Sorry... More Apple/Intel Talk

I'm sure you're sick of me talking about Apple's switch to Intel processors. And I was ready to let it go for a while seeing as how I talked so much damn nerd speak this week that even I could use a break.

However, something struck me as a ridiculous piece of nonsense today from a source I usually respect, and I must respond in my small, insignificant-speck-on-the-blogosphere way.

Robert Cringley is a smart, well-spoken nerd pundit whose column I read frequently. (It's in my links on the right.) He's often overly prone to speculating about the future of the industry, but his speculations are usually really profound, interesting speculations based on factual information that, even if completely ridiculous, are at least thought-provoking, like any good speculation should be.

In the case of his column about the Apple/Intel keg-party hook-up, while I think his conclusion has some merit—that Intel and Apple are merging—the normally reliable Cringley has some very poor misinformation that I'd like to correct in a fashion that will hopefully show up in a future Google search.

Before I proceed, allow me to state two things:

1. There is a lot of dense nerd speak ahead. If that bores you, then scroll down. Directly underneath this post is a photo of a really hot woman, a woman so hot that even the most principled of women will have to say, "Damn, that shit's hot!"
2. Have I mentioned recently that Tom Delay is a douchebag?

Cringely bases his theory of an imminent Apple/Intel merger on five unanswered questions. Where Cringely goes wrong is failing to notice that most of these questions have reasonably logical answers, answers that fall well outside the Reality Distortion Field.

Question 1: What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?

Because IBM and Motorola can't catch up. Sorry, Robert, but you're wrong on this one. I love my Powerbook, don't get me wrong, and it's plenty fast for my needs, but for God's sake, the processor in it is SLOWER than that used in a top-shelf PowerMac system from three years ago. I'm with you on the superiority of Altivec, but even without it, the fastest Centrino-powered notebook out there eats my Powerbook for breakfast. (It's just a shame that it runs Windows.) As for Apple's tests comparing the G5 to Pentiums and AMD processors, note that PowerMacs will most likely be the last machines to switch over to the new processors. A year is a long time in technology, dude.

Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?

Nothing. Remember, the low end, which uses a 32-bit processor, is switching over first. THEN the 64-bit G5 switches over to a 64-bit Intel processor. From the excellent article at ArsTechnica:

Later, as Intel moves to 64 bits across its entire desktop line, Apple will upgrade its existing 64-bit PPC parts with higher-performing 64-bit Intel parts. The end result is that as Intel makes the transition to 64 bits, Apple will make the transition to Intel.

C'mon, Bobby, read the press releases that land on your desk. Intel's roadmap is public knowledge.

Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?

A lot of people are asking this. AMD does have higher performance than Intel on a bad day, and AMD was the first to market with usable 64-bit x86 processors.

We have to remember that this is all about laptops, the highest-selling form factor for computers now. Intel has Centrino, which is a Pentium processor with the wireless and the power management and everything. It's the most energy efficient chipset for laptops out there. I believe that Intel brings the whole widget, not just the processor like AMD.

Plus, Intel can probably produce much more supply than AMD. AMD makes niche processors, just like Motorola did (now Freescale). Why would Jobs want to get in bed with yet another niche company, only to get screwed again? That's just silly.

Though once OS X apps are running on x86 processors exclusively, and depending on the deal with Intel, there may be nothing stopping Apple from building an Athlon 64 box.

Cringely's question about the Osborne effect actually makes some sense. I know I won't want to replace my Powerbook until the transition is done, and I'm sure many Mac fans feel the same way. The difference here is that Apple has lots of money in the bank and an incredibly valuable iPod business. There's enough buffer to weather the storm. It's definitely an opening salvo against Microsoft, with Jobs and Otellini giggling like schoolyard-bullies and taunting nasally, "We're coming for your lunch money, Microsuck."

(I agree with Cringley's assessment that the DRM argument seems irrelevant.)

Yes, Intel and Apple are going for Microsoft's jugular. When you can compare an Apple machine to a Windows machine point-by-point with no discernable difference, when the price of Apple machines comes down because the supply for parts is far easier to come by, and when the now-smaller premium for Apple products seems justifiable when you compare OS X to Windows and the aesthetics of a Mac to a Dell's, then Apple's market share starts to ratchet up. It is for this reason that the switch to Intel makes sense—to level the hardware playing field and give consumers one less thing to compare. All that's left to compare (other than price, I guess) are the differences where Apple kicks Windows' ass—reliability, user-friendliness, and aesthetics.

Sure, maybe Intel does want to acquire Apple to crush Microsoft, but I think it makes more sense for Intel and Apple to partner and crush Microsoft from two fronts. On one side, Apple destroys Windows in the operating system and software innovation department as well as OEMs who lack the aethetics and design of Apple. Secondly, Intel has a customer for whom their engineers can push the development of a computer's guts without having to support all of the legacy garbage needed to support Windows; since all the computer companies copy Apple anyway, they'll all want the new Intel gizmos that Apple is showing off, and OEMs will demand that Windows support those gizmos. Intel and Apple are more powerful against Microsoft separately than merged. An alliance makes more sense.

Frankly, Cringley, if you want some wild speculation, how about this one: Jobs has probably wanted to switch to Intel since he returned to Apple. Why keep an x86-compiled OS X going for so long? Everyone switches to OS X, it is widely adored, along comes Transitive, and voilà. Let's switch to a level playing field and inflict some hurt on our pals in Redmond.

But what do I know. I'm just a guy who can post stuff whenever he wants on a web site.

Finally, and this is more of a sidenote, but Cringely states:

If Apple was willing to consider a processor switch, moving to the Cell Processor would have made much more sense than going to Intel or AMD, so I simply have to conclude that technology has nothing at all to do with this decision.

For Christ's sake, Bobby. The Cell processor, while fast and innovative, processes commands in order. The processors that power computers, like your G5s and your Pentiums, are capable of processing commands out of order to optimize performance, making them much more suitable for the rigors of general purpose computing. When a processor only has to do one thing, like process the video for a video game and make a handful of decisions based on a strict set of rules (like, say, a physics engine), it can run a hell-of-a-lot faster because, compared to a computer running Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Word, a web browser, an email client, and dozens of unseen processes in the background—a video game console has much less to do. If anyone should know this, it's Robert Cringley. (Here's more info on why the Cell wouldn't work for Apple.) I'm sure the Cell will find a place in render farms, but again, one purpose, not many.

Okay, I'm done. There's boobs below this post. Thank you.