Stop the presses: Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it’s scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel’s microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned.
Apple to drop PPC for x86?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
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 680×0, 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 680×0, PPC, and ARM were superior to x86. I still think so.
The 680×0 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 680×0 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.