Hell freezing over? Apple in talks with Intel

[Jammrock]

[1:33 PM] "This has been going on for the last five years." Every release of OS X has been compiled and run on Intel processors. - posted by Dave

[1:32 PM] "Mac OS X has been leading a secret double life. There have been rumors to this effect...(laugh). We've had teams working on the just in case scenario."

Guess the rumors were true.

[TnT]

All the Mac users now burn their macs in disgust.

Majority of Mac users don't know the difference between x86 or PPC, or even that their Mac's processor is made by IBM.

[Jammrock]

Reading over some keynote transcripts you get to the main reason why Jobs dumped IBM ... laptop computers. With the recent announcement that notebook computers are starting to make up more purchases than desktops (53% for last quarter), and that IBM can't make a good low-power notebook processor to save their lives, it was inevitable that Apple would switch. The entire announcement was filled with "performance per watt" (back to the notebook arguement), dual-core, lower cost - especially for notebooks -, higher yields - especially at the higher-end of the processing spectrum - and so on.

[Jessterw]

Pretty well sums it up. IBM promised what they couldn't deliver and Apple wasn't going to end up with another Motorola situation without an "easy" out.

@Wombat: I think most know IBM makes the processor, but you're right that a lot of them likely don't know the technical differences between x86 and PowerPC. I do, but I could really care less, as the ability to focus on the task at hand is more important than what enables me to do so; a sentiment I've found most Mac users share... as long as it's on a Mac

[[GDI]Raptor]

Jepp!

Hell must be frezing over today....

Here is a picture from Anandtech's report from WWDC 2005



Mac OS X on Intel Pentium 4

[magician]

And what do you think about Apple's adoption of IA64, is it plausible? At least in near future. Taking in account Apple's need for low power processors it is obvious that they will use x86 CPUs, but I think that Intel is in urge to expand it's Itanium market. It could offer Apple a good deal just for marketing reasons if nothing else.

This is certainly a good thing for Intel.

[magician]

Jepp!

Hell must be frezing over today....

Here is a picture from Anandtech's report from WWDC 2005

Mac OS X on Intel Pentium 4

This explains everything.

[az]

I don't think we'll see Apple on IA64. The processors are just too expensive, Apple would have to maintain one more branch of their OS, all the apps would have to be ported/emulated (ugh). Is IA64 even supposed to end up on the desktop in the next 5-10 years?

AZ

[TnT]

think most know IBM makes the processor

No, seriously, I work as a mac admin in a computer lab and deal with a lot of joe schmo mac users. They might know the term PowerPC, but knowing who makes it is different. It's not like with Intel computers where the logo is plastered everywhere. I guess we have to figure out who most mac users are I suppose.

[Jessterw]

Okay, let me rephrase then. All of the creative types and developers I know who use a Mac know who makes the processor.

If we're talking about average users, even those on x86 hardware only know who might make their processor because of the public battle between Intel and AMD. Even then, most probably know their processor by it's name, like Pentium or such. In that regard it's not so much knowledge of the processor but rather marketing campaigns having saturated consumers minds with the Intel and, to a lesser degree, the AMD brands.

[KeiFront]

And what do you think about Apple's adoption of IA64, is it plausible? At least in near future. Taking in account Apple's need for low power processors it is obvious that they will use x86 CPUs, but I think that Intel is in urge to expand it's Itanium market. It could offer Apple a good deal just for marketing reasons if nothing else.

This is certainly a good thing for Intel.

Itanium isn't x86, but IA-64. So it would mean another emualtion layer, another transition, and an Itanium is totally unsuited for laptops.

Apple will probably only focus on 64-bits x86 based on the next generation Pentium M chips.

[VJ]

I wonder...
Could this imply that OS X might become available for non-mac branded PC's...?


Jörg

[Nowhere]

Available - no, Jobs or somebody said they won't allow running of it on normal PCs (wonder how, the underlyings are open source after all - DRM?). But perhaps those will be glorious days for MacOnLinux...

And I don't know why but I want iMac G5 even more now, before they'll be phased out


edit: and also I hope Apple will use CPUs based on Centrino, not Netburst, acroos whole board, not only laptops...

[magician]

I don't think we'll see Apple on IA64. The processors are just too expensive,...

I don't think that price would be a problem, because Intel could sell them Itaniums for price of production costs if not for less, just for marketing purposes. In couple of years Intel is going to start pushing IA64 in workstations and high-end desktops and it will need Apple as a ground base for digital content creatives which could benefit from enormous floating point power of those processors. Remember Microsoft's ridiculous price cuts on Xbox - aiming market domination, which would pay back a big time just by selling software for it? Well I think that something similar would be a smart move for Intel, considering Apple's great reputation in those FP hungry DCC applications. Aside from that, did you know that Apple also sells rack mount servers?

... Apple would have to maintain one more branch of their OS, all the apps would have to be ported/emulated (ugh).

Now that is a big problem, as I see it, but they could start with those rack mount servers which don't need fancy GUI and great deal of user applications. Darvin is a BSD derivate, so I guess it wouldn't be a problem to run it on IA64 as already many BSDs run on that architecture and you have many proprietary and open source server applications for it out of box. I don't know... it make sense to me.

Is IA64 even supposed to end up on the desktop in the next 5-10 years?

AZ

Either that or they better start spending another $10 billion on development of future architecture. No, seriously... SGI started selling Itanium based workstations for about $25k and they are committed to maintaining that line of products. Pretty soon Intel will blend Itaniums with Xeons by offering chipsets which will support both architectures so I expect full transition to IA64 in less then 10 years.

Itanium isn't x86, but IA-64. So it would mean another emualtion layer, another transition, and an Itanium is totally unsuited for laptops.

Apple will probably only focus on 64-bits x86 based on the next generation Pentium M chips.

That is all true, but I was referring to "power" workstations and servers.

Regarding emulation layers and transitions... as I already said, 99% of Itaniums are already running on Unix (BSD) and Darvin is an OSS anyway so I don't see it as a big problem. At least not for market at which it's aiming (servers and big mean workstations).

[Nowhere]

ABout Itanium...if some processor can be bought for 10€ at pl auction site, it's dead...