Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[NeoMayhem]

If you buy an Apple branded Mac based Intel machine, you'll be able to dual boot OSX and Windows ( Apple have confirmed this).

No you wont, and they never confirmed it. All that they said was that they would not tray and stop people from doing it.

Something like VMWare would be able to run windows very well on x86-64 OS X, but I am not sure it will be easy to just dual boot to windows unless people create the right drivers.

 

[jared_kipe]

I'm really confused why Apple doesn't want to use PowerPC. To my understanding, IBM seems to always has better cutting edge CPU technologies than Intel and AMD (please correct me if I'm wrong). IBM might be a little ignorant on Apple due to it's small market share, but does switching to Intel solve this problem? I mean, take the G5 for example, it worked so good and promising in 2003, but look what happens now? Can SJ promise that the same situation won't happen again??

Here is the thing though, intel won't have to take the time to develop a processor for us. We can use ANY intel processor, including the ones they will be taking the time to develop for everyone. Repeat, intel won't develop OUR chips, they will just develop PUBLIC chips. for andy PC.

 

[GregA]

I'm taking delivery this week of a dual 2.5 g5, mostly for audio production, but also for graphics (illustrator, flash etc.).
<snip>
I'm VERY worried about this shift (although I think ultimately it's good), because the plans and upgrade paths for current g5 users look VERY ambiguous.

I am hesitating on buying a Powerbook. I think they are currently underpowered, and are likely to be the first ones upgraded to Intel.

However, I think the dual G5s are great machines, and still worth buying (just as much as they were before the announcement). In your situation I'd still go ahead - but that's me!

 

[sacear]

Powerbook:
Brand new top of the line bought 2 months ago, obsolete.

You ought to give that PowerBook to me then, since it is obsolete.

 

[runninmac]

H

Apple is no longer think different, its think the same. If they wanted to do right they would make osx work on dells and thinkpads but that will never happen without massive hacks and then every os update will kill the hacks.

The mindset is gone. Apple is not the same anymore. Its a struggling lying company just trying to make a buck, its not a revolution. Many people use computers all day long and your computer is part of you like your car is. People who say that the computer is just a tool are fooling themselves. If so then following that phylosophy everyone would be driving the cheapest car out there because hey its just a tool, gets you from point a to b right. That is not how people really think. So, we wait for yrs now, and hope that apple is still kicking. Its a sad day.

Apple is a bussines. You can't expect them to do what you think is best. Just becuase they are switching CPU's and architectures doesn't mean they dont think differently. They still have the most inovative computer company out there who else thinks to put the whole computer behind the screan and make it seam to "float". I think some people are just shocked and slightly disturbed with this whole transition. Apple will still be the same inovative company they are. I just have to say im very dissapointed in IBM.

 

[willhclark]

It's all about the FUTURE. IBM is the best today but not tomorrow because they're too damm hot for Ultra Thin Form Factor Desktops and notebooks. The new G5's are great for consoles but Apple does'nt sell those. Apple is betting Intel for the future of computers as they intend make huge gains in market share. Especially laptops which are the fastest growing segment of computer sales.

Right now IBM PPC's are the best in terms of speed but you can't have them in laptop because they're too hot. http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

Intel has cool, dual-core, 64-bit, and Pentium D's for the Ipod Video format which is the future...

Expect to see Intels come first in Powerbook's and ibook's to satisfy all those wanting your PB G5. Then expect iMac and Mini's with Pentiums. The Power Mac G5 will be the last to convert with Dual-Dual Core Pentium's running 4.0 Ghz each for (4.0 Ghz x 2) x 2 = 16 Ghz

 

[jared_kipe]

Dual booting isn't nearly as fun as thinking about running the equivalent of WINE on OSX. That should clear up a lot, does anyone know if any has gotten WINE to run DirectX?

 

[ibjoshua]

.., if your local pizza chain screwed up your order enough you would switch to someone else as well.

True. The only variable is time.
It depends how good the pizza is.

Just because Apple has made this move doesn't mean PowerPC is useless (or dead).

i_b_joshua

 

[wildworldofspor]

Honestly i would say that it's not as big a deal as you think. Yeah it's the OS..but intel is selling chips...that go in computers and guess who is the number 1 PC seller and what kind of chips they use? Bottom line their market share is big, i don't think Microsoft is gonna be able to lean on Intel and say don't give Apple this..cause MS would be hurting themself as well..what are they gonna do? Make it so Windows doesn't work on an Intel chip?

Well for some reason I can see the marketing:
my intel is faster than yours
no my intel is faster
no my intel is...
no my intel is faster than all your intels

if the hardware is the same then its an OS battle, which apple wins but microsoft owns 98% of the world, you can gaurentee they can make sure intel does thier will. So only way i see around that is OSX eventually gets opened up to all hardware companies as the OS will be all they have to compete on and it will be OS vs OS on the same hardware....then AMD could run it or whatever since MS will most likely lockdown intel

just .02

 

[OutThere]

Dual booting isn't nearly as fun as thinking about running the equivalent of WINE on OSX. That should clear up a lot, does anyone know if any has gotten WINE to run DirectX?

WineX
http://www.transgaming.com/

 

[isaacc7]

Oh shush. You not a blind follower so leave please. Thats the message right. I didn't know this was the "Apple did us right again thread". Sorry my posts don't make you feel better. But heah why do you need to feel better about this right?

Actually, I don't need help feeling good about this. What is annoying to me (and others) is that all of your "problems" have been shot down and you have convieniently ignored them. Let's recap...

If you bought 13 G5 Macs today, how long would they be useful? Well, considering that there won't be a G5 replacement for two years, I'd expect at least 5 years of service. Being a pro, you'd probably upgrade then anyway, right? And guess what, all the software you bought will work on the new machines 5 years from now, most likely running faster despite a layer of emulation being thrown into the mix.

Developers will stop writing for PPC. Umm, did you see or read anything about the keynote at all? Universal binaries mean that the software will run on both PPC and Intel based machines. The complier will take care of most of the work, most applications will translate seemlessly.

Longhorn will run just fine on machines I buy today. Umm, right. Microsoft's track record is one of needing much better machines to run the newer operating system. This has been the case for EVERY iteration of Windows. In this regard, windows machines are a much worse investment than Macs. In the age of OS X, every new version actually runs faster than the older one on older machines. I am currently using what started life as a Beige G3 233 MHZ and I'm running 10.3.9 rather well.

See the problem is that we don't know what you're worried about and don't see any advantage to what you propose. Plus you are bitching about a situation that is largely out of Apple's hands. So, if you're not going to respond to these points (and they have been brought up several times) maybe you should leave and spare us your angst.

Isaac

 

[MacTruck]

Alright...all thoughts on how the software will be able to be recompiled for the Mactels, this is going to be ****. Apple is going to pull the same **** they did last time they transferred...from OS 9 to OS X...once the majority of their line runs on x86 they will abandon the PPC architecture, tell the rest of their customers to get with the ball game and move on.

Apple has introduced a new factor, a system that's not a "real" mac and not a "real" PC, meaning there will be no software for it. Professionals will not move to Mactels because the major software companies will be extremely slow to produce software for them...Don't try and bring up the argument that Apple says it will be very easy to transfer to the new platform....no matter how simple it is it is very complex for a software company to halt current production, re-build their major apps (see Adobe) and roll out a completely new line, while still trying to maintain back-compatbility with different systems (Apple intends to work with both IBM and Intel...)

This entire process will be a NIGHTMARE...happy progressive Intel-types be damned, I have no objection to the type of hardware that is underneath it all, but I do object to the fact that this is ultimately going to crush Apple. I'm crushed to see a company that I always held in great esteem falling...and they will fall...into the pits of history.

This means that I will not be buying another Mac until they really figure out their game plan....I was planning on giving $2500 to Apple for a shiny new PM this summer....but I guess that they do not want to sell computers any more, since PPC will be utterly obsolete when they introduce the nightmare.



Good bye Apple...it was nice when you thought different.

EXACTLY!

 

[Spazmodius]

I'm really confused why Apple doesn't want to use PowerPC.

They do want to use PowerPC. The fact is, they can't. IBM looked at the bottom line, heard Steve dis them at a keynote, said "F**k this noise!", and now suddenly PowerPC is teh suxors, and Intel is teh bomb!! w00t.

To my understanding, IBM seems to always has better cutting edge CPU technologies than Intel and AMD (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Well, they're better than Intel anyway. AMD is pretty respectable, but not so much in the portable realm.

 

[jared_kipe]

WineX
http://www.transgaming.com/

Oh thank the gods. Ladies and Gentlemen, The Messiah, Steve, just gave us our gaming mac!

 

[Stella]

No you wont, and they never confirmed it. All that they said was that they would not tray and stop people from doing it.

Something like VMWare would be able to run windows very well on x86-64 OS X, but I am not sure it will be easy to just dual boot to windows unless people create the right drivers.

And how is that different\ - if they won't let you stop you doing it?

So, you'll be able to dual boot OSX and Windows, won't you.

VMWare would have to ported first on Intel OSX, unless you are running from Windows.

 

[jimbobb24]

WHY WHY? just when I am starting to become a mac fanatic...

I hate CISC chips and long pipelines. For us geeks, it's not only about speed, but also about elegance in design. I would use a slower system if it has a better design.

Apple's hardware business will be over as soon as hackers figure out a way to run OSX on generic hardware.

Don't be dramatic.

That should take hackers...what?...two weeks tops? Yeah, its going to happen whether Apple likes it or not. And guess what, people who hack systems don't buy a copy of OSX.

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

how can anybody think this is bad? there's loads of peeps like me who can't afford a mac...now they'll at least make some cash off of the software (for me...OSX / Logic) that they wouldn't have made in the first place.

I think Apple will still make cash off of they're hardware. they'll probably REALLY concentrate on making kick ass PC's (not that they don't anyway). If they make kick ass stuff at affordable prices...they can become the next Dell.
This is a good thing....i think A LOT more people will start using Apple software now. I can't wait to have a dual boot laptop.... windoze AND OSX


"it's a good thing"

More people buying Macs isn't always a good thing. A Mac running Windows isn't a good thing. Cheep hardware isn't always a good thing...

 

[mandis]

So, you really think that Apple and Intel are planning on using current Intel chips in 2006? Interesting. Apple talked about the future of Intel CPU's, their roadmap. You make it sound as if Apple will be putting 286's into the future Macs. This is a true partnership. Expect to see a new chip, launched by Intel just for the Mac. Just like they did back in the day for IBM. Apple is not trying to make a fancy PC clone. They're trying to make the 2006 model Mac. For all we know these new Mac could be using the 64bit Alpha chips (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/cn102797.htm).

Whatever!

Interesting... I 've never heard of those Alpha chips. If Intel is working on a custom chip just for apple, then things could be a lot different than we thought. Could that be the new G6 then?

Bloody Hell! This is so F@@@@ckin frustrating!!

 

[runninmac]

Thanks isaacc7 you put it very well into what i was thinking. (if that makes sence).

 

[tokevino]

Does future machines really run faster if switched to Intel processors than on PowerPC?

In fact, for raw horsepower, Intel has ran a bit faster than G5 for more than a year now, and Intel's Dual Core Pentium D is just released, too. Further, AMD can make a chip that runs even faster than Intel.

Moreover, Intel is a bigger company than IBM, what makes SJ think that Intel will be more willing to do business with Apple? What makes SJ think that Intel will have more devotion on Apple than IBM?

Intel doesn't have production problems. I bet Intel has extra capacity to make the amount that Apple needs. When a company have extra production capacity, why not produce and sell? It's common sense.

Or the answer is, Apple is tired of the pressure of having to delivering faster machines than their PC counterpart, and simply wants to break even by switching to Intel?

The fact is, if Apple doesn't switch today, it will probably die with PPC altogether. PPC is not as good as it used to be, unless it is for a game console...

 

[maxvamp]

Just got done digging into the docs for Rosetta and the Mactel machine.

Some notes that should concern everyone:

1.) No classic apps what so ever will run on OS X86

2.) 64-Bit anything is not supported on OS X86. There is no X86-64 support what so ever!!

3.) Rossetta is the equivalent of a G3 (SANS Altivec ), so if it won't run on a G3, then it won't run on X86-32

See this.

Max.

 

[fgdn17]

First, NeXT machines used Motorola 68040 CPUs.

Second, neither Apple nor Microsoft were around in 1974. Heck, there was no such thing as a personal computer in 1974, because there were no personal computers in 1974!

NeXT also released later the NeXTdimension for the Cube. It is a board based on an intel860, wich offers a true 32bit Postcript color display and video sampling features. You could buy the NeXTdimension board alone or a NeXTcube upgraded with it, sometimes refered as "color Cube".


1975 January: The Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems (MITS) develop Altair 8800, the first personal computer. It is on the cover of "Popular Electronics" along with a lenghty article. The article catches Paul Allen and Bill Gates' eyes, and they develop a BASIC Interpreter for Altair.

Apple I
Codename: ?

CPU: MOS Technology 6502

CPU Speed: 1 MHz

FPU: none

Bus Speed: 1 MHz

Data Path: 8 bit

Onboard RAM: 8 kB

Maximum RAM: 32 kB

VRAM: 1 kB

Maximum Resolution: 60.05 Hz, 40x24 char

Power: 58 Watts

Introduced: April 1976


The Altair Age really began in December 1974, when subscribers to Popular Electronics magazine received the January 1975 issue in the mail. Featured on the cover was the computer that jump-started the computer hobbyist movement and set the course for the personal computer revolution. For $397, a small company called MITS, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, was offering a microcomputer kit, the Altair 8800, based on the new Intel 8080 microprocessor. The Altair was an immediate hit, to say the least! Orders piled into the small MITS office, and its founder, Ed Roberts, was on his way to fame and fortune.


guess you better check your memory again huh??????????????

 

[jZilla]

IBM likely said they decided they would not develop the G5 in the future, Apple was too small a customer to matter, and Apple desperately looked for some solution.

Could well be how it came about, but praise to Jobs for having ran OSX on Intel architecture for 5 years and been ready to get all those developers to assist his "desperate" attempts to solve where he is now at.

 

[OutThere]

Just got done digging into the docs for Rosetta and the Mactel machine.

Some notes that should concern everyone:

1.) No classic apps what so ever will run on OS X86

2.) 64-Bit anything is not supported on OS X86. There is no X86-64 support what so ever!!

3.) Rossetta is the equivalent of a G3 (SANS Altivec ), so if it won't run on a G3, then it won't run on X86-32

See this.

Max.

Life with Mactel will be a nightmare...I cannot see this process being handled gracefully, it looks like it's all going to end up a huge mess in which there is no real way to see what's right.

 

[gibjer]

After watching the keynote I am not as worried about this switch as I thought I was going to be. All the apps, even ones not compiled for intel seemed to work well (granted slower load times, but that's a given with any emulation)


Bets are that all of the major apps will retain processor compatablilty, my guess, for probably the next 5 years (especially if apple keeps the "checkbox" in xcode") it will be very easy to complie seperate versions of each (I don't know if there is any benifit of doing it thise way, or doing the universal) But at least people won't HAVE to wait for companies like Quark to get off their asses to move onto the next OS / hardware.

I plan on buying a little apple stock in say .... 8 months though, apple has doomed the sales of their hardware untill something with intel ships, I am actully surprised that they put the keynote on their website. I wonder how "open" they will be at the apple stores to the common public who knows no more about this then the difference between a mac and pc to begin with.