Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
jimbobb24 said:
I think Apple should keep the PowerMac PPC forever.


And be stuck at 2.7Ghz forever too? :rolleyes:

GTKpower hit it right on the nose. IBM has pretty much given up on Apple and with good reason. I wouldn't be investing time and resources in a company as demanding as Apple who owns at best 4% of the market. This is the same behavior that Moto had and would be the same for anyone else Apple goes after to make proprietary chips. Apple is a drop in the bucket at the end of the day. By going to Intel that can reap the rewards of having the industry use the same chips you are and having two companies go at it for the title fastest CPU. (A title Apple is barely hanging on to if they haven't outright lost it to the Opteron.) Apple saw the writing on 2006's wall and I bet a paycheck that it say no dual core's on the G5. No speeds greater then 3Ghz.
Which was the point Steve pushed the button that started all of this.

Remember if the BOD really didn't want this I'm pretty sure Steve wouldn't be doing this. This was an act of desperation pure and simple. There is a reason why Steve called it their "just in case" plan.
 
I can't believe how many people here "just don't get it".

Over the next couple of years Apple will be switching to Intel chips. Does that mean you should "wait" to buy a Mac for 2 years? Hell no!! If you need a Mac go ahead and buy one. The best time to buy a Mac is always when they are first announced. Look at MacRumors guide to buying a Mac here:

Know When To Buy Your Mac

If I was in the market for a Mac right now I would not hesitate to buy a PPC Mac. Use the web page above as your guide, not Intel vs. PPC. Nothing has changed! The PPC Mac you buy today will run just fine years from now AND will be able to run all the software just fine! So there's a different chip inside? So what? Most people never even open their Mac! They would bever know anyway!

Also, comparing current PPC and current Intel chips is worthless. The first Macs with Intel chips won't even ship until next WWDC. The chip in that Mac will not be the same chip Steve showed yesterday. That's the whole point of the switch! Steve said that the roadmap for "future" chips looked brighter on the Intel side than it did at IBM. "Roadmap" and "future" people! Not current tech!

Why is this so hard to understand? Why do you think Apple wants the Dev Kit Macs back in a year? They are simply to get the developers started and in no way represent the machines Apple will be shipping. My guess is the ones they will ship will be much faster. That's the whole point!

Had Steve announced the transition to a G6 over the next two years it would be the same difference. If you are the kind of person that would wait for 2 years to buy your new Mac, so be it. Otherwise, don't sweat it. Buy when you need to buy. As Steve said, Mac OS X will be supporting both PPC and Intel for a long time! It's already been supporting both for 5 years now!
 
Xcode 2.1

I have a question.
Shouldn't universal binaries from Xcode 2.1 coding both for x86 and PPC result in a performance decrease? I mean, a code supporting two platforms should be less efficient (i.e. slower) than than just coding for x86? I don't know if I am totally off here. If so just tell me and I will shut up. :p

Assuming support for two diff CPU:s entails a perfermance decrease, wouldn't it be likely that developers drop dual support as soon as financially posssible? That is, as soon as Mactels are have a fair share of the market?
:confused:
 
heisetax said:
Everybody needs to make a big NO vote by not purchasing any Apple products. But knowing Steve Jobs he'll just think that no sales means that he was correct rather than he was eliminating a product that people liked, but was replacing it with something that has stood for anti-Mac. Either Steve Jobs was lying to us when he said than the PPC was better than the Intel processors, or he's lying to us now when he says that the Intel processor is better than the PPC. You can't have it both ways. There must be more than me that has a memory that lasts this long.
:mad:

Or, and I'm just stabbing in the dark here.. you're being dumb.

I'll take a G5 over a P4 from an architectural standpoint.... (I'd take an Opteron over either, but that's a digression)
doesn't mean I'll take a PPE over a Conroe 'desktopized' dual core Pentium M in a years time...

chip designs for either architecture change with time, right now, x86 is looking stronger than it has for a long time, PowerPC only looks REALLY good at the very high end, and POWER5 isn't a chip you're gonna get in a laptop.

In short, 'the intel processor' and 'the ppc'
Which Intel processor and which PPC?

How about 'the motorola processor' and 'the IBM processor'
could mean a 601 and a G5, could mean a G4 and a G3... in your simplistic terminology, saying a G4 is better than a G3 implies that 'Motorola > IBM', even if it's only true in that one instance.

What Steve got up on stage and did was say 'hey, Intel processor over the next few years look better than PowerPC processors in the same timeframe', he did not say 'hay guys, Intel have always had better chips than us, lol'
 
pkr said:
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.

This is all complete B.S. If he "saw it coming" for so long, why only two years ago was he touting total platform superiority? Fastest PC in the world (more B.S.) and all that? Because he believed it.

What Steve saw several years ago was that relying on Moto. was going to ****can Apple in a hurry, they begged and pleaded with IBM, and IBM pretty much custom-made them a whole new chip out of the Power4. Insanely great things were supposed to happen after that. Like dual 3.0GHz in a year (from mid-2003). Didn't happen. You know why? Because Microsoft and Sony moved in almost immediately, and the folks at IBM said "Hmmm...we're making a few million chips, at cost, for Apple. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft each will make us more money apiece than Apple will. We hit a bump in the road, and Jobs tells the whole world we screwed up. Sony and Microsft, on the other hand, give us more money, greater prestige, and tout our technology as the world's greatest. Why the hell are we still in business with Apple?" So they dropped the ball. On purpose. Steve got some egg on his face, and probably threatened them with a jump. IBM said "whatever". Steve or one of his lackeys deliberately leaked info. to the WSJ (I wonder if Steve will sue himself for breaching NDAs) saying "Apple's gonna jump!" IBM went ::shrug::.

So now Intel is the Wave of the Future. It's complete B.S. The more I read, the more painfully clear that is. We know squat about what Intel has in store for Apple. If it's just more x86, Apple is getting the least innovative, scalable, inexpensive, and advanced processors on the market. Because they have no choice. Intel is nothing but long pipelines and brute force. They simply cannot continue to jack up clock rates and pull the usual tricks out of their hat and keep their mobile advantage. IBM and FreeScale could wipe the floor with Intel (and will in about a year, if Apple could have waited) if they chose to. They didn't because there's nothing in it for them. IBM dumped Apple. Not the other way around.

Get it through your thick skulls, Mac Religionists. This isn't bad or good so much as it is completely essential for Apple's mere survival. How good or bad PPC woulda, coulda, shoulda been for Apple is now completely moot because IBM no longer gives a steaming turd about spending money on a no-profit business with a company run by a control freak who publically disses them. Make lemonade if it calms your nerves, but keep in mind that we're in this mess because there's nowhere else to go. There's absolutely nothing that says we won't be in the same mess in a few years. Because Apple has no options. Get your collective heads out of your arses and at least acknowledge the truth of the situation. Only then can you make wise buying decisions. Don't believe a word of what Steve says right now. Keynotes are pure politicking and theater. These are cutthroat businessmen up on that stage who'll lie, cheat, and stab anyone in the back if it means more profits, or, in this case, survival. No one at Apple is a messiah, and not a one of them saw this coming two years ago. What happens in the future is very much up in the air.

Get a grip, and for the love of Pete, be skeptical before you throw your cash away again. Hold onto your old Mac for a while, and see what happens; or buy a replacement if you must as a heavily discounted refurb. Then keep an eye out. Be ready to jump to Windows or Linux if you have to, because none of us can say for sure how this will play out.
 
GTKpower said:
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!

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.

first, i am glad to hear the cousins thing. it is totally off topic, but i HATE hearing linux and BSD and Mac users fighting. what are they thinking?!? we all have common tools, common intent for security, common OSS on our machines... there is one odd man out, but it is windows! as a current linux and Mac user, linux has advantages, so does OS X, so does windows.... errr, like, umm.... minesweeper. :rolleyes:

second, i think your analysis is spot on. IBM shafted Apple, they made a money decision that left us out to dry. Steve is just smart enough to have been ready. he is good...

i disagree with the comment about the G5 though. if you spent all time in tech waiting to buy what is around the corner, you never get anything. if you bought a G5 this morning, it is still a marvelous machine that you will be running for years..
 
Dr.Gargoyle said:
I have a question.
Shouldn't universal binaries from Xcode 2.1 coding both for x86 and PPC result in a performance decrease? I mean, a code supporting two platforms should be less efficient (i.e. slower) than than just coding for x86? I don't know if I am totally off here. If so just tell me and I will shut up. :p

Assuming support for two diff CPU:s entails a perfermance decrease, wouldn't it be likely that developers drop dual support as soon as financially posssible? That is, as soon as Mactels are have a fair share of the market?
:confused:

No, but it does result in a larger file, what it's actually doing is creation two seperate binaries within the larger .app container, one compiled for PPC, one for x86

Can even be from different compilers (XLC for PPC, ICC for x86)
 
Steve threw a hissy fit??

I guess keeping Steve's temper from reaching the boiling point is the REAL "Mother of all Thermal Challenges"! :eek:

I guess one day we'll be telling our kids about the 'MegaHertz Myth' myth. :p

Personally I felt the PPC architecture was superior....but IBM was going nowhere with it. Apple was between a rock and a hard place on this one. :( I'm sure it's no suprise that Intel was always a backup plan for Apple, but the suprise is that it actually came to this!

This feels like VHS and Beta all over again! Superior, yet abondoned to go mainstream...

Good thing I'm happy with my 1 GHz TiBook as I'll be keeping it for a while...
 
Who?

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 :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: i wish i was there i would have bood

Q:Who really betrayed all of us include Apple ?
A:Motorola/Freescale and Big Blue...

There will be no future with PowerPC.
Unfortunately, Intel is only choice in several years.
Moreover, without AltiVec/Velocity Engine feature, there is no reason to stay with PowerPC.
 
MacNoobie said:
I guess my prediction is bold but at some point someone’s 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...
I think you are assuming that the hardware Apple will use on the mobo will be widely available. I doubt it. However, that's not to say some creative people out there will figure out a way to get OS X working on generic hardware. All it might need is something like a mod-chip that has been used to hack the XBOX and Playstation. My guess is that even if that happens I don't think it will be all that widespead. Even if "mod shops" open up that will put OS X on your "cheap PC", all of a sudden your "cheap PC" won't be that cheap anymore when you gotta pay someone to "hack" it for you. Just as easy to go buy a mini.
 
skellener said:
Also, comparing current PPC and current Intel chips is worthless. The first Macs with Intel chips won't even ship until next WWDC. The chip in that Mac will not be the same chip Steve showed yesterday. That's the whole point of the switch! Steve said that the roadmap for "future" chips looked brighter on the Intel side than it did at IBM. "Roadmap" and "future" people! Not current tech!

Yep. "Roadmaps" are a wonderful thing. Not to mention that they are always grounded in reality and present a solid plan of....

Oh, man, I can't even type it with a straight face. I have not seen one "roadmap" in the industry that survived two years. Oh, wait, there were 3GHz G5's on IBM's "roadmap".....

I seem to remember an Intel "roadmap" with 4+GHz P-IV's. Oh, and wasn't Itanic supposed to be doing something useful by now? Silly me for thinking that the $SUITS don't have a clue.... :eek:
 
thogs_cave said:
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?

No I didn't buy 24. I bought 60 T41's for our office of 180 users and they are better then just about any laptop on the market. All of our systems are running one OS image of Windows 2000 Pro. No tweaks. Sorry but you are talking out of your ***. :mad:

Our first batch of 12. They all came in in about a weeks time last summer.
IBMLaptops2.jpg
 
GTKpower said:
In fact it's probable that the problem was with Freescale Semiconductor, who is IBM's supplier.


What?

Freescale are what's left of Motorola's semiconductor group, they most certainly are NOT IBMs supplier.


(you're right about the 'no roadmap but sideways' angle though, much as I'd like a Mac with a 36MB L3 cache... POWER5 is just too much of a beast.)
 
Dr.Gargoyle said:
I have a question.
Shouldn't universal binaries from Xcode 2.1 coding both for x86 and PPC result in a performance decrease? I mean, a code supporting two platforms should be less efficient (i.e. slower) than than just coding for x86? I don't know if I am totally off here. If so just tell me and I will shut up. :p

Assuming support for two diff CPU:s entails a perfermance decrease, wouldn't it be likely that developers drop dual support as soon as financially posssible? That is, as soon as Mactels are have a fair share of the market?
:confused:
Developers want to sell software on the widest amount of machines/OS's they can. If all you need to do is click a button, why would they drop support for both?

Mac OS X is chip independant. Openstep was and so is OS X. This is NOT a new thing. It's been around for years and they have had more time and money than NeXT ever had to perfect it. It's perfectly fast on both chips.
 
thogs_cave said:
Yep. "Roadmaps" are a wonderful thing. Not to mention that they are always grounded in reality and present a solid plan of....

Oh, man, I can't even type it with a straight face. I have not seen one "roadmap" in the industry that survived two years. Oh, wait, there were 3GHz G5's on IBM's "roadmap".....

I seem to remember an Intel "roadmap" with 4+GHz P-IV's. Oh, and wasn't Itanic supposed to be doing something useful by now? Silly me for thinking that the $SUITS don't have a clue.... :eek:

all true, but:

when the IBM road map is 1.xbox 2.playstation 3.nintendo and 4.Macs if we happen to get around to it, but not their laptops let moto handle that.

then ANY other roadmap, even with the changes that will come, looks better for Apple.
 
Black Badger said:
I'm just a little nervous about this, even on the PowerMac G5 performace page:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
Apple are clearly stating that the Pentium is rubbish compared to the G5, SJ has publicly stated in the past that CISC has gone as far as it can... and now we are going to use them??

Unless Intel have some exponentially better CPU's in the pipeline* that will deliver a massive performace gain then I think all this move is is a marketing manoeuvre to finally kill off the "Megahertz Myth" - a pretty poor reason, I can't see what major performance benefit we are going to get from Intel. This news comes just as IBM/Sony/Toshiba announce the Cell processor, a radical change in processor thinking, providing truly massive processing power.
* ie: not on the current roadmap

And now Apple publicly dumping IBM this way, the likelihood of Cell being used is Macs has all but evaporated. The other issue is that now we are at the mercy of Intel's processor decisions. I don't know what influence MS have over the development of Intel CPUs but I doubt that any dramatic innovation will occur at Intel that will cause a conflict with the operation of MS legacy OSs/installed user base, so you end up with old technology hanging around, try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no-one and Apples needs will not be heard.

My only hope is that this whole Universal Binary/OS-X CPU agnostic strategy is Apples' killer punch. Thinking of Steve's "...Apple likes having options" comment, should Intel produce under-performing CPUs and the Cell starts to take off, Apple could then transition to Cell, or at least offer another line of Macs while still allowing developers to easily maintain backward compatibility - or by using a hardware version of Quicktransit for Cell. You never know we could end up in a situation where we have Macs running a "Who-Give-A-Damm" processor, be it PPC/Intel/Cell/???

So I'm still a little sceptical and not really sure if this is a good or bad thing, Steve left some Grand Canyon style chasms in his presentation so we will just have to wait and see. If Apple can dump IBM that quick (referring to the G5 line), Intel could face the same.

I agree with most of this, but I think clearly IBM dumped Apple. Or, they said, we do not want to work on the G5 any more, which is effectively dumping them. Apple is not doing this because they want to- that would be crazy. They are doing this because they have no clout and are too small for IBM to care about them. That's a little sad.

Hopefully they work on making their systems processor agnostic. MS is trying to do that with .Net (C#) I think. Its a good idea and helps remove lots of cruft. Then we can spring back to PowerPC is CISC keeps sucking.

Although, everyone should know, Intel and AMD both produce chips that are RISC chips wrapped inside a CISC chip (yes, not elegant in the least).
 
thogs_cave said:
Yep. "Roadmaps" are a wonderful thing. Not to mention that they are always grounded in reality and present a solid plan of....

Oh, man, I can't even type it with a straight face. I have not seen one "roadmap" in the industry that survived two years. Oh, wait, there were 3GHz G5's on IBM's "roadmap".....

I seem to remember an Intel "roadmap" with 4+GHz P-IV's. Oh, and wasn't Itanic supposed to be doing something useful by now? Silly me for thinking that the $SUITS don't have a clue.... :eek:

OK...reality - IBM hosed Apple. No 3 Ghz chips 2 years after they were supposed to arrive. Reality - Intel can deliver the chips IBM can't.

How's that?
 
thogs_cave said:
Yep. "Roadmaps" are a wonderful thing. Not to mention that they are always grounded in reality and present a solid plan of....

Oh, man, I can't even type it with a straight face. I have not seen one "roadmap" in the industry that survived two years. Oh, wait, there were 3GHz G5's on IBM's "roadmap".....

I seem to remember an Intel "roadmap" with 4+GHz P-IV's. Oh, and wasn't Itanic supposed to be doing something useful by now? Silly me for thinking that the $SUITS don't have a clue.... :eek:

You can bet that if It's only a _year_ away on the roadmap, intel have them up and running already in their labs, they just haven't productionised them..

the designs Apple will be getting will have been started mid 2002 or so, when it would have became apparent to Intel that the netburst approach was a thermal nightmare as it scales, only probable reason Prescott didn't get canned is that it had x86-64 tech, which Northwood (which is in almost all other respects a better chip) lacked.

Merom and Conroe are where's it's at, with maybe some Yonah action for the low end, and I KNOW they've got Yonahs up and running, I've seen them doing so :)
 
MacNoobie said:
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 someone’s 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

OS X didn't need to be ported TO X86, it needed to be ported FROM x86. It is the operating system that Apple got as part of the deal when they bought Next, and Next machines were based on x86. So OS X hasn't been ported to x86 for five years, it has been maintained on x86 all along.

OS X is not venturing out into the uncharted wilderness, it is going home.

It is extremely unlikely that anyone is going to be able to hack OS X to run on generic PCs. Since OS X is at heart and by heritage an x86 OS, they could have done it long ago, but they haven't done it because it isn't practical.

What Apple users forget about (because they don't see it) is the BIOS. That is what makes the Macintosh a closed platform. The only reason that PC-DOS version 1 was able to run on hardware other than IBM was because a rival company got a bunch of programmers who had never seen the PC, locked them in a room, and had them reverse-engineer the BIOS--at great expense I might add. They came up with a BIOS that functioned the same as IBM BIOS, but had entirely different innards, so it was legal. Computers are too common these days; it isn't possible to find qualified programmers to reverse-engineer the Apple BIOS in a way that would pass legal muster. It would take the resources of a major corporation to do it, and none are motivated to try.

No individual has that much time on their hands. It is cheaper, easier, and more legal to buy a Mac than to try daredevil stunts like that. By the time you finished the job, the results would be obsolete.
 
Digital7 said:
I'm very curious that what is the difference between the Intel Mac's and other normal PC's ? New Intel Mac's are available for selected developer's. Is here anyone who know's such developer ? He can show us a detail's and maybe photo's about the mainboard and BIOS.
Sorry for my wrong english.

I am an ADC developer, but have not, yet, bought the kit... so I can still tell you what I know: nothing!

To order the "kit" you need to sign a supplemental NDA, that precludes you from discussing almost anything about the hardware and software.

So any info you read will be BS or put out by people who have violated the NDA... neither are very reliable sources!

However, I suspect that Apple will make the OS and the apps run on Apple-branded (or licensed) boxes & that these will have mnimum hardware configuration requirements, graphics boards, firewire, etc....

...to the point where it will be easier & less expensive to buy a blessed box rather than roll your own. Prior posters have said that when you configure a Dell to the same specs as a Mac, the price difference is minimal (often, the Mac costs less).

Dick
 
I have a question.
Shouldn't universal binaries from Xcode 2.1 coding both for x86 and PPC result in a performance decrease? I mean, a code supporting two platforms should be less efficient (i.e. slower) than than just coding for x86? I don't know if I am totally off here. If so just tell me and I will shut up.

Assuming support for two diff CPU:s entails a perfermance decrease, wouldn't it be likely that developers drop dual support as soon as financially posssible? That is, as soon as Mactels are have a fair share of the market?

Yes and no. If your code is just cocoa, or even carbon, then the compiler can write optimized code for both platforms. At the API level there really isn't alot you can do to optimize for one platform or the other. Now for custom libraries, you're right. If you spent the last 5 years customizing to PPC, below the API level, you are not optimized for x86 and there could be a performance difference. And, quite frankly, if you spent the last five years writing a ton of optimised Altivec code, you are well and truly f---ed. I'm actually interested to see whether Intel's vastly superior compiler know-how will eliminate that optimization difference.
 
SiliconAddict said:
:rolleyes: What part of game console do people not understand?

Both the PS3 and the Xbox360 are going to be a lot more than mere game consoles. They are 100% highly advanced wireless digital hubs, and especially in the case of the Xbox360, capable of doing most of the things people usually do with their PCs, like surf the net, send email, burn music and movies, type letters, etc. Microsoft wants to lock down their architecture. They want that security and control. They talk about "choices" out of one side of their mouth when they're touting Windows, but the multimedia PC is just a stopgap. The future is the truly capable hi-def digital hub, and the Xbox360 and PS3 are damn close to fitting that bill. Peecees, and even Apple, have basically nothing on that market for the present, except the mini.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.