Apple to switch to intel chips in 2006

[toadlife]

Oh the irony!

June 2004 - Apple: "Intel chips are inferior to our PowerPC chips."
June 2005 - Apple: "We're switching over our computers to Intel chips."

Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips

[Orethrius]

Makes me wonder if this has something to do with the whole Xbox 360 deal.

[skyman8081]

100% Certifiable, Grade A Bullshit.

This article is pure speculation, It is NOT NEWS.

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

Star Trek is dead, give it up!

[toadlife]

100% Certifiable, Grade A Bullshit.

This article is pure speculation, It is NOT NEWS.

So will you come back and eat crow on Monday after Apple makes the official announcment?

[skyman8081]

IF

I highly doubt Apple will announce the switch,  Steve killed the Star Trek project when he took the reigns, and the development of Rhapsody on x86, and the rumors of "project Marklar" were BS.  Why is this any different?

How many people thought apple was going to be announcing a G5 Powerbook, but I don't see one anywhere, do you?

This whole article is a John C. Dvorak wet dream.

[bedouin]

Here are the possibilities:

1) Apple will use an Intel chip alongside PPC so that certain Macs can run x86 code natively, with no emulation.  This is somewhat reminiscent of the old PC compatibility card of the 90s.

2) The PowerPC specs are open.  Intel could be developing a clone.  Way too much of OS X relies upon AltiVec to totally ditch it.  AltiVec specs, however, are not open; there's no reason they couldn't be reverse engineered though.

3) Apple really is switching to x86 as a primary CPU, but PPC will remain alongside x86 to ease the transition.

4) This is bullshit.

5) It's a misinformed rumor.  Apple is releasing a PDA, tablet, or some other device utilizing an Intel CPU.

Notice the article said that they were considering it for low end machines.  That would mean, if there's any truth to it at all, we'll be returning to fat binaries.  Or consider this: Intel would develop a PPC CPU for low end machines like the mini with no altivec optimization.  They could basically design souped up G3s at a lower price.

The likelihood of a complete architectural change is so slim.   Granted, this wouldn't be quite as bad as when developers had to rewrite for OS X, recompiling for x86 and PPC would still be an annoyance, even if it were only a minor task.  

And really, why would CNET have the latest Mac rumors ahead of all the other Mac sites who live for nothing else but this kind of stuff?

[WMD]

I highly doubt Apple would do it.  Reasons:

1.  That would throw out all the AltiVec and such optimization, and (I would guess) convert that to SSE2 or whatever.  Forget that AltiVec is better for what Apple's customers typically do - it would take forever to accomplish.

2.  The switch from 680x0 to PowerPC involved transparent emulation, which worked damn well between those two.  But as PearPC has shown, emulating PPC on x86 is almost unusably slow.  Everything worth a damn would have to be recompiled and distributed - and I bet there's about four people that would want to do that.

3.  Intel's chips (bar the Pentium M) run hotter than PowerPC.  You'd have those nine G5 tower fans spinning all the faster - I'm sure you'd really like that, eh?  (Sidenote: P-M is slower than the G5s, hence it can't be done.)

Regardless, I shall be watching Lord Steve's keynote as soon as I can get my grubby little hands on it.  (For the record, my hands are quite small.)

[skyman8081]

4 is the most likely option, followed by 5 and then 2 far behind.

C|Net is full of shit.

[toadlife]

Very well could be bullshit, considering the way Apple has played the media in the past.

About Intel manufacturing PPC clones...that's an interesting theory, but would Intel even have the right to do that? IBM developed the PPC chip along with Apple, and I imagine they have some rights to it.

[skyman8081]

The PPC is an open architechture.  the AltiVec area's are NOT, and Apple owns them.  There is no way to run OS X on a straight PPC arch.  (Kiss your wet dreams of putting OS X on an Xbox 360 goodbye).  OS X NEEDS AltiVec to run, and Intel has a snowballs chance in hell of getting access to the AltiVec Specs/Designs, and x86 has NO equivalent to it, not MMX, not SSE, and not 3DNow! (And their numbered variants) come close to AltiVec.

[toadlife]

The PPC is an open architechture. the AltiVec area's are NOT, and Apple owns them. There is no way to run OS X on a straight PPC arch. (Kiss your wet dreams of putting OS X on an Xbox 360 goodbye). OS X NEEDS AltiVec to run, and Intel has a snowballs chance in hell of getting access to the AltiVec Specs/Designs, and x86 has NO equivalent to it, not MMX, not SSE, and not 3DNow! (And their numbered variants) come close to AltiVec.

Really? I've read differing opinions about this.

[bedouin]

On the other hand, I have a G3 iBook and don't notice a huge difference between it and my G4 that runs at the same exact clock speed.  Maybe AltiVec isn't that important after all.

[KernelPanic]

Why are we assuming that because they say Intel, that it must be x86?
Intel make RISC lines, perhaps we will be seeing something new and interesting.

[Aloone_Jonez]

4 is the most likely option, followed by 5 and then 2 far behind.

C|Net is full of shit.

I agree with you on 4 and 5 but not on 2 since I think 1 is fare more likely. The Acorn Risc computers used to have the option of a pentium PC card to run 86x software without emulation like bedouin said. It was great there was a program like WINE (if I remember rightly it needed Windows files though) that would allow you to run Windows programs under Risc OS what was really cool was the Windows programs took on the style in in some respect the interface of Risc OS it was amazing.

[M51DPS]

I think Apple has their hands full enough right now trying to get their customers switched over to 64-bit computing with the G5. We are not going to see another major architecture shift for a while.

In other news, Apple is doomed to die, Netcraft confirmed it just the other day....