Re: Apple with it's own Chips....

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <slrng1gmfc.18nl.jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jim <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080425_004775.html>

I can't believe the suggestion that Apple plans to design its own
non-x86 processors for Macs. The advantage of x86 is that Apple has a
choice of competing companies to buy from. If Intel screws up (as it
did for a while a few years ago) Apple can switch to AMD. And even if
they don't, the threat keeps Intel's prices low. Why tie yourself in
to a single supplier, even if it's yourself?

And however portable MacOS X is, switching to a new CPU is still an
expensive and distracting business, both for Apple and for third-party
software suppliers. And using the x86 allows companies like Adobe to
have common low-level code for Windows and Macs. How happy would they
be about switching CPUs again? (In fact, about the only thing that
would make me believe it is if Apple bought Adobe.)

It makes more sense for smaller products, where they could integrate
the whole system on one chip and where the third-party applications
are completely cpu-ignorant, as in the iPhone. It may be that Apple
now believe they can use this approach for a variety of portable
web-accessing devices, from iPods to tablets.

Building their own x86s also makes a bit more sense, but still not for
high-end machines. It would be very surprising if they could keep up
with Intel and AMD in raw power. At the low end, they may just want
low-power x86s that they can tailor to particular portable devices.


I doubt that Apple is interested in PA Semi's PowerPC products - it seems they just want the talent and the IP, presumably for in-house low power ARM and/or x86 developments.

One possibility that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that it might be advantageous for Apple to have a proprietary x86 variant so that they could tie OS X to Apple hardware and not have to worry about it being hacked to run on any old x86 junk. However they would then have to put a lot of effort into keeping up with Intel/AMD on cores, clock speed, etc.

Paul
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Programming PowerPC on Mac
    ... Apple themselves make Apples while hundreds of companies _SHARE_ the x86 PC ... Which, in light of what I've been saying above, is actually more strange, ... BUT when it comes to documentation and "developer kits" and such, ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Saw 10.4.1 Running On a PC Laptop Today
    ... >>> Mac, and Apple would be out of the hardware industry. ... > And the "big deal" is that an X86 Mac is not ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: opengl
    ... Except, I thought I heard a few years back, that Apple and MicroSquash were semi partners in some mannor or another? ... Almost all CAD programs are OpenGL and doing something like this essentially guarantees Vista/Longhorn is a non-starter with them. ... will essentially run on any x86 machine but Apple is putting a hardware key into their x86 Macs so x86 OSX will only install and run on them. ... several developers have installed VMware on their x86 Macs and found Windows 2000 and WindowsXP will install and multiple boot on them just fine with almost no speed penalty. ...
    (comp.graphics.apps.lightwave)
  • Re: So, now that Vista is finally shipped.
    ... Apple made a lot of money from iPods and PCs. ... They didn't change the mac into what used to be its rival, ... based on CPUs other than the x86 series from Intel. ... Apple may never reach the profits of Microsoft. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Saw 10.4.1 Running On a PC Laptop Today
    ... >>> Apple has announced they are moving to Intel, but where did you get the idea ... >> Phil Shiller said Macs would run Windows or words to that effect. ... Will Intel OS X run on any x86 ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
Loading