Coming on Monday: Intel-Based Macs?

Let's hope they make the GUI video adaptor detection / selection painless, unlike xfree / xorg setup and configuration can be painful (even futile)

Yes it will be "plug and play" LOL
One would think an AMD deal would benefit since it would give wintel a serious chafe... And honestly I just can't see Steve Jobs pulling a Dell deal.

I would dearly love to see OS X on my Intel box!

I'm not saying anybody's wrong or right - but I thought I heard this story many times before. I'll believe it when I see it.

they should have 2 kinds of lines one intel for cheap ones and PowerPC for the powermacs then we could still buy good computer

In todays heterogeneous network environments, (in the home today more than ever) system integration is much too often brushed aside from the fanatic standpoints seen in blog entries, perhaps this transition will take us just one step closer to the OS independent wake up call all users need.

As a x86 PC user of windows and linux, I would welcome another alternative platform to run on the variety of hardware I already have available.

Apple's strongest point has been its loyal base. A switch to x86 could seriously rattle that base. Could Apple overcome it? I think it would have to bank on a raft of switchers to make it worthwhile. Apple would have to be in the mood to diversity away from computing toward electronic appliances to consider this kind of step. After the success of the iPod, however, that's a distinct possibility. Jobs may be figuring that innovation in the home computer market is peaking, Apple's servers are never going to be truly competiitive and so the future lies elsewhere. I would be surprised if this comes to pass on Monday though.

Why switch to Intel when IBM now has the cell computer based on the PowerPC. Seems this would bring you the upgrade capabilities that Apple wants within the multiple core technology of a powerful new, but familiar processor.

If this happens, we will not have a "choice" any more. The nice thing about my PowerBook is that for the same processing power, it does not burn my lap. There is a major difference between Intel and the Risc base PowerPC. Come to think of it, maybe Microsoft should rethink the PowerpC chip again and we should see a new version of Windows running on PowerPC...

May be it's IBM switch, not apple switch? They have MS as volume customer now, Apple is too small in volume and was forced to switch.

I think mac enthusiasts like macs mainly because of the OS, rather than the processors. As long as they have their little red, green, and yellow window buttons, I think they will stick with macs.

Computers are still really slow anyway, mainly because of hdds, not OSs.

Wake me up when my hdd is as fast as my processor.

Thank the lord I bought Microsoft, Apple AND Intel stock some time ago... who knows where this will end.

Apple is better off investing in developing new styles and improved usability. Most of us are getting away from Desktop environment as our primary information habitat. We are increasingly moving towards a lifestyle that thrives on simple and sensible access to right information at the right place at the right time. I believe that Apple can do a lot in this arena by intelligently focusing valuable resources such as people, time and money to strengthen their core beliefs and become the market leader in their industry.

2005: Continuation of x86 and PowerPC vying for users within the consumer space.

2006: The start of x86 vs. Cell (Sony) competition in the consumer space.

This may be a short term win for Intel, but Sony/IBM are gunning for market share in the next few years. The consumer marketplace is going to heat up like never before. Mark my words.

Is it just me, or are x86 users ready to switch? The Apple-nuts say "I'll believe it when I see it". Wintel (WinAMD) users seem so say "bring it on". If Apple becomes an OS company, how is this bad? It's worked damn well for M$.

apple has perform an illegal operation and will be shut-down

So does this mean apple will say good bye to it's one clicker mouse?

I think we are seeing the end of apple. It has a small dedicated customer base and it's getting smaller.

The only thing keeping apple alive is the IPOD. It would be nice to have a choice between gates and Jobs OS. We shall see, Tho, I really think they should have went with AMD. They have better dual core technology on the drawing boards!

I firmly beieve that Apple wants out of the home consumer computer market. For the market share it has, it's too costly to keep Support around for those products (while corporate and industry users can 'afford' to pay for Support for the higher end) while they've discovered - in their iPods and their companion website - that they can sell another product for home users that are essentially disposable and require no significant Support mechanism.

Basing their computers on an OS and a processor type that is 'already out there' in one form or another means that Apple can distance itself from computers and have 3rd Party Companies and users take up the Support slack for home consumers.

I would love to have mac os x on my wintel
(windows/intel) box!

Baz,
What is your evidence of support cost problems? Do you think their support burden would _improve_ on Intel? After just releasing Tiger, they are abandoning the home?? Apple makes iLife, and you think they are leaving the home user market?

Don't think so.

Apple will announce that they are working with Intel on Monday, but it won't be about Mac's. It will be a new device...plain and simple.

I think this is a set up for a move to Cell or IBM dual Core . . .

If they go to Wintel, why would anyone develop for Mac OS X? Developers will just develop for Windows and expect the user to install a copy of XP . . . Mac OS X will run as a dual boot and never get used.

Why, now that they have a halo effect and momentum and mindshare, would you bolt for Intel?

Apple and Intel have been making nice for some time now, and Apple has wanted to be able to work with Intel on something substantial, but something other than switching CPUs...a move Apple could not afford to make. Well, now they've found it, and it will be announced on Monday. Cheers!

But x86 sucks...

If Apple announces a full-bore switch to Intel, then Apple will sell zero computers between now and the time a new hardware platform is shipped. Zero. And then they will sell a few dozen, because people will have angrily bolted for the exits.

That is financial suicide, no matter how many iPods they are selling.

This will not run on just any PC system. This has been planned out. It will require a highly customized Intel chipset designed to protect the ease of use and reliability of OSX. Apple has never, and will never allow their OS to just run on any platform. You won't be able to buy OSX and simply install it on your existing box. There will be requirements in ROM etc...Besides, who wants OS X to act and feel like the nightmare Windows is with drivers? Apple will lock this down to make their reputation stand. The other item to consider is, will Apple really move to Intel? Intel has massive resources. Apple owns part of the powerpc alliance. Maybe we will see Intel coming out with an Intel PowerPC option that is sustainable.

Eric above is completely incorrect. Apple has enjoyed MASSIVE growth in the past 3 years, and has been bolstered by the iPOD. Look at their financials. Huge record profits. The user base in growing very fast and Apple has moved up several slots in the last few studies that track sales. Eric should research before making these claims. Apple has had the best international sales quarters recently as well. No, Apple is very much here to stay. The government (industry I work in) has now recommended Macs over Windows for both security and reliability reasons.

Has anyone considered that this might be the 'new' device that has been mentioned in some circles? Speculation was that a new computer might not compete with those currently being sold, and that, perhaps, this will run concurrently with the present offerings.

Just another thought.

Has anyone considered that this might be the 'new' device that has been mentioned in some circles? Speculation had it that a new computer might have a very different target audience and not compete with those currently being sold, and that, perhaps, this will run concurrently with the present offerings.

Just another thought.

I think I heard somewhere that IBM's PowerPC plan aimed toward desktop and not portable computers. Maybe Apple may go Intel with laptops and stay with the new Cell technology for desktops.

Actually, I like Richard's thoughts even better. :-)

Intel in the mac mini and emac makes a great deal of sense.
Using Intel will allow Apple to lower the prices of these budget machines. The main problem has always been the need for software to be rewritten, and for the high end this is still the case, as Adobe, Quark etc. just did rewrites for OS X. But almost all the software used on the budget macs is Apple software - Safari, Mail, Itunes, IMovie, IPhoto, etc. About the only thing the average budget mac user will need to have ported is Word. I think this move has been very thoroughly planned and that Apple has been developing in-house versions of software in anticipation of the move. This gives them a foot in the Intel door while giving the pro software guys a couple of years to do their rewrites.

Steve Jobs has said for years he likes to have options, having the option to make a move to Intel on some of its products would help boost sales that have been hindered by Motorola/Freescale over the past several years.

File compatability that plauged Apple before OSX is all but gone. The engineers at Apple have co-developed two versions of Tiger that can function on PPC and x86. The software exists for both CPUs and the file compatability will be handled within the core of OSX. I would bet that Apple has the potential to ADD Intel to the BTO options for some and make standard for others.

Jobs likes options...Stay Tuned

Apple can easily switch to Intel. However, only Apple computers with Intel processor will run OS X, and never will they ship an OS X that runs on prexisting Intel machines. Supporting other Intel machines would be a support nightmare, and a big mistake. Trust me it would never happen.

If Apple ports the API's for Carbon as well as Cocoa, then it could be a completely transparent switch for all users. I suspect they'll be no Classic environment on an Intel machine, but that would be no surprise at this stage.

Does anybody think about Intel being licensed to manufacture PowerPc chips? Maybe this is what all the negotiations are about, Intel has a better history of turning out chips using new technology then IBM, and in greater quantities.

Apple can easily switch to Intel. However, only Apple computers with Intel processor will run OS X, and never will they ship an OS X that runs on prexisting Intel machines. Supporting other Intel machines would be a support nightmare, and a big mistake. Trust me it would never happen.

If Apple ports the API's for Carbon as well as Cocoa, then it could be a completely transparent switch for all users. I suspect they'll be no Classic environment on an Intel machine, but that would be no surprise at this stage.

Not only could they lower costs and increase speed with this move, but converting Window's users over to Mac OS and hardware would be infinitely easier, since they could include a PC emulator environment (kinda like Classic) to run all the users old Windows OS and software. Eventually, these old Windows users can be weaned off the Microsoft OS just like current mac users were weaned off the Classic Mac OS.

Has anyone considered the possibility that Intel went to Apple and asked them to build an X86 OS. M$ just broke a long standing agreement not to make moves into the hardware business. Worst of all M$ just did it using IBM PPC chips. It may be that Intel want to counter that and make a move into software, then approached Apple to deliver the OS.

MorningRambles came closest.

This won't be a "switch". Apple is going to bring back "fat binaries" from the NeXT days and make it easy for developers to provide a single installer that works for multiple architectures. Remember all the Cocoa API's (in their OpenStep form) and the OS were running on Intel, NeXT, HP, Sun hardware back in 1995. We also had those APIs running on other OS's (NT and SunOS).

Baz, Apple charges for support beyond 3 months.

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.lede

The rumour is that Apple will switch to Intel. It says very little about x86 vs another architecture or a modification or merging of existing ones. I can't wait to hear the news on Monday. It should be very interesting.

Here's an excerpt from an interview between VP/GM of Intel's mobile platforms group and IDG news service:
IDGNS: What would you be willing to do in order to win Apple's business?
Chandrasekher: Well, nothing unnatural that we wouldn't do for other design wins. It's got to make sense from a business standpoint. We would do what makes economic sense. If we can do that and still get the design win, we'd do it.

Holy Shit.

If this is true...

- No impact for current OS X box owners. Everything will continue to work just fine. Software will continue to be available post-transition.

- For those with current x86 boxes, you're likely out of luck. My guess is that Apple will be selling boxes, not OS's.

At the end of the day, the OS is already designed to be portable. 75% of developers will be able to transition their software in an afternoon. The other 25% will require some work.

This is most likely about Apple liking the future development path of Intel over IBM, nothing more and nothing less.

But who knows, really? Like I said, holy shit!

Option B, of course, is that we're witnessing the transformation from Next to NextStep.

In other words, Steve is slowly getting out of the hardware business, letting OS X clone, and planning a frontal assault on Redmond.

Not as likely as Option A, but ya' never know...

The one part I don't understand is this:

If I'm running my x86 OS X box, can I run Windows applications? If so, how kludgey would it be?

- Dual boot?
- Kludgey OS9-style compatibility soft machine?
- Transparent app running?

Monday should be fascinating...

If Apple moves to Intel CPUs somehow, SOMEHOW the industry will FIND a way to reverse engineer the Mac ROM, and then the way will be clear to manufacture Mac clones, and Apple will get their busines in computer hardware yanked out from under them. I only PRAY heaven that occurs, just because everyone will finally be cut loose from Apple's hardware strategies for once and for all. And instead of ONE Apple computer there will be hundreds, nay thousands of "Apple" Computer companies. After all the work everyone at Freescale and IBM has put into Apple's behalf, for Apple to move away from the Velocity engine is a total mistake, being that too much will have to be thrown away in order to re-engineer for Intel X-86 hardware. The Mac will also lose what is strictly unique. The ONLY way to work things would be for Intel to manufacture G4 and G5 cpus-or something totally hardware compatible with current Mac hardware. Otherwise I cannot believe what a fucked up situation that would be if Apple were really to move to Intel hardware. The losses that Apple will attract with that scenario will kill the company-finally, and once and for all. Maybe this is after all best somehow that Steve Jobs makes the final mistake of his career, and kills off everything Apple by only the most stupid of maneuvers if true. I'll be making my own Macs for sale, along with everyone else. Didn't the Mac cloning fiasco teach Apple that ther Mac OS can be cloned ONLY at the cost of the parent company where the parent company has too much of it's profit margin tied up in hardware? Or is Apple going to become a software company with an OS that has a friggin god-damned REGISTRY? What idiot has to DIE in horror for that idea? Not me ;-)

Apple sells boxes, great looking, great working boxes. What's IN the box is ENTIRELY immaterial.

Back before the introduction of the Mac, IBM used to be the 'enemy.' Then IBM got screwed over on OS2 by Microsoft and got some sympathy. Then they slipped between the sheets with Apple and Motorola (AIM) on the PowerPC chip.

Motorola's now doing other things and IBM's getting tight with Sony (PlayStationIII) and Microsoft (XBoxIII).

Microsoft's morphing into a game box company (ironically using dual G5 Macs to develop for their own box,) and watching their high margin market get eaten up by cheaper &| better software (Linux & OpenOffice)

Big deal... Nothing is forever. You stay nimble or you die. We're watching three companies mover nimbly.

If IBM's throttling Apple's business by resisting Apple's production needs, let Apple go to Intel (or AMD or some obscure Korean chip maker with enough capacity to care but not so much that they don't care.)

As long as Apple has people of the caliber of Johnathan Ives on their design team and as long as they retain control of their hardware, they'll be okay (even with the inevitable ripping off of OS X on 'unsupported' plain vanilla PCs.)

What Apple is betting the farm on, now that its not their ONLY farm, (iPod is making LOTS of money and that's good for Apple,) is that people don't desert them.

And, as Microsoft's exit from the OS business under competitive pressures of Linux and anti-trust reparations from governments around Europe and Asia, i think its time for Apple to enter the fray with good hardware that runs good software.

"If Apple moves to Intel CPUs somehow, SOMEHOW the industry will FIND a way to reverse engineer the Mac ROM, and then the way will be clear to manufacture Mac clones"

Perhaps you are unaware of the passage of the DMCA. If DMCA had been in place twenty years ago, there would have been no IBM clones.

While hardcore hobbyists will find ways around the restrictions, no one will be able to make money by selling those solutions, and therefore, no non-Apple OS X businesses will spring up.

In other words, no clones unless Steve says clones.

ntel on Mac? Only if Intel is going to make Mac OS compatible cpus which means NOT using that X-86 moribund front end (hardware) for the registry in the Windows OS. Yuck. Oh and give up the advantages of the Velocity (altivec) engine? I think more properly Apple could be leasing the rights to build PowerPC derivative cpus by Intel without the x86 front end and with the embedded caches, superscalar pipelines and Altivec vector engine which makes PowerPC chips special, This would be a more proper and viable strategy. Otherwise if it's just ANY cpu from Intel that will run the Mac OS, the software re-engineering will be monstrously prohibitive, and there will be a massive effort to CLONE the Mac ROM by reverse engineering and heck if you think there's a problem with the Orient cloning Mac look-alikes with Intel cpus you ain't seen nothing yet. Years back I did designs that were manufactured in the Orient. Those people will clone ANYthing. So if Apple wants to give it all up become a software company-and go kiss their hardware off-just make it run with Intel cpus. Right sure fine LOL I'll be making my own Macs, why would I be further strapped to Mac specific hardware. Just sit back and let the Orient CLONE by reverse engineer the Mac ROM that would do it ...........can you say COMPAQ?

We will find a way around the Mac ROM in software and a registry IF Apple goes with existing Intel cpus. Heck maybe we'll create our own ROMS, there's no DMCA for that! Hardcore Hobbyists? you have NO idea how ingenoius the Orient is do you..........

Intel Inside for Apple means something along the order of WiMax or XScale in a new device. Nothing as dramatic as all Macs move to Intel processors. If that is a long-term strategy to keep that option open, better keep the Apple customers used to the idea by adding product with Intel processors, not replacing PPCs with Intel chips.

Scenario for Apple

1. Move to UNIX-Done!

2. Move to Intel CPU Plus Apple Proprietary ROM Card. Instially MAC hardward. Develop inhouse expertise with Intel and Windows software: iTunes, QuickTime etc.

3. Sell ROM card and MAC OS X to OEMs and consumers.

4. Release a new OS, MacWindows, a UNIX OS plus Apple Propietary ROM that runs current Windows software natively.

5. Wait five years: Apple OWNS the OS business MAC or Windows PERIOD.

Microsoft has had a chance, but hasn't delivered.

I am a Mac user because of the OS not the Hardware. I have never had anything against the the Intel Box, I just find the WIndows to be unusable (for me personally) and stick with Mac. If the move makes even more things compatible with the Mac OS, Whoo Hoo.

Mac OS X for Intel as a replacement system for XP, OS X for PowerPC for Macs with its current client base. Eventually they meet in the middle, or they don't. If Intel OS X exists Wintel will port to it, rather than the reverse. iLife, iWork, garageband et. al. don't get ported, or at least not for a long while.

Maybe.

The whole benefit of the Mac is that the software always knows what hardware it's running on, thereby producing a much more stable (and supported) plaform than Windows or Linux. It is very difficult for Microsoft and Linux developers to test their software with every device (video card, sound card etc etc) out there, but it's easy for Apple.

So, if Apple were to make it possible to run OS/X on any PC, OS/X would be just as unstable as any other operating system.

If Steve Jobs really wanted more options he should have offered more options himself to his customers in the first place. Replacing a superior architecture with Intel x86 is not a promising thing and definetely not any more resilent than current status. Unless you believe Intel would accept a deal where AMD would also be in the game. The bottomline is that Intel's CPUs are worse than AMD's, nevermind IBM's or Freescale's.

Nevertheless, the market is somewhat crazy and the decisions sometime do not make sense to people. When you see a company getting desperate (like Intel these days), a helping hand comes unexpectedly from the enemy. Just like M$ giving Apple a money boost or IBM helping out M$ with Web Services or Oracle speaking favourable of Dell. Of course, sometimes its ordinary people who can make iPod a huge success ignoring WSJ and Merril Lynch's experts or who can decide that an Intel-based Mac has no future against Intel-based Sonys, Dells, Toshibas, HPs and OEMs.

hi what so great about OS X anyway ....its just clone of Freebsd Unix anyway with some cool graphics layer added (though I prefer KDE) ...and FreeBsd is one of the MOST SECURE, RELIABLE, POWERFUL os in the world used in mission critical servers...so is all BSD derivatives like OS X, Solaris etc . FreeBsd works damn well on Intel/AMD ad so will OS X (they only need to recopile it for i586 or IA64)

Fun stuff to speculate about. I see the leading possibilities

1) Intel in addition to power-- dual lines, thus puttimg pressure on and reducing vunerability to IBM. Also something to tempt the x86 nuts over to OSX

2) Intel manufacturing Apple power processors-- thus getting around IBM's manufacturing problems

3) A new product.

If Apple is actually dropping Power after so much investment it must mean that power is in serious trouble and faster power processors aren't coming

or

IBM has been treating Apple like dirt

No one has mentioned Itanium. Strange. That chip is not x86, although it probably emulates it. If OSX were ported to Itanium, there's no worries about clones (unless you find a retailer selling them, but it still rules out hundreds of clone manufacturers) and it would bring down the price of that CPU. Intel could simply refuse to sell the chips to anyone but Apple and the other companies currently using it e.g. HP.

If OS X came out for x86, Windows would die. Its that simple. With OS X rated OS of the year from PC World, Walt Mossberg yelling at everyone to switch, and Longhorn still a long way off, Windows...would...slowly...die.

MONDAY: Apple and Intel buddy up for non-cpu products

AUG Expo: Apple introduces the iPHONE.

I have had Macs since the Mac IIcx, including the 6100, dual 500 G4 and now the dual 2.5 G5, if Apple switches to Intel I say: F**k Apple --my loyalty is totally gone--period. They had my loyality because they were DIFFERENT --now they will be the SAME --no more THINK DIFFERENT --what a bunch of idiots at Apple to not realize this fundamental fact of our loyality --they don't even understand their own propaganda... bye bye Apple, your 3 or 4 percent market share will go to no percent --you are commiting business suicide.

Apple has years of marketing trying to convince computer buyers that the PowerPC processor is far superior in terms of performance to Intel's Pentium 4 processor. It seems like a marketing and public perception disaster to suddenly switch Macs to something Apple has long contended to be a "second best" processor. My head is swirling with all the shots Steve Jobs has taken at Intel processors over the years. If the rumor is true that Macs will migrate to Intel processors, I at least hope that Apple and Intel announce a new high-performance CPU design. This way Apple can claim to switch for performance and product quality reasons. Otherwise, I feel this would be a blow to Apple's credibility in using the Pentium processor when Steve has maintained all along that it's not as good as the PowerPC processor.

This just in: Apple rumored to merge with Costco. Wal-Mart refuses to comment.

Itanium is a dead chip, it's not even supported anymore by HP who were the design partners. AMD definitely owns the 64 bit x86 space (at least in the server world) There is a newer 64bit Intel chip IM64-T, but I don't think this is relevants as the CNET article is about low-end desktops, not X-Serves.

What is interesting is that Intel is investing heavily in the wireless space (like WIMAX), so if Apple machines are indeed getting Intel inside, it might not be for CPUs.

What is also interesting is that it makes no mentions of intel for Powerbooks (though Apple has been upset by lack of portable G5s from IBM) and X-Serves, only of desktop machines. So this is a bit of a bolt from the blue. Also an Infoworld article interviewing an Intel VP states "we continue to covet them as a design win. We will never give up on Apple". AFAIK, covet = desire, so if they desire a design win with Apple, I guess they don't have it yet, right?

Guess we'll just have to wait till Monday to see the gory details.

This is what I hear ... Apple will release a version of Mac OS X that runs on Intel (compatibility with AMD as well) processors. Current hardware products will continue to be sold as they are with an option for Intel based processor in near future. OS licenscing will be restricted/limited depending on vendor (Apple's bundle has be the best choice out there over other vendors, if any). Apple will have exclusive control/rights over both OS and any (PPC or Intel) hardware (bundled from Apple??).

This is what I hear ... Apple will release a version of Mac OS X that runs on Intel (compatibility with AMD as well) processors. Current hardware products will continue to be sold as they are with an option for Intel based processor in near future. OS licenscing will be restricted/limited depending on vendor (Apple's bundle has be the best choice out there over other vendors, if any). Apple will have exclusive control/rights over both OS and any (PPC or Intel) hardware (bundled from Apple??).

This would be horrible... Intel makes some of the lowest-quality chips i have ever used, while IBM processors have the power equal or greater than an Athlon. Intel had it's chance to make high-quality chips... so far, they have only been into upping the clock speed. theyve hit 3.7 ghz, but it doesn't run NEARLY as well as a 2.6 ghz athlon, or the highest G5 at the moment. Intel's processors have developed a reputation of totally sucking... i would DEFINITELY hate to see them in an apple computer. IBM is still apple's best choice. i think they should stick with them.

Don't forget the Power5 processor is dual-core already, and Power chips have been 64-bit for ages.

Intel sucks!
XP sucks!

OS X on a Intel?

That might be interesting.

Where's my Mandrake PC? :)

I think that people need to keep an open mind here. I agree with Charles Rovira's posting. Apple needs to change and to grow. Remeber when people also were vehemently against it making the iPod and were writing its obituary?

The stealth MaOS X project on Intel chips all these years (called Marklar) is an important and overlooked note. If they have kept a completely up-to-date version of OS X on the Intel platform with all of the full OS X bells and whistles then the port may not be too difficult. Remeber the CORE of OS X is Darwin which is a reference to survival of the fittest. I have heard from some that only a handful of libraries/files need to be recompiled for OS X to work on an Intel chip. If so maybe software programs will have new compiling software which will be able to extrude versions for MacOS X on IBM and Intel. Or maybe they have figured out an even easier way to make the changeover. Jobs & many, many people at Apple are very smart. Too many pundits think that we know everything. Let's give Jobs & Apple some credit. Remember, the NeXT operating system ran on Intel chips. So did Yellow Box. Remember that? It does not matter who the manufacturer of the chips are as long as they are fast, faster than the competition, plentiful, inexpensive and from a stable manufacturer. Also, why only one manufacturer? What if the same software could run on MacOS X on any chip? Who knows? I am sure that there will be a lot of surprises over the next year.

The old asian proverb "may you live in interesting times" seems to be true.

I think that Jobs is a crafty fox who learned from his burns with Microsoft and others. Look for him to transition Apple from a hardware only company to a full hardware and software company to maybe a design and software company. I would not bet against Jobs because he has vision. Microsoft, Dell and many other participants have no vision.

Eventually money, good execution plus vision beat out money only. Every time.

This would be a disaster for Mac developers. Mac applications are easy to use and using intel processors, I think the new applications will be poor quality.

If this i true I think Intel will be producing Power PC chips for Apple. Intel has to be a little worried. MS's Xbox & Sony's PS2 are both running on IBM's G5. What if MS suddenly announced that they were porting Windows to the PPC. Intel's in trouble. Apple is a partner in the PPC technology. The probably have the right to license that technology. IBM seems to have neglected Apple or used them to get the architecture validated. This should get interesting. PPC is a better architecture. Why didn't MS use Intel in the Xbox?

We're commenting on rumors here, but I'll bet this is nothing more than Intel getting into the PowerPC business. I think IBM and sony and toshiba are about to change everything with their PPC/cell, and Intel has made a nifty move to get in the action with one of the PowerPC originators.
That's if this story has any truth in it, of course.

I agree with Yosh Schmenge's comments that a) money alone is not the only thing worth dying for and b) Apple needs to grow and mature. But there are many more uncorrelated problems Apple needs to solve - CPU option is not the most crucial. Apple must understand that if it needs to expand it must discard its lame attitude that everything should be controlled by Apple. The market needs more than one CPU company. Apple needs clones. Apple must play nice with 3rd parties and open-source movement or it will be a 5% market-share Micro$oft. And that's not good, isn't it ?

The point isn't the chip that Apple uses. Who cares about that. I want a system that's easy to use. And Mac OS and apps on Intel would be at least as easy to use as well as cheaper -- the port to Intel wouldn't be difficult enough to damage ease of use.
But Apple and the users are going to want to stay in the hardware business. So I don't think Apple users care about the chip any more. But we do want a nicely designed box to go with the OS.

I have used Macs since the 512k and I have supported Apple through the changes from MC68xxx to PowerPC and from the original OS to MacOS X. I have bought applications to run in all three environments. I have done so because Apple's hardware and software is insanely great. I mean insanely great.

I regularly use Windows, Solaris, HP-Unix, IRIX and MacOS 9 & OS X computers. Nothing compares to the ease of use of Macintosh. While some people think Apple's insistence on a closed hardware architecture is a "problem", as an IT professional who has to install large numbers of systems in mixed use encvironments, I know installing and training on Macs is pure heaven, compared to any of the other platforms I use and train others to use. Whatever Apple does, if they lose the absolute hardware compatibility the system has now and/or lose the ease of use they have now, they are dead in the water. There is no way I would use or recommend any system that is as difficult to use as Windows, unless there was a major upside - and I just dont' see it.

As far as leaning on their iPod sales. Apple announced a slump in iPod sales today and Apple stock slid. Apple is the only computer manufacturing company who can have their stock slide when they sell more than they estimated, (last quarter, the slide was, allegedly, due to the fact that "more than estimated" wasn't enough), or less than they estimated.

If this is some new Apple platform based on Intel, then it will be a hit. If it is a wholesale abandonment of what Apple was built on - rock solid hardware and OS - in order to save a few bucks or pander to the lowest common denominator, then we will see the end of any meaningful choice in personal computers and personal computer OS's.

It seems Apple's strength is new design for the kids creating. Where are they at on the bit torrent software? merging with new animation softwares? new production softwares? merging with the new media formats? rap, hip-hop, country, christian. cooperative distribution. birdsongs.

I'm withholding judgment until I hear details of what they're actually doing. I have no sentimental attachment to the PowerPC; unless you're doing certain specific, extremely demanding tasks, chips are chips, and a Mac with an Intel processor in it would still be a Mac. But Apple could kill its Mac business if they don't finesse the legacy software compatibility issue somehow; as John Gruber said, between now and the changeover, who's going to buy a deprecated platform? But maybe they've got a plan. Or maybe they're moving toward shipping units that are so loaded with usable software that they stand on their own out of the box.

If true, its time for Jobs to leave and let new blood carry the Apple vision.

Intel will be for anything that uses a G4 chip now, powerbooks, ibooks, mac mini. Motorola can't make a chip fast enough and cool enough for Apple to use in these products. IBM doesn't expect to have a portable chip soon enogh to update this product either. Apple will stay with IBM for anything currently powering their G5 product. Intel will replace the G4 chips.

Apple co-developed the X86 platform with Tiger. It will run only on Apple builtX86 machines, not PC crap hardware. Don't get your hopes up to load the X86 Tiger on anything you or I can build...it will not happen.

You can take that to the bank.

I just wanted to thank many of the posters for the laughs I got reading their posts.

Apple will NOT be going with an x86 CPU. And I see nothing wrong with Intel and Apple joining up, nor anything shocking about it -- other than AMD would have been my first pick for a chip partner, since IBM has gone so far as to furnish chip fabs for AMD and even shares a bit of their core 64bit tech with them.

Intel has much to offer in terms of sheer manufacturing power and lots of cash to spend getting into a new market and expanding their current markets. Keep in mind that Intel makes many types of chips, not just CPU's. So far all these unverified stories have only said that Intel will provide Apple with "chips". A chip does not mean a CPU, it can mean any silicon wafer that gets crammed onto a board. So where people get off jumping to the conclusion that we'll be seeing OSX on x86 is beyond me.

As for my take, aside from Intel fabbing out PPC970's and maybe Cells (Intel might have a heat/power solution for laptops) my money's on a new Intel WiFi-chip powered Home-Media Airport Base Station sporting seemless iTunes integration, possibly a built-in iPod dock and the ability to more easily transfer media to your home theatre and viceversa.

Mac OS X on Intel means goodbye Classic, and by 2006, who needs Classic? The Mac will truely be a multi-OS machine, able to run Windows (probably in a virtual machine) at near native speeds.

1991 - Intel Inside

2005 - Intel Inside, OS X On Top

> We will find a way around the Mac ROM...

Err... what is this talk with Mac ROM's? I thought that the New World architecture introduced back in 1998 made changes to that where Mac OS X unlike the previous Mac OS variant does not have a great reliance on those toolbox calls. Additionally, much of that was moved out from a physical ROM onto mass storage and loaded into RAM. Sure, Darwin boots on both PPC and X86 but there is much more things taking place above that as drivers and other components are loaded in order to bring up the full Mac OS X user environment.

The brains of the Mac is not just about the processor. It is also about all those other custom Apple proprietary ASIC's that are on the motherboard. So just because the CPU might be an Intel or AMD, does not equate to Mac OS X being able to run on Dell's, HP's or home built variants. This would be like saying that just because some highend Cisco routers use a PPC7450, that I can run Mac OS X on it. And unlike a simple ROM, who in their right mind is going to waste the time and money to reverse engineer and then manufacture (ASIC's for that matter) when the cost of doing so will be more than just purchasing an Apple/Intel based Mac? If the reason is out of principle to just not have to purchase an Apple branded box, then it is probably because some X86 hardware zealots cannot see past their own bias (which is no different than those zealots on the Mac side of the fence who cannot see that it is not Intel that is the enemy).

Like others, if Apple in conjunction with working with any chip supplier can develop a product which meets their requirements and are also able to do it in volume for a lower cost, then I personally do not care if the CPU is an Intel, AMD, or PPC. Ironically as the PPC970 has become the mother of all thermal challenges, Intel has been making strides in making cooler and less power consuming chips like the Pentium M.

If this rumor pans out to be true, it will be interesting times being a Mac user.

This, if indeed it is true, is all about IBM not being able to provide the chips. Apple's CPU sales are low, since the updates since the inital G5s have been tiny. They were supposed to be 3Ghz in a year. It's more than 2 years later, and they still aren't there. IBM can't deliver, as Moto couldn't, so Apple has to switch.

Imagine this though... if Apple can get OSX on Intel anywhere long before Longhorn is ready, what happens then?.... M$ buys Apple, that's what happens.

I'm in agreement with the idea that Apple won't be using x86 chips in its Macs - it will be asking Intel to produce PPC chips. Just as they asked IBM to produce PPC chips when they already had an agreement with Motorola.

It doesn't hurt to have 2 suppliers - particularly when one of them isn't delivering too well.

Apple's future is in OS X, not in their hardware. Apple has alway stuggled to produce a low to mid range computer that they can sell at a reasonable price. If Apple can use pc hardware, they can make their systems (systems running OS X) much more available. In the future, the decision wont be to buy a powerpc or pc, the decision will be what os to run, Windows, OS X, or possibly even Linux.

Apple would never use x86, so you can kiss that idea goodbye right now... Intel has never made great CPUs, that's why Apple never could use them. This may of changed with a specially made Xeon or Opteron so we'll see on Monday morning. And no, don't be silly. Osx will NEVER run on generic PC boxes. It's too old of an architecture to even be considered for an Apple OS. I think this entire story is about 802.16, or WiMax... now that is something that would interest Apple.

I think this would spell disaster for Apple. Take the PowerPC chip away there is no Apple. Just Intel Inside?

Just a thought but intel could be making a whole new processor for apple. I believe apple has some PowerPC intelectual rights. Apple could have Intel develop somekind hybrid of the two processors. How would intel like to get some inside knowledge of the Power PC.

Say it ain't so Steve, say it ain't so!

Aggrraaaaaggggghhhhh!!!! Wake up people! It's NOT the chip stupid! People by a Mac for the OS. They buy a Mac for the industrial design. They could give a "rats a@@" what the processor is! In fact people have only cared, IMHO, because Apple has made it an issue when it was being hit with the Mhz myth stuff a number of years ago and older Mac OS 9 looked by many as having too little to differentiate a Mac from a Windows PC. The reality is I have all three generation Mac's on my network. I have an old SE30 (68K) for nostalgia and it can get to my OS X Server no problem, I have a 7600 (PPC601) running 8.6 for my old YoYo caller ID, an original beige G3 (first Gen G3) running 8.6, a B&W G3 (second Gen) running OS 9, and my mix of Panther/Tiger G4s with a G5 2Ghz DP rounding out the mix. Except as a measure of relative speed, I NEVER think about the processor but rather what the OS loaded on it can support. They all work together and and as far as I'm concerned I don't really care. If Apple can get same or better performance from an Intel chip go for it! Mac OS X has a great hardware abstraction layer and with the right tools, compliers, developers will have little trouble moving along with them.

For many years apple always advertising how good and fast their PowerPC architecture is (and in some way saying intel's cpu are s***). I wonder what would they say now?

intel's cpu are a tad s*****y indeed. They burn too much power, they run too hot. Maybe Itanium is a dead-end. Maybe Intel is interested in risc after all. 64-bit computing is more efficient on risc, too. Could be that Intel wants some more margin as compared to Microsoft's on an OS that -with Longhorn out in mid 2007- has not evolved in 5+ years. Maybe Intel would like to see a platform that runs Linux and Macos flawlessly. Maybe Intel would like like a bit more of the serious (not the noisy, liquid-cooled variety) server market with an alternative OS.
Maybe it is not that hard for them to develop cpu alternatives or
for that matter co-develop them with ARM-like 3rd parties. After all most of Apple's recent successes are based on combined outsourcing (Ipod, Itunes etc). Lastly, Macos is the best, most ergonomic and with it's unix engine, by far most stable OS available on the desktop today. The chip it runs on makes little difference to the Mac interface; it just has to run. I personally don't think Apple will EVER use an off the shelve Intel processor and shove it in a mac for everybody to tinker with. In comparison: in Europe, more Xboxes are running Linux today than PCs. Maybe Apple is just looking for an even more economic version of the Mac mini... and if its reads P4 3200MHZ on the box it may attract a lot more hi-wattage, hi-alloy, power gamin', hormone-driven', software and game copyin' hi-school kids. All Apple should do then is change it's logo to a fluorescent scull, oh and maybe throw in a fluo powercord as well. A fume of smoke from the fire-wire ports as it boots up. That shouldn't be too hard with a Intel inside munching up to 80 W/H...

PLEEAASE!!! Not EVERYTHING needs to be about politics or religion! If moving to Intel makes sense for Apple's continued survival and contributes to the wider adoption of what is widely recognized as a fine OS, Great!

If this change makes Macs more affordable and encourages 3rd-party hardware manufacturers to create Mac OS-based systems, how can this be a bad thing? Apple can still create, patent and license cool designs to companies that specialize in mass producing personal computers, not designing them.

Consumers stand to bennefit from the increased competition that this will place on Microsoft. After all, the biggest objection many people have had to the Mac in the past is it's proprietary architecture. Even the Linux crowd should bennefit, as Intel/Mac workstations running the latest Mac OS will have the potential to more easily communicate with Linux servers, embedded devices and other Linux workstations.

Let's not get our collective panties in a bunch over this announcement. It is probably one of the smartest things Apple could do to remain profitable and will be good for everyone in the long run.

First off, I get so sick of the "x86 sucks" or "M$ sucks". I use a variety of systems everyday at my job (including Windows, Solaris, HP-UX, Os/2, etc) and each system serves a purpose.

If Apple switches to Intel, they will put in hardware restrictions to allow only OS X to run on it and software restrictions in OS X to only run on Apple-built hardware. Apple is a hardware company.

HP has and still does build x86 servers that only run Windows. I know this because a few years ago, I was at a company and we were putting up a Novell Netware 5 server on a HP NetServer and we spent days trying to figure out why it would not install. Finally, we called HP and they sent out a tech who promptly figured out they sent us a "windows only" unit instead of the "novell only" unit. 10 minutes later, he switched motherboards and we were off and running.

When I inquired HP on WTF this was all about, the sales rep said it was done to reduce software piracy. Now someone explain that to me!

Oh..one more thing. I would hope that Apple's adoption of the x86 chip would allow better compatiablity of hardware that is comsidered "PC-compatible". It would be nice to buy video expansion cards and other hardware at CompUSA or wherever instead of mail-ordering or searching eBay for Mac hardware I need.

wow, lotta posts.........

OS X rulez for everything but gaming. imagine putting OS X on a tablet and then using the tablet for drawing in photoshop. dual-boot systems with windows for gaming and OS X for email and the like, without having to buy a whole nother computer. i will DEFINITELY be buying a copy of OS X for my Dell Inspiron 8600 if it becomes available for us x-86 users.

Um, no. I don't think I'll be buying an Intel or AMD based Mac. Was all that stuff about PowerPC and RISC being better than x86, false? Were we lied to up until this Sunday? Are we dumb and just follow every move Steve Jobs makes? Is it all about all three gaming platforms going to G5s and thereby creating a shortage for Macs? If so, Apple needs to rethink what it's been telling it's customer base. Maybe Macs aren't the best machine out there. My recommendation: keep you current machine up to date as long as possible. Macs still do last longer than other manufacturers' boxes. Count on that until Steve decides that he should recast his distortion reality field again and make us all switch back to IBM processors. Enough is enough, really. I've been with Apple since the 68000 and PowerPC 601 days. Then the move to OS X. That's enough, really. Let's see what tomorrow brings. Just be sure to put up your reality distortion field umbrella...

Just as we all somehow wanted Anakin never to turn to the dark side, we always hoped the PowerPC would never be abandoned by Apple. Since Revenge of the Sith came out some weeks ago, and Anakin did fall to the Dark Side, it is finally time for Apple to change sides! The Dark Times are upon us all, but have faith, we know the Jedi will Return!

Intel doesn't mean x86. As stated in other posts, Apple went to IBM for G3 chips when Motorola could not produce reliable yields of higher clock speeds. I wouldn't doubt Apple has a clause in the contract for G5 chips giving the option to have them produced by another if IBM fails to deliver adequately. IBM seems to be focusing more on the CELL chips these days and not on the G5 issues.

Apple could be pairing up with Intel for a whole new motherboard to host two dual-core PPC chips (which would eliminate the nightmares of recompiling and rewriting code) using Apple/Intel designed chipset. PCI-Express and maybe even SLI video setups are probably of great interest to Apple.

Who knows what technology Apple has under wraps that Intel may have helped design...Apple creates some revolutionary stuff and Intel has often spoken of their desire to work with Apple on almost anything.

Even if Apple does port to x86, they will design the hardware so specifically that the OS will not run on non-Apple branded machines. They are a hardware company. Strip all 3rd party items out of a Mac and the OS and hardware just plain work. Because Apple has control of both. They will not allow the OS to be run on $29 no-name video cards and they will not try and support AMD, VIA, Intel, and nForce chipsets. Too many variables.

I could be wrong...I could be right. We'll see on Monday.

I am so glad I am using my good old faithful Windows X86 machine. I never have to worry about all this Apple crap and their changing stuff all the time. Windows XP rulz!!! The Apple has finally rotted!!!

I think a switch to Intel, as good as it sounds is a long way off. the only way that id be interested was if it ment cheaper APPLE computers. I love Apple, and yes I paid $300 more for my iBook than I did for my car, but I could have bought a new IBM thinkpad with "Intel Inside" that was nothing but trouble for a year, until the display died, after having that fixed the hard drive went. The point is that I don't see the same level of satisfaction on a wintel box. and dont think that im biased, I have two x86 machines in my basement. which brings me to another thing. I bought an Airport card $79.99 and I bought a Linksys wireless card for the homebuilt Intel. My mac? works great-Intel? everytime i want to use the card, I have to re-install the drivers, and then restart the computer. Wintel machines are inconvienient, plain and simple. If you ran OS X on a peecee you are only asking for trouble. it would defeat the purpose of Apple. If Windows XP was only on IBMs and was designed for them...I'll bet that it wouldnt be that awful bad of an OS, besides Micro$oft screwing you all the time...

IF this switch happens, and IF MacOS can run on ALL Wintel PCs, that willl be good for everyone. Microsoft will be forced to make a better Windows and Apple will try to make MacOS beter than that and so on.

Good for both Windows and MacOS users

Above, people keep saying how windos is awful. Well it is not windows (this only aplies to 2000 Pro and XP) but the third party software. Macs don't have third party software so they don't crash as much.

Also from personal experiance, with video editing software the Mac crashes more then my Windows XP, it is all the third party software not the OS (as long as you are running 2000 Pro or XP)

"If the move to Intel is complicated, some loyalists might jump ship" and go buy a PC on which Mac OS X runs!?

LOL

In 1994, I was running Nextstep on a 486 PC and was amazed at the quality of the product. Then came Windows 95 and Next was doomed. Apple bought Next in 1998 so today I run Mac OS X on a Powerbook laptop.
Looking under the Mac OS X hood, the developer's API has all the support for the Intel architecture. Programs written in native Mac OS X object-oriented code will port effortlessly to another supported microprocessor architecture once a decision is made.

> IF MacOS can run on ALL Wintel PCs

Again, if this rumor holds true, Mac OS X will NOT be able to do this. Likewise, booting Windows directly on this piece of hardware will likely also not work just as how Mac OS 9 and earlier will not boot directly on newer Apple hardware.

The processor is just one component on the motherboard and Apple will still be the sole developer of the entire widget. To make this point sink in, Darwin for X86 will only boot on a limited set of PC hardware (sure, since it is opensource, the necessary support could be added but the same cannot be said for the upper layers of Mac OS X). The hardware requirements will be even more restrictive as to what Mac OS X as a whole will run on since those layers of the OS will likely require access to hardware which will only be on an Apple motherboard.

My take is that I hope those new macs will run older mac versions of third party software! I have just switched from windows pc (after using windows for over 10 years!) to a mac pc and would be furious if in a few years the software I buy today would not work if I need a new computer in a few years as I don't fancy having to go back to windows again! Plus i love the applemac designs thanks they are really much nicer than generic pcs! If they keep up nice design and it works I'm down with it. if not they are just rip-off merchants like the others.

What about us people that have recently switched to mac? It's not a step I took lightly after 10 years of windows pc use! I am enjoying my new imac and hope they keep designing nice computers or what's the point, it's backwards. If mac os starts running on all wintel boxes so what? Some of us buy macs to have a nicely designed computer instead of an old-fashioned tower thing! it' the 21st century not the 1980s...

What I can't understand is WHY in the hell Stevie has decided to go with an inferior chip company, making an inferior type of chips for the most SUPERIOR computer company in the world?! Somebody, please! Take the CRACK away from Steve!

To put it another way, it may once again be necessary to raise the pirate flag above One Infinite Loop - but this time, it's to take back our company from the Wintellian nightmare.

Seriously, RISC chips are better for most of the tasks Macs are best at - primarily graphics. So why the hell would anyone in their right mind leave the processor platform now?

As for those idiots who want the Mac OS on their P.O.S. Wintel boxes - that ain't gonna happen, you three-teethed wonder lumps. If you insist on buying the cheapest P.O.S. computer you can find at Wally-World, you deserve the hell that is WinBlows.

How could Steve leave the bastion of goodness IBM for slovenly Intel? Well Motorola sorta bowed out and made manufacturing cell phones priority #1. Supposedly IBM is pumping out the PowerPC for Sony and Microsoft like there is no tomorrow . There weren't the same guarantees for the G5. Name the last time Dell or Compaq had CPU shortages nearly freeze orders? Survival is a gritty game and for the better of a decade, I hear how the company was going to die. It hasn't. There have been changes, good and bad. A lot of people are looking at this as Apple bowing down. Let's open our eyes. Intel, whether you like CPUs or not, has a history of innovation and collaboration. USB and Bluetooth. Apple a great design and innovation company. Airport/802.11g, the first digital camera, etc. What would happen if say you locked some intel engineers and Apple engineers in the same office for 3 to 9 months? Besides some babies, ...who knows? Probably something off the chain.