toggle

AAPL Stock: 562.29 ( -3.03 )

MacNN News

Wall Street Journal: Apple to use Intel?

updated 08:35 am EDT, Mon May 23, 2005

WSJ on Apple/Intel

Apple has been in talks that could lead to a decision soon to , The Wall Street Journal reported today. Neither company would confirm the report and an Apple spokeswoman characterized it as "rumor and speculation." Apple's pricing could become more competitive if Intel provides the kind of marketing subsidies it has given to other computer makers, the newspaper said. Apple could choose to add some Intel-based models to its product line or make a complete shift to Intel's chip technology, the newspaper said. The latter would be "seen as a serious blow to IBM's microprocessor business."

by MacNN Staff

(42)

TAGS :

Apple

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

Appleman
Mac Elite

Joined: Feb 2001

0

05/23, 08:48am | report spam | close Reply |
Intel?

Yeah right!

trevc
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2000

0

05/23, 08:51am | report spam | close Reply |
Doubt it....

... especially with all the hype of the cell processor, etc..... and seeing the specs on the PlayStation 3 compared to a multi-core PowerPC chip (XBOX 360), I'd say that Apple already has some sorta of configuration using a Cell processor in R&D!!

JohnnyFive
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 2003

0

05/23, 08:53am | report spam | close Reply |
Oh no, not again!

Ahhh the perennial Apple-will-shift-to-Intel story rears its ugly head once again. It seems to resurface every spring time for as long as I can remember. Which, in a more positive light, is a better indication of spring than the unpredictable Toronto weather.

threestain
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: Mar 2003

0

05/23, 08:55am | report spam | close Reply |
One word...

Hogwash!

JeffHarris
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 1999

0

05/23, 09:03am | report spam | close Reply |
Here we go again...

Here's the yearly speculation of Apple on Intel.

What would be the point?

Current PowerPC processors outperform Intel chips on numerous levels, especially in terms of heat and power consumption. PPCs are due to make huge jumps with multi-core processors and POWER 5 level processors.

Current Macs certainly match Wintel boxes when Wintels are are configured with similar features.

A massive move to all Intel would essentially kill small to medium Macintosh developers in droves.

Again, what would be the point?

Sounds like yet another under-researched, hit-hunting article.

83caddy16v
Forum Regular

Joined: Sep 2000

0

05/23, 09:11am | report spam | close Reply |
doubtful

OSX would then be a true direct competitor to Windows, more than ever. While it would be interesting to see the two operating systems go head to head on the same hardware, I doubt it will play out that way.

dave a
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2002

0

05/23, 09:19am | report spam | close Reply |
Maybe there's a reason

The point would be if IBM's next generation of PC processors weren't showing up, were disappointingly slow/hot, or if the new dual-core Intels just blew 'em away... and they could be used in notebooks.

Question is, would that mean all current software woudl be rubbished? And how about Classic?

( http://www.rootes-chrysler.co.uk/ is back! I know, that's off-topic.)

beb
Mac Elite

Joined: Jan 2002

0

05/23, 09:27am | report spam | close Reply |
Apple already uses Intel

XServes already have Intel controller chips. They might just be brokering a deal where they use the similar controller chips in future revisions of Apple hardware.

boomer0127
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2004

0

05/23, 09:44am | report spam | close Reply |
Maybe the gaming consoles

have tied up all the high-end chips from IBM for the forseeable future. This is how our friend Bill is finally going to blow Apple out of the water - prevent them from building boxes. Apple sees this and instead of running back to Moto with their tail between their legs, they hedge their bets and go intel. I hope not, but you never know... 3 chips per box x 1 million Xboxen this XMAS - and Apple still stuck at 2.8 GHz 18 months after the 3 GHz promise? It's a nightmare, but a possibility, knowing IBM's penchant for promising the world and not always delivering...

ArizonaKid
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 2005

0

05/23, 09:51am | report spam | close Reply |
Good, Scare IBM

I think this is great. Do whatever is needed to push the PowerBook's speed up. I have been very disappointed with IBM, and their meager increases in performance. As far as the cell, who says IBM even cares about providing this to Apple, since they have proven to be unreliable in their manufacturing process. Their commitment may be toward gaming.

Simply, the Pentium M is the best chip for notebooks, and Apple's PowerBook needs any new life it can get. And Intel is a proven chip manufacturer and deliverer. Reliability counts, and Big Blue is unreliable.

slipperfrog
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2002

0

05/23, 09:59am | report spam | close Reply |
Intel doesn't just make.

...CPUs, you know. This could be about any number of technologies. Why does it have to be about Pentiums?

This is so stupid. You've got a hearsay rumour being reported as news even by the WSJ, and suddenly it's all people can talk about.

I wouldn't mind being able to buy a dual 3.4ghz PowerMac for $1500, but there's no proof that such a thing will happen. How about a little confirmation?

Tdassel
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2004

0

05/23, 10:03am | report spam | close Reply |
HP with OS X

Hello,

my idea would be that Apple could license OS X to some major players like HP or IBM for business PCs or small servers. They would have an alternative for Windows on the desktop ( also in combination with Linux servers ) and as those machines are pretty much "standard" and don't change a lot regarding architecture and therefor drivers, it wouldn't be too hard to support them. I can't think of OS X on a ordinary PC with everchanging hardware. Apple has not the ressources to support that for a decent solution, even if Darwin runs on Intel also.

Greetings

Thomas

chas_m
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

05/23, 10:18am | report spam | close Reply |
Improbable.

Look, any chipmaker -- AMD, Intel, Moto (okay, maybe not them), ARM etc can pre-fab a chip to a blueprint. Intel is perfectly capable of offering chips that will work with Apple equipment, made to Apple's specs/requirements. They would be "Apple chips made by Intel" rather than "Intel chips" which the sheeplike PC crowd would think meant Apple=PC.

If Apple really is talking to Intel (which I doubt), it's to secure low-cost chips that can be made to work in low-end machines (maybe not even Macs at all, but other devices Apple sells or will sell). It's really not a big deal what chip a Mac (or other Apple device) runs on as long as it runs Apple's software. IBM has *clearly* staked out the high-end in terms of power (all *three* new game consoles use IBM-made PowerPC chips), Apple would be *nuts* to walk away from them.

telem
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 1999

0

05/23, 10:22am | report spam | close Reply |
Negotiating Ploy or ?

Apple may be just trying to be in a better position to negotiate with IBM/Motorola.

Could a version of OS X be created that would use current app versions, but run on Apple's Intel machines??????? maybe already done?

mozart11
Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2000

0

05/23, 10:34am | report spam | close Reply |
Good

I would like to see it myself. But if all the apps we currently have and work on the PPC , need to reconfigured and bought again it would be suicide for Apple. In that case, switch to a PC.

Greenrobotics
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2005

0

05/23, 10:41am | report spam | close Reply |
Good Scare IBM

While ArizonaKid makes some good points,he/she is incorrect about IBM. IBM is a reliable manufacturer. Ask the people at Intel.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

05/23, 12:47pm | report spam | close Reply |
Stupid call

First, this isn't your generic "Apple should use Intel" posting from some Dvorak clod. This is a report that the sides are talking. That has a lot more weight behind it, in my opinion.

Second, this would be stupid for apple to do, if they don't want to kill sales. I was thinking/planning on buying a new mac, but why should I now if in 6 months its completely outdated by switching to a completely different processor line-up?

Third, all existing apps WOULD NOT RUN! They would, at the very least, need to be recompiled to run on the Intel chips. And that's assuming they're not using ANY low-level stuff (like altivec). If they are, they'll need even more re-write. Sure, OS X packages can contain code for multiple platforms within it, but none have it now, and how many software makers would include them together (h***, hard enough to get game developers to put both on a CD, and with concerns on piracy and all...) So look forward to buying upgrades to all your software. Oh, and Apple's software will be the last to be updated, because its the most tied to the G4s and G5s.

Fourth, what's the point? Just to say you've reached 3GHz? Would OS X on Intel chips be a speed demon compared to IBM chips? (I'm not just talking which chip is faster, its all about how fast the OS runs on the stupid thing). It certainly doesn't help with driver or peripheral support, as they'd still need specific OS X drivers, you couldn't use windows drivers. So its not like this will make PCI-Express available to the Mac, nor will it likely increase current video card availability (or any other cards or hardware).

Hopefully, if we're all really lucky, this is just Apple talking to Intel about finally bowing completely out of the hardware business and trying to just sell OS X to PC makers. Because, as we all know, Apple at this point in time cares little about the computer business, has no ability to stay in the forefront, and seems incapable of getting decent hardware out or marketing their computers. Maybe its time they just gave it up and admitted they can't succeed, and let people try installing OS X on their dell boxes.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

05/23, 12:52pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: improbable

Look, any chipmaker -- AMD, Intel, Moto (okay, maybe not them), ARM etc can pre-fab a chip to a blueprint. Intel is perfectly capable of offering chips that will work with Apple equipment, made to Apple's specs/requirements. They would be "Apple chips made by Intel" rather than "Intel chips" which the sheeplike PC crowd would think meant Apple=PC.

Very unlikely. First, Apple's hardware division can't figure out how to upgrade its motherboards in less then three years. Second, they're not in the chip design business, and hopefully they'll stay out of (see reason one as for why). Third, IBM's not going to let Apple take their processor blueprints and give them to Intel to produce. Fourth, there'd have to be huge incentive for Intel to take on such a task, and with smaller sales of this specialty chip, that means larger cost as well. Finally, the question would be "why?". If your looking for a PC CPU, why would you design a whole new one, rather than looking to use one of the several proven ones out there?

the Rebel
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2000

0

05/23, 01:34pm | report spam | close Reply |
Absurd

It would absolutely insane for Apple to switch from PPC to Pentium.

A previous poster asked about Classic; the answer is that Apple haz ZERO motivation to invest R&D to make Classic run on a non-PPC processor. A switch from PPC to Pentium would mean the end of Classic. You do not have to worry though, because Apple is not going to make such a change.

Another issue is 64 bit processing. PPC are so far ahead of Intel in regards to 64 bit processing. Why would Apple make such a step backwards?

People also need to stop saying that Macs are stuck under 3Ghz. A dual 2Ghz G5 system is faster than a single processor 3Ghz G5 system would be. Of course, we have dual 2.7Ghz G5 systems available. If Apple were to start using Intel processors, what are they going to use that is faster than 2 2.7Ghz G5s? Currently Intel has a 3.8Ghz Pentium 4; who would be more happy with that than a dual G5? If you want dual processor Intel then you have to go Xeon or Itanium which cost more per processor. Right now you can get a dual 2.7Ghz G5 PowerMac for $3000. If Apple could theoretically make OS X, OpenFirmware, and everything else compatible with a Xeon, then we have to face the fact that Xeon based Macs would cost more than current PowerMacs.

There is no doubt that Apple could write OS X for Intel processors, but that does not mean that OS X would be better running on Intel processors. Apple has spent over 5 years optimizing OS X for the PPC platform. Every release of OS X has been faster than its predecessor because of these optimizations. OS X on Intel would not be able to utilize all of that optimization. It would take years for OS X to run as efficiently on a Xeon as it does on PPC.

I believe that Apple should release OS X for Intel as a software only product available exclusively from Apple Stores and Apple Authorized Dealers for $149. Apple should NOT OEM license OS X to any PC manufacturers. If users have Intel hardware and would like to try running OS X then Apple should sell it to them. However, it should be made clear to everyone that OS X was written for PPC and that it runs best on PPC. It should be made clear that OS X drivers are not necessarily going to be available for all Intel PC related hardware. It would not hurt Apple hardware sales in the least because only a fool would buy a new Intel PC to run an inferior version of OS X on Intel instead of buying a PPC Mac with OS X and lots of software preinstalled; such a person would not have bought Mac hardware under any circumstance.

cebritt
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2000

0

05/23, 02:17pm | report spam | close Reply |
Motorola doesn't make...

...chips any more. Their chip business was spun off as a new company called Freescale. Before the ink was dry on Freescale's IPO, they were talking to Apple about dual core G4 chips for notebooks. Freescale makes chips for Motorola but they're aggressively trying to expand their customer base so they'll be a lot more creative than the old Motorola.

s**** Intel. Apple should partner with AMD but either way I don't care. My stock is up 2 points today (buy on rumor, sell on news)!!

klinux
Senior User

Joined: Jul 2002

0

05/23, 02:56pm | report spam | close Reply |
chas_m is really wrong...

Too many examples to pick out but here is a couple:

"Look, any chipmaker -- AMD, Intel, Moto (okay, maybe not them), ARM etc can pre-fab a chip to a blueprint."

ARM does not make chips. It designs and licenses them.

"the sheeplike PC crowd would think meant Apple=PC."

Hello kettle. First PC = personal computer, of which Macs belong. Second, sheep-like? There is a reason for terms like fanboy and zealots. While many PC users may not be technical savvy, they are quite divergent in their make-up. If Steve tell Apple users there is a pallet of Powerbook G5s below the end of a a cliff, the questions will not be who will jump but who gets to jump first!

"If Apple really is talking to Intel (which I doubt)"

Why? Because you have special access to the executives WSJ does not?

surferboy
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Jul 2003

0

05/23, 03:05pm | report spam | close Reply |
What if....

Here's a little out-of-the-box thinking from someone who knows very little about 90% of what is posted above: what if apple is gonna put an Intel chip and an IBM chip under the same hood? If they could figure out a cheap way to stuff a PC and a Mac into one box, Mac users can continue using OSX, and those on the fence could buy one machine and try the Mac side while they still have Windows available. Apple would continue to sell both their hardware and software, but might get more wary switchers. While the "two computers" may not truly be integrated, Apple could figure out a way to make it effortless to switch back and forth. Now, if that's not some crazy thinking, I don't know what is......

aristotles
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: Jul 2004

0

05/23, 03:12pm | report spam | close Reply |
Not going to happen.

Will you clueless X86 fanboys shut the h*** up? Switching to X86 would "not" result in cheaper macs. PPC CPUs are cheap. There is a huge difference between macs and any x86 motherboard. Macs use Open firmware and I could see Apple switching to some crappy BIOS system.

This is a rumour started by fanboys like Paul Thurrott to stir up you people.

just a poster
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2004

0

05/23, 03:14pm | report spam | close Reply |
What's the Wall Street

Journal?

Are they some kind of rag like the "Weekly World News"?

Because any tech journalist should know that Apple switching to Intel chips would mean all third-party software would have to be recompiled - this would cause a lot of confusion for customers.

As for Intel, I don't think Apple has any interest in Intel. AMD is so far ahead it's not even funny.

So while Apple may be discussing x86 with Intel, should Apple ever offer an x86-powered powerbook or desktop, I doubt very much it will be powered by an Intel chip unless Intel gets its act together.

aristotles
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: Jul 2004

0

05/23, 03:15pm | report spam | close Reply |
klinux RTFA

They do not have any executive sources and they are simply reporting on a "rumor" circulating.

What the h*** does this mean to you?

'Neither company would confirm the report and an Apple spokeswoman told the Journal she would characterize it as "rumor and speculation."'

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

05/23, 03:44pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: klinux RTFA

What the h*** does this mean to you?

'Neither company would confirm the report and an Apple spokeswoman told the Journal she would characterize it as "rumor and speculation."'

It means Apple's PR people are denying this to the public, which of course they (or any company would) before any type of agreement is reached and details worked out. What do you expect them to say "Yes, we're in talks about switching to x86 chips. We're not finished discussions, and things could go either way."? That's a good way to make sure people stop buying your computers for the next 6 months. h***, what does Apple say when asked "Hey, we hear you've got a flash-based music player in the works!"? Its "We don't discuss unannounced products", not "Yes, you're right!".

Geesh, you yell at someone about the article, but don't understand business yourself!

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

05/23, 04:07pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: absurd

It would absolutely insane for Apple to switch from PPC to Pentium.

No, insane would be sticking with a chipmaker who spends two years to actually make an improvement to their chips. Oh, wait, Apple's already done that, with Motorola!

A previous poster asked about Classic; the answer is that Apple haz ZERO motivation to invest R&D to make Classic run on a non-PPC processor. A switch from PPC to Pentium would mean the end of Classic. You do not have to worry though, because Apple is not going to make such a change.

What does Apple care about Classic. They want it to be gone. They no longer sell OS 9, and it no longer comes with the OS. If you have a copy great. But if not, you can't get it from Apple.

Another issue is 64 bit processing. PPC are so far ahead of Intel in regards to 64 bit processing. Why would Apple make such a step backwards?

Please, they aren't "so far ahead". And even if they are, what does it matter, since Apple's built-in support in OS X is minimal at best, mostly for memory handling, and only for non-GUI processes. Cocoa/Carbon are NOT 64-bit capable at this point.

People also need to stop saying that Macs are stuck under 3Ghz. I don't give a c*** about the GHz. As most people KNOW, GHz means nothing. However, Apple's computers are stuck in old tech. No PCI-Express. h***, until last month, their "Pro" machines shipped with nVidia 5200 cards and 256MB RAM.

Apple has spent over 5 years optimizing OS X for the PPC platform. Every release of OS X has been faster than its predecessor because of these optimizations.

And it still feels slow to people. And I don't agree that ever version has been faster then the previous. It sure helps when the later versions take advantage of the latest hardware. How much faster is Tiger on a 4 year-old G4 without CoreImage or Quartz acceleration then Jaguar?

OS X on Intel would not be able to utilize all of that optimization. It would take years for OS X to run as efficiently on a Xeon as it does on PPC.

Unless the chip's extra speed makes up for the difference (BTW, these were the same arguments against going to PPC vs 68060).

I believe that Apple should release OS X for Intel as a software only product available exclusively from Apple Stores and Apple Authorized Dealers for $149. Apple should NOT OEM license OS X to any PC manufacturers.

So basically spend money and manpower on a product NO ONE will use? That's just stupid. Only those who really want it get it. So who's going to recompile apps for Intel if the market is just a bunch of computer geeks? The only reason to do this is to say "Look how good OS X is, now go buy a Mac!", and no one's going to buy a Mac. You have to license to OEMs, or don't bother doing it.

Bengt77
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2003

0

05/23, 04:12pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: What if....

See these two links:

Apple made several DOS-compatible computers once, which is exactly what you suggest and what you think would be "some crazy thinking".

Pretty funny, eh?!...

Bengt77
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2003

0

05/23, 04:13pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: What if....

Darn, it filtered out my two links for whatever reason. Here they are again:

- http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=112244 - http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=112292

Keith Whitehead
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2000

0

05/23, 04:47pm | report spam | close Reply |
Darwin...!!

Darwin is already ported to the X86, so one wonders how long it would take the rest of OSX (Aqua,Classic,Etc) to be "hacked" so it would work on standard PC architecture ? If that were the case then Apple would be dead as their hardware business would shrivel and die leaving only a software company such a shell of its former self that anyone (Dell ???) could buy them lock, stock, and barrel.

With IBM selling its clone business to china I see them moving further away from that arena and the chip manufacturing becomming significantly important and I would expect to see some large gains in the next year or two.

If nothing else Apple could be looking at the intel chips for buss control, or perhaps for a new ipod device (video anyone ?), anothr thought is that Apple is negotiating cheaper chips for USB2 etc.

gjas18
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2004

0

05/23, 05:12pm | report spam | close Reply |
4 year old G4

I have a B&W G3 upgraded with a radeon 32MB, 500Mhz G4, 200GB SATA disk, and 512MB of ram. I have been using OSX since the Public Preview and would completely and utterly disagree with the statement that osx hasnt got faster every single major revision. This machine has seen every single version of osx and currently is running 10.4.1. Which makes this thing scream compared to jaguar or even panther and it doesnt support ANY of the nice GPU acceleration API's. The argument of "Oh, it was just chock full of c*** installed on it slowing it down" doesnt work. It has been used as a headless file server for the last year with minimal apps installed, but every once in a while I have to connect a monitor and work on it. Tiger has breathed to life into this system.

StonedRose
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2005

0

05/23, 05:35pm | report spam | close Reply |
It would be...

Kinda nice to see if the intel does make it on the Mac platform. But reality obviously suggests thatthis would be a bad move to move some hardware. Motorla and IBM have always been slow movers on processors for apple....remember the closne days!! The rumors were always conveying the message that apple may goto intel...then nt V3.5 for PPC came out that Motorola sold with the StarMax (603e and 604) and the Blackhawks (604) when the customer chose NT over AIX. If I could run Windows and Tiger on the powerbook I would be very happy...but would I spend more the next time around for a PB??? Apple needs to keep it on PPC to keep the 5-6% marketshare up on the consumer and pro desktop/portable hardware. 2 cents-Aloha

klinux
Senior User

Joined: Jul 2002

0

05/23, 06:19pm | report spam | close Reply |
Hello aristotle

I did read the article. In fact, unlike many people here, I subscribe and read WSJ evryday.

The article says very clearly the company have been in talks.

Not they are rumored to be in talks and may be in talks but have been in talks. Now, we can conjecture all we want about what the talks mean, but it is not a rumor at all that they have met.

jwdsail
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2000

0

05/23, 06:32pm | report spam | close Reply |
God I hope not..

I hope Apple doesn't move to Intel for it's PCs.. sigh.. It would kill the Mac market.. existing Mac users would have to rebuy all their Apps, (Recents switchers would *love* that.. and potential switchers would be put off that they would more than likely still have to rebuy software, and be confused why their x86 Windows sw wouldn't run on their x86 Macs..... How could that possibly be a good thing for the Macs marketshare???

I do have some thoughts/hopes as to what it could be about though..

4 off the top of my head.

Apple could be in talks to have Intel toll-produce PPC chips for them (secrecy agreements up the ying-yang).. This would ensure an ample supply of chips for the forseable future.

Intel, smarting at the Xbox move to PPC is in talks, not just with Apple, but with IBM and Freescale, to license the PPC designs in order to offer some PPC chips to Microoft, Sony, Nintindo, etc in the future... Or as in the above, could be in talks with all parties for a toll-production deal..

Intel is very involved with the production of WiMax hardware, and seems to be pushing very hard for its adoption... Perhaps Apple and Intel are in talks that would bring some combo 802.11g or n and WiMax hardware into the Mac market in the near future?

Perhaps Apple is trying to get better pricing on WiMax or USB 2.0? Would more than likly involve some high level talks... shrug...

I hate days like this, where people read this type of story and panick.. allot of people calling me screaming about their new Macs not working anymore, etc.. sigh...

I hope SJ is smarter than that..

deafmickey
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2005

0

05/23, 07:15pm | report spam | close Reply |
Apple Apologizes to IBM.

in 1998

15 seconds TV commerical...

"Apple Computer would like to apologize for toasting the Pentium II processor in public. But the fact remains; the chip inside every new Power Macintosh G3 is up to twice as fast."

umm

In 2007, Apple's next 15 TV commerical should be

"Apple Computer would like to apologize for toasting the IBM PowerPC processor in public. But the fact remains; the chip inside every new Power Macintosh Intel G6 is up to twice as fast."

:-)

Person Man
Professional Poster

Joined: Jun 2001

0

05/23, 07:38pm | report spam | close Reply |
Announcement

Because Intel makes so many other types of chips, NOT JUST PROCESSORS...

Apple is going to have to make some type of announcement because of what this story is doing to the stock if it's not processor chips they're discussing.

coyoteshawn
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2005

0

05/23, 11:46pm | report spam | close Reply |
So many chips from Intel

First off, I am new to the board but have used both PCs and Macs for years. I believe the Mac OS far superior to that of Windows however I believe that the Wintel world has the upper hand in hardware. So many more choices in graphics cards, sound cards and just general items. Apple marries hardware to software thus having a very stable platform so it works in that sense, however that also means that as new technologies advance Apple can either invent their own (Firewire, iPod, etc.) or license from others. Perhaps a slow move to the Intel platform will allow Apple to compete head to head as compiling code for their machines will be alot simpler. With that said I DO NOT believe Apple to be switching from the PowerPC because of the following. First and foremost the "Switch" would be so costly in the short and long run that it would just not be in the best interests of Apple or their users. Secondly, Apple already uses Intel products like PCI and controllers in their systems. It could be that Apple is gearing up for PCI Express or their new WiFi system and quite possible something from Intel that you no nothing about. And the last reason I feel this way is the following. Why would Apple leave IBM when they have sealed up the game console market with ALL THREE major vendors. With that kind of money flowing and the demand for the PowerPC CPUs IBM will no doubt have the resources to propell its PowerPC designs into the future. There is a reason Microsoft chose IBM for the CPU. IBM's Power series of CPUs are in many respects far superior to anything on the market today and at a lower cost. As far and mobile chips are concerned, I have yet to buy the hype that you can't stick a G5 in a laptop. The iMac is very thin and has a G5. Apple would have to use a different case that was thicker than what they like. If you can get a AMD 64 running at 2.8 GHZ in a laptop so can Apple get a G5 in there, just not in that thin titanium case. If you look and most PC Laptop cases that house P4s or AMD 64s they are larger. The P4M Centrino is the exception, but that also uses a much larger cache (on die) lower clock speeds and optimized motherboard. Give IBM or even Freecell more time, afterall its in their best interest to produce mobile 64 bit chips.

coyoteshawn
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2005

0

05/24, 12:11am | report spam | close Reply |
One more thing!!!

To all those who think that IBM will not allow Intel to build or even modify their PowerPC designs, you could not be more wrong. I own a entertainment, lighting and sound company that does alot of work for IBM and the two companies already work together on technologies. IBM uses intel controllers, EPROMS, etc from Intel in their servers as well as their now defunct PC business (Sold to China). I had the pleasure of providing sound and such at a conference in Orlando, florida for IBM and remember the following statements. IBM will license PowerPC technology for custom designs and open contract manufacturing. That means exactly what it says "Open contract manufacturing" which means ANYONE can build and modify PowerPC chips. They also went on to name Apple, motorola, Intel, and several others that either make chips or embeded designs. Intel even had their own hospitality suite at an IBM conference. There are also sveral articles available for you to browse regarding that statement.

http://www.architosh.com/news/2003-04/2003c-0401-ibm-openppc.phtml

http://www-03.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/mar2003/lead.html

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020917comp.htm

http://www.theregister.com/2004/04/14/ibm_powerpc_sale/

Intel would not and could not copy the PowerPC chip without a huge lawsuit from IBM but that does not mean that they cannot build them. However the licensing contract looks like it would allow Apple to seek help in the manufacturing. Intel is not the enemy, we know who the real enemy is...:)

the Rebel
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2000

0

05/26, 03:39pm | report spam | close Reply |
get real testudo

PPC 64 bit processing is far beyond any Intel desktop processor. OS X is the most wide spread OS utilizing 64 bit processing. There is no reason for OS X to implement 64 bit processing for its GUI processes; doing so would more than likely slow it down rather than speed it up. Regardless of the level of 64 bit processing in the Cocoa and Carbon frameworks, moving from a PPC to an Intel processor would be a huge step backwards for Apple's 64 bit processing.

Unfortunately most people do not know that GHz means nothing. Otherwise, they would not think that moving from PPC to Intel would be a good idea.

Your claim that Macs are stuck in old tech does not make any sense in regards to making a switch to Intel. The fact that Apple is not currently using PCI-Express is irrelevant to the PPC vs Intel discussion. It would be simpler to add PCI-Express to the current Mac motherboard than it would be to design a new motherboard to use an Intel processor and PCI-Express.

Apple has spent over 5 years optimizing OS X for the PPC platform. Every release of OS X has been faster than its predecessor because of these optimizations. So what if some people says that it feels slow? The fact is that each version HAS improved performance. You may not believe it, but every benchmark in existance prooves it. A 4 year-old G4 without CoreImage or Quartz acceleration performs faster running Tiger than it does running Jaguar.

As I said before, OS X on Intel would not be able to utilize all of the PPC optimization in OS X. It would take years for OS X to run as efficiently on a Xeon as it does on PPC.

You suggest that a Xeon's extra speed might make up the difference, but what do you have to even demonstrate that the Xeon has extra speed? Remember Ghz alone does not cut it.

You totally missed my points about the fact that Apple should release OS X for Intel as a software only product available exclusively from Apple Stores and Apple Authorized Dealers for $149 and that Apple should NOT OEM license OS X to any PC manufacturers.

That does not mean that no one would use it. It is stupid for you to say that no one would use it. I expect that millions of copies would be sold. Companies and individuals have major investments in Intel based PCs. They can not necessarily afford to make the jump to Macs because of the combined cost of changing hardware and software simultaneously. By providing OS X for existing Intel hardware, Apple would provide them with a stepping stone to transition to Mac hardware down the road.

Millions and millions of copies of Linux have been installed onto PCs that came preinstalled with Windows. There is no reason that the same could not happen with an Intel version of OS X. In fact there is a whole lot more reason for it to happen with OS X than Linux.

For most computer users, all they need these days are a web browser, email pr

the Rebel
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2000

0

05/30, 06:59pm | report spam | close Reply |
continued

For most computer users, all they need these days are a web browser, email program, and a word processor. Apple can provide all of that with their Intel version of OS X as well as iTunes. So it does not matter a whole lot whether all the other software companies immediately offer recompiled versions of their software. For $150 a Windows user could get OS X and be relieved of the threat of viruses and get a taste of the Mac OS.

Your statement that you have to license to OEMs, or don't bother doing it is just plain ignorant. Why should Apple sell their OS at a discount to their competitors? If Dell really wants to sell Intel PCs running OS X then let Dell buy it through regular distribution channels for the same price as consumers. OEM licensing would only make it seem like a Dell Intel PC running OS X was just as good or perhaps better than a Mac from Apple. Since OS X would not be as good on Intel, it would only hurt Apple. So Apple should openly say that they do not endorse Dell selling new Intel computers with OS X; Apple should clearly state that if you want a new computer with OS X then the only smart choice is a PPC Mac. However, if you currently have an Intel PC and can not afford buying new hardware, then you can buy OS X to hold you over until you can afford a new Mac.

resuna
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

06/05, 11:16am | report spam | close Reply |
WHat's the WSJ article?

It's subscription-only... what's it actually say?

q741
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2005

0

06/17, 05:51am | report spam | close Reply |
Intel CPU�s for apple wha

What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel? What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system? Apple doesn�t have the clout to take a slice of Intel. Apple doesn�t have a lot to offer Intel in the form of revenue so why the interest? Intel selling over 100 million CPU�s last year compared to apples 3 million IBM CPU�s. Intel still has majority share over AMD in the pc market despite being the inferior of the two processor manufactures. Could we be seeing the start of an Intel computer monopoly? That would dwarf Microsoft�s own. If Intel�s interest in apple is purely OS driven then this could be a real possibility.

Is This the Intel Macintosh & no longer apple Macintosh is this what we can expect from a take over of apple by Intel? Its own OS based on the Intel CPU�s, this is a big deal it could mean only 2 players in the pc market Intel Macintosh & Microsoft AMD, and will Microsoft take over AMD to stay in the game?

will Intel drop out of the pc market in favour of creating its own apple like proprietary system making it the supreme competitor for global share, I don�t think this will be likely as Intel has to much to lose by drop the pc market and after all its all about making the most money so what we will see? Intel Macintosh or do they stay with apple Macintosh to keep the followers happy thinking there still using a mac

Intel hasn�t had a particular good relationship with Microsoft in the past. An Intel apple takeover will finally see Intel independent of Microsoft which should give Intel the freedom to do greater things with control over their own OS. Intel will have x86 based pc potentially run both osx Linux & Xp natively. So is It that Intel has Purchased Its Own Intel OS (Intel OSX not Mac OSX) giving it potently more control in the market than Microsoft & at the same time possibly squeezing AMD cpu�s out of the PC market following in the footsteps of the IBM cpu�s some years ago.

An apple x86 computer with a p4 CPU would be a step down in the case of technology but a step up in terms of performance. Apple has a win being able to run both os's but at the same time then so dose the pc. OSX will no longer be exclusive this is both good & bad for apple & Its end user osx compatibility with Intel based pc no need for emulation or compatibility layers

currently the apple is proprietary system similar to dell hp etc, but with a twist it has an exclusive OS which allows apple to further prioritise the standard pc hardware even further than dell or other propriety system manufactures allowing them to charge more for the same hardware found in a oem pc, Apple may well become just another watered down Intel pc that currently flood the proprietary pc market such as dell or hp Will dell & other manufactures offer OSX as an alternative OS on there Intel based models? If Intel dose little to prioritise its CPU under osx other than its Intel exclusivity

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/25	Apple hiring new chip engineers for...
05/25	Third-gen iPad coming to Philippines...
05/25	Apple to integrate Baidu search into...
05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...

Show All

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/25	Apple to integrate Baidu search into...
05/25	Google picks up webOS Enyo team, Open...
05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...
05/24	Yahoo releases Axis 'visual search'...

Show All

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/23	Google launches redesigned Search app...
05/22	Leaked next-gen iPod touch part hints...
05/22	Hulu Plus updates with iPad Retina...
05/22	TiVo Stream to push TV to iPhones,...

Show All

03/02	Save $330 on refurb. 15.4-inch, 2.4GHz...
03/01	Pre-owned 8GB iPod touch 2G, drops...
02/29	$150 off Nikon Coolpix S80 Compact...
02/28	Plantronics BackBeat 903 Bluetooth...
02/27	Refurb. Seagate 1.5TB GoFlex Portable...

Show All

toggle

Wall Street Journal: Apple to use Intel?

updated 08:35 am EDT, Mon May 23, 2005

WSJ on Apple/Intel

Related Articles

Recent Articles

Intel?

Doubt it....

Oh no, not again!

One word...

Here we go again...

doubtful

Maybe there's a reason

Apple already uses Intel

Maybe the gaming consoles

Good, Scare IBM

Intel doesn't just make.

HP with OS X

Improbable.

Negotiating Ploy or ?

Good

Good Scare IBM

Stupid call

Re: improbable

Absurd

Motorola doesn't make...

chas_m is really wrong...

What if....

Not going to happen.

What's the Wall Street

klinux RTFA

Re: klinux RTFA

Re: absurd

Re: What if....

Re: What if....

Darwin...!!

4 year old G4

It would be...

Hello aristotle

God I hope not..

Apple Apologizes to IBM.

Announcement

So many chips from Intel

One more thing!!!

get real testudo

continued

WHat's the WSJ article?

Intel CPU�s for apple wha

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace