Apple to switch?????

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
 
markceltic said:
I think someone mentioned when OS7 came out in what '92.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 ...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Is this based on actual chip performance, or just PR releases with peak theoretical throughput?
 
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.
 
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.
 
i vote for cell... i have my hopes on it. (theoretically its supposed to be able to break the 4.x ghz barrier)
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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. :rolleyes:
 
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.
 
I think the main reason to have rumors to spread around the world to scared IBM off. Apple will not switch to Intel.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top