Apple on Intel

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006

 

Why? The CPU's that come with the Apples are even more efficient the Intels CPU's, not as high as clock speed but clock for clock they are for the most part better. This is a dumb move on Apple, now they will STILL be overpriced (perhaps more so with Intel)

 

you tell em eric!

 

If they are looking to save money by switching to a x86 processor, then I would have chosen AMD over INTEL.

 

You're wrong. and I don't say that much, but you are.. this is a very SMART move by Apple to be producing laptops (their biggest seller) on Pentium M (centrino) cpu's and chipsets. Not only are they allowing themselves to be able to use X86 binaries now, but they will have the advantage of a superior laptop chipset on a laptop that IBM couldn't produce.

Now, if you want to talk about the moving away from PPC as a blow to technology , then I'll agree with you, but business wise, it is a good idea.

 

I didnt actually read the link, so I wasnt sure if it was desktop or laptop. Laptop I will have to agree with you, the Pentium M cpu's are pretty good, much better then the P4's are power wise (processing power) at a lower clock speed. That is a good decision on their part and Im sure it will help them sell more laptops.

 

Well,moving to Intel and X86 gives them the option for both, but I'm pretty sure their motive is laptop oriented.

 

So Caruso chip IS dead?!?

 

Chips like that have been pushed to appliance type devices.

 

Shadow_puter_dude:Interesting why they chose intel over AMD,many analysts feel AMD would be a better choice for the osx graphic interface.Maybe they were thinking that multimedia programs might run better on the intel.But the os itself would have been quicker on the AMD.Intel is better at laptops so that might be one reason.Also they have been planning this for a long time and the AMDs were not strong then.

Kodo:Yes bad for technology,good for buisness.But competetion sometimes makes winners and losers.Its all about survival and domination.

I think they would have considered all the factors as well.It would have been an overall decision on their part.If the Mac on intel does well.Then Windows will finally have real competetion.(Apart from the MG os team which will be up soon).

 

Hmph. I rather liked the RISC PowerPC chips. Very efficient. Going to x86 seems like jumping backwards to me, but hey... it makes business sense ... I don't spect the graphics professionals and video editors will be especially pleased though...

 

I thought DEC alpha was the only risc chip.

 

Well thanks for the clarification.I now know that AT&T CRISP, AMD 29000, Intel i860 and Intel i960, Motorola 88000, and the HP-PA besides power and sparc are risc architecture.It is much more efficent but still not able to take dominion.
That really is a bad blow to technology.I was trying to get a DEC alpha just because I heard it was a risc processor.

 

What about the new chip by Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., IBM and Toshiba
'supercomputeronachip'?Is that risc?

 

Lil more market for an X86 oS now if they can make themselves priced right.
I hope this sparks a lil competition in the OS market.

 

It is called the 'cell'.

 

Alright, I said I was opening a thread to bitch... found a thread to assess instead.

First of all, it's not a blow to technology. Apple only accounted for 1% of the market that IBM supplies PPCs to. NOT a very significant blow. IBM will continue to work on the PPCs and the Cell.

While it makes good business sense to move away from PPC for Apple long term, it also makes right now a very bad time to get into a Mac-- which will hurt sales probably from fourth quarter this year through third quarter next year. As word gets out about the shift, people will start waiting to buy until Apple has settled on the new architecture. This poses a very big short term problem because there has been a surge in interest in Apple due to the success of the iPod and the low end mini-macs.

So why lose this business and shift architectures? Well, everyone wants to go mobile. Right now, Apple can't produce a decent high end laptop based on the PPC. They HAVE to be able to capture the laptop market if they want to steal a chunk of the general PC market. Also, if they can sell their X86 OS to people who were previously using windows, more people will come to learn their OS and likely wind up buying their hardware due to the form, functionality, and damn sexy design.

Now, as far as deciding between Intel and AMD... I'm saddened by the fact that they've decided to go Intel. Though there seem to be some decent reasonings behind this.

Intel consistantly wins over AMD in benchmarks when it comes to dealing with the applications that Apple already caters to. Things like handling video, audio, and graphics. The big files and hard crunching is what Intel does better than AMD. To go AMD may very well put Apple out of any standing with the media world that has kept them alive in recent years.

Don't misunderstand. I hate to see this shift. I like the idea of being PPC based. I like the idea of NOT using Intel. But I think Apple is thinking on a long term timeline that most of us can't see or don't understand.

Oh. Final note: why not stick around and see what he Cell has to offer? Because Sony has gotten their grubby little hands in it. It's tainted. No hope. It will likely be used in Sony hardware and super computers. I don't see any other major players adopting it with any success.

 

Come on people. I know I didn't write all that for nothing...

 

I'm just as suprised that Apple has decided to move to the x86 architecture. This is either a stroke of marketing genius or the death of Apple in the PC market. With their established user base and the licensing fees Apple recieves from Microsoft, Apple has managed to stay afloat in a market dominated by MS. IMO Apple has the superior OS but have priced themselves right out of the market.

 

ATM there is nothing to discuss, we have no idea which intel they are planning to use and what apples whole gameplan is.Everybody is confused but I beleive apple has a good reason and a plan.Regarding the cell,there is no announcement yet about that chip as well.IBM has been doing great research for a long time and as one of the founding companies of the present technology,I would like them to continue.There research in quantum computers show they are aiming high.No matter what happens technology will stay,thats all I know.But I hope mean CEOs dont spoil the party.I would like someone to tell me why apple doesnt allow their os to be used on anybodys hardware.Many beleived the microsoft superiority came due to this kind of thing.

 

because Apple wants control. If they only have a small particular set of hardware then they can be sure that software/drivers/hardware/os all work without having to go crazy trying to qualify those parts for use, much like MS does today with WHQL drivers.

 

If control is all they want they just have to do a little more work.They could sacrifice a little control for a little expansion.

Great info on the cell http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell1.html
Eight cores thats amazing.

 

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelmac.html