• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Apple to start using Intel chips?

This rumor has appeared a few times before. Strong evidence suggests that Apple actually keep's OS X and some core apps compiled and up to date for x86 along with there PPC counterparts.

There were even some news stories about people recieving locke dup boxes that supposedly containg Athlon 64's in them running OS X and some Apple apps, like Final Cut.

If I remember correctly, Steve Jobs was quoted as saying that once the transistion to OS X was complete, he'd consider looking at a move (partial or full) to a x86 processor. Still that could just be a rumor.

If it is true it would be a good marketing move, since average consumers (Best Buy shoppers, lol) buy on the Ghz and nothing else. And I bet the new Dual Core chips are looking interesting to Apple. but that's just specualtion on my part.
 
If they do port over I bet chipset/motherboard manufactures are just all kinds of happy. Now they have to include mac drivers for the componets.

If they do I hope you can buy just OSX and build your own mac. I think this would be a smart move since Apple could use cheaper parts. Kinda hard to compete with a $399 Dell that has some upgrade options. Even if it is the ram and hard drive. The mini was a step in the right direction, just not upgradeable much.
 
They would likely do something to prevent OSX from being run on PC's or being able to build your own Mac. Apple makes a lot of money from hardware sales. And besides, the whole point of the Apple view of computing is having one all encompasing device that works together, Hardware and OS that's been tested and put through it's paces to insure stability. Also if/when Apple moves to x86 CPU's it will likely be AMD providing the CPU's. But IBM's PowerPC roadmap plans for cpu's at 25-30ghz around 2010. So they're still innovating. But Apple might get frustated with thier delay's that happen too often and switch. Which wouldn't be hard to imagine if you remember Apple switching to Nvidia GPU's a few years ago because of ATI's mishap.
 
or the "chips" might not be cpus... they could be nic chips which intel makes.. or ARM chips for mobile devices or any number of chips intel makes besides x86 cpus...
 
Nice way to contribute to the thread... troll!

I don't know whether this is that great of a move. If Mac OS X was ever available to be run on an x86 platform, could you imagine how much money Apple could loose. I mean, I would never even think of buying an Apple computer (not that I really have in the first place) when I can just install the OS on my PC.
 
Youd see a ton of piracy of operating system.

Word on the street was that there was an Apple Internal Developers Edition of Panther that ran on x86 hardware.
 
Apple would, in my opinion, continue to keep it a closed platform, they produce the motherbords etc. They would just use an x86 chip. If they were in fact goign to make a move.

I seriously doubt Jobs would go for a Windows PC like approach.
 
yeah, the only reasonable motivation would be updating the 'book like with more powerful cpus... but even then... ehh, it would opne a huge can of worms in terms of hardware control and the like.

-esr
 
isn't the whole reason apple hasn't switched to x86 architecture because they are a hardware company that makes software to entice people to buy their hardware?

Without the extremely high profit margins it coudl hurt them... but then again if they released it a lot of people would pay 150 to buy mac OS X for their pc... millions? tens of millions?

thats good cash :) especially considering the R&D has already been done and they supposedly do have a x86 compatible version.... so selling millions of copies of their software, exposing their OS to tons of new users...

sounds good to me... but then again i'm probably missing something... otherwise they probably would have done it by now...

it seems funny to me that all 3 of the new consoles are using power pc's and xbox 360 dev kits are on G5's and all of a sudden apple might be switching from G5

what a wacky world we live in :)
 
Lets first realize that just becuase there are triple core processors for the game systems, doens't mean thats usable in a standard computer.

Also, lets look at something here... Microsoft is a software company that made it's fortune selling software... Apple could make a bundle if they sold just software, and something like consumer electronics, like iPods, Airport express, ect... instead of desktop computers or laptops...

Just think if Apple ported iLife to windows, and sold it to big OEM's like Dell and HP as a preinstall.. they could make a huge amount of money, not on top of stand alone sales of it as well...

It could be quite conciveable one day, Apple may not make hardware at all.. so I would say say it's quite possible that they might even

People don't use Mac's becuase of their hardware... they use it becuase of OSX.
 
KarFai said:
Just think if Apple ported iLife to windows, and sold it to big OEM's like Dell and HP as a preinstall.. they could make a huge amount of money, not on top of stand alone sales of it as well...

It could be quite conciveable one day, Apple may not make hardware at all.. so I would say say it's quite possible that they might even

People don't use Mac's becuase of their hardware... they use it becuase of OSX.
Click to expand...

I agree iLife would sell big. I love iMoive and iDVD for making DVD's of home movies.

People don't buy macs because of hardware? But my Mini is teh uber cool!
:D
 
OS X on Centrino... with the Powerbook's 17" screen! The power, the sleekness, and the battery life!!!! *Jaw drops* *Faints*
 
I don't see how using intel chips could get apple better marketing, especially since the x86 would destroy the company. Maybe it's just expensive to buy IBM processors, but I don't know.
If Apple really wants to go big they shouldn't change platform, they need more sponsors like back in the days of Umax and other computer clones. Considering Apple is such a closed business, though, they shouldn't expect more sales than they have.
 
if anything, ill think theyll use intel controller chips, not cpus. but who knows!
 
well im not sure if everyone knows this

but there is a major rumor that there is an x86 version of OS:X that they have created just incase they have a big fall in with motorola... but...its not a public item.
 
Hehehe, no. The future for PPC hasn't been this promising in a decade. The G5 is quite compeditive, and there are a lot of PPC choices. The Cell might not be optimal for a Mac, but hey, it's a better choice than a Prescott, wouldn't you say? ;) Honestly, switching to x86 now would be downright retarded.


If Apple really wants to go big they shouldn't change platform, they need more sponsors like back in the days of Umax and other computer clones. Considering Apple is such a closed business, though, they shouldn't expect more sales than they have.
Click to expand...
It's nice that you remember the Clone Wars. It would be nicer still if you remembered that the loss in hardware sales almost killed Apple.


but there is a major rumor that there is an x86 version of OS:X that they have created just incase they have a big fall in with motorola... but...its not a public item.
Click to expand...
Chances are they did have something like that about three or four years ago. Now? Doubtful.



isn't the whole reason apple hasn't switched to x86 architecture because they are a hardware company that makes software to entice people to buy their hardware?
Click to expand...
How about the fact that PPC generally throunced Pentiums for a good while back in the 90s? How about the fact that switching to a whole new computing platform also requires all third party software developers to port their apps? Also, how the hell would they explain it? "Yeah, I know we've been going on and on and on about how the G5 kicks x86 ass, but... we were lying, essentially. The Pentium rocks. Gooo Intel!"

Plus, it's not like it would be hard to make it impossible for your average x86 box to run OS X.
 
I think apple should use AMD Processors, Since they are technically "Faster" Clock for clock. This would back up everything apple has always been saying "the Mhz myth" if they go intel, they just eat their own words, and everything that have been saying and producing has been a lie.
 
Well think about it, Apple could toss out a system to compete with the $399 Dell. Run alot more stable and look better. Then they could really compete with M$. Apple has alot going for them. The iPod, iTunes, and not to mention the software they crank out is top notch. I honesly think they could survive outside of the hardware market.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
I think apple should use AMD Processors, Since they are technically "Faster" Clock for clock. This would back up everything apple has always been saying "the Mhz myth" if they go intel, they just eat their own words, and everything that have been saying and producing has been a lie.
Click to expand...
So that solves the explanation issue... What do you do about the rest? The Athlon64 doesn't really perform all that much better than the G5 (in fact, it perform worse in quite a few tests), so the gains would be limited. AMD doesn't really offer a great mobile platform. The PPC future is still fairly bright.

Honestly, what does AMD have to offer that IBM and Freescale doesn't?



Well think about it, Apple could toss out a system to compete with the $399 Dell. Run alot more stable and look better. Then they could really compete with M$. Apple has alot going for them. The iPod, iTunes, and not to mention the software they crank out is top notch. I honesly think they could survive outside of the hardware market.
Click to expand...
Apple aren't in the game to compete with Dell or Microsoft. They're in the game to make money. They're doing quite well at that, I'd say.
 
Well I think apple should stay with the PPC. But I mean if they wanted the switch to x86. They should choose AMD over Intel
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
Well I think apple should stay with the PPC. But I mean if they wanted the switch to x86. They should choose AMD over Intel
Click to expand...
A Pentium M PowerBook running OS X would be sweet. The Athlon64 doesn't really offer anything the G5 doesn't already have (or will get soon enough).
 
ok...I have to chime in here now...why is everybody assuming (and it is an assumption from what I have read) that if there was a deal with Intel that it would be an x86 platform? don't you remember what IBM used to mfg? hhhhuuummmm....could it be the x86 series chips? if this happens I be it would just be a switch from IBM doing the mfg to Intel just like the move from Motorola to IBM

 
This happens every year a new chip comes out.. There won't be a switch. The PPC (Power family of processors) is supierior in most respects to x86. It would be dumb for Apple to switch. And yes, it is rumored that Apple has a version of OSX that runs on x86 (so does Darwin), in-house, and thats as far as it's going to get. Apple runs a hardware market, not OS.. This is all just the usual FUD, move along...
 
Because apple is on the upswing right now doesn't necessarily mean they are set in their ways. Change is best done when progressing up, not desperately later.

The big problem would be "photoshop for mac-x86 vs windows". windows would win...

apple would definently keep a closed platform. Custom mobos, processor cards (not just chips, most likely), etc.

but it would be cheaper. Way cheaper.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
Do you know how much a G5 costs?
Click to expand...

I wish. But I do know the cost of designing chips is insane, in the multiples of 10 millions. Thats what they have to do with the "northbridge" in all their G5's - and they don't sell enough quantity to make that cost invisible to a G5 purchaser.

And how much does it cost to be the sole real user of a chip? Having to debug it, pay for the development + profits for the company that makes the chip? How much does it cost to spin a G5 including R&D? and how much does it cost to be the only one to suffer time-to-market issues while everyone else laughs?

The cost of a G5 chip, in my mind, has to be at least 3x that of a a P4 or opteron.

designing a PCB is relative chump-change, but you still suffer time-to-market issues if its the first board being designed for a system. How much does all that cost in R&D?

I don't think apple will go x86 soon. However, there is no doubt in my mind it IS an option for them, and they will do it.

But it won't be a PC. It will be incapable of running windows. incompatible with PC graphics cards and the things we're already used to. won't even have a BIOS, i'd bet on open firmware again, high integration, and lower prices.

I also wouldn't bet on just-intel.

I would bet that apple would get prices we can't. It would mean a massive drop in parts-price, and R&D. It would still be a mac, because what makes a mac is how it works, looks, and the operating system. The greatest advantage of a "mac" is a (mostly) closed hardware platform. also a great disadvantage, but one we're apparently willing to overlook.

if negotations are being held with intel, money is probably an issue, but I think what apple would want more is guaranteed first-to-market of high-end chips.
 
Methodical said:
I wish. But I do know the cost of designing chips is insane, in the multiples of 10 millions. Thats what they have to do with the "northbridge" in all their G5's - and they don't sell enough quantity to make that cost invisible to a G5 purchaser.

And how much does it cost to be the sole real user of a chip? Having to debug it, pay for the development + profits for the company that makes the chip? How much does it cost to spin a G5 including R&D? and how much does it cost to be the only one to suffer time-to-market issues while everyone else laughs?
Click to expand...

The G5 processor is basically an IBM Power4 processor that has a lot of features removed, like dual core and a ton of cache. Its not like they started from scratch, they basically wanted something like the Power4 processor but hell of a lot cheaper, which IBM delivered.

This article is pretty good for quick read.
 
starbuck8968 said:
The G5 processor is basically an IBM Power4 processor that has a lot of features removed, like dual core and a ton of cache. Its not like they started from scratch, they basically wanted something like the Power4 processor but hell of a lot cheaper, which IBM delivered.

This article is pretty good for quick read.
Click to expand...

I know. Its still an absolutely massive amount of money though. Its still a new chip, just based on already-developed technology. The modifications are far beyond deleting units and rearranging the core. Takes more time than a die shrink, which in the x86 world can mean a year and a ton of money.
 
gigglebyte said:
ok...I have to chime in here now...why is everybody assuming (and it is an assumption from what I have read) that if there was a deal with Intel that it would be an x86 platform? don't you remember what IBM used to mfg? hhhhuuummmm....could it be the x86 series chips? if this happens I be it would just be a switch from IBM doing the mfg to Intel just like the move from Motorola to IBM

Click to expand...

EXACTLY! I agree with you 100% people need to remember this. Intel does make other chips besides the x86 chip. And the history behind the last switch..

But OSX on x86 would be cool :D
 
gigglebyte said:
ok...I have to chime in here now...why is everybody assuming (and it is an assumption from what I have read) that if there was a deal with Intel that it would be an x86 platform? don't you remember what IBM used to mfg? hhhhuuummmm....could it be the x86 series chips? if this happens I be it would just be a switch from IBM doing the mfg to Intel just like the move from Motorola to IBM

Click to expand...


You really think IBM would let Apple take their (IBM's) processor to be fabbed by Intel......uh no.
 
G4=Motorola
G5=IBM
G6=Intel?

Could we be seeing the introduction of the G6 here (keep in mind dual-core tech apple would want to adopt, possibly from intel, maybe an opteron-like proc for G6?)
 
There will not be any G6 unless GM drops pontiac and the rights to the name which they currently own.

I still think we should consider the possibility of intel producing the chips as opposed to IBM, such a huge shift like the old one to IBM back in the day would be a bit much for the apple loyal at current.

-esr
 
mavalpha said:
OS X on Centrino... with the Powerbook's 17" screen! The power, the sleekness, and the battery life!!!! *Jaw drops* *Faints*
Click to expand...
and none of the games.
 
hrm... osx on centrino... pass. my g4 1.5 feels much more responsive and starts quicker then my 1.8 toshiba centrino.

-esr
 
anyone have a subscription to WSJ? http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111791696757050994,00.html?mod=rss_whats_news_technology

The WSJ seems to have confirmed it today (Saturday):
CNET on Friday reported that Apple would announce the transition plan June 6. It reported that Apple would 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. An industry executive familiar with the matter, contacted Saturday, verified that schedule.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top