Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

nickw311 · May 23, 2005, 08:25 AM

This was on the front page of CNN Money... Seems highly unlikely but I cant believe it made such headlines
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/23/tech...reut/index.htm

ManOfSteal · May 23, 2005, 08:29 AM

This is officially® Apple's longest-standing rumor of all-time...

Big Mac · May 23, 2005, 08:36 AM

There's already a thread about this in the Power Mac forum.

Rev-O · May 23, 2005, 08:43 AM

The rumor was probably started by Intel, who is probably bitter about not being in the new XBox.

Agent69 · May 23, 2005, 08:46 AM

"There's already a thread about this in the Power Mac forum"

Yeah, but it probably belongs here since it would effect all Mac models.

Personally, I think that it might be a good idea to switch to x86 CPUs. The cost for CPUs could go down and it would finally defeat the preceived problem of being behind in CPU speed. Also, there would be the benefit of most graphics cards being available, since custom Mac versions would no longer need to be engineered.

Of course, if Apple does this, don't expect Mac OS X to run on just any x86 computer. I believe Apple will take steps to ensure the Mac OS X will only run on Apple provided x86 boxes.

mitchell_pgh · May 23, 2005, 08:53 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052300185.html

Washington Post also had a blurb.

Apple could be using this as a tool to pressure IBM... who knows.

I could care less. Whatever makes our OS of choice run faster without causing us to have (PPC/x86) versions of every application. It's important to remember that it's not that hard to shift chips with OS X... it's been done a few times with it was NeXT.

IIRC, wasn't the major issue with OS X on x86 the fact that classic wouldn't work?

Mastrap · May 23, 2005, 08:58 AM

It's never good business practice to rely on one single supplier.

:XI: · May 23, 2005, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Agent69

"There's already a thread about this in the Power Mac forum"

Yeah, but it probably belongs here since it would effect all Mac models.

Personally, I think that it might be a good idea to switch to x86 CPUs. The cost for CPUs could go down and it would finally defeat the preceived problem of being behind in CPU speed. Also, there would be the benefit of most graphics cards being available, since custom Mac versions would no longer need to be engineered.

Of course, if Apple does this, don't expect Mac OS X to run on just any x86 computer. I believe Apple will take steps to ensure the Mac OS X will only run on Apple provided x86 boxes.

Why would the cost of CPUs go down? Macs are expensive because of Apple not PowerPC.
'Perceived problem of being behind in CPU speed. Yes. Let's needlessly spend money. That'll bring prices down.

Another reason why the consumer level Macs won't go x86: Developers. How many would look at OSX for Intel after re-engineering all their software from OS9 to OSX and go... "Screw this, kill the mac ports."? Quite a few I'd bet.

I could see some Intel based server product running Darwin with some software to tie it up to the admin tools in OSX Server though.

mitchell_pgh · May 23, 2005, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Agent69

"
Personally, I think that it might be a good idea to switch to x86 CPUs. The cost for CPUs could go down and it would finally defeat the preceived problem of being behind in CPU speed. Also, there would be the benefit of most graphics cards being available, since custom Mac versions would no longer need to be engineered.

Of course, if Apple does this, don't expect Mac OS X to run on just any x86 computer. I believe Apple will take steps to ensure the Mac OS X will only run on Apple provided x86 boxes.

I agree. If Apple could have nearly the same CPUs as the rest of the market... we wouldn't have to hear the constant "But the Dell is almost 4x as fast and not nearly as expensive!" banter. I didn't know that the reason the graphics cards wouldn't work because of the CPU being PPC? Interesting.

I don't think anyone would assume that OS X would run on non-Apple computers. I think the general computer literate public understands that the Mac OS only works on Apple computers.

I'm a big fan of PPC, but I'm not convinced that it's delivering in speed. We seem to get major bumps from time to time, but over the long haul... x86 seems to consistently be ahead.

starman · May 23, 2005, 09:07 AM

What about the x86 brick wall that seems to have been hit? Isn't this a BAD time to come out on x86?

Mike

mitchell_pgh · May 23, 2005, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by :XI:

Why would the cost of CPUs go down? Macs are expensive because of Apple not PowerPC.
'Perceived problem of being behind in CPU speed. Yes. Let's needlessly spend money. That'll bring prices down.

Another reason why the consumer level Macs won't go x86: Developers. How many would look at OSX for Intel after re-engineering all their software from OS9 to OSX and go... "Screw this, kill the mac ports."? Quite a few I'd bet.

P.S. You wouldn't need to recode the entire application. At most, you would need to recompile the application to offer x86. Remember when we jumped to PPC?

OS X does support "fat" binaries. Apple could support AMD/Intel/PPC etc. with one application if they wanted.

Gator Lager · May 23, 2005, 09:13 AM

just heard about this on CNBC.
one of the reasons mentioned was, the cost of using intel chips and associated hardware, cost less than using the current chip configuration in Apple computers?
and porting the os over to run on intel chip sets would not the that difficult.

that is what they said. sound interesting though. we'll see

:XI: · May 23, 2005, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I agree. If Apple could have nearly the same CPUs as the rest of the market... we wouldn't have to hear the constant "But the Dell is almost 4x as fast and not nearly as expensive!" banter. I didn't know that the reason the graphics cards wouldn't work because of the CPU being PPC? Interesting.

I don't think anyone would assume that OS X would run on non-Apple computers. I think the general computer literate public understands that the Mac OS only works on Apple computers.

I'm a big fan of PPC, but I'm not convinced that it's delivering in speed. We seem to get major bumps from time to time, but over the long haul... x86 seems to consistently be ahead.

Which graphics cards don't work because of PPC?

I think the 'general computer literate public' understand that Mhz is more of a guideline than a benchmark. At least, Mac users seem to. Everyone else just loves the pissing contest.

starman · May 23, 2005, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by :XI:

Which graphics cards don't work because of PPC?

Any video card that doesn't know how to deal with endianess.

Mike

:XI: · May 23, 2005, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Gator Lager

just heard about this on CNBC.
one of the reasons mentioned was, the cost of using intel chips and associated hardware, cost less than using the current chip configuration in Apple computers?
and porting the os over to run on intel chip sets would not the that difficult.

that is what they said. sound interesting though. we'll see

Yup, Adobe are going to just LOVE ol' Stevie boy! Now that they'll have to re-port all their own apps and all those Macromedia apps they just bought.

MallyMal · May 23, 2005, 09:23 AM

I'll believe it when I see it. But I would rather headline say "x86" instead of "Intel". Apple could use the Opterons for PowerMacs and Pentium Ms for PowerBooks. If this did come to pass, I wonder how would the zealots spin it in their heads to all of a sudden like Intel.

:XI: · May 23, 2005, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by starman

Any video card that doesn't know how to deal with endianess.

Mike

Such as?

Millennium · May 23, 2005, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by ManOfSteal

This is officially® Apple's longest-standing rumor of all-time...

No; the longest-standing rumor is that Apple is dying.

Personally, I prefer a platform that refuses to go with what is cheap over what is good. The x86 architecture is complete crap, despite Intel's occasional hackery to ramp up the clockrate, and a switch would be one of the worst things for the computing industry since IBM's original choice of that architecture.

TETENAL · May 23, 2005, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by :XI:

Yup, Adobe are going to just LOVE ol' Stevie boy! Now that they'll have to re-port all their own apps and all those Macromedia apps they just bought.

If Apple would switch, developers would basically just have to recompile their applications. Maybe Adobe has some code optimized in assembler, but they have that code already for x86.

However switching would mean that there is a processor available that is substantially faster to handle emulation during the transition period. I doubt that Intel has such a processor.

Chuckit · May 23, 2005, 09:42 AM

Apple Using Intel Chips?

...for me to poop on!

Agent69 · May 23, 2005, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by :XI:

Why would the cost of CPUs go down? Macs are expensive because of Apple not PowerPC.

The price would go down because Intel manufactures CPUs on a scale undreamed of in the PowerPC world. Also, notice I said could.

Agent69 · May 23, 2005, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by :XI:

Which graphics cards don't work because of PPC?

nVidia and ATI have to create special ROMs for their PPC cards. Assuming the availability of drivers, Mac OS X on x86 would feasibily be able to use any nVidia or ATI card. (Plus, Mac video cards for PPC have a history of costing an arm and a leg._

ajprice · May 23, 2005, 09:59 AM

Option 1 - Its all a load of horse crap!
Option 2 - OS X Macs with Intel chips (G6?)
Option 3 - Apple portable/handheld with XScale chip (iPod video/iBook Mini, Mac tablet)

Intel make other things as well as Pentiums, y'know

:XI: · May 23, 2005, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Agent69

The price would go down because Intel manufactures CPUs on a scale undreamed of in the PowerPC world. Also, notice I said could.

Make your mind up.

Apple have been running along nicely these last few years despite the high prices of their products. Do you think prices will just fall if they switch to x86? Or will the just cut their costs and boost profits?

:XI: · May 23, 2005, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Agent69

nVidia and ATI have to create special ROMs for their PPC cards. Assuming the availability of drivers, Mac OS X on x86 would feasibily be able to use any nVidia or ATI card. (Plus, Mac video cards for PPC have a history of costing an arm and a leg._

I'll agree with you on the costs. But it's not PPC to blame for ATi and nvidia charging an arm and a leg for firmware.

:XI: · May 23, 2005, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by ajprice

Option 1 - Its all a load of horse crap!
Option 2 - OS X Macs with Intel chips (G6?)
Option 3 - Apple portable/handheld with XScale chip (iPod video/iBook Mini, Mac tablet)

Intel make other things as well as Pentiums, y'know

I think there are Intel chips in the xServe RAID. Drive controllers if I'm remembering rightly.

ajprice · May 23, 2005, 10:10 AM

So all this could be over XServe drive controllers!!???

mitchell_pgh · May 23, 2005, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by :XI:

Which graphics cards don't work because of PPC?

I think the 'general computer literate public' understand that Mhz is more of a guideline than a benchmark. At least, Mac users seem to. Everyone else just loves the pissing contest.

I'm not sure about that. I know people that are rather computer literate that still compare GHz to GHz. Even if they consider it a guideline... try justifying 3.2GHz 1.8GHz if you aren't the <2% of the population that understands the difference.

mitchell_pgh · May 23, 2005, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by ajprice

Option 3 - Apple portable/handheld with XScale chip (iPod video/iBook Mini, Mac tablet)

Why would Apple switch to Intel for a iPod video/iBook mini etc. when everyone else seems to be using IBM chips for smaller devices.

I would love a iBook mini that basically did email/web and lighter tasks in the $500-$600 range.

ReggieX · May 23, 2005, 10:57 AM

Well, no sh*t they use Intel chips, who do you think makes their USB controllers?

ReggieX · May 23, 2005, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

It's never good business practice to rely on one single supplier.

Like the way Dell relies on Intel?

CaseCom · 12:52 PM

[edit: never mind]

Wiskedjak · May 23, 2005, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Rev-O

The rumor was probably started by Intel, who is probably bitter about not being in the new XBox.

You mean like how bitter some Mac heads are that M$ got a 3ghz PPC before Apple?

turtle777 · May 23, 2005, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by CaseCom

Here's a link to the original Wall Street Journal story.

Got a password to share ?

-t

CaseCom · May 23, 2005, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Got a password to share ?

-t

Gah! Thought I'd gotten around that by using an e-mail link. Oh well.

olePigeon · May 23, 2005, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Any video card that doesn't know how to deal with endianess.

Mike

Except that PowerPC can handle both big and little. So, again, what graphics cards don't work because of PowerPC?

Link · May 23, 2005, 03:46 PM

*sees the video card comment and shakes his head*

As according to:
http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/macppc/f...ofw-boot-video

Video cards MUST have open firmware support to work on a mac. If they do not, the card won't work! If apple went the X86 route, they still wouldn't use a typic BIOS setup I'm sure, and guess what, you'd still have the same damn problem. FWIW, I'm surprised nobody's found a way to make an "open firmware BIOS translator", then we wouldn't have that problem in the first place.

Switching over to x86 would otherwise make no difference

MilkmanDan · May 23, 2005, 04:12 PM

Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the Intel chips were for something else besides being in computers? iPods, or some other yet to be shown item?

sideus · May 23, 2005, 04:13 PM

This is for the new Airport Base Station and cards. Move along.

Millennium · May 23, 2005, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Except that PowerPC can handle both big and little. So, again, what graphics cards don't work because of PowerPC?

The PowerPC architecture can be set to handle either big or little endian, but it cannot handle both at once. You have to select which mode the chip will use when you boot the machine, and then you can't change it without rebooting.

Gregory · May 23, 2005, 04:30 PM

Last week www.hardmac.com mentioned Intel would be building... FW800 chips.

spacefreak · May 23, 2005, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by :XI:

Yup, Adobe are going to just LOVE ol' Stevie boy! Now that they'll have to re-port all their own apps and all those Macromedia apps they just bought.

Or they could simply tweak their applications that ALREADY run on the x86 platform.

spacefreak · May 23, 2005, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by MallyMal

I'll believe it when I see it. But I would rather headline say "x86" instead of "Intel".

But the story is that Apple has been in talks with Intel. Why in the world would business writers omit one of the two major players and instead say "x86"?

MallyMal · May 23, 2005, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by spacefreak

But the story is that Apple has been in talks with Intel. Why in the world would business writers omit one of the two major players and instead say "x86"?

What I meant is if this were true I would rather it be AMD/Intel(x86) instead of just Intel. Ideally that is what I'd would rather see as the headline. In otherwords if Apple was going to do this I would want to them to be in talks with both AMD and Intel so they could get chips from both. So the Headline would read "Apple in talks with x86 manufacturers" or "Apple in talks with AMD and Intel."

tooki · May 23, 2005, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

The PowerPC architecture can be set to handle either big or little endian, but it cannot handle both at once. You have to select which mode the chip will use when you boot the machine, and then you can't change it without rebooting.

That's not entirely true. The G3 and G4 can mix and match endianness at nearly no cost. (VPC took advantage of this, and this is the reason VPC had to be rewritten to work on the G5.)

tooki

:XI: · May 24, 2005, 04:24 AM

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Or they could simply tweak their applications that ALREADY run on the x86 platform.

Is 'tweak' a technical term?

They already 'tweaked' their apps which ran on OS9 to run on OSX. Look how smoothly that went.

Now, take in to account switching apps designed FOR WINDOWS and do all that work again.

Getting it yet?

mactropolis · May 24, 2005, 05:32 AM

Many Mac people I talk to who've heard about the switch to Intel have the completely wrong idea! When their say Apple might switch to Intel, their dont mean Apple will port and sell OS X for x86 for anyone to buy and install on their eMachines, become a software company and go head to head with Microsoft. Sorry. Instead, Apple is considering swapping the PowerPC CPU for an Intel CPU inside current/future Mac's. It will still be a "Macinotsh", but with an Intel-inside instead of PowerPC. Even though it would be x86 based, would that mean you could install it on another x86 PC? Absolutely not. Apple would irevokibly tie OS X to only work on its 'flavor' of x86, not HP's, Dell's, Gateway. Apple is a hardware company, it will never become a software-only outfit.

:XI: · May 24, 2005, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by mactropolis

Many Mac people I talk to who've heard about the switch to Intel have the completely wrong idea! When their say Apple might switch to Intel, their dont mean Apple will port and sell OS X for x86 for anyone to buy and install on their eMachines, become a software company and go head to head with Microsoft. Sorry. Instead, Apple is considering swapping the PowerPC CPU for an Intel CPU inside current/future Mac's. It will still be a "Macinotsh", but with an Intel-inside instead of PowerPC. Even though it would be x86 based, would that mean you could install it on another x86 PC? Absolutely not. Apple would irevokibly tie OS X to only work on its 'flavor' of x86, not HP's, Dell's, Gateway. Apple is a hardware company, it will never become a software-only outfit.

But it's not just a question of swapping the CPU is it?

Getting the developers to do the 'Let's re do our stuff... again...' shuffle so soon after the last one would do more damage to the platform than NOT switching CPUs.

What's wrong with some people? Why can't you see that developers aren't going to keep throwing money away just to keep their software working. There'll come a point when they get sick of this and dump the Mac. All the CPU cycles, Mhz, Ghz, AGP blah blah blah won't mean dick when all you've got to run on it is iLife, iWork and Apple's pro apps.

Unless of course, Apple have an MS Office killer, a Photoshop killer, a Flash killer, a Maya killer and god knows what else they'd need to kill just to stay around. I don't think Apple's big enough to pull that off (yet?). Steve might be crazy enough to try though.

Eriamjh · May 24, 2005, 08:12 AM

I could not care less what kind of chip is inside my PM. I just want it to work.

joltguy · May 24, 2005, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

You mean like how bitter some Mac heads are that M$ got a 3ghz PPC before Apple?

I'll admit to being bitter about that one. Almost choked on my coffee when I read the new XBOX specs.