'Intel Based Mac' Rumor Roundup...

[DOUBLEADESIGN]

no DRM

at least the chip won't have the DRM. slashdot just reported Intel P-D will not have the DRM most fear.
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/06/05/1833241.shtml?tid=155&tid=118&tid=137

 

[Yvan256]

Marketspeak

at least the chip won't have the DRM. slashdot just reported Intel P-D will not have the DRM most fear.
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/06/05/1833241.shtml?tid=155&tid=118&tid=137

Nope, you fell right into their little play of words.

"The statement concludes: 'While Intel continues to work with the industry to support other content protection technologies, we have not added any unannounced DRM technologies in either the Pentium D processor or the Intel 945 Express Chipset family.'"

We have not added any unannounced DRM technologies.

Which means they've added DRM technology which was already announced earlier.

 

[Mac_Freak]

Interesting read:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Newscom_Says_Apple_Switching_to_Intel/1117894429

This is post from other thread that was posted by hodgjy

 

[uv23]

Disclaimer: I'm sure this has been said before, but who has time to read through so many posts!

Perhaps the whole rumor is a careful plant by Apple to bring attention to WWDC, where they will not in fact announce a partnership with Intel, but will instead announce the 970MP or some other PPC chip. It's all about the press coverage, and they'd get a whole lot more with news of an impending industry changing switch than with just a more powerful PPC rumor.

 

[gorda777]

Here are my thoughts on this switch to Intel issue.

The rumor may be very true, if it is, it is highly unlikely that Apple would announce a transition from IBM to Intel processors over the next year. This would be a marketing blunder.

Sales for Mac's would take a nose dive.... (who would want to purchase a Mac knowing full well that a transition is in the works), along with that, Apple stock would tumble.....

with that said, Apple may very well be planning a move to Intel, if true the move will be in the next 3 months.... A product from Apple will be available in a 3 month window.

A 3 month window gives the public and financial analyst HOPE .... for a predictable future... Apple stock will soar...

My other thought is Apple may very well be planning a move to Intel but also will keep IBM PowerPC... Apple will offer both worlds.... Intel and IBM..

my later thought would be the most practical for Apple and would appease both the public and financial analyst.

 

[U.T.Z.]

I haven't said they don't exist (or that they cannot be taken advantage off, somehow, theoretically). But the PPC architecture prevents the code from buffer overflows to be executed automatically. And therein lays a BIG difference between the x86 and the PPC CPUs...

You might be right that it is more difficult to create exploits for PPC buffer overflows than for x86 (well, I can't judge, I have never tried to create exploits any of both architectures ). Nevertheless, shance is right that exploits are very well possible. Have a look at those links for very detailed descriptions of how to do that:

http://www.xfocus.org/documents/200408/5.html
http://www.lsd-pl.net/documents/asmcodes-1.0.2.pdf

Both are AIX-based though (a plain boring errrr robust UNIX as well): but we are talking the processor architecture aspect of security here...

I still like "Murph P. Murph"'s commentary (and his UNIX guide to defenestration in particular), but he fails to provide more detailed support for his claim in the article you cite...

Cheers,

U.T.Z

 

[LaMerVipere]

Hey everyone, I'm already using x86 based PowerMac, see the attached, its really fast. Check out the attached.

That actually doesn't look as bad as I thought, but it's still bad.

Oh well, maybe Apple could shrink the size of Power Macs to about half of what it is now, once they switch to Intel.

 

[LaMerVipere]

Does anyone think we'll be seeing anything like this tomorrow?

 

[sundoggy]

Yikes! What about all those great smaller developers that make the Mac even better?

But the portable futre looks bleak--the G5 may not be getting into a laptop for some time yet even if IBM manages to stay on track (which they so far have NOT), and the G4 is lagging Intel's offerings without any indications to the contrary.

What still has me feeling really uncomfortable, though, is what this is going to do to the software I run every day and the loyal developers who've supported the platform for years.
.

These to me are the two most important points:

1. Laptops have just now for the first time outsold desktops in recent reports, meaning Apple is in serious jeopardy of being able to offer competitive performance. From this perspective, I can't blame Apple from being as mad as hell and moving on.

2. My biggest worry here as a (very, extremely loyal) Mac user, is the software availability. In addition to the mainstream aps which will probably be quickly updated (but at a HUGE upgrade expense to me UGGGH), I also use a lot of unique niche s/w that makes using a Mac an additional 1000 percent better than a Windoze machine. How long will it take these smaller developers to rewrite their code, and how many of them will actually do it? Especially after the painful (but well worth it) migration to OSX.

For that reason, this scares me. However, if Apple can pull it off with some serious powerful emulation and a very easy transition/migration path for developers, then I think it will be a good move long term.

But there is a HUGE group of loyal Mac users who still sit on the fence because they are worried about the future of the platform and not being with the other 95% of the world. Apple is at a huge risk of losing those types of customers with another big platform transition. They HAVE to make it easy. I don't think you can do it with software. I think the best option I've heard so far is to drop in a G4 or G5 alongside the Intel chip---but then how does the computer shuffle these? Dual boot is not really a clean option.... this is not going to be easy

 

[animefan_1]

That actually doesn't look as bad as I thought, but it's still bad.

Oh well, maybe Apple could shrink the size of Power Macs to about half of what it is now, once they switch to Intel.

How? A 2.8 GHz Pentium D (dual core) runs at 95W; 3 GHz and 3.2 GHz @ 130W.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/default.asp

 

[michaellehn]

My other thought is Apple may very well be planning a move to Intel but also will keep IBM PowerPC... Apple will offer both worlds.... Intel and IBM..

That what I am hoping too.

I posted already in an other thread that I don't think that supporting different processors would cause too much technical problems. A compiler running on a G5 can generate machine code optimized for a Pentium processor or a G4 (cross compilation). However you have a problem if you for instance write explicit code for the altivec. But instead of coding explictly for the altivec you instead might want to use approproiate libraries, e.g. vecLib...

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Assuming the Intel switch is true, also assume that we are talking about PPC ->x86 transition.
Considering how much Apple has invested in the PPC chip, especially the G5, how the h*ll could Jobs possibly spinn this with an intact credibility??

It looks like the Intel switch is happening, but I seriously doubt that Apple would use x86 as their main CPU. I might be in denial, but I just can't see this happening.

 

[shawnce]

How long will it take these smaller developers to rewrite their code, and how many of them will actually do it?:

Unless they really are doing some stuff really really wrong, it will go something like this.

1) Install newer version of Xcode that supports the "Intel" CPU (Xcode uses gcc after all an that fully supported Intel CPUs).
2) Double click their existing Xcode project.
3) Select a menu option to add "Intel" CPU target and/or enable fat output.
4) Click compile.
5) step 5, their is no step 5

 

[Performa]

"That being said..."

Historically, Apple makes most of its money on hardware.

That being said there's no reason that Apple couldn't decide to try to beat Windows or even coexist with Windows on the PC platform... but so far, no one has been able to (OS/2, NextSTEP, BeOS).

there's linux, but it's not a commercial product.

arn

Anyone notice the latest fad expression that everyone seems to love using? Following a comment with "that being said..." or "having said that..."


as Forrest Gump once said, "That's all I have to say about that."

 

[animefan_1]

Unless they really are doing some stuff really really wrong, it will go something like this.

1) Install newer version of Xcode that supports the "Intel" CPU (Xcode uses gcc after all an that fully supported Intel CPUs).
2) Double click their existing Xcode project.
3) Select a menu option to add "Intel" CPU target and/or enable fat output.
4) Click compile.
5) step 5, their is no step 5

Of course there's a step 5: upload to website

 

[shawnce]

Of course there's a step 5: upload to website

Good point

 

[iMeowbot]

Of course there's a step 5: upload to website

Errr, test?

 

[shawnce]

Errr, test?

No that is what customers are for.

 

[hayesk]

Of course there's a step 5: upload to website

You also forgot:
- rewrite your hand-optimized assembly routines
- reverse any assumed endian-ness of any bit-flags you use in any of your variables. (especially likely for Carbon-based apps).

 

[calyxman]

Man you people better stop your whining, otherwise Steve will slapping some of these in your precious little iMacs as punishment:

And he'll give you this as your next powerbook!

Muwahahahahah!

 

[animefan_1]

You also forgot:
- rewrite your hand-optimized assembly routines
- reverse any assumed endian-ness of any bit-flags you use in any of your variables. (especially likely for Carbon-based apps).

Of course, since the original point this started from was about smaller developers, they may not have to worry about what you mentioned.

 

[bmicallef]

Taken for a ride .... ;-)

I've followed this post and related news/rumors since late Friday night and what keeps coming back to me is: "What about everything I originally expected from this year's WWDC? ... I'm completely consumed by this Intel B.S. ..."

I feel this whole Intel thing either complete B.S. or simply a half truth ... Intel chips in Apple hardware, OK I'll bite, but to replace the PPC Apple hardware computer base for an x86 architecture, sorry you lost me there ... it just doesn't add up to me.

What I do expect tomorrow ...

- The long rumored "Asteroid" product ... universal MIDI connection thing-a-ma-jig
- Storage increases throughout the entire iPod product line ...
- iTunes 4.9 to be previewed with support for cell phone support ...
- Of course a very successful report on the adoption of Tiger in the Mac user community as well as the huge success of Spotlight ...
- Oh, almost forgot, Quicktime 7 for Windows ... with H.264 <-- This is important!!!

but all this is expected ... what about the exciting stuff???

How about these ...

- A surprise announcement that the Power Mac line will not only be outfitted
with 3+ Ghz G5's but at the high end, the G5's will be dual cores, making the first Quad processor desktop in the world!
- A cap-stone to Apple's "Year of HD" claim, a new software application, like iTunes [maybe part of iTunes], that centers around HD quality video downloads <-- This is important too!!!
- A new hardware product, perhaps part of the iPod line, or maybe a tablet-like device, for video playback ... perhaps more of a "Newton" or even "LifeDrive" capable machine, running a lite version of OS X, maybe even use Intel chips ... <-- Whammy, it all adds up!

So what do you think?

 

[shawnce]

You also forgot:
- rewrite your hand-optimized assembly routines
- reverse any assumed endian-ness of any bit-flags you use in any of your variables. (especially likely for Carbon-based apps).

Yeah true (was jokingly answering things obviously) but... in general few developers do much hand-optimized assembly these days (for some types of applications you will see it more often then others) and if they have done it they likely have non-optimized versions that can enabled using the preprocessor.

Also endian-ness may not be much of an issue depending on how you work with say bit flags and if the OS stays in one model or tracks with the CPU.

 

[animefan_1]

I've followed this post and related news/rumors since late Friday night and what keeps coming back to me is:...So what do you think?

Good stuff, and I think it will be released eventually. Personally, I don't think we'll see anything iPod/iTunes related tomorrow - other than sales figures.

My fingers and toes are still crossed for PowerBook G5's and 3+ GHz Mac.

 

[Fender]

How about a price drop on Powermacs? I'll take that over a 3GHz PM. Or even better, a drop on the 30" ACD to match the price drops on the 20" & 23" ACD last time. I want a second 30" ACD, damn it.