We lose Altivec. We lose CELL's modularity and incredible performance on multimedia. And where is this Power5 derivative with Altivec and OMC that will kick performance to new levels? [conspiracy mode on]No surprise IBM canned it after learned about Apple negociating with Intel[conspiracy mode off].
It is well known that Altivec optimised code runs easily twice as fast on the fastest Power Mac as SSE/SSE2/SSE3 optimised code on the fastest Pentium. This choice is today a regression.
Agreed, the loss of Altivec is a big deal. But we do not know what is coming down the road from Intel. Apple engineers have obviously been impressed with what they can offer. I was one of the ones hoping for a compromise, in that Intel would either make Apple new PPC cores, or even be instrumental in developing a new architecture. I have heard many times that Intel themselves would like to modify the x86 into a more elegant offering (IA-64 springs to mind) but they are hampered by M$ dominance in software. Maybe Intel and Apple can co-design something (which may be simpler with Apple's more portable OS) that can compete fully with what PowerPC could offer. We certainly have not witnessed the scalability that was promised by both Motorola and IBM in turn (though I do concur, it appears to be an exciting time for Power development).
I guess it explains why Apple never joined IBM's PowerEverywhere campaign.
don't mean to hog this thread, but is it just me or was that microsoft lady that spoke on stage just so like "whateverr"...
now, don't get me wrong, i am kinda into heavier women
seriously though it was her attitude that bugged me. look at the keynote again. notice how SHE STARTS TO WALK OFF THE STAGE before even finishing her last sentence. now, we don't need another Sony dude hovering around after his cue to exit stage right, but that microsoft lady i think finished a few minutes ahead of schedule
edit:
i think the Wolfram dude was the coolest speaker...!! he had an almost transcendental (non-geeks might say arrogant) air about him...
Hehehehe. I guess Theo has lots of Neurons packed tightly in there. Maybe he IS enlightened...
Regarding Microsoft, I think that they may be a little more concerned now than they were a year ago. I guess that M$ won't be afraid to pull the plug on Office if the Mac OS starts gaining serious market share (though I don't really see how Apple is any more compelling to the consumer, merely because it has an Intel chip in it instead).
[Edit: Obviously the portables will be more compelling, and as Apple cannot realistically support both architectures, the low power offerings get the attention.]
Hmmmm I disagree with Steve Jobs :-). I always believed Apple was so unique because a mix of good hardware and software.
Just look at the Powerbook design, and the fact the operating system only has to deal with a select amount of hardware that Apple uses in their products...
I'd rather have less choice in hardware and good compatibility, than the opposite!
I hope that Apple will still use "Mac versions" of Intel CPU's (even if this means only some onboard software is slighlty different) because then they will keep control of the software<->hardware mixture that I like so much.
Yes, but all that is changing is ONE component. Everything else can be exactly what you say you like about Macs - design, and Apple chosen innards. How will it change? Would you have ever noticed if Steve had snuck a P4 into your machine last year and not told you?
The irony is great. Steve has become a real clown lately.
Yes indeed. Was Apple lying before, or will they be lying soon?
I can appreciate that Jobs must have flipped when he saw IBM supplying 3.2 GHz, triple-core chips to MS when he could only get 2.5GHz single-core, and I do believe IBM was threatened by Apple's encroachment on their server biz, but I feel really shafted, especially after some months of writing Altivec code. No 2 hour port for me
What would have made a lot of sense to me would have been to keep on the same path with Apple products (PPC's better, right? no need to change - just look at that web page...), and release OS X for Intel as a software-only OS for beige boxes.
Popping this on a slew of developers who paid good money to go to a conference to learn about Tiger on PPC, without knowing this in advance, very inconsiderate indeed.
I have lost all trust in Apple.
p.s. At least couldn't it have been Alpha, not IA-32/EM64T?
p.p.s. Perhaps this is just part of a game to do exactly what I've mentioned above, and push IBM to release better chips. When they do, presto, our 2-proc, dual-core, 3GHz dream, and meanwhile, developers are porting to the 'beige' OS X...
Did anyone realize that this could be the FINAL BATTLE of the OPERATING SYSTEMS, MICROSOFT WINDOWS LONGHORN (well if it ever comes out) v. APPLE OS 10.5 . After sleeping for 4 hours I can up with this, now people will have the same hardware basically, both running Intel, and now will be able to see who has the better Operating System .
See before when the compared Apple to Windows, it was Apple's best G5, against a built P4 system, that was clearly faster than the Apple hardware, but now will be on the same playing field. This could be a very interest next few years. I know some of ya'll are not happy with Steve Job's decision, but I will continue to support and promote Apple hardware and their software.
Yes, but all that is changing is ONE component. Everything else can be exactly what you say you like about Macs - design, and Apple chosen innards. How will it change? Would you have ever noticed if Steve had snuck a P4 into your machine last year and not told you?
it's funny... i thought they taught you that it's what on the INSIDE that matters, now it's what on the OUTSIDE that matters? i'm lost
i need some slick marketing and an extra RDF dose to solve this Apple identity crisis... \
Did anyone realize that this could be the FINAL BATTLE of the OPERATING SYSTEMS, MICROSOFT WINDOWS LONGHORN (well if it ever comes out) v. APPLE OS 10.5 . After sleeping for 4 hours I can up with this, now people will have the same hardware basically, both running Intel, and now will be able to see who has the better Operating System .
See before when the compared Apple to Windows, it was Apple's best G5, against a built P4 system, that was clearly faster than the Apple hardware, but now will be on the same playing field. This could be a very interest next few years. I know some of ya'll are not happy with Steve Job's decision, but I will continue to support and promote Apple hardware and their software.
And what of sales of current hardware? Surely they will crash. Nobody wants to buy something which they know will radically changed/replaced in a year's time.
I know I was pretty damn close to buying an iMac G5. Steve just saved me a big pile of cash today.
Think different?
I've been holding out for the 'quad' with PCIe.
I'm going to let this sink in for a few more days, then I think I'm out shopping for a dualie AMD64. My big decision will be - Windows, FreeBSD, or Linux?
I'm going to let this sink in for a few more days, then I think I'm out shopping for a dualie AMD64. My big decision will be - Windows, FreeBSD, or Linux?
Think the same?
dude, i looked at a Dell brochure this morning for like a full 1/2 hour , i kid you not. normally i tear it up in disgust everytime it comes in with the morning paper.
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.
Most Apple developers are small scale.
Only $999 to be further screwed...I already have an Intel processor, thank you very much.
I'm going to let this sink in for a few more days, then I think I'm out shopping for a dualie AMD64. My big decision will be - Windows, FreeBSD, or Linux?
Think the same?
That is like saying - I'm going to hell, which circle should I choose - fire, ice or a stinking bog?
Perhaps this is just part of a game to do exactly what I've mentioned above, and push IBM to release better chips. When they do, presto, our 2-proc, dual-core, 3GHz dream, and meanwhile, developers are porting to the 'beige' OS X...
Yep. PowerPC isn't dead by any means. The real problem has been with the portables, but the high end of the PowerPC is promising. Naturally, the transition to Intel will begin with the low end. At first this roadmap struck everyone as counter-intuitive, but clearly it makes sense. Apple NEEDS what Intel can offer on the low-heat side, but depending upon what IBM comes up with relative to Intel's 64-bit offerings, we may never see a complete transition to Intel and be surprised by yet another about face. Jobs is asking developers to ready Fat Binaries all around, which would make a reverse move easier.
It's really up to IBM. They don't seem to care about working hard for Apple (the financial incentive is not there), but Jobs is positioning his company for OPTIONS. In the unlikely event that Apple and IBM partner again, Apple will be ready.
Sunilraman, we could go ahead a claim victory and just play We are the Champions by Queen " . . . we'll keep on fighting till the end . . . "
I guess I do not understand why everyone is so worried about the Intel hardware, I would love OS X on the Intel structure, I just hate Windows XP Pro and Home with a passion. My brother has to do a spyware scan everytime he boots his windows machine, and it has to many problems for me to ever use again. Like I said before I ran Linux on the x86 structure and loved it, the only problem I had was I could not get wireless to work, but then again at the time, wireless technology was new.
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.
Probably. Well, that and the built-in DRM in Pentium-D.
Quote:
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.
1. Probably not a big issue.
2. Probably not as much as you imagine.
3. Probably not as bad as you imagine. When I was developing for NEXTSTEP, supporting the different CPUs that it ran on (SPARC, 68K, HP-PA-RISC, Intel) was a matter...quite literally...of clicking a check box in the IDE).
4. So what?
5. Pfft. Probably not.
6. Maybe. Maybe not. This probably tends to be a very small % of the total cvode of any application that does do it.
7. Don't see how.
8. Maybe. Probably not though.
9. Why?
10. Perhaps. But that is more their problem than ours.
11. Probably not.
Quit your whining. This move isn't as bad as all that. "It's the OS stupid."
Quote:
Originally posted by - J B 7 2 -
Is it just me, or do you too get the impression that One Infinite Loop is is in merger talks with Neverland Ranch?
a couple more thoughts on the forthcoming change in processor suppliers at Apple:
1. Jobs used Intel processors in the boxes he built at NeXT, the computer company he founded after he was kicked out of Apple (OK, he lost a palace revolution) in the mid-80s. Some say he was replaced by John Sculley, which is not so, since Jobs was not at the time the CEO.
However, return the mind to NeXT. It had Intel inside.
2. NeXT and its Unix-based operating system was bought by Gil Amelio during his brief and inglorious period as Apple's CEO. He also hired Jobs as consultant, which resulted in the departure of Amelio and the rejuvenation, resurrection and resurgence of Apple.
3. NeXT OS is the base on which Mac OS X was built. As Jobs observed at the World Wide Developer conference in San Francisco last night, Mac OS X has always run on Intel processors. NeXT OS brought with it that legacy. It's just that at the time, and so far, Apple used PowerPC a RISC chip designed by a team formed by Apple, IBM and Motorola. Motorola dropped out, although Freescale, a Motorola spin-off chipmaker, still makes the G4s that are in PowerBooks and iBooks.
4. IBM has had big problems improving clock speeds and reducing heat from its G5. Yields were also a problem, causing delays in delivery of Power Mac G5 boxes.
5. Apple needs a 3 GHz PowerBook. Jobs said last night that the PowerPC is unlikely to deliver that kind of performance, and, more importantly, low power drain and low heat output, in time for Apple to remain competitive in the important notebook market. Somewhere around 30 per cent of Macs sold are notebooks; maybe more.
6. With video becoming ever more important to consumer electronics, and with competition looming from devices such as the PlayStation, Xbox, and a heap of stuff already starting to cascade from the mega-factories in China, Apple also needs faster, more powerful computers, of whatever form the designers and engineers next produce.
So, finally, what does it all mean? It is a change of processor. It will require a lot of engineering work, but not so much as you would think.
And for the rest of us ... will we notice? I doubt it.
These days it does not matter who makes the chip or how it works. What is important is what it does. Mac OS X will run on the Intel chip. It will still be Mac OS X. Version 10.4 (Tiger) will continue to be upgraded, one supposes, and Version 10.5 (dare we suggest it will be called Leopard -- because the story goes the leopard can change its spots (processor) -- will be out in a year or so.
All of our much loved features (and the very few that bug us) will be there. Life will go on.
Comments
Originally posted by PB
We lose Altivec. We lose CELL's modularity and incredible performance on multimedia. And where is this Power5 derivative with Altivec and OMC that will kick performance to new levels? [conspiracy mode on]No surprise IBM canned it after learned about Apple negociating with Intel[conspiracy mode off].
It is well known that Altivec optimised code runs easily twice as fast on the fastest Power Mac as SSE/SSE2/SSE3 optimised code on the fastest Pentium. This choice is today a regression.
Agreed, the loss of Altivec is a big deal. But we do not know what is coming down the road from Intel. Apple engineers have obviously been impressed with what they can offer. I was one of the ones hoping for a compromise, in that Intel would either make Apple new PPC cores, or even be instrumental in developing a new architecture. I have heard many times that Intel themselves would like to modify the x86 into a more elegant offering (IA-64 springs to mind) but they are hampered by M$ dominance in software. Maybe Intel and Apple can co-design something (which may be simpler with Apple's more portable OS) that can compete fully with what PowerPC could offer. We certainly have not witnessed the scalability that was promised by both Motorola and IBM in turn (though I do concur, it appears to be an exciting time for Power development).
I guess it explains why Apple never joined IBM's PowerEverywhere campaign.
Originally posted by sunilraman
don't mean to hog this thread, but is it just me or was that microsoft lady that spoke on stage just so like "whateverr"...
now, don't get me wrong, i am kinda into heavier women
seriously though it was her attitude that bugged me. look at the keynote again. notice how SHE STARTS TO WALK OFF THE STAGE before even finishing her last sentence. now, we don't need another Sony dude hovering around after his cue to exit stage right, but that microsoft lady i think finished a few minutes ahead of schedule
edit:
i think the Wolfram dude was the coolest speaker...!! he had an almost transcendental (non-geeks might say arrogant) air about him...
Hehehehe. I guess Theo has lots of Neurons packed tightly in there. Maybe he IS enlightened...
Regarding Microsoft, I think that they may be a little more concerned now than they were a year ago. I guess that M$ won't be afraid to pull the plug on Office if the Mac OS starts gaining serious market share (though I don't really see how Apple is any more compelling to the consumer, merely because it has an Intel chip in it instead).
[Edit: Obviously the portables will be more compelling, and as Apple cannot realistically support both architectures, the low power offerings get the attention.]
Originally posted by dacloo
Hmmmm I disagree with Steve Jobs :-). I always believed Apple was so unique because a mix of good hardware and software.
Just look at the Powerbook design, and the fact the operating system only has to deal with a select amount of hardware that Apple uses in their products...
I'd rather have less choice in hardware and good compatibility, than the opposite!
I hope that Apple will still use "Mac versions" of Intel CPU's (even if this means only some onboard software is slighlty different) because then they will keep control of the software<->hardware mixture that I like so much.
Yes, but all that is changing is ONE component. Everything else can be exactly what you say you like about Macs - design, and Apple chosen innards. How will it change? Would you have ever noticed if Steve had snuck a P4 into your machine last year and not told you?
Originally posted by AppleRISC
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
The irony is great. Steve has become a real clown lately.
Yes indeed. Was Apple lying before, or will they be lying soon?
I can appreciate that Jobs must have flipped when he saw IBM supplying 3.2 GHz, triple-core chips to MS when he could only get 2.5GHz single-core, and I do believe IBM was threatened by Apple's encroachment on their server biz, but I feel really shafted, especially after some months of writing Altivec code. No 2 hour port for me
What would have made a lot of sense to me would have been to keep on the same path with Apple products (PPC's better, right? no need to change - just look at that web page...), and release OS X for Intel as a software-only OS for beige boxes.
Popping this on a slew of developers who paid good money to go to a conference to learn about Tiger on PPC, without knowing this in advance, very inconsiderate indeed.
I have lost all trust in Apple.
p.s. At least couldn't it have been Alpha, not IA-32/EM64T?
p.p.s. Perhaps this is just part of a game to do exactly what I've mentioned above, and push IBM to release better chips. When they do, presto, our 2-proc, dual-core, 3GHz dream, and meanwhile, developers are porting to the 'beige' OS X...
See before when the compared Apple to Windows, it was Apple's best G5, against a built P4 system, that was clearly faster than the Apple hardware, but now will be on the same playing field. This could be a very interest next few years. I know some of ya'll are not happy with Steve Job's decision, but I will continue to support and promote Apple hardware and their software.
Originally posted by ebolazaire
Yes, but all that is changing is ONE component. Everything else can be exactly what you say you like about Macs - design, and Apple chosen innards. How will it change? Would you have ever noticed if Steve had snuck a P4 into your machine last year and not told you?
it's funny... i thought they taught you that it's what on the INSIDE that matters, now it's what on the OUTSIDE that matters? i'm lost
i need some slick marketing and an extra RDF dose to solve this Apple identity crisis...
Originally posted by iGrant
Did anyone realize that this could be the FINAL BATTLE of the OPERATING SYSTEMS, MICROSOFT WINDOWS LONGHORN (well if it ever comes out) v. APPLE OS 10.5
See before when the compared Apple to Windows, it was Apple's best G5, against a built P4 system, that was clearly faster than the Apple hardware, but now will be on the same playing field. This could be a very interest next few years. I know some of ya'll are not happy with Steve Job's decision, but I will continue to support and promote Apple hardware and their software.
yeah i didn't get much sleep too
sing with me brotha...
IT's the FINAL COUNTDOWN....
ne-nah-ne-nahhhh.... na ne na ne nahhh
http://www.midisite.co.uk/midi_searc...countdown.html
....................
Originally posted by Derrick 61
Actually, its "revenge" that is a dish best served cold...just ask the Klingons
You're both wrong.
Gazpacho soup is a dish that is best served cold.
Originally posted by sunilraman
yeah i didn't get much sleep too
sing with me brotha...
IT's the FINAL COUNTDOWN....
ne-nah-ne-nahhhh.... na ne na ne nahhh
http://www.midisite.co.uk/midi_searc...countdown.html
....................
HAHAHA that is a great sound to choose and I love it, but I was thinking of this song Eye of the Tiger 8)
Eye of the Tiger
I glad to know someone else is thinking allong the same lines as me also 8).
Originally posted by kotatsu
And what of sales of current hardware? Surely they will crash. Nobody wants to buy something which they know will radically changed/replaced in a year's time.
I know I was pretty damn close to buying an iMac G5. Steve just saved me a big pile of cash today.
Think different?
I've been holding out for the 'quad' with PCIe.
I'm going to let this sink in for a few more days, then I think I'm out shopping for a dualie AMD64. My big decision will be - Windows, FreeBSD, or Linux?
Think the same?
Originally posted by kwatson
I've been holding out for the 'quad' with PCIe.
I'm going to let this sink in for a few more days, then I think I'm out shopping for a dualie AMD64. My big decision will be - Windows, FreeBSD, or Linux?
Think the same?
dude, i looked at a Dell brochure this morning for like a full 1/2 hour
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.
Most Apple developers are small scale.
Only $999 to be further screwed...I already have an Intel processor, thank you very much.
Originally posted by iGrant
HAHAHA that is a great sound to choose and I love it, but I was thinking of this song Eye of the Tiger 8)
Eye of the Tiger
I glad to know someone else is thinking allong the same lines as me also 8).
hey that's awesome too
Originally posted by kwatson
I've been holding out for the 'quad' with PCIe.
I'm going to let this sink in for a few more days, then I think I'm out shopping for a dualie AMD64. My big decision will be - Windows, FreeBSD, or Linux?
Think the same?
That is like saying - I'm going to hell, which circle should I choose - fire, ice or a stinking bog?
Originally posted by kwatson
Only $999 to be further screwed...I already have an Intel processor, thank you very much.
ROFLMAO
originally posted by kwatson:
Perhaps this is just part of a game to do exactly what I've mentioned above, and push IBM to release better chips. When they do, presto, our 2-proc, dual-core, 3GHz dream, and meanwhile, developers are porting to the 'beige' OS X...
Yep. PowerPC isn't dead by any means. The real problem has been with the portables, but the high end of the PowerPC is promising. Naturally, the transition to Intel will begin with the low end. At first this roadmap struck everyone as counter-intuitive, but clearly it makes sense. Apple NEEDS what Intel can offer on the low-heat side, but depending upon what IBM comes up with relative to Intel's 64-bit offerings, we may never see a complete transition to Intel and be surprised by yet another about face. Jobs is asking developers to ready Fat Binaries all around, which would make a reverse move easier.
It's really up to IBM. They don't seem to care about working hard for Apple (the financial incentive is not there), but Jobs is positioning his company for OPTIONS. In the unlikely event that Apple and IBM partner again, Apple will be ready.
Or maybe this is just all wishful thinking ....
_______________________________
Semi-alarmed in Nashville
Originally posted by sunilraman
hey that's awesome too
Sunilraman, we could go ahead a claim victory and just play We are the Champions by Queen
I guess I do not understand why everyone is so worried about the Intel hardware, I would love OS X on the Intel structure, I just hate Windows XP Pro and Home with a passion. My brother has to do a spyware scan everytime he boots his windows machine, and it has to many problems for me to ever use again. Like I said before I ran Linux on the x86 structure and loved it, the only problem I had was I could not get wireless to work, but then again at the time, wireless technology was new.
Originally posted by - J B 7 2 -
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.
Probably. Well, that and the built-in DRM in Pentium-D.
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.
1. Probably not a big issue.
2. Probably not as much as you imagine.
3. Probably not as bad as you imagine. When I was developing for NEXTSTEP, supporting the different CPUs that it ran on (SPARC, 68K, HP-PA-RISC, Intel) was a matter...quite literally...of clicking a check box in the IDE).
4. So what?
5. Pfft. Probably not.
6. Maybe. Maybe not. This probably tends to be a very small % of the total cvode of any application that does do it.
7. Don't see how.
8. Maybe. Probably not though.
9. Why?
10. Perhaps. But that is more their problem than ours.
11. Probably not.
Quit your whining. This move isn't as bad as all that. "It's the OS stupid."
Originally posted by - J B 7 2 -
Is it just me, or do you too get the impression that One Infinite Loop is is in merger talks with Neverland Ranch?
What? Now who sounds like they are on crack?
1. Jobs used Intel processors in the boxes he built at NeXT, the computer company he founded after he was kicked out of Apple (OK, he lost a palace revolution) in the mid-80s. Some say he was replaced by John Sculley, which is not so, since Jobs was not at the time the CEO.
However, return the mind to NeXT. It had Intel inside.
2. NeXT and its Unix-based operating system was bought by Gil Amelio during his brief and inglorious period as Apple's CEO. He also hired Jobs as consultant, which resulted in the departure of Amelio and the rejuvenation, resurrection and resurgence of Apple.
3. NeXT OS is the base on which Mac OS X was built. As Jobs observed at the World Wide Developer conference in San Francisco last night, Mac OS X has always run on Intel processors. NeXT OS brought with it that legacy. It's just that at the time, and so far, Apple used PowerPC a RISC chip designed by a team formed by Apple, IBM and Motorola. Motorola dropped out, although Freescale, a Motorola spin-off chipmaker, still makes the G4s that are in PowerBooks and iBooks.
4. IBM has had big problems improving clock speeds and reducing heat from its G5. Yields were also a problem, causing delays in delivery of Power Mac G5 boxes.
5. Apple needs a 3 GHz PowerBook. Jobs said last night that the PowerPC is unlikely to deliver that kind of performance, and, more importantly, low power drain and low heat output, in time for Apple to remain competitive in the important notebook market. Somewhere around 30 per cent of Macs sold are notebooks; maybe more.
6. With video becoming ever more important to consumer electronics, and with competition looming from devices such as the PlayStation, Xbox, and a heap of stuff already starting to cascade from the mega-factories in China, Apple also needs faster, more powerful computers, of whatever form the designers and engineers next produce.
So, finally, what does it all mean? It is a change of processor. It will require a lot of engineering work, but not so much as you would think.
And for the rest of us ... will we notice? I doubt it.
These days it does not matter who makes the chip or how it works. What is important is what it does. Mac OS X will run on the Intel chip. It will still be Mac OS X. Version 10.4 (Tiger) will continue to be upgraded, one supposes, and Version 10.5 (dare we suggest it will be called Leopard -- because the story goes the leopard can change its spots (processor) -- will be out in a year or so.
All of our much loved features (and the very few that bug us) will be there. Life will go on.