I just read on Mac NN that Apple is moving to Intel processors. What the Fk. Excuse my profanity, but everyone knows that Intel makes the worst computer chips in the world. I just don't know what to say. I guess I better buy a G5 PPC before I can't get one anymore. Well its after 12 PM where I am so its safe to start cracking bears in denial of this absolute insanity!

I just wanna puke....
-maestro :evil: :angry:

It's a rumor that's been flying around the last week or two. There are some people who's initial knee-jerk reaction to the fact that Jobs has met with people at Intel was that Apple will be switching to Intel processors for the Mac. I read one that even suggested that Apple might be just tapping Intel as another manufacturer of the PPC processor. Personally? I really doubt it.

Intel can make a LOT of other chips, so assuming that it MUST be about the Mac processors is a bit much. There's a pretty good article covering the bases and linking articles on both sides of things over at MacWorld.

The WWDC is tomorrow, so we'll find out - he does have a flair for the dramatic, so could he be dropping a bomb on us? (somebody set us up the bomb) Perhaps. But I tend to agree with the camp that thinks he's talking about something else with Intel, and hopefully there's some kind of new product on the horizon.

I'll wait until it comes from the horses mouth until I even speculate on this one.

what the hell, I love speculation...

I think that apple could be meeting with Intel to discuss chips for something else. Maybe a mobile line of products or something similar. As for main processing. No one at Apple is stupid enough to switch to intel. Their chips are just too cheap. Now, if it had been AMD, I might be thinking otherwise.

Just my 3cents.

He might have chosen intel for some non-mac related product, like a PDA or something. And at the same time signal IBM, that they aren't the only chip producer in the world.

It do sux, that microsoft is able to get multiple core chips and apple isen't. I know it's not exactly the same kind of cpu, but still... IBM bastards :angry:

Okay....well the only way to be sure is to wait. But in reality its probably true in some
respects. I truelly doubt its for a different product. What line they will break into i dont know.
At first I too thought it was to get IBMs ass in gear, but maybe it just isnt gonna get there. Apple
may just be getting forced into this one by means out of its control. God help us. Ill be watching
tomorrow to see whats up. I'm still nervous about it.
-maestro

At least when I by a hardware product for my Mac I know its going to work. Lets hope it stays
that way.

So now its WWDC day and apparantly the WSJ has "confirmed" that Apple has established a 2-year Intel transition roadmap.

I still don't believe that this information is correct. I believe that Apple is going to announce the use of Intel StrongARM processors in a new product line. I also consider an announcement that Intel is joining the Apple/IBM/Freescale parntnership more believeable. Regardless of what i think is going to happen, I would welcome the switch to Intel processors. IBM is slacking on R&D of the G5 processor. Nearly all of Apple's product line still uses the G4 processor. No doubt, Apple will receive better pricing, better supplies, and just as good/better R&D. Not to mention, Intel spends a boatload on co-marketing, so Apple can afford to advertise their computers more.

We are hours away from the announcement, and I wonder how Apple always manages to create drama around every keynote speech

I found this of significat interest. It's from 2002, but the major themes of the discussion of the past week are all lined up already, 3 years ago. So this has been brewing for a while.

Just to quote what I thought was the most relevant section:
"But a switch to Intel or Advanced Micro Devices Inc. processors is probably not in the cards for tomorrow's Macs, sources said. Such a move would require a massive revision of Apple's closed hardware architecture and a fundamental rethinking of its business model, which is founded on tight integration between its proprietary system software and hardware. Apple would have to also coax most of its third-party developers to rewrite their applications from the ground up in the company's Cocoa application environment."

The bolding is mine, but I think that's a major issue. Like it or not, Apple is a business first and formost, and a restructuring of that size would be a big deal.

Jobs goes on at 10am PT, 1pm ET. I'm eager to see what's going on.

its not inconceavable that Apple would contract Intel to produce PPC architecture chips, Apple have a large stake in the PPC specs and Intel have a lot of production capacity and some serious R&D money behind them. Intel allready make a variety of chips not just x86 stuff. I'm still not convinced but it dosn't nessceraly mean that we are going to be running PC boxes by next year, Apple isn't likley to move to an entirly X86 based system with comodity motheboards and components for the simple reason that their money is in the hardware, and a significant reason apple system "just work" is less driver haseles compared to the thousands of bits of equipment that Windows supports.

Well live coverage has started. Heres a pretty good live text feed

http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/wwdc/05/index.html

Sweetness, thanks for finding that.

Holy crap.

er how reliable is that site?

It's a major MacNews outlet. Google 'MacNews' and it's the first one to come up.

I assume that when they say Intel they mea x86 chips, how weird

In case you havent heard Apple has Intel based chips. Steve is even using one to do the
keynote. If you listen close enough you can hear me puking through your internet connection. What is the last chip in the world I would buy. Pentium 4, the hottest running, power sucking, and lowest performing. Good move Steve.
-maestro

Post edited by: maestro, at: 2005/06/06 12:58

Looks like apple will be posting the keynote for all to watch

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/appleevents/wwdc05/

If you get a broken link page, i think its because it hasn't been posted up yet

I don't know that apple will be posting the keynote. Because if you type in that link (which is broken) and instead of wwdc05 you type anything else (like wwdc04,wwdc03,boogers... anything) you get the same broken link. we might just have to wait this one out...

So who's going to be the first to dual boot osx and windows?

Link is active now....go watch the keynote....hopefully it won't be overloaded

sorry its a different URL
http://stream.apple.akadns.net/

was gonna say the same thing the http://stream.apple.akadns.net/ link is good

After seeing that keynot i have totally accepted apples choice. Look at that pentium blasting away, with "only" 2 gig ram. Imagine that system as a dualcore dual cpu system...

And that spokesperson from intel sounded like he cared about the cooperation between the companies, unlike someone else cough,cough IBM cough.

And the Pentium M sounds really promising. I recon it was the right choice, as IBM didn't keep their promises. How long have it been since steve promised 3 ghz?

And as soon as microsoft contacted IBM they where able to get cpu's with mutible cores, thats a bit strange huh...

Well this is just my oppinion, so let's keep this discoussion relatively clean, and discuss the matter on a constructive level

Post edited by: griffer, at: 2005/06/06 18:56

Griffer, I hate to be the negative one here, but did you read my other post. Expect an article
coming next week about the positives (?) and negatives of this change. After all what the hell
else do I have to write about.
-maestro
Still puking...

i personally think this was a smart move.if apple uses a x86 based processor then any os they release will be compatible with ALL x86 based peecees,the result of this being that any and all windows users will have the choice of switching to apples os thus causing microsoft to get off of their asses and make something that works for a change or (keeping my fingers crossed) they will fall off the map.this will also open more possibilities for more portable devices like a pocket mac,also the mac steve jobs was using in the keynote was flying right along with no problems and when has a windows based intel system ever done that? Not to mention the price drop in apple computers we will see. In closing i think they did this for the same reason they released the ipod shuffle they want 100% of the market and with intel onboard they get themselves one step closer.

maestro: Sry didn't see it. Sounds good whith and article, to get a better overwiev of the consequenecs. btw. i understand your anger, i would probably be pissed too if i had bought an PM g5, only to see the cpu arkitecture being changed. I didn't think about that, as i was planning on upgrading my mac anyway, but i do see the problems it will cause.

dead13: Apple won't allow osx to run on any other computers than intel macs (better get used to that word). But they don't have any intentions of prefenting people of installing windows on their intel macs. That was whay they said anyway...

Post edited by: griffer, at: 2005/06/07 05:16

Post edited by: griffer, at: 2005/06/07 05:22

Griffer is right.

This was quoted at the end of a News.com article



It appears that the new macs will be able to run windows (ie. it will use universal PC components) but Apple won't allow the Mac OS to run on anything but a mac. I expect it'll be hacked even before the GM is released. :evil:

krusher117 wrote:



Hmm i don't think it will be that easy to do. If it was really easy, then why haven't anyone ported osx to pentium before.

There are a lot of thing in mac's that are different eg. open firmware vs. bios.

Hmm is it apples logic, that require a usb dongle to work? Anyway the app that uses that dongle haven't been cracked yet (not that i know of anyway).

And that only a usb dongle...

Furthermore there is a chance that pentium produces a special variant of their CPU that osx checks for on startup.

Post edited by: griffer, at: 2005/06/07 10:24

Yes it is a big change to switch processors. But macs are still going to be macs, just no powerpc processors. All this means is that the brand/type of the processor within computers is quickly becoming obsolete.

I agree with the switch, to a point. I think Intel should simply buy the rights to produce PPC chips, and therefore keep hardware essensially the same. I feel they could exceed what IBM has taken the ppc 970 to. The main thing that got me, was that this has been in deveopment for 5 years.

I have mixed feelings about this, I do wonder what it will do to mac sales during the "Transition" I was considering either an upgrade of my B+W or even building a G4, now I don't know...

If the Intel-Mac, software wise, is user transparent then it would not be a big change to most people, My ibook's g4 is made by Freescale and my G5 by IBM and I spend zero time thinking about that difference. Imagine how cool it would be if our macs had the kick ass OS X and could also run most windows apps too! It would rock! I am cautiously optomistic...

I must be crazy, but I'm just watching to see what happens next with all of this. There is another punch coming soon, but I can't quite place what it is yet.

maybe it's that STEVE JOBS was replaced by an animatronic puppet controled BILL GATES via an airport extreme network. He's just another periphrial.... and in that case... i want one of my own to do MY evil biddings. :evil:
"Dance Steve jobs, dance. MWA HAH HAH HAH HAH!!!!!"



deviant

UPDATE- I heard rumor he was running a quad CPU system during his keynote.....hmmmmmm... one thing I forgot-what about 64 bit, did that just disapeare, because last time i checked the P4 is 32 bit.......
Some food for thought.

I read that same rumor but I also read a line that said that pentium processors could not be multi configured. unless they're ee's in which they can be dual core'd but I find it odd that it didn't show up as a quad processor when he showed the system settings during the keynote. So I think that might just be some propagahnda...

I think that Steve was not running a dual dual for the keynote. I dont want to even explain that
one. Has anyone even been watching the Pc side of the computer world? Yes Intels can run
64 bit which is really just a marketing ploy ( just like Apple's). I think the move is great for Apple
but sucks ass for the consumer, Mac retailers, and our website are going to take the big hit.
Throw on the life preservers!
-maestro

Intel Macintosh - The ultimate oxymoron



Post edited by: maclover1986, at: 2005/06/08 12:37

what about the intel itanium isnt that 64 Bit?? heh the iMac P4 ( sounds so sick)


introducing the new Powermac itanium *shiver*

:evil: