Apple Using Intel Chips Do I smell merger

[contact411 0]

I was reading earlier today regarding the announcement made by Apple to start using Intel chips. Although I am not one to jump on a conspiracy theory this did strike me as a little odd when I first heard it. That being said I wanted to share the following like with you all regarding Intel possibly setting up to purchase Apple and kick Microsoft back in the hole a bit. Iâm sure there is nothing more Steve Jobs would like than to win the PC war against MS once and for all.. But hey.. Bill still is looking really good in the Mobile phone arena.

Apple/Intel Merger?!?

[xJedix 0]

Thanks for posting this, I never would have known about this otherwise. I think its would be a great idea if intel and apple combined. Maybe they might actually make something that has a lot less holes in it. Though many people can debate about that, I think its a good idea and it would bring back some competition. Hey, maybe some prices might even drop for us poor folk

[Midnight Martyr 0]

It's really odd that they would do this... but will anything really come of it, I wonder? Is it going to bring more advantages to Apple users or to Intel/Windows users?Apple still has a bit of a ways to go, if they want to start hitting MS, but this is a good step foward, I guess.

[Rebecca1405241499 0]

Don't read too much into this. Intel supplies a lot of companies with chips, and they can supply Intel with faster chips for the money than IBM. That means lower costs which means lower prices which means better sales.So far, Apple's denying you'll be able to install Mac OS X on a non-Apple machine - it'll probably be BIOS locked. That makes me mad! I'd love to be able to run OS X on my own custom hardware. But still, it's a nice step forward in terms of competition, not a major threat to MS. Now if Apple did allow OSX to install on any x86 machine, that could be nice competition for Microsoft...

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

my opinion?

Right here: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

xboxrulz

[Logan Deathbringer 0]

ok the problem with OS X running on a x86 platform and keeping its stability and fuctionality is this. They are gonna be porting a RISC based OS to a CISC bases system. This means that to keep the proformance that they have been getting with their old systems based on the IBM processors Intel is gonna have to crank up the clock speeds even faster. As for Apple and Jobs stepping up and giving Gates and MS a swift kick to the pants, ain't gonna happen. The reason for this is that Gates kept Apple alive back in the late '90's by giving Apple a major capital injection.Its because of this major cash influx that Gates gave Apple, and this is my opinion, that is the reason that even though they seem to coverting to the x86 platform that gonna keep Apple from allowing the their OS from being used on any system. Although just give the underground programers time and they will probably find a way to make that a thing of the past when X finally does come out for the standard x86 PC. Bios locks won't stay around long I'm sure. Jobs will find a way to stick it to Gates eventually, of this there can be little doubt. There is no love loss there.

[Repeater 0]

I think it's a great move by Apple-why not pay less for something stronger with preformance?IN my opinion, Apple has surpassed Windows in almost every area. They are more user friendly, 'nicer' looking, and such. Apple lacks in the software area though. Not as much software is developed for it.After reading some of the posts here, I have gathered that Apple may drop the prices of its machines. That's always nice, haha. Any idea when they will start using the Intel chips in the machines?

[Logan Deathbringer 0]

ok they might be able to drop their prices but the Intel Pentium chip is not better then the IBM Power-PC chip. The only Chip that Intel has that can compete with the IBM Power Chip is the Alpha chip that Intel bought the rights to and the likely hood that Intel is gonna role out a completly new chip line just for Apple is slim, especially if Apple is trying to save money and lower costs.

[Jguy101 0]

I personally think this is stupid. First of all, they already have faster chips: a PowerPC rated at 2.7GHz is the equivalent of an Intel chip at 5.4GHz. Second, if you want to run Windows, buy Virtual PC!

[Logan Deathbringer 0]

Exactly Risc is better then Cisc. Why Apple would willingly make the change is beyond me. They are basicly down grading their product. Weird.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

RISC and CISC are architextural differences. Over time the "x86" instruction set has been extended over and over, with more and more registers added, (SSE, MMX 3d-now, SSE2 and 3, etc). Each of these changes made the chips more "risc-like". As for why they are doing it, the answer is pretty simple: IBM will not give Apple the chips they want/need at the prices they want/need in order to stay competitive. Intel will. Moreover, there is lots of efficiency to be gained with Intel. Intel has an EXCELLENT group of compiler writers working for them, and as long as you are compiling for ONLY an intel chip, using their compiler can get you as much as double speed efficiecy with your code. Finally, Apple knows it has to do something about its notebooks. They are the easiest Mac to buy, and they sell lots of them. But, the G4 is old, and eats too much power. Intel's Centrino is vastly superior both in performance and heat/power measurements. Considering Laptop sales just topped desktop sales, Apple NEEDs a good laptop chip. Considering Intel just lost out on all the new consoles being made, Intel wants another partner. Apple is hot right now, so they make a lot of sense. Everybody wins.Oh, and Intel develops lots of new tech, not just Chips. They were involved in USB. It took forever for USB to take off, but Apple was the group who made it 'cool' or expected to put USB on their computers. Eventually, PC makers did too. I am sure Intel would love to use Apple to show off all their new tech, without worrying as much about backwards compatibility.

[punkpig5 0]

Personally i run on a mac right now ,i dont really like the idea that there merging yet.Since i just bought my new mac.But since they are going to use intel chips the computers will run and perform better and smoother.Plus they will be cheaper.

[Quatrux 4]

i see that noone menshioned the main problem, the software won't work on the new architecture, until you won't port it to the new cpu, but as in my opinion most of the new software is made under c langugage, it will be quite easy to recompile, but what about the software written in assembly and etc. this is going to be tough.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

I personally think this is stupid. First of all, they already have faster chips: a PowerPC rated at 2.7GHz is the equivalent of an Intel chip at 5.4GHz. Second, if you want to run Windows, buy Virtual PC!

1064313642[/snapback]

I love Macs, and I own one that I use for most everything. But this is just silly. In terms of real processing output the G5 is decent but no better than anything else out there. AMDs Opteron is overall better in fact...sometimes significantly.

 

There is also the question of supply. IBM is going to be producing chips for the next gen consoles, which means they won't have the production capacity or financial incentive to supply Apple with better chips. They just wouldn't make enough money from apple to justify the development/retooling costs.

 

Even Apple's latest upgrade, the quad G5, uses a chip IBM developed a while ago: the PowerPC MP.

 

Moving to Intel on the other hand gives them access to faster chips at CHEAPER prices. With the huge market for x86 processors, the cost for each chip is lower. Finally, the architextural differences between the old CISC x86 chipset and the PowerPC RISC setup have been dropping for years because of the improvements AMD and Intel have been making (SSE, MMX, SSE2, etc....)