM/MOT PPC or IBM G5. Apple being the #1 client it could keep MOT or IBM quiet when it comes to information about it's new chips.



    This is something RARE in the CPU industry! Look at Intel / AMD / IBM / MOT when it comes to chips Apple doesn't use. All of those companies are usually quite public when it comes to long term roadmaps. Why? Well one reason is because the Corp. World needs to know where the industry is going to forecast their buying. Also, being up front about their CPU's keeps them honest when it comes to all the dealings with PC manufactures who buy chips from them - HP, Dell, Gateway, Toshiba, Sony, Microsoft AND the rest of the public ALL know the CPU futures, limits, speeds, delays, etc at pretty much the same time.



    In short Apple doesn't have the ability to roll out hardware when IT feels like it. It has to maintain a similar follow the herd rollout that the PC manufactures all do.



    Example:



    New report from 2007:



    Late Winter / Spring News: Intel releases the new XX Ghz CPU this summer.



    If Summer 2007 hits and the WinTel developers all release new boxes with that chip - either Apple MUST be forced to bump up their line with with the new CPU or be blamed/ridiculed as to why they are slow off the mark in adopting the faster chips.



    I hope I'm making sense, since it's early in the AM I think I'm rambling...



    Anyway, to me this could be seen as a major stumbling block at Apple management... Even more so than the technical hurdles they'd have to overcome.



    Dave
  • Reply 3 of 28
    sorry m8



    i think i understand what you mean as the indesrty needs to now whats happing so that they can get ready for it but are you saying apple is loking to that or will have a problume keeping its current way of life?
  • Reply 4 of 28
    a j steva j stev Posts: 79member
    I smell Jobsian FUD...no more, no less.



    Take a bex, a lie down and I'll see you all in 2 days\
  • Reply 5 of 28
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Black_Dragon

    sorry m8



    i think i understand what you mean as the indesrty needs to now whats happing so that they can get ready for it but are you saying apple is loking to that or will have a problume keeping its current way of life?




    What I'm saying is right now Apple chooses when to release it's hardware. IBM could have had 2.7GHz G5's for 8 months (I don;t think so but it could have) but Apple chose to release boxes based on them only a month or so ago. Since IBM never made public the fact that it's 2.7GHz chip was ready no harm no foul Apple could chose to release boxes based on them when their current inventory levels, sales forecast projections, etc, etc, were 'right'.



    Going to the same CPU as the rest of the free world... Apple will no longer have that luxury.



    The other issue is Apple will more than ever be expected to do everything the rest of the industry is doing.



    For example:



    Dell: implementing new faster RAM XXX

    HP: implementing new PCI YYY

    Gateway: implementing new USB ZZZ



    Say each vendor is only (initially) doing one of those 3 new technologies. Apple, by many here anyway... would be expected to implement ALL THREE of them - each time someone pointing to company XYZ saying "SEE THEY ARE DOING IT, WHY ISN'T APPLE?!?!"



    Then again, this happens even now but Apple moving to Intel... I think it would happen even more.



    Dave
  • Reply 6 of 28
    bobbagumbobbagum Posts: 68member
    One flaw in the smoke screen explanation is that if apple has nothing to do with Intel, why has there that comment from the Intel Execs about Mac is better,
  • Reply 7 of 28
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bobbagum

    One flaw in the smoke screen explanation is that if apple has nothing to do with Intel, why has there that comment from the Intel Execs about Mac is better,



    I don't remember the details, did they say that Macs are better or that there are other choices better than Windows? It can make a big difference.
  • Reply 8 of 28
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    I voted for the second one, but what I WANT to happen is for Mac OS X to be ported to x86, and an x86 compiler included with the developer tools, so I can run Mac OS X on a home-built PC.
  • Reply 9 of 28
    blackcatblackcat Posts: 697member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    I don't remember the details, did they say that Macs are better or that there are other choices better than Windows? It can make a big difference.



    It was a PR-friendly vague reply which could be spun anyway they like, there was no "Macs are better".
  • Reply 10 of 28
    tidristidris Posts: 214member
    I voted for Intel second sourcing the PPC chips. This looks like a realistic scenario to me given Intel is capable of making low power high speed CPUs while IBM isn't. Another possibility is Apple using some non-CPU Intel chips but that wasn't one of the poll options.



    To be honest though, we all should have voted for the "I don't know" option ;-).
  • Reply 11 of 28
    geekdreamsgeekdreams Posts: 280member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tidris

    I voted for Intel second sourcing the PPC chips. This looks like a realistic scenario to me given Intel is capable of making low power high speed CPUs while IBM isn't. Another possibility is Apple using some non-CPU Intel chips but that wasn't one of the poll options.



    To be honest though, we all should have voted for the "I don't know" option ;-).




    I agree with you on all points.



    My vote would be for dedicated MPEG-4 encoding/decoding chips, but failing that, PPC chips with "Intel" stamped on them sounds reasonable.
  • Reply 12 of 28
    snipesnipe Posts: 97member
    the biggest mystery to me is an age old cunundrum. Why do people vote

    ''I don't know''
  • Reply 13 of 28
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bobbagum

    One flaw in the smoke screen explanation is that if apple has nothing to do with Intel, why has there that comment from the Intel Execs about Mac is better,



    He didn't say Macs were better, he just said Windows is not a good choice if security is in any way important.
  • Reply 14 of 28
    fotnsfotns Posts: 301member
    I voted the first one. It seems clear; The Apple IBM alliance is broken, Intel does not make chips to other's designs like a chip day laborer, Intel has some great dual core CPUs on the horizon, and if Intel was making some all new CPU design it would have leaked out by now.
  • Reply 15 of 28
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by snipe

    Why do people vote

    ''I don't know''




    I should have perhaps as 4th option "Nothing of the above". The "I don't know" becomes then 5fth. Better late than never. Moderators?
  • Reply 16 of 28
    kiwi-in-dckiwi-in-dc Posts: 102member
    NeXT migrated to Intel before.



    Tiger is a descendant of NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP so they have the know-how, and the libraries even then supported endian conversions.



    Tiger is built on Darwin which already supports x86 and is well tested via the OSS community.



    IBM has failed to deliver even 3GHz to Apple, yet delivers a 3 core 3.2GHz part to Microsoft and a multi-core Cell part at 3.2GHz for Sony.



    Steve obviously sees no effort on IBM's part to get the 970 running faster, and my guess is that IBM failed to produce usable numbers of the 970MP.



    So, it's simple: Can only be a wholesale move to Intel/



    Which leaves the big question: Macs with an Intel processor, or OS X on any Intel box?



    I can't see them doing the latter because they'd loose the tight hw/sw integration that makes products like FCP sign.



    So, I believe we'll see Steve demo an Intel based PowerMac on Monday.



    Which is great. I don't care what the CPU is and who makes it, so long as Apple retains control of both hardware and software.
  • Reply 17 of 28
    blackcatblackcat Posts: 697member
    Regarding the 3.2GHz console CPUs, they are a different design, different pipeline length, different instructions per cycle etc etc



    In short, the GHz rating of these console chips isn't relevant.



    IBM is allowed to make any speed chip for any client, it's not like the Xbox 2 and PS3 are using 970s. Apple has no reason (or right) to be angry over console chips.
  • Reply 18 of 28
    chris vchris v Posts: 460member
    A couple weeks back when this all started, there was also an Intel chief quoted as saying that the Apple on Intel thing was the "Haley's Comet of rumors." He sounded pretty dismissive.
  • Reply 19 of 28
    I am optimistic. This is a smokescreen and everyone will be relieved for that and happy with what it was screening or it won't be a smokescreen and Apple will have something radically progressive for us in the way of new architecture. No doom and gloom.
  • Reply 20 of 28
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    I voted smokescreen. Apple will be demoing some impressive hardware tomorrow, but it'll be a Power 5 based dual core chip with VMX. We'll be blown away and then an announcement that there will be some sort of Intell based bridge chip that'll host a PCI Express and X implimentation, USB-2, Intel's Gb ethernet, etc. Now Apple doesn't have to worry about these secondary features, and the can focus on the memory controller only.
Sign In or Register to comment.