Apple to use Intel chips.
- Thread starter Fox5
- Start date
On the one hand, you'd think AMD would be a perfect fit for Apple's image. OTOH, it wouldn't be too out of character for Apple to go for an all-Pentium-M lineup, especially if Intel is headed in that direction. And Intel probably has more manufacturing capability than AMD.
But, man, the Athlon 64 is just kicking the P4's ass all over the place. It'd be a pity for AMD to have lost out over the platform.
But, man, the Athlon 64 is just kicking the P4's ass all over the place. It'd be a pity for AMD to have lost out over the platform.
lopri said:
Yeah, assuming that x86 == PC is wrong. The XBox is powered by an x86 processor, how many people run the XBox operating system on their PC?
Apple could quite easily produce a closed-platform x86-based system. Driver support is a non-issue, they only need to produce drivers for hardware that they sell (that in itself would pretty much prevent anyone trying to run OS X on a Dell).
Folks seem to be assuming that Apple will end up competing with Dell on the hardware and Microsoft on the software, but if they play their cards right than that won't be the case. Apple sell a hardware + software package, and people buy that package because they like both elements (neatly packaged hardware, a pretty-looking OS). They don't buy Apple because of what CPU it runs on (well most don't anyway). Honestly the switch to x86 really don't change that equation.
Kanyamagufa
Regular
Apple is most definately profiting off of their software - in fact it's where they generate most of their income. Especially with all of this 'digital hub' software.
I think the main purpose of this switch is to create a faster Powerbook. Currently, the G5 is to hot to put in one and at the same time, it is needed the most. The Powerbook just can't compete with a G4 anymore and Apple has held out as long as they can. I think this switch to Intel just proves that the G5 was not going to be ready to go mobile any time soon.
Also, I think Apple's worst fears were realized when they had to start water-cooling the G5 chips at 2.5 GHz. It looks like there's not to much headroom left and they were supposed to have hit 3 GHz last summer.
x86 processors on a Mac have been rumored many many many times before, but I think the predictions are correct this time.
I think the main purpose of this switch is to create a faster Powerbook. Currently, the G5 is to hot to put in one and at the same time, it is needed the most. The Powerbook just can't compete with a G4 anymore and Apple has held out as long as they can. I think this switch to Intel just proves that the G5 was not going to be ready to go mobile any time soon.
Also, I think Apple's worst fears were realized when they had to start water-cooling the G5 chips at 2.5 GHz. It looks like there's not to much headroom left and they were supposed to have hit 3 GHz last summer.
x86 processors on a Mac have been rumored many many many times before, but I think the predictions are correct this time.
Yep. Confirmed from the horse's mouth.
Reasoning as stated by Jobs:
- Intel offers more performance per watt.
- Stagnation in the PowerPC arch. No roadmap for the future.
- All version of OS X have been secretly built for Intel chips alongside PowerPC versions -- it's cross-platform by design.
- APIs will more or less remain the same. Apps will only need 'tweaking' and a recompile.
- Rosetta is a dynamic binary translator. Current PowerPC apps will be able to run on Intel chips transparently. Performance is 'pretty fast'.
- During the transition, apps will be delivered as 'universal binaries' which will run natively on PowerPC or Intel. Similar to the old 'fat binaries' during the 680x0 -> PowerPC transition, I assume.
Reasoning as stated by Jobs:
- Intel offers more performance per watt.
- Stagnation in the PowerPC arch. No roadmap for the future.
- All version of OS X have been secretly built for Intel chips alongside PowerPC versions -- it's cross-platform by design.
- APIs will more or less remain the same. Apps will only need 'tweaking' and a recompile.
- Rosetta is a dynamic binary translator. Current PowerPC apps will be able to run on Intel chips transparently. Performance is 'pretty fast'.
- During the transition, apps will be delivered as 'universal binaries' which will run natively on PowerPC or Intel. Similar to the old 'fat binaries' during the 680x0 -> PowerPC transition, I assume.
Brimstone said:
I agree, but linux still lacks in alot of places and is not very desktop friendly, for the comon user, and I think cell will just add more complexity
I know they said the cell will be in worstations and severs are they even making it available for the home desktop market
pegisys said:
True... the statement that for the past five years they have compiled OS X for X86 could mean that it will run, including drivers, on an off-the-shelf bread-and-butter X86 motherboard.
Hmm... let's hope they won't put code in like:
if (CPUID != "Intel" && CPUID == "AMD")
{
fprintf (stderr, "We're sorry, but buy Intel next time")
}
else
{
// Steve is god
_intel_enable_amd64_instruction_set();
}
;-)
therealskywolf
Regular
Holy Crap, this is kinda Big, wonder what Bill Gates is thinking right now.
According to Apple, MacOSX will only run on Apple hardware. (Whether this can change is an open question, but that's what the horses mouth is saying right now.)
Apple will want to continue as they have by offering a complete package - hardware, OS, core software, and is unlikely to be interested in having to deal with the cruftier aspects of the Wintellian environment. And why should they, they have no reason to support any Wintel legacy technology, software or hardware.
This quote should clarify:
Apple will want to continue as they have by offering a complete package - hardware, OS, core software, and is unlikely to be interested in having to deal with the cruftier aspects of the Wintellian environment. And why should they, they have no reason to support any Wintel legacy technology, software or hardware.
This quote should clarify:
Here is the keynote :
http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/wwdc/05/
I however really love the quote from none other Peter Glaskowsky :
" “It’s a bunch of bull,†Peter Glaskowsky, analyst for The Envisioneering Group, in Seaford, N.Y., told Ziff Davis Internet News. “Firstly, Apple certainly pays much less for IBM and Freescale processors than Intel charges for comparable chips. Probably less than half as much on average. The G5 is a smaller, more efficient chip than the Pentium 4, and IBM has no other customers willing to buy large quantities.â€
http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/intel_apple_odds_and_ends
So don't mind what you read , Steve Jobs is wrong ! Glaskowsky pwnz Jobs
http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/wwdc/05/
I however really love the quote from none other Peter Glaskowsky :
" “It’s a bunch of bull,†Peter Glaskowsky, analyst for The Envisioneering Group, in Seaford, N.Y., told Ziff Davis Internet News. “Firstly, Apple certainly pays much less for IBM and Freescale processors than Intel charges for comparable chips. Probably less than half as much on average. The G5 is a smaller, more efficient chip than the Pentium 4, and IBM has no other customers willing to buy large quantities.â€
http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/intel_apple_odds_and_ends
So don't mind what you read , Steve Jobs is wrong ! Glaskowsky pwnz Jobs
Cowboy X said:Here is the keynote :
http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/wwdc/05/
I however really love the quote from none other Peter Glaskowsky :
" “It’s a bunch of bull,†Peter Glaskowsky, analyst for The Envisioneering Group, in Seaford, N.Y., told Ziff Davis Internet News. “Firstly, Apple certainly pays much less for IBM and Freescale processors than Intel charges for comparable chips. Probably less than half as much on average. The G5 is a smaller, more efficient chip than the Pentium 4, and IBM has no other customers willing to buy large quantities.â€
http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/intel_apple_odds_and_ends
So don't mind what you read , Steve Jobs is wrong ! Glaskowsky pwnz Jobs
The G5 probably is cheaper to produce, but how does he know how much IBM sells it for? x86 chips are much much higher margin, and that could drive prices down.(certainly apple products aren't cheap, so if they're getting a good deal they don't pass it on to the consumer)
