Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Apple Switching To Intel Chips In 2006

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the late-lamented-powerpc dept.

Intel 1427

telstar writes "According to C|Net, Apple has officially decided to drop IBM, and will use Intel processors starting in their '06 line of systems. This change was rumored last month. The announcement is expected Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco, at which Chief Executive Steve Jobs is giving the keynote speech." From the article: "Apple successfully navigated a switch in the 1990s from Motorola's 680x0 line of processors to the Power line jointly made by Motorola and IBM. That switch also required software to be revamped to take advantage of the new processors' performance, but emulation software permitted older programs to run on the new machines."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

stupid (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720238)

apple is dying!

April Fools? Right? (2, Interesting)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720239)

Wasn't April a couple months ago?

I suppose C|Net could be right, there's nothing technically stopping a 'switch' to Intel, but I don't see what Intel has in 2006 that IBM can't match, or AMD, or whoever.

Apple vs IBM (4, Interesting)

xswl0931 (562013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720325)

More likely, knowing Steve Jobs, he couldn't get his way with IBM, so he threatened to go to Intel. IBM decided to call the bluff.

Re:Apple vs IBM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720366)

wow, so you know him personally?

Re:April Fools? Right? (1)

geekee (591277) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720377)

"...but I don't see what Intel has in 2006 that IBM can't match, or AMD, or whoever."

price? (IBM anyway)

Re:April Fools? Right? (2, Interesting)

aSiTiC (519647) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720390)

I suppose C|Net could be right, there's nothing technically stopping a 'switch' to Intel, but I don't see what Intel has in 2006 that IBM can't match, or AMD, or whoever.
What does Intel have in 2006 that IBM and AMD can't match? Say it with me... YONAH! :)

Hello Pear! (4, Funny)

eltoyoboyo (750015) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720240)

Looks like they will want to snap up a bunch of developers from the PearPC project!

not just processors... (2, Interesting)

cRueLio (679516) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720242)

remember though, guys, that this doesn't mean that the rest of the system will be compliant with *ATX or the new BTX... so it might not work on your whitebox computer

The sky is falling! (2, Interesting)

mrshowtime (562809) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720243)

How odd, Microsoft uses apple dv kits for the xbox 360 and IBM power pc chips and now apple drops IBM for Intel, how freakin' strange is that?

Re:The sky is falling! (1)

IronTek (153138) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720296)

Yeah...I never really thought the day would come...

Then again, like you said, "Microsoft uses apple dv kits for the xbox 360 and IBM power pc chips."

Maybe Steve, in his infinite wisdom, figured that whatever Microsoft is doing has to be wrong and has thus taken the opposite approach.

Of course (and one can only speculate), Mr. Jobs had NeXtStep ported to x86 back in the day, and even used a Thinkpad running NeXt for a while when he first came back to Apple.

So perhaps it's not that Steve is anti-x86 at all, but rather the Mac zealots are...Not to worry though. If anyone can bring them back in line, Steve's patented reality distortion field can!

Any Evidence At All? (4, Insightful)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720244)

There's nothing to substantiate their story. It's all down to "CNET has learned..." and nothing else.

Is this yet another rumour? Is there anything to be read in Apple meeting with Intel above the idea that they might go PCIe instead of PCI-X?

Re:Any Evidence At All? (1)

dcclark (846336) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720304)

In addition, CNET's main answer to the insane technical issues that this would involve is, "Steve Jobs said it would work."

Re:Any Evidence At All? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720330)

Well that line fooled everyone that owns an Apple didn't it?

x86 (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720246)

so... OS X86. Maybe it'll be called Chameleon instead of these cat names? crossing platforms, it will be!

MacOSX on x86? (3, Interesting)

Espectr0 (577637) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720248)

How will they make sure MacOSX doesn't run on cheap X86 machines? Or will they use a different chip family?

Re:MacOSX on x86? (1)

Bri3D (584578) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720299)

I'm thinking along the lines of a custom memory controller/chipset/BIOS, because any simple software blocks will be hacked.

Re:MacOSX on x86? (1)

[null] (4156) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720335)

Bets that someone will reverse-engineer it in time?

"$GENERIC_TAIWANESE_HARDWARE_CO announces Apple/OS X compatable motherboard!"

Re:MacOSX on x86? (4, Interesting)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720311)

They could always create their own motherboard, chipset, and drivers. I mean, right now Darwin doesn't run on any x86 other than the 440BX chipset. so if Apple get's it's own chipset I don't see why OS X would run on any other. Right now every release of new hardware has a corresponding point release of the OS that includes firmware and drivers for the new machine.

Four words: (1)

Senjutsu (614542) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720332)

Keep booting with OpenFirmware

Re:MacOSX on x86? (1)

Bigthecat (678093) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720354)

Hmm, they could always allow it and finally bring real competition to Microsoft on their home ground? I can dream..

Re:MacOSX on x86? (4, Interesting)

travail_jgd (80602) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720372)

If it's true... they'd be foolish not to use only 64-bit processors (maybe dual-cores only). Then again, some site [slashdot.org] reported that Intel was adding DRM to their CPUs and chipsets.

Maybe the DRM was the clincher for Apple.

I wonder... (1)

Anonymous Cumshot (859434) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720249)

If they can make a G5 powerbook possible..

cool (1)

junglst (855009) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720250)

cool i guess...

Must be a slow news week at CNET... (5, Funny)

MuckSavage (658302) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720251)

Really, this has been on the table many times. When will this rumor die? Oh, and on tuesday, Steve will announce that Disney is purchasing Apple.

Slashdot slashdotted? (1)

cachimaster (127194) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720253)

What is this error:
The requested URL (apple/05/06/04/0238235.shtml?tid=118&tid=3&tid=13 7) was not found.

If you feel like it, mail the url, and where ya came from to pater@slashdot.org.
Maybe the article was too new? wow FP

I for one... (1)

Adam Avangelist (808947) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720255)

Welcome our brethren Mac users to the unwashed masses of the x86 world.

Your system is not inherently better than my POS E-Machine.

68k emulation easy, but what about PPC emulation? (4, Interesting)

silentbozo (542534) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720261)

Emulating 68k stuff is easy, thanks to the cumulative efforts of some very talented individuals working on multiple platforms. But what about decent PPC emulation? Are they going to force recompiles of new software, and completely abandon support for old PPC binaries, or are they going to have really slow support of PPC software?

Re:68k emulation easy, but what about PPC emulatio (1)

Bri3D (584578) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720321)

Seeing as how PearPC is at about 20% real CPU and qemu can emulate Linux/PPC apps quickly, both having no apple insider access I'd say the PPC emulation will be fairly fast like about 60-70% real CPU speed because the overhead will be lower.

Interesting. (1)

WilyCoder (736280) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720262)

Interesting. I wonder if Apple even approached AMD (or vice versa).....

Nooo.. (1)

d2_m_viant (811261) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720263)

Damnit.

Just after I bought a bunch of AMD stock.
When will those damn execs at Apple stop thinking different!? :)

Re:Nooo.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720293)

I would think Apple + Opteron would make more sense. It would be a fit much like the PPC except with the advantages of cheap PC hardware.

Bad, Bad Move (1)

Jerk City Troll (661616) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720265)

I doubt they will be able to emulate a G5 on an Intel chip like they could old 68k on PowerPC. So, the Apple customer is now forced to figure out whether they buy the PPC or x86 version of a package. Same goes with hardware. Aside from OS X, Apple is just going to become another Dell. What really distinguishes them if they start using the same junky platform as everyone else?

Re:Bad, Bad Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720278)

Junky? What's makes it junky exactly?

Because you can buy high quality but cheap parts? Because there is lots of variety? I don't get it, what?

Re:Bad, Bad Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720351)

Maybe he meant Intel instead of AMD? Though coming from a mac zealot that's not very likely.

Just realize that they're all idiots and it makes all the questions go away.

Re:Bad, Bad Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720327)

Not necessarily. Perhaps those alleged discussions with Intel revolved around Intel creating a PPC compatible chip. They're big enough and they could just charge Apple a premium for the low volume.

Intel is the 800 lb gorilla in the chip world and they show no signs of collapsing any time soon. If there's any truth to these rumors, perhaps Apple is just tired of backing the wrong horse, want a consistent supply of chips from a proven leader rather than nifty but inconsistent niche chips.

Re:Bad, Bad Move (1)

Mieckowski (741243) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720336)

NeXT applications were able to run on multiple machines, I think. Because the apps on Mac OS are just folders, it is not too hard to put two executables in the same application. So, while developers would need to update their programs for x86, there would only be one version sold that works on both platforms.

Re:Bad, Bad Move (1)

Bri3D (584578) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720367)

Yes. It's called "fat binaries" and can even allow your app to run on multiple OSes.

They should have gone there 2 years ago (-1, Redundant)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720266)

It was about time. They should have gone with it 2 years ago already, before the G5 stuff. They should have notice that IBM was not able to deliver faster versions of the CPU (Jobs was expecting 3 GHz in 2004, somemthing that IBM did not deliver not even this year) and most importantly, versions of the chip that could really fit well on a laptop -- the best selling Macs. Apple bought IBM's promises and they screwed themselves once more time.

Right... let's see now... one more change for developers and users on the Mac land...

OH F**K... (1)

UberGeekEdward (857976) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720268)

Like the wintel monopoly is not large enough. Now Apple has joined it. This is not good for the Geek world

Elucidate please (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720269)

Does this mean Apple is going X86 and that I will be able to utilize my spare AMD Sempron 2800+ soon?

AMD (1)

3770 (560838) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720273)

This doesn't make sense on many levels.

But if they were to switch to x86 it would make more sense if they switched to AMD than to Intel.

Re:AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720360)

AMD can not produce that many chips. Oh wait, this is Apple computers were talking about. Yeah, they could maintain that level of extra production easily.

Re:AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720362)

This makes sense on many levels.

Apple market share is less than 2%. Apple makes money selling every rev of os 10.n. Why not increase the number of potential buyers 50X

IBM has not kept pace with the Intel race.

AMD has the edge on desktops. Intel is untouchable for Laptops. I bet we see fanless pentium mobiles used in the new macs.

Strange Days... (1, Interesting)

TedTschopp (244839) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720274)

Microsoft goes for the IBM Power PC chips as Apple signs on for the Intel Chips.

I can hardly wait until tomorrow to see what other strange things are afoot.

Re:Strange Days... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720282)

No, it just shows that business is business and the best valued option wins. It's the stupid zealots that can't get their head around business decisions and instead they thinking irrationally.

The developer scene... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720275)

I'm not familar with how programs are developed on the Mac these days. I'm assuming that they're not using Pascal anymore. How are programs being developed on the Mac and will that change if Apple goes Intel Inside?

Re:The developer scene... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720310)

Objective C.

Re:The developer scene... (1)

cide1 (126814) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720350)

OS X ships with XCode, which is sortof like visual studio. You can write in Java, C, C++, Objective-C, Python, and a bunch of others I'm forgetting. For C, C++, and Objective-C, the actual compiler is GCC.

Re:The developer scene... (1)

FrozedSolid (201777) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720374)

Most of the userland apps are written in Objective-C with an interface library called Cocoa. Presuming this article has any sort of truth to it, and OSX gets an x86 port, you can asssume they'll have a port of Cocoa, the gui toolkit, to go along with it. The apple devkit uses gcc, which can be compiled on x86. So, I don't see what would stop a developer from just using gcc on x86 OSX to recompile their apps.

If you read the article you'll see they doubt the possibility of a platform shift because of a lot of flak that apple caught after they switched off of the motorola 68k platform. The difference now is that the majority of apps back then were written entirely in asm, and the new PPC proccessor used a completely new instruction set, pretty much destroying any semblance of compatibility. While I'm still skeptical, I don't think it would be as big of an issue as it was then due to the prevelance of Obj-C which is much more platform-independent

I think Vader said it the best (0)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720277)

NOOOOO!

I just hope they keep them cool enough. Some of our P4 systems at work sound like jets taking off.

Same old trick (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720281)

1. Say they're going to switch
2. Then deny they're going to switch
3. Then they do it anyway

4. Supposedly with profit about here somewhere

The Desperate Need For Validation In The x86 World (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720283)

So sad.

Dream on x86 fanboys...

Re:The Desperate Need For Validation In The x86 Wo (2, Insightful)

fmaxwell (249001) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720361)

Dream on x86 fanboys...

Oh, if only those of us with x86 Intel and AMD CPUs could have the sluggish performance and high prices that one can get with a PowerPC system. I feel the jealousy welling up inside of me... :)

Seriously, grow up. It's just a CPU. Intel's CPUs offer more bang for the buck than IBM's PowerPC CPUs. It's not surprising given how many more Intel sells and how much more they have for R&D as a result. If the story is true, then Apple recognizes this and realizes that they can make more money with Intel CPUs while giving their customer base better performance. It's not religion. It's business. Just like the past Apple decisions to support PCI bus, IDE drives, USB, etc. Apple is a for-profit company and they base their product design decisions on that.

Hell has frozen over. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720284)

Hell has officially frozen over. My god they sold their souls.

Holy wtf? (1)

Gleng (537516) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720285)

Apple switching to x86 next year. Debian sarge released on Monday. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!

Re:Holy wtf? (1)

samhalliday (653858) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720365)

This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos. Steven King rising from the grave!

Re:Holy wtf? (1)

Tokerat (150341) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720381)


Note: The article only says Intel, NOT x86. If Apple switches to x86 processors you can kiss them goodbye, guarenteed.

It is NOT official (4, Informative)

vivek7006 (585218) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720286)

From the report IBM, Intel and Apple declined to comment for this story. How the hell does that make official?

New device (4, Interesting)

BWJones (18351) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720290)

So while this is technically feasible, I doubt that Apple is planning a wholesale switch to Intel chips as there is too much invested in both marketing and developer relations. From a technical perspective, Darwin runs on both platforms and there have been long standing rumors of Apple maintaining dual codebases for current OS X releases, so making things run would not be a problem. Developers however, would require significant resources to recompile their code for compatibility. I suspect that the News.com story is only partially correct. Apple has for some time been using Intel chips in their Xserve, and their may very well be additional products yet to be announced. However, think about this possibility: Apple has significant resources devoted to Altivec just about everywhere in the OS, functions that are not available in any currently shipping Intel chip. But imagine this: What if rather than OS X being run on x86, Intel were to produce a PPC chip with Altivec? I do not know what the current licensing agreements are with Apple, IBM and Motorola, but if the licensing were prohibitive, perhaps Apple certainly could help with the reverse engineering of such a chip.

Even that seems like a bit of a stretch to me as I suspect the reality is more like Apple will be using Intel chips in a potential variety of new areas. Chips for networking and WIMAX for example. Or.....given the performance of Intel mobile chips relative to Motorola chips, perhaps as a warning shot across the bow of IBM, Apple will announce that Apple portable systems like Powerbooks will move to Intel chips. Even though I am quite the Apple aficionado, I have to admit that Intel is doing some pretty impressive portable CPUs. Near future plans for Intel portables include built in WiFi and dual cores. However, I realize that this would introduce more than a little difficulty for developers who have a "portable OS" and a "desktop OS" which would suck.

So....perhaps what is really going to happen is that Intel will produce a "portable" PPC chip for something new? Something like a new Newton? If I recall correctly, my Newton 130 ran an ARM chip, and I believe that Intel has the license rights to develop ARM based CPU cores..... Oh please oh please oh please.....

Alternative processors than Intel? (1)

moojin (124799) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720292)

Why wouldn't Apple consider using AMD processors or the new Cell processor?

Re:Alternative processors than Intel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720317)

Cell processor for desktop?? Keep Dreaming, dude.

Attention Microsoft! (0)

iroger (691423) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720294)

"All your base are belong to us"

You heard it here first (0)

cxreg (44671) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720295)

Apple will put big money into the WINE project within the next 2 years

Re:You heard it here first (1)

Oopsz (127422) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720359)

WINE is not an emulator! It's a translation layer, it's totally useless on a non-x86 platform.

Re:You heard it here first (4, Funny)

cxreg (44671) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720383)

WINE is not an emulator! It's a translation layer, it's totally useless on a non-x86 platform.

Thanks for the insight. Did you happen to miss the entire point of this slashdot post?

I think I see apple's strategy... (1)

oldosadmin (759103) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720297)

They're going to make hell freeze over, then blackmail satan into giving them Microsoft.

Just kidding, but right after hell freezes over, I might just be installing OSX on my AMD chip ;)

Don't start thinking you'l be able to . . . (2, Informative)

dgrgich (179442) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720300)

. . . run OS X on whatever Intel system you want, folks. I'm sure that there will be a dozen "I can't wait to put this on my blah-blah-blah Dell blah-blah-blah".

Apple is a hardware company. They will make damn sure that you can only run their software on their hardware.

Graphics/Video edge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720301)

What does this mean for the edge that Macs have traditionally held in graphics/video areas of the industry. Will an Intel powered Mac be able to compete? I know the software has played a part in their success, but the PowerPC architecture is still one of the most capable and robust.

It's going to be a terribly difficult rewrite... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720302)

...for Apple as all their current operating systems depend on correct floating-point results.

Or not (1)

Bri3D (584578) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720348)

The OS X calculator sure doesn't: 9533.24 - 215.10 =9318.139999999999 [mikeindustries.com] . Another user wrote in to MacAddict magazine about this with some number around 40, I believe.

And it's true (1)

mcc (14761) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720305)

Cuz, y'know, C|Net owns Apple and all, so they'd know.

very unlikely (1)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720307)

We can't deffinitively deny this, and anyone that can is under an NDA.

However, I think the consensus is that we'd have to see it to believe it. And that means it'll have to come from Steve's mouth, not some IT rumor mill.

Same year as Longhorn (1)

RoadkillBunny (662203) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720309)

Isn't MS Longhorn supposed to come out that year?

Trusted computing (1)

4shadow (869365) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720313)

Please tell me this doesn't mean Apple is going to support the hardware-level DRM model.... I read earlier on Slashdot [slashdot.org] that Intel was going to try to implement DRM on its new line of CPUs. If Apple supports trusted computing, the world is coming to an end, so someone please tell me that I'm just overlooking something.

Where's As Seen on TV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720315)

As Seen on TV, where are you? Speak up, dear friend!

Joke... (1)

jammer 4 (34274) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720318)

This has got to be a joke. CNET scooping the rumor sites? That's gotta be unheard of.

Big brother sees you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720323)

Expect that your Mac will be uniquely identified (just like PCs with Intel CPUs have been for a while). It's Christmas for **AA and law enforcement agencies.

I'll believe it when I see it. (1)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720324)

I'll believe it when I see it.
I just can't believe that they would require all the software to be recompiled for x86.
This could just put apple back in the pre-OS X era.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720375)

Christians are stupid.

damn (1)

pHatidic (163975) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720326)

what else is there to say really.

That's it, I'm done.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720333)

...and so are Apple. I'm out of computing for good. Apple were wrong to put all the eggs in one basket with IBM who clearly had no intention of delivering better G5s anytime soon.

But we really are at the end, at least of Apple's computing platform, ipods and stuff will probably still keep selling but computers are history for Apple, and they will get very few switchers anyway. They won't be able to sustain their increased price margins now if they go with Intel, so that business model is dead. They have no leverage at all to make a dent in Window's dominance at somewhere between 2-4% coverage and anyone who thinks otherwise is in total cloud cuckoo land, especially with Longhorn on the horizon.

See you later Apple. You've changed a lot since Jobs came back, and I hated Tiger anyway to be honest, it's quite clear it's not aimed at Mac users but at the vapour PC Switchers.

This obviously means no Powerbook G5s (4, Informative)

dgrgich (179442) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720334)

I'm sure that others have surmised this. There is absolutely no way that Apple will invest the money in an expensive-for-the-consumer line of computers that will be partially obsolete in less than two years; who in their right mind would buy them?

It also occurs to me - another point that I'm sure others have already thought of - that this may be why they are forced to switch to Intel. They can't get chips small enough for a Powerbook G5 line.

Goodbye IBM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720337)

Hello a hell of a lot easier buffer overflows...

Rumor (1)

karvind (833059) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720340)

I should have guessed something was fishy when Intel head recommended Apple [slashdot.org] .

It is all clear now, folks...

It doesn't make sense. (1)

porkchop_d_clown (39923) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720341)

What has Intel been showing off their Mac Mini clone if their chips are going to be in real Mac minis?

Overlooked points... (4, Interesting)

Geiger581 (471105) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720343)

1) IBM has opened up Cell, royalty-free.

2) Apple will never let MacOS run on an open platform/commodity hardware again.

3) AMD has virtually no non-x86 CPU tech.

I predict that Intel will either manufacture a Cell derivative or a big-endian, possibly non-x86 propreitary CPU and chipset.

Bone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720344)

Good. I'm tired of empty promises and hyperbole when it comes to Mac performance. As a faithful user and creative professional I couldn't be happier with the prospect of faster Macs. However, I just got done reading about the Cell processor in Business 2.0. Man, I'd love to see what one of those could do with Final Cut Studio. I don't know if that would ever be on the horizon but I guess it would be out of the question if Apple goes Intel. I wish Apple would have tapped AMD as Intel is too close to Dell for my tastes.

New Linux ports (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720346)

I strongly suspect there will be a whole bunch of Linux distros "ported" over to Apple machines. :)

A whole new world of anyone who can afford the boxes putting Linux on prettier machines.. That's the only real advantage I've ever seen in Apple machines anyways.

[ducking from all the MacFans]

Ok, for the MS fans, I'm sure someone will put together something to make Windows work.

I would have prefered to see them go to AMD64.. That would have been a seriously impressive jump.

I wonder if maybe it's just a rumor. Or maybe someone at Apple leaked the word they were going to X86 compatible. I know there were plenty of rumors Apple and AMD talking in the past.

"sources said" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720347)

Uhhh.. did anyone notice that they just have a "souces said" tagline? Who are these sources!? They do no even attempt to substantiate this "announcement."

I guess everything's coming up Intel these days if there is real truth to the matter. First Sun and now Apple switch to x86. At least Sun is going open source. And from the beta blogs its looking like they are integrating some nice open source projects such as GRUB and Xorg.

think different (1)

gullevek (174152) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720349)

everybody who thinks now, P4 in Apple thinks wrong. If Apple will switch, then intel will build them PPC compatbile chips. Its very likley that Apple wouldn't use stock P4 stuff in their boxes.

But well, it could also but a rumor :)

portable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720352)

My take... they could not produce a portable version of the G5 and needed something else then the aging G4 in their line of laptop for 2006.

Since IBM could not deliver and AMD/Intel are preaty hard to beat on the perf/cost ratio they made up their mind.

Phil

I don't buy it. (1)

anamexis (753041) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720358)

How much did Apple just spend optimizing for Altivec and now the 970/G5? Seems rather stupid to switch now.

Virtual PC (1)

skingers6894 (816110) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720364)

I can see one HUGE advantage in the performance of PC emulators. Mac OS AND the ability to run "legacy" windows apps at close to 100% speed.

Nice.

This Makes Business Sense to Me (1)

mzeb (568373) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720368)

I recall last year Steve making the promise of 3.0GHz G5's by the end of the year when the G5 was first released. Did it materialize? No, not even a year and a half later. From his history, Steve doesn't like being made a fool of, and he may be feeling like that right now. IBM didn't live up to the expectations steve had asked them for. They lose. Time to switch partners. And with the rumored x86 version of OS X that I will rumor once again is still floating around, it's not to hard for this to materialize soon.

vague (1)

TripHammer (668315) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720369)

The article hardly mentioned x86. The author assumes Intel == x86. Upon reading the headline I assumed it would be Intel making PowerPC chips. In my opinion PowerPC was the best thing Apple had going hardware wise.

In Soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720370)

...chips change YOU!

My supreme G5 rig [mac.com]

Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720376)

If true, that'd be a major shift in gears for Apple - industry pundits have proclaimed Intel as 'the right way for Apple' for 20+ years.

But if anyone can pull it off, it's Apple. They've gone through several large and highly successful architecture changes - namely 68k --> PowerPC and OS1-9 ==> OS X. Major.

Well, we'll see what happens. It'll certainly level the playing field with Windows hardware.

from the article... (1)

bnitsua (72438) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720382)

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.

I fail to see the logic there...

Its simple really, more money. (1)

SteveXE (641833) | more than 9 years ago | (#12720387)

This change is easy to understand. Apple has the first OS that can really begin to challenge Windows on the average consumer level. The limitation was the hardware of an Apple Computer. The only way they can fight Windows is by using the same hardware. Open hardware means more sales, plain and simple.

X86? Or Itanium? Or Intel-PPC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12720389)

The article doesn't state exactly which Intel chips they'd be using... Is X86 a foregone conclusion, or is it possible Apple could be migrating to Itanium? Or is it possible that they want Intel to manufacture a PowerPC clone chip?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?