Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[zwilliams07]

Nintendo switches to PPC.
Sony switches to PPC.
Toshiba switches to PPC.
Microsoft switches to PPC.
Apple switches to x86.

Apple undoes years and years of telling people to stop believing the megahurtz myth, then all of a sudden joins.

Intel hasn't been innovative in years now, I don't see how Steve can say that with a straight face. The Pentium 4 has be struggling to make speed gains lately. They are scrapping just to pass 3.6 to 3.8GHz. x86 has a huge host of flaws in its design, meanwhile PPC is maturing more and more. People know the PPC is a superscalar beast, its only major flaws are memory latency issues. Meanwhile the CELL is garnering more and more interest because its so well scalable and can be adapted.

Pentium-M has been around for a while now, at least two years. Intel hit the wall with the Pentium 4 and thats why they are moving back to the Pentium-M. Its the only thing they have at the moment that they know is somewhat future-proof.

Meanwhile Intel is licensing 64-Bit Extensions from AMD. I would of much prefered AMD because its cheaper and gives more oomph.

I guess I'm stuck with my 3 year old iBook G3 for another year or so.

I think a part of my soul just died.

 

[E1Presidente]

I was hoping for an announcement of the Powerbook G5, so I could get one for college next semester. I guess that's not going to happen. On the other hand, as I do some software development, I'll probably pick up the 1 grand IntApple machine to use as my interm mac.

While the dev boxes are going to be running P4's, which will most likely be the 32/64-bit models, does it seem possible that the consumer IntApples will be running Intel's 64-bit only processors, thereby giving the functionality to emulate the PPC which the i386-based machines couldn't?

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

This just in HELL HAS FROZEN OVER!

Yes, I know... there seem to be a lot of strange activities going on...

 

[SiliconAddict]

The interesting thing is that Steve said OS X has been leading a secret life for the past 5 years...able to run on both PPC and Intel.

So why didn't anyone see this in the code? I know some geeks are pulling apart the code. How did they sneak that around everyone?

Because that code was hidden away in some secret part of Apple's HQ.

 

[Nutter]

Ha, ha, ha....

I bloddy know that. The point, though, is that nobody in their right mind will develop for OSX-PPC now. So that means zero new apps ... oh what fun. Not to mention that rosetta only seems to do PPC->x86 and not the reverse.

That's nonsense!

How many developers do you know who write in machine code?

Mac OS X developers use the Carbon and Cocoa APIs to hang their Applications on, and these are hardly going to change at all.

This is a very small change for most developers. It won't disrupt application development at all.

 

[FoxyKaye]

If that is the case you would be a complete idiot if you bought a Mac today since there wont be any apps you could run in one two years time.
Imagine buying a new PM G5 2.7Ghz now, just to find out that you ahve bought an extremely overpriced doorstop...

Exactly! Also

Don't get me wrong, I'm getting my use out of this machine. But it still sits pretty badly with me. I get a sinking feeling that my 5 year window I was expecting to get out of it just shrank to 3 years instead.

Exactly my feeling about replacing my current system with an iMac.

 

[Sun Baked]

Note that 47% of Apples profit come (or came from hardware)... I think stevie boy just killed off Mac.

But this is a big change from the clone disaster when most of it came from HW at the time.

Apple now has a more solid line of software, a decent chance for growing the OS Base, and a line of consumer goods to fall back on.

Expect Apple to crank up the innovation on the consumer side to make up for lost hardware sales that will creep in over the next couple years.

Of course we will probably have to put up with irritating OS registration starting with Leopard (or Apple will be smart and let the OS be pirated to no end to boost the install base before resorting to serials and/or $99 dongles for Dells.)

So even if the Mac dies in the next few years to be replaced by a Apple-branded PC.

Apple is making a bold move to compete head-to-head with MS, and the timing is interesting.

Makes you wonder what they are seeing with regards to Longhorn, since Apple is basically planning to drop a Leopard on the mad-cow.

 

[ropbo]

I think it was a good thing. Mac sales will increase a lot because not only you're gonna be able to run OSX on it but also Windows.

So, for all those people that want to buy a Mac Mini, iMac, etc because it's cool but don't want to switch to OSX, that's an opportunity to have both: Windows and a cool Mac.

I'm just worried about the transition period. I'm planning on getting a dual 2.7 G5 + Final Cut Studio in December and don't know what to do now.

http://cinepopulis.com

 

[Sherif Iskander]

Flat Panel iMac!!!!

Has any one asked the question why the processor on the flat panel iMac is a replaceable module??!!! What stops Apple from releasing an Intel processor module fo it??!! The Actual iMac has no G5 signage on it!!! I always asked why make the module an FRU (driving the cost up!!) unless there where more processors in the pipe and Apple wanted people to have investment protection for the monitor, disks etc...


./sherif

 

[thevoicefactory]

Think different....

After being switched to Apple about 6 months ago I really felt that I switched to a completely different platform: other processor, other computers, other OS. That changed today....

I kind of liked the "Think different" slogan. But Apple PC's are now going to be a sort of Sony Vaio machines. The only difference is the OS.

But that is my emotional side. (Isn't Apple about emotions?)

Businesswise it is a very smart move which guarantees growth. It will not be long before other PC vendors will start licensing OS X (wasn't that on the rumors sites a few weeks ago) and Apple will become just as big or bigger then Microsoft.

And then the virusses will start coming :-(

It will be an exciting time. That's for sure!

 

[iMeowbot]

The interesting thing is that Steve said OS X has been leading a secret life for the past 5 years...able to run on both PPC and Intel.

So why didn't anyone see this in the code? I know some geeks are pulling apart the code. How did they sneak that around everyone?

X86 support has been there all along, out in the open. Darwin was out there for all to see, so it didn't take much of a stretch to understand the the rest of OS X had to be there too.

 

[alexf]

Definately interesting news, to say the least. According to one article I read, analysts are saying this is not a good move (http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?symbols=NASDAQ:AAPL&story=200506061848_APO_V6534)

In any case, I don't think it will affect the end user a terrible amount.

Is is true that NetBSD (underneath Mac windowing) is friendlier with Intel's architecture anyway?

 

[Mr Maui]

Sorry for being the average joe who can't comprehend 5th grade writing, but what exactly does this mean for PowerPC users? Does this transition officially state that by 2007, I will not be able to get any new software for either of my 2 PowerMacs I purchased in the last year? Will Apple use Intel chips in ALL of its computers and completely drop IBM? Any valiant Knight of Knowledge, please help!

Are you able to get parts for your '98 Chevy? It's not like everyone will stop supporting the existing platforms. Software will continue to be written, most likely for both platforms for a while, especially if recompiling them is as effective as Steve's keynote seemed to indicate. I'm no expert, but I believe we will have apps for PowerPC for some time to come ... especially since there are "more PowerPC products in the pipeline". JMO

 

[SiliconAddict]

Microsoft switches to PPC.

Microsoft isn't switching to PPC. Nor is any other computer system. Those are game consoles. Good god man, grow a clue.

 

[mcgarry]

I really, really hope you're right. Nothing would please me more. But you cannot, truly, claim you aren't the least bit worried about all this...?

I'm with you on this. I want to agree with SiliconAddict, I just don't have his confidence yet. But then again, if anyone can pull this off, ...

 

[Calihafan]

Leopard on OSx64?

Phew... I doubted seriously that this would happen, but it did, and they seem to have tied all the knots to keep the company going - Adobe and Microsoft will develop for both OSx64 and OSx86. Will Apple release Leopard on both PPC and Intel based Macs? Because if not, that would suck.

Calih

 

[MacRohde]

Couldn't agree with you more MacTruck.

I think everyone that's been with mac for all of these years while they bad-mouthed Intel should feel lied to today.

Yes all the fanboys.

The rest of us grown ups know market speach and strategy when we see it. Of course they have been trying to put Intel in a bad light when they are trying to get you to shell out for a competing product. Now the table has turned; they PR guys and gals will work overtime to convince you that Intel rocks. Just listen to the keynote "...the most inovative chip company" etc. That's business. That's how it works. Just because it's Apple doesn't mean it's any different. On the contrary I'll say; Apple are the masters of PR. What matters though is how YOU feel about the product.

 

[mac-er]

Because that code was hidden away in some secret part of Apple's HQ.

Ok, the way the live feed from AppleInsider put it was that our GM copies of OS X could run on either.

 

[wilburpan]

I wonder how much thought was given to using AMD chips for the x86 switch. According to many, AMD chips are better performers, especially with 64 bit performance, and especially if you are looking at performance per watt as a measure, which is what Steve specifically cited in his WWDC keynote.

The only two reasons that I can think of are:

1. The one area that Intel CPUs consistently do better than AMD is in multimedia applications, which would be another indicator that Apple is trying to become the digital hub in your living room.

2. Pentium M's have a proven track record of working really well in laptops, especially the thin 'n' light/subnotebook types, whereas the main use of AMD chips in notebooks have been limited to humongous 9 lb. desktop replacement models.

 

[Eric_Z]

Why? It's still the same development environment, Xcode. It's going to be pretty easy to target both CPUs in new development up front, all the pain will be for people dealing with existing applications.

It's called optimisation, and can only be done for one type of arch. Doing optimisations for the G5 and G4 is enough of a pain in the butt, I don't want to know how bad the PPC vs x86 optimisation will be.

Secondly, who will want to support a dead end arch?

Every developer with more then two braincells will swich archs so fast it'll hurt.

 

[ImAlwaysRight]

THIS MAY ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS:

This quote from a CNET article may answer some of your questions.

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.

 

[eVolcre]

Developer kit

Does the 999 machine do anything useful? I'm not really a developer but have some money lying around and wouldn't mind spending a grand to get a P4 and a OSX intel release. Hell, it would be cool

Can I do anything with it though? I have a PB 12" right now which should last me till 2006 but the cool factor of getting this kit is interesting.

 

[sculley]

Apptel

As much as I'd prefer that Apple didn't go with Intel, if IBM can't provide what Apple needs then it is a necessary move. The words "Centrino" and "Powerbook" in the same breath make me cringe, but I'll get over it. My concern for Apple now is that I get the feeling that their hardware sales are going to get hammered during the next year. If I was considering buying a new PowerBook last week, there is NO WAY that I will now until the Apptel machines come out. Also, I've been pushing for my parents and my sister to each get a Mac mini, now I am far less interested in pushing this on them at this time. Anyone else that comes to me re a new Mac will hear the same word: "Wait." So, there you have it. At least 3 computers that Apple will not be selling during the next year. Hopefully, they can survive by continuing to ride out the iPod/iTunes wave.

 

[E1Presidente]

Intel hasn't been innovative in years now, I don't see how Steve can say that with a straight face. The Pentium 4 has be struggling to make speed gains lately. They are scrapping just to pass 3.6 to 3.8GHz. x86 has a huge host of flaws in its design, meanwhile PPC is maturing more and more. People know the PPC is a superscalar beast, its only major flaws are memory latency issues. Meanwhile the CELL is garnering more and more interest because its so well scalable and can be adapted.

While the Cell processor is supposedly super scalable, they still don't exist yet. They still don't know all it can do yet. Sony's E3 demos were all prerendered as they're all hypothetical presentations of what the PS3 MIGHT be able to do. The heat problems with the Cell make the G5 seem like it's nitrogen cooled. It operates around 85C. Plus, Apple might not go with the x86 chips and instead work with redesigned xenon-type processors that are 64bit only and solves many of the flaws of the X86 architecture.

 

[Eric_Z]

That's nonsense!

How many developers do you know who write in machine code?

Mac OS X developers use the Carbon and Cocoa APIs to hang their Applications on, and these are hardly going to change at all.

This is a very small change for most developers. It won't disrupt application development at all.

It's not just machine code thats architecturally dependent you know.

It goes all the way up to practcally all non interpeted code.