Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[reyesmac]

Does this mean lower prices???????????

If the new OS Xtel works on ALL pentium chips (NOT ALL PC's, I mean if Apple can use whatever pentium chip it wants to in its proprietary motherboards, duh) , does this mean Apple will let people choose what chip they want in a tower. Will this let someone buy a tower with a slower chip and a much lower price? If all Apple changes are chips and architecture, they are doomed, if they embrace their new technology and allow for more choice in how a mac can be configured, even if you can only buy it from an Applestore, they will grow marketshare bigtime.

 

[skellener]

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

Where did you read that it was 32-bit?

 

[admanimal]

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.

Remember, the WWDC is a DEVELOPER conference. They HAVE to announce it now so that developers can prepare. Notice how there is no big Intel advertisement on Apple.com. The Macs with Intel will come out exactly when Steve said they would come now...about a year from now.

 

[ibjoshua]

Cheaper chips?

There's a lot of talk here about Apple being able to make cheaper Macs. Did Steve Jobs say anything about this in the keynote address? There wasn't anything in the press release about Intel chips being cheaper.

In fact yesterday John Gruber of Daring Fireball had the following:

Peter Glaskowsky, former editor of the Microprocessor Report, is an expert in the semiconductor business. Here’s what he told eWeek about the prospects of Apple switching the Mac to x86 processors:

“It’s a bunch of bull,” Peter Glaskowsky, analyst for The Envisioneering Group, in Seaford, N.Y., told Ziff Davis Internet News. “Firstly, Apple certainly pays much less for IBM and Freescale processors than Intel charges for comparable chips. Probably less than half as much on average. The G5 is a smaller, more efficient chip than the Pentium 4, and IBM has no other customers willing to buy large quantities.”​

I.e. he’s claiming it would cost Apple more, not less, to switch to Intel x86 CPUs.

OK, so he wasn't right about everything but is he wrong about the prices?
For all we know, Macs may have just got pricier. Let's wait and see. Can anyone (in)validate this claim?

i_b_joshua

 

[leftbanke7]

If the new OS Xtel works on ALL pentium chips, does this mean Apple will let people choose what chip they want in a tower. Will this let someone buy a tower with a slower chip and a much lower price? If all Apple changes are chips and architecture, they are doomed, if they embrace their new technology and allow for more choice in how a mac can be configured, even if you can only buy it from an Applestore, they will grow marketshare bigtime.

Nevermind, misread post...duh

 

[admanimal]

Where did you read that it was 32-bit?

Pentium 4s are 32-bit. That is common knowledge. Also, Apple's Universal Binary Developer's guide repeatedly references the Intel architecture as IA-32, i.e. intel's 32-bit architecture.

 

[FF_productions]

if mac prices go up, they are doomed, because companies like dell make crappy 300 dollar computers, and people who don't know crap about computers will jump on those instead of pricy mac computers that use the same chip(sorta)
In a summary, if prices go up, you will lose potential switchers

 

[superfoo]

A couple of points everyone should be clear on...

You hit the nail right on the head, sir.

About the only thing to which I can compare today's collective freakout, would be the doom and gloom surrounding the 'Y2K bug'.

So when does the PPC and 10.4 hoarding commence? I'll get my eBay account warmed up.

 

[titaniumducky]

I just want to know what this means for those of us with PPCs now... Are our precious PPC Macs going to become obsolete sooner than expected?

Kind of but not quite: As long as developers use Xcode and create Universal Binaries, we're fine. Developers really have to move to Xcode anyways at this point to create their x86 Mac code. At that point, the only reason our systems would become outdated is if:

A) Space becomes too precious and developers only compile for the x86 computers (assuming they become a majority).

B) Software uses x86 specific code/don't use PPC specific code that would be necessary for that software to be viable (this mainly applies to games)

Situation A is unlikely as storage space is consistently becoming cheaper and more widely available

Situation B is quite possible but, as far as I can see, it applies (insert "almost" for safety) solely to games which currently require a lot of work to port from x86 to PPC. A lot of this won't be done anymore if they can get away with just the minor changes required for going from Windows to Mac on the same processor architecture.

 

[onlysublime]

A couple of points everyone should be clear on:
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.

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.

From Apple's Universal Binary PDF:
What Can Be Translated?
Rosetta is designed to translate currently shipping applications that run on a PowerPC with a G3
processor and that are built for Mac OS X.
Rosetta does not run the following:
- Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9
- Code written specifically for AltiVec
- Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane
- Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor
- Applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions
- Kernel extensions
- Bundled Java applications or Java applications with JNI libraries that can’t be translated

A LOT of apps are going to fall into that list.


I can't believe you believe those benchmarks on Apple's site. Any independent third-party measurements have shown X86 systems beating PPC systems. Apple cheats in their benchmarks. They don't even have equivalent systems for comparison. The Mac will have more memory, different parts (graphic cards, etc.), etc.

 

[isaacc7]

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.

.

But if the OS doesn't give you access, or doesn't allow buffer overflow conditions this won't happen, right? I do believe that there were similar buffer overflow issues on PPC as well, Apple managed to patch the OS so that it wasn't a problem. Surely since this Pentium problem is so well known it won't be a difficult patch, no?

Isaac

 

[ArcaneDevice]

To be honest, I don't think Apple had an option

AMD.

 

[bosrs1]

AMD.

Nah, same issues with AMD as IBM... not enough supply. That and the price wasn't right.

 

[blitzkrieg79]

........

oh god... a person goes on a few days of vacation and the first thing it finds out Apple will adpot Intel... I think this is a move Apple had to make... I dont know if its good or bad, only time will tell, It seems obvious that IBM had all those great processors on paper but they just couldnt deliver them...

Cell seemed like a great chip but it will mostly be manufactured by Sony and Toshiba, the XBOX chip also seems to be a powerful one but MS also will outsource the production away from IBM, its visible that IBM just doesnt have the capacity to produce large quantities of chips... And to top it all off ,IBM, because of its financial troubles, will lay off thousands of people and probably try to cut down costs everywhere as much as possible, IBM is a company on a decline...

Intel on the other hand possesses the largest chip manufacturing plant in the world so I dont think supply nor design will be a problem... I don't know why people say AMD offer better processors, its all about optimizations anyway, AMD processors offer superior singlethreaded performance but its not really that much greater than what current Intel chips can offer, however Intel chips definately are a better multitasking chips than AMD... And no one offers better mobile processors than Intel either...

My question is though what will happen to Altivec? Will Apple have the exact same version of Intel processor as Windows counterparts or will it be Apple modified? And I know Apple probably knows something about Intel, IBM, and AMD processors that we all dont so thats why they took this huge gamble...

I guess you can't go wrong with a stable company that has more than an 80% marketshare of the personal computer processor market... It certainly will be strange to run MAC OSX with an Intel Inside but in the end I just want a computer that works and is fast...

... and there go my predictions of a CELL based Mac...

 

[admanimal]

But if the OS doesn't give you access, or doesn't allow buffer overflow conditions this won't happen, right? I do believe that there were similar buffer overflow issues on PPC as well, Apple managed to patch the OS so that it wasn't a problem. Surely since this Pentium problem is so well known it won't be a difficult patch, no?

Isaac

This is basically true. Buffer overflow exploits can always be prevented in software.

 

[bosrs1]

From Apple's Universal Binary PDF:
What Can Be Translated?
Rosetta is designed to translate currently shipping applications that run on a PowerPC with a G3
processor and that are built for Mac OS X.
Rosetta does not run the following:
- Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9
- Code written specifically for AltiVec
- Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane
- Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor
- Applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions
- Kernel extensions
- Bundled Java applications or Java applications with JNI libraries that can’t be translated

A LOT of apps are going to fall into that list.


I can't believe you believe those benchmarks on Apple's site. Any independent third-party measurements have shown X86 systems beating PPC systems. Apple cheats in their benchmarks. They don't even have equivalent systems for comparison. The Mac will have more memory, different parts (graphic cards, etc.), etc.

Do you have a link?

 

[areyouwishing]

Does anyone have the link to the Akamai WWDC keynote? It won't stream for me.

 

[tdewey]

To everyone saying their PPC macs are now suddenly worthless... First of all, Apple won't ship a single intel-based Mac for at least a year, secondly they will continue to ship PPC macs well into 2007. That means that they have to support OSX (and apps) on PPC for at least until then, and considering many G3 based systems are still supported in Tiger, they will probably support PPC for quite a while longer.
I really don't understand how this announcement is any different from a situation in which Steve would announce a Cell based G6 (or whatever) based CPU system.

I'm all for the switch (screw the G5 PB, give me the Yonah PB), but I doubt the 2006, 2007 stepped switch. Once the switch really begins (2006) they'll have to move everything over as quickly as possible. Right now buying a PPC still makes sense, who is going to want a PPC when 1/2 the line is x86?

 

[jZilla]

Remember, the WWDC is a DEVELOPER conference. They HAVE to announce it now so that developers can prepare. Notice how there is no big Intel advertisement on Apple.com. The Macs with Intel will come out exactly when Steve said they would come now...about a year from now.

Will they get here before the 3ghz G5 he promised would be here for this year?

;-)

 

[mandis]

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

I give it a week till we see a cracked versions of OSX on DC++
The moment the x86 version of Tiger goes public you can be sure that it will run on any Intel/Amd out there.

 

[Mac_Freak]

I just saw the Keynote. Wow this is going to one smooth transition. Only Apple can pull something like that. Well, I can't wait to get my hands on the new PowerBook with "Intel Inside". Sure, it will be hard to depart with my current PB, maybe I will keep it.

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

My G4 is 32bit, so it doesn't mean anything, except that is the current CPU they used and for $999 Intel version OF MAc is not that Bad. That machine was only for developers, so don't worry future Macs will be much better than

I just hopr they still will offer the Dual Processor version as well.

 

[LaMerVipere]

I don't think people who feel negative about this should be blamed or attacked. They simply did what Apple has always asked of their most devout fans: They believed in Apple.

For years Apple has been lambasting the x86 architecture and today they've done a total 180 and embraced it.

Just like the third major transition for Apple is going to take time, so is the mental transition for the millions of fans and users.

 

[pubwvj]

Viruses - the processor makes no difference. If OSX got wildly popular on PPC - viruses would be targetted towards PPC based Apple Macs, the same with Intel.

Under MacOS his isn't really the same problem as it is with Windows. Windows has a huge number of security holes and things left open that come shut by default on the Mac. This makes the Mac much less prone to malware. Being more popular won't change that in the slightest.

 

[bosrs1]

I give it a week till we see a cracked versions of OSX on DC++
The moment the x86 version of Tiger goes public you can be sure that it will run on any Intel/Amd out there.

I doubt it.

 

[php]

However, this transition is going to be extremely tough on Apple. Who is going to buy an Apple computer for the next year? ...

...What do I do now? (1) Tough it out for one more year with a battery that lasts only 1 hr (really painful for cross country flights) and wait for the an Intel M offering, or (2) Invest money in a current Apple laptop offering that is already pretty long in the tooth and will be viewed as a completely obsolete (in the hard sense that there will be important programs that it will be unable to run) in two years.

Prices on current hardware are going to have to completely tank to make people buy. That might be good enough for me, but Apple is going to kiss their earnings goodbye for a year or longer.

Very good point. I have a G4 1.2Ghz iBook and I now have absolutely no intention of buying any other Apple computer until I can get one with an Intel processor. I'll just make due with my current iBook for another year or so. No way am I going to shell out my hard earned cash for a new PB/iBook that will be totally obsolete in a year. I think almost all Mac users will do the same, unless they're using ancient Macs that need updating right away.

I'm an Apple investor and I also don't see this as being good at all for earnings.