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
jar said:Besides, who knows how many more G5s Micrsoft will need for Xbox360 development?
Ha! Good point. That raises a question. Did those XBOX360 dev kits come on a stock dual G5 with a new video card? I think that was the case and IBM didnt provide any of their supposed high-end 3-core chips for these machines. I'm sure MS has a few of those amazing chips, but I bet IBM has "fabrication issues" when it comes to ramping those up for production.
eVolcre said:Isaac, I'm still a couple of pages behind. Farging connection went down on me. You want to handle this one or give me the pleasure?
Lets see what lies ahead ... no NOT TWO years, but two PAGES.
oooohhhhhhh.
D*I*S_Frontman said:
Well, I think you are dead on with what Steve would like to do in spirit. But technically I'd just like to point out that these Universal Binaries will in fact only run on PPC or x86 CPUs, so if Apple should find some new architecture they want to adapt in the future, these "Universal" Binaries would be no good without another Rosetta-like emulator.
Redneck1089 said:
assuming these developers do the right thing and put out these "Universal Binaries" then we should be ok. if you think about it current PPC owners are actually the ones that are going to be a lot safer during this switch. because:
1. SJ said it himself, not every app is going to be universal on day one. the Intel machines will use Rosetta and the PPC machines will run that stuff natively.
2. the devs know that not everyone in the world will run out and buy a brand new Mac, not for a long time. they will not throw away their entire user base in hopes of getting the first few early adopters of the new machines.
3. again, if the devs put out universal compiles then everyone should be ok, for a long long time. both the PPC and Intels will be running apps natively.
Maybe a Stupid Question
The question has probably been asked and answered in the last 55 pages, but I'll never have time to read the whole thread. Could an Intel based Mac run Windows without Virtual PC? And what about multi tasking? My 1.67GH PB seems to multi task better than my Toshiba with a 1.8GH Pentium M.
The question has probably been asked and answered in the last 55 pages, but I'll never have time to read the whole thread. Could an Intel based Mac run Windows without Virtual PC? And what about multi tasking? My 1.67GH PB seems to multi task better than my Toshiba with a 1.8GH Pentium M.
applefan said:
according to what has been said yes, you should be able to install Windows on an Intel based Mac and dual boot between the two. how well it will work and what drivers will and will not be available is another story. Apple will not be promoting or supporting any other OS on the Intel Macs. but yeah, it should work. i plan to be running BeOS on mine.
Only time will tell. Nobody here knows anything for sure. We will know in 2 yrs what apple will become. We need to just put it out of our minds until apple comes out with it.
gkarris said:
Rather, I think that Rosetta wil be extended to let Wintel apps run at 100% on OS X Intel... just need to map the OS calls. etc. not emulate Windows.
Dick
applefan said:
In theory, an Intel based Mac could run Windows in the same way that Classic runs in OS X now. It is also possible that someone could develop a system for running Windows apps inside OS X as if they were native OS X applications, but there would be messy interface issues to deal with in that case. MS might choose to pursue the first option. Apple will not do either themselves. It also will probably be possible to dual-boot Windows and OS X on an Intel Mac, and Apple has said they will not do anything in particular to prevent it.
I'm not sure about your multitasking question...it depends on whether the speed is due to OS X or the PPC.
It's the OS, stupid !
I have moved to Apple for one reason only. Being a lifelong user of UNIX, I was happy to have a beautiful laptop with a nice GUI wrapped around the only sensible operating system (UNIX). Having the CLI and the Finder interacting in such a great way made my day. If I can code longer without having to look for a socket and the disturbing sensation of getting roasted, then give me that thing today. And if my software runs faster, I'm fine too. I hope this move helps the company which gave me that wonderful OS to continue to grow and to set the standard for a future beyond Windows. I keep my fingers crossed. Good night.
I have moved to Apple for one reason only. Being a lifelong user of UNIX, I was happy to have a beautiful laptop with a nice GUI wrapped around the only sensible operating system (UNIX). Having the CLI and the Finder interacting in such a great way made my day. If I can code longer without having to look for a socket and the disturbing sensation of getting roasted, then give me that thing today. And if my software runs faster, I'm fine too. I hope this move helps the company which gave me that wonderful OS to continue to grow and to set the standard for a future beyond Windows. I keep my fingers crossed. Good night.
is it really any different...
Just the name "intel" seems to strike terror into the hearts of mac users.
But is it really any different than switching from G3's to G4's, or G4's to G5's?
Not everybody quit buying G4 macs because G5's were scheduled to come out. People buy the best system available when they need a new system. Period. Mac is about the OS, anyway. The OS will run on either chip. Steve said so. Steve is smart. If it weren't for him, Apple would have tanked long ago. If Steve says it's good, I'll go with that. He wouldn't do it if he didn't think it will help Apple and the Mac OS in the long run. And I still believe Apple will continue to build superior machines that run a superior OS.
The reason for switching from PowerPCs to Intel chips is the same as when the switch was made from 680xx chips to PowerPC's: it's a change for the better! Macs are reaching a bottleneck. Time to break the bottleneck. Change is painful. But Steve's not afraid of change. For Steve, change is good. Believe in Steve. It will all be good.
Just the name "intel" seems to strike terror into the hearts of mac users.
But is it really any different than switching from G3's to G4's, or G4's to G5's?
Not everybody quit buying G4 macs because G5's were scheduled to come out. People buy the best system available when they need a new system. Period. Mac is about the OS, anyway. The OS will run on either chip. Steve said so. Steve is smart. If it weren't for him, Apple would have tanked long ago. If Steve says it's good, I'll go with that. He wouldn't do it if he didn't think it will help Apple and the Mac OS in the long run. And I still believe Apple will continue to build superior machines that run a superior OS.
The reason for switching from PowerPCs to Intel chips is the same as when the switch was made from 680xx chips to PowerPC's: it's a change for the better! Macs are reaching a bottleneck. Time to break the bottleneck. Change is painful. But Steve's not afraid of change. For Steve, change is good. Believe in Steve. It will all be good.
MacTruck said:
That's right, and nobody really knows what the future is...
But one wild thought: Should Longhorn failed, which means MS had to really mess itself up, Apple may really get the chance to be the next MS... of course, at the expense of quiting the hardware business...
I think a few people in this thread are up past their bedtime. I hate when school is out for the summer...
Really. Relax. Get a good nights sleep. Read. Think. Quit blabbering for just a little bit and you may learn something. Wait for a few developers and other people that really know about these things to have a chance to look into it and report some of their findings to us. Maybe some of what you say will be correct. But I doubt you have better info than Apple. I doubt your livelihood is as directly connected as those making these decisions.
This decision took balls. Five years of planning has gone into this very situation. The livelihood of the mac depends on it. Would you rather that
Apple didn't compile all versions of OS X for Intel along the way? And then IBM dumps Apple or leaves them in limbo forever with no hope of getting a G5 or anything better for the laptops? Or stuck forever under 3 Ghz. While MS gets dual 3+ gigs for the yet to be released XBox? Don't you remember Motorola?
Really. Just sit back for awhile. Nothing will happen to you or the Mac you have now or may get soon.
Good night.
Really. Relax. Get a good nights sleep. Read. Think. Quit blabbering for just a little bit and you may learn something. Wait for a few developers and other people that really know about these things to have a chance to look into it and report some of their findings to us. Maybe some of what you say will be correct. But I doubt you have better info than Apple. I doubt your livelihood is as directly connected as those making these decisions.
This decision took balls. Five years of planning has gone into this very situation. The livelihood of the mac depends on it. Would you rather that
Apple didn't compile all versions of OS X for Intel along the way? And then IBM dumps Apple or leaves them in limbo forever with no hope of getting a G5 or anything better for the laptops? Or stuck forever under 3 Ghz. While MS gets dual 3+ gigs for the yet to be released XBox? Don't you remember Motorola?
Really. Just sit back for awhile. Nothing will happen to you or the Mac you have now or may get soon.
Good night.
buying tips
if you need a computer I would go with the ibook with the edu discount.
$899 gets you a good interm solution.
addicted44 said:
if you need a computer I would go with the ibook with the edu discount.
$899 gets you a good interm solution.
dicklacara said:
Personally, I dont think this will ever happen, at least not at the hands of Apple. The reason is because Windows and OS X have very different interface design philosophies, which when meshed together (i.e. using Windows and OS X apps at the same time) would create a generally inconsistent and unpleasant user experience.
guez said:
AWESOME. i don't necessarily agree with your opinions or your classifications but this was pretty damn good. *applause*
Now, where is my Dungeons and Dragons analogy I requested 4 pages ago??
We have got star wars, japanese empire and star trek. Come on fellas, hook me up here to make the night complete!
admanimal said:
I estimate about a week after Intel-Tiger comes out, it will be running on some hacker's Dell. You'll see the story posted to Slashdot the next day (and in true Slashdot tradition, again the next week.)
That said, if it happens I'll still be buying a Power Mac. Or whatever the hell they'll be called.
Before one thrashes the decision...
From the threads, it is pretty obvious to me that most people will be concerned with the performance of MacOS X on the Intel x86 microprocessor. I wasn't there for the WWDC 2005 keynote address but you can see the streaming video for yourself at:-
http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
I saw the video and I must say that the performance of MacOS X Tiger 10.4.1 on the 3GHz Pentium 4 is pretty impressive. From widget "droplet" effects to spotlight searches, from application loading to rosetta, the "developer's version" of the Intel Mac hardware used by Steve Jobs during the demo is fast, snappy and rivals the best PowerPC based PowerMac in the market today.
It is already confirmed that Intel Macs will be able to boot into Windows but Intel PCs will not be able to boot into Mac OS X. Therefore, this means that there is architecturally very little difference between a Intel Mac and a generic Intel PC. The MacOS X install lock is probably built into the OS and not the machine.
I am sure that within weeks after developers thinker with the $999 developer's kit, we'll be treated to more information on the architecture of these machines.
I am pretty interested to see where this will lead but this does pose a great pricing dilemma for Apple:-
1. If they price the Intel Macs too high, the machines will not be as attractive to computer buyers when they do a specifications comparison with the Dells, Compaqs and etc. Previously, this apple-to-apple (forgive the pun) comparison could not be done because of the different architecture.
2. If they price the Intel Macs too low, the margins that Apple enjoys for being a premium computer company will evaporate. This means that profitability will shrink and the company will find it hard press to survive in the cut throat Intel PC business. Without the volume, companies can't survice- which is why even IBM sold away its PC and notebook business to Lenovo.
Which ever pricing model they choose, it sure will be an interesting time ahead....
From the threads, it is pretty obvious to me that most people will be concerned with the performance of MacOS X on the Intel x86 microprocessor. I wasn't there for the WWDC 2005 keynote address but you can see the streaming video for yourself at:-
http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
I saw the video and I must say that the performance of MacOS X Tiger 10.4.1 on the 3GHz Pentium 4 is pretty impressive. From widget "droplet" effects to spotlight searches, from application loading to rosetta, the "developer's version" of the Intel Mac hardware used by Steve Jobs during the demo is fast, snappy and rivals the best PowerPC based PowerMac in the market today.
It is already confirmed that Intel Macs will be able to boot into Windows but Intel PCs will not be able to boot into Mac OS X. Therefore, this means that there is architecturally very little difference between a Intel Mac and a generic Intel PC. The MacOS X install lock is probably built into the OS and not the machine.
I am sure that within weeks after developers thinker with the $999 developer's kit, we'll be treated to more information on the architecture of these machines.
I am pretty interested to see where this will lead but this does pose a great pricing dilemma for Apple:-
1. If they price the Intel Macs too high, the machines will not be as attractive to computer buyers when they do a specifications comparison with the Dells, Compaqs and etc. Previously, this apple-to-apple (forgive the pun) comparison could not be done because of the different architecture.
2. If they price the Intel Macs too low, the margins that Apple enjoys for being a premium computer company will evaporate. This means that profitability will shrink and the company will find it hard press to survive in the cut throat Intel PC business. Without the volume, companies can't survice- which is why even IBM sold away its PC and notebook business to Lenovo.
Which ever pricing model they choose, it sure will be an interesting time ahead....
Well, I can say I told ya so (about 400 posts back in one of these threads).
It's good that Apple is moving. Both of their biggest developers are on board and they have finally ditched IBM who were really wasting Apple's time.
Apple moving to X86 means that they can dump Intel for AMD if things get bad with little hassle. It also means faster computers, which is good.
The only bad thing out of this whole deal is IBM. They either just failed or they were never really interested in the G5 (I suspect the former, but they will spin it as the latter). Good riddance to bad rubbish.
It's good that Apple is moving. Both of their biggest developers are on board and they have finally ditched IBM who were really wasting Apple's time.
Apple moving to X86 means that they can dump Intel for AMD if things get bad with little hassle. It also means faster computers, which is good.
The only bad thing out of this whole deal is IBM. They either just failed or they were never really interested in the G5 (I suspect the former, but they will spin it as the latter). Good riddance to bad rubbish.
- Status