Comments

B_JM wrote on 6/6/2005, 1:38 PM
very well put Chienworks
BrianStanding wrote on 6/6/2005, 1:50 PM
Actually, it looks like AMD, not Intel, will quickly become the PC standard, once dual-cores and 64-bit become the standard. Once that happens, it's more likely Intel will become the "boutique" brand.

I'm sure Intel is probably looking to pick up a little extra market share to offset anticipated losses to AMD. Wouldn't surprise me if they offered a sweetheart deal to Apple, just to undercut IBM. Meanwhile, I'll bet Apple would jump at a chance to upgrade their processor power at a cut-rate. Looks like it improves the balance sheet for both companies.

Just to really complicate things, what about the Sony "Cel" chip in the new PS2?
Coursedesign wrote on 6/6/2005, 1:57 PM
"it looks like AMD, not Intel, will quickly become the PC standard, once dual-cores and 64-bit become the standard. Once that happens, it's more likely Intel will become the "boutique" brand."

That would be interesting, but don't underestimate Intel's ability to strike back. Intel is far stronger in mass manufacturing than AMD

Intel quickly picked up AMD's 64-bit instruction set and added it to their EMT series CPUs.

They are already shipping dual-core Pentium 4s, choosing to provide this in desktop CPUs first, rather than server CPUs like AMD.

The Cel chip could get very interesting, but it's like fuel cell vehicles: too early to tell.

farss wrote on 6/6/2005, 3:14 PM
I agree, and they've been running faster from what I hear.
What's not apparent from the press releases is if Apples code will be able to run on white box PCs.
If that's the case then one has to wonder about the ability of Apple to sell computers, why would you buy their overpriced offerings.
Maybe we should have know about this for years, "iMac" really meant Intel Inside :)

Bob.
B_JM wrote on 6/6/2005, 3:28 PM
it would be very easy to hardcode into the firmware the non-ability to run alternate OS's ... and may be to apples benefit to do so (in their overall strategy)

winrockpost wrote on 6/6/2005, 3:57 PM
i dont get the big deal, I'm no computer genius but so what if apple runs an intel chip, aint it still an apple ? Dont they still have their own operating system, OK , so what does it mean ??
B_JM wrote on 6/6/2005, 4:16 PM
it should mean a lot cheaper prices for apples for one thing .. also makes it easier to port software over ..

farss wrote on 6/6/2005, 4:17 PM
To me the most significant thing is that for so many years Apple has been dumping on Intel, claiming how much faster the Apple CPUs are and now they change course, for the Macolites this must be like Bush converting to Islam.
Bob.
Quryous wrote on 6/6/2005, 5:14 PM
From what I read "Out of the Lime Light," the decision is simply because IBM can no longer keep up with Apple's expectations. Historically that was not the case, the G chips were touted as faster than Intel, but if development of new G chips is no longer accelerating as fast as Intel, time to change.

All in all, big deal! Wait and see what develops and go with the flow.

p@mast3rs wrote on 6/6/2005, 5:53 PM
I got some more information. Apparently Apple will have no problem if Windows XP is used on their IntelliMac boxes HOWEVER, they WILL NOT permit any other configurations to work with their OS. First off, this is the dumbest thing Apple could do especially since OSX has been compiled for the last 5 years for x386.

Jobs is going to screw up his chance to really take away market share from Gates. By keeping the possible configurations small that will work with MAC OS, they will lose potential customers for not only their OS but other software as well. With all the marketing hype of how FCP is challenging Avid as the industry standard, you would think they would see the bigger picture and increased sales. Its not like Apple makes much profit on hardware sales outside of Ipods and displays.

Imagine the ability to run Motion or Shake on a PC without having to shell out thousands for the system in addition to the cost of software. Maybe Sony could then port Vegas to OSX to increase productivity.

I am not going to beat my chest but if anyone looks back to a few days before NAB, I posted that there was a strong rumor of FCP being develope for the PC. Looks like I wasnt wrong afterall. Its good to be write once in a while.
Coursedesign wrote on 6/6/2005, 6:01 PM
IBM's Power5 chips, as used in their servers today, are far ahead of what Intel has today or will have in the near future. They are expensive though.

I would have thought that AMD could have offered a better roadmap for Apple, but I'm sure there are many other considerations. I wouldn't be surprised if Intel offered a sizable investment in Apple, that they can use to pay for new product development.

Remember MS saving Apple's ass in 1997 with their $150M investment at a time when Apple's bank acccount was pretty meager.

Of course Apple denied at the time that it was a bailout, but I suspect Steve Jobs pointed out to Bill G. that if Apple went under, there would be a massive antitrust lawsuit against MS that could consume Bill's time through the next decade.
B_JM wrote on 6/6/2005, 6:19 PM
"thought that AMD could have offered a better roadmap for Apple,"



If they have been running on x386 for the last 5 years - you can bet they started looking at it at least 6 years ago ...

6 years ago - AMD was not as much a threat to intel - in fact , they were on pretty shaky ground for a while -- apple went the the smart road and picked the more stable company AT THAT TIME --


Coursedesign wrote on 6/6/2005, 7:39 PM
Good point!

I can imagine Jobs didn't see AMD clone CPUs with VIA support chips as the future... and you're right, at the time they didn't seem viable.

wombat wrote on 6/6/2005, 9:28 PM
For the real reasons for the Intel preference ??? see:

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html?tw=rss.TOP

and

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121027,00.asp

It appears to be about owning and locking down digital media streams. Apple want to be the big troll on the bridge to digital entertainment.
rmack350 wrote on 6/6/2005, 10:26 PM
Winrock,

You're right of course. Recompiling an OSX ap for Windows or a Windows ap for OSX isn't all that simple. I suspect that recompiling an OSX ap from PPC to Intel is a bit simpler. Also, it sounds like Apple has the compiler and other tools ready for developers.

If you're familiar with Linux, you may see some parallels. I just don't think there's as much development of Linux for PPC as there is for x86. This weekend I was showing a teacher friend the GIMP because she doesn't have a software budget for her technology class. GIMP is a good free image editor. Looking over the prerequisites to get it to run on OSX was a bit more scary than getting it to run in Linux or Windows. These later two are trivial.

So, yes, they'll have their own OS. And yes they could have their OS install disks verify that the machine being installed on is actually a Mac branded machine. PC vendors already do that-you can't use your HP Pavilion software disks on another machine, even one in the HP line.

What does Apple probably hope to get by this time next year? Cheap machines using the Pentium M processor on SFF motherboards. Commodity priced components. Access to many top notch motherboard manufacturers. Maybe a dual core consumer machine. Maybe an entertainment center for the living room. And, yes, an entry into the digital video stream. More interest from the open source programming world.

They'll be competing with Longhorn on the same hardware. If they want to say that there OS is faster than Windows on an identical machine, they'll be able to do so.

Rob Mack