Apple to switch to Intel CPUs
The Mac, as we know it, may soon be gone..
Friday, June 3, 2005 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors.
Apple has been using PowerPC chips to power their Macintosh line of computers since 1994. But according to CNET, Apple is scheduled to announce this Monday at their Worldwide Developer's Conference their intention to make the switch.
Those who remember the migration from the 68k series chips back in the early 90s may recall that it took some doing. To run at optimal speeds, software has to be recompiled to the native chipset. Migrating to a totally different platform such as PowerPC to Intel will be a significant upheaval.
When Apple announced their move to IBM's next-generation PowerPC chipsets (now in the G5) some pundits have long made the argument that Apple can't ship enough computers to remain competitive on both price and performance with computers powered by Intel-compatible CPUs. Simply put, economies of scale were working against Apple in the long-run.
According to a CNET source, what may have spurred the change was just that -- IBM's concerns about making a low-volume chip that competes with x86's in performance in the same price-range.
The question is, can the Mac survive a transition from the PowerPC to Intel-based CPUs with the corresponding software compatibility/optimization issues?
Apple has been using PowerPC chips to power their Macintosh line of computers since 1994. But according to CNET, Apple is scheduled to announce this Monday at their Worldwide Developer's Conference their intention to make the switch.
Those who remember the migration from the 68k series chips back in the early 90s may recall that it took some doing. To run at optimal speeds, software has to be recompiled to the native chipset. Migrating to a totally different platform such as PowerPC to Intel will be a significant upheaval.
When Apple announced their move to IBM's next-generation PowerPC chipsets (now in the G5) some pundits have long made the argument that Apple can't ship enough computers to remain competitive on both price and performance with computers powered by Intel-compatible CPUs. Simply put, economies of scale were working against Apple in the long-run.
According to a CNET source, what may have spurred the change was just that -- IBM's concerns about making a low-volume chip that competes with x86's in performance in the same price-range.
The question is, can the Mac survive a transition from the PowerPC to Intel-based CPUs with the corresponding software compatibility/optimization issues?
 |
|
Page 2 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Eroticus Prime
Reply #22 Monday, June 6, 2005 3:42 AM
Reply #22 Monday, June 6, 2005 3:42 AM
There's no reason why Apple would switch to a different architecture from one they had a hand in designing themselves. Slashdot agrees with me:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151621&cid=12720530
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151621&cid=12720530
DesignCaddy
Reply #23 Monday, June 6, 2005 12:41 PM
Reply #23 Monday, June 6, 2005 12:41 PM
according to an article carried in reuters this weekend, apple is switching from IBM because IBM can not deliver on promises of productivity and technology advancement. the way i take this, is, IBM is slowing apple up through both merchandise availability and processor performance that isn't growing as fast as - say, intel.
intel certainly has great capacity to build chips.
apple's initial plan, according to reuters, is to place intel chips in the cheaper computers first.. to keep a mac mini and imac cheap. thus far, it would seem that apple is counting on a 'lesser' processor for its 'lesser' computer. but in fact, in two years apple is to place intel chips into its high performance systems as well. now, i say - whoa - what happened to all that talk about how PC processors (cough*intel*cough) have always been inferior to the ones in macs? i'm very axious to read Job's retoric... if he answers the question at all, he will most likely focus on windows as being an inferior platform, and not neccessarily the processor, as a reason why macs "perform better".
in addition, apple doesnt have to use your run-of-the-mill processor, you say.. they will use a high performance processor not used in your general windows computer. so i say, look at what intel did when the G5 came out.. intel scrambeled to increase processor bandwidth and released the xeron and 64bit chips to compete. i don't believe intel has tricks up its sleeve that it would save for apple and not windows based machines. my guess (and i am an amateur) is that apple won't have anything the rest of us don't have - be it dual processor, or intel's top of the line 64 bit chip. this will be a kick in the teeth for them because in any case software will need to be rewritten. its not as dramatic for the OS - osx is unix based, right? well we run unix on intel machines all the time. but other software will take a hit.
additionally, macs don't become normal pc's because as someone said, you still have apple packaged hardware with apple specific drivers, and you still have mac os- and lets face it - the only thing that makes a mac, a mac, is the OS. [...trust me on that..]
i am confident, however, that with OSX to include Intel processor and mainboard drivers - you will see in many cases people trying to use OSX to replace windows on their intel-based machines. i am more certain however, that people will sit back and say "well what's so special about a mac, now?", and many people who were planning to upgrade to apple machines will now sit on their hands until this plays out more completely, as existing macvocates invent new ways to label your now 'step sister' pc machines inferior..
// my two cents
intel certainly has great capacity to build chips.
apple's initial plan, according to reuters, is to place intel chips in the cheaper computers first.. to keep a mac mini and imac cheap. thus far, it would seem that apple is counting on a 'lesser' processor for its 'lesser' computer. but in fact, in two years apple is to place intel chips into its high performance systems as well. now, i say - whoa - what happened to all that talk about how PC processors (cough*intel*cough) have always been inferior to the ones in macs? i'm very axious to read Job's retoric... if he answers the question at all, he will most likely focus on windows as being an inferior platform, and not neccessarily the processor, as a reason why macs "perform better".
in addition, apple doesnt have to use your run-of-the-mill processor, you say.. they will use a high performance processor not used in your general windows computer. so i say, look at what intel did when the G5 came out.. intel scrambeled to increase processor bandwidth and released the xeron and 64bit chips to compete. i don't believe intel has tricks up its sleeve that it would save for apple and not windows based machines. my guess (and i am an amateur) is that apple won't have anything the rest of us don't have - be it dual processor, or intel's top of the line 64 bit chip. this will be a kick in the teeth for them because in any case software will need to be rewritten. its not as dramatic for the OS - osx is unix based, right? well we run unix on intel machines all the time. but other software will take a hit.
additionally, macs don't become normal pc's because as someone said, you still have apple packaged hardware with apple specific drivers, and you still have mac os- and lets face it - the only thing that makes a mac, a mac, is the OS. [...trust me on that..]
i am confident, however, that with OSX to include Intel processor and mainboard drivers - you will see in many cases people trying to use OSX to replace windows on their intel-based machines. i am more certain however, that people will sit back and say "well what's so special about a mac, now?", and many people who were planning to upgrade to apple machines will now sit on their hands until this plays out more completely, as existing macvocates invent new ways to label your now 'step sister' pc machines inferior..
// my two cents
caseagainstfaith
Reply #24 Monday, June 6, 2005 4:11 PM
Reply #24 Monday, June 6, 2005 4:11 PM
As to the debate as to whether the Intel chips that Apple will be using are "x86" or not, you'll notice that in the press release, the phrase "X86" was NOT used. However all the technical data on the Apple developer site indicates that it will in fact be a Pentium-equivalent CPU.
jaydub
Reply #25 Monday, June 6, 2005 5:59 PM
Reply #25 Monday, June 6, 2005 5:59 PM
Will that also mean that the Mac OS will compete directly with Windows = users have an option of Mac/Windows OS ?
will Mac OS on Intel run windows programs?
will Mac OS on Intel run windows programs?
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Monday, June 6, 2005 3:05 AM
Intel vs AMD competition prompts each party to innovate regularly while I believe IBM and its PowerPC chip was in a niche subjected to little competition.