"The interesting thing is when we design and architect a server, we don't design it for Windows or Linux, we design it for both. We don't really care, as long as we're selling the one the customer wants." -Michael Dell



   
BentUser Updates Feed  Add BentUser to My MSN  Add BentUser to My Yahoo! 


Featured Articles
iPhone 3G Review, Gripes and Praise: Part I
Xbox Live Arcade 2008 Preview: Part I
Resident Evil 5 Preview
Customer Service?
The Fallout from Sony’s E3 Press Conference
Windows XP and Vista b5270 Side-by-Side
DRM Hell
Sharp XR-10X LCD Projector Review
Xbox 360 Launch
Microsoft BOB Review
Logitech V200 Wireless Notebook Mouse
Office 12 Screenshot Gallery
.NET 2.0 vs. Java 1.5 Shootout
Microsoft Windows Vista Build 5231 Indepth Look - Part 2
Why Google is Being Sued by Publishers
Microsoft Windows Vista Build 5231 Indepth Look - Part I
Comprehensive Tablet PC Review with the HP tc1100
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 Review
IBM / Lenovo ThinkPad T43 Review
Windows OneCare Live Preview
OpenOffice 2.0 Writer Beta Preview
Windows Mobile 5.0 Preview
Battle of the Betas: IE7 vs. Firefox 1.5
Unicomp Customizer 101 Keyboard Review
Dell UltraSharp 24" Widescreen LCD Monitor - 2405FPW Review
Yahoo! Music Engine First Look
TopDesk Review
More
 
  Apple Thinks Same, Goes Intel
  By Pat

  Front > Hardware
  11/9/2005
     Images    

 

So Mister Jobs finally got tired of IBM.  Or did IBM get tired of Jobs blaming them every time Apple didn’t prepare well for a launch?  Maybe Intel finally decided to bribe Apple? 

Facts

Steve Jobs, head of two of the hottest companies around, declared in his keynote at last June’s Apple Worldwide Developer Conference that Apple would begin to switch CPU suppliers within a year’s time.   Out go IBM and Freescale ( what used to be Motorola’s semiconductor division) and in comes the big guy, Intel.  

It was hinted that they would start with their lower end machines (aka those using G4 chips) and then transition the entire line over another year or so.  Additionally we learned that Apple has had an x86 compatible version of OS X running parallel to the PowerPC version since day one.  Apparently their faith in the architecture was not pure.  Bet IBM enjoyed hearing this revelation.

Sounds like a serious switch right?   It is and I’m sure this frustrates Mac developers to no end.  In a bid to prevent a full scale revolt, Apple has put a lot of effort into its development package (Xcode 2).  They claim that it will be relatively painless to make old code Intel compatible and, once this is done, you’ll be able to create binaries that work on either platform.  Highly customized applications, particularly those that take advantage of the vector processing unit (Velocity Engine in marketing-speek) of the G4’s and G5’s will take considerable work though.  As an added bonus, OS X for Intel will be able to run PowerPC binaries using an emulation technology.  Steve had a fairly impressive demo of this feature, but it will cut significantly into performance.

Beyond that we don’t know much.  Apple did launch a development box, basically a Pentium 4 system in a PowerMac style carapace and a beta copy of OS X for Intel.


The mobile factor

There is no mobile G5.  This haunts Apple more than anything else right now.  The once mighty PowerBook is still limping along on the Freescale G4 chips.  Laptops are the growth area of the market.  They have been for a while now and the performance of the G4 has not kept up with PC parts.  The G5, based off PowerPC cores designed for servers and workstations, was simply never intended for battery applications.  Simply look at the efforts Apple has gone through to cool their desktop G5s and the inability of IBM to scale the chips up to higher frequencies for evidence.  The current generation PowerPC cores are optimized for performance not power consumption and this has turned out to be a killer for mobilizing it.

Intel's current mobile chip, the Pentium M, has taken a different route to mobility.   Rather than start with a high power chip and try to bring it down to a tolerable level, Intel designed a chip with low power consumption in mind from the start.  As Mr. Jobs ably pointed out, the Pentium M offers impressive efficiency and dual core models are due out next year.  Think a dual core Pentium M based PowerBook running OS X (and perhaps, unofficially, Windows) would be desirable?  I sure do, make my ThinkPad look dull that’s a certainty.


Beyond laptops

What if Apple wants to actually grow its market share appreciably?  Might not supply be an issue?  IBM has historically had trouble supplying Apple with enough chips and Freescale does not seem at all interested in the high end CPU game.  While Apple seems to be giving up custom processor design, it gains Intel’s ability to crank out however many processors they demand.   Intel has a truly amazing chip fabrication capability with fabs all over the world.  In addition, Intel doesn’t share.  IBM’s only cutting edge fab, located in Fishkill, New York, has to be taxed at the moment.  Not only do they make the current G5 chips for Apple, their own server chips, and numerous other chips, they are now in the business of consoles.  The next gaming machines for Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all use IBM designed CPUs which will be built, at least in part, in the Fishkill fab.


Why Intel & Not AMD?

This ties together two of my previous arguments, the dire need for a mobile part and capacity.  AMD currently lacks a true mobile part and I don’t see anything on their roadmap that would change this in the near future.  While they are kicking some Intel tail in the desktop arena at the moment, they’ve yet to make chip specifically for laptops.  Intel’s Pentium M chips rule the mobile roost.  Neither does AMD have the fabrication capacity of Intel. 




     Next  
[ Windows, When & Outlook ]
 

 

Contact Us        Advertise   Links: Voguera  KayCircle    




Copyright © 2005 Retro Reviews LLC.  All Rights Reserved.
Technorati Profile