Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[cb911]

wowow - crazy news!

but i guess i'm happy about this... faster processors is always good.

and as long as OS X keeps running the same as always and Apple's making a kick-ass PowerBook - i'm happy.

now i just hope that the Intel processors they're using aren't as flakey as others i've used in PC's...

 

[Platform]

What is it going to say in the Buyers Guide: "Don't buy CPU architecture and OS update next year, PPC = Dead"

 

[ArcaneDevice]

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.

this is the part I find harder to believe. By all accounts from what I've briefly seen the AMD X2 is the better CPU. AMD take more leaps with CPU tech than Intel (rather than just boosting the cache and ramping up the speed as fast as they can) and is the less conformist choice from the Mac loyalists.

If anything AMD would have been good for the CPU business since it would have given them some market boost and an increased public awareness. More money means they would be able to output a better product and increasing competition and Apple would be siding with the underdog once again.

 

[DND82]

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

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

cheers

stream.apple.akadns.net/

 

[ltgator333]

shocked

I would have felt better if they'd been transitioning to AMD 64 outright... I don't really understand why they'd want to go back to 32-bit after having just finally supported 64 bit in OS X....
Ultimately, I've afraid I've owned my last Mac.
For the past 4 years I've been playing around with a bit of everything, I think I'd settled on FreeBSD but hey, sometimes it was nice to just fire up iTunes and play some tunes, I'm yet to see anything that rivals it for other *nix systems. I was planning on picking up my first brand new Mac later this summer, but why would I want just another Intel box?

I don't blame Apple though- I beleive IBM had all the ability and opportunity in the world to produce a chip and was too busy with their game console customers to be bothered with Apple, another *nix vendor that I beleive they feel is light competition in the blade server market - Xserve. I have some bad words for IBM but I'll keep 'em, just like Steve Jobs can keep his Intel chips.

 

[haganah]

What hardware will Apple make then?

Does this mean you can have all the choice of windows compatible hardware for apple systems?

Can I buy a $300 dell and run OSX and iLife on it? Do I want to?

Will my phone finally be able to sync via bluetooth? Will I get longer battery life on my next powerbook? It's ultimately the small things that I will appreciate more...

 

[Platform]

I just did a google of WWDC keynote
popped right up

I can't get it to work.......only "switching transports" in QT

 

[Ti_Poussin]

I understand to go with Intel for production will be good, they can deliver, that's for sure. But the real question is what processor by Intel are we getting?

Cause a pentium IV is not really what I'm looking in a machine. I would have love to see AMD chip in those. Why? Cause there dual core aren't fake with an external communication like Intel. They got a hell of punch even in emulating the intel, now give them the power to run the way they are intend to at first, AMD chip can kick solid. What innovation have Intel bring lately? the dual core like I already say is badly designed, the PIV? what a mess of the infinit pipeline stage, the Itanium? please, everybody know an Opteron kick it far far away, the centrino? maybe the best thing Intel have get out recently. I really wounder, cause unlike many of you it seem, I care about the PPC, it's one of the top thing I went to Mac, to learn to program on them. I'm studing computer Ing. But now, I feel a little lost. Hope there's will be something more inside Intel CPU for mac, an altivec plz. If it's a standard CPU, hacking it to run OSX on normal PC won't be a long challenge, PearPC and some Mac emulator have already bust it on current version, soo.

Else, a cheap PC laptop to run OSX and a PPC Linux desktop is awaiting me. Probably there will be some sweet deal on PowerMac in a years or two to run Linux distro. It's a weird day, but even if I hate to say, I believe they make the good choice, even if I would have go with AMD. Let's see it bring us.

 

[mkrishnan]

Does this mean you can have all the choice of windows compatible hardware for apple systems?

Can I buy a $300 dell and run OSX and iLife on it? Do I want to?

Will my phone finally be able to sync via bluetooth? Will I get longer battery life on my next powerbook? It's ultimately the small things that I will appreciate more...

*Shakes head* No, No, No, Not if it doesn't today, Maybe, and Yes, it is.

 

[isaacc7]

Linux port question

One thing that I have heard as a bonus of using x86 chips with OS X is that more of the Linux apps could be ported over to OS X. With the tools that Apple is talking about, would these ports be usable on the PPC computers all of us have now or will we have to wait until we have an Intel based Mac?

Isaac

 

[onlysublime]

and all x86 apps will run on PPC? Do you have a link to verify that?

http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+aligns+with+Intel+-+page+2/2100-7341_3-5733756-2.html?tag=st.next

" Going forward, Mac developers will be able to create universal binaries of their programs that will run on both types of chips.

In the meantime, Apple has a transcoding tool called Rosetta that will allow programs written for PowerPC chips to run on Intel-based machines. "Every application is not going to be universal from Day 1," Jobs told the audience. "

Rosetta = PPC on X86.
Rosetta doesn't let X86 run on PPC. For that, multiple binaries (universal binaries) will be included on the same CDs.

 

[Ensoniq]

A couple of points everyone should be clear on:

1 - No Mac that you may already own with a PPC processor is going to be "obsolete" anytime soon. If you watch the Jobs keynote, you can see that developers will need to use Xcode 2.1 to get software working on Intel, and all software designed within Xcode will also work on the PPC G3/G4/G5 Macs too. It happens automatically during compilation of the new "Universal Binary" format. So software being designed to work on Intel based Macs WILL WORK on the current Macs too. Either not an either/or situation. It's both...automatically. (Any developer who doesn't support the Universal Binary format is just an idiot.)

2 - The "Rosetta" translation software that will be on Intel Macs lets all currently available PPC software run WITHOUT a recompile. That means any software you have today will work on a PPC Mac, or an Intel Mac, even if the developers go under or don't do recompiles. Your investment in Mac software is safe, no matter what.

3 - Phil Schiller said after Jobs' keynote an important thing: Mac OS X for Intel will only run on Apple-built machines, not Dells or Gateway, or custom built Wintel machines. This means that while Apple is going to run an Intel processor, it doesn't turn the Mac into just another "Wintel" machine. It will remain as unique a platform as the current Macs are...with OS X being the main draw, and the one thing non-Mac buyers still won't have access to.

4 - Although the Intel developer systems are going to be running Pentium 4 chips, neither Apple nor Intel announced that the first Intel based systems that will actually SHIP are going to be using Pentium 4 chips. Just like the Xbox 360 development system was a G5 but the final processor will not be a G5, the same can be said for Apple and Intel. Intel is working on dual-core chips, and low-power high performance laptop chip variants that are better than anything that is shipping today in any Wintel machine. So saying "I could have bought a PC today and got what Apple is going to be shipping in 2 years" is like saying "I can buy a 3.2 GHz P4 today, and in two years is will magically be whatever Intel is shipping in 2007." It's just not so.

5 - The 1-2 year transition period explained above also means that we can't automatically assume that Apple switching to Intel now means that the G5 performance sucks. Apple has documented benchmarks all over their site showing that TODAY, the Dual G5 2.7 GHz kicks butt over P4 systems. That fact hasn't changed. The only change is that Apple has realized that since IBM could not meet the 3 GHz promise Steve made at WWDC 2003 for 2 years now, it's more likely that 2 years FROM now Intel's chips WILL be better than IBMs. Again...it doesn't mean Intel is better/faster TODAY, it just means Apple has seen both IBM and Intel's roadmaps and is making a business decision based on who they have more faith in.

I repeat ... none of this makes anyone's investment in a G4 or G5 today ANY less valuable, or that a G4/G5 system today can't compete with the best Wintel desktops/laptops available right now. But Apple's plans are based on the future...and right now it seems that they have more faith on Intel's progress over the next 2 years than IBMs.

The best news of all is that if suddenly IBM found a magic lamp and made a wish for all their G5 production issues to evaporate overnight, Apple could decide to NOT switch to Intel. But at least they have the option...and the developers needed to know today "just in case".

It's a shock to all of us...our Windows hatred has always been directly attached to Intel, because of their synergy. But with Intel on Apple's side, as strange as it seems, it could further bring Apple closer to convincing even more people what we Mac users have believed a long time: That the Mac is the superior platform...not because of the processor alone, but the whole package. An Intel in a Mac doesn't make it a Windows machine...it's still a Mac. So we can all continue to enjoy the Mac vs. Windows war, even if the Mac vs. Intel war is finally over.

 

[crpchristian]

no more changing

An absolute good thing here is the likely hood of us not having to switch again for a very very long time. Motorola and IBM neither have nearly the position and presence in the PC proc. market (especially now with it being a small device, Server, game console type company). Intel, however, is ,like it or not, the king of presence in the PC proc. market, so as long as they deliver quality goods (apple could have picked any company to go with, i'm sure what is planned to come will be very good), this should prove to be a very stable and positive move for apple which seems to jump around alot with processors

 

[skellener]

I don't think Apple will be using an 32-bit x86 chips. It will be 64-bit all the way.

 

[whooleytoo]

Also interesting in the last article quoted - the Intel Macs will be able to run Windows. I guess it would be difficult to prevent that happening without running foul of anti-trust laws, but still, it's good to hear confirmed.

 

[FF_productions]

After watching that keynote video, it has given me a lot of confidence and assures me that apple will make it through this transition. This can be their downfall or the best decision in apples history...

 

[davenet]

Apple have basically just lost part of their differentiation in this announcement and I really think this is commercial suicide by Steve Jobs.

Who the hell is going to buy an overpriced Powermac PC in a year or so when you can have a Dell at a fraction of the price and STILL run Mac OSX.

They are ditching custom hardware at a time when Pro users and indeed the world like 'different'. With the way things are looking, they will just be another alienware!!!

Sorry Apple, you've got too caught up with IPOD and the whole media provider route

Sad Day.

Where are you getting your information? Running OSX on a Dell? Are you kidding? You think Apple will allow that? You better stop jumping to conclusions. In an interview with an Apple executive, they indicated that is something that this announcement does NOT mean. While they are using Intel processors, they will not be Dell or x86 knockoffs. They will still be Apple. And you won't be able to run OSX on a regular Wintel PC.

David

 

[evilernie]

My 1 and a half cents

Apple has got to know that this announcement is going to hurt their bottom line in the short term, so why announce this now? I think the Intelimacs may come out sooner than anyone expects.

But I could be wrong. Or not? Who the heck knows.

 

[jZilla]

BTW; Does anyone know what the first Apple machine next year is expected to be released with Intel inside?

According to the Keynote by the next WWDC there will be the first Macintel ready to ship.

Having watched the keynote the final sales pitch (well the ONLY sales pitch) from Jobs was "Performance per watt".

PPC 15 units vs Intel 70 units.

That doesn't address people here saying Intel chips are hotter than a hot thing and it also doesn't address the fact that not long ago Steve Jobs jumped on stage dancing about and raving about how awesome IBM were and how we'd have a 3ghz G5 by now. Here's hoping he hasn't been sold another pup and will be back coon wearing more egg on his face.

For those that haven't watched - OSX has been Processor independent since OSX 10.0 - ie it was always their escape route. Wonder what their escape rout is now?

I remain convinced this is largely about about DRM and Jobs probably getting ready to sell movies online - it's not as if he hasn't any experience convincing an industry to let him be the pusherman for their product - QT over iTMS is the taster IMO.

(NB I said "largely" not "THE reason").

 

[skellener]

Switch, smitch...I have only needed to purchase 3 Macs in 12 years. Not bad. The SE still runs too! Lookingforward to new Apple hardware no matter what chip it runs! Mac OS X is what matters!

 

[leftbanke7]

So, in all of this, what happens to Freescale?

Are they essentually ka-put come 2007?

 

[Stu-Duncan]

Microsoft sales increase!

If every intel Mac will run Windows, then everyone who buys one will also buy a copy of Windows (except the zealots). Looks like M$ giving it their backing was a GOOD idea.

To be honest, I don't think Apple had an option - IBM was not coming up with the goods. My fear (on the back of 2 iBook G3 900 disasters) is that the quality of future Macs will continue to decline. I hope not.

Stuart

For the record Duo 230, B&W 5300 PB, 3400 PB, Wallstreet, iBook 900 - Broken!, iMac G4 17", PB G4 12" 1 GHz, Newton 2100, and I've given away half a dozen others.

 

[admanimal]

I don't think Apple will be using an 32-bit x86 chips. It will be 64-bit all the way.

Well they are already running OS X on a 32-bit P4....so there.

 

[titaniumducky]

I'm kind of shocked. Does this mean no new hardware until the intel stuff begins to ship by next year's WWDC? That would be an insane business move. They should at least update the ibook and mac mini. I am disappointed

No - Jobs said repeatedly that Apple had "some great PPC stuff planned" for us. How good of an idea it is to buy a computer whose entire architecture will be old soon is up to you, but Apple is not going to stop updating hardware until Intel stuff comes out.

 

[MarkCollette]

I have never seen such intellectual people on here act like a bunch of ignorant fools.

1. The chip has nothing to do with viruses. Its the OS. There will not be more viruses.
2. You will not be able to install OSX on a PC.
3. You will not be able to run Windows programs on a Mac (unless you have VPC)

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

1. On the Pentium chip, if you have a buffer overflow, onto a stack variable, then you could make the CPU execute that code, right on the stack. The amd64 extensions included the NX bit, or non-execute- bit. That way, stack pages can be marked read-write, but non-execute. This one addition to the CPU eliminates a whole slew of ways for viruses to infect you, or trojans to escalate their privileges.

2. With system virtualisation software, like VMware, it's only a matter of time until one can run OS X on a PC. Hell, it's possible now with PearPC, but it will only be faster without having to emulate the whole CPU.

3. With WINE, one can already run Windows software on x86 Linux. Of course that will be ported to x86 OS X.