Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[lord patton]

Some risk, but mostly good

long lurking, first time posting.

I got a powerbook a few months ago and love it. I really can't believe some of you are saying windows isn't that bad. I had an ancient Win95 machine that was dedicated to music production, but was not hooked up to the interenet, and it ran *far* better than brand new Dell/XP machines, loaded out of the gate with spyware/virus/malware/blow-me-ware protection. I consider Windows to be unusable in the internet age. If something called Linux suits you, fine, but I have no interest in learning curves, just sh*t that works.
So give me OSX, and I don't care what it runs on. Two caveats—that the machines are fast and we get good software from 3rd parties. That being said, here are some obvious points, all of which has been said already:

1) MacOS will only run on Mac machines. No two ways about it. End of story. The dark horse, however, is whether you can run Windows on Mactel.
2) The emulation thing is the key. If Rosetta is 80% as good as advertised, this will be really painless.
3) We still don't know what chip architecture will be used, but if the first round of mac-Mini/iBook intel machines isn't 64 bit, you can bet the first round of powerMac/iMac will be.
4)This won't erode Microsoft's dominance. Patience, and establishing a wide retail base, via iPod and MacMini, will. Not to mention having an OS that works, dammit!
5)The high end can wait. Portable can't. This is great for anyone buying a laptop next year.
6)Yeah, hardware sales will slow. A little. For a while.

 

[iGary]

I am swithing back
Spent 2200 on a laptop that has no future
I can buy a higher res screen on a 1000 windows laptop
And now my PB, will have no resale value
Even after tons of mac fans said that macs have GREAT resale value
Jobs' arroagnce hurt us, and we paid $$$ for inferior chips
I cant believe I bought a 1.67 G$, a chip that JOBS knew was obsolete when he updated the PBs
But i really feel bad for the suckers who bought PM G5s recently
ugh
frustrated
at least there is ebay
I will be out while you guys stay faithful
maybe I am overreacting

Buh bye.

 

[isaacc7]

I was gonna buy mine today... you think I should wait a little while to see if the price goes down? If so, how long?

My advice is to wait until you need a new computer, and then buy one. I know that sounds flip, but it's really all you can do. If you wait long enough, things will always drop in price and new tech will always come out. But in the meantime, you don't have a new computer. I'm planning on buying a mini in 3 or 4 months. If I'm lucky, they will have bumped the specs a bit and/or dropped the price. I'll still buy it if they don't though...

Isaac

 

[Snowy_River]

Yes you certainly will. It's 2005, time to put that stuff to bed already!

Well, that's easy to say, but when I have an application that works, why should I 'put that stuff to bed'? There are some applications that I have that I'm not sure about what I'll need to do to get an OS X replacement for them. So, it'll mean keeping an older computer around so I can use them when I need them.

2005 or not, if it's not broken, why fix it?

 

[irobot2003]

First time posting. I have read about 500 replies now and I must say
that Steve could sell some of you anything. Let's get some things out
of the way as I see it:

1. I have no idea whether this is the death of Apple or the best
ever. Hopefully it turns out ok. I am sure Apple did not want to do this and IBM messed them over.

2. x86 is crap. It only exists because MS cannot throw away its
32-bit APIs and so Intel continues to use this legacy technology.
Its got a higher "speed", but is far less productive. That's not a
mhz-myth - go ask AMD. AMD has a much better option - still sadly
constrained by the need to support ancient Windows APIs. Maybe they
choose Intel as the "safe" bet to avoid any upsets. Additionally, as
a percent increase, the G5 is the fasting increasing chip speed-wise
in the last two years.

3. Science sales of x86 Macs will be crap. I am a scientist (PhD
student) wasting my day here in shock. The G5 is an amazing
architecture that brought real scientific benefits. Go read Apple's
and IBM's white papers. OSX brings nothing to science beyond Windows
or Linux. In competitive grants, everyone will go with the cheaper
Dell solution and put on Linux now since we cannot argue about the
many benefits of the G5. All that Altivec optimized gene scanning -
bye bye! One group that will be buying the G5 up to the very last
moment they are sold is scientific labs and gene scanning projects.

4. This is a win for consumer laptops - no doubt. On the laptop
front intel is doing great work given that they still work with x86 (
I would love to see what Intel or AMD could do if they could drop the
ancient tech and go all out). On workstations and desktops I think it
will be about three steps back. I can only imagine Apple is willing
to take so many steps back because IBM told them no more development
or Steve is having a tantrum. So, Apple is hopefully taking some very
big steps backwards technologically (bus speed, vectors, 64 bit,
memory controller to name a few off the top of my head) for potential
future tech growth which they did not believe was possible with PPC.
Or Steve is insane, because right now Intel x86 is just poor. Or,
they realize that most non-science people are stupid and believe that
a chip running at 3.6 ghz must be more powerful than the AMD running
at 2.7 and they want to exploit the mhz-myth.

5. So, can Apple survive a transition in the midst of a backwards
step with regards to system architecture? Not in academia, but likely
in consumer and prosumer markets based on the way the RDF is working
so well here.

6. The question I need to ask myself is honestly - how much better is
OSX than XP really, since that is the only difference now. Having
both systems, I must say it just is not such a gaping chasm that so
many think. I think OSX is better, but if Apple still charges a
premium will I really think it is that much better?

7. Emulation/code morphing/magic will be relatively slow and
frustrating, anyone promising otherwise is trying to sell you
something.

8. What a day!

Yes!!! Exactly.... was going to post something along these lines but you beat me to it, and hit the nail on the head.

I was holding off buying a PowerMac G5 for myself, but only because they didn't support profesional level graphics cards. I do machine vision, 3D modeling, and scientific visualization, and my main interest in the PowerMac was the fast floating point and vector ops.

As this article:

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436

shows, the dual 2.7GHz G5 matches or bests a dual 3.6GHz Xeon box in floating point applications (although AMD is better). This is not even taking into account the Altivec unit.

Oh well, I guess I'll get a dual AMD box running Suse Linux, with a Quadro FX 4000.

I know Steve did not want to do this, but with Jobs you always get the feeling there's a certain irrational element to a decision like this. Have a feeling he was just frustrated and mad with IBM, and wanted to punish them...

 

[DavidCar]

I was gonna buy mine today... you think I should wait a little while to see if the price goes down? If so, how long?

I'm going to wait until the end of the month, at least, then see what is happening at that point and make a decision.

 

[ArcaneDevice]

Happy because we are gonna have some powerful machines and a huge choice of hardware.

Why does everyone assume this? Did I miss something. How does an OS recompiled for an Intel CPU affect the other components and drivers? If they change the way components interact in the next OS won't that mean that every Mac up to then will need new drivers written?

 

[minimax]

I think Steve Jobs used IBM/Motorola as a scapegoat for this transition. Both Motorola (with the dual 8641/e600 and later 64bit e700) and IBM (970MP, Power5) had good options to move the PPC platform forward. Who cares if it would lag x86 with a few percent? I wouldnt loose sleep over it, and I can't imagine many other people other then the fanboys that cant stand having a smaller extension to their weener then their wintel buddies. But the x86 switch just stinks. It smells like opportunism. It's clear their mac mini strategy did not work out the way they were hoping it would (with rather disappointing Q2 mac results covered with a lot of spin) and this is their ultimate attempt at winning marketshare. But what if this will not work out and people will still stick to windows? Will Apple then move from a hardware based to a software based sales model? Opening their closed platform? Apple has just stepped into a sliding path.

 

[whooleytoo]

Interesting keynote, reminded me a lot of a similar one two years ago. Funny to see the same faces that were praising the G5 back then come on again and praise the switch away from it.

The only thing you can take from this: Take EVERYTHING Apple says with a cardiac arrest-inducing amount of salt.

 

[Lancetx]

Like the majority of Mac users out there, I own a Mac because of OS X, not for the PPC processor that's inside. That's why I'm excited about this move today. Will it hurt Mac sales in the short term? Probably. But in the long run this will be a very good thing for both the company and for those of us that love Macs. It's just going to be a bit different, that's all. But having a change sometimes (especially one for the better) never hurt anybody...

 

[TrenchMouth]

Alright well this leaves me in a bind.

I have an old Mac (500Mhz iBook) that I have had for almost 4 years now. I NEED a new computer for this coming semester and something that will last me for the next few years. I would rather not purchase an iBook right now because they are over due for an update.

Now I cant see getting one even if they do update it simply because, even though I trust Apple to support it in two years when they make major changes, I still cant help but think that they will release much better, and cheaper laptops as soon as they start throwing Intel proc inside them.

I don't mean to sound sacreligious or anything, but I almost considered buying a $500 Dell and throwing Linux on it and just using that in the mean time. I am just a little skeptical about Apple's low end, and I don't have enough money to concider the high-end. I think us financially strapped students just got kicked in the balls. It won't stop me from using a Mac but I think a used Mac is in my future.

 

[atszyman]

Most risky, brilliant marketing move ever?

Ok, you this will probably not be the case but what if this is a gamble at one of the biggest marketing maneuvers ever?

We've all heard the MHz myth but so far there has never been a perfect test bench since there has never been two pieces of hardware from the same vendor running identical software to truly compare PPC to x86. So Steve thinks, "hey! we've been compiling for Intel for years now let's open this puppy up and let them have their MHz." They release on Intel in a year. Meanwhile they keep updating the PPC lines as upgrades become available.

Once both are selling it's inevitable that all of the review sites will pit one of the PPCs against the x86s. Since apps and OS are now processor independent Apple can once again make the switch once a clear winner is decided or maintain both lines if each processor favors particular applications (i.e. PPC for multimedia and x86 for games/PC emulation). Hardware would now have a lot more options and price points depending on the architecture in question.

Just a thought.

Sure there will be application bloat but that seems to happen even when you stick with one type of processor. The biggest killer I can see is hardware drivers. Probably not much of a problem for most but anything that has to move large quantities of data via DMA will have to somehow handle endian issues associated with the differing hardware.

 

[dcnycapple]

The Good, The Bad, & The Unknown

There are some obvious positives from this announcement. The focus for computer industry is going to be portables for the forseeable future. Apple has been stuck for quite some time on the laptop issue and G5. IBM does not have any public plans to make a G5 processor that is meant for laptops. Their PowerPC products are meant for high-end video work that would still be appropriate for desktops. The marketplace, however, is moving to be portable dominated, which means Apple needs to focus on the needs of where the heaviest demand will be. The other positive will be the fact that Windows-only apps will be made much easier to run on a Mac. Phil Schiller said today that Windows theoretically would run on the new systems. If true, that would mean no more virtual PC but instead more of a classic or Rosetta type environment that would let Windows apps easily run in the Mac environment. Maybe Steve realized that if Windows developers won't come to Mac, Mac will just start coming to them?

The bad news is that one of the key differentiating marketing points that Apple has used to sell their products is out the window. That makes it much more difficult to sell PowerPC-based machines over the coming two year transition as we wait for Intel-based Macs. The other concern would be the server market. What are Apple's goals with the server market? They have really tried to build the PowerPC as the savior for the server world, and somehow Intel is now going to need to fit into this business model. Servers might still be appropriate for the PowerPC considering IBM will still produce high end servers with this chip. Will the Intel chip serve Apple better in this market or is Apple even concerned about the server market?

The unknown is how soon and which models will be changed. Steve was very vague in his speech about the two year transition. Also, what type of performance loss will be seen in apps running on Intel vs. PowerPC? Will developers start just making Intel-only apps that will render PowerPC-based Macs obsolete? That will really be the test. If developers create apps meant for both processors, the Mac community will flourish. If developers decide to create Intel-only apps that will be optimized for the new Mac, Apple could face a huge falling out from its base. Only time will tell, but whether you like the decision or not, Apple really is at a point where they did not have a ton of options.

 

[doccutter]

Read 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?)...

Unfortunately, the names are hebrew, indicating that certain intel chips are designed in occupied palestine. a political problem we didn't have to worry about with Moto / IBM.

 

[MacRohde]

Just watched the keynote. Pretty good I think.

I liked the Wolfram dude, he was funny.
I was impressed with how go Rosetta worked when he demoed Word and Photoshop. That was really amazing.

Anyhow, I'm psyched about this. Good move. Tough, but good.

 

[areyouwishing]

I don't know why everyone is freaking out about, "My g5 isn't good enough anymore."

Here is the deal people, right now, the only thing the p4 mac beats in speed are g4 machines, this is why they are being transitioned first. Steve Jobs omission in talking about speeds and benchmarks speaks volumes about how much better the g5 is than the p4, however by 2007 this should all change. SSE3 (pentium version of Velocity Engine) is just starting to hit the market. By 2007 when SSE3 or maybe even SSE4 is fully realized in Photoshop/FCP/ETC. instead of Altivec only then will a PentiMac be better than your g5 investment.

So in simple words, the computer that comes out in 2007 is going to better than the computer that comes out in 2005...GASP! SAY IT ISN'T SO!

 

[ksz]

I see this as the perfect time to buy a high end Mac. It's rare that a computer company tells you what it will do TWO years in the future. SO if I buy a tricked out G5 system today, there probably won't be anything substantially better than it for two years. Even then, all of the software will be compatible for years in the future. I figure in 5 years it'll be time to upgrade, then they'll be in the second or third generation Intel Macs. Where's the downside?

Isaac

No, buy a Mac today for the same reasons you would have bought one without this news. If it meets your requirements and runs the software you need to run, you should buy it. Despite Jobs' statement that the transition will be gradual, Apple will try to have Intel-based Macs on the market As Soon As Possible. It seems they do not want to use current-crop Pentium 4s (despite the demo), but start off with a bang, perhaps with 65nm processors -- dual core, low power across the board, riding on Intel's own aggressive transition to dual and multi core.

I consider any personal computer to be good for 4 years. If you buy a Mac today you can rest assured that it will be perfectly good for 4 years (at least), able to run all Macintosh apps.

The move to Intel is based on an evaluation of their roadmap, and Apple liked what they saw. I'm sure we will too.

 

[Lancetx]

It's clear their mac mini strategy did not work out the way they were hoping it would (with rather disappointing Q2 mac results covered with a lot of spin) and this is their ultimate attempt at winning marketshare.

I'm not sure how you figure that a 43% increase in Mac sales was "rather disappointing" while the industry as a whole was only up 10% during the same quarter. Maybe you should review those Q2 financials once again. IBM wasn't delivering. Period. That's why they're switching to Intel now...

 

[DND82]

ALOT of people are clearly overreacting. Apple is still supporting its PPC line and if universal binary/rosetta does what it suppose to, then what is the problem? Don't give me some BS like, "ITS INTEL AND THEY SUCK!!"

I feel this is great news for Apple and would probably get a new Intel based Apple when they are released. Accept it the IBM relationship went down the crapper. We don't have a 3Ghz Powermac, Powerbooks are in a need of a faster processor.

 

[Xtremehkr]

Please people, settle down.

It does not make your current Macs worthless, or ones for sale right now worthless.

Some parts under the hood are going to be different.

 

[whooleytoo]

With OSX and Windows running on the same (or very similar) hardware soon, it should be interesting to see head-to-head performance benchmarks. I'm inclined to think Apple will be happy to have the next year to tweak OSX performance on Intel to make the comparison more favourable.

 

[Platform]

Hey found this at slashdot


seems appropriate.

Well am I sad? yes, am I happy? yes.

Sad cause we are gonna be just like everyone else. RISC vs CISC war is finally over peace amongst mac and PC users.

Happy because we are gonna have some powerful machines and a huge choice of hardware.

Still gonna bash the windoze platform tho.

still gonna live my iLife, the way it should be but missing something in the middle of it all, PPC. RIP

Very true

 

[mandis]

Could someone supply me with a link to the keynote please?

I just can't find it on the apple website.

cheers

 

[ReanimationLP]

Maybe Doom 3 will now run better! XD

http://stream.apple.akadns.net/

 

[leftbanke7]

Could someone supply me with a link to the keynote please?

I just can't find it on the apple website.

cheers

I just did a google of WWDC keynote
popped right up