Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[Object-X]

A few comments:

1. Apple's going to have to walk a fine line marketing their current and upcoming PPC-based Macs over the next year... how do they push the PPC advantage at the same time as they're dropping the PPC?

They won't market the computers as being better because of the chip, they will focus on OS X being the reason to switch; and so they should, it really is the reason, not the chip. Chip claims change overnight and have always been disputed. There is no doubt OS X is superior to Windows however. OS X is now the real issue.

2. A lot of people out there are going to have trouble telling the difference between an Intel Mac and and Intel (or AMD) Windows box. The "different" in Think Different is going to be mostly about the OS.

There is no trouble distinguishing between an Apple computer and a run of the mill Wintel box. None at all. OS X is very different (ie. better) than Windows. And Apple's hardware designs can't even be copied very well, much less matched for their elegance and genius.

3. I doubt if Apple's going to be near the front of the line for Intel's fastest chips, nor are they likely to get as deep a discount as Dell, HP, and others.

Wrong. Apple is getting a sweatheart deal. Intel wanted them bad. Intel needed this win to help their image, after getting their a$$ handed to them by AMD. I'm certain that Apple will get a very good deal indeed, in fact, as Apple's market share increases they will get even better deals.

4. It'll be interesting to see where in the product line Intel appears first: low or high? laptop or desktop? Given where the PowerBooks are these days, I think they'll start with PowerBooks.

Powerbooks.

 

[mandis]

Um, I'm talking about all of the video cards, sound cards, TV tuners, etc etc that are available in PCs. Intel doesn't make all of those.

I'm afraid i don't understand your point. You should assume that OSX (x86 Edition) will support all that hardware. Otherwise what is the point?

My earlier comment was that at the point of release, there wont be any serious technological obstacles that could prevent people from using OSX on any PC.

 

[admanimal]

That may be what is going on. We're definitely going to get some Apple only Mobos and such in our new AppleIntel machines. Apple has 500 people in Santa Clara working with Intel now. Almost double what they sent to Motorola/IBM when they designed the PPC.

Whatever the processors are, they are going to be compatible with Intel's current x86 architecture, because that's what Apple's new developer guides all refer to.

 

[kcmac]

I am somewhat confused. If OSX has been compiled for both PPC and Intel for the last 5 years why switch now, why didn't they do it 5 years ago? Steve said the biggest mistake he (maybe Apple, can't remember which) made was not using an Intel chip. And why Intel. If it's just made for a CISC chip why not use something like AMD that is more similar to PPC in floating point performance, cheaper and cooler (temp). But again, why now? Isn't STI supposed to be releasing the Cell processor based on the PPC which is orders of magnitude better than top Intel? It just seems strange. Obviously Steve knows what he's doing, has thought of all these things, but I just wish that information could be conveyed a little more thoroughly to us

Maybe IBM had the best looking roadmap.

Maybe Apple wasn't ready with XCode and Rosetta back then.

Maybe the API's weren't far enough along.

Probably a hundred reasons.

This is a big move. Processors don't seem to matter from now on. Another moving target for MS and the design of Longhorn?

 

[Mac_Freak]

I see consumer computes with 32bit first, then pro line with 64-bit. Later the whole line will be probably updated to 64-bit.
For avarege consumer, really there is no reason to run 64-bit apps or OS. However te change will happen with time as 32-bit architecture is fased out.

Folks, just trust Apple. They have been through 2 transition already, so they know what they are doing, and how to do it. This is how they manadge to stay at the top of technology. Look at Microsoft using ancient stuff, it suck. The only way to have something better in technology is to go with it.

 

[MacIke]

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

In the short it may be bad. In the long term... I expect to make even more money.

 

[gangst]

Two things:

Why is a cooler processor so important in a desktop computer? I can see it in a laptop, but could someone please fill me in?

WHERE IS OUR NEW iBOOKS?!! They are way past due according to the Buyer's Guide. What are those who've been waiting for this day to do?

Cooler processors are very important in desktops. This allows a cut down on heat, noise and power usage, You may not care about this, but when you have a room full of Powermac G5's running full blast things heat up, and get noisier and your electric bill soars. So cooler less power hungry processors are important in a desktop.

NO, you won't see an iBook update till after the Powerbooks are updated, because otherwise they will be faster and cheaper than the Powerbooks and that would just be stupid.

 

[Spazmodius]

Here's my take...

Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are all using PowerPC-based chips for a reason: More bang for the buck, and a brighter future.

IBM let its PC processors languish for a reason: They're getting out of the PC business, and now that all three game console vendors are on board, they've got much bigger, much better fish to fry than selling Apple processors at cost only to get **** on publically by Steve Jobs.

Apple is switching to Intel for a reason: They've got nowhere else to go. It's not because x86 is better, because it isn't. If it were, well, none of this would have happened because IBM wouldn't have a monopoly on the console market.

Intel wants Apple on board for a reason: Microsoft's Xbox360 is making them sweat. It's not a game machine; it's a supercharged digital hub running on an NT kernal. Know what that means? Microsoft doesn't need Intel. Worse, for the Xbox, it doesn't even want Intel.

Intel knows the digital hub market is the wave of the future. Microsoft and Sony are perfectly poised now to deliver some spectacular value to the home market. Not to mention all the best games. What has Intel got, with the PC game market crapping the bed? Nothing. Not without Apple, and something like its mini. Figure that Intel mini-knockoff is part of such a plan? It's a mini with a Pentium M! Hell, just stuff on in the mini, and safe the trouble of copying it.

Good or bad for Apple is irrelevent. It's Intel or death, that is becoming increasingly clear. Statements from IBM and Freesacle (who get 1 and 2% of their business from Apple, respectively) reveal lost customers who could really care less. They're probably more happy to have Jobs out of their hair than anything. It's clear: Apple had no alternative. And Intel is nervous about the future.

We're not getting a "better" chip architecture out of this, folks. We're getting the only one that actually wants Apple around. And why should a behemoth like Intel care, given Apple's contribution to its bottom line will be as puny tomorrow as it is for IBM today? That's easy: Because Microsoft and Sony have the very chip architecture we're losing, and it scares them. They're gambling the MacOS will shore up the digital hub market. It's a big gamble; but it's one Intel can afford to lose probably. For Apple, it's a no-brainer, as it's do or die.

IBM didn't fail, that's increasingly clear. They just lost interest. Pity.

 

[titaniumducky]

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.

Not really. Wintel machines won't be able to run OS X; it's just as possible that Apple-Intel machines wouldn't be able to run Windows.

Granted, the computers can probably be hacked to work both ways, but it was definitely Apple's choice to allow Windows to run on the new systems.

The question is: what about hard drives? Windows can't run on HFS+ and who would want to run OS X on FAT (If that's possible). It's not currently possible to partition one drive into FAT and HFS+ natively (you have to use a semi-hack with pdisk I think it is). Will this change or will you need two hard drives to do it without causing problems?

 

[tdewey]

After reading the press releases, I haven't seen any mention of Apple moving to a 32-bit x86 processer. Just an Intel processor that's not a Power PC.

Anyone know what Intel has up their sleeve for next year?

http://freespace.virgin.net/m.warner/Roadmap2006.htm

Q1 2006
Intel Pentium-M (Jonah / Yonah) mobile CPU is expected to be released in Q1. Jonah is part of the Napa platform and the successor to Dothan. It is expected to be built on a 65nm process and contain two CPU cores on a single die taking 151.6 million transistors (compared to around 140m in Dothan). Jonah is expected to feature a 667Mhz FSB speed and a 2Mb L2 cache shared between the two cores. In addition to the featureset of Dothan, Jonah will feature an updated SSE instruction set (SSE3 support and SSE/SSE2 support tied to MicroOps Fusion, and throughput improvement in the SSE Decoder) along with improved performance of the x86 FPU. These improvements to the floating point performance of the processor are dubbed "Digital Media Boost" by Intel. Jonah will also feature improvements to power management and thermal output, meaning that the power consumption of Jonah will be similar to that of Dothan, despite the increased core size and complexity. Intel's Advanced Thermal Manager offers finer grained thermal management and Yonah will allow for one core to be slowed down independently of the other if power consumption or heat dissipation rises too much. Jonah will also feature Intel's Vanderpool technology and LaGrande Security technology, but will not contain x64 instruction set support in it's first incarnation.

Intel Calistoga chipsets (955XM, 945PM, 945GM and 940GML), part of the Napa platform for Jonah, are expected to be released in Q1. Calistoga chipsets are expected to support a 667Mhz FSB, DDR-2 667 and PCI Express. Calistoga will be paired with ICH7-M, featuring 4xSATA-300 ports, and the Golan wireless chipset, supporting 80211a/b/g and WPA2.

Intel Xeon DP (Dempsey) is expected to be released in Q1. Dempsey is the 65nm, Dual Core successor to Irwindale featuring support for a 1066MHz FSB and containing two sets of 2MB L2 cache, one for each core. The clock speeds of Dempsey are expected to be 3.80GHz, 3.60GHz, 3.40GHz, 3.20GHz, 3GHz and 2.8GHz.

Intel E7520 (Blackford) chipset for Dempsey is expected to be released in Q1. This chipset is expected to feature support for a 1066Mhz FSB speed, Intel's I/O acceleration, Intel Virtualisation Technology (formally Vanderpool) and Active Management technology.

Intel Greencreek chipset for Dempsey is expected to be released in Q1. Greencreek is part of the Glidewell platform for Workstations and is expected to feature support for a 1066Mhz FSB speed, PCI-Express x16 and FB-DIMM memory.

Intel Xeon MP (Paxville) is expected to be released in Q1. Paxville is the 90nm, Dual Core successor to Tulsa, featuring a twin 1066Mhz FSB (one for each core).

Q2
Intel Celeron (Cedarmill) is expected to be released in Q2. Cedarmill will be built on a 65nm process and largely based on the (single core) Prescott 2M core. Targeted at the value sector, Cedarmill will be released at clock speeds up to 3.6Ghz.

Intel Pentium D 9xx (Presler) is expected to be released in Q2 as part of the Averill platform. Presler is the 65nm successor to Smithfield and features two physically separate cores in a single package, each with a 2MB L2 cache (for a total of 4MB of L2 cache). The two cores will communicate over a dedicated external 800Mhz FSB.

Intel Pentium Extreme Edition (Presler) is expected to be released in Q2. The Pentium Extreme Edition (Presler) is the 65nm successor to the Pentium Extreme Edition (Smithfield) In addition to the featureset of the Pentium D Presler, the Extreme Edition features Hyperthreading support in each of the cores and runs on a 1066Mhz FSB.

Intel Broadwater P/G chipset for Presler is expected to be released in Q2. Broadwater is part of the Averill platform and is expected to feature Intel's Active Management Technology 2 (AMT2) and will introduce the LaGrande security system.

Intel Sossaman CPU is expected to be released in H1 2006. Although Sossaman is expected to be a desktop CPU, based on the E7520 chipset, it is expected to be a dual core processor based on the Yonah core. Sossaman is a low power processor, with the 2Ghz revision having a TDP of 31W, with the 1.67Ghz LV version having a TDP of just 15W.

 

[admanimal]

I'm afraid i don't understand your point. You should assume that OSX (x86 Edition) will support all that hardware. Otherwise what is the point?

My original point was trying to explain why you couldnt just install OS X on any random PC and have it work. My reasoning is that OS X drivers do not exist for all of the PC hardware that Windows drivers exist for. OS X probably has drivers for whatever hardware Mac has used over the past decade or whatever, which is not the full gamut of PC hardware.

Maybe this isn't obvious to everyone, but there is not one generic "sound card driver" that magically makes every sound card work with OS X, for example.

 

[chatin]

Jobs should resign for his rescue of 25 year old technology.

Jobs finally got to use a 3 ghz on stage. Too bad Steve just rescued a 25 year old technology!

Steve fell for the money. x86 it seems, has more financial clout than we suspected!

Time for Jobs to move on. He isn't the creative force that Apple needs to capitalize on the iPod. This is a great opportunity for another Apple exec to move the company forward with Cell and more great innovations.

It seems Jobs now thinks that everything that needs to be invented, has been invented - back in the 1970's!!

 

[shompa]

For every one doomsayer there are 5 people who are seriously considering the Mac now.

Why?
You cant play games on the X86 Tiger like Windows.

It lacks Direct X

 

[neocell]

The only bad thing about this is for Apple itself, trying to sell computers to people for the next year or so. It's great for the end users, nothing negative at all. Your current mac will run just fine and everything new coming out will be in universal binary so what are all the tears for?

 

[iMeowbot]

Jobs finally got to use a 3 ghz on stage. Too bad Steve just rescued a 25 year old technology!

Oh cool, then we're moving ahead! IBM's RISC architecture is already 28 years old.

 

[sacear]

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

Are they essentually ka-put come 2007?

Freescale does not need Apple's business. Apparently, IBM did not want Apple's business.

 

[jZilla]

The Mac may ship without a sticker but then none of us can complain if it's a little more expensive... I'm hoping for an Intel 'inside sticker' where there's a sticker but it's stuck on the interior of the case rather than the outside!

I'm hoping the chip has an "Apple outside" sticker on it ;-)

 

[oskar]

I will, and in 2 yrs you will too only you will pay $3000 a piece for them.

The thing is that you seem to be disgusted with the decision Apple's made. Don't you want better Macs? Do you want to wait 6 months to get a Dual 3 GHz G5? (Only 0.6 Ghz faster - total.) Everybody's been complaining that Apple hasn't been able to keep up with others, and I also think that's true. That's why I see this decision as something good. And anyways, Apple still supported OS 9 for 4-5 years after wanting to make that 2nd transition. That was a long time they gave people the option to want to improve.
The purpose of the WWDC is to get developers to make their apps fully compatible with current and new Macs. I just don't see what the big problem is.

 

[areyouwishing]

Yeah! And the dual core 32 bit pentium 4 is combined 64 bit.
You can also run Windows on half the screen and on one processor and OSX on the other processor and half of the screen.

Intel Rulez - Steve "Darth" Jobs

Please tell me you are not being sarcastic. Did you watch the keynote? Did you not see the Pentium 4 running OS X 10.4.1? Did you not hear about the pentium 4 developer kits that are available TO-F*CKING-DAY?

 

[skellener]

I am somewhat confused. If OSX has been compiled for both PPC and Intel for the last 5 years why switch now, why didn't they do it 5 years ago?

IBM hasn't progressed the way Steve wanted them to with the speed and Windows is floundering among malware and viruses. Since MS still hasn't released their long awaited Longhorn, it's the perfect time to pull a switch (as Steve see's it).

As long as I can still run Mac OS X I don't care what chip they put in a Mac.

 

[nishishei]

I've never bought a Mac and would never imagine myself posting in a Mac forum just a month ago, but I am really enthused now. I think it would be great to be able to dual boot XP and OSX on the same computer. C++ compiling, games on the XP; and more leisure and casual usage on the OS X.

So I totally agree with the "For every one doomsayer there are 5 people who are seriously considering the Mac now" comment someone made up there.

 

[bosrs1]

Why?
You cant play games on the X86 Tiger like Windows.

It lacks Direct X

You can't play any games on OSX anyway now.

 

[guez]

there's the rub

Apple has done a very bad job of explaining this to the average joe who's looking to buy Mac. Like a lot of people I too was planning to make a Mac purchase soon. Now I think I'll put my money away until next year because I want to be on the right side of the fence if there're making the switch. A lot of people are going feel the same I'm afraid. All those Apple store's are going to be very quite for the next 11 to 12 months.

In fact, Apple has not explained to consumers AT ALL. This is a developers' conference! I'm not sure, however, that there is a good way. How do you switch marketing strategies without having a new product to sell?

 

[bosrs1]

I've never bought a Mac and would never imagine myself posting in a Mac forum just a month ago, but I am really enthused now. I think it would be great to be able to dual boot XP and OSX on the same computer. C++ compiling, games on the XP; and more leisure and casual usage on the OS X.

So I totally agree with the "For every one doomsayer there are 5 people who are seriously considering the Mac now" comment someone made up there.

This is the general feeling I'm getting from most of my PC friends. If this causes Mac prices to fall a bit and they can duel boot, they'll buy the mac. They know OSX is better, but can't do without alot of Wintel software, if they can dual boot however... well $$$ for Apple.

 

[skellener]

Did you not hear about the pentium 4 developer kits that are available TO-F*CKING-DAY?

Kits may be available today. That doesn't mean that is what Apple will be selling in a year. I see only 64-bit Intel for the future.