I don't get it....
Why would Apple drop the IBM G5 so quickly after a new OS release just to go to an Intel proc?
Why would Apple drop the IBM G5 so quickly after a new OS release just to go to an Intel proc?
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
I, for one, think this move is absolutely necessary. IBM made promises to Apple that it failed to deliver. A year later, it still hasn't delivered. Equally significant, the G5 chip, despite its numerous strengths, is not available in a form that can work in a PowerBook. Despite the difficulties in migrating, Apple has to make the tough call sometimes.
Using an Intel chip doesn't mean that Apple has to adopt anything else common to the Windows PC architecture. A Mac will still be a Mac, but it will have higher Ghz numbers and better power management. Best of all, it's future-proof: No matter what Intel does in the future, Apple's numbers will equal those of the competition.
Programs will, of course, have to be optimized for the new hardware. But Apple can do much to smooth this process. The operating system itself would be rewritten to work with the chip. I'll bet that process is well underway. In addition, Apple can provide a software layer to catch hardware calls and translate them appropriately. That's what emulation is all about, but easier when the OS itself is already working natively in the new environment. Apple did exactly that when it first moved from the 68xxx to the PPC. The result is that certain things will feel a bit sluggish, but no more than they already do compared to hardware running Intel chips.
In short, this is a long time coming, and something we should celebrate.
Using an Intel chip doesn't mean that Apple has to adopt anything else common to the Windows PC architecture. A Mac will still be a Mac, but it will have higher Ghz numbers and better power management. Best of all, it's future-proof: No matter what Intel does in the future, Apple's numbers will equal those of the competition.
Programs will, of course, have to be optimized for the new hardware. But Apple can do much to smooth this process. The operating system itself would be rewritten to work with the chip. I'll bet that process is well underway. In addition, Apple can provide a software layer to catch hardware calls and translate them appropriately. That's what emulation is all about, but easier when the OS itself is already working natively in the new environment. Apple did exactly that when it first moved from the 68xxx to the PPC. The result is that certain things will feel a bit sluggish, but no more than they already do compared to hardware running Intel chips.
In short, this is a long time coming, and something we should celebrate.
Object-X
macrumors 6502a
nagromme said:
These two have my vote. But only if Apple has figured out a way to allow developers to write once and deploy seemlessly on both platforms.
I also think Apple will let Sony and HP sell rebranded Apple hardware as a way for these companies to compete with Dell and increase OS X market share.
At least I will stop having to talk about the "megahertz myth", I will let the market share people at apple decide why this is good, but I have to say as someone who promo's, they have a good thing going right now so I hope they don't screw it up on monday...
Sayer
macrumors 6502a
Maybe, Maybe Not
Intel actually does own tech other than the x86 processor. The former Apple PDA called "Newton" ran (eventually) on a RISC-based processor called ARM. Apple helped create this processor and was a significant stockholder pre-Jobs.
After Jobs came back the Newton/PDA projects were dumped and ARM was bought up by Intel.
So to say that an "Intel" CPU will be in a future as-yet-unspecified Mac may be true, from a certain point of view. Mac OS X is most significantly portable to other architectures, like ARM or even x86 (although with its register starved and weak SIMD support I don't see what technical advantage it has over PowerPC at all).
Everyone falsely assumes Apple's prices will suddenly drop with an x86 processor inside. How? Apple doesn't use commoditized components at all and in fact the PowerPC can be comparable in price to x86 processors from Intel (and the CPU is but one small component in a large complex system).
The simple fact is that the iMac G5 is simply not feasible or even possible using off-the-shelf components found in the Wintel world. Other companies have tried, tried and failed, to match the iMac G5's design because they can only repackage someone else's motherboards and power supplies.
The PC Mini is the first actual clone of an Apple design, and it literally looks like they simply took a Mac Mini case and stuffed a custom (severely stripped down) engineered PC into it. Apple should sue for design patent infringement at the least.
Only if Apple uses off-the-shelf mobos and power supplies and other hardware can prices effectively match the Wintel world.
And don't forget the whole point of iTunes and Final Cut Express is to sell hardware, not more software. With an x86 OS why even bother with hardware when Apple can quickly create x86 versions of all of its pro and iApps within 6 months to a year?
This whole situation stinks; there is no technical advantage to using Intel over PowerPC on any level other than "everyone else is developing for Intel." Well, Cocoa is only on Mac OS X so wouldn't it make sense to make a cross-platform application C++ language framework for Mac OS X instead of a proprietary Mac OS X-only framework with an obscure programming language no one else on earth is using?
This "News" just doesn't make any sense no matter how you look at it. Macs won't suddenly be cheaper by using an Intel CPU, all software on the market won't run on a Wintel Mac as-is, this change will absolutely kill Apple's hardware sales which pay the bills and it would completely alienate just about everyone left on the Mac platform because developing for Windows on x86 and OS X for x86 would make less sense than just focusing on Windows on Intel. OS X for x86 is a niche within a niche.
But of course what do I know, I just have to work for my living - I don't get to just think up the worst possible ideas ever and sit in a leather chair in a private office upstairs wondering what happened or which wage slave screwed up when the company is a complete disaster a month later.
Intel actually does own tech other than the x86 processor. The former Apple PDA called "Newton" ran (eventually) on a RISC-based processor called ARM. Apple helped create this processor and was a significant stockholder pre-Jobs.
After Jobs came back the Newton/PDA projects were dumped and ARM was bought up by Intel.
So to say that an "Intel" CPU will be in a future as-yet-unspecified Mac may be true, from a certain point of view. Mac OS X is most significantly portable to other architectures, like ARM or even x86 (although with its register starved and weak SIMD support I don't see what technical advantage it has over PowerPC at all).
Everyone falsely assumes Apple's prices will suddenly drop with an x86 processor inside. How? Apple doesn't use commoditized components at all and in fact the PowerPC can be comparable in price to x86 processors from Intel (and the CPU is but one small component in a large complex system).
The simple fact is that the iMac G5 is simply not feasible or even possible using off-the-shelf components found in the Wintel world. Other companies have tried, tried and failed, to match the iMac G5's design because they can only repackage someone else's motherboards and power supplies.
The PC Mini is the first actual clone of an Apple design, and it literally looks like they simply took a Mac Mini case and stuffed a custom (severely stripped down) engineered PC into it. Apple should sue for design patent infringement at the least.
Only if Apple uses off-the-shelf mobos and power supplies and other hardware can prices effectively match the Wintel world.
And don't forget the whole point of iTunes and Final Cut Express is to sell hardware, not more software. With an x86 OS why even bother with hardware when Apple can quickly create x86 versions of all of its pro and iApps within 6 months to a year?
This whole situation stinks; there is no technical advantage to using Intel over PowerPC on any level other than "everyone else is developing for Intel." Well, Cocoa is only on Mac OS X so wouldn't it make sense to make a cross-platform application C++ language framework for Mac OS X instead of a proprietary Mac OS X-only framework with an obscure programming language no one else on earth is using?
This "News" just doesn't make any sense no matter how you look at it. Macs won't suddenly be cheaper by using an Intel CPU, all software on the market won't run on a Wintel Mac as-is, this change will absolutely kill Apple's hardware sales which pay the bills and it would completely alienate just about everyone left on the Mac platform because developing for Windows on x86 and OS X for x86 would make less sense than just focusing on Windows on Intel. OS X for x86 is a niche within a niche.
But of course what do I know, I just have to work for my living - I don't get to just think up the worst possible ideas ever and sit in a leather chair in a private office upstairs wondering what happened or which wage slave screwed up when the company is a complete disaster a month later.
MacTruck
macrumors 65816
dethl said:
Many reasons.
1. IBM is now making processors for gaming consoles. Doesn't have time for Apple.
2. IBM told Jobs it has reached its peak with the G5 design.
3. Intel has some new processor that will criple the G5 in performance forever and Jobs wants in.
4. Can't EVER get a G5 in a powerbook. Pentium M is way ahead of the game.
5. IBM Exec caught peeing in Steve Jobs pool. (likely)
Plymouthbreezer
macrumors 601
Is it just me, or is anyone else really feeling horrible about this??
If it's true - which it's looking to be - Apple will be kissing any possible lead they could have gained goodbye. The Mac as we know it will be gone.
Scary indeed. This might just force me to buy a top o' the line G5 PowerMac to last me an infinite in the days of non-Apple computering which will follow if the switch really does happen. 🙁
Gah, this does suck.
If it's true - which it's looking to be - Apple will be kissing any possible lead they could have gained goodbye. The Mac as we know it will be gone.
Scary indeed. This might just force me to buy a top o' the line G5 PowerMac to last me an infinite in the days of non-Apple computering which will follow if the switch really does happen. 🙁
Gah, this does suck.
~Shard~
macrumors P6
I'm looking forward to the extensive coverage Arn, and appreciate your and the team's efforts. Looks like you upgraded those servers just in time, I guess we'll be putting them to the acid test now!
Hmm, interesting that you upgraded the MR servers just prior to this big news item - almost as if you knew a lot more traffic would be coming... is there something you're not telling us Arn? 😉 😎
Hmm, interesting that you upgraded the MR servers just prior to this big news item - almost as if you knew a lot more traffic would be coming... is there something you're not telling us Arn? 😉 😎
Object-X
macrumors 6502a
That's your reason
That's the one right there. The mother of all engineering problems can't be solved in time. Apple must certainly have had a cut off date where sales of Powerbooks would start becoming adversly affected by the lack of a G5 -- and that date has come and gone. This has to be the reason. Despite everyone's misgivings and attachment to the PowerPC, simple economics are forcing Apple to make this move. OS X is mature and stable and Steve will get the developers on board.
If it's any consolation to all of you who don't want this to happen, Jobs probably didn't want it either.
MacTruck said:
That's the one right there. The mother of all engineering problems can't be solved in time. Apple must certainly have had a cut off date where sales of Powerbooks would start becoming adversly affected by the lack of a G5 -- and that date has come and gone. This has to be the reason. Despite everyone's misgivings and attachment to the PowerPC, simple economics are forcing Apple to make this move. OS X is mature and stable and Steve will get the developers on board.
If it's any consolation to all of you who don't want this to happen, Jobs probably didn't want it either.
Monday will tell, but the WSJ doesn't usually say it unless it's got a pretty good reason to.
I don't want to believe it, but this time I'm forced to, and I want to go on record SOMEWHERE as to why before we know the details for sure:
Apple's biggest products, by far, are its laptops, and they're only getting bigger. Intel makes a really good mobile processor. Freescale makes an ok mobile processor, and IBM is having serious trouble making any mobile processor. If you look at the next two years, the place to be in a laptop is the Pentium M--even AMD isn't necessarily the wise choice, though they seem to be making superior desktop processors right now (and, of course, if you're running x86 you can always use their desktop chips if you want).
Steve is probably furious about IBM's failure to hit 3GHZ despite their promises, but unless IBM has decided to kill G5 development, it is still a reasonably competitive desktop/server processor since Intel is stuck, too, and it appears to have a future--dual cores coming up soon, and the potential for a Power5-based G6 eventually. If Apple were only thinking about PowerMacs and even iMacs, they'd probably stay with the G5 to avoid the hassle.
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.
Looked at from a completely hardware-based standpoint, this leaves Apple sticking with a somewhat disappointing but still solid and progressing desktop processor at the expense of an inferior portable processor without any obvious indications of there being any big payoff in the future.
From a portable standpoint, it's basically where Apple was in the dark days of Motorola's G4 development a few years back except without IBM offering a light at the end of the tunnel with the G5 this time. If I'm an exec in that situation, and not being dogmatic, I'm going to be taking a long, hard look at the alternatives.
The big question, though, is software. What is this going to do to Classic, existing apps, and how much will it anger longtime developers? And for that matter, will it be a full x86 transition, or will there be something new coming out of Intel?
As much as the thought of an x86 processor in my next Mac gives me a queasy feeling in my stomach (partly because I really dislike Intel as a company, but it also tells me I'm more attached to my PPC, and my computer, on a gut level than I realized), the truth is the instruction set in the Mac doesn't really matter so long as it's still a Mac. 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.
Here's hoping (nay, praying) that it all works out in the end. I wouldn't want to be Steve on Monday, though.
I don't want to believe it, but this time I'm forced to, and I want to go on record SOMEWHERE as to why before we know the details for sure:
Apple's biggest products, by far, are its laptops, and they're only getting bigger. Intel makes a really good mobile processor. Freescale makes an ok mobile processor, and IBM is having serious trouble making any mobile processor. If you look at the next two years, the place to be in a laptop is the Pentium M--even AMD isn't necessarily the wise choice, though they seem to be making superior desktop processors right now (and, of course, if you're running x86 you can always use their desktop chips if you want).
Steve is probably furious about IBM's failure to hit 3GHZ despite their promises, but unless IBM has decided to kill G5 development, it is still a reasonably competitive desktop/server processor since Intel is stuck, too, and it appears to have a future--dual cores coming up soon, and the potential for a Power5-based G6 eventually. If Apple were only thinking about PowerMacs and even iMacs, they'd probably stay with the G5 to avoid the hassle.
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.
Looked at from a completely hardware-based standpoint, this leaves Apple sticking with a somewhat disappointing but still solid and progressing desktop processor at the expense of an inferior portable processor without any obvious indications of there being any big payoff in the future.
From a portable standpoint, it's basically where Apple was in the dark days of Motorola's G4 development a few years back except without IBM offering a light at the end of the tunnel with the G5 this time. If I'm an exec in that situation, and not being dogmatic, I'm going to be taking a long, hard look at the alternatives.
The big question, though, is software. What is this going to do to Classic, existing apps, and how much will it anger longtime developers? And for that matter, will it be a full x86 transition, or will there be something new coming out of Intel?
As much as the thought of an x86 processor in my next Mac gives me a queasy feeling in my stomach (partly because I really dislike Intel as a company, but it also tells me I'm more attached to my PPC, and my computer, on a gut level than I realized), the truth is the instruction set in the Mac doesn't really matter so long as it's still a Mac. 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.
Here's hoping (nay, praying) that it all works out in the end. I wouldn't want to be Steve on Monday, though.
The iPod halo effect on the media
So what's different this time?
The most striking aspect is the origination of rumors from more traditional news sources (CNet and the Wall Street Journal). In the hierarchy of rumor sources, these news sites are traditionally more accurate as they tend to be more selective about their stories than dedicated rumor sites. As a result, the likelihood that these rumors are true is high. By our records, CNet has only made one major rumor misstep in Jan 2003 claiming the release of new Digital Media Device at MWSF 2003.
True, this is being reported by news sites like mad, rather than just our beloved mac rumor sites, but everybody reports everything about apple lately. I'm pretty sure something's going on with Apple and Intel, but probably something to do with a new technology (WIMAX?). I can't see the shift right now....terrible timing. Mac OSX Tiger for the PPC is being lauded everywhere you look. It took 4 years to get it where it is....it's like stopping for a pit stop in the last lap.
So what's different this time?
The most striking aspect is the origination of rumors from more traditional news sources (CNet and the Wall Street Journal). In the hierarchy of rumor sources, these news sites are traditionally more accurate as they tend to be more selective about their stories than dedicated rumor sites. As a result, the likelihood that these rumors are true is high. By our records, CNet has only made one major rumor misstep in Jan 2003 claiming the release of new Digital Media Device at MWSF 2003.
True, this is being reported by news sites like mad, rather than just our beloved mac rumor sites, but everybody reports everything about apple lately. I'm pretty sure something's going on with Apple and Intel, but probably something to do with a new technology (WIMAX?). I can't see the shift right now....terrible timing. Mac OSX Tiger for the PPC is being lauded everywhere you look. It took 4 years to get it where it is....it's like stopping for a pit stop in the last lap.
Plymouthbreezer
macrumors 601
nagromme
macrumors G5
Fun!
I'm nervous about the whole thing--in suspense for Monday and then in suspense for 2007 to see how the move (if any) plays out! But still, it's fun having a BIG rumor (news?) to chew on sometimes 😀
A big, disruptive, seemingly risky move can still be the right one in the end. My current PowerBook is enough for now, so if Apple goes x86, I can just wait and see how that happens. Much as I like the PowerPC platform, and look down on the age and complexity of x86, what I demand is OS X above all else.
But I will be too busy to check the keynote news until hours later! What will I do? 😱
If C-Net's right that the big change happens in a year, then mark the date: one year from the keynote is 6/6/06. That could be a great day for Macs!
Wait, 6/6/06? Now I'm worried again...
'night all... Keep speculating.
I'm nervous about the whole thing--in suspense for Monday and then in suspense for 2007 to see how the move (if any) plays out! But still, it's fun having a BIG rumor (news?) to chew on sometimes 😀
A big, disruptive, seemingly risky move can still be the right one in the end. My current PowerBook is enough for now, so if Apple goes x86, I can just wait and see how that happens. Much as I like the PowerPC platform, and look down on the age and complexity of x86, what I demand is OS X above all else.
But I will be too busy to check the keynote news until hours later! What will I do? 😱
If C-Net's right that the big change happens in a year, then mark the date: one year from the keynote is 6/6/06. That could be a great day for Macs!
Wait, 6/6/06? Now I'm worried again...
'night all... Keep speculating.
reyesmac
macrumors 65816
PPC POWERMACS AND INTEL POWERBOOKS
Maybe Apple has a pair big enough to have portables running on intels and Powermacs running on PPC. Maybe this is the only way to get faster laptops? If they can make it happen they could ween people off PPC by showing us there is no negative difference.
IF Apple goes intel a Mac would still be incompatible with windows unless microsoft wrote drivers to run windows on the mac. And Apple would have hundreds of companies they could contract to make motherboards and such. The cost of creating macs would drop while still giving Apple as much profit as they make now. One of the reasons Macs cost more is because of the price of all that custom hardware. I think if any company can pull this off its Apple. As long as a Mac at 3ghz is faster than a PC at 3ghz with both running on the same hardware, that will be enough to convince PC users that Macs are the ultimate in computing. If they can do that, they will grow their marketshare. The only downside is that Apple still will not provide as many drivers as Windows does, so the new reason not to get a mac is that it will suddenly make much of your hardware incompatible.
Maybe Apple has a pair big enough to have portables running on intels and Powermacs running on PPC. Maybe this is the only way to get faster laptops? If they can make it happen they could ween people off PPC by showing us there is no negative difference.
IF Apple goes intel a Mac would still be incompatible with windows unless microsoft wrote drivers to run windows on the mac. And Apple would have hundreds of companies they could contract to make motherboards and such. The cost of creating macs would drop while still giving Apple as much profit as they make now. One of the reasons Macs cost more is because of the price of all that custom hardware. I think if any company can pull this off its Apple. As long as a Mac at 3ghz is faster than a PC at 3ghz with both running on the same hardware, that will be enough to convince PC users that Macs are the ultimate in computing. If they can do that, they will grow their marketshare. The only downside is that Apple still will not provide as many drivers as Windows does, so the new reason not to get a mac is that it will suddenly make much of your hardware incompatible.
Alasta
macrumors regular
Object-X said:
I agree. However, it's interesting that Cnet's "sources" are claiming that the phase in will occur between mid-2006 and mid-2007, because the Powerbook needs a significant upgrade now. Using the Freescale 7448 won't buy them enough time, and the dual core PPC processors seem highly unlikely to be available this year.
I want a new notebook in the next six months. Assuming that this rumour is true, I won't be buying a new machine until there is an Intel-based notebook in production, because I tend to keep my machines for three years, so I don't want to invest in a doomed technology. I'll wait another year to upgrade my machine if I absolutely have to, but it would not be an ideal situation.
Jonathan Amend said:
How reliable is the inquirer? This is the first time I've heard of them...
😕
LaMerVipere
macrumors 6502a
inkswamp said:
I'm inclined to believe 2... Intel will produce PPCs. A couple of possibly relevant events: IBM opened most of the PPC architecture in March, and Microsoft switched from an x86 variant to a PPC variant for Xbox.
Perhaps Microsoft only made the switch to PPC under the condition that they have an alternate source for the chip... such as Intel.
Makosuke said:
AMEN.
Best post in the thread. Well thought out, significant insights. Particularly first paragraph.
I must say.... I'm not sure it'll be bad for steve at all- the devolepers might not like, but they'll understand, and steve's primary job-employee of the stockholders... yeah, he'll get them spinning in love.
My bit to add-looks real ugly for portables, though, because they can loose a lot of ground between here and 2007 if they don't have a viable option (and I sure as heck can't name one for them), and there isn't that much ground for apple to loose. For many years now maintaining market share has been far more essential to apple than gaining anything, anywhere, at any level of profit. They can loose ipod customers like that, and without mac customers, they'd be toast.
So laptops are ugly. And important. Nobody will buy desktops for personal use pretty soon.
Plymouthbreezer said:
Why? As the OP said, the stock went up 2 bucks a few days ago (when the rumor re-surfaced.) Besides that, the stock had been on a slow slide (mainly due to lack of news.) I own a significant amount of Apple and watch the stock every day.
For these major sites to come out and report that Apple is going to announce this (rather than 'rumored to announce'), I am pretty sure this is going to happen. The WSJ and CNET are not going to go for some fake plant by Steve Jobs, they will be talking to high-level insiders or also double and triple checking with other sources as well. It's not a 6th grade game of 'Telephone' here.
I think Apple is mainly doing this to resuscitate their notebook line, they are currently running with half their horses (fine desktops, slow notebooks) and with IBM the situation may not change for awhile. Also, by running on the same CPU as Windows this eliminates any future risk of inferior CPU's. So none of this 'well yeah my CPU is not as fast, but my OS makes up for it.' From now on, the better OS will run faster, period.
I think the big key here is that Transitive Technologies thing, Apple would have to have something up its sleeve to even consider such a major move. For the sake of speculation, let's assume that Apple can get the rumored 80% performance running PPC code in emulation on Intel. Well, I think a Pentium M-based PowerBook is going to run faster with that than a G4 PowerBook anyways. And the desktops will be roughly close enough during the transition period. Those who need max performance can still buy the PPC Macs- that's why they're moving the lower lines first.
By announcing the move now, it will also give developers a lot of time to gradually port their apps to be Intel native. Remember that they will have well over a year, in fact 2 years before all the Mac hardware is switched over.
Again, I am assuming that they really have some great tech for emulation. But if the rumor is indeed true (and I would bet it is based on the sources that are reporting it), then the emulation would be a precursor for anything like this to be remotely feasible.
artifex
macrumors 6502a
MacTruck said:
Except the reason for them being called script kiddies is that they don't actually know how to do any hacking/cracking themselves, they just run scripts 🙂
So... how long after the Keynote do you think it'll be before we can download a high quality bittorrent? I'm assuming it's legal to share the Keynote, as they only stopped broadcasting it to save money?