Reading mode: Light Dark

Mac to move to Intel!!!

Go to last post
I'd be mighty surprised if they did this, it would mean too much rewriting of programs. I have a feeling that Apple will use some other chip from Intel, maybe some mobile chip for the laptops. Apple already uses some Intel controller chips (not CPUs) in their servers, so it's not as though they haven't worked together before.

Isaac
--
See my pictures here:
http://www.homepage.mac.com/isaacc7/
 
For us MacHeads, this will take time to digest. Jobs has been loyal to IBM and as far as I can tell, his loyalty has been reciprocated.

The Conference is Monday when more news will be forthcoming.
 
Chocolate,

I hope your'e correct. I've found c/net to be one of the most responsible sites and according to the article neither IBM, Intel nor Apple are not commenting. Why is that? One would think that Apple would not stay silent if this story were a fabrication.
 
Before the port to PPC, and integration as OS X, NextStep was up and running on Intel. I believe they used dual binaries to account for the different machine language between Intel and Motorola (original Next platform was 68040).

So this isn't as radical a step as it sounds. Be interesting to see if they resurrect the dual binary approach, or they run PPC/Motorola apps with an emulator.
 
They basically parrot things they hear elsewhere and generally do very little footwork to verify their scoops. Might as well be from the Register or similar publication.

As for AMD, they'd have the same problems IBM and Motorola have: consistent volume.
 
For two reasons:

1. When you have 5% of marketshare, the last thing you want is to pi$s off your developers. Maintaining software for two different processors can be pretty complicated, even if it's the same OS, especially considering that Intel chips have a different byte order (endianness).

2. Intel is overpriced and does not represent the best bang for the buck or the best performance anymore. AMD is the king right now with their 64 bit processors.

So I think CNet is wrong and they aren't really gonna do it.
 
I'm hoping this is a hoax. If IBM has to charge more for their processors and that irks Steve, well, that's the way they (IBM/Apple) like to dance.
 
Some things are quite odd here. Why intel. Why not announce switching to x86 architecture. Apple themselves may have some rights to PPC, so maybe they are just getting Intel to build PPC chips for them.

This will be one of the bigger announcements in recent memory if tru, but I am doubtful.
 
This is excellent news to bring OS and formfactor innovation to the open PC platform. The real loser here is Microsoft.

The ability for Intel to diffuse technology faster through a company (apple) that leads in innovation is truly great news. Microsoft has historically been slow to move and primarily catered to the older installed base of hardware, instead of innovating for new technology.

I will be an immediate new customer of Apple with this move assuming the benefits to freely upgarde graphics, memory, etc. are there.

Oh happy day. Microsoft is getting competition from the bottom with Linux and now from the top with OSX.

--
Photography Hobbyist in Dallas
 
1. When you have 5% of marketshare, the last thing you want is to pi$s off your developers. Maintaining software for two different processors can be pretty complicated, even if it's the same OS, especially considering that Intel chips have a different byte order (endianness).

First off, they have less than 2% of the market and now GAIN developers who are familiar with X86 compilers. Good tools is what developers want, they could not care less what the underlying hardware looks like. Byte ordering is not an issue unless you want to run binaries. This is about good news for Apple and the investment community knows it.

2. Intel is overpriced and does not represent the best bang for the buck or the best performance anymore. AMD is the king right now with their 64 bit processors.
So I think CNet is wrong and they aren't really gonna do it.

BULL.. Intel is not overpriced and in fact DOES represent the best "bang for the buck". If you look at their dual core CPU's, they are HALF that of AMD's. Your comment is without basis. As far as AMD is concerned, they do have a good chip with Opteron but not only is 64bits a meaningless metric of being "king", Intel outships AMD on 64 bits about 20 to one !

--
Photography Hobbyist in Dallas
 
The problem seems to be that IBM does not have the economic incentive to push hard for faster processors that Apple needs to compete against Intel, et. al. since the Mac market is small. This puts Apple in a difficult situation regarding the viability of the hardware part of the computer business. This is a big change, however, since Apple has been (at least before iPods) a computer hardware business. This might mean that it no longer is a computer hardware business but is a software business with a good OS and applications. Then next question is the profitability of such a company.
--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm
 
It would be interesting to see them release a version of OSX that would run on the billions of Intel PCs out there but I find it difficult to believe that Apple will actually start producing hardware with Intel chips. The only reason could be the pressure to make less power hungry laptops.

Ted
 
Why would it be difficult for Apple to produce hardware based on Intel? They don't manufacture hardware today using IBM chips. Everyting is offshore contract manufacturing.
--
Photography Hobbyist in Dallas
 
I note that ARS Technica also has the story. Some here quote Mac's market share as being in the neighborhood of 2%, etc. When I ask people on the street, etc., "what's your computer?" it seems as though 30-50% have Macs. I know that's unrealistic but it sort of decimates the 2% notion.

Anyway, many of us can't wait 'til Monday!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top