Today's keynote is the public face of Apple's CPU trainwreck with Steve standing on the mess claiming we meant to do this...
A "trainwreck" is a bit harsh...and not very accurate. The fact is that CPU-wise, Apple/Motorola/IBM have pretty well kept pace. This is much more about future road map and (in particular) Pentium-D than anything else.
If anything Apple should be credited for keeping its options open through a proper OS architecture. I have said in the past that NEXTSTEP (predecessor to OS X) is probably the most ported and most portable operating system around (prior to Linux). They had solved the multi-architecture issues. Now they are playing this card. I think it will be a good move in the end.
While this is a phenomenal change, I think Apple is still edging its bets by not making all their computers with Intel processors from the beginning. What has kept Apple from extinction has been their loyal fan(atic)s customers. If "switchers" don't make Apple enough money, even with Intel processors, Apple might see a "New Coke" fiasco happen to them, as many of its fan(atic)s will be pissed off by this move.
On the other hand, Apple might have figured out that hardware won't be a profitable business anymore within x number of years, since computers will be so commoditized, so they are positionning themselves to become a software and entertainment company, even allowing for the (gulp!) licensing of the Mac design at some point in the future.
They had solved the multi-architecture issues. Now they are playing this card. I think it will be a good move in the end.
I agree 100%. This isn't like we're still using Mac OS 9, and saying we're going to port OS 9 to Intel. OS X has opened Apple up to a whole new world of architectural options. I can't wait to see the results.
Apple might see a "New Coke" fiasco happen to them, as many of its fan(atic)s will be pissed off by this move.
The "New Coke" comparison is a poor one. Coke actually changed the flavor of Coke...the "user interface" of Coke if you will. This is more along the lines of Coke deciding to change from glass bottles to plastic ones. It is a part change for all intents and purposes. Most of the change will be invisible to users and nearly so to developers.
It is actually quite a smart move for Apple on another level...they are getting out of the CPU business. True they haven't really been in the CPU business in a strict sense...but they have had to have a very close hand in it with Motorola and IBM. Now they can just design computers/motherboards and OSes and software applications.
This is more like Apple's decision (years ago) to get out of manufacturing computers. Eventually, I suspect they will even get out of designing their own motherboards and they'll basically just be a software company...one that specs out the hardware their software should run on (for optimum use) and outsources the design (electronic) and manufacturing...but keeps the core stuff (software and design (industrial) in house.
So is 'G5' an IBM name? When they go to Intel could they call the first chip 'G6', or do they need to come up with a new name alltogether?
The "G" naming has been an Apple thing. It will be interesting though to see if they drop it or continue it. It is mostly a marketing name for a set of chip functionality/specs/architecture.
The irony is great. Steve has become a real clown lately.
Are we missing something? It's not like macs will be running Pentium 4's. Ther will at the very least be pentium D's, with maybe an all-new product line in the mix.
The "New Coke" comparison is a poor one. Coke actually changed the flavor of Coke...the "user interface" of Coke if you will. This is more along the lines of Coke deciding to change from glass bottles to plastic ones. It is a part change for all intents and purposes. Most of the change will be invisible to users and nearly so to developers.
In another way, though, I think it is applicable. One the things Coke was trying to do with New Coke is to taste more like Pepsi. Pepsi was beating it in blind taste test because it was sweeter, so Coke though, "All we have to do is make things sweeter, too."
Well, it didn't turn out quite that well. I hope Apple is not making the same mistake. Using Intel at this point does seem like a "Me, too" move. I will be interested to see how they differentiate themselves from Dell. Right now, the Apple page make a big deal of the different architecture. Without that, how do you convince the consumer you different, not "just like a Dell, but costs more."
So does this mean that future macs will have those tacky "Intel inside" stickers on them? I usually peel off all the stickers they put on PCs, but my latest Dell had the "Designed for Windows XP" welded on or something.
I like it. The little Xcode button compiles universal binaries; Pretty much, every (major) app as of 2007 will be universal. It wont matter what processor you have (as long as it's a Intel or PPC), it'll run and that's Apple philosophy right there. People wont care, as long as it runs.
I believe this was a forced decision, not a choice, but fortunately they had a backup plan. Possibly the most surprising thing in that keynote was that every version of OS X is processor independent. I'm sure with previous experience it was decided to have a backup plan as such, and that's exactly what we are seeing; if IBM gave them the goods, this wouldn't have seen the light of day.
At the end of the day it should have shown us one thing: Apple seems to be prepared for many eventualities. This should give us better hope than ever in the company, not less. This isn't Apple saying "Hey! It went tits up and we meant to do it." This is Apple saying "Hey! It went tits up and we're okay."
Now if I could only figure out what's going to happen to Mac hardware sales over the next two years. It's not like you're screwed if you buy a new PPC Mac and put a lot of money into PPC-only software -- it looks like Rosetta will have you pretty well covered for all but the most processor-intensive stuff.
But I still can't help but think -- whether it's actually justified by real productivity and performance concerns or not -- that a lot of people, especially potential first-time Mac buyers, are going to look at current PPC Macs, as well as the new PPC Macs yet to be released, as lame ducks.
Other potential Mac buyers -- maybe even some of those same people who'll be looking at PPC Macs as lame ducks -- will be very wary of being the pioneers who buy the first generation of Intel Macs.
I'm feeling a lot better about the compatibility and software development challenges now, but it's still going to take some incredible salesmanship (and some significant discounting?) to get Apple through the next two years.
Think of all the advantages that come with x86 systems:
(1) Faster, cheaper drive performance. SATA II with Native Command Queueing, External SATA drives, Intel Matrix RAID for internal drives.
(2) Fast graphics. PCI-Express, SLI, mobile PCI-Express. Faster OpenGL.
(3) More wireless choices. Wireless USB, WiMax, cheaper WiFi parts.
(4) Intel goodies. Intel makes all sorts of stuff other than CPU's (network chips and cards, motherboards) - Apple can get these goodies.
(5) As others have pointed out - ports of PC Apps to OSX will only get easier and faster. More apps, more choices, more "switchers", more market share.
(6) Quad systems. Cheap dual-core Pentium D means quad CPU systems for less than current Dual G5s.
(7) Dual core notebooks. That's were dual core really pays off. Makes the Powerbook FCP system really something to get excited about.
(8) AMD in the future. Though AMD has supply & pricing problems similar to IBM, currently their CPU's rock. Opertons and dual core Opterons kick butt. All Apple really needs to do is build a Operton motherboard.
Sure, Apple will need to manage it well to make it work (hardware choices in interim, support developer switches, long term support for PPC apps and hardware).
And yes, there is a lot of crow about "G5 twice as fast as a Pentium". Only the ignorant believed those benchmarks anyway. Never has been nor is true. Fastest desktop PC is a dual Opteron system.
Though I'm a PC user these days, I have been wanting to play with OSX but being a DIYer, want to build my own box. So this news made me check out Mac boards for the first time in years. I used Apple II's and Mac in the 80's, but switched to x86 back in 1991 although I supported Mac's heavily in IT until about 2000.
However, I probably will wait for the hack to load OS/X on a DIY system - or snag a Mac Mini as long as they put a dual core Pentium M in it. 8)
Makes me nervous about the next 12 to 24 months. Some of my personal feelings aside I think it is a wise move. Weeeeee hooooooo into the storm!!
1) Obviously Motorola wasn't able to provide a competitive desktop processor. 2) While we all had very high hopes for IBM (and the G5's awesome!) obviously Apple drew the line in the sand, if IBM didn't meet expectations then on to the gorilla company that specializes in desktop and mobile processors. 3) There are no other real desktop/ mobile processor choices other the X86.
OS X allows this. The mobile processors coming from Intel right now are much better then G4's in power and competitive in heat and battery life. Obviously IBM doesn't have a solution now or in the near future and really doesn't have much incentive for pumping out mobile processors.
Also, once ported over, if Apple becomes even more of a software company there is a choice of allowing companies like Sony....(I remember Steve saying something....) selling OS X boxes.
AMD chips can be used down the road and PPC can be used if need be.
People have mentioned Intel's Road map and how Steve didn't actually show it. I actually know it. It is survive and stay at the top of the market no matter what for ever if possible while having incredible economic and engineering resources to make that a reality.
Crazy times. So much for XBOX 2 games being easier to port to OS X.
....and what's up with no real speed loss (cough) with Rosetta.
I'm not all that thrilled by this, mostly because I feel sorry for my dad for swiching just half a year ago. Hopefully the transition will be slow enough for him to have a decent lifespan on his Power Mac. If not, guess who's going to get the blame...
But this doesn't hinder me from seeing small silver linings. For example, no more special Mac GFX cards. There simply is no need anymore, not that there where that on PPC either ... but anyway. Wouldn't it be wonderfull to be able to get a generic ATI/nVidia card, resembling those for wich there are drivers, to upgrade your Mac with?
El cheapo CPU uppgrades anyone?
More OSS software available, all the x86 dependent stuff now "just works" (tm).
I'm not all that thrilled by this, mostly because I feel sorry for my dad for swiching just half a year ago. Hopefully the transition will be slow enough for him to have a decent lifespan on his Power Mac. If not, guess who's going to get the blame...
How is that any different from normal speed increases. His computer will still work, and still run all the mac software. This is just like a speed increase (just like if apple released a 4 GHz G5 tower). He can't expect his power mac to be top of the line for longer than 6 months.
I'm not all that thrilled by this, mostly because I feel sorry for my dad for swiching just half a year ago.
He "switched" operating systems. Sure, he may have to change out hardware depending on the software issue in 2-3 years, but if Apple ISV's keep PPC compatible apps (and my guess most will), it should really only be an issue by the time he might want to upgrade anyway.
How is that any different from normal speed increases. His computer will still work, and still run all the mac software. This is just like a speed increase (just like if apple released a 4 GHz G5 tower). He can't expect his power mac to be top of the line for longer than 6 months.
Please, please don't tell me that you just compared an ISA swich to a speed bump...
A released 4Ghz G5 wouldn't mean that there's a risk of no software that he likes being released anymore on PPC in two years time or so.
Well, as a long time PC guy, I think Apple is making the right move for the long term - especially on the notebook side of things.
What SUCKS is that after years of never owning a laptop, I finally decided to buy a Powerbook. Now I have to wait another year( at least)to buy it- this is going to KILL me. I was so excited!
Oh well, I guess I have an excuse to build a new desktop system to keep me satisfied in the meantime. Athlon X2 here I come!
don't worry. the laptops are the first things that apple is going to use intel chips with. Apple despritely wants the centrino.
He "switched" operating systems. The CPU architecute is irrelevant for most arguments (except for marketing purposes). The bottom line is the fastest IBM, Intel and AMD processors are about the same. Supply, heat (for mobiles) and price are extremely relevant.
I agree with this statement. I was bummed about the whole transition to Intel earlier today after I saw the reports of the keynote speech. I thought about it all afternoon while my computer was off during a storm.
When I turned it on and started playing around in Tiger again, it hit me. The experience is the OS. I got to thinking that I could care less what processor it is running on. That is not the reason that I am running the Mac. I am running it because currently the Mac OS X experience blows away that of the other 5 computers in my house.
I just got my Mac a month ago and I am very happy about it. I cannot wait to see how everything plays out over the next couple of years while I am having fun with my Power Mac G5 system. In three or four years, maybe longer, when I get ready for a new computer, I will probably get a new Mactel based system.
Comments
Originally posted by Tuttle
Yep.
Today's keynote is the public face of Apple's CPU trainwreck with Steve standing on the mess claiming we meant to do this...
A "trainwreck" is a bit harsh...and not very accurate. The fact is that CPU-wise, Apple/Motorola/IBM have pretty well kept pace. This is much more about future road map and (in particular) Pentium-D than anything else.
If anything Apple should be credited for keeping its options open through a proper OS architecture. I have said in the past that NEXTSTEP (predecessor to OS X) is probably the most ported and most portable operating system around (prior to Linux). They had solved the multi-architecture issues. Now they are playing this card. I think it will be a good move in the end.
On the other hand, Apple might have figured out that hardware won't be a profitable business anymore within x number of years, since computers will be so commoditized, so they are positionning themselves to become a software and entertainment company, even allowing for the (gulp!) licensing of the Mac design at some point in the future.
Only time will tell...
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
They had solved the multi-architecture issues. Now they are playing this card. I think it will be a good move in the end.
I agree 100%. This isn't like we're still using Mac OS 9, and saying we're going to port OS 9 to Intel. OS X has opened Apple up to a whole new world of architectural options. I can't wait to see the results.
Originally posted by Boukman
Apple might see a "New Coke" fiasco happen to them, as many of its fan(atic)s will be pissed off by this move.
The "New Coke" comparison is a poor one. Coke actually changed the flavor of Coke...the "user interface" of Coke if you will. This is more along the lines of Coke deciding to change from glass bottles to plastic ones. It is a part change for all intents and purposes. Most of the change will be invisible to users and nearly so to developers.
It is actually quite a smart move for Apple on another level...they are getting out of the CPU business. True they haven't really been in the CPU business in a strict sense...but they have had to have a very close hand in it with Motorola and IBM. Now they can just design computers/motherboards and OSes and software applications.
This is more like Apple's decision (years ago) to get out of manufacturing computers. Eventually, I suspect they will even get out of designing their own motherboards and they'll basically just be a software company...one that specs out the hardware their software should run on (for optimum use) and outsources the design (electronic) and manufacturing...but keeps the core stuff (software and design (industrial) in house.
Originally posted by iDunno
So is 'G5' an IBM name? When they go to Intel could they call the first chip 'G6', or do they need to come up with a new name alltogether?
The "G" naming has been an Apple thing. It will be interesting though to see if they drop it or continue it. It is mostly a marketing name for a set of chip functionality/specs/architecture.
Originally posted by AppleRISC
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
The irony is great. Steve has become a real clown lately.
Are we missing something? It's not like macs will be running Pentium 4's. Ther will at the very least be pentium D's, with maybe an all-new product line in the mix.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The "New Coke" comparison is a poor one. Coke actually changed the flavor of Coke...the "user interface" of Coke if you will. This is more along the lines of Coke deciding to change from glass bottles to plastic ones. It is a part change for all intents and purposes. Most of the change will be invisible to users and nearly so to developers.
In another way, though, I think it is applicable. One the things Coke was trying to do with New Coke is to taste more like Pepsi. Pepsi was beating it in blind taste test because it was sweeter, so Coke though, "All we have to do is make things sweeter, too."
Well, it didn't turn out quite that well. I hope Apple is not making the same mistake. Using Intel at this point does seem like a "Me, too" move. I will be interested to see how they differentiate themselves from Dell. Right now, the Apple page make a big deal of the different architecture. Without that, how do you convince the consumer you different, not "just like a Dell, but costs more."
I believe this was a forced decision, not a choice, but fortunately they had a backup plan. Possibly the most surprising thing in that keynote was that every version of OS X is processor independent. I'm sure with previous experience it was decided to have a backup plan as such, and that's exactly what we are seeing; if IBM gave them the goods, this wouldn't have seen the light of day.
At the end of the day it should have shown us one thing: Apple seems to be prepared for many eventualities. This should give us better hope than ever in the company, not less. This isn't Apple saying "Hey! It went tits up and we meant to do it." This is Apple saying "Hey! It went tits up and we're okay."
The RDF has a remarkably soothing effect.
Now if I could only figure out what's going to happen to Mac hardware sales over the next two years. It's not like you're screwed if you buy a new PPC Mac and put a lot of money into PPC-only software -- it looks like Rosetta will have you pretty well covered for all but the most processor-intensive stuff.
But I still can't help but think -- whether it's actually justified by real productivity and performance concerns or not -- that a lot of people, especially potential first-time Mac buyers, are going to look at current PPC Macs, as well as the new PPC Macs yet to be released, as lame ducks.
Other potential Mac buyers -- maybe even some of those same people who'll be looking at PPC Macs as lame ducks -- will be very wary of being the pioneers who buy the first generation of Intel Macs.
I'm feeling a lot better about the compatibility and software development challenges now, but it's still going to take some incredible salesmanship (and some significant discounting?) to get Apple through the next two years.
Think of all the advantages that come with x86 systems:
(1) Faster, cheaper drive performance. SATA II with Native Command Queueing, External SATA drives, Intel Matrix RAID for internal drives.
(2) Fast graphics. PCI-Express, SLI, mobile PCI-Express. Faster OpenGL.
(3) More wireless choices. Wireless USB, WiMax, cheaper WiFi parts.
(4) Intel goodies. Intel makes all sorts of stuff other than CPU's (network chips and cards, motherboards) - Apple can get these goodies.
(5) As others have pointed out - ports of PC Apps to OSX will only get easier and faster. More apps, more choices, more "switchers", more market share.
(6) Quad systems. Cheap dual-core Pentium D means quad CPU systems for less than current Dual G5s.
(7) Dual core notebooks. That's were dual core really pays off. Makes the Powerbook FCP system really something to get excited about.
(8) AMD in the future. Though AMD has supply & pricing problems similar to IBM, currently their CPU's rock. Opertons and dual core Opterons kick butt. All Apple really needs to do is build a Operton motherboard.
Sure, Apple will need to manage it well to make it work (hardware choices in interim, support developer switches, long term support for PPC apps and hardware).
And yes, there is a lot of crow about "G5 twice as fast as a Pentium". Only the ignorant believed those benchmarks anyway. Never has been nor is true. Fastest desktop PC is a dual Opteron system.
Though I'm a PC user these days, I have been wanting to play with OSX but being a DIYer, want to build my own box. So this news made me check out Mac boards for the first time in years. I used Apple II's and Mac in the 80's, but switched to x86 back in 1991 although I supported Mac's heavily in IT until about 2000.
However, I probably will wait for the hack to load OS/X on a DIY system - or snag a Mac Mini as long as they put a dual core Pentium M in it. 8)
1) Obviously Motorola wasn't able to provide a competitive desktop processor. 2) While we all had very high hopes for IBM (and the G5's awesome!) obviously Apple drew the line in the sand, if IBM didn't meet expectations then on to the gorilla company that specializes in desktop and mobile processors. 3) There are no other real desktop/ mobile processor choices other the X86.
OS X allows this. The mobile processors coming from Intel right now are much better then G4's in power and competitive in heat and battery life. Obviously IBM doesn't have a solution now or in the near future and really doesn't have much incentive for pumping out mobile processors.
Also, once ported over, if Apple becomes even more of a software company there is a choice of allowing companies like Sony....(I remember Steve saying something....) selling OS X boxes.
AMD chips can be used down the road and PPC can be used if need be.
People have mentioned Intel's Road map and how Steve didn't actually show it. I actually know it. It is survive and stay at the top of the market no matter what for ever if possible while having incredible economic and engineering resources to make that a reality.
Crazy times. So much for XBOX 2 games being easier to port to OS X.
....and what's up with no real speed loss (cough) with Rosetta.
But this doesn't hinder me from seeing small silver linings. For example, no more special Mac GFX cards. There simply is no need anymore, not that there where that on PPC either ... but anyway. Wouldn't it be wonderfull to be able to get a generic ATI/nVidia card, resembling those for wich there are drivers, to upgrade your Mac with?
El cheapo CPU uppgrades anyone?
More OSS software available, all the x86 dependent stuff now "just works" (tm).
Easier porting then from x86 --> PPC.
WINE/WineX anyone? Mmm... HL and Farcry on OSX
I just dont see the rainbow from a marketing and pc-cost perspective.
I'm not all that thrilled by this, mostly because I feel sorry for my dad for swiching just half a year ago. Hopefully the transition will be slow enough for him to have a decent lifespan on his Power Mac. If not, guess who's going to get the blame...
How is that any different from normal speed increases. His computer will still work, and still run all the mac software. This is just like a speed increase (just like if apple released a 4 GHz G5 tower). He can't expect his power mac to be top of the line for longer than 6 months.
Originally posted by Eric_Z
I'm not all that thrilled by this, mostly because I feel sorry for my dad for swiching just half a year ago.
He "switched" operating systems. Sure, he may have to change out hardware depending on the software issue in 2-3 years, but if Apple ISV's keep PPC compatible apps (and my guess most will), it should really only be an issue by the time he might want to upgrade anyway.
Originally posted by e1618978
How is that any different from normal speed increases. His computer will still work, and still run all the mac software. This is just like a speed increase (just like if apple released a 4 GHz G5 tower). He can't expect his power mac to be top of the line for longer than 6 months.
Please, please don't tell me that you just compared an ISA swich to a speed bump...
A released 4Ghz G5 wouldn't mean that there's a risk of no software that he likes being released anymore on PPC in two years time or so.
Originally posted by ShadowX
Well, as a long time PC guy, I think Apple is making the right move for the long term - especially on the notebook side of things.
What SUCKS is that after years of never owning a laptop, I finally decided to buy a Powerbook. Now I have to wait another year( at least)to buy it- this is going to KILL me. I was so excited!
Oh well, I guess I have an excuse to build a new desktop system to keep me satisfied in the meantime. Athlon X2 here I come!
don't worry. the laptops are the first things that apple is going to use intel chips with. Apple despritely wants the centrino.
Originally posted by sevensmilingsharks
He "switched" operating systems. The CPU architecute is irrelevant for most arguments (except for marketing purposes). The bottom line is the fastest IBM, Intel and AMD processors are about the same. Supply, heat (for mobiles) and price are extremely relevant.
I agree with this statement. I was bummed about the whole transition to Intel earlier today after I saw the reports of the keynote speech. I thought about it all afternoon while my computer was off during a storm.
When I turned it on and started playing around in Tiger again, it hit me. The experience is the OS. I got to thinking that I could care less what processor it is running on. That is not the reason that I am running the Mac. I am running it because currently the Mac OS X experience blows away that of the other 5 computers in my house.
I just got my Mac a month ago and I am very happy about it. I cannot wait to see how everything plays out over the next couple of years while I am having fun with my Power Mac G5 system. In three or four years, maybe longer, when I get ready for a new computer, I will probably get a new Mactel based system.