Apple switching to Intel chips

[Nimbleness]

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news
update Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned.

Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994, but will begin a phased transition to Intel's chips, sources familiar with the situation said. Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said.

The announcement is expected Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco, at which Chief Executive Steve Jobs is giving the keynote speech. The conference would be an appropriate venue: Changing the chips would require programmers to rewrite their software to take full advantage of the new processor.

IBM, Intel and Apple declined to comment for this story.

The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Apple was considering switching to Intel, but many analysts were skeptical (http://news.com.com/Apple+to+Intel+Some+advantage%2C+lots+of+risk/2100-1006_3-5716696.html?tag=nl) citing the difficulty and risk to Apple.

That skepticism remains. "If they actually do that, I will be surprised, amazed and concerned," said Insight 64 analyst Nathan Brookwood. "I don't know that Apple's market share can survive another architecture shift. Every time they do this, they lose more customers" and more software partners, he said.

Apple successfully navigated a switch in the 1990s from Motorola's 680x0 line of processors to the Power line jointly made by Motorola and IBM. That switch also required software to be revamped to take advantage of the new processors' performance, but emulation software permitted older programs to run on the new machines. (Motorola spinoff Freescale currently makes PowerPC processors for Apple notebooks and the Mac Mini.)

The relationship between Apple and IBM has been rocky at times. Apple openly criticized IBM (http://news.com.com/iPod+helps+Apple+earnings+sing/2100-1047_3-5191631.html?tag=nl) for chip delivery problems, though Big Blue said it fixed the issue (http://news.com.com/IBM+says+chip+woes+easing/2100-1006_3-5211145.html?tag=nl). More recent concerns, which helped spur the Intel deal, included tension between Apple's desire for a wide variety of PowerPC processors and IBM's concerns about the profitability of a low-volume business, according to one source familiar with the partnership.

Over the years, Apple has discussed potential deals with Intel and Advanced Micro Devices, chipmaker representatives have said.

One advantage Apple has this time: The open-source FreeBSD operating system, of which Mac OS X is a variant, already runs on x86 chips such as Intel's Pentium. And Jobs has said Mac OS X could easily run on x86 chips (http://news.com.com/Apple+says+could+move+to+Intel%2C+but+happy+with+IBM/2100-1045_3-5103279.html?tag=nl).

The move also raises questions about Apple's future computer strategy. One basic choice it has in the Intel-based PC realm is whether to permit its Mac OS X operating system to run on any company's computer or only its own.

IBM loses cachet with the end of the Apple partnership, but it can take consolation in that it's designing and manufacturing the Power family processors for future gaming consoles from Microsoft, Sony and Ninendo, said Clay Ryder, a Sageza Group analyst.

"I would think in the sheer volume, all the stuff they're doing with the game consoles would be bigger. But anytime you lose a high-profile customer, that hurts in ways that are not quantifiable but that still hurt," Ryder said.

initCarousel(); Indeed, IBM has a "Power Everywhere" marketing campaign to tout the wide use of its Power processors. The chips show up in everything from networking equipment to IBM servers to the most powerful supercomputer (http://news.com.com/Blue+GeneL+tops+own+supercomputing+record/2100-7337_3-5632045.html?tag=nl), Blue Gene/L.

Intel dominates the PC processor business, with an 81.7 percent market share in the first quarter of 2005, compared with 16.9 percent for Advanced Micro Devices, according to Dean McCarron of Mercury Research. Those numbers do not include PowerPC processors. However, Apple has roughly 1.8 percent of the worldwide PC market, he added.

Apple shipped 1.07 million PCs in the first quarter, and its move to Intel would likely bump up the chipmaker's shipments by a corresponding amount, McCarron added. Well then...... I think my head exploded.

In other news, hell's been reporting some pretty chilly temperatures lately.

[Mog]

Actually, I'm not surprised. Apple is trying to become more "mainstream" and dumping IBM was the best thing they could do. IBM does have the best chipset design and ability, but they're expensive and slow to produce. Intel on the other hand is slightly less expensive, almost as powerful, but more importantly they can churn out chips faster than that one episode of "I Love Lucy." Sure, the Macs will lose power, but computers really don't need much power gain for the future outside of better graphics which ATI and Nvidia handle every 3 months. In the end, Apple can only go up with the new partership. But I wonder how IBM will respond?

[Squisheee]

ditto, Mog........i have been suspecting this for quite some time!

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

I was skeptical of this news for a good long time, but enough people are reporting it and few enough people are denying it for me to stay skeptical for much longer. If nothing else, the fact that all 3 game console companies are going to IBM for CPUs for the next gen consoles makes me wonder 1) why going Intel now makes sense, and 2) why Apple isn't getting any of these amazing 3.2 Ghz dual-core chips when we were supposed to get them more than a year ago.

I'm not sure it's a wise business decision for Apple to make, since they're going to force every one of their users to upgrade all their existing software or run it in a really rotten emulation mode (unless, by some miracle, they manage to get decent performance that way). Say goodbye to your embedded base, which is largely what keeps Apple alive at the moment. I'd probably stay with the platform, but I would be REALLY ticked to have to buy all new versions of the software I arleady have AND lose compatibility with all the games I've got.

It's also still worth noting that Intel makes lots of chips, and Apple probably uses some of them in their hardware already. I believe Intel's StrongARM processor sits at the heart of the iPod. I'd also believe that these reports are being leaked to light a fire under IBM, but I don't really know that IBM actually cares.


In any event, I think we'll know our answer within a day or two.

EDIT: Or, maybe in a few hours (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050606/sfm142.html?.v=9). Anybody got some salt or barbeque sauce so I can eat my words? Getting a major "danger, danger Will Robinson" vibe off all this, and it totally chucks all my upcoming Mac purchasing plans into complete and total limbo.

-- Ed/Ace

[Ben]

The move also raises questions about Apple's future computer strategy. One basic choice it has in the Intel-based PC realm is whether to permit its Mac OS X operating system to run on any company's computer or only its own.

That would be CRAZY. Can you imagine? Actually it'd be pretty neat. I know it'd be cool to be able to choose XP or OSX on startup.

[IanC]

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

[Karl Olson]

That would be CRAZY. Can you imagine? Actually it'd be pretty neat. I know it'd be cool to be able to choose XP or OSX on startup.

Well, the BSD core it's based on could handle it. However, they'd be sacrificing stability. Currently, Apples run reliably because they have a very narrow hardware base to deal with. The second they had to deal with every odd ball card that could be thrown into a straight x86 architecture, it'd probably reveal a world of limitations, or atleast force a massive increase in the amount of drivers and tweaks in the OS needed to support everything that could be thrown at it, and probably an increase in the system overhead as well, depending how they made transition. If I were Apple, I'd keep the OS system exclusive so the claim to assured reliability and ease of adoption could be maintained.

[Beefy]

...and it totally chucks all my upcoming Mac purchasing plans into complete and total limbo. Ditto. I was planning on getting a Mac, but now I'm not sure if I should wait.

[GOB]

Well, the BSD core it's based on could handle it. However, they'd be sacrificing stability. Currently, Apples run reliably because they have a very narrow hardware base to deal with. The second they had to deal with every odd ball card that could be thrown into a straight x86 architecture, it'd probably reveal a world of limitations, or atleast force a massive increase in the amount of drivers and tweaks in the OS needed to support everything that could be thrown at it, and probably an increase in the system overhead as well, depending how they made transition. If I were Apple, I'd keep the OS system exclusive so the claim to assured reliability and ease of adoption could be maintained.
I'll bet they'll use a new and different BIOS free of 24+ years of baggage from IBM compatible PC land. That'll probably lock in OS X to Apple branded computers anyways. Besides, Macs already use the PCI bus, IDE interface, and even DDR memory.

The big reason for the switch is that G5 chips are too hot for notebooks, and Pentium-M chips are effcient and fast.

[Karl Olson]

I'll bet they'll use a new and different BIOS free of 24+ years of baggage from IBM compatible PC land. That'll probably lock in OS X to Apple branded computers anyways. Besides, Macs already use the PCI bus, IDE interface, and even DDR memory.

True, they are already very, very close to being a PC anyway, and as long as they use a specialized BIOS, they'll keep most people from calling it an Applefied PC. With this next shift CPU shift though, I'd like to see them push PCI-X, Serial-ATA and DDR3 while they are at it. Really make use of this chance to get cutting edge.

The big reason for the switch is that G5 chips are too hot for notebooks, and Pentium-M chips are effcient and fast.

And probably a lot cheaper too. It's still gonna be strange to think of Macs as "Intel-Inside" though. Kinda surprised that they went Intel though. I guess for the Mobile architecture, but the AMD64 stuff probably would have been better on the high-end side of things I'd imagine. I could be wrong though.

[guinaevere]

I'll be excited when I can game on an Apple.

[Mog]

And probably a lot cheaper too. It's still gonna be strange to think of Macs as "Intel-Inside" though. Kinda surprised that they went Intel though. I guess for the Mobile architecture, but the AMD64 stuff probably would have been better on the high-end side of things I'd imagine. I could be wrong though. I also wonder why Apple didn't go AMD. Maybe it's because Intels a bigger company. Or maybe because they found it easier to emulate software on Intels CPU architecture. Maybe it's because AMD CPU's run a little hotter. Other than that, I can't think of anything. AMD would be cheaper per CPU by a large margin and still get as much, if not more, power. It boggles the mind.

[UberMonkey]

I'll be excited when I can game on an Apple. Well, it's definitely not for lack of trying or ability. :p

This news blew my mind, to be honest. Apple has already stated they plan to make it so that you cannot run OS X on other PC systems. But while they're not going to support it themselves, they're not going to stop anyone for getting Windows to run on Intel-based Macs.

Which, then, maybe we would see a gaming increase on Mac machines.

[Karl Olson]

I also wonder why Apple didn't go AMD. Maybe it's because Intels a bigger company. Or maybe because they found it easier to emulate software on Intels CPU architecture. Maybe it's because AMD CPU's run a little hotter. Other than that, I can't think of anything. AMD would be cheaper per CPU by a large margin and still get as much, if not more, power. It boggles the mind.

Well, the heat probably is the issue. Since they want a structure that they can use on their laptops with out heat issues, but they also want the same structure on their high end systems without a performance loss, Intel really the only choice. AMD would give them better power on the high end (the 64 line has proven performance, even when running a 32 bit OS not optimized for it's instruction set,) but their laptops would run like a volcano, while Via could give them hyper cool laptops, but the only way to get power out of their chips would be to basically make an almost cell-architecture and OC them dramatically. So Intel gets to be the happy medium.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

I'll be excited when I can game on an Apple.
AHEM!!!! (http://forums.toonzone.net/showpost.php?p=1703527&postcount=22)

Add to that the idea of an Intel-based Mac that is running Windows either in a WINE-style emulation layer or in a dual-boot Windows/Mac configuration, and the issue of playing games on a Mac becomes even less of an issue. It may kill off the Mac porting industry, but I'll only object to that if it means I have to install some variety of Windows on a Mac to game. There is no game in the world (with the possible exception of Planescape: Torment) that is worth using Windows for.

Besides, AHEM!!!! (showpost.php?p=1703527&postcount=22) :p

At the moment, the one thing that really hacks me off about this so far is that nobody's talking about performance of game performance in Rosetta (the on-the-fly substitute so you can run PowerPC binaries on the Macintel until you get yourself fat binaries/upgraded software). I'm going to suspect it's not going to be "fast enough."

Since AMD chips are instruction-set compatible with Intels, I think there's no reason why Apple can't slap an AMD in a Mac at some future time. I'm sure AMD and Apple were talking, so I'm going to guess that it all comes down to money.

-- Ed/Ace

[Matt Hazuda]

It's being said that OSX will still only run on Apple-branded PCs, so you're out of luck if you think you'll be able to run it on any Windows PC.

Makes sense though. Apple controls the hardware, which means there's less things to have to take in account for programming or anything.

[IanC]

Ditto. I was planning on getting a Mac, but now I'm not sure if I should wait.
ITs 2 or so years, and its not like PPC macs will be obsolete ASAP. Id say get one.

I'll be excited when I can game on an Apple.
hmmm, well i guess UT2004 counts as a multimedia app ;)

[guinaevere]

Howdy,


AHEM!!!! (http://forums.toonzone.net/showpost.php?p=1703527&postcount=22) Hi Ace! Sorry, were you saying something? :p Oh fine, I checked the links. And yes, there are a better number of games going to mac ports. Stilll not enough that I could switch over exclusively, though. I play a LOT of pc games. There are just so many good ones. :D

Add to that the idea of an Intel-based Mac that is running Windows either in a WINE-style emulation layer or in a dual-boot Windows/Mac configuration, and the issue of playing games on a Mac becomes even less of an issue. That's definately something I'll look into when the time comes that I can afford a new computer.

It may kill off the Mac porting industry, but I'll only object to that if it means I have to install some variety of Windows on a Mac to game. There is no game in the world (with the possible exception of Planescape: Torment) that is worth using Windows for. So, tell us how you really feel. But seriously, I don't see why you'd object to partitioning part of the drive to an MS OS to run pc/ms games.

At the moment, the one thing that really hacks me off about this so far is that nobody's talking about performance of game performance in Rosetta (the on-the-fly substitute so you can run PowerPC binaries on the Macintel until you get yourself fat binaries/upgraded software). I'm not saying a mac doesn't have the resources to do the work. Trust me, I think apple makes a great computer, and I'd love to see some of my games run on something like that. After all the years of overclocking and such, it would be great to see Rosetta type results.

Since AMD chips are instruction-set compatible with Intels, I think there's no reason why Apple can't slap an AMD in a Mac at some future time. I'm sure AMD and Apple were talking, so I'm going to guess that it all comes down to money. Personally, I've never been happy with AMD in my machines.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

So, tell us how you really feel. But seriously, I don't see why you'd object to partitioning part of the drive to an MS OS to run pc/ms games.
Well, my dad uses a Sony VAIO laptop and my mom uses an iBook. Both of them have wireless network cards. The VAIO's wireless connection goes up and down like a yoyo every 5 minutes, despite several hours spent removing unnecessary crap on the machine and running any diagnostic I can find. The iBook never loses the wireless connection. Since both parents are also rather techno-phobic, I have to update their software every time I visit. It takes 45-60 minutes to update Windows XP, and then update and run the virus checker, AdAware, and Spybot on the VAIO. It's closer to 5-10 minutes per visit for the iBook, if any maintenance is required at all.

These are only two reasons why I hate Microsoft Windows, and why I refuse to cave and get a PC just for games.

re: AMD -- the only reason why I bring them up is because they're better at the 64-bit stuff than Intel, and the G5's are 64-bit chips. However, since the Intel chips are coming in at the low-end and portable side first, that isn't going to be a big deal for a while.

re: Intel Macs, Bob Cringely has some interesting thoughts about the deal in his column this week (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html), including why Intel over AMD, why now, and why Apple would announce this a year before shipping any hardware. Not sure I agree with all his conclusions, but it's worthwhile reading if you're following this kind of thing.

-- Ed/Ace