Comments on: Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips

Apple will announce its plans Monday in a move that raises questions about the Mac maker's future computer strategy.

h0ax!

This isn't the first time and the last time Apple is using C|Net for a hoax. Official well known sources who are always right know that Apple is in talk with Intel, but then about new iPod processors and chips for it's Xserve Raid. So this message may go to the trash. Apple would NEVER switch to Intel, because it's very very expensive and they will loose a lot of market share. Also IBM processors are still faster than Intel/AMD dual core chips, but Apple only wants more, because IBM doesn't do what they promise, but plans for the future show that IBM will reach 6 GHz in 2007 and Intel won't be there then. And that's the date Apple's PowerMac should switch to Intel, I don't think so.

d

"Also IBM processors are still faster than Intel/AMD dual core chips, but Apple only wants more, because IBM doesn't do what they promise, but plans for the future show that IBM will reach 6 GHz in 2007 and Intel won't be there then"

And how in the hell have you determined this? Have you seen anything to show that the Power PC 970 is uniformly faster then AMD and Intel chips? Everything contradicts this. Oh wait, you're reading the Apple web site that shows that one photoshop filter is faster on Tuesday when it's raining outside.

Pure Unadulterated crap.

For a second there I was more than a little worried. I mean, this
is c|net home of "Tech News First," then I came back from
Wonderland. Apple is most likely going to announce a
partnership with Intel and their WiMax technology, NOT there
processors.

If Apple switched it would be suicide for the company. No
matter how fast an x86 processor is just imagine how slow,
slow, slow PPC emulation would be! Have you run VPC lately?

It may be possible server-side, but no way no how, nuh-uh, not
going to happen.

A secondary point, what kind of journalistic standards does this
publication adhere to? "Sources familiar with the situation" cut it
on rumor sites, but a supposed news gathering organization?

[Jonathan]

It wouldn't be emulated you idiot

Get off the net before you embarrass yourself any further. Apple would port OSX and its underlying BSD core that ALREADY runs on x86 over and would probably have tools that would recompile existing programs. As for altivec have you ever heard of SIMD Extensions? Apple would, again help developers port over their code to x86. Hell I'm not even a programmer and even I know that.

who hired these business analysts ?

NeXTstep was running on 486/Pentium back in 1995.
NeXTstep became Mac OS X 5 years later after the return of Steve
Jobs at Apple and you believe they scrap the software foundation
that enable it to run on multiple processor architectures ?
Come on! Whether this is rumor or truth, it doesn't change the fact
that the OS X architecture require minimal effort to adopt a new
chip architecture and 90% of Mac developers won't be affected.
And look inside a Mac: 99% is PC components... with a design.

If this story is wrong...

some heads better roll by next week...

[Earl Benser]

how about.....

... starting with yours? We need to do something to eliminate the
adolescent purility from the commentaries. Maybe a basic IQ test
before one can post?????

[mortis9]

finally i can afford a 'mac'

i could never afford to drop $3000 on a mac, but $129, i can afford that... good job mr jobs! finally you can see your company acquire more than 2% of the market. i'm sure the shareholders are very happy with this decision.

[paintedover26k]

no

as a shareholder i am not

[JuggerNaut]

Intel doesn't mean cheaper!

You think if Apple ever switched to Intel, it would make Macs
cheaper? Think again. Of course a Mac can be had for about the
same price as a Dell, though Apple actually delivers a product of
value (unlike Dell). Of course if you're paying $129 for a PC, you're
paying too much, they should have already been priced $100 or
less by now.

I seriously doubt Apple will switch to Intel, so don't get your hopes
up.

[shane--2008]

price check on Apple please?

it must be interesting to live in your world where a $3000 top of
the line work station will drop to $129 just because a chip got
changed.

...especially considering that chip change (which will never
happen BTW) would cost millions in R&D.

sadly, it would seem that in your world the mini has yet to
appear, and you can not price similar machines, or you would
see that a similarly equipped dell and Mac have near identical
prices.

BTW Alice, how is the mad hatter?

[kxmmxk]

your confused???

Macs are no different than similarily configured Dells or Toshibas. They are not expensive, that is mis-information.

I know several people who just bought new dell laptops and paid around $1500-2000.

You can get the bottom end iBook for $999.

[GGGlen]

I will

Apple went Plug and Play back in 1984. It took Wintel 11 years
to catch up. Apple had long file names nearly 15 years before
'Doze users had it. But no, "Doze users sit with their hands
under their arses, saying "Just wait 10 years or so. When Billy
"invents" what you've been using for the last decade, it's going
to kick your backside!".
.
Moo. Your herd is calling you. You mustn't think for yourself
now, so go fall in line with the rest of the sheep.

[thekornreeper]

a little angry eh?

"Apple went Plug and Play back in 1984. It took Wintel 11 years
to catch up. Apple had long file names nearly 15 years before
'Doze users had it. But no, "Doze users sit with their hands
under their arses, saying "Just wait 10 years or so. When Billy
"invents" what you've been using for the last decade, it's going
to kick your backside!".
.
Moo. Your herd is calling you. You mustn't think for yourself
now, so go fall in line with the rest of the sheep."

Like it or not Apple and windows both have their merits and downfall. Though I'm partial to linux myself.

let me tell you a little story about mac upgrades. I friend of mind had an imac which crashed every time aim was opened. And it was out of date, so we ran out and paid the $130 for OSX. But when I went thru the install it need a higher version of classical OS to be installed, and offered a coupon and form to send in for the intermediate so I could update. But wait, the coupon in a brand new OS X box from compusa, expired!

Not that I like the insane viruses or spy/adware of windows either. Rather I kicked it off completely and opt for linux. I prefer free over $150 windows xp or $130 mac upgrades... Not that any OS is perfect... software should be cheap or free, and Windows nor Mac OSX provides it readily.

Tragic

With the adoption of PPC variants coming to consoles, it would be a mistake for Apple to abandon PPC now with all the recent advancements in the Power architecture and variants of, like Cell and Xenon. Not a good move at this time.

[tundraboy]

Question for the experts

If this story is true, does this mean that (perhaps with a little
third-party programming), all those millions of PCs running on
WinXP out there will be able to install (grey market copies of) OS
X?

[pjonesCET]

Going Backwards

The PowerPC is a RISC (Reduced instruction Set Computing) Chip.

The Intel Chips like those in Typical PC's are strictly CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computin) Chips. That means much of the code is burned into the chip and can not be altered. This is equivelent to going back to OS9.

Why do they want to do something Stupid like That

xBSD is mature enough. 5.x and 6 is promising.

No hesitation on my part to buy Saber tooth and load OS-XI on my future dual Core PC. No emulation - Pure dual boot or X-session.

Now we can really invest in exotic PC parts. (i.e Cooling system, PS, Video Cards, memory etc etc.)

[jhpadilla]

About Apple's move to Intel.

This is just speculation in my part, but please bear with me.

This move from Apple correlates DIRECTLY with the recent
announcements from Microsoft and Sony regarding their next-
gen consoles. Don?t you think it?s strange??

From my point (and everyone else?s) the relation between Apple
and IBM has been MORE than rocky... If Jobs hates one thing
more than any other is making a fool of himself in front of an
audience. That is PRECISELY what happened when IBM didn?t
deliver the 3.0 GHZ processors they promised. Apparently, they
offered Steve such a good excuse that he went public saying that
problems with the manufacturing (or something... I can?t
remember exactly) did not permit this.

But the announcements in E3 I think were EXACTLY what pissed
Steve off to high heaven, just think about it (and before you go
into it, I KNOW custom-made PowerPC chips are NOT the same
chips developed for computers, I know computer processors are
MUCH more complex, but still please bear with me).
I?m SURE Steve was PISSED as HELL for this!! Just look: Here he is
making excuses for low performance computer chips while AT
THE SAME TIME and behind his back (and no doubt also using
NDA Agreements and the aforementioned fact that custom-
made chips are different to computer processors as a pitiful
excuse) 3.2 GHZ chips were being developed FROM THE
GROUND UP not for one, not for two, but for THREE graphic ?
ultra intensive next generation CONSOLES!!!!! (3 because, as I
recall, Nintendo?s Revolution will also include PowerPC ? they
already do with the GameCube by the way -, though I admit I?m
not 100% sure where I read this).

This is an OUTRAGE!!!!!!! IBM first fails to comply with processors
speeds THEY promised to deliver. But to add insult to injury, AT
THE SAME time they make ultrapowerful chips for OTHER
companies using the SAME TECHNOLOGY??? MAAAAAN, as a Mac
user (since 1986! I started with a Mac Plus of my own) I?m
already SOOOOOOO pissed off I REALLY do hope Steve Jobs
ditches IBM completely and FOREVER!!!!! Big Blue Brother
INDEED!! That 1984 commercial still has present undertones...
Damn prophetic!!! You CAN?T count on IBM for ANYTHING!!! This
is a complete and utter lack of ethics (be it business, moral, or
whatever) in part of IBM and I really do hope that that corrupted
company disappears gets replaced by something better; or
maybe, just maybe, if someone manages to destroy it and
rebuild it.... Well maybe just then.... But this is NOT Apple?s
problem. And we as Mac users have had ENOUGH!!!

Software needs to be recompiled??? SO BE IT! We?ve through
worse stuff.
If this is what it takes to finally have ULTRAFAST computers with
the BEST operating system in the World?? AMEN TO THAT!

IBM: I would use the worst and lowest dirty words for what you
did. But there is NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING that will bring me
enought satisfaction.
So, thanks FOR NOTHING and SO LONG!

Yours truly,

Jorge Humberto Padilla Leal.
San Pedro Garza Garcia, NL. MEXICO

Mac user since 1986.

Just another reason to stay?

Apple may be pissed off about IBM/Nintendo/MS but if you look
past that, isn't it just another reason to stick with PowerPC? The
fact that two (actually 3 if you count the PowerPC frontend of the
PS3's processor) of the nextgen consoles are going PowerPC
means that the architecture is going places. Going to x86 would
be a drag for programmers, would not (in my opinion) bring
faster chips in the long term, and would cause Apple to lose (at
least a big chunk of) it's hardware business.

Then again, I trust Apple to do the right thing... We'll see
Monday.

[DrMax88]

Switching to Intel is a good thing for Apple

While I respect IBM as a company because of their contribution
to the tech world, but I agree with you that they are not serious
on Mac CPU development. Not only they failed to deliver the
3GHz G5, but also they couldn't come out a low power version
for Powerbook, which I think hurts Apple seriously. In the
meantime, those 3 CPU variants for game consoles don't seem
to consume a lot power. This means IBM are simply not serious
to Apple. Of course, Apple have every right to ditch IBM.

Switching to Intel doesn't gurantee Apple to have more powerful
machine in future than if they stick with IBM. But the move will
give Apple a levelled playground with all other PC makers.
Whether Intel chips are fast or slow, Apple will have same as
others. And with OS X's advance over Windows, Mac may really
show performance advantage over other PCs.

Of course, software will be an issue. But I think it's a short term
problem and I believe Apple can overcome it. As a Mac user (also
a PC user) I'll support this change.

If Apple really make the switch, I predict the first Mac using Intel
chip will be Powerbook on next year's Macworld.

Bob

Bad day or not

You don't treat a customer like that. And when I go into a store and get treated like that, I stop being their customer.

It's that simple.

Imagine a PC machine you truly own. See under the hood.

Not by a hacker, spyware and virus companies. You can "su", do "top" , ps ax and "kill" unwanted processes in an instant. Recovering your precious data will be a breeze since xBSD understands NTFS.

Unix has a very good file system not to mention fast. XP is catching up.

SJ vision is to compete with everybody. An STB in our living room and bedroom. A truly multimedia system for "Thinkerer" and Grandma.

Bottom line is Apple OS has to evolve . It needs a new living ground.

Or they will be a dinosaur. Look at their big Powermacs. It is very heavy that it breaks my table. It basically destroys it.

If you are living in a tiny house you wouldn't want two powermacs unless you want to put your bed on top of it.

Apple's problem: IBM protecting its server divisions

If we see an announcement on Monday, I believe the root of the
problem that Apple has is that IBM is trying to protect its pSeries
and iSeries server business from being undercut by a much
lower pricepoint on Apple servers and to a lesser extent
workstations.

Therefore it is likely that IBM is trying to put restrictions on:
a) what processors Apple can get and;
b) what machines Apple can build with those processors and
which markets they can target;

More on this in my blog-entry of May 23 (please excuse the first
foreign language paragraph.) http://www.andwest.com/
blojsom/blog/tatle/2005/05/23/Apple_og_Intel_Chips.html

This is a truly crazy world we live in. 3 questions?

1. Who is in bed now in the server market.

2. MS, Apple and Sun trying to take the Big Blue down?

3. Is MS has still money with Apple?

Alternative link

Try this link for my comments of May 23 and look for Apple and
IBM Chips entry.

http://www.andwest.com/blojsom(blog/tatle/

Alternative link

Try this link for my comments of May 23 and look for Apple and
IBM Chips entry.

http://www.andwest.com/blojsom/blog/tatle/

[jamie.p.walsh]

Finally...dual booting OS X and XP without emulators

Haven't read all the posts yet, but has everyone MISSED the real opportunity here? The Mac Mini was an affordable alternative for people who need to run both platforms. But it still involved using a KVM and two separate computers to do it. Now you can do what PC/Linux users have already been doing for years.

I'm more interested in how this move will skyrocket Intel into the stratosphere. I would imagine that their will be some initial concern over the process of developing chips and the difficulties in manufacturing and design that pose Intel.

xBSD is mature enough. 5.x and 6 is promising.

It is.

[ygtbfkm]

LinuxPPC

Huh? Mac users have been able to dual boot to Linux for years
as well. And what makes you think that Windows will boot on a
Mac-Intel box (or that Mac OSX-Intel will boot on a non-Apple
Intel box)?

[jamie.p.walsh]

Foreshadowing

Has anyone NOT noticed that recently, Windows has moved toward design and interface enhancement while already having market share; and Mac has moved toward gaining market share while already having design and interface lead.

Sun has already moved to Solaris on Intel. When, and if, Mac does this, I believe we'll see lower costing Intel chips and increased competition in chips manufactured under this architecture.

[Michael Grogan]

Sounds good to me

Maybe I can finally get a reliable and user friendly OS to run on my already powerful and upgradeable hardware! The story definitely said processors and x86. I hope so because if that's the case Apple would be foolish not to license their OS for hardware other than their own. I do not buy for a moment the argument that Windows is unstable because it hase to run on varying hardware platforms. That's a crock and a lame excuse for shoddy programming practices. Program integrity (remember the one way in, one way out requirements for your programming assignments in school, that's how you handle security issues; no one comes in the side door if there isn't one)is the key and it's the one thing that Apple always had. PowerPC faster than x86? Bull, optimal code running on it occasionallly makes it seem that way. It's time Apple wised up and became a software company instead of buying other vendor's junk and building over priced systems. When they can compete in a cost effective manner Apple will walk on M$ in the OS world.

[tahoerob]

Anyone remember NEXTSTEP for Intel???

While I have no idea how valid this round of Apple/Intel rumors are, I'm surprised to see so many technology journalists express concern about the viability of an Intel build of MacOS X. Does anyone remember NEXTSTEP? When NeXT dropped hardware and became a software company, they released NEXTSTEP for Motorola (NeXT hardware), Intel, SPARC, and PA-RISC architectures.

I ran NEXTSTEP on an Intel box and it was completely indistinguishable from my old NeXT box. Compiling an application that ran on all four architectures, called a Fat-Binary, was as simple as clicking a checkbox in Project Builder. The end user didn't need to select the application appropriate for his/her architecture; the Fat-Binary contained all of them.

I'm not suggesting that there won't be issues with an Apple transition to Intel, but the suggestion that developers will need to rewrite their applications dead wrong. My guess is, just as NEXTSTEP apps re-compiled with the click of a mouse, all Cocoa apps will do the same. After all, Cocoa is simply the evolution of NEXTSTEP's APIs. I don't know if it will be quite so easy for Carbon apps, but my understanding is, Apple rid itself of all hardware-dependent APIs when it defined Carbon, thus ensuring an easier transition between architectures.

If these rumors prove true, I think the transition from PowerPC to Intel will be relatively seamless and should provide Apple with access to a much broader market while lowering costs and improving performance. Sounds pretty much win-win to me!

-Rob

[m.meister]

Incorrect Assumptions

You may be correct that recompiling for x86 with Cocoa is
simple, but are missing a couple important things in the
development world.

1. Many applications are written using Carbon APIs, not Cocoa.
Mac OS X applications have been able to assume big-endian
order when reading/writing files. This isn't wouldn't be the case
anymore. True, apps like Word/Photoshop already do this, but
not everyone does.

2. Developers have to TEST on each of the platforms. It's not
good business to just flip a switch, compile for a NEW PLATFORM
and then ship it.

I haven't heard any explanation given as to:

- Benefits to the user

- Benefits to the developer (for putting up with another
transition)

- Benefit to Apple (how are they planning to make money?)

Yes, NEXTSTEP ran on Intel before, but recall that Apple bought
the entire company, NeXTStep, for $400 million. That's about
10% of what Apple brings in on sales of Macs in a single year.

Sounds pretty much win-win to me too!

As long as there is a real competition then the product (OS) will work for us and not us work for the product.

I never liked loossing sleep maintaining an expensive OS. It is becoming a nightmare.

[DeusExMachina]

Journalism 101

Notice how C|Net said " CNET News.com has learned."
From whom? The paucity of sources is telling. Failure to include
sources if Intro to Journalism stuff, folks. Even if it turn out to be
true, the story is poorly done. As it is, the likelihood of its
veracity is deeply in doubt.

Interesting also how articles like this bring out all the
misinformed people on both sides of the Mac/Wintel divide.
People who claim that Wintel boxes outperform Macs. What a
joke. On almost every real world test, comparable mac hardware
outperforms the other side.
Equally stupid is the blatantly semantic argument over the
definition of PC. While it WAS indeed short hand for "personal
computer" it has long been used in common parlance, ever since
IBM snookered the term in its first PC in 1982, to mean DOS
compatible hardware and its descendants. Learn a little history
before you waste time making arguments, that, even if they were
cogent, which they are not, are semantic in nature only. (Which
means, who cares what PC means?)

The problem is that the authors and contributors to this article
will not be called to task when it turn out to be false, or at least
a grossly inaccurate. While it is not true that it would be a
gargantuan task to port OSX to intel (since, as is common
knowledge, much of the work had already been done in
Cupertino ages ago) PPC chips outperform the pentium class
chips by a large margin, the itanium class chips by a large
degree, and Apple has clearly stated they will not do so, for
obvious business reasons.
Much more likely, as already pointed out, is that Apple has
another product in mind, perhaps a revamped low-end XServe,
that will employ intel hardware.
Anyone wanna bet?

how do you know?

"Notice how C|Net said " CNET News.com has learned." From whom? The paucity of sources is telling. Failure to include sources if Intro to Journalism stuff, folks. Even if it turn out to be
true, the story is poorly done."

And what would you expect the reporter to do? Say, yes, I heard it from this guy. Apple's facist anti -American legal department would goose-step right over and snuff the out with 10 trillion miles of red tape.

Yes unnamed sources is a dangerous game for the media. I see nothing wrong here with what CNET has done. It just better freaking be right. I suspect it is because you don't write something this big without making damned sure you have it cold. If they don't, somebody has to be fired but I suspect they have it but I don't want to believe it.

"Interesting also how articles like this bring out all the misinformed people on both sides of the Mac/Wintel divide. People who claim that Wintel boxes outperform Macs. What a joke. On almost every real world test, comparable mac hardware
outperforms the other side."

Who is misinformed: just off the top my head here's an example of the g5 (which is a much better Mac than ever before) being slower than a WinAMD/WinTEL

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/02/doom3/index.php

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p=6

These are both REAL tests and the Mac gets its doors blown off. Why don't you post some numbers from a reputable source (NOT APPLE) that shows the Mac is faster in gaming or as a server.

"Equally stupid is the blatantly semantic argument over the definition of PC. While it WAS indeed short hand for "personal computer" it has long been used in common parlance, ever since IBM snookered the term in its first PC in 1982, to mean DOS compatible hardware and its descendants. Learn a little history before you waste time making arguments, that, even if they were
cogent, which they are not, are semantic in nature only. (Which means, who cares what PC means?)"

So you're saying that people who complain about the PC and then say "Well the Mac is a PC so you can't complain about PC" are stupid. Yes I agree. People who say this are very stupid indeed.

"The problem is that the authors and contributors to this article will not be called to task when it turn out to be false, or at least a grossly inaccurate."

Hmm, I see. So you already know the story is wrong? Don't get me wrong, if this story is wrong, somebody better get their butt handed to them in a box but how can "when it turn out to be false, or at least a grossly inaccurate" unless you have some inside knowledge. If CNET is right, are you going to come back, get on your knees and admit YOU were wrong?


"While it is not true that it would be a gargantuan task to port OSX to intel (since, as is common knowledge, much of the work had already been done in Cupertino ages ago) PPC chips outperform the pentium class chips by a large margin, the itanium class chips by a large
degree, and Apple has clearly stated they will not do so, for obvious business reasons."

Again, what do you base this on? Apple's biased benchmarks? Jeez.

"Much more likely, as already pointed out, is that Apple has another product in mind, perhaps a revamped low-end XServe, that will employ intel hardware. Anyone wanna bet?"

Who knows. Personally I suspect a custom Pentium M for Apple's laptops which are still running SLOW ass G4 processors but I have no idea what's going on and I suspect that neither do you.