Hands on with the Intel p4 & OS X (merged) - Page 2

You have too much faith in the average user out there. Why people wanted to use Windows when they tried NeXT? Why they wanted to use Windows when they tried BeOS? Why they wanted to use Windows when they tried OS/2?

Where are all those GREAT systems of the past? What? To the grave? Right. Guess where OS X will be once Apple makes Windows installation on an Intel-Mac completely painless.

You don't buy a Mac to run Windows. But having the possibility to run Windows, you always have a fallback plan when you run into software issues. Developers will take notice. The software development for the Intel-Macintosh platform will be in serious trouble. Then comes the trouble for the OS itself. Who will want to run this GREAT OS when the available applications will be more and more limited? Seems familiar...

Small enough to drop that whole thing right into my MDD case

Applications, same as anyone else around here. If I need an application to do my job then I will use it. I may not prefer Windows but I will use it if I need to, I use the Mac because I want to. I really don't see why Apple would make installing Windows easy, in fact they will work to make it impossible. They have a chance to be playing in the same pool as Dell, why would they screw that up? Apple will first use any and all resource savings to make themselves better competition for the hardware sellers. OSX is already better than Windows, and Leopard is coming. Apple would first work with developers to port their products to OSX and will have a compelling reason for them to do that. If the difference is the OS why would Apple invite competition on their own machines?? Makes no sense. If someone put a gun to Steves' head, then maybe but until then Apple will continue to woo those developers that they think they need to the Mac. Remember Apple was growing at 40% the rest at 7%, Apple will be able to offer more compelling products, not have to educate the masses about the advantages of PPC, and may be able to reduce pricing. I know that parts out of the gate are priced the same, but the total cost is reduced rapidly on the PC side due to economies of scale. All of the parts have fallen into place at the right time. Apple is now moving to extend that 40% number, and that may compel more developers to port their products. The hardware is the only thing that is going to change.

Developers wont abandon the Mac platform because you can run Windows on your Mac. The majority switch to get away from Windows - not to run two OSs.

The funny thing is, why would a company that already has a code base up and running on PPC ditch it if they have, say, 1 month (worse case scenario) of tweaking to recompile for x86? Abandoning 2-15 years of support and working code over the frustration of 1 month of tweaking and recompile is a bit silly. I don't think any company would do this.

The only companies that might slip out are those that have code that makes heavy use of Altivec. That'll be a shame, but I'd understand why. They'd pretty much have to rewrite huge portions of their code. Still, I'd be surprised if they just abandoned everything.

If someone is worried, on the other hand, that companies that have never ported their program to Macs won't, then nothing has changed. You still won't get that PC program and everything will remain the same...with the exception that you will be able to run it under Windows XP on your Mac. Will the company in question know you bought the app for your Mac to run it under XP? Nope.

You're right but I doubt many users will want to run two OSs. I could be wrong - I have been before!

You are completely mis-reading the situation. NeXT, BeOS and OS2 were never mainstream systems that you could buy in the high street. They had neither the public mind-share nor the breadth of applications that Apple has today. Apple is an established company that's not going anywhare. Whether people use its products or not everybody knows the name and is aware of the brand values. This move will make it easier in the future for developers to port to OS X and we will actually see an increase in applications for the Mac (including all those stupid "Design your own Garden" programs). The move to Intel also removes another reason for Joe Fuckwit not to buy a Mac.

I can't wait to see the first review comparison between the top Dell, Acer or Alienbrain laptop and the top Mac laptop. They will be the same price, they will have the same processor, but the Mac will be better designed, easier to use, provide integrated access to all the clever dodads on the motherboard and may even be slightly faster due to OS X optimisations. It will also come with a slew of class-leading applications, and get this; it'll run Windows anyway! It's a complete no-brainer buying decision and I serioulsy expect to see Apple marketshare gains over the next five years.

Mac sales will tank for the next year, no doubt about it, but the campany is in the best position it has ever been to survive this period. There will be a stream of music and home entertainment products to keep the momentum going.

At a market inflexion point, which this move represents, buying behaviour is not linear, it tips one way or the other. For NeXT, BeOS and OS2 it slid down the wrong side of the probability slope. Apple have clearly made the calculation that for them it will tip the other way and I have to agree with them.

I love it

me too - not sure about his pricing though. I think the Macs will still be more expensive. But then Dell is making a high-end range which may be similar.

Sure but by how much more expensive? Don't forget all of the savings that Apple is about to get. They may no longer need to design their MBs or their support chips, everything now is off the shelf.

Apple's margins will have to be reduced as well and this is unlikely as Apple do not sell anywhere near as many computers as Dell.

They also won't get anywhere near the volume discounts that Dell can pull off.

Lower Margins on hardware? yes.
Software - No.
.Mac - No
OSX updates - No
iPod - No
iTunes and later iMovie - No

Currently Apple invests huge dollars designing and paying for fabbing of the Apple chip. MB design can be a huge investment. Bridge chips can cost big dollars as well especially when the economies of scale are barely applied. My guess is that Apple can lower margins, on hardware and still apply big savings. It is the software, Apple is becoming a software company, in that they no longer need to redesign themselves around an entire industry. MBs and support chips are off the shelf on the PC side where Apple had to design these before. The difference between Apple and Dell is volume and software. It would be very difficult for Dell to catch Apple in software. Apple stands to make more money through market expansion and software than any of the other hardware vendors.

Apple aren't becoming a software company. They have always made software for the Mac. Secondly I don't see Apple giving up it's margins - they even have the highest margins in the MP3 market on the iPod.

It is interesting some of the coments heard about performance. Since I'm not up to speed on what was implemented in the test systems I have to ask did they have SMT working?

SMT could account for some of the snappynest being talked about on all the MAC forums I've seen lately. The other consideration of course is the far superior intel integer performance. SMT support is interesting as this system could be giving us false hope with respect to portables based on the Centrino platform.

All in all I'm still not happy about the transition, but that is what Linux is for.

Dave

If you compare prices today at the same levels of functionality and build quality Mac are competetive and have been for a good three years or so. This situation can only improve with Intel components.

I can't wait for the whole PC/Mac argument to be turned on its head - "hey, macs run faster, with the same frickin' chip!". The Longhorn/Leopard bake off is going to be brilliant.

Can you tell I'm getting excited about this stuff?

What on earth does that mean? Adobe CS for Linux? I don't think so. MS Office for Linux? I don't think so. Final Cut Pro for Linux? I don't think so. If anything the Mactel move gves the Linux movement a severe kicking, especially considering the other Linux problems at this point in time.

Remember that Mactel portables won't be out for 18 months yet and they certainly won't be based on Centrino. Much more likely to be a variant of the dual-core Yonah.

Performance will absolutely not be an issue.

OK which statement is the one that you are going to stick with.


Later you said:


Well if Apple does not need to invest huge dollars into the MB design and Designing the support chips then they are becoming a software company that sells their own hardware. In other words, Apples' R&D dollars need only chase new applications of existing hardware. Will margins lower yes as a function of overall hardware cost lowering. 10% of $3000 is less than 10% of $2700. So Apple will still sell Apple hardware but the MB and the support chips and the CPU could be Intel, reducing Apples' costs. I imagine that Apple could see that growth chart and see that if IBM did not make Apple priority #1 than Apple may have hotter chips that are difficult to design around and still not get enough of a supply. By going to Intel they get cooler chips with great performance, lower costs (in many ways), and almost no supply issues. Apple will still be able to sell at lower costs and still offer more as far as software goes and still make more off of the sale due to things like software, and services. So lower prices for us, similar margins for Apple after the savings are applied, and no supply constraints. Apple and Intel will partner to bring to market all of the new technologies that Intel would like to bring to the market. A few examples are Bluetooth and 802.11x among others but these were things that Intel could see the value in but MS would not integrate them into their OS as rapidly as Intel would have liked. Now Intel can partner with Apple to show the masses how new technologies can benefit them, which could sway MS into following the Apple lead and that means bigger sales for Intel. Apple will get great pricing, the chairman of the board said so a few years back, I guess that still applies.

What makes you think the Mac will run faster than MS? On the same hardware, I can't image their will be much, if any, difference is speed. We won't see Mac loose a bakeoff, hopefully, but I don't Apple will win one either.

Unix OSs tend to run faster, time will tell. Ask a few NeXTies, they are around here.

if you could launch Windows like an App... same as Virtual PC but seamless...

I know a few desks in my office that *would* install Macs - IF you could easily run Windows only Apps like Sage and Prism.

However, Microsoft has been writing for Intel for a very long time. I have serious doubts that Mac OS X will be faster than Windows on comparable hardware for throughput benchmarks. This is not to say that OS X will be a dog; however, honestly, benchmarks are mostly meaningless except particular application performance for those who use it (say Maya, etc.).

Anyhow, don't believe that Microsoft just compiles and says, "there you go." They optimize the hell out of particular aspects (mostly those that relate to server throughput and graphics with DirectX). In these aspects, Windows tends to beat Linux even (for database and web throughput), and Linux is probably the current king of x86 performance.

We all like to deride Windows (because it truly is a terrible environment to work in); however, once they had fully shed themselves of DOS (with the Win2k transition), they had a strong kernel to build from that will continue whenever Longhorn comes out. It is still fun to deride it though.

My take on the difference between OS/2, BeOS and NeXT compared to the current Mac OS X/Intel strategy is that Apple is making and selling boxes while IBM, Be and NeXT just sold operating systems for x86 systems.

That's probably the one thing Jobs learned from those failures. To be successful, Apple will need to continue to sell boxes, and the difference between Apple's boxes and x86 OEM boxes will be Mac OS X and Apple industrial design.

That's the primary difference.

Also, quite possibility the most important factor, we can't forget that in 2005, the killer app is the Internet while in 1995, the killer app was Microsoft Office. That means Apple just needs to maintain browser, IM, and media app parity to be able to compete and survive. Having Mac Office on x86 is also really important as well, but I don't think it is as important as it was in 1995.

Apple will still be designing at least part of their motherboards. I'm pretty sure they will be MacCentric, and probably one of the failsafes on how they will keep OS X off any DELL, or other x86 Box.

Thats what I thought when I saw the demo that steve did. I've played around with the dual 2.7- and steve's demonstration of iPhoto and Spotlight seemed lightning fast. There was always a *tiny lag on the G5.

I also hope Apple will be able to ramp up production must faster now. That was always the biggest pain in the ass.

Yes!




Source: MacBidouille

It's not SMT that is giving the UI a more snappier feel. It is the better memory performance and OOOE, expecially on the integer code.


75% of the CPUs Intel will sell in 2006 will be dual-core processors, including the laptops.

To compete Apple will have to reduce their margins as they are the highest in the computer industry. I know the prices are competitive (but not competitive enough) but they still have high margins. The iPod also has high margins but manages to compete very well in the MP3 market. Where's the contradiction?

IMO the Pentium Macs here are pretty nice, but they certainly don't perform better than the DP2.5GHz Power Mac I have. It's more on par with the 1.8GHz iMac G5 I have.

Keep in mind though that there aren't much other than the standard system loaded on the machines.

We can't expect the Intel macs to be as fast yet.

We have no way of knowing at this time. However I believe OSX will be slightly faster than Longhorn. Unix base, smaller footprint, optimised Core technologies. OSX will only require optimising for probably only three or four different processors, Longhorn has to run on all of those existing PC platforms or everybody goes ballistic at having to buy new PC's (or they just don't upgrade, like most businesses of the past five years).

Remember the oportunity for brand differentiation has narrowed slightly and the opportunity for comparison has expanded greatly, so you can bet your ass Apple will ensure that OSX runs smooth as silk on Macintel.

theres no doubt Apple will do their damnedest to make sure OSX on Intel runs as fast or faster than Longhorn on the same PC, esp. with the Core technologies, I can see it happening. Core graphics is almost at the point of using the Graphics card as a co-processor, and I hope Core Audio will allow hardware acceleration using the Intel HD audio codecs. So theres everry reason to think OSX can be faster if Apple gets it right. thats a big IF of course.....

How much control does Apple have over the kernal? I have some performance worries after reading this: http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p=7

But, I have no doubt that speed and optimization is Apple's big focus with this right now. So I'll keep my fingers crossed.

That is pretty much server performance related only. I'm not sure if it mentioned it in the article, but the PowerPC helped alot with those problems. Could be one reason it hasn't been fully resolved yet. It's going to be 2 1/2 years before the Xserve goes to Intel, so they certainly have time to iron out those issues.

All we know at this time is that Apple announced publicly that they will
begin with a port to x86, mostly to replace the G4.

This in no way precludes the possibility that privately, SJ and Apple's finest engineers haven't stumbled onto something far more interesting for their next generation workstations and servers.

But they needed Intel's production resources to pull it off.

Why else would they need 2 years to deploy Mac OS X
for their pro configurations?

I think Apple is looking WAY beyond any publicly known architecture
once again re-defining cutting edge performance.

The one thing that I have consistantly heard is that people won't want to by an Apple box because it is also x86. or that if it can run Windows, why have it run OS X.

Being a Mac Person myself, stuck with a piece of crap Windows box, I can tell you it is more of the other way around. Let me explain:

a) People won't want to buy because it has an Intel processor. Ok, I'll be nice with this one. For the vast majority of users out there, whether it has an Intel Processor or an IBM or even Motorola one is irrelevant. Most users don't care. Why should they?? All they want is for it to be fast, and for it to work doing email, on IM, browsing the internet, etc. All of this Windows talk really becomes irrelevant, because the assumption is people want to use Windows. This brings me to point 2.

b) If it can run Windows, why be on OS X? This one is very simple. The majority of people HATE Windows. It is poorly designed, hard to use, and sometimes very criptic on how to do something. The real question is "Why won't they run OS X?" Simple, OS X has the best integration out there for the end user. Install an application lately? Either you use a simple installer (in which it does almost everything for you), or you drag the folder to the location you want it to be. Similar with Windows, right?? Now, uninstall that application. For the Mac users, you throw it away, and you are done. Windows is another headache. And don't even get me started on Linux installs... (And I love Linux)

My point in this very long rant is that many feel that Apple is doomed. Apple is not doomed, and this wasn't a bad decision. For software porters, you have some valid concerns. However, even then the concerns are more fear than anything else. It is still stemming from the fact that people will WANT to switch to a crappy OS, or run one in emulation, instead of running it natively. That is just not the Apply way of simplicity and inegration.

This is what everyone needs to remember, Apple stands to gain more here because of the fact that hardware prices will go down, due to supply, and that they are now on the same level playing field as the rest of the PC industry. They won't lose because Windows can be ran on it, or that it is now an x86 processor.

I am a bit confuse by your post! I am positive about the move. Negative about the potential loss of interest from developers but as long as Creative Suite works I am happy! I am looking forward to getting my next PowerBook (probably 2008 - I bought one this year).

Just curious,

Does anyone know when Apple's license for Microsoft Office runs out?

Better yet, when does Microsoft's patent for Microsoft Office expire?