# New intel Macs



## Randy Singer (Jan 9, 2006)

I'm starting to be asked about the new Intel-based Macs which may or may not be introduced this week at Macworld Expo.  My feeling is that I don't think that I would want to be one of the first purchasers of one.

Here's why.

First, going by Apple's move from OS 9 to OS X, and, of even more relevance, Apple's move from the 68K Motorola processor to the PowerPC processor, you may recall that in each instance the first machines with the new technology were often slower than the machines that they had replaced, despite the presence of faster processors.  It wasn't until the second or third revision of the new technology that everything was optimized for speed, and real gains became evident.  Those of us who installed OS X 10.0, and even OS X 10.1, can tell you how crude those versions of OS X were compared to the versions that followed.

Second, just about all of your old software will be running in emulation on a new Intel-based Macintosh, with an attendant decrease in performance.  It will take time for developers to port their software to be Intel-native, just as it took time for developers to port their software to OS X.  In my mind, there is no reason t0 rush into a situation where all of your software will need to be replaced.

Since there is a large installed base of PowerPC-based Macs, it will be a while before developers stop making PowerPC versions of their software available.  I don't expect to see many Intel-only programs on the market for a year or so.

See:
http://www.netneurotic.de/mac/intel/

Third, the status of Classic is up in the air.  It is too soon to tell, but at first it seems unlikely that it will be possible to run Classic applications on Intel-based Macs.  It is rumored though, that this might change fairly quickly, thanks to third-parties.  In any case, long-time Mac users with a huge investment in classic Mac software aren't likely to be happy with a new Mac that doesn't run that software.

Fourth, there are rumors that, in time, it will be possible to run Windows software natively (that is, with the same performance as it would have running on a Windows PC) on Intel-based Macintoshes.  It may even be possible to run both Mac software and Windows software simultaneously, without having to reboot.  However, this capability may also not be available right away.  It would seem to make sense to sit back, and wait for the new MacTel machines to mature and evolve for a while before getting one.  For one thing, it may be that instead of purchasing all-new Mac software that you may, instead, want to make some of that new software Windows software.

It might be best to hold off on purchasing a new Macintosh (unless you need one immediately for some reason)  until the summer or fall of 2007.


----------



## iball (Jan 9, 2006)

Interesting point, but Microsoft will do anything in it's power to stop "made-for-Windows" programs from running natively on Mac OS X without the need for emulation.  It's just so "Ballmer" of them.
But then again, Mac OS X will never be seen as any sort of "threat" to Microsoft's market share unless Apple pretty much starts selling boxed versions of OS X that run on ANY PC-type of hardware.  Of course, to do that would mean pretty much cloning Windows current "bloat" in order to natively support so many different combinations of PC hardware with device drivers and the like.  And El Presidente Jobs isn't going near something like with a ten foot pole.


----------



## MisterMe (Jan 9, 2006)

I disagree with your premise. The first PPC Macs are not slower than the 68k Macs that they replaced. PPC Macs were only slower when running 68k apps. When running PPC-native apps, they were significantly faster.


----------



## Veljo (Jan 9, 2006)

I agree with some of your points and disagree with others.

I do think that it will take a while for developers to port their apps, and I'm also of the belief that it'd be smartest to wait a year or so and let the technology mature. Like the G5 on its initial release, there's bound to be tiny bugs that need to be scraped out.


----------



## Randy Singer (Jan 9, 2006)

iball said:
			
		

> Interesting point, but Microsoft will do anything in it's power to stop "made-for-Windows" programs from running natively on Mac OS X without the need for emulation.


I doubt that.  First, assuming that it will require a copy of Windows to run Windows applications on MacTel machines, then Microsoft should be thrilled by the prospect.  That is, after all, what they are in business for, to sell copies of Windows.

If someone comes up with a way to run Windows applications on MacTel machines without the need for Windows, using something like WINE, how is Microsoft going to prevent this?  They wouldn't have any say-so in the matter, nor would any of their code be involved.


----------



## Randy Singer (Jan 9, 2006)

MisterMe said:
			
		

> I disagree with your premise. The first PPC Macs are not slower than the 68k Macs that they replaced. PPC Macs were only slower when running 68k apps. When running PPC-native apps, they were significantly faster.


I still own a 6100.  Even running native applications it is no faster than a Mac in the equivalent price range from the previous generation with a Motorola 68K processor running 68K apps.  Indeed, in many cases it is slower.

You might see faster performance from an 8100 (the high-end of the first generation of PowerPC machines), but then you aren't talking about roughly equivalent machines.

The first PowerPC 601 processors were not speed demons.  The PowerPC wasn't really optimized for the Mac OS until the G3.


----------



## mindbend (Jan 9, 2006)

Points one and two are exactly why most everyone is predicting the Mini and iBooks to be first on the slate. One of the reasons being that the audience for those machines are not going to be hypercritcal about speed issues. Those audiences are essentically "I want a cheap Mac" and "I want a cheap portable Mac". They are not "I want every CPU cycle churning on this Gaussian blur".

This will buy time as developers rework software for Intel. Presumably all of Apple's apps are Intel-ready, so the iLife suite should run quite nice on these new machines.

Point threeClassic. Screw em. Really, who cares about people that refuse to join us in the 21st century?  Anyone who needs a Classic app so bad can run it on an old Mac. It worked for them then, it'll work for them now. Otherwise, evolve please. Look, I'd love to play "Lemmings" natively, but it ain't going to happen. I sure as heck don't want Apple wasting one second of resources on Classic for such nonsense.

Point four. As is always the case, if you like it and need it now, go a head and get it (whatever "it" is.) If the new Minis fit a person's needs, there's no reason not to go for it on Wednesday. Fryke mentioned wanting a sub notebook. Given that on-the-run writing seems to be important to him, I'd imagine he'd be perfectly happy with an Mac-Intel subnotebook even if it wasn't a speed demon. I know I would.

I am personally waiting for an Intel iMac for home. I don't mind a slight performance hit up front knowing that I'll get it back in a year or so. I'll mostly be doing iLife type stuff at home, so there shouldn't be any such hit. For work, I'll be waiting til 2007 for the big machines, whatever they may be.

My only concern with the Mac-Intel thing is that the G5s are really just now coming into their own. I don't have a Quad, but I gather they are performing right up there with the Opertons in 3D rendering. That's pretty impressive. We'll never know what the G5 at 3.7 GHZ might have been, but whatever the big box is in 2007, better knock my socks off. I can do some simple math to prorate the G5, so the big Mac-Intel better be at LEAST that good come 2007.


----------



## Randy Singer (Jan 9, 2006)

mindbend said:
			
		

> Points one and two are exactly why most everyone is predicting the Mini and iBooks to be first on the slate. One of the reasons being that the audience for those machines are not going to be hypercritcal about speed issues. Those audiences are essentically "I want a cheap Mac" and "I want a cheap portable Mac". They are not "I want every CPU cycle churning on this Gaussian blur".


That may be so.  I still think that users like speed, even from the low-end, but they are probably willing to give up some speed to have the latest toy.

Another factor might be that the folks entering on the low-end are switchers.  Switchers are especially important to Apple, and switchers might especially like having a Mac based on the familiar technology of Intel.

I have a pet theory about why Apple *really* made the move to Intel.  I think that after Apple miserably failed with its "switch" campaign last year, that Jobs and Co. sat around with their hands on their foreheads and said: "what in hell do we have to do to gain some market share?"  I think that the answer was obvious, after they assessed what users really wanted.  I think that users want to be able to run Windows applications (especially things like games) at full native speed.  I think that at that point, once it was determined that a MacTel machine could be made to run Windows applications, the decision was made to move to Intel.  Every other reason that Apple has given for why they are making the switch is either subterfuge (and according to some sources, some of the offered reasons are just plain lies), or just a minor reason.  The big reason is market share.

We will know if I am right if Apple introduces compatibility with Windows applications at some point in the near future. 



			
				mindbend said:
			
		

> Point threeClassic. Screw em. Really, who cares about people that refuse to join us in the 21st century?  Anyone who needs a Classic app so bad can run it on an old Mac. It worked for them then, it'll work for them now. Otherwise, evolve please.


I think that view is a  little shortsighted.  First, not all software has made it from classic to OS X.  I still can't replicate my entire workflow to produce my newsletter as efficiently in OS X as I can in OS 9, for instance.

Also there is the matter of money.  A user who has thousands of dollars, maybe tens of thousands of dollars, invested in 20 years of software isn't likely to be happy about having to dump all of it.  Apple needs to hold on to their legacy user base, which is their devoted cash cow.  Faced with the prospect of replacing thousands of dollars worth of software wholesale, some of which isn't readily available for OS X (and which now has to be located in a form optimized for Intel), some users may look at the alternative of going to Windows.

Apple never talks about it, but the migration of Mac users to Windows due to the move to OS X hurt Apple a lot.  I know of some large businesses that had been staunch Mac users that jumped to Windows over this.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Jan 9, 2006)

mindbend said:
			
		

> Point threeClassic. Screw em. Really, who cares about people that refuse to join us in the 21st century?  Anyone who needs a Classic app so bad can run it on an old Mac. It worked for them then, it'll work for them now. Otherwise, evolve please. Look, I'd love to play "Lemmings" natively, but it ain't going to happen. I sure as heck don't want Apple wasting one second of resources on Classic for such nonsense.



It's true, most people don't use Classic anymore, doesnt Steve always state at the very begining of most of his keynotes, who uses Classic still?  Everyone is now using some form of OS X in there comps.

I know i'm going to take a speed hit if i get a Mactel Mini the day it comes out.  or the Mactel iMac, we are a lot more computer savvy then we were in 1994


----------



## mindbend (Jan 9, 2006)

Randy Singer said:
			
		

> Another factor might be that the folks entering on the low-end are switchers.  Switchers are especially important to Apple, and switchers might especially like having a Mac based on the familiar technology of Intel.



That makes a lot of sense. I agree with that.



			
				Randy Singer said:
			
		

> I have a pet theory about why Apple *really* made the move to Intel. I think that after Apple miserably failed with its "switch" campaign last year, that Jobs and Co. sat around with their hands on their foreheads and said: "what in hell do we have to do to gain some market share?" I think that the answer was obvious, after they assessed what users really wanted. I think that users want to be able to run Windows applications (especially things like games) at full native speed. I think that at that point, once it was determined that a MacTel machine could be made to run Windows applications, the decision was made to move to Intel. Every other reason that Apple has given for why they are making the switch is either subterfuge (and according to some sources, some of the offered reasons are just plain lies), or just a minor reason. The big reason is market share.



The only problem with this premise is that Apple has been planning for Intel for at least five years. I think it's clear that Apple wanted to make sure they could take advantage of whatever the best technology was (be it pure performance, price per chip, heat, power consumption, or all combinations). PPC apparently wasn't cutting it, so the big Intel switch is here.



			
				Randy Singer said:
			
		

> I think that view is a little shortsighted. First, not all software has made it from classic to OS X. I still can't replicate my entire workflow to produce my newsletter as efficiently in OS X as I can in OS 9, for instance.



I bet if you REALLY wanted to, you could do it.  I did. It was rough for a while during the transition. I adopted OS X from day one. It literally took years to rid of OS 9/Classic. But I simply made the commitment that I was not going to run OS 9 one day longer than I absolutely had to. It was worth it.



			
				Randy Singer said:
			
		

> Also there is the matter of money. A user who has thousands of dollars, maybe tens of thousands of dollars, invested in 20 years of software isn't likely to be happy about having to dump all of it. Apple needs to hold on to their legacy user base, which is their devoted cash cow. Faced with the prospect of replacing thousands of dollars worth of software wholesale, some of which isn't readily available for OS X (and which now has to be located in a form optimized for Intel), some users may look at the alternative of going to Windows.



It certainly is expensive (or at least has some expense involved), but that would apply if a user switched to Windows as well, so there's really no financial incentive to do so (switch to Windows). Personally, I think professionals who typically upgrade are really no worse off when migrating to OS X, so they should just do it. And if they need the old software, just use the old OS and hardware as well. They're no worse off then they were when they bought it originally. And as far as the new hardware and OS 9/Classic. I have two words: Too Bad.

As you can tell, I really have no patience for OS 9. 
(I'm just giving you a hard time)


----------



## MBHockey (Jan 9, 2006)

It's pretty clear from benchmarks that if Apple does in fact release an iBook powered by dual-core Yonah's, they will significantly outperform the current PowerBooks.

I still would not want to be an early adopter of the intel Macs though, because of the bugs that are most likely to come with the very first intel Macs.

I am very interested to see the new designs though, and look forward to trying them out in the Apple store.


----------



## fryke (Jan 9, 2006)

Ah, for the love of FUD... 

If Apple introduces an intel Mac tomorrow (be it an iBook, PowerBook or Mac mini, whatever), you'll be able to test it in a store before you buy it. You can also wait for some reports to see about the performance issues.

For those Classic users: _Do_ find alternatives. If you can't, just keep a machine around that can boot into OS 9, it's the best solution for the future, probably.

About being an early adopter: intel won't adapt their processors to OS X, Apple will adapt their OS to intel processors. Therefore, if you buy an early intel Mac (please STOP calling it a "Mactel", it's sooooooooo fugly...), performance will get better with time and OS X iterations.

I'm actually more and more into the idea of an early intel iBook myself. I _want_ another typewriter, and the iBooks are the closest thing to inexpensive and good small notebooks there is. And I'm pretty sure Pages as well as TextEdit will be Universal Binaries by the time an intel iBook ships. Even in Rosetta, those apps would keep up with my writing, I hope.


----------



## Stridder44 (Jan 9, 2006)




----------



## kilowatt (Jan 9, 2006)

I tell ya what I want - the last G5.

--Elliott


----------



## Phluxy (Jan 12, 2006)

Yea I am sticking with my ibook for classic, reliability, compatability and speed with current apps. But the os is faster on intel i guess.


----------



## sirstaunch (Jan 13, 2006)

Be interesting, will this thread be here still in 10 years time?


----------



## fryke (Jan 13, 2006)

why? It's probably going to be around, but dead...


----------



## Veljo (Jan 13, 2006)

What is this topic about anyway?

Someone rename this goddamn topic, I'm sick of seeing 'MacTel'. They're called Macs.


----------



## iball (Jan 13, 2006)

Veljo said:
			
		

> What is this topic about anyway?
> 
> Someone rename this goddamn topic, I'm sick of seeing 'MacTel'. They're called Macs.


Could be worse...they could be calling them "TelMacs" instead.


----------



## fryke (Jan 13, 2006)

Changed the thread's title. Since we once had a poll about this...  ... I think "TelMacs" and "MacTel" are about as bad as can get. Both of them.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jan 13, 2006)

Well, no one has mentioned "Inpple" yet - sounds like something that grows on the surface of your skin where the sun doesn't shine.

_GOSH!  I've been sitting on this Inpple for a week now and it hasn't gone away!  Do you think I should see a doctor?_


----------



## fryke (Jan 13, 2006)

erh... we're not in the cafe here.


----------



## Randy Singer (Jan 15, 2006)

MBHockey said:
			
		

> It's pretty clear from benchmarks that if Apple does in fact release an iBook powered by dual-core Yonah's, they will significantly outperform the current PowerBooks.


 Despite Apple's claim that the Intel-based iMac is two or three times faster than the G5-based Mac that preceeded it, the MacBench tests are in, and the Intel-based iMac is quite a bit slower than the G5-based iMac.

http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=150870
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=150801
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=150688 

You can compare them to other Macs here:

http://db.xbench.com/


----------



## mindbend (Jan 15, 2006)

I'm so tired of these tests. They are utterly meaningless. Apple's numbers are junk and these numbers are junk. I want to see info like at www.barefeats.com.

A "Floating Point" score of 67 doesn't mean anything to anyone. What matters is how long my iMovies take to render, my MP3s to rip, my Photoshop filters to run, my frame rate in Halo, my iPhoto database to process, my scrolling in PDFs and my searches via Spotlight (and so on).

I don't there will be any question that the new iMacs will be faster at most everything I mentioned above (assuming native apps). But I could be wrong. It'll be interesting to see. 

According to Luxology, Apple actually UNDER-estimated the speed increase for their particular app:

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=4782

I'm not saying everything is gonig to be a bed of roses on the new iMacs, but to suggest that the new iMacs are slower is simply not going to prove itself correct.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 15, 2006)

what _are_ apple going to do with the 'mac pro'?  i mean, the Yonah is essentially a mobile processor, and very good it is too.  does intel have a comparable desktop processor that doesn't need the the speed/heat/power compromise?

i mean, the yonah held up pretty well against desktop athlon64's buyt they still beat it.  i get the feeling that the intel macs currently selling are the fastest they can do, and as such doesn't really bode well for the powermacs replacements.

another thought i had is that the iMac is not what it should be.  they boast that it's less than 2 inches thick, but it could be a _lot_ smaller now, i mean, that was the smallest case they could possibly put a G5 into, with cooling.  now the imac is little more than a desktop macbook pro, so why isn't it sized accordingly? why isn't it an inch thick, with bugger-all bezelling?  i want the imac to be a cinema display in size, is that too much to ask?

it also raises the question of the powermac.  this was a case designed from start to finish to offer amazing cooling for a chip that needed it more than anything else.  the G5 was a monster of a hot chip, where the intels aren't.  the heat sinks no longer need to be that big, nor do there need to be so many fans.  the perforations need not be there any more.  basically, what i'm saying is that current design is precisely form following function, for a function that is no longer needed.  i was dissapointed by the lack of a form factor change for the imac.  i will be very dissapointed also if the powermacs suffer the same fate.  this is an opportunity to make the gargantuan Powermac smaller, and perhaps prettier.


----------



## fryke (Jan 15, 2006)

Not right now. Merom will be that. Summer/Autumn 2006.


----------



## mindbend (Jan 15, 2006)

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/01/12/coreduo/index.php

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/08/24/yonah/index.php


----------



## kainjow (Jan 15, 2006)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> it also raises the question of the powermac.  this was a case designed from start to finish to offer amazing cooling for a chip that needed it more than anything else.  the G5 was a monster of a hot chip, where the intels aren't.  the heat sinks no longer need to be that big, nor do there need to be so many fans.  the perforations need not be there any more.  basically, what i'm saying is that current design is precisely form following function, for a function that is no longer needed.  i was dissapointed by the lack of a form factor change for the imac.  i will be very dissapointed also if the powermacs suffer the same fate.  this is an opportunity to make the gargantuan Powermac smaller, and perhaps prettier.


I don't think the PM needs to be "prettier" - it's a professional's machine, not for the typical home user. It's not meant to sit on your desk and be stared at all day long.

I wouldn't be disappointed if they kept the same design, but you have a good point in that the current design was heavily created for keeping the temperature cool. The "cheese grater" look keeps good air circulation, and all those fans - !!!

I will be very much looking forward to the "ProMac" with 2 dual core processers. However, isn't "Merom" a mobile chip? Apple's going to want a full desktop chip in their PM replacements, so won't they probably be using the Conroe chip? I also hope that Apple ships more than 512MB in their Intel PMs. If you're going to be buying such a powerful computer, 512MB doesn't cut it at all.


----------



## fryke (Jan 15, 2006)

Meant Conroe, sorry.


----------



## irfaan (Jan 15, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> Meant Conroe, sorry.




Conroe?  Is that a new system?

Pardon the ignorance please


----------



## fryke (Jan 15, 2006)

These are code names of intel processors. "Yonah" is the core duo currently used in intel iMacs and the MacBook Pro. "Merom" is the processor that will replace Yonah later in 2006. "Conroe" is a desktop processor based on the same development (all these processors are based on the Pentium M, intel's earlier mobile processor).

Merom and Conroe should bring 64bit extensions.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jan 15, 2006)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> ...  i will be very dissapointed also if the powermacs suffer the same fate.  this is an opportunity to make the gargantuan Powermac smaller, and perhaps prettier.


I think by the time the towers are ready there probably will be a design change, but even if it remained the same I hope any space savings will mean more internal drive bays and perhaps SLI.


----------



## mauve (Jan 15, 2006)

I am still thinking to buy iMac G5, especially now that many people who bought them recently are selling them cheep to buy the new intel model. 
Do you think that for the next 2-3 years the new software is gonna be "digestible"
 by the "old" G5's?


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 16, 2006)

the G5 will be supported for it's lifetime.  for the next 4-5 years at least. all software from no on will be universal, so that won't be an issue.

however, there is a reason people are selling their G5's, it's because the intels are that much faster.


----------



## PowerPC (Jan 16, 2006)

Anyone knows when the Intel-based desktops will be available?

I don't know if I should buy now a Dual Core PowerMac G5 or wait for a Dual Core Intel based Mac?

Any opinions?


----------



## fryke (Jan 16, 2006)

intel will only make Conroe (the processor likely to be used by the intel pro Macs) available in the middle of 2006, so I guess we won't see intel based PowerMacs before Summer.


----------



## Shookster (Jan 17, 2006)

I heard someone say today that it's called "Core Duo" which makes you think it has two cores but in actuality it only has one. He said it was a marketing scam. I thought he was getting mixed up between two processors and a single processor with two cores, but he said no. Btw, he was talking about the MacBook.

He's mistaken, correct?


----------



## kainjow (Jan 17, 2006)

Shookster said:
			
		

> I heard someone say today that it's called "Core Duo" which makes you think it has two cores but in actuality it only has one. He said it was a marketing scam. I thought he was getting mixed up between two processors and a single processor with two cores, but he said no. Btw, he was talking about the MacBook.
> 
> He's mistaken, correct?


Yes he's getting confused. Core Duo = dual cores = 2 processors on 1 chip = MacBook Pro and new iMac


----------



## fryke (Jan 17, 2006)

That's what I meant would probably happen, in fact: http://haligon.blogspot.com/2006/01/apples-terminology-problems.html


----------

