Apple on Intel? Don't bet on it.
Lately I haven't been posting much because quite frankly, everything making the news has been quite <yawn> ... BORING. There has been ONE bit of news hitting the wire in the last couple of days that finally merits some attention. The pundits of CNET have reported that somehow they have an "inside source" that claims Apple is switching over to an Intel based architecture and will be announcing it on Monday at WWDC.
I am here to tell you folks (IMHO)...this is pure HOGWASH. It make absolutely NO sense at all for Apple to make such a monolithic move and the WRONG direction. For starters, this would mean yet another major overhaul and porting effort on behalf of all Macintosh developers out there. They did it once because they had to do it for the OS X transition. But to do it twice in the space of a few years? Ain't gonna happen people. Second, announcing such a move that would not happen on the PowerMacs until 2007 would essentially bring sales to a grinding halt. Nobody is going to spend $3,000+ on a professional system that will be out of date in a MAJOR way in the next 2 years. Apple has spent A LOT of time and energy dispelling the myths surrounding CISC vs. RISC based architectures and the so called "Megahertz Myth". And now, at a time when everyone is finally starting to understand the difference and major gaming platforms like the XBOX 360 and PS3 switching to what is essentially a G5 processor, what would Intel be able to offer that could throw all of that away?
It just makes no sense folks. What DOES make sense is Apple announcing Intel SUPPORT by creating an x86 version of OS X. Apple is a software and hardware company. Although keeping OS X solely on the Mac platform would obviously be good and help increase Apple's hardware sales, it would make more sense to announce that OS X will now run on an x86 machine. At a time when people have reached their threshold for pain on the Windows side of the house, it would tactically be genius to offer those folks an alternate OS that will run on their existing hardware. No more viruses, spyware or Blue Screens of Death. Just like the Mac mini concept, this is not a far fetched idea. Once the general public sees what they have been missing, they will no doubt think of Apple in an entirely new way. That only means one thing, increased hardware sales in the not too distant future. As those folks switch to OS X on Intel, when that hardware becomes obsolete and they need a replacement, now they will be looking long and hard at an Apple box.
The next logical move is the enterprise. One of the biggest concerns for an enterprise migrating platforms is cost. Porting OS X to Intel would allow an enterprise to transition to OS X with minimal cost and pain. The money saved on IT support costs alone would more than justify the money spent on training employees on the new OS. Productivity apps like MS Office would require practically no training. Overall, it just makes sense for an enterprise to switch to a safer and more stable computing environment.
Now we all know hell has frozen over at least once in recent history at Apple. So we can't be 100% sure of what exactly Steve has up his sleeves until Monday morning. It's going to be an interesting week to say the least. Stay tuned for more to come...
Comments
The problem with deploying OS X on x86 being drivers. One of the big reasons Windows is so unstable is directly attributable to crummy drivers. Driver falls over, down comes the entire house of cards.
Now, imagine what OS X stability would be like if MacOS X suddenly had to support a whole raft of extra drivers for different x86 system hardware. None of which have been beaten on seriously since most of them won't have existed for too long.
To be honest, I have no idea what's going to happen on Monday. As a Mac user I can only hope that they don't end up killing the platform stone dead by annoying developers so badly that they walk away.
I'll go with them if they do.
Posted by: Mark | June 4, 2005 9:45 PM
There already is a derivative of OSX for Intel called Darwin. I don't think that there are enough apps that have been recompiled to use on an Intel processor, so porting over OS X to Intel wouldn't really make sense since the apps won't run on it until the developers recompile them.
I think that Steve will have another suprise up his sleeve on Monday. It may envolve Intel, but I doubt that moving OS X over to an X86 chip will happen now.
Posted by: Ben | June 4, 2005 10:21 PM
Who says Apple will be using x86 CPUs?
The story is about Intel supplying _CPUs_ to Apple. Don't forget that Intel are CPU manufacturers, and could just as easily supply PPC CPUs - just as IBM did when Apple had an agreement with Motorola to supply PPC.
Motorola couldn't supply CPUs properly and severely embarrassed Stevey (remember the 500MHz G4 debacle?). Next thing you know IBM were in the loop (for G4 CPUs - IBM were already supplying G3s). Now Stevey's embarrassed again by IBM saying they'd be at 3GHz a year ago. I say Apple are now looking at another manufacturer who CAN supply.
Personally I would have backed AMD for this, but hey, what do I know?
Posted by: Barney | June 4, 2005 10:54 PM
Actually, you make less sense than the original rumor. For Apple to run on x86, they would still have to ask software vendors to recompile. So your argument is worthless. Also, Apple will lose its famed control of hardware.
The whole OSX to x86 is only desired by those who buy hardware on price and not on quality. And most of them are idiots.
This whole intel thing is a new product. It has nothing to do with the mac.
I guarantee that.
Posted by: Chris | June 5, 2005 12:53 AM
I gotta admit, if you'd told me a week ago that Apple would Intel chips, I'd've told you that you were twisted. Now I'm not so sure.
In switching Mac OS X to Intel, Apple would have to take care of two big things: AltiVec and HFS. AltiVec code would need to be converted to use SSE2 and the drivers which write HFS data would have to adjust the binary data written to the disk to support the appropriate endian-ness of the Intel processors. Heck, perhaps the Intel CPUs would be able to support Big-Endian--part of the reason for Intel's Little-Endian system is for backwards compatibility, which Apple doesn't care about.
Next, consider applications. Apple is using Cocoa for almost all of their applications--I think the only app that is Carbon is iTunes. If Apple ports Cocoa and Carbon to Intel, most of the hard work for application developers is done. About the only hassle you'll have is those developers who write binary data to disk or the network--and, even then, they will still work. They just won't be compatible with PowerPC Macs. With Intel Macs not coming out until 2006, according to the rumor, developers have plenty of time to solve this problem.
The other possibility, as others have said, is to have Intel build PowerPC CPUs. One problem that Apple is going to have is that with IBM providing CPUs for both Sony and Microsoft game players, IBM's Fabs are going to be running flat-out to meet demand. There's not going to be a whole lot of room to squeeze in poor little Apple. And IBM has already had trouble meeting Apple's demand anyway. With Intel applying some of their chipmaking technology to PowerPC, you might end up with some very high-gigahertz PowerPC chips.
Monday will be a very interesting day...
Posted by: Peter | June 5, 2005 1:52 AM
If Apple considers this move, Apple has had a lot more time to investigate problems and solutions for it (having a host of capable engineers), than we have in the few days of this rumors. They'll probably have thought of solutions for the problems you raised or have rated them as secondary in view of advantages obtained.
It would be nice if the Apple provided Intel machine qualified as a PC too. People could run Windows an Linux under it, have their programs, and slowly switch to Mac. If you could switch without restarting, that would be a boon. Of course, the danger is that it could go either way, and that PC developers no longer put any effort in creating a Mac version. A more attractive option would be that if developers developed on a Mac, the program would run under Windows too. But again, if Apple considered a switch, Apple will have considered such arguments much longer and deeper than I just have done.
Bert
Posted by: Bert | June 5, 2005 3:48 AM
OSX Server on Intel, I can understand. OSX Client, I don't think so.
Apple could sell OSX Server on an Intel based CPU pretty quickly, because there isn't a lot of 3rd party hardware to drag along for the ride.
There's nothing stopping this from being possible tomorrow.
Darwin compiles on Intel, and OSX was originally Next step, and had to be ported from Intel to run on PPC. Would you be surprised if Apple has been making builds of the base OS for both Intel and PPC all along?
There would be limited driver support for running it on someone else's box, but not as limited as some people claim. There are lots of Linux and NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD Operating Systems that already have drivers for just about everything in existence. This would just be another instance of Apple getting the benefit of resources from the Open Source community and leveraging them for their own commercial benefit.
Frankly, I don't care what chip runs inside my machine, as long as it runs Mac OS. I care about cost and performance.
IBM used to be the enemy, it was "Big Brother" in the 1984 commercial. Now it's Intel that is the bad guy. Yawn.
I find the Mac zealots pretty tiring. I've used Macs since the Mac plus, and even spent 5 years working for Apple as a System Engineer.
I still find the Mac zealots and their religion pretty boring.
The one thing that we all need to get ready for is the end of development for M$ Office as soon as Apple deploys Mac OS for Intel. Bill will have a hissy fit over Apple playing in his backyard and kill the MBU, same way he ended Exploder development when Apple dared support an alternate browser and came out with Safari.
Posted by: Malus Malum | June 5, 2005 9:00 AM
Hi there, I have thoroughly enjoyed your site this afternoon and I have learned a lot, I am also a big non-fan of anything windows and to prove it, I made a short film, it's on my site, called Apple Vs. Windows, it's good for a laugh, if nothing else. Please if you have 5minutes spare please visit.
Posted by: paul knight | November 10, 2005 1:23 PM
I personally think if there should be any switch keep this in mind, Intel has NOTHING on the AMD chip (a much more efficient CPU. Example-COMPETITORS: an AMD 3200+ 2.0GHz cpu costing $161 and an intel P4 3.4GHz at $273. Now, I Own both an iMac G5 & an AMD system, i used 2 have an intel but it was NOT handling my high power programs like Adobe premiere FULL effects. Firsly, out of the two X86 CPU's AMD had brought out its 1st 64Bit processor in Sep,2003, and Intel released its 64bit
1yr and 4mnths later at a release date of Jan-March 2005.
HEAT FACTOR:
a standard Intel P4 3.0G gives off 115Watts of heat and an AMD64 bit 2.2G gives off an awsome 89Watts of heat, even the AMD64 DualCore runs at 110 and its SERIOUSLY the MOST POWERFUL processor you can buy.
PERFORMANCE:
AMD64 4800+ DualCore-----------------120%|
Intel Pentium 4 3.7 EE --------------112%|
AMD64 3200+ Budget -----------97%|
Intel Pentium4 3.4GiG--------89%|
These are actual results from PCmark2005
soooo My CONCLUSION is Apple Should change to AMD, They are cheap, High in performance, they run very cool, and they are 100% reliable.
Helpful Link
www.google.com
lol
Posted by: Damien Lobb | January 14, 2006 10:28 AM