apple switching to intel. announcement monday

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: jdogg707
The one big problem with the move would be, if they moved to x86, who in their right mind would buy anything Apple for the next year or two until the transition was complete? The iPod would be the only thing selling, as all Apple software and hardware that is purchased would be rendered incompatible once the new architecture took over. Hopefully this is a call for Intel to produce PPC chips, based on current Intel designs. That way Apple could transition the move much easier, while also keeping sales hits to a minimum. If the rumors are true, and Apple is switching to a PPC derivative of Intel chips, this would be an excellent move and I look forward to it...if they are moving to x86, the next two years could be long ones for Steve Jobs and Co.

Apple currently doesn't have any debt, and is carrying around a fair amount of cash; they're in a position where they could do this and come out in decent shape financially.

 

[eLinux]

Exactly...I applaud them if they're goign to Intel to have them supply PPC chips, but even Jobs would have a hard time keeping Apple at the growth level they're at if they were to switch to x86.

I guess we'll have to wait until Monday to see the details of the announcement and see what Apple really plans to do.

 

[imported_pak9rabid]

I totally agree that apple will do everything in their power to keep OS X on only their own computers if they go the x86 route. Buuut, that doesn't mean we wouldn't see some hacked/cracked versions of OS X floating around that could install on any the other x86 comps.

 

[ai42]

x86 chips should be cheaper than PPCs of course so perhaps just maybe (doubtful I know) Apples might come down in price, given they will have to at least use standard CPUs/Northbridge/Southbridge chips (of course a Apple locked BIOS I'm sure will be mandatory but hey why not).

 

[eLinux]

I'm not sure why everyone keeps assuming that Apple is going to go with the x86 architecture. Intel has other architectures, such as Itanium. Plus, what's stopping Apple from asking Intel to produce PowerPC procs?

I would imagine that Apple would not go the x86 route; just my $.02 worth.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
No I run windows. But yes OSX as an OS is vastly superior to anything MS currently has or will have in the nexr 12-18 months.

I highly disagree. As I've stated many times, OS X is a very powerful OS. However, "superior" is highly subjective. Windows is running on infinitely more system configurations than OS X, and doing it very well. I'd say that alone makes Windows a formidable OS. Both OS's have their good and bad points, and I think it is highly ignorant to call one "superior" than the other.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: butch84
Yea, I saw that on /. Freakin crazy.... I really doubt apple would switch over to x86.... however if Intel were to build PPC or risc style chips for apple, that could be really sweet. Finally some decent supply for apple - you know Intel can deliver wehre IBM and Motorola couldn't. As long as apple stays away from x86, I think they should survive..... if not, I have my doubts.

Umm...You sure? You saying IBM has problems supplying processors? I thought IBM was supposed to have many huge FAB facilities....I mean heck they are doing ALL THREE next gen consoles! I don't think IBM is worried about pumping out processors.

Maybe shrinking the G5 might run into problems, but I don't think that the production would hit a wall

Either way I predict extremely propeitory hardware and not an x86 CPU from Intel.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: butch84
Yea, I saw that on /. Freakin crazy.... I really doubt apple would switch over to x86.... however if Intel were to build PPC or risc style chips for apple, that could be really sweet. Finally some decent supply for apple - you know Intel can deliver wehre IBM and Motorola couldn't. As long as apple stays away from x86, I think they should survive..... if not, I have my doubts.

Umm...You sure? You saying IBM has problems supplying processors? I thought IBM was supposed to have many huge FAB facilities....I mean heck they are doing ALL THREE next gen consoles! I don't think IBM is worried about pumping out processors.

Maybe shrinking the G5 might run into problems, but I don't think that the production would hit a wall

Either way I predict extremely propeitory hardware and not an x86 CPU from Intel.

IBM was supposed to deliver a 3ghz G5 to Apple more than a year ago, and a dual-core G5 by Q1'05; they've managed neither.

 

[kamper]

I don't see how Intel would possibly supply ppc chips any better than IBM (x86 sure, but not ppc) and for two reasons: they can't and there's little in it for them.

So far as I'm aware, Intel has no capacity to manufacture ppc chips. If they were to actually provide new value to Apple (ie. not just contract out to current ppc manufacturer) they would have to set up design and fabrication facilities for a completely new architecture. Granted, the instruction sets and other specs are there for the licensing but producing a new chip would be a very significant undertaking. Even if they tried (and assuming they haven't secretly been working on it for a long time already) it would probably take them a few years to catch up to IBM in performance and volume.

Secondly, what motivation do they have? They are committed to x86 in the midrange segment and are doing very well at it. Apple would presumeably be their only customer for ppc chips (at least at first) and that's not exactly a high volume market so there would be little money to be made.

It might be nice for Apple to have Intel produce ppc chips (assuming they could even match or beat IBM on price and supply and performance) but what reason would Intel have to even consider trying?

 

[ai42]

Originally posted by: eLinux
I'm not sure why everyone keeps assuming that Apple is going to go with the x86 architecture. Intel has other architectures, such as Itanium. Plus, what's stopping Apple from asking Intel to produce PowerPC procs?

I would imagine that Apple would not go the x86 route; just my $.02 worth.

Your kidding right? Motorola/IBM has probbably hundreds of patents on PPC architechture, so you can't simply make a PPC without licensing. And I'm sure its not a supply issue IBM has the ability to make pretty much anything they want.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: ai42

Originally posted by: eLinux
I'm not sure why everyone keeps assuming that Apple is going to go with the x86 architecture. Intel has other architectures, such as Itanium. Plus, what's stopping Apple from asking Intel to produce PowerPC procs?

I would imagine that Apple would not go the x86 route; just my $.02 worth.

Your kidding right? Motorola/IBM has probbably hundreds of patents on PPC architechture, so you can't simply make a PPC without licensing. And I'm sure its not a supply issue IBM has the ability to make pretty much anything they want.

Apple co-developed PPC and it's widely believed that they put in a "Moto clause" in the IBM contract in case IBM pulled a Moto(i.e. extremely slow chip development that ended up costing Apple in the marketplace). In this case, Apple would have enough rights to be able to have someone else make their PPC chips.

 

[obeseotron]

The G5 is not a big market chip, and Apple has had yield problems which are not the same as supply problems, but the result is the same. IBM can't or doesn't care enough to produce fast G5's. Apple doesn't have enough fast chips - that's a supply problem. If IBM made 100 million 2Ghz G5's it would STILL be a supply problem, because there's nothing at the high end. Apple sells like a million computers per quarter, most of which are powerbooks (made by motorolla, not IBM) it's simply not a big market for them. IBM the resources to do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean that they pour money into a very limited market. The same stuff would come up with Intel producing a PPC compatible chip (spec is open, plus apple can license it to whoever they want anyway AFAIK). The Itanium comments are also pretty absurd, IA64 lost AMD64 won, period. Itanium will live on for a while in big iron, but IA64 on the desktop won't ever happen, can't see how apple changes that. Yonah Powebooks are the only conclusion I can draw...

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: obeseotron
Yonah Powebooks are the only conclusion I can draw...

I like that idea But they couldn't very well switch to x86 for notebooks and stay with ppc for the desktops/servers could they? That would wreak havoc on their software market.

 

[kamper]

Here you have it folks:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050606/sfm142.html?.v=9
http://news.com.com/Its+official+Apple+.../2100-7341_3-5733756.html?tag=nefd.top

x86 indeed. I'm really quite amazed

Edit: whoops, didn't see other thread....

 

[bendixG15]

Thanks to kamper.....from his link...

Apple throws the switch, aligns with Intel
Published: June 6, 2005, 11:04 AM PDT
By Ina Fried
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: kamper
Here you have it folks:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050606/sfm142.html?.v=9
http://news.com.com/Its+official+Apple+.../2100-7341_3-5733756.html?tag=nefd.top

x86 indeed. I'm really quite amazed

Edit: whoops, didn't see other thread....

"Mac OS X has been leading a secret double life the past five years." - Steve Jobs