Confirmed: Apple to go x86

[kram 2.0]

It's real. I'm not too pleased with Apple's plan of ditching IBM when the G5 was the most advanced processing chip in the world.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23714

kram

[colecifer]

I think this is a huge mistake, how is apple going to get people to buy a computer with the same processor for a lot more money?

[nocturnx]

Hmm let me know when all the proprietary parts come to newegg so I can build me an apple heh.

[HAL9000]

I think this is a huge mistake, how is apple going to get people to buy a computer with the same processor for a lot more money?

Umm.. who said it's going to cost more???

[TwoRails]

It's real. I'm not too pleased with Apple's plan of ditching IBM when the G5 was the most advanced processing chip in the world.I would have lost money on that bet.

[Cricket]

Wow...so does that mean Apple computers will be shipped with Windows or the Mac OS?

:) Cricket

[ric449]

Actually, the X86 processor Macs are supposed to be cheaper. Also they will provide better performance, if benchmarks are anything to go by. I read that they plan on moving their lower end Macs to Intel processors first, then see where it goes.

[mairving]

Apple had a lot of problems getting enough of the PowerPC chip from IBM. Since OSX on up are based on FreeBSD, porting it over to i386 is no problem. I think that the only open question is whether Apple will now sell the OS and allow it to be installed on any PC. It would be a good idea but I doubt that it will happen. I suspect that Apple will pick something like the Itanium and figure out a way to have a proprietary device on it so that you can't install the OS on any PC. Still the idea is there.

[Cricket]

Just saw this other thread (http://forum.pcmech.com/showthread.php?t=132957) concering the same topic.

:) Cricket

[David M]

Why is most everyone assuming its going to be a CPU like all the other Intel CPU's? Why cant Intel make a chip that runs OS10 or some other Apple OS? ...or is better and faster than the G5 chip? Does Apple solder all their CPU's to the mobo?...Is that the problem?

[ric449]

Intel would have to get a license to make Power PC chips if they wanted to, and that wouldn't be very profitable. Intel don't custom build chips for small time businesses, and Apple is a relatively small time business.

[rcvalencia9]

I love to see Mac OS X Tiger to have a version that will run on Intel CPUs and can dual boot with a Windows OS. I thought the G5 CPU is the best, with Dual Processor setup. I hunger for it for a long time since they introduced Dual Processor for Desktops.

[Tin]

some of you are missing the point. Macs, being propietary as they are, are actually very good machines. everything is compatible, thats what your paying for. you can buy a piece of software and know that its going to run on your machine.

[David M]

Im still kind of curious. Are Apples CPU's in a socket or soldered to the mobo?

[mairving]

some of you are missing the point. Macs, being propietary as they are, are actually very good machines. everything is compatible, thats what your paying for. you can buy a piece of software and know that its going to run on your machine.
Unless, of course, that you bought a piece of software that didn't run on a Mac which is most software.

[mairving]

Why is most everyone assuming its going to be a CPU like all the other Intel CPU's? Why cant Intel make a chip that runs OS10 or some other Apple OS? ...or is better and faster than the G5 chip? Does Apple solder all their CPU's to the mobo?...Is that the problem?
They would then be in the same boat with limited supplies. They wouldn't use the PowerPC chip even if they were to license it from IBM because they would have to build a new factory just for it.

[Mac Medic]

I don't believe this for a minute, No way will Apple make developers switch to X86, the transition would take years and Mac sales would be stagnant. more likely would be Intel producing PPC processors for Apple to pick up the slack IBM has left behind due to very poor yield of G5 silicone. Less likely but still possible would be the CORE processor (especially for portables), and considering Steve Jobs throw-in line at Macworld to the Sony president about making a computer together it could be that Apple want to use Sony's core processor and want Intel to produce it. It's still a PPC chip so there would be no time/cost changeover.

[mairving]

I don't believe this for a minute, No way will Apple make developers switch to X86, the transition would take years and Mac sales would be stagnant. more likely would be Intel producing PPC processors for Apple to pick up the slack IBM has left behind due to very poor yield of G5 silicone. Less likely but still possible would be the CORE processor (especially for portables), and considering Steve Jobs throw-in line at Macworld to the Sony president about making a computer together it could be that Apple want to use Sony's core processor and want Intel to produce it. It's still a PPC chip so there would be no time/cost changeover.
Actually the transition wouldn't be all that difficult. OSX is based on FreeBSD, which runs on multiple platforms. All that would have to be done is to recompile the kernel which could be done fairly quickly. They would then have to isolate any compile problems and deal with any third party issues. Could be done in a month if it hasn't been done already.

[Mac Medic]

It's actually based on BSD, not freeBSD, but regardless, it's not just the OS that has to be ported, it's every application too, both Apple apps and 3rd party apps. Then there is the hardware issue, every developer would have to keep two versions of their apps updated and available, 1 for PPC and 1 for x86, because people aren't just going to rush out and buy a new Mac just because of this. It doesn't make any sense and isn't near as easy as you make it out to be. Yes, porting the OS itself maybe easy, it's the rest of the equation that presents problems.

[HAL9000]

I really doubt that the conversion would be that difficult. I have a version of OSX that runs on a BX based Intel system... applications would require compatibility with the OS.

[mairving]

It's actually based on BSD, not freeBSD, but regardless, it's not just the OS that has to be ported, it's every application too, both Apple apps and 3rd party apps. Then there is the hardware issue, every developer would have to keep two versions of their apps updated and available, 1 for PPC and 1 for x86, because people aren't just going to rush out and buy a new Mac just because of this. It doesn't make any sense and isn't near as easy as you make it out to be. Yes, porting the OS itself maybe easy, it's the rest of the equation that presents problems.
There isn't really just a plain BSD. There are OpenBSD and NetBSD and FreeBSD. Apple used FreeBSD with some mods.

from kernelthread.com (http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html) The Mac OS X kernel is called XNU. XNU's BSD component uses FreeBSD as the primary reference codebase (although some code might be traced to other BSDs). Darwin 7.x (Mac OS X 10.3.x) uses FreeBSD 5.x.


Funny I saw another article today that sales of notebook computers for the first time exceeded the sales of desktops. Apple has certainly noticed this trend and I think that this is one of the big moves behind it. I found this analysis (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/06/apple_intel_analysis/) on The Register's site quite interesting.

[Mac Medic]

IBM announced internally about an hour ago that Apple are moving to intel, no mention of which processors though.

HAL.

I agree, the conversion of the OS to x86 is simple, it's actually always been there and has the codename Maklar, it's not just the OS that has to be considered though. It's the existing apps, hardware, users etc....

[colecifer]

Umm.. who said it's going to cost more???

Good point, i haven't heard a price but considering the current price of macs i don't see them lowering the price much because there are other things they use to jack the price up then the processor alone. The thing that i think will give them the most trouble is the lack of knowledge of the average consumer, your regular joe probably doesn't understand the difference between computer brands and will think a dell with an intel processor is the same as an apple with an intel processor and i'm assuming the dell would be cheaper so he will go with that.

What i would like to see apple do is use the intel chips in the eMac and Mac mini
and then contine using the powerpc chips in the iMac and G5, from what i've read though i believe they are planning to start this way with an eventual move to pure intel.

[Mac Medic]

Well, Steve just announced in his WWDC Keynote that Apple will start shipping Mac's with Intel processors in 2006 and will convert all future Macs to Intel processors in 2007. No mention at all of what kind of processor, i still doubt x86 though, but not as much as I did an hour ago!!!!

[kram 2.0]

I'm hoping it's some specialized processor made for the Macintosh platform. If Mac decides to use NetBurst, I can't imagine things will look great.

kram

[Mac Medic]

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html

[Mac Medic]

Apparently it was running on a quad processor 3.6ghz P4 box, thats seems unlikely though, aren't the xeons the multiprocessor chip?

edit: yeah, the report was wrong, it was a single 3.6ghz P4, so it's x86 afterall then.

I think steve just killed off Mac sales for the next two years. Why buy a G4 or G5 now when it's already been announced to be obsolete. Good job they have the ipod!!!!.....

[Tin]

Unless, of course, that you bought a piece of software that didn't run on a Mac which is most software.
well yeah...i was referring to software made exclusively for Macs ;).

[kram 2.0]

I think steve just killed off Mac sales for the next two years. Why buy a G4 or G5 now when it's already been announced to be obsolete. Good job they have the ipod!!!!.....
I like the pun :D

kram

[nocturnx]

Couldnt they just use old mac software on the x86 processor with some sort of emulation, kind of like microsoft virtual pc.

[Mac Medic]

they say that porting apps using xcode isn't too big a deal, but that developers now have to keep two code bases updated for PPC and Intel. For those that dont there is an emulator named Rosetta will allow an Intel-based Mac to transparently run software written for PowerPC much better than Classic.

Oh yeah, the tools necessary for the port over, $999 US, can't even give the developers free tool. This might hurt some of the smaller developer out there. It does include a powermac????? (intemac???) tower with intel hardware in the price but it's just a lease.

[mairving]

I also noticed that Apple has stated that they will not allow the Mac to run on any PC, only the ones that they make.

[ric449]

Yeah, but I wonder how they will do that? Maybe another chip on the motherboard?

[Mac Medic]

simple, they just don't license it to anybody and have proprietary bios firmware like they do now.

[timbit]

in other news, several men in Yellowknife reported seeing the Devil shopping at the local army surplus store. He was said to be looking in the giant fur parkas section....

i really never thought i'd see the day. it's like those dell-amd rumours, you hear them all the time, but you never believe they'll ever come true.

[colecifer]

well said timbit.

I have to say again i don't see this working out well for apple at all, but i can't say i've seen steve jobs mess a whole lot of things up so i don't see them completely failing. Maybe steve knows something we don't?