Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[Applespider]

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'm quite sure they will and I'm equally sure that Apple won't really care. The people who build their own PCs and may decide to hack OS X weren't going to buy Macs anyhow (a Mini at most perhaps).

The vast majority of computer users buy their computers from a manufacturer. If Apple doesn't licence OS X (which is another argument entirely) those manufacturer's aren't going to offer it. Most of those same users barely have the technical nous to check email, browse the web and download their digital images. They're not going to be scanning torrent sites and hacking their motherboards. Some will... but Apple's primary target customers won't.

 

[Rantipole]

Invest money in a current Apple laptop ... that there will be important programs that it will be unable to run) in two years.

This is absurd. I was running OS9 FOUR YEARS after OSX was introduced. I only replaced that computer because the hardware was dying, not for any software issues.

(Yes, I did start noticing that more and more stuff really would be best with OSX, but again, this was after FOUR YEARS.)

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

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)

It only results in a large file, and no performance decrease?
Hmmm, but since it results in more lines in the code it should result in some performance decrease. Assuming we are talking about one big file and not two files, one for x86 and one for PPC.
I am way off here?

 

[skellener]

What part of game console do people not understand?

Exactly! Game consoles do NOT get faster every few months! Once they settle on their chip design their done. Those systems will remain basically the same for up to 5 years. I don't think anyone would want to see any computer remain at the same speed for 5 years. Gaming is an entirely different beast.

 

[itsa]

Just a few things I know...

1. In a year or so Apple will announce the first line of Intel Chip Mac's.

2. It will blow us all away or we will see that the only way to stick with our wonderful OS is to conform.

3.The Apple Store will back up sales and we will all be back on here PO'ed about how long it's taking to ship.

 

[Applespider]

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

From a comment on this page

I don't know what the developer NDA covers, so I won't go into too much detail on this, but I have a source who has provided me with some details on the IA-32 machines that are going to start shipping to ISVs in a couple of weeks. They're Power Mac G5s with almost totally stock system boards and new, air-cooled IA-32 PMUs. The U3H memory controller and bridge ASIC has been altered to match the bus timing of the IA-32 processor, but that's all. Everything else on the system board is exactly the same. The internal components are all still connected via Hyper Transport through the K2 ASIC and the PCI-X bridge chip. The PMUs have 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 processors on them, but these will definitely not be the processors that Apple ships next year. The processors will be IA-32-instruction-set-compatible, but they will not be Pentium chips. They're going to be specially designed processors that Intel delivers to Apple but to no other customers, binary compatible with the Pentium family but not identical to any off-the-shelf microprocessor.

 

[whooleytoo]

I don't see the similarity. Apple can control what OS X gets installed on. There is some chance that it can be hacked to work on any* PC, but not everyone is going to want a hacked OS.

I'm simply saying Apple will choose the right path for them at the time,
what promises/commitments they make now mean nothing.

 

[alexeismertin]

The best description of events

Macintouch - "Apple's doing a U-turn out of a dead-end road, and we expect a bumpy, but interesting, ride ahead".

I say to the whole mac community - JUMP ON!

There clearly is NO other alternative but x86 - if there was it would be used.

The next negative post has to show evidence of an alternative to x86 that Apple had forgotton (then pop along to California to replace Steve Jobs, as obviously you know better).

Glad to see the Positive response to this story is increasing..

 

[GTKpower]

Now we're getting it.

Spazmodius and SiliconAddict get it.

Don't blame Steve.

IBM executives are still probably sh***ing themselves with disbelief, that they were able to beat Intel on a goldmine console contract. I'd give my left testicle to be an IBM executive right now. IBM has nowhere near the deep pockets of Intel, and they can't really afford to start modfying their new console chip just for Apple, if for no other reason than it just won't offer a big enough payout compared to the assload they stand to make on a console.

The PowerPC chip isn't actually dead, it's just not going to be produced for Apple anymore. IBM looked at the market and saw a way out, to greener pastures. I'll bet that IBM has wanted to leave Apple for quite some time. 4% or less of the market just wasn't cutting it, but they didn't see any alternative to Apple. They probably wanted the first generation Xbox and PS2 contract but lost them. Now, they got the break they were looking for.

So, no 3ghz, which Apple desperately needed. IBM shut the door on notebooks, which basically locks Apple out of a huge market. And of course, there's the world of consoles to consider.

You can also bet that Freescale Semiconductor had enough, too.

Intel was the only choice. AMD is either too busy with its own 64-bit roadmap, or does not have the resources to produce chips for both platforms.

Steve would never have left IBM unless there was no choice. He knew what the consequences would be. Well, it finally happened.

But . . . . . Apple lives to compute another day.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

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.

the fact that OS X is chip indenpendent shouldn't be relevant right? It is Xcode (universal binaries) that enables a program to run on both chips?
My point was just that if the app is slower due to the dual chip support, we should see developers emigrate from PPC as soon as PPC users has decreased to a certain critical level.

 

[whooleytoo]

From a comment on this page

Interesting - why not just take a stock chip? It obviously works as is in the test kits, plus surely would keep the costs down. Making changes to the vector unit?

 

[skellener]

Thank you GTKpower! You are one of the few that understands what's going on!

 

[MacNoobie]

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.

I'm assuming that Apple would put manufacturer ID or brand ID or something embeded into the BIOS of the machine and OSX would have a piece of code to read that info to make sure its running on a genuine Apple machine. I dont get what the reference to the mod chips like on the ps2 and xbox has ANYTHING to do with OSX eventually being hacked, that said people will charge for putting OSX onto a limited number of machines (namely because Darwin supports Intel cpu's and chipsets besides PPC) but what makes you think people wont post the hacked OSX on torrents or sell it as a burnable cd/dvd on a warez web site?. In this day and age it seems like anyone ranging from casual users to hardcore junkies can download XP corporate with activation disabled from some site or some one and just install it.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist now a days to get a hacked copy on the net for everyone to download and yes those scrawny 13 year old kids can even do it.

 

[dicklacara]

[Quote:]
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?[/Quote]

The way I understand Universal Binaries is a package containing (among other things):

1) a binary that runs on PPC only
2) a binary that runs on Intel only

The OS loader picks the appropriate binary to run based on the CPU it is running on

 

[skellener]

the fact that OS X is chip indenpendent shouldn't be relevant right? It is Xcode (universal binaries) that enables a program to run on both chips?
My point was just that if the app is slower due to the dual chip support, we should see developers emigrate from PPC as soon as PPC users has decreased to a certain critical level.

That's just it, it's NOT slower due to dual chip support. When you install the app, it installs the version for your machine. I remember doing this with Openstep. Again, developers will want to sell their apps to as many people as they can. There are lots of PPC machines out there and still some new ones to come for the next couple of years. By clicking a button they can easily reach all of those machines.

Correct dicklacara!!!

 

[jimbobb24]

Uh...correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Intel the largest and technologically advanced chip manufacturer on the planet?

You're wrong. IBM is probably the most advanced chip maker, or maybe Samsung or AMD. Intel? They have been falling behind. They are making strides to get back on track, but we are not going with the market leader in tech, not by a longshot.

They may be largest.

 

[MacNoobie]

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.

People will still find a way to hack OSX, make work arounds in the code to give it what it wants when looking for Apple info (wether it comes from a BIOS or a chip off the chipset) so reverse engineering the Apple bios on the macs are a completely moot point. It's only time before OSX is hacked to run on regular PC's using Intel cpu's and Intel chipsets since Darwin supports them. As far as being cheaper to buy a Mini and run it I totally agree with you it'd be cheaper but there are hardcore junkies out there, wizkids that do it for fun and a challenge without consideration to cost so as I said I agree but theres always going to be someone out there that will do it for the heck of it, to see if they can do it and it wont cost em a thing.

 

[lowrentkicker]

DRM for movies & processor switch theory

Building off of what Dr.Gargoyle, Pepzhez, and Mitthrawnuruodo said: DRM, probably not the biggest reason, but something I'm sure weighed very heavy in this decision. As Apple loudly exclaims very frequently, they currently own the market on music downloads. I'm sure they want to do the same thing for movies. Since the larger film studios have already given the seal of approval to Intel's hardware DRM, I'm sure Apple wants the quickest path to try to dominate movie downloads as well.

Get the larger studios to agree to download movies in an iTunes-like environment, that'll get the general public in. Approach smaller, independent companies offering DRM and mass distribution, develop your product line even further. They took the same exact approach with iTunes.

My theory is you have IBM who can't crank out what you want when you want, you "shop" around to try to scare IBM to do something to amp it up, IBM realizes that Apple account for so little of their business they find other potentially profit-margin enhancing sales in Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, Apple seriously starts to shop around, figures out they can get the processors they want that fit better in their future plans and are cheaper by going to Intel. I think the test will solely come down to average users really caring what is inside the box. My guess is no. The average user buys an Mac because of its pretty box, "cool" factor, and ease of use. They will continue to pay more for a Mac than for a similar Windows box.

 

[Eric5h5]

Mac OS X is chip independant.

Good thing too...I wonder if people realize that we'll probably go through this AGAIN in 5-10 years when x86 finally goes bye-bye. At least that puts OS X in a better position than Windows, which almost certainly hasn't been leading any sort of "secret double life".

--Eric

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

That's just it, it's NOT slower due to dual chip support. When you install the app, it installs the version for your machine. I remember doing this with Openstep. Again, developers will want to sell their apps to as many people as they can. There are lots of PPC machines out there and still some new ones to come for the next couple of years. By clicking a button they can easily reach all of those machines.

Correct dicklacara!!!

thanks for clearing that out!

 

[khollister]

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.

Wrong - the NeXT black hardware was all 68K based (I owned one). When NeXT dumped HW and became a software company, the primary target platform became Intel, but NeXT never sold x86 machines. They also sold HP PA-RISC and Sun SPARC versions (I also worked with the HP variant).

Your point is valid that NeXTSTEP was running on Intel prior to Apple buying the company, but the original platform it was developed for was Moto 68K, just like the Mac.

All of this is showing just how visionary NeXT was 16 years ago. Bud Tribble (who was the NeXT software manager if I recall correctly) did a fantastic job that set everything up for all of the OS X users today.

 

[MatthewCobb]

A lesson from the past

I find the panic expressed in some posts quite amazing. Am I the only one old enough to remember what happened when Apple dumped Motorola (or was it the other way round) to go from the 68*** chips to PPC? Who did they team up with, The Enemy - IBM! (And IBM was the enemy back then, not Microsoft). Steam came out of people's ears then, too. Did it make any difference whatsoever? No.

 

[skellener]

Good thing too...I wonder if people realize that we'll probably go through this AGAIN in 5-10 years when x86 finally goes bye-bye. At least that puts OS X in a better position than Windows, which almost certainly hasn't been leading any sort of "secret double life".

--Eric

Sure. Who knows? Maybe we'll see a return to PPC again? Who cares? If it runs OS X that's all that matters to me! I don't care what chip is in the box!

 

[leekohler]

Ok demographic man. You have obviously lost sleep here so I will allow you to lose some more. Do this math.

Based on your own admission no large company will ever use all macs. Sooo at those all up. Every large corporation in the world. Count the employees. Now add up all the schools which have gone away from macs and will not return. Add up every elementary, middle and high school, ohh throw in every college and all its students. I'll let you have VT not that they will be allowed to spend another $5 million on macs ever again after this one. They had to switch twice already. Now what do you have added up yet???? So we are looking at the following using macs.

Movie studios, total macs maybe 5000 macs.
Graphic shops use half macs mostly.
Consumers that just play. Add those up.

Now which ones that won't use macs will use macs in 2 yrs and which ones that use macs now won't use them in 2 yrs. I would say it evens out there. Now what is the current mac market share?

Got your answer? No go.

Wow- you managed to not only fail the assignment, but show that you didn't even understand it! Read his post and try again.

 

[jimbobb24]

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.

Those are huge differences. The "design" includes their memory controller and bus system. The switch to Intel, actually, appears to be changing EVERYTHING. No open firmware (huge loss) and maybe a standard bios. This is a transition from the PPC platform to the X86 platform.