Steve jobs hints at a switch to x86


Recommended Posts

This could be a hint, or it could be a scare tactic for Motorola to get their thumbs out of their asses:

Some analysts have also urged Apple to move to microchips from Intel Corp. INTC.O from those made by Motorola Inc. MOT.N and International Business Machines Corp. IBM.N to cut costs.

Asked about that possibility, Jobs said that first the company had to finish the transition to the OS X operating system, expected around the end of this year.

"Then we'll have options, and we like to have options," he said.

Link

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/38494-steve-jobs-hints-at-a-switch-to-x86/
Share on other sites

Even if Apple did switch to another chip manufacturer, it wouldn't insure a transition to an X86 line of chips. Almost every major chipmaker has different chip departments for different chip types. Intel is known for it's Pentium line up, but makes more than X86 chips.

Plus, a vast majority of applications won't run. Photoshop 7 for example.

Only cocoa apps will be able to be easily converted, Photoshop 7 and the majority or major apps are Carbon.

This is done to scare Motorola, there are plenty of other Chip manafacturers out there that can supply custom desktop chips to Apple.

IBM's Power 4 chip is a possibilty and it's a beast.

Originally posted by Dazzla

Plus, a vast majority of applications won't run. Photoshop 7 for example.

Only cocoa apps will be able to be easily converted, Photoshop 7 and the majority or major apps are Carbon.

This is done to scare Motorola, there are plenty of other Chip manafacturers out there that can supply custom desktop chips to Apple.

IBM's Power 4 chip is a possibilty and it's a beast.

I'd sell every PC I own and jump on Apple if they switched to the Power4 chip...those things are awesome!

For those that don't know, it's a powerPC based chip with even shorter pipes, insane clock speeds, better floating point and beats the living crap out of almost any other chip available...The Power4 is to G4 as Pentium4 is to Pentium2.

I'm sure chaning from Motorola to Intel does not mean a change to x86. Intel's manufacturing the G3 chips right now for Apple from what I understand... And the license for the PowerPC CPU architecture is owned by Apple, Motorola and Intel together.. Correct me if I'm wrong though. I just read an article a couple of days ago about this, can't remember where though..

lmao you PC people are hilarious. Just because Intel is making the chips that doesn't mean they are going to be x86. They can just drum up a deal so they give Intel the technology to make powerpc chips. lol you poor people getting your collective knickers all in a twist.

Originally posted by cerbero

I'm sure chaning from Motorola to Intel does not mean a change to x86. Intel's manufacturing the G3 chips right now for Apple from what I understand... And the license for the PowerPC CPU architecture is owned by Apple, Motorola and Intel together.. Correct me if I'm wrong though. I just read an article a couple of days ago about this, can't remember where though..

The G3 is produced by IBM and Motorola. IBM far exceeds Motorola in this, it's capable of scaling it's version of the G3 to 1.5GHz. Their top end G3 will outperform the high end G4 from Motorola.

The G4 though has Altivec, this is owned by Motorola and if Apple wanted IBM to produce G4 chips (which would be a good thing) they would have to buy the rights from Motorola.

Here's some specs:

IBM G3

Motorola's limited G4

The fabled G5

This looks pretty appealing

Originally posted by Dazzla

The G3 is produced by IBM and Motorola. IBM far exceeds Motorola in this, it's capable of scaling it's version of the G3 to 1.5GHz. Their top end G3 will outperform the high end G4 from Motorola.

The G4 though has Altivec, this is owned by Motorola and if Apple wanted IBM to produce G4 chips (which would be a good thing) they would have to buy the rights from Motorola.

Here's some specs:

IBM G3

Motorola's limited G4

The fabled G5

This looks pretty appealing

Ah yes. I confused IBM with Intel.. Sorry about that :)
Originally posted by johnqpublic

just as with the mmx extensions, altivec doesn't offer as significant of an advantage when there's about 500mhz more of raw processing power ... let's give it up IBM!

Agreed, Motorola can only ship 1GHz G4's atm but IBM can ship G3's at 1.5 GHz.

Apple doesn't mean **** to Motorola.

Yeah, it would be nice to have OSX on Intel but thats only because we, presumably, wouldn't have to buy new hardware. There is no way I can see Mac making only the OS as a source of revenue. Can't make enough money on it. They are really a hardware company in the end. The only reason I think MS was able to pull off what it did is the enrollment of large companies upgrading Office, OS desktop and server and other major apps every year or so.

I think Apple is trying to consider AMD as the next runner up. I don't know if AMD would make a complete switch to MAC or still make PC hardware. Of course, the system has to remain proprietary to some degree which isn't bad as long as the hardware is good. I'm always annoyed at the low-quality crap hardware you see on the PC.

Lets make this interesting though. What if Apple went with SPARC (which SUN uses), Alpha or MIPS (which SGI uses) based processors instead? All are completely different architectures than X86 and have had a lot of money dumped into research for them and all are proven performers. While SUN and SGI don't manufacture their own chips, my argument is that there are other fab plants in the world other than AMD, Intel and Motorola and other processor technologies.

Dazzla, consider that while Motorola isn't really desparate for money right now (they sell a lot of Communications and semiconductors), I recall reading sevarl months they really screwed up on some major contracts for the US military (I think they were for satellites). While Apples' business may not be a huge chunk, they might want to reconsider since they probably are going to lose some businness from the military.

Well if Jobs wanted to take MS head on, he would get together and do a few things:

1. Make Mac OS run on x86(and make it so current cpus could handle it)

2. Write drivers for the majority of hardware out there, that doesnt of course, have drivers for mac already there.

3. Make a nifty utility that allows u to transfer ur docs and saved pics and **** from Windows to ur nifty new Mac Os-PC.

Just my thoughts....Heck, I would repartition some space for mac os on Pc

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I have a Motorola, one of the lower end ones, it works fine. It is possible to get rid of the Gemini app and also to disable googles assistant , but A.i is still apps. I try to avoid all LLM A.I, is i can, I use no Ai duck duck go.
    • Free Software Foundation Europe pushes EU to force Google to allow AI uninstalls on Android by Paul Hill Credit: Pexels Users should be able to fully uninstall AI-based features from Android devices and be able to access interoperability functions, free from Google’s verification requirements, the European Commission has heard as part of an Android interoperability consultation under the Digital Markets Act. These measures were proposed by the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) last week when it submitted its documentation. The FSFE noted that Google had started silently installing AI models without telling users. It noted that the EU’s DMA requires companies like Google to allow users to uninstall pre-loaded software from their devices, but in the case of the AI models Google is installing, they reinstall if you delete them, contravening the DMA. To get Google back under control, the FSFE has told the European Commission that there needs to be improvements within the Android Open Source Project (AOSP). First, it said that users should be able to fully remove pre-loaded AI components from their devices, with companies being prohibited from silently reinstalling or reactivating them. Second, access to Android interoperability features should not be contingent on registration, authorization, or contractual relationships with Google. This pertains to Google’s attempt to force developers to register with Google, even to publish apps to alternative app stores like F-Droid. Discussing its submission, Lucas Lasota, FSFE Legal Programme Manager, said: Google is planning to roll out its Android Developer Certification in September 2026. This will force every Android app developer to register with Google before their software can be installed on certified Android devices, but it should affect those who have removed Google Apps from their device. The program is controversial because it entails the signing of contracts and payment of account fees to Google, as well as the handing over of the identities of developers. It said: The FSFE said that if the Commission’s draft measures remain unchanged, then Google will be allowed to make developers verify their identity. The FSFE believes that asking developers to register is contrary to the text and spirit of the law. In summary, the FSFE has told the Commission that no developer should need a Google account, a Play Store presence, or any agreement with Google to access Android’s interoperability features.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      sumytbe earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      B4dM1k3 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      DarkWun earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      519
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      188
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      87
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      81
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!