Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[k3nx]

About C#



I didn't think you were knocking it, I thought you were misunderstanding it. There is no reason, by the way, why you can't implement C# on a Mac. If you get a web page ending in .aspx, chances are it is an application written in C#.

It is so easy and wonderful to use that even *I* can do it. My web site (of 800 pages) has 8 .NET applications on it, seven of which are in C#.

If there were a .NET Framework for the Mac that could compile .DLL libraries, I could go all Mac.

Have you looked into Mono?

 

[dvdiva]

I'm wondering why thy didn't go with AMD myself. Considering that Intel is adding DRM to all it's chips this isn't good. Also can you dual boot between windows and OS X on the intel mchines?
For newer Intel chips the problem is wattages - cooling for some of the newer chips is a real pain compared to the newer Opterons which use much less power. While some of the low voltage chips are OK for the G5 towers it will still probably be water cooled. IBM isn't the only problem with heat. Anyone building X86 servers can tell you that, unless they are going to use the low voltage Xeons but those are alot more money and slower.

 

[Panu]

A better question is when this and similar images are pulled from Apple's website!

BTW, I'm surprised that the developer's OSx86 system isn't one of the 64-bit Pentium chips. Since Intel's committed to 64-bit across the board, it seems a bit strange....

(Most servers and workstations are x64 now, desktops are in mid-transition, and laptop chips with x64 are on the roadmap)

It will be in the same place, because of their system design and because of OS X. (Case in point: Dell's single-processor machine outperformed a dual-processor machine from another company.)

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I was one of those people.I bought a G5 1.6 and 4 months later it was discontinued.Really ticked me off but I should have known better.Oh well.It's still a good machine.My brother who owns a P-4 3.2 homemade system ( one I built) wishes he had my system not because it's faster ( which it isn't really) but because it's an Apple computer with a G5 inside...

I'm hoping this switch will bring down the price of the top of the line G5's because when I see the dual 2.5 or 2.7 go down $500-$1000 I will buy one.No fear of value here because I know computers change over 2-4 years.Every computer does.

I couldn't agree more. The current line of Macs are very nice. But given what we know now they are priced too high. No matter what people say, I believe the WWDC cut the life spann short on the PPC Macs. I might be wrong, but that is what I think. Hopefully will Xcode 2.1 keep the PPC line alive for many years.

The one thing that bugs me about the demonstartion yesterday by Jobs is why didn't he use a 64-bit Intel?.Because as we all know here the Rosetta is only 32-bit.Unless he pulls out a 64-bit emulator in the next few months the first Appletel computers that come out will be 32-bit.And that in my mind is stepping backwards.I'll change my mind when I see developers get a 64-bit Rosetta.

Is the Rosetta only 32 bit??? I didnt knew that. Where did you get that info from? Do you have a link?

 

[sparksinspace]

different spin: edging the bets, a future with both PowerPC AND Intel/AMD!

I wonder if anybody else here has the suspicion that though Steve has announced a complete shift towards Intel, what this is about is to be able to pick-n-choose? If UniversalBinary becomes the standard and say, IBM comes up with a cool G6 that blows everything else out of the water, what prevents Apple from making a PowerMac with that? Nothing, I suppose - unless Apple have signed some sort of exclusivity agreement with Intel, which frankly I cannot imagine.

Of course Steve cannot really say that right now as it would offend his Intel-pal, but this option should not be overlooked, just remember when in 2003 that IBM guy came on and promised the world, etc, the Intel CEO appearing yesterday reminded me of that a little.. so with the option of being able to move back to PowerPC, say for a super-duper-64-bit-dual-proc-dual-core machine, this presents a great bargaining chip. In fact if I were in control I would actuallly make sure that there are always both architectures in place and being sold, just in case..

 

[paulypants]

I can't wait for all the security holes Intel chips bring to the table, like their HyperThreading hole:

http://www.techspot.com/story17629.html

woohoo what fun!

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I think the PPC is still a very good platform.

You are not alone, that is why I think it is a bit weird to find all these people bashing PPC and rejoicing the Intel chip.
The first day it felt like I have entered some Intel fan site. Very strange feeling indeed.

 

[firestarter]

Is the Rosetta only 32 bit??? I didnt knew that. Where did you get that info from? Do you have a link?

Not only that - it doesn't run Altivec.

Rosetta will be there as a backup, just in case an app hasn't converted. I don't think we'll see hardware until there are intel versions of all Apple's apps, all Adobe's apps, all Microsoft's apps. As long as all the 'big iron' runs natively in 64 bit Intel, running a few stragglers in 32 bit won't be that big of a deal.

I'm sure that running a few Rosetta processes in 32bit won't prevent other apps from being 64bit on the same machine.

 

[Gus]

As long a Apple doesn't have to put that dumbass Intel 'Tune' in their ads!!!!

Which ads would those be? When was the last Macintosh ad you saw?

Regards,
Gus

 

[HyperMactive]

Why in the world is everyone so bent out of shape about whether or not to buy current Apple hardware when things will change next year? No matter what you buy it's going to be obsolete next year. If you bought a G3, the G4 bested it. Then the G5 bested the G4. If you bought a 3 ghz Pentium, your machine was quickly outclassed. That's life in technology.

From what I understood of the keynote, OS X development is to be processor neutral in the future. So if you buy a G5 today, it will still run software just fine 3 years from now. It's no more a dead end than any processor ever is. From a user standpoint, the transition from PowerPC to Intel should be no more significant than the transition from the G4 to the G5. It just doesn't matter. Buy today with confidence. Then upgrade in a couple of years like you normally might.

The only reason I'm bearing my way-too-noisy dual 867 G4 is because the G5 only gives you two HD bays and a single optical drive (in a much larger case, go figure!). My G4 currently has two optical drives and four hard drives installed. If Apple would fix those idiotic shortcomings, buying a new G5 would make perfect sense for me. Then in a couple of years I can buy an Intel-based Mac.

I think this switch for Apple is going to be huge in the long run. Huge in a very good way. Note to Microsoft: prepare thyself for irrelevance.

 

[Panu]

Have you looked into Mono?

I know about Mono (I mentioned it in an earlier post). The problem is that I can't understand their web site. It is written in Modern Geek rather than American English. Personal shortcoming, perhaps. I also can't figure out if they can compile .DLL files.

I did have Mono on my iMac at one time. However, that iMac was a very unstable machine, constantly crashing. Apple repaired it three times and then replaced it. I never got back to Mono. Because of all the crashing, the iMac is basically a workstation for files on the Alienware.

The Alienware is extremely fast and has two monitors (or three if I feel the urge), so it is easier to do web work on it. However, I have Dreamweaver on both and do editing touch-ups on the iMac.

There is, of course, the language problem with the Mono web site. They aren't targeting people like me. I am limited to only English, German, and French. My Geek is self-taught and not fluent.

(Linux sites are in Modern Geek. Microsoft never uses one word when forty will do. Apple has the best writing of any computer manufacturer.)

 

[obiwan]

Fair Enough - But...

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.

I see what you're saying, but I'm a bit worried about the longevity of a G4 or G5 mac. - I mean, my G5 desktop and G4 Powerbook can do all I need for now - but I may wish to upgrade my software however, in the future. This is where the problem lies - I may be forced to upgrade my hardware prematurely because it is no longer supported by the latest software. - This is what happened to me when I bought the last of the 68k Macs before the PowerPC transistion. My Quadra stopped being useful as I could no longer get any 68k software to run on it.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

That is unlikely to happen. Apple could double its marketshare and it would still not be a threat to Windows. The real threat to Windows is from OSS.

Besides, if Apple doubled its marketshare, that would mean double the customers for Mac Office, and MS would be really happy with that. Office stays on the mac because it makes Microsoft money. It and its predecessors have been making money for over twenty years. Microsoft is not going to stop making Mac Office purely because it is a self interested company.

I said IF Apple becomes a threat....

Why would Apple want to do that? It still has Appleworks, and Pages and Keynote. None of these are really Office competitors since they are primarily for non-power users.

Don't let your hatred of Windows cloud your opinion of the Mac BU. Many of the people there are macheads who care about the mac platform as much as the rest of us. They've produced some good software too. I'm really pleased with Office 2004. I have had no problems with it, and I would recommend it to anyone. It is a great piece of software. WMP could be improved though along with Messenger. But I don't for a minute imagine that the people working on those programs don't want to make them better – they just need to justify the cost.

I feel sorry for the Mac BU people. They come along to Apple Events and alongside Adobe are the most important developer for the platform, and yet they get made to feel bad about it just because their company makes a competing OS.

We should stop caring about Windows. I don't really. I don't use it. Microsoft to me in my daily life is a mac developer who makes pretty good mac apps that I need to do my job. There are alternatives, but frankly most of them aren't as good.

First of all, I am not a MS hater. I am forced to use it in my profession. I just dislike the monopoly, the unstable OS (Lost two weeks of work when suddenly XP got tired...), the virus, the spyware,...
I do not share your praise for Office. I run Office 2004 at home and I find it buggy and instable... But that is another thread
My point in all this was a response to a guy that thought Apple could become the new MS. I said it won't and it couldn't because of Office.
Nothing more nothing less... It has nothing to do with hate of MS or anything else, just that Office is a standard today. period

 

[MajorTom]

Jobs himself said he was using a P4 3.64 in his presentation yesterday and the specs for the developer kit is a Mac case with a P4 3.64 inside.

Read my post again. Also check out AI

Not a single P4 3.6 processor. Four P4 3.6 processors!!!!!!!!

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Not only that - it doesn't run Altivec.

Rosetta will be there as a backup, just in case an app hasn't converted. I don't think we'll see hardware until there are intel versions of all Apple's apps, all Adobe's apps, all Microsoft's apps. As long as all the 'big iron' runs natively in 64 bit Intel, running a few stragglers in 32 bit won't be that big of a deal.

I'm sure that running a few Rosetta processes in 32bit won't prevent other apps from being 64bit on the same machine.

According to the Keynote, you could recompile the code throught Xcode in a few days (hours). I still guess that the first mactel (PB) will arrive relatively soon.

 

[hoppo99]

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.

Is it not slightly presumptuous to expect Intel based Macs to be able to run Windows. Apple is surely going to be using customised and modified processors with no need to have legacy compatibility with x86 standards that Microsoft demands from Intel. Intel will therefore be able to innovate with the processors for Apple more freely without those constraints which can only be of benefit to both Intel and Apple.

Edit: It seems I am Windows will be able to be run on Intel based Macs if they provide support, which I think they'll probably do. I wouldn't like to see Windows apps running within OS X though. We don't want to go down the whole OS2/Warp scenario. I'm sure Apple is well aware of this danger and is taking precautions.

 

[thogs_cave]

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 ***.

Well, you've never hear my butt speak, so I'll forgive you. You'd sure know the difference.

You assumed I was running Windows, I imagine.

 

[AidenShaw]

*cough* bull**** *cough*

Read my post again. Also check out AI

Not a single P4 3.6 processor. Four P4 3.6 processors!!!!!!!!

The Pentium 4 does not support multiple processors, period.

You might have two logical processors (hyper-threading), but if you have a P4 machine you cannot have 4 physical or even logical processors.

A dual 3.6GHz Xeon, on the other hand, would show up as a quad if hyper-threading were enabled.

 

[k3nx]

I know about Mono (I mentioned it in an earlier post). The problem is that I can't understand their web site. It is written in Modern Geek rather than American English. Personal shortcoming, perhaps. I also can't figure out if they can compile .DLL files.
...
There is, of course, the language problem with the Mono web site. They aren't targeting people like me. I am limited to only English, German, and French. My Geek is self-taught and not fluent.

(Linux sites are in Modern Geek. Microsoft never uses one word when forty will do. Apple has the best writing of any computer manufacturer.)

Damn, I was hoping that you did and could show me how to do it, cause I too fall under that WTH or WTF when I read the mono docs.

 

[Agathon]

I said IF Apple becomes a threat....

I know. I just think that is extremely unlikely. OSS and Google are far more of a threat.

Apple is conceivably a threat to MS in the music and home entertainment field, but I don't think that MS would pull Office for that reason. A putative Apple Home Entertainment Server would have nothing to do with the Macintosh and pulling Office would be unlikely to persuade Apple to stop making it.

First of all, I am not a MS hater. I am forced to use it in my profession. I just dislike the monopoly, the unstable OS (Lost two weeks of work when suddenly XP got tired...), the virus, the spyware,...

I agree. I share your dislike. But I still appreciate the Mac BU.

I do not share your praise for Office. I run Office 2004 at home and I find it buggy and instable... But that is another thread

Really? I run it on my PowerBook and on my old G3 imac and I have never had a problem. Office X apps would rarely crash, but I haven't had a problem with 2004.

And MS increased the number of machines I could install my student version on to three. I thought that was pretty decent of them, and was one of the reasons I splashed out on the PowerBook.

My point in all this was a response to a guy that thought Apple could become the new MS. I said it won't and it couldn't because of Office.
Nothing more nothing less... It has nothing to do with hate of MS or anything else, just that Office is a standard today. period

I guess I disagree. If Apple were actually in the position to threaten MS, pulling Office would not help MS at all, as they would be in really serious trouble.

But I don't think they ever will be. Google and OSS will threaten MS, and that is why MS is devoting most of its effort to FUDing about OSS and trying to out Google Google.

In any case, there is really no need for Apple to develop an Office killer. They could do it if they wanted to, but costs are prohibitive and they could not compete with MS at a reasonable price. Besides, MS has made it crystal clear that development of Mac Office will continue into the foreseeable future, and they have done so because there is money in it.

I imagine that MS meetings go somewhat like this:

MS: "How are you in the Mac BU doing?"

MBU: "We're making money and there is no reason to think we'll stop. We basically own the Mac market for business software and we can't really be threatened."

MS: "Great! Carry on. Right, what about you people in 'X' division? You've lost 40 million dollars!!!!"

 

[Peace]

Read my post again. Also check out AI

Not a single P4 3.6 processor. Four P4 3.6 processors!!!!!!!!

Unless Jobs let developers look inside that case I can't see how a developer would know what was inside.There is no reference to 4 cpu's in the developer kit.It's a P4 3.64

Also,do you have a link to the appleinsider article?
Thanks

 

[jay_app]

To the people who a concerned, mad, or angry - this is for you.

To the people who a concerned, mad, or angry - this is for you.

1. Apple will still make the best hardware and Mac OS X will still only run on their hardware. It will be the same user experience.

2. Your PPC Mac will not become obsolete any faster than if Apple stayed with IBM PPC. They will run all the Mac OS X software as they do now - nothing will change.

3. The ability to run Windows natively on your Mac box. This is huge for Windows switchers.

4. The fastest chips (that will run cool) in the world. They will be dual core and cool running. It is almost impossible to make small devices for current IBM PPC and the PPC's future roadmap. Apple wants to make really small and thin laptops and other new portable devices.

5. Switching to Intel gives Apple lots of future flexibility.

Rest easy - it's very good

 

[Agathon]

Is it not slightly presumptuous to expect Intel based Macs to be able to run Windows.

Given that Phil Schiller has admitted that it is possible, I see no reason to doubt it.

I imagine that some geeks will discover a way to do it. Apple has no reason to care about that - the users have paid for Apple hardware and software. It's really no different from someone buying VPC for their current mac.

People use Macs for the software.

Now... if same geeks find a way to run OS X on a Dell, which will be more difficult, there is a problem, since Apple survives on hardware sales. But I think that this will be a minority practice (Slashdotters and people like that).

 

[G3-Pwnz-G4]

i swear to god, if there is a single goddamn "Intel Inside" sticker on any mac made EVER (even the ones with intels inside) i'm becoming a luddite.

that's my main concern. the trademark apple design. PC's are fugly monstrosities of poorly fitted metal and plastic, and if i open up my mac and find that behind the sleek exterior is just a run-of-the-mill ASUS motherboard or the like, with a basic PC case design...

apple has given up innovation for profit, and quite frankly i am not pleased. i guess all we can do now is wait and see.

 

[iBoris]

Okay, I haven't read ALL 2000+ posts, but I have one question.

Has Steve Jobs answered the Apple.com Speed comprisons between Intel and PPC, or are those figures just gonna be reversed in the next site update?

I don't really care what processor is in my Mac, but for years Apple have banged on about GHZ being a myth. Why reinforce that Myth now?

Does the extra 300MHZ from a Dual 2.7GHZ PPC really matter that much?

Are Intel offering more than just GHZ?

Would we not expect IBM to improve R&D with all the extra cash being poured into them from Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo?

Is Steve, just being Steve - i.e. someone embarassed him, so he's gonna switch suppliers?

Yep, that's more than one question... I'm just curious as to what prompted this (apart from perceived speed) change.