And the same could go that OSX native apps that could be run in a compatibility mode for Windows. However, as far as I know, WINE for linux still has probs running complex windows apps. It might not be that easy.

On another note, doesn't the AIM alliance allow Apple to license the PowerPC Architecture to another semi-conductor to produce? I wouldn't be surprised if we had Intel PowerPCs...

JustinHoMi - I agree with your assessment that moving to x86 would allow Apple to tout Windows compatability. I also agree with your assessment that it could discourage developers from making OS X native apps. But take this in to consideration - what if Apple didn't really care about discouraging developers?

Stay with me. Right now, companies like Adobe/Macromedia, Microsoft, etc - all have Apple over a barrell. If any of these big developers drop Mac support, it is a direct blow to Apple. However, if Apple brings compatability to these apps through a fast/usable emulation layer, Apple no longer has to fear Microsoft dropping Office, Adobe dropping Photoshop/Flash, etc. The PC versions of these apps would run just fine on the new "intel" Mac. Plus, Apple has the sandbox all to itself, and doesn't have to worry about stepping on the toes of Adobe when it develops it's Photoshop killer, or Quark when it developers it's Quark killer. It can literally go back to controlling the whole widget.

I don't really think Apple is moving to Intel CPUs. However, Apple **loves** to control the whole widget, and in outlining the above, I've brought a bit of doubt to my certainty that the Intel move is complete and utter BS.

about discouraging developers...

If this really is a move to Intel, 95% of the apps out there will only require a recompile in Xcode to be made Intel CPU ready. Apple could even include both PPC and Intel binaries in its executables (apps). This would be similiar to the "Fat Binary" files that existed in the 68k to PPC switch in the early 90's.

Apple is about the only company who has the experience to pull off such a switch. It has extensive experience doing so.

However, I still think it's hogwash. As another reader pointed out, it's much more likely that Apple is going to use Intel to manufacture PPC chips than move to Intel native chips.

Well it sounds like it would be x86 because those are Intel's fastest CPUs (but still not fast enough really). Itanium would be a waste of time with everyone dropping it and their ARM variants such as the XSCALE aren't really up to desktop use.

I don't believe IBM would need to license anything in order for Intel to make PowerPCs, unless I'm mistaken, since Apple have rights to the PowerPC architecture from their old AIM alliance deals. I can't see this happening though, they'd need to design their own PowerPC from the ground up, dedicate some fabrication facilities and even then it would most likely be stomped on by IBM's POWER 6 derivatives.

Who knows what will happen but from what I can see, switching to Intel CPUs for the main Mac lines just makes no sense at all.

work... but I doubt. it's not Apple's thing. They've invested a lot in the "G" series of chips. Marketing, ect. There's a lot of money here. Apple's not abandoning it for some extra Mhz.

If Apple is truly moving to x86, Mac sales are going to fall through the floor. Would you by a PPC-based Mac when you know that your computer isn't going to merely be a little slower than next year's PPC Mac, but completely legacy hardware? If this turns out to be true (x86), it may be the dumbest thing Apple has ever done.

I am ready to believe in some kind of alliance, though. Maybe Intel is willing to through its R&D toward manufacturing a version of PPC just for Apple, if for nothing else, than to gain a better understanding of manufacturing PPC-type chips for its own development plans (since cisc is running out of steam). So, Apple and Intel could both be winners if this is true.

speechless. If this stuff is true, it seems a major blunder. Who in their right mind would buy a Mac running a CPU that is dead as a doornail? The "a simple re-compile" that some throw around has been uttered before... however, it has never been anywhere near as simple as that.

Then again, maybe there can be some firesales of G5 macs...

This is bullcrap and it's not even April Fool's Day. [URL=http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823282,00.asp]eWeek story to the contrary[/URL]

Dual Core G5 processors coming.

It would take far more than a recompile for anything other than the simplest apps. It would kill Apple hardware sales instantly. It would undermine all the gains Apple has made in recent years in enterprise and higher ed because those two sectors hate uncertainty and Apple is only just starting to make in roads. If they went Intel, these two markets are gone for at least 10 years.

"according to CNET". Need I say more?

Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday! Monday!

Until then, enjoy life and enjoy the wait.

Jobs is the Smack-Fu Master at this stuff.

anybody think that maybe it's Motorola that has decided to drop the G4 line, and Apple is looking for a replacement for its mini, laptops and eMacs? That seems more reasonable to me.

There's no reason to abandon PowerPC after finally transitioning to Mac OS X and just now moving to 64-bit PPC. IBM uses PowerPCs in their RS/6000 line and with all the interest from MS, Sony, et al. the PPC and Power6 coming... there *is* a bright future ahead. That doesn't mean, however, Apple's particularly overjoyed with the slow manufacturing improvements but that's been true industry-wide. It's not like the G5's are c***. Or that Apple's in the pinch from a few years ago. There might be manufacturing deals, other chips, or a tech portfolio licensing and things like that which both might benefit from but forcing Mac users (and developers) to migrate *AGAIN* would be nothing less than suicidal. They moved to PPC from 68K, attempted to move to QuickDraw GX, OpenDoc, and to Copland and then to Mac OS X while axing Yellow Box and bringing in Carbon when Adobe and others demanded an easy transition technology. There's no way developers would put up with this c*** again so quickly. Mac loyalists would stroke out.

Oh, that Steve Jobs. You've got to hand it to him. The damn world will be watching on Monday. I think we may get tired of this, though

This is just plain stupidity on the part of CNET. There is not one verifiable, reliable source in that article. It is no wonder people don't trust the media with stories like this running around.

Apple is not going to announce anything of the sort on Monday. The sad part is, as one poster pointed out, the stock price will probably tank when Jobs does not announce this switch because investors are too stupid to know a hoax when they see one. It will take half a year, at least, for Apple's stock price to recover after this irresponsible, stupid excuse for "journalism" on the part of CNET. Oh, well. At least this will be a great opportunity to pick up more Apple stock at great prices.

Apple has already Manufactured some sort of "Boxes", and they will SHIP with x86 At WWDC. (!)

I think it's complex, in the low end, Dell sells PC's for $299 How can Apple compete when a G4 costs $300 alone? Now, an older Pentium.....would be say, $75 bucks.........and no $130 to MS.....Apple could make Wallmart PC's......that R lickable!!!!

Honestly, I dunno.....but I heard some things......from a LOTTA people who.....know these things.....

I guess X has always run on x86, Intel has versions running NOW.....Apple.......MS is porting Windows to G5's Triple core?? For Xbox 2 - ummm......

Steve has been doing well.....even that MP3 player worked well....let's see monday ;-)

*sigh* everyone's in denial...

All this crazy talk. Intel can't make PPC processors and they would have zero incentive even if they had the IP.

This is a good thing for Apple. They can focus on spreading OSX and compete with Windows head on. PPC can't compete with Intel, let alone AMD and others. Benchmarks (besides Apple's lame ones which don't even compare similar systems) put Apples far behind the X86 world. You guys still cling onto the notion that Apple produces superior hardware when it's really the software. At least OSX has a Unix lineage that can fight against Windows fairly.

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p=1

I don't buy it.

The proof is in the news cycle this week:

1. Intel pre-announces, e.g. 16-24 months away, a dual core laptop chip. The last time they made a move like this was right before the G5.

Apple and IBM have news, but it's not involving Intel.

2. Intel demo'ing the Mac mini rip-off. If Intel had a deal with Apple, they would never be pulling this type of PR.

I don't know if it's good or bad to move to Intel. But, I'll take any and all action that it's not going to happen.

I read that Anandtech article but despite claiming to be the ultimate x86 vs PowerPC comparison, it isn't. What it really said is that the PowerPC G5 with MacOS X is not suitable as high load server OS (due to failings in MacOS X I might add, NOT the PowerPC G5) but it is suitable as a Unix workstation and that is despite GCC performing very poor vectorisation. What it didn't talk about was the software Mac users actually use, i.e. native Cocoa and Carbon applictions that are typically Altivec optimised. Think all the Apple iApps and all the tuned mainstream commercial software. Without equivalents on Windows, there is no easy way to compare but totally discounting these applications as irrelivant makes the Anandtech comparison largely worthless unless all you care about is running open source Unix software.

Even if you could argue the Intel x86 CPUs are faster then the G5, there's no denying that AMD CPUs are significantly faster and cheaper than Intel's.

It will never happen. Punto.

If this happens, Apple will be selling how many Macs in the coming year? Revenue will drop by the billions. And if Intel would make its own PowerPC processor, Apple couldn't be its only customer because it wouldn't be profitable on Intel's part.

Pros of using Intel chips really have more to do with mobile computing. The Pentium M is a very nice design and very fast. No G4, dual core or not will compete with that chip, especially when a dual core Pentium M is released. However with that said I still doubt a move to the X86 platform would be a smart move when even Intel is having issues with speed and are now focusing on dual core. IBM is no small company and now they have sony, toshiba, nintendo and apple to name a few in need of their CPUs. Again, Intel has alot of technologies that apple uses from controller chips to PCI. Would it shock me if apple releases an OSX X86 computer, yes and no. If they do its based more on price than speed. How will the Apple loyal feel? How about folks like me who spent the big money for several G5 systems and will no doubt be jaded. I think a deal with intel to co develop a PowerPC CPU that will be used in laptops may be what Apple has in mind. Apple is able to contract companies to build these chips and IBM will get paid as well. The PowerPC Alliance was always setup as such. There are several articles that point this out including IBM's own website. An Intel CPU deal still seems strange when AMD's 64 bit Opteron is there at a much lower price as well as dual core. That would still be my choice. Remember Mac faithful, Apple has been the story of the decade in the computer world. Ole Stevie Jobs may pull off a miracle that we know nothing about. Several analysts still belive this a ploy to get IBM to ramp up production and speed up development.

For all those people who say it is more than just a recompile. Do you actually develop OS X software? If Apple were to move to an x86 or x86_64 type of platform, which I think they won't, they will have ported Carbon and Cocoa, CoreEverything, and all the other pieces of OS X. Code that does not drop down to assembler, which is most code now-a-days, can be recompiled for any architecture that your supporting libraries run on. Thing about Xorg and Xfree -- they run on all sorts of architectures. With just a recompile. Apple would have done the hard part which is making all the underlying technology and libraries exist.

Apple (through NeXT) did this in the past. You could recompile your OpenStep stuff for the 680x0, the x86 OpenStep, and the OPENSTEP for Windows. Yes Dorothy, it was just a recompile.

Applications that have dropped down into assembler will have problems but I doubt there are many of those out there. Some apps, over the long run, would be tuned for the x86_64 architecture by refactoring some code to fit how the compiler works.

But it is not going to happen. Apple is not going to do it.

maybe Apple will use Intel for something else than processors...

Why not chipsets, WiFi, or others...

http://cobrands.contracts.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/mot.license.1998.12.03.html

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

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-984669.html?tag=nl

These are just a few of the dozens of articles related to PowerPC manufacture and Licensing. In 1998 AMD and Motorola entered into a deal so that AMD could build PowerPC CPUs for motorola, just as IBM builds most of Nvidia GPUs as well as all of VIA technologies chips. Very few companies have the resources to buil they chips that they design. Companies like Intel, AMD and IBM to name a few are in much better positions to make these chips. Lets also not forget Intel already makes RISC CPUs. Here are some of the articles. http://www.applieddata.net/design_Benchmark.asp

http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/24284

Here are the Wimax Articles

http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/Vs4UESTN2yz9J7/Apple-Intel-Looking-to-WiMAX.xhtml

I really think IBM has alot to offer in the near future and a better CPU, but who knows. I love my mac and I will still use OSX on whatever platform its on..:)

It took more then just a recompile to get VPC7 to run an a g5. Maxons 3s aplictions also took some work. So why would apple be able to switch to an Intel cpu and x86 system with out rewriting code?

I cannot believe this! I will not believe this I cry for Apple, I cry for us!! The next iBook an Intel based.... one!!!!!!!! NO!!!!!!!!

First of all, this fake apple swithing to intel story worked like a charm to keep people away form trying to find out about apples' real next computer release on monday. notice no "sources" say its cpus they are switchng to , just "chips". they leave the rest of the speculation up to the sheep. this slight of hand and distraction worked like a charm. apple already uses intel chips. every heard of USB? intel made it. maybe appple will switch to pci express using intel controllers instead of pci-X with whosever controllers. And for the recompile, it takes a lot more than just a "simple recompile" when you switch chips. lots of code rewrites for specific chip/system calls, lots of new pretty header files, etc. if it were so easy to just recompile everything when writing for different platforms, mac swould have a whole lot more software (not that we need it but you get the point). the only time recompiles will work for any given codeset, is when that code was SPECIFICALLY written that way from the start. it snot like you can run GCC on an amd and compile osx and its gunna work the same. IT AINT.

Maybe its for a dedicated mediacenter setupbox or a PPC/x86 dual core or something. Just can't believe the core CPU is going to be a *gasp* wintel one. :P

think games. think intel making power pc compatable.

Dual core PPC/x86 ?

Steve must be livid.... who's he going to sue this time? While people make good justifications both ways on this issue- who says Apple HAS to stay in the hardware business? Think about it- They have ramped up software- with the pro video suite, iLife... etc. How many copies of iLife could they sell to PC owners? The margins on hardware are no where near the margins on software (look at M$). If this happens, Apple may quickly kill off windows- once you've used a Mac, it's hard to go back.... think about it.

Is Jobs really the kind of person who would spurt this kind of news in front of a few thousand developers not knowing how they would react?

I think this kind of thing would be better announced through a statement, let the news sink in, then when the passion has died down, come out on stage and really explain it.

Jobs loves the adulation of the crowd. I hope this news is just completely wrong and that he does what he does best at WWDC. Give people reason to cheer, not jeer.

PowerPC development would appear to be in a good state right now. The timing of an Intel switch announcement would seem to be ill-placed for Monday.

Also, there is no doubt that only a fool would buy into high end PPC PowerMacs if there were a transition period to Intel. That means Intel based mac hardware would probably have to exist right now to avoid Apple tanking in the transition period.

Can anyone imagine this:

'Oh, just one more thing. All of today's keynote was run off of Intel based Powermacs'.

Apple cannot keep up supply and need to reduce tdemand and so have seeded this rumour to lower sales for a while.

(No I don't beleive this - I just wanted to join in the fun)

The problem is that the x86 architecture is pretty much at the end of its road as well much like the powerpc. The only way to expand on the speeds of x86 and perhaps powerpc is dual core. If you look at Xserve performance it would be a puzzle why Apple would hobble the faster powerpc or x86.

On the other side two dual core 64 bit processors in a Mac might be a good thing, faster Windows performance from within MacOS, and the analysts would love it....of course that is why they are call ANALysts.

While the WiMax deal makes more sense you have to wonder about Apple adopting x86. You also have to wonder about intels deal with microsoft and how closely the WinTel deal will effect Apple. Since Microsoft writes code to take advantage of intel chips and intel makes chips that take advantage of Windows code will Apple get the same inside deal for the performance tweaks intel gives Microsoft? Could Microsoft make a deal with intel to hobble MacOS performance? They have done similar things before.

I do believe that Apple could make a switch to Intel. However, I don't believe that Apple would make such a switch without making it very compelling for Mac owners.

Apple made such a switch before, and it worked because Apple was making a leap into new, more powerful technology. They had a great transition plan, and they greatly increased the capability of the platform.

I'd expect Apple to do it even better this time. Apple can't afford to alienate customers and developers and stockholders. I'm sure that whatever Jobs says next week will be both compelling and salivating, and in a way that won't damage current sales.

Jobs is a businessman and a technology guy. A mere switch to Intel x86 is not, as far as I can tell, useful. An Intel Inside logo is not useful. This is not Apple.

But if it's a new Intel processor, or some other new technology, well, then this could be exciting. Maybe Intel showed Jobs some kick-a** hardware that made Steve and his engineers drool. Maybe Steve is going to compete with the X-box device, a market that Intel has been all but dropped from. Hmmm, I bet that's it.

No NO NO NO NOOOO ,, I don't want to hear it how are we supposed to maintain security through obselesence if we are able to be ported to just any old platform OH and Now I will have an ugly dell running beautiful mac os X!!! I won't hear it!!! STEVE! Steve please step in and tell them they are full of poo!...

The only way that Apple could pull this off would be if they subsidise software upgrades for their existing users to x86 versions of the apps they depend on. They can't use emulation to pull them out of the water this time, because they don't have an x86 that's 10x as fast as the PPC to run PPC apps in emulation under.

I don't believe they will, but they could surprise me. They have before: I was wrong about Jobs commitment to his pretty monitors preventing him from coming out with a headless Mac.

I love it, all you Apple f*** are crying in your boots. "How could they?" I think most of you are in sheer panic because of all the g*** arguments you have used over the years. Enjoy it suckers.

This is a good thing for Apple. They can focus on spreading OSX and compete with Windows head on. Switching to Intel processors does NOT mean they're now competing with Windows head-on. How would that be, just because they're now Intel-based Macs, they're still Macs. They're not all of a sudden "cheap PCs". You'd still have to buy Mac-Intel hardware, buy all new software (or run it through emulation, which will suck, BTW - I use VPC on a PC, and it ain't the same thing, not even close), need new drivers for all your peripherals (peripherals don't magically work on Intel hardware, they still need to have drivers, so unless Apple's working also on a Windows->OS X driver conversion functionality, you still won't be able to use that scanner in your office).

This is only good (on the windows competition side) if this is "Apple stops selling hardware, converts OS X to Intel, becomes a software shop". That, BTW, will kill the stock price.

I think it's complex, in the low end, Dell sells PC's for $299 How can Apple compete when a G4 costs $300 alone? Now, an older Pentium.....would be say, $75 bucks.........and no $130 to MS.....Apple could make Wallmart PC's......that R lickable!!!!

Well, Apple could use the really cheap G3 chip, which is basically like a celeron. Low power and cheap.

Maybe Apple will simply be adding an Intel option to their OS X portfolio. It would be another way to woo Windows users...an even more effective way than the PPC-based Mac mini. It could be an entry-level machine designed to introduce Windows users to the most important aspects of owning a Mac, which are about lots of things other than on what hardware the OS is running. It would serve the additional purpose of allowing Apple to continue development of OS X on Intel, in case...at some future time...things between Apple and IBM were to completely fall apart. It would certainly be a more effective way of developing the OS X on Intel version of their OS by having it 'beta tested' by a substantially larger pool of users on a continual basis.

who says Apple HAS to stay in the hardware business? Think about it- They have ramped up software- with the pro video suite, iLife... etc. How many copies of iLife could they sell to PC owners? The margins on hardware are no where near the margins on software (look at M$). If this happens, Apple may quickly kill off windows- once you've used a Mac, it's hard to go back.... think about it.

If they recompiled and sold iLife to windows users, they could sell a lot. If they try to just convince people that "Hey, switch to OS X for $200, and for another $50 you could get iLife!", then very little.

And hardware margins are a LOT MORE than software margins. Just because MS makes a boatload of money doesn't mean software is where its at. Apple rakes in 20-30% margins on their hardware, which is where most of their sales come from. These margins allow them to pay for their R&D, new hardware/software, and subsidizes, to some extent, Mac OS X.

Oh, and that competing with windows thing. Did real well for OS/2, right! And Be!

For all those people who say it is more than just a recompile. Do you actually develop OS X software? If Apple were to move to an x86 or x86_64 type of platform, which I think they won't, they will have ported Carbon and Cocoa, CoreEverything, and all the other pieces of OS X. Code that does not drop down to assembler, which is most code now-a-days, can be recompiled for any architecture that your supporting libraries run on. Thing about Xorg and Xfree -- they run on all sorts of architectures. With just a recompile. Apple would have done the hard part which is making all the underlying technology and libraries exist.

Then you must do any porting of code. If porting was so easy, why is it so hard to get any of the GNU/free software out there recompiled for OS X when it first came out. And when you recompile, there's usually flags you have to set in these to say "Hey, I'm compiling for PPC OS X" kind of thing. These flags are used during the compile because code has been changed/tweaked for that particular platform to get it to work.

It is only the basic of apps that have no lo level code. Larger apps do tweaking all over the place. This is why, for example, all those cross-platform frameworks that were around years ago never caught on (these were just like Cocoa, just a big set of libraries available on all platforms). They just never could give the performance native coding does. If anything is using Altivec, that's a rewrite. Any use of processor-specific calls or methodlogies, that's a rewrite (this goes back to the VPC7 comment and the G5, Connectix used a feature of the G4 to switch little-endian to big-endian without having to code - it took forever to get MS to update the code accordingly). Then you've got all that wonderful endian business, for those apps that use that kind of thing (I was working on a Unix app years ago that turned out to fail on recompile on a SCO Unix box because of the endian issue, took me forever to figure out what the problem was, mainly because the code didn't appear to be doing anything that looked like it would matter).

Oh, but even if it were a recompile, please remember, you're going to be paying for it. Adobe isn't just going to say "Hey, here's an Intel OS X recompile. No, I don't want any money for this. Its a gift."

Oh, and besides Apple's hardware sales tanking right after the announcement (I was all set to buy a new G5 today, now I'm going to have to think about it), you might as well say goodbye to ALL legacy equipment. Why in their right minds would any developer waste time with PPC versions of their software when they know Intel is where its at?

Finally, a Windows compatibility layer is a stupid reason to do this. This would leave no reason for developers to make Mac versions of the software (which means they'll be even slower than running on Windows then they are now), leave themselves exposed to windows viruses

If Apple and Intel are partnering...it's NOT for WiMax!

WiMax (802.16) is an alternative for last mile access - i.e. a replacement for DSL, Cable, T-1s, etc.

802.11n is highspeed wireless in the home which *could be* the next generation of Airport Extreme (802.11g)

UWB - UltraWideBand is for high speed USB-like wireless connections

Why doesn't Apple just drop OS X anyways? They don't do any advertising for Tiger, really, especially in comparison. They never tout its great features on TV, against competitors such as Microsoft. Never. I think there was maybe one OS X commercial I have seen on TV- oh right, that was actually for the G5. Oh- but I can't keep count of the number of bichromatic silouhetted morons dancing with white iPods during prime time. I love OS X, but this idea of moving PowerMacs from the CISC architecture on PowerPC to Intel is dumb. Why bother with OS X anymore- unless Steve-O has something up his sleeve and they may be licensing the OS to a few selective OEMS in the Intel world? This whole topic is just weird. I'm going to wait until Monday when Steve announces that Longhorn is actually joint venture OS X.5, with Darth Gates being transmitted down as a hologram. Yeah that's what I am waiting to hear. Yeah...

....as step one.

Step 2....Apple design, Tiger face, Intel inside.

So what if Apple loses a few current Mac hardware owners.

What are they going to do, buy a cheap Dell X86 box or pay 25% more for Apple's design running Tiger/X86?

What Apple will lose in loyal customers is nothing compared to the software market share they will gain on the X86 platform. Case in point iTunes for windows...if it wasn't for this the iPod/iTunes chunk would be considerably smaller.

Gates isn't rich because of hardware.

If any of this is true Gates now has reason to be very worried.

Wait and see.

Something I'm not very comfortable with is that OS X on x86 would in all likelihood mean the end of Classc compatability. It's all nostalgic, sure, and I have older Macs that can run it, but it's been 21 years since the original Mac OS debuted and this would be the first hardware that would say goodbye entirely, becuase I'm sure it'd be pretty difficult to port OS 9 for Classic compatibility.

Why Apple will not switch to Intel platform.

1_ Since when Apple tells ahead of time anyone about strategic decision. For instance the type of CPUs it's gonna use in the future for its platform? Never, never, never...It had happened.

2_ Is Apple stupid enough to announce something 1 to 2 years in advance and then let its all hardware business go into the toilette? I don't thing so.

Conclusion: 1_ Intel doesn't at all appreciate the fact that Microsoft has chosen IBM PPC processors for its future Xbox game console. And Rumors like these ones are good for Intel because they will push Microsoft into scaring situation.

2_ These Rumors are 100% Smoke Screen to confuse everyone about what Steve Jobs is about to announce on this coming Mon June 6, 2005. You know What! People are laughing like crazy at Apple.

3_ Everyone should use commonsense. It's not that easy to change Computer platform specially for Mac developers and Mac users in love with their boxes. It's a suicide thing. The economic and financial side effects are too great to be ignored. It won't happen at all.

OK! Everybody take a Valium!

God I hope this is all BS... If not, perhaps SJ needs a trip to FL so we can toss him in for some mental eval via the Baker act... I believe you only need 3 people saying he's nuts to do that... I think we have more than enough people convinced that he's nuts if he does this....

However, if it's Intel making PPC chips...

"I don't believe IBM would need to license anything in order for Intel to make PowerPCs, unless I'm mistaken, since Apple have rights to the PowerPC architecture from their old AIM alliance deals. I can't see this happening though, they'd need to design their own PowerPC from the ground up, dedicate some fabrication facilities and even then it would most likely be stomped on by IBM's POWER 6 derivatives. "

I don't think Intel would have to start from the ground up on a new chip... IBM has made G4 chips to supplement Moto/Freescale production before.. so one AIM member making chips designed by another isn't unprecedented ... And as others have said, if IBM is behind this, saying that they don't need Apple business anymore, what reason would they have to prevent Intel from paying some license fees and make some PPC970 chips for Apple?

....as step one. Step 2....Apple design, Tiger face, Intel inside.

So what if Apple loses a few current Mac hardware owners.

What are they going to do, buy a cheap Dell X86 box or pay 25% more for Apple's design running Tiger/X86?

What Apple will lose in loyal customers is nothing compared to the software market share they will gain on the X86 platform. Case in point iTunes for windows...if it wasn't for this the iPod/iTunes chunk would be considerably smaller. They only gain share if they port their apps to Windows! Intel platform and OS X on Intel is not Windows. And most Windows users aren't going to just dump their OS and go to OS X just because it magically works on Intel now. Maybe you didn't realize it, but iTunes runs on Windows (and is a force because of the iPod, not because its such a great program). Its not an OS X app running on an intel box.

Gates isn't rich because of hardware.

If any of this is true Gates now has reason to be very worried.Souljah

Gates is rich because he's was savvy enough to market and license his OS early on, which propelled the PC business. Upgrades got him his billions. Monopoly power and abuse got him his billions. He didn't make it because Windows was somehow some great OS, or the Office kicks a**.

And if Apple's going Intel, then do I have to buy a new Intel Mac in order to run the latest software, which will be Intel only at that point? If so, why not just re-invest in Windows, where at least everything works.

I was going to keep my existing Power Mac G4 768MHz from 2001 for another 2 years. So in 2007 I'd be buying a new Mac – which could be Intel-based if these rumors are true.

However, yesterday we decided to go ahead and upgrade to a 20-inch iMac G5. It should ship on Tuesday! So regardless of how true this rumor is, I'll be sticking with a Mac based on an IBM PowerPC processor for the next few years :-)

I think that WSJ just wants to join the club of all the other news agencies that have made major blunders in reporting recently. i.e. NYTs, Newsweek, CBS.

Is the a possible partnership, yes, but I doubt with CPUs.

However, There is one advantage, most coders out there are very familar with Intel chips. Give them a well written OS and imagine what they could do with the current tech. Or maybe Intel has new chip on the horizon that Apple is going to bite into?

Why won't it be a simple recompile? I currently have a VERY complex app written in C++/Win32 using Visual Studio under Windows that compiles against MIPS, SH3, ARM, StrongARM, x86. So if Microsoft can do it - why can't Apple do it? Darwin already runs on x86. Every part of the OS X subsystem already runs on x86. YellowBox (previous name of Cocoa) ran under x86. Heck even Carbon runs under x86 in a limited form under QuickTime 6 and previous.

So with that there is absolutely no reason why the vast majority of apps won't run with a simple recompile. The exception will be those with AltiVec ASM code and games.

So, with Intel providing chips for most all Windows-based PCs, might Microsoft have any negative influence on how Intel provides Apple with chips? Could the quality or supply be negatively influenced?

Maybe it was preferable to have Motorola as the provide of chips to avoid any potential 'favoritism' that could lead to potential problems for Apple...?

I have a question. If everything is such a "simple recompile" away, how come it takes months/years for Apple to get Java recompiled for OS X? How come it takes so long to get it on par with the Windows/Sun versions? Or is this just the anomaly plus Apple's complete lack of Java knowledge?

How come it took so long to get a version of OpenOffice for Mac, and how come its been stuck on a shelf for the time being? We're just talking an X11 app, nothing scintilating.

And how come no one hear is uttering those two little words Apple promised developers sooooooo many years ago.

"Yellow Box"

Why are all the next Game boxes (XBOX/P3/Nintendo) not be based on Intel Processors???

Why would the promise of huge graphic performance gains by using the Cell Chip as a sub-processor which is co-created by IBM lead Apple to look at Intel?

Why would Apple switch to Intel unless there's some HUGE performance gains? I don't buy that they'll be able to produce dramatically cheaper systems??, unless they got OUT of the hardware world? With all the 'design awards', that is about believable as the tooth fairy!?!

I think Jobs will announce that Apple has bought Intel, and that they'll no longer service Dell, Gateway or the other manufacturers. M$ will be screwed. They'll buy Intel... and shut it down.

Beginning Monday, Apple will have 100% market share of all new computers sold. Now they can take as long as they please to get to 3 Ghz!

Hi y'all Just because of two comments Apple and Intel dropped at "All things Digital" sure doesn't count for the world :-b to be afraid of evil to come. I found this http://www.infoworld.com/infoworld/article/05/06/01/23Opcurve_1.html two steps away from Apple's site (track: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/ to http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/06/03/23TCtiger_1.html to the above mentioned link.) This scenario seems much more likely. Just to get y'all interested in reading the full article see this excerpt "I’ll tell you my pet scenario: IBM leaked..." I am glad I have Monday off!

alex_kac Wrote: "Why won't it be a simple recompile? I currently have a VERY complex app written in C++/Win32 using Visual Studio under Windows that compiles against MIPS, SH3, ARM, StrongARM, x86. So if Microsoft can do it - why can't Apple do it? Darwin already runs on x86. Every part of the OS X subsystem already runs on x86." I'm sorry but if you app compiles under all those architectures, it is a "simple" app that does not make use of SIMD extensions, especially considering that most of those chips don't have them or if they did, they would be radically different.

You are not compiling anything but rather creating a PE (portable executable) which contains bytecode rather that a "real" executable.

A lot of Apple software makes heavy use of Altivec, including some core APIs in OS X. Unlike you example, OS X apps are generally compiled into machine language.

If Endianess of software was not a concern, why can't I just recompile C code from certain X86 linux apps on linux for PPC?

Altivec = 32 128bit register SSE = 8 64bit registers. Altivec = simultaneous execution of FPU and Vector (SIMD) instructions. SSE = FPU and Vector instructions must be executed in turn.

As a developer, I shudder at the thought of having to use a little-endian processor.

(Yes, I realize it doesn't really make a difference, but having grown up on big endian, it still makes me break out in a nervous sweat.

If Apple uses Intel it is no longer the computer for "the rest of us". With the migration headaches, why not just go with Linux on Intel instead OS X?

Seems like someone jumped the gun!

http://www.apple.com/intel

Says so right there. Evolutionary leap! Hot News! How to switch! Specifications!

I must say, that I nearly freaked when I read this article... and JUST after I installed Tiger on my PowerBook, no less!

It makes no sense for Apple to move to Intel CPUs, unless Apple made a box with Mac ROMs that could also boot into Windows natively. But why the F would they bother when you can buy a cheap DOSbox for running your games instead.

As others have mentioned, I see it more likely that Apple will announce a new generation of machines with a slew of new technologies that rely on Intel chips... PCI-E or is it PCI-X? Wireless USB? Faster Airport (although the standard hasn't been decided or announced yet)? Some slick mystery sub-system or co-processor?

Who knows? But it would be Apple performing seppuku (ritual suicide) announcing a switch to Intel CPUs. Steve jobs would be strung up from a lamp post, Mussolini-style.

I wonder if I'll get any sleep this weekend?

"And for the recompile, it takes a lot more than just a "simple recompile" when you switch chips. lots of code rewrites for specific chip/system calls, lots of new pretty header files, etc. if it were so easy to just recompile everything when writing for different platforms, mac swould have a whole lot more software (not that we need it but you get the point). the only time recompiles will work for any given codeset, is when that code was SPECIFICALLY written that way from the start. it snot like you can run GCC on an amd and compile osx and its gunna work the same. IT AINT."

Yes it is,. If you code your programs to Cocoa, Carbon, Core*, etc your code will work with a recompile. The Carbon and Cocoa and Posix system calls, headers, etc are the same (same header file with equivalent calls for the new processor). VPC 7 is not a good example as that will have assembler and specific low level stuff. Most apps don't.

This is proven already. Beside OpenStep, which compiled for OpenStep x86, WINDOWS, and for 680x0, you have the example of X Windows system (Xorg etc) which compiles on multiple platforms.

There are not lots of new system calls, lots of new pertty header files, etc. for most applications. Core* technologies, Carbon, Cocoa, all shield you from that.

Obviously not an OS X developer who is making the claims.

Some apps will require extensive work -- most won't. Apple has done all the hard work (assuming there is an x86_64 version of OS X in existence). Some apps will work but will work better with some optimizations.

I do work as an OS X and previously an OpenStep and before that a Mac OS developer.

"And hardware margins are a LOT MORE than software margins."

No they are not. Compare the margins or Apple, which has pretty high margins, to Oracle or any other large software company.

To whoever was using Apple's porting of Java as an example of why it is not a simple recompile (and VPC, etc). Java and VPC are not good examples if you are trying to argue it is not a simple recompile. Java is a low level program that provides a new runtime system. VPC emulates a CPU. Those sorts of things are highly tuned and optimized etc. Most apps aren't nor do they need to be. MS Office does not have specific call-outs to SSE code or other HW specific stuff. That is all hidden in the libraries.

To the person who says that Mac code uses a lot of Altivec etc. No it doesn't. Apple's low level code does, but very few apps specifically optimize for Altivec. They get it through the use of Apple's libraries.

The majority of applications could be done with a simple recompile for a mythical X86_64 OS X. Not all apps. Games, high performance things like video playback, Java and other low level things like VPC would have a lot harder time. However, most apps (think Safari, MS Office, accounting and database software, iChat, etc) would not be in that boat and could be done with a recompile, and maybe a small amount of tuning and optimization.

Endianness is taken care of in libraries. The application programmer does not have to deal with that sort of thing. The library programmer and low level programmer does.

After all the noise generated around multicore PowerPC CPUs, which ended up in IBM and AMD announcing and releasing their multicore chips while IBM remained totally mum about the technology, this surprise switch to Intel would be a rather unexpected way of delivering multicore capability to the platform. I was expecting Apple to release multicore PowerPC machines at WWDC. Is it possible they turned out to be such poor performers Steve decided to go with plan B and ditch IBM? Who knows. One thing's for sure, you always get your dose of high drama with Apple.

One problem if Apple switches to Intel processors: benchmarks will very quickly reveal the performance problems inherent to OSX's microkernel architecture. On the other hand a few bad reviews may prove to be the needed kick to ditch that outdated, pedantic microkernel nonsense.

OH PLEASE GOD LET IT BE A LIE!!!!

The devil is in the details. This is not about Apple switching to Intel. Wow, think of the 'switch' campaign for that one. This is Apple releasing OS X to run on qualified Windows PCs. Not just clones, you'll need to buy them from the big vendors. Apple is now to take over, you watch... Oh, and we'll make sure e2Sync runs on it too! This is the best news for Mac developers we could ever hope for. Let's just hope it's really true.

Actually, Mon. Mr. J. will announce that the media is soooo gullible, and that X number of employees have been fired as he now knows who the leakers are.

...there's a lot of hyperventilating going on. Before anyone else goes off on an hysterical fugue, keep in mind Jobs' track record at Pixar and Apple. He has shown a remarkable knack for good business decisions, so unless you think he's suffered some sudden mental breakdown, I have no reason to expect that he's going to make a stupid move now. For criminy's sake, one vague rumor and people seem ready to believe that Jobs' is suddenly going to start rebranding low-end Dells or something equally preposterous. If there is some sort of announcement on Monday, it will almost certainly make sense. That's a big if - we've seen all sorts of similar rumors pan out to nothing over the years. The only difference this time around is that Apple has reached a high enough media profile for the rumors to hit the mainstream press, rather than Mac rumor websites.

You can't blame Jobs if he's looking for alternatives, though. IBM is now a year late delivering the promised 3 ghz chips, and you have to know Jobs wouldn't have made the promise himself if he didn't have some serious commitment from IBM. He must be reallllly steamed to be this far behind his promise, especially now with both AMD and Intel out with dual-core chips. He would be negligent if he wasn't seriously looking at some kind of alternative method of getting chips. Not necessarily x86 chips!

Damn thing is subscription only. b*******.

The guy who said it cannot be a simple recompile because it takes apple so long to port Java...doesn't really also understand, that is a bad example... That is a PORT not a recompile.

IN other words, if you had programs running on Mac OS X - Intel, then it would be a recompile to run on Mac OS X - PowerPC...but since there is no such beast yet, you cannot sit there and wonder why it takes so long to move programs to PowerPC....all the examples he used were examples of porting from foreign operating systems.

Now, if you were moving from Mac OS X - PowerPC, to Mac OS X - Intel, that will be a simple recompile...not a port.

toor wrote: "Actually, Mon. Mr. J. will announce that the media is soooo gullible, and that X number of employees have been fired as he now knows who the leakers are"

Unless x=1, how would he who leaked?

...but I do like the idea that Apple is trying to discredit these hyped pre-keynote rumors.

What contrary? The WSJ story and eWeek story does not conflict, idiot.

Unless IBM just told Apple to get lost, I have to doubt this story. The reasons not to "switch over" to Intel are vast and well-picked over here. But lets say, as the rumors have told us for a long time, that Apple has a version of its OS that runs on Intel. And they've translated the iApps over to it, too. And its hard drive is big enough that you could run a Windows partition on it. Getting the picture? You'd have a two-volume computer, with Tiger and Windows coexisting. No? Well, how about an Intel/X system to garner some extra sales? And there as an insurance policy? After all, the old PPC alliance is in rough shape. Motorola is gone, and IBM is hardly the monolith it once was. No?

"Now, if you were moving from Mac OS X - PowerPC, to Mac OS X - Intel, that will be a simple recompile...not a port." Where do people get this this from. This would anly be true if there were no g4, g4 ,g3 or any powerpc specific code or style of coding. As in apple never optimised for PPC. This is not going to be the case. They would first have to remove all PPC specift code remeber thoughs cheche hints for the g4 that slowed coded down on the g5. Then they would have reoptimze fot the Intell chip. Even though lightwave ran on the pc when the first p4 ship it ran so slowly that no one used it it took intel to fix it.

Has everyone already forgotten or given up on Cell? I found deep in IBM's site a couple of articles on Cell with references to Apple. There is no way Apple will go to Intel for a main processor with it's commitment to the Cell technology, especially with speeds around 4 GHz. Read the article below, you'll be blown away!

http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/D9439D04EA9B080B87256FC00075CC2D/$file/MPR-Cell-details-article-021405.pdf

Hmm, and to think I switched to my powerbook to escape the mainstream Pentium notebooks. The Pentium M isn't a bad mobile processor...I just never thought it would end up wearing an Apple sticker. I wonder if the next desktop (G6???) will stock Intel's new dual-core chips.

No one is switching anything... This is Apple releasing OS for Intel. Remember, OS X for Intel exists, always has and actually was already "OS X for Intel" BEFORE being ported to PPC. Apple didn't just throw all that work away. It's all strategy. And trust me, if there was not something to the story, CNet would not have run THREE stories on it this weekend, the WSJ would not have, eWeek would not have, AND... because of the serious damage this would do to Apple stock price if there was no announcement, if there was not something to it, Apple would have come out and said so by now. They've done it before.

So, in summary, Apple is NOT switching to Intel processors, they are ADDING vendors who'll be releasing X86 boxes running OS X, and they'll most likely be protected with an Apple ROM. At some stage Apple HAS to take this gamble, it can't go much further with the current focus. This is GREAT news and we should all be as excited as little kids in a candy shop.

Its that yellow box Apple mentioned years back with the introduction of osX. Windows in a sort off classic mode on x86 procs, the wet dream for all those wondozers. :-)

I really really really hope its osX for DELL and not only apple hardware.

intel based machines. In theory it would be the ultimate switch for the cheap PC user. Hook um' with OSX for Intel and reel them in on getting actual Apple hardware. I like it!!!

Think they will have to support 2 platforms with only cocoa apps working on both and each having its own platform specific apps. In the next years Apple and his users then have the option to choose the best platform for there needs.

I like it. :-)

Here's some thoughts that came to me as I tossed and turned over this news this morning.

Apple is most noted as an innovator. History has shown many times that whenever Apple was the victim of sub-standard products from a third party, they did whatever it took to produce their own, superior product. When Adobe put Mac Premiere development on the back burner, Apple bought Final Cut from Macromedia, then developed it into a powerhouse application that blew Premiere out of the water. Similarly, they released iTunes for Windows when MusicMatch wasn't up to their standards.

Now Apple is faced with a dead-end relationship with a company (IBM) that has not fulfilled its promise to keep Apple's flagship computers at the cutting edge of speed. Remember, although Apple has made large inroads in recent years into the worlds of high-end computing, academia, and (to a lesser extent) commodity computing, their primary market is still in the creative fields. Both the G4 and the G5 were essentially designed as media creation workstations. Recent analysts have placed the Apple marketshare in creative fields to be (if my memory serves me correctly -- don't quote me on this) somewhere around 80%. Anecdotaly, I am an IT manager for a newspaper conglomerate and about 90% of the machines I service around the country are Macintoshes, including graphics workstations, support computers, and servers.

So, Apple is getting fed up with IBM's lack of initiative. What do they do? They already own rights to the PowerPC architecture. I think Apple has turned to Intel to produce an all-Apple designed PowerPC. This would fit the so-called facts of the C|Net article I think better than the x86 idea, as in many ways the x86 would put them in a worse position than they are currently with IBM (the x86 is quickly nearing its end of life and would require too much work on the part of already-stressed third-party developers). I think Apple has used the PowerPC offerings from Moto and IBM as a stop-gap while they secretly developed a PPC variant of their own. Of course, they don't own the facilities to manufacture such a chip, so they turn to the one company big enough to handle a custom manufacturing job and meet the supply requirements of a growing company -- Intel. This would also fit IBM's continual scramble to get out of the desktop computer business and focus on its servers and embedded chips.

Think of it -- an all-Apple designed chip manufactured by Intel! Apple would be able to map its own microprocessor future. Intel would get paid to produce it (after all, that's what they're really in business for) and would probably gain ideas for their own chips along the way. Apple would start on the bottom line with a chip for its commodity computers as a "test" while they finalize a "superchip" for the workstations. And, because they own the designs, if Intel didn't meet their needs, they could find someone else who would.

Its still going to cost more than the average pentium or even the IBM's G5. Jobs isn't a PPC fanboy, he just wants a bigger market share and Pentium or PPC are both good enough for him.

Yellow box on x86 was on the roadmap from the beginning but the transition os9 to X came first an cocoa needed to grow. All cocoa apps and windows will run fine on this system, thats fine with me. I would buy one just for the cocoa apps if its cheap enough. If it can exclude the viruses i'l use it for gaming.

"Its still going to cost more than the average pentium or even the IBM's G5. Jobs isn't a PPC fanboy, he just wants a bigger market share and Pentium or PPC are both good enough for him.

Yellow box on x86 was on the roadmap from the beginning but the transition os9 to X came first an cocoa needed to grow. All cocoa apps and windows will run fine on this system, thats fine with me. I would buy one just for the cocoa apps if its cheap enough. If it can exclude the viruses i'l use it for gaming."

True. But I don't see how apple can sell this kind of pain to third party developers. Pro creative apps like Photoshop and Maya use system level code that's optimized for the AltiVec engine in PPC and will require a major overhaul to bring make them OS X on x86 compatible. Especially considering the radical differences in the way Windows and Mac code handle graphics/gui functions.

Also, it doesn't make sense for Apple to invest in hardware that can also run Windows. Why would they care about Windows support (other than being able to "play nice" in a Windows-dominated world)? All the applications that most Macintosh users need are already available on the Mac, and then some (with the exception of games).

well I got sick to my stomach thinking about x86 for Mac, because I think as much as the market makes x86 vs. PowerPC comparisons now, in a wrongheaded way (i.e. on mhz)...remove that, and the comparison is on price entirely, with ZERO room for any inflated costs on the part of apple.

But...with that said, if transitive's technology is allowing PowerPC to be oh so much faster on dual core Pentium M's...(essentially making the Pentium M a PowerPC compatible chip...) then, why wouldn't apple take a lower cost/faster chip from intel?

If transitive's technology is really working as claimed, it seems that this is not disruptive to developers and would make for a smooth transition for Apple...and it suddenly makes sense why the lower end products go first...because the 2.7ghz G5, is a competitive chip and doesn't need an update the way a g4 laptop needs one.

But....again, it goes back to the marketplace, just as the MHZ myth hurts some sales now, the 'apple premium' is going to hurt sales...once people do have a pentium M, they just won't understand why it won't run windows...and once someone makes a few bucks developing their dual boot loader...mac people will be running windows...developers will be developing for windows, since all mac users can run windows anyway....and soon you have a market confused and slowly dying.

this is a bold move for apple... I'm convinced it may kill them, and sometimes perceptions are reality...I for one will vote to not buy a machine for a while....

but then again, tomorrow's a new day :-)

Well, three, but for the sake of argument let's ignore #1.

1. This is just a rumor.

2. They're talking about Intel fabbing faster Power PCs.

3. They're releasing OS X retail for PC hardware.

Going to x86 on Apple-only hardware won't provide more than a minor performance increase over the medium term, it will hurt performance badly over the short term, and unless Intel has some hard proof that they're going to start following Moore's Law again (they're not doing much better than IBM at pushing the clock) it's not going to help over the long term.

also I think it makes sense, the rumor that Stevo is going to demo Pentium D's tomorrow, with also the announcement that mac mini's and laptops will the first to get the new tech.

He's demoing on Pentium D's, just because dual core Pentium D's are ready for tomorrow's demo...not because Pentium D's can be used in laptops...they can't...but its the dual core Pentium M's that can do that...and they will be ready by next year, that would be used first in apple's products....this all fits into the rumuoured timelines.

I like the logic of this set of rumors...even the supposed 'mistakes'...just seem like someone not exactly understanding what they were told... anyway, so I will put down $2 that this is the correct direction of the rumors.

IBM released a just-in-time power-pc recompiler called Daisy years ago. Just-in-time emulation is not a new technology, and it's not a panacaea either.

ALL the successful production emulators I've seen, whether they're JIT, static recompilers, or interpreters, have depended on the emulating processor having two big advantages over the emulated one: a bigger register bank so they can map all the target registers to physical registers as well have spares for scratchpads and things, AND several times faster real-world performance.

So you can reasonably emulate the 68000 on the Power PC and the ARM. You can readily emulate the x86, VAX, and Sparc on Alpha. But even emulating x86 on PPC is hard because of all the special-purpose registers on the x86, and it's worse the other way around because only 8 of the Pentium's registers are general purpose.

If Transitive can manage 1/6th the speed of native code I'll be astounded.

Switching to x86 as a price-based decision seems very un-Apple. Apple historically has not been overly concerned that their average price was higher than the competition, nor have they cared about marketshare. They have capitalized on excelling in their niche -- innovation. If you follow trends, Apple generally sets them rather than follows them: first to use a GUI operating system on a wide scale, first to use USB on a wide scale, first to ship machines with no floppy drive (before that, first to use 3.5" floppies rather than 5.25"), etc. Even now, products like the iPod are innovation products.

On the same hand, Apple's current high-end machines are price/performance competitive to other companies' offerings. For example a dual-processor Xeon graphics workstation from Dell actually costs a couple hundred dollars more than a top-of-the-line PowerMac G5 with very comparable benchmarks where they count to your average Mac user, i.e. creative professionals. Yes, G5s get smoked in game fps tests, but Unreal Tournament doesn't help you meet press deadlines. And the Photoshop scores are close enough that Mac OS X's superior workflow productivity (AppleScript, Exposé, Spotlight, Automator, Colorsync, etc.) easily makes up for any performance lags from a real-life perspective.

If Apple does go with x86, I can only see it hurting them, perhaps permanently. They can't buy a Xeon chip for less than a 970fx -- they cost about the same (and Xeon is still Intel's only true workstation-class processor). And Xeon has yet to be brought into the 64-bit realm. They can't use a P4 in a multiprocessor configuration, either. X86 looks to me like a lose-lose situation.

Could Apple liscense the Mac hardware to Intel as a way to gain some corporate credibility? Think Power Computing that will acually compete in a different market.

Probably Apple was looking for chip to use in their Tablet and of course tablet will run OS X Mobile, that why this gossip started about Apple moving to x86, but noone really know. :) Could be Wireless USB, or something else. ;)

BTW, when you guys are talking about the x86 compatibly environment/virtual machine, it's call RED box not yellow box. Yellow box is what we already have, Cocoa, write once, run anywhere. "Anywhere" being any cpu running an OS X variant. Red box will allow you to run X86 apps. That said, red box may not actually exist.

http://www.amtek.com.tw/english/Products_itablet_T200=04.htm

It's really impossible for Apple to move OS X Tiger to x86. They started this core thing, like video core, audio core, core image and etc... that I wish they will release at least QuickTime 7 for Windows in the end of this year. :) BTW: Why they would optimize all this software for G5 if they knew that they will move out from PowerPC? :)

You won't see Adobe PhotoShop under whatever OS X on x86 for another 2-3 years. That's for sure. There is tons of libs that Adobe didn't touch for years. It's some stupid crazy joke like one guy said to catch leakers inside Apple. ;)

I disagree about the possibility that apple is going to release rumors just to draw attention to WWDC...for one, apple is in the middle of lawsuits claiming they hate rumor sites...to find out later they use them as a business strategy may not look so good.

for two, its well known that rumors manipulate the stock price, and many analysts think the intel rumor manipulates the stock price upwards...again, I just think this is risky and could result with someone in jail...no apple isn't going to be releasing such rumors, I think.

No need to anyway...who says you need a weekend of frenetic speculation before WWDC..if you have a bombshell to drop...the frenzy will begin soon enough anyway.

as for the articl not saying x86...I agree, it didn't, and for part of the weekend, I too was hoping for a powerpc from motorola....but with other rumors coming out (and if you are going to buy into rumors, might as well jump in head first)...it has become clear that the rumors from those claiming to 'know'..it is x86...

I don't care about it being intel as a company, I think they are a fine company with a reliable track record... the x86 part is the tricky bit...when everyone realizes they can dual boot to play windows games, and then they realize its a hassle to dual boot, and then they just end up staying in windows....

thats going to suck...and then when someone boots os x on non-apple hardware, even illegally, and someone things to themselves, if I buy the Dell its cheaper...and I can run mac os x, even on the dell if I have too, but then because doing illegal things is a bit of a hassle, and because apple will keep changing the code so it doesn't work right away on non-apple hardware....pretty soon they bought the Dell because it could do everything cheaper...but they end up just running windows.

this is a great way to transition the customer base to windows.

BTW, when you guys are talking about the x86 compatibly environment/virtual machine, it's call RED box not yellow box. Yellow box is what we already have, Cocoa, write once, run anywhere. "Anywhere" being any cpu running an OS X variant. Red box will allow you to run X86 apps. That said, red box may not actually exist.

No, I'm talking YELLOW box, not RED box. Developers were promised the Yellow box for Intel long, long, long ago, and then Apple dumped it. The YB was basically the OS X frameworks for Windows, which, in theory would allow developers to write programs to the framework and have them compilable/runnable on both Windows and Mac (not just OS X for MIPS and c*** like that). It was used as a carrot by Apple to lure developers, and then Apple pulled their usual Bait & Switch and said "Oops, sorry, we're not doing that".

The Red Box was always a fantasy more than anything else, an emulator for OS X on PPC to run Windows programs.

As an expert in the IT industry myself, I would just like to point out a few facts:

1. Most OS X programs, including the OS itself, will run perfectly fine on Intel-based, x86 Mac. GCC compiler itself originates from non-PowerPC platform. If in doubt, think how X11.app runs codes originally written for x86 Linux platform. It's no brainer. It's super-easy. Practically speaking all we need to do is to recompile the existing code, and that should take no more than a few hours. Anyone complaining about it should be considered incompetent.

2. Move to Intel has to happen at some point regardless of whether Mac fans want it or not. I tell you the truth: What's happening here is that the demand for game console chips and chips for embedded hardware has been skyrocketing, and both IBM and Motorola will be forced to focus on supplying enough chips for those markets. With Apple's tiny market share they just can't afford to babysit Apple right now.

3. Intel/AMD is Apple's only hope left. Apple seriously needs to catch up with clock speed, and they need to reach 6Ghz by the end of 2006 in order for them to even matter at all. Intel partnership and x86 migration will give them Windows compatibility layer and smooth transition to Windows API under OS X.

Apple is also under tremendous amount of pressure because DELL is starting a new brand for high end PC. DELL is expected to pretty much just sweep the graphic market in a matter of a blink with their new high end graphic workstations. Switching to Intel/x86 is one thing Apple can do to combat that.

Back from the dead… To coincide with the release of the Lord of the Rings director's cut and new animated made for TV movie collection featuring everyone's favorite hobbit's illustrious sidekick, Apple will release a new home media/gaming device named for our scrappy little friend at the WWDC. Long live iPippenX86. I'm not believing anything until lil'Stevie sings.

I was just thinkin'. Jobs doesn't want the biography released because it says he wants to take the PC business back from Ol' Billy. What would Patton do? Why ram it up his you know what. Jobs could probably personally finance whatever it took to keep OS X the best OS in the computer business on ANY processor!!!! Think about it. Any machine you want to buy and you can get OSX. Hmmmmm… platform agnostic install disks of all your favorite software in whatever type you need. Sounds nutty, no insane, kinda like taking over the personal music industry by storm and selling tracks for $1. a piece on the internet, geeeez what am I thinking.

I really don't care what hardware my OS X runs on. As long as the OS X/Mac experience is the same. I don't buy Macs for the hardware, yes my Powerbook is ultra-cool, but my wife's Compaq isn't bad looking. My G% at work is great but the Dell boxes aren't that bad either. It's not the hardware to me, but the software and OS X experience.

But I don't think this Intel rumor is about CPUs, WiMax, PCI-E, or something else we haven't thought of. Maybe their going to use an Intel processor in the Apple Settop box?

Like many of you, when i first heard this, I felt as though I had been stabbed in the heart. Kind of like watching Darth Vader tell Luke Skywalker, "I am your father," or learning that George W. Bush had won the White House.

Much of what has been posted to date is full of idle speculation and short on substance. All we know for sure is that there is a RUMOR being reported as fact that Apple will announce tomorrow a deal with Intel to use Intel chips in its products. Some other so-called news sources claim that Apple will be completely dumping IBM over the course of the next few years while other news sources report that Apple will be using Intel chips in some of its products.

One of the key details missing, however, is exactly which Intel chips will be used. We all jump to the conclusion that the chip in question HAS to be an x86 derivative. But is that necessarily so? Afterall, Intel makes several different lines of chips, not all of which are x86 derivatives nor are they all CPUs.

So what are the possibilities? Too numerous to count. And some has been said here already. My take on the possibilities–from most likely to least likely–is as follows:

1.) Apple will incorporate an Intel based technology, such as WiMax, into its product line-up.

2.) Apple will be using an Intel designed processor as the heart of Apple's next gotta-have-gadget. This gadget will either be a game/video enabled iPod (vPod?), or perhaps a Netwon stlyed tablet PC running Mac OS X Lite.

3.) Due to fabrication issues with IBM and the PPC "G5" processor, Apple will announce a deal where Intel will manufacture for Apple on behlaf of IBM.

4.) Due to IBM's fabrication issues with the PPC "G5" processor and over-estimates of performance and target dates, Apple will be taking its stake in the AIM alliance and and PPC line of chips to Intel. Apple and Intel will continue to design and develop the PPC architecture. The first Intel made PPC chips will be low cost, low power "G5" chips for the Mac mini/eMac and PowerBook/Ibook line-ups.

5.) Apple, wanting to harness the power of 64-bit computing, feeling it can no longer count on its old AIM partners IBM and Motorola (Freescale), and wanting a CPU not bound by the legacy of x86 kludges, will announce a partnership to use Intel's next iteration of Itanium based CPUs.

6.) Apple is going to take Microsoft and the rest of the PC world head on and announce that they have formed a partnership with Intel. All future Macs will run Intel x86 inside or better. Apple will compete head-to-head across the board with low cost PCs ($200 Mac mini) as well as high end PCs and severs with the advantages of having Apple's design flair and user friendly and secure OS. Plus, Mac OS X will run on other Intel based PCs as well, providing an alternative to Windows and Linux for users of all flavors.

Tomorrow shall make fools or g

LouZer said: "The Red Box was always a fantasy more than anything else, an emulator for OS X on PPC to run Windows programs."

1997: http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/boxes.shtml

Yellow box is for the cocoa and next software that will run on intel and PPC with a recompile or compile on the fly. Blue box is basically os9 classic we have now. Red box is running windows apps in osX on x86 hardware(!) the same way we run os9 in classic on PPC. Carbon is to ease the transition from os9 apps to osX but doesn't fit either in yellow, blue or red.

So Adobe won't need to port PhotoShop from PPC to x86, you just run the windows version. There will also be a 'carbon' to easily port windows app to native osX just like we have now to transform os9 to osX.

The bad part in this will be that a lot off windows apps will be ported tot osX so much so that the PPC will be less and less attractive for the user. Apple will then also need to move to x86. The sales of PPC Mac's will grind to a halt but Apple will sell more than enough osX versions to OEMs for them not to lose money on it, au contrair. They basically make zip profit on a mini and about 100$ on a iMac, an easy 10 fold osX sold to OEMs will make up for this.

Euh, my 2c

And i may add, Apple was at the time not pleased with the low developer support for cocoa apps in the yellow box. They needed Carbon to lure the developers to osX but those apps won't work on other hardware. Apple was, we may say, pissed so they had to wait with the transition to x86 hardware with a few extra years.

Now seems to be the time to get in action, Longtooth is years away, consumers are ready for it (look at Linux and Firefox) and there are a lot off cocoa apps in the wild these days.

I'm thrilled like h***, just 1 day to go :D :D

Well I am pretty sure this is a planted rumor just to get people to start speculating about something while Steve has somtehing else coming up on Monday.

Its mainstream news sites that spilled the beans so Apple would have let us know its total bs if it was so, stock is to important to ignore. The rumor is true for sure but thats all we know, it could be anything from wifi, tablet, ipod to osX on intel. :P

james9490 wrote: "As an expert in the IT industry myself, I would just like to point out a few facts:

It's super-easy. Practically speaking all we need to do is to recompile the existing code, and that should take no more than a few hours. Anyone complaining about it should be considered incompetent."

You just exposed yourself to be a poser/fanboy. You don't have a clue about the differences between PPC and the X86 ISA. james9490 wrote: "3. Intel/AMD is Apple's only hope left. Apple seriously needs to catch up with clock speed, and they need to reach 6Ghz by the end of 2006 in order for them to even matter at all. Intel partnership and x86 migration will give them Windows compatibility layer and smooth transition to Windows API under OS X."

LOL, so you are saying that Intel/AMD also don't matter? No chip maker is going for the Mhz myth any longer. Everyone is going Dual core instead of clockrate increases. What bridge do you live under? You should get out more often and "read" about the industry you claim to be an expert in.

These "mainstream" news sites have fallen for rumours and hoaxes many times before like Windows XP Reloaded, the yearly reporting of this rumour for the past decade and other Apple products that never appeared.

It does not matter what site reports it, Apple does not comment on rumours whether they be true or false.

I don't know if the story is true or not, but maybe the following is a clue. At the Apple Developer website, there is a document that begins as follows:

'Introduction to Mac OS X Assembler Guide

The Mac OS X assembler serves a dual purpose. It assembles the output of gcc, Xcode’s default compiler, for use by the Mac OS X linker. It also provides the means to assemble custom assembly language code written for its supported platforms.

This document provides a reference for the use of the assembler, including basic syntax and statement layout. It also contains a list of the specific directives recognized by the assembler and complete instruction sets for the PowerPC and i386 processor architectures.

Important: The “i386 Addressing Modes and Assembler Instructions” section is considered preliminary. It has not been updated with the latest revisions to the i386 addressing modes and instructions. While most of the information is technically accurate, the document is incomplete and is subject to change. For more information, please see the section itself.'

Find this at: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Reference/Assembler/ASMIntroduction/chapter_1_section_1.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000851-CH211

doesn't surprise me a bit, writing code in cocoa and Assembler has been dual platform from 1997 on, Next worked on PPC and x86.

Has the document always referred to i386 and i486 procs or is this a resent addition?

Check this posting from Maccentral:

Apple will use a new processor from Intel that is based on Pentium but is not x86 compatible. The current Pentium processors translates x86 code to its native internal instruction set on the fly. This process is inefficient and a lot of transistors on the chip is used for this. The new processor is called Pentium X and it only runs code in its native instruction set called PX. Code optimized for PX can be considerable faster than x86 code. Pentium X is cheaper to manufacture but still uses the same production facilities as Pentium 4.

Translation from x86 and PowerPC code to PX code can be done in software, similar to Transmeta processors but translation will be done offline, before the application runs. Most existing applications for Max OS x will be able to run without modification. However, Mac OS X applications will not be compiled to PX code, instead they will be compiled to a new virtual machine (VM) from Apple. Apple VM code can run on both PowerPC and Pentium X.

Apple VM is similar to Java and .NET but is faster since application code can take advantage of processor specific features. Both Java and .NET have fixed instruction sets and uses specific memory management, garbage collection, threads, exception handling, etc. Apple VM, like Amiga/Tao VP, does't have these limitations and applications run at native speed. Apple VM is based on an open source project called LLVM.

Future Pentium X processors might have a different instruction set and only the Apple VM (and OS) needs to be adapted for applications to run on the new processor. Developers could also add processor specific code to take advantage of new features. The first Pentium X processor uses a Pentium 4 core and its instructions set is called PX.4. A Pentium M based processor will also be available.

Being sunday night, I can now confirm with 100% assuedness that something big is afoot, and tomorrow (or this week) we'll see Apple stun the computer world in ways you can't even imagine. They will not only be announcing, but displaying and offering product for sale, updates to existing lines which makes the existing line of Macs pale in comparison.

Yes, it all sounds fanciful (h***, how come no one wonders Apple is offering jobs for BIOS work - like any work needs to be done with a BIOS - to a programmer in Eastern Europe, sans NDAs and the like, while there's sure to be compentent engineers right there in central California, but I digress), but its 100% sure its going to happen.

How do I know this, you ask? Simple. I just purchased a new Mac. And after blowing a good chunk of change on a Mac, as always happens with me, something new, better, and cheaper is going to be released. And real soon now. Otherwise, it will almost be like I didn't just waste $2500. And if that were to happen, well, the earth itself might just stop spinning.

Radiospace at Appleinsider posted this and I had to laugh:

"If this story is true, I wonder if they'll make a new "Switch" ad starring Steve Jobs himself?

-----------------

Steve [in front of white screen, casually dressed]:

My company always used IBM PowerPC chips. We thought, it's good enough for us. [shrugs] Sure, there were occasional problems... [ticks them off on his hand] Slower processor speeds. Heating issues. Unreliable supply. [shrugs again]. But I thought, so what? I mean, I never really liked IBM, they made Deep Blue... that chess computer... and, I always thought computer games were pretty stupid, and if computer games are stupid, nothing's worse than Deep Blue... but, I figured -- [shrugs again] hey, I can put up with a little stupidity as long as I can run OSX on it.

Then, last February 24th -- I remember because it was my birthday -- I was using my little Powerbook and after about 40 minutes I thought -- gee, this thing's kind of hot. [crinkles his nose] In fact, I kind of singed the hair on my legs -- cause I was wearing shorts -- and I thought, boy, that red-hot IBM chip just burned my legs and they sort of ruined my birthday there. That's not what computing is supposed to be about.

And then I thought about how IBM had me stand up in front of everybody two years ago and tell them [gesturing] "hey, 3 Gigahertz is right around the corner!", and how they never did give us a 3 Gig chip. And I thought, hey, that's not the way its supposed to be. Then I remembered that thing about how IBM was gonna start putting those PowerPC chips in the X-Box. That's even worse than Deep Blue, I thought.

That's when I decided to switch to Intel. [ticks off his fingers] They're fast. They're cheap. They make lots of them. Best of all, they don't singe the hair off your legs on your birthday. So that's what I did. I switched, and it feels really great. Everything's a lot simpler now that I know it has Intel Inside.

I'm Steve Jobs, and I'm the CEO of Apple Computer...."

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,212...tw=wn_tophead_1

Synopsis: Moving to Pentium D chips so that hardware DRM can be enabled to prevent free exchange of copyrighted materials so the inevitable iTunes movie store and Movie iPod can be created. It is being done so Hollywood can be on board secure in the knowledge that their property won't be stolen. It's the only way that Hollywood would apparently allow it.

I can't say I like that but it's as plausible a story as I've heard so far.

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

"Introduction to Mac OS X Assembler Guide" Point of View neglected to post this quote from the document:

"Note: Don’t confuse the i386 architecture with the i386 processor. Darwin makes use of instructions specific to the i486 and Pentium processors, and will not run on an i386 processor."

Intel as a company is pretty good, but I sure thought IBM had the inside track for the next 5 years....dang. Maybe this is IBM's way of torpedoing Intel. Once someone makes cpu's for Macs they instantly lose the ability to do it well.

Anyway there is no way Jobs will make the Mac any less of an experience and no way will there be a resemblence to the hardware of a Dell or even Sony - like the one guy mentioned above. Ive's will still be working at Apple.

Next, the only reason I see going head to head with MS in any fashion is to do it now, while OSX has the advantage and Longjohn is a year away from being a buggy newbie. That's at least 12 months of viruses to eat deep into PC's all over the world. If Apple would wait to do this another 6 months it might be too late.

I still don't think it is necessary though, unless IBM really is the problem and Dell has pre-orders already in. Apple has been able to make money and innovate and give us all the great Mac experience with only 4% installed base, so why panic now.

!= Market Share. The market share has been 4% or less while installed base is estimated to be much higher.

speaks, people listen. and they are speakin' right now. it's not a niche. and it's not just one product. it's a wholesale move. i hope they are dead wrong, but they were ridiculed by this board last week, and it turned out to be very very true.

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111791696757050994,00.html?mod=home_whats_news_us

Do you really believe that Apple will move to Intel based CPU's? :D No way! I mean of course Jobs could screwd up again because he didn't get any money last year and burn to h*** Apple like it's happend before, also, he has a really strange relationship with Bill Gates and after MS showed Xbox running on the G5 from IBM 3.2Ghz then probably he freaked out and called IBM freaks and told them that they are cheat on him with Bill. :) Then he went to Intel and deside to become the next Bill Gates and kill the PC market. :)

The more I read on the net the more I see this is paving the way for "trusted computing" (i.e. having lots of digital rights management all over your computer). Read the article for yourself I posted earlier.