Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[chatin]

Mac OSX 10.9 may be platform independent.

All Operating Systems will by platform independent, according to some progressive thinking by Owen Rubin. (MS to release Windows on the PPC, the x86 architecture is dead)

Worth a read for some insights into what things may look like in 2010!

 

[MAC-411]

The Apple's superior software to hardware conection will not change with the switch to Intel. OSX is what's behind apples strong software to harware conetion not the Power PC Chip. Infact, this switch will free up a lot of R&D money that use that was sucked up poor PowerPC development.

Wow, I couldn't disagree with you more. Apple has a select audience and knows it. They aren't anywhere close to going out of business. Most users buy Apples for video and audio editing because the Software to Hardware connection is far superior to anything a x86 machine can offer. Now that will be taken away and there is no longer any point to purchase an Apple. This is a big mistake. I believe Apple hardware will become obsolete and die. They will now try to become a Software only company and try to compete with Microsoft. They've made their bed and now they must sleep in it. However, the Intel processors they are using has not been disclosed. If Intel manufactures the PPC (God I hope so) We can all rejoice! But I doubt it.

 

[xnu]

Pure speculation, and I am sure it has been said before.... I really did try to read the 2000+ posts, I will rant anyway. Here we go…

The obvious opportunity now is to create a “pink box” if you will (reference for oldtimers to a former project) and be able to run Windows. Provide the opportunity to Windows users to buy a Mac rather than upgrading to Longhorn. Much the same way Apple used blue box (I think it was blue) for Classic for last OS transition. The timing is exceptional.

I know that there has been a lot references to OS/2. But OS/2 did not have any software, OSX does, and it is stable, and it is secure, and we now have a huge amount of options on the hardware side. No further need to expound on Unix and amount of developers that are out there. Security is paramount to be relevant in the future. The ability to run on more machines and being more compatible in the consumers mind is a necessity.

It is a great marketing opportunity for Apple to be able to say: “Move to Mac, use your old software until you can upgrade fully to OSX.” It worked for OS9 (granted Mac users love new technology and risk the troubles that come with it, it is in our nature so we may be talking apples and oranges (Ok, that was terrible, sorry)). I for one am just about over the transition to system 7 (that was a big one that no one mentions, I loved system extensions).

But breaking down the barriers of a platform and opening opportunities is a great thing. Compatibility is what made Windows dominant. Security that your investment in a platform will be there for years to come (Amiga) rules the consumer. How do you overcome that perception? It is terribly difficult to create products that are so superior that it outweighs the perception of a compatible, cheaper platform (Beta vs. VHS). Especially when you know the lesser platform will eventually copy the features of the other. I myself look forward to seeing how OSX performs, side by side, on identical hardware, to Windows. Apple must know the results.

As Mr. Jobs has said… “software is the key.” I loved the PowerPC, but thinking about 2.0 mghz to 2.7 mghz in two years makes me sick. Apple has had so much foresight to see this coming that it gives me a tremendous amount of confidence that they are very serious about their business (not like the many years they appeared to be just bidding their time with no clear direction).

It comes down to the simple user experience and perception. It comes down to some simple goals…
- Quality hardware, industry standards, speed (or perception of speed), at a competitive price.
- Compatibility, I need to do work, can I use the programs I need to?
- Security.
- Innovative apps, ease of use and perception of future development.
- And finally the coolness factor of the hardware.
(As Mac users, we have sacrificed the first two goals for the second three since the beginning) Apple now has the opportunity to provide all FIVE, Microsoft has ability to provide TWO. That’s the equation. Apple can successfully change the market to play to their strengths and nullify their weaknesses.

As much as we loved RISC’s chips that Mac users have come to understand and appreciate, and that were the obvious direction at the time to go, Intel is big, powerful and smart enough to adapt their technology to compensate for any advantage RISC had. IBM and Motorola did not capitalize on the technology quick enough. Does anyone remember the promise, at the beginning of the alliance, that the PowerPC would be so fast that they would be able to run multiple operating systems comparable to other chips with no speed sacrifice? That may be the ultimate goal, achieved in a different way.

 

[HelloKitty]

As Mr. Jobs has said… “software is the key.” I loved the PowerPC, but thinking about 2.0 mghz to 2.7 mghz in two years makes me sick. Apple has had so much foresight to see this coming that it gives me a tremendous amount of confidence that they are very serious about their business (not like the many years they appeared to be just bidding their time with no clear direction).

Well..I hope after switching to Intel CPUs, I don't have to run a bunch of setup.exe programs everytime I install an application I hope this won't happen..

Personally, I like PowerPC more than Intel, and I think it's a pity that Apple has to make the switch. I think PowerPC is still a CPU with great potential, but too bad IBM is ignorant on Apple's demand..

Perhaps Apple should buy IBM's microprocessor department one day and start fabricating its own CPU..

Let's talk about the future of PowerPC..Anyone know what's gonna happen to it?..

 

[mox358]

Well..I hope after switching to Intel CPUs, I don't have to run a bunch of setup.exe programs everytime I install an application I hope this won't happen..

Personally, I like PowerPC more than Intel, and I think it's a pity that Apple has to make the switch. I think PowerPC is still a CPU with great potential, but too bad IBM is ignorant on Apple's demand..

Perhaps Apple should buy IBM's microprocessor department one day and start fabricating its own CPU..

Let's talk about the future of PowerPC..Anyone know what's gonna happen to it?..

If Apple had the cash, and the resources to buy IBM's chip division... wow... first off, this new PPC vs. Intel holy war wouldn't exist...

Do you realize how much that would cost??? IBM's chip division is huge... and its very, very, VERY expensive to fab chips. Several, several times what Apple is even worth. If Apple could do that, they wouldn't be making OS X, they'd be making chips for Xbox and PS3 like IBM is.

 

[mox358]

Anybody notice the Mac Polls before the WWDC keynote? The question was "do you think apple will switch to intel?" - The top response, with 41% mind you, was "no and i don't want them to"... it doesn't seem like 41% of you are very upset about this with all the take your PPC and get the hell out comments.

To summarize "don't let Steve use his jedi mind powers on you all the time!"

I'm just waiting until they port OS X to Ti Graphing Calcs, only to find its been compiled for them since 10.0 and see how much people trash Intel for not being able to compete with the mighty power of the TI-83!! They have such a great portable roadmap, Intel could never compete with their power consumption ! - now laugh and relax people...

EDIT.... Linky Read this... scary.. very prophetic and scary... gives me the chills thinking about it.

 

[mac15]

Anybody notice the Mac Polls before the WWDC keynote? The question was "do you think apple will switch to intel?" - The top response, with 41% mind you, was "no and i don't want them to"... it doesn't seem like 41% of you are very upset about this with all the take your PPC and get the hell out comments.

To summarize "don't let Steve use his jedi mind powers on you all the time!"

I think the reason why we didn't want to see OS X go to Intel CPUs is because we were under the impression that this would be another painful OS 9 -> OS X move. Now that things will be completely transparent and its dead easy for most developers to create software for both CPUs people are seeing the upsides of such a move. Intel can deliver high volume amounts of CPUs in a really short time, It's going to solve Apple's distribution problems.

 

[asarsun]

Mac with Intel inside might become a Power Move for Apple. Just think of the possibilities. Everyone is wining about how Apple will lose its edge on the video and graphic side of things. All the highend NLE editing/conforming systems and GFX cards support Intel not PPC chipsets. Can you imagine a dual-dual core 3.6 ghz Intel processor powering a PowerMac G5 with a PCI-Express Quadro FX 4400 SLI capable gfx card, Core Image, Core Video, Core Audio, true 64bit memory addressroom for GUI applications, not just for command line appz like the PPC, internal RAID configurations. More highend application support (Avid Nitris, Digital Fusion, 3D MAX, etc. This could be the Era in which Mac really Rule.

 

[GTKpower]

Two very interesting articles . . .

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=1477

http://news.com.com/Apple+fails+to+meet+a+columnists+expectations/2010-1071_3-5734187.html?tag=nl

 

[jiggie2g]

hate to break it to you, VIA sucks, i have only ever bought two boards from them and both were DOA, others have had similar experiences, and there AMD offerings dont overclock for ****, 10% max.

VIA does not suck and even Nvidia uses VIA chips in Nforce MB's.


Hey Hector where u been u missed alot these past couple of days. I've been wanting to gload about the demise of your precious PowerPC.

P.S. I want my Centrino Powerbook.....NOW

 

[Ravenflight]

It comes down to the simple user experience and perception. It comes down to some simple goals…
- Quality hardware, industry standards, speed (or perception of speed), at a competitive price.
- Compatibility, I need to do work, can I use the programs I need to?
- Security.
- Innovative apps, ease of use and perception of future development.
- And finally the coolness factor of the hardware.
(As Mac users, we have sacrificed the first two goals for the second three since the beginning) Apple now has the opportunity to provide all FIVE, Microsoft has ability to provide TWO. That’s the equation. Apple can successfully change the market to play to their strengths and nullify their weaknesses.

Microsoft has the ability to provide TWO??? Which two? I have to disagree with you there- no matter which.
1.Microsoft/ Quality/ Speed??? Don't make me laugh.
2.Microsoft compatibility? So long as you use only Microsoft software maybe.
3. Microsoft Security- Please...
4. Microsoft Innovative apps- Yeah like Microsoft BOB?
5.Microsoft coolness factor= zero.

Lets face it. Apple will kick Gates butt bigtime. And by the time Longhorn ever ships- assuming Microsoft hasn't spun off their OS business by then- Leopard will be out and kicking their ass all over again. I bet a bunch of people up in Redmond are trying to cash in their options right about now...

 

[Platform]

hate to break it to you, VIA sucks, i have only ever bought two boards from them and both were DOA, others have had similar experiences, and there AMD offerings dont overclock for ****, 10% max.

ASUS, Gigabyte sound better to me

 

[Truffy]

You know - the best part of the news is that you don't need to buy your software again - because of Rosetta. It will run just fine on an Intel Mac.

No worries!

But will it run as fast as on native hardware? IME emulators always slow things up.

 

[JFreak]

whoa, not ever have i read a +100 page thread all the way. you people are taking this too emotionally, i would say. first of all, the sky has not fallen. apple has not done this to survive, but to gain some options. let me explain why this is good for apple, strategically.

the choice of cpu is irrelevant for me and you. yes, that's true, completely irrelevant. YOU do not use the cpu, it is owned by the operating system. YOU do not use any other hardware than keyboard, mouse, etc. and as long as all hardware works with the operating system, everything is fine. yes, some hardware is better than the other, but that's life. you and me are not interested in whatever we cannot use, but instead we are very interested in how we interface with the operating system and how well the system performs as a whole. yes, performance, that's what the user is interested, and what the user uses is SOFTWARE.

now let's focus on software for a moment. we all know that apple can make osx run with many different architechtures and so can microsoft with its windows. that's not a problem. the major problem is all 3rd party applications that we use, and to be more exact, the problem lies in how the software is made. the keyword here is: ABSTRACTION. there are not many people who make software in assembly language anymore. it's too slow and error-prone; however it can perform incredibly well. practically everyone uses upper-level programming languages, but what apple is doing here is selling XCODE to developers and therefore taking the whole programming process into a new level. what is important are the frameworks. once all developers move their codebase into xcode and are able to complie universal binaries, it's up to apple to make xcode work with whatever architechture they wish to use. all developers must do is upgrade xcode and make a recompile to gain access to the new architechture apple is pushing. simple minor upgrade to customers and that's it. they may however cash in with this first transition to make a paid major upgrade with only major feature being the universal binary support, and they are not to blame for it.

ok, then. apple wants to control how developers program software. that's the biggest point. once they control developers, they have all the options they wish to use.

apple rents intel-based computers for developer use only and talks about x86. what does it mean for the consumer? nothing. that too is completely irrelevant. as i said, apple only wants developers behind xcode and it's up to apple to decide what the xcode can do. they may very well be preparing support for all intel and amd chips whether x86 compatible or not, or even plan to release non-ppc hardware that is also non-x86. they are pulling those rental units away anyway, so nobody loses.

by the way, who has said that apple will stop manufacturing hardware that has ppc inside? has it been said or is it just an assumption? what if apple keeps selling G5's in desktops and begins to use intels in portables? that way there would be all options open: the end user can choose which architechture to support and apple can put other hardware manufacturers to compete against each other - just think about it: by using ibm together with intel chips apple actually FORCES both companies to develop and deliver, as neither of those will want to lose business and get bad publicity.

so this is a win-win situation, really, but it will take some time. it is a developer who must pay the price at this point, and the customer only pays the price in the next major upgrade. and if i'm correct, once all osx development goes through xcode, everyone's happy in the future.

 

[wilburpan]

Perhaps I can add another point of information on the issue of converting software from PowerPC to x86:

I happen to use Linux on my POS Dell laptop that I got through work (they wouldn't get me a Mac laptop). I've been using Gentoo Linux, which is a compile from source distribution. What this means is that instead of downloading binaries and installing them, the source code for the OS and all the applications I use are downloaded, then compiled by my laptop. Gentoo keeps track of the programs I've installed in a text file called "world".

Gentoo also happens to run on a number of different CPUs, including Alpha, AMD (XP and 64), HPPA, MIPS, PowerPC, SPARC, and, of course, x86. Theoretically, I could take my world file, with the list of programs I've installed on my laptop, to, say, a PowerPC machine, ask Gentoo to compile and install the OS and the applications I use, and I'll have an equivalent system on the PowerPC machine. The same goes for recompiling my system on any of the other processor types.

Now, in the real world, there will be some tweaking involved with this migration, but it is not as onerous as you might think. My point is that there already exists an open source project involving a *nix based system that already demonstrates that the type of move from one CPU architecture to another is feasible, and not that difficult from a technical standpoint.

Put it this way: I can do this type of migration with Gentoo Linux, and I'm not even an IT person. I'm a pediatrician.

 

[Panu]

Kicking Microsoft's Butt?

Lets face it. Apple will kick Gates butt bigtime. And by the time Longhorn ever ships- assuming Microsoft hasn't spun off their OS business by then- Leopard will be out and kicking their ass all over again. I bet a bunch of people up in Redmond are trying to cash in their options right about now...

I suppose every religion needs a devil, but Microsoft isn't Apple's devil. Apple's own pricing and marketing do such a good job of keeping Apple's market share down, that Microsoft can even afford to be Apple's benefactor--Microsoft Office for the Mac, for instance.

Apple has a miniscule market share, and it is almost entirely limited to consumers and hobbyists. Even though they have a corporate presence in the Washington DC area (a building in Reston near Dulles Airport sports the Apple logo), they have no detectable presence at all in the very lucrative, high-volume, price-sensitive government market. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are more Windows machines in the Navy-USMC alone than there are Macintoshes in the whole world. Has any ever heard of a TEMPEST version of the Macintosh?

Microsoft is actually gaining market share over Linux in the server arena. Microsoft has major products for corporate customers for which there is no Apple counterpart. (Microsoft SQL Server, BizTalk, Commerce Server, Project Server, Active Directory, SharePoint; I could go on). Microsoft also has a very good partner program for businesses, and good relations with developers. Haven't you noticed that when a new version of Windows comes out, you can buy a book about it on the same day as you buy the software? By contrast, the Tiger books are just beginning to trickle out.

Apple doesn't have the market share, the pricing, the product line, or the corporate relations programs that are necessary for it to even think about "kicking Microsoft's butt." Fortunately, they don't have to.

All Apple has to do is gain market share and branch out into price-sensivite markets it isn't even targeting now. Apple knows the strategy: give Apples to schools, then parents will buy their kids Apples for home. They can use the same strategy for adults: if people use Macintoshes on the job, they'll buy them for home too.

My company's policies woudn't let me have a Windows laptop on the job because they have standardized on Macintosh. However, since I work mainly in the field, and Windows is Macintosh-compatible, I managed to get my boss to make an exception for me.

Switching to Intel was necessary for corporate survival. Switching to Intel also gives Apple the opportunity to cut prices without cutting profits, to design new models for the workplace, and to enter new markets. It doesn't need to "kick Gates' butt," but over the course of a decade or so, it can force Microsoft to share its lunch.

On the day that the Apple web site asks you to choose whether you are a home user or a business user, you'll know that Apple is on the way up.

 

[jZilla]

So where will Apple be on this img next year?

What'll be more keen to look out for... will they post the Macintel benchmarks and keep the PPC ones in when they stop selling them? ;-)

What if the G5 keeps smoking the X86!

 

[mandis]

I found this on ArsTechnica and i believe it explains the reasons why people, including myself, feel so bitter about the switch to intel.

Conclusions: PowerPC and Apple mythology

John Siracusa's article articulated one of the main reasons that many Apple devotees are upset by the Mac's departure from the PowerPC fold. Though the Mac achieved performance supremacy over x86 only for a few intermittent and shining moments over the course of the PowerPC era (usually at the launch of each new PPC family), the ongoing psychological effect of having a clean, elegant, technologically advanced RISC architecture at the heart of the Mac platform was a far more important factor in Apple's competitiveness than the Mac's actual benchmark numbers at any given moment.

See, there's often a difference between what a company sells and what consumers actually get when they purchase the product. Apple Computer, Inc. has "sold" slightly exotic, "technically superior," performance-oriented hardware for years, regardless of where the company's products have actually stood vis-à-vis the PC on the performance ladder. Or, to put it differently, the "RISC" PowerPC architecture has been a core part of the Apple brand and the overall "mythology" of the Mac platform since the 68K transition, even if that architecture rarely delivered on company's promises with benchmark numbers. So what Apple fans are mourning right now isn't the loss of some actual technical superiority of the Mac hardware, but rather the loss of the perception of that hardware's "technical superiority." Even more importantly, Mac enthusiasts are also mourning the loss of that perception's role in the ongoing maintenance of the myth of Apple and of the Apple brand in the form in which these two have coexisted in the PowerPC era.

The impact of the loss of PowerPC to Apple as a brand and as a company is easy to misjudge if one is thinking solely in terms of the average computer user. The Mac's "RISC CPU" meant something to a small but very important fraction of the Mac user base. These people were on fire about PowerPC vs. x86, RISC vs. CISC, and the platform wars in general. They cared about things like elegance and orthogonality, and when they used Apple hardware they felt "geeky." And the presence of PPC, regardless of its actual contribution to the cold hard benchmark numbers, lent to these vocal and highly enthusiastic Apple users the sense that they were members of an exclusive club of people "in the know," whose technical tastes were more refined and who were just plan smarter than the average "PC weenie."

This sense of exclusivity spilled out into the Mac user base at large, because these platform enthusiasts were also evangelists. They built up their tech knowledge at places like Ars, and they went forth to battle on behalf of their favorite platform. Then, regardless of how they actually fared in those online arguments, they went out into the world at large armed with terms, facts, figures, and a sense of technical confidence that was a powerful tool for evangelizing the less savvy. So they were taste makers, in a sense, in their individual spheres of influence (job, family, etc.), and the PPC CPU was that mysterious 11th herb and spice in the overall flavor that kept them hooked and enabled them to sell Apple to other folks who normally could've cared less about RISC vs. CISC.

To sum up, RISC and PowerPC were always more important to Mac users as a sort of talisman, or banner around which to rally. They represented a technical ideal to which Apple (and by extension Mac users) always aspired though rarely reached.

As of the PowerPC-to-Intel transition, Apple fans will no longer have PowerPC and RISC as a sort of spiritual power center for energizing the user base. If Apple as a brand is to retain any of the technological exoticism, mystique, and open elitism of the PowerPC era, it is going to have to find some other way to fill that hole in its mythology. With the loss of the "inner geek" that represents a core component of Apple's overall brand identity, the company risks becoming yet another "me too" PC vendor, like Dell, Gateway, HP, etc. Of course, they also risk selling many more computers, but if they decide that it's important to them to continue to turn their user base's "geek knobs" then they'll have to find a substitute for PowerPC.

OS X is off to a great start on this front, but it's still too early to tell if "UNIX underpinnings" and the like can fill PowerPC/RISC's spiritual shoes. My guess is that OS X probably will not follow PowerPC/RISC as the technological beating heart of the broader Apple cult. Rather, Apple is morphing into a different kind of company—a post-PC company—and the Mac as a platform is going to follow it. "Computers for the rest of us" are taking different forms and filling different niches in our lives, and a machine with the heart of a "RISC workstation" and the elegant, intuitive usability of a fountain pen represents the dream of the bygone PC era. The Mac, for good or for ill, is now free to follow the rest of the market and to leave the idea of the PC behind even as it embraces the "PC" architecture.

 

[GTKpower]

I suppose every religion needs a devil, but Microsoft isn't Apple's devil. Apple's own pricing and marketing do such a good job of keeping Apple's market share down, that Microsoft can even afford to be Apple's benefactor--Microsoft Office for the Mac, for instance.

Apple has a miniscule market share, and it is almost entirely limited to consumers and hobbyists. Even though they have a corporate presence in the Washington DC area (a building in Reston near Dulles Airport sports the Apple logo), they have no detectable presence at all in the very lucrative, high-volume, price-sensitive government market. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are more Windows machines in the Navy-USMC alone than there are Macintoshes in the whole world. Has any ever heard of a TEMPEST version of the Macintosh?

Microsoft is actually gaining market share over Linux in the server arena. Microsoft has major products for corporate customers for which there is no Apple counterpart. (Microsoft SQL Server, BizTalk, Commerce Server, Project Server, Active Directory, SharePoint; I could go on). Microsoft also has a very good partner program for businesses, and good relations with developers. Haven't you noticed that when a new version of Windows comes out, you can buy a book about it on the same day as you buy the software? By contrast, the Tiger books are just beginning to trickle out.

Apple doesn't have the market share, the pricing, the product line, or the corporate relations programs that are necessary for it to even think about "kicking Microsoft's butt." Fortunately, they don't have to.

All Apple has to do is gain market share and branch out into price-sensivite markets it isn't even targeting now. Apple knows the strategy: give Apples to schools, then parents will buy their kids Apples for home. They can use the same strategy for adults: if people use Macintoshes on the job, they'll buy them for home too.Switching to Intel was necessary for corporate survival. Switching to Intel also gives Apple the opportunity to cut prices without cutting profits, to design new models for the workplace, and to enter new markets. It doesn't need to "kick Gates' butt," but over the course of a decade or so, it can force Microsoft to share its lunch.

On the day that the Apple web site asks you to choose whether you are a home user or a business user, you'll know that Apple is on the way up.

Exactly. Very well said, Panu.

Call Apple for a job. They need people like you.

 

[polsons]

Haven't we somewhat overlooked what is without doubt the most disturbing statement made by Apple about this transition. INTEL-MACS WILL SUPPORT MS WINDOWS.

I remember a few years ago (around the release of Photoshop 7 I think), Adobe was asked if it would ever develop a Linux version of Photoshop. Adobe's reply was, if Linux users needed Photoshop (or Illustrator, or Premiere, etc, etc) then they could simply install MS Windows to run it. Why should Adobe support an unnecessary version when there was already an acceptable alternative in Adobe's opinion.

Now some years later, Mac users may face the same developer attitude. We know Adobe will definitely support Intel-Mac with some apps, but maybe not all. But let's be economically realistic. Why should Maya, or Cinema 4D, or Avid, or indeed any high-end and costly app; continue to be developed for MacOSX when ceasing development (and most importantly reducing expensive development costs) will mean nothing more than Mac users having to purchase a copy of MS Windows to install on their already owned Intel-Mac hardware.

It may be pessimistic, but definitely not unrealistic to foresee the only high-end apps on Intel-Mac being those by Apple, and Mac users becoming much better acquainted with Longhorn.

I do not share the pessimism of others about Apple's transition to Intel, but the revelation that Apple's Intel hardware will support MS Windows equally as well as it will support MacOSX, really does suggest to me that we are witnessing the prelude to Apple apps (FCP, Motion, Shake, etc, etc) on Windows.

 

[Panu]

The Mystique is a Mistake

Apple fans will no longer have PowerPC and RISC as a sort of spiritual power center for energizing the user base. If Apple as a brand is to retain any of the technological exoticism, mystique, and open elitism of the PowerPC era, it is going to have to find some other way to fill that hole in its mythology.

It's a computer, not a deity.

Your iBook as an 80GB (5400) drive and an ATI RADEON 9700 128MB video card. Almost the same as my iMac and my Windows PC. It has two 80 GB (7200) drives in a RAID configuration, and an ATI RADEON 9800 128MB video card. Okay, the CPUs are different. I also have a laptop with an AMD CPU. The software can't tell the difference between AMD and Intel.

You also have Airport and Bluetooth, which use the exact same protocols as the wireless networking and Bluetooth on my Windows machine.

In the middle of the worship service, the idol fell over and cracked, and the janitor carted it out. That is upsetting, but the real problem is in you. You should have been using your Macintosh, not worshipping it.

They haven't removed the adulation interface. The Intel Macs will have one, too. You can bet on it.

 

[Wyrm]

LONG LIVE THE TRANSITION!

Why not make this transition permanent? (rather oxymoronic I know)
Forget ending the transition, just make Macs that can use either PPC or x86.
Before you say I'm crazy, think about it: as Steve is saying:
1) OSX is fairly cpu agnostic
2) Shops are going to have to live with a double fat universal binary for quite some time.
3) The translator software is put in place, are they going to yank it? Why not expand it to go the other way too?
4) Apple can pick the best CPU for the task at hand, just like any other part.
5) I don't think anyone would be confused, or grieving, or sad, or in shock... but would be the evolution of computers from the revolution company. Steve would be again hailed as a visionary, instead of, "I guess he had to face up to reality"... come on, this is STEVE JOBS we are talking about here. IMPOSSIBLE == POSSIBLE, right?

Now, as is, IBM has ZERO incentive to improve the 970 for Apple.
But there's the what if, a BIG WHAT IF, something cool and new comes out from IBM, or Freescale after the transition is complete? Oops, hey group, let's go back?
IBM made the 970, and it is really good. Why can't they do it again?

A "transition" will scare people into holding out, hurting current sales no matter how many people say it doesn't matter. If it's not a transition, but spun as more of it doesn't matter anymore, then maybe people will think, hey cool, it's just like picking different video cards or something. Mac is great at hiding the complex. Most people in this thread have shown they don't want to worry or even know the details in the machine, just that it works, and it works well.

Nothing new, or different is done in this transition, this isn't Apple's first time at it either. But, making the Mac support 2 different cpu architectures at the same time is really cool, and would clearly put OSX into a category untouchable from that other one.

Downside is the support required, but over time this would just be the standard, and a massive competitive advantage.

Steve, if you can hear me, never end the transition! Long live the transition!

-Wyrm

 

[Panu]

Ho Hum

Haven't we somewhat overlooked what is without doubt the most disturbing statement made by Apple about this transition. INTEL-MACS WILL SUPPORT MS WINDOWS.

And Intel machines built for Windows support Linux.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

Why not make this transition permanent? (rather oxymoronic I know)
Forget ending the transition, just make Macs that can use either PPC or x86.
Before you say I'm crazy, think about it: as Steve is saying:
1) OSX is fairly cpu agnostic
2) Shops are going to have to live with a double fat universal binary for quite some time.
3) The translator software is put in place, are they going to yank it? Why not expand it to go the other way too?
4) Apple can pick the best CPU for the task at hand, just like any other part.
5) I don't think anyone would be confused, or grieving, or sad, or in shock... but would be the evolution of computers from the revolution company. Steve would be again hailed as a visionary, instead of, "I guess he had to face up to reality"... come on, this is STEVE JOBS we are talking about here. IMPOSSIBLE == POSSIBLE, right?

Now, as is, IBM has ZERO incentive to improve the 970 for Apple.
But there's the what if, a BIG WHAT IF, something cool and new comes out from IBM, or Freescale after the transition is complete? Oops, hey group, let's go back?
IBM made the 970, and it is really good. Why can't they do it again?

In theory, Apple could put PowerPCs in some Macs, and Intels in the others. If IBM made an improvement to the G5, and got the speeds up and temperatures down, Apple could put them in desktop models and rack models geared for graphics or science. The laptops and other models could keep using Intel.

Actually, come to think of it, Apple *will* be putting PowerPCs in some Macs, and Intel in the others, until they finish the transition around the end of 2007.

I just mean that Apple could do so indefinitely, choosing the best processor for a given role at a given time. Whichever processor is best for a laptop, or a graphics workstation, or a server, at a given price point, at a given time, could be used, without much concern over whether it is a PowerPC or an Intel chip.

Downside is the support required, but over time this would just be the standard, and a massive competitive advantage.

When Steve was running NeXT, they used to support *four* very different CPU types, and three of those were in hardware that NeXT didn't control. And that was a tiny company compared to Apple's resources.

 

[Counter]

APPLE HAD NO CHOICE. IBM was no longer going to meet the production demands of the market. They closed the door on a 3ghz cpu, and they had no plans for notebooks. On top of all that, they have a contract to make chips for the console market, in which they will make a killing. Hell, in this situation, I'd have ditched Apple, too.

This is at the root of it all.

People are going to be for and against "the move", but it's not like Apple had a choice. So you can argue for and against all day. The fact is IBM shut the door and Apple got dropped into the Intel bucket.

I sensed a reserved tension in Jobs' speech. Digging up one ancient photo of Job's and Mr Intel-Whoever to show some sort of history. He could have done the same with Bill Gates. Hesitantly showing that, he has indeed, been running on an Intel processor all morning. And it is because of this that Photoshop took 3 mins 30 seconds to load through 'Rosetta'. And the story of calling some random software developer up in the middle of the night to fly him over just added to the 'hacked together last minute' sense the Keynote had for me.

As for OSX always been compiled for more than one chip....this is a multi-squillion dollar portable music player company we are talking about. They can afford to dedicate a lab to do this stuff, it's absolutely nothing to them.

The Intel move is a fact, there was no choice in the matter, and it sucks.