Archived Intel Crashes: Apple To Start Using Own Mac Chips, Moving Away From Intel (zerohedge.com)
submitted ago by fluxusp
Posted by: fluxusp
Posting time: 2.7 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 7/2/2018 10:00:00 AM
Views: 1609
SCP: 67
71 upvotes, 4 downvotes (95% upvoted it)
Archived Intel Crashes: Apple To Start Using Own Mac Chips, Moving Away From Intel (zerohedge.com)
submitted ago by fluxusp
Sort: Top
[–] RevDrStrangelove 0 points 12 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago
Intel chips in Apple products is a recent thing. Apple used Motorola processors from the beginning.
[–] viperguy 0 points 13 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago (edited ago)
NOT THE BEGINNING. Motorola 68k was only from Jan 1983 to 1991
they used MOS 6502 in the beginning, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS_Technology_6502 , then 32 bit 68K motorola designs until they started using their own single chip cpu design for many years starting in 1991 called PowerPC after buying design called "Power" and enchancing it for 9 different companies operating systems.
The PowerPC was MANUFACTURED using apples design at chip foundries of IBM and Motorola.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC
Its not what people think of as "motorola". In fact most of the big money went to IBM foundry for Apple, not Motorola
Apple and Intel made special agreements to have Apple get first dibs ALWAYS on high end Intel cpus and then dropped PoerPC in a rage, when 8 partners stopped using PowerPC and the only operating system using it was Mac OS but the foundries were busy using Apple's money to make powerPC video game consoles.
THIS PISSED STEVE JOBS OFF! So he wanted IBM and Motorola (Freescale now) to wither and die for their backstabbing. They tried to make millions of PowerPC chips for Sony PS3 (PowerPC 7 core Cell) Nintendo Wii and XBox 360 (PowerPC 970 chip)
So instead of Apple paying 110 dollars for a good PowerPC cpu, as normal, that APPLE CO-DESIGNED, Apple had to watch chip foundries sell powerPc chips for NINE DOLLARS to :
Nintendo Wii (Espresso PowerPC)
Sony PS3 (Cell PowerPC)
XBox 360 (PowerPC 970)
Steve jobs knew he could fuck them all over and make the chip price SKYROCKET if Apple switched overnight away from PowerPC.
So steve jobs fucked over them all and had macs start using Intel chips in 2006 :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93Intel_transition
So its only been 12 short years that macs have been using Xeons and other intel chips.
Apple can easily swap between chips because its architecture allows "Fat Binaries" and 99% of mac software is compiled with Apple's own toolchain the last 10 years and assembly code is rare.
Now , apple has its own GPU (80% complete) and its own 6-core ARM CPU (in all Iphones) http://www.idownloadblog.com/2017/09/11/iphone-x-a11-six-cores/
If they swapped back to PowerPC I would be ok with that. Or a arm chip that emulated 68K. But switching to A11 arm will annoy programmers. It is the fifth incompatible cpu swap. But it is just a simple compilation in apple's xCode (free buggy compiler).
[–] malloryquinn ago
The PowerPC is more POWER than anything Apple. The proof was in AIX, and who actually used the damned things.
Motorola fucked up the 88000, and got Hoodwinked into the PowerPC consortium. What a cluster fuck.
Remember Pink? Talgent? OS/2?
PowerPC had IBM's stench all over it, and it was doomed from day 1. Acorn could make the ARM, but Apple came up dry in terms of an OS, or anything complicated like a CPU.
[–] weezkitty 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
This will be what, the 4th time Apple changes CPU architectures? Are they trying to piss off software developers?
[–] firex726 1 point 9 points 10 points (+10|-1) ago
What do they care? Their base will keep buying it and Devs will keep hvaing to make even more seperate versions.
[–] goship ago
It's not that hard, if product is well written.
[–] tribblepuncher 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Apple really doesn't give a shit about backwards compatibility and has almost gone to considerable trouble to kill product lines it is no longer fond of. It has done this since its beginning and presumably will continue to do so as it sees fit. Unlike the Intel architecture, they tend to appeal more to certain markets that care more about the "experience" than almost anything else. In fact, their current business plan depends on them selling devices to the same people on a regular basis (relatively short-term, no less). I think most people take the explanation for the iPhone slowdown patch as being bullshit, so it shows that they may even be willing to cripple existing devices to "encourage" people to buy their newest crap.
Remember, this is the company that is actively attempting to kill the old headphone standard that has been around for decades and is massively reliable and cross-compatible in favor of expensive, DRM laden headphones with little improvement other than improving profit margins and giving control of media to the companies, because "courage." That is literally their explanation.
[–] Tsilent_Tsunami ago
That's a funny way to characterize it, but yes. Quality of experience is something I look for in several areas of life.
[–] voats4goats 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
This has been telegraphed for a while. They been putting in A10 chips in imacs
[–] viperguy ago
Not exactly true. No iMacs lack an intel cpu in 2018 or earlier.... as far as the public knows.
[–] voats4goats 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
I didn't say they lacked Intel cpus, they been adding A10s in addition to the Intel chip in anticipation of an ARM base os
https://9to5mac.com/2017/11/18/imac-pro-a10-fusion-chip/
It's for SIRI now but I'm sure this is a hedge for a gradual shift to an ARM os
[–] throughtheblack 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
So, are they gonna make their desktops and laptops run ARM based CPUs? I don't know if the performance is there yet.
[–] malloryquinn 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The decrepit Mac pro, just shows that Apple doesn't need or care about the pro market.if you need speed, hackintosh is the only way
[–] PotatoFarm 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Probably they don't care for performance, no big surprise considering their typical consumer. (Overpriced social media machines)
However, it will see improved battery performance something appreciated by, again, their consumers.
I guess some professionals that used macs will have a hard time and will finally move to a different platform... or take it in the ass, as once again, Apple's consumers.
[–] 12372935? 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
It's almost going to lead to a lot of apps just dropping out of the ecosystem I would imagine unless it's seamless to recompile. Plenty of apps probably are using x86 specific instructions.
[–] tribblepuncher ago (edited ago)
That's uncertain. There are a number of approaches they could take, including having emulation/virtualization of older stuff for backwards compatibility. IIRC that was in the cards for a number of niche OS's that tried to switch to a non-Intel architecture over the years, in order to retain backwards compatibility to existing apps. I want to say that the version of Windows NT for the Alpha had something like that in place, and I know there were plans for it under the Itanium series from Intel, especially since their wishy-washy "benchmarks" for it did more to sink the line than sell it.
[–] superkuh 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago
zerohedge is such a drama queen. Most of this is just the drop of the entire dow today.
[–] KikeFree 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago
6 month graph shows it has lots of room to drop before returning to reality.
[–] ThisIsntMe123 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Yes, but if it can't boot camp/vm ware, they'll lose market. Let alone all the app redesigns if it's not X86 compatible... Rosetta Stone was a PITA
[–] PattyOLantern 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Pretty drastic move to stop Hackintoshes.