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
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.