I dont know quite why, and i dont know jack about processors but... Why do I get the feeling that using intel is going to be a seriously bad move for Apple ?

Sure the prices come down (a bit) and macs will be more popular... but is that actually a good thing? I love the fact that i can feel somehow superior for being a mac owner.

Ok heres another huge downside, get your virus checkers and firewalls at the ready, more macs == more reason for virus creators to consider making the lives hell for new mac users, bye bye the mac we know and love, hello common :(

Hopefully its not just me over reacting here... I just dont particularly like the fact that intel could/are going to be inside my computer in future.

Unless Intel makes some PPC clone, we'll have to redo all apps for the x86. Not very likely.

If it does make a PPC clone though, that will just be a clone, and therefore nothing to worry about.

(Sorry if it's way off target, I don't have time to read the artikel now)

I'm sticking to the theory that I heard somewhere that they're going to Intel, but Intel's gonna strike up a PPC division, and Apple isn't switching to x86.

I've translated some of those problems that a Swedish Mac magazine wrote on the net about the whole story..

Apple with Steve Jobs in the frontline has in a long time said how unimportant the clock frequency of the cpu is compared to the architect of the cpu, and meant that the PowerPC is an superior processor. If they change, therefor the creditbility at stake. Apple could always say that PowerPC still is a superior processor, but you have to make the switch anyway, but that's not an optimal solution.

Another problem is that IBM is doing pretty good right now. The company cpu's is gonna be used in the next generation of gaming consoles, for an example the Cell-processor seems to be a really fast cpu. But it's heavily optimized for a particular kind of programs and wouldn't really work well in a personal computer, but gaming consoles have a huge impact on people and for instance is Playstation 3 turning out to be a huge success it could be affecting Apple in a good way.

Another problem which is probably the most severe problems of all switching to new kind of CPU's is the optimization of applications. A switch to a new cpu platform would meant that all programs and os x itself gotta be rewritten.. It takes time and the cost of it is huge and not a very wanted by all developers outthere. Apple and all mac developers has recently made a transistion from OS 9 to OS X , and probably most of them thinks it's too early to switch again.

All the time the news post has been written about Intel chips into Apple computers and in fact there already is in the Apple Xserve Raid, or it may be announced on Monday that IBM and Intel has joined in some kind of collaboration.

I think this would be a really good move.

Now I don't know if Apple would still be proprietary, or if they would just make the switch to x86, but I can't see one bad thing about this.

On a mac site, people were saying that since the iPod sells so well, "Apple doesn't need more market share because the iPod is their number one money-maker."

But I wonder if those people stopped to think what makes the iPod the number one seller. Simple: Because EVERYONE, regardless of their computer being a Mac or a PC can use the iPod.

If Apple's software was such that PC users could use it too, just about everything Apple makes would be a #1 seller.

Apple wouldn't immediately take over the market since there are so many corporations and businesses that use PCs (only because they are cheaper), but over time, due to the cheaper processecors - and therefore less expensive Apples - Apple's market share would grow. And this would mean only good things.

More market share means more interest, which means more competition. More competition is better for everyone - not just Apple. It would not only ger more companies interested in Macs, but would also put pressure on Microsoft and a ton of other companies. There would be a huge focus shifted towards making the best computers/software. It would literally scare the pants of the current industry and force companies to produce truly top-notch stuff at increasingly faster rates.

If everyone had the choice of installing OS X instead of Windows, more people would take the step and try, and more people would make the switch.

If people really feel Apple is the superior company, wouldn't you want them to do well as a business, and would you want more people to enjoy their products?

---------------------
Josh Stevens | Nautilus7 Design

TMO Reports - Monday's WSJ: Intel Switch a Go; Partners Briefed
by Brad Gibson, 2:00 AM EDT, June 6th, 2005

The Wall Street Journal has re-confirmed earlier reports that Apple Computer will announce Monday a slow transition to Intel processors in its Macintosh computer line over the next few years.

The WSJ reported Monday (subscription required) that Apple "has begun briefing some partners about plans to begin shifting its Macintosh computer line next year to Intel chips, according to industry executives and people familiar with the briefings. Apple has said it expects to announce the move today, these people said."

Apple Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs is expected to make the announcement during his keynote speech at the company’s Worldwide Developer’s Conference in San Francisco beginning at 10am Pacific Time (1pm Eastern Time).

The WSJ said Paul Otellini, Intel's CEO, may take part in the keynote address with Mr. Jobs. TMO has confirmed through its own sources that Mr. Otellini arrived in the San Francisco area Saturday.

The Mac Observer will provide live continuous text coverage of the keynote online. Apple is not providing live satellite coverage or online streaming video of the address to the general public.

TMO has confirmed Intel CEO Paul Otellini is in San Francisco and might be part of the Steve Jobs keynote at WWDC Monday.
The report said Apple "recently briefed IBM and other major software partners on its plans," but that "given Mr. Jobs's mercurial reputation," anything could happen and a "change" in the announcement could occur at the last minute.

"It couldn't be determined whether Intel has agreed to offer some modifications of its microprocessors for Apple alone or will sell it standard chips," the Journal reported, "nor is it clear whether Intel would supply other accessory chips for the Macintosh as part of the deal."

The Wall Street Journal reported on May 23 that the companies were in talks that could lead to Apple's adopting Intel microprocessors. CNET News.com confirmed Friday that Apple would switch to Intel processors and move its lower-end computers, such as the Mac Mini, to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007. The WSJ on Monday also echoed the CNET report that a transition will happen through 2007.

Just kidding :)

Isn't this wild?! I'm totally freaked out over this whole Intel thing. Steve always manages to bring out a surprise, so I'm sure he'll address the whole reqriting old programs thing somehow, like he came out with Carbon when companies didn;t seem keen on having to redo everything in Objective C.

As long as using Intel chips means improved power efficiency (I thought Intels ran hot? or is that just previous generations?) along with speed boosts, I'm OK with it. Plus, with the switch to Intel, Apple will HAVE to rewrite everything in the operating system, so the Finder will finally no longer be a Carbon app, and I assume everything will run faster. Plus, not having to support OS 9/Classic means less overhead and another speed boost. (Guess I will have to hold onto that old WallStreet G3 forever after all just in case.)

What's not OK is yet another company relying on Intel for its computers. Not so good to make another monopoly even bigger. And the inevitable guffawing from Windows users who thing this means Intel has always been a better chip than a PPC. (No, it's just the chip with more money and development behind it, and therefore a brighter future.)

that would mean that Windows PC's can Run OSX dont it?

To be quite truthful, I don't care what's inside my powerbook as long as it looks, feels and performs better than anything else.
It could have a hamster running on a wheel for power for all I care, as long as it let's me do my work then I'll be happy.