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
Devie said:
It it almost identical to the previous architechure change.
What happened is that software companies started shipping out "Fat Binaries" of their programs. Fat Binaries are the exact same thing as Universal Binaries (ie. a program designed to run on both architechures...the computer dictates which one that is), just a different name.
Granted, I started using Macs about 4-5 years after the 68k--->PPC transition but even then Fat Binary programs were all over the place, the 68k still had a pretty large software library.
IBM ditched Apple, Jobs had NO choice in the matter
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN . . . . . the situation here is very obvious, Steve mentioned it in his keynote, and IBM's constant delaying speaks volumes.
I'm a very happy user of Ubuntu Linux, that's running nicely on my 64-bit AMD rig. So all you Mac users are my cousins. Nice to see all of you!
So, the problem here is pretty ovious: IBM had enough. Producing chips for Apple is a pretty erxpensive deal, and IBM basically closed the door on the 3ghz G5, closed the door on any notion of G5 notebooks, and basically wants out of the Apple 64-bit processor game. In fact it's probable that the problem was with Freescale Semiconductor, who is IBM's supplier.
Can you blame IBM? Nope. Not when by some miracle they stole a hugely lucrative console-chip contract from Intel. IBM, with it's not-so-deep pockets now has an opportunity to make loads of $$$ in the console market, where you bet that everoyne and their dog will be a buyer. IBM simply can't afford to put any more resoures into Apple and diverge focus from it's new console market.
IBM is only thnking of its own health. I can't blame them. I might have done the same thing. It's been a great decade, but IBM no longer has the motivation to continue producing for Apple. That's business.
So, Stevo had NO choice. His ONLY cpu supplier basically closed the door on him. Had he hung around with IBM, he'd likely have found himself with no cpus at all in say, half a year's time. 3ghz was never going to happen. Notebooks were never going to happne. What was he supposed to do?? Knock on KitchenAid's door??
No. The only way to survive was to move to either Intel or AMD. AMD seems to have other plans for the moment, but Intel always had a plan for Apple. Steve had no choice but to move to Intel in order to avoid seeing his computer line die.
IBM closed the door. Plain and simple. POWER5 or no POWER5.
Apple uers should rejoice. Steve just saved all of you. I don't think alot of you realized just how much danger Apple was in.
As for how recent PoweMac G5 buyers should feel? That's the technology game for you, folks. Hell, I almost bought a G5 last week to use as a second computer, until I did some last-minute research and saw the news. Get used to it.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN . . . . . the situation here is very obvious, Steve mentioned it in his keynote, and IBM's constant delaying speaks volumes.
I'm a very happy user of Ubuntu Linux, that's running nicely on my 64-bit AMD rig. So all you Mac users are my cousins. Nice to see all of you!
So, the problem here is pretty ovious: IBM had enough. Producing chips for Apple is a pretty erxpensive deal, and IBM basically closed the door on the 3ghz G5, closed the door on any notion of G5 notebooks, and basically wants out of the Apple 64-bit processor game. In fact it's probable that the problem was with Freescale Semiconductor, who is IBM's supplier.
Can you blame IBM? Nope. Not when by some miracle they stole a hugely lucrative console-chip contract from Intel. IBM, with it's not-so-deep pockets now has an opportunity to make loads of $$$ in the console market, where you bet that everoyne and their dog will be a buyer. IBM simply can't afford to put any more resoures into Apple and diverge focus from it's new console market.
IBM is only thnking of its own health. I can't blame them. I might have done the same thing. It's been a great decade, but IBM no longer has the motivation to continue producing for Apple. That's business.
So, Stevo had NO choice. His ONLY cpu supplier basically closed the door on him. Had he hung around with IBM, he'd likely have found himself with no cpus at all in say, half a year's time. 3ghz was never going to happen. Notebooks were never going to happne. What was he supposed to do?? Knock on KitchenAid's door??
No. The only way to survive was to move to either Intel or AMD. AMD seems to have other plans for the moment, but Intel always had a plan for Apple. Steve had no choice but to move to Intel in order to avoid seeing his computer line die.
IBM closed the door. Plain and simple. POWER5 or no POWER5.
Apple uers should rejoice. Steve just saved all of you. I don't think alot of you realized just how much danger Apple was in.
As for how recent PoweMac G5 buyers should feel? That's the technology game for you, folks. Hell, I almost bought a G5 last week to use as a second computer, until I did some last-minute research and saw the news. Get used to it.
Digital7 said:
Right now the only difference between a current Mac and a PC is the CPU, the BIOS, and the design. The switch to Intel only changes the CPU.
The BIOS is the most important difference, because even though it isn't visible to the user, the BIOS is responsible for much of Apple's stability and it makes the closed platform possible. The next-most important difference is the design. The least important difference is the CPU.
Someone asked about an Intel processor roadmap. Anyone found a really good one? I found some blurb on chips at the link below - Jonah and Presler look interesting. But I'd like some better blurb 
http://freespace.virgin.net/m.warner/Roadmap2006.htm#Jonah (for Jonah in Q1 and "Presler" in Q2.)
http://freespace.virgin.net/m.warner/Roadmap2006.htm#Jonah (for Jonah in Q1 and "Presler" in Q2.)
rotorblade said:
Yes we are taking steps backward. A big one in both system architecture and chip performance. But, if IBM has given up on Apple, and there is no laptop chip, Apple is messed over. So, we take a performance hit in the hopes that over time Intel surpasses a stagnant IBM. All in all not very pretty, and not very encouraging.
digitalbiker said:
This whole line of reasoning seems to have an assumption that - "Well they are all pretty much the same they are just advertised differently." Its wrong. As far as system architecture goes the G5 platform is way beyond X86, no comparison. As far as chips go, the G5 and AMD are competing for top spot with Intel lagging behind. Of course they emphasize their strengths, but that does not mean they are all the same. Intel wins in one area really, laptops (but that looks pretty temporary, AMD has some amazing tech in the pipe). G5 loses completely in laptops, so Apple decides it is not sustainable.
I think Apple should keep the PowerMac PPC forever if IBM can make some updates.
EDIT: Clarified last sentence to not sound crazy.
For what it's worth....
OS X appears to be processor independent to a great degree, and has been (in a lab at least) since day 1, 5 years ago.
Apple appears to be forcing software developers to use their (Apple's) prefered development tools for all new software as of now, resulting in (if Steve is to be believed at all), slight tweaking of exisiting code for developers using the 'right' tools already, to produce code that compiles to work on both PPC and intel, all on one CD or DVD, transparent to the user, at no additional cost to the developer.
This means that once developers have moved to using the right tools, they have pretty much zero overhead in continuing to support PPC for the forseeable future.
In fact, any future move to another platform could be handled pretty much entirely by Apple (and the chip manufacturers) themselves writing a new set of compilers optimised for that platform.
For existing OS X software that is not tweaked and recompiled using Apple's prefered tools, they will continue to run on PPC, and via emulation in most cases on new intel Macs.
All software that runs on your PPC Mac today will run until you either a) upgrade to an OS that ceases to support it (your choice) or b) the damn computer ups and dies due to hardware failure and you can't get the parts.
Comparisons to the move from 68xxx to PPC is perhaps a little unhelpful, because things have moved on a bit since then.
Worst case (for people like Dr Gargoyle if I understand him right) is that OS9 legacy software (and a small amount of OS X software) will not work under emulation on the new intel Macs as it does at present on PPC Macs.
Everyone else gets to keep software they have invested in (and take a slight performace hit in comparison to recompiled software) when the upgrade to an intel Mac in a year or two (or three or four...), and a 2.7Ghz dual G5 running Tiger using Final Cut Pro HD is still the most productive way of editing high end video you can buy today.
What this move might do in the short term is actually focus people on buying what they need to get a job of work done
I appreciate the real concerns (and there are a few in the 100s of posts here), mostly in regard to legacy software support. For a very small percentage of users this will probably result in having to switch to another platform with more appropriate, currentley supported software and the trials of moving large and complex datasets that this involves. I feel for you, having dealt with such ports in the past on a smallish scale.
That said, most here are whining for the sake of it
OS X appears to be processor independent to a great degree, and has been (in a lab at least) since day 1, 5 years ago.
Apple appears to be forcing software developers to use their (Apple's) prefered development tools for all new software as of now, resulting in (if Steve is to be believed at all), slight tweaking of exisiting code for developers using the 'right' tools already, to produce code that compiles to work on both PPC and intel, all on one CD or DVD, transparent to the user, at no additional cost to the developer.
This means that once developers have moved to using the right tools, they have pretty much zero overhead in continuing to support PPC for the forseeable future.
In fact, any future move to another platform could be handled pretty much entirely by Apple (and the chip manufacturers) themselves writing a new set of compilers optimised for that platform.
For existing OS X software that is not tweaked and recompiled using Apple's prefered tools, they will continue to run on PPC, and via emulation in most cases on new intel Macs.
All software that runs on your PPC Mac today will run until you either a) upgrade to an OS that ceases to support it (your choice) or b) the damn computer ups and dies due to hardware failure and you can't get the parts.
Comparisons to the move from 68xxx to PPC is perhaps a little unhelpful, because things have moved on a bit since then.
Worst case (for people like Dr Gargoyle if I understand him right) is that OS9 legacy software (and a small amount of OS X software) will not work under emulation on the new intel Macs as it does at present on PPC Macs.
Everyone else gets to keep software they have invested in (and take a slight performace hit in comparison to recompiled software) when the upgrade to an intel Mac in a year or two (or three or four...), and a 2.7Ghz dual G5 running Tiger using Final Cut Pro HD is still the most productive way of editing high end video you can buy today.
What this move might do in the short term is actually focus people on buying what they need to get a job of work done
I appreciate the real concerns (and there are a few in the 100s of posts here), mostly in regard to legacy software support. For a very small percentage of users this will probably result in having to switch to another platform with more appropriate, currentley supported software and the trials of moving large and complex datasets that this involves. I feel for you, having dealt with such ports in the past on a smallish scale.
That said, most here are whining for the sake of it
I must say that after watching the wwdc I'm tempted to rip it off the streaming site, slap it into soundtrack or FCP and add crickets chirping after Steve announced the switch to Intel, you could literally hear a pin drop down in front if you sat in back. As much as I love Apple and their products I have nothing against the move to Intel but I see the reason for the transition to Intel and I see why, I also see why they didn't go with AMD (because they dont have enough fabs to meet Apples demand and their own) and why all of this is a good thing. OSX has already been ported from the start for x86 for 5 years and Apples making the switch but what really bothers me about all of it is that despite Apple wanting to "tie" OSX to their machines the OS is still software and people can work around the checks for what ever it is that ties the OS to the machine, then Apples done for I doubt they could survive on software sales alone and iPods.
I guess my prediction is bold but at some point someones going to announce they hacked OSX to run on normal PC's which will cause a flurry of orders for Intel motherboards (logic boards if you prefer) with Intel chipsets so people can run it on their pc instead, Apple will be screwed and either the company will ask Jobs to resign or he'll do it on his own accord and the company will flop and Microsoft will either rescue them again or just down right buy out Apple and make them a part of MS.
I hate to think so negatively but its only time before the first mini's come with Intel inside and OSX for x86, people tinker with it and circumvent what ever checks Apple put to make the os run on their hardware only and there'd be a backlash against Apple.
I guess my prediction is bold but at some point someones going to announce they hacked OSX to run on normal PC's which will cause a flurry of orders for Intel motherboards (logic boards if you prefer) with Intel chipsets so people can run it on their pc instead, Apple will be screwed and either the company will ask Jobs to resign or he'll do it on his own accord and the company will flop and Microsoft will either rescue them again or just down right buy out Apple and make them a part of MS.
I hate to think so negatively but its only time before the first mini's come with Intel inside and OSX for x86, people tinker with it and circumvent what ever checks Apple put to make the os run on their hardware only and there'd be a backlash against Apple.
A couple of thoughts to consider ....
Steve MUST have some big plans up his sleeve for this change ... beyond the much-ballyhooed "cost savings" line. And, while I agree that IBM really gave him no choice, Jobs is not the kind of businessman who allows himself to be put in a corner. I can promise you that he has seen this coming - and probably for quite a long time. I personally feel that the transition will be very difficult - and the result will be more than worth it! I cannot see how this changes the Apple we all love.
Steve MUST have some big plans up his sleeve for this change ... beyond the much-ballyhooed "cost savings" line. And, while I agree that IBM really gave him no choice, Jobs is not the kind of businessman who allows himself to be put in a corner. I can promise you that he has seen this coming - and probably for quite a long time. I personally feel that the transition will be very difficult - and the result will be more than worth it! I cannot see how this changes the Apple we all love.
Tain't necessarily so. The CPU wasn't the only variable. Those were two OSs and two versions of Mathematica. Also, the overall speed of the machine depends on more factors than just the CPU. Two computers with identical copies of Windows and identical CPUs can have signficantly different performance because of the manufacturer. Dell isn't always the speedster, they are just the most popular. The comparison was valid for retail purposes, because the customer buys the whole package, but not for the purposes you are trying to put it to.
Intel is putting out newer, faster chips; IBM is not.
A valid comparison for your purpose would be Mathematica on two Macs that are identical except for CPU.
There won't be a performance hit.
GTKpower said:
That makes more sense than Steve jumped ship.
As I said yesterday - the reason may well out in the next few weeks and it'll make more sense to us all.
Maybe IBM will continue with the currently planned bumps and then they are out. hence the gradual phasing out - as many say and I agree - expect mobile Intel chips to be the first on sale.
Then Intel and Apple will see what they can do - hey who knows what Apple engineers and designers can make with Intel working with them. We all know what the Intel CEO thinks of OSX!
redAPPLE said:
Not quite. I have a slightly better analogy. This is like Porsche saying that it is disregarding it's Flat 6 Boxer twin turbo engines, because although they are superior, they take longer to design and produce, and can't currently support selling more Porsche cars.
Then the CEO of Porsche announces that the next 911, Boxster, and eventually even the Cayenne will all have a Chevy Small Block. The same pushrod engine that has been around since 1955. (meanwhile the Harley VRod and Street Rod still use their porsche-designed V-twins, akin to M$ Xbox, etc. going to PPC for it's inherent benefits.)
I don't buy Apple hardware to get an over-priced Dell with less warranty coverage. (which I am afraid of Mac hardware becoming), and I wouldn't buy a Porsche to get a Chevy with their current build quality. Certainly not at Porsche prices. I wouldn't buy a Chevy at Chevy prices (literally, or the PC I am using this analogy to illustrate.)
But all the people who used to be gung-ho for turbo flat sixes, now say: "Oh, it may be a chevy small block, but it is still in the rear of the car, it has just as much horsepower, and the car drives the same way. Oh, and look how easy it is to get parts for at the local NAPA store."
This still reeks. It may be necessary, and it may be as seamless a transition as possible with a positively stagnant product line for the next 12-24 months. I am not personally going to switch to Windows, even though I support both Mac OS and Windows for my work. I am a Mac OS user, but this isn't all sunshine and roses.
I run a laptop lease program for a university, and it is going to be harder to justify to students this fall why they should take part in a lease program where some of the academic programs favor the Apple platform, when Apple's hardware is not going to be updated this year. This will be the third annual run for us of the same basic 17" powerbooks, with relatively minor speed bumps. The Dell Latitudes we use are getting upgraded to a new model for this year, from the D800 to the D810, with some actual platform improvements, for less money.
Plus with a three year contract we use, the Apple-leasing students will be stuck with a PPC G4 powerbook for at least that long, and then who knows how much of a paperweight that will be 36 months from now, in terms of performance viability. The 800mhz TiBooks we are retiring now don't have much margin of usefullness left. It will be interesting to see where the AlBooks will be in 3 years, compared to new equipment then.
Hopefully people here are right, and Universal Binaries will keep software available through this timeframe and beyond. But that isn't the whole story.
I know why it makes sense to go with Intel, but this situation helps nobody in the near term. It is gonna be hard for me to sell a 3 year commitment starting this fall, to old and known-EOL hardware, when I myself probably wouldn't buy a Mac Powerbook right now in light of this news, unless I got a SCHMOKIN' deal. Like say $1500 for a new 17", but I know I am not gonna get that, especially when I go to purchase 80-90 new powerbooks for students here in a couple months.
EDIT: holy schmoke and a pancake. I jumped from page 22 to 74 or something??? Is there anything new in the 50+ pages I skipped, other than half of the people yelling: "THIS SUCKS!", and the other half screaming "THIS MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!"
Stella said:
Great post. The main effect of the annoucement is on purchase decisions starting in the next few months. Do you wait, do you buy something other than what you would prefer? Etc.
I was in the market for a PB (not out of any necessity) and I'll be the third or fourth in line for the PB with Yonah in 2006. But I'm not sure what I want to do now. I don't really need a new PB, I can survive (lol!) for another nine months with what I have and it seems quite possible that the first Intel products are introduced at MacWorld in Jan. And I'm going to bet that if Yonah is out the first Intel products will be new PB.
J-Squire said:
No, no, no. The G5 has advanced proportionally more than any other chip in the last 2 years. Yes, no 3Ghz, but more improvement than anyone else. This move is likely being made because of your second point - just about laptops. Or, Steve threw a hissy and IBM threw him out. But, its all about laptops. Yes, in the future, when IBM gives up on the G5, obviously Intel will pass it. But the G5 has been advanced proportionally the fastest.
jimbobb24 said:
Apple may well have wanted to.
We still don't know what went wrong and why and who isn't exactly delivering what Steve thought and said he could and would.
As mentioned elsewhere - given IBM now have the console market - maybe they just gave up on us?
Devie said:
i bought my wife an iBook yesterday, right after the announcement.
now, the iBooks are long in the tooth, and may see a refresh soon, and i may regret that, but here is my thinking: she gets it now, it lasts 3-5 years. by then, i will have a new intel style whatevertheydecidetocallit laptop, and they will be a few versions into intel chips, and she will get a great upgrade. in the mean time, even if they announce intel ibooks (or whatever) in the first month of '06, she needs it. why wait? the announcement is about the future, and in no way changes the present.
My experience with Intel's "Centrino Technology" has left a bad taste in my mouth. Instead of making it compatable, they broke many things, all for the sake of marketing. Ever buy 24 laptops (all from IBM no less!), and have enough differences in what are supposed to be the same model/specs that you couldn't just install on one and use the OS image on all the others?eVolcre said:
I used to think it was all the fault of the software companies (having worked for a few) until I went to work for $BIG_HARDWARE_COMPANY. Then I discovered that very few decisions in this industry are made on technical merit. But, I always held onto the idea that Apple was forging a trail for the others to follow, and never looking back. Who cared that not everyone had a Mac? Fine by me - the industry needed innovation. But, with this announcement, the last truly innovative hardware company is gone.
The fate of PowerBook G5's
Do you think the PB G5 has any chance now, or perhaps the development cycle was never as far along as once thought?
Macmadant said:Apple have betrayed us all never again will i use a mac and no more will they be as pc users flock to buy osx for pentium 4s
Do you think the PB G5 has any chance now, or perhaps the development cycle was never as far along as once thought?
jZilla said:
Yes. IBM closed the door on Steve.
The laptop issue was a big one. No 3ghz is the other big issue. When your ONLY cpu supplier wants out of the game and wants to make a killing in the console market, you move on, and move FAST to keep from dying.
Had Apple stuck with IBM, they would have been DEAD in less than a year. Freescale Semiconductor, IBM's own supplier, probably wanted to ditch Apple as well.
I can't blame IBM for followng the money.
- Status