Jump to content


Apple Is Switching To Intel!


  • Please log in to reply
688 replies to this topic

#1 Tuncer (IMG)

Tuncer (IMG)

    Pimpbot 5000

  • Admin
  • 923 posts
  • Location:Calgary, Canada
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 03 June 2005 - 09:17 PM

Well, it's almost official CNET tonite is reporting that Apple will be switching to Intel. The announcement is expected to come on Monday at WWDC. Here's the full story:

http://news.com.com/...l?tag=nefd.lede

I don't know about you, but I'm in total shock.
Tuncer
Inside Mac Games

Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/tuncerdeniz

#2 No One

No One

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1233 posts
  • Location:Hilbert's Hotel

Posted 03 June 2005 - 09:55 PM

This is unbelievable! I wonder what this means for game porting. Or for cost of Macs.

#3 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 03 June 2005 - 10:11 PM

It's _still_ just a rumour, and it's _still_ very vague about what exactly Apple would be getting from Intel. Now they're claim something will happen at WWDC, and there's no reason to think anything's up until then.

Here's hoping they're getting a motherboard with PCIe, SATA2, non-borked FireWire, non-borked USB2, digital audio encoding, 7.1 analog audio out, more slots, more ports, and less suck.

Second choice would be a move to Intel-produced PPCs. They've got the fab to satisfy Apple, but Apple probably doesn't have the clout to get Intel to commit.

Third would be a move to Pentium M. Not losing people on the way would be their second largest problem after having few people to move in the first place.

Fourth would be a move to Pentium 4 or Xeon. That would just suck.

#4 George the Flea

George the Flea

    IMG Comma Junkie

  • IMG Writers
  • 680 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 03 June 2005 - 10:14 PM

I know it shouldn't, but that just feels dirty.  I'm sure it probably makes business sense for Apple...but Intel?  Aren't they part of *gasp* the dark side?!  :o

It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out.  If anyone finds a source that has a little more to say about what this means beyond generalities about system architecture changes as in the CNET article, please post it.
Ian
IMG Flunky

Me + web = Beckism.com | Tagamac | One Crayon

#5 Mot

Mot

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1215 posts

Posted 03 June 2005 - 10:23 PM

WTF!!?!?!?!?

I'll believe it when I see it.  I don't see how this wouldn't be a developer nightmare.  Even with really good emulation I don't see how they could pull this off without killing themselves.  I can hear it now "I'm going to put off my purchase because I'm going to wait for the intel mac, I don't want an obsolete machine that can't run new software."  I mean talk about fat binaries, these would be obese binaries!

Someone somewhere knew this would be the perfect time to screw with us all and drop the mother of all rumors right before the weekend, right before a keynote speech on Monday.

#6 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 03 June 2005 - 10:40 PM

Tuncer (IMG), on June 4th 2005, 02:17 PM, said:

Well, it's almost official CNET tonite is reporting that Apple will be switching to Intel. The announcement is expected to come on Monday at WWDC. Here's the full story:

http://news.com.com/...l?tag=nefd.lede

I don't know about you, but I'm in total shock.

View Post


I'm aware I'm probably going to get my ass kicked if I'm uncivil about this, so I'll make an effort to be reasonable about it:

1. CNET is CNET. Apple, on the other hand, is Apple. Not only does CNET not have inside information on Apple, but they don't even pretend that they do. This is speculation, and should be taken as such.

2. Intel cannot start producing CPUs for Apple to take advantage of overnight. Not only does Intel lack experience with the POWER and PPC architectures, but they have no control over them at all. It's like imagining that Freescale would suddenly start churning out Pentium 4s: it's just not going to happen.

3. A CPU is a subset of the term "chip". That is, a CPU is a chip but a chip is not a CPU. Apple has used Intel chips in the past (for Gigabit Ethernet in older PowerMacs), and there's no reason to believe that Apple's doing no more than considering the use of the XScale processor or something similar in anothe product line.

4. Apple's spent millions advertising the PowerMac G5 as faster than the Xeon. What the hell would it do to their image if they suddenly switched to using an architecture they'd always competed against directly?

5. What does Intel have to offer to Apple that IBM don't?
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?

#7 NAG

NAG

    Legendary

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 770 posts
  • Location:Run away!
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 03 June 2005 - 11:02 PM

This has been CNET's line since forever. How many times have they said this junk? And just before the whole Apple talking to Intel thing gets brought up, Intel doesn't just make CPUs. There are chips from Texas Instruments, who make nice calculators, in our macs. Call me cynical but this is just a ploy to get hits to their site.

Oh, just an observation but we knew about the PPC 970 about a year before Apple finally said they were going to use it. Have we heard anything besides Apple talking to Intel (oh no...Apple is talking to Toshiba...it couldn't be about iPod hard drives...no...it must have to do with Powerbooks!)? And Apple talks to Intel and about a month later switches to their chips?!? Huh?!? That would be awfully fast.
"You call *this* archaeology?" • Professor Henry Jones

#8 Tuncer (IMG)

Tuncer (IMG)

    Pimpbot 5000

  • Admin
  • 923 posts
  • Location:Calgary, Canada
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 03 June 2005 - 11:43 PM

I beg to differ. CNET is not a rumor site, and neither is The Wall Street Journal, so there is obviously some meat to this story. I predict that come Monday, we'll be seeing Apple announcing the switch to Intel.
Tuncer
Inside Mac Games

Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/tuncerdeniz

#9 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 12:14 AM

Tuncer (IMG), on June 3rd 2005, 10:43 PM, said:

come Monday, we'll be seeing Apple announcing the switch to Intel

's xScale processor for the vPod, Apple's new PDA, handleheld video player, and all-round niche product. Honestly, it could be anything. Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

#10 NAG

NAG

    Legendary

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 770 posts
  • Location:Run away!
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 04 June 2005 - 12:19 AM

Neither is Forbes.
"You call *this* archaeology?" • Professor Henry Jones

#11 NeoWolf

NeoWolf

    Heroic

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 01:23 AM

RandyWang, on June 3rd 2005, 09:40 PM, said:

I'm aware I'm probably going to get my ass kicked if I'm uncivil about this, so I'll make an effort to be reasonable about it:

1. CNET is CNET. Apple, on the other hand, is Apple. Not only does CNET not have inside information on Apple, but they don't even pretend that they do. This is speculation, and should be taken as such.

2. Intel cannot start producing CPUs for Apple to take advantage of overnight. Not only does Intel lack experience with the POWER and PPC architectures, but they have no control over them at all. It's like imagining that Freescale would suddenly start churning out Pentium 4s: it's just not going to happen.

3. A CPU is a subset of the term "chip". That is, a CPU is a chip but a chip is not a CPU. Apple has used Intel chips in the past (for Gigabit Ethernet in older PowerMacs), and there's no reason to believe that Apple's doing no more than considering the use of the XScale processor or something similar in anothe product line.

4. Apple's spent millions advertising the PowerMac G5 as faster than the Xeon. What the hell would it do to their image if they suddenly switched to using an architecture they'd always competed against directly?

5. What does Intel have to offer to Apple that IBM don't?

View Post


Now first off let me be clear, I don't think this is happening. But..

1. Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned. - Sounds like they're at LEAST pretending.

2. They are claiming it'll be a year before it even starts.

3. Agreed~

4. Agreed!

5. A name associated with processors outside of the IT field, maybe keeping speed promises (3GHz is a year late and counting is it not?)

That being said. I still find it rather unlikely. However I find the thought of Apple switching to x86 to be the most unlikely. From what is written, IF (and that's a BIG if!) it's true it means either:

1. Apple switches to x86.

2. Intel starts a PPC line.

Out of those two, both seem pretty farfetched. However I'll yield that #2 is far more likely than #1. Intel already makes well more than just x86 processors, starting a PowerPC line might not be such a bad idea in light of the Itanium's massive failure. Still, either way we have Monday to show if CNet was just talking out of their ass or if they really are onto something. Consider me in the camp of expecting them to be wrong, ,wrong, wrong. However, I'll only popsnizzle a brick if Apple goes x86. If Intel can indeed make a better PPC line than IBM then I'll embrace it.

#12 Space_Pirate_Killer

Space_Pirate_Killer

    above n00b

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2270 posts
  • Location:Under a Crust.

Posted 04 June 2005 - 01:31 AM

I agree with bobbob. This is most likely for the rumored "Tablet mac".

If its not then its really big news.
The official Inside Mac Games forum Space Pirate Killer.

#13 macgallant

macgallant

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Location:NYC

Posted 04 June 2005 - 01:38 AM

Anyone think Apple is going to use the Intel's Itanium chip in their future Macs instead of x86 chips?

I though even Intel itself wanted to kill off the x86 line and transition over to the Itanium but freaking AMD is keeping the x86 line going with their 64 bit x86 AMD chips.

EDIT:
What if Microsoft killed Office for the Mac when Apple switched to x86 because Apple became direct competition with Microsoft?

What if other people/companies mod or find a way to run Mac OSX on Intel on other PCs like Dell, Gateway, etc and no one bought these new Macs? Look what happened to NeXT, it's hardware division got shut down and NeXT became a tiny peewee close to irrelevant software company until Apple bought them out.

I hope Steve and Co. know what they're getting themselves into, this could be a suicide move by Apple. . .
MDD PowerMac G4 Dual 867Mhz: 128MB Radeon 9800 Pro, 2GB Ram, 80GB OEM HD & 160GB Seagate HD
, ViewSonic VA2012wb 20" Widescreen LCD, Belkin USB 2 PCI card, Logitech Z-2200 THX 2.1 Speakers, Apple Keyboard & 5 button Superman Mouse, XBox Live webcam, Superdrive & combo drive
, MacOSX 10.5.6 Leopard/b]
Black MacBook Core 2 Duo  2.2 GHz: 4 GB Ram, 250 GB HD, Superdrive, Maxtor Onetouch 4 external 500GB HD, Microsoft LaserDesktop for Mac
, [b]Mac OSX 10.5.6 Leopard

#14 NeoWolf

NeoWolf

    Heroic

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 02:19 AM

Intel wanted to kill off x86 with Itanium but to be fair AMD's x86-64 (which Intel even uses now) isn't that bad. It's a large step up from the previous x86. It's also worth mentioning Itanium really, really stinks. Apple would be COMPLETELY idiotic to switch to it. You think a G5's hard to get into a laptop - try one of those toaster ovens.

#15 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 04 June 2005 - 03:26 AM

Tuncer (IMG), on June 4th 2005, 04:43 PM, said:

I beg to differ. CNET is not a rumor site, and neither is The Wall Street Journal, so there is obviously some meat to this story. I predict that come Monday, we'll be seeing Apple announcing the switch to Intel.

View Post


How does that make them any more accurate? They're a news site, yes, but that doesn't mean they're not susceptible to hype and rumour. In December last year they reported on a rumoured Mac Mini (accurate), and before that they rumoured a 30-inch display (off by a full six months). They were wrong in predicting a 256Mb flash iPod, too.

Big websites, just because they're big, are not immune to falling for hype and rumour. People have been declaring Apple will move to Intel for years, and it's never going to happen. What I want to know is, why are people so happy to assume that Intel makes nothing but CPUs?

For a more considered view on the whole deal, check this out: http://arstechnica.c...50603-4970.html
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?

#16 Whaleman

Whaleman

    High Priest of Bork

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5632 posts
  • Steam ID:holybork
  • Location:The Land of Bork
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 04 June 2005 - 03:50 AM

Quote

IBM, Intel and Apple declined to comment for this story.

Sooooo..... where then did they get these "news" from? If it's not from one of those three it's a... you know this one: rumor.

Apple already uses AMD in AirPort... who knows what we might see with an Intel processor, but I doubt it's a computer.
You shouldn't ask yourself such worthless questions. Aim higher. Try this: why am I here? Why do I exist, and what is my purpose in this universe?

(Answers: 'Cause you are. 'Cause you do. 'Cause I got a shotgun, and you ain't got one.)

***END MESSAGE***

#17 Dr. Geebs

Dr. Geebs

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 685 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 04:18 AM

I'd have thought this would have been much more likely back in the bad old days of the dual 500 G4.  There's been a significant catch-up compared to intel and AMD with the G5; and as stated, improvements to the mobo would certainly entice a few more people to upgrade to a fast G5.

Plus, if users have to buy all of their software ALL OVER AGAIN, I think most would just go Windows.

#18 sillek

sillek

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 473 posts
  • Location:A

Posted 04 June 2005 - 04:31 AM

RandyWang, on June 4th 2005, 01:26 AM, said:

They were wrong in predicting a 256Mb flash iPod, too.

I don't know what they did or did not predict, but the way I took this statement is:  "They predicted a 256mb flash iPod, and were wrong."  Certainly I took it the wrong way ?

As far as Apple switching to Intel..that can be summed up in....zero words.. and those zero words are:   ):

#19 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 04 June 2005 - 04:46 AM

sillek, on June 4th 2005, 09:31 PM, said:

I don't know what they did or did not predict, but the way I took this statement is:  "They predicted a 256mb flash iPod, and were wrong."  Certainly I took it the wrong way ?

View Post


They predicted a 256Mb iPod, and were wrong.
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?

#20 Belcarius

Belcarius

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 387 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 04 June 2005 - 04:56 AM

At the end of the day, I don't give a crap who is behind Apple chips as long as they run well.
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his" - George S. Patton