Apple may ditch IBM, go over to Intel for processors

Article : Apple may ditch IBM, go over to Intel for processors
Print this article
Email this article

Stay Updated
News gadget on your Google homepage
Subscribe to a news feed in Google Reader

Thank you kpax, I did not know that about the supposed 64-bit AMDs. I stand corrected, my apologies.

I know it's taking forever for the software designers to design 3D graphics software for the 64 bit chips, but that wasn't really my point about graphics design and Apple. Apple's graphics software has always been ahead of Windows's, even before the days of the first G3 chip. I have a relative who's wife creates computer graphics, and they had to buy a Mac because the PCs they had at work and the one they had at home couldn't handle it.

Yes, I like what Alienware is doing. That is truly unique.

And to add to your comment about "Apple has something in their favor" as far as case design, I'd like to reiterate: Apple has always been copied. eMachines tried to copy the iMac. Gateway tried to copy the iMac. Countless others have tried to copy that model and several others. Their software is also very good compared to the alternative PC titles.

That depends on what you want to upgrade. The processor? Yes, you are correct. Especially on the new G5s, I have no idea how to go about replacing the processor in those bad boys. The new G5s have everything pasted in, no wires visible, which of course makes for good ventilation in addition to their water cooling system. But upgrading wise, unless it's something simple like a RAM upgrade or a PCI/PCI-X card, I don't really know how you would go about upgrading a G5. I'll have to experiment when I go out to my relative's and play with their new G5...

I am divided on this Intel move. On one hand, you have a very good point. By using the "mainstream" processors that everyone else uses, or mostly everyone else, Apple is placing themselves in a very good position upgrades wise. On the other hand, they lose some of their uniqueness. I think it will be a profitable move for them, but whether I agree with it or not is an entirely different question.

To Issaac:

Who cares if IBM released the Cell chip if nobody wants to make software for this so called new platform?
It is true IBM has been in business for a long time. But their golden age has been over for at least a decade. IBM had problems (delays... faulty chips...) keeping up their promise to Apple, and that's why Apple ditched them.
Now, I don't know where you got the idea that Dell makes crappy PCs because of Intel. Obviously you don't know how to put together a system. Intel, just like AMD is just a manufacturer. And Dell, Gateway, HP, etc.. make PCs with components bought from many places. They are crappy, but that's because they use short-cuts in assembly, don't update hardware drivers, and proprietary BIOS that limits you in hardware upgrades. So much for 'buy a Dell'.

It seems a lot of people don't know much of chip design and what's involved in creating one.

So, Jason don't go off too far. You mentioned that "AMD came out with 64 bit chips long before Intel did" Are you sure about that? AMD did released 2x32 bit chips that acted as dual-core and for marketing BS they called it 64 bit. It's only in June 2005 that 64 bit coding was added on AMD chips, and that's not 100% 64 bit either. In the semiconductor industry AMDs claim of 64 bit was a joke and that's why it didn't get much attention or publicity from the industry. But, a lot of consumers that don't know much about chip design bought the marketing BS AMD released and that helped AMD gain some market share. You could say this was false advertising, and most people don't know about it. AMD has a lot of problems releasing a fully 64 bit chip. At the moment the only manufacturers competent of 64 bit architecture are Fujutsu, Texas Instruments, Intel, IBM and Silicone Graphics.

Now, some time ago Apple did release 64 bit chip with the help of IBM. But, who cares about this is there is no software to run on it? It's only in 2005 that 3D software manufacturers (Alias, Avid, Discreet, Newtek) started including 64 bit coding in their software. It would take a few more years before we start seeing 64 bit games.

Keep in mind that looks can also be deceiving. Most PCs on the market are just ugly boxes. An exception to this rule is Alienware. Apple does have something in their favor. Apart from exterior design, their OS, Final Cut Pro and Shake are really really good. But, apart from that, if you wish to upgrade (with better performance) there is very limited hardware on the market for Macs and that's a very big downturn for Apple. I hope this Intel Apple relationship will entice hardware manufacturers to make more parts for Macs too. I'm optimistic with this move from Apple and I wish them a smooth transition.

Apple is not the company that has been 2 steps behind, all the other companies are 3 steps behind apple. Apple was the first in many things. The first 64bit processor, the first track-pad on a laptop, the first practical home computer, the first 17-in laptop screen, all of the screens that Apple throws out, Dell and Gateway and Sony and Toshiba buy for their monitors (thats how good apples screens are). Apple is a powerhouse that hasnt had the right marketing love it needed to dominate the market.

Bill Gates won the market by ripping off the original MacOS and making his own crappy computer half the power of the apple and selling it cheap. He is a thief. Apple should have made a lower-end comp to counter this but decided to stay on the higher class-side of the market.

It would be a stupid move for Apple to switch to intel. Who's made sony's powerful cell-processor (if it isnt a bunch of lies)? IBM did. IBM has been in the business of computers eversince the internet was invented a long time ago (the internet was invented in the late 40's as a means for the U.S. to transfer information to different militar bases. it was invented before computers) IBM knows power and Apple nows power. Intel knows cheap things that short and malfuntion (that's why dell uses them).

It will be a sad day if this truly happens.

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. I think that this is one of the best decisions Apple has made in a long time. Here's why:
1. They will now be able to sale OS X to other Intel vendors (DELL, HP, you name it) which means a lot of money for Apple (it looks like Microsoft is making a nice living out of that and OS X is far superior to Windows).
2. This will allow Mac's to be more attractive to gamers. Games is what drives the industry forward and Macs are not really a player in the field because of porting issues and limited Graphics cards.
3. No more total reliance on the Big Blue to deliver chips. If Intel misbehaves there is always AMD.
4. Isn’t time we have a *G5* PowerBook? Who cares what CPU is in the box as long as you get a better performance? Trust Apple to make all the right optimizations so it outperforms any competitor configuration.
5. Apple is NOT a chip maker! Apple is a company who knows how to write great software and leads the market in innovation and design. When they enter the “Intel world” it will force everyone to adjust and ultimately move the PC industry forward (like they did when they entered the Music market).
6. Can you imagine running iLife on a DELL computer? The options are limitless.
7. Their hardware design will always be superior to any other vendor in the market which will ensure sale of the Mac for years to come.
8. BMW makes great cars – but they still run on gasoline engines. Why shouldn’t Apple take the same approach?

Two thumbs up to Jobs for finally getting over the stupid “we-hate-everything-related-to-Intel” excuse and actually thinking different…

To Kent: The other 0.4 I'm sure is "gone" because they want to make room for estimate error. Those are just estimates, after all.

To Todd: You obviously don't know much about processors or computer hardware in general. Research is important, especially before you start posting comments on websites like these.
PowerPC and Intel and AMD processors are all fundamentally different.

Larry, research your information before you start running your mouth off.

Apple PowerMacs are the best computers ever designed. If you want graphics, if you are into graphics design, you have to buy PowerMacs. Why? Because Intels can't handle the super high end graphics that PowerPCs can.

Who was the first to introduce the 64 bit computer processor? Apple. Who was the first to introduce the personal "supercomputer" chip? Apple. Who's computer designs (cases, not software) were always copied by eMachines (before Gateway bought them out) and all those other smaller computer companies? Apple's. Intel is ALWAYS behind in processor design. I mean, AMD came out with 64 bit chips long before Intel did. Mac OS X was designed to utilize a 64 bit Operating System long before this new quirky Windows XP 64 bit edition came out.

Mac OS X is far more stable than Windows XP will ever be. Why? Because UNIX code, which Mac OS X is based on, is very very stable. Very few crashes there, and if it does its because of the software you are using, not the OS itself. Apple realized long ago that they had to get rid of their old OS, Mac OS 9, and rebuild it from the ground up, so they did: wala, you have Mac OS X. Bill Gates and Microsoft just keep adding more and more into Windows, making it bigger and bigger, bloating it with more and more crap. They just keep adding on to the same old code that existed back in Windows 95! They make it look prettier and throw in new features, but the same old security holes are there, and the more they bloat it and add on, the more security holes that are created.

The military uses UNIX based systems, and has for a while now been switching several systems to use Mac OS X because not only is it very stable, it has very very few security glitches.

So, to refute your ridiculous claims Larry, Apple has always been two steps AHEAD of the competition, not behind. Ever since Steve Jobs came back, they've been ahead in chip and computer design as a whole.

And as a final conclusion, Larry, I'd like to say one more thing...

Like Ken T. said, get a clue, idiot.

Why does it matter if it uses a new design. A processor is a processor. Do you want it to have a new Mac hologram on the front of it like the Pentium 2's did???

Hey Larry Plate,

Get a clue idiot.

Is that right? Intel 81.7, AMD 16.9 and Apple 1.8
Where is the over 0.4 gone?

Who care what chip Apple uses and that Apple will trulely become a Intel clone. Another reason not to buy an Apple until 20007 and all the changes are completed and bugs worked out.

This will help Apples market share for the next two years. I can't remember any good thing that came out of Apple, even the I-Pod is a joke. That fad will wear thin shortly.

Seems to me that for the company that supposedly created the Home computer. They've always been two steps behind the leaders.

In ten years all apples will be selling as collector item and the company will join Borland in it's market share. To bad with the correct management they would have been the leader in the PC Market.

Lots of luck Apple on your to little to late move.

When Intel starts making CPU's for Apple
will it be a new design? or will it be the
same Pentium that the PC uses?
I hope it is a new design.
Jack
Rialto,Ca