I haven't read all of the posts about this but a good many and that got me to thinking.....
I agree that is was a bit of a shock for apple to go to intel, but the transition is going to be so painless, and in the end transparent to the end user as to be no big deal really....
...unless apple licenses their boxes (or reference platform) to HP.
Now you can buy an HP running OS X.
Apple controls the hardware, apple controls the software. HP can give their customers a choice of OS's, since 'winblows' will run on apple hardware.
Maybe HP will ship dual boot systems.
either way apple OS X is in front on many more eyeballs. This seems to be a little discussed win-win for apple.
There is the very real risk that many of their customers will wait until they can buy an intel box, so releasing those boxes sooner rather than later mitigates that risk and gives Apple the best chance to minimize the losses of the transition. The only explanation for the delay that makes sense to me so far is that the translated performance really isn't all that great, and Apple is afraid that that will cause an even larger exodus than previous transitions have.
I think the issue is that Intel don't have the chips that Apple wants yet. Apple are not going to ship anything with a Pentium 4 or pentium D. I imagine they will start with Merom (for the mini) and migrate to the dual core Pentium-M derived desktops as they become available (hopefully with 64 bit enabled products). They needed to get the developers early, so that most of the important products will have been optimised for x86 by the time they are released...
I think the issue is that Intel don't have the chips that Apple wants yet. Apple are not going to ship anything with a Pentium 4 or pentium D. I imagine they will start with Merom (for the mini) and migrate to the dual core Pentium-M derived desktops as they become available (hopefully with 64 bit enabled products). They needed to get the developers early, so that most of the important products will have been optimised for x86 by the time they are released...
The P4 660 that ships with the developer mactel box is 64-bit though.
Personally, I think that apple should try to accellerate the "intel recompilation" of third party apps as much as possible, and attempt to release mactel boxes as early as possible in 2006.
Knowing apple though, mactel boxes will probably not be avaliable before WWDC 06 though.
The P4 660 that ships with the developer mactel box is 64-bit though.
Personally, I think that apple should try to accellerate the "intel recompilation" of third party apps as much as possible, and attempt to release mactel boxes as early as possible in 2006.
Knowing apple though, mactel boxes will probably not be avaliable before WWDC 06 though.
The report on xlr8yourmac showed they were 660s but also mentioned that Apple were not supporting the 64 bit extensions (yet). My interpretation from the Keynote was that Apple are not going to ship any final product with a P4 in it (the dev boxes are just to get people on with doing any software changes needed).
I would imagine that Apple will ship something whenever the chips are ready (i.e. they won't go with Yonah either). The lag for the desktop switch is obviously to give Intel time to get something very competitive ready for the market. I would hope that by that time the 64-bit, low power, dual cores will be ready
The report on xlr8yourmac showed they were 660s but also mentioned that Apple were not supporting the 64 bit extensions (yet). My interpretation from the Keynote was that Apple are not going to ship any final product with a P4 in it (the dev boxes are just to get people on with doing any software changes needed).
I would imagine that Apple will ship something whenever the chips are ready (i.e. they won't go with Yonah either). The lag for the desktop switch is obviously to give Intel time to get something very competitive ready for the market. I would hope that by that time the 64-bit, low power, dual cores will be ready
Yeah I read that too. I was surprised that Intel had 64-bit P4's out. obviously I havent payed enough attention to "the other side" of the market
I too hope that Apple will get something brilliant from Intel, something that is x86, but without all the legacy support that Apple obviously does not need. On the other hand, if Apple expects users to be able to run windows on the machines (and they stated they wouldn't try to hinder this), they will need all that legacy support in the CPU's as well...
Yeah I read that too. I was surprised that Intel had 64-bit P4's out. obviously I havent payed enough attention to "the other side" of the market
I too hope that Apple will get something brilliant from Intel, something that is x86, but without all the legacy support that Apple obviously does not need. On the other hand, if Apple expects users to be able to run windows on the machines (and they stated they wouldn't try to hinder this), they will need all that legacy support in the CPU's as well...
As someone who is disappointed with the problems that have dogged PowerPC I hope that it is the former that will be explored. Remember that PowerPC is an architecture that Apple helped create and it is disappointing that they have had to migrate. I hope that Intel will do something a little bit unusual for Apple (or at least begin to develop new directions for x86 to go). This might be a fantastic opportunity for Intel, given that Apple is also one of their OEMs, and they have no real need to support Windows for them.
I would hope that given a choice, Apple will definitely go for the 'let's be a little bit special' once again.
[Edit: One thing that I was a little sorry to see was that the dev kits have a BIOS. If we are looking to a new direction, this may indicate it won't be as elegant as hoped.]
[Edit: One thing that I was a little sorry to see was that the dev kits have a BIOS. If we are looking to a new direction, this may indicate it won't be as elegant as hoped.]
There's no way in hell the real Macs will ship with that next year. [Edit: And the reason I am so sure is that Intel has its own new standard, EFI or Extensible Firmware Interface, that it's been trying to push for some time now. I think it's clear that Apple will be implementing this in the new hardware rather than the usual BIOS trash.]
[Edit: One thing that I was a little sorry to see was that the dev kits have a BIOS. If we are looking to a new direction, this may indicate it won't be as elegant as hoped.]
oh no... something just hit me like a ton of bricks. the thought of
"intel integrated graphics"
on the flip side, the report on xlr8yourmac says that you might be able to run PC ati and nvidia stuff (at least on the dev machine), it's a question of the drivers...
There's no way in hell the real Macs will ship with that next year. [Edit: And the reason I am so sure is that Intel has its own new standard, EFI or Extensible Firmware Interface, that it's been trying to push for some time now. I think it's clear that Apple will be implementing this in the new hardware rather than the usual BIOS trash.]
(And Moki.)
OK, that is more encouraging. I haven't used OF much, but know that BIOS would be a big let down.
Do you think that this transition means we have also seen the end of cool features like Firewire disk target mode, or is it perfectly possible that Apple can build these in (is it an I/O type setup for the motherboard)?
OK, that is more encouraging. I haven't used OF much, but know that BIOS would be a big let down.
Do you think that this transition means we have also seen the end of cool features like Firewire disk target mode, or is it perfectly possible that Apple can build these in (is it an I/O type setup for the motherboard)?
Hell, using EFI you can run shell scripts, do TCP/IP networking... whatever. I think it's pretty safe to say that it offers some nifty features:
I realize there's a lot of uncertainty now, but have some faith in Apple... they generally want to do things in the best way possible. I'm sure we'll be seeing cool stuff from them no matter what the CPU is.
oh no... something just hit me like a ton of bricks. the thought of
"intel integrated graphics"
I understand that's what the developer machine is running. I really hope they don't ship with it, although it apparently support Quartz 2D Extreme. Anything else, while still the same physical card, will require OSX Intel drivers, which are up to ATI and Nvidea to write.
The problem is who owns EFI. The only people pushing it are Microsoft, Intel, and Intel OEM partners. Only Intel has an EFI implementation.
I have yet to see what makes EFI superior to OF:
1) Sun's implementation of OF (OpenBoot) also ran concurrently with the OS and could perform the monitoring tasks that EFI claims to.
2) bplan's implementation of OF in their Pegasos/Pegasos II/ODW products also supports generic PC video boards. BIOS backwards compatibility in other words. It would have been easier for Apple to do this, especially now that they're going to use x86.
3) There is already a free software implementation of OF.
4) I don't trust Intel with their DRM crap or their competence. Their firmware can access the hardware from under the OS, including the hard disk. Add to the fact that EFI is always running and can be accessed via network, you can have firmware viruses which spread regardless what OS you have installed and wreak havoc on your data.
ok i dunno if this has been said. i dunno what the heck apple is doing. they have good relations with 2 of the 3 companies that make the cell processor. is it just me or does the cell processor just SMOKE AND BEAT any processor out there. i know apple is not "favoring" IBM right now because of their chip shortages, but isn't it worth it to get their hands on the cell. i mean common the cell practically uses the same kind of chip architecture and so WHY THE HECK NOT !!! few app and OS changes. So this seems like a stupid move.
Also i think that steve knows this and has anyone thought that this intel thing might just be a bridge until CELL has fully matured? also although Intel is big aren't they like the worst chip makers?
well as for me im going to be getting a second mac after this announcement. I'm sticking to the POWER PC . . . . . . . . for now
If anyone wants to explain this in more detail to me please e-mail
Comments
I agree that is was a bit of a shock for apple to go to intel, but the transition is going to be so painless, and in the end transparent to the end user as to be no big deal really....
...unless apple licenses their boxes (or reference platform) to HP.
Now you can buy an HP running OS X.
Apple controls the hardware, apple controls the software. HP can give their customers a choice of OS's, since 'winblows' will run on apple hardware.
Maybe HP will ship dual boot systems.
either way apple OS X is in front on many more eyeballs. This seems to be a little discussed win-win for apple.
Originally posted by urp
There is the very real risk that many of their customers will wait until they can buy an intel box, so releasing those boxes sooner rather than later mitigates that risk and gives Apple the best chance to minimize the losses of the transition. The only explanation for the delay that makes sense to me so far is that the translated performance really isn't all that great, and Apple is afraid that that will cause an even larger exodus than previous transitions have.
I think the issue is that Intel don't have the chips that Apple wants yet. Apple are not going to ship anything with a Pentium 4 or pentium D. I imagine they will start with Merom (for the mini) and migrate to the dual core Pentium-M derived desktops as they become available (hopefully with 64 bit enabled products). They needed to get the developers early, so that most of the important products will have been optimised for x86 by the time they are released...
Originally posted by DaveLee
I think the issue is that Intel don't have the chips that Apple wants yet. Apple are not going to ship anything with a Pentium 4 or pentium D. I imagine they will start with Merom (for the mini) and migrate to the dual core Pentium-M derived desktops as they become available (hopefully with 64 bit enabled products). They needed to get the developers early, so that most of the important products will have been optimised for x86 by the time they are released...
The P4 660 that ships with the developer mactel box is 64-bit though.
Personally, I think that apple should try to accellerate the "intel recompilation" of third party apps as much as possible, and attempt to release mactel boxes as early as possible in 2006.
Knowing apple though, mactel boxes will probably not be avaliable before WWDC 06 though.
Originally posted by BoeManE
The P4 660 that ships with the developer mactel box is 64-bit though.
Personally, I think that apple should try to accellerate the "intel recompilation" of third party apps as much as possible, and attempt to release mactel boxes as early as possible in 2006.
Knowing apple though, mactel boxes will probably not be avaliable before WWDC 06 though.
The report on xlr8yourmac showed they were 660s but also mentioned that Apple were not supporting the 64 bit extensions (yet). My interpretation from the Keynote was that Apple are not going to ship any final product with a P4 in it (the dev boxes are just to get people on with doing any software changes needed).
I would imagine that Apple will ship something whenever the chips are ready (i.e. they won't go with Yonah either). The lag for the desktop switch is obviously to give Intel time to get something very competitive ready for the market. I would hope that by that time the 64-bit, low power, dual cores will be ready
Originally posted by DaveLee
The report on xlr8yourmac showed they were 660s but also mentioned that Apple were not supporting the 64 bit extensions (yet). My interpretation from the Keynote was that Apple are not going to ship any final product with a P4 in it (the dev boxes are just to get people on with doing any software changes needed).
I would imagine that Apple will ship something whenever the chips are ready (i.e. they won't go with Yonah either). The lag for the desktop switch is obviously to give Intel time to get something very competitive ready for the market. I would hope that by that time the 64-bit, low power, dual cores will be ready
Yeah I read that too. I was surprised that Intel had 64-bit P4's out. obviously I havent payed enough attention to "the other side" of the market
I too hope that Apple will get something brilliant from Intel, something that is x86, but without all the legacy support that Apple obviously does not need. On the other hand, if Apple expects users to be able to run windows on the machines (and they stated they wouldn't try to hinder this), they will need all that legacy support in the CPU's as well...
Originally posted by BoeManE
Yeah I read that too. I was surprised that Intel had 64-bit P4's out. obviously I havent payed enough attention to "the other side" of the market
I too hope that Apple will get something brilliant from Intel, something that is x86, but without all the legacy support that Apple obviously does not need. On the other hand, if Apple expects users to be able to run windows on the machines (and they stated they wouldn't try to hinder this), they will need all that legacy support in the CPU's as well...
As someone who is disappointed with the problems that have dogged PowerPC I hope that it is the former that will be explored. Remember that PowerPC is an architecture that Apple helped create and it is disappointing that they have had to migrate. I hope that Intel will do something a little bit unusual for Apple (or at least begin to develop new directions for x86 to go). This might be a fantastic opportunity for Intel, given that Apple is also one of their OEMs, and they have no real need to support Windows for them.
I would hope that given a choice, Apple will definitely go for the 'let's be a little bit special' once again.
[Edit: One thing that I was a little sorry to see was that the dev kits have a BIOS. If we are looking to a new direction, this may indicate it won't be as elegant as hoped.]
Originally posted by DaveLee
[Edit: One thing that I was a little sorry to see was that the dev kits have a BIOS. If we are looking to a new direction, this may indicate it won't be as elegant as hoped.]
There's no way in hell the real Macs will ship with that next year. [Edit: And the reason I am so sure is that Intel has its own new standard, EFI or Extensible Firmware Interface, that it's been trying to push for some time now. I think it's clear that Apple will be implementing this in the new hardware rather than the usual BIOS trash.]
"intel integrated graphics"
Originally posted by DaveLee
[Edit: One thing that I was a little sorry to see was that the dev kits have a BIOS. If we are looking to a new direction, this may indicate it won't be as elegant as hoped.]
Don't worry -- be happy.
Originally posted by sunilraman
oh no... something just hit me like a ton of bricks. the thought of
"intel integrated graphics"
Originally posted by AppleRISC
There's no way in hell the real Macs will ship with that next year. [Edit: And the reason I am so sure is that Intel has its own new standard, EFI or Extensible Firmware Interface, that it's been trying to push for some time now. I think it's clear that Apple will be implementing this in the new hardware rather than the usual BIOS trash.]
(And Moki.)
OK, that is more encouraging. I haven't used OF much, but know that BIOS would be a big let down.
Do you think that this transition means we have also seen the end of cool features like Firewire disk target mode, or is it perfectly possible that Apple can build these in (is it an I/O type setup for the motherboard)?
Originally posted by DaveLee
(And Moki.)
OK, that is more encouraging. I haven't used OF much, but know that BIOS would be a big let down.
Do you think that this transition means we have also seen the end of cool features like Firewire disk target mode, or is it perfectly possible that Apple can build these in (is it an I/O type setup for the motherboard)?
Hell, using EFI you can run shell scripts, do TCP/IP networking... whatever. I think it's pretty safe to say that it offers some nifty features:
http://www.kernelthread.com/publications/firmware/
I realize there's a lot of uncertainty now, but have some faith in Apple... they generally want to do things in the best way possible. I'm sure we'll be seeing cool stuff from them no matter what the CPU is.
Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
Longhorn can't even find the door to the stable and it's feet are stuck in a big nasty fly infested pile of manure
You can search for Longhorn in Spotlight and find it in Tiger.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmissig/17582347/
8)
Originally posted by sunilraman
oh no... something just hit me like a ton of bricks. the thought of
"intel integrated graphics"
I understand that's what the developer machine is running. I really hope they don't ship with it, although it apparently support Quartz 2D Extreme. Anything else, while still the same physical card, will require OSX Intel drivers, which are up to ATI and Nvidea to write.
Originally posted by moki
Don't worry -- be happy.
The problem is who owns EFI. The only people pushing it are Microsoft, Intel, and Intel OEM partners. Only Intel has an EFI implementation.
I have yet to see what makes EFI superior to OF:
1) Sun's implementation of OF (OpenBoot) also ran concurrently with the OS and could perform the monitoring tasks that EFI claims to.
2) bplan's implementation of OF in their Pegasos/Pegasos II/ODW products also supports generic PC video boards. BIOS backwards compatibility in other words. It would have been easier for Apple to do this, especially now that they're going to use x86.
3) There is already a free software implementation of OF.
4) I don't trust Intel with their DRM crap or their competence. Their firmware can access the hardware from under the OS, including the hard disk. Add to the fact that EFI is always running and can be accessed via network, you can have firmware viruses which spread regardless what OS you have installed and wreak havoc on your data.
I think I have good reasons to be worried.
Also i think that steve knows this and has anyone thought that this intel thing might just be a bridge until CELL has fully matured? also although Intel is big aren't they like the worst chip makers?
well as for me im going to be getting a second mac after this announcement. I'm sticking to the POWER PC . . . . . . . . for now
If anyone wants to explain this in more detail to me please e-mail
Originally posted by yourmom98
. is it just me or does the cell processor just SMOKE AND BEAT any processor out there.
It's just you
it's just you
care to elaborate?
Originally posted by yourmom98
care to elaborate?
ok
Its just you who thinks the cell processor just smokes and beats any processor out there.