Apple confirms switch to Intel - Page 4

Please, please don't tell me that you just compared an ISA swich to a speed bump...

A released 4Ghz G5 wouldn't mean that there's a risk of no software that he likes being released anymore on PPC in two years time or so.

don't worry. the laptops are the first things that apple is going to use intel chips with. Apple despritely wants the centrino.

I agree with this statement. I was bummed about the whole transition to Intel earlier today after I saw the reports of the keynote speech. I thought about it all afternoon while my computer was off during a storm.

When I turned it on and started playing around in Tiger again, it hit me. The experience is the OS. I got to thinking that I could care less what processor it is running on. That is not the reason that I am running the Mac. I am running it because currently the Mac OS X experience blows away that of the other 5 computers in my house.

I just got my Mac a month ago and I am very happy about it. I cannot wait to see how everything plays out over the next couple of years while I am having fun with my Power Mac G5 system. In three or four years, maybe longer, when I get ready for a new computer, I will probably get a new Mactel based system.

Of course! What could I have been thinking!

The mac software developers will drop support for (35 million?) powerPC mac users, and support just the few new intel mac users that come out. It is all so clear to me now!

I wonder what this means for Darwin. If the complete Darwin source code continues to be available, what is going to keep hackers from making OSX86 run on any non-Apple X86 hardware they want?

All of you are asking why, so here's why!!

1. The Intel roadmap is better. Seriously, the 3 Ghz G5 is 2 years late!! Apple needs a good laptop chip, PPC is going nowhere with that. The G5s don't seem to be going anywhere either - and they are already down to 90nm. Intel has some really interesting technology coming up.

the G5 is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to put in a laptop without it running at 1.4 Ghz.

the G5 won't break 3Ghz in desktops until they get to 65nm

2. Although I would say AMD is better, AMD isn't a good supplier. Yes, they could meet Apple's supply needs, but they won't work with Apple like Intel will. AMD also only has one fab. Intel has a whole bunch. Intel can also be dirt cheap when it comes to OEM.

3. IBM is going to ignore Apple while it struggles to produce enough chips for the game consoles

4. there's no advantage to PPC over x86 in this situation. IBM doesnt even make a really good RISC processor, it's so complicated and its pipelines are almost as long as intel's, and its pipelines are longer than AMD's. without a high clock speed, G5 can keep up but it needs to get beyond 3Ghz.

5. given that there are few advantages to PPC, the advantages to x86 are larger. the compatibility advantages are to large to ignore.

Did you even bother to read my whole original post?

And of course there is a risk of developers leaving a dead end market, aspecially after the new hw has had some time to sell. Naturally it won't happen over night, but to somehow imply that software development will be the same or unchanged over the course of the original expected life time of the machine, is absurd.

Anyone else get the feeling that this should have happened alongside the release of OSX back in 2001? That coincides nicely with the struggle for the G4 to break the GHz barrier.

If the OS9/OSX boundary in the Apple Lithosphere coincided with the PPC/X86 boundary, the pains of the double transition might have been lessened.

I could be running a second generation Intel based Macintosh right now, not that there's anything particularly wrong with my 12" 1.5 powerbook....

Good thing I havent made any big sales lately ... no unhappy corporate customers... and now I cant imagine making any big sales any-time soon either...

Apple announced that with no effort at all they can have the OS running on both platforms. They also announced that the newly released Xcode 2.1 will produce universal binaries that run on both systems. Why would they do that if they were only worried about those few new Intel Mac users?

Yea.... what in the world could you have been thinking?

While I don't think this decision supprises me, I think that Apple could have looked at AMD technology for the CPU's - I've got a friend who has an AMD box, and it's a wonderful machine. However, Apple has made a business decision, and I congratulate it for making it. Now when a consumer has to decide on which way to turn, it will be a choice between the Ease of use (MacOS X) or most common in the marketplace (Windows). I think that many companies would move to the MacOS X powered box rather than stick with Windows, for the reason of Viruses, stability and ease of use. It also has put pressure on MS to produce a more secure operating system. I also see that many companies would move to Xserve rather than sticking with Win 2k/2k3 powered rackmounted servers.

Just a couple of things for people to keep in mind:

1. These days, the whole 'PowerPC vs Intel' thing isn't really anything more than posturing. People developed an allegience to it because that's what was inside the box, and difference encourages disproportionate notions of superiority.

2. APPLE ARE A COMPANY. They're not your friend and they're not your Messiah. To be perfectly blunt, it all comes back to the shareholders. Jobs' number one priority is always, ALWAYS, to return a maximum dividend for shareholders - that's his job.

To all the people saying that they've been betrayed by Steve and how could he stab us in the back, blah, blah, blah - they're just freakin' computers. If you really don't like it, buy another product, or start your own company - that's the reality.

-TheOtherRob

PS. Just to clarify, I'm talking to end users here - for all the developers out there facing the port, I feel for you!

They say that non-Apple PC's won't be able to run OS X. How do you think Apple will be able to do this? A better question would be, how long will it take someone to reverse engineer what DRM/protection/whatever Apple sells on their new x86 hardware, and make it so OS X can be installed anywhere? Months? Weeks? Days?

I for one see other PC's out there and think to myself, "I like the design and features, but since it doesn't run OS X, I'll never buy it". Well, if it runs OS X, I really see no reason to pay twice the price for something Apple repackages. Apple has nice case designs, but they're not worth $2000-3000 if all I'm getting is some stock hardware put into a shiny case.

It seems as if the loyalty is gone. Is it dumb to feel this way about Mac hardware? Oh hell yeah. But it's what keeps people loving their Macs, and what will eventually break that.

I think the AMD thing is simple, Apple knows more about whats coming down the line from Intel then us. Intel can deliver as many proc's as Apple could ever sell, so supply wont be an issue, Intel are being very agressive about correcting their mistakes with the P4 and Netburst deadend, so Apple have every reason to think they can get somewhere with Intel. AMD cannot offer security at THIS time, I'll bet Apple are talking to them though.....

You dont know much about Macs do you?
Apple's computers have custom boot rom chips and Apple designed ASIC's (northbridge). If OSX cannot run without these on the motherboard, how are you ever going to run OSX except on Apple hardware? If you reverse-engineer the hardware Apple will shut that down fast, if you reverse-engineer OSX to run on x86 PC's Apple wont support it and I'll bet the hardware compatibility issues would be huge. 99% of people would not think it worth the hassle.

What interests me way more is whether Intel are also going to make the chipsets?

Yes, Dog in heaven above, YES! OS X started on PC machines for Chrissakes!

Only billionares can get away with such monumental mistakes.

But hey, hindsight is 20/20 and at least Steve was smart enough to keep Marklar in reserve. I only wish he prepared enough in advance to have machines ready for sale at the time of the announcement.

Everyone seems to obsess about trying to run os x on any DIY intel computer. I think a question thats just as important is:

Can the new Mactel computers boot and run Windows ? If that's the case it might give larger corporations the incentive to get a Mactel box. Less risk. If the Mac experience doesn't work for their business, just format and install Windows.

This might be a good thing for apple. Get corporations on board risk-free...

You said 2 years. Dropping support in 2 years not plausable, and my reaction to your post was justified.

I was being sarcastic. You seem to have not noticed.

Actually, its "revenge" that is a dish best served cold...just ask the Klingons

Design wise, no I don't know a lot about Macs. My assumptions are if Apple goes with an Intel chipset and CPU combo. What if people are able to hack a normal PC BIOS to support whatever it is Apple included in their Mac boot rom chips? All it would involve is a reflash. If people reverse engineer OS X to run on "normal PC's", sure Apple won't support it. But the problem there is, if Apple is using all off the shelf components, anyone can buy the same parts and have a fully functioning "Mac".

I really hope Apple sticks with whatever in-house chipsets they use, otherwise they'll just get wrapped up in making everything proprietary.

I really feel that this has everything to do with allowing other vendors (like Intel and HP) to sell OS X machines in the future. They couldn't really do it now because the apps aren't ported yet. Otherwise it's just an insane for all the hassle.

Downside:

1. We lose Altivec.
2. Users face years of uncertain application complications.
3. Poor developers are saddled with yet another set of hurdles to jump through.
4. FAT binaries are back in town.
5. We risk getting trumped by hot new IBM PPC technology in the future.
6. Apps will likely miss out on CPU-specific optimizations now that devs have to code for two totally different CPU types.
7. Apple trust is broken.
8. 64-bit future put on hold.
9. We'll be forced to upgrade some apps yet again.
10. Apple support just became twice as complicated.
11. We likely pay the same price for inferior hardware.

Upside:

1. We get a Pentium in laptops sometime after next June. Oh boy.

Is it just me, or do you too get the impression that One Infinite Loop is is in merger talks with Neverland Ranch?

I think that a 10.0/Intel switch sounds good in theory, but do you remember that state of the Mac before OSX came out. Many developers, like Quark, were publicly resisting the switch to OSX. I can remember when we eagerly waited to see if developers would make the switch to OSX. I think a simultaneous switch to Intel would have been much too much for Apple to bite off at one time.

This switch will be a long-term benefit for Apple. The transition period might be tough, but, after more than a decade of waiting, I have never seen the PPC architecture deliver the potential that was promised. Users like myself have watched market share erode as our platform's chip speed inexplicably stalls every few years. I commend Apple for taking decisive action that addresses this long-term problem.

I'm sure the shareholders are thrilled that the stock is trading down on the news. Switching to x86 did wonders for BeOS and NeXT (two OS's that should have a VH1 "Where Are They Now?" show dedicated to them.)

Steve, take a few deep breaths. Now put the crackpipe down. Thaaaaaat's it buddy...

My thoughts entirely. Jobs seems to have been impressed by running NEXT on Intel machines, and Moto was stalled for ages. That said, in 2001 PowerPC offered (and most say still offers) a more robust and efficient architecture. Economies of scale have tipped the balance in Intel's favor, though, and their success with chips for portables is the clincher.

Could Jobs have seen all of this coming in 2001? From a business perspective, yes. But being iconoclastic (and having a number of engineers of a similar ilk), it is understandable that he went with the powerful dark horse. Until now.

Great list, but you forgot the WORST part of all of this: some of us will begin to seriously consider switching to Windows. Now that's truly SICK.

Now you've got it!

Been there...it is in Michigan.

Because then you would be stuck with Windows

There are add on cards with to your computer that can give you floating point performance of supercomputers. I think the future Mac will have such a card for next gen altivec.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology..._story_related

That being said, I think the future of Apple as a company hinges on it's ability to deliver this.

Even though I don't use them, I'm concerned what this will do to portable sales.

What he said, in essence, is that for the next year at least, the portables won't be competitive. Remember his speed per watt? This doesn't hold true for the G5 at this time, but we all know about the G4.

I hate x86, not for religious reasons but because I think the architecture is outdated. Anyone who's ever written x86 and PowerPC assembler knows the differences. However, I can't change Apple's decision. Given the sheer insanity of this move, it must have been forced.

On the bright side of things, PowerPC may not be dead yet. At least until a few years beyond the 2007 "complete transition" deadline (so, probably 2010 and possibly beyond, as long as software developers continue to deliver universal binaries) Apple will continue to have the option of using PowerPC chips should IBM/Freescale come up with some great breakthrough in the next couple of years. Much more interesting is the Sony/Toshiba/IBM alliance and its new Cell processor design. Cell could possibly be the Next Big Thing and I'm sure Apple engineers will be looking at the possibility of using it in future Macs. Since it's PowerPC compatible there would be no reason why Apple couldn't use it. They aren't tied to Intel just because of this announcement.

Couple of things...

Biggest reasons for Apple not to switch to x86 during the OS X conversion...

• Classic - the only thing I've seen about it is that it isn't a priority. In other words, it isn't likely to work. Classic was a requirement for the conversion to OS X to go as well as it did.
• Rosetta - Did it exist then??? It sounds like that piece is fairly new tech.
• It's one more thing for developers to have trouble with. Now they simply get to sell ANOTHER upgrade.

As far as, "Why buy any PowerPC machines, they won't make any more software". Here is a clue, do you really expect Apple to say they will never go back? At each Developer conference all they have to do is point out that you need to keep making FAT Binary products. We will release what ever is the best at this time. There wouldn't be any reason Apple couldn't sell a Pentium-M v10 in a PowerBook and a G14 in an xServe if they play their cards right. In addition, as others have pointed out, there are a LOT of PowerPC machines out there. Developers will support these for some time.

Finally, before you complain too much watch the keynote. I was worried, then I saw it and had some time to think. I'm not too concerned now. I see it as Apple opening up their options. Now they can drop in something from IBM, Freescale, Intel or probably even AMD if they want and the smart developers will just have software that works!

I'm actually now coming to terms with the whole issue. I realize that it's not about hardware like PPC and Altivec, it's not about a totally needless "transition." It's about the fact that Jobs is about to snap and start screaming...

"Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!....Developers!Developers!Developers!.. ..Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!"

Everybody knows Coke -- and every other beverage for that matter -- tastes better in glass containers over plastic.

I think its kinda funny. When was it, a couple of years I think, and someone 'leaked' MS's internal review of competitors. The 'real' enemy to MS-OS was perceived as UNIX/Linux, because the 'other' company was constrained by inferiorities in competitive hardware.

That's why everyone on this side went rabid when G5 came out...we thought we had something to shove back down their throats.

But if you guys are losin' sleep over the decision, how about some people at MS working on their OS?

If, in two years, both sides are running on parallel technologies it's all gonna come down to the interface.

People are gonna choose based on OS only. That's gotta scare developers at MS-OS who have seen their side pour everything into X-BOX the last few years, and not deal with inconsistancies in XP.

I am unsure about some of the implications of this switch, but here are my thoughts

Pros:
1) OS X - it is the first reason I use a mac. I will NEVER go back to windows.

1b) Coming a VERY close second - Apple design. It rocks. I will never buy a beige or black box. New apple books may have intel processors, but they will also have superior design, hinges, wireless antennas built-in, stunningly clean lines with sexy white and silver (yes, I love white and I love silver), decent port placement and single button trackpads . All the things we take for granted than you have to PAY EXTRA for in a pc laptop.

2) Apple as a complete package - from the colour of the keyboard to the hardware support, Apple products are whole.

3) Cheaper macs - leading to more macs, leading to a happier world and with faster bug fixes (growls at ichat 3, dvd burning and crappy tiger uptimes)

4) Apple using intel technology to push new ideas and get ahead of the market - shaping the world to apple design and ease of use values

Cons:
1) The risk of OS X for x86 leaking out. I assume Apple has this covered (see above posts on motherboard ROMs and so forth) but its a risk

2) Misinformation! The lack of detail in the keynote hasnt helped

3) Possibility of getting screwed over again - slow delivery times, better processors to competitors

4) Intel insider stickers... BARF! Hopefully apple design rules will never allow this idea to surface!!

OK there is heaps more good and bad but i can't take it all in at once, dammit!

Cheaper? What makes you think using an Intel CPU is going to make system prices any cheaper than they are now?

Unless something changes between now and next year, Apple will be still selling their own proprietary hardware with the only difference being the CPU has changed.

You should build a shrine to steve. If it was not for him Apple would probably not exist today.

And IBM threw him a curveball and he was smart enough to have planned for this moment years ago and is able to take it in stride.

Greater volume, less backorder issues, R&D savings I would not be surprised if apple outsources the MB and buys Intel Motherboards with custom firmware to applespect. This is a large savings and it leaves apple to concentrate on value added design (ie Case design, the OS) So yes I can see lower prices down the line.

Assuming the CPU will not be only-for-Apple, then the larger quanities produced for the market as a whole should result in cheaper prices right? IBM had such crappy yields they probably had to charge more per chip just to cover the cost of their duds

but hey, I don't claim to know anything about economics!

Also, anyway, every new mac release for a while (barring the latest emacs) have been cheaper than before, and in a year's time... I could probably buy 3 far superior laptops for the price I paid for my ibook g3!!! (this being not just a mac trend of course)