Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[wheezy]

Too bad I can't search on this site worth crap, but someone once posted a link to the original Macrumors thread when Jobs announced the iPod. Pretty much everyone bashed it for being the dumbest product ever released. Hmmm....I think every single one of them ate their words. I trust Steve an awful lot more than all you bashers about this switch

Steve Jobs is a genius, not a sell out. IBM/Motorola couldn't perform, so he moves to Intel, who seem to be performing. Why try and sell superior products, but stick to inferior components? This will, for sure, be one of the biggest steps in Apple's advancement.

On a side note, though, I"m hoping OS X will only work on Apple Boxes, and not be able to be installed on just any x86 box...that just lessens the cool that is Apple, ya know?

 

[Doctor Q]

I've heard complaints about the possibility that Mac ads, if Apple gets back into airing Mac ads regularly, will have that "annoying" Intel Inside jingle.

If you are one of these people, think about why the jingle is more annoying to you than any other commercial jingle you hear all the time. It's probably because you associate Intel so closely with Windows, not because you don't like the jingle's notes or Intel as a company. If there was a Linux-on-Intel ad, would the jingle be annoying? If your Mac running your favorite software on Mac OS X 10.5 Lepoard is advertised as "insanely great" along with an Intel jingle, perhaps you won't mind at all.

It's the same with the stickers. I remember there being some kind of "PowerPC" label (I forget the wording) on my first Power Mac, which was promoting the chip over previous non-Power Macs. If a new and better processor is in a Mac you buy a year from now, it shouldn't be offensive to see that fact promoted.

 

[vaslav]

Open your mind....

They're buying PCs like me. Jobs is a sell-out!

For people who are so passionate about Macs, they don't seem to know much about them.

What is one of the great benefits of a Mac (besides OS X)? It is the architecture of the entire computer (G5 Architecture.

I didn't hear Steve Jobs say that the Intel based Macs were going to have Intel boards in them, did you? He just mentioned the processors. So, can we not envision an Apple designed architecture using an Intel chip? We will have to wait and see, but I am inclined to believe that Apple will continue to develop excellent architecture for use with the Intel chip.

This will make an Intel based Mac completely different than an Intel based PC.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Whoops... that was a typo. I meant to say Intel-Mac PBs not Intel-PPC PBs.

Yes, you are right we are just guessing. But Steve did mention several times about great new PPC products in the pipeline. Also this is a developer convention, not a general consumer convention. Most things that are discussed here don't effect consumers for at least a year. I think we will see a new PPC PB before we see an intel PB. It is just a guess.
Also I don't think very many apps will be available in just a years time. Apple won't release pro-sumer products until many key pro apps are in place.

You might be right, I have no idea how Apple are thinking. In fact I have a huge problem realizing that Apple is going x86...lol
I interpreted it as the PPC upgrade was for PM and iMacs... but who knows.
I am a bit uncertain about a G5 in the PB due to thermal problems and batt time. But they might be able to solve that.

 

[runninmac]

I just can't wait till the day when they update the Powerbooks with these prosessers. Jobs will come out on stage all cool. Intorduce them blow us away with a new design from Ive (i really have no clue how they are going to top this one but they will). All the develpors and everyone in there will give a huge applause. Oh that will be a great day. Also by then I will have enough money to buy one as soon as they come out.

 

[wheezy]

For people who are so passionate about Macs, they don't seem to know much about them.

What is one of the great benefits of a Mac (besides OS X)? It is the architecture of the entire computer (G5 Architecture.

I didn't hear Steve Jobs say that the Intel based Macs were going to have Intel boards in them, did you? He just mentioned the processors. So, can we not envision an Apple designed architecture using an Intel chip? We will have to wait and see, but I am inclined to believe that Apple will continue to develop excellent architecture for use with the Intel chip.

This will make an Intel based Mac completely different than an Intel based PC.

Excellent point to me...and I"m only 90% ignorant!

 

[jimbobb24]

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

Die size for G5 is much smaller than P4- meaning the P4 costs more to fab. So, price could go up or down depending on how Intel priced it for Apple.

 

[runninmac]

Too bad I can't search on this site worth crap, but someone once posted a link to the original Macrumors thread when Jobs announced the iPod. Pretty much everyone bashed it for being the dumbest product ever released. Hmmm....I think every single one of them ate their words. I trust Steve an awful lot more than all you bashers about this switch

Steve Jobs is a genius, not a sell out. IBM/Motorola couldn't perform, so he moves to Intel, who seem to be performing. Why try and sell superior products, but stick to inferior components? This will, for sure, be one of the biggest steps in Apple's advancement.

On a side note, though, I"m hoping OS X will only work on Apple Boxes, and not be able to be installed on just any x86 box...that just lessens the cool that is Apple, ya know?

Right on. I was thinking the same thing sort of freaky.

 

[anastasis]

Wouldn't Virtual PC for Mac run at almost native speeds, like VPC for Windows does on intel now?

Will there even be a need for this, considering that you will be able to dual boot the Mac?

 

[Dr. Dastardly]

I keep seeing the same people saying that Apple spent so long trying to disprove the Mhz myth and don't know why they are now putting Intels in the machines now. Thinking it was all made up to sell more Macs.

The Mhz myth still stands. Just because they now put Intels in the machines doesnt mean that they were lying to you for all thses years.

IBM's processors are great RIGHT NOW. And they will have great ones in the future. But getting those procs out has obviously been to big of a challenge for them to undertake. Especially if now all the gaming consoles want them as well its just going to put more of a strain on the demand.

This was obviously a huge concern for Apple and the fact they could not cool them enough in two years to put them into the powerbooks.

They were going to go nowhere with IBM later in the future. IBM has become stagnated and will probably be so for the next couple years until they can get their 65nm chips together. Apple just doesnt want to wait around and rightly so I think.

Besides nothing has really changed and I'm actually pretty stoked at the whole prospect. I'm one of those that have to use Windows but would MUCH rather use OSX. So I have to have two machines in my house. If I can run Windows on a Mac that would be the best thing since.... well Mac in general. Think about it if IBM said that they had just come out with a chip that can run PPC and x86 in one Mac everyone would be all over it. So whats the big difference between using Intel and that? The name?

 

[j26]

...
If you are one of these people, think about why the jingle is more annoying to you than any other commercial jingle you hear all the time. It's probably because you associate Intel so closely with Windows, not because you don't like the jingle's notes or Intel as a company....

Nah, It's just annoying. Those stickers are irritating too - they're placed right where your wrists rest on a laptop and after a while wear down so you have a little grey sticker with a couple of flecks of colour.

I'm in favour of Intel in macs, just spare me the jingle and sticker. Put it on the box and give us a cd of the jingle if you must (that we will obviously all play incessantly ), but don't ruin the clean lines of a laptop.

 

[dicklacara]

Apple just closed down $1.38

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Just that Steve Jobs said that we wouldn't see Intel-powered computers until next year, and that the transition wouldn't be complete until well into 2007 (meaning new PowerPC computers at least through 2007). So, at the soonest possible, there won't be a Pentium M in a PowerBook until next year. By then, there could be something completely new. The other reason to wait, of course, is that there isn't a completely ready version of OS X for Intel yet, and there are essentially no applications that have been recompiled at this point. You wouldn't launch a new platform and architecture relying solely on an emulator, so they have to wait until at least most of the major applications are fully native. That'll take at least several months for many companies, regardless of the ease of recompiling advertised at the keynote.


And Apple wouldn't just turn around and abandon the majority of its users at that point, meaning that OS X will continue to support PowerPC at least through Leopard's lifespan (a good four years from now). That's really unrelated to your post, but I thought I'd add it because too many people seem to be overreacting about the usefulness of their recent purchases.

I got the impression that Rosetta was made just for the transition, before all apps had been recompiled?
Assuming Jobs was accurate when he said that most recompilations could be done in matter of weeks... why wait with putting a pentium M in the PB?
It is long overdue, right?
Couldn't the PPC all the way to 2007 mean that they will wait with upgrading the PM, since you need a 64 bit chip?

 

[misr12]

I mean I'm cool with it if it makes a better computer but...

I mean first of all they have to get this stuff off the site ASAP - the baseline is the development machine for gods sake.

I mean I'm cool with it if it makes a better computer but....

Will our current machines (my brand new 20" iMac) be totally unsupported soon?

C'mone... I have a 20" iMac and I am not worried at all. Did you see Jobs at all at the WWDC 2005? I feel very confident and glad to see he is not waitng for IBM to complete broken promises. The hardware is no more then a shell to me anymore. The true significance (engine) to todays computing lifestyle is the OS. OSX Tiger and future upgrade paths of Leopard will continue Apples signifiicance to all of our computing lifestyles regardless of the CPU platform.... Do you all think that Apple is jumping into this prematurely without much thought. They wouldn't have 4bills in the bank operating their business if they didn't have Job's at the head of the table. That's good enough for me.... I have been a user for over 15 years. If apple goes to Intel then lets go for a ride and continue to enjoy what Apple offers us. Of course there are other options for those that don't feel as comfortable about this as me. Isn't it nice to have options....

Regarding PPC base Macs not being supported I think not at all. Enjoy what you have now not what will be out next year. I am sure the core software used today by most of us is covered by Apple, Microsoft and Adobe as well as the others who program using Apples new binary options (refere to Mathmatica at the WWDC, impressive). I felt assured from these great devleopers at the WWDC.

I'll support this new move. Our PPC computers will be great for many years to come. That's what makes Apple so unique. I also will be purchasing another Mac for my son this year. I'm not worried at all about the hardware. The software is already there and being supported. As a matter of fact look at how many still us OS9. Over 10% of the mac computer base.

My glass is difinately half full with this new direction from apple. In several years I will make my natural upgrade path like I have over the last 15 years.

Tom M.

 

[anynigma]

Rumors

There was a rumor on apple insider that was more recently removed that made reference to the P4 rig that Jobs used in the keynote. Some developers suspected that it was using FOUR p4's to run those programs at close to G5 speeds. Also, the developer's boxes are not to be discussed, moved, or modified when they arrive in the hands of the developers. I would guess that this means Rosetta is not ready to be distributed, and is probably why we have to wait a year until the Intel's appear. Also, Jobs may want to wait until the Intel chips reach 64 bit, at least for the powermac and powerbook line derivatives.

 

[eVolcre]

ibm still makes desktops and laptops...

http://www.ibm.com/products/us/

Umm, NOPE. It was sold to Lenovo.

 

[runninmac]

Die size for G5 is much smaller than P4- meaning the P4 costs more to fab. So, price could go up or down depending on how Intel priced it for Apple.

Does the size really go up with a prosesser being just a little bigger? That seams really screwed up if the prices go up. Im sure jobs was a good negotiator and got a good price on them.

 

[iMeowbot]

Dagnabbit! This means that WordPerfect 3.5 won't run any more

 

[wildmac]

A guy doing his Ph.D. in Biology posted that their dept was still running OS 9 for their DNA sequenses... That is a common problem in science. You get a program, tweak it, and then you hope you will be able to run that on new platforms too. It is not always as easy as you suggest to just "update".

Scientific uses are another story. At my company, some lab-rats are still using OS7 boxes hooked up to some of their hardware.

The OP was talking about the design community. Designers have LONG had everything they need to upgrade. (The only lingering problem is support for older printers. But that's Epson's fault).

 

[Tealeaf]

There was a rumor on apple insider that was more recently removed that made reference to the P4 rig that Jobs used in the keynote. Some developers suspected that it was using FOUR p4s to run those programs at close to G5 speeds. Also, the developer's boxes are not to be discussed, moved, or modified when they arrive in the hands of the developers. I would guess that this means Rosetta is not ready to be distributed, and is probably why we have to wait a year until the Intel's appear. Also, Jobs may want to wait until the Intel chips reach 64 bit, at least for the powermac and powerbook line derivatives.

Desktop Intel chips are already 64-bit, as are the Xeon chips.

As for "four P4s", there's no such thing. You have single or dual core Pentium 4s - one chip only. You can have dual, four way, etc Xeons. Xeon MPs are capable at running in four-way systems at 3.66Ghz:

http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=866622&familyID=5&culture=en-US

Pentium 4 based computers are single CPU computers. Xeon-based computers can be more than one CPU computers.

The Mac that Steve was using on stage claimed to be running a Pentium 4, not a Xeon. Xeons identify themselves to the OS as a "Xeon", not a "Pentium 4". I should know, I'm typing this message on one (well, four) now.

Why would he lie? Why would the developer boxes that he talked about be sent with only a Pentium 4? And it's not unreasonable to suppose that performance is little less, as the prime focus of Apple has been on the IBM chips - not Intel. Wait until the first version of OS X comes out that has had Apple's undivided attention, not some "pre-release".

So, they're not allowed to move the developer Macs? Does that mean they will have to stay in their packaging until it's time to give them back at the end of 2007?

 

[paulsecic]

I really hope they get their protable lines shiping with the Pentium M asap! I know they would have said something about it coming be for christmas... but i can dream.

Dream on, you might not see anything until Christmas 2006 because software companies will have to almost start from scratch.

 

[salmon]

Excellent Move

I personally think it's great. No more need for marketing the "megahertz myth", no more confusion amongst computer buyers, no more pointless arguments, no more inner justification trying to find speed tests that show the Apple CPU faster than the Intel one, it will much easier case to get people to switch, probably even better hardware support, make Macs an even better value proposition, no more designing fancy liquid cooling systems alone, etc, etc, etc. I really don't see a downside at all.

This opens up a whole new ability for Apple to increase not only their marketshare, but their hardware business (still the bread and butter) as well. I can see many people buying Apple Macs for two reasons: 1) Apple's awesome design and 2) It's no-risk: they feel they can go to Windows if they don't like Mac OS X (not that they will - but people who want to switch like to feel like they have the option). I wouldn't even be surprised if they started selling their machines with the option of having JUST Windows on it - they can always have a chance at the rest of the switch later. They're never going to try and compete against Dell's bottom pricing, that's not their market and they know it, so I don't think their margins will suffer too bad.

And how about you gamers? If this doesn't make it easier to port games, then at LEAST someone will come up with a dual-boot hack so Windows and Mac OS X can exist on the same machine, saving gamers a lot of money! The only problem is the viruses this will open the Mac hard drive partition to...

I'm sure Microsoft's Virtual PC will become a lot easier to maintain as well

Apple has shown tremendous foresight and flexibility by designing such a kickass OS, and they can continue to support multi-platform in the future. Perhaps if IBM somehow magically leapfrogs ahead again, or is the best for a particular important niche (graphic design? Mac OS X Server?), they can support both CPUs.

The flexibility they will have is going to put them in an awesome position, they can only do better.

 

[iMeowbot]

I got the impression that Rosetta was made just for the transition, before all apps had been recompiled?

In essence, it will be there forever. Smaller developers won't be paying for these development boxes and won't begin looking at porting until hardware is released retail. Really small developers who do all the nice little shareware things may not upgrade their hardware and be able to test native updates for years.

Assuming Jobs was accurate when he said that most recompilations could be done in matter of weeks... why wait with putting a pentium M in the PB?

The major applications, at least the ones that always get dragged out for benchmarking in magazine reviews, have to be there when the new hardware goes on sale. If not, the new hardware will be labeled "slow" before it has the opportunity to be measured on its own merits. Reviewers can be stupid like that.

 

[galvez465]

Umm, NOPE. It was sold to Lenovo.

lenovo merged with ibm's PC division . but regardless the computers say IBM on them right?? well why dont they use IBM processors?

 

[onlysublime]

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.

Wow, where did you get your info??? There are plenty of PC systems with multiple P4 processors on multiple sockets. The only "new" thing is multicore where you have multiple cores within a single processor.