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
Um... this might seem like a crazy idea, but... how about using it? The new machines aren't going to be out for a LONG time, and it's not like the machine you just got is going to stop working.Apokeylips said:I can't believe my luck. I bought a Dual 2.3 G5 PowerMac on Thursday. What the hell am I supposed to do now? Send it back and wait another year? Anyone in a similar situation?
clayj said:
True, so can go now and buy a cheap wintel or one of the laptops with the X300 gfx, doing 1000+ fps graphics with new PCI-X Fujitsu retails for like $1800 for now and then 'wait' for the new ones to arrive slowly and for the 'wave' to settle down
explanation
everybody's just reacting badly because people associate Windows with Intel. Macs are not going to run any slower than they are now. The reason Windows runs slow, on AMD or Intel, is not because of the processor, but because of the operating system. It is so bloated, its not even funny.
everybody's just reacting badly because people associate Windows with Intel. Macs are not going to run any slower than they are now. The reason Windows runs slow, on AMD or Intel, is not because of the processor, but because of the operating system. It is so bloated, its not even funny.
Apple should've switched to x86 processors when they went from OS 9 to OS X. Guess they had too much faith in Motorola. Things are too messy right now. What's gonna happen to the existing Apple machines? How will sales be till next year? Shsssh, this aint gonna be easy......
I feel that today's announcements are good news. It's true I hate to see the PowerPC chips go, but I think that it must have been neccessary. Steve Jobs and the people working at Apple are very smart, so I would give them credit that they know what they are doing.
I don't believe that we will see the current line of Pentium chips in Mac hardware. I think that Intel is ready to move on to future designs and products. I don't know anything specific so I can't make a claim with authority. But, Apple has obviously looked at Intel's plans and looked at IBM/Freescale's plans and come to the conclusion that their own plans are more compatible with Intel's.
All in all I think that the Mac experience through the transition will be unchanged. The user will have little to no difficulty using an Intel based Mac as they do with using a current PowerPC based Mac.
I don't believe that we will see the current line of Pentium chips in Mac hardware. I think that Intel is ready to move on to future designs and products. I don't know anything specific so I can't make a claim with authority. But, Apple has obviously looked at Intel's plans and looked at IBM/Freescale's plans and come to the conclusion that their own plans are more compatible with Intel's.
All in all I think that the Mac experience through the transition will be unchanged. The user will have little to no difficulty using an Intel based Mac as they do with using a current PowerPC based Mac.
clayj said:
Well they can. they can join ADC, and rent one of the Apple Intel boxes for $999. Granted the entire cost for it would be much higher, because ADC is expensive..
mac_and_amd_fan said:
you meant benedict arnold, right?
yeah benedict, share the pot, so we who think different, can understand what you just did.
Perhaps - but then again, there's a lot of security in OSX that doesn't exist in Windows, which will be retained regardless of what processor OSX uses.brent1a said:
Apple is not a company that exists to please its 1.8% market-share and devoted fanatics - that it even listens to its users is remarkable. It is a company that exists to make money. If Steve, its Board, its engineers and marketing folks think that switching to Intel is going to make them more money and get them more market share, then they will. Time will tell whether or not this was a good business decision or not.brent1a said:
Apple having more market share and thus being more relevant to the world at large far outweighs any potential viruses. And it's the SW that keeps OSX virus free, no the hardware.brent1a said:
I'll take a crapload more software for a few easy to avoid viruses anyday.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: MATURITY CHECK
WAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Apple bad WAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Apple no like us anymore WAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Apple hate it users WAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! I no use Apple anymore WAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Apple should make own CPU's WAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
I want my BA BA CPU!
*Rolls on the ground sucking his thumb as he throws a temper tantrum*
I hope you know that is a pretty spot on representation of how some of you guys are acting right now. Please go change your diapers after soiling yourself and come back when you can act not only rational but sane and mature.
WAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Apple bad WAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Apple no like us anymore WAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Apple hate it users WAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! I no use Apple anymore WAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Apple should make own CPU's WAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
I want my BA BA CPU!
*Rolls on the ground sucking his thumb as he throws a temper tantrum*
I hope you know that is a pretty spot on representation of how some of you guys are acting right now. Please go change your diapers after soiling yourself and come back when you can act not only rational but sane and mature.
Well, you bought a G5 system. Before Apple was able to sell that Macs where different from Intel machines. Now they will be selling more or less the same machine. the only difference being the OS and the Apple ROM.bosrs1 said:
I can see MS using this as an argument when they will launch Longhorn
Ummm...use it. It's fast as ****! It's still a Mac and still runs Mac OS X. That's all that matters!Apokeylips said:I can't believe my luck. I bought a Dual 2.3 G5 PowerMac on Thursday. What the hell am I supposed to do now? Send it back and wait another year? Anyone in a similar situation?
Warbrain said:
Read this, an Intel PDF presentation from earlier this year. It tells you all (not in that much detail, but there's enough to make a good guess) about Intel's next range of CPUs, from the mobile chips, through the desktops, all the way to the high-end server chips. It also specifies timescales, which seem to tally with what Steve said in his speech earlier today.
First, forget any misconceptions you have about the space heaters that are modern Pentium 4s and Xeons. The new Intel chips are more like the Pentium M, which anyone with half a brain would tell you is a fantastic chip - great performance at low speed, low power consumption, great supporting chipset and a projected battery life in future versions of the chip of eight hours. The new stuff from Intel will wipe the floor with anything they currently produce (which, face it, apart from Pentium M, is largely rubbish and far inferior to AMD's desktop/server line - Athlon 64 and Opteron).
In his speech, Steve said that the first Intel-based Macs will be out by this time next year and the transition will be largely complete by the end of 2007. This matches strongly with page 12 of the PDF, which can be applied to the Apple situation.
The first chip to come out is codenamed "Merom", in mid/late-2006, a replacement for Jonah/Yonah, itself a replacement for the current Pentium M. So, the first Intel-based Apple computers will be portables (which may use Jonah for a short while in summer/fall 2006, before switching to Merom when it comes out). This will fill the mighty hole left by IBM's failure to shoehorn a G5 into a Powerbook. You'll have various speed grades, for iBooks and Powerbooks. You may well see a Merom-based Mac mini.
Next comes a chip codenamed "Conroe" (where do they get these names?), slated for release in late 2006/early 2007. This is a replacement for the mainstream Pentium 4 that you get in Dells and the like. Like Merom, it will be dual-core and built on a 65nm process, making for pretty good power consumption. This is the type of chip that will find its way to iMacs and low/mid-end PowerMacs (G6s?).
Next, we have the server chips, Woodcrest and Whitefield, after 2006. Woodcrest is for dual-CPU systems, Whitefield is for quad/etc CPU systems. Woodcrest will be used in high-end PowerMacs and low-end Xserves. Whitefield will be used in high-end Xserves. Like Merom and Conroe, all 65nm, all dual/multi-core.
So, in answer to Warbrain: portables/Mac mini, then PowerMacs, then Xserves.
As for Apple, in the short term they may take a hit. But I don't understand all the snarling and wailing and gnashing of teeth. If Intel does deliver some good chips in 2006/2007 that are cheap, offer much better performance and allow Apple to take advantage of Intel's fantastic compilers, what's the problem? Apple will be able take advantage of Intel's chipsets and make a fairly painless switch to using SATA-II, PCI Express and the like. They won't be at the whim of a fairly disinterested CPU supplier and get to take advantage of Intel's unparalleled production capacities. There will be more frequent speed bumps, more cutting-edge hardware and so on. You won't lose the two best things about Apple - its stunning industrial design/aethestics/ergonomics and the operating system. Apple are hardly going to stick their Intel Mac into one of these and turn OS X into this.
Apple know what they're doing. They have plenty of money in the bank. I'm probably off to the Birmingham (UK) store at the weekend to buy some stuff for my iPods. I bet the store will be full of people buying Apple computers (hell, I might even get an iBook!), who don't even know (or care) whether Apple is switching to Intel or using a Zilog Z80 in 2006/2007.
People here need to get a sense of proportion. In five years' time, you'll all be using your Intel-powered Powerbooks and PowerMacs and wondering what all the fuss was about. Oh, and you won't have to worry about viruses, as someone suggested up-thread. They're written for an operating system, not a processor type.
ShnikeJSB said:
Well, they are interchangable in the respect that Apple could switch from Intel to AMD chips in the future and no software 'transition' would be necessary.
Dr.Gargoyle said:OMG, hell froze over... and someone actually managed to take pics of it as it happened
<shiver>this reminds me of palpatine and skywalker </shiver>
"Together At Last" was btw, charles and camilla's first sentence after getting married...
Exactly. A 3.7 Ghz P4 is just as fast as a Dual 2.7 Ghz G5. Frankly this means we'll get better faster chips more often, nothing more. All the doomsayers are just mad we're going to Intel because it's so associated with Windows. But frankly Woz wanted Apples on Intel chips in 1976, he just couldnt afford it.xy14 said:
- Status