Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Really switching to Intel!!??
- Thread starter dodonutter
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is it just me, or is there something wrong here? Didn't Apple get most of the PPC processors from Motorola (now Freescale)? Wasn't the G5 the first chip that was from IBM?
If that is true, then maybe it partially discredits the source. CNET always likes trying to find "iPod killers" and the like so maybe they are just having a little fun. Well, I guess we'll all have to wait 2-3 more days to find out from el Steve.
-Jeff said:
No. The problem isn't the fact that they are x86, it's because they use all the Windows APIs.
Great, I hope it's true. Defending PowerPC becomes more difficult every day. I think it's brave of Apple to take the plunge. I don't care for PPC, I support the move.
It's becoming evident that Jobs pushes Apple to the direction he wanted and hoped to go with NeXT. He has pulled of a huge and very similar CPU transition before (Motorola 680x0 > Intel, Sun, HPPA), and it was technically flawless. If it weren't for a huge pile of legacy Carbon apps (Office!), I'd say kill Carbon while you're at it. Carbon will significalty complicate the transition, but we have seen that emulation can work.
Exciting
It's becoming evident that Jobs pushes Apple to the direction he wanted and hoped to go with NeXT. He has pulled of a huge and very similar CPU transition before (Motorola 680x0 > Intel, Sun, HPPA), and it was technically flawless. If it weren't for a huge pile of legacy Carbon apps (Office!), I'd say kill Carbon while you're at it. Carbon will significalty complicate the transition, but we have seen that emulation can work.
Exciting
You know its not out of the question for apple to make OSX for RISC and INTEL at the same time. Microsoft did it for NT, they dropped it because nobody bought the RISC version. If apple made OSX for INTEL it would sell like hotcakes. Lets face it, there is 1000 times more money in software sales than there are in Computer sales. Computer sales require helpdesk, warranty repair, research, etc etc etc... Hell IBM sold their PC business because it was a money making LOSER.
Personally I have done both businesses myself. I lost my ass in the computer business but made a killing in the software business. Its simple math.
Personally I have done both businesses myself. I lost my ass in the computer business but made a killing in the software business. Its simple math.
"Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned."daveL said:
How on earth is that smoke and mirrors?!?!?!
Seriously, get a grip -- it's only a damn computer. Which will be better with Intel under the hood vs IBM.
blumie607 said:
Not really:
PowerPC is a RISC microprocessor architecture created by the 1991 Apple-IBM-Motorola alliance, known as AIM.
While I don't believe that they are going to use Intel chips for Macs, I can see them using Intel chips for other projects. It's been said a billion times, but I'll say it again: the PPC chip has more room to grow than x86, so in the "end," the PPC chip will be faster. Perhaps Apple's using it for a separate project (like they use other chips in AirPort and Xserve), but it's not for the Mac. WWDC 2005 is about helping developers optimize their apps for Tiger. Apple is not going to make a chip-switch.
-Chase
-Chase
I'm thinking of software investment and support, as well as what the uncertainty will do to Apple during the transition. So, why don't *you* get a grip -- it's only damn *money*. And, BTW, Intel CPUs suck. I guess you haven't noticed that all the next gen game consoles went with IBM/PPC, not Intel. Cat got your tongue?aldo said:
LimeiBook86 said:*holds pillow tight*
Is this really happening?!?!
I did happen to notice that the session descriptions for WWDC this year seem different. I don't see the usual glowing mentions (or really any mentions) of PowerPC, G5, Velocity Engine and so on. Even the 64 bit migration tracks don't mention G5. It's odd.
Just say YES to dual-core PowerBooks!
The Pentium M, it was just announced this week, is going dual-core this year. Could this mean a 2+GHz, G5-class, dual-core PowerBook? Am I the only one who really loves the idea of Apple moving to Intel?
I've been a Mac user since the Mac Plus in the late 80's, and haven't looked forward to a new machine this much since the last processor switch with the (now obviously failed) promise of the PowerPC.
Apple+Intel=Powerful Simplicity.
The Pentium M, it was just announced this week, is going dual-core this year. Could this mean a 2+GHz, G5-class, dual-core PowerBook? Am I the only one who really loves the idea of Apple moving to Intel?
I've been a Mac user since the Mac Plus in the late 80's, and haven't looked forward to a new machine this much since the last processor switch with the (now obviously failed) promise of the PowerPC.
Apple+Intel=Powerful Simplicity.
pop quiz...
What runs fast on an intel box?
a.) Windows
b.) Linux
Answer: b. Linux
OSX is going to smoke the hell out of Microsoft on an intel box. Also it puts Microsofts Virtual PC for mac out of business.
I think its a great move as long as we are not subjected to PC viruses. If we are I say it then SUCKS.
What runs fast on an intel box?
a.) Windows
b.) Linux
Answer: b. Linux
OSX is going to smoke the hell out of Microsoft on an intel box. Also it puts Microsofts Virtual PC for mac out of business.
I think its a great move as long as we are not subjected to PC viruses. If we are I say it then SUCKS.
-Jeff said:
I think you're a little confused. Moving to x86 means a change at the assembly level as far as code goes. The executable format would most likely still stay the same. It's just that existing OS X apps would have to be recompiled because of the architecture change.
Windows, Linux, and OS X all have different executable formats and that is what really matters when it comes to "Mac-only" apps. So, it wouldn't open up the system to any new viruses. It really wouldn't mean much of a change to the average consumer besides having to get x86 versions of all of your apps.
So what really makes the difference is the OS. The switch would also mean that many, many more Linux distros would run on Macs and possibly windows as well. I think it would be a very positive switch.
daveL said:
Sorry, that's ridiculous. Choosing PowerPC for the games consoles vs Intel is a no-brainer because a games console simply plays games, it doesn't need many of the features that a full, normal CPU would use.
And most importantly, IBM/Toshiba etc are willing to _license_ their CPU design and let MS and Sony fab it themselves. Intel weren't, so IBM won.
Intel's CPUs are very good because they are mass produced, cheap in volume, and not only that they come with a proverbial ******** of motherboard chipsets, compatible graphics cards, sound chipsets, North and Southbridges.
Not only that the Pentium-M CPU is incredibly good in terms of power consumption, which means 10 hour laptops are being made now.
So if they switched to an intel chip in it's current form wouldn't every bit of software from all companies have to be rewritten? This sounds like a nightmare transition.
68K -> PPC -> x86
A lot of people here are complaining about things like recompiling software and making current hardware obsolete and such, but you all have to go back in time and remember the original transition to the PowerPC platform.
Back in the glory days of beige boxes and six-color apples, Mac users has a nifty little series of processors based on the 68000. And Mac users loved their old LCIIs and PowerbookDuos based on these great processors.
Seeing the end of the 68K, Apple switched to the PowerPC class of porcessors. They were in some of the fastest desktop computers in the world at the time and could give Apple the performance boost it needed to continue riding to early 90s PC revolution. The only problem was that developers were going to have to port their software over in order for it to run on the new system natively. This would require a significant investment in new software by all customers and the last thing Apple wanted to do was screw every loyal Mac user. So a compatiblity layer was done in (what I believe was mostly) software, allowing apps for the 68K and PPC systems to sun side by side seamlessly with no special configuration by the user. Things still ran perfectly, as they do today on PowerPC based systems running even MacOS 9.
Now something tells me that Apple isn't looking to screw everyone. It's a company, it's not there to screw customers, employees and shareholders. Apple needs to make money. This would be a seamless transition thanks to the wonderful emulation software that Apple always seems to be able to come up with (such as in the 68K case and the colored boxes in all the Rhapsody developer releases).
This can only be a good thing for Apple. The x86 platform has just as much up on PPC as PPC has on x86. Granted, Apple won't be as cool as it was since all of us Mac freaks won't be able to argue the advantages we have in architecture and we won't be able the pull the copy of Jon Rubenstein's speech at MacWorld about the megahertz myth, but it's a wonderful way to expand the use of the platform in business circles as well as to lower prices (great for everyone, a bigger userbase can only be good as long as Apple maintains software and hardware configuration control).
We all need to calm down and look at this from a historical prospective. It's a transition Apple has made before and can easily make again. Intel isn't the great satan - it's actually a very good company with a lot of backing in the industry. The only thing better for Apple would be if Microsoft killed Windows and took them over.
A lot of people here are complaining about things like recompiling software and making current hardware obsolete and such, but you all have to go back in time and remember the original transition to the PowerPC platform.
Back in the glory days of beige boxes and six-color apples, Mac users has a nifty little series of processors based on the 68000. And Mac users loved their old LCIIs and PowerbookDuos based on these great processors.
Seeing the end of the 68K, Apple switched to the PowerPC class of porcessors. They were in some of the fastest desktop computers in the world at the time and could give Apple the performance boost it needed to continue riding to early 90s PC revolution. The only problem was that developers were going to have to port their software over in order for it to run on the new system natively. This would require a significant investment in new software by all customers and the last thing Apple wanted to do was screw every loyal Mac user. So a compatiblity layer was done in (what I believe was mostly) software, allowing apps for the 68K and PPC systems to sun side by side seamlessly with no special configuration by the user. Things still ran perfectly, as they do today on PowerPC based systems running even MacOS 9.
Now something tells me that Apple isn't looking to screw everyone. It's a company, it's not there to screw customers, employees and shareholders. Apple needs to make money. This would be a seamless transition thanks to the wonderful emulation software that Apple always seems to be able to come up with (such as in the 68K case and the colored boxes in all the Rhapsody developer releases).
This can only be a good thing for Apple. The x86 platform has just as much up on PPC as PPC has on x86. Granted, Apple won't be as cool as it was since all of us Mac freaks won't be able to argue the advantages we have in architecture and we won't be able the pull the copy of Jon Rubenstein's speech at MacWorld about the megahertz myth, but it's a wonderful way to expand the use of the platform in business circles as well as to lower prices (great for everyone, a bigger userbase can only be good as long as Apple maintains software and hardware configuration control).
We all need to calm down and look at this from a historical prospective. It's a transition Apple has made before and can easily make again. Intel isn't the great satan - it's actually a very good company with a lot of backing in the industry. The only thing better for Apple would be if Microsoft killed Windows and took them over.
First off I'm mixed about this report... I don't think it will happen but I haven't decided whether or not I want it to. The thing that puts me in favor of it is picturing myself handing my OS X CD to one of my friends and having him install it on his PC that just died due to Windows' ineptitude...
MacTruck said:
I guess you didn't read the Anandtech article which shows how poor OSX is in terms of speed for many things? It was so bad they had to put Linux on the G5's they were testing to get a good comparision vs x86...
Good Idea
I don't know if this is true, but it wouldn't be a bad idea. I don't understand why so many folks think this would be such a hardship on developers. I doubt many MacOS X applications are written in PPC assembly or have some dependence on the PPC ISA. In fact, MacOS X application bundles can contain executables for multiple ISAs. Developers can easily distribute executables for both PPC and Intel in their application bundles. I assume Xcode is designed to allow multiple plug-in compilers. Furthermore, just think how fast Virtual PC will run if the application's instructions don't have to be emulated. There will be no reason for anyone to have a PC.
There is so much investment behind Intel. Their compilers, vector libraries (Intel Performance Primitives), etc. are all better. IMHO, the HP-designed Itanium architecture also has greater future performance potential than PPC. I think PPC, like 68K, will eventually be relagated to the embedded market.
I don't know if this is true, but it wouldn't be a bad idea. I don't understand why so many folks think this would be such a hardship on developers. I doubt many MacOS X applications are written in PPC assembly or have some dependence on the PPC ISA. In fact, MacOS X application bundles can contain executables for multiple ISAs. Developers can easily distribute executables for both PPC and Intel in their application bundles. I assume Xcode is designed to allow multiple plug-in compilers. Furthermore, just think how fast Virtual PC will run if the application's instructions don't have to be emulated. There will be no reason for anyone to have a PC.
There is so much investment behind Intel. Their compilers, vector libraries (Intel Performance Primitives), etc. are all better. IMHO, the HP-designed Itanium architecture also has greater future performance potential than PPC. I think PPC, like 68K, will eventually be relagated to the embedded market.