[jcmount]

No less esteemed News Org that the Wall Journal is reporting that Apple and Intel are talking x86 chips for Apple machines. Above link requires subscription.

Read the Reuters wire service report for a free report.
This one seems more credible than some earlier rumors, given the WSJ source.

[ib2yz4u2c]

In reply to:

---

Apple's pricing, which has often been higher than rivals, could become more competitive if Intel provides the kind of marketing subsidies it has given to other computer makers, the (The Wall Street Journal) said.

---

Interesting. I would love for prices to come down, but I wonder if this partnership will sacrifice performance for the price of these Intel chips. Would the G-series processors cease to exist should this happen? I've always associated IBM/Motorola with PowerPC chips.
Would G4/G5 processors still be produced, only by a different manufacturer? Someone all-knowing in the field of processors, please explain what an Intel partnership would mean.

[jcmount]

It would be interest to run OSX on a dual Intel 3.0 Ghz Chip with all other hardware being equal and see the benchmarks.

[jesman0]

Ya, I would like to know whats up too. I logged into Macworld today, justafter reading the news, just to see what ya'll had to say. Why would apple move to x86? I would hope its not entirely a cost cutting measure. What's the deal Apple?

[digedit]

Apple has had problems both in terms of acquiring sufficient quantities of the latest processors and in terms of keeping up with overall performance from the x86 competition.
Apple was basically forced into dual processor designs in order to maintain parity with intel and AMD. They've since closed the gap in performance that was plaguing them for a long time but by using x86 processors they insure that they will never have to fall behind of PCs regarding performance.
In fact the CPU is really the last remaining bit of the Mac architecture that doesn't come from the PC world. Apple has been eliminating proprietary hardware over the years. They use to have their own memory architecture, their own ports, their own expansion busses, etc. Now everything in a Mac is essentially the same exact parts and technology that are in a PC with the exception of the cpu.
Apple would actually have an advantage running the new intel or AMD dual core chips as OS X is better optimised for multiple threads and it will be several years before most Windows applications take advantage of these features.
I think it would be a smart move from a technology standpoint as it would essentially remove all of the hardware bias and let Apple compete based on the merits of the OS without the issue of hardware clouding the comparison. On the other hand, Apple is a master at manipulating statistics and the fact that the powerPC line is different allows for Apple to agressively market these "statistics".
So I guess it comes down to whether you think Apple would benefit more by accentuating the OS or the hardware. Personally, I think the risks of falling behind on the hardware side are high while the advantages of sticking to the powerPC architecture are low and I think the Mac OS is Apple's strength so I'd say it makes a lot of sense.
We'll see though. Changing processors is a big task. They've done it before so they can do it again, but it's still a pain for Apple, developers and customers to have to go through.
digedit
-------
win iPods for buying ink and toner
at http://www.buyjustink.com

[Frisco]

Good points! I agree. If you want to win a war bring the war to their home-front. Apple really needs to:
(1) Move OS X over to the PC world (x86), allowing OS X to run on the billion PCs already out there.
(2) License OS X
(3) Get out of the hardware business
(4) Put most of its resources into OS X.
Apple has been largely disappointed with IBM, just like they have with Motorolla. No chip manufacturer is going to focus a large portion of its resources to 3% of the market.
Personally I want this rumor to be true--I just hope Steve has the b*lls to do it. It is a major move and should have been done 15 years ago. If you do move over to x86 please don't make the same mistake by not licensing your OS.
Common Apple we need more software, more developers, better support and that to a large extent is dependent upon market-share.
We'll see! Apple's stock was up just over 5% on news on this rumor.

[digedit]

Switching to x86 and licensing the OS are two seperate issues. Many people will tell you that Apple is in the hardware business, not the software business and that their money comes from hardware. While this is true right now (Apple makes big profit margins compared to other manufacturers) things have been changing. Apple has been getting much more involved in the software business over the last few years and licensing may begin to make sense again soon.
At least by switching to x86 now, they make licensing a much easier decision to make in the future if they decide it makes sense at that time.
Digedit
------
win free ipods at http://www.buyjustink.com

[Martian]

Yes, dependence on the "non-standard" PowerPC is Mac's only remaining vulnerability in maintaining HARDWARE parity with the PC competition.
But I still wonder about Mac's ironic and risky dependence on Microsoft for the industry standard for the two classes of application absolutely essential for any computer to remain mainstream 100% cross-platform compatible word processor and spreadsheet.

[jesman0]

Isn't the PowerPC chip and related architecture superior technology? I am starting to feel silly for thinking macs are better than PC's. Apples sure seems better across the board anyway. Admittedly I don't know alot about RISC and X86 commands, (or whatever) Can someone clarify? What performance issues? (besides lame OPEN GL performance) My D2.5 encodes video twice as fast as my D3.2Xeon box. That may be a silly benchmark, but thats what i do mostly, video work.
If apple does do this thing, I would rather they use AMD. Their 64bit processors rock!
Oh, and yes they should licence their software. We all know that except apple.

[Misha3]

It appears these rumors have had an effect on Apple's stock: almost up to 40!

[mark_G4]

Even if Apple moves to the Intel side. I highly doubt that X will be allowed to run on any PC. Apple will still make the hardware and software for one polished package. They would die if the just took on MS as an OS maker. Their advantage is the whole Apple experience. I does not matter to most users what chips is inside as long as his experience remains the same.
I think this could be a good move, because it is one less thing Apple has to deal with, they can just focus on making the best technology shine. Intel invented USB, but it was Apple who made it popular.

[jesman0]

Ok, since I don't like being completely ignorant, I read loads of articles about the two technologies discussed.. X86 (CISC) and PPC (RISC). I have digested information about the number of registers, lengths of piplines, power effeciency to perform a task and basic architecure. To me, after learning these things the X86 just needs to dissapear. Its like Intel just keeps throwng crap on a pile of garbage. Do they think because its a bigger stinkier pile of crap its better?
Granted all my Wintel woes are entirely Microsoft Related. I believe most peeps have had the same experience. However, I am extremely bewildered why apple would consider using ancient technology (X86 being invented in 1978, that is dam ancient) and taking a huge step backwards. I can only hope and pray that this is a ploy to get better treatment from IBM. The last thing I want to see is a Appltel box :P I mean c'mon.
A big reason I like Apple (I hope I'm not alone here) products is that they are different, they are the bright and shiny underdog that kicks ass. Sure OS X on X86 gear would still be different than Windoze on X86, like a big turd wrapped in shiny Apple skin, instead of just a big turd.
I also understand that alot of the components in my D2.5 are exactly like pc components. Thats fine, but the core, the thing that makes my computer stand out is its OS and processor.
Perhaps I am the only one the feels this way, there seem to be peeps wanting to go the route of turd polishing.
Another thing that stands out in my mind is the whole next generation of game consoles coming out. Every single one, most surprisingly the Xbox, have moved away from X86 gear. Now I know you can't compare a console to a computer, i am not trying to. My point is this, for ease of programming, better performance and a better overall experience with their products, these companies have opted for RISC based PPC architecture from IBM under the hoods. This is much more similar to Apple than a Wintel box. Seems a bit funny to me that these guys that are supposed to represent the future if the digital entertainment experience are opting for this technology and Apple would flirt with moving backwards. Something smells fishy.

[ftaok]

Not that anyone cares, my opinion on this subject is that Apple will do what Apple will do. What I mean by that is that Apple (and Steve Jobs) will do what is necessary to keep Apple alive. Right now, Apple is as healthy as it has ever been, with the exception of market share. I don't think Apple will ever get back to the market share levels they enjoyed in the 90's, but there's no reason to think that they can't double their current numbers.
If switching to another processor is the answer to Apple's long-term plan, then Apple will switch. Personally, I don't think it matters much what chip is under the hood. As long as it's fast enough for me, then it's fine.
And about x86 being old technology. Yes, I guess x86 has been around for a long time, but the current Pentiums bear little resemblance to the chips from the 80's. Just like the current G5's aren't that similar to the 601 chip from the mid-90's. RISC vs. CISC ... who cares? These things don't matter, except to the Computer Science types. The things that matter are whether there's applications available that let me do the things I want (and for that matter, that there's software that lets me do the things that I don't know that I want). /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Just my opinion.
BTW, I remember reading an article about 3 years ago that compared comparable Linux systems running on a G4 and a P4. Both were the top-line models and the G4 beat the P4 in most tasks. Whether that remains true for the G5 and current x86 chips is another question.

[jesman0]

Ya, I understand your point about just wanting it to work and having software to accomplish your tasks. I also understand that if Apple's computers were less expensive, more people would have them. Apple has started to tackle that with the mini, less expensive but not cheap.
The only two things I can't do on my Mac, is A) make wmv files and B) play alot of different games. What can't you do? I have been able to accomplish everything else I needed to do. So the point about software working is accomplished, without X86. The price point is really summed up with the fact that you are paying a little more for alot better quality. i think people are starting to understand that. Especially those that have bought several windows machines over the years and Mac users still rock B&W's.
I just don't like possibility that they would resort intel hardware to win market share. It's almost like selling out. While a successful Apple with tons of market share is something we all would be proud of, surely they don't have to resort to X86 to get it.
One thing that matters to me about RISC vs CISC is the power consumption. Imagine how much power would be saved if people used more efficient machines? It may be relatively small compared to all the other industries out there. When it comes to the environment though, every little bit helps.
With current trends as they are, I am convinced Apple can gain alot of market share just doing what they have been doing recently, wowing the masses with intelligent technology and showing them that Apple is vastly superior, that you get what you pay for.
Isn't there some importance to not only getting a job done, but also how you get it done?