Sorry if this has been answered earlier, but I didnt want to sift through 110 pages. I just bought an imac (my first mac.) What is going to happen in the future after Apple finishes the transition to intel in terms of software availability and support? Will my mac be obselete? what is Apple going to do about us IBM chip users? Are we screwed?
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
Apple still has support for legacy machines. You have to dig for it but it is there and I see no reason why they would not support the Powere PC machines in the future.thorshammer88 said:
Now whether there will be software support that is another story. Eventually people will stop develoing for the Power PC version of OS X just like they did for OS 9, but that point is a long way away
Jason Vene said:
Thank you for being the most amusingly written entry in this monolith of nearly 3,000 posts!
Back to the matter in hand. Apple have an uncanny habit of confounding their critics and generally surprising & wowing everyone that isn't overweight, bespectacled and currently debugging an academic network...
I hope it all works out and, for the above reasons, I'm sure it will, but do you get the feeling that Steve Jobs sprung this on most of Apple without warning? It would fit in with the stories of him in the early days, and the fact that IBM were in the dark. I really do hope he's got a bit of sense this time round!
I look forward to hearing, in another twenty years, how 'Steve came into the office and just announced that we were moving over to Intel. He said that IBM weren't cool and people didn't want them any more, only stopping to add that we were gonna have to do some serious coding if we were to meet the two-week deadline for WWDC. He left, muttering something about Ive being too big for his boots.'
The fact that the rumours really DIDN'T get out this time would seem to indicate very tight control.iTry said:
I wouldn't be surprised if employees got an email at 9am Monday morning giving them just a little more info than the keynote revealed.
That would also explain why it'll take 6 months to get the first Mac out. There are/were already new PPC Mac's getting ready for release, and it'll take that long to swing the Apple-"Ship" around. It may also indicate that Steve has given vague timelines - hopefully a worst case scenario. The keynote already leaves it open between January and June 2006.
I'd bet that employees heard about it at the keynote just like everybody else. Of course, some employees knew about it, but I'm talking about general distribution to all employees.
artjones said:All this hype about the new Intel chips, but will they work well?
Remember--the new software has to run not only on OSx for Intel, but for the PowerPC as well. That's asking a lot. A tall order. Like asking Windows to run seamlessly on a Motorola based machine. Actually, I'd be more risk-averse and buy the 'old' G5s instead until the Intel Macs have proven themselves. I'm guessing that the new Intel Macs will take 3 or 4 generations (cycles of production--1-1/2 to 2 years) to get it right (Judging from past performance of prior Apple releases, that's how long it long it usually takes for all of the glitches to be ironed out). At which point, Apple could lose even more market share to the Wintel world to make themselves so obsolete as to be merged with their nemesis, Microsoft. At which point, you may as well go out and buy a Dell.
Personally, I'm going to buy the last of the G5s. Those are some very great machines. And they might well be some of the last good ones that Apple ever produces. Maybe some of the last. Potentially, I'd like to be 1 of the last users to be able to say that they owned 1 of the best Macs before they went out of production. At the riate they're going, Apple seems determined to lose more market share and get rid of its PC line altogether, in favor of becoming an entertainment company (ie -games, ipods, etc.)
I have never seen so many troll posts on Macrumor before. Guess these guys are getting bored waiting for Tinhorn.
hhmmm... Surely a forum record?
To the Admin - It might be worth making a sticky of FAQ's for this whole Intel deal. I can see a lot of people who just bought a Mac asking questions in the coming months and they might benefit from having all the info in one place...
To the Admin - It might be worth making a sticky of FAQ's for this whole Intel deal. I can see a lot of people who just bought a Mac asking questions in the coming months and they might benefit from having all the info in one place...
thorshammer88 said:
No need to worry, it seems that Apple will support the PPC for another 5 to 6 years. The normal lifetime of the Mac. It will take time for software to transition to the Intel chip. There are so many PPC Mac's on the market that software makers won't want to loose that market.
Apple leaves too many users behind
Apple, what can I say? Great computer--but in many respects--a poorly managed company. Shoddy management. Steve Jobs and his crew lack credibility. I'm really interested in getting 1 of those dual processor G5s, but I dont' know what Apple's gonna do in a couple of years. They don't seem to have a clear idea themselves. I'm reluctant to buy an Apple and then find out in a very short period, that a lot of the software written for them doesn't work well or at all because it's been optimized for Intel chips.
While I purchased a Mac once (thankfully for not too much money), I've noted that Apple has a nasty habbit of telling its users to spend lots of money on hardware and software, and then leaving them behind shortly afterwards. They seem to think that the average user has 3-4 thousand dollars to spend on their computers and the new software that's supposed to run on them every 3-5 years. We don't. Apple (and the WinTel manufactures, too) should realize this. It's a big investment. Therefore, what you buy now, SHOULD work ten years from now--at least marginally well. As an example, I mean, the CRT TV you bought five years ago hasn't stopped broadcasting your favorite shows even though LCD HDTV sets are on the market. Even a 40 year old TV still does the trick.
What Apple should do, is to provide some sort of rebate/discount system, to those users with proof of receipt, who purchased their computers at full market price from authorized resellers. This offer should extend to people who bought software that runs on OS9 and earlier. Apple should work with other software companies such as Adobe to work some deal out. I think that this would entice far more Apple users to remain loyal to the product.
What I'm saying here has been echoed by many PC users out there. Many of them like the Macs far more than their WinTel machines, and would actually consider switching but are afraid to do so, because Apple screws over its following every time. And this switch to the Intel line is a prime example. While I don't really like the Wintels very much, at least they have much greater consistency than Apple. Though Windows is a vastly inferior product to OSX, much of the software written even 15 years ago and also the current software can run on Windows 2000. Apple does not seem to understand the concept of continuity and customer loyalty very well. If it did, it might have more than 2.X % of the computer market.
Apple, what can I say? Great computer--but in many respects--a poorly managed company. Shoddy management. Steve Jobs and his crew lack credibility. I'm really interested in getting 1 of those dual processor G5s, but I dont' know what Apple's gonna do in a couple of years. They don't seem to have a clear idea themselves. I'm reluctant to buy an Apple and then find out in a very short period, that a lot of the software written for them doesn't work well or at all because it's been optimized for Intel chips.
While I purchased a Mac once (thankfully for not too much money), I've noted that Apple has a nasty habbit of telling its users to spend lots of money on hardware and software, and then leaving them behind shortly afterwards. They seem to think that the average user has 3-4 thousand dollars to spend on their computers and the new software that's supposed to run on them every 3-5 years. We don't. Apple (and the WinTel manufactures, too) should realize this. It's a big investment. Therefore, what you buy now, SHOULD work ten years from now--at least marginally well. As an example, I mean, the CRT TV you bought five years ago hasn't stopped broadcasting your favorite shows even though LCD HDTV sets are on the market. Even a 40 year old TV still does the trick.
What Apple should do, is to provide some sort of rebate/discount system, to those users with proof of receipt, who purchased their computers at full market price from authorized resellers. This offer should extend to people who bought software that runs on OS9 and earlier. Apple should work with other software companies such as Adobe to work some deal out. I think that this would entice far more Apple users to remain loyal to the product.
What I'm saying here has been echoed by many PC users out there. Many of them like the Macs far more than their WinTel machines, and would actually consider switching but are afraid to do so, because Apple screws over its following every time. And this switch to the Intel line is a prime example. While I don't really like the Wintels very much, at least they have much greater consistency than Apple. Though Windows is a vastly inferior product to OSX, much of the software written even 15 years ago and also the current software can run on Windows 2000. Apple does not seem to understand the concept of continuity and customer loyalty very well. If it did, it might have more than 2.X % of the computer market.
PPC development to slow?
What I find funny is that a lot of people here are saying IBM did not deliver and Apple made the right choice to switch to Intel. But what everybody seems to have forgotten is that Intel also hardly made any progress in clock-speed the last 2 years. They went from 3 GHz to 3.8 GHz. (27% gain) while the G5 went from 2 GHz to 2.7 GHz (35% gain).
Intel promised its customers 4 GHz by january this year. We're at june and they can still only manage 3.8. GHz.
Although I agree the Pentium M is a nice laptop chip Im much less impressed by their desktop offerings.
I think Apple also took yet another risk basing their decision on a future roadmap. The did the exact same thing with the switch to the G5. They (and IBM) thought that the next process was going to be more power efficient and allowed for higher clock-speeds (+3 GHz) than it turned out to be.
With Intel they are now thinking that the future chips at 65 nm process are going to be faster and more power efficient than the PPC offerings. But if Intels transition from 130 nm to 90 nm gives us any insight to the future, I wouldn't be to sure of that.
I would not be surprised if the PPC, if it continues to be developed, will remain competitive with Intels offerings for the desktop chips.
Only for the portable market Intels offerings look at bit better, but we still have to see (if we will) how the Freescale MPC8641D and future e700 core chips with speeds above 3 GHz will compare.
Steve Jobs reality distortion seems to have worked wonders again on the majority of people on this board. Only a week ago the general consensus on this board was that x86 is outdated crap that runs way to hot (think Pentium D), and now after Steve said "Mac-Os runs great on Intel" everybody seems to think Intels x86 chips are the best thing since sliced bread.
What I find funny is that a lot of people here are saying IBM did not deliver and Apple made the right choice to switch to Intel. But what everybody seems to have forgotten is that Intel also hardly made any progress in clock-speed the last 2 years. They went from 3 GHz to 3.8 GHz. (27% gain) while the G5 went from 2 GHz to 2.7 GHz (35% gain).
Intel promised its customers 4 GHz by january this year. We're at june and they can still only manage 3.8. GHz.
Although I agree the Pentium M is a nice laptop chip Im much less impressed by their desktop offerings.
I think Apple also took yet another risk basing their decision on a future roadmap. The did the exact same thing with the switch to the G5. They (and IBM) thought that the next process was going to be more power efficient and allowed for higher clock-speeds (+3 GHz) than it turned out to be.
With Intel they are now thinking that the future chips at 65 nm process are going to be faster and more power efficient than the PPC offerings. But if Intels transition from 130 nm to 90 nm gives us any insight to the future, I wouldn't be to sure of that.
I would not be surprised if the PPC, if it continues to be developed, will remain competitive with Intels offerings for the desktop chips.
Only for the portable market Intels offerings look at bit better, but we still have to see (if we will) how the Freescale MPC8641D and future e700 core chips with speeds above 3 GHz will compare.
Steve Jobs reality distortion seems to have worked wonders again on the majority of people on this board. Only a week ago the general consensus on this board was that x86 is outdated crap that runs way to hot (think Pentium D), and now after Steve said "Mac-Os runs great on Intel" everybody seems to think Intels x86 chips are the best thing since sliced bread.
artjones said:
Actually, broadcasting is going to go all-digital in a year or two. When that happens, your TV will need a digital receiver in order to get over-the-air broadcasts. So if you have a TV today, that gets its signal through an antenna, it will stop working in 2006 or 2007.
That's not lost on anyone, all the foundries hit a wall with raw speed. The difference was that Intel had in-house rival teams working on different architectures (just as Apple have always done) and were prepared to switch over to a different approach that gets more out performance of the same processes. Meanwhile, IBM kept butting their heads against the process problems, and then wandered off to play with video games.Mac-Xpert said:
What about the Itanic?
I read where that chip is where apple is likely to take xserver towards. I sure hope not. That thing was such a waste of time, even Intel knows it and is slowly killing it....not to mention that everything is getting trounced by IBM's power series. Would be nice if they kept IBM for that.
I read where that chip is where apple is likely to take xserver towards. I sure hope not. That thing was such a waste of time, even Intel knows it and is slowly killing it....not to mention that everything is getting trounced by IBM's power series. Would be nice if they kept IBM for that.
This still doesn't in any way give credit to a successful transition to the 65 nm process and the future efficiency of chips based on this process, that apple seems to think is much better than what the PPC will be capable off.iMeowbot said:
I'm not so convinced. But time will tell i guess.
Everyone seems to be basing their criticism on the Apple/Intel announcement based on Intel's current chip offerings. But, as Steve said that the first Macintels won't be available for another year, how do you know that Intel isn't secretly working on a chip designed for Apple? I'm sure Steve didn't make this decision based on Intel's current chips, I'll bet he and Intel have agreed on a plan to put the latest Intel chip, still in development, into the new Macs. And as everything Steve does, he's probably involved in every detail and he doesn't settle for the status-quo. I have confidence that Jobs knows what he's doing and will get the best result possible.
vatel said:
Minor flaw in your logic.
Anyone will be able to update their systems from the darwin sources. As soon as each new update to OS X is released Apple posts the new updated darwin sources. There will be plenty of sites where you will be able to download pre-compiled device drivers for anything you need within days of each OS X update.
You may say this only will apply to geeks and such but Windows users are already used to updating their drivers themselves and this will end up being no different.
edit:
Furthermore the Darwin Sources already support more devices on Intel than is supported by OS X on the Mac.
I fully expect within 2 years you will be able to buy OS X for NON-Apple hardware. Apple stands to make much more money selling the OS and their Apps than they ever did selling computers.
Mac-Xpert said:What I find funny is that a lot of people here are saying IBM did not deliver and Apple made the right choice to switch to Intel. But what everybody seems to have forgotten is that Intel also hardly made any progress in clock-speed the last 2 years. They went from 3 GHz to 3.8 GHz. (27% gain) while the G5 went from 2 GHz to 2.7 GHz (35% gain).
Intel promised its customers 4 GHz by january this year. We're at june and they can still only manage 3.8. GHz.
Although I agree the Pentium M is a nice laptop chip Im much less impressed by their desktop offerings.
I think Apple also took yet another risk basing their decision on a future roadmap. The did the exact same thing with the switch to the G5. They (and IBM) thought that the next process was going to be more power efficient and allowed for higher clock-speeds (+3 GHz) than it turned out to be.
With Intel they are now thinking that the future chips at 65 nm process are going to be faster and more power efficient than the PPC offerings. But if Intels transition from 130 nm to 90 nm gives us any insight to the future, I wouldn't be to sure of that.
I would not be surprised if the PPC, if it continues to be developed, will remain competitive with Intels offerings for the desktop chips.
Only for the portable market Intels offerings look at bit better, but we still have to see (if we will) how the Freescale MPC8641D and future e700 core chips with speeds above 3 GHz will compare.
Steve Jobs reality distortion seems to have worked wonders again on the majority of people on this board. Only a week ago the general consensus on this board was that x86 is outdated crap that runs way to hot (think Pentium D), and now after Steve said "Mac-Os runs great on Intel" everybody seems to think Intels x86 chips are the best thing since sliced bread.
Hmm your funny, I suppose you just choose to selectively ignore the fact that both Intel and AMD have gone to dual-core processors.
And what did IBM give us? A 8% clockspeed increase over the course of 6 months, the G5 was only somewhat competitive before that (when everyone still had only singlecore cpus), do you really believe the gap hasn't widened significantly now that both AMD and Intel have adopted dual-core technology that increases performance by 25-75% on most professional (multithreaded) applications?
buggybear said:
Sorry but you are misinformed.
The Itanium is a successful CPU and is an awesome performer.
Clock for Clock it outruns every other CPU out there.
It's floating point efficiency is truly remarkable... Reaching in the realm of 98% efficiency.
Intel is in NO WAY abandoning the Itanium .... It will be selling as dual core in Sept with 9 and 12 Meg cache configs.
~loserman~:
Itanium is overpriced. Nearly all of the partnerships Intel forged over that chip are disolving. Most (if not all) of the design team has been re-assigned.
The Itanium will not see the advancements in technology it previously received, but it does serve a more curious purpose.
It proves, for one, that Intel can design and produce amazing technologies.
It also proved to Intel that a non x86 64bit path was a bad idea. AMD is the one that spanked them with that reality, and with the point that a 64bit version of the x86 language was not only viable, but desired by the market and development forces outside the design team.
What I suspect we will see, though, is the guts of the Itanium's capabilities folded into the Pentium's future line. Consider what an 64bit Xeon with Itanium's technologies blended in would mean for AMD? They would be pushed to respond - and if they do that succesfully, we're in for increases in power even the most diehard fan of the PowerPC line would envy.
Itanium is overpriced. Nearly all of the partnerships Intel forged over that chip are disolving. Most (if not all) of the design team has been re-assigned.
The Itanium will not see the advancements in technology it previously received, but it does serve a more curious purpose.
It proves, for one, that Intel can design and produce amazing technologies.
It also proved to Intel that a non x86 64bit path was a bad idea. AMD is the one that spanked them with that reality, and with the point that a 64bit version of the x86 language was not only viable, but desired by the market and development forces outside the design team.
What I suspect we will see, though, is the guts of the Itanium's capabilities folded into the Pentium's future line. Consider what an 64bit Xeon with Itanium's technologies blended in would mean for AMD? They would be pushed to respond - and if they do that succesfully, we're in for increases in power even the most diehard fan of the PowerPC line would envy.
This was an interesting news tidbit from the June 6 issue of InfoWorld:
"One week after Intel officially unveiled its dual-core Pentium D, AMD made available its hight evangelized Athlon 64 X2. The new chip contains two processors on a single piece of silicon. AMD's dual chip offers higher performance because it balances tasks between the two cores. On display at the launch event were several prototype machines running the chip from Acer, HP and Lenovo."
"One week after Intel officially unveiled its dual-core Pentium D, AMD made available its hight evangelized Athlon 64 X2. The new chip contains two processors on a single piece of silicon. AMD's dual chip offers higher performance because it balances tasks between the two cores. On display at the launch event were several prototype machines running the chip from Acer, HP and Lenovo."
- Status