Apple will NOT use Intel chips in the Macs in the near future. Long-term, it could be possible (even though I still doubt it).

BTW: Why not use AMD chips? Wouldn't they be better for (x86) 64-bit solutions?

There...is...still...good....in...Steve...Jobs....

Is it really feasible for Apple to switch anything to Intel when Microsoft and Sony are about to debut dual and NINE (nontuple?) core Cell processors running at 3.2 GHz?

In small (compared to the G5) form factor boxes?

Obviously, not being an Apple insider, I can't even see the tip of the iceberg, but from the uninformed layman's point of view, this seems most bizarre.

And isn't the uninformed layman's point of view the one that counts?

Isn't it?

Why would it have to be for a computer product? It does not mean that the PPC chip is going to be replaced by x86. If this "report" is even true, it could be for a product we haven't even heard about.

Could this be a reaction to IBM's selling of its PC division to a Chinese government corporation?

I would ***NEVER*** buy a Mac with an Intel processor. NEVER.

Remember that Intel designs and manufactures much more than CPUs - they hold a huge chunk of the embedded graphics market for PCs, they make wireless networking chipsets and all sorts of other support chips.

And as was pointed out above, Apple makes more than just Macs.

TribalTalker

No Vo. If anything it strengthens the argument for an IBM/Apple tie-up. No matter how I look at it, using Intel now makes no sense.

Intel doesn't only make CPUs, they make a wide variety of chips and technologies.

In fact, Intel is the original creator of USB. Apple the the original creator of Firewire. Maybe they could have been talking about the USB vs. Firewire issue.

It doesn't HAVE to be CPUs they were talking about.

Don't worry Mac idolators, Jobs will still charge a big Apple tax for your new MacIntel.

Maybe it's a decoder chip just to handle the new H264 codec.

Using other-than-CPU Intel chips wouldn't be much of a story, but the TMO story said they were talking about using Pentium chips, which are definitely CPUs.

This sounds like more mental masturbation from some anal-yst. Using an Intel/x86 CPU would be commercial suicide on Apple's part, and while Steve Jobs may be eccentric, I don't think he wants to take Apple down.

Intel is putting Firewire 800 on its boards. Intel is heavily invested in WiMax. So there are lots of other possibilities besides CPUs.

Hey, last I checked PDA can use intel CPUs like the new palm lifedrive, perhaps this is a new hope for a ipod type PDA? There are lots of CPUs put there my friends, remember that.

Maybe it'll be for an upcoming tablet (which they recently got that patent for). People always imagine those as running full versions of OS X, but that's just wishful thinking -- more realistically, it would have its own embedded operating system, so there's no harm in starting fresh using cheaper x86 chips.

Snopes hoax, I don't know what does.

P4s in a Mac wouldn't make it less expensive, just cheap. At least if you're going to go to x86 architecture, go with AMD.

And for your customers sake, I hope this is all just another round of speculation.

If you ever want to learn (that means YOU RC) what the CPU chip equivalencies are, check out www.systemshootouts.org and you will know that 3.2G PIVs aren't the end all be all in the CPU world.

Geez I guess the CPU is the only "chip" inside a computer. Who knew!

It would be just bass ackwards to have XBox on Power PC and Apple on Intel.

Power PC's roadmap has attracted MS and Sony for good reason - it's got legs. I really don't see any good reason for Apple to replace IBM at this point. What does 32-bit x86 have left in the tank at this point?

I agree this is probably either a). a rumor b). Apple leveraging against IBM c). not cpu talk but discussions over some other type of chip for some other type of device.

N/C.

Hmm... this is an interesting development. Could they be thinking about the pentium-M line for the powerbooks since they can't seem to shoehorn the g5 in them?

I seriously doubt they would go to the x86 architecture.

Intel has lost significant market share to AMD. Maybe they are in talks to develop the successor to the G5. Apple's market share is inflating.

They are probably just talking to see what each company has to offer. Then there is the possibility of mac coming out with a new econo-line, based on x86.

Of course, the most interesting premise could be a purpose built-dual boot system. Mac hardware with intel chips, using a ROM based version of OS X (so it cannot be copied), and Windows. The users would inevitably choose the Mac OS, and then get a true mac system.

This would make sense, since apple has put fourth new directives to aggresivly market to PC users. I was talking to a guy who worked at apple, and he was talking about how apple was happy to just stay afloat for a while, but now they are grabbing the ipod-craze and pushing for market share. Apparently the mac-minis are selling like crazy.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

With Micro$oft moving their console to the PPC and using 3 of the chips, Apple needs to be able to respond with hardware that can compete and beat the upcoming game consoles. If MS is moving into the multimedia realm with the console and not just games, then Apple has to respond.

Intel at this time does not have CPUs that can compete with a multi-core PPC. They don't have the horse power and the dual chips do not have the umph needed to beat the PPC. So why would Apple move to a CPU with less potential?

AMD would be a better choice vs Intel, but neither are likely. If Micro$oft has multi-core PPCs then I do not see why Apple would not have the same of better.

USB, Firewire, Memory Controllers, BUS controllers, and other chips along those lines maybe what these talks are about.

It is also possible that Intel is scared of Micro$oft move away from X86 and is trying to cuddle up with apple to save their skin. This is a likely scenarion, but they would have to offer Apple something unique and powerful before Apple would consider it.

Just my 2 cents.
EagerDragon

The WSJ article indicates specifically that the story is about replacing the G5 processor with an Intel chip. All the talk about the existence of OTHER Intel chips is irrelevant.

The biggest obstacle here is not whether OS X will run on Intel. It's that moving to an Intel architecture would require another revision to application software to make it compatible. Photoshop for Mac as it is built today would not run on OS X for an Intel chip, nor would the rest. While it might be possible to emulate the G5, there'd be a massive performance hit. The revised apps would no longer run on legacy macs with PPC chips.

There's a point past which both users and vendors will no longer support Apple. Another platform change would likely be the end for me.

could also be the fact that Intel just put firewire 800 on a huge amount of their motherboards.

Those could be the talks.

Quote

Wings wrote:
I would ***NEVER*** buy a Mac with an Intel processor. NEVER.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Don't worry Mac idolators, Jobs will still charge a big Apple tax for your new MacIntel.

remember the old 68000 series chips that powered the original macs...

They can be found on many other boards in PC and macs. DPT used them on their SCSI controller boards.

Intel does make other chips. Apple could be looking at them, or at old Pentium chips for some other application we do not know.

Why would Apple go back to a Pentium. If Apple wanted to switch to Intel they would go with a not yet named processor which Jobs would have a hand in developing and naming.

If what Jobs said about taking the Computer Industry back from Gates is true, that might mean that Apple may release a version of OS X with a Classic style interpreter from Transitive to run Windows crap concurrently while people eventually migrate to Mac apps. Then It does not matter if it is on Intel or PowerPC.


Apple should buy Transitive and get them to get windows apps working with OS X like Classic Apps run on OS X.


AL

GAH! Imagine having the stupid "Intel Inside" logo on your Mac!!!!!

There was an anology to Apple switching to Intel chips as "Ferrari using BMW engines". I think it is more like Ferrari using Ford engines.

I think it is wiser to continue using IBM chips and pressure them more to deliver chips that will propell Apple in the future.

Dear Mr. Jobs,

It isn't just what is inside the computer that matters, it is what's behind the company that matters. Don't sell your company's soul to become another Intel/Microsoft bitch.

GAH! Imagine having the stupid "Intel Inside" logo on your Mac!!!!!

There was an anology to Apple switching to Intel chips as "Ferrari using BMW engines". I think it is more like Ferrari using Ford engines.

I think it is wiser to continue using IBM chips and pressure them more to deliver chips that will propell Apple in the future.

Dear Mr. Jobs,

It isn't just what is inside the computer that matters, it is what's behind the company that matters. Don't sell your company's soul to become another Intel/Microsoft bitch.

I seriously doubt that WSJ know anything more than the fact that some Apple execs have met with some Intel execs and the rest is pure speculation.
Apple will not put OS X on x86. Apple will not put their supporters in the position of having to rewrite everything for yet another platform switch. These are both absolutes that no one can intelligently deny.
Intel makes many products (including the old ARM processors that powered the Newton, remember those?!) that Apple could very well be considering for products that we'd only love to be able to reasonably speculate about.
To honestly consider Apple converting to Intel as their CPU provider is asinine, period.

LOL. I'll take a Bimmer engine any day!

...and the lion shall lie down next to the lamb. And men shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. And nation shall not lift up sword against nation..." It isn't the end of the world folks, get a grip.

It could be talks over the new rampant use of FW on Intel motherboards. It could be discussions of different chipsets to be used in future machines for secondary processing tasks. It could be discussions over the possibility of designing the "G6" since IBM appears to have hit a wall in production of faster G5's and maybe Intel wants a crack at it. Maybe it is even a disussion about designing Apple's new tablet/PDA/iPod video processor- something akin to the XScale (but better I hope). Relax...I doubt we will see Pentium Macs any time soon, if EVER.

The Register, the British snaky computer site analyzed this. Their take was that they might have been talkin about other products. The mentioned that Apple uses Intel chips in one of their X boxes.

"The WSJ article indicates specifically that the story is about replacing the G5 processor with an Intel chip. All the talk about the existence of OTHER Intel chips is irrelevant"

No, the talk about the other Intel chips/technoligies is not irrelevant. Everybody posting this type of information, including myself, are just pointing out that the WSJ is doing some speculation that doesn't make sense. We are doing our own speculation based on the talks they Apple is not looking to replace the G5, but doing something else with Intel.

Quote

Staggie wrote:
The WSJ article indicates specifically that the story is about replacing the G5 processor with an Intel chip.

Why would Apple replace the PowerPC with slow, buggy, crippled, overpriced Intel chips?

Intel makes many, many different classes of chips. Presuming that Intel and Apple are talking about IA32 (x86), IA32E (x86-64) or IA64 (Itanium) chips is really making a very limiting assumption. Intel also produces many networking chips (gigabit ethernet and 802.11a/b/g) and other, specialty processors - such as the PXA family of CPUs used in PDAs from Palm's LifeDrive to HP's iPaq.

Instead of rumoring "Mac OS X on x86", perhaps we should be talking about the iNewton? Personally, I would love to see Apple return to the PDA market with the marketing capital they've developed with the iPod - especially with the recent introduction of the Palm LifeDrive.

Pentium-M in a Powerbook would still raise the issue of application support. Any attempt to do PPC emulation on x86 will entail a performance hit (regardless of what Transitive says, it will not run as fast as native), and nobody is developing OSX for x86 apps. Classic Chicken and Egg problem.

Talks don't mean a sudden jump to a different architecture. They mean talks.

who cares what hardware we run on its the software that does it for me as long as it goes when i step on the gas im happy

apple would not screw up the big mo it has built up with a flaky move (trust the reality distortion feild) i squawked at the usb switch bit the bullet and am a better man for it todaty

in the XServe Raid. They might be considering building a new type of server, a tablet, a video iPod, a new Newton or anything else … this is a report of a meeting (or several) between 2 companies in a very closely related business …
Apple owns patents on the PPC and probably derives some profit from IBM and Freescale processor sales, so I don't really see what type of savings they could get from moving to x86. These "savings", if any, would be far outstripped by the extra expense of having to totally rewrite all of their software, not just the OS, to have it run on the new platform.
The 2.7 G5 runs circles around the latest Intel processors, so there is really no point in switching, unless Intel has something awesome in production that nobody has heard about yet … Very unlikely, IMHO.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Don't worry Mac idolators, Jobs will still charge a big Apple tax for your new MacIntel.

... Well he is a 95.5% bigger dick than the opposition.

Quote

Guest wrote:
... Well he is a 95.5% bigger dick than the opposition.

AMD SUCKS!!! They are budget CPU's.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
AMD SUCKS!!! They are budget CPU's.