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

[sacear]

I just bought a Mac for the first time, and so far I love it! But what does this switch mean for me, having just bought a computer using the IBM two weeks ago? Are software companies going to stop making software for my version of the Mac, or will it matter? I'm I going to have to buy a new iMac a year from now because I can't find software for mine (I was hoping to get atleast 3 years out of this one)
-----
And if you ask me...
Apple might as well just buy a toilet to flush their company down the drain, it'd be much faster than what thier doing now.
After all of this I predict apple will loose the qualitly they were once known for. And people running Windows on a Mac, sounds like a bad dream.
And if I'm wrong about any of this, or I'm clearly misunderstanding, please let me know.

Your current Mac will be good for the normal life cycle of any Mac, at least five years.

You clearly don't understand the situation Apple was in and how positive this decision to "switch" is for Apple and its customers. Regular everyday users will not detect any difference in the human interface between today's Macs and Macs two years from now. Apple made this decision because if they stayed with Freescale and IBM, then they certainly would have gone down the crapper, because those companies are no longer supplying Apple with the goods. That is the same in any business, if one supplier stops supplying, then you find a new supplier. You don't let your business suffer waiting on an unreliable supplier. Freescale and IBM have been unreliable for a couple years now. It was time for Apple to move on and find a new supplier. And Intel's roadmap for the future looks very good. I was skeptical at first, yet now I am certain that this is a very good decision for Apple.

 

[Azrel]

No more OpenFirmware, replaced with a BIOS?

Two reasons why I think OpenFirmware is going to be replaced by a BIOS:

First reason, Apple has already confirmed OpenFirmware will not be used in Intel based Macs.

Second reason, Windows stipulates a BIOS to install. Apple has confirmed Windows "should" install on Intel based Macs.

🙁

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

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?

I think it's because MS makes a lot more off Office than Windows. And that excluding the Mac platform with its 3%/16% market share/install base would hurt them a whole lot more than the "risk" of being overthrown as "masters of the OS world".

No, if this transition goes well and Apple's market share runs into double digits (here's to 20%) maybe MS will respond, but if so Apple would be finished with a full good replacement in iWork. 😉

 

[sacear]

What about pics? I wanna see pics of the guts of the machine. 😛

It's going to look similar, for all purposes the same as it looks now, just with a different CPU, which a user cannot see anyway. Only the CPU will change, otherwise everything else is the same Macintosh.

 

[nagromme]

It's going to look similar, for all purposes the same as it looks now, just with a different CPU, which a user cannot see anyway. Only the CPU will change, otherwise everything else is the same Macintosh.

Yes, future Intel Macs will look like nice, tidy, well-engineered... Macs.

But these dev kits with the single Pentiums... I bet those are all duct tape and hot glue inside! 🙂

 

[sacear]

So you could always say 64 bit Intel chips may be coming out, but it appears Apple doesn't want developers shooting for that. At least not now. Doesn't that kinda kill their Server offerings? I assume they'll use Itanium or Opteron in their servers. However, wasn't the PowerPC 970 half the reason why Apple was getting clusters into the supercomputing top 500?

I'd love to hear some of your thoughts on this. What do you think?

Seems to me that Apple's servers will be the last to transition to Intel CPUs and will have PPC CPUs for a long time to come, at least 2007 and maybe even beyond.

 

[sacear]

Yes, future Intel Macs will look like nice, tidy, well-engineered... Macs.

But these dev kits with the single Pentiums... I bet those are all duct tape and hot glue inside! 🙂

Yeah, with hamsters running on wheels inside. Dual processor = two wheels. Dual core = two hamsters per wheel. 😱 😀

 

[aegisdesign]

There is also PearPC for those old programs, which I'm sure will be ported to Macintel in short order.

And Basilisk II, vMac, SheepShaver....

If you want to run a classic Mac application, those are actually sometimes better at running them than even Classic mode on OSX currently.

 

[jiggie2g]

Yes, future Intel Macs will look like nice, tidy, well-engineered... Macs.

But these dev kits with the single Pentiums... I bet those are all duct tape and hot glue inside! 🙂

I have no doubt Mactel PC's will be made using the BTX format to keep things Cool and Quiet. I assume Cases will be much smaller I say atleast by 25% compared to the Cheese Grader G5.

I am just curious now that we are going Intel will stuborn companies like Creative labs(Sound Blaster) , Nividia , ATI. Finally make Mac OSX Drivers so all thier cards "Just Work".

I want to be able to shop at newegg , just buy the Latest Video Card and just fire it up.

Lastly no one is asking if we will be able to upgrade those new Macs with Stock processors.

 

[aegisdesign]

Two reasons why I think OpenFirmware is going to be replaced by a BIOS:

First reason, Apple has already confirmed OpenFirmware will not be used in Intel based Macs.

They have? Where?

Second reason, Windows stipulates a BIOS to install. Apple has confirmed Windows "should" install on Intel based Macs.

🙁

Actually, Schiller said they wouldn't prevent anyone from installing Windows, not that it should install without a hitch. I took that to mean that if Microsoft or anyone else wanted to get Windows running on an Intel based Mac then Apple weren't going to stop them from trying. It didn't say anything for how difficult a task that would be or that Apple were going to help do it.

I also may be remembering wrongly but at one point WindowsNT for PPC, Alpha and MIPS ran without a BIOS. NT used to run on IBM PreP and CHRP hardware, which was all open firmware based. I'd doubt Apple would ditch years of good hardware design to just use the crappy 1970s PC BIOS IRQ driven architecture.

I'd somehow doubt that Apple would go back to using BIOS but hey, I doubted they'd go Intel too. 😀

 

[aegisdesign]

I am just curious now that we are going Intel will stuborn companies like Creative labs(Sound Blaster) , Nividia , ATI. Finally make Mac OSX Drivers so all thier cards "Just Work".

I want to be able to shop at newegg , just buy the Latest Video Card and just fire it up.

I don't see why the device driver situation will change. The CPU may now be the same but the OS's API and architecture is still MacOS. Creative would still have to write audio units, Nvidia/ATI would still have to fit in with Quartz(2D/Extreme) and OpenGL, Epson will still have to write Mac scanner drivers and HP would still have to write Mac/CUPS printer driver PPDs.

Now of course they'll also have to compile them as universal binaries and they have two development platforms to test their hardware on instead of one.

No, this may have the opposite effect on hardware manufacturers.

They may be more inclined to should the switch mean a greater market share though, and that's potentially what will happen. Risky switch though. It relies on a lot of good will from the development community.

Lastly no one is asking if we will be able to upgrade those new Macs with Stock processors.

I've been thinking that too. Since it's much easier to buy Intel chips off the shelf than PowerPC, upgrading a Mac's CPU is going to be much easier. It also signals the end for the PPC upgrade companies like Sonnet who will perhaps have 5 more years of selling PPC upgrades before they just become too slow by comparison to Intel. Or maybe Freescale will ship a pin compatible 6Ghz G4 - who knows.

 

[cube]

I also may be remembering wrongly but at one point WindowsNT for PPC, Alpha and MIPS ran without a BIOS. NT used to run on IBM PreP and CHRP hardware, which was all open firmware based. I'd doubt Apple would ditch years of good hardware design to just use the crappy 1970s PC BIOS IRQ driven architecture.

If Apple deviates from a standard PC design (other than by adding an Apple DRM chip),
they will depend on M$ continued development of a custom version of Windows, although maybe with some virtualization software, greater deviations would be possible (but what about things like games?). Going x86 is only interesting if people can run Windows.

Also eventually it MUST be a Palladium platform.

 

[deanbo]

2006 PowerMac

Looks like the 2006 PowerMac will be based on Intel's "Conroe" processor. It will be 64 bit, dual core and have a total of 4mb of level 2 cache.

But what will they call the PowerMac now? IntelMac?

 

[rdowns]

There's no reason why Apple would lose quality in this switch. They won't be giving up any control over their hardware designs. In fact, it's highly probable that they negotiated a good bit of control over what Intel will be sending them. Intel had been trying for years to secure Apple as a client, so Apple had very good bargaining leverage.

Apple was also completely correct in saying that the G5 had the more promising roadmap when it was released. But IBM never delivered the goods. Sometimes you have to have a spine. Apple did.

I have to agree here. After getting royally screwed by Motorola/Freescale and IBM, you just know Jobs negotiated a sweet deal for Apple with Intel. Apple is hardly going to transition to just another me-too box pusher. Aside of OS X, they will still design boxes that will command higher margins. Apple can't survive on PC mfg. margins.

From Intel's perspective, they are not only gaining a "trophy" client, they are gaining a serious R&D partner, one with lots of competing processor knowledge. I have no doubt that Apple will add value to Intel chips, value that Intel may not sell elsewhere.

 

[rdowns]

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.

A thousand bucks is a steal for serious developers. Apple is providing them all the tools they need to transition their apps and allow them to sell them into the installed base and new Intel users.

 

[sacear]

Im in the same boat as EricNau, having bought my first Mac, and also loving it. 😀

What worries me though, is that Apple may start phasing out their own software from PowerPCs relatively soon. Would it be realistic to say that Leopard and all of Apple's other software will still be coming to PowerPCs until late 2007 or 2008? I mean I can't imagine them abonding all the people who own PowerPC hardware...

Unless they released a backwards compatible Rosetta, that converted Intel code to PowerPCs. But then we'd have the problem we have now with Altivec...

As long as my G4 stays in the loop until its time for a new machine. 😎

Apple is not going to phase out or abandon PPC software anytime soon. Look at Apple's track record. Has Apple ever done a hard cut and run? No, just the opposite. They always do a long, smooth transition and support old systems way longer than they should. Leopard will definitely include PPC support. The installed Mac user base will still be a large majority of PPC Macs! Apple will want to sell Leopard to those people with those PPC Macs.

 

[eXan]

If we could Windows on Macs, it would be so cool! I could by any PC-game and play on iMac (=intelMac 😉 )

 

[sacear]

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?

Yes, until around probably 2010.

 

[baruck]

I think there will be something really wrong...

I think the major problem we will face with tis transition is on the hardware side of things...

I dont think that hardware manufacturers like M-Audio, motu, RME, Digidesign, UAD (to name just a few) are any happy with this transition, 'cause now they have 3 plataforms to suport (make drivers to).

They use to do drivers to WinXP on x86 and for Mac OS X (and some to OS 9 to) on PPC.

Now they have to support (at least for some time) those I mention AND Mac OS X on Intel (one OS two very diferent hardware plataforms)...

And now just a question : Linux have a larger user base than OS X and the majority of those hardware manufaturers (i think all of them) refuse to make drivers for linux and dont give away any information to the open source community so they can make the drivers. Do you think they will do it for macs?

 

[cube]

Yes, until around probably 2010.

I doubt it, given Apple and third party developers' history of requiring the latest OS releases.

 

[Warbrain]

I doubt it, given Apple and third party developers' history of requiring the latest OS releases.

Well, considering that Apple knows that it's going to need to support the PowerPC-based computers bought before the first Intel-based computers come out and won't just completely cut off these customers in 2007, they will continue to make the Mac OS for PPC until 2010 at least.

And anyway, most developers will take advantage of the universal binary.

 

[GregA]

"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.

I think if it happens in 2 years Apple will be in an excellent position to choose the best chip that's available - IBM, Intel, or AMD. The work done for universal binaries may even make OSX apps even more portable.

And regarding OSX for other Intel boxes:

This has been argued to death since OS X first came out and PC people wanted it on their hardware. It would kill Apple, plain and simple - they'd lose money on hardware sales and Microsoft would absolutely stomp them in a head to head software competition. They'd go the way of other superior operating system projects like OS/2 and BeOS.

Apple makes 25-30% on its computers? So averaging $400 per Mac. So if they do sell to other Intel boxes, for each hardware sale they LOSE they need to make $400 on OSX sales. That probably means selling 1xMac -OR- 2xOSX (at $200) to maintain profitability (currently Apple sells the Tiger OS upgrade for US$129, so $200 for a new one sounds reasonable).

I think that's possible, though MS stomping them in head to head competition is a real issue. The biggest issue would be MS wouldn't encourage Virtual PC, it'd try to keep its customers. Hmmmm

edit: -OR- mistake

 

[tdewey]

i got a question
how come steve didnt give any details on the future of intel so we could at least know something about the future? The only thing he really told us about what is going to happen in the future is leopard

Because future of Intel is out on the web.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,120772,00.asp

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple and 3rd-party developers are smarter than PC folk.

Keep telling yourself that, don't bother to check anything.

Did you know that the Visual Studio will do automatic vectorisation? (Just write in pure C++ or C or C# or whatever, and the compiler changes the program to use the SSE SIMD instructions). Same for the Intel compilers.

Did you know that many of the intrinsics and math libraries on Windows and Linux already use SSE? (Check out Intel® Math Kernel Library 7.2)

What do you want to bet that the OSx86 "accelerate framework" will be based on the Intel MKL?

"Apple is smarter".... That's just conceited claptrap.

 

[Platform]

And regarding OSX for other Intel boxes:Apple makes 25-30% on its computers? So averaging $400 per Mac. So if they do sell to other Intel boxes, for each hardware sale they LOSE they need to make $400 on OSX sales. That probably means selling 1xMac OS 2xOSX (at $200) to maintain profitability (currently Apple sells the Tiger OS upgrade for US$129, so $200 for a new one sounds reasonable).

Well Tiger is a full version, not just an upgrade........and a price increase is what we are hoping os going to be the last thing intel will bring 😉