I never thought I'd say this, but I think Steve Jobs has completely lost his mind. He spewed a pile of bovine manure this morning about Intel's "great roadmap," yet of course failed to actually provide any details. He did no speed comparisons between Mac OS X on Intel and PowerPC because he knows the x86 version would lose. What happens to AltiVec? The reason Apple has superior rendering times for Final Cut Pro, faster DVD encoding, etc, is because of the PowerPC's AltiVec instructions. Why the hell would I want a Mac that's at 3.7 GHz "Intel inside" if I'm going to have slower rendering time? My time is worth something, too, but apparently the almighty Steve doesn't give a rat's ass.
Nor does he care about my money. Who the hell's going to be supporting any software for PPC Macs 7 years from now? Why should I be forced once again (it was classic to OS X, now it's PPC to Intel) to pay for upgrades that I don't really want or need just so I can run the software (properly, their cheesy PPC -> x86 translator will most certainly not provide the performance I expect out of my apps on a Mac) on newer Macs in the future? I again have to shell out money for an upgrade to the newest Adobe Creative Suite even though I'm fine with the last revision? Why should I have to buy a new version of Microsoft Office?
Is Steve insane enough to believe that processor intensive games created today for the Mac are going to run fine in his stupid PPC emulation environment? Somehow it doesn't seem that translating RISC to CISC is going to offer acceptable performance. If he does pull this off, kudos to him, even though I think it's one of the dumbest moves he's ever made. Switching to the crusty x86 ISA is insane. What's next, we're ditching Mac OS X and installing Windows on our future Macs?
Not at all. Weren't you aware that there's even a Windows version of VirtualPC? Why? Because there are some great advantages to being able to run one or more alternate virtual machines as separate simulataneous processes on one real machine, without needing to boot between one and the other. Windows users use VirtualPC to run different versions of Windows and/or Linux simulataneously.
I have a lot of mixed feelings about this x86 move, but VirtualPC isn't high among my concerns. In fact, VirtualPC should kick ass being able to run x86 code directly.
1. Intel has the best encoding on the market. even without altivec, apple encoding will still be way faster
I hope you're right, because if I have to take a performance hit I'll be pissed.
Quote:
2. The binaries are PPC/x86 combo. they work for both. companies making x86 mac programs will be subconsiously making PPC programs. so 7 years from now, PPC macs will be supported.
You don't seriously believe companies like Adobe are going to continue optimizing their applications for _both_ architectures now do you? Come on.
Quote:
heck, converting PC games to Mac and programs in general will be so much easier.
This makes no sense. How does using x86 make porting PC games and applications to the Mac any easier? Last I checked there were no plans to introduce a Windows API in Mac OS X.
Quote:
5. Although RISC is more efficient, switching to a CISC 3.6 Ghz vs. a 2.7Ghz RISC will probably increase performance. benchmarks confirm this.
Yes, perhaps that's so, but I think it would have made much more sense for Apple to sub-license its PowerPC IP to Intel or another manufacturer. Or switch to some other RISC based architecture, because technically this is a great big step backwards. I'm not used to Apple taking the primitive way out. I guess they're more like Dell and Microsoft than I thought. Oh well.
Preface: I am not in love with Jobs and I know he can do wrong -
But... what the hell is in this for him? You can't bash the man and say that he's deceived us all without backing it up with hard facts as to how he is benefiting.
The plan is one year from now we will see the first consumer level Mac with an Intel processor, possibly a variant of the Mac Mini.
Two years from now the PowerMac will see an Intel chip.
During those two years we will still see upgrades based on newer G4s and G5s.
I wonder, if IBM speeds pick up substantially over the next two years will this slow down the transition?
I see no reason for Apple to drop support for the PPC until the newest operating system no longer can run on legacy computers. That day is so far off as to be unpredictable.
Not at all. Weren't you aware that there's even a Windows version of VirtualPC? Why? Because there are some great advantages to being able to run one or more alternate virtual machines as separate simulataneous processes on one real machine, without needing to boot between one and the other. Windows users use VirtualPC to run different versions of Windows and/or Linux simulataneously.
I have a lot of mixed feelings about this x86 move, but VirtualPC isn't high among my concerns. In fact, VirtualPC should kick ass being able to run x86 code directly.
I think this is absolutely fantastic. It means Apple has finally acknowledged the OS is what makes a Mac and they are now commited to using the best microprocessor available for the hardware regardless of instruction set. They will be able to use chips from Motorola/FreeScale, IBM, Intel, AMD as they see fit in order to maximize profit margins for each product line. Talk about bargaining power.
Will they actually stop using IBM chips over the next 2 years? Maybe, maybe not. I think it all depends on what progress IBM is able to make within that time frame.
With the dev kits using P4s, does that mean the new macs will use P4s as well, or will they use something else (eg: XBOX 360 "beta units" were PM, but units will use own processor)
And when can we expect those new processors to be in the PBs?
And why the hell shouldn't I just buy a dell laptop now?
And why the hell is it inferior? Just because Windows runs on it? Or do you have more objective reasons?
I think you know very well what the problems with the x86 ISA are. If you don't, take an x86 assembly programming class sometime. Then learn PowerPC assembly. It's like a breath of fresh air, whereas x86 is like groveling around in one's own feces. IMHO, of course.
People, settle down. This is great news. I won't bother with technical reasons, because they are not neccessary.
To put my money where my mouth is, over two months ago I looked at my Apple stock that I bought in 94 and 95. I had a 680% gain in it. Thanks to Bush's lowering of the Capital Gains Tax, I decided that it would be time to lock in those profits. I sold half of my shares for an outrageous amount of money, leaving me with (because of splits) 4 times as many shares as I started with. The remaing shares still had an almost 200% gain. I then reinvested to accumulate the same amount shares that I started with. Today I ran out of the keynote when Steve announced that OS X has been running on Intel for 5 years, and doubled my current holdings. I am pretty confident it will be a very wise long term decision.
[*]No Powerbook G5 EVER! -- For once, Apple can't make a product that it wants to. Back when the Powerbooks had G3s, it was hard to believe they'd ever get a G4 because of heat issues. Now, it is impossible to believe that an Apple laptop will ever have a G5.
I have to agree. It seems from Steve's comments that the portables are a big reason for the transition.
Quote:
[[*]No 3.0 GHz Power Mac G5s...probably -- While not cancelling out the possibility, it seems like Jobs was making it pretty clear that the G5 won't make it to 3.0 Ghz. This really amazes me, because I was under the impression that the G5 was going to be HUGELY scalable.
Actually Jobs said there would be better PowerPCs on the horizon. So this wouldn't preclude a 970 MP chip.
Quote:
[[*]Apple's products keep hitting ceilings where their chips are concerned -- Why is it that the 680X0 and PowerPC chips have all run out of gas? The x86 chips are still moving onward and upward, right? Is this empty promises from Motorola and IBM, short-sightedness on Apple's part, or a little of both?
Actually the issue hasn't been the MHz myth or speeds--its been availability and heat. The 2.7 PowerMac compares fairly favorably to the x86 high end machines for many cases. And IBM HAS improved its performance at least as much as Intel has the last 2 years (35%, 2.0->2.7). It just can't produce enough soon enough or cool enough to put into portables.
Quote:
[[*]The Megahertz Myth will end for lack of opposing arguments -- Think about it: Except for the fact that OS X will still probably remain a more efficient OS than Microsoft's offerings, the "difference" in megahertz between the two platforms will all but vanish. It'll be interesting to see how well PC and Mac chips parallel each other in clock speeds since they'll both be from the same company. Are we going to see Intel's "arms" getting pulled in both directions like a child in a custody battle? "We should have the faster chips first!" "No WE should!" Sheesh.
Although Apple paired with Intel, there's nothing to prevent it from using AMD to get faster parts (or using AMD's dual core chips). That should help with supply problems.
What this transition DOES mean is that Apple, if they can convince developers, can have the best of both worlds--build systems from Intel AND IBM depending on projected speed and availability issues. That would mean that they would still buy a 3.0 GHz 970 MP that would kick Intel's butt; however, they might put an Intel or AMD chip in the low end PowerMac because IBM can't supply enough. They can put a faster (x86) chip into their PowerBooks, Mac Minis, and eMacs than the available PPC variety. They could "hang on" to the PPC even longer in their top of the line PowerMacs, if IBM can continue to improve them (as heat is less of an issue).
I won't bother with technical reasons, because they are not neccessary.
Is it, perhaps, because you have no technical reasons? Just like Steve Jobs gave no technical reasons or any insight into this supposedly "superior" roadmap that he claims Intel has lined up? I mean last year he was talking about the "superior" PowerPC architecture, but it's quite obvious he wasn't all that serious about its "superiority," so please do indulge us, what are the reasons that this should be considered a "great move"?
I think that here Apple is drawing a metaphor for its own survival. Get back to where the game is. The apple (or leopard) must change it's spots to survive. Windows and Intel have kicked apple into a 3-16% market share. A small(ish) developer base. The leopard must change its spots.
Tiger is a hint of where apple is going and with this kind of great buzz about the OS there are plenty of switchers out there who have taken notice. they all have shitty windows boxes and tons of software that they paid hard earned $$ for. If the MacTel box can run those programs in some form of emulator then they are totally on board. The OS can hunt in the jungle again.
TIGER, tiger, burning bright\t
In the forests of the night,\t
What immortal hand or eye\t
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
Fearful symmetry like running on PPC and x86?
Right now apple has a great platform for the high end. The dualies are fine for the purpose that they were designed. This should last us into 2007 when a wicked intel/powemac is debuted.
In the mean time the switcher platform will get an intel p4 chip in 2005. The mac mini = crack for the switcher base.
All of us kool aid drinkers will buy the apple hardware. Apple knows this. It will make it easy for developers to port their apps. If apple took its sweet time developing the tools for the developers to switch then watch what will become.
I am not afraid.
"What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a butterfly." --- Richard Bach
I will stay with my G4 powermac until they give me a low power centrino with wimax. early 2006 will be it.
Comments
Originally posted by AppleRISC
I never thought I'd say this, but I think Steve Jobs has completely lost his mind. He spewed a pile of bovine manure this morning about Intel's "great roadmap," yet of course failed to actually provide any details. He did no speed comparisons between Mac OS X on Intel and PowerPC because he knows the x86 version would lose. What happens to AltiVec? The reason Apple has superior rendering times for Final Cut Pro, faster DVD encoding, etc, is because of the PowerPC's AltiVec instructions. Why the hell would I want a Mac that's at 3.7 GHz "Intel inside" if I'm going to have slower rendering time? My time is worth something, too, but apparently the almighty Steve doesn't give a rat's ass.
Nor does he care about my money. Who the hell's going to be supporting any software for PPC Macs 7 years from now? Why should I be forced once again (it was classic to OS X, now it's PPC to Intel) to pay for upgrades that I don't really want or need just so I can run the software (properly, their cheesy PPC -> x86 translator will most certainly not provide the performance I expect out of my apps on a Mac) on newer Macs in the future? I again have to shell out money for an upgrade to the newest Adobe Creative Suite even though I'm fine with the last revision? Why should I have to buy a new version of Microsoft Office?
Is Steve insane enough to believe that processor intensive games created today for the Mac are going to run fine in his stupid PPC emulation environment? Somehow it doesn't seem that translating RISC to CISC is going to offer acceptable performance. If he does pull this off, kudos to him, even though I think it's one of the dumbest moves he's ever made. Switching to the crusty x86 ISA is insane. What's next, we're ditching Mac OS X and installing Windows on our future Macs?
By the way, it's been many years, but I don't see how this would be any different today: http://mackido.com/Hardware/WhatIsRISC.html
This move is singularly stupid. Flame me all you want because I'm sure some of you think Steve Jobs can do no wrong. But this is just stupid.
But just think of the bargains on Macs we'll be getting on eBay now!!!
Originally posted by inslider
Apple just killed Microsoft VirtualPC.
Not at all. Weren't you aware that there's even a Windows version of VirtualPC? Why? Because there are some great advantages to being able to run one or more alternate virtual machines as separate simulataneous processes on one real machine, without needing to boot between one and the other. Windows users use VirtualPC to run different versions of Windows and/or Linux simulataneously.
I have a lot of mixed feelings about this x86 move, but VirtualPC isn't high among my concerns. In fact, VirtualPC should kick ass being able to run x86 code directly.
Originally posted by akhomerun
1. Intel has the best encoding on the market. even without altivec, apple encoding will still be way faster
I hope you're right, because if I have to take a performance hit I'll be pissed.
2. The binaries are PPC/x86 combo. they work for both. companies making x86 mac programs will be subconsiously making PPC programs. so 7 years from now, PPC macs will be supported.
You don't seriously believe companies like Adobe are going to continue optimizing their applications for _both_ architectures now do you? Come on.
heck, converting PC games to Mac and programs in general will be so much easier.
This makes no sense. How does using x86 make porting PC games and applications to the Mac any easier? Last I checked there were no plans to introduce a Windows API in Mac OS X.
5. Although RISC is more efficient, switching to a CISC 3.6 Ghz vs. a 2.7Ghz RISC will probably increase performance. benchmarks confirm this.
Yes, perhaps that's so, but I think it would have made much more sense for Apple to sub-license its PowerPC IP to Intel or another manufacturer. Or switch to some other RISC based architecture, because technically this is a great big step backwards. I'm not used to Apple taking the primitive way out. I guess they're more like Dell and Microsoft than I thought. Oh well.
Originally posted by AppleRISC
Then again, they already chose an inferior chip architecture, who knows what they'll do next.
Oh shut up! Stop being religious about it will ya? If its good enough for Steve its obviously good enough for you
And just FYI: internally the x86 is just as RISC as the PPC. The difference is that it exposes a CISC instruction set.
And why the hell is it inferior? Just because Windows runs on it? Or do you have more objective reasons?
And no, I won't ever believe one more word the Dear Leader says.
But... what the hell is in this for him? You can't bash the man and say that he's deceived us all without backing it up with hard facts as to how he is benefiting.
Flame away.
Two years from now the PowerMac will see an Intel chip.
During those two years we will still see upgrades based on newer G4s and G5s.
I wonder, if IBM speeds pick up substantially over the next two years will this slow down the transition?
I see no reason for Apple to drop support for the PPC until the newest operating system no longer can run on legacy computers. That day is so far off as to be unpredictable.
Originally posted by shetline
Not at all. Weren't you aware that there's even a Windows version of VirtualPC? Why? Because there are some great advantages to being able to run one or more alternate virtual machines as separate simulataneous processes on one real machine, without needing to boot between one and the other. Windows users use VirtualPC to run different versions of Windows and/or Linux simulataneously.
I have a lot of mixed feelings about this x86 move, but VirtualPC isn't high among my concerns. In fact, VirtualPC should kick ass being able to run x86 code directly.
No, I wasn't aware of that! Thanks.
Will they actually stop using IBM chips over the next 2 years? Maybe, maybe not. I think it all depends on what progress IBM is able to make within that time frame.
And when can we expect those new processors to be in the PBs?
And why the hell shouldn't I just buy a dell laptop now?
Originally posted by UnixPoet
Oh shut up! Stop being religious about it will ya? If its good enough for Steve its obviously good enough for you
It has nothing to do with religion. I happen to think that RISC architectures are technologically superior to CISC.
And just FYI: internally the x86 is just as RISC as the PPC. The difference is that it exposes a CISC instruction set.
Nope, not quite. That's a half-truth. http://mackido.com/Hardware/x86RISC.html
And why the hell is it inferior? Just because Windows runs on it? Or do you have more objective reasons?
I think you know very well what the problems with the x86 ISA are. If you don't, take an x86 assembly programming class sometime. Then learn PowerPC assembly. It's like a breath of fresh air, whereas x86 is like groveling around in one's own feces. IMHO, of course.
It stands to reason that if you're buying Intel's BEST hardware that you should have the option to intall either OSX, Linux or Windows as you choose.
Unless these processors have on chip DRM, I'm not sure how they will prevent
rampant bootlegs of the dual platform OS.
Remove the pre flight check plist and what happens?
Convert the system requirements and save the revised plist and tah dah you're done.
That's how I got final cut pro 4 installed on my beige 300Mhz G3
For all we know, Apple may be perfectly content that OSX takes over and Microsoft finally gets put in it's place.
To put my money where my mouth is, over two months ago I looked at my Apple stock that I bought in 94 and 95. I had a 680% gain in it. Thanks to Bush's lowering of the Capital Gains Tax, I decided that it would be time to lock in those profits. I sold half of my shares for an outrageous amount of money, leaving me with (because of splits) 4 times as many shares as I started with. The remaing shares still had an almost 200% gain. I then reinvested to accumulate the same amount shares that I started with. Today I ran out of the keynote when Steve announced that OS X has been running on Intel for 5 years, and doubled my current holdings. I am pretty confident it will be a very wise long term decision.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
What we know:
[*]No Powerbook G5 EVER! -- For once, Apple can't make a product that it wants to. Back when the Powerbooks had G3s, it was hard to believe they'd ever get a G4 because of heat issues. Now, it is impossible to believe that an Apple laptop will ever have a G5.
I have to agree. It seems from Steve's comments that the portables are a big reason for the transition.
[[*]No 3.0 GHz Power Mac G5s...probably -- While not cancelling out the possibility, it seems like Jobs was making it pretty clear that the G5 won't make it to 3.0 Ghz. This really amazes me, because I was under the impression that the G5 was going to be HUGELY scalable.
Actually Jobs said there would be better PowerPCs on the horizon. So this wouldn't preclude a 970 MP chip.
[[*]Apple's products keep hitting ceilings where their chips are concerned -- Why is it that the 680X0 and PowerPC chips have all run out of gas? The x86 chips are still moving onward and upward, right? Is this empty promises from Motorola and IBM, short-sightedness on Apple's part, or a little of both?
Actually the issue hasn't been the MHz myth or speeds--its been availability and heat. The 2.7 PowerMac compares fairly favorably to the x86 high end machines for many cases. And IBM HAS improved its performance at least as much as Intel has the last 2 years (35%, 2.0->2.7). It just can't produce enough soon enough or cool enough to put into portables.
[[*]The Megahertz Myth will end for lack of opposing arguments -- Think about it: Except for the fact that OS X will still probably remain a more efficient OS than Microsoft's offerings, the "difference" in megahertz between the two platforms will all but vanish. It'll be interesting to see how well PC and Mac chips parallel each other in clock speeds since they'll both be from the same company. Are we going to see Intel's "arms" getting pulled in both directions like a child in a custody battle? "We should have the faster chips first!" "No WE should!" Sheesh.
Although Apple paired with Intel, there's nothing to prevent it from using AMD to get faster parts (or using AMD's dual core chips). That should help with supply problems.
What this transition DOES mean is that Apple, if they can convince developers, can have the best of both worlds--build systems from Intel AND IBM depending on projected speed and availability issues. That would mean that they would still buy a 3.0 GHz 970 MP that would kick Intel's butt; however, they might put an Intel or AMD chip in the low end PowerMac because IBM can't supply enough. They can put a faster (x86) chip into their PowerBooks, Mac Minis, and eMacs than the available PPC variety. They could "hang on" to the PPC even longer in their top of the line PowerMacs, if IBM can continue to improve them (as heat is less of an issue).
Apple had no choice. And the OS X will have to be faster than Windows - otherwise, people will just dump it.
Originally posted by blue2kdave
I won't bother with technical reasons, because they are not neccessary.
Is it, perhaps, because you have no technical reasons? Just like Steve Jobs gave no technical reasons or any insight into this supposedly "superior" roadmap that he claims Intel has lined up? I mean last year he was talking about the "superior" PowerPC architecture, but it's quite obvious he wasn't all that serious about its "superiority," so please do indulge us, what are the reasons that this should be considered a "great move"?
Leopard in late 2006 (or early 2007):
So, from R. Kipling perhaps some hints:
http://www.sff.net/people/karawynn/justso/leopard.htp
I think that here Apple is drawing a metaphor for its own survival. Get back to where the game is. The apple (or leopard) must change it's spots to survive. Windows and Intel have kicked apple into a 3-16% market share. A small(ish) developer base. The leopard must change its spots.
Tiger is a hint of where apple is going and with this kind of great buzz about the OS there are plenty of switchers out there who have taken notice. they all have shitty windows boxes and tons of software that they paid hard earned $$ for. If the MacTel box can run those programs in some form of emulator then they are totally on board. The OS can hunt in the jungle again.
TIGER, tiger, burning bright\t
In the forests of the night,\t
What immortal hand or eye\t
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
Fearful symmetry like running on PPC and x86?
Right now apple has a great platform for the high end. The dualies are fine for the purpose that they were designed. This should last us into 2007 when a wicked intel/powemac is debuted.
In the mean time the switcher platform will get an intel p4 chip in 2005. The mac mini = crack for the switcher base.
All of us kool aid drinkers will buy the apple hardware. Apple knows this. It will make it easy for developers to port their apps. If apple took its sweet time developing the tools for the developers to switch then watch what will become.
I am not afraid.
"What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a butterfly." --- Richard Bach
I will stay with my G4 powermac until they give me a low power centrino with wimax. early 2006 will be it.
Unless Paris shows us some hardware.
+++++++++