The Back Page - Paul Thurrott Re-raises Specter of Apple Switching to Intel
by
- April 27th, 2005
Noted Windows fan site operator Paul Thurrott posted a note from WinHEC (Windows Hardware Engineering Conference) that reawakens one of the longest-running rumors and debates in the Mac community. According to Mr. Thurrott, he "heard" at the WinHEC that Apple will be switching to Intel's line of processor this year.
"This one's bizarre," he wrote, "but we heard at lunch today that Apple is unhappy with the PowerPC production at IBM and will be switching to Intel-compatible chips this very year. Yeah, seriously."
Mr. Thurrott, a frequent guest in The Mac Observer's Apple Death Knell Counter, is a self-described Mac user who has earned a reputation as an authority on Windows, at least in the Windows world. He also spends much of his time obsessively posting about Apple's every move at his blog-oriented Internet-Nexus Web site, and is a known poster at many Mac sites.
The rumor that Apple will, or must, switch from the PowerPC processor to Intel's x86 line has been one of the most popular sources of debate within the Mac community for years, especially during the early part of this decade, when Motorola was unable to keep up with Intel in terms of raw MHz.
On the pro-x86 side, the arguments tended to be that Apple should switch because the Pentium family was "faster," and because people didn't want to buy Macs, but did want an alternative to Windows.
Such arguments usually neglected to address the fact that Apple made almost all of its money at that time from sales of Mac hardware, and that controlling the hardware and software was the one competitive advantage Apple had over its competition. Perhaps most importantly, it is Apple's control over the hardware and software that makes Macs so much more stable and easy to use than Windows, which has to support a myriad of hardware configurations over which Microsoft has no control.
Be that as it may, there has been no end to the number of times that this rumor crops up, and Mr. Thurrott's is merely the most recent. As the good folks at Macworld UK noted, the fact that Mr. Thurrott made his comment based on something heard in the thick of the Wintel hegemony's developer world makes it a tad more intriguing, though it must be noted that he offered no contextual background for the source of his information.
As such, I thought it deserved mention, but I don't give it any credence. My long standing analysis of this issue is that there are too many barriers to Apple switching to Intel, and that there aren't enough benefits to doing so. IBM is way behind in pushing the G5 to new speed heights, but the company is committed to the platform, and has what I think is a more promising future than Intel's line.
As much of a weirdo Paul Thurrott is with his bipolar obsession with Apple and the Mac platform, I am sure he was passing along information from someone "in the know" in good-faith, but I don't think it will ever happen, at least not any time soon.
began using Apple computers in 1983 in a high school BASIC programming class. He started using Macs in 1990 when the Kinko's guy taught him how to use Aldus PageMaker, finally buying a Power Computing Power 100 in 1995. Today, Bryan is the Editor of The Mac Observer, and has contributed to the print versions of MacAddict and MacFormat (UK).
Once Apple switches to the faster, cheaper Intel chips, Jobs will drop support for Motorola and IBM chips like a hot potato. Won't that be ironic, Mac fanatics won't be able to run the latest Apple software, but the billions of Intel users will. There's more money in software than hardware, that's why Apple will switch to Intel.
Making a change like this is a lot work, it is more than just plugging in an '86 processor. It doesn't necessarily mean that Macs would be using the same CPU chip as Windows machines. Who owns the design on the Power PC? Suppose Apple is just "switching" to a different manufacturer, in this case Intel.
RealityCheck wrote: Once Apple switches to the faster, cheaper Intel chips, Jobs will drop support for Motorola and IBM chips like a hot potato. Won't that be ironic, Mac fanatics won't be able to run the latest Apple software, but the billions of Intel users will. There's more money in software than hardware, that's why Apple will switch to Intel.
S-u-r-e. Like Bill told everyone at WinHEC that Longhorn will run on all those billions of PCs? I don't think so, he said you will need the have the latest hardware. Meanwhile Mac OS X runs on G3, G4, and G5 systems. Try even installing, let alone running, Longhorn on a Pentium 3.
Paul Thurott / Reality Check said, "This one's bizarre," he wrote, "but we heard at lunch today that Apple is unhappy with the PowerPC production at IBM and will be switching to Intel-compatible chips this very year. Yeah, seriously." I wonder if he'd be willing to make an all-or-nothing wager on that? My money says no.
In what bizarro world are there billions of Intel users? Billions? Serious hyperbole. That closet Mac lover and assistant to an IT Admin., RC the Magnificent strikes again. Keep 'em coming under-the-bridge dweller.
Most importantly what would be the reason to go through the hassle of making the switch? While PPC chips aren't running at 3Ghz+ Apple desktops are in the same clock speed range as Intel desktops. (Here in the office we are deploying 2-3Ghz Windows and Macs machines. Laptops are in the 1.5-2Ghz range regardless of make). For most people for most uses PPC is working just fine. There's no compelling reason at this point in time to switch.
The only logic to this persisting rumor is around the future of the Powerbook and iBook. Perhaps Apple is frustrated over ever getting a G5 into the laptops -- which are, after all, Apple's bread and butter computers. The G5 towers are a match for any Wintel/WAMD box, but the 'Books are getting a little aged; and those Centrino-based laptops are really quite good, and getting better. It's only the operating system they're attached to that sucks. I sure wouldn't mind seeing OS X pumping through a Centrino-based laptop.
Of course, the practical matter is that today's 'Books are, in my opinion, fast enough for most needs. This obsession with more and more and more speed is mostly stupid. Yet, this obsession now has a life of its own, so Apple feels it has to keep feeding the speed junkies to survive. Therefore, will a needless obsession cause Apple to risk a lot in a switch to Intel chips? Time will tell. (Or space. Or something.)
Anonymous wrote: Of course, the practical matter is that today's 'Books are, in my opinion, fast enough for most needs. This obsession with more and more and more speed is mostly stupid.
Yeah, it's sad. A useful laptop today might have a 1 gHz chip in it, but 4 GB of RAM and a 200 GB HD.
Such a device would never be built, however, because it would be impossible to market to a public that wants more speed then storage.
Why would Apple switch to Intel CPU's when Microsoft itself is switching to IBM CPU's? Remember, the new X-box runs on IBM chips. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the new X-box is way more than just a gaming console, it's a full fledged PC - a proprietary box that only Microsoft sells and that no one can clone. MIcrosoft has seen Apple's advantage in controlling both hardware and software, and want to emulate Apple's success. With Microsoft's market share, the profits of selling a slick, fast, proprietary Windows box could be enormous.
"This one's bizarre," he wrote, "but we heard at lunch today that Apple is unhappy with the PowerPC production at IBM and will be switching to Intel-compatible chips this very year. Yeah, seriously."
Remember when the G5 first came out? Apple had worked for 2 years with IBM to get it to the market. You can be sure that they are also working on future designs from the dual core to the transfer to the 65 nm process. Apple owns part of the PPC design, along with IBM and Moto/Freescale and they aren't going to change.
Think of something more interesting - such as what alpha chips from IBM that Apple has in their labs right now that we will be seeing in the future.
Though I don't believe Apple would switch to Intel, the CPU issues (lower MHz, unreliable supply, ...) need to be addressed. It is not critical for Apple right now as Apple only sold about 750k-850k per quarter, recently is over 1 million per quarter. However, if halo effect picks up, Apple needs a reliable and high volume stream of CPUs.
Last edited by Mace on Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:20 pm; edited 1 time in total Reply | Quote
Actually, the general context was given. He was at a blogger lunch with a bunch of Windoze fans (he lists some of the better known names including Scoble and Foley). Why that subject would come up at a blogger lunch of Windoze fanatics (if there really is such a thing) is what's a bit odd. He doesn't say who made the claim or why (the missing part of the context), and a guest has correctly pointed out that he approached it with some sarcasm.
Paul Thurrott wrote: ...we heard at lunch today that Apple is unhappy with the PowerPC production at IBM and will be switching to Intel-compatible chips this very year.
Yeah, right, the wet dream common to many Windows wankers, Thurrott included. He overheard a fellow wanker discussing his own fantasy and concluded that if anybody besides him was thinking of it, it must be about to happen.
The middle part ("Apple is unhappy with the PowerPC production") is probably true. The first part might be true, the last part is laughable.
Well Intel makes many different chipsets, and not only the x86. The Itanium for example could be the first step for Apple to change chipset manufacture. Start off by using Intel-based servers running OS X: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,39020351,39190113,00.htm
If Apple would gradually change to Itanium processors that would make it logical why AMD never have been mentioned.
Itanium might straggle along for a few more years only if the Itanium II chip can be made in a dual processor version that uses less than 120 Watts. Other than that, stick a fork in it, its done.
Why would Apple switch to Intel, only to use an unpopular, underperforming, and proprietary--and entirely different from the previously developed "Darwin on X86"--instruction set? Ludicrous.
AMD should be shipping dual core x86-64 chips within two months, that is the the way Apple should go *IF* it is going to happen. It uses Hypertransport, which Apple should already be developing since it is in the feature set of the IBM 970 line.
GRP
Hey RC - here's a bet. If Apple doesn't switch within a year, you agree to stop posting your special breed of hogwash on Mac sites and post your special breed of hogwash on Wintel sites - where it belongs.
And if Apple does switch to cheaper less reliable Intel chips, then you can gloat all you want about how mediocre Macs have become!
Wow... with Itanium's price/performance ratio, a move to Itanium would double a Mac's cost. They would be MUCH better off dropping a dual G5 into a socket rather than an Itanium.
Anyway, a move to Intel chips would involve not only recompiling (and a fair amount of rewriting as well) every app that Apple would include with the Intel system, but they would have to convince a large number of developers to do the same. They have already convinced them to do this twice now, and it ain't gonna happen a 3rd time. (Just because Photoshop runs on Windows is no reason it would be child's play to make a version that runs on MacOS on Intel.)
And the Pentium line is such a hodge-podge of special purpose registers and bolt-on additions to make it play well (well, well enough) with old code, that I doubt if anyone at Apple would want to jump into that mess. I certainly wouldn't.
With the success of dual-G5 XServes, and so many in the supercomputing space touting their greater price/performance/energy consumption when compared with Intels, why would Apple even consider switching to Intel? It can't be for lack of sales, what with Mac sales increasing at a rate that's outstripping the rest of the PC industry.
And I agree with what Small White Car said: For most computing tasks, a 1 GHz chip with plenty of memory and storage is more than enough. Also, for the record, I find an 800 MHz G4 tower more than adequate for heavy-duty Adobe Creative Suite usage. Ditto for a 1.5 GHz G4 15" PowerBook.
Hard-core gamers and 3D animators need speed more than anyone. For the former, game consols seem to offer the most bang for the buck. For the latter, clusters are the only way to go. For mainstream computing, though, how much speed does anyone really need???
RealityCheck wrote: Once Apple switches to the faster, cheaper Intel chips, Jobs will drop support for Motorola and IBM chips like a hot potato. Won't that be ironic, Mac fanatics won't be able to run the latest Apple software, but the billions of Intel users will. There's more money in software than hardware, that's why Apple will switch to Intel.
Care to post a date when this will happen RC? We'll love to throw this back in your face on that date.
OTOH, I could see some kind of limited test product, like AMD fueled X Serves or the like.
I do wonder what would happen if Apple went toe to toe with Windoze by releasing a PC version of OS X. People aren't flocking to our platform despite Windows myriad problems, and it is likely because of the hardware. iTunes has provided millions of Windoze users a taste of Apple's elegant software, and could be a Trojan horse for getting people to run OS X.
Imagine a PC user who has the option of waiting another 18 months at best for longhorn, or getting OS X now. I'll wager a lot of folks would gamble the 100 bucks or so and give it a try. In 18 months they could put a real dent in MS'a market share.
Sure, people would need new apps, and if it failed it could kill Mac development, and perhaps the company for good. It would be high risk with the potential for high gains.
Probably just a rumor though. Cell would be a more viable rumor.
"The only logic to this persisting rumor is around the future of the Powerbook and iBook. Perhaps Apple is frustrated over ever getting a G5 into the laptops -- which are, after all, Apple's bread and butter computers. The G5 towers are a match for any Wintel/WAMD box, but the 'Books are getting a little aged; and those Centrino-based laptops are really quite good, and getting better. It's only the operating system they're attached to that sucks. I sure wouldn't mind seeing OS X pumping through a Centrino-based laptop."
The Centrino is NOT A PROCESSOR. There is no logic in saying that switching to an x86 processor (which is impossible btw) with Mac OS X would help it all. If anything we will see laptops stay G4, which is a great idea! Freescale has been developing great low-wattage chips lately with nice amounts of power, not only in ghz but also with a wider frontside bus bandwidth (600Mhz FSB if I remember correctly) The people worrying about the laptops are the people who are looking for 2" thick laptop tech to go into a 1" thick physical form, this is not happening soon and the Freescale G4's will definitely pull their weight for years to come, take a look at their raw speed these days as it has breached 1.xGhz and hit 2Ghz. Impressive I know, it really is only a matter of time til we see those in laptop form.
The reason Apple laptops are such a focus is because many manufacturers build thin 1" laptops as well as "desktop replacement" laptops, some over 2" thick! Apple realizes that people want to take their laptops with them they are supposed to be PORTABLE and have a great balance of power and battery length. Stop worrying about Apple, they have things in the roadmap.
Freescale designs and builds PPC architecture cpu's that Apple uses. Take a look at what they have in store:
-Dual e600 PowerPC core, >1.5GHz each, 2.3MIPS/MHz
-L1: 32kB I/D, L2: 1MB with ECC
-Dual 64b DDR2, 667MHz with ECC (memory controller, currently 167mhz)
-Serial RapidIOŽ, 1x/4x at up to 2.5Gb/s per lane
-Dual PCI Express, x1/x2/x4/x8, 2.0Gb/s per lane
-1.0, 1.1Voltage (look at how low the power usage is!)
-90nm silicon-on-insulator (SOI) SOI means silicon on insulator, it is an IBM fabrication process
We don't need to worry! These things will come in due time.
I had no idea -- I have read a couple his rabidly anti-Mac articles, and don't bother to check him out often because he doesn't seem to know what he is talking about. But he apparently is a Mac user? Who knew.
"Meanwhile Mac OS X runs on G3, G4, and G5 systems. Try even installing, let alone running, Longhorn on a Pentium 3."
What pissed me off is when I found out that my $4500 powermac 9600 would not run mac os x. That turned me away from mac. That machine now runs linux. What will happen is the G-3, 4 and 5 will run current editions, but will not be upgradable in the future if apple follows the same pattern as before. At least I can run old versions of linux and windows and current and older x86 machines. I can't trust apple after they made my powermac 9600 almost useless and un-upgradable. Does anyone else remember that crap?
RealityCheck wrote: Once Apple switches to the faster, cheaper Intel chips, Jobs will drop support for Motorola and IBM chips like a hot potato. Won't that be ironic, Mac fanatics won't be able to run the latest Apple software, but the billions of Intel users will. There's more money in software than hardware, that's why Apple will switch to Intel.
"Once Apple switches to the faster, cheaper Intel chips, Jobs will drop support for Motorola and IBM chips like a hot potato."
Take a moment to check reality, Reality Check: Mac sales have been steadily increasing, and Intel chips may have more megahurtz, but that doesn't make them faster. This isn't the 90's anymore. Processor technology has moved on.
"Won't that be ironic, Mac fanatics won't be able to run the latest Apple software, but the billions of Intel users will."
You're talking as if Apple would like to commit suicide, because that's exactly what they'd be doing if they bought OS X over to Intel-compatible processors.
"There's more money in software than hardware, that's why Apple will switch to Intel."
No, actually, there's more money for Apple in hardware. That's why you'd love for them to switch to software.
Take a moment to check reality, Reality Check: Mac sales have been steadily increasing(I've been saying this for years, and nobody including me can see this to be true), and Intel chips have more megahurtz and makes them faster. This isn't the 90's anymore, except with Apple hardware, which is seriously outdated.
If OS X goes over to the Intel, us faithful Mac idiots will go over there too.
No, actually, Apple likes to charge ridiculous amounts for hardware. That's why you'd love for them to switch to software.
"What pissed me off is when I found out that my $4500 powermac 9600 would not run mac os x. That turned me away from mac."
But you didn't turn away from Apple, the computer manufacturer?
Hey, I know what you mean. I tried to upgrade my SE to Panther only to discover that 4 mb of RAM and a 20 mb HD wouldn't cut it. I was so pissed!
: P
BTW, here's an ENORMOUS clue stick for your little mind. It's called XPostFacto. The 9600 can be easily upgraded to run OS X. You can even partition the drive to run Linux as well! Oh glory, glory! ! !
O.K., I'm feeling generous today. Here's a second clue stick. It's called ebay.com. Check into it. Now come back when you have clue marks on your face.
Sales numbers from the last three quarters have not even made a dent in market share. I'm the ass who writes "Try again" in every thread where someone disagrees with me.
Do want show you benchmark tests that have higher-megahurtz processers outperforming lower-megahurtz processo
