Really switching to Intel!!??

[iceTrX]

This indeed will be the longest weekend ever for a Mac user.
Personally I believe if this Apple + Intel relationship is true, there are only so many logical outcomes:

1.) Intel is developing PPC chips that Apple will use so there will be no architectural transition. I believe this wont happen, why would Apple jump ships to Intel for PPC when Intel has 0 PPC experience?
2.) Apple is switching to X86. This seems dumb as intel has hit a brick wall with the Pentium (they have been stuck in the 3Ghz range for over 3 years now!). AMD seems like a more logical choice if they were to switch. The only thing Intel has is the Pentium M, which would be the only chip I could see Apple wanting. But I still think this is unlikely.
3.) Intel is just fabricating the current (or future) PPC chips! What if Apple wants to ramp up production (and lower the cost) of the 970 and future chips? This makes perfect sense to me, Intel has the largest chip fabricating base on the Planet, and this seems like a definite reason why Apple would choose Intel over AMD. Intel will be making Apples chips, but not designing them!

So I personally think if this Apple + Intel relationship extends into Macs (and not Xscale or something for the iPod) that Intel will be just fabricating already designed chips for Apple. This could mean much larger yields of the G5: so there are more G5s available for Apple to ship, higher clock speeds could be achieved with higher yields, and lower prices per chip.

I would also like to say that this is the most civil thread about any computer related thing I have ever read. Instead of arguing and complaining about X86 vs. PPC architectures, this thread is a very intelligent and intense discussion.

 

[alandail]

If it's an x86 chip inside, all apps will have to be recompiled to work with it. There are little-endian vs. big-endian issues, among other things. If you're a company that has an investment in software you bought for PPC-based OSX, you will not be able to use that investment on whatever x86 based OSX machine you buy, unless you get a compatible version from the vendor, which probably means more $$$. So no, it's not absurd to reject a hardware platform change that is that major.

it is absurd because the effort is trivial. Most mac software already is cross platform. The endian issues are already taken care of. Cocoa, when used properly, already abstracts away the endian issues as well. Cocoa ran on x86 long before it ran on PPC. It went 680x0 -> x86 -> PPC. Going back to x86 is a non event for Cocoa. Carbon was developed at the same time they went form x86 -> PPC. I would be shocked if Carbon wasn't build for both architectures at once. Steve is a smart guy. He had an OS that ran on x86. I'm sure he maintained that capability as an ace in the hole.

99% of developers would be able to have their apps up an running with dual CPU support within a week. And they'll all gladly make that investment to have a larger market share to sell into. It's absurd to think otherwise. I know our company who develops a cross platform vertical market app where 99% of our users use Windows would have a way to get OS X into more places with such a setup by giving customers a choice - keep running the windows version or upgrade to the OS X x86 version that has these extra features made possible because of Cocoa. Our mac version is ALWAYS ahead of our windows version because Cocoa is such a fabulous development tool that we use it for protyping our new ideas.

 

[CybrCyfr]

Let me add abit more comment.
Most Windows Programmers are barely competent at Windows.
They actually think Windows is a fantastic OS!
Of course, when your only car is a Yugo it seems great.

Most of these programmers haven't got a CLUE about other OS's.
I'd say 98% of all windows programmers know( barely ) ONLY WINDOWS.

They're just not interested in any other OS.

You are out of your ****ing mind. I am a Windows and a Unix programmer, and almost everyone I work with (inside or outside of my company) is extremely technical. Saying that "Most Windows Programmers are barely competent at Windows" is just complete bull ****. You apparently know some Jr Level developers and script kiddies. Just because one of your friends reads a "teach yourself C# in 24 hours" book, does NOT make them a Windows programmer.

Windows is a fantastic OS with regards to certain things. I personally believe OSX is better all around for the user, but Windows XP is certainly a fine OS (with exceptions to the security related issues).

I am constantly evaluating other operating systems. Monthly I review the KDE and Gnome projects, waiting for something good to happen. I'm not alone in this... Many other programmers are interested in different operating systems and technology in general.

Don't make a blanket statement like that, it shows how closed minded and distant from reality you actually are.

 

[primalman]

One thing that keeps coming to mind for me is that IBM has publicly stated wanting to "open up" the PPC spec to others, I think it was the "Power Everywhere" idea. Perhaps Intel will become a licensee of PPC manufacture and some design tweaking, and Apple is possibly in on the deal, helping pay for the license and development.

I do not think that Apple is moving to x86 though, as that would spell the end of the Mac platform. Sure, Apple may have OS X, maybe the iLifes, and possibly even their Pro apps ported, but each of these is heavily dependant on the Altivec engine in the G4/G5, so I can't imagine an x86 version running up to par.

And other developers would not be happy at all. Companies like Adobe would be pissed, and I would doubt that they would even bother to port. And that's the kicker - if Adobe decides that Apple/Mac conversions would be too large a burden financially and logistically, that's it. Party's over. Mac as a viable, professional platform is dead. Done.

By the way, this C|Net story looks and sounds a helluva lot like an April 29 entry on MacOSRumors.com, which has one of the worst rumor track records around. http://www.macosrumors.com/20050523A.php

The only logical things to assume, in my view, about this "story' are the following:
1. C|Net just decided to blow smoke up our asses and used MacOSRumors as a source.
2. Apple, or an ally, is feeding bogus leaks to detect a mole, boost attention to the keynote or really surprise us with a new big thing from IBM.
3. Apple is fake leaking to put pressure on IBM.
4. Apple will announce a partnership with Intel [that also involves IBM and Freescale] to develop new chips based on PPC.
5. Apple is simply using new Intel chips in current products like AirPort or RAID.
6. The Intel/Apple/IBM/Freescale partnership has already developed the next big thing.
7. C|Net is just gullible and a 14 year old geek told them this.

or, if none of these are true:

Steve Jobs decided he was bored with Apple and decided to commit corporate suicide.

 

[J-Ray1000]

Actually Doom 3 is available for the Mac.

Yes it is, but I do remember a few tears shed when it was announced that Doom 3 wouldn't be double-shipping with the PC. (which is the problem with almost all games that ship for mac - 6 months to a year to finally get a port)

And don't forget Mac Doom 3 got smoked in a straight runoff.

Windows will be the gaming platform until Apple's market share is big enough to warrant a migration by gaming houses.

 

[k28]

So this would be G6

So this would be PowePC G6?

 

[scu]

Anytime someone really wants you to buy stock, it makes you wonder if they're selling it...

I wouldn't buy Apple stock based on this rumor. It's just a rumor. And, as many have noted, there could be significant downsides depending on how it works out in real life.

Yay, Apple might make everyone recompile their apps to get them working on a new architecture, so is going to make their developers upset, and might turn its back on HyperTransport... let's all buy stock!

Right.

Actually I own 700 share and I would buy more if I had more money.

This rumor may not pan out, but one always buys on rumor and sells on news.

I gree that making the switch appears unlikely given the numerous issues involved, but did not stop big moves from Apple in the past. Apple is in the best position to make such a transition right now. I think there is plenty of IBM power too keep everyone happy for two more years.

I have preached the buying of Apple stock when it was selling for $25 prior to the split. I will always promote the stock because this company knows what it is doing and I have never lost money on it.

 

[alandail]

Whew...rarely have I ever read such a concentrated amount of misinformation and ignorance. It's not even possible to try to correct all of the nonsense posted so far, so I'll just confine myself to pointing out that "all you have to do is hit the x86 switch and recompile" is obviously written by someone who has never ported software, or even run a compiler. Do you know anything at all about "big endian" (PPC) and "little endian" (x86)? Clearly not. And that's just one potential showstopper...there are lots of performance "gotchas" that require writing routines in different ways for the best speed. So even if your program does work, it probably isn't going to be as fast on x86 as it was on PPC unless you spend a lot of time optimizing it.

Ideally, "hitting x86 and recompiling" would work, but the world is far from ideal. It works for your basic "hello world" program, and increasingly does not work the more complex your program becomes. Writing a truly architecture-independent program is not as simple as you think, and you can bet that since most developers just assumed (I guess) that PPC was going to be used indefinitely, their code would take work to port.

As to the truth of this rumor? Intel chips in general aren't particularly faster or cheaper, or better. Macs aren't "expensive" because of PPC. Switching over would cause a great deal of fuss for marginal or no gains at this time. However, it's entirely possible that something is going on that I don't know about. It's also possible that I'm right, and Apple is making a big mistake. Things WERE going along a little too well lately, eh? Or it's just a rumor. Who knows....

--Eric

it actually is that easy - back before apple decided to kill the clones and not support intel hardware with the initial release of OS X I developed an app EXACTLY that way with Cocoa. check a checkbox, I could build the app so it ran UNMODIFIED on PPC, x86 or even - gasp - yellow box for windows. Exact same .nib files, exact same source code.

 

[fraggle]

If there's a switch, I'd guess it will be to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montecito> Montecito, then <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tukwila> Tukwila, not i386.

Nope, Itanic is too expensive and draws even more power than the P4s...

 

[macmax77]

Mine too!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by brap
One can only hope that, if he is to announce an x86-based Mac at WWDC, Steve has a kevlar vest underneath that black sweater.


Thank you for making my day!

 

[alandail]

Lets say Apple uses Intel CPUs.

This means that future macs will have Palladium.

I will NEWER use a computer that uses Palladium. Jobs/Gates shall not be in controll of my harddrive!

The Intel 840D has Palladium. Longhorn will use it to lock down the filesystem.

the cell has hardware DRM too, and yet the complainers here would be thrilled if the rumor was apple adopting cell instead of apple adopting x86.

 

[Yvan256]

Yes it is, but I do remember a few tears shed when it was announced that Doom 3 wouldn't be double-shipping with the PC. (which is the problem with almost all games that ship for mac - 6 months to a year to finally get a port)

And don't forget Mac Doom 3 got smoked in a straight runoff.

Windows will be the gaming platform until Apple's market share is big enough to warrant a migration by gaming houses.

This reminds me of the first time I saw a game running on a Nintendo Gamecube. It was Spy Hunter. The framerate was so low, I thought "OMG Nintendo blew it again" (personnal reference to the N64 being a crappy, low-res, low-FPS system).

Yes, Spy Hunter for the Gamecube blows. It's like it's emulating a PS2 or something...

Then, I saw Extreme-G racing on the Gamecube. WOW. Crazy framerate, I was (literally) sick just looking at the screen (wicked framerate, fluid, etc).

My point is: even if Apple switches to x86, that will NOT make games go faster. Why? Because developpers will STILL make crappy Windows-to-OS X ports.

 

[J-Ray1000]

Could someone explain how Windows works relative to Intel and AMD?

Is Windows written to work on both or is it the hardware manufacturers that build for Windows?

The reason I ask is, obviously, why wouldn't Apple simply build for both? *nix does it, right?

 

[shadownight]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat!!!!!!

That's completely horrible !!! Everyone will hate Apple after that ! I must be dreaming!!! Apple said itself that it had a good relationship with IBM, its market share is going up, it has an extremely reliable customer base... Make it not be true!!!

 

[xyian]

I don't understand why everybody is flipping

I don't see why everybody is so negative about this. It could mean some really good cross platform utilization. As much as none of us want to care about the Wintel world we have to. Why? Because most of the businesses we work for use it. Think of it, if Apple can run a processor made by the same company but do it better wouldn't businesses consider switching? Wouldn't it be fun to be able to not have to worry about running VirtualPC or an emulator so that you can deal with files? Maybe more companies will start making software for OSX. I, for one, could really use a nice GIS package for my Mac.
Also, when chip demand is as high as it is and the supplier can't keep up then what's wrong with a switch. I'm certain Intel can keep up and can also produce some good chips.
C'mon people, it's not a statement implying that Apple has given up and is giving it's code to Microsoft again. It's a chip switch. We will still have our excellent OS. Be real about things.

 

[albinogoldfish]

Wimax or bust

Top 3 reasons for Apple to adopt Intel:

1) WIMAX
2) WIMAX
3) WIMAX

All the other reasons come with good and bad. But the risk/reward does not pan out until you understand how wireless is going to play out in the future of consumer electronics.

I'll say it again: Wimax

 

[primalman]

99% of developers would be able to have their apps up an running with dual CPU support within a week.

But what about the costs to the user base? I know that I have more invested in my software that I have in my PowerBook. [$3500 vs $2000] I don't want to have to repurchase all that expense when I upgrade my machine. It just turned a $2000 upgrade into a nearly $6000 one. YIKES!

 

[atzeX]

it actually is that easy - back before apple decided to kill the clones and not support intel hardware with the initial release of OS X I developed an app EXACTLY that way with Cocoa. check a checkbox, I could build the app so it ran UNMODIFIED on PPC, x86 or even - gasp - yellow box for windows. Exact same .nib files, exact same source code.

yes, and it was already possible with nextstep - more than 10 years ago.
i personally compiled fat binaries for hppc, sparc, x86, and m68k - not to mention the never public m88k. try searching for __BIG_ENDIAN__ in the frameworks. only old classes found, but the new ones have mostly hidden their variables behind void *private;

and check out NSProcessInfo.h in Foundation.framework.. that goes even further (remember yellow-box?). hardware AND os-independance.

but i bet apple will just use some intel-chips (for network, hd-interfacing, special chips), and NO intel CPUs.

have fun on monday, when steve will tell us nothing about intel...

 

[MikeBike]

Me.

Get a game console.

My games are: JBuilder 2005, Dreamweaver, ChessMaster9000, and GarageBand.

 

[alandail]

just can't handle all this instability.

after reading this i checked out a linux distribution for apple machines called Ubuntu Linux on my pb and.. wow. comes with friggin everything.

airport doesn't work but then again who cares. wireless and the rest did.

at least Linux is one thing that *will* be around for ever and everyone seems to be using it these days. shame about photoshop though... even though ppl say gimp is pretty awesome. with Linux you can move computers without moving OS.

anyway feel like i've got a broom behind me pushing me to buy more RAM for stuff like dashboard. i love OSX, but what i like by looking at Linux is that you can set it up just how you like, make it yours. hell it sure don't look so bad to me. free software stuff feels pretty nice to. community is pretty warm.

wait, you want to abandon Mac OS X because of a rumor of Apple adding this very feature? Apple has technology that is processer independent and can support processer independent apps. It is certaintly possible that addign support for x86 doesn't mean abandoning PPC for everything. Apple could announce on mondy an iTablet based on Pentium M, new laptops based on Pentium M, a PowerMac worstation with 4 dual core G5s and an OS strategy that asks developers to start setting a flag to build apps with support for x86 and PPC.

 

[MegaSignal]

Read 'em all

After thoroughly reading every single post, I still cannot imagine what will happen Monday. For awhile I'm pulled in one direction (PPC-based Intel chips), then another (some gadget requiring an Intel product).

Lots of information here...

...what is Cocoa? Carbon? Porting? A "PowerBook a**hole elitist"? (he-he-he - got kick out of that one)

Nevermind. . .up. . .too. . .late...must have coffee. . .must let. . .this go. . .

 

[MikeBike]

You are out of your ****ing mind. I am a Windows and a Unix programmer, and almost everyone I work with (inside or outside of my company) is extremely technical. Saying that "Most Windows Programmers are barely competent at Windows" is just complete bull ****. You apparently know some Jr Level developers and script kiddies. Just because one of your friends reads a "teach yourself C# in 24 hours" book, does NOT make them a Windows programmer.

Windows is a fantastic OS with regards to certain things. I personally believe OSX is better all around for the user, but Windows XP is certainly a fine OS (with exceptions to the security related issues).

I am constantly evaluating other operating systems. Monthly I review the KDE and Gnome projects, waiting for something good to happen. I'm not alone in this... Many other programmers are interested in different operating systems and technology in general.

Don't make a blanket statement like that, it shows how closed minded and distant from reality you actually are.

You must work in a small shop.
In some some shops the programming staff is highly qualified.
I now work in a large shop with a few hundred programmers.
The Windows fanatics Don't Learn anything but Windows.
And most of them don't spend 1 Extra Minute learning Anything about anyother OS. You are delusional if you think most programmers know what they're doing. Do a survey, and ask how many people have dual-boot capability? Out of 100, less then 5 is the answer.

 

[CubaTBird]

yeah if this does.. i still think apple is going to use a customized version of an intel proc to be built.. and it won't happen over night... more of an overtime transition... now new apps that come out.. they would have to both be compiled for motto, ibm, and intel procs right? i mean the dev's won't leave us out in the dust will they? and also, where does this put the imac g5 and powermac g5? i mean sir steve said the g5 was the fastest proc ever... kinda oxymoron if you ask me..

 

[poundsmack]

you know what i jsut realized. darwin 8.1 nativly build on intel x86......mabey there is some truth to this after all

 

[Stella]

Software companies have had finished the hassle of migrating their software to OSX.. and now Intel?!!! More up heaval.

Any switch had better be smooth otherwise this could potentially b?gger up apple.

Instead of Intel, I'd like them to switch AMD.. far better ( and cheaper).