Intel and PowerPC Mac OS X Up to Date?

[Sunrunner]

hmmmm

Has anyone considered all of the PowerPC programmers @ Apple? What is going to happen to them once the x86 transition is complete. Are a whole bunch of the PowerPC guys going to be booted to the street in a year or two?

 

[jayscheuerle]

From what I've read, the X86 version has no 64 bit components in it.

 

[DavidCar]

There's no way they could achieve parity with the current crop of Intel processors. Intel is way behind the PowerPC and has really got to cover a lot of ground by the time Apple makes the switch. And Apple will have little time to fine tune its latest OS for this chip in order to ship on time. Seems like Jobs has borrowed a page from Microsoft and started talking out both sides of his mouth.

Do you think Apple would delay making the switch if the Intel processors couldn't achieve parity in real world software tests?

 

[wdlove]

Has anyone considered all of the PowerPC programmers @ Apple? What is going to happen to them once the x86 transition is complete. Are a whole bunch of the PowerPC guys going to be booted to the street in a year or two?

I think that they will move on to other projects like other programmers at Apple have in the past.

This is good news, also think that Apple will stick to its timetable by June 2006.

 

[Josh396]

Has anyone considered all of the PowerPC programmers @ Apple? What is going to happen to them once the x86 transition is complete. Are a whole bunch of the PowerPC guys going to be booted to the street in a year or two?

I think some will stay and some will go. As someone else mentioned I'm sure Apple will just try to move them to different projects or departments if their skills allow.

They might keep a few also just incase a big PowerPC development does occur. I highly doubt that will ever happen but they have had guys working on x86 versions of OS X since it's existence so I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[Josh396]

From what I've read, the X86 version has no 64 bit components in it.

Never thought of that. Maybe they're planning on making Leopard fully 64 bit and decided not to waste time on something that would be phased out pretty quickly (For those that upgrade their machines).

 

[Sunrunner]

Could this be an indication that we'll see macintels sooner than this summer? Fingers gleefully crossed.

Im worried as it is that th3 G5 I just bought is gonna find itself obsolete in about 6 months. What does everyone think the likelyhood of that is.... Is Apple gonna drop the PowerPC support and such, or otherwise put the hurt on us PPC owners?

 

[Stella]

Never thought of that. Maybe they're planning on making Leopard fully 64 bit and decided not to waste time on something that would be phased out pretty quickly (For those that upgrade their machines).

I doubt it, there are an awful lot of people out there with G4 processors.

For Apple to stop supporting G4s would be suicidal.

 

[driftingaway]

Spill the beans - what is the performance like?

Well, as most applications are having to go through Rosetta to run, and also due to the fact OSX x86 utilises the SSE3 instruction set quite extensively (which is only built into the later models of 64 bit processors - for example I bought my 3500+ a week before the Venice core was released which had SSE3 built in) certain 'tweaks' need to be instigated to allow things to run properly.

Currently most applications are not compliled for joint platform or intel, so running things like FCP is still far off, especially as many apps employ OpenGL and at this time OpenGL in OSX Intel does not work (mainly due to the lack of graphics drivers available).

Apart from that, and for things like Web browsing and general OS X trying out, it works fine. It's just not particularally useful for any kind of work.

 

[steve_hill4]

Im worried as it is that th3 G5 I just bought is gonna find itself obsolete in about 6 months. What does everyone think the likelyhood of that is.... Is Apple gonna drop the PowerPC support and such, or otherwise put the hurt on us PPC owners?

Nah, I think apple have committed themselves to full PPC support for the next few OSs at least. If they were to say now, "Sorry, but in 12 months time/after Leopard, PPC support will be dropped", their sales would dry up overnight. I can't see them offering support being a problem either, it comes down to developers optimising code for PPC that will be the problem. If they don't fully test on PPC and concentrate on x86, then us PPC owners will be treated as 2nd class citizens.

The general concensus is that if you buy a Quad Core G5 today, it should be good for another 3 years, so i would expect PPC support for at least that length of time.

 

[BenRoethig]

Could this be an indication that we'll see macintels sooner than this summer? Fingers gleefully crossed.

For the Mini and ibook, the change over wouldn't be that big of a deal. The programs they run are mostly from Apple anyway and the PowerPC ones Rosetta should be able to handle. On the plus side, it'd give Apple some leverage against Aopen's clone during the holiday season and urge the developers to get their rear ends in gear.

 

[jayscheuerle]

For the Mini and ibook, the change over wouldn't be that big of a deal. The programs they run are mostly from Apple anyway and the PowerPC ones Rosetta should be able to handle. On the plus side, it'd give Apple some leverage against Aopen's clone during the holiday season and urge the developers to get their rear ends in gear.

There are plenty of Minis and iBooks in the hands of creative professionals running the Adobe Suite alongside Quark and Flash. There are also plenty of Powerbooks and G5 towers in the hands of the "latest/greatest" crowd that never see more than Apple programs...

 

[shamino]

Nah, I think apple have committed themselves to full PPC support for the next few OSs at least

We know they won't stop selling PPC Macs until the end of 2007, so we know for certain that it will be supported until then.

We can also be fairly certain that it will be supported for the lifespan of whatever OS ships on those last-generation models. If that's Leopard, and Leopard ships in mid-2007, then this means support through the end of 2008, at least.

Finally, there's history. When Apple switched from 68K to PPC, they supported both processors for a long time. The first PPC-compatible OS was system 7.5 (released in 1994). The first OS incompatible with the 68K was 8.5 (released in 1998). In other words, last time around, there was a four year gap. If the first x86 Macs ship in mid-2006, then this indication implies that we can expect PPC support to be dropped in the release of Mac OS that ships in mid-2010.

Of course, this is official support from Apple. Application support will be different. Some will drop it sooner, and some will continue support far beyond Apple.

The general concensus is that if you buy a Quad Core G5 today, it should be good for another 3 years, so i would expect PPC support for at least that length of time.

I think this much is certain.

 

[RobHague]

Well...

I know what Steve said about the transition being 'complete' by 2007 sometime. But lots can happen between now and then.

Do you think its possible that Apple will keep the Universal Binarys and sell both Intel and PPC products? Or do you think they will want to cut ties with PPC completley. It just seems a shame that all this work going into making PPC/Intel binaries is just to keep people with PPC systems happy and will 'vanish' once Intel has a firm grip on the Mac market. What if some really stonking PPC product arrives? At the very least id expect Apple to want to keep their options open (like they have done with OSX leading a secret life for x86).

The PPC arcitecture does have its advantages over x86 no? Maybe Apple will taylor the CPU to the product. For instance workstations use PPC, consumer systems (especially portables) use Intel that sort of thing. Well i can dream i guess just wish that i could look forward to some more PPC goodness in the future

 

[FireArse]

I still dont like the idea.....

...of going backwards into x86. I think we're loosing the technological advantages of being with PPC.

From what I've read, the X86 version has no 64 bit components in it.

Yonah and Merom (Apprently the first Intel chips) are they 64-bit? I would be more happy with Apple going to AMD actually. I dont think it would have taken long for AMD to build up their production levels to support Apple's need.

Oh these days are cloudy and I want a quad PPC, but have no money

As for actualy reason for the post - I dont think OSx86 can be at 10.4.3 - just a feeling. Its like as if there's enough people complaining about their PPC chips running after the upgrade, let alone the x86 people!

F

 

[applerocks]

First off, I read somewhere that this version for the intels had more security in it. Any one know more about that?

Also, are there going to be those Intel stickers on the macs? Would SJ allow that? Do all windows boxes have em?

Thanks,
applerocks

 

[qtip919]

1. Why does anyone care...Im running OS x now, on PPC, and the only thing OS X on Intel is going to offer is the EXACT same thing on another piece of hardware that you cant even see

2. While I am excited with every product release Apple gives, Im starting to get a little bored. Honestly, the race between Google + Sun vs. Microsoft's windows live/Office live is alot more exciting fundamentally than online media distribution (ie, iTunes, iTunes + video, etc.)

3. The Intel release of OSX is going to usher in a time of backsliding in the mac development community. Honestly, I think people underestimate what an architecture change does to the overall health of your dev. community. This will cause medium term pain...

4. Mac clones, we've heard the rumors, its inevitable. Either it happens illegally or legally. You cant expect false hardware lockdowns to keep Intel architecture code to work. Ask xbox developers about this, refer to Linux on xbox.

 

[DavidCar]

Well...

I know what Steve said about the transition being 'complete' by 2007 sometime. But lots can happen between now and then.

... What if some really stonking PPC product arrives?.

..... just wish that i could look forward to some more PPC goodness in the future

By the end of 2007 there is projected to be a quad core single chip (no northbridge/southbridge) PowerPC available with low enough power to put into a powerbook. I wonder if some of us will be looking enviously at that chip at that time.

http://www.pasemi.com/processors/

 

[cgc]

Anyone want to send me the link to download the x86 OS X torrent?

The one I saw has been deactivated.

 

[RobHague]

By the end of 2007 there is projected to be a quad core single chip (no northbridge/southbridge) PowerPC available with low enough power to put into a powerbook. I wonder if some of us will be looking enviously at that chip at that time.

http://www.pasemi.com/processors/

This is why im wondering if Apple will keep both platforms around. Something from PPC turns up that makes an awsome workstation/server whatever -- bang they can add it to a new system and everything is in place for it to work with no problems with the universal binarys that will be out there. They could choose CPU's for each application of the product -- rather than being stuck with just PPC or just Intel. Also that would lower the damand on IBM? I mean Apple's main consumer systems say use Intel chips, so the PPC production wont be in demand as much as it is now... just some thoughts.

 

[GorillaPaws]

First off, who says it's ready? It's in Apple's best interest to keep the x86 version up to date regardless of whether it's stable, so the developers will have it. Universal binaries are not that useful if the APIs behave differently on the two architectures.

Point well taken. I think I misinterpreted the rumor a fair bit.

As for your next question, even if both hardware and OS are ready, Apple would be foolish to release it now, because developers have no had time to port their apps yet. You do not want to release new systems when all applications must be run through Rosetta. Performance would end up worse than on the older model Macs, establishing a reputation of poor-performance that would dog the product for years.

I respectfully disagree. Many mac users don't need their computers to do more than basic tasks that Tiger, iLife, and iWork will handle. When OSX was released there were very few 3rd party apps available running cocoa. If anything, it'll only encourge 3rd party devs to get the the ball moving as quickly as possible.

What purgatory? Until the first units actually ship (and developer previews don't count), there only is one Mac - PPC.

I'm under the inpression that there will be no new PPC macs released. 8 months is a LONG time for people to wait who are in the market for a new computer. We all know the best way to get the most milage out of your Mac is to buy the most current hardware out there.

I'm sure there are some that are refusing to buy new Macs until the Intel boxes ship, but so what? These are the same people who would spend a few years waiting for the "next great thing" whether or not an architecture change was in the works.

There are many who won't buy new Macs until Intel, myself included. I can't afford to buy a new computer every 3 years, I have to make 'em last, and the only way to do that is to buy the "next great thing" right after they release it. My iMac's great, don't get me wrong. But at 800mhz, It's starting to show it's age. Personally, I'd like to make it last until the Intel swich.

 

[heisetax]

And how would they do that? The chips are not even available.

You've hit one of the reasons why we won't see the new Intel Macs any earlier than Intel (Inside, not a sign of quality, but a qrning label) starts selling the cpus that Apple is waiting for.They also want enough software to run well on the new boxes to give one a reson to purchase a new processor class.

Bill the TaxMan

 

[slooksterPSV]

Just found this on an iTem for architecture... wait its item, lol. Look at this screenshot I just took!

 

[Meyvn]

This is why im wondering if Apple will keep both platforms around. Something from PPC turns up that makes an awsome workstation/server whatever -- bang they can add it to a new system and everything is in place for it to work with no problems with the universal binarys that will be out there. They could choose CPU's for each application of the product -- rather than being stuck with just PPC or just Intel. Also that would lower the damand on IBM? I mean Apple's main consumer systems say use Intel chips, so the PPC production wont be in demand as much as it is now... just some thoughts.

You know what it would also do? Put extremely HIGH demand on Apple's workforce to develop ALL of their software on both platforms, or else their users will have to deal with this Rosetta nonsense with every other bloody program they use. That's just far too impractical.

On the subject of a quad-core single processor, if Apple does not capitalize on this, someone else will.

 

[heisetax]

3 Years?

Nah, I think apple have committed themselves to full PPC support for the next few OSs at least. If they were to say now, "Sorry, but in 12 months time/after Leopard, PPC support will be dropped", their sales would dry up overnight. I can't see them offering support being a problem either, it comes down to developers optimising code for PPC that will be the problem. If they don't fully test on PPC and concentrate on x86, then us PPC owners will be treated as 2nd class citizens.

The general concensus is that if you buy a Quad Core G5 today, it should be good for another 3 years, so i would expect PPC support for at least that length of time.

Did Steve Jobs wait 3 years after OS X before he declared OS 9 dead? With that as an example of his timing we have less than 3 years before we have to depend on 3rd party only to support OS 9 & X on the PPC..

Bill the TaxMan