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

[~Shard~]

A key point is whether you'll be able to run Windows and Mac OS software side-by-side, as you can with VPC now. If you can't do this, a Windows version of an app is less attractive to a Mac user because they can't easily exchange data between the two operating systems.

Regardless of what ends up being the case with this whole OS X/Windows situation on the new Intel Macs, I will have nothing to do with Windows being installed on my Mac. I have a Windows 2003 Server which I will continue to use, and will not insult my OS X by having Windows sharing the same HD space as it. 😉 😎

 

[mulletman13]

Just curious but isn't 64 bit... the next step in computing that Intel will eventually have to make?

Now the WinXP and Longhorn will be optimized for 64 bit, shouldnt Intel produce 64 bit CPUs? Sorry if this has been answered before, I guess its just not getting through to me...

 

[Frobozz]

Point:



Counterpoint:

Being able to put all kinds of standard pc hardware in the new macs would REALLY suck. Then OS X has to have drivers and support for tons of hardware which bogs down the system a la Windows and just makes it work not as well. What do I mean by this?...

I have owned several PCs before I got my macs, and every single one did something different when I selected the "Sleep" (or maybe it was Standby...I forget) option in Windows. With OS X on my Macs, they all do exactly the right thing when put to sleep. Why? Because Apple can be absolutely sure that the hardware supports this correctly.

You make an excellent point! So true.

There are 2 reasons why consumers are coming to the Mac:

1) The quality of the hardware. It's consistent and leads to consistent performance and quality.

2) OS X. Lack of viruses, malware, spyware.

The only problem I see with using x86 is the buffer overflow / arbitrary code execution inherant in current x86 chips.

 

[Rocksaurus]

Though Mac OS X does have the fact that it is a full featured OS with a long history of development and support as well as a large and loyal user base as well as Mac OS X and Windows XP having very different underpinnings whereas OS/2 and Windows shared a similar architecture that let Windows programs easily run on OS/2, natively I do believe. Linux is still strong and healthy and you can dual-boot Linux and Windows and you can run Windows apps using WINE. And there will probably always be the desire to have Mac OS X native apps instead of running Windows apps from Mac Users since we appreciate the Apple UI and guidelines as well as the look and feel. It is similar to the fact that we can run *Nix programs with X11 but, I personally, would much rather have an Aqua version of the program and will choose an Aqua version over one that has to run in X11.

I hope that all made sense. But to recap for clarity, I wouldn't worry about Mac OS X suffering the same fate as OS/2. I'm more worried about people hacking whatever Apple puts into place to keep Mac OS X on Apple computers only and letting any Tom, Dick, and Harry install Mac OS X on their Dell machine so that Apple sees little if any money.

I think comparing OS X to Linux is a tad unfair because the risk Macs run of dying out is that they cost more than PCs and use the same, but closed hardware, while Linux is free, can run on... anything, and excels as a server. Comparing it to OS/2 is also unfair, for the reasons that have been mentioned. The Mac will stay alive because of us, the Mac faithful, just like it always has. It has nowhere to go but up, now.

 

[tsk]

Sorry, were you being sarcastic about Linux swarming with viruses, etc., or sarcastic about your last comment? I agree with your last comment, but I was just wondering because Linux is the least secure OS in the world, even moreso than Windows - just wanted to clarify.

I was being sarcastic about the part that was enclosed in the sarcasm brackets.

I've seen you make this claim before, yet I have yet to see a Linux box hacked. Yet I routinely deal with hacked Windows boxes.

Would you mind clarifying this claim because I don't believe it. Give me some examples here to prove your point. And I'd guess I'd object to these examples being from versions of Linux more than a few years old. I'd also object to some obvious bonehead moves like a user not putting any passwords in.

 

[joeboy_45101]

Although, I am very optimistic about this transition. I guess the optimism comes from being a software engineer, but I have four major concerns about the switch to Intel chips.

1) Intel's processor can't be doubled up. So unless Intel is planning on making a huge design change we can say "Goodbye" to dual processor Macs.

2) Velocity Engine is not available for Intel's chips. Is Apple going to try to persuade Intel into including the Velocity Engine in it's processor design?

3) 64-bit computing. Apple has worked very hard to put 64-bit processors and 64-bit compatible software into the hands of it's customers. Intel has no 64-bit Pentium type processors. What is going to happen to the 64-bit "wave of the future," computing experience for Mac People?

4) AMD. I wonder if the Mac community would have handled it better if Steve Jobs had said Apple was teaming up with AMD instead of Intel. I personally believe that AMD's processors are far superior to Intel's processors. With a two year window of time for the transition is Apple trying to buy time and see if Intel can put it's money where it's mouth is? What if a year from now AMD's processors are still kicking Intel's butts? To refer back to my first issue, AMD's processors can be doubled up with no problems. And to refer back to my third issue, AMD's flagship chips are 64-bit. Does AMD's design represent the future of computing while Intel's design represents trying to hold on to a idealistically technologically prosperous past?

 

[~Shard~]

I've seen you make this claim before, yet I have yet to see a Linux box hacked. Yet I routinely deal with hacked Windows boxes.

Would you mind clarifying this claim because I don't believe it. Give me some examples here to prove your point. And I'd guess I'd object to these examples being from versions of Linux more than a few years old. I'd also object to some obvious bonehead moves like a user not putting any passwords in.

Sure, no problem. If you want some proof, how is an intensive study done by one of the world's most renowned security and intelligence companies, mi2g? There was a more recent, in-depth report released but I cannot find it's link. For now though, have a read through this article. 😎

 

[age234]

Why wouldn't Apple just sell a crippled chip that couldn't run Windows? Why does the fact that a chip is made by Intel automatically equal running Windows?

 

[gwangung]

Apple has a very small marketshare and it will make more sense just to sell one Windows version and let the Apple users run it on Windows.

I wish people would stop saying this. Why? Because when you're talking about developers, you're talking about SPECIFIC markets and not the aggregate market.

Or do you really think Macs hold a miniscule part of the Adobe Photoshop market?

 

[Stella]

Maybe you should read my entire post, that is what i was saying..

OS X is more secure by design than Windows. Gaining users and going x86 are SOME factor, but far from the whole story.

And when Apple finds a flaw, they can fix it much more easily than MS can patch their bloated legacy mess.

 

[Frobozz]

1) Intel's processor can't be doubled up. So unless Intel is planning on making a huge design change we can say "Goodbye" to dual processor Macs.

The Pentium D, which is the processor design shown in the keynote, is a dual core P4. Just the development machines are single core.

2) Velocity Engine is not available for Intel's chips. Is Apple going to try to persuade Intel into including the Velocity Engine in it's processor design?

No. In fact, Apple's own documentation (see developer.apple.com) states that AltiVec is no more. Also, SSE3 will not be used if you believe accounts of Apple Engineer discussions at WWDC.

3) 64-bit computing. Apple has worked very hard to put 64-bit processors and 64-bit compatible software into the hands of it's customers. Intel has no 64-bit Pentium type processors. What is going to happen to the 64-bit "wave of the future," computing experience for Mac People?

I have that same question! I think 64 bit means nothing to a consumer, but does ot high performance top-end stuff.

4) AMD. I wonder if the Mac community would have handled it better if Steve Jobs had said Apple was teaming up with AMD instead of Intel. I personally believe that AMD's processors are far superior to Intel's processors. With a two year window of time for the transition is Apple trying to buy time and see if Intel can put it's money where it's mouth is? What if a year from now AMD's processors are still kicking Intel's butts? To refer back to my first issue, AMD's processors can be doubled up with no problems. And to refer back to my third issue, AMD's flagship chips are 64-bit. Does AMD's design represent the future of computing while Intel's design represents trying to hold on to a idealistically technologically prosperous past?

Yeah I also wonder about this. I am curious about the x86-64 instruction set and the AMD factor. Unless Steve got some super-cheap deal on Intel chips with an exclusivity agreement, I doubt he couldn't throw an Opteron in the xServe.

 

[~Shard~]

Here's one more link, and also here's mi2g's site (you may have to click Home). The most recent report is from November 2004 I believe, so recent enough for a year-long comprehensive study.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Like all of Apple's software...and BBedit! 😉



This is the point at which Apple will license it. And make gobbs of money I might add.

Only if they get enough people installing it they will. Until there is a massive glut of X on other hardware OS X will stay licensed to just Apple systems only. In the end it could be a "unintentional" plague on Microsoft’s house. If people simply stop using Windows for a hacked OS X it could seriously impact MS.... 😀

I seen that many people are reaching the fifth stage already.....Acceptance

Now lets move on to talking about the possibilities instead of DOOOOOOOM!

 

[Frobozz]

Why wouldn't Apple just sell a crippled chip that couldn't run Windows? Why does the fact that a chip is made by Intel automatically equal running Windows?

Volume and the money that saves.

According to Schiller, Apple won't do anything to prevent users from installing Windows on an Intel Mac. However, you can bet Apple will still be designing the motherboard and picking it's components. Half of what makes Windows so damn unstable (and, conversely, cheaper up front at times) is that all sorts of hardware configurations result in instability. So, Apple could simply use a set of components that are difficult to keep stable with Windows. That would make more sense than a crippled CPU. However, they won't do this, either. If Apple can't sell macs based on OS X and hardware quality, they really don't have much to sell.

 

[chatin]

A few answers about Intel and 64-bit

3) 64-bit computing. Apple has worked very hard to put 64-bit processors and 64-bit compatible software into the hands of it's customers. Intel has no 64-bit Pentium type processors. What is going to happen to the 64-bit "wave of the future," computing experience for Mac People?

4) AMD. I wonder if the Mac community would have handled it better if Steve Jobs had said Apple was teaming up with AMD instead of Intel. I personally believe that AMD's processors are far superior to Intel's processors. With a two year window of time for the transition is Apple trying to buy time and see if Intel can put it's money where it's mouth is? What if a year from now AMD's processors are still kicking Intel's butts? To refer back to my first issue, AMD's processors can be doubled up with no problems. And to refer back to my third issue, AMD's flagship chips are 64-bit. Does AMD's design represent the future of computing while Intel's design represents trying to hold on to a idealistically technologically prosperous past?

Intel lost the battle for a 64-bit standard. Their true 64-bit Itanium has failed in the marketplace. It was not compatible with x86!

Microsoft embraced the AMD64 standard in Windows XP 64. Intel had no choice but to clone AMD64. The result is EMT64.

The Pentium 4 on display at the Keynote was a Pentium 4 extreme (with 64 bit EMT64)

Why Photoshop loaded so slowly at the Keynote... The universal binaries do not take advantage of the EMT64 and are not going to.

Apple will lose that 64-bit war to Microsoft without Apple firing a single shot.

If 64 bit Windows is loaded next to OSX tiger on a EMT64 system, Apple is in HUDGE trouble on benchmarks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Frobozz]

OMG I just realized the ranking system in the MacRumors forums will be sent into a tizzy with Intel coming into the picture!

How will this work now? All the 680x0, then all the PowerPC, then all the, um... intel x86 revisions? LOL

Chaos. Utter chaos.

 

[tsk]

Sure, no problem. If you want some proof, how is an intensive study done by one of the world's most renowned security and intelligence agencies, mi2g? There was a more recent, in-depth report released but I cannot find it's link. For now though, have a read through
this article. 😎

Yeah, I assumed that was going to be your point. So let me say there are some statistics tossed out in this article:

--QUOTE--
OS X is world's most secure operating system, report concludes 12:50PM
Mac OS X and BSD Unix have been named as the world's safest and most secure online computing environments after a year-long study by enterprise security specialists mi2g.

In what is describes as 'the most comprehensive study ever undertaken', mi2g's Intelligence Unit analysed over 235,000 security breaches against permanently online systems and found that Mac OS X or BSD (on which OS X is partly based) accounted for just 4.82 per cent of all successful attacks. Linux was the least secure, with 65.64 per cent while Windows accounted for most of the remainder.
--QUOTE--

So let me state first that there is absolutely no proof provided. I asked you for proof and you quote some web article that gives me no details. Just some vague facts. I want to know what permanently connected to the internet means (do they exclude all office PC's?). I'd really like to know the makeup of these computers they looked at. I want to know what some real facts not some potentially made up statistics. I checked on the web site that is mentioned in the article and found nothing unless I pay.

So, I did some more digging and it seems that some people don't really believe/like mi2g. A few links are provided:

http://www.attrition.org/errata/charlatan/mi2g-history.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/why_is_mi2g_so_unpopular/
http://vmyths.com/resource.cfm?id=64&page=1

So, please provide me some details here to back up your claim. Surely if it is true, you can provide me with more than one highly suspect source.

Edit: Let me provide some facts and statistics here: I'm in charge of say 20 linux boxes, probably 5 Macs, maybe 30 Windows PCs and hell 6 Sun Sparc boxes. Several of the Linux boxes have gone months or years without updates as have the Sparc boxes and Macs.

My statistics are:

0 hacks with Linux/Mac/Sparc
~50 exploits on the Windows boxes in the last year

 

[DakotaGuy]

1) Intel's processor can't be doubled up. So unless Intel is planning on making a huge design change we can say "Goodbye" to dual processor Macs.

2) Velocity Engine is not available for Intel's chips. Is Apple going to try to persuade Intel into including the Velocity Engine in it's processor design?

3) 64-bit computing. Apple has worked very hard to put 64-bit processors and 64-bit compatible software into the hands of it's customers. Intel has no 64-bit Pentium type processors. What is going to happen to the 64-bit "wave of the future," computing experience for Mac People?

These are 3 excellent points. Are we going backward or forward? Velocity Engine was and still is a great technology. It seems you take away that, they are going to have to pump the Ghz to get the performance out of the chip. Maybe 64 bit does not really matter right now, Apple might have jumped the gun and I don't think anyone would really notice if they pull everything back to 32 bit. I don't know if dual processors will matter that much if they have a dual core.

Also, it seems like the FSB speed on the Intel is much lower then the current 1.35Ghz FSB on the 2.7Ghz G5.

 

[areyouwishing]

Think of Rosetta & Intel as a really high mhz G3.

Anything that works on a G3 will work on an Intel chip via rosetta, if it won't work on a g3, it needs a recompile. None of this, "does it kinda use altivec, does it fully..."

So as of right now, Think of Rosetta & Intel as a really high mhz G3.

Time will tell about performance, but it seemed pretty good during the keynote.

 

[areyouwishing]

You know, it's really too bad you have to give the developer machines back. For $1500 you can have an intel mac today... plus all the goodies that come with a select membership...

Mac OS X Tiger and Xcode 2 on Disc
Access to Mac OS X Tiger Server via Download
One (1) Mac OS X Tiger Developer T-Shirt
One (1) ADC Select Mailing Subscription
Two (2) Technical Support Incidents
One (1) ADC Select Hardware Discount
ADC Software Seeding Program
ADC Compatibility Labs Access
ADC Select Technical and Business Discounts

You don't even get a T-shirt when you buy a $3,000 Dual 2.7 G5 nor Tiger Server! Things are looking up for PentiMacs!

 

[shawnce]

Although, I am very optimistic about this transition. I guess the optimism comes from being a software engineer, but I have four major concerns about the switch to Intel chips.

1) Intel's processor can't be doubled up. So unless Intel is planning on making a huge design change we can say "Goodbye" to dual processor Macs.

Simply not true (best to research what you want to talk about). You can currently get Xeons processors and mother boards that allow 2+ CPUs in them. You also can now get the Pentium-D which has dual cores. Come 2006 you will seem much more capabilities like this and in 2007 you may be surprised.

Look over this roadmap summary.

2) Velocity Engine is not available for Intel's chips. Is Apple going to try to persuade Intel into including the Velocity Engine in it's processor design?

Correct Altivec/VMX doesn't exist on Intel but they do have SSE (v2 currently and v3 in the near future) that isn't as good as Altivec but SSE isn't that bad and it is getting better. Expect Apple to have a little influence in future extensions to SSE.

3) 64-bit computing. Apple has worked very hard to put 64-bit processors and 64-bit compatible software into the hands of it's customers. Intel has no 64-bit Pentium type processors. What is going to happen to the 64-bit "wave of the future," computing experience for Mac People?

Again simply not true. Intel has two lines of 64-bit capable processors the Itanium family and recent Pentium family members. In 2006+ you will see much more of this including laptop capable 64-bit processors.

4) AMD. I wonder if the Mac community would have handled it better if Steve Jobs had said Apple was teaming up with AMD instead of Intel. I personally believe that AMD's processors are far superior to Intel's processors. With a two year window of time for the transition is Apple trying to buy time and see if Intel can put it's money where it's mouth is? What if a year from now AMD's processors are still kicking Intel's butts? To refer back to my first issue, AMD's processors can be doubled up with no problems. And to refer back to my third issue, AMD's flagship chips are 64-bit. Does AMD's design represent the future of computing while Intel's design represents trying to hold on to a idealistically technologically prosperous past?

Currently AMDs desktop/workstation/server CPU are very good and give Intels Pentium 4 (netburst) family a run for its money and then some for some tasks. AMD is currently weak in mobile CPU space (the Pentium-M is good).

Anyway that is CURRENTLY... Apple is looking at mid 2006 and beyond and they see Intel having better or equal stuff (Dothan inspired cores will rock) to that of AMD. Also Intel has better output capacity, 65nm closer to market, and they are likely giving Apple a good deal... but guess what... once MacIntels are out and about Apple can use AMD processors in place of Intel processors for certain products since they run the same ISA (even 64-bit versions, for the most part).

 

[excalibur313]

I was just curious what is being done to the apple computers so that you can't install this os x on any regular pc. I bet that the versions being sent out to people and the one he used yesterday are just like any custom built computer you could make on newegg. Is it a hardware mod that will be added? It seems that it is only a matter of time before it's cracked to get around it but since it wouldn't hit the mainstream it probably wouldn't bother apple.

 

[tsk]

Sure, no problem. If you want some proof, how is an intensive study done by one of the world's most renowned security and intelligence companies, mi2g?

I have added the bold highlighting and here is my rebuttle:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mi2g&btnG=Google+Search

(It looks to me like this company is anything but renowned and respected)

 

[Platform]

It certainly WILL change, since Apple will NOT be replacing dual G5s with single 3.6 Intels. They'll be replacing dual G5s with whatever Intel has in 2007--and probably two of them 🙂


Nope, you'll have a great machine (best-looking desktop on the planet, too), lots of new software, and the next Mac OS (Leopard) will run on your machine too.

PowerPC Macs will be the biggest market for a LONG time, and with Universal Binaries, new apps can run on both types at full speed.

Rejoice 🙂 The sky has not fallen. Apple planned this well.


OS X is more secure by design than Windows. Gaining users and going x86 are SOME factor, but far from the whole story.

And when Apple finds a flaw, they can fix it much more easily than MS can patch their bloated legacy mess.

Thank you very much for the good post 😉 😀

 

[VanNess]

Oh boy! Fresh thread lol.

It's going to be interesting to see what Apple has up it's sleeve for the first x86 Mac. Not so much the OS and software, I'm sure it will still "just work." Well, it will somehow...

What concerns me is the commodization of the Mac hardware platform absent PPC and Altivec. With an x86 Intel processor, what else is inside exactly to distinguish it from any other garden variety PC? Hard drives are the same. Interconnects and protocols are the same. Memory is the same. The form factors may look great, but if the only difference is the installed OS (and apps), I think it's a big problem.

Imagine Mr. Switcher visiting one of Apple's 200+ stores in the next 2 years and eyeing Apple's brand new hot box, the x86 PentiMac 5260. Mr Switcher tries it, and he's really impressed. He wants it. He asked the salesperson about the machines specs, and the conversation turns toward the guts of the machine. Mr Switcher is surprised to learn that virtually every component in the brand new PentiMac is identical to his Dell Fifth Dimension running LongHorn. Well, it's running when it's not defragging, and auto cleaning spyware, but thats another story.

Mr Switcher tells the salesperson, "Hey, I have the exact same equipment in my box right now, let me just buy Leopard and I'll be on my way." "Sorry" the salesman replies, "can't do that" "What?" Mr. Switcher stares at him dumbfounded, "Why not? Look, it's all the same stuff, the same specs. Why do I have to pay all of this extra money for equipment I already have at home?" What do you mean I can't just install the OS?"

"Well...." the Salesman begins, realizing it's going to be another long night.

Now, Apple says they are going to lock OS X down to Apple Macs, but if there isn't a performance benefit exclusive to the Mac platform in however they lock it down, or if whatever Intel that's inside isn't tuned in some special way to perform better with OS X, then I think they have a problem.

Right now Apple has defined the perception of the Mac with the OS, the advantages of the PPC architecture, and the unparalleled attractiveness and uniqueness of the form factors. Commodization of the hardware could seriously upset the balance of Mac persuasion power, at least regarding hardware.