Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[Panu]

What could be better than an Intel Mac?

What could be better than an Intel Mac?

The hardware consists of all standard parts, which means no supply delays when the computer is in the shop. Because the parts are mainstream, the manufacturers can't abandon Apple without abandoning the entire PC industry.

The OS has the benefits of Linux, without the drawbacks. It's UNIX, but no distro chaos, no need for end-users to compile C source code, no impenetrable Geek talk, no trying to figure out why there are 37 ways to control the volume.

The OS has the benefits of Windows, without the drawbacks. Easy to learn and use, but bulletproof and secure.

The applications work the same and use the same data file formats as their Windows equivalents, and Macs play nice on networks from other vendors.

With Intel Macs, a business could have every other workstation a Mac with no headaches at all.

Notice I said "business." No one in this forum is a system administrator wondering how to transition 450 employees from PPC to Intel. That is a huge market that Apple has not penetrated, but now can.

 

[iN8]

...The hardware consists of all standard parts, which means no supply delays when the computer is in the shop. Because the parts are mainstream, the manufacturers can't abandon Apple without abandoning the entire PC industry...

I don't think this is necessarily true. Just because we are switching to an x86 processor, doesn't mean we can use generic Windows targeted hardware. Sure we can use RAM, hard drives etc. but drivers still need to be written, either by Apple or the vendor to support the Mac OS not the processor. Apple will also most likely still develop it's own logicboard and system chips (with help from Intel) just like they did with IBM.

 

[Panu]

I don't think this is necessarily true. Just because we are switching to an x86 processor, doesn't mean we can use generic Windows targeted hardware. Sure we can use RAM, hard drives etc. but drivers still need to be written, either by Apple or the vendor to support the Mac OS not the processor. Apple will also most likely still develop it's own logicboard and system chips (with help from Intel) just like they did with IBM.

The hardware isn't "targeted" to Windows, Windows has to keep running to catch up to the hardware, so if anything, Windows is targeted to the hardware. Almost everything within a PPC Mac except the CPU already is mainstream hardware.

Every piece of hardware in an Intel Mac will be readily available from a wide range of vendors. Apple won't get left out in the cold, and Apple owners won't have to wait for the parts to come in from Alpha Centauri (or wherever).

 

[iN8]

The hardware isn't "targeted" to Windows, Windows has to keep running to catch up to the hardware, so if anything, Windows is targeted to the hardware. Almost everything within a PPC Mac except the CPU already is mainstream hardware.

when I said Windows targeted, I meant when the vendors sells the hardware, whatever it may be (graphics card, sound card, printer, mouse), they only sell it with Windows drivers and not for Mac.

 

[rubberband]

Just a quote to think about:

"While we can see why moving to a dual architecture approach may bring some benefits, a wholesale move away from the IBM chips would be extremely foolish. Intel is not the 'de-facto leader in processor design' that it was a few years ago; in the recent past, Intel has been out-innovated by both AMD (with a better approach to 64-bit computing) and IBM (with a better long-term strategy around multicore chips)," wrote Gary Barnett, Ovum research director in a research note sent by e-mail to the IDG News Service.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121175,00.asp



.

 

[Mac-Xpert]

Who will buy those Intel Macs?

I think Apple is going to have major problems convincing people to switch to those Intel macs. Current windows users will be able to directly compare the Intel mac with their PC. Will apple offer it's Intel macs at comparable prices to Dell or other major PC vendors? I find this unlikely. No longer can Apple make all sorts of performance claims, because whatever x86 Intel chip they have, others like Dell will be able to offer the same.

Even worse, at the time of the introduction of these Intel macs there will be only a limited amount of x86 native Mac-OS-X software available. People will be forced to use PPC software in emulation. Back in the days of the switch from 68k to PPC, the performance gain of the PPC was almost big enough to make emulation run about as fast as the fastest 68K macs (except for Floating Point). With the switch to Intel there will be no such gains in performance (especially not compared to the G5s) So the new machines will be mostly slower than PPC machines until all apps are x86 native. Current PPC Apple users will not be interested to switch to a slower x86 Mac when they have to run in emulation.

Looking back at both the 68k to PPC and OS-9 to OS-X transitions you can be sure that it takes several years before all software will be available in a native version.

And even when the software is x86 native, you will likely see in direct performance comparisons with PCs running windows that OS-X is not as fast at every thing as windows (depending on the task/software) due to the way the underlying unix technology works. This will then be more apparent than it is now, due to the difference between PPC and x86.

I personally have little faith in the x86 Mac future. I will probably hold on to the PPC machine for quite some time.

 

[sransari]

BLLLUUAAHHH

It just doesn't make sense...For years Apple was all sayin how their chips are the s*** over Intel and AMD and now they're all like "wwwaooohh Intel chips are grrrr8!!" I don't get the sudden change of heart. On apple's website for the power mac, they say "The PowerPC G5 out-shoots the Pentium 4 in a battery of tests. But it’s in the rough-and-tumble of real-world performance that the G5 really shines — shredding the PC’s reputation in the process." So if PowerPC chip is soooo much better than Intel and has been for years, why would Apple switch now? Something's not right!!

 

[Lynxpro]

That is a pretty fanciful idea that would require even more engineering and development time.

No it wouldn't. It would require slapping another socket on a mobo and adding some new drivers into the OS to accept it. Its no more radical than the Macs (or the STs and Amigas for that matter) that shipped with accessory Intel 8086s and 80286s back in the day for hardware-based MS-DOS emulation.

 

[GTKpower]

I think a few things should be made abundantly clear:

1.) The Apple-Intel marriage is not some brilliant chess-move orchestrated by Steve Jobs. There is no brilliance here. IBM ditched Apple. IBM has a lucrative console contract and decided it would be wasteful to continue the relationship with Apple. Jobs was waiting for his 3ghz baby and he never got it. IBM also closed the door on Notebooks. Jobs was out a supplier - his ONLY supplier, in fact. Had Jobs stayed with IBM (read: if he was smoking crack), in say, 6 months, he wouldn't even have a cpu, never mind a 3ghz chip. Jobs had no choice but to move to Intel. All that flirting with Intel for the past year or more happened because IT HAD TO. When Jobs hugged Otellini on stage, Otellini was probably thinking about lunch. Jobs was probably thinking about how not to get screwed this time.

Intel now holds Apple's future in its hands. For Intel, Apple is just a 4% marketshare experiment that gives the chip-making juggernaut access to some cool technologies. Intel by no means needs Apple, not when most of the computers that come installed with Windows are Intel-run. We have seen NOTHING so far, with respect to EXACTLY what will power this new "MacIntel" and to what extent you'll see Apple hardware in this new machine, or how it will sell.

 

[Lynxpro]

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...

Agreed. But it does date back to prior to the blitter chips of the Amigas and the STs. It goes back to the Atari 800 with the Antic, Pokey and other (essentially) co-processor chips that had been designed with the arcade machines in mind. From then, in the industry, you got Commodore's SID chip in the Commodore 64, and then you flash forward to all the customized chips that pumped by Atari and Commodore Amiga into their Motorola 68000 based computers.

I think it too is a shame that Apple has to move to Intel based processors. I had high hopes for Apple using Cells as media co-processors, but alas, that probably won't happen now.

 

[Lynxpro]

OMG, who cares about two-button mice? That is not the factor of a good or bad computer.

Yes it is, and it is most certainly a legitimate argument. Especially since some people claim that Apple will now have a better chance of getting more switchers because *Joe Blow* trusts the name *Intel* on the microprocessor inside the computer more than a name like "Power PC" whether it is from IBM or Freescale.

Apple might as well make a two button mouse + scroll wheel the standard. Zoroaster knows they'd sell a lot of their Bluetooth mice for PC owners if it were two button + scroll.

And while right clicking is supported in OS X, a lot of third party programs don't support it. See Yahoo Messenger when trying to right click message text to cut-and-paste into another message for an example.

 

[Lynxpro]

Cool little article, I hope this is not a repeat, kind tells why Intel was chosen and not AMD.
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2439

AMD contracts with IBM to manufacture chips. If Apple went with AMD, they'd still be on an IBM leash.

 

[rubberband]

It's unfortunate, I think, that IBM has been unable to meet the roadmap. It is highly unfortunate that they were unable to develop a low power, adequately performing G5 for mobile computing.

The biggest issue is the loss of distinction between Wintel/x86/AMD, etc users and PowerPC users. I know that it is somewhat artificial, given that upon moving to a platform independent OS Mac has had the ability to run on x86 architecture for a long time.. however, this just makes us all together in one pool... x86 users.. running different OSs.

I just think that running on a different chip makes a huge difference.. at least, to me.. philosophically. Maybe it's just me, but now I feel like I'm walking in Microsoft's shadow... It makes me feel like I'm using cheap, shoddy equipment. I just can't shake the feeling that the same chip that is running in some POS DELL is RUNNING IN MY BELOVED MAC. And for those of you who are pointing out all the shared components such as hard drives, graphic cards, etc. Foo to you. The chip is the soul of a computer.

i feel what you saying

 

[GTKpower]

It just doesn't make sense...For years Apple was all sayin how their chips are the s*** over Intel and AMD and now they're all like "wwwaooohh Intel chips are grrrr8!!" I don't get the sudden change of heart. On apple's website for the power mac, they say "The PowerPC G5 out-shoots the Pentium 4 in a battery of tests. But it’s in the rough-and-tumble of real-world performance that the G5 really shines — shredding the PC’s reputation in the process." So if PowerPC chip is soooo much better than Intel and has been for years, why would Apple switch now? Something's not right!!

Like it's been said before. Apple switched because it's ONLY chip supplier (IBM) decided to move on to making more $$$ in consoles. IBM's decision makes perfect sense. I'm not surprised. Apple's 4% marketshare or less just doesn't cut it in terms of the costs to produce what is an innovative, too power-hungry chip that although is faster than what Intel puts out (not hard to do seeing the Itanium is a flop), is nowhere really in the league of AMD.

The day Apple DOES NOT claim that its chips are the best things ever produced (quite often they are not), is the day frogs do fractions.

If I didn't know better, I'd think Apple Computer is a Wall Street marketing firm.

By the way . . . . lol . . . . you DO realize that when Apple claims a G5 can outdo a Pentium 4, you DO know that they are comparing a 64-bit chip with a 32-bit chip. You know that, right?? Only Apple can have the audacity to do something like that and call it a "win."

 

[maxvamp]

I have to wonder...

It will be interesting to see if the apple lineup will be comparable in price and features to the DELL line.

If this becomes the case, I wonder if Apple will start competing with DELL in the Windows sales space.

Just picture this, Apple becomes the #2 supplier of Windows workstations. Does this count as increased market share if many people use Apple hardware running Windows?

Max.

 

[woolfgang]

Like it's been said before. Apple switched because it's ONLY chip supplier (IBM) decided to move on to making more $$$ in consoles. IBM's decision makes perfect sense. I'm not surprised. Apple's 4% marketshare or less just doesn't cut it in terms of the costs to produce what is an innovative, too power-hungry chip that although is faster than what Intel puts out (not hard to do seeing the Itanium is a flop), is nowhere really in the league of AMD.

The day Apple DOES NOT claim that its chips are the best things ever produced (quite often they are not), is the day frogs do fractions.

If I didn't know better, I'd think Apple Computer is a Wall Street marketing firm.

By the way . . . . lol . . . . you DO realize that when Apple claims a G5 can outdo a Pentium 4, you DO know that they are comparing a 64-bit chip with a 32-bit chip. You know that, right?? Only Apple can have the audacity to do something like that and call it a "win."

GTKpowerless needs to get a life!

Almost all of those benchmarks were with software using 32-bit architecture. Therefore they were using only 32-bit on both sides.

 

[pkelecy]

Future cpu benchmarks

According to some folks Apple is awaiting the arrival of the dual-core low-power 64-bit Merom[mobile], Conroe[desktop], Woodcrest [server] chips due Q2 2006. Chips are based on the awesome Pentium-M arch and not the not-so-awesome P4 arch. The 2007 quad-core followon to Woodcrest (and presumable replacement to the as-yet announced, but hopefully coming this year or 2006, 970MP at the high end of the PM range) is called Whitefield.

This would give Apple an all dual-core, all 64-bit low-power line in 2006 and quad-core at the high-end by 2007.

Here are some predicted benchmarks I found on another site:

http://www.xoxideforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=56881

If these are close, then it should allay any fears that these next generation Mac's will lag their PPC counterparts in performance.

 

[maxvamp]

Here are some predicted benchmarks I found on another site:

http://www.xoxideforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=56881

If these are close, then it should allay any fears that these next generation Mac's will lag their PPC counterparts in performance.

The only place I can see the Intel procs lagging the PPC is in SIMD performance. Altivec will run optimized math 22 times faster than raw FPU performance, while SSE/2/3 run only about 9 times faster.

As far as non-Altivec code, the raw clock speed of Intel should actually provide a pretty snappy machine, even using Rosetta.

Max.

 

[davidchristophe]

Ok, stop it. Now.

Apple moving to Intel Myths dispelled:

(1) My new dual 2.7ghz PPC mac is now useless.

It will be 2 years before a high end intel based mac is released. Your existing hardware is still valid. It will not stop working overnight.

(2) No new software will be released for my PPC mac

Apple has taken great care to ensure that any properly written application will cross compile to intel from PPC, and as a result, back. As long as there is a market for PPC/MacOS X, there will be binaries available.

(3) By switching to Intel, Apple will no longer be an innovator.

Apple takes great pride it it's designs. The Newton didn't use a motorola processor, nor does the ipod. These were both mindboggling innovations. The truth is that it doesn't matter what CPU apple uses.

The original Apple Macintosh used the same cpu as a number of computers of that time (Atari, Amiga, etc). This did not stop - or help Apple's innovations.

(4) The chip is the soul of the computer, and that running on a different chip makes a huge difference philosophically. It makes me feel like I'm using cheap, shoddy equipment. I just can't shake the feeling that the same chip that is running in some POS DELL is RUNNING IN MY BELOVED MAC.

That "Piece of S**t DELL" may be running a similar processor to an Intel based Mac, but the big difference is in the execution- in the way that the entire system is implemented. The "soul" of your system isn't the CPU, it's the OS. The CPU may be the 'brain' of your system, but without an OS it's just a gray gooey mass. The spirit, the personality, the heart of your computer is the operating system.

(5) Apple will have a hard time convincing people to change cpus.

Apple is good- very good - at transitioning users. They've done it at least four times before, with extreme success! 68k to PowerPC, MacOS to Darwin, ROM to OpenFirmware, Quickdraw to Quartz. Some of these, like rom to firmware, or killing off Quickdraw, were not even noticed by users.

Think about how much MacOS software you use daily today.I don't even have MacOS 9 installed on this machine - my 5 year old Pismo powerbook is 100% OS X. PPC OS X software will be like MacOS software- you'll be able to run it, but after a short while, you won't need to.

 

[svenr]

Like it's been said before. Apple switched because it's ONLY chip supplier (IBM) decided to move on to making more $$$ in consoles. IBM's decision makes perfect sense. ...

You mean like YOU said before.
While this may be possible, unless you work for the IBM chip division, you can hardly know this for a fact. I'd love to see an official comment from IBM about all this. It seems all press releases, interviews and comments only center around Apple and Intel. What's IBM's take on this? What does it mean to their "Power Everywhere" campaign?

 

[form]

I wonder if it would kill Apple if certain essential hardware components stopped being proprietary.

Also...You know how you can stick new processors into existing motherboards rather easily in PCs (provided the mobo supports it), while in many cases the Mac processors require some more extensive designs (or at least, certainly more EXPENSIVE) for processor upgrades? (on that note, what happens to the manufacturers of processor upgrades once the new processors are all Intel?...I guess they have to start using intel chips for upgrades, of course) Well, how easy, or how hard, will it HAVE to be (as far as good business is concerned) to upgrade a Mac's processor, like you can a PC? Seeing as how Apple will be using as-frequently-updated intel chips as the PC manufacturers, wouldn't it seem unfair to Mac users if they were unable to have a similar upgrading freedom, both in price and convenience?

On which note I hasten to add that Intel processors can be readily found for sale in so many places that it would be impossible for Apple to limit such upgrades in any way without making SOMETHING related to processor compatibility absolutely proprietary, or otherwise complicating the procedure. What would this easy access to processors do to Apple?...What, especially, would it do to the current upgrade manufacturers such as Sonnet, XLR8/Daystar and Powerlogix? They would no longer have a virtual exclusive on processor upgrades...Unless the aforementioned added complication, designed with the exclusive intent of keeping them in business, were to be...manufactured, per say.

Another critically important thing to note relative to the processor upgrade subject is: With PCs, you can often ALSO switch out motherboards in your existing box, then add the new processor + ram, and have it working like a new machine.

Oh, and one more thought just occurred to me...How will PPC Processor upgrade prices be affected, especially relative to Mac Intel Processor upgrades?

How will Apple and the rest of these companies handle this situation? I'm sure they have it all figured out already, of course...but I don't.

 

[svenr]

It's unfortunate, I think, that IBM has been unable to meet the roadmap. It is highly unfortunate that they were unable to develop a low power, adequately performing G5 for mobile computing.

The biggest issue is the loss of distinction between Wintel/x86/AMD, etc users and PowerPC users. I know that it is somewhat artificial, given that upon moving to a platform independent OS Mac has had the ability to run on x86 architecture for a long time.. however, this just makes us all together in one pool... x86 users.. running different OSs.

I just think that running on a different chip makes a huge difference.. at least, to me.. philosophically. Maybe it's just me, but now I feel like I'm walking in Microsoft's shadow... It makes me feel like I'm using cheap, shoddy equipment. I just can't shake the feeling that the same chip that is running in some POS DELL is RUNNING IN MY BELOVED MAC. And for those of you who are pointing out all the shared components such as hard drives, graphic cards, etc. Foo to you. The chip is the soul of a computer.

I kinda feel the same although I know that many others don't agree.

For me, and I think for a lot of other long-time Mac users, the fact that the Mac was a completely different beast always had a special appeal. "No, it does not run Windows." "No, there's no 'Intel inside'." I loved the blank expression on some PC users faces who just couldn't comprehend that there was something else out there. No, I'm not following the herd like everyone else. For me, it's always also been an expression of my individuality. I loved to be different and I feel like part of that has been taken away.

Now, I will run essentially the same PC - with the same CPU, the same graphics card, RAM, interfaces - like "the herd". It will run MacOS, but I can already hear the bickering: "My Dell with exactly the same specs was so much cheaper!" "My AMD xyz runs so much faster!"

I understand though that with people like me Apple would obviously never have a major breakthough in market share. I'm sure this decision makes a lot of business sense precisely because there are many people - and potential switchers - out there who just feel so much more comfortable with familiar names like "Pentium". And performance-wise it may help too after the Motorola and IBM debacle. So I guess as an Apple shareholder and someone who just cares about that company I should welcome this step.

Still feels weird though.

 

[CrazySteve]

RE: Don't panic

The sky isn't falling folks.

1) Your current Mac isn't going to turn into a pumpkin at midnight. It still works great and currently runs the software you bought it for in the irst place. So quit bitching.

Thats correct. For now.

2) All NEW applications in the future will be built with BOTH Intel and PPC binaries (apparently as easily as checking a checkbox before a build) so they'll still work on your PPC machine you bought three months ago or next week. Your investment has not been ruined and there will be nothing wrong with purchasing a new PPC machine next month or whenever. At any rate, computers are like cars, the minute you drive it off the lot, it's old technology. Nothing new here.

You are quite wrong here. NOT ALL new applications in the future
will be built with both intel and ppc binaries. ONLY the applications
that use Xcode will be (and that at the discretion of the developer).

Applications using Metrowerks WILL HAVE TO BE COMPLETELY
PORTED TO XCODE. This is not as easy as you may think.


3) If you do switch to an Intel based Mac, your OLD software you're still holding on to three years down the road WILL WORK on those new boxes because of Rosetta. You'll probably take a small performance hit, but in two or three years, presumably, the processors will be so much faster than today's that you won't notice the difference.


WRONG. Rosetta has SEVERE limitations and only runs G3 software.
Anything touching Altivec will have to be recompiled. 70% slower
IS NOT a small performace hit in my mind. The processors will NEVER
be fast enough to run emulated PPC code faster than 50% of native speed. History proves this right.



4) The Mac experience is a holistic one. Neither software or hardware alone. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that OSX will run on a crappy Dell box. Apple will still control the hardware and the OS development so everything will work together as it should. Look...Apple has had a lot of succuess with how they currently run things. They aren't going to screw up the great user experience they've worked so hard to acheive just because they're switching processors. That would be suicide.

MacOSX ALREADY runs on different ppc motherboards. Anyone using
Pegasos, AmigaOne, Terron ppc boards can run MacOsx without a MAC
system. It is not widely spread because there are so few using these
PPC systems and they are quite expensive. Now that OSX runs on
x86 (and it will run on x86, not some custom cpu that Apple and Intel
will create - this is simply impossible) anyone will be able to run it
using PearPC-x86 or a variant of Mac-on-linux. Soon after that a hack
will surely be made that will allow it to run natively on any PC.

 

[form]

For me, and I think for a lot of other long-time Mac users, the fact that the Mac was a completely different beast always had a special appeal. "No, it does not run Windows." "No, there's no 'Intel inside'." I loved the blank expression on some PC users faces who just couldn't comprehend that there was something else out there. No, I'm not following the herd like everyone else. For me, it's always also been an expression of my individuality. I loved to be different and I feel like part of that has been taken away today.

I think that's a very good point. I second the idea that this mindset comprises a significant part of Apple's userbase, though many of those people claim to have more intellectual reasons for preferring Mac over PC. It's quite obsessive or psychopathic, after all, to like something simply "because it's different," and so facades are generated to hide that root truth from themselves and everyone else. But most of us feel it; something about that Different-ness seems to have disappeared.

This is probably caused by the fact that Apple's marketing scheme was 99% psychological; a mind-%$!& of sorts. The appearances, the designs, the concepts and ideas behind their computers, were all appealing on a level which people often don't understand in themselves: "Because it's different" is a major part. Of course, "Because it's Apple" will still be there...for diehards.

 

[davidchristophe]

The sky isn't falling folks.

2) All NEW applications in the future will be built with BOTH Intel and PPC binaries (apparently as easily as checking a checkbox before a build) so they'll still work on your PPC machine you bought three months ago or next week. Your investment has not been ruined and there will be nothing wrong with purchasing a new PPC machine next month or whenever. At any rate, computers are like cars, the minute you drive it off the lot, it's old technology. Nothing new here.

You are quite wrong here. NOT ALL new applications in the future
will be built with both intel and ppc binaries. ONLY the applications
that use Xcode will be (and that at the discretion of the developer).

Applications using Metrowerks WILL HAVE TO BE COMPLETELY
PORTED TO XCODE. This is not as easy as you may think.

In order for an app to be 'ported' to OSX i it will need to move to XCODE. Since Intel is the future direction, I believe that developers will be migrating to XCODE very quickly. Applications built with Metrowerks compliers will need to be ported to XCODE or else not **ever** run on future macs.

The point being made here is- it it will run on Intel, it will be cross built for PPC so long as there is a market.

Apple, and the software vendors are not out to get you people. Can we cut out the fearmongering? it's just a friggin computer...