Posted on 06/04/2005 7:05:39 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Apple Computer Inc. plans to announce on Monday that it will switch to using Intel Corp's microprocessors and phase out its current chip supplier, International Business Machines Corp., CNET News.com reported late on Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Apple has been the #2 (OS) guy for the past what.... 10-15 years? I personally see them trying to fight for that spot as hard as they can for as long as they can.(until it becomes painfully obvious/futile that the spot is permanently out of reach)
There are other reasons as well. IBM has put favor into making triple core processors for the Xbox while ignoring apple, and there could also be other reasons that we won't know about until much later that are happening behind the scenes in the smoke filled rooms at Apple's and Intel's headquarters.(respectively)
Oh, and I personally think that the most likely prospect is Intel in the mini, imac, and ibook respectively, while the powerbook and (grandaddy)Mac still have PPC under the hood.
I hate to say this, but programs ultimately have to be compiled for a specific processor. Emulation is possible if you don't have any competitors breathing down your neck in the performance area.
I'm aware of that. Emulating a completely different platform(that's as complex as PPC) would grind down performance to the point of chuckling, pointing and laughing at the cute sideshow.
Chances are Apple already has beta OS/software that runs on x86. 2006 is the launch date. Think longhorn.
Eventually Apple will release to OS for non-Mac hardware. Then we will find out that 98% of PC instability is due to drivers.
Apple seems to insist on doing the same mistake over and over... and expecting different results.
(Closed system and price).
True, but even 10 years ago NeXT, which OSX is based on, could create a single binary, from one set of source code, that ran on the NeXTStep OS running on FOUR different architectures ... HP PA-RISC, Sun SPARC, Intel x86 and Motorola 68k. So for almost all applications using the Cocoa libraries, a recompile would be all that is required.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Then we will find out that 98% of PC instability is due to drivers.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I always thought it was Microsoft's flagrant attitude towards it's customers and how it creates new failed initiatives to cover up the last that was the primary problem. Being constantly in beta since 1995 doesn't help either.(swiss cheese IS what created spyware)
But you could be right.(the 2% would be the for example superb drivers that come from the nvidias of the world that take drivers very seriously)
nVidia has its share of bugs, particularly in its motherboard drivers.
ROFL!
^^^^^^^(Closed system and price).^^^^^^^^^^
You hit the nail on the head, at least the way I see it. Microsoft gained the foothold for many reasons, but being a much more open platform(than the alternative) was definately towards the top of the list.
Apple seems to be trying, but it's way too little, too late.
And price. Well, there will always be price.
They will also be running windows soon as their operatings system. LOL
There isn't a piece of software that doesn't have bugs.
But any way you cut the cake companies like nVidia are on the top of the driver heap.(in their respective fields)
It's possible, but linux is more of a threat than most are willing to admit.
In other news.....Apple this week anounced that it plans to switch over to the microsft windows operating system in the near future. "Why should we do all the work of writting operating systems when microsoft will do it for us" says a company spokesman.
I bought a unit with linux on it. I played with it for a day or two to check it out, but is was way to primative for me to take interest in.
I put 2000 on.
I agree, and wish Apple and all other long time US software vendors feeling the squeeze all the luck in the world.
THis is hardly confirmation.. it is another echo of a single report from CNET News.com. Every other story, MacWorld, Wall Street Journal, Rueters, etc., is merely a re-hash of the original story from News.com.
Half hearted PING!
While it may be true, it is hardly confirmed.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
An Intel based Macintosh?
Rumors of Apple switching to an Intel based processor pre-date the existence of this site. The earliest reference in our archives comes from March 15, 2000 (this site was founded in Feb 2000). For some perspective... a rumor roundup for WWDC 2000 (5 years ago) included rumors of "Intel-based Macs".
Analysts also "urged Apple to move to microchips from Intel Corp" back in July 2002. Steve Jobs replied that they had to finish the OS 9 -> OS X transition first but "Then we'll have options, and we like to have options. But right now, between Motorola and IBM, the roadmap looks pretty decent."
After the transition to Mac OS X, Apple was reported to have kept an OS X on x86 side-project known as Marklar. The original article described Marklar as a "fall back plan" should the PowerPC fail to deliver.
The PowerPC was undergoing slow development during that time until IBM took over development and Apple announced PowerPC G5 based PowerMacs in the summer on 2003.
In fact, IBM bragged in an internal memo that while Apple considered moving to Intel at that time they went with IBM's PowerPC G5 (970) because Apple felt the transition to Intel would be too difficult: While Intel is aggressive in achieving its performance and speed goals, Apple believed that using Intel would deeply affect its current customer base. Using an Intel architecture might solve Apple's short-term megahertz dilemma, but customers would have to suffer through a slow transition from PowerPC over the long term. Every existing Mac program would potentially have to be recompiled to work on an Intel platform. These massive software changes were something that Apple wanted to avoid, and IBM had the solution."
Despite this, Apple/Intel rumors continued to surface (Sept 2003).
Most recently, The Wall Street Journal posted rumors citing "two industry executives" that Apple will agree to use Intel chips. Due to the long history of this topic, this rumor was largely dismissed. However, on Friday, CNet posted a report claiming that Apple will be announcing a plan to switch its computers to Intel based microprocessors on Monday at WWDC. The gradual transition would take place starting in mid-2006 and last until mid-2007.
So what's different this time?
The most striking aspect is the origination of rumors from more traditional news sources (CNet and the Wall Street Journal). In the hierarchy of rumor sources, these news sites are traditionally more accurate as they tend to be more selective about their stories than dedicated rumor sites. As a result, the likelihood that these rumors are true is high. By our records, CNet has only made one major rumor misstep in Jan 2003 claiming the release of new Digital Media Device at MWSF 2003.
That being said, it doesn't answer the many other questions that would stem from such a transition. Questions such as emulation layers, current PowerPC Mac sales, developer migration, end user confusion and more. As well, Steve Jobs was recently asked about the possibility of switching to Intel and reportedly "Jobs basically said no."
Stay tuned for the WWDC Keynote on Monday, June 6th at 10am PST. We will provide live coverage of the event and have dramatically expanded our delivery resources and technology to provide the best Keynote coverage experience possible.
Have to disagree here, js. I just can't see Apple doing that - it didn't work for Be, and I really doubt it's likely to work for Apple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.