Neowin.net - Apple allegedly explores using Intel chips

Apple allegedly explores using Intel chips

Posted by malebolgia on 23 May 2005 - 15:24 · 94 comments & 4708 views

Apple Computer has been in talks that could lead to a decision soon to use Intel chips in its Macintosh line, according to a report published Monday.

The Wall Street Journal, citing two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies, reported that Apple will agree to use Intel chips. Neither company would confirm the report, and an Apple representative told the Journal that the information should be characterized as "rumor and speculation."

It was unclear whether such a move would signal a large-scale shift away from chips made by IBM, Apple's longtime supplier, the article said. Apple could choose to add some Intel-based models to its product line or make a complete shift to Intel's chip technology in what would be seen as a serious blow to IBM's chip business, the newspaper said

News source: C|Net News.com

Components in normal version:

Default User Interface
Standard input array
Standard DSP array
Album List
Converter (formerly known as Diskwriter)
Masstagger
ReplayGain Scanner

Components in full version:

all components from the normal version, plus
ABX comparator
AC3 decoder
ALAC decoder
Archive reader (supports 7-Zip, RAR, ZIP, GZIP)
Audio CD writer
Autoplaylist
CD Audio decoder
Crossfeed DSP
Database search
DUMB module decoder
DXi MIDI synthesizer host
Festalon
Game Emu Player
OggPreview
sidplay2
Utilities

New features (incomplete):

Improved playlist management: all playlists are editable without being active, multiple playlists with the same name, Autoplaylists
Field remappings in titleformat scripts: see Titleformat Introduction and Titleformat Reference for details
Tag merging: combines information from multiple tag formats on the same file
Cleaned-up preferences
On-line help system for preferences pages (uses the HA wiki)
Playback queue
...

Hide additional information

About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: vet

malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline

Total votes: 0

Bookmark on del.icio.us

Advertisement

(6 replies) #1 Posted by grimreaper on 23 May 2005 - 15:28: haha MS uses PowerPC chip for X360, apple uses Intel chip.

(3 replies) #2 Posted by protoss_chaos on 23 May 2005 - 15:30: GOOD! finally, emulating MacOS on a pc wont be so rough!

No more ppc emulation! w00t!

/me hopes they switch!

#3 Posted by Colonel_Angus on 23 May 2005 - 15:33: So, Intel will start making PowerPC chips?

(1 reply) #4 Posted by moloko on 23 May 2005 - 15:34: I think this is being overblown right now. It is just a rumor. It could be for a chip not related to the CPU.

(2 replies) #5 Posted by Billprozac on 23 May 2005 - 15:36: Hmmm, that would involve a lot of R&D to port OSX to the x86 platform. I doubt this would ever happen, although, it would open a new market to Mac.

(3 replies) #6 Posted by CubanPete on 23 May 2005 - 15:36: I dont think this means Apple are going x86!

So dont get to carried away about running mac os on ya pc.

If they do go to intel i'd imagine intel would simply make a powerpc chip, i.e. a RISC Cpu! Not a "Pc Chip"

Intel make many different types of chips, not just x86 platform ones

I'd probably put money on Apple not going x86 to be honest, they seam to like having the hardware/software monopoly. If they went x86 you wouldnt have to buy their overpriced hardware and they would lose out greatly!!!

Last edited by 28857 on 23 May 2005 - 15:41

(1 reply) #7 Posted by eAi on 23 May 2005 - 15:43: Read this article http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/23/apple_intel/ before comenting on this post.

(4 replies) #8 Posted by Hankyone on 23 May 2005 - 15:50: just to clarify things:
Apple will NOT go x86
there wont be a MacOS for x86, exept in your imaginative world

(10 replies) #9 Posted by nic on 23 May 2005 - 16:06: Why would Apple move to an inferior architecture from the PowerPC? The only reason why x86 still exists is to support legacy code. I think Microsoft and Intel should come up with a new architecture from scratch. With such high-level languages these days, the support for old binaries is really holding the Windows platform back. Backwards compatibility was a great marketing tool through the 80s and 90s, now I think customers are more interested in performance.

(3 replies) #10 Posted by SFalcon on 23 May 2005 - 16:23: It doesn't come out and say that they're going to use Intel for processors, they just keep saying "chips". Intel makes all kinds of chips...

If Apple did make a processor switch, I'd doubt they jump to x86. They'd probably go w/the Itanium like was predicted a few years back. This would explain why Apple would talk only w/Intel as AMD doesn't have an Itanium counterpart.

(3 replies) #11 Posted by Danrarbc641 on 23 May 2005 - 16:23: Why would they go Intel? AMD would give them a better chip for a lower price, at least right now. The situation changes every now and then with Intel having a better chip out, then AMD goes and beats that :p

#12 Posted by Ficman on 23 May 2005 - 16:38: Is this not the 6th Sign of the empending apocalypse?

Last edited by 26342 on 23 May 2005 - 16:47

#13 Posted by xSuRgEx on 23 May 2005 - 16:44: worth tracking this thread. could get reather intresting.

#14 Posted by neufuse on 23 May 2005 - 16:48: I remember back with the Apple ][ ... they had Intel chips in them (not the proc, but other components intel made)

#15 Posted by mattisking on 23 May 2005 - 16:52: Just keep in mind... this particular rumor has made the rounds many times over the years. True or not... does anyone really care?

(4 replies) #16 Posted by protoss_chaos on 23 May 2005 - 16:57: Think about it, if they made a special version of MacOS, then they could try to take a much bigger chunk away from microsoft... True, their hardware would probably take a pretty big hit, But in all reality, i would imagine they would make that up very fast from software sales, while *hurting* MS alot...

It would be wise of them to swith over!

(6 replies) #17 Posted by protoss_chaos on 23 May 2005 - 17:58: Hmm... $129 a copy... thats cheaper than XP pro! Not to mention the thousands of people who will decide to buy a copy to work with their pc.

Think about it:
pay several thousands for an Apple Computer, or just buy a pc for a few hundered and throw mac os on for maybe a hundred or two more... which is cheaper here????

Hardware manufacturers would ship some pc's with MacOS etc.

Of course people would pirate it... people pirate everything!

(2 replies) #18 Posted by Darkinspiration on 23 May 2005 - 17:59: Bah apple is using intel chip already. Some old G4 models had ethernet controler made by intel. I'm sure that some recent model have some kind of intel controler be it sound or wifi or ethernet....

call me when this is news

#19 Posted by cacoe on 23 May 2005 - 18:26: from the sounds of it, i think as x86 was once known as "ibm compatible" and the fact that ibm make powerpc, that intel will simply take the role of producing ppc chips, it'd be way too much work for apple to change to x86 and it'd also be one less reason to get a mac anyway

(1 reply) #20 Posted by SlakeT on 23 May 2005 - 18:49: Apple would be smart to if they want to survive as a computer company - and not just a music company.

(10 replies) #21 Posted by aristotle-dude on 23 May 2005 - 19:26

LOL you X86 fanboys are so damn clueless and can't seem to be able to RTFA.

QUOTE

Neither company would confirm the report, and an Apple representative told the Journal that the information should be characterized as "rumor and speculation."

This article (which appears on C/NET, Washington Post and CNN Money) is a load of hogwash. Whomever wrote the original article is a clueless fanboy.

Switching to x86 would cost Apple "more", not less. PPC Chips are cheap, Apple owns designs of it's own motherboard chipset and they use Open Firmware instead of BIOS.

This would be the "death" of Apple as all the "third-party" developers would leave the platform. Do you think Adobe would recode their apps for an X86 OS X? Do you think Microsoft would release their Office products for another X86 OS? Do you think all of the game developers would recode all of their Altivec code into SSE? A platform without software is dead.

Do you guys really think Apple would gain anything from the switch? Software would run slower and they would pay "more" for CPU's and motherboard chipsets not to mentions they would either have to abandon their superior open firmware for Bios or provide an interface between Open firmware and Intel Chipsets.

#21.1 Posted by SlakeT on 23 May 2005 - 19:58: geez...do we have issues? BTW - you should read up on the whole speed issue my friend. Many variables to consider.

#21.2 Posted by aristotle-dude on 23 May 2005 - 20:21: SlakeT, are you talking to yourself and your tape worm or are you asking me a question? Do you use mac? If no, why do you feel a compulsion to post here?

I know there are "many" variables to consider including:
- Instruction pipeline length
- cache size and speed
- FSB Speed
- shared ram versus dedicated ram
- instruction length
- instruction branch prediction
- parallel thread execution
- number and size of general purpose registers
- availability of a vector math processor
- precision of FPU/VPU
- and clock frequency.

Have a nice day.

#21.3 Posted by roadwarrior on 23 May 2005 - 20:25: The biggest variable to consider for the large number of Apple's customers who do video production work would be the loss of AltiVec when going to x86. Much of the high end video software on the Mac makes heavy use of it, so all of that would have to be totally re-written.

#21.4 Posted by metro on 23 May 2005 - 20:25: Before this was even rumored on C|Net, there were rumors being passed around at WinHEC by some respectable people in the industry who would be deemed as trustworthy in terms of inside dealings. Still, it could be speculation at this point buy why argue over it if you are unsure yourself?

#21.5 Posted by aristotle-dude on 23 May 2005 - 21:03: Why am I so sure about this? Because switching platforms is a major undertaking. Apple did switch once from Motorola 68k to PPC but that was not not the same thing. The PPC could easily emulate 68k code because they were both Big endian and the 68k chips were slower.

Apple could not survive another switch. There would be a mass developer revolt. Windows is not "awesome" but it is considered "good enough" for some people whereas during the switch from 68k to PPC, windows was a mess.

#21.6 Posted by SlakeT on 24 May 2005 - 02:00

aristotle-dude

QUOTE

Do you use mac? If no, why do you feel a compulsion to post here?

I'm in advertising and I have a mac and a Windows machine on my desk thank you very much (my Windows box is ohh so much faster). I read and post on many threads via neoWIN.net.

QUOTE

are you talking to yourself and your tape worm or are you asking me a question?

No question, just an observation of your obvious and compelling need to defend the current state of apple and their mac machines. Seems a bit over-the-top for my taste.

#21.7 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 24 May 2005 - 04:40: While still being in conflict, I guess it's nice to see that SlakeT has matured some.

Aristotle: This is all 100% speculation, just because what you think is likely by no means makes it true. I don't own a Mac, but this article is very interesting. So I guess I'm posting here for the same reason I'm reading, to stay informed about technology news whether it personally affects me or not.

#21.8 Posted by aristotle-dude on 24 May 2005 - 05:10: Speculation is fine and I think it is fun but I do think it is dangerous for financial publications like the Wall Street Journal to publish "rumors" and speculation without doing any research of their own.

I'm sure that there are many people here on Neowin who say they would love to run OS X on their PCs but I don't see that happening.

I don't think everyone here grasps what a huge difference there is between the two architectures and how all current software would not work or would require "very slow" emulation. I remember NeXTStep and I remember that they ported to X86. I also remember that it was very expensive and had limited hardware compatibility.

OS X is so cheap only because it's development is subsidized by the "hardware" apple sells. A standalone X86 version would cost twice as much as XP Pro.

Finally, as a developer I realize that software written specifically for G4/G5 processors cannot be recompiled for for X86.

It's the rich selection of quality (spyware/adware free) freeware and commercial software that makes my platform of choice to enjoyable to use for me. I don't see the appeal of running an OS on x86 if it would not have any native software available for it.

#21.9 Posted by bluarash on 24 May 2005 - 06:06: >I'm sure that there are many people here on Neowin who say they would love to run OS X >on their PCs but I don't see that happening.
I actually doubt this. I own a Macintosh (two actually), Windows 2003 Server (converted workstation), and an OpenBSD box. I have no interest in OSX being on a PC. There is limit software selection and most application such as Photoshop and Dreamweaver run better on x86 hardware. OSX does make a nice developer system (Xcode, elect) and the GNU ports are nice. The iApps are terrible with the exception of iTunes, which isn't bad, but isn't good either.

>OS X is so cheap only because it's development is subsidized by the "hardware" apple >sells. A standalone X86 version would cost twice as much as XP Pro.
Please provide some kind of source for this "knowledge" if you are not just inventing this as you go along.

>Finally, as a developer I realize that software written specifically for G4/G5 processors >cannot be recompiled for for X86.
Most software is not written in low level, but rather one of a number of high level languages. Given that Xcode is objective C it would be fairly easy to port most applications if one really wanted to. Look at Linux, OpenBSD, and NetBSD and the GNU port tree. Further, most software does not actually take advantage of any G4/G5 specific features like the v-engine.

I can't fault you for having an interest in the Macintosh and PowerPC hardware, but it puzzles me that would posting the usual propaganda on a Windows website. I could easily head over to Macrumors, Macosrumors, Macslash, and Thinksecret and post a number of the advantages of GNU/Linux or Windows. I, however, think that everyone has a right to their own "reality."

#21.10 Posted by roadwarrior on 24 May 2005 - 12:12

@ Bluarash: please use the quote button, it will make your posts much easier to read.

QUOTE

Most software is not written in low level, but rather one of a number of high level languages. Given that Xcode is objective C it would be fairly easy to port most applications if one really wanted to. Look at Linux, OpenBSD, and NetBSD and the GNU port tree. Further, most software does not actually take advantage of any G4/G5 specific features like the v-engine.

I think you underestimate how much software these days actually does make use of AltiVec. Pretty much any video editing software and even programs like Photoshop make heavy use of it. That's one reason they run faster on my 600Mhz G4 than they do on my 800Mhz G3. Since one of the largest markets for Macs is graphic design and video editing, a move to x86 architecture would cripple the very programs they rely on.

No one is saying that it wouldn't be possible to write a version of OS X that ran on x86 (of course it would, Darwin already does, as did Rhapsody and NeXTStep/OpenStep). What people are saying is that many programs would not perform as well on x86 as they do on G4's and G5's. It would be analogous to dropping everyone back to G3's, although at a higher clock rate than any G3 that was produced.

#22 Posted by ev0| on 23 May 2005 - 19:34: bah ! it's probably a tactic to either a.) test peoples reaction or b.) aid in negotiations with IBM over PPC cost

#23 Posted by mihir on 23 May 2005 - 19:39: they should go AMD.

#24 Posted by gnuman on 23 May 2005 - 20:25: AMD is the way to go. If anyone knows AMD leased out part of their Dresden plant to Apple a few years ago. Apple going Intel is like IBM going Cyrix again it would be an extremely painful move.

AMD architecture and Apple's processor uses roughly the same processing and also uses HyperTransport and not a bus like Intel.

For those who don't know Darwin is Mac OS X ported to PC based on BSD the only thing you don't get is the Apple Gui. It would be smart for AMD and Apple to work together very close arcitectures and also the huge throughput on AMD's dualcore processors.

#25 Posted by - diego - on 23 May 2005 - 20:50: i want tiger in my pc

#26 Posted by betasp on 23 May 2005 - 21:30: I am shocked at how many people assume Intel meas X86. It doesn't, period. Intel could be offering to produce PowerPc arcitecture based processors for Apple. Apple is a HARWARE company that makes good software. There is no advantage to going x86.

#27 Posted by Hills420 on 23 May 2005 - 21:36: There is no way they will switch. It is just a tactic to negotiate with IBM, their current chip maker. Besides, PowerPC chips are faster/more powerful than Pentiums

#28 Posted by jasondefaoite on 23 May 2005 - 22:31: This ain't the first time something like this has come up, and it may not be the last Why would Apple go for Intel rather than AMD...

1. Cost, knowing Intels incentive bonuses (see Dell), they can be way cheaper than AMD if they want do (legally or otherwise).

2. Its for the mobile platform, not the desktop CPU. The Sonoma chipset is key. The PowerPC G5s ain't exactly the most mobile of chips. Check out the expected battery life of an powerbook vs Sonoma based laptop...Additionally this is why its Intel rather than AMD, who are just entering this market segment. Intel are the current masters there.

It ain't about desktops!

Last edited by 17936 on 23 May 2005 - 22:45

#29 Posted by zanzibar on 23 May 2005 - 23:02: 1. "Allegedly". Please remember what this means before talking about how Apple will move to Intel chips.

2. Even if Apple is going to move to an Intel chip, you can rest soundly knowing it would not be a Pentium (and likely not a derivative either, as the G5 was of the Power5).