Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[digitalbiker]

First of all, I wouldn't surprised if Apple introduced a PB with a pentium M proc very soon. The PB is lagging bad and it very close to the iBook.
Secondly. Steve said that the first Mactels would have been shipped by the next WWDC. I doubt he is going to make another 3 GHz move. Hence, we will probably see Rosetta in 10.4.2 or 10.4.3
I believe that the first machines will arrive very soon. You can not make an announcement like he did and just keep people in the dark.
I doubt we ever will see the freescale e600, not now... Apple cant afford to screw up with Intel.
Blue-ray DVD? Seriously, isn't that a bit too soon?? In a Mac heads wet dream perhaps but not in the real world.
you guess people will rush and buy the last true Macs. I guess the opposite. Future will tell who was correct. That being said, I hope for Apples sake that you are correct and I am wrong.

1) SJ said that the first Mactels would be shipping prior to the WWDC next year. It has been widely reported, (Cnet) that Apple would start with the consumer low-end machines first and slowly add intel to all product lines. This means most likely +1 probably +1.5 years before PB intel.

2) So what if Rosetta appears in 10.4.2 or 10.4.3? Rosetta is a PPC emulator, you won't need it with a true PPC. It is only for the intel-macs.

3) SJ said "many exciting new PPC products are in the pipeline". PB is due for an upgrade as you noted. Most likely very soon you will see PB with a new PPC chip since intel PPC is 1 to 1.5 years away.

4) Blue-Ray? who knows it was a wild guess since this is year of HD and new HD format DVD's will be Blue-Ray. I remember when the super-drive surprised everyone as well.


5) Why is Freescale chip and screwing up with intel related? Intel probably knows exactly what Apple intends to release and is busy gearing up for supplying the next gen Mac-intel PB's in 1 to 2 years.

6) Have you been paying attention? How many posts have you seen about people just waiting for the price to drop so that they can grab a new or used PPC mac? Ain't gonna happen, demand is too high. Too many people waiting for release of PB G5 or 3 GHz PM. Well guess what, Apple pretty much announced that they aren't happening. This means those same people might as well upgrade with the last gen PPC that Apple releases from the pipeline this year.

 

[Preacher85]

BMG

With Apple switching to Intel processors, will we see Blue Man Group doing Macintel shadow dancer commercials similar to current iPod commercials?

 

[machinehead]

Steve Jobs is right, IBM has failed, there genius G5 has failed almost all of its benchmarks. It was supposed to perform much much faster than it has, at this point we are supposed to be at 3.5. Not to mention, its a huge bulky chip, that they swore would be scaled down within the first year, and now its 2.5 years later and still nothing. Lets not forget the promise that it was a new chip, so it would run hot, and within a year that would be fixed too. My powerbook practically burns my lap when i use it, and its only a G4. In my opinion they have failed miserably. and if Intel is going to put out faster, cooler, smaller processors...then why are we complaining?

When watercooling was introduced on the fastest PowerMacs, it was obvious that the G5 chip has a heat problem. That's been confirmed by the inability to put a G5 into the PowerBook.

I'd rather see Apple work with IBM than Intel. But if the G5 chip is an unquenchable power hog and heat producer, then Apple is merely doing what it has to do.

Electronics are always getting smaller. If you can't keep up in the MIPS per watt race, then you're out of the game.

 

[Chaywa]

flawed reasoning?

I think I understand why Apple made the switch to Intel(its the portable stupid) but I don't understand why so many people think this will make PC users flock to the mac.
I really don't think most PC users pay attention to what processor is inside their computer. People don't use macs because of windows and its universality (no way I could ever understand or explain why). This may be changing, but the notion that putting an intel into a mac will suddenly attract PC users is silly. And no, you won't be able to run windows on an intel mac unless you are a hardcore hacker so don't try that answer. I just don't see PC users flocking to Mac (but they did flock to ipod/itunes so I am willing to be wrong).

 

[chibianh]

MAN I LOVE your graphic!!

Thanks.. i remember seeing it on the net somewhere but couldn't find it, so I remade it. Resistance is futile

On another note, maybe these new Pentiums will be the ones to make it into the first Macs?

Finally, it looks like Intel has learned from its mistake and secretly prepping a surprise for the rest of the industry. According to the information we received, Intel is currently working on a desktop, dual-core Dothan microprocessor with SSE3 instruction set that Intel plans to launch sometime in the future. Whether the launch will take place this year or in 2006 is currently unknown.

Article: http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1375

 

[MaCaDDiCT21]

ok, let me see if I get this correct...

The Microsoft Xbox is using a PPC Processor...
And now Apple is using Intel Processors...

God help us all...

 

[MontyZ]

Simple really. I say when it gets a bit lower, may be a good idea to buy to catch the benefit of the Intel wave.

I wonder if the stock will go down as low as it was when I first bought it, which was around $11/each. While it would seem tempting, it would look really bad if it dropped that low.

 

[GuyClinch]

Bios replacement.

For the person who think Mac's won't be able run Windows because of the BIOS.

Intel already has a BIOS replacement in the works. I think it's highly likely the new macs will use this. In fact I bet the developer kits were already using it and they could likely still run windows. It's called EFI.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040601-3830.html

I think you will see something quite similiar to stock intel motherboard. Intel makes EXCELLENT rock solid stable motherboards. Why reinvent the wheel when you don't have too?

I am betting it will be trivial to run Windows on the new Mac's. I don't know why people imagine that you have to be hardcore hacker. Apple already said they won't prevent it and from the MS viewpoint it's another sale.

Pete

 

[Applespider]

I just don't see PC users flocking to Mac (but they did flock to ipod/itunes so I am willing to be wrong).

Flock..no. But most consumers if they do look at specs, look at the hard drive size, RAM and the processor speed. Chances are that they don't understand them but they look and pick the highest. This means that Macs will be competing for equal attention from those who aren't really sure of what they're doing.

Not only that but thanks to the Centrino advertising, there are people out there who think that only Centrinos can go wireless... My aunt still refers to my cousin's iBook as whether it has the centrino bit

 

[MontyZ]

The Microsoft Xbox is using a PPC Processor...
And now Apple is using Intel Processors...

I guess Apple didn't want it's serious computer hardware associated with gaming boxes. Now it all makes sense! Of course!

 

[MontyZ]

Has Intel been snubbed by Microsoft and Dell not long ago? Didn't Dell or some other big computer-maker decide to start using AMD chips? I remember reading somewhere where Intel was not the king of the hill anymore like it was in the 80s/90s. So, maybe this cooperation is good for BOTH Apple and Intel?

 

[maxlee]

I know its the right thing to do and it makes sense. Yet I feel a era has passed and its kinda depressing.

I actually think Apple will release a Mactel for the X'mas season. They need to to kick up the sales volumes. Steve has thought this through. Also Virtual PC is not needed for a Mactel. Something more in-line with VMWare would be more appropriate (which btw. is kick-butt fast on a Wintel).

I also suspect, that we'll see dual P4 3.2GHz Powermacs pretty soon - they have virtually built them for the ADT Kits. And I bet that a Powerbook P4 will be one of the first things out. Remember, Steve's reason for switching to Intel was because he could not deliver 3GHz G5s and a Powerbook G5.

The other thing that must have irked Steve is the fact that Xbox 360 is getting three 3.2Ghz PowerPCs in each unit and Apple can't get any! That is probably THE straw that broke the camel's back.

At the end of the day, Apple is not substantial enough business for IBM to care about and Intel has a vision and a roadmap that is more inline with Apple's target markets.

 

[paulypants]

Personally, I don't see why so many people assume this will mean less expensive macs, from everything I 've read I think they will roughly be at the same price points. Of course this will really be a problem when comparing prices to PCs with the same processors that cost hundreds less. God help us....

 

[matticus008]

Incidentally, I don't buy the drivers argument - Apple has always been stringent in the stuff it supports, meaning third-party hardware producers will still need to create their own drivers on a hypothetical generic PC running OS X.

No, they'll need to write the drivers on a Macintosh running OS X. You can't write drivers on a computer that doesn't work yet. Once you write the driver(s) and get it working, then you can use your non-Apple computer.

 

[GuyClinch]

I really don't think most PC users pay attention to what processor is inside their computer. People don't use macs because of windows and its universality (no way I could ever understand or explain why). This may be changing, but the notion that putting an intel into a mac will suddenly attract PC users is silly. And no, you won't be able to run windows on an intel mac unless you are a hardcore hacker so don't try that answer. I just don't see PC users flocking to Mac (but they did flock to ipod/itunes so I am willing to be wrong).

I can explain why. The OS gap is pretty small, and windows machines are like you said the standard. Throw in the fact that they are cheaper and faster and it's an easy decision. I built a REALLY NICE PC for 900 bucks. Aluminum case, fast hard drives, fast proccessor and more. And it's so much snappier then any Mac I have used. (Though some of this may be due to Mac OSX.)

But you will be able to run windows on Mac. Though I think a virtual PC is actually a better solution then dual booting because that way you can access your Mac and PC applications at the same time. But I think dual booting will probably be possible.

Pete

 

[Peace]

I know its the right thing to do and it makes sense. Yet I feel a era has passed and its kinda depressing.

I actually think Apple will release a Mactel for the X'mas season. They need to to kick up the sales volumes. Steve has thought this through. Also Virtual PC is not needed for a Mactel. Something more in-line with VMWare would be more appropriate (which btw. is kick-butt fast on a Wintel).

I also suspect, that we'll see dual P4 3.2GHz Powermacs pretty soon - they have virtually built them for the ADT Kits. And I bet that a Powerbook P4 will be one of the first things out. Remember, Steve's reason for switching to Intel was because he could not deliver 3GHz G5s and a Powerbook G5.

The other thing that must have irked Steve is the fact that Xbox 360 is getting three 3.2Ghz PowerPCs in each unit and Apple can't get any! That is probably THE straw that broke the camel's back.

You're right on with some points..

Look for a P4 IBook and/or Emac before the fall back to school campaign.

 

[digitalbiker]

This was a misunderstanding

I'm no computer expert by any means but I'm just stating what I'v read. The developers at WWDC (who are computer experts ) are of the opinion that 4 processors where used in SJ's test machine. This is of course a rumor at this point, but if you read the report on AppleInsider I would say that this sounds slightly plausable.

And even if it is not (normally) possible to do 'something' with a computer chip, Im sure that Apple and Intel could throw something like a Quade G5 together for demo purposes if the put there collective minds to it. No?

It was stated that SJ was using a 3.6 Ghz Pentium 4 processor machine to run OSX. Many people mistook this for 3.6 Ghz pentium (quad processor) rather than the actual 3.6 Ghz Pentium-4 processor.

Dumb mistake but I noticed it reported in many places. Mis-information spreads fast.

Aiden is correct! The pentium 4 is not capable of operating in a multi-processor configuration. This is a restriction of the internal design of the chip. It is not multi-processor aware.

 

[skellener]

PB is due for an upgrade as you noted. Most likely very soon you will see PB with a new PPC chip since intel PPC is 1 to 1.5 years away.

From https://buyersguide.macrumors.com/

Product: PowerBook
Last Release: January 31, 2005
Days Since Update: 127 (Average = 185)
Recommendation: Neutral - Mid product cycle

Don't expect a Powerbook update just yet. It's only mid cycle. iBook is waaaaay over due.

 

[wildmac]

More speed, more frequent updates. No more "your Mac is slower than my Alienware" comments.

Cool.

And to whoever said that the chip is the soul of the computer, I say the OS is the soul. The chip is more like the pituitary gland.

Does that mean the Mac is about to get a labotomy?....

 

[GuyClinch]

Personally, I don't see why so many people assume this will mean less expensive macs, from everything I 've read I think they will roughly be at the same price points. Of course this will really be a problem when comparing prices to PCs with the same processors that cost hundreds less. God help us....

Why? Apple will benefit more from the economy of scale. If you notice Apple has been moving in this direction for years. They have added more PC technologies into their Macs to save money. They ditched SCSI, ADB, and more to save money. Now they can move to intel standard motherboards, chipsets, and chips. They will save money and the costs of Macs can be reduced. Heck they could let Abit make all their motherboards now. That's more money saved.

Of course your still going to pay a premium for the MacOS. But what can you do.

Pete

 

[SPUY767]

I think I understand why Apple made the switch to Intel(its the portable stupid) but I don't understand why so many people think this will make PC users flock to the mac.
I really don't think most PC users pay attention to what processor is inside their computer. People don't use macs because of windows and its universality (no way I could ever understand or explain why). This may be changing, but the notion that putting an intel into a mac will suddenly attract PC users is silly. And no, you won't be able to run windows on an intel mac unless you are a hardcore hacker so don't try that answer. I just don't see PC users flocking to Mac (but they did flock to ipod/itunes so I am willing to be wrong).

No no no, you aren't understanding business. The Intel-based mac will be an ultra-high performance PC, along the lines, and probably exceeding that of an Alienware or Falcon or whatever else. Apple will want windows users to be able to install windows on their machine. It allows for a springboard to using a macintosh. The problem with making a jump is losing a lot of software or whatever, but if users can install Windows and all their current apps on a Mac, it would be a non-issue. Being able to install Win on Mac will be a good thing for Apple and therefore it will be possible if not exceedingly easy.

 

[Alisha]

I would still by the new ibook when it comes out, no matter what processor. Its still a good computer, and a new PB is looking pretty far off (I cant wait another year and a half I dont think...).

 

[MontyZ]

Personally, I don't see why so many people assume this will mean less expensive macs, from everything I 've read I think they will roughly be at the same price points. Of course this will really be a problem when comparing prices to PCs with the same processors that cost hundreds less. God help us....

Well, first off, I'm not sure whether God uses a PC or Mac. But I doubt he/she/it gives a sh*t.

But I think it will be important for Apple to lower it's computer prices somewhat if they want more market share, as price-resistance is one of the big negatives for Apple equipment. Everything just costs SO MUCH more, and PC users don't understand why and would much rather buy a $399 Dell than a $799 eMac, because they get a free printer, faster processor, bigger hard disk, more RAM, etc. So, that's one of Apple's biggest problems, and if they don't take this opportunity to even the playing field a bit, then this whole Intel change will be worthless.

 

[stephenli]

ok, let me see if I get this correct...

The Microsoft Xbox is using a PPC Processor...
And now Apple is using Intel Processors...

God help us all...

next move is....
M$ totally migrate Windows to PPC platform
So the dark side use PowerPC G6
and we use Pentium D
omg

 

[ijimk]

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

Thank you for clearing up some questions i had man.