Apple Going Intel... Article Link

hmm , kind of interesting .

Ghostshadow said:

hmm , kind of interesting .

Click to expand...

I thought it was always ironic that Apple was buying chips from IBM, the "notorious" corporation that consumed Jobs in the early years of Apple. This move makes sense on many fronts, as Intel is THE largest chip supplier in the world. They have the horses for R & D, and likely will develop an Apple-only chip. I don't think Jobs & Co. are bluffing this time.

Interesting read.

Apple going Intel?

Article in the WSJ about Intel and Apple. Rumors about Apple and some deal
with Intel to provide processors for Macs.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=288

there is already a thread about his

http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19170

Mod note: merged the two threads.

zdnet said:

Due diligence. If Apple is about to make a CPU decision - whether that’s simply the renewal of a major contract or a major change doesn’t really matter- they have an obligation to their customers and shareholders to carefully check out the competition.

Click to expand...

After reading the zdnet article. I am incline to believe the above to the case.

I thought the possibility of Intel buying out Freescale to get the intellectual property rights was pretty interesting. Freescale does a lot of RT chips besides doing Power.

Is Apple getting too big for IBM? I know AMD doesn't have the production capacity to keep up with Dell's demands which is why Dell doesn't use AMD. Could this be a similar thing?

I would think it'd be nicer to have an AMD processor inside your Mac than an Intel processor. Why switch from one overheating/underperforming processor to another? Intels added production capacity is nice if IBM isn't able to keep up with demand, but even AMD wouldn't have a problem supplying apple.

I would like to see some details on whether this is a "Mac Only" processor, of if there will be a version of OS X ported to x86.

I don't think Apple is getting to big for IBM. I really think it is more contrast issues, than anything else.

It is more like the James Bond rumor that keeps popping up. The Intel rumor continues to keep popping up also.

I say the same thing every time this rumor gets rehashed.

Switching to Intel/x86 will break all third-party applications.

First, Any OSX-PowerPC binary app would have to be recompiled from source to create an OSX-x86 version. This version would then have to be tested and most likely "tweaked." This process is not free, and some software vendors would probably just drop OSX support altogether, because it would be a lot of work for a small market.

Second, this creates a split in the Mac market. Existing users would have PowerPC hardware; new buyers would have Intel hardware. Developers would have to decide whether to A) support only the new architecture or B) maintain two seperate Mac version of their software. B is expensive for the developers. A would alienate existing customers, who would not be able to buy new software for thier PowerPC machines

Third, existing customers have cllections of PowerPC software. If they purchased one of these new x86 Macs, they would have to pay to upgrade all of it.

Seriously, people. We've heard this before. It's a nice idea, but it's not practical. Even if it did happen, it wouldn't change things much: you'd still have to buy an Apple box to run OS X, and the Apple box would still cost more than a Dell box with the same x86 CPU, because Apple has to pay for OS X development and Dell doesn't.

Is there some reason why Intel couldn't produce a PowerPC chip? Everybody assumes that going intel means x86, is that 100% correct? I have no clue, that is why I am asking.

There is no way that apple would use a x86 chip. If they were to go with Intel, I'm sure that they would develop a PowerPC chip. However as said in the article, its rumor and speculation.

However if it would occur they would not make a chip that would literally render everything that is out for OS X now useless.

Intel's R&D department is in a struggle right now trying to get their x86 processors back in the competative market. They simply do not have the time right now to develop a Power PC processor unless Apple was going to pay heavily for all the R&D. So it is unlikely that Intel is developing a processor for Apple. It is just as unlikely that Apple is going to port to x86. Yes, this would cost them a bunch initially, but it would dramatically increase their number of potential customers. As a PC user I would definetly install a copy of OS X on my PC. You'd get to have the best of both worlds.

I would assume even if Apple went to Intel processors, they would make it so you still had to have their proprietary hardware.

Avid6eek said:

I would think it'd be nicer to have an AMD processor inside your Mac than an Intel processor. Why switch from one overheating/underperforming processor to another? Intels added production capacity is nice if IBM isn't able to keep up with demand, but even AMD wouldn't have a problem supplying apple.

I would like to see some details on whether this is a "Mac Only" processor, of if there will be a version of OS X ported to x86.

Click to expand...

You guys need to stop thinking about IBM being too small.

As I noted in a previous thread, if you add the revenue from Intl and Microsoft together, you have about 2/3 of IBMs revenue. It is the biggist chip fab company in the world. It's nicknamed the colossus of Armonk for a reason.

Apple is not going to Intel. If they did, they would loose control over the tightness of the hardware and software.