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
If this isn't a hoax, I will never buy another Apple product again. Sorry guys, I like OS X, but I'm not going to pay to run it on Intel-grade hardware.
Edit: On second thought, if it turns out they only use Intel in super low-end machines designed to make the transition to Apple easier, I might be cool with it.
Edit: On second thought, if it turns out they only use Intel in super low-end machines designed to make the transition to Apple easier, I might be cool with it.
Most likely, but one the GCC programming groups had asked Apple to help support automatic conversion of Intel/PowerPC SIMD assembly code -- all in an effort to help Apple convince people to port their Wintel Apps to Mac OS X without a huge need for redoing huge chunks of hand-tuned code.daveL said:
Don't think Apple took the guy up on it.
aldo said:
That was for transactional server response. As they mentioned in the article, workstation and desktop use really shows MacOS X's strength. And I'm sure the core OS will continue to improve dramatically... if history is any guide, Apple still has ANOTHER MacOS release coming up before Longhorn ships, after all.
(And I wish they HAD tried Linux on the G5's. They didn't, which was a major problem with their conclusion to the article, where they recommended a product they never tried.)
Folks,
Here is your evidence that the story is TRUE.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/02/mini_vs_mini/
This is not a mac mini ripoff, it is the NEW mac mini!
Here is your evidence that the story is TRUE.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/02/mini_vs_mini/
This is not a mac mini ripoff, it is the NEW mac mini!
Bradley W said:
Hi, there are more than two operating systems in the world. I've been running Linux for over six years.
Other considerations.....
I think you should start by heading over to the latest review and head-to-head at AnandTech on the G5/Mac OS X vs. Intel/Windows for a few items Anandtech Review. The main reason Apple should stay put is that the chip IS competitive, but the OS as a whole needs work, and now that they've gotten game companies and their OS crew used to optimizing on the Altivec and PPC system, moving over to intel (likely AMD-64 instruction chips, so it all goes 64 bit at least I would bet) would set them back another series of optimization rounds.
I actually think they could make it work just fine, as NeXT did the exact same thing going from 68040 chips to Intel, which put the groundwork for OS X/Cocoa down. They can get there, but is there an advantage? I actually don't think the chip prices are that different, and the performance for certain aspects are better on PPC and others are better on Intel. They're flipping the advantage over at that point, and I don't think it's worth it. Now, adding in some Intel into things like iPods, Airport base and express stations, and possibly any new media device as the rumors continue to infer, as well as possibly other consumer embedded devices, that totally makes sense. Especially if some Newton-like device emerges from the ashes around the XScale processor.
Moving the desktop though, that's pretty questionable. They could however use BOTH. As NeXT did with the fat binary distros, although that was a mixed success/failure event as well as most old NeXT hacks will tell you in excruciating detail.
Unless Intel is getting desperate as AMD is mopping the floor with much of their systems (again, look at the AnandTech review) and giving the chips at very deep discounts, it's not worth the time and effort and PR black-eye(s) for Apple IMHO. If you're going there, go with the leader and go AMD. But to sacrifice that much, I just can't see why. Could they make proprietary Intel Apple systems? Sure. Is there some huge leap in capability forward as there was from 68k to PPC? No. I just don't see the advantages.
Mind you, if they did go there, as long as it was a closed, fully engineered system as the Apple systems are now (no cheap beige vanilla ***** with no-name brand bits) I'm pretty sure it would be as reliable (and proprietary and closed) as the systems are now, so I don't know if I'd care. It's the business benefits and the sheer price to the development community that needs to be recouped in spades, and I don't see that happening.
kkapoor said:
I think you should start by heading over to the latest review and head-to-head at AnandTech on the G5/Mac OS X vs. Intel/Windows for a few items Anandtech Review. The main reason Apple should stay put is that the chip IS competitive, but the OS as a whole needs work, and now that they've gotten game companies and their OS crew used to optimizing on the Altivec and PPC system, moving over to intel (likely AMD-64 instruction chips, so it all goes 64 bit at least I would bet) would set them back another series of optimization rounds.
I actually think they could make it work just fine, as NeXT did the exact same thing going from 68040 chips to Intel, which put the groundwork for OS X/Cocoa down. They can get there, but is there an advantage? I actually don't think the chip prices are that different, and the performance for certain aspects are better on PPC and others are better on Intel. They're flipping the advantage over at that point, and I don't think it's worth it. Now, adding in some Intel into things like iPods, Airport base and express stations, and possibly any new media device as the rumors continue to infer, as well as possibly other consumer embedded devices, that totally makes sense. Especially if some Newton-like device emerges from the ashes around the XScale processor.
Moving the desktop though, that's pretty questionable. They could however use BOTH. As NeXT did with the fat binary distros, although that was a mixed success/failure event as well as most old NeXT hacks will tell you in excruciating detail.
Unless Intel is getting desperate as AMD is mopping the floor with much of their systems (again, look at the AnandTech review) and giving the chips at very deep discounts, it's not worth the time and effort and PR black-eye(s) for Apple IMHO. If you're going there, go with the leader and go AMD. But to sacrifice that much, I just can't see why. Could they make proprietary Intel Apple systems? Sure. Is there some huge leap in capability forward as there was from 68k to PPC? No. I just don't see the advantages.
Mind you, if they did go there, as long as it was a closed, fully engineered system as the Apple systems are now (no cheap beige vanilla ***** with no-name brand bits) I'm pretty sure it would be as reliable (and proprietary and closed) as the systems are now, so I don't know if I'd care. It's the business benefits and the sheer price to the development community that needs to be recouped in spades, and I don't see that happening.
riversky said:
"can get MS Xbox to 3.2ghz"?!?!? Last time I checked the Xbox is still months away from shipping. PowerMac with dual cores could be announced Monday and shipping in weeks (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823273,00.asp). Xbox is still months away!! Did you miss the articles on how Microsoft had to use Power Mac's to run their Xbox game demos at E3!! (http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2420&p=5)
Why should Apple move away from the PowerPC when the major players in console gaming are shifting to the Power platform? Wouldn't it make sense to stay on Power to make it easier for console games to be ported to Mac? IBM and the Power architecture can't be that flawed if Microsoft AND Sony are putting Power based chips in their next consoles.
Folks you're taking stock in a "news" site that on the day Tiger was released had a front page article comparing it to the vaporware OS that is still a year from shipping.
Ack. Maybe this is why everything was release early and there isn't anything apparent for Steve to announce?!? I mean this could easily fill the entire speech. Outlining the conversion, the reasoning, the tools to help developers recompile and optimize their code, etc, etc. 
jhujhiti said:
Bwaaahahahahaha... this is the funniest thing I've ever read.
Ok... go run Windows. Or try to figure out how to admin your Linux system.... on your Intel-grade computer. Or stop using computers altogether.
Seriously, what's your objection to a faster CPU that happens to use a different instruction set?
Powerbook G5
This is happening because they can't get a G5 in a Powerbook and it's not in IBMs interest to create a special chip for a small market. But the million dollar question is whether OS X will eventually run on computer hardware other than Apple.
I have been saying it all along, Microsoft is toast! Apple will be fully transitioned in 2007 by the time Longhorn sees the light of day. I think OS X is mature enough now to make this a reality.
I'll be sure to be sitting down during the keynote.
This is happening because they can't get a G5 in a Powerbook and it's not in IBMs interest to create a special chip for a small market. But the million dollar question is whether OS X will eventually run on computer hardware other than Apple.
I have been saying it all along, Microsoft is toast! Apple will be fully transitioned in 2007 by the time Longhorn sees the light of day. I think OS X is mature enough now to make this a reality.
I'll be sure to be sitting down during the keynote.
I am mixed about the whole thing.
I am totally cool with Apple making moves that will help it in the short/long run.
However, because of the marketing of computers nowadays, Intel is synonymous with Windows (ie. at the end of almost every PC commercial, you hear the famous chime and get the Intel Inside logo).
We all gripe about how Microsoft's dominance sways the computing industry and plead for people to "Think Different". With Apple possibly switching to Intel, this essentually leaves 2 chip makers as PPC for computers will essentually die. With Intel's even larger market share lead, should we not be as wary of them as we are of Microsoft? Or is it cool because we are finally on the "winning team"? Kind of hypocritical?
I am totally cool with Apple making moves that will help it in the short/long run.
However, because of the marketing of computers nowadays, Intel is synonymous with Windows (ie. at the end of almost every PC commercial, you hear the famous chime and get the Intel Inside logo).
We all gripe about how Microsoft's dominance sways the computing industry and plead for people to "Think Different". With Apple possibly switching to Intel, this essentually leaves 2 chip makers as PPC for computers will essentually die. With Intel's even larger market share lead, should we not be as wary of them as we are of Microsoft? Or is it cool because we are finally on the "winning team"? Kind of hypocritical?
obeygiant said:
God, that hadn't even crossed my mind!
I'd be willing to use an Intel OSX box, but if I have to hear that jingle one more time, I'm switching to Linux on AMD.
The only benefit...
If true I would really not like the move one bit. It would be bad technically, and bad PR-wise.
The only real benefit I can think of is with the Mac OS running on Intel hardware is a VirtualPC engine would run much faster - making for an easier transition for switchers. I don't think that comes close to justifying this kind of radical change but if Apple is going after Microsoft's throat this is one way to go about it. Microsoft is the evil empire; Intel is just their best pal.
A possible reason for this might be if IBM doesn't want the business any more. They certainly haven't met their part of the bargain (a 3GHz G5 by last summer!?). They must be happy with the business they've picked up from the gaming biz, and may have told Apple they've stopped investing in G5-specific chip design. Who knows.
I guess Monday will be interesting...
If true I would really not like the move one bit. It would be bad technically, and bad PR-wise.
The only real benefit I can think of is with the Mac OS running on Intel hardware is a VirtualPC engine would run much faster - making for an easier transition for switchers. I don't think that comes close to justifying this kind of radical change but if Apple is going after Microsoft's throat this is one way to go about it. Microsoft is the evil empire; Intel is just their best pal.
A possible reason for this might be if IBM doesn't want the business any more. They certainly haven't met their part of the bargain (a 3GHz G5 by last summer!?). They must be happy with the business they've picked up from the gaming biz, and may have told Apple they've stopped investing in G5-specific chip design. Who knows.
I guess Monday will be interesting...
Booga said:
1) I know how to admin a Linux system. I know how to hack the kernel, thanks.
2) Intel CPUs are not just a different instruction set. The pipeline design is an [explitive deleted] mess, and they're so attached to Microsoft it makes me sick. Also, Intel's new Hardware DRM is going to change computing as we know it for the worse if they succeed. I'm not comfortable giving them money.
Who cares about consoles.
You seriously misunderstand software development. The CPU does NOT make things easier or harder to port to-- API's do that. The CPU does NOT control whether "plug and play" really works-- BIOS/boot-loaders do that. The CPU does NOT make things more or less user friendly-- the OS and GUI do that. If you want XBox 360 games to be easy to port to MacOS, you're going to have to port DirectX to MacOS, regardless of CPU, which isn't going to happen.
The XBox and the PS3 CPUs are, for all intents and purposes, a G4 core with a bunch of vector units. They are not a general purpose 64-bit G5 suitable for use in a desktop machine. They have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on what happens in the Macintosh industry.
jstrickland said:
You seriously misunderstand software development. The CPU does NOT make things easier or harder to port to-- API's do that. The CPU does NOT control whether "plug and play" really works-- BIOS/boot-loaders do that. The CPU does NOT make things more or less user friendly-- the OS and GUI do that. If you want XBox 360 games to be easy to port to MacOS, you're going to have to port DirectX to MacOS, regardless of CPU, which isn't going to happen.
The XBox and the PS3 CPUs are, for all intents and purposes, a G4 core with a bunch of vector units. They are not a general purpose 64-bit G5 suitable for use in a desktop machine. They have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on what happens in the Macintosh industry.
rendezvouscp said:
"the PPC chip has more room to grow than x86"
"Apple is not going to make a chip-switch."
Absoloutely right.
Timely article here:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436
I'll save you some reading and post the conclusions ,though the rest of the article is a really enlightening comparison and you really need to read the whole thing for perspective.
Last page of anandtech article by Johan De Gelas
"The G5 is a gigantic improvement over the previous CPU in the PowerMac, the G4e. The G5 is one of the most superscalar CPUs ever, and has all the characteristics that could give Apple the edge, especially now that the clock speed race between AMD and Intel is over. However, there is still a lot of work to be done.
First of all, the G5 needs a lower latency access to the memory because right now, the integer performance of the G5 leaves a lot to be desired. The Opteron and Xeon have a better integer engine, and especially the Pentium 4/Xeon has a better Branch predictor too. The Opteron's memory subsystem runs circles around the G5's.
Secondly, it is clear that the G5 FP performance, despite its access to 32 architectural registers, needs good optimisation. Only one of our flops tests was " Altivectorized", which means that the GCC compiler needs to improve quite a bit before it can turn those many open source programs into super fast applications on the Mac. In contrast, the Intel compiler can vectorize all 8 tests.
Altivec or the velocity engine can make the G5 shine in workstation applications. A good example is Lightwave where the G5 takes on the best x86 competition in some situations, and remains behind in others.
The future looks promising in the workstation market for Apple, as the G5 has a lot of unused potential and the increasing market share of the Power Mac should tempt developers to put a little more effort in Mac optimisation.
The server performance of the Apple platform is, however, catastrophic. When we asked Apple for a reaction, they told us that some database vendors, Sybase and Oracle, have found a way around the threading problems. We'll try Sybase later, but frankly, we are very sceptical. The whole "multi-threaded Mach microkernel trapped inside a monolithic FreeBSD cocoon with several threading wrappers and coarse-grained threading access to the kernel", with a "backwards compatibility" millstone around its neck sounds like a bad fusion recipe for performance.
Workstation apps will hardly mind, but the performance of server applications depends greatly on the threading, signalling and locking engine. I am no operating system expert, but with the data that we have today, I think that a PowerPC optimised Linux such as Yellow Dog is a better idea for the Xserve than Mac OS X server."
jhujhiti said:
1) Great. What are you going to run it on? And will your experience beat that of MacOS X?
2) Nonetheless, their chips are faster. And their laptop chips are faster while using less power at the same time. And as for DRM, it's as useful as the OS makes it... you'll have to either trust or distrust Apple on that one. [Edit: and attached to Microsoft? Are you joking? They are a major funder for linux work.]
jhujhiti said:
I really don't understand why some mac fans are so opposed to change. I am a recent mac convert and I can honestly tell you that there are definite advantages to having intel chips inside macs. First, people like intel and trust the name. Having the "intel inside" logo on a mac can only help increase sales. Second, competition is great because this will force IBM/Freescale to innovate and meet demand at a faster pace.
I personally think the Pentium M is an excellent chip for laptops. I've used several laptops running on Pentium M processors and they ran great.
One important factor that is overlooked in this equation is Intel's ability to meet market demands at a very fast pace. Ibm/Motorola/Freescale have all left Apple screaming at times because they were unable to meet Apple's rapidly increasing demand. I am positive that Apple lost many possible sales just because they couldn't make the stuff fast enough. Intel can provide Apple with rapid response to changing supply and demand conditions.
I think this move, if true, would be a boon for Apple and I don't understand why this story is receiving a disproportional number of negatives ratings and responses. The Apple community should welcome change because change can open many doors for Apple and the entire OS X community.