More of my sites

WinInfo Daily News
SuperSite for Windows
Windows IT Pro Magazine
Connected Home
Thurrott Dot Com
Windows Weekly at TWIT

About this site

For six years, the Internet Nexus served as my technology blog, but I've since started blogging at the SuperSite Blog instead. If you're looking for the blog, please head there. --Paul

Saturday, June 11, 2005

Think Similar: NYT Adds Interesting Twist to Apple/Intel Alliance

The New York Times' John Markoff is one of the few tech/business writers I really like, because he knows his stuff, and he doesn't use his powerful position in the industry to get too close to any one company, as so many others have. In today's New York Times, Markoff writes an interesting follow-up to last week's Apple/Intel alliance.

There is one major revelation in this article: According to Markoff, Apple went with Intel because it would allow Mac users to dual-boot their systems with Windows in order to take advantage of the huge collection of Windows games out there. Mac gaming, as Mac users know, lags behind the PC market by about two years on average, assuming titles are even ported over (just ask this poor sap, who has to write about the equivalent of video game archeology for MacWorld Magazine).

An Intel processor inside a Macintosh could put the vast library of Windows-based games and software programs within the reach of Mac users - at least those who are willing to run a second operating system on their computers.

Moreover, having Intel Inside might solve an important perception problem that has long plagued Apple in its effort to convert consumers who are attracted to the company's industrial design, but who have stayed away because the computers do not run Windows programs.

Should the new [IBM PowerPC/Cell-based video game] consoles find wide acceptance as broad-based entertainment engines, Intel will need to respond - and one attractive alternative would be an inexpensive Macintosh Mini based on an Intel processor, able to run the vast library of PC games.

Fascinating, and I have to say this makes a lot more sense than most of the conspiracy theories I've been reading lately.

There are other tantalizing tidbits:

- Sony's top executives had tried to persuade Mr. Jobs to adopt a chip that I.B.M. has been developing for the next-generation Sony PlayStation ... Mr. Kutaragi tried to interest Mr. Jobs in adopting the Cell chip, which is being developed by I.B.M. for use in the coming PlayStation 3, in exchange for access to certain Sony technologies. Mr. Jobs rejected the idea, telling Mr. Kutaragi that he was disappointed with the Cell design, which he believes will be even less effective than the PowerPC.

- Mr. Jobs waited until the last moment - 3 p.m. on Friday, June 4 - to inform Big Blue [I was moving to Intel chips]. Those executives said that I.B.M. had learned about Apple's negotiations with Intel from news reports and that Apple had not returned phone calls in recent weeks.

- I.B.M. executives said that without additional Apple investment they were unwilling to pursue the faster and lower-power chips he badly needs for his laptop business ... Because the business was not profitable, I.B.M. "decided not to continue to go ahead with the product road map."

- The power-conserving 64-bit Intel chips that Apple is counting on to rejuvenate its laptop products will not be available until early 2007.

That last bit is interesting. Most people--myself included--believe that Apple will first upgrade its PowerBook line to Intel chips, presumably using the dual-core Pentium-M chips that are due next year. I guess we'll see.

There is also one humongous bit of history rewriting in this article:

Apple's decision in the 1980's to use a different chip from the one put in most personal computers "fit in with the idea of Think Different," Stephen G. Wozniak, who founded Apple with Mr. Jobs in 1976, said in an e-mail exchange. "So it's hard for some people to accept this switch."

That's heartwarming, but it's baloney. In 1976, Intel wasn't known as a microprocessor company, and anyone with even a slightly technical bent knew that the MOS Technologies 6502 processor used by the Apple II--and the world's best selling personal computer, the Commodore 64--was a much better chip and a better bargain than Intel's chips of the day. Furthermore, as Motorola ramped up the 68xxx line of processors used in later Apple machines, those chips were likewise clearly superior to the 808x line Intel was just shipping. Intel didn't become dominant until the late 1980's, a full decade and a half after Apple went with an "alternative" design. Apple wasn't "thinking different," it was using the chips that made the most sense. Arguably, today, that's exactly what they're doing once again. It's more pragmatic than counterculture.

[ Posted at 8:32 AM | Permalink ]