So in other words do you think Jobs wasnt impressed with Cell enough to create a new line of vector computers to take advantage of Cell unique technology?
With all the Hype about "Cell" on these boards over the last 12 months you would believe it would revolutionized the world as long as it has some sort of Mac-OS
I expect that this move of Apple's is because their technical people told Jobs that they weren't impressed by Cell or anything else IBM is doing (or were more impressed by Intel's roadmap, which amounts to the same thing).
Programer, what is your opinion on the chance that the future Intel based Macs will be able to run Windows/Longhorn nativly? Am i missing something or is this a HUGE selling point for businesses, to be able to have one piece of hardware that runs Linux, OSX, WinXP, Longhorn, 2K, Unix, etc all nativly??? Couldnt this be an amazing benifit to this transition?
Also in your opinion, could Virtual PC hit the intel processor without having to emulate and run Win at full speed WITH the MacOS?
i had the same thought as programmer. i was honestly surprised by the announcement. given the work required for the switch (marklar is just a piece of the pie), apple tech must find intel's upcoming products very compelling. especially given the presumed promise of 970MP and Power5 derivatives.
either that, or jobs is just royally pissed at IBM not coming thru with the 3 ghz G5 promise, and is willing to gamble the company on his ego (eg: like the ATI-to-nVidia politics a couple years ago).
but this is such a huge gamble, even steve jobs would need some hard facts to back up his ego, right?
time will tell. i, for one, am wary of the long term impact, based on the same logic posted in other threads: now apple will need to reduce margins or convince consumers that OS X alone is worth the $500 markup over the same hardware from dell.
Programer, what is your opinion on the chance that the future Intel based Macs will be able to run Windows/Longhorn nativly? Am i missing something or is this a HUGE selling point for businesses, to be able to have one piece of hardware that runs Linux, OSX, WinXP, Longhorn, 2K, Unix, etc all nativly??? Couldnt this be an amazing benifit to this transition?
Also in your opinion, could Virtual PC hit the intel processor without having to emulate and run Win at full speed WITH the MacOS?
I would think it to be more detrimental than good. If the box could run all of the operating systems why would any company write one for mac os x over XP? I don't think Apple will want anything running on their hardware besides OS X and my guess is they don't want OS X running on just any old piece of hardware.
Personally, I think it is nuts to allow Windows to run on a Mac.
VPC, fine. Windows itself? No way... security loopholes being the start of it. If Apple postmodernly windowed Windows (and made it run on its own partition or something that could not affect the Mac), then that MIGHT be acceptable.... but I really don't like the thought of it.
you guys are forgetting Vanderpool, the Intel virtualization tech. I'll bet a large amount we will see this on IntelMacs. Apple selling a box that can run every OS out there at native speed will be a big selling point. However I'll also put money on the fact that you will not be able to BOOT windows, just run it in some virtual environment (with no speed hit)
I expect that this move of Apple's is because their technical people told Jobs that they weren't impressed by Cell or anything else IBM is doing (or were more impressed by Intel's roadmap, which amounts to the same thing).
After watching the keynote I think Apple is in a much better position. Having universal bianaries for every app is just the same as having a binary ready for anything IBM can manufacture. Apple not only has PPC to run on now, but construction of code for an intel, or a CELL (which is a PPC binary) based processor for developers in the future is still an option if CELL ever becomes more than what Apple is seeing from IBM right now. I was a little concerned at first, but I think I'm over it. I only wish we had a better idea of what these new intelMacs were going to be now.
Not only that, onlooker, but I suspect this will place Mac OS applications in a much better position, from a portability standpoint, to transition to 64 bit code in the future.
Also, I'm betting that Intel will eventually use Apple and 64 bit memory addressing as an excuse to pare down the x86 instruction set. I know I would if I were them.
After watching the keynote I think Apple is in a much better position. Having universal bianaries for every app is just the same as having a binary ready for anything IBM can manufacture. Apple not only has PPC to run on now, but construction of code for an intel, or a CELL (which is a PPC binary) based processor for developers in the future is still an option if CELL ever becomes more than what Apple is seeing from IBM right now. I was a little concerned at first, but I think I'm over it. I only wish we had a better idea of what these new intelMacs were going to be now.
I wish Apple had hedged its bets. They should have announced that some future products will use Intel, and developers should be preparing for that. Leaving open the possibility of PPC in the future would have made the upcoming PPC products easier to swallow. It would have also helped alleviate the fears that PPC Macs will be orphaned and emphasized the fact that Apple's future is actually more open than ever before. I am surprised Steve didn't see the need for finesse in handling the switch. Let's hope the Osborne effect doesn't get renamed the Jobs effect. After the fact, I even think announcing that Xserve will continue to use IBM chips might be a good move.
I dont know what Apple will do to "cripple" their hardware, but I IMAGINE that WINE and Windows on the same computer will not be possible...
VPC sure... but not actually windowed and running... although it'd be nice.
Problem again for a programmer is: If a Mac can run a Windows app at 99% or 100% speed as normal, (through WINE for example), then there is hardly incentive to make MacOS X apps in the first place, is there?
Not only that, onlooker, but I suspect this will place Mac OS applications in a much better position, from a portability standpoint, to transition to 64 bit code in the future.
I don't see any reason why this would be true -- the two issues are orthogonal. The existing x86-64 extensions will support the existing MacOS X 64-bit support. The main thing holding full 64-bit apps back is the lack of full 64-bit system libraries (mainly Cocoa & Carbon), and that is true regardless of ISA.
Quote:
Also, I'm betting that Intel will eventually use Apple and 64 bit memory addressing as an excuse to pare down the x86 instruction set. I know I would if I were them. [/B]
I doubt this as well -- Intel doesn't really gain anything by it, and typically they accomplish this by just making old instructions emulated in microcode (i.e. really slow). Eventually people stop using the old instructions, but they never truly go away.
Apple will offer one advantage to its developers (compared to WIntel): they can keep the number of x86 processors to optimize for much narrower. Developers can be assured that all Mac x86 machines will support MMX/SSE/SSE2/SSE3, and (for a while) they won't have to worry about the differences between P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, Athlon, A64, Opteron, Cyrix, etc. Over time the number of chip varieties that Apple uses will increase, just like it did with PowerPC (601, 603, 604, G3, G4, G5) but this will be in a more controlled fashion than the WIntel market at large.
Having universal bianaries for every app is just the same as having a binary ready for anything IBM can manufacture. Apple not only has PPC to run on now, but construction of code for an intel, or a CELL (which is a PPC binary) based processor for developers in the future is still an option if CELL ever becomes more than what Apple is seeing from IBM right now. I was a little concerned at first, but I think I'm over it. I only wish we had a better idea of what these new intelMacs were going to be now.
Sorry to interrupt this really nice dream, but Apple did make clear that the fat binaries is for transition purposes only. They are not going to support them forever. After the transition is complete, forget anything about PowerPC. Their message is quite obvious.
Once the infrastructure is there, and it is, then why not?
gcc, Universal Binaries, Xcode... all the pieces to shift to new architectures as needed, and none look to be going away any time soon.
Give developers a couple of years to get comfy with UBs, and then we'll see.
Besides, I'm watching the Keynote now, and just passed the UB section - I don't recall them ever saying anything about when UBs will be dropped. Perhaps you have an official source for that?
I dont know what Apple will do to "cripple" their hardware, but I IMAGINE that WINE and Windows on the same computer will not be possible...
VPC sure... but not actually windowed and running... although it'd be nice.
Problem again for a programmer is: If a Mac can run a Windows app at 99% or 100% speed as normal, (through WINE for example), then there is hardly incentive to make MacOS X apps in the first place, is there?
Why would there be no incentive? The market decides what they want...if people demand apps to be written for Mac OS X, developers will write for Mac OS X.
Even if I could dual boot into Windows XP, I wouldn't even think of buying a product I knew could easily be ported to Mac. If developers think they can get away with only making a Windows app because the app will run on the Mac via dual boot, they're sadly mistaken. I'm pretty sure most people ('cept the hard-core computer geeks) will hate the idea of dual booting, even more so when they realize how easy to use OS X compared to Windows.
Really...that's like saying PC peripheral companies will continue to ship their printers and keyboards with the legacy PS/2 plugs and parallel port plugs because all computers can handle them so why use USB or Firewire.
I see this transition move as a big win for Apple's future. People didn't want to buy Macs because they were afraid of abandoning all their apps and abandoning the Windows-way (which is the only 'way' a lot of people know)...with this move, however, and with the possibility of running Windows on a Mac, for a few hundred dollars more, your computer will run Mac OS X and Windows.
Nobody will be abandoning everything. They'll be able to keep all their apps and slowly make the transition to Mac OS X. They'll also soon realize that most of the needs are satisfied with the default apps that come on Mac OS X. And they'll only need to boot into Windows to play games or use an business-critical app that was only developed on Windows and will never be ported to Mac.
All this for a few hundred dollars more. People would be crazy to not buy a Mac Mini for 499$ knowing that they can run BOTH Windows and Mac OS X. After that, nothing matters. The sale will count as a Mac win! The Mac will count as a marketshare boost for Mac OS X. And companies will start developing more and more for Mac.
The other thing that won't matter either is the speed perception issues. People will be able to shop and KNOW that the Mac has a Pentium X running at X GHz and then compare it to the Dell which runs the same processor but can't run Mac OS X.
Jobs is either a visionary or insanely lucky judging by the decisions he took with Apple. The iPod will push people to buy a Mac because they love the iPod and probably want to know what the Mac is all about. Those that won't satisfy their curiosity by plunking down 500 on a Mac Mini certainly will when they realize that it can also run Windows XP.
Once the infrastructure is there, and it is, then why not?
I was thinking the same until I saw the graphics showing a complete transition not just to x86 CPUs but to Intel specifically. This is transition, not extension. Which means that the PowerPC goes to the trash can. But who in their right mind would believe now what S. Jobs says on stage? He tried hard the last years to train us to not have faith in his word .
Comments
Aren't they more of a vector processor?
On a PC you want an allrounder type CPU and not a application specific.
Dobby.
It's good for only specialized uses.
With all the Hype about "Cell" on these boards over the last 12 months you would believe it would revolutionized the world as long as it has some sort of Mac-OS
Also in your opinion, could Virtual PC hit the intel processor without having to emulate and run Win at full speed WITH the MacOS?
either that, or jobs is just royally pissed at IBM not coming thru with the 3 ghz G5 promise, and is willing to gamble the company on his ego (eg: like the ATI-to-nVidia politics a couple years ago).
but this is such a huge gamble, even steve jobs would need some hard facts to back up his ego, right?
time will tell. i, for one, am wary of the long term impact, based on the same logic posted in other threads: now apple will need to reduce margins or convince consumers that OS X alone is worth the $500 markup over the same hardware from dell.
Originally posted by mikenap
Programer, what is your opinion on the chance that the future Intel based Macs will be able to run Windows/Longhorn nativly? Am i missing something or is this a HUGE selling point for businesses, to be able to have one piece of hardware that runs Linux, OSX, WinXP, Longhorn, 2K, Unix, etc all nativly??? Couldnt this be an amazing benifit to this transition?
Also in your opinion, could Virtual PC hit the intel processor without having to emulate and run Win at full speed WITH the MacOS?
I would think it to be more detrimental than good. If the box could run all of the operating systems why would any company write one for mac os x over XP? I don't think Apple will want anything running on their hardware besides OS X and my guess is they don't want OS X running on just any old piece of hardware.
Macaddict16
VPC, fine. Windows itself? No way... security loopholes being the start of it. If Apple postmodernly windowed Windows (and made it run on its own partition or something that could not affect the Mac), then that MIGHT be acceptable.... but I really don't like the thought of it.
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Originally posted by Programmer
I expect that this move of Apple's is because their technical people told Jobs that they weren't impressed by Cell or anything else IBM is doing (or were more impressed by Intel's roadmap, which amounts to the same thing).
After watching the keynote I think Apple is in a much better position. Having universal bianaries for every app is just the same as having a binary ready for anything IBM can manufacture. Apple not only has PPC to run on now, but construction of code for an intel, or a CELL (which is a PPC binary) based processor for developers in the future is still an option if CELL ever becomes more than what Apple is seeing from IBM right now. I was a little concerned at first, but I think I'm over it. I only wish we had a better idea of what these new intelMacs were going to be now.
Also, I'm betting that Intel will eventually use Apple and 64 bit memory addressing as an excuse to pare down the x86 instruction set. I know I would if I were them.
Bloomfield
Some scattered information here and here.
Originally posted by onlooker
After watching the keynote I think Apple is in a much better position. Having universal bianaries for every app is just the same as having a binary ready for anything IBM can manufacture. Apple not only has PPC to run on now, but construction of code for an intel, or a CELL (which is a PPC binary) based processor for developers in the future is still an option if CELL ever becomes more than what Apple is seeing from IBM right now. I was a little concerned at first, but I think I'm over it. I only wish we had a better idea of what these new intelMacs were going to be now.
I wish Apple had hedged its bets. They should have announced that some future products will use Intel, and developers should be preparing for that. Leaving open the possibility of PPC in the future would have made the upcoming PPC products easier to swallow. It would have also helped alleviate the fears that PPC Macs will be orphaned and emphasized the fact that Apple's future is actually more open than ever before. I am surprised Steve didn't see the need for finesse in handling the switch. Let's hope the Osborne effect doesn't get renamed the Jobs effect. After the fact, I even think announcing that Xserve will continue to use IBM chips might be a good move.
VPC sure... but not actually windowed and running... although it'd be nice.
Problem again for a programmer is: If a Mac can run a Windows app at 99% or 100% speed as normal, (through WINE for example), then there is hardly incentive to make MacOS X apps in the first place, is there?
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
Not only that, onlooker, but I suspect this will place Mac OS applications in a much better position, from a portability standpoint, to transition to 64 bit code in the future.
I don't see any reason why this would be true -- the two issues are orthogonal. The existing x86-64 extensions will support the existing MacOS X 64-bit support. The main thing holding full 64-bit apps back is the lack of full 64-bit system libraries (mainly Cocoa & Carbon), and that is true regardless of ISA.
Also, I'm betting that Intel will eventually use Apple and 64 bit memory addressing as an excuse to pare down the x86 instruction set. I know I would if I were them. [/B]
I doubt this as well -- Intel doesn't really gain anything by it, and typically they accomplish this by just making old instructions emulated in microcode (i.e. really slow). Eventually people stop using the old instructions, but they never truly go away.
Apple will offer one advantage to its developers (compared to WIntel): they can keep the number of x86 processors to optimize for much narrower. Developers can be assured that all Mac x86 machines will support MMX/SSE/SSE2/SSE3, and (for a while) they won't have to worry about the differences between P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, Athlon, A64, Opteron, Cyrix, etc. Over time the number of chip varieties that Apple uses will increase, just like it did with PowerPC (601, 603, 604, G3, G4, G5) but this will be in a more controlled fashion than the WIntel market at large.
Sigh.
Originally posted by onlooker
Having universal bianaries for every app is just the same as having a binary ready for anything IBM can manufacture. Apple not only has PPC to run on now, but construction of code for an intel, or a CELL (which is a PPC binary) based processor for developers in the future is still an option if CELL ever becomes more than what Apple is seeing from IBM right now. I was a little concerned at first, but I think I'm over it. I only wish we had a better idea of what these new intelMacs were going to be now.
Sorry to interrupt this really nice dream, but Apple did make clear that the fat binaries is for transition purposes only. They are not going to support them forever. After the transition is complete, forget anything about PowerPC. Their message is quite obvious.
gcc, Universal Binaries, Xcode... all the pieces to shift to new architectures as needed, and none look to be going away any time soon.
Give developers a couple of years to get comfy with UBs, and then we'll see.
Besides, I'm watching the Keynote now, and just passed the UB section - I don't recall them ever saying anything about when UBs will be dropped. Perhaps you have an official source for that?
Originally posted by ZO
I dont know what Apple will do to "cripple" their hardware, but I IMAGINE that WINE and Windows on the same computer will not be possible...
VPC sure... but not actually windowed and running... although it'd be nice.
Problem again for a programmer is: If a Mac can run a Windows app at 99% or 100% speed as normal, (through WINE for example), then there is hardly incentive to make MacOS X apps in the first place, is there?
Why would there be no incentive? The market decides what they want...if people demand apps to be written for Mac OS X, developers will write for Mac OS X.
Even if I could dual boot into Windows XP, I wouldn't even think of buying a product I knew could easily be ported to Mac. If developers think they can get away with only making a Windows app because the app will run on the Mac via dual boot, they're sadly mistaken. I'm pretty sure most people ('cept the hard-core computer geeks) will hate the idea of dual booting, even more so when they realize how easy to use OS X compared to Windows.
Really...that's like saying PC peripheral companies will continue to ship their printers and keyboards with the legacy PS/2 plugs and parallel port plugs because all computers can handle them so why use USB or Firewire.
I see this transition move as a big win for Apple's future. People didn't want to buy Macs because they were afraid of abandoning all their apps and abandoning the Windows-way (which is the only 'way' a lot of people know)...with this move, however, and with the possibility of running Windows on a Mac, for a few hundred dollars more, your computer will run Mac OS X and Windows.
Nobody will be abandoning everything. They'll be able to keep all their apps and slowly make the transition to Mac OS X. They'll also soon realize that most of the needs are satisfied with the default apps that come on Mac OS X. And they'll only need to boot into Windows to play games or use an business-critical app that was only developed on Windows and will never be ported to Mac.
All this for a few hundred dollars more. People would be crazy to not buy a Mac Mini for 499$ knowing that they can run BOTH Windows and Mac OS X. After that, nothing matters. The sale will count as a Mac win! The Mac will count as a marketshare boost for Mac OS X. And companies will start developing more and more for Mac.
The other thing that won't matter either is the speed perception issues. People will be able to shop and KNOW that the Mac has a Pentium X running at X GHz and then compare it to the Dell which runs the same processor but can't run Mac OS X.
Jobs is either a visionary or insanely lucky judging by the decisions he took with Apple. The iPod will push people to buy a Mac because they love the iPod and probably want to know what the Mac is all about. Those that won't satisfy their curiosity by plunking down 500 on a Mac Mini certainly will when they realize that it can also run Windows XP.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Once the infrastructure is there, and it is, then why not?
I was thinking the same until I saw the graphics showing a complete transition not just to x86 CPUs but to Intel specifically. This is transition, not extension. Which means that the PowerPC goes to the trash can. But who in their right mind would believe now what S. Jobs says on stage? He tried hard the last years to train us to not have faith in his word