RSSReport: Apple in Talks with Intel
By Ed Oswald | Published May 23, 2005, 12:13 PM
The Wall Street Journal on Monday said that Apple is in talks with Intel over using the company's chips in its Macintosh line of computers. Both companies, however, denied that any discussions are taking place. The report says that a move towards Intel chips is very close to becoming a reality, at least on paper.
Theoretically, if Intel chips were used in Macintosh computers, Mac users could install Windows without Virtual PC or a similar application, and vice versa. It is unclear whether this move is an actual switch by the company, or just being used to gain leverage in future talks with IBM, which produces the PowerPC chip. In any case, at least one executive told the WSJ that an announcement could come as soon as June 6 at the Apple World Wide Developer Conference in San Francisco.
Think the apple way... bigger better faster... and it comes down to maybe they're looking towards an itanium level 64 bit chip... possibly for their x-serves... or pentium m for laptops? smaller cheaper ibooks? dunno, but i dont see this actually panning out. ibm and apple have been a** buddies for years and other than ibm's pc division being purchased by lenovo (sp) i can't think of any conflicts they might be having. but then, that's why im a consumer and not corporate brass at apple ;)
Score: 0
|Yeh i think if they really are looking for a new chip itanium would be more likely for them to choose. not that i think they should, but it would be enough to prevent the masses from using their os for a start. It also never really took off so it would be a good way of getting itanium moving. Lets just hope this is a manipulation of IBM.
Score: 0
|Myself I think this is just a stunt for more leverage with IBM. I've never had a mac before but from what i've heard the Power PC chips perform just as well as anything intel has to offer so what's the use unless maybe they can het cpus cheaper with intel. Of course this could be a move toward a Mac OS for intel and amd based machines, but if that's the case why do they need to use intel chips in their machines. I believe they could make a fortune if they would just make an os to work on the other cpus.
Score: 0
|I don't see why Apple would move their OS to the Intel platform. How memory is accessed is vastly different than from how the PPC sees things. I like the PPC approach much more than Intel's, but I have to pay the bills and there aren't too many jobs out there for Apple programmers. :-(
Anyway - I think one of the other posters had it right, this is probably a ploy to get IBM to drop the price or to charge MS more money to put the PPC in the new XBox. Or it's just Apple's way of making MS sweat over thinking that now all those people out there with Intel boxes could just drop their Win OS and install Tiger.
Actually - I'd like to see that - I think Tiger looks pretty slick and who knows - if it ran on enough machines, maybe someone would start writing software for it. Or at least more someones would start writing software for it. :)
My 2 cents.
Score: 0
|I would like to see mac OS on intel and amd platforms because I would actually like to try it. The thing that's holding me nack is that I have perfectly good hardware so I don't see buying another computer just to try the OS out. Looks like I'll stick to trying out Linux Distros.
Score: 0
|I agree. I would love to see Tiger on intel based systems. I almost bought a G5 a few weeks ago but I could not justify the cost. I have a very good Intel based system and XP runs very well. Both XP and Tiger have good and bad points but I would love to give Tiger a try. Apple could make alot of money and be truley competative. Maybe Microsoft should port a version of XP over to the power pc architecture.
Score: 0
|...but while on the subject--why can't Apple make processors that work on PC's? I don't use Mac or like them much but I know their processors are frikin awesome. You could get your market share apple! And force MS to support your product MWOOOHAHAHAHA ;)
Score: 0
|Fricken awesome? Apple? Hmm, pass me some of whatever you're smoking dude... I think DreamWorks' use of AMD in Madagascar is going to prove that you don't need Apples to do high end graphics anymore. Nevermind the whole gigahertz-wars and the fact that Apple is at least a gigahertz behind.
Score: 0
|Does Apple make processors? I thought the article stated that IBM makes the processors for Apple.
RISC and CISC both have their advatages. The IBM RISC chip runs cooler and consumes less power than a CISC.
Score: 0
|"Does Apple make processors? I thought the article stated that IBM makes the processors for Apple."
Whatever (the G5)
Score: 0
|And obviously Ghz = performance, and that's why my 2.0Ghz A64 (Clawhammer core, 3200+) is faster than a 3.0Ghz P4.
*rolls eyes*
The reason Apple hasn't yet made software for IBM-compatible systems is because they're not standardised, from a software or hardware point of view. There aren't generic build Macs, so creating an OS for them is easier and they are far more reliable.
But I do agree that OSX on my A64 would be very cool. I'd love to switch, if I could. :)
Score: 0
|I thought that Motorola made the chips for apple. Maybe it hasn't been that way for a long time.
Score: 0
|