Apple's Early Decision to Switch to Intel Not All That Amazing

There's a story in Forbes describing a panel of ex-Apple employees who claim that Apple was plotting a switch to Intel chips (from PowerPC) before Steve Jobs returned to the company. And that--get this--this desire to switch to Intel was one of the reasons Apple chose NeXT over the competition, thus ensuring that company co-founder Steve Jobs returned to the company.

"One of the many intriguing stories: Apple was thinking about how to get rid of PowerPC processors for Intel‘s chips even before Jobs returned to the company," the article notes. "It turns out, in fact, that preparing for such a switch is one of the reasons why Jobs returned, explains Larry Tesler, who jumped from Xerox Parc to Apple after introducing Jobs to the idea of a graphical operating system."

"It was actually one of the reasons that the company decided to acquire NeXT," Tesler claimed. "We had actually tried a few years before to port the MacOS to Intel, but there was so much machine code still there, that to make it be able to run both, it was just really, really hard. And so a number of the senior engineers and I got together and we recommended that first we modernize the operating system, and then we try to get it to run on Intel, initially by developing our own in-house operating system which turned out to be one of these projects that just grew and grew and never finished. And when we realized that wouldn't work we realized we had to acquire an operating system, either BeOS or NeXT, and one of the plusses was once we had that we could have the option of making an Intel machine."

Wow, that is fascinating.

Unless you know your tech industry history, that is. Apple actually considered four alternative operating systems to replace the aging Mac OS. These were Be's BeOS, Microsoft Windows NT, NeXT's NeXTStep/OpenStep, and Sun Solaris. And every single one of them--all four of them--ran on Intel chips. So Intel compatibility was not one of the reasons Jobs returned to Apple. It was, however, one of the reasons his OS was even in the running.

More interesting to me, and to the wider world, I'd think, is that Apple's switch to Intel, apparently in the planning stages by 1996, took a full 10 years to come to fruition. Apple announced its plans to do so in 2005 and completed the transition a year later.

Discuss this Article 2

MarkKB
on Nov 12, 2011
"We had actually tried a few years before to port the MacOS to Intel, but there was so much machine code still there, that to make it be able to run both, it was just really, really hard." This directly contradicts previous testimony that states that the team actually succeeded in porting the original Mac OS to the 486, but the project was killed off by the incoming CEO who had little interest in selling Intel computers. Here's an article about it: http://lowendmac.com/orchard/05/star-trek-mac-os-intel.html
ModernDislocation
on Nov 13, 2011
"Wow, that is fascinating." It was, years ago when it was actually news. This has been widely reported for years. Apple had intel versions of the Mac OS for a long time. In 1997 and 1998 the first developer releases for Rhapsody had both Intel and PPC versions. What is fascinating is after railing against others for giving him getting credit for his writing Paul has taken the writing and reporting of another author without so much as mentioning their name nor providing a link to the original work. Classy as always Paul!

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use