# Apple to switch?????



## dcoon81 (May 23, 2005)

> Apple has held talks to use Intel chips in its Macintosh line. Neither would confirm a change in the relationship, and it's unclear if Apple will shift away from IBM.
>  IBM Is 'Back on Track,' CEO Says





> This Reuters story revives one of the oldest Mac rumors around... Apple switching to Intel?
> 
> The rumor originated at The Wall Street Journal:
> The report, citing two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies, said Apple will agree to use Intel chips.
> ...



I have seen this rumor on another site.  I am not a member of the wall street journal.com so I am unable to get the full story.  Has anyone else heard this?  Can someone inform us of the full story if you have access to it.  

It's the second headline down the middle of the page.

Thanks

D

Link to WSJ.com - Apple and Intel?


----------



## Jason (May 23, 2005)

I just heard about this on NPR...


----------



## MisterMe (May 23, 2005)

dcoon81 said:
			
		

> I have seen this rumor on another site.  I am not a member of the wall street journal.com so I am unable to get the full story.  Has anyone else heard this?  Can someone inform us of the full story if you have access to it.
> 
> It's the second headline down the middle of the page.
> 
> ...


Oh, please. Apple needs merchant chips. Intel has a huge merchant chip operation. This has nothing to do with changing processors.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (May 23, 2005)

apple uses intel chips in the xserves.  that's all it is. intel are currently the worst chip manufacturer, lagging way behind AMD in all benchmarks. there is no sense in moving the desktops over to intel.  the PPC chips are only going to get better now that so much R+D is going on at IBM with the liquidation of it's x86 pc building sector, and the fact that all three next-gen console are using PPC-derived chips. the only way is up with IBM IMO


----------



## mi5moav (May 23, 2005)

Apple is designing a video game console with intel inside. Intel sees 25 million young game players seeing PowerPC inside logos on game consoles for the foreseable future and they know this is not a good thing. Many children will see the IBM PowerPC logo before they see the Intel inside logo and this can not be a good thing for them.


----------



## JetwingX (May 23, 2005)

mi5moav said:
			
		

> Apple is designing a video game console with intel inside.



I always wondered where you pull these things out of.

anyways, once a year (often right after the latest OS release) we hear these stories about "APPLE SWITCHING TO x86!!!" and year after year, nothing happens.

and besides, it is way too much of a hassle to switch. And why do you think Sony, Nintendo and *Microsoft* are using PPC processors in the next gen game consoles...?


----------



## Viro (May 23, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> apple uses intel chips in the xserves.  that's all it is. intel are currently the worst chip manufacturer, lagging way behind AMD in all benchmarks. there is no sense in moving the desktops over to intel.  the PPC chips are only going to get better now that so much R+D is going on at IBM with the liquidation of it's x86 pc building sector, and the fact that all three next-gen console are using PPC-derived chips. the only way is up with IBM IMO



XServes use PowerPC's too. They're G5, including the RAID Xserves.


----------



## Lycander (May 23, 2005)

My head hurts.

Is it possible to port OSX to x86 yes. Is it feasible? Yes again. Why? Slap it on a custom motherboard with OpenFirmware and that's one less thing they'd have to worry about. So they can still maintain that iron clad grip on their hardware platform. Mac users automatically assume that an x86 conversion would mean Apple loses their grip on the hardware. Problem is... the people hoping for this conversion are the ones who want to build a cheap PC and put OSX on it.

That's the #1 reason why Apple won't switch to x86. NO ONE WILL BE HAPPY. They'll just wind up pissing of everyone. The PC users won't get their cheap shot at OSX, Mac faithfuls will feel betrayed.

So instead, steady the course and keep doing what Apple has been doing and everyone will be happy. Except the shlubs who don't own a Mac.


----------



## nixgeek (May 23, 2005)

Intel does also have the StrongARM CPUs, so Apple might be using these for something else. ::sleepy:: 

Also, Intel has other chips that have been found inside Macs for some time now.  Not sure exactly what they do, but I've seen them in there. ::sleepy:: 

And then there's also Darwin, which runs on x86. ::sleepy:: 

This is old news that's been picked up just now by some fool in a top-name magazine company and decided to run with it.  I'm so tired of seeing this come up each and every time. ::sleepy::


----------



## Pengu (May 23, 2005)

The intel chips used in XServe's aren't the CPU, they're a "minor" chip (compared to the CPU) for network or something. And the XServe does not have a g5 in it. it has ATA controllers, and RAID controllers, and other "specialised" hardware, and no "multi-use" components like a G5 cpu.

can someone please stop/close/ban threads about stupid crap like this all the time?


----------



## mindbend (May 23, 2005)

The Xserve absolutely has a G5 in it. The XServe RAID does not, it's just a set of hard drives (and controllers and such). Right?

I know this topic is annoying and keeps coming up, but this is the first time I can recall where the information came from something resembling a legitimate source. Or am I wrong? I only recall these Intel threads having sourceless speculation.

I, for one, am fine with this topic coming up a lot. The forum is called News, Rumors and Discussion. If it were called 100% Confirmed Facts, I'd be disappointed. 

I'll repeat the same thing I've said every other time this topic comes up. I could care less what chip is inside my Mac. I don't care if it's a G5, G6, Intel, AMD, Silicon Graphics, Cell, whatever. All I care about are two things, that it run OS X and that it is FAST. If the G5 gets me there, great. If some kind of Intel thing happens and runs OS X perfectly and is FASTER than the G5, then great, sign me up.


----------



## dcoon81 (May 23, 2005)

Pengu said:
			
		

> The intel chips used in XServe's aren't the CPU, they're a "minor" chip (compared to the CPU) for network or something. And the XServe does not have a g5 in it. it has ATA controllers, and RAID controllers, and other "specialised" hardware, and no "multi-use" components like a G5 cpu.


First off, you should get your facts right before replying...


> According to Intel marketing materials, the Xserve RAID uses Intel's IOP 331 chip, a derivative of the XScale processor. The IOP chip, which is used in many storage systems, is designed to speed the task of shuttling data in and out of a computer system.


There is absolutely a G5 processor in the Xserve Check the link! 


			
				Pengu said:
			
		

> can someone please stop/close/ban threads about stupid crap like this all the time?


And second, no one asked you to reply in the first place.


----------



## kainjow (May 23, 2005)

mindbend said:
			
		

> I'll repeat the same thing I've said every other time this topic comes up. I could care less what chip is inside my Mac. I don't care if it's a G5, G6, Intel, AMD, Silicon Graphics, Cell, whatever. All I care about are two things, that it run OS X and that it is FAST. If the G5 gets me there, great. If some kind of Intel thing happens and runs OS X perfectly and is FASTER than the G5, then great, sign me up.


I agree. No Mac users could/would tell a difference if there was an x86, PowerPC or 68000 eek processor in the computer. As long as it runs OS X, and runs OS X well, I'd be happy.

And how does Intel = x86? Maybe Apple is wanting Intel to make PPC chips... who knows.


----------



## Pengu (May 23, 2005)

excuse me. i meant xserve raid. my mistake.


----------



## MacFreak (May 24, 2005)

I dont think so that Apple will use Intel for xserver or PowerMac. Only problem is that IBM is face heat issues because the G5 is too hot for Powerbook, eMac, and Mini Mac. Apple couldnt solution this. IBM is struggle with it. My thinking that Apple is going to use Intel for Powerbook, eMac and Mini Mac that can sell cheaper than what Dell can sell. So, I am betting on Apple will sell both Intel and IBM on Mac.


----------



## Cat (May 24, 2005)

Apple is already using Intel chips, just not intel desktop processors. Why should contacts between Intel and Apple mean a major switch? 

Apple uses components and embedded processors from many manufacturers in the iPod and Airport products and of course also chipsets in its desktop machines (controllers etc.) Again, why do so many people immediately jump to the conclusion that talks betwen Apple and another manufacturer will have a complete system architecture change as a consequence? 

We have perhaps just completed the change from OS 9 to OS X, do you really think Apple would want to tax developers and consumers alike with another mayor change? I don't think so.


----------



## Mikuro (May 24, 2005)

Now would definitely NOT be the time to make the move. Sure, IBM's having some difficulty moving the G5 forward, but hey, Intel and AMD are having trouble, too. The clock speeds on the PC side haven't gone up much (any?) more than the G5 in the past two years. The future of the PPC looks brighter compared to x86 now than it has in years. We've got the only major 64-bit chip with real OS support, and we've got multiple cores right on the horizon (as do the x86 makers, true, but there's no gap big enough to justify a move). Even the future of the G4 is looking up; supposedly we might see G4s sporting dual cores before G5s, and if they do, they ought to fit in PBs (rumor has it, anyway; grain of salt required as always).

Seems like all the informed discussion here, about it all being about RAID controller chips and the like is right on target. (I know, the idea of educated opinions based on established facts being right IS a little hard to swallow...  )

I see absolutely no reason why Apple would even consider the move NOW. If they were ever going to do it, it would have been 3 or 4 years ago. Each passing day makes it less and less likely, IMHO.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (May 24, 2005)

i agree with mikuro.  the PPC market is only going to grow with the console support, and amd/intel are not that farther ahead, in terms of clock spped, and in terms of real world speed, it's all about level, with intel actualy lagging behind slightly


----------



## Satcomer (May 24, 2005)

Man I wish I had a nickel every time this stupid rumor comes up. How many years have this prosperous rumor been going around?


----------



## markceltic (May 24, 2005)

Satcomer said:
			
		

> Man I wish I had a nickel every time this stupid rumor comes up. How many years have this prosperous rumor been going around?


I think someone mentioned when OS7 came out in what '92.


----------



## Ceroc Addict (May 24, 2005)

There's a rumour on Engadget that Apple's coming out with their own tablet, which would use Intel chips. This makes the Intel thing ring true to me (somewhat).

i.e. Apple and Intel are getting together on a lower performace (hopefully very cool) product and leaving PowerMacs with the IBM chips.

Kap


----------



## nixgeek (May 25, 2005)

markceltic said:
			
		

> I think someone mentioned when OS7 came out in what '92.



Search Google regarding "Mac OS" and "Star Trek Project" and see what you get. 



			
				Ceroc Addict said:
			
		

> There's a rumour on Engadget that Apple's coming out with their own tablet, which would use Intel chips. This makes the Intel thing ring true to me (somewhat).
> 
> i.e. Apple and Intel are getting together on a lower performace (hopefully very cool) product and leaving PowerMacs with the IBM chips.



It might have to do something with Intel's XScale CPU, which used to be named StrongARM in earlier versions of the CPU, which also used to be on the latest of Newtons before they were killed off by Steve.

Or maybe a licensing of the low-power tech that allowed for the Centrino (which I believe was inspired by Transmeta), which (dare I say) might help with the always-rumored PowerBook G5.

Sorry, I had to bring that last one up just for speculation....didn't want to open up another can of worms.


----------



## Cat (May 25, 2005)

Now Transmeta, _that_ would really be something. When they came out they had thi code-morphing software layer around the processor that could make it act as any processor architecture (so both like a x86 and PPC). That would have beeen great for ultra-thin, quiet, passively cooled laptops and "living room" computers. Alas ...


----------



## MacFreak (May 25, 2005)

Again.. I doubt that Apple will use INTEL period!


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (May 25, 2005)

Even if they did use Intel chips, it would be almost certain that you couldn't just install Mac OS X on any old Intel-based box.  It would most definitely be restricted to Apple-branded hardware.


----------



## gerbick (May 26, 2005)

It's starting to seriously stink like a hoax though, guys.

Take a read...


----------



## MacFreak (May 26, 2005)

I knew it was Hoax.. Sigh..


----------



## nixgeek (May 27, 2005)

Just as I thought.  I'm sure they are in talks, but not about Mac CPUs.  It might be a minor chip that plays some role in the whole system, or a processor for another device.

Take a look inside most of the Macs since the beige G3, and you might see an Intel chip or AMD chip inside.  Again, it's usually some supplemental chip for the entire system.


----------



## wiz (May 27, 2005)

wow if apple were to do such a "stupid move".. argh! that would be soo dissapointing.. i think i'd switch to linux and never touch a mac ever again.

I mean if apple were to switch processors.. it should be "Cell" not intel... its just plain stupid.. Cell if by far more superior and is powerpc based.


----------



## Viro (May 27, 2005)

wiz said:
			
		

> wow if apple were to do such a "stupid move".. argh! that would be soo dissapointing.. i think i'd switch to linux and never touch a mac ever again.
> 
> I mean if apple were to switch processors.. it should be "Cell" not intel... its just plain stupid.. Cell if by far more superior and is powerpc based.



Is this based on actual chip performance, or just PR releases with peak theoretical throughput?


----------



## wiz (May 28, 2005)

the latter.. but if u want actual chip performance... wait for PS3


----------



## symphonix (May 28, 2005)

Firstly, the PowerPC is definitely the winning architecture at the moment, even though it may lag behind its projected speed (comments from both Jobs and IBM's Power compuing group suggest that they'd expected to be about 500mhz ahead of where they are at present) it definitely makes up for this in its flexible and reliable architecture.

I'd also argue that the "switch to Intel" is unlikely. There are many good reasons why Apple would be in partnership with Intel, aside from just processors. Among these is the manufacture of other system management chips and co-processors. Intel is currently out in front on DRM-enabled hardware, so Apple would be very interested in talking about the possibilities there. Both companies are sharing research in the HyperTransport architecture and would be likely to co-operate on improving the speed of motherboard architecture. And lastly, there's always the possibility that a Mac could use Intel chips to run x86 software on a virtual-machine emulation layer. Not likely, but possible.

Either way, I'd not worry too much about this rumour. Apple and IBM have invested too much to throw away the PPC - If I remember rightly it had already cost five billion dollars to develop the G5 architecture when the first G5 PowerMac was released (including a new processor factory at Fiskill) which is comparable to the entire development cost of Microsoft's XBox at about the same time.


----------



## fjdouse (May 29, 2005)

I thought I'd weigh in on this one, although I really hate rumours! But anyway, hypocrasy aside, BBC News have mentioned this on it's IT programme, Click Online. Saying there were rumours that Apple and Intel are in talks regarding Intel PROCESSORS.

The fact that they mentioned processors specifically may or may not be important.  I kind of like the idea that they may put an x86 in future Macs, what a great idea! It would give Macs a great boost and could open up the 64bit market, Virtual PC in Microsoft's hands is never going to cut it.  With a real chip and Apple's know-how, it could be implemented well. The "problems" with Apple speed compared to PC's would become irrelevant.

IF Apple were thinking of ditching PowerPC and/or similar CPUs in favor of building PC-type machines, I think that would be the beginning of the end.  It would ONLY be a matter of time before OS X would be running at full speed on non-Apple PC hardware, no matter what safeguards Apple put in, someone will come up with some kind of work-around. Over time Apple would just become a software house (I'm thinking of Sega). Also, if we end up with one common set of hardware, or a levelled playing field thanks to a hack, it will come down to a fight between Windows and OS X, I don't see that being in anyone's interests. Apple NEEDS to have a different architecture, and it actually protects Apple in many ways. 

I think we could see an interesting development, afterall, where in the rulebook does it say a computer can only have a single processor type?

I'm praying, oh I am praying this is going to be a good thing or there will be a LOT of angry Mac users and switchers, myself included.


----------



## wiz (May 29, 2005)

i vote for cell... i have my hopes on it. (theoretically its supposed to be able to break the 4.x ghz barrier)


----------



## Krevinek (May 29, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> I think we could see an interesting development, afterall, where in the rulebook does it say a computer can only have a single processor type?



The unwritten one. The problem of supporting multiple archs is that performance and applications suddenly don't always work on all versions of the OS. Look at Linux: there is actually a lot of software that doesn't work, or doesn't work very well, if you aren't on x86 or x86-64. Linux is actually a great example of why this is a bad idea, as application developers are still likely to have platform favortism no matter what.


----------



## nixgeek (May 29, 2005)

Krevinek said:
			
		

> The unwritten one. The problem of supporting multiple archs is that performance and applications suddenly don't always work on all versions of the OS. Look at Linux: there is actually a lot of software that doesn't work, or doesn't work very well, if you aren't on x86 or x86-64. Linux is actually a great example of why this is a bad idea, as application developers are still likely to have platform favortism no matter what.



Of course, that's dependent on the developer.  So far, most of the apps I've used under Linux seem to work well on x86 and PPC, and compiling from source using makefiles provided by the developer seems to work fine.  Now if you're talking a company like Macromedia and others that have catered to the x86 side moreso than anything, sure.  But remember that they are providing commercial software for what it in their best interest.  But the majority of open source software tends to work nicely across the board.

Going back to the x86 on Apple issue, *fjdouse* says that it's confirmed that the talks are about PROCESSORS.  My question (and I've already asked this before) are _which_ processors, because Intel doesn't only have x86.  They also have XScale (formerly StrongARM) which would probably be used in some other Apple-branded device that needs low power.  What that device might be I have no idea, nor do I dare speculate as everyone (and yes, even I) have posted here regarding that.

I REALLY wish people would stop assuming "x86" when the name "Intel" is mentioned.  All it does is drive up stock prices on speculation of what might actually be something completely different.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (May 29, 2005)

is cell PPC based, or something entirely new?


----------



## Krevinek (May 29, 2005)

So far a lot will compile on PPC Linux, but you look at anything where assembly gets used, it breaks down. This includes multimedia, games, and low-level code. While in Linux, the low-level stuff is understandable, multimedia is one of the Mac's strengths, and would not fare well at first.


----------



## MacFreak (May 30, 2005)

I think the main reason to have rumors to spread around the world to scared IBM off. Apple will not switch to Intel.


----------



## gerbick (May 31, 2005)

MacFreak said:
			
		

> I think the main reason to have rumors to spread around the world to scared IBM off. Apple will not switch to Intel.


Scare them off to accomplish what?  Go back to Motorola and their slow turnaround on G4's perhaps?

Or a flop of a processor in the form of the Itanium via Intel?  Or Intel's admission to some form of defeat after accepting the nigh-identical EMT64 architecture that's maybe an instruction or two out of so many the same as the AMD implementation?

I think after what's been done by IBM with the G5, Power4, Power5, PPC970FX (I know, same thing, but I'm talking about the IBM Server implementation and devkits), CELL and other architecture and technologies... pissing off IBM would be the very last thing I'd do if I were Apple.

Not unless Steve Jobs is just that damn arrogant.  Or stupid.


----------



## ecnanez (Jun 3, 2005)

Check this out (CNET)

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+...3-5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 3, 2005)

All that story proves is that "legitimate" news organizations aren't really legitimate anymore. They don't cite anything new, so I'm guessing it's based on the same well-debunked info we've been discussing in this thread from page 1.

Basically, I'll believe it when Apple says it, not a second sooner. If Apple makes any such announcement this year, I will eat a feast of hats and crow, seasoned well with my own words.


----------



## fryke (Jun 3, 2005)

Nothing's "done". It's mainly a hyped up version of a rumour. Sure: It could happen. But I'll write a VERY angry commentary about it on macnews.net.tc should it really happen. Really: Apple lives in constant transition for SOOOOOOOOO long now. 68K -> PPC (this transition was ONLY really over with Mac OS X, when finally main parts of the OS weren't running in emulation any longer!) then OS 8/9 -> OS X. And *now* that Mac OS X is finally growing up, they want us to dive into yet ANOTHER transition? Well... I don't want to get too far into it. I still believe the intel talks, if they've even happened, are not about a move to intel processors.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 5, 2005)

you mean Intel x86 CPUs, right fryke? We already KNOW they use an intel chip in the xserve for LAN or something.

I can't see them dumping PPC for x86 now. PPC tackled the 64bit thing at its inception. x86 (from intel at least) has to run in emulation, to get a 64bit CPU to run 32 bit code... why dump a system that works well for one that has market share? Mercedes AMG wouldn't use Chevvy engines just because they sell more, do they?


----------



## fryke (Jun 5, 2005)

I don't think the reason for a (partial?) move to intel would be market share. It would be the outlook for performance and price in the coming 2-3 years. IBM doesn't deliver - period. The 970 line of processors has not scaled as hoped, and this is bad for Apple. Also, IBM has no good processors for notebook computers. So Apple _there_ is still with FreeScale (ex Moto), which it basically told off when adopting the G5 by IBM. Apple certainly isn't thinking very short term here. So _if_ it turns out true, I think that it'll be for _some_ computer lines first. Maybe Apple can even keep using PPC for years to come in computers where it makes sense (performance- as well as price-wise).


----------



## chevy (Jun 5, 2005)

Pengu said:
			
		

> you mean Intel x86 CPUs, right fryke? We already KNOW they use an intel chip in the xserve for LAN or something.
> 
> I can't see them dumping PPC for x86 now. PPC tackled the 64bit thing at its inception. x86 (from intel at least) has to run in emulation, to get a 64bit CPU to run 32 bit code... why dump a system that works well for one that has market share? Mercedes AMG wouldn't use Chevy engines just because they sell more, do they?



As I am named here, I'll take a few seconds to answer: Alfa moved to some obscure Autralian GM motor for their high end cars, changing their legendar 3.0 V6 for the aussie 3.2 V6. On paper its has more horse power, and it is less expensive because they sell more, but the truth is that the car doesn't really accelerate anymore and has no sound. Hopefully Apple will not make the same error.

Knowing Steve (I mean, having read about him for now more than 25 years), I expect him to do something unexpected. He is smart, but sometimes his ego is bigger than his brain and the result is... strange.

Back to number:
Apple does a good part of his income with iPod. The processor used by the iPod is absolutely irrelevant for us. If they want to change it, they can.... maybe Intel has a good low-power CPU for this application.

Apple does a good part of his income with Mac hardware. Changing is to x86 would put it in competition with lots of other hardware provider. Strange.

Apple does some income with OS-X. Porting it to x86 would significantly increase its market share. Direct competitor would be Linux on x86. This is a great move to increase market share but my kill part of the Mac hardware income.

Apple does some income with Mac only software (iLife, iWork and several pro apps). Porting these to Windows or Linux could increase the market share. Indeed porting these to x86 Linux could be a very smart move.

Apple does a limited number of Mac and PC software (QuickTime, iTunes). 

And Apple does server hardware and software... here there is a possibility of extension to x86 too.

Conclusion ? Wait for tomorrow evening !


----------



## Pengu (Jun 5, 2005)

Yeah.. cars really are a bad analogy, but it's the one thing everyone can relate to.


----------



## chevy (Jun 6, 2005)

Knowing that:
1) Intel makes CPUs with on-chip wireless support for WiFi and Bluetooth
2) Apple was looking for Bluetooth specialized engineers for his iPod hardware group
3) iPod is the product with the highest volume at Apple
4) Intel is looking for volume production

Why wouldn't Intel provide a single chip iPod solution ?


----------



## Damrod (Jun 6, 2005)

chevy said:
			
		

> Knowing that:
> 1) Intel makes CPUs with on-chip wireless support for WiFi and Bluetooth
> 2) Apple was looking for Bluetooth specialized engineers for his iPod hardware group
> 3) iPod is the product with the highest volume at Apple
> ...



This is by far the 'theory' that makes most sense to me.


----------



## texanpenguin (Jun 6, 2005)

What about the fact that PortalPlayer has been very, very good at keeping up with the demand?

And that they already have established iPod/mp3 player instructions on the chip?

Why switch to Intel when you're getting what you need somewhere else?

I also don't want my iPod to run at 75°C.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

Hey guys do you remember that time when there were Performa product that time and had use INTEL processor that time. Maybe possible that Apple want to switch to Intel for Mini Mac, eMac and or for ibook and Powerbook? Apple able to sell cheaper than Dell? 

Again, I doubt Apple will switch to INTEL. Because see what reporter asked Steven Jobs:

_That being said, it doesn't answer the many other questions that would stem from such a transition. Questions such as emulation layers, current PowerPC Mac sales, developer migration, end user confusion and more. As well, Steve Jobs was recently asked about the possibility of switching to Intel and reportedly "Jobs basically said no."_

He answered the question "No"  My question when was that?


----------

