Either I have the butterflies, or I'm going to vomit.
Ok people... lets step back and CALM DOWN. For those of you who think Steve just betrayed us, or that Apple losing a few cents in stocks means the end of the world, you all need to stop being so dramatic. I'll admit at first, I felt sick to my stomach once I heard about the big switch (and possible said Apple would be dead in a few years because of it), but now I've stepped back and tried to look at the big picture.
First, IBM and Motorola screwed the pooch on this one. I believe that Apple gave them both all the chances in the world to pump out a great product, and they just never followed thru. How many times did we hear about getting some new processor from Freescale (Motorola) or IBM, only got a bit of a speed boost. I admit the G5 is getting there in speed, its just IBM never got that big speed boost that got people excited about their processor like when the G5 was first presented. So much of this switch is their fault.
Next, no matter how much Steve shoves it down our throats, the transition will not be as easy as he says. This Rosetta technology looks impressive, but with Intel's register starved architecture, there is now way it will be "fast enough" for all applications. I'd like to see a demo of an application that does some big time crunching, something like VLC or Photoshop doing something more than just an emboss filter. Yes I realize that these will probably be ported real soon, but im sure there is some 3D game or other piece of software that will not run as "seamless" as promised. A good example could be the altivec enabled programs. I'd be interested to see some stats on that! I think its funny that the two programs demoed are probably two programs that will already be compiled on the release of the new Intel Macs. All in all though, I think I will be able to deal, considering most applications I use are widely used/actively being developed or are open source. So if worse comes to worst, I can just "Tweak, and recompile" on my own.
This switch can have some big positives though. One is just the shear volume of chips that Intel can produce. Higher volume will equal cheaper prices for the consumer. This is a good thing, but with that comes the inherent problems associated with the Pentium chip. Anyone who has taken an Assembly or Computer Organization/Archetechture course knows that Intel has added "hack" onto "hack" to keep compatible with legacy chips of the past. The whole x86 architecture has a history of being register deprived and a bit clunky to deal with at the lower level. Heck, it is a 'CISC' architecture with a RISC chip inside. Don't get me wrong though, Intel does a great job at making processors, granted they are still dealing some of their mistakes from the past. My question though is if Intel will include that extra layer used to keep legacy compatibility? Sure Tiger is running on a P4 now, but at release I see no need for the new PowerMac Intel chip to be a full Pentium. Now I don't know my Computer Engineering inside and out (I'm a Software Eng., and really think all you Comp. Eng./Low level programmers are nuts
) This may or may not be possible, but maybe a way to appease claims about the x86's inadequacy. I am also skeptical as to how far Intel can really take x86. With all the drive for legacy compatibility, it really add a lot of overhead that could slow things down. I also realize that PPC is better for floating pt and vectors, but lets not panic. We don't know what's in store for Intel in the next few years, they maybe able to catch up(although I do see this as one of the bigger down falls in the switch). Also like someone said, at this moment, Intel is NOT as fast as the G5 or some of AMD's offerings, but honestly at the rate IBM is going, it won't be long till Intel catches up!
Some good things that come with this though is the obvious use for the mobile line. Finally some higher power mobiles. This is a huge plus. Also the Mac will still be a Mac. There won't be Dell's, HP's etc running OSX unless Apple lets them. Sure someone may be able to hack it to work, but I believe people have been able to to that for years on 3rd party PPC boards, but I don't see a many of those! Apple will do its damnedest to keep OSX off of ugly computers (yes, yes this is opinion, but cut me some slack), and I predict, will also try to prevent Windows from running on their pretty machines. Other good things that will come with this are the ability to compile once for plugins for Quicktime, Photoshop, Illustrator etc. This is a good thing! One zip file to download and install, no matter what computer you're using!
The one thing that I have noticed people saying as a good thing is the possibility to run Windows applications through a 'Wine' like interface. THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING IN THE LONG RUN, I REPEAT, NOT A GOOD THING! Sure it will be nice to run a game or some Windows only app, but using a Mac and OS X is about the experience! A Windows app does not fall into the mac experience. I do like the idea of it being easier for software makers to port their software, but I don't want them to forget about the Mac platform and stop developing for it because Windows apps can run just as well. This is where Apple has to shine. If Apple is doing this right they will release XCode/Cocoa for Windows. Imagine if you could develop one application and have it run on both platforms. Have the Windows app work with Windows (ie: menu bar is on the actual Window, Windows buttons perhaps) and have the Mac app work/look like a mac app. This is the inroad to getting switchers. Much like iTunes was a way to give PC users a taste of how a mac works, every mac application could give PC users a taste of a mac, minus one big feature - the great operating system. I realize there are some logistic problems here, but it would be quite doable for many of the apps out there today for the cocoa. As cool as it would be to see a 'Wine' application to run some windows apps, it could spell the end of OSX a la OS/2.
All in all this is a HUGE leap, but I'm just not sure which direction. On one side we give in to the MHz 'myth' but get some higher end portables now. On the other side we get a chip that has some flaws, and maybe not as promising future as the PPC (although PPC is stagnant, I really think it has a better long term future. It is just Intel has done some great things things on a crap architecture, and right now great things on crap is better than doing nothing on something good). Without switch, you don't get low power, high end portables. Which is the right decision? I have no idea, hence the butterflies or projectile vomiting!
