Skip to comments.Wall Street Journal - Apple Eyes Shifting Macintosh Line To Intel Chips
Posted on 06/04/2005 2:32:50 PM PDT by HAL9000
Excerpt, subscription required -
SAN FRANCISCO -- Apple Computer Inc. is expected to announce Monday that it will begin shifting its Macintosh computer line next year to Intel Corp. chips, people familiar with the situation said.
The move is a major change in strategy by Apple, a high-profile win for Intel, and a potential blow to International Business Machines Corp. and Freescale Semiconductor Inc., suppliers of the PowerPC chips that Apple has long used in its Macintosh systems.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The big barrier of changing systems now is not the cost of the machine, but the cost of replacing all your software at the same time.
Furious doesn't even begin to describe it.
They will have trashed the investments of every one of their users. How can they imagine that this will do anything but destroy the confidence of their existing user base without adding a single new new user, to say nothing of destroying their market capitalization?
They would be better off just wrapping up the computer business, selling off the iPod, and making a final distribution to sharholders.
I don't think that Apple has any intention of making a version of the OS that will run on other manufacturer's machines. That is a different issue and is NOT what is being reported.
Then maybe a PC emulation layer, since they wouldn't have to emulate the chip as well, to let new Intel/Mac users dual boot Windoze and it's apps while they transitioned?
Microsoft makes the most popular software for the Mac.
Maybe some sort of dual-boot machine. That's not a new idea, but it may be coming round again. I just can't see a phased switch to a new processor as that would alienate the Mac base. It would also create chaos for the software developers.
One thing doesn't make sense to me ... if the earliest systems on Intel will be out in 2006, why kill your sales now by announcing it? Would YOU plunk down $3K for a new Mac to put into production knowing that if you just limp along for a few more months you can buy something faster and cheaper?
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
I have to disagree... Apple makes the most popular software for the Mac.
That's what makes me mad!
I recently spent over $3,000 for a Mac. If I would have waited for this, I could have saved some serious jack.
Not necessarily. If this happens, and that's still a major "if", I expect Apple will tie the OS to the hardware, much like they did back in the 68000 days. Both Amiga and Mac ran on 680x0 back in the day, but unless you laid your hands on (an illegal copy of) the Mac ROMs, you weren't running Apple's OS on your Amiga.
Alas, since Microsoft doesn't break out revenue for it's Macintosh Business Unit, I'm unable to compare it with Apple software sales. I can not confirm or deny my or your statement.
However, my statement was true at least a couple of years ago.
rdb3! I thought you were married... and not in Massachusetts!
Whoops. The above was meant for you rdb3!
I doubt this will happen..
IBM is way ahead of Intel when it comes to processors...
XBOX 360 has a 3 core IBM processor, Nintendo Revolution will feature a 4 core IBM processor, and the Playstation 3 will feature a single Core processer featuring 8 "subcores".
Apple would be leaving the IBM line at the wrong moment. Intel and AMD are just starting to get into the mulicore PC business.
Imagine a dual processor G5 with 4 cores in each processor.. It's closer than you realize...
The General is SO right. But Apple's need to tie the OS to the hardware is all the more reason that this purported switch makes no sense. I'd be more ready to believe the alternate rumor now floating - that Apple will move to a dual-core G5.
It's not just that the OS will run on another chip - it's also that the OS will know where to look for the I/O. The board's structure doesn't necessarily have to be the same...
Moving to x86, or at least offering optional support for it, I can understand.
But Intel? Intel is way behind technologically. Apple should be in talks with AMD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.