Apple and Intel: A Few Predictions

As a Mac user I would rather see Apple continue using IBM supplied chips, especially in light of the announcements of Sony's Cell and the PowerPC processors which will be used for PS3 and Xbox 360 respectively.
I'm not saying that there's no truth in the Intel negotiations but I have a feeling it's not going to be as obvious as a change over to x86 architecture.
Hopefully it'll be just a component of some ground-breaking new technology - this IS Apple after all goddammit!!!

The last thing we need is any old joe pc app writer to be able to make an app for macs. And what about spyware? If macs supports windows applications, they can also support spyware.

Well if this is true - I still don't really believe it - then I hope that Apple will do their own motherboards and not use that garbage that Intel and other x86 motherboad vendors produce.

For game players this may be good enough, but we are doing computer based telephony and everybody is having serious issues with Intel hardware and those issues simply disappear when running the same software on the Mac even on LinuxPPC, so it is obvious that those issues arise from the way x86 motherboards are built. They are unsuitable for highly demanding real-time stuff like telephony.

As a Mac user since 1989, I have been through several major changes in the platform: the switch from 16 bit to 32 bit with System 7 in 1990; the switch from Motorola 68K to PowerPC in 1993, and the change to the UNIX-class OS-X. All these switches were fully justified and necessary. What would be the justification to switching away from PowerPC chips? It would have to be pretty big, and I'm not seeing it. And this is from the well-proven PowerPC that has advantages over the X86 line. Is it worth the wrench? If this is true, it may have more to do with price and marketing considerations than technical ones. Is there a better consumer-level chip than the G5?

"Is there a better consumer-level chip than the G5"?

I'm a bit shocked you asked that, but it's common knowledge that dolloar-for-dollar there is currently nothing more powerful than AMD's 64-bit line of chips.

I don't get this move by apple, unless it has something to do with concerns over the stability of IBM in the long run, or perhaps IBM is getting harder to deal with (pricing, production rates, etc.). It doesn't make much difference to me, since I'm AMD all the way.

For those who can't understand the move:
1. G5s have already suffered supply shortages, and this was *before* the XBox2 was announced, needing 3 G5 chips per unit. (IBM's priority will NOT be Apple.)
2. The G4 processor works in Notebook PCs, G5 chips don't. They're too big and overheat. And yet the mini/powerbook market is the larger. Pentium-M notebook chips are the logical migration, considering OS X already runs on it.
3. Developers 'do not' have to rewrite their apps. They just have to be recompiled. The OS is an abstraction layer.
4. A wealth of new programs cannot surely be a detriment to the Mac? The argument that you're happy with your system because it doesn't have that many apps is flawed. If you don't want new apps, don't download them!

1. Apple will make an announcement that it will be using Intel chips for it's laptop line and Mac mini ... there will be no such announcement for desktop computers ... not yet, anyway.

2. Breakthrough software emulation will allow existing apps for Mac to work with 80% efficiency with little or no programming work.

3. Notebooks with the Intel chip will be available this summer, including a new sub-notebook form factor.

1. Many PC familiar posters are making mistaken statements. Their lack of knowledge prompts conclusions from ignorance or misconceptions. This is has been frequent in Mac vs. Intel hardware debates. It feeds the speculation about this "news".
2. Apple's buy from IBM's chip unit is a larger % than Apple's buy could be from Intel.
3. The G5 is 2 yrs. old and due to be replaced next year with G6 based on Power 5 architecture at 65 nm.
4. Many OS X technologies are chip based and not transferable. Look at Apple's web site's developer support for facts.
5. Big endian vs. Little endian breaks OS X software and makes emulation difficult. It isn't cureable with a recompile. The code must be stripped and reformatted line by line.
6. IBM's Cell technology is years ahead of anything at Intel and will run different OSes simultaneously. Plus it is PowerPC based in it's control core with Altivec enabling an easier port of OS X and software. It will be available at the end of this year and capable of processing speeds 10x current Intel chips.

1. Many PC familiar posters are making mistaken statements. Their lack of knowledge prompts conclusions from ignorance or misconceptions. This is has been frequent in Mac vs. Intel hardware debates. It feeds the speculation about this "news".
2. Apple's buy from IBM's chip unit is a larger % than Apple's buy could be from Intel.
3. The G5 is 2 yrs. old and due to be replaced next year with G6 based on Power 5 architecture at 65 nm.
4. Many OS X technologies are chip based and not transferable. Look at Apple's web site's developer support for facts.
5. Big endian vs. Little endian breaks OS X software and makes emulation difficult. It isn't cureable with a recompile. The code must be stripped and reformatted line by line.
6. IBM's Cell technology is years ahead of anything at Intel and will run different OSes simultaneously. Plus it is PowerPC based in it's control core with Altivec, enabling an easier port of OS X and software. It will be available at the end of this year and capable of processing speeds 10x current Intel chips.

in a word - hollywood

Intel will have DRM embedded in the chip and Hollywood is liking it. If apple wants to play in the next round of devices they need to be Intel to join in the fun all the way.

and the laptop comments are on the mark as well

Jobs will give his keynote speech at 1:00pm ET today.

The keywords "apple intel jobs" pucnhed into Google should get you the most up-to-date news.

What is even more interesting is AMD's role in all this. ;-)

Suppose this new is true... How is Apple going to support their bottom line for the next 1 to 2 years or beyond until the transistion is complete.
Who is going to spend $1000 - $3000 on a current PPC based Mac that will be instantly obsolete?

Zeo makes an excellent point.

R. Thompson raises a good question.

Interestingly enough, I almost bought a Mac last week. I dropped by an Apple vendor (who deals exclusively in Apple), and was given a lengthy demonstration of OS X running on whatever top-model G5, with a MASSIVE 33-inch theatre-type LCD. Well, I was impressed with OS X, except for a few flaws. I drove home, to my wonderful Linux GNOME 2.10 desktop (which looks quite a bit like OS X in its intreface design), and just pondered the idea of using a Mac (again.) I was a PowerPC user from July 1994 - June 2002. Before I was going to withdraw the $$ from my bank for a G5, to use as a second computer, I decided to do a bit more research on the model I was going to get.

Then I saw the news . . . . which changed everything. If Jobs does indeed confirm the news today during his keynote speech, there isn't a chance in hell I'd shell out for a G5-based Mac. I can wait a year and perhaps even run OS X on my PC, alongside Linux.

See? All that current (and soon to be obsolete and therefore useless) G5 hardware lying around.

Can't imagine software development for G5's continuing much further.

Conclusive evidence?

http://forum.macosx.nl/album_pic.php?pic_id=7142

(I think its Photoshop :) )

Anon'

Yup thats Photoshop! ?ntel letters are not in perspective

It's a done deal.

The keynote is over.

Head over to macobserver.com for the latest news.

I am afraid this will be the final death knell for Apple. In a decades time the Apple will be undistinguishable from a high end PC. In short Apple computer will lose its identity.

Bye, Bye Apple it has been a great 25 years. The PC has finally won.

Rotton Apple.........

>>What would be the justification to switching away from PowerPC chips? It would have to be pretty big, and I'm not seeing it. And this is from the well-proven PowerPC that has advantages over the X86 line.<<

Plenty of reasons. I note in an unrelated story that for the first time, laptops have outsold desktops in a calendar month. Perhaps IBM will never have a low power strategy. Apple has been asking IBM to widen the chip line, perhaps to include laptop suitable chips and has been rebuffed. That leaves Freescale. yeah right. The Pentium M with robust power management might look awfully good to Jobs, especially if the company will become more and more dependent on portables just because that's the way the market is moving.

Then there is dual core. Supposedly IBM has it down pat, but everything I've seen indicates the synergy between cores is no better than the current boost dual cpus bring to the PowerPC. You know, one chip is "x" so 2 chips should be "2x" but the real results are more like 1.25-1.33x. I believe the traction between Intel (and AMD) cores is much better and this is what counts.

Forget OSX on a current Pentium or dual boot/dual OS machines, even if Apple does ship a couple of models quickly. The future is mobile computing and multiple core 64-bit architectures.

Oh, don't worry, you'll see black market copies of OS X that run on generic x86 machines soon enough.

Leave that to creative Linux hackers.

As a PC user, I embrace Apple switching to the Intel x86 architecture, so I can finally use a 'stable' OS on my PC. On a different note, I am disapointed in Apple for abandoning their wonderful and powerful PowerPC G5. Apple brags on their website about how the G5 kicks @$$ against even the newest, state-of-the-art Wintel machine. How are they going to explain switching to what they view as 'obsolete hardware'?

The Apple G5 was never such a huge performer. It has always trailed AMD, for example.

Apple will probably utilize 64-bit technology from Intel in whatever form.

I also don't buy that OS X will not run on any generic PC.

The games console market is huge and Apple is obviously taking no chances on being customer #4 behind MS, Sony and Nintendo for IBM's next gen chips.

The writing was already on the wall when they announced they would have PPC-based chips running at 3.2 GHz by Christmas. Apple has been waiting about 2 years for IBM to break the 3 GHz barrier.

Secondly, don't ignore Apple's move into the consumer appliance market. Intel is strong in wireless so don't be surprised if you see a Mac Mini-type PC using Centrino as the hub of your home entertainment centre. (Oh, and it will look absolutely hot as well).

There's always been debate about which is the better chip architecture. Apple will claim that PPC was the better chip in the past, but it's future lies with where Intel is going.

My prediction: now that Apple is Intel-based, the nay-sayers will complain about the price, how damn stable it is that it costs IT jobs, and it's just not as pretty as used to be when it was on PPC. Oh, and OSX demystifies computing so all the techno geeks/nazis will have to rely on social skills & other abilities to maintain their status.

The games console market is huge and Apple is obviously taking no chances on being customer #4 behind MS, Sony and Nintendo for IBM's next gen chips.

The writing was already on the wall when they announced they would have PPC-based chips running at 3.2 GHz by Christmas. Apple has been waiting about 2 years for IBM to break the 3 GHz barrier.

Secondly, don't ignore Apple's move into the consumer appliance market. Intel is strong in wireless so don't be surprised if you see a Mac Mini-type PC using Centrino as the hub of your home entertainment centre. (Oh, and it will look absolutely hot as well).

There's always been debate about which is the better chip architecture. Apple will claim that PPC was the better chip in the past, but it's future lies with where Intel is going.

My prediction: when Apple is Intel-based, the nay-sayers will still complain about the price of the hardware & software. IT professionals will be quietly furious about OSX is so damn stable that it costs IT jobs and it's just not as pretty as used to be when it was on PPC.

IBM basically ditched Apple in favour of the console market.

Jobs had no choice but to find another supplier. Jobs saved his computer line, but in doing so has jumped from the frying pan . . . . into the fire, perhaps.

You can thank IBM for screwing Apple. Jobs had no choice.

Basically it's the future that Apple is concerned about. IBM hasn't produced a G5 chip with low enough power consumption for Apple's portable line. With the Power book and iBook still using G4s, it's a potential worry in terms of revenue. Secondly, cost of the G5 chip is a hinder to the consumer line (iMac Mini & iMac). With Intel chips, prices will be more competitive. Lastly, Intel are aggressive when it comes to regular speed bumps, innovation and promotion. I have yet to see an ad by IBM promoting their Power PC chips.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Steve start supporting Intel in his NeXT venture only to shut down his hardware division shortly after and then sold the company shortly after that? In essence, NeXT /NeXTStep/OpenStep became another OS in the Intel world that didn't/couldn't overcome the "Good Enough" value proposition of the Wintel duopoly? Am I the only one getting a icky deja vu feeling?

Prediction: Wake up and smell the roses. Apple's OSX will be a bigger threat to Microsoft than to Linux. It's all about stability and ease of use. Linux will surive because it is driven by Open Source purists. That's not to say there won't be a shake up and a shakeout. Companies such as Linspire and Xandros will loose whatever appeal they have in the x86 desktop world when faced with Apple's OSX in the mix. It's much easier to bash Gates than Steve Jobs. The real losers will be MS, and the commercial Linux Desktop developers.

A Mac is a Mac because of the OS, not the hardware. Remember, it's already been on two different processors.

It's possible that the OS can be hacked to run on generic PCs, but I'm sure Apple will do everything they can to prevent that. Apple is too far behind Microsoft to be a software-only company. They make their money on hardware.

This could potentially increase market share in the long run. If their hardware can "emulate" Windows software well, then you can buy one computer (a Mac) to run two systems with minimal performance penalty. What's not to like?

In any case, I'll still probably get a PowerMac G5 later this year, if only for sentimental reasons.