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.
My thoughts entirely. Jobs seems to have been impressed by running NEXT on Intel machines, and Moto was stalled for ages. That said, in 2001 PowerPC offered (and most say still offers) a more robust and efficient architecture. Economies of scale have tipped the balance in Intel's favor, though, and their success with chips for portables is the clincher.
Could Jobs have seen all of this coming in 2001? From a business perspective, yes. But being iconoclastic (and having a number of engineers of a similar ilk), it is understandable that he went with the powerful dark horse. Until now.
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 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?
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.
There are add on cards with to your computer that can give you floating point performance of supercomputers. I think the future Mac will have such a card for next gen altivec.
Even though I don't use them, I'm concerned what this will do to portable sales.
What he said, in essence, is that for the next year at least, the portables won't be competitive. Remember his speed per watt? This doesn't hold true for the G5 at this time, but we all know about the G4.
I hate x86, not for religious reasons but because I think the architecture is outdated. Anyone who's ever written x86 and PowerPC assembler knows the differences. However, I can't change Apple's decision. Given the sheer insanity of this move, it must have been forced.
On the bright side of things, PowerPC may not be dead yet. At least until a few years beyond the 2007 "complete transition" deadline (so, probably 2010 and possibly beyond, as long as software developers continue to deliver universal binaries) Apple will continue to have the option of using PowerPC chips should IBM/Freescale come up with some great breakthrough in the next couple of years. Much more interesting is the Sony/Toshiba/IBM alliance and its new Cell processor design. Cell could possibly be the Next Big Thing and I'm sure Apple engineers will be looking at the possibility of using it in future Macs. Since it's PowerPC compatible there would be no reason why Apple couldn't use it. They aren't tied to Intel just because of this announcement.
Biggest reasons for Apple not to switch to x86 during the OS X conversion...
Classic - the only thing I've seen about it is that it isn't a priority. In other words, it isn't likely to work. Classic was a requirement for the conversion to OS X to go as well as it did.
Rosetta - Did it exist then??? It sounds like that piece is fairly new tech.
It's one more thing for developers to have trouble with. Now they simply get to sell ANOTHER upgrade.
As far as, "Why buy any PowerPC machines, they won't make any more software". Here is a clue, do you really expect Apple to say they will never go back? At each Developer conference all they have to do is point out that you need to keep making FAT Binary products. We will release what ever is the best at this time. There wouldn't be any reason Apple couldn't sell a Pentium-M v10 in a PowerBook and a G14 in an xServe if they play their cards right. In addition, as others have pointed out, there are a LOT of PowerPC machines out there. Developers will support these for some time.
Finally, before you complain too much watch the keynote. I was worried, then I saw it and had some time to think. I'm not too concerned now. I see it as Apple opening up their options. Now they can drop in something from IBM, Freescale, Intel or probably even AMD if they want and the smart developers will just have software that works!
I'm actually now coming to terms with the whole issue. I realize that it's not about hardware like PPC and Altivec, it's not about a totally needless "transition." It's about the fact that Jobs is about to snap and start screaming...
I think its kinda funny. When was it, a couple of years I think, and someone 'leaked' MS's internal review of competitors. The 'real' enemy to MS-OS was perceived as UNIX/Linux, because the 'other' company was constrained by inferiorities in competitive hardware.
That's why everyone on this side went rabid when G5 came out...we thought we had something to shove back down their throats.
But if you guys are losin' sleep over the decision, how about some people at MS working on their OS?
If, in two years, both sides are running on parallel technologies it's all gonna come down to the interface.
People are gonna choose based on OS only. That's gotta scare developers at MS-OS who have seen their side pour everything into X-BOX the last few years, and not deal with inconsistancies in XP.
I am unsure about some of the implications of this switch, but here are my thoughts
Pros:
1) OS X - it is the first reason I use a mac. I will NEVER go back to windows.
1b) Coming a VERY close second - Apple design. It rocks. I will never buy a beige or black box. New apple books may have intel processors, but they will also have superior design, hinges, wireless antennas built-in, stunningly clean lines with sexy white and silver (yes, I love white and I love silver), decent port placement and single button trackpads . All the things we take for granted than you have to PAY EXTRA for in a pc laptop.
2) Apple as a complete package - from the colour of the keyboard to the hardware support, Apple products are whole.
3) Cheaper macs - leading to more macs, leading to a happier world and with faster bug fixes (growls at ichat 3, dvd burning and crappy tiger uptimes)
4) Apple using intel technology to push new ideas and get ahead of the market - shaping the world to apple design and ease of use values
Cons:
1) The risk of OS X for x86 leaking out. I assume Apple has this covered (see above posts on motherboard ROMs and so forth) but its a risk
2) Misinformation! The lack of detail in the keynote hasnt helped
3) Possibility of getting screwed over again - slow delivery times, better processors to competitors
4) Intel insider stickers... BARF! Hopefully apple design rules will never allow this idea to surface!!
OK there is heaps more good and bad but i can't take it all in at once, dammit!
3) Cheaper macs - leading to more macs, leading to a happier world and with faster bug fixes (growls at ichat 3, dvd burning and crappy tiger uptimes)
4) Apple using intel technology to push new ideas and get ahead of the market - shaping the world to apple design and ease of use values
Cheaper? What makes you think using an Intel CPU is going to make system prices any cheaper than they are now?
Unless something changes between now and next year, Apple will be still selling their own proprietary hardware with the only difference being the CPU has changed.
Cheaper? What makes you think using an Intel CPU is going to make system prices any cheaper than they are now?
Unless something changes between now and next year, Apple will be still selling their own proprietary hardware with the only difference being the CPU has changed.
Greater volume, less backorder issues, R&D savings I would not be surprised if apple outsources the MB and buys Intel Motherboards with custom firmware to applespect. This is a large savings and it leaves apple to concentrate on value added design (ie Case design, the OS) So yes I can see lower prices down the line.
Cheaper? What makes you think using an Intel CPU is going to make system prices any cheaper than they are now?
Assuming the CPU will not be only-for-Apple, then the larger quanities produced for the market as a whole should result in cheaper prices right? IBM had such crappy yields they probably had to charge more per chip just to cover the cost of their duds
but hey, I don't claim to know anything about economics!
Also, anyway, every new mac release for a while (barring the latest emacs) have been cheaper than before, and in a year's time... I could probably buy 3 far superior laptops for the price I paid for my ibook g3!!! (this being not just a mac trend of course)
Wow, I haven't posted in a long time, but this is big news.
Or is it?
My take:
I'm a very average Mac user. I love OS X because it's easy to use and just WORKS compared to Windows boxes I've used.
iTunes, Safari, Mail, iChat and Appleworks are the applications use 95% of the time.
I buy a new Mac when an application I want comes out my current model can't run, or my old one dies, or one is released I just HAVE to have based on it's looks/design.
in homage and to make sense of what's going on today, i've dug out my old Pentium2-333mhz 128mb RAM machine and using dial-up and internuts exploder 5.0
wtf is wrong with me well i guess i got a bit tired of 'fighting' with my dad for the iBook g4 \
okay WWDC 2005 June
1. i was right that steve would clear up the whole CPU pipeline mess
2. i was almost right that i thought a TabletMac would be their way of getting their foot in the Intel camp
3. i was wrong about apple sticking behind IBM
4. apple just gave a big 'fuck you' to IBM
5. the 1-12 month Mac PowerPC pipeline is a big grey hole now though
6. you can tell that steve WAS a little nervous starting out, although he lightened up towards the end when the developers were somewhat impressed
7. steve's health seems a little off, he seems a bit skinny, and somewhat greyer than usual
8. i feel betrayed but i think i've learnt enough about life that this is actually a good thing in the long run
9. IBM has just not performed to apple's expectations and steve is smart to nip things in the bud right now. apple is using its momentum to hedge against what would normally be a HUGE business risk, to announce switching to Intel, 1 year out, with no shipping products, but thanks to Mac Mini, iMac g5, iBook and PowerBook (what's left of it) they can hold the fort for about one year
10.
the only thing that pisses me off is that now all the good PowerPC hardware is basically in "reserve" for 1-16 months. meaning, apple is going to be very cautious because they have to weather R&D costs AND fully support their developers (more costs) AND survive a possible sliding off in Mac unit sales ~ so, the good PowerPC hardware will be in "reserve" as in only if Mac sales slump too dangerously will Steve bring out the big guns (eg. 1GB ram in powerbooks) to stimulate sales for the next 4 quarters
11.
so i guess it will take a while for the dust to settle
12.
i feel for the developers, but i do believe that in the long run this will encourage longer-term thinking when developing code, and provide a more robust and wider market base for those talented developers.
13.
that demo on a pentium 4 3.6ghz 2gb ram was FAST! photoshop took a little while to load but that was running TRANSLATED!!
Comments
originally posted by sorhed:
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.
My thoughts entirely. Jobs seems to have been impressed by running NEXT on Intel machines, and Moto was stalled for ages. That said, in 2001 PowerPC offered (and most say still offers) a more robust and efficient architecture. Economies of scale have tipped the balance in Intel's favor, though, and their success with chips for portables is the clincher.
Could Jobs have seen all of this coming in 2001? From a business perspective, yes. But being iconoclastic (and having a number of engineers of a similar ilk), it is understandable that he went with the powerful dark horse. Until now.
originally posted by ? J B 7 2 ?:
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.
Great list, but you forgot the WORST part of all of this: some of us will begin to seriously consider switching to Windows. Now that's truly SICK.
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!
Now you've got it!
Originally posted by GordonComstock
Weather report says freezing temps down below
Been there...it is in Michigan.
Originally posted by mynamehere
And why the hell shouldn't I just buy a dell laptop now?
Because then you would be stuck with Windows
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.
There are add on cards with to your computer that can give you floating point performance of supercomputers. I think the future Mac will have such a card for next gen altivec.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology..._story_related
That being said, I think the future of Apple as a company hinges on it's ability to deliver this.
What he said, in essence, is that for the next year at least, the portables won't be competitive. Remember his speed per watt? This doesn't hold true for the G5 at this time, but we all know about the G4.
On the bright side of things, PowerPC may not be dead yet. At least until a few years beyond the 2007 "complete transition" deadline (so, probably 2010 and possibly beyond, as long as software developers continue to deliver universal binaries) Apple will continue to have the option of using PowerPC chips should IBM/Freescale come up with some great breakthrough in the next couple of years. Much more interesting is the Sony/Toshiba/IBM alliance and its new Cell processor design. Cell could possibly be the Next Big Thing and I'm sure Apple engineers will be looking at the possibility of using it in future Macs. Since it's PowerPC compatible there would be no reason why Apple couldn't use it. They aren't tied to Intel just because of this announcement.
Biggest reasons for Apple not to switch to x86 during the OS X conversion...
- Classic - the only thing I've seen about it is that it isn't a priority. In other words, it isn't likely to work. Classic was a requirement for the conversion to OS X to go as well as it did.
- Rosetta - Did it exist then??? It sounds like that piece is fairly new tech.
- It's one more thing for developers to have trouble with. Now they simply get to sell ANOTHER upgrade.
As far as, "Why buy any PowerPC machines, they won't make any more software". Here is a clue, do you really expect Apple to say they will never go back? At each Developer conference all they have to do is point out that you need to keep making FAT Binary products. We will release what ever is the best at this time. There wouldn't be any reason Apple couldn't sell a Pentium-M v10 in a PowerBook and a G14 in an xServe if they play their cards right. In addition, as others have pointed out, there are a LOT of PowerPC machines out there. Developers will support these for some time.Finally, before you complain too much watch the keynote. I was worried, then I saw it and had some time to think. I'm not too concerned now. I see it as Apple opening up their options. Now they can drop in something from IBM, Freescale, Intel or probably even AMD if they want and the smart developers will just have software that works!
"Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!....Developers!Developers!Developers!.. ..Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!"
This is more along the lines of Coke deciding to change from glass bottles to plastic ones.
Everybody knows Coke -- and every other beverage for that matter -- tastes better in glass containers over plastic.
That's why everyone on this side went rabid when G5 came out...we thought we had something to shove back down their throats.
But if you guys are losin' sleep over the decision, how about some people at MS working on their OS?
If, in two years, both sides are running on parallel technologies it's all gonna come down to the interface.
People are gonna choose based on OS only. That's gotta scare developers at MS-OS who have seen their side pour everything into X-BOX the last few years, and not deal with inconsistancies in XP.
Pros:
1) OS X - it is the first reason I use a mac. I will NEVER go back to windows.
1b) Coming a VERY close second - Apple design. It rocks. I will never buy a beige or black box. New apple books may have intel processors, but they will also have superior design, hinges, wireless antennas built-in, stunningly clean lines with sexy white and silver (yes, I love white and I love silver), decent port placement and single button trackpads
2) Apple as a complete package - from the colour of the keyboard to the hardware support, Apple products are whole.
3) Cheaper macs - leading to more macs, leading to a happier world
4) Apple using intel technology to push new ideas and get ahead of the market - shaping the world to apple design and ease of use values
Cons:
1) The risk of OS X for x86 leaking out. I assume Apple has this covered (see above posts on motherboard ROMs and so forth) but its a risk
2) Misinformation! The lack of detail in the keynote hasnt helped
3) Possibility of getting screwed over again - slow delivery times, better processors to competitors
4) Intel insider stickers... BARF! Hopefully apple design rules will never allow this idea to surface!!
OK there is heaps more good and bad but i can't take it all in at once, dammit!
Originally posted by starwxrwx
3) Cheaper macs - leading to more macs, leading to a happier world
4) Apple using intel technology to push new ideas and get ahead of the market - shaping the world to apple design and ease of use values
Cheaper? What makes you think using an Intel CPU is going to make system prices any cheaper than they are now?
Unless something changes between now and next year, Apple will be still selling their own proprietary hardware with the only difference being the CPU has changed.
And IBM threw him a curveball and he was smart enough to have planned for this moment years ago and is able to take it in stride.
Originally posted by Tuttle
Cheaper? What makes you think using an Intel CPU is going to make system prices any cheaper than they are now?
Unless something changes between now and next year, Apple will be still selling their own proprietary hardware with the only difference being the CPU has changed.
Greater volume, less backorder issues, R&D savings I would not be surprised if apple outsources the MB and buys Intel Motherboards with custom firmware to applespect. This is a large savings and it leaves apple to concentrate on value added design (ie Case design, the OS) So yes I can see lower prices down the line.
Originally posted by Tuttle
Cheaper? What makes you think using an Intel CPU is going to make system prices any cheaper than they are now?
Assuming the CPU will not be only-for-Apple, then the larger quanities produced for the market as a whole should result in cheaper prices right? IBM had such crappy yields they probably had to charge more per chip just to cover the cost of their duds
but hey, I don't claim to know anything about economics!
Also, anyway, every new mac release for a while (barring the latest emacs) have been cheaper than before, and in a year's time... I could probably buy 3 far superior laptops for the price I paid for my ibook g3!!! (this being not just a mac trend of course)
Or is it?
My take:
I'm a very average Mac user. I love OS X because it's easy to use and just WORKS compared to Windows boxes I've used.
iTunes, Safari, Mail, iChat and Appleworks are the applications use 95% of the time.
I buy a new Mac when an application I want comes out my current model can't run, or my old one dies, or one is released I just HAVE to have based on it's looks/design.
Todays announcement has NO affect on me at all.
Am I an unusual case?
J
wtf is wrong with me
okay WWDC 2005 June
1. i was right that steve would clear up the whole CPU pipeline mess
2. i was almost right that i thought a TabletMac would be their way of getting their foot in the Intel camp
3. i was wrong about apple sticking behind IBM
4. apple just gave a big 'fuck you' to IBM
5. the 1-12 month Mac PowerPC pipeline is a big grey hole now though
6. you can tell that steve WAS a little nervous starting out, although he lightened up towards the end when the developers were somewhat impressed
7. steve's health seems a little off, he seems a bit skinny, and somewhat greyer than usual
8. i feel betrayed but i think i've learnt enough about life that this is actually a good thing in the long run
9. IBM has just not performed to apple's expectations and steve is smart to nip things in the bud right now. apple is using its momentum to hedge against what would normally be a HUGE business risk, to announce switching to Intel, 1 year out, with no shipping products, but thanks to Mac Mini, iMac g5, iBook and PowerBook (what's left of it)
10.
the only thing that pisses me off is that now all the good PowerPC hardware is basically in "reserve" for 1-16 months. meaning, apple is going to be very cautious because they have to weather R&D costs AND fully support their developers (more costs) AND survive a possible sliding off in Mac unit sales ~ so, the good PowerPC hardware will be in "reserve" as in only if Mac sales slump too dangerously will Steve bring out the big guns (eg. 1GB ram in powerbooks) to stimulate sales for the next 4 quarters
11.
so i guess it will take a while for the dust to settle
12.
i feel for the developers, but i do believe that in the long run this will encourage longer-term thinking when developing code, and provide a more robust and wider market base for those talented developers.
13.
that demo on a pentium 4 3.6ghz 2gb ram was FAST! photoshop took a little while to load but that was running TRANSLATED!!
Originally posted by jeffyboy
.....
Am I an unusual case?
J
yes, in that you sound rather NORMAL.