# Mac to use Intel Chips!



## ecnanez (Jun 3, 2005)

Check this out:

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+...3-5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news


----------



## ScottW (Jun 3, 2005)

My theory is that they will release a "board" that will allow you to run Windows. I doubt Apple would switch chips. That just seems odd.


----------



## fryke (Jun 3, 2005)

This is just a wash-up of the week-old "Apple talks to intel" rumour, right? And although it's news.com... I dunno. Would it actually be a _good_ choice to take intel as the sole processor supplier? Couldn't they also use AMD's processors? I really hope they _wouldn't_ strike an exclusive deal with intel.


----------



## ScottW (Jun 3, 2005)

This makes no sense, what-so-ever. Apple felt a pain when it migrated to PowerPC. It felt pain when it migrated from OS 9 to OS X. I can't imagine Apple just switching chips again. It just seems crazy. What does NOT seem crazy is to provide people with the ability to "move" to a Mac and still have descent Windows functionality without using a slow Virtual PC. People could have the "best" of both world.. a great peice of hardware, a great operating system and something they can use to connect to work with. That makes sense... but a 100% migration move? No sense, what-so-ever.

All these "gaming" machines, Play Station 3, XBox 360, all use PowerPC. If anything, PowerPC is becoming HIP And COOL, and so is Apple w/ the iPod. Now is not the time to produce more "change", but to produce switchers and take advantage of that. That is WHY I believe that any Intel talks are purely base don a compatibility board and nothing more.


----------



## mdnky (Jun 3, 2005)

Switching to an X86 based architecture would be the death of Apple as a hardware manufacturer.  Some of us still remember what happened the last time they switched architectures...if they do it again chances are the sub-3% market share they have will become much, much less.  Let's not forget about the programmers and software manufacturers who'll throw a royal conniption fit over the whole ordeal.

I could see Apple utilizing Intel's manufacturing capabilities to handle the building the G5 (or possibly a G6) chip for them.  AMD did that for a while, so it's not that unreasonable.  It could even work to IBM's advantage...they could get a small royalty off each chip produced yet not have to worry about the small market share ($$$) or other issues.


----------



## HateEternal (Jun 4, 2005)

If apple goes x86 i hope they choose AMD or some sort of mix, the high end AMD chips seem to be better than the Intels. Either way I still don't think they will switch. The G5 is a badass chip, there are a few problems but I think it is something that can be fixed in further revisions.

http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436


----------



## Timotheos100 (Jun 4, 2005)

"If they actually do that, I will be surprised, amazed and concerned", that exactly what i think, apple is onto something good right now and i find the story hard to beleive.
Why would they do this?


----------



## Browni (Jun 4, 2005)

if they are going to do this, why release 10.4 for PPC?


----------



## fryke (Jun 4, 2005)

For 100% of their current customers, Browni.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 4, 2005)

If they are really going to do that, than Apple is gonna vanish over time.


----------



## chevy (Jun 4, 2005)

Apple is a
- hardware manufacturer
- OS provider
- software provider
- MP3 player manufacturer

Where would the new architecture fit ?

They could provide iLife, iWork and other software for Windows (?)
They could create a x86 version of MacOS to compete against Linux (???)
They could provide a Linux-x86 version of iLife, iWork and other software, this makes sense.


----------



## CreativeEye (Jun 4, 2005)

the title of the threads reads

Mac to use Intel Chips!

no they're not - even the first line of the article says -

'Apple Computer plans to announce Monday...'

so its not fact - indeed (as of now) they are not about to 'use Intel Chips'

its just baseless speculation as per. why would they switch? so that OSX can run on more computers? never - why? becaue apple need to have total control over the hardware that runs their software - thats why our macs are so robust and fast.

apple couple the exact hardware to run with their OS right out of the box. so why open it up to windows box makers to totally mess up the build on a machine without total control over what goes into the box?

and why would a windows box builder ever say 'go ahead apple - we'll use your OS and you tell us what components to use to build our boxes...' - er... hello... why wouldnt people just buy a powermac?!?! with apple calling the shots on components the cost would be pretty similar in the end.

i'm not discounting a switch - if they do make a switch the chip will still only run in macs with OS X - all built by apple. 

and in all honesty - that would result in a total non story. it would go something like this...

'apple switch chips.. and..erm... everything is still pretty much the same as it was... erm... but the chip is different... erm... shall we speculate on the satellite / video / super duper all things to all men ipod instead then?...that always makes a good story...'


----------



## pedz (Jun 4, 2005)

My guess is that Intel will produce the PPC's.  Seems like IBM would have to agree to that but maybe they have.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 4, 2005)

Hell hath froze over.

Monday will be a very dark day, indeed.


----------



## MBHockey (Jun 4, 2005)

I think Job's is very mad that IBM still hasn't hit the 3 GHz mark.  I also think there's probably no way MacOS X will run on all x86 hardware -- Apple and Intel will probably make a propietary PPC chip.  Maybe OS X would be faster on an Intel chip (not simply because of a higher clock speed)?


----------



## wiz (Jun 4, 2005)

Apple is too stupid to not move to Cell... (bastards.. think!!!)

NOTE: Cell is PowerPC based and has crossed 3ghz

*sigh* this is sooo disappointing


----------



## chevy (Jun 4, 2005)

Is Cell made for general purpose computers ?

Does anybordy still think that MHz is the only measure for a CPU ? AMD is often faster for less MHz. Pentium-M is also quite fast with low MHz. Aren't there other problems for the G5 software efficiency ?

What about low cost graphic cards ? Wouldn't it help more than faster CPU ?


----------



## fryke (Jun 4, 2005)

Well, what _about_ low cost graphics cards? You still need OS X drivers for them, even if Macs would use intel CPUs. The story about graphics cards would be the same after such a change, i.e. it'd be up to graphics card makers to provide drivers.


----------



## flacochala (Jun 4, 2005)

I agree with you wiz, cell preocessor is the future, they are fast, high performance, and they will change all what we know about processor, but i think that mr jobs already knows this, so ill better wait till monday... but, if they really put intel chips in macs, i dont think i would buy an apple ever again until they take out intel chips and put some descent ones...


----------



## kainjow (Jun 4, 2005)

From what I've read, the Cell processor isn't good for day in and day out computational tasks. It's best with multimedia stuff like graphics and audio...

Why would switching to Intel be such a bad thing? That is, if they switched to x86. IBM can't get Apple what they want, and since IBM now has Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo licensing their PowerPC's, Apple is more of a nobody to them. Apple teaming up with Intel would give Intel a big boost, since they probably feel left behind with all the consoles using PPC.

Intel has a great mobile processor, IBM doesn't. Intel already has dual-core, IBM doesn't (at least publically). It makes perfect sense.

This is just all based from what I've read... we'll just all have to wait until Monday to know the truth.


----------



## thekurst (Jun 4, 2005)

Look I just recently switched to Apple, and I love it, I'm a computer tech and I deal with Intel and AMD chips on a daily basis. I love the stability and performance of the IBM PPC chip. If Apple switched over to Intel chips, I'd probably switch too, I mean I'd reather run Linux on a Intel/AMD based laptop than anything else.

Point is if Apple for some reason, any reason decides to go with Intel I hope the still keep PPC Processors as an option for those of us who like the stability and performance of the chips.

Apple should stay with PPC Point Blank.


----------



## gerbick (Jun 4, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Hell hath froze over.
> 
> Monday will be a very dark day, indeed.


My sentiments *exactly*.


----------



## wadesworld (Jun 4, 2005)

If Apple moves to Intel, you can bet it won't be on any old Intel machine out there.  They will likely manufacture their own motherboards, and OS X will be setup to run only on those motherboards, likely by looking for a special chip on the motherboard. 

Of course someone will eventually hack it and allow it to run on other PC's, but it will be completely unsupported and probably far less reliable.

This is all a BIG IF, of course.

Wade


----------



## malexgreen (Jun 4, 2005)

I explain why I think so here http://magreen.blogspot.com/2005/06/why-apple-switching-to-x86.html



			
				ecnanez said:
			
		

> Check this out:
> 
> http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+...3-5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news


----------



## WeeZer51402 (Jun 4, 2005)

I guess its time to break out the tissues, monday will be a very very sad day in apple history.  The recompiling thing is gonna be a pain too, what if I'm a medium sized programming company and I decide I only want to compile for intel what will become of all of the legacy PPC machines.  I don't even know if I could handle using an intel chip, there is such a stigma.  Well I hope it is Intel PPC I suppose that might ease the pain.


----------



## Scottfab (Jun 5, 2005)

Arent people being alittle premature here?


----------



## Chazam (Jun 5, 2005)

I couldn't care what was under the hood of my mac as long as it's:

Stable
A Good Peformer
Under Apple's Control

It won't make no difference.
Could Intel develop it's own PPC chip? 
Could it just be that IBM are giving Intel the job of making G5's?
I guess we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## WeeZer51402 (Jun 5, 2005)

Scottfab said:
			
		

> Arent people being alittle premature here?



No I think people are a little scared


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 5, 2005)

It ain't gonna happen. Period.

The announcement is supposed to be on Monday. It's Sunday now. I will now spend the rest of the day storing energy, so tomorrow I will be able to laugh and say "I told you so" at great length and with full gusto when no such announcement takes place.

Wait for it.


----------



## Damrod (Jun 5, 2005)

Yeah, I doubt as well that it will happen. Most developers just finished porting their programs to really be OS X native (fully cocoa, no carbon). As a developer, I would get really grumpy if I could start the whole process anew.

If Apple would take this step, they might as well abonden the whole Hardware thing and concentrate on the software side completely


----------



## Viro (Jun 5, 2005)

Well, if they could port the entire set of libraryes, Core-whatever, Cocoa, QT, etc to x86 the transition will be relatively painless assuming you coded in C/Objective-C/C++ and didn't drop down to using assembler or any sort of Altivec code.

I don't think it's a big deal for developers since all they need to do is recompile their programs. Instead it would be a really big deal for Apple as they will have to port everything to a new architecture. It isn't in their best financial interest to do so for the many reasons already stated in this thread.


----------



## Cat (Jun 5, 2005)

Apple was stuck with G4/motorola and went looking for a better option. Jobs said "we like having options" "the G5 roadmap looks pretty strong". Now Apple is stuck with the G5/IBM and goes looking for a better option.

However, IBM is going to supply the PPC for the next generation gaming consoles, and there is hope that things will get better on that front. No such hope on the Motorola/Freescale front. Hence, Apple is going to ditch the G4 first. Where is the G4? In the low end, consumer products ... and in the PowerBooks. What will Apple do? Switch the consumer G4 to Intel Pentium M: cheaper consumer machines for extended penetration in the Wintel market. They will also finally anounce the long awaited PowerBook G5 with the PPC 970Fx and PowerMacs at 3GHz, shipping "this year" before holiday buying season. IF IBM cannot deliver any further enhancements, also the Pro line will switch to Intel later, otherwise it can remain in PPC land.

Why is this not a desaster for everyone? The consumers do not really care what the name of the processor is, they care about the effective speed. Want to explain the differences between PPC and x86 to the unwashed masses? Be my guest! Good luck when the eyes glaze over ... The professional customers are keeping their beloved superior PPC architecture, so nothing bad happens there. When we will again be the last in line in the MHz game, Apple will switch the pro line to the winning team. The developers are going to massively shrug. x86? PPC? It's a compiler flag, so? All of the big developers have experience with x86 code and have capable programmers on that front. Moreover, partially due to the NeXT legacy, we all are familiar with Fat binaries. End users are not even going to notice.

"But OS X on x86 is the end of the world!" No it isn't. Why would it? I hope you all understand that the Mac platform is more than just the PPC processor ... Apple has been using off-the-shelf components everywhere else for years. Plain old PC compatible Harddisks, RAM, etc. They already ported Quicktime and iTunes to Windows/x86 and it seems to be a public secret that Apple has always kept current versions of OS X running on x86 hardware. All the presuppositions are met. It is going to cost Apple quite a bit to manage the transtition smoothly, but they already managed it twice: 68k -> PPC and OS 9 -> OS X. Three's the charm. It is going to be easier: remember Darwin (the BSD foundation of OS X) already runs on x86. 

"What about Altivec/VelocityEngine?" What about it? IBM "grafted" it onto the POWER 4's little brother, so why couldn't Intel do the same? I'm pretty sure Apple hs covered all the license bases needed for such a transition. We need altivec? We get altivec. If they are going to do this, they will have prepared it very carefully. I wouldn't be surprised to find that have been indeed in talks for years.

On the other hand, while still a possibility and not the maniacal suicide many took it to be, it simply could not happen. Apple is OK with current IBM delivery and hang on in there. It has hung on before in much worse situations. Perhaps they have decided that that has been bad enough and don't want to even run the risk of ending up in 450MHz G4 for more that a year again ... wait a minute: we are already there! At this WWDC it will have been _two years_ since Steve said: we will go to 3GHz in a year. Two years later we are still not there. Do you think IBM can do that and not have Apple look for alternatives? What alternatives _are_ there? Motorola? No, if Apple is ever going to switch away from the PPC they are going to do so fully, completely and in style. They are going to get the biggest vendor on board in x86 land: Intel.

I'll be following the keynote tomorrow with great interest, whatever may come or fail to come. 

Disclaimer: No NDA was harmed in the production of this post.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 5, 2005)

Um. altivec is one of the things apple has pushed since the inception of the G4. It's like Intel pushe(d/ing) SSE2 on it's P4's for multimedia work.


----------



## fryke (Jun 5, 2005)

We also have to keep in mind that such a transition wouldn't take place in 2-3 months. And support for PowerPC based Macs would probably be kept for more than 2 or 3 years. Maybe Apple even just keeps both. Why not? If we end up with FAT applications (optimised for "both worlds"), Apple could switch back and forth, using the processors best for each machine. If intel has the better processors for mobile computers and IBM for desktops: Why not use PPC in the PowerMac and Pentium-M (or successors) in iBooks and PowerBooks...


----------



## moav (Jun 5, 2005)

Intel has not done a very good job promoting Linux so I really doubt we will see much if any market share gain by this switch. It seems it has a lot less to do with the chip then the operating system. The reason for that is you don't have specific individuals in your IT department worrying about AMD, PPC, or INTEL. Rarely do they ever ask you on the phone are you running AMD or INTEL. It's always going to be a mac windows thing. I would jump ship today if 3rd party products wouldn't need to rewrite their drivers for products and what ever ran on an intel for win would work the same on Mac for x86.  This is going to be hell!! No way am I going to try to support OS 9/OS10.3/4 PPC and 10.3/4 x86.

  If Intel doesn't pull a Microsoft and make a huge investment in Apple stock tomorrow we are going to see a nice double digit drop in the price in the next few days. Yes, the PPC has been stuck in quick sand for the last couple years. Well hell, look at Intel they have been in the same boat. They should be up to 5Ghz chips by now and as far as I know I don't see a 3.5Ghz chip coming from them this year. And we are kicking their ass on FSBs. In a few years IBM will get their act together. With the xbox pumping in cash to them they aren't about to abandon the PPC line.   It's always going to be Wintel... Mactel and Lintel will always be the never spoken about step-kids. 

It still gives me the shakes to think about seeing an AMD or INTEL sticker on my baby ass white imac...


----------



## Giaguara (Jun 5, 2005)

Hm... 







A G5 with an Intel inside..


----------



## Damrod (Jun 5, 2005)

Giaguara said:
			
		

> Hm...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That thing sure looks ugly on the inside... Why do Intel-based PCs always look so darn untidy and cluttered on the inside?


----------



## markceltic (Jun 5, 2005)

Some people got nothing better to do with their time I guess than to stick all that into a mac case.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Jun 5, 2005)

Has anyone thought that Intel is developing "small" G5 chips for the Powerbook/iBook G5s??  

It's possible, another point is that 10.5 might be co-developed for both PowerPC and x86 chips, but limited to x86, this way switcher's will check out 10.5 (whatever it's called) on their home x86 and then actually go out and buy a Mac just to see it's full potential.

Or that Intel could be using the ARM chip (found in all PDA's) to create a Newton II??? That is smaller and lightweight and can compete with Palm??


----------



## CreativeEye (Jun 5, 2005)

RGrphc2 - your last paragraph rings most true...

this is more than likely something that is for something totally different - and if it is for a Mac - then Apple will totally lock it down to only run OSX anyway.

remember folks - the WWDC is tomorrow - and rumours of new products etc are so thin on the ground that this is is the best the rumour mills could do - to regurgitate a story thats been knocking about for years... and the worst thing about it? - even if it is true - it really doesnt matter...


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 5, 2005)

With all the talk of Apple switching to Intel I think there's one thing that may have been overlooked.  If PPC was a joint venture of Apple, IBM and Motorola, it stands to reason that each member had rights to develop a CPU based on the PPC architecture.  Apple being the only member without CPU plant could not and had to rely on Motorola or IBM.  The switch could very easily mean Apple using Intel to develop G6 and beyond. Like them or not Intel reigns in CPU fabrication and will remain so into the forseeable future.


----------



## riccbhard (Jun 5, 2005)

Not really on the topic of Intel and Apple; but if Apple did somehow manage to  get OS X ported to x86 and promote it; Microsoft would lose a lot )). But; I would be afraid of the reputation of Apple and OS X. One of the reasons windows does not run too well is because it is hard to program a OS for who knows how many different brands and ways of hardware; including processors. I fear this would happen to OS X if Apple made it x86-compatible.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 5, 2005)

Being x86 compatible does not mean OS X will run on any x86 motherboard.  Apple can still design the motherboard around their custom chipset so it would only work with systems supplied by them.  It may still be a very closed system.


----------



## mi5moav (Jun 5, 2005)

About a year ago someone mentioned how HP would be the first to license OSX on intel. I guess they were right. I wonder how much HP had in influencing Apple to go to the Dark side?


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 5, 2005)

It's hard to believe that will all the recent advancement with the PPC varians like Cell and Xenon. that Apple would move to x86.   I have to doubt the rumors will be true.  After all PPC has Cell with 3 cores while x86 is only now making it's move to 2 cores.  I'm certain Cell and Xenon can be tweaked for general purpose computing and be in the next line of PowerMacs.  I hope they instroduce it tomorrow at WWDC.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

I hope your faith is true that Apple will not switch to Intel and will use new CELL! If not I will be MAD

Since XBox 360 is slim and using Cell 3.2 ghz and sure that will use for new level of processor for Apple.


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 6, 2005)

My just wife IM'd me this USA Today article, and she was worried about the part where software engineers would have to re-write their software to make it work with the new stuff.  And please realize that my wife is not as much of a techno-nerd as I am.

*I'm* worried now!


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 6, 2005)

well...T-minus one hour to find out 

Dont worry...take it easy...breathe!
The first rumors of this came out in 2000, we've outlived them


----------



## jasonray_f (Jun 6, 2005)

This is just a ploy by Apple to scare IBM. IBM has been lagging in development of the processor Apple uses, and they are 'leaking to the press' that they are in talks with Intel, in hopes to scare IBM to get cracking. Intel is a crappy processor to use for the Mac OS, and they would suffer from performance, something Apple would not want to do.
This is the same tactic Dell used to get Intel to drop their prices by 'talking to AMD.'


----------



## fryke (Jun 6, 2005)

Basically, most software developers would only have to re-compile their applications as FAT applications - containing code for both PowerPC and intel processors. However, some apps contain code that is specialised for one architecture.


----------



## dixonbm (Jun 6, 2005)

CNBC is all over this. They act like it is a done deal. Unless this is just some kind of ploy, which I doubt it is, then we will all be using Intel machines quite soon.


----------



## pismo (Jun 6, 2005)

I don't think Steve's ego has fully recovered from his "3 GHz by next summer" statement two years ago regarding the G5.  Steve doesnt like being crossed and IBM has really burned him on their promises for the G5.

Another issue is likely that notebooks are out selling desktops which will be a continuing trend.  If notebooks are where the money is going to be and Apple is no where near getting a G5 in a PowerBook how competitive are they going to be in the near future?

I can see reasons for the switch but I don't see how Apple can pull it off at this time.  Tiger just came out, which means we probably wont see 10.5 for another 2 years.  If the rumors are correct, then x86 Macs will come at the beginning of 2006.  Are we going to have 2 versions of Tiger?  Are people going to continue to buy Macs when they know the architecture is going to change?  Are developers going to want to invest the time in money in porting their software once again in such a short period of time?

I dunno.  Seems crazy to me but if anyone can do it, Steve can.  He's the master of spin.  It might be time to buy stock in Kool-Aid (NYSE: KFT) because it will definitely be in demand if the rumors are true.


----------



## jeb1138 (Jun 6, 2005)

This would be the most incredibly awesome thing I could hope for on the Mac.  I cannot count how many times I have not been able to even suggest 'switching' to business clients because they have _current_ software that is Wintel only and is _not_ likely ever to go Mac, with no feasible alternatives.  Finally, a way for every Mac to emulate Windows programs at plenty-near-to-full-speed.  And it could be bundled free.  They could use their existing Windows licenses even.  Ahh....if only.... I hope this rumor is true -- I'll get a lot more converts in the coming months if so.  Those Mac Minis will start to look REALLY tempting.


----------



## javert (Jun 6, 2005)

From Macworld's WWDC updates: "The rumors are true: Intel will be inside"

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/liveupdate/index.php


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

Steve Jobs has confirmed that Apple will move to an Intel based chip-set by June 6, 2006


----------



## Damrod (Jun 6, 2005)

And that all macs will run on Intel in the year 2007. STrange, strange days...


----------



## dixonbm (Jun 6, 2005)

Help! Intel is inside me! Get it out, get it out! The sky is falling!

Buck up boys and girls! It's not the end. We will now all go out and buy new Macs with Intel inside...why you ask...because Steve Jobs has decreed that we shall....afterall we are the Mac Faithful.

Edit: I can't believe I said that....Apple....Brainwashing....I will buy a new Mac with Intel inside....mmmmmm....Intel inside my Apple......Mactel...

Edit 2: FYI: In case you happen to be questioning my sanity, this rant is pure sarcasm.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

Oh god..  Apple have two wives (BSD/INTEL)


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

Wondering will it have a logo of Intel Inside on Mac?


----------



## jeb1138 (Jun 6, 2005)

YES!  THIS IS AWESOME!!  Can't wait to convert every business I support!  But Apple -- you *have* to make your own VirtualPC!


----------



## bookem (Jun 6, 2005)




----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

There is a developer kit that includes a 3.6 GHx Pentium 4 Mac. They will have to be returned by the end of 2006. They will be priced at US$999, and please note that these are for developers only.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 6, 2005)

As a recent convert BACK to Mac, I have to say I have mixed feelings, if Apple or the fanatics think *I* or MANY others who have recently spent our hard earned money on new computers are going to just switch like good little puppies then I think they are misguided.

I have been speaking to other Mac users here in the real world and they are all furious.

It could be a good thing, a VMware type app should be provided FREE OF CHARGE! and integrated into the Mac OS.

It could also be a REALLY bad thing, the start of a decline as well as a kick in the teeth for many. OSX WILL be running on standard PC's within 2 years, mark my words, any protection against it will be circumvented.  Microsoft WILL step up and probably cease products such as Office on a COMPETING OS platform.


----------



## jeb1138 (Jun 6, 2005)

What are you talking about fjdouse?  The Mac you just bought is going to keep on working just like you expected it to when you purchased it.  The only noticeable change for you should be that your favorite computer company may get increased marketshare.  Well, that's debatable, but either way that goes, how does this hurt your transition?  They're not going to break into your house and take your computer or anything.  I can't believe they'll stop releasing OS X for PPC before your computer is quite outdated either.


----------



## brianleahy (Jun 6, 2005)

Can anyone provide post-keynote links?  Before I jump out my 13th floor window, G5 clutched to my chest,  I want to make sure they're really planning a pentium-based Mac.

EDIT: let's be very, very specific here: PENTIUM.  Intel non-pentium I might be able to live with.  If they're really gonna use Pentiums, there's no hope.


----------



## j79 (Jun 6, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> As a recent convert BACK to Mac, I have to say I have mixed feelings, if Apple or the fanatics think *I* or MANY others who have recently spent our hard earned money on new computers are going to just switch like good little puppies then I think they are misguided.
> 
> I have been speaking to other Mac users here in the real world and they are all furious.
> 
> ...



Exactly what I was thinking.

I feel cheated. For years, Apple pushed this idea that PPC > Pentium. Graphs have shown performance being 50% - 90% faster. Granted, I knew it wasn't true. But, one of the things I always noted to friends about why I use a Mac is because of the PPC.

In 2008, if Intel doesn't live up to expectations, will we switch over/back to PPC???

Steve Jobs: "Motorola has done some wonderful things..."


----------



## ScottW (Jun 6, 2005)

Well, despite the fact that I didn't think it would happen, nor the fact that I am trying to figure out my "ha ha, Mac is switching to Intel by my windows friends"... I think that Apple is doing the switch RIGHT.

It seems they really have their act together. Developers can order a Intel Mac today and begin the development. Some code will run on both PowerPC and Intel. Yes, it is a pain... but every PAIN thus far has been a step in the right direction for Apple. Doesn't mean every pain IS the right direction, but sometimes, without pain, you can't have growth.

The GOOD NEWS outside of all this... is in theory, you should be able to run "Virtual PC" almost as fast as the processor speed of your Intel Mac. Which means.... potentially, more converts to the Mac platform. 

Oh well... the value of my existing Mac's just went down... and will Apple really be releasing any new Mac's over the next year? Who is going to buy a NEW system for the sake of upgrading before Intel systems are out? Granted NEED will outweigh that, but still.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

Now G5 is fading..


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 6, 2005)

..and in the background, the faint sounds of people eating their own words..

as Apple's "Think Different" becomes "Let's Think the Same"


----------



## chadwick (Jun 6, 2005)

ScottW said:
			
		

> Oh well... the value of my existing Mac's just went down... and will Apple really be releasing any new Mac's over the next year? Who is going to buy a NEW system for the sake of upgrading before Intel systems are out? Granted NEED will outweigh that, but still.



Yep... I had planned on ordering whatever new PowerMacs were going to come out this week. Now, I won't bother with any new hardware until the transition is over. Well, maybe the dev kit


----------



## chevy (Jun 6, 2005)

Facts:
Steve did show that OS-X run on Intel hardware.
Steve didn't say that Apple will continue to sell Mac.
Steve didn't say that OS-X will be compatible with standard PC hardware.


----------



## brianleahy (Jun 6, 2005)

I didn't want it to be true, but always feared it might be.

Am I angry?  In denial?

No.  Just heartbroken.

Here are the bad things that WILL HAPPEN.

1) Any code written to take advantage of G4 or G5 optimizations will have to be rewritten, and after recompilation, suddenly perform like a snail with Parkinson's.   The Pentium's vector processor is an utter dog compared to the G4s or G5s.
2) Next time I upgrade my Mac, I will have to buy new versions of ALL my Mac software - and I own a LOT.   It's ridiculous to imagine that things like Final Cut Express, Motion, Soundtrack and iDVD will perform acceptably in any sort of hardware emulation, so the necessity of an upgrade is an utter certainty.  Hence, I will not be able to upgrade for an extremely long time, because I will need to save not just money for new hardware, but for a hideous 'big bang' software upgrade.   And don't talk to me about 'expected obsolesence' - I JUST GOT MOTION LAST WEEK and I ABSOLUTELY expected to keep using it on my next Mac.
3) Even if I am determined to hang onto my wonderful G5 as long as possible, new software development for it is certain to stop dead, almost at once.   Why would ANY company make new games, expansion cards, or other software for Macs now?
4) Carbon developers - and there seem to be a lot of them, though I am not one - need to practice this phrase: "want fries with that" ?


----------



## WeeZer51402 (Jun 6, 2005)

Damn it! Damn it! Damn it! Now what am I to do, I wanted to buy a PowerBook for school very soon but now with all this news...and what about older apps that people don't want to recompile, what will become of those apps? Some kind emulation layer?  Also what about hardware control, will I be able to buy a $300.00 Dell and put OS X on it?  I hope not!!!  Hopefully Apple has also considered security because with more market share means viruses and evil spyware and all that other crap.


----------



## Roadie (Jun 6, 2005)

hmm...lets see...apples wants to make the iTunes program for movies (the name "iMovie" is already taken..iFlix?), intel's new dual core processors have built-in DRM that will go along way towards wooing movie studios...make snes to anyone else?  MacMini will become a home entertainment center.


----------



## Damrod (Jun 6, 2005)

But Steve stated that they want to support both lines in the future. So I don't think the support for the PPC will fade in the next two years.

I wonder if that means we are going to be part of the "Update-I-have-to-buy-new-processor-and-baoard" frenzy


----------



## fryke (Jun 6, 2005)

Nope, since Apple will create their own boards - and probably won't let us just buy cheapo intel chips to upgrade our computers, since they want us to keep buying new Apple hardware.


----------



## brianleahy (Jun 6, 2005)

> But Steve stated that they want to support both lines in the future.



LINKS!  PLEEZE _are there any official post-keynote links?!?!?!??!_


----------



## jeb1138 (Jun 6, 2005)

Brian -- they are providing "Rosetta" to allow PPC apps to run on Intel-based Macs transparently.  No recompile needed.  Also, if you just bought Motion and Apple is touting how easy it is to port a program, don't you think they'll release a free update with a universal binary?

By 'official' links do you mean something from apple.com?  Here's MacCentral's coverage, which is very good:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/liveupdate/index.php
and
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/powerpcintel/index.php


----------



## ScottW (Jun 6, 2005)

Never did I think it would happen:

http://www.pegasoft.cz/img_novinky/mala/1048969856_obr1_intel-inside.PNG


----------



## brianleahy (Jun 6, 2005)

Thanks for the links.  As for 'rosetta' - that's what I meant by emulation; as I understand it Motion pushes a loaded G4 nearly to it's limit, and even gives a G5 a serious workout.  If this is true, I just can't see emulators doing the job.  In fact, I wonder if a Pentium-based version with comparable performance is even possible. 

I sincerely hope that they'll have low-cost software upgrades, but I'm not betting the farm on it.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> LINKS!  PLEEZE _are there any official post-keynote links?!?!?!??!_




You can find all the links from www.macsurfer.com


----------



## jeb1138 (Jun 6, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Nope, since Apple will create their own boards - and probably won't let us just buy cheapo intel chips to upgrade our computers, since they want us to keep buying new Apple hardware.



True, though it's hard to image with Darwin already running on Intel x86 and etc. that Apple will be able to truly lock OS X up into their own hardware.  They will make it very difficult and unsupported no doubt, and perhaps inaccessible to the non-geek, but I can't believe we'll have to wait too long before someone has hacked the system to run on non-Apple branded hardware.


----------



## Boru (Jun 6, 2005)

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/wwdc05cnbc.html


----------



## jeb1138 (Jun 6, 2005)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> Thanks for the links.  As for 'rosetta' - that's what I meant by emulation; as I understand it Motion pushes a loaded G4 nearly to it's limit, and even gives a G5 a serious workout.  If this is true, I just can't see emulators doing the job.  In fact, I wonder if a Pentium-based version with comparable performance is even possible.
> 
> I sincerely hope that they'll have low-cost software upgrades, but I'm not betting the farm on it.



I wouldn't bet the farm on it either, but I'd be pretty confident in it.  Given that Apple almost definitely uses Xcode for its software and given that Apple is going to be trying very hard not to make current customers mad, _and_ given that Apple has known about its transition plans much longer than we have, I wouldn't doubt that they already have Motion running on x86 natively.  There's no need for them to release an update until consumer Intel Mac's start shipping, so they have quite a bit of time to make sure everything works.  Maybe it won't run quite as fast, but they seem to think it will.

Rosetta is for all that other Mac software you already own and were worrying about losing.  You won't lose it.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 6, 2005)

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

apple saying intel


----------



## brianleahy (Jun 6, 2005)

The links say Jobs ran OSX on a Pentium at the conference, but that the box was not revealed.  Either he's got it running on a (barf) PC, or it's some kind of custom-built prototype.

Any thoughts on this, anyone?

Another thing: On some level it will really, REALLY annoy me if someday people with wintel machines can just install OS X.  I think I'd feel like I imagine owners of original Hummers felt: At $120k, it was an exclusive club for a long time.... until the $50k H2 came out.  Now you see em everywhere.  Now, there's even a $30k H3.

Similarly, if OS X will run on a (groan) Dell PC, then it's (literally) severely cheapened.


----------



## wiz (Jun 6, 2005)

hahaah ... macs have lost my respect, since they have lost their uniqueness.
Death to the x86 arch! Like we have a damn choice. Watch as all developers now create more x86 apps vs. ppc apps. haa... Brilliant move apple. You just killed ppc. 

At the least they could have moved to Cell.


----------



## WeeZer51402 (Jun 6, 2005)

Apples Press Release


----------



## fryke (Jun 6, 2005)

brianleahy: You forgot the Mac mini. So what you fear has already happened. But really: Do we _fear_ that Mac OS X might become too successful? I sure hope not.


----------



## jonparadise (Jun 6, 2005)

Tsk, why do people always react so negatively to news when the facts haven't even been released yet?

Obviously, I'm interested to see how this all goes, but if Apple have been working on this for 5 years you can bet that the majority of their Apps already work on Intel, and the fact that Adobe and Mircosoft were there probably means they were informed a while back too, maybe with development a fair way in.

This obviously hasn't been announced on a whim, and has been well researched and thought out.

I do see this having an impact on sales though. I won't be buying a new computer until the new models are released.


----------



## MBHockey (Jun 6, 2005)

I am excited about this.  

Although i fear the resale value of my Titanium PowerBook just dropped like an anvil out of a plane, i am excited to see how fast Tiger and Leopard feel on a Pentium chip.

I'm also excited to see the day when then MacOS is more available to other users.  I do NOT fear it being too successful.  How can that be thought of as a bad thing?!


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 6, 2005)

At least there's this

"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."

Which means that the compiler could be built into XCode.  It's well known that the Intel compiler is really good at making fast code.

This has made me pretty angry but I'll have to hold my anger to see how these machines perform once they're out.

I just hope that in a few years of x86 CPUs we aren't going to be stuck again while Intel works out some problems and IBM powers forward past them.


----------



## chevy (Jun 6, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Nope, since Apple will create their own boards - and probably won't let us just buy cheapo intel chips to upgrade our computers, since they want us to keep buying new Apple hardware.



We don't know.

After the change of today, it may be a really large evolution with a new business model.

We simply do not know yet.


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 6, 2005)

MBHockey said:
			
		

> I'm also excited to see the day when then MacOS is more available to other users.  I do NOT fear it being too successful.  How can that be thought of as a bad thing?!



Apple hardware sales plummet.  Then OS X is dead because Apple has no revenue stream.


----------



## chevy (Jun 6, 2005)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> At least there's this
> 
> "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."
> 
> ...



We'll be stuck if Apple choses another "exotic" chipset or component to go with the P4 (or other) and is locked with this "exotic" component.


----------



## WeeZer51402 (Jun 6, 2005)

but the question is do I buy a PowerBook?


----------



## RGrphc2 (Jun 6, 2005)

jonparadise said:
			
		

> Tsk, why do people always react so negatively to news when the facts haven't even been released yet?
> 
> Obviously, I'm interested to see how this all goes, but if Apple have been working on this for 5 years you can bet that the majority of their Apps already work on Intel, and the fact that Adobe and Mircosoft were there probably means they were informed a while back too, maybe with development a fair way in.
> 
> ...



Its the truth, i want to see how this comes out too...i'm kinda upset, but i do want to see a G5 Powerbook.  I'm thinking Intel is going to be making the next Gen Power5 processor's, and OS X will not be based on x86.  Jobs was very vague on how this whole transition works out. 

I was kinda hoping for a Newton II but oh well.


----------



## wiz (Jun 6, 2005)

ehm... http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html isin't that a good enough hint that they are moving to intel processors... gee.


----------



## chevy (Jun 6, 2005)

April quarterly report:
1M Mac sold 45% growth
5M iPod sold 500% growth
total revenue 3.24 B

The stop of hardware sales can currently be compensated by the iPod sales ! This will not always be the case, but right now, it is feasible ! So that's exactly the right time for the switch.


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 6, 2005)

There's nothing that says that we're going to be using P4 processors either.  OS X was demoed on one but what if Intel slapps on a better vector unit to more match Altivec?  SSE2 is junk so I hope Apple doesn't think that we're going to use it instead of Altivec.

I assume this chip that Apple will use is a dual core 64 bit chip?  They haven't said but with OS X already moving to 64 bits it doesn't make sense to go backwards.


----------



## brianleahy (Jun 6, 2005)

Oh, the hummer thing is viscerally true, but illogical, I admit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Pentium's architechture partly to blame for windows' vulnerability to worms and viruses?


----------



## wiz (Jun 6, 2005)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> TSSE2 is junk so I hope Apple doesn't think that we're going to use it instead of Altivec.
> .


 It's not like "we" have a choice...


----------



## wiz (Jun 6, 2005)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> Oh, the hummer thing is viscerally true, but illogical, I admit.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Pentium's architechture partly to blame for windows' vulnerability to worms and viruses?


 No you are wrong. But it is to be blamed for windows' slowness...

AMD was much better in (x86) chip development.


----------



## pismo (Jun 6, 2005)

Apple took a pounding with Motorola for years because of their failure to deliver.  IBM promised Apple the world with the G5, much like Motorola did with the G4.  We all saw how the G4 turned out with it's failure to scale so maybe Apple saw the writing on the wall with the G5 this time around way before we did.

Do we really want Apple to sit still like they did with the G4 and not make any major advancements for years?  I think the nail in the coffin was that the G5 just isn't going to make it's way into a PowerBook.  At least not one to Apple's specs.  Looking to the future notebooks are taking over desktop sales.  If Apple didn't move now, they might have missed the boat.

I think Steve is getting smarter is his old age.  Years ago he was hell-bent on being "different."  Now he's hell-bent on being #1 and is taking the necessary steps to achieve just that.


----------



## brianleahy (Jun 6, 2005)

Here's an observation: 10.4 loudly trumpeted it's 64-bit capabilities.  Yet, mainstream pentium chips aren't 64bit.  

This certainly seems to suggest that today's pentiums will NOT be in macs.


----------



## chevy (Jun 6, 2005)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> Here's an observation: 10.4 loudly trumpeted it's 64-bit capabilities.  Yet, mainstream pentium chips aren't 64bit.
> 
> This certainly seems to suggest that today's pentiums will NOT be in macs.



I agree, but after today's annoucement we cannot be sure of anything. Can we ?


----------



## wiz (Jun 6, 2005)

look i dont care about G4's or G5's i care about Cell.


----------



## chevy (Jun 6, 2005)

wiz said:
			
		

> look i dont care about G4's or G5's i care about Cell.



Linux on Cell ?


----------



## wiz (Jun 6, 2005)

chevy said:
			
		

> Linux on Cell ?


but i love macosx.. just hate intel.. c'mon i really meant OS X on Cell


----------



## jonparadise (Jun 6, 2005)

Something just occurred to me.

Are we likely to see the next upgrade of OS X to 10.5 on the new machines? All released at the same time?

That would be a major marketing blitz for Apple. New OS, and new chips all in one go.


----------



## pismo (Jun 6, 2005)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> Here's an observation: 10.4 loudly trumpeted it's 64-bit capabilities.  Yet, mainstream pentium chips aren't 64bit.
> 
> This certainly seems to suggest that today's pentiums will NOT be in macs.



I'm guessing Apple will tout dual core as a trump to 64-bit computing with the introduction of the first Macs with Intel.  Intel is all about dual core now and has taken a back seat to AMD's 64-bit x86.


----------



## brianleahy (Jun 6, 2005)

Based on the quotes I read, Jobs did his very best to spin this whole thing positively. But frankly, I think nobody's going to remember how he said it.  What they'll remember is that Macs - as a different hardware option - are going away -- even though it's not technically true.  

Jobs has nuked his hardware AND software sales between now and the release of the penti-mac.  He's made his most passionate defenders - many of them here on this board - look like fools.  This is because, although Intel and Microsoft are not one and the same, to the general public they might as well be.  To most people, it will appear that the computer wars have been decisively won, by wintel.  Mac fans like us will become Jay Leno punchlines.

Jobs may be a visionary, but he is famously not a people-person.  I think he may have badly misjudged the PR fallout that may result from this move.


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 6, 2005)

It makes sense for the laptops but not for the tower machines.  Another thing that sucks is now we'll be stuck with Intel's DRM built into the chip.  There goes your rights out the door.


----------



## chadwick (Jun 6, 2005)

64-bit Pentium 4s have been shipping for a little while now. the 6xx series Pentium 4s have the 64-bit instruction set capabilities. If Steve was demoing on a 3.6GHz P4, then that was like the 660 since that's the 3.6GHz 64-bit capable chip.

Of course, we know OS X already works with both a 32- and 64-bit chip without problems, so no reason to limit themselves to the 64-bit only Intel chips if they need a certain hardware application.... I'm thinking the Pentium M chips for their tablet and laptops will be without 64-bits for a while.


----------



## lnoelstorr (Jun 6, 2005)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> It makes sense for the laptops but not for the tower machines.  Another thing that sucks is now we'll be stuck with Intel's DRM built into the chip.  There goes your rights out the door.



Intel denies their chips will have DRM:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23708


Although, I don't see what rights it would take away anyway, your right to pirate software?


If the chips do have DRM - it could be the very thing that stops people running OSX on non-Apple machines.


----------



## wiz (Jun 6, 2005)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> Jobs may be a visionary, but he is famously not a people-person. I think he may have badly misjudged the PR fallout that may result from this move.


 Ha, he's an idiot. But in his eyes, dissapointing 5% of the total computer market share and gaining the rest is not much damage. 

i said this thousand times before and i shall say it again: i want cell.


----------



## fryke (Jun 6, 2005)

Then buy cell and stop whining about it? It seems _pretty_ clear that Apple won't use it.


----------



## brianleahy (Jun 6, 2005)

Wiz - we get the point.  I know squat about Cell, and in any event, it's not happening.  

You want cell, I want this all to be a bad dream, but neither of us is getting his wish.


----------



## lilbandit (Jun 6, 2005)

I'm just worried about ppc support in the future. Like a lot of people I have invested a lot of cash in Apple hardware and software. A year and a half from now I don't want to be facing problems getting updates to expensive software I purchased recently. I don't want my dual G5 tower to run expensive and G5 optimized software slowly because it has to run in some sort of emulation mode. If the transition (yet another one!) isn't handled with the customer in mind it will burn Apple badly. It would make me reconsider a few things too.


----------



## wiz (Jun 6, 2005)

hmm...


----------



## pismo (Jun 6, 2005)

If anything this should close the gap consumers feel when comparing Macs to PCs.  If they both run off of Pentiums hopefully consumers will look at Macs as a little less foreign.  Maybe developers will be able to bring their code over a little easier to.  I dunno.  

It sounds like Xcode is the only way developers are going to be able to successfully write apps for both systems.  If developers have been using Xcode already, the transition is supposed to be seamless.  If not, it's said to be a nightmare.

I want to see the demo of Tiger on Intel and am curious of the performance.


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 6, 2005)

lnoelstorr said:
			
		

> Intel denies their chips will have DRM:
> 
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23708
> 
> ...



That's good at least.  DRM isn't all about pirating you know, even though that's what the *IAA wants you to think.  Imagine DRM'd CDs you can't copy because of the CPU.  Record TV on your computer, and you can't move it to another one.  Stuff like that is possible, but it's good to see that this chip won't have it.


----------



## leertracy (Jun 6, 2005)

Those of you who like being in an exclusive Mac club should try living in West LA. Everyone has Macs. The little kids have their own G5s and iPod photos. It's not so exclusive and cool. It's just what people have. When I bought my iBook, my enjoyment did not diminish because the next door-neighbor's 6 year old also has an iBook.

More to the point, Hummer is a terrible analogy. Hummers are a played-out fad that is nothing like Apple. You want to make an analogy?  Think Mercedes. You can now buy a C230 for under $30,000. That's like the Mac Mini. 

Does this mean that your SL600 isn't a hot car anymore? And should the owner of a Maybach 62 class at $375,000 groan about diminished value? 

The high-end Mac products will always be high-end Mac products. Just because more people with less money will have a better computing experience does not mean that your computing experience will be any less enjoyable.


----------



## pismo (Jun 6, 2005)

What will Apple's focus be now?  It was dual 64-bit processors, something Intel is not interested at all on it's consumer roadmap.  Will Apple now tout single chip dual core 32-bit processors as the future?  Or maybe they'll be idiots like with IBM and use processors designed for highend servers and wonder why they don't scale as well as processors designed for consumer desktops.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Jun 6, 2005)

I think this from MacWorld sums it up best :

It doesnt mean that Macs will all run Windows instead of OS X. It doesnt mean that current Macs will be obsolete next year.

I'm thinking Intel will be making the next PowerPC's (still named PowerPC as to not confuse everyone) and it will not be based on x86, but on the itanuim2 or their 64-bit chip.


----------



## jonparadise (Jun 6, 2005)

Jesus.

After a quick trip around the worlds forums, I am shocked (and a little worried) about how negative everyone is being, assumming the worst before anything has actually happened.

Mind you, thats the way things are these days, the majority of news stories just seems be based on someones opinion of what _might_ happen rather than what _has_ happened. People are so petrified of what _might_ happen, anything different causes havoc!

The vast majority of computer users won't give a stuff what processor their computer uses, as long as it works. I certainly didn't hear anyone buying a Mac Mini because it was PPC?

In fact, with peoples obsession with numbers these days, at least Apple will finally be able to get over the whole 'why has my PC got 3.7 giga thingies when a Mac only has 2?


----------



## brianleahy (Jun 6, 2005)

The hummer thing was just a metaphor for the (admittedly irrational) way I'd feel to see OS X running on a crappy PC.  I never said it was a good metaphor for REALITY.  <g>

Apple would like nothing better than for OS X to be as commonplace as windows, and for OS X to be a much-less excluisive club.  I suppose my point was: one of the things I like about OS X is one of the very things Apple is working hardest to eradicate.   This part is just generic grousing.

One other note: yes of course computers always become obsolete eventually.  It's still pretty wrenching to know exactly when - sorta like knowing when you're gonna die...

All new macs with intel by 2007?  My G5 is unsupportable rubbish by 2009 or so.  Now when I look at my G5, it's like looking at a dear friend with a terminal , incurable disease...


----------



## pismo (Jun 6, 2005)

RGrphc2 said:
			
		

> I think this from MacWorld sums it up best :
> 
> It doesnt mean that Macs will all run Windows instead of OS X. It doesnt mean that current Macs will be obsolete next year.
> 
> I'm thinking Intel will be making the next PowerPC's (still named PowerPC as to not confuse everyone) and it will not be based on x86, but on the itanuim2 or their 64-bit chip.



Then why the heck are they demoing Tiger on a 3.6GHz Pentium 4?  Second, the Itanium has been one of Intel's biggest failures to date.  They're now playing catchup with AMD in the 64-bit market trying to create and market a 64-bit Pentium.  

The Itanium 2 is as compatible to the Pentium 4 as the G5.  There is no way Apple would take that direction.


----------



## wiz (Jun 6, 2005)

yea amd would have been better than intel..


----------



## Viro (Jun 6, 2005)

What possible benefit is there to moving to Intel? I'm seriously at a loss. There have been numerous reasons on the Internet suggesting various reasons for the move. However, none of them really make any sense.

x86 isn't visibly cheaper. One of the arguments for releasing OS X for x86 was so that people with existing hardware could run OS X and as such they would be able to avoid the Apple hardware tax, which in some people's eyes is excessive. With this announcement that Mac OS X for x86 will not run on any bog standard computer, this point becomes moot.

The Pentium 4 hits 3.6 GHz. But take a look at benchmarks on the web. It isn't a great performer. Certainly not better enough compared to a G5 to warrant dropping it. The G4s are fine for laptops. Throw in dual core G4 and an on board memory controller (such as that found on the e600). Performance is a really bad reason to move to x86. 

So seriously, why the move?


----------



## chevy (Jun 6, 2005)

Where will the G5 be in 2 years ?

How much does it cost to Apple to create all interface ICs for the G5 ?


----------



## chadwick (Jun 6, 2005)

Viro said:
			
		

> What possible benefit is there to moving to Intel? I'm seriously at a loss. There have been numerous reasons on the Internet suggesting various reasons for the move. However, none of them really make any sense.



I'd say not having a good performer on the laptop range is a good enough reason alone. I'm quite irritated at my pbook's performance...

But, this is a quote from Jobs' interview with CNBC after the keynote. It might be all just spin, but it does sound like they just didn't see a future with the PPC design.



			
				CNBC said:
			
		

> "We have a good relationship with IBM, and they've got a product road map, and today, the products are really good," Jobs said when asked what IBM had failed to deliver, in his estimation. "But as we look out into the future, where we want to go is maybe a little bit different. We can envision some awesome products we want to build for our customers in the next few years, and as we look out a year or two in the future, Intel's processor roadmap really aligns with where we want to go much more than any other."
> 
> The transition is beginning now, Jobs said, to "get us where we want to be to build the kind of future products we want to build."
> 
> "Our products today are fine," Jobs added, "but it's really a year or two down the future where we see some issues."


----------



## ScottW (Jun 6, 2005)

Well, I think Apple is aware of "the future" more than us peons are. Obviously, Mr Jobs knows more than we know... and has decided to change the platform Mac runs on because of this "fore knowledge".


----------



## mi5moav (Jun 6, 2005)

Ok, he said in all macs by 2007. Do they consider the xserve a mac?


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 6, 2005)

Apple is basing this move on the roadmaps of the 2 processor lines.  Intel's is supposed to be better than IBM's in the next 5 years or so.  Jobs says Intel will be at "70 processing units" and PPC at "14 processing units" as an example of the spread that will occur in the coming years.  

Maybe that scares him a lot and it does scare me as well.  I wouldn't want to be that far behind x86 again so maybe this move will help us.

It'll definately be better for the portable line of computers but for the desktops..  I don't know..


----------



## wiz (Jun 6, 2005)

hmm... interesting. if thats the case i wouldn't mind it. but looking at other oppertunities such as Cell, i wonder how much Apple has lost or gained.


----------



## JumpMaster (Jun 6, 2005)

We've been hearing rumers for years about Apple going x86, I remember when there were rumered talks with AMD, but if i'm not mistaken AMD integrated chips showed up in the airport basestation, not a mac. I'd buy a compatability card, but I'll be horrified if there is a chip switch.


----------



## WeeZer51402 (Jun 6, 2005)

Wiz - Seriously enough with cell, its not happening


----------



## wiz (Jun 6, 2005)

hey i know its not happening.. i just said consider the oppertunities lost or gained.. i'm in no way demanding apple to change or anything (well not anymore).. why dont _you_ serioulsy stop accusing me for no good reason.. what.. so you hate the word "Cell" now?? that would be stupid.


----------



## WeeZer51402 (Jun 6, 2005)

No you just keep talking about it and we all get it, also this thread has nothing to do with cell it has to do with Intel, specifically the P4.  What I would like to see are some xbenchs.


----------



## thekurst (Jun 6, 2005)

lilbandit said:
			
		

> I'm just worried about ppc support in the future. Like a lot of people I have invested a lot of cash in Apple hardware and software. A year and a half from now I don't want to be facing problems getting updates to expensive software I purchased recently. I don't want my dual G5 tower to run expensive and G5 optimized software slowly because it has to run in some sort of emulation mode. If the transition (yet another one!) isn't handled with the customer in mind it will burn Apple badly. It would make me reconsider a few things too.



I feel like i've been ripped off I just converted to Apple just got my iBook late last year and now it's like _obsolete_

Bad choice Apple PPC = Performance and Stability

*BTW*

Does No One use the FlashChat?


----------



## jaymagic (Jun 6, 2005)

i think all this ia crazy there is no was am i ever going to buy another mac if they change to intel! i hate anu-thing to do with windows! and most of my mates feel the same so i think mac will loose alot of money if they make this change!


----------



## Viro (Jun 6, 2005)

So basically, what are they gonna focus on now? Porting everything over to 64 bit? Optimizing for G5? Optimizing for x86? What?

And they had just completed migrating to OS X when Tiger was released. We've finally got a version of OS X with a stable set of APIs and they do this (??). We'll see where this leads in a few years time.


----------



## mightyjlr (Jun 6, 2005)

jaymagic said:
			
		

> i think all this ia crazy there is no was am i ever going to buy another mac if they change to intel! i hate anu-thing to do with windows! and most of my mates feel the same so i think mac will loose alot of money if they make this change!


um... I use Macs because of the operating system and the quality and design of the hardware... both of which will continue to be better than anything made by any other manufacturer and OSX will continue to be better than Windows... there will be almost no effect on the user's end other than a faster processor, and maybe a little waiting for apps to get moved over, but that will happen much quicker than it took to move apss from OS9 to OSX.  Everyone needs to calm down.  You guys are reacting as if Microsoft is designing the next version of OSX.  Intel is by no means evil compared to Microsoft.  Plus, no PC user will ever be able to say that certain programs don't work on OSX anymore...  One of the main apps I was waiting to see come to OSX is AutoCAD (not that its that great, but its pretty much a standard).  I bet you'll see it within a year.  This move can do nothing but make the experience better for us.  Calm down...


----------



## WeeZer51402 (Jun 6, 2005)

jaymagic said:
			
		

> i think all this ia crazy there is no was am i ever going to buy another mac if they change to intel! i hate anu-thing to do with windows! and most of my mates feel the same so i think mac will loose alot of money if they make this change!


  Its not really a matter of if, rather when and that is by 2007.


----------



## jaymagic (Jun 6, 2005)

mightyjlr said:
			
		

> um... I use Macs because of the operating system and the quality and design of the hardware... both of which will continue to be better than anything made by any other manufacturer and OSX will continue to be better than Windows... there will be almost no effect on the user's end other than a faster processor, and maybe a little waiting for apps to get moved over, but that will happen much quicker than it took to move apss from OS9 to OSX.  Everyone needs to calm down.  You guys are reacting as if Microsoft is designing the next version of OSX.  Intel is by no means evil compared to Microsoft.  Plus, no PC user will ever be able to say that certain programs don't work on OSX anymore...  One of the main apps I was waiting to see come to OSX is AutoCAD (not that its that great, but its pretty much a standard).  I bet you'll see it within a year.  This move can do nothing but make the experience better for us.  Calm down...


 

well you have calmed me down a bit lol thx, i was going mad for a secound there


----------



## OS_X (Jun 6, 2005)

I _was_ weeping over this (figuratively).... but I've seen some upbeat articles that say that this move is actually a GOOD one now - take out M$ and bring 'our stuff' over to 'their platform' while Leghorn still languishes in the background.....

I'm starting to think this is the smartest thing that Jobs has done in ages.... this might be '1988' all over again (back when Win 3.1 came out and gradually started eating up market share)..... only thing, this time instead of not licensing... we're on the cusp of the wave....


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 6, 2005)

How is anyone's hardware outdated now?  Just because Apple will use Intel processors in the future does not make anyone's PPC-based machine obsolete.  Software companies will continue to develop "FAT" binaries which will run on PPC and Intel hardware alike. 

Intel has nothing to do with Windows.  Just because Apple will be using Intel chips doesn't have anything to do with Microsoft or Windows.

I think we need to nip some concerns in the bud, right here, right now:

1) Apple will be using Intel chips in the future.  This means absolutely nothing to consumers -- only developers.

2) Your PPC-based software will run just fine on any future Intel-based Mac OS X hardware under a very fast emulation layer, much like Classic or older 68xxx emulation did in the past.

3) The change will be seamless to consumers -- you'll still sit down at an Apple-branded machine and run the same damn software under the same damn OS X.

4) Windows applications will not run on an Intel-based Mac OS X system.  Can you run x86 Linux applications on Windows or vice-versa?  Same for Mac.  You don't program for the processor so much as you program for the operating system.  Windows binaries still have Windows-specific API calls.

5) You will not be able to install the Intel-based version of Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple-branded Intel-based computer.  You will not be able to build a cheap-o Intel box and expect to be able to install Mac OS X on it.  Mac OS X will only install on Apple-branded computers, period, whether they're Intel- or PPC-based.

6) As far as the consumer is concerned, this shift means nothing.  Apple isn't going to suddenly start selling $500 computers.  The same engineering and R&D will go into Intel-based Macintosh computers as went into PPC-based Macintosh computers.

7) Porting current Mac OS X PPC applications to Mac OS X Intel applications will not be as much of a headache as people are making it out to be.  Unless your program has low-level PPC-specific code in it, it'll be a simple matter of a few changes and a recompile (really!).  The APIs will be the same, the code will be the same, and it will not take much time.  Estimates range from 2 days to 2 weeks to fully port an application -- a drop in the hat for any software developer worth a damn.

People are acting like it's the end of the Macintosh as we know it -- it's not.  They're changing processors, just like they did going from the G2 to the G3 to the G4 to the G5.  Now, our processors will be CISC-based and not RISC-based -- big friggin' deal!   The end-user won't notice a difference at all.  Let the software developers work out the (small) kinks.

Just think -- we as end users get faster machines.  What other drawbacks are there?  Is it impossible to sit in front of a Mac without thinking about the processor that's running the machine, or is it just gonna drive y'all nuts knowing that there's an "Intel inside?"


----------



## jeb1138 (Jun 6, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> 4) Windows applications will not run on an Intel-based Mac OS X system.  Can you run x86 Linux applications on Windows or vice-versa?  Same for Mac.  You don't program for the processor so much as you program for the operating system.  Windows binaries still have Windows-specific API calls.


_But_ making an emulation program (e.g. VirtualPC) is MUCH easier and will be MUCH faster.  Apple could bundle one for free with the operating system and you could potentially slap your copy of Windows onto it and be running Windows apps faster, easier and more integrated than VirtualPC ever hoped to be.


----------



## WeeZer51402 (Jun 6, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> How is anyone's hardware outdated now? Just because Apple will use Intel processors in the future does not make anyone's PPC-based machine obsolete. Software companies will continue to develop "FAT" binaries which will run on PPC and Intel hardware alike.
> 
> Intel has nothing to do with Windows. Just because Apple will be using Intel chips doesn't have anything to do with Microsoft or Windows.
> 
> ...


  Well first off if apple is smart they'll try to integrate wine for some basic compatibility with winbloze stuff and second apple does have a $500 computer, its called the mac mini


----------



## wiz (Jun 6, 2005)

intel optimises for Integer arithmetic. the altivec used to optimise the floating point arithmetic. sheesh do you suppose it is possible to now get the best of both worlds?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 6, 2005)

WeeZer51402 said:
			
		

> Well first off if apple is smart they'll try to integrate wine for some basic compatibility with winbloze stuff and second apple does have a $500 computer, its called the mac mini



Yes, I know about the Mac mini.  My point was that Apple's prices for their machines will most likely not drop just because they're using a different processor -- it has not been proven that Intel processors are cheaper than IBM processors, and even if they are, I'm just putting to rest the idea that people will now be able to run Mac OS X on bargain-basement Intel-based computers.

Licensing is a huge issue when it comes to Windows compatibility.  You can't just build in Windows compatibility to your product and not expect to hear from Microsoft's lawyers.  Remember "Lindows?"  The major reason that product was put to rest is because they tried to build in Windows compatibility without having Microsoft's approval and licensing -- and eventually they just "Linuxed" their product, scrapping the Windows compatibility.


----------



## WeeZer51402 (Jun 6, 2005)

wiz said:
			
		

> intel optimises for Integer arithmetic. the altivec used to optimise the floating point arithmetic. sheesh do you suppose it is possible to now get the best of both worlds?


  Well altivec is a vector unit, the FPU on the G5 is exceptional.  The ALU(the int unit) on pentium processors is far better but their vector unit(SSE2) sucks big time. so yes a P4 w/ altivec would certainly be nice.

To respond to the licensing thing wine is still around and I'm pretty sure its completely legit but of course M$ would challenge it but would they win? If I were in charge of apple I'd try to build in some emulation layer based off wine for basic windows support so my new customers wouldn't need to throw away all their existing apps, it would help ease the transition for switchers.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 6, 2005)

Apple could attempt to use the WINE libraries....of course they kind of suck 

VPC and VMware talk directly to the hardware, the intel-mac VPC version can do the same. Not to mention that apple can make some soft of "emulation" software to tae advantage of other x86 OSes and software, not M$ specific.

Apple could license windows libraries (fat chance), they could license DirectX so that games can be ported more easily, etc.


----------



## JetwingX (Jun 6, 2005)

Now that i have cooled down a bit after reading this thread, my concern is: What will _I_ do when devs stop checking the PPC box when they compile?

It will be like having 10.1 and being forced to upgrade to 10.3 or 10.4 because you can't get any new apps. and this time, instead of being a $75 or $125 dollar upgrade, it will be a $2000+ upgrade.

I wouldn't be so angry if it were confirmed that this wouldn't happen or if the check box said "PPC or PPC/Intel" but it didn't. these is that option and i am sore about it because i bought my iMac G5 9 months ago and i fear it won't last me 5 years like my iMac DV+ did.


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 6, 2005)

I agree with Jetwing X.  I think this is all good news for non Mac users, and bad for Mac users (at least in the short to mid-term).


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 6, 2005)

I don't mind so much the switch to Intel, but it seems as if there's so much going on with the PPC right now, that it seems that although progress is slow, I have the feeling it's been abandoned long before the Gx series has reached its full potential. 
I'm certain the main reason for the switch has more to do with not having a notebook processor to complement the desktop.  I'm hoping that these new x86 Macs will not just use generic Intel chipsets with a hardware dongle for OS X and Apple designs some added features that make it stand out.


----------



## HateEternal (Jun 6, 2005)

I don't like this one bit. I feel like Apple lied to us and played some sick game while we bought their expensive hardware.

Does this mean my G5 just lost a lot of value? I originally bought it knowing that Macs keep their value for a long time.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Jun 6, 2005)

Oscar Castillo said:
			
		

> I don't mind so much the switch to Intel, but it seems as if there's so much going on with the PPC right now, that it seems that although progress is slow, I have the feeling it's been abandoned long before the Gx series has reached its full potential.
> 
> I'm certain the main reason for the switch has more to do with not having a notebook processor to complement the desktop.  I'm hoping that these new x86 Macs will not just use generic Intel chipsets with a hardware dongle for OS X and Apple designs some added features that make it stand out.



Your right, but keep in mind what steve said that both the Intel and PPC will be supported for years, i'm pretty sure even older (G3) will be supported till at least 2010 or 2015.  But i want to know one thing, will it be a dumb mistake to buy a Mac next year? With the Switch coming in 2007? Or should i wait to get an iMac with an Intel?  

The Best bet is we will learn more during the MacWorld Boston Next Month, and the next MacWorld during September.

Hopefully this Partnership means Apple in more Stores not just Apple Retails, but in Best Buy's, Circuit City's, PCWorld's etc etc.

Heck, we might even get Half-Life and HL2 for the Mac!!!


----------



## mightyjlr (Jun 6, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Remember "Lindows?"  The major reason that product was put to rest is because they tried to build in Windows compatibility without having Microsoft's approval and licensing -- and eventually they just "Linuxed" their product, scrapping the Windows compatibility.


noo... they didn't scrap anything, and they weren't sued by trying to make windows programs compatible (which they never did)... it was all because of the name... now it is renamed to Linspire...


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 6, 2005)

I think after June 06 you'll start seeing prices drop slightly as new hardware is introduced, but if they start on the low-end first you should be fine for another 2 or 3 years since there's all this talk about universal binaries for the forseeable future users wont be in much of hurry to switch in larger numbers until some time in 2007 and beyond.  I thought about buying a new dual 2GHz Pm as I know even with the current switch to x86 I'll still be good for 2 years which is good enough for me.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 6, 2005)

@RGrphc2:
If you can wait until next year you might as well wait for WWDC 2006 and see what x86 Macs are available at the time.  I may wait, but figure a dual 2.0 would serve me well for another 2 years as I don't think we'll see Pro systems next year as there may not be many early adopters on the high-end Apple may start with consumer models first.


----------



## Crobot (Jun 6, 2005)

Well... i'm no super power user. But then again, being a graphic designer, i do more than surf the web and check my email.

I guess i'm looking at this whole transition from a different perspective....

I care more about the stability of the computer and the ease of the Mac OS. I don't really care as much about the manufacturer of CPU. Will it be fast? Will it be stable? Will it get the job done?

I don't use Apple computers because of any "image". I don't consider myself "elite" just because of my computer. I don't use an iPod because i want to be "cool." I'm not so conserned about brand image. I'm more concerned about realiability, ease of use, and stability. That is why i pick Apple's OS over Microsoft.

Whether it runs on a Motorola, IBM, Intel or AMD, it makes little difference to me. It just needs to work and work well.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 6, 2005)

I didn't say they were sued.  They started by first advertising a "Windows-compatible" operating system that was not based upon Linux.  Next thing you know, they're scrapping Windows compatibility and selling a Linux product.  Go figure.

Either way, they didn't have Microsoft's approval for the name nor the compatibility.  It would make sense to change the name and keep the compatibility, but they didn't do that either -- and I doubt it was because it was "too hard."


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 6, 2005)

Well here's my good riddance letter
http://www.nuclearelephant.com/papers/apple.html


----------



## pjeski (Jun 6, 2005)

Maybe it is just time for Jobs to move on, again.


----------



## pedz (Jun 6, 2005)

jzdziarski said:
			
		

> Well here's my good riddance letter
> http://www.nuclearelephant.com/papers/apple.html



Most of this note, to me, does not make sense.  Computers more than a few months old are basically obsolete no matter what the market does.

People keep asking "why release 10.4 if they are going to switch".  Remember the 68000 to PPC transition?  Both were supported for quite some time.  Why would Adobe keep making PPC versions if Apple does not plan to do the same?

I'm disenchanted a bit too.  But I don't see Apple or Jobs as demonic.

My question which I have not seen an answer to is "Which Intel Chip?"  If Apple is switching to Intel's 64 bit processor, then that is a great strategy.  That is a fantastic forward looking chip.  More than the AMD chip.  Much like the PPC was when Apple switched to it 10 years ago.


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 6, 2005)

Which chips are you referring to? Intel's Xeon chips, whose ass the PowerPC has shown to kick repeatedly, according to Apple's website? Or are you referring to their miserably failed attempts to break into the 64-bit desktop computing market? Since developer hardware is available (well, in two weeks), we can only assume that the Intel chips are already out there. So it's unlikely that there is any earth shattering processing to be seen. I switched to a Powerbook off of a high-end Thinkpad. Believe me, I'm not looking forward to going back.


----------



## pjeski (Jun 6, 2005)

If Jobs is doing this over technology, then he has been lying to us and coopting us into lying for him for years. And that should royally piss you off. He is doing it purely to spite IBM.


----------



## mindbend (Jun 7, 2005)

I have to say I am more surprised by the reaction to the transition, then to the transition announcement itself.

The "jump ship" folks have got to get a grip. First, did you even watch the keynote? Based on some of the comments, I highly doubt it.

What on earth is such a big deal? 

If Steve Jobs had simply said, "We plan on getting faster CPUs that consume less power, and it will take two years to make it happen." we'd all be jumping up and down in excitement. But, for some reason I cannot grasp, the fact that it'll be an Intel chip is reason for panic.

What do you think is going to happen, suddenly OS X will crash constantly? Or that your friends will say, I told you so? Or that OS X will be a somehow different experience? In case you didn't notice, Steve was running his whole  presentations on Intel and you didn't even notice, did you ("you" collectively)? Just like you won't even notice when you get one, unless you switch for some insane reason. Won't that be ironic, people switching to Wintel to avoid Intel.

Here's the deal. We're all going to get a faster lineup of machines and we'll get them in all variants, including laptops. They're still going to run OS X and they're going to run it every bit as well os PPC. Get a freaking grip! Unbelievable.

As for obsolescence, I have no idea what sense that argument even makes. If your apps still work, how is that obsolete? And to keep up with progress, either hardware or software, you are always in a philosophical "obsolescence mode" regardless of which CPU you are using, so the argument is utterly meaningless.

Also, I'm continually entertained by those of us (sometimes myself) who act as though we have a freaking clue as to how to run a massive high tech company successfully. If you think you can beat Stevo and Apple, go for it.

I personally found it utterly brilliant that they actually were running the secret dual life OS X on Intel for the "Just in Case" scenario. That's just smart. Look, Apple gave it a go with PPC and took it as far as they could. They wisely had a backup plan and it is seemingly going to be a better option in the long run. They have to go with it. Or would you rather have another CPU gap the size of the grand canyon? Imagine this, one day OS X and Windows will have zero performance gap (at least in terms of raw CPU, what the OS does after that to slow things down, who knows).

And kudos to all those who said this was going on the whole time. You were right. 100% right. I find this to be a very exciting day.


----------



## applewhore (Jun 7, 2005)

nice summation, mindbend!


----------



## Carlo (Jun 7, 2005)

How many of you people brought a Macintosh because it has a PowerPC in it..

its about time Apple severed its relationship with The PowerPC platform. HP did it a few years ago and have not looked back.

This is a good thing for apple!

Watch the keynote!!!


Just saw mindbends comments.. He got it in one!


----------



## applewhore (Jun 7, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> it just gonna drive y'all nuts knowing that there's an "Intel inside?"


It would drive me nuts if my next PowerBook / PowerMac had one of those ghastly stickers on it!


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 7, 2005)

Oh yeah man! Didn't think about that!! "Intel Inside" stickers on our Macs?! Nooooooooo!!!!


----------



## bookem (Jun 7, 2005)

Here's a slightly more official link  http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050606corp.htm


----------



## mbveau (Jun 7, 2005)

Beautifully said, mindbend. Guys; I bought my Mac because the OS is the most advanced and stable one available. The chip inside just doesn't affect me that much. Obviously Steve Jobs decided that IBM just wasn't cutting it in the short term, and didn't have as far to go in the longterm in comparison to Intel. Once Intel fully commits to the 64 bit processor, they'll do a good job of it. By the way, why would there be an Intel Inside sticker on your Mac? I only have a Powerbook, but there's no G4 sticker on it, and I'm pretty sure there's not a G5 sticker on the PowerMac. Why in heaven's name would this change!? You guys are basketcases! It'll be alright in the end, I promise.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 7, 2005)

What will happen? Will sales go up for Apple when they're releasing the Intel-based Macs? Or will Apple vanish over time because of the switch?

I personally always found AMD better than Intel and that's not about to change, even if Apple manufactures Macs with Intel processors in it.


----------



## FlashMac (Jun 7, 2005)

Are we talking about a serious leap in performance? I was about to place an order for an iBook 14" when I heard about this yesterday. The thing is, I'm not usre I really want to wait a year for the next hardware, and if it would even be worth it. If I go for the 'Book now though, I'll have just about finished paying for it in June 2006, when the new stuff comes out, which could be a little annoying but thats the march of technology isnt it.
Its a bit of a conundrum - its the first time I'll be buying a Mac brand new, full price.

I expect this has been answered 30 pages back, but would you wait, or not, and why?


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 7, 2005)

The G4/G5 is dead officially since yesterday. You can of course go and buy a PPC-based Mac now, but in time, support for this will vanish. However, this interesting "Universal Binary" thing they're talking about may make it worth to still buy a Mac before the Intel ones come out.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 7, 2005)

he said that PPC macs are still in development (brand new macs coming out in the next two years) and that support, real support, for PPC will continue for the next 4-5 years at least.  that means, if you buy a new mac tomoro, it will still last longer than a normal PC, just like a Mac should.  i am still quite happy with my machine, although it now has been confirmed what i have been thinking for a while - the G5 is no where near as good, or revolutionary as either G3 or G4.  they blew away the x86 chips in their day. the G5 is bloated, hot, and not very powerful for it. the only reason, i can think of, for going for it over dual Xeons is the OS


----------



## fryke (Jun 7, 2005)

ANY Mac you buy at ANY time will be obsolete after a couple of years. Apple has cut off support in Mac OS X for the G2 PowerMacs, then for the beige G3 PowerMacs etc., and with every new big version of the OS, they're cutting off a bit more. The G4 and G5 Macs (and the iBook's a G4), will be supported in 10.5 (comes out at the end of 2006) and probably still in the OS that comes _after_ that. If that again takes 1.5 years (and that's their plan) you have at least 4.5 years of the "current" Mac OS working on that iBook. That sounds more than good enough for me. If you need it now: GET that iBook.


----------



## pedz (Jun 7, 2005)

mindbend said:
			
		

> I personally found it utterly brilliant that they actually were running the secret dual life OS X on Intel for the "Just in Case" scenario. That's just smart.



Remember folks, the mach microkernel started a CMU and then was co-developed by IBM and Apple back in '93.  I was part of the project inside IBM and it was 100% Intel based machines.  I bet the "kernel" and the GUI is 100% C.  Only the micro kernel has to port and it is probably 99.9% C.

I bet Apple has had an Intel version all along.  It would not be that much dual maintenance.


----------



## fryke (Jun 7, 2005)

We _know_ that Apple had a PC version all along. They said they built 10.0 (Cheetah) for X86, and _before_ 10.0, Apple actually released Rhapsody DR 2 for PC Compatibles (to developers) and only stopped doing that when Rhapsody went final (Mac OS X Server 1.0 and up).


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 7, 2005)

Anyone who says they bought a Mac for the outstanding operating system doesn't quite know what they're talking about. OSX is just barely out of its infancy. The Mach kernel has just recently (as of Tiger) received an overhaul that makes it "not a piece of crap", such as better locking and architecture. It's still, however, very immature. There are no 64-bit libraries so there's no /proper/ way to write 64-bit applications without making your app an ugly hack. Many of their new OS features, such as Q2DE, still don't work completely. If OSX is at the heart of Apple, then right now Apple has heart disease... honestly, I like OSX, but it's got a /long/ way to go before it's mature. In many ways, the Linux kernel is even far superior to Mach. The only thing most people see is the pretty UI.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 7, 2005)

I guess the biggest worry i have, is that third-party developers won't develop things that will take full advantage of the PPC macs any more. we KNOW the rosetta thing will do GENERIC G3-era code, but not G4, G5 or Altivec specific code. So why develop Audio/Video application XYZ with really good Altivec support up the yahoo when in two years your potential for new customers runs into a brick wall.

Yes, Apple will support my g5. yes they will release OS updates. yes, it will still work just fine with the CURRENT software. but apple doesn't control the mac market quite the way some people thing. SJ saying "this will happen" doesn't make it so.

anywho. on the plus side, it means that in theory, right before "the end" there should be SUPER FAST G5s available "REALLY CHEAP", because of the "omg that is obsolete" curse. and for general home users, students, or inversely, servers, they would be great. anyone who doesn't need the bleeding edge software, they would be great. Software updates from apple for several years at least. plenty of power.


my only question is this: the G5 uses 1/2 CPU speed on the FSB. Intel's fastest is 1066mhz, for a 3.something ghz P4. How are apple gonna market a DROP in FSB speed. (however, we may get other things intel push, quicker, like onboard SATA2 RAID, DDR2 (or 3), dual-core CPUs, 10Gb Eth(apple were good on the 1gb, but haven't updated for quite a while),  on that note.. Does a dual-core, hyperthreaded CPU appear to the OS as "four" CPUs??)


----------



## Lycander (Jun 7, 2005)

Pengu said:
			
		

> Does a dual-core, hyperthreaded CPU appear to the OS as "four" CPUs??)


Yes. There are pictures of the CPU graphs around the net. Shows 4 graphs. Even right now with dual Xeon hyper threaded CPUs (non dual core).


----------



## jeb1138 (Jun 7, 2005)

jzdziarski said:
			
		

> Well here's my good riddance letter
> http://www.nuclearelephant.com/papers/apple.html



I think your article criticizes more of what you _thought_ he said than what he actually did say.  For one thing, he said a main reason that they were switching was because of performance PER watt of energy of FUTURE products.  Notably _not_ absolute performance, which is what you spend a large amount of time discussing.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 7, 2005)

so dual, dual-core, hyperthreaded Xeons (are they code/instruction-set compatible with plain-jane P4s?) would "act" as 8 processors. THAT would be a test of OSX's multi-tasking...


----------



## jeb1138 (Jun 7, 2005)

jzdziarski said:
			
		

> Anyone who says they bought a Mac for the outstanding operating system doesn't quite know what they're talking about. OSX is just barely out of its infancy. The Mach kernel has just recently (as of Tiger) received an overhaul that makes it "not a piece of crap", such as better locking and architecture. It's still, however, very immature...



lol, the image your post creates is just plain wrong.  True, there are flaws, but it's child's play to point out tons of flaws in ANY major operating system.  That's a cost of providing many features.  The fact is, Apple has done a tremendous job providing those features with a LOW amount of flaws and HIGH amount of success.

You try and tell the hordes of geeks making the switch for OS X that they aren't, in fact, making that switch just exactly for that reason.

For example, here's what noted geek Paul Graham has to say about the flock of 'alpha geeks' making the switch for OS X:
http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html



			
				Paul Graham said:
			
		

> All the best hackers I know are gradually switching to Macs. My friend Robert said his whole research group at MIT recently bought themselves Powerbooks. These guys are not the graphic designers and grandmas who were buying Macs at Apple's low point in the mid 1990s. They're about as hardcore OS hackers as you can get.
> 
> The reason, of course, is OS X.



Side note:  From every observation I've made, over half of the staff at my university has PowerBooks, and these are people that can get cheap education Dells and do know (and love with a pure-geek-tinkering love, or else they would have stayed in industry where they were making the big bucks) what they are talking about.


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 7, 2005)

Performance per Watt...so what you're saying is that you're willing to live with a system that runs at half the speed of a PowerPC as long as it runs cooler? It must be what you're saying, since the G5 allegedly runs twice the speed of these high end Xeons. Who cares if they run cooler. They also run slower.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 7, 2005)

jzdziarski said:
			
		

> Performance per Watt...so what you're saying is that you're willing to live with a system that runs at half the speed of a PowerPC as long as it runs cooler? It must be what you're saying, since the G5 allegedly runs twice the speed of these high end Xeons. Who cares if they run cooler. They also run slower.



Are you speaking MHz-wise only???  Because if so there are other factors that contribute to the speed, hence why AMD is even slower than Intel clockwise but performs much better.

This is actually tough to argue because i'm sure all of us at one time or another criticized the P4 for being inferior to the G5, but now we're on the other side of the coin (at least once 06/06/06 rolls around).  Weird...now I've gone crosseyed... ::ha::


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 7, 2005)

Also consider that comparisons have been done with P4s running _WIndows_ as opposed to P4s running both Windows and Mac OS X.  Again, I can't wait to see the benchmarks on this.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 7, 2005)

jzdziarski said:
			
		

> Anyone who says they bought a Mac for the outstanding operating system doesn't quite know what they're talking about. OSX is just barely out of its infancy. The Mach kernel has just recently (as of Tiger) received an overhaul that makes it "not a piece of crap", such as better locking and architecture. It's still, however, very immature. There are no 64-bit libraries so there's no /proper/ way to write 64-bit applications without making your app an ugly hack. Many of their new OS features, such as Q2DE, still don't work completely. If OSX is at the heart of Apple, then right now Apple has heart disease... honestly, I like OSX, but it's got a /long/ way to go before it's mature. In many ways, the Linux kernel is even far superior to Mach. The only thing most people see is the pretty UI.



So what did you buy _your_ Mac for?  The OS?  The hardware?  The processor inside of the hardware?  What, exactly?

I bought mine for the OS, the hardware (regardless of the processor), and the community.  Call me a lemming, but that's that.  What did you buy yours for?  And how, exactly, is going with an Intel processor making you want to ditch Apple permanently?  To the end-user, the switch to Intel will be seamless and transparent.  You could sit down at a row of G5-looking computers, some with PPC processors and some with Intel processors, and I'll bet you couldn't make heads or tails of which was which without opening the computer and taking a peek inside (or by opening "About this Computer" and having the processor reported to you).

I don't mean to be rude, but it certainly sounds like you're experiencing an overblown knee-jerk reaction.  What is your loyalty to the PPC processor?


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 7, 2005)

It's not the Intel processor that lead me to ditch Apple. In fact my good riddance letter mentioned nothing about technical issues (although there are plenty). I am ditching Apple for the reasons I stated in my letter - they have consistently and outwardly lied to their customers (as recent as last week) in public press releases to continue pushing their now obsolete products. They release a new line of powerbooks and powermacs with soon-to-be-abandoned processors and that's supposed to be OK? I don't think so. The life of a high end system (especially a dual processor PowerMac) is well over two years. 

It doesn't affect me as much as I'm sure it affects others. After all, I can have Debian up and running on this thing pretty quickly and be happy with it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to invest in a company whose shroud of secrecy is motivated by their bottom line.

The proper way to usher this in would have been to announce their low-end machines will include Intel processors and that their higher end machines would still be PowerPC based (like Sun did with their processors). Then the second year have both PowerPC machines and Intel machines in high-end machines, continuing support for the PowerPC architecture (without a phase-out). If Intel is really "better" than PowerPC, then they would have sales charts showing that more customers wanted Intel-based macs, and could then justify slowly phasing out PowerPC over another year or two... or phasing out Intel if nobody wanted them. At any rate, that would allow for a 4-year cohabitation of both processor families, allowing the customer to decide which was better.


----------



## fryke (Jun 7, 2005)

They _do_ continue to support the PowerPC. Which part of this message didn't you get? Apple has a product line of PowerPC Macs and will introduce newer PowerPC Macs in the coming two years. They'll start to shift over to intel machines in June 2006 - not before - and they'll have a complete intel Mac lineup only in June 2007 or the end of 2007. The PowerPC machines will continue to be supported by Mac OS X even when the complete lineup is based on intel.


----------



## TWRayer (Jun 7, 2005)

DUDE - Get a Grip!!!    Apple has not lied consistantly to their customers.   They were forced into this by IBM and Freescale.  Apple did this so that 18-24 months out, they will have competitive product.

Where in the keynote, did anyone say that PowerPC would be dead in 2yrs?   I heard Steve say that the migration will take 2yrs.   2yrs before all NEW Macs are shipping with Intel processors.   For many years beyond that, Apple and developers will support both the PowerPC and Intel.   Universal Binaries allow this.   Your Dual PowerMac G5 bought today will keep running OSX, apps, etc. for years to come.   Developers will have to put out Universal Binaries, so that their apps run natively on both processors.

If you are worried that sometime out there, your new Dual processor G5 will someday be obsolete, I have news for you:   All computers are someday obsolete!

I would wait and see what Apple/Intel has in store.   The thought of a dualcore, 4+GHz Intel based Powerbook with Centrino makes my mouth water!


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 7, 2005)

I m wondering when Apple finished transition to Intel based. Once all Mac already have intel. In the future do I have able to buy a upgrade the processor at any stores? Without specific stores such as sonnent, Newer Tech and others. Will be cheaper?


----------



## Lycander (Jun 7, 2005)

RE: MacFreak

Not sure about PPC CPUs, but I do know that x86 processors have IDs that can be read in software. Couple that will this impending doom of on-chip DRM, it may be possible for Apple to basically restrict and prevent CPU upgrades. Meaning, you can't buy an off-the-shelf Pentium 4 CPU and pop it in.

I'm not saying that's what will happen, I'm just illustrating a theory. If you recall, there was a PowerMac firmware update in which Apple effectively made certain third party RAM modules incompatible. They certainly can lock out generic Intel CPUs.


----------



## chadwick (Jun 7, 2005)

Most of the time each family of new x86 chips requires a BIOS change to work, anyway, even if they are socket-compatible. So you will likely be able to replace the chip within a very small model range, but not as much as you'd like...

Complete conjecture based on the work required by PC motherboard manufactuers to get new chips to work


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 7, 2005)

I say "good riddance" to those Mac users that say "good riddance" to Apple because they feel "shafted" because Apple didn't disclose every nook-and-cranny of their future plans to the public.

I have yet to hear one, good reason (IMO) that the switch to Intel is a bad move and that it is going to ultimately affect customers in a negative way.  Sure, we fought with Intel on the "megahertz myth," bashed Microsoft for using their chips and touted the power of the PowerPC, but what in the **** did you expect Apple to do?  Tell their customers that they were using sub-par chips and to just wait for the future because there was an inkling of an idea that they were going to use Intel chips in the future?

Lied to?  Naah... if Apple has lied to you, then every other company you've ever purchased a product from has lied to you as well -- and then your problem isn't with Apple, but with "corporate America" as a whole (sorry to all the non-Americans here: that's just how the saying goes).


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 7, 2005)

Yes, I watched his keynote. He stated quite clearly that the transition would be complete by 2007, which means no more PPC products - the processor will be end-of-life.


----------



## CreativeEye (Jun 7, 2005)

jzdziarski - 

by the time leopard should be released (according to jobs) at the end of 2006 - intelmacs will only have been on market for 6 months...

so how many people here actually believe that developers etc will suddenly stop making stuff for the HUGE market on PPC for the sake of a few hundred thousand who would have bought intelmacs by that time???

eh? so who actually thinks that? 

who actually thinks that by the end of 2007 - when essentially the user base on PPC will STILL be larger than those on intelmacs those same developers will again turn their backs on such a huge market?! even by mid 2008!?! 

full transition of OS (to intel / hardware and full 64-bit OS) by end of 2008 at a minimum...


----------



## brianleahy (Jun 7, 2005)

Microsoft's success has, without question, led to Apple switching to Intel.   It is this unbroken line of causality, rather than any specific technical concern, that bothers me most about this whole thing.  Intel isn't Microsoft; but Intel wouldn't be where they are without Microsoft.

In the same way that the global AIDS epidemic has been a windfall for the latex industry (sales of both condoms and surgical gloves have boomed) so has the success of Windows been a boon to Intel.   

Windows runs on Intel CPUs, so Intel has had the profits required to do lots of R&D.  As a result, Intel CPUs are powerful, efficient, inexpensive, and available in large quantities.  And for THAT reason, Apple is making the switch.

Don't dog-pile me; I will be the first to acknowledge that the switch makes all the sense in the world from a practical standpoint.   I will readily admit that the biggest issues I have are not practical ones.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 7, 2005)

pjeski said:
			
		

> If Jobs is doing this over technology, then he has been lying to us and coopting us into lying for him for years. And that should royally piss you off. He is doing it purely to spite IBM.


There's more to it than that, at least I would hope.  I think IBM has to take care of business and Apple just isn't a large part of that business anymore with all their Sony and Microsoft contracts.  I'm just disappointed that there must of been some way to use Cell or Xenon in a Mac and why not go that route.  No mention of either one whatsoever.  And what's all these great PPC products in the pipeline he mentioned?


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 7, 2005)

Carlo said:
			
		

> How many of you people brought a Macintosh because it has a PowerPC in it..


It was one factor for me purchasing a Mac. The other was the OS.  The architecture was/is brilliant engineeing even though CPU always takes center stage.  If the new x86 Macs had something similar now that would be something.


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 7, 2005)

I hope they've removed "designed for microsoft windows" from their latest chips, is all i have to say.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 7, 2005)

they stopped making the powermac g3 6 years ago. it's still supported by everything. Tiger supports G3 and it came out 6 weeks ago. CS2 supports G3 and that came out 4 weeks ago. a six year old, completely obsolete machine is still completely supported by apple, and the software developers. those with a g3 are in the ideal place to buy a new intel mac.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jun 19, 2005)

Transition III
                                                 Satan Inside


CEO of Intel: The Dark Side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.

Steve Jobs: Is it possible to learn this power?

CEO of Intel: Not by using 64-bit PowerPC CPUs from IBM.  You have to use 32-bit CPUs based on out-dated 25-year old technology from Intel.

Slashdot Community: Twisted by the Dark Side Steve Jobs becomes.

Macintosh Community: Steve!!! YOU were the chosen one.

From Slashdot:

"I felt something, a disturbance in the network, as if a million mac zealots cried out in horror and were suddenly silenced."

OK, enough with the edited Star Wars quotes.  My personal reaction was disbelief, horror, shock, and then anger.  I woke up several times at night in horror and disbelief the week this was announced, as if a family member died, thinking "man this ain't happening."  People in high places really screwed up for this to happen; our team lost something, part of its ideology, it's uniqueness, it's modern, efficient, and high-tech edge.  Part of Apple and Macintosh technology is about to die forever, this is a serious loss; I can only hope that Apple will maintain PowerPC builds of its operating system the way it did with ~25 year-old Borg technology.  This is bad, really bad, no matter what positive spin Steve and Co. puts on this news.  This news indicates nothing more than failure of the relationship between Apple and IBM to make this technology work, which in my opinion is superior to Intel technology.  Apple has a lot of money, it should have taken more responsibility to develop the PowerPC processors, taking on research & development of reducing heat and increasing core frequency.  Market forces are at work here.  Simply put, IBM just didn't want the PowerPC architecture to succeed and compete against Wintel's the way Apple intended.  Sure, the PowerPC architecture is more efficient, i.e. work done per clock cycle, but the chip is a freakin' radiator which is why we don't have 3.0 GHz PowerMac G5's and PowerBook G5's; it is still too Power4-centric.  IBM would rather fulfill orders for Sony Playstation 3's and Microsoft XBox 360's than to see something very close to their vaunted Power architecture reach acclaim and stature as a serious technology for multipurpose use on an operating system that is very close to the Linux, which it is pushing on to its customers.  Apple wanted more from IBM (higher clock rates, lower heat dissipation, and lower costs) to compete against Intel and Microsoft, IBM said to wish in one hand and poop in the other, and see which one fills up faster; Steve gave Big Blue the bird and the 'just in case' scenario which we all knew about and feared came to be.  Now PowerPC is relegated to specialty purposes: mobile phones, network gear, game consoles, and the cores of Cell processors.  Some of the PowerPC architecture is Apple technology and is about to die.  This is, in my well thought-out opinion, a serious error in judgement by Steve Jobs.  As an Apple stockholder, I am frankly more than angry - this is a waste of money and resources!!!  Speaking of which, since Steve indicated in his keynote address that sales of Macintoshes and iPods have increased significantly, where's my dividend payment?

So what's this all really mean?  Apple and Microsoft are about to go head to head, and like it or not, Mac OS X will be hacked by some slick Slashdotter or script-kiddie to run on beige commodity junk 'ka-neechie-wa' chinese hardware (Linovo - IBM's recent sale of its PC business to the largest Chinese PC manufacturer), Dull, and HP brethren.  Apple will no longer be the Mercedes Benz, Jaguar, BMW, Volvo, or Saab of the personal computing world; it will instead take its place among the Cadillac (not a real luxury/performance brand), Buick, Pontiac, Chevy, and dare I say GMC or Ford Crown Victoria, or worse - a 1976 AMC Gremlin.  I liken this transition to outsourcing, it looks the same, performs almost as good, but costs less, doesn't require health care and retirement benefits and at the end our lives who's really going to know the difference?  With the current George W. Bush and goon path we are on, we're all going to be retiring at age 70 living on pennies.  Believe me when I say this, Bill Gates and his goons took note of this news and it is not a little blip on the radar screen.  In fact, I'm willing to bet that Bill Gates actually dreamed about this in his sleep, whether or not the dream was of good or bad nature is not the issue, the fact that this news probably influenced his subconscious at some level is to be expected.  In short, these are fightin' words.  Microsoft is in deep poop as far as direct competition with Apple/Linux; Longhorn development is getting long in the tooth and M$ knows this.  Every young teeny bopper lusts after Mac OS X the way older guys, i.e. Al Bundy's, lust after Playboy playmates.  These script-kiddies have even made Winders look like Mac OS X, with many hacks of course, but to actually run the operating system complete and unemulated on Borg hardware?  This is general population's dream come true.  Piracy will run rampant, Mac OS X will be 'unsupported' on Borg hardware and gain momentum, but it will run and it will dethrone Microsoft because Bill Gates and his goons are lazy lethargic cave trolls with IV lines pumping green compounds into the veins of their bodies, and too buzzed to actually think straight and produce a good solid product.  Linux is going to take a serious hit, to IBM's disgruntlement, which it is pushing and will likely fail, which it brought upon itself by not supporting Apple in its endeavors.  The switch to Intel sucks, I mean really sucks, this is a serious step backwards in technology; 64-bit chip to a 32-bit chip.  This does not make any sound or reasonable sense.  Steve and Co. no longer want to be different, he is hell bent on being No. 1, using cheap commodity hardware by the metric hind-load from China, which is not a bad thing to want; it's just the manner in which he's doing it that bothers me.  I liked living in my isolated cozy high-tech cutting edge Macintosh Universe.  I have successfully converted several Borg Drones to the Light Side of the Force.  Why did Steve and Big Blue have to mess it up?  

All I can say is, this is bad, really bad.  I still want my dividend payment Steve.  My CUNA brokerage account has direct access to my credit union checking account, just deposit the payment there.

My hope is that IBM will somehow pull through and perhaps, Apple will offer both IBM PowerPC processors and Satan Inside to whoever wants which platform; that way everyone wins.  I still think that PowerPC is the way of the future, not 25-year old x86 technology.  This is so bad, REALLY BAD.

This might not be so bad if Intel offered something other than out-dated x86 technology.  Going from modern design state-of-the-art 64-bit IBM PowerPC to ancient Intel design is a bad business choice.

Steve should have stayed with PowerPC.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 19, 2005)

I loved the Star Wars tie-ins, wierd thing is, it wouldn't have taken much for me to embrace the dark side, but there you go.. ;-) Red lightsabre, armies of stormtroopers, oooh.. you'd have to be a weak-a$$ pu$$y not to.

I agree it's bad, I don't think it will dethrone Billy Boy Gates, I think a direct move agains't MS would not be prove sucessful, to use a bit of Dune:
Reverend Mother "Many have tried"
Paul "They tried and failed?"
Reverend Mother "They tried and died"

I'm not upset by the processor change, I AM upset by the hardware shift closer to PCs, nice ones, but a pig is a pig, even with the pretty bow.


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 19, 2005)

I don't know why you think we're going backwards to 32 bit.  We still have 32 bit G4s in most of Apple's computers.

64 bit Intel chips are on the way and by 2007 there may even be 64 bit chips in the Powerbooks(or whatever they call them).


----------



## fryke (Jun 19, 2005)

It's really sad that the whining doesn't stop but has to take ever new forms like weird Star Wars metaphors. Although Chewbacca, the original whiner, maybe a fitting image...


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 19, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> It's really sad that the whining doesn't stop but has to take ever new forms like weird Star Wars metaphors. Although Chewbacca, the original whiner, maybe a fitting image...


Considering you're SUPPOSED to be a moderator, that comment is beneath you, you should be ashamed of yourself.  A forum is supposed to accomodate varying views even if *you* don't agree. If someone has something to say, let them if they want to whine, let them say their bit, it's not your place to come down heavy on people with divergent views, I've no time or respect for that. If you can't handle that, you should reconsider moderating.


----------



## fryke (Jun 19, 2005)

You're right. I'm sorry. I take it back.
What you have to understand though, is that I'm a user, too, not just a moderator. And the whining that just repeats itself in new forms _does_ get on my nerves. Imagine I'd just post to any such thread with messages like "I'm SO happy Apple did this! It was the ONLY right move to do..." and would find movie quotes to support that message etc. ...

But you're right. I shouldn't put oil into the fire by calling people whiners.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 19, 2005)

Fryke, I understand, but you have to understand some people do have strong feelings about this (I've not hidden my fears).  If people want to spout off about it, then let them, get it out of the system and once spent, let reason or just acceptance set in. It is PROOF that Mac users care passionately about their machines, that's a GOOD thing. End of subject ;-)


----------



## fryke (Jun 19, 2005)

They've expressed their feelings by now, haven't they? It's time for discussion, I think, and I'm glad that other threads have gone back to actually being discussions, not just the display of opposite feelings.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 19, 2005)

fryke, a debate _is_ a display of opposite opinons... but i see what you mean. this, though, is a place for people to vent their misgivings, and it's also a good place to see the general public opinion on a particular matter.  it was interesting, for example, that within 24 hours of tigers release, we already had a huge scope on what the new os was like. because people were vocal.  now that this has happened in this thread, we now know the general opninion of what people feel about this news.  it was the constant throwing of opinions that led us to the dignified agreement we are currently in.  if you remember, at the start homunqlus and fjdouse were saying they would never use a mac again. after the bickering, we now share a far more informed view on the matter.  long live the forum! forum meaning a place anyone can voice their opinion, naturally


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 19, 2005)

sorry.  i forgot to read the whole page, just the last post. damn IE flicked down and this lo res (800x600) shielded my view of the rest of the page. apologies to everyone


----------



## mindbend (Jun 19, 2005)

I continue to be entertained by those of us who pretend we can actually run a multi-billion dollar company better than the current staff. It's not exactly as if Apple have been floundering since Steve's return. I trust the chosen one.

I haven't seen this much ill-informed mis-hype since Y2K. Remember those people who, during Y2K, bought underground bunkers to survive. That's what some of you sound like! 

Everyone take a deep breath and count to ten


----------



## pjeski (Jun 19, 2005)

mindbend said:
			
		

> I continue to be entertained by those of us who pretend we can actually run a multi-billion dollar company better than the current staff. It's not exactly as if Apple have been floundering since Steve's return. I trust the chosen one.
> 
> I haven't seen this much ill-informed mis-hype since Y2K. Remember those people who, during Y2K, bought underground bunkers to survive. That's what some of you sound like!
> 
> Everyone take a deep breath and count to ten



No, I don't think it's like the Y2K thing at all. The anti-intel folks aren't predicting that intel chips won't work. It's more like the Time Warner/AOL "merger". The Pro-Time Warner types kept on with all the advantages of the deal. After all, AOL will have more content and alternative media! All those buzzwords must mean success! Most of them missed Ted Turner's statement about needing a cigarette after the deal. (After what he had done to AOL shareholders). Where is the value for AOL shareholders now? In the pockets of prior Time Warner shareholders. Hype did not help us. Apple cannot make the best computers with the same equipment everyone else has, no matter how much you would rather have that equipment.


----------



## fryke (Jun 20, 2005)

Let's not talk Y2K or AOL/Warner, let's talk Apple and intel, rather. Comparisons are often wrong and then people start talking about the other instead of the original thing...

pjeski said: "Apple cannot make the best computers with the same equipment everyone else has, no matter how much you would rather have that equipment."

Well: Yes, they can. If everyone uses the same chips, one of the makers ends up making the best computers. And if they chose PPC, all that's different is that you can't compare them well. So the _real_ fear should only be whether Mac OS X is actually any good, once you can compare Apple with apples. And I think it is.
But if the PowerPC is actually a worse chip in 2006/2007, then Apple _can't_ make the best computers. And that's what's been said. Steve didn't say that current PowerPC processors were worse than what intel has to offer.

And: Apple had Mac OS X running on intel boxes for the past years. I guess _they_ always knew on which platform Mac OS X performed better. And they have info from IBM as well as intel about what processors will be available in 2006/2007 - according to their roadmaps. And I really don't think Steve would've made such a big step if it wasn't necessary. The fact that Steve Wozniak said he knew this was coming for the _same reasons_ tells me that Jobs hasn't lost his mind but is doing the right thing.
Sure, other things have been important in the decision, too. That IBM hasn't delivered 3 GHz or a notebook G5 chip. Steve said that on stage, too. That Apple had to pay money for IBM to even develop the chips (AND then pay for the chips), whereas with intel, that's entirely different, since intel's going to develop the chips anyway.

I just think that if a "good PC" can run Windows and Linux and FreeBSD etc. but a "good Mac" can run all of those plus Mac OS X, I think there's going to be quite a lot of people who choose the Mac. I'm one of them.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 20, 2005)

I know where you're coming from pjeski, if everyone is using the same bits, you're relying on Apple assembling them in some manner which is better.  

We may get something which is better than the run-of-the-mill PC but because it will be (initially) the ONLY method of running OS X and it will HAVE to have custom boards in order to fit the designs they'll want. But really that's it, we're not going to get Dells or HP boxes with a Apple logos covering them.

I'm honest about it, I don't like the _implications_ of the move to Intel, I only have my opinion and it's not worth squat in the real world, it's happening, tough luck.  The only thing you can do is wait and see if the new machines are worth buying - FOR YOU, it's better than saying you're going to buy whatever Apple produces for better or worse.


----------



## Cat (Jun 20, 2005)

I completely agree with Fryke.

Apple staff made an informed decision on what processors to use, using information that is not publicly available. Many professionals and experts have already commented on the deal, and they seem mostly to agree that Apple's Switch to Intel is a Good Thing. Intel is going to produce increasingly good chips according to the roadmaps we have: 64bits, dual core, power efficiency, etc. Motorola is not going to produce anything worthwhile anymore, IBM in due time will not be going to produce anything worthwhile anymore. Apple didn't excatly have much of a choice ... the AMD-Intel debate is best elft for another thread. Steve Jobs was very explicit at the keynote: for now the G5 is an excellent choice, next year there is not going to be a much better G5. Perhaps we will in the end hit 3GHz, but forget about a PowerBook G5. So what is Apple going to do? Stagnate? Again? After all the flames for doing so 3 years ago? I don't think so ... Their major bottleneck was chip development and production so they switched to the biggest chip developer and producer: an excellent choice in my opinion. I fail to see how a Mac/intel is going to "be a PC". "PC" is both a generic term for home computers, privatly owned machines vs. corporate/scientific mainframes/clusters etc. Apple was the first one to make a real Personal Computer. On the other hand "PC" was the name of the fist IBM home computer and has then been extended by common usage to all the so-called "IBM compatibles". "Being a PC" can also be used to indicate a machine that can run windows. On all of these accounts, Apple's computers have been "PC's" for years and years. They were first real Personal Computer, have been using IBM chips and Microsoft made Apple's G5 PoweMacs XboX development machines with a Windows NT kernel. Nothing of all that has ever really bothered anyone, and why should it indeed! I've used and runs windows, linux and Mac Os on my machines, both PC's and Macs. I happen to like the Macs the most and I cannot see that change because of Apple using a better processor next year.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 20, 2005)

Cat said:
			
		

> I fail to see how a Mac/intel is going to "be a PC". "PC" is both a generic term for home computers, privatly owned machines vs. corporate/scientific mainframes/clusters etc. Apple was the first one to make a real Personal Computer. On the other hand "PC" was the name of the fist IBM home computer and has then been extended by common usage to all the so-called "IBM compatibles". "Being a PC" can also be used to indicate a machine that can run windows. On all of these accounts, Apple's computers have been "PC's" for years and years.



This has been discussed over and over, you don't have to be Einstein to understand the difference between the generic term for all personal computers and IBM PC compatibles. We're not going over it again, it's been discussed to death.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 20, 2005)

we've got a year of speculation. 

some of those present here may be in straight jackets by that time, driven to insanity by the question....


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 20, 2005)

If this PC thing keeps going on, I WILL go insane!


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 20, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> If this PC thing keeps going on, I WILL go insane!


To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit this page:
http://www.sysopt.com/forum/member2.php?action=usub&threadid=181886 

(I wonder if that link works for other users besides me.)


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 21, 2005)

?


----------



## fryke (Jun 21, 2005)

I guess that was just a little nudge that should say "If you don't want to read about it, don't come here".  ...


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 21, 2005)

WTF? Is probably more indicative of what I was thinking, if I really wanted advice from him, I would have asked.

;-)


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 21, 2005)

handbags


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 21, 2005)

Lol!!


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 21, 2005)

Sorry fjdouse, I totally meant it as a joke.  I should have been clearer about it.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 21, 2005)

Well I knew that! See? I'm laughing!

Anyway.. back to the the topic..

*UPDATE*
No hard feelings. ;-)  I WAS laughing... I think?!?!


----------



## chadwick (Jun 21, 2005)

My Intel developer kit is due to arrive tomorrow.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 21, 2005)

Are there limitations with what you can do with it? Apart from having to return it?


----------



## fryke (Jun 21, 2005)

Oooh, I hope you'll give us all the gory details. About what's inside, what runs how well etc. I'm really looking forward to hear about Rosetta's performance for specific apps (i.e. is Office 2004 usable, same for Adobe CS/CS2 etc., but also little utilities etc.).


----------



## chadwick (Jun 21, 2005)

Yeah, hopefully I'm not limited in speaking too much by the license agreement. I think screenshots are out, but we'll see when it actually gets here. I read it when I ordered it, but blah blah legal blah blah.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 21, 2005)

Take a look inside, see if the parts are truly generic, buy them, slap it together and clone the hard drive to see if it boots on the DIY system.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 21, 2005)

No point though, he has it until the end of next year by which time the Intel Macs will be out... also Apple (I think) have said that the dev kits are no indication whatsoever of what Intel Macs will be like. So why do it?


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 21, 2005)

for the geek factor.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 21, 2005)

Bah!

We want what Fryke describes as the "gory details"... and try the install disc on a standard PC!!

Pics, lots of pics too.


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 21, 2005)

There won't be any install disk I believe.  The OS will be loaded on the HD already.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 21, 2005)

WHAT? Wha.. WHAT? Thats... grrr. aaargh!!

That's sensible. What if it goes belly up though?


----------



## chadwick (Jun 21, 2005)

I expect that there will be reinstall media.

I also expect that it will only work with the exact Intel chipset and integrated video on board. They probably don't even have a generic "VGA" driver like Windows does. That'll keep it from working on too much beige-box PC hardware.

I also expect I'm completely wrong and I'll find out tomorrow or the next day.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 22, 2005)

I dont think the developers can divulge any details...arent there NDAs for getting these puppies ?


----------



## fryke (Jun 22, 2005)

Oh, I expect there to be NDAs. And I expect there to be a lot of info on rumour sites soon enough, too.


----------



## chadwick (Jun 22, 2005)

Woo. But first I must read this new legal information they just sent me...


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 22, 2005)

Dammit!! You're killing us!


----------



## Emerrill (Jun 22, 2005)

deleted


----------



## intelDev (Jun 22, 2005)

Yeah, I got mine today. Its interesting to poke around. Its def a custom made board (all the ports line up, mobo is just the right size, completely unlabled (except baracuda)). One thing Ive been trying to figure out is what the little micro switch mounted just next to the power button (you can prres it with a paper clip) does. 

Ive also mapped out what all the F keys do (bios, netboot, boot select)


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 23, 2005)

Can you install windows on it?  ::evil::


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 23, 2005)

Apparently you can....check out the thread about ThinkSecret's article on the Intel Mac dev kit.


----------



## MBHockey (Jun 23, 2005)

Yes, you can install windows.  Schiller said Apple would do nothing to prevent MacTel owners from installing windows at the wwdc.


----------



## Lycander (Jun 23, 2005)

intelDev said:
			
		

> One thing Ive been trying to figure out is what the little micro switch mounted just next to the power button (you can prres it with a paper clip) does.


LOL! Traditonally, all "IBM Compatible PC"'s have a reset button. Basically a way to reboot if the OS becomes unresponsive and rather than power down and start from a cold boot, you have a warm (I guess?) boot. Some PC makers have made the reset button more obscure to avoid accidentally hitting it and causing a reboot. It's a hardware switch so there's not "are you sure you want to reboot?"

Looking at my Dell right now (I'm at work) there's no reset button either.


----------



## chadwick (Jun 23, 2005)

microswitch next to the powerbutton? Where, on the front of the case, or somewhere else?


----------



## fryke (Jun 23, 2005)

on the board, probably.


----------



## chadwick (Jun 23, 2005)

In the other thread at http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226831&page=3 he talks about a microswitch on the front panel... I have no switch. The only thing next to the power button is the power/sleep LED, which does have the same size as one of those paperclip reset buttons, but it's not a button!


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 23, 2005)

There COULD be differences then?  Perhaps they just cobbled them together (not in the pejorative sense) to get them out, I mean, they're only dev kits for 18 months use after which they'll be destroyed or stripped.


----------



## intelDev (Jun 23, 2005)

Lycander said:
			
		

> LOL! Traditonally, all "IBM Compatible PC"'s have a reset button. Basically a way to reboot if the OS becomes unresponsive and rather than power down and start from a cold boot, you have a warm (I guess?) boot. Some PC makers have made the reset button more obscure to avoid accidentally hitting it and causing a reboot. It's a hardware switch so there's not "are you sure you want to reboot?"
> 
> Looking at my Dell right now (I'm at work) there's no reset button either.




Nope, its not that, there is no noticeable effect when I press it. It is wired in, and it goes into the front panel control board.


----------



## intelDev (Jun 23, 2005)

chadwick said:
			
		

> In the other thread at http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226831&page=3 he talks about a microswitch on the front panel... I have no switch. The only thing next to the power button is the power/sleep LED, which does have the same size as one of those paperclip reset buttons, but it's not a button!




The button is a full size micro-switch. It is mounted to the left (or right if you are looking from the inside) of the power-button (towards the back of the case). Ill try to get a pic of it.


----------



## chadwick (Jun 23, 2005)

yep, there it is. I didn't see it different from the mounting bracket but sure enough.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 23, 2005)

OK, that killed my 'cobbled' theory


----------



## chadwick (Jun 23, 2005)

just an observation skill test  I wasn't looking past the panel.

I fully expect, and really hope, that the final Intel Macs will have the same care to the internals as the current PowerMacs. Even this one is done reasonably well, but the wire routing could still be so much better.


----------



## Lycander (Jun 23, 2005)

"Tell you what I do like though. A killer. A dyed in the wool killer! Cold-blooded, clean, methodical and thorough. Now a real killer, when he picked up the ZF1, would have immediately asked about the *little red button* on the bottom of the gun."

- Zorg, Fifth Element


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 23, 2005)

More than likely, Apple will produce their own motherboards, just like they have done with the PowerPC motherboards.  Even if they used off-the-shelf motherboards, they are not significantly different than the motherboards Apple has been using for the past 10 years.

It's not the motherboard that determines the "cleanliness" of the internals -- it's the person putting the computer together that determines the "cleanliness" of the internals.  Obviously, home-brew PCs with wires and cords strewn about could be significantly cleaned up if the owner gave two craps about how it looked inside.  Apple takes the time to do this.  PC tinkerers and other manufacturers obviously don't.

I have no doubt in my mind that the internals of the new Intel-based Macintosh computers will be just as meticulously laid out and beautiful as the current crop of PowerPC-based computers.

This is Apple.  Rest assured that we will not see wires, cables and chips just strewn about inside the machine.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 23, 2005)

@Lycander: Reminds me of a Ren & Stimpy called Space Madness, at the end there is this red button, a BIG, SHINY button, pressing it would erase everything.. but the temptation.. the sweet temptation to press it!!... 

@chadwick: I'm expecting the final Intel Macs to be nothing like this dev kit, but I suppose that's a no-brainer   We'll now see the inevitable LEAPS to unfounded conclusions about what the Intel Macs will be like, based purely on a box intended to compile and test apps!   I'm a bit jealous though..


----------



## intelDev (Jun 23, 2005)

Lycander said:
			
		

> "Tell you what I do like though. A killer. A dyed in the wool killer! Cold-blooded, clean, methodical and thorough. Now a real killer, when he picked up the ZF1, would have immediately asked about the *little red button* on the bottom of the gun."
> 
> - Zorg, Fifth Element



Great movie.

Also, here is a pic of the switch, just to reference for others.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 23, 2005)

I think the button sends a message to Apple "ALERT! This user is too inquisitive!" LOL! Or if you're a Simpsons fan, it's an Independant Thought Alarm.


----------



## Lycander (Jun 23, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> It's not the motherboard that determines the "cleanliness" of the internals -- it's the person putting the computer together that determines the "cleanliness" of the internals.


You mean in the presence of a Rabi?


----------



## chadwick (Jun 23, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> It's not the motherboard that determines the "cleanliness" of the internals -- it's the person putting the computer together that determines the "cleanliness" of the internals.  Obviously, home-brew PCs with wires and cords strewn about could be significantly cleaned up if the owner gave two craps about how it looked inside.  Apple takes the time to do this.  PC tinkerers and other manufacturers obviously don't.



I'm going to disagree with you slightly on this. The location, orientation, and pinout of connectors on the motherboard dramatically affects the kind of layouts you can have. If you have a standard vertical orientation P4 power supply connector, there is only so many ways you can route that huge cable. But a motherboard designed with a specific case in mind could have that connector horizontal and just in the right place.

There is a lot more to it than how careful someone is routing wires.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 23, 2005)

True, but Apple has control over the entire process -- ever notice how all of their motherboards, from the G2s to the G5s, have different layouts?  They can build 'em to spec, and have been doing so for a long time.

As for PC motherboards, just about everyone uses the same 2 or 3 form factors -- compatibility is key here, not a nice-looking case.

Just because Apple uses Intel chips does not mean they'll use standard ATX form-factor motherboards.

While I agree that the internal configuration depends on things other than how meticulous the assembler is, there's a lot you can do if you spent some time.  There's no excuse for the Windows computers with wires hanging everywhere, ribbon cables running this way and that and general lack of attention to internal layout.  I believe that if Mac users could build their own generic Mac system, the majority of their internals would look similar to the average home-brew PC: messy, cluttered, not thought out.  There are only so many ways you can route a hard drive cable, but there will always be a clean, nice-looking way and a sloppy, lazy way.


----------



## Lycander (Jun 23, 2005)

Heh, if ribbon and power cables bother you, you're gonna balk when you see water cooling tubes.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 23, 2005)

...which can still be routed in an aesthetically pleasing fashion...


----------



## pjeski (Jul 1, 2005)

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1833198,00.asp


----------



## nixgeek (Jul 1, 2005)

pjeski said:
			
		

> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1833198,00.asp




I noticed that you linked Page 2.. 

I read about this earlier this week.  What gets me about IBM is this: If they say they can, why didn't they then???  Why give lip service about being able to deliver when you haven't been able to do so for 3 YEARS now??

I know I'm just reiterating what everyone is saying after reading this article, but I can't help it.

As much as I like the PPC chips, IBM is really starting to get on my nerves.  It seems as though they never get tired of shooting themselves in the foot.  Good luck to them I guess, but it's too little too late...


----------



## pjeski (Jul 2, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> I noticed that you linked Page 2..
> 
> (snip)



Thanks.
That's what I get for rushing around carelessly.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1833126,00.asp


----------

