ABOUT BENCH FORUMS PODCAST LOGIN REGISTER
PC Components
Smartphones & tablets
Systems
ENTERPRISE & IT
GUIDES

WWDC 2005 - Apple to Move to Intel Processors in 2006

by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 6, 2005 3:03 PM EST
65 Comments | Add A Comment
65 Comments

This is the first year that we have covered Apple's World Wide Developer Conference (WWDC) keynote, but it will definitely not be the last.

Over 3800 developers will attend this year's WWDC, making it similar in size to IDF from a couple of years ago.

Hosted in the Moscone West Convention Center, the same venue as Intel's IDF just a few months prior, Apple made the most ground-breaking announcement in their history - the move to Intel processors starting in 2006 and almost complete by 2007. The crowd was already expecting what was to come:

Despite the expectations, the announcement was still quite shocking. Even I found myself feeling shocked by the announcement that the rumors, in fact, were real.

Before we get to the details of Apple's Intel transition, here are some of the highlights from the start of the keynote:

Steve Jobs demo'd iTunes 4.9 with support for Podcasting. The support is quite widespread throughout the new version of iTunes and in Apple's usual style, it is quite easy to use.


iTunes 4.9 Playing a Podcast

Later today, Apple will be previewing Quicktime 7, with H.264 support, for Windows PCs. The preview version will be available for download today.

Also, later this week, Apple will have shipped their 2 millionth copy of Tiger, which has been shipping for 6 weeks now and has 16% of all Mac OS market share:

Although Steve Jobs didn't go into much detail, he did announce that the next version of the Mac OS would be Mac OS X 10.5, codenamed Leopard. Leopard won't be talked about at the conference this year, but it will next year. The OS will ship sometime in late 2006 or early 2007, around the same time as Longhorn.

Apple and Intel, Together at Last
PRINT THIS ARTICLE
Comments Locked

65 Comments

View All Comments

  • SilentRunning - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link

    Lets see Apple gets intel CPU, and Intel finally gets a company willing to adopt their BTX standard (just a thought).

  • PrinceXizor - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link

    I knew AMD was in laptops, but I totally whiffed on the fact that they aren't in more mobile units. Good points.

    It would be interesting if you could buy an Apple MB (thus acquiring the appropriate BIOS/ROM) and a copy of OS X and then build your own computer around that? That would be kind of cool! (imo).

    P-X

  • jediknight - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link

    Well, my hopes were up after hearing this.. only to be quickly deflated:

    "However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."
    (source: ZDNet.com)

    ACK. Wasn't that the whole POINT of having MacOS on x86??! (at least, from an enthusiast POV)

  • ShinKen - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link

    From what I read over at engadget, Apple will most likely use custom bios or something to let OS X know it ok to boot. Also it was mentioned that they would not prevent users from installing windows on apple hardware.

  • wilburpan - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link

    Two more reasons for choosing Intel over AMD:

    1. Multimedia performance. Currently, the one area where Intel chips have and edge seems to be multimedia applications. This may be an indicator of Apple's wish to continue to be the digital hub of your living room.

    2. Notebooks. Unless I'm an idiot, the main use of AMD CPUs in notebooks have been in large 8-10 lb. desktop replacement notebooks. If Apple is to continue making small notebooks, Pentium M's have a long and impressive track record.

  • Speedo - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link

    But it sure would have been a great opportunity for AMD to grow, if they had gotten the deal. But I agree with #6.

    One thing I wonder after reading the article, is if there would be a way for the x86 compiled OS X to run on a normal PC platform. But of course Apple doesn't want this to happen for obvious reasons, and so I guess they will make it impossible (no drivers for other than Apple hardware etc). But it would have been cool to dualboot between OS X and Longhorn :)

  • ProviaFan - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link

    I have to ask, aside from driver support (or lack thereof), why wouldn't Apple make everything else proprietary? (particularly, the BIOS / firmware) Given their past trends, I doubt that there will be some hardware compatibility list that you could assemble a PC from that would be able to run OS X/x86.

  • plewis00 - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link

    Does it matter what CPU it actually is? Isn't x86 all pretty much the same, and AMD is pretty similar, should be compatible.

    I'm guessing they went with Intel because as much as you all hate to admit it, Intel has a lot more clout than AMD does now or in the foreseeable future...

  • Questar - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link

    He said why he didn't use AMD:
    Performance per watt in 2006.

    I'm sure apple knows more than you about Intel's 2006 processor plans.

  • PrinceXizor - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link

    Why Intel?

    1. Because its Intel. Brand name. The defacto standard (whether you like it or not).

    2. Price. I'm sure the price Apple is getting is better than what AMD can afford to give them.

    3. Stability. Intel is hugely capable of being around for a LONG time.

    4. Just because Prescott's are hotter than Athlon64's doesn't mean that they aren't cooler than equivalently performing PowerPC processors. Why do you think we DON'T have 3.0Ghz Power PC's?

    5. Do you really think Intel doesn't KNOW they have a super hot chip in Prescott?

    5b. Do you really think Intel is going to STAY hotter than AMD? (umm...original Athlon's anyone? They didn't stay space heaters forever).

    5c. Do you really think we know more about Intel 's roadmap for the next 10 years including projected TDP than Apple does?

    AMD may have the slight performance edge (currently by the way, merely currently) but Intel still produces a fine processor that will siginificantly improve the overall value of an Apple computer.

    Its really quite easy to see why they would choose Intel over AMD.

    I'm sure I'll be labeled a fanboi...but, my next processor choice will most likely be an AMD processor, so there :P~~~

    :)

    P-X
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.
BENCH
TOPICS
FOLLOW
ABOUT

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now