Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ROBO58 · Jun 4, 2005, 09:53 PM

Some thoughts on the potential switch to Intel.

If Apple makes the switch it will be the X86 architecture not an Intel manufactured PPC. Intel looks to be a $36B company this year and I'll speculate that Apples yearly CPU requirement is about 1-2 days of production at Intel. Intel's not going to mess with its fabs to produce PPC.

Portable computers are the hottest sector. The following Intel quote sheds some light on the subject: "Intel expects the current strength in the mobile computing market to outstrip even the most optimistic of analysts' estimates, company officials said Thursday".

Intel has stated it will be offering its first dual core mobile platform (NAPA) later this year. NAPA is a low power solution that enhances the Centrino line. The dual core cpu is called Yonah and is a 32b processor.

Apple appears hungry for more performance especially in the mobile computing area. The Intel mobile CPU's also offer Apple additional CPU offerings for small/quiet powerful computing platforms like the Mac Mini.

If Apple makes the switch its not going to open up its architecture with the available PC chipsets. And by using available PC chipsets no way implies that the resulting platforms are any less reliable than existing Apple platforms.

Porting, tuning, compiling and debugging tools for the X86 architecture are many and powerful.

Robo

G5man · Jun 4, 2005, 10:06 PM

WSJ confrims this heap o **** not good!

tooki · Jun 4, 2005, 10:53 PM

Moved to Lounge, since this thread was not Power Mac specific.

tooki

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jun 4, 2005, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by tooki

Moved to Lounge, since this thread was not Power Mac specific.

tooki

Smooth but we already got one.

ryarber · Jun 4, 2005, 11:12 PM

If they are planning to release a mac mini with intel inside in 2006 as CNET says, that means it'll probably be running Tiger, no? At least that is what we've been led to believe by the OS X development team. Didn't they say that they wouldn't be releasing a major release every year from here on out?

That leads me to another thought.... People say that they have a functioning version of OS X running on intel now. If so, if they did see hardware sales begin to slow, they could plow ahead and release intel machines ahead of schedule. I could see them losing hardware sales within a year of any planned major switch in architecture since people wouldn't want to buy a machine they feel would be obsolete sooner than they want it to. Therefore, if they were to promise a switch of PowerMac line in 2007, but actually deliver early, the negative effects could be negated.

Anyhow, if this is true, this will be a major test of the Reality Distortion Field if Jobs can pull this off at WWDC without getting run out of town on a rail. I imagine the developers will not be too happy about having to retool just when things were getting going in OS X.

Unlike many on this board, I think that this move will pay off for apple in the long run. As innovative as they are, they can drive Mac sales, and the transition from windows could get easier and easier down the road. They could even converge to the point they could peacefully coexist on the same machine, allowing us to enjoy the advantages of both platforms.

osxisfun · Jun 4, 2005, 11:14 PM

>say that they wouldn't be releasing a major release every year from here on out?

No. In fact they said they would be slowing things down. 18 months +

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jun 4, 2005, 11:21 PM

What is bigger? The heatsink in a G5 tower or the latest pentium?

chris v · Jun 4, 2005, 11:24 PM

I just settled in last year with a new Powerbook, and a new dual G5. I've got a ton invested in hardware, and in software. If, in another 2 years, I've got to totally abandon this hardware to run the next OS version or the next version of Logic or Adobe CS, I am NOT GOING TO BE HAPPY.

That will be the case with a lot of folks who bought hardware in the last year, people thinking about buying hardware during the transition are going to re-consider and go Windows, instead.

Apple will miss an entire Powermac upgrade cycle or two, during which they'll lose 50-60% of their proffessional base if they really drag out a 2 year transition.

That is, assuming that Adobe CS3 even gets written for Mac on Intel. Why would they bother?

And all for what? The G5 is still toe-to-toe with Intel. The speed wall is pretty industry-wide, and a move to Intel, even if could happen overnight, wouldn't net any real speed gains. I don't get the rationale at all.

Something else, something no one's thought of yet is affoot.

aristotles · Jun 4, 2005, 11:50 PM

There seem to be a lot of clueless comments here by people who don't understand the real differences between PPC and X86.

http://www.brianstorms.com/archives/000574.html
At Wall Street Journal Executive Conference last month, Steve Jobs said the following:

Q: porting OS X to other platforms
SJ: other platforms like XBOX? (((no laughs))).......... you mean like PCs, Intel......? we think we make the best hardware in the world......... generally the macosx customer likes good hardware............ we're sticking to our program right now ........

Can we stop talking about this bullcrap now? the WSJ and CNET have committed journalistic suicide.

Kerrigan · Jun 4, 2005, 11:52 PM

Tooki why did you move this thread here? Put it back in the PowerMac forum. We already have a lounge thread on this for emotional, argumentative banter, the PowerMac thread was supposed to be the calm, intelligent discussion of this issue.

AirRon · Jun 5, 2005, 12:01 AM

My bet is that with vendors asking for specific engineering from their CPU makers, Intel and Apple will be announcing that they (Intel/Apple) will be taking charge of modification and fabrication (yeah!) of future systems based on PowerPC because 1) Apple cannt trust IBM to spend the engineering time on this at the moment and 2) Apple cannot design CPUs alone (and why would they, if Intel will help?).

Intel makes motherboards for some of the beige box companies, and they could probably bring a lot to the table in that sense, too (e.g. Centrino).

This deal aint for x86, y'all. Given Microsoft going to PPC/IBM, this also lets Intel hedge their bets and play the Power side of the fence a bit, in case Microsoft decides to start moving more and more PC functions to the XBOX.

khufuu · Jun 5, 2005, 02:10 AM

As some one said above, I think Intel is taking over the PPC line from IBM. Hence the whole Xbox 360 thing starts to make sense. I don't see Apple getting involved with Intel actually producing the PPC line however.

This way, Intel gets in on a bigger chunk of the gaming system action (both the new Xbox and Nintendo) and then they may also get a bit of the Cell action as well somewhere down the line.

This could spell great things for Intel as it seems like the P4 has hit a wall and anything else they're currently doing isn't really going anywhere either.

BasketofPuppies · 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by Quadra

The Cnet story isn't likely in light of today's PC magazine report:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1823587,00.asp

Not necessarily.

Originally posted by CNET
Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said.

Athens · Jun 5, 2005, 02:41 AM

First Intel cant make PowerPC Chips because IBM and Motorola own the patents for it, second switching to Intel chips wont mean the software will have to be recompiled for x86 for a while because Intel is working on a chip that has a emulator type function in it that should allow a easy switch to start with a performance hit. Last Mac developers will prob recompile because if Apple can get chips cheaper, they will be able to compete easier, not to mention the market place confusion with Intel inside and the fact that Windows Software in theory should be able to run just as fast in emulation allowing the Mac to be even more viable then before. There are many here that don’t remember the 680K0 years, Macs where originally based on CISC and a 68040 at the time was much faster then the first generation 601 PPC cpus, granted the OS ran in emulation built into the PowerPCs. And since the PowerPC's are running just as hot as Intel’s now, the only real advantage they had was the less power they used. Before it was more of a my Mac makes no noise as a big reason to use them, all the original imacs where fan less. I see this as a good move personally.

Simon · Jun 5, 2005, 03:14 AM

OMG.

There will be no x86 Mac OS X box from Apple, Intel or anybody else.

If you're so keen on running Intel's old and battered x86 platform in the final days of it's lifetime, well then go and buy one of those cheap plastic peecee boxes and run Mac OS X on top of an emulator. While you're waiting for that hot POS to load your favorite OS, you can deal with the viruses, spyware and all the other crap that's inseparably tied to Windows.

God, how dumb does the FUD have to get for people to stop spreading it? Stop being sheep.

Randman · Jun 5, 2005, 03:38 AM

So much for a G5 PowerBook.

Athens · Jun 5, 2005, 03:38 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

OMG.

There will be no x86 Mac OS X box from Apple, Intel or anybody else.

If you're so keen on running Intel's old and battered x86 platform in the final days of it's lifetime, well then go and buy one of those cheap plastic peecee boxes and run Mac OS X on top of an emulator. While you're waiting for that hot POS to load your favorite OS, you can deal with the viruses, spyware and all the other crap that's inseparably tied to Windows.

God, how dumb does the FUD have to get for people to stop spreading it? Stop being sheep.

my god, the CPU IS JUST A FREAKING CHIP INSIDE THE COMPUTER, if Apple changed from IBM Chips to Intel Chips THAT MAC WILL STILL LOOK LIKE A MAC and OS X being such a better OS then Windows will still be better no matter what CHIP its running on. Fact is the only real change for any one will be for people that make the software not the bloody end user which wont notice any difference if its done right.

BasketofPuppies · Jun 5, 2005, 03:53 AM

We've been told for the past ten years the X86 architecture was at the end of the road. Intel and AMD have continued to enhance it significantly. Motorola/Freescale and IBM haven't been able to keep their PowerPC processors competitive (in both megahertz and real world performance) despite their modern architecture.

If I read another "expert" who writes Mac OS X's (or Firefox's or OpenOffice's or whatever's) superior security is genuine and not because fewer hackers are looking for holes...

And calling them bugs instead of security holes doesn't make them any less insecure.

Simon · Jun 5, 2005, 03:54 AM

Athens, you are entirely missing the point. Exactly because the user shouldn't notice the CPU, Apple has the freedom to chose whatever suits them best. But then why oh why should they take the oldest design around when there are so many better ones? Duh.

Athens · Jun 5, 2005, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

Athens, you are entirely missing the point. Exactly because the user shouldn't notice the CPU, Apple has the freedom to chose whatever suits them best. But then why oh why should they take the oldest design around when there are so many better ones? Duh.

Ghz, Cost, Production capabilities, Reliability, Brand?

Fact is the fasted clocked CPU's are x86 ones, and for some people raw Ghz is all they understand, so that in itself is a selling point to the masses that are stupid to understand the inner workings of computers.

Cost, Intel is the largest chip maker in the world, they can produce chips much cheaper then IBM and in this world price matters most, if Apple is to compete against cheap Windows machines they need to have the best possible prices.

Production, Apple has been hurt time and time again from the production problems of Motorola and IBM, they need Intel’s production capabilities if they are to grow, currently I think Apple wouldn’t be able to produce enough Macs fast enough if there was a increase in demand and that hurts business.

Reliability, Intel is a reliable company.

Brand, some people are stupid, ok most are, if they read that Macs have Intel inside, with all the marketing Intel does for there CPU's which doesn’t mention Windows most of the time, this can be a added boost to Macs marketability to the stupid people out there that just don’t know any different.

pliny · Jun 5, 2005, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Athens

Fact is the fasted clocked CPU's are x86 ones, and for some people raw Ghz is all they understand, so that in itself is a selling point to the masses that are stupid to understand the inner workings of computers.

Go to any computer store and you will see any 5 laptops and even some desktops where the clocked speed has no bearing at all on the price of the system.

Athens · Jun 5, 2005, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by pliny

Go to any computer store and you will see any 5 laptops and even some desktops where the clocked speed has no bearing at all on the price of the system.

Laptops are different, price reflects size over speed for laptops. You can get a lap buster for as low as 899.00 or go with a paperweight for 3000.00, both being the same speed or even the cheap one being faster. What was your point btw?

jasong · Jun 5, 2005, 10:06 AM

Why do people think that their hardware/software investments immediately become worthless? We had programs that ran on 68030/040 chips and PPC 601 (and later chips). The user didn't have to know or care what chip was in their Mac, it just worked. Yes the newer machines were for the most part faster, but isn't that always going to be the case? Your current software will continue to work. When you replace your Mac with a x86 Mac in a few years your software may continue to run, or it may need to be upgraded. Were you really expecting to spend the rest of your life on that same version of software?

What difference does it make whose chip is inside? Did people really stop using the Mac when IBM made the chip instead of Motorola? Let's end this stupid processor drama and go with a known, reliable supplier.

dlefebvre · 05:31 PM

Maybe this Intel switch has nothing to do with the G5, but is related to the iPod. Or even some new device?

Eriamjh · Jun 5, 2005, 10:16 AM

Where's the betting pool for this one?

chris v · Jun 5, 2005, 10:16 AM

Sure, the current software will continue to work, but people expect a Power Mac to last a good 4 to 5 years. If the OS and all the apps are being re-compiled for a new architecture, people are going to look at the possibility that the IBM-powered machines they buy in this transition period will be left behind at the transition in a year or 18 months, and balk.

I'm running OS 10.3 on a 6 yo iMac, and a 5 1/2 yo Sawtooth. If I can't run OS 10.5 on a 2 YO Dual G5 2.7, why would I consider buying one?

Quadra · Jun 5, 2005, 12:11 PM

MacWorld I think has the REAL deal on this supposed annoucement:

http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/edit...tion/index.php

Going to be lots of crow to eat this week.

"there is a sucker born every minute - an idiot every time a pundit speaks" - Macsmind

ryaxnb · Jun 5, 2005, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by zoetrope

> If the story is true then yes. I do not see a techincal reason why they could not within that time frame if apple provides them with tools or a road map at WWDC.

Technical reasons? Just because third party developers have the technical capabilities of recompiling their software to run on an x86 platform doesn't mean it makes business sense. Can you imagine how quick Apple's Mac sales will dry up if Steve makes an announcement resembling the Cnet article? Can the iPod really get them through that hump?

Remember 680x0 transition... they pulled through.

AirRon · Jun 5, 2005, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by chris v

Sure, the current software will continue to work, but people expect a Power Mac to last a good 4 to 5 years. If the OS and all the apps are being re-compiled for a new architecture, people are going to look at the possibility that the IBM-powered machines they buy in this transition period will be left behind at the transition in a year or 18 months, and balk.

I'm running OS 10.3 on a 6 yo iMac, and a 5 1/2 yo Sawtooth. If I can't run OS 10.5 on a 2 YO Dual G5 2.7, why would I consider buying one?

I agree. If Jobs announces a switch to a new platform, they will sell approximately zero PPC-based computers until they are released. And then when they are, they will sell a few dozen to me and the other Mac nuts, but others would likely have jumped ship.

If this is some kind of architecture change they HAVE to have a truly seamless transition, a la 040 to PPC 601. Difference is, PPX was so much faster that going to a 601 was only a slight step down from the fastest 040's of the day IMHO (I bought one of those 601s on April 15).

Not to mention the headache for developers, who are apt to say, "shoot, just install windows if you wanna run our app . . ."

chris v · Jun 5, 2005, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by ryaxnb

Remember 680x0 transition... they pulled through.

That was a thing that HAD to be done. & it was tough times. the 601-604 years were the worst for Apple. We've just really come out of the transition from OS 9 to OS X, which was another thing that HAD to be done, and it was a rough time.

Right now, Apple is on top of the world. OS X rules, their hardware is selling quite well, and the platform is attracting tons of attention from IT and developers. To toss cold water on al that with yet another major transition now would be a desperation move, and Apple just isn't desperate.

Something else is afoot besides a wholesale move of all Macs to Intel processors. I have no idea what, but Pentiums in Power Macs ain't it.

danman · Jun 5, 2005, 02:03 PM

This is great news. It should bring for faster and cheaper Macs. Less heat too!

I can't wait for my Intel inside Powermac.

THE MAC GOD · 03:19 PM

I look at it differently that what these articles infer...

I look at it the same way as when Apple went to IBM. Apple designed the chip, IBM fabricated it.
Same thing here:
IBM, you aren't fabricating enough for us... Intel, you're the worlds largest chip manufacturer, here's what we need, can you make it?
Yes, we can. In fact, we can make it consistantly and improve the speed every 4-6 months...
competitively.

Apple's money is made on their hardware. To move to the x86 chipset would literally be suicide. Any average joe could go and get OSX and slap it into their win box, killing their hardware sales. Jobs is smarter than that.

iPod isn't and won't sustain their existence. They have to make people continue to need their hardware.

Here's a good article looking at the two chip types (PPC and x86).

aristotles · Jun 5, 2005, 03:16 PM

I'm sorry but you guys are clueless if you think this would have zero effect on the users. A lot of software uses Altivec. X86 has nothing like it. SSE is anemic compared to it. X86 is completely incompatible with PPC.
X86 is register poor and there is the endian difference not to mention the huge pipeline which must be flushed with each context switch. Context switches occur all the time when you are multitasking.

You will never see multitasking in any SPEC test because it is designed to measure the optimal performance under "ideal" conditions. Those SPEC number Intel puts out are artificial with no real world frame of reference.

The only thing X86 has going for it is integer performance but even that is largely cancelled out by the anemic FSB speeds and shared bus contention with the Xeons in a Dual CPU configuration.

@danman: Where do you get your information from? Intel chips are hotter and more expensive on the high end.

Go look up the wattage requirements of P4s and compare with G4s and G5s.

Randman · Jun 5, 2005, 03:21 PM

Why couldn't Apple use Intel and IBM? Use Intel for new laptops or iTablets or something.

rotuts · Jun 5, 2005, 03:40 PM

Excellent point Chris V

this is my main concern: what ever apple does, it cannon ignore those who plan to buy a G5 PPC in the next evolution, late this fall/ early next year.

many people plan this 3k investment carefully and if there is a hint that that purchase will not be a long lasting one, they won't make that commitment.

Ill have two G4duals and if there is going to be a major bend in the road at the top in two years Ill wait for those two years to pass and then some to make sure before I commit 3-4k

but as in any major change, maybe those with similar plans to mine will just have to wait while for Apple they see as a buisness whos sum if the parts, the high end part will have to wait for the greater gain in many other parts in the short term:

a cheaper Apple PC, a 'faster' ligher laptop etc.

as Ive said before, im just sorry that I can't watch the keynote somehow tomorrow at 10am PDT.

rotuts

chris v · Jun 5, 2005, 04:03 PM

Speaking if which-- is the keynote going to be webcast?

brapper · Jun 5, 2005, 07:27 PM

Man, I'd love to build my own Mac, but I somehow doubt I'll be able to do that any time soon.
Price I pay for a wonderful system.

sideus · Jun 5, 2005, 07:34 PM

http://www.macopz.com/buildamac/

nredman · Jun 5, 2005, 07:34 PM

rotuts · Jun 5, 2005, 07:41 PM

well the NYTimes seems to think its going to be intel inside from tomorrows paper:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/te...rtner=homepage

you might have to subscribe but its free. again they just say intel chips.

toobad can't follow the keynote live. hope they have the rebroadcast as they did last year.

rotuts

Chuckit · Jun 5, 2005, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by crucial

If Apple moves over to an X86 architecture we as users would be in a win win situation. Faster, cheeper processors, greater variety of video cards, the ability to run those horrible windows programs that we occasionally need in native mode, and all on a machine that was as tightly integrated as the current Macs are because Apple would put a ROM on the motherboard, or have that X86 chip tweaked so that you had to buy an Apple machine to run OS X.

Faster processors: Not necessarily. There are some Intel processors with higher clock speeds, but that doesn't mean these will actually be faster for every task.

Cheaper processors: Not a win for us because we don't buy the processors.

Greater variety of video cards: How? Would a thousand new drivers suddenly appear if OS X were run on a Pentium?

And, of course, if Apple "tweaks" the chip, who says it would be able to run Windows natively?

rotuts · Jun 5, 2005, 08:15 PM

could this really be about DRM?

http://www.zmetro.com/archives/002364.php

I don't konw much about how hardware secures software.

rotuts

osxisfun · Jun 5, 2005, 08:17 PM

that's what we were thinking but slashdot just said intel is diavowing DRM in their latest chip. doesn't mean the chip apple is going to use can't have it though...

is it monday yet?

rotuts · Jun 5, 2005, 08:21 PM

since this was moved to the lounge I think, and this is still a little OT

how come my replied don't count as posts? how else go I get to be a vet?

6k? 8k? 10k? Ill never get there!

rotut

JoshuaZ · Jun 5, 2005, 08:23 PM

When Monday comes around be prepared for us still not knowing anything.

brapper · Jun 5, 2005, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by rotuts

since this was moved to the lounge I think, and this is still a little OT

how come my replied don't count as posts? how else go I get to be a vet?

6k? 8k? 10k? Ill never get there!

rotut

Feeeeeeeedback

adios · Jun 5, 2005, 10:41 PM

Interesting article from Wired:

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125...w=wn_tophead_1

According to them, Apple's got access to technology called QuickTransit that will allow seamless emulation with minimal loss of performance as developers transition their apps over to the Intel chips. They're speculating that the move is intended to take advantage of Intel's on-chip DRM functionality to cozy up to Hollywood.

brapper · Jun 5, 2005, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by adios

Interesting article from Wired:

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125...w=wn_tophead_1

According to them, Apple's got access to technology called QuickTransit that will allow seamless emulation with minimal loss of performance as developers transition their apps over to the Intel chips. They're speculating that the move is intended to take advantage of Intel's on-chip DRM functionality to cozy up to Hollywood.

Very interesting.

AirRon · Jun 5, 2005, 11:15 PM

re: QuickTransit

Only this sort of technology makes this possible switch possible. Let's hope Steve demonstrates it tomorrow, and that it works, and that the gathered developers don't head for the figurative exits.
Ugh

bewebste · Jun 5, 2005, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by adios

Interesting article from Wired:

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125...w=wn_tophead_1

According to them, Apple's got access to technology called QuickTransit that will allow seamless emulation with minimal loss of performance as developers transition their apps over to the Intel chips. They're speculating that the move is intended to take advantage of Intel's on-chip DRM functionality to cozy up to Hollywood.

This Slashdot article may put a bit of a damper on DRM speculation, although I suppose it's not completely out of the question. I think the most likely thing to happen is that Intel will announce they will begin fabricating PowerPC chips, not just to sell in Apple machines, but also to get their hands into the gaming console market. It wouldn't make financial sense to do it if Apple was their only customer, but it would if they were able to undercut the prices that the other PPC manufacturers are selling their chips to console makers for, and that market would be pretty damn big.

I just see no good reason for Apple to switch to x86 - the only thing they would gain would be volume and a relatively small speed boost, which would be countered by the speed hit of emulating PPC code during the transition (I'm extremely skeptical of QuickTransit's claims), plus the big pain in the butt for all of their developers to move stuff over to x86.