Behind the Apple-Intel Deal, IBM Surprised

[rxse7en]

as high school kid in UK (top 10 school, '87), won national finals versus thousands of other schools for macroeconomics with IBM- they never delivered and since then IBM has been "big idea, no result" company- btw- space ship fuel tank design, Airbus/Boeing (very subsedized by gov/t), chief scientist/engineer (IBM "forgot 5 mill$ server hunk/junk kit)- these guys are old world no quality rubbish....

 

[manu chao]

where do you get the time frame of one to two years to update and optimize to a point where the intel will out perform a G5? didnt they demonstrate that Mathmatica was recompiled in two hours AND running multiple computations?
I think you might be wrong...we will see. you have to remember OSX was designed to run on other chips from the beginning. if the app is native OSX it should be cake to recompile. im not worried about performance at all.

we will see.

Minor point: looking at how long it took Microsoft to release a G5 compatible version of VPC, or a Tiger-compatible one (where both Shared Networking and Virtual Switch work), I fear that there will be a couple of semi-important apps that will take two years to be updated properly.

More importantly, all the apps you already own (or might buy over the next year anyway) will not run natively on Intel processors. So, if you do not plan to update all your apps by, let's say, the end of 2006, you might be better served with G5 in 2006 & 2007, i.e. over the next two to three years.

 

[MarkCollette]

Minor point: looking at how long it took Microsoft to release a G5 compatible version of VPC, or a Tiger-compatible one (where both Shared Networking and Virtual Switch work), I fear that there will be a couple of semi-important apps that will take two years to be updated properly.

More importantly, all the apps you already own (or might buy over the next year anyway) will not run natively on Intel processors. So, if you do not plan to update all your apps by, let's say, the end of 2006, you might be better served with G5 in 2006 & 2007, i.e. over the next two to three years.

To be fair, the G5 lacked the intel-compatible endian mode that the G4 had, which probably threw a wrench in the emulation code base.

 

[MontyZ]

That depends in part on what you advised your friends to do.

I told them the change won't really affect them, and that they should just go out and buy the computer they want now and not worry about the Intel change.

But, the fact that this was a concern by people who are not very computer savvy and who don't read sites like this or have a subscription to Macworld leads me to believe other "normal" computer buyers may have the same reservations, which could hurt Mac sales this year.

 

[Fukui]

i surely and sincerely hope that they won't do such a thing. directX is garbage compared to openGL, but games are programmed with it because it's just easier; in other words, game developers are either lazy pigs or just plain incompetent. openGL games are the best ones out there. i wonder why... 😉

Well, see, the real difference between directX and OpenGL is that directX is a whole collection of API for games development (directDraw, directSound, etc.) so OpenGL is just basically Direct3D, so its not really able to compare them um... directly.

Better to compare Direct3D to OpenGL, CoreAudio to DirectSound etc.
It would be nice if someone bundled up OpenAL, OpenPlay, OpenGL etc and made a "direct" alternative...

 

[tucker]

MacTell switch

Mr. Jobs may have a temper and yes he may have killed the clones but business is business no mater what, if there is money to be made then they will work together. When Apple move to IBM, Moto still supplied chips and still are, so I see no problem with IBM supplying chips for the next two years.

A year ago Mr. Jobs was asked about Intel and he responded that he liked the PPC road map with Moto and IBM right now and going forward but it is nice to have options. IBM has not produced on that promised road map nor are they going to. It doesn’t matter who’s fault the fact is it was not going to happen so Apple had to do something.

Much has been said about costs (IBM) two things come to mind, IBM never like AltiVec but Apple insisted, IBM also wanted to use the PPC970 in there own computers to develop Linux work stations. Now that IBM has sold their desktop computer business the development of these chip now gets spread across a much smaller number of chips. Hardly Apples fault, but still a factor in future development costs. This is probably what IBM is referring too.

We will see faster PPC970 chips as IBM refines their manufacturing process (which is in their own interest as they can sell more from each wafer) I am sure they produce a 3 gig chip now just not in enough quantity for Apple to make a model on it.

My only hope and biggest fear is, that Apple can maintain the quality of their hardware no matter who makes the chips.

I still use OS9 for all my computers it does everything that we need right now. The only hardware we have that support OSX are the Prismo PowerBooks.

I have a tough decision to make going forward as we were just looking at starting the transition to new hardware later this year and what we would (costs) need software wise.

Is it better to make this transition twice (now and again in say five years) or wait and make it once two years from now? I am concerned with the software, which can cost as much as the hardware.

I am going to have to study what is best for us at this time and go from there.

I like many others felt stunned and almost sick when I heard the news; I am hard pressed to explain why even to myself, such if the life of a Mac user.

Eric

 

[TheCheat]

games will still suck, there is still the directx open gl divide.

How does a divide between opengl and directx make games suck? Also, I'm not saying games will be easier to port, but at least we won't have to pay more for a "Mac compatible" graphics card.

 

[kenaustus]

I "switched" 3 years ago when I bought a 667 15" PB for business travel. The reason why I went with a Mac? I was traveling overseas on business and could not afford to have my laptop screwed up with various bits of malware.

Last year I not only replaced the 667 with a 1.5, but also finished converting all PCs to Macs. I now buy a new OS X in the Family Pac version as there are 5 Macs to upgrade.

To be honest the chip inside is not that important to me in terms of the company that made it. My PB drives a 23" Apple display in the office and I'm satisfied with that - all the power I need right now. The 20" G5 iMac at home will last for years, as will my wife's iBook. If I find that I need another Mac anytime soon then I'll get it without regards to its Gx/x86 innards.

What I see for the next 5+ years:

1. The Gx platform will continue to be viable. There are simply too many out there to ignore. The fact that Apple has delivered 2 million copies of Tiger is a pretty good indication that they will continue to support Gx as long as it makes some money, especially as it is cheap and easy to do so. Other software houses are in the same boat - they want the Gx money as well as the x86 money.

2. Intel will perform better than Moto or IBM ever did. The make a stack of money off the PC business and Apple is going to take advantage of the $5 billion a year in R&D. I believe that Apple & Intel engineers will come up with some very good products over the next few years. (Question: Does Apple have any rights to Altivec?)

3. The moans from some Mac fans are, in my mind, some what confused. They seem to be blaming Intel for everything that Windows is responsible for. Apple will still deliver Macs. Macs will run OS X and, with the Intel chips, they will run faster than today.

If you look at the MS option you find a long wait for Longhorn, which is already a stripped down version of the original promise. Longhorn will also carry the huge albatross of backward compatibility, dragging it down further. At the same time as Longhorn comes out there will be another OS X upgrade, pushing it further ahead of Windows.

I believe that Apple has taken the best course it could given IBMs performance. I think we will see some interesting results sooner than expected. One reason is that everyone that leases the $999 development mule from Apple will be providing feedback and most of them will be saying that they are ready to go way before WWDC 06.

It's time to stop moaning and start enjoying thoughts of the potential future an Apple-Intel partnership provides.

 

[macidiot]

If Mac and Mac game sales increase, more open standards will be used by the game industry.

Doubtful. pc games are already a u-haul stuck on the back of the game console car. Mac games are a skateboard on a string attached to the u-haul.

In other words, pc games are already taking a back seat to console games. Games(with the exception of certain genres like mmorg, and that could very likely change with the next gen boxes) are often now developed console-first, then ported to pc(EA, for example). Seems to me the pc is following a similar track as the mac as far as gaming goes. Obviously, the pc game market won't die(the mac game market hasn't died either, its just in a vegetative state), but its losing its leadership. The game developers are following the money. And the money is in consoles. So, barring a massive marketshare increase by Apple, its fairly unlikely that game developers will bother with Apple, excepting porting companies like Aspyr and Macsoft. And of course, Blizzard. 😉 They must be getting some sweet gift baskets from Apple at Christmas... 😀

 

[GuyClinch]

In other words, pc games are already taking a back seat to console games. Games(with the exception of certain genres like mmorg, and that could very likely change with the next gen boxes) are often now developed console-first, then ported to pc(EA, for example).

This is essential what people said about the Xbox and the PS2. At the time those systems were very powerful as well.

Problem is PC's are just better for some kinds of games.

1) PC's come with a keyboard mouse and HD - always. This makes them better for games like the Sims2 (the biggest PC game of all time) and like you said MMPORG's which are very popular.

2) PC's come with higher resolution screens standard. This makes games like RTS (Real Time Strategy) far more exciting on a PC.

3) PC's continually evolve while console games stand still.

PC gaming will be around. Having better games would help the Mac.

Pete

 

[~Shard~]

3) PC's continually evolve while console games stand still.

I would disagree with this point. Look at the first games for any console when it is released, then look at the later games a few years later. Same technology, but the developers get much more out of the system.

 

[BenRoethig]

Doubtful. pc games are already a u-haul stuck on the back of the game console car. Mac games are a skateboard on a string attached to the u-haul.

In other words, pc games are already taking a back seat to console games. Games(with the exception of certain genres like mmorg, and that could very likely change with the next gen boxes) are often now developed console-first, then ported to pc(EA, for example). Seems to me the pc is following a similar track as the mac as far as gaming goes. Obviously, the pc game market won't die(the mac game market hasn't died either, its just in a vegetative state), but its losing its leadership. The game developers are following the money. And the money is in consoles. So, barring a massive marketshare increase by Apple, its fairly unlikely that game developers will bother with Apple, excepting porting companies like Aspyr and Macsoft. And of course, Blizzard. 😉 They must be getting some sweet gift baskets from Apple at Christmas... 😀

Computer: FPS, RTS, MMORPG

Console: Third person action, sports, platform, turn based RPG.

This isn't going to change for a while. I've tried to play both first person shooters and real time strategies with a controller, it is not a pleasant expirience. Same with trying to play sports games and platformers on the computer.

 

[JesterJJZ]

3) PC's continually evolve while console games stand still.

This in my opinion the worst thing about computer gaming. As computers evolve so do the games, which means you constantly need the next "best" graphics card and more ram and junk just so your game runs just as good or better than the same game at your friend's house. A console is good for about 5 year and doesn't have the hassle. Oh and I'd rather play on a large TV rather than in front of a compter...and yes I know you can do TV-out an stuff... Computer Gaming = Inferior, Consoles = Superior. 😀

 

[ZLurker]

This in my opinion the worst thing about computer gaming. As computers evolve so do the games, which means you constantly need the next "best" graphics card and more ram and junk just so your game runs just as good or better than the same game at your friend's house. A console is good for about 5 year and doesn't have the hassle. Oh and I'd rather play on a large TV rather than in front of a compter...and yes I know you can do TV-out an stuff... Computer Gaming = Inferior, Consoles = Superior. 😀

I would say it depends on your gaming pref. I play starcraft, warcraft, WoW, RTS in general and FPS. These games require alot of keybindings to become interesting. This is not praktical on a joypad. I am also one of those who cant play these without a mouse, although i know alot of ppl ar successfull with the joypad, i feel sick in my stomak if i play it on console.

 

[SPUY767]

Where did you hear that?

everything i hear about the cell is terrible... how the xbox360* processing is lightyears ahead of the tech specs and performance that the cell brings to gaming, and now jobs saying that it will be even worse than the PPC... the cell sure isn't getting much good press.

and i'm sure Jobs dumping on the PPC is really going to make anyone want to buy a PPC mac in the next 18-24 months....

Everything I hear from my friends in the gaming industry is that the cell is doing a great job with graphics. The problem with the cell in a desktop environment is that it's parts are too proecss specific. i.e. a cell machine could be designed that ran photoshop really fast, but it couldn't run office worth a damn. In the end I guess we'll just have to wait for the systems to emerge to know the truth.

 

[Billy Blaze]

games will still suck, there is still the directx open gl divide.

Not necessarily. The lads over at TransGaming technologies have done a decent (in many cases, not all) job of providing a general implementation of DirectX on Linux.

It wouldn't be that far-fetched to see Mac porting specialists licensing Transgaming's x86-centric technologies on a per-game basis to do a port. If you were to tweak TransGaming's code solely according to the game you're porting the results might be decent.

 

[GuyClinch]

This in my opinion the worst thing about computer gaming. As computers evolve so do the games, which means you constantly need the next "best" graphics card and more ram and junk just so your game runs just as good or better than the same game at your friend's house. A console is good for about 5 year and doesn't have the hassle. Oh and I'd rather play on a large TV rather than in front of a compter...and yes I know you can do TV-out an stuff... Computer Gaming = Inferior, Consoles = Superior.

PC's are cheap enough so that anyone can keep up with that kind of stuff nowadays. In the PC world if you stay just one step behind the "bleeding edge" you can run about any game for $500 bucks a year. Most serious gamers build their own PC and thus can swap out parts fairly easily and cheaply. It's fun.

Expensive? Kinda - but computer gaming is cheap compared to most other leisure activities like say playing golf or taking say tennis lessons. An additonal angle is that computers exist BECAUSE people already have high powered computers just sitting around. As long as people keep buying fast new computers people will keep making games for them.

In fact, a case could be made that alot of growth in the PC industry has happened because of games. Do you really need a highpowered PC to do the "normal" stuff people do? Not really. You can put together a $399 PC that will do most everything a normal person needs.

Anyway this is good news for people who want to use the superior MacOSX. We can have our cake and eat it too after the Macintel's come out.

Pete

 

[GuyClinch]

This isn't going to change for a while. I've tried to play both first person shooters and real time strategies with a controller, it is not a pleasant expirience. Same with trying to play sports games and platformers on the computer.

It's not just the controller - it's the display. You can get add on keyboards for your PS2 and play say Final Fantasy XI. But who would want to with NTSC video. Sure the new displays will support some Hi-Def formats but you need a Hi-Def TV to do that. Most people who have a computer already have a monitor that supports like 1600x1200 which is better then what the best Hi-Def tv's can provide. That's essential for certain types of games.

Pete

 

[MarkCollette]

It's not just the controller - it's the display. You can get add on keyboards for your PS2 and play say Final Fantasy XI. But who would want to with NTSC video. Sure the new displays will support some Hi-Def formats but you need a Hi-Def TV to do that. Most people who have a computer already have a monitor that supports like 1600x1200 which is better then what the best Hi-Def tv's can provide. That's essential for certain types of games.

Pete

That's probably why all the consoles are pushing for HDTV. Once all consoles are used with 30"+ HDTV displays, with a keyboard, then I bet that PC gaming won't last long. With mandated HDTV, that might even happen in this generation of consoles.

 

[GuyClinch]

That's probably why all the consoles are pushing for HDTV. Once all consoles are used with 30"+ HDTV displays, with a keyboard, then I bet that PC gaming won't last long. With mandated HDTV, that might even happen in this generation of consoles.

They might be pushing for it but it's not happening. Less then 10% of the US population has HDTV. Moreover if you look into the mandated "HDTV" you find it's riddled with exceptions that basically mean in reality it isn't mandated.
Nintendo isn't even bothering with HDTV support in their next gen platform.

By the time 720p takes off PC's will be far outstripping that in terms of normal resolution. So the "gap" in terms of resolution will likely grow.

I bet that PC gaming won't last long. With mandated HDTV, that might even happen in this generation of consoles.

Yup lots of people were saying that when the PS2 game out. Anyway your misreading the market when you think that the lack of games hasn't hurt mac sales, IMHO.

Pete

 

[pont]

The New York Times also confirms that Apple has investigated other chips as well. Apple reportedly met with Sony regarding the Cell design but Jobs "was disappointed with the Cell design, which he believes will be even less effective than the PowerPC."

How is a PowerPC with 8 SPE's less effective then a PowerPC w/o 8 SPES ?

Interesting artical here BTW (if none has already posted it)

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2137787/security-chip-block-non-macs

 

[gwangung]

How is a PowerPC with 8 SPE's less effective then a PowerPC w/o 8 SPES ?

Well, if a lot of your work doesn't deal with the kind of stuff that SPEs do, then it's little wonder.

But you've been told this before....

 

[Trekkie]

IBM does advertise their blade servers on TV/cable. those are available with IBM or Intel chips.

Technically, IBM does not say anything about the processor in the commercials other than the Intel Inside logo and a quick blurb at the end, however they do run with Intel Xeon, Xeon MP, IBM PowerPC970 and AMD Opteron processors.

 

[jiggie2g]

Man I never thought I'd be doing this ...Defending Intel. but therew are a million and one reason why Apple didn't stick to PPC or jump on Cell. now lets explore these options.

PPC : 1st IBM dosen't give a crap about the PPC 970 or Apple for that matter they were more then willing to let Apple go down like the Titanic. When did u see IBM advertise the PPC 970...ever. They used Xenons more then they used thier own PPC chips. Yea You and all the other PPC Fanboys keep crying and call Jobs a fool but this was the right decision and when ur buying ur Pentium M Powerbook I wanna hear some PPC nut bitch about it. I dare you.

Cell : How many time do we have to explain to you mac monkey that the cell never was and very well may never be designed as a general purpose desktop CPU. Jobs went to Sony took a look at it and said ...no way. Simply because it's perfromance was not on par with the current desktop CPU's and everything would have to be completely re-written ...didn't we just finish doing this with OSX. not to mention Cell it probably one of the worst chips to program for, Developers would have given Jobs the middle finger and just make stuf for windows.

Intel : Let's see between intel and apple just about every industry standard of the last 15yrs has come from either company , USB , Firewire, 802.11b , PCI, AGP , PCIe..etc. next everyone of you PPC nuts have this assumption that the P4 will end up in a mac just because it's in the stupid dev kit. Not going to happen Jobs dosen't want that POS in a retail mac. Intel has 14 fab plants in total...4 doing the 90nm CPU's and 2 will be doing 65nm by 1QT '06, the Arizona fab plant is already doing 65nm. The rest wil follow suit.

Intel will be selling 65nm cpu's before AMD and IBM even start producing them. They have the best engineers in the business and spend the most on R&D. Notice they were the only chip company they didn't go to IBM for help on the 90nm bumps. they figured it out on thier own. Nvidia , AMD and ATI all when to IBM for help. Yonah , Memron and Conroe are the future of Intel CPU's and looking at the tomshardware article will scale very well.

why aren't you mac monkeys happy about all the Pubilic butt kissing Intel has been giving you since the WWDC. Unlike IBM , Intel is actually showing that they want Apples business and are willing to go out thier way to prove it. They need us as much was we need them and this will ultimately lead to both companies going head to head with M$. That is Inevitable.

P.S. I bet Paul Otellini never smiled like he did at the WWDC any other day in his life , surely not in the recent months..AMD .

 

[jaw04005]

why aren't you mac monkeys happy about all the Pubilic butt kissing Intel has been giving you since the WWDC. Unlike IBM , Intel is actually showing that they want Apples business and are willing to go out thier way to prove it. They need us as much was we need them and this will ultimately lead to both companies going head to head with M$. That is Inevitable.

"Mac monkeys" aside, I agree with the majority of your post. I'm thrilled that Intel is speaking openly about their new partnership with Apple. IBM failed in that regard.

Steve tried to defend IBM at WWDC 2004, but a year later they are practically where they were the year before. 😡

At least with Intel, we will continue to learn about what new chips are coming, when they are coming, and what to expect in the future, and ,unlike IBM, Intel can actually deliver.

I hope to see Intel partner with Apple to promote the Pentium M and D processors and Mac OS X.