What is Digg?50 Comments
- Izacus, on 07/31/2008, -0/+38PowerPC is not a chipset. It's a computer architecture.
- aragolas, on 07/31/2008, -2/+40They have not had any "Real" problems with Intel, why would Apple even think about trying to risk it?
- airwalkery2k, on 07/31/2008, -5/+38I remember articles claiming that Apple will never drop the PowerPC chipset.
- HoratioHellpop, on 07/31/2008, -1/+14In other headlines, we see "Why Microsoft Won't Drop Windows Soon"
- krische, on 07/31/2008, -0/+11A different chipset wouldn't hurt software compatibility. The will still be using Intel processors.
- shredswithpiks, on 07/31/2008, -1/+12I don't think you quite understand how these things work...
- xeslana, on 07/31/2008, -1/+12It's not the processor that people are speculating Apple will change. It's the chipset (the thing that connects the processor to every device in the computer). The processor's architecture would stay intel, thus no major change.
As for the rumor, I think it has some merit. Apple does not like running the same hardware as PC's. They want to have a lead in performance. With apples acquisition on PA Semi and a good relationship with Intel, they may just be able to pull it off. - belumaves, on 07/31/2008, -0/+11because you can risk your relationship and not get such information again.
- fowleryo, on 07/31/2008, -0/+10or you're just waiting to confirm...
- shredswithpiks, on 07/31/2008, -2/+12I'm not sure how you reason that a cure2duo magically loses speed when it gets put into an apple computer... but ok
- ZephyrNinety, on 07/31/2008, -0/+9Because they're good.
- wewa, on 07/31/2008, -4/+11This is news? Digg is truly smothered by fanboys...
And I am a mac user. - bradleyland, on 08/01/2008, -0/+7Wow, either the quality of the average Digg user has dropped dramatically, or saying anything that could even remotely be construed as defending a Mac fanboy has come to be known as a crime against humanity. Netburst architecture at the time was at its limit. The chips ran ridiculously hot, and were horribly inefficient. The Power architecture *was* superior. Intel dropped the Core bomb on every chip manufacturer, IBM and AMD included. The switch came at a really great time for Intel and Apple.
- krische, on 07/31/2008, -1/+7Yeah I don't see Apple moving away from Intel chipsets. The only reasonable thing I've heard out of these rumors would be Apple developing their own chipsets in-house like they did with the PowerPC processors. Developing in house would also be a little more expensive upfront (perhaps the margin cutting mentioned in the quarterly meeting). Also, it would give Apple more control for features in Snow Leopard like Grand Central.
- hackntossh, on 08/27/2008, -3/+8"I know a few details of Apple's software roadmap that I've been sitting on for a while"
If you are a journalist why would you do this? Isn't first to press the goal? - krische, on 07/31/2008, -0/+5Developing their own chipsets wasn't was what holding them back. It was the PowerPC processors. I'm just saying they've developed their own chipsets in the past, and with the purchase of P.A. Semi; we could be in for something interesting.
- belumaves, on 07/31/2008, -1/+5all I have to say to you is.. huh?
- ender7074, on 07/31/2008, -7/+11Me too. I also remember hearing apple fanbois going on and on about how bad the intel and amd processors and chipsets were about a week before Apple decided to go with intel chips. It was about ten seconds before those same people started going on and on about how great intel is. Hillarious how those lemmings echo the company line.
- Sp1k3, on 07/31/2008, -1/+5You guys are confusing chipsets with CPU architecture, they'd be using the SAME Intel chips but a DIFFERENT motherboard design. NVidia has much better on-board graphics, sound, and networking than Intel chipsets.
- pauldy, on 07/31/2008, -5/+9To be fair Apple did transition to Intel on an entirely new CPU and even Intel ditched the P4s architecture so I wouldn't just call those making disparaging comments about how bad the Intel chips were "fanbois" they may have just been more educated on the subject than yourself.
- Rudegar, on 07/31/2008, -1/+5chipset != cpu
apple can change chipset to nvidia or even amd or ali or via and still be able to use bootcamp and boot windows
they could switch to amd or via cpu's too if they wanted and people could still use windows - Propethic, on 07/31/2008, -0/+4"Apple does not like running the same hardware as PC's. They want to have a lead in performance"
It worked for them in the past, right? You know those first 15 or so years always behind in performance using proprietary hardware?
If they make something with proprietary parts it will be absurdly expensive and have the same limited hardware profiles to choose from. It will not be worth it. - mrsteveman1, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4Control as in, being in control of what goes in to their own machines? They already have that, Intel would be happy to make something for Apple if they were asked. And they seem to be quite happy with things as they are.
Are you talking about locking down OS X? That has nothing to do with the chipset. I love how that argument comes up constantly but people never support it.
There was a TPM in the machines at one time, they could have implemented code signing, encrypted the kernel and refused to release the source for it, and that would have put quite a hurt on cloners especially the commercial ones, because they'd be in violation of the DMCA. Apple isn't going to do it though because they don't need to.
In order to run OS X on non-apple hardware you still need to get around the encrypted binaries, and although i don't believe that to be a circumvention protected by the DMCA, a court might see things differently, and in that case Apple doesn't NEED to do anything more, they can sue cloners out of existence regardless of the EULA, and they don't seem to care about the small number of people hacking OS X to run on their own machines, not enough to implement even more locked down crap on their hardware. - shredswithpiks, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3^^^
Yeah I responded kind of hastily and didn't expand my thought.
It's possible that they could make their own chipsets to pair up with intel, but considering how much money they have made without doing it, and the continually shrinking performance gap between various chipsets, I don't see why they would spend the effort. - LeeSoong, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2They wont drop Intel any time soon for 1 reason: Contracts.
- Sp1k3, on 07/31/2008, -2/+4Sometimes I seriously doubt the reading comprehension rate of the average Digg user. Chipset is NOT equal to CPU.
- baldick, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2Duh, I guess I missed the chipset part.
- shredswithpiks, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2Considering the move away from PowerPC skyrocketed Apples home computer sales, I don't think that's an option.
- aserer511, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2the question to ask is, why would they? intel is now price competitive and has always had teh largest technology lead the industry. the question is, why isn't apple utilizing more QX series chips, instead of defaulting to Xeons.
- MacHarborGuy, on 07/31/2008, -2/+3i have to agree with Pauldy. There is a difference between the phrase "intel chipset" and "a specific intel chipset". The Pentium 4 chipset was not what most today (or even before the multi-core chips came out) would consider Intel's finest work, and you know us Mac users want perfection (sadly we still don't have Portal native on the Mac, but I can use BootCamp for that).
Honestly, for me as long as the chip speeds up the system, no matter what OS is running on the hardware, I will be happy. The chip could be running on an advanced nano-hampster-wheel technology and I would still get it as long as it made my system snappy. - inactive, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Nvidia makes a sweet chip set as well, with some very cool features.........
- VitriolAndAngst, on 07/31/2008, -2/+3This whole delusion probably started with Apple's licensing of ARM technology and the purchase of PA Semi; http://www.macrumors.com/2008/04/23/apple-to-acqui ...
Then there is NVidia's move to put "system's on a chip" on their increasingly powerful and complex graphics cards. Since graphics is more complicated and the bigger chunk of processing than most of what the main CPU is often trying to do -- it makes sense.
But a lot of this is about iPhone, iTouch or some new-fangled not-a-Newton PDA. So heck, sure, Apple isn't busy enough -- let's move to an unproven new chip with all our resources that has marginal speed improvements at best. No, in the low-power consumption area, they already have a platform with ARM.
Apple will have plenty of wow-generating new devices coming up... I don't see the advantage of another architecture change. However, they could add co-processors, something like a MP4 or AAC compressor/de-compressor would help a lot with certain applications and communications.
>> So, I didn't understand the rumor before -- and the point that they "may not" is kind of obvious. Not really front-page worthy. - cepiloth, on 12/12/2008, -0/+0well.. they both have their own wonderfulness.. although to bad.. the compatibility of apple is bad..
http://www.yogaexercisesgeartour.com/
http://www.osteoporosis-treatment.biz/
http://www.naturalcuresforcanineheartworms.com/
http://www.squidoo.com/phix
http://www.productsforhairlossreviews.com/
http://home-remedies-for-candida-depression.com/ - pauldy, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1It doesn't take a super genius to figure out these rumors stem from someone momo misinterpreting the talk about using the power of the GPU for general purpose computing to speed things up. Even though Apple made the transition from PPC to Intel look like child's play it is no trivial undertaking. Not to mention the business impact of hindering the ability of being able to run windows apps on new machines.
- supermanred, on 08/11/2008, -1/+1Actually, they do it so WIndows users can buy Macbooks, install Windows Vista on them and then when Vista bites the big one (like it did for me) they will have to use that ***** OS X in an emergency (because vista is stuck in a boot loop or some other ***** up thing)....
and then end up switching to OS X.
Damn you Apple! I hated Apple...and ended up....switching!! ARGHHHGHHHGHHGHHGHGH!!!! - inactive, on 12/12/2008, -0/+0the world should pay more attention to AMD. they're affordable and up to par.
http://www.toenail-fungus-treatment.net
http://www.internal-hemorrhoid-treatment.com
http://www.maquisuperberryreview.com
http://www.squidoo.com/Glycogone
http://www.phallusive.com
http://www.productsforhairlossreviews.com - blackjack75, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1Intel chipsets are fine. They just need to drop the integrated graphics, that ruins modern graphics applications and gaming for all entry-level mac-users. Apple sells more macbooks than macbook pros.
- ChrisTek, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1And I'm a PC.
- inactive, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1I don't know, the Worldnetdaily articles never front page. Thats gotta be worth something;)
- Funrunner, on 07/31/2008, -10/+9Really? Then why are you an Apple customer?
- hamm3rhead, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1Survey says "The number one reason Apple won't be dropping Intel chipsets"
Incompatibility and Instability are not roadmapped features for 08 or 09. - naner, on 07/31/2008, -3/+1Boot Camp.
- banmaster, on 07/31/2008, -4/+1Of course the MacbookMoo was apple ***** up the temp stuff.
- ender7074, on 07/31/2008, -3/+0They always believed they were more powerful or faster or whatever. The Apple crowd always finds an excuse to elevate their subpar computers above any other box just to make themselves feel good about all the money they spent for the Apple logo.
- ender7074, on 07/31/2008, -7/+3Control. They have little control right now and they want complete control of all hardware in their systems.
- ender7074, on 07/31/2008, -5/+1@ shredswithpicks
Its simple. If apple makes a propritary chipset, they decide every aspect of how fast information is moved throughout the various pieces of hardware, how efficiently the memory is used, and everything else that happens in the computer before and after the information is processed. It has nothing to do with how many calcualtions the processor can do per second, it has to do with how efficient the chipset is. Why do you think there are several different chipsets for the same Intel proc on the market? But if you cant understand that then ok..... - Apocalyptic0n3, on 07/31/2008, -5/+1Weren't the PowerPC processors made by IBM and manufactured by Apple?
- RudeTurnip, on 07/31/2008, -6/+1They'll stick with Intel because a lot of people can only use Macbooks so long as they can dual boot into Windows.
- baldick, on 07/31/2008, -7/+2I hope they don't. I don't want to upgrade my 2.6 MBP again so I can run software that only runs on the new procs. I'm not made of money.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is