Apple confirms switch to Intel - Page 6

Perhaps we'll see those on future Xserves. I really can't imagine any reason to use Intel for high-end workhorse servers if Apple truly wants to continue to compete in that market.

You are right!

It is not an argument for using x86.
Nor is it an argument for using PPC.

You missed the whole point: I and a whole heck of a lot of mac buyers/users don't care what is inside - as long as it works. If what is inside does not work - I don't want it. I don't need to be "proud" of what's inside.

BTW: if *all* you need is a ride to work and back, the Soviet Lada car will do just fine.

*sigh* Fine then.

It's tough to say. Jobs didn't seem to leave that door open. But he didn't explicitly close it either. I think he just said that they would be through with their transition end of 2007. I would have to watch it again to be able to parse his words further.

Don't be too upset. Apple's whole point here is to make this as painless and transparent as possible. Most software doesn't use Altivec very much, though some does.

Remember that most of the advantage Apple had was with Altivec. But having said that, even the G5 had lower performance in integer and floats. If Altivec wasen't used x86 ran rings around the G5 in floats. Integer for the 2,7 G5 is about 10% less than the Xenon 3.6. And somewhat less than that compared to the fastest Opteron (don't remember the number now).

While IBM made progress in bringing the latest chips to rough parity, Jobs and co must have seen something over the horizon,

I wasn't thrilled with the switch, but have made peace with it now. We should all do the same.

Wow... very unlike Apple.

While this news is very suprising, I do think it is a wise idea. Now do not get my wrong, I have grown to really like the PPC chips, and I love how Apple computers just work, but at the same time I would love to see an Apple computer with a 3.8 ghz processor with 2mb L2 cahce running.

I am going to agree with what many others have said and that is that in the end I do not really care what chip is running my Apple because in the end, it is the OS that is the soul of the machine.

I have been a Windows, OS X, OS 6-9, and Linux user and I can say this, that the Intel architexture ran just fine on the Intel Chipset, and as long as I do not see third party Apple's again, I will be perfectly happy with the conversion.

Steve Jobs is the visionary of Apple, and I have always been impressed with the hardware and softeare designs he has come up with. I look forward to this new chapter in Apple's history.

Just to raise something from the first page.

Although I think it the right decision I am actually somewhat concerned for being on the same hardware. Whereas before it was possible to blame the hardware for the disparity, or the lack of optimisation it will now be possible to outfit identical hardware almost and compare the performance of the OS alone, which may highlight a few shortcomings. For all OS Xs polish and multitasking it hasn't had the sheer speed in a lot of respects that Windows does.

heh... dude, in the business world, you can't "parse" his words, or "compile" the future

one can however attempt to trim the "fat" off the fat binaries. oops... iLeader wants us to call it "universal binaries"

truly, nothing is sacred anymore in marketing.
i never thought i'd see a yin-yang symbol with powerpc on one side and intel on the other

i call it the new Power'Nipple era (was going to put a TM sign but i am using a Pentium2 windows2000 so i am too lazy/ reluctant to find the shortcut for that special character... now if i was on a Mac... oops, make that, if i was on OS X.4...)

i for one welcome our Power'Nipple overlords. however, i will still require maybe a month of mourning. *sniff*

DAMN YOU IBM!! YOU BASTARDs!! <think planet of the apes scene, except imagine an old single 1.6ghz g5 powermac washed up on the beach> DAMN YOU TO HELL!!!

I think you need some rest. Take two pills and call me in the morning, I'm going to bed myself. It's 3:07 am.

Lack of desire to invest in it. When Intel hits a ceiling their market is large enough that they care and put in a lot of money to fix the problem. IBM and Motorola simply aren't as interested.

i had my rest, it's 4pm where i am now. so i might have a nap, but no sleepy till later tonight.

Hmmmm I disagree with Steve Jobs :-). I always believed Apple was so unique because a mix of good hardware and software.

Just look at the Powerbook design, and the fact the operating system only has to deal with a select amount of hardware that Apple uses in their products...
I'd rather have less choice in hardware and good compatibility, than the opposite!

I hope that Apple will still use "Mac versions" of Intel CPU's (even if this means only some onboard software is slighlty different) because then they will keep control of the software<->hardware mixture that I like so much.

Erm, it's quite possible to do this in software in fact people already do with Mac-On-Linux. There are people all over the world running MacOS X on Teron, Pegasos, and AmigaOne motherboards not mention other PPC hardware. None of those use the same chipsets as Apple.

Expect interest in MOL to explode once the transition starts. I can see the possibilty of groups offering offshoot projects that allow you to boot into OS X seemlessly on your Dell or Packard Bell.

That brings up the danger that people will try it and get a bodged experience then dismiss OS X altogether.

Just a couple of quick thoughts, as it's very late here.

1. As someone with experience in computer architecture and software engineering, it's my opinion that the x86 ISA really is a mess relative to that of the PPC. It is a tremendous credit to Intel (and AMD, for that matter) that they have been able to engineer processors that are so skilled at abstracting x86 code and delivering such performance using what are essentially RISC cores. The fact that we can talk all day about how ugly the ISA is itself, however, doesn't mean that the processors don't achieve very good performance by being elegant and efficient at a lower level.

2. It was mentioned earlier how forward-thinking it was for Apple to have secretly maintained an x86 build of OS X for the last 5 years. While it was fortunate, it's not that unusual a practice in the industry if you consider vendors of older Unix iron transitioning between different architectures or processor generations with varying ISAs (e.g. Sun, HP). It's good to have an abstraction layer firmly above the hardware and a good version of gcc.

3. Intel looked very good at the Stevenote, although I should say that IBM, for all of their recent trouble (or disinterest?) in designing/fabbing PPCs with higher clock rates and lower power requirements, are a powerhouse of design, engineering, and innovation as well. Many of their (fab) process innovations have been important in pushing along the performance of all kinds of ICs, microprocessors included (SOI, copper, etc.). So while we will have a lot to be happy about with Intel, we shouldn't fail to recognize IBM's strengths.

4. A lot of attention is being paid to the possibility (or the prevention thereof) of running OS X on a run-of-the-mill x86 box. I'm sure Apple will be able to make it difficult at first, but even if it happens, where is the concern? Presumably, the problem would be with Apple losing the revenue stream from Mac hardware. Well, if OS X really did take off in the general x86 space, and Apple could move up to a say, 40% marketshare (hard to imagine, perhaps), they really could start depending more on software as their income, along with whatever iGadgets they have in the pipeline. People will still buy Apple Macs, because they will be beautifully designed (as long as Apple wishes to continue making them), and they will be guarranteed to work with OS X.

5. If Apple's marketshare in the OS arena really did get that big, it brings to mind another possibility. If they are now in bed with Intel, perhaps Intel would be happy to have a robust, beautiful, general purpose operating system driving the sales of it's microprocessors. Whether those processors are in Apple-branded boxes may not be that important to them. In fact, if OS X really did eventually make it's way to all relatively-modern x86 machines (Apple-branded and otherwise), Intel really could stand to benefit a lot. At that point, they certainly would be a lot less dependent on whatever the wishes are of those in Redmond.

6. One final thought. This one is a bit silly, but cut me some slack, it's late. Intel has a lot of money, far more than even Apple. If they were interested in either a merger, or some sort of takeover, it would be an interesting new marriage of the best operating system currently available and the processors on which it runs...all in the same house. Then _they_ (Intel/Apple) might be the scary monopoly. Imagine what might happen if they then decided to change their ISA just a little bit and stuck it to Microsoft? With all the problems with XP right now and Longhorn delays, the general public might really take to OS X, given the opportunity to run it, and provided they would have the applications they want run on it.

Just late night ramblings, I guess...but in summary, this was the right thing for Apple to do, given the delays (technical and possibly administrative) at IBM. This will give them the flexibility to use fast, low-power Intel processors and/or whatever they want from IBM/Freescale. Furthermore, it might be the gateway to a _lot_ more marketshare if they wanted it to be so...

Sorry if this has been already addressed (I read quickly the thread), but it seems to me that the reasons for this decision remain still unclear. I mean, adding another CPU architecture (x86) is something good and reassuring for a relatively small company like Apple, but abandoning completely the PowerPC looks downright crazy. Let me repeat, I would not be concerned if I saw something like

PPC ---> PPC + x86,

it is the

PPC ---> Intel

thing that makes me worry. You don't throw in the trash can like that ten years of investement in a CPU architecture (PPC) and five years of hand-tuned vector code (Altivec), when said architecture looks more and more promising. I does not make sense to me.

EDIT1: and then, there is the 64-bit feature. What Apple will do? Return to Power Macs with 4 GB max. RAM? What about 64-bit support in Tiger and future OS X? On the other hand, AMD comes very strong in the 64-bit sector.

EDIT2: didn't Intel learn nothing from the curse Apple brought to Motorola and then to IBM ?

This is quite strange to me too. Watching the keynote, it was apparent that Apple are certainly looking to dump PowerPC completely. However, lots may change in the next few years. I think that Steve's insistence that the developer boxes were not final products indicates that there will be some interesting things coming from Intel in the next couple of years (I imagine that their cool dual-core 64-bit chips will be reality by then).

I guess the sh*t really hit the fan with PowerPC progression and Steve decided enough was enough. Only time will tell if the decision is a good one. I felt truly gutted reading the transcript as it came through, however I have been a loyal Apple user through both of the transitions mentioned, and I suspect I will remain one. After sleeping on it, it is not so bad. It is a hard pill to swallow for people who are used to the mantra of Intel x86 = evil, but at the end of the day, they are just computers, and I am sure Apple will continue to remain the company that we all respect.

Think different...?

Hey guys its not such a big move as you think it is - except for software developers.

Hardware philosophy has not changed - Macs will still be essentially closed boxes with choice restricted. I'm curious if Intel will create chips with different sockets just for Apple but I'm doubtful. If Intel doesnt then one could easily upgrade to a new pin-compatible proc.

As regards video cards: the problem is not the hw but the drivers. Current Macs use AGP vid cards. The reason you can't drop in the latest and greatest from Nvidia/ATI is that drivers for OSX are not available. This switch will do nothing to change the vid. card situation: Apple will still dictate to a very large extent what hardware you have.

Even if Apple do use a standard PC x86 motherboard it wont be possible to run OSX on a new motherboard with, say, PCI-X, unless someone also ships the drivers.

I noticed some people saying here that they prefer less choice in the interest of support. In the real world everyone's needs are different: sometimes I need a games machine with dual-sli (A8N-SLI Deluxe) and othertimes I just need a fast fileserver with RAID and gigabit-ethernet but no fancy SLI, and at other times I just need a small machine to act as a firewall (cheap mini-itx) all at different price points. All of the above I have and I have run linux/freebsd and windows on all of them. I *love* choice. And I would love to run OSX on my current hw. I know my needs much better than Apple does. So Steve: please let me run OSX wherever I want!

In the PC world you can get the hw you need and contrary to what some think: it does work seamlessly. HW has never been a real problem for Windows, especially since Win2K. Bugs in the OS, viruses worms and malware are major problems however. Linux/BSD support for hardware is more patchy and not as seamless but I've always managed to get them running on the HW. OSX is a great OS and I'm sure it too could support the HW. The problem with this happeninig is that Apple makes money on the HW...

This switch to x86 will affect users and software developers. The real impact of this move is strategic - how MS, IBM, indeed the whole industry responds will be much more important in the long run then the technical details of the switch.

This is the irony. Now x86 is OFFICIALLY the next CPU architecture for Apple; retaining the PowerPC belongs now to the RUMOR REALM.



I am very curious to learn what actually happened.


I am afraid it is. We lose Altivec. We lose CELL's modularity and incredible performance on multimedia. And where is this Power5 derivative with Altivec and OMC that will kick performance to new levels? [conspiracy mode on]No surprise IBM canned it after learned about Apple negociating with Intel[conspiracy mode off].

It is well known that Altivec optimised code runs easily twice as fast on the fastest Power Mac as SSE/SSE2/SSE3 optimised code on the fastest Pentium. This choice is today a regression.

that's the whole point. i too am very excited about Power5 and Power6 and Cell and SSE and all this wonderful shit but Apple has looked at it and realised, OMFG "i call vaporware" and decided to look the other way. hell, i might have given IBM another 6 months, but that's it. enough is enough. when you have a business to run, if someone can't deliver, drop their ass. now that IBM realises its in the shitter, if it does care and comes back to the party, that "universal binary" will run on PowerPC, and now Apple can pick and choose between Intel and IBM (not that easy, but that's the message Jobs is trying to send IMHO). it is very clear he's had it with IBM. if IBM can salvage the relationship, well and good, but as Jobs said, they've looked in their crystal ball and IBM won't deliver what they want. also, Jobs spoke of Intel culture, i think there is a culture issue between apple and ibm. freescale - well whatever. i think Jobs likes going back to a local bay area Tech giant that jives with Apple... and Jobs and Intel CEO have at least the projected image of being able to be grown men and bury the hatchet

on a side note i think that you can look at heat issues a bit more carefully. this is just a wild idea, but i'm going to throw it out anyway.

look at all emerging growth markets where apple would like a foothold, and consider their power and climate. consider portability issues. remember, take your minds away from USA and Europe and think india, china, south america, south east asia.... basically, not many people outside of large offices have the luxury of full-air-conditioning 24/7. power consumption and heat tolerance is very very important for future apple products.

don't mean to hog this thread, but is it just me or was that microsoft lady that spoke on stage just so like "whateverr"...

now, don't get me wrong, i am kinda into heavier women

seriously though it was her attitude that bugged me. look at the keynote again. notice how SHE STARTS TO WALK OFF THE STAGE before even finishing her last sentence. now, we don't need another Sony dude hovering around after his cue to exit stage right, but that microsoft lady i think finished a few minutes ahead of schedule

edit:
i think the Wolfram dude was the coolest speaker...!! he had an almost transcendental (non-geeks might say arrogant) air about him...

Agreed, the loss of Altivec is a big deal. But we do not know what is coming down the road from Intel. Apple engineers have obviously been impressed with what they can offer. I was one of the ones hoping for a compromise, in that Intel would either make Apple new PPC cores, or even be instrumental in developing a new architecture. I have heard many times that Intel themselves would like to modify the x86 into a more elegant offering (IA-64 springs to mind) but they are hampered by M$ dominance in software. Maybe Intel and Apple can co-design something (which may be simpler with Apple's more portable OS) that can compete fully with what PowerPC could offer. We certainly have not witnessed the scalability that was promised by both Motorola and IBM in turn (though I do concur, it appears to be an exciting time for Power development).

I guess it explains why Apple never joined IBM's PowerEverywhere campaign.

Hehehehe. I guess Theo has lots of Neurons packed tightly in there. Maybe he IS enlightened...

Regarding Microsoft, I think that they may be a little more concerned now than they were a year ago. I guess that M$ won't be afraid to pull the plug on Office if the Mac OS starts gaining serious market share (though I don't really see how Apple is any more compelling to the consumer, merely because it has an Intel chip in it instead).

[Edit: Obviously the portables will be more compelling, and as Apple cannot realistically support both architectures, the low power offerings get the attention.]

What? Do i have to have QT7 to watch the key note?

Yes, but all that is changing is ONE component. Everything else can be exactly what you say you like about Macs - design, and Apple chosen innards. How will it change? Would you have ever noticed if Steve had snuck a P4 into your machine last year and not told you?

Yes indeed. Was Apple lying before, or will they be lying soon?

I can appreciate that Jobs must have flipped when he saw IBM supplying 3.2 GHz, triple-core chips to MS when he could only get 2.5GHz single-core, and I do believe IBM was threatened by Apple's encroachment on their server biz, but I feel really shafted, especially after some months of writing Altivec code. No 2 hour port for me

What would have made a lot of sense to me would have been to keep on the same path with Apple products (PPC's better, right? no need to change - just look at that web page...), and release OS X for Intel as a software-only OS for beige boxes.

Popping this on a slew of developers who paid good money to go to a conference to learn about Tiger on PPC, without knowing this in advance, very inconsiderate indeed.

I have lost all trust in Apple.

p.s. At least couldn't it have been Alpha, not IA-32/EM64T?

p.p.s. Perhaps this is just part of a game to do exactly what I've mentioned above, and push IBM to release better chips. When they do, presto, our 2-proc, dual-core, 3GHz dream, and meanwhile, developers are porting to the 'beige' OS X...

Did anyone realize that this could be the FINAL BATTLE of the OPERATING SYSTEMS, MICROSOFT WINDOWS LONGHORN (well if it ever comes out) v. APPLE OS 10.5 . After sleeping for 4 hours I can up with this, now people will have the same hardware basically, both running Intel, and now will be able to see who has the better Operating System .

See before when the compared Apple to Windows, it was Apple's best G5, against a built P4 system, that was clearly faster than the Apple hardware, but now will be on the same playing field. This could be a very interest next few years. I know some of ya'll are not happy with Steve Job's decision, but I will continue to support and promote Apple hardware and their software.

it's funny... i thought they taught you that it's what on the INSIDE that matters, now it's what on the OUTSIDE that matters? i'm lost

i need some slick marketing and an extra RDF dose to solve this Apple identity crisis... \

yeah i didn't get much sleep too

sing with me brotha...

IT's the FINAL COUNTDOWN....
ne-nah-ne-nahhhh.... na ne na ne nahhh
http://www.midisite.co.uk/midi_searc...countdown.html

....................

You're both wrong.

Gazpacho soup is a dish that is best served cold.

HAHAHA that is a great sound to choose and I love it, but I was thinking of this song Eye of the Tiger 8)

Eye of the Tiger

I glad to know someone else is thinking allong the same lines as me also 8).

I've been holding out for the 'quad' with PCIe.
I'm going to let this sink in for a few more days, then I think I'm out shopping for a dualie AMD64. My big decision will be - Windows, FreeBSD, or Linux?

Think the same?

dude, i looked at a Dell brochure this morning for like a full 1/2 hour , i kid you not. normally i tear it up in disgust everytime it comes in with the morning paper.

Only $999 to be further screwed...I already have an Intel processor, thank you very much.

hey that's awesome too cueing it up now

That is like saying - I'm going to hell, which circle should I choose - fire, ice or a stinking bog?

ROFLMAO

Yep. PowerPC isn't dead by any means. The real problem has been with the portables, but the high end of the PowerPC is promising. Naturally, the transition to Intel will begin with the low end. At first this roadmap struck everyone as counter-intuitive, but clearly it makes sense. Apple NEEDS what Intel can offer on the low-heat side, but depending upon what IBM comes up with relative to Intel's 64-bit offerings, we may never see a complete transition to Intel and be surprised by yet another about face. Jobs is asking developers to ready Fat Binaries all around, which would make a reverse move easier.

It's really up to IBM. They don't seem to care about working hard for Apple (the financial incentive is not there), but Jobs is positioning his company for OPTIONS. In the unlikely event that Apple and IBM partner again, Apple will be ready.

Or maybe this is just all wishful thinking ....

_______________________________
Semi-alarmed in Nashville