Apple ditching IBM, goes for Intel Processors - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

I-Hate-Hulse · 06-06-2005, 06:06 PM

I know there's a lot of Macheads around here... this is some pretty groundshaking stuff.... straight from CNet

Link

"After years of trying to get people to switch to Macs from Intel-based computers, Apple Computer itself has switched.

CEO Steve Jobs announced Monday that Apple will gradually shift its Mac line to Intel-based chips over the next two years. The move confirms a timetable first reported by CNET News.com.

As for why Apple was making the shift, Jobs pointed both to past problems and to the PowerPC road map, which he said won't deliver enough performance at the low-power usages needed for powerful notebooks."

It'll be interesting to see how the legions of Machead take this news. The OS will remain different, but it'll be a much harder sell when Macs are compared to Wintel Machines on a dollar for dollar basis. Mac developers are probably punching walls right now, for all the time and resources it'll take to port their wares over to the new intel machines, and still maintain legacy support.

Too bad, Apple seemed to be on a roll...

greerb · 06-06-2005, 06:18 PM

Me bein a Mac-head myself I was shocked of when I heard the news, yet on the other I think it will be good for the company to get more people to use OS-X, with talk of running OS-X and Windoze on the same PC will actually spark intrest in some knowing that they won't have to spen a wad of cash to run Apple. i for one can't stand Microsoft so I will be still buying my Apple only computer when the new chips hit.

Reggie Dunlop · 06-06-2005, 06:28 PM

Apple is making a play for the burgeoning digital Home Entertainment "Server" market (i.e. making the personal computer the hub).

Interesting times indeed.

photon · 06-06-2005, 06:36 PM

Given that they've been parallel developing OSX on x86 for years and years now, and seeing how they've handled the transition I think this will probably work pretty well for them.

That emulator they demoed today was pretty amazing really.

Apple had to do this because the PPC just wasn't giving the performance, and as Jobs said today they may be ok but they need to worry about the future.. there is no G5 laptop and the laptop market is huge!

I'm kind of disapointed they didn't go with AMD though. They had that performance per watt graph, and AMD's performance per watt is far better than Intel's (except for the Pentium M, not sure how that compares but that's an impressive processor). But AMD can't even handle the demand they have now let alone adding Apple.

Overall though I see it as a good move for Apple. It means their performance will scale up to match the x86 side of things as time goes by. Hopefully it means easier porting of software from one platform to another meaning more apps for OSX (especially games).

Hopefully it also means that Apple's hardware costs will come down.

That's always what restricts me from getting a Mac.. The high cost, performance issues, I can't build my own system, and the lower catalogue of gaming titles. This move has the potential to address all of those; IF they choose to. The proof will be in the pudding however.

Quote:

with talk of running OS-X and Windoze on the same PC will actually spark intrest in some knowing that they won't have to spen a wad of cash to run Apple.

That won't be the case though, you'll still have to buy Apple hardware to run Apple software. How they accomplish this and if they can restrict people hacking it to run OSX on any computer remains to be seen.

EDIT: One comment I read today that I found funny: "Microsoft has switched to a PowerPC from IBM and Apple has switched to a Pentium from Intel. The world must be ending!"

EDIT2: Oh, and while OSX won't run on a generic PC, maybe Windows will run on an Apple? THAT would be funny.

greerb · 06-06-2005, 06:57 PM

If you all want to hear some good views on these happenings I would recomend heading over to

thisweekintech.com and downloading John C. Dvorak views in Episode 0008.

Resolute 14 · 06-06-2005, 06:59 PM

If the chips that Intel builds for Apple run on the same architecture as they do for IBM-compatiables, it is entirely possible.

I wonder how Motorola feels about this. I wonder just how much money their contract to build CPUs for Apple was worth.

photon · 06-06-2005, 07:04 PM

EDIT3: http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/in...lysts/index.php

Quote:

Apple also confirmed that they would not stop customers from running Windows on the Intel-based Mac, although the Mac OS will not run on another PC.

dustygoon · 06-06-2005, 07:11 PM

For what it is worth....if anyone is interested in investing around this news, Freescale (ticker is FSL) actually makes the chips for motorola that were going into Apple. The stock was down a couple percent today and could go down some more once analysts come out with reports on how significant/insignificant the apple business was to Freescale. As always, be wary of free investment advice!!! I am not involved in this stock and you should do some work on the stock before doing anything but I noticed a tidbit of news today saying Freescale could be hurt from this.

Faid1 · 06-06-2005, 07:12 PM

I think I'm still going to buy a Mac Mini.

calculoso · 06-06-2005, 07:12 PM

I wonder how many would try to triple-boot these PC's... running Windows, Mac OS, and Linux all on the same PC.

Incinerator · 06-07-2005, 12:37 AM

Muahahahaha...it is your destiny...Steve....WELCOME, to the Dark Side

Resolute 14 · 06-07-2005, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by photon@Jun 6 2005, 06:04 PM
EDIT3: http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/in...lysts/index.php

Quote:

Apple also confirmed that they would not stop customers from running Windows on the Intel-based Mac, although the Mac OS will not run on another PC.

Bad call on Apple's part. They should release an IBM-compatible version of OSX.

MarchHare · 06-07-2005, 08:45 AM

Quote:

I wonder how Motorola feels about this. I wonder just how much money their contract to build CPUs for Apple was worth.

Motorola sold their CPU unit a few years ago. I can't remember the name of the company that makes G4s now, but it's not Motorola anymore.

The real company we should be wondering about is IBM, who made the G5s. From my understanding, they said they couldn't deliver a 3+ GHz chip to Apple, but they're giving them to Microsoft and Nintendo by the truckload to power their game consoles. And really, I imagine IBM sees selling chips to power the new Xbox and Revolution to be more profitable than selling to Apple.

As for how this affects Apple...I like the move. Admittedly, I'm only a quasi-Mac guy (I own two Windows PCs and an iBook), but I'm hoping this will allow Apple to compete on performance (with the exception of the dual G5 PowerMac, Apple's entire product line is long in the tooth at this point) and hopefully they'll be forced to lower their prices as well. Now that direct comparisons are going to be made, a 3GHz Intel-powered Mac better be priced comparably to a 3GHz Intel-powered Dell.

MarchHare · 06-07-2005, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Snakeeye+Jun 7 2005, 07:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ Jun 7 2005, 07:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-photon@Jun 6 2005, 06:04 PM
EDIT3: http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/in...lysts/index.php

Quote:

Apple also confirmed that they would not stop customers from running Windows on the Intel-based Mac, although the Mac OS will not run on another PC.

Bad call on Apple's part. They should release an IBM-compatible version of OSX. [/b][/quote]
This I disagree with.

Apple licensed Mac clones in the mid-90s. That little experiment failed miserably.

By having tight control over both the OS and the hardware, Apple is in a better position both to ensure compatibility (on Windows machines, most Blue Screens of Death are caused by poorly-written third-party drives, not because of Microsoft) and to innovate with new hardware -- firewire and CD-burning, for example, were both standard on Macs long before they became common on PCs.

Besides, if you really want to play around with OS X, spend $600 and buy a Mac Mini. It's no longer the case that an entry-level Mac is going to run you $2000+.

photon · 06-07-2005, 10:06 AM

The more I think about it the more this could really work for Apple.

They've said a few times now that they won't have any problem with people running a Microsoft OS on their hardware.

So while you can't ron OSX on a beige box PC, you can run Linux and Windows on an Apple.

I agree MarchHare, if they can get an Apple with similar specs down to near the price of a Dell, and that Apple can triple boot OSX, Windows, or Linux, I'd stand in line to buy one!

The question then would be will Microsoft revert back to its "DOS isn't done until Lotus 1-2-3 won't run" days and preclude Windows from running on Apple hardware?

And the other question is how long until someone cracks it so OSX CAN run on non-Apple hardware.

dustygoon · 06-07-2005, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MarchHare@Jun 7 2005, 02:45 PM

Quote:

I wonder how Motorola feels about this. I wonder just how much money their contract to build CPUs for Apple was worth.

Motorola sold their CPU unit a few years ago. I can't remember the name of the company that makes G4s now, but it's not Motorola anymore.

The real company we should be wondering about is IBM, who made the G5s. From my understanding, they said they couldn't deliver a 3+ GHz chip to Apple, but they're giving them to Microsoft and Nintendo by the truckload to power their game consoles. And really, I imagine IBM sees selling chips to power the new Xbox and Revolution to be more profitable than selling to Apple.

As for how this affects Apple...I like the move. Admittedly, I'm only a quasi-Mac guy (I own two Windows PCs and an iBook), but I'm hoping this will allow Apple to compete on performance (with the exception of the dual G5 PowerMac, Apple's entire product line is long in the tooth at this point) and hopefully they'll be forced to lower their prices as well. Now that direct comparisons are going to be made, a 3GHz Intel-powered Mac better be priced comparably to a 3GHz Intel-powered Dell.

I said it above....the company is called Freescale. I was wrong on the impact to Freescale....it is not that bad at all. Apple only made up 3% of Freescale's revenues (about $150m).

BlackEleven · 06-07-2005, 11:27 AM

I see it as a great way for Apple to sell a lot of hardware, if the marketing is there.

You can run Windows on Applie hardware, but you can't run OS X on non-Applie hardware. So if you want a machine that will dual-boot OS X and Windows then you're forced to buy the Apple hardware. So they should be able to sell a lot of hardware if they can convince PC users that being able to dual boot with OS X is worthwhile (more worthwhile that dual-booting with Windows/Linux). The key is being able to sell the added benefit of OS X without having to sacrifise Windows to PC users.

I-Hate-Hulse · 06-07-2005, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dustygoon@Jun 7 2005, 11:11 AM
I said it above....the company is called Freescale. I was wrong on the impact to Freescale....it is not that bad at all. Apple only made up 3% of Freescale's revenues (about $150m).

Snort. And Apple wonders why Freescale hasn't poured it's R&D money into building it chips. 3% seems to be about what Apple's marketshare is for world wide PC's as I recall.

tjinaz · 06-07-2005, 02:50 PM

Now think about this.....

64bit processors are about 1 year away. How it this going to effect Apple?

MarchHare · 06-07-2005, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tjinaz@Jun 7 2005, 02:50 PM
Now think about this.....

64bit processors are about 1 year away. How it this going to effect Apple?

Well, AMD has had an i386-compatible 64-bit CPU on the market for a few years now. I believe Intel is producing a similar chip (which is probably what you were referring to). There's also the Itanium CPU as an Intel 64-bit option.

Nobody said the new Macs will be using Pentiums (as in the current line of 32-bit Pentium chips), right? Just that Intel would be supplying the CPU for Apple computers starting next year.