Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[GregA]

What I don't understand is why a 32bit intel chip?
Why not go straight to 64 bit?
Isn't going from a G5 to a 32bit P4 a bit of a step back?

A couple of things to understand here
1) Itanium isn't hugely successful or standard, Intel's main focus is on x86.
2) SOME P4 (x86) chips are now 64bit
3) Intel is abandoning the P4 line and developing from the Pentium-M base
4) Pentium-M (originally mobile chips) won't have 64bit till Q1-2007
5) G4 chips are starting to have performance problems, G5 are not.

Add to that these facts:
- All Apple's laptops, and the eMac and Mac-Mini are G4 (32bit).
- Intel's Pentium-M plans are currently more laptop friendly (till Q4 2006?).

For these reasons, I believe it likely that G4 Macs will be replaced by Pentium-M (Yonah) Macs first. They get a performance boost switching to Dual-core Yonah, and they stay 32bit. When the 64bit (Pentium-M based) chips come out a year later the highest end G5s migrate to that. I'm not sure what the mid-range G5s will do (iMac and single processor powerMac), maybe they will drop to 32bit for a while?

 

[Mass Hysteria]

Anyone want to guess what sort of G4/G5 updates we're going to get in the mean time

 

[GregA]

Anyone want to guess what sort of G4/G5 updates we're going to get in the mean time

Very minor work with G4s, possible one last major work with G5 PowerMacs before July 2006 (plus minor speed bumps etc)

So to me that means speed bumped G4s with the newer pin-compatible Freescale chips (not much change to internal designs), and 3.2Ghz G5 machines starting early next year.

What's your guess?

edit: it's not hard to guess that there'll be a big surprise or 2 too
Apple set-top box with Intel pentium-M chip running Apple-only software this year?

 

[Coca-Cola]

This may sound crazy!

Can anyone see iBooks and powerbooks being the first Macintels? Are we going to see widescreen G4 iBooks? Or could Steve announce intel Powerbooks and iBooks? Evidence- 1. Lots of refurbished notebooks for sale on apples website. 2. iBook is due for an update. 3. G5 for a notebook not available. This is very wishful thinking.

 

[Mass Hysteria]

I'm hoping (in vain) for a decent powerbook update, this old 1.33 was good in its day but is starting to feel a little slugish now.

My other half needs a laptop too - she's used to working with PCs so the ideas that are being thrown around about dual boot on the new dellintosh machines sounds like a good idea since I'd rather get her a mac. I just don't know if we can hold out till the change, especially not knowing if its going to be apple only in the end

 

[skellener]

I just don't know if we can hold out till the change, especially not knowing if its going to be apple only in the end

Very simply: When machines with the new chips are released, Windows will run on a Mac with an Intel chip. Mac OS X will not run on anything but a Mac made by Apple.

 

[Mass Hysteria]

Very simply: When machines with the new chips are released, Windows will run on a Mac with an Intel chip. Mac OS X will not run on anything but a Mac made by Apple.

sounds good to me I'll take one please . . . make that two!

 

[Platform]

What I don't understand is why a 32bit intel chip?
Why not go straight to 64 bit?
Isn't going from a G5 to a 32bit P4 a bit of a step back?

Why would Apple use the chips of today......in a Mac next year

 

[macaddictann]

Well...I can't say I really understand any of this. But as long as the new machines a) work at least as well as the old ones, b) look as good as the old ones, c) don't have an Intel Inside sticker, and d) don't ruin my overall computing experience from a money and compatibility standpoint, I'll live.

Will those things happen? Who knows. I just get this weird feeling, from what I've seen, that there will be compatibility issues. And I know it's life--no matter what I buy today, it will be out of date in 6 months--but it's getting a bit tiring. I sure as heck don't want to haul off and finally plunk down the money for a G5 pre-Mactel only to find it has issues after the switch or wait until the switch, plunk down the money, and find it has issues, etc.

Steve, hon, I hope you're making the right choice...

 

[whooleytoo]

Looking at all this from a different perspective - if Apple can survive the next twelve months without being hit too hard by decreasing sales, they're likely to have the biggest ever upgrade cycle in their history when the new machines arrive.

If we make the (not too unreasonable assumptions):

- Apple's design skills aren't going away because they're switching to Intel.
- The price is likely to be lower as it's easier to compare head-to-head with similarly specced PCs.
- Apple will likely 'piggy back' a big advertising Switch campaign, on all the publicity new Intel Macs will receive.
- For the first time ever, one machine that can natively run OSX & Windows.
- Once Intel Macs are released, PowerPC Macs are going to be very 'unfashionable', people will likely upgrade quicker than they would to a faster G5 or new G6.

I can see these models being Apple's quickest selling ever.

 

[hefman]

Looking at all this from a different perspective - if Apple can survive the next twelve months without being hit too hard by decreasing sales, they're likely to have the biggest ever upgrade cycle in their history when the new machines arrive.

If we make the (not too unreasonable assumptions):

- Apple's design skills aren't going away because they're switching to Intel.
- The price is likely to be lower as it's easier to compare head-to-head with similarly specced PCs.
- Apple will likely 'piggy back' a big advertising Switch campaign, on all the publicity new Intel Macs will receive.
- For the first time ever, one machine that can natively run OSX & Windows.
- Once Intel Macs are released, PowerPC Macs are going to be very 'unfashionable', people will likely upgrade quicker than they would to a faster G5 or new G6.

I can see these models being Apple's quickest selling ever.

I couldn't agree more. While it sucks for those of us who bought new machines recently, this is a good thing. I agree with whooley. I think we'll see a significant spike in sales once the new machines roll out. Not only that, but I don't think the near-term sag in sales will be that bad. CPUs are only a portion of what Apple sells. They'll price their G4 & G5 units accordingly and they'll still sell lots of accessories and software. Remember, the iPod has been Apple's cash cow for a couple of years now anyway.

I also think there is a fairly large percentage of user who like the speed of the current Intel-based machines, but hate Microsoft. I personally know several. I think this is a bit of an unrealized market. If this move lowers the cost of the CPUs and allows access to some of this market, I think you'll see some crossover there.

I just don't understand the negativity around this decision. Where was this when Apple went from Motorola to IBM? I mean, Intel is no closer tied to Microsoft than IBM is. But I do know one thing: they make WAY better chips.

I work in the semiconductor industry and work very closely with Intel, IBM and, in the past, Motorola. I can tell you that Intel is so far ahead of both of those companies in every category that matters, when it comes to producing chips (manufacturing flexibility, cost per wafer, speed to market, etc.) that it's almost laughable. Casting doom and gloom on this move is being totally irrational and elitist.

Anyway, who cares if your Mac has an Intel Inside sticker on it? Just peel it off if you don't like it. Or, you could leave it on and let your fellow early-adopter tech heads drool over your new cool Mac. Anyway, as one poster put it: "what's not to like about running the best OS on the fastest processors?"

I guess if you don't like it, you could always switch to a Dell or something...

 

[Neuro]

I couldn't agree more. While it sucks for those of us who bought new machines recently, this is a good thing. I agree with whooley. I think we'll see a significant spike in sales once the new machines roll out. Not only that, but I don't think the near-term sag in sales will be that bad. CPUs are only a portion of what Apple sells. They'll price their G4 & G5 units accordingly and they'll still sell lots of accessories and software. Remember, the iPod has been Apple's cash cow for a couple of years now anyway.

I also think there is a fairly large percentage of user who like the speed of the current Intel-based machines, but hate Microsoft. I personally know several. I think this is a bit of an unrealized market. If this move lowers the cost of the CPUs and allows access to some of this market, I think you'll see some crossover there.

I just don't understand the negativity around this decision. Where was this when Apple went from Motorola to IBM? I mean, Intel is no closer tied to Microsoft than IBM is. But I do know one thing: they make WAY better chips.

I work in the semiconductor industry and work very closely with Intel, IBM and, in the past, Motorola. I can tell you that Intel is so far ahead of both of those companies in every category that matters, when it comes to producing chips (manufacturing flexibility, cost per wafer, speed to market, etc.) that it's almost laughable. Casting doom and gloom on this move is being totally irrational and elitist.

Anyway, who cares if your Mac has an Intel Inside sticker on it? Just peel it off if you don't like it. Or, you could leave it on and let your fellow early-adopter tech heads drool over your new cool Mac. Anyway, as one poster put it: "what's not to like about running the best OS on the fastest processors?"

I guess if you don't like it, you could always switch to a Dell or something...

It's the Powerbooks that will fly off shelves faster than anything seen before. I reckon PB sales will be amazing...

 

[weldon]

It's the Powerbooks that will fly off shelves faster than anything seen before. I reckon PB sales will be amazing...

I agree. Especially if those Intel-based PowerBooks can also run Windows. Lots of corporate travelers will buy them for the style, weight, and features and be comfortable that they can still run their Windows-only business apps if they need too. Of course, we still need a good WINE or Virtual PC implementation so you can still have access to OS X while running that app, but I'm certain that this will come in time.

 

[MegaSignal]

Looking at all this from a different perspective - if Apple can survive the next twelve months without being hit too hard by decreasing sales, they're likely to have the biggest ever upgrade cycle in their history when the new machines arrive.

I can see these models being Apple's quickest selling ever.

I'm sure that Apple will do just fine in the sales department during the next two years:

I, for one, will add to my collection of Macs: so far, I have a Dual G4 (1.25MHz) and a Dual G5 (2.0 MHz); and then, just before the "end" of PPC, a new Dual G5 3.0MHz machine. Along with Apple's extended warranty, I'll be good to go into 2010 and beyond.

For years, I've always wondered out loud why there was such a vigorous subset of Mac owners who didn't want to use anything but OS9 on older machines; 'guess now I'm one of 'em, albeit for different reasons.

 

[Mac-Xpert]

I just don't understand the negativity around this decision. Where was this when Apple went from Motorola to IBM? I mean, Intel is no closer tied to Microsoft than IBM is. But I do know one thing: they make WAY better chips.

You really can't compare the switch to Intel with the switch from g4 to g5 and IBM. First of all, there wasn't a real switch involved here. IBM was part of the AIM (Apple IBM Motorola) deal from the beginning. The PPC was directly based on IBMs Power cpu. With the introduction of the G5, people only got a faster machine, they could still run all (except VirtualPC ) their software, there was no need to directly invest in new native software to actually take advantage of the new chip and the improved performance.

With the switch to Intel things are quite different. Software needs to be recompiled to take advantage of the actual performance of the x86 chip. Lots of software will not work properly or not at all when emulated with the Rosetta technology because of its limitations.

With the transition from OS-9 to OS-X we have seem that it can take quite some time (in certain cases several years) before native software becomes available. This could very well be the same with the transition to Intel.

Game developers might lose interest in developing a OS-X version of their games if a Mac can also run Windows or full speed virtualPC.

With the transition to Intel, the Mac will become mostly the same as every other PC on the hardware side of things. This means that they can never be ahead at any given time again (and yes they have been ahead in actual performance on many occasions in both the 68k and PPC history).

Apple will have a harder time to convince people that the Mac is "better" or "different" than any other PC if they have essentially the same hardware. People might not want to pay the price premium that Apple will likely want to keep on their hardware, if all they are getting is a nicer looking box.
This could be a marketing problem, and bad for hardware sales.

I think that pretty much sums the negatives up

 

[Frobozz]

Game developers might lose interest in developing a OS-X version of their games if a Mac can also run Windows or full speed virtualPC.

Only hard core people would bother to dual-boot in order to run a game. While I completely agree that the consequence of the Intel move could be severe for the Mac gaming community, my gut feeling is that it will HELP. Mac game publishers will be FAR more likely to convert games to the Mac now, because there will be just as many people in the target audience, but their barriers are lower. The only people willing to dual boot for (and deal with windows, etc.) will be hard core people-- the same people who ALREADY own a PC to play games. I doubt the migration of dual-booters from single-booting Mac users will be significant.

Overall, I think this move is good if the PowerPC roadmap is as bad as they claim down the road. Personally, my next Mac (if I can wait) will be the Dual Core Pentium M PowerBook.

 

[Mord]

there is a simple remedy to the problem of developers not bothering to port to the mac if people just dual boot, pirate all of your windows apps and pay for you mac versions, put your money where your mouth is.

 

[andiwm2003]

Game developers might lose interest in developing a OS-X version of their games if a Mac can also run Windows or full speed virtualPC.

whats the problem? you can run all the games under windows then. isn't that a good thing? all you have to do is reboot into windows and you have all the games you need. reboot into os x and do serious work. why is there a need to have the games in os x mode?

With the transition to Intel, the Mac will become mostly the same as every other PC on the hardware side of things. This means that they can never be ahead at any given time again (and yes they have been ahead in actual performance on many occasions in both the 68k and PPC history).

that is also my greatest concern with this switch. apple from now on only can be better (=faster) because of the OS. every hardware feature will be also available to the windows world because apple is to small to have anything exclusive (like GPU's or H.264 decoder). in the past apple alway had the fastest or one of the fastest machines. even when the price was three times that of a PC. only in the last 2 or 3 years they lost it. that always was a huge selling factor because image counts. just look at cars. most people buy a small mercedes because the expensive falgship models make the image.

 

[GregA]

Apple will have a harder time to convince people that the Mac is "better" or "different" than any other PC if they have essentially the same hardware. People might not want to pay the price premium that Apple will likely want to keep on their hardware, if all they are getting is a nicer looking box.

Same internals, different hardware look and feel AND remember too different software (OSX) look and feel... you totally ignored OSX in your statement. There used to be 3 noticeable differences between PCs and Macs, now there'll be 2.

Only hard core people would bother to dual-boot in order to run a game.

I wouldn't be surprised if the EFI bios could be used to help here... hotkey "hibernate OSX to disk and Restore Windows", and vice-versa. If it became that easy (10 seconds to switch) it'd be used by many. If both run simultaneously (as the Yothan chip is supposed to allow somehow) that would be very popular.

 

[cloud 9]

Apple will have a harder time to convince people that the Mac is "better" or "different" than any other PC if they have essentially the same hardware. People might not want to pay the price premium that Apple will likely want to keep on their hardware, if all they are getting is a nicer looking box.
This could be a marketing problem, and bad for hardware sales.

I think that pretty much sums the negatives up

that's not true, Apple is build for 'plug 'n play' so is focused on people who don't know anything about computers, and for 99% of the consumers it doesn't matter what's behind the screen...as long as it works...

I think it even will have a reversed effect, the more apple is talking about a change to consumers, the more people are going to doubt...not because they know anything about it, but just because 'oh no a change...'

The move to intel is only important for stockholders people and all and computer people...or apple hardcore fans to rant on forums...hehe...

They are marketing this on a developers's conference no consumer conference...

first and biggest lesson for marketing: let your own role as consumer go, and live in the role of an average consumer and that means, no computer geek words no stockholding no speculation....you want something that just works, and that's pretty...hihi,

it's even better now, the average consumer can't just buy on mhz anymore...

that's my opinion

 

[xrayzed]

The only people willing to dual boot for (and deal with windows, etc.) will be hard core people-- the same people who ALREADY own a PC to play games. I doubt the migration of dual-booters from single-booting Mac users will be significant.

The main reason dual-booting appeals to me is that my job requires me to use specialist software that is Win-only. Since I really don't want to lug around two notebooks a Win/Mac OS combo would be fabulous.

Because of this prospect I am increasingly considering holding off buying until the Intel Macs arrive. If it turns out that they won't be Windows friendly this rationale goes away, and a PowerPC version would do just fine.

Games would be a nice bonus, but hardly a big driver for me.

 

[domokun]

will pc programs now be able to run on intel based macs tiger?

Not sure if this is in the right thread...
There are still some programs that have not made there way to mac such as autocad, 3dstudio max, etc.
Will these programs be able to run on the new intel based macs?

 

[weldon]

The main reason dual-booting appeals to me is that my job requires me to use specialist software that is Win-only. Since I really don't want to lug around two notebooks a Win/Mac OS combo would be fabulous.

I'm absolutely convinced that Apple will sell a ton of Intel-based notebooks if they are able to run Windows programs at close to native speeds with great compatability. It needs to be a solution that doesn't require a reboot however. Either Virtual PC or WINE. All the disk activity with a reboot sucks up too much battery power. Think of all the sales people that have Windows-based CRM tools, estimating tools, demos, etc.; law & med school students that have test-taking and reference tools; and power users/enthusiasts that like the Mac but have one reason or another for running a few Windows programs.

It's hard not to consider a $300 Dell if you need to run Windows on a desktop rather than Virtual PC (which is close to the same price with XP installed). But you can't get a second laptop for $300 and you can can't carry two of them around with you very well. Laptops is absolutely where the Windows support on Intel-based Macs is going to drive massive increases.

 

[weldon]

Not sure if this is in the right thread...
There are still some programs that have not made there way to mac such as autocad, 3dstudio max, etc.
Will these programs be able to run on the new intel based macs?

They might...

Does anyone know if these two programs will run under WINE on Linux? I would expect a future version of WINE for OS X to support the same apps as WINE for Linux. It's also quite possible that Virtual PC for OS X on Intel will have better compatability for Windows apps than the current Virtual PC on PPC Macs.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

Not sure if this is in the right thread...
There are still some programs that have not made there way to mac such as autocad, 3dstudio max, etc.
Will these programs be able to run on the new intel based macs?

Yes - if you boot Windows.