Apple's Intel Move... Early Details and Notes

[Jon the Heretic]

About the Software

Why do you have such a close mind about a piece of hardware ? it doesn't change the fact that it's still MAC OS X install on the machine. Apple was never about harware, it's about SOFTWARE.

Funny you should say this given the elitist attitudes of many folks around here regarding backwards compatibility. There is a whole lot of software I can't run under Classic on a PPC Mac (and not all of it "touches the hardware")...but with an Intel Mac, Classic will go bye bye completely and we'll lose several generations of backwards compatibility in one fell swoop.

The technical reasons for this are pretty weak (most 68K apps run better under Basilisk II on an XP box than under Classic). Apple has been marginalizing Classic for years, making users go through ridiculous hoops to run Mac software that predates Jobs Second Return.

In Apple's view, I think it is about "New Software". Too bad Basilisk II will never run Classic PPC binaries---I could just buy a cheap PC to run my 68K and PPC Mac software and tell Apple to go pound sand.

 

[jamesnajera]

I noticed some comments from worried people. People do not want to have Apple release an open OSX which would run on all PCs. They think it will make people stop buying Apple products and then Apple will not make as much money. I see your point, but I do want to tell you that I am a switcher. I used to and still love my PCs at home. They have there use, video rendering, video editing, games, ... But the whole reason why I switched to a MAC was not becuase of OSX. I switched because I like the clean look and features of the hardware that the mac came with. I liked the fact that the powerbook was aluminum (I am tired of all technology always being plastic), I liked that it had bluetooth, firewire 400/800, 1000 NIC, wireless G, ... The thing is people like me do exist out there, and they will buy it just because it looks better and has all the newest hardware, then they will learn like me that OSX is a better OS and just be that much more happier about there purchase. I also think Apple's prices will be able to go down, do you know why Dell sells there PCs so cheep? Intel sells Dell the cpus at a dirt cheep price because Dell remains to only sell intel (Its why AMD has been trying to sue Intel, AMD believes it is unethical and that it forces the customer to less options). I am sure Apple will be able to buy the cpus from Intel for a dirt cheep price too. Sure maybe a Mac will be a little more than a PC but I betting the range is going to be almost even or only $50 price difference, I mean look at the price of the mac mini. So yeah maybe Apple will release a open OSX, and maybe people will buy or build cheep PCs and install the open OSX on it, but there will also be those people who are going to want a quiet, clean looking, ... computer that looks nicea and has all the newest hardware features out of one box. Those same people will also know there will be know way for them to duplicate what Apple hardware will be selling.

I state this because I think it is a different point of view for people to see, and also because I truly believe that OSX will get hacked, and warezed out for PCs. Why should Apple loose out on money they could be making if they would just release a open OSX?

Thats my 2cents, late

 

[Symtex]

Everybody should stop purchasing Apple products for as long as they can. Cancel orders for undelivered products. Tell third party developers that you will not purchase products that are made to run on Intel. Only software that will run on your existing PPC hardware. Vote NO in the only way you can, with your pocketbook. Make sure that you tell all of your software vendors that you will not purchase any Mac that runs on Intel processors. I'm making a list of the software developers of my software & will notify each of them of my plans. I will also mention that I am doing my best to have others do the same.

Bill the Unhappy TaxMan

You Sir, you are a poor apple fanboy that I pitty. The switch to X86 is the best move Steve Job has ever done.

 

[nagromme]

Everybody should stop purchasing Apple products for as long as they can. Cancel orders for undelivered products. Tell third party developers that you will not purchase products that are made to run on Intel. Only software that will run on your existing PPC hardware.

And your goal would be what, then?

Make Apple go back to IBM, settle for slower chips, massively heavy and hot laptops, and ultimately be unable to keep up? Somehow I don't think a boycott will win Apple over to your vision 😉

And what software, exactly, will NOT run on PPC hardware? A universal binary runs on both.

Why should Apple loose out on money they could be making if they would just release a open OSX?

Because it could kill OS X:

* OS X would then be more complex, to support an infinitely complex array of unpredictable hardware

* OS X would then be buggier and less stable

* OS X would then have fewer features, because developing them would take longer and cost more

* OS X would no longer be able to be developed integrated with the hardware as a single system

* OS X would become incredibly expensive to provide tech support for

* OS X developers would face the same problems, and some will give up on the Mac--if they want those problems, they'll sell to the larger Windows market

 

[caccamolle]

about time Apple admits to the failure of the G processors !!!!

I just cannot believe this is true. Apple admits failure !!!
And I am relieved, so relieved because by doing so Apple's survival is a bit more certain beyond the iPod and music shopping.

And finally, in a little time, hopefully, I won't have to hear again and again these pathetic attempts by mac enthousiasiasts to show that IF really you look at things this way and this other way, from this other angle and this trajectory, the Mac is not really slower than a intel based machine !!!!!!! **bs**

I mean, Apple had to double the amount of processor to even attempt to get comparable speeds, come on dudes, it is so damn obvious. And still failed in the majority of applications because it could not make all apps MP aware.

The Mac will finally get speedy.period. Well just a bit of patience now, may be a couple of years.

 

[iMeowbot]

So. How long will it be before Apple get into the chipset and motherboard business for other PC makers?

 

[MAC-411]

Jobs' decision to move to Intel is about survival!

Intel is just a chip. Why do you care so much about the switch. Apples is great becuase of OSX and thier hardware development not becuase of PPC.

Over the last few days I read 100s of post bashing jobs for moving to Intel. Most say his choice has to do with greed, or that he has sold out. I say you are all wrong.

Jobs’ decision to move to Intel is about the company’s survival. If Apple continued to use the PPC chip they would likely go out of the computer business altogether. Why is this? The average prices of a CPU is slipping; most analyst agree that before long computers will become a mass market commodity What dose this mean, computer are already a commodity, this is true, however they are still priced well outside of the mass-market index. A Mass-market commodity is product that is priced within the average consumers weekly disposable income, for example Sony's walkman.
Analyst predict that computers will reach this level within the next 7 to 10 years.
IBM cannot produce a chip cheap enough that will allow Apple to meet the mas-market price index because they do not have the sales volume of Intel or AMD. Even with the combined demand form Apple and the gaming industry they still don’t come close to intel or AMD.

Secondly it’s an issue of standardization, over the last 5 years Apple as become very aware of the importance of standardization. The more compatible “standardize” their hardware has become, the more successful they have been at moving computers; case-in-point, 40% growth in their computer business.

Lastly, the move to Intel will help Apple win the next big OS/hardware battle –the living room.

Jobs’ decision to move to Intel is about the company’s survival

Everybody should stop purchasing Apple products for as long as they can. Cancel orders for undelivered products. Tell third party developers that you will not purchase products that are made to run on Intel. Only software that will run on your existing PPC hardware. Vote NO in the only way you can, with your pocketbook. Make sure that you tell all of your software vendors that you will not purchase any Mac that runs on Intel processors. I'm making a list of the software developers of my software & will notify each of them of my plans. I will also mention that I am doing my best to have others do the same.

Bill the Unhappy TaxMan

 

[MontyZ]

Everybody should stop purchasing Apple products for as long as they can. Cancel orders for undelivered products. Tell third party developers that you will not purchase products that are made to run on Intel. Only software that will run on your existing PPC hardware. Vote NO in the only way you can, with your pocketbook. Make sure that you tell all of your software vendors that you will not purchase any Mac that runs on Intel processors. I'm making a list of the software developers of my software & will notify each of them of my plans. I will also mention that I am doing my best to have others do the same.

Haven't you posted this exact same post in other threads multiple times already?

You'll be the only person doing this, so, good luck with your new Dell, hope that works out for ya. Bye!

 

[nagromme]

I just cannot believe this is true. Apple admits failure !!!

Yes, Apple admits IBM failed 🙄

PowerPC Macs are great now--and they don't cost more unless you intentionally ignore some of their features so you can price out a stripped-down PC for comparison.

But they won't stack up in future. So a transition is needed.

During this transition, Macs will remain an excellent product, running the best OS on the planet 🙂

 

[wildmac]

what will they call them?...

With the "G" series dead, what will they call this new hardware?....

Pentris 2300, 4300, .....
Peudra 4500, 5500, .....

A major new naming convention, especially for the towers, is in order. ( mini, iBook, iMac, and Powerbook will likely stay the same, but will get a tag added that's probably unrelated to the processor. Don't want to make that mistake again...)

New names, new sheetmetal, new CPU... times are going to be interesting...

 

[Jon the Heretic]

Charging money for Macs instead of giving them away doesn't benefit users either--except that some things cost money and need to be paid for.

What a weird analogy. It doesn't make any sense.

I am sure most users stopped demanding Classic long ago. It has been 6 years. If you need some Classic apps, you can keep your "old" Mac and run them. It's not like they are taken away from you. Especially since Macs able to run Classic will be sold right into 2006 or 2007!

Quite an assumption. I imagine this is true only of elites who can afford new software, steal all of their software, or run very little new software (primarily bundled software). Frankly, I talked my folks out of returning their iMac G5 because of the poor usability of how Apple has built backwards compatibility in. If they had no migration path for older software, I think they'd just spend their money elsewhere.

It is good for users. And bad too: it holds future products back and prevents them from improving. So Apple must find a balance between the two.

A 2006 Mac that won't run 1999 software unless you upgrade it is hardly asking a lot. Unless you don't want Macs to advance--in which case, you can keep the one you have.

Apple puts HUGE amounts of resources into backwards compatibility. That is what Rosetta is, obviously. There has to be a limit, and I think the millenium is a good cutoff 😉

It is bad for long time users. And no, it doesn't help anyone. When I can afford or find a new X application, I do. Forcing me to buy something I can't afford yet doesn't benefit me at all. Most users will want X versions for speed, stability and compatibility. Killing off my ability to run older software, especially irreplaceable software like Statview, harms me in terms of productivity and in terms of my pocketbook. Less money in my pocket means less money for buying Macs, which harms Apple.

The millenium is not a good place for a "cut off". It is a meaningless and arbitrary place and would put us decades behind Microsoft in terms of backwards compatibility. As to Apple's efforts with backwards compatibility, I have seen freeware apps do better created by guys in their spare time. I am not impressed. Problem is that there are no PPC emulators for Classic apps. Even Mac-On-Linux requires a PPC chip. Apple itself used MAE to run Sysem 7 on Sparcs. This would require very little work for a company Apple's size to support, or if not, at least OpenSource it. They won't however, just as they won't make running Classic on a new Mac easy. Steve has spoken...it is not about what is right for users.

I don't have enough shelfspace for yet another computer. Unless it runs my software, I won't bother with it.

 

[nagromme]

I imagine this is true only of elites who can afford new software, steal all of their software, or run very little new software (primarily bundled software).

So you're worried about people who CAN afford a new computer in 2006--AND who need to have one... but who cannot afford software newer than 1999?

And everyone else is an elite minority?

I'm sure you're in some painful situation that is not helped by Apple moving the Mac platform forward--but whatever that situation is, it really does sound like an unusual one. In fact, I've never heard it before. Some of my family is still running OS 9, and why should they have to go newer if it works for them and they don't want to spend the money? But then... they ALSO don't need a 2006 Intel Mac, so it hardly matters. Their old software isn't getting slower with the passage of time.

I could be wrong, and users in 2006 and beyond will be clamoring for Classic. In which case, expect third parties to make it happen.

Meantime, you'll have to run your 1990s apps on computers made prior to 2007. It doesn't sound too painful to me, but I sympathize with your plight if it's worse than I know.

 

[Jon the Heretic]

So you're worried about people who CAN afford a new computer in 2006... but who cannot afford software newer than 1999?

Some software is irreplaceable (such as StatView). Other software: the cost of a new system is much higher if you are forced to buy all new software.

And everyone else is an elite minority?

If someone can afford to plunk down for all new software and a new computer in one fell swoop, that's elite. There are whole businesses who can't afford to do that.

Besides, anyone who thinks they should give up all of their software and buy new stuff when the old stuff worked great, just because THAT person can afford to buy new is elitist. If the shoe fits my friend...

I'm sure you're in some painful situation that is not helped by Apple moving the Mac platform forward--but whatever that situation is, it really does sound like an unusual one.

Hmm, I don't like the direction of this. "I'm sure you're in some painful situation" sounds like fighting words.

Besides the negative overtones, I don't know why you think destroying compatibility with thousands of older programs keeps the Mac platform from moving forward. Does Classic do that now?

I could be wrong, and users in 2006 and beyond will be clamoring for Classic. In which case, expect third parties to make it happen.

Right...which is why there are so many successful Mac PPC emulators out there. In contrast, Mac 68K can be gotten for free. This isn't rocket science.

 

[dontmatter]

Exactly. Folks that are thinking OMG a Pentium4 in a Mac are basically wrong (sure it is in the transition system but that is just a developer tool). Intel has good stuff coming in 2006 and 2007 with very likely they will deliver against plan.

Indeed. And if we're lucky, apple will have used their large name and the win this is for intel, along with their small chip demand, to get intel to give apple their next generation of chips before they get ramped up enough for the other 95% of the market...

 

[caccamolle]

yes OSX is great, but did you check out Tiger, I mean , I mean ....I mean....what does Apple call them Midgets ? come on ? I wish they left it alone at 10.3.7 or something. Tiger was just another way to squeeze some money out of us Macs dudes "a la microsoft", exact same style. Vast disapppointment. Upgrade of no substance whatsoever.

Anyway, I won't go into IBM or Apple failures, but it is an Apple product I am purchasing and it is Apple's responsibility to ensure its supply lines are where they are. Jobs never wanted to go Intel as simple as that, now he's got no choice and he knew it all along, at some point he'd have to "kill the Mac" or go intel.

Life goes on - I still enjoy my Mac, as I have since the Apple IIe, but not as much.

 

[vaslav]

Universal Binary Programming

Straight from developer.apple.com (click here)

Universal Binary Programming Guidelines will assist experienced developers in building and modifying their Mac OS X applications to run as universal binaries. Universal binaries run natively on Macintosh computers using PowerPC or Intel® microprocessors and deliver optimal performance for both architectures in a single package.

I am not a developer and have not yet read the entire document, but this might provide some insight into the software end of developers porting Mac OSX apps to run on Intel based Macs.

One of the sections in this document is the following:

x86 Equivalent Instructions for AltiVec Instructions
This section is for developers who need to move code from the AltiVec instruction set architecture to the x86 vector instruction set architecture. It provides Intel intrinsic routines that are equivalent to their AltiVec counterparts.

Interesting stuff. I might have more thoughts after reading this document (well, at least reading what I understand not being a developer).

 

[dontmatter]

Taken from other thread

I'm going to repeat myself here in this new thread, b/c of relevance:

FOR ALL WHO ARE GETTING WOUND UP ABOUT THIS, EITHER WAY-

This was not a change Apple made because they wanted to, they did it because they had to. And yes, they had to.

They had to because 1)Apple plays to individuals, not buisnesses, 2) Individuals are more and more buying laptops, as the desktop market is becoming more and more buisness dependent, and 3) On PPC, there is no good laptop chip. The G4 is outdated, hot, and slow, the G5 won't make it into a laptop, it's just too much power and heat, and the PPC roadmap has nothing coming.

Therefore, to stay PPC, would be to give up the portable market, and essentially, apple's whole buisness. Couple that with dissapointing performance on even the G5 chips that are doing relatively well, and it's done: Apple had to move to intel. PPC would be suicide.

So, it happened. It's happening. Jobs didn't want to give up the argument he'd been devoleping in going with PPC, he didn't do it becuase he's a turncoat. It had to happen, or it woudl be the death of the OS, and that we all would prefer to preserve.

That said, here's my opinions:

*I, like a lot of you, think it's a dissapointment that apple can't stay PPC.

*Despite the rhetoric, apple is entering into a lame duck period, where people are thinking too much about what's coming to care about what's here. This is likewise unfortunate

*using x86, in it's suppliers, in it's relationship to windows applications, hackability, has a lot of potential for change, both for the better and for the worse. We don't know what will happen.

*With the pentium M, apple could do great thigns. If they negotiated in this deal something where they can still give surprises-apple could be the first out with a chip, or have a slightly different version, it would make it a lot less like joining the wintel monopoly.

 

[~Shard~]

yes OSX is great, but did you check out Tiger, I mean , I mean ....I mean....what does Apple call them Midgets ?

The correct term is widgets.

I wish they left it alone at 10.3.7 or something.

What exactly would that something be? And why would you not want Apple to constantly improve their OS?

Tiger was just another way to squeeze some money out of us Macs dudes "a la microsoft", exact same style. Vast disapppointment. Upgrade of no substance whatsoever.

I’m sorry you feel that way, you obviously haven’t had a good Tiger experience which is unfortunate - there are many others out there as well, so don't feel alone! However I would hardly call Spotlight, Dashboard, iChat AV, Mail 2.0 Safari RSS and Automator features with “no substance”.

And how exactly is Apple squeezing money out of you? Are they forcing you at gunpoint to buy Tiger? Are they removing all support for all previous version of OS X so people are forced to run Tiger? I’m running Panther just fine and will probably just end up waiting for Leopard myself – I definitely don’t feel forced to buy Tiger.

Jobs never wanted to go Intel as simple as that, now he's got no choice and he knew it all along, at some point he'd have to "kill the Mac" or go intel.

If Jobs never wanted to go to Intel, how come every single release of OS X, from 10.0 to 10.4 was compiled on Intel chips, dating back 5 years ago?

Life goes on - I still enjoy my Mac, as I have since the Apple IIe, but not as much.

Why not as much? How has your Mac changed? And why does a shift in microprocessor cause you less enjoyment? You owned an Apple //e, so did you feel the same way when Apple moved from the 68K to the PPC?

 

[Frobozz]

Everybody should stop purchasing Apple products for as long as they can. Cancel orders for undelivered products. Tell third party developers that you will not purchase products that are made to run on Intel. Only software that will run on your existing PPC hardware. Vote NO in the only way you can, with your pocketbook. Make sure that you tell all of your software vendors that you will not purchase any Mac that runs on Intel processors. I'm making a list of the software developers of my software & will notify each of them of my plans. I will also mention that I am doing my best to have others do the same.

Bill the Unhappy TaxMan

Are you serious? Yikes.

The mac will externally be the same. The internals will just have modern Apple designed hardware around an Intel chip. What's the big deal? The G5 will never go into a Powerbook? Smell the roses yet?

As long as it runs and looks like a Mac with Mac OS X I don't care. I'm over being pissed. I'm into the acceptance phase. I don't like Intel but I dislike not getting faster processors more.

Here's the bottom line, if you are to believe Apple: for the next year to year and a half, the G5 will be a fine top of the line processor. The G4 will give way to the P4-M because the G4 isn't getting any faster. In time, the P4-M derived dual core chips will move into all Desktops. In this time there will not be further PowerPC development. Do you prefer Apple to go out of business than to just suck it up and make the move before they're hemmoraging?

 

[jamesnajera]

Because it could kill OS X:

* OS X would then be more complex, to support an infinitely complex array of unpredictable hardware

* OS X would then be buggier and less stable

* OS X would then have fewer features, because developing them would take longer and cost more

* OS X would no longer be able to be developed integrated with the hardware as a single system

* OS X would become incredibly expensive to provide tech support for

* OS X developers would face the same problems, and some will give up on the Mac--if they want those problems, they'll sell to the larger Windows market

I have to disagree with you, all Apple has to do is use a kernal that supports more devices. Sure maybe OSX would recomend this bluetooth chip over this other, or this usb company over thE other, but Apple is already supporting different HDDs, CDroms/DVDs, video cards (which the manufacturers will provide there own drivers for OSX), etc. OSX is unix, unix already supports lots of devices.

 

[nagromme]

Besides, anyone who thinks they should give up all of their software and buy new stuff when the old stuff worked great, just because THAT person can afford to buy new is elitist. If the shoe fits my friend...

FWIW, I'm not attacking you for your needs, but defending Apple in moving on from Classic. You feel that it's an obviously terrible thing Apple will be doing, and I disagree.

My newest Mac is going on 2 years old, and Intel or no, was going to serve until at least 2006. I still use a PowerBook G3 from 1998 as well. And I didn't give up my last Classic app until last year. I still game in Classic.

But again, if you can't afford newer apps than 1999, why not keep using the old ones just as you already are? I have no problem with that. What puzzles me is the demand to use those apps on 2006 hardware that doesn't even exist yet. You already have hardware that does what you are asking.

And if it's all about StatView, I feel the pain of needing a certain app that has been discontinued. Being forced to waste shelf space on two computers because StatView never advanced is indeed an inconvenience. But that's not Apple's fault.

I wouldn't object to Apple supporting Classic as long it takes no time/money away from other projects--but it would.

http://apple.com/feedback may be the most useful place to put your case forward, though. If enough users feel as you do, Apple will put the time and money into making Classic run on Intel. I don't expect it will happen, but explaining your case is your best hope.

 

[dontmatter]

yes OSX is great, but did you check out Tiger, I mean , I mean ....I mean....what does Apple call them Midgets ? come on ? I wish they left it alone at 10.3.7 or something. Tiger was just another way to squeeze some money out of us Macs dudes "a la microsoft", exact same style. Vast disapppointment. Upgrade of no substance whatsoever.

Life goes on - I still enjoy my Mac, as I have since the Apple IIe, but not as much.

LOL. You've been using a mac longer than I've been alive... (I think).

yeah, tiger wasn't a big upgrade. But nobody's forcing you to buy it. Sure, they don't extend new stuff back to jaguar, but I'm running panther, and it's great. For those who feel things are moving in the wrong direction, if you don't like it, don't buy it. I might get panther in a bit, automator is something I could really use. Or I'll get leopard as soon as it comes out.

I don't feel you made an unreasonable post, caccamolle, I just want to express this for the masses. I work in retail, and it is absoutely astounding the number of people complain that they should be able to get this, with these features, at this price. "I was online and cheapcrap.com had something like this but included this and this, why shouldn't I get that?" and challenge me to justify my store. Well, the answer is, go ahead, get that if you like, or get this. Here you get knowledgeable sales people, an excellent return policy, and a quality item at this price. If you don't like the price, you can get crap for cheaper.

Now, this isn't what you were going at, I admit. But it's the same idea-if you don't like what's made, or the price it's at, don't buy it. You are not, however, entitled to anything here. The buisness makes an offer, you either accept or reject it, and so long as nobody renigs on their offer, end of story.

 

[vaslav]

More from the Universal Binary Programming Document

Multithreading is a technique used to improve performance and enhance the perceived responsiveness of applications. On computers with one processor, this technique can allow a program to execute multiple pieces of code independently. On computers with more than one processor, multithreading can allow a program to execute multiple pieces of code simultaneously.

Intel processors support multiprocessor systems similar to the G5. The Intel architecture also supports hardware multithreading within a single processor package to execute two or more separate threads of execution simultaneously.

If your application is single-threaded, consider threading your application to take advantage of hardware multithreading processor capabilities. If your application is multithreaded, you’ll want to ensure that the number of threads is not hard coded to a fixed number of processors.

Hyper-Threading Technology (HT Technology) is the Intel implementation of a technique referred to as simultaneous multithreading (SMT). Processors that are enabled for HT Technology duplicate the architectural state to support two logical processors while sharing execution resources within a single processor core. Dual core technology further improves performance by providing two physical cores within a single physical processor package.

Multiprocessor, Hyper-Threading, and dual core technology all exploit thread-level parallelism (TLP) to improve application and system responsiveness and to boost processor throughput.

When you prepare code to run as a universal binary, the multithreading capabilities of the microprocessor are transparent to you. This is true whether your application is threaded or not. However, you can optimize your code to take advantage of the specific way hardware multithreading is implemented for EACH architecture. For a Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor, refer to the Intel processor manuals and optimization guides for the targeted processor.

 

[nagromme]

Therefore, to stay PPC, would be to give up the portable market,

AND the desktop market too:

* 3 GHz? Two years late and STILL no sign.

* Dual-core G5s? Still not here.

* Power5/G6s? Not a peep.

Now, some of those things will happen in the next two years, and some great Macs will result. The last of a great line. But IBM has already begun to show inability to meet their goals even for desktop PowerPCs. AND laptops too, for sure!

 

[dontmatter]

If Jobs never wanted to go to Intel, how come every single release of OS X, from 10.0 to 10.4 was compiled on Intel chips, dating back 5 years ago?

How 'bout, if jobs did in fact want to go to intel, then why, when he had a release of every OS made for intel, did he stick with PPC?

I think the answer to your question is that apple was simply hedging it's bets. If PPC devolepment failed, apple didn't have to go under with it. Until then, they were going to hold to their guns and go PPC.

Guess what? PPC devolepment has failed. Well, maybe it hasn't failed yet, but it's already playing catch-up, and it is clear that it is on the brink of failure.

Apple doesn't want to go down with it.

Simple story.