Intel's 2006 Processor Roadmap

[shamino]

We are in solid agreement here. It's been pretty difficult to obtain Linux and Win64 drivers for a lot of standard motherboard hardware these days so getting Mac drivers would probalby be equally as hard if not harder.

But Apple won't be "getting Mac drivers".

Apple will most likely be writing the drivers.

And yes, I know it's hard for Linux developers to get chipset specs to allow them to write their own drivers. But Apple has one big advantage over the Linux community - it will be buying millions of chips. If Asus (or some other customer of the chipmakers) wanted to develop Linux drivers, I'm sure they'd also have no problem getting the specs they needed.

Usually the most unstable part of any PC is the hardware supplied by the people not making the northbridge or southbridge. Apple needs to stay away from Promise, Silicon Image, and others. If they get Intel supplied parts and build their own mobo then they'll be fine. In fact, Intel mobos and processors are world-renowned for their stability and "just works"-ness.

The chips themselves work great. My Windows PC at home has a Silicon Image controller and it has never had a problem. The fact that the open source community gets no help in developing drivers is really irrelevant here.

These companies give the finger to the open source community, because they don't buy any chips (the board makers do), and they can't be held to an NDA, because they believe in free distribution of all source code.

Apple, on the other hand, will be buying millions of chips, and they have no problem keeping the specs (and related source code) secret. They will get the specs they need to write drivers. If one chip supplier doesn't want to give Apple the specs, they'll find out before they make their bulk purchase and take their business to a competitor.

 

[BGil]

The chips themselves work great. My Windows PC at home has a Silicon Image controller and it has never had a problem. The fact that the open source community gets no help in developing drivers is really irrelevant here.

That's interesting because my Silicon image SATA RAID setup is a POS compared to the Nvidia SATA2 RAID that also came on my mobo. The SI RAID is slow and buggy.

I wouldn't doubt Apple could write their own drivers but my experience with Promise and Silicon Image is that they're drivers are buggy. If the parent company can't make good drivers then its hard to imagine Apple making them.

 

[VanNess]

Apparently when Jobs talked about the latest "transition," Apple wasn't the only
company that had change on their minds.

 

[willyjsimmons]

Shamino

What I'm getting at, is that if Apple is planning on not using a standard Intel board, and develops their own drivers, it ruins the whole 'compatibles' philosophy.

Say you buy your new Macintel, and it's great.

Then two years down the road, Intel introduces a new chipset, and you say to yourself

'Self, I think I want to upgrade.'

You can wait for Apple to include the new chipset in their systems, and buy new.

Or you can hop online, and order the board/CPU/RAM yourself and just slap it in.

But alas, Apple nor Intel will provide you with any OS X drivers for those new controllers on that genuine Intel board.

Which would you rather do?

Spend another $1000+(emphasis on the plus) to upgrade to the latest and greatest?

Or spend half that on just the things you want?

The beauty of switching to Intel, is that it allows for geek freedom to tweak your hardware, any way you see fit.

Now, if you don't want flexiblity, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[shamino]

What I'm getting at, is that if Apple is planning on not using a standard Intel board, and develops their own drivers, it ruins the whole 'compatibles' philosophy.

What philosophy? Since when did anybody at Apple say you'd be able to run MacOS on generic hardware? They've been saying the exact opposite.

Say you buy your new Macintel, and it's great.

Then two years down the road, Intel introduces a new chipset, and you say to yourself

'Self, I think I want to upgrade.'

You can wait for Apple to include the new chipset in their systems, and buy new.

Or you can hop online, and order the board/CPU/RAM yourself and just slap it in.

What makes you think anybody at Apple wants to let you do this? Everything I've read says they want to go to extreme measures in order to make sure you can't.

You seem to be confused here. What you want (Mac OS to run on everything) is not what Apple wants (Mac OS to only run on Apple systems.)

The beauty of switching to Intel, is that it allows for geek freedom to tweak your hardware, any way you see fit.

Bull. Switching to generic PC hardware might allow this. Switching to an Intel CPU without switching everything else is nothing more than a CPU change.

If you seriously think that Apple wants to make generic PC's, then you haven't been paying attention.

Now, if you don't want flexiblity, then I don't know what to tell you.

What you and I may want is irrelevant. Apple doesn't design systems based on your personal wish-list.

 

[willyjsimmons]

Generic

It's not about being generic.

A genuine Intel board is hardly generic.

The point is, if it's a standard Intel board, using standard Intel controllers, then it will allow end users the option of upgrading their hardware themselves.

If you think people are gonna switch from windows to mac, with apple still trying to charge their 'apple tax', and not allow customers to upgrade their hardware, at their discretion, then apple might as well stick to the PPC.

The issue won't be 'wow, os x is so much better than vista!'.

It will be 'damn, apple doesn't allow you to upgrade your own hardware?'

And what about repurposing your old hardware?

What if you wanted to yank your old macintel brains, and slap them in another case to build a cheap server, or whatever.

But, oh wait, you can't, because there are no linux drivers for that funky, proprietary, motherboard.

Macs might get faster using Intel chips, but they sure wont gain any marketshare, just becuase of it, if they maintain a proprietary attitude regarding hardware.

Selling overpriced hardware, is exactly what HP/Dell/Gateway does.

They only difference is that their systems sell for much cheaper.

 

[Websnapx2]

I can almost guarantee the boards will not be generic or intel, due to Apple's own product design requirements. It would be difficult to to design an overly creative product design with one of these while maintaining form factor flexibility. Look at the boards for the G5, iMac (G4 or G5), and the eMac as perfect examples. Furthermore, if Apple forgoes designs like these to use off the shelf boards, I'd be a sad day for the apple product line.

 

[willyjsimmons]

Already talked about that.

Mainly just talking about the Power Mac.

How exactly would a miniATX board not fit in a Power Mac?

Of course for the small form factor macs, a special board would have to be made.

And what about the vid/sound/lan/sata ?

Why not use intel (iMac and Power Mac could have onboard or PCIx video)?

Why make things harder than they need to be?

Apple is all about simplicity right?

 

[shamino]

The point is, if it's a standard Intel board, using standard Intel controllers, then it will allow end users the option of upgrading their hardware themselves.

And this is never going to happen. Apple has never, in the entire history of the company, sold a product where this was possible. They're not going to start now, no matter how much you may want them to.

If you think people are gonna switch from windows to mac, with apple still trying to charge their 'apple tax', and not allow customers to upgrade their hardware, at their discretion, then apple might as well stick to the PPC.

Your point?

You seem to think the move to Intel was in order to make PC users switch.

Did you hear the Jobs keynote? He said that the reason was because IBM was unable (or unwilling) to deliver suitable chips, and Intel was. Any other reason you may have heard is pure speculation and wishful thinking.

The issue won't be 'wow, os x is so much better than vista!'.

It will be 'damn, apple doesn't allow you to upgrade your own hardware?'

And how many PC users upgrade their motherboards? The hacker/hobbiest community is miniscule compared to the millions of non-techies that are afraid to even blow the dust out of the case.

The only people complaining about not being able to upgrade a motherboard will be people like yourself, who have completely unrealistic expectations.

And what about repurposing your old hardware?

What if you wanted to yank your old macintel brains, and slap them in another case to build a cheap server, or whatever.

And why would Apple want to make this easy? Last I heard, they weren't in the business of making spare parts for Linux users.

Macs might get faster using Intel chips, but they sure wont gain any marketshare, just becuase of it, if they maintain a proprietary attitude regarding hardware.

Funny how they're gaining market share very nicely with PPC chips.

The things you are so concerned about matter nothing to most of the world.

Selling overpriced hardware, is exactly what HP/Dell/Gateway does.

They only difference is that their systems sell for much cheaper.

A myth and a lie propagated by PC magazines that don't want to look at the facts.

Go an put together an HP/Dell/Gateway with features comparable to a Mac. It ends up costing the same or more. And if you include the software suite in the comparison, the PC ends up costing much more.

I've made this comparison several times over the past three years. I've never seen a brand-name PC that can be purchased for less money, once you equip it with comparable hardware and software.

 

[shamino]

How exactly would a miniATX board not fit in a Power Mac?

I suggest you actually look at the PowerMac form factor. ATX boards (mini or otherwise) don't come even close to fitting.

Why make things harder than they need to be?

Harder for who? Apple or you? What makes you think anybody at Apple wants to make it easier for you to put third-party motherboards in their cases?

Apple is all about simplicity right?

For someone who wants to use the Mac as it is intended (running Mac OS and Mac applications) it's very simple.

For people who want to use them as the basis of a custom hardware project, it has never ever been easy. And it never will be.

 

[AidenShaw]

Excuse me...

I suggest you actually look at the PowerMac form factor. ATX boards (mini or otherwise) don't come even close to fitting.

Excuse me, but aren't the x86 developer machines simply PowerMac G5 cases with a standard Intel ATX board inside? All you need are some stanchions in the right places, and bulkhead cutouts to match the ATX port placement.

(And there's a whole lot of empty space inside that PMG5 case, since an ATX board is pretty small....)

 

[GilGrissom]

If you think people are gonna switch from windows to mac, with apple still trying to charge their 'apple tax', and not allow customers to upgrade their hardware, at their discretion, then apple might as well stick to the PPC.

The issue won't be 'wow, os x is so much better than vista!'.

It will be 'damn, apple doesn't allow you to upgrade your own hardware?'

And what about repurposing your old hardware?

What if you wanted to yank your old macintel brains, and slap them in another case to build a cheap server, or whatever.

But, oh wait, you can't, because there are no linux drivers for that funky, proprietary, motherboard.

Macs might get faster using Intel chips, but they sure wont gain any marketshare, just becuase of it, if they maintain a proprietary attitude regarding hardware.

You talk as this is all bad. Gaining market share etc isn't necessarily the very top of Apple's agenda, true in the modern Apple its gonna be fairly high, but maybe not top. Steve always says that their main aim is to make good computers, so what if you can't upgrade them or reuse their parts in a makeshift home server. That is not what defines a great computer, it's what defines a PC with a short lifespan that gets recycled. I've done it loads of times.

If Apple didnt gain much market share etc I know some people who wouldn't mind. If people don't care for Apple then it's their fault. As long as Apple are comfortable and alive then the ones who do use an Apple can remain smug at the rest! I know this can seem an old fashioned view point, but I know some people have said it before!

Personally I don't mind if I can't upgrade my Mac hardware as easily as my Windows. Its a Mac, its part of what makes it a Mac, and (as has been repeatedly said!!) Intel won't change that.

 

[fyzle]

You talk as this is all bad. Gaining market share etc isn't necessarily the very top of Apple's agenda, true in the modern Apple its gonna be fairly high, but maybe not top. Steve always says that their main aim is to make good computers, so what if you can't upgrade them or reuse their parts in a makeshift home server. That is not what defines a great computer, it's what defines a PC with a short lifespan that gets recycled. I've done it loads of times.

If Apple didnt gain much market share etc I know some people who wouldn't mind. If people don't care for Apple then it's their fault. As long as Apple are comfortable and alive then the ones who do use an Apple can remain smug at the rest! I know this can seem an old fashioned view point, but I know some people have said it before!

Personally I don't mind if I can't upgrade my Mac hardware as easily as my Windows. Its a Mac, its part of what makes it a Mac, and (as has been repeatedly said!!) Intel won't change that.

Apple is already gaining PC marketshare!
(The video is zipped. Unzip then open it using QT or VLC. From my experience, running it in browser crashes the browser.)
Video
Instructions

(This is the video of a Dell laptop booting into OS X)

 

[willyjsimmons]

Guess I'm done.

Its a Mac, its part of what makes it a Mac, and (as has been repeatedly said!!) Intel won't change that.

Nice sales pitch.

Alright, if jobs' only concern is intel's CPU roadmap, more power to him.

Was just giving my 2 cents.

Didn't know that other Apple users were content with being gouged, 'just because'.

Everyone have a nice weekend.

 

[Surreal]

Apparently when Jobs talked about the latest "transition," Apple wasn't the only
company that had change on their minds.

why is this not on the front page?

that is ... that explains a lot .. it is especially interesting that he uses the same phrase "performance per watt" as steve. this could be what they showed steve or at least spoke about.

 

[shamino]

Excuse me, but aren't the x86 developer machines simply PowerMac G5 cases with a standard Intel ATX board inside? All you need are some stanchions in the right places, and bulkhead cutouts to match the ATX port placement.

I'm sure the developer prototypes have modified cases in order to support generic motherboards, but if you look at the commercially shipping PowerMacs (G4 and G5), the mountings are all different.

I've seen web sites from people who performed case-mods to put PC boards into Mac cases and vice versa, and every one of them show a lot of work, involving cutting away parts of the case and fashioning new mount points from sheet metal. It's almost as much work as making a new case completely from scratch.

The G5 case is especially nasty because of the cooling zones. The cutouts for PCI cards are far away from the CPU, and the power supply region is too small for a normal ATX supply.

 

[shamino]

Didn't know that other Apple users were content with being gouged, 'just because'.

Gouged?

My PowerMac G4 is over three years old and is still able to run every single Mac program I need/want to run.

Can you say that for any PC of similar age?

And, as I wrote once already, Macs are not more expensive than PC's. The $500 PCs everybody likes to talk about are absolute junk. Once you upgrade them enough to be useful (512M RAM, much larger hard drive, a real video card, Windows XP Professional, etc.) that computer ends up costing more than the equivalent Mac.

Comparing the price of quality workstation against a useless piece of junk is completely unfair and you know it.

 

[GilGrissom]

why is this not on the front page?

that is ... that explains a lot .. it is especially interesting that he uses the same phrase "performance per watt" as steve. this could be what they showed steve or at least spoke about.

I agree. It is interesting. So bottom line is that we don't really have any idea what Intel is going to give Apple at the end of the day! Maybe this will change all our predictions and outlooks!

Gouged?

My PowerMac G4 is over three years old and is still able to run every single Mac program I need/want to run.

Can you say that for any PC of similar age?

I rarely can. At least not without a total rebuild and rethink about what is going into the machine! And I'm forced to work with a lot of older & newer machines/technology mixed!

And, as I wrote once already, Macs are not more expensive than PC's. The $500 PCs everybody likes to talk about are absolute junk. Once you upgrade them enough to be useful (512M RAM, much larger hard drive, a real video card, Windows XP Professional, etc.) that computer ends up costing more than the equivalent Mac.

Indeed.

 

[BGil]

My PowerMac G4 is over three years old and is still able to run every single Mac program I need/want to run.

Can you say that for any PC of similar age?

Yes. Why wouldn't you? It still running the same OS (obviously) and 3 years ago this month the Athlon XP 2600+ and P4 2.8ghz came out. One of my older PC's is an Athlon XP 1800+ on an Nforce2 mobo. A lot of our PC's at work are still P3 800's and they work just fine. So why wouldn't it work just fine?

And, as I wrote once already, Macs are not more expensive than PC's. The $500 PCs everybody likes to talk about are absolute junk. Once you upgrade them enough to be useful (512M RAM, much larger hard drive, a real video card, Windows XP Professional, etc.) that computer ends up costing more than the equivalent Mac.

Comparing the price of quality workstation against a useless piece of junk is completely unfair and you know it.

Hate to break it to you but most $500 PC's have been coming with 512mb's or ram since early 2002. There's only one desktop on the BestBuy and Circuit City websites that has less than 512mb and its price is closer to $300 than $500. Everything they sell has at least an 80GB drive and most at $500 have $160GB's with DVD burners. Hard drives in PC's tend to be larger than hard drives in Macs so if you think PC's don't come with enough space than Macs surely don't have enough.
What do you need a "real video" card for anyway? Are you a gamer? I assume you aren't since you're using a 3 year-old Mac. Even so, a Radeon Xpress 200 and the Athlon 64 3400+ that come in the $500 E-Machine at Best Buy will blow away Mac Mini's, e-Macs, iBooks, and usually Powerbooks in gaming tests anyway. Gaming, OpenGL or DirectX, is simply much faster on PC's even with many lesser video cards.

And what do you need Windows XP Pro for? Do you even know the difference? Unless you're connecting to a domain, using remote desktop, or need fine grained encryption then it doesn't offer much that Home Edition doesn't. The latter two features OS X doesn't offer anyway. 🙄

Macs are simply more expensive. If you are cool with that then fine but don't try to make up BS because you're insecure about the price you paid.

 

[iMacSE500]

I dont know where to post this (and i am sure it has been asked a million times) but will the price of the Macs drop because of the switch to intel?

 

[akac]

Probably not since Power PCs actually cost less than Intel chips.

 

[BGil]

Probably not since Power PCs actually cost less than Intel chips.

I think the prices may actually go up to keep the margins high. If Apple doesn't raise prices then they're earnings and profit will drop drastically.

 

[ajampam]

What I wonder about is how they would market themselves if they increase the price...first off, there is this whole bunch who dont want to try out the revA mactels coz of rosetta and first gen incompatibilities...it would be interesting to see that, I suppose......

 

[ajampam]

But again, there are also those who are just waiting to grab the first mactels that would come out.....

Macs are expensive not just because of the processor, but the whole package and its experience....so I feel that the prices may not really change that much....

 

[GilGrissom]

Yes. Why wouldn't you? It still running the same OS (obviously) and 3 years ago this month the Athlon XP 2600+ and P4 2.8ghz came out. One of my older PC's is an Athlon XP 1800+ on an Nforce2 mobo. A lot of our PC's at work are still P3 800's and they work just fine. So why wouldn't it work just fine?

I guess people have different practical experiences through time.

Hate to break it to you but most $500 PC's have been coming with 512mb's or ram since early 2002. There's only one desktop on the BestBuy and Circuit City websites that has less than 512mb and its price is closer to $300 than $500. Everything they sell has at least an 80GB drive and most at $500 have $160GB's with DVD burners. Hard drives in PC's tend to be larger than hard drives in Macs so if you think PC's don't come with enough space than Macs surely don't have enough.
From my experience certain budget ones in the (equivalent to UK£) $300 to $500 can be fine for very simple usage over time and will do it fine with no degridation. Some will however tend to have hardware faults etc after a while, despite little use, and will just not have much speed and use after a few years. Rebuild of Windows helps, but not for long. Maybe we get given different PCs here in the UK. Again, everyone has different experiences, so technically no one is wrong in their view from their own experiences.

And what do you need Windows XP Pro for? Do you even know the difference? Unless you're connecting to a domain, using remote desktop, or need fine grained encryption then it doesn't offer much that Home Edition doesn't. The latter two features OS X doesn't offer anyway. 🙄

I thought you could do all those in OS X? Connect to Windows domain, use remote desktop (Apple software though!), not sure on the encryption though. Not saying you're wrong, it's probably me, but I was sure OS X is able to do those things!

Having worked in numerous businesses on domains and fix home user PCs the user experience difference in Home and Pro does start to become apparent. I know they are used in two totally different scenarios, but that is what they are designed for. If I had the money I would go for Pro out of preference.

Macs are expensive not just because of the processor, but the whole package and its experience....so I feel that the prices may not really change that much....

I agree with the experience thing. Added value to a degree. I'm not moaning about the price of my Mac, was very happy with it, as with extra battery, software, AppleCare, top spec etc etc it was still cheaper than the first Windows laptop I brought several years ago! You gotta love discounts! (It was an Advent one). We all know what we are buying into when we get a Mac!! It is something special above it all. It is the experience.