Macs to use Intel chips?

uberwolf · 25-05-2005 11:11AM #1

linkee

unlikely I'd a thought, it would require a complete rewrite of the OS. But would mean direct competition against MS and that would be interesting to watch - if nothing else

L1011 · 25-05-2005 11:35AM

Eh, its pretty widely believed that Apple have had OSX running on Intel internally for years.

They also had System 7 running on Intel. Did they move then? Nope.

Also remember that Intel make a LOT more than processors. We could see Mac's using Intel 10GbE cards, Intel wireless cards, Intel flash memory, Intel modem chipsets, and so on - but still be PPC.

lomb · 25-05-2005 11:39AM

well linux runs on a pc so why not mac os. at the end of the day u will be able eventually to load microsoft windows on a mac, which is the best of both worlds in some ways

colm_c · 25-05-2005 10:59PM

Apple usually spread rumours about intel themselves to put pressure on IBM to produce the PowerPC (G5) processor quicker. They did this before when the G4 came out.

If it were true, with Apple's name for keeping everything under wraps until they can make a big splash, they'd be suing the people who leaked them...

Sarunas · 26-05-2005 09:39AM

Its most likely what MYOB said, use intels chips for embedded stuff.

falteringstar · 26-05-2005 08:15PM

Id say it would be more likely they'd start using this new "Cell" processor by IBM, said to be up to ten times faster then current chips, OS neutral and I think featuring in the new PLaystation.

Ruaidhri · 26-05-2005 10:00PM

falteringstar wrote:

Id say it would be more likely they'd start using this new "Cell" processor by IBM, said to be up to ten times faster then current chips,

that's a very generous estimation. i honestly dont think apple will be moving off to that platform

OS neutral and I think featuring in the new PLaystation.

how do you have an OS neutral chip?mebbe i'm just reading it wrong, that's like saying the x86 is windows only..and ppc is mac os only.

Maoltuile · 27-05-2005 09:28PM

"Also remember that Intel make a LOT more than processors. We could see Mac's using Intel 10GbE cards, Intel wireless cards, Intel flash memory, Intel modem chipsets, and so on - but still be PPC."

They use Intel for some internals of the Airport Base Station, IIRC...

L1011 · 27-05-2005 10:58PM

Maoltuile wrote:

"Also remember that Intel make a LOT more than processors. We could see Mac's using Intel 10GbE cards, Intel wireless cards, Intel flash memory, Intel modem chipsets, and so on - but still be PPC."

They use Intel for some internals of the Airport Base Station, IIRC...

One of the older network cards Apple used - I think the Quiksilver might have had it - was an Intel also

Same way the first IBM machine used AMD components on the motherboard (before AMD made x86 clones); and the BeBox had AMD and Intel chips despite being a PPC. Apple could even be getting the Intel Extreme III for the G5 portables for all we know..

nutzboutstuff · 29-05-2005 11:43PM

How about apple just make RISC processors. As long as they support the same instruction set with a little tweaking, albeit BSD would run fine on it without problem. Before IBM was motorola, so there is no reason why intel could produce their newer chips. At the moment though its all about how much power the cpu dissipates, its the reason why we haven't seen G5 laptops as of yet. and its the reason we don't see quad xeon laptops too... I reckon when G5 processors have been developed and over developed into hybrids with maybe some other technology akin to the cell processor that we might see beyong 3Ghz ppc chips in mac laptops.
Plus who needs all this raw power when the machines of these days are all limited by their write to disk speed. Serial ATA just changes the bottle neck an inch or two into the harddrive. What we need is very high speed, drives with little power dissipation.

Hugh_C · 30-05-2005 11:45PM

lomb wrote:

well linux runs on a pc so why not mac os.

Lomb, it already does, pet.

ZENER · 31-05-2005 11:28AM

lomb wrote:

well linux runs on a pc so why not mac os. at the end of the day u will be able eventually to load microsoft windows on a mac, which is the best of both worlds in some ways

Linux for Mac.

Windows XP fo Mac !!!

ZEN

rsynnott · 05-06-2005 05:32PM

Ah, yep, this. I blogged about it here . CNet had a more specific article, which alleged they'd drop the IMB chips completely. It is not clear, however, whether they are looking at a 386 solution, the Itanium(IA-64), having Intel build PowerPCs (not completely impossible) or a completely custom chip. Will have to wait and see.

Yep, Linux has been running on the PowerPC for years, Windows NT 3.5 was available for PowerPC but later versions aren't; the above-linked thing is XP running on an emulator, probably Virtual PC.

L1011 · 05-06-2005 05:33PM

rsynnott wrote:

Ah, yep, this. I blogged about it here . CNet had a more specific article, which alleged they'd drop the IMB chips completely. It is not clear, however, whether they are looking at a 386 solution, the Itanium(IA-64), having Intel build PowerPCs (not completely impossible) or a completely custom chip. Will have to wait and see.

Yep, Linux has been running on the PowerPC for years, Windows NT 3.5 was available for PowerPC but later versions aren't; the above-linked thing is XP running on an emulator, probably Virtual PC.

NT4 SP3 exists for PPC, as does the 'XBOX 360 Developers Kit' - Windows XP.

rsynnott · 05-06-2005 06:02PM

MYOB wrote:

NT4 SP3 exists for PPC, as does the 'XBOX 360 Developers Kit' - Windows XP.

Ah, yes, NT4 did it as well. Maybe it was MIPS they dropped at that point; they definitely dropped something in the transition. Are you sure the XBOX devkit is WinXP? All mentions of it I've seen so far have just said "a version of Windows NT"; a term which encompasses XP certainly.

Capt'n Midnight · 05-06-2005 11:48PM

MYOB wrote:

NT4 SP3 exists for PPC,

But not for Apple PPC - was it for IBM or HP ?

L1011 · 06-06-2005 04:05AM

rsynnott wrote:

Ah, yes, NT4 did it as well. Maybe it was MIPS they dropped at that point; they definitely dropped something in the transition. Are you sure the XBOX devkit is WinXP? All mentions of it I've seen so far have just said "a version of Windows NT"; a term which encompasses XP certainly.

They didn't drop any architechture for NT4. The dropped MIPS instantly after NT4 came out, PPC at SP3, and Alpha at Windows 2000 Beta 3.

Everything I've read says the the XBOX dev kit is basically XP for the Powermac G5. Doesn't run on anything else, and doesn't have all the gubbins that the XP we know and despise does; but it has IE and it has Visual Studio...

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

But not for Apple PPC - was it for IBM or HP ?

3.5.x didn't run on Apple's either. NT for PPC ran on any CHRP compatible PPC machine (that it liked, thatis). Apple's used the PReP architechture, not CHRP

NT didn't, however, boot on the BeBox, which WAS CHRP and PowerPC. IDE controller issues I think.

(for reference, IBM made the only CHRP machines that it liked, so you are somewhat right)

Dizz · 06-06-2005 08:20PM

Confirmed - Mac to go all out x86
http://applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/apple_on_intel_confirmed/

64nDh1 · 06-06-2005 08:31PM

unlikely I'd a thought, it would require a complete rewrite of the OS. But would mean direct competition against MS and that would be interesting to watch - if nothing else

Except they've been doing it for 5 years on Marklar in secret.

rsynnott wrote:

It is not clear, however, whether they are looking at a 386 solution, the Itanium(IA-64), having Intel build PowerPCs (not completely impossible) or a completely custom chip. Will have to wait and see.

Congrats on completely failing to RTFA. They're using Pentium 4s at the moment on a work in progress system called Rosetta. Jobs used it during the keynote, I'm not sure how tied to P4 only they are, the itanium rumours were all over the place, I think it's still to early to view this development reservedly. In 2 weeks developers can get hold of a copy of a Pentium 4 machine running Tiger 4.1. Some crossplatform programs were put on the new system in 2 hours (Wolfram Institute's Mathematica program). Development is forced away from CodeWarrior for the time being to XCode. This may pave the way for some form of advance from the G4 Powerbook as the G5 could never be put in such an environment due to energy use and heat requirements.

Nietzschean · 06-06-2005 08:39PM

who own's the patents on the current power pc chips? ibm or apple? my guess would be ibm, so apple may have to go x86 or itanium, either way potentially quite a substancial proformance drop for media applications, traditionally apple's core consumers....

Possibly releasing a cheaper line of mini-mac's to use x86 intel chips?

BSD can run on both, so there is no reason to suggest they couldn't go with both arch's

secret_squirrel · 06-06-2005 08:47PM

Darth Bobo wrote:

BSD can run on both, so there is no reason to suggest they couldn't go with both arch's

Its not OS compatability thats the issue - its Application compatabilty. Same as it was when they moved to OS X. Its pretty simple for a developer of a core product - in this case OS X (yes I know thats a gross simplification)- to move to a new chip/architechture - but they also have to factor in backwards compatability for a massive chunk of the installed applications out there. Thats the biggest thing that mitigates against a move to x86.

/edit just followed the linky - looks like its true! whoda thought it!! Presumably that means Tiger could also run on AMD too? Gives Job's a pair of cpu manufacturers to play off against each other - just like he did with Moto and IBM. Wonder if there is going to be some changes to the silicon to make the Mac86's run Tiger - seems a bit counter productive to go for a massively standard product (Intel x86 processors) then get it customised. Still probably still cheaper than IBM G5's.

L1011 · 06-06-2005 08:51PM

Darth Bobo wrote:

who own's the patents on the current power pc chips? ibm or apple? my guess would be ibm, so apple may have to go x86 or itanium, either way potentially quite a substancial proformance drop for media applications, traditionally apple's core consumers....

Possibly releasing a cheaper line of mini-mac's to use x86 intel chips?

BSD can run on both, so there is no reason to suggest they couldn't go with both arch's

Apple own most of the IP on them now, actually.... Jointly held by Apple, IBM and Freescale Semi

secret_squirrel · 06-06-2005 08:55PM

Nother story here
and here

Zaph0d · 07-06-2005 12:58PM

Does this mean the end of the Apple hardware monopoly? WIll it be possible to run MacOS on a PC?

wayne040576 · 07-06-2005 01:13PM

Zaph0d wrote:

Does this mean the end of the Apple hardware monopoly? WIll it be possible to run MacOS on a PC?

I don't think so. I've read on other boards that they are just switching processors. They will probably keep the rest of the hardware as close as possible to what it is now. This way, they avoid having to deal with driver problems for multiple hardware set ups.

But it will make it easier to run another OS on apple hardware.

colm_c · 07-06-2005 01:36PM

Zaph0d wrote:

Does this mean the end of the Apple hardware monopoly? WIll it be possible to run MacOS on a PC?

tbh if that ever happened Apple would loose out so much, because their hardware would become redundant and since a copy of OS X is only about 129, their entire sales would have to depend on people buying the OS...

Zaph0d · 07-06-2005 01:45PM

wayne040576 wrote:

I don't think so. I've read on other boards that they are just switching processors. They will probably keep the rest of the hardware as close as possible to what it is now. This way, they avoid having to deal with driver problems for multiple hardware set ups.

But it will make it easier to run another OS on apple hardware.

Do you think you could buy an Intel-based Mac and install XP on a partition of the disk? Macs have great design so I think I'd like that.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-06-2005 01:55PM

In the future would there be something like WINE that would allow Windows apps to run natively on an i386 MAC ?

L1011 · 07-06-2005 02:02PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

In the future would there be something like WINE that would allow Windows apps to run natively on an i386 MAC ?

There already is - Darwine. Allows you to run Windows apps on Darwin; also allows you to currently recompile x86 Windows apps for OSX/X11 using Winelib in much the same way it does on Linux. I guess this will be ported to the x8 Mac's

Its not MAC, BTW - thats something totally different...

ZENER · 07-06-2005 03:03PM

Zaph0d wrote:

Does this mean the end of the Apple hardware monopoly? WIll it be possible to run MacOS on a PC?

I feel . . . . dirty !

I've just spent almost 2 f**king grand on a dual G5 only to be told it'll be obsolete next year !!!! Wonderful !! Absolutely f**king Wonderful !!!!

ZEN :mad:

Hugh_C · 07-06-2005 03:31PM

ZENER wrote:

I feel . . . . dirty !

I've just spent almost 2 f**king grand on a dual G5 only to be told it'll be obsolete next year !!!! Wonderful !! Absolutely f**king Wonderful !!!!

ZEN :mad:

Ehhhhh, what makes it any more obsolete in mid-2007 than it would already have been, if the Intel anouncement hadn't been made? Over-reacting a tad aren't you? It's still a dual G5, it'llstill run whatever software you're running today. Hopefully the processors won't have melted

hc

Macs to use Intel chips?

Comments