Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, am I missing something or do we know for sure that by Apple switching to intel chips means that they will be x86. Can't Apple comission Intel to make a new chip?

Also, regarding OSX being what makes a mac. Let's not forget architecture. Why else would PowerPC chips with slower clock speeds rival intel chips with higher ones. It always seems like my "slow" mac is still faster than many PC's with "faster" CPUs
 
fatfish said:
I don't understand why the new mactel powerbooks can't role out in six months or even less.

Because the SDK P4 is not ready to be a commercial product and even if it was, that does not address the powerbook. They have design and production work to do before they can release a product, they want to give time to 3rd parties to redo their work(Some of it will be easily recompiled, other stuff not so much), This is very similar to the delay between the announcement of OS X to developers and the release of 10.0 commercially, they have to get the developers onboard first and then they can go about their commercial releases.

There's likely also work that needs to be done on OS X for Intel, including but not limited to Rosetta, I mean they may have been developing it parrallel but it hasn't had all the same resources and will likely have some issues to be worked out, even once they have the new hardware settled.

Also, Apple likely has learned from some of their mistakes and are not wanting to announce a product for sale and not have it ready to ship until 3-4 months later.

PPC sales are going to drop, and probably fairly significantly, but I don't think they'll zero out or anything. More computer users than you'd think don't know anything about computers, and they'll continue to buy Macintosh because brand loyalty and familiarity means more to them than any processor nonsense. Many institutions will likewise not let this news affect them, we won't.

It's better to take a couple of shots while you get all your pieces into place than it is to rush out the door with a half-assed product.
 
Kobushi said:
So, am I missing something or do we know for sure that by Apple switching to intel chips means that they will be x86. Can't Apple comission Intel to make a new chip?

Also, regarding OSX being what makes a mac. Let's not forget architecture. Why else would PowerPC chips with slower clock speeds rival intel chips with higher ones. It always seems like my "slow" mac is still faster than many PC's with "faster" CPUs

Well, they will be x86, as the dev kits are Pentium's. My only sorrow is that apparently Apple is abandoning 64-bit support with this move, hopefully the new Pentium's with EMT64 support will fix this and come out with the new Macs. I doubt they will be making a new chip as this would be proprietary again, and I believe one of their reasons for doing this is using a mass-produced chip to cut costs.
 
michaelal said:
Why would I buy a Mactel box from Apple when I know that any Wintel box of the same processor line will work fine at half the cost with this new OS. Besides that I have to buy all new apps again. :mad:

It wont. Schiller has said that you wont be able to run OS X on any hardware with the same processor. It must be Apples hardware.
 
Kobushi said:
So, am I missing something or do we know for sure that by Apple switching to intel chips means that they will be x86. Can't Apple comission Intel to make a new chip?

Also, regarding OSX being what makes a mac. Let's not forget architecture. Why else would PowerPC chips with slower clock speeds rival intel chips with higher ones. It always seems like my "slow" mac is still faster than many PC's with "faster" CPUs

If Apple was commissioning Intel to make a new chip, they would not be sending out P4s as SDKs to the developers.
 
digitalbiker said:
I would really like to know why?

Tiger runs on PPC, Leopard will run on PPC, all of the current apps run on PPC, AppleCare will support PPC product for 3 years. Even new apps will most likely be written in Xcode and made into Universal Binaries. I would much rather be running PhotoShop native that emulating through Rosetta.

First Gen intels will be buggy, native software will be scarce, old software will be emulated in Rosetta and run slow. You know from experience that it takes time for Developers to ramp up new apps that take advantage of new hardware and the intel-macs won't even be available for a year. Many OS 9 developers took 3 years before they came out with a cocoa OS X version. Hell some are still using carbon.

I for one see this as a buying oportunity. That's why I doubt that sales will fall. There are a lot of people who like the G4's and G5's. Many would rather have them than the future intel macs.

I'll give you my reasoning with the caveat that I refer ONLY to powebooks. The new mobile chip has so many advantages over the G4 that it is going to result in a radical design change. Sure, if they release a PB G4 tomorrow that has a 12" widescreen, weighs 2 pounds and has a 2.0 ghz processor speed I might pick it up. Oh add 8 hours of battery too.

Problem is that my criteria will never be met with the current chip design. It is essential to go with the new chip to get this radical new mobile line out.

Performance wise I might not lose much b picking up a G4 but there are buying factors besides performance. Truth be told, i use my PB for email/web/presentation/word/excel/iphoto. Even if the processor speed is doubled my user experience probably will not have a perceivable difference.
 
vatel said:
Seriously?

Around here, it's all about OS X and being able to ssh right on into your linux cluster and run the programs you just debugged with gcc on your mac while sitting out on the bench.

Somebody let those guys in on the secret!!
LOL.... yeah seriously...you would be surprised if you knew how many old machines and apps that are running out there. Science isn't exactly the place you go to if you want to make money :rolleyes: Trust me on that.
Budgets are tight so people stick with what they got. Besides there are scientific reason why you dont want to change the settings when you have started a big run. (Replication is one)
 
5300cs said:
Really? My 500Mhz iBook was soon kicked in the shins when Apple released Jaguar and my iBook wasn't able to support Quartz Extreme.


Ouch! I remember that feeling when I had my 600mhz iBook and months later I found out the graphics card wouldn't support quartz extreme.

Thank you Apple for making my investment worthless at the time! :)
 
Lynxpro said:
Toy? Watch what computers you call toys! IBM came a micron close to buying Atari back in 1979 thanks to the engineering strength that brought out the Atari 800 back when IBM wanted to acquire an existing computer company for their new PC division.

And you may recall that the Atari ST series and the Commodore Amigas were as powerful - if not more powerful - than the Apple Macs of their era, in color, all the while the Macs were two to three times as expensive. The first Macintosh laptop was the Atari STacy equipped with the MagicSac/Spectre GCR/etc. with Mac Roms attached.

Toys my a$$. The reason why many of us today are Mac fans is because the Macs have now become what we'd have today had the ST and the Amiga survived. The ST and the Amiga both had two-button mice in 1985.

Lynxpro => Atari Lynx? ;)

Yeah, the Atari 8-bits and C64 were vastly superior to Apple IIe. The Atari ST and Commodore Amigas killed the Mac. Mac took forever just to get color!
 
Laurent said:
They couldn't release their computer within the actual year with no applications. They need to give time to the developers to translate their projects into Intel compatible ones...


Sure they could. It would be better to start releasing iBooks and PowerBooks with the x86 chip in them with an additional G4 to kick in to handle the now "legacy" apps. Sure, they'd lose some money currently, but they could recupe a lot of it when the next version of OS X is released. Not to mention they wouldn't LOSE sales during this long transition period.
 
onlysublime said:
Lynxpro => Atari Lynx? ;)
Yeah, the Atari 8-bits and C64 were vastly superior to Apple IIe. The Atari ST and Commodore Amigas killed the Mac. Mac took forever just to get color!


Good catch there. One of the reasons why I like the Sony PSP is because it seems like it is the heir to the Lynx with the innovation they packed into it. Unlike Nintendo.

In terms of Atari and Amiga tech, I'm willing to say that Jay Miner was equal to Wozniak. Its a shame the industry lost that engineer when he passed on to the next plane in the mid 90s.

The true shame about the ST and the Amiga is that neither Atari nor Commodore could put their axes down and settle on a single platform. Of course, both companies did suffer from incompetent management, but Apple did too until Jobs returned...

Of course the true shame is that under Warner Communications, Atari stopped developing the Gaza computer, which was better than both the later ST and Amiga. It was a computer that ran C/PM (like the later ST, ahem, GEMDOS) but had 2 Motorola 68000s under the hood, circa 1983 in Atari's R&D lab - err, one of many of their labs.
 
fatfish said:
Maybe I'm being a bit slow here, but I can't imagine Apple would supply SDK packs with 32 bit processors to developers developing 64 bit apps, or would they.



Why not? Microsoft is shipping Apple PowerMac G5s for development work on the Xbox 360, and it isn't exactly the same chip they use.
 
Kobushi said:
So, am I missing something or do we know for sure that by Apple switching to intel chips means that they will be x86. Can't Apple comission Intel to make a new chip?

Also, regarding OSX being what makes a mac. Let's not forget architecture. Why else would PowerPC chips with slower clock speeds rival intel chips with higher ones. It always seems like my "slow" mac is still faster than many PC's with "faster" CPUs


If Apple were to sit by and let the next generation of x86 (or whatever) processors come out in 2006 while waiting for to IBM to hit 3GHZ, it would crush them. End of story.

I'm sticking with Mac because I like the OS and I like the software.. but believe me, I'm GLAD they're taking this step. It may be painful, but it has to happen.
 
calyxman said:
Ouch! I remember that feeling when I had my 600mhz iBook and months later I found out the graphics card wouldn't support quartz extreme.

Thank you Apple for making my investment worthless at the time! :)

Not supporting Quartz Extreme hardly made you iBook worthless. I've got an iMac DV 400 Mhz running Panther that works fine without.
 
Lynxpro said:
Sure they could. It would be better to start releasing iBooks and PowerBooks with the x86 chip in them with an additional G4 to kick in to handle the now "legacy" apps. Sure, they'd lose some money currently, but they could recupe a lot of it when the next version of OS X is released. Not to mention they wouldn't LOSE sales during this long transition period.

That is a pretty fanciful idea that would require even more engineering and development time.
 
Lynxpro said:
Why not? Microsoft is shipping Apple PowerMac G5s for development work on the Xbox 360, and it isn't exactly the same chip they use.

"isn't exactly the same chip" and "very different architecture" are worlds apart.
 
Lynxpro said:
Toy? Watch what computers you call toys! IBM came a micron close to buying Atari back in 1979 thanks to the engineering strength that brought out the Atari 800 back when IBM wanted to acquire an existing computer company for their new PC division.

And you may recall that the Atari ST series and the Commodore Amigas were as powerful - if not more powerful - than the Apple Macs of their era, in color, all the while the Macs were two to three times as expensive. The first Macintosh laptop was the Atari STacy equipped with the MagicSac/Spectre GCR/etc. with Mac Roms attached.

Toys my a$$. The reason why many of us today are Mac fans is because the Macs have now become what we'd have today had the ST and the Amiga survived. The ST and the Amiga both had two-button mice in 1985.

Yeah some people got the nerve... I miss those Golden Age of Computing years, right now its just not as exciting nor as innovative as it used to be, when Amiga 500 came out (along with Atari ST) those computers were light years ahead of the computers of their era, they had specialized chips that offloaded certain routines (mostly audio/video) off main CPU and yet 20 years later Mac OS X seems to go back in the past with Core Image/Audio/Video technology...
Anyway, I seriously thought that the CELL processor will be what would start another computer revolution and what Macs would adopt in mid 2006 but I guess I didnt knew a whole lot ...
Anyway, what is interesting is that MS embraced the PPC technology in the next XBOX (went away from x86) and I think Intel in a desperate attempt came on to Apple and offered a sweet deal (considering the inability of IBM to produce chips) consisting of x86 chips...
Anyway, as someone else mentioned earlier, I also read reports that Intel is basically stuck on x86 architecture because of MS (as they really dont have any alternative OS support to look into)... Now that they will have Apple on their side they will start with x86 but whose to say they won't finally escape from MS fascism and embrace a totally new architecture, they may use Apple to experiment on as they are the only PC company with their own OS (something that even Dell doesn't have)...
Intel has a lot of money and a lot of talented engineers and they already figured out that the current x86 technology has reached its limits...
 
X86 vs PPC, still up at apple! P4 daughtercard?

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
I think this is very funny . I am again not happy about the fact that 64bit was touted as "The next big thing" and now we are getting P4s. Unless Mactel is using EMT64 or a newer 64bit variant of the P4 possibly P5 by the time the new systems are ready. No CPU upgrade companies have come foward to offer perhaps Intel CPUs on daughtercards for our current G5s. I have looked at the motherboard in great detail and it looks like common chips. I have a Sun W2100z with dual Opterons we use for a high res photo station using software that is windows only and that mainboard has many of thye same chips. I am no techie, but would this be that crazy of a task? Afterall they upgraded some of the lower end macs to G4s via a cache slot and special ROM. I know the G5 has a special chip that send data to where it needs to go, but I doubt that would be CPU specific. Also, the bus on my dual 2.5 runs at 1.25ghz, even my Opterons buses are not that fast. Again, no techie here but some of you guys are really smart. Just like squeezing every last bit out of a computer system I can.
 
itsa said:
photoshop20050427.jpg


So where will Apple be on this img next year?

I really don't understand: PEOPLE APPLE DOESNOT NEED TO USE THE P4 just because they did so at WWDC, and even the P4 can't be dual either
;)
 
apple_intel said:
If Apple were to sit by and let the next generation of x86 (or whatever) processors come out in 2006 while waiting for to IBM to hit 3GHZ, it would crush them. End of story.

I'm sticking with Mac because I like the OS and I like the software.. but believe me, I'm GLAD they're taking this step. It may be painful, but it has to happen.

i have to disagree. mhz isn't everything. amd has proven that to the masses, and they're "only" at 2.6 ghz. if jobs wanted the fastest processor, he should have gone with itanium or try to acquire alpha. besides, the next big thing in processors is multicore. apple's probably waiting for a 64-bit version of yonah.
 
video cards, video cards, video cards!!!

surprised, but oh well. now on to the good stuff, will we be getting comparable PC video cards? I mean come on if they can port a whole application in 2 hours (mathematica 5) surely they can port those drivers in just a few seconds. i would like an ATI 10,000 please and make it red.
 
coyoteshawn said:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
I think this is very funny . I am again not happy about the fact that 64bit was touted as "The next big thing" and now we are getting P4s. Unless Mactel is using EMT64 or a newer 64bit variant of the P4 possibly P5 by the time the new systems are ready. No CPU upgrade companies have come foward to offer perhaps Intel CPUs on daughtercards for our current G5s. I have looked at the motherboard in great detail and it looks like common chips. I have a Sun W2100z with dual Opterons we use for a high res photo station using software that is windows only and that mainboard has many of thye same chips. I am no techie, but would this be that crazy of a task? Afterall they upgraded some of the lower end macs to G4s via a cache slot and special ROM. I know the G5 has a special chip that send data to where it needs to go, but I doubt that would be CPU specific. Also, the bus on my dual 2.5 runs at 1.25ghz, even my Opterons buses are not that fast. Again, no techie here but some of you guys are really smart. Just like squeezing every last bit out of a computer system I can.

that would be one most impressive hack. those g4 upgrades just patch the rom with some openfirmware to enable the new processor and hand over execution to said processor. the cost of engineering a solution to shove an x86 processor into a mac motherboard would be high enough that it would make much more sense just to get a (or several) new compuer(s).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.