Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[Tuttle]

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?

Why would you think that?

 

[sacear]

OK...after reading a couple pages...still haven't found a definitive answer to my quandery...(forgive me as i'm not too knowledgable about this sort of thing)

I'm taking delivery this week of a dual 2.5 g5, mostly for audio production, but also for graphics (illustrator, flash etc.).

What does this announcement mean for the future of this g5, specifically for software optimization? WIll companies (like digidesign) even bother to optimize for the PPC architecture when they know this massive shift is coming starting next year? Should I cancel this order and just build a damn AMD machine and keep my powerbook for daily tasks???

I'm VERY worried about this shift (although I think ultimately it's good), because the plans and upgrade paths for current g5 users look VERY ambiguous.

You are good. Your new PowerMac is good. Apple and Digidesign will continue to support the current architecture for several years after "the switch." The high-end PowerMacs will remain G5 for at least two more years.

 

[vadimir]

So does this mean my next mac will actually run games comparably as well as windows machine with the same video card?

 

[eVolcre]

LOL. Who is playing who my friend. (eVolcre looks in the mirror and makes that eddie murphy face he used to make on that Mr. Rogers neighborhood skit on SNL). ha ha ha.

You lost me. WHat is this again? Sounds funny though. Hey no hard feelings BTW. I think we're all taking this too seriously but hey - its fun.

 

[flameshadow]

You're right should not have said NEVER. Apple might pull a rabbit out of their hat in 10 yrs and get higher than 5% or so market share, but what I am saying is a FACT today, yesterday and for the next 2 yrs minumum.

PS: tech4all’s never had me he is sweating to try.

I kind of agree with your overall accessment on the market share.
The database sw is a major factor.

I have a question.
Didn't ORACLE move their base system to linux a while ago?
If so, did it change anything visible in market share wise for linux?
Maybe ORACLE alone is not much.

And this may give a chance or hope for OS-X as well,
if APPLE clean up relatively poor OS-X server performance?

Well, I guess Apple should also demonstrate
they will stick to one system a little longer, like you said.

 

[mambodancer]

OSX on Intel doesn't mean existing Intel PC's

The question not answered from the Keynote is exactly what is meant by showing OSX running on an Intel processor. The answer, if you read between the lines, and could look behind the curtain and under the desk of Steves demo, is this is a Macintosh with an Intel processor, not an off the shelf PC anyone could but today. The Mac HW is more than just a PPC or G5 or P4. Putting an IBM processor in the Mac never made it an IBM PC. Putting an Intel Processor in the Mac won't make it anymore a Wintel PC. There are a heck of a lot of custom chips that make up a Macintosh computer. My guess is that OSX will not run on a Wintel Box (esp. current generation PC's) without some kind of HW upgrade, if at all. There has got to be at least a reference PC and probably some kind of PCI type card to make this happen. OSX would also need driver support for third party video cards and well as other PCI HW.

The other question has to do with running Windows on an Intel Mac. Again, I would guess that you will still need some version of Virtual PC.

And just an observation since I haven't read all the posts to this thread...wasn't that iTunes 4.9 that Steve demoed showing Podcasts? Can Video iPods and iTunes 5.0 be far behind?

 

[GuyClinch]

"--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. "

One word: SUPPORT.

It will be interesting to see if the hacker community can overcome the challenge of how Apple "locks" there OSX from installing on generic boxes. But I do agree with you I think you will see OSX running on SOME x86 machines sooner or later.

But it won't be supported. That's to say you won't get the same Apple seamless experience. It will be closer to installing Linux or your PC. You know some things work - but some things don't.

For example I installed one distro of Linux on my PC that didn't have drivers for SATA drives. It was alot of work to fix that situation. These are kinds of problems average people don't want to deal with.

I realize people HATE Microsoft around here. But honestly they do a pretty decent job in some ways. They support numerous and even "new" hardware configurations with their OS. That's why you can build a PC from base components and it will be more stable then a Dell.

Apple isn't going to do that. You will be out on an island if you want to install your MacOS on your Dell. Apple will release 'patches" that will break your "DellMac" when they add in additoinal functionality. And that's assuming that hacker community decided to support Dell at all (and that's not as likely as you think - most hackers build their own boxes - dell uses some nasty proprietary components).

So yeah there might be a few "DellMacs" around but most people would be scared to use em for anything 'serious" and certainly no corporations would use them. Most people just aren't interested in that kind of trouble.

Believe it or not I think Windows is good enough so it's not really worth it for alot of normal PC users. And for Mac users then want the Mac experience not the Linux one.

Pete

 

[kbonnel]

I agree, the software is where we need to focus, BUT, I hope Apple really keeps a tight lease around the hardware. One of the best features of a Mac, is that it just works. That means control of the hardware, and making sure every little piece works right out of the box. In order to do this, there has to be serious control of all hardware, and thus limitations on avaialble hardware (video cards, etc) For some reason this isn't something Micrsoft has been able to fully master, and thus the "Plug and Pray". While moving to Intel might allow Apple to have a more competitive stance (no more MHZ comparision, possibly lower price, more hardware options), I don't think Apple is trying to take Windows head on. And I seriously don't think we will be able to just pick out video cards from the shelf and plug them into our new Intel Macs (we sure as hell were able to with our PPC Macs). There would be nothing worse than having a Mac crash all the time because of bad/crappy drivers due to bad/crappy hardware.

I am really looking forward to seeing how this plays out. I am really interested in seeing the specs for the upcoming Macs. My PB will easily be able to last another year or so, and by then it will be time to upgrade.

Kimo

I have not read all 64 pages, so I apologise if I am repeating the comments of others.

I am shocked by the number of comments that are concerned that this means OSX can run on a Dell. So what if it can? Surely this opens up the operating system to all users, allowing someone to make the switch to mac without having to invest in new hardware.

I really do hope that none of those that are upset that OSX will no longer be an elitist club are not the same people that spend hours preaching to Wintel users about the inferiority of the Windows OS.

If there is a concern, it is that Apple will lose hardware sales over the next 18 months. I am also concerned that many loyal mac users are loyal to the software and not the hardware (which, to be honest, is the correct place to have one's loyalties).

Anyway, my point was: drop the elitism and celebrate the fact that Apple is finally taking Windows head on. We may finally see OSX take a larger, well earned market share.

 

[840quadra]

I know I’m late to the game, and that almost EVERYTHING that could be said has been said, I would however just like to add my 2 cents!

This move could go either way, Intel will provide the kind of performance and speed Apple wants to provide to their clients, but Apple is now part of a bigger cut through environment. We might think its good that Apple can now do a improved Power Mac every 60 days, but just imagine what Apple will have to do to get that done, and get their stock cleared before the next revision!

Looking at the pros Apple can save them and us a lot of money if they play this one smart. But ultimately I think apple will have the software sorted, it comes down to the hardware, so here is what I think apple should do:

1. Have Intel produce the Northbridge, that way Apple don’t have to worry about the large amount of different socket types Intel has currently... they can let Intel do that. Apple also gets kick ass memory controllers and support for PCI express out of the way while reducing costs.

2. Apple should produce the Southbridge. By making their own Southbridge they can produce the hardware lock the platform will need. By restricting information about the exact hardware, like the SATA controller, Apple can make sure that the OS X only boots or at least detects the presence of one of their Southbridge’s and ensure that it wont boot on a stock dell. This way not only will someone have to emulate the rom but also provide accurate emulation of other undocumented devices such as the SATA, IDE, USB, Firewire (Intel doesn’t do firewire btw), modem and whatever other device the chipset features. Using some sort of advanced identification method, no support for other boot devices and requiring apple only hardware to be present to even start the kernel will make hacking the platform rather difficult.

3. Apple needs to closely, but not completely adhere to the Intel motherboard form factors. If apple did a BTX motherboard everyone will simply install the board in their vanilla case or their AMD board in the G6 case. By changing the physical shape a little but keeping with other requirements like cooling placement and power supply specs apple can use stock power supplies and normal cooling designed for those cheap ass lamo dells.

4. Expansion devices. This in one place Apple can score big time. If Apple could use standard x86 based PCI express hardware, manufacturers will have the extra incentive to create drivers, as they can expand their market and use their existing hardware designs as is. This will be very much like USB, most USB devices work on the mac as well... unix driver and standards hardware and you have Mac support! Graphics is a bit of a grey area for me, Apple could also go standard but then Mac users will upgrade to the latest and greatest every time something new comes along, in turn possibly making support and controlling the platform for Apple harder. I would allow ATI and nVidia to use physical and electrically compatible designs but require some sort of advanced software identification, meaning that ATI would still have to produce a Mac version but it would simply entail a new bios. On the other hand if Apple could get ATI to do drivers like they do for windows all people would need to do is boot OS X in 256 colors, install the drivers and reboot into wonderful accelerated full color bliss... using cheap ass standard graphic cards.


I think Apple should push the new hardware out the door ASAP! Start with the laptops... skip the G5 powerbook and go for the G6, without using the hated intel inside sticker make it known: "we also use the pentuim M, we also have 8 hours battery life", then migrate the Power Mac and iMac, Apple needs to worry about their laptop line first, that’s the thing suffering the most at this point. Use the dual core chips in the PowerMac, and the single core ones in the iMac, use the Celeron in the Mac mini and the eMac.

That’s my 2 cents.

I think apple is adopting the X86 core architecture, which would mean that the socket type, or connection style would have less importance on future Powermac computers. Southbridge would be cool in the points you bring up, but remember that we are about a year a way from a true product (according to rumor and comments from apple) and Intel may have an other x86 architecture available that Apple may use.

Pushing out hardware before software support is there, would be a bad move. You would have a powerbook that runs OSX and apple applications just fine, but other applications would be sketchy at best. We need this time for Developers that want to jump on board, to do so and complete the transition.

 

[840quadra]

You lost me. WHat is this again? Sounds funny though. Hey no hard feelings BTW. I think we're all taking this too seriously but hey - its fun.

I am just here having fun, learning some, and chiming in at the worst possible points in time .

I love my AMD box, and I love my Macintosh comptuers. I am super curious about what the future will bring, and I hope there is a product for me in the future from Apple.

 

[jermsmingy]

All future code will still be compatible with the PowerPC

The PowerPC is not being removed as an option. Steve said something very interesting. He said that everything they did with Mac OS X had to be processor independent. When all the developers port their applications with the new xcode they will not only run on intel, but also on the PowerPC if they chose to complie for both. This move, while some have complaints, has no wrong. If the intel move flops, apple can easily move back to PowerPC if they like and the developers won't have to do a darn thing. They could even continue shipping PowerMacs with PowerPC chips in them and ship Powerbooks with intel in them. Looking at it this way, this move has only positives for apple. They have options and as Steve says, 'we like options."

 

[bit density]

ensure that it wont boot on a stock dell.

Why in the hell do you NOT want OSX running on a stock dell?

Look, I want Apple, Sony, Dell, and whoever else to make the best machine possible, and instead of just Windows, I want to be able to run OSX on that machine as well.

Advantage clearly Apple. If I buy a mac I get OSX, Ilife, Applecare, and a bunch of other stuff, free. If I buy Sony, I have to spend 100 bucks of OSx, 79 Dollars for Ilife, and 80 bucks more for I works, and whatever else I want to run. This is clearly in Apples best interest.

Apple has a huge leg up over windows in that they do not have to support legacy hardware. If it doesn't work with your machine, Apple will gladly refund your money, go buy windows.

Me, this means I get one of those shiny new Sony boxes, with the best OS in the world running on it. What is wrong with that?

Cheers

 

[J-Squire]

Who's going to use a 2.7GHz P4?

for loyalty, I suppose mine is to the "feeling" of using Apple: superior OS, superior design, and superior hardware, including the CPU.
Now I am confused.
Steve mentioned "power consumption / performance" in his keynote.
Yes, Intel deliver a lower walts / performance solution, but
to be honest,
How about total performance? I dont think a 2.7Ghz Pentium would run faster than a 2.7Ghz PowerPC G5.

I don't understand why you would even both with that comparison. Apple is never going to put a 2.7GHz chip in its machine. Considering we won't see a mac w/Intel inside for at least another 8 months, you would be better to compare a 2.7GHz G5 with a 3.8 - 4GHz P4. Steve said IBMs roadmap looks poor, whilst Intel's looks good. I don't think anyone is disputing that the G5 kicked butt when it was released, but in two years we have failed to reach the promised 3GHz, with no signs of improvement. Intel is about the future.

But the main power consumption argument lies in the PORTABLES. How about we compare a 1.67Ghz G4 with a 3+GHz P4. The G5 just can't deliver in the portable market, and so we're stuck on G4s with tiny speed improvements.
Again, Intel looks like it can deliver in this department far better than IBM.

If you are having your doubts, just watch the Keynote stream. Steve has the RDF laser set on "knock-your-socks-off" and managed to completely win over the developers, as well as me once I watched it

 

[Lollypop]

Sorry to disagree 840quadra, but socket types are important, I dont see Intel doing a completely custom design just for Apple, and even if they did it would increse costs, reduce availablility ... effectively eliminating the reason I think Apple is going to Intel. Apple will have to use the standard intel designs, that means a different socket for each type of processor.

I agree software is key, but with tiger having lived a double life i think software shouldnt be SUCH a big problem, the Mac experience is software + hardware, Apple does software great.. they now have a chance to do hardware just as well.

 

[eVolcre]

I am just here having fun, learning some, and chiming in at the worst possible points in time .

I love my AMD box, and I love my Macintosh comptuers. I am super curious about what the future will bring, and I hope there is a product for me in the future from Apple.

It's fascinating from both a business and an evolution of technology perspective. MS changed the nature and definition of computing as we know it. Actually, dial back, IBM started it with the idea of a PC as opposed to a mainframe. MS and APPLE took it a step further. Then we had the internet breakthrough. This might be the next big one and it's fun to be a part of it. Time will tell.

 

[stephenli]

Use the dual core chips in the PowerMac, and the single core ones in the iMac, use the Celeron in the Mac mini and the eMac.

Pentium D won't be enough for PowerMac. It doesn't make sense to use the same processor to deliver similar performance as PCs. If using Pentium D, please include SEVERAL instead of a single; or just make some CUSTOM chips, like what IBM did to Apple, Sony and M$.

 

[Caudor]

I think so too. Why buy a mac now when this switch is happening in a year?

In my case, I'm faced with running Windoze for year (not acceptable) or running my old 1 Ghz Mac for another year.

Or...I can just go buy a current system and when the transition is complete...look at the new ones then. Thanks to universal binaries, I think I'll go with the latter. OS X is what attracted back to the Mac platform in the first place. It's the OS that matters.

 

[MontyZ]

For some reason this isn't something Micrsoft has been able to fully master, and thus the "Plug and Pray".

I think it all comes down to the OS. OSX is better and more stable than Windows. Apple will probably not take the same path IBM did years ago with an open-architecture for its computers, either. So, I don't think Mac users will have to worry any more about third-party hardware compatibility issues any more than we have to now.

 

[stephenli]

but actually,
I wonder why Apple not going to use CELL?!

 

[MontyZ]

This might be the next big one and it's fun to be a part of it.

Is it? I find it totally exhausting!

 

[eVolcre]

YOU THINK anyone is going to read this whole thread ever again? We're almost using it as a pseudo IRC chat ... Grew fast as hell though.

 

[Jesus]

The cell is good for a console because it is fantastic at vector processing, but no normal processes (a P4 has a vector processing rating of 8, the cell = 217)

Jesus

 

[MontyZ]

I don't know WHAT you're talking about, I read all 66 pages before making a single post ... NOT!

 

[vatel]

Why in the hell do you NOT want OSX running on a stock dell?

For the millionth time:

If OS X can run on any Wintel PC, then you don't need to pay alot of money to apple for the privilige of having OS X. Apple makes no money. Bye-bye apple, bye-bye OS X.

Of course you want OS X, that's why apple can charge so much.

Now you have to make a value based decision, is OS X worth the cost. So far this year 3.2% of computer buyers have said yes.

 

[eVolcre]

Is it? I find it totally exhausting!

Only problem is that i won't know where to discuss things tomorrow. Thre's like 5 threads going on. We need to start up a POST annoucement thread that is mainly analysis and not chatting back and forth.