Jump to content


Apple Is Switching To Intel!


  • Please log in to reply
688 replies to this topic

#41 Siriusfox

Siriusfox

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1148 posts
  • Steam Name:opensiriusfox
  • Location:Washington State

Posted 04 June 2005 - 12:09 PM

musicdisciple, on June 4th 2005, 08:45 AM, said:

I just skimmed through all the replies so this might have been mentioned, but couldn't they just be looking at Intel chips to use in a new iPod or something like that?

View Post

Sorry to dampen you here but the article says that the mac Mini would be changed mid 06.

However I think this is BULL! A new chip would mean that they would have to redo huge amounts of the programing, and the iMac is going strong. There is no need for Apple to switch to Intel. This rumor has been around for quite some time, and Apple has said they have had talks with Intel. however, Intel is just not a very good company. The power of the processors they make are just not what we are looking for in media. Which is what apple is renowned for.

If apple changes processors the Mac is truly doomed. However, I am very confident that apple will not change.
20'' iMac Intel Core Duo 2GHz, 10.6.5, 2GB RAM, 256MB ATI X1600

"Home computers are being called upon to perform many new functions, including the consumption of homework formerly eaten by the dog." -Doug Larson

#42 Brad Oliver

Brad Oliver

    Awesome Developer Dude Guy

  • Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1692 posts
  • Steam Name:hoserama99
  • Steam ID:hoserama99
  • Location:Glendale, AZ
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 04 June 2005 - 12:32 PM

No One, on June 3rd 2005, 08:55 PM, said:

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

View Post


My initial take is that CNet has some of the details wrong. For example, the real truth could be that a) Intel is going to fab PowerPC chips or b) Intel will be supplying chips for, say, Airport base stations or iPods or something. These make much more sense than a total architecture switch.

Having said that, let's assume for a brief moment that Apple will announce a move to the x86 architecture.

This would have a noticeable effect on companies that port software, IMHO. I would expect that it wouldn't be very long before someone comes up with a virtual-box solution to run Win32 apps on an x86 Mac, similar to VirtualPC for the PC or vmWare. You'd get 95-99% of the speed of running natively under Windows since, unlike VirtualPC for the Mac, it's just a virtual box running x86 apps without the need for a CPU emulator.

With that piece in place, I think the number of people who would be willing to wait for Mac ports of games would drop over time to a much lower level than now, perhaps to the point of putting a number of porting houses out of business. From an end-user standpoint, this probably would be an advantage of sorts - you could buy and play pretty much any PC game at this point. From my unique perspective of doing Mac game ports, this isn't a scenario I am particularly thrilled about, but what the heck.

Continuing the speculation, it also means that a Win32 virtual box running on MacOS X would have implications for business software. Microsoft Office, Quark, Photoshop - if these Win32 apps ran in a virtual box on the Mac, it would reduce the need and urgency for OSX-specific versions. I don't know if this is to the benefit of end users, but I can see these companies getting enthusiastic about dropping the Mac version and thus cutting costs.

The other wrinkle is a reverse-scenario. If OSX ran on x86, but say only on Mac hardware, it would only be a matter of time before some enterprising hacker wrote an OSX "virtual box" app to let any old x86-based PC run OSX apps on non-Apple hardware. Here's where I think the rumor of the x86 switch falls apart. Apple must surely be aware of this scenario, and it would have pretty big implications for their bottom line. I can't quite picture Apple looking forward to losing their hardware lock-in like this.
Brad Oliver
bradman at pobox dot com

#43 radioboy

radioboy

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 12:44 PM

yes. so long as the OS experience remains untouched, the chips inside are irrelevant to me.  

the sinister mactel rumor has once again resurfaced.  but the possibility of HL2 on a mac is of some comfort...



Belcarius, on June 4th 2005, 03:56 AM, said:

At the end of the day, I don't give a crap who is behind Apple chips as long as they run well.

View Post



#44 Siriusfox

Siriusfox

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1148 posts
  • Steam Name:opensiriusfox
  • Location:Washington State

Posted 04 June 2005 - 01:29 PM

radioboy, on June 4th 2005, 11:44 AM, said:

...so long as the OS experience remains untouched...
Changing the processor would mean a number of changes to the OS. :(
20'' iMac Intel Core Duo 2GHz, 10.6.5, 2GB RAM, 256MB ATI X1600

"Home computers are being called upon to perform many new functions, including the consumption of homework formerly eaten by the dog." -Doug Larson

#45 Mango

Mango

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 04 June 2005 - 01:42 PM

Brad Oliver, on June 4th 2005, 10:32 AM, said:

My initial take is that CNet has some of the details wrong. For example, the real truth could be that a) Intel is going to fab PowerPC chips or b) Intel will be supplying chips for, say, Airport base stations or iPods or something. These make much more sense than a total architecture switch.

View Post


I think this is a much more likely scenario.

#46 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 02:42 PM

Space_Pirate_Killer, on June 4th 2005, 12:31 AM, said:

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

I don't agree with you. I was entirely joking, and just want to add that Apple would have to be really stupid to announce a switch a year in advance. No one would buy Macs for that year, since they'd be end-of-line and (mostly?)incompatible with the new ones.

#47 The iMac Man

The iMac Man

    Macologist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2422 posts
  • Location:IL (USA)

Posted 04 June 2005 - 02:58 PM

RandyWang, on June 4th 2005, 08:00 AM, said:

And C|Net probably aren't the most reliable source around, as they're claiming that PC gaming will die. Again.

I mean, really, how much credibility do you want to deny yourself?

View Post


That is actually a pretty decent prediction.
-iMac

(The PC to Mac CoD Mod Converter)
Heat of Battle
Revolt
SWAT
Others

Get Mac Game Mods: Macologist.org

#48 rogue

rogue

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 494 posts
  • Location:The North

Posted 04 June 2005 - 03:06 PM

With all the news, I am willing to believe Apple will make some announcement related to Intel on Monday, but they are not stupid enough to switch to x86.

Either Apple is buying some non-CPU chips from Intel, or Intel is going to make some non-x86 chips for Apple.

Apple switching to x86 is about as crazy as Microsoft buying Bungie.
Macintosh Heroes of Might and Magic
http://strategyplanet.com/homm/mac

#49 Bernie

Bernie

    Naughty

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1930 posts
  • Location:Baltimore, Maryland
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 04 June 2005 - 05:27 PM

Lots of opinions. Let me try to add something new. I did skim this thread, so forgive me if I missed this idea.

Maybe Apple is not moving/switching to x86; maybe Apple is adding x86. That is, maybe Apple is going to keep PPC Macs and is going to start using x86 CPUs. Maybe you'll be able to buy Macs with PPC or x86 CPUs or both. Or maybe Apple is simply going to use x86, not for running Mac OS X, but for allowing Windows programs to run side-by-side with Mac programs.

One Way of Looking at Life
Good to be a Master.
Better to be a Teacher.
Best to be a Student.


#50 Belcarius

Belcarius

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 387 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 04 June 2005 - 06:09 PM

RandyWang, on June 4th 2005, 10:29 PM, said:

It's lovely to think that everything would continue to run well if they were to suddenly switch to a completely new architecture, isn't it? Aaah... ignorance, 'tis bliss.

View Post

The sarcasm is not necessary. If you bothered to read our posts properly, then you might realise that we weren't suggesting the chips would remain running well, but that we would be cut if they didn't. And what is to stop them from continuing to run well? Apple are not a bunch of mentally deformed chimps; they wouldn't decide to change chip manufacturers if the chips they sold would run worse. Feeling happy then?
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his" - George S. Patton

#51 NeoWolf

NeoWolf

    Heroic

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 06:59 PM

Well they are talking CPU, not just chip this time. So if there's some kind of truth to the claim it's not just a side chip. I'm not even sure if IBM makes the chips for the iPod. Apple doesn't deal with just IBM by far. Though notice the only thing they claim to know is that Apple's switching to Intel, and then go on a huge tangent about it being x86, kind of ignoring that Intel does make more than x86 processors. They've got graphics chipsets, networking chipsets, ARM cpus, and more aside from x86. Considering the huge blunder that Itanium turned out to be, maybe they're picking up a PPC line? It does seem unlikely, but not even nearly as unlikely as Apple leaving PPC.

#52 placebo

placebo

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 929 posts
  • Location:Massachusetts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 07:33 PM

Why can't Apple make Mac OS X be able to run on all PCs, and then profit from the thousands of sales they get from PC users that want to switch to Mac but don't want to buy new hardware? It makes perfect sense.

#53 NeoWolf

NeoWolf

    Heroic

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 07:42 PM

I wouldn't say it's outside the realm of possibility. It would certainly pull a radical shift on the playing field in the PC industry, that's for certain. There would still be plenty of obstacles in the way, but they're all passable, with time. (Primarily having to go from supporting the the dozen of chip sets in Apple devices to supporting the few hundred in x86 land. Something Apple certainly doesn't have the time to do and would cost a pretty penny. It would take the cooperation from most of the major hardware makers.  Sure they'd do this for a major company, but, until Apple has widespread hardware support they couldn't be a major player in the PC industry. Kind of a chicken and the egg problem there.)

#54 Atticus

Atticus

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 943 posts
  • Location:Sternum's Ribcage

Posted 04 June 2005 - 09:06 PM

I'm getting married in less than a week and Apple is switching to Intel hardware.

Run, people, for God's sake, run. The End is truly here.

Atticus
"I'm standing in the middle of life with my pants behind me."

#55 Tuncer (IMG)

Tuncer (IMG)

    Pimpbot 5000

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

Posted 04 June 2005 - 09:18 PM

Well, now the Wall Street Journal is reporting it. It's on their home page. It looks like it's going to happen.
Tuncer
Inside Mac Games

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

#56 Siriusfox

Siriusfox

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1148 posts
  • Steam Name:opensiriusfox
  • Location:Washington State

Posted 04 June 2005 - 09:56 PM

Every REPUTABLE news site has been down this road, apple talks with Intel about every 18 months, the changes and the problems that would arise would be tremendous.

Besides what reason is there for us to think that they have anything but a huch?

I cannot await the day when everyone holds their breath, and...
No comment what-so-ever is made about going to Intel.

Almost every piece of machinery runs on PPC. And apple just released a computer for PC users coming to mac "The Mac Mini", why would they undertake something as big as this so soon after it?

Besides, Intel has just released the ideas it has for what looks like the "PC-Mini". And I for one expect a lawsuit. Why would apple work with thy guys there suing.
20'' iMac Intel Core Duo 2GHz, 10.6.5, 2GB RAM, 256MB ATI X1600

"Home computers are being called upon to perform many new functions, including the consumption of homework formerly eaten by the dog." -Doug Larson

#57 NeoWolf

NeoWolf

    Heroic

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 10:16 PM

Intel in collaboration with another computer did the PC-Mini as a concept design. Intel probably just provided the small processor. Not to mention though ever reputable site has posted that Apple may go to Intel, I can NOT remember a time when every news site posted "Apple IS going to Intel". As it's been said, even if it is true (no one denies how unbelievable it sounds!) Intel could start making PPC chips. It's not like x86 processors is all Intel can do and does.

#58 Siriusfox

Siriusfox

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1148 posts
  • Steam Name:opensiriusfox
  • Location:Washington State

Posted 04 June 2005 - 10:25 PM

That might just explain this whole thing. If Intel joins the Motorola/IBM PPC bandwagon, then apple going to Intel actually sound reasonable. However, I stand by my point in this one. The argument against it is just too big to ignore.
20'' iMac Intel Core Duo 2GHz, 10.6.5, 2GB RAM, 256MB ATI X1600

"Home computers are being called upon to perform many new functions, including the consumption of homework formerly eaten by the dog." -Doug Larson

#59 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

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

Posted 04 June 2005 - 10:37 PM

placebo, on June 5th 2005, 12:33 PM, said:

Why can't Apple make Mac OS X be able to run on all PCs, and then profit from the thousands of sales they get from PC users that want to switch to Mac but don't want to buy new hardware? It makes perfect sense.

View Post


They can, and probably already have, ported it to x86. They won't be selling it any time soon, and they haven't sold it yet, because to do so would be to totally undercut their entire hardware range - which, unfortunately, is where they get their profit from. What's the point of selling a millions of copies of OS X per month if you don't make enough money from it to recoup the cost of lost hardware sales?

Quote

Well, now the Wall Street Journal is reporting it. It's on their home page. It looks like it's going to happen.

Why does that mean it's going to happen? Last I checked, the WSJ didn't employ technologically-minded clairvoyants...
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?

#60 NeoWolf

NeoWolf

    Heroic

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts

Posted 04 June 2005 - 10:44 PM

The arguments against are mountains high indeed. The good thing is, if it's true or not true - we find out Monday!