Welcome to Gaia! ::


Quote:
Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994, but will begin a phased transition to Intel's chips, sources familiar with the situation said. 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.

The announcement is expected Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco, at which Chief Executive Steve Jobs is giving the keynote speech. The conference would be an appropriate venue: Changing the chips would require programmers to rewrite their software to take full advantage of the new processor.

IBM, Intel and Apple declined to comment for this story.

The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Apple was considering switching to Intel, but many analysts were skeptical citing the difficulty and risk to Apple.

That skepticism remains. "If they actually do that, I will be surprised, amazed and concerned," said Insight 64 analyst Nathan Brookwood. "I don't know that Apple's market share can survive another architecture shift. Every time they do this, they lose more customers" and more software partners, he said.

Apple successfully navigated a switch in the 1990s from Motorola's 680x0 line of processors to the Power line jointly made by Motorola and IBM. That switch also required software to be revamped to take advantage of the new processors' performance, but emulation software permitted older programs to run on the new machines. (Motorola spinoff Freescale currently makes PowerPC processors for Apple notebooks and the Mac Mini.)

The relationship between Apple and IBM has been rocky at times. Apple openly criticized IBM for chip delivery problems, though Big Blue said it fixed the issue. More recent concerns, which helped spur the Intel deal, included tension between Apple's desire for a wide variety of PowerPC processors and IBM's concerns about the profitability of a low-volume business, according to one source familiar with the partnership.

Over the years, Apple has discussed potential deals with Intel and Advanced Micro Devices, chipmaker representatives have said.

One advantage Apple has this time: The open-source FreeBSD operating system, of which Mac OS X is a variant, already runs on x86 chips such as Intel's Pentium. And Jobs has said Mac OS X could easily run on x86 chips.

The move also raises questions about Apple's future computer strategy. One basic choice it has in the Intel-based PC realm is whether to permit its Mac OS X operating system to run on any company's computer or only its own.

IBM loses cachet with the end of the Apple partnership, but it can take consolation in that it's designing and manufacturing the Power family processors for future gaming consoles from Microsoft, Sony and Ninendo, said Clay Ryder, a Sageza Group analyst.

"I would think in the sheer volume, all the stuff they're doing with the game consoles would be bigger. But anytime you lose a high-profile customer, that hurts in ways that are not quantifiable but that still hurt," Ryder said.

Indeed, IBM has a "Power Everywhere" marketing campaign to tout the wide use of its Power processors. The chips show up in everything from networking equipment to IBM servers to the most powerful supercomputer, Blue Gene/L.

Intel dominates the PC processor business, with an 81.7 percent market share in the first quarter of 2005, compared with 16.9 percent for Advanced Micro Devices, according to Dean McCarron of Mercury Research. Those numbers do not include PowerPC processors. However, Apple has roughly 1.8 percent of the worldwide PC market, he added.

Apple shipped 1.07 million PCs in the first quarter, and its move to Intel would likely bump up the chipmaker's shipments by a corresponding amount, McCarron added


Source
I still say there is not going to be OS X on x86. It just won't happen. The only reason they could go from 68k to PowerPC chips was because the 601 could execute 68k instructions than the 68040 could, thus giving all developers as much time as they needed to write PowerPC native apps.

Quotable Prophet

14,750 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Entrepreneur 150
  • Wall Street 200
CNET is going to have so much egg on their faces when the so-called switch to Intel winds up being about a new WiFi standard than a change from PowerPC to Pentium. The G5 chip is only a few years into a very long development cycle. Jumping ship now would hurt Apple, costing them tens of millions in moving to the Pentium.

The idea of changing processor in mid stream is counterproductive, no matter how much money the switch might save on the hardware side. And more than a few long time Apple users would balk at the new digital rights management firmware embedded in the new multi-core Pentium processors. I know I won't be buying Intel processors anytime soon.

CNET needs to learn to think first, then think differently. Reporting recycled rumors will only add to their long list of poor reporting practices.

And on the outside chance that Apple will make the switch, kiss your stock value goodbye.
Floyd
And more than a few long time Apple users would balk at the new digital rights management firmware embedded in the new multi-core Pentium processors. I know I won't be buying Intel processors anytime soon.

I agree with most of it, but you want to check the member list of the Trusting Computing Group. Apple is no member, but not only Intel, but also AMD, IBM and Motorola/Freescale are. So you are in no way safe, Apple can (and will!) join if they want or need to. If the MI should no longer allow media to be played on Macs, Apple will add the necessary parts.
Josef Meixner
Floyd
And more than a few long time Apple users would balk at the new digital rights management firmware embedded in the new multi-core Pentium processors. I know I won't be buying Intel processors anytime soon.

I agree with most of it, but you want to check the member list of the Trusting Computing Group. Apple is no member, but not only Intel, but also AMD, IBM and Motorola/Freescale are. So you are in no way safe, Apple can (and will!) join if they want or need to. If the MI should no longer allow media to be played on Macs, Apple will add the necessary parts.


Not true. Apple has specifically stated in public announcements (this was a while ago and I no longer have links) that they will not in any way do anything that could restrict people's ability to handle media on the Mac. The only reason they would sign up would be so that secure media could be unlocked.
They don't need to do a whole lot of rewriting. OSX already runs on x86 chips. The chances of them having an x86 version of 10.4.x already is very good.
Shoroo_Lupin
They don't need to do a whole lot of rewriting. OSX already runs on x86 chips. The chances of them having an x86 version of 10.4.x already is very good.


It's known Apple has kept OS X for x86 builds current since the beginning; NeXT ran on x86, so it was easy to maintain compatibility. Other ISVs, however, don't have that luxury. A lot of good OS X on x86 will do when you have to wait for all your favorite apps to get ported.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5731398.html

and

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714

Seem to think they are going x86 heart yay, I can run OSX on my x86 box heart
I would like to know where this article came from, as there is no Apple Press release on such. Chances are its either a hoax or someone starting crap.
PsYcHoMaN
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5731398.html

and

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714

Seem to think they are going x86 heart yay, I can run OSX on my x86 box heart


Even if Apple did go to x86, they'd never let it run on generic hardware. They'd have custom boot ROMs required to load the OS.
ChouchoCelia
PsYcHoMaN
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5731398.html

and

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714

Seem to think they are going x86 heart yay, I can run OSX on my x86 box heart


Even if Apple did go to x86, they'd never let it run on generic hardware. They'd have custom boot ROMs required to load the OS.

Dunno, if they allow it to run on generic hardware it will bump the OS sales, and more people will switch. Though it will also mean less people will buy their prebuild boxes. Unless they come down in cost, and will slowly overtake many other OEM companys in the market.

But that's just wishful thinking. Most likely they will do that.

Fashionable Prophet

13,800 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Statustician 100
  • Voter 100
I doubt that there are a lot of members here old enough to recall NeXTStep for Intel. One of my first computer jobs was setting up an assembly line for a small VAR that bought certified Canon Pentium computers and built custom configurations to order. It was a blast. NeXTStep and OpenStep were very easy to configure on Intel and HP-RISC processors.

I'm going to keep an open mind about this rumor. My doubt remains considering Apple's history of trying to control the quality of the user experience in regards to the hardware. It would be great if the next version of OS X would run on other processors as well as NeXTStep.
Max_Hass
I doubt that there are a lot of members here old enough to recall NeXTStep for Intel. One of my first computer jobs was setting up an assembly line for a small VAR that bought certified Canon Pentium computers and built custom configurations to order. It was a blast. NeXTStep and OpenStep were very easy to configure on Intel and HP-RISC processors.

I'm going to keep an open mind about this rumor. My doubt remains considering Apple's history of trying to control the quality of the user experience in regards to the hardware. It would be great if the next version of OS X would run on other processors as well as NeXTStep.


I'm old enough to remember when Steve Jobs hadn't been kicked out of Apple yet. Yeah, I remember NeXT/OpenStep. It's one reason why there's always the rumor that Apple keeps OS X for x86 builds current. It's easy to keep current, so why not? Apple has been doing that since the System 7 days though, so there's nothing special there.

What I'm saying is, this just isn't the right time to make a switch. I don't think Apple could survive it. If the Steve really does announce an architecture change, I'll support it. He knows what he's doing, and what he does has a tendency to work better than anyone expects.

I just don't believe it right now.

Aged Noob

ChouchoCelia
PsYcHoMaN
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5731398.html

and

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714

Seem to think they are going x86 heart yay, I can run OSX on my x86 box heart


Even if Apple did go to x86, they'd never let it run on generic hardware. They'd have custom boot ROMs required to load the OS.


There are ways around boot ROM's. Just as you can play Playstation, SNES, NES, etc games on your computer or x-box if you have the right ROM's.
I would buy OS X86 in an instant if/when it comes out. put it on my families computer, that would save soo much trouble!

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum