Slashdot Mirror
Apple/Intel Speculation Running Rampant
6031769 writes "ZD Net are reporting a rumour that Steve Jobs will announce Apple are going to move to an Intel chip base at their worldwide developer conference today. Still just a rumour, but could this be the masterstroke Apple have been promising or is it a blind alley?" Lots of submissions about this one, but no one knows for sure - there have been stories about how AMD is hurt by this - but I think my favorite debunking of it is the piece by John Gruber on Daring Fireball.
This is all just rumors to get Apple users upset. Its being going since the 1980's, and its never happened. The G5 is too much of an asset to dump for the hell that is the P4. Even diehard Windows users are all migrating to AMD64 these days, Intel is just trying to get some free advertising and FUD to play with.
Do you play with your Willy?
At this point pretty much everyone is saying something about it: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=nn&ie=UT F-8&ncl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4612 951.stm
the worst thing in the world would be for a Mac to have an "Intel inside" sticker on it, or even on the packaging. but as annoying as their stupid campaign is, would Intel make an exception to their rule for Apple? Apple's design is one of their biggest assets so I can't see them giving in either.
If they are going to announce it today, why don't we just wait and see instead of posting that "it could happen" right before?
Can you say binary incompatability?
When Apple last changed processor families, there was a big problem with binary incompatability. Needless to say, there were a lot of very pissed off Apple users. The transition from PowerPC to Intel could be very painful given two different processor families.
The LAST thing Apple needs to do is to piss off it's user base.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
I'm a bit sentimental about PPC, but I guess this move probably makes some sense for Apple (see here)
I have a few questions that I haven't seen raised anywhere else though:
1. Will Windows run on these machines?
2. Will Apple offer some kind of Window compatibility using something like WINE?
3. What will happen to Yellow Dog Linux?
But, you know, we have at least five or ten years of people debunking this particular rumor. Describing this list as the best ever is jumping the gun a little. Maybe we'll have another five years of the same, and then we can judge better.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I heard Dvorak on the episode 8 twitcast basically bragging he "called" this x86 switch a couple of years back.
he's completely extatic about it, and discuss the x86 switch as a done deal.
He's also going off on his blog.
I'm still not sold, and the debunk arguments by Gruber seems reasonable.
I'm not a huge Apple fan, but I don't think they're THIS stupid. The compatibility problems that will cause alone..
:(
I dont' even want to think about it
The Register weighs in with two articles this morning.
Apple shifts to Intel: What is all the fuss about
Apple to announce Intel 'Switch' - WSJ
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Switching the Mac over now would be really weird: for years Apple struggled with the G4's performance - then I might have understood. Now they've got IBM as a partner - one of the world leaders in CPU architecture, silicon fabrication, etc. It would seem truly bizare to ditch out from PPC at this point, especially given IBM's huge commitment to PPC world domination (and their manifest triumphs over Intel in another volume market - games consoles).
Using an XScale, I could understand. Intel are *the* market leader in high end portable processors at the moment (try to find a powerful PDA that *doesn't* have an XScale). An XScale would be the sensible choice for an Apple PDA or, indeed, the iPod / Phone combo that has been so talked about.
This "leak" might about buying Intel might a be deliberate publicity stunt but I find it really hard to believe the Mac will move away from PPC in the foreseeable future.
The third possibility is that Apple will introduce something new - something else they've not mentioned before. An ultra Apple / Windows friendly UNIX server? An appliance computer (e.g. a cross between iPod and a {web,file,database}server?) A set top box (*cough* *pippin* *cough*)? Personally, I think Apple could be good with appliance computing.
Could It not just be one of Intels mini chips the pxa27x etc.? As used in pocket pcs and palms? They might be using one in an iPod? THey tend to have WiFi and some nice multimedia and communications controllers onboard.
Apple is building an updated version of OS X called "Mac OS X Extreme", which uses the Windows NT kernel as its underpinning (essentially Darwin is going away, and being replaced by the lower layers of Windows XP, witha BSD-type POSIX layer for reverse compatability)
This will ensure Apple can still produce high quality and different computers (it'll still have the OS X GUI, for example) while migrating to more popular, and hence better tested, cheaper, technologies. The first machines will be Pentium M based, and we'll see the Mac mini Extreme in 2006, with others following using a forthcoming so-far unannounced 64-bit version of the Pentium.
These are exciting times.
Here goes: 1. Yes, they switch, and yes, OS X will still be closed to Apple machines. 2. Apple will provide hooks for all published MS API's, allowing 90% of Windows programs to run natively within OS X on Intel. 3. Apple will open source the Cocoa API's. They will provide the API's for Windows, leaving others to port them to Linux, etc. 4. Steve will claim to have saved the world by freeing the world from Windows.
The AMD link isn't really about how it'll hurt AMD, but about how Apple couldn't choose AMD because AMD can't reliably keep up with that level of demand.
That's a lot more interesting/reasonable, since a switch to Intel architecture for Apple would be *good news* for AMD, since then going from Intel-made chips to AMD ones would be possibile sometime later.
The "debunking" link sounds reasonable -- "Here's my bet: Intel is going to produce PowerPC chips for Apple. But I'm only betting one dollar." Another possibility along those lines would be that Apple is switching to Intel *graphics chips*, which would make sense given the comment in the original rumors that the switch would happen on low-end computers first.
Fact: NeXT used an i860 (64-bit RISC) graphics accelerator. Manufactured by Intel.
Fact: Intel manufactures ARM (Advanced RISC Machine) processors.
Intel knows a thing or about RISC chips. Intel manufacturing PPCs is far more probable than Apple jumping to x86.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
after reading all the forum posts here, arsforum, and the macrumors board, and then the daring fireball post, I too have concluded that Intel will produce ppc chips, and/or be in on a killer app type product like the iPod. a tablet iPad?
either way it has to have huge buzz to compete with these rumors, and Intel HAS to be involved.
maybe intel will license or buy from freescale the rights. maybe it is OS X on a pentium m in a mobile tablet for video, etc. Either thing would rock. The latter would have the same killer app quality as the iPod has, I think
Let's review:
IBM marketed its cell processors to xbox and ps3 that outperforms older super computers. And is rumored to be the next generation CPU platform for PCs.
AMD's Athlon 64 technology out performs current CPU sets shipped by Intel by leaps and bounds while still maintaining cheaper price margin.
x86 archetecture wont be compatable with Apple's older codes (OS and applications)
It makes no sense for Apple to move to Intel. It's baffling why anyone would leave an optimized platform, switch to another, and choose the most expensive yet not the best solution.
Here's my theory:
If any of this is true, which I'm not at all sure it is, why does everyone think it's going to be an x86 chip?
Apple IIRC has the ability to license the PowerPC chip to others. What if Apple is licensing PowerPC to Intel because IBM can't deliver? No incompatability. The current chips are already made by two differrent companies.
If there is ANY fact to this rumor, and it all seems to be rehash of the cnet story, this where where I think the most logical answer lies.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Minor point, but the X-Scale wasn't an Intel design (at least not at the outset) - its one helluvan evolution of the venerable old Acorn Arm Chip.
I'm intrigued by this possible chip change though; there must be some pretty good reasoning going on in Jobs head (ie. there has to be some "cool factor" going on somewhere?).
It seems likely that this frenzy of speculation will affect the stock price in the short term. It seems like no matter what Apple announces at WWDC today, the headline will be related to this speculation. The folks who drive the stock price probably don't read Slashdot, and the headline "Apple did or did not switch to Intel" may drive some pretty big buy/sell movement as soon as the keynote is over.
Which direction will it move? If it moves down, how long will it take to recover?
There is enough uncertainty in such a move that it sure seems to me -- a slashdot reader who doesn't affect stock prices -- that it could only move down if such a switch is announced. However, when I think about it from the perspective of a trader who probably doesn't know all that much beyond the headline that shows up on his pager at say 11:01 PST today, I wonder if a switch would be considered good, and a series of PowerPC related announcements would be considered as a sell indicator.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
He's busy preparing for his keynote, duh.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
I cannot understand that some people think that Intel would manufacture PowerPC chips. There is no sane people who would believe that, people only say it because they want it to be true and don't want to see the reality.
There are a lot of reasons for this. One obvious reason is that it would take atleast 3-4 years for Intel do have a PowerPC product ready for Apple. Intel cannot just take an existing PowerPC design and manufacture it. It doesn't work that way.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
1) Chip supply. IBM and Motorola have had repeated problems supplying Apple with the number of chips that Apple needs. Intel will not have this problem.
IBM is now something like two years behind on its promised 3 Ghz chips.
2) Laptops. Apple needs a low-heat G-5 chip for it's laptops. From all accounts, it may be as long as two years before IBM or Motorola will be able to provide these chips.
3) Cost. Apple, according to today's NY Times, in its latest renegotiations with IBM wanted a discount on the price of the PowerPC chips. IBM essentally said forget about it.
4) There's no way Apple will NOT have a way for users to run their old applications on the new Intel/Macs. There will be some form of emulation available -- count on it.
- dj
Because it's fun. How about a new rumor, since we've only got a few more hours.
How about... Intel cut Apple a sweet deal on Itanium chips for the Mac line?
I know there has been speculation about Apple taking PowerPC into the Intel fab, but IMHO that seems even less likely than OS/X running on x86 chips. Apple has been struggling for years from a weak point. Even though at the moment they're behind the performance curve, Intel is still dealing from a strong point. Doing PowerPC chips, even from a foundry contract, would be another coffin-nail for Itanium, on top of doing x86-64, and I don't think Intel would do that, at least not right now.
But it's worth remembering that Steve Jobs has been more able than most to turn lemons into lemonade. Despite his "reality distortion field," Jobs is one of the few CEOs to focus on growing his markets, rather than just cutting costs.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Microsoft bought Connectix (authors of the VirtualPC software that lets Macs emulate Wintel boxes) and then quickly dropped their main product for no readily aparrent reason (other than pure spite). ... This leaves Apple with a VirtualPC shaped hole in their 'switch' marketing campaign.
Really? I guess my mind must be playing tricks on me; I was sure I had a copy of Microsoft Virtual PC 7.0 on my Mac...
Haha, Steve Jobs is talking to the Intel CEO right now saying "Damn it, we weren't going to go with an Intel CPU, but now if I don't go out on stage an anounce that our stock will plummet!"
I'm glad that at least one person isn't taking this "Apple goes to x86" thing as gospel.
There are dozens of possible situations where an Intel/Apple partnership could work. Apple using x86 processors in Macs just isn't one of them. Though there are some good points, it seems like a shot in the foot.
Pro:
1. Cheap(er) to mass produce
2. Name recognition
3. Could run MS Windows code natively through translation layer (much the same way that "Classic" mode works)
4. Higher clock speed
5. No fabrication quantity worries
These points don't even begin to offset the problem with binary compatibility. Apple is already in a transition from 32bit to 64bit and the only reason that that is working is because the G5 can fall back and run the old code natively. Trying to emulate the PPC would be technically possible but real world performance would be terrible. Commercial software vendors would be outraged.
I still believe that this alleged announcement is for something else (net hardware, iPod chips, set top box, etc) and there is really no need for speculation on something that will be offically announced in mere hours, but there is one way that this could work.
If Apple owns much of the PPC, they could work with Intel to create a "G6" that could continue to run older code and still reach speed goals. If they are simply going to retool factories to pump out G5s then I could see them getting chips out the door by early 2006 but this may take a while. This would be a win for everyone; Apple, Intel, and the users... everyone except for IBM.
I hope I'm right.
Some quick points. . .
Macs with X86 processors probably wouldn't be able to install and run Windows, and Mac OS X probably still won't be able to run on a Dell. Somebody will of course try to hack it and make it work, but Apple will be against them. Generally, a Mac will still be a Mac, and a PC will still be a PC.
X86 will raise the possibility of WINE becoming practical on the Mac. Whether this is good or not depends on your viewpoint. Some would say a single box that can run Mac programs, Java programs, Windows programs, and a lot of Linux programs (via Fink, etc.) is the Holy Grail. On the other hand, it might decimate Mac software development. Why spend money developing a Mac version of your app when users can simply run your Windows version under WINE?
Wired Magazine raised speculation about this all being a DRM ploy, saying what Apple really wants is the Pentium D so they can sell movies over the internet (just like iTMS) with DRM up the wazoo. I agree with the guy who said this is the worst possible reason to switch processors.
On the balance, I'm against it, and I hope this all turns out to be merely a rumor that ran out of control. The DRM aspect worries me the most -- as a die-hard Mac lover, this is the one thing I can imagine that might possibly drive me to Linux.
Some posts argue that Apple switching to Intel would mean switching byte endianness, and that would piss off a whole slew of Mac developers and require enough software rewrites to be extremely uncomfortable.
That's a good arguement, but it's interesting to note that IA64 can go both ways. I'm not saying they'd go IA64, but that Intel is capable of making that a non-issue.
Personally, I think this while notion is awesome entertainment no matter what happens. And I don't think Apple will be going Intel any time soon.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
What Apple gets from IBM is more than just parts, they get a solid future in R&D. This is why they left Motorola 68K family: no future.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
According to this:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/ RTGAM.20050605.wapchips0605/BNPrint/Technology/ it's a done deal. It's amazing to watch the progression of the Apple/Intel stories go from total speculation, all the way to "it's a done deal!!" (see link above). You would *think* that major newspapers would wait until there was something a bit more solid than "according to published reports" (The story is posted on the front page!!!)
But....considering the downhill slide of news reporting lately, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.
Everyone is basically parroting what everyone else said... Except for 'The Enquirer' - they at least seem to have some sort of other source that confirms this...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Could Apple be doing to IBM what IBM intended to do to them so many years ago with the XP?
One theory says that IBM got 3 companies to build PC prototypes and they picked the worst of the 3 because they didn't want it to hurt their mini computer business. The idea was to flood the market with IBM made computers, wait for Apple and Tandy to give up because they had much slower computers and then apologize to everyone for their junky computer and give them a huge discount on the trade in on a brand new real computer.
I've heard different versions of that story and it fits in with what IBM did in other industries and a friend worked in the factory for the 1st run and claimed there was a letter in there that mentioned that if the computer didn't meet the customers needs they should contact their IBM dealer about a 360 (or whatever was their mini at the time)
Now what would happen if Apple introduced a new computer that would dual boot out of the box with both OS X and Windows . Then after they get a bunch of people using them, they decide to drop the windows side of things. The result could be an increase in market share.
Of course to make a pc that does both windows and os x, someone will have to start shipping a 2+ button mouse so it will never happen.
The case for the Itanium is that the reason it failed in the Wintel world was the difficulty of programming for it, notably its ramant use of out of order instruction capability. And when Windows did not really embrace it that was the death sentence. But Apple has a unique position of controlling the hardware and the OS. Thus they could potentially master this beast. Going Itanium could let them leapfrog the x86 world and have more headroom for growth. I also wonder if the itanium has, like the Power series, support for both big/little endian, thus making the transition easier?
Pentium-M. Well this is no brainer. They need a new chip for the laptop and there's none on the horizon. The interesting thing here is that if they went with a hybrid strategy of Pentium-M in the laptops and G5 in the desktops they have a good transistion strategy available. The graphic artisits and application-specific power users will not settle for emulation of their favorite applications. Thus they have to keep G5 on the desktop till all the applications like Photoshop and Maya have swithced over.. But that class of folks wont be using Laptops as their main machine. And the laptop users might be well satisfied with a fast pentium-M machine that occasionally had to run some applications in a slower emulation mode.
Surely intel has some response to the Cell. Are they going to cede the entire video game/ digital hub market to xbox, sony and the cell? I suspect not. But to enter that market they need a partner. And who better than the maker of the ipod and the only company with a coherent home digital hub strategy (think iLife). Well that would be apple. You cant argue market share dictates windows since the ipod proves that wrong and Microsoft already has its bets on the xbox.
So maybe this is about a video console and not about general purpose computers???
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
What's changed between this article and the one on Friday?
Alex.
The Itanium supports both big and little endian. thus switching to this processor would be simpler than X86.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Apple supposedly licensed software from Transitive that would let them run existing binaries on x86.
If this report is true, and Apple is switching to x86 based CPUs, then it's the first nail in Power's coffin. Despite the marketing push, IBM doesn't sell nearly as many power boxes as intel boxes. And if Apple drops them, that'll radically cut down production at IBM chip fab plants. We may even see the day when IBM has to change cpu architectures for their big iron. I've often wondered if IBM simply wouldn't purchase a big chunk of Intel and move their mainframes to an Itanium family of chips. HP would support it just to get Itanium in wider use. And this would fit IBM's trend from a company that actually engineer products, to a services-mostly company, a transistion that seems to be well underway at IBM.
Oh, and Apple should have gone for the Athlon 64 instead...but Steve Jobs is such a label whore, he probably coudn't bring himself to do it.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I think that it will almost certainly be the case that Intel will simply be taking over production of the PPC 970 architecture from IBM
The company is in better shape financially now than just about any time in it's history. If you are gunna do something this dramatic then right now is the best time. The Ipod (and derivi will float the company for at least another year.
It's about time the folks at Apple admitted defeat and left the dark side for the saving light and grace of the real PC world (Nasty troll dig I know, but it had to be said ;). Of course I think many Applites will be shedding tears as it will remove one of their large arguements as to why their machines are so much better, the power processor.
My question is, if the current line of processors Apple uses are so much better than the Intel or AMD lineups, then why is Apple switching to Intel? To go to a worse CPU? I think not. I think Steve Jobs just pulled the rug out from under his overtly fanatical section of his following. Then again, perhaps that will aslo work to his benefit. It is hard to sell a machine to a person who perceives that association with it is bad. Many perceive the Apple as just such a beast. Quell the overspoken fanatical left and right wings and perhaps your product becomes more saleble to those in the middle. Contrary to what many current Apple followers may believe, this may actually broaden Apple's markets and allow it to become more than just the niche product it has so long been sequestered to.
How will this affect Apple's marketing? For years, the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field(tm) has been solidly against anything Intel (or more generally, x86 related). My favourite is the:
;)
1mhz Apple == 4mhz PEECEE
Now, truthfully, trying to boil performance of something so complex as that down to a simple equation is total b.s.... I know it, you know it, Tom Servo know it and Zorak know it.... However, will this move to Intel processors (if done) humble the zealots for awhile?
I'll admit i've trolled against the Apple Zealots before, (and yeah i'm being a bit smug at the moment) but I'm curious to see how they deal with the way this turn of events makes all their previous claims somewhat awkward...
There will still be plenty of differences (the processor will be specialized i'm sure) but it just seems that as more and more of the Apple architecture starts becoming Just Like PEECEEs, i wonder how they'll continue to keep arguing that "Apple computers are made of superior hardware".
Thoughts?
P.S., we'll probably learn that it's just a matter that Intel will start making some non-important chip for them (i.e. the RTS clock or something), *NOT* the processor
do() || do_not();
....gossip rag.
Seriously though, I wrote the Inq piece, and I do have it from an independant source, and I had the info before CNet broke theirs, so it isn't a case of someone seeing CNet and running to me. I didn't get times though, which is why I was waiting.
On a related note, it would not surprise me if the be-turtlenecked megalomaniac had a hissy fit (a given), and put off the announcement. He can't cancel it, but putting it off to screw the journos would not be out of character.
There is more to this story though, and I will put some up as soon as I get bac from Computex, plane in 6 hours. Aargh.
-Charlie
Your guess is as good as mine as to whether this pic is real... I'm guessing no. But regardless, if it's real, wow, if it's not, it's pretty funny:
http://forum.macosx.nl/album_pic.php?pic_id=7142
-Daniel
I remember before the G5 was announced when most sensible people agreed that the PPC P4 was no longer competitive with Intel's latest. Apple kept telling its users "megahertz myth", etc, and talking about "pipelines". Then they switched to the P5 architecture--finally competitive with Intel. That made all their statments during the end of the P4 era suspect.
When the G5 was announced I was watching Steve live. He said something about 3 GHz in a year. I'm still waiting.
Mac users have it in their head that Intel is bad. That will confuse the Mac loyalists. I remember a conversation I had a few weeks ago. There was a Mac user working on Photoshop. He shouldn't care what CPU his computer used as long as it was fast enough. He was watching me do some custom video stuff on an Intel computer.
"I thought the Intel was bad for video", he told me. "It'th got a thegmented architecture." (Lisp was because of a tounge piercing, which seems more common among Mac users.) Now, I don't know where he heard that, or why it matters to him how the Intel chip addresses memory. But somehow he was duped--sucessfully--by the Apple PR machine that Intel is inferior.
Apple has an advantage because of their "closed box." By controlling both the hardware and software they can select the best technlogy available and integrate it. For low power, and perhaps for dual core, Intel may be the best choice. I wouldn't be surprised to see Intel used effectively by Apple for:
- Headless Servers
- A Mini-Mac "ilife" machine
- Some sort of Tablet machine
That would make a lot of sense.Best Buy can have you arrested
Quoth the article:
AMD's processor business had another excellent quarter, posting record revenue and profit figures. Overall company revenue was $1.23 billion, slightly higher than the estimates of analysts polled by Thomson First Call. The processor business accounted for $750 million of that revenue in the company's first quarter, which ended on March 27.
So they're going to leave the field to intel when they have a 16.9% market share and have just posted record revenue and profit figures? I think not.
I am NaN
Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006
WWDC 2005, SAN FRANCISCO--June 6, 2005--At its Worldwide Developer Conference today, Apple® announced plans to deliver models of its Macintosh® computers using Intel microprocessors by this time next year, and to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007. Apple previewed a version of its critically acclaimed operating system, Mac OS® X Tiger, running on an Intel-based Mac® to the over 3,800 developers attending CEO Steve Jobs' keynote address. Apple also announced the availability of a Developer Transition Kit, consisting of an Intel-based Mac development system along with preview versions of Apple's software, which will allow developers to prepare versions of their applications which will run on both PowerPC and Intel-based Macs.
"Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "It's been ten years since our transition to the PowerPC, and we think Intel's technology will help us create the best personal computers for the next ten years."
"We are thrilled to have the world's most innovative personal computer company as a customer," said Paul Otellini, president and CEO of Intel. "Apple helped found the PC industry and throughout the years has been known for fresh ideas and new approaches. We look forward to providing advanced chip technologies, and to collaborating on new initiatives, to help Apple continue to deliver innovative products for years to come."
"We plan to create future versions of Microsoft Office for the Mac that support both PowerPC and Intel processors," said Roz Ho, general manager of Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit. "We have a strong relationship with Apple and will work closely with them to continue our long tradition of making great applications for a great platform."
"We think this is a really smart move on Apple's part and plan to create future versions of our Creative Suite for Macintosh that support both PowerPC and Intel processors," said Bruce Chizen, CEO of Adobe.
The Developer Transition Kit is available starting today for $999 to all Apple Developer Connection Select and Premier members. Further information for Apple Developer Connection members is available at developer.apple.com. Intel plans to provide industry leading development tools support for Apple later this year, including the Intel C/C++ Compiler for Apple, Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple, Intel Math Kernel Libraries for Apple and Intel Integrated Performance Primitives for Apple.
Intel (www.intel.com http://www.intel.com/> ), the world's largest chip maker, is also a leading manufacturer of computer, networking and communications products.
Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning desktop and notebook computers, OS X operating system, and iLife and professional applications. Apple is also spearheading the digital music revolution with its iPod portable music players and iTunes online music store.
10:26am PDT - "Now, let's go to the big topic: Transitions."
10:27am PDT - 1994-1996 Moto 68K -> PowerPC. "I wasn't hear then, but from everything I hear the team did a great job." 2001-2003: OS9 - OS X.
10:28am PDT - "It's time for a third transition. And yes, (puts up slide that says): It's true." Next slide is one word: "Why?"
10:29am PDT - "I stood up two years ago and promised this (3.0G PowerMac), and we haven't been able to deliver." Steve says it's bigger than that, though. No roadmap for the future based on PowerPC - they can't see a future.
10:30am PDT - Intel offers not just increased performance, but reduced power consumption. Transition will be complete by WWDC '07.
- sigs are for wimps.
Just now in the keynote - "I stood up here two years ago and promised you 3.0 GHz. I think a lot of you would like a G5 in your PowerBook, and we haven't been able to deliver that to you. But as we look ahead, and though we've got great products now, and great PowerPC products still to come, we can envision great products we want to build, and we can't envision how to build them with the current PowerPC roadmap." - Steve Jobs
"Press releases from left-wing groups"...that's funny.
The press has been nothing more than a stenographer for the far right for years now. Consider whitewater, the starr report, the lies about the white house being trashed, the lies about wmd in Iraq, and so on. Try to imagine what the press would be saying if, for example, Bill Clinton had given phoney press credentials and a fake name to a gay prostitute so that said prostitute could derail press conferences with softball questions scripted by the white house. Then consider that this actually happened with Bush and the press has hardly said anything about it.
Sounds to me like you're just parroting Rush Limbaugh and his clones. Keep watching Rush, maybe he'll tell you how to think about Intel chips in Macs, too.
The rumors are true: Intel will be inside
Jobs talked about the major transitions in the Mac's life -- starting from the Mac's Motorola 68000-series processor to PowerPC. "The PowerPC set Apple up fro the next decade. It was a good move," he said.
"The second transition was even better -- the transition from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X that we just did," he continued. "This was a brain transplant. And even though these operating systems (9 and x) vary only by one in name, they are very different, and this has set Apple up for the next 20 years."
As the Intel logo lowered on the stage screen, Jobs said, "We are going to make the transition from PowerPC to Intel processors, and we are going to do it for you now, and for our customers next year. Why? Because we want to be making the best computer for our customers looking forward."
"I stood up here two years ago and promised you 3.0 GHz. I think a lot of you would like a G5 in your PowerBook, and we haven't been able to deliver that to you," said Jobs. "But as we look ahead, and though we've got great products now, and great PowerPC products still to come, we can envision great products we want to build, and we can't envision how to build them with the current PowerPC roadmap," said Jobs.
Intel processors provide more performance per watt than PowerPC processors do, said Jobs. "When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PoweRPC gives us 15 units of perfomance per watt, but Intel's roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do," he explained.
Transition to Intel by 2007, and yes, Marklar exists
"Starting next year, we will introduce Macs with Intel processors," said Jobs. "This time next year, we plan to ship Macs with Intel processors. In two years, our plan is that the transition will be mostly complete, and will be complete by end of 2007."
Jobs then confirmed a long-held belief that Apple was working on an Intel-compatible version of Mac OS X that some have termed "Marklar."
Mac OS X has been "leading a secret double life" for the past five years, said Jobs. "So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years."
Jobs demonstrated a version of Mac OS X running on a 3.6GHz Pentium 4-processor equipped system, running a build of Mac OS X v10.4.1. He showed Dashboard widgets, Spotlight, iCal, Apple's Mail, Safari and iPhoto all working on the Intel-based system.
Apple needs developers' help to complete the transition
"We are very far along on this, but we're not done," said Jobs. "Which is why we're going to put it in your hands very soon, so you can help us finish it."
The future of Mac OS X development is moving to Xcode, said Jobs. Of Apple's top 100 developers, more than half -- 56 percent -- are already using Xcode, and 25 percent are in the process of switching to Xcode. "Less than 20 percent are not on board yet. Now is a good time to get on board," said Jobs.
Pooty tweet
Jobs then confirmed a long-held belief that Apple was working on an Intel-compatible version of Mac OS X that some have termed "Marklar." Mac OS X has been "leading a secret double life" for the past five years, said Jobs. "So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years." Jobs demonstrated a version of Mac OS X running on a 3.6GHz Pentium 4-processor equipped system, running a build of Mac OS X v10.4.1. He showed Dashboard widgets, Spotlight, iCal, Apple's Mail, Safari and iPhoto all working on the Intel-based system.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Steve Jobs steps down. To be replaced by Carly Fiorina.
Wow, it's true - from MacObserver.
[1:43 PM] We're getting a demonstaration of Mathematica at work. It's quite impressive, of course, and it's working on an Intel Mac. - posted by Dave
[1:42 PM] According to Mr. Gray, it took two hours to do this port. "We're talking about 20 lines of code out of millions from a dead cold start where he didn't even know why he was going." - posted by Dave
[1:41 PM] Mr. Gray is joking about getting "the most crazy calls from Apple," where Steve asked him on Wednesday night to come out to Apple and port Mathematica, one of the most complex apps on the planet to Intel by Monday. - posted by Dave
[1:39 PM] Asked a long time developer (Theo Grey of Wolfram Research, the makers of Mathematica) to come out to Apple and work on Intel. - posted by Dave
[1:38 PM] Developers applauded Steve when he said that both processors would be supported for a long time to come, and the core to this will be universal binaries. - posted by Dave
[1:37 PM] In a chart, Coca apps had half the "tweak" time as Xcode, but Steve emphasized that it will be easy. - posted by Dave
[1:37 PM] "Cocoa apps: A few minor tweaks and a recompile, and it just works. Widgets, scripts, and JAva just work." Xcode will take a few more tweaks. - posted by Dave
[1:35 PM] Looking at the developer's apps now. Everyone is on the edge of their seat. - posted by Dave
[1:34 PM] Steve confirmed all this, BTW, by saying the rumors have been true about how Apple had an Intel project. - posted by Dave
[1:33 PM] Today's demonstration has been done entirely on an Intel Mac. Steve is showing us how everything works. - posted by Dave
[1:33 PM] Every project done at Apple has been mandated to work on PowerPC and Intel. - posted by Dave