Could it be pssible for eMacs...iMacs et al up to the current "Pro" G5 Range to use an Intel chip? It might make sense to use a very cheap Intel chip in them instead of G4 chips just to get the price down for entry level.
Could it be pssible for eMacs...iMacs et al up to the current "Pro" G5 Range to use an Intel chip? It might make sense to use a very cheap Intel chip in them instead of G4 chips just to get the price down for entry level.
As I understand it, the G4 is cheaper than a P4. The problem is in the R&D of designing custom mother boards and chip sets to fit within the award winning industrial design of the AIO computers that Apple has, as well as paying for the software development that maintains and advances the Mac OS, and its value added software.
Apple currently has some margins as high as 27% on their computers. If they go to intel base chips then they will need to head to head with dell/HP/Gateway. Dell margins are small, they make there money from volume.
Answer these questions about an Apple Intel system:
-Will this increase Apple maket share enough to off set
the drop in the system margins: No (Apple would have to go from about 3.5% of the market to at least 15%)
-Will Microsoft still make Mac OSX Office: No
-Will game makers increase their titles: No
-Now that Apple has the IBM PPC 970 with a clear road map,
50% increase in processor speed with in the year. Does Apple really want to switch?: No
Actually what he is saying is very true. I don't know about the timeframe, but I stand by the author. I don't know who the hell would be telling him but it's very true.
Some of you might remember a reader who posted about the intel test systems running marklar and a wierd new Apple branded browser. This was back in the day, way back in the day.
There is a version of Mac OS X that runs on Intel now. Apple has always evaluated Intel, and refuses to flat out say they "won't use intel".
It's going to happen. This few little tidbits + sources I'm familar with have all signs pointing to yes.
Actually what he is saying is very true. I don't know about the timeframe, but I stand by the author. I don't know who the hell would be telling him but it's very true.
Some of you might remember a reader who posted about the intel test systems running marklar and a wierd new Apple branded browser. This was back in the day, way back in the day.
There is a version of Mac OS X that runs on Intel now. Apple has always evaluated Intel, and refuses to flat out say they "won't use intel".
It's going to happen. This few little tidbits + sources I'm familar with have all signs pointing to yes.
All in time...
The same sources that said that Panther would be released in December, then November and now October? (Those are the three months you mentioned here and on MacNN)
Actually what he is saying is very true. I don't know about the timeframe, but I stand by the author. I don't know who the hell would be telling him but it's very true.
Some of you might remember a reader who posted about the intel test systems running marklar and a wierd new Apple branded browser. This was back in the day, way back in the day.
There is a version of Mac OS X that runs on Intel now. Apple has always evaluated Intel, and refuses to flat out say they "won't use intel".
It's going to happen. This few little tidbits + sources I'm familar with have all signs pointing to yes.
All in time...
Yeah, all in time... just like the powerbook update
Seriously though - a switch to Intel is gonna happen?... what are you smoking buddy?
Apple tests a lot of things that never make it to market. Smart company's have contingencies, end of story.
Actually what he is saying is very true. I don't know about the timeframe, but I stand by the author. I don't know who the hell would be telling him but it's very true. Some of you might remember a reader who posted about the intel test systems running marklar and a wierd new Apple branded browser. This was back in the day, way back in the day. There is a version of Mac OS X that runs on Intel now. Apple has always evaluated Intel, and refuses to flat out say they "won't use intel". It's going to happen. This few little tidbits + sources I'm familar with have all signs pointing to yes. All in time...
I am sure that Apple does have such a skunkworks project, but it is nowhere near ready for consumer debut within the next few months. What purpose does this serve?
Follow the money... who would benefit from this rumor?
Intel.
Ever notice how these rumors almost always avoid an AMD solution?
I don't see Apple being this stupid. The idea of x86 on a Mac has been tossed around before, but there is a major sales problem for Apple if this happens. A limited # of people would buy a x86 Mac I'm sure, but most PC users would continue to buy PC's or build their own which is one of the two possible directions I would take. Some others (my # 1 choice) would leave the platform all together. I would go with something like an older SGI Irix system on a mips processor or something.
The question Apple has to ask itself, and answer is:
What makes it a Mac to a Mac user?
As I see it it's not just the OS. It's the fact that Apple, and the loyal Mac faithful have kept it alive through extremely tough times, and refused x86 conformity, and still remain.
The G4's lackluster performance issues have plagued the thought of the Mac choice in the eyes of the majority of the rest of the (x86 using) computing world, and they would not adopt as quickly as Apple would have hoped because of it.
That can easily change with the G5. All the G5 needs is to survive a few updates, and match the highest GHz of it's x86 counterparts in a showdown say 3.5GHz vs. 3.5GHz, and blow it away just to announce that the MHz myth is just a Myth. Then Stevereno can show just how much faster it is once the playing field was leveled. And he is standing on top with a Machine that no one can deny.
The previous demo's, and speeches don't make as much of an impact to the other side (x86 side) when your a non conformist RISC processing argument striving to become equal. They make dents, and ding's but no true impact will be as great as trouncing a few strongly built PC's in categories that matter.
I say it's 3.
Let Steve keep one of Dell's highend systems up there for the majority of consumer applications to demo on, because Dell is the strong Seller in the PC world and sales is what we are trying to achieve.
Use a powerhouse BOXX for 3D apps, Music maybe? and whatever else they (Apple) decides.
Then use a highend Alienware system to show DOOM, QUAKE, AND WHAT NOT to achieve whatever gamers (and everyone else watching) need to see to convince them there are no nitche players here.
Those are three strong points, and three of the consumer/prosumer strongholds Apple needs to concur to bring the Mac back into power.
Commercial sales.
Highend Performance starved apps.
Gaming performance to complete the show of force.
I believe all this can happen with the G5, and I believe Apple would be making a big mistake if they move to x86.
They are so close to achieving what I've been dreaming of seeing for a long time.
And no I'm not forgetting the other selling areas like Apples world class software that already blows away all others, and is second to none, or the consumer level (basically free) iApps, but they would naturally get worked into the the mix during the demo. Nor am I forgetting the other Markets, but I get sick of typing, and Apple usually doesn't throw everything into one keynote.
I posted re: this topic about a year ago and most of the burns have sufficiently healed for me to comment.
I had a one-time opportunity to get some information from a friend of a friend who is relatively high up at Apple. He said, a year ago, that Apple was working on an Intel based machine for the education market only. It ran OS X but with a fixed and limited software suite (presumably to minimize compatibility issues). The idea was to get a very cheap educational alternative into the market.
Again, he said that Apple was working on it, not that any decision had been made to produce such a machine. The program may have been killed 6 months ago for all I know.
I never got any further information, and I have no guess how likely such a venture is. Ultimately, Apple will do what it thinks will increase profits and market share.
He said, a year ago, that Apple was working on an Intel based machine for the education market only. It ran OS X but with a fixed and limited software suite (presumably to minimize compatibility issues). The idea was to get a very cheap educational alternative into the market.
And why would an Intel based Mac be cheaper than a PPC based?
REDMOND, Wash. - Sept. 02, 2003 -- Microsoft Corp. announced today that it will be entering talks with Apple Computer Corp. (Cupertino, California) to become an exclusive licensee for a PC based version of the wildly popular operating system OS X. According to the V.P. of marketing at Microsoft, this revamped version will run on most existing PC's and will be known as "Windows-X".
The licensing agreement will be one of the largest in industry history. "We are talking a record amount of revenue here! It will be the best of both worlds. The GUI on both platforms is so close at this point it will be a natural transition."
"It's actually a logical extension of our planned growth", said Microsoft
chairman Bill Gates, "It really is going to be a positive arrangement for
everyone, this is what we all have wanted for some time".
"Software distribution will no longer be an issue as it will be able to run on both major platforms.", Bill Gates said leaving a high level meeting with Apple Executives.
Microsoft and Apple have had a long lasting partnership with Microsoft providing productivity and internet software for Apple operating systems.
About Apple
Apple (NASDAQ "AAPL") ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Apple is committed to bringing the best personal computing experience to students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the world through its innovative hardware, software and Internet offerings.
About Microsoft
Founded in 1975, Microsoft (NASDAQ "MSFT") is the worldwide leader in
software for personal computers. The company offers a wide range of products and services for public, business and personal use, each designed with the mission of making it easier and more enjoyable for people to take advantage of the full power of personal computing.
Actually what he is saying is very true. I don't know about the timeframe, but I stand by the author. I don't know who the hell would be telling him but it's very true.
Some of you might remember a reader who posted about the intel test systems running marklar and a wierd new Apple branded browser. This was back in the day, way back in the day.
There is a version of Mac OS X that runs on Intel now. Apple has always evaluated Intel, and refuses to flat out say they "won't use intel".
It's going to happen. This few little tidbits + sources I'm familar with have all signs pointing to yes.
All in time...
Ok, first off, I am not a big person for the whole Intel archetecture. I love the PowerPC, almost as much as I love OS X. Now, I can see an addition of allowing x86 boxes use OS X, but not now. Here is why:
1) Microsoft is in the process of shooting themselves in the foot with the Longhorn project, as well as with the DRMs that are being put into place as well as the licencing agreements.
2) Apple has got a couple of agreements with AMD currently (what do you think is powering the Aitport Extreme cards and base-stations: AMD chips).
3) In 2006, when Longhorn is due to come out, and trys to force everyone to switch, people will have gotten throughly upset and tired of Microsoft's bullying. Need proof of this?? More companies and government agencies are going to Linux, or flavors thereof. So, in 2006, Apple comes out with the x86 variant of OS X. Many people have loved the intuitive interface, the sleek design, and the robust power of UNIX that OS X comes with. Plus, by then, any and pretty much all of our complaints should have been handled by now.
Mind you, this is just one situation where OS X comes out for x86. However, and I mean HOWEVER I do not believe that the x86 will EVER replace the PowerPC archeticture for the Apple branded computers. Never.
This rumor is not about OS X on x86. It's about OS X on Itanium, which uses a totally different architecture, and which can only run x86 code in emulation, s l o w l y.
It's big. It's hot (100W per CPU in the next iteration). It's expensive. Its power/watt and power/cost ratios suck relative to the 970. It's pure 64 bit, meaning that it can't run 32-bit code natively. It requires singularly sophisticated and elaborate compilers (not gcc) to perform at all well because unlike the 970, it doesn't do any optimization itself (well, it might not force the compiler to manage its L1 cache, I don't know). There are, at last count, approximately 2,000 applications for the platform, which makes the Mac software universe look vast. Intel and HP have struggled for years first to get it out the door - where it promptly flopped - and then to get anyone to adopt it. Two divisions within IBM have made it their mission to drive it off the market (and, IBM being IBM, another division is selling it).
If Apple adopted it, they'd be at the mercy of Intel and HP and Microsoft, and (incidentally) in bed with all of IBM's worst enemies. Now, maybe the enterprise division has found some situation in which this costly, thinly supported non-starter of an architecture is a way into server rooms. But the idea of Apple switching wholesale boggles the mind. I honestly can't think of a single advantage.
Now, Apple shipping an Opteron server? Sure, I can see that. That actually makes sense, because it can ride the coattails of Linux - and if it's binary compatible with mainstream Linux without being Linux then it'll look that much more attractive to those poor Dell customers who've been told that they're at the mercy of SCO.
NaplesX, I would like to see link to that article.
Also, why would IBM spend billions of dollars on new chip facilities, and R&D for the 970, and beyond just to drop it all, and start blowing intel? Apple said they researched using intel in the stevenote, and he said no way as far as I can remember. I don't see apple using AMD for servers either. What the heck is that supposed to accomplish? Apples server software already supports everything, and there is no need to use a x86 processor for it.
Also once 3GHz G5's start rolling out of IBM's facilities all x86's are going to be dust in the wind. It makes no sense.
And why would an Intel based Mac be cheaper than a PPC based?
Good question. I don't have a good answer, but Dell is selling PC's to the education market for as low as $299. The eMac, albeit with monitor, is twice as much. As pointed out frequently on these boards, price is consistantly mentioned as a primary reason by schools abandoning the Mac platform. Perhaps the R&D costs can be reduced by using OEM PC parts to the point where a price competitive machine is possible.
I'm not addressing quality or performance, just price.
Good question. I don't have a good answer, but Dell is selling PC's to the education market for as low as $299. The eMac, albeit with monitor, is twice as much.
[...]
I'm not addressing quality or performance, just price.
In other words, Apple could probably make a cheaper machine, rather than bringing in a whole new architecture.
The eMac has a 60W amplifier, built-in speakers, a nice enclosure, FireWire, etc. etc. It's not a stripped down PC by any means. Leaving aside the question of whether the Dells are in any way suited to the task, I'm sure Apple could match them, or come close, if they wanted to. If they're even asked to.
Of course, if you buy in bulk via bid, Apple doesn't charge anything even close to retail price.
Comments
Originally posted by witsend
Could it be pssible for eMacs...iMacs et al up to the current "Pro" G5 Range to use an Intel chip? It might make sense to use a very cheap Intel chip in them instead of G4 chips just to get the price down for entry level.
As I understand it, the G4 is cheaper than a P4. The problem is in the R&D of designing custom mother boards and chip sets to fit within the award winning industrial design of the AIO computers that Apple has, as well as paying for the software development that maintains and advances the Mac OS, and its value added software.
Answer these questions about an Apple Intel system:
-Will this increase Apple maket share enough to off set
the drop in the system margins: No (Apple would have to go from about 3.5% of the market to at least 15%)
-Will Microsoft still make Mac OSX Office: No
-Will game makers increase their titles: No
-Now that Apple has the IBM PPC 970 with a clear road map,
50% increase in processor speed with in the year. Does Apple really want to switch?: No
-Is this rumor BS: YES
Some of you might remember a reader who posted about the intel test systems running marklar and a wierd new Apple branded browser. This was back in the day, way back in the day.
There is a version of Mac OS X that runs on Intel now. Apple has always evaluated Intel, and refuses to flat out say they "won't use intel".
It's going to happen. This few little tidbits + sources I'm familar with have all signs pointing to yes.
All in time...
Originally posted by inkhead
Actually what he is saying is very true. I don't know about the timeframe, but I stand by the author. I don't know who the hell would be telling him but it's very true.
Some of you might remember a reader who posted about the intel test systems running marklar and a wierd new Apple branded browser. This was back in the day, way back in the day.
There is a version of Mac OS X that runs on Intel now. Apple has always evaluated Intel, and refuses to flat out say they "won't use intel".
It's going to happen. This few little tidbits + sources I'm familar with have all signs pointing to yes.
All in time...
The same sources that said that Panther would be released in December, then November and now October? (Those are the three months you mentioned here and on MacNN)
Apple will not dump the PowerPC!!
Can you tell me one advantage of going Intel?
Originally posted by inkhead
Actually what he is saying is very true. I don't know about the timeframe, but I stand by the author. I don't know who the hell would be telling him but it's very true.
Some of you might remember a reader who posted about the intel test systems running marklar and a wierd new Apple branded browser. This was back in the day, way back in the day.
There is a version of Mac OS X that runs on Intel now. Apple has always evaluated Intel, and refuses to flat out say they "won't use intel".
It's going to happen. This few little tidbits + sources I'm familar with have all signs pointing to yes.
All in time...
Yeah, all in time... just like the powerbook update
Seriously though - a switch to Intel is gonna happen?... what are you smoking buddy?
Apple tests a lot of things that never make it to market. Smart company's have contingencies, end of story.
Originally posted by inkhead
Actually what he is saying is very true. I don't know about the timeframe, but I stand by the author. I don't know who the hell would be telling him but it's very true. Some of you might remember a reader who posted about the intel test systems running marklar and a wierd new Apple branded browser. This was back in the day, way back in the day. There is a version of Mac OS X that runs on Intel now. Apple has always evaluated Intel, and refuses to flat out say they "won't use intel". It's going to happen. This few little tidbits + sources I'm familar with have all signs pointing to yes. All in time...
I am sure that Apple does have such a skunkworks project, but it is nowhere near ready for consumer debut within the next few months. What purpose does this serve?
Follow the money... who would benefit from this rumor?
Intel.
Ever notice how these rumors almost always avoid an AMD solution?
- The question Apple has to ask itself, and answer is:
- What makes it a Mac to a Mac user?
As I see it it's not just the OS. It's the fact that Apple, and the loyal Mac faithful have kept it alive through extremely tough times, and refused x86 conformity, and still remain.The G4's lackluster performance issues have plagued the thought of the Mac choice in the eyes of the majority of the rest of the (x86 using) computing world, and they would not adopt as quickly as Apple would have hoped because of it.
That can easily change with the G5. All the G5 needs is to survive a few updates, and match the highest GHz of it's x86 counterparts in a showdown say 3.5GHz vs. 3.5GHz, and blow it away just to announce that the MHz myth is just a Myth. Then Stevereno can show just how much faster it is once the playing field was leveled. And he is standing on top with a Machine that no one can deny.
The previous demo's, and speeches don't make as much of an impact to the other side (x86 side) when your a non conformist RISC processing argument striving to become equal. They make dents, and ding's but no true impact will be as great as trouncing a few strongly built PC's in categories that matter.
I say it's 3.
- Let Steve keep one of Dell's highend systems up there for the majority of consumer applications to demo on, because Dell is the strong Seller in the PC world and sales is what we are trying to achieve.
- Use a powerhouse BOXX for 3D apps, Music maybe? and whatever else they (Apple) decides.
- Then use a highend Alienware system to show DOOM, QUAKE, AND WHAT NOT to achieve whatever gamers (and everyone else watching) need to see to convince them there are no nitche players here.
Those are three strong points, and three of the consumer/prosumer strongholds Apple needs to concur to bring the Mac back into power.- Commercial sales.
- Highend Performance starved apps.
- Gaming performance to complete the show of force.
I believe all this can happen with the G5, and I believe Apple would be making a big mistake if they move to x86.They are so close to achieving what I've been dreaming of seeing for a long time.
And no I'm not forgetting the other selling areas like Apples world class software that already blows away all others, and is second to none, or the consumer level (basically free) iApps, but they would naturally get worked into the the mix during the demo. Nor am I forgetting the other Markets, but I get sick of typing, and Apple usually doesn't throw everything into one keynote.
I had a one-time opportunity to get some information from a friend of a friend who is relatively high up at Apple. He said, a year ago, that Apple was working on an Intel based machine for the education market only. It ran OS X but with a fixed and limited software suite (presumably to minimize compatibility issues). The idea was to get a very cheap educational alternative into the market.
Again, he said that Apple was working on it, not that any decision had been made to produce such a machine. The program may have been killed 6 months ago for all I know.
I never got any further information, and I have no guess how likely such a venture is. Ultimately, Apple will do what it thinks will increase profits and market share.
Originally posted by neumac
He said, a year ago, that Apple was working on an Intel based machine for the education market only. It ran OS X but with a fixed and limited software suite (presumably to minimize compatibility issues). The idea was to get a very cheap educational alternative into the market.
And why would an Intel based Mac be cheaper than a PPC based?
... that quote from appleturns.com.
Mmm, I just love a cold shot of dry humor once in a while.
The licensing agreement will be one of the largest in industry history. "We are talking a record amount of revenue here! It will be the best of both worlds. The GUI on both platforms is so close at this point it will be a natural transition."
"It's actually a logical extension of our planned growth", said Microsoft
chairman Bill Gates, "It really is going to be a positive arrangement for
everyone, this is what we all have wanted for some time".
"Software distribution will no longer be an issue as it will be able to run on both major platforms.", Bill Gates said leaving a high level meeting with Apple Executives.
Microsoft and Apple have had a long lasting partnership with Microsoft providing productivity and internet software for Apple operating systems.
About Apple
Apple (NASDAQ "AAPL") ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Apple is committed to bringing the best personal computing experience to students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the world through its innovative hardware, software and Internet offerings.
About Microsoft
Founded in 1975, Microsoft (NASDAQ "MSFT") is the worldwide leader in
software for personal computers. The company offers a wide range of products and services for public, business and personal use, each designed with the mission of making it easier and more enjoyable for people to take advantage of the full power of personal computing.
Originally posted by BostonMH
-Will Microsoft still make Mac OSX Office: No
Um...why?
Originally posted by inkhead
Actually what he is saying is very true. I don't know about the timeframe, but I stand by the author. I don't know who the hell would be telling him but it's very true.
Some of you might remember a reader who posted about the intel test systems running marklar and a wierd new Apple branded browser. This was back in the day, way back in the day.
There is a version of Mac OS X that runs on Intel now. Apple has always evaluated Intel, and refuses to flat out say they "won't use intel".
It's going to happen. This few little tidbits + sources I'm familar with have all signs pointing to yes.
All in time...
Ok, first off, I am not a big person for the whole Intel archetecture. I love the PowerPC, almost as much as I love OS X. Now, I can see an addition of allowing x86 boxes use OS X, but not now. Here is why:
1) Microsoft is in the process of shooting themselves in the foot with the Longhorn project, as well as with the DRMs that are being put into place as well as the licencing agreements.
2) Apple has got a couple of agreements with AMD currently (what do you think is powering the Aitport Extreme cards and base-stations: AMD chips).
3) In 2006, when Longhorn is due to come out, and trys to force everyone to switch, people will have gotten throughly upset and tired of Microsoft's bullying. Need proof of this?? More companies and government agencies are going to Linux, or flavors thereof. So, in 2006, Apple comes out with the x86 variant of OS X. Many people have loved the intuitive interface, the sleek design, and the robust power of UNIX that OS X comes with. Plus, by then, any and pretty much all of our complaints should have been handled by now.
Mind you, this is just one situation where OS X comes out for x86. However, and I mean HOWEVER I do not believe that the x86 will EVER replace the PowerPC archeticture for the Apple branded computers. Never.
It's big. It's hot (100W per CPU in the next iteration). It's expensive. Its power/watt and power/cost ratios suck relative to the 970. It's pure 64 bit, meaning that it can't run 32-bit code natively. It requires singularly sophisticated and elaborate compilers (not gcc) to perform at all well because unlike the 970, it doesn't do any optimization itself (well, it might not force the compiler to manage its L1 cache, I don't know). There are, at last count, approximately 2,000 applications for the platform, which makes the Mac software universe look vast. Intel and HP have struggled for years first to get it out the door - where it promptly flopped - and then to get anyone to adopt it. Two divisions within IBM have made it their mission to drive it off the market (and, IBM being IBM, another division is selling it).
If Apple adopted it, they'd be at the mercy of Intel and HP and Microsoft, and (incidentally) in bed with all of IBM's worst enemies. Now, maybe the enterprise division has found some situation in which this costly, thinly supported non-starter of an architecture is a way into server rooms. But the idea of Apple switching wholesale boggles the mind. I honestly can't think of a single advantage.
Now, Apple shipping an Opteron server? Sure, I can see that. That actually makes sense, because it can ride the coattails of Linux - and if it's binary compatible with mainstream Linux without being Linux then it'll look that much more attractive to those poor Dell customers who've been told that they're at the mercy of SCO.
Also, why would IBM spend billions of dollars on new chip facilities, and R&D for the 970, and beyond just to drop it all, and start blowing intel? Apple said they researched using intel in the stevenote, and he said no way as far as I can remember. I don't see apple using AMD for servers either. What the heck is that supposed to accomplish? Apples server software already supports everything, and there is no need to use a x86 processor for it.
Also once 3GHz G5's start rolling out of IBM's facilities all x86's are going to be dust in the wind. It makes no sense.
Originally posted by JLL
And why would an Intel based Mac be cheaper than a PPC based?
Good question. I don't have a good answer, but Dell is selling PC's to the education market for as low as $299. The eMac, albeit with monitor, is twice as much. As pointed out frequently on these boards, price is consistantly mentioned as a primary reason by schools abandoning the Mac platform. Perhaps the R&D costs can be reduced by using OEM PC parts to the point where a price competitive machine is possible.
I'm not addressing quality or performance, just price.
Originally posted by neumac
Good question. I don't have a good answer, but Dell is selling PC's to the education market for as low as $299. The eMac, albeit with monitor, is twice as much.
[...]
I'm not addressing quality or performance, just price.
In other words, Apple could probably make a cheaper machine, rather than bringing in a whole new architecture.
The eMac has a 60W amplifier, built-in speakers, a nice enclosure, FireWire, etc. etc. It's not a stripped down PC by any means. Leaving aside the question of whether the Dells are in any way suited to the task, I'm sure Apple could match them, or come close, if they wanted to. If they're even asked to.
Of course, if you buy in bulk via bid, Apple doesn't charge anything even close to retail price.