Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[fgdn17]

Well..for me, I can't believe this rumor really came true. I can't believe that Apple really decided to terminate using PowerPC, the product that it claimed to have better performance, and once made it so powerful.. I saw the key note today, and as far as I remember, SJ didn't mention much about better performance for using Intel processors, not like he used to when Apple first came out with G3 or G5 processors. Does future machines really run faster if switched to Intel processors than on PowerPC?

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??

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?

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?

Well..for me, it's probably not that bad, since we might be able to see cheaper machine coming out (with higher performance for the same price). But I guess we won't be able to see a Macintosh that outperforms other WinTEL machines in the future.. I'm disappointed by IBM, honestly..I really hope that the alliance between Apple and IBM can hold..

It's just too bad....

maybe they know they have a better OS and cannot take advantage of it unless they compete on the same platform...makes sense to me!!!

of course they had that years ago but decided to do their own thing instead of competing and got burned badly...IMO

 

[ibjoshua]

deprecated -- maybe

Like many in this forum I am really dismayed at the apparent hysteria that some of our fellows are displaying at this latest news. Unlike many I'm not convinced that everything Apple says and does is gold but on the other hand I'm also not finding it particularly hard to accept that Apple has made this move for a good reason. Of course Apple has made mistakes before -- the clone licensing being an excellent example, but that doesn't mean it can't pull this off with benefits for all involved. Remember the migration to PowerPC? No? Many don't because the emulation was so well done. It happened a little over ten years ago and Apple is still here today (and so are some of those pre-PowerPC Macs).

Please calm down, using words like obsolete just makes you look hysterical.

From wiktionary.org:

Obsolete
No longer used, developed, sold, or supported -- primarily due to a preferred or recommended replacement. The connotation is that the subject is so old that it is essentially worthless.​

i_b_joshua

 

[iMeowbot]

So what kind of Intel processors will Apple be running?

Pentium 4's?

Centrino's?

Xeon's

The above are all basically the same thing as far as programming goes. That's what makes Intel attractive to Apple, they get to choose from a big variety of chips rather than trying to cover the whole product range with two or three parts.

Of course we don't know how the chips will be branded in a year or two, but they would use the same instruction set.

Itaniums?

These are not compatible with the new Xcode binaries, except through emulation (on-chip in early Itanics, software for the newer ones). An Itanic is also a big power hungry server chip, not something you could squeeze into a PowerBook without adding an asbestos case and a 50-pound battery.

 

[Spazmodius]

All SJ's Keynotes are rock concerts...Steve basks in the glow of the lights, the upturned faces of the Mac faithful beaming with love and devotion...like Prometheus bringing fire from Mt. Olympus, Steve shows the Macintoshians his newest salvation...a little white MP3 player. And there was much rejoicing.

Anyway, people telling us over and over to just watch the Keynote need to get their heads out of Steve-O's cloaca. It's theater, m'kay? I'll wait for a bit more sober analysis before I believe anything.

 

[ObsidianIce]

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!

It wouldn't run most likely, I don't think the OS will even install, since a requirement was built in usb, and no beige MAC had built in usb....but also i believe macTruck said "started as a 233"

 

[jar]

It's still going to be a tough road ahead

So a couple of key questions have been answered:

1) Apple WILL allow users to run Windows on Apple hardware;
2) Apple will NOT allow OS X to run on any hardware but their own.

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.

So it's conceivable that you could have a dual-boot system with both OS X and Windows... As long as it's Apple's hardware. It will be interesting to see how they plan to keep OS X off of non-Apple hardware; I guess it depends partly on how badly they really want to do so.

I still expect a bumpy road for the next two years, to wit:

1) Sales of existing G4/G5 machines will drop off.
2) Sales of as-yet unreleased Macs based on PPC chips (described by Jobs as "already in the pipeline") will be problematic.
3) The Transitive Technologies interpreter (Rosetta) has some serious limitations:

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

4) Inevitably some software developers will throw in the towel.

And, of course, this move puts the absolutely final nail in the OS9 coffin.

I wonder what the business plan is at Yellow Dog?

 

[oskar]

My biggest surprise is that they don't have something ready for sale shortly. Especially in the notebook area. ...edit
As for why not 5 years ago - well, PPC was looking like the best choice then. So go with the best choice.

Remember the "Mhz myth"? G3's and G4's used to be faster than Pentium procesors. Until a certain point so are/were G5 processors. If IBM should have delivered the promised 3 Ghz processors by last year, this change probably wouldn't haven't been made. Or maybe just not yet. IBM couldn't develop a cool enough G5 for the PowerBook either.

I think we will see a faster notebook with an intel processor before we see it in a PowerMac. There aren't current intel processor that would justify a new PowerMac release just yet to replace the current PM G5's. On the otherhand a Pentium M can be as fast and faster than current G4 PowerBooks. That change could justify a sooner release of a faster PowerBook.

 

[OutThere]

It wouldn't run most likely, I don't think the OS will even install, since a requirement was built in usb, and no beige MAC had built in usb....but also i believe macTruck said "started as a 233"

It was all in response to a post a couple of pages back saying "I'm running 10.3.9 pretty well on my 233 Beige G3"...there are hacks to get it to install, but I can't imagine what it's like...

 

[daustin]

now what?

Okay, first, I haven't read every post here, so forgive me if I repeat something someone already said...

I am really torn on this issue. My first thought is that I don't like it. I really, really, really don't like it. For one thing, all of the PPC based systems WILL be obsolete now. One thing about Macs is that they really do have a long lifespan. If you want to run the new stuff on your old computer, you usually can. Now, that will not be so. Companies will not waste too much time bothering with fat binaries. They may do it for one product cycle, but that will be all. (I'm thinking back to being a 12 year old kid being told that my NES would still have new games after the SNES came out...yeah, that lasted about a week.)

Second, Apple is going to have to do some serious marketing and a little rebranding. They are backtracking on everything they've said in the last ten years as far as PPC vs. x86 is concerned. I, for one, am a firm believer in the fact that PPC is better. I've used both processors for years, and always find that the PPC systems perform better out of the box. (I'm not talking mods here...I've never really been exposed to those.) Here's a quote I liked, “Apple has seriously undermined years of credibility by announcing the adoption of Intel processors,” said Technology Business Research analyst, Tim Deal. “The company has long touted the architectural advantages of the Power PC processor over that of Intel, particularly when running the kind of graphic-intensive applications the customers in its key vertical markets run. Now, Apple will need to prove itself again as it abandons one of its significant points of differentiation.”

Apple will now need to do something to keep those computers moving out the door. I was going to order a PowerMac a few weeks ago, but decided to wait until after the WWDC...now I really don't know what I'll do. I may end up just buying an iMac, but I'm really not so sure. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I also see this as a sign of other changes yet to come. I would be tempted to say that Apple is preparing to leave the hardware market, but with the success of the iPod, I'm not so sure. What they are essentially doing though is making it so that they CAN sell they're hardware division if they want to. (I can't remember, but didn't they spin something off recently...was it to create seperate hardware and software divisions, or was it Mac and iPod??)

Anyway...those are some of the thoughts in my noodle at the moment.

Oops, almost forgot...now that they've got this deal with Intel, what are they going to do about that Intel concept PC that looked exactly like a mini?? Wouldn't that be a little insulting? "Sir, Steve Jobs is here to sign that contract for you, but he wants to know why there's a Mac mini with the Apple logo rubbed off sitting in our design gallery?!"

D

 

[LaMerVipere]

I wanted 5th Generation iPods or colour-screen mini's.

Damn it to blazes.

 

[jared_kipe]

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?

That would never have happened. Sony's not interested, microsoft isn't interested, nobody is interested in developing games on the mac platform. Nobody would sacrifice sales of their hardware and software just to develop on mac. Here comes a way to run natively DirectX games, and it's called Mac on Intel.

 

[admanimal]

3) The Transitive Technologies interpreter (Rosetta) has some serious limitations:

Has anyone actually confirmed that Transitive makes Rosetta? My understanding is that Rosetta is software and I thought Transitive only produced hardware solutions.

 

[admanimal]

Here comes a way to run natively DirectX games, and it's called Mac on Intel.

Or more specifically, Wine on Mac on Intel.

 

[law guy]

Apple and Intel, sitting in a tree...

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.

Nuts when running the cobbled together XP. A dual 3.6 Xeon even runs clunky XP quite quickly.

 

[jimbobb24]

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

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??

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?

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?


It's just too bad....

Responding to questions in order:
1. Future is unknown of course, but since in all likelihood this change is motivated by the fact IBM is abandoning Apple then at some point Intel will certainly pass a stagnant G5

2. Currently, I think consumer space IBM=AMD > Intel. This does not entail the entire architecture where IBM>>>>>Intel (busses, chipsets, controllers, ect).

3. IBM can ignore Apple as their only small client. Intel will be making these chips anyway, for Dell, HP, ect. So, Apple is just one more buyer. Intel can care or not care, but Apple can still buy the chips.

4. IBM is bigger than Intel. IBM is 9 in sales, 23 in profits. Intel is 53 in sales, 29 in profits. Again, it won't matter what Intel wants. They will be making the chips anyway.

5. Yes, I think Apple just wants to have the Mhz problem go away. The hassle is not worth the times they are ahead.

 

[OutThere]

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

OUCH...if you look at that list, that really sums up quite a few apps...while very few of them touch on more than one category, a lot of apps we use now fit into at least one of those categories...

 

[ThomasJefferson]

With no product to sell and 06 as a target date, I sense a slow motion disaster.

 

[Spazmodius]

Doesn't Photoshop depend on Altivec pretty heavily? And doesn't a crapload of OSX depend on it?

 

[OutThere]

With no product to sell and 06 as a target date, I sense a slow motion disaster.

Agreed...I don't think that Apple can hold a base of customers, people silly enough to buy the current machines that will be done for when the Mactels arrive, until they get the Mactels off the line...which looks to me like a bad mix for the future of the company....

 

[admanimal]

Doesn't Photoshop depend on Altivec pretty heavily? And doesn't a crapload of OSX depend on it?

I dunno if photoshop depends on it, but steve did use rosetta to run it today on an Intel...so I guess it works.

 

[jar]

Has anyone actually confirmed that Transitive makes Rosetta? My understanding is that Rosetta is software and I thought Transitive only produced hardware solutions.

Transitive's QuickTransit system is software.

http://www.transitive.com/products.htm

 

[jared_kipe]

Or more specifically, Wine on Mac on Intel.

I'm sure someone will start developing a special WINE for the new x86 macs. Hell Aspyr or someone could stop porting games, and simply write the environment the game will run under. I anticipate quick turn around as Aspyr can basically just release Patches that offer support for game X.

 

[tokevino]

So what kind of Intel processors will Apple be running?

Pentium 4's?

Centrino's?

Xeon's Itaniums?

I bet it will not be P4. It will probably be Pentium D that has dual core for desktop.

Centrino is not a processor, it's a combination of Pentium M + Intel's WiFi chip. So for Pentium M, I think that's one of the major reason Apple chose Intel. Pentium M can take on a lot of today's Desktop Processor, and it's power consumption is just that good.

 

[GregA]

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.

What about Q1 next year? Steve said this time next year they would ALREADY be selling. He also referred to 2006-2007 as 2 years. That makes Q1 possible (and matches with the next PentiumM release?)

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.

A burn off between XP and OSX on the same hardware would be great. And I have no idea which would win.

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?)

Keep the 2 issues separate. Dashboard (running natively) was jerky was it? I had lots of jerky movement on the webcast - did you see it in person or are you basing it on that.

Photoshop (emulated/Rosetta) was slow.... Yeah it was. I was pleased he actually demonstrated something that wasn't instant. Really that's a program you'd want to run natively, but at least it works eh?

OUCH...if you look at that list, that really sums up quite a few apps...while very few of them touch on more than one category, a lot of apps we use now fit into at least one of those categories...

Not really. Code written for Altivec and code written for G4 and G5 won't run on Rosetta - but most apps have a mode for G3s. It makes sense since Intel doesn't have Altivec.

 

[MarkCollette]

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

It's not just an operating system issue, since it affects applications too. Say Apache has a bug that allows a buffer overflow, then no matter how well coded the OS is, that infection can still bring down your website. Or, more likely for regular users, what about your web browser, when you visit questionable sites?

The PPC has two things going for it:
1. Most buffer overflows are x86 code, so even if it "infected" your computer, it would only crash the application (Apache) instead of being able to do something malicious, like deleting all your files.
2. Depending which x86 chips are used (legacy with no NX bit), they are more vulnerable to buffer overflows than PPC, which has had this protection for a while.