Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[ijimk]

will this move to intel make OS X available for people to put on their "Joe Schmoe" CPU? I really hope this move doesn't do that. What i do hope it does is because of the Chip being made by intel i really hope it improves the technolgy of emulated windows programs on OS X or even allows OS X to run windows based programs because of the intel chip set. That would be awesome and kill Mr. Gates.

Imagine 1 CPU running OSX able to run any mac/PC software , it revolutionize the compter world as we know it.

 

[GTKpower]

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

You can blame the console market, actually. You can't even say that Apple's initial marriage to IBM a little over a decade ago was a bad move. Computer chips went into . . . . computers. Consoles were available, but performed nothing like they do now, and offered hardly any of the features we see today.

Unfortunately for Apple, and perhaps PC gaming in general, the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube have changed the whole game. The good thing about PC gaming is that you can STILL swap out your videocard for a newer one, and play games at higher settings. Of course, consoles are OPTIMIZED for all their games, so whatever advantage the PC has is negligible, in this respect. Of course, if you're into downloading mods, then it's still nice to play games on a PC.

IBM was faced with a choice: make a chip for a computer that has 4% or less market share, or make a chip for a console that everyone and their dog will buy, and which stands to develop into full blown home entertainment centres. Hell, who knows how high the Xbox will fly. Sony will hold their own, too. IBM was sick of being #3 in the cpu game, in terms of SALES (and only SALES matter) behind Intel and AMD. I would be sick, too.

This story has played out so clearly and obviously that you have to admire its raw beauty: Your supplier says "see ya!", and you say "later, a$$hole", and find someone who can bail your a$$ out (Intel), because they (Intel) are still understandably pissed at your former supplier (IBM), who pulled the rug out from the both of you (for a console.)

A common "enemy" can create new friendships pretty quickly.

 

[leekohler]

In my case, I'm faced with running Windoze for year (not acceptable) or running my old 1 Ghz Mac for another year.

Or...I can just go buy a current system and when the transition is complete...look at the new ones then. Thanks to universal binaries, I think I'll go with the latter. OS X is what attracted back to the Mac platform in the first place. It's the OS that matters.

Why not just run your 1GHz Mac for another year? I am.

 

[GuyClinch]

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".

Windows double life is not "secret" it's well known. They used to have NT for Alpha chips and nowadays Windows XP is based on the NT Kernel. So sorry MS could switch processors if they wanted to. They have Windows for the Itanium right now. Window is processor independent as well.

But your missing the point from the Apple side. Now with Intel chips they basically don't have worry about falling behind. If intel chips don't scale up that fast - fine nobdoy else's computer will be getting that much faster either. If they zoom ahead with neat processors Apple will be zooming right along with them. It's a great deal for Apple.

 

[khollister]

And while we are strolling down memory lane, Steve is doing what he is now precisely because he waited too late to make the shift from 68K to PPC on NeXT hardware, and it ultimately killed the company. Steve is way too smart to not have learned from that. That is also the reason why I doubt Apple will ever become a software company and depend on generic white box HW. It failed for NeXT and it failed for Be (another Apple alumnus project).

Steve would have failed to learn from NeXT if he buried his head in the sand and stuck with PPC. The problem isn't the tech, it's the vendors building it (Freescale & IBM).

The main challange I see here for Apple is maintaing the value proposition - if they just repackage an Intel motherboard/architecture, many folks will expect it to cost the same as a commodity Dell. They need to make it different enough to distinguish themselves.

 

[Panu]

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.

Perhaps, but it won't get above the curiosity level. In the early 80s it might have been possible, but today, computers are commodities. For this to cause any grief, the person would have to have production, distribution, and customer-care systems in place, and they would have to handle large quanitities and custom orders.

I expect you are right, though. We'll read about him in the newspaper after the police raid his garage.

 

[jrawsterne]

I find the panic expressed in some posts quite amazing.

Yeah, myself also, this has even forced me to make a post

I gotta see this as positive, for years i have wanted my friends to buy macs but have never been able to justify it to them. I have a vision of a dual-boot mac/windows machine, the ultimate switcher machine, my friends could try out the mac environment and if they didnt like it switch to windows, albeit on a cool mac box.

============================

This is how i see the switch from IBM to Intel in the language of nature (keep with me here).

Apple at the moment is this blossoming bud at the top of a plant stalk, IBM was below it and was blossomiing at first but then slowly starting to, well, go a bit brown and die!

If Apple had persisted with the IBM 'bud' it would have died slowly eventually diseasing the whole plant and killing what we know now.

So .. Along comes mr gardener (stevo), sees the brown bud and thinks, "thats gonna kill my plant i better cut it off before it does irrepairable damage." He cuts the bud from the stalk, the apple bud stays blossoming at the top, and slowly a new bud grows underneath, the Intel bud grows quickly and strongly and the whole plant begins to grow again.

erm .. maybe im just losin it but i like this news, if Apple and Intel blossom together, and their engineers get the 'toe' down we could see some amazing things, and we could also see machines in a much sooner time-frame than predicted by jobs. I just hope that Intel plough enough into R&D to make this a blossoming partnership!

 

[Panu]

Why not just run your 1GHz Mac for another year? I am.

Why not buy a new Mac? It will live out its natural, useful life with plenty of software.

 

[jimbobb24]

IBM did leave Steve to hang out to dry with that whole 3GHZ thingy.
I know I would at the very least think about looking elsewhere.

Oh I agree. IBM told Apple it was over. They needed to go somewhere - my point is not to believe the "new" hype that the G5 has failed us up to now.

 

[GuyClinch]

will this move to intel make OS X available for people to put on their "Joe Schmoe" CPU? I really hope this move doesn't do that. What i do hope it does is because of the Chip being made by intel i really hope it improves the technolgy of emulated windows programs on OS X or even allows OS X to run windows based programs because of the intel chip set. That would be awesome and kill Mr. Gates.

1 - You will probably see some guys with their generic Pentium M boards able to run OSX. However they won't have any support. It will be like installing Linux on a PC - a pain in the butt. People buy computers with their OS preinstalled.

2 - From what Apple has said you will absolutely see good emulation of windows. There wont' be much to "emulate" it might even just install on your Mac. However it won't be that 'revolutionary" it's hard for you macheads to understand this but most people don't really care. You can do what most people want on your PC. Why bother fooling around with a Mac at all? 0S/2 was much better then Windows but no one cared.

And before you start with the "PCs are so unstable" crap - they aren't. You just using cheap hardware. I made my PC with a Intel motherboard, and intel P4 Northwood, and an NVIDIA sound card, and an Antec Power supply. It has never crashed - not once in two years. And I play very computer intensive games all the time. Which BTW perform much better on intel/AMD chips. Try playing WoW on a Mac vs. PC.

Apple tends to use nice hardware as well. But that's because they have insane profit margins and they can afford too.

Pete

 

[Spazmodius]

If you can run Windows on a InteliMac at near-native speeds, can someone please give me a good outline of why this won't just be OS/2 redux, e.g. a convenient upgrade path for former MacOS users to switch to Longhorn?

 

[Panu]

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.

Changing CPUs doesn't mean that Apple can't continue to design its own motherboards. Lots of companies do.

 

[jimbobb24]

And be stuck at 2.7Ghz forever too?

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.

LOL. Of course I meant if IBM can make incremental updates. Obviously, if they continue stagnant - no. It was not my intention to make a crazy sounding statement.

I agree perfectly with everything you say, as my other posts indicate.

 

[GTKpower]

Steve would have failed to learn from NeXT if he buried his head in the sand and stuck with PPC. The problem isn't the tech, it's the vendors building it (Freescale & IBM).

Nice to see that you "get it" too.

Exactly. A business depends on its suppliers, or in Apple's case, it's ONE supplier. As soon as the supplier chooses to move on for whatever rason (mostly money, and this case is no different), you need to move on as well.

As khollister said, PPC technology is fine (uh.... I guess even despite the fact that I saw an unusual number of fans in a recent-model G5), it's the profits realized (or not) by your suppliers that also factor in to the equation.

Intel is the kind of supplier that won't really have cashflow problems, lol. Throw any market demand at it, and it'll deliver in terms of volume. When you have no choice in the matter, you're happy that a big player just saved you from dying.

Why not AMD, if they're producing better technology? Production capacity is an issue, and the second AMD gets lazy, they start tanking. The important thing here is NOT innovation or who's winning the cpu wars. It's about who has the most $$$ in reserve and who can absorb losses, if there be any. And that is Intel. Hell, when AMD was a little late with the Opteron, analysts wondered whether the company will survive. When Intel came out with the very disappointing Itanium, however, the worst analysts said was "well, we expect a little better from a company like you."

 

[SPUY767]

If you can run Windows on a InteliMac at near-native speeds, can someone please give me a good outline of why this won't just be OS/2 redux, e.g. a convenient upgrade path for former MacOS users to switch to Longhorn?

Uhhh, because longhorn will suck?

 

[leekohler]

Why not buy a new Mac? It will live out its natural, useful life with plenty of software.

Because I guess I'm one of those silly people who, when told something will be obsolete in a year, does not care to waste money on it. Oh- and I like to keep my computers for several years and still maintain current software. I only have so much money.

 

[cheapnis]

The main challange I see here for Apple is maintaing the value proposition - if they just repackage an Intel motherboard/architecture, many folks will expect it to cost the same as a commodity Dell. They need to make it different enough to distinguish themselves.

This is a very good point! OK so the OS is THE major distinction, the second most obvious (to the average user) is going to be how the box looks and the third is going to be the internal design/features.

So how small (for eg) could they make a MacMini if it used Intel instead of G4? An Intel Cube? Is a tablet more viable with Intel - or a ridiculously thin and light powerbook..?

What innovative doors does the move to Intel open that were firmly shut if they'd stayed with IBM?

 

[Kushiro]

Has this one been posted?

Brian Peat
I wonder if this is just the START of Steve’s master plan.

What if over time Apple does decide to become a software company, still selling high end work station machines and cool lower priced boxes (but not low end crap).

What if that’s years off, but still in the works

What if Apple’s next move is to get that WINE project under their roof and give 10.5 the ability to run Windows apps natively without a layer like Classic had.

What if shortly after that they release OS X 10.5 for ALL windows capable machines?

I’d think the switch to OS X would be more than enough to offset the costs of losing hardware sales...and those of us who love Apple’s hardware would still be able to buy it.

No idea if it’s going to come true, but if I wanted to topple the great MS, this is how I’d do it.

Interesting.....

 

[GuyClinch]

If you can run Windows on a InteliMac at near-native speeds, can someone please give me a good outline of why this won't just be OS/2 redux, e.g. a convenient upgrade path for former MacOS users to switch to Longhorn?

This cuts both ways. Sure you might feel it's easier to switch but PC people will find it easier to "switch" to the Mac. Apple has 3% market share - most people have switched year ago. I had the original PowerMac an 8100/80 and that was the last Mac I bought.

Now though I could buy a Mac again. I really like those iLife, iDVD etc apple software. But I still want to play my PC games. Apple can make this happen and they probably will,

Apple is going to have to make even more software for it's own platform to make it's OS an attractive option. That will be the key, IMHO. You can't rely upon third party developers. Microsoft doesn't and neither should Apple.

Pete

 

[jimbobb24]

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 ******* 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.

Yes for the most part this is all true. Except, I would not hesitate to buy a current MAc at all. And, I don't think Steve is quite so vicious, but he is desperate, no doubt.

 

[Spazmodius]

Uhhh, because longhorn will suck?

When has Windows sucking ever stopped 95% of the people out there from buying it?

 

[OutThere]

That's right, and nobody really knows what the future is...

But one wild thought: Should Longhorn failed, which means MS had to really mess itself up, Apple may really get the chance to be the next MS... of course, at the expense of quiting the hardware business...

Maybe this is off topic....bringing a post back from 10 pages behind, but I think that the idea that Apple could be the next MS is something I really wouldn't like to see. Is it really necessary that Apple be the biggest in the field? I think that if Apple was able to get to such a position OS X would become just as bloated and terrible as Windows is today, because when you are building something for the masses, as opposed to the niche who is interested in buying something special, it is far more difficult to create something appealing for all that also appeals to the individual.

 

[GuyClinch]

What if Apple’s next move is to get that WINE project under their roof and give 10.5 the ability to run Windows apps natively without a layer like Classic had.

What if shortly after that they release OS X 10.5 for ALL windows capable machines?

You overstimate the attraction of the MacOS and understimate the diifficulty of making your OS work with "all windows machines." This won't really be a winning proposition for Apple. The WINE compatibility layer that could happen. It will probably be a third party thing though.

Pete

 

[thatwendigo]

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.

I've been staying out of this, but that statement is too retarded to leave alone.

IBM's financial information:
Revenue for 2004 = $96,293,000,000
Gross profit = $36,032,000,000
Total assets = $109,183,000,000
Cash equivalents as of December 31st = $10,053,000,000
Stock price as of 10:30 AM, 6/7/05 = $75.61

Intel's financial information:
Revenue for 2004 = $34,200,000,000
Gross profit = $19,746,000,000
Total assets = $48,417,000,000
Cash equivalents as of December 31st = $14,061,000,000
Stock price as of 10:30 AM, 6/7/05 = $27.38

 

[the future]

If you can run Windows on a InteliMac at near-native speeds, can someone please give me a good outline of why this won't just be OS/2 redux, e.g. a convenient upgrade path for former MacOS users to switch to Longhorn?

Sure. To leave a platform (i.e. switch) you have to be dissatisfied. Probably 95% of OS X users are very satisfied.

It works the other way around, actually. With a Macintel, Windows users can switch without wasting all their investments in software (as they will be able to install Windows on a separate partition). Best of both worlds for them.

As to the "my G4/5 is worthless now" crowd, I don't thnk so at all. All Macintosh softwar that has been released or will be released until the middle of 2006 will run better on PPC machines (all native, no Rosetta needed), all Software released thereafter will run just as good on PPC machines (because of Universal Binaries). If you have a load of software, the most sensible thing is to buy the fastest PPC Mac you can, IMO.