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
thatwendigo said:
Strawman. Chips isn't IBM's core business. Services is. Chips are in fact Inte's core business. You're, in effect, comparing a 2 billion dollar business (IBM's chip division) to Intel's 36 billion.
IBM has been moving away from commodity products with little or no differentiation. Intel's focus is chip manufacturing and innovation and there are HUGE economies of scale they can leverage which IBM simply doesn't have.
anynigma said:
Get your facts straight. Rosetta doesn't go both ways. It is only PPC on X86. Plus it has limitations:
From Apple's Universal Binary Guidelines about what 'Rosetta' can and cannot accomplish:
Rosetta is designed to translate currently shipping applications that run on a PowerPC with a G3 processor and that are built for Mac OS X. Rosetta does not run the following:
■ Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9
■ Code written specifically for AltiVec
■ Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane
■ Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor
■ Applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions
■ Kernel extensions
■ Bundled Java applications or Java applications with JNI libraries that cant be translated
NO X86 WILL RUN ON PPC!!! Instead, for the short-term, developers have to have universal binaries (basically two versions of the program crammed together) so that they could run on the PPC.
Ok, so 60 pages of posts...sorry but i just can't bring myslef to read them ALL. Probably somebody already posted this but i didnt find it on search.
Love the way the apple site still features all the "wow the g5 is so much better than a P4" comparisons. And i agree! I want my power pc back
I'm sure I'll cope and I'm sure in the long run this is all good for apple...but on the third wathcin' of the keynote I'm still nto convinced.
Love the way the apple site still features all the "wow the g5 is so much better than a P4" comparisons. And i agree! I want my power pc back
I'm sure I'll cope and I'm sure in the long run this is all good for apple...but on the third wathcin' of the keynote I'm still nto convinced.Attachments
Just a reality check to all those people that are whinging on about their systems being obselete.
A computer is a tool that enables you to do something. Be it writing a letter, sending an email, colour correcting your photos or editing the latest hollywood blockbuster (to coin a cliche). The latest range of Macs can do all of the above and much much more and, believe it or not, will continue to perform the same function one, two, three years down the line... A computer becomes obselete when a) it blows up or b) it ceases to be able to realistically perform the tasks you want it to do. That's when you think, "hey, my computers slow... I think I'll upgrade" and you toddle off down the shops and upgrade or buy a new model.
So. Take a deep breath. Evaluate your need for a computer and buy the most suitable model whenever you want to. Take another deep breath and accept something smaller, sleeker and faster will inevitabley be out the follwing day. Then, concentrate the energy you spend worrying about whether or not someone else has a faster one into actually doing something constructive with it.
A computer is a tool that enables you to do something. Be it writing a letter, sending an email, colour correcting your photos or editing the latest hollywood blockbuster (to coin a cliche). The latest range of Macs can do all of the above and much much more and, believe it or not, will continue to perform the same function one, two, three years down the line... A computer becomes obselete when a) it blows up or b) it ceases to be able to realistically perform the tasks you want it to do. That's when you think, "hey, my computers slow... I think I'll upgrade" and you toddle off down the shops and upgrade or buy a new model.
So. Take a deep breath. Evaluate your need for a computer and buy the most suitable model whenever you want to. Take another deep breath and accept something smaller, sleeker and faster will inevitabley be out the follwing day. Then, concentrate the energy you spend worrying about whether or not someone else has a faster one into actually doing something constructive with it.
You know - I went home last night after going out to dinner with an old college friend, fired up the 420, cleaned my arts & crafts space, and thought about the whole Apple/Intel thing. I mean, really thought about it in a cosmic, "wow, you ever really look at your hands" (old Doonesbury reference) kind of way.
Despite my misgivings and some fear (which I've expressed earlier in this thread), I think, I think it's really gonna be OK. I actually never even thought moving to Intel was a bad thing either - just, well, different and scary.
And to quote Yoda: "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."
It could be really good, too. Apple's not dumb, just unpredictable.
Yep - it's gonna be OK.
Think I'll buy that new iMac next paycheck like I've been planning...
Despite my misgivings and some fear (which I've expressed earlier in this thread), I think, I think it's really gonna be OK. I actually never even thought moving to Intel was a bad thing either - just, well, different and scary.
And to quote Yoda: "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."
It could be really good, too. Apple's not dumb, just unpredictable.
Yep - it's gonna be OK.
Think I'll buy that new iMac next paycheck like I've been planning...
Vision thing?
Yes but I think Apple could playing a long game here. The move to Intel could boost market share and give them time to come up with an application to render MS office unnecessary. Once Apple establishes OSX on Intel, it will be easier make the OS available for all PC's - and for the company to become a software vendor to begin to rival Microsoft. But for the moment, they will continue to play the MS game by restricting access to OSX to Mac hardware. Because as you say, they have to.
Or do I give them too much credit ....?
Dr.Gargoyle said:
Yes but I think Apple could playing a long game here. The move to Intel could boost market share and give them time to come up with an application to render MS office unnecessary. Once Apple establishes OSX on Intel, it will be easier make the OS available for all PC's - and for the company to become a software vendor to begin to rival Microsoft. But for the moment, they will continue to play the MS game by restricting access to OSX to Mac hardware. Because as you say, they have to.
Or do I give them too much credit ....?
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
I think Motorola had betrayed us, not Apple, and now we will not be at the mercy of a small chip manufacturer (compared to Intel). So as long as we have that Mac feel, and performance, I don't care what's inside.
Look at the bright side, we will have the "intel Inside" sticker on every Mac
UberMac said:Ok, so 60 pages of posts...sorry but i just can't bring myslef to read them ALL. Probably somebody already posted this but i didnt find it on search.
Love the way the apple site still features all the "wow the g5 is so much better than a P4" comparisons. And i agree! I want my power pc back
you can always get an ibm intellistation powerstation with a power4 chip
army_guy said:
Strange, since my MPEG2 projects on X86 are 50% slower than G5.
One of the best things with Apple PPC is Altivec. Its far superior to SIMD/MMX.
AMD64 is a good chip, whit the same bus system as G5.
Still: AMD is at 2.6 ghz. G5 is at 2.7 ghz.
The G5 is then not that much slower?
Server chips are usually faster then desktop chips.
Thats why a slimmed down Power chip should be fast.
G5 is a Power4, where they removed one core and added a Altivec unit.
Apple should continue to produce PPC hardware and release OSX on generic hardware.
If I want a laptop: Get OSX on Intel.
If I want the fastest machine for my calculation: Release the 970MP.
just my 2 cent.
PeterPaul said:
Sorry, you are wrong. I even said above it was a good idea to buy a G5 right now. I never said anyone was an absolute winner/loser. You wrongly inferred that, which you should have not done given the explicit caveats I made for Apple. Read more carefully.
I am simply pointing out they have lost. Loss does not exclude gain at some point, but lets not be naive. If your software house had invested money for the long term benefits of 64 bit and the next day Apple said 64 bit was gone...that's a loss. Its pretty simple. Does that mean that company is bankrupt? No, it just means they got shafted on the development of 64 but, or AltiVec.
Well, if Apple would drop prices significantly they might be able to keep the sales up... But that would really be new move for Apple, wouldn't it?notjustjay said:
I might consider buying a new Mac myself if the prices where dropped.
However, I think a move like that would make the people that just bought a PM 2.7 rather annoyed... to put it mildly.
I am all with you regarding buying a rev. A system. So far I have always bought the last rev.
I dont want to pay to become a beta tester.
Silly reason for that: Steve was revealing Mac OS X's secret double life only to developers. The public isn't supposed to know until next year. We, a select bunch of Mac rumor traders, are simply in on the secret!UberMac said:
Serious reason: Apple isn't saying yet what future chips Macs might use. With today's chips, they still recommend PowerPC as used in current Macs. What other choice do they have?
On another topic: The original "Macintosh" changed to "Power Macintosh" because of the "Power" in "PowerPC". iMacs, iBooks, and eMacs can keep their current names, but will Power Macintoshes and PowerBooks get a new title?
thegarner said:
A breath of fresh air, thank you.
The problem is the emotional reaction - the feeling that that mac is no longer "special." Many who have bought shiny new G5s recently (I almost did, too, until I saw the rumours) feel that a complete (and one that feels so sudden to them) platform change on the part of Apple is more cause to grieve than an aging computer that has been expanded to its limits and is seeing the end of its days.
My AMD Athlon 3000+ is now obsolete in terms of cpu technology, but I've expanded it from a 2000+, and still have plenty of room for RAM, a brand new videocard, etc. Still has lots of life in it. It's a bit different for Mac users, I think.
Still, a computer is a tool, and as a tool, there is nothing wrong with current G5s, or with 1-year old G5s, for that matter.
Intel is Good
Hey, I am a long-time PC user that is planning on switching. Up until 6 months ago I was every Mac users worst nightmare. I knew all of the differences hardware-wise and would debate my viewpoint until i was blue in the face. But lets get on thing straight, I now love Macs. Im not going to hang up the PC forever, but will work on both of them. A PC is not the best computer for everything, and a Mac is not the best computer for everything. They each have their own individual Pro's and Con's. However it is primarily the software that causes these problems. If you look at benchmarks, you are just setting yourself up for disastor. THERE IS NO WAY TO ACCURATELY COMPARE MAC TO PC. Every single piece of software that has been written for both machines executes in a different manner. That has to do with the structure of the underlying code of the operating system, not the hardware. UNIX is completely different form Windows in how files are compiled, run, and executed. Think about it logically for just one second. Mac OS X vs. Windows, or better yet UNIX GUI vs. Windows. There is going to be a difference. Linux runs on a PC, as well as UNIX, Windows, and a multitude of other operating systems. Linux runs faster than Windows on certain tasks. I know I tried it on my pos E-Machine Mini Tower. But that all comes down to a software issue, it has nothing to do with the hardware.
I love the news of this change. Realistically the Pentium-M processor is a very good processor. It is based on the Petium-III, not the P-4. So you cannot compare, becuase there is no baseline on future performance. The only option is to wait and see. However if you look at the native clock speed of the P-M, it is not in the 3-GHz range. It has a slower clock speed, but still is very comparable in speed to the P-4. That should mean something to everyone concerned about the MHz myth.
Finally this is really going to bring the issue of Mac vs Windows down to an issue of which OS is better. It is my opinion as a longtime Windows user that... Mac OS X is better! It is my opinion that OS X is easier and more intuitive for everyday use, and is better because you do not have to worry about malware, spyware, viruses, etc. So it is my belief that in the long run this is going to allow more people to switch to the Mac OS and leave Windows behind. Which would be a very good thing.
Just my thoughts on the matter
Hey, I am a long-time PC user that is planning on switching. Up until 6 months ago I was every Mac users worst nightmare. I knew all of the differences hardware-wise and would debate my viewpoint until i was blue in the face. But lets get on thing straight, I now love Macs. Im not going to hang up the PC forever, but will work on both of them. A PC is not the best computer for everything, and a Mac is not the best computer for everything. They each have their own individual Pro's and Con's. However it is primarily the software that causes these problems. If you look at benchmarks, you are just setting yourself up for disastor. THERE IS NO WAY TO ACCURATELY COMPARE MAC TO PC. Every single piece of software that has been written for both machines executes in a different manner. That has to do with the structure of the underlying code of the operating system, not the hardware. UNIX is completely different form Windows in how files are compiled, run, and executed. Think about it logically for just one second. Mac OS X vs. Windows, or better yet UNIX GUI vs. Windows. There is going to be a difference. Linux runs on a PC, as well as UNIX, Windows, and a multitude of other operating systems. Linux runs faster than Windows on certain tasks. I know I tried it on my pos E-Machine Mini Tower. But that all comes down to a software issue, it has nothing to do with the hardware.
I love the news of this change. Realistically the Pentium-M processor is a very good processor. It is based on the Petium-III, not the P-4. So you cannot compare, becuase there is no baseline on future performance. The only option is to wait and see. However if you look at the native clock speed of the P-M, it is not in the 3-GHz range. It has a slower clock speed, but still is very comparable in speed to the P-4. That should mean something to everyone concerned about the MHz myth.
Finally this is really going to bring the issue of Mac vs Windows down to an issue of which OS is better. It is my opinion as a longtime Windows user that... Mac OS X is better! It is my opinion that OS X is easier and more intuitive for everyday use, and is better because you do not have to worry about malware, spyware, viruses, etc. So it is my belief that in the long run this is going to allow more people to switch to the Mac OS and leave Windows behind. Which would be a very good thing.
Just my thoughts on the matter
This is going to be fun
Maybe microsoft will get office finally working (probably not) for tiger and then I can go through these headaches again. If only I didn't need excel, or spss, or all sorts of other programs that I need for my work which now don't work. I have to keep hitting dashboard or expose just to keep myself occupied while that beach ball keeps spinning. Argh. At least I have this thread to read while I'm waiting.
Maybe microsoft will get office finally working (probably not) for tiger and then I can go through these headaches again. If only I didn't need excel, or spss, or all sorts of other programs that I need for my work which now don't work. I have to keep hitting dashboard or expose just to keep myself occupied while that beach ball keeps spinning. Argh. At least I have this thread to read while I'm waiting.
Apple have done a number on me
I am a switcher. In fact, I have been using a brand new Powerbook since Friday 3rd June 2005. Thats right, just 5 days. And during that 5 days I have realised that the Mac OS is a god send. It is pure genius. It is everything that Windows isn't and then some. It took me less than a day to realise this.
However after yesterdays announcement, I think I've been done over. Most software for the PowerPC architecture is going to have to be recompiled for the x86 architecture. Apparently, Steve-o indicated that once the transition is complete all apps will still be able to run in "emulation mode" on PowerPC processors. What sort of s*$t is that??!?! I didn't pay £1100 for a laptop thats going to run apps in "emulation mode" as this will mean a significant reduction in speed. I will watch the complete webcast tonight to find out exactly what The Visionary said.
Surely this can't be true though, can it? It would mean that everyone who has bought an iMac, a Mac Mini, a Powerbook etc. will be at a significant disadvantage in just 6 months time as this is when the first Intel based Mac will be available, and of course, apps for the x86 architecture.
Can someone please alleviate my fears and tell me what the future holds for my Powerbook? I don't want to be stuck in a world of emulation. I don't want to be stuck in a world where most of the apps made available will be for Intel and not for PowerPC.
I feel as though I've been done over.
I am a switcher. In fact, I have been using a brand new Powerbook since Friday 3rd June 2005. Thats right, just 5 days. And during that 5 days I have realised that the Mac OS is a god send. It is pure genius. It is everything that Windows isn't and then some. It took me less than a day to realise this.
However after yesterdays announcement, I think I've been done over. Most software for the PowerPC architecture is going to have to be recompiled for the x86 architecture. Apparently, Steve-o indicated that once the transition is complete all apps will still be able to run in "emulation mode" on PowerPC processors. What sort of s*$t is that??!?! I didn't pay £1100 for a laptop thats going to run apps in "emulation mode" as this will mean a significant reduction in speed. I will watch the complete webcast tonight to find out exactly what The Visionary said.
Surely this can't be true though, can it? It would mean that everyone who has bought an iMac, a Mac Mini, a Powerbook etc. will be at a significant disadvantage in just 6 months time as this is when the first Intel based Mac will be available, and of course, apps for the x86 architecture.
Can someone please alleviate my fears and tell me what the future holds for my Powerbook? I don't want to be stuck in a world of emulation. I don't want to be stuck in a world where most of the apps made available will be for Intel and not for PowerPC.
I feel as though I've been done over.
Dr.Gargoyle said:Well, if Apple would drop prices significantly they might be able to keep the sales up... But that would really be new move for Apple, wouldn't it?
I might consider buying a new Mac myself if the prices where dropped.
However, I think a move like that would make the people that just bought a PM 2.7 rather annoyed... to put it mildly.
I am all with you regarding buying a rev. A system. So far I have always bought the last rev.
It might be dangerous to drop prices. Then if you have to increase them when the P4 comes out...it looks a little weird. Anyway, their accountants and MBAs will figure out how to do that stuff. I hope they drop the price on the iMac, I would love to get one.
Absolutes
Then let's be a bit more careful with our words, eh? You had two lists: "Losers" and "Winners". Those are implied absolutes. Might I suggest that one list might have been more appropriate? Such as:
The Effects of the x86 transition on:
Companies that heavily optimized for Altivec:
- Positives:
- Negatives:
Apple:
- Positives:
- Negatives:
Etc.
Yes, you're correct, I failed to notice you encouraged the idea of someone buying a G5 today. Sorry 'bout that.
jimbobb24 said:
Then let's be a bit more careful with our words, eh? You had two lists: "Losers" and "Winners". Those are implied absolutes. Might I suggest that one list might have been more appropriate? Such as:
The Effects of the x86 transition on:
Companies that heavily optimized for Altivec:
- Positives:
- Negatives:
Apple:
- Positives:
- Negatives:
Etc.
Yes, you're correct, I failed to notice you encouraged the idea of someone buying a G5 today. Sorry 'bout that.
nsheikh80 said:
No worries. All software will continue to work awesome as a Universal Binary for your system for the life of your laptop and beyond. You have nothing to worry about at all. You made a great decision and this does not change it. Even if Apple went out of business you would still be fine for quite awhile.
your guess is just as good as mine. We are all stumbling in the darkness right now. Ok, some people here believe they have all the answers...myke said:
Anyhow, my guess is that MS doesn't pay that much attention to Apple right now. Since Macs have like 3% or the market ( thye use ot have 15-20% in the old days), Macs are not a threat to MS. Just a nice alibi for not being a monopolist. The minute Apple becomes a threat to MS, be sure of one thing... Office will disappear from Mac.
Office is as much standard as qwerty.
If Apple tries to launch an Office competitor, Office will be gone from Mac.
Due to peoples/businesses conservative attitude (compare with qwerty), I guess that any alternative to Office would have to struggle for years with big losses before they would become a serious alternative.
Just look at all the iPod clones and alternative musicstores. People tend to stick with what they know...
of course as always, just my guess...
- Status