Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[otterpop]

Let's recap.
side a: this is going to suck.
side b: this is going to rock.
Those of us* who aren't just blindly reacting: We have unanswered questions.

1. heat/noise/style
2. system limitations
3. proprietary systems?
4. support quality

We do not know, (and i think it's intentional) if the systems will even be running a pentium 4, pentium d, pentium stop-naming-them-pentium-already, or what yet. But we have come up with some good points to think about.

a. is it a p4, pentium derivitave, or something that's not out yet? (preferably with all the legacy bs stripped out. its time to let go of 16 bit processing already. 32 while we're at it. let it go.)
b. is this part of some grander scheme? Like maybe server market share (blade servers as previously mentioned).
c. the spyware/virus/malware situation. Even arguing that the OS itself is more secure, consider this: people that make spyware and virus, and all the things that make life in windows miserable are pricks**. They are terrible pricks who prey on innocent users. Even of the OS is more secure, with 1000x the number of these pricks pointed at your OS, you -will- have the same issues to deal with.

support quality will be a major issue. if the systems are open, like the windows world, the support quality will go straight into the toilet. not because apple's product will suffer, but because they now gain the liability of supporting Joe's Component Shop brand video card and sound card. Without hardware control, it's a pretty version of BSD.

and most importantly, apple, the people have spoken. keep the stupid 'intel inside" sticker OFF the machines and the commercials.

now on the personal side of things: I've been a rabid macintosh loyalist for a few years now, Since OSX really came into it's own. Because of these unanswered questions, when I go to buy a new computer next year (about this time, actually, since i have a brand new g5 imac), Apple is going to have to fight for my business again. AMD's 64 bit technology (the future) is far better than Intel's. If i can find a decent replacement for iTunes and Quicken, there's nothing keeping me on the platform once the switch is complete.

Also, for those who think that it means more games... Take a look around. There are more, and better games out for OSX now than there are for linux. If anything, they (linux users) will benefit, not us.***


notes: * I was blindly reacting this morning. Ask my boss. Im better now, but i still do not like the situation. Admittedly because I hate intel and the way they abuse their market leadership. They stopped inovating years ago.
** all of them. they should be murdered in the street. publically. they have ruined the internet.
*** that being said, the only games i play are Oregon Trail and Diablo 2.

edit - oh yeah. if anyone wants to sell their newly (possibly) devalued mac mini, or maybe a quicksilver, my dad needs a new computer asap. drop me a line.

 

[After G]

I think Apple made a good decision.

After reading a whole lot of text ... I just want to say a few things. Lots of this has already been said, but I feel a need to reiterate.

1) Your current hardware doesn't stop working just because something new is coming down the pipeline. I hear things all the time about BTX form factor, Magnetic RAM, Blu-ray disks, solid state drive storage. Doesn't stop the PC users I know from buying current hardware to run stuff they want to have fun/be productive with RIGHT NOW. I also know production houses and people who still use old hardware and software. Mac OS 8, 9, Blue & White G3s, Digital Audio G4s ... and they get their work done. Just keep using it until it's too slow for you. Your software won't stop working. The market will meet a need if it is there. I know I will be using my iBook G4 at least until new Intel hardware comes out; I just hope it comes in time before I graduate and can't use my educational discount anymore. And I'll be first in line to buy a new Intel-processor Mac. My mom used to work for Intel even. It's a processor, people! New, better stuff comes out. Intel is the future of Apple, or at least they have said as much. It's a future that won't be for a while, and Apple is committed to PPC as well as their future kit from Intel. Or else they wouldn't have released Mac Minis.

2) The world didn't really care about Apple before other than it was different. Most end-users don't care that there's a PPC inside or not, they just want to know if it is compatible with what they do. For a large majority of computer users, whether it's Intel or IBM, what matters is the software. A Mac matters because of the fact that it runs (or will run) Apple software. And it is compatible. This is a good move to push compatibility.

3) In the end, it's about consumer confidence. I see a lot of people on these boards are going to stick with Apple. That's a good thing. If Apple offers the same quality with an Intel processor that they have for my past two computers, I will buy Apple yet again. This is good for Linux too, as all these currently awesome PPC computers that will see support "dry up" and go away because of ... wait, dev support won't dry up. There's a 16% installed marketshare (according to Slashdot) just waiting to give their money away for stuff that works on the computers they have, myself included. As someone said earlier, the developers don't as shocked and appalled as we are.

4) People who are going to move away from Apple because of a processor change are those who aren't looking long term. I wouldn't stick with Windows (in its current, possibly future incarnation) because of all the problems I had. I saw it first hand when running a copy of VPC. The image got infected, even with my Apple firewall up, and my hardware router firewall up, within the first 5 minutes of being networked and running IE to get Firefox. That being said, I won't use Linux either right now because it will take me a long time to get productive with a new system that doesn't have a standard way of interaction. The admin account on Mac OS X is the best balance for me between power and restriction. I will buy whatever meets my need in the future. Linux, BSD, Mac OS X, Windows ... whatever meets my needs. There is no need to justify using what you like.

5) Steve did say that coding in Cocoa would make a developer's life easier. Now is a good time for devs to code in a standard manner. I mean if Theo and a crack team from Wolfram Research, unprepared, can do it in 2 hours and 20 lines of code, the rest of the developers can too. Just check the little box ... hehe. I admit this will be harder without support from Apple, but that demo with Wolfram inspired confidence in me for the other developers to pull through. Support Mac developers with money. You know you can. You can sacrifice one fancy dinner for one day in your life. Shareware developers need money, and they'll deserve it even more with fat binaries and potentially a lot more work.

Guys, your life is not over because Apple releases new hardware. Sometimes, consumerism goes overboard. People always want something for nothing, to get more for their old things. Why don't you guys work a few hours, for all the time you spend whining and complaining in this thread, earn some money, and buy some hardware that will satisfy your measurebating, but will become old 6 months later? Maybe you should reprioritize your life if what you are worried about is how Apple's decision makes your thousand dollar purchase worthless. We prioritize the wrong things in life sometimes ... Geez.

Man, now that's a long period of my life that I won't get back. :-\

 

[MontyZ]

Red Hat is NOT Linux in the first place.

I know.

 

[IscariotJ]

Why IA-32?

Ok, I can understand the move to Intel, but why the move to IA-32 chips? This document, http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/ doesn't mention anything about IA-64/64bit. Have Apple forsaken the 64bit bragging rights, for quicker chips?

J

 

[blouis79]

PowerPC could still live.....

Purely speculative, but....

If Apple is the major customer for big PowerPC chips, loss of that customer will significantly devalue the PowerPC business. That would leave the PowerPC business ripe to be sold off.

Who might want it? Perhaps someone like Samsung.

* Already apparently making PowerPC chips for IBM....
http://macuser.pcpro.co.uk/macuser/news/49778/samsung-makes-powerpc-for-ibm.html

* Historical growth around 24% and major shares of markets of memory chips and LCD displays, and a growing logic chip business...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/22/top_ten_chip_makers_h1_04/

There's no reason why PowerPC couldn't be resurrected as chip of choice for Apple and Linux.

 

[Godwin]

That's fine.. that's why Rosetta runs only on IA32.. Pentium M runs low power that's what Apple needs right now.. remember Laptop sales is outselling Desktop for the next forseeable future. Apple have to have parity at least in this space.

Power4 is not a bad chip.. but it is fundamentally a SERVER chip.. power requirements are different.

Again, the only X86 processor that Intel has that is
better in thermal performance is the Pentium M. All the other chips (P4, P4EE, Pentium D, etc.) run really hot. However, the Pentium M is not yet as fast as the other Pentiums, yet alone as fast as the AMD chips. It's awesome for notebooks but for desktops, well, maybe next year. And again, while the desktop chips are 64-bit, Pentium M will remain 32-bit for awhile.

And stop quoting that one article from Tom's hardware. Overclocking is never guaranteed. I'm sure if you overclock the beejezus out of a CPU with exotic cooling, you'll beat whatever but under normal yields with normal conditions, the Pentium M can't match Athlon64 yet. Plus Tom's Hardware has forever been known as Intel's and Nvidia's b***h.

Now, I'm not bagging on the Pentium M. It's an awesome design and should've been the chip to replace the PIII. It has more room for growth than current P4's. But for the Intel roadmap, it'll remain a 32-bit chip (while their other chips and AMD's chips are transitioning to 64-bit) for at least to the dual-core PentM.

 

[pdpardue]

Longhorn...

Forgive me if this has been gone over already, i dind't fill like reading through 68 pages of posts... But what about longhorn? If OSX can run under a intel chip, don't you think that longhorn is going to be burried if Microsoft doesn't get off their as soon?
I do agree that a lot of XP's faults is that it tries to be everything for everyone, and sometimes there are just to many variable. Apple has thus far kept their stuff fairly regulated, I don't see how they are going to stop that now, unless they open up to the do it yourselfers...

In the end, we'll see what happens.

 

[Godwin]

Remember Rosetta is only a temporary "Transitional" solution. Once everyone is writing new apps with the Intel compilers they can have IA64 or EM64T or whatever is the 64 flavour of the day.. and the end user won't care.

Ok, I can understand the move to Intel, but why the move to IA-32 chips? This document, http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/ doesn't mention anything about IA-64/64bit. Have Apple forsaken the 64bit bragging rights, for quicker chips?

J

 

[GregA]

Steve said pretty clearly in the Keynote that there's a lot of work to do and they should have the first Macs running on Intel by June 6, 2006 @ WWDC 2006, a year from now.

Jobs said "We are also working to design some Intel based Macs, and when we're here next year we plan to have them in the marketplace."

That leaves the date and number wide open.

I think more than anything, Steve Jobs doesn't want to make a promise and not deliver. So he's giving the worst case scenario - 1 year to get a product going when they're already demonstrating a working version, and have been running OSX Intel for 5 years. Of course, he said 2006-2007 for first transition, so there's nothing happening in 2005... (unless sales plummet and he has to pull a rabbit out)

Greg

 

[Godwin]

That's why Steve brought out the big guys ie Microsoft, Adobe + Wolfram out today.. when the fat binaries are shipping they are available.

You DONOT want Altivec to run in emulation anyways.. eg like back in the days when "Math Coprocessor" are not part of the chip.. there are "software" emultion.. they are never good.

That's why if you look at the docs.. the developer provide direct access to the Intel SIMD units.

I have mixed feelings about this, here is why:

What is bad:
- Rosetta only supports G3 processors. Every app that needs Altivec (G4) will not run on a Intel Mac. That basically means you can't buy any new Software until the fat binaries are shipping.
My guess is that no (informed) buyer will get any new Mac Software until they ship the fat binaries or at least confirm that they will be available for download later.
PowerPC based Macs will be supported for many years to come. Thats why I don't see any problems with buying one in the next two years. As I said - this is not true for buying Software
What is good:
- Intel is dedicated to making chips because their future depends on it. That is really good. We will not have to worry about Freescale or IBMs roadmap.
I cannot see a difference between IBM and Intel from a corporate standpoint - both huge companys - in the 1984 movie IBM was the bad guy?
- I can run Windows on my Intel Mac - I consider this as a good thing. That means I will finally never buy anything else but a Mac. If I need Windows - I can boot it.

To sum up:
Because I have some apps that need a G4 I will get a fancy new PowerPC based Mac soon. But NO new apps until they ship the fat bineries.

 

[GregA]

Apple is not a hardware company?

Ah Mr. Jobs...

After watching the keynote I have come to the conclusion that Apple is indeed moving in the direction of liscensing OSX to pc distributors. Steve even ended saying that the heart of a mac is not the hardware but OSX. I really think this is a smart move to compete head on with microsoft. In a few years we will see select pc distributors running mac osx. I'd say Sony

I fully agree that he's leaving the door open. No OSX for other Intel boxes... for now. MANY people on here say that Apple is a hardware company, so for Jobs to say it's not about the hardware, it's about OSX, is quite a statement.

It is what he DOESN'T say that is often most interesting.
Greg

 

[Mord]

I have mixed feelings about this, here is why:

What is bad:
- Rosetta only supports G3 processors. Every app that needs Altivec (G4) will not run on a Intel Mac. That basically means you can't buy any new Software until the fat binaries are shipping.

very very few apps wont run on a G3, apart from doom 3 (i have tryed) even if it requires it in the requirements it's not because of the lack of altivec it's because g3's are not fast enough a there clock speed (900MHz top, or 1.1GHz in an upgrade card.

 

[shokunin]

Another thing that worries me is that they went with intel over AMD. While I'm sure they have their reasons, one cannot deny the fact that AMD's current, and future desktop processors have a lot more legroom than intels. I don't understand why Apple didn't do the smart thing and go with AMD for their desktop/server's, and intel for their portables, other pc manufacturers can use both brands, so why not Apple? Using both manufacturers would virtually eliminate any kind of complaints about apple's lacking performance compared to their competition, and their both x86 so no it's not like it would cause a pain for developers. Most of all using both manufacturers would mean apple would have established two simultaneous relationships with two different chip manufacturers, hopefully preventing another outrageous IBM incident.

While I agree that AMD has a better platform at this moment in both speed, power and direction, problem is, they don't make most of the chipsets to support their CPUs. Without nVidia, AMD would be hurting big-time. There's no way anyone would buy an Apple Mac if it ran a VIA chipset.

Apple probably turned to Intel as a one stop shop, chipsets plus CPU plus any other chips Xscale, Intel PRO networking, etc to use in other devices.

 

[Patchr]

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

couldn't agree more. This is what this is all about. The G5 was and is a dead end street for the powerbook (from what other people say, I don't know s##t about chips). Can only wonder what the apple contract with intel is like, whether they are obligated to use intel in the desktops?

Either way I'm happy about the move. I've got a Dual 2.5 G5, and I don't care that it will be redundant in 2 years, just gives me an excuse to buy a new one. And it's kinda nice cause it puts the upgrade question out of mind for two years!

 

[sacear]

fgdn17,

You said Gates ripped off Apple in the "early 70s," neither was around then. Even in this quote you posted the date is 1976! Although the Apple I was not available in quantity until 1977. That is the mid to late 1970s. Bill Gates came along after that and he didn't "rip Apple off" until the late 1980s, (he was ripping others off though). Gates did not rip off the Apple computer OS, he ripped off the Macintosh computer OS. The Macintosh was introduced in 1984. That is why your statement that Gates ripped off Apple in the early 70s makes no sense.

no..they were developing around 1973 timeframe...maybe YOUR CONFUSED...

Apple I
Codename: ?

CPU: MOS Technology 6502

CPU Speed: 1 MHz

FPU: none

Bus Speed: 1 MHz

Data Path: 8 bit

Onboard RAM: 8 kB

Maximum RAM: 32 kB

VRAM: 1 kB

Maximum Resolution: 60.05 Hz, 40x24 char

Power: 58 Watts

Introduced: April 1976

 

[vatel]

If Apple is the major customer for big PowerPC chips, loss of that customer will significantly devalue the PowerPC business. That would leave the PowerPC business ripe to be sold off.

You died on if. Apple will sell around 3 million G5's this year at most.
Next year, Sony may sell 60 million Cells, and MS may sell 60 million Xenon's. Apple was the bottom of the barrel, and IBM had no intention of spending alot of money on 3% of their PowerPC market. Freescale had no intention of spending alot of money on 3% of their PowerPC market. IBM and Freescale will sell as many PowerPC chips as Intel next year, and Apple was never going to be a big part of that deal.

a. is it a p4, pentium derivitave, or something that's not out yet? (preferably with all the legacy bs stripped out. its time to let go of 16 bit processing already. 32 while we're at it. let it go.)
b. is this part of some grander scheme? Like maybe server market share (blade servers as previously mentioned).
c. the spyware/virus/malware situation. Even arguing that the OS itself is more secure, consider this: people that make spyware and virus, and all the things that make life in windows miserable are pricks**. They are terrible pricks who prey on innocent users. Even of the OS is more secure, with 1000x the number of these pricks pointed at your OS, you -will- have the same issues to deal with.

a. 1) Everything except the PMac get's a Dothan-Yonah chip
2) PMacs: I'm guessing, but probably a real 64 bit chip, given that they won't be introduced for 2 years from now.

b I'm clueless.

c. Changing to x86 does not increase malware vulnerability at all, it's an OS level issue not a hardware issue.

 

[MontyZ]

Gates ripped off Apple, and Apple ripped off Xerox.

Neither are innocent.

 

[minesgeek]

everyone is bickering back and forth about what this means for apple, what this means about people loyal to apple in this time of change blah blah blah. touchy feelings left aside, there are tow aspects of this issue that have big fat and extremely consequesntial question marks left:

1. why would anyone interested in performance and longevity (albiet tough to predict with any electronic product these days) look at a mac over a pc?

2. why is there little to no focus on the fact that a triple boot machine might be a geek's dream, especially on a beautiful mac?

my 2 cents on this forum of many, many dollars...

wahoo! post #1695!

 

[maxvamp]

Ok, lotus notes, sybase, neither run on OS X. LIke I said, need a PC. Next.

So you can only run Lotus and Sybase on a PC??? Try again dude!!!! Sybase ASE is on Mac OSX and Lotus can run on AIX ( Both PPC BTW ).

Try again.... Next!!!

 

[JackSYi]

What does this mean for the Cell processor? I realize it is still years from now, but if Apple abandons IBM, and IBM is co-developing the Cell, does that mean we will probably not see the Cell in the Macs?

 

[The Man]

Some are saying

Yes it has. A dual G5 will still have respectable performance 4 years from now, but how much new software will be available for it?

The PowerPC install base is huge. And it will be for years to come. Those Intel Macs will not overtake PowerPC install base in one or two years. If anything, software for PowerPC will be more than for Intel Macs because some developers don't want to switch to Xcode. And they will think: Oh, those Intel Mac guys can use Rosetta. And as for PowerPC apps being phased out, I would think that because Intel based Macs have to be written in Xcode, the app will automatically be (or for a huge part be) PowerPC ready too - albeit less tweaked for optimum speed, especially AltiVec. It does mean that Apple really wants every developer to go Cocoa for better and more rapid development between chips. The effort for all developers lies here. But it is about time that all apps behave the same. With this step to Intel, we will say goodbye to dual Mac OS 9 Mac OS X development, unless those developers think that people will be just happy with Rosetta.

Edit: Okay maybe four years down the road, PowerPC development will slow down. But I don't see any problem for the transition period of three years.

 

[Lurch_Mojoff]

?!?!?

ONE THING:

Stevo shot himself on stage...

...in the foot...

...with an anti-tank gun...

...and high impact shells.

I'm going home to weep.

 

[NickFalk]

The chip is the soul of a computer.

Nope, the chip is the brain of the computer. The OS is the soul.

 

[Kelmon]

Well, I have to admit to having been sceptical before the presentation (just managed to watch the video this morning) and have to confess to having been pretty impressed. While I am unsure as to how well Intel's offering will work relative to what IBM will be producing next year, the transition road map appears to have been very well thought out and I give plaudits to Apple for having at least identified the potential risk with IBM and taken steps to mitigate this risk. Overall I was really impressed with both the alleged ease of transition from PowerPC to Intel, principally the ease of recompilation, provision of a translator for "legacy" software, and distribution of dual binaries (I forget the term used).

As noted, I wait to see what the actual processors are that will be used and what the implications are in terms of Windows on a Mac or OS X on a PC, but at this time I am pretty impressed. At the end of the day, I'm waiting for a new notebook to replace my aging PowerBook that incorporates some punch. If IBM cannot deliver a suitable processor (that question wasn't answered during the presentation since Steve noted new PowerPC offerings but no details) then I'm happy to give Intel a chance as long as the computing experience doesn't change.

 

[sacear]

Your own quotes prove that there was no personal computer in 1974, especially not one for Bill Gates to rip off. Especially not Apple for Gates to rip off. I remember the hobbyist kits, those were not personal computers.

1975 January: The Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems (MITS) develop Altair 8800, the first personal computer. It is on the cover of "Popular Electronics" along with a lenghty article. The article catches Paul Allen and Bill Gates' eyes, and they develop a BASIC Interpreter for Altair.

Apple I
Codename: ?

CPU: MOS Technology 6502

CPU Speed: 1 MHz

FPU: none

Bus Speed: 1 MHz

Data Path: 8 bit

Onboard RAM: 8 kB

Maximum RAM: 32 kB

VRAM: 1 kB

Maximum Resolution: 60.05 Hz, 40x24 char

Power: 58 Watts

Introduced: April 1976


The Altair Age really began in December 1974, when subscribers to Popular Electronics magazine received the January 1975 issue in the mail. Featured on the cover was the computer that jump-started the computer hobbyist movement and set the course for the personal computer revolution. For $397, a small company called MITS, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, was offering a microcomputer kit, the Altair 8800, based on the new Intel 8080 microprocessor. The Altair was an immediate hit, to say the least! Orders piled into the small MITS office, and its founder, Ed Roberts, was on his way to fame and fortune.


guess you better check your memory again huh??????????????