Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
My biggest surprise is that they don't have something ready for sale shortly. Especially in the notebook area.neocell said:
As for why not 5 years ago - well, PPC was looking like the best choice then. So go with the best choice.
Any software company that thinks this - well all they have to do is offer a free upgrade to the Fat version for anyone who purchases their current software.heisetax said:
It'd be great to see them help windows developers - but they haven't mentioned that at all, they're talking about mac developers.EKIRNHADSW said:
2 options I'd like to see (and they have NOT done)
1. Release cocoa for Windows 0 - it'd be great to have any Cocoa-x86 program run on Tiger AND WinXP (and Linux!)
2. Help developers migrate from Win32 - just like when they migrated from OS9. Do this in conjunction with #1 so they can port once to Mac and have one binary for Mac, WinXP, and Linux. Just dreams
FairPlay. That's what I reckon. Do they really care if you TRY to make it run somewhere else - as long as you pay for it?admanimal said:
Just a reminder post. As it's been said about twenty times already in the thread... SEE THE KEYNOTE..
Please, before jumping to conclusions at least. A valid opinion was someone said the keynote is just a performance or stage act or something. Whatever... but first see the keynote.
I've read for about the tenth time someone saying how one day Apple says the PPC is the best and the next day their saying it isn't. That is NOT true. Jobs said the current PPC computers were great and would be for the time being. He never said the 3.6 Ghz Pentium 4 was a better processor. He just showed that it could run Tiger, and it is obviuos that Photoshop was slow (or only good enough).
Once more... SEE THE KEYNOTE!
Please, before jumping to conclusions at least. A valid opinion was someone said the keynote is just a performance or stage act or something. Whatever... but first see the keynote.
I've read for about the tenth time someone saying how one day Apple says the PPC is the best and the next day their saying it isn't. That is NOT true. Jobs said the current PPC computers were great and would be for the time being. He never said the 3.6 Ghz Pentium 4 was a better processor. He just showed that it could run Tiger, and it is obviuos that Photoshop was slow (or only good enough).
Once more... SEE THE KEYNOTE!
I think, for me, the transition will be acceptable. However, I have Adobe Creative Suite 1, and I would have not upgraded it, for another couple years. Now, if next summer I buy an Intel Mac, I won't be able to run CS 1 native on Intel. That sucks!
maxvamp said:
Thanks for posting these nuggets of information. It should be pointed out however that 64-bit doesn't really do anything for the average Joe anyway, so I wouldnt be too concerned about that anyway. In fact it can slow things down sometimes.
admanimal said:
In any case, it's much better if there is no custom chip, because if there is one, it will ultimately suck next to its contemporary Pentiums...Intel would never put more R&D into a niche chip for Apple than for its major line....
I agree. IBM signed a deal with Apple that said they would provide them with a line of customed made processors and that they would continue to improve and push forward. IBM also promised they would have them done by a certain deadline. IBM never met those deadlines. For Apple, this looked like it was turning into the same situatuion as they had with Motorola. Obviously they weren't gonna let that happen, so they had no choice but to finally make the switch. Most of you are saying "Apple has betrayed us", actually Apple tried really hard to stay with PPC. It's IBM and Motorola who have let all of us down. So don't blame Apple.tokevino said:
wildworldofspor said:
True, but considering Microsoft has and is running into antitrust issues their leaning can only so much, and it will really even out, becaue honestly Intel has only so much leverage against a chip maker because basically there are 2 out there ( yes i know other can run it) so standing there threatening someone that you're livelihood is deeply entwined with..and the other knows it....it only has so much weight. Intel vs AMD marketshare i don't exactly know, what's AMD have? about 20% maybe? And opening up the Mac OS to other hardware would be a definite sign of the end.
maxvamp said: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.
No surprise about the 64bit. But, then, it was only useful to a very few anyways, and the rest was marketing. Another reason science is out of the OSX market and into Linux in AMD64.
The Future is mobile
1. Doesn't apple sell more laptops
then desktops?
2. Isn't that way its going?
3. Why would you stick with a company if they can't
make a decent chip for a PB quickly enough?
4. PB + Ibook = $
5. Steve knows what a disaster their notebook line will be in a year from now.
6. They have money to burn right now from iPod sales. It's either now or lose you shorts.
1. Doesn't apple sell more laptops
then desktops?
2. Isn't that way its going?
3. Why would you stick with a company if they can't
make a decent chip for a PB quickly enough?
4. PB + Ibook = $
5. Steve knows what a disaster their notebook line will be in a year from now.
6. They have money to burn right now from iPod sales. It's either now or lose you shorts.
The Problem Is
for people like me who have some tech knowledge and who want to switch and in my case NEED to buy a laptop by the end of summer. I really can see no reason to buy a mac laptop until next summer despite my enthusiasm for OS X. I was planning on buying the next iBook rev and permanently switching all of my software over, but as a student with a family I don't have money to buy PPC software only to go back to x86. Feel free to offer PRACTICAL suggestions, but that Dell (with the $750 coupon) is looking very tempting for a short-term (til OS X.5) solution.
quackattack said:
for people like me who have some tech knowledge and who want to switch and in my case NEED to buy a laptop by the end of summer. I really can see no reason to buy a mac laptop until next summer despite my enthusiasm for OS X. I was planning on buying the next iBook rev and permanently switching all of my software over, but as a student with a family I don't have money to buy PPC software only to go back to x86. Feel free to offer PRACTICAL suggestions, but that Dell (with the $750 coupon) is looking very tempting for a short-term (til OS X.5) solution.
So what kind of Intel processors will Apple be running?
Pentium 4's?
Centrino's?
Xeon's Itaniums?
Pentium 4's?
Centrino's?
Xeon's Itaniums?
I liked the keynote. It gave me a lot of confidence in this transition. If Mathematica really was that easy - I see this being a pretty smooth transition. Those developers who are not using XCode might have a lot of work ahead of them.
Some of my thoughts:
1 Year to start the public on this switch is a ways off. I see Intel having a lot better processor than what IBM is giving Apple right now. Especially based on that processing power per watt idea. I don't know what chip that will be but I would surely hope that it is something along the line of dual core 64-bit.
I wonder what that little check box that says to Intel in XCode really does. It would be great if it would make the App cocoa and 64 bit. I don't know anything about it but that would be great.
By switching to the Intel chip I assume that if Intel couldn't produce and AMD could it would be very easy to put an AMD chip in there instead. It seems that the reason Apple states Intel is because they are teaming up with them (unless Intel is doing a special chip for Apple - doubt it).
I really hate the ambiguity of "Intel" chip. What kind of chip is it???
I hope that all developers click on both of those boxes in XCode so that the new apps are Intel and PPC native. Also, I am wondering does it really make it native or does it just make it close or more usable or what.
Also this is really going to show the beauty and blemishes of software - OS and Apps. It will be interesting to see how fast Photoshop on an Intel Mac compares in speed to a high end Windows box with the same processor in it for example.
I wonder about that Rosetta thing. Steve said fast (enough). His test machine seemed a bit sluggish to me. For example Dashboard showed with a jerk (not using Rosetta). Photoshop took quite a while to load and even the second picture loaded in sections (I wonder what video card specs on that machine are?)
Here's the final say for me. If this Intel Box comes out and its performance matches it's price and ALL of my Apps work at the speed I need or better than I will be buying one. If not I will be a couple of revisions behind and waiting for all the Apps to be switched over to avoid Rosetta if it doesn't pan out.
I am excited about the possibility of running non Mac Apps in a very fast way on this machine - Games and everything else. Please be as realistic as we all hope!
I don't think Apple will allow this to run on a cheap Dell but I do think that someone will hack it and make it work which might force Apple to continue to break it with updates or hopefully be innovative in their combination of hardware and competitive in their pricing.
If I can have the fastest, best balance of cost and performance, sleekest, quietest, most energy efficient hardware that runs OSX and all of the Mac Apps as well as easily and quickly run other apps while avoiding viruses, crashes, annoying window interface, etc. - I think this is a great move!!!
There are so many questions still. Please play out well. Please don't cost me a lot to transition to the new hardware and update all of my software!
CRAZY!
Some of my thoughts:
1 Year to start the public on this switch is a ways off. I see Intel having a lot better processor than what IBM is giving Apple right now. Especially based on that processing power per watt idea. I don't know what chip that will be but I would surely hope that it is something along the line of dual core 64-bit.
I wonder what that little check box that says to Intel in XCode really does. It would be great if it would make the App cocoa and 64 bit. I don't know anything about it but that would be great.
By switching to the Intel chip I assume that if Intel couldn't produce and AMD could it would be very easy to put an AMD chip in there instead. It seems that the reason Apple states Intel is because they are teaming up with them (unless Intel is doing a special chip for Apple - doubt it).
I really hate the ambiguity of "Intel" chip. What kind of chip is it???
I hope that all developers click on both of those boxes in XCode so that the new apps are Intel and PPC native. Also, I am wondering does it really make it native or does it just make it close or more usable or what.
Also this is really going to show the beauty and blemishes of software - OS and Apps. It will be interesting to see how fast Photoshop on an Intel Mac compares in speed to a high end Windows box with the same processor in it for example.
I wonder about that Rosetta thing. Steve said fast (enough). His test machine seemed a bit sluggish to me. For example Dashboard showed with a jerk (not using Rosetta). Photoshop took quite a while to load and even the second picture loaded in sections (I wonder what video card specs on that machine are?)
Here's the final say for me. If this Intel Box comes out and its performance matches it's price and ALL of my Apps work at the speed I need or better than I will be buying one. If not I will be a couple of revisions behind and waiting for all the Apps to be switched over to avoid Rosetta if it doesn't pan out.
I am excited about the possibility of running non Mac Apps in a very fast way on this machine - Games and everything else. Please be as realistic as we all hope!
I don't think Apple will allow this to run on a cheap Dell but I do think that someone will hack it and make it work which might force Apple to continue to break it with updates or hopefully be innovative in their combination of hardware and competitive in their pricing.
If I can have the fastest, best balance of cost and performance, sleekest, quietest, most energy efficient hardware that runs OSX and all of the Mac Apps as well as easily and quickly run other apps while avoiding viruses, crashes, annoying window interface, etc. - I think this is a great move!!!
There are so many questions still. Please play out well. Please don't cost me a lot to transition to the new hardware and update all of my software!
CRAZY!
isaacc7 said:
* OK Lets look at them? *
isaacc7 said:
* Are you on crack? You have no way of knowing any of this. 5 yrs of service? Hardly. Show me a mac besides the ones that get upgrade cards that get 5 yrs of service *
isaacc7 said:
* Seemlessly hugh, again you have no way of knowing any of this. Just because jobs says its true does not make it so. Again, blind following.*
isaacc7 said:
* Flat out lie. I am sure your 233mhz machine runs well. I use a 400mhz G3 for testing and its the biggest dog. Lets see, idvd not supported, needs G4 cpu, Quartz extreme not supported, Core image not supported, list goes on. Longhorn needs new machines? Maybe but XP Pro runs fine on my IBM thinkpad I bought in 2000 and its a 750mhz PIII with 384mb ram.*
isaacc7 said:
* maybe you should leave fanboy. Just another jobs can do no wrong follower.*
Apple and Intel, sitting in a tree...oskar said:
Honestly. It's a show. Did you believe when he told you about the MHz myth? Did you believe 3GHz in 12 months? Now you believe that Intel is great, because that's what SJ said.
Even though independent benchmarks show the Prescott P4 to suck donkey nuts. Good lord.
Oh Contraire, the new games are all PPC
What about all the new games that could have been easily ported over from Sony and Microsoft's 3.2 ghz consoles running IBM/Toshiba Cell Processor? (Essentially a very fast multicore G5)
As usual Steve is a day late and a dollar short! I wonder if the Japanese will take up the slack, and make a truely high performance desktop / laptop computer?
jared_kipe said:
What about all the new games that could have been easily ported over from Sony and Microsoft's 3.2 ghz consoles running IBM/Toshiba Cell Processor? (Essentially a very fast multicore G5)
As usual Steve is a day late and a dollar short! I wonder if the Japanese will take up the slack, and make a truely high performance desktop / laptop computer?
Tooooooooo Much
Over 50 pages, 1250 posts and counting. What a day to be a macrumors newbie.
See Ya
Over 50 pages, 1250 posts and counting. What a day to be a macrumors newbie.
See Ya
MacTruck said:
Oofa...agreed. Just the thought of trying to run OS X on a 233 hurts. OS 8 ran poorly on my 266 Beige G3 that I phased out last summer....not a thought towards the pain that OS X on it would bring. On a 233 in OS X I doubt you could listen to music or play movies in any form...not to mention how long it must take to render websites, or the problems you'd have with Flash ads!
- Status