The stupid Intel rumors are back (make it stop part II)

[Kazrog]

So some bigshot analyst (and noted Intel investor) says Apple will go to Intel CPUs in the next 2-4 years. All this because of Jobs saying he likes having "options." The story's up on MacNN.com if you want to see it.

Most of you here are intelligent enough to realize that for Apple to transition from PowerPC to Intel architecture would mean going from a billion dollar hardware+software company to a million dollar software company. They would be left to compete with Microsoft on their home turf. Apple doesn't have the resources to play at that level, at least not yet. They'd be just another weirdo OS maker like Red Hat. And never mind the engineering cost of redoing the entire architecture of the OS... and having every software company recompile all the apps...

I believe Apple will go to IBM for CPUs in the next YEAR. And they will be PowerPC based (duh.) I also believe that the long-rumored quad-processor machines will surface then as well.

The PowerPC is still a superior chip to anything Intel makes. It may be slightly slower right now, but it runs at less than half the power and temperature, and uses more efficient RISC processing. With the new manufacturing processes that IBM has been working on, the PowerPC will once again upstage the Intel chips in terms of raw horsepower in the near future. Motorola doesn't seem to care anymore, but IBM does, and their independent tests have been impressive (manufacturing the G3 so efficiently that it rivals the G4, etc.)

I care about this because I need raw horsepower to do audio and video work every day. I've upgraded my Sawtooth to a dual G4/500, and it is badass, but I could still use some more speed. I'm holding out on a new PowerMac until we see a major step forward in speed/architecture. I think Apple's done an incredible job this last year of pushing the technology forward in spite of a bad economy, Motorola turning careless and indifferent, and Microsoft releasing their hacked up parody of Mac OS X to stir market confusion. Eagerly awaiting my 20 gig iPod in the mail, and Jaguar after that.

[fryke]

It's ALL opinions, Kazrog, even yours.

For example, you are wrong in some aspects.

First, moving to Intel would _not_ mean to give up hardware, just to give up PowerPC. Apple could still (or again) include a ROM chip needed to run Mac OS on a machine.

Second, another weirdo OS maker like RedHat? RedHat is a well known company.

Third, the PowerPC is still superior although slower right now. Intel's processors in 2 to 4 years... We just don't know them yet, right? The analyst sees (and I think he's right _here_) that Mot is falling behind. Further and further. It's just _analyzing_ what has happened.

But then again, you're absolutely right about Apple doing a great job in a hard time. Apple _has_ been innovating where others have not. But wasn't that also the case in the _good_ times of the market? Isn't it what actually makes Apple a different computer maker in the eyes of the non-Macintosh-addicts? It's VITAL for them to stay innovative. If they're not one step ahead, they're dead in the non-Mac-people's eyes, which means: Bad press, bad share prices, buyout rumours. Which means stress at the company and no time to innovate.

It's really a few years away, but I personally believe there _will_ be options when Apple has finished the transition to Mac OS X.

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by fryke
It's ALL opinions, Kazrog, even yours.

For example, you are wrong in some aspects.

First, moving to Intel would _not_ mean to give up hardware, just to give up PowerPC. Apple could still (or again) include a ROM chip needed to run Mac OS on a machine.

What is it with you people? Apple abandoned the Toolbox ROM for very important reasons. Those reasons are only more important now.

1. The Toolbox ROM allowed Apple to offer a complete GUI-based OS that could boot off a floppy and 128K RAM. We live in a very different world today.

2. The Toolbox ROM had to be updated for every revision in hardware.

3. The Toolbox ROM required every OS update to include patches to every version of the Toolbox.

This is a very expensive proposition. Apple has to remain profitable to survive. There are two ways to increase profits. One way is to raise prices, which will decrease unit sales and market share. That is a no-go. The other is to decrease costs. Returning to a ROM-based OS will increase costs, not lower them.

Second, another weirdo OS maker like RedHat? RedHat is a well known company.

But RedHat is a much smaller company than Apple. Is this what you want Apple to become?

[azosx]

Originally posted by fryke

Third, the PowerPC is still superior although slower right now. Intel's processors in 2 to 4 years... We just don't know them yet, right? The analyst sees (and I think he's right _here_) that Mot is falling behind. Further and further. It's just _analyzing_ what has happened.

How is the G4 superior to Intel and AMD's current CPU offerings?

[deagle five o]

its about f*ing time, that they leave Motorola

[edX]

Second, another weirdo OS maker like RedHat? RedHat is a well known company.

give me a break fryke. nobody outside of the geek world has ever heard of redhat. few even know what linux really is, much less that it comes in flavors.

i think kazrog's point here is well taken. he might be overstating it a bit as i think the apple os would appeal to many people, but the move would certainly be a big step backwards.

[fryke]

Originally posted by azosx


How is the G4 superior to Intel and AMD's current CPU offerings?

Would you please READ my posts and other people's? I was AGAINST the statement that G4 is superior to Intel's CPUs and we were NOT talking about AMD. I was already quoting the first post.

Ed: You're right... But RedHat is one of the few big shots in the Linux business, and Linux *has* made some splashes in the SMB area as a great alternative file-/print-/mail-/webserver among the Windows crowd. And RedHat is a fine alternative there.

My point was that a switch to Intel processors in 2-4 years would

a) _not_ mean necessarily that every Wintel PC would be able to run Mac OS X.

b) _not_ mean we'd be using P4s, as they probably are gone by then, anyway, and replaced by something newer, better.

And I think the original post on this thread was wrong to assume those things here.

One big advantage of an Apple Macintosh computer with an Intel compatible CPU (with other Wintel PCs NOT running Mac OS X natively because of whatever Apple does in order to achieve this) would be that those computers would still run other X86 based operating systems in a dual-boot configuration very well.

Now _this_ would bring more switchers. Still, the analyst was talking 2-4 years, and I guess this tends to be forgotten in the usual X86 threads. I don't think it's an option _right_ now. But I think Apple should do *everything* to be free to decide what to base their computers on in two to four years, as Mot _really_ seems to be unable (and doesn't seem to want) to compete much longer in this market with Intel & AMD.

Choosing OpenStep to base Mac OS X on was definitely a good move, because it's a highly portable operating environment. And Apple shouldn't let itself get into too many one-way streets. Like Steve said: Then we'll have options, and we want options. Doesn't yet mean they're choosing a different one. If IBM comes up with really cool next generation PowerPC processors for desktop and notebook machines in about 1 or 1.5 years, I'd of course be all for PowerPC again. Just doesn't look like it nowadays.

[azosx]

Originally posted by fryke


Would you please READ my posts and other people's? I was AGAINST the statement that G4 is superior to Intel's CPUs and we were NOT talking about AMD. I was already quoting the first post.

AMD is x86, x86 is Intel.

In anycase, what is the G4 superior to then?

**edit**

Oh I see. You spliced his sentences and took them out of context. Very confusing. Maybe you should just stick to quoting in the future.