WSJ: Apple considering the use of Intel chips in Macs

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 129
    Quote:

    Originally posted by inslider

    1. If Apple was willing to switch to DVI, they're willing to look at Intel. They've seen the pros of conforming to standards and may now be looking to gain these benefits on a larger scale. They realized they can still innovate and be standardized with the rest of the computing world at the same time.





    They did this solely because of power issues. The PCI connection was not designed to deliver huge power to a 30 inch LCD - plane and simple.





    Quote:

    2. Don't underestimate the grudge Steve carries about the 3GHz comment - no - let's call it what it was - A PROMISE. I guarantee he did not make that statement lightly and all but had IBM sign off on it in blood. Combine this public humiliation (and let's realize that's what it was) with the fact that there still is no Mac over 2.7GHz, and even that has to be buried under 200 feet of Artic pack ice to keep it from blowing up like an Iraqi car bomb. I will lose respect for Steve (as will his employees and stockholders) if this IBM-still-under-3GHz-thing continues much longer. Don't think that the announcement of the XBox specs didn't grind some salt into the wound, even if they're not the same type of PPC that could drive a Mac.



    Someone had their triple espresso this morning. I think you had better worry more about your own grudge, it might lower your blood pressure and save your life.



    Let the engineers do their job. Companies rarely ever over promise in a public way on purpose and never deliver. It depresses stock values way to fast - just not smart business.
  • Reply 62 of 129
    mynameheremynamehere Posts: 560member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by david_oc

    Wasn't there a story a while back that Apple already use intel chips in the Xserve RAID?



    They do. I believe the title of the article was something along the lines of "Apple has Intel Inside (Sort of)"
  • Reply 63 of 129
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by [email protected]

    I was the OpenStep and NextStep PM for Sun at the time. We did the port to SPARC and Sun x86. The Cocoa libs and PDF were ported. Cocoa still has the remenents. Look at Foundation and App Kits...they still have NS prefix to them. NS is for NEXTSTEP.



    Apple can do the port, the big/little endian stuff has been done.



    My former Sun bosses without naming names are there at VP levels and are from Sun and directly worked on this. It can be done, not pretty but it can be done and could leverage existing codebase.




    Correction: NS is for Openstep. NX is for NeXTSTEP. I know I worked at NeXT and Apple.



    FAT Binaries are always a possibility but that takes into account that you are dealing solely with Cocoa applications and to waste more resources on CFM Fat binaries will only add complexity to an already bloated structure which supports Classic and Carbon when it should be just Cocoa.
  • Reply 64 of 129
    wilcowilco Posts: 985member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Catman4d2

    ...the day apple starts using CRAPTEL technology...



    Did you make that up yourself?
  • Reply 65 of 129
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Outsider

    Question # 345



    Which one of these does not belong?



    Xbox moves from x86 to PowerPC.

    Playstation moves from proprietary to PowerPC.

    Gamecube goes from embedded PowerPC to PowerPC.

    Apple goes from PowerPC to Intel.




    Stop asking difficult questions!
  • Reply 66 of 129
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by msconvert

    They did this solely because of power issues. The PCI connection was not designed to deliver huge power to a 30 inch LCD - plane and simple.





    They did it to sell more monitors to PC users who had problems with the idea of having to buy adaptors.



    Plain and simple.
  • Reply 67 of 129
    iposteriposter Posts: 1,560member
    Three words:



    Intel Extreme Graphics!!!







  • Reply 68 of 129
    arty50arty50 Posts: 201member
    I'm willing to bet the answer to this is really, really simple...



    http://www.intel.com/netcomms/technologies/wimax/
  • Reply 69 of 129
    os x guyos x guy Posts: 68member
    Could this, perhaps, explain the delay in bringing out the next generation Powerbooks?
  • Reply 70 of 129
    murkmurk Posts: 935member
    Smoke screen for real WWDC announcements.
  • Reply 71 of 129
    trtamtrtam Posts: 111member
    To join Intel would be to join the devil himself...



    Well...depends...
  • Reply 72 of 129
    Quote:

    Originally posted by murk

    Smoke screen for real WWDC announcements.



    my first thought as well
  • Reply 73 of 129
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by OS X Guy

    Could this, perhaps, explain the delay in bringing out the next generation Powerbooks?



    Everything explains that.
  • Reply 74 of 129
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    After all, virtualization is just another way to adapt hardware for customers.



    Strangely enough, IBM was touting the advantages of virtualization at a co-IBM/VMWare session I attended a month or so ago. Of course, they were talking about bringing all the standalone servers into a main virtual server environment powered by their blade servers. Didn't help with MS licensing either.



    In any event, a virtual thing is a possibility, heck Apple did it with Classic when OS X first arrived. Thanks to Microsoft's lack of Exchange support in OS X, the company I work for is still tied to the bastard child. Virtualization is fine, but in the long run, is just a means of conversion.



    I suppose some software houses (read: Adobe) would be happy to hear that Apple would choose x86. I just do not see it happening despite all the upside; and I just don't see much of one.
  • Reply 75 of 129
    zazzaz Posts: 177member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Outsider

    Question # 345



    Which one of these does not belong?



    Xbox moves from x86 to PowerPC.

    Playstation moves from proprietary to PowerPC.

    Gamecube goes from embedded PowerPC to PowerPC.

    Apple goes from PowerPC to Intel.




    Wait?



    I know this one?
  • Reply 76 of 129
    brendonbrendon Posts: 642member
    It would be very "Steve" like for Apple to leak this to help them in their dealings with IBM for better processors or better prices. Freescale is not up to the task yet and Apple is sniffing around to see how much of the technology that IBM put into the development of chips for MS and Sony they can get at the Apple discount. This is just smart business, IMHO. IBM should be reminded from time to time that Apple can port to Intel. And not to be forgotten is that Apples development costs for board design would go way down, video boards would be easier to support and maybe cheaper. I believe that Intel has some very compelling chips and maybe what IBM has to offer cannot be offered and supplied at a price that is good for Apple. If Apple is paying 20% more for a processor that is 30% faster is one thing, however, if Apple is paying 30+% more (when factoring in board costs, and video chip costs) for a chip that is 10 to 15% faster or less, is quite another thing.



    Also never forget that Steves good friend Andy Grove extended an offer to Apple that they would love to work with Apple. I believe that he said that Apple would never have to worry about supply and could not beat the price. I think that Alien and Boxx both use Intel and they put up very good numbers.
  • Reply 77 of 129
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Brendon

    It would be very "Steve" like for Apple to leak this to help them in their dealings with IBM for better processors or better prices. Freescale is not up to the task yet and Apple is sniffing around to see how much of the technology that IBM put into the development of chips for MS and Sony they can get at the Apple discount. This is just smart business, IMHO. IBM should be reminded from time to time that Apple can port to Intel. And not to be forgotten is that Apples development costs for board design would go way down, video boards would be easier to support and maybe cheaper. I believe that Intel has some very compelling chips and maybe what IBM has to offer cannot be offered and supplied at a price that is good for Apple. If Apple is paying 20% more for a processor that is 30% faster is one thing, however, if Apple is paying 30+% more (when factoring in board costs, and video chip costs) for a chip that is 10 to 15% faster or less, is quite another thing.



    I'm not so sure about that. Those game chips are not the chips that Apple is using by any stretch. It's doubtful that they would be any good as general purpose processors at this time.



    I'm also not so sure about how much of that technology can be transferable, even if IBM's licenses with MS and Sony would allow it.



    Even if it could, it would take some time. Apple would then have to do more major rewrites of the OS to accommodate them, and so on.



    I think that Apple's chips are on a different development path.
  • Reply 78 of 129
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    I will not be surprise if Apple has some contacts with Intel. Intel is a major chip supplier, involved in more than just CPU.



    The idear of the switch is ridiculous, but it cost nothing to have some contact in case of a (desesparate) plan B.



    A switch to x86 will be the end of Apple.
  • Reply 79 of 129
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    I actually think something like cell or MS' processor would work very well as a laptop chip. Keep in mind a lot of the limitations present in it are present in the G4 so it is really just a case of which would be quicker per second.



    Just depends on how hot they get and their power management. Neither of those consoles is a Powerbook.
  • Reply 80 of 129
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    Smells like bullshit from here.



    We heard exactly the same rumors back when Apple was saddled with that Motorola poo for CPUs. I think I even remember some articles in "respected" papers like the WSJ speculating on an imminent switch to x86 by Apple. There was a switch all right, but Apple stuck with PPC + Altivec/VMX.



    The only thing I can think of is, maybe IBM has some serious issues we don't know about. Although the PPC 970 currently compares favorably to x86 offerings - far more than the G4 ever did - there are plenty of warning signs that IBM is about to pull a Motorola on Apple. It seems unlikely given IBM's prowess at CPU design and fab, but who knows, maybe Jobs pissed off the wrong IBM executive at some point.



    I give this rumor 10% probability, a notch up from MOSR. The news reader on NPR made it sound like a done deal. I can't wait to read about all the disappointed stock traders/analyst when this turns out to be bull. Oh wait, I forgot - analysts never admit to being wrong!
Sign In or Register to comment.