OSNews

This CANNOT be true ... i can't believe it ...

If it is true, the MacOnLinux project just got about 3 billion times more popular ...

and i just got a mac mini and now it's gunna be useless in a couple of years or less maybe.........

Why? Did IBM tried to screw them or something? Honestly, I don't see _any_ advantage in doing this.

Then again, until it's announced, I'll take this with a grain of salt.

I wanted to buy a Mac Mini - should I wait now, or what?

Do you think that an x86 Mac Mini be loud and noisy?

>Did IBM tried to screw them or something?

Jobs told two years ago in WWDC that "next year we will have a 3 GHz G5" and IBM was not able to deliver that. Also, the big kicker was the fact that it was impossible to fit a G5 on a laptop, where laptops are best sellers for Apple. So, yeah, IBM did screw them, it promised them stuff that they couldn't deliver.

Given a motherboard with two BIOS chips (had one from Gigabyte at one point) and the possibility to put Apple's boot ROM in one of them, switching between Linux and OS X at boot time may be feasible.

"CNET has learned" is the only evidence given. No support whatsoever.

Until there's something more than that, this is yet another unsubstantiated rumour.

PPC is soooo superior to x86! And Mac OS X keeps getting better and better! How could this be true?! I think I gonna go kill myself (

amd chips are better than intel's.

You're right that there is little evidence besides the "CNET has learned" statement but CNET would really be shooting itself in the foot if it were to put such a bold title as "Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips" without any legit evidence to back it up. Then again, recent events have shown us that even so-called accurate sources make mistakes so I guess we'll just find out for sure on monday.

This is right down his alley... "Oh - and one more thing... since IBM can't deliver their PowerPC processors - we're switching to Intel processors!"

It will be very interesting to see if this turns out to be true. I'm sure that Steve is very mad at IBM for not keeping their promise to deliver 3GHz PPC parts on schedule. Don't f--k with Steve.

Since everyone else is switching to PPC (Motorola, Sony, etc.) this sounds like a stupid move for Apple. It will dead end all the current products. And just when Apple seems to be hitting on all cylinders.

BIG Mistake. If they are going to go with anyone in the x86 arena, it should be AMD.

1. Apple will be a coup for Intel, and will be a large customer for Intel, but not larger than say HP, Dell, etc, whereas with AMD, they'd be a very large (if not the largest) customer, and it would be in AMD's best interests to keep them happy. As one of AMD's larger (if not the largest) customers, Apple would have some pretty good leverage with AMD. Also, Apple's volume would increase AMD's volume, meaning in theory they could potentially lower the cost per unit as production ramps up even more than it does now.
2. Intel is known for power hungry and very HOT temperature CPUs, AMD is known for meeting or beating Intel with less power and cooler temperatures (OK, so that wasn't always true, but it is mostly true now days).
3. Look at the Anandtech article comparing X86 and PPC. At the processor level, the Intel Xeon and PPC were pretty close in a lot of the stats, but in most of the tests, the Opteron walked away from both of them. AMD would give a very clear performance gain to Apple.

That's just 3 reasons off the top of my head. I hope Apple doesn't do this. I really like the Power PC, but if they are going to leave IBM, it should be for AMD, NOT Intel.

@ Wrawrat

Simple as this. Mac & IBM just can't get along. Making G5 processors is not profitable for IBM. Too few Macs get sold per year. IBM is not interested in wasting resources in designing and producing new or current chips for Mac.

Going to x86 will also give them the opportunity to port Mac OS X to x86 where there are many more users.

@ Human

You should wait a bit longer to get more information. Mac may phase out support for "older" products (ie: current Mac Mini) after 4-5 years (maybe sooner) or they could keep making software for ibm based processor systems and continue to make money. Question will be if it is profitable to Macintosh to make software for G5 & G4 systems.

Intel processors suffer from heat & need lots of cooling, especially the P4s.

If Mac OS X is made available to all x86 computers then you could buy any system & purcahse Mac OS, but Mac may only make it run on their x86 computers.

This most definitely won't be a move to standard, open PC architecture, so don't start drooling over cheap, commodity hardware just yet. I'm not even convinced that this will necessarily be a move to x86. Itanium Lite(tm), anybody? Anyway, it sounds like maybe Steve-O might want to retool the kernel foundation of X rather than jump hardware platforms if he wants to do more than self-destructively spite IBM.

Well, I guess you're right, but going with the "enemy"? Apart from the processor, a Mac is pretty much a PC. Now, if both are the same...

Then again, they never said if they were going x86. Intel might supply them a new architecture, although it would extremely unlikely.

>Hahahahahaha, your elitest Operating System will be
> mass pirated just like everything else.

No, it won't. Apple would NEVER go for a generic-PC route. It will be a proprietary-style x86 machine, where Win/Linux CAN run on it, but OSX won't run on other PCs. It will require special BIOS tricks in order to only run on Apple PCs. It is suicide to try to support all this hardware out there, Apple will only add support for the proprietary Apple PCs.

It will require special BIOS tricks in order to only run on Apple PCs. It is suicide to try to support all this hardware out there, Apple will only add support for the proprietary Apple PCs.


I just can see Apple nerds right now saying our "Macintosh" is able to run a special proprietary BIOS, which makes it run twice as efficient -- it is not the same as your POS E-Machine.

Intel does not only make x86 processor's, and there no reason a intel-apple partnership should be about a x86 processor. But still, I think those rumors (they are just rumors, right?) are false... there's no good reason for apple to switch to intel IMHO...

This could be a great springboard for tech that Intel is drooling to peddle but will have a hard time breaking into the PC market. Namely, EFI instead of old legacy BIOS, and NGSCB(??) (whatever, you know I mean Palladium). That's right, DRM up to the gills on a new, clean hardware model. It would help them push the same tech much more easily to the PC world 1-2 years later once it's been established on ~5% of the market.

I cannot help but think this is just rumor mongoring. Grandted Apple makes some profits on hardware, the main attraction is the software.

GSY brings up points where I share similar thoughts. Intel would not be a long-term solution for Apple. AMD might be as the points GSY brings up. But aren't some AMD chips also co-developed by IBM and/or manufactured by them? The only thing I might see happening is if Apple dumped Motorola for Intel or AMD for its notebook line of systems. IBM, imo, is only "screwing" Apple in the notebook line by not getting siginificantly faster chips.


I literally just ordered my first ever Mac today - an iMac G5. While on the one hand I might feel cheated in terms of the hardware change, I think I'm going to keep it. I am so fed up with Windows, I cannot use it anymore. Unless something really drastic happens on Monday (which I doubt), I am keeping the iMac.

My first thought on reading this was,
"This the beginning of June, not April". While this is indeed quite possible, it seems extraordinarily unlikely. Time will tell.

I'm sorry, but where does it say that apple is moving to x86 processors? It does mention Intel, but it says nowhere that it has to be x86 !!! There is just one irrelevant speculation in the whole article:

"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."

Why do people (and even the author) automatically assume that Intel = x86 ???

Apple for sure isn't aiming to make OS X compatible to the x86 as we know it. They wouldn't sell hardware then.

... this are pure negotiations tactics.. very smart from those apple guys. hehe

I guess I'll quit on my decision to switch to a mac

I can't wait to see the Macintosh fanboys blow their chunks over this because that's all they have time to ever do! But they get so crazy when anything about Windows touches their Macs! Well, let's get real because I am a UNIX guy and I manage a huge bank and its infrastructure and there is nothing else like the power of a fully loaded mothership of UNIX love! We use OpenBSD and FreeBSD and we keep hackers out of their accounts and the customers too sometimes! We don't play with ourselves when it comes to security.

If Steve Jobs says it's a golden shower then it must be, and I'll be first in line to feel the love! Go Apple, go!

P.S. Check out my bloglog!!! http://www.bilano.biz/ where I blog about Internet security matters and school the schoolers even!!

Intel's already failed miserably at selling it and last I heard they decided to begin ending it? Anyway, Apple would likely just put a bit of code on a ROM and make the OS need that code to run; then make it try to write to the ROM (so you can't fake it with something that's writable).

Since x86 hardware is cheaper, and more avaliable, this could mean:

- Cheaper Machines
- Used PPC Macs would became cheapear than ever
- More upgrade choices
- More compatible hardware
- No more Mac-Specific Video Boards
- Wine and Cedega running on OSX!
- MacOSX running on vannila PCs

I'm really not bying into this. What about Mac Office for OSX. Who would produce their office suite? Not Microsoft, if they switch.

"Apple for sure isn't aiming to make OS X compatible to the x86 as we know it. They wouldn't sell hardware then."

Hmmm...there are other processors out there. Or it could be a custom job (easier to do in this day and age of core 'cells').

why not AMD but Intel?

i mean if anything Apple should switch to the cell. Otherwise I believe we may be screwed forever with x86 an unvirtualisable scatterbrained eccentric cpu isa.

1) No IBM != x86 necessarily.
2) Apple will never again allow MacOS on commodity hardware.
3) Intel has plenty of tech that is not standard x86 PC stuff.
4) Apple will want this to be as closed and proprietary as possible.

Also,
5) AMD has virtually no non-x86 CPU tech.
6) AMD works with IBM, and Steve hates IBM for 'betraying' him.
7) x86 and PPC (by default) are endian reversed. Apple will want to old saved data to be as easily accessible as possible by recompiled or emulated apps.

Do you think they will port Office to OSX/x86 ?

Doubt it.

How they manage to say Apple has used IBM processors since 1994 is rather humorous. Try Motorola. Then IBM. To say they used the PowerPC Consortium designed chipsets since 1994 would be more accurate.

For those who don't have Darwin x86 8.01 and/or 8.1 installed you really need to check out the source:

http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.4.1/

Draw your own conclusions.

While IBM has been facing some difficulties achieving its performance goals with the PowerPC 970-based processors found in Power Mac G5 systems, the company is driving ahead with plans that will dictate the PowerPC's direction into the next decade.
http://thinksecret.com/news/0506quasar.html

This is crazy, if true. I STILL think that Apple will have Intel license produce some kind of PPC chip. Nowhere does it say, assuming the news piece is indeed correct, that Apple is looking to make a switch to x86, just "Intel Microprocessors".

If it does turn out to be licensed PPC production and developement by Intel, then the move makes a lot of sense. But if they decide on going with an x86(-64?) CPU from Intel, then Apple can kiss me goodbye, they could at least have gone with AMD if that's what they're going to do.

-mojo

" Going to x86 will also give them the opportunity to port Mac OS X to x86 where there are many more users. "

No this is incorrect, their is currently more users on the Mac platform right now since there are zero people on the Mac-x86 platform.

No mac running an intel chip would be compatible with current PCs.

They would be like current macs, but different CPUs.

Still, this isn't going to happen. Apple may have something coming out with more intel chips, but they aren't switching their computers to intel or anyone else anytime soon.

It will require special BIOS tricks in order to only run on Apple PCs.

I give it a week, maybe too, tops, before somebody figures out how to break it.

That said, commodity x86 machines would be an untapped market for Apple. I'd gladly pay $130 every year to get a new copy of OS X, just like the Mac folks do.

Maybe Apple has a new product!

most people seem to think apple moving to intel means they'll be using the x86 cpu and maybe they will, maybe not as some people have already. however everyone so far as forgotten what apple do,they take an idea and move with it, they create their own product that is usually unique. with that said, whats stopping apple from making a new machine (even if its using the x86 cpu) and creating a custom motherboard, rom chips and anyother little custom ideas that'll revolve around the x86 cpu. also, with the pearpc project whats stopping apple from using that as part of their new 'old world' ppc mac emulator if they did decide to move mac os x to the x86 cpu?

sorry for the lack of caps, my keyboard sucks :|

Interesting. I'd say that this is gonna happen. Pre-G5 release, there were rumours about Intel, AMD and IBM. The hot money was on IBM. Why move to Intel? mmm let's see:

1. cheaper hardware

2. smaller form factor for chip, less heat etc

3. Compatibility via cpu platform should make a larger pool of software start to become available for the Mac platform.

4. Possibility of OS X for x86 is highly likely imho, but the o/s price will be set very high - whilst the OS X Mac version running on specially selected and limited hardware will be much cheaper. And we'll see that Apple will palm off all hardware support/driver support for the x86 OS X version to the hardware manufacturers.

5. Will stall some Linux development as people contemplate using OS X on x86 than Linux - great way to stave off the increase in Linux users that has been relegating Apple to #3 in the operating system stakes. The average person will pay more money to be an o/s from a 'reputable' company like Apple, especially when it's perceived as 'just works'.

This has been brewing for quite some time - Intel has been relatively quiet for at least a year now, almost like it's been distracted by something else. I suspect working on motherboards, rom chips and cpus for Apple ;-)

Now - does Apple keep the higher prices for its Macs, or does it drop and compete?

Dave

With the XBox 360 using PowerPC 970 processors, IBM's chip business is going to expand like crazy in the next few years. That's why I don't believe this announcement. In the next year or two it is going to be much cheaper for IBM to make PowerPC processors with the XBox standardizing on the same line that Apple uses.

Ha, and all you thought it was all rumors! Well apparently theres some pretty credible people standing on these claims, well see if Apple, IBM and Intel follow through. In the mean time its not that big of a deal to the developer point of view. Apple will have to join the other BSD and Linux distro's in constructing a multiplatform update system and cross compiler setup for XCode. Porting things over won't be hard since all the low level stuff is encoded for you via the modern "compiler" and anyone foolish enough to make their code dependent on endianness deserves what they get. Just another shift in the currents, the world will not end Mac zealots and Windows fanboys.

Even though this is on CNet, I'm still not convinced. As the article mentions, Apple made a shift (almost 10 years ago) from the 68K processors to the PowerPC. It doesn't make sense to have yet-another architecture change so soon - unless they're going to x86-64 or a Intel PPC clone CPU, as some have speculated.

I guess I'm going to wait on that Macintosh I've been wanting for so long. Of course, there's always PearPC, too. 8)

I don't see why not. If they did it'd be the first time Microsoft has been truly shy about porting across cpu platforms.

piracy among mac users is just as bad, if not more so, as the pc users. just check out some of the mac software sites or file trading programs.

You can get anything.. any of the 3 software tiles for the mac! hahah :p :o

You wrote: "I give it a week, maybe too"

BUT - just look at the XBOX which is basically commodity hardware, but it still is very difficult and it took a very long time to get Linux running on it.

Perhaps they will introduce some new Wimax

http://www.intel.com/netcomms/technologies/wimax/

maybe its hype maybe not, but i hope apple carefully manages their brand well through this. I don't wanna see another ford jaguar incident (jaguar = ford).

I can see it as bad and good. He is my reason for Intel being a good choice.

CPU or hardware has always seemed to be an issue for Apple. Whether true or perceived it seems they have always been a little behind. When PPC came along it was hyped as far superior then the 68040's.. but when they hit and apps were opptimized it seemed more like just a natural speed bump not a huge difference. They went through quite a bit for that change.

If Apple is indeed planning on doing another CPU change then I believe that going with the biggest player (the 'standard') is the only choice. If they were switch to SPARC as some have suggested or even Alpha (one of my favorites) they would be in the same spot but with a different vendor.

Perhaps they are going to take this opportunity to end the CPU battle now. And just focus on the OS.

It also seems that Apple could be a pretty big customer for Intel. I dont know the numbers but since WinTel system are made up of many venders, it seems that Apple could be a big single customer.. which hopefully would insure that they are always on the cutting edge of processor development with Intel.

But, I hope they have OS X really optimized for Intel..cause there wont be any more excuses why Windows is faster or slower then Mac.

My money is on Apple announcing they'll be using Intel's XScale CPU's in future iPods. I'm assuming the XScale cpu's are much faster than the ones in the current iPods and could be used to decode video files. They've been rumoring video iPods for awhile. Handling video would need a high performance but low power cpu.

"This powerful 64-bit Single Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD) architecture gives a performance boost to many applications including motion video, graphics combined with video, image processing, audio synthesis, speech synthesis and compression, telephony, conferencing, 2D graphics, and 3D graphics."

http://www.intel.com/design/pca/prodbref/251669.htm

This would be a good move for Apple. I picked up one of the mini's as soon as I could process an order on-line when they were announced. It's been a worthwhile investment and prior to this bit o' news I was planning on upgrading to a G5 this Christmas. Now I think I'll hold off and wait.

I wonder how many other people will be doing the same thing? This could either hurt hardware sales until the Intel stuff comes out or there could be a rush of all the IBM fanboys rushing out to get a G5 while they exist.

All in all this will be (if true) a great move by Apple as it gives them a better chance at survival. The crossover will be a bit brutal but it'll pay off in the long run for sure.

Think about it. What if CNet's "source" simply stated that 'Apple to use Intel chips', and the rest is speculation?

Why think that chips = CPUs? Intel makes more than just CPUs. Maybe a change in chipset (do Apples use chipsets? *shrug*) or maybe the same networking chip as used in the Intel Centrinos.

Guess we'll have to hold our breath until Monday.

I think the Chips from Intel could be Intel's HD Audio solution

If this were in fact to be done (I'm still skeptical), wouldn't apple make some sort of rom image that will be required to boot the OS like they do already on their current PPC computers?

If not then I think I'll be buying a copy of Mac OS X when its X86 compatible, it would be cheaper than having to buy a whole new computer.

I say Intel will be a PowerPC licensee.

That theory follows IBM's opening of the power architecture and their PPC everywhere philosophy.

Shouldn't the x86 die off in favor of the Power chips? I don't own a mac and never did but I think the PPC platform is or at least should be better.

At this point, it's just theoretical cleanliness. You're talking a few million transistors in the front end --- that's the whole cost for decades of backwards compatibility. Could, say, the x86 architecture be cleaner? Yeah, sure. The 64-bit prefixes in AMD64 are pretty ugly, for example. But cleanliness really doesn't matter unless you're a compiler. The CPU core itself (the RISC part) is quite clean (especially the Opteron), the system architecture is clean (with Hypertransport and PCI Express), and the things are fast and cheap.

In any case, PPC was never as clean an architecture as the Alpha. Alpha lovers have reason to lament, not only were those processors powerful, but the architecture was nice and the systems were well-designed. PPC was never that conceptually pure.

Its also interesting that nobody ever mentions the good things about x86. For example, the fact that memory-operand instructions and complex addressing modes save quite a bit of cache space compared to RISC code. With memory getting ever slower, this advantage is nothing to sneeze at.

I'm betting this has a LOT to do with the powerbook. Apple has been on G5 for 3 years now and there's still no Powerbook G5. Enough is enough.

that sure seems a lot more likely than apple switching to an x86

I've been pondering the Apple situation during the last few months, and here are my opinions:

- Apple is a hardware company which makes a few apps (iLife, OSX, FCP) to help sell hardware. There is nothing stopping them from doing the same under x86, even running Windows.
- Apple stem to increase their profits if they become a x86 distributer, with elegantly designed hardware, running the iLife suite of software under WINDOWS.
- their market share (and profits) would jump from 3-5% to 10-20% if they switched CPU and operating systems.
- there is a market for elegant boxes under x86. In the end, people follow the software. The software exists for x86. Only a subset exist for PPC.
- Freescale and IBM are unable to deliver wanted CPU's to Apple. This hurts their hardware business.

I personally think that Apple should have made this decision during the Motorola G4 days. But I guess it's never too late.

This is the only way Apple can survive.

What if, following IBM's decision to open up Cell, Apple is just contracting Intel to fabricate Cell CPUs? Now that Intel no longer manufactures console processors and has in any case spare fabrication capability, this makes the most sense to me. They (Intel) pay no design royalties, get a fairly stable revenue stream, and don't loose too much face over not using in-house design. Everyone can just say, "IBM fabrication facilities just couldn't keep up", and no one gets burned too badly.

how ironic, just a few hours ago there was an article praising the g5, and now apple wants to move away from it. i think that the changes are happening to quickily. apple just released tiger a few months ago which is supposed to the first 64bit version of os x and can take advantage of the g5, now they are going to throw all that away.

Yeah, I agree. This sounds more like Apple is trying to get a better deal out of IBM. Microsoft says they'll be shipping 4GHZ PPC-based IBM chips by december. We know they tested the PPC970 at higher clockrates. It doesn't make sense that Apple doesn't have 2+Ghz PPC970 laptops by now... Of course Altivec seemed like a bit of a hack, that might have fscked things up. And AMD isn't scaling either. They're only hitting about 2.6Ghz. But they're both keeping up with Intel's 3.8s.

But I think they're working out deals on these custom design chips and the deals aren't going so well... that would be my guess.

I don't believe it... Why the heck would anyone go Intel? If Apple had any sense, they'd partner up with AMD and replace the G5 with a super cool dual dual-core 64bit AMD system! Four cores in one box!

We'll definitely have to wait until Monday to see what Apple does, which is convenient for News.com since it'll drive a lot of hits to their site. The cell approach might be what really drives the Macintosh into the high end market and could be a crippling blow for some of its competitors from Sun, HP and even IBM. There's just something fishy about this whole thing, and it seems like News.com is sorta taking a page from Dvorak's play book and writing up stories that it knows will get a lot of hits, even if they're semi-trollish.

Why now of all times for Apple to switch, right when their marketshare is modestly growing? That'd just be suicide at this point; I'd expect this if they were actually losing users right and left, but not while the iPod and other products are the hottest things out there.

Some more reasons why I think this is BS, http://www.blindmindseye.com/2005/06/03/apple-may-be-crazy-but-they...

Its also interesting that nobody ever mentions the good things about x86.

The x86 architecture does have a lot of complex and annoying idiosyncrasies. The upshot is that AMD has cleaned up a lot of the most annoying ones in x86-64. (Segmentation: eww)

For example, the fact that memory-operand instructions and complex addressing modes save quite a bit of cache space compared to RISC code. With memory getting ever slower, this advantage is nothing to sneeze at.

Would you clarify what you mean by this statement? I actually interpret this the opposite way. I'm not interested in starting a RISC/CISC war, but I was under the impression that the x86 ISA actually made ITLB issues more difficult to understand. This confusion being due to the fact that they have a variable-length instruction format. In order to align instructions on a page for better performance (of a loop, maybe) it's now more difficult since you have to figure out exactly what length each particular instruction is and that may change depending upon what addressing mode and argument format you're using.

To be fair to x86, AMD and Intel have done a fabulous job of optimizing things under-the-covers. Their processors have better branch prediction and prefetching strategies than a number of their RISC competitors.

Apple isn't a hardware company, they are a design company.

They profit on their slick designs. People are willing to pay a premium for their inferior (more expensive, less capable) products because of their design. Design being integration and looks.

Imagine if their products were based on the same commodity platforms that the rest of the industry uses, then they'd be slightly more capable, and if they charged the same ammount, they'd have more profit. It is a shame that they are talking about intel so soon, but I'm sure if it's true, it will be x86 and not some ppc by intel, but a nexgen platform which I'm sure has intel all caught up. it would be nice if apple starts with a legacy free platform, but bios is very hard to get rid of, apparently...

Also, apple will be happy to offer no support for winXP users that pay lots of money for apple x86 laptops and very glad to offer no support for ppl with dells that want the full MacOSX experience.. I expect apple will be beefing up their mac.com infrastructure...

Also, the big kicker was the fact that it was impossible to fit a G5 on a laptop, where laptops are best sellers for Apple.

I kept on saying that Apple was getting creamed with their underpowered laptops. I don't expect Apple to start shipping monster desktop replacements anytime soon, but at least they now have the option.

I think IBM has its hands full with the new XBOX 360, Playstation 3 and Nintendo Revolution. There is more moneu in this market right now that IBM doesn't care about Apple anymore. So, now Steve really has to look for the masses. I guess he has no choice. Very sad for Apple. I would prefer AMD.
But personally, at this point, I don't care if Apple runs on x86 computers. I just want to see OS X kicking butt everywhere
and there is a huge market of unhappy Windows users waiting for this moment.
Money talks!
-2501

apple had no choice. vast majority of comps they sell are laptops and based on the latest power consumption figures, it looked like they would never get a G5 laptop. that one reason is enough to dump IBM. intel is working on a new chip that is based on pentium 3 and is dual core, and i speculate that that's what got jobs interested.

Maybe Intel has a processor that is similar to PPC architecture???

Don't assume x86.

An Arm processor. Isn't Intel the biggest company out there that makes them?

Me thinks that the move to Intel chips means that Apple's had it with IBM's southbrige and is moving to a Centrino/WiMax/HDAudio based intel chip.

It's just a change of CPU, Apple will use the DRM on the new cpu's or some other scheme to keep people from being able to build their own Apple clone.

>> It is suicide to try to support all this hardware out there, Apple will only add support for the proprietary Apple PCs.

that is the oldest and easiest excuse to debunk. Apple doesn't have to support the hardware, the hardware vendors write the drivers and support so they can sell them! In like manner, Windows doesn't support the hardware out there, the hardware makes themselves support Windows. All OS's whether its Apple, Linux, or Windows then have lists of known hardware that they know to work (HCL's).

Intel CPU != x86

Something like that.

This just shows how close-minded and ignorant most people here and at CNet are. Apple starts talking to Intel about processors and everyone assumes they're discussing x86 processors.

Intel does a lot more than that, and that means there are a lot of possibilities. Apple might even do something more realistic than a massive architecture shift and ask Intel to license the PowerPC from IBM (perhaps even fronting the licensing fees).

Intel has massive fabrication capability, and this would mean the end of PowerPC yield problems. Intel makes ARM processors, and IBM makes PowerPC chips. Both are popular for embedded work. Intel must view PPC as a thorn in their side for embedded processor sales. Such a deal would let them sell to pretty much everyone, and not just the companies that want ARM.

you may have a point. is the Mac even the best selling piece of Apple hardware anymore? i suspect for # of units shipped (not revenue), the iPod is ahead of the Mac.

and i agree that for pure volume, the next gen game consoles are going to be off the charts, they may kill the PC for most people

No, not really. Microprocessors are a lot different today that they were in the early 90s. You could take an x86 set and add extensions to run x64 apps, I'm sur eyou can do this with ppc as well as POWER had PPC extensions I think.

It really does not matter in my opinino and i dont think the instruction sets make all tha big of differences anymore. Hell, Transmeta's stuff is all digitalized now--hard software based.


The question is-- what's the big deal?? Why doesn't IBM soup-up an x64 processor and use it.. I am sure if they add enough features it can be as good as POWER. Existing customer base and stubborness. It also would make them not different from intel and amd.

What does this mean for apple? WELL, they will have to use some hardware to run ppc apps on their x86 cpus.

What would be the plus? Cheaper parts. They won't be different, they will just have to hope their OS is what draws people in. They are betting alot on their OS and their customer base that wants to get away from the wintel stuff will freak out.

Design your own processors and have a company like IBM or fujitsu manufacture them like Sun, HP and SGI do. IT's probably a hell of a lot better than just buying the chips. Take it into your own hands.

BUY OUT SUN!!! and switch to the SPARC!!! and get one of the most cool design teams in the world

so, apparently the only thing different is the apple ROM and the OS that will only run on apple's rom.. and apple's rom's can't be used in other OS's...... good luck

>> Apple isn't a hardware company, they are a design company.

somewhat true, they produce designs which are outsourced for manufacture....but the same can be said for 95% of "hardware" firms.

most networking, storage and systems firms outsource manufacturing. a few still do it in house, but they are the old guard.

point is, Apple depends mostly on hardware for revenues, so they are a hardware company

I am part of the "Apple will never use..." chorus, and I don't fucking care which chip from whatever company Apple uses. They can use intel for all I care. But one thing is certain, they won't go for a generic-PC route, as that would kill them. They would go out of buisness. No, you're not going to run OS X on your (D/H)ell, so keep using your stardock pos ripoffs and stop trolling.

This is hilarious, it's like Apple has a performance persecution complex. The one time they decide to switch processors, instead of going with the performace king (AMD), they go with intel. Priceless.

NOTE: I did not say x86. AMD64 is better than itanic and XScale is not even in the same league

Well said Andreas, thanks. The guy was terribly rude for no good reason.

BeOS came to x86 from PPC as well, and they did the mistake to try to support the "generic PC platform", and that really killed them. It's _impossible_ to support such a vast amount of third party hardware. No, Linux is not successful either: look at ACPI, web cam, WiFi firmware out of the box support. It's just can't happen because third party manufacturers release stuff FASTER than one can write drivers for (even if you have the specs). Windows doesn't support everything out of the box either without manufacturer's drivers. And I don't see all these manufacturer's running behind Apple's 2% of market share.

So, no, Apple won't go the "generic PC" route. They will create BRANDED proprietary Apple PCs. This is what they always did and will continue to do so. The fact that will have an Intel chip in there makes no difference ultimately.

I'm afraid apple wouldn't go to arm, it's only an embedded processor.

I'm sorry, but all you people who think Intel will make their own PowerPC chip for the Mac have your heads firmly planted up your backsides. PowerPC, along with Sparc, is one of the few remaining architectures competing with x86/x64. Moreover, Intel and IBM are fierce competitors in the CPU market. The last thing Intel would want to do would be to do anything to legitimize the Power architecture. They're also in the middle of a transition from 32bit chips to 64bit chips. The idea that they're going to put aside space to manufacture Power chips in the midst of this seems highly unlikely.

Besides, even if they were to do such a thing, how would that put Apple in a better position? The primary complaint with IBM is that they aren't being responsive enough in enhancing the PowerPC both in terms of performance (GHz) and power consumption for ultra-mobile form factors. If Intel were to manufacture Apple's chips, they'd have even *less* incentive to bother improving the architecture as it's one of their competitors.

Here are the possibilities as I see them: (a) this whole story is BS and rumor-mongering; (b) Apple will be using Intel chipsets, but continue to use PowerPC chips [as someone else pointed out]; (c) Apple will use ARM or xScale for some sort of device; (d) Apple is moving to x64. Of these possibilites, (a) and (d) seem most likely. (b) doesn't seem realistic just because I'm not inclined to believe Intel chipsets work well with other CPU architecture (though hardware people please feel free to call me out on this).

i personally cant wait

Apple would NEVER go for a generic-PC route. It will be a proprietary-style x86 machine

Never say never. At the very least this could be the start of Apple licensing deals again. And if Apple could ever figure out a way to curb piracy (har har) I wouldn't be surprised to see OS XII DVDs on the shelfs one day for the vanilla PC

Perhaps Steve Jobs has dropped his objection to 3rd parties making Macs or bundling OSX - it's evident by the fact that Steve has allowed HP to make iPods and Motorola to use the iTunes software.

Steve also knows how to compete in a crowded field - iPod/Tunes basically kicked Rio's, Creative's, Sony's collective ass'es in the digital music field and so he has a plan to kick Dell/HP/IBM's ass in the PC field.


As soon as you have a solid UNIX coming to x86, people will lose interest in Linux, Solaris & FreeBSD and they will basically be relegated to the niche OS fields they started out as.

As soon as you have a solid UNIX coming to x86, people will lose interest in Linux, Solaris & FreeBSD and they will basically be relegated to the niche OS fields they started out as.

I was thinking the same thing. OpenSolaris comes out this month. This could be a preemptive strike to permanenty relegate linux, solaris, bsds to the server closet (at least in the first world).

And then they get even more compatibility with the low-end stuff that is running on servers OSs like linux, solaris, BSD.

I am sure there is a deal of some sort with Intel, but not for CPUs for their flagship computers... I am with a few others who have mentioned that it is probably for the iPod. The hardware that is really making Apple some $$$ right now.

That being said, if it DOES end up being CPUs for their desktops and/or laptops... it would be wayyyyy cool if they had been working with Intel already and have come up with some awesome NEW architecture.

C|Net wouldn't have ran this story without confirming first. I confirmed that part alright.

Besides the G5 problems that Apple was having with IBM, I'm wondering if some of Apple's technical leads know something about Intel's upcoming processors that the rest of us don't.

Now CNet and Stephen Shankland has made my list of stupid journalists who like to sensationalise everything. There is no logical reason for Apple to switch to x86 on their desktops. The x86 architecture is aging and lives only on life support now from AMD and Intel who are desperate to keep it going. MS is planning their escape route with .Net (if they get their act together), or by modifying Virtual PC.

The best outcome from this story is probably just the news that Apple may be using the x86 chips for some new device we don't know about (which is odd, they could just use Motorola who beat Intel at embedded every which way to Sunday), but for the desktops it's just plain silly.

The x86 architecture is aging and lives only on life support now from AMD and Intel who are desperate to keep it going

Hehe, like we haven't been hearing that for the past 15 years. Yeah, you're bitter, but you have to come up with something better than that.

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. T

The big difference is that you don't have massive amounts of code written in assembly language anymore. Even the Altivec software would most likely have SSE2 equivalents from vendors.

Lol. This is fun.
Welcome to the dark side Apple fanboys!
Next Apple will license Windows from Microsoft and you'll be all happily thumping away in Internet Explorer, with adware showing you planty of "relevant" ads of what you should buy.
Well, let's hope not.
It's more likely that Mac hardware (bios) and OS/X will get cracked the same day it's released (or sooner) and we'll have a mass exodus from Windows to Mac OS/X.
Umm, juicy! Mac OS/X running on a $299 Walmart box.

> Intel's upcoming processors that the rest of us don't.

Nope, I doubt if there's anything new from Intel except EMT64s. Itanium turned out to be a stinker. Intel's going to ride x86/x86-64 as long as it has legs (oh say for the next 15 years).

>Mac OS/X running on a $299 Walmart box.

dream on.

that kind of says it all. Chip makers want lots and lots of volumes. Apple continues to fail to provide these and thus continues to have issues with chip suppliers. Maybe x86 might make sense. There may not be enough volumes today in macs to keep the interest of a major or minor chip maker.

Then again, IBM will be be seriously screwing up if they lose apple. IBM planned to push the powerpc and cell everywhere by modifying them via design services for specific apps. If apple leaves it will cast doubts on how good of a paterner IBM might be. IBM really should not let apple go.

if it's true, that's too bad, but oh well, not like any of us can do anything about it, to keep working in this industry you just got to roll with the punches

This is the only way Apple can survive.

People have been playing armchair CEO for years. I am not fond of Jobs but I think he knows what he's doing.

"As soon as you have a solid UNIX coming to x86, people will lose interest in Linux, Solaris & FreeBSD and they will basically be relegated to the niche OS fields they started out as. "

Um, no. Mac uses FreeBSD for one, so that's not going to happen. Linux may be a niche as a desktop, but it's not going to stay that way, looking at projects like Luminocity, and Enlightenment. Mac fans are superficial, and alot of people are. I mean all I really ever hear about, and agree with, is the sheer beauty of the Mac OS.
That won't make me fork out the money to get a Mac.
The Opensource society is going to get better exponentially.

Plus start up companies, and companies that want to save money are going to always use Linux, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD.
In the mean while, Novell and Sun will convince larger companies that use MS that they are wasting money.

Sorry but *nix has been around for years and is here to stay.

Live long and prosper as Mr.Spock would say.

- fish

Will I be able to run iTunes. Someone please help me.

haha, good one.

Back circa 1991,1992, I bought a Next machine.
This was running Steve's NextStep 3.0 OS.
A couple of months later, NeXT computer announced that they would drop support for ALL their hardware, and concentrate on i386 platform, and NextStep 386 was born.
I was very mad, for a moment, and then I though, this is good!
And it was! Months after that, many banks and fortune 500 companies were running mission critical applications on NextStep i386.
So I had a big black pizza box (NextStep color machine), and I bought NextStep 3.2 for Intel processors, and I installed it on my Advanced Logic Research machine (Pentium 60Mhz), and it looked just identical to the version I had on my NextStep machine!
Moral of the story: I think Steve is on to something, again!
Apple computers bought Next Computer, massaged their technologies, and gave us OpenStep.
Again, many mission critical and advanced applications were deployed on Intel arquitecture, with applications that were only dreamed of on WIndows and other OS'es.
And now, in 2005, Apple decides to (possibly?) switch to i386 or "another" Intel arquitecture?
Well, I can't wait, because if this happens, I'm almost sure of the outcome. I already know what it (most probably) will be.
You guess

Cheers!,
-Karl

People have been playing armchair CEO for years. I am not fond of Jobs but I think he knows what he's doing.


Not only that, but web designers have been playing microprocessor architecture experts for just as long.

good move by apple, Why?

1. intel already made an mac mini pc look alike, with them providing all the components and chips, it will be cheaper to produce.

2. the os will be emulated. it's a low end mac and people shouldn't be running highend software on it (photoshop etc), this will give them reason for upgrading to a powerpc based mac. Speed will be enough for the ipod users they're targeting

3. volume, apple is a hardware company, if you install windows in their pc, they still sell pc's.. OSX will be like a freebie, a try if u like option... providing exposure to their OS

4. cheaper pc's plus intels branding can help them break in the mass market while providing exposure too OSX, slow but decent performace won't canabalize their regular mac sales

5. porting applications wont happen until they sell a critical # of x86 macs, it will then be easy to release an emulated x86 on power pc's, other software companies will follow when they see the market ( if tranistion is a success, it will mean more sales b'coz of consumers buying new software than upgrades)

6. point is, if sales is dismal, they have alternatives, they just leave the x86 macs running emulated OSX, if succesfull they can release ports and convert their higher end macs... easing the transition with x86 emulation

> Linux may be a niche as a desktop, but it's not going to stay that way


Yeah but who's going to develop for Linux when you have a killer desktop + UNIX in OSX on x86?. Why would I want a cobbled together OS when I have a perfectly good UNIX + I can get all the open source apps running on OSX.



All alpha-geeks use Macs - get with the program

if Apple goes Intel, then soon UNIX = OS X.

Especially IF steve Jobs release OS X for anyone using Intel/AMD PCs. no Office? i believe Apple future version of Apple works, so no worry. Beside next office will use XML based open format.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple funding the Wine guys.

Maybe Apple wants to sell more Software?

In 2 years Microsoft will [maybe] deliver Longhorn and most people will not switch for at least another 2 years.

Maybe the time is right for OSX/x86/CrossoverOffice...

Maybe in 5 years from now Apple will sell more OS-CD's than Microsoft.

Who knows...

Please don't take my comment too serious, it's only a thought that popped in my mind.

oh oh oh

I've always thought that 680x0, PPC, and ARM were superior to x86. I still think so.

Intel has tried to move away from x86 several times in the past but the inertia of backwards compatability and "standard hardware" has checked their every move.

Now that a processor's ISA is even less important than ever, and volume is king over elegance, it looks like we're stuck.

So, will we still be running x86 and x86-64 for the next 15 years?

I certainly hope not.

why would apple do this?? their goal is to remain profitable. and they've been doing that. no need to take over the world now. apple would never sell another mac if you could get OS X on an El Cheapo PC. =/

next in news, Apple to sue C-Net for "stealing there thunder"

I will sell my current Desktop and become Apples bitch....FOR REAL. Don't get me wrong I think PPC is a good arch but I think you would see alot more support on the developer side (though I know its pretty strong now) if they make the switch. This would also give the ability to just spank the PISS out of M$ if they do it right.


There are 2 sides to ever coin of course...of the good their is the bad so we'll have to see whats up

...is the most likely choice if Apple is indeed going to Intel for their future CPU's.

IIRC OS X (built on Next, and Next certainly had it!) has support for fat bianries. who's to say that Apple hasn't been planning this for awhile and almost all current cocao apps are already capable?

shoot me

intel has a little chip in the works for nintendo, it just so hoppens to be a powerpc chip called the broadway http://reviews.cnet.com/Nintendo_Revolution/4507-1 0109_7-31355104.html?tag=txt [cnet.com] or at least that is what cnet says, i am not going to make an AMD taking over x86 comment here, intel just wants to expand, apple wants faster cheaper chips, why not... those powerbook G5 don't look like they are going to happen must I

LD R0, #b10
LD R1. #b10
ADD R0, R1, R0
ST R0, IntelCanMakePPC

what's wrong with only having x86? it's open (says the govt for antitrust reasons).

They will have to use a chip that allows the OS to run PPC apps (sun has developed a card that does this awhile back for their sparc workstations, i do not know if it was discontinued or not)

or have amd or transmeta or someone manufacturer one with ppc extensions.

the plus over ppc and x86 are minimal depending on how the chips are designed. it's just an instruction set anyway.

apple migrated off of early motorola CPUs onto PPC recently... now they migrate onto x86? Good luck on selling that one!!! Yeah, go shoot yourselves in the foot because your pissed at IBM. theres other people that make PPC compatible CPUs

Assuming that Intel and Apple have some deal for CPU's.....

I could be wrong here, but isn't PPC an "Open" architecture? Is there any reason intel can't build the PPC chips for Apple? Even develop an "M" version of the G5 for notebook use, etc?

My .02 cents....

Please, for the love of all that is holy, make apple stay on PPC! x86 platform is crap in comparison. They wouldn't do that to us, would they?

Doesn't seem likely. And if they do, the article never mentions x86.
It would be quite funny though....to watch the Mac fans squirm.

I can't see Intel jumping on the PPC bandwagon, I can't see OS X running on x86, so if there is any kernal of truth to the article....maybe we will know Monday.

"People have been playing armchair CEO for years. I am not fond of Jobs but I think he knows what he's doing."

Debatable

http://www.foxfirebooks.com/si/004086.html

It's the end of the world as we know it.....

If this does happen you can say so long to linux on the desktop. Yeah linux is free, but who cares when there's no support and no mainstream commercial software.

OSX already has it, Quicken, Adobe and even Microsoft. Linux doesnt stand a chance.

You mean soon we are going to have choice to install between Pirated WindowsXP, Open sourced free Linux and Pirated MacOS?
In china, India, Singapour, Russia & Thiland people sell pirated softwares on streets!

Nobody mentioned it but PearPC will have speed like vmware :-)

Sweet!!

If MacOS comes to x86, I will end the compitation! MACOS already rocks, i fear it may finish MS-Windows & Linux!

I've always thought that 680x0, PPC, and ARM were superior to x86. I still think so.

The 680x0 certainly was: more registers, better addressing, much cleaner instruction set, equally compact code. And it was well prepared for a 64-bit extension without requiring ugly prefixes.

As for the PPC and ARM: they do have simpler instruction sets, which saves decoding hardware, making them well suited to size and power-constrained embedded systems. But for desktop (and server) chips, a few million front-end transistors out of over a hundred million don't really matter anymore.

What does matter though is their bloated code due to the fixed 32-bit instruction format and the load-store architecture. While memory may be cheap, memory bandwidth and latency aren't. It's even worse with the Itanium's 128 bits for three instructions.

But even in embedded systems people don't want to waste SRAM and Flash, which is why ARM introduced their compressed 16-bit Thumb instruction format.

So, will we still be running x86 and x86-64 for the next 15 years?

Yes, it's sad, but it does it really matter?

The difficulties of compiling to it have been solved and it performs well. With x86-64 some of the worst problems have been fixed. (Whereby one of the biggest improvements, namely the convention to pass arguments in registers rather than on the stack, is in the programming manual rather than the hardware.)

So unless you do compiler backends or assembler programming the ugliness of x86 never actually bites you.

Mac Workstation!

It will require special BIOS tricks in order to only run on Apple PCs.

I give it a week, maybe two, tops, before somebody figures out how to break it.

Yes, but only the geeky end of the market will be able and willing to install MacOS through some hack and deal with any resulting driver trouble.

Crucially, no-one could legally sell pre-installed Mac clones.

When PPC came along it was hyped as far superior then the 68040's.. but when they hit and apps were opptimized it seemed more like just a natural speed bump not a huge difference.

Yep, and compared to the 68060 coming out around the same time if anything there was a disadvantage, at least for integer performance.

The one area were the PPC was better was floating-point, because for mysterious reasons presumably having to do with Motorola not wanting to upstage their shiny new PPC, the 68060 FPU was not pipelined.

They went through quite a bit for that change.

With hindsight at least you have to say the switch wasn't worth it.

But it's not like superscalar CISC implementations like the Pentium and 68060 weren't around at the time. Also, the fact that an easier-to-decode instruction set would matter less and less as processor budgets rise could have been foreseen.

What did Steve Jobs think of the PowerPC switch at the time? Next went straight to x86 after 680x0 was discontinued, didn't it?

I could be wrong here, but isn't PPC an "Open" architecture? Is there any reason intel can't build the PPC chips for Apple? Even develop an "M" version of the G5 for notebook use, etc?

Actually, that may not be a bad strategy for Intel, either. They've been trying to dump the baggage associated with x86 for quite some time, but with Itanium having tanked, and AMD hitting them with x86-64, jumping on the PPC bandwagon wouldn't be their worst choice.

Think of it. They'd have a new processor architecture which already has a substantial body of software and an established and growing market, and apparently a longer horizon than x86. Nor do I think IBM would object to having a partner with the stature of Intel pushing the architecture. If PPC continues to grow, Intel has a foot in the door. If not, they still have x86 as a fallback position. Doesn't sound like they have anything to lose, and potentially plenty to gain. Perhaps Intel already has a PPC or Power implementation hidden deep in the bowels of their labs that leaves IBM's in the dust. Which may have been what got Apple's attention.

If I were Microsoft, I would really be scared.

Apple, a software innovator, entering the x86 market dominated by a sleepy Microsoft...

Developers will not see any barrier to port their softwrae on a different processor architecture now...

Apple can only gain from all this!

At last, at last they have switched (not that PowerPC is a bad chip).

I think My next machine will be a Mac with Intel Inside.

..for reminding me why I don't visit your website on a regular basis.

Do you think that article will beat the 500+ comments the Mac Mini introduction received in here ?

I said AMD64 + Linux is the best combination.

Now, apple trying to give up that soooooo superior PPC?

More seriously why do they go to inter not AMD?

Good job Mr. Jobs.

This is the end of Apple. I really need to sell my Powerbook G4.

If I need MacOS X, I use MacOnLinux

Whoooraaayyy, LINUX WINS.

> Hehe, like we haven't been hearing that for the past 15 years. Yeah, you're bitter, but you have to come up with something better than that.

Well, that sounds a lot like a reflection of yourself... When I say the x86 architecture is dying, I mean what I say. Look to Cell and see why MS, Sony, Toshiba and Nintendo all aren't using x86 for the new consoles and compare it to x86, then get back to me. You're seeing the new PC and what it'll be like in 5-15 years time.

If you actually bothered to read my next sentence (here, I'll copy it again):

"MS is planning their escape route with .Net (if they get their act together), or by modifying Virtual PC."

Do you know what .Net is about? In particular, CLR?
Do you understand that MS has some of the best programmers in the world working on emulation, simulation, and compilers? And for what reason?
Do you understand that Intel and AMD need MS much much more than MS needs them?

If you don't understand the above, you better find out before first accusing someone of being bitter. I'm pretty optimistic about the future, but you have to move on from the past before you can claim it.

Apple definitely would not have made an impulse decision...my "theory" is that Intel has done something to seduce them over, otherwise they most definitely would have gone w/ AMD (Jobs isn't an idiot). I am also in the camp that believes this *definitely* will not be a generic x86/64 platform switch...their core revenue stems from hardware, it'd be a VERY big surprise if they switch their business to software sales (though if any company could pull it off, they most certainly could). Apple simply won't let themselves be relegated to another Dell/HP/etc, that market is already saturated. There is definitely more to this than meets the eye, and we'll all know more on Monday...can't wait to see what's up.

i don't care, whatever

If they go X86 with OSX, you will be able to run OSX on any PC.
I think you will see more games for OSX if thats the case.
Microsoft could feel threatened too.

This rumor is false, and the proof is in the news cycle this week:

1. Intel pre-announces, e.g. 18 months away, a dual core laptop chip. The last time they made a move like and pre-announced a product days before a "SteveNote" was right before the G5 announcement.

2. Intel demo'ing the Mac mini knock-off over the past couple of weeks.

If Intel had a deal with Apple, they would never be pulling this type of PR which would anger Jobs to no end. This, for me, is the smoking gun.

I suspect Apple has some very big things up their sleeve, and they are still burned about the leak over the Mac mini, so they are doing some misdirection at the expense of Cnet. (Cnet has never been very pro-Apple.)

Jobs at D3 said they have a huge year coming with breakthrough products, and since most leaks seem to happen a few days before the "SteveNote" what better way to keep people pre-occupied than with an outrageous rumor like this to distract the media and rumor mongers.

I think this is misdirection, pure and simple.

Think of any PC configuration you would like to buy.
Don't think of a manufacturer.
Just think of the configuration: CPU, speed, RAM, disk, Video, slots, etc

Have one in mind?
OK. read on.

You know that any manufacturer can provide it, by assembling standard components.
Now you can choose your manufacturer for your new PC.
Let's say the list includes HP, Dell, Lenovo, Acer, Apple, Gateway.

They all provide the SAME HARDWARE configuration at the SAME PRICE.
Which BRAND do you pick?

....

Apple will have more than 10% of the PC market by December 2007.

This will happen if they sell industry standard PCs. If they sell proprietary hardware, they will stay at 3%.

THEIR CHANGE OF PROCESSOR IS TO INCREASE THEIR MARKET SHARE.

You are mistaken the "proprietary" thing. Even if MacOSX can only run on Apple PCs, Windows/Linux/BSD will be able to run on Apple PCs without modifications. So, it's really not much of a difference for the user between an Apple PC and another PC.

Remember, Apple does not mostly care about having 10% of the OS market, they care about selling hardware and have more hardware install base, this is where the real money is. Software can be pirated --especially if it doesn't require special hardware--, but hardware can't. Apple is a hardware company.

You never tested OS X on numerous hardware.

Only on PPC?

Just imagine this:
==========================================
You are racing alone in your own track

Then say "Wow my F1 is so superior"

Then Tears coming out from your eyes due to uncontrollable emotion.
==========================================


Don't you think this is stupid?


But Linux fought hard in every field and It actually proved an awesome OS for all.

Lets think about this for a second... There's a huge demand for linux to become a desktop OS but it's just not getting there fast enough for many Windows users. Say Apple sells additionally sells OSX with support for x86 and x86-64 and gets a huge ammount of driver support from major vendors and possibly game developers... OSX would sound very enticing to linux desktop users and wannabe's who are limited by a number of factors, as well as to Windows users who are fed up with virus's, spyware, etc... With Firefox and other OSS projects breaking into the mainstream, the time is now. Windows users are showing that they aren't as mindless as they've been portrayed in the past. There's a huge chunk of the market up for grabs here, and Apple seems like the only player on the market with the power to do so with their new found reputation which they've been building up. Supporting x86 is a great way for them to break ground where nobody else can at the moment.

I have a feeling it's the tablet thing they are working on. Besides that, we will see some more 20mhz "leaps" on the current machines and more itunes/ipod crap. Seems to be the way apple has innovated since the G5. Hopefully Tiger is showing us they want to focus on better software, if that's the case I can't wait. I hope for them coming in saying "We know your tired of XP and Longhorn sucks(remember this would be next year). Try something new and better."

Apple sits in an awkward position, alot of people buy mac cuz it makes them feel better than the pc world. If they do too much low end(mini) or switch to the "evil" arch it's gonna lose some of the 1337 appeal too. There best bet is to hang tight(or atleast keep it private) till next year and see what IBM and Microsoft are gonna do. If they can use the tablet to do some hardware "testing", even better.

>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.

Sure... But what about the hundred of PowerPC applications ?

Total Nonsense to me.

If this is a way to make pressure on IBM maybe it's too late... IBM will sell WAY more PowerPC processors with next gen consoles than with PowerMacs...

Leo.

"This has been brewing for quite some time - Intel has been relatively quiet for at least a year now, almost like it's been distracted by something else."

Brewing indeed... Anyone remember the Apple-Novell deal?
We shall see.

Today Apple, tomorrow the world!!!!

To all Mac enthusiasts - don't be alarmed. Mac is reaching for market share. Remember, a product can only keep improving if the budget is available, and if hardware developers can deliver the right goods. While IBM may not have the inovation, Apple has. If it was not for Apples innovation, IBM's Power Proccessor's would still be running extremely hot, and without Altivec. Talking about Altivec; who had the inovation to bring that into the market? Freescale my fellow life students!

That brings forth this question: who ownes the Altivec rights, because come on, realistically, if Apple is talking to Intel, it is not about x86 cause then they might as well be talking to Dell, or HP. We are talking about a custom Apple Intel CPU or allike. I would not be surprised if Dual core Freescale Apple laptops are going to be released real soon. Freescale is the way to go I think.

To all PC enthusiasts - There is a shiny new, smiling Aple OS X system on it's way to you real soon. Microsoft, get into bed with Apple now! The 3 years are going to be legendary!

I hope this is a rumor but if Apple is really considering switch to the x86 architectutre why not switch to AMD? Far better than Intel...

Okay, I am tired of hearing people say that Apple could not support all of the hardware out there. That is just not true, did you people forget what Mac OS X is based on, BSD (mostly Free BSD), which has very good x86 support, they would not need to spend a bunch of money getting support, because all of the drivers are already out there. And The drivers that Apple makes for unsupported drivers, will most likey be put on the web, Compiled for different *nixs, so it would be a help towards the open source movement (could get those hardware makers to open up their specs).

~Alan

because now they can use TCPA to protect OSX installed on non-Apple hardware...

on the other hand it would be wise to give people the option to run OSX with some MacOnLinux stuff on any x86 machine. As long as it's officially not allowed, you wouldn't use a non-Apple machine for your business...

but private OSX installations would boost the popularity of OSX.

question is why apple wants to change the hardware platform, it doesn't make sense.

i think it's not because the PowerPC platform is to slow, it is not, but there are no good PowerPC CPUs for laptops. that very very important to Apple, to be not behind the average x86 laptop. Pentium-M and Turion machines are affordable, where is the G5 mobile processor?

In my wildest imaginings I considered that the Mini might switch to the Pentium-M because of its high-performance vs. heat, but that seemed fairly unrealistic to me. It seemed far more likely that the negotiations with Intel were for using their ARM processors in a portable device. I mean if Apple wanted to switch to the x86, I would immediately expect them to partner with AMD because of the K8's advantages with respect to performance and power consumption.

I guess until the conference this is just speculation, so it's early to conclude that c|net is correct per se. If they are, all I can really say is "Wow, I sure didn't see that coming!" You can probably consider Classic applications as being dead if it turns out to be true. How interesting.

AMD is good but Intel has large number of users, Past history is with Intel than AMD. The past market was US and Europe the up coming market is India,China and Intel is far poular in these contries then the AMD due to fast reliable service.
I personally prefer AMD cause its cost effective and Fast but we dont know what is going on behind the scene.

Sorry if this has been said before. But the move to intel could just be for the Apple's line of xserve NAS's.

Currently the industry is going mad over these, as they are fast, cheap and reliable. Moving over to intel for these machines would make them cheaper still, and they don't need too much horse power to run.

I don't think apple would move there powermac/powerbook base over to intel, as this is gonna have a big impact on share's just as apple is on the up.

interesting point, thats another reason why they couldn't switch earliert to x86 platform. it was important to keep binary compatibility for the classic applications. nowadays most people use native OSX applications and 2006 even fewer people will use classic apps and they can still use the PowerPC hardware for some more years...

I am a very recent Mac convert (I write this from my old PC, though).
I like OS X, but I would like to have a choice of desktop environment/window manager. I don't have any fanatical views about PPC vs, x86 architecture
I would agree with previous posts that AMD Opteron might be a better choice than an Intel solution, but one post said "Itanium lite" - I second that idea!
I have been meaning to try OpenDarwin x86, but development seems to be dormant. This port of OpenDarwin seems to suggest Mac OS X on an x86-like platform is very feasible.
I don't think I'll mind too much if Apple switches CPU architecture, as long as the customer gets a computer married to Mac OS X which JUST WORKS. Maybe customers will get better value for money too!
That's what I like about my PowerMac (and the fact its got a UNIX-based OS).
Roll on Monday!

> BeOS came to x86 from PPC as well, and they did the mistake
> to try to support the "generic PC platform", and that really
> killed them.

What killed BeOS was developing a company whose primary purpose was to sell Apple a replacement for MacOS. You know, after their BeBox was a big failure.

When the Apple failed to pan out and they focused on the x86, what killed them was that they didn't support the "generic PC platform." They supported an incredibly small subset of hardware, and did so fairly superficially. Their operating system didn't work with most hardware configurations, or even just most of the best of the "best" ones with respect to video and audio support. Its benefits over using NT weren't incredibly impressive when taken against the disadvantages.

They could have tried selling computers a la in the BeBox that consisted solely of what hardware they supported, but it's not like people would have bought them.

There simply never was the same buzz around switching to BeOS that there is with MacOS X, so it's not really much of a comparison.

It's probably more likely that Intel wouldn't produce PowerPC processors for Apple because it wouldn't be worth the cost of fabricating them to Intel, because Apple is a low volume customer.

I can't see Apple using x86, especially if they announce this on Monday then who is going to buy a Mac when it will be obsolete in 1-2 years time.

If this is true, then I will be seriously pissed off, I spend £2000 on a Powerbook only to find it will be obsolete in 2 years time.

It sounds more like Intel are going to make PPC chips, or they are changing the chips in the iPod.

>nowadays most people use native OSX applications and 2006 even fewer people will use classic apps and they can still use the PowerPC hardware for some more years...
But come on !

Today OSX are PowerPC binaries: NONE of current OSX apps will run in a x86 OSX. That's the whole point !

No need to go further... Opteron better than PIV,...

:)

PC, other than the XBox, how many consoles can you name that use the x86 as their main processor?

Maybe future consoles aren't using the x86 because they don't want to develop their platforms in the same direction as the general-purpose x86 is going. So clearly the x86 is dying, or something.

Just like because your cell phone doesn't use the latest Pentium 4, the x86 is as good as dead.

If one looks at the general trend, it is actually not surprising that an inovative company like Apple are looking at all options. This is actually very healthy and good business sense. Apple has come a long way, and have learned from passed mistakes (we hope). The only deciding factors now, that will finally put Apple on the mainstream map is this:

1. x86 platform, and if OS X will become a hardware indipendant OS? or,
2. x86 platform, but Apple hardware dependant. This option only makes sense if Apple is colabirating with Intel for a "custom" designed Intel CPU? It is quite possible for a Intel to build a dual core Risc (Altivec) low power CPU especially for Apple. This could be very interesting, as this could filter into the PC market eventually.

Risc processors and parallel processing has been an "ideal sollution" project now for the last 28 years. All the pieces just has to come together now!

It would be a huge undertaking for Apple to shift everything to x86. It would also make piracy much more of an issue for Apple.

On the other hand, Intel could start making PowerPC chips, as it is a free specification (or at least it is possible to license it). Then Apple would be able to choose between IBM, freescale and Intel for their CPU's, they can keep their software. Intel could probably make som pretty good mobile PowerPC CPU's.

Who knows, in the next two years if a person is shopping for a PC, the choices might be:

Dell, HP or Apple. Operating systems to choose from: MS Longhorn, OS X and Linux. Software to choose: Open souced, compatible with any of the above!

Is this far fetched?

How is a Mac bought now going to be anymore obsolete if they start selling OS X/x86 than if they don't? Do you expect that your typical vendor is going to cease providing PPC releases upon the immediate release of OS X/x86? Given that most Mac users don't seem to dispose of their novelties all that regularly, that would be pretty short-sighted business decision. After the first Power Mac, I'd expect at least a few years of transition support from most large vendors, except maybe some game companies.

Are you implying the Apple may move to Itanium? Itanium in a powerbook would be much harder than a g5 in a powerbook.

Maybe I'm just a stupid white guy though.

it should be possible to compile a binary that runs on ppc and x86. and recompiling ppc software should not very hard, i guess it will run out of the box...

Why has there always got to be a worm in an apple? No pun intended. Sensible discussion just went out the door and racism, flame wars and arrogance are once again crawling in.

I'm out of here!

Steve was being stupid for a long time about sticking to that perennial "always two steps back" PowerPC.

The Mac universe will take off like never before. This is the best news this year (so far).

Think about it. If G5 processors don't turn out profitable for IBM, then IBM will rise their price. Who knows maybe Steve has forseen this. You never really know what to expect from this guy, but he can't be that crazy to turn to Intel processors because he sees any value in them. Frankly though, something _is_ out of place here. Maybe Steve is signaling IBM. If there is a switch in the processor type, I really don't think it will be called `Intel'. I feel that more is happening on the Amd camp than we have been told. Steve is crazy enough for such a last-moment switch. Ofcourse we'll have to wait a little bit more to see ...

never heard about an plans to make cell mobile CPU...

And no worries about the old PPC software:
the key is emulation.

68k ran on PPC with emulation.
NT-x86 binaries ran on NT-PPC, NT-Alpha etc with emulation.

And every 386 class PC has more than enough power to fully emulate the poor old legacy PPC hardware...

sigh...

I don't know why there's 189 comments on this. People have short memories. There have always been these rumours. I remember a hullabaloo back around 2001 when Mac OS X was just getting started and there was a rumour they had it up and running on x86 then.

Until Apple actually anounces something I wouldn’t pay any real attention. Remember that a lot of people make money and headlines from this sort of thing, and luminaries like Rob Enderle have been probing it for years because they really like to twist the knife that Apple (or indeed, anything non-Microsoft related) is in disarray.

I havn't read all posts, so don't get mad at me if someone wrote it already

I see nothing special about it. Apple could let intel produce g5s under license. Only because it comes from intel it doesn't have to be a ia** chip. Intel produces even arm-based chips. maybe apple wants to use them for their ipods?
Intel has a large portfolio of i/o controllers. again something apple could use for their PPC-based boxes.

Remember last week Intel announced their new chips with DRM and remote administration of the operating system?

And then we found out that AMD is doing similar things? So that leaves Apple, right?

Now Apple has switched to Intel and we are all screwed.

Maybe it's nothing to do with laptops and desktops.
A new product perhaps?
Anyone for a nice Apple PDA?

I won't believe it until it is confirmed, but...
While the G5 is a wonderful chip, it is just not scalable to the notebook level (at least for now), and we don't know whether IBM has any interest in putting the resources to make it scalable. After all the G5 is just a tweaked version of the Power processors they used on their servers.
I think the move would suck because x86 is just such a horrible architecture, but a phased transition may work:
1) Switch XServe and Mac Mini to x86.
Nobody cares about running MS Office in XServe anyway, and whoever is cheapo enough to be buying Mac Minis rather than something else is probably not going to go buying expensive software.
Stay there for a while and let third party applications for OSX x86 trickle in.
2) Switch eMac and iBook to x86.
eMacs are for education markets, and this people will usually buy the computer with all the software they need upfront as a package. By then hopefully there are versions of all major architectures recompiled for x86.
iBooks are entry-level notebooks and probably this clientele can deal with the hassle of missing a few applications.
In the meantime, Apple better cross its fingers than Freescale does in fact come out with the dual core G4 that it can put in the Powerbook. AND it should cross its fingers that the x86-based iBook does not kick the heck out its Powerbook.
3) When there is sufficient ecosystem for OSX x86, switch the rest of the lines (and provide a simulator similar to Classic to run the PPC based applications)

So this is where it ends... If you buy an Apple computer it's only because of OS X.

Same CPU (x86), same video card, same everything... Only good looks and OS X.

I realy don't like this news... I just got a mini...

all they need to do is speed up X, the G5 is fast enough IHMO, laptop chips are a problem, that's for sure.

Is Apple going to include emulation for OS9 and PPC if they switch to x86 ?? Are we just supposed to run out and buy all new software?

DARN....

Why do you guys assume Apple is moving to x86 I work with Intel boxes all day long and they don't have a processor that can compete with the G5, there is no way you are going to be able to buy a Dual Itanium 2 Mac workstation, unless you are prepared to pay double what Apple are asking now.

Macintosh moving to x86 NFW! Intel making CPUs for the Mac plausable, Intel making a CPU for a new Apple product more likely!

The name of the company is Apple. "Mac" or "Macintosh" is one of their products. You wouldn't call Intel "Centrino" would you? "Centrino is coming out with their new Itanium…"

Interesting story but like a few others have to take this with a pinch of salt. That Apple has an x86 version of OSX is no suprise, since OSX is basically NextStep+.

If they do move to x86, they would be silly to go with Intel chips as the AMD Athlon64 Dual core,FX's and Opteron's are superior. The only chip that Intel has a that Apple could want is Centrino - it looks as if its a better chip even for desktops than the current netburst P4's.


Anon

http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10749&offset=45&rows=60#38225...

I don't know what it is about some of you, but you're living in a state of denial if you really believe that Intel and AMD's offerings aren't performance-competitive with the PPC970*.

they plan on using Intel CPUs in the Xserve.

over 200 replies in LESS THAN A DAY!
This is indeed a new record for mac related topic on osnews ;-)

Now as for the obsurd topic:
no, apple will not be switching to intel. It makes -no- business sense. They would be digging their grave if they did this. They already know how things would be with OS X on intel - that is why they had the dual versions of Rhapsody!

If apple is announcing a partnership with intel here are a few possible reasons:

1. machine-within-a-machine --> run linux, windows, beOS - whatever- within a window a la virtual PC, but on actual hardware!

2. An apple PDA, dont forget the RISC chips intel makes

3. A new non PPC server with an altered Darwin, not quite darwin, not quite OS X, but a great server

4. New airport hardware, perhaps pre-n

Nnnnnnooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

;D
=======================
Lol. This is fun.
Welcome to the dark side Apple fanboys!
...
It's more likely that Mac hardware (bios) and OS/X will get cracked the same day it's released (or sooner) and we'll have a mass exodus from Windows to Mac OS/X.
Umm, juicy! Mac OS/X running on a $299 Walmart box.

Remember, Apple does not mostly care about having 10% of the OS market, they care about selling hardware and have more hardware install base, this is where the real money is. Software can be pirated --especially if it doesn't require special hardware--, but hardware can't. Apple is a hardware company.

Sorry Eugenia but you should not say that Apple does not care about its market share. Especially in an industry consolidating like the PC industry where Dell is at 18%, HP at 15, Lenovo at 10, Siemens at 5%, and Apple sliding below 3% just like any small PC OEM. It's a matter of scale now. So yes, Apple does care about their market share. You are mistaken. Less and less people will buy an expensive (or apparently expensive) computer which is not compatible with the industry standard. It brings too much hassle from a hardware support point of view (at least to businesses). Apple is just an ant to the majority of businesses, except in small niches. And these niches shrink. So size matters. And 3% market share means exit from the computer market in a few years.

Now you say Apple is a hardware company... Is it just that? Most of their gross profit is coming from iPods so I would say Apple is in the Music business from that point of view. And Think about this: MacOS X.11 able to run on Intel PCs. Apple is not simply aiming at the existing installed base of Macs to sell a Tiger+, but at the installed base of PCs. A market 35 times bigger! I am not saying Apple will become a Software company, but you can't say it's simply a hardware company. It's like saying IBM is a mainframe company.

The adoption of Intel processors is a formidable step for Apple.

But it's early to comment. Let's see what kind of hardware supports in 9 months....

...about Ken Olsen...

=============================

This is the only way Apple can survive.

People have been playing armchair CEO for years. I am not fond of Jobs but I think he knows what he's doing.

Wow. The SWITCH campaign really works. Even Steve Job bought into his own bullsh!t.

If I were Microsoft, I would really be scared.

Apple, a software innovator, entering the x86 market dominated by a sleepy Microsoft...

Developers will not see any barrier to port their softwrae on a different processor architecture now...

Actually a different API (Cocoa instead of Win32) is a much bigger barrier than a different processor. Switch processors is mostly a question of switching compilers, whereas switching API requires a rewrite of much of your application.

But if Apple managed to integrate a Win32 layer, e.g. wine, in a reasonably seamless and permormant fashion, that would be something else.

Apple has been rumored to have had OS X/86 running in the labs now since it's initial release. As for an OS X/86 *not* being able to run on commodity hardware, their PPC machines are pretty much commodity now anyway. In this day and age, a PC is no longer a luxury item, it's just a tool. There's no need to continue to pay premium prices for a tool. It doesn't make sense.

I think it's a good move for them, start a new x86 software/hardware product line and gradually phase out the PPC line over the next 5 years or so. It's not like there's anything *that* special about the G5 anyway. But, I would have liked to see them go with AMD instead of Intel.

Even if MacOSX can only run on Apple PCs, Windows/Linux/BSD will be able to run on Apple PCs without modifications.

Not if the Apple PC doesn't include a standard PC BIOS they won't. BSD and Linux of course would quickly be adapted to work with OpenFirmware on x86, but Windows?

David, we highly doubt this is just another "rumor". Many people have been speculating about this for a long time, and this has always been pretty much the ace in the hole for apple, considering it's all C code these days anyway.

The deal is done, and it makes sense - if not a little late. I highly doubt CNET is gonna put ths up 2 days before Heir Jobs speech unless there is some shred of truth to it.

Okay, I am tired of hearing people say that Apple could not support all of the hardware out there. That is just not true, did you people forget what Mac OS X is based on, BSD (mostly Free BSD),

It's not based on a (Free)BSD kernel, it's based on Mach.

which has very good x86 support,

Even if it was based on FreeBSD, Linux' hardware support is a lot better yet still badly lacking in some areas.

they would not need to spend a bunch of money getting support, because all of the drivers are already out there.

Wishful thinking.

The only way they could support all the hardware is by adapting their kernel to use Windows drivers. I don't know whether that's possible, either technically or legally. possible.

I really doubt Apple will encourage a Wine type method of porting applilcations. If they do they *may* run into the trouble of not having native ports and non-native Mac apps would stick out like a sore thumb. It would probably be more likely for Apple for release the Cocoa framework for Windows. That way is developers wanted to only develop one version it would fit better on the Mac OS X desktop.

As for whether they are going to x86 or not.... It would be shocking if they did but, I'm looking to forward to if they are gonna try it and how this is gonna work out. They would more than likely support it only on their machines but if they would sell it seperately for those who want to try to get it working on their x86 box it would be very awesome.

switch to intel... is not x86...

just look intel itanium 2.

Yeah, great, exchange one memory-wasting performance-challenged RISC architecture with two suppliers (sort of) for one that's even more wasteful and less successful with a not-all-that-committed single supplier.

Now that would really be stupid.

If they do move to x86, they would be silly to go with Intel chips as the AMD Athlon64 Dual core,FX's and Opteron's are superior. The only chip that Intel has a that Apple could want is Centrino - it looks as if its a better chip even for desktops than the current netburst P4's.

Intel announced a while ago that Netburst is going to be retired and that future developments would be based on the much saner Pentium M line.

Since the article was talking about mid-2006, there's hopefully no chance that the power-wasting Pentium4 would end up in Macs.

Could Apple be aiming for better mobile processors. Apple has a large interest in compact computer designs, producing the mac mini, imac and in addition to their mobile platforms the ibook and powerbook. And from what I understand the G5 processor is very power hungry and has thermal dissipation issues (liquid-cooled dual G5 PowerMacs), and it seems like that they have been having difficulties in adapting the G5 processors to their mobile computing platforms.
So Intel´s Pentium M processors seem to me like a logical choice for Apple to base their new machines, expecially in virtue of its success in the laptops segment, its apparent competitiveness with the desktop processor, despite its lower clock frequency and support for PCI express and ddr2. This seems to me also like a good reason why Apple would prefer to partner with Intel in detriment to AMD, which is not as competitive in the mobile segment. Taking into consideration that Intel has also recently announced their plans for dual core Pentium M, I wouldn´t be at all surprised if the Apple/Intel partnership would be based around the Pentium M.
On the other hand, I do find it strange that Intel did not announce EMT64 support in the new dual core Pentium M.

We´ll see...

Ok, sorry, didn´t notice that someone else had already come up with this suggestion.

What about this?
http://www.livejournal.com/users/pavelmachek/7323.html

I don't understand why everyone thinks that application compatability is such an issue. When Apple was transitioning from 68k to PowerPC, most applications were FAT binaries which could run on either processor. The same could easily happen again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_binary

The only programs which can't easily be ported are programmes written at least in some part using PowerPC assembly. In most cases however, porting would be a simple recompile.

I still though fail to understand why Apple is making this switch. Why not continue to use PowerPC for a year or so, and then switch to the Cell architecture? Cell seems to me to be just a better architecture.

Darth Jobs: "At last we shall have our revenge".

As soon as you have a solid UNIX coming to x86, people will lose interest in Linux, Solaris & FreeBSD and they will basically be relegated to the niche OS fields they started out as.

There were solid real UNIX systems before. SCO and i386 BSD, both which are either real UNIX or contained UNIX source-code.

So this arguement makes little sense; also GNU/Linux, OpenSolaris, and FreeBSD are all open-source.

I think apple will make a very bad move if this news is real.

> PC, other than the XBox, how many consoles can you name that use the x86 as their main processor?

None. That is the point I was making. My comment "You're seeing the new PC and what it'll be like in 5-15 years time" will make sense once you understand that the x86 architecture is now redundant with emulation taking over. Why limit yourself to a 20 year old architecture when you can design for something much newer and better?

> Maybe future consoles aren't using the x86 because they don't want to develop their platforms in the same direction.. So clearly the x86 is dying, or something.

Correct. It's a matter of time before x86 goes the same way. You should be happy to see it go, because until you do, you're not going to get any sort of decent performance from a PC as compared to the XBox 360 or PlayStation 3. I'm not saying it'll keel over and die, but it'll start being left behind in the performance stakes as their multi-core ideology will start showing some serious electrical power to performance ratio issues compared to simpler, faster CPU's that get the job done better (and FPGA's, they'll kick into high gear too).

> Just like because your cell phone doesn't use the latest Pentium 4, the x86 is as good as dead.

That's right. Latest mobile phones use processors from Intel (obviously, not the Pentium 4), NEC, Toshiba, Motorola, and quite a few others. This is a clear case of application specific CPU's in action. The games consoles will be the same. General purpose CPU's will probably phase out slowly in favour of application specific ones over the next 5-15 years, as I said.

Backwards compatibility will be handled by binary translation and emulation, freeing programmers to move to write more high level abstracted code rather than worrying about whether the CPU supports SSE2, KNI or AltiVec, which is holding people back in the long term.

Intel could be making new ppc chips, this would seem more feasable on Apples behalf. But why is IBM still improving the G5, and with Apple at 1.8% market share why would Intel want to put R&D into that?

There have also been long standing rumours of osx already ported to x86, but who believe's rumors, unless they're published on a high traffic international news site?

Has apple not heard of FreeScale[OLD MOTO PPC'S] 7557

I dont know about you guys.. but I think its awesome to have such a amazing os on inexpensive x86 hardware.. I can't wait to run OSX.. I would have made the "switch" years ago but the price is way to high (nearly double for the same amount of power) and most of my programs don't have OSx counterparts.. Bless you Apple.. Finally some real competition in the consumer desktop space.. (sorry Linux your just to hard to use for the average user, and yes even with APT RPM DEB its just to much of a pain to track down up to date software)..

First off, it's Freescale, little s.

Second: There is no such processor as the 7557 under development.

The 7448, which will up the bus to 200MHz SDR and the cache to 1MB, is coming down the pipe. It will be the last 7400 series processor.

The 8641/8641D are under development.

Why not continue to use PowerPC for a year or so, and then switch to the Cell architecture? Cell seems to me to be just a better architecture.

It may be a good design, but only for graphics stuff, not for desktop applications.

A review over on arstechnica points out the problems: it's an in-order architecture with a long pipeline and not much in the way of branch prediction. That means that while it will perform well on processing data streams, it will be stalling terribly on code with lots of branches and indirect jumps (read virtual method calls).

oh wait, this is June. Sorry.

Well this could proove to be a marketing error for Apple. Much of the appeal of OSX (the aqua GUI and the new features of Tiger like spotlight) which has led some of the PC people to switch to Macs (and let´s face it, most of the common users who have made the jump to Mac, did it mostly for aesthetic reasons and not for computing ones) will probably be facing heavy competition from "longhorn". It will depend on what comes first, x86 Macs (if this will indeed be the case) or Longhorn, but Apple could actually be risking to loose some its market share with this move.

Apple might get more games sooner, but Intel is gonna do that AMT crap, they should go AMD.

I don't think Mac OS X will doom Linux if it moves to any of the existing intel platforms or any of the new intel platforms and here's why:

1. Linux is available for PPC right now and can run on Macs, there are enough users for a few companies such as YellowDog to build a business around and companies like Mandrake and SUSE which also have an market on Intel processors also make a PowerPC version which must be selling enough to make money or they wouldn't be selling it in the first place. Moving OS X to an intel platform might take some of the Linux users away, but I doubt it will be as damaging to Linux as many people think.

2. Right now Windows is available on the x86 architecture, the main one on which I've seen Linux used, and it hasn't killed Linux. Some people use their low regard of Windows as an excuse why so many people use Linux, but all the Joe Averages out there which make up the majority of x86 users don't hate Windows enough to learn how to use a new operating system. Windows XP has made some serious inroads on stability, I've witnissed some very odd behaviour such as the universal constant of a lockup every time the computer tries to hybernate (used to work fine before), and a guaranteed lockup if I log off after the first login, but aside from that (and since this is a single user PC) it works more than good enough now that I could switch back from Linux for good if there weren't other reasons why I don't like using Microsoft software.

3. Linux is affordable, most distributions out there are free or have a free version. One of the main reasons I got into Linux was because it was free, and I've found it to be very high quality software despite lacking some features which the proprietary alternatives can afford. When I started using Linux it was because I was curious, but when I also found out it was free I started using it instead of Windows because I could afford to use a current version and I found out that all sorts of free software came with such as a quality C++ compiler and IDE, and a current OfficeSuite (StarOffice 5.1 was current back then). Linux helped me through school, I needed lots of software my parents wouldn't get me that 90% of the other students had and as such it was expected that we would use that software to do our homework. I used the free alternatives in Linux and that is how I made it, the other students who didn't have the software or didn't have a working computer had to fight for the two computers in the library, or had to bum off a friend for a while; at that time I didn't have any friends with both a computer and the necessary software so I would have been stuck without Linux. Linux is affordable to students; Apple and Microsoft have discounts for students but its still not enough for them to be able to afford once they get into high school or univeristy and want to take a lot of sciences (including computer science) because they often need to buy an OS upgrade (win98 to XP for example to run the new MS Office & VS), MS Office, and sometimes Visual Studio, and that's all expensive software with or without discount.

It will still be $120, so I think I will stay with linux. I can get SuSE pro for $60. I would like to give OS X a try though.

Most desktop applications would receive no benefit from a highly-parallel architecture. What you're seeing is domain-specific hardware for domain-specific problems. Your point is inane. It's almost as if you've missed several decades of consumer electronics.

The first XBox shipped with a Pentium 3 because Microsoft was looking to capitalize as much as possible from COTS parts and their x86 desktop monopoly. That their second go uses a specialized processor suitable for sitting in your home entertainment center rather than an Intel furnace hardly seems surprising. And as for the other console manufacturers, they were never going to use x86 parts anyway. Keep in mind that these devices look to maximize their domain-specific performance while minimizing cost.

I don't see any PS2s replacing workstations at my place of employment, do you?

The long-term game-performance comparison of these consoles with general-purpose x86 machines isn't something anyone knows yet. PCs barely rate in terms of game sales as it is.

Your projections are basically lifted from overclockers.com, and aren't any more enlightening, I'm afraid.

>The only programs which can't easily be ported are programmes written at least in some part using PowerPC assembly.

All Altivec-optimised have parts written in PPC assembly...

Leo.

> What about this?
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/pavelmachek/7323.html

that link is interesting. i really think they will build x86 macs.

Only one thought:
Why would they announce the news at monday? This would kill current Mac sales. People won't buy if the new Macs are coming..

And what about the Apple stores? I know a guy in my hometown. He wouldn't be able to sell his computers...

...everybody wants to get one of the last powerpc macs. ;-)

What if you're all wrong?
Microsoft's moving to PPC and Apple on Intel licensed dual core PPC chips.
Think Different y'all.
:-)

Whatever happens Apple would only be shooting themselves in the foot with a "switch" to x86.
It ain't got "legs".

Marklar has been around for a long time. But another change for the developers would mean Steve waking up with a horse head in bed next to him.

DON'T yank your developers around, RULE 1.

hylas

Everybody calm down :-) , please .
There will be no OSX for x86!!! .
This is the BIG deal >>> http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/vptech/

it will be incorporated in Yonah!

cheers! ;-)

you only get the virtualization technology with one of the new intel CPUs and not inside a powerpc

Firstly, Intel don't make ARM cpus, they make StrongARM/XScale cpus which are slightly different. ARM Ltd http://www.arm.com/ manufacture and licence ARM cpus & technology, mostly for embedded apps these days.

My personal opinion is that this is "likely" to be about the iPod or some new gadget, but there's something strange going on here, a weird insideous undercurrent. Job's has something up his designer sleeves, for sure.

Could it be that he's flipped? Hell-bent? It does seem rather odd that a company like Apple who have always opposed x86 in such a vitriolic fashion suddenly flip into fanboys.

Imagine the chaos this would create in their marketing alone? All the stuff about Altivec, all the stuff about G5 cpus being so Grrrrreat.

...and this is all aside from the fact that x86 sucks ass!

...and this is all aside from the fact that x86 sucks ass!


x86 performance is dependent on the underlying CPU architecture - seems to me Opterons,for example, are more than a match for G5s in general use.

huh, so OSX on xen then? ))

Hahaha!!

Squirm fanboys, squirm!

I don't really care either way, but it amuses me too see you sycophants cry when your beloved master betrays you. (time after time after time...)

But that aside.... what does it really matter? It's not like x86 chips are noticably slower. If anything, Macs will be cheaper and will probably end up getting more software written for them unless Apple does something stupid to try to keep OS X from running on regular computers that the rest of the world already has.

You guys should be bitching that Apple chose Intel over AMD... I'm sure they have their reasons ($$$$).

I'd even buy a Mac if it was the "Cadillac" of computers that could still run Windows & Solaris x86.

Just imagine! You might be able to buy cheap, kick ass video cards! You might be able to play more games! (if not, then just dual boot into Windows). And you'll still get your OS X which is the main reason to buy a Mac anyway, right?

"x86 performance is dependent on the underlying CPU architecture - seems to me Opterons,for example, are more than a match for G5s in general use."

x86 is the most contrived and horrible manifestation of backwards-compatible arse-jiggery I've ever had the misfortune to have to code for.

Surely this is Intel and Apple's chance to combine skills and create something exciting and new, and NOT have to pander to bygone legacy x86 duct-tapeage. Leave that to Microsoft "expertise".

... Surely this is Intel and Apple's chance to combine skills and create something exciting and new, and NOT have to pander to bygone legacy x86 duct-tapeage. Leave that to Microsoft "expertise". ...

The news.com article states -

...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.

I don't think Intel are interested in low-volume/wide variety chip production either for the same monetary reasons as IBM. We know the whole Apple range are going Intel and the obvious economic candidate is x86 unless Intel want to spend a fortune on a niche market.

that rocks, now i can use my freaking x86 based video cards instead of the overinflated ppc video cards.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5731398.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed

I'm looking forward to new powerbooks, the pentium m is superior to most any processor for notebooks. I think the turion chips are also nice. But the future pentium m's will be the future of intel desktops as well.

it's kind of strange that the article stated that they would go with the lower end macs at first, i.e. mac mini, I think that also includes powerbooks since they still use g4's.

How hard is it to port mac os x to x86? mac uses the gcc compiler and the core is mach based, so they probably just had to port some of the ppc optimized code over and translate. And since you don't really expect much optimization on the lower end macs, perhaps you could get by for now. Altivec is probably the biggest problem. Just think of the x86 mac's as souped up g3's (g3's didn't have altivec)

I think Mac's are going to go with Pentium M's for their future architecture. in the article it says that apple will go with intel chips in 2007 for the higher end.

it makes sense to me now that the pentium m is the way forward for macs, pentium m lacks the 64 bit execution mode at the moment so apple is stating that they will have the mac mini supporting intel by mid 06 which is in line with when pentium will be in full production with 64 bit execution mode.

As far as I've heard, mainly in rumors though, MacOSX has already been internally ported to the x86. I've seen many angry rants for it's release, and a few dubious looking pirates. I never checked if any were real, but if they were, I wouldn't really think moving the OS over would be hard, just the third party stuff that hasn't been moved yet.

things could take another turn and Apple won't be using X86 at all, but instead, IA-64. ooooh, that'd be a good twist. munch on that for speculation.

Altivec is probably the biggest problem.

SSE2/3 is in fact very similar to Altivec. It works on 128bit vectors, supports all of Altivec's data types (and more), and provides much the same instructions. The main differences are a lower number of register (8 in IA32, 16 in AMD64 vs 32 in Altivec), and a two-address rather than three-address instruction format.

So there's nothing particularly difficult about rewriting Altivec code, although it would still be a good chunk of work.

Just think of the x86 mac's as souped up g3's (g3's didn't have altivec)

Nonsense. They'd beat g5's in many benchmarks.

i think it will be a small tablet mac running with an ultra low voltage pentium M procressor.

It might be a custom Itanium without the PA-Risc and x86 decoder units which would allow Apple to keep an exotic CPU. If Apple was going for less heat and power then they could be going for a multi-core xscale. Whichever cpu Apple decides on might use some form High level emmulation through dynamic recompilation, kind of what Digital did with FX32 on the Alphas. Most likely non of this is even remotely close to what is going on at Apple, but it sure is fun to speculate. Hey, at least we will know by Monday.

Later Dudes.

When you look at who makes chips with the highest performance and the ability to give Apple the yield they are looking for at the lowest price point it is clearly AMD so to go with Intel is strange.

My vote is WiMax and XScale deployed in a new Mac product. IBM is already committed to delivering a dual core 97X part for Apple.

The P4 struggles with its higher clock in efficiency. A 2GHZ+ AMD easily keep up with P4s that have a 1GHZ advantage.

So Apple switches to Intel to get lower peformance? They also go with the most expensive X86 part?

Apple should have known better than use the IBM processors to begin with, they were intense competitors from the begining and long time Apple fans were appalled when Jobs started using the hated IBM's chips in their beloved Apple boxes. Sure enough, IBM backstabbed Apple and started giving all their support to Linux instead of OSX, including starving Apple for chips.

Apple will now get their revenge, and while IBM is staggering around with linux lawsuits and layoffs the world over, Apple is going to port to Intel and deal IBM a further blow. Those that think IBM can easily withstand further damage based on their Cell future are only fooling themselves, both Sony and Toshiba have rights to manufacture those chips on their own, and certainly will.

If Apple systems get cheaper as a result, and possibly become available from a variety of sources, their market share will increase. And this will undoubtedly further stall Linux deployments, which are according to reports already leveling off.

http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/164300346#_

It's Apple vs. IBM, all over again.

If they use X86 (I highly doubt it, since Intel makes more than just X86 CPUs) then I might buy a Mac afterall. I would like mine without the OS so I can put Windows on it.

One question: why?

Firstly, Apple hardware is more expensive than the SAME oem pc-based hardware, it's just the same "lego" with an Apple logo. I'd love to see the death of "Mac Edition" Radeon and GeForce cards, we'd all save a fortune!

...BUT it makes no sense to me for Apple to produce another x86-based reference design, even with their own bios or whatever, when it would be cheaper for them and us to use stock "pc" motherboards and components. Nobody will buy essentially the same thing with an Apple badge distinction, because that's all there'll be left - if Apple choose to go up against other x86 manufacturers.

Using stock pc components also has the drawback of users expecting to use stock pc drivers, imagine the chaos this would cause with "Apple compatible" hardware and software vendors?

x86 is a retrograde step in so many ways, and irrespective of Intel/AMD's tweakage it's still an x86 architecture. This should be a chance to move AWAY from legacy, for both Apple and Intel. If x86 is such a great architecture, then Microsoft would still be using it in their Xbox360, as soon as they got the chance they dropped it....and I applaud their decision.

The more I think about this the more I think it's either complete nonsense, or there's something genuinely exciting around the corner.....not long now till we find out which!

It's all baloney! C-net is one of the worst when it comes to reporting about Apple and the Mac. They never have anything good to say about Apple. This is one way to get their page hits up! What's this "Deep Throat". Who told them this? Bill G? It’s all horse sh@t.

i think people believing that are stupid, or if they are right, then apple is making a wrong move.

why? hardware. apple still make alot of money with their own pc hardware... and having selected hardware = more os stability (less 3rd party drivers).

its easy to claim that an os is stable when it runs on selected hardware anyway... alot of people seem to forget that most bugs on windows are due to driver failures. at least people playing games know that (video card drivers being not so stable sometimes).

anyway, maybe they are just over rating their products. sure if they make a x86 version of macosx alot of people would buy it at the moment due to big popularity of the ipod. people don't think twice.

but that wont happen...

Whats next? A two button mouse? Seriously, I love Mac; but I can't hack a laptop that dosent right click.

not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet:

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Reference/A...

Note: Don’t confuse the i386 architecture with the i386 processor. Darwin makes use of instructions specific to the i486 and Pentium processors, and will not run on an i386 processor.

ah , it will not ever run on current pcs. trust me , sure , apple will have some kind of non-standard motherboard , bios , etc...and even if someone hacked it ..it might run , but you end up getting problems . this is a stupid move..seriously , i got a macs. but again if this is true , i am gonna ditch osx and run linux pcc..now thats more like it

Just wait, and we will see

It's logical, its feasible and it's apparently happening. Once Apple steps out of the ppc box the sky is the limit. Either way x86 hardware will be made to run with Apple, either by the hardware firms themselves, independent developers porting FreeBSD drivers or Apple doing it themselves.

Just when I started to seriously think about getting a powerbook, now Apple is thinking of switching to Intel????? Instead of gas Steve Jobs might as well fill up his car with soybean sauce...(actually I love soybean sauce...sorry for making that comparison soybean sauce! *hugs*)

If any of you Apple people are reading this...there's NO WAY I'm buying a powerbook with Intel inside...give me AMD or give me soybean sauce!

"It's logical, its feasible and it's apparently happening. Once Apple steps out of the ppc box the sky is the limit. Either way x86 hardware will be made to run with Apple, either by the hardware firms themselves, independent developers porting FreeBSD drivers or Apple doing it themselves."

Exactly and having Intel whose the biggest chip maker in ther world with facilities all over the world to product a million chips+ for Apple each quarter right now.

IF you remember... INTEL was one of the BIG investors in Apple.. Microsoft is still an investor in Apple and Microsoft HATES PPC. and Microsoft would LOVE to see windows on apple PCs...

Now.... Why would they go with AMD when Intel is more superior in every way?

If you do your research, you will notice that intel has more capability to make a better product and Xeons beat Opterons in terms of TCO costs! People just like AMD because they are the underdog.. And they hate monopolies.... Apple turning to intel would probably hurt them in that crowd. Another question would be.. why even by a mac when it just has an old intel cpu in it? Alot of people that just favor the underdog will probably turn their backs on apple for a while then keep with them as they are the alternative to big bad microsoft.. (oh wait, Linux has already stolen that crowd).... although Mac OS X is far more superior to linux.

I plan on picking up a Dual 2.7 G5 and stuffing it full of ram so's I can squeeze several years of life out of it.

Intel's on-chip DRM guarantees that I want nothing to do with their hardware.

By the time Apple is rumored to be switching to Intel the new Intel Conroe processor will be out. Conroe is based on the Merom mobile chip which is the successor to Dothan and Yonah. So it should not be as power hungry like the current Prescott furnances.

I don't think that has any significance. It's actually an old document pertaining specifically to Darwin (which has always been released in an x86 version).

I remember seeing that document a number of months ago. And look at the copywrite date in the page source:

META NAME = "Copyright" CONTENT="Copyright 2004 Apple Computer, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

I don't know if Apple plans to go x86 or not, but I don't think this document provides any clues.

If Apple does move to Intel, PowerPC is effectively OVER.

There are many more uses of ppc than just Apple computers. They are used in embedded devices like routers and also of course all three new console systems. I imagine even before the game systems come out that more ppc chips are sold in embedded devices than in Apples.

Okay, so using my telepathic link to Steve Jobs' mind, I'm going to lay out his real plan:

1) Put OS X on x86, but make it run on Apple hardware only. This will be hacked immediately, so anyone can theoretically install OS X on their Dells or HPs, but hardware support will be incomplete.

2) Wait for the hardware manufacturers, along with open-source hackers using commodity hardware, to fill in all the missing driver support. Assuming all goes well, move on to stage 3.

3) Sign licensing agreements with Dell and HP behind closed doors, then announce these agreements, along with news of a new OS release which will support both new and used non-Apple PCs.

4) Kill Microsoft, slowly but surely.

5) Become the top PC maker, since Apple's quality of engineering and design will translate to better sales than the competitors (who are suddenly on equal footing).

6) If (5) doesn't pan out, at least Apple will have taken over Microsoft's position as the top OS and application vendor.

"Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!"

On June 6th, Apple Computer will introduce Intel. And you'll see why 2006 will be like "1984".

Points 1 to 3 sound reasonable enough.

(4) Kill Microsoft, slowly but surely.

Not gonna happen. Unless you're talking decades here. And in any case it might be Linux or someone else entirely that does the killing. Note e.g. how there's no embedded Apple OS to compete with Linux and Windows CE.

5) Become the top PC maker, since Apple's quality of engineering and design will translate to better sales than the competitors (who are suddenly on equal footing).

Wishful thinking. Quality and design have their price, so Apple computers would continue to be more expensive. And the likes of Dell are very good at providing sufficient quality at a low price.

Isn't it possible for Intel to produce PowerPC chips as well?

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

THE RUMOURED APPLE MOVE to x86 is true, the INQIORER 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.

last post

Don't know, but I think it will take years to replace every Apple computer with x86 (assumed that Intell will provide x86 CPUs), and it's really weird that after the release of Tiger Apple make this OS obsolete because it cannot run on newer hardware.
Anyway one thing is sure: even if Apple will use x86 CPUs, they will make their custom computer line that will be better than any chinese or even Dell PC.
I hope that PPC won't die as it would be a good hardware platform.

apple will eat up 10%+ os market share for the next 5 years

http://internet-nexus.com/

there is simply no way Apple will move to a 32bit platform (x86 in this case)...no way whatsoever. that would be a huge step backwards for Apple, won't happen.

@goldstein

Hardly, the PowerPC is mostly used for embedded devices. The 970 might be killed though - due to IBM's Cell+Power strategy.

there is simply no way Apple will move to a 32bit platform (x86 in this case)...no way whatsoever. that would be a huge step backwards for Apple, won't happen.

x86 isn't 32-bit anymore. For the most part, all newer x86 implementations from Intel and AMD will be 64-bit capable, x64/x86-64/amd64/em64t whatever you want to call it.

Wait a moment... it ain't april foolsday yet!?

Stop spreading FUD. Enough said.

… but if Apple switch to x86, they must have a damn good PPC emulator that we never heard about.

What about the PearPC project?
See http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/ for details.

We all know that Apple have their fingers in opensource projects, this just might have been the iceing on the cake for apple, be nice to see them using it as parts of pearpc in the x86 platorm for the powerpc application emulation..

Why would Apple work with IBM to develop as far as G5, which is a highly superior system... and then drop it?

Hmmm...

1. The core of Mac OS X excluding the GUI already runs on x86 (has done for years) - download it from here free today: http://www.opendarwin.org/

2. Just because Apple may use Intel chips, doesn't mean they have to remain compatible with any existing legacy Intel based PC system.

3. The software technologies to support multiple architectures when writing GUI apps have been there for years. Back in the days of NeXT, projects could be compiled for the three processor architectures supported back then (Intel being one of them).

4. I've personally noticed Mac OS X header files show support for Intel architecture and that they have been maintained and updated even as recently as Tiger's SDKs - and I believe that includes header files regarding the GUI.

5. Xcode has always supported multiple architectures, there's this plus button for you to click on and you can type in a another architecture to build for.

6. Basically they could release Mac OS X for any processor architecture for which GCC (GNU Compiler Collection) supports.

7. I bought a dual 2.3GHz G5 system when they came out, I'm bored of Mac OS X now, seems rather messy under the hood, I'm about to format and replace it with a distribution of Linux. I'll still have the most quietest computer I've owned for many years.

Apple is able to get software vendor's to release updated versions of their software when they release a new operating system that breaks compatibility, this will be different but not that drastically different.
Also, if I understand correctly, and I believe someone mentioned this earlier.. NeXT supported released an application "bundle" that contains binaries for multiple platforms.. So someone could release an application that would be native to both during a transition period.
They could use PPC emulation to emulate programs that don't have a native version released. As most of us probably know PearPC is slow and no where near as fast as a real Mac but, in this situation the operating system, GUI, libraries, etc will be running at native speed so maybe the performance won't be too awfully bad. Also, eventually native versions of apps will be released.

From IBM's web site it looks like this chip has hit the end of the line

http://www-03.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/rdmap/

Apple could start using the POWER chips...

The people that say that "next compiled things three ways", or "Be compiled things two ways"...hmmmm..let me see? Where are those companies today? they are DEAD!

be flopped and was bought by palmsource
next died and was bought by apple.

Look at SGI....not doing so well (other than their superniche market, and even there...

And finally look at Rhapsody! Apple had made it possible for devs to compile both versions and devs ineviatably chose PPC over x86!

How much does a POWER4 or POWER5 chip cost?

If the switch to x86 does really happen, then their marketing will of course have to be changed to "Think...the same as everyone else".

...decades of innovation and non-conformism, replaced by a lousy processor design which is only still used by everyone else to ensure backward support. Both Intel and AMD have had to crowbar it into the 21st Century. I know retro is the new black, but surely even Jobs wouldn't go that far just to be iFashionable! Maybe he should have a word with Zilog and re-invent the Z80 whilst he's on a roll...

As someone else rightly pointed out, this path is well-worn, with the footprints of SGI and Sun to name but two, so I'm still not x86 convinced, I think there's more to this than meets the eye.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714
It looks like apple will switch to x86.

That is not a real news provider. Anyway they really should go AMD.

I didn't believe the rumours at first but the volume and number of sources seem to suggest this is actually going to happen.

Trouble is it doesn't make any sense. The chips might be a bit cheaper but Apple's sales are going up and they are making money, the performance difference will be insignificant and it may actually decrease in some areas.

But, there is a third option::

I had a thought that Apple might not "switch" but are instead going multi-platform. That would give them the choice of PPC or x86, they'd get the best of both worlds. This can and has been done, BeOS was x86 and PPC right up to R5, supporting the other processor type was often just a re-compile.

Apple would recompile the OS and apps and could throw in an fast JIT emulator for everything else, most people would never notice the difference.

AltiVec would be the biggest issue but perhaps they've done a special deal with Intel - AltiVec was originally an Apple technology.

Despite the extra work involved this will give Apple the major advantage of being able to pick and choose CPUs. It'll also put PPC directly in competition with x86 for the first time, if IBM and Freescale are serious about the desktop they'll have to compete with the same aggressiveness of x86 in both technology and price.

I could be wrong of course but this route would make things very interesting indeed.

"The people that say that "next compiled things three ways", or "Be compiled things two ways"...hmmmm..let me see? Where are those companies today? they are DEAD!

be flopped and was bought by palmsource
next died and was bought by apple. "

I'm not saying that Apple will try to have a PPC and an x86 version(or whatever they choose) going on at the same time. I was only pointing out that they have the technology to ship binaries for multiple architectures in one bundle. They wouldn't want to do it for a long period of time but, just during a transition phase until enough people move over to the new architecture. Also emulating the applications would allow other applications to run until they have native ports. This would make it possible for Apple to successfully switch architecture without dying. I believe any effort to suddenly switch architectures without backwards compatibility is going to fail.

I suppose we'll know sometime this week if they are up to something.

imho it' just rumor.
apple sells a lot for media - imaging, video etc.
the ppc architecture is just great for that...
do you think they will really switch their powermacs
from a 1.25GHz for each of the two processors
to 400MHz for both processors?
Plus, PPS are silent and save energy. my P4 laptop
has 2.5h of life, an apple has 6/7h...
summing the costs for developers, the loss in
architecture advantage etc etc against the wider
choice of processors at lower price, i still think
that apple doesen't really want to shift.
just my 2 cents

I think you're right in the statement that they don't WANT to switch. I'm sure if they are switching then they have a compelling reason to do so. Less heat, lower prices, long term advantnages, something...

It's fantastic!!! we need a new newton pda.

I realize that this comment does not address business sense or any of the other variables people have mentioned but, it could be that at least a good part of all this is that Jobs, after being burned and embarrassed by both Motarola and IBM, is simply fed up.

as a previous poster implied, i think they just ported darwin to xen: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenFaq#head-bb579ddda3999d87064a3...

Ok, I do not like the idea of Apple switching to Intel chips! I just bought a Powerbook for myself and a Mac Mini for my Mom. Those will be the last 2 MacsI ever buy if the rumor is true.

The only way I see it happening is if Apple has a product like Wine ready to go that allows PC applications to be run inside a window in OS X. This would eliminate emulation and allow peope to migrate to Macs with a safety net for their old applications.

Apple can rename the ITANIUM2 as the G6, tell everyone it runs Altivec and recompile OSX for the ITANIUM using INTEL compilers.
If the ITANIUM can run X86 code badly then it can run PPC code badly as well.
Intel is desperate to sell ITANIUM to someone and it would leave Apple with a premium exclusive instruction set.
If they run OSX on X86 it will just be pirated everywhere and their hardware business will probably collapse.
Unless they want to stop making computers of course.

Transitive Technologies not only offers QuickTransit software for PPC-on-x86
emulation, but for x86-on-PPC emulation as well:

http://www.quicktransit.com/products.htm

So if Apple does switch to x86, I would think it would incorporate
QuickTransit in both the PPC and x86 versions of Mac OS X.

The x86 Mac OS X apps could run unmodified on PPC Macs, and the PPC
Mac OS X apps could run unmodified on x86 Macs. And Apple wouldn't
totally cannibalize its existing PPC Mac hardware sales.

Everyone is happy - consumers, developers, third-party vendors, etc.

Of course, it's still possible that Apple simply enlisted Intel to supply PPC
processors. We'll just have to wait and see.

If Apple switch to Intel.. do they automatically becomes members of the trusted computing alliance ?

@ goldstein

Kill PowerPC? What processor arch do you think all the next gen game console manufacturers use?

IBM is still in the supercomputer business, those don't run on P4s.

Geeez...

Metrowerks recently sold all their x86 compiler technology to Nokia. Really sold it: they stopped selling CodeWarrior 9 until they could ensure all traces were removed from the CD (thank goodness I sprang for the license a while back!!!)

Metrowerks is a major Apple partner: they are the single biggest (possibly the only) reason the PowerPC transition succeeded. All the noise about wonderful Apple management is just that: there would have been *ZERO* PPC software for a year at least if Metrowerks hadn't appeared and saved them -> curtains to the PowerMac AND Apple in '94 or '95.

Does it make sense that MW would not have known that Apple was about to adopt x86? Would they have chosen to dump their x86 compiler (which is far, far better than MS's) if they did? Possibly, if MW is planning to exit the desktop software business anyway: their recent behavior has caused rumors to fly on that topic. And why did Nokia want it, for that matter? They could have had unlimited rights to use the technology for much less than buying it outright.

Why on Earth would Apple use Intel chips? Not only are AMD's better and cheaper, but AMD would have an interest in Apple other than killing off the PowerPC permanently (about the only reason Intel would even return Jobs' calls.)

Also bear in mind that there will be NO software for the new machines, and no drivers AT ALL for a long, long time to come. Without MW, there are no commercial quality development tools (gcc can do x86 code generation, but it isn't especially good at it; XCode has a long way to go yet.) No company in its right mind would spend the money to recompile and reoptimize programs for OSX86: it's hard enough to get them to release PPC versions that all Mac owners can use.

Bottom line: if Apple does try switching to x86, they'll be gone in a year or two at most. I buy Apple hardware to use MacOS, but a crippled, doomed port of iLife to x86 doesn't interest me. Linux (and possibly XP) will be running on the new boxes in no time, but will people pay extra to get nice hardware for that? Experience so far suggests that they won't: except for laptops, people run Windows because they don't know any better and only want the cheapest upfront price they can find.

If it happens (and I truly don't believe it will), I expect Apple's stock price to spike up as all the Wall Street idiots swoon with glee: I'll dump mine at the peak in a week or two, and figure I still have the best hardware/OS currently available (G5, TiBook) to use for a few more years while I move to Linux for good.

Is Safari already a x86 app?

i mean isn't it at it's roots(safari) X86?

No, Safari is only PPC native. You can't get it from Darwin or anything along those lines. It'd be neat to see it on other arch's, but that's not the case (at this point.)

Serveral hours (4:30 EST) and we'll hopefully see what the real deal is here. It'll be neat to see.

konqueror is essentially the x86 port of safari.... some things are different, but much of the code in konqueror comes directly from safari

"Serveral hours (4:30 EST) and we'll hopefully see what the real deal is here."

Yeah. It'll only be about 12 hours away now. Shame nobody just waited until Monday since this has been an on-going debate on the 'Net now for years. Yes, I commented on the story earlier on too.

I've read speculation on Slashdot, that Apple owns all the IP to the G5 as part of their contract with IBM. If Apple isn't happy they can cancel the contract with IBM and source another vendor to make the G5 chip for them. The speculation is that Apple with source the G5 chip to Intel. This seems to make the most sense out of all the wild speculation of switching to x86. I don't think the Itanium makes sense since its doubtful it will run on a laptop.

If customers even see 'with an Intel' processor on an Apple computer, regardless of architecture, they'll probably buy a PC instead. I don't think a lot of people can apprecaite the niceties of OS X until they actually 'use' it. The general public are too used to using Windows.

I just bought a iMac G5 on Thursday (this week before the news broke) from Apple. If I'm not happy with the news, as a first time Mac buyer, I'm not sure what I'll do. There's a chance I'll keep my PC. I haven't yet sold my Athlon 64 system. I'm torn apart as I don't want to go back to Windows or use Linux on the desktop. The Apple made productivity programs and OS, are I feel, the best in the industry.

If they switch to x86 they could purchase sun micro and double their size. apple's employees work a lot harder than sun employees so they will be able to cut costs greatly.

they could offer both sparc and x86 systems easily as PPC will be out of the picture.....

the opportunity will be great. it would be cool if they bought out blackberry too.

apple + blackberry + sun = computing powerhouse.

sun is so cheap right now that they could EASILY capture a HUGE server market precentage. Storage is getting better and better, more profitable that the storagetek addition would be awsome.

sadly, i dont think apple has done many acquisitions at all and they may be too arrogant to do it

doubtful.. IBM already has manufacturing facilities designed for this as intel does not. Although it's possible... It would cost intel more money to do this than IBM which makes no sense on ibm's part.

Once you take PPC out of a huge market segment of PC's that hurts ppc greatly--it will be reduced to the server and embedded market.. and as history shows that's when they slowly die.....

I think IBM is completely retarded. they sell their PC business which kills alot of the marketing power that they have and now their sales are dipping... their CEO needs to be fired immediately. It looks like sun is poised for better growth than ibm is.

How are those page hits doing for you osnews.com and the rest of the teh lame Wintel world? There is only one!

And you where wrong B.Gates-- Quality does matter. They've been lusting after, talking about and wanting Apple's OS since forever...

Does anyone know if gcc 4 has features that will facilitate a transition to x86? I kind of remember hearing things about auto vectorization, will that make transitioining for altivec to sse3 more feasible?

konqueror is essentially the x86 port of safari.... some things are different, but much of the code in konqueror comes directly from safari

And a KHTML developer WEEPS. First off, Konquerer is VERY different from Safari. It's not just a web browser even! Secondly, the Safari developers ported their work FROM x86. Third, what they have in common are KHTML and WebCore, the rendering engines! Even then both have evolved separately since Safari's birth and semi-fork.

"And you where wrong B.Gates-- Quality does matter. They've been lusting after, talking about and wanting Apple's OS since forever..."

I don't think so. Its OS X that people have been lusting after due to the BSD core and shiny desktop interface.

"I guess Apple will move to Intel, and they're relying on a fast, seamless emulator to do it.

But it's really about Hollywood: Apple's looking to transform the movie industry the same way the iPod and iTunes changed the music business."

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html?tw=rss.TOP

Perhaps if Apple hadn't shut down Exponential as a PPC maker, they'd have faster, cooler, more affordable CPU chips...

This was one of the stupid moves Apple has ever made...

Where do I pre-order? My better old (Windows) PC's are going to be Mac OS X, if it supports it.

I am sure Apple is not going to throw away its image of *polish* and *quality*. I am not worried. When it moved from 68k to PPC, quality got even better, IMHO.

Look, the bottom line is this: Two years ago, a Mac OS X notebook sells for about $3000, which is about the same as similarly configured Wintel notebook. Intel dropped its prices, and now I can get the Wintel notebook for about half price, but Powerbook stayed around the same price. "Half price" is significant to business budgets, obviously.

If it is compatible enough, maybe it could even run on VIA Mini-ITX for embedded applications, but that's probably getting ahead of the game right now.

Sorry if this is a dupe but this is specific to legacy intel.


Don’t confuse the i386 architecture with the i386 processor. Darwin makes use of instructions specific to the i486 and Pentium processors, and will not run on an i386 processor.


Move on. Nothing to see here.

I think they will launch a tablet/media player with a Centrino hybrid cpu, running a modified GUI for OSX.

Wait and see.

Oh, the betrayal. I've always felt PPC on the desktop was immensly helpful in promoting the biodiversity. I am sure Apple an IBM will urge not to panic, that there's n still servers, embedded devices, consoles... but I am afraid it is the beginning of the end.
And -- snap! -- (lost it), and, and the kids of nowadays don't even care!!! They understand CPUs in terms of clock frequency, of framerates in spirit crushingly uninspiring games, absurd cooling rigs and silly product names! They've never known the dark claustrophobic feelings when carefully piecing together 8086 code, they've never known the feeling of elation when programming MC68K and the sour taste after coming back to 486 just to laugh mad at erratic nature of its ISA, after finally managing to squeeze out that last optimized cycle... while dreaming of a machine having a "real processor". Double snap!! (totally lost it)

It's hard to imagine Apple going after the power hungry P4's. But maybe Apple is going to be Centrino-only. First starting with Sonoma, then the dual-core "Napa" rumored for 2006.

Between this news items, and the editorial we have over 500 posts on the topic!

This is a really momentus occasion!

Do all the fanboys believe it now? Leopard will run on Intel chips. Good news!

http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/06/06/intel.transition/

1. Steve announced it at AWWDC, so it's true
2. OS X has been "cross-platform by design" for years now
3. Conversion between the platforms isn't too difficult
4. Microsoft will continue to create future versions of Office for Mac.

Cheers.