Welcome to our website

To take full advantage of all features you need to login or register. Registration is completely free and takes only a few seconds.

Apple may use Intel chips for Macs

Posted by: Jim_ on: 05/23/2005 03:20 PM [ Print | 29 comment(s) ]

The Inquirer is reporting that Apple has discussed possibly using Intel processors in future Macintosh machines.

It also claims that Apple's adoption of Intel chips would give it a chance to compete head on against Dell. The inner feeling at Chipzilla is, it appears, that Intel has created a Dell monster that now is a little bit too powerful.

You can read the rest over here.

Comment

Occupant Registered User Posts: 2421 Joined: 2002-03-04

#36461 Posted on: 05/23/2005 10:17 PM No Apple wont compeat agianst dell. It cant. Apple is fond of profit margins. Apple is a high cost producer, which doesnt matter so much, if you make highly differential product that customers are willing to pay a premium for... If Apple becomes another x86 clone builder, the willingness of its customer base to pay the apple premium, will decline.

Comment

Murdock Captain Posts: 1398 Joined: 2001-07-02

#36462 Posted on: 05/23/2005 10:50 PM According to this article, it isn't "possibly" any more... Two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies said Apple will agree to use Intel chips, the report said. I don't know that putting intel chips in there is *that* big of a deal anyway... I few years ago, Apple's biggest competitor was IBM. Remind me who is supplying processors for Apple currently? Heck... IBM was a supplier of hard drives for ages. This industry is full of companies doing similar things (For you outside-the-box thinkers you can call it a paradigm shift towards proactive "coopitition") The pathetic state of our government will never change unless we stop electing politicians and start electing public servants. Remember: There was once a time when the term "politician" had a very negative connotation.

Comment

i_wolf labhair dom as gaelige Posts: 2097 Joined: 2002-11-19

#36463 Posted on: 05/23/2005 11:42 PM I wouldn't mind if this happened only and I mean only if they utilised Itanium. But since that would cost a fortune forget it... although I wouldn't say no to a Pentium M in a PowerBook. All the same though... lets be realistic; this is rubbish. The massive cost of moving your applications and asking your existing installed base to move to a new platform would be huge. They have just managed a major transition fairly recently with OS 9 to X. I don't think they would get away with another so soon after. More reasons to think this wouldn't happen is that IBM have long been mentioning the PPC970 Antares MP multicore part in some of their tech PDF's. So there are definately dual core G5's in the pipeline.... so no need for an Opteron/Xeon or any other when that happens. Then there is the fact that recently POWER has been making major advances with technology like Cell which would be right up Apple's ally. Then there is Freescale who have their MPC86xx parts with ondie memory controller, improved altivec, 64bit and low thermal characteristics.. they are another option. The point is, Apple has a business to run and I don't think it would be good business for them to jump ship from PPC at this stage, certainly so soon after they have just completed one major transition and certainly not while POWER appears to have a lot of life in it again these days. Hung like a donkey. Go like a horse!

Comment

Murdock Captain Posts: 1398 Joined: 2001-07-02

#36464 Posted on: 05/23/2005 11:52 PM And before everyone gets their collective knickers in a twist, none of the articles I have seen related to this explicitly states that Apple will be selling Macintosh computers with Intel Processors installed. For all we know the next round of iPods will have StrongARM procerssors on them. Fear not MAC lovers! The End is not nigh! The pathetic state of our government will never change unless we stop electing politicians and start electing public servants. Remember: There was once a time when the term "politician" had a very negative connotation.

Comment

opus13 misanthrope. Posts: 1628 Joined: 2002-04-05

#36465 Posted on: 05/24/2005 12:05 AM Originally posted by i_wolf I wouldn't mind if this happened only and I mean only if they utilised Itanium. But since that would cost a fortune forget it... i thought intel planned to have itanium and xeon meet price parity inside the next 2 years... or was that goal discarded? if that dream is still alive, intel would finally have a brand name (with decent share) attached to the itanium banner. seems like it would be in thier best interest. maybe dvorak was on to something [/rumour]

Comment

i_wolf labhair dom as gaelige Posts: 2097 Joined: 2002-11-19

#36466 Posted on: 05/24/2005 12:18 AM well part of the reason I said I would hope it was Itanium is purely for technical reasons. An Itanium would have a much easier time emulating PPC than x86 would, hence running a type of virtual PC for all of todays PPC apps would not take as appreciable a performance hit under Itanium as it would under x86. Hung like a donkey. Go like a horse!

Comment

SamuraiSam Registered User Posts: 101 Joined: 2004-08-29

#36467 Posted on: 05/24/2005 03:42 AM I hope they don't do it. They're tools if they do! -Sam SamuraiBlog

Comment

Occupant Registered User Posts: 2421 Joined: 2002-03-04

#36468 Posted on: 05/24/2005 04:08 AM Why would they have to emulate the Power PC? Isnt Mac on a BSD kernel now? Wouldnt they just have to port the kernel over to x86-64? (or EMT64 in Intelese)

Comment

HEMI Registered User Posts: 2467 Joined: 2001-12-18

#36469 Posted on: 05/24/2005 05:21 AM OS/X uses a Mach kernel. You don't just pick up and switch arches without a lot of time/effort. On the other hand, Apple does have some experience switching arches; they survived going from 68K to PowerPC. Good luck to Apple either way. I think this article is just more FUD than anything. Unix is user-friendly; it's just picky about its friends.

Comment

Swank Woof Posts: 110 Joined: 2002-07-22

#36470 Posted on: 05/24/2005 07:28 AM Some of you forget that NeXTStep ran on multiple processors back in the day. Maybe he'll bring back the old fat binaries they used when NeXTStep ran on 68040 and 80486 chips.... but I'm just pulling stuff out of me arse -- who knows what they have planned.

Comment

i_wolf labhair dom as gaelige Posts: 2097 Joined: 2002-11-19

#36471 Posted on: 05/24/2005 04:04 PM The reason emulation is important is because you don't just up and change software or hardware architectures. A case in point is when they moved from OS 9 architecture to OS X. There is a 'classic' environment in OS X so that those with older OS 9 applications can still use them under OS X. If Apple were to just suddenly up and change today they would have to have some mechanism in place so that users could still run their older applications..... otherwise they would loose a massive software investment in a move to Itanium/x86 etc... Still like Hemi I think this is absolute rubbish. Hung like a donkey. Go like a horse!

Comment

duraid SMP Qualified Posts: 387 Joined: 2002-03-31

#36472 Posted on: 05/25/2005 02:01 PM Originally posted by Occupant Why would they have to emulate the Power PC? Isnt Mac on a BSD kernel now? Wouldnt they just have to port the kernel over to x86-64? (or EMT64 in Intelese) To get the OS running, yes, they could just do a port. But they can't port all the third party software, 99% of which is closed source so the users can't do it either. Just like when Apple moved from the 68K CPUs to the first PowerPCs, it would be in Apple's interest to emulate the previous architecture so that all the software people have keeps on working. Because PowerPC has 32+32 registers, an emulator on x86 or x86-64 is never going to be as efficient as one running on itanium, since you won't be able to keep an entire processor context in registers, which is where you want it. If the G6 (G7) powermac turned out to be a montecito system, I think i'd cream my pants. I seriously doubt it's going to happen though, not soon anyway. pity..

Comment

Mr. Hahn Unregistered

#36473 Posted on: 05/25/2005 06:58 PM It would be a pretty rough transition, but I think maybe they could offer what sun offers now. They have their high end still running on sparcs, but now they have a more price effective answer to the dell and hp server market with the opteron. They could maybe migrate the ibooks and mac mini's to some intel chip, and offer a ported os, ilife, and iwork apps which are all the average user needs. Hell, this could mean faster emulators for running windows since it would be emulating for the same architechture.

Comment

sAvAgE69 Unregistered

#36474 Posted on: 05/26/2005 02:34 AM http://www.itjungle.com/breaking/bn052305-story01.html has a bit more information on this and their thinking

Comment

daddyo Milk it! Posts: 309 Joined: 2004-04-27

#36475 Posted on: 06/04/2005 07:07 AM Cnet says it's true 2 X 3.06 Xeon @ 3.23 GHz, PC-DL, 1GB 3200XL & 1GB generic, Antec 550 EPS, 9600XT 256MB :cool: IBM PC-365 w/2 PPro 200MHz/1MB @233, 160MB, crap drives :zzz:

Comment

stmok23 Registered User Posts: 798 Joined: 2002-02-02

#36476 Posted on: 06/04/2005 07:24 AM What a crack up! I can see it now...A mass hysteria of Apple users. Maybe Apple will do Mac OS X on x86 now? What do you folks reckon, they'll use Itanium series? Or just go with Intel's desktop line? Maybe Pentium-M powered Mac Mini? Upon further reading... Mac Mini => Update to Intel CPU in mid-2006 Power Mac => Update to Intel CPU in mid-2007 This smells like that Apple will likely use "Yonah" (dual-core Pentium-M) or future Pentium-M based variant as the selected Intel chips. A Pentium-M based Mac Mini? Now that's interesting to see! Sempron (Socket 754): 2x Abit NF8-V (nForce3 250Gb) and ASRock K8SLI-eSATA2 (ULi M1697) Dual CPU love: Supermicro P6DBE (i440BX), PIIIDRE (i840), 2x PIIIDR3 (i840), 4x ASUS P3C-D (i820), and ACorp 6A815EPD1 (i815EP) OSs?: Linux, Solaris and BSDs.

Comment

rmn oh my, it's huge! Posts: 6013 Joined: 2002-01-26

#36477 Posted on: 06/04/2005 10:17 AM Unlikely as this may be, it would be funny just to see the fanatical iZealots (pronounced iDiots) spin 180

Comment

raynman68 Extremely confused Posts: 57 Joined: 2003-08-22

#36478 Posted on: 06/04/2005 10:51 AM I can see the headlines now. Thousands of Mac users found dead in a mass suicide. Evidence suggests Kool-Aid was the method of choice. Beside one formaer Mac user was a letter stained in Kool-Aid stating, "Et tu, Steve!" Robert Conform or be cast out

Comment

Calum Running on empty Posts: 1916 Joined: 2002-10-11

#36479 Posted on: 06/04/2005 04:43 PM Hmmmm, interesting! We'll see on Monday, I suppose! /Calum starts dreaming about a dual core Pentium-M based Powerbook running Mac OS/X 10.5... My Computers|2CPU.com SETI@Home Stats|My eBay feedback|My Heatware|Have you seen the future?

Comment

stmok23 Registered User Posts: 798 Joined: 2002-02-02

#36480 Posted on: 06/05/2005 11:01 AM Apple will switch to X86 processors Talking to AMD too By Charlie Demerjian: Sunday 05 June 2005, 06:40 THE RUMOURED APPLE MOVE to x86 is true, the INQ has gotten independent confirmation of this. Prior to publication of this, sources had told the INQ that a switch was in the works. More importantly, they also said that Apple was playing the AMD card at full force, so don't be too surprised if a green logo shows up on some models. The Intel chips are almost assuredly going to start with a mobile part, probably Yonah, then on to Merom. Both use the same FSB technology, but Merom is faster so the switch will be a fairly painless one. The markets pointed out by CNet back up the idea that Yonah will start it all off, then Conroe and Woodcrest will take over. These sure are interesting times. Sempron (Socket 754): 2x Abit NF8-V (nForce3 250Gb) and ASRock K8SLI-eSATA2 (ULi M1697) Dual CPU love: Supermicro P6DBE (i440BX), PIIIDRE (i840), 2x PIIIDR3 (i840), 4x ASUS P3C-D (i820), and ACorp 6A815EPD1 (i815EP) OSs?: Linux, Solaris and BSDs.

Comment

PDX57 Registered User Posts: 45 Joined: 2003-12-16

#36481 Posted on: 06/06/2005 11:07 PM Apple has a poor track record of competing head to head. Trying to do so might end up hurting Apple, as it did when they allowed other manufacturers to produce Mac compatible computers a few years ago. Once people found out they could buy faster and less expensive computers running the Mac OS from other vendors, that's what they did, until Apple pulled the plug on licensing. What Apple should do is get out of the hardware business. The level of greed at Apple, wanting to be the sole source of everything, is what made Apple a tiny market. But Apple's reliance on zealotry to hold onto their user base might dictate that Apple must keep on delivering very closed and proprietary systems. Apple will probably make it's own motherboards, with it's own bios, that any Apple OS will check for before it will run, so that Apple can hold onto hardware sales and zealotry. Mac zealots can continue to believe that computers sold by Apple have "inheritance" and that they aren't boxes of parts, but contain some magical Apple voodoo instead. My guess is that Apple will claim that it's bios contains something similar to Altivec, making any Apple computer faster than any other computer now or in the future, just like they do with Altivec now. There is no level of BS, if it comes from Apple, that the Apple faithful would ever question.

Comment

Calum Running on empty Posts: 1916 Joined: 2002-10-11

#36482 Posted on: 06/06/2005 11:19 PM If you check out some of the Mac rumour sites doing live coverage of the keynote speech (quite hard at the moment as they're all getting hammered!) you'll see that Apple are indeed moving to Intel. Well I never thought I'd see the day...:eek: My Computers|2CPU.com SETI@Home Stats|My eBay feedback|My Heatware|Have you seen the future?

Comment

i_wolf labhair dom as gaelige Posts: 2097 Joined: 2002-11-19

#36483 Posted on: 06/07/2005 06:46 AM Apple has a poor track record of competing head to head. Trying to do so might end up hurting Apple, as it did when they allowed other manufacturers to produce Mac compatible computers a few years ago. Once people found out they could buy faster and less expensive computers running the Mac OS from other vendors, that's what they did, until Apple pulled the plug on licensing. What Apple should do is get out of the hardware business. The level of greed at Apple, wanting to be the sole source of everything, is what made Apple a tiny market. But Apple's reliance on zealotry to hold onto their user base might dictate that Apple must keep on delivering very closed and proprietary systems. Apple will probably make it's own motherboards, with it's own bios, that any Apple OS will check for before it will run, so that Apple can hold onto hardware sales and zealotry. Mac zealots can continue to believe that computers sold by Apple have "inheritance" and that they aren't boxes of parts, but contain some magical Apple voodoo instead. My guess is that Apple will claim that it's bios contains something similar to Altivec, making any Apple computer faster than any other computer now or in the future, just like they do with Altivec now. There is no level of BS, if it comes from Apple, that the Apple faithful would ever question. I think its silly to call control of hardware and software 'zealotry'. Apple are not the only company to take such a stance. Look at IBM's AIX which only runs on their high end servers/workstations, or SGI and their proprietary linux. A lot of people, myself included, view the fact that Apple controls the hardware and software as a good thing. it allows for tighter integration of hardware and software and in theory means that the OS is well optimized for the underlying hardware. This type of practice provides fantastic reliability. It is this tight integration of hardware and software that makes OS X a great OS. Personally I am hoping that the OS is locked down to the hardware as is likely to be the case. The only thing I don't want Apple to do is solder the processor to the motherboard... I would like the option to upgrade the processor at my own leisure. edit: can anybody at the WWDC tell me if the open firmware concept has been left as well in favour of a bios ? I don't think they would have to do this, but all the same..... a few months ago I didn't think they would change from PPC to x86. Hung like a donkey. Go like a horse!

Comment

PDX57 Registered User Posts: 45 Joined: 2003-12-16

#36484 Posted on: 06/07/2005 11:10 AM Control of hardware and software is best done by the customer. Wintel machines are basically flawless and error free when the customer chooses the right software and hardware. Those who say it can't be done are really saying it can't be done by them. At the same time you end up with top performance at the lowest price because market forces make it that way. Demand among some people for IBM, SGI or other super expensive - and proprietary - hardware where more common and far far less expensive hardware will do the job just as well also qualifies as irrational zealotry. Those are usually the "mission critical" zealots, or the "industry standard" zealots. These people choose to paint themselves into a corner in the former case, or simply lack knowledge in the latter case. Two weeks ago someone said that they only offered their system on an IBM eServer 550 because it was the industry standard. I could not resists asking the question "If it was industry standard to jump off a cliff..." He did no laugh either. Back out the price of components for a 4-way IBM eServer 550 and you find that they want $27,000 for a real nice case, a motherboard and 4 processors. Then there's the $16,000 5 year support plan which always tags along. That only makes sense for people who can't think of alternatives.

Comment

i_wolf labhair dom as gaelige Posts: 2097 Joined: 2002-11-19

#36485 Posted on: 06/07/2005 03:07 PM You are not not being in any way realistic here. Control of hardware and software is best done by the customer. Wintel machines are basically flawless and error free when the customer chooses the right software and hardware. Those who say it can't be done are really saying it can't be done by them. At the same time you end up with top performance at the lowest price because market forces make it that way. Yes you give the customer choice of specific components offered by the vendor.. Apple already does this as does IBM and SGI. This approach gives the customer choice but in a context that is fully supported by the OS and guaranteed stability, with no driver issues etc... When 99.9999% of customers are non tech savvy, it is not the wisest of decisions to rely on the customers technical skills for installing the latest drivers or more importantly compatible drivers etc.... A case in point. My aunt bought a new PC from biostar UK. It came preloaded with windows 2000 but she wanted to go out and buy Windows XP. As somebody with absolutely no computer experience she blagged her way through the windows install process (via lots of tech support calls to yours truly). At the end, she performed a windows update. One of the drivers on the windows drivers panel was for the integrated SIS video adapter. Upon restart BSOD. This is the advantage that providing a limited choice but integrating your hardware and software offers you. For the more power hungry it allows a company like SGI or Apple to introduce a new technology like Core Video and Core Image since they will only have to support a limited number of hardware permutations. Demand among some people for IBM, SGI or other super expensive - and proprietary - hardware where more common and far far less expensive hardware will do the job just as well also qualifies as irrational zealotry. Those are usually the "mission critical" zealots, or the "industry standard" zealots. These people choose to paint themselves into a corner in the former case, or simply lack knowledge in the latter case. Last I checked zeallotry meant you were blindly devoted to one type of opinion without being open to a difference of opinion. I think people who have the funds for and who are considering an IBM eServer pSeries or SGI Altix have specific tasks in mind which are not possible with generic hardware. These people are not painting themselves into a corner. They want the best tools for a specific job within a specific budget. Quite simply there are things you can do with an IBM eServer or SGI Altix system that you will never be able to do with generic off the shelf components such as an Opteron/Xeon.... There is a reason many of the worlds best expert systems run on big tin platforms .... because they are the only platforms capable... in terms of processing performance, memory bandwidth, latency etc... Two weeks ago someone said that they only offered their system on an IBM eServer 550 because it was the industry standard. I could not resists asking the question "If it was industry standard to jump off a cliff..." Part of the reason some software companies only offer their application for specific platforms ... in your example the IBM eServer is primarily down to support and costs. When you target a specific platform you have narrowed down the different number of hardware permutations that could cause a problem for your application and you can set about a support infrastructure around this platform. It makes sense to me. Releasing your product solely for an industrial grade platform such as an IBM eSeries running AIX makes sense when you also want to be sure that there is also good platform backup in place from that platforms vendor. When you get to big tin, reliability is key and backup from a system vendor is paramount. Another issue, that is secondary to reliability in big tin environments will be the performance. A large complex application is expected to be run on an eSeries involving huge computational horsepower in a small space. For the size/space required for a single Power 5 server you get phenominal power. Back out the price of components for a 4-way IBM eServer 550 and you find that they want $27,000 for a real nice case, a motherboard and 4 processors. Then there's the $16,000 5 year support plan which always tags along. That only makes sense for people who can't think of alternatives. Or people who have mission critical needs. Service and backup is not a tangible thing when buying hardware since you cannot see it. Often times the largest percentage of the cost of purchasing a new hardware system is not the hardware itself but the support and backup that comes with that hardware. As for the IBM e550 you listed... you are paying for 4 big tin grade processors. You are paying for the operating system that is running on the server and the fact that IBM guarantees the hardware and OS are built around each other and will work reliably together. The processors alone can in no way be compared with Opterons / Xeons /PPC970's. None of these can touch a Power 5's raw performance or can tout the same types of features. For example if your work load is heavy vector type processing, the Power 5 can be configured with virtual vector technology... where it simulates a vector processor via the cores on the chip. If a Xeon or Opteron will do the job you require at a lower cost then fine.. your decision is made... you obviously have no need for the power of a Power 5 system. That however does not make it a zealot buying decision for those who do actually find it meets their needs better than say a Xeon/Opteron. Application vendors who target such a system as a Power 5 do so expecting that the customer will require their application in a large environment. Hung like a donkey. Go like a horse!