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.
Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
So much FUD, so little time to read.
Get over it people. Apple is moving to Intel. If you're so upset, go use Windows. Trust me, you will be right back after you realize the REAL reason why a Mac is a Mac... Mac OS.
Go read this article on Ars, it sheds a lot of light on the whole situation.
Ars Technica
Get over it people. Apple is moving to Intel. If you're so upset, go use Windows. Trust me, you will be right back after you realize the REAL reason why a Mac is a Mac... Mac OS.
Go read this article on Ars, it sheds a lot of light on the whole situation.
Ars Technica
mox358 said:
i agree. most people here have been trashing the x86 world up until monday and would vehemently oppose any suggestion of apple porting macos to x86 let alone having apple move entirely to x86. now it's an intel love-fest, mostly. i agree with the arse article. one of the things that made macintoshes special was that they were a differenct architecture. now they're just run-of-the-mill pcs that also run osx.
GTKpower said:
I want to be the input device....
Seriously though...
I have had some time to mull over this, and while I am still really upset, I have to look at some points and pros and cons of this deal.
First, an observation... This is the least excited I have seen Steve Jobs in the last several WWDCs. It was on par with Al Gore conceding his presidency.
But...
Pros:
- Intel will be producing chips for a long time
- They have the biggest of the big partners
- It is really their only business
- Support for existing designs is second to none
- Steve just acquired a large pool of Intel SIMD developers
- Most in the gaming arena
- The public may warm up to the idea of Intel Inside
- No one ever got fired for buying Intel ( unless they worked for AMD )
- The attractiveness of running windows on a box where OSX didn't cut it
may ease concerns or would be switchers
- Increases potential market share.
- Tom's Hardware guide should love the machine
- No more special firmware to get a new video card to initialize
- Finally, cheaper, more powerful video cards !!
CONS:
- Apple is now playing in Intel's field
- **Will** directly compete with Windows
- **Will** directly compete with DELL
- Cannot blow over poor benchmarks
- Intel makes one chip that fits all
- No custom bolt-ons to a P4
- Apple has always designed with thermal dynamics in mind. (Apple H2O
cooled the coolest power proc of the big three)
- Intel's processors are hot
- Intel Centrino may solve some of the problem
- AMD's processors are hotter
- I have yet to see an Intel ( or AMD ) box stay as reliable for as long
as an Apple ( rock solid after 24 hours/ day heavy use after 5 years )
- Processor breakdown ( heat related ) usually causes the at the
very least some quirkiness in the system.
- Apple had advanced technology with Power in the areas of SIMD, 64-bit
design, and boot firmware.
- IBM gave Apple the finger ( publicly!! )
- Intel has two years to make some changes to close the gap.
- Raw clock speed may help close the slower SIMD gap
- Dual Cores may help close the processing gap
- New BIOS redesign may give the most popular OF features back to
the Intel Platform
- Power Experts must now re-learn Altivec
- MacSTL may help.
- Altivec apps must be ported in 18 months to SSE.
- Not doing so will cause severe performance hits on Rosetta ( see G3 )
- Java apps that have a native binary for PPC must also be ported in 18
months
- Anything that uses JNI
After going through this list, I have only a couple of thoughts....
- Will my Mac OS X86 system be as solid as my Mac PPC systems 5 years after they are purchased?
- Will my experience on OS X86 be any different than I am used to, other than increased speed and productivity
- Will Apple be able to maintain it's aura of being unique in such a way they can maintain a market ( no Linux or OS/2 here ).
I have faith that parts of Apple will remain the same.
- Someone will come up with a benchmark that wipes the floor with Mac OS X86 ( probably Charlie White )
- Apple will choose reliability over performance
- I will still like OS X over Windows
Still trying to put the pieces together....
Max.
It'll be alright . . .
It'll be alright, Max.
Moving to a new supplier (formerly hated) is a business reality that many had to swallow before. Just be thankful that Apple lives to boot up another day.
The important thing is that loyal Mac uses MUST REMAIN LOYAL. Now, more than ever, Apple needs YOU, the core market, to keep the faith.
Now, normally, I'd be the first to tell some unhappy OS user to come to Linux. But this time . . . . NO.
Do not leave Apple, people. Apple hasn't survived all these years (and even at times, flourished) becuase they can simply sell their units. They survived because YOU, the user, BELIEVED in them. Despite having fewer games, expensive hardware, and sometimes losing in the OS Wars, you found something special in a Mac. You'll still find it. Just stick it out.
It'll be alright, Max.
Moving to a new supplier (formerly hated) is a business reality that many had to swallow before. Just be thankful that Apple lives to boot up another day.
The important thing is that loyal Mac uses MUST REMAIN LOYAL. Now, more than ever, Apple needs YOU, the core market, to keep the faith.
Now, normally, I'd be the first to tell some unhappy OS user to come to Linux. But this time . . . . NO.
Do not leave Apple, people. Apple hasn't survived all these years (and even at times, flourished) becuase they can simply sell their units. They survived because YOU, the user, BELIEVED in them. Despite having fewer games, expensive hardware, and sometimes losing in the OS Wars, you found something special in a Mac. You'll still find it. Just stick it out.
I don't know if any of you have been reading any of the news on google, but some articles are speculating a Intel-Apple Merger. Not trying to stir anyone up here, but wow, this could be the bad news of the year for me.
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000417046255/
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=11809&Page=1&pagePos=6
i'd be in complete shock if this were true....
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000417046255/
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=11809&Page=1&pagePos=6
i'd be in complete shock if this were true....
As of now, I'm staying put.
However, if Apple ships a "plain" Intel motherboard and processor combo in their Mactels, and Dell offers the same combination for $500+ cheaper... I'll switch back to Windows XP/Longhorn.
Unless Intel offers Apple "something different", Apple will be offering the same hardware as every other PC manufacturer for a premium price.
I love OS X, but it's not worth the premium price tag for me personally. At least with the PowerPC, you were actually getting exclusive hardware along with the software.
Is Mac OS X and a "pretty" Apple chassis really worth the extra $$$? I'm not so sure.
However, if Apple ships a "plain" Intel motherboard and processor combo in their Mactels, and Dell offers the same combination for $500+ cheaper... I'll switch back to Windows XP/Longhorn.
Unless Intel offers Apple "something different", Apple will be offering the same hardware as every other PC manufacturer for a premium price.
I love OS X, but it's not worth the premium price tag for me personally. At least with the PowerPC, you were actually getting exclusive hardware along with the software.
Is Mac OS X and a "pretty" Apple chassis really worth the extra $$$? I'm not so sure.
Why is everyone trying to compare a Mac to Dell. Apple doesn't what the Dell Market. Macs (at the high end level) are high performance computers used mostly by creative professionals who run graphic intense applications. Dells are mostly used by people who work with Spreadsheets and Word documents. Hence, Mac and Dell's market are like Apples and oranges. Sure Apple would like to gain more of the PC market share, but Apple will not lower its standards to compete with Dell, even with Intel processors. Apple's rival at the high end level is more like Boxx Technologies. The low end is more like Dell. With the Mac using Intel chips they will have a lot more options. I'm a diehard Mac supporter and I was mad as F#*K when I first heard the Intel announcement, but when I started to look at all the possiblities and benefits of using an Intel Mac like PCI-Express and Dual Dual Core, True 64 bit processors, I was ecstatic. Mac OS X makes the Mac what it is, not the PowerPC processor.
GTKpower said:
I have a AMD 64 939 rig that I built hoping I could use it for video editing and not spend the cash on a new Apple. Boy was I wrong. My old G4 400mhz Powerbook does a better job at video editing then this 2 gig x86 crap. There is much more to Apples then just the cpu. Key elements of Apples software is imbedded in the hardware. How will they do this now? With a software emulator? That will suck. All I can say is Intel must have some major bandwidth somewhere that they've been hiding. This really is all mute anyway. Apple will become a software company in the end. Wonder what my old friend Woz thinks of this.
Thoughts
I just came back to this thread and read a few pages back and had some thoughts that I just wanted to share.
1) SJ did not say that they were abandoning the PPC. In fact he said that they had some "great" (I don't remember the word that he used) plans for PPC products that will be coming out. There was also no mention that they were canning deals with IBM. He only said that the PPC architecture only has about a 15% growth left. With Intel they project 70% more growth.
2) There was NO mention that the Intel chips that WILL be used in the future products will be x86 based. It is only assumed that that is the case because that is what SJ used in the keynote and that's what's in the developers’ kit. So it has to be that right? I've signed more NDA's then checks and in ALL cases where the manufacture wanted hardware back it was because what you (the developer) was getting was pre-alpha stuff that would never see the light of day for end users. I'm thinking that this transition is more for code warrior developers to move to XCode, that way whatever chip(s) Apple wants to use in the future will just be a check box to add to the universal binary. It may be x86 based instructions, but I'm thinking there will be more to it then just that.
3) It just seems to me that more will be coming/changing. You don't need more than a year to check a box in XCode and do a recompile. It took Teo (Mathmetica) two days to make that transition. I know there is more to it then that though, I've worked on embedded systems going from eXP to Lynx to Linux, and it took a few months. So why year(s)? Seems to me their whole plan's aren't finalized yet.
4) With the DRM, RIAA stuff with iTunes/iPod and M$ wanting the Palladium stuff, wouldn't it make sense to have this embedded on the Intel chip in the new Mac? Just like MMX or 3d-now Apple could have some additional instructions that are only on this chip. That would keep them in control of hardware as well as where and how OSX is easily installed. When OSX boots up all it has to do is say - do I have this instruction - nope, sorry no boot. Yes, I do know that there is no such thing as security and everything can be thwarted. The only thing you have to do is make it more time consuming then someone is willing to trade time for money. For me, I'd rather just spend $500 on a Mac mini then dinking with beige box crap to make a Mac OSX run on it. Others may not feel so inclined. I like computers, but I like them more when they just work.
5) As it has been mentioned before *nix is on SEVERAL platforms and chipsets. I wouldn't even begin the task to count them all. What's wrong for Apple wanting to support more chipsets? If they have developer backing (read converted to XCode) then they can move to the AMD KICK-A$$ processor in 2010 without another "transition".
6) "It didn't work in the past so it can't work in the future". I don't agree with this completely. Sure history repeats itself, but every once in awhile we break loose from this vicious cycle. It's called evolution or revolution, it just happens. Those that fail to evolve become extinct. Sometimes it just takes longer to accomplish that. Didn't Edison find 1,999 ways to NOT make the light bulb? You don't fail unless you quit trying
7) It's the end of Apple? Ok, if you agree with this please buy a pee cee and enjoy waiting for the arrival of Longhorn. With 76% of the portable mp3 market and ga-jillion songs sold on iTunes, Apple isn't dead. Even if they loose a ton of faithful to the dark side and the individual with 500,000 shares sells his stock, there will be someone there to replace them, and buy the stock. The only damage Apple will see from this is people freaking out and jumping ship. Riding out the storm is often better than trying to swim to shore. Don't jump ship when you're still afloat!
Maybe I'm in SJ's RDF...
I just came back to this thread and read a few pages back and had some thoughts that I just wanted to share.
1) SJ did not say that they were abandoning the PPC. In fact he said that they had some "great" (I don't remember the word that he used) plans for PPC products that will be coming out. There was also no mention that they were canning deals with IBM. He only said that the PPC architecture only has about a 15% growth left. With Intel they project 70% more growth.
2) There was NO mention that the Intel chips that WILL be used in the future products will be x86 based. It is only assumed that that is the case because that is what SJ used in the keynote and that's what's in the developers’ kit. So it has to be that right? I've signed more NDA's then checks and in ALL cases where the manufacture wanted hardware back it was because what you (the developer) was getting was pre-alpha stuff that would never see the light of day for end users. I'm thinking that this transition is more for code warrior developers to move to XCode, that way whatever chip(s) Apple wants to use in the future will just be a check box to add to the universal binary. It may be x86 based instructions, but I'm thinking there will be more to it then just that.
3) It just seems to me that more will be coming/changing. You don't need more than a year to check a box in XCode and do a recompile. It took Teo (Mathmetica) two days to make that transition. I know there is more to it then that though, I've worked on embedded systems going from eXP to Lynx to Linux, and it took a few months. So why year(s)? Seems to me their whole plan's aren't finalized yet.
4) With the DRM, RIAA stuff with iTunes/iPod and M$ wanting the Palladium stuff, wouldn't it make sense to have this embedded on the Intel chip in the new Mac? Just like MMX or 3d-now Apple could have some additional instructions that are only on this chip. That would keep them in control of hardware as well as where and how OSX is easily installed. When OSX boots up all it has to do is say - do I have this instruction - nope, sorry no boot. Yes, I do know that there is no such thing as security and everything can be thwarted. The only thing you have to do is make it more time consuming then someone is willing to trade time for money. For me, I'd rather just spend $500 on a Mac mini then dinking with beige box crap to make a Mac OSX run on it. Others may not feel so inclined. I like computers, but I like them more when they just work.
5) As it has been mentioned before *nix is on SEVERAL platforms and chipsets. I wouldn't even begin the task to count them all. What's wrong for Apple wanting to support more chipsets? If they have developer backing (read converted to XCode) then they can move to the AMD KICK-A$$ processor in 2010 without another "transition".
6) "It didn't work in the past so it can't work in the future". I don't agree with this completely. Sure history repeats itself, but every once in awhile we break loose from this vicious cycle. It's called evolution or revolution, it just happens. Those that fail to evolve become extinct. Sometimes it just takes longer to accomplish that. Didn't Edison find 1,999 ways to NOT make the light bulb? You don't fail unless you quit trying
7) It's the end of Apple? Ok, if you agree with this please buy a pee cee and enjoy waiting for the arrival of Longhorn. With 76% of the portable mp3 market and ga-jillion songs sold on iTunes, Apple isn't dead. Even if they loose a ton of faithful to the dark side and the individual with 500,000 shares sells his stock, there will be someone there to replace them, and buy the stock. The only damage Apple will see from this is people freaking out and jumping ship. Riding out the storm is often better than trying to swim to shore. Don't jump ship when you're still afloat!
Maybe I'm in SJ's RDF...
fordlemon said:
How have they "compromised" their hardware? Did the IBM or Motorola chip make the Apple computer for you? Is that what the experience was about? Was it not the OS? The Software Package? The Computer Design?
Ask the average Apple user why they love their Computer, and then ask them what kind of processor they are using. Watch the look on their face.
Users aren't switching to Macs because they go googoo over the PPC chip.
If you want to leave the platform because you can't get your PPC flavor, be my guest.
Oh Please! C'mon people, the Mac is not going to become some cheap Dell-like knock-off just because of one little chip! What makes a Mac a Mac won't change, and I don't think that had a lot to do with the chip, certainly not for the general computer buyer. Most of my friends/family are not techno-dweebs, and when they go shopping for a computer, the processor chip is not anywhere near the top of their list of "must haves." Most computer buyers want a computer that is fast, cheap and easy to use.
Claiming Apple is dead or that Steve Jobs is trying to drown the company by switching to Intel chips is just ridiculous. If you really believe this, then maybe you need to get out more and enjoy the Spring weather!
Claiming Apple is dead or that Steve Jobs is trying to drown the company by switching to Intel chips is just ridiculous. If you really believe this, then maybe you need to get out more and enjoy the Spring weather!
Not quite. He said that they projected that PPC would deliver 15 "work units" per watt and that Intel would deliver 70 "work units" per watt next year. The Intel chips are going to be a lot more efficient for applications with a lower thermal budget (like laptops) than the PPC's will be.k3nx said:
The biggest negative I see is that Classic applications (OS9 apps) aren't going to work with the new machines. There are many legacy applications that I have, some of which I wrote. Sure, I can keep an old machine for running them, but that is a pain in the butt. I don't want to have to have an old machine to run the old apps. I want to keep running them. If we're going to have emulation it would be really useful if it was complete and covered the legacy Classic applications too.
Time to halt some of the naysaying....
http://www.macosxrumors.com/articles/2005/06/10/developers-speak-out-on-the-big-switch-part-i/
Now if the developers aren't worried, why should you be? This transition is going to be the easiest and smoothest for NeXT (er um, I mean Apple) of all! I'll bet most people wouldn't know there was an Intel chip in their Mac by 2007 if you didn't tell them. It's just works.
http://www.macosxrumors.com/articles/2005/06/10/developers-speak-out-on-the-big-switch-part-i/
Now if the developers aren't worried, why should you be? This transition is going to be the easiest and smoothest for NeXT (er um, I mean Apple) of all! I'll bet most people wouldn't know there was an Intel chip in their Mac by 2007 if you didn't tell them. It's just works.
Let's see, OS9 died oh, around 2000. The Intel switch will be complete by 2007. Do you really expect Apple to support a dead platform after 7 years?pubwvj said:
Even MS doesn't do that. The only one that even comes close is Sony with the PS3 making all games from the PS1 backwards compatible. I wonder how many people will actually play PS1 games on their new HD PS3s? MontyZ said:
Going outside this early in the game would have a severe detrimental effect to focus and commitment.
Chips that run hotter have way more character. I was looking forward to cryogenic technologies (RDF terminology, actually dry-ice) coming in sometime around 2007, not the purchase of a 'Mactel'
Buy the rumor, sell the news!!
Apple has lost 5 billion dollars in market capitalization, since the news. That is essentially a no confidence vote from Wall Street.
Big deal, you say. Buy the rumor, sell the news!!
Like with any new venture, into unexplored territory, Apple will have a learning curve. The first machines are likely to be pretty scarry.
The vagueness that is PC is rather difficult to get one's hands around, straight away! Dell, MS and IBM (Lenovo) have been hammering at the PC for years, and still haven't got a clue.
Could Apple reinvent the PC? If so, BUY the stock now!!!!
Apple has lost 5 billion dollars in market capitalization, since the news. That is essentially a no confidence vote from Wall Street.
Big deal, you say. Buy the rumor, sell the news!!
Like with any new venture, into unexplored territory, Apple will have a learning curve. The first machines are likely to be pretty scarry.
The vagueness that is PC is rather difficult to get one's hands around, straight away! Dell, MS and IBM (Lenovo) have been hammering at the PC for years, and still haven't got a clue.
Could Apple reinvent the PC? If so, BUY the stock now!!!!
- Status