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.jiggie2g said:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Intel Move... Early Details and Notes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
nagromme
macrumors G5
shawnce said:
Maybe Apple's willing to implement SSE in their own work--work which is actually useful today in the real world (Darwin), even knowing they will have to do somerhing else instead of SSE later. Yet they may be unwilling to ask devs to do such a change needlessly--especially if that change might be called for in 2006, say, before those ported Mac apps have even seen any useful life.
FYI some of the performance group folks at Apple imply they have the Accelerate framework on SSE mostly done.nagromme said:
if/when apple brings out Mac OS X to Dells and HP's, i hope they figure out a way for people NOT to be able to install it on multiple computers (as it can now). we can't trust those PC people. 😀
iMeowbot
macrumors G3
nagromme said:
That's not true, SSE3 is supported and documented.
The Universal Binary Programming Guidelines explain exactly how to go about detecting and making use of MMX, SSE, SSE2, and SSE3.
Question...
I just finished watching the quicktime of the keynote and had a question about those developer systems...
You have to pay $999 to get one, but next year, you have to give it back. Does apple give you your money back since you have to give the computer back? I mean, you are paying money to help them sell more computers. Maybe they will get $999 worth of credit on a real mactel system when they come out?
Just wondering if anyone has the answer now that the RDF has been switched off.
I just finished watching the quicktime of the keynote and had a question about those developer systems...
You have to pay $999 to get one, but next year, you have to give it back. Does apple give you your money back since you have to give the computer back? I mean, you are paying money to help them sell more computers. Maybe they will get $999 worth of credit on a real mactel system when they come out?
Just wondering if anyone has the answer now that the RDF has been switched off.
Well review this...johnnyastro said:
http://developer.apple.com/membership/pdf/DevTransKitTerms.pdf
VanNess
macrumors 6502a
intrepkid21 said:
But they also had no choice. Mention PPC and any ideas about running OS X on a wintel box come to a full stop. For better or for worse (I think better) that's always been the Mac's heritage up until now.
What I'm saying is that, in the future, the playing field in hardware may look much more level with Intel inside Macs. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they will be well designed, aesthetically peerless, and priced competitively. Those qualities alone will likely tip the scale in Apple's advantage, especially for Windows users who may have to buy a new computer because Longhorn said so.
But Dell isn't going to sit back and watch, and they will release their stuff for Windows, competitively priced as always, and people will continue to buy it. It's when one of those folks wanders into the Apple store and sees OS X in action on an Intel powered Mac that may bring up the question that, at least as of today, has a satisfactory answer: You can't run OS X on your machine because OS X runs on the PPC architecture. It's not compatible with Intel.
But now it is.
shawnce said:
I knew I would get a quick reply!
Thanks Shawnce!
Well that answers my question. You dont get your money back. Still, I'm sure there are plenty of developers lined up to get these.
~Shard~
macrumors P6
tsk said:
Again, there will always be negative opinions - and the Internet is the perfect place to find them, especially via a Google search! I think you are being too harsh on them and discounting their abilities, but I do realize they're not some supreme being whose word we should take as the Bible. 😉 There are always going to be people with negative attitudes towards companies like this...
isaacc7 said:
This is actually avery good point. Of course, it would be up to mi2g to comment on this, as I can't provide an answer. 😉
Regardless, I don't think you can simply dismiss their findings - I feel that they are of significant substance (of course not absolute) but again, my opinion, and everyone else is entitled to theirs. I'm just happy to be running on OS X/BSD, the world's most secure OS. 🙂
I think the opposite.xy14 said:
Apple may release intel based iBooks, eMacs, Mini, iMac, Powerbook PowerMac and have them look as similar as possible to the PowerPC versions. Just to make people feel safe 🙂
Then again, they may make an all new look.
This is Steve Jobs though... how does HE think about it?
I'll bet on an identical look for any machine in 2006 (all the G4s and maybe the iMac) to make the switch "painless", and a brand new look for all the G5 replacements in 2007 ;-) (once people realise it's all going to be okay).
aussie_geek
macrumors 65816
Uncertain times are ahead...
After reading into the linked articles, I can say that are in for a change much bigger than Steve made out in the Keynote. For a gamer like myself, Rosetta on an Intel Mac, does me no justice.
The possibility of the new Mac's being able to boot into Windows is interesting - definitely something I would consider seeming it would broaden my horizons in software. But where does that leave Aspyr at? Mac game developers have some serious thinking ahead regarding the use of universal binaries for their new titles.
As for the older titles, on an Intel Mac, Rosetta being non-Altivec, would make them useless - I may just have to hold onto my NEW G5 just to play the older games... 😎
aussie_geek
After reading into the linked articles, I can say that are in for a change much bigger than Steve made out in the Keynote. For a gamer like myself, Rosetta on an Intel Mac, does me no justice.
The possibility of the new Mac's being able to boot into Windows is interesting - definitely something I would consider seeming it would broaden my horizons in software. But where does that leave Aspyr at? Mac game developers have some serious thinking ahead regarding the use of universal binaries for their new titles.
As for the older titles, on an Intel Mac, Rosetta being non-Altivec, would make them useless - I may just have to hold onto my NEW G5 just to play the older games... 😎
aussie_geek
I'm betting on something all new. This will be a new generation in Mac computers, so it requires a new design, perhaps something like this.GregA said:
mandis
macrumors regular
First MacIntel XBench results!!
here is a link of the first XBench results of the new Dev MacIntel system as published by TS 😱
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelxbench.html
During the WWDC keynote, Apple CEO Steve Jobs demonstrated several PowerPC applications running with Rosetta, including Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop. Very fast systems, Jobs said, will be able to take advantage of Rosetta without the user even noticing, although preliminary benchmarks suggest otherwise.
Overall, the Intel Mac are scoring between 65 and 70 with Xbench, a far cry from the 200+ scores higher-end G5 systems reach. The CPU test is landing in the high teens compared with scores of 100 to 200 for G5 systems, but that appears to be primarily due to lackluster FPU scores.
I didn't expect them to be any better to be honest...
here is a link of the first XBench results of the new Dev MacIntel system as published by TS 😱
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelxbench.html
During the WWDC keynote, Apple CEO Steve Jobs demonstrated several PowerPC applications running with Rosetta, including Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop. Very fast systems, Jobs said, will be able to take advantage of Rosetta without the user even noticing, although preliminary benchmarks suggest otherwise.
Overall, the Intel Mac are scoring between 65 and 70 with Xbench, a far cry from the 200+ scores higher-end G5 systems reach. The CPU test is landing in the high teens compared with scores of 100 to 200 for G5 systems, but that appears to be primarily due to lackluster FPU scores.
I didn't expect them to be any better to be honest...
iMeowbot
macrumors G3
That was definitely true with the first Power Macs, which looked pretty much the same as the Quadra and Centris models they replaced. Same for the PowerBooks at the time. But then again, Apple were doing the bland beige box thing at the time. These days, Apple seem compelled to make sure that each new model is weirder looking than the last, so all bets are off.GregA said:
Hi Shawn, I wrote a similar post somewhere. I agree 🙂shawnce said:
MOSTLY
The Jonah/Yonah core is the key. All those chips are based on the Pentium M and Intel's new architecture (Intel is dropping the Pentium 4 and Netburst and related problems, Apple gets the opportunity to skip it entirely!).
The G5s are still great technology - and the new Intel chips are still mobile focussed for 2006. Which is a perfect match for Apple - who need the lighter chips more urgently. We could see Powerbooks (Jonah) in January 2006 and Dual Processor PowerMacs mid 2007 (Woodcrest), all the others in between.
Thanks.mandis said:
That's pretty good though for EMULATED performance. I look forward to native results, they'll be interesting.
Anyone know what existing G3 Mac might equate to a 65 Xbench test, and 18ish CPU test?
geerlingguy
macrumors 6502a
GregA said:
Make a smaller G5 and I'm in. The current one takes up more than half my Dad's desk, and I couldn't find a place for it in my dorm room if I tried! Besides that, it can act as a large space heater when doing a render in FCP... I hope the Super-De-Dooper MacTel will be smaller and yet cooler (in more ways than one!).
Maybe I just missed it but...
There's been lots of talk about the new Macintel machines being able to run old programs.
But as a recent purchaser of a dual 2.0Ghz G5, my concern is: will the old processors be able to run the new programs written for Macintel machines?
There's been lots of talk about the new Macintel machines being able to run old programs.
But as a recent purchaser of a dual 2.0Ghz G5, my concern is: will the old processors be able to run the new programs written for Macintel machines?
Leopard will change it all
Here is what I think after reading many articles and watching the keynote.
I have to give credit to Steve Jobs, he was pretty smart to keep a backup plan just incase IBM screwed him. Screw me once, damn you, screw me twice, damn me!
OSX on intel makes sense, It is unix and as long as you keep the core hardware independent, like steve said they did, then all it should be is a recompile. Although what about altivec, I guess it just goes to old instructions like a G3 does.
Now, here is my prediction? I recalled Steve making suttle comments about Leopard and Windows Longhorn being released around the same time. This will be a year after Apple starts shipping Macs with Intel (apptel?). Leopard will come out right around the same time Longhorn does and Leopard will compete directly with Longhorn, why will Leopard compete directly, because I bet Steve will release OSX Leopard to run on Dell/Clone PCs beside Apple hardware.
So, their will be one year of people hacking dell/clone PCs to make them work with OSX (deep down you know it will happen, hopefully Apple will not waste money trying to prevent it). Steve, right before the release of Longhorn, will then stick it to MS and release Leopard to get all those nerds who wanted to buy Windows Longhorn to buy OSX leopard for there PCs.
And as far as hardware compatability, remeber guys it is unix, all Steve has to do is use a good kernal that supports most of the hardware currently out.
Oh yeah, so I do believe OSX will run on a AMD ... in 2007.
Here is what I think after reading many articles and watching the keynote.
I have to give credit to Steve Jobs, he was pretty smart to keep a backup plan just incase IBM screwed him. Screw me once, damn you, screw me twice, damn me!
OSX on intel makes sense, It is unix and as long as you keep the core hardware independent, like steve said they did, then all it should be is a recompile. Although what about altivec, I guess it just goes to old instructions like a G3 does.
Now, here is my prediction? I recalled Steve making suttle comments about Leopard and Windows Longhorn being released around the same time. This will be a year after Apple starts shipping Macs with Intel (apptel?). Leopard will come out right around the same time Longhorn does and Leopard will compete directly with Longhorn, why will Leopard compete directly, because I bet Steve will release OSX Leopard to run on Dell/Clone PCs beside Apple hardware.
So, their will be one year of people hacking dell/clone PCs to make them work with OSX (deep down you know it will happen, hopefully Apple will not waste money trying to prevent it). Steve, right before the release of Longhorn, will then stick it to MS and release Leopard to get all those nerds who wanted to buy Windows Longhorn to buy OSX leopard for there PCs.
And as far as hardware compatability, remeber guys it is unix, all Steve has to do is use a good kernal that supports most of the hardware currently out.
Oh yeah, so I do believe OSX will run on a AMD ... in 2007.
DeepIn2U
macrumors G5
I think this'll be the last resort for Apple when a situation like DTphonehome said ...Object-X said:
. I quoted DTphonehome on purpose. His statement is correct, Apple has had to manage before & did so expertly, professionally and very well. However, there is nothing but past experience that leads me to believe that this will occur again. Previously it was the 68xx whatever cpu, 1st ever Mac, then off to RISC based cpu's; IBM, then Motorola, then BACK to IBM. That said I lead you to iGary's quote ...DTphonehome said:
iGary said:
I'm with ya here buddy. At least for the next 1.5 years to possibly 3 years. Why? IBM is the ONLY repeat cpu choice for Apple. They also are the only cpu choice Apple has made that allowed, generally, for another CPU to be dropped into their mobo's (G3 systems upgradeable to G4 Motorola chips; Lombard/Wallstreet PowerBook G3s ->G4 cpu's). I'm hoping the same will be possible for the PowerMac G5's & iMac G5 daughtercards - even if a firmware update is needed.
Object-X said:
HELL NO! I did that before with Fedora Core 2 - same issue with FC3 - and my Dell machine. I've gone to forums looking for help with the issues of dual-booting a *Nix with windows; you DONT want to do that. Even if you could get file sharing between the two partitions working correctly, permissions is gonna be a b*TcH. Funny thing with DualBoot directions is no mention of how to uninstall Linux from a dualboot with Windows??? WHy? Also I wanna leave Windows because lanuage support in English Canada causes huge problems for documents I write in MS Word because of the XP Pro preference; no matter what I do in Word. Heck I feel like going to grade 5 just to figure out if color should be spelt colour in Canadian English. I'm not the only Canadian with this problem. I've worked for various corporations who's top tier workers in management dont know that either. Secretary's do have control of their raise abilities, 😉 Lastly, I really worry about Bluetooth, its pretty bad implementation on Intel mobos. Yes Dell has v2+EDR but OS again is different.
SmileyDude
macrumors regular
a couple of thoughts here... i read through a lot of the mega-thread yesterday, and most of this thread, so I think I'm not going to be re-hashing the same stuff...
1) I've noticed that nobody has really talked about why Intel found Apple to be such a good prospect where IBM/Motorola pretty much walked away. I think this switch speaks volumes about the Microsoft/Intel relationship. I personally don't think Intel has ever been happy about being associated with Microsoft the way they have been. Granted, because of the success of Microsoft, Intel has benefited greatly. But, because of Windows, Intel has been associated with buggy software, viruses, malware, etc. By getting Apple to port OS X to their chip, Intel can put a little distance between themselves and Microsoft. Also note, Intel's support of Linux has been getting better.
Another reason they might benefit is the same reason why Apple could make the switch -- it's obvious that the WinNT/2k/XP codebase is portable across processors as well. If Apple can pull off a CPU switch (or two), Microsoft could certainly do it. The big thing saving Intel was that nobody else had/has the capacity to build chips like they do. But, still, I'm sure it wasn't comforting to see Microsoft go with IBM for the Xbox 360. Speaking of which, considering that the devkits are PM G5s running a Win 2k derivative, it shows that Microsoft has been keeping their codebase up-to-date for other processors. Just in case.
2) Can anyone explain why OS X on x86 wouldn't cause Microsoft to just immediately yank support for Office on the Mac? Add to that iWork, and I would've thought for sure that we would hear that MacOffice development had stopped for good. Does it make that much money that Microsoft is willing to support a potential direct competitor and risk their position as the dominate x86 OS vendor? Or, is there something I'm just missing here?
3) Why not AMD? Well, I can think of two potential issues -- one is capacity. Could AMD supply enough chips to Apple? Maybe this is why Dell hasn't offered AMD chips? The other -- AMD doesn't make their own chipsets, Intel does. Obviously, Apple has had a bit of trouble with their own chipsets (USB 2.0 speed anyone? poor ATA implementations?). With Intel, they get a complete solution -- CPU and chipset. GPU will still be provided by Nvidia or ATI -- though, Intels integrated video is getting much much better. Might be enough for a mini, iBook, or eMac...
4) 64-bit support. No matter what is in the developer box, no matter how the binaries are currently being compiled, I just simply can't entertain the option that Apple will not have a 64-bit offering in 2006/2007. We already have machines today that can support more than 2G of RAM. And it's not that expensive to get that much. By 2007, it will be damn cheap to put 2G+ in a machine. I would be surprised if Apple's standard config didn't include at least 1G. Apple will have a 64-bit system, both on Intel and PPC (until the end of it's life, at least).
5) BIOS -- here's my take. Apple will license an existing x86 BIOS, but they will heavily modify it and lock it down (i.e, no pressing DEL to get to the config).
The big reason not to use OF is that they have to maintain that part of the widget. And the only good reason to maintain control over something is if it is central to your user's experience. OF is not a central part of using my Mac. From a geeky perspective, its neat. But, honestly, I've never went into OF on my mini or PMG5 at work. Or, for that matter, any of the machines at work. I did it a couple times on the old iMac and my old Performa 6400... but that was just out of curiosity. Nobody except us geeky types ever knew it was there. Its only job for most people is to find out what's installed in the machine, find the OS, and load it. A PC BIOS already does that now. And, Apple can easily modify the BIOS to provide that Apple touch (firewire target mode support, network boot, graphical mode right from power-on, no configuration outside the OS).
6) As for Intel -- I honestly don't care much for the x86 arch, and I certainly don't like most of the P4 line. But, I have been impressed by Intel's chipsets, motherboards, and their latest offerings. I do still find their heatsink/fans a bit hokey --- but, I'm confident that Apple and Intel working together will be able to come up with some slick hardware.
Okay -- so, that's my thoughts. Feel free to discuss/shoot me down 🙂
1) I've noticed that nobody has really talked about why Intel found Apple to be such a good prospect where IBM/Motorola pretty much walked away. I think this switch speaks volumes about the Microsoft/Intel relationship. I personally don't think Intel has ever been happy about being associated with Microsoft the way they have been. Granted, because of the success of Microsoft, Intel has benefited greatly. But, because of Windows, Intel has been associated with buggy software, viruses, malware, etc. By getting Apple to port OS X to their chip, Intel can put a little distance between themselves and Microsoft. Also note, Intel's support of Linux has been getting better.
Another reason they might benefit is the same reason why Apple could make the switch -- it's obvious that the WinNT/2k/XP codebase is portable across processors as well. If Apple can pull off a CPU switch (or two), Microsoft could certainly do it. The big thing saving Intel was that nobody else had/has the capacity to build chips like they do. But, still, I'm sure it wasn't comforting to see Microsoft go with IBM for the Xbox 360. Speaking of which, considering that the devkits are PM G5s running a Win 2k derivative, it shows that Microsoft has been keeping their codebase up-to-date for other processors. Just in case.
2) Can anyone explain why OS X on x86 wouldn't cause Microsoft to just immediately yank support for Office on the Mac? Add to that iWork, and I would've thought for sure that we would hear that MacOffice development had stopped for good. Does it make that much money that Microsoft is willing to support a potential direct competitor and risk their position as the dominate x86 OS vendor? Or, is there something I'm just missing here?
3) Why not AMD? Well, I can think of two potential issues -- one is capacity. Could AMD supply enough chips to Apple? Maybe this is why Dell hasn't offered AMD chips? The other -- AMD doesn't make their own chipsets, Intel does. Obviously, Apple has had a bit of trouble with their own chipsets (USB 2.0 speed anyone? poor ATA implementations?). With Intel, they get a complete solution -- CPU and chipset. GPU will still be provided by Nvidia or ATI -- though, Intels integrated video is getting much much better. Might be enough for a mini, iBook, or eMac...
4) 64-bit support. No matter what is in the developer box, no matter how the binaries are currently being compiled, I just simply can't entertain the option that Apple will not have a 64-bit offering in 2006/2007. We already have machines today that can support more than 2G of RAM. And it's not that expensive to get that much. By 2007, it will be damn cheap to put 2G+ in a machine. I would be surprised if Apple's standard config didn't include at least 1G. Apple will have a 64-bit system, both on Intel and PPC (until the end of it's life, at least).
5) BIOS -- here's my take. Apple will license an existing x86 BIOS, but they will heavily modify it and lock it down (i.e, no pressing DEL to get to the config).
The big reason not to use OF is that they have to maintain that part of the widget. And the only good reason to maintain control over something is if it is central to your user's experience. OF is not a central part of using my Mac. From a geeky perspective, its neat. But, honestly, I've never went into OF on my mini or PMG5 at work. Or, for that matter, any of the machines at work. I did it a couple times on the old iMac and my old Performa 6400... but that was just out of curiosity. Nobody except us geeky types ever knew it was there. Its only job for most people is to find out what's installed in the machine, find the OS, and load it. A PC BIOS already does that now. And, Apple can easily modify the BIOS to provide that Apple touch (firewire target mode support, network boot, graphical mode right from power-on, no configuration outside the OS).
6) As for Intel -- I honestly don't care much for the x86 arch, and I certainly don't like most of the P4 line. But, I have been impressed by Intel's chipsets, motherboards, and their latest offerings. I do still find their heatsink/fans a bit hokey --- but, I'm confident that Apple and Intel working together will be able to come up with some slick hardware.
Okay -- so, that's my thoughts. Feel free to discuss/shoot me down 🙂
OSX is the key
with 5 million lines of great code (UNIX) versus 100 million lines of legacy buggy rubbish on Windows XP- surely Apple will compete on the OS PLUS design cool to regain dominance it had in early 80s...
with 5 million lines of great code (UNIX) versus 100 million lines of legacy buggy rubbish on Windows XP- surely Apple will compete on the OS PLUS design cool to regain dominance it had in early 80s...
DakotaGuy
macrumors 601
jiggie2g said:
This statement really stood out to me...
"Intel is back on the scene late next year, barring "execution problems". "
So what if this happens? Remember 2 years ago everything was going great with IBM and then things slowed down, still improvement from 2 to 2.7Ghz, but still it slowed down. If they do have problems is Apple going to dump possibly a 3.2Ghz Dual G5 at the time and just stick a Pentium 4 in there because they want the transition complete. It is very possible Intel could run into problems, they have the same issues as any other company building processors.