Replies to post #1647 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[fowler]

Adam,

re: Does anyone know why Apple refuses to evaluate Intel processors for their systems?

My guess is that they want to continue to sell hardware with each OS. If they went to Intel, they would open the clone issue for Apple PC's.

Another article on the IBM chip from Forbes:

Apple Fans Await IBM Chip
Arik Hesseldahl, 10.14.02, 12:00 PM ET

NEW YORK - It's been 11 years since a new chip has excited fans of Apple Computer.

But IBM's (nyse: IBM - news - people ) semiconductors division today released the first details of a new chip architecture, which some suspect could be aimed at the next generation of Apple (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ) computers.

It's called the GigaProcessor Ultralite and evolved from the same line of PowerPC processors that IBM and Motorola (nyse: MOT - news - people ) have supplied to Apple since the launch of the first PowerMac computers in 1994.

The main difference from previous versions of the PowerPC is that the new IBM design calls for the chip to be capable of 64-bit computing. In the Windows world, 64-bit chips are the next evolutionary step for both high-end server computers and, to a lesser extent, desktop systems. The main advantage with 64-bit over conventional 32-bit processors is that the systems can work with vastly larger banks of memory, which in turn speeds up the task of crunching through large complex sets of data.

Intel's (nasdaq: INTC - news - people ) Itanium chip, and the forthcoming line of Opteron chips from Advanced Micro Devices (nyse: AMD - news - people ), are both 64-bit chips that are aimed at servers.

What really makes Apple's devoted fans eager to know more about this forthcoming IBM chip is that IBM has disclosed the chip will support vector processing--instructions that are helpful in working with multimedia creation, which is something the Apple platform has always specializes in. Some industry experts suggest the instruction sets IBM is using are essentially the same as the AltiVec instruction set Motorola (nyse: MOT - news - people ) introduced to the current line of PowerPC chips it supplies to Apple for the PowerMac G4 line of computers. Previously IBM had opted not to include the AltiVec instructions on its PowerPC chips.

Apple, as usual, did not say whether it will use the new IBM chip or not. The last thing it wants is a potential Mac buyer to hold off for what may turn out to be a one-year wait. It was only July when it announced a major upgrade to its PowerMac lines.

But make no mistake. Apple will do more with this chip than just kick the tires. Chances are there are already evaluation computers running in some secure room in Apple's Cupertino, Calif., headquarters. But the process of bringing such a machine to market will involve a lot more than just dropping a new chip in the machine. Apple's Mac OS X operating system would have to be adapated for running on the 64-bit chip, and given Apple's attention to detail, that's no small feat.

The chip would also be a natural for Apple's Xserve line of rack-mounted servers, which debuted earlier this year. Apple has a surprisingly strong presence in fields like gene science computing, in which 64-bit computing capability is certainly useful. It might make sense if the first Apple machine to boast a 64-bit chip ultimately turns out to be an Xserve. But as usual, none of this will be revealed to the outside world until Steve Jobs sees fit to do so himself. Interestingly, there's a MacWorld conference scheduled for San Francisco in January.

Also on an interesting note: IBM just recently completed a new chip factory in upstate New York. Supplying Apple with a new generation of chips would go a long way toward keeping that fab busy.

[Heidegger]

Apple HAS evaluated Intel processors

"Does anyone know why Apple refuses to evaluate Intel processors for their systems? Is the Mac OS so heavily tuned for PowerPC that it would be too much work to port, or is there some other reason? I think adding the "Intel Inside" marketing message to their advertising campaign would be great for sales (I'd even consider buying a Mac then)."

But your premise is incorrect. Apple _has_ evaluated Intel processors several times over the years, and has reportedly booted OS X, presumably not optimized sufficiently for a product release, on recent Pentiums. (This has been reported many times in the press, over various generations, and friends of my who have worked, past or present, for Apple tell me the same things.)

Lastly, Apple once offered a Mac version which contained an x86 processor.

Darwin, the BSD core part of OS X, can be bought at Fry's for Intel processors. (I saw it there a few weeks ago.) What's missing is the Aqua interface and, of course, drivers.

(A major headache. Supporting the thousands of graphics cards, ports, devices, etc. in the PC world is a lot harder than supporting the core hardware that Apple builds and then carefully defining the port and interface standards for third party vendors to deal with.)

I wrote about a rumored HammerMac in a thread on SI, before the Maniban expunged me.

--Tim May