Dr.Gargoyle said:
Fat binaries from now on, oow that brings on some memory's.
Not all bad, i think the transition is going to be as good as it possibly can be. Apple has a fair amount of experience one might say 
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
Fat binaries from now on, oow that brings on some memory's.
Not all bad, i think the transition is going to be as good as it possibly can be. Apple has a fair amount of experience one might say 
How seamless?
I am still in awe over tha fact that they did not have machines ready for sale as new Apple hardware is not going to sell for quite awhile. I for one will not buy a PPC based system as of today. Also, what does this mean for all the "New" mac users that switched? Now they will have to buy a new system again? I am not opposed to Apple/Intel (Aptel) but I am worried that this will alienate our new PC converts and some die hard mac users as well. And what about all the hype of 64bit? Other than Itanium2 and EMT64 on P4s, what does intel offer? Thinking here AMD would have been the better choice. The fact that this is a year off means Intel will have new chips out by then. The current G5 towers have CPUs on plug in modules, is it possible that they can be upgraded tp Intel CPUs? Wow so many question and I am so impatient!!!
I am still in awe over tha fact that they did not have machines ready for sale as new Apple hardware is not going to sell for quite awhile. I for one will not buy a PPC based system as of today. Also, what does this mean for all the "New" mac users that switched? Now they will have to buy a new system again? I am not opposed to Apple/Intel (Aptel) but I am worried that this will alienate our new PC converts and some die hard mac users as well. And what about all the hype of 64bit? Other than Itanium2 and EMT64 on P4s, what does intel offer? Thinking here AMD would have been the better choice. The fact that this is a year off means Intel will have new chips out by then. The current G5 towers have CPUs on plug in modules, is it possible that they can be upgraded tp Intel CPUs? Wow so many question and I am so impatient!!!
mac-er said:
Bill made Intel.
If Bill moved to PPC, Intel would be making PPC or beeing dead.
I really think that Apple should have bought freescale a couple a years ago.
Intels Xeons are more expensive than G5.
Why will this be better for me as a consumer?
It better for Jobs/Apple, but not me.
Why does everyone think Apple is abandoning the PPC? They didn't abandon the G3 when the G4 became available, and they didn't abandon the G4 when the G5 became available. Heck, even Tiger still supports machines that haven't been sold in 5 years or so.
I am pretty confident that the Macs I own will continue to be valuable and supported as well as could be expected.
I am pretty confident that the Macs I own will continue to be valuable and supported as well as could be expected.
eVolcre said:
We have over 20 OSX Macintosh computers on our Windows 2003 WAN. There are a few functions you cannot do on these, when compared to the XP computers, but the users don't often need to do them, and it isn't that big of a deal. Getting an OS X computer to work on a Microsoft network isn't hard, if you know what you are doing.
As far as the new Macintosh being able to run Windows, I doubt that will happen unless Microsoft decides to attempt to make an OS for the new Macintosh. IBM has servers that contain PowerPC 970 chips, but as far as I know, you cannot run OS X Server on these, because of uniqueness in the IBM chipset. I believe that Apple will have a somewhat unique chipset, and ROM for their X86 based Macintosh computers, when compared to X86 PC clones.
just my thoughts
840
debroglie said:
Why? Don't you guys get it? Most apps will be able to run on both PPC and X86. The tools Apple is deploying will make sure of that and I can guarantee you that if you asked a typical switcher what a Power PC is they will say "Is that Apple's next computer name?" When the time comes to upgrade I'll bet the average switcher who got a mini won't even know there is a x86 chip in their system. All they will know is that they used Apple's import tools and BAM! Away they go. like a bat out of heck on their 2Ghz Mac Mini.
But, how much of that "general computing" can take advantage of the strengths of the Cell. Between Core Image and multimedia contents, how well wouldn't a couple of Cells run OS X on "normal" users day-to-day, surfing, mailing, exposé-ingJamesAvery22 said:
, music- and video-playing and even gaming...?
We are talking two years... Will the new x86 computers run PPC programs. Does Rosetta support that?alexf said:
We only know that Rosetta supports PPC -> x86 not x86 -> PPC
You could always peel it off - I doubt it'll void your warranty. Surely your loyalty to Apple can stretch beyond a bit of adhesive backed plastic!iGary said:
Give it time dude, I think you'll start to see that this will benefit everyone in the end!
Dr.Gargoyle said:
Just for the hell of it I think I will get a Mini in July. Now that I know there aren't going to be any real updates to the PowerBook for around a year....yah...mini.
Right, as long as you can do that... Do we know that?SiliconAddict said:
Steve demonstarted Rosetta x86 -> PPC but not PPC - > x86
I don't see much wrong with moving from the PowerPC chips. However, I would have envisioned Apple moving to AMD, rather than Intel, due to AMD's RISC history.
Apple once licensed their OS other companies, it failed miserably because the other machines were cheaper than Apple branded ones. I can't see Apple letting other machines run OS X, to stop the same thing happening. Likewise, I can't see Apple letting us run Windows or Linux distros on our Apples (however cool it'd be to have a 3 OS computer).
Apple once licensed their OS other companies, it failed miserably because the other machines were cheaper than Apple branded ones. I can't see Apple letting other machines run OS X, to stop the same thing happening. Likewise, I can't see Apple letting us run Windows or Linux distros on our Apples (however cool it'd be to have a 3 OS computer).
I don't think we'll get stickers or the Intel sound at the end of Apple commercials... Do not worry...PCMacUser said:You could always peel it off - I doubt it'll void your warranty. Surely your loyalty to Apple can stretch beyond a bit of adhesive backed plastic!
Give it time dude, I think you'll start to see that this will benefit everyone in the end!
I was a little shocked when I found out al this was true, but after thinking about it for a while I am ok with it. Mainly because Macs will still be running Mac OS X, that is why I use a Mac. Apple will still be controlling the whole process; OS and Hardware design and implementation. Apple will have more options for processors now and can switch back to PPC more easily if IBM/Moto has any breakthoughs.
Laurent said:
Intel and AMD is SLOWER today than G5.
Intel and AMD is more expensive than G5.
This is not a move for us consumers, but for Apple to make more money selling software.
Apple IS the new Microsoft. They dont care about their customers best, but the companys best. They should care about their customers since that its we who give apple all their Money.
Back to the architecure.
Intel Xeon: 37 stages, 266mhz bus quad pumped. Sucky in dual operation,
AMD: 2.6 ghz. = good
G5 17 stages, 1.25ghz bus. Excellent in dual operation since each processor have its own channel.
Jobs it trying to sell us the Intel Myth.
F' him.
PPC is good only in specialized applications?
With switches by MS, Sony and Nintendo towards PPc, there is the concern that the IBM processors will be faster. Even if this is true, the fact is that there is barely any personal computing done on PPC's (i mean desktops and laptops), unless the Xbox 360 is supposed to be a computer replacement, which I realy doubt. Remember, MS has no PPC windows version, and the few linux variants on it are negligible in terms of markets. So even if Intel is the slower processor of the two, all the competition is also on the same processor, so Apple is at no disadvantage. Although, I hope Apple sticks with Intel's dual core, and 64 bit processors only.
I would have been even happier if Apple had gone with AMD, since they seem to be far ahead of Intel in nearly every field right now, save laptops, but I think in the long run, even in the next few years, Intel, because of the money it has, could easily outstrip AMD. Also, AMD is a very unreliable supplier, barely being able to supply any of its latest chips, so I really doubt they would have been able to ramp up production to support Apple, which is a big reason apple chose intel. Another factor could be that Intel is maybe footing some of the bills arising from this transition. I think they are hoping apple can turn their fortunes in the consumer electronics market, considering how IBM seems to have cornered this segment which some predict will be the biggest in the near future. I am sure if there is one company that can help them make great products, then it is apple.
Hopefully this shall be a great turning point for apple.
BTW I needed some advice. I wanted to buy a powerbook for school in august or so, however i dont mind waiting a few months. Being a newbie to the mac world, i don tknow when it would be cheapest, before, or after the school buying season. When would everyone recommend I buy the powerbook or even if I should buy the powerbook or not?
With switches by MS, Sony and Nintendo towards PPc, there is the concern that the IBM processors will be faster. Even if this is true, the fact is that there is barely any personal computing done on PPC's (i mean desktops and laptops), unless the Xbox 360 is supposed to be a computer replacement, which I realy doubt. Remember, MS has no PPC windows version, and the few linux variants on it are negligible in terms of markets. So even if Intel is the slower processor of the two, all the competition is also on the same processor, so Apple is at no disadvantage. Although, I hope Apple sticks with Intel's dual core, and 64 bit processors only.
I would have been even happier if Apple had gone with AMD, since they seem to be far ahead of Intel in nearly every field right now, save laptops, but I think in the long run, even in the next few years, Intel, because of the money it has, could easily outstrip AMD. Also, AMD is a very unreliable supplier, barely being able to supply any of its latest chips, so I really doubt they would have been able to ramp up production to support Apple, which is a big reason apple chose intel. Another factor could be that Intel is maybe footing some of the bills arising from this transition. I think they are hoping apple can turn their fortunes in the consumer electronics market, considering how IBM seems to have cornered this segment which some predict will be the biggest in the near future. I am sure if there is one company that can help them make great products, then it is apple.
Hopefully this shall be a great turning point for apple.
BTW I needed some advice. I wanted to buy a powerbook for school in august or so, however i dont mind waiting a few months. Being a newbie to the mac world, i don tknow when it would be cheapest, before, or after the school buying season. When would everyone recommend I buy the powerbook or even if I should buy the powerbook or not?
I hate to say it and may be accused of being a troll, as I am sitting in front of my Dell X1 Pentium M laptop (don't worry kiddies, you'll get yours in 2007 ), but hasn't Steve Jobs been bs'ing you all for some time about the performance of the PPC in relation to Intel?
Isn't today the final proof of that?
Maybe when the Pentium III was around it could be accused of being a rather hot-running processor, but it was pretty damn quick for it's time. Two generations later I am running a Dell X1 Pentium M that doesn't even have a fan!
Intel ain't that bad, my laptop is 2.5 pounds and less than an inch thick (closed) and runs as silent as the grave.
), but hasn't Steve Jobs been bs'ing you all for some time about the performance of the PPC in relation to Intel?Isn't today the final proof of that?
Maybe when the Pentium III was around it could be accused of being a rather hot-running processor, but it was pretty damn quick for it's time. Two generations later I am running a Dell X1 Pentium M that doesn't even have a fan!
Intel ain't that bad, my laptop is 2.5 pounds and less than an inch thick (closed) and runs as silent as the grave.
- Status