Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[WannabeSQ]

Won't happen. Shiller said that Mac OS X will stay on Apple built computers. As it should. Apple needs to control the entire system..

Right. I use both windows and Macs every day, and one of the biggest problems with windows stems from the very nature of an open system. When my mac has a problem, It is either Apple, or the software company. Everything is built in (firewire, ethernet, etc etc) with PCs, even with onboard LAN and firewire there are so many different chipsets that they can and will cause problems. Apple's system is controlled by them, and should continue to be. That eliminates a whole lot of potential problems right there. I am anxious for this transition, and provided I have the funds I will be one of the first to buy the new Intel based Mac.

 

[itsa]

Dead as Fred...

Max.

So are we looking at a whole new motherboard?

 

[dicklacara]

It's unfortunate, I think, that IBM has been unable to meet the roadmap. It is highly unfortunate that they were unable to develop a low power, adequately performing G5 for mobile computing.

The biggest issue is the loss of distinction between Wintel/x86/AMD, etc users and PowerPC users. I know that it is somewhat artificial, given that upon moving to a platform independent OS Mac has had the ability to run on x86 architecture for a long time.. however, this just makes us all together in one pool... x86 users.. running different OSs.

I just think that running on a different chip makes a huge difference.. at least, to me.. philosophically. Maybe it's just me, but now I feel like I'm walking in Microsoft's shadow... It makes me feel like I'm using cheap, shoddy equipment. I just can't shake the feeling that the same chip that is running in some POS DELL is RUNNING IN MY BELOVED MAC. And for those of you who are pointing out all the shared components such as hard drives, graphic cards, etc. Foo to you. The chip is the soul of a computer.

Better check your meds...

 

[admanimal]

Why?

Why not just the ability to run Wintel apps at 100% on OS X Intel?

Because it would be a horrendous user experience. Even the keyboard shortcuts are totally different between windows apps and os x. The menus have different conventions. Popup menus are much more common in Windows. OS X apps always just have one menu bar, Windows apps can have many. The list goes on. One of the reasons that OS X is so pleasant to use is that it provides a very consistent user experience. Windows apps are somewhat consistent, but to a lesser degree. But OS X and Windows are not very consistent at all with each other. This is why Apple will never provide this functionality.

 

[maxvamp]

So are we looking at a whole new motherboard?

Yep... New Proc, Northbridge, and Southbridge. Probably could keep the memory though...

Max.

 

[WannabeSQ]

Why?

Why not just the ability to run Wintel apps at 100% on OS X Intel?

Isn't that what you really want?

No mal-ware!

Dick

I have doubts that apple will allow this, as it wont encourage developers to make mac versions of software if it can simply be run as a windows program. Virtual PC on the other hand should get a nice speed boost, as it no longer has to emulate hardware. If Virtual PC for Mac OS X Intel gives near native speeds, it will sell like hotcakes for people who need this feature. I initially bought a PC cause the cost of VPC was so close to buying the PC, and the PC was infinitely faster.

 

[JeffHendr]

I've seen Apple come up with some pretty amazing innovations over the past few years, and they always seem to be on the leading edge of style and performance. I'm not so sure we should automatically assume that we know that much about the chip that Intel and Apple plan to stick into the next generation of Macs. It's pretty safe to say that it will be compatible with x86 architecture, but what else are we certain of? Do we know if it's 32-bit or 64-bit? Do we know if it's dual core? Do we know anything about the cache or the bus speed? How many people had any idea what the G5 would be like two years out? How many people even knew that the G5 would be 64-bit at that time? ...Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here, but Apple and Intel could have some very interesting and very powerful technology on the way, perhaps even designed exclusively for Apple (maybe Intel wants to try out some new ideas that they feel less free to explore in the more stationary/stable PC world).

Next idea--it seems to me that if anything is going to change for Apple's hardware market, it should get a boost from this. I see it this way--you can either buy a PC that can run Windows Longhorn (maybe XP if the date keeps slipping) but not OS X, or you can possibly spend a few dollars more to get a Mac that runs the best of both worlds. Most of my Windows friends are amazed by OS X and the sleek look of the Apple hardware, but they're afraid of running into compatibility issues if they take a leap of faith into the Apple world. Their primary argument, however, will soon become null and void if the Mac can dual boot both OS's.

My experience so far with Apple, since switching from Windows, forces me to have a little faith in their ability to make something great out of this situation. I wouldn't declare that the world is ending before even seeing the end product.

 

[tokevino]

ok.. let me ask this. Will I be able to buy an intel chip to upgrade my G5 2.7 that I just got... or will it be obsolete well before it's time?

First question: no.
Second question: no.

Your best bet? Universal Binary support until the answer to the second question become "yes" in another 3 years or so ...

 

[MontyZ]

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.

How can you, or anyone, possibly know this will "end up a huge mess" when it's only just been announced? Are you a fortune teller?

 

[admanimal]

So are we looking at a whole new motherboard?

Your computer will be fine and will be supported by nearly all (definitely all major) applications via Universal Binary until I would guess 2008 or 2009 (A couple years after Apple completes the transition). I think Fat Binaries stuck around even longer than that after the switch from 68k->PPC.

 

[dicklacara]

As 50% of the next 1000 posts will argue, it ultimately doesn't really matter what the processor is as long as it provides the same Apple user experience.

However, this transition is going to be extremely tough on Apple. Who is going to buy an Apple computer for the next year? Steve tried something very similar when he was at NeXT -- in that case deciding to kill off their hardware before they fully provided a transition to Intel based PCs. One could argue that NeXT was headed down the tubes well before that event, but it really killed them because they had zero revenue stream.

As an example, I need to replace my 4 year old G3 iBook. It is my traveling computer, so it has been functioning fine even if it is slow. The batteries are dead or dying, so I would rather buy a new laptop than invest anymore money in this dinosaur. I have been able to wait and so I have been waiting all of the time for a G5 laptop. That baby ain't coming now. What do I do now? (1) Tough it out for one more year with a battery that lasts only 1 hr (really painful for cross country flights) and wait for the an Intel M offering, or (2) Invest money in a current Apple laptop offering that is already pretty long in the tooth and will be viewed as a completely obsolete (in the hard sense that there will be important programs that it will be unable to run) in two years.

Prices on current hardware are going to have to completely tank to make people buy. That might be good enough for me, but Apple is going to kiss their earnings goodbye for a year or longer.

Why not just buy another battery and watch as the dust settles?

 

[fgdn17]

Because it would be a horrendous user experience. Even the keyboard shortcuts are totally different between windows apps and os x. The menus have different conventions. Popup menus are much more common in Windows. The list goes on. One of the reasons that OS X is so pleasant to use is that it provides a very consistent user experience. Windows apps are somewhat consistent, but to a lesser degree. But OS X and Windows are not very consistent at all with each other. This is why Apple will never provide this functionality.

so your saying the APPLE Engineers aren't able to do this...fooy...they
have proved their worth...WHO CARES WHAT IS UNDER THE HOOD AS LONG AS IT WORKS AS IT SHOULD...and the APPLE ENGINEERS already have MAC OSX working fine
on intel machines...so relax...

 

[Laurent]

The only reason I can imagine Apple not forwarding into it's 64 bit march with Intel could be cost reasons, or Apple fear that Intel might not overcome similar problem that IBM had related to the G5. If the transition is done right, Apple could comfortably introduce 64 bit processors on their high end models in 2 years.

64 bit is expensive and not for everyone, calling the processor G5 (read: the only step after G4) was stupid to begin with...

 

[heisetax]

Boycott Apple!!!

Apple have betrayed us all never again will i use a mac and no more will they be as pc users flock to buy osx for pentium 4s i wish i was there i would have bood

Usually if Steve Jobs announces something at WWDC 95-100% of the people would be in his favor. With this announcement he only got 50% positive with a clear 20% negative. Usually the negative is very understated on these types of polls. With 442 Negatives in less than 1,000 answer rating, it looks as if the initial Mac User answer is the most negative since Steve Jobs has come back. The one failure that was credited to him was the Mac G4 Cube. That probably revolved more about the price than anything else.

Everybody needs to make a big NO vote by not purchasing any Apple products. But knowing Steve Jobs he'll just think that no sales means that he was correct rather than he was eliminating a product that people liked, but was replacing it with something that has stood for anti-Mac. Either Steve Jobs was lying to us when he said than the PPC was better than the Intel processors, or he's lying to us now when he says that the Intel processor is better than the PPC. You can't have it both ways. There must be more than me that has a memory that lasts this long.

Rember to email Apple. Vote Terrible on this Web Site. Boycott Apple products.

Bill the TaxMan

 

[admanimal]

so your saying the APPLE Engineers aren't able to do this...fooy...they
have proved their worth...WHO CARES WHAT IS UNDER THE HOOD AS LONG AS IT WORKS AS IT SHOULD...and the APPLE ENGINEERS already have MAC OSX working fine
on intel machines...so relax...

What are you talking about? I didn't say they technically couldnt get it to work, I'm saying it would not be a pleasant or Apple-like experience for the end user at all. I didn't say anything about whats under the hood, or questioned whether they have OS X working.

 

[itsa]

this must have been asked in this thread but there is no way I'm looking through every post so I'll ask again.

Will the intel chip be 64bit or are we back to 32? and what about dual chips? I saw the one steve was using was not dual.

 

[admanimal]

this must have been asked in this thread but there is no way I'm looking through every post so I'll ask again.

Will the intel chip be 64bit or are we back to 32? and what about dual chips? I saw the one steve was using was not dual.

Back to 32 (stated in Apple documents) . Dunno about dual.

 

[Game_Hunter]

A newbie's view...

native Windows app support with add-on Rosetta extensions (VirtualPC '08)?

x86 buffer virus vulnerabilities?

heating/cooling?

dual core PowerBooks by 2007?

developers?

no Cell processors?

AltVec?

laptop battery life?


I am a newbie (switched in 2003), but I'd say I'm as conflicted as anyone else. I see lots of good and bad on both sies of this arguement but there's one key thing that keeps me optimistic and that's Jobs himself. I trust him. He says it will work then it will because he doesn't pass the buck. When 3Ghz didn't happen he stood up there and said he was sorry. Others would have avoided the topic hoping it was forgotten.

Of most interest to me is that this allows Apple to compete like never before. They can go toe to toe on architecture and since we all know their OS is better they'll be more easily seen as the better computers by your average shopper. My question is how they compete when they have identical architectures but vastly different pricing. Still, with the switch to an Intel x86 based architecture and the new emphasis on quality OpenGL I think we're going to see a lot more games, gamers and switchers as well as developers because they won't fear the architecture any more.

Whatever I might feel I do agree this is the best time possible for such a transition because they have the money to afford it (thank you iPod) and their sales are growing faster than the industry (4x if the Keynote was correct). They also have a VERY strong brand name right now. With all these in their corner they have the strength to brute force through a transition of this type where they might not if they waited until IBMs passive attitude towards pushing the PPC tech forward clipped their wings and left them anchored. I also love that this can start to happen before Windows is able to gain purchase in OSs with Longhorn.

This might not be an all good situation but I'd bet good money (technically already did since I just bought some AAPL) this is going to lead to double digit marketshare by 2007 and I wouldn't doubt marketshare up over 20% by 2008 unless MS can get their act together. And we all know that increased marketshare will have benefits. This is a long term move for Apple that I think will do more good than bad so long as the x86 switch doesn't open the door for a flood of security issues which would make Macs no better to many than a Windows box.

 

[tokevino]

What are you talking about? I didn't say they technically couldnt get it to work, I'm saying it would not be a pleasant or Apple-like experience for the end user at all. I didn't say anything about whats under the hood, or questioned whether they have OS X working.

Windows App (or programs?) support is a bit no no. Not because of the reason you said; it is because you do not want the OS X become the next OS/2. That's the real problem here. So the bottom line is: never give native Win32 support on OS X, and Apple will be safe.

 

[JeffHendr]

Either Steve Jobs was lying to us when he said than the PPC was better than the Intel processors, or he's lying to us now when he says that the Intel processor is better than the PPC. You can't have it both ways. There must be more than me that has a memory that lasts this long.

The G5 may be better than current Intel processors, but the trend seems to be that it won't be that way for long. Better to plan ahead and fix the problem before the storm comes then to try to solve the problem while you're drowning.

 

[itsa]

The G5 may be better than current Intel processors, but the trend seems to be that it won't be that way for long. Better to plan ahead and fix the problem before the storm comes then to try to solve the problem while you're drowning.

That's what Steve thought about the G5 right?

 

[admanimal]

Windows App (or programs?) support is a bit no no. Not because of the reason you said; it is because you do not want the OS X become the next OS/2. That's the real problem here. So the bottom line is: never give native Win32 support on OS X, and Apple will be safe.

What was the issue with Win32 support on OS/2? I'm not familiar with it (I do know what OS/2 is).

 

[leekohler]

Call me crazy or ignorant, but doesn't anyone think it's possible that Apple and Intel may come up with a chip that is completely different than those that run PCs? I mean, just because the company is Intel, does it necessarily have to be same ones that Intel manufactures for Windows? We could be looking at something potentially amazing here. Although I am slightly bitter about another transition.

 

[Tuttle]

Plus, guess what? In addition to the Apple stating that the IntelMac will not have Open Firmware (welcome to the PeeCee world, folks!), a friend sent this along:
-----
This is all from the Universal Binary Programming Guidelines, the
document describing the transition from PPC/PPC64 -> IA32.

Regarding Rosetta (which is a JIT recompiler):

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

....Aaaaaand!

The ABI is strict IA32, not AMD64.

So, all those companies that paid big bucks to port their applications to 64-bit Mac OS (Oracle, Wolfram, IBM) just bought into a platform that's going to be dead in 2 years with no backwards-compatibility.

Something is seriously rotten here.
-----

...and this is why I didn't hear the words "64 bit" at all today.

Apple, the next SGI.

Yep. Seriously rotten.

Although Apple does still have the iPod.

 

[admanimal]

Call me crazy or ignorant, but doesn't anyone think it's possible that Apple and Intel may come up with a chip that is completely different than those that run PCs? I mean, just because the company is Intel, does it necessarily have to be same ones that Intel manufactures for Windows? We could be looking at something potentially amazing here. Although I am slightly bitter about another transition.

You're crazy!

But seriously, it's written in Apple's developer documents that they will in fact be using the current x86 architecture.