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

[chatin]

I'm over being pissed. I'm into the acceptance phase. I don't like Intel but I dislike not getting faster processors more.

Me too! I don't want to turn Apple into a downward spiral, then a death roll!
Geez, the stock is already down 5 bucks since the big news started breaking.

I'll give the new stuff a try - already!
😀

 

[dontmatter]

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!

Yup, I agree with you. But that one is at least debatable-IBM could pull something out of their sleeve on the G5. But it isn't going into a laptop, and the G4 ain't gonnna cut it, so i argued that point. You could argue for a glimmer of hope in the G5, or that it isn't too bad yet, (which is true, but it soon will be).

 

[Mr Maui]

I just want to point out that ther are a lot of Newbies posting and that is FANTASTIC.

I think we're seeing more interest in the platform as a result of the Intel change, and it can only be good. So, for those of you who are new to the forums: welcome.

It's going to be a fun ride. Can't wait for a dual-core Pentium M based PowerBook. 🙂

I've noticed that quite a few of the newbie posts have come from Winderz peeps. Are they afraid that the GHz myth is now behind them and they have to stand on their OS now?? Uh oh!!! 😀

 

[nagromme]

You could argue for a glimmer of hope in the G5, or that it isn't too bad yet, (which is true, but it soon will be).

My feeling exactly. The G5 is a great chip family right now, and will get better. But it's not AS good as was promised. So the Intel move is about future chips vs. future chips, and sadly, while IBM is slowing their progress, Intel's accelerating. Apple doesn't know the future of the two architectures for certain. Nobody can. But IBM is just a very bad bet in the coming years.

Whereas even if Intel surprises them and doesn't move forward--and even if AMD has nothing better to offer--everyone else will be in the same boat along with Apple. So the damage is limited.

Some software is irreplaceable (such as StatView).

As you probably know, StatView's maker replaced the app with a newer app, JMP. If it's missing something you need from StatView, you might find it useful to request those features be added:
http://www.statview.com/product/compare.shtml

That makes more sense to me than blaming Apple because StatView was discontinued in favor of a newer product.

JMP is OS X-native, has a free trial, and costs less than a new iMac. You might inquire about an upgrade price from StatView, along with making sure they plan universal binaries.

 

[Mr Maui]

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.

Perhaps i've missed something here, and if so I apologize in advance, but why would anyone need to run software from 7-8 years ago (68K apps) on today's computers? What titles from "Jobs Second Return" could anybody feel is so important that they need to be running it today? 😕 Can you provide some examples. OS9 has been gone for 4-5 years so why should Classic continue to be supported still? If there is an argument for that, why not support OS8, OS7 and OS6 too. Some people may feel more comfortable using those. Where do you draw the line on "backwards compatibility"? Software shoudl be upgraded with a new system and new computers as opposed to trying to use old versions on new computers. JMO

 

[~Shard~]

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.

I agree. As Job himself said, this was a "just in case" scenario, but all my point was that events didn't just happen which made Jobs wake up one day and say "Hey, we gotta move to Intel!" He was prepared for it, he had it in the back of his mind, and as you say, he was hedging his bets. My point was that it's not like he didn't see this coming or was ill-prepared.

 

[Mr Maui]

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.

Apple only admitted that IBM cannot produce chips to work for them (i.e. 3 GHz+ G5s, Cooler G5s for portables, etc. They never said they failed in their use of the chips. IBM failed, not Apple. If IBM had kept their promises to Apple, Steve Jobs would be with PowerPC today and into the future. IBM has other focuses.

As for the doubling of the processor ... benchmarks have show that the Dual G5s beat Dual Xeons in most areas (outside of gaming frame rates), and the Mac was NOT designed for gamers.

 

[Mr Maui]

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!

I agree with most of your thoughts in posts nagromme, however I have to disagree slightly here. IBM has the ABILITY to meet their goals (and Apple's) for the destops and laptops, but they lack the DESIRE and INTEREST. The money is in the gamebox market, and that requires little research and development investment above and beyond where they are today. They are going for the big bucks in with little bucks out.

 

[nagromme]

I agree. That's probably the reason. We'll never know for sure what more money into R&D could have done to get to 3GHz faster, but it does seem likely. (Then again, if IBM makes as little from G5s as has been suggested, then maybe it's matter of cost feasibility: they COULD be at 3 GHz, but only by losing money.)

 

[javiercr]

At the risk of sending this thread spiralling downwards into the same depths the last one reached:

Intel != viruses and spyware

Windows is plagued by these problems due to the design of the operating system, not because of the processor.

(There have recently been reports of vulnerabilities in the hyperthreading feature of Pentium 4s, but that's a different topic than the one raised by cgratti)

Question: how many known viruses and spyware applications exist for the linux operating system? Follow-up: Which architecture do the majority of linux installations run on?

Answers: 1) None, and 2) Intel x86.

The problem is that is not that easy to know if there are no virii for macs and linux because the OSes are more secure of because nobody is writing the virii!
If you make a virus you want it to spread and do damage (to companies and stuff) if you want it to spread you have to make it for windows because of their market. Macs and Linux will be relatively free from virii as long and their marketshare is modest.

 

[fawlty]

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?

Because the OSX transition could never have happened without Classic.

 

[nagromme]

Macs ARE a target

The problem is that is not that easy to know if there are no virii for macs and linux because the OSes are more secure of because nobody is writing the virii!

I used to believe that myself 🙂

But actually, it's easy to know that OS X's design is more secure--many experts have written about the details of that over the past year or so. Having a smaller number of targets is nice too, but it's not the root of OS X security by any means.

And it's almost as easy to know that people ARE trying to make Mac OS X viruses:

OS X has been around for years. Crackers (of a certain type) have sought challenges and prestige for years. Macs have been worth extra points in cracking contests for years. Some Linux fans hate Apple, not just Microsoft, and Windows users OFTEN hate Apple. And some high-profile targets like universities, media companies, and the US Army use Mac OS X.

And there are a LOT of unethical programmers in the world... some with a desire to do more than be a "script kiddie." Some with good UNIX skills. Some with easy access to a Mac they can learn on.

So I am CERTAIN that at least SOME people have been trying to make OS X viruses for quite some time. They've never managed it yet, but they WILL.

Then we'll have one virus instead of zero... I'll still feel safer 🙂

What makes Macs more secure by design?

The short answer is that Macs are more secure because they are based on UNIX (BSD specifically), which has many flavors but none of them are as full of holes as Windows--even though many of them are widely-used and present high-profile, tempting commercial and government targets for hackers.

Links to some specifics:

Windows insecure design:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34978-2003Aug23.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3492922.stm

http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/rupertgoodwins/0,39020691,39160533,00.htm

http://www.csoonline.com/read/080103/patch.html

http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2005/052305schwartau.html

http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20040916.html

http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/report-200504.html

Mac OS X secure design:

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=335882&rl=1

http://www.baltimoresun.com/technology/custom/pluggedin/bal-mac082803,0,1353478.column

http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20031023.html

http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,63805,00.html

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/maney/2004-09-21-maney_x.htm

There has never been a virus or worm for OS X, even though OS X has been out for 5 years now, and is based on both BSD and OpenStep, which pre-existed. Now... OS X, and other UNIXes, DO have flaws--and one day something will be exploited on OS X. There WILL be attacks, worms, maybe even viruses. But never in the numbers that plague Windows. Nothing can compare to the bugginess and overcomplexity of Windows code. And OS X is based on the open source Darwin variant of BSD--which makes security fixes developed by others easily applicable by Apple. The lack of Windows legacy bloat/complexity also makes it easier for Apple to fix things--and less likely that those fixes will cause other problems.

 

[TheMdude]

Ok, I hate Intel just as much as the next guy. They have shady marketing practices, and they slap processors together just to get the numbers on the box faster. But...both IBM and Freescale have failed to deliver what Apple needs to survive.

OSX is beautiful, safe, and intuitive. The machines are well designed and high quality. The Apple Stores are great. But Apples more affordable computers are just not fast enough to impress the masses.

I wish Apple could have continued using IBM procs. The G5 was amazing and is still incredibly fast and efficient. However, Apple desperately needs a new laptop processor, and neither IBM nor freescale is offering it. I think Microsoft has caused IBM to put Apple on the back burner at a very critical time. The XBOX will sell alot more procs than Apple will, but Apple really needs to speed up their machines now.

So, I guess I am sad that this change must occur, but I'm glad Apple is going to be using a processor that can keep up....But....if I see one damn Pentium 4 sticker on one of those beautiful aluminum cases, someone will die!

 

[nagromme]

Ok, I hate Intel just as much as the next guy. They have shady marketing practices, and they slap processors together just to get the numbers on the box faster.

Agreed. But it sounds like the Pentium M series (newer than P4) is a big improvement, tossing out a lot of "the bad" and offering lower clock rates yet higher performance (and less power usage/heat). Here's hoping!

Ok, I hate Intel just as much as the next guy. They if I see one damn Pentium 4 sticker on one of those beautiful aluminum cases, someone will die!

😀

Luckily, the intended chips for Macs aren't the old Pentium 4 series, but rather the Pentium M and its descendants. And they STILL better not have stickers 🙂

 

[skythefly13]

What does it mean for....

What does the whole AltiVec (Velocity Engine) Thing mean for my new Powerbook G4 ? What are the ups and downs of it? Thanks!

 

[rdowns]

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

Get over it. Apple is going Intel. Maybe you should try one of those inane online petitions.

 

[jamesnajera]

Agreed. But it sounds like the Pentium M series (newer than P4) is a big improvement, tossing out a lot of "the bad" and offering lower clock rates yet higher performance (and less power usage/heat). Here's hoping!

You do realize that the Pentium M is just a Pentium III with some added features. So the Pentium III/M could easily hit its speed limit soon (currently it is at 2.5Ghz, Yonah should get to 3Ghz and 64bit, ... Steve dont make any promises), the bottom line is if you were to compare a pentium III to a Pentium 4 and they were the EXACT same speed, the pentium III would beat the P4 in all test, because the pentium III does more IPCs than the P4. This is why AMD was doing so much better than intel the last couple years. Also I bet you the speed limits AMD hits will be about the same speed limits the intel PM will hit, and currently AMD is at 2.6 Ghz (1Ghz bus) with its San Diego core.

I guess it will be a multi-core world unless intel has something new up their sleaves.

 

[Rod Rod]

Simply we're talking about corporate greed. Do we really need faster computers? Yes because that's what they tell us.

Speak for yourself. You have evidently never done anything with video. A dual 2.7GHz Power Mac G5 isn't fast enough for the work many of us do. As for your credibility, I see that your reputation precedes you.

I wonder if this is the right way to increase the number of Mac OS X users. People who always wanted to have a Mac because of its design, but haven't bought one because their applications don't work on OS X will probably get a MacIntel now, wipe out Mac OS X and run Windows on it. I wonder if Microsoft will support One-button mice in future versions of Windows *g*

Anyone who does what you suggest deserves what they get. I highly doubt more than three people (who are not magazine / web journalists) will wipe an x86 Mac and install XP or Longhorn.

No one is writing Virus/spyware/malware for Macs.
<snip>
No one bothers to pick on Macs because... what's there to pick on? 3% of the computers out there, if that? Where's the fun?

The first person or group to successfully infect Macs would gain prestige in the hacker/crackerjacker community. That's where the fun would be. I don't want it to happen and I'm confident that it cannot happen, but if it does it will be "fun" for the perpetrators. edit: nagromme made the prestige point.

(And I agree: illegal/hacked OS X = geek toy. And temptation to consider the real thing. The Gateway drug?)

Nice pun! 🙂

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.

I'm not with you on this one. It's not surprising to find that there are people resistant to change. The same thing happened when OS 9 was phased out.

What does the whole AltiVec (Velocity Engine) Thing mean for my new Powerbook G4 ? What are the ups and downs of it? Thanks!

Read the earlier posts in this very thread for succinct answers. Thanks!

 

[slooksterPSV]

😱 😱 😱
IN THE KEYNOTE HE'S USING AN INTEL MACHINE TO DO THE KEYNOTE
😱 😱 😱

So is that Marklar he was running?

 

[jauh]

SSEn/AltiVec War

... to put the end to this AltiVec/SSE debate maybe someone (with more time than me) should just get the processor manuals and compare what each set of instructions can do (capability) and how man clock cycles each instruction takes (performance) (because you're working in clock cycles, we don't care about Hz for the comparison) and post the results... Oh, and maybe workout the performance of something like a 4x4 matrix multiplication in assembly and tell us the results as well... Oh, and...

 

[iMeowbot]

😱 😱 😱
IN THE KEYNOTE HE'S USING AN INTEL MACHINE TO DO THE KEYNOTE
😱 😱 😱

Yeah, we heard 😀

So is that Marklar he was running?

Yep!

 

[caccamolle]

The correct term is widgets.


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

caccamolle:
Sorry, meant 10.3.x, the x was the "something"

Shard:
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”.

caccamolle:
I was only expressing my opinion: spotlight, dashboard, Mail 2.0 are of little significance to my personal computing experience. Safari for me is the same as before (RSS I don't know/use) and iChat AV I guess you refer to its video conf. feature I have not used yet.

Shard:
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.

caccamolle:
Well, I am w/o a doubt an Apple fan and looked forward to the upgrade, expecting primarily performance improvements (that is to me of substance), all the rest, to me me me, is cosmetics, in general I usually call that bs. So of course I got it, installed it on another drive to check it out. Result: it sux in my opionion, so, I am also running Panther and lets see what happens with Leopard.

Shard:
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?

caccamolle:
yep, exactly. He did not want to, stubborn Steve, but he realized he might be in a position where he had to (way too late) so eventually as you correctly state had been hedging himself since 10.0

Shard:
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?

caccamolle:
My answers mostly above - sorry a bit messy.

This is terrible (referring to your last comment), you misunderstood the heart of my post (or I simply misrepresented): I think this is great news ! I mean the switch to Intel. If you read carefully I actually do say that that is dam good news ! So I guess here there was a misunderstanding.

 

[caccamolle]

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.

absolutely, I don't disagree with a thing you say. It was indeed my choice and my choice only to do the upgrade. I am glad a did it, I just believe it is worthless to me. And I am happier with Panther (in my particular case I just wish I could go back to 10.3.8 or .7). So, I don't really care. I just mentioned Tiger as an example.

Dude, are you trying to make me feel old ? I am sure I am. relative to the average age around here. In fact I don't post that often 🙂

 

[nagromme]

What does the whole AltiVec (Velocity Engine) Thing mean for my new Powerbook G4 ? What are the ups and downs of it? Thanks!

For you and me: No downs, and the ups are the same as always: AltiVec helps your PBG4 run some things faster than otherwise. Even after you install Leopard 🙂 Future software will support your machine, even after the Intel transition, using universal binaries. And they'll run at full speed because they're PPC-native just like your current apps. (And they'll be Intel-native too: "universal.")

For developers making universal apps for future Intel Macs, there IS a down: they must port code. But they'll sell to a bigger audience, too.

And for early adopters of the new Intel Macs, there might be an occasional down: if they depend on an app that a) REQUIRES AltiVec (many support it, few require it) and ALSO b) is NOT updated between now and then to be a universal binary (which most important apps will be) then and only then do you face the downside that Rosetta won't run your old app. It's something for people to decide when they are shopping for Intel Macs in 2006-2007, and by then the issue will be nearly gone anyway.

You do realize that the Pentium M is just a Pentium III with some added features.

Thanks for the info on the heritage of my next Mac 🙂

But I was under the impression that Intel also REMOVED a lot of legacy stuff from the Pentium M. Making it the newest architecture with the least downsides of any x86 line--and the basis for future chips in both desktops and laptops.

Any more info on this? I certainly have no great first-hand knowledge of Intel roadmaps 🙂

 

[Sean7512]

Future PBs...

I am starting college this fall, and I was planning on getting a nice 15 inch G4 PB, but now I am thinking that maybe I should wait. It seems as though the PB will be the first computers to receive the new Intel chips, so I'd only be waiting a year, which isn't that far off. I plan on majoring in Computer Information Science, but that is mostly a Windows major; however, I am minoring in Graphic Design/Multimedia so a nice PB would be nice for that. I do own a eMac, which could get me through a year. What do you guys think? G4 PB or wait for the Pentium M PB? I am officially stumped 😕