[sideus]

http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/in..._odds_and_ends

Intel-Apple Odds and Ends
Sunday, 5 Jun 2005

A few miscellaneous notes and questions on the Apple-Intel story:

Peter Glaskowsky, former editor of the Microprocessor Report, is an expert in the semiconductor business. Here’s what he told eWeek about the prospects of Apple switching the Mac to x86 processors:

“It’s a bunch of bull,” Peter Glaskowsky, analyst for The Envisioneering Group, in Seaford, N.Y., told Ziff Davis Internet News. “Firstly, Apple certainly pays much less for IBM and Freescale processors than Intel charges for comparable chips. Probably less than half as much on average. The G5 is a smaller, more efficient chip than the Pentium 4, and IBM has no other customers willing to buy large quantities.”

I.e. he’s claiming it would cost Apple more, not less, to switch to Intel x86 CPUs.

Neither CNet nor The Wall Street Journal reports offer any technical details whatsoever regarding the supposed switch. None. Why? Is it because their sources (and both publications claim multiple sources; let’s hope neither publication is using the plural to describe a a single source) don’t know the technical details? Don’t understand them? Or that they refused to reveal them?

It strikes me as not-outlandish that this was a planned leak. Friday afternoon, three days before the start of WWDC — what better time to ignite widespread interest in the keynote address? On Friday morning, no one was talking about WWDC; by Friday night, everyone was.

Especially if it turns out that Intel is producing PowerPC chips — this way Jobs still has a huge surprise to announce, but CNet’s article is still accurate, because Apple would be switching to “Intel chips”.

What’s the deal with Robert Scoble’s ridiculous “confirmation from people who know” that “this is a real story”? He says it’s real, that he has sources who confirmed it, but then goes on to ask the most rudimentary technical questions as to how it’s going to play out. How could someone “confirm” this story but yet not know the answers to these questions? I suspect that if Apple announces anything related to Intel, Scoble will claim he was in on it.

If the story is in fact flat-out false, it might prove irritating for Apple, because whatever they do announce will have to compete for headline space with “Apple Not Switching to Intel Chips”. That won’t be an issue if they announce a mind-blowing surprise, but if all they have in store are speed-bump iBooks and “hooray for Tiger”, the lack of an Intel announcement will dominate the news coverage.

To my knowledge, Apple has never warned Mac developers against assuming their code will be running on a big-endian architecture; switching to the little-endian x86 would be extremely irritating for any developer with a code base that makes assumptions about byte order. Sure, most Mac software probably doesn’t need to deal with byte order directly; but for those apps that do, there will be significant drudgery involved.

Here’s my bet: Intel is going to produce PowerPC chips for Apple. But I’m only betting one dollar.

[sideus]

TMO has confirmed Intel CEO Paul Otellini is in San Francisco and might be part of the Steve Jobs keynote at WWDC Monday.

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2005/06/06.2.shtml


*sigh*

[fireside]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon

If this was posted already, my apologies. This article from Wired opines that Hollywood is playing a part in Apple's decision.

i can't come up with words about how displeasing i think this is.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Krypton

Dvorak said on the TWIT No 7 broadcast he'd definitely buy a Mac if it had Intel inside.

Great, one moron switches to Apple, thousands of fanboys leave and turn back to, uhm, OS 9

-t

[Apple Pro Underwear]

i'm slightly happy. 2 yrs and we have not hit 3ghz.

i think maybe a change could not be any worse.

[Goldfinger]

If they switch I demand a Quad CPU Xeon box.

[sideus]

I'm ok with an Intel based system. But please, please, please, do not let it be x86 based.

[SoClose]

Originally Posted by asdasd

Nobody is optimimising their code for PPC - if anybody here wants to publish some code written in carbon or Cocoa which is "optimised" for the PPC, feel free. Developers writing at that level are chip agnostic. ( Anyone writing "optimised" code in assembly which is totally unportable should be fired, too).

You're kidding, right? The life sciences market does optimize code for CPU platforms. Apple even touts this on their own website.

1) The cost to developers is a recompile.

No, the cost is in testing and support. If developers have to worry about multiple platforms, it's a more expensive proposition, period. The 1994 CPU architecture transition from 68K to PPC was relatively smooth to the users, but it did cause testing and support headaches for some companies.

2) Nobody is tweaking any code at C level for processors.

Again, a pretty big generalization that is in fact false.

3) Altivec will probably be included on the chipset

Why would you assume this? And why would you assume that it can just be bolted on? Both chips have completely different architectures and it's not a matter of soldering on some new silicon. Many other components of the CPU, especially the pipelines would have to be adjusted for a new execution unit.

4) OS X applications are already designed to be Fat. The executable is now in <appname>/Contents/MacOS for the PPC platform. Clearly this is by design. When an app is compiled to include Intel binaries it wil compile 2 different executables. The other one will go into <appname>/Contents/Intel, or something similar.

No, they are designed to be multi-OS. The "MacOS" folder in <appname>/Resources/ has nothing to do with processor architecture, just for differentiating binary code layout for Mac OS X or Mac OS Classic

5) The developers will get their programs ported and tested during the WWDC

I'm not sure everyone shows up with source code. Maybe some small developers will, but Microsoft and Adobe don't necessarily show up at WWDC with hard drives full of code. They have other avenues for code-readiness activities.

6) Nobody has lost a harwdware investment. Future versions of all software produced by all Mac development teams will run - for at least 7-10 years -as FAT. Maybe forever.

Can I take that to the bank?

7) Since the cost of "porting" to intel is minimal the versions that are Fat will be point point releases. Safari may release 2.0.1 as a FAT application just to show it can be done. iTunes too. Safari is Cocoa, iTunes is carbon. So too with adobe.

How do you know that the cost is minimal? Hell "porting" from HTML 3.2 to 4.0 was expensive for some folks!

7) It may not be that Apple is abandoning PPC, it has the technology to have dual ( or multiple) FAT binaries. This will be invisible to you the user. Maybe different Macs will have up to 4 different processors. What ya care?

Um, no. Although today's Macs have many different chips inside them, I doubt you'd see an architecture that supported different brands of CPU on one motherboard. The integration engineering and cost would be overwhelming.

[sideus]

Oh man, what if one of the annoucements today is that Intel is buying Apple. Ack!

[DarwinX]

Same news article, but it's the graphic that grabbed me:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_3047870.htm



This is definitely going to be a day to remember folks.

Think different.

[Voch]

Originally Posted by sideus

Oh man, what if one of the annoucements today is that Intel is buying Apple. Ack!

Okay...this thread is officially depressing me.

I'm taking all of this with a grain of salt. Maybe it's a new CPU for a video iPod or something (I'm sure that's been speculated already).

EDIT: This'll be like when Atari came out with the 1200XL computer. Folks rushed out to buy the previous Atari 800 model because of the changes...

Voch

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by sideus

Oh man, what if one of the annoucements today is that Intel is buying Apple. Ack!

Ah dammit. I am not getting any work done because of all this excitement. I'm leaving work in 50 minutes, I can't hold it anymore. I will be deeply disappointed if it's only about WiMAX

[sideus]

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by sideus

Oh man, what if one of the annoucements today is that Intel is buying Apple. Ack!

Or Apple is buying Intel! Yeah, that's it!!

[Voch]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

I will be deeply disappointed if it's only about WiMAX

I'll be thrilled if it's something along those lines. It would stick it to Dvorak!

Voch

[:XI:]

Originally Posted by sideus

I'm ok with an Intel based system. But please, please, please, do not let it be x86 based.

Yeah, because Itanium is so much better.

[sideus]

I thought the Itanium died years ago?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by sideus

Wow, that's fugly. *shudder*

-t

[AB^2=BCxAC]

If anything, I bet Apple is just going to annouce that it will be trying to support x86 processors with the next generation of OS X, and that maybe Apple will continue selling G5's in its own machines, and will licence OS X to a company like Sony or even HP.

[Goldfinger]

What websites will be covering the keynote live ?

[turtle777]

http://macrumors.com/

-t

[Voch]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

What websites will be covering the keynote live ?

http://www.macrumorslive.com/web/

[iBabo]

even NPR just reported it.....
i dont know about you guys, but im starting to panic...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by iBabo

even NPR just reported it.....
i dont know about you guys, but im starting to panic...

You startin' NOW ? Man, my whole weekend was messed up...

-t

[Goldfinger]

Everybody is in panic
All the Mac geeks are going nuts at the moment. Damn you Cnet !

[sideus]

I've been a nervous wreck since Friday. Damn you Pacific time zone!

[ironknee]

cnn is reportingit now...steve make it go away!

[Person Man]

Is it 1 PM Eastern Time yet?

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Ah dammit. I am not getting any work done because of all this excitement. I'm leaving work in 50 minutes, I can't hold it anymore.

Me too. That gives me a good solid two hours to down as many beers as I can.

[Goldfinger]

Beer ? I'm crackin a bottle of gin !

[zizban]

Please let it be Apple going with Intel made PowerPC chips.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by zizban

Please let it be Apple going with Intel made PowerPC chips.

Everything else would be unacceptable !

-t

[sideus]

Oh noes!

[MallyMal]

<===Not sweating it.

I just want faster desktops chips and better mobile chips. I don't care if it's IBM or Intel.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by zizban

Please let it be Apple going with Intel made PowerPC chips.

[sideus]

Anyone else find it odd how ThinkSecret is being unusually quiet?

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by sideus

Anyone else find it odd how ThinkSecret is being unusually quiet?

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/wwdc05keynote.html

Nothing interesting.

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally Posted by sideus

Anyone else find it odd how ThinkSecret is being unusually quiet?

Probably because it was high level executives who "leaked" this story, not some contractor.

[sideus]

The first thing Jobs should say on stage is "Now that we have everyone's attention..."

[mitchell_pgh]

I feel like many people are blowing this out of proportion. Apple isn't going to dive off the deep end without a logical plan. They would never make such a shift without the support of Adobe/Quark/Microsoft/Macrom... oops... Adobe again.

At first I was VERY against the switch to Intel, but at the end of the day, I guess I don't care as long as things don't change for the worse. Intel has a major investment in CPUs. I'm just not sure IBM has the same investment. If apple is serious about breaking out of the 3-4% market, this is one way that may very well let them.

It's also not like Apple will stop being Apple. It just lets them use even more "off the shelf" components.

[osxisfun]

2 hrs to go... tick tock... tick tock...

[ironknee]

i still don't understand the pentium D for hollywood thing...if it's going to take 2 years to switch, that means apple will be 2 years behind???

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

i'm just going to stop reading all these guesses and rumors as it is only 2 hours away from the truth anyway.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Everything else would be unacceptable !

-t

Why?

If Apple can:

1) Keep exact pace with other computer manufacturers (which this switch would permit)
2) Permit Apple to use newer technologies, PCI express, DDR2, etc. (which this switch would permit)
3) Not cause major software issues (which this switch might permit)
4) Interchangeability with video cards (which this may permit)
4) Increase the market share and make the Mac more accepted. (who knows)

Why shouldn't we switch?

FINALLY people will be able to compare Apples to Apples with regards to hardware... The MHz myth is still out there in full force. While I don't like the idea of Apple catering to the clueless, Dell has made a mint with the concept.

[osxisfun]

I just realized that we are talking about apple switching to the chip that the Blue Men do commericals for

NOW I am against this...

[Voch]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

I just realized that we are talking about apple switching to the chip that the Blue Men do commericals for

NOW I am against this...

Aaaarrggghhh! I just pictured the Blue Man Group writhing around with iPods and earbuds! Aaaarrggghhh!

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

On the plus side it might mean no more Virtual PC.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by ironknee

i still don't understand the pentium D for hollywood thing...if it's going to take 2 years to switch, that means apple will be 2 years behind???

No no... it means Apple will need two years to transition all of their hardware to the x86 CPUs. They will start with the consumer level machines and then work on the Pro systems.

Apple would be on par with the likes of Dell/HP/Gateway regarding CPU power.

So in two years, everything Apple offers could be running on Intel.

[DarwinX]

I don't want to sound like a fanboy, but this is what? Death null number 1,053,151,367 for Apple?

Jobs has his reasons, and he has a pretty good track record of NOT being an idiot. Someone already pointed out the Microsoft deal. Ummm, remember when the iPod came out? Just another geek toy right? Wrong.

I'm just as uneasy as the next Mac geek. But lets let history judge this one.

Best of luck Apple. I'm still on board.

T-minus 1 hour and 40 minutes.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

On the plus side it might mean no more Virtual PC.

Interesting point... no need for CPU emulation... so you would run Virtual PC at "full speed" with minimal dificulty.

Hmmm... or think about WINE for OS X!