...Apple said that with the move to Intel, they will do nothing to prevent the user to install Windows on an Intel-Mac. They will not support it of course, but they will do nothing to prevent it. ....
I am curious as to more details on where Apple said this (not that i doubt ya )
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. "
maybe this best of both worlds will make Mac-Tels (bleah... horrible name... i'm gonna call it....) <lets try again>
maybe this best of both worlds will make the Apple g6 Sextiums very attractive to people, if it could dual/triple-boot Tiger/Leopard and winXP and maybe linux? that will be hella fun and sexy.
I always thought it would be a good idea . A lot of people are afraid to switch. Apple makes most of their money on hardware. A Macintel box (able to run windows) takes almost all the risk out of the purchase.
I always thought it would be a good idea. A lot of people are afraid to switch. Apple makes most of their money on hardware. An Apple g6 Sextium box (able to run windows) takes almost all the risk out of the purchase.
maybe this best of both worlds will make the Apple g6 Sextiums very attractive to people, if it could dual/triple-boot Tiger/Leopard and winXP and maybe linux?
Perhaps for the end user, but the danger for the Macintosh software is very high because of this. If you can boot Windows, expect developers to start dropping the Macintosh version.
.... If you can boot Windows, I expect developers to start dropping the Macintosh version.
why so? again, just curious...
edit: nevermind, i get it... people will try and get away with their existing copies of software on windows, and not buy the macintosh versions or macintosh equivalents...
edit: nevermind, i get it... people will try and get away with their existing copies of software on windows, and not buy the macintosh versions or macintosh equivalents...
Exactly, that's how things work when you have to face head-on a monopoly. Well, not exactly for the case of Apple (OS X could not be installed in a generic PC), but very close.
Hmm... and well made PC also has all the cables in harnesses to make sure the airflow is good. The only difference is that, inlike MAC, even a higher end PC only has 3 fans - PSU, CPU, case. Makes it VERY quiet regardless of load.
3 fans?
How about the massive fans that are on GPUs thesedays? The one on my 6800GT sounds like a vacuum cleaner.
I can hear the PC (Shuttle XPC) right through the house.
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. "
I think this is probably more subtle than already discussed. It doesn't mean exactly you can simply put in a MS XP install disc and go on. It could very well be, that the XP kernel needs extensions or adaptions to really do so, let alone the field of hardware drivers that probably would need some fix as well to actually recognize and drive it.
It seems to mean that you could however do these things, but it could mean a simple install won't work out of the box. And it could mean a lot of work would be needed in order to make it happen at all, while being perfectly technically feasible. It could also mean that Phil right now leaves it to MS if they choose to do so. Maybe nothing some hackers could do in a fortnight. Therefore his "They probably will..." .
Why would you think that way? Mac OS X will not run on a vanilla PC you know, no way in hell! What is the difference if they both have Intel inside or not. Why does this all of a sudden put Apple "toe-to-toe" with Microsoft. On the contrary, I think this will open up things like Office and Outlook so they can finally release a damn email client that fully supports Exchange.
I'll take that pill now.
Quote:
exhibit_13
Member
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 67
From: Minnesota\t posted 06-07-2005 11:28 PM \t
my biggest fear is that Apple will now only be an operating system. no longer will they have unique hardware and the advantages over the PC world, it'll all be the same. only the operating system will differ. while its intriguing to be able to dual-boot windows, it kind of seems like taking the easy way out and making the Mac less of the "different" computer it is. yes, the switch will probably make faster computers, and compatibility will probably benefit, but i just don't feel right about it. well, i'll see how i feel tomorrow. i have finals. grr...
This sums up the point quite well. Actually, it may be worse, since there may still be the often mentioned "Apple Tax". Why pay more for Apple computers with the same or less spec pissing rights?
Well, I read the reactions and thought about this swtich for a day or so now. As a Mac user for about five years, here is what I think.
I think this is a good move for Apple, not just because of the concept of using Intel chips with a better supply and roadmap, but because of the way they're going to go about it.
It doesn't surprise me that Jobs has been planning this for a long time, and that Mac OS X has been "living a double life". Steve had to wait until Mac OS X was stable and he had the majority of the installed base using it before he could go with the plan. Switching to x86 when Mac OS X was an infant would have been suicide.
Those who criticize Apple make the argument that Apple might destroy Mac software development. I don't think that's true. Mac OS X is really picking up speed in the market. It's already known as the most secure operating system. As long as there are OS X users, there will be software. Sure, M$ controls 95% of the OS market, but that might be changing.
By making this switch and thereby increasing Windows compatibility, Apple is eliminating a major obstacle to buying a Mac. In addition, another obstacle may fall when prices drop due to better availability of parts and the use of more standardized parts, such as graphics cards.
The fact of the matter is that after this switch, there will be little reason to buy a WinTel box. That box will do everything the Mac will do save one: Run the best operating system on the planet. On the flip side, Apple will have a dual-boot machine that meets or exceeds anything in the PC world, has better styling, a more competitive price and again, the best OS on the planet.
When I first heard confirmation of this news, I was uneasy and thought that Steve had lost it. But again, after thinking about it...I think that this is an abolsutley fantastic move for Apple. And to those bitching that they can't run OS 9 stuff on new hardware, I say "Get Real". I can't stand when people complain about not being able to run five to seven year old software that is two generations out of date---ona modern machine no less. What do you expect?
I would like to know what's the position of "Programmer" regarding Apple's strategy?
Thanks. How can I turn down a request like that?
Quote:
So how about now ? What's your feeling about the alliance between Apple and Intel? Why does Apple leave the IBM "Boat" so quick? x86 over PowerPC, is it a good move? In fact, just your own views about what is actually happening and so on....
Over at ArsTechnica.com John Siracusa wrote an article about his feelings on this transition, and it mirrors my own closely. To summarize:
I personally feel that the PowerPC ISA (and AltiVec in particular) is significantly better than the x86 ISA, and thus I am sad to see Apple dropping the use of it. Remember, however, that this is from a point of view that most users will never see -- the best ISA in the world isn't worth anything if there aren't implementations to back it up.
Apple knows a good deal more than we do about the processors coming available to them in the future. They obviously feel that IBM and Motorola's offerings going forward are not aimed at the personal computer market (IBM being concerned with game consoles & media processors, and Motorola with embedded systems and network processors -- neither of which are well suited to the portable and compact machines which are Apple's primary focus), while Intel's bed & butter has always been and continues to be the personal computer market. This means that, despite the hopeful blip represented by the 970, the PowerPC processor woes Apple has had since about '98 are going to continue. With this hardware transition Apple is throwing out any chance of getting ahead in terms of performance, but they have also thrown out the chance of falling behind... and if the chance of getting ahead has dropped to zero then this is the logical choice, isn't it?
History has shown repeatedly that Apple is better off adopting standards (when the standards meet their quality requirements) for key technologies rather than continuing to swim upstream. In the past PowerPC could compete in terms of performance or performance/watt, but it seems those days are past and Apple is now in a position to transition to the processor architecture which is currently leading. It will be interesting to see if they adopt Intel's chipset architecture(s) as well -- Apple has traditionally rolled their own, but they didn't (usually) have a choice because nobody was building top-notch chipsets for the processors they were using. With Intel that is decidedly not the case, and Apple can now reap the benefits by saving significant amounts of R&D. This is undoubtably why they didn't ask Intel for a PPC-flavor core (may be pesky patent issues there too)... it saves them R&D money which can then be spent on the software development, which they'll need to differentiate themselves from the Windows juggernaught.
In the short-term this is going to be (yet another) a painful transition for Apple and its developers. In the longer-term there are issues about whether developers will port to the Mac or just rely on WINE-like technologies. I don't know how those will play out, but it will be better than Apple once again falling farther and farther behind in terms of CPU performance.
The main question for me is, do I buy the last and greatest G5 PowerMac or do I hold onto my MDD for longer and buy a 2nd generation x86-based Mac? If they ship a dual 970MP then I'll probably go for that, otherwise I'll wait.
PS: 12 years (94..06) on the PPC "boat" is a long time in the computer industry. The 68K boat lasted (ignoring Lisa) from '84 to '94, which is only 10 years. Hopefully Intel will be the last boat Apple will have to ride because we're all pretty sick of these transitions.
Those who criticize Apple make the argument that Apple might destroy Mac software development. I don't think that's true. Mac OS X is really picking up speed in the market. It's already known as the most secure operating system. As long as there are OS X users, there will be software. Sure, M$ controls 95% of the OS market, but that might be changing.
No one can prove anything at this point, as far as software development on the Macintosh is concerned. However, as I said, history has a hint or two on that and I take notice.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is that after this switch, there will be little reason to buy a WinTel box.
Sorry, I fail to see why this is so.
Quote:
On the flip side, Apple will have a dual-boot machine that meets or exceeds anything in the PC world, has better styling, a more competitive price and again, the best OS on the planet.
Where this more competitive price comes from? And how do we know that OS X will be the best OS in the planet? MS has yet to release Longhorn. OK, I admit that they have not a great past, but until the final product comes out, you never know.
Quote:
When I first heard confirmation of this news, I was uneasy and thought that Steve had lost it. But again, after thinking about it...I think that this is an abolsutley fantastic move for Apple.
Sorry again, I don't share the same sentiment. To me this move is the more dangerous one in Apple's history and I am afraid that Apple will never be what it was. The key is that Apple will not do anything to prevent Windows installation in an Intel-Mac. I would not be surprised to see the company split in two, hardware and software (OS/Applications/Services), with the hardware and perhaps the non-services part of the software taking a deep plunge in the toilet.
The HP DL380 I just put a fibre network card in has about 6 fans and sounds like a jet taking off... ok it IS meant to be used in a server room.. but come on.. get real...
And the Dell 470 Dual Xeon, high end graphics, SATA, yada-yada-yada, boxes that we have on our Engineers' desks are whisper quite. Because they're designed to run on desktops get real...
No more Altivec?
Altivec is not God's gift to computing. Altivec is optomized in a particular direction, SSE is optomized in another. Want to run high precision Scientific applications? Then you'll love SSE. Want to run single precision stuff that benefits from single clock multiply-adds? Then Altivec will have an advantage on a PER CLOCK basis. Which means just about nothing in a world where the x86 clocks faster than the PPC.
Just why in the world do you suppose ALL of the multi-billion dollar a year companies that write the high end engineering software ( I'm talking licensing fees of MILLIIONS of dollars a year ) have moved to x86 and have ZERO PPC platforms?
Is it because all of us who actully design chips are freaking idiots who can't see the magical properties of PPC/Altivec?
No 64 bit?
Seeing as how close to 50% of the chips going out the door at Intel are now 64-b and Intel expects to be 100% 64-b (yes even the dual core lap tops) within the next 12 months...
Inferior hardware?
Isn't Apple designing their own machines?
Have you ever seen and used high quality PCs? Oh never mind.
FAT?
What? What in the world does FAT have to do with running x86 hardware? The File System has jack to do with the CPU that it's running on.
i think one thing we have to consider is the decline in the perception of value of apple's powerPC offerings
i feel as Programmer has mentioned the ISA and Altivec, etc... may be technically superior, but this has not translated into a feeling that one is getting good value for money, with the powermac g5s
i cannot say with any certainty how motorola and ibm's powerpc offerings are doing on their side
but apple seems to strongly feel now, no doubt backed by their market research as well, that the customer, be it an enterprise-it-dude/dudette, a switcher, a mac fan, an artist, a musician, a designer, a kid who just got an imac, someone sick of windows viruses, a small business owner --- these customers have to feel that value for money, and they haven't really with the Mac's real-world (edit: higher-end powerpc offerings) (including software optimised or not for osX-on-powerpc with altivec, etc, etc) in recent times
particulary if you employ a computer for your income generating activities (a lot of us), value-for-money starts to creep up to ya. sure, i might feel a great sense of calm, inspiration, yogic-flying whatever when i am desiging on a powerbook, but if i can get away with a 512mb+ new iBook g4, i might... seeing that i might be competing for web design clients with some other kid on a nicely loaded dell.
i got a nice single 1.6ghz g5 and on reason 2.5 software synthesis it just blew my 6-month old dual-1.25ghz powermac MDD out of the water. a phenomenal level of performance. but then i realised, well, i gotta be producing top-notch music to 1. pay off the g5 (long story) and 2. to make full use of that powerful g5 beast.
i think using an iBook mostly nowadays takes a bit of the pressure of myself, it was almost too good using a g5 or a 17" powerbook... some people are not ready for that kind of 'quality' or 'luxury', they don't 'feel' that value, or are somehow uncomfortable with it and it's preciousness
Over at ArsTechnica.com John Siracusa wrote an article about his feelings on this transition, and it mirrors my own closely. To summarize:
I personally feel that the PowerPC ISA (and AltiVec in particular) is significantly better than the x86 ISA, and thus I am sad to see Apple dropping the use of it. Remember, however, that this is from a point of view that most users will never see -- the best ISA in the world isn't worth anything if there aren't implementations to back it up.
Apple knows a good deal more than we do about the processors coming available to them in the future. They obviously feel that IBM and Motorola's offerings going forward are not aimed at the personal computer market (IBM being concerned with game consoles & media processors, and Motorola with embedded systems and network processors -- neither of which are well suited to the portable and compact machines which are Apple's primary focus), while Intel's bed & butter has always been and continues to be the personal computer market. This means that, despite the hopeful blip represented by the 970, the PowerPC processor woes Apple has had since about '98 are going to continue. With this hardware transition Apple is throwing out any chance of getting ahead in terms of performance, but they have also thrown out the chance of falling behind... and if the chance of getting ahead has dropped to zero then this is the logical choice, isn't it?
History has shown repeatedly that Apple is better off adopting standards (when the standards meet their quality requirements) for key technologies rather than continuing to swim upstream. In the past PowerPC could compete in terms of performance or performance/watt, but it seems those days are past and Apple is now in a position to transition to the processor architecture which is currently leading. It will be interesting to see if they adopt Intel's chipset architecture(s) as well -- Apple has traditionally rolled their own, but they didn't (usually) have a choice because nobody was building top-notch chipsets for the processors they were using. With Intel that is decidedly not the case, and Apple can now reap the benefits by saving significant amounts of R&D. This is undoubtably why they didn't ask Intel for a PPC-flavor core (may be pesky patent issues there too)... it saves them R&D money which can then be spent on the software development, which they'll need to differentiate themselves from the Windows juggernaught.
In the short-term this is going to be (yet another) a painful transition for Apple and its developers. In the longer-term there are issues about whether developers will port to the Mac or just rely on WINE-like technologies. I don't know how those will play out, but it will be better than Apple once again falling farther and farther behind in terms of CPU performance.
The main question for me is, do I buy the last and greatest G5 PowerMac or do I hold onto my MDD for longer and buy a 2nd generation x86-based Mac? If they ship a dual 970MP then I'll probably go for that, otherwise I'll wait.
Keep both of them , I guess.
PS: 12 years (94..06) on the PPC "boat" is a long time in the computer industry. The 68K boat lasted (ignoring Lisa) from '84 to '94, which is only 10 years. Hopefully Intel will be the last boat Apple will have to ride because we're all pretty sick of these transitions.
Ok, how about the CELL? Is IBM so much incompetent? In your way of thinking, why Apple suddenly left the PowerPC "Boat"?
Do you think this company is unaware of it? Don't you think INTEL has more tools for instance to lock some toys with DRM'ized Chipsets?
Is it why they ship onboard on last Monday?
Thanks for your reply.
macfr3ak
PS: Sorry Programmer, Personnely, I'm very upset with Apple's hardware's choice.
Apple's leaving was not 'sudden'. It's been happening since Mr. Jobs came back to Apple.
Darwin has always been the obvious future of Apple. It's not a secret. It's been the source of endless discussion of WHEN, not if, WHEN will it happen.
First they had to sort out the OS mess. Cutting over to an OS based on the technology from Next had to happen first. And that was a migration FROM x86 to PPC. Keeping the x86 verions of the OS alive-and-well was just a matter of routine at Apple. Because that was the future.
The path to where we are is strewn with the empty husks of the 'better' architectures that have fallen under the x86 boot. Alpha, MIPS, PA-RISC, SPARC, good bye and thanks for all the fish.
Over the past 15 years the UNIX world has gone through this same conversion. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard all these same things said by the UNIX geeks as their favorite botique architectures have been replaced by x86 at the desktop, workstation, and small-to-mid sized server levels.
Comments
Originally posted by PB
...Apple said that with the move to Intel, they will do nothing to prevent the user to install Windows on an Intel-Mac. They will not support it of course, but they will do nothing to prevent it. ....
I am curious as to more details on where Apple said this (not that i doubt ya
......
Originally posted by sunilraman
I am curious as to more details on where Apple said this (not that i doubt ya
......
This article..
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. "
maybe this best of both worlds will make Mac-Tels (bleah... horrible name... i'm gonna call it....) <lets try again>
maybe this best of both worlds will make the Apple g6 Sextiums very attractive to people, if it could dual/triple-boot Tiger/Leopard and winXP and maybe linux? that will be hella fun and sexy.
I always thought it would be a good idea. A lot of people are afraid to switch. Apple makes most of their money on hardware. An Apple g6 Sextium box (able to run windows) takes almost all the risk out of the purchase.
Originally posted by sunilraman
maybe this best of both worlds will make the Apple g6 Sextiums very attractive to people, if it could dual/triple-boot Tiger/Leopard and winXP and maybe linux?
Perhaps for the end user, but the danger for the Macintosh software is very high because of this. If you can boot Windows, expect developers to start dropping the Macintosh version.
Originally posted by PB
.... If you can boot Windows, I expect developers to start dropping the Macintosh version.
why so? again, just curious...
edit: nevermind, i get it... people will try and get away with their existing copies of software on windows, and not buy the macintosh versions or macintosh equivalents...
Originally posted by sunilraman
why so? again, just curious...
edit: nevermind, i get it... people will try and get away with their existing copies of software on windows, and not buy the macintosh versions or macintosh equivalents...
Exactly, that's how things work when you have to face head-on a monopoly. Well, not exactly for the case of Apple (OS X could not be installed in a generic PC), but very close.
Examples: NeXT, Be, OS/2.
I would like to know what's the position of "Programmer" regarding Apple's strategy?
For about 3 years, I used to check out his answers to a lot of people from here.
And all I know => He's great. Technically speaking, I mean.
So how about now ? What's your feeling about the alliance between Apple and Intel?
Why does Apple leave the IBM "Boat" so quick? x86 over PowerPC, is it a good move?
In fact, just your own views about what is actually happening and so on....
Anyway, I'd be happy to get all others point of views as well....
PS: Forgive a broken english from a french music composer ;-)
Originally posted by skatman
Hmm... and well made PC also has all the cables in harnesses to make sure the airflow is good. The only difference is that, inlike MAC, even a higher end PC only has 3 fans - PSU, CPU, case. Makes it VERY quiet regardless of load.
3 fans?
How about the massive fans that are on GPUs thesedays? The one on my 6800GT sounds like a vacuum cleaner.
I can hear the PC (Shuttle XPC) right through the house.
See www.applenewsfeed.com
Originally posted by MiMac
This article..
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. "
I think this is probably more subtle than already discussed. It doesn't mean exactly you can simply put in a MS XP install disc and go on. It could very well be, that the XP kernel needs extensions or adaptions to really do so, let alone the field of hardware drivers that probably would need some fix as well to actually recognize and drive it.
It seems to mean that you could however do these things, but it could mean a simple install won't work out of the box. And it could mean a lot of work would be needed in order to make it happen at all, while being perfectly technically feasible. It could also mean that Phil right now leaves it to MS if they choose to do so. Maybe nothing some hackers could do in a fortnight. Therefore his "They probably will..." .
There are many "maybe" above, I know.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Why would you think that way? Mac OS X will not run on a vanilla PC you know, no way in hell! What is the difference if they both have Intel inside or not. Why does this all of a sudden put Apple "toe-to-toe" with Microsoft. On the contrary, I think this will open up things like Office and Outlook so they can finally release a damn email client that fully supports Exchange.
I'll take that pill now.
exhibit_13
Member
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 67
From: Minnesota\t posted 06-07-2005 11:28 PM \t
my biggest fear is that Apple will now only be an operating system. no longer will they have unique hardware and the advantages over the PC world, it'll all be the same. only the operating system will differ. while its intriguing to be able to dual-boot windows, it kind of seems like taking the easy way out and making the Mac less of the "different" computer it is. yes, the switch will probably make faster computers, and compatibility will probably benefit, but i just don't feel right about it. well, i'll see how i feel tomorrow. i have finals. grr...
This sums up the point quite well. Actually, it may be worse, since there may still be the often mentioned "Apple Tax". Why pay more for Apple computers with the same or less spec pissing rights?
I think this is a good move for Apple, not just because of the concept of using Intel chips with a better supply and roadmap, but because of the way they're going to go about it.
It doesn't surprise me that Jobs has been planning this for a long time, and that Mac OS X has been "living a double life". Steve had to wait until Mac OS X was stable and he had the majority of the installed base using it before he could go with the plan. Switching to x86 when Mac OS X was an infant would have been suicide.
Those who criticize Apple make the argument that Apple might destroy Mac software development. I don't think that's true. Mac OS X is really picking up speed in the market. It's already known as the most secure operating system. As long as there are OS X users, there will be software. Sure, M$ controls 95% of the OS market, but that might be changing.
By making this switch and thereby increasing Windows compatibility, Apple is eliminating a major obstacle to buying a Mac. In addition, another obstacle may fall when prices drop due to better availability of parts and the use of more standardized parts, such as graphics cards.
The fact of the matter is that after this switch, there will be little reason to buy a WinTel box. That box will do everything the Mac will do save one: Run the best operating system on the planet. On the flip side, Apple will have a dual-boot machine that meets or exceeds anything in the PC world, has better styling, a more competitive price and again, the best OS on the planet.
When I first heard confirmation of this news, I was uneasy and thought that Steve had lost it. But again, after thinking about it...I think that this is an abolsutley fantastic move for Apple. And to those bitching that they can't run OS 9 stuff on new hardware, I say "Get Real". I can't stand when people complain about not being able to run five to seven year old software that is two generations out of date---ona modern machine no less. What do you expect?
Originally posted by Macfr3ak
I would like to know what's the position of "Programmer" regarding Apple's strategy?
Thanks. How can I turn down a request like that?
So how about now ? What's your feeling about the alliance between Apple and Intel? Why does Apple leave the IBM "Boat" so quick? x86 over PowerPC, is it a good move? In fact, just your own views about what is actually happening and so on....
Over at ArsTechnica.com John Siracusa wrote an article about his feelings on this transition, and it mirrors my own closely. To summarize:
I personally feel that the PowerPC ISA (and AltiVec in particular) is significantly better than the x86 ISA, and thus I am sad to see Apple dropping the use of it. Remember, however, that this is from a point of view that most users will never see -- the best ISA in the world isn't worth anything if there aren't implementations to back it up.
Apple knows a good deal more than we do about the processors coming available to them in the future. They obviously feel that IBM and Motorola's offerings going forward are not aimed at the personal computer market (IBM being concerned with game consoles & media processors, and Motorola with embedded systems and network processors -- neither of which are well suited to the portable and compact machines which are Apple's primary focus), while Intel's bed & butter has always been and continues to be the personal computer market. This means that, despite the hopeful blip represented by the 970, the PowerPC processor woes Apple has had since about '98 are going to continue. With this hardware transition Apple is throwing out any chance of getting ahead in terms of performance, but they have also thrown out the chance of falling behind... and if the chance of getting ahead has dropped to zero then this is the logical choice, isn't it?
History has shown repeatedly that Apple is better off adopting standards (when the standards meet their quality requirements) for key technologies rather than continuing to swim upstream. In the past PowerPC could compete in terms of performance or performance/watt, but it seems those days are past and Apple is now in a position to transition to the processor architecture which is currently leading. It will be interesting to see if they adopt Intel's chipset architecture(s) as well -- Apple has traditionally rolled their own, but they didn't (usually) have a choice because nobody was building top-notch chipsets for the processors they were using. With Intel that is decidedly not the case, and Apple can now reap the benefits by saving significant amounts of R&D. This is undoubtably why they didn't ask Intel for a PPC-flavor core (may be pesky patent issues there too)... it saves them R&D money which can then be spent on the software development, which they'll need to differentiate themselves from the Windows juggernaught.
In the short-term this is going to be (yet another) a painful transition for Apple and its developers. In the longer-term there are issues about whether developers will port to the Mac or just rely on WINE-like technologies. I don't know how those will play out, but it will be better than Apple once again falling farther and farther behind in terms of CPU performance.
The main question for me is, do I buy the last and greatest G5 PowerMac or do I hold onto my MDD for longer and buy a 2nd generation x86-based Mac? If they ship a dual 970MP then I'll probably go for that, otherwise I'll wait.
PS: 12 years (94..06) on the PPC "boat" is a long time in the computer industry. The 68K boat lasted (ignoring Lisa) from '84 to '94, which is only 10 years. Hopefully Intel will be the last boat Apple will have to ride because we're all pretty sick of these transitions.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Those who criticize Apple make the argument that Apple might destroy Mac software development. I don't think that's true. Mac OS X is really picking up speed in the market. It's already known as the most secure operating system. As long as there are OS X users, there will be software. Sure, M$ controls 95% of the OS market, but that might be changing.
No one can prove anything at this point, as far as software development on the Macintosh is concerned. However, as I said, history has a hint or two on that and I take notice.
The fact of the matter is that after this switch, there will be little reason to buy a WinTel box.
Sorry, I fail to see why this is so.
On the flip side, Apple will have a dual-boot machine that meets or exceeds anything in the PC world, has better styling, a more competitive price and again, the best OS on the planet.
Where this more competitive price comes from? And how do we know that OS X will be the best OS in the planet? MS has yet to release Longhorn. OK, I admit that they have not a great past, but until the final product comes out, you never know.
When I first heard confirmation of this news, I was uneasy and thought that Steve had lost it. But again, after thinking about it...I think that this is an abolsutley fantastic move for Apple.
Sorry again, I don't share the same sentiment. To me this move is the more dangerous one in Apple's history and I am afraid that Apple will never be what it was. The key is that Apple will not do anything to prevent Windows installation in an Intel-Mac. I would not be surprised to see the company split in two, hardware and software (OS/Applications/Services), with the hardware and perhaps the non-services part of the software taking a deep plunge in the toilet.
And the Dell 470 Dual Xeon, high end graphics, SATA, yada-yada-yada, boxes that we have on our Engineers' desks are whisper quite. Because they're designed to run on desktops get real...
No more Altivec?
Altivec is not God's gift to computing. Altivec is optomized in a particular direction, SSE is optomized in another. Want to run high precision Scientific applications? Then you'll love SSE. Want to run single precision stuff that benefits from single clock multiply-adds? Then Altivec will have an advantage on a PER CLOCK basis. Which means just about nothing in a world where the x86 clocks faster than the PPC.
Just why in the world do you suppose ALL of the multi-billion dollar a year companies that write the high end engineering software ( I'm talking licensing fees of MILLIIONS of dollars a year ) have moved to x86 and have ZERO PPC platforms?
Is it because all of us who actully design chips are freaking idiots who can't see the magical properties of PPC/Altivec?
No 64 bit?
Seeing as how close to 50% of the chips going out the door at Intel are now 64-b and Intel expects to be 100% 64-b (yes even the dual core lap tops) within the next 12 months...
Inferior hardware?
Isn't Apple designing their own machines?
Have you ever seen and used high quality PCs? Oh never mind.
FAT?
What? What in the world does FAT have to do with running x86 hardware? The File System has jack to do with the CPU that it's running on.
i feel as Programmer has mentioned the ISA and Altivec, etc... may be technically superior, but this has not translated into a feeling that one is getting good value for money, with the powermac g5s
i cannot say with any certainty how motorola and ibm's powerpc offerings are doing on their side
but apple seems to strongly feel now, no doubt backed by their market research as well, that the customer, be it an enterprise-it-dude/dudette, a switcher, a mac fan, an artist, a musician, a designer, a kid who just got an imac, someone sick of windows viruses, a small business owner --- these customers have to feel that value for money, and they haven't really with the Mac's real-world (edit: higher-end powerpc offerings) (including software optimised or not for osX-on-powerpc with altivec, etc, etc) in recent times
particulary if you employ a computer for your income generating activities (a lot of us), value-for-money starts to creep up to ya. sure, i might feel a great sense of calm, inspiration, yogic-flying whatever when i am desiging on a powerbook, but if i can get away with a 512mb+ new iBook g4, i might... seeing that i might be competing for web design clients with some other kid on a nicely loaded dell.
i got a nice single 1.6ghz g5 and on reason 2.5 software synthesis it just blew my 6-month old dual-1.25ghz powermac MDD out of the water. a phenomenal level of performance. but then i realised, well, i gotta be producing top-notch music to 1. pay off the g5 (long story) and 2. to make full use of that powerful g5 beast.
i think using an iBook mostly nowadays takes a bit of the pressure of myself, it was almost too good using a g5 or a 17" powerbook... some people are not ready for that kind of 'quality' or 'luxury', they don't 'feel' that value, or are somehow uncomfortable with it and it's preciousness
Originally posted by Programmer
Thanks. How can I turn down a request like that?
Over at ArsTechnica.com John Siracusa wrote an article about his feelings on this transition, and it mirrors my own closely. To summarize:
I personally feel that the PowerPC ISA (and AltiVec in particular) is significantly better than the x86 ISA, and thus I am sad to see Apple dropping the use of it. Remember, however, that this is from a point of view that most users will never see -- the best ISA in the world isn't worth anything if there aren't implementations to back it up.
Apple knows a good deal more than we do about the processors coming available to them in the future. They obviously feel that IBM and Motorola's offerings going forward are not aimed at the personal computer market (IBM being concerned with game consoles & media processors, and Motorola with embedded systems and network processors -- neither of which are well suited to the portable and compact machines which are Apple's primary focus), while Intel's bed & butter has always been and continues to be the personal computer market. This means that, despite the hopeful blip represented by the 970, the PowerPC processor woes Apple has had since about '98 are going to continue. With this hardware transition Apple is throwing out any chance of getting ahead in terms of performance, but they have also thrown out the chance of falling behind... and if the chance of getting ahead has dropped to zero then this is the logical choice, isn't it?
History has shown repeatedly that Apple is better off adopting standards (when the standards meet their quality requirements) for key technologies rather than continuing to swim upstream. In the past PowerPC could compete in terms of performance or performance/watt, but it seems those days are past and Apple is now in a position to transition to the processor architecture which is currently leading. It will be interesting to see if they adopt Intel's chipset architecture(s) as well -- Apple has traditionally rolled their own, but they didn't (usually) have a choice because nobody was building top-notch chipsets for the processors they were using. With Intel that is decidedly not the case, and Apple can now reap the benefits by saving significant amounts of R&D. This is undoubtably why they didn't ask Intel for a PPC-flavor core (may be pesky patent issues there too)... it saves them R&D money which can then be spent on the software development, which they'll need to differentiate themselves from the Windows juggernaught.
In the short-term this is going to be (yet another) a painful transition for Apple and its developers. In the longer-term there are issues about whether developers will port to the Mac or just rely on WINE-like technologies. I don't know how those will play out, but it will be better than Apple once again falling farther and farther behind in terms of CPU performance.
The main question for me is, do I buy the last and greatest G5 PowerMac or do I hold onto my MDD for longer and buy a 2nd generation x86-based Mac? If they ship a dual 970MP then I'll probably go for that, otherwise I'll wait.
Keep both of them , I guess.
PS: 12 years (94..06) on the PPC "boat" is a long time in the computer industry. The 68K boat lasted (ignoring Lisa) from '84 to '94, which is only 10 years. Hopefully Intel will be the last boat Apple will have to ride because we're all pretty sick of these transitions.
Ok, how about the CELL? Is IBM so much incompetent? In your way of thinking, why Apple suddenly left the PowerPC "Boat"?
Do you think this company is unaware of it? Don't you think INTEL has more tools for instance to lock some toys with DRM'ized Chipsets?
Is it why they ship onboard on last Monday?
Thanks for your reply.
macfr3ak
PS: Sorry Programmer, Personnely, I'm very upset with Apple's hardware's choice.
Maybe I'm wrong? who knows.....
Darwin has always been the obvious future of Apple. It's not a secret. It's been the source of endless discussion of WHEN, not if, WHEN will it happen.
First they had to sort out the OS mess. Cutting over to an OS based on the technology from Next had to happen first. And that was a migration FROM x86 to PPC. Keeping the x86 verions of the OS alive-and-well was just a matter of routine at Apple. Because that was the future.
The path to where we are is strewn with the empty husks of the 'better' architectures that have fallen under the x86 boot. Alpha, MIPS, PA-RISC, SPARC, good bye and thanks for all the fish.
Over the past 15 years the UNIX world has gone through this same conversion. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard all these same things said by the UNIX geeks as their favorite botique architectures have been replaced by x86 at the desktop, workstation, and small-to-mid sized server levels.
PPC on Macs was the last to go.