Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[MontyZ]

Nothing said here matters. Apple will never get more than 5% market share no matter what hardware they are running on until you can put SQL server and Oracle on the mac AND... you can run exchange and Outlook on it. Until this happens (which is never) no large corporation will ever fully use the mac whether its on a pentium, titanium or alpha. Oh its a FACT.

Great, now, can you look into that Crystal Ball of yours and tell me something more useful, like tomorrow's Lotto numbers?

 

[MikeBike]

So you say the G4 is faster than a 3ghz P4? So then the G5 must be a hellofalot faster than a P4 right. Boy, I am so glad we are switching to those crappy processors.

Back to what I said earlier. In 2 yrs the intel mac will be at the same speed as the G5 today.

Everyone wants it both ways. They want to say the G5 is way faster than the fastest Intel offerings then they want to say the fastest intel offerings will be faster than the G5.

-(dizzy from all the tech spin)

I'm telling you MY experience.
The G4 1.5 with a gig of ram is no pushover.
The P4 3.0 seems the HYPED machine to me.

The G4 powerbook doesn't run like a 400hp race car, but, neither does WinXP on Intel.

 

[thogs_cave]

That's neat! It would be so cool to play around with some of the early apps just for a giggle.

You'd be surprised at how well some stuff worked under System 6.

You might also be surprised at how productive some of us were on 9" screens and floppy disks.

 

[itsa]

Was it just me or did the loading of Adobe P CS take forever with that 3.6gig intel chip?

 

[Godwin]

I dont' see what the big deal with not emulating Altivec.. if you emulate Altivec it won't be as quick as using native SIMD anyways. If you want performance you rewrite.. simple as that.. you don't use JIT. In the documentation they already listed out common carryover operations between AltiVec and SIMD so I got a feeling they were making a rather big hint that if you want absolute performance use Inet's SIMD... that's what Intel compilers etc are famous for anyways.

As for IA32.. honestly how many apps out there using 64bit only mode? Heck even Solaris/Sparc half of the apps out there don't do it. By the time IA64 becomes efficient to fit on a laptop the transition is over and it is not required ANYWAYS..

As for Apple the next SGI.. I think Apple is smart already Shiller said Intel based MAcs only run MacOSX out of the box.. any hackers want to put Windows it is good by him.. much like PPC hardware now.

SGI made the mistake for the 320, and 450 series is to use 2000 as the OS. That's what killed them. (not to mention they don't have laptops to worry about like Apple does)

Remember we have to balance performance with wattage here.

I don't see any where in the UB documentation that they won't use OpenFirmware or any custom BIOS or x86 award BIOS.. remember we were in the same situation when OSX first came out. A lot of people were using OpenSTEP.. they ran on Intel BIOS.. but switched afterwards.. it doesn't matter to them!

Nice thought, but many of us make our living by planning for the future in the computer industry. I've been at this professionally for 17+ years, and I cut my teeth on Apple hardware in 1981. Now, what do I do? I can't tell people "go out and buy an EOL system".

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.

 

[paulypants]

Nothing said here matters. Apple will never get more than 5% market share no matter what hardware they are running on until you can put SQL server and Oracle on the mac AND... you can run exchange and Outlook on it. Until this happens (which is never) no large corporation will ever fully use the mac whether its on a pentium, titanium or alpha.

Oh its a FACT.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwnnn.

 

[bretm]

to be honest hundreds of people working together in a company such as apple will make a decision based on what is best for their customers. If a switch to intel meant that the mac platform grind to a halt or if it was a self destructive move for apple then the hundreds of consultants that work for apple would have clocked on. Im pretty stupid, but im with apple's every decision!

Jay

Errr, yeah. Like New Coke. I think it's a good thing, but geez, think for yourself.

 

[MontyZ]

But even worse, they are deleting these types of posts on the Apple Discussions board on the Apple site.

See, that's why I started coming here, because the Moderators on the Apple boards are Royal F***ing Idiots who only do a disservice to Apple customers. Their zealous censorship is really unappealing and just makes the entire board seem like another big advertisement for Apple, because if you have anything negative to say, it'll most likely be deleted.

Apple Forum is totally useless unless you have a newbie-type question. Forget discussing real issues there. It'll be deleted by the Apple Mods.

 

[tokevino]

Was it just me or did the loading of Adobe P CS take forever with that 3.6gig intel chip?

It was not running natively. No different than running Win32 verson of PS CS 2 with VPC... However, Adobe said they'd make the next version Universal Binary ...

 

[tech4all]

haha

Nothing said here matters. Apple will never get more than 5% market share no matter what hardware they are running on until you can put SQL server and Oracle on the mac AND... you can run exchange and Outlook on it. Until this happens (which is never) no large corporation will ever fully use the mac whether its on a pentium, titanium or alpha.

Oh its a FACT.

Oh really? Then prove what you said in your post is true. Unless you can prove it's a fact it's meaningless to us.

 

[MacTruck]

Does that make me an old fart too?

LOL. That is too easy. Out of respect for my elders I won't go there.

 

[leekohler]

Nothing said here matters. Apple will never get more than 5% market share no matter what hardware they are running on until you can put SQL server and Oracle on the mac AND... you can run exchange and Outlook on it. Until this happens (which is never) no large corporation will ever fully use the mac whether its on a pentium, titanium or alpha.

Oh its a FACT.

You must not work in advertising. I work for a very large worldwide firm that is mostly Mac-based. get over yourself.

 

[MontyZ]

You'd be surprised at how well some stuff worked under System 6. You might also be surprised at how productive some of us were on 9" screens and floppy disks.

I don't remember System 6 because I was a PC/Win user until 6 years ago, but, I do remember monochrome text-only screens with 9" floppy disks and no hard disks!

 

[eVolcre]

Some are mine that I bought new, some I bought used, and some were gifts from people who know I collect them. I actually have a working Lisa, and a few other rare goodies. I keep them all at our house (my wife likes my hobby, how lucky can you get?) and someday I will finish the web site. All of them work (and yes, I have spare parts), and I often dig out old favorite software to play with.

I'm part of a group of people (with no central organization to speak of) that tries to preserve old hardware and software. It's also neat to own stuff that you could never afford new, like a IIfx. (I was just married when it came out, and I still wouldn't spend $10K on a computer....) I have other interests as well, and I really like having my 12-CPU/8G Sun E5000 next to my desk....

That is beyond cool. I guess I'm what you guys all hate - a marketing/business guy in the technology industry. (well ex I guess, i left IBM and now work for a medical device company. more satisying to think I'm making a difference) but yeah I'm a techie nerd at heart. My first computer was a Sinclair Spectrum. This was back in '86 and in India where we were a few years behind the states. '88 I was given a XT - 20 megs hard drive and this was when NOONE had hard drives in India. '89 my dads secretary wangled me a EGA monitor which again noone else had and we spent many an hour loading up dirty pics on. lol. Moved to the states in 91 and entered the mac world. Spent 4k for a LC II. Big mistake i guess and i never looked at Macs again until 2002 when I picked up a Powerbook. Funny story, my last year at IBM I was a sales exec. Execs set the 'message' of the company right? i used to give my pitches on my powerbook. HAHAHA.

Oh well. You should open a musuem. I would come!

 

[MacTruck]

Oh really? Then prove what you said in your post is true. Unless you can prove it's a fact it's meaningless to us.

Name a large corporation, over 500 employess, that uses all macs. (Daring You). Don't say apple.

 

[itsa]

It was not running natively. No different than running Win32 verson of PS CS 2 with VPC... However, Adobe said they'd make the next version Universal Binary ...

So that means I will be forced into buying thousands of dollors of software I already own.
hmmm what developer would hate that? and all they need to do is .. "click a little box".

 

[MacTruck]

You must not work in advertising. I work for a very large worldwide firm that is mostly Mac-based. get over yourself.

How is email distributed? (chance to prove me wrong). Why "mostly" macs? Why even use pcs then? How is data stored?

 

[tokevino]

So that means I will be forced into buying thousands of dollors of software I already own.
hmmm what developer would hate that? and all they need to do is .. "click a little box".

Good point! You gotta love that part if you are a developer!

 

[Godwin]

That's easy.. research arms of large pharmaceuticals eg Merch, QLT etc etc.. you do know a lot of medical tools do need a mac to coprocess?

Name a large corporation, over 500 employess, that uses all macs. (Daring You). Don't say apple.

 

[jimbobb24]

See my earlier post. We now know that there will be no Open Firmware (this is a bad thing), and that Rosetta is not all that Steve's bragging it will be. Intel's 64-bit chips are a joke - you have the pseudo-64 Pentium, or the Itanium2, well-labeled the "Itanic".

Say goodbye to HyperTransport. Say goodbye to elegant system design. Say goodbye to Macs having better performance than PeeCees, or even a chance to.



Well, I've been a Mac user since day one. I've owned many macs new, and collected many more (I have over 100 in my collection now). I stuck with Apple through the dark years, and even the killing off of my beloved Newton. But, as I wrote Mr. Jobs, I think that when my lovely dual G5 (1st-gen dual 2.0 that I spent every spare penny on) goes off AppleCare, so do I. Had they done Opteron, I would've stuck it out, as that is at least an innovative (and fast!) chip. But, this is not a transition, it's a capitulation. Intel's technology is sometimes brilliant, but more often than not it's less than stellar. Not to mention the x86 designs still carry baggage from the 1970's.

It's not really about x86 one way or another for me. It's about taking steps backwards. I hope for the industry's sake that Apple pulls it off, but I no longer care. The $SUITS are running the show, and it's no longer about building the best product.

As I said previously on this thread, all of the people suddenly claiming processor agnosticism are drinking the cool-aid. I love OSX and hope this all works out, but technologically this is a big step backwards. All that great system-wide high speed bus stuff? Gone! The G5 was one great piece of a whole design that was powerful and very advanced. Darn IBM for shafting Apple.

 

[thogs_cave]

Oh well. You should open a musuem. I would come!

At some point I think I will. It's nice at times to be around das blinken lights.

 

[53399]

---

 

[eVolcre]

Nothing said here matters. Apple will never get more than 5% market share no matter what hardware they are running on until you can put SQL server and Oracle on the mac AND... you can run exchange and Outlook on it. Until this happens (which is never) no large corporation will ever fully use the mac whether its on a pentium, titanium or alpha.

Oh its a FACT.

I've had an epiphany. You should add a K to your name. macKtruck. Because they either transport dirt or rubbish and that is what you're full of.

and THAt is a fact ...

 

[MacTruck]

That's easy.. research arms of large pharmaceuticals eg Merch, QLT etc etc.. you do know a lot of medical tools do need a mac to coprocess?

My point was missed. Please read allowed so it is understood.

Until macs can use ORACLE, EXCHANGE SERVER, SQL SERVER and OUTLOOK the mac will never get more than 5% market share. Every company that needs a large database will not use macs, every company on any Microsoft Office products won't use macs. Just plain simple. Stop arguing the facts.

Like I said no company over 500 employees uses all macs for their email and important stuff. Sure there might be macs sitting on their desk, but it sits next to a pc.

 

[jimbobb24]

Sidestepping the issue of lying vs creative marketing, I was much more interested in Anandtech's performance analysis of the Macintosh here.

Quoting from their conclusion (boldface added):
The server performance of the Apple platform is, however, catastrophic. When we asked Apple for a reaction, they told us that some database vendors, Sybase and Oracle, have found a way around the threading problems. We'll try Sybase later, but frankly, we are very sceptical. The whole "multi-threaded Mach microkernel trapped inside a monolithic FreeBSD cocoon with several threading wrappers and coarse-grained threading access to the kernel", with a "backwards compatibility" millstone around its neck sounds like a bad fusion recipe for performance.

Unfortunately this is a problem with OSX that they are describing. Being built on so many layers gives it problems with server-like activities. For the most part that article is about servers. Thus, comparing the Operteron - which is awesome.