Slashdot Mirror

Wrong. All Macs have FireWire. There are none that don't have FireWire, and there have been none that haven't had it since Macs started shipping with FireWire. Even FireWire 800 has been added *back* to some products that didn't have it at first (e.g., original MacBook Pro). But all still had at least FireWire 400, which has been the "standard" FireWire interface for years. There is no indication that any new Macs won't continue to have FireWire, considering so much depends on FireWire (see URL below).

For more info, see:

http://appleintelfaq.com/#17.3

The only Apple product to drop FireWire is the iPod, and that's because an iPod doesn't need FireWire for anything, and would only add cost, power consumption, chipsets, etc., that aren't necessary for an increasingly smaller product. (But even iPods without FireWire can even still be charged via FireWire.) (And yes, just because someone who has to be contrarian will respond, the internal iSight also doesn't use FireWire, but that's totally irrelevant, since the transport for an internal camera housed in a computer is utterly meaningless to the user. And no, AppleTV doesn't have FireWire, but it's also not a "Mac", regardless of what OS it can run.)

"It is a interoperability hell from a competition perspective and a interoperability paradise from a plattform perspective. Happiness in proprietary slavery?"

"Hypocrite much? Microsoft pushes Trusted Computing on you, is threatening to lock users out of hardware space altogether, and you're going to talk to us about Open Standards and Proprietary Slavery?"

You sir are the hypocrite. Apple's Intel Macs already contain a Trusted Platform Module chip, currently used by Apple to make sure that OSX doesn't run on a non-Apple Intel system.

Actually there's an extremely interesting quote from the Apple/Intel FAQ [http://www.appleintelfaq.com/ After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that." - 06/06/2005 [http://news.com.com/2100-7341_3-5733756-2.html%5D

Intel makes the chips. They have said quite clearly that the chips do support VT. People have displayed dmesg's showing that the CPUs do in fact report that they support it. Its just that some companies are shipping shitty boards with the functionality turned off, that doesn't mean that the CPUs don't support it.

http://appleintelfaq.com/images/intel_vt_response. pdf

Wow, a "professor" observed these things, Dvorak? Of psychology, no less? He must be right!

Ok, let's see what you've got...

Epstein made four observations. The first was that the Apple Switch ad campaign was over, and nobody switched.

Um. Wow, okay.

First of all, the Switch campaign was just an ad campaign. Ad campaigns come and go. Even successful ones. (Think "Be all you can be" or "Dude, yer gettin' a Dell!" And yes, those were both very successful campaigns.)

Also, Apple marketshare, unit sales, profits, and revenues are at their highest ever, and growing at a faster rate than, for example, Dell.

So, point 1, wrong.

The second was that the iPod lost its FireWire connector because the PC world was the new target audience.

First of all, this is completely irrelevant to any discussion about whether or not Apple might switch operating systems, which is what I thought we were talking about. FireWire, or the lack of it, has zero to do with Windows. Additionally, since all DV and HDV cameras and decks have FireWire and require its use as the primary - and usually only - means of video transport, FireWire isn't going anywhere on Macs in general anytime soon. Further, since all Macs since the Power Mac G4 (AGP Graphics) support USB booting, and since all new Macs and PCs are universally guaranteed to have USB 2.0, going with USB on the iPod and eliminating additional support chipsets for things like FireWire - especially on a peripheral - seems prudent.

But I'm getting sidetracked by Dvorak, here, because the iPod not having FireWire is completely, utterly unrelated to any discussion about whether or not Apple might be switching to Windows.

Point 2, wrong. Actually, not even wrong...just utterly irrelevant.

Also, although the iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, this didn't happen.

Um, no. The iPod was designed to be a product that, you know, sold well. Which it, you know, did. Wildly so.

This whole "iPod was deisgned to sell Macs" business was a fantasy created by press and analysts who attribute that guess to Apple as if it were their sole intent. So we'll just ignore that the iPod is one of the most successful consumer products ever, and at the same time say it failed at some imaginary goal and purpose that there is no solid proof Apple ever created it for.

And on top of it all, most of the anecdotal evidence suggests that the "halo effect", as it were, actually works in some areas, at least marginally. To say nothing of the fact that, as I said before, Apple marketshare, unit sales, profits, and revenues are at their highest ever.

Point 3, wrong in both premise and substance.

And, of course, that Apple had switched to the Intel microprocessor.

Ahh, Dvorak must be feeling emboldened by his decade-plus of wrong predictions that Apple was on the verge of switching to Intel finally coming true.

There are many, many reasons Apple switched to Intel, all discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. "Switching to Windows" isn't one of them. Has Dvorak missed the amount of time, secrecy, and effort Apple has put into keeping it's options open for Mac OS X to run on alternate hardware platforms? Christ, Dvorak.

To say nothing of the fact that if Apple's secret purpose was to start a switch to Windows, you'd think they'd have at least made it possible to, oh, I don't know, RUN WINDOWS on the Intel-based Macs easily, which isn't possible at this time?

Point 4, wrong again. Well, at least Dvorak's consistent, if anything.

Dvorak is also actually missing the biggest play for Apple here: being able to run Windows and other x86 OSes in virtualization . That would be the holy grail for many academics, researchers, scientists, and other users, most of whom use Macs because they don't want to use Windows. With hardware partitio

And FireWire is going to be around for quite some time.

As long as all DV and HDV cameras and decks use FireWire for DV transport, FireWire isn't going anywhere on Macs, including "consumer" Macs, since half of iLife (iMovie, iDVD), and the continuing major selling point for the SuperDrive, rest on the ability to get DV into the machine.

And no, USB isn't a substitute on DV cameras. USB is only included to transfer things from the internal memory card, usually still images and crappy digital-still-camera-like video. To transfer DV, you must use FireWire. (Now, could the industry eventually agree upon a collective standard mechanism for DV video transfer via USB? Will something eventually replace FireWire? Sure. But that's not going to happen for a long time.)

And indeed, ExpressCard/34 FireWire 800 cards are on the way, for people who really need FireWire 800:

MacBook Pro #4: FireWire 800 cards for ExpressCard/34 slot on the way

We previously reported that Apple has opted to omit the FireWire 800 port from its new MacBook Pro line. We also noted that various firms already offer ExpressCard FireWire 800 adapters, but there's a catch -- so far the cards are only available in the 54 mm ExpressCard standard, not the 34 mm standard Apple uses.

We've now received anonymous word from a major peripheral manufacturer indicating that FireWire 800 cards for the ExpressCard/34 slot are on the way.

The firm told MacFixIt:

"We do not have an estimated release date, but we are currently working on a couple of ExpressCard solutions (1394b being one of them). We, like other companies have an ExpressCard/54 cards and all we need to do is down-size them into the ExpressCard/34 form factor

"We expect to begin testing our cards within the next 2-3 weeks, and if all goes well, we could see production not long afterwards."

Target disk mode is supported in the Intel Macs, see http://appleintelfaq.com/#17.2

That's really not the point I was trying to make.

The point was that it is "legal" and allowed by the Windows license agreement - and a Microsoft representative even commented for a ZDnet article about this very issue - to purchase a full copy of Windows (XP, Vista when it ships, whatever) and install it natively on an Intel-based Mac (assuming technical hurdles are overcome).

It is not "legal", or at the very least not allowed by the Mac OS X license agreement, to install Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer.

This is an important distinction, and the general reason why this is correct in the context of operating systems is very generically summarized in my closing statement: Microsoft makes money by licensing/selling software, and Apple makes money by selling hardware (in this case, computers, but this is even true in the context of iPod/iTunes: Apple has said numerous times that the iTunes Music Store is a driver to sell iPods).

It's perfectly appropriate in a general sense to say that Microsoft is a software company and Apple is a hardware company. Of course they do other things. But either you wish to split hairs for the sake of doing so, or you missed the point I was attempting to make.

As for booting Windows XP in particular, it may in fact be possible. There ultimately may be some way to cajole Windows XP into booting directly on these machines by doing some tricks. As for the people giving money to the winxponmac.com guy, they know perfectly well what they're doing, and they've made a judgement call to do so. Delicious Monster - an group of very experienced Mac OS X software engineers and programmers - even gave $1000. They chose to trust the guy, and that's their choice. And if anything, the pot so far and the discussion of it is indicative of just how many people want to run Windows directly on the hardware (as opposed to in VM) for various reasons.

Also, the articles (I'm assuming it's the bounty you're referring to) on Digg were never "debunked". No one knows for certain whether or not it will or won't be possible to, for example, load a Compatibility Support Module (CSM) in Apple's EFI implementation, and perhaps get Windows XP to boot that way. Note when I say "no one", I mean no one who has commented on it so far. I certainly don't know. Perhaps the engineers who implemented Apple's EFI know. Perhaps some EFI developers at Intel know. But we don't have anything definitive that tells us this is not possible, period. It's clear that a 32-bit version of Windows that actually supports EFI will probably be the way to go in the future, but Vista isn't shipping yet, and frankly, people do want to run Windows now. There are reasons people might want to do this, and I hope they get their wish.

Does the "Core Duo" processor include the Vaderpool virtualization extensions.

O.K., prepare to be confused ...

Dmesg on the iMac says the Core Duo supports Vanderpool (the VMX flag is there - http://www.appleintelfaq.com/#10.1 ). However, "terry" in this thread contacted Intel and they say this stepping doesn't contain Vanderpool - http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?showtopic= 6700&st=100 . The Register also says "To Be Decided" for T2400 and T2500 chips - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/16/intel_core _duo_vt/ .

But then _why_ is the actual chip claiming to offer VT extensions during the boot sequence ?

Though it is becoming less and less inelegant, particularly with the inclusion of Vanderpool technology in the chips that the new macs are based on, you'll be better able to virtualize each OS into its own little world and not have to worry about some of the traditional costs of emulation, possibly...

Moreover, if you setup the systems to boot simultaneously then the startup lag you mention will barely be noticed -- especially given that OS X is reported to boot much more quickly on intel hardware than on the previous PPC hardware, the overall user experience will not be compromised, potentially if one simul-boots the two OS's side by side via some sort processor virtualization scheme. And with that, I have completely reached the limit (and stepped over) that which I can claim to know or understand on this topic =)

If the appleintelfaq entry is correct (the 945GM has integrated Intel graphics, which I don't think the laptops use) then I don't see Firewire included on the Intel north or south bridge.

The sample Apple system output shows "FireWire (OHCI) Lucent ID 5811 PCI now active, GUID 001451fffeb62578; max speed s400" in the boot messages. The ioreg list shows instances of "com_apple_driver_Oxford_Semi_FW911".

I guess Firewire is on a separate chip but there's no way of telling if Intel could have provided FW800.

If the appleintelfaq entry is correct (the 945GM has integrated Intel graphics, which I don't think the laptops use) then I don't see Firewire included on the Intel north or south bridge.

The sample Apple system output shows "FireWire (OHCI) Lucent ID 5811 PCI now active, GUID 001451fffeb62578; max speed s400" in the boot messages. The ioreg list shows instances of "com_apple_driver_Oxford_Semi_FW911".

I guess Firewire is on a separate chip but there's no way of telling if Intel could have provided FW800.

If the appleintelfaq entry is correct (the 945GM has integrated Intel graphics, which I don't think the laptops use) then I don't see Firewire included on the Intel north or south bridge.

The sample Apple system output shows "FireWire (OHCI) Lucent ID 5811 PCI now active, GUID 001451fffeb62578; max speed s400" in the boot messages. The ioreg list shows instances of "com_apple_driver_Oxford_Semi_FW911".

I guess Firewire is on a separate chip but there's no way of telling if Intel could have provided FW800.

If the appleintelfaq entry is correct (the 945GM has integrated Intel graphics, which I don't think the laptops use) then I don't see Firewire included on the Intel north or south bridge.

The sample Apple system output shows "FireWire (OHCI) Lucent ID 5811 PCI now active, GUID 001451fffeb62578; max speed s400" in the boot messages. The ioreg list shows instances of "com_apple_driver_Oxford_Semi_FW911".

I guess Firewire is on a separate chip but there's no way of telling if Intel could have provided FW800.

I should also note that while FireWire 800 appears to be dead or at least resting (or perhaps available via an ExpressCard/34 card) with regard to the Intel-based Macs that have been announced to date, FireWire as a standard won't be going anywhere for a while.

Even as a Wintel type, I liked having Apple push for an even-higher-speed Firewire spec, in the hopes that it would filter down to the rest of the world eventually. That they're giving up now and going with strictly hardware Intel can provide... well, it's a disappointment.

I agree with you, but this, as you say, is likely a result of Apple going pretty much straight vanilla with Intel CPUs and chipsets in its new machines. This can, of course, be a good thing and a bad thing, depending on your perspective.

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/imac-cored uo.ars/7

I tried to boot from a Windows XP installer CD. No dice. I then tried booting from a Vista installer DVD (Build 5270). Again, no dice. When holding down the Option key, the only icon that appeared was for the iMac's internal hard drive. Holding down the D key to try to force booting off of the optical drive failed as well. With the Vista DVD, the optical drive churned a bit and the iMac hesitated as though it were contemplating whether it wanted to boot the foreign OS. Soon afterwards, the familiar gray Apple logo appeared on screen and Mac OS X finished booting.

The new Intel Macs don't have an EFI shell, so there's no way to directly get at the EFI. Someone is ultimately going to have to write and/or use an existing EFI shell to tell the EFI to boot from alternate media to get things going. Naturally, running Windows under virtualization, with technologies like Intel's VT/Vanderpool, which the Core Duo in the new Macs does support, are going to be the way to go for most users anyway.

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/imac-cored uo.ars/7

I tried to boot from a Windows XP installer CD. No dice. I then tried booting from a Vista installer DVD (Build 5270). Again, no dice. When holding down the Option key, the only icon that appeared was for the iMac's internal hard drive. Holding down the D key to try to force booting off of the optical drive failed as well. With the Vista DVD, the optical drive churned a bit and the iMac hesitated as though it were contemplating whether it wanted to boot the foreign OS. Soon afterwards, the familiar gray Apple logo appeared on screen and Mac OS X finished booting.

The new Intel Macs don't have an EFI shell, so there's no way to directly get at the EFI. Someone is ultimately going to have to write and/or use an existing EFI shell to tell the EFI to boot from alternate media to get things going. Naturally, running Windows under virtualization, with technologies like Intel's VT/Vanderpool, which the Core Duo in the new Macs does support, are going to be the way to go for most users anyway.

From the artricle:

However, Intel Australia, while being careful not to comment on Apple's hardware specifically, says motherboards based on the Intel 945 chipset already support EFI and can boot Windows with no problems.

This cryptic statement can't be taken as full reassurance though: it may be that 945 boards support EFI but do not come with it installed by default.

[...]

"For IA 32 systems, the Framework loads itself above the 1MB real-mode memory boundary to accommodate an optional Compatibility Support Module (CSM). CSM implementations can be tailored to platform requirements. A typical CSM is approximately 60KB (~38KB compressed) of firmware that is specific to each Participating Vendor and is based on that Vendor's latest BIOS code base. A contemporary implementation of the Framework on a PC includes a CSM for supplying services to operating systems that do not boot using EFI and for supporting legacy option ROMs on add-in cards. For legacy boot the Framework initialises the platform's silicon and executes EFI drivers. Then control is transferred to the CSM, which supports the legacy OS boot."

So, as long as Apple has included a Compatibility Support Module, Intel-based Macs should be able to boot XP.

It seems unlikely that Apple would have left this out. It has already said it isn't doing anything to prevent Windows from booting on a Mac.

Yes, it's true that EFI has BIOS backward compatibility layer, but it is optional for the vendor to use and provide this. And Apple has no need for legacy BIOS support.

Some further discussion of the general topic of windows booting can be found here: Will an Intel-based Mac run Windows?

The more interesting possibility for many users will not be directly booting or dual-booting Windows XP, but rather running Windows XP at essentially the full speed of the underlying hardware in a virtual machine, right alongside Mac OS X. Sure, for some game and direct hardware access applications, you would want to - or you may have to - boot Windows directly. But for the vast majority of access to Windows productivity and/or other software not available on Mac OS X, running Windows alongside Mac OS X is likely more desirable than dual-booting anyway.

As has been noted, however, it is indeed extremely likely that Windows Vista will directly boot on Intel-based Macs with EFI.

It's interesting to note that the new iMacs are using a standard Intel 945 Series chipset, and an Intel 82801GBM southbridge, as well as other standard Intel chipsets and features:

Other interesting hardware features can be discovered by browsing the output of system_profiler, kextstat, and ioreg .

Of note:

- Full 802.11a support is present, though unadvertised, as well as 802.11b/g
- Intel High Definition Audio is used
- the iMac's optical drive does have dual layer support, unlike the ultra slimline 9mm drive used in the MacBook Pro
- the iSight is USB
- a TPM entry is present in ioreg
- com.apple.Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X is an active kernel extension

It's interesting to note that the new iMacs are using a standard Intel 945 Series chipset, and an Intel 82801GBM southbridge, as well as other standard Intel chipsets and features:

Other interesting hardware features can be discovered by browsing the output of system_profiler, kextstat, and ioreg .

Of note:

- Full 802.11a support is present, though unadvertised, as well as 802.11b/g
- Intel High Definition Audio is used
- the iMac's optical drive does have dual layer support, unlike the ultra slimline 9mm drive used in the MacBook Pro
- the iSight is USB
- a TPM entry is present in ioreg
- com.apple.Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X is an active kernel extension

It's interesting to note that the new iMacs are using a standard Intel 945 Series chipset, and an Intel 82801GBM southbridge, as well as other standard Intel chipsets and features:

Other interesting hardware features can be discovered by browsing the output of system_profiler, kextstat, and ioreg .

Of note:

- Full 802.11a support is present, though unadvertised, as well as 802.11b/g
- Intel High Definition Audio is used
- the iMac's optical drive does have dual layer support, unlike the ultra slimline 9mm drive used in the MacBook Pro
- the iSight is USB
- a TPM entry is present in ioreg
- com.apple.Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X is an active kernel extension

Here's the output of system_profiler, ioreg, and kextstat on an Intel-based iMac:

http://appleintelfaq.com/#17.6

Of note in ioreg:

| +-o TPM

And kextstat:

83 0 0x20a15000 0x3000 0x2000 com.apple.Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X (4.0.0)

Apple hasn't done anything to preclude Windows, or any other OS, from being installed on the Intel-based Macs. That is a perfectly accurate statement. Apple Vice President Phil Schiller's two direct quotes on the subject, the most recent which was made on January 10, 2006, can be seen here. Intel has also specifically said that Apple will not be using proprietary chipsets and/or processors, and they'll just represent standard Intel offerings.

Windows XP would directly boot and install on the Developer Transition Kit platform because it was just a standard Intel motherboard and processor, and also used a standard Intel BIOS.

However, the shipping Intel-based Macs use EFI (Wikipedia article), Intel's "next generation of BIOS". (more info)

Windows XP 32-bit does not currently support EFI for booting. Windows XP 64-bit does, but Intel Core Duo is not a 64-bit chip. Now, there are a bunch of other variables, such as whether or not Apple's current EFI implementation offers BIOS backward-compatibility, and so on, but it's clear that regardless, EFI is the future, and it's only a matter of time before the PC world at large transitions to EFI. Further, Windows Vista does support EFI. See here for Microsoft's presentations on EFI, particularly the first two links.

That said, dual booting is intensely annoying anyway, and the really interesting thing will be able to just run Windows (or some other x86 OS) and Mac OS X side-by-side.

What we will *definitely* see are "Virtual PC"-like programs that let you run Windows alongside OS X (in a Window, or taking over the screen, etc., with a hotkey to flip back and forth, for example).

It's important to note this will NOT be emulation: Windows (or other x86 OS) will run at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware (with certain exceptions). There could even be direct access to video, with support for things like DirectX.

vmware already has a version for Mac OS X in development, and Microsoft has already announced they will be developing a version of Virtual PC for Intel-based Macs that one can only presume will be a virtual machine. Then there are things like QEMU, Xen, etc. The Darwin/Mac OS X version of WINE, DarWINE, has even been working under betas of Mac OS X for Intel. Now that Intel Macs are shipping, it will only be a matter of weeks/months before we have several options for running Windows itself, and/or Windows applications at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware.

And since Intel Core Duo also supports Intel's VT hardware virtualization, the possibilities of future virtual machine technology are even more interesting. But the bottom line is that Apple is again leading the way with the adoption of technologies like EFI and ExpressCard. Naturally, it will take a little while for Windows to catch up. ;-)

Apple hasn't done anything to preclude Windows, or any other OS, from being installed on the Intel-based Macs. That is a perfectly accurate statement. Apple Vice President Phil Schiller's two direct quotes on the subject, the most recent which was made on January 10, 2006, can be seen here. Intel has also specifically said that Apple will not be using proprietary chipsets and/or processors, and they'll just represent standard Intel offerings.

Windows XP would directly boot and install on the Developer Transition Kit platform because it was just a standard Intel motherboard and processor, and also used a standard Intel BIOS.

However, the shipping Intel-based Macs use EFI (Wikipedia article), Intel's "next generation of BIOS". (more info)

Windows XP 32-bit does not currently support EFI for booting. Windows XP 64-bit does, but Intel Core Duo is not a 64-bit chip. Now, there are a bunch of other variables, such as whether or not Apple's current EFI implementation offers BIOS backward-compatibility, and so on, but it's clear that regardless, EFI is the future, and it's only a matter of time before the PC world at large transitions to EFI. Further, Windows Vista does support EFI. See here for Microsoft's presentations on EFI, particularly the first two links.

That said, dual booting is intensely annoying anyway, and the really interesting thing will be able to just run Windows (or some other x86 OS) and Mac OS X side-by-side.

What we will *definitely* see are "Virtual PC"-like programs that let you run Windows alongside OS X (in a Window, or taking over the screen, etc., with a hotkey to flip back and forth, for example).

It's important to note this will NOT be emulation: Windows (or other x86 OS) will run at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware (with certain exceptions). There could even be direct access to video, with support for things like DirectX.

vmware already has a version for Mac OS X in development, and Microsoft has already announced they will be developing a version of Virtual PC for Intel-based Macs that one can only presume will be a virtual machine. Then there are things like QEMU, Xen, etc. The Darwin/Mac OS X version of WINE, DarWINE, has even been working under betas of Mac OS X for Intel. Now that Intel Macs are shipping, it will only be a matter of weeks/months before we have several options for running Windows itself, and/or Windows applications at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware.

And since Intel Core Duo also supports Intel's VT hardware virtualization, the possibilities of future virtual machine technology are even more interesting. But the bottom line is that Apple is again leading the way with the adoption of technologies like EFI and ExpressCard. Naturally, it will take a little while for Windows to catch up. ;-)

Apple hasn't done anything to preclude Windows, or any other OS, from being installed on the Intel-based Macs. That is a perfectly accurate statement. Apple Vice President Phil Schiller's two direct quotes on the subject, the most recent which was made on January 10, 2006, can be seen here. Intel has also specifically said that Apple will not be using proprietary chipsets and/or processors, and they'll just represent standard Intel offerings.

Windows XP would directly boot and install on the Developer Transition Kit platform because it was just a standard Intel motherboard and processor, and also used a standard Intel BIOS.

However, the shipping Intel-based Macs use EFI (Wikipedia article), Intel's "next generation of BIOS". (more info)

Windows XP 32-bit does not currently support EFI for booting. Windows XP 64-bit does, but Intel Core Duo is not a 64-bit chip. Now, there are a bunch of other variables, such as whether or not Apple's current EFI implementation offers BIOS backward-compatibility, and so on, but it's clear that regardless, EFI is the future, and it's only a matter of time before the PC world at large transitions to EFI. Further, Windows Vista does support EFI. See here for Microsoft's presentations on EFI, particularly the first two links.

That said, dual booting is intensely annoying anyway, and the really interesting thing will be able to just run Windows (or some other x86 OS) and Mac OS X side-by-side.

What we will *definitely* see are "Virtual PC"-like programs that let you run Windows alongside OS X (in a Window, or taking over the screen, etc., with a hotkey to flip back and forth, for example).

It's important to note this will NOT be emulation: Windows (or other x86 OS) will run at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware (with certain exceptions). There could even be direct access to video, with support for things like DirectX.

vmware already has a version for Mac OS X in development, and Microsoft has already announced they will be developing a version of Virtual PC for Intel-based Macs that one can only presume will be a virtual machine. Then there are things like QEMU, Xen, etc. The Darwin/Mac OS X version of WINE, DarWINE, has even been working under betas of Mac OS X for Intel. Now that Intel Macs are shipping, it will only be a matter of weeks/months before we have several options for running Windows itself, and/or Windows applications at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware.

And since Intel Core Duo also supports Intel's VT hardware virtualization, the possibilities of future virtual machine technology are even more interesting. But the bottom line is that Apple is again leading the way with the adoption of technologies like EFI and ExpressCard. Naturally, it will take a little while for Windows to catch up. ;-)

It wouldn't surprise me if Apple has implemented some kind of unique encrypted handshaking between the OS X installer and the hardware so that only Apple's OS can be installed on it, so that they can avoid receiving support calls from people who put Windows on Apple hardware. Keep in mind that even if they refuse to provide support for such a configuration, the bulk of a support call's cost is in the customer placing the call in the first place. If someone calls only to be told "we don't support that", that has already cost Apple a good bit of money.

They won't support that, but they declared already that they will do nothing to prevent it. After Apple Intel FAQ:

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that.

It ignores the New York Times articles which offered the most compelling information for why the switch happened: namely that Apple demanded certain pricing from IBM that IBM refused to give them. I guess they omitted that because it reflects poorly on Apple?

That's just as much speculation as anything else, and, even if true, is itself was probably tied to the fact that IBM missed its 3GHz part delivery commitment to Apple by over a year. In other words, the assertion that Apple switched for these reasons is valid. Further, I don't say that it was factual; it says "The following scenario likely contributed to this decision". And it very likely did. Pricing demands as a result of that situation are secondary and incidental.

It says that the 68k to PowerPC switch was "as seamless as practical", and says that they have completed a switch of this magnitude before. It says this, assuming (a) what the magnitude of this switch is before it even happens, and ignoring (b) that Apple had about 12% market share when it began the PowerPC transition, and 5% afterward. I mean, yes, they made their transition, but it was certainly not "seamless" there was a major developer outcry, and they lost most of their customer base. I think it's debateable, therefore, how well it went.

As another poster pointed out, market share != customer base. Sales dipped after the transition, but the 68K to PowerPC transition is widely regarded as extremely successful: Apple was able to switch processor architectures entirely, while having minimal impact on users. The fact that PowerPC has been a staple for Apple for over ten years is a testament to the success and wisdom of the transition.

Further, Apple is one of very few companies to have a transition of any type of this magnitude; and it's had not one, but two, covering hardware AND software! Both were executed successfully, so contribute to a reasoned judgement on how well Apple may execute the Intel transition.

The FAQ contradicts itself: It correctly states in the first question that Apple announced that the first Intel-based machines would ship before mid-2006, and then down the page, in discussing "should I buy a Mac", it says "x86-based Macs won't even begin shipping until mid-2006". How the hell can they make this assertion, when Apple has announced no shipping plans? Apple could very well have Intel-based Macs available earlier than "mid-2006" (say, at Macworld in January), which would also go with what they announced (the transition begins BEFORE mid-2006). I think the answer of whether to buy a Mac now is much greyer than this FAQ implies.

Jeez. Um, I see what you're trying to get at, but that's not really contradicting itself. They both say "mid-2006", and given Apple's long history of product announcements, there is absolutely NO reason to believe that these machines won't ship as late as possible while still meeting the criteria of shipping before "mid-2006" (technically, before WWDC 2006, according to jobs). Even if they shipped a couple months early, that would still be mid-2006, so your assertion of a contradiction here is really grasping. And either way, if a PowerPC-based Mac was appropriate for someone, it still is just as much today. It's up to the customer to decide whether they'd like to wait.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out the the purpose of this "FAQ" appears to be to make people feel like "everything's going to be OK", rather than just presenting facts. I wouldn't pay much attention to it. Read the Mac press instead; whoever set that up clearly has a very pro-Mac agenda that's coloring their interpretation of things. Shit, it reads like it was written by Apple and Intel's PR departments.

Um, that's because everything IS going to be OK. And the facts presented and reasons given clearly show it. It's loaded with external references. The things that aren't strictly facts are prefaced by statements such as "this will likely b

First of all, shipping Intel-based machines probably won't even be using the Pentium 4; but:

http://appleintelfaq.com/#7

What about 64-bit computing?

Apple has not forgotten about 64-bit computing, or x86-64. However, Apple is trying to make the initial phase of the transition as simple as possible. 64-bit is a requirement for systems utilizing more than 4GB of RAM, which will be a necessity for some applications in the future, and is currently possible on today's Apple systems; Apple knows 64-bit capability is a requirement.

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

Does this mean Apple's abandoning its commitment to a 64-bit architecture?

We don't have any specifics yet, but it seems highly unlikely to us that Apple would turn its back on 64-bit chips. Intel offers 64-bit chips and it's almost impossible to conceive that Apple would move backward in this area.

"Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product." -Dean Reece, Apple

First of all, shipping Intel-based machines probably won't even be using the Pentium 4; but:

http://appleintelfaq.com/#7

What about 64-bit computing?

Apple has not forgotten about 64-bit computing, or x86-64. However, Apple is trying to make the initial phase of the transition as simple as possible. 64-bit is a requirement for systems utilizing more than 4GB of RAM, which will be a necessity for some applications in the future, and is currently possible on today's Apple systems; Apple knows 64-bit capability is a requirement.

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

Does this mean Apple's abandoning its commitment to a 64-bit architecture?

We don't have any specifics yet, but it seems highly unlikely to us that Apple would turn its back on 64-bit chips. Intel offers 64-bit chips and it's almost impossible to conceive that Apple would move backward in this area.

"Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product." -Dean Reece, Apple

...and this is easy since the Developer Transition Platform is just running a generic Intel motherboard, generic Intel video chipset, an Intel Pentium 4 660 processor with HT, and a standard Intel BIOS (NOT a Phoenix BIOS as has been incorrectly reported elsewhere), but what will really be great is when someone makes a Virtual PC- or vmware-like product (perhaps even one of those products themselves) that is a virtual machine that runs under Mac OS X that allows running essentially any x86 OS at near-full speed, side by side with Mac OS X, without having to reboot.

Since it will be running on x86 hardware, processor instructions do not have to be emulated: they can run natively at near-full speed of the underlying hardware.

Further, though Apple will do nothing to stop users from installing Windows on production Intel-based Macintosh systems, it's likely that the production systems will evolve beyond the generic hardware that makes the Developer Transition Platform. Apple itself has said, "Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product." This means there may be additional specialized hardware for which Windows drivers and specialized support profiles will not be maintained by Apple. Of course, this isn't stopping anyone from making them, and Intel has said that Intel-based Macs will use commodity Intel processors, chipsets, and other support components, but it might not be quite as seamless as just popping in a Windows CD and installing (though it very well could be).

Let's also not forget that the production machines may not be - and likely will not be - using BIOS, rendering useless any such conventional PC multi-boot configurations. (But even with EFI or Open Firmware, there's no reason Apple couldn't maintain a robust multi-boot system.)

The point is that a virtual machine product could offer a supported configuration for x86 OSes, including Windows, Linux variants, etc., without the headache and hassle of rebooting into another OS. Sure, dual/multi-booting has benefits, and certainly this will be possible on even the production hardware, but most users would likely prefer a Virtual PC-like environment for running x86 OSes/applications without rebooting.

On this topic, one wonders if Microsoft will be the entity that releases this first. After all, they've already got Virtual PC for Mac, and Virtual PC for Windows (and Microsoft Virtual Server) is exactly this type of virtual machine product, albeit for Windows. On one hand, you can argue that for Microsoft, it's just another copy of Windows sold, so why should they care? But on the other hand, if they make a first-class VM product for Mac OS X that runs Windows (and other x86 OSes) seamlessly at near-full speed of the native hardware, it definitely assists in the sales of more machines designed primarily to run Mac OS X, which could be a poor strategic choice...

But even if Microsoft doesn't do it, let's hope someone like EMC does with vmware.

For more general information, see http://appleintelfaq.com/.

...and this is easy since the Developer Transition Platform is just running a generic Intel motherboard, generic Intel video chipset, an Intel Pentium 4 660 processor with HT, and a standard Intel BIOS (NOT a Phoenix BIOS as has been incorrectly reported elsewhere), but what will really be great is when someone makes a Virtual PC- or vmware-like product (perhaps even one of those products themselves) that is a virtual machine that runs under Mac OS X that allows running essentially any x86 OS at near-full speed, side by side with Mac OS X, without having to reboot.

Since it will be running on x86 hardware, processor instructions do not have to be emulated: they can run natively at near-full speed of the underlying hardware.

Further, though Apple will do nothing to stop users from installing Windows on production Intel-based Macintosh systems, it's likely that the production systems will evolve beyond the generic hardware that makes the Developer Transition Platform. Apple itself has said, "Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product." This means there may be additional specialized hardware for which Windows drivers and specialized support profiles will not be maintained by Apple. Of course, this isn't stopping anyone from making them, and Intel has said that Intel-based Macs will use commodity Intel processors, chipsets, and other support components, but it might not be quite as seamless as just popping in a Windows CD and installing (though it very well could be).

Let's also not forget that the production machines may not be - and likely will not be - using BIOS, rendering useless any such conventional PC multi-boot configurations. (But even with EFI or Open Firmware, there's no reason Apple couldn't maintain a robust multi-boot system.)

The point is that a virtual machine product could offer a supported configuration for x86 OSes, including Windows, Linux variants, etc., without the headache and hassle of rebooting into another OS. Sure, dual/multi-booting has benefits, and certainly this will be possible on even the production hardware, but most users would likely prefer a Virtual PC-like environment for running x86 OSes/applications without rebooting.

On this topic, one wonders if Microsoft will be the entity that releases this first. After all, they've already got Virtual PC for Mac, and Virtual PC for Windows (and Microsoft Virtual Server) is exactly this type of virtual machine product, albeit for Windows. On one hand, you can argue that for Microsoft, it's just another copy of Windows sold, so why should they care? But on the other hand, if they make a first-class VM product for Mac OS X that runs Windows (and other x86 OSes) seamlessly at near-full speed of the native hardware, it definitely assists in the sales of more machines designed primarily to run Mac OS X, which could be a poor strategic choice...

But even if Microsoft doesn't do it, let's hope someone like EMC does with vmware.

For more general information, see http://appleintelfaq.com/.

...and this is easy since the Developer Transition Platform is just running a generic Intel motherboard, generic Intel video chipset, an Intel Pentium 4 660 processor with HT, and a standard Intel BIOS (NOT a Phoenix BIOS as has been incorrectly reported elsewhere), but what will really be great is when someone makes a Virtual PC- or vmware-like product (perhaps even one of those products themselves) that is a virtual machine that runs under Mac OS X that allows running essentially any x86 OS at near-full speed, side by side with Mac OS X, without having to reboot.

Since it will be running on x86 hardware, processor instructions do not have to be emulated: they can run natively at near-full speed of the underlying hardware.

Further, though Apple will do nothing to stop users from installing Windows on production Intel-based Macintosh systems, it's likely that the production systems will evolve beyond the generic hardware that makes the Developer Transition Platform. Apple itself has said, "Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product." This means there may be additional specialized hardware for which Windows drivers and specialized support profiles will not be maintained by Apple. Of course, this isn't stopping anyone from making them, and Intel has said that Intel-based Macs will use commodity Intel processors, chipsets, and other support components, but it might not be quite as seamless as just popping in a Windows CD and installing (though it very well could be).

Let's also not forget that the production machines may not be - and likely will not be - using BIOS, rendering useless any such conventional PC multi-boot configurations. (But even with EFI or Open Firmware, there's no reason Apple couldn't maintain a robust multi-boot system.)

The point is that a virtual machine product could offer a supported configuration for x86 OSes, including Windows, Linux variants, etc., without the headache and hassle of rebooting into another OS. Sure, dual/multi-booting has benefits, and certainly this will be possible on even the production hardware, but most users would likely prefer a Virtual PC-like environment for running x86 OSes/applications without rebooting.

On this topic, one wonders if Microsoft will be the entity that releases this first. After all, they've already got Virtual PC for Mac, and Virtual PC for Windows (and Microsoft Virtual Server) is exactly this type of virtual machine product, albeit for Windows. On one hand, you can argue that for Microsoft, it's just another copy of Windows sold, so why should they care? But on the other hand, if they make a first-class VM product for Mac OS X that runs Windows (and other x86 OSes) seamlessly at near-full speed of the native hardware, it definitely assists in the sales of more machines designed primarily to run Mac OS X, which could be a poor strategic choice...

But even if Microsoft doesn't do it, let's hope someone like EMC does with vmware.

For more general information, see http://appleintelfaq.com/.

...and this is easy since the Developer Transition Platform is just running a generic Intel motherboard, generic Intel video chipset, an Intel Pentium 4 660 processor with HT, and a standard Intel BIOS (NOT a Phoenix BIOS as has been incorrectly reported elsewhere), but what will really be great is when someone makes a Virtual PC- or vmware-like product (perhaps even one of those products themselves) that is a virtual machine that runs under Mac OS X that allows running essentially any x86 OS at near-full speed, side by side with Mac OS X, without having to reboot.

Since it will be running on x86 hardware, processor instructions do not have to be emulated: they can run natively at near-full speed of the underlying hardware.

Further, though Apple will do nothing to stop users from installing Windows on production Intel-based Macintosh systems, it's likely that the production systems will evolve beyond the generic hardware that makes the Developer Transition Platform. Apple itself has said, "Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product." This means there may be additional specialized hardware for which Windows drivers and specialized support profiles will not be maintained by Apple. Of course, this isn't stopping anyone from making them, and Intel has said that Intel-based Macs will use commodity Intel processors, chipsets, and other support components, but it might not be quite as seamless as just popping in a Windows CD and installing (though it very well could be).

Let's also not forget that the production machines may not be - and likely will not be - using BIOS, rendering useless any such conventional PC multi-boot configurations. (But even with EFI or Open Firmware, there's no reason Apple couldn't maintain a robust multi-boot system.)

The point is that a virtual machine product could offer a supported configuration for x86 OSes, including Windows, Linux variants, etc., without the headache and hassle of rebooting into another OS. Sure, dual/multi-booting has benefits, and certainly this will be possible on even the production hardware, but most users would likely prefer a Virtual PC-like environment for running x86 OSes/applications without rebooting.

On this topic, one wonders if Microsoft will be the entity that releases this first. After all, they've already got Virtual PC for Mac, and Virtual PC for Windows (and Microsoft Virtual Server) is exactly this type of virtual machine product, albeit for Windows. On one hand, you can argue that for Microsoft, it's just another copy of Windows sold, so why should they care? But on the other hand, if they make a first-class VM product for Mac OS X that runs Windows (and other x86 OSes) seamlessly at near-full speed of the native hardware, it definitely assists in the sales of more machines designed primarily to run Mac OS X, which could be a poor strategic choice...

But even if Microsoft doesn't do it, let's hope someone like EMC does with vmware.

For more general information, see http://appleintelfaq.com/.

...and this is easy since the Developer Transition Platform is just running a generic Intel motherboard, generic Intel video chipset, an Intel Pentium 4 660 processor with HT, and a standard Intel BIOS (NOT a Phoenix BIOS as has been incorrectly reported elsewhere), but what will really be great is when someone makes a Virtual PC- or vmware-like product (perhaps even one of those products themselves) that is a virtual machine that runs under Mac OS X that allows running essentially any x86 OS at near-full speed, side by side with Mac OS X, without having to reboot.

Since it will be running on x86 hardware, processor instructions do not have to be emulated: they can run natively at near-full speed of the underlying hardware.

Further, though Apple will do nothing to stop users from installing Windows on production Intel-based Macintosh systems, it's likely that the production systems will evolve beyond the generic hardware that makes the Developer Transition Platform. Apple itself has said, "Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product." This means there may be additional specialized hardware for which Windows drivers and specialized support profiles will not be maintained by Apple. Of course, this isn't stopping anyone from making them, and Intel has said that Intel-based Macs will use commodity Intel processors, chipsets, and other support components, but it might not be quite as seamless as just popping in a Windows CD and installing (though it very well could be).

Let's also not forget that the production machines may not be - and likely will not be - using BIOS, rendering useless any such conventional PC multi-boot configurations. (But even with EFI or Open Firmware, there's no reason Apple couldn't maintain a robust multi-boot system.)

The point is that a virtual machine product could offer a supported configuration for x86 OSes, including Windows, Linux variants, etc., without the headache and hassle of rebooting into another OS. Sure, dual/multi-booting has benefits, and certainly this will be possible on even the production hardware, but most users would likely prefer a Virtual PC-like environment for running x86 OSes/applications without rebooting.

On this topic, one wonders if Microsoft will be the entity that releases this first. After all, they've already got Virtual PC for Mac, and Virtual PC for Windows (and Microsoft Virtual Server) is exactly this type of virtual machine product, albeit for Windows. On one hand, you can argue that for Microsoft, it's just another copy of Windows sold, so why should they care? But on the other hand, if they make a first-class VM product for Mac OS X that runs Windows (and other x86 OSes) seamlessly at near-full speed of the native hardware, it definitely assists in the sales of more machines designed primarily to run Mac OS X, which could be a poor strategic choice...

But even if Microsoft doesn't do it, let's hope someone like EMC does with vmware.

For more general information, see http://appleintelfaq.com/.

How much of IBM's innovative chip design was pushed forward by Apple?

Almost none. Apple is less than 2% of IBM's PowerPC business.

Apple/Intel FAQ

Before this, it was already pretty much a foregone conclusion that Apple would use AMD products where they made sense in the future, and that the Intel announcement, specifically, was intended to be one of simplicity that wouldn't rile up Wall Street and analysts, and we can see that they've succeeded in spades. However, once the transition to the x86 architecture is over, there is nothing stopping Apple from using AMD (and/or x86-64/EM64T from Intel or AMD) where appropriate... ...except, possibly, strongarm tactics by Intel.

Since the transition of high end machines is two and a half years out ("end of 2007"), it's likely that at least some of this will have shaken out by then. So even IF there are any types of exclusivity arrangements with Intel on Apple's part, either explicit or implicit (and please note, there is nothing to suggest there is), Apple, along with many other x86 vendors, will be free to choose the best processor solutions for their products - including those from AMD.

Remember, too, though, that while AMD may have superior products in certain, specific areas, since it shares manufacturing/fabrication capability with IBM, it has run into many of the same manufacturing and supply problems as IBM. Superior products are fine - if you can actually ship them. Intel, while you can cherry-pick instances of supply problems, has proven itself to be a stable and consistent supplier.

All that said, choice and competition is still a good thing for this marketplace.

For more on the transition, see Apple/Intel FAQ.

http://appleintelfaq.com/

What did Apple announce at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) on June 6, 2005?

Apple announced that it is transitioning from PowerPC processors provided by IBM and Freescale (formerly Motorola) to x86 architecture processors from Intel. The first Intel-based Macs will ship before mid-2006, and the transition will be complete by the end of 2007.

Where can I find out more official information about this announcement?

Apple press release

Intel press release

WWDC keynote address (Transcript)

Why did Apple make this change?

The following scenario likely contributed to this decision:

IBM has been unable to meet its performance commitments for the PowerPC 970 family (G5) processors. In mid-2003, IBM promised 3 GHz G5s to Apple by mid-2004. As of mid-2005, 3 GHz G5s are still not available, over two years after the initial announcement, and over one year after the promised delivery.[1]

Meanwhile, Microsoft has announced that IBM will make 3.2 GHz triple-core G5 derivatives available to Microsoft for Xbox 360.[2] IBM is also concentrating efforts on chips for Nintendo Revolution and Sony PlayStation 3.[3, 3.1] With IBM concentrating on expensive high-end server class processors and the console and embedded markets, and with Apple at less than 2%[4] of IBM's PowerPC business, it was clear IBM's priorities were focused elsewhere.

Apple is also less than 3%[4] of Freescale's PowerPC business, with Freescale focusing on embedded, communications, and automotive markets. The priorities of IBM and Freescale do not coincide with performance and other needs of the traditional desktop and portable computing marketplace.

What has Apple done to prepare for this transition?

Apple has been publicly maintaining the core OS of Mac OS X, Darwin, for both PowerPC and x86 platforms since the release of Mac OS X. Internally, Apple has been secretly maintaining Mac OS X in its entirety and all Apple applications for both PowerPC and x86 for over 5 years, since before Mac OS X's public release.[5] Mac OS X's predecessors also ran on x86.

Apple has made available Xcode 2.1, which adds the capability of creating PowerPC/x86 universal binaries. Xcode 2.1 can be used on either PowerPC or x86 systems to create universal binaries. Application developers already using Xcode in most cases need only recompile their application with an additional checkbox adding x86 architecture support.

Apple has also licensed[6] QuickTransit from Transitive Corporation for Rosetta, a realtime binary translation system to support PowerPC binaries seamlessly on x86 hardware. The current performance of Rosetta

Apple/Intel FAQ