Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[ScottDodson]

HHMM, I'm so torn on this news...

OSX x86 huh? Potential for OS X to run on a Dell huh? Apple HAS to implement some form of hardware lock...at least I hope. I pay a premium for my macs, for a reason. I paid 2500+ dollars for my tower for the "mac experience". The exclusiveness of the OS, the iLife, everything that IS apple. The hardware, beautiful, but I'm more obsessed with the OS. If Jonny hacker down the street can crack the hardware lock and run OS X on his 450 dollar dell...why am I paying top dollar for apple anymore? I'm All for "faster and cooler"...who isn't, the chip means nothing (although personally I'd rather see apple go to AMD ) ? I just hope and trust apple has taken the steps needed to prevent OS X from becoming something you can run on any machine. The day I can't "wow" my neighbor by using the Dock and Expose because he is already running it on his 200$ emachine is a sad day for me.

wow I sound like a fanboy

 

[MacTruck]

OS X can run Oracle. Integration with Exchange Server is important. Most big companies don't use SQL Server -- Oracle is much more prevalent. I have seen more DB2 usage than SQL Server, but I guess we can rule that out.

Ahhh you are correct sir. Oracle does run on OS X. Ok, but there is the exchange server road block. It really boils down to Microsoft. They purposely limit the macintosh. Entourage is testiment of that. All in all the mac will not get greater than 5% market share because of these shortcomings. Like I said.

 

[Timemist]

The G4 and G5 lines will be around for at least 3 - 5 years. Steve even said that many new ppc designs were still in the pipeline. Also Xcode compiles universal binaries, meaning PPC & X86. My bet is that the PPC line will dominate in speed and apps for at least 2 - 3 more years. Eventually all of the bugs will be worked out of the x86 designs and more software will be available.

I need a new PB as my 800 mhz Ti PB logic board is starting to fail. I am betting that a new PPC PB comes out within 3 months and will be much improved over the current offering. Possibly dual core freescale, PCI-Express GPU, faster FSBm etc. I'll use it with current software for 3 years and then switch to Mac-intel PB, probably with dual core Pentium-M or better and much more native apps available.

Don't panic! Panic is for dolts and losers. Besides it is just a computer, not a terminal illness.

The point isn't about me having any panic (I'm not). From a marketing and PR perspective though, the way Apple handled this announcement is terrible. An obscure reference to G4/G5 products in the pipeline, even coming from the CEO, doesn't mean anything to most people.

For those folks who just spent $3000 on a new G5 last week, to them it is more than just a computer. All I'm saying is that Apple better get out front and tell G4/G5 owners how they will be taken care of with regards to future versions of OSX and all the apps that run on it. The further this issue is allowed to fester in the minds of the current Apple user base, the more damage it will cause.

 

[digitalbiker]

Pay attention will you.

Yeah my sisters Dual 1.8Ghz G5 loads it WAY faster then that. Watch Steve very close while it is taking so long...you notice he does the old "nervous mouse move" hoping to coax it along and then lets out a nervous laugh which the audience laughs at, because they can see it lagging as well. It kind of upsets Steve and you could tell at a few times he was a little unsure of the beast under him. I noticed he was a little more apprehensive then he usually is with his demonstrations on a regular PowerMac.

I suppose the LAST thing he wanted to happen is a crash on stage... That would have been BAD even this early on, people would have said OMG this might be a bad idea.

This was Photoshop running in Rosetta! An emulator. This was not a native recompile of Photoshop on Intel. Of course it ran slower. God it is a miracle it even ran at all. Don't you understand that this was PPC native code straight from a current Photoshop CD running on a Mac intel machine. There is no way this could ever match a native G4 processor.
The real comparison will come later when you have a recompiled binary of Photoshop native to intel. By the time this happens, you will have updated intel chipsets on Apple designed systems.

 

[MacTruck]

Are you serious? or just clueless?

*shakes his head and gives up*

Finally can't figure it out and gives up. Thanks for that. Was getting tired of explaining the earth is round to you.

 

[lopresmb]

We need to try to be optimistic. If done correctly this can be a very exciting transition.

--Agreed. Faster, lower power (better battery life) are never a bad thing. And from what steve had to say at the keynote, PPC support will not be dropped, instead Intel support will be added. This could be what all us Mac fans have been hoping for...cutting edge Hardware to match up with the best software computing ever...

--My Big question still reamins though...what is going to differentiate between an "Intel based Mac" and an "Intel based PC???", and what is going to eventually stop OS X from being installed on any old PC? I'd hate to see Mac stop innovating Hardware because there is no market for it anymore with the x86 version of OS X out there.

 

[eVolcre]

Two words: "Centrino Technology"



Huh? Most people care about going to work, getting paid, and going home. As long as the checks roll in, the sheeple are happy. There's a very large Intel fab just down the road from me, and most of the people there could care less what their chips are used for, as long as they can make the next payment on their SUV.

OK I know nothing about this and am not looking to pick a fight. What does that mean? Centrino is bad? ****, from all that I've read today I thought that it was a better laptop platform running cooler and all that jazz. Use easy words please, I'm a marketing weenie who can barely spell centrino so tell me what it does, why people think it's good and why you think it's bad.

Genuinely curious and ready to learn!

 

[tjatl]

uhhhhh

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.

I think I missed your point that missed your other point.

Oracle on Macs: Oracle 10g on Mac OS X

Oracle Database 10g and Oracle JDeveloper 10g are fully certified on Mac OS X. Turn your Mac into a full-fledged development environment and deploy Xserve-based grids using the software and resources on this page.

Exchange Server compatibility on macs: Works seamlessly

Mac OS X Mail works seamlessly with Microsoft Exchange mail servers, whether you’re in the office or on the road.

Companies that use microsoft office products won't use macs? Is the reason because Microsoft makes thier office products available for macs or because the corporate people responsible for purchasing pcs for thier company dislike/hate/are ignorant/ afraid of macs?

I don't think your point goes anywhere.

The problem with corporations and macs is that replacing all workstations costs money. Would they save money from a lack of downtime from viruses/spyware, sure, but most of it would probally be eaten up in training thier employees the mac OS.

 

[VanNess]

And here I thought this was going to be the "year of HD video" lol. Who said that anyway?

Haven't read 1500+ posts, but here's one (of many) thoughts regarding today. Jobs says there are some "great" PPC based products still to come before the Mactel machines arrive. So...

One of these days, when one of them shows up, someone (probably not Apple at this point) is going to benchmark it against whatever recent Wintel box that qualifies as comparable. If it benchmarks poorly against the Intel machine, well, Jobs is proven right - but now there's a lot less incentive to buy it with faster Mactel CPU's around the bend.

If it benchmarks well against the Wintel box, then it opens up another round of Apple bashing for changing to Intel CPU's, because the PPC version has distinguished itself against Intel's best. What was the reason for the switch again?

Either way, not a good day to be a Powermac marketing exec.

 

[Timemist]

You know that is a good point. I can't see how a Macintel won't run Windows just as good as a PC. It will be the same thing. I suppose Apple will devise a way so OSX can't run on a generic PC, but I doubt they will go the other way since people already use Virtual PC. If a system runs Windows just as fast as MacOSX, what is the point of having all the software in duplicate? Only so you don't have to leave the Mac OS environment.

According to Cnet, Phil Schiller (Apple SVP) said this:

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 sounds like Windows will run on the Macintel without requiring VPC.

 

[VanNess]

My only real concern is that they have a good replacement for my PowerBook by the end of next year.

That ("my powerbook"), in a nutshell, is the real reason why the switch is occurring

 

[840quadra]

It has been answered many times. No large company with over 500 employees will ever use all macs. Nobody can name one. AT&T, IBM, Allstate, Oracle, Winn Dixie, Almost EVERY Web hosting company in the world for that matter MUST have a PC around. Like I said its a FACT. Why is it so hard to believe. Its not that difficult. Not trying to get people worked up but I don't see what there is to get worked up about. Just stating a FACT.

His question was in relation to this comment

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.

And the question was

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.

You have the Mudslinging part down, and you make good points, but you never answered his question.

 

[MacTruck]

Mac os mail will NEVER replace or even fit in with Outlook. Sorry.

 

[digitalbiker]

Why should new G5 purchasers be upset?

The point isn't about me having any panic (I'm not). From a marketing and PR perspective though, the way Apple handled this announcement is terrible. An obscure reference to G4/G5 products in the pipeline, even coming from the CEO, doesn't mean anything to most people.

For those folks who just spent $3000 on a new G5 last week, to them it is more than just a computer. All I'm saying is that Apple better get out front and tell G4/G5 owners how they will be taken care of with regards to future versions of OSX and all the apps that run on it. The further this issue is allowed to fester in the minds of the current Apple user base, the more damage it will cause.

I thought they did spell it out clearly. OSX 10.4 Tiger and OSX 10.5 Leopard will be supported on both platforms. iLife and most likely all of Apple's apps will be compiled into Universal binaries and would be able to be installed on either PPC or Intel macs from one installation CD set. As far as developers go, who knows. I expect most will move to Xcode and also supply universal binaries. Some may lag behind and run only in emulation on the intel macs. So why would a G5 owner be upset? His or her computer should run fine and be supported with numerous apps for the reasonable life of their computer. In 3-5 years there will be som much new technollgy and new changes that the G5 owner will want to upgrade to a new system.

 

[eVolcre]

Finally can't figure it out and gives up. Thanks for that. Was getting tired of explaining the earth is round to you.

One last try. Wanna engage in a discussion instead of just sticking to one point and not veering away from it?

Here, from a previous post, this is a HYPOTHESIS. The end result could either bolster your argument or make it moot. Think about it for a second though before going off at half cock again. Can I ask you a question> This is by no means derogatory. How old are you? And what's your education/experience in technology. It might give your points some weight because you're not coming across as being very ... open minded.

eV

hog, it seems like youv'e been around a bit. How about this argument? That percentage wise, corporations form a smaller part of the target market than individual consumers?? So .. differnt niches. Windows runs in the corporate world since they have a strangle hold on OFFICE etc. APPLE takes over the consumer world and the emerging convergence of media/computing that Uncle Bill so wants to corner with his XBOX. I'm not arguing one way or the other and this isn't a FACT but just an interesting viewpoint. I almost wanna bet that the market for consumers is bigger. Why bother with the inertia of changing a HUGE installed base in corporations, lets go after an untapped and unhappy market - the consumers.

 

[vatel]

Originally Posted by Timemist
So why would todays cross platform developers (Win and Mac) even bother with an OSX version if you can run your Windows version of the app on the Macintel? If I were someone like say, Adobe, I'd probably just punt and build the Windows app.

What am I missing?

You know that is a good point. I can't see how a Macintel won't run Windows just as good as a PC. It will be the same thing. I suppose Apple will devise a way so OSX can't run on a generic PC, but I doubt they will go the other way since people already use Virtual PC. If a system runs Windows just as fast as MacOSX, what is the point of having all the software in duplicate? Only so you don't have to leave the Mac OS environment.

I think the game porters are screwed. No question I will log out of OS X, boot Windows and run my game in Windows for 20$ less, with no 6 month lag, and at full frame rate. I can't remember the link but somebody has 2 pages of game developers collectively groaning as the sky falls down.

On the other hand, I don't think this really impacts productivity developers. When I use powerpoint I need to use it with Word, Excel, Adobe and iPhoto, and as I do all that switching and multitasking, I want to do it in OS X, with apps that work with OS X (spotlight plug-in, etc.), otherwise I'd find some open source app that wasn't as good but let me work in my OS X environment.

 

[sluthy]

I guess it'll be a very nervous couple of months until we see Intel-based Apple products for us to praise/bag. I've been looking at laptops lately, even though I'm nowhere near affording one right now. Wanting an iBook for MacOS, but wanting a Sonoma notebook for value (just compared what you get with some laptops compared to Apples for your money - OS aside, it's getting ridiculous). Looks like by the time I've managed to saved the money, my problem will be solved.

But I'm dissapointed with Intel more than anything. By the looks of it, AMD are set to crush Intel in the dualcore/64-bit market. Reading reviews of Athlon X2 vs. Pentium D/EE, they all praise AMD. I wonder how AMD's Turion64 will go in the laptops.

 

[MacTruck]

His question was in relation to this comment

Until this happens (which is never) no large corporation will ever fully use the mac whether its on a pentium, titanium or alpha.

And the question was

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.

You have the Mudslinging part down, and you make good points, but you never answered his question.

What question is there to answer. Prove that no large corportation will ever use the mac entirely? Are you kidding? That is obvioius. Want me to prove the sun will come up tomorrow too? Lets just use common sense please. This is just a way to avoid the FACTS.

 

[JesterJJZ]

Hey as long as it is still OSX and still only runs on Apple harware, I could care less what's under the hood. If these new chips will run cooler and faster than I'm all for it. I just got a 2.5 last summer so I'll be set for another couple years untill they get the bugs out of the Intel Powermacs. I wonder if they will still offer dual processors?

 

[cgundlach]

Ahhh you are correct sir. Oracle does run on OS X. Ok, but there is the exchange server road block. It really boils down to Microsoft. They purposely limit the macintosh. Entourage is testiment of that. All in all the mac will not get greater than 5% market share because of these shortcomings. Like I said.

It is really impossible to say. Exchange Server is important now, but I know that a lot of companies have been frustrated with dealing with it. There is not a lot of value add for companies managing their own email servers. For the most part they would be smart to rip them out and let a service provider manage it for them.

I think the other place where Apple has an opportunity to pick up market share is the mix of buyers going forward. I think that digital media is going to drive any future gains, and this is Apple's strong suit. Who knows?

 

[MacTruck]

When Apple develops a product better than Exchange server and Outlook (and mail is never going to get there sorry) then there is a chance that they might rise above 5% market share. But even if they did do that they would have to convince the world that they would stay with the same architecture for many years and that would take a decade of proving.

FACT

 

[tjatl]

OK I know nothing about this and am not looking to pick a fight. What does that mean? Centrino is bad? ****, from all that I've read today I thought that it was a better laptop platform running cooler and all that jazz. Use easy words please, I'm a marketing weenie who can barely spell centrino so tell me what it does, why people think it's good and why you think it's bad.

Genuinely curious and ready to learn!

The Pentium M chip, or centrino, is a good chip. Low power consumption and runs cool. It's true power is limited in a notebook setting, but tests (from tomshardware.com) have shown that when the Pentium M is placed in a desktop setting it can beat out top end Intel and AMD chips that are close to $1000 in 3D games.

Most people assume this transition is bad because they think Intel=Windows. Kind of like how most windows users think Apple=not compatible.

I work at a retail location and we recently ran a sale on the latest chip from intel, a DUAL CORE P4 complete system from hp, with a 17' LCD for $1000 after rebates.

I think Apple will even be able to increase thier margin on thier hardware sales from this, or be able to offer better technology while keeping pricing the same. PCI express video cards, SLi, Blu-ray?

 

[reelmagik]

I don't think Apple did such a bad thing...but it's curious that they still have the performance page comparing Intel chips to PPC chips, with the PPC chips smoking the Intel chips. Does't give me much confidence in the Intel chips, unless those tests were based on the 32bit chips and not the newer 64bit dual core chips.

It's also funny how Apple always made such a huge deal out of the fact that 2GHz PPC chips were faster than 3GHz Pentium chips...

 

[eVolcre]

Until this happens (which is never) no large corporation will ever fully use the mac whether its on a pentium, titanium or alpha.








What question is there to answer. Prove that no large corportation will ever use the mac entirely? Are you kidding? That is obvioius. Want me to prove the sun will come up tomorrow too? Lets just use common sense please. This is just a way to avoid the FACTS.

OK You seem to love FACTS. Here's one - prove it. You say that no major corporation will ever run MAC. Fine, assume I agree with you. You then make the conclusion that because of that one arguable assumption this results in a FACT of 5% marketshare.

Simple argument - for simple people - I have agreed that no major corporation will adopt the MAC platform. Now prove to me that this results in a less than 5% marketshare. Easy exercise. Should be a FACT, right?

And no shoddy asnwers. You're stating FACTS so they have to be set in stone. I want demographics, percent penetration of target households, switcher percentages, current and future personal computer growth rates, convergence of media and technology and just for fun throw in a muiltiple regression corelating a variety of intangible variables into a quantifiable increase or decrease in market share.

YO *HINT*, I can do this and disprove your FACT. But... it's yours ... so I have accepted your corporation assumption, now go off do your HW and come back with the answer. It's a FACT, should be easy right?

Assumtion - MACS will never get an entry into corporate america for all the reaons you have mentioned.
Assigment - prove to us that the assumption results in a less than 5% market share.

I can't spell this out any cleaner or make it any simpler for you. You answer my question without giving me another question or a repeated statement and I will leave this thread. I promise you that.

 

[MontyZ]

I think Apple will even be able to increase thier margin on thier hardware sales from this, or be able to offer better technology while keeping pricing the same.

Actually, I hope this means Apple will lower the price of their hardware. If the whole idea of this Intel change is to take OSX and/or Apple Hardware to the masses, the masses are used to paying $399 for a PC. Apple can't compete with that, nor should they try. But, they'll still need to come down in cost if they want to increase market-share.