# Next version of OS X (Leopard) will run on Intel



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

According to Jobs speech at the WWDC..... No need for rumours.....


----------



## Bajan (Apr 11, 2004)

Yikes.....


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

"Never Say Never" is what I said about a month or two ago... three words Kosh immediately scoffed: Never, never, never.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Tiger is already running on Intel chips and Jobs is giving the keynote using Intel hardware! Transition will be complete in 2 years..... Oh, the agony.....


----------



## Bajan (Apr 11, 2004)

What would I not give for a live video feed........


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 21, 2004)

Holly crap! Does this mean that next year, Apple will no longer support all my PowerPC based hardware? If I go to buy Leopard, do I have to specify what platform it's for? 

Not happy with this news...not yet anyways. I guess it's too early to be upset. 

-Stephanie


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

No, Jobs stated that they will support both for a long time to come. No worries.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Leopard will be released in 2007 close to Longhorn. Presumably, there will be PPC and Intel hardware. Jobs said on stage that there is no future for PowerPC! Jeez, talk about burning bridges! What are they going to sell for 2 years??

Jobs says recompiling is a doddle: "There’s a checkbox for builds: “Intel, PowerPC” that makes a cross-platform single binary."

Mathematica was recompiled in 5 days.


----------



## sping123 (Mar 22, 2005)

If people can OS X on intel platform, will people buy Mac hardwares anymore?


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Of course, a long time to come, in computer parlance, could mean a year or 2.


----------



## sping123 (Mar 22, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Leopard will be released in 2007 close to Longhorn. Presumably, there will be PPC and Intel hardware. Jobs said on stage that there is no future for PowerPC! Jeez, talk about burning bridges! What are they going to sell for 2 years??


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Insert smart-ass remark about the Leopard <i>being</i> the change of spots. Or something like that.


----------



## Bighead (May 3, 2005)

The sacred cow is dead! Really dead.

What Intel chip will be used?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

sping123 said:


> If people can OS X on intel platform, will people buy Mac hardwares anymore?


Nobody's said yet whether it will support any old x86 box, just that the Mac will be built on Intel chips. Big difference.

Anyway, even if it does run on generic x86...then yes, I think people will still buy Macs. How many they'll buy in the next two years is the big question.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

I wonder what the intial permformance hit will be while they work out the bugs on Rosetta (new emulation layer).


----------



## Bajan (Apr 11, 2004)

iMatt said:


> Nobody's said yet whether it will support any old x86 box, just that the Mac will be built on Intel chips. Big difference.


Yes indeed. Intel may have a special chip just for Apple.


----------



## Bighead (May 3, 2005)

According to this...

http://news.com.com/2061-10793_3-5733723.html

I think OSX is going to run on a variant of x86. Yikes.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

He's running OS X Tiger on a Pentium 3.6 GHz chip but I bet there are some extra support chips in there. Only the CPU is "generic".

Powerbook G5 R.I.P. I wonder if Intelbooks are the first new product to be launched?


----------



## Bighead (May 3, 2005)

Welcome PowerBook Pentium Centrino.


----------



## Bajan (Apr 11, 2004)

I wonder if Billy over in Redmond is watching.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Roz Ho from the MBU is talking about the Exchange features and the transition. Roz Ho, although I'm sure a very nice person and good at her job, is a horrible public speaker. Of course, the semi-hostile, pro-Apple audience doesn't help her cause either.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Bajan said:


> Yes indeed. Intel may have a special chip just for Apple.


I'm thinking there'll be no special CPU, but probably a special chipset...which would slow but not stop the emergence of hacked Mac OS for "unsupported" beige boxes. Hmmm...maybe piracy can carry Apple to great heights this time, the way it did for Microsoft?


----------



## Bighead (May 3, 2005)

After this anounement, is there any sales on the existing Powerbook G4 (the relic)?


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

Steve should've got Bob Dylan up there on stage with him.

This is just like "going electric".

Good lord, what are they going to do now that all the current h/w will be placed in a mental "lame duck" bin by most comsumers ...


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

So if Rosetta runs PowerPC apps on Intel Macs what is the emulation plan for running Intel apps on PowerPC Macs? Is there one?


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

used to be jwoodget said:


> So if Rosetta runs PowerPC apps on Intel Macs what is the emulation plan for running Intel apps on PowerPC Macs? Is there one?


I haven't seen word one about emulation on any of teh transcripts so far. Just recompiling ...


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

Sorry I'm with you now, Rosetta ... gotcha


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

So after forking over 6K for my powerbook and new software, it's already obsolete. I knew computers changed quickly but not THIS fast. 

I hope this doesn't mean I can't use future upgrades of my software unless I buy an entirely new Intel-based Mac. That's my only concern, really.


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

Is this the secret stuff from Transitive?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Apple is now shipping a G5 enclosure for developers with Intel inside..... $999

That's about what my duallie PowerPC is worth now......


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

sketch said:


> So after forking over 6K for my powerbook and new software, it's already obsolete. I knew computers changed quickly but not THIS fast.
> 
> I hope this doesn't mean I can't use future upgrades of my software unless I buy an entirely new Intel-based Mac. That's my only concern, really.


I think he's clearly stated that new s/w can easily be compiled for both platforms. Still, it's going away, no doubt aboutit.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 21, 2004)

Hey, I wonder if my old Toshiba Libretto with the 90MHz Pentium MMX and 32MB of ram can be made to support OS X? Now that would make me happy. 

I know, dreaming. 

-Stephanie


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

I'm sorry but did we miss the part about Steve going down on one knee and saying *"Yes, my master"*


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

How about Otelli (sp?) saying in a deep, gutteral voice "Rise".


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

There will be new PPC machines, but surely these will be seen by consumers as stop-gaps. It's not clear how Apple will manage this transition without some heavy bleeding. May well be worth it in the end but its going to be tough for a lot of resellers as well as Apple and applications companies.

That's the keynote finished. Apple shares are trading up a bit.

There's no change of global warming in Hell. It's like the Rideau Canal in January.....


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

You know I remember this back in 1995... Apple was moving from the 680xx to the PowerPC, everyone was up in arms. I remember that the office purchased Centris to do porting. I think that the effort to port back then was huge in comparison to what will have to be done now.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Here is the press release from Apple:

At its Worldwide Developer Conference today, Apple announced plans to deliver models of its Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors by this time next year, and to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007. Apple previewed a version of its critically acclaimed operating system, Mac OS X Tiger, running on an Intel- based Mac to the over 3,800 developers attending CEO Steve Jobs' keynote address. Apple also announced the availability of a Developer Transition Kit, consisting of an Intel-based Mac development system along with preview versions of Apple's software, which will allow developers to prepare versions of their applications which will run on both PowerPC and Intel-based Macs. 

"Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "It's been ten years since our transition to the PowerPC, and we think Intel's technology will help us create the best personal computers for the next ten years." 

"We are thrilled to have the world's most innovative personal computer company as a customer," said Paul Otellini, president and CEO of Intel. "Apple helped found the PC industry and throughout the years has been known for fresh ideas and new approaches. We look forward to providing advanced chip technologies, and to collaborating on new initiatives, to help Apple continue to deliver innovative products for years to come." 

"We plan to create future versions of Microsoft Office for the Mac that support both PowerPC and Intel processors," said Roz Ho, general manager of Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit. "We have a strong relationship with Apple and will work closely with them to continue our long tradition of making great applications for a great platform." 

"We think this is a really smart move on Apple's part and plan to create future versions of our Creative Suite for Macintosh that support both PowerPC and Intel processors," said Bruce Chizen, CEO of Adobe. 

The Developer Transition Kit is available starting today for $999 to all Apple Developer Connection Select and Premier members. Further information for Apple Developer Connection members is available at developer.apple.com. Intel plans to provide industry leading development tools support for Apple later this year, including the Intel C/C++ Compiler for Apple, Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple, Intel Math Kernel Libraries for Apple and Intel Integrated Performance Primitives for Apple.


----------



## george..k (Feb 2, 2005)

Steve Jobs shall now be known as Darth Vader!


----------



## harzack86 (Jan 30, 2005)

*Mac OS X.5 and Longhorn on the same machine?*

Does that mean that I'd be able to share the same hardware to install both Mac OS X and Windows on the same machine, different partitions or drive??? Or will Apple lock the processor with a specific ROM or something similar that will prevent installing OS X on a DIY (do it yourself) PC and prevent installing Windows on a Mactel machine?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> There will be new PPC machines, but surely these will be seen by consumers as stop-gaps.


Why would you assume that - the strength of this announcement is that BOTH chips are available for Macs - it's not either or.

Intel has some advantages in the low end and mobile and PowerPC has some advantages on the high end and Apple can choose it's products from the one that offers the best for that particular hardware application.

It's not either or - IT'S BOTH!! :clap:

They've been running this parallel development for 5 years, there are millions of PowerPC units in the field - not one of them are "obsolete". Apple will continue parallel - the OS is designed to work on BOTH.

The choice universe has been expanded for the Mac community in that Apple is not wedded to any given processor line but can choose the best from two major lines. That's real good news that it's easy to via the Rosetta to offer Mac software on EITHER chip.

Good...big time.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

In order to preserve its hardware business Apple will only support it on machines with the Apple ROM. But that being said ROM emulation is relatively easy to accomplish and the ROM usually has little to do with a machines performance in terms of processor and bus speeds, etc... So I would think some enterprising university student could write an Apple ROM emulator and bingo... Leopard on any PC.


----------



## george..k (Feb 2, 2005)

It's a stop gap. As soon as the last Mac with a PPC goes out the doors at Cupertino, developers will stop supporting it. You can consider this announcement today the final nail in the Macintosh PPC coffin.


----------



## crispyking (Jun 4, 2005)

*PowerPC still going strong*

PowerPC software support isn't going anywhere. Jobs stated that they'll be releasing new PowerPC hardware this year.

Software is going to be released FAT (x86/ppc) for the foreseeable future, I'd guess for at least 5 years (until after you'll need a faster processor to run it anyways). Why would developers arbitrarily turn off the XCode PPC check-box when it increases your market share for virtually free?

I'm certainly going to be buying a new PPC-based Mac in the near future, and I feel confident that I'll be able to run all the latest and greatest apps on it. I know that it won't be as fast as next year's computer, but I already knew that. The same was true last year, and the year before, and the year before. We all know that hardware becomes obsolete in the future. Why is this situation any different?


----------



## joltguy (Apr 15, 2005)

Hell, I may buy a Mac within the next year BECAUSE it still has a PPC chip. According to

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance

it's a much better processor anyway.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Well I had been hoping to move from my Rev A. 12" Powerbook G4 to something newer this year, but I guess I am waiting another year before I do that.

I'm very surprised about the timing of this announcement (the content doesn't surprise me) as it seams like a pretty long way out. It will significantly impact their hardware sales this year, but on the flip side they could stand to take a few quarterly losses and just look for the big pop the 2nd half of 06.


----------



## harzack86 (Jan 30, 2005)

And remember, what's important in our Macs is not the fact that "PPC" or "Intel" is written on the processor, but really that OS X runs it, not Windows...
Who really cares about the processor, as long as we have the power we need to do what we need?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

sketch said:


> So after forking over 6K for my powerbook and new software, it's already obsolete. I knew computers changed quickly but not THIS fast.


Apple will start changing processor architecture in a year's time, and that makes your Powerbook and software obsolete? 

Depending on your needs, a new Powerbook can have a useful life of anywhere from 2 to 5 years (or even more in some cases), even though after five years the difference in processor will be huge even without a change of architecture. 

Much if not all of your software will be supported on the new architecture.

It runs all the same stuff it did yesterday, just as fast.

So how does this news make it obsolete? I don't get it.

In general, I think people are overreacting. Machines are staying useful longer but falling in price faster -- both new and used. If IBM had been able to deliver 3 GHz desktop chips or a cool-running 2 GHz mobile G5, don't you think resale values of used machines would have dropped pretty quickly? How would that be different, for average Mac owners like you and me, than an architecture change? Resale value drops, and obsolescence sets in, one way or the other.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

True iMatt. But I do think people will put off buying new Macs if they can. Our current Macs are fine and will be supported but I doubt I will be replacing my powerbook until the Intel versions appear. I simply can't see any significant performance gains for laptops running G4s and there's no way they'll be releasing a G5 portable. Indeed, I think this latter failing of the G5 power efficiency was the straw that broke the G5's back for Apple, given their reliance on laptop sales (as is true for most computer makers).


----------



## adam1185 (Feb 16, 2005)

Heh, Jobs was just on CNBC and basically avoided every single question he was asked. Quite funny.


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

Well the last time that we saw a situation similar to this it was the 68000 => PPC transition. I bought the last machine that Apple made that had a 68k processor in it on the strength of vague promises by Apple that an "upgrade path" would be available. This never came and I regretted the decision more than once.

That being said, this machine lasted me for more than 8 years, still running (and buying new) s/w that was dual compiled. The main thing that bothered me was that I was not able to extend teh longevity of my machine by upgrading the h/w as all of the people with the early ppc machines of that vintage were able to.

This may turn out to mirror the current situation. There isn't any current option to upgrade G5's at teh moment anyway afaik.

If upgrading x86 processors becomes common practice (a big assumption, granted), then waiting a year to buy a new machine may be a wise decision.


----------



## greymatter (May 17, 2005)

Hold on...
Does this mean mac os x will be able to run on any computer (even PCs)?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Doc: I was under the impression that IBM will be gone -- although Apple will be supporting both, Intel-powered Macs will eventually push them out. How long before the next generation surpasses the abilities of present PPC Macs?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

UTBJW, I do wonder how Apple will survive the next year, especially with the portable lines. Perhaps there's one last gasp for the PPC line, like a dual-core G4, that could give a good reason to those who are sitting on the fence. There are probably enough diehard PPC fans out there to make a measurable difference to the bottom line as well.

I know it might slow my plans a bit, but I wouldn't hesitate to buy a PPC machine if it met my needs. What's holding me back right now (apart from cash flow) is the expectation that LCD prices are supposed to nosedive in the second half of the year. Since I don't need an urgent upgrade, I'm willing to wait a while.


----------



## Derrick (Dec 22, 2004)

The 'Quiet Period' at Intel right now ... I don't think we know what that is all about yet either.


----------



## crispyking (Jun 4, 2005)

adam1185 said:


> Heh, Jobs was just on CNBC and basically avoided every single question he was asked. Quite funny.


Yeah, he was very coy and smug when asked about what exactly would Intel processors will allow them to do in 2 years time. What is the strategic direction? He just said "We'll have to wait and see". He didn't say the obvious "Intel will let us make faster Macs than IBM chips" which wouldn't pique any interest. Nope, he's not saying what his grand scheme is.

He can't exactly say that the answer is "to replace Windows", now can he?


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

Does anyone else kinda feel hollow after this announcement? I know I've spent my fair share of time bickering with people about how PowerPCs are better then Intel processors and whatnot. It feels like you spent all this time rooting for democracy only to find out the communists won and you're now on their side.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

modsuperstar said:


> Does anyone else kinda feel hollow after this announcement? I know I've spent my fair share of time bickering with people about how PowerPCs are better then Intel processors and whatnot. It feels like you spent all this time rooting for democracy only to find out the communists won and you're now on their side.



The PowerPC is and will be used in plenty of other applications. The IBM pSeries runs AIX and use PowerPC processors.

I would think that if Apple was smart they'd continue to use the G5 in PowerMacs and start using the low power low cost Intel chips in iMacs, Mac Mini, and Portables.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

So was this the only announement made?? Any new products being released?


----------



## vectra (Jan 23, 2003)

Here we go again.....new hardware, new software. When you have a studio that is up and running efficiently, you don't want to experiment with new equipment and software. How much has everyone spent, everytime there is a change in OS or chip. Then Apple starts up their marketing machine and lo and behold what was once the "best thing" is now supplanted by guess what the "next best thing" I seem to remember being told a number of years ago by Apple that the CISC processor is better than the RISC processor and will have a better ability to evolve than the Intel version. Guess what! They made a left turn again. Gotta get that Apple marketing machine rolling again to convince us Mac addicts to follow with our tails wagging!


----------



## crispyking (Jun 4, 2005)

greymatter said:


> Hold on...
> Does this mean mac os x will be able to run on any computer (even PCs)?


I can't see how Apple can prevent this, unless they completely reverse their commitment to Darwin and open-source.

Darwin is the lower layer to Mac OS X and contains all the hardware drivers, and Darwin/86 is already open-source, and available. You can download it right now and run it on generic PC hardware. It just doesn't have the fancy Mac OS X GUI.

As soon as you can buy OSX for Intel on CD/DVD, I don't think it will take much work to extract all the necessary parts to turn a Darwin/X86 box into a full Mac OS X box.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was part of Apple's master plan from the day they open-sourced Darwin. What better way of supporting generic PCs than letting the open-source community handle all the low-level driver issues, and for Apple just to support their own hardware?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

greymatter said:


> Hold on...
> Does this mean mac os x will be able to run on any computer (even PCs)?


Not necessarily. Apple could and probably will make it so that OSX only runs on computers with Apple ROMs. The can't take a chance on impacting their long term hardware business.

That being said, emulating ROM's is a no brainer to do, so you could certainly see Apple ROMs in software emulation running on any PC.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

greymatter said:


> Hold on...
> Does this mean mac os x will be able to run on any computer (even PCs)?


No, Apple will make sure of that (as stated in the press release).
So after years of saying how much more superiour the PowerPC, they are going to the inferiour Intel... Enjoy the doublespeak...


----------



## picxpert (May 19, 2005)

george..k said:


> Steve Jobs shall now be known as Darth Vader!


Well, he has been dressing in black for quite some time...


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

vectra said:


> Here we go again.....new hardware, new software. When you have a studio that is up and running efficiently, you don't want to experiment with new equipment and software. How much has everyone spent, everytime there is a change in OS or chip. Then Apple starts up their marketing machine and lo and behold what was once the "best thing" is now supplanted by guess what the "next best thing" I seem to remember being told a number of years ago by Apple that the CISC processor is better than the RISC processor and will have a better ability to evolve than the Intel version. Guess what! They made a left turn again. Gotta get that Apple marketing machine rolling again to convince us Mac addicts to follow with our tails wagging!



Vectra: Don't worry about it -- developers will most likely seed dual platform binaries (or at the very least offer dual-bundled software) for the Mac OS X/OS X platform. Remeber, it's not for another 1-2 years. From what I've read at this early in the game it'll be relatively easy for developers to do.

Just remember to breath...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Vectra: Don't worry about it -- developers will most likely seed dual platform binaries
> Just remember to breath...


Already Adobe and Macromedia versions of software run better for Windows, how much effort will really go into another port?


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

It's technically not too late for IBM to step up to the plate and deliver a better PPC chip for Apple to consider.


----------



## Bilbo (Jul 12, 2001)

I have had plenty of debates with PC people on why Macs are better. Many PC people just don't get it... they have NO clue! They don't see the difference. I don't care if my buddie's PC has a faster processor, that's not the point! The problem is it runs Windows which makes it "crippled" right out of the box in my opinion.

The processor speed is not the be all end all, it's the quality of the "overall computing experience". How easy can I get things done? How much time do I have to dedicate to maintaining my system and running security patches? How much time do I need to dedicate to fighting viruses and spyware? Do I have to around the block just to get next door?

Do I care that there are way more Windows applications out there? Nope, not for a minute. Everything I need is available for the Mac. (and it's usually better anyway) Mac software developers get it, and it shows in their products.

Macs just work.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

ArtistSeries said:


> Already Adobe and Macromedia versions of software run better for Windows, how much effort will really go into another port?


Apparently none from what they've said. Besides... why run Windows?

And... run better on Windows? Ha ha ha. Troll much?


----------



## picxpert (May 19, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Already Adobe and Macromedia versions of software run better for Windows, how much effort will really go into another port?


From the keynote, it seems that even very complex programs (the example given was Mathematica) can be ported very quickly - in Mathematica's case, 2 hours. For a lot of programs, it'll be an extra option at compile time to generate an application that will run on both, and that's it.

That said, this still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, unless Intel is about to announce that NetBurst / P4 is going away (which it should - it's a piece of crap). That still won't answer my questions about AltiVec / Velocity Engine, which I've been told for a while now (by Apple, and in some benchmarks) is such a great thing.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

I take it 10.5 Leopard will run on PPC and x86?
What about 10.6?


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

Am I commiting thoughtcrime by wishing Apple could stay with IBM? It's too bad IBM could not make their chips work for Apple, now there is even less seperating Apple and Microsoft Windows...the CPUs will be basically the same, it just comes down to the OS. People say they only buy Apple for the OS (Apple is basically the OS) but I always thought it was nice to at least have a different chip architecture too...now they just seem so...similar...


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> "Never Say Never" is what I said about a month or two ago... three words Kosh immediately scoffed: Never, never, never.


Well, I NEVER saw that one comin'. (I had to get another NEVER in there)

I guess I'll have to go dig up an Intel roadmap and try and figure out how Steve such a bright future for the Pentium chip?!? Last time I looked it was still having trouble getting past the 4Ghz mark. It was stuck around 3.2 or 3.4 Ghz.


----------



## ernestworthing (Jun 10, 2004)

crispyking said:


> I can't see how Apple can prevent this, unless they completely reverse their commitment to Darwin and open-source.
> 
> Darwin is the lower layer to Mac OS X and contains all the hardware drivers, and Darwin/86 is already open-source, and available. You can download it right now and run it on generic PC hardware. It just doesn't have the fancy Mac OS X GUI.


You just answered your own question. Lock the Aqua GUI.
Darwin is already available on x86, but very few people are running it becase it is doesn't have Aqua. 



> From the keynote, it seems that even very complex programs (the example given was Mathematica) can be ported very quickly - in Mathematica's case, 2 hours. For a lot of programs, it'll be an extra option at compile time to generate an application that will run on both, and that's it.


Mathematica is a very cross-platform piece of code to start with (look at how many platforms it already runs on). 

Chances are it won't be that easy on other software which make assumptions about the underlying architecture.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

A 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 costs about $850 Canadian just for the chip 

Anyway I guess a lot of the Mac heads are going to have to start boning up on Intel architecture... in order to start explaining why it's better than AMD 

Macs will run on Intel, all other PCs will run on AMD


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

After the keynote Jobs gave when they first announced the G5, I thought it was going to make for an amazing future... well, it still has IMHO, in spite of Apple making the "switch" (nyuk, nyuk.)

However, there's much ado about nothing, aside from the drama. I think people are freaking out for no real reason... Apple is giving developers a very easy way to port their applications with a minute amount of effort (relatively speaking) and they dedicated to dual platform support "for a long time to come." Added to that, Rosetta will allow us to run PPC apps on the Intel platform in a transparent emulator (unlike Classic.)

I thought the IBM/G5 partnership with Apple would bring about some amazing things, but alas... it just hasn't happened, for the most part. I sincerely hope Intel and Apple coolaborate on some great ideas whilst giving us better products.


----------



## picxpert (May 19, 2005)

Mathematica is also a highly optimized piece of software, which I would expect to assume as much as possible about the underlying machine. For most software, I don't see porting being an issue (testing and support is an entirely different matter).

It occurs to me that Core Image, Core Video and Core Audio suddently make even more sense in a 2-architecture platform.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Kosh said:


> Well, I NEVER saw that one comin'. (I had to get another NEVER in there)
> 
> I guess I'll have to go dig up an Intel roadmap and try and figure out how Steve such a bright future for the Pentium chip?!? Last time I looked it was still having trouble getting past the 4Ghz mark. It was stuck around 3.2 or 3.4 Ghz.


Hey, who knew?

Certainly not me. I'm naive and ignorant to consider just about anything. 

I figure Jobs thought it's better to have a platform as fast as the competition rather than lag?


----------



## picxpert (May 19, 2005)

elmer said:


> Anyway I guess a lot of the Mac heads are going to have to start boning up on Intel architecture... in order to start explaining why it's better than AMD


That's going to be a huge problem: they aren't even as good as AMD.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Not to mention the doors it opens for other advancements such as RAM and Video in our machines. Intel do much more than make CPU's, and I'm willing to be there's more goodies to come out of this than just dropping IBM. I've felt it was needed (not necessarily to go with Intel, but so be it) and wasn't surprised at all by the outcome of the Keynote.


----------



## crispyking (Jun 4, 2005)

ernestworthing said:


> You just answered your own question. Lock the Aqua GUI.


Possible, but the GUI is a much higher layer than the hardware. You could hack it to put all kinds of hardware checks in, but those are the kinds of things that destabilize OS's (it breaks the hardware abstraction). I can't see Apple doing it.

Besides, there's no reason NOT to open up to generic hardware. Any alpha-geek that's going to go through the trouble of download open-source drivers and installing OSX on their own hardware, is not going to be considering spending premium $$ on elegant, nicely integrated Apple hardware. It's not Apple's target market. You might as well still sell them a copy of OSX.
It will just say on the box "Only Apple hardware supported", by which they mean if you call Apple's Tech Support, you better have a Mac serial number (just like today).

But it sure doesn't hurt Apple one bit to have that alpha-geek buy a copy anyways and install it on his own machine. In fact, it is going to spread the OSX-lovefest faster than anything else possibly could.



> Chances are it won't be that easy on other software which make assumptions about the underlying architecture.


When software makes an assumption about the underlying architecture, it's called a "bug". 
Really, it's standard software engineering practice to NOT make assumptions about the underlying architecture. That's what the OS is for.


----------



## RISK (Jan 3, 2004)

I'm all for this long-term. I expect OSX will eventually run on any PC box, it's time that Apple just went head to head with MS--OSX is a better OS. This is obviously the start of the OS wars I think, bring it on. Initially OSX won't run on "any" PC, but I bet it will shortly. If I could toggle into Windows to use some of the obscure programs I like that would be GREAT. No more Virt. pc, yeah!

Apple hardware has been lagging for a long time (less so on desktops, but still lagging). I like my iBook, but I'd love to be free to buy any PC machine I like, especially notebooks. Right now I use an iBook because Powerbooks are a joke, I refused to pay a premium for outdated hardware last time around. My dual G5 is great, but honestly I paid $4000 for a machine that would have cost $2000 if it were an Intel or AMD machine.

To those that worry that non-Apple hardware will cause problems, take a look around your desk--I've got a Sony deck, an HP printer, two Macally hubs, a logitech mouse, a Nikon scanner, a Canon scanner, four different brands of hard drives, a D-Link bluetooth module, some generic firewire hub, etc. etc. Most of my hardware outside of the box and the screen isn't Apple anyhow, no big deal. If you take a close look inside a G5 box you'll note the primary difference is a G5 processor--the hard drive, DVD drive, memory, graphics card, etc. are all non-Apple hardware. We just pay more for the privilege of running OSX and other Apple software, that's been annoying me for a long time, it's usury on the part of Apple.

Apple does make a lot of money off computer hardware, but there is a much bigger prize out there with software if OSX, FCP, iLife, iWork, etc. can run on any PC. Apple has hamstrung itself with the hardware fixation, the success of iTunes shows the world will pay a premium for good software and Apple-branded hardware if it is actually better (original powerbooks for example).

Apple is a lot like Wendys in a McDonald's world, both are massive corporations. It's not Steve and some buds hanging out in a garage, we're still buying stuff from a huge corporation. Those of you who are lamenting some sort of loss of individuality are delusional, using Apple gear just makes us different colored sheep. Run Linux if you really want to be different already, grin.

Apple stock is maybe going to take a hit, and I feel for the small retailers I really like--it's not going to be an easy time to sell Apple hardware, especially desktops and powerbooks, for the next year. But I'll bet Apple stock surges when people figure out that ultimately OS X will run on any PC box--think of all those machines outside of North America running MS, that's one HUGE market! People are sick of MS, now is the time to stick the sword into the beast. Good one Jobs and crew!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

"Over the years, Apple touted PowerPC as more powerful than the Intel processors that run Windows PCs, with Apple CEO Steve Jobs even comparing some Macs to supercomputers.

On Monday, Jobs quickly changed his tune"
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=261601c4-3c1e-4004-a51c-d11d551b859a

crispyking, you seem to be defending this changeover, what's your interest in this?


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 30, 2005)

So much for a Loepard never changing its spots, eh?


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> "Over the years, Apple touted PowerPC as more powerful than the Intel processors that run Windows PCs, with Apple CEO Steve Jobs even comparing some Macs to supercomputers.
> 
> On Monday, Jobs quickly changed his tune"
> http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=261601c4-3c1e-4004-a51c-d11d551b859a
> ...


 They were at the time, but they aren't now and Jobs and Co are pretty pissed about it. I wouldn't want to go in front of the WWDC and say "Hey, we're still faster than AMD or Intel, Promise!" It wouldn't fly, I know it, and so does everyone else. It's OBVIOUS IBM had no intentions of keeping their end of the bargain. What else could have been done?


----------



## MacGenius (Nov 13, 2001)

Considering today's announcement I think we need to remember a few things:

1. Apple never said anything about "Pentium". The move it to Intel chips. While some may construe this as moving to the Pentium x CPU, Intel might have something else in store we don't know about yet.

2. Apple will surely NOT be using the antiquated PC architecture. In terms of hardware, this is one area where the Mac was always ahead of the PC. We never had to deal with IRQs, interrupts and parallel ports. Apple wil design a new motherboard architecture that will Intel "chips" and keep the same ease of use we have come to appreciate. This is the only way Apple can keep profits and prevent cloning.

3. Because of #2, we will not get 100% compatibility with standard PC stuff. It might make running Windows a bit faster but a very different architecture will still not give us the same stuff as "they" get.

4. Using Intel CPUs will not make the Mac the same price as a similarly equipped CPU (assuming they do use a Pentium x). See # 2 for the reason.

In the intervening year more information will come into the clear to help us understand Apple's plan and vision but I remain convinced that the CPU change will not change much in the grand scheme of things. What I worry about the most is sales drying up in a time when they can't afford to lose them. The iPod alone, while profitable, cannot be relied upon to keep them solvent. They way I see it is they will need to live with even slimmer profits from Mac sales and eat into their cash horde until the transition is underway.


----------



## kent (Oct 18, 2003)

What's next a merger between apple and microsoft - haha ... 

not knowing all the details from the keynote, this would seem like a dark day for Apple. After reading about this tonight, I may feel differently, but for now...

the x86 architecture is ancient .... I have not so fond memories of my 286 and 586 [pentium]

I need a drink!


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

> If I could toggle into Windows to use some of the obscure programs I like that would be GREAT. No more Virt. pc, yeah!


I think that's the key here. Apple's biggest hurdle in getting people to switch to OSX is the software. Let's put aside the myth that Mac "doesn't have any good software" and assume people are over that... The fact is, PC owners who just spent $500 on Office and Photoshop DON'T want to go out and spend ANOTHER $500 to get the same apps!

So what do you think running an Intel chip will help do? Virtual PC is slow right now because it's emulating an x86 chip. What if your Mac HAD an x86 chip? How fast would Virtual PC be then? How seamlessly would it integrate into the OS? Maybe like current unix X apps? Imagine a computer that can run ANY software you throw at it... Mac, Unix and Windows!

Despite the scare, this is VERY positive news. And I don't think sales will fall too much until about 3 months before new hardware is out. A huge portion of the Macs in use are in business... print shops, film companies, etc. Businesses ALWAYS stick with what works for at least a year until they are SURE there are no bugs with new hardware/software. Their business sales should remain strong.

A7


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

I wonder if we'll see a Microsoft DirectX for Mac?
As for Virtual PC, I imagine it will become much more popular, as it will no longer be slow!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vexel said:


> They were at the time, but they aren't now and Jobs and Co are pretty pissed about it. I wouldn't want to go in front of the WWDC and say "Hey, we're still faster than AMD or Intel, Promise!" It wouldn't fly, I know it, and so does everyone else. It's OBVIOUS IBM had no intentions of keeping their end of the bargain. What else could have been done?


I guess the XBox should be going to Intel then?

AMD is ahead of Intel. AMD dual core is a better chip than anything Intel has, so why not go with that?

Are you saying that the Anandtech article is correct?
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Vexel said:


> Not to mention the doors it opens for other advancements such as RAM and Video in our machines. Intel do much more than make CPU's, and I'm willing to be there's more goodies to come out of this than just dropping IBM. I've felt it was needed (not necessarily to go with Intel, but so be it) and wasn't surprised at all by the outcome of the Keynote.


 Do you remember my first post on the matter? I think going with Intel.. opened many doors, not just the CPU. This is why the choice. They could have gone with AMD yes.. but.. why not with Intel for the sake of other things? I'm sure this was thought out in some way, don't you think?


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

And on the Xbox note, you can't compare chips. They are different all together. As well.. it's still not too late for IBM to produce something that Apple can go with. Especially since they may and very well could now support a dual architecture. Why would the thought of a Dual Processor PPC/x86 Mac be so out of the question at this point?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Vexel - if it's compiled for Intel wouldn't AMD chips automatically be included as choices for Apple???

Also why is there an assumption that Apple will ONLY use Intel chips. They have the choice of both and there is no reason on earth they would not keep their options open......as they have done here.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Vexel - if it's compiled for Intel wouldn't AMD chips automatically be included as choices for Apple???


 I have no idea MacDoc. I'm not sure how the architectures work  But.. it's just the point I was making about the reason they would have gone with Intel 


edit: Actually, don't PC's need different mobo's if they are going to use AMD or Intel Chips? I may be wrong.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There would be no point at all in mixing chips within a machine - all this means is Apple can choose freely based on cost performance as the OS will handle both.

I suspect strongly the entry will be at the low end not the high end.


----------



## jb22 (Jan 9, 2003)

So does this mean that Mac hardware will be updated more often and will that result in lower resalfe values?

As for Intel CPUs, yes it's true that Intel isn't focusing on higerh ghz speeds due to heating issues but is now moving towards dual core cpus as is AMD.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> There would be no point at all in mixing chips within a machine - all this means is Apple can choose freely based on cost performance as the OS will handle both.
> 
> I suspect strongly the entry will be at the low end not the high end.


 I think crispyking mentioned it earlier.. couldn't it be a way to run Windows Apps natively? Rather than through a ****ty VPC?


----------



## joltguy (Apr 15, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Also why is there an assumption that Apple will ONLY use Intel chips.


I don't think it's really an assumption (emphasis mine):

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html


> WWDC 2005, SAN FRANCISCO—June 6, 2005—At its Worldwide Developer Conference today, Apple® announced plans to deliver models of its Macintosh® computers using Intel® microprocessors by this time next year, and to *transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors* by the end of 2007.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Vexel said:


> I think crispyking mentioned it earlier.. couldn't it be a way to run Windows Apps natively? Rather than through a ****ty VPC?


No, No, No. Windows apps will not run natively. Not even Linux apps will. But VPC will run much faster on Mac OS X Intel, since it would only have to emulate the Windows API and not the chip. And some apps that were really tough to port to Mac before will be much easier now.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well if you looked back 2 years wold you assume from Apple's plan then they would be using Intels in 2006????/.....no.
It's a plan - that's all. Things change as technology changes. They kept the parallel development going for 5 years - they'll keep it going. They'll choose the best technology.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> They'll choose the best technology.


No, the least expensive to them where they can make high profits...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That too.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

*News.com:*


> After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
> 
> However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said


----------



## RISK (Jan 3, 2004)

I was just about to post that Elmer. Even if for some reason we can't run OSX on an PC box for a while, the opportunity to run Windows on an "Apple" is brilliant! Now my weird GPS programs and so on that only support XP may be able to run sans emulation on my next Apple. That is GREAT!

I think I'm going to wait until Apple misses a quarterly profit forecast (folks not buyinng Apple hardware, lower profits, stock tanks) and then buy a bunch of stock. This is great news.


----------



## crispyking (Jun 4, 2005)

Vexel said:


> I think crispyking mentioned it earlier.. couldn't it be a way to run Windows Apps natively? Rather than through a ****ty VPC?


Yes, Wine (http://www.winehq.com/) allows running Windows apps natively (without using Windows). With OSX on Intel, it shouldn't take long before it's ported to OSX (might even compile right away, even).

Shouldn't be too long before someone ports Linux's ELF loader and libs to OSX, and then you'll be able to run Linux binaries too.

OSX on Intel opens up a whole new world of possibilities.

-- C


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

joltguy said:


> I don't think it's really an assumption (emphasis mine):
> 
> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
> 
> ...


That's what Apple is saying today.

From my understanding of this (admittedly shaky), the inclusion of Intel support and the non-abandonment of PPC support means that if next year IBM has some stunning new chips to offer, Apple could start to use them with little problem.

So right now you have an ATI graphics card. Next year Nvidia brings out something awesome. Apple puts that in the new models. No problem.

Apple now has the flexibility to pick and choose the best. 

But my suspicion is that Apple wants to be on Intel for reasons other than which is the best chip. They want to be able to compete directly with Windows, now that they are floundering with their next OS. Jobs reportedly ran OSX on a Pentium 4 today and it ran brilliantly. Even when Longshot finally comes out it probably won't run as well or be able to do nearly as much.

Can you imagine the new Intel Mac mini or iBook, competitively priced against a Dell, *and* you will be able to install XP on it to play your games or whatever. People will be able to directly compare the OS's and decide for themselves.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*New Obsolete Apple Software?*

Okay, I've nervously read all the comments, and I don't know if anyone can answer this with any amount of certainty, but...
Will my new FCP Suite software, (that's still in the box), be able to run on the Intel processor Macs? Say, for the next 4 years?

Shaking in my boots....


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

My friend just told me the most astonishing news.

weird move.

well I do know that apple is very strict with their chip providers...

maybe they had beef with IBM too?

but this move will make the gaming industry come to the macs i think.

finally some open GL optimisation?




if all turns out well..


then maybe by the end of '06 i can get a cheap g5! and dump my sawtooth...


or maybe by the end of '06 my sawtooth will be a collectors....



lets see what bill gates has to say...


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> That's what Apple is saying today.
> 
> From my understanding of this (admittedly shaky), the inclusion of Intel support and the non-abandonment of PPC support means that if next year IBM has some stunning new chips to offer, Apple could start to use them with little problem.
> 
> ...


 LOL....


longshot...


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> That's what Apple is saying today.
> 
> From my understanding of this (admittedly shaky), the inclusion of Intel support and the non-abandonment of PPC support means that if next year IBM has some stunning new chips to offer, Apple could start to use them with little problem.
> 
> ...


 about your last comment.


installing windows on a mac. and choosing for your self.

the reason apple is so much better than the PC world.

is because apple has a controlled environment.

they control the OS they control the hardware. respectively.


very hard for the eager programmer to write things.

so where's the appeal?

the complete package. the MAC which comes with everything all set to go.


hardware and software from none other.

why would someone pay for the greatness of a mac, just to run windows on it.

it's like...buying a mansion. but then decorating it like your old house.

if apple is not careful.


they will be selling macs at pacific mall soon.

...


it's shifty man...the PC world is very shifty...


soon we'll be saying i got a mac with service pack 3 on it...

or buying the latest mac chip at the local computer shops in markham...

and getting your "free" software as a bonus for shopping there.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I think the writing is on the wall. Apple has just closed the only viable alternative processor design option for personal computers. The PowerPC will still be used for embedded applications (including game consoles) but where is the incentive for Freescale or IBM to maintain development of Altivec-enhanced PowerPC chips? They had little enough incentive already. Transmeta announced the sale of their chip business to China today. Can you imagine development of new CPUs in today's market? Intel has achieved a monoploy (albeit with AMD riding along) and THAT is why it was a big deal to them.


----------



## crispyking (Jun 4, 2005)

SoyMac said:


> Okay, I've nervously read all the comments, and I don't know if anyone can answer this with any amount of certainty, but...
> Will my new FCP Suite software, (that's still in the box), be able to run on the Intel processor Macs? Say, for the next 4 years?
> 
> Shaking in my boots....


Yes, it'll run in "Rosetta" emulation mode just fine, and probably faster than on your current Mac. Apple might even be nice enough to offer "fat" updates for their products at no cost in which case when you use Software Update, you'll get the native x86 version.


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

yes...yes that too...

it seems that tomorrow's world is an outsourcing world.

but a monopolised one it is.

where only one country supplies...

strange if all three gaming consoles want PowerPC chips...for the ultimate experience...why doesn't apple? even microsoft recognises the POWER of those chips...

r.i.s.c. makes life easier...

(shudder i was just reading http://www.inboxrobot.com/news/PowerMac and an article about seeing the "intel inside" sticker on a mac.... eesh...thats like me buying a mustang to see VTEC Honda power written on the rear side panel...shudder)

support AMD!!! they are the underdogs!! you liked nvidia after years of ATi....who's more cutting edge?


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*Me Not Smrt*

Thanks, Crispy King!


crispyking said:


> Yes, it'll run in "Rosetta" emulation mode just fine,


I wish I knew what that meant, but it seems like good news for me.



crispyking said:


> ... Apple might even be nice enough to offer "fat" updates for their products at no cost in which case when you use Software Update, you'll get the native x86 version.


Are we assuming x86 architecture? Geez, that seems so appalling.
I'm hoping it'll be Intel, with a special Apple-only chip. Is that too much to ask?

And I'll hurl when I have to finally upgrade my hardware to a box with that crappy-looking "Intel Inside" sticker.


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

i always make fun of my friends pc's with a millions ad's pasted on the computer.

intel inside

optimised for XP

WIDESCREEN 14.1 INCH TFT

then the computer model printed across



hellO if i bought the computer why are you selling it to me everytime i look at it..

it's UGLY...like a car off the dealer with the lease price still stuck on the side...


like an unfinished product




ENERGY SAVER


LOW RADIATION


ULTRABRITE


SUPER QUIET


quiet key....



the list goes on....





whats on a mac?


computer. and apple.

don't need to know after i got my iBook that it's a 1.33 ghz i book 14 inch with combodrive and USB 2.0 FIREWIRE or IEEE 1394 .... AFTER i bought the computer...


(i wish i had that iBook.)


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

From Intel's Site:
_Pricing and Availability
The Intel processors introduced today include the company's mainstream dual-core processor, the Intel Pentium D processor and a new processor in the Intel Pentium 4 Processor 600 sequence. The Intel Pentium D processors 840, 830 and 820 are priced at $530, $316 and $241, respectively, in 1,000-unit quantities. The Intel Pentium 4 Processor supporting HT Technology 670 is priced at $851 in 1,000-unit quantities. The Intel 945G and 945P Express Chipsets are priced at $42 and $38, respectively, in 1,000-unit quantities.

Systems and motherboards based on Intel's new platforms are shipping today and will grow in volume with solutions available from major systems manufacturers and Intel® Resellers around the world. For more information visit www.intel.com/reseller .

Intel, the world's largest chip maker, is also a leading manufacturer of computer, networking and communications products. Additional information about Intel is available at www.intel.com/pressroom.

Intel, Intel Pentium and Pentium are trademarks or registered trademarks of Intel Corporation or its subsidiaries in the United States and other countries.

* Other names and brands may be claimed as the property of others.

1. Hyper-Threading Technology requires a computer system with an Intel® Pentium® 4 processor supporting HT Technology and an HT Technology enabled chipset, BIOS and operating system. Performance will vary depending on the specific hardware and software you use. See www.intel.com/info/hyperthreading for more information including details on which processors support HT Technology._


Intel is a huge company. IBM et al are saying the Apple/PPC accounts for 2-3% of total sales. Intel could whip out a few chips for Apple without a hiccup.
Also, Intel can supply the complete motherboard and chipset package for a Mac OSX based home entertainment controller/ system. 
The price of a MacMini is the same price as one Pentium 4 HT chip. We won't be seeing a P4 HT Mac soon. (though, I wonder what's in the new developer PC?)
I totally agree with MacDoc, use the low end chips at the start in Minis and lappys and leave the G5's for the heavy duty work for the next 2 years. Centrino iBooks? YES!
HT technology for OSX? I dunno. 
Xeon based servers? Really expensive.

Overall, I think it's good move. 
Way to go Apple!


----------



## crispyking (Jun 4, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> "Over the years, Apple touted PowerPC as more powerful than the Intel processors that run Windows PCs, with Apple CEO Steve Jobs even comparing some Macs to supercomputers.
> 
> On Monday, Jobs quickly changed his tune"
> http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=261601c4-3c1e-4004-a51c-d11d551b859a
> ...


I just want the world to standardize on one OS so we can all get back to work, and I don't want to have to migrate to Windows! That said, I do own Apple stock and am thinking of buying more 

Honestly, I don't think Jobs cares about the hardware specifics, and never did. It's just a vehicle for marketing to spin why people should buy your hardware instead of the other guy's. He's already been through one transition from hardware to a software company at NeXT, and he sees that software is where it's at.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

crispyking said:


> Yes, it'll run in "Rosetta" emulation mode just fine, and probably faster than on your current Mac. Apple might even be nice enough to offer "fat" updates for their products at no cost in which case when you use Software Update, you'll get the native x86 version.


When has emulation been faster?
crispyking, are you on Apple's payroll?


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

yes..that would be a soothing option after the latest press release...

but then there's a loss of pride in macs too!

it's like an aristocracy which is being overthrown by the peasants who control the wheat!

meh...personally my skin would crawl if it touched a mac with pentium chip.

it's like....treason!


though...the faster pentium chips would make life easier for the lower end macs!

think about it...faster load times and such...make the avg jobs like word smoother..then again..do you need a g4 to use word? 




having a mac home entertainment system would be nice though...if it could integrate with a PPC apple...mmmm.....change tv channels from my computer.....


mmmmmm....



this might end up being a best of both worlds situation


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

crispyking said:


> He's already been through one transition from hardware to a software company at NeXT, and he sees that software is where it's at.


Then, we would still have clones. 
The new Mac will still be a closed system.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

gnatsum said:


> though...the faster pentium chips would make life easier for the lower end macs!
> 
> think about it...faster load times and such...make the avg jobs like word smoother..then again..do you need a g4 to use word?


I have read many times today that Intel will be good (faster) for the low end yet Intel chips cost MORE than PPC. 
How does that work again?


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

One word:

PALLADIUM


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Despite the hype of today, Apple presumably would rather keep quiet about the switch. The news was for developers. What is absent is a clear road map of when Apple will introduce the new Intel-based machines. This allows a fair degree of deniability with regard to new PPC products but it also leaves uncertainty.

Question for resellers (you know who you are).....

There has been wide coverage of the switch to Intel in the computing press. However, the Apple site does not mention the news except as one of several articles on the Hot News page. What is your strategy for selling Macs over the next 1-2 years? Do you feel obligated to bring up the processor issue or would you discuss it only when asked?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vexel said:


> Do you remember my first post on the matter? I think going with Intel.. opened many doors, not just the CPU. This is why the choice. They could have gone with AMD yes.. but.. why not with Intel for the sake of other things? I'm sure this was thought out in some way, don't you think?


I do remember this:


Vexel said:


> I love Apple.. but they wouldn't survive this move. Honestly, think about it. Apple moving to Intel would be the biggest mistake upon mistakes. Not to mention, Developers would just say "[email protected]#K IT!, this is enough!" and take their expertise elsewhere.
> 
> really really really bad move, I don't think this will happen, for one reason, Apple is doing the best they've ever done in years.


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I have read many times today that Intel will be good (faster) for the low end yet Intel chips cost MORE than PPC.
> How does that work again?


 i wouldn't mind a reference on that post...

according to user ernstNL's post

"From Intel's Site:
Pricing and Availability
The Intel processors introduced today include the company's mainstream dual-core processor, the Intel Pentium D processor and a new processor in the Intel Pentium 4 Processor 600 sequence. The Intel Pentium D processors 840, 830 and 820 are priced at $530, $316 and $241, respectively, in 1,000-unit quantities. The Intel Pentium 4 Processor supporting HT Technology 670 is priced at $851 in 1,000-unit quantities. The Intel 945G and 945P Express Chipsets are priced at $42 and $38, respectively, in 1,000-unit quantities."

i personally wouldn't mind putting a low end chip equivalent to an intel 945's capability for 38 bucks...

i doubt i can get a mother board supporting 800-1066 Mhz bus with 4 gigs ram support of 667 Mhz DDR 2 PCI x16 slots, 3 pci slots SATA II and gigabit ethernet.

all that from apple for 38 bucks?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mainboards/display/20050516062735.html


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

BTW, the US$999 developer transition kit that includes Intel hardware requires the hardware be returned at some date since it is not a released product.

http://developer.apple.com/transitionkit.html


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

gnatsum said:


> i wouldn't mind a reference on that post...


He's going to kill me... Ask MacDoc


macdoc said:


> Did you not realize that G5 processors are cheaper than intel?????





macdoc said:


> IBM chips are ruling the roost right now in performance AND value and rumour has it the incredibly expensive iTanium is headed for the dust bins. RISC may FINALLY be outrunning CISC as it long ago promised.
> 
> If you look at the cost/performance on the PowerPC architecture it is spectacular. The limiting factor is software exploitation of the speed - no wonder Linux ALSO rules the roost for performance.


----------



## crispyking (Jun 4, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> When has emulation been faster?
> crispyking, are you on Apple's payroll?


I meant his app might end up running faster under emulation on next year's 4GHz Pentium-D's than native execution on today's 2.7 GHz G5's. That's what the reports are, anyways.

Nope, I have no inside information. I used to be a software engineer and have programmed with Cocoa's precursor on NEXTSTEP, the AppKit). I've used NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP for a long time, and ported many apps to it, compiled "fat". I have been following Job's transition to x86 since 1993 when he first shocked us NeXT users with pretty much the same announcement as today.  He even reportedly had a sign in his office that said "It's Intel, Stupid". This "fat" binary stuff is old hat on NEXTSTEP, and I'm happy that OSX is finally getting that featured re-enabled. 

This Transitive "Rosetta" stuff is new though and sounds very cool.

-_ C


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

crispyking said:


> I have been following Job's transition to x86 since 1993 when he first shocked us NeXT users with pretty much the same announcement as today.


Manny is going to say I'm cynical but where is NeXT today? 
I think they died when they went from a black box to a beige box no?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

NeXT is now a part of Mac OS X... soooo? 

__________________


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

In all honesty, I am as shocked as anyone, but.. now that I've seen some actual information... I realize I fell blindly to the "Windows = Intel" side of things.. and that was also before I saw the demo of X running on an Intel Chip. I admit.. I was blind.. and it was a stupid comment.. I posted that without any review at all.. and it was very ignorant and rude.

Just thought apologies were due


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

« MannyP Design » said:


> NeXT is now a part of Mac OS X... soooo?


NeXT died during the switch no? 

Here's the cynical part ;>
Maybe M$ will buy the remains of Apple.... 

- this is not flamebait - don't shoot - it's a joke -


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Manny is going to say I'm cynical but where is NeXT today?


Where is NeXT today? In a 1997 covert takeover they acquired Apple Computer, they just kept the old name and replaced the aging Macintosh OS with a reworked NEXTSTEP.


----------



## yatko (Oct 9, 2004)

Apple had no choice but make the switch since IBM perhaps wanted to be out of chip business as well like PCs.?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Not to the best of my knowledge -- from what I recall NeXT OpenStep was used to form the basis of Mac OS X (Rhapsody) after Apple acquired NeXT.

__________________


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

My friend Steve Jobs (kiddin') said that OS X is Intel compatible since 10.0 (Cheetah?). They were planning it, those crazy computer makerz.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

crispyking said:


> ...Darwin is the lower layer to Mac OS X and contains all the hardware drivers, and Darwin/86 is already open-source, and available. You can download it right now and run it on generic PC hardware. It just doesn't have the fancy Mac OS X GUI.
> 
> ...
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if this was part of *Apple's master plan from the day they open-sourced Darwin*.


Is Apple a hardware or a software company? What better way to get OSX on every desktop than to have an OSX that, in fact, runs on every computer?



modsuperstar said:


> Does anyone else kinda feel hollow after this announcement? .................


Me too. In a face to face showdown on the same platform(s), OSX will (assuming we _truly_ believe our own hype about the utter superiority of the Mac OS) thrash Windows. Windows has never been seriously challenged *on an even field* and it will be interesting to see how Willy-boy responds, so if you see a lot of M$ shares suddenly on the market..................

Of course then OSX would be ubiquitous which some (see Mad as Hell series) think is Windows biggest problem.



crispyking said:


> .... What better way of supporting generic PCs than letting the open-source community handle all the low-level driver issues, and for Apple just to support their own hardware?


Bingo! (or maybe not..... or maybe the open source community might have something to say about that)

And when OSX goes <shudder>mainstream</shudder> how far behind do you think the malware crowd will be...

But those who thrive on the relative uniqueness of Mac/OSX, and who have supported Apple against the odds with our hard earned $$$, are sh!t outta luck...

Stevie has synically used Mac loyalists to develop all the (extended) "digital hub" applications (iApps) on OSX. Now he's going to toss the whole thing to the great unwashed....

Bet you we see OSX/Intel with a full iLife bundle (damn, I paid to that) for about $50, at least as an introduction..... The 'first' OSX virus(es) will appear less than a day later...

Maybe it is time to finally go Linux for good.........


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Just because there is going to be x86 architecture inside our computers, does not mean that our OS is any less stable. In fact, some might see OS X as the guiding light.. because of stability. I'm sure, there will be problems, but definitely not to the point of Windows. 

My point is this:

Apple was never about being in second place, the strive was always to create the best user experience, integration, platform, hardware, software and userbase for "ALL" users. Windows users included. Why else would then invest so much money in the "Switch" campain? The company is finally coming to a point where it can further that point. But, you are right, in that with the territory comes a lot more deceitful/moronic people. But, this shouldn't hold Apple back from bringing their stuff to more people in any way.

Being a Mac user for me, has been taking advantage of the opportunities of the way things work. I don't think that's about to change. I put a lot of faith in "OUR" product. 

I am actually anticipating and feeling kind of happy that we can finally compete on a somewhat fair market and actually see what will come of it. I think, OS X is superior to Windows hands down. Lets finally put it to the real test


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Vexel, your right on the money. The time has come to put the Tiger to the test. 

Who's up for steak? Hamburger... yum, Longhorn cow!

D.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

NBiBooker said:


> Who's up for steak? Hamburger... yum, Longhorn cow!
> 
> D.


So long as you make room for Apple Pie


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So long as you make room for Apple Pie


There's always room for Apple Pie


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I think some will be eating crow in about six months.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

« MannyP Design » said:


> I think some will be eating crow in about six months.


Shall we make a bet of this? I'm game


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

What will be the conditions of this bet? What would be considered success or failure in this instance because I won't settle for B.S. semantics or fuzzy logic come 2006. 

And what will be the wager?

A shaved head?


----------



## Todd (Oct 14, 2002)

used to be jwoodget said:


> According to Jobs speech at the WWDC..... No need for rumours.....


We'll see how well this goes. No one has any doubts that Apple can do it. But I think the Mac community is concerned about their current investments in HW and SW.

How much new software will be dual-compiled for both Intel and PowerPC Macs? We know it can be done by developers using Xcode - but that's not all developers. Will people who just bought new computers find that much new software is Intel-OS X-only in a few years? This is much different from merely not having the latest hardware on your desk any more.

How well will current software run on the new Intel machines? Will everything run? People who like to play games are especially going to look at their hundreds of dollars worth of favourite games and wonder if they'll be able to play.

Many people spent $150 on Tiger which is only months old. Now they're told Leopard is already planned to replace it.

Classic support is completely gone. That could be a significant loss. My tax returns are all in old versions of Quicktax. I used ResEdit just the other day without thinking about it being a "Classic" application. Many of my favourite games are pre-OS X.

I agree that with IBM unwilling to make further commitments to the advancement of the G5 PowerPC, Apple had to move. But, it's going to be rough for the users who have spent money on their current Macs.


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

Todd said:


> Many people spent $150 on Tiger which is only months old. Now they're told Leopard is already planned to replace it.
> 
> Classic support is completely gone. That could be a significant loss. My tax returns are all in old versions of Quicktax.


to think that tiger would be the last osX is a little silly - everyone knew there would be a newer version, so knowing leopard is in development should not be a shock. they always have the next version or release or hardware in the works everytime they release new 'books, pc's or OS.

as far as quicktax goes, they didn't even make a 2004 version - you had to do it online this year, which is the way i did it and it wasn't that bad.

i'm a little on the fence as far as the whole intel thing goes - at first i was figuring it was the beginning of the end, but i'm not so sure. as long as apple can keep control of the reigns enough they may make this work. if not, at least we'll all have hardware capable of running windoze.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

How much new software will be dual-compiled for both Intel and PowerPC Macs? We know it can be done by developers using Xcode - but that's not all developers. Will people who just bought new computers find that much new software is Intel-OS X-only in a few years? This is much different from merely not having the latest hardware on your desk any more.

How well will current software run on the new Intel machines? Will everything run? People who like to play games are especially going to look at their hundreds of dollars worth of favourite games and wonder if they'll be able to play.

Many people spent $150 on Tiger which is only months old. Now they're told Leopard is already planned to replace it.

Classic support is completely gone. That could be a significant loss. My tax returns are all in old versions of Quicktax. I used ResEdit just the other day without thinking about it being a "Classic" application. Many of my favourite games are pre-OS X.

I agree that with IBM unwilling to make further commitments to the advancement of the G5 PowerPC, Apple had to


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> I agree that with IBM unwilling to make further commitments to the advancement of the G5 PowerPC, Apple had to


Who say Steve did not get the concessions he wanted? 
The hybrid powerPC(Xbox) and cell from IBM seem like advancement, no?

John Siracusa has his own observations that echo what I have been saying for a few days
http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ars


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That is NOT my statement now keep things straight - This is really starting to piss me off 

Either get it straight or keep me out of your commentary.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> NeXT died during the switch no?


To compare the state of Apple's userbase, revenues and industry support to NeXT's is ludicrous. You're really grabbing at straws to piss through, there. Apple has a sufficient enough userbase and is ensconced enough to make the transition. NeXT lacked relevance because between Apple's and Microsoft's userbase (mainly MS's aggressive tactics with the PC makers), there was little room for them to survive. Now, what of Linux? Well, that's grass-roots (or, at least WAS grass-roots); not a financial entity like NeXT was. Linux thrived because it was adopted FREEly by the ubergeeks out there.

Apple will be fine. Their revenues will take a hit until they get the x86 Macs out there, but they'll weather the storm.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macdoc, did you just have an "episode", a phone call to take or have you taken over Todds body......?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm getting seriously annoyed with AS. There is enough disinformation, misinformation about this whole thing and now I get stuff attributed to me.......pissed.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Macaholic said:


> You're really grabbing at straws to piss through, there.


Wow, Macaholic, you just short-circuited my brain by reminding me of this quote:
"You can be thread-safe without sucking dead baby donkeys through a straw."
-- Linus Torvalds, on fa.linux.kernel.

MacDoc, go take a breather, buddy. Read your own post - he quoted you accurately from the post above his. I am not sure where that post by you came from, by the way; it looks garbled. Go take a breather, and come back with an informative post on some ramifications that haven't been discussed yet.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> NeXT died during the switch no?


I was joking above when I said that NeXT took over Apple, but there's a big grain of truth there. NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP has been re-worked to become what is widely regarded as the world's best and most advanced operating system, OSX.

Jobs and Avie Tevanian from NeXT now control Apple Computer. And the makers of this Rosetta Technology, Transitive Technologies, whose board chairman is Peter van Cuylenburg, who — according to his biography on the Transitive web site — was the president and COO of a certain company called NeXT Computer in 1992.

Looks like all these former NeXT guys have been plotting this for a long time. I'd say NeXT was alive and well, just currently using the well-known brand name of Apple.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Many people spent $150 on Tiger which is only months old. Now they're told Leopard is already planned to replace it.


Many people spent 180$ on Panther and then were told at the following WWDC that Tiger would replace it.
Many people spent 200$ on Jaguar and then were told at the following WWDC that Panther would replace it.

I fail to see how being told about Leopard at the WWDC following the release of Tiger is anything other than fitting exactly with their existing pattern.



MacDoc said:


> Classic support is completely gone. That could be a significant loss. My tax returns are all in old versions of Quicktax.


Classic support is effectively dead anyway. Your tax returns are all in old QuickTax versions, but didn't the lack of a Mac version of QuickTax this year have a bigger impact on you than the lack of Classic next year will?


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> Many people spent 180$ on Panther and then were told at the following WWDC that Tiger would replace it.
> Many people spent 200$ on Jaguar and then were told at the following WWDC that Panther would replace it.
> 
> I fail to see how being told about Leopard at the WWDC following the release of Tiger is anything other than fitting exactly with their existing pattern.
> ...


Posterboy - what?!?! - didn't like the way i worded my almost identical earlier response or something??


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Actually, MacDocs was the first new post I read, and oddly enough yours was right before it.

Ah well. It drives the point home, anyway. :/


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

Just remember everyone - Intel is not Microsoft. a lot of people seem to be missing that point. 

my 2 cents - Just because apple is getting in bed with one of the big boys doesn't mean they are all going to be sharing the same mattress.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Will people please LOOK and see who said what - I made neither of those statements Posterboy - getting tired of being misquoted

* THIS WAS WRITTEN BY TODD NOT Macdoc *



> Quote:
> 
> We'll see how well this goes. No one has any doubts that Apple can do it. But I think the Mac community is concerned about their current investments in HW and SW.
> 
> ...


* THIS WAS WRITTEN BY TODD NOT Macdoc *
* THIS WAS WRITTEN BY TODD NOT Macdoc *
* THIS WAS WRITTEN BY TODD NOT Macdoc*
* THIS WAS WRITTEN BY TODD NOT Macdoc *

Clear now............


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc: If you don't want to be misquoted, why don't you learn to use the quote tag? or even them em tag? or even just quotation marks? Everything I quoted came from your post, which doesn't include any of these.

I already admited it was an honest mistake, but maybe it wouldn't have happened if you'd not copy-pasted your post.


----------



## mac_geek (May 14, 2005)

*I think Apple SHOULD allow OS/X on any beige box...*

Think about it.. right now, Apple (a small company vs Microsoft,) can only sell OS and software (it's "difference") to a user group that is small.. so they have high share in a small segment of the market.

Big fish, small pond strategy.

Now... if Apple is really looking out for its shareholders, as some suggest, then they have a real opportunity to grow in size by stealing share from Microsoft.. on the high margin software, not the low margin hardware.

Medium fish, big pond strategy.

Think about it - computers have hit their maturity point with respect to penetration into North American households.. so the key for Apple is to get people to switch. They've been promoting the switch concept for some time, so they are atune to this.

*So if all of a sudden, for a mere $200, you could install Mac OS/X, iLife and iWork on your current PC Box, wouldn't Apple have a decent chance of growing their current share from 5% of the PC market to at least 25%? That would quintuple their revenue and increase profit by 10x (factoring in overheads, etc.). Now THAT'S a shareholder growth strategy!*


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

C'mon Macdoc, why not just admit you made an error with post #146 and we'll be done with it, rather than all the *BOLD CAPS YELLING*?

mac_geek, I think that this is what it's all about, although Jobs isn't going to come out and say that right now. But anyone, including Bill Gates, can read between the lines. In fact I would bet MS has a contingency in mind for this too. They would have to have been pretty dumb to have not guessed this is where Jobs is heading.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

> mac_geek said: So if all of a sudden, for a mere $200, you could install Mac OS/X, iLife and iWork on your current PC Box, wouldn't Apple have a decent chance of growing their current share from 5% of the PC market to at least 25%? That would quintuple their revenue and increase profit by 10x (factoring in overheads, etc.). Now THAT'S a shareholder growth strategy!


Nope. Apple still makes the majority of its dosh from selling hardware because it is organized as a hardware company that sells software that runs on that hardware. A 25% marketshare from selling applications and an OS that run on PC hardware would not be enough to support the company in its current manifestation - especially given the support nightmares of the multitude configurations of PCs in the market and the fact that if this option was available it would cannibalize Mac hardware sales. Apple wants to control both hardware and software. To be fair, so does Microsoft. The scenario would work if Apple was prepared to get out of hardware but I don't think that's in its DNA.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

UTBJW, I'm no expert in this, but others are saying that once OSX is on Intel, it will be trivial to make it work on any beige box. Apple has already stated that they will not support OSX on anything other than their own Mactel boxes. It's likely that they will try and put in some hardware to ensure this, but I have read this will not be a major issue for the alpha geeks either.

There may be a whole range of various patchy OSX installations floating around that geeks have installed on their Dells and white box PCs. Meanwhile if you want to see OSX work the way it should, if you don't have the geeky skills to mess with it, you need to buy a Mactel box. And by the way, you'll also be able to install your copy of Windows on that Mactel.

Looks like it might be a winning strategy for Apple to compete in the Intel market.


----------



## csonni (Feb 8, 2001)

Can't say I've read every single post in this thread, and maybe this was touched on, but will future OSX versions still run on my G5 and Powerbook G4? 10.5? 10.6?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I had mentioned something to that effect... since Apple had become a more solvent company with a suite of tools for both consumers and professionals, not to mention off-shoot hardware like the iPod, that Apple may very well launch an OS war on Microsoft's turf. Far fetched? Maybe. Maybe not. A lot of people were convinced Apple would never go to Intel just a mere two days ago. Look where we're at now.

We've yet to see what Apple's code-named product "Asteroid" is... there are plenty of other secret projects, I'm sure, that have yet to be revealed.

__________________


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

csonni said:


> Can't say I've read every single post in this thread, and maybe this was touched on, but will future OSX versions still run on my G5 and Powerbook G4? 10.5? 10.6?


Yes. Steve Jobs made it clear that Apple will support PPC Macs for "quite some time."

__________________


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

GA, I'm not so sure that simply switching the cpu to Intel will allow people to hack OS X to run on a Dell box. My feeling is that Apple will have invested a lot of effort to prevent that happening. Indeed, new Intel chips will actually have hard coding that lock an OS license to a machine (something Longhorn will support). Apple's nightmare scenario is that OS X is hacked somehow and users run it on PCs for free. No income from the OS, no income from the hardware. End of Apple. I just think that Jobs is so paranoid of that possibility that he will have tied up the hardware in some manner.

I also think people are wrong in thinking that the move to Intel will somehow reduce OS X security to viruses, etc.

But who knows?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

me said:


> UTBJW, I'm no expert in this, but others are saying that once OSX is on Intel, it will be trivial to make it work on any beige box.


Quoting myself here, but there is something I just wanted to add to that comment. 

I've read speculation that as soon as those developer Intel PowerMacs get into the hands of developers you will see OSX start leaking out into the PC world. Could make for an interesting problem for Apple, but they've probably already thought about this, and know how they'll react to it.

What geek, receiving one of the first Intel Macs, will not be curious to see if he can get OSX running on his PC? And how long before those hacked copies start floating around in the wild?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

UTBJW said:


> Apple's nightmare scenario is that OS X is hacked somehow and users run it on PCs for free.


Well, I'm going on the opinion of someone I know who knows a heck of a lot about these things and says that it will be relatively easy to accomplish. From what I can see out there, it seems that whatever software engineers can build to copy protect or disable something, others seem to be able to defeat fairly easily.

As for the nightmare scenario, there are probably millions of illegal copies of Windows out there and MS's bottom line isn't hurting too badly. I think that illegal or hacked versions of OSX might require a certain level of ability or the patience to put up with tweaking and instability, so that would limit it's propagation somewhat.

People who don't want to deal with that would just buy a Mactel, just like people who don't want to deal with PC hassles, just get a Dell with Windows installed (although they still have lots of hassles to contend with when they do, of course.)


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Agreed, there will be attempts and they may partially succeed.

However, you are assuming that the developer boxes have simply replaced the G5 chip with an Intel chip. I doubt that. If there are ASICs, then these may be difficult to emulate. Moreover, if Apple has had Intel-compatible versions of OS X running for 5 years, I think they'll have given this issue a lot of thought. Moreover, the developer boxes must be returned intact. There again, you only need to be an ADC Select member to get one so that isn't exactly "restrained distribution". The question is whether you want Apple legal on your case 

Interesting times......


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Well, I'm going on the opinion of someone I know who knows a heck of a lot about these things and says that it will be relatively easy to accomplish. From what I can see out there, it seems that whatever software engineers can build to copy protect or disable something, others seem to be able to defeat fairly easily.
> 
> As for the nightmare scenario, there are probably millions of illegal copies of Windows out there and MS's bottom line isn't hurting too badly. I think that illegal or hacked versions of OSX might require a certain level of ability or the patience to put up with tweaking and instability, so that would limit it's propagation somewhat.
> 
> People who don't want to deal with that would just buy a Mactel, just like people who don't want to deal with PC hassles, just get a Dell with Windows installed (although they still have lots of hassles to contend with when they do, of course.)


But Microsoft is a software company and so a pirated copy of Windows does not undermine its primary profit generation. Methinks Apple is more careful and will use hardware (ASIC) solutions to circumvent the possibility of OS X on a Dell. The last thing Apple wants to do is help Dell sell more PCs.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

UTBJW said:


> However, you are assuming that the developer boxes have simply replaced the G5 chip with an Intel chip. I doubt that. If there are ASICs, then these may be difficult to emulate


Actually I wasn't assuming that, just passing on speculation, that I've heard. I don't know what an ASIC is and I'd be getting out of my depth to attempt to argue this point any further, so I'd better shut up.  

But yes, interesting times, somehow I find this all very exciting. I'm looking forward to buying an Intel iBook next year.


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

"The soul of the Mac is the operating system" - Steve Jobs

WWDC Keynote - at the very end before he says Thank you.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hey GA, its not that I know anything about chips either  ASIC is application specific integrated circuit although, in this case they would also be Apple specific integrated circuits/chips.

It'll be interesting to see how Apple does against a phalanx of hackers!


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Hey GA, its not that I know anything about chips either  ASIC is application specific integrated circuit although, in this case they would also be Apple specific integrated circuits/chips.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how Apple does against a phalanx of hackers!


is the correct term a phalanx of hackers or a gaggle?!?!


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

It's interesting that people assume that all developers have to do to support both OS X PPC and OSX x86 is click a checkbox in XCode. In reality it's going to involve more work than that. QA will have to be done on both architectures, and I'm sure that there will be bizarre bugs specific to certain architectures.

So, while the transition from PPC to x86 will be less complicated than the transition from OS 9 to OS X, the latter involved a one-time cost, while the former will involve an on-going cost (at least until PPC support can be safely dropped).


----------



## Cbot (Jun 5, 2005)

mac os X on a PC,sounds interesting but still......


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

A Mac is a PC. Just not a Windows PC. Because PC stands for Personal Computer, not Windows Computer.


----------



## Cbot (Jun 5, 2005)

I wonder if the new Mac OS X will be able to run on my 2.4 GHZ intel PC in 2006,2007?hmmm??


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

*phalanx |?f?la ng ks; ?fal-| noun 1 ( pl. phalanxes )*
a group of people or things of a similar type forming a compact body or brought together for a common purpose : he headed past the phalanx of waiting reporters to the line of limos. • a body of troops or police officers, standing or moving in close formation : six hundred marchers set off, led by a phalanx of police. • (in ancient Greece) a body of Macedonian infantry with long spears, drawn up in close order with shields overlapping.

*gaggle |?gag?l|*
noun a flock of geese. • informal a disorderly or noisy group of people : the gaggle of reporters and photographers that dogged his every step. ORIGIN Middle English (as a verb): imitative of the noise that a goose makes; compare with Dutch gaggelen and German gackern.


_ I really love the new dictionary in Tiger ! _


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Cbot - What has been said is that officially you won't be able to run Mac OS X on just any Intel hardware. Exactly how hard it will be to hack Mac OS X (Intel version) to work on existing Intel hardware won't be known for months.

That said, no one is even sure exactly what Intel processor will be used. Pentium M? 4? Itanium? Something new?


----------



## Cbot (Jun 5, 2005)

Chealion said:


> Cbot - What has been said is that officially you won't be able to run Mac OS X on just any Intel hardware. Exactly how hard it will be to hack Mac OS X (Intel version) to work on existing Intel hardware won't be known for months.
> 
> That said, no one is even sure exactly what Intel processor will be used. Pentium M? 4? Itanium? Something new?


or how much it will it cost........ 


I'll just get the less costy,lolll


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Chealion,

The <a href="http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary_intro/chapter_1_section_1.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40002217-CH204">Universal Binary Programming Guidelines</a> <a href="http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary_equiv_a/chapter_8_section_1.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40002217-CH212">refers</a> to the x86 instruction set, so Apple certainly won't be using the Itanium.

Cbot,

There's a list of Intel CPU prices <a href="http://www.pcwaterloo.com/prices.php?unhide=1#CPU-Intel">here</a>. Note that's retail price for single CPUs; Apple will surely be paying less.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

jfpoole, been reading many of the documents over the past two days and overall it leaves many questions unanswered and shows that the transition will not be a easy as "we" have been told.


----------



## Cbot (Jun 5, 2005)

The thing is that "maybe" we will have waste a lot of money on a new hardware to use that Mac OS X.If only they could make it compatible with old versions of a Pentium 4.If it cost more then a G5,I'm prefer to stay with windows for all I know.It will cost me less just to upgrade the PC I have to it's maximum power then to buy a new pentium version that can use Mac OS X.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Here's what it boils down to for me. We have great hardware, we will have great hardware. We have great Software, we will have great software. Either way you put it, if MOST companies want to stick with Apple, then they HAVE to develop. If they don't.. don't you think they were kinda weiry of the Mac in the first place and were probably making Half-Assed Apps anyway? 

I think there will always be someone to replace anyone in this business. There is always an Alternative. For now.. we should show support for Apple.. and show just as much to the developers if we like their software. If we love our platform.. fight for it. 

I love this Platform: a) because it's built around a great company and great products. b) because of it's tight community and soul. Neither of these have to be lost in this transition.

I personally support Apple, and developers 100%. I'm not going to bitch.. the community can only be as good as the people in it


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

by the way, That post was NOT directed at ANYONE. It was a personal point of view.. just don't think I just called anyone a bunch of bitches.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Phalanx of Hackers, Gaggle of Geeks.
Sounds good.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Why now? I think the timing is critical. Apple as a company is on the rise, it has multiple products that are successful, is making consistent profits, has a wad of cash reserves and is highly regarded. At the same time, the transition from OS 9 is mature to the point that Classic apps are not important for new machines (dual boot Macs are no more). Add to this the focus of IBM on games consoles and I wonder whether this deal wasn't done last year and that IBM's lack of processor development is purely because Apple flicked them the finger and decided to run out the current contract. I mean, 2.5 GHz to 2.7 Ghz....... after a year..... It also brings new meaning to the quotes from Apple about a G5 powerbook being a very difficult engineering problem - because there was never any intent!

Regardless, I think Apple has given this a lot more thought than 20,000 posters spewing knee-jerk reactions - even if the news was broken before Jobs spoke the word.

One comment I did find particularly interesting was that while Macs will now not be slower than Windows PCs, neither will they ever be faster. A price for becoming just a little more mainstream.....


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Might not the OS alone be a speed bump? I'm not sure, but isn't a lot of the code in Windows slowing it down? Not to mention all of the security issues and *ware/virii. I'm wondering if there might actually be a physical performance difference on the OS Level?


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

Vexel said:


> Might not the OS alone be a speed bump? I'm not sure, but isn't a lot of the code in Windows slowing it down? Not to mention all of the security issues and *ware/virii. I'm wondering if there might actually be a physical performance difference on the OS Level?


strangely, i was just typing in the same point when i got the email notification about your post.

if we can continue to run our macs without all the overhead of virus checking and spyware guards, etc that are necessary for windows users, then the same chips will run seemingly faster for us using mac OS.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

A nice article that tries to sum up the info we need to know on the switch to Intel:

http://www.macworld.com/2005/06/features/intelfaq/index.php


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Vexel said:


> Might not the OS alone be a speed bump? I'm not sure, but isn't a lot of the code in Windows slowing it down? Not to mention all of the security issues and *ware/virii. I'm wondering if there might actually be a physical performance difference on the OS Level?


Yes, the code itself under the hood of Windows slows it down considerably. For Microsoft to have the most stable OS without all the spyware and virii infecting it every second that it is hooked up to the internet, they would need to write a new OS from the ground up and dump DOS completely.

Longhorn I'm afraid is not being built from the ground up in my opinion. According to one of the articles over at ZDNet, it looks like Longhorn will be put together like a jigsaw puzzle. I wouldn't want to buy an OS that will be completed in 3 years instead of the initial release. It would be like buying a car and the car manufacturer telling you that in a year when they made the tires you can actually then get around, but in the meantime enjoy the radio, CD player and the horn .


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

MacGYVER said:


> It would be like buying a car and the car manufacturer telling you that in a year when they made the tires you can actually then get around, but in the meantime enjoy the radio, CD player and the horn .


ROFLMAO :clap:


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

More thoughts from Gruber (emphasis mine):

<blockquote>http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/bombs_away

This announcement has caught both Apple’s customers and the rest of the industry by surprise. Especially given the fact that sales of PowerPC-based Mac hardware have never been stronger than they are now. Apple’s 43 percent increase in quarterly sales from a year ago is simply outstanding.

As trite as it sounds, I’m inclined to believe Jobs’s explanation during the keynote, that Apple believes it can make better computers down the road with Intel processors, and that the difference is enough to justify this painful transition.

<strong>Maybe the PowerPC roadmap looks good, but the Intel roadmap looks better. Or maybe they see the PowerPC roadmap as downright bleak — e.g., say, no G5 PowerBooks in the foreseeable future, even if Apple wanted to stick with the PowerPC.

The thinking seems to be: better to act now, from a position of strength, and absorb the costs of the transition while the company is doing well, rather than wait a few years and risk being forced to act from a position of weakness or desperation.</strong>

“I stood up here two years ago in front of you, and I promised you this,” Jobs said during the keynote, in front of a slide picturing a 3.0 GHz PowerMac G5. “And we haven’t been able to deliver that to you yet.” He went on to say that they’d like to be offering G5 PowerBooks, but can’t.

I’ve seen some interpret this as petulance or spite — that this switch is just Jobs picking up his ball and leaving for another playground because he feels IBM has embarrassed him. That interpretation is foolish. I really think Jobs was just being honest, or at least as honest as he could be in a public statement.

I think it boiled to a choice between two difficult options: either initiate a painful and expensive transition to Intel processors, or stick with PowerPC and fall behind.</blockquote>


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*Correct Terms*



thatcomputerguy said:


> is the correct term a phalanx of hackers or a gaggle?!?!


On the ground, they're a "Hackle".
But when they're in the air, they are referred to as a "Flack".



_Oh, geez, I slay me!_


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*"Read ... my ... chips"*

Hi Friends
These are some thoughts from another Apple friend;

_First of all, if you look at how to program Intel chips right at the machine level, they're HORRIBLE. Awful. Motorola chips have always had a nice, elegant assembly-level instruction set. I've never programmed on an IBM chip, but I know that Motorola did a gradual "hand-off" of production of PowerPC chips to IBM. I think it's safe to say that much of the original instruction set would have been retained. Do we really want our Apple hardware using Intel chips which are such kludges??

Another concern we had was of "sleeping with the enemy." Intel and Microsoft are married to each other. If Apple begins using Intel chips, won't that associate us with Microsoft by association? This is more of an emotional reaction. OTOH, I know (intellectually), that Apple will keep they're current modus operandi, albeit just with Intel chips. This means that you WON'T be able to just go to your local cheap-o PC hardware store, put together a cheap-ass clone, and run OSX. Although the clone machine is what has made PC's flourish, I think the inconsistency in components and poor integration of systems as a WHOLE has contributed to the poor reliability of PC's.

HOWEVER... Up until now, when you look at Apple hardware, they use HARDWARE sound cards, HARDWARE USB ports/firewire ports, HARDWARE modems, HARDWARE network cards. They don't use cheaper components that offload their own processing onto the CPU. (ie. instead of a sound card having its own dedicated circuitry for processing sound, this processing is offloaded onto the CPU.) PC's are NOTORIOUS for doing this. It is one of the reasons why PCs are so cheap. If Apple starts using Intel chips, will they start introducing lower-quality software-based hardware??
So that's my two cents - R.L._

As I said, that's my friend's take. (Anyone who's familiar with my posts knows I don't have the technical know-how to write that.)


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

x86 machine language may be horrible, but there are a lot of people who know how to do it well.
Microsoft just got married to AMD (when they picked their 64-bit instruction set over Intel's) and then IBM (for the Xbox.
Why would Apple start making cheap-ass stuff all of a sudden? Their stuff will continue to be high quality, because a) that's their image, and b) they put together the whole machine and test it.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

OS X may have some performance benefits over Windows but only on machines that can off-load the heavy lifting of the Quartz graphics/CoreVideo, etc. This may mean that the higher end Mintels will scream but that low end machines (read mini, iMac) will have more of these processes handled by the cpu (as well as VRAM being handled by main RAM). You get what you pay for.....

I wonder how many software technology choices have been made in consideration of the ability to run on Intel architecture over the past 5 years (this depends on when Apple decided that they would switch, not when they thought they could switch)? Perhaps PPC architecture is actually holding back some of OS X's true potential?


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Interesting theory UTBJ. I'd really like to hear that  There's so many possibilities here, it could really be the best thing Apple has ever done


----------



## pingpong (Jun 16, 2004)

SoyMac said:


> Another concern we had was of "sleeping with the enemy." Intel and Microsoft are married to each other. If Apple begins using Intel chips, won't that associate us with Microsoft by association? This is more of an emotional reaction.


Only when Apple achieved 10% to 20% of marketshare, will it be such a concern.


----------



## M. Warren (Jan 4, 2002)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Perhaps PPC architecture is actually holding back some of OS X's true potential?


interesting, but kind of a moot point seeing as PPC support in OS X will continue for years to come. 

And as macdoc has been saying, it is in Apple's interest to maintain PPC support "just in case"


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

While I bet OS X will continue to lead a double life (being compiled on x86 and PPC with every build), I sincerely doubt that Intel will be as much of a let down as IBM has been. 

I also doubt that Apple will stoop to shared memory video cards, that's one of the things that has always set them apart. Plus, OS X needs all the RAM it can get, and hopefully Apple has figured this out by now.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macdoc has maintained that Apple will not burn the PPC bridges. Perhaps they won't but I think it is extremely unlikely that there will be PPC Macs beyond 2007 and the ones released between now and the future will be incremental advances. There is zero incentive for IBM or Freescale to continue to develop desktop chips and the Cell and XBox processors are simply not designed for conventional desktop (or laptop) use. IBM will continue its development of Power PC chips for its servers and Freescale will likely move entirely into the embedded marketplace.

Investing in a PPC Mac now still makes a lot of sense as there will not be a performance gap for at least 1-2 years - longer on the high end - and any machine encounters a performance gap after that period of time. Applications will continue to be developed and run on PPC chips due to the installed base (compared with the zero Mintel installed base). However, that will change in a few years.

In makes sense for Apple and retailers need to instill confidence in buyers that their investments will not depreciate faster than they typically do - and this is generally true - but I also think that the switch to Intel processors will be complete and irreversible two years from now. Apple isn't boxing itself in since AMD is an alternative to Intel and is code-compatible (i.e. a switch to AMD, for example, would be invisible to users and developers alike).

If I needed to buy a Mac now, I'd have no worries buying one. I will likely try to stretch my powerbook's life for another 18 months as I do think this line has essentially flatlined. That said, if Apple releases a dual core G4 powerbook, they've got my sale!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

This was posted on MacInTouch today. Very insightful:



> Sean Cunneen added a consultant's perspective to our recent discussions about Mac X86 migration:
> 
> It was interesting to read David Black-Schaffer's view of the Intel transition that faces Mac users. As a consultant, I am responsible for advising my clients on a appropriate strategy to minimise the impact of this transition. After many hours of brainstorming, I believe that this is fundamentally a software issue. The thrust of our strategy will be to ensure that our clients are in the position where all of their software is intel native by the time they need to purchase Intel hardware. Were I disagree slightly with David, is none of our clients upgrade software every year, some upgrade every two years, but most will upgrade every three years. This strategy is designed to keep software in sync with hardware. we believe this provides such a major benefit that it overrides any potential benefit lost from skipping upgrades (as real world gains from software features are usually minimal). I would like to highlight one case:
> 
> ...


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I'm going to stick my neck out here and make the following prediction:

- In 2007 Macs on Intel will be so fast people are going to ask why it happened earlier?
- Apple's market share may rise to 5 to 10 per cent, but who cares, the company is going to be ridiculously profitable (BUY STOCK NOW!)
- We'll all look back at doom and gloom predictions and laugh. 
- We'll finally see some new Mac ads on TV.


----------

