That is normal for WWDC, everything but the keynote is under NDA. This likely means that they have opened the full schedule to attendees to see (attendees have accepted the NDA). Note that several session had been marked on the calendar but tagged with "to be announced", again that is normal for WWDC.Peace 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.
'Intel Based Mac' Rumor Roundup...
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
infobhan said:
I think this is mostly right. However, in the short term sales will take a big hit. First, although Apple will support PPC for many years, a shift of this magnitude means that at some point your machine isn't going to get as much software support and optimization as it would otherwise get. Second, psychologically, people won't want to buy PPC when they can wait a few months and get in on the future Mac processor platform.
I think that the long-term cost savings and the opportunity for people to possible install windows on their machines makes this a difficult, but possibly ingenious business move.
I'd like to believe this too, but then what's in it for Intel? Certainly Apple would have a much more stable supplier if it moves to Intel - from what I understand, they can do whatever they want with the PPC. Maybe Intel sees some future in this market vis a vis XBox 2, and wants to get its hands on the architecture - but is this enough incentive? Of course, Intel would also have a massive R&D department to back up any PPC development path and thereby give it de facto higher priority than either IBM or Moto, which would certainly appeal to Apple.irobot2003 said:
Something else (however unlikely) to throw in to the hopper for speculation: what if Intel thinks it could take Altivec and the existing PPC architecture and toss it on to a better chip that began life in the X86 family? It would be a "best of both worlds" scenario, and may not require re-porting OS X and every single Mac application. Of course that the announcement is being made a WWDC somewhat belies this speculation, but maybe there could be some sort of additional Intel stuff that new revisions of existing applications could take advantage of?
I agree with the sentiment that a Mac is a Mac is a Mac, and OS X is really the most elegant OS out there and why we all defend Macs tooth and nail. What worries me is having the existing G3-G5 PPC systems being forced into obscurity long before they would naturally expire. One of the things about Macs and particularly OS X that I like is if you just need a computer to get the job done: everyday email, Web, correspondence, etc. you can basically use any model of PPC from the G3/233 onward - there are even folks on MR with G3/G4 upgrades in their 9600s (and earlier models) running Office 2004 and doing everyday stuff. The same is not true for the X86 line and Windows: Running Win2K on a Pentium 133 is like entering the seventh circle of hell.
Though I bet upgrade companies are crying a little right now - Sonnet, et al. really haven't yet been able to do upgrade chips for anything better than a G4 - this move might cut off a whole avenue of their profit streams.
Can't Apple use the darwin layer to accelerate PPC emulation using hyper-threading instead of the velocity engine? Can they get away with making changes in the Mac OS X code that keeps Macs as fast as they run now without developers having to change a thing to their code. Then they could say if you want to have your apps run fast you need to code them to use hyper-threading. Like they did when they put the velocity engine on their chips.
Maybe this is the truth?
Perhaps the easiest idea is the one that is less compilcated.
Apple is porting OSX to Intel, but not abandoning IBM. Macs will still be PowerPC = but OSX will be released on INTEL.
Take that Mr. Gates!
Perhaps the easiest idea is the one that is less compilcated.
Apple is porting OSX to Intel, but not abandoning IBM. Macs will still be PowerPC = but OSX will be released on INTEL.
Take that Mr. Gates!
Looks like the internet media are fitting in two camps on this one, CNET and WSJ on one side and eweek.com on the other. I for one hope eweek have the edge on this one.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1824223,00.asp
Seems crazy that Apple would jump over to Intel with the Cell chip so close. My feeling is if sony/ibm can fit/cool a 3.2ghz Cell chip in a console size box in say a year Apple should be able to fit/cool one in a powermac size box in say 4-6 months?
Just my 2 cents
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1824223,00.asp
Seems crazy that Apple would jump over to Intel with the Cell chip so close. My feeling is if sony/ibm can fit/cool a 3.2ghz Cell chip in a console size box in say a year Apple should be able to fit/cool one in a powermac size box in say 4-6 months?
Just my 2 cents
Peace said:Well see now thats the difference between Windows servers and Tiger
Actually, MacRumors is hosted on x86 hardware.
No. Hyperthreading was just dressed-up pipelining, a stopgap until real dual core chips could be offered. Altivec is SIMD (sort of a limited kind of vector processing). There are a few ways Apple might deal with the differences (existing Intel parts have SIMD, but it's not a direct interchange), so we'll need to wait and see what they have to say.reyesmac said:
Deestar said:
I'm not positive, but I was under the impression that Cell is not a processor like x86 or PPC, but some type of add-on chip to one of the two that just really speeds things up.
Uh you'd take e-weak over the WALL ST JOURNAL and CNET???
They are moving to Intel. The question is how. New PPC chip? Next generation x86? Apple's hardware is up against the wall, and they will do what they have to do to survive. They have a 6+ billion war chest thanks to ipod, and this is the time to ensure they are competitive.
They are moving to Intel. The question is how. New PPC chip? Next generation x86? Apple's hardware is up against the wall, and they will do what they have to do to survive. They have a 6+ billion war chest thanks to ipod, and this is the time to ensure they are competitive.
Side Benefit
I'm thinking that a side benefit of the switch could be that Apple gets a "clean" move to all 64 bit.
The only non 64 bit chip they'd be interested in is the Yonah dual-mobile chip, and I think that is moving to 64 bit in the expected time frame.
T
I'm thinking that a side benefit of the switch could be that Apple gets a "clean" move to all 64 bit.
The only non 64 bit chip they'd be interested in is the Yonah dual-mobile chip, and I think that is moving to 64 bit in the expected time frame.
T
Zigster said:
Exactly.
CNet, WSJ and the Inquirer all have three seperate industry sources that say the same thing. eWeek has ?
The switch is happening.
I am sure that Apple/Jobs are responsible for the leak because they didn't want heart attacks at the Keynote.
T
Zigster said:
So I'm guessing you didn't read the 2nd page of the article?
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1824224,00.asp
Deestar said:
The Cell chip and Apple PowerPC chips have about as much in common as the Power chips (used in IBM servers) and Apple's version of them. They may have similiar origins, they may have similiar features, but they aren't going to be used in place of one another.
I don't understand why anyone thinks that Cell is going to be used anywhere else. Was the Emotion Engine used anywhere else? Cell has a niche use. It is not designed for general process computing. Mind you, Cell is very very good at what it does, but that doesn't mean that Apple is going to adopt it for their main processors. Maybe as an addon board aimed at professionals, but hardly as one suitable for the consumer.
John Gruber, on Daring Fireball, makes some interesting points I haven't seen discussed. Several people have said that Intel won't manufacture PPC. But Gruber (correctly) implies that Intel could be trying to get into PPC to woo console manufacturers, even in this generation (processor manufacturer switches have happened in the console business - since the machines have to be identical, more powerful processors have to be clocked down): see the redesigned Playstation 2 or Gameboy Advance Micro sport differently manufactured processors (if I'm not mistaken, the Super Famicom changed processors once or twice too).
That being said, the WSJ reports that they're moving to x86 and I have no reason to disbelieve them. I was planning on buying an iBook before I move to Japan, however, and I don't want a PPC machine if the move is to x86. I hope that SJ will have an x86 based iBook ready to ship on Monday...
Anyway, there's no reason to believe Intel will brand Macs (if it's one thing Apple has, its their own brandname) or anything of the sort...other than the headache of re-releasing software, I don't forsee a huge (negative) change...I just don't want to wait for new Macs.
That being said, the WSJ reports that they're moving to x86 and I have no reason to disbelieve them. I was planning on buying an iBook before I move to Japan, however, and I don't want a PPC machine if the move is to x86. I hope that SJ will have an x86 based iBook ready to ship on Monday...
Anyway, there's no reason to believe Intel will brand Macs (if it's one thing Apple has, its their own brandname) or anything of the sort...other than the headache of re-releasing software, I don't forsee a huge (negative) change...I just don't want to wait for new Macs.
Tiger Becomes The New Longhorn
Folks, I think a ton of you just aren't getting the major possibility here. This is Apple's chance to deal its first substantial blow to the Microsoft/Windows hegemony since sliding into second place 20-years ago.
MS chose to not build a modern, clean-slate OS, and, is hemstrapping Longhorn with all of the dead weight required to maintain backwards compatibility with four or more generations of prior Windows releases. They made the business decision to not make a clean break at this time.
Tiger is already everything a clean-break "Longhorn" should have been. And, if Apple simply specifies a minimum system configuration on which the new "Intel" Tiger will run, it limits the overhead on the company of supporting a bazillion antique drivers and APIs. And, it puts Tiger up there as a surprise, solid alternative to Windows for new hardware buyers.
Apple will not attempt to support parallel ports, floppy drives, serial ports, etc. with this move. It will start from the same hardware assumptions that now underpin the current Mac lineup, and will require a certain base Intel hardware configuration in order to run the revised Tiger.
Is any of this work needed on Tiger (or major apps) trivial? No. But, if Apple's been developing toward this transition for some extended period of time, my guess is that all of the iffy parts have long since been worked out.
Personally, I want one of those Voodoo Eden air-cooled dual Opteron towers with OS X running natively. From a profitability standpoint, that hypothetical sale of one copy of Tiger would earn Apple about the same as if I bought a Mac mini, or an entry level iBook or eMac.
Nothing Apple can do will result in a sudden, large migration of corporate desktops to OS X. But, the consumer, small office, education, and (don't forget) the enterprise spaces are not as tied to Microsoft. Huge sales gains can be had in these spaces with an x86 compatible OS X.
Folks, I think a ton of you just aren't getting the major possibility here. This is Apple's chance to deal its first substantial blow to the Microsoft/Windows hegemony since sliding into second place 20-years ago.
MS chose to not build a modern, clean-slate OS, and, is hemstrapping Longhorn with all of the dead weight required to maintain backwards compatibility with four or more generations of prior Windows releases. They made the business decision to not make a clean break at this time.
Tiger is already everything a clean-break "Longhorn" should have been. And, if Apple simply specifies a minimum system configuration on which the new "Intel" Tiger will run, it limits the overhead on the company of supporting a bazillion antique drivers and APIs. And, it puts Tiger up there as a surprise, solid alternative to Windows for new hardware buyers.
Apple will not attempt to support parallel ports, floppy drives, serial ports, etc. with this move. It will start from the same hardware assumptions that now underpin the current Mac lineup, and will require a certain base Intel hardware configuration in order to run the revised Tiger.
Is any of this work needed on Tiger (or major apps) trivial? No. But, if Apple's been developing toward this transition for some extended period of time, my guess is that all of the iffy parts have long since been worked out.
Personally, I want one of those Voodoo Eden air-cooled dual Opteron towers with OS X running natively. From a profitability standpoint, that hypothetical sale of one copy of Tiger would earn Apple about the same as if I bought a Mac mini, or an entry level iBook or eMac.
Nothing Apple can do will result in a sudden, large migration of corporate desktops to OS X. But, the consumer, small office, education, and (don't forget) the enterprise spaces are not as tied to Microsoft. Huge sales gains can be had in these spaces with an x86 compatible OS X.
tdewey said:
Clean move to 64 bit? The PowerPC architecture is a LOT cleaner than x86 in regards to 64-bit computing. x86 is a patchwork that gets uglier with every new improvement. Ask any Intel or AMD engineer and more than likely they will be in agreement. There's a reason that Intel wanted to move away from their bread and butter. x86 is good because there are so many resources dedicated to improving it from the engineers to the compilers, but it is hardly a clean solution.
64-bit computing is also overrated. Most applications for the consumer do not require it. The only reason that (64-bit recompiled) programs may benefit is the availability of more registers.