Apple Switches to Intel Processors

[Audioholics]

<P><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2><A href="http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/AppleIntelprocessors.php"><IMG style="WIDTH: 83px; HEIGHT: 100px" alt=[MacIntel] hspace=10 src="http://www.audioholics.com/news/thumbs/MacIntel_th.jpg" align=left border=0></A>Unless you live in a cave, you heard that Apple is moving to Intel chips. The biggest surprise to us was the fact that the announced switch wouldn't really take place <EM>until late next year.</EM> </FONT><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Only Steve would have the cajones to fly in the face of business logic and announce a major platform switch so far in advance. We know he knew Adam Osborne and the facts behind the demise of Osborne Computer and the initial purveyor of the "portable" computer (roughly the size and weight of a portable sewing machine). Adam announced the Osborne 2 months before the rollout, production problems stalled shipments and the company went from 100 to ZERO in 2.4 sec. It was so fast and so bad the company is now an MBA case study in many colleges.</FONT> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>[Read More]</FONT></P>

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

I guess I live in a cave.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I don't know what to make of it; seems like they have to know G5 sales are going to tank. They must have a new product to counter for it.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

One key difference between Osbourne and Apple: the latter has gobs of cash to tide them over a drop in sales until the "Mactels" come to market. At least that was David Pogue's take in the NY Times. Pogue also thinks pent-up demand by Mac users who delay purchases until the Mactels come out will make up for the slump. Could be...or not.

For many Mac users, one attraction is that it should be able to run Windows as well as Mac OS X on the same CPU faster than we can now with the Virtual PC emulator. A boon for those Mac users who also need to run Windows-only apps (once upon a time that was me!). Will it also attract Windows users who might want to try or switch the Mac without having to replace all their apps at once? Hmm...

What is clear is that IBM et al could not supply what Apple needed and that the G5 chip would be increasingly left behind speedwise. Apple probably made the right move by "making a U-turn out of a dead end street" (per MacInTouch). Whether the early announcement was wise remains to be seen.

 

[b_panther_g]

Hey Clint.

Great article. I was wondering when someone here was going to mention this.

I think that Apple pretty much had to announce the shift now. Here's why...

Apple is a hardware company. They make (most of) their money selling the computers and ipods. Software is not their forte. If Jobs wanted the MAC/Intel thing to work, he knows he's going to need software to go with his computer.

It's no accident that he made the announcement at the developer's conference. He needs to give all developers as much time as possible to rework their software for the x86 chips.

As I understand it, it's and easy transition (one mouse click only) if the developer used the recommended MAC development tools. But most developers don't use the recommended MAC development tools. They have TONS of work ahead of them. There's been some speculation that some developers won't be able to make the transition.

The only thing I (and many others) don't get, is why Apple is leasing their development machines for about $1000/month. They should be giving them away (at least to the bigger developers). Developers already have to rewrite, recompile, etc. their software. Now they have to pay $1000/month to do it on the MAC/Intel development machine. I don't see the point...

Anyway. If this works out, Apple may become the computer to buy. Some give it 8 to 12 months before someone figures out how to hack it and make it fully windows compatible (no emulator needed). Duel boot MAC/Windows. That should make a really good HTPC.

Enjoy,
Panther

 

[Privateer]

IBM said they would be releasing specs for there new "cell" processor, why would apple not wait for those specs and production details to be released and then make a decision on changing processors?

 

[b_panther_g]

Hi Privateer,

It's very unlikely that the next cell processors will outperform the current Intel chips (in certain areas) or meet Apple's goals.

Apple makes more money from its laptop sales that anything else.

The cell has never been a good laptop processor. IBM has never been able to get the cell processor's power requirements down low enough.

Also the cell has not been a fast processor. That's why apple started shipping their desktops with duel processors as a standard – to make up for the lack of speed.

Now look at Intel. The Pentium M is the hottest laptop processor right now. Their desktop processors have a solid future. And, at this time, Intel's processors run faster than IBM's cell. And Intel is looking at multi core (3, 4 or more) processors for the future.

Apple can get a better (arguably the best) laptop processor, so it can sell higher performance laptops (something they really need/want to do). They can keep a duel core desktop but they only need 1 processor to do it – potential savings. Intel has a solid future with it's processors – they will continue to innovate faster than IBM has (in terms of processors, that is).

Plus there is the potential added bonus that Apple might be able to over-come the traditional software weaknesses of the MACs.

So from a hardware standpoint, Intel is a better company to partner with. If this works out, Apple will have a much better computer.

Enjoy,
Panther

 

[furrycute]

I would like to see a future where my PC can run both Mac and Windows OS.

 

[Cygnus]

Or better yet, Mac, Linux and Windows!

 

[no man]

i guess i live in a cave too, i never even knew what they used before

Cygnus --> it would be awesome to be able to run the different os's in different accounts on your computer, like on windows xp, have one user windows, another mac, another linux..it would be just DANDY if they all joined together and made a super os, that combines all their strengths..that'll be the day..too bad they're all money hungry bums that only care about turning in a profit, just like fatfood chain owners

McDonalds --> Mc****s

 

[no man]

just a question about processors, is pentuntium 4 m (or whatever its called) better than the amd 64 processor, i know p4 is better at overall stuff like running simple programs, and that the amd64 is better at games, but..overall which is better?