First of all, there is nothing in the CNet News.com report to indicate that Apple is going to move to Intel's x86 lineup. It simply says a move to Intel. That could be any number of possibilities including, but not exclusive to x86, IA64, or some new, unknown possibility.

Second, I distinctly remember being 14 years old back in 1994 when Apple made the choice to move to the IBM/Motorola PowerPC processors. Everyone thought it was blasphemy then, and how ironic that the same people are saying blasphemy to Intel.

I would not expect to see Apple on a pure x86 platform, because it would force them to "open up" the MacOS to all sorts of hardware, which will only prove that their PlugNPlay system works only as well as Windows, lol... so much for "Just works" if they do that, IMO. While I could be wrong, I'm not optimistic enough to think they'd open the flood gates despite the bold move to Intel.

What I do expect to hear is that Intel will make a proprietary chipset and/or processor specifically for Apple.

This is better news for Intel than it is for Apple, though. Apple could face a backlash from their overly opinionated, rabid user base that despises all things "PC". Intel on the other hand gains a big business. It does, probably mean cheaper and faster Macs, however, which would be good for Apple, so time will tell.

Overall, I expect this to be a good thing for the industry providing Mac and Intel play their cards right.

The one thing Mac has that does well, and now they're switching their superior processors to Intel?!? Those %$#@! at Intel must've known this for a while, probably why their processors have gone to crap in the last couple of years...worse than Microsoft if you ask me. I take back what little praise I had for Apple...you're makin a deal with the devil.

Why am I being so blunt towards Intel? Wish I could tell you everything--suffice to say intel has been bribing companies with exclusitivity contracts for too long now, and as much as I dislike HP's new PC's, they're the only thing preventing Intel from showing their true colors...and I'm sure Intel knows it. Stand your ground HP! Don't quit selling AMD systems!

Well I don't disagree that Intel's chips are vastly inferior to present-day AMD chips, and I wholeheartedly support HP and any other company that offers AMD...

I don't really agree that Macs are the only thing good Apple does... afterall, look at iTunes and iPod and iEverythingElse. As I said in my other post though, don't expect this to mean Apple is going to open up MacOS to run on x86 across the board and suddenly support all kinds of PC hardware... their "just works" mentality would be broken quickly if they do.

Oops! Forgot about iPod's! DOH!

So, maybe it'll be good for processor market or... (dunno), but... How will they make MacOS work on x86 architecture?

It's BSD, man. How hard could it be?

Saying it's BSD is like saying NT/2K/XP/2K3 is still based on the original Unix/OS2 foundation it was built on and saying that it fully supports POSIX... it's just not a fair statement. It's been so b**tardized in the development process that it's apples and oranges with a few bananas mixed in the group.

Wow. You got me there. NT was based on Unix? I know MS and IBM worked together until MS pulled out of the project with what they needed for NT, making it no small wonder OS/2 and NT we're so closely related.

I had no idea Unix was anywhere in the mix, though.

Unix wasn't in the mix anywhere, NT was designed by several of the engineers that developed VMS.

Just letting everyone know that if this true, I'm sure Intel will be producing a cpu for Apple that is proprietary for Apple alone.

Agreed. Apple is probably the most nefarious company in the industry in regards to proprietary stuff.

Probably why it works so well, too.

I just wish they would give us some definite info on it instead of all this speculation. I'm interested to know how this turns out. However, they can make Mac OS work on all those intel chips they want, I won't be buying Mac OS unless they make it work on AMD cpus as well. I refuse to use intel chips. AMD would have been the more logical choice since they have the better technology at this point.

x86 = Intel/AMD.

If their using x86 for aplatform for MacOS in the future, it will run on both Intel and AMD processors.

If Apple realy does do this then they need to just drop the hardware line outright and just focus on the OS. They have no advantage in switching to x86 if they arn't going to compete with MS on there own turf. If they make it so Mac OS only functions on apple branded machines it will be the death of them.

I hope AshG is correct and this is all about WiMAX becose droping PPC for intel x86 is just nuts. They could have atleast went with AMD as AMD would fit alot better into the whole apple image and it woucvlent be leaving such a bad taste in everyones mouth. It's almost like they sold out.

If this rumor is true, I doubt Apple will use x86 (32-bit) chips; if anything that currently exists, I'd bet they'd use 64-bit processors, especially since the G5 is one, and Tiger is already incorporating some "64-bitness" into itself. Either that or Intel will do nothing more than manufacture PPCs for Apple in the same way that IBM has been doing.

"They have no advantage in switching to x86 if they arn't going to compete with MS on there own turf. If they make it so Mac OS only functions on apple branded machines it will be the death of them."

As I said above, not necessarily. The OS basically functions only on Apple-branded machines now, and it's certainly not the end of the company, so what does it matter if they switch architectures (which most users don't care about, anyway--how average users do you think are aware of the different processor architectures out there?)? Even if they use traditional x86, which I doubt, they'll certainly have a way of making sure you can't just install OS X on any x86 machine--otherwise they'll lose some of the control they have now by being able to deal with a certain set of hardware rather than the wide variety which Windows and Linux try to support.

I have a gut feeling that the announcement is going to be Apple adoption of Intel's WiMAX standard and not the wholesale move of the Mac line to Intel processors.

Apple's allowance of the hype to build on this is pretty good - get a community of people lathered up, hungry, and waiting for the next bite of information. Unfortunately, as with similar announcements in the past, we're going to be left with many upset people. If OS x86 were to be a reality, I'd be one of the many pondering the switch. Don't get your hopes up.

Given the financial support that Microsoft has handed to Apple in the past, I doubt we'll be seeing a competing OS. Unless, that is, Microsoft has figured out that it's cheaper to let Apple compete than to continue paying legal fees and penalties for being the only game in town...

i for one hope this happenes
i would move over to mac then for its photo editng and webdesign funtunality

i want this to happen

Because, clearly, the PPC is not fit for photo editing and Web design?

Isn't PPC an open spec? Maybe Intel is going to announce their own Power PPC chips? That is a somewhat likely scenario in my opinion. Apple would then have the luxury of having IBM and Intel compete for price/performance.

Apple may finally break the mainstream with this move, I for one would then consider buying mac.

I would not buy a mac in it's current form, not enough availability of the software I use.

If this change means the possibilty to run a mac os on your self build clone, or just whatever clone this is sure to bring microsoft at the least plenty migraine and/or severe fits of copious headaches...the possible winners ? why would anyone love the possibility to dump or switch their os on their x86 machines ? the mac name still has a big advantage to linux. so start counting your blessings if indeed the switch is more then just some intel chips...could this be a well orchestrated attempt to put microsoft back amongst the ordinairy people ?

Again, they're likely not going to be using the x86 architecture. As stated in the article, it's probably not even for the Apple/Mac PCs.

They're simply making an announcement like this to get the rumormills churning. All they are doing is having intel build some Xscale chips for Apple appliances. (Ipods with a mini OS, etc...)

You know they will have both because the public is not ready just yet for only 64-bit because of the limitations and lack of backwards compatibility is a bit steep in that area. On the other hand, the fact Apple decided to join the rest of the world on the x86 platform is awesome.

C|Net's news.com.com.com.com did *not* announce that Apple would be switching to Intel x86 chips--they merely said Intel chips.

This leaves open the possibility that they may use a 64-bit chip (hopefully, unless they know some super-secret to PPC emulation on IA-32 that countless commercial emulator vendors have broken promises on, and which PearPC does but at a crawlingly slow rate) or that Intel may simply develop PPCs for Apple--if the specs for that processor are open, I can't recall.

Niether did they say it would be used in their MAC PCs.

Their lack of specification leads me to believe they will be using the Xscale chip in new Ipods and the like.

ineresting.
providing Apple maintains hardware and software control. releasing that makes for a second or even third rate product. Apple's reputation would not survive. so no third party computers. just as sungolem stated
considering mtbf of ibm vs intel products.
porting the apple world can be done according to Steve.
but at what cost.
changing the world from 68k to ppc was one thing, I don't think Apple can get away with a second time. not with a hardware/software/OS rewrite for everyone at the same time.
surely this is for non-primary type processing.

perhaps wireless, perhaps entertainment (multi channel HD TV) audio etc.

my opine

This is bad news cause Apple must be Apple (a unique kind of computer) now that it will host an Intel chip like all compatible Pcs it decrease the value (not sure that Apple stock will rise in future) Also if apple will sale their OS to third part manufacture it will end the Apple legend and sure he will have problem with hackers and Os copies just like Microsoft has to face with it now. So I m not sure that Apple users like me will appreciate.

What makes us all so sure they are not planning on running both OS's on both chips in one unit. Impossable you say hmmmmmmm. Yeah your right the arnt but that would be cool. It would be like setting one of those $499 macs on top of a PC box.... cooooool!!!

Who's to say that Intel hasn't cloned the PPC instruction set either?

There are endless possibilities, especially with Intel working on hardware virtulization technology recently.

You have an interesting idea though, that crossed my mind earlier today when I first read this article. A good low end CPU would add maybe $100 to the cost of their boards, something along the lines of Mac on Linux technology to run Windows on MacOS would be a killer combination.

Be realistic. Why on earth would Apple do this? They won't. It'd be suicide. They're not going to put x86 processors in MACs...it simply isn't going to happen. All they said was their discussing using intel CPUs.

They never said which CPUs. They never said for what purpose. Why? Because then no-one would care. Do you know what procesors in the IPOD now? Do you care? Probably not. They didn't specify the chip, or the application simply because they knew no-one would give a sh*t that they're going to start using intel chips in the ipods.

I was being realistic I implied that they coudl really do anything. ;-)

Intel manufactures more then just x86 chips, and they have the ability to manufacture just about whatever they desire. So why assume that apple is planning a switch over, or even that they plan to dump IBM all together. They could be setting up a deal with intel to manufacture only a portion of required PPCs to take some of the weight of of IBM who is also making PPCs for other groups like Microsoft (xbox360 or whatever its called) Sony(PS3) and I think Nintendo (their new system)

Plus Apple makes more then just PPC systems, so perhaps intel is being asked to manufacture other parts of the apple product line

Yup.

The only advantage of this is if Apple allows the OS to run on any x86 machine rather then only Apple branded machines.

Other then that droping PPC for INTEL was just dumb as hell. The least they could have done was picked the cheaper, cooler running, more reliable AMD.

I always have tohught Apple should drop the hardware and just market the OS but I was realy hoping it would go the other way around and MS would eventualy go with the more advanced PPC.

Anyway if Apple restricts the OS to apple branded x86 hardware only and thus does not directly compete with MS they will have put the final nails in the coffen and Apple will be done.

Scenario for Apple

1. Move to UNIX-Done!

2. Move to Intel CPU Plus Apple Proprietary ROM Card. Instially MAC hardward. Develop inhouse expertise with Intel and Windows software: iTunes, QuickTime etc.

3. Sell ROM card and MAC OS X to OEMs and consumers.

4. Release a new OS, MacWindows, a UNIX OS plus Apple Propietary ROM that runs current Windows software natively.

5. Wait five years: Apple OWNS the OS business MAC or Windows PERIOD.

Microsoft has had a chance, but hasn't delivered.

Are you high on glue?

MS Haters should love this news. I mean imagine this...in a not far off future when you can put together your own x86 machine and then DECIDE if you are going to install Windows or MAC-OS.
It is not secret that the reason we don't see Mac's everywhere is because they do not allow clones. Maybe they are changing their strategy.
I don't know this for sure, but it seems like the software side of the business is WAY more profitable than the hardware side. I mean Dell sells PC's for 250 w/out a monitor. How much can they possible be making?
On the other hand...MS can sell XP-Pro for 150 bucks...
Just something to ponder, and all IMHO.
PS, who is Apple going to sue over this news story? lol

Apple is a hardware company. If they switch to x86, they will include some kind of DRM that only allows you to use their hardware. It would be very foolish of them to let anyone install Mac OS on any computer.

At one time, that was most certainly the case: Apple's a hardware company. Yet, if you look at their financials for the past year, they're actually making just slightly over half of their profit on software.

That said, I find their business strategies baffling, so who knows what they're up to.

Why would it be foolish? Don't they want a MAC OS installed on ALL computers?

Mac OS X wont scale well and run on x86 without a major change, the kernel they use for one is garbage, and with all the inefficient wrappers they use to run aqua and cocoa combined with the x86 being unable to execute as many instructions per clock cycle they will have problems.Linux is way way ahead of them in this area.Maybe they will use a linux based kernel and GNU apps, who knows, Apple is always good for that.

I dont think WiMAX is all that either, not enough anyway, AMD is kicking Intel's butt just on sheer engineering alone, even with their small market share vs Intel.

An Apple switch also means no more legacy apple OS AND all existing G5's become instantly obsolete, apple fans wont be liking that much.

use a linux-based kernel.... Like BSD?

*thwack*

Apple had built Mac OS X to boot on Intel machines for the last 5 years. The kearnel is fine

For years I have wondered what a Mac O/S on x86 would do the the Windows hegemony. The BSD heart of O/S X certainly hieghtened my musings on this subject because of how that facilitates the move. If this report is accurate this would be that last intermidiary step to Mac on PC hardware.

Will it happen? The growth of Linux and the continued, though small, use of other BSD variants on x86 would seem to add to the impetus for a move of Mac to PC hardware.

But the big question is would Apple ever consider either allowing clones, or try to tackle the huge problems of compatibility if they were to try ot support O/S "whatever" on the huge range of PC hardware.

I think it most likely, if this report is true, that Apple will still have a reasonably proprietary BIOS/Hardware combo that would preclude them actually moving to an O/S that would run native on generic PCs. RatherI see them maintaining a closed system that only runs on hardware they manufacture.

This strategy would them allow them to test the waters and slowly move toward an onpen system without undertaking too much exposure right up front. Smart business strategy would be to do this in small steps over a long period of time to better manage the technical and business compitcations such a move would create.

My appologies for leaving 4 comments like that...Dialup doesnt upload very well...

So, a Powerbook running the newest Centrino on OS 10.4, thats how it sounds to me...

I, dont like this idea, I think IBM should really kick it up a notch, and perfect the G4 to compete with the G5(which is possible). They have a G4 running successfully and quite cool at 2 ghz. If they could get it to 3 ghz, and give it a faster fsb, and dual-cpu support, it would be a flawless competitor to the G5.

But the question is, would this be a step back that IBM is willing to take?
Either they put more research into developing a faster/better G4, make a cooler G5 that doesnt require water cooling at 2.7 ghz(figures, the chip is built on the 65nanometer process), or turn to Intel. Wherein we'd be stuck for quite a while with pathetic software emulation of all applications.

Just stick with IBM, and tell them to get their assess in gear. Perhaps, make a Mac based off of cell architecture. I'd sure buy it.

The possibility of Apple's operating system running on an Intel processor was accomplished when Apple began using the open source BSD based Darwin. Darwin has been able to run on an Intel x86 for quite some time: http://www.opensource.ap...darwin/6.0/release.html

For those not familiar, Darwin is the open-source architecture that Apple's OSX and Aqua interfaces run on top of.

Any talk of Intel is not going to be a 'switch' from the RISC PPC architecture. Heavy development is ongoing by IBM to match the performance/cost of Intel. It is only a matter of time as the performance curves begin an inversion.

A good overview of the RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer): http://www.findarticles....3/is_n12_v9/ai_14347209

The reason for the hype is that Apple's OSX will soon run on an Intel x86 processor. Most of it already does. This allows Apple to compete directly with the Microsoft monopoly on Intel platforms. There is still significant benefit in running the PowerPC based processors, especially as they get faster and cheaper.

The real problem with doing this commercially (instead of allowing the open source community to take the burden) is hardware compatability. x86 PC's are a heterogeous schmogasbord of hardware. LOTS of junk. Apple's architecture benefits due to absolute control of the hardware, and stable, solid RISC architecture, allowing amazing things to be done in software.

How is mac gonna get all over people for the clones now? Its gonna be a replay of the Apple-Franklin ACE case from the late 70's. Just like others, i think somethings will be great, such as MacOS on my existing PC's. But on the other hand, what makes the Mac worth that much more money (assuming they keep their same prices)?? I mean, im not payin 3500 for just mid-range,average, performance PC, when i can just buy my hardware online and build my own for around 300!

...Just my $.02

Id love to the switch myself, if nothing more than to shake things up and give microsoft a headache.BUT, on the otherhand, there's some issues with OS X people rarely talk about, namely the mach3 microkernel, it isnt all that great, matter of fact its holding back PPC performance bigtime, you dont see it in desktop apps that much, but heavy multitasking or threading and it rears its ugly head, and its almost as bad as what winblows does under a heavy load.They go to x86 and the open source movement is likely to jump all over it if apple plans on staying with the convoluted setup that is OS X.Why run layers of wrappers(cocoa and aqua) with a crappy microkernel if you dont have to?In steps linux which runs on apple ware now, and easily runs on anything x86.Its not hampered by a bad microkernel or pricetag.

"Although IBM suffers a setback with the loss of Apple, the company could reap a financial windfall from deals with Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony. to put microprocessors it is producing in next-generation video-game consoles.

A new microprocessor that IBM co-developed with Sony and Toshiba, code-named Cell and planned for Sony's next PlayStation console, is being touted as capable of delivering 10 times the performance of today's PC processors. "

--

there ya go, ibm will be SOOO busy making these new CELL chips they wont miss the 3 million apple chips at all. either that or apple got pissed that ibm wont sell them the new cell chips to use in the mac that they threatened to pull out, and ibm yelled, 'cyas suckers!'

now intel on the other hand.. i thought had a great partnership with microsoft.. until ms threw a ibm chip in the new xbox360.. if i was apple, i'd be asking for 'in' on the new cell chips, even if they have to buy ps3 from sony and rip out the cpus! hehe.. cos as far as i can tell the new xbox360 could very well be bios'd and windows xp media could be playing on it.. whats to stop ms adding a USB keyboard and a mouse, ( opps just checked, someone already HAS:D ) and you'd have a xbox360 running winxp? and that rocks!.. http://www.gearlive.com/..._mouse_adapter_06030929/

"SONY has announced that it has shipped more than 90 million PS2 units since the product went on sale in March of 2000. Seemingly, the PS2 passed the 90-million mark on June 2, and is well on its way to beating the original Playstation, which has sold more than 100 million units to date. " source: http://www.techspot.com/story17769.html

well, do you want to sell 90 to 100 MILLLION cpu units, or just "Apple shipped 1,046,000 Macintosh units during this quarter, representing a 26% increase in CPU units over the year-ago quarter." source: http://macdailynews.com/...hp/weblog/comments/5931/

the slimline sony ps2 sold just over 16million of that figure.. so there ya go, we could see this coming a mile off... It's a numbers game for IBM.

i just hope apple go's for this.. http://www.tomshardware....cpu/20050525/index.html
cos AMD's dual-core rips Intels new dual-core to bits as seen here Live Stress Test: The Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Vs. The Pentium 840 EE http://www.tomshardware....cpu/20050603/index.html

showing AMD is almost twice as fast in same tests~! blowing Intel to bits.. and more reliable, as seen here http://www.tomshardware.com/stresstest/index.html

Enjoy
Rexy Inc.

PS: OOH just remembered.. the new xbox360 was running on two APPLE G5's at the E3 game show just a week or two ago... the XBOX360 OS was running on pretty much STOCK G5's~!..( theres apix showing the hardware that was used to demo the xbox at the E3 game show where the xbox was shown for the first time.. ) mmm this could be interesting.. can i run APPLE OS on a XBOX360 perhaps?.. ooh the hardware hackers are going to just love this.. maybe this could be why apple wants off of the IBM powerchips ??