Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Platform said:Sorry to ask a question that may have been answered, but I can't stream the Keynote
If someone could post the address of the Keynote stream ie. not http://stream.apple.akadns.net that would be great, or a download spot. If so could you PM it to me cos it'll just get lost in all these posts. This must be the hottest topic ever on MR.
MontyZ said:
Also, seems that a complete application must either run translated or natively, say that you have a Intel Mac running UB Photoshop and one of the plug-ins is PPC, then the entire app would run as a PPC app being translated (ie slower)
Black Badger said:
You're quite right. That is why the first Mac likely to ship with an Intel processor (not necessarily a Pentium, it was never mentioned, just Intel processors) is likely to be the Mac Mini or another as yet unannounced lower end machine. For users of those machines there will be no noticeable performance reduction when using PPC apps with Rosetta. The high end Macs will be last to move to Intel as many of apps used on those machines will require more work to allow them to run without Rosetta's help.
I'm guessing we'll see some new, Intel based machines, perhaps the rumored "Xstation" that will be released to be sold concurrently with Apple's PPC offerings for some time to come.
Only time will tell but this seems a necessary move that has been extensively thought out. Whatever people say on forums such as this one, they are seriously underestimating Apple who are clearly taking into consideration all the potential implications of such a move. We are only privy to very limited information regarding the future of the PPC and it is therefore ridiculous for us to try to make a judgement on something we really don't have much idea about apart from a few unreliable rumors. However from what Steve Jobs said, the move to Intel should be relatively painless, especially when compared to the move from OS 9 to OS X, it was difficult at the time but all the benefits are now apparent.
If I hadn't recently bought an iBook I would still be looking to buy a Mac now even after this announcement. There is no point waiting for some non-existant future product, a new Mac on your desk is worth much more. Apple ships great machines now and will continue to do so in the future, nothing has changed in that regard after yesterday's announcements.
hoppo99 said:
Here, here.
Bar the low-end anybody know what is on the horizon at Intel regarding new high-performance processors? Is it just me that thinks Apple may have missed a trick by not going down a IBM/Cell route?*
* I don't know if Cell is a good desktop CPU or just a honking great GPU with CPU attached.
Black Badger said:
I don't know much of the details about Cell but what I do know is that Apple has been taken for a ride big-time by IBM. Steve Jobs wouldn't have gone up on stage two years ago and said that they would be at 3Ghz by last summer if he hadn't have been given an assurance by IBM to that effect. The simple fact is, they did not deliver while Powerbooks are meanwhile languishing on G4s when Apple has all along been saying that 64 bit is the future.
The G5 line appears to have stagnated at 2.7Ghz with no apparent progress after that because IBM are too busy supplying Microsoft with chips for their XBox and are raving about Cell. Apple must have taken a long hard look at it before choosing to move away to Intel. They have after all been keeping a secret build of OSX built for Intel's processors all this time so surely it makes sense therefore if they are going anywhere else to just use that? Perhaps porting would have been more difficult than to Intel?
what are the specs on the developer box?
I can't see them on Apple's site, and I'd really like to know before I drop $500 on upgrading to select and $999 to buy the thing. Not to mention the fact that the site says the "use of" scares me into thinking they'll say they retain ownership of the box.
edit: sorry if someone else asked/gave the info earlier, but good lord, I don't want to wade through the whole thread and read every single person moaning or applauding, or touting the stock, like I have the last couple of threads about this. I just want real info
edit again: found the answer over at Anandtech. It's a 3.6GHz P4, and they want the system back in 2006. Argh!
I can't see them on Apple's site, and I'd really like to know before I drop $500 on upgrading to select and $999 to buy the thing. Not to mention the fact that the site says the "use of" scares me into thinking they'll say they retain ownership of the box.
edit: sorry if someone else asked/gave the info earlier, but good lord, I don't want to wade through the whole thread and read every single person moaning or applauding, or touting the stock, like I have the last couple of threads about this. I just want real info
edit again: found the answer over at Anandtech. It's a 3.6GHz P4, and they want the system back in 2006. Argh!
What will you use, then?
Just a very simple question to you Mac fanatics bemoaning the switch to Intel:
If you're not going to use the Mactel that's coming out next year, are you going to switch to Wintel?
I use a Dell (supplied by the company, of course) and a G3 Powerbook (my own machine) at the office and an iMac G5 at home. There are still occassional glitches when transferring files between my PC and my G3, and I hope the new machine will solve all problems once and for all. But is that really possible?
If any Apple executives are reading this, my plea to you is:
Please bring out a new laptop running on Intel first. The G4 Powerbook is not fast enough and you really need a great laptop to shock the market, especially the Wintel users. (Don't forget the laptop market is growing much faster than the desktop market). The G5 Powermac can wait a year or two before switching to Intel.
I just hope my G3 can last long enough.
Just a very simple question to you Mac fanatics bemoaning the switch to Intel:
If you're not going to use the Mactel that's coming out next year, are you going to switch to Wintel?
I use a Dell (supplied by the company, of course) and a G3 Powerbook (my own machine) at the office and an iMac G5 at home. There are still occassional glitches when transferring files between my PC and my G3, and I hope the new machine will solve all problems once and for all. But is that really possible?
If any Apple executives are reading this, my plea to you is:
Please bring out a new laptop running on Intel first. The G4 Powerbook is not fast enough and you really need a great laptop to shock the market, especially the Wintel users. (Don't forget the laptop market is growing much faster than the desktop market). The G5 Powermac can wait a year or two before switching to Intel.
I just hope my G3 can last long enough.
I agree with you!
My iMac 20" G5 will not just stop work in 2,3 or 4 years. It works fine on Tiger and will work just fine with Jaguar as well. And by that time I will probably give that to my son (5 year now - 6 or 7 by then) and buy myself a Jaguare mother-fu**er speedie IntelMac
My iMac 20" G5 will not just stop work in 2,3 or 4 years. It works fine on Tiger and will work just fine with Jaguar as well. And by that time I will probably give that to my son (5 year now - 6 or 7 by then) and buy myself a Jaguare mother-fu**er speedie IntelMac
Balin64 said:
I see this as a smart move by Apple- By making their operating system processor independent they aren't at the mercy of chip makers. If in a few years IBM make massive improvements in the PPC/Cell or Intel make some amazing new chip then Apple will be uniquely placed to take advantage of it- something M$ won't. This gives Apple more choice and the ability to use the best chips available
chrisblore said:
The 3Ghz promise was based on the production on a 90nm process, which turns out to be a fairly tricky nut to crack, even Intel have had major headaches, and also Mhz is not the be-all. Also the 970(G5) was designed and built mainly for Apple* - a niche processor, with Cell they are going to turn out loads for the PS3 and for other devices so supply shouldn't be a problem, if it is Sony are in trouble, so obviously Sony are confident that IBM can deliver many times more parts they did for Apple.
*I think a stripped down single core POWER4 + Altivec
Dr. Kelly from IBM on stage at WWDC 2003: "And this is just the beginning gang. IBM has a processor road map that is going to knock your socks off."
My socks got knocked off alright. Just not in the manner I had envisioned.
OAN: I posted this earlier (#1606) and would still like to hear thoughts or comments from those more knowledgable on the subject than I. From my previous post:
---I have to be honest. I'm having some difficulty swallowing this move to Intel. Remember when Apple announced the G5? Theo Gray was one of the developers who demo'd his software; showing Mathematica running on a dual 2Ghz G5 against a Dell box running dual 3.xx Xeons. If memory serves me right, Mathematica ran 2.3 or 2.5 times faster on the G5 than on the Dell box. Even though the G5 was only 2 x 2.0Ghz, it appeared to have a clear performance advantage over the 3.xx Dell box. With that in mind, logic would dictate that we're going to take a performance hit moving to Intel. Thoughts? Comments?---
Thanks
My socks got knocked off alright. Just not in the manner I had envisioned.
OAN: I posted this earlier (#1606) and would still like to hear thoughts or comments from those more knowledgable on the subject than I. From my previous post:
---I have to be honest. I'm having some difficulty swallowing this move to Intel. Remember when Apple announced the G5? Theo Gray was one of the developers who demo'd his software; showing Mathematica running on a dual 2Ghz G5 against a Dell box running dual 3.xx Xeons. If memory serves me right, Mathematica ran 2.3 or 2.5 times faster on the G5 than on the Dell box. Even though the G5 was only 2 x 2.0Ghz, it appeared to have a clear performance advantage over the 3.xx Dell box. With that in mind, logic would dictate that we're going to take a performance hit moving to Intel. Thoughts? Comments?---
Thanks
rotorblade said:
My concerns also, if you go to the PM G5 performance page on Apple.com the message is clear - P4's (to use a Simponism) suck-diddly-uck, Flanders.
I think there is a lot of misconception about what Apple's plans are - they are not advocating shipping a P4 Mac. The current G5's are somewhat more powerful than current P4's or Xeon's. What Apple is betting on is the upcoming Pentium-M series chips that offer lower power consumption, 64 bit and a much more efficient internal architecture. The main reason Apple is not releasing machines this year is because Intel isn't yet in production of the parts Apple wants to use. While these new Intel processors will not be exponential improvements, they will be noticeably faster than the G5's that are apparently stuck in a time warp.
The new Intel chips also offer the latest version of SSE (SSE3) which appears to be quite comparable to AltiVec. The new gen chips also offer much improved FP performance by most accounts.
Couple this with the abstract vector lib Apple is advocating and the extensive NeXT/Apple experience in software architecture & portability, and we all need to relax. NeXT had this all figured out many years ago, and as many have mentioned, support 4 CPU architectures simultaneously. If Cell comes on strong (or IBM gets back on track with PPC) then Apple can use that with little impact.
Some reading on Ars about Intel architectures and the upcoming chips might reduce the anxiety some
And that crappy single CPU P4 Steve was demoing on seemed to boogy along pretty good if you ask me. A couple of the next gen P-M's ought to spank our current G5's.
The new Intel chips also offer the latest version of SSE (SSE3) which appears to be quite comparable to AltiVec. The new gen chips also offer much improved FP performance by most accounts.
Couple this with the abstract vector lib Apple is advocating and the extensive NeXT/Apple experience in software architecture & portability, and we all need to relax. NeXT had this all figured out many years ago, and as many have mentioned, support 4 CPU architectures simultaneously. If Cell comes on strong (or IBM gets back on track with PPC) then Apple can use that with little impact.
Some reading on Ars about Intel architectures and the upcoming chips might reduce the anxiety some
And that crappy single CPU P4 Steve was demoing on seemed to boogy along pretty good if you ask me. A couple of the next gen P-M's ought to spank our current G5's.
Someone here before mentioned DRM as a possible answer to all this.rotorblade said:
Intel chips have Hollywood approved DRM. Apple wants to sell movies via iTMS. Apple has had the Marklar running for five years just in case.
Suddenly, Intel became very interesting due to the DRM. Steve can spinn the transition through the failure of 3Ghz G5 and the thermal challanges which prevents putting the G5 into the PB.
It fits somehow... not very flattering, but it fits
SeaFox said:
You don't consider this "doing something with Macintoshes"?
What exactly do you consider it?
Object-X said:
Yes, but Apple's been making chip claims for years - their G5 PowerMac page still touts the G5 as being superior to the Pentium. Steve Jobs tried to pitch the Intel switch as just another transition, but it's fundamentally different from, say, the move from 68000 to PPC. When that happened, Apple could claim that they were moving to the "next level;" now they have to convince people why they're about to adopt a chip that they said was inferior. (Yes, I know that Apple will be using "next gen" Intel chips, but it's the perception that counts.)
True, but convincing the millions of potential switchers out there will be more difficult now. To the guy looking for a home computer, the Mactel and the Dell are going to look more alike than ever.
Have you seen anything to substantiate this? It's hard to believe that when Intel comes out with their 6 GHz chip in 2008 Apple will be ahead of Dell and the rest of the Wintel crowd in getting early samples and a good deal.
Agreed. I think this was the main reason for the switch. Portable sales are more important than ever, and Apple wasn't anywhere close getting a G5 in a PowerBook.
Redneck1089 said:
Nope, precisely 2 years from yesterday EVERY program will be updated, and recompiled ONLY for X86. Your G5 will be nothing more than a paper weight.
(Sounds stupid, doesnt it.... Guess what, it is stupid!)
Its not gonna happen like that. You know it, common sense dictates it. Were all programs OS X on the day it was released? Did everyone move to OS X within 1 year and drop any and all support for OS 9?
Armaggideon said:
That is the same stream
Does anyone have a download link
pls 
DRM
Could the advent of DRM specific chips to Apple allow Apple to use x86 without the worry of OS X being installed on any old windoows box?
In other words OSX is locked to specific chips (supplied to Apple only)
Could the advent of DRM specific chips to Apple allow Apple to use x86 without the worry of OS X being installed on any old windoows box?
In other words OSX is locked to specific chips (supplied to Apple only)
- Status