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
-Jeff said:
Software will still have to be written for the operating system. It'll make game ports and anything else graphics intensive a hell of a lot easier. I'd also like to reiterate one thing: x86 does not equal windows. There will be no bios, there will be no active x, there will be no .exe files, and there will certainly be no windows security issues. You will not know if a Mac Mini whas a PM or a G4 in it unless you open up the case. You will not find the 98¢ power supplies that HP uses. It will not be easy, but Apple is no stranger to hard transitons. If we wanted to easy our operating system would still be based on OS9 and runnin 16mhz 68040 processors.
As for the hardware, the PowerPC has had a lot of potential. Unfortunately it's unrealized potential. Sticking with the PowerPCs have a bunch of what ifs and maybes. Intel has a plan with the Pentium-M and a guaranteed supply. Intel also needs a platform that can show off what its hardware can do. Windows has little SMP support for the new dual-core processors. OSX is built for SMP. Add in a Altivec-class SIMD unit and we're in business.
Ok so what happens when all of the loyal Mac users realize their expensive hardware has just been abandoned. Also, software companies aren't going to just ship off free CDs to already paying customers so people will have to buy the x86 version of their software again (after waiting for it to be done).
Seriously, Apple would die with a move like this unless Intel made PPC processors AND made them as good as IBM does (which won't happen). Moving to x86 would mean a new FCP would be needed, OS X reoptimized, Microsoft Office converted, etc.
No need to worry, Apple won't bite the hands feeding them - especially from a money perspective. If something changes, it will only be because its better. Personally I hate Intel, but if they can make a better processor than IBM then I'm all for it.
Let's let the people who actually know what they are talking about speak on Monday and until then...NEW PowerBook G5s on Monday/Tuesday?!?
Seriously, Apple would die with a move like this unless Intel made PPC processors AND made them as good as IBM does (which won't happen). Moving to x86 would mean a new FCP would be needed, OS X reoptimized, Microsoft Office converted, etc.
No need to worry, Apple won't bite the hands feeding them - especially from a money perspective. If something changes, it will only be because its better. Personally I hate Intel, but if they can make a better processor than IBM then I'm all for it.
Let's let the people who actually know what they are talking about speak on Monday and until then...NEW PowerBook G5s on Monday/Tuesday?!?
Comparing OS/2 to OS X isn't really apple's to apple's is it? Every Windows user is experiencing the virus/spyware problems that plague that platform and OS X is getting great press. Switchers aren't coming in for the hardware IMHO, it's about OS X. I don't understand why you think that developers would have no incentive. What more of an incentive do they have to code for the PPC? We're a minority now, and we may or may not be on x86. What's the differenceNermal said:
Phatpat said:
I would be disgusted if they chose Intel's x86 CPUs over AMDs, especially if we're talking about the 64-bit platforms, as I'm assuming we are.
It's my understanding that AMD's chips use of HyperTransport as the bus allows each CPU a certain amount of bandwidth. Each one can use the full bandwidth. On the contrary, Intel's CPUs have to share bandwith. At least, that's the way it's been on the 32-bit side of things. If it holds true for the 64-bit side, this decision sucks. Not to mention that Apple is a founding member of the HyperTransport consortium to begin with.
Let's hope that if Intel is really going to be supplying CPUs for the primary product lines, and not a tablet or something, that they'll be Power architecture chips. That would be sad for Intel, though, having to make chips that use HyperTransport
There are some misunderstandings here about what's technically feasible and also about the business ramifications. To wit:
1. It would be easy to switch OS X and its applications to x86. OS X already run on x86, so that's done. Any Cocoa application only needs to be recompiled. For a developer this would be no different nor any more work than producing the next PPC release. (They would have to buy new x86 Macs though, and decide how long to offer both PPC and x86 versions of their applications.) If there is any assembly (e.g. Altivec) code then that's a problem, and who knows about Carbon. (Note: Some people are confused about where application source compatibility lies; it's in the language it's written in and the APIs it uses, not the instruction set its compiled to. An x86 switch would do absolutely nothing for porting Windows applications.)
2. Intel is not going to make PPC chips. There is absolutely no reason for them to do that, and at least one very good reason not to: if the competing product is in enough trouble that Apple has to come begging for you to bail it out, why would you help save it when you've got your own splendid (at least from Intel's point of view) product to offer instead?
3. If Apple does switch to x86, they will not have OS X (at least for a long while) run on generic x86 hardware. They will design Macs just like they do now, using open firmware instead of a PC BIOS.
4. If this switch happens the only reason imaginable is that IBM pulled a Motorola on Apple and said they were canceling the 970MP/GX, or whatever the new dual core chip is. If that's happened I'm surprised we didn't all hear Steve Jobs yelling when that little surprise was dropped on him. :-| This is hard to imagine, but then again that 3Ghz chip that they were oh so confident would be in volume production a year ago shows no signs of appearing, so something's not going well.
5. One can imagine other PC makers wanting to get on board and make Intel-based Macs. Not clear if that would make any more business sense for Apple than it did back when clones were terminated the last time, but with sufficient volume that model obviously works.
Lazy
1. It would be easy to switch OS X and its applications to x86. OS X already run on x86, so that's done. Any Cocoa application only needs to be recompiled. For a developer this would be no different nor any more work than producing the next PPC release. (They would have to buy new x86 Macs though, and decide how long to offer both PPC and x86 versions of their applications.) If there is any assembly (e.g. Altivec) code then that's a problem, and who knows about Carbon. (Note: Some people are confused about where application source compatibility lies; it's in the language it's written in and the APIs it uses, not the instruction set its compiled to. An x86 switch would do absolutely nothing for porting Windows applications.)
2. Intel is not going to make PPC chips. There is absolutely no reason for them to do that, and at least one very good reason not to: if the competing product is in enough trouble that Apple has to come begging for you to bail it out, why would you help save it when you've got your own splendid (at least from Intel's point of view) product to offer instead?
3. If Apple does switch to x86, they will not have OS X (at least for a long while) run on generic x86 hardware. They will design Macs just like they do now, using open firmware instead of a PC BIOS.
4. If this switch happens the only reason imaginable is that IBM pulled a Motorola on Apple and said they were canceling the 970MP/GX, or whatever the new dual core chip is. If that's happened I'm surprised we didn't all hear Steve Jobs yelling when that little surprise was dropped on him. :-| This is hard to imagine, but then again that 3Ghz chip that they were oh so confident would be in volume production a year ago shows no signs of appearing, so something's not going well.
5. One can imagine other PC makers wanting to get on board and make Intel-based Macs. Not clear if that would make any more business sense for Apple than it did back when clones were terminated the last time, but with sufficient volume that model obviously works.
Lazy
If this is true my mother in law is going to kick me in the balls. I just talked her into getting a mac mini last month.
This is the greatest publicity stunt in a long time.
Apple has always craved publicity. This looks like what could be their smartest move in a long time.
Okay. You've got a keynote coming up on monday, you want people to listen. What do you do ? Leak a very, very controversial story to the mainstream technological press. This story is sure to get every Mac fan riled up.
And they'll be thinking about it all weekend, and they'll be listening to the keynote. Apple has generated massive interest in their keynote speech.
So, what will they actually announce on Monday ? Well, there's another leaked story today, at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823273,00.asp - it's about Dual-Core G5s.
So here's my prediction for Monday's announcement. Apple announces Dual G5s and confirms that the PPC architecture is moving forward - also mentionning the amazing new PPC chips made for the Xbox360 and the PS3.
Apple also announces a new chip supplier: Intel. Those chips will not be used in Macs; they will be used in a new, low-end computer line that Apple will sell. This new line, which won't be called Macs, will not compete directly with Macs. Here's my guess:
For the sake of argument, let's call the new Apple computer line the e-Ntels. Low end machines, powered by Intel chips. They're computer appliances. They come pre-loaded with OS X x86-64 and Apple apps.
You can't install conventional software on them - every piece of software comes pre-installed by Apple, and gets automatically updated. The only software that you can run on it is approved by Apple, and is automatically deployed on all the e-Ntels.
The form factor might be a tablet, or it may be an HTPC, or both ! It's not going to be a conventional computer form factor. It's not going to be a general purpose computer. It's going to be an extremely inexpensive computer appliance.
You can pick one up like you pick up an iPod or a console. Costs at most 300$. You don't need to know anything about computers to use one - they run the incredibly user friendly OS X, which has been stripped down to be even easier.
So, what about the Macs, then ? Well, if you ever overgrow your i-Ntel, if you ever become a power user.. If you ever need software past that which is preinstalled on the i-Ntel (and it'll include everything most home users need), you get a real Mac.
And those Macs will be powerful. They will have fast dual-core PPC chips, and everything you expect from a Mac. They'll be able to network with your i-Ntel appliance, without any configuration, thanks to Rendezvous.
You're a current Mac user ? You'll want an inexpensive i-Ntel tablet and HTPC. It runs OS X and communicates with your real Mac.
Not a Mac user right now ? Tired of your ****** old PC ? Apple has a very inexpensive solution to your problem. Pick up the tiny i-Ntel box availaible at all good computer stores, plug it in, and you're good to go.
I can't wait to know what they're going to announce on Monday. But trust me: they're not dropping PPC - and the use of Intel chips is going to enhance their offerings. Everybody is going to be pleased, including hardcore Mac fans.
Apple has always craved publicity. This looks like what could be their smartest move in a long time.
Okay. You've got a keynote coming up on monday, you want people to listen. What do you do ? Leak a very, very controversial story to the mainstream technological press. This story is sure to get every Mac fan riled up.
And they'll be thinking about it all weekend, and they'll be listening to the keynote. Apple has generated massive interest in their keynote speech.
So, what will they actually announce on Monday ? Well, there's another leaked story today, at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823273,00.asp - it's about Dual-Core G5s.
So here's my prediction for Monday's announcement. Apple announces Dual G5s and confirms that the PPC architecture is moving forward - also mentionning the amazing new PPC chips made for the Xbox360 and the PS3.
Apple also announces a new chip supplier: Intel. Those chips will not be used in Macs; they will be used in a new, low-end computer line that Apple will sell. This new line, which won't be called Macs, will not compete directly with Macs. Here's my guess:
For the sake of argument, let's call the new Apple computer line the e-Ntels. Low end machines, powered by Intel chips. They're computer appliances. They come pre-loaded with OS X x86-64 and Apple apps.
You can't install conventional software on them - every piece of software comes pre-installed by Apple, and gets automatically updated. The only software that you can run on it is approved by Apple, and is automatically deployed on all the e-Ntels.
The form factor might be a tablet, or it may be an HTPC, or both ! It's not going to be a conventional computer form factor. It's not going to be a general purpose computer. It's going to be an extremely inexpensive computer appliance.
You can pick one up like you pick up an iPod or a console. Costs at most 300$. You don't need to know anything about computers to use one - they run the incredibly user friendly OS X, which has been stripped down to be even easier.
So, what about the Macs, then ? Well, if you ever overgrow your i-Ntel, if you ever become a power user.. If you ever need software past that which is preinstalled on the i-Ntel (and it'll include everything most home users need), you get a real Mac.
And those Macs will be powerful. They will have fast dual-core PPC chips, and everything you expect from a Mac. They'll be able to network with your i-Ntel appliance, without any configuration, thanks to Rendezvous.
You're a current Mac user ? You'll want an inexpensive i-Ntel tablet and HTPC. It runs OS X and communicates with your real Mac.
Not a Mac user right now ? Tired of your ****** old PC ? Apple has a very inexpensive solution to your problem. Pick up the tiny i-Ntel box availaible at all good computer stores, plug it in, and you're good to go.
I can't wait to know what they're going to announce on Monday. But trust me: they're not dropping PPC - and the use of Intel chips is going to enhance their offerings. Everybody is going to be pleased, including hardcore Mac fans.
From the CNET article:
"If they actually do that, I will be surprised, amazed and concerned," said Insight 64 analyst Nathan Brookwood. "I don't know that Apple's market share can survive another architecture shift. Every time they do this, they lose more customers" and more software partners, he said. "
That's exactly how I feel. If they don't find a way of minimizing the impact of a switch, Apple will suffer for real. I simply can't see most customers buying new versions of softwares because they want to buy a new computer. I wouldn't do it. I would stick with the old hardware 'til the moment I really have to buy new versions of the software I use. So for me, it could mean about 2 years of having to use slower hardware (and be pissed off). I really hope that Apple is not heading in that direction.
"If they actually do that, I will be surprised, amazed and concerned," said Insight 64 analyst Nathan Brookwood. "I don't know that Apple's market share can survive another architecture shift. Every time they do this, they lose more customers" and more software partners, he said. "
That's exactly how I feel. If they don't find a way of minimizing the impact of a switch, Apple will suffer for real. I simply can't see most customers buying new versions of softwares because they want to buy a new computer. I wouldn't do it. I would stick with the old hardware 'til the moment I really have to buy new versions of the software I use. So for me, it could mean about 2 years of having to use slower hardware (and be pissed off). I really hope that Apple is not heading in that direction.
This news is no more shocking than when IBM announced it was no longer making PCs. I think that news is more unlikely but it happened. Mac on Intel. Its the future folks.
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
"Nearly Two Times Faster Than Pentium 4"
"3D Rendering: Over Two Times Faster Than Pentium 4"
"Video Effects: Nearly Two Times Faster Than Pentium 4"
And don't forget this IS the year of HDV....
"HDV Rendering: 84% Faster Than Pentium 4"
"Nearly Three Times The Plug-ins As Pentium 4"
"Over 80% Faster Than Dual Xeon at Scientific Analysis"
What was that cnet story about again? lol
"Nearly Two Times Faster Than Pentium 4"
"3D Rendering: Over Two Times Faster Than Pentium 4"
"Video Effects: Nearly Two Times Faster Than Pentium 4"
And don't forget this IS the year of HDV....
"HDV Rendering: 84% Faster Than Pentium 4"
"Nearly Three Times The Plug-ins As Pentium 4"
"Over 80% Faster Than Dual Xeon at Scientific Analysis"
What was that cnet story about again? lol
Trekkie said:
If you require good performance, you'd certainly need to optimise your code to some degree.
There almost certainly will be a raft of bugs that show up when re-compiling that would need to be fixed.
If you have to make changes to get the Intel version to work, you may have to branch your code which creates code duplication issues and overhead.
All your tech support staff would most likely need re-training.
You'd need to re-test your application from scratch, pretty much any testing done on the PowerPC version would be invalid.
You'd need to invest in "Intel Macs" for all your development, testing and support staff.
You'd need to redo all your manuals, marketing materials, boxes, etc.
It's certainly not trivial.
artifex said:I would be disgusted if they chose Intel's x86 CPUs over AMDs, especially if we're talking about the 64-bit platforms, as I'm assuming we are.
It's my understanding that AMD's chips use of HyperTransport as the bus allows each CPU a certain amount of bandwidth. Each one can use the full bandwidth. On the contrary, Intel's CPUs have to share bandwith. At least, that's the way it's been on the 32-bit side of things. If it holds true for the 64-bit side, this decision sucks. Not to mention that Apple is a founding member of the HyperTransport consortium to begin with.
Let's hope that if Intel is really going to be supplying CPUs for the primary product lines, and not a tablet or something, that they'll be Power architecture chips. That would be sad for Intel, though, having to make chips that use HyperTransport
If Steve Jobs had any real guts he would have switched to AMD. The AMD64 chips are superior in every way to Intel's. They are better for gaming. better for business.
Lest we forget!
Intel to Apple: Why, hello there beautiful!!!
Apple to IBM: Well, is it going to happen???
IBM to Apple: Not tonight... I have a headache!!!
Apple to Intel: My companion doesn't understand me.
Microsoft to IBM: Aw, C'mon... it won't hurt and we'll stop before anything happens!!!
IBM to Microsoft: Kiss you??? I shouldn't even be in bed with you!!!
Intel to Apple: Why, hello there beautiful!!!
Apple to IBM: Well, is it going to happen???
IBM to Apple: Not tonight... I have a headache!!!
Apple to Intel: My companion doesn't understand me.
Microsoft to IBM: Aw, C'mon... it won't hurt and we'll stop before anything happens!!!
IBM to Microsoft: Kiss you??? I shouldn't even be in bed with you!!!
Booga said:
the 68K and PPC are big endian - Intel is little endian. This could be a pain in the butt for certain people. Also, the SIMD stuff will be a pain because of the major differences between Altivec and SSE/SSE2.
Cocoa will probably fair better than Carbon.
Bradley W said:
Well, that report just quotes the CNET article, it's not exactly a second source.
vitaboy said:
That's a very good point. The slowness of progress in the high end may just be added aggravation on top of the real problem -- the lack of a low-power chip.
Lazy
I'd love to think somewhere in a dark room deep in the bowels of Cupertino, some marketing rat realised all the pre-WWDC rumours are about worries over iPod inventory, so they decided to start leaking stories to boost the stock price. Apple switching to Intel? Sure. Apple using dual core PPC? Yup, that too. Steve Jobs is Steve Spielberg's long lost brother? Ah, what the hell, why not?