Intel-based Macs coming soon?

145791022

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 433
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    i call head fake. i've had some time to sleep on this, and i feel that the Intel discussion is mainly about a possible TabletMac, but this is just very preliminary discussions.



    a clear IBM-centric strategy will be revealed on Monday. bring on the next-gen CPUs, Apple and IBM will see us Mac fans through to the end of the decade.



    i could be wrong, but this is my feeling at the moment.



    also my feeling is Nadal will win the French Open.
  • Reply 122 of 433
    apparatusapparatus Posts: 78member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by solsun

    It actually doesn't say anything about Intel it says Pentium. I'd say the chances are high that future Macs will not be running a Pentium chip as we know it... but rather a brand new Intel PPC chip designed specifically for Apple.



    Chances? What kind of chances? Why would Intel invest all the money needed to develop and fabricate a PPC chip just for Apple? They're not a big enough customer for all that.



    It's x86 or bust.
  • Reply 123 of 433
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    I think there must be a grain of truth in this rumor, especially to get this much press (albeit potentially inaccurate press).



    A new device must use some intel chip. This would satisfy these claims but still root primary Mac development in PPC land. The new machine could run OS X, Dashboard, some media and other Apple apps, and XCode could compile for it.



    I dunno. This whole drama is the most primetime coverage I've seen for the issue. I can't wait to see what's announced Monday





    Edit: spelling
  • Reply 124 of 433
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Programmer

    Yes, I hate the x86 ISA and think it sucks. ... If the "X on x86" is the real path Steve has chosen, he is going to have some fancy footwork to do.



    Of course he likes doing fancy footwork. I think a lot of Mac users are still unhappy that the MacOS 9 to 10 conversion was a lot more expensive than they expected. And here he expects people to buy all new software again? Corporate loyalty works both ways, Steve.



    Intel won't make a PPC, you guys can give that up. They make Pentiums and ARMs. (Didn't the Newton use an ARM?)
  • Reply 125 of 433
    bandalaybandalay Posts: 116member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Xool

    I think their must be a grain of truth in this rumor, especially to get this much press (albeit potentially inaccurate press).



    A new device must use some intel chip. This would satisfy these claims but still root primary Mac development in PPC land. The new machine could run OS X, Dashboard, some media and other Apple apps, and XCode could compile for it.



    I dunno. This whole drama is the most primetime coverage I've seen for the issue. I can't wait to see what's announced Monday




    This would certainly answer the "Apple volume is insignificant" charge. A consumer device, with the same kind of sales as the iPod would mean an awful lot of processors, even to Intel. The fact that it would be branded Intel would mean as little to users as the ARM/PortalPlayer chips in the iPod.



    Announcing it at a developers conference is an interesting choice. Whether it's relevant to the audience is unclear, and past announcements seem to suggest WWDC has become the summer keynote venue that MacWorld New York used to be, and not just the domain of OS revelations.



    If it is somehow relevant, then perhaps it's an extension to the iPod concept, and now there's enough processor and user interface to have developers write applications for it. iPod with a keyboard? Pen interface? Something?
  • Reply 126 of 433
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    Just to add a couple of wild thoughts here. Probably way off base but then probably so are the WSJ, CNet and that tit Thurrot. Bearing in mind they are usually 100% back asswards wrong, I thought I'd turn this rumour around.



    So, I reckon Intel are going PowerPC. ;-)



    My 'reasoning'.



    Microsoft's Xbox 360 chips are supposedly being manufactured by other fabs besides IBM's East Fishkill plant. I'd guess Sony too. At the level of production they'd need for millions of consoles, they'd have to manufacturer them somewhere else. Maybe Intel is fabbing them?



    Secondly, Apple is notably absent from signing up to the Power.org consortium as for that matter are Motorola/Freescale. I've been wondering why? Surely they'd be founding members? The technology is supposedly licensable to others. What if Intel became a Power licence? What if the talks between Apple and Intel have been to persuade Intel to join the Power camp, not to persuade Apple to join the Intel camp?



    Think how many Xbox, Sony PS3 and Nintendos will ship in the next few years without Intel chips in them. Think how many of those consoles will be used instead of slower PCs. Can you imagine Intel NOT wanting a piece of that?



    The X86 has stalled. Intel have been trying to move away from it for 2 decades at least but continually fail as their traditional customers see no benefit. With Apple, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, Intel has a large customer base to tap.



    There's no advantage for Apple to move to X86. There's every advantage for Intel to move to Power.





    If Intel's CEO appears on stage with Steve and announces the new Intel G6 PowerPC, you can all thank me for my wild punditry. ;-)
  • Reply 127 of 433
    sybariticsybaritic Posts: 340member
    Quote:

    originally posted by aegisdesign:

    There's no advantage for Apple to move to X86. There's every advantage for Intel to move to Power.

    If Intel's CEO appears on stage with Steve and announces the new Intel G6 PowerPC, you can all thank me for my wild punditry. ;-)




    As unlikely as this is, if you are correct, I think most of us would be VERY happy.
  • Reply 128 of 433
    g3prog3pro Posts: 669member
    I for one welcome our Intel-produced microprocessor overlords.
  • Reply 129 of 433
    louzerlouzer Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bandalay

    This would certainly answer the "Apple volume is insignificant" charge. A consumer device, with the same kind of sales as the iPod would mean an awful lot of processors, even to Intel. The fact that it would be branded Intel would mean as little to users as the ARM/PortalPlayer chips in the iPod.





    So we're now reaching that, not only is it a new device, not a mac, but it's somehow going to have the same kind of sales as the iPod (no problem, I'm sure, since its got an Apple logo on it, right!), and this is somehow going to answer some "volume is insignificant" charge? Well, Apple's marketshare in COMPUTERS is insignificant. A new consumer device isn't going to help that. Only if its running OS X, and software written for it will just work on Macs will it get some more software written for Apple (and despite everyone saying "its just a simple recompile", the problem is getting the developers developing for x86, say, to recompile it for PPC. Or vice versa. Developers will only do it if there's money in the activity. Regardless of how easy it is. There's support issues, testing issues, etc. Its not just "Recompile and send it out".



    Oh, and is this switch to Intel going to magically get us drivers for all that windows only hardware out there? I'm tired of having to make sure a peripheral says "OS X support" when looking for a new printer, scanner, camera, etc, etc, etc.



    Hey, and maybe all of this is being done so Apple can finally dump Fairplay and license WMA so they can get all those great subscription services to work with iTunes and the iPod. Did you think of that!????
  • Reply 130 of 433
    louzerlouzer Posts: 1,054member
    BTW, the Wall Street Journal may have the exact same source as CNET, so a confirmation isn't necessarily an independent confirmation.
  • Reply 131 of 433
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by brent1a

    The term "with the matter" tells me a lot because using the term "with the matter" doesn't say "with the matter of the switch from PPC to x86". It tells me that it could mean a million things or nothing at all and this "industry exec" could be anyone in the industry AHEM and how big is the PC industry?

    Not to mention who is to say that this is or isn't the same "industry exec" that CNET got a hold of? (like I stated before).




    No, "With the matter" is referring to the second half of the sentence which goes on to say "the schedule outlined in the story." Meaning the source is confirming that Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007.



    How reliable this source is, we have no idea, BUT it does say specifically that Apple is moving to Intel chips for it's CPU's (Mini's and Powermacs.)



    It also says nothing about x86 which in my opinion means this will be a new chip. Whatever chip this is it has to be able to support OSX in 64bit...x86 seems like an unlikely candidate.
  • Reply 132 of 433
    sybariticsybaritic Posts: 340member
    Quote:

    originally posted by solsun:

    It also says nothing about x86 which in my opinion means this will be a new chip. Whatever chip this is it has to be able to support OSX in 64bit.



    For the love of G-d, let's hope you're right. I for one am not so confident ... The more I read about Jobs, the more I've come to believe that Steve enjoys a good roll of the dice.



    Finally, I wonder how the engineers at Apple will greet the advent of a x86 Mac if that is in fact what we're looking at. We've talked to some degree in the last day about how loyal Mac users and other consumers would respond to OS X on x86, and the pain in the [email protected] for developers, but I wonder about the folks who do the work itself at Cupertino.
  • Reply 133 of 433
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,325member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eric_Z

    Oh yes you would. It'd require a bit of effort from the MOL guys, but it will be very doable.



    You have no idea at all. Don't just say that.
  • Reply 134 of 433
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,325member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by scavanger

    AMD's chips have been getting a steady speed increase. The next chip in the FX series is expected to be a 2.8ghz.



    I'm not sure what dual core chips your looking at the the Athlon 64 X2's are running on par with the single core chips...




    Really? Where didiyou read that?



    The dual chips run 10-15% slower than the singles. Go to Anand, for example and find out for yourself.
  • Reply 135 of 433
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,325member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean





    Check it out here on how many platforms Linux runs currently, and then make such statements.




    Portable doesn't mean that Linux isn't available on other platforms. Photoshop is available on other platforms, yet it isn't portable.



    Portable means that the binaries are useable unaltered across other platforms. The key word here is unaltered.



    A number of programs written for one Linux distro isn't always usable in another without a recompile, or different libraries. That's what Posix compatibility means. Look it up.
  • Reply 136 of 433
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    ...





    Linux is POSIX compliant. Look it up.
  • Reply 137 of 433
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,325member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    Linux is POSIX compliant. Look it up.



    No it's not. Only partly. As is OS X.
  • Reply 138 of 433
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    No it's not. Only partly. As is OS X.



    Fine.
  • Reply 139 of 433
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    melgross: 1, geneclean: 0

  • Reply 140 of 433
    webmailwebmail Posts: 639member
    Monday, Pentium D here we come.



    I can't wait, finally Apple is "doing the right thing". Ever since the mac has been in existance there has always been problems with getting enough processors, or enough speed out of the chipsets. At least in the future Apple will be able to be on-par speedwise with the windows world.



    It will shift industry focus away from the hardware, and onto the "user experience" an OS provides. This should be the final big step to push OS X onto desktops everywhere.



    Steve's legacy will be big ;-)
Sign In or Register to comment.