NEWS: Apple explores use of Intel chips

kandyman676 · 05-23-2005, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Apple Computer Inc. has been in talks that could lead to a decision soon to use Intel Corp. chips in its Macintosh computer line, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

The report, citing two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies, said Apple will agree to use Intel chips.

Neither company would confirm the report and an Apple spokeswoman told the Journal she would characterize it as "rumor and speculation."

Yes, I almost went *gasp* myself. Full article here:
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/news...E-INTEL-DC.XML

This would be good and bad. Good for Mac prices to finally fall and use some common chipsets of Intel, but bad since Macs are built for reliability on approved hardware.

Opinions?

Hcomplyr · 05-23-2005, 10:18 AM

It just means apple will be able to sell more software, big deal. I think its an intelligent move really, if they can prove that the Mac OS is, in fact, much more advanced than windows XP the only way to prove it is to make it as widely available as possible. On thier main compeditors platform. They will sell more and make the market for OS's much more competitive therefor prices for both may fall and features will be added and issues addressed much more quickly.

This is something they should have done years ago.

Delivery_Guy · 05-23-2005, 11:40 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by Hcomplyr

It just means apple will be able to sell more software, big deal. I think its an intelligent move really, if they can prove that the Mac OS is, in fact, much more advanced than windows XP the only way to prove it is to make it as widely available as possible. On thier main compeditors platform. They will sell more and make the market for OS's much more competitive therefor prices for both may fall and features will be added and issues addressed much more quickly.

This is something they should have done years ago.

I don't think they are saying they are going to release OS X on x386. But rather, just have intel make some chips for them, much like IBM is making for them.

dmeyer · 05-23-2005, 11:47 AM

won't happen.

[mac] · 05-24-2005, 04:10 AM

neverever. what would be the advantage? someone just wants to make himself interesting.

they speculate since the 90s for intel-cpus... but why? like the "apple is dead" since 1993.

the main-idea of these "jouranlists" and "analysts" are: they cannot stand the idea that some computers will be bought, not running bill gates' windows with all its viruses, worms and bluescreens *jaddajadda*

why should anyone want to run winXP *seriously* on their mac, or why should export apple their superior OS to the intel-plattform? so that every script-kiddie could suck it on p2p and run on his on the p4 hyperkickmecounterstrikerefrigeratorcooled5ghzthin gythangy?

why should apple risk the backstep in cpu-reliability and -performance? why should apple stand the risk of loosing its hardware-section (when osx would be ported to and would run on *any* low-cost intel-machine), or, loosing its software-section (running XPhome, Longhorn or the winME *scnr* instead on stylish macs)

[edit] perhaps they look around for alternatives, for xscale cpus in a new apple pda like the legendary newton or for some high-end intel-based network-technology for the xserve /cluster, a parallel installed intel-based processor to the ibm-cpus in a multiprocessor-super-and-does-it-all-server running solaris, macos, linux(intel), linux(ppc) and longhorn at the same time in realtime *sfg*. even when they switch from ibm g5-cpus to intel 64bitwhatsoever, i do not think that windows will ever run on a mac *natively*, and never ever osx will run *natively* on a wintel. there are enough emulators, so why mix the systems? or does anyone run solaris on a amd barton? well, mine runs on a sparc-station (...)

in germany the not-having-any-idea-about-whatsoever-"journalists" go one step further... for them it is *known* and *for sure* that macs will run on windows sooner than soon... and it is a *real* advance and step into the future for the poor sold apple-machines *roflol* yeah, right!
http://www.n-tv.de/535099.html

kandyman676 · 05-24-2005, 07:24 AM

Mac OS X is actually a 64 bit system. the PowerPC G5 is a 64 bit processor, but Mac OS X *just* started to use the 64 bit register with the 10.4 release.

since Intel *just* started 64 bit desktop processor (ignoring their Itanium enterprise line), it could be possible...but too much of a recode if you think about it due to the chip architectures.

I would love to see AMD instead of Intel make their chip:-)

sdashiki · 05-24-2005, 10:52 AM

um why go from Big Blue to boohoo? Um IBM makes the best chips in the world for multimedia applications. Why else are all three next gen consoles going to be PowerPC chips?

The ol days of PC/IBM compatible are dead, so I doubt apple is going to abandon IBM for intel, when Intel has nothing new to offer.

Bugbyte · 05-24-2005, 08:49 PM

I just don't think Apple can afford to risk commoditizing their hardware sales. If OSX ran on Intel, immediately there would be super low-cost machines and super high end machines, leaving Apple with the middle of the pack. That's what happened when Apple permitted clones back in the 90's.

The system integration issues would be immense and they'd lose a lot of the advantages you get with the integrated hardware/software. They're just not big enough to support a wide range of machines.

That seems to leave them with perhaps porting it to an Intel chip, but only for a very specific Apple-branded hardware set. I guess that's a possibility but I'd think people would push for it to run on all machines. And doing that would be an all out attack on Microsoft. It's probably unwise to awake a sleeping giant. Right now, M$ needs Apple to prove they aren't a monopoly but they wouldn't stand by and watch Apple port their OS to their platform.

sdashiki · 05-25-2005, 09:43 AM

Its a bargaining chip, plain and simple. Look at steve jobs history of business deals/ventures, the man is a straight up business genius, at least on paper.

I dont know, I didnt write his biography. But anyway

I think apple saw, with the tiger rumor leaks that ended in lawsuits, that the internet rumor mill can generate more press faster than internally among big business. Soooo perhaps this new rumor is just fuel to get IBM to work harder for the Mac...

thatshortkid · 05-25-2005, 12:54 PM

um.... hate to rain on the speculation parade, but intel makes more than processors. the article mentions "chips", not processors specifically (though i don't know if the article author understands the difference). this rumor gets started almost every few months and it's probably something akin to the nic chips intel has been supplying apple on and off for years now.

noodles · 05-25-2005, 01:40 PM

Yeah, this does get mentioned every few months. Publicity.

frodobaggins · 05-25-2005, 07:25 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by kandyman676

...but bad since Macs are built for reliability on approved hardware.

Opinions?

Well, this *news* goes on from time to time and such, but here is the thing.
Moving it to x86 processors would not necessarily mean it would run on any
pc. Apple would still likely limit the hardware and such that it would run on.
It would still be a mac, just not using motorolla/ibm hardware.

Bugbyte · 05-25-2005, 07:47 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by frodobaggins

It would still be a mac, just not using motorolla/ibm hardware.

Right. And what would the point of that be? The changeover to the new processor would be huge from a software standpoint and if you couldn't run OSX on a Dell, well, what's the point? Might as well stick with the PowerPCs and maybe switch in a couple year's time when that processor runs its course.

I suppose I could see them putting the XServe on Intel. That would have fewer issues, particularly given the environment for servers. That would make it easier for them to sell more OS's to companies that have XServe's, but I wouldn't think it would be a consumer port.

thecapitalizt · 05-25-2005, 10:06 PM

seriously, the Intel rumors have been as old as apple itself. Do you realize how ridiculously hard it would be to make this switch? If they wanted to make the switch to intel they would've done it during the OS X switchover, but no, they didn't. plus theres the superiority of the architectuer itself. There's a reason why Linus Torvalds uses a G5 as his main machine now...

Hcomplyr · 05-26-2005, 08:33 AM

if linux can run on just about any hardware i'm sure mac os could be ported fairly easily