or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple confirms switch to Intel
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple confirms switch to Intel

post #1 of 425
Thread Starter 
Apple Computer chief executive Steve Jobs today confirmed company plans to deliver models of Macintosh computers with Intel microprocessors by this time next year, and to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007.

In front of a World Wide Developers Conference crowd that included over 3,800 developers -- the largest in over a decade -- Jobs previewed a version of Mac OS X Tiger running on an Intel-based Mac.

Mac OS X has been leading a "secret double life," Jobs proclaimed. He said every release of the Mac OS X over the last five years was secretly built for both the PowerPC and Intel processors. So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for both PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years, he said.

Jobs also announced that developers can begin to pre-order a Developer Transition Kit. It will consist of a 3.6GHz Pentium 4-based machine and Mac OS X 10.4.1 "Tiger" for Intel, which will allow them to prepare versions of their applications that will run on both PowerPC and Intel-based Macs. The kit will begin shipping in two weeks for $999.

Under the transition to Intel, technologies such as Dashboard Widgets, scripts and Java will "just work," Jobs said. Meanwhile, Cocoa applications will require a few days worth of work to update and Carbon applications a few weeks. The majority of new Mac OS X applications are of the Cocoa flavor.

At one point, Jobs invited to the stage Theo Gray, cofounder of Wolfram Research, to demonstrate the portability of Mac OS X applications to the Intel platform and alleviate developer fears of another costly and timely code updating processes. Gray said his team ported Mathematica 5 to Intel-based Macs in 2 hours. "Were talking about twenty lines of source code out of millions," he said. "This is nothing like Carbonizing."

Jobs also showed off a new dynamic binary translator called "Rosetta," which runs PowerPC code on Intel-based Macs transparently to the users and without a significant speed decrease. In a demonstration he showed Microsoft Office for Mac and Photoshop CS2 running on Intel hardware in unmodified PowerPC binary form. Jobs said that Apple will be including the technology for its users because he knows each application isn't going to be ready for the new Intel Macs on day one.

Representatives from big name companies, including Microsoft and Adobe, also joined Jobs on stage to vouch their support of the transition to Intel and reaffirm their commitment to the Macintosh platform. They were soon followed by Paul Otellini, Intel's president and CEO, who played a 1996 Apple ad where an Intel bunny was set a blaze. Intel doesn't have a grudge, he said. "So after thirty years, Apple and Intel are together at last."

In closing, Jobs said that with both Apple and the Mac strong, it's a great time to start building for the future and making the company stronger. By next year's World Wide Developer Conference he suspects that most developers will be shipping universal binaries of their Mac OS X applications as Apple begins to divulge information about the next-generation Mac OS X operating system, code-named Leopard.

Because more than even the processor, more than the even hardware innovations we bring to the market, the soul of the Mac is its operating system, Jobs said. "And we're not standing still."
post #2 of 425
It just sucks imo - AND it's been planned (or at least accounted for) for five years while Jobs was singing a very different tune.

I don't know really what to think about this - might not be so bad. I'm confused, this has done my head in. Will there be a sticker ? That would see me over the edge.

And another thing - I don't really believe anything Jobs says anymore. Didn't he say OSX was slowing down ? Apparently that wasn't true either.

I'm not a happy camper. Someone tell me it's not so bad.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #3 of 425
Un-stinkin'-believable.
1 Peter 1:6-7
Powerbook G4 12" 1.33ghz, 60gig hd, 1.25 gigs ram.

Powermac G4 "Sawtooth" 400 mhz, 80gig hd, 384mb of ram, Rage 128 Pro graphics.
Reply
1 Peter 1:6-7
Powerbook G4 12" 1.33ghz, 60gig hd, 1.25 gigs ram.

Powermac G4 "Sawtooth" 400 mhz, 80gig hd, 384mb of ram, Rage 128 Pro graphics.
Reply
post #4 of 425
Wow!

I honestly did not think this was going to happen.
post #5 of 425
Nooooooo!!!!!
Just kidding! I could not careless. IBM screwed up anyway. Get rid of them now before more damage.
I am only sad for no products announcements today.
MacPro 12 core
30" & 23" Apple Cinema HD Displays
PowerBook G4 550, MacBook Pro 2.2
Ipod 1G and 5G, Shuffle 2G, iPhone 3G
Reply
MacPro 12 core
30" & 23" Apple Cinema HD Displays
PowerBook G4 550, MacBook Pro 2.2
Ipod 1G and 5G, Shuffle 2G, iPhone 3G
Reply
post #6 of 425
Crow is a dish best served cold.
post #7 of 425
Wow! its true the soul is in the OS and now we will have the fastest hardware with the best software Bravo Jobs should have done it sooner but Bravo! Enough of slow PPC.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #8 of 425
all i can say is WOW...

but for some strange reason im looking forward to the new mactel boxes and exited about apples future. however i was just about to get a mac mini, but since we have a year left im still going to get one.
post #9 of 425
I never thought I'd say this, but I think Steve Jobs has completely lost his mind. He spewed a pile of bovine manure this morning about Intel's "great roadmap," yet of course failed to actually provide any details. He did no speed comparisons between Mac OS X on Intel and PowerPC because he knows the x86 version would lose. What happens to AltiVec? The reason Apple has superior rendering times for Final Cut Pro, faster DVD encoding, etc, is because of the PowerPC's AltiVec instructions. Why the hell would I want a Mac that's at 3.7 GHz "Intel inside" if I'm going to have slower rendering time? My time is worth something, too, but apparently the almighty Steve doesn't give a rat's ass.

Nor does he care about my money. Who the hell's going to be supporting any software for PPC Macs 7 years from now? Why should I be forced once again (it was classic to OS X, now it's PPC to Intel) to pay for upgrades that I don't really want or need just so I can run the software (properly, their cheesy PPC -> x86 translator will most certainly not provide the performance I expect out of my apps on a Mac) on newer Macs in the future? I again have to shell out money for an upgrade to the newest Adobe Creative Suite even though I'm fine with the last revision? Why should I have to buy a new version of Microsoft Office?

Is Steve insane enough to believe that processor intensive games created today for the Mac are going to run fine in his stupid PPC emulation environment? Somehow it doesn't seem that translating RISC to CISC is going to offer acceptable performance. If he does pull this off, kudos to him, even though I think it's one of the dumbest moves he's ever made. Switching to the crusty x86 ISA is insane. What's next, we're ditching Mac OS X and installing Windows on our future Macs?

By the way, it's been many years, but I don't see how this would be any different today: http://mackido.com/Hardware/WhatIsRISC.html

This move is singularly stupid. Flame me all you want because I'm sure some of you think Steve Jobs can do no wrong. But this is just stupid.
post #10 of 425
Damn it's a bloody cold day today in hell ej?!



Un-fscking-believable! So Scoble was right after all! That means that MS has known about it for some time. The strategic implications of this move are legion. This week has truly been a historic week: two founding members of the EU reject the treaty, and Apple hugging Intel!

While Job was touting G5 and the mac fans drinking it all up he's been playing with OSX on Intel - the sheer cheek! Would you buy a used car from the guy?

I knew Jobs didnt give a damn about altivec - he's after a lower power chip for laptops (a growth market) not faster rendering times.

I applaud the move to Intel. PowerMac is dead! Long live MacTel!

Exciting times ahead!
Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong.
-- Richard Feynman
Reply
Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong.
-- Richard Feynman
Reply
post #11 of 425


It's a madhouse! A madhouse!
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #12 of 425
What we know:
[list=1][*]No Powerbook G5 EVER! -- For once, Apple can't make a product that it wants to. Back when the Powerbooks had G3s, it was hard to believe they'd ever get a G4 because of heat issues. Now, it is impossible to believe that an Apple laptop will ever have a G5.[*]No 3.0 GHz Power Mac G5s...probably -- While not cancelling out the possibility, it seems like Jobs was making it pretty clear that the G5 won't make it to 3.0 Ghz. This really amazes me, because I was under the impression that the G5 was going to be HUGELY scalable.[*]Apple's products keep hitting ceilings where their chips are concerned -- Why is it that the 680X0 and PowerPC chips have all run out of gas? The x86 chips are still moving onward and upward, right? Is this empty promises from Motorola and IBM, short-sightedness on Apple's part, or a little of both?[*]The Megahertz Myth will end for lack of opposing arguments -- Think about it: Except for the fact that OS X will still probably remain a more efficient OS than Microsoft's offerings, the "difference" in megahertz between the two platforms will all but vanish. It'll be interesting to see how well PC and Mac chips parallel each other in clock speeds since they'll both be from the same company. Are we going to see Intel's "arms" getting pulled in both directions like a child in a custody battle? "We should have the faster chips first!" "No WE should!" Sheesh.[/list=1]

Any that I missed?

I have to say that today's news has me a bit concerned, yet I still have cautious optimism. I really want to see how this plays out in the next couple years. I take it we'll see no "new" computers from Apple between now and 2006. Speed bumps aplenty, maybe.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #13 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleRISC
Nor does he care about my money. Who the hell's going to be supporting any software for PPC Macs 7 years from now?

Apparantly, supporting the PPC will just be a recompile after the transition.

He didn't mention ipod sales so far for this quarter - wonder if thats good or bad news?
post #14 of 425
How can anyone be disappointed with this news? A Mac is a Mac because of its OS and the quality and style of its hardware, not because of its processor. Both Motorola and IBM dropped the ball big time! No longer will we have to wait 6 months for a .25 mHz "leap' in performance. Now chip performance increases will come so routinely that they will hardly even garner any attention.

As a loyal Mac owner and, more importantly, a heavily-invested shareholder, I applaud this long overdue switch. My only concern now is that sales of Power PC based Macs will be hurt for the next 12-18 months until the shiny new stuff finally arrives.
post #15 of 425
The best C|net quote:

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.

--

Apple just killed Microsoft VirtualPC.

Head-to-head tests will be pretty easy now, as you will be able to put Windows on Mac hardware. I wonder if you will be able to install them both at the same time and choose which to use at startup/bios.
post #16 of 425
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

The irony is great. Steve has become a real clown lately.
post #17 of 425
Heh. Just ordered my Developer Transition Kit.
This is going to be fun.
post #18 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I take it we'll see no "new" computers from Apple between now and 2006. Speed bumps aplenty, maybe.

That's got to hurt - unless the iPod will carry them through - but if that bubble bursts.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #19 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleRISC
I never thought I'd say this, but I think Steve Jobs has completely lost his mind. He spewed a pile of bovine manure this morning about Intel's "great roadmap," yet of course failed to actually provide any details. He did no speed comparisons between Mac OS X on Intel and PowerPC because he knows the x86 version would lose. What happens to AltiVec? The reason Apple has superior rendering times for Final Cut Pro, faster DVD encoding, etc, is because of the PowerPC's AltiVec instructions. Why the hell would I want a Mac that's at 3.7 GHz "Intel inside" if I'm going to have slower rendering time? My time is worth something, too, but apparently the almighty Steve doesn't give a rat's ass.

Nor does he care about my money. Who the hell's going to be supporting any software for PPC Macs 7 years from now? Why should I be forced once again (it was classic to OS X, now it's PPC to Intel) to pay for upgrades that I don't really want or need just so I can run the software (properly, their cheesy PPC -> x86 translator will most certainly not provide the performance I expect out of my apps on a Mac) on newer Macs in the future? I again have to shell out money for an upgrade to the newest Adobe Creative Suite even though I'm fine with the last revision? Why should I have to buy a new version of Microsoft Office?

Is Steve insane enough to believe that processor intensive games created today for the Mac are going to run fine in his stupid PPC emulation environment? Somehow it doesn't seem that translating RISC to CISC is going to offer acceptable performance. If he does pull this off, kudos to him, even though I think it's one of the dumbest moves he's ever made. Switching to the crusty x86 ISA is insane. What's next, we're ditching Mac OS X and installing Windows on our future Macs?

By the way, it's been many years, but I don't see how this would be any different today: http://mackido.com/Hardware/WhatIsRISC.html

This move is singularly stupid. Flame me all you want because I'm sure some of you think Steve Jobs can do no wrong. But this is just stupid.

1. Intel has the best encoding on the market. even without altivec, apple encoding will still be way faster
2. The binaries are PPC/x86 combo. they work for both. companies making x86 mac programs will be subconsiously making PPC programs. so 7 years from now, PPC macs will be supported.
3. since converting programs to x86 mac takes a stunning 2 hours for a software developer, i'm sure they could release a patch for their programs that would make PPC mac programs run on the x86 hardware. i'm not so sure, but i think steve said somethign about an x86 mac being able to convert PPC mac programs on the fly with a tiny bit of overhead
4. WHAT PROCESSOR INTENSIVE MAC GAMES? THERE ARE NO MAC GAMES!! This is only a good thing for mac games. think about it, virtual PC will be able to run without any overhead. think about having virtual PC or even intel's simultanious OS processor architecture in the future where you can just use virtual PC to run ALL PC GAMES. Virtual PC is already the best emulator around, imagine getting the full directx 9 support. heck, converting PC games to Mac and programs in general will be so much easier.
5. Although RISC is more efficient, switching to a CISC 3.6 Ghz vs. a 2.7Ghz RISC will probably increase performance. benchmarks confirm this.
post #20 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleRISC
I never thought I'd say this, but I think Steve Jobs has completely lost his mind. He spewed a pile of bovine manure this morning about Intel's "great roadmap," yet of course failed to actually provide any details. He did no speed comparisons between Mac OS X on Intel and PowerPC because he knows the x86 version would lose. What happens to AltiVec? The reason Apple has superior rendering times for Final Cut Pro, faster DVD encoding, etc, is because of the PowerPC's AltiVec instructions. Why the hell would I want a Mac that's at 3.7 GHz "Intel inside" if I'm going to have slower rendering time? My time is worth something, too, but apparently the almighty Steve doesn't give a rat's ass.

Nor does he care about my money. Who the hell's going to be supporting any software for PPC Macs 7 years from now? Why should I be forced once again (it was classic to OS X, now it's PPC to Intel) to pay for upgrades that I don't really want or need just so I can run the software (properly, their cheesy PPC -> x86 translator will most certainly not provide the performance I expect out of my apps on a Mac) on newer Macs in the future? I again have to shell out money for an upgrade to the newest Adobe Creative Suite even though I'm fine with the last revision? Why should I have to buy a new version of Microsoft Office?

Is Steve insane enough to believe that processor intensive games created today for the Mac are going to run fine in his stupid PPC emulation environment? Somehow it doesn't seem that translating RISC to CISC is going to offer acceptable performance. If he does pull this off, kudos to him, even though I think it's one of the dumbest moves he's ever made. Switching to the crusty x86 ISA is insane. What's next, we're ditching Mac OS X and installing Windows on our future Macs?

By the way, it's been many years, but I don't see how this would be any different today: http://mackido.com/Hardware/WhatIsRISC.html

This move is singularly stupid. Flame me all you want because I'm sure some of you think Steve Jobs can do no wrong. But this is just stupid.

1. Intel has the best encoding on the market. even without altivec, apple encoding will still be way faster
2. The binaries are PPC/x86 combo. they work for both. companies making x86 mac programs will be subconsiously making PPC programs. so 7 years from now, PPC macs will be supported.
3. since converting programs to x86 mac takes a stunning 2 hours for a software developer, i'm sure they could release a patch for their programs that would make PPC mac programs run on the x86 hardware. i'm not so sure, but i think steve said somethign about an x86 mac being able to convert PPC mac programs on the fly with a tiny bit of overhead
4. WHAT PROCESSOR INTENSIVE MAC GAMES? THERE ARE NO MAC GAMES!! This is only a good thing for mac games. think about it, virtual PC will be able to run without any overhead. think about having virtual PC or even intel's simultanious OS processor architecture in the future where you can just use virtual PC to run ALL PC GAMES. Virtual PC is already the best emulator around. if you use virtual PC, you can get full directx support without the huge slowdown of virtual PC. whatever platform it's on, mac will probably never get directx. heck, converting PC games to Mac and programs in general will be so much easier.
5. Although RISC is more efficient, switching to a CISC 3.6 Ghz vs. a 2.7Ghz RISC will probably increase performance. benchmarks confirm this.
post #21 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by inslider
I wonder if you will be able to install them both at the same time and choose which to use at startup/bios.

I doubt there will be a BIOS. There's no reason Open Firmware can't work with an x86 chip and there's no reason to believe Apple will adopt the use of BIOS on its motherboards. Then again, they already chose an inferior chip architecture, who knows what they'll do next.
post #22 of 425
And what about those who use PPC because of lower power requirements? What happens to AltiVec? Does this mean we lose 64-bit support (if we have a G5)? I have no desire to learn x86 asm for what I do, but it looks like I won't have a choice...

Two things I read were that Windows won't run on an Intel-based computer produced by Apple and OS X will not run on a an Intel-based computer produced by anyone else.

This will clearly make it easier for some applications to be ported to OS X, but why would it change anyone's mind? I can see the next version of Office now, one that uses some code converter to change Windows API calls to Cocoa API calls. Sounds a lot like MS Word 6.

I just don't understand what market they are going after. This won't increase sales in any market that I can think of. I don't see how this will appeal to anyone who doesn't already own a Mac..

One thing of interest is that I don't recall reading that this precludes them from still producing PPC based Macs in 2007 and beyond. What if IBM releases a dual-core G6 at 4+ GHz before 2007? Would Apple change decide to stick with PPC?
'But God really exists' said the old man, and my faith was restored for I knew that Santa Claus would never lie.
Reply
'But God really exists' said the old man, and my faith was restored for I knew that Santa Claus would never lie.
Reply
post #23 of 425
From Apple's G5 performance page:
Quote:
The PowerPC G5 out-shoots the Pentium 4 in a battery of tests.

Quote:
Nearly Two Times Faster Than Pentium 4

Quote:
HDV Rendering: 84% Faster Than Pentium 4

So how long will it take for Intel chips running Mac OS X to catch up to TODAY'S PowerPC G5 chips running Mac OS X?

May the computing Gods help us all. \
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #24 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleRISC
I never thought I'd say this, but I think Steve Jobs has completely lost his mind. He spewed a pile of bovine manure this morning about Intel's "great roadmap," yet of course failed to actually provide any details. He did no speed comparisons between Mac OS X on Intel and PowerPC because he knows the x86 version would lose. What happens to AltiVec? The reason Apple has superior rendering times for Final Cut Pro, faster DVD encoding, etc, is because of the PowerPC's AltiVec instructions. Why the hell would I want a Mac that's at 3.7 GHz "Intel inside" if I'm going to have slower rendering time? My time is worth something, too, but apparently the almighty Steve doesn't give a rat's ass.

Nor does he care about my money. Who the hell's going to be supporting any software for PPC Macs 7 years from now? Why should I be forced once again (it was classic to OS X, now it's PPC to Intel) to pay for upgrades that I don't really want or need just so I can run the software (properly, their cheesy PPC -> x86 translator will most certainly not provide the performance I expect out of my apps on a Mac) on newer Macs in the future? I again have to shell out money for an upgrade to the newest Adobe Creative Suite even though I'm fine with the last revision? Why should I have to buy a new version of Microsoft Office?

Is Steve insane enough to believe that processor intensive games created today for the Mac are going to run fine in his stupid PPC emulation environment? Somehow it doesn't seem that translating RISC to CISC is going to offer acceptable performance. If he does pull this off, kudos to him, even though I think it's one of the dumbest moves he's ever made. Switching to the crusty x86 ISA is insane. What's next, we're ditching Mac OS X and installing Windows on our future Macs?

By the way, it's been many years, but I don't see how this would be any different today: http://mackido.com/Hardware/WhatIsRISC.html

This move is singularly stupid. Flame me all you want because I'm sure some of you think Steve Jobs can do no wrong. But this is just stupid.

But just think of the bargains on Macs we'll be getting on eBay now!!!
post #25 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by inslider
Apple just killed Microsoft VirtualPC.

Not at all. Weren't you aware that there's even a Windows version of VirtualPC? Why? Because there are some great advantages to being able to run one or more alternate virtual machines as separate simulataneous processes on one real machine, without needing to boot between one and the other. Windows users use VirtualPC to run different versions of Windows and/or Linux simulataneously.

I have a lot of mixed feelings about this x86 move, but VirtualPC isn't high among my concerns. In fact, VirtualPC should kick ass being able to run x86 code directly.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #26 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by akhomerun
1. Intel has the best encoding on the market. even without altivec, apple encoding will still be way faster

I hope you're right, because if I have to take a performance hit I'll be pissed.

Quote:
2. The binaries are PPC/x86 combo. they work for both. companies making x86 mac programs will be subconsiously making PPC programs. so 7 years from now, PPC macs will be supported.

You don't seriously believe companies like Adobe are going to continue optimizing their applications for _both_ architectures now do you? Come on.

Quote:
heck, converting PC games to Mac and programs in general will be so much easier.

This makes no sense. How does using x86 make porting PC games and applications to the Mac any easier? Last I checked there were no plans to introduce a Windows API in Mac OS X.

Quote:
5. Although RISC is more efficient, switching to a CISC 3.6 Ghz vs. a 2.7Ghz RISC will probably increase performance. benchmarks confirm this.

Yes, perhaps that's so, but I think it would have made much more sense for Apple to sub-license its PowerPC IP to Intel or another manufacturer. Or switch to some other RISC based architecture, because technically this is a great big step backwards. I'm not used to Apple taking the primitive way out. I guess they're more like Dell and Microsoft than I thought. Oh well.
post #27 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleRISC
Then again, they already chose an inferior chip architecture, who knows what they'll do next.

Oh shut up! Stop being religious about it will ya? If its good enough for Steve its obviously good enough for you

And just FYI: internally the x86 is just as RISC as the PPC. The difference is that it exposes a CISC instruction set.

And why the hell is it inferior? Just because Windows runs on it? Or do you have more objective reasons?

And no, I won't ever believe one more word the Dear Leader says.
Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong.
-- Richard Feynman
Reply
Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong.
-- Richard Feynman
Reply
post #28 of 425
Preface: I am not in love with Jobs and I know he can do wrong -

But... what the hell is in this for him? You can't bash the man and say that he's deceived us all without backing it up with hard facts as to how he is benefiting.

Flame away.
post #29 of 425
post #30 of 425
The plan is one year from now we will see the first consumer level Mac with an Intel processor, possibly a variant of the Mac Mini.

Two years from now the PowerMac will see an Intel chip.

During those two years we will still see upgrades based on newer G4s and G5s.

I wonder, if IBM speeds pick up substantially over the next two years will this slow down the transition?

I see no reason for Apple to drop support for the PPC until the newest operating system no longer can run on legacy computers. That day is so far off as to be unpredictable.
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
Reply
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
Reply
post #31 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Not at all. Weren't you aware that there's even a Windows version of VirtualPC? Why? Because there are some great advantages to being able to run one or more alternate virtual machines as separate simulataneous processes on one real machine, without needing to boot between one and the other. Windows users use VirtualPC to run different versions of Windows and/or Linux simulataneously.

I have a lot of mixed feelings about this x86 move, but VirtualPC isn't high among my concerns. In fact, VirtualPC should kick ass being able to run x86 code directly.

No, I wasn't aware of that! Thanks.
post #32 of 425
I think this is absolutely fantastic. It means Apple has finally acknowledged the OS is what makes a Mac and they are now commited to using the best microprocessor available for the hardware regardless of instruction set. They will be able to use chips from Motorola/FreeScale, IBM, Intel, AMD as they see fit in order to maximize profit margins for each product line. Talk about bargaining power.

Will they actually stop using IBM chips over the next 2 years? Maybe, maybe not. I think it all depends on what progress IBM is able to make within that time frame.
post #33 of 425
With the dev kits using P4s, does that mean the new macs will use P4s as well, or will they use something else (eg: XBOX 360 "beta units" were PM, but units will use own processor)

And when can we expect those new processors to be in the PBs?

And why the hell shouldn't I just buy a dell laptop now?
My computer can beat up your computer.
Reply
My computer can beat up your computer.
Reply
post #34 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by UnixPoet
Oh shut up! Stop being religious about it will ya? If its good enough for Steve its obviously good enough for you

It has nothing to do with religion. I happen to think that RISC architectures are technologically superior to CISC.

Quote:
And just FYI: internally the x86 is just as RISC as the PPC. The difference is that it exposes a CISC instruction set.

Nope, not quite. That's a half-truth. http://mackido.com/Hardware/x86RISC.html

Quote:
And why the hell is it inferior? Just because Windows runs on it? Or do you have more objective reasons?

I think you know very well what the problems with the x86 ISA are. If you don't, take an x86 assembly programming class sometime. Then learn PowerPC assembly. It's like a breath of fresh air, whereas x86 is like groveling around in one's own feces. IMHO, of course.
post #35 of 425
Does anyone know if Apple will be posting the QT file of the keynote or if it is available anywhere else? I'd love to see it. Thanks!
post #36 of 425
My primary concern now is how restrictive Apple and Intel will be about high end hardware compliance.

It stands to reason that if you're buying Intel's BEST hardware that you should have the option to intall either OSX, Linux or Windows as you choose.

Unless these processors have on chip DRM, I'm not sure how they will prevent
rampant bootlegs of the dual platform OS.

Remove the pre flight check plist and what happens?
Convert the system requirements and save the revised plist and tah dah you're done.

That's how I got final cut pro 4 installed on my beige 300Mhz G3

For all we know, Apple may be perfectly content that OSX takes over and Microsoft finally gets put in it's place.
post #37 of 425
People, settle down. This is great news. I won't bother with technical reasons, because they are not neccessary.

To put my money where my mouth is, over two months ago I looked at my Apple stock that I bought in 94 and 95. I had a 680% gain in it. Thanks to Bush's lowering of the Capital Gains Tax, I decided that it would be time to lock in those profits. I sold half of my shares for an outrageous amount of money, leaving me with (because of splits) 4 times as many shares as I started with. The remaing shares still had an almost 200% gain. I then reinvested to accumulate the same amount shares that I started with. Today I ran out of the keynote when Steve announced that OS X has been running on Intel for 5 years, and doubled my current holdings. I am pretty confident it will be a very wise long term decision.
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
post #38 of 425
dammmnnnnn , never thought this would happen (
post #39 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
What we know:
[*]
No Powerbook G5 EVER! -- For once, Apple can't make a product that it wants to. Back when the Powerbooks had G3s, it was hard to believe they'd ever get a G4 because of heat issues. Now, it is impossible to believe that an Apple laptop will ever have a G5.

I have to agree. It seems from Steve's comments that the portables are a big reason for the transition.
Quote:
[[*]No 3.0 GHz Power Mac G5s...probably -- While not cancelling out the possibility, it seems like Jobs was making it pretty clear that the G5 won't make it to 3.0 Ghz. This really amazes me, because I was under the impression that the G5 was going to be HUGELY scalable.

Actually Jobs said there would be better PowerPCs on the horizon. So this wouldn't preclude a 970 MP chip.
Quote:
[[*]Apple's products keep hitting ceilings where their chips are concerned -- Why is it that the 680X0 and PowerPC chips have all run out of gas? The x86 chips are still moving onward and upward, right? Is this empty promises from Motorola and IBM, short-sightedness on Apple's part, or a little of both?

Actually the issue hasn't been the MHz myth or speeds--its been availability and heat. The 2.7 PowerMac compares fairly favorably to the x86 high end machines for many cases. And IBM HAS improved its performance at least as much as Intel has the last 2 years (35%, 2.0->2.7). It just can't produce enough soon enough or cool enough to put into portables.
Quote:
[[*]The Megahertz Myth will end for lack of opposing arguments -- Think about it: Except for the fact that OS X will still probably remain a more efficient OS than Microsoft's offerings, the "difference" in megahertz between the two platforms will all but vanish. It'll be interesting to see how well PC and Mac chips parallel each other in clock speeds since they'll both be from the same company. Are we going to see Intel's "arms" getting pulled in both directions like a child in a custody battle? "We should have the faster chips first!" "No WE should!" Sheesh.

Although Apple paired with Intel, there's nothing to prevent it from using AMD to get faster parts (or using AMD's dual core chips). That should help with supply problems.
What this transition DOES mean is that Apple, if they can convince developers, can have the best of both worlds--build systems from Intel AND IBM depending on projected speed and availability issues. That would mean that they would still buy a 3.0 GHz 970 MP that would kick Intel's butt; however, they might put an Intel or AMD chip in the low end PowerMac because IBM can't supply enough. They can put a faster (x86) chip into their PowerBooks, Mac Minis, and eMacs than the available PPC variety. They could "hang on" to the PPC even longer in their top of the line PowerMacs, if IBM can continue to improve them (as heat is less of an issue).
post #40 of 425
The speed of the current G5 to the P4 is not important. The speed in 2006-2007 is.

Apple had no choice. And the OS X will have to be faster than Windows - otherwise, people will just dump it.
And yes, a PC can be had cheaper but I want a MAC!
Reply
And yes, a PC can be had cheaper but I want a MAC!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple confirms switch to Intel