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

[powerbook911]

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 😕

Although we do not know how bad the change will hurt resale of PPC, you could buy the G4 Powerbook, with your student discount, and then sale it, when the Intel comes out. You'd lose a few hundred, but it might be worth it to you.

I might actually sell my current Pbook and get the next PPC Pbook, and then sell that one, when the Intels come out. Also, Apple has been emailing $100 discounts on top of the education to educational individuals lately, and in August/September they often have a $200 rebate, if you get an iPod, with your notebook.

 

[Jon the Heretic]

JMP sucks

As you probably know, StatView's maker replaced the app with a newer app, JMP.

...
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.

JMP has been around for a long time. SAS bought the vastly superior StatView and put it to death, repositioning their own product, JMP. SPSS sucks too, but I'd use it over JMP.

In a word, JMP sucks. StatView was (is) awesome. Its ease of use is beyond comparison. JMP in contrast has an awful, clunky interface. It is also expensive and has few extra features that I value, and has an inferior interface.

StatView works great under XP and Classic. Other programs that purport to do the same do -- in the same sense Windows and the Mac are just the same.

Good stat programs are expensive and there is rarely a need to buy new version unless you have a company that does it for you. Emulation is a great and cheap solution to this... I wish Apple cared even a little bit as much as Microsoft does about backwards compatibility.

 

[nagromme]

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 😕

My advice to computer buyers is ALWAYS to WAIT until you NEED something. Computers always get faster and cheaper and better--that's the same advice I gave B.I. (Before Intel).

Since you already have an eMac, if you can squeak by on that plus school PCs for a semester or two, you could come out WAY ahead for the needs you describe, getting the next-gen laptop.

But if you DO need a laptop now, then go for it. My PB's going on 2 years old, and I love it 🙂 Thin, light, and I'd hardly call it slow despite its age.

 

[GregA]

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 😕

There'll always be a better computer real soon. That said, Macs in particular have 'sweet spots' of price/performance, when it's good to buy them. It's why there are web pages on whether it's good to wait or not. Most people say go for the revision 2 of any product, which is probably a good plan in general.

At the moment, I think the Powerbooks are a little old. I'm GUESSING there will be a release of a Mac-Intel Powerbook early next year, around 9 months from now. It will be faster and cheaper than the current Powerbook but you will have some minor App problems with the switch. Eventually MS will release Virtual PC and you'll have a very fast Windows mode, but not at first.

Unfortunately there is no answer. For my mother... she's going to buy a Powerbook early next year, Intel (IF it exists) - until then I'll squeeze some life out of her Dell.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

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 😕

How much software do you have?

If you have a lot that you use often, especially if there's some older pre-X software you need that isn't being supported anymore, then I'd suggest buying a PowerPC Mac while you can. That should keep you going until you get out of college.

If you mostly use current software, then you shouldn't have much trouble moving to Intel, so you might want to just consider PowerPC and Intel as equivalent. Or, rather, make the decision as if you knew there were a fast Mac laptop coming out in a year, and ignore the CPU.

(An Intel laptop would be handy, though, if you picked up VMWare or VirtualPC so you could run Windows apps when necessary, for school.)

 

[840quadra]

IMHO
If you need classic support, goto ebay and buy a B&W G3 for ~$50 with OS 9 installed. You can then VNC or otherwise onto that box to get your classic fix.

Granted G4's can also boot into classic, but the price will be higher 🙂

 

[mac15]

I'll be glad to see Classic die, its been long enough. By now developer should have ported their apps.

 

[Sean7512]

How much software do you have?

If you have a lot that you use often, especially if there's some older pre-X software you need that isn't being supported anymore, then I'd suggest buying a PowerPC Mac while you can. That should keep you going until you get out of college.

If you mostly use current software, then you shouldn't have much trouble moving to Intel, so you might want to just consider PowerPC and Intel as equivalent. Or, rather, make the decision as if you knew there were a fast Mac laptop coming out in a year, and ignore the CPU.

(An Intel laptop would be handy, though, if you picked up VMWare or VirtualPC so you could run Windows apps when necessary, for school.)

The software that I've been using in my multimedia high school class has been Adobe Photoshop CS, Final Cut Express, Soundtrack, Macromedia Studio MX, Office, and iDVD. I also have quite a few games that I play very often (Halo and all 3 Medal of Honor games are the main ones.) That is my current situation, I'm thinking of waiting as most have suggested just because the G4 PBs are a tad outdated.

 

[~Shard~]

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.

Actually, after reading your post again I caught that, so my apologies - I think I did misinterpret your post, but regardless, I think some good discussion came out of it from both of us. Thanks for providing feedback to each of my inquiries and points, I appreciate it. And no, I never meant to imply you didn't think the switch was a bad thing. 🙂 😎

P.S. Do you still have your Apple //e? Mine is in my parents' basement. I still have the joystick for it and everything though!

 

[mccoma]

Where did you get that. There's been dual CPU Intel systems ever since the Pentium Pro 😕

Well, to cut out your confusion - with the Pentium 4 line, Intel removed the ability of those chips to run in an SMP configuration (until the Xeons a lot of rack mounts still had dual Pentium 3s instead of a single Pentium 4). Intel's website has details on what can do what. Intel made it very confusing. It used to be easy Pentium Pro+ = SMP - now you have to look on a chip-by-chip basis.

😡 on other points: all the Linux vs. OS X in order to prove Intel is less secure than PowerPC is pretty silly, I have posted links (such as this one) from the OpenBSD team (more secure than OS X) about processor security features and flaws, and Intel was no worse than the PowerPCs (they actually liked the SPARC more than the others). It should be noted that Intel is adding the No Execute. The architecture of the Operating System software is keeping us safe, not some PowerPC feature (search google for G3 or G4 and buffer overflow and you some scary stuff).

If you really want Apple to help us with secure software, get them to sponsor some people to take all the OpenBSD gcc 3.x changes and port them to gcc 4.x.

 

[nagromme]

I never meant to imply you didn't think the switch was a bad thing. 🙂 😎

I would never say THIS is not how misunderstandings don't get prevented from happening! 😀

 

[5300cs]

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

Apple are a business. They know the trend is faster processors are good so if the company directors want to get richer they have to make a choice. For them Intel is the obvious one. Now they can satisfy all those people out there who want a dual Pentium blah blah blah so they can rocket through their web surfing, play their 3D games without a hitch and howl at the moon that they have a faster computer than Joe Bloggs next door.

No doubt Apple are doing a good thing... for their business and for their bank accounts. If all goes well Steve Jobs can retire with a fat cheque in his hand. Of course Apple executives will prosper, but the poor suckers who have believed all these years the Mhz myth that Apple have been feeding them now have their bank account backs against the wall.

PPC will eventually be old technology and Intel will be the new. At some point when you do finally upgrade your Macs it will be to an Intel one, of course you'll have to upgrade all your software to boot. If PPC were to stay you'd have a choice whether you wanted to upgrade your software or not. This way at least everybody will be happy.. perceivably the consumer as well (until his monthly credit card statements come in). The consumer really has no choice, we're just being led by the nose like lambs to the financial slaughter.

Amen to that

 

[IndyGopher]

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

This is exactly the way it has been with Apple, too.. no change here.

PPC will eventually be old technology and Intel will be the new. At some point when you do finally upgrade your Macs it will be to an Intel one, of course you'll have to upgrade all your software to boot. If PPC were to stay you'd have a choice whether you wanted to upgrade your software or not. This way at least everybody will be happy.. perceivably the consumer as well (until his monthly credit card statements come in). The consumer really has no choice, we're just being led by the nose like lambs to the financial slaughter.

You still have the choice whether to upgrade or not. Very few programs out there refuse to run on G3's, hence very few programs will refuse to run with Rosetta. Even that presumes that Apple, in two years' time, will not have built AltiVec emulation into Rosetta, which seems unlikely. I would hope that Apple has the information the folks at Transitive were lacking regarding the AltiVec unit to bolt on more comprehensive emulation.

Also, a point people just don't seem to get is that software doesn't slow down, and computers don't slow down... it's all relative. What you are doing today you can keep on doing. If you need to do something MORE, or do it FASTER, then you get a new computer/new software. Apple got the Intel versions of OS X and their apps to this level in pretty impressive secrecy. Now that they don't have to do it in a basement lab with Pitbull/Crocodile hybrids guarding the room to keep everything hush-hush, development should speed up considerably. Developers will be sharing all sorts of tricky bits that will make everything faster and easier for everyone.

For reasons I cannot understand, a LOT of people are looking at this as if there were some sort of underhandedness involved.

 

[5300cs]

For reasons I cannot understand, a LOT of people are looking at this as if there were some sort of underhandedness involved.

Apple said since day 1 that PPC was faster than x86. Now they revealed that they've been secretly developing an x86 version of OS X, and that they are now switching everything to the aforementioned x86 chips.

To me it's kind of like a spouse one day revealing that they've been cheating on you for the past 5 years. I didn't trust Mr. Jobs too much before this switch...

 

[~Shard~]

I would never say THIS is not how misunderstandings don't get prevented from happening! 😀

Come on, that's not as un-straight-forward as a comment cannot not be! 😉 😎

 

[steeldrivingjon]

Apple said since day 1 that PPC was faster than x86. Now they revealed that they've been secretly developing an x86 version of OS X, and that they are now switching everything to the aforementioned x86 chips.

Well, I'm sure that 16 years ago they said that the 68030 was faster than the x86. Must they continue to do so after it becomes ridiculous?

To me it's kind of like a spouse one day revealing that they've been cheating on you for the past 5 years. I didn't trust Mr. Jobs too much before this switch...

Nah, it's more like your supermodel girlfriend of five years saying "Honey, barring a miracle, I have two years to live. But I'd like to introduce you to my identical twin sister, who's been stuck living in a convent all this time and thinks you're seriously hot. How about a menage a trois?"

 

[BlackDan]

... 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...

Anandtech compared these a while back. Altivec came out ahead big-time. What SSE3 will bring us however is still unclear. Hopefully it will be as good as Altivec (or better)

 

[nagromme]

Apple said since day 1 that PPC was faster than x86. Now they revealed that they've been secretly developing an x86 version of OS X, and that they are now switching everything to the aforementioned x86 chips.

PPC has indeed often been faster than Intel in real-world tests. Which is all Apple claimed.

But that WILL NOT be true in the FUTURE. This is about the future, not the past or present.

That's not a lie Apple made up, it's a good honest prediction that IBM will continue to let us down the way they have been.

Apple did NOT work on Intel for 5 years because they knew this would happen. That's absurd--they'd just have released OS X on Intel Macs to begin with and made two transitions into one!

Rather, they worked on Intel as a BACKUP PLAN. Thank goodness--because soon we'll need it.

If you think Apple has been dishonest, you must believe one of the following:

* Apple knew Intel would be faster 5 years ago, and had OS X ready on Intel, and then for some unknown reason went with PPC just to cause problems.

Or

* Apple knew PPC would be faster, and still does, and is switching to a slower architecture just to cause problems.

Neither is true, however.

Apple HAD to "do this to us." And what have they done? Nothing that will obsolete our current Macs, and a LOT to make sure our current Macs keep going with the latest apps for years.

In other words, they bit the bullet so we don't have to.

 

[guez]

Bad developer. Bad. Bad.

I'll be glad to see Classic die, its been long enough. By now developer should have ported their apps.

I thought Classic was there for _users_. Silly me.

 

[Quartz Extreme]

PPC has indeed often been faster than Intel in real-world tests. Which is all Apple claimed.

But that WILL NOT be true in the FUTURE. This is about the future, not the past or present.

That's not a lie Apple made up, it's a good honest prediction that IBM will continue to let us down the way they have been.

Apple did NOT work on Intel for 5 years because they knew this would happen. That's absurd--they'd just have released OS X on Intel Macs to begin with and made two transitions into one!

Rather, they worked on Intel as a BACKUP PLAN. Thank goodness--because soon we'll need it.

If you think Apple has been dishonest, you must believe one of the following:

* Apple knew Intel would be faster 5 years ago, and had OS X ready on Intel, and then for some unknown reason went with PPC just to cause problems.

Or

* Apple knew PPC would be faster, and still does, and is switching to a slower architecture just to cause problems.

Neither is true, however.

Apple HAD to "do this to us." And what have they done? Nothing that will obsolete our current Macs, and a LOT to make sure our current Macs keep going with the latest apps for years.

In other words, they bit the bullet so we don't have to.

Exactly, Jobs even said, we have great PowerPC products now, but that this is better down the road.

Right now, I would say PowerPC has the edge, but two or three years from now Intel has some very promising chips coming out, just Google "Intel Roadmap"

 

[Mr Maui]

The software that I've been using in my multimedia high school class has been Adobe Photoshop CS, Final Cut Express, Soundtrack, Macromedia Studio MX, Office, and iDVD. I also have quite a few games that I play very often (Halo and all 3 Medal of Honor games are the main ones.) That is my current situation, I'm thinking of waiting as most have suggested just because the G4 PBs are a tad outdated.

The current Powerbooks are outdated compared to??? Your eMac? Is your eMac higher than a 1.67 GHz G4? Is it portable? It's hard to compare a laptop to a desktop of any kind fairly. Laptops are designed for portability at the highest speeds possible, with as long a battery life as possible, and with as little heat generation as possible. The current Powerbooks are hardly outdated, until you can compare them to a laptop that is faster, cooler, lighter, more power efficient, and offers more features and capabilities than the present ones. It's always best to compare apples with apples, versus apples with oranges. JMO

 

[Mr Maui]

Nah, it's more like your supermodel girlfriend of five years saying "Honey, barring a miracle, I have two years to live. But I'd like to introduce you to my identical twin sister, who's been stuck living in a convent all this time and thinks you're seriously hot. How about a menage a trois?"

I think I had a dream like that last night ...

and the night before ...

and the night before that ... 😀

 

[jtfolden]

OS/2 wasn't that much better than the Windows 3.1 except it had real multitasking. It was a great wrapper OS to run your Windows 16bit and DOS programs. Windows 95 wasn't supported with OS/2 and I think that killed it. Video Driver support required going into the command line on OS/2. OS/2 seemed like a Frankenstein hybrid of DOS and a Windows 3.1 clone.

Win 3.1 clone? Did you ever run OS/2 2.0 or later? OS/2 v1 was not so great but then it was developed by MS mostly. v1.3 and later were handled by IBM and highly improved. There was no comparison to Win here at all. It was an incredibly superior 32-bit, pre-emptively multi-tasking OS. In fact, it was better all around than any version of the Mac OS prior to X, IMO. IIRC, OS/2 v3 was the first truly easy to use, Internet ready system out of the box.

It is true that OS/2 ran DOS and Windows apps better than DOS/Win could itself but it had some pretty decent apps of it's own. ...and I don't understand what you mean about accessing the CLI for Video. I never had to do that and I ran every major and minor release from 2.0 to 4.0 without trouble.

OS/2 had no original thinking or culture since it was IBM.

This isn't even remotely true. The WorkPlace Shell and UI is an amazing bit of work.

 

[heisetax]

Would this make OS 8/9 programs Classic Classic

As readers digest yesterday's announcement about Apple's move to Intel. Here are some notes gathered about the upcoming transition.

- It appears Rosetta, Apple's Intel-Mac PowerPC emulator which was demonstrated at WWDC does not support AltiVec (Velocity Engine) according to Game developers.

- The new Intel-Macs may likely support Windows in a dual-boot capacity, assuming Microsoft provides software support:


Phil Schiller said it right when he said that Classic as we know it is not very high on the priority list. So that means that we may see support for what will become the new Classic, OS X applications running under PPC control. That means that we can expect a couple of years of support. The question only is whether that 2 years starts now or in 2 years when the transition is to be complete.

Whether we like Windows or not MS does a better job of long term support than Apple does. After Apple's support of past OSes & the way in which Steve Jobs declared OS 9 dead, I am one not to believe that Apple will do anything even as good as before.

So the only work around we have other than changing to Windows, which if it was worthwhile choice we would have made it before, will be not to upgrade our Mac Systems. I plan to stop at the level I am now. That way my software will run as it was designed to run. Any newer equipment & I'd need new software. Any newer software & I'd need new hardware.

Do you trust Steve Jobs to support OS X on the PPC? Past actions would prove to me that Apple will not be supporting OS X on the PPC Mac for long. To me that will mean that we will be lucky to see any support for OS 9 on the Intel for Mac computers.

A 21 year Mac User,

Bill the TaxMan

 

[nagromme]

Apple's "poor support" (??? Classic!) for OS 9 tells us nothing about Intel Macs

Right now, I would say PowerPC has the edge, but two or three years from now Intel has some very promising chips coming out, just Google "Intel Roadmap"

True on the desktop, for many tasks. PPC is the leader still for a lot of things, not to mention running the most productive OS.

But for laptops, PPC is ALREADY behind in everything except having the best OS (which is no small advantage I, know).

And we don't have to wait 2-3 years for great chips from Intel... the Pentium M is already a nice chip, and the next generation built on that hits in early 2006. Possibly 7 months until touchdown! 🙂

... So that means that we may see support for what will become the new Classic, OS X applications running under PPC control. That means that we can expect a couple of years of support.

PPC is not like OS 9. This is not a parallel. It's a matter of running different compiled code NOT a matter of hosting an entire second OS and GUI! And unlike OS 9 vs. OS X, apps on PPC will be fully capably of supporting the feartures of the OS and hardware. Neither part of a universal binary is a second-class citizen

And your predicted "couple years" of support is going to go well beyond this year, since PPC Macs will be sold right through 2007! THEN Apple will keep on supporting the machines they just sold. They have ALREADY:

* Given developers the tools and the guidelines to make SURE their apps keep running on PPC (universal binaries).

* Planned Leopard for PPC. Another PPC version AFTER Leopard is likely, especially if Apple keeps up PPC OS X "just in case" anyway... but if not, that won't be until something like 2009 anyway. If it DOES happen, then OS X will support PPC until well past 2010! And then the last PPC OS X comes and goes, it will still run fine for years despite not being "the latest." (Much like Panther will still be a great OS in 2 years, even if Tiger and Leopard are better.)

But if OS 9 -> X WERE a parallel for this change, it would be a hopeful one: Apple did a LOT to get two OS's coexisting. They spend a LOT of time and money to support older apps during the transition. Classic is still an amazing achievement. I was astonished when I first ran Classic in OS X Public Beta and it was BETTER than OS 9: it used OS X virtual memory, and could handle more apps at once while running TWO OS's than OS 9 could alone!

Whether we like Windows or not MS does a better job of long term support than Apple does. After Apple's support of past OSes & the way in which Steve Jobs declared OS 9 dead, I am one not to believe that Apple will do anything even as good as before.

MS CAN'T innovate like Apple does, CAN'T replace the old with the new very easily, because their main market advantage is that everybody uses Windows and is "stuck with it." If they dared move forward too quickly, they'd lose that advantage.

So MS still allowing DOS apps to run could be a good thing--but it's ALSO a sign of a real problem with Windows. Apple can afford to advance faster, and we as users benefit.

Which strategy is better? For me, rapid improvement is more important that running 10-year old apps. Your preference may be different, and that's fine. Ask Apple to keep supporting apps from the 90s if you want--but I'd suggest asking the developers to get with it as well.

And if it's a high priority to you that your OS not advance too quickly, then keep using what you've got. It still runs great.

Also note how OS 9 was dead 5 years ago, yet you can still run OS 9 apps on new Macs now... and on into next year... and the year after. Sounds like pretty good support to me. And then, even after new Macs no longer can run OS 9, the last of the 2007 OS 9-capable Macs (much faster than today's) will have YEARS of useable life in them.

I plan to stop at the level I am now. ... Any newer equipment & I'd need new software. Any newer software & I'd need new hardware.

Newer equipment will NOT need new software. Macs will be PowerPC still this year, and into next, and some of them into the year AFTER next.

Then, after all that, new (Intel) equipment will need SOME new software. And much old software will keep running fine. That's ALWAYS true with computers.

And vice versa, new post-Intel software WILL keep running on PowerPCs, and that's not changing any time soon. What does any 5-year old computer still run? MOST apps, not all. How would it help developers to ignore the tools Apple has handed them for PPC support, and all their own PPC skills, and sell only to the small number of early Intel adopters? Few will make that move any time in the next several years.

Do you trust Steve Jobs to support OS X on the PPC? Past actions would prove to me that Apple will not be supporting OS X on the PPC Mac for long. To me that will mean that we will be lucky to see any support for OS 9 on the Intel for Mac computers.

No... we won't be lucky--there will be no such support starting in 2007. OS 9 will be 8 years dead by the time the Intel transition is done. Apple will do nothing to make OS 9 run on those machines. But that ALSO means OS 9 will be 8 years dead by the time PPC machines able to run it stop shopping. So OS 9 fans have a couple years of fast new Macs on the way.

But yes, I DO trust Apple to support PPC, just like they supported 680x0 for years. They've shown exactly HOW they will support PPC, and it's a good plan. One they've worked a long time on.

There really is no parallel case to compare to, though. THIS kind of change has never happened before.