Forums | MacLife

Two parts of this article makes me question it. (or rather the knowledge of the person who wrote it.)

Article wrote:

Apple could choose to add some Intel-based models to its product line or make a complete shift to Intel's chip technology in what would be seen as a serious blow to IBM's microprocessor business, the newspaper said.

Would it really?  Doesn't Apple represent a relatively small portion of IBM's microprocessor sales?  I could be wrong, but does anyone have any numbers on this?

Article wrote:

Adopting Intel chips would help ensure that future Macintosh systems could meet the price and performance of products from tough rivals such as Dell Inc. .

Apple's pricing, which has often been higher than rivals, could become more competitive if Intel provides the kind of marketing subsidies it has given to other computer makers, the newspaper said.

Apple's price has lot more than to do with other things than CPU price.  The cost of Macs are more about R&D and OS developement and ID.  I would be curious to find out what the IBM cpus cost.

That article s just so wrong...

W

Well....they might use intel for *something* inside that case, but I doubt the main cpu.

TBird

Last straw for developer?

Are you kidding me, what do developer care? they want change from apple so they can "develop" and sell new versioon to current based plus new customer!

You think developer is going to close tent if Apple start using intel and start selling burger?

Intel running OSX could spell problems for Linux as well, and MS would be playing serious catch-up (although Linux is free, it's still not easy for the end user to get things running and set up properly)

OSX on the Intel PC would be a pure software product from Apple offering Windows users a nice, secure, easy to use OS.  What exactly is the problem here?  I would dump Linux in a heartbeat if OSX was available - even if I have to pay, at least I would get the licenses and software for video and audio etc.

I see this as very positive.  Plus I don't like paying Apple's high hardware prices - which is a big reason why more people don't switch.

peace

jetson wrote:

Intel running OSX could spell problems for Linux as well, and MS would be playing serious catch-up (although Linux is free, it's still not easy for the end user to get things running and set up properly)

OSX on the Intel PC would be a pure software product from Apple offering Windows users a nice, secure, easy to use OS.  What exactly is the problem here?  I would dump Linux in a heartbeat if OSX was available - even if I have to pay, at least I would get the licenses and software for video and audio etc.

I see this as very positive.  Plus I don't like paying Apple's high hardware prices - which is a big reason why more people don't switch.

peace

You don't get it. This is not happening, and it never will.

Why port your entire software base to a dying architecture? (32-bit x86)

haha

I bet they're working out a deal for a chipset for their new Video player because ARM is charging too much or something. I would seriously be caught off-guard if Apple started using a pos chip like Intel's Pentium (or even worse Celeron) over the IBM Power-bases PPC chips.

That's like taking a very expensive car and replacing the engine with a slightly-higher horsepower engine from a Civic or something.

It just doesn't make sense, and would only cause people like me to point fingers and laugh.

(Oh, maybe it's because they've already gone out of business and it's just Microsoft keeping them afloat. )

-Tim

There's lots of possibilities,  ARM Processors for the iPod, WiMax, who knows what else.   Intel makes more than just the Pentium.

Apple already uses Intel chips.  Open your Mac case, look for the Intel logo on some of the subprocessing and device control chips.  You'll find several examples.

This article is FUD.

I do get it, Apple is a business - it's not here to support a small set of "cult" users.  It's here to make money.

This does not mean anything necessarily other than Apple porting their OS to intel - simple.  It does not mean that it will have to use current Apple hardware.  You can say what you want about a dying architecture, but it still represents the VAST majority of hardware - which is a totally viable business opportunity for Apple.  Maybe it won't happen, but it's not out of the realm of possibility...

Linux will take a hit, although who cares, because now the average user could get a fully supported *NIX based, secure OS without the geek factor that Linux requires...for many people.  I view Linux as the best thing to get over Windows for a nice GUI driven OS that doesn't have the security holes and runs on any platform, but it still forces end users to get into software installs that are beyond the majorities capabilities.

Besides, what good is a topic like this unless we can speculate things that we would like to see - like an OSX that I can load onto my old Dell's that are now running Linux.  That would be awesome in my opionion...

Keep in mind that I'm an old guy with very little knowledge...

jetson wrote:

I do get it, Apple is a business - it's not here to support a small set of "cult" users.  It's here to make money.

By selling hardware, and practically giving away their software (bar some of the high-end pro apps).

Do you know what Windows XP costs? Do you have any idea how many copies of XP are sold world wide? Quite a few more than OS X would sell. Now, apply your basic rules of economy-of-scale, and figure out what a premium price Apple would have to ask for OS X if they'd sell it for a profit, considering every sale of OS X for Intel would basically mean a lost sale of a Macintosh machine.

I view Linux as the best thing to get over Windows for a nice GUI driven OS that doesn't have the security holes and runs on any platform, [...]

Oh, dear. Well, let's just leave that discussion for another time and another thread.

Besides, what good is a topic like this unless we can speculate things that we would like to see - like an OSX that I can load onto my old Dell's that are now running Linux.  That would be awesome in my opionion...

But certainly not in Apple's opinion.

,xtG
.tsooJ

NAG wrote:

Northwind wrote:

Apple already uses Intel chips.  Open your Mac case, look for the Intel logo on some of the subprocessing and device control chips.  You'll find several examples.

This article is FUD.

Exactly, it would be like saying Apple is outsourcing their laptop manufacturing to Toshiba when Apple negotiates with them over iPod hard drives.

Indeed, but then; I believe Asus build the iBooks. (Not that this is a problem, just a sidenote)