Apple confirms switch to Intel



  • Reply 61 of 423
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member

    Originally posted by Jamil

    So, if a hacker cannot access the powermac today, he/she will not be able to access the Mactel tomorrow? OR will she/he suddenly find that all the Wintel tools of the trade are now applicable to the Mactel? If that's the case, then Apple just took a huge leap backwards.

    No I think OpenFirmware will stay around, basically as the system IO for booting, etc. Beyond that, however, is how those hacking tools will affect the Rosetta emulator. That is the big concern I have. I have dealt with fucking spyware/malware/viruses at work for the past 5 years and it is a tough battle. I don't want to have to dick with that crap at home too.
  • Reply 62 of 423
    kiwi-in-dckiwi-in-dc Posts: 102member

    Originally posted by asdasd

    Their porting story for Developers is not that strong. It seems we need to shell out $999 for the oportunity to test on a PC running the OS, and - more than that - we cant compile or link on a ppc Mac.

    The better version of this would be that, and....

    a) Have the libraries for intel on Mac PPC so we can link against them.

    b) Allow people to test on an Intel Mac at some local Apple store. or associated reseller.

    Download XCode 2.1. I think you'll find it contains all the x86 libraries and cross-compiles - From the release notes:


    Xcode Tools supports development for Mac OS X v10.2

    (Jaguar), Mac OS X v10.3 (Panther), Mac OS X v10.4 (Tiger), or Universal binaries for PowerPC and Intel architectures on Mac OS X

    v10.4.1 using Mac OS X SDK support.

    So, No, you won't have to buy the SDK, but if you want to test it thoroughly then Yes, you'll need it - from experience in the NeXTStep/Intel days, you'll find some odd bugs in your code that can only be found on an Intel box - almost always when you use C to manipulate bits and bytes directly. All the APIs will likely just work.
  • Reply 63 of 423
    dave k.dave k. Posts: 1,306member
    Is Apple going to use PC motherboards or are they going to still create Apple motherboards with Intel chips?
  • Reply 64 of 423
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    PowerPC could never go away...

    IBM and Intel will be leapfrogging each other periodically - Apple should keep the fat binaries and both platforms around forever. When IBM is better, buy a PowerPC mac. When Intel is better, buy an x86 mac.
  • Reply 65 of 423
    tidristidris Posts: 214member
    The keynote is playing here:
  • Reply 66 of 423
    dave jdave j Posts: 84member
    Let's see... wait two years to buy a first gen AppTel PM or switch now to get used to the Intel product. Neither option makes me salivate, both to blow chunks.

    And there are folks APPLAUDING this move???

    Since Steve has been lying to us for the past five years, what guarantees do we have he hasn't also been paving the way for Mr. Gates to do an LBO (leveraged buyout) of Apple?

    You know... to make the transition COMPLETE (heavy sarcasm).
  • Reply 67 of 423
    dobbydobby Posts: 796member
    I think it sucks that developers have to pay $999 for the transition kit!

    APPLE this should be free!

    You need as many developers behind your as possible and your pissing around with them.

    Why should I partially re-write and recompile my code of OS X on x86. I can just as well re-write for Windows and appeal to a vastly larger market!

    Fair enough from a hardware perspective. Apple has been dicked around by Moto and IBM regarding CPUs.

    The MS vs OSX performance will be interesting in say 2009 when the next native x86 OS X release is out and more x86 tuning is done.


    Don't charge develeopers for the transition kit!
  • Reply 68 of 423
    drumsticksdrumsticks Posts: 315member
    Does this mean that currently 10MB applications will be bloated to 20MB or more? That would be very bad indeed, I think.
  • Reply 69 of 423
    aquamacaquamac Posts: 585member
    I feel sick about this. One of the advantages of having a different CPU was to pass the other Win/tel boys bye. Now were hard wired to the competition. MacOS X better run faster and better then longhorn on the same specked CPU or the Mac will end up like NeXT. Steve did you learn something from your last mistake? If any one can pull this off the Steve can, but is it possible at all?
  • Reply 70 of 423
    dhagan4755dhagan4755 Posts: 2,152member
    I'm curious what the Pentium 4 processor Mac looks like...anyone have pictures?
  • Reply 71 of 423
    both lipsboth lips Posts: 20member
    What's the fuss about?

    I've said for a long time, if I could buy tha PC with that spec, but install OSX - I'd do it.

    Maybe now we'll see a little crossover - decent GFX, cheap RAM, PCI-X...

    About time.
  • Reply 72 of 423
    mandricardmandricard Posts: 486member

    Originally posted by Rhumgod

    (Anyone remember that Riddles of the Past... thread year or so ago? Rosetta was part of it, as I recall.

    "The filling shall reveal a crust made from the Rosetta Stone."

    I certainly remember it, but I think that "Rosetta" was in reference to "Ink" or so the speculation was at the time...

    But Geez, if that dude was right... way back then?

    Wild to think of it, but I doubt it.

    I am still amazed by this move... I thought Intel Processors were as big as firebricks!

    --Hope Springs Eternal..... but my God....


  • Reply 73 of 423
    chris cuillachris cuilla Posts: 4,825member

    Originally posted by dobby

    I think it sucks that developers have to pay $999 for the transition kit!

    APPLE this should be free!

    They probably are "giving" it away (i.e. for does include a machine from what I read).
  • Reply 74 of 423
    19841984 Posts: 955member

    Originally posted by Aurora

    If Apple has OSX running on Pcs for 5 years then the clowns should market it. Didnt they learn a thing from Windows take over of the world without building hardware? Stop holding onto hardware so much and start selling what you do best. The Mac world is about the software folks its never been about the hardware and if you think so they suckered you. MR JOBS I WOULD LIKE 1 COPY OF MARKLAR FOR MY AURORA THANKYOU! 97% of the world is a lot of market.

    Because it would be a nightmare to support. Apple would have to support every possible configuration of every possible PC model out there. Hardware issues. Driver issues. Peripheral issues. They can do this now because Mac software and Mac hardware are both designed by Apple to go hand in hand. There is no way they could do so otherwise. Microsoft barely manages.
  • Reply 75 of 423
    chris cuillachris cuilla Posts: 4,825member

    Originally posted by drumsticks

    Does this mean that currently 10MB applications will be bloated to 20MB or more? That would be very bad indeed, I think.

    In most cases...not at all. The actual binary code of most applications these days is a fairly small percentage of that 10MB example.
  • Reply 76 of 423
    chris cuillachris cuilla Posts: 4,825member

    Originally posted by DHagan4755

    I'm curious what the Pentium 4 processor Mac looks like...anyone have pictures?

    It doesn't exist (publicly) yet. It will likely look like a Mac has always looked (whatever that means) won't be ugly I guess.
  • Reply 77 of 423
    atomichamatomicham Posts: 185member

    Originally posted by addabox

    OK, help me out here:

    --Jobs says the dual path engineering effort has been ongoing, the Mactel machines exist now.

    --Jobs says porting Cocoa apps takes two hours, everything else, "a few weeks". Even allowing for PR happy talk, gotta assume the migration path isn't too hideous.

    --Sounds like the emulation layer "Rosetta" exists now.

    Well, if you read this guy's thoughts:

    Cult of the Mac

    it is because the chip that Apple will be using isn't out yet (the Pentium-D). He thinks that this only makes sense in that the content companies are demanding hardware DRM support and currently only recognize Intel's DRM. If we stayed with PowerPC (without content support), we'd be screwed out of copyright material.

    I see some logical reasons for Apple's switch to Intel, but the "gut feel" just isn't right. Something seems like a dead-end to me.
  • Reply 78 of 423
    shadowxshadowx Posts: 27member
    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!
  • Reply 79 of 423
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,284member

    Originally posted by AppleRISC

    I doubt there will be a BIOS. There's no reason Open Firmware can't work with an x86 chip and there's no reason to believe Apple will adopt the use of BIOS on its motherboards. Then again, they already chose an inferior chip architecture, who knows what they'll do next.

    No open firmware. Check the developer notes. Maybe no bios either. Perhaps Intels EFI Platform.
  • Reply 80 of 423
    keshkesh Posts: 621member

    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.

    True. However, there's still WINE, which might kill VPC for the true Mac geek.

    Personally, I just want to be able to hold down "W" at startup to boot into my Windows partition.
Sign In or Register to comment.