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.
Of course! What could I have been thinking!
The mac software developers will drop support for (35 million?) powerPC mac users, and support just the few new intel mac users that come out. It is all so clear to me now!
I wonder what this means for Darwin. If the complete Darwin source code continues to be available, what is going to keep hackers from making OSX86 run on any non-Apple X86 hardware they want?
1. The Intel roadmap is better. Seriously, the 3 Ghz G5 is 2 years late!! Apple needs a good laptop chip, PPC is going nowhere with that. The G5s don't seem to be going anywhere either - and they are already down to 90nm. Intel has some really interesting technology coming up.
the G5 is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to put in a laptop without it running at 1.4 Ghz.
the G5 won't break 3Ghz in desktops until they get to 65nm
2. Although I would say AMD is better, AMD isn't a good supplier. Yes, they could meet Apple's supply needs, but they won't work with Apple like Intel will. AMD also only has one fab. Intel has a whole bunch. Intel can also be dirt cheap when it comes to OEM.
3. IBM is going to ignore Apple while it struggles to produce enough chips for the game consoles
4. there's no advantage to PPC over x86 in this situation. IBM doesnt even make a really good RISC processor, it's so complicated and its pipelines are almost as long as intel's, and its pipelines are longer than AMD's. without a high clock speed, G5 can keep up but it needs to get beyond 3Ghz.
5. given that there are few advantages to PPC, the advantages to x86 are larger. the compatibility advantages are to large to ignore.
The mac software developers will drop support for (35 million?) powerPC mac users, and support just the few new intel mac users that come out. It is all so clear to me now!
Did you even bother to read my whole original post?
And of course there is a risk of developers leaving a dead end market, aspecially after the new hw has had some time to sell. Naturally it won't happen over night, but to somehow imply that software development will be the same or unchanged over the course of the original expected life time of the machine, is absurd.
Anyone else get the feeling that this should have happened alongside the release of OSX back in 2001? That coincides nicely with the struggle for the G4 to break the GHz barrier.
If the OS9/OSX boundary in the Apple Lithosphere coincided with the PPC/X86 boundary, the pains of the double transition might have been lessened.
I could be running a second generation Intel based Macintosh right now, not that there's anything particularly wrong with my 12" 1.5 powerbook....
Good thing I havent made any big sales lately ... no unhappy corporate customers... and now I cant imagine making any big sales any-time soon either...
The mac software developers will drop support for (35 million?) powerPC mac users, and support just the few new intel mac users that come out. It is all so clear to me now!
Apple announced that with no effort at all they can have the OS running on both platforms. They also announced that the newly released Xcode 2.1 will produce universal binaries that run on both systems. Why would they do that if they were only worried about those few new Intel Mac users?
Yea.... what in the world could you have been thinking?
While I don't think this decision supprises me, I think that Apple could have looked at AMD technology for the CPU's - I've got a friend who has an AMD box, and it's a wonderful machine. However, Apple has made a business decision, and I congratulate it for making it. Now when a consumer has to decide on which way to turn, it will be a choice between the Ease of use (MacOS X) or most common in the marketplace (Windows). I think that many companies would move to the MacOS X powered box rather than stick with Windows, for the reason of Viruses, stability and ease of use. It also has put pressure on MS to produce a more secure operating system. I also see that many companies would move to Xserve rather than sticking with Win 2k/2k3 powered rackmounted servers.
Just a couple of things for people to keep in mind:
1. These days, the whole 'PowerPC vs Intel' thing isn't really anything more than posturing. People developed an allegience to it because that's what was inside the box, and difference encourages disproportionate notions of superiority.
2. APPLE ARE A COMPANY. They're not your friend and they're not your Messiah. To be perfectly blunt, it all comes back to the shareholders. Jobs' number one priority is always, ALWAYS, to return a maximum dividend for shareholders - that's his job.
To all the people saying that they've been betrayed by Steve and how could he stab us in the back, blah, blah, blah - they're just freakin' computers. If you really don't like it, buy another product, or start your own company - that's the reality.
-TheOtherRob
PS. Just to clarify, I'm talking to end users here - for all the developers out there facing the port, I feel for you!
They say that non-Apple PC's won't be able to run OS X. How do you think Apple will be able to do this? A better question would be, how long will it take someone to reverse engineer what DRM/protection/whatever Apple sells on their new x86 hardware, and make it so OS X can be installed anywhere? Months? Weeks? Days?
I for one see other PC's out there and think to myself, "I like the design and features, but since it doesn't run OS X, I'll never buy it". Well, if it runs OS X, I really see no reason to pay twice the price for something Apple repackages. Apple has nice case designs, but they're not worth $2000-3000 if all I'm getting is some stock hardware put into a shiny case.
It seems as if the loyalty is gone. Is it dumb to feel this way about Mac hardware? Oh hell yeah. But it's what keeps people loving their Macs, and what will eventually break that.
I think the AMD thing is simple, Apple knows more about whats coming down the line from Intel then us. Intel can deliver as many proc's as Apple could ever sell, so supply wont be an issue, Intel are being very agressive about correcting their mistakes with the P4 and Netburst deadend, so Apple have every reason to think they can get somewhere with Intel. AMD cannot offer security at THIS time, I'll bet Apple are talking to them though.....
They say that non-Apple PC's won't be able to run OS X. How do you think Apple will be able to do this? A better question would be, how long will it take someone to reverse engineer what DRM/protection/whatever Apple sells on their new x86 hardware, and make it so OS X can be installed anywhere? Months? Weeks? Days?
I for one see other PC's out there and think to myself, "I like the design and features, but since it doesn't run OS X, I'll never buy it". Well, if it runs OS X, I really see no reason to pay twice the price for something Apple repackages. Apple has nice case designs, but they're not worth $2000-3000 if all I'm getting is some stock hardware put into a shiny case.
It seems as if the loyalty is gone. Is it dumb to feel this way about Mac hardware? Oh hell yeah. But it's what keeps people loving their Macs, and what will eventually break that.
You dont know much about Macs do you?
Apple's computers have custom boot rom chips and Apple designed ASIC's (northbridge). If OSX cannot run without these on the motherboard, how are you ever going to run OSX except on Apple hardware? If you reverse-engineer the hardware Apple will shut that down fast, if you reverse-engineer OSX to run on x86 PC's Apple wont support it and I'll bet the hardware compatibility issues would be huge. 99% of people would not think it worth the hassle.
What interests me way more is whether Intel are also going to make the chipsets?
Anyone else get the feeling that this should have happened alongside the release of OSX back in 2001?
Yes, Dog in heaven above, YES! OS X started on PC machines for Chrissakes!
Only billionares can get away with such monumental mistakes.
But hey, hindsight is 20/20 and at least Steve was smart enough to keep Marklar in reserve. I only wish he prepared enough in advance to have machines ready for sale at the time of the announcement.
Everyone seems to obsess about trying to run os x on any DIY intel computer. I think a question thats just as important is:
Can the new Mactel computers boot and run Windows ? If that's the case it might give larger corporations the incentive to get a Mactel box. Less risk. If the Mac experience doesn't work for their business, just format and install Windows.
This might be a good thing for apple. Get corporations on board risk-free...
Did you even bother to read my whole original post?
And of course there is a risk of developers leaving a dead end market, aspecially after the new hw has had some time to sell. Naturally it won't happen over night, but to somehow imply that software development will be the same or unchanged over the course of the original expected life time of the machine, is absurd.
You said 2 years. Dropping support in 2 years not plausable, and my reaction to your post was justified.
Apple announced that with no effort at all they can have the OS running on both platforms. They also announced that the newly released Xcode 2.1 will produce universal binaries that run on both systems. Why would they do that if they were only worried about those few new Intel Mac users?
Yea.... what in the world could you have been thinking?
I was being sarcastic. You seem to have not noticed.
Apple's computers have custom boot rom chips and Apple designed ASIC's (northbridge). If OSX cannot run without these on the motherboard, how are you ever going to run OSX except on Apple hardware? If you reverse-engineer the hardware Apple will shut that down fast, if you reverse-engineer OSX to run on x86 PC's Apple wont support it and I'll bet the hardware compatibility issues would be huge. 99% of people would not think it worth the hassle.
What interests me way more is whether Intel are also going to make the chipsets?
Design wise, no I don't know a lot about Macs. My assumptions are if Apple goes with an Intel chipset and CPU combo. What if people are able to hack a normal PC BIOS to support whatever it is Apple included in their Mac boot rom chips? All it would involve is a reflash. If people reverse engineer OS X to run on "normal PC's", sure Apple won't support it. But the problem there is, if Apple is using all off the shelf components, anyone can buy the same parts and have a fully functioning "Mac".
I really hope Apple sticks with whatever in-house chipsets they use, otherwise they'll just get wrapped up in making everything proprietary.
I really feel that this has everything to do with allowing other vendors (like Intel and HP) to sell OS X machines in the future. They couldn't really do it now because the apps aren't ported yet. Otherwise it's just an insane for all the hassle.
Downside:
1. We lose Altivec.
2. Users face years of uncertain application complications.
3. Poor developers are saddled with yet another set of hurdles to jump through.
4. FAT binaries are back in town.
5. We risk getting trumped by hot new IBM PPC technology in the future.
6. Apps will likely miss out on CPU-specific optimizations now that devs have to code for two totally different CPU types.
7. Apple trust is broken.
8. 64-bit future put on hold.
9. We'll be forced to upgrade some apps yet again.
10. Apple support just became twice as complicated.
11. We likely pay the same price for inferior hardware.
Upside:
1. We get a Pentium in laptops sometime after next June. Oh boy.
Is it just me, or do you too get the impression that One Infinite Loop is is in merger talks with Neverland Ranch?
I think that a 10.0/Intel switch sounds good in theory, but do you remember that state of the Mac before OSX came out. Many developers, like Quark, were publicly resisting the switch to OSX. I can remember when we eagerly waited to see if developers would make the switch to OSX. I think a simultaneous switch to Intel would have been much too much for Apple to bite off at one time.
This switch will be a long-term benefit for Apple. The transition period might be tough, but, after more than a decade of waiting, I have never seen the PPC architecture deliver the potential that was promised. Users like myself have watched market share erode as our platform's chip speed inexplicably stalls every few years. I commend Apple for taking decisive action that addresses this long-term problem.
2. APPLE ARE A COMPANY. They're not your friend and they're not your Messiah. To be perfectly blunt, it all comes back to the shareholders. Jobs' number one priority is always, ALWAYS, to return a maximum dividend for shareholders - that's his job.
I'm sure the shareholders are thrilled that the stock is trading down on the news. Switching to x86 did wonders for BeOS and NeXT (two OS's that should have a VH1 "Where Are They Now?" show dedicated to them.)
Steve, take a few deep breaths. Now put the crackpipe down. Thaaaaaat's it buddy...
Comments
Originally posted by Eric_Z
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.
Of course! What could I have been thinking!
The mac software developers will drop support for (35 million?) powerPC mac users, and support just the few new intel mac users that come out. It is all so clear to me now!
1. The Intel roadmap is better. Seriously, the 3 Ghz G5 is 2 years late!! Apple needs a good laptop chip, PPC is going nowhere with that. The G5s don't seem to be going anywhere either - and they are already down to 90nm. Intel has some really interesting technology coming up.
the G5 is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to put in a laptop without it running at 1.4 Ghz.
the G5 won't break 3Ghz in desktops until they get to 65nm
2. Although I would say AMD is better, AMD isn't a good supplier. Yes, they could meet Apple's supply needs, but they won't work with Apple like Intel will. AMD also only has one fab. Intel has a whole bunch. Intel can also be dirt cheap when it comes to OEM.
3. IBM is going to ignore Apple while it struggles to produce enough chips for the game consoles
4. there's no advantage to PPC over x86 in this situation. IBM doesnt even make a really good RISC processor, it's so complicated and its pipelines are almost as long as intel's, and its pipelines are longer than AMD's. without a high clock speed, G5 can keep up but it needs to get beyond 3Ghz.
5. given that there are few advantages to PPC, the advantages to x86 are larger. the compatibility advantages are to large to ignore.
Originally posted by e1618978
Of course! What could I have been thinking!
The mac software developers will drop support for (35 million?) powerPC mac users, and support just the few new intel mac users that come out. It is all so clear to me now!
Did you even bother to read my whole original post?
And of course there is a risk of developers leaving a dead end market, aspecially after the new hw has had some time to sell. Naturally it won't happen over night, but to somehow imply that software development will be the same or unchanged over the course of the original expected life time of the machine, is absurd.
If the OS9/OSX boundary in the Apple Lithosphere coincided with the PPC/X86 boundary, the pains of the double transition might have been lessened.
I could be running a second generation Intel based Macintosh right now, not that there's anything particularly wrong with my 12" 1.5 powerbook....
Good thing I havent made any big sales lately ... no unhappy corporate customers... and now I cant imagine making any big sales any-time soon either...
Originally posted by e1618978
The mac software developers will drop support for (35 million?) powerPC mac users, and support just the few new intel mac users that come out. It is all so clear to me now!
Apple announced that with no effort at all they can have the OS running on both platforms. They also announced that the newly released Xcode 2.1 will produce universal binaries that run on both systems. Why would they do that if they were only worried about those few new Intel Mac users?
Yea.... what in the world could you have been thinking?
1. These days, the whole 'PowerPC vs Intel' thing isn't really anything more than posturing. People developed an allegience to it because that's what was inside the box, and difference encourages disproportionate notions of superiority.
2. APPLE ARE A COMPANY. They're not your friend and they're not your Messiah. To be perfectly blunt, it all comes back to the shareholders. Jobs' number one priority is always, ALWAYS, to return a maximum dividend for shareholders - that's his job.
To all the people saying that they've been betrayed by Steve and how could he stab us in the back, blah, blah, blah - they're just freakin' computers. If you really don't like it, buy another product, or start your own company - that's the reality.
-TheOtherRob
PS. Just to clarify, I'm talking to end users here - for all the developers out there facing the port, I feel for you!
I for one see other PC's out there and think to myself, "I like the design and features, but since it doesn't run OS X, I'll never buy it". Well, if it runs OS X, I really see no reason to pay twice the price for something Apple repackages. Apple has nice case designs, but they're not worth $2000-3000 if all I'm getting is some stock hardware put into a shiny case.
It seems as if the loyalty is gone. Is it dumb to feel this way about Mac hardware? Oh hell yeah. But it's what keeps people loving their Macs, and what will eventually break that.
Originally posted by bucci
They say that non-Apple PC's won't be able to run OS X. How do you think Apple will be able to do this? A better question would be, how long will it take someone to reverse engineer what DRM/protection/whatever Apple sells on their new x86 hardware, and make it so OS X can be installed anywhere? Months? Weeks? Days?
I for one see other PC's out there and think to myself, "I like the design and features, but since it doesn't run OS X, I'll never buy it". Well, if it runs OS X, I really see no reason to pay twice the price for something Apple repackages. Apple has nice case designs, but they're not worth $2000-3000 if all I'm getting is some stock hardware put into a shiny case.
It seems as if the loyalty is gone. Is it dumb to feel this way about Mac hardware? Oh hell yeah. But it's what keeps people loving their Macs, and what will eventually break that.
You dont know much about Macs do you?
Apple's computers have custom boot rom chips and Apple designed ASIC's (northbridge). If OSX cannot run without these on the motherboard, how are you ever going to run OSX except on Apple hardware? If you reverse-engineer the hardware Apple will shut that down fast, if you reverse-engineer OSX to run on x86 PC's Apple wont support it and I'll bet the hardware compatibility issues would be huge. 99% of people would not think it worth the hassle.
What interests me way more is whether Intel are also going to make the chipsets?
Originally posted by sorhed
Anyone else get the feeling that this should have happened alongside the release of OSX back in 2001?
Yes, Dog in heaven above, YES! OS X started on PC machines for Chrissakes!
Only billionares can get away with such monumental mistakes.
But hey, hindsight is 20/20 and at least Steve was smart enough to keep Marklar in reserve. I only wish he prepared enough in advance to have machines ready for sale at the time of the announcement.
Can the new Mactel computers boot and run Windows ? If that's the case it might give larger corporations the incentive to get a Mactel box. Less risk. If the Mac experience doesn't work for their business, just format and install Windows.
This might be a good thing for apple. Get corporations on board risk-free...
Originally posted by Eric_Z
Did you even bother to read my whole original post?
And of course there is a risk of developers leaving a dead end market, aspecially after the new hw has had some time to sell. Naturally it won't happen over night, but to somehow imply that software development will be the same or unchanged over the course of the original expected life time of the machine, is absurd.
You said 2 years. Dropping support in 2 years not plausable, and my reaction to your post was justified.
Originally posted by kwsanders
Apple announced that with no effort at all they can have the OS running on both platforms. They also announced that the newly released Xcode 2.1 will produce universal binaries that run on both systems. Why would they do that if they were only worried about those few new Intel Mac users?
Yea.... what in the world could you have been thinking?
I was being sarcastic. You seem to have not noticed.
Originally posted by inslider
Crow is a dish best served cold.
Actually, its "revenge" that is a dish best served cold...just ask the Klingons
Originally posted by Thereubster
You dont know much about Macs do you?
Apple's computers have custom boot rom chips and Apple designed ASIC's (northbridge). If OSX cannot run without these on the motherboard, how are you ever going to run OSX except on Apple hardware? If you reverse-engineer the hardware Apple will shut that down fast, if you reverse-engineer OSX to run on x86 PC's Apple wont support it and I'll bet the hardware compatibility issues would be huge. 99% of people would not think it worth the hassle.
What interests me way more is whether Intel are also going to make the chipsets?
Design wise, no I don't know a lot about Macs. My assumptions are if Apple goes with an Intel chipset and CPU combo. What if people are able to hack a normal PC BIOS to support whatever it is Apple included in their Mac boot rom chips? All it would involve is a reflash. If people reverse engineer OS X to run on "normal PC's", sure Apple won't support it. But the problem there is, if Apple is using all off the shelf components, anyone can buy the same parts and have a fully functioning "Mac".
I really hope Apple sticks with whatever in-house chipsets they use, otherwise they'll just get wrapped up in making everything proprietary.
Downside:
1. We lose Altivec.
2. Users face years of uncertain application complications.
3. Poor developers are saddled with yet another set of hurdles to jump through.
4. FAT binaries are back in town.
5. We risk getting trumped by hot new IBM PPC technology in the future.
6. Apps will likely miss out on CPU-specific optimizations now that devs have to code for two totally different CPU types.
7. Apple trust is broken.
8. 64-bit future put on hold.
9. We'll be forced to upgrade some apps yet again.
10. Apple support just became twice as complicated.
11. We likely pay the same price for inferior hardware.
Upside:
1. We get a Pentium in laptops sometime after next June. Oh boy.
Is it just me, or do you too get the impression that One Infinite Loop is is in merger talks with Neverland Ranch?
This switch will be a long-term benefit for Apple. The transition period might be tough, but, after more than a decade of waiting, I have never seen the PPC architecture deliver the potential that was promised. Users like myself have watched market share erode as our platform's chip speed inexplicably stalls every few years. I commend Apple for taking decisive action that addresses this long-term problem.
Originally posted by TheOtherRob
2. APPLE ARE A COMPANY. They're not your friend and they're not your Messiah. To be perfectly blunt, it all comes back to the shareholders. Jobs' number one priority is always, ALWAYS, to return a maximum dividend for shareholders - that's his job.
I'm sure the shareholders are thrilled that the stock is trading down on the news. Switching to x86 did wonders for BeOS and NeXT (two OS's that should have a VH1 "Where Are They Now?" show dedicated to them.)
Steve, take a few deep breaths. Now put the crackpipe down. Thaaaaaat's it buddy...