# Apple may move to Intel Itanium...



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,939886,00.asp

Don't know if any of you read this article in the latest PC Magazine, but Dvorak writes that Apple might dump Power PC and move to Intel over the next year.



> The story starts with January's Intel sales conference. The surprise keynote speaker was Steve Jobs. And then, in the front row of Steve Jobs's keynote address at the last Macworld Expo were top Intel executives. Shortly thereafter, Pixar announced that it would become an Intel shop. That was all step one. Step two is coming.
> 
> Apple has been concerned about Motorola dragging its heels in the processor wars and failing to achieve clock speeds that are even half of what AMD and Intel are achieving. Apple has attempted to rationalize clock-speed issues, but the company knows that it cannot do this forever. Worse is the feud between Motorola and Apple, which began after Apple suddenly pulled the plug on the license it gave Motorola to clone the Mac.


I doubt you'll be able to install OSX on your Dells and HPs, but as my wife works for intel additional chip sales can only help my new sons college fund.


----------



## firephoto (Sep 12, 2002)

This is possibly a Dvorak April Fools joke or maybe just another one of his dire Apple predictions.

Some /. comments on the matter.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/23/1457239

AMD's Hammer or the PPC 970 seem like a more likely path to me.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Nah, according to my wife (NOTE INTEL PROPOGANDA FOLLOWS), Intel is already used by Pixar and Jobs has been over to the campus almost every month to talk to Intel Engineers. AMD is tied in with IBM which has apparently really pissed Jobs off for letting the PPC fall so far behind. If AMD wasn't using IBM then I might agree with that statement....


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

And I can't believe you are reading comments to Slashdot and thinking that any of those nerds have any clue about anything.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

But I thought Intel after MS was part of the Computer Axis of Evil, Would Apple survive the revolution that would follow (or is it that the Mac fans would have no place else to go if they avoided Apple)


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Well USB, PCI and AGP are all Intel Technology that Apple uses....


----------



## firephoto (Sep 12, 2002)

Firewire........ 

Jobs does like to stir things up for all sorts of reasons I suppose so this could be some of his doings too.
Isn't Jobs friends with whats his name at Intel?

Oh, and I too get my /. bulletins. 
Lets see, some recent good ones........
MS to go open source?
MS to use linux?
Oh todays good one, "A Hotter Sun May Be Contributing To Global Warming" :lol: Gee, a hotter sun making things warmer? who would have thought.
Ooooh I must go read about new MacOS X !! (then wish that I had a new 17" powerbook.)


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Jobs and Andy Grove are good friends. 

Yea you wish you had a 17" powerbook, but you have to ship them first right? :grin:


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *Well USB, PCI and AGP are all Intel Technology that Apple uses.... *


But does the average user even know that. An "Intel Inside" label would attract attention


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

But there isn't anything wrong with that. People buy Apples not because of the processor, but because of the OS and package. I think the average Apple user would rather have a faster machine than be so far behind Intel/AMD.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

Well that brings us back to my original thesis that there are enough MAC Purists that would claim blasphemy of having an Intel (half of WinTel) chip in there. They might not be aware of Intels involvement in USB etc, so don't balk at that. But if Apple goes all Intel they will either have to give in and go with the Intel Inside or forever upgrade their existing machine...

I'm not talking about the average Mac user who uses Mac because it is easy, but the MAC as Religion people who I seem to run into at every company I work at. Usually they are the 5 mac users in a company of 1000 pcs, so they are quite defensive. I wish I was at my last job so I could mention this to those MAC fanatics and watch them freak


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Well I'm a Mac Zealot and I am very worried that the Power PC is too far behind the Intel chips. As long as I can run OSX I'm fine.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *Well I'm a Mac Zealot and I am very worried that the Power PC is too far behind the Intel chips. As long as I can run OSX I'm fine. *


I don't know, your posts here over the past months don't sound so Zealot compared to these guys I worked with. But thats all relative.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

I've never used a Mac at work since I've always worked for companies that don't have macs. Being a military contractor, I have to keep my equipment the same as theirs. But at home its a different story. 

I've toned down my anger toward PC users over the last few years since its too hard to defend a computer that runs at 1/4 the speed of Intel. Itanium would change that.


----------



## firephoto (Sep 12, 2002)

Maybe apple can make a quad G4 machine?


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

LOL, so what would that run $8000? :sure:


----------



## firephoto (Sep 12, 2002)

Won't AMD's hammer be out well before the Itanium? I haven't really looked into either of them, but see that AMD has a release date.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

The Itanium is out, but no software really takes advantage of it. You can buy workstation with it from HP and others but its not mainstream. Apple is looking at this from a 64 bit solution which Dell and others really can't since there is no windows OS that supports 64 bits.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

Last I checked, PPC's are at 1.4ghz, fastest Intel is around 3ghz. thats a 50% diff, not 25%. PPC is a risc chip, Intel is not. The old Processor myth.. While there is maybe a minor performance edge, XP usually sucks that dry..


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Please.... Yes there is a 1.4, but I'm stuck with 733... 

As much as XP slows the computer down I think OSX does the same. Eye candy is nice, but not needed. I have a PIV 2.2 Dell Precision M50 laptop that runs circles around my powermac when using Photoshop. That isn't right. I shouldn't have to copy files over to my laptop to make the filters run faster. 

If OSX ran on Itanium, a true 64 bit chip and got rid of the Motorola and IBM then we might see some progress. I'm tired of Apple having to wait for those two to come up with new chips. I want the new 17" Powerbook (if i could only find one), but that might be my last Mac for awhile if they don't fix the processors. Yea PowerPC is faster than PIVs but they are falling further behind. 1.4 is not available in iMac or Powerbooks either so how are they to sell it to people who don't want the tower? I explain to all my friends the "Processor myth", but its a marketing nightmare.


----------



## marko (Jan 9, 2003)

Hum, maybe I don't know what I am talking about here, but why wouldn't apple upgrade to the new powerpc chip from IBM?

I think people are too oriented towards desktop PC's and therefore Intel/AMD. IBM knows what they are doing when it comes to processors, as evidenced by their current server based power4 processors (heck power5 is going to be out soon). Not sure how well the chips transition from server based to desktop, but everything I've read made it sound like the desktop power4 will be one good processor.

The real question is, when will it be available? I would say not too far away, and it also sounds like power5 is being designed with a broader market in mind. The next question is cost, I have no idea there.

As far as going to Itanium, I really just don't see it happening for some reason. From what I've heard, Itanium doesn't appear to have much use in a desktop. Actually, it also appears not to have much use in a server based system too.... well hp appears to have a unix version for Itanium, and linux is there, so at least there is a start.

So which processor would you want to go with, an established server based processor showing a committment to transition the processor to desktop? Or an established desktop processor company, trying to make inroads in the server market, while not really holding to their desktop heritage.

Heck, I'd take AMD before Intel Itanium.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Its a very good question. I think they'd prefer to stick to Power PC because they would have much less work to do than porting it over to Itanium. From what I've read there are two main reasons for this. 

1. Intel - Andy Grove and Steve Jobs are good friends. Jobs and Grove get along really well together. Intel made it worth Pixars trouble to move from Sun to Intel and from what I've heard from people at Intel, they view this as a perfect opportunity to move Itanium to the desktop. Apple has the OS and with them and Linux Intel has a chance to move the Itanium forward. From what I've heard (take this with a grain of salt) that Intel would sell Itaniums at cost to Apple for at least 2 years. Apple wouldn't go to AMD because of Jobs and his relationship with Grove. Remember Apple isn't like your ordinary company and they do whatever Jobs wants them to do. AMD might make more sense from a money standpoint, but again from what I've heard Intel is looking at this as a great way to prove that the Itanium works on the desktop. BUT, without a Microsoft OS that supports 64 bit, it might be many years until we see Itanium on the Windows side.

2. IBM and Motorola have really let the Power PC fall behind Intel/AMD. While new chips seem to be better they still cost too much. Apple is still very mad at IBM for not trying hard enough and Motorola is still angry with Apple for pulling their license to make Macs. IBM and Motorola don't view the Power PC as an important part of their product lines and Apple is out there by themselves. Heck even IBM really doesn't use the Power PC in its computers.


----------



## marko (Jan 9, 2003)

You're right, Apple would be a good showcase of Itanium on the desktop..... and getting them at cost would not surprise me (heck where I work Intel pretty much gave us some of their Itanium machines... they are sitting around and no one knows what to do with them). It would be a very intriguing maneuver.

My guess is that IBM was putting most of their processor bandwidth in the power4 series for the high end. Power4 has been here for a while, and my guess is you will see more emphasis on both high end/low end starting with the ppc970 they are talking about, and from the beginning with the power5. Will that be enough for apple? Don't know. 

I will totally disagree that about IBM doesn't think the powerpc is an integral part of their product lines. IBM is in class all it's own when it comes to hardware. There are 4 major brands of IBM hardware X series (Intel ), Z series (mainframe), P series (powerpc based unix), and I series (powerpc based AS/400). They have quite a commitment to powerpc. The question is how much of a commitment on the low end will they have. Of course with the X-series they are also going to have a commitment to Itainium (hedging their bets). Of course IBM's biggest bet is linux on all those hardware platforms.

I am quite pro IBM by the way, so I'm sure it comes out here in a disussion . Although that doesn't really affect my personal buying decisions (I picked xbox over gamecube for example).


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by marko _
> *I will totally disagree that about IBM doesn't think the powerpc is an integral part of their product lines. IBM is in class all it's own when it comes to hardware. There are 4 major brands of IBM hardware X series (Intel ), Z series (mainframe), P series (powerpc based unix), and I series (powerpc based AS/400). They have quite a commitment to powerpc. The question is how much of a commitment on the low end will they have. Of course with the X-series they are also going to have a commitment to Itainium (hedging their bets). Of course IBM's biggest bet is linux on all those hardware platforms.*


Well that is really what I was getting at. You just wrote it better than I could.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

AS/400, ARGH, Forced to Support one with absolutely no training, ARGH, Green Screen, ARGH, had to reboot and sent powerdown command without reboot command, there is no power switch on this darn box, ARGH!!!ARGH!!!ARGH!!!


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

Think if Apple were on Itanium they could run PC applications in "compatibility mode".

Itanium has been floundering around looking for a market. Intel would probably make a sweet deal with Apple with the prospect of selling millions of them.

This could also be a way that Apple is trying to bargain with IBM/Motorola... They may be demanding more R&D from them to keep Apple as a client.

I really liked OSX when I have used it... Reminds me of my old NeXT Cube.


----------



## firephoto (Sep 12, 2002)

I thought that Itanium wasn't backward compatible to 32-bit apps, it's 64-bit only right?


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Yep... You can emulate 32-bit though, but you can imagine what that would be like. OSX is based on FreeBSD which support 64bit processors. Some work would have to be done, but not like what Microsoft has to do.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

From Intel: http://www.intel.com/ebusiness/products/itanium/faqs2/index.htm?iid=ipp_srvr_proc_itanium2+prod_faq&

Q10. Will Itanium 2-based systems be compatible with IA-32 systems? Will IT be able to effortlessly migrate their systems to Itanium 2-based systems?
A10. Optimal performance for Itanium 2-based systems will be achieved with 64-bit software. The Intel Itanium 2 processor does, however, support the execution of 32-bit code for ease of migration. Because compatibility is always also dependent on OS and system features, IT should work with their solutions vendors to validate their complete solution environment, including current IA-32 code.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

According to MacNN adobe now has a page where the say that they prefer the PC platform to the Macintosh platform. If this was any reason to show that they need to move processor I don't know what does. Adobe on Mac is the reason why people use them...

http://www.adobe.com/motion/pcpreferred.html


----------



## firephoto (Sep 12, 2002)

But going to Intel doesn't mean it would be a PC platform. I don't see Jobs ever allowing such a thing to happen.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

No, but I doubt the fact that the Dell in the test runs windows makes it run faster than the Mac. I'd bet with the Unix OS X that the Mac has, running the same processor, it would be much faster.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Looks like there will be a move to the PowerPC 970 chips before the move to Itanium....

http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=1880


----------



## firephoto (Sep 12, 2002)

Did you break new news to the wife yet?


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

"others really can't since there is no windows OS that supports 64 bits."

Windows XP 64-bit for Itanium doesn't support it?  Not that it's the most popular OS around... But it does exist. No real consumer applications to run on it though


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Well yea it does exist, but there only a handful of 64 bit windows apps...


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Want to run Linux server on Itanium?

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8537


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

More on the MacIntel....

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1007215,00.asp


----------



## Martyva (Apr 23, 2002)

Mac abandoned their dealer network 5 years ago and have been pushing rope since.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

But does that really matter? Dell doesn't have one and they seem to do fine.


----------



## waydwolf (Feb 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by gcutler _
> *AS/400, ARGH, Forced to Support one with absolutely no training, ARGH, Green Screen, ARGH, had to reboot and sent powerdown command without reboot command, there is no power switch on this darn box, ARGH!!!ARGH!!!ARGH!!! *


 AS/400??? No training and forced to support??? Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, and feeling your pain.

Just try getting back in after forgetting the passwords. Even IBM has little clue how to do it without losing everything. The guy I replaced should have written the damn things down on a sticky note.


----------



## waydwolf (Feb 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *According to MacNN adobe now has a page where the say that they prefer the PC platform to the Macintosh platform. If this was any reason to show that they need to move processor I don't know what does. Adobe on Mac is the reason why people use them...
> 
> http://www.adobe.com/motion/pcpreferred.html *


 Like you needed Adobe to come out and say it? Their line-up, website structure, and support spread all have been fairly screaming that fact for a long time now. I can build a system a dozen times more powerful than the best Mac for less than half what Apple wants to rape me for and get my work down in a quarter of the time. Adobe is simply feeling confident now that there's enough people who've come to that conclusion to be safe in making it public and official.

Stop waiting for Apple to save itself. Jobs is the system-as-religion nut who drove the Wozniak-ain't-this-cool-techie-stuff feeling right out of Apple. Thanks to Jobs, we went from a vast aftermarket made by people enthusiastically springboarding from Apple powered by their own creativity and Apple's open platform(II, II+, IIe) to a closed system where Apple designates who is blessed and who is not from HQ.

When Apple finally croaks, I swear I am going to find an old Apple IIe with a Mockinboard and play a funeral dirge through it in their honor.


----------

