Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[GTKpower]

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?

1.) IBM had no roadmap for Apple.

2.) IBM was not only late with the 3ghz G5, it was never going to happen

3.) There would be no notebook cpus from IBM

4.) There would be no "Cell" chip for Apple.

5.) IBM will produce console chips.

Unless you have the business knowledge of a 3-year old, all of this simply means that sticking with Apple was no longer good for IBM's bottom line.

IBM closed the door on Apple. Apple had to leave because they couldn't remain stuck at 2.7ghz forever. IBM did not want to supply them with more powerful chips.

It's about money. Wake up.

 

[CrazySteve]

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.

'Ported to OSX' ? What are you talking about ? Did you understand
what i said ? I am talking about EXISTING OSX applications that use
Metrowerks. In order for these applications to run natively on the 'new MACS' they will have to be ported to XCODE. Not every developer
is going to bother with that. In fact, many may well say 'screw it'
and abandon the platform altogether.


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.

My point is that Apple will lose developers because of this. Not everyone
is happy to move development platforms and infrastructure just
because Jobs said so. Just because Xcode produces fat binaries,
not everyone is going to jump on the wagon and be happy.

 

[GTKpower]

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.

Irrelevant. At the time of those benchmarks there were hardly any apps that took advantage of 64-bit.

It is hardly impressive that a 64-bit cpu running 32 bit apps can outdo a 32-bit cpu running the same.

It is PURELY a marketing ploy.

 

[davidchristophe]

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.

'Ported to OSX' ? What are you talking about ? Did you understand
what i said ? I am talking about EXISTING OSX applications that use
Metrowerks. In order for these applications to run natively on the 'new MACS' they will have to be ported to XCODE. Not every developer
is going to bother with that. In fact, many may well say 'screw it'
and abandon the platform altogether.


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.

My point is that Apple will lose developers because of this. Not everyone
is happy to move development platforms and infrastructure just
because Jobs said so. Just because Xcode produces fat binaries,
not everyone is going to jump on the wagon and be happy.

Yes, I understood you. OSX i refers to the intel port of OSX. Sorry if I was unclear.

Apple will not lose devs over the switch. Developers of software do so to make money. This is just a small (very small) change in the tools they use to conduct business.

Please feel free to continue to be angry and upset at the switch. I understand. I guess it's too early to try to be logical about it.

 

[Peace]

What I wanna know is has anyone uploaded the term "Apptel" to wikipedia yet?

 

[CrazySteve]

Please feel free to continue to be angry and upset at the switch. I understand. I guess it's too early to try to be logical about it

I want to see you "be logical" when your pee-cee friends running OSX
on their el-cheapo hardware make fun of you because you paid for your
new Mac-intel.

 

[Mac-Xpert]

It is hardly impressive that a 64-bit cpu running 32 bit apps can outdo a 32-bit cpu running the same.

You do realize that a 64-bit processor isn't any faster than a 32-bit just because it's 64-bit. In other words, 64-bit doesn't make things run any faster, It does however allow for more memory to be used, which is a good thing.

 

[the future]

What I wanna know is has anyone uploaded the term "Apptel" to wikipedia yet?

Macintel, more like...

 

[svenr]

1.) IBM had no roadmap for Apple.

2.) ... 3ghz G5, it was never going to happen

3.) There would be no notebook cpus from IBM

4.) There would be no "Cell" chip for Apple.
...

How do you know this for a fact?

 

[GTKpower]

You do realize that a 64-bit processor isn't any faster than a 32-bit just because it's 64-bit. In other words, 64-bit doesn't make things run any faster, It does however allow for more memory to be used, which is a good thing.

Yes. It doesn't change my point, though.

 

[davidchristophe]

Please feel free to continue to be angry and upset at the switch. I understand. I guess it's too early to try to be logical about it

I want to see you "be logical" when your pee-cee friends running OSX
on their el-cheapo hardware make fun of you because you paid for your
new Mac-intel.

When my friends point out that I paid $50,000 more for my car than they did, I just smile and logically point out that a Mercedes is much nicer than a Hyundai. The Macintosh is the Mercedes of computing. May have the same engine as a cheap import, but it's still worlds better.

Honestly, if that happened, I'd ask them how they got MacOS X to run on their beige box hardware, out of interest. This is a good time for apple; on the edge of a new era- we're going to see a lot of new innovations in the near future.

Example: The ellusive, mythical MacOS Tablet!

 

[GTKpower]

How do you know this for a fact?

From what IBM's been doing, and promising, and not delivering.

And of course, common sense.

Don't worry, it's OK to admit that a groundbreaking, innovative company like Apple got the shaft, and that Steve Jobs is not a god.

That's life, that's how business works sometimes.

 

[iMeowbot]

I want to see you "be logical" when your pee-cee friends running OSX on their el-cheapo hardware make fun of you because you paid for your new Mac-intel.

Think of it this way, your pee-cee friends with their Celeries drool over the high end Wintel hardware now, right? Apple are still going to be making high end hardware. It will be drool-worthy.

 

[MontyZ]

When it comes right down to it, if the new Macintels are faster with improved performance, who cares whether it's Intel Inside!

But, if all it does is introduce more problems with little increased performance, this could be Apple's death knell.

We'll only know this for sure in about 1 year.

 

[CrazySteve]

When my friends point out that I paid $50,000 more for my car than they did, I just smile and logically point out that a Mercedes is much nicer than a Hyundai. The Macintosh is the Mercedes of computing. May have the same engine as a cheap import, but it's still worlds better.

Honestly, if that happened, I'd ask them how they got MacOS X to run on their beige box hardware, out of interest. This is a good time for apple; on the edge of a new era- we're going to see a lot of new innovations in the near future.

Example: The ellusive, mythical MacOS Tablet!


You are clearly taking this a lot better than me. Unfortunately computers
are not cars. Till now, we could say that the G5 and the whole apple
experience deserved the extra dollars. When the new MACS are going
to surface, 99% of what they have in them is going to be cheap stock
pc-land hardware (including the processor).
Don't say to me that an apple custom designed motherboard is going to make a difference. First this is highly unlikely to happen. Most probably, it will be stock intel chipsets with extra Apple lockdown chips or whatever.

What most people don't seem to grasp is that the promise Apple made
that Osx will ONLY run on Mac-intels has no weight. Its empty.

Apple can not currently lockdown their OS on their machines (Pegasos,
AmigaPPC), you want me to believe Jobs is going to make it possible
when the OS runs natively on x86 ? This is a joke. I have lots of
experience with many pee-cee acolytes and let me tell you they are all
drooling and crapping their pants at the thought of OSX running on
their cheap hardware. When this happens (PearPC-x86, Mac-on-Linux)
comparisons between whitebox OSX and Mac OSX are going to
skyrocket. You see, us the loyal Mac followers will not have the option
of changing cpu's or upgrading our machine as we see fit and when
we want to. They will be able to install the latest AMD/Intel offering
and run OSX on their hardware faster than on Mac-intels.

This is going to be really interesting. Unless Jobs has some serious
plans in mind, we are all for lots of surprises and humiliation.

 

[Stella]

Apple can most certainly lock down the OS in that they can stop people from running OSX on their existing PC. Apple have already suggested they probably won't stop you from running Windows.

Apple could have custom made BIOS, OSX checks for this BIOS and refuses to boot if not found. Its quite simple. I expect people will find ways around it ( other than via emulation), but at first it will be good enough.

I would expect Apple stop you from upgrading your processor like you can on regular PCs too... that is for the casual users ( without having to use a soldering iron).

Crazysteve - this is going to be a very interesting ride and I'm looking forward to it too.

Apple can not currently lockdown their OS on their machines (Pegasos,
AmigaPPC), you want me to believe Jobs is going to make it possible
when the OS runs natively on x86 ? This is a joke. I have lots of
experience with many pee-cee acolytes and let me tell you they are all
drooling and crapping their pants at the thought of OSX running on
their cheap hardware. When this happens (PearPC-x86, Mac-on-Linux)
comparisons between whitebox OSX and Mac OSX are going to
skyrocket. You see, us the loyal Mac followers will not have the option
of changing cpu's or upgrading our machine as we see fit and when
we want to. They will be able to install the latest AMD/Intel offering
and run OSX on their hardware faster than on Mac-intels.

This is going to be really interesting. Unless Jobs has some serious
plans in mind, we are all for lots of surprises and humiliation.

 

[Zigster]

I'll wager Intel is going to help them "lockdown" OSX to a mac-only box through some additional hardware. You'd better believe they have some smart guys thinking about this for months now.

 

[CrazySteve]

I'll wager Intel is going to help them "lockdown" OSX to a mac-only box through some additional hardware. You'd better believe they have some smart guys thinking about this for months now.

It does not matter. Tell me of a single protection that worked for the last
10 years. None whatsoever. The different architecture was the best
protection available and it worked miracles. Now, every wintel degenerate
will have OSX running in no time. I can only hope that Steve has seen
through this and has some long term plans else it could mean the end
of the platform as we knew it.

 

[dicklacara]

No sure if i understands what this meens.. Will Pc native apps like autocad will be able to run on OsX?

sorry this question may be obvious for most of you guys....

According to this it can!

http://www.architosh.com/news/2004-09/2004c-0914_quicktran.phtml

 

[GTKpower]

It does not matter. Tell me of a single protection that worked for the last
10 years. None whatsoever. The different architecture was the best
protection available and it worked miracles. Now, every wintel degenerate
will have OSX running in no time. I can only hope that Steve has seen
through this and has some long term plans else it could mean the end
of the platform as we knew it.

Wintel degenerate?

Um . . . do you take that to mean AMD users as well?

I hope you aren't under the false impression that PC hardware is garbage.

Examples:

-AMD 64-bit technology: the best in the business. Has been the best since its inception.

-Top-end Radeon and Nvidia cards: Certainly not garbage. You don't get much more cutting edge than this.

-Motherboards: lots of quality names. Especially VIA.

If you mean the integration between Apple hardware and its OS, then yes, there is a difference, though certainly not as great as you might think.

Otherwise, in terms of performance, Apple users haven't had much to cheer about in recent years.

Perhaps you mean that those who use Windows and Intel specifically, are "degenerates."

Plus, I'm a proud Linux user, and I look forward to *possibly* running OS X on a superior AMD-based system (or a quality Intel rig) with a top-end videocard from ATI, and oodles of RAM for a fair price. If Apple chooses a closed architecture after all, and the price is right, I might spring for that, too.

 

[Yebot]

When the new MACS are going
to surface, 99% of what they have in them is going to be cheap stock
pc-land hardware (including the processor).

....

Unless Jobs has some serious
plans in mind, we are all for lots of surprises and humiliation.

This is clearly something only a Crazy person would say. ;-)

I would not be surprised to find out that Steve Jobs is kind of person that plans things.

 

[matticus008]

It does not matter. Tell me of a single protection that worked for the last
10 years. None whatsoever. The different architecture was the best
protection available and it worked miracles. Now, every wintel degenerate
will have OSX running in no time. I can only hope that Steve has seen
through this and has some long term plans else it could mean the end
of the platform as we knew it.

They already have the customers. A different, Apple-owned socket will keep people from putting in stock Intel processors, even if they're 99.9% the same as the ones Intel sells for the PC market. At that point, just building OS X around the an Apple-designed chipset/system controller hardware would isolate it to Apple's platform. Unless you have the time and know-how to write your own system controller software and rebuild OS X, and then write your own drivers for your non-Apple system components (ethernet, video, audio, Firewire, USB, wireless, and so on), you're not going to bother. And for the six or seven people who do bother, Apple can stand to lose the sale.

Most people would rather pay a few hundred dollars extra for saving them the time, expense, skill, and effort involved and also get a more attractive piece of hardware, inside and out. Hell, most people I know would still buy Apples based on the design alone, even if the hardware were identical to a high-end PC.

 

[davidchristophe]

It does not matter. Tell me of a single protection that worked for the last 10 years. None whatsoever. The different architecture was the best protection available and it worked miracles. Now, every wintel degenerate will have OSX running in no time. I can only hope that Steve has seen through this and has some long term plans else it could mean the end
of the platform as we knew it.

Okay, nothing ever stops the pirates.

But:

Apple will probably (my personal speculation) require 'activation' of some kind to allow the OS to run (like Microsoft does). You're not seeing the bigger picture- more users will ultimately mean more market share for Apple.

What I think is really going to happen is (and it's already started) the propeller heads out there that love to tinker, who want to hack OSX so that it works on generic hardware do so because they're curious about MacOS X. Apple will maintain a total dictatorship on the hardware platform itself- and mark my words, it's gonna be wicked hot. Increased curiosity will lead to increased sales. The curious will convert.

Why does it matter if a Windows user wants to experiment with a Mac? It's not a bad thing- spread the Word of Jobs around, get more people to convert.

Also: Go easy on the 'wintel degenerate' comments. They're not your enemy. You're not at war. You don't need to feel insecure about what computer you use, as long as you like it, as long as it works for you, then that's all that counts.

 

[MAC-411]

Jobs' decision to move to Intel is about survival!

Over the last few days I read 100s of post bashing jobs for moving to Intel. Most say his choice has to do with greed, or that he has sold out. I say you are all wrong.

Jobs’ decision to move to Intel is about the company’s survival. If Apple continued to use the PPC chip they would likely go out of the computer business altogether. Why is this? The average prices of a CPU is slipping; most analyst agree that before long computers will become a mass market commodity What dose this mean, computer are already a commodity, this is true, however they are still priced well outside of the mass-market index. A Mass-market commodity is product that is priced within the average consumers weekly disposable income, for example Sony's walkman.
Analyst predict that computers will reach this level within the next 7 to 10 years.
IBM cannot produce a chip cheap enough that will allow Apple to meet the mas-market price index because they do not have the sales volume of Intel or AMD. Even with the combined demand form Apple and the gaming industry they still don’t come close to intel or AMD.

Secondly it’s an issue of standardization, over the last 5 years Apple as become very aware of the importance of standardization. The more compatible “standardize” their hardware has become, the more successful they have been at moving computers; case-in-point, 40% growth in their computer business.

Lastly, the move to Intel will help Apple win the next big OS/hardware battle –the living room.

Apple lost that edge when IBM hit a wall. Intel is already killing in the laptop arena and making great leaping strides while the PPC solution for laptops is currently at a near standstill. Okay, that's hyperbole, but basically true.



OS X will make use of Intel's instruction set SSE2 instead of altivec. The only thing this affects is that altivec optimised software will have to be rewritten.




It's not as simple as IBM dropping Apple or vice versa. Basically, Apple didn't have the marketshare to make the R&D worthwhile.



IBM is the leader in some areas, but not all. They have nothing to compete with the Intel on the laptop side, among other examples. And while they can run multiple OS on their servers so can everybody, including Intel.

 

[svenr]

I've been with MacRumors for quite a while now, and I can not recall any other thread with over 100 pages (if you keep the default 25 post p page)

Something must have shaken the Mac world at its core...