Apple and IBM's PowerPC Potential

[MarcelV]

After this year's WWDC and essentially telling developers to adjust/re-compile their programs for use on Intel based Macs, to switch back to IBM/PPC, I think, would almost gaurantee that in the future, developers would consider not producing for the Mac platform

That is a fair observation, if that's what was said. But it was not stated to code for the Intel platform (at least my interpretation). It was stated to compile Universal Binaries. That means, that the application will run (native) on either Intel or PPC. And clearly, there are some people on this forum that don't understand Rosetta. Rosetta will run PPC code on Intel (in emulation mode). Universal Binaries will run native on both platforms. Rosetta has nothing to do with running Universal Binaries.

 

[MacWeenie]

IBM is full of balony.

If you've ever cracked open a G5 PowerMac, you've seen all the technology Apple had to put into those beasts to keep them cool.

Now, if you've seen the developer Intel Mac (check out the numerous pics on the net), then you will understand why Apple is making the switch. The Intel Mac has a small mother board, which takes up about 1/3rd of the inside of a G5 case. No multiple fans to keep it cool.

IBM is full of balony.

 

[hh83917]

I guess IBM are just too busy with Xbox360 and PS3. The market of apple is only a small percentage compared to gaming consoles. I was disappointed tho that macs wont be using more ibm chips cause I am a pc+mac user (just added macs at home few months ago, they are very stable and nice machines ) and I believe IBM chips can be very competitive if they really want to. Imagine bring the cell processor to macs, that's gonna rock! who needs intel (although I use a p4 pc for games). But, too bad, after they announced the cell for PS3s apple decide to leave IBM. Oh well, that doesn't matter much, just hope they really make the transition seemless... If they switch and use intel, mac can make more money for their stock holders since profits are cut down... I just hope they make sure the customers are happy in the first place.

Win XP dont crash?? All computer crashes (macs too just not as often)... my experience... 95,98,me,2k,2k server,xp,2k3 server... I like the server ones, they are very stable, just some games and apps won't run on them. My solution now, keep my PC updated to run games and windows only apps and use macs for work since they are very stable. Well, I guess it depends on how you use it. First win XP release I got it to crash in 2 hrs and the first time I bought a mac (two months ago, my first apple, powerbook 15"s are nice! But, that's not enough, now I'm going for the dual 2.7 G5s ) I got it to crash in 2~3 days (with last version of panther) dunno how... but it happens . I guess 3 days is better than 2 hrs heh. For some ppl, whatever they use, it don't crash, well people are those who make mistakes machines just follows the commands.

 

[zoltamatron]

WINE WINE WINE

I was always a little skeptical of Apple's decision to switch based on IBM coming up 0.3GHz shy of their goal, and this story solidifies that feeling a lot. Granted, the portable line is looking a little weak right now, but the switch to Intel is a massive shift, coming at a time when the Apple tree is blooming and sales are way up. It's not like IBM is driving them out of business or something and they are desperate and have to do something or die.

When many Mac apps have gone universal, this will give Apple something that no other platform has: architecture independence. I don't see the PPC going away anytime soon, just Intel being adding to the lineup.

The best thing that Intel will provide for Macs is the ability to run Windows apps. With WINE, the sales guy will finally be able to answer "yes!" to the question "will it run my windows apps?" No emulation, no Windows, interoperability with Mac apps, this could make Mac market share explode. If Apple takes advantage of this technology and works on it (gets rid of X11 in favor of Aqua, ties it in with the Finder and other OSX elements seamlessly, makes it run more Windows apps) then Macs could (conceivably) run windows apps better than windows! You may be running under a mock API, but over a more stable, more useable, and less virus prone OS.

So THIS is why Apple is making the move to Intel. But I don't think that PPC is necessarily going away, Steve is just playing it that way to get developers moving. If you tell them that Apple is adding some Intel machines to the lineup but keeping the PPC going, then some companies just might choose not to support Intel. The last thing that Apple wants is a fragmentation of the software base. Steve wants to get as many apps universal as soon as possible, and the best way to do that is to tell developers that they have to.

--z

 

[BeigeUser]

If you've ever cracked open a G5 PowerMac, you've seen all the technology Apple had to put into those beasts to keep them cool.

Now, if you've seen the developer Intel Mac (check out the numerous pics on the net), then you will understand why Apple is making the switch. The Intel Mac has a small mother board, which takes up about 1/3rd of the inside of a G5 case. No multiple fans to keep it cool.

IBM is full of balony.

The PowerMac G5 is designed to be very quiet. I don't know how silent the developer Mactel is but being a developer machine I don't think Apple spent that much time in stuff like noise. If noise is not a concern, the Powermac G5s could be half the size that it is now.

BTW, I thought that Steve said that the entire lineup will move to Intel by the end of 2007. I'm too busy at this moment to check the WWDC keynote so I can't say it for sure but that will completely deny the "Mac on both Intel and PowerPC" theories.

It would seem that Steve signed a deal that prohibits the use of non-Intel processors. Intel seems to do that a lot. They're being sued by AMD for that reason.

 

[macdong]

Granted, the portable line is looking a little weak...

i think it looks a little grim
the PB i am using was bought a year and half ago.
but when i go to Apple Store and check the new PowerBooks, guess what?
i don't see much difference.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Intel-based Macs have to be faster than other computers we'll see in the future. If they aren't, then we will know that the transition was a mistake.

What computers exactly are these things going to be faster then? If Intel ever has supply issues in the future and the choice came down to give Dell or Apple the new technology first, I can promise you what Company would get it first. Intel will ALWAYS cater to the PC's first...why? $$$

 

[JGowan]

Oh... Steve has been made a fool for not delivering dual 3GHz Machines and THAT'S why Apple is moving to Intel... Ooookay!

This possibility has been around for 5 YEARS! OS X has been running on Intel processors for a looong time. Much longer than some weak grudge. Apple gave IBM their shot and they blew it. Period. This is not and has not been about Steve's massive ego. It's big but not that big.

 

[macnews]

That is a fair observation, if that's what was said. But it was not stated to code for the Intel platform (at least my interpretation). It was stated to compile Universal Binaries. That means, that the application will run (native) on either Intel or PPC. And clearly, there are some people on this forum that don't understand Rosetta. Rosetta will run PPC code on Intel (in emulation mode). Universal Binaries will run native on both platforms. Rosetta has nothing to do with running Universal Binaries.

Oh thank God you posted this on the last page. I read the first two pages and was getting frustrated with those posts about Rosetta. The key is Universal Binaries and the idea of running an application NATIVELY on ANY platform - intel or PPC, possibly AMD as well (if the OS supported it - leave the OS X can't run on AMD posts off).

I also have to believe IBM failing to live up to its promise to deliver was the main reason Apple switched. In 2003 about the top speed for a powermac was 1.5Ghz (if memory serves correctly). Steve and an IBM rep appeared on stage announced the G5 and promised 3Ghz in one year (would have been 2004). Double the speed increase in 1 year! That would have rocked. Alas, not the case as almost 2 full years later and we just got to 2.7Ghz.

IBM failed to deliver. Heat is an issue, speed is an issue and I'm sure DRM on chip (Intel future roadmap) were all reasons for a switch. This excuse by IBM though is sad. If they COULD, why DIDN'T they? Assuming the IBM rep meant Power mac (vs Power book as quoted in the interview), then HOW did they FAIL to give us a 3Ghz chip over a year ago. They are a year behind on their road map? That is not a good sign.

Good or bad, universal binaries should allow Apple to move back and forth between processors.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Windows XP doesn't crash. My experience has shown me that people who bash windows for crashing and become frustrated enough to switch to mac are running ancient computers with windows 98 or Millenium. I've had to reinstall Panther more often due to kernal panics more then once (on a new machine). Since I've switched an old PII system to XP I have never had a problem.

My experience has shown me that slower Pentium Computers run windows XP faster then faster G4s run OSX. Especially Web surfing and Java applications.

Windows Computers, PIV @ 3+ Ghz can be had for $1000 or less. Lesser Performing Mac Computers cost twice as much.

Pentium M Centrino Laptops can be had for less then $1200 with 15" screens.

Ever go to a computer store looking for Mac software? None at all. All windows.

Tiger revolutionary? Over Panther? Give me a break! Am I the only one who finds the "new" widgets the only real compelling new feature?

IBM slow at development of newer faster technology? What about iBooks with 32 MB of vram with a non core-image compatible 9200 processor?

Whatever folks. I liked mac for awhile. My next computer will be a windows machine. Cheaper, Faster, Better, More Compatible. Probably an IBM NetVista or Intellistation.

Wow thats an interesting take on Mac OS X compared to WinXP, Pro I assume. Its your opinion & I will respect it, but here is my take.

5 years ago I was given a PowerBook 3400c; this thing I believe ran System OS 6/7, most likely 7. Back then LCD monitors were primitive and very small in size 11" is what I had - a Sceptre/Spectre (cannot remember exactly, watched too much 007, LOL) - while 14" were just on the market and mad expensive $1000+. Funny at that time my MS Windows Millenium Compaq E500 with 8MB vid Ram although running smoothly couldnt power an image to the monitor. I had to download drivers and install it, and sure it worked but at the expense of the internal monitor being turned off. No software/firmware could acheive "mirroring" for Millenium/98SE/2000 Pro! Nuthing, no settings. On my PowerBook 3400c I seriously plugged it in and within 3 seconds both monitors went off and back on instantly mirroring! It just freakin worked!! And on an old System with just 1MB Vram video memory. No glitches, no image jumps nothing. At this moment I realized that video memory on a Mac is utilized differently than in Windows.

WinXP doesnt crash as often as previous MS OS' before it I agree, but for absolutely no crashing, just dont install any applications. To me WinXP is NOT a multitasking OS. Run WinAmp v5.03a in one administrator or limited user login, then switch user and log into another account while the previous accounts WinAmp is playing music. During your switched user & after completing it the music is still playing. When an app begins to crash, the entire system is frozen until it ALLOWS YOU to regain control, and yes even ctrl+alt+delete doesnt immediately work. I dont run all kinds of adaware, antivirus applications and other p2p crap either - not too trusting of those on my system. MS Antivirus Beta actually works well. Along with built-in firewall.

If you dont think Tiger isnt revolutionary. Then let someone you trust log into your account in WinXP, allow them 2 mins privacy of dropping several documents with the same word within them (title, word, etc) and then try using WinXP search to find that keyword for a search. Count how long it takes to come up with results. Look how many unrelated search results is there. No do the same with OS Tiger on a Mac. See the difference?

Also why is it the average user has to pay or find an MSCE/MSCA cert person to have their administrator login's My Documents contents protected form anyone else's prioring eyes? This should be allowed by default. Not very "Pro" - fessional in my opinion.

Well if your going to Windows enjoy, and when Longhorn comes out, then also enjoy the sharp rise in computer pricing as well, most of everything available today may not run it. Betas or Alphas are nothing to what Longhorn will need to run.

 

[gwangung]

What computers exactly are these things going to be faster then? If Intel ever has supply issues in the future and the choice came down to give Dell or Apple the new technology first, I can promise you what Company would get it first.

Apple, of course....if that new technology isn't stricly compatible with legacy hardware and is owned by Intel. Think USB.

Why? $$$$$$

 

[minstryoffunk]

In this story of Apple going from PPC to x86 architecture, it is pretty obvious to me that it is not so much a choice or advantage of one architecture versus the other, but clearly a business related decision.
IBM relations with Apple were probably not that great since IBM could not deliver what the G5 roadmap they had promised Apple since the first G5.

Freescale (the worldwide embedded processor leader) is obviously only looking at making embedded chips, and is very successful at it! PPC chips are found already everywhere in many systems, planes, cars, networking devices, etc... The latest 7448 is a marvel of engineering, consuming 10W at 1,7Ghz and offering CPU power way beyond any other chip on the market using 10W or lower.

I think that the success of the move of Apple to Intel will solely be determined by if Intel can make the roadmap they sold to Apple for their x86 chip.

I also believe that such a move by Apple is going to have to be justified by hard number to the shareholders, and if you look at how antsy are the shareholders are to make a lot of money now with Apple since the iPod, my guess is that the move to Intel better show some major costs savings for Apple, because I don't believe they will be happy with the explanation: "Intel promised us better chips", because after all Intel just trashed the Pentium 4 architecture and 4-5 year long project, a few billions dolllar in the process... So their enginneering capability is not that supperior. Intel shines by its manufacturing and agressive marketing, not its designs (which BTW is often not even done by Intel itself!).

The future will be interesting

just out of curiosity…

when did steve say the future macs would get x86? its possible i missed something, but all i've heard of was a switch to Intel. theres more than one architecture over at intel, and i'd like to think they've had enough of x86 and want something to show for their billions of dollars sunk into itanic

 

[dejo]

when did steve say the future macs would get x86?

Steve never said it explicity but the fact the the new developer boxes have Pentium 4s is a pretty strong clue.

 

[Dave the Great]

I hate IBM and I hate their idiotic PowerPC chips. Long live Intel!!!

Were you the same guy that said, " I hate Motorola. Long Live IBM!!!" ?

 

[Dave the Great]

So what does IBM expect us to believe actually happenned? That SJ's decision to switch was based wholy on his embarassment at not delivering 3GHz? Come on, the man has an ego, but not that big of one. A...

Ahhh, didn't Jobs drop ATI for awhile because of them (ATI) leaking info the night before Jobs' keynote?

Yeah, his ego is that big.

 

[Dave the Great]

So is this correct?
First, Apple claims it's Motorola's fault; switches to IBM
(All Apple users now hate Motorola and now love IBM)
Then Apple claims it's IBM's fault; switches to Intel.
(All Apple users now hate IBM and now love Intel (who they've always hated before (think arch-enemy))
What happens when Apple claims it's Intel's fault?
Who will they switch to then; AMD?

 

[Dave the Great]

What "everyone knows" is wrong in this case. The Pentium M is dramatically faster per clock cycle than the Pentium 4, and probably the G5. ...

I like when people claim that everybody else is wrong, but then say 'probably' when they are talking about what they 'think' is accuracte.

 

[Squozen]

Actually I think IBM can make the chipsets. They have issued the most amount of patents in the world for the last 6 years running. They practically invented the PC. There products are some of the best, and they don't strive to be the largest market share leader. They actually are an innovative company.

Intel created PCI, AGP, SATA, USB and many of the other technologies used in your Mac. They're also the major force behind Wimax, and you're trying to say they're not innovative?

I think moving to Intel is a bad move. Apple is all about using different processors. The processors in Apple's are always designed to run differently to Intels. Apple's can always multi task better, they are also better with graphics.

Better than what? Better than WINDOWS. The poor quality of Windows has nothing to do with Intel's CPUs.

Thats the way they were made. They last a lot longer, by this I mean, the more you use a processor the slower they get, over the years processors do get slower, but I've always found the Intels slow down a lot quicker.

Frogshit. You're looking at a Windows machine running slower over time due to a clogged registry file and spyware, and blaming it on the CPU. HARDWARE DOES NOT GET SLOWER OVER TIME. Linux, BSD and Solaris x86 PROVE this.

Intel have this whole thing about the fastest clock speed, they don't care about innovation, they don't want to invent new things, they don't try to keep the cycles in the processor low, or the pipelines or anything like that. They just make sure they have big numbers and people then fall for it all, and buy ********s. That whole mentality makes me dislike Intel.

You really haven't been keeping up with the tech press, have you?

I will try to use a Power PC MAC for as long as I can.

Cool, you can buy my G4 PowerBook when I upgrade to a dual-core Yonah.

 

[Silver Apple]

So much fear and nonsense

Wow!

Almost a month after the switch announcement and I can't believe how little things have changed in this board.

Things Like:

* "but IBM has some awesome multi core processors like in the Xbox 360 that apple can use " - NO! Repeat after me... Its NOT a G5! Never was, never will!!

* "... But Freescale has some kick ass E600, E700 ... whatever that has a bizilion cores, consumes less power than a lightworm and is faster than light" - Read my lips ... VAPORWARE! ... and even if there is some truth to it ... do any of you think Apple hasn't looked closely at their vaporware roadmap?

* "what if after the switch Intel pulls an IBM on Apple and doesn't deliver the goods" - This is a valid point but the answer is called COMPETITION ... unlike IBM/Freescale ...that don't have any on the PPC world, Intel has to deal with AMD, VIA, Transmetta thus OPTIONS for Apple

* "but Pentiums are slower than molasses in January compared to G5s" - Nonsense... don't believe the hype. Yes the G5 is a nice chip but the Pentium is no slouch either. The Yonah at 2.1 GHZ dual core will match a 2.7 GHZ G5 easily ... don't believe me, google info on yonah and you will learn that Yonah will do way more per clock cycle than current Dothan which already matches what the fastest P4 & Athlon can offer. And really, this is beside the point, future (2007) Intel based powermacs will probably use yonah's successor (Conroe) anyways .. which will be a whole other animal. Remember the Intel Dev. boxes are "quite fast" according to the developers using them ... and these are just plain jane P4s


Conclusion:

Move to Intel means:

1. Several CPU/Chipset options that Apple never had before from a supplier that can deliver the goods.
2. And if Intel doesn't deliver... there's AMD, VIA etc..
3. Pentium M road map that is not vaporware but a reality!
4. Cool - low power CPUs that don't require a cooler tower
5. Ironically the switch also means... no more switch for quite a while

What the switch doesn't mean:

1. Apple will forget how to design systems ...
and start designing uggly boxes
2. Viruses, spyware ..
3. OsX will suddenly start to crash, "slow down" etc..

Cheer up everyone, Apple's future looks better than ever!

 

[madmaxmedia]

Granted, the portable line is looking a little weak right now, but the switch to Intel is a massive shift, coming at a time when the Apple tree is blooming and sales are way up. It's not like IBM is driving them out of business or something and they are desperate and have to do something or die.

Actually, therein lies the problem (with IBM). Overall in the computer industry, desktop sales are slower than a year ago, while notebook sales are up. And Apple sells a larger % of notebooks than many other makers.

It's not about desperation, it's about making a move based on mid to long term prospects with IBM and Intel.

 

[broken_keyboard]

I don't believe him - if they could have made a portable G5 they would have done it by now.

 

[Scottgfx]

...SO when Steve got back at the helm of Apple, one of the decisions must have been along the lines of this thought pattern.

-Mac OS 8 doesn't have a good road map.
-Let's base the next generation OS off of some concepts developed at NeXT
-Hey while we're at it. if we developed an OS from the ground up for x86 maybe we can compete more head to head with windows.

You're new here right?

1. Apple already knew that Mac OS 8 was a dead end road. That is why they bought NeXT.

2. See item one. Apple knew they needed new technology and was between Be and NeXT. Gill picked NeXT

3. NeXT was already on x86. You saw how well that did against Windows.

My point, These are not ideas that were new when SJ came back on board. I do think he has done a respectable job of implementing them.

 

[ericdano]

Prediction:

Fall Revision of Power Macs using the 970 MP.
About 10 months later at WWDC 2006, a small speed bump.
Another 10-12 months later, possibly at WWDC 2007, the first Intel based Power Macs.

Power Macs will be the last line to convert to Intel, maybe second only to the xServe.

Totally wrong. I predict that the FIRST macs to go Intel will be the PowerMacs. A Dual Core Intel chip running at 3.6+ Gigahertz, with NATIVE Final Cut Pro, Logic, and other Apps? Totally.

 

[ericdano]

When many Mac apps have gone universal, this will give Apple something that no other platform has: architecture independence. I don't see the PPC going away anytime soon, just Intel being adding to the lineup.

Of course, if you remember, Windows used to be architecture independant. Remember Alpha chips? Windows NT 4 ran on Alpha. It was, by all accounts, a lot faster/better than Intel chips. It died a quiet, lonely death.

The best thing that Intel will provide for Macs is the ability to run Windows apps. With WINE, the sales guy will finally be able to answer "yes!" to the question "will it run my windows apps?" No emulation, no Windows, interoperability with Mac apps, this could make Mac market share explode. If Apple takes advantage of this technology and works on it (gets rid of X11 in favor of Aqua, ties it in with the Finder and other OSX elements seamlessly, makes it run more Windows apps) then Macs could (conceivably) run windows apps better than windows! You may be running under a mock API, but over a more stable, more useable, and less virus prone OS.

God no. Only thing I'd run Windows for is games. Seriously, name me one thing that you'd use Windows for that isn't available for OS X now?

So THIS is why Apple is making the move to Intel. But I don't think that PPC is necessarily going away, Steve is just playing it that way to get developers moving. If you tell them that Apple is adding some Intel machines to the lineup but keeping the PPC going, then some companies just might choose not to support Intel. The last thing that Apple wants is a fragmentation of the software base. Steve wants to get as many apps universal as soon as possible, and the best way to do that is to tell developers that they have to.
--z

It's about Laptops and the future direction of chips. Intel is serious about their chips for Personal Computers. IBM seems not to care. 2 years, and still not up to 3 gigahertz. Heat issues. Etc. They plague IBM.

If Steve plays it right, it won't matter what CPU you have in your Mac. Intel, PPC, etc. It will just work. It will run. I'm looking forward to more choices, and further developments that OS X has coming....

 

[Scottgfx]

remingtonhill, unintentionally funny!

well, that's weird. i had about 5 kernel panics with Panther, none that required reinstallation....i think we've been over these topics many times.
for price debat please find an old thread.

Remingtonhill is a Troll. He claims in another thread to be an Apple employee.

Windows XP on a Pentium II? Now that's funny!

He's probably the same chap that subjects his mother to using an XP machine without a firewall or virus scanner. I would hate to find out what kind of grudge he holds.

Like I said in the topic "remingtonhill, unintentionally funny!"