Slashdot Mirror
Apple Switching to Intel
Steve Jobs announced at the WWDC keynote today that Apple is switching to Intel processors. MacNN has live coverage. The bottom line is that Mac OS X for the last five years has been running on Intel, the switch is expected to be complete in two years, and Rosetta will allow PPC apps to run on Intel-based Macs, transparently. If you're using Xcode, it is small changes and a recompile; otherwise, you might be seeing a lot of work ahead of you. You will be able to order the 10.4.1 preview for Intel today.
It's crow. Eat up. (I'll have to eat my share too.)
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
Late Friday afternoon, C|Net News published an extremely valuable trade secret about Apple and Intel, days before Apple was scheduled to announce it ( Apple to Ditch IBM, Switch to Intel Chips ). So, where's the friggin' lawsuit against C|Net to find out who leaked? Where is the judge who is going to claim that what C|Net published was "stolen property"?
6 /05/apple_intel_wheres_the_lawsuit_against_cnet.ph p
From: http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/2005/0
Man, it is cold in hell today. Brr. :P
- oZ
// i am here.
/me breaks out his Mac user rolodex to do some gloating :D
Everyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill
Mac enthusiasts spouted off about the superiority of their favourite computing architecture, and now Apple is switching to Intel.
Farewell dear Apple ... I knew thee well ...
Llywelyn Fawr
Are you sure [y/N]?
This is-- it's hard to tell-- possibly a good business decision for Apple. It's probably good for the seemingly quite large contingent of people here on slashdot who say over and over they have always wanted macs but never actually get one. For those of you in the "let's run linux on a toaster!" contingent this is fantastic, since you now have the fun challenge open to you of screwing with Darwin and getting an unauthorized port of Mac OS/x86 running on your athlons or whatever you kids are using these days.
For Apple's actual customers, this fucking sucks.
I've been using macs for... I can't even keep track. Somewhere between thirteen and sixteen years now. Shortly into this, I had to deal with a painful and extremely nasty transition, when Apple switched from the 680x0 to the PowerPC architecture. This was necessary. The 680x0 was not a growable architecture; the PPC architecture was (and still is). The PPC represented such a massive boost in power that the 680x0 could be emulated with more speed than the fastest mac 680x0s themselves offered. But it was still hard. Mac users had to deal with the obnoxiousness of fat binaries vs ppc vs 68k for years, and the slowdown when those 68k apps were running, and the 68k binaries never quite went away all the way up until OS X. Getting PPC binaries was in theory just a matter of recompiling, but sometimes relatively essential apps had been made by developers who had disappeared off the face of the planet, or had made their programs dependent on legacy programming tools without ppc support, or were just plain lazy. In practice FAT binaries were a luxury because devs generally either had compiled for 68k long ago and didn't feel like recompiling, or were compiling on PPC and didn't feel like going to the bother of compiling and distributing FAT just for the convenience of the users of a discontinued architecture.
Awhile after this, I had to deal with another painful and extremely nasty transition, when Apple switched to OS X. This too was necessary, and we'd known it was coming for years; most of us were getting quite impatient, since we'd been waiting since Spindler for an OS where we could for(int *p=0;;*(p++)=0); without having to reboot. But it wasn't effortless. Aside from random complaints about the spatial finder or migrane-inducing cutesy interference bar patterns everywhere, the mac software library was kind of messed up for a long time. Classic was not really usable except in an emergency, especially not since the early versions of OS X dealt so horribly with RAM starvation and Classic was a big RAM demand. Classic also didn't work with a lot of apps, especially in the A/V area. So this wasn't like the 68k switch, where having the wrong binary meant a little bit of slowdown; the software library had to start over at zero. Yeah, we got Word and IE and the other big apps relatively quickly, but that does not a software library make. You need support apps. You need Adiums and VLCs and Colliloquys. You know, the little programs that maybe aren't in day to day usage and maybe not everyone -- but everyone needs one of these apps eventually, and when you need them, you need them. Unless like me you were lucky enough to know how to escape into UNIX-land and use the software library there, for a long time you would find yourself periodically screwed. But, this was necessary, and this passed. It took five years or so, but the software library has now gotten to the point where if I suddenly find myself thinking "hmm, I need an app that does blah" I can look on versiontracker and more likely than not find it.
Except now this new transition is going to make that library restart once again at zero.
And this transition is different. There isn't a viable benefit to the customers. When the whole thing's done, in three years or whenever, we'll have a marginally faster computer, maybe a few tens of percents faster. Or rather so long as you weren't using any Altivec-heavy apps (since SSE is a poor replacement) and as long
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I think that was bound to iHappen.
As a mac zealot, hell is now a cold frozen tundra.
Or can I homebrew an OSX box? :)
That'd be nice.
I hope Apple supports the best x86 chips, AMD64.
Its time to help the Darwine people make a Cocoa driver.
My prediction of when you'll be able to run Mac OS X on an x86 machine is still: never. Apple isn't a software company. They're a hardware company. Just because they're changing their processor does not mean you're going to be able to run it on your hardware.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
so apples is just going to sell the OS?
But it was a whooping $1,595.
I have to admit, I never saw this coming. It was one of those things that was always to be dismissed out of hand without even another thought...
Repercussions?
Wow, hell HAS frozen over!
Will someone please think about the children!
I, for one, welcome our new Mactel overlords.
Introducing: iDeath '05
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
I also have been agreeing with the industry analysts who said Apple would be running on Intel chips before long, and I've been vindicated.
Now, if my prediction that Microsoft will have a Linux or other UNIX-like kernel in Windows by 2015 holds up I'll consider myself the Nostradomus of IT.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
"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." http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.h tml
I don't want to buy a mac, I want to buy a copy of OS X that will run on my current hardware. When's that going to be available?
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.h tml
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.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
who vehemently denied this, enjoy an extra serving of crow.
I want one, just to play with :)
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
This means we'll be able to buy Apple hardware and run Windows software natively, through WINE or similar.
After recovering from the shock, this is starting to seem like a good move for Apple.
"I had another dream the other day about music critics. They were small and rodent-like with padlocked ears..."
Sounds like a pretty trivial deal to convert most applications. I wounder how fast the emulated stuff runs.
If they are switching to basic Intel processors will that make them more or less PC clones?
The link to the coverage was slashdotted already..
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" -- Albert Einstein
This is clearly on the heels of the major success of CherryOS.
I dont know what to say.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.h tml
Watch IBM stock's go down the drain today, and Intel going way up.
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
I for one, welcome our new Mactel overlords
...when huge monkeys come flying out of ones ass...
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050606/sfm142.html?.v= 9
MY HEAD IS GOING TO EXPLODE!
iMacs
[duck]
Apparently they are going to use something similar to NeXT's fat binaries, so Xcode can build an app that will run on either PowerPC or x86 architectures.
It sounds like Apple is requiring developers to move to Xcode to ease this transition. He specifically mentioned Metrowerks Codewarrior users would need to move to Xcode.
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."
Widget, scripts and Java applications should work in the new environment without any conversion, said Jobs. Cocoa-based applications will require "a few minor tweaks and a recompile." Carbon-based applications require "a few more tweaks," recompiling, and "they'll work," said Jobs. And projects built using Metrowerks' CodeWarrior need to be moved to Xcode.
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.
A new build of Xcode, version 2.1, is being released today. This new release enables developers to specify PowerPC or Intel architectures. "... and you're going to build what's called a universal binary. It contains all the bits for both architectures," said Jobs. "One binary, works on both PowerPC and Intel architecture. So you can ship one CD that supports both processors."
"This is nothing like Carbonizing"
Many developers reading this news may be thinking that they'll have to go through the same woes they had to in order to get their Mac OS 9 applications "Carbonized" to run on
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:
/. like i describe, so i'm not talking bout j00.
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?
*: For the record, i don't think we have any hardcore zealots here on
Y'all know the type- and i'm not about to say that there aren't plenty of annoying windows/linux/bsd zealots either
do() || do_not();
I think that IBM happily supplying the PPC-based Xenon chip for Xbox 360, while being unable to deliver 3.0 GHz chips for Apple, was the slap in the face that finally caused them to jump.
Now, the question is... what will the new platform be called? Certainly not PowerMac...
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
They've been building everything on PowerPC and Intel at the same time for five years. Wow.
libertarianswag.com
anyone got a link to the osx preview for intel?
I suppose the high end machine won't be called "Power" Mac any more. I wonder what the name will be. For that matter, no more "Power"books either? The name does predate PowerPC, though.
The future is interesting...
This was one of those rumors that seemed too implausible to ever happen, but look at that -- it did!
Hopefully they do it right and produce a BIOS-less really sweet piece of hardware. The SGI Visual Workstation was an example of an X86 machine done right; so at least it can be done.
Will be interesting to see their PPC emulation layer -- that's goign to be a monumental challenge... Maybe Intel will taylor them an X86 with some more registers or something to make it easier.
Will I be able to take ANY x86 hw and install OSX on it?
Why Intel !?!?
1/ Intel chips are definitely not the best (AMD ? Cell ?!)
2/ The switch with the unavoidable compliance problems will piss off customers
3/ Not sharing the same CPU as PC user was a major sell argument.
Just when MS and Sony put a PPC in their consoles ?!
Weird.
--
Go Debian!
Fuck.
Press Release
Somebody send this guy some Worcestershire sauce. I hear it goes well with felt.
From what Steve has said so far, it doesn't sound like the transition will be that bad.
It seems interesting that as the consoles move to the PPC platform, Apple moves away from it.
The Macworld online site is hurting from all the hits. Here's what's there on the Intel news:
"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."
Widget, scripts and Java applications should work in the new environment without any conversion, said Jobs. Cocoa-based applications will require "a few minor tweaks and a recompile." Carbon-based applications require "a few more tweaks," recompiling, and "they'll work," said Jobs. And projects built using Metrowerks' CodeWarrior need to be moved to Xcode.
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.
A new build of Xcode, version 2.1, is being released today. This new release enables developers to specify PowerPC or Intel architectures. "... and you're going to build what's called a universal binary. It contains all the bits for both architectures," said Jobs. "One binary, works on both PowerPC and Intel architecture. So you can ship one CD that supports both processors."
"This is nothing like Carbonizing"
Sorry, was just too tempting...
I wonder how they'll transparently handle all the endian issues? Every data file with binary integers in it will have to be converted. Arghhh!
I would have rather seen them switch to AMD processors. Their superior x86-64 and memory access (as compared to the P4) on the Athlon 64 and Opteron cores would suit OSX's thirst for memory bandwidth quite well.
But this is still big news. I hope that their laptops will get better, faster, and hopefully at least a little bit cheaper!
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
I was about to purchase a new TiBook, but what's the point, if I'll have to buy new software & hardware in a year.
I also don't see developers giving away free updates to major software titles.
Intel on Macs, Microsoft on PowerPC... what is this world coming to?
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
on the ever so knowledgeabe "this will never happen" people, eh?
There was never any reason this could never happen. It's not OS X on commodity x86 machines, it's using an Intel processor in a highly customized and integrated platform that Apple will still control.
It gives Apple a stable supply of CPU's for an architecture that's going to be around for a long time.
"Developer Kit, which includes 3.6GHz Pentium 4. OS X 10.4.1 for Intel"
AMD has the lead on the 64bit x86 line,
why go with the p4? (at least it is not itanic!)
TODO: 753) write sig.
And here it is from the horse's mouth.
No news yet what the architecture will be, but it looks like it won't be an Intel-manufactured PPC--if it were, I don't imagine they'd be talking about translation kits and stuff.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
apple has lost one of three things I thought that made them special- risc processor, and still remaining are design and the OS.. But I remember there being oodles of video guys who bought macs because of the cpu and its multimedia performance.
Why is it all of the good cpus die in the face of the cheap intel stuff? (Read MIPS, Ultra Sparc- not dead but almost, Alpha, etc) I understand that the price drives the market, but people seemed to be willing to pay for the apple cpu's performance.
It's sad to see another great cpu go down the toilet.
In other news, 3D Realms announced earlier today that their long-awaited product "Duke Nukem Forever" would be released in 2007 for Mac OS X "Leopard" - but only on an Intel-made processor.
If you are a fan of Linux on PPC, fear not, IBM still sells relatively low cost PPC machines that run Linux quite well.
Apple is moving to Intel which has traditionally been Microsoft's domain for desktop CPUs. Microsoft is changing their XBox from Intel to IBM PowerPC. What the heck is going on? Cats and dogs, living together! Mass hysteria!
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
#ifdef _INTEL_
SwapBytes(PROG_START_ADDR, PROG_END_ADDR)
#endif
I for one welcome our vertically-challenged American-Indian overlords.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
No kidding!
Nothing sucks like a Vax, nothing blows like a PowerMac G4
Best thing for us developers is not lower prices for machines, it's processor parity with rest of industry and the Intel compiler!!
Is that the next step? Is this the end of MS Windows?
This means NO MORE NEW SOFTWARE for you. No Mac OS X, no iLife, no Final Cut Express, no Photoshop. You will _maybe_ get another version or so and after that you're S.O.L.
This sucks so hard, it's unbelievable. Expect a flood of cheap Macs on ebay in the coming weeks.
I think this is simply the biggest challenge Apple is ever going to take:
- From a marketing point of view
- In engineering (hardware and software)
- In communication with its partner (it seems it's already a success as Wolfram Research, Adobe and Microsoft are in the wagon)
Wow...
Is it just me, or has Apple killed sales for the next year, until the first x86 machine comes out?
Even with fat binary support, not everyone is going to be so nice as to build/test/distro cross architecture binaries, never mind once the 2007 "threshold" is released and apple considers the transition complete.
Posted anonymously for great victory.
# Intel is passionate about their products, according to Steve Jobs. Intel CEO Paul Otellini invited on stage to talk about Apple's transition.
# Launch of Microsoft Office 2004 was best product launch for Mac OS X. New version of Messenger due for Macs in the next few months. Additionally, a new update for Exchange users. MacBU commits to delivering a "Universal Binary" for Microsoft Office. Jobs also invites Bruce Chizen of Adobe on stage to talk about Intel-based Mac transition. Adobe says it is committed bringing its applications to Intel-based Macs. [10:52 am]
# Apple will offer a Developer Kit, which includes 3.6GHz Pentium 4. OS X 10.4.1 for Intel (preview release). Order today; available in two weeks. [10:48 am]
# Rosetta is a dymanic binary translator. Runs PowerPC code on Intel-baesd Macs. Transparent to users. Pretty fast. Jobs demos Rosetta used to run PowerPC macs on Intel-based Macs. Jobs shows Microsoft Excel/Word running on Intel-based Mac (without any porting and/or recompiling). Jobs also shows Photoshop CS2 with all plugins that are translated and run on Intel-based Mac without significant speed decrease. [10:46 am]
# Jobs introduces Wolfram's CEO, who said they ported Mathematica 5 to Intel-based Macs in 2 hours. Working version in 2 hours flat. Only about 20 lines of code changed. [10:40 am]
# Widget/Scripts/Java --> Just work. Cocoa --Xcode (tweaks, recompile) --> A few days. Carbon - Xcode (twek, recompile) --> A few weeks. Carbon Apps --Metroweks -- Jobs says to transfer to Xcode. Over half of 100 developers using Xcode. Nex Xcode 2.1 delivered today. News Xcode generates a single "universal binary" that supports both processors. Available to everybody at registration desk following the keynote. [10:37 am]
# Mac OS X has been leading secret double life. Every Mac project build for Intel and PowerPC and Intel. Every release of Mac OS X has been built for both Intel and PowerPC-based Macs. For the last 5 years. Mac OS X is cross-platform by design. Apple's demo is on an Intel-based system. Jobs shows all Mac OS X Tiger features are already compatible with Intel-based processors. Not done yet. Will put into the developer hands to help Apple finish it. [10:32 am]
# Two major transitions for Mac: 68K to PowerPC. Next Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. Now time for third transition. Transition to Intel-based Macs. Developers Now. Next year for users. "Because we want to make the best computers for our customers." No G5 PowerBook yet. Future products can't be build on IBM of PowerPC. Intel has performance and better performance per watt. Intel delivers much better performance per watt. Starting next year the first Macs with Intel processors. Shipping by next WWDC. Mostly complete by 2007 WWDC. Complete by the end of 2007. Two-year transition. [10:28 am]
# Panther 49%..Tiger 16%..Jaguar 25%....early 5%...Expecting Tiger to grow 50% of base by same time next year. Apple has released 5 major versions of OS in last 5 years, while Microsoft has released one (XP). Leopard, next major relase of Mac OS X, due at the end of 2006, alongside Longhorn release. [10:26 am]
# Apple this week says it will deliver the 2,000,000 copy of Mac OS X Tiger. In under 6 weeks since its released. 400 dashboard widgets available since it is released. Jobs demos a few Dashboard widgets. [10:21 am]
# Jobs touts Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger. One billion copies of QuickTime shipped. QuickTime 7 preview available for Windows today. Jobs quotes various glowing media reviews of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger, highlighting Spotlight. [10:18 am]
# Mac doing very well. PC growth rate is around 10% today . 9 months ago Mac growth rate took off. [10:16 am]
# Apple will build in Podcasting support into iTunes. Easy/quick listing of Podcasts right into iTunes. Subscribe podcasts, download old podcasts. Jobs demos Adam Curry podcast. Artwork in iTunes window changes as you scrub podcasts. Jobs said that new iTunes would take podcastin
What do you think? Christmas 2007 for OS X for PC?
-EvilMagnus
Was there any indication that Apple had a development team working on OS X for Intel? Frankly, I'm surprised that Apple could keep it a secret for so long.
I guess it's time to get my tattoo removed...
The powerbooks weren't cutting it and there was NO WAY to get a G5 in there.
Maybe I can get back to a 4-5hr runtime like the first generation Tibook had..
..don't panic
This is almost unbelievable. Yesterday I was still arguing with a friend that this was impossible, the world would end before Apple switched to Intel.
Although, I like the news. I've been an Intel zealot for the past few years, but got tired of Linux (hadn't used Windows either for a while) so I decided to test new waters with the Mac. It's great that I can now have my favorite processor with my new favorite OS (:
Join the NFSNET. Our prime goal is making little numbers out of big ones. http://www.nfsnet.org/
XBox 360 using IBM PowerPC, Apple MacOS X using Intel x86, California having a Republican governor.........
If it runs the same processor as my $300 Dell, why should I go spend all the money and get a Mac? Just for the OS? I'm wondering.
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
Rosetta, apparently, will allow low-end software to run thru a JIT converter that apparently has enough oomph to handle Phtotoshop, and other "1% power users needs." ;-) (sorry, inside jab at pudge, God bless him.)
plus, those power apps like the Apple Production Suite for the 1% power users have been built with Xcode - so i'm sure that Apple will eat their own dog-food on that one.
Mathematica is already done - it took 2 hours to make the move (according to Wolfram) - so i wonder how long it will actually take for the big apps to fall along side.
honestly - i was ready to be a fan of IBM - but they have lagged, and i'm sick of slow-ass PowerBooks
i (and i'm sure, many others) want a field-portable havey duty workstation.. i get that with a Intel-based PowerBook.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Let the piracy of MAC OS X officially...BEGIN!!! Oh, and let all emulation projects such as pearpc and qemu cease to exist...sadly.
Will Microsoft support Apple hardware?
Not because I am an apple customer, just because I think this is a great move by a great company which wants to stay great.
Sure it makes some people unhappy, but if IBM can't meet apples supply needs, why tie themselves down?
The official press release is here. Apple is also including a technology called "Rosetta" which will run all PowerPC apps on an Intel, and is supposed to be relatively transparent (unlike Classic). I agree that this is a bad move. However, they appear to have prepared for it very well.
Too bad about the rumors that Intel would be making PPC's based on Apple's terms with IBM. I could see Intel wanting to get this hands on PPC IP since tens of millions of these are heading for various game consoles.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Now it just remains to be seen whether or not Apple will modify the Mac OS to run on standard x86es, or if Intel will be adding specialized features to the chips they ship to Apple.
- Just because we CAN do a thing, does not mean we SHOULD do that thing.
O boy! Now M$ can propose improving the Mac with a windows port.
Oh wait, based on a post yesterday (16% of the web surfers don't have virus problems i.e. mac users) this would only help the spammers.
That smug bastard Dvorak was right.
Dammit.
I think this is completely awesome.
Right now I dont run Mac on anything but my iPod because I only have one computer and it dual boots XP and SuSe.
now I can have it triple boot and run os X without needing to buy more hardware.
This rocks!
"What does slashdotting mean?"
"You've never heard of slashdot?"
"I know it makes websites not work."
Will let me run it on my workstation and use Virtual Machines to compile etc.
All you people who said it was stupid and/or infeasible for Apple to do this, what are you thinking...right...now.
I was about to sell my PC rig, if OS X will run on it, I'm totally going for it. AMD Athlon XP, gig of RAM with three 19" monitors...running OS X. I'm so there.
Unexpected move by apple. Could we see Pentium Ms in iMacs, Powerbooks? Pentium 4s in Powermacs? Celeron in iBook. This really changes the face of the company. I'm a PC user, but I would prefer apple stay with apple hardware. Its just part of who they are. I don't see any reason to dual boot OS X and Windows XP.
But I thought people were going to be debunking this story for the next five or ten years?
Apple had no choice. Jobs promised a G5 laptop more than a year ago. IBM dropped the ball because they were too busy concentrating on the Xbox with Microsoft.
There can only be one! HAHAHA (evil laughter)
by an egomaniac.
Stick a fork in Apple, it's done.
Steve just wiped out two years of Apple hardware sales just because he couldn't get his G5 laptop.
WTG Steve, get your resume ready because you're going to be applying for a job selling sugar water next year.
1) Will Apple sell hardware in the next 1-2 years? "No, I'll wait for the REAL Mac's...". They've Osborne'd themselves.
2) How will they EVER sell another server? The current ones are dead and the new ones are identical to existing linux cluster machines. Aqua don't do squat for compute jobs, and the O/S can't hack threads.
3) How will they get any 3rd-party developer to touch a machine prior to the Intel machines having an installed base? "Uhh.. No, we'll wait until you have customers, Apple".
This might be ok with the home market (I'm trying to decide that, as I was considering an upgrade to my PB next year). It'll probably play well with the entertainment business. But professionally, it's NOT a good day.
Well, doesn't that beat all. Hopefully Intel will dump the whole x86 instruction set...
The macworld.com live update from the keynote said they demo'd MacOS X on a 3.6GHz P4.
I wonder if it was actually a Xeon, with x86-64 support.. At this stage in Apple's evolution (and the state of the x86 market), I can't see them ever using a 32bit CPU. It just doesn't make sense.
But, that also opens a lot of other questions..
One big need is for a next generation PowerBook. What will power that? The Xeon is too hot & power hungry to use in a laptop (just like the G5). So, Intel must have a x86-64 Pentium-M in the works.
Also, why Intel and not AMD? It seems like the power management on the AMDs has been much better than Intel.
I'm guessing that IBM/Motorolla told Apple that, due to the small # of Macintoshes made each year---as opposed to the # consoles manufactured, that they would be fulfilling Microsoft's, Sony's, and Nintendo's orders before Apples.
Does this mean we will get an OSX that runs on AMD's? That would be awsome...
The gates in my computer are AND, OR and NOT; they are not Bill.
Apple will have to give OSX away for free. You can read my arguments for this at: ADT Mag
I realize this sounds outlandish on the surface, but it also is plausible, and could actually work.
Thoughts?
According to the MacNN coverage: "Jobs introduces Wolfram's CEO, who said they ported Mathematica 5 to Intel-based Macs in 2 hours. Working version in 2 hours flat. Only about 20 lines of code changed." I wonder how quickly it would take to port/recompile some of those Windows only games. It'll be great when I won't need a second system just to be able to play games.
There's never enough when you have too little
Now that Apple has announced that it is moved to Intel, who is going to buy a G5 now? I am sure as hell not. Apple just killed the sales of its hardware for the rest of the year. Also does this mean I will be able to buy a Dell PowerEdge 2850 running Mac OSX Server?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
And yes, I know that many of you think it will never happen because Apple will do some shenanigans at the hardware level to make sure it never works. But I'm not so sure they can. Remember -- OS/X runs on an open-source Kernel. The point of a kernel is to be a hardware abstraction layer between the upper layer software and the hardware. This means that the part that Apple can fool with is Open Source.
Now, I'm sure they'll put in some sort of dealies here and there to test if they're running on genuine Apple hardware, but these things can be fooled.
It may take a little while, but we will definitely see OS/X running on standard hardware. And what's interesting is that Apple knows it. So here's the big question...
Will Steve allow it to happen, perhaps grudingly, and make a ton of money in the process? Yes, yes, I know, Apple makes their money from hardware. But selling software hasn't exactly hurt Microsoft, now has it? The money has always been in the software.
We'll see, should be verrrry interesting.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
...the shit will fly everywhere and make a mess. ;-)
IronChefMorimoto
I hate intel chips and won't buy anything even if it is an apple product. Way to screw things up Jobs. Well the dream is over. Looks like I will be using my mac mini for many years to come. I don't understand. Why go with a dying processor line at the end of its life cycle. There are better chips and manufacturers out there. This was an amazingly stupid move by Jobs. IMO Apple will be dead within 5 years.
(You just know we're gonna be seeing that one a bunch.)
I felt a great disturbance in the mac world, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. ...
it was nice knowing ya :-(
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
...did he say anything about a two-button mouse?
This is being covered live in irc.macrumorslive.com #macrumors and irc.apple-x.net #apple-x
The mood here is extremely pessimistic. Many joke of committing suicide, and the one thing everyone agrees on is that no one will be buying a mac in the next two years.
All you guys that want OSX on your x86-
1) It still WON'T happen. At least not with Apple's blessing. Be assured that they'll do everything they can to make it so you can't run it on commodity hardware. Don't underestimate them, either- they know how smart you are.
2) SHUT THE FUCK UP AND JUST BUY AN APPLE. ANY Apple. The cost differences aren't that much, and you can have a machine that's sure to work as designed, everything, every time. Buy It From Apple or Don't Buy It From Apple. There is no middle ground here.
do() || do_not();
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.
Is this for real? I wonder what's Apple's leakability factor.
With the next 3 big gaming consoles running on PPC variants (ps3, xbox360, revolution), it is obvious that PPC no longer meets the needs of Apple.
Go ahead mod troll. I do own 3 macs and play WoW on my mac mini, though. Most of the games _were_ on my PC, but since WoW--forget it.
More music, fewer hits
Watch the tool vendors scramble to catch up. Note that Metrowerks only recently sold its entire x86 compiler chain to an unnamed party to focus on PowerPC. Looks like Apple didn't keep them in the loop.
This isn't good news for many developers using Codewarrior. Either build for a second-class processor, or switch over to a new IDE (whose quality is why many keep to CW). There's a third option there, but it's not very pretty.
Trust me...once released it will be hacked on and hacked on until it works on any home brew machine out there. Get ready for Microsoft-style software/hardware protections to prevent illicit copying of the OS. No matter, however, SOMEONE (probably a /. regular) will get it working on a generic PC.
I think this is a sad day and will force an Epsiode III-style conflict with Microsoft just as Longhorn is being released. Maybe that's what Apple wants. This would be a good time to take a swing at MS. However, I just worry that Microsoft's retaliatory punch could hurt Apple quite a bit. And let's hope that Apple's Intel box is up to snuff when it happens.
Glad I didn't buy a now-obsolete Mac Mini. I'll take the $500 and build a couple of AMD boxes instead.
This sends a very clear message to potential Mac buyers... Do not buy until these machines ship in 2006, or you'll get an obsolete machine, like I just did.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
"# Mac OS X has been leading secret double life. Every Mac project build for Intel and PowerPC and Intel. Every release of Mac OS X has been built for both Intel and PowerPC-based Macs. For the last 5 years. Mac OS X is cross-platform by design. Apple's demo is on an Intel-based system. Jobs shows all Mac OS X Tiger features are already compatible with Intel-based processors. Not done yet. Will put into the developer hands to help Apple finish it. [10:32 am]"
What does that mean? In the future, will I be able to downlo^H^H^H^H^Hpurchase a copy of Tiger and run it on my pc directly? If so, Microsoft is about to take a big dent.
[alk]
If Apple is moving its computers to an x86 platform -- Intel P4s -- does something in the software development tie them to P4s only? Could they ever just, say, switch over to AMD Athlon64s if something went bad with Intel (worst case scenario, I know -- maybe even worse than this one today)? Or would the programming be tied to Intel CPUs?
I'm not a software programmer, so this is just a pure "just out of curiosity" question here.
Thanks,
IronChefMorimoto
Do you think this will mean video game developers will have an easier time porting games to MAC? If it became the norm to release games for Windows and OSX then I would probably switch to OSX.
How long will it be until individuals and vendors begin building AND SELLING their own Apple PC's? If Apple sells "OS X for Intel" in a box, then there may no longer be any reason to buy their hardware ("MACS"), and then there will soon be no reason for ther stores to exist. They will definitely need to drop their powermac/imac prices across the board in order to compete with Dell, et al. Then again, they can just refuse to license the OS and pursue any individuals that sell PC's with OS X pre-installed. Comments?
I could care less what's under the hood. /Mac user since 1984
Are they going to be targeting the IA-64 architecture, or both the 32-bit and 64-bit architectures? Do we really even know if 64-bit is the platform of the future, or is it still up in the air if /that/ switch is necessary for desktop apps? Is it that hard to target /both/?
Why stick up for big business?
All of this would assume that they wanted the information kept secret. I have little doubt that if news.com was publishing this information, Apple didn't have that big of an interest in keeping it secret. With individual product releases, they are quite a bit more protective because they want to control how the products are treated in the media.
A good example of how this can work, if information came out on the shuffle well in advance of release, you'd see lots of reviews picking it apart for it's lack of a display, etc. So, before it ever hit the streets there would be a certain image of the device that could hurt their sales. But when Apple released it, they managed to spin the lack of display as a sort of feature. That the shuffle is about random playing, not picking songs out of a large library.
As far as this change goes, it doesn't really need to be handled in any particular way. They needed to keep it officially secret as a publicly traded company, but practically speaking I don't think they really cared. Ultimately the people most effected by it, ISV's, seem to have had some awareness ahead of time under NDA's (at least the bigger ones).
The end users of macs, for the most part, won't even understand what this means, or care. As long as the next mac they buy runs the software they have now and works as well as what they have now, they won't care.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
CNBC will have a live interview at 2:30 PM ET. Some please capture + Bittorrent!!!
"A diplomat is a man who always remembers a woman's birthday but never remembers her age." -Robert Frost
I'm a recent switcher to macs. And now i would never go back to a PC if i don't have to. But now the 2 are becoming more the same. boo to apple for giving away there differences for the better
This just came across the wire as well:
"Apple will offer a Developer Kit, which includes 3.6GHz Pentium 4. OS X 10.4.1 for Intel (preview release). Order today; available in two weeks."
Not sure of the cost or if it will be tied to specific hardware somehow, but *damn*!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
I believe kuwan said that he would "eat [his] hat if Jobs announces a switch to Intel chips "
So lets see it!
I'm thinking that Apple's stock is going to take quite a hit in the short term. I can't imagine any person, upon reading this news, running out and plunking down big bucks to buy an obsolete PPC Mac. I'm sure not. In fact, I'm going to order a processor upgrade for my three-year-old PM G4 and wait a long time before purchasing a spanking new Apple system again.
when Intel CEO Otellini said he would buy an apple.
You can defy gravity... for a short time
I'll have compatibility headaches either way. So why not? :P
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Apple would be idiotic not to include something akin to VirtualPC - or maybe even more like VMWare - on these new macs, to let them run windows at near-native speeds on top of OS X. All the benefits of a Mac, all the security of a pre-existing Windows application base.
Running MacOS on x86 hardware is going to create a huge demand for OS X on open/commodity hardware platforms.
It's a tough hurdle to get someone to buy a new machine to run MacOS, when it's 95% the same as their Dell box. Also, the head to head pricing comparison becomes much tougher for Apple to deal with.
If Apple insists on using only their hardware, will they allow dual booting, for Windows, Linux, etc? I suppose there's not much they can do to stop that (I can run PowerPC Linux on my mac systems today). But, I would probably be more likely to run Windows in vmware rather than dual boot..
End of world
let the armageddon begin
i was really considering a mac, for my next computer, but now i don't have any reason to purchase one. it wouldn't be any differnt than my current pc.
it seems really strange the microsoft is switching to the ppc for the xbox 360 and sony for the ps3, while apple is switching to intel for the next version of macs.
so much for mac advantage. i guess i'll see what comes out of the ps3 cell processors from ibm. maybe we'll start seeing computers built from ppcs despite apple.
later
Its about time, but a switch to AMD makes more sense. Tables have turned indeed. AMD CPUs are more expensive faster/better. Intel has reduced prices, performance lacks. ...and now this. BTW I recently bought a P4 3.2 Ghz Prescott, so I'm on the side of facts, but the facts are obvious aren't they.
Apple laptops will be able to ship with low-power CPUs. You don't think that's a benefit?
(Yeah, I said laptops. I know that the PPC desktops use less power than the x86. Apple's decided that the laptop is where the money is; see previous news story.)
The rest of your post is about fat binaries and how much recompiling sucks, about which the average computer user cares precisely zero.
Okay great. I was waiting for today's announcements to order my new G5 iMac. Now that I've heard them, I feel like I shouldn't bother. Why buy a new machine that will be obsolete in one year? Unless Apple comes through with some mighty steep discounts on what is now their legacy hardware, I'll spend my money elsewhere, and limp along on my old machine for another year.
Heh, interesting they chose Mathematica. Of course it was easy to port: it already ran on multiple processors (x86 included of course) and a bunch of OSes (OSX, Win, Linux). The changes were probably just a bunch of #define's.
The filesystem is the package manager
But actually this is pretty cool. I'm just imagining an XServer on an Intel monster...and all of the Wintel fanboys who crow about the processor speed of their latest Fry's homebrewed beast. Now one more reason not to switch to a Mac has bit the dust. Can't wait to get a Mactel box and dual boot Linux on it. Schweet.
This guy is way out there
I can't help but think that Apple didn't want this move, but was forced by IBM.
IBM might have said that they weren't going to spend any R&D on the G5/970 for the laptop for instance.
And Apple was forced to take the plunge.
And now they are desperately trying to make this sound as if it will be an advantage to the end user and that it is a great thing.
But behind the scenes Steve Jobs is cursing IBM.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
(And no, I'm not just an Apple-basher. I've been using PowerBooks for years, despite the fact that their performance sucks unbelievably compared to a PC.)
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Well, this has to be the most... hartbreaking, yet "allright" move apple made since they cancled the newton on me.
I was going to buy a Mac mini next month. It would have been my first Mac. I wanted to play with Mac OS X, and enjoy having a near-silent desktop again for the first time since my Amiga days. Now, it looks like it might not be worth it; I'd essentially be investing in a dead-end platform.
-Stephen
On x86, Apple is now directly competing with Microsoft, whereas before, MS pretty much left them alone and instead focused on killing x86 Linux.
Apple is now in Microsoft's sights.
Leopard? Maybe leper would be a more description of how the x86 buyers will be treated by the PPC users. Btw, I have the coverage mirrored here
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
...everyone is suddenly thining that Mac OS X will be running on the x86 architecture. Intel does make x86 chips, but then again, so did IBM, and Motorola, and that never stopped them from producing a PPC architecture. While I understand that things WILL need to be recompiled, that doesn't mean that it's x86.
What I am thinking is that this might be a necessary step into the PowerBook G5 market. The IBM/Motorola Combine have been unable to produce a G5 processor that will be competitive in the mobile market, and still be safely cooled by a laptop chassis. That, and the fact that the G5 processor is a massive, ungainley chunk of kit. We have seen a similar translation, historically - Intel's Pentium II processor. Introduced as a large, blocky slot-loaded module, it wasn't a viable mobile processor. Intel debuts the Pentium II M-series; a pentium II core with a socket formfactor. Could Apple be calling on Intel's experience for pounding a square peg into an oddball shaped hole?
Hey, a geek can only hope.
Informatus Technologicus
Up until this point what has differentiated Apple from just another clone maker? To run their (superior, at least to some people) OS you basically had to own their hardware. Doesn't this decision pretty much throw that out the window? Even if the Intel version of OS X won't run, out of the box, on any Intel powered PC out there, what's to really keep open source developers from hacking it to make it compatible? Is there really going to be any sort of locking mechanism in Apple's new Intel hardware to prevent exactly this from happening?
IMHO, with this decision Apple will find itself out of the hardware business within a few years (unless their Intel boxes are going to sell at competitive prices) and out of business altogether shortly thereafter.
A very sad day for Apple after they spent all that money espousing the virtues of the PPC chip and its superiority over Pentiums to anyone who would listen.
But an even sadder day for everyone who's bought Mac hardware in the last several years, who just got cut off at the knees. Two or three years from now, who will be developing for PPC based Macs?
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
Macs run on Intel and Microsoft uses PowerPC! What a country!
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
I almost ordered 4 iMacs last week to upgrade our small office. GLAD I DIDN'T!
After this announcement, why in the world would anyone invest in dead end products?
Well, you have to admit that Jobs has balls. Microsoft wouldn't dare make a switch.
I recently read that laptops are more popular than desktops. This seems like the motivation. IBM seemed unwilling to produce a PPC suitable for a laptop. Period. And Apple had to react.
I'm not a huge OS X developer, but when I do write little client apps to help me out in day-to-day tasks, I write them in Java. Some of my programs do worry about bit ordering. Luckily, I don't have to recompile any of my stuff or worry about any of that. Once a fully-functional open JVM is released, nobody will have to worry about being locked in to one OS or platform or anything. I hope Apache does that...
best college pickem site ever: pickem.terrbear.org
1) Does this mean that we'll soon have VMWare for Mac OS? Having Mac OS 10, Linux, AND Windows on the same laptop would JUST F'CKING ROCK!
2) Since OSX has an OSS underpinning, how easy will it be to hack together drivers for OSX on a Dell? I'm sure that Apple will use a funky BIOS; there's no way Apple is going to use an Intel ref. board. But, how long before some brainy college kid figures out a driver framework?
3) Does this mean I should wait to buy my wife's Apple laptop?
Many, many more questions come out of this....
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Now I know it has been rumored & seriously considered here before but I just can't believe it has happened!
Hell, even I am considering paying for an OSX license, now that I don't have to pay Apple hardware prices.
TODO: 753) write sig.
Betrayal
Oh this is so exciting.
...
Over the years, I've made a ton of bets with Mac fans who swore up and down that Apple would never, ever switch to Intel processors.
I am now owed several kegs of beer and some free fancy dinners. A couple people owe me a million bucks.
Business strategy:
1. Make wagers with Apple people.
2.
3. Profit! Steve Jobs will make the announcement for you.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
... They had this up their sleeves the whole time!
BTW, after making this switch, I think Apple could (and should) look to making retail OS X boxes for switchers that satisfy a limited, high-quality set of component requirements. They definitely could eat MS' lunch since Longhorn is soo llaatteee, and OS X is better now than Longhorn will be in 2 years. Apple's hardware, like the iPod, could just be the superior design/build quality/brand option. What MP3 is to iPod, x86 hardware could now be to OS X, especially since the market for $129 switchers is far larger than even $500 'cohabitators'...
...will get some more work.
[imagines an Apple iPod-esque ad for PowerMacs with bald silver men dancing around their computers silently]
IronChefMorimoto
Apple switch to Intel, because it can immediately tap into the huge Intel-based market.
Intel want this because they know this will hurt MS Windows big time.
PC consumers will love it, because they want to have something as easy to use as Apple OSX for long long time and this is dream come true.
Mac consumer will hate it, because they have to deal with yet another transition of their investment. And that's really suck.
Overall, Apple will have better chance to survive with this transition....
Who know, may be the future version of MS Windows will be just another "theme" on top of Mac OS XI (Microsoft invested money in Apple right?)
That's the sound of a Mac-programmer friend of mine (who's at WWDC) getting hit by this news, after swearing even yesterday that there was no way in hell that Macs would switch to Intel processors.
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
"Hi, I'm Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple computer corporation, and I switched to Intel."
"For years now I've been frustrated by only being able to play 5 or six crappy games, waiting for good programs to get ported to my old PPC chip. And like, the Mac wouldn't eat my homework.
But now, with both Microsoft and Sony switching to the PowerPC-Cell line of processors - I was just miffed.
So, instead of building Mac tools to allow easy porting of games to the mac, I've switched.
Intel has provided wonderful ways to run Virus programs on otherwise remote systems.
Now, all the benefits of buffer overflows will come to the Mac Platform.
And Just wait for our competitive trade in deal!
Bring any old OS from some other company, and trade it in for a shiny new copy of: OS 11 - Big Kitty.
"I'm so glad I switched."
Will intel incorporate a tasteful logo on the new macs? Or can I peel that sticker off? Seriously, doesn't intel have some licensing agreement with computer manufacturers s.t. they have to put that sticker on? Or do they actually want the sticker? Is Apple's brand strong enough that Jobs can just say no to the Intel co-branding? Of course I didn't RTFA
More music, fewer hits
Any thoughts???
If they think for one second I'm going to tolerate an "Intel Inside" sticker on my Mac they have another thing coming.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
"Okay, we're moving to a much better/faster architecture in all new Macs, over the next 1-2 years. It'll be great.. trust me.
Now, until then, please keep buying this obsolete crap that we will try to end support on as quickly as possibly and marginalize as we move everyone to our new platform of choice."
Really, isn't this going to absolutely KILL sales of the current hardware?!? Who wants to spend $2500 on a dual G5 when everyone's moving to Intel?
Here on /. we have moaned and whined and foamed at the mouth about Intel's hardware-based DRM plans. But some suggested that even if the Wintel world rattled down the DRM highway in lockstep, at least there would be the creative side world of Apple where Uncle Steve would put stickers on computers saying, "Don't steal movies" and maybe some half-hearted picket fences to keep the most obtuse user from figuring out how to move movies from one machine to another.
Doesn't this change everything? Won't Apple just become another fiefdom in the DRM kingdom, where users are kept in chains? Won't this mean that Macs will be just as distrustful of their owners as PCs are going to be? Cuz I'm no "pirate," and I respect copyright laws, but I hate being treated like a thief by my own equipment. If Apple is about to go down the same DRM highway, I think it's going to become my way rather than their highway. And my way will be away from Apple, and toward FOSS completely. Maybe I'll buy the last "free" PowerBook Apple sells, max out the memory, get lots of backup parts, and then run Ubuntu or something on it for the next decade.
So does this mean that everything Apple's been telling us about the superiority of PPC vs. X86 is wrong? Is Intel's CISC Pentium technology really better than these G5 RISC chips we've been using? What about all those impressive benchmark numbers that Apple so loudly touted that showed PPC running circles around Intel when using Photoshop? What happened to that wonderful PPC roadmap that promised us all a better tomorrow through RISC?
I hate re-learning a whole new party line.
the G5 is so clearly more powerful than its rivals?
Oh, maybe because it's only more powerful if you test rival systems with different software.
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.
That means that I will be able to 100% natively tri-boot Windows/Linux/OSX on the same rig? I cannot wait to do that.
I believe that's called having your cake, eating it too, and not having to clean up.
What about ALTIVEC?
Apparently it is a thing of the past.
Who will miss it?
from http://bertc.com/three_crows.htm :
Crow Pie:
1 crow
stuffing of your choice
salt and pepper
shortening
flour
2 Pie crust mixes
2-3 hard-boiled eggs
Stuff the crow. Loosen joints with a knife but do not cut through.
Simmer the crow in a stew-pan, with enough water to cover, until nearly tender, then season with salt and pepper. Remove meat from bones and set aside.
Prepare pie crusts as directed. (Do not bake)
Make a medium thick gravy with flour, shortening, and juices in which the crow has cooked and let cool.
Line a pie plate with pie crust and line with slices of hard-boiled egg. Place crow meat on top. Layer gravy over the crow. Place second pie dough crust over top.
Bake at 450 degrees for 1/2 hour.
Collected by Bert Christensen
Toronto, Ontario
First, Parti Québécois's Chief resign and now Apple will use Intel Processors !? The world just got crazy...
"Rosetta" = transitive.
From a apple supporter from day one.
They will become 'yet another clone maker'. With a crappy architecture. No advantage at all now.
Sad to see them make this fatal blunder. Err I mean its sad to see Jobs destroy the company.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Duke Nukem Forever to be a release title for this platform, given the number of comments I've already seen about temperatures in certain lower domains.
I am trolling
The service is not available. Please try again later. Whew! For a second there I though Slashdot had been slashdotted...
Over a year ago, I bought a laptop with a 3.4GHz CPU. Intel's now up to 3.8GHz. Intel hasn't been close to keeping pace with Moore's Law for about the past 4 years.
In the meantime, IBM announces the Cell architecture, going into the X-Box and PS3.
After lagging for many years, the PPC is finally comparable speed to x86, and is poised to lap it in just a year or two.
Apple's response? We jump ship and go Intel.
The heck? Anyone understand why?
I've wanted to try out Max OS X for a while now, but due to the need for a different hardware architecture I haven't given much hope of it. Now with this change, does anyone think that they will try a demo/preview type download to wet the tastes of a potential new customer base?
Does anyone else think it's ironic that Mac is switching to Intel, while Microsoft's XBOX360 is running on a G5? What's next? Nintendo using old Sega Mastersystem hardware?
(see: "Ironic" by Alanis Morissette for examples of non-irony)
That's not such a surprise. Remember that it was that NeXT OS (or however you capitalize it), and that it ran on Intel and 68k for a long while before the OSX goodies started to get built on top of it.
The whole point of the initial MacOSX exercise was to get it running on the powerpc at all!
-Peter
== Just my opinion(s)
How they will be able to still get people to buy the existing PPC-based Macs. Smart people won't buy something that'll be obsolete in ayear. They've probably just killed off their sales for the entire year, at least until the new Intel Macs roll in.
WTF?
why Macs are better than PeeCees.
Lemme see, last time I posted this was on misc.survivalism Jan 2, 2000 but the words still ring true. -
Neener neener neener.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
NeXT eventually threw in the towel on shipping 68000-based hardware. The transition from "black" NeXT hardware to "beige" PC x86 hardware pissed off a lot of early adopters.
One of the pissed-off users remixed the original audio welcome mail into this. They posted it to usenet with the readme:
I'm sure the mindless Apple fanboys are now going to find some new magic word besides "Altivec" to justify their purchases. Me, I'm just happy with this mini.
1. How will they get around the fact that x86 has so few registers compared to PPC?
2. Please, Apple, say you're not abandoning Open Firmware...
Can someone explain to me why abandoning the Cell processor in favor of x86 is a good idea?
No wonder they cut those nice new iMacs so much recently.
I was confused as to whether they'd sell any Macs in the next year, now, but I guess the universal binaries concept will cover future development for the existing machines? Or am I imagining that?
So does this mean that the XP box I'm sitting at right now could run OSX in a year or do I have to buy an Intel machine from Apple? For a long time now the PPC has been why you had to buy a Mac. Is this now direct competition to MS? How will Apple keep their hardware standards then? Will there be a serial number or some other such DRM scheme to keep me from converting said XP box? A BIOS lock perhaps?
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Think about it. We don't have a G5 Powerbook because we hear about the massive heat issues. Hell, just recently, I am having to take back my recently aquired G4 Powerbook because they are catching on bloody fire.
Secondly, I understand that Adobe is not making Photoshop and their other products for the Mac *first*. They are going to the PC, and then the Mac.
I mean, this quote says it all:
"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,"
So they go Intel. Who cares? Most of us are using Linux on x86, and we couldn't care less. The only thing that alarmed me was that they didn't choose AMD64, but thats just me. Hopefully, this will influence developers to port their stuff over to OS X now (which would benifit Linux indirectly imo). So hopefully we'll get a ton more games (yay!... games are a wasteland on the Mac) and apps because of this switch.
Things are abotu to get interesting now. Its like Jobs saying, "OK, Gates... lets fight in your ring."
++Om
I've heard that folks at Intel have been looking for a good way to show off thier CPUs. Some feel a bit burned by Windows not really showing how fast thier CPUs are, Linux/BSD are one thing, but it doesn't get the Headlines like Apple would.
If Rosetta is as fast as Apple claims and if Xcode recompiles apps as fast as Apple claims, then its going to be a big boon for Intel and Apple.
As for heat and all that, G5s pump out alot of heat, Apple just out hardware engineers everyone else.
I'll bet that Apple built Intel powered Macs will still be quieter, cooler and nicer looking than everyone else's
MacNN writes Rosetta can translate for old programs to use the new libraries, and that Jobs showed Office and Photoshop CS2 running using Rosetta with no slowdown. You should wait to say how Apple handles the transition. Remember, Jobs also said OS X has been x86 compatible for years, so they've had a lot of time to prepare for this switch, and it might just go very smooth.
Yes, the transition to x86 is a shocker.
But, I was expecting some other surprise along the way. Not just "MacOS is now gonna run on those same processors you can already run Windows or Linux on". Where's the hook? What great new capability is pushing me over to the new platform?
Yes, I know MacOS is the real draw. But, I expected something more dramatic like PowerPC instruction set support on x86++, an enhanced x86-64 with Altivec support, or advanced virtualization support. Anything but a plain vanilla x86 cpu.
What if you just purchased a Mac? With developers encouraged to develop their apps based on x86, will PPC Macs be left out in the cold?
Seriously. Who would drop many $1000s on a piece of hardware that has a lifespan of 2-3 years. You know the support for ppc apps will last a couple years before companies compile for X86 only.
And going back to 2 gig memory limit and 32 bits is going to be really fun.
VADER SMASH INTEL!!!
The most important question left unanswered: Does it run Linux?
Personally, I feel that Apple should make nifty consumer gadgets and focus on making MacOS into a direct, and I mean DIRECT, competitor to Windows. The only reason I'm stuck using Windows machines is because I love to play games, and frankly, Apple's offerings are either slim or 6 months behind Windows releases. It'd be awesome if I could stick OSX on my Intel box with all the bells and whistles, a nice selection of games, and FINALLY give Windows the finger.
"Apparently so, but suppose you throw a coin enough times. Suppose one day, it lands on its edge."
There have been PPC and 68xxx based Mac clones before. However, Apple has always controlled the hardware in the past by tying the Mac OS to their hardware via an Apple supplied ROM chip, and then very vigorously defended the ROM against reverse engineering. Those old clones either required a license from Apple or a recycled Mac (where the ROM was taken out of the old computer to be used in the clone). So, if Apple does the same with their Intel hardware version, you will still have to buy your computer from them and the Mac OS X will still not run on your run-of-the-mill PC hardware. Also, if Apple implements some kind of DMCA protected access to the ROM (assuming there is a ROM) they could solidify that control.
Here's hoping that won't be the case, because given the chance, I buy a copy of Mac OS X for my Intel hardware in a flash. Just have to wait and see...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me, since the current Intel processors are still 32bit, and the latest PPC processors are 64 bit. I would think that going with the Athlon 64 would have made much more sense. Now they're going to go backwards?
Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
In a time where Xbox, PS3 and Nintendo Revolution actually move *towards* PowerPC processors because they are apparently more efficient in the highly competitive video gaming field, and the PPC finally looked like a good idea, Apple is moving out?
I don't understand this - does Apple try to shun good processors at any cost or what?
Well, to be fair there's been plenty of rumors about this for a few years now, but this is the first solid proof to come out. :)
-EvilMagnus
Will Apple's advertisements now feature the "Intel Inside" slogan? Could be interesting...
Nothing sucks like a Vax, nothing blows like a PowerMac G4
That quietness you hear in the sky is due to millions of Mac users who are currently busy eating crow. What will PPC zealots do now? How will Apple users cope with moving to what they have claimed is an inferior platform all of these years? What will cpu fanboys argue about?
Personally I also thought this wouldn't happen. I have to question though if this mean custom x86 bios, hardware, etc. Or are they planning on letting you install this on a small subset of Intel hardware? You know kinda like how Beos had no wide ranging hardware support but IF you bought the right chipset, gpu, etc you could run it.
All very interesting. I guess this means PearPC will see one hell of a speedup.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!1111ONE
(Hello mister lameness filter. Have you ever tried braiding the hair on your balls? Well, I haven't, and yet I still feel like using caps to actually mean that I'm YELLING IN PAIN!)
Will Mac OS X run on a Dell now? Or just apple hardware?
Will the Apple x86 systems have special ROM? Will windows run on them?
Lots of stuff wasn't answered.
What I want to know is after 2007 will Apple have any need for continued involvement in helping improve GCC?
I'm still running OS 8.6, you insensitive clod!
You must think in Russian.
Like it hurts people's feeling that there cheap hardware isn't good enough for OSX. Could that be what finally does Apple in, the fact that OSX will be forced on to regular machines within a year or two. I don't care personally, I like Linux more than OSX.
Open Source Sushi
Personally, I can't wait until virtualisation software appears that allows people to run Mac OS X on standard x86 hardware without the need of expensive Apple hardware.
I'd quite hapilly buy Mac OS X for x86 hardware, but I simply can't justify the cost of Apple hardware.
I just pray to God I won't have to put up with those &%$#@ Intel badges I see on every windows box & laptop. It's a computer, not NASCAR fer &%$#**!@@# sake!
It'll be interesting to see how apple justifies their premium price for hardware once they start using intel based CPU's.
Or should I say Mac on Linux x86?
So I could run Linux programs all day long and load into MoL to run Microsoft Office?
Or even better... maybe a Wine like program for MacOS programs on Linux.
AC comments get piped to
My aging PowerBook and PowerMac are at the end of their life cycle.
I will need to replace them with new machines sometime this summer.
Thanks to today's announcement, I cannot sensibly purchase G4/G5 computers. The only unknown is whether I will find a way to run Linux on AMD/Intel hardware, or whether I will join the herd of Windows users.
It appears Mr. Jobs is repeating at Apple the blunder he committed at NeXT; assuming that he can move his innovative software/hardware combination onto Intel hardware, and convince people to keep his software on the new hardware platform.
Very few applications these days are Mac-only. If I must choose between MacOS/Intel and Windows/Intel, I give myself MANY more options if I choose Windows/Intel.
Goodbye, Apple; it's been fun. But in one sad day you have lost most of your "geek cred" and many of your current and future customers.
OMFGWTF!! RIP PPC-MAC
"-10 Redundant ad absurdium"
Well so much for getting a new G5 this year. Don't know if I will atisfy that jones now, if new machines are in two years' time that have different base cpu arch -- or does it make a diff? Just feels like a bad idea -- of course a new G5 now will work just fine for years to come, but....
Think Similar?
do() || do_not();
This is all about economics. The Intel processor world is more competitive, building for the bulk of the world's PCs, and with companies like AMD keeping Intel more than honest. Jobs saw the writing on the wall, and made the switch.
It had to be now, because the IPod gives Apple the revenues to make the change. Can you imagine how ugly this would be if Mac hardware sales dried up for a year without the IPod to carry them over. As it is, no one is going to buy a PowerMac G5 unless they really, really need it now. They'll sell iBooks and iMacs in lesser quantity than they would have other otherwise.
This is painful, but it may well make Apple stronger.
but,
this now means,
that fucknuck Dworvak is actually right about something!!!!
Actually, looking at the egos involved, pointing that little fact out to Jobs might be enough to wreck the deal....
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
now that hell has frozen over this is the least of our problems... there are a lot of odd things bound to happen now!
-stunned
-pyrrho
No, but its F-ing close enough.
Steve Jobs should be run out of town.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Bye Bye Steve.
I've bought my last mac...
Next computer will be an AMD64 running Ubuntu.
Shock and awe aside, the real question here is does this mean that Windows will finally have some serious competition on the desktop? From what I've read so far, MacOS X can essentially run on white box PCs right now. Not that Apple has released or plans to release it that way, but in house they've already done it and said as much today. I think Gates and Balmer may well have to change their pants today!
But hold on! Don't celebrate just yet. Apple has made a lot of their money for years based on the fact that there is no Mac clone market, Jobs killed that off when he returned to the company. So unless they've had a big change of heart, I don't expect to see MacOS X on Intel running on anything other than Intel based Macs, at least officially. If all goes well, maybe we'll see MacOS X on HP PCs just as there are HP made iPods now, but wouldn't expect that out of the gate.
We all know that Linux has made impressive gains over the years, but for ease of use in a unix-like OS, nothing beats MacOS X. The day I can go out and buy a boxed copy of MacOS X and load it up on my homebrew box, could be the beginning of the end for Windows on the desktop. Ok ok, that's a little over the top, but Windows on the desktop hasn't had a threat like this since OS/2 3 and 4 about ten years ago and that was mainly because OS/2 actually ran some Windows apps better than Windows.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
New stuff, completely different coming in 2 years. At least iPod will give Apple some revenue.
... who knows, maybe longhorn won't suck. Apple will only have it's OS and cutesy cases as an advantage over Wintel. Cutesy cases doesn't do it for me.
Oh well, I guess my iBook will be approaching EOL around then. I just won't buy anything else until the new stuff comes out. Even then
Operating system, web browser, e-mail, chat/IM, music player, photo software, CD/DVD burning, movie editing, music making software? All included with a new Mac.
Office software? Well the good news will be a usable version of OpenOffice. But for people that NEED MS Office - well, if you NEED MS Office, then you usally NEED a version that isn't 5 years old.
High-end commercial software? "Most home users" don't need high-end commercial software. And for the people that do, the typical "upgrade" paths will no doubt migrate them across architectures.
And as a last resort, there's the "Rosetta" PPC emulation for one's old software. It'll run your old version of Office until you're ready for an upgrade.
503 Service Unavailable at slashdot.org
...cause it's where Intel's headed. They've realised the folly of letting marketing dictate chip design (more megahurtz...joe luser demands it!) and have gone with the intelligent choice, check out wikipedia, especially the bit about Merom, does that timeframe look familiar? ;o) So they'll be selling the commodity pieces as x86 machines first, then by 2007 will have a dual-core 64-bit part for their more hardcore machines.
I am NaN
...misspelled "Cubs" as "Red Sox".
....for the new Apple SDK. Major win for Linux today!
This is a move to get more software on the mac faster. I dissagree with the switch because it kills off diversity but this is all in an effort for greater compatibility. Whith this switch the mac now has access to almost the entire x86 codebase without emulation. Sure the windows rubbish will need rewriting to rid it of windows API calls but there is now effectivly one platform. One piece of code can be written to perform on one type of chip. All of the control logic can be tuned to x86. x86 has more software so although you may loose a lot of brilliant software from the powerpc side we will gain enormous amounts from x86. Main stream games can be released more easily and alot more quickly than before. I mean an x86 chip and the newer macs come with radion cards. The changes needed are now much more minimal. Apple had better be careful though. Otherwise they will become another PC manufacturer whith pretty cases.
Well, for Mac users, this probably means more choice, higher performance, and lower prices. It will make porting software to Macintosh easier. It may mean that there will be some third party manufacturers. It will probably mean additional hardware for running Linux (Linux/PPC was always a bit of a hassle compared to Linux/x86). Maybe Apple hardware will even run Windows.
:-)
It does mean one thing for certain: the end of vague claims about megahertz myths and Altivec performance, and that can't be bad
I, for one, welcome our new Intel overlords.
Well, it looks like we are slowly moving to an x86-only world for computers. Back in the beginning there used to be a lot of choice in processors for computers. You can choose between Motorola 68k, Motorola 88k, PowerPC, x86, SPARC, ALPHA, VAX, and a whole array of other platforms that I forgot to mention. Now starting in 2006, all of the major computer manufacturers will only offer x86 computers (with the exception of Sun, and I'm excluding embedded computers).
This looks like another case of "worse is better," in which the technically inferior product wins out over the technically superior product due to other reasons (price, monopolies, etc.) The x86 is a very inelegant platform compared to the Motorola 68k and the PowerPC. However, due to the whole Microsoft + x86 partnership over the last 20+ years, as well as the price of a x86 (versus a G4 or a G5 chip), every non-x86 platform seem to have folded over the past two decades, no matter how elegant those platforms are. Apple was the last major personal computer manufacturer that didn't go x86, and it looks like they are going there, too. I would rather have a PowerPC G5 chip than a Pentium 4, but that's the way things are going these days.
Oh well, I wonder if the OpenCores project is going anywhere at all. I do not look forward to an x86 monopoly on personal computer chips.
Heh I got that too.
There seem to be MANY people who think that you will not be able to run OS X on standard PC equipment...
1. Steve said that a developer preview of Intel OS X will be available soon (within days).
2. What are the developers going to run this on? Is apple giving developers hardware prototypes?
If they are'nt giving them prototypes then the developers will HAVE TO use a standard PC. I would imagine the set of hardware will be somewhat constrictive but it will be a regular PC.
Where do you get this info?
They are not using open firmware and are already out of the hardware business. What hardware technology is Apple specific any more? None, they use standard hardware in all their systems now.
I would have thought the "you can order a preview today" would have given it away but apparently you are making shit up to get modded up.
The transition from 68K to PPC was chaotic for both users and developers, and I see no reason it isn't going to be the same this time around.
Quite a few apps never made the transition back then, but you didn't know which ones would and which ones wouldn't until you had the benefit of hindsight. The ones that didn't ran via emulation layer, but you paid a huge performance price for those. You bought high-end and pricey hardware, only to have your apps run slower than hardware from years earler.
Transitions like this are also huge for smaller developers. We're just getting to the point where many third party apps and development tools work well under OS X. Now all of a sudden they've got to budget what could be a massive port. Sure, Rosetta, blah, blah, blah, but think about what the makers of native code Lisps for the Mac are going through right now, for example. Likely, quite a few projects will die out. What about Mike Hoare's excellent Mops environment, which generates PowerPC code natively? This is going to be rough.
Personally, I've been on the verge of buying either an iBook or PowerBook. Now I don't see any reason to buy what's going to be legacy technology. Apple has completely lost me here.
Everything that Linus Torvalds touches turns to shit.
Transmetta
G5
OSDL (by extention slashdot)
GODDAMN CANCER
Good job IBM. By supporting inferior software (Linux) you lost 95% of your CPU sales.
...that this is being announced on D-Day?
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 think he meant to say "we are going to do it to you now, and to our customers in the next year.
All those people saying Palladium didn't matter because there would always be Apple?
Ahem...
Better enjoy your freedom of expression now while it lasts, the corporations are coming quickly.
Like Jobs said, most apps are simply recompile. It will take only a couple months to get most apps you find on things like versiontracker over to the Mac.
It makes PC game conversion simpler and less expensive. No more big vs little endian problems or re-writing X86 assembler.
It allows for cheaper hardware, meaning the pros can buy a cheap intel Mac to play around on to see if the transition will hurt them or not before they all change over in 2007.
It gives Apple choice. If Intel continues to lose out to AMD, Apple can switch without losing compatability.
It also showcases the amazing portability of Mac OS X.
Last but not least, would be if they let you run Windows side by side with the Mac OS on dual core or multiprocessor machines. This would let "switchers" use both until they can transition to the Mac OS and let Mac heads play all those PC games they have been missing out on. I think this may be just HUGE for Mac gamers.
We shall see what the fallout is, but I think on the whole, this is a very positive and smart move for Apple.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
I just can't imagine the "Faster than a Pentium Anything" ad campaign now.
.... they don't Photoetch the 'Intel Inside' logo into the metal casings of future PowerBooks. It used to be the first thing I removed back when I was a PC user. That being said do I have to toss my PPC only Microsoft Office 2004 suite when I invest in a brand new IntelMac PowerBook next year?
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Also, the talk about the laptop market growing 3-4x as fast as desktops, the failure to deliver G5 powerbooks as of late, etc. highlights this.
Finally, a lot of people wonder why Apple is going with Intel, whom many consider lower on performance, more hungry on power, less-efficient and well-designed, and more expensive in comparison to AMD. This is only true if you're comparing Pentium4 to Opteron - bring the P-M v. Turion into the market and the picture becomes clear. You may lose absolute performance, but the "bang for the buck," especially for portables, is clearly on Intel's side.
- One Box
- One Monitor
- One Keyboard/Mouse/Pen
- One Button to push to switch between MacOSsomethingSomething and WinSomethingSomething (even if it's a reboot)
THEN BRING IT!!!I do websites on a Mac, but they have to work in Windows too. I've long yearned for a true "hardware abstraction layer" where I don't care who or what's inside. And if it sucks resources, such as RAM, and runs like a Dell 1.3GHz and an Apple G4 1GHZ, then BRING IT! The G5 can take 8GB and RAM is cheaper than deskspace.
Will Apple fork WINE like they did khtml?
Like the list of third party dashboard programs on their site will their new intel powered box come with a list of windows applications it can run published on their site?
Unclean!!! I feel unclean!!! The feeling won't go away! Must ... get ... clean!!!!
I have no tag line
Why go through all that 64bit G5 trouble for the ugly P4 ? It's a Ulgy chip, simple as that .
What then ? 2006 - 2007 the everso more complicated transition to some bloated 64bit intel chip ?
I dont like it, I like my PPC hardware.
Apple is making the transition to Intel processors (which does NOT mean that MacOS X will run on commodity x86 hardware).
Why? Steve mentioned a lack of a PowerPC roadmap. Leander at Cult of Mac mentioned possible Intel DRM to enable iTunes for Movies. Everyone mentions that we haven't seen a PowerBook G5.
Why now? We all know that Apple's going to take it on the chin in the Mac hardware sales division. But Apple can take that hit right now. It has the well-known $4 billion in reserves. And it also has the iPod and iTMS - which have been bringing in a large percent of Apple's profits lately. With iPod running high for, well, the next year or so, that can prop up the Mac division through the transition slump.
-- Niherlas
The x86 models won't be available until 2006. So retail sales drop for a year, and Apple misses the 2005 holiday season and the 2005 back-to-school season. Terrible timing. They should have announced this in January with July shipment.
I guess YDL is shit out of luck lmao
Folks, you can argue the technical pros and cons back and forth until you're sick in the face, but one thing lept out at me from Steve Jobs' presentation :
"Mac OS X has been "leading a secret double life" for the past five years, said Jobs. "So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years."
Damn. This is forward looking, hedge all your bets corporate Management. World class Management.
I don't know if this thing will succeed or fail, but just parsing that statement above shows me that Jobs and Apple Computer will continue to evaluate all possible options at all possible times.
This is one well run company.
A message from our sponsor
Better performance per watt is delivered by AMD, who I prefer to buy my processor from.
This just sounds like more Steve Jobs hype -- like last time when it was "The PPC will scale from 2GHz to 3GHz over the next year." Yeah, right Steve. Anything you say.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"This sux, this sux even more for my friend who just bouhgt a dual 2.7GHz G5 with 6.5GB of ram who is SWEARING he'll never ever get fucked like that again, imagine how this guy is pissed, just imagine, he just got fucked of over 3500$CAN on a platform that is being dismissed by the company who sold it to him not even 2 month ago."
Does apples announcement today mean that your friends computer just all of a sudden stops working? I would the say he was the idiot for spending that much money on a PC to start with but thats another arguement for another day.
Another Poorly Positioned Lenovo Emulation
no way is apple going to allow its OS to run on anything other than its own hardware. this makes them responsible only for drivers that ship on their machines.
Anyone got a link? Please!
Here is the current effort for my trying to make sense of this.
http://www.macleopard.com/
I think Apple is thinking with its brain, and not its memory, and so considering its customers and revenue stream, not eating dogfood made of G5's.
Your Technology General Contractor http://www.birddogdigital.com
I'm going to personally bitchslap Steve Jobs if I see a single Intel Inside sticker on the surface of my Mac.
OS X running on x86?
Well I'll be a marklar's marklar...
For some reason I thought that some of the appeal with the Mac was that it used a different CPU.
And that is gone now.
I'm probably not the only one.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
Quoting the fine article:
``Jobs also shows Photoshop CS2 with all plugins
that are translated and run on Intel-based Mac
without significant speed decrease.''
This is in total contradiction with this:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
(see the Photoshop benchmark which show that a
dual 2.7 GHz G5 is much faster than a dual 3.6
GHz Xeon)
Conclusion: Apple either is lying or was lying about CPU performance.
Gee, I thought the Mac was impervious to viruses, spyware, and worms due to the bullet-proof security of OSX. Now you're telling me that it was due entirely to the PPC platform?! Who would have guessed?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Apple has always had the luxury of developing on a hardware platform that they, for the most part, own. They don't have to worry so much about 3rd party vendors, there are no 3rd party mothreboards, chip sets, etc. Everyone should remember the dark days of Apple when such things did exist with the Mac clones (what terrible machines). Such a luxury is something they will not have when it comes to the Intel/x86 world, unless they keep their ROM and/or hardware design specifically proprietary, in which case the will loose with Intel.
Intel produces wonderful mobile cpus -- the centrino is a great laptop cpu. But in the desktop world they loose out to both AMD and IBM. Why Apple would think that a partnership of such a nature with a chip designer that has proven to be second rate time and again is beyond me.
Will Apple really give up PPC -- IBM and Motorola? Can they really survive? Is this anything more than trying to take Microsoft head-on? Let's all hope for the best, because a wrong move now could mean the death of Apple.
Well, since Apple will soon be on Intel, this means that EMC could develop VMware for Mac, allowing Windows apps to be easily run. This means the possibility no more VPC and it's crappy PC performance. Given enough memory, it'd be possible to have Windows running on OS X via virtualization in VMware at near 80% native performance, as opposed to the 30%-50% one typically sees with VPC.
Without even touching the heat issues, I think this could be a very, very good change.
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!
IBM has sold the best compiler for G4 and 32-bit G5 processors, but has yet to update it for 64-bit Tiger. Now, Intel announces it will provide compilers and libraries for Mac OS X. And Intel's compiler for 32-bit applications is outstanding. This is a big win for everyone (except IBM ;-)
Just tried to go order the Intel development kit and got this error while trying to login to ADC:
:-)
"The requested application was not found on this server"
Heh -- seems like I'm not the only one interested in this machine
-ch
I have never before seen Slashdot collapse under the load of a story, but it sure is struggling with this one.
So, anyone find out how to torrent a motherboard?
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
I'm getting a bunch of 503 Service Unavailable errors. Anyone else? This can't be the first time that slashdot has been unable to cope with its own traffic, can it?
Good:
* chip production economies of scale
* intel / AMD competition
* low-power chips good for future of the powerbook
* WINE or equivalent should allow for running Windows apps
* more games! (either through WINE or native OS X)
Bad:
* what happens between now and 2006 to Apple sales?
* I have a PB. I need a G5 to run multi-way iChat AV video conferencing. WTF am I supposed to do between now and next year?
* even with rosetta, PPC apps are likely to run slower - and you'd WANT to upgrade to x86. this is going to cost customers money (the good news here, is that a LOT of apps people use on their macs come bundled: iApps, etc).
Where did he say that the new Macs were going to be IBM PC compatible? Apple can switch to Intel processors without inheriting all the dreck that is associated with Wintel boxes.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
You may simply argue that although RISC and AltiVec were superior architectures, they simply can't compete with the overwhelming R&D investment poured into making slightly inferior architectures run faster and faster every year. Don't feel too bad. All the other RISC architectures folded their hands over the last decade, and Power isn't dead. You'll be able to game on it, and run AIX!
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Wonder how many of the PC makers would be interested in offering a dual-boot Windows/Mac box? Wonder how many folks would be interested in buying one?
The articles are all sketchy on details
Will the Apple Macs run Windows?
Will OS X run on a Dell PC?
...and that's all there is to it.
I guess anyone can continue to use PPC Macs and upgrade if they switch to Linux/PPC. This whole switch is another reason why free software can be a safer bet: no one can end its use on the hardware you spent 1000s for... as long as there are a bunch of you around, you can keep upgrading the source code.
I was an avid Mac developer for many years. Many Mac developers believed the dogma Apple sold us. RISC as faster than CISC. Eventually RISC would out perform CISC by orders of magnitude, so keep buying PowerPC!
I'm sad that the reality was that this argument was not well founded. A lot of Mac users than made the transition from 68K to PPC believed that they had a window to the future. That window is now closed.
Apple only survived the transition to PPC because Metrowerks had a great compiler. So, Apple learned some things, like have a dev kit ready, but they didn't learn another lesson...
Customers have long memories. Developers have longer memories. And some times it doesn't take much of a change for either to throw up their hands. "What, another architecture change?"
I remember complaining when Rhapsody, that originally ran on Intel, had support yanked.
Now we find out that Hey, we never killed x86 support, we just took it away from you so as not to cut into our hardware sales. And now, Hey, hardware isn't all that!
Anyone else feel cheated?
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
they'll switch to windows! :0
What happened up there? The temperature just dropped about 900 degrees, I think it starting to snow, and I could have sworn I saw a pig fly by my window...
Yes, I don't see Apple releasing 'OS X for Windows', ever. And the fact that their BIOS is completely different will prevent most folks from booting OS X on PC hardware.
But... VMWare and Microsoft can now make changes to their virtualisation software (which, remember, can emulate any hardware they chose to code, limited only by the CPU architecture) so we can run OS X in a Virtual Machine at native speeds.
That would be pretty damn cool.
-EvilMagnus
I'll believe that when the Red Sox win the World Series!
Yeah, right -- that's about as likely as finding out who Deep Throat is.
Or finding out that our millitary is actually under the control of an evil emperor!
"Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
.. and microsoft will crush them..
:-(
tis a shame
Oh well, so much for selling my trusty first generation G5 for a reasonable amount of money on ebay next year. I suppose I have to put it in the vintage systems category with all those Commodore 64s and Amiga 500s.
My guess is IBM told Apple that they are not going to be creating new PowerPCs chips useful for desktop workstations, and are instead going a different direction with the platform... i.e. maybe to support parallel processing efforts, like the Cell chip in the PS3, etc.
Faced with no long term vision that works for their needs, they had to switch to the only other alternative.
That is, it isn't supply, but product lifecycle that influenced the decision.
We don't know enough yet to know how painful this will be.
Is AltiVec gone? People who have spent the past 5 years tuning their libraries with inline altivec calls aren't going to recompile in 2 hours.
Is 64-bit gone? Is it going to be x64?
Is the HyperTransport bus out the window? (this will effect fewer developers but let's hope the baby and the bathwater remain sufficiently separated).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I can't see this as anything but Apple throwing in the towel as far as the desktop market is concerned. Allowing Tiger to run on x86 is basically ceding the desktop market to the Dells, HPs, and Gateways, and home/small time desktop builders.
The laptop business they probably can keep a handle on. I can't go down to my local computer supply depot and buy laptop parts and build it from scratch, or upgrade the motherboard or video card on the cheapass Dell laptop. Laptop buyers are generally willing to pay more for features because of the general non-upgradability. However, this still feels more than a bit like Gateway and Dell selling branded big-screen TVs.
Apple is most definitely now a software company. iTunes software, iLife, and the operating system itself are now the only differentiators of Apple from Microsoft and the Linux vendors. We'll see if they can survive as a software company, that happens to make quality laptops and high quality, expensive MP3 players.
The most amazing thing about this story was that an unsubstantiated rumor posted on slashdot proved to be correct. Good job Slashdot! Although they had to rub it in by posting half a dozen "Mac to switch to Intel" stories. Hopefully this will be the last one since, it is already official.
Another amuzing thing was how in the initial stories every machead denied the rumor and explained at great lengths how the PPC kicks ass and is so much faster than the Intel chips. And then they had to hear it from their god Steve Jobs himself that the PPC is not really that great. Poor macheads.
It's the sound of Mr. Gates crapping his pants.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
xbit-labs review of Athlon 64 venice
This shows that the AMD's use less power than Intel's, and the rest of the article shows that the performance is comparible.
How did Apple decide to go with Intel, if performance per watt is so important?
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <netinet/in.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
uint32_t htonl(unint32_t hostlong);
uint16_t htons(uint16_t hostshort);
uint32_t ntohl(uint32_t netlong);
uint16_t ntohs(uint16_t netshort);
Is there any indication as to what will happen with product warranties? I don't doubt that Apple will not cover my brand new system. Its just that I bought an iMac G5 last week (hasn't shipped yet) with an Apple Care 3 year warranty.
Aside: If this works out well, there is no reason Apple cannot beat Microsoft at its own game and finally take MS down. Longhorn is looking pathetic next to OS X.
Watch IBM stock's go down the drain today, and Intel going way up.
Actually, both Intel and IBM are going down.
But there are some days it really sucks to be working for IBM.
Once again, defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.
Bleh.
IBM - WinTel is working Jobs over like a little school boy.
Apple is taking steps backwards, look to the game machines for the future.
The PPC-Cell Chip will dominate any little chip Intel can make.
The Xbox 360 is a home PC killer - taking aim at replacing eBay, Google, Amazon, Home Computers, TiVo, and PS-3s - the box is designed from the start to dominate.
The PS-3 is a more powerful game system, but it doesn't seem to have the reach built into it, unlike the 'take over the world' plan laid out by Microsoft.
I am suprised Microsoft hasn't bought a Cable TV network yet.
My question is this, will Apple offer OSX for *any* intel box? If so, then what happens to all the hundreds of millions of dollars a year Microsoft collects on PC manufacturers that are forced to buy and install Windows in some form or another on those boxes?
;)
Apple on Intel can spell the end of an era for MS, namely, MS will surely no-longer be able to argue that selling OS-less boxes as targets for stolen copies of WinXP.
This is gonna really hurt in even more ways when you consider OSX is a real UNIX OS. I'm thinking a Dell 4-cpu 4U running OSX would perform better than some XP OS hack that thinks it's a server...
...Next year I'll have more choices for modestly expensive but well designed lightweight laptops and we ventilated workstations.
Another silly question, if OSX will run on Intel, why not AMD as well?
you cannot dodge the quad laser. jumping is useless.
It just occured to me..
Everybody keeps talking about the possiblity of running OS X on standard PC's...but what about buying an apple intel box and being able to run windows AND OS X.....with some of the virtualization machine stuff comming out in chip architechtures you'll probably be able to run each OS in it's own VM side by side!
If I were a buisness and Apple comes out with Hardware that runs windows as good or better than something Dell makes...I would SERIOUSLY consider apple because of the advantage of being able to choose either OS...or BOTH!
Dell will be slave to windoze only....interesting!
It must be very cold down there....
Slashdot is making a good stab at Slashdotting itself!
So now will OS X finally get ports of Bonzai Buddy and Gator?
Maybe it won't cost n times as much for the Mac version of a top-line video card like it does now.
Mac ATI X800: $500
PC ATI X800: $300
Mac NV 6800: $500
PC NV 6800: $300
Not really apples == apples, but it's been this way for a long time and I'm tired of paying extra for the exact same hardware with different firmware.
(I am hardly a hardware expert so I'm probably completely wrong).
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
AMD is now the only company restricted to the PC market. IBM has consoles and Macs you can buy today (and not to mention, other hardware and software), Intel has the PC and Mac market (and once again, other products that are not CPU's).
This could mean a world of trouble for AMD, especially since Intel is already quite a few steps ahead of AMD in the PC market (in terms of sales of course).
Now Intel will not only have most of the PC market in its hands, but also make a lot of money putting their chips in Macs.
C|Net has an update to their article with some more specific news regarding OSX on any old PC:
"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
First w, now this. 5% into the new century and it looks like a downhill slide all the way.
Existence of Superior intelligence
Undeniable proof of my superior intelligence (top 2%).
Now let go of your false idols like Jesus and Steve Jobs. They have failed you.
Come to me.
Netcraft confirms it: Pear PC is dying.
Apple probably leaked it themselves. This is big news, and lot of hardcore fans will have a hard time adjusting to it. I have a hard time adjusting to it. By slipping the news out few days early they gave people some time think about it and get used to it, and made sure everybody would be listening.
Well, gee, after all that hype about the G5 being a super computer on a chip and how it was a viable and powerful option to the Xeon and Opteron, what do we get???
What is the Dev Platform???
A P4!!!!! WTF??!?!?!
So, all that crap about how great the G5 was, was that just smoke or what?
I mean if the P4 is a step forward, I don't see why I should ever buy another Apple product again. Because I bought their products because they were not the mainstream and I considered them top of the line.
Well, today Jobs just told me any old consumer class P4 is actually better than the G5 and a BIG step forward.
Ironically, enough, I was about to get a G5 desktop in 2 weeks.
I think I'll look into an Opteron Solution instead. Why pay 3,000 for a machine that is a LIE?!?!
Screw you Apple, screw your lies, Screw your CEO's ego and I hope to god your next Keynote is how OS X will become a MS pet-project.
Apple said they will only allow OS X to run on Apple systems...but they did NOT say they would not allow Windows to run on their systems.
Think about it.
A consumer is at Best Buy or Circuit City...they can buy a Dell/Toshiba/HP and run Windows. OR they can buy the Apple system and run OS X OR Windows. All of a sudden Apple's Intel systems have a value added proposition that the other clone vendors can't match!
Apple has committed suicide. Now they're back to 32-bit microprocessors.
Microsoft will simply FUD and out market them to death on the software side, Dell will outspend and underprice them to kill the hardware side. MS also will kill off (read losing cheap OS prices) any manufacturer that allows potential dual-booting between OSX 10.5 and Longhorn.
People who expect to double-click on a Windows app while running OSX will be disappointed. That's good and bad (good as in still harder to do a windows virus on OSX, bad in the customer sense.) I know damn good and well that's why people have wanted to have OSX on the X86 chipset for. People would still have to buy OSX versions of the software they have now on their Windows boxes. Not gonna happen. Companies would still have to develop on 2 separate platforms, only the hardware will be similar. Too many companies are already entrenched in the MS Visual Studio world to start over again, as has been said far too many times in the past with companies not providing MacOS versions of their products.
More "fat binaries", which means that the executables will be twice as large (just like in the 680x0/60x days). Having to support that will kill them in the speed comparison department vs MS apps which don't have to give a damn about other processor architectures. More marketing to beat the dead horse with.
If they had thought about it a bit more, it would have made more sense to go with the AMD64 architecture. They already have a 64-bit laptop chip, as well as a demonstratable dual-core processor, and the other processor innovations that Intel still hasn't figured out how to do (copper interconnects, Silicon on Insulator, etc.)
A hell of a lot of carbon apps (notably MS Office) are going to be more trouble to translate than they are worth. Of course, the transition to 10.4 should have taken care of a lot of those, but there's still a huge base of stuff that will die.
It will move Apple forward in some ways, but there won't be a chance in hell that you'll be able to buy most of the existing X86 peripherals and just plug them in as there won't be driver support. Besides, Intel hasn't gotten that much further in the straight speed department in the last 2 years. The big innovation for them is cooler-running laptop chipsets.
On the good side, maybe John Dvorak's head will explode from his ego overswelling.
We're sorry, the phone number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try your call again
I thought we had always been at war with PowerPC?
I had to deal with a painful and extremely nasty transition, when Apple switched from the 680x0 to the PowerPC architecture... The PPC represented such a massive boost in power that the 680x0 could be emulated with more speed than the fastest mac 680x0s themselves offered.
I dealt with that transition too. It was totally painless.
Mac users had to deal with the obnoxiousness of fat binaries vs ppc vs 68k for years
Fat binaries were an elegant solution for delivering code to two different user bases. Not obnoxious in the least. I look forward to getting PPC/x86 fat binaries.
and the slowdown when those 68k apps were running
Didn't you just say that 68k apps ran faster on PPC than on 68k?
Awhile after this, I had to deal with another painful and extremely nasty transition, when Apple switched to OS X.
OS X 10.0 and 10.1 left some things to be desired... so I waited for 10.2 to make the transition. And it wasn't painful at all.
this wasn't like the 68k switch, where having the wrong binary meant a little bit of slowdown; the software library had to start over at zero.
Guess what. I am still using a number of beloved old 68k apps in my Classic environment. And I expect they'll still run (under Classic under Rosetta) when I move them to a "Macintel."
this transition is different. There isn't a viable benefit to the customers. When the whole thing's done, in three years or whenever, we'll have a marginally faster computer... rather than making mac/x86 and mac/PPC equal alternatives Apple is simply phasing PPC out.
Steve said, "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."
That sounds like more than "marginally faster." If those roadmaps are even close to accurate, why should Apple continue to make PPC Macs? Nobody would buy them.
the architecture that is being moved to is (due to unfortunate design differences) at a rediculous disadvantage when emulating PPC anyway
PearPC is a notoriously slow emulator. It will be very interesting to see whether Apple has somehow found a way to speed up PPC emulation to acceptable levels with Rosetta. Based on today's demo, it looks like they have done it.
My mac, which before I was expecting I could use indefinitely, for years and years at least, now has a limited amount of time to live before it becomes useless.
Such pessimism! I expect that Apple will strongly encourage developers to deliver fat PPC/x86 binaries for many years to come, so as not to orphan the PPC customers.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Well, now that it's official I've noticed that the Apple-heads are PISSED.
It's like the world is ending. Or at least their world. Why is this change a problem for Apple users?! The change-over will not take place for several years, thus they'll be able to fully use their new systems for their natural lives.
It'll make the Mac platform more viable, which will only strengthen their paradigm.
And it should also make systems cheaper. Although, it's debatable whether Apple would want to go cheap.
It'll make PowerBooks MUCH more powerful! How is that bad?
It'll make Macs easier and cheaper to upgrade, I'm assuming that Mac users will be able to buy any AGP/PCI-E/PCI card they want and simply install it, rather than buying more expensive Mac specific cards.
The only genuine complaint I've found is that Macs will become louder, and that's so petty as to border on ridiculous.
Why are so many Mac-heads so devoted to the stagnate PPC platform? I thought the beauty of the Mac was in the sublime OS and stylish packaging. Those two factors will still be there even after the switch. It's not like Apple will suddenly start pumping out ugly beige boxes!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
here was a live coverage of keynote done over at the Mac Observer.
- Teja
This subject is so popular, even Slashdot is Slashdotted. :eek:
do() || do_not();
All the reporting (A.K.A. spin) about how the loss of Apple's business amounts to no more than 2% of IBM's chip manufacturing capacity misses a couple of major points. First of all, the G5 should be a high profit margin component compared to a PowerPC chip destined for a Netgear router, so the impact on IBM's chip manufacturing revenue will be much more than 2%. Secondly, if IBM had delivered on its promises to ship 3.0 GHz G5 processors on time and to ship low-power G5 processors by now, Apple's business would have amounted to a much larger piece of that pie. In spite of the antiquated technology, just consider all of the PowerBooks still being shipped with G4 processors manufactured by Freescale instead of G5 processors made by IBM!
I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Imagine Apple going to enterprise customers and sell them secure, virus-free (touch wood) Macs, then being able to answer the inevitable "but what about XYZ app that's only available for Windows?" with a "No problem, you can still run that at full speed, with no extra cost". For applications that won't run under WINE, there'll still be Virtual PC and the like, but without the performance hit.
Who knows, perhaps they've even got an Aqua-flavoured WINE port in the works to be bundled with Leopard.
The only worry is that we might miss out on a few Mac ports because the developers think running the Windows version running in a compatibility layer will be good enough.
Seriously, you wouldn't write, "no sweet", so why write "loose" instead of lose?
Loose the dogs of war on ignorance! Let them lose their ignorance to proper education!
What I think is cool is the reverse: now I can emulate carbon and quartz under Linux and get working iSync without buying a powerbook. OH SNAP!
From what I gathered from those keynote notes, this "universal binary" doesn't make applications useless to either platform. My Mac that I bought a few months ago will be as useful to me in a year as it is for me now.
I'm curious how the performance compares between the two platforms though. Will a high end Intel-based Mac perform better or worse? I'm betting most people won't notice much of a difference at all. Most of the prettiness of OS X is GPU based anyway. Unless you're doing some serious number crunching, packing a top of the line CPU in there won't speed up reading emails.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
Man, it is cold in hell today.
However this is nothing new to long term Apple users, we already have our Parka's from when IBM was transformed from the "Satan" of the Apple universe into a partner. Keep in mind that unlike Intel, IBM was an actual competitor. Intel was merely a supplier to competitors, well, that and a convenient whipping boy for marketting material of questionably accuracy.
"Widgets, scripts, Java: they'll just work. Cocoa - Xcode: small tweak, recompile. Carbon - Xcode - a few weeks of tweaking, recompile. Carbon- Metroworks: Move to XCode." PHEW. At least the widgets work. I was worrying about that the most. ...Maybe now I can get that BonziBuddy widget I've been looking all over for...
the news seems to be slashdotting slashdot.
Look for manufacturers like HP, and Legend, to license Macintosh designs.
These will be *strict* reference designs. HP will make what Apple tells them to make, but they will be HP branded.
Similar to iPod+HP.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
So far, everything I've scanned doesn't say what architecture they'll be using. Itanium, anyone?
And I'm sure they're not going to go with a standard PC architecture... openfirmware rather than PC BIOS being at least one key difference.
Tweet, tweet.
Doesn't this move to Intel today signal that Apple is going to change itself into a software and services company, and get out of the hardware biz? At the least, it opens up the possibility of a clone market again, doesn't it? And if that happens, why would Apple try to compete with the clones when it could use them to sell OSX all over the universe?
I might have missed it, but is there any indication if the Intel chips they are going to use are standard stock Intel stuff or if they perhaps have some modifications for Apple to make their PowerPC emulation work better, etc?
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
Slashdot is part of an historic event when it slashdot's itself.
(received when accessing slashdot.org)
503 Service Unavailable
The service is not available. Please try again later.
We're sorry, the phone number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try your call again
Actually, I found that the 68K to PPC transition went pretty smoothly. Virtually everything still ran. On the first generation of PowerPC's, 68K applications ran perceptibly slower, but not by much--about like having a 68030 instead of a 68040. By the second generation, even the 68K applications were faster than on 68040.
And it is likely that this transition will probably go even more smoothly: Early versions of the PPC MacOS still were running a lot of 68K OS code in emulation; it is a safe bet that the Intel OS X will be 100% native code. And there is less hand-tweaked assembly code running around, so it will be easier for developers to simply recompile. Most major applications are already cross-platform, so developers already know what to tweak to enhance Intel processor performance.
My guess is that the transition will be smoother than the PPC transition, and much smoother than the OS X transition.
Financially, this is going to be a big bump for Apple. I'm certainly not going to order any more new Macs until the Intel systems are available. This may be one reason why they chose to do it now, when the success of the iPod will carry them through.
It may be the best decision for Apple, but I still think that it would have been better if they'd been able to reach a deal with IBM to develop the PPC further. I would much rather have seen multicore PPC's.
The question of whether the Intel OS X will run on generic Intel hardware seems to still be open. I'd guess not, but then I didn't believe that they'd switch to Intel in the first place.
I'm not a fan of Intel. Of the last six computers I've bought, five ran AMD, and one, PPC. But who am I kidding? Those AMD procs are still x86es. Only the PPC was something truly different.
From the beginning, personal computers have mainly been powered by two great lines of processors: little-endian Intel and its clones, from the 8080 through the Z80, 8086, and on to the 386 and Pentium; and big-endian Motorola and its clones, from the 6502 through the 68000 and PowerPC. Now one of those lines is coming to an end. The Macintosh was the last general-purpose personal computer the average person could buy that wasn't powered by x86. The PowerPC will live on, but only in game consoles and embedded devices.
And it sucks, because the x86 was never all that good. I say this as an assembly language hacker. I never did get around to learning PPC code (and I guess there's no point learning it now), but I know x86 code, and most anything else has to be better.
I think this is a black day in the history of personal computing.
This could also mark the beginning of the end for Apple. Which would be terribly sad, but not as bad as the end of real choice in consumer hardware.
Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
No thats not what I said or implied, at all, I just meant that:
The virus will be easier to port on the Mac because the processor is now the same than with most Windows machine. If it's true that less virus on the mac is due to less mac in the world then you can expect more virii on the mac because more people will have access to the os, no need to have a PPC machine. Once published on Intel the amount of hacker who will work their magic to crack the open firmware will be quite high, soon enough about any PC will be able to run osX, in the end, porting virii to mac will mean switching os and adapting the code to the os, a big job, possibly huge one but still easier to do than porting it to another os on another CPU architechture...
First the platform transition, then the fact that an apple-related post is bringing /. servers to their knees. What is the world coming to?
pucker up, buttercup
What's the fourth horseman???
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
Has anyone ever heard the term. Eating your children? I have to think that Steve Jobs has not or thinks that he can pull off anything.
1. He has just killed the market for current machines. Anyone that has not upgraded will now think twice about getting a new Mac. In three years you will have to buy all new software. I see all Mac sales going right into the toilet.
2. Just recompile my ass. The byte ordering issue is going to make this a real pain for any existing codebase. What about all your Altavec code?
3. Intel!!! Last time I looked Intel was not the MOST innovative chip maker. The Ia64 was a HP project, XScale is from Arm->DEC->Intel, and the new x64 chips are a copy of AMD's ISA. Intel can not even keep up with AMD when it comes to speed vs heat. The new Venice core "FABed by IBM" Runs at like half the heat of the P4.
I guess Apple is going to end up with just ITunes and ITMS.
My company was going to start porting our software to the Mac. Now we will hold off for at least 3 years. I bet more than a few other software developers will do the same.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Right. If Apple just made the announcement, what are the chances that Intel already made a special version of their chip for Apple alone? Probably none. They were probably running on a stock Intel rig, which is proof that Apple has a build of Tiger that would run on any Intel white box.
We're this close from running it on our Intel laptops and desktops.
Apple will surely restrict OSX to special Intel chips, but all this moves them very close to running it on any chip.
OSX on my ThinkPad by Christmas.
Why's everyone so worried? It's an architecture change, nothing more. You can't pretend that the heart of soul (if there is such a thing) of OSX lies in the hardware.
Here's some things you can bet influenced the decision -
1. IBM was never pouring as much money into chipmaking as Intel. It's hard to keep up that way.
2. IBM is going to be VERY busy helping to provide the guts of, what, is it all 3 of the next generation consoles? (Consortium with Sony and Toshiba for Cell, PPC-type for XBox-360 - do they have a hand in the Revolution?). It would be inevitable that their supply to Apple would dwindle. Remember what happened to nVidia when they pushed so hard on XBox (first generation)?
The only thing I don't understand is why it's made out to be such a hard shift. Isn't this the 21st century? Are people still coding so closely to the machine that they can't recompile on another platform relatively easily (I'm talking architectures here, not operating systems - isn't specific hardware supposed to be relatively obscured by the compatability layers offered by the os?)
Apple have just issued a press release fully detailing the transition to Intel.
Intel also have a press release about the Apple/Intel collaboration
If Carling made signatures they would be the best signatures in the world...
I realize that there is a class of Talibanesque fanatics who actually believe the "Cut of Mac" crap and who are going to feel this is a switch to the Dark Side, and who are going to rant and rave for the next two years. As one of the people who is new to the platform, let me tell you that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution; the only good thing about you is that you make Linux fans look tame. If you are really on Apple's side as you claim to be: There are times when your platform needs your support, and this is one of them. Lead, follow or get of our way when we do this.
And, to be blunt about it, this is the bottom line: If this gets me a PowerBook that runs longer, cooler, and faster for less money, it is good. This also gives me a chance to have AMDs in a future PowerMac -- and that would be beyond cool. The Opteron runs circles around the G5, especially with IBM not doing their job.
Good move, Steve. Glad to see you (once again) have the guts to do the right thing. Roll them out, I'll be in line with my money waiting.
Oh, my God! Is this the endian of Mac as we know it?!
So now that OSX will run on intel chips, will they begin to push on MS's action? Will it be easier to make the "switch" for people with existing intel hardware? Sounds like a fantastic business move for AAPL if they can make that happen...
You so need to sit down and take a chill-pill. Being x86 will not make it easier to make viruses. That whole aspect will depend on the OS, and it is still OSX. And your friends computer is suddenly not going to stop working. The transition is not happening for a wee while yet, and so Apple will still support his system. They're even going to allow the production of dual platform binaries. You're just getting worked up over nothing. I just think you and your friend are zealots - mac on x86 may be good. They might even have the rights to licence altivec over to intel processors. Just chill...
lot's of folks talking about how good/bad this will be for apple, intel, mac users, amd.
how about IBM, does this actually hurts them?
1) Won't this make it really hard to sell computers at least until they release the Intel machines?
2) What does this do to the resale value of the two Powerbooks I just bought?
So how is this going to be a good thing? If MacOS applications get compiled for x86 it is only a matter of time until someone manages to run them on Windows - wine-style with a VM and emulation of the system calls.
Then they can sell neither their hardware nor their OS.
Personally I'm disappointed. I lost my faith into the x86 architecture the moment I learned 68k assembler. I like the PowerPC architecture. So please, why change from PowerPC to x86?
Have you seen what happens when people try to bring Objective-C features into C++? TrollTech tried with Qt.
You get a complex meta-language layered over the top of Qt that involves a lot of complex memory semantics, another special compilation phaze that's obnoxious to deal with, special build tools that lack flexibility, and odd syntax that editors don't recognize.
It's a nightmare. Objective-C is a much better language all around for GUI programming. C++ has its place, and that's why ObjC and C++ can talk and play nice. But pure static typing (inferred or lexical) in Applications is going the way of the dodo, get on the bus now or be left behind.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
from CNET:
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
now this sounds like an EULA/Support restriction to me, but who knows?
Here to turn the world into a load o crap! Apple has aparently already formed 'the pile' and it obviously hasn't worked so we have to think of some other way to counter their decision! I forget what they called the future people but this sounds familiar? Marklar?
Take a look here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=5d
This basically says it was essentially fact, not rumor, by Friday morning. Note the lack of response today (i.e. little additional information), when the announcement supposedly became confirmed.
I'm not sure why this news translated to a 5% drop in Apple shares though ($1.5 billion in market cap lost).
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
Animated HotNews line on Apples' website tells us that "Dinosaurs still exists". So they switched to dinosaurs of CPU...
RMFP. I said that Apple is killing their hardware sales for the year. Who is going to want to switch to Apple and buy a Mac running a G5 chip when next year Apple is going to start abandoning the platform?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
OS X is great and I'm happy for Apple that they have it running on P4's. Yay for them.
What about the other big apps that are on PPC-based macs? What about ProTools, Digital Performer, Peak, among others? I don't know anything about their inner development, but I somehow doubt they're all built using XCode.
XCode hasn't been around for very long, a year or two, and although that isn't very long in terms of computer hardware, the software I mentioned above is from days of yore. Sure they made the jump to OS X from Classic, but it's still a huge undertaking.
Shouldn't You expect more from your DJ?
Honestly, in the creative and home software markets, I don't know how this will work. Maybe the transition will be seamless, and maybe Jobs had just ushered in 7 years of binary and compatibility hell.
But I think it's really going to suck for games. Game companies don't write their software in Xcode and then build with Cocoa libraries. They write lean code optimized for the hardware and CPU.
So are Mac porting houses like Aspyr going to be forced to port, optimize, and build two different CPU versions of each game? That's not going to be worth the effort for a lot of marginal titles.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
What the hell do I tell them now?
One is looking at a laptop, probably an iBook. The G4 is way behind the curve, and what can you say when there is a hardware update around the corner that might double the observed speed of the machine? The other is looking at a desktop, probably an iMac. The current G5 actually stacks up okay right now, but does the purchase make sense?
Mac buyers are shown to wait longer before upgrading their machines. What is the scene going to look like in 4 years? I'd still be using my older PC hardware if the hardware itself hadn't died. There are supposed to be fat binaries from developers using Xcode, and Rosetta for running old PPC binaries on an x86 machine. But there will inevitably be x86 only binaries for some app that you love; will there be a way to run it on the old PPC hardware? And even if there is, why do I want to burden an already slow machine with runtime translation?
What about peripherals? Will there be a fat binary driver for your current printer in 3 years? Will the printer you buy in 3 years come with a fat binary driver?
I always thought Microsoft was the Sith Master, all along, it's been Intel! Cunning.
Slashdot has been overcome by the Apple Effect. Quick, throw a few more Pentium 4s onto the server farm!
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Does this mean we get to use the Intel compiler....and VTune? This is a true win for CPU intensive tasks, this is a great compiler.
And if they compile the OS with the Intel compiler, instead of GCC, we should see an extra speed boost that MIPS and Megahertz can't do.
Does this mean that every Mac with an Intel processor will have to have one of those annoying "Intel Inside" stickers on them?
Also, every time we see a Mac commercial, will the 5-second Intel clip have to be played?
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.
C|Net's article created fantastic media buzz for Apple. I'm betting that ten times as many people followed today's keynote address than otherwise would have. This allowed Steve to explain the transition in the best possible light, to a huge audience. And I do think he did a great job of putting a positive spin on this, with the CEO of Intel and the cofounder of Wolfram Research as eloquent guest speakers.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
x86? This was an architecture originally designed for 1MB of RAM and its designers never thought it would need any more than that. Why is it that shitty designs always become these huge mosters - the internet was designed for like, 30 people. x86 sucks. It totally totally sucks. Writing assembly for it is like writing brainfuck... there's only one F-ing register that you actually use. Why do people like this? I thought for sure the world would slowly move away from it, but now one of my favorite companies is moving towards it? What do I have to do, build my own operating system and my own processor so I can get some satisfaction?
IDEs pain you;
Windows stains you; And WINE causes cramp.
Supercomputers aren't lawful; Macs give;
CISC smells awful; You might as well pack it the fuck up and strip to live.
Great, I'll be able to run WINE and therefore run many Windows programs fairly well under OSX. However, what about the other way? There might very well be something similar to run Mac programs under Windows.
Please moderate the parent up to +5 insightful. A most important post.
Your main point is that more existing x86 software will be available on OSX either through emulation or recompilation.
Well, the same is true the other side as well. Once OSX applications come in the form of x86 binaries, it will be possible to run them on Linux or Windows.
A rough implementation of Cocoa, the most important part from the application side, already exists through GNUstep. And Cocoa doesn't change as rapidly as the various Windows-APIs. Thus it will be higly likely, that a WINE-like implementation of the Mac OS X API will allow us to run Mac applications on Linux!
GNUStep may arise to be a considerable competitor to KDE, GNOME and even Apple! WHo knows. The coming times will certainly be interesting.
It will also be fun to watch MAC zealots deny and undo all their previos anit-x86 propaganda and pro PPC apolegetics. Mhz myth anyone? Well, Steve Jobs talked about Mhz/Watt already.
I hope Apple supports the best x86 chips, AMD64.
This is just a wild-ass guess but MacOS X should be 64-bit only. With the extra registers and other architectural improvements the transition from PPC to x86 would be much smoother.
Their mistake was ever leaving the m68k architecture. No, I'm not joking, I'm serious about this. While PPC may have been superior from a technical standpoint, from a business standpoint it was a mistake for Apple... They had an excellent customer base and they alienated a number of them, further the switch had an immense cost to Apple, due to the cost of rewriting code. It was also a PR embarrasment, when the first PPC macs did not actually perform as well as the last models of m68k macs.
I've long said, Apple needs to decide what they are: a hardware company or a software company. If they're a hardware company, release the machine specs to Linux. If they're a software company, port to Intel.
It seems Apple has decided they're a software company.
Predictions for Apple's Future under Intel
Apple currently makes most of its money on hardware margins. Therefore, there will be a brief flirtation with binding MacOS-X-Intel to Apple-branded Intel-based systems. Despite fruitless (no pun intended) lawsuits to combat the practice, installer patches will rapidly be developed and widely spread to allow MacOS-X-Intel to be installed on any x86-based system (thereby increasing the popularity and spread of MacOS-X, but Jobs will almost certainly be incapable of seeing that, at least initially). Apart from their industrial design, which is absolutely first rate, there will be nothing to recommend Apple-designed boxes over dirt-cheap clones. System performance will be below par compared to other Intel-based offerings, and not enough people will be interested in paying the $500 premium just to get a pretty box.
The reverse transition will also be true: People will try installing Windows on an Intel-based Apple box. Apple will try (and fail) to prevent this, too.
Moving to the Intel-based platforms places Apple in direct competition with Microsoft. The relationship between Apple and Microsoft has long been one of, shall we say, détente. This state has survived because neither has directly tried to enter the other's playground (there is no version of Windows for PowerPC). There may even be secret agreements between the two companies to maintain this state -- indeed, such agreements may be the driving force behind Apple's initial attempts to keep Windows off Apple-branded Intel machines, and MacOS-X-Intel off clone machines. By supporting the Intel platform, Microsoft may feel itself no longer bound by such "gentlemen's agreements," and start pulling overtly dirty tricks to undermine MacOS-X. Expect to see threats of Microsoft ending support for MacOS-X versions of Office. Expect also to see Microsoft even more shamelessly mimic the MacOS look-and-feel in upcoming Windows releases (Shorthair^WLonghorn is still far enough off that it could be completely re-specced).
Once Apple realizes that it can't bind MacOS-X only to its own machines, they will attempt to form OEM relationships with the major PC manufacturers (Dell, HP, IBM, etc.). They will then run smack-bang into the same wall Jean-Louis Gassée did when he tried to get BeOS bundled with PCs -- Microsoft won't let them. The anti-trust accusations will heat up again, this time with Apple behind it. By the time it reaches the courts, George W. Puppet and his operators will no longer be in office, so it's impossible to predict what the political pressures might be. Microsoft will start at a disadvantage, since it already has a criminal judgement against it, but a lot will depend on political orientation of the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.
In short, Apple has stepped into a very different and very messy business landscape. I sincerely hope they're ready for it; I'd hate to see them go away.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
YES HELL HAS FROZEN OVER PIGS FLYING DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER BLAH BLAH FUCKING BLAH. We get it already. Here's a little tip: when a story has 650 comments in under an hour, chances are someone has already made your obvious joke several times over.
As cools as the G5 Desktops can be, you have to admit they are a bit on the pricy side. You can usually build an $1,500 AMD or Intel system that can easily butt heads with Apple's entry level $2,999 system.
The justification has always been that the PowerPC architecture is just that much more advanced that it justifies the hefty price tag.
How will the justification work when their machines are running the Pentium chips? Or will they start lowering their prices to match the competitive environment of x86 hardware?
Also, given the statements Job's made about Intel's superiority to the PowerPC, how can they justify the pricing on their current crop of machines?
I don't understand all this "waaaah! my PPC mac is obsolete!" whining. Everything for the next few years will be in hybrid PPC/x86 fat-binary form (or as Jobs called them, "universal binaries") so existing PPC macs will run future programs just fine during and after the x86 switch. Apple will probably scrap PPC support only at the next major OS restructuring (just as OSX abandonned 68k support). And by then your PPC mac will be an old POS anyway.
Maybe they should call the new models PowerBook 360 or PowerMac 360? Maybe they should drop the Power part of the Power lines... Maybe they'll call them OldCrappyInstructionSetMac 360? Seriously though, I'm glad I didn't buy a PowerBook recently. Now I can hold out and get an OldCrappyInstructionSetBook 360 and run WINE on it so I can be even more confused.
I wonder if this will get more of the game developers on board? That would be nice. I suppose it depends on allot more than just the Intel arch, but it may be enough for some devs.
Eschew Obfuscation
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that." However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
So the rumors are true.
Does this worry you? Despite the poor idea of switching from RISC back to CISC chips, I see this scenario unfolding...
"So. Tell me again why we need to buy Apples, now that they've switched to Intel? Why can't we just buy a Dell?"
"Well boss, because they're only changing processor chips."
"But they're 15% more expensive for the same hardware."
"But the Apple software won't run on Dell's hardware, and the hardware really isn't quite the same."
"15% is too large a premium to pay for generic computers. It's time to bite the bullet."
And on and on and on. Get ready for it.
Blah.
If that were true, there would be viruses and spyware for Linux, which runs on normal Intel processors with normal PC BIOS'es, and obviously this isn't the case. It is the operating system, not the CPU architecture, which makes OSX/Linux relatively immune to viruses.
Apple has put themselves in a position to take over the PC market. Not only do the new Pentium 4 based (yes, the macs will use P4 CPUs, the dev machines are all running Pentium 4s inside) Macs run PPC binaries, but suddenly it becomes possible for apple to develop a WINE workalike.
Suddenly there is no incentive for users to continue using Windows except price. We all know how much more the iPod costs than standard MP3/WMA music players, yet everyone still owns one, and everyone HAS to have one. There is that WOW! factor that makes everyone buy an iPod.
A new era of Personal Computing is beginning...
this is great. for no reason other than to watch the fanboys squirm.
:D
+10 troll! I don't care. I'm having a f^%king ball watching it
Can you say anti-virus? Sure you can! I like the way you say that.
The virus will be easier to port on the Mac because the processor is now the same than with most Windows machine.
Maybe you didn't quite understand the parent's sarcasm. If viruses compiled on x86 were easier to port, we'd have tons of viruses and spyware in Linux wouldn't we? I mean Windows does run on x86, and Linux also runs on x86. Does this mean we can port a windows virus over to linux and expect it to cause the same destructive behavior? Most of the viruses use security holes in the operating system to spread, not holes in the processor architecture!
Oh, and BTW, any PC can run MacOS X anyway, using PearPC. The only difference is that PearPC will run MacOS software at native speeds.
Most viruses are perhaps 200-1000 lines of code, I don't see how this would be difficult to port to a "different" architecture. You're only converting 1000 lines of code. What shit you're spewing is pure FUD.
They've been building everything on PowerPC and Intel at the same time for five years.
How is that surprising.
The bulk of the OS is the direct descendant of NeXTStep.
The base development tools have compiler flags to select processor family and subtype. They can compile natively, cross compile for another type, or do both simultaneously to create a fat binary (now called a Universal Binary).
The initial apple developer releases (pre 2000) all shipped for both intel and PPC.
The base OS, Darwin, has always been supplied for both architectures.
All of the code used for reading and writing objects and data files, or communicating via remote objects has always been endian neutral.
None of this ever changed.
Wow, would be a natural response only if they had deliberately abandoned that testing/support internally.
This could be interesting... which Intel chip does Steve-bo plan to make the near-future home of the MacOS? The current ia32 (doubtful)? EM64T (ia32 with AMD's x86_64 64-bit extensions)? ia64 (Itanium/Itanium2)?
From what I understand of the landscape, Intel only released EM64T as a bridge to 64-bit computing on the x86 platform. Their stated future is ia64, which is binary-incompatible to ia32/AMD x86_64. I don't think it can even run 32-bit code, except in some sort of software emulation.
So is Steve-bo going to expect the Mac community to throw out the G5 boxen in favor of an EM64T box, only to expect them to throw those out in a couple years when Intel decides that any further 64-bit progress will be on ia64?
Be seeing you.
scott
Does this mean that Apples are now Oranges?
Apple Sales guy: yeah this costs more because, it uses better hardware than dell:::o^%&%!^$#$!^&((::: sorry better operating system than dell.
Customer: But I heard Bill's Horn, I mean longhorn is pretty stable and usable, and there are thousands of apps ready to be loaded on to it,,,,,
Apple Sales guy: but you get the exclusivity of having paid a few hundred dollars more than your neighbour who uses a crappy dell
Customer: %#(^$%*#(&)
There has yet been any announcement as to whether the chips are pure Pentium processors or some variant.
The only real downside I see to this business deal:
1) Slower bus speeds
2) Slower FPU
Other than that... it's pretty much a wash.
You are by FAR the stupidest person I have seen in a long time. Virii and trojans have NOTHING to do with the processor architecture. Also, OS X for Intel does not mean any computer with an intel processor can run it. Take your apple computer and only switch out the processor. That is effectively what Apple is doing. It won't mean suddenly the market share will increase. "Crack the openfirmware..."??? You aren't a programmer and it is quite obvious. Stick to your audio stuff and your CRTs and stfu until you learn what you are talking about.
If you think about it, this really is a smart move on the part of Apple. Now, they will port the Mac OS to Intel. This means that it just opened up a previously closed market for their OS.
This means that people can now select whatever hardware they want, and have a choice to run Mac OS on it...that is if the hardware is supported/compatible. This is a good thing...this is not a bad thing. This means that the Mac OS now has the potential to switch from being a niche market OS to a main stream, viable alternative to Microsoft Windows, OS. Yes, I know there are those zealots out there that would say that it already is a mainstream OS, but the Mac OS doesn't have anywhere near the market penetration that Windows does.
The only down side is the fact that currently there are few viruses/exploits for the Mac OS because it wasn't popular enough for "hackers" to bother exploiting. Hopefully Apple will take this into consideration and build better security and support into their OS....security and support that Microsoft has been promising us lately but has yet to deliver.
Yea, RISC won. Look inside any modern x86 processor, or one of the 3/4 billion ARM processors shipped last year...
Why is everyone assuming x86 as-is?
The announcement by Jobs and the Apple press release do not even mention Pentium or any specific cpu.
It is entirely possible that Intel will create a new CPU for Apple that leverages Altivec. Whether it is an x86+altivec or Intel PPC only time will tell.
ps
Debian Sarge released today. Where's the slashdot post? Hell has frozen over.
I've figured it out. You may be wondering what the hell Apple's reasoning is when IBM has some very promising things in the pipeline. Well I know. The MHz myth is now dead. Even if Macs could be X% faster than PCs by using IBM chips, it's a gamble. If Apple is ahead, eventually they'll be behind, and the cycle will repeat itself. The whole argument is now a moot point. Macs will always be THE SAME SPEED as PCs (give or take a small bit at any given time) from now on. If IBM pulls out ahead in the speed race, it won't matter, because Windows PCs don't use IBM chips, and they never will. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. A guaranteed tie is better than gambling on a possible loss or a very, very minor win at best. There's also a secondary benefit: If the hardware business becomes unprofitable, Apple can always become a software company at a moment's notice. And it looks like Apple's going to make this easy enough for both end users and developers. I see all of this as good news and welcome our new Intel overlords.
Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!
Does this mean we will be able to run Mac OS X on * any * white box we can come up with, as long as it meets requirements? This, to me, means Apple is on the run to become a software company (which I think is great). I have been a Mac user because of their fantastic environment, not because of the hardware. If I had been given the option of buying an Intel based Mac vs. a PowerPC mac, I would have gone for the cheaper -- assuming they both have the same software.
I think a lot of mac loyalists, including myself, felt like their heart just sunk into their feet and are having massive coronaries. This was a much more profound announcement than the 68k to PPC flip over 10 years ago, but it seems, at least on paper, a Goodthing[tm]. However, since there isn't an immediate offering of a Macintel, you'd think it would stifle sales of their just-released iMac revamped line to the mass audience. The biggest change I see is that it will allow bigger advances in the area of cpu emulation, the likes of which haven't been seen since the 68k emu on PPC601 boxes. I can't stop shaking...
-Yim
some people realized that they didnt want to be stuck in a hardware and software monopoly a LONG time ago.
... wait for it... _you do_.
those people baught clone PC hardware and ran whatever OS they wanted. see theres a reason why apple is a "niche" market. The "nichers" didnt realize that having only one company producing hardware was a bad idea. and now
OT: anyone else getting ALOT of 503 errors?
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
eep!
The first thought that pops into my head, is: "why 386 instead of AMD64?" The 386 is finally on the way out, so it seems strange that anyone would migrate to it nowdays. But everyone seems to be inferring that that is what Apple intends to do.
But they didn't say 386, they said Intel.
So that makes me wonder if they're doing something weirder, like migrating to the IA64(Itanium) or maybe even an Intel PPC clone.
If they really do mean the 386, as everyone seems to think, then WTF are they going to do as the 386 fades? Mac users do lots of multimedia work, and they're going to be among the first to bitch about the limits of 32-bit address spaces. Is there going to be Yet Another migration right after this, where "fat binaries" contain code compiled for 68k, PPC, i386, and AMD64? Sheesh.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"Steve. I am Your Father!"
'Noooo!'
or, the special chip Intel made has optimizations for stuff similar to Altevec. This is done by binary conversion on the fly by hardware. This isn't a stock, off the shelf pentium 4 from my understanding... and they said the processor they used in the show was a 3.2. They have a custom chip that runs both x86 and PPC code, does binary conversion on the fly and without significant speed decrease. I'd say that sounds about right....
Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
Everybody change your date to April 1st and reload the page!
(you wish...)
13-4=54/6
Consider:
Doom 3
Will never run as smoothly on PPC as Intel
[This move gets gaming onboard]
Movies/Audio
Intel is engineering DRM at the chipset
[This will placate Hollyweird]
It should be obvious by now that it isn't the end user driving the show anymore.
's sad that Apple is selling out to the media whores.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
iCon: Steve Jobs, the Greatest Second Act in the History of Business ....
Sales of existing Macs are going to crater. Promises of continuing support for PPC Macs are not worth the hot air they're comprised of.
New Macs based on hardware that might be supported five years from now will not ship until about the time Microsoft Longhorn does.
Today, Apple ceased to be a computer company. They still sell music players and have an online music store, however.
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
It really doesn't matter what CPU Apple uses and if Intel provides the best price/performance, that's what they should use.
Apple's unfortunate mistake was to make the CPU matter at all. They should have never made a big deal about that. Now they have to unbrainwash millions of Apple users who toss around terms like "megaHertz myth", "pipeline", "Altavec", "Power-Hungry", etc. Apple had those "Toasted Pentium" ads. For the few % of people who actually do work that rquires detailed knowledge of the architecure, this whole ad campaign was puzzling.
Steve Jobs could not have been telling the truth two years ago when he made those outlandish claims of P5 vs Pentium. And everyone knew it. Before the P5 was available, he was even sticking to the story that the P4 was faster than a Pentium. Even Mac loyalists didn't believe that one.
I live about a mile from Apple HQ. I expected to hear people muttering "AltaVec, Risc vs Cisc, Megahertz myth" and seeing their brains explode! Apple's past story makes no sense.
This may turn into a Good Thing! Apple may lose the "zealots" that scare people away from the platform, and have real people who just want some sort of iLife or editing appliance. If they shake the zealot contingent, good riddance!
Also, if people figure out a way to boot and run XP on their hardware, this can't hurt Apple's bottom line. They make a lot of $$$ selling hardware, too.
Best Buy can have you arrested
Yeah, because all of the most important apps we need to run aren't cross-platform. Like Photoshop, Illustrator, Office, etc.
...so what's left? Final Cut Pro? I would suspect that they're already on board.
Oh, wait.
So, what big Mac apps are there (which aren't made by Apple) that aren't already cross-platform?
I suspect that the Rosetta emulation will be sufficient for smaller apps, it's the big ones I worry about.
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
From an outsider's perspective I'm impressed with this decision and the forsight Apple had in their development of OS X. This is a bold move driven by an understanding of what the customers want... fast, portable computers that run a flexible visually attractive operating system. If this means more apps on Mac (which it seems like it does) then that is just another plus. I applaud Apple, and Steve Jobs for not only talking big but planning ahead and being able to deliver on this initiative (to the developers) within weaks of their announcement. Pretty cool stuff.
Intel has already demonstrated a significant performance bump over Microsoft and GCC compilers on Windows and Linux respectively. A 30% performance boost just for swapping compilers isn't a bad start.
Finally we can get a good comparison of Windows vs. OSX on the same hardware... This will be good.
Does that mean Linux is getting Photoshop and Blizzard games and the like then?
Will Apple be joining the fellowship of linux to save us from the dark lord, on his dark throne, in the land of Redmond where the patents lie?
virus will never have been easier to port, so does worm, spyware et al.
Sorry, but I need to put the smack-down on this right now. You haven't a damned clue about how this stuff works. Virii and worms depend largely on application-level "design features" or exploitable holes to get a foothold on a system. Virii, worms, and spyware also utilize system call and system library/framework calls to further establish that foothold and/or effect their individual program functions. These have nothing to do with the particular processor architecture.
Where processor architecture matters is in low-level binary exploit code such as the "shellcode" used to take advantage of a particular processor architecture. Simply put, anyone who's capable of actually writing shellcode for one platform can write it for another with a modicum additional effort and docs easily downloaded off the 'net.
The best example of this is a white-hat security company whose developers got tired of writing assembly. So they wrote a suite in Python that lets them give a high-level description of the exploit and target app parameters -- the Python code then generates the appropriate shellcode for every platform out there. Got a version of OpenSSH with a known exploit? Think you're safe 'cause you're on (SPARC, ARM, PPC, etc.?) Think again. These guys don't even have to click a button to do the translation; the high-level app just generates and tries various platform's shellcode, possibly hinted by system fingerprinting runs.
If there's any protection to be had, it's in the different OS platform layers (e.g. no ActiveX, radically different system libraries, etc.) rather than processor architectures.
Where does Apple make most of their money? Hardware sales, right?
So now that the difference between Apple computers and mainstream PCs will boil down to a BIOS of some kind, what exactly is preventing every PC maker in the world from doing a bit of trivial, legal reverse engineering and creating Apple hardware clones that run Apple's operating systems?
Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
I see alot of comments about how OS X will never run on commodity x86 hardware, how the x86 BIOS and OpenFirmware are too different, blah, blah. Newsflash! Darwin, the core of OS X has been running on x86 almost since it was first introduced to the public [1], [2], [3].
The core of OS X is booting and running on commodity hardware NOW. There is no speculation needed. It's here.
I also hear complaints about how now Apple is starting from scratch again with their software base, libraries, etc. Newsflash #2. They're almost starting from scratch, but with a much larger audience, AND a more enthusiastic developer base (see [1],[2],[3] yet again, and [4]).
Steve Jobs knows this. Why do you think he's releasing this preview for developer consumption now? Because by the time the x86 Apple machines actually ship, developers and users will have already been running full Darwin/OS X x86 system for quite awhile. He's leveraging early adopters and the OSS movement. This will be a far better transition than the m68k/PPC was.
[1] http://www.opendarwin.org/
[2] http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
[3] http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
[4] http://darwinports.opendarwin.org/
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
"Steve, what's happenin? You know that Final Cut code you've been working on? Yeah... we're going to need you to uh, kind of, scrap that... yeah... looks like we're switching to Intel. mmmkay?"
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
Now that the revelation of OS X having been co-developed for Intel all along revealed, the existence of x86 Darwin makes this a rather obvious step, really.
It's just that nobody really wanted to admit it.
Having worked for Intel at one time, and having met Otellini, I know that Intel has coveted Apple as a client for a LONG time. (WARNING: ANCIENT NAME-DROPPING ANECDOTE COMING UP!) I was at Intel back in '99 when Apple released the first inexpensive, consumer-oriented 802.11b base, the original AirPort Base Station. (At the time, the next-cheapest base was more than twice as much.) Well, I had an 802.11b setup at home, and mentioned how cool it was to my boss. So he let me set it one up in the office, connected to our separate internet connection (we did server support, so we had our own internet connection, separate from the Intel corporate net.) I hooked it up, and discovered that if I put the 'UFO' on top of my cube wall, the signal reached the cafeteria. So we left it up there. (Yeah, we had to sit in the corner closest to our cubes, but we could surf the 'net at lunch.) Well, one day Otellini comes by on a tour. Aside from one of my co-workers accidentally running him down on a hurried dash to the bathroom, he noticed the big 'Graphite' Apple logo on top of everything else. He simply points to it 'That's not connected to our corporate LAN, is it?' My boss replies 'No, to our private internet connection.' 'Okay, very good.'
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
The thing no one is talking about is that Mac os X is now a containder to the OS hill again. Why use Windows when Mac OS X is so much better ? I know I know legacies... But i believe having a OS X on intel is far more dangerous for Microsoft than linux. (Sorry for the Linux fan I offended)
RTFA. On Apple's press release, the very first paragraph says *ALL* macs will be using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007. Wall street journal mentioned that the transition will start with lower end machines, like Mac mini, within one year.
You're not going to be able to fire up OS-X on your Dell, Acer, Gateway, or eMachines PC.
Says who? Do not claim the unknown.
I understand that Mac elitest are searching for the last piece of dignity right now, but today ain't the day.
My reasons to buy Apple have now disappeared. I'm an engineer. I do signal processing. Software defined radio. Radar. Modulation, demodulation, and filtering. That kind of stuff.
The AltiVec was superior for those tasks. Far better than MMX. On a FLOP/$ basis, the Altivec was better. If you considered power consumption, FLOP/Watt, it was better yet!
Now, there will be no PowerPC w/ Altivec platform available at a consumer price. I'll have to use Intel for my hobbies (amateur radio), because of the large price differential.
I always thought that the signal processing engineer would be a natural customer for Apple. You get the fantastic advantage of an underlying unix OS, the synergy that came from having your target embedded processor right on your desktop, and the ability to use Microsoft Office applications, all on the same box. No more.
Apparently, there aren't enough signal processing engineers to make a difference to Apple. Or perhaps their marketing people have overlooked us, making a mistake. I don't know. But I do know that Apple is ignoring us, in favor of other markets.
You can't win them all. Sometimes you can't even break even.
Ken Hendrickson N8KH
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
That's from news.com.com
$1 says someone will get OS X running on generic hardware. And then each update will break it. And it'll go back and forth for a long time.
Gotta get me one of the developer boxes, crack it open, play with it some.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
RTFA, dude.
1) Apple never stated that PPC chips weren't more powerful now, only that according to Intel's and IBM's roadmaps, they won't be more powerful in the future. And they actually didn't make any mention of total power, just "power per watt", and we all knew that this was the reason they couldn't get a G5 in a PowerBook anyway.
2) Your friend's computer is going to be just as useful as it would have been if they hadn't announced the switch. They're not even going to start switching for another year, and that's likely to be the platforms that require low heat dissipation requirements, i.e. notebooks.
3) This will have virtually no effect on most end users. All software will run seamlessly on both Intel and PPC for years. The software that needs to have a speedup on Intel will of course have to be recompiled, but much software probably won't show a demonstrable difference (especially software that's primarily just a front-end for Apple technologies like QuickTime or Core Image).
4) This will have no effect on Java developers, perl developers, web hosting, etc., and virtually no effect on developers who use XCode (e.g. Mathmatica, which was ported in 2 hours, despite having "code dating back to the Reagan administration"). The only developers who will suffer a significant impact are the 20% of developers who haven't started a switch from Metrowerks.
You have to understand. His friend is probably disappointed, because Apple lied to him about the greatness of the G5. Ordinary consumers wouldn't mind. It's marketing after all. But some Mac zealots believe their consumerism to be an act of revolution and consider the words Steve Jobs to be gospel.
I have been doing a lot of close work with IBM and a couple of other electronics companies in the past few weeks. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Jobs is just being foresightful (imagine how much we could make if we all were?) and anticipating that IBM has been moving out of the direct manufacter business.
There are a couple of key things that have happened that have made this seem impending. The first of course, was the divestiture of the IBM Laptop division to a Lenovo in China. (I'm so glad I have one of the last US made ones). Then, in April, IBM's Q1 numbers missed their target, resulting in a 8% drop in IBM stock. This was due to product delays, drop offs in sales around the world, and rising pension costs. Then at the end of April, Avnet Inc. announced that it was going to buy Memec, LLC, which is the world leader in semiconductor distribution and on-demand design.
The word on the street though, is that the mainframe and midrange areas are not going anywhere, and the AIX world is booming with business, so they are smart to keep their focus on their stable lines.
All of this, plus the interesting fact that IBM is focusing all of its efforts and attention not only on 'short-term' support contracts, but the repeating big customer - Professional Services. This is a cash-cow industry, if done right... We'll see how things progress. It really looks like IBM is starting to try to emerge from the Electronics Industry that brought them into the 21st Century.
Just my $2.00. Hey, it's 2005, inflation, ya know?
Jho
Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
>>Keep in mind. Mac OS X is a unix OS, with lots of unixy underpinnings. Amen! bout time I wondered what took them so, long surpised they didn't go multi platform right at the introduction of OS X. Using Free BSD as the underpinnings made me wonder why not two platforms (or more) >>You loose *some* compatability with existing Mac apps. Maybe some of the Relic (legacy apps) with a good emulator maybe not. >>More likely than not, all Linux apps will be recompilable for Mac. No sweat. I have seen the more recent Mac convertees using the Open Source derived apps right away. I guess some might have spotted that oportunity especially the Mac newbs, the old users maybe not This means OpenOffice.org 2.0 will work *now*. This means no more second-class Mac versions of popular OS apps. >>Virtual PC will run *much* faster. No more cpu emulation is needed. >>Vmware will run on a mac. Oh yeah This is a very good thing I suppose those that are shocked never heard of OpenDarwin much less tried it out (oops not if they didn't have an Intel box)
http://www.maconlinux.org/
;) Or that the OS will be very tightly bound to the CPU.
My guess is that they'll have this ported in relatively little time, or that Apple will sic the lawyers in relatively little time
If Apple doesn't squash it, their OS sales will far exceed their hardware sales.
jh
Now Apple has to survive the next year where absolutely nobody will buy a box that will soon be outdated.
And then they have to survive the ire of all their fans with worthless pieces of junk (the resale value even of their newest boxes has just now plunged completely).
And then they have to survive in a landscape with Intel-based operating systems that are not bogged down by the need to deliver two-platform binaries for everything.
And then they have to compete with hardware that pretty much costs half the money elsewhere.
They will be burning money through like anything for years to come.
Heh, interesting they chose Mathematica. Of course it was easy to port: it already ran on multiple processors (x86 included of course) and a bunch of OSes (OSX, Win, Linux). The changes were probably just a bunch of #define's.
And even then it sounds better than it is. Yes Mathematica is a very large complex application with vast amounts of code. Most of that code is written in Mathematica itself however, and requires no porting whatsoever if you can get the Mathematica interpreter up and running.
Think of it as like porting Emacs: you only really have to get the elisp engine running, and most everything else will then instantly fall into place. Yes that takes some work, but vastly less work than it might at first look like based on the apparent complexity of the application.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
In one fell swoop, he got rid of the incentive for virus writers. I now have a firewall thatis and that's going to remain bulletproof.
:-]
As for dropping Apple? Like, I'm going to go to Dell, right? Nope! Dell looks like [expletive deleted] compared to Apple stuff. And I like to see my stuff as well as work on it.
PowerPC? Intel (though I wish I knew if its 32 or 64 bits wide, I got BIG problems to solve,)? What's the difference? [puts on asbestos shorts...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
You know what's really interesting about this? People will not only be running Mac OS X on Intel, people will ALSO be running WINDOWS on MAC hardware.
This works both ways for Apple. Powerbook and iBook sales are going to got through the roof. Regardless of what Dell et al. seem to think, there is a market for computers that don't look like shit, and iBooks are already very competitively priced.
Think a $999 iBook capable of tripple-booting into Mac OS, any ol' Linux distro and friggin' Windows. Can you say million-seller?
http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+align s+with+Intel/2100-7341_3-5733756.html
The unofficial position now is (1) you will probably be able to install Windows on an Intel-based Mac, and (2) you will not be able to install OS X on an Intel-based non-Mac.
I'm not sure how Apple will be able to prevent (2) from happening, but I'm sure they've already thought it through and solved the problem before making this decision. The question I have, though, is this: What can Apple do to keep non-Apple hardware from running OS X, and can it be circumvented if you build it yourself?
According to this News.com article, Apple's senior vice president Phil Schiller said, "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
A lot of people feel that Apple's real strength is in the software they ship. However, Apple has derived the majority of their revenue from hardware sales. In effect, every Apple-branded machine is a Really Big Dongle to run MacOS.
Once x86 Mach binaries of the OS are out there, how does Apple keep random people from buying OS X at the Apple Store and installing it on their Dell? If the hardware premium of $100-$500 of Apple hardware over no-name beige hardware is really subsidizing OS X development, then even if everyone is paying full price for every copy of OS X (ha), Apple is losing revenue.
One way around this is to sell services related to the software. Hey, I'm a happy mac.net subscriber.
The other way is to lock down the hardware. Uh oh. Didn't we just see a whole flurry of "DRM Inside" articles about Intel?
Please let this not be true.
With Apple's news, PPC is now effectively dead on the personal computer.
That means Intel are the now the ONLY game in town (AMD to some tiny extent)
Does anyone else think that is a bad thing ? No future choice anymore about CPU platform. 1 platform; Intel. No competition. This seems pretty bad to me.
Microsoft needs to do this by telling Intel that they're expendable. They send this message to their closest business partner (Intel) do this by making a deal with their biggest enemy (the guys who pour billions into Linux) for the XBox just to prove it can be done.
Intel has the harder job of needing to prove that Microsoft is expendable. They do this with Linux initiatives and by working with guys like Apple. Even if they paid Apple to use their CPUs it'd be important to Intel to show that another commercial OS can run on Intel chips now that all the proprietary unixes (sco, hpux, etc) are dead.
The real winner in the MSFT/Intel war - the consumer who will benefit as Intel and Microsoft both drive each other into zero-profit commodity suppliers.
You have two years to improve your OS interface. Windows programmers, you need to improve the Ram handling for Applications. Linux you have to get large commercial application developers (Adobe, Corel, etc) to port to Linux.
I will be switching to one or the other platform from Mac.
This is not because of the CPU. I have used most CPU brands and find nothing wrong. I like Macs because of the OS, Steve has that one right. I hate STEVE JOBS and Apple. I avoided Macs for many years because of the way Steve took the platform through shitty changes that caused hurt for years. I will not be going through that hurt this time around.
I have to upgrade all my applications to a new machine, and upgrade my computer to a new platform. I DONT want that new platform to be OSX or anything related to Apple. SXo impress me you Linux programmers. Impress me you Windows programmers. You have two years. Unless Steve has a change of personality and offers free software and hardware upgrades. Then Steve could do what I have been publicly been asking for over the past months and commit suicide.
Yes. Mac OS X will run on standard Dell PCs and other cheap hardware. It's only a question of time.
/picz
Just as you can modify your XBox to run anything by following simple instructions, the same will happen for Mac OS on PC.
This is good news for consumers. We will get the power of Mac OS for the price of cheap PCs from China.
------- Look mum! I have posted another Slashdot comment! --------
Wow, are you ever wrong. It was a Power Mac G5 system board with a Pentium 4 in it connected to a special, one-off, INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE system controller. There are a few dozen of these systems on the Apple campus. They are not "white box" PCs. They are Macs with Intel processors in them.
You forget that EVERYTHING on a Mac system board besides the CPU is made by Apple.
That's why Apple is switching to Intel: IBM isn't willing to take the risks involved in keeping up with Intel and AMD.
Or it could be that IBM has been putting all of it's resources into the chips for the XBox360 and PS3, which will far outsell any Macs over the next year or two.
This is just Econ 101, you know, supply and demand. The game console has the demand, so IBM chose to supply them instead of Apple.
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/crows/crowfaq.htm#ta
http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.htm
Haven't tried it myself. There is an old woman a couple of roads away who shoots magpies with an air rifle, apparently they're a pest. She says they taste OK as well.
Deleted
He says that the P4 roadmap is more promising than the PowerPC roadmap, but the G5 PPC has had a faster growthrate in clockspeed than the P4, and has a much better vector engine. I think Jobs just can't bear the fact that he stuck his foot in his mouth on the 3GHz thing, a wall that has stumped the ENTIRE semiconductor industry and not just IBM. IBM has MUCH better R&D than Intel and comes out with semiconductor innovations like it's a bodily function: dual core, copper wiring, SOI, 90nm, etc.
They've been ahead of Intel by a wide margin. AMD, as ubiquitously pointed on on /., would have been much smarter.
Stupid fucking move.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
I have a PPC G5. I'm not at all sorry that Apple is making this transition. As my computer is running what I want, as fast as I need it to run, and that without a single system crash or application lockup, I have no incentive to buy a new computer for quite some time. Added benefit: as there is already scarce interest in the hacking of PPC boxen, there certainly should be even less interest by script kiddies and their ilk to mess with my now "dead" box. My hardware, OS, and apps are even now becoming rather un-interesting. And if the OS decides to croak or become unsupported, whichever comes first, there is always BSD and Linux looking to step up to the plate! Have fun all you Chipzilla fans! I may or may not be joining you in five years.
I must admit I'm shocked (because I didn't believe they'd really do it) and a tiny bit sad (because I want to believe cleaner RISC designs will eventually unseat x86 at some point), but I think this is a smart move for Apple.
Why? Because just yesterday there was a story here on slashdot about how Laptops Outsell Desktops. And, the G5 wasn't really a viable laptop processor. Assuming the popularity of laptops isn't just a fluke and is more of a long-term trend, it means that Apple must have a strong line of laptops. If the G5 won't let them do that, then they need to move on to something else that will, because Apple mostly sells desktops and laptops, and they can't afford not to make competitive laptops.
All this is not really surprising. The PowerPC is a great design, but it takes more than just a good instruction set architecture to make a good chip. IBM makes good chips, but let's face it: they are not geared up for making laptop chips. IBM traditionally makes chips for servers and stuff. Laptop chips are a whole different art, and it isn't IBM's specialty. Good low-power laptop chips are just more likely to be found in the x86 world, because there is already a HUGE market there driving the development of cheap, high-performance laptop chips.
So, if you're Apple, and it looks like laptops are the future, and your current line of laptops is honestly a little weak because you haven't even got a G5 laptop product and don't expect to, what would you do? Wait a year and hope IBM comes up with a PowerPC that works well in a laptop? Or just switch to Intel, who you know will make a good solid laptop chip (or at least won't make one worse than what your competitors are using)? If I were Apple, I would switch to Intel, because to switch is risky and painful, but to not switch is to take a huge risk that I might totally lose the laptop market.
http://www.apple.com/pro/film/lowry/starwars/inde
That picture represents exactly how I felt this morning when the news came around confirming the rumors that abounded this weekend.
Articulos para gente geek: Poleras, linux, libros y mas
"I felt something, a disturbance in the network, as if a million mac zealots cried out in horror and were suddenly silenced."
Parent was rated as funny, but, as a Mac user, I actually find this development to be very, very saddening.
Where is the uniqueness, ingenuity, and independence that Apple once stood for? Where is the principle to first see to the needs of the consumer? All I see now is a company that panders to the corporate interest.
I value ingenuity. I value openness. Most importantly, I value liberty.
Right when I make a slow, conscious decision to come back to the Mac, right when I decide, "Hey, these guys are indeed *different*", I am given the reality check that they they are really no different at all from the "Dark Side" I was converted from.
I might as well buy a Dell for my next machine.
I for one welcome our new Intel Overlords!
Anyone else think that joke would EVER make as much sense??
S-
Did Steve Jobs just reveal the he IS the Dark Lord of the Sith?
Fantastic! Best comment yet!
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
Does this mean I can look forward to a PowerBook with something better than a G4? I don't see any mention of how this move will impact their notebook lines.
My
Wintel vs. X-tel
Pronounced "ten - tel"?
665: The mark on the forehead of Satan's slightly less evil brother, Stan.
Yes, this a bold move, but if Apple can pull it off, Microsoft might actually have to work for their money for once on the desktop.
oh, come on... there aren't even a million mac users, much less a million mac zealots
Lies about crimes
# Apple will offer a Developer Kit, which includes 3.6GHz Pentium 4. OS X 10.4.1 for Intel (preview release). Order today; available in two weeks.
for those whom said it doesn't mean they will go to pentiums.
Steve Jobs already did it with NeXTSTEP ! :) and it worked on Intel/m68k/Pa-Risc ....
It was called OPENSTEP ( now Apple
Since java apps don't worry about the processor so much, does this mean that we may see an increase in java based apps out there? Or is it just easier to deal with re-complie issues?
My
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooo.. ."
So I an Apple ][e love it forever and ever. Someone tell me that Apple ][e not the wave of businesses - move to Intel/Windows - bored with computing until Red Hat 3.0 - make computing bearable again but still problematic - nicest thing never had to upgrade my hardware. Hate the GUI - go back to Apple for Mac OS X - love it forever and ever.
What does Intel represent over PPC? - nothing really. Apple of Intel mean anything to me. Probably that Intel just signed on with the biggest micromanager. I'm sure the deal - to be disclosed of in the next year or so is that Apple will be - or actually has already designed the Motherboard specifically for Apple. All Intel will be providing is the chipset.
The biggest problem I had with Windows (and still do at work) is that it is the machine for all the different chipsets - it is designed for the majority of clones. Have you ever compared two different clones running the same OS? Most times there are differences. Put in some peripherals in and weird things start to happen. Most clones provide the graphics/ethernet/modem built into the motherboard - yes you have an Intel chipset but it's the motherboard that is screwy and you change a couple of settings and replace builtins with third party cards and things start to change.
Apple will be making sure that this will not happen - they have designed the motherboards from the get go. They have specific design specs and will continue to do so. So they've designed one that will use the Intel Pentium 4 chipset - what does this mean to them. They can drop the price a bit because the Intel chipset is still cheaper then the PPC but they still will be a high design cost from designing the motherboard.
OS X probably will not able to run on any clone - though people will port it to different motherboards - as cleanly as they will on Apple motherboards. Apple is not turning into another software only company. They will always be in the business of superior hardware designs and OS designs.
I'm not as shocked as everyone else is - remember wasn't the NeXT computer designed on an x86 - and didn't Steve Jobs start that company - and isn't that what OS X is originally based on?
Steve Jobs just had to do a few transitions so that he could come back to where he was when he left (or thrown out) of Apple. NeXT was a superior system running on the Intel chipset and that has been where he's wanted to take Apple all along - also do you think that this might also have something to do with IA64 as well isn't that out soon?
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
I'm wondering if the iPod success is crucial for this move?
Maybe the iPod is what makes people think that Apple still is a credible company that has a bright future and that will continue to be around.
Without the iPod people might have been dangerously close to thinking that Apple has lost their reason to exist.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
You mean, developers can buy the transition kit today, compile the new binary for the weekend, and wait for one year til the first intel based mac to test it next June?
That's brilliant!
Maybe this means one of my nit picks about Apple hardware will be fixed. Although the PPC has been a great fast CPU the rest of the system (buses, memory types, etc) have always lagged behind the PC platform. Maybe the switch will allow apple to keep better in sync with these technologies as well as giving hardware companies (read Nvidia and ATI) quicker to the mac market time.
What does this mean for the linux desktop movement? Will it begin to slowly decline and be relegated to a workstation/server OS?
If you have to ask, you'll never know.
We should check in Rosetta, the OsX Intel PPC emulator, that there is no stolen PearPC code again ...
So, either the transition from the PPC architecture to the x86 architecture will be hell for users of applications, or it will make lotsa Linux apps quickly available for x86 OS X, or both.
Neither one is a win for Apple.
User hell is an obvious problem; the less obvious one is, making OS X run on Intel PCs (whaddya think Apple has been running their secret versions on, custom hardware? Bah! Commodity hardware!) raises the inevitable question, "Why should I buy an expensive x86 Mac when I can buy an inexpensive white box PC and run Linux on it with much of the same software?"
Going head-to-head against Microsoft, Apple has been moderately successful with great (if pricy) machines. Changing the hardware over to go head-to-head against BOTH Linux AND Microsoft appears questionable in terms of sanity.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Apple has already posted a developer's guide at http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Co nceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary.pdf
that outlines what needs to be done to port apps... It also talks about Rosetta.
Kind of alarming:
Rosetta is designed to translate currently shipping applications that run on a PowerPC with a G3 processor and that are built for Mac OS X. Rosetta does not run the following:
Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9
Code written specifically for AltiVec
Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane
Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor
Applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions
Kernel extensions
Bundled Java applications or Java applications with JNI libraries that can't be translated
I guess it means that Classic support is "done".
Jobs just gave you 2 years' notice on this, so it's not like this is catching you by surprise. Do you think that G5 will last you another two years? Or even one year, when the first Apple x86 box comes out?
Let's be real, when I start up the Mac, I could care less about the brand of processor inside. It's about the user experience, and that part isn't going to change.
At least you can take comfort in the fact that the CPU is not going to be the limiting factor with Macs anymore. Motorola was a miserable partner. IBM, sadly, wasn't much better.
I've been a Mac user since 1984, so admittedly, the news is a little strange to me, but I generally see this as a positive move.
Who wants to bet the product they're going to be shooting for in the long term is the Pentium M and its successors, rather than the P4?
I'm sure Apple has considered this, but this will kill their short-term hardware sales. After all, who wants to buy Apple hardware on a condemned platform? Any Apple PPC software you have today won't run on a new Mac in two years. Sure, someone can port it, or build a fat binary version of it, but that will require access to the source code. Proprietary software won't be as readily upgradeable, and will almost certainly require purchasing an upgrade. Software manufacturers won't be able to resist upping the version number for their recompile.
Of course most people who use proprietary software would buy new software in two years anyway, but going forward I think you'll see fewer and fewer people buying Apple computers. Most people will sit back and wait until the next architecture to make their purchases.
While Wintel users continued to fret about the oncoming loss of control over their own PC's at the hands of Microsoft, the RIAA/MPAA, Intel, and TCPA, I was always at ease, secure in the knowledge I had my Mac, on a completely differnt software/hardware platform, immune to all this. I looked forward to the time when Mac market share grew as the TCPA forced users to flee for "more liberated" computers.
Now I don't know what to expect. What will become of Mac computing as Intel adds more "not unannounced" DRM technology to it's processors?
I must mock all of you Mac people with "TOLD YOU SO!".
... ...
Just when you think you're comfortable with their products and things are getting settled and all good, just like Jason or Freddy, always trust Apple to come up with a way to GIVE YOU THE SHAFT! Sony does it too but they're proud of it.
Is it like every n*X years that Apple ditches all the customer base that bought their custom hardware? Apple goes:
1. create and sell NEW incompatible and proprietary product line
2. create loyal and fanatical customer base who will buy anything
3.
4. ditch product line
5. create NEWER and completely incompatible product line from previous product line which blind loyal and fanatical customer base will continue to buy
6. rinse and repeat
7. profit!
"Hey, we can grow our bottomline by making all of them 'loyal' and fanatical customers rebuy our hardware and associated software AGAIN!".
It's another soap-opera day with Deep Throat out of the closet to catch Microsoft in bed with IBM & Apple, and Apple swinging with Intel whom Microsoft is still in a long marriage with.
In the long run, would this mean more easy to port games and apps for MacOSX, or it's still about the OS?
Oh Apple.. you have denied the power of the dark side for far too long. Resistance is futile...
Well, I would have predicted that this would never happen, but there you are.
I'm not as alarmed as I thought I would be. But given that the majority of posts seem to be predicting that it's a bad idea, I feel much better. Every time Slashdot disagrees with Steve Jobs, it turns into a bestselling product for Apple.
So the questions are now to be asked.
,will macintosh maintain the PPC build of OSX?.
a) is there going to be an alternative power pc based work station to fill the void.
a part 2) If there is an alternative
I feel as if a million voices just screamed out a died, I feel something terrible has just happened.
Absolutely. Post the pictures too.
Switching to Intel makes sense from a business revenue model, the Intel chip du jour is only useful for 12-18 months, but my G4 remains useable for over half a decade.
So the question is, will this spur sales of new machines once they are available? Will people have to upgrade more often once on Intel, or will the Mac OS "protect" our investment in Intel machines as he has for PowerPC machines?
Only time, and the wise old owl, know for sure...
I think there are two driving forces behind this change:
1) Reality
2) Steve Jobs
I know what you're thinking, "Those two things don't go together!" But, wait; let's look at the past to see the future.
Reality: A few years ago, when the G5 was introduced, it wasn't too far behind Intel's clock speed. Apple was proudly showing off their dual 64-bit processors that were keeping up with the Joneses. Nothing much has evolved, however. IBM has been plagued with solving the heat issue and delivering enough units. So, no G5 laptop and no 3GHZ G5.
Enter Steve Jobs: Last year, Steve had to publicly embarrass himself to say that there would not a promised G5 @ 3GHz. As a modest concession, he did announce 2.5 GHz G5 (and recently, a 2.7). Steve does not like to be embarrassed or have his thunder stolen.
So, in a big giant, "F**k you!" to IBM and Motorola for their lackluster deliveries, Jobs bid them farewell and embraced the marketshare winner.
Apple's success with iTMS and the iPod have given them exposure to a market that has been traditionally MS oriented. This move might help put a boxed copy of MacOS X on the PC side of the house before Longhorn comes to fruit. That will definitely make Apple a few converts. Perhaps this move will do for the personal computer what standardizing the rail guage did for the rail road in the 19th century. Who knows?
Whether or not this is the right decision remains to be seen however, I think my life as a Mac tech just got more interesting.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
So not only has Apple dumped IBM, they also appear to be planning to dump gcc.
Linda Lovelace... I thought everyone knew that.
You are all a bunch of idots.
It's alot more than just "eye candy", quartz, web core, video core etc. If I were concerned with xservers i would agree. But comparing OpenSTEP to OS X is like comparing DOS to Windows95, while there is still alot of old code in there, they are not equal.
...where's my two-button scroll mouse, Apple?
You are only as much as what you do with what you know.
If Apple just made the announcement, what are the chances that Intel already made a special version of their chip for Apple alone? Probably none. They were probably running on a stock Intel rig, which is proof that Apple has a build of Tiger that would run on any Intel white box.
Apple have been planning this for some time. Plenty of time for Intel to make them something special. And they don't need a different processor to keep OS X off your ThinkPad - just a different BIOS.
Hell really froze today. I've just seen /. slashdoted.
I had the strangest feeling reading this line:
# Apple will offer a Developer Kit, which includes 3.6GHz Pentium 4. OS X 10.4.1 for Intel (preview release). Order today; available in two weeks. [10:48 am]
it's gonna take some getting used to, but I can't wait to see the Linux/x86 vs Mac OS X/intel speed comparisions, not to bait anyone, but while I think OS X is nice, I've never prefered it over Linux on the desk. (and BSD on the server!)
bo
bad_outlook
--
Is this vague enough for you?
I don't think so. I think they'll be pointing at IBM and saying, yeah, it was a really good platform up till now, but those guys in the suits dropped the ball on us, are too stupid to get the G5 right (a well-publicized problem), and Intel took the lead with the new Pentium portables. Fuck this -- we have always gone with the best chip out there, starting with the 6502, and we always will. Heck, with all of the Intel ads out there, your average consumer probably saw the PowerPC as more of a problem. Like, why aren't these guys using "the Centrino" like everybody else?
In fact, after a bit of quick footwork, this will be a beautiful position for Apple to be in. Look, they can say, this is what you can do with a Pentium -- if you have OS X. Look, kids, same hardware has your Windows box, but not one single virus, no crashes, no maleware...
Having Intel and Apple dovetail their marketing efforts -- scary, actually. But not bad.
Apple still hasn't removed all the pentium-bashing from their site, it's quite funny, have a look!
There's another point to consider, too: used PPC Macs are going to take a hit in resale value now.
Nobody is going to want to pay top dollar for old architecture, and that will mean deals on used G4 and G5 hardware.
That isn't helpful if one wants the latest and greatest, or if you're the owner now of rapidly obsoleting hardware--but for deal-seekers it will be just dandy.
Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
I fear Steve may be emulating another CEO, Scott McNealy, and focusing so much on besting Microsoft, that he is loosing Apples identity. Apple is going to have hardware, via iPods, and software, with OS X ( which will be hacked onto PC BIOS in short order). In a few years, Apple will have no growth, as sales of iPods and OS X will level off. Steve will have focused so much on getting OS X into the business world, it will then be lost.
These are some of the things molecules do...... given 4 billion years -Carl Sagan
Don't x86 chips suck? As in, really suck?
I know the difference between RISC and CISC. I took computer engineering in school, but I haven't touched the field since I left. From my years of using a PC and working with x86 chips, it seemed as though there were a million things wrong with them. All this legacy crap. It's all slow and clunky, and gah. All the hwile, I've been amazed at the CPU used in gaming consoles.
Spec wise they seem so pathetic. The SNES ran it 2.8Mhz, the Sega Genesis at 3.6Mhz, PS1 at 33MHz, The PS2 ran at just under 300 MHz, and now the PS3 is going to be running at 3GHz. Performance wise though, they've always seemed to put the relative performance of a x86 CPU to shame. But all co-processors to want on a system, could anyone imagine a game like Yoshi's Island for the SNES running on a 2.8Mhz x86 chip?
I realize that you can't do a straight across comparision of game console power to pc's, but the x86 always has seemed to, and I content still does, underperform.
Sega Dreamcast, PS1, PS2, PS3 all used RISC chips, and for good reason. Hell, the cell chip in the PS3 is pimped out PowerPC running at 3.0GHz with the power of about 4 x86's running at 3.0GHz. When they needed power, no one has even been clamoring for an x86 chip.
Hasn't the deal with Mac's always been there power? Isn't that way they've been used so heavily in video production? As a guy that's never used a Mac, I've ALWAYS been under the impression that a high-end Pentium couldn't wipe a high-end G5's ass. Am I wrong?
It just seems ridiculous to me. I thought Apple was always about innovation and being ahead of the curve... isn't slumming with the PC crowd and their miserable pentiums a step back?
Is Intel making an entirely new chip for Apple? I can't imagine they'd be doing that... I also can't imagine seeing a Mac with "Intel Inside" on it, heh.
I thought they were targetted at G5 hardware? Where the hell did I read that?
My worry is that the move to x86 will only cause stability issues for the OS. This is from Apple's own transition doc:
"The x86 C-language calling convention (application binary interface, or ABI) specifies that arguments to functions are passed on the stack. The PowerPC ABI specifies that arguments to functions are passed in registers. Also, x86 has far fewer registers, so many local variables use the stack for their storage. Thus, programming errors, or other operations that access past the end of a local variable array or otherwise incorrectly manipulate values on the stack may be more likely to crash applications on x86 systems than on PowerPC."
If Apple was *really* smart, they would have perfected some way for executables to run on any processor (they had 10 years to do it since switching to PPC), which could have been easily deployed by now. Then the switch to Intel could be nearly transparent from both the user and the developer's perspective. And they could continue to use PPC or Intel or whatever, depending on which worked best for the target market.
.net.
It could have been their answer to
But no, they have to be locked into one processor. And thus alienating most of their current market.
I really dont understand why we are still locked into any particular architecture anymore.
It's the kind of thing that makes me want to pack my bags and move to a parallel universe where things actualy make sense...
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
To my home x86 box?!?!? If that's true, why in the world would I every buy some of Apple's PPC(Premiumly Priced Computers)????
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
Does that mean we can start calling it OS X.P.? :)
i think my head is going to explode poor IBM
OS X will install and boot up on generic PPC systems (is it CHRP or PReP? I always forget...). And that without OpenFirmare or any proprietary chips. Apple removed that restriction a looooong time ago.
If Apple has added any hardware-checking to the x86 version, it's code that doesn't exist in the PPC version.
"Good Windows emulation is probably what killed OS/2, it can kill OS X too..."
M$ killed OS/2 and Apple. Windows 95 killed OS/2 and Apple.
M$ makes Office for Mac because they charge a lot of money for it and it's good monopoly lawsuit prevention. That just doesn't change. Your average Mac user doesn't want to emulate software.
And, btw, Adobe was on the stage with Jobs, to guarantee new versions and be a cheerleader.
Apple have messed me about (68k to PPC, Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X) for the last time! I'm switching to an Intel based machine! Oh, wait...
How silly of me. I forgot this is the "apple" section of slashdot, where interjections of reality are not allowed.
Carry on...
Disclaimer: I am an OpenOffice.org Mac OS X devleoper and a founder of the NeoOffice project
Quote: This means OpenOffice.org 2.0 will work *now*. This means no more second-class Mac versions of popular OS apps.
This statement couldn't actually be farther from the truth. In fact, it will actually make the push for OpenOffice.org, at least, more difficult. If you dig into the details it means there's much more work ahead:
Changing processors does nothing to help OpenOffice.org development on Mac OS X except slow it down yet again. Chances are you'll probably see it running in an emulator for a long time before it's running on Mactel hardware.
ed
It's only a processor. I am pretty sure that Apple is going to consider x64 architectures, and they're pretty nice. AMD's Opteron is very fast.
I think this is good all-around. If Apple makes OS X available for PC hardware, that will induce some serious competition for Microsoft, which they desperately need to have. I'll buy a copy for sure, just to have a very friendly, very cool, very good-looking Unix desktop.
Apple will still be able to easily keep carving out its niche. They'll be making hardware that works best and most seamlessly with their own Apple hardware. They'll be able to inch into the PC world and take on the Dells by offering something _different_. PC prices have dropped to the point where they're pretty much commodity, and if Apple has proven anything over the past five years it's that style MATTERS. For a few hundred bucks more you can get a "real Apple" that can do everything your regular old ugly-ass PC can do, plus play super nice with lots of nice new Apple toys.
Developers are going to have a YEAR to put a -march flag in their build and recompile. I don't see that one killing anyone. If you wrote a boatload of endian code, let's pause for a sec while I laugh at you for being that stupid.
Apple could subvert and change the entire PC world with this one, particularly by being perceived as better and different.
Apple is still playing catch up to BeOS... Sigh....
Okay, they won't let OS/X run on anything other than a Mac.
If they use x86... Can I run Microshaft Windows on it?
Or, what if they start using other Intel architectures? Imagine ARM or Xscale. Those could be great for small-scale consumer electronics, which, seeing as how much the iPod sold, might just be a smart market for Apple to move into.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
My apologies to Mr. Orwell, but it must be done:
At this moment, for example, in 2005 (if it was 2005), Apple was at war with Motorola and in alliance with Intel. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Apple had been at war with Intel and in alliance with Motorola. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Apple was at war with Motorola: therefore Apple had always been at war with Motorola. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.
Note another piece of news today. Laptop sales have outpaced desktop sales. Apple can't get the heat issues solves in order to continue providing higher powered laptops.
So, use Intel, who has a high end chip already for laptops and has continued to provide such as well as PPC for the high end desktops.
While MAC Zealots will of course be upset, this is a good choice by Apple to allow them to keep growing their laptop business.
Personally, I doubt this means we'll ever see an OSX running on your Dell PC or Windows on an Apple. There is a lot more than CPU to a computer. However, expect a big push from Apple in the laptop market now. Meanwhile, they can continue to provide G5s for those that want the high power PPC.
Perhaps that Mac Mini look alike Intel was showing off really was the next Mac MINI!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A few thoughts on this: (1) The hysteria this has caused appears to have almost Slashdotted Slashdot itself - for the first time in memorable history, pages were not served nearly instantaneously. (2) Could this decision have something to do with the fact that the PowerPC architecture has favoured the next generation of consoles? I'm sure I read somewhere that Apple has been fighting for a 3GHz+ PPC CPU, but been unable to get one? (3) And finally, from a non-developer perspective, does it really matter? As a long time Wintel user, I've found Apple's latest offerings increasingly attractive in recent months, but the platform shift has always been a bit ... intimidating. Perhaps this will give Apple the edge they really need to achieve high volumes?
Peace, W0nko.
I desperately need a big endian machine for compiler development. Little endian just hides too many programmer errors.
When I bought a G4 PowerBook 3.5 years ago (wiped OS X and installed Debian), it immediately enabled me to find errors in the g77 I/O library that only came to light on a big endian machine (before that I had a Pentium II Compaq Armada).
I hope IBM will deliver a PowerPC 64 based Linux laptop within a year, otherwise I'll have to switch to a SPARC one, which Sun undoubtly will tout as "one more sale of Solaris" (ugh).
We should have seen this coming. It all started when Steve Jobs started wearing a goatee.
Hey, is he holding up a trans-dimensional gateway in that picture? Sheesh, how much more obvious can you get? We must have slipped through while we were drooling over the iPod Photo.
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
The problem is a market issue, not a technology one - as PowerPC is a far superior design to X86. It sad to see technology digression.
The PowerPC architecture has so much less baggage it can match intel performance with 1/2 to 1/3 the transistor count. Making it innately cheaper, less heat, and lower power. Also means you could make a 3 core chip for the same price as intel (a la Xbox).
The problem is IBM willing to make them? Apparently not.
There are many myths.
68000 weren't a dead-end. In fact the 68000 was far better prepared to scale than X86. It just didn't have the market. In fact the 68060 was faster than the initial PowerPC 601 it was replaced with.
Low power. The PowerPC 970Fx is lower power/performance than intel equivalents. IBM just hasn't invested in adding all of the power scaling features for laptops that the intel does.
IT'S A FREAKING COMPANY! THEY MAKE PROCESSORS FOR SEVERAL ARCHITECTURES! GET YOUR TECHNOLOGY JOURNALIST[sic] HEADS OUT OF YOUR ASSES AND USE CLEAR, PRECISE LANGUAGE FOR ONCE!
maybe if i throw in some lowercase stuff at the end, the "lameness filter" (a.k.a. strong feelings filter) won't reject me this time.
So why are apple and intel stock both down today?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Complete n00b question but: Does this mean you could conceivably run Mac OS on a cheap PC?
What sayeth you about a Mac tablet?
TabletMac?
HomeTheater Mac?
PDA?
Obvious:
1., M$ will attempt a hostile takeover of Apple within weeks with silent support from IBM. Competition must be killed!
2., In a few days sheik Osama bin Laden, the Emir of Al-Kaida will declare that all mujahideen rejocie because Allah in his infinite wisdom has made infidels and crusaders confused so they threw away their best treasures and choose junk. He will urge cyber-jihad against the unified infidel x86 platform.
3., Virus writers, VXers and cybercriminals will have a big party this sunday somewhere in the Urals. There will be alot of vodka spent to celebrate the soon addition of fifty million Mac zombies to their spam-proxy and spyware networks. The first ever polymorphic cross-platform x86 rootkit will be released in the wild to commemorate the event.
4., The chinese communist party has already established a partially state owned company to domestically produce sub-200$ Mac-x86 clones. Via agressive pricing strategy they plan to force Apple to sell them the Mac business unit in three years.
Note the date: 03.18.03:
"Apple Computer Corp. will switch to Intel processors within the next 12 to 18 mo nths."
Oops. Nope, he's wrong here; off by a few years.
"Apple will announce its Intel initiative by showing a transition machine that us es both the Intel and Motorola processors."
No, wrong again. None of this dual-core nonsense; it's all or nothing.
"Apple will announce its use of the Itanium chip,"
This is funny. Even back in 2003 it was clear that the Itanium was a dog, doomed to fail.
"Waiting until 2004 is too risky,"
Heh. Enough said.
Like someone else said, even a broken clock is right twice a day. So, just refer back to his previous predictions if Dvorak gets too smug for you.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
I hate to troll, but this is just a huge dick in the mouthes of Apple/PPC Zealots everywhere.
Their "superior" performance has disappeared over the years until finally where we get to the point that okay, maybe a couple benchmarks show better performance on G5, while others show better on Athlon64, while others show better on P4.
Their huge performance advantage is gone, so it's stupid to stick to what is basically RISC grown into CISC, when you can have the advantages of compatibility with x86 architecture.
I give Apple props for their dual binary support for XCode, allowing binaries to be created for both PPC and x86. That will put the smack down on all of these transition woes people are crying about.
For those of us who were looking at Apple's G5 to host rather intensive work loads we're more or less left out in the cold. I know I can go to www.ibm.com and buy a 4-way G5 and have my way with it but I like to reward innovation with my dollars. Vendors whose decisions seem to have originated from some primal bong water slime dont get my dollars and will have a hard time getting them in the future. Apple could probably have continued to provide servers/workstations based on their current offerings for some time without having to invest much $$. I think a complete move to x86 may very well have an unforseen impact on their bottom dollar. MAC, and PC users are much like MS, and Linux/other users. Forcing one to be like the other in the smallest of ways like this isn't going to go over well. If I had any amount of Apple stock I would have to consider it a liability at this point. I can see the benefit of this decision but not like this.
Well, I see some irony in this.
P.S. When is the tiger version for intel processor available, see if I can get it running on a random intel machine with the same general hardware as a Mac
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
You hit the nail *precisely* on the head.
I came from Linux. I'll probably be going back there.
Now there is no possibility of a multi-boot machine. Good or bad? I don't know.
:)
Now suddenly WINE for OS X becomes much more interesting... and Apple has an incentive to to maybe have a few engineers help out
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
...They will be using Pentium 4/M/whatever's next processors. However the motherboard will not be 100% PC compatible, will use an Apple Bios ROM just like the PPC Macs only ment for booting on x86 arch. This will form the basis of a North and southbridge which will be Mac Specific. The OS flatly will not boot on a standard PC Beige Box (or Back box if its Dell/IBM), They make reference to a developers kit being available with a pre-release 10.4.1 OS version. That Developers kit is I believe the Hint that It will not work on just any x86 PC.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Around here the Apple premium is more like 75% - 100% over my cost for a similar spec Spec Intel box.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
wrong
It's not binary computability, you have to recompile, which means that $2,000 a graphics artist just invested in Adobe and Macromedia software is down the tubes if they want to upgrade their MAC.
even wronger.
Rosetta keeps old apps running
You would think they would be working on cutting inventories ahead of this announcement, but reports were of high inventories. Not good.
But perhaps longterm gain. Folks like myself who were not really thinking Mac, who think this makes the ideal switcher platform.
Apple has said they will only be allowing OSX x86 on Mac HW, but they won't stop windows from running.
Now if I can get Mac and Windows on the same box both running native Apps at full speed I am getting a Mac.
Check other news sites.
Many have stated that it wont be a "switch"
but they'll start using intel chips along with the ppc chips
Who said it's going to be x86?
intel does have cpu's that are other architectures.
They own ARM for example.
What could be happening, like one site said too, is that they could be hiring intel to implement powerpc chips as well.
At this time, it's 90% hearsay.
If you all remnember, motorola (freescale) used to make the ppc chips, when they couldnt make a fast enough cpu, Apple hired IBM to implement a better PPC, now that they cant seem to do so, Now intel may be getting into the fray.
Also may explain why the xbox has a tricore PPC cpu, might be intel's bidding on that one, and if it is, that could be why apple is going to intel.
Most of the crap I've heard has been rumors except that, which seems to be more logical. Going to x86 is a horrid nightmare, if I could, I wouldnt be using x86.
I dont think apple is ready to ditch PPC just yet, It's still a good platform, it's fast and efficient. Since intel can create a decent cpu with good wattage, They prolly want intel to make ppc chips for them.
This could be a good thing.
The choice will now become buy an Apple with a Pentium at X mhz for Y dollars or buy a wintel machine with a Pentium at X+10% mhz for Y-20% dollars. Now that they use the same processor comparisons will be so much easier to make. No "real world"
fudge factor. Apple sold the G5 computers on being the fastest not just the most easy to use, especially to the science and research community.
Apple going for a second mouse buton on the laptop?
Never.
Jobs himself said he's never do it because it would confuse the users.
That's right, Jobs doesn't think Apple users are smart enough to handle a second mouse button.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
What a bunch of retards you all are. It was so obvious that the news leaks were true.
Linus Torvalds 0wns a G5. PPC runs linux thanks to the linux-PPC project. Now with the new "x86" (but nobody said anything about x86, it was just "intel"), it probably won't. And if apple releases not the bios/pci specs, then no linux. Only MacOSX. The best OS in the universe.
Will the hardware get the 'stylish' intel logo?
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/
Supposedly it will be up before the end of the day.
Biggest hint that Aptel and Wintel won't be considered just a DVD-tray apart: the OS X EULA, which specifies that OS X can run only on Apple hardware.
So even if the hardware is that similar, it would be illegal to run it. Even if hackers crack the OS/emulate the BIOS/etc., it would still be illegal to pop that OS X disc in your Dell and boot up.
Just like it is now with PearPC. (guffaws)
Steve Jobs ventures forth from Apple to make startup NeXT. Steve dumps proprietary NeXT architecture and ports NeXSTep to beige box PC, killing off NeXT. Steve returns to Apple with much fanfare, and does his trick again by killing Mac by porting OS X to beige box processors. Meanwhile, Sun Microsystems tries to pull a half-assed Steve Jobs, and fails with *two* architectures. HP pulls double-assed Steve Jobs with reverse twist porting HP/UX, NonStop, and VMS to Itanium and kills market for all three!
"Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors do not use Open Firmware." - Apple's Universal Binary Programming Guidelines, Page 47.
So... maybe this has little to do with IBM and everything to do with gaining marketshare agaist Microsoft? Last time around he was responding to the "If I had a nickel for every time someone asked me for a cheap Mac..." and so produced the Mac Mini.
This time around, he's responding to the "If I had a nickel for every time someone asked me for OSX on Intel..." and voila... Instant Windows XP killer.
And if they can continue to maintain both platforms, as they appear to be able to do even when one generates no revenue, they should be in fine shape and we'll all be better off as a result.
I just bought a G5 tower, but I'm not upset about this move, except for the fact that powerpc G5 seems to be much more energy efficient than current Intels (at least the pentium 4 line, maybe the pentium-M technology is going to become more mainstream?)
...quite a difference for 3 machines in roughly the same class for processing power.
The stats I found while trying to decide which machine to buy put my Dual 2.0ghz G5 in around 148W maximum power use, Tom's Hardware rated dual core AMD 2.4ghz at 185W and Intel 3.2ghz at 315W
Apple is not just the software or an off the wall chip. It's the ergonomics of the system, the entire consumer experience. Their stores are fantastic, their sales message focused, their people are friendly and helpful.
OS/X on an Intel Box is surely nirvana. You get a Unix based system with the best user interface on the planet. I'm a long time Windows fanboy but I bought my wife a PowerBook G4 and the user experience for it blows me away. There is not a single aspect of Windows XP that is as well thought out or organized as the Macintosh desktop.
Apple's going to pick up a lot of advantages. Sure, the PPC 970 is a great chip, but look at what it is talking to. Apple not only picks up Intel hardware, but also gets PCI Express, faster memory, etc. Supporting a device for Macintosh will be a lot simpler - you only have one native assembly language to worry about and so you could more easily port drivers from Windows or Linux to Mac. Those of us with bad old file formats will have a much easier time without having to worry about endian issues!
Just imagine, if you will, some of these Tiger platforms:
Dual Xeon, a couple gigs of RAM, the latest nVidia or ATI card.... who wouldn't want OS/X on that?
Finally, after a long few years without it, Apple brings some badly needed excitement to the industry! I can't wait for the new PC Macs to come out.
I -want- one.
Gentlemen, start your rumours!
This is my sig.
Give me a x86 based platform right now (for free), give me chance to select the OS, it will be Windows XP Pro with $300 worth of utility installed myself.
:)
Its not a troll, not flamebait or anything. Microsoft stuff "just runs" on x86s and I am not compiling anything at all.
The huge flamewars we all made is over. Apple have a brand new rivals: Dell and Microsoft
Should I tell who would win?
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5733756.html?ta g=zdfd.newsfeed
>ZDNet reports
>Steve Jobs said that IBM's PowerPC road map
>would only deliver about a fifth the
>performace per watt as a comparable Intel chip.
Hey Steve, what are you smoking? It was Intel who had to stop Pentium4 development because thermal problem were not manageable beyond 100+ Watts!
It was Intel who had boasted about Pentium4 architecture being good to 10 (ten) gigahertz by design and then they failed to deliver even a 4Ghz CPU because of overheating.
Today Intel is releasing Pentium-M processors, which are in fact based on the Pentium-III core, yes the venerable good ol' year 1999 P-III comes to the rescue. Intel drove into a dead end and hit the wall!
I feel like I just found out my wife is leaving me for the garbage man.
die
First off, you're off the flippin' map when it comes to writing virii. Most if not all common exploits today are application level exploits and have very little to do with the processor. Those who do write virii can target any platform they damn well like .. if everyone woke up and accepted your argument about PPC being awesome, and everyone bought PPC, you'd be a prime virii target.
/hadn't fed the flamers yet today
Secondly, your friend owns a sweet machine that is no faster or slower than if this announcement hadn't been made, NOR are there any garauntees that a similar performing x86 arch would cost any less had the transition been done 2 years ago. If he's pissed off, he's not objective enough to have gotten the best bang for his buck in the first place, Intel transition announcement or not. (Incidentally, if he's mad enough to give away his sweet new dual G5, I'll take it.)
Apple is not dismissing the G5, nor is it ceasing support for it, nor will applications in the future not run on it.
> Apple is a fucking stupid company who has one goal in mind that their entire history cannot deny: pissing their customers off.
Seems to work wonders for MicroSoft.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Apple posted Intel Universal Binary documentation to their website. It's interesting, and everyone should read it. Notable is a caveat that OpenFirmware is going away. That seems to point towards more standard hardwware.
I came to slashdot and got this (twice): 500 Internal Server Error An internal server error occurred. Please try again later LOL! Slashdot got slashdotted!
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
Your G4 processor was obsolete when you bought it.
It's not like your PPC is going to stop working next year. It's not like Apple is going to abandon PPC users. I'm sure that eventually, like the 68000 series, the PPCs will stop getting updates. I'm sure that date is a lot farther in the future than the usable lifetime of a G4 mini.
Personally, I'm still going get a G4 mini. I'm sure they will be faster, maybe cheaper in the future. Such is all technology.
I'm kind of surprised that this marklar is being called Marklar. Do any of you marklars have any insite to why the marklars at Marklar would be doing that? it seems like it would make more sense for a marklar like this to be called Marklar, or possibly Marklar for marklars.
Badass Resumes
Just a couple of initial thoughts... I personally don't have any real problems with Apple going x86. Here's why:
1) higher performance per watt
2) more likely-interchangeable PCI / AGP cards
3) Full-speed Windows / Linux / BSD emulation (think VMWare as opposed to Virtual PC)
4) Better Linux / BSD support
5) Less effort in porting (Windows API issues aside, which will possibly be solved by #3)
6) finally, we'll see the NeXTSTEP fat binaries in action
and the bad:
7) no more AltiVec
8) no more elegance in instruction set
9) fewer GP registers to play with
10) the death of the FreeBSD-ppc effort (not that NetBSD/ppc won't live on and flourish)
Now they really have to work on OSX performance. No "slow memory latency", "slow FSB", 'slower clock cycles", etc.,etc. excuses.
Maybe this'll get them to straighten out the threads calling threads calling threads calling threads mess.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Will it work both ways?
Will someone with MAC OS 10.2 with a PPC be able to run the new binaries?
I doubt it.
With all the vile things we say about Windows, at least they try to maintain reasonable backward computability. Linux is even better about it in many ways.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
they better have some cheep machines then...
who is going to pay apple more for a machine with the exact same specs and 98% of the same components as a cheep ass dell.
sure, I love OS X but thats got to make it harder for people to switch... why buy a 4GHz apple when you can get a 4GHz dell for less...
now if they are cost competitive with dell thats a whole other thing... that would be awesome... but Im not expecting it
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
You can watch the quicktime stream of Steve Jobs' WWDC address from this url:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/
But please, not all at once.
Sir Clive Sinclair had confirmed the rumours about Sinclair QL switching to 80386. "With the fuse technology old programs compiled for the Z80 CPU run just as good. In fact, I've been playing Exolon on a fuse machine since morning." Eew.
I see this as either just another business move or a potentially huge move by Apple to retake the home and business market.
In my mind, it all depends on Apple's OSX licensing restrictions (and associated difficutlties) and the range of driver support that is available when it ships (ie, will run of the mill Dells work with it, or are they going to only ship it on new x86 Apple systems?)
I don't doubt that if the price is right ($150 being the ceiling, IMO) they would see massive adoption in the PC world (if indeed it had a lot of available drivers - might they use GPL drivers? it would not surprise me.) That would leave MS reeling - both from lost market share, and having to cope with being undersold by a superior product which they wouldn't be able to buy out - not with Apple having MS by the balls.
And, conceiveably, it wouldn't be long until developers would realize that MacOS X is the up-and-coming 'gamer' OS, and would start developing for it. Undoubtedly, the adoption would be slow at first, but as market share increased, it would potentially become viable for companies to start offering their games for Linux (as there would be a lot more crossover from OS X to Linux - if only to use them both - than there is from Windows to Linux, IMO, after having become familiar with the interface. Maybe.)
And I don't see it as being anything but a Good Thing. Unlike Bill Gates and kin, the general Apple mentality seems to be of benevolent consumerist servitude - as a capitalistic commercial company should be run! And they make a damn fine product (no, I don't own any of them).
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
So basically, in 18 months:
:)
Microsoft will be shipping PowerMacs based on IBM PowerPC processors to developers who are programming on the Xbox360 platform, and
Apple will be shipping PowerMacs running OS X, based on Intel processors, to consumers.
Tell my wife I loved her and sorry about the brains on the monitor, because MY HEAD ASPLODE!
..purchase a mac mini. It would have been my first step into the Mac world. A silent, small computer that I could have used to watch and edit video...
Now... now I'll just wait and see. I wish Apple was more open about what this "Intel" computer might be. If they'd come out telling the straight story, then maybe. But with this veil of secrecy, hmmmmph, no.
Sigged!
Heh, it gets worse. Enderle was right too.
Enderle vs. Chaffin debate from macnewsworld.com
Will we have to have those insufferable little stickers all over our Macs?
Will we be entering "BIOS Hell" & "ScanDisk Hell"?
If so I'll be buying the last G4 iBook to roll off the line, assuring at least 4 years (proven life span) of known-but-teeny-tiny-problems goodness.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Even the concerns about things like endianness are not really a problem so long as the code was written the right way in the first place.
you mean, "using Emacs as your editor?"
Sorry. Sorry!
Yes... things always work if done the right way.
I share your lack of surprise about Mathematica if you'll share my lack of surprise that a lot of things will not port smoothly. (especially that endian thing).
-pyrrho
IA-64 is a completely different beast - it is the instruction set of Intel's EPIC architectures (Itanium/Itanium 2).
Apple will be using various implementations of IA-32, namely, the Pentium 4 or whatever Intel comes out with in the next year. I think what you were asking is, will Apple be targeting AMD64/EM64T, which is the 64-bit revision of x86? I don't think anyone knows the answer. I for one hope they will target it.
PowerMac was only needed to distinguish 68K Macs from PPC, I believe there was a timeframe where both were available. With 68Ks being so long ago they could simply go back to plain Mac. Look at the mini, I expect that they will probably follow "Mac Mini" naming convention and the pro stuff will be "Mac ".
You can read it here (large PDF, page 47):
"Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors do not use Open Firmware. "
Just because the processor will be Intel doesn't mean they're going to be building machines with off-the-shelf parts. Apple is still going to be making custom mainboards, etc. Also, I don't see how this is giving anything to Dell or HP or anybody - they are NOT going to have OS X. They are not going to look like Macs, and they are not going to BE Macs. Where do all these crazy conclusions come from?
...Apple starts running Microsoft's OS on its hardware? I read this thing in the WSJ...
I'm a PC user, that toys with the idea of switching to a Mac, but one of the things that stops me is knowing they'll be a load of stuff I can't do any more (like playing games).
I know emulation's not 'bad' but I'm not going to be playing HL2 with a PPC CPU tucked in my machine.
Was just thinking that whilst most of the people here seem to be getting in a tizzy about getting MacOS onto a previously windows only setup, surely getting the huge library of windows software running on a Mac is a bit more exciting.
In fact if I think about it a bit more, if Apple bundled something that allowed you to run windows software on a Mac, then microsoft are a bit screwed.
--I love the PPC, and I lament its absence. Why? I'm just curious. Aside from being different is there any great advantage to PPC over a Pentium 4 or Pentium M?
I think it's interesting that people are STILL speculating about IA-64 or Intel-made PowerPCs.
Read the Universal Binary Programming Guidelines - it's x86, period, end of discussion.
The Universal Binary Programming Guidelines mention only IA-32, so maybe there will be both IA-32 and AMD64 targets. Note that, above the BSD level, Tiger is 32-bit only, so it's not as if Tiger on the x86 Macs would be 64-bit throughout. Note also that going 64-bit for an app isn't a no-brainer - if you don't need the extra address space, 32-bit pointers take less memory/cache than do 64-bit pointers, so you might be better off with 32-bit binaries.
I want a torrent of the keynote. Anyone have it yet?
I had so hoped, though, that we were finally going to get beyond the x86 architecture - that their strategy of piling kluge on top of kluge on top of kluge in the name of backwards-compatibility was finally going to come crashing down.
That the chip guys could start spending resources on actual innovation in hardware design, without having to keep one foot in the bucket of x86 binary compatibility.
That PowerPC, or the Cell, or anything with less than thirty years of binary baggage, might get out ahead and stay there long enough to put x86 to rest.
Dammit!
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
If it runs the same processor as my $300 Dell, why should I go spend all the money and get a Mac? Just for the OS? I'm wondering.
And how is that any different from yesterday? Apple's OS and bundled software are the only reasons to buy a Mac, PowerPC or x86. Other than the rare zealot no one really cares what CPU is inside, many Mac users probably would be surprised to find out they had a "different" CPU. The whole PPC vs. x86 thing was just marketting BS(*), hopefully you already knew this.
(*) In general PPC offered a 25-30% advantage over an x86 of the same clock. This advantage was nullified by large clock discrepancy. Apple reacted to this by offering dual CPUs. This was a fine short term stop-gap measure but a pretty expensive long term one. There are a few applications out there that really benefit from a RISC architecture but they are not what normal users are running. If Apple decides to use 64-bit x86 then these apps will not suffer much, if at all. When you build your app for 64-bit x86 you get some architectural improvements, more registers for example.
Is this as good as it looks for me? Will I finally have an opportunity to understand OS X and the applications that come with it? Could I, perchance, dual-boot Windows and OS X?
Basically, does this just usher OS X in to the list of operating systems that will execute on the x86 architecture? Or will it just end up being about the same, with users needing entirely different hardware to use Apple software?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Now, they will have negligible margins on Dell in the benchmarks
There is more to those benchmark results than just the processor, like for example the OS, ie. OS.X vs Windows. Not that benchmarks really matter all that much except perhaps if your are a hardcore gamer. Believe it or not most people, myself included, did not buy a Mac for the sake of performance or because it has a PPC processor but rather usability and ergonomics. From Apple's point of view this architecture change allows them to offer laptops with competitive performance some time soon and it it is definetly looking like they would not have been able to do that with the PPC. This is important since laptops just outsold desktop systems. In essence this switch to Intel chips doesn't worry me at all. Even if an Intel PowerBook won't beat a Dell Laptop at the benchmarks, something tells me the PowerBook will still make the Dell look like a brick and unlike the Dell it still won't run Windows.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
The new macs will use bytecode translation to run older stuff. Should be about as fast as before, since x86 is so much quicker then PPC these days :P
What's going to kill it is, no one is goin to pay $500 more for a computer with the same CPU and ram as another one.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
For sure are intel low-level programmers easier to find than powerpc ones. Especially in India.
Just plain wrong. They've got the top-of-the-line 3d cards in their systems. The reason they can't keep up is because (look at any faq on Doom3 performance on a Mac) of quirks like float to int conversions (expensive on PPC, not on x86), GCC, and the developer's refusal to optimize for PPC and dual processors. Most 3d games are still single-threaded. By contrast, the Mac Quake3 outperforms x86 Quake3, but that's because somebody took the time to optimize for it. Now these specific optimizations will not be as necessary. Apple still has one big edge: most of its apps have been taking advantage of dual processors for years, and many Wintel applications do not.
Over Christmas, I plunked down $2000 I'd been saving for the past two years to get myself a G5. I love it; it's fast, efficient, and does everything without a hitch. I'm doing a small time documentary using Final Cut Express, and planned to take this machine with me to college.
Now, I'm supposed to sit back, and listen to Apple say, "Looks like what we were 'committed' to was a facade, expect the lifespan of your computer last only until we decide, and there's nothing you can do about it." Where does this put me? Where?
There's no way ATI or NVidia plan to support this hardware anymore, it's obsolete, so no more new video cards in the future. The RAM to run this thing? Well, no point in making that anymore, the computer is obsolete, prices are going to skyrocket. It'll only take two hours to port a program? Tell that to all the OS 9 developers who never bothered to get their stuff converted to X, even though that was supposedly "fast and easy" too. And then for Apple to have the balls to come out and say that this has been in the works for the past five years, but not have any kind of warning whatsoever? I'm a high school junior on a limited budget- Small time upgrades are all I have or will have the money to pay for. Had I known I was putting down $2000 in sweat and blood for something got the rug pulled out from it six months later, I would have waited. Now what? In three years, after their transition is over and Apple drops their support for the G5, then what am I supposed to do with this worthless, unupgradable hunk of metal at my feet?
Shame on you, Apple. The whole reason I went with you from the first place was the fact I thought you didn't double-cross your customers. The sad thing is, too, I've put too much money into this OS and machine to switch to anything else.
Sell your machines, make your profits, get your stock price up, Apple. But just remember, you're now the very thing you sought to be different from. Thanks a lot.
I wonder if it will be possible to run this in conjunction with Linux and BSD under Xen? That might allow OSX to finally compete against Linux by allowing the Data and Apps to slide over to OSX while preventing it from going the other way (their API is a superset of *nix).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
At 999$, this 3.6 Ghz Pentium 4 developper kit sounds like the fastest machine Apple is selling for a much lower price than PowerMac G5 !
:)
That dev kit looks like a good deal to me !
So if apple is just an intel box, WHAT REASONS are there to spend the extra $500?
right now they can claim they have "superior hardware".
but when that bullshit is not available, what are they going to claim? the bitchen-ness of their tastefull on-screen rectangles over the others guys tasteless on-screen rectangles?
hey apple, good luck with all that PPC inventory. and thanks for helping me decide NOT to retire my old iMac for a new one this month. I'll guess just wait for the real future to arrive. along with everyone else.
with that future quite possibly being the past, good old FreeBSD. plus it will run on the cheaper less jobsy intels. you know, the ones that look like macs.
let me the first to coin the term "Krapintosh"
pphhhttttttttttttttt
(What happened to them, BTW?)
Then we could still clutch our warm fuzzy underground / alternative feelings.
except that x86 is some of the dreck from wintel...
Its a shame really... intel has some great tech chip wise... but the instruction set is quite old.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
now x86 buffer overflow exploits will be universal. yay!
Where's the Hall of Fame for best posts on /. when you need it?
Wonder what Linus has to say about the G5 he's using these days to check out if POWER is really such a great architecture...
Peter.
I was just about to use the credit card to buy myself a fancy new Powerbook. Finally convinced myself to trash the Dell Latitude. What should I do now??
Whether it's powered by a G5, pentium, or a squirell, as long as the eye candy is rendered smoothly, people will drool.
Oh god, I'm starting to drool already just thinking about those squirrels!!!!!!
Steve Jobs: Hey we're going to produce a New Coke that we think tastes better than the Old Coke!
Are we sure this is a move to x86?. It doesn't say this anywhere in the press release. This isn't something they wouldn't leave out. Intel has other processors: the Itanium and Xeon, e.g.? 64 bit, RISC, ... And Mac OS X won't have the trouble with that like that Windows has ... and it would mean Mac OS X would not run on standard PC equipment ... or what? I don't know that much about processors anymore. I lost interest 10 years ago. Enlighten me.
Further the hardware will remain proprietary, to ensure customers have to buy their sucky computers from Apple to continue doing what they did just fine before.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
That's interesting. They're saying Windows could run on those Macs, which implies they WILL be more or less PC-compatible since Windows is not flexible enough to run on a non-standard PC (just look at the XBox, nobody ever managed to have a stock version of Windows running natively).
That means a plain BIOS (no OpenFirmware, sadly), plain video cards, yadda yadda. The only thing that will lock in OSX is a few Mac chips.
Hey, didn't OS 9 have the capability to use a fake Apple ROM in a binary file so Apple could remove that chip from their boards? And since the OSX kernel is open source..... muhahahaha....
I mean that question literally - i.e. will this mean will someone with an MS Windows box be able to go out, license Mac-OSX-for-Intel(tm)-CPU's, and overwrite his or her MS Windows installation (much as I do with Linux)?
Currently, to convert a Windows user Apple has to convince someone to buy a whole new computer to get the OS. If the barrier to entry is about to drop down to "just a license for the new OS" they might see a much faster uptake rate...
An earlier story seemed to hint that current usage of Mac's online might be 16% or so (so much for "90% of desktops" number that gets thrown around so casually if that is true). What percentage is needed to achieve "critical mass"?
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Does this mean we'll be worrying about DRM in Macs now?
Mactel.
A. They're going to sell "Intel Macs." That is, these machines will not be compatible in any way with traditional x86 machines. Personally, I think this is the most likely case. The trouble with this is that the underpinnings of OS X, namely Darwin, already run on stock x86 hardware. Presumably Apple will expend some effort to make it difficult to simply copy the binary-only parts of Intel OS X and drop them down on top of Darwin x86, but I guarantee there will be a small army of hackers working feverishly day and night to defeat any such scheme. Apple can't really use ROMs merely as a way to lock down OS X. In fact, they were on the losing side of a pioneering case in this regard (Apple v. Franklin). The gist of it is that you cannot use the mere presence of a copyrighted piece of software as a "gatekeeper" in hardware space. That is, if you test to see if "COPYRIGHT APPLE COMPUTER" appears at some spot in the ROMs, you can't bar someone else from making a ROM that says "NOT COPYRIGHT APPLE COMPUTER" starting 4 bytes earlier in order to clone their hardware. Going further, the courts have recently said that if there is only one way to code something required for compatibility, then that one way cannot be copyrighted (this was the printer cartridge reverse engineering case of a few months ago). So if you make a crypto checksum of the ROMs a gatekeeper for booting, you lose the copyrightability of those ROMs. At the very least, I give it a year, maybe two before VMWare has a checkbox in the configuration to let you specify an "Apple" vs "P.C." guest hardware configuration. That leads us directly to...
B. Either their attempt at protecting OS X fails (see above for why this is inevitable) or they don't even bother and OS X runs on a Dell (maybe even with Apple doing a deal with Dell to make it an option). Obviously, this puts Apple completely out of the hardware business. It makes them a software and accessory company competing straight up with Microsoft. His Steveness ought to know better. After all, he's been down this road once before. Maybe this is a fairer fight than Microsoft has had since the 8 bit days, but let's face it: how many of you would be willing to bet Apple's future on the outcome?
Perhaps the Mac crowd will become the ultimate DRM apologists, claiming, with some credibility, that Mac couldn't survive if it didn't have TC/DRM involved.
Prior to iTunes and the iTunes store, almost every poster here agreed that DRM is pure dag nasty evil period, end of story, will boycott any vendor, etc. Once a few of us toked on the iTunes crack pipe, DRM suddenly became okay for quite a few people here. "Oooooooooohh shiney!". "This is reasonable DRM.... Don't beat up on Apple or the DRM will get even worse...." etc. etc. ad nauseatingly.
It all goes to show that the Reality Distortion Field is working just peachy. You're probably correct that we are about to see a lot more Apple inspired DRM apologists.
Using DRM for such is largely unnecessary anyway. Look at how long it takes for Linux and the BSDs to get drivers sometimes. Apple is only going to support their chipsets and will probably go after anyone who starts running "Darwin Driver" projects that let OS X out of the Apple cage.
That's like US$20, so who cares?
... This isn't a stock, off the shelf pentium 4 from my understanding ...
You misunderstand. The code conversion is done by software. For reference lookup FX32! for the Dec Alpha, JIT compilation, etc..
I think this will finally kill of the PPC as a general desktop processor. With no major OS pushing it forward, all alternative platforms hoping for a major breakthrough should probably attempt to get off the architecture if they want to survive.
Incredible how the x86 is becoming the defacto desktop CPU, there is just no way around it anymore :/
- barkholt
Sure Intel's making the CPU, but what's the architecture going to be? 32bit/x86 is on its way out. Is it going to be IA64? Or will Intel be taking over the G5 line? Or is it a whole new CPU (G6)?
In 2007, Apple announces they will be phasing out OS X and installing Windows XP (or Longhorn) on all future shipments.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The omnipotent Mac Community with their PPC's
HA HA HA HA HA
uhh, ehh, hhmm.
HA HA HA HA HA
Whew, that felt good. So,.... ahem,
HA HA HA HA
Daniel J. Chin PhD... eat sh!t
HA HA
LOSER(s)
Discussing the relative merits of AltiVec versus SSE/SSE2 is details. And you couldn't be further from the truth on this one.
SSE/SSE2 happen to be a hack on top of the x86 architechture, pure and simple. You pay a performance penalty when you switch into that mode of operation.
AltiVec is part of the PPC architechture and is designed into the beast in a non-hackish manner.
For picture manipulation work or certain classes of mathematics operations, AltiVec is going to be better than anything else- because it's better and more efficient.
As for the rest, you'd be off on that as well- x86 architechtures don't truly outperform the PPC architechture except in the case of the Opteron versions of the Athlon64 architechture. What has always hampered the overall performance of Apple apps versus PC ones has more been the overhead of the Apple OS than anything else. A LinuxPPC machine is faster than a comparable x86 machine, but costs quite a bit more so you don't see people buying them for that purpose.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
"...forced by IBM." No way.
IBM has or will soon have the capability to deliver 3.2 GHz CPUs to Microsoft for the Xbox 360, which will almost certainly ship before Thanksgiving. A dual core 3.2 GHz G5 would offer plenty of power - and for real power fanatics, how about four cores? Freescale is putting finishing touches on newer, faster single- and dual-core G4 processors for the low-end of Apple's line.
"...Apple was forced to take the plunge."
How many people - other than gamers and video producers - need 3 GHz and faster computers? Apple grew sales 40% year-over-year with their current hardware. People are buying 1.25 GHz Mac minis and 1.33 GHz iBooks.
This is just another Steve Jobs hissy fit. IBM made him look bad, just as Motorola had with the G4/500, so he takes his ball and plays somewhere else.
Still, this looks like a brilliantly executed plan, especially if Apple can get Intel to cut them really good pricing on 4, 5, 6 million CPUs a year.
- 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.
My heart tells me this sucks. But on the other hand, if what Jobs is saying about the roadmap is true, Apple had no choice. A ratio of nearly 5-1 in the watts/performance ratio would be impossible to sustain if Apple was trying to compete against Intel platforms with PowerPC chips.Is anyone else thinking about what else this means? I'm assuming the Power roadmap from IBM wasn't totally abysmal. That tells me that the huge difference between the processor families in the next couple of years means Intel has used its pile of cash to develop something really amazing, processor-wise.
It might be time to start shorting AMD...
Fundamentalism is a crime against humanity
From a programming perspective, I'm going to miss not having altivec and I've never needed to program for SSE et al. Can anyone give a brief comparison?
Nothing sucks like a Vax, nothing blows like a PowerMac G4
Intel wins by public perception they are the de facto PC processor, but AMD must be smiling. There's no reason Apple can't just add or even switch to AMD processors when convienent.
Apple is starting its own life struggle, naked arm wrestling with Microsoft for control of Intel-based PCs.
I look for Apple to initially put in some proprietary hardware that their OS will detect and use at boot/runtime. This will make their hardware look "better" than vanilla PC hardware, but also make their software run on same vanilla PC hardware.
I suspect migration of Windows PCs to Apple OS will be downplayed for the first year, then in 2008 expect "compatibility kits" to be offered by Apple, free if you buy/have bought an OS license from them.
For its part, Microsoft will start sabotaging its implementation of Apple protocols and destroy interoperability between Windows and Mac platforms.
Intel smiles now, but this is another kick in the groin for their 64-bit processor. Another industry leader is moving to 32-bit x86. Don't expect another processor architecture shift from Apple anytime soon.
AMD laughs on the sidelines, expect Apple servers with AMD processors in 2008.
According to the MacNN coverage of the keynote a Pentium 4 development machine will be available in two weeks. Also announced are Pentium III (or "m" in marketing English) based notebooks. These need a differend chipsets. Also OS X has been running on x86 forever, even before apple had much reason to look into x86. (We knew, Darwin, but still)
To me this doesn`t sound like apple has its own special chipset. It doesn`t even sound like they have much in the way of apple specific non "IBM compatible" firmware. It wouldn`t matter that much as Darwin boots fine from a plain old PC bios. As Darwin is open source it could be made to boot pretty much anyware (Ice cream for the first person to port it to the x-box 360 ;-)).
Without a chipset to set the x86 Mac apart from its "IBM compatible" cousin and only minor differences in the firmware (it still has to initialize the same (Intel?) chipset) what is the difference? Especially if you build a PC with the same processor, chipset, disk controller, graphics and sound?
So if, and this is the big if, (pre-???)installing OS X comes in the reach of the corner computer shop then we have a platform with:
Apple could
Ofcourse without pure windows dominance microsoft loses a lot. Even if they keep office microsoft would be left with
Longhorn ships in 2006. OSX on Intel ships in 2006. Time for Apple to talk to Del, HP, Gateway and Sony about shipping dual boot systems.
Most people surf the web and email. A dual boot system will find most people using the Mac side for the virus free surfing alone. Add to that iTunes and and the other iHome software and the AOL crowd won't be booting into windows very often. Yeah everyone will still boot over to Windows for games, for now.
Windows made their bank on selling software. The marketplace is there and if Apple ever wants to get out of the hardware business piggy-backing on the big Longhorn rush while have the iPod safety net is the best possible time to do it. If Apple is truly a winner head-to-head against WIndows as they've been claiming for years they've got a winner.
Bad omen to make this change a year from now.
hah, you beat me in posting this. That document is interesting...And Rosetta sure isn't the holy grail. No altivec..tsk.... I think apple is going to get a very hard time coming years...
Good point.
As a former Apple II user I find it reassuring and comfortable that IBM is once again the "bad guy". Apple is so Orwellian.
Great news!
This means there's one geeky Bettie Page lookalike Mac fanatic who owes me sex!
Goodbye virginity!
Am I the only one who thinks its funny the town is called "East Fishkill"? As if the name "Fishkill" was so catchy that they couldn't resist naming their town after it?
I mean, I understand "East Chicago," "East St. Louis," and "East L.A.," but "East Fishkill"? Come on...
Who did what now?
...for Aptel
"These new Pendium D Macs really seem to feel snappier." :)
Just becuase they're switching to intel doesn't mean they're using x86. Intel produces chips from other architectures, such as ARM, though I'm sure you won't see a powerbook packing one of those. Intel could be producing some sort of chip similar to the powerpc.
Sweet mother of fuck. Thanks to this story, Slashdot is slashdotting itself. I can hear the fabric of space-time breaking up.
So in summary, OpenOffice sucks now and will continue to suck in the future?
Fair enough
*buys Office 2004*
Just double the posts and we'll hit the hall of fame!
There are many AMD64 laptops, you just have to buy them. I can get an AMD64 3200+ for about 800$ CDN less than a 1.5Ghz G4 PPC Apple product.
This is why Apple is switching. I don't know why they chose Intel; I guess they figure that the Pentium M (aka P3, aka PPro) arch will have EMT64 better than AMD, despite the fact that AMD made the spec. Intel can still freely embrace and extend, since they make a lot of chips...
MY SPECULATION
:P
This has been Steve Job's plan from the beginning(as evidenced by the fact that he said they've been running OS X on Intel chips from the start):
Step 1) Be better then Microsoft at a consumer OS
Step 2) Be cooler then Dell/etc at building hardware
Step 3) IPOD.
Then, when Microsoft begins beating the drum for the next OS upgrade drop the bomb:
Step 4) Deliver a Mac and an operating system that will let consumers emulate windows flawlessly based off of their existing windows licenses or just emulate windows apps period without having to run a windows sub-system
Step 5) ???
Step 6) Profit of course.
This is it folks. Apple is going FULL THROTTLE towards dethroning Windows from the consumer marketplace. If Jobs does what I think he's doing, come 2007 consumers will be chosing between the Longhorn upgrade OR an OS X "upgrade" for the same price for their PCs both OSes will run all previous windows apps and use existing software licenses to do so (or not if they can pull that off). AND if consumers want to buy a whole NEW PC, Apple's prices will have dropped significantly from going to the Intel platform and prices will be the same between a Dell running longhorn and an Apple running OS X. Licensing will be a challenge there tho (maybe, depends on how they do it), but Apple's luck here is that Microsoft has become so tarnished by the virus/spyware/adware outbreaks that they actually have a real fighting chance at pulling this off!
It's either that or Apple is down for the count and sell of their PC division like IBM has done and just do iPods and such...
Disclaimers:
If Microsoft is smart they will license Windows to Apple as they have done in the past for other products so its a win-win for them.
Also I know that Apple so far has said that we won't see OS X standalone but look at what we've got here? OS X on a Pentium 4. FFS we can't believe anothe word they say!
...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
Quite simply, Intel no longer uses CISC. Sure the instruction set is CISC, but it's all microcode reduced to RISC instructions underneath the hood (which was done WAAAY back with the Pentium II and may have partially been implemented on the original Pentium). MMX has been dead for a while, replaced by SIMD and SIMD2, which can actually run in parallel to the floating point unit and no longer requires a context switch. Seriously, though, outside of the math world, you probably don't need either unless you're doing software rendering of graphics - the original reason for MMX was to speed up processing of games and video effects in software and this work is now pretty much entirely handled by the GPU.
Hi guys, I wrote an article in French on my web site about the whole story, and soon to be translated in English.
I have followed Apple for the last 24 years, and I was at first as shocked as when Apple switched to the PPC. Intel processor design is far too complex for what it delivers, and the beauty of the PowerPC architecture is far superior. I have to disagree with Steve, the only advantage of Intel is its mass market, which enables to bypass scaling issues as IBM has.
But reality is there. Apple is preparing to be able to provide massive quantities of OSX capable machines, and still keep the opportunity to work on the best processors (PowerPC), maybe on smaller quantities, for the very high end market.
In 2 years, absolutely nothing will prevent Apple to sell OSX for any PC, not only their machines. This means they will be in direct competition with Microsoft.
Can you imagine the speed of switch to an OS that still runs your PC apps, but does not suffer from Windows issues ?
The Apple versus Microsoft first episode has started. And may the Force be with us.
Apple's switch to Intel is a perfect example of the traps of closed source. If MacOS X and its applications were free software like GNU/Linux, the architecture switch from PPC to x86 would be almost a no-brainer. Users don't have to wait for companies to distribute new binaries, but can recompile all their software themselves, a freedom that, as it turns out, is essential. After the Bitkeeper fiasco, another example why RMS is right with his categorical opposition to non-free software.
gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
Then I'm reading Macworld (http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/intelappl eanalysts/index.php) quoting David Moody, Apple's vice president of worldwide Mac product marketing:
"We will not sell or support Windows, but we are not doing anything in the hardware that would preclude someone from using it," said Moody.
Furthermore, the article states:
"Apple also confirmed that they would not stop customers from running Windows on the Intel-based Mac, although the Mac OS will not run on another PC."
So, hmmm. I can have ONE COMPUTER run Windows, Mac OS X, and Ubuntu (or whatever distro I like)?
SIGN ME THE HELL UP! I'LL TAKE TWO!!!
Nope, they are lying alright. The dev docs (universal_binary.pdf) claim there is a significant speed problem with rosetta if you use lots of computational intensive code. Just GUI stuff works ok (which is what they demonstrated). But when you go into doing FFT it is slow. And when you want to use altivec, well you're out of luck: Rosetta doesn't support G4/G5 extension nor altivec instructions.
In addition, what crack are you smoking about a processor that can run x86 and PPC instructions? It says that nowhere (IBM had a project on this in the past but it was canceled). It's a stock Petium 4 they where using. The machine had even a BIOS instead of OF. Apple is really going backwards today.
Has no one else thought about the video cards that will be available to apple now? No need for a mac version of the card with mac firmware, just an updated driver if I'm correct. This is HUGE...maybe as big as the processor change itself.
Forget "emulation modes". Need to run a PC app on your Mac? No problem. One non-virtual-machine Windows window coming right up.
One of the biggest reasons people DON'T switch is because the can't afford to repurchase Photoshop and Dreamweaver and all their other software.
What if you didn't have to? What if an intelMac could also run PC games?
You might need to buy an XP license, but it would STILL be cheaper.....
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Since the darwin kernel is open sourced, it's already possible to run it on a PC. What's to stop me from getting the Darwin kernel and grabbing all the x86 Aqua binaries and combining them to create OS X on a PC? How is stuff at the application level going to know it's running on a Dell instead of the mac since the kernel interfaces will all be the same?
...that the Blue Man Group is somehow behind all of this?
Everyone is assuming that you cant load osx onto a generic box which is cool but if i buy a intel powerpc (g6??? :-D) will apple jig it so i cant load windows on it and dual boot?
im assuming yes because of open bios but i was wondering if someone "in the know" could clarify...
I just wanted to note in this thread that I witnessed this historic day.
i hate computing..
i've been doing this crap for about 17 years now.. and, with all the changes and all the hype and spin bullshit from all directions, this has to be one of the lamest days in computing history..
i hate microsoft.
Read all about it on Apple Developer's site: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Co nceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary.pdf
Ok, a few things here...
:)
:) Or wait till someone hacks the shit out of an XBOX 360 and then you'll have your dual core PPC.
:)
1. You wont likely be able to run down to your nearest Apple store, pick up a copy of OS X and slap it on your newly pieced together box from newegg.com. Reason being, I suspect by the time Apple is actually bundling OS X with intel based hardware, it'll be based on an Intel chip with trusted computering and hardware DRM that prevents you from doing this.
but...
Will it be cracked in a matter of days? I'd be fairly certain of it.
2. You will now be able to get a new Powerbook with a faster processor! I would imagine the mobile limitation of the G5 weighed a good deal in favor of this decision. So, now ya know all those Apple tablet rumors were probably regarding a tablet running a Centrino or M proc
3. If you're sad that you wont be seeing dual or multi-core PPCs now, dont worry, you can just get a dual core Intel proc...shipping now
4. As long as Apple will be slapping Intel procs in their boxes, Apple will never have to play catch-up to Windows kids. Their boxes will have the same guts. This will also give cause for Apple to keep their prices competative or increase their release schedules, 'cause every time a new Intel proc hits the market, which is more frequent than PPCs, Apple's going to have to adjust their three PowerPC configs, nullifying whatever it was they just sold...unless of course the price is right
5. This is all so funny to me. The timing. Microsoft makes an OS that competes (well, maybe not) with OS X. Microsoft makes a console based on Intel hardware. Apple makes an OS that competes with Microsoft, makes computers based on IBM hardware. Microsoft makes a console based on IBM hardware that Apple based their computers on. Apple now builds their OS for the hardware Microsoft used to use in their console. I know it means nothing, just seems funny.
The real question is how long it will take until it is hacked to run on any box. It will probably be a lot like how games are cracked to bypass the CD check. It seems that the most secure thing Apple can do is have intel make a special chipset that is integrated in some way deeply into the OS. They have to make the OS so dependant on the physical hardware that they cannot be separated.
Not that this matters all that much. The way I see this going down is an "Apple" motheboard will either be made by Intel or Apple. The rest of the system will be built from normal PC parts. The motherboards will probably be available at least as replacement parts which would allow anyone to put together an "Apple" system. The motherboard can also run Windows as was said in the keynote so you could build yourself a nice dual boot system as long as you use the right parts.
It would also stand to reason that at some point VIA will reverse engineer the chipset and come out with an Apple comatible clone that will cause a long legal battle but eventually open the market up to everyone.
You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
I for one welcome our new Intel overlords.
"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."
I just had a crazy idea that I don't fully understand the implications of.
Remember how x86, even to this day, boots into real mode, and has to be manually switched into 32-bit protected mode?
What if Apple's x86 didn't do that? What if it booted straight into protected mode?
What if OSX/i386 didn't contain the code to switch the processor into protected mode?
Architecture gurus...?
In case you haven't noticed yet from your other replies, your reasons for being "unlikely to buy Apple again" are completely ridiculous. You could just as well have bought a Dell just before they released one with better specs at the same price. Just an FYI, I bought an iPod literally TWO WEEKS before the Color one was released, and I could care less- it's thicker and sucks the battery more.
You couldn't pay me enough money to make a Windows machine my primary machine at home, although I have to use one for work (UNfortunately). Windows is insecure, horrible with task switching (my 1GB laptop still does the HD thrash way too much, and the cursor freezes for SECONDS at a time- insanely frustrating!), processes are started from no less than about 6 different locations (including a few places in that hell known as the Registry), you can't back up your user files simply by backing up Documents and Settings, uninstalling apps is STILL a cross-your-fingers affair, and Windows is still fugly. Etc. etc. etc...
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Co nceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary.pdf
Hidden (slightly) in the docs:
Its 32 bit Intel only. Not x86_64.
Apple are junking 64 bit. I thought it would be 64 bit only. No wonder they havent gone AMD64. Presumably 64 bit pentium M isnt out in time, and they dont want ultrafat binaries, but a 32 bit platform for 2006...
Also no open firmware. That means EFI (possible, unlikely though) or PC Bios (which sucks).
How can they do 32 bit? Its ok for laptops, but not a G5 equivalent. And the instruction set sucks.
They could shift again in a year or so, but I cant see that..
Well, for what it's worth, the same microarchitecture actually runs multiple ISAs. At least as of the G4 generation, the microarchitecture actually runs 5 ISAs on one: POWER4 64-bit, POWER4 32-bit, PowerPC 64-bit, PowerPC 32-bit, and a fifth one, Amazon 64-bit. You might find this article rather enlightening. It appears the plan for the current generation was to do the same, and add Symmetric Multithreading.
What I'm wondering is if the PPC chips inside the Apples have a hidden SMT capability and/or a second core that's undisclosed?
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
I got my first Mac -- a PowerBook G4 'Titanium' -- about 1-1/2 years ago. One week later Apple released faster PowerBook 'Aluminum'. Sucks to have your computer turned into "last year's model" in just one week.
Ever since that experience I've watched MacRumors.com product cycles to see when a product is due for a refresh because I don't want to buy the old model again.
Here Apple announces that in about 2 years time, everyone with a PowerPC based system is going to be obsolete -- splintering the already small code-base even smaller. Folks with G4 & G5 systems will have a hard time finding software since all the new titles will only release on Intel. Translators are never as good as running native.
Now I ask you... do YOU want to go buy a Mac at anytime in the next two years KNOWING that your "new" computer is about to be made obsolete and all you'll be forced to buy all new software or run it on a processor translator?
I sure don't.
From CNET, news: After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
How long do Apple think it will take PC hackers to crack OSX's protection scheme (hint: it will, like most current OSX installers, probably be in the installer software)? I give it about a day. I'm pretty sure that by the time Intel based Macs are released, OSX will be running on commodity PCs.
That might be good for Apple's OS marketshare, but it sure as hell won't be good for Apple's hardware business.
My second thought: I think I'll get a PowerPC Mac before they stop making them, to avoid viruses!
Something others haven't mentioned: With an Intel processor and an appropriate syscall translation layer, they can run Windows programs at native speed. Being able to install arbitrary Windows programs makes the available software titles an order of magnitude larger and makes it just that much easier to get people to switch plaforms.
My one question: Why Intel? AMD processors are even faster than Intel per watt. So why Intel?
I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY MR JOBS!
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
Now that the CPU is gone, everything on a Mac is like a PC: IDE/SATA, VGA, memory, hard disks, mice, USB/Firewire peripherals, etc etc. So what will stop MacOS X to run on commodity hardware?
I, for one, can't wait to switch to MacOS X. I already have an excellent computer (Athlon 64 + GeForce 6800 + 1 GB Ram + SATA), and I don't see the reason why I should buy another computer. After all, hardware is no longer of any significance: all computers are the same!
Since the processor is the same, technically it's not an emulator. You're running the native binaries.
It'd be great to see Winex up and running on OS X. I might switch when that happens.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Once I got in a flame war right here on Slashdot about whether the G5 would result in 64-bit laptops. Well, G5 laptops never happened, and, because of this announcment, will never happen. So, for the person who I flamed (we were both anonymous cowards): You were right
Kudos for winning the flame war.
At least when you consider this quote from Steve 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."
The G5 is nice, arguably the best microprossor out there in many respects, but it's also power-hungry.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
You GNAA guys love making fun of Apple, but I bet a lot of you don't even know that Punjabi Extreme was made in Apple's own toy music sequencer GarageBand. It makes you guys look sort of hypocritical, doesn't it now.
Signature.
Just FYI, there is evidence that Apple has a glut of IPods on its hands. The following is from CNN Money:
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Shares of Apple Computer Inc. fell 5 percent Friday, fueled by an Internet report of swelling inventory of its iPod digital music players.
The decline came after appleinsider.com, a web site that discusses issues related to the company's products, said Apple is "overstocked on most iPod models with about a month remaining in its third fiscal quarter." The report cited unnamed sources.
"Apple is believed to be sitting on its most significant inventory of iPod Shuffles since the player hit the market in February," the web site said. "According to reliable sources of information, tens of thousands of iPod shuffles remain idle in the channels this week alongside a good number of iPod photos."
Apple's iPod Shuffles are the least expensive in the iPod line, selling as low as $99.
Representatives for Cupertino, California-based Apple were not immediately available to comment Friday morning.
Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster said that growing iPod supplies are not surprising since the company did not introduce any new products during the quarter, and inventory caught up to slowing demand for the gadgets, which dominate the digital music market and are one of Apple's biggest revenue drivers. "
"Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
If, as Apple stated, users can run Windows on an Apptel computer what's the incentive for Adobe, Microsoft, and others to build OS X versions of their software in the first place? Last time I checked they weren't supporting Linux.
I think Apple will be forced to licensce OS X.
Actually, he said something more like, if you want security *right now* (i.e. aren't willing to put forth the effort for it), then maybe Windows isn't the platform for you. He never said the words 'Mac', 'Apple' or 'OS X'. The media twisted it all around.
Fortunately for them, they (the media) were right. But they still twisted it. Bad media!
Frameworks like vecLib will probably require some more work to use SSE instead of Altivec though. Even the concerns about things like endianness are not really a problem so long as the code was written the right way in the first place.
The cheapest, fastest, easiest way to get hardware reverse-compatibility is to slap a PPC processor [or some stripped down Altivec silicon] into a PCIe X16 slot on the motherboard. At 4Gbytes/sec bandwidth, you could download the old machine code onto the PPC processor and upload the results in the blink of an eye.
And at volume pricing, it shouldn't add much more than $50 or $75 to the cost of the machine. Alternatively, Apple could increase the price a little and market it as an upgrade option.
Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.
The software will continue to work.
What kind of longevity do you hope to get out of a vanity mirror anyway?
As in, you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You say you want to run OS X on non-Apple hardware -- yet one of the main reasons people like OS X is that It Just Works. You know what kind of hardware it's going to be used with when programming it, so there's fewer points of failure.
Now, run it on a kludged together box. And it's not gonna be as reliable, now is it?
Seems like everything Apple does is about to kill it, considering they can't even twitch without someone complaining they're doing something wrong.
i am a soviet space shuttle
remember they are making the chips for the Xbox2. they also have the PS3 contract too, right? and i know the gamecube used a G3 or G4 variant.. but i don't know about the new thing. i don't play games so i just heard this stuff from Mac news sources.
i was wondering how IBM would keep up with Apple's orders (which they have had trouble doing, let alone making faster chips) AND pick up the console game work. i had read IBM is building a new Power/PPC plant a few months ago. i don't pay enough attention to know if that is still happening.
there is something ironic that the new Xbox will use PPC chips, and the dev boxes are G5 towers... while Apple is getting cozy with Intel. i would not have seen that coming a year or two ago.
That is a critical difference.
You can bet that x86 Macs are not going to worry about supporting legacy Bios Junk that is in a PC for starters, so windows probably won't install out of the box. Hackers might get it it to work, but that is not quite the same thing.
But if it is fairly easy to support my windows legacy apps at full speed, I might get one too.
a little over a year ago i switched from x86/linux to ppc/osx mainly because it was easy and i could get my parents using mac as well and slowly ween them from wintel. over this past year i've grown more and more disgusted with all things wintel and have rarely used my linux box (even though i love linux for the most part). but now, i fear, i will be switching again. i see no need to pay for a special-built machine that is no longer all that special. sure it may still have cutting-edge components, but my old x86 box had SATA RAID built-in along with a slue of other features i didn't really use. and i can make a shiny case, which is about all mac has to offer after this besides os x. now the real question is what shall i switch to? i guess there's amd/linux, but i'm sure amd will be hopping on the drm band-waggon in full-force soon.
Analyst firm: 'Apple not a critical customer for IBM'
and that's why Apple MUST move to Intel. Intel makes CPU's for Computers, not just game machines and that's a HUGE difference. The Intel CPU is a CRITICAL product for Intel as most PC's run Windows. Intel Must satisfy MS or all is lost for Intel. Apple has decided to feed from the same food source, a source with a real foreseeable future.
IBM has decided it's buck is to be made in moving the PPC to devices, non flexible, slick, fixed purpose devices - games, hand helds etc. IBM has always had a pattern of getting on board a technology only to forget it a day or two later remember "lotus", I do!
So what does this mean for the Mac loyalist. In the future more speed, potentially MUCH more speed. Is my current hardware worth anything? Well I went to bed last night and my Powerbook worked and I heard Steve Jobs and my Powerbook still works and baring any unforeseen disasters it will still work 5 years from now. So, my money was well spent, thank god.
If I decide to upgrade to a new machine in the next two years it'll be a Mac/G5 or Mac/Intel and 5 years from then it will still work.
Now what features may I get with a New Mac/Intel, I may be able to run OSX and Windows both (no more Virtual PC). I could also actually run 3D Studio Max in real time with real Hardware acceleration using my video card on my Mac, I don't need 2 machines anymore. In the future I might even have a version of 3DSMax using OSX! and it might not crash my computer ! WoW
So what does this mean for the Mac, it means there is a future. The possibilities are opening up. More hardware compatibility, a real dedication to really faster CPU's, code that is actually optimized; (altevec is nice but if developers don't use it, it's WORTHLESS).
To the Mac faithful,l (I'm one), I say first BREATH and next, think Different...
over the years I've been listening to some nut-case named Dvorak about Apple switching to Intel CPU's, but nobody would listen to me.
Now... I get to claim my new house, yacht, vacation to Hawaii, best friends first born manchild and various other things that people have bet over this issue.
What a great day this has become.
- Leabre
Yes, takes only 2 hours to port... but how long to test that every feature works correctly?
Until you test you don't know if it ported correctly.
porting large applications to a different platform will never be a trivial task.
Macintouch quotes Phil Schiller, an Apple VP as saying, "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
..if they hadn't committed to the PowerPC platform and taken on the additional burden of 1) chasing the PPC up the performance ladder, and 2) maintaining dual code bases. How much internal management distraction has this occupied?
It's impressive that they'll be able to support both platforms as easily as they say, but hardware sales are not going to be pretty this year.
We seem to share the views on most of this fishy issue, and I do agree that "just a" is an unsuitable prefix for "recompile".
But is it certain that Apple is phasing out the PPC and just not hedging their bets?. I know what Steve-Jay said, but are there any facts indicating that they're really gonna drop the PPC? Does New XCode, currently the only Mac/x86 compiler on the planet even support compiling x86-only binaries? Apple tends to force their customers into doing "what's best", can't they do that to developers too?
There's no 'on' position on the Slacker switch!
Probably because AMD has limited fab capacity as compared to Intel. One of Apple's longterm beefs with IBM (and Motorola) was they could never keep up with demand.
They are starting with Intel, but who knows what we'll see in a year. They've dumped Motorola, then IBM. They could just as easily dump Intel for AMD if they saw fit.
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
That opening would be the end of Apple and OS X. The integration of Apple hardware and software would be lost and the overall experience of a Mac along with it. Most people don't give a rat's patoot about a quality experience with computers and they would wonder why they should buy two operating systems for the same hardware ? You might do it but most people would not and when it came to the choice between the two operating systems most people would chose Windows for the games, the greater selection of applications and the so called compatibility. Windows has no security to speak of, is incompatible with itself from version to version, is of very low overall quality and is generally badly behaved as an operating system but most people will put up with all that instead of spending another $129 for another operating system. It would definitely be the end of Apple.
http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/
they have made hardware that uses PPC chips that can not run the Mac OS. there is open firmware or boot rom stuff missing on the motherboard. that stuff does not live in the processor, or on a drive. granted yellowdog is a legit company and had no interest in making machines that booted OS X or OS 9, so a bunch of crafty hackers would be another thing.
just because the processor may be the same as another PC it does not mean the motherboard is, and there may be some key non-open things on there to require OS X to boot. i don't really know though, i would guess with Darwin it may be easier than ever to "emulate" Aqua on an unsupported box.
From the article...
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.
So if they haven't been compiling on the x86, Intel must have been producing custom chips, chipsets and instruction sets for Apple for the past five years. Of course its going to run on an x86!
I don't want to read
More Intel stuff? I like AMD because it's faster, and they just have better ideas than Intel.
I like Power because it's big endian. It's much more pleasant, and faster for IP.
I'd prefer Cell, new and untried as it is.
I love the idea of Apple changing chips and getting OS-X running on multiple architechtures -- therein lies the ability to chose the platform for the job. Ever think about OS-X for servers, really? How about supercomputers? How about embedded devices? -- right now it's just desktop (and people who have used it as a server OS will agree with that, in large part).
Yes, you can argue that the chip doesn't matter, but health, agility and growth in an OS is to run on multiple platforms. Chucking a platform to run on another isn't as good as a both/many aim. But I understand that that's a CS way of thinking, not a business one -- for the business, we want to widgitize it, and reduce costs.
But INTEL? They're hotter, slower and more expensive than AMD. They're behind on the dual core curve. If ya gotta go "all" why not go all opteron? Sigh. I suspect a sweet deal from Intel, and who can blame a business for chosing to go with that?
If Apple poured money into GCC they'd get sweet compilers, like those said to be the real reason for going Intel. And if they sped up (for example forking on) Darwin, they'd get more out of their existing chips.
It's a boring, frustrating move.
Reminds me of (though it's not as bad, clearly) as when SGI decided to drop IRIX in favor of NT.
Do you really think that Steve Jobs would support such a huge shift if he wasn't absolutely 100% certain that it would work out well for the company and the users in the long run?
Signature.
So can we expect the first Mac with Intel Inside to ship on 6/6/6 ?
Doh!
... I would run and buy Apple shares. Why?
Simple, by moving to Intel based processors they will increase their margins by at least 20% (TWENTY PERCENT!) Just like that. It's called economy of scale.
I don't think anybody, in any industry has ever been able to pull such a feat. Mr Jobs, my humble compliments. Chapeau.
My reasoning: Apple and Intel have to prove that this will work and they have to do it fast. Apple doesn't want people in late 2005 going, well, it's only six months, we know it's going to be the low end, I won't buy my Mac Mini or iBook then...you need to surprise people just the way Scotty did it on the Enterprise: Give them a longer time frame and then astound them when you beat it. Intel has a thing or two to prove, and they already built that little Mac Mini clone thingy, which I bet was a proof of concept for something that had to do with Apple. You also want to have PowerPCs and Pentiums side by side in the Apple Stores as soon as possible so people get used to the idea -- just like Linux, where it is just assumed that it will sort of run on anything.
The main problem are going to be the portables. The G4 is at the end of its rope, and the iBooks and PowerBooks are way behind the pack, especially the 12" PowerBook. But you can't upgrade the iBook to a Pentium without pissing off the PowerBook people, and if they don't upgrade the PowerBooks soon (like, tomorrow), I don't think anyone is going to buy them for a very long time. That is going to be a critical step for Apple.
Oh well. I guess the reason why Steve Jobs is a billionaire and I'm not is because he has this stuff figured out...
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/
Brain(s): 0.0% user, 1.3% system, 0.1% nice, 98.6% idle
Available here.
-ch
fp!
As stupid as it seems, one of the biggest reasons to own a Mac was simply because they were the little guy, they stuck it to the Man (usually). You knew that you were supporting a less evil empire and a company that was taking technology and lifestyle forward. Now, that's severly lessened. Intel is not cool and will never be cool. OS X is pretty cool, but anybody who wanted the Mac for aforementioned reasons is going to seriously consider Linux.
W - now we have only one manufacturer of processors for mainstream computers. This may weaken Apple's bargaining position in the long run.
O - huge chance for Apple to really take on Microsoft's dominance and widen its market base.
T - I wonder how long before Microsoft discontinues Office for OS X.
Overall, it just shows the power of Unix. A well designed operating system can be easily ported to a new hardware architecture in such a way that what most apps would require would be just a recompile.
I don't think dual booting will happen. Too much work, and makes Mac users reboot (and we love doing that!)
I think the more likely scenario is a version of Virtual PC that doesn't suck. Runs the windows code semi-natively...
Well, here's two issues, the P4 isn't a "cool" cpu, it tosses out mass heat and requires high power. Say goodbye to 6 hour charges.
What I want is a G5 core strapped next to an AMD Opteron core, with the two of them talking Hypertransport back and forth.
Actually, that's not true at all. What apple wants is for developers to not be lazy and just put a bunch of options in the right-click menu. Apple wants developers to actually design good interfaces and the only way they can ensure that is by shipping one button mice by default, because that way the devs know that most users only have one button. I hate one button mice as well but I do think this is a good idea, and jesus, if you care so much about it but can't spare an extra 10 bucks for a decent two button mouse like the MS explorer, you're just pathetic.
Joseph?
The market is very fickle and driven by short term results.
PPC Mac sales are going to get crushed for the next few quarters, so look for a stock dip, plus there is risk, the market hates risk.
I believe this is a good move long term, but short term it will be messy.
Was your frustration with x86/Linux vs ppc/osx based on the difference between the intel cpu and the ppc cpu or was it based on the poor integration of hardware and software or was it based on the quality of the operating system ? OS X will still be OS X and if Apple continues to do the hardware-software integration then there should be little difference in the user experience that is presumably the basis for switching in the first place. Incidentally, when OS X was called NextStep it was ported to generic intel hardware so that it could run on cheap generic pc hardware. It lost a lot of the benefits of design and integration that comes from having one company put the hardware and software together for you. The product went nowhere.
Changing from PPC to x86 architecture is a big deal - but the hardest part of it will, IMHO, be converting the Altivec optimised code. And I can't really think of a way around it. But here are some options that might work:
1) Altivec emulation at run time on the x86 CPU - presumably the Intel chips will have SSE3.
2) Intel puts Altivec (or makes SSE3 sufficiently like it) into the chips it will make for Apple.
3) The best solution IMHO is; Apple starts emphasising vector processing in a a way that is not Altivec specific - you can already see this with their vector additions to GCC & CoreImage, etc. In a year's time the x86 Macs will be equiped with good GPUs, GPUs able to do Altivec like operations, so Apple utilises GPUs as general purpose SIMD processors.
Damnit - I wanted my nick to be "WouldIPutMYRealNameOnSlashdot"
I'm sorry, but this actually isn't true.
o nceptual/universauniversal_binary.pd
check:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/C
It says quite clearly that Intel OSX will not have Open Firmware.
We'll see the reality I guess.
So is OSX going to x86 or not? I have seen no official source saying this, but that seems to be what all the masses are saying.
Honestly, aren't some of these jokes old enough?
Here is Rob Enderle's take on the whole Apple and Intel partnership: http://news.designtechnica.com/talkback57.html look like he may be onto something. Microsoft has a lot to be worried about.
Don't you think that Apple already has this figured out?
Karma Schmarma
... according to the developers docs on the apple home-page, Intel-based macs will not use openfirmware, also:
i gns+with+Intel+-+page+2/2100-7341_3-5733756-2.html ?tag=st.next
from cnet today:
http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+al
--------------
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
Physicists get Hadrons!
the money. When I got my 2.5 GHz G5 and found out that it was liquid cooled I had a feeling that IBM was in trouble. You have to remember that they had promised a 3 GHz cpu in a year and all they could crank out a year later was a 2.5 GHz and that only with liquid cooling. Make no mistake, my G5 is screaming fast, its a great machine and I'll probably buy two more this year but Apple has to begin the switch now while the G5 is still a good competitive processor. Waiting until IBM pulled their face out of the mud 2 years from now would have been fatal for Apple. They had no choice. Apple's dual executable strategy is proven technology. Their port of OS X to x86 goes way back to the days when OS X was called NextStep. They marketed a version that ran on generic pc hardware. Hopefully they will not make the same mistake this time and keep the hardware-software integration in house.
Old business plan:
New business plan:
The bios will almost certainly be Unique to Apple, possibly encrypted and locked down with DMCA.
Could be other architecture changes to make it unique as well.
But I would bet they stay pretty close to mainstream to take full advantage of economies of scale. Might even get Intel to deliver the whole package. CPU + Chipset + motherboard + some intel DRM and a custom DRM'd bios = no clones.
This was the best post I've seen. Suddenly, the G4 is weak in the knees, crawling platform, G5 is a furnace. I bet we couldn't even find any posts about the virtues of G4 and G5 any more!
I, for one, continue to embrace our existing x86 overlords. And I'd like to welcome all the Mac users as they prepare to toil in Intel's underground caves. Perhaps now would be a good time to extend an olive branch of friendship to our new friends. Don't worry about the high tension device on the end, it's not switched... OWWW! Ooops, wrong end ;-)
If you'll need a proprietary machine, I'm not sure what you're supposed to run your 10.4.1 preview on then.
Even so, I'd be willing to bet you'd still be able to get MacOS to run on your commodity Intel box at near-native speeds with a clever modification or two to Mac On Linux (MOL). Okay, I don't write code so it might not be that simple, but it sounds reasonable, no?
Is intel just making the chips, or is apple going x86?. What I meen is the BFD that apple is migrating from the PPC970 or what ever the"real" name if the G3/4/5 etc are?
Bill Gates said this was certain to happen when the G5 was released - as did Intel. And it happened. So now i can have a fast Mac laptop - Yay! otherwise, who cares.
Unfortunatly a severe downside is that all the adverts will now have that cursed intel tune and logo in them. Nice music track, product, {intel tune and logo} and music continues. Dam advertising, rotting my brain.
Jobs will do anything to avoid a G5 Powerbook.
If they switch CPUs anyway, I hope they move to
x86_64 entirely, and not to i686/32 bit intel
systems. But I haven't read anything about this issue.
I've been using AMD64 on a number of my servers for over a year and they kick butt! Especially for cryptography where one gets a order of magitude increase in preformance in RSA compared to x86 running at the same clock speed.
Considering the limitations of 32bit systems, including only 2-3GB of addressable memory, why doesn't apple move to a 64bit platform now and avoid future headaches later?
Besides, I heard that Intel also make 64bit AMD64 compatible CPU's as well.
This IS the biggest problem, all of the PPC customers from the last couple years that will suddenly not be getting those shiny new software releases. While I understand why apple did this (basically, it was the only way to rescue their LAPTOP roadmap), it does shaft all the people using PPC, especially current moblie users.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Damn straight. I think what's likely getting glossed over savagely cause the Mac-haters will DIE when they hear it - Mac OS X will very likely run FASTER on Intel chips, MHz for MHz. Bet Mac on a 3.7MHz Intel chip is like Windows on a 7.4MHz chip!!!! MWOOHAHAHAH
Yes, I can do their stuff and FASTER!!!!!!!! NO VIRUSES!!!! AHAHAHAHAH
d
[begin excerpt]
"The move is being made because Intel has "the strongest processor road map by far," Jobs is quoted as saying in a statement released as the keynote got under way.
"As we look ahead, although we've got some great products now, we can envision some amazing products we want to build for you. And we don't know how we can build them with the future PowerPC road map," Jobs said during his keynote.
The problem with the future PowerPC chips is performance per watt, Jobs said. Intel's chips are far ahead of IBM's when it comes to delivering performance without consuming a lot of power, a quality that is very important to Apple's future products, he said."
[end excerpt]
Jobs is looking for better "performance per watt" and picks Intel over AMD which was not a very smart decision on his part. Apparently he is unfamiliar with the newest AMD 'venice' core and the derivative 'Turion' AMD mobile chips which offer better performance than the Pentium M with less power consumption.
Oranges switching to AMD What a lame joke -.-
World class or not, the management and success of Apple depends way too much on Steve Jobs. Remember his operation and the effect it had on the stock price? It was a good reminder of why I have not invested deeply in Apple.
Apple will not be a truly world-class company until they demonstrate success post-Jobs. Right now they don't seem to have a product development process that is independent of this one man's personal involvement.
Until then it is a highly risky investment...like investing in Brad Pitt or Heidi Klum. One run red light, and there goes your investment.
But INTEL? They're hotter, slower and more expensive than AMD.
That's only true for the Pentium IV and remember all of Intel's plans involve a more Pentium M like architecture. Ye have so little faith in Mr. Apple. If you are unimpressed with the Pentium M, you might want to read this. It's good tech and AMD doesn't have it yet. AMD is kicking arse in the pure speed war, but it has barely even fired a shot in the speed/watt war. We don't even know how interested AMD is in competing in that particular battleground. CnQ is good but not as good as a Pentium M when it comes to power usage.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
God I can't believe Apple would screw over it's installed base like this. I doubt they'll survive long enough to get a new machine out the door. Sales of macs are going to plunge to ZERO because of this.
i haven't read this post yet, so read on:
how about! MacX86OnLinux. how to run OSX on commodity hardware! thats how! works great on powerpc lines, so it should be a simple 'port' to x86.
then a small linux system, grub boots system, init starts driver services, and then starts Mx86OL!! then linux drivers can fill most of the void of pc hardware not supported on MacOS x86.
Also, I'm not sure how easy it would be to do, but you could pass the PCI,Firewire, and USB bus straight to the MOL system, or at least you could give MOL complete control of some devices so OSX could use native drivers on anything that is supported.
But then people will ask "well then why do I have to buy a new computer to get OSX?" It is official that OSX won't be opened to non Mac harware, so this statement would confuse people and make them mad. Not good marketing on your part..
Open Source Sushi
Someone posted this previously. In there it mentions 32bit.
o nceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary.pdf
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/C
Blame IBM and Motorola for being sucky companies to work with. IBM told Apple that they should be up to over 3ghz by now and able to run on a laptop. And now apple is looking bad because IBMs Sales department decided to extend the truth to make themselves seem so much better, and way ahead of what Motorola can produce. So Apple being a smart company kept their options open is did cross development of OS X on a x86 and PowerPC platform. So apple is not locked in to any manufacture, thus keeping them selves being stuck in a hole. So this is less about CISC vs. RISC because Apple has been choosing the PowerPC processor for a long time because it was a better design. But their producers were not keeping up with CISC development.
This big jump will probably keep their other venders in line as well to make them realize that Apple doesn't need them to survive. If apple and swap the Main Processor they will be able to swap any other piece of equipment that they buy. So the next time these company give Apple a promice they better keep it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
...forward looking but also incredibly obvious. Decreasing power of suppliers is busines 101. Pepsi/Coke at one point owned their own steel manufacturing units but didn't use them just to get better prices. Microsoft built an entire web-based Office suite called NetDocs just in case web-only apps took off. Etc, etc.
M$ makes a lot of money on the Mac port...
http://www.blizzard.com/diablo2/wallpapers/hellfro zenover/HellFrozenOver-text-1024x.jpg
yes, it is work safe and family friendly.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
Apple already consolidated all this into their universally distributed Accelerate.framework, which provides a lot of fancy vector ops, a hand-tuned LAPACK and CBLAS library, and a high speed image processing kit.
When I was first going over them, I was confused why it was all written to be so platform-neutral, but now we know why. I'm sure that all their specially tuned code (like in Mail.app for search) runs just fine on Intel. Probably slower, SSE is not as fast as the AltiVec, but I doubt it required much of a rewrite.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
OS X is going to be a hell of a lot faster on PearPC, and won't MOL work on X86 now too?
To all those developers out there: Write goddamn portable apps! It's not that hard, guys!
What no one has been mentioning is that the only software that will be hurt by this transition is software that was written badly.
I have been writing Java apps for the last 7 years. Guess what I have to do to make them run on OS X/x86? That's right: Nothing. Most likely, they will run better and faster than before as soon as the first x86 Mac ships.
There is also Python / wxWidgets / Ruby / wxWidgets. There is no reason to write platform-specific code in this day and age. Even if you are using Cocoa/Native GUIs - as long as the underpinnings are Java/Ruby/Python, you will not have to recompile anything.
ps: The switch from 68k to PPC was done in an era when the entire Mac OS was a huge, native, hand-optimized hack. To pull that off at all was an amazing engineering feat. OS X will be 100 times easier to do.
pps: I sure hope Apple has a good solution for device drivers...
This move was a must for Apple but they must also maintain the integration of software and hardware so that the end-to-end quality of the user experience is maintained. Allowing OS X to run on generic Intel PC hardware is not an option. The track record for other operating systems on generic Intel hardware is not pretty. The only real survivors in that game are freeware OS's unless you want to count Solaris as a survivor. Those who argue for allowing OS X on generic hardware are arguing for the disapperance of OS X and Apple as a computer company.
my quicktime crashes at about 10 seconds in every time I try to watch it.
I have an up to date Tiger on a dual G5 and Steve Jobs' keynote makes it runs JUST LIKE WINDOWS....CRASH.
fitting I guess, since my machine is a PPC and Jobs killed that too.
Going to Intel is a numbers game. AMD is just not going to be able to provide the chips. I suspect that the long-term strategy here is to make Mac-OS run on a number of x86 platforms, but for now Intel is clearly ahead of AMD in the numbers (not to mention in low consumption chips). I frankly think that this is Apple's only choice. IBM clearly isn't interested, or at least interested enough, and if Apple's going to go to a new chipset, then it might as well be to the biggest manufacturer of PC CPUs out there.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
or maybe it will be too late. At first apple mounted a dual cpu, to beat the x86 but it wasn't enough. At first I couldn't believe on this rumors, because of the painful transition that leads to the current users of Mac base. But now I understand, Apple WANTS TO GROW, and what better way than enjoying a extremely competitive market like the multiple core cpu, with players like Intel, AMD, and who knows even Via. Economy of scale. Price/Performance Ratio. MAC MINI should be the first to use x86, I would by one. Centrinos and Semprons it's a huge difference from the g4 used now, I dont now about price and scale, and let's not forget of the Pentium M(P3 586 core), that's a very efficient chip. It seems that mainframes run on multiple cores with PowerPC, but that is to specialized, and IBM holds everything related to mainframes, to themselves. I don't know if PowerPC can compete with the pace that Intel and AMD is bringing to the market on multiple cores. Maybe Jobs thinks that too. And he knows much better than me. But this is great news, except for apple user base, but hey, they don't seem to care much, JOBS IS BETTING THE COMPANY AGAIN, and that's the way microsoft got to the top, betting it all. Finally we can compare apples to errr apples? hehe PCs using the same chip, and with only minor diferences. And some answers will be shown, like: Is it better to have a controlled hardware base, is it better than beige boxes? Who makes a better OS experience? MS or Apple? And many others. The bottom line is, hackers will unlock the x86 Macs, and it will run linux, windows or even solaris, and the war seems to to have been won by x86, in the desktop. And The MACOSX WILL RUN ON BEIGE BOXES, DELL, HP, ETC. Emulation is gonna be easier, and that's awesome, that brings a whole new level of OS development, like linux/windows/mac/solaris/freebsd/*bsd bianries, being compatible. With Multiple cores, why not, one cpu to windows, and other for macosx? with no emulation!? Well I think it's very exciting, and BRING MACOSX to the PC. LET THE BATTLE BEGIN!
I agree completely. I think when this really comes to fruition in 2007-2008, Linux desktops will also have matured, and we'll finally have healthy competition. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I think the age of any one operating system holding 90%+ of the desktop world is coming to a close.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
With AMD really becoming a major threat to Intel it got intel to produce higher quality products. Forcing them to rethink heat, power consumption more then just raw speed.
It is just in the same way that Linux forced Microsoft to improve. If you don't believe me see Windows 3.1 and compare it to windows 95 - 98. And now compare it with Windows 2000 and 2003. Microsoft OS's are much more dependable then they were back 10 years ago and much more then they nessarly wanted it to be.
Now with Mac using x86 this will probably keep the Dells, Gateways, and other honest by having With these new Macs being able to Run windows as well (although not supported). So now the consumer can either choose a well designed system, that can run OS X with all its niceties and run Windows too.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I had so hoped, though, that we were finally going to get beyond the x86 architecture - that their strategy of piling kluge on top of kluge on top of kluge in the name of backwards-compatibility was finally going to come crashing down.
I do not see anyhthing in Jobs' statements about the x86, just Intel, who's (by now) as eager as anybody to break away from the x86 legacy (and show us some new innovation in hardware dewign). Note that the 8086 _was_ pretty cool and innovative - in 1975.
Unlike the situation with the Wintel architecture, there's NO thing limiting Apple to backward x86 compatability. They can just march straight forward with Itanium, I64, AMD64, or whatever the 64-bit mode is gonna be. My guess is that Intel will be happy to supply them with modern, 64-bit CPUs, without x86 legacy compatability.
Why bother with x86? They never had it, and _don't_ need it!
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
Just code in Java and leave the pain to others.
This is huge news. Everytime I think about it, I become more excited. But I don't know if this will help linux, maybe it will hurt in some ways, because it's another UNIXLike stealing market from linux. But linux always with have a killer feature. The price and the independency. But as I said before, I don't see linux getting desktop dominance, because it is too loose, to open, and will be restricted to niches. Average Joe Users, need support and a controlled enviroment, and linux can't offer that, yet. Maybe someday...
You can have my PowerPC when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
I have a set of Rhapsody CD's, (this was the early beta of the NextStep OS that would eventually be called OS X), sitting in my cube. Two sets: one for PowerPC, one for x86. Why am I not surprised that Apple continued to develop both? Hmm, maybe I should put them up on ebay...
Can'y the firmware we read off the motherboard, or perhaps reverse engineered? Also, there is the possibility of running a virtual machine, which would be reasonably effecient because the instruction set is the same. Do you think there's hope there? I'd love to see OS X opened up to the masses...
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I'm not sure it makes much of a difference, but there is a GUI frontend for Fink called FinkCommander. It's all right.
There's no 'on' position on the Slacker switch!
I've already seen a couple of quotes from software companies along the lines of "great, now we don't have to develop 2 versions of everything".
Does this mean that they will take a windows program, slap some aqua GUI on it and stick a label of the box that says "NOW FOR OS X!"?
This seems like it ignores the fact that what makes good OS X software is the user experience, not the GUI.
Like puzzle games? Warehouse51 for iOS
All those cheapo vendors have one little problem - no standards, every damn thing is patched to death before it even gets loaded. How many devices hvae you added to your Mac and never had to load a driver? Uh huh.
PCs will be using the Intel chip, but will, amazingly, continue to suck, while Mac OS X just works. Yes, this is a good thing.
Now maybe now that they switched to Intel OSX will not run like a sluggish, buggy POS.
Too bad they still want to keep in the overpriced OS bug fix upgrade & hardware racket they have going.
Diversity is important for tons of reasons - security, a healthy computing ecosystem, and because I just like it that way.
Too bad. :-(
Rosetta according to the docs does not support os9 compiles. I'm assuming that this is the end of Classic entirely. It means that it is the end of any possibility (well except through Basilisk or something) of programs such as More, Hypercard and many others, really unequaled in the new or any platform.
If Apple goes to x86, they will give up all hope of ever matching Wintel for performance. Apple should want to be seen as more elite than the PC architecture. They've been able to hold an audience through the transition from 68k to PPC, and to OSX. Why shouldn't they be able to find a multicore chip, write an emulator for it, and port everything over to it?
Cell for Playstation 3 runs 9 cores at once, allowing for massively parallel computing. It seems to me that multiple cores, or at least hyperthreading, is the new way to obtain a technical advantage over your competitors.
Say what you like about the Wintel architecture, but because it's a set of open standards, it will always be the one where you can plug and play bleeding-edge hardware straight out of the box.
Right now Apple is just making the transition to x86, and who better to use than Intel? Because Intel pumps out the largest number of chips, it's going to cost Apple a lot less right now. If they can start selling $400 Mac mini's that can run almost anything a Windows PC can, a lot of people who use a computer for the internet and little else will be able to get the wide array of PC software and the security of a Mac all in the same package.
Once Apple has established a foothold in the x86 market and has moved its customer base from PPC to x86, they'll probably ditch Intel for AMD. AMD's high end CPUs are better than those of Intel (or at least that's the general concensus). Then again, if Intel does have something great in store, Apple can just stick with them.
While it's a daring move on their part, I think that Apple can only gain from this. Their popularity is up at the moment because of iPods and concerns with Windows security.
From what I have read, multiple architectures are part of their plan for the next several year. As long as the developer codes the application using xCode it will create binaries for both platforms. If they wantedt to add more, Apple just has to port it, and a simple recompile is all it should take.
maybe a bit easier to farm out builds to herds of cheapo PCs...?
Isn't distcc the only PPC-only binary in the Darwin distro?
Exactly what hardware will be in these things.
:)
Will it be possible to run x86 linux on them (and more so, will it be possible to use the existing linux display driver for whatever display chipset apple puts in there)
Will you be able to run x86 linux ports of things like DOOM 3 and Neverwinter Nights?
Whether windows runs on these things depends on how different the hardware is (although porting ReactOS to one is a definate possibility)
I expect to see x86 linux and then WINE running on these things pretty quickly
I am not surprised by this. This is a reflection of IBM's difficulty in ramping 90 nm yields as originally promised to Apple in 2002/2003. Foundry fabs, like the E Fishkill facility, are going to have a much more difficult time getting low-volume, high end parts like the low-power G5 out the door because of the special OPC problems arising on each special part. Intel, on the other hand, has an easier time, becasue they deal with a few high-volume parts. Their "copy exactly" strategy is based upon this. Apple is therefore going to be afforded less distinguishing features on its chipsets, and this will eventually hurt it. I would guess that IBM is more hurt than it seems form the NYTimes article. Prestige counts for a lot in ths business, and IBM's other customers were initially attracted to this prestige.
Nowhere is anyone claiming that Macs will run on Pentium chips. Apple is switching sourcing of their CPUs from IBM to Intel. In other words the 'next gen' PPC will be built by Intel. Just like Apple did when they moved from Motorola to IBM.
#microsoft
Hey! OS X runs FASTER than Windows on Intel! FSCK ME!!!
PowerPC is a better platform than X86. But than again who isn't? X86 is kludges and full of baggage. Just goes to show with a lot of money behind it, kludges are pretty good. But as for faster and more efficient, its not. The PPC970 acheives similar benchmarks to a P4 at 2/3 the Mhz and 1/3 the die size, and less power as well. So for the same cost you could have a 3 core PPC (think Xbox). The laptop issue is about dynamic power features not inherent power consumption where the PPC whoops X86. Apple is switching not because the X86 is better is just has a stable marketshare with a lot of backing. Honestly it is a sad day for compution to see thing go backwards.
Now that this sacred cow is dead meat, please Steve, can you get past your dogma that all Macs should have 100dpi screens? Dell has for some time been shipping a 1920x1200 laptop, but the best you can offer me is 1440x900 -- which just doesn't cut it.
Your god may be dead, but mine aren't!
Intel drove into a dead end and hit the wall!
You mean with the Pentium4?
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Everyone keeps comparing PPC/Intel hardware features. Interesting, but I'm here to tell you there's a bigger story behind this. The Mach kernel is dead weight. Why spend time and money supporting an obsolete OS when other more modern OS's are available for free? And what architecture do these other OS's run best on?
Intel.
Just a barstool hunch, but who am I to let the truth get in the way of a good story?
MAC on Intel...
I expected to see monkeys flying out of peoples asses...
Is this the second or third sign of the apocalypse...I lost count.
There have been cases where my wife's 900 MHz G3 has outperformed my Athlon64 3200+ (2.2 GHz)... Now, obviously such cases are the minority, but it would certainly suggest a 2.2 GHz G5 would blow the Athlon64 away.
Luke-Jr
Things I don't want to see posted anymore:
/.'s bandwidth and I'm guessing annoys a load of people, including me.
"Slashdot has slashdotted itself!"
Yeah, we know. People have said so since page 2 of the comments.
"Hell has frozen over/Pigs are flying!"
Ditto.
"Hey can I run OS X on my $200 Dell now cuz then I wouldn't have to pay for a Mac and that would be totally r0x0r!!!!"
No. No no no no. You can't. Apple would never let it happen in a million years (and said so, if you read the article), and if you think you're going to hack it so you can use your POS beige box, enjoy it while you can b/c all the stuff you like about OS X comes from R&D financed by Apple's hardware profits.
"Apple should just be a software company!"
Yeah, and release drivers and other buggy shit to compensate for hardware disparities? I don't think so.
"I just bought a PPC Mac and I'm so pissed off!!!"
Your hardware will work for at least another five years. I promise. Apple is not just going to dump its PPC users. In fact, the switch won't start until mid-2006, and compiling for both platforms is little more than checking a box, so don't give me that "developers will be too lazy to develop for both" crap. Even if I only got ten more users, I'd check the check box. It's worth my time.
"My big-endian stuff won't work!"
If it really bothers you, write a converter (in like five minutes, godforbid), and shove it in your code as a subroutine. Or, gasp, recode it.
"Nobody will buy Apple between now and then!"
PPC is going to be their platform for the next two years and supported until at least Mac OS XI. Don't sweat it.
"I hate Apple. I'll never buy their hardware again!!"
Give me a break. I'm the biggest Mac zealot I know, but look at the sorry state of the G5. This was a needed move. Who really gives a crap what's in the computer as long as it performs the same function? Just because you need the biggest, bestest chip doesn't cut it. Look at the benchmarks. Intel wins.
"AMD!!!"
Sorry, I'd like to see it too, but not enough fab capacity for Apple's needs. Plus, Intel has a better roadmap.
"What!? No 64-bit!?"
What does the article say? Low-end machines (32-bit already) first in mid-06, high-end (by that time 64-bit intel) in late 07.
Read the comments before you repost or rehash some old, tired argument. It kills
That Adobe software is ready to run on Intel today does not guarantee that it will be ready to run on Mac OS X running on Intel tomorrow. Does it? At my office, the installed Adobe base is suboptimal on the G5s for critical Acrobat conversion procedures more consistently keyed to our Office suite on the PC. This may not seem like a big deal--but the programming assurances I hear here that with this or that code option programs will be compiled without difficulty (or much time) is not borne out by the actual history of support for the Mac platform which is DIMINISHING with each Mac transition, despite whatever assurances are given by whatever VPs. Adobe probably, as posters mention here, focuses on development for the PC platform FIRST. Adobe already has announced that it will not maintain Mac development for its production XML/print tool Framemaker. I would seriously doubt that this new transition will induce them to reverse that decision. A non-programmer, I still cannot believe that re-compiling code even to a familiar x86 base is trivial for large programs. Given its current limited market share, I don't see how Apple turns abandoning the PPC for x86 into a positive inducement for developers to reorder priorities and shift more resources into expanding the OS X's "mind share" footprint. The one thing developers will probably consider is not the theoretical advantages in cross-platform operability in elevating their Mac issues (are there any? a closed Mac box is a closed Mac box, no?) but the cost-benefit ratio in doing the work that is necessary to re-port versus the market share irretrievably lost in, on the far side, telling Mac clients to wait or switch. My working experience on doing text publishing on a PC as opposed to working on a Dual G5 tower is that the Mac is marginally more kludgy than the PC. Maybe image processors feel differently but I wonder. If I have commercial responsibilities to justify budgetary allocations for Mac computers my job just got harder, not easier. I don't know how many managers have the luxury of explaining that all computers, after all, are essentially SOS after two years. I would have to assume that there are contractual agreements between Intel and Apple as to price and supply.
I haven't even transitioned to OSX yet. The last machine I bought was a 2Ghz P4 running WinXP. I'd like to try Linux on it but the fact I'm a dialup user and I have a Winmodem has put that plan on hold. The PC purchase was supposed to be a temprary measure because my Mac was too slow for my needs and I couldn't afford a new one at the time.
I don't want DRMed hardware, but I little other choice. I don't know if there's any reason to get a new (IBM powered) Mac now if I'm going to be transitioning to Linux in the end anyway.
Windows 3.5 and 4.0 ran on PPC, MIPS and Alpha platforms in addition to x86 hardware. MS only discontinued those flavors because there just wasn't much of a market for those systems. Windows is plenty flexible enough to move to another 'non-standard' platform.
Make that Windows 'NT' versions 3.5 and 4.0. (2000 and XP's predecessors)
The timing is interesting in that for the first time Intel may look attractive to Apple:
-They finally has a 64bit CPU that Apple can use.
-They have cheap dual-core.
-As another poster pointed out, they have DRM on the chip now.
Maybe this would have happened a while ago if only Intel had the goods.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am feeling thoroughly screwed. I just purchased a DP G5 tower to replace my aging G4 Sawtooth. There is no way I would have ever placed that order knowing that Apple was going to make the switch to Intel. I am just your average Joe user and the upside to Apple for me has always been the high reliability of their hardware (at least in my experience, especially since I had been using the same box for over seven years minus a processor and video card upgrade) , the fact that it ran on an architecture other the x86, and recently a kick ass OS. Now what the hell am I going to do with this 2k piece of hardware? I was counting on getting at least five years of service out of my new tower but now, heck, in three years it will be completely outdated and I bet it won't be fetching that high a premium on Ebay. Oh well, lets hope Linux progressives to a point where I will fell comfortable using it. Ok, where the hell did I put that KY. . .
Steve Jobs told today to CNBC that "[Apple is] a ship that leaks from the top".
So As Seen On TV (857673) could be Steve Jobs himself.
I bet he was here just to decoy the big announcement with some other interesting, but not so top-secret, facts about their products.
And I bet he was the one to "leak" information to cnet and Wall Street Journal, so that he could use that "It's True"-slide in his keynote.
I love my Mac for the usability of its user interface (both CLI and GUI) and for the fact that it looks so damn good. It depresses me when I have to fire up my ugly old PC when I actually want my code to finish in a reasonable time.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I've got a stable of macs and a stable of PCs, all 5 years old or less. The Macs run as advertised. The PCs are hell to keep running under 98SE and XP. ScanDisk and BIOS problems are two of the top three problems, along with supposed plug and play hardware not properly registering / installing. Then there's the weekly spyware & virus scans.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
who is going to pay apple more for a machine with the exact same specs and 98% of the same components as a cheep ass dell.
Probably the same people who pay apple more for a machine with worse specs and 98% of the same components as a cheep [sic] ass dell.
While this is likely the reality, the way it actually works is that most creative professionals believed that Macs were faster for their type of work. I know, I believed it and I have dozens of pro friends who were the same. Sure, we love the operating system, but what component of the reason for choosing the platform was that? Not 100%. My point is that for most of Apple's traditional user base, there was a percentage of sway that speed held in the choice between Mac & Windows which was offset and equal to the "compatibility" problems you'd have while working with clients' systems. Whatever that percentage was, it's now erased, bringing the odds up for using Windows.
I do a lot of trade shows, and do a lot of software demos. I work with Mac software and Windows software. Until now, I've lugged a PowerBook, and run VirtualPC or Remote Desktop when I needed to show off Windows stuff. Which kinda worked, and was often better than having to lug two laptops around everywhere.
Now i can have a true dual-boot portable machine?
Or likely better yet, a native-code version of VirtualPC running on MacOS X that can give native full screen performance? So I'm always Apple-Tab away from MacWindows. VirtualPC is going to get a lot more interesting with this - possibly a reason why Microsoft is supporting this effort.
Life is good here for us digital media road warriors.
My video compression blog
What I find baffling is that Apple has a very rare opportunity - they have the opportunity to leapfrog 32-bit x86 and go directly to x86-64, which is worth it just for the registers alone, even if you don't care about 64 bit computing at all. Yet, the technical documentation that I have read indicates that they are doing 32-bit x86. Wazzupwithdat? Sure, they can switch to 64-bit anytime they want, but when you consider the crud Windows has to go through to support 64-bit and 32-bit side by side, it seems like they are blowing a very good opportunity. If this is just because they can't deliver a 3 GHz laptop with x86-64 support in the immediate term, that seems lame.
You REEEEEAAALY must be out of touch. Apple has supported 2 button mice for a long time now. If you like them, just plug your favorite mouse in to your Mac whether Desktop, portable or Mac Mini.
Funny how old ideas never seem to die.
What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
anybody know a place where i can get A LOT of sleeping pills?
I lost my karma, last april fools...
spotlight indexes the entire drive upon first boot up, so subsequent adding/changing files will be very rapid, and no real-time hard drive scan needed for searching a file.
rosetta can do recompilation of existing PPC binaries to Intel x86 *as soon as* they're being installed. this will eliminate ANY overhead when loading the binary, and creates a 100% transparent experience to the user. the user never expects sub-second response when installing a new app from a CD, so the extra few seconds to do the translation will be transparent too.
Changing to x-86 is an unusual choice. I understand the failure of IBM to scale and manage heat is putting Aple in an unenviable position as far as new models, but really, I was expecting dual core G4's in the PB/IB line before G5's anyway... just because of the power issues.
But what REALLY puzzles me is 'why Intel'? AMD has been catching Intel with their pants down for the last 5-7 years. If Apple was truly interested in the best technology with the brightest future, and the best performance-per-watt, why didnt they sign the Athlon-64 or Opterons? Time after time, Athlons (32 or 64) turn in comparable performance at lower clock, time after time AMD beats Intel to the punch, and most of the time Intel delivers a rushed-to-market kludge that costs 50% more and only performs as well if you are lucky. (Yes, I know, they end up at or near parity... 6-12 mos later)
If you MUST saddle yourself with all of x-86's baggage to continue to compete (and maybe you must, though I don't completely buy the spin) - then WHY do you sign on the dotted line with the manufacturer that has been stadily losing ground to a lean, hungry competitor for a decade?. The only reason I can think of to do so is if they are going to resurrect Itanium, and god, do I hope they dont do that.
I'm definitely an OS X convert. Even so, I'm worried about this transition. I'm worried about the wisdom of it. I'm especially worried that it will prove out in the coming years that apple has again saddled itself with an aging also ran, instead of the most innovative company in the sector. I am also not yet certain that moving to x-86 will be any less painful/more helpful than pushing for the PPC-980, or letting IBM use the economies of scale generated by upcoming console launches using PPC to work on driving power and heat consumption down on the 970.
I'm also very worried that x-86 is an aging beast that MUST be replaced at some point. When that happens, apple will have yet ANOTHER migration on it's hands, and another 2-year clock for tools like Darwinports, APT and FINK to get mature again. That may not come for another decade, but the intel migration will take 2 years to complete, another 2 years to penetrate completely, leaving only 5-6 years of solid operation before we have to pack up and do it AGAIN.
Conversation between Steve and IBM: Steve: I heard that you are selling triple-core 3.2GHz PowerPC chips to Microsoft for $199. You also seem to be offering octal-core Cell chips to Sony for less than $249. I would like to get some dual-core 3.2GHz G5s for $199 please. IBM: No way Steve: Doh! Conversation between Steve and Intel: Steve: Can I get some dual-core 3.2GHz Pentium-4 chips for $199 please? Intel: Sure, we can also offer you our next-gen dual-core 65nm 4GHz Pentium-5 chips for $199 starting June 2006. We can also give you 65nm 2.66GHz Pentium-M2 chips that burn less than 15W before the end of 2006. Steve: Hmmm, maybe we should "switch"
You're talking about PORTS to OTHER ARCHITECTURES. I'm talking about x86 Windows not running on non-PC-compatible x86 hardware.
Will old 68k code still run?
:) [Including the last decent version of MS Word).
Will it happen with the 68k emulator itself being emulated.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I *do* have enough 68k software for this to be an issue
hawk
Brad Pitt or Heidi Klum? Jobs might be lots of things, but he's not an actor/model, he's a businessman with an over 20-year proven track record.
If you want to make a fair comparison, at least say it's like inventing in Martha Stewart, or Donald Trump, or Warren Buffett.
My father is a blogger.
Andrew Wiles in 1995. Very interesting, dramatic story.
Apple is adopting Intel, but is not "ditching" IBM.
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you there, bob. IBM is getting ditched to the extent that it makes economic sense for apple to do. Having designed G5s, built up the infrastructure and an entirely new architecture, it would be ludicrous for apple to drop the G5 immediately. This would be like GM switching from combustion to fuel cell cars all at once - its not gonna happen. It costs SO much more to get a chip line going than it does to make a bunch more chips. That and the fact that G5s are still popular and provide good profit margins is what will keep them around for at least a year.
Apple is basically saying "Ok guys, this was fun, but our new hardware will have intel chips", which is as close to dumping as you get in this industry. You didn't seriously expect Steve Jobs to proclaim "IBM has cooties" and run off to kiss an intel exec on the stage, did you?
Unless by "unlock" you mean "reverse-engineer non-standard support chips", there's nothing to unlock:
As for
Schiller doesn't like that:
(with no indication of whether that's legal, technical, or both).
. . . goes beyond what you say about keeping the company relevant. This transition allows Apple to boost their margin and be a more viable business (rather than just an iPod maker).
Think about it: this switch lets them take advantage of the same economies of scale their primary competitors enjoy. By cutting the cost of building a Mac, but selling the thing at about the same price as always, they pocket a significant chunk of change.
And which do you think it will take MS more effort to make it work on? They can make it work on non-standard hareware, but the hardware we are talking about isn't even available yet. At least wait until a few months after Apple starts shipping real hardware before complaining that Windows can't run on it.
I'm posting this just to help get this topic onto the list. Mod me into oblivion if you want.
Darth Vader in ep III put it most clearly.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I find it rather amusing that when Apple released the G3 to G5 they were saying how its way better then the latest Intel etc. But look at them now, they are pretty much dating the enemy.
Does this mean Apple are going to be saying that Intel are faster then PPC now???
Of course Microsoft can. That's not my point. I was talking about hacking Windows into running on an unsupported machine.
And how do you know it won't be supported? How do you know how different the hardware will be, or how hard it would be to 'hack' windows to run it if it were 'unsopported'? Developers don't even have machines yet, and even those will likely not be the same was the final product Apple ships. Wait till it's not vaporware to say it's not supported or requires any hacking.
The problem isn't necessarily gcc 4.0, but Apple's gcc 4.0. The ABI is different between PowerPC and x86. It's also a different linker and slightly different compiler. We've frequely had ICEs with the Apple gcc that didn't happen on Linux or Solaris. I suspect gcc 4 is in better shape than Apple's first gcc 3 releases on 10.2, but I wouldn't hold my breath until I can throw the templates with > 200 template arguments at it (yes, when expanded, several templates go that wild in the code).
ed
This is a huge blow to PowerPC's credibility, though. ... ... it is a small part of the revenue of a company that increasingly focuses on services
/so/ screwed!" He said "There goes PowerPC's credibility." And he's right.
By contrast, the chips I.B.M. makes for Apple represent less than 2 percent of chip production at its largest factory in East Fishkill,... And
What does this have to do with PowerPC's credibility? The parent didn't say "WOW!! IBM is
While Apple may only account for 2 percent of IBM's chip production, I can guarentee it accounts for much more than that percentage of it's PowerPC production. Apple was one of IBM's largest PowerPC consumers.
Now, IBM's Power5 and Cell processors still have a huge future, I would predict, but I wouldn't expect to see very much more to do with the PowerPC.
--
Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!
What about performance-wise? Isn't Apple that was saying all these years how PowerPC was better? Are there any benchmarks made?
The hip way to get your IP. No ads, ever.
Are you going to deploy those arguments against... Sparc users? Amiga users?
...is the day I go to live on a mountainside and herd goats.
Please, please, please (repeat ad. nauseum): no "Intel inside" soundbite at the end of Apple ads...
did anyone explain to steve before this switch that intels run hot as hell and are only getting worse... so much for Steves poster on his bedroom wall "2006 Pentium 5 powerbook, years ahead of windows portables."
Mike
I heart the RIAA & MPAA, im sure its mutual...
Why does this have to be an "all or nothing" transition. If binaries can be delivered with both x86 and PPC code and run on either processor then why doesn't Apple keep it's options open? Apple could continue to build the x86 and PPC versions and then they would have the option of delivering systems based on whatever provided the best performance.
What if IBM invent some breakthrough technology that allows them to smash the 3,4 or 5 GHZ barrier? Apple could continue with PPC as the top of their line.
Apple have been very smart in maintaining the Intel codebase - why not continue to keep the options open?
If the transition is as easy as Steve says then why not continue to support that flexibility?
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Lets review... steve had the insanely great idea to make computers easy to use and people would flock. he was right in spades. he then lost to microsoft not because of his philosophy but because of his implementation. he left and started NeXT to start over. he has been determined to take microsoft on with his philosophy and win this time.
what has he done to prep this? start with an installed user base.... welcome back to Apple then cut the extras so you can start fresh... goodbye newton and clones.. next take the os suitable to take on microsoft's offerings and apply it to that user base for testing. once the os is stable and considered the gem of the computing world take it mainstream for direct competition. this is where the intel comes in. This has been the plan since jobs left apple 20 years ago. I have to say he has some pretty good patience.
What do you do a month after launching the most successful os in apple history? Move to your next phase to take on your nemesis gates. not to go star wars or anything but he is determined to bring balance to the force.
IBM: Steve! You were supposed to be the Chosen One! You were supposed to destroy the x86, not join them! You were my brother, I loved you!
Steve: I HATE YOU!!
(Cue to PC manufacturing room, where Steve gets fitted with off-the-shelf PC components)
Steve: AltiVec, where is Altivec, is it OK?
Intel: I'm afraid that in your reality distortion field induced rage, you killed off Altivec in favor of SSE2
Steve: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
don't forget, the 64bit extention layer in the P4 is AMD's technology that Intel licensed.
Well, for PPC users the clock just started, granted its two years away before there will be an Intel platform on the market, but Macs are die-hard machines, I have several early iMacs in good use. And most of those Macs were none too cheap either, having been told by your computer company your hardware will DEFINATELY be obsolete in a few years is not a good feeling.
Though I am sure Apple isn't too worried, the faithful will poney up the bux to buy the Intel hardware and Intel-based software yet again (just like after after 9.1, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and now 10.4).
From Apples persepective they just got a boost, they have OSX still and they will be positioned to take better advantage of the open source wave (OSX on X86 will be easier to get Linux based apps on than getting PPC Linux Apps on PPC OSx.)
From my perspective, a lot of what I liked when I got going with Mac stuff is pretty much gone, there is no big family, the OS isn't as advanced as it was (say what you want about the resource/datafork file structure, but it impressed me) now it's either the 'cutting edge' or left behind, there is not much publising work being done anymore, inuitve left with OS9, and Unless you want to play DRM music and hook up your digital camera and camcorder there is little else left for the mac to do.
I saw Linux as the next 'Good Thing' a couple years back, and haven't yet looked back.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Hi all, In an effort to gauge the reaction to this and the overall feeling about having a version of OS X available for standard x86 PCs, I've setup a new website at http://www.osxforpcs.com./ There's a discussion forum and poll about this subject. Whatever your views, I'd like to capture them and have them available for general (and hopefully Apple's) viewing and comment. Thanks.
And it will abandon the entire high margin hardware based segment of their business. Which means that Apple will either become a branding company that farms out almost everything, like iPod or it will become the next Sony and will abandon computing altogether.
...to bazillions of PC owners who wouldn't mind trying it if by chance it threatens that bottomless goldmine of profit to be found in selling commodity hardware.
Brilliant. Apple gets it 100% bass-ackwards once again. People want the OS, but they hate paying 1995's pricing for last year's hardware, so apple decides that bargain basement x86 hardware in pretty plastic is more valuable than the OS.
(As a matter of fact, bazillions IS a technical term!)
Apple's gcc supports universal (fat) binaries. XCode uses gcc for compilation, but it's just a wrapper. Gcc still works fine without it.
"The Windows 'emulation' in OS/2 was never good, and you'd recognize this if you'd ever spent any time dealing with it."
I still own a licensed copy of OS/2 Warp 3 "Blue Spine". I could dig it out of my closet if I wanted to. And the Windows subsystem worked great. It ran Windows programs better then native Windows did. But you have to remember: We're talking about Windows 3.x here.
Almost all of the stuff you list came much later, in Windows 95, 98, etc.
TrueType came with Windows 98, I think. As a patch to 95 at the earliest. DirectX was never supported on Win 3.x. Themes didn't appear until Win98. I dunno what you mean by "expansions". "Fun" is subjective.
I can't argue with the ease-of-use thing. But again, consider that Win 3.x running on top of MS-DOS 5.x was the contemporary of OS/2 Warp, and things don't look nearly as bad.
OS/2 "died" as a serious alternative way before the modern Internet revolution that gave us pirate music, mainstream porn, Shockwave/Flash, and all the other crap.
Those are all facts. So I'm afraid your reasoning is bogus from the get-go. Sorry.
Now, in my opinion, OS/2 died for a lot of reasons. Microsoft's OEM lock-in, IBM's inept marketing, IBM/Microsoft legal fighting, IBM not investing sufficient effort in OS/2 to make it a viable consumer platform, bad luck... lots of factors combined. No one big thing. Again, my opinion.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I never said that. Now stop replying, you're just mis-interpreting everything I say.
Do you really think Steve does not drool over getting the chance to sell at least 50-100 million copies of OS X for Intel?
When OS X for Intel hits Best Buy do you really think that users are going to wait another 12 months for LongHorn? Aunt Sally just surfs the net and does email. This would be a perfect upgrade for her...
Your Average Joe
A for Apple (integrator, still)
I for Intel (duh, bye IBM)
M for Microsloth (Office, bye Motorola)
We hardly knew ye. So much for think different.
to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
If apple wanted to make a major change, they should of just gone with a multibutton mouse.
Long time ago part of why I used Linux was
because I hated Microsoft.
Now I couldn't care less, I'm a Linux user and
Microsoft will die as all things do.
Now I really would like to see AMD have the
same market share as Intel, Microsoft's henchmen.
Unfortunately Intel has the better mobile presence
at the moment.
At least now Apple notebooks will be faster. Who
cares about Mac OS X anyway.
I wish Apple would produce their first gaming rig with Intel. Give them real speedy Intel chips, maybe ATI or NVidia SLI, fast memory, and a Physics chip included right on the motherboard like the one from AGEIA Physics Technologies. What would also be cool is if they could do it with smaller form factor, like you see with Shuttle systems. Sounds killer doesn't it?
Motorola to Apple: da. da. da... .....later.... .....later....
Apple to Motorola: IBM set us up the bomb! FU.
IBM to Apple: We are too busy, use the left overs from xbox 2, if not Eat S***. You don't have the guts.
Apple to IBM: FU.
Intel to Apple: Our chips don't suck, Cell is just hype.
Apple to Intel: FU. Sell Cell or we go to IBM.
Motorola to Apple: Remember me?
IBM to Apple: welcome back.
and the cycle begins....
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Going by the knowlege from Evangelion that the Second Coming happens in 2015 which signals the end of the world, I think you are right. ;)
Most men are not thought unwise until they speak.
The SGI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGI_Visual_Workstatio n>Visual Workstation shows just how easy it is to produce an x86 based computer that is not really a PC. The biggest difference is that there was no BIOS, but ARCS firmware.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
I'm glad I like the taste of crow! So much for RISC > CISC battles and PPC smokes wintel! so long my beloved anti-intel vitriolic diatribes! I am trully speechless.
Ole stevo really pulled the wool over our eyes good for the past 5 years as they have been developing, side by side, a native intel port of OSX since it's beta. I never saw this one coming. Now that's it's sunk in for a few hours and I've been doing my due diligence on the technical aspects of the ole switcheroo, all may not be as hopeless as initially thought. IBM has never provided the channels with sufficient quantities of the G5, and has a development roadmap that is wrought with endless delays and technical snafus.
Why not AMD though, I wonder, they have sufficient quantities of their 64 bit chips and are faster than comparable pentium's(does Intel even have a consumer level 64 proc?) And what of the dual processing scene...will Apple still drop two or more in their machines? Rumors abound of a new pro level mac with 4+ procs....and the Pentium 4(and D) are not even dual capable(same problem with the G3 even though the chip preceding it was).
All this leads me to believe that Apple and Intel will coproduce an Apple only 64bit unit. I know that Apple's numbers are barely a drop in the Intel bucket, but 1.4 million macs last quarter alone is not small potatoes, and that's a 40% increase from the preceding year-ago quarter.
I hope my beloved company isn't dead. I've predicted their death at least 11001011 times in the last 15 years...first with the killing of the clones, then with the purchase of NeXt over Be, then with the $500 mp3 player that would never sell....etc, i hope i'm proven wrong again by the little company that could.
Hard work often pays off in time, but laziness always pays off right now.
And they continue to doom them to an unintuitive and hard to use double click because they refuse to ship a two button mouse. (3 would be better yet) Every try to teach someone how to double click? It is hard, particularly when the subject is arthritic an cannot move his joints fast. Not to mention how hard it is to click without moving the mouse a little. I know people who after years of using the mac still cannot consistently double click on an icon.
There are other things I don't like about the mac interface. However this is the only thing that is clearly a mistake. The rest is debatable.
i think the big cause of this has been lost to the slashdotters.
yes, the cpu will change. why move away from powerpc? it isn't fast enough.
why switch to intel? well, didn't intel just adopt a plan to integrate drm into the hardware? isn't everyone betting on apple's move towards an itunes for movies? doesn't apple need hollywood to jump onboard before it can license out movies? isn't hollywood concerned about their movies being pirated?
the normal individual does not think powerpc when they hear the word apple. they think ipod! jobs' business decisions are based on where apple is booming, and that's the ipod and all the simplistic mindset attached to it.
with intel and its drm, he's turning his computers into fancy ipods. the widescreen imacs already look like them, and the mini is designed to sit in an entertainment system. though the move away from powerpc is necessary to growth, it may very well have been intels willingness to integrate drm (jobs' natural next step) that cemented the choice.
when you want something that costs money, the person who makes it will want to make sure you pay for it. the bottom line is, hollywood won't let their movies our until they're guaranteed protection, and that means drm. jobs' is offering them protection from the ground up, just as he did with the ipod.
apple users will become DRM's biggest apologists.
Can we please keep it going so that this will be a top-ten thread?
Currently it's 80% politics and religion...
That is assuming that both designs have equal resources pouring into them. In other words, that all variables save design are controled.
Unfortunately, in the real-world, might is right, and more money, R&D specifically, is poured into the x86 architecture.
Another way of looking at this is to say that if I use a clean architecture from today and compare it to an 8086 from the early 80s then the clean architecture would destroy the 86, because it has had a lot more money and man-hours invested in it.
Besides, Intel processors basically are clean, save the ugly emulation functions they preform to maintain reverse compatibility.
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
So what is the record for the most posts to a Slashdot Article? This is the most replies I recall seeing.
Does this mean I can expect VMWare to support OSX ?
...How can anybody worry about Apple's hardware sales?
Hardware is commodity future landfill fodder with razor thin, death spiral profit margins. Apple has an OS that people actually want and are willing to pay for, and the ridiculously overpriced, underpowered hardware is what blocks people with a sensible distaste for being ripped off from actually buying it. The answer is so obvious that even an MBA could get it right--
--Yet Apple's solution isn't to start selling OS X to the masses on a 13 cent CD or 0.13 cent download, but to protect a margin which was built on suckers who don't understand economies of scale.
[Ducks]
They aren't... I've calculated the advantages by hand using real-life data... I'm not going to say I enjoyed it, but it was definately enlightening.
Research is typically worth the effort. BSD, for example, has been worked on for decades. What it takes is a company like Apple to really put it out there in the global consciousness.
You never know when that crazy idea will be on every computer in the world next. Engelbart was mocked in the 60s, but he was just REALLY ahead of his time.
Can you tell I'm an academic looking for grant money?
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
Steve Jobs just jumped the shark.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
So will the switch allow me to play my PC games without emulation on a Mac?
All the windozers will now have the potentially soon to end experience of a computer without virii or virii detectors. When the masses all use OS X, it will become the target for the hackxorckers. I still want reliable hardware. Intel is good, but the other cloners that unite into such units as eMachines are total crap. My macs all run well. They have been running well for many years. I always wanted to pay less for a computer, but I haven't had to repair the machines at all.
It seems two years ago that Steve gave IBM an ultimatum: innovate or die. Apple can play the PR game only for so long before the Market (not you or I) determines that the $1 bill is in US currency, not Canadian. Virginia Tech just assembled the Terascale (was fifth ranked) using Xservers; Xservers will probably remain IBM PPCs and be an inducement for IBM to innovate.
Take a second look at Steve's announcement; he explicitly said by 2007 there will be INTEL Macintoshes (any sterling developer can rent one today for $999) but never said the IBM PPC was dead.
Then again, boneheaded me, just what does TRANSITION mean?
Yes, OSX users have lost something, but they've also gained something in return: a moderately faster platform. Linux/PPC users have lost much more.. a comodity platform with comparable performance to the mainstream. And, quite frankly, my experience is that Linux flies on PPC, in some ways faster than on x86.
Can anyone tell me where you can find a PPC-based worstation, besides Apple? preferably PPC970, not power4? Call me crazy, I doubt anyone will really make PPC machines anymor outside of IBM, no matter how much they try and "open up" the architecture.
- --
"I Hate Quotes" -- Samuel L. Clemens
See here. The quote from the Intel Universal Binary documentation says this: "Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors do not use Open Firmware. Although many parts of the IO registry are present and work as expected, information that is provided by Open Firmware on a Macintosh using a PowerPC microprocessor (such as a complete device tree) is not available in the IO registry on a Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor. You can obtain some of the information from IODeviceTree by using the sysctlbyname or sysctl commands." What will they be using then? Something bundled in with Intel's (already announced) DRM technology? I don't know about you, but that's a scary thought and enough to keep me away from this new venture.
I don't think so. Like Schiller said - OSX will not run on anything but an Apple box (presumably with OpenFirmware or some other such measure on the motherboard.
While in theory OSX will now run under VMWare I do not believe that will ever be the case.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
MS has openly declared war on the Intel/AMD people anyway... to MS the PC is "expendable" they're just trying to find a way to let us down easy... I'd expect a Business branded "XBox" out real soon now that's the perfect office "PC"... and it will be just like what Longhorn was supposed to be. MS has already choosen not to bring intel along. They want the whole pie. MS has also burned bridges with intel choosing PPC over x86 for xbox 360... that's a lot of units lost intel needs to make up.
They can cut Apple a sweet deal because the product will be mostly the same... it's not like their big customer Dell can go anywhere else... MS has them buy the ballz. I personally expect apple to start getting the good stuff first because they'll be able to show it off. I'd also expect the Apple hardware to to 25% better accross the board because they've had 5 years to plot this coup.. and they'll be getting to use all the features intel wishes everybody would use!!! Look at the intel demos... they're begging for somebody like apple to do something cool!
If the Sun's Opteron machines have OBP/Open Firmware, maybe you could run OS X Intel over them. Maybe a licence agreement will be all that would be needed. The key difference bettween (sp?) PC's and Apple X86 will be the firmware, BIOS vs. Open Boot/Open Firmware.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
I just bought an iMac. I thought I had rationally considered all the options. I guess it serves me right for going proprietary. Hell, for all the new software that will be coming out on Mac PPC now I might as well be running Debian stable. Except even Debian stable upgrades eventually.
I'm never buying Intel. Not after what they did to Randal Schwartz.
Fuck Steve Jobs. And fuck RMS for being right, yet again. You can't trust software hoarders.
Here's hoping there's a usable Japanese Input Method for Linux 3 years from now, when I buy my next computer. Or else I might end up buying Windows.
fish and pipes
Yes, apparently.
..that Apple are going with Intel.
As this news is starting to sink into me better over the last 12 hours I realise this a step backwards for Apple technologically.
Sure they will get faster clock speeds with Intel in the short-term than IBM are currently able to produce but the x86 architecture is a kludge full of nasty hacks to get Windows to run better. It is not a modern quality architecture like the PowerPC is; x86 is something that just runs Windows pretty well.
Jobss has made a bold announcement today, but I wonder if he is actually going to regret it. If something like the Cell (a Power derivative) takes off and challenges the current status quo in PCs then Apple have lumbered themselves with a backward looking, under-powered and very dated architecture designed for Windows.
Now (hopefully), mac users will been able to use all the same cards as pc users.
The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
Intel already lost this much business from MS anyway loosing the next xb.. it's not really that much production and they can always call it a "bad decision". In the grand scheme of things this is just a little spat.
Realize this is only happening now because MS is trying to play "competitor" with intel... It's funny how they fixed the game with AMD until intel caught up because AMD pushed linux. XBox is going for intel's turf... personally I'd expect to see MS have an exclusive agreement RSN with Dell for a rebranded "office" xbox that's the perfect machine.. and based on PPC chips! They already bought the VM company. The writing is on the wall. The only thing intel can do now is save the PC market by attacking MS openly while they're still to valuable to loose... after all AMD isn't going to come running to SAVE MS will they?
The I in IDE stood for "integrated" as in the electronics to control the drive were no longer on the ISA adapter card. 20 years ago IBM comatibles didn't have this.
Just because Apple is switching to Intel, does that mean that the chips will be the same ones in PCs? Aren't P4s a RISC core with CISC instructions built on top? If so, couldn't Apple be going to Intel because IBM can't sustain production. Could Apple use a variant of the Itanium 2 chip? Plus that would keep windows users from purchasing OSX and running it on their Dells.
[insert lame joke here]
Apple needs to take an "enemy-of-my-enemy" approach with OSS. They need to help get Linux fans off the MS teet. They've got to get quicktime and itunes over to linux... even if they simply change it to work in WINE it would help lots of people get off windows.. They're not going to get sales from linux users anyway.. but now's the time to pull everybody else together to show the world there are many more options than just MS.
Frankly, MS has already declared war on the PC.. they did that with XBOX....their intentions are clear. They want the whole pie [phone, pda, workstations, servers, media outlets, etc] Apple holds the last best hope for keeping open systems alive. If apple puts a "face" on openness then the geeks may not buy into it and keep hacking P3s but we can happily tell grandma to get the apple because all the cool stuff we like can be there too.
They probably mean without significant speed decrease from the version that runs on Photoshop CS2 on Windows XP on the same x86 processor.
My other first post is car post.
But it will be "Insanely Great!" sugar water.
Sorry that OOo is so dependent on the processor it's running on. That is a shame.
Use Java (I thought OOo uses Java?!), use Ant to build, and you would not have any of these problems. If you are trying to convince me that "glue code written in assembler" is a good solution, forget about it. I can smell this from here...
I don't mean in any way to bash OOo or its developers - It is a beautiful application that I find it way more usable than MS's competing product and I love to use it. But from a developer's perspective, there just are no excuses for bad code - only explanations. OOo is a project with a very long history so that will explain pretty much all of the hackish things that are in there.
Game companies have much easier compiles for OpenGL games.
But for the love of god why x86? Why not switch to ARM processors, or let Intel build PPCs?
...is a Cell based Apple rig which would do all you describe and a lot more.
Apple's new relationship with Intel may well turn out to be Jobs's biggest miscalculation ever. If Cell takes off in any way beyond the PS3 then Apple are screwed into an ancient backwards chip.
I don't know if Apple did any internal tests with Cell but it seemed the natural way for Apple to go.
Trying to take on Microsoft on their own platform could well turn out to be doomed on all fronts.
x86 is old now and dying. Intel and AMD only keep shitting out vast quantities because currently that is what the desktop market still wants. There may well come a time in the future when a new architecture like Cell or similar Power family chip changes everything. When that happens Apple will be up shit creek without a paddle.
I don't know about you, but I think that's enough time to think things out.
:)
No, I think that no matter how much purists worship the PPC architecture: Apple will come out on top of this.
Exciting times.
The problem isn't the compiler, it's the build system. All the talk has been of how easy it is to use XCode and how Metrowerks folk (a non-trivial amount of devs) should move to XCode. XCode is not the answer, and for many Unix/Linux derived products may not even be feasible.
Support for delivery on two simultaneous architectures can get quite tricky for projects like OOo. OOo uses its own libraries in a "bootstrapping" process with a fair number of tools built from its own libraries that are used to perform resource compilation, custom makefile languages, check XML validity, etc. as part of the build. It is its own intricate build system that is difficult to replicate with tens of thousands of lines of makefiles. There's no thought given in this process to cross-compilation, and the build system is quite complex and will take some time to figure out.
This "miraculous" 2 hour port that Jobs has convinced all of the users will be possible just isn't. It's sad that the RDF is now being used to unduly pressure developers by stating "half-truths" about how easy this transition will be.
While I'm assuming that the fat binary format will *hopefully* be easy to figure out (like a Mactel subdirectory in the bundle), getting other build systems to build multiple architectures is not necessarily an easy task. If it's dependent on other XCode build procedure specifics it'll just be worse.
ed
Instead of "It's the hardware stupid"
"It's the OS stupid, and that's next to go!!
I haven't seen this mentioned:
Another great thing about MacIntel is that Apple can't be shut out of any kind of monoploy on DRM that Windows may have enjoyed as it relates to Intel's serialization dealie.
"The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
Using large datasets stress test both the computational ability of the hardware "and" the i/o abilities of the underlying OS not to mention memory management.
Is it not possible that a different OS might provide different performance? Maybe windows really does suck bad.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors do not use Open Firmware. Although many parts of the IO registry are present and work as expected, information that is provided by Open Firmware on a Macintosh using a PowerPC microprocessor (such as a complete device tree) is not available in the IO registry on a Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor.
-Mike
Schrödinger's cat is not amused—maybe.
These are the result of decisions made over a decade ago. OOo is now a 8 million line plus C++ application. It's very difficult, if not impossible to move to another language without a rewrite. Moving it to Java is a highly nontrivial task.
ed
...so windows probably won't install out of the box...
Who cares about that? MS will sell you Virtual PC and you'll be able to install any flavor of Windows and all your software that runs under it. This works pretty well now with the PPC which has to emulate the x86 chip. With an x86 Mac emulation will not be needed.
All theory is gray
I found this intersting quote at http://forums.sudhian.com/messageview.cfm?catid=18 &threadid=78260
"Also on Monday, Jobs said the next version of OS X, called Leopard, will be released in late 2006 or early 2007, which he said was the same timeframe as Microsoft's next Windows update, dubbed Longhorn. Microsoft has said Longhorn will be released by late 2006. 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."
Basically, at this point, I am really confused. Agreed, this guy is a marketing chump... but what is he suggesting? What does this suggest about BIOS/Open Firmware Issues?
In the end, if OS X is available for non Apple hardware, I will be completely floored.
it's on page 47 of the pdf:
Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors do not use Open Firmware. Although many parts of the IO registry are present and work as expected, information that is provided by Open Firmware on a Macintosh using a PowerPC microprocessor (such as a complete device tree) is not available in the IO registry on a Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor. You can obtain some of the information from IODeviceTree by using the sysctlbyname or sysctl commands.
Well, Apple had the by far best, fastest, and generally more advanced chips from IBM before - on paper. Maybe this time around they are interested in actual, shipping parts?!
Intel certainly is years ahead in terms of actual shipping mobile processors and they show no sign of letting up (dual core, 64 bit next year!).
Also, keep in mind that once Apple is fully switched to Intel, they can switch to AMD in a moment's notice, or use both if they so desire.
In fact, ideally, Apple would keep around the dual-processor strategy so if IBM suddenly pulls its head from its proverbial a... they could take advantage of it, too. Even that's not likely as a strategy, it will remain an option at least for the next 2 years!
The idea was that Motorola would produce cheap PowerPC chips for low end computers, while IBM would continue to create fast POWER chips for their big servers.
Motorola dropped the ball, so Apple switched to IBM for their CPUs. But while you can use a server CPU in a desktop machine, the power consumption is too high for a laptop.
IBM isn't really interested in laptops (or desktops for the matter, they just sold their entire PC division). I suspect the estimnated sales numbers for Apple laptops are too small to warrant the development cost alone (unlike the sale numbers for game consoles).
....chose Windows for the games, the greater selection of applications and the so called compatibility...
MS will sell you Virtual PC along with their Windows and you run it on the new x86 Macs without the present PPC emulation speed penalty. The die hard Windows fans can still enjoy the spyware and other crapware if they wish.
All theory is gray
Not sure where that guy is coming from - I've never heard anyone call a mac slow. Not once.
And I can't stand the MacOS UI either. OSX looks pretty, but it's no different then any of the other MacOS's. I don't like the dancing menu bar at the top, I don't like the way the windows work, I don't like the way you launch apps, the file manager...
I respect the system, but I can't use it.
Say what you will about Windows XP, but the interface is not the problem with the OS. It's easy to navigate and use. Microsoft pays people big bucks on UI design. It's certainly not perfect but it works.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
A release of a series of "RISC-PC's" powered by PPC processors...
You have just released two small servers... when will we see desktop systems and laptops ??
with no indication of whether that's legal, technical, or both
Most likely both. The legal bit is a given - it's been true of Mac OS for years - maybe even a decade. It is a violation of the EULA to run Mac OS on anything other than an Apple Mac.
They'll undoubtedly put some technical stumbling blocks in the way too. And they'll aggressively pursue any open source efforts to circumvent their EULA restrictions - don't put it past Apple to invoke the DMCA here. Expect a lot of nascent "Mac on Intel" sourceforge projects to experience court ordered takedowns.
Even if some fringe project succeeds there won't be many stock intel boxes running Mac OS X - if the people building and/or selling them become too visible they'll become targets for police raids and lawsuits.
Well, even if Intel has x86-64 processors, Apple seems intent on using conventional x86, and it would be much, much easier for all parties if Apple on Intel was x86-64 only. If they do 32-bit x86 for now, when they eventually go x86-64, their Intel offerings will then need to deal with PowerPC, x86, and x86-64 binaries.
FX!32 was the translator interface for Windows NT on Alpha, so it could run x86 binaries. It worked exceedingly well.
It was probably the best "real-time" translator I've ever seen. The more you ran an application, the better FX!32 would get at running the application. After enough sessions and background processing of the data, apps ran damned near native speeds. And the compatibility was outstanding - there were no "sandbox" type limits.
This Rosetta sounds like it will be a similar tool to that. It makes sense.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
The issue was never OpenGL itself. The issue is that Windows game developers use DirectX and that API still will not be available on the Mac, even when it runs on an x86 platform.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
I'm going to need you to never refer to Macintosh computers by the abbv MAC again. You need to use Mac You're just confusing everyone.
But it has Altivec... Even better, it has double the Altivec! It can't be true...
LOL, Mac zealots are very funny when they're not bloody annoying.
xcode looks cool, certainly, but it appears that it is still using conventional compilation (it uses GCC). Sure, you can probably simply recompile your application for each processor. But that's not quite transparent.
A consumer might very well have two Apple machines with different cpu's and expect to be able to move programs freely between them, but they're not going to be able to recompile. Linux people get used to this sort of thing, but the average computer user isnt going to find that exceptable..
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
This is a somewhat emotional and sad event for me. Maybe lots have people have said in various ways that it would happen, but now it's here. It's kind of like my favorite candidate dropping out of the race after losing one too many primaries and "seeing the writing on the wall" to fold in with the big guy. But, but, the other way was Better! This injures my sense of wanting things to be done the best possible way. The most efficient. The nicest. The easiest. Cheaper. Faster. Cooler. But, alas, all that has now been thrown aside to economic expediency. The overwhelming weight of the mediocre has won again.
Start Running Better Polls
If you're JoeUser and you just spent $3000 on a new Mac, only to have a minor revision of the OS sell for $140 but your buddy has a cracked version for free..
Windows got where it is today because of pirating, among other things. While Microsoft made a killing from pre-installs, Windows 95 was installed on almost every existing computer that could run it and hardly anyone paid to do so. Microsoft got market share because of pirating - if they locked down on copying Windows 95 like they do on Windows XP, it would have taken far longer for people to make the switch.
The same could happen with MacOS. If I get a cracked version of MacOS, none of my money goes to Apple. However, I'm using MacOS now, and Apple increased their market share. Which means more applications, which means more Macs get sold, which means more people DO pay for MacOS.
Of course, who knows what lie ahead.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
This won't happen anytime in the near future for one simple reason. As soon as MS sees any indication that Apple is competing with them directly in that manner, OS X Office is as dead as a doornail.
This is why you should have stuck with CORBA for your object infrastructure. Real-world performance tests with ORBit versus COM shows two things:
/only/ when the COM object exposes a single interface.
/faster/ than COM when COM objects must rely on aggregation for code re-use, because there is less internal indirection involved.
1) COM is faster than CORBA objects
2) ORBit and COM are equivalent in speed when the COM object exposes multiple interfaces, which will almost always happen in real-world code anyway (look at OLE or Bonobo, and tell me interface composition never happens there. In fact, Bonobo is an abomination because it's layering a component model on top of an already capable component model! What a waste. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this discussion, it proves my point).
3) ORBit will sometimes even be
Since UNO is an independent interpretation of COM, it follows that the problems with COM would also apply to UNO.
So, do us all a favor, and stick to open industry standards, please. CORBA is not slow. CORBA is not a memory hog like many believe it to be (fully decked out, COM is just as bad). CORBA IDL compilers already exist, lessening the load on your developers. CORBA-compliant software does not depend on processor, operating system, or ABI dependencies. It is already a language-centric binding.
After the initial shock & awe, a few brewskys later and a cooler head, the "cataclismic" event that really happened to Apple a few years back and was just announced today is of little consequence.
Really !
By the time the "transitioning" is over, we'll have passed the Hubbert oil peak for sure and having the very latest in high speed portable computing will not matter anymore to most of us, since we will be more preoccupied with finding enough rats and stray dogs to eat and survive one more miserable day.
So relax, play some good vibes on your iPod, download some of the good OSS software around and enjoy. Heck, if you've a few extra bucks, indulge yourself and buy the best and biggest PPC Mac you've been craving. After we go over the edge, it all won't matter anymore...
Apple switched to Intel ...
... or something.
Debian finally releases Sarge.
It would have been a perfect day if Duke Nukem' Forever was also launched today
Like you, I also have difficulty hitting two buttons at the same time when using a computer. I could never survive without having that right mouse button on my laptop.
.
Yes, my tongue is firmly placed in my cheek.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1824229,00.as p
It concntrates on the Darwin OS core of Mac OS X's suport for architectures other than PPC.
Notable quotes are:
Just because you can read Darwin on a PC, though, doesn't mean that you can run Mac OS on your x86 box. Mac OS includes many layers of proprietary software such as Cocoa, Quartz 2D, QuickTime and OpenGL graphics. You can forget about downloading Gnu-Darwin or OpenDarwin and start running Mac OS X or most OS X applications on an x86 system. You simply can't do it.
and...
Of course, if Apple elects to only ship its operating system with its own branded hardware, it will avoid this problem. On the other hand, most of the push for Mac OS on Intel historically has come from users who wanted to use the operating system on commodity-priced x86 hardware.
Incidentally, Apple's own download of it's open source (APSL - Apple Public Source Licence) darwin code is available here for x86...
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
You will need to join the Apple developer network to get at this link though.
Let's just say that it is all a step in the right direction. Whether Apple sticks with proprietary hardware or moves on to a more open hardware and becomes more of a software company remains to be seen. At the moment it is only going to be available on a specific Apple supplied hardware bundle, as per the keynote which says the OS X for Intel preview will be supplied with an Intel 3.6GHz machine.
In the long term though, the model of the software only company has been a fairly proven business model in Microsoft as compared to almost any hardware vendor you can care to name. Arguments about the XBox not withstanding.
Those that are mad keen could always join the Apple developer network, hack the preview OS X to work with non-standard hardware sets and see what happens. Another alternative for the mad keen is Pear PC, a PPC emulator, found here:
http://www.windowsdevcenter.com/pub/a/windows/2005 /01/18/PearPC.html
Enjoy!
Of course it will, 1,000,000 script kiddies hacking away on 1,000,000 beige boxes, how long before one hacks it? Perhaps as long as 1,000,000 monkeys writing hamlet, but it will happen. All those people focused on cracking windowzz, gamezzz, and programzzz will fight tooth and nail to get it up running first - what better way to give the mac users the middle finger.
Dual-booting windows and Os X, I never thought I'd see the day.
All the facts to date point to the Intel chips that will be used in Macs to be stock Pentium chips. No-one on stage mentioned Intel and Apple developing custom silicon. I hope to hell they ARE developing custom screens though, otherwise I don't know where this gets us"
1. PPC to Pentium we loose the "Velocity Engine". Intel's SSE sucks and the Altivec cores in the G4 and G5 processors are what made them scream for multimedia.
2. PPC to Pentium does nothing to lower the cost of the system. Apple won't make more margin and consumer's won't pay less.
3. PPC to Pentium does nothing to lower the heat output of the system.
4. Pentium CPUs are incapable of SMP (at least the stock ones). That means no more dual processor systems, and I know from experience that dual procs are the shit for high load tasks.
5. Pentium 64 is a brand new and unproven technology. Intel's history with creating and producing 64bit chips is dismal (Itanium anyone?)
6. 10 vs 70 "performance units per watt". What the hell is a "performance unit"?? The amount of heat generated per watt of input power?
It's VERY telling to me that during the keynote we saw a demo of Mathmatica running on Intel based Macs but we DIDN'T see a head-to-head comparison of that same code base between the Intel and PPC based systems.
I'm hoping that the P4 3.6 developer systems are simply testbeds for people to get their code ported and tested while the real silicon for the Apple systems is produced.
If the chip is not going to be custom, then why spend the $$ for Macintosh over Windows? Apple will have zero speed advantage, zero cost advantage, and if Microsoft gets things even close to right this time, zero virus/security advantage. I'm all for style, but not when it lacks substance.
People say that moving to x86 gives Apple the ability to leverage Intel against AMD. Big deal, that didn't help at all when Apple had Motorola and IBM to battle leverage against each other. We just wound up with both of them being laggards.
I just don't see how this is is a positive step in any way. Sure IBM made Steve look like a shmuck by not delivering on the 3Ghz promise. NOTHING said in the keynote today made any sense to me, whatsoever.
My next Mac will be whatever the last PPC based PoweMac will be. I think it will be a LONG time after that before I purchase another Mac.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
I for one welcome our capitalist /. overlords.
ed
It depends what you are doing. The big thing that would worry me is Audio/Video/Graphics. My 3Ghz PC at work nearly dies trying to move 1 min. video clips around, while my 1Ghz Mac chomps through video like it's butter.
If all that is just software, then fine by me. I was always left with the impression that some of that responsiveness was the architecture, but maybe that was all just Apple Marketing smoke/mirrors.
ed
Most likely As Seen On TV is a karma whore who happens to have enough insight into Mac engineering to post insightful comments and enough time to read articles all day and post useful tidbits. Read through the comments, though, and see how many were randomly non-Apple on things like BG. It is doubtful this account is a shill for Apple and is more likely just a karma whore taking advantage of the fag apple fanboi moderators.
Easy for you to say. You don't have to convince management to spend money to do it for a loss leading platform when compared with your Windows sales figures. Switching endian is much more complex than it sounds.
When I double-click ShufflePuck Cafe, my x86 based OS X Mac will emulate the a PPC based OS X Mac emulating OS 9 emulating a 68K based Mac.
Or will it?
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Lots of comments are suggesting that IBM doesn't really care, as Apple is a small customer anyways etc. The more I think about it, the more I believe it will actually hurt IBM quite badly.
While the number of Apple processors might not have been considerable, the PPC Macs were an extremely important enabler: All those geeks getting Apple hardware and porting GNU/Linux or whatever favourite free software they have, made PPC the best supported plattform besides x86. For most, Apple was an affordable entry into the PPC world.
Now this is gone. Neither the various game consoles nor IBM's servers will draw even remotely that much attention to PowerPC.
Until now, I believed PowerPC to be the only one of the "big" architectures to prevail besides x86/x64 and ia64, in the mid-term future. (Embedded is a different story.) Now I doubt it quite a lot.
All my comments get moderated +-0, spotless.
Well, that ends it, then. No more reason to save up for a Mac, as it will be the same as my PC.
It's a sad day.
PS: No, I don't care what's preinstalled before I install my OS of choice.
Nope.
"Newly examined Scripture fragment lends credence to argument it's 616"
Well if we are going to spli hairs then it's not conclusive proof, just credence to an argument. In any event it doesn't matter, 666 is embedded in public consciousness as the number of the beast, therefore for all purposes it is, so the effect the op described is the same.
Christmas wasn't really on 25th December either but it's still Christmas on the 25th of December (if you celebrate it in one form or another or acknowledge it)
I got the hunch that Altivec had extra stuff than SSE2/3 based on the universal binary document from Apple which details the changes required to port Altivec code to SSE2/3 code. When reading that section, I couldn't help thinking "I bet that Apple knows everything about SSE4".
Maybe that is just the same wishful thinking that had me thinking yesterday that maybe Intel was going to make a version of the Pentium M that understood the PPC ISA:)
I don't really care what's inside my Mac. I just wish I had a working one. Damn iBook going and dropping dead on me.
Yes, I'm mostly posting to try and get the post count above the 2,700-odd needed to get into the hall of fame. Although I doubt anyone will be reading (or moderating) comments at the end of 2,500 others.
10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
20 GOTO 10
Baby mod it up, mod it up, baby mod it up.
I added a chapter track to the keynote movie so you can skip the filler bits more easily:
WWDC keynote in chunks
Sorry, zapped an edit. I meant to write "in February", not "in public".
.. however, the following was a relief:
"News Xcode generates a single "universal binary" that supports both processors. Available to everybody at registration desk following the keynote. [10:37 am]"
They are reintroducing fat binaries folks. So software that gets released after the Intel Mac is out will still run on PPC Mac.
I dont think USA lawyers will even get
a visa to get to russia
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Just buy it anyway. It'll be at least a year until Apple introduces their x86 boxes. Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) will be released in a year and that will run on your PPC laptop. Apple has said they're going to be shifting to a 18 month release schedule so if you bought your PB today it'll be at least three years that you'll be supported with the latest version of the OS. And that's just the bare minimum...
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
This Rosetta I read about sounds like a potentially very useful binary translation library. It allows OS X applications built for a PPC Macintosh to run on an x86 Macintosh. Since OS X is a descendent of FreeBSD, could this possibly mean that those same apps might be interoperable on an x86 FreeBSD box?
Extending the hypothetical even further, in recognition of the BSD community's contribution, should Rosetta perhaps be open-sourced?
Halo, IMHO, was a bit of a special case though. Mac users were promised Halo somewhere around 1999/2000. We saw it run on a G3 with a POS Rage 128 at MacWorld. We could taste it. Then Bungie, with no warning, dumps Mac users with no warning and sells out to XBox. It's like your Wife suddenly leaving you to sleep with the entire starting defense line of [insert favorite NFL team here]. Finally a couple years later she comes back to you; of course you're going to slap her around a little.
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
I wouldn't be surprised if Intel requires that in all commercials of its clients.
The strange thing is, soon no one will care or know why it's there.
Use iScroll2 which adds two-fingered scrolling of the new PowerBooks to older PowerBooks.
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
Somebody want to create the project ahead of the game? I mean, how long do you think it'll take before someone figures out how to make MacOS X run on a Dell box? I guess maybe the Pentium D might prevent that, but I'd give the Nanocrew about 72 hours to solve that one, too. Bill
Sorry for the AC but I don't remember my password.
//e, //gs, ///, Lisa, and every single Mac since 1983 (yes, that date is correct). I've written or been part of the team on over 700 applications (not all, or even most, on Apple hardware, unfortunately). OSes I've used include CP/V, CP/M, DOS 3.3, ProDos, Apple SOS, Mac System 0.9 through OS X 10.4.2, MPE, VMS, PICK, Windows 1.0 to XP, Linux, HP/UX, MPE, VMS. Processors include 8080, Z80, 8088, 8086, 286, 386, 486, Pentium "x", 6502, 68000, 68020, 30, 40, PPC 601, 603, 604, G3, G4, G5, PDP-11, VAX, Alpha, HP3000, HP PA-RISC. I've used more programming languages than I can count. I've found good things and bad in all of the above. I've discussed educational software with Woz, shared an interest in flying with Raskin, cringed at Jobs' ego and tantrums, and fixed a problem with the Mac IIfx sitting on Gil Amelio's desk. I've been to Xerox PARC and used an Alto, then years later had dinner with the folks in Austin who saved Apple during the last processor switch, Metrowerks, and I've worked with smaller but equally dedicated (and ignored) Mac-centric compiler writers such as Staz Software. I was one of those who fought for the survival of Carbon, not wanting the Nextoids to win and have the Mac be Cocoa-only. Like I said, I bleed seven colors, but the RDF has never particularly affected me.
.38 revolver, and six rounds of ammunition. Eleven months, 17 days, and 10 hours ago, I lost my wife and daughter. I suspect that in a few more days, there will only be five rounds of ammunition. Yet for some reason I sit here all night reading crap on Slashdot from people who can't be bothered to even read the Apple press releases, or watch the keynote, who ask ignorant questions, or gloat or moan over Jobs' latest stupid or brilliant move.
I bleed seven colors. I've been an Apple programmer and fanatic since 1978. I've owned/used/coded for Apple ][, ][+,
One year ago today, I was finally in "IT management" at a stable (read - non-software) company, and was happy and content in my 5-bedroom house with computer room, library, and pool, on 1/2 acre. I had a new PowerMac G5 Dual, a PowerBook, and a 'retired' beige G3 doing nothing but running SETI@Home. My wife had a clamshell iBook and an iMac, and my beautiful 14-year-old daughter, looking forward to starting high school, had a new iBook G3 she'd gotten for her birthday - but of course she was already wanting an iPod for Christmas, and looking at a Jeep for her NEXT birthday. I was thinking about a new BMW for myself.
Today I sit in a rented dump, unemployed, everything gone, my only possessions some photographs, an air mattress, a closet full of clothes, my daughter's iBook, a couple of bottles of rum, several packs of ramen noodles, a
Let me give you one piece of advice. It doesn't matter. Look around you in the "real world". Look at your family, your friends. Give them a hug. Tell them that you love them. THAT matters. Goodnight.
I keep seeing comments about how x86 hoses Altivec and things need to be rewritten for SSE (or not, according to benchmarks).
What is it about the difference(s) between PPC and x86 that precludes the possibility of AltiVec, or a proper byte-endian version thereof, from being implemented on x86 in a similar fashion to how it currently exists on PPC?
The Joy of tech puts our reaction so well.
6 93.html
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Haven't seen much discussion (not that I've read all zillion comments- just the ones modded up) regarding pricing. Some people seem to assume that the Intel Macs will be cheaper. Apple has always had a greater profit margin per box than Wintel mfgrs. They'll want to maintain that, but it will be hard to justify. I can easily see someone saying "But I can buy a computer with the same chip from Dell for $1000 less...". I guess Steve is betting that Apple's proprietary chipset (you know there'll be one, lest every geek load Mac OS X onto a cheap Dell box) and Mac OS X will allow them to charge a premium price. I'm not so sure myself. /K
(Well, ex-mathematician anyway.)
And let me guess how you eventually swayed from The Way Of Pythogoras and Euler --- too much time wasted on promoting a system which does not deserve the least of humand kind's efforts.
Let Apple die. When it dies, mathematicians will go back to solving open problems, and the wise men of the world will focus their efforts on ridding the world of stupidity.
Whenever I have that same discussion many of us have had with a PC user, about the advantages Mac OS has over Windows XP, the main stumbling block in convincing them to at least try the Mac, before they dismiss it as something only photographers and musicians use, are issues of chip speed, availability of software titles and cost, we all know that. Intel make more chips for more customers than IBM and they run them cooler and with faster clock speeds and, because of their widespread use, they don't cost as much. They have a game plan for adhering to Moore's law far more advanced than that of IBM's and although the x86 architecture has an inferior floating point calculator to the PPC it is already supportive of all the major environments and, it now transpires, even Mac OS X was built to run on it from the ground up, albeit in secret for the first 5 years of it's development - which I think is a real stroke of genius and cunning on Apple's part. It goes to show how powerful Mac OS has been designed to be, from day one. Software developers who have never considered, or have simply not had the resources or customer interest in porting their applications to a 'minority platform' before, have no more excuses. They can actually compile their existing x86 code as a Mac OS binary at the same time as those for Windows. Because this means they can ship the same installer CD-ROM / DVD-ROM for both platforms, the cost of shipping Apple software will go down, the availability of Apple software will go up and the visibility in the high street of the Apple / Mac brands will sky rocket beyond anything even the iPod could have achieved. The more you think about the advantages this will bring to the Mac, who's followers have long waited for the chance to show, on a level playing field, what Mac OS can really do, the more you realise it may be the most important, in a series of very big steps, that Apple have taken towards their long term dream of actually dominating the home computer market, rather than simply leading it in terms of innovation, reliability and security. On that point, let's face it, ease of use, security and availability of software mean everything to "the man in the street", who just wants to play games, surf the internet and send the odd e-mail without having to re-install his entire OS and / or spend a week's wages on the phone to someone in India just because he "accidentally" downloaded some porn. Because Mac brings him that security, stability and ease of use, now with cheeper hardware and greater software availability, it's finally realistic to actually say as much out loud, without being made to feel like a dreamer by those who think Intel is just another word for Windows, that within the next 3 to 4 years Mac may well be dominant over Windows in the home computer market. If I was a Windows man, I'd be hoping Longhorn comes with a years free holiday in the Bahamas right now, because it's doubtful any of its features Microsoft have stolen from.. sorry "developed in partnership with" other people are anywhere near as stable as those which, it turns out, have been running on MacTel for the past 5 years! -- Team America, world police is the funniest film ever made.
http://electricguitarlessons.blogspot.com
I guess just about anything can happen now that Intel and Apple are shacking up. My predictions on the years to come are as follows:
1. The planet Uranus will be renamed Urectum (per Futurama)
2. Concrete will be made from a mixture of water and shit instead of water and stone.
3. Hilary Clinton will become the next U.S. President *shudders*
4. The Earth will turn black
5. The beast will turn pale
6. The seas will turn red
7. The air will turn to poison (is this sounding at all familiar?)
8. Martin Lawrence will be given another sitcom
9. Rosanne will be considered the sexiest woman alive
10. I will get laid
11. Someone will come out with a good-tasting, low-calorie, caffinee free soda
12. Speaking of which, Diet Dr. Pepper will ACTUALLY taste like regular Dr. Pepper.
13. We will find out that light bulbs are, in fact, "dark-suckers" as per the old Internet gag article
14. Canada will become the 51st state
15. They will stop making light beer (FUCK YOU LIGHT BEER)
16. Bill Gates will come out of the closet
17. I'm just going to stop there...you get the idea...
Sorry but this is not contradicting to praise one and not the other.
RISC are optimised for compilers:
- compilers sucks with CPUs with few registers and work very well with big number of registers?
Let's make CPU with a big number of register.
- compilers suck with weird instruction?
Let's use orthogonal instruction set, etc..
It worked very well: RISC with much less transistors were able to compete with CISC..
VLIW is different: OOO CPUs are too complex to make?
Let's use just a bunch of ALUs, make them available to the compiler and hope that it will be able to use them efficiently.
The only problem is that compilers are not able currently to use efficiently VLIWs except on very specific type of code..
Since when did Intel rethink heat and power consumption? they have done the opposite, they now waste more energy than ever, the new P4's because of that compeitition and an arms face for Speed, exactly the opposite of what you said.
Since when is apple x86? -- you can use an intel processor without using x86 platform, which is what they are going, only an idiot would switch TO x86.
btw -- it was competition from apple not linux that drove 3.1 to 95! Linux was barely in existance 15 years ago.
What drugs are you taking exactly? i get 0's and this post gets ++ points, oh you cruel moderator gods! (shakes fist at monitor)
Mike
I heart the RIAA & MPAA, im sure its mutual...
Well After a day of getting used to the news. I Don't remember what all the fuss was about in my head yesterday.
Sure it's a big change, but what percentage actually cares what kind of proc there is in is mac, as long as it gets the job done and fast right? So as long as there wont be an intel inside sticker on a powerrmac i'm fine with it...
I do hope everyone will port their software pretty fast, but it isn't THAT much work, its not like porting top a new OS, it's all under the hood..
So I indeed welcom our new Intel overlords
Notice how none of the keynote or Apple's publicity or even the Intel CEO himself ever once used the word "Pentium", possibly other than when Jobs did About This Mac.
That tells us something. Pentium is an ugly crappy word to Mac afficionados that means cheap nasty common generic beige box PC. I too hope we don't see the Intel inside stickers or the word Pentium, although quite frankly I'm so fucked at this news that I doubt I will buy another Mac again anyway.
And Apple users won't have to face the "status symbol" charge anymore, since we'll all be running the same architecture and OS's.
All we really need now is for Apple to release Tiger for the PC (which they can easily do now) and we'll be set.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Silence, now read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4617139.stm
"But, added Mr Barnett, the move was confusing because IBM's PowerPC was about to be produced in huge volumes because of its deal to provide the microprocessors for the next-generation of Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony games consoles.
Its OpenPower initiative, aimed at device manufacturers, was gaining headway too.
It is aimed at improving the market presence of the Power architecture through open standards development.
Mr Barnett said he would have been more impressed if Apple had decided to switch to AMD processors instead. AMD had "out-innovated" Intel in terms of its 64 processor technology, he said.
"Everything around PowerPC seems to interesting and optimistic - AMD can be classified as that too. Intel is just the current leader, albeit it by a big margin."
Again I call BULLSHIT.
Just look at what Apple has done with Widgets... as Jobs calls them. They were a significant part of his developer presentation.
I wonder what the folks from http://www.konfabulator.com/ think of Apple's developer support.
Yeah sure Apple will support you until like M$ we take the bext ideas from their developer base and fold them into their OSes as "new" features.
Yup... now that's what I call develoer support!
What an ASSHOLE! Steals from the Open Source community, steals from his developers and suck innovation out of the market at every turn... sound familiar.
that finances the chineese army so that it can invade usa in 2012
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Good job Apple!
In case you didn't notice, x86-64 is already available on almost all AMD's offerings and soon to be all Intel's offerings.
It will allow for 64-bit instructions and much > 4GB memory without PAE.
But hey, if you want something to bitch about, here's one: You'll pay $3000 for some P4 Macintosh, and I'll pay $1000 for the same machine without MacOS. $2000 is starting to sound expensive for an operating system, huh? But then I guess it makes those $150 hits for minor OS updates not feel so bad..
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Some older programs that "died" under System 7, and the later renamed Mac OSes 8 and 9 worked again under Classic/OSX. How you like them doughnuts?
-- haaz.
They won't. XCode 2.1 lets you build fat binaries on either system. x86 can build PPC and PPC can build x86. It just works. And as long as you write half decent code (ie: don't make assumptions about endianess), typical applications work across both architectures without any problems.
Adobe (and any other Mac developer) isn't going to run out and buy all new Intel based Macs and drop all their old PPC Macs. They're going to continue to develop and use both architectures for a long time.
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
OK, how does this help me with a first person shooter, or many other forms of gaming? The difference between playing Quake III with a second mouse button and a scroll wheel versus playing with just a Mac mouse is significant, and is for me the difference between having fun, or just being frustrated at the lack of control.
That second mouse button is often used for the "alternate fire mode" of a weapon, and if you have to use a keyboard key to use that alternate fire mode, then it restricts your movement while firing. You have to stand still for a half a second or so to fire, instead of being able to do it while on the run. This allows the opposing team to get a bead on you, perhaps even get a kill.
All for the lack of a second mouse button.
Oh, wait, I just remembered the condition of Mac gaming. No wonder that aspect of the mouse problem didn't occur to you.
I'm used to having three functional mouse buttons and a scroll wheel. This makes a lot of tasks far easier, well beyond gaming. Hell, even using iTunes on a PC laptop instead of a Mac is easier.
With a second, even third, mouse button I can surf the web with a tabbed browser while eating lunch. I can load my iPod (A gift, I didn't give Apple any of my cash) and create new play lists with ease, again, while my other hand is holding my sandwich while I eat lunch.
I'm often in a position where I'm installing software at a client site, with on hand on my laptop's mouse and the other an a mouse attached to the client's KVM switch. It's much faster if I can use both machines at once, without having to stop what I'm doing on one machine in order to hit a key on the other machine, just so I can get the context menu that lets me "Copy" the files instead of "Move" them.
I'm sorry, but that second mouse button happens to be very useful, and I'm not going to waste my time and money on a laptop that's so poorly designed that it castrates such a simple aspect of functionality.
Windows 3.1 didn't make much use of the Right Mouse button. Apple can make use of it, but chooses to ignore that. They chose to use a mouse that would be appropriate for a Windows 3.1 machine. Yeah, that's cutting edge.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
What I make out of Apple OSX going to run Intel CPU's as well?
hmm well, IMHO Billy Gates gave Steve Jobs the marching orders for this. Windows on x86 is a lost vehicle, and Billy knows it... in NASCAR racing terms : the Windows racecar is not able to leave the pits. so Apple is ordered to send in the OSX car and take the complete x86 field to its own victory. OSX != OSS
The objective? Wipe any OSS Linux alike OS from the x86 racing track?
Robert
Otherwise, it's just another component change (albeit a big one that requires the support of the developer commmunity). If Apple went to Intel NIC's, they'd probably have to have nearly as big of an announcement, just because there was going to be some 'Intel Inside'.
Granted, this might open up for some hacks or some other competition (as well as business for lawyers when eMachines sells mac look alikes that claim to run OS X), but in the end ... *It's another component change*. It means that Apple's supply chaing will change and this might affect the price /performance some ... hopefully for the better.
I'm sure my recently purchased G5 will do fine for another few years and be supported through it's useful life span. I also will go ahead and help my mother-in-law get her G4 iBook.
Another thought ... Apple started with BSD as its core ... Hasn't BSD been running predominantly on x86 most of the time?
Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas
[May God give you double that which you wish for me]
Cool people in black with cool music and colored backgrounds and cue... the intel music (to do do do). I think I'm going to be sick :P.
http://www.talie.ca/
JUNE 7, 2005, CUPERTINO, CA -- One day after stunning the Mac faithful with the announcement that his company was transitioning its product line to Intel processors, CEO Steve Jobs told investors in a private videochat this morning that Apple will also incorporate Microsoft Windows as the OS on its new Macs by mid-2006.
"Clearly its time for Apple to partner with the long-time leader in personal computer operating systems, Microsoft," Jobs announced. "We were looking at the long-term roadmap for where we want to go with our customers 3 years out, and Microsoft clearly offers the best vision for advanced personal computing."
"For example, at Apple we promised you [INSERT HERE] in [20XX] and we still don't have it. But with Microsoft, we can get there."
Joining Jobs in the announcement were Microsoft founder Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer, beaming in a small video window where they were crowding together.
"Steve, we're really excited at Microsoft to continue to provide the Apple baby the lifeblood it needs to exist," said Gates while Ballmer drooled, "And we promise to continue to deliver Mac OSX Office for the new MacPod."
At that point Jobs unveiled the new MacPod, a 100GB shirtpocket device with color screen running Mac OSX 10.4, with a one button front-panel mouse, retailing for $1995 this fall.
"The limited screen size does require some smart Microsoft engineering to fit, you know, all of Word's features on there, but we're optimistic," Gates said.
Jobs denied the new CPU and OS strategies would further shrink Apple's market share.
"With iLife and Quicktime, Apple has a rich platform for personal computing extending as far as the eye can see, no I don't think there's a problem."
Also at the teleconference, Jobs unveiled the first public prototype of the new Mac mid-range desktop slated for spring 2006. The 2ghz Pentium 4 WinMac includes Windows XP home edition, integrated LCD monitor, and one-button mouse for $1995. The Enthusiast upgrade includes iLife and Quicktime 7 preinstalled, with Apple Inside decal, for $800 more.
Gates promised both versions will run Mac OS9 Classic in emulation.
If the idea is to run on a number of different CPUs (even if only x86) that'd be great. It's more Apple's style to go with only Xeon or only Pentium M, etc, though I think. We'll see.
A cut-off at some opcode base (like P4 or newer) might actually be a good thing. Windows is all 486+ code, at this point, still, right? Or is it pentium, now?
2662 comments as of this post...
Man, can Apple make an announcement or what! First time I have seen Slashdot slashdotted by their own posts...lol.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Most viruses are perhaps 200-1000 lines of code, I don't see how this would be difficult to port to a "different" architecture. You're only converting 1000 lines of code. What shit you're spewing is pure FUD.
Even though he sounds like a 12-year-old, I think he's foreign which partially excuses the overzealous tone. But more importantly, it actually will be marginally easier to write Mac viruses, because the assembly code that's injected in a buffer overflow will be x86 instead of PowerPC which is just better known by virus writers. Obviously that doesn't help them craft an effective attack, but I'd call the grandparent "mostly FUD" not "pure FUD".
- If Moore's law holds, any future CPU's will only be even more powerful
Moore's Law says computer (normally processor) speed will double every 18 months. Assuming a reasonable measure of present-day parity in performance between Intel and IBM processors, that means the 70-15 Intel advantage (cited by Jobs, who has seen the roadmaps from both IBM and Intel) by mid 2006 (one year from today) easily SQUARES Moore's law.Intel has been pretty quiet lately. Some of us thought they had fallen asleep and were resting on their laurels. Now I think they've been working on something revolutionary. And I think that is why Apple had to switch.
Fundamentalism is a crime against humanity
As someone that has done low-level coding for Motorola, SPARC, Intel, Alpha, PowerPC, and a few other processors, I have to say that the Intel spec is just about the ugliest and most ill-designed. How they now control the world is beyond me. Then again, there's Windows as another example.
Really beyond me.
Here we come!
In the hands of a forward-thinking individual like Steve Jobs, it could be the greatest coup Apple ever engineered against the computing industry as a whole, since the launch of the Apple II.
It would be extremely risky, except the biggest risk, engineering the OS to run on Intel processors, has already been done.
What the analysts, the slashdot naysayers and the investors may not be immediately pondering are the long-term implications.
By virtue of the fact that Mac OS has been engineered to run on Intel processors (using a binary translator like Rosetta... but still without recompiling or porting), it's conceivable Mac OS X could run on ANY PC... This is a huge difference from the last time Apple headed in the direction of licensing, where Mac clones that could run System 7.5 had to be engineered from the ground up... and they weren't very good. Don't even get me started on the Franklin Ace...
The second implication, and perhaps the more important one for Apple... they've always been a hardware company. Whether Markkula, Sculley, Spindler, Amelio, et. al. ever understood this is another thing. Steve Jobs, however, clearly does. Other than their core audience for software... the pro audio and video crowd, they don't focus heavily on software. Instead, they have a line of computers and some digital peripherals (like the iPod) and some core suites (like iLife and iWork) that allow people to use the computer like a digital hub... to interface with other aspects of their lifestyle... rather than making the computer the centerpiece of everything.
Likewise, the possibility exists that the new Macs could boot in Linux, OS X, Windows, what have you.
Lastly, also consider IBM's exit from the PC market. The Thinkpad is going off the market. There aren't really any other PC manufacturers making a laptop remotely comparable in quality to the Thinkpad to truly satisfy that market segment... That is, until Apple introduces Intel-based Powerbooks.
Therefore, Apple seems to be interested in a race with Microsoft, but really I think they're going after a much larger share of the PC market... after all, this is where Apple's largest profit margins exist.
Another point to consider about Apple's stealth advantage here... Not only has Apple been preparing for this (everyone knows that Apple likes to wait to announce an innovation until they actually have it, and can demo it)... There was a recent article on Slashdot that pointed out a study that nailed Apple's actual install base as 16 percent. That's considerably larger than the assumption-laden market share figures. Because analysts have always been pegging market share, Apple could easily catch the industry off guard, given the... what, eight orders of magnitude by their actual market proliferation is underestimated.
It would be a great thing if Apple has the sense, and I think they do, to not bother competing with Microsoft directly... but instead compete with the PC manufacturers themselves, giving customers an option outside the traditional Wintel marriage that most PC manufacturers haven't been able to wrangle themselves away from... which is a death sentence for them if Microsoft's product should ever fall out of favor with the public (gee, I wonder why such a thing would happen... *patchpatch*virus*patchpatch*worm*....)
How can Rosetta be as fast as claimed? The 68k emulator for PPC was a definite speed loss.
http://apple.slashdot.org/hof.shtml
2764 comments is the number to beat
Start Running Better Polls
Now comes the day when they finally can attack Microsoft on their own turf... the x86 architecture. Think of Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq, etc. actually having an OPTION for an OS when customizing your machine. An option incidentally that is CHEAPER than MS's option which would motivate people from the pocketbook as most people are. But instead, they limit their ability to expand their OS YET AGAIN, and choose to build it only on their box.
Yes, I know, they're a hardware company... but you know what? If they build hardware competetive with the other makers in price/performance, they have nothing to worry about. Or maybe (perish the thought) they just get out of the hardware business if it doesn't work out. The boys over at MS seem to have found a way to make it in the computer world without their own hardware platform.
I think MANY people are tired of the insecurities related to MS and would jump at the chance to abandon ship as long as the OS they're switching to did everything they were always able to without jumping through hoops. It's all about installed base, and Apple still hasn't boarded the clue train when they inhibit that exodus by limiting people to their hardware only.
Who seriously would want to dump even a 2Ghz machine and have to back all their stuff up, buy a new machine at $1000+ and then get all of that onto the new one when they SHOULD just be able to buy the OS and plop it on the system. But the stupidity doesn't stop there: So let me get this straight, you're NOT going to take the opportunity to take installed base from your competition on their own hardware, but you will let them do it to you?!? With thinking like this, it is truely a wonder Apple is still around. Apple yet again has missed the boat on what should have been a golden opportunity to win users to it's cause.
What did you expect
IBM cares about #1 $$$$$, no matter how evil their customer, because at the end of the day, IBM is even MORE evil. They are a money whore. IBM during '30 to '44 could have helped the alies and hindered/ruined the germans, but didnt care...
How in hell do you think the germans found all the jews and 1/2 jews and 1/4 and 1/16th jews, even tho they were 3/4 christian. (yes most of the killed 'jews' were really less than 50% jews or gypsies or gays - wrong either way). Not only did the churches give the authorities all their birth records for 'sensis' but IBM tallied the whole lot in a pre '40s real old school database 10000x fastder than any human.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The premium will now be much smaller when they can now leverage the economies of scale of the whole PC industry. Their premium can now be mostly profit margin rather than increased component and engineering costs.
I will gladly pay the premium for a quality engineered, reliable, quiet running, secure platform. By maintaing some control, Apple can ensure a better overall quality/reliability of product.
I would also pay a premium for is painless migration and support of my old windows apps. Either virtualization or dual boot. Something that lets me continue to run my favorite apps/freeware/games without pain.
That would be a machine I would snap up in a second. Very likely this move will get me into a Mac.
I built my last 3 PC's but I am getting tired of sorting HW issues and dealing with windows explosions.
How does GPGPU fit into all this? Will Apple have to undergo yet ANOTHER processor change, or at least an emphasis change, in a few years?
www.gpgpu.org
Just a thought this morning; who is going to buy "orphaned" Apple PowerMAC systems for the next two years of migration to Intel? Perhaps it has been covered, but what came to my mind was Adam Osborne's 1980's announcement of his next generation of hardware - which promptly damaged sales of the current generation.
c omputer_pioneer_adam_osborne/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/03/25/portable_
I certainly understand Job's need to deal with the supply of large number of low-power CPUs for laptops and smaller devices like the MAC Mini; but given the margins on the G5 Desktops and servers, what is going to happen when the sales of these systems decline? Why would anyone buy a new one in the next two years, given by 2007 my expectation of the G5 replacements running dual-core XEON-type CPUs? I don't think it needs to be much of a drop-off; just a flatlining of any sales cycle for the G5 boxes. And there are the sales of the laptops to think about as well; unless there is an announcement of an Centrino/Pentium M system for this Christmas period, aren't laptops in the same state as the G5 Desktops? Will lifecycle replacement be strong enough for two years to sustain sales??
Perhaps Apple feels this is the one time when it can do this; when it has the revenues from the iPod and iMusic to fund the hit it is going to take on the hardware side (much as IBM is using product revenue to fund it's increasing share of IT Services business). I still wonder if the 24 months it is going to take to do this is going to be a problem.
At the least, I will now pay more attention to Apple rumors than in the past; seems like the accuracy of the leaks is better than I had imagined.
Y.A.A.C.
If Rosetta can make x86 emulate PPC so fast, could it make x86 emulate 68k faster? How about speeding up Classic?
Have you considered cracking your version? A lot of people legitimately own games and such, but choose to crack them because the copyright protection schemes are such a pain in the ass.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Just adding the post count.
PowerPC made sense at the time Apple adopted it. Things have chages, IBM has decided it doesn't want to give Apple what it needs today, & Intel can supply what Apple needs today.
Although, if I were Jobs, I would've either partnered with AMD--or even better--just announced I was switching to IA--not any specific vendor--& not bring the Intel guy on stage.
I can't say I'm a big fan of Intel's archetecture, but the processor arch hasn't matter much for most purposes for a very long time now.
I suspect Jobs figured they might as well switch to IA when he first came to Apple. He just knew that--along with all the other changes--that would be a bit too much. He had to wait for the right time to make the switch.
(BTW, when I say "PC" below, I mean "personal computer", not "wintel PC".)
I dunno. I can't believe little-endian has now -completely- won in the PC market. I think there were some benefits from having another processor arch in the PC world even in the small numbers that Apple has.
Let's go for it!
Let me participate in the final sprint for the Hall of Fame.
If IBM can miraculously come through with the 970's -- Apple can still use them. They'll be set up to use two different chips. Pentium-M chips in low end systems and laptops and PowerPC chips in XServes and PowerMacs.
Since they'll have the capability of running with two different chips, it would be silly to switch completely and give up that.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
The biggest Apple story in slashdot history and As Seen on TV is missing... it's because Mr Jobs is too busy right now to post to slashdot :)
:)
Seriously, anyone else would have had a chance to drop a comment
Please, let me be the 2765th post!
What about all your Altavec code?
Apple's technical documents on universal Binaries say that if you've been using Apple's accelerate framework it will be vectorized using VMX, SMD, etc on intel.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
I think the more likely scenario is a version of Virtual PC that doesn't suck. Runs the windows code semi-natively...
sounds like this could be WINE if Apple were to invest resources
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
And I seen no reason to go 100% intel. They can still make PowerPC machines as long as there is a demand for them. The universal (fat) binaries are really cool.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
like Batman and Clark Kent // you'll never see As Seen on TV posting when Mr. Jobs is Seen on TV :)
First was atari, then amiga, next, beos... and now mac... I just hope to be wronged, but this is death-spell to the system.
is 13 comments away from going Hall of Fame!!
Hall of fame, here we come!
The NT source code leak article is getting booted from the hall of fame right NOW!
So long, michael. Don't let the door hit you...
That brings up an interesting point. Will Microsoft continue to support running Virtual PC on an Intel Mac? IIRC, MS took a good bit of time updating Virtual PC to run on the G5 (I believe due to a lack of virtual little-endian support). If most developers will take "weeks" to modify their software that uses lower-level stuff, how long would MS take to make Virtual PC into a universal binary? I could see MS focusing more on "Windows for Macintosh" [don't you just love the name?] while completely dropping support for Virtual PC. Those with current G5s will still be able to use it, but like Windows 98 it will be completely unsupported [is 98 still supported? I don't know]. Dropping the current form of VPC would probably be easier than making sure it supports all of the lower-level features (DRM?) that will be available on the Mac Intel processor. Anyway, with so little known about the Intel hardware that will be used it's kindof hard to know what MS will do. It'll certainly be interesting when it happens, though.
Almost there!
Aside from running slower and hotter, the only other factor I could think of for a move to Intel would be lining Apple up for support for DRM via La Grande or whatever it's called. Will a DRM'd BIOS be involved?
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
OK, so apparently the people who replied think that "out of stock" means that there aren't any available. I apologize for not linking every single retailer selling every single 64bit laptop out there. My bad.
Instead of asking them to just google themselves, here is one that is available:
At Tiger Direct with a gaming video card.
That one has the 3200+ cpu (2.0GHz), and here is one that is faster (3700+):
at best buy even.
IANAL, but I play one on
All of these computer OEMs have bitten at the Intel "apple" (sorry about that!), sacrificing innovative and powerful technologies in order to become more mainstream. The single largest problem with "mainstream" is that the "great unwashed masses" of computer users care little about innovative technologies, only about price.
DEC Alphas made use of OpenBoot, with the ability to run VMS, Ultrix (unix), or WinNT with no more than a reboot. (I know, because I set up such Alphas for fun and profit.) With Apple switching to Intel's latest DRM-enabled processors and chipsets, Apple will have the opportunity to lock out those other OSes (linux & BSD) that savy users might be tempted to use. Apple will wholeheartedly embrace DRM because they will have little else to lock users into their platform/OS solution.
SGI made wonderful Intel-based workstations that were priced significantly higher than all their other WinTel competition. At the same time, SGI adopted Intel's ia64 processor in lou of their 64-bit MIPS processor for their server offerings. The huge development cost of retooling to the Intel processor broke the company, and SGI is now only a bit player in the server market. Nobody uses SGI Intel-based workstations because nobody wants to get locked into the high TCO.
HP has built Intel-based workstations for a very long time, but their quality control and service issues have driven them into the low-ball commodity PC market to survive. HP abandoned first the DEC Alpha and then the PA-RISC in favor of the Intel ia64, which they are now regretting. HP may soon adopt only AMD as their server processor.
The bottom line is that any/all computer OEMs that have switched to the Intel (or Wintel) computing solution have found themselves competing in the commodity PC market, a market in which margins are razor-thin and money for advanced development has dried up. This is not where Apple users want Apple to go. Instead of gaining market share and increasing profit margins, Apple has forsaken their loyal user base and doomed themselves to the ashbin of computer history. They will be in good company there, but so what?
RIP Apple.
(2009) Netcraft has confirmed that Apple Computer is dead. Apple finally collapsed under fierce commodity computer market pressure. As an ironic twist of fate, Apple Music has purchased (at a fire sale price) all rights to Apple's iTune business. Quoted by one maven "Apple Music has finally won the legal result they have always sought."
IBM is making one chip for Microsoft (and also one additional chip for Nintendo). One. For the entire life of Xbox 360/ Revolution they will be making the same chip (2-4 years). Apple is in constant need of many chips, chips with unique requirements, chips that ramp up clock speed over time. Chips that require process changes in manufacturing.
That in addition to Apple already being a smaller run customer (vs. Dell using intel) that it just might be the only way to do it and keep the prices right.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
Will the change to the x86 architecture perhaps open macs to the wider gaming world? It would be interesting see macs no longer left as the bastard child of gaming, though I suppose most gamers at this point have far removed themselves for the Apple brand, and most Mac-addicts do not hold gaming in high regards. However, if Apple is attempting to breach into a wider audience of consumers, making Macs more game supportable would go along way.
I'm sure IBM helped out on the home front too--and you are exaggerating with the 1/16th Jews, at least as far as Germany went. If a German had only one Jewish grandparent and had not been religiously converted to Judaism that German (and we are talking grandparents here, not great grandparents) was considered a menshling--a "mixed breed"--deportations of these Germans (who were not Jews, incidentally--under our rules a person who has no Jewish parents and does not convert is not a Jew--the racial concept of "1/16th" Jew is a non-sequittur under Jewish tradition) began relatively late in the war and many did actually survive.
How long has this been in wait? I'm been saying it for years too -- and I've had some experience with apple and the powerpc. Anyway, looks like this story will make it in the Slashdot hall of fame; deservedly I think.
I've always contended that the powerpc died when Apple killed the clone market. Maybe it'll survive somehow (games, embedded) but probably not for long there either. Guess we'll all see now...
This event is a great point in the evolution of computing. It will be discussed endlessly; how it is the the evil IBM/intel/MS vs Apple has shifted all the way to today.
Enjoy,
Jeff Carr
formerly of linuxppc
When's the last time you knew a Mac user to buy a Mac because "it has a G5" (unless they were comparing it to a G4 or PPC)? That's not a selling point for most people because it's moot. People compare price vs. performance, and that's typically secondary anyway.
Most people buy a Mac because of the user experience and the operating system. If Apple provides the same experience with a different chip, what does it matter?
Did people cry "confusion" when Apple moved from SCSI -> IDE? How about from SIMM to DIMM? Oh, and remember reeling from CD to DVD? That was a biggie.
Get a grip and stop the religious wars (in all senses). Buy, sell, and market a computer because it works for you.
Seriously, my 2ghz g4 laptop has burned my legs. I hope the intel chip can fair better, faster.
--
"You've only got one finger left,
and it's pointing at the door."
Is there any speculation to which processor Apple may choose to use?
Nothing sucks like a Vax, nothing blows like a PowerMac G4
Apple+Intel=AI
Nextep 1.x 2.x 68K-based Next hardware
Nextep 3.x 68K + Intel PC hardware
Openstep 4.x 68K + Intel PC + HP-Risc + sun
Mac Os X (5.0-5.4) ppc (+ Intel in secret)
Mac Os S (5.5...) ppc + Intel Apple hardware
They've been porting this back and forth for years.
This will be transparent for everyone who hasn't bought a Macintosh yet. Forward moves are quite simple. Apple has actually managed this quite cleanly before, when they ditched m68k chips for PowerPC.
The question is, what happens to my girlfriend who bought a powerbook last month? In two years, she won't be able to upgrade her software, because there the x86 binaries of the software she'll need won't run on her computer. I'm sure some companies will continue to build "FAT Binaries" (anyone else remember those, from 1993?) that take up 3/4 again as much space, but many will not.
This move makes Apple an unstable platform, and has already deterred three people I know from buying a Macintosh. "Why bother?" they said. "It's going to be the same. I'll buy a Windows computer."
Not OpenFirmware - Not PC BIOS..... We shall see.
I'm perfectly happy with my 6 month old iMac G5.
I say the smart money is going to buy PPC workstations now, before they get replaced with DRM'd-to-hell x86's.
Also, Altivec vs SSE2/3 does not look pretty. Mactels may start shipping in 18 months, but I'm not sure the most important apps will be ready for that.
For some, waiting may be a good decision right now, but for others, it could be very stupid.
I have owned ~10 computers in the last 20 years, but never a Mac, but I am now looking forward to getting one. My viewpoint on this differs:
:-), OS/2 etc... If you try to compete on generic HW agaisn't MS you have to try to fight the bundling deals, the overwhelming market inertia, etc...
"Now comes the day when they finally can attack Microsoft on their own turf... But instead, they limit their ability to expand their OS YET AGAIN, and choose to build it only on their box."
They are better off selling the complete package. If apple can't create a compelling package who can? Their own HW gives them a wedge to sell their OS. You are also neglecting that they don't have the drivers to run on the majority of PC's out there, it will be narrow release running on their own machines under their control that keeps them reliable and slick. Manageable support burden. All very smart.
"Yes, I know, they're a hardware company... but you know what? If they build hardware competetive with the other makers in price/performance, they have nothing to worry about."
Margins are shot in the PC market even dell want to move upmarket. Apple is already there and next year they get much lower in price without affecting margins. And possible they will have a significant differentiator as the only HW that can run OSX and Windows.
"Or maybe (perish the thought) they just get out of the hardware business if it doesn't work out. The boys over at MS seem to have found a way to make it in the computer world without their own hardware platform."
There is only one MS. Witness the x86 success of Solaris,BeOS, NeXT
"So let me get this straight, you're NOT going to take the opportunity to take installed base from your competition on their own hardware, but you will let them do it to you?!?"
For the same reason you don't want to take MS on its backyard, you don't have to worry about taking them on in yours. Do you really think people are going to buy Macs just to run Windows? Even if they did, who cares, you sold they HW and SW already.
Think about it this way. 2 years from now when you are looking to upgrade, you can buy a high end Dell that runs Windows, or you can buy a Mac for a similar price that runs OSX and Windows. Tell me that is not a competetive advantage. Throw in that Apple has pretty much always had the nicest HW and it is hard to imagine why anyone considering a premium PC would consdier anything but a Mac. This all presupposes that Windows will be easy to get running though.
The generic cheap PCs with no margin will still go to Windows, but I expect Apple will offer Mini like solution to compete here as well. A mini based on Pentium-M with dual boot and Apple quality would again be worth the small premium.
Apple should stay a HW company. There really is no compelling case for them to ditch HW and go SW only especially not at this time when they have no hope of competing on generic HW.
Long ago, the instruction set of a chip determined its architecture, but that's not the case anymore. Today, x86 chips are a thin layer of instruction translation on a thoroughly modern core. That's why the x86 chips can beat PPC. So, don't worry about it: chip designers don't have to keep any feet in any buckets.
Beta vs. VHS
DC-10 vs. L-1011
Mac vs. PC
The good guys lose again. Disgusting this is!
So does this explain why Apple didn't seem to make too much fuss about Intel's new little concept PC?
How long will it take the "mod squad" to turn perfectly generic PCs into Apple compatible boxes???
Apple may have signed their PC death warrant.
On the other side, I imagine that PC emulation will get a LOT easier from now on. Having a Apple that will run Visual Studio may very well be what many geeks need to buy Apple.
Oh yeah, and I bet that
Who knows. All I'll say is that Steve Jobs has a HUGE pair to take this risk. If it doesn't work, Apple could soon strictly be a consumer electronics company.
And I'm STILL looking for an Apple PDA.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Bush currently holds the ring
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Let's all be happy and kiss and make up. Steve Jobs is like G0D du00de. I welcome his brave cunning in making Intel the only vendor of consumer desktop CPUS, it's better for everyone in the long run and who needs stupid competition and choice anyway.
Addiontally, I welcome Steve Jobs who is like g0D duh-h000de killing off all existing Macs and making them like -1 Redundant overnight, that is better for everyone and we all need to modernize and accept that Intel is great with really cool x86 stuff and amazing DRM technologies that will save us all from terrorists and IBM were stupid and stinky and couldn't make proper chips after all.
Three cheers for Steve Jobs who is like G0d du0de for showing us the light.
I can imagine that Apple will be a LOT closer to that scenario once all their software (and 3rd party software) is compiled and working on Intel processors.
Buying OSX for x86 wouldn't do you much good right now. There is no software.
If it comes down to it, Apple could be in a position to turn Apple into "software only".
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Apple makes a $200 PCI card that allows PC boxes to run Mac OSX. They could sell a $300 box with the card bundled in
Apple beats the mod squad to the punch AND they get more margins by selling "mod kits" than they do selling actual Apple boxes.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Apple could make a PCI card that "unlocks" a standard PC to run Mac OSX. They would sell the card and software together at say $300. They would make more margin selling their "upgrade cards" than selling genuine Apple hardware.
No doubt that Apple will ship Win32 native emulation. Perhaps we'll see Microsoft suing Apple for a change???
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Well, if these Macs are running on 4Ghz Intel CPUs, how does that compare to the performance of the 1.6Ghz G5s???
Is it possible that SHEER HORSEPOWER will make up for the difference??? I imagine that Apple took this into consideration.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
The more I read this, the more shrewd I think Apple is being. Apple is making a product that is more appealing to PC users than their traditional customers.
How many people have wanted to go to Apple (or BACK to Apple) but didn't want to lose their PC software??? These new Macs could run OSX on top and run Windows apps (or a a VMWare XP installation) in the background.
What are existing Mac customers going to do, switch to PC??? Well, that's effectively what Apple is offering now. Switch from Apple TO Apple. Apple is offering the product THEY need to switch TO PC while maintaining Apple compatibility.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Remember, OS X has that old Mach kernel that worked
on the Next with multiple CPU targets on all the compilers.
Mach uses data-passing protocols that specify endianness.
It's intended at the ground level for systems even including
multiprocessor with some big-endian and some little-endian
all passing stuff to each other.
If you have a problem keeping track of which files were
written how, that's a metadata issue; on a Mac, you're pretty
well covered.
If you have a routine that wants to pass other-endian data,
the CPU can do end-alterations and the kernel has the habit of
keeping track of end-ness. So, on a Mac, you're pretty well covered.
> Apple isn't offering hardware to people not in their developer programs. Few contributors to open source projects have funds already, but the fact that one has to be a member of one of their paying developer programs will make it even more difficult for Mac open source contributors to get a grasp on the Intel switch. It was bad enough with Tiger where we didn't have access to test things before it got released, and that was just software!
I think this is less than a problem than it seems. Most open source programs on the mac have already been compiled on x86 on linux, bsd, etc. Sure, there will be a few hickups due to the new revision of the OS and such, but at least we know the code will compile on x86 and not break due to untested endian issues from running it on a new platform.
Now that Apple have climbed onto the Intel bandwagon, I hope they use Itanium 2 in a new top-end workstation.
Ok, we'll never see it in a powerbook, and it would probably sell really badly, but at least apple could claim to have the world's fastest desktop and never really be doubted (at last).
As I said we are in the territory of Opinion and gauging how the buying public will behave.
The exception is drivers.There are thousands of drivers out there and MS doesn't write them. Manufacturers write them to ensure that there stuff works with windows. Apple will not have that luxury. Until HW vendors are forced to write them(never), there will be largely no Mac HW Support for the installed base.
"They want to switch. You need only look at the growth of Firefox to see that once users have had enough crap and a viable alternative exists, they use it."
Then why don't they use Linux? Do you use Linux? Here is why I think going on open HW will fail. Note: it is highly driven by my opinion on how the human psyche works.
First I am one of those would be switchers fed up with Windows. I have installed Linux twice. Naturally as a dual boot.
Each time it went something like this:
I need to keep windows for games and Apps X, Y, and Z. So I end up in a dual boot maintaining two OS's. Eventually I realize that while I can surf in Linux and do some things, I do more with windows and I use windows more, so why bother maintaining two OS's. So out goes Linux.
And I think the exact same thing would happen if I installed OSX in a dual boot arrangement, it would remain a curiousity used very little.
But I think a psychological shift occurs when you buy a Mac. I think that Mac needs to be a Mac and really dual boot should be made difficult, provide win apps support only on the OSX destop through some virtual framework only. That way you get more buy in on it being your primary.
Bottom line, I don't think any OS can really compete against Windows on open generic HW, the deck is just too heavily stacked in favor of the incumbent.
has anyone taken into account the IBM-Lenovo deal that was previously blocked by the DOJ, on behalf of the DOD?? the DOD did not want specific technologies to go to mainland china..
i hate microsoft.
Any moderator who moderates me must have no life what so ever to find a post in the mist of 3000 posts. Filled with disterbed zealots from both sides. As Nelson puts it. HA HA
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Here's my 2 cents about the Osbourne effect....
Who's gonna buy a PowerMac G5 in the next 18 months?
1. Every console game developers in the world. PS3, XBox 360 and Nintendo Revolution all use PPC CPU cores, and IIRC, they all use PowerMac G5 as the dev kit. The average lifetime of a game console is 5 years, so Apple basically OWNS the entire console game developement industry till 2010.
2. Audio/Video producers Audio/video production heavily relies on plugins, having native x86 host applications (like Final Cut, Logic and Cubase) is NOT ENOUGH. Many producers have hundreds of plugins, and they'll all have to be recompiled for x86 (they won't run in Rosetta because of Altivec).
Sure these are niche markets, but these are multi-billion dollar industries where Apple is a major player. In fact, these niche markets are the primary customers of the PowerMac G5. The PowerMac G5 will probably continue to sell pretty well in the next 2 years and more.
The low-end, like iMac and iBook (or even the PowerBook) won't sell so well in the next 12 months. I think that's why Apple choose to ship low-end x86 Macs at the beginning because they see that the sales of PowerMac G5 will actually be the least affected by the switch.
Seriously, the whole point of OOo is to avoid paying the M$ tax -- which I REFUSE to pay due to their evil past, present, and likely future. Please get a clue.
(I'm not thrilled about Intel's past either nor Apple's reent aping of M$ in too many ways.)
My post was in response to PowerBooks and iBooks not having second mouse-buttons. This has nothing to do with using an external mouse.
Wow! That is amazing. Like I said to the parent to my original post, it is SOOOO difficult to reach over with my pinky to control-click for a contextual menu. That said, it is even MORE difficult to use my ring finger to command-click while web-browsing to open links in new tabs. And, using two fingers on the track-pad to scroll? That is more difficult than walking and chewing bubble-gum at the same time!Of course, we all know the true benefits of one-handed web-browsing.
BTW, about making playlists...is there something about the "Make Playlist" button that requires a second button that I don't know about?
Don't get me wrong...I am not anti-multiple-mouse-buttons. When I plug a mouse into my PB, I use a 4-button/scroll mouse (one button is mapped to expose, which is really convenient). But, that said, when talking about normal, average (or even above average) use of a laptop with a trackpad, there probably VERY few things (and those would probably be very specialized things) that you can do one handed that I cannot even though I only have a single mouse-button. So, I fail to see any major disadvantage for having only a single mouse button on a laptop.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
I cannot find it
NT
The bottom line is, I find it less convenient to have a fairly reasonable piece of hardware removed from the laptop for no good reason. It's not about the fact that there are workarounds, but the fact that workarounds are necessary. The Apple is far less flexible and the lack of a second mouse button is just one symptom of that. Actual functionality is routinely sacrificed for the sake of the "Mac Experience." This extends far beyond the absence of common buttons that every other hardware manufacturer considers a Good idea.
Did you read up on the changes made by Tiger? Now, if you download an MP3 off the web with Safari, you have to buy Quick time Pro to save it to disk. Isn't that grand? Is having Steve Jobs slip his hand into your back pocket part of the Mac Experience? How would you react if you learned that the latest XP Service pack required you to buy something called "Windows Media Player Pro" in order to save MP3 files to disk that you downloaded by clicking on a link in a web site?
What about the fact that more restrictions are always being added to iTunes with each update? I'm told that with the latest OS X, you can no longer burn purchased music to CD with iTunes. How is iTunes a GOOD thing again?
OS 9 and before were cute toy jokes with delusions of being Operating Systems. OS X started off as a real OS, but it's being systematically truncated with each update. How long before you have to buy a "Pro" version of the OS to get a command line again?
The lack of a second mouse button is just the tip of the ice berg, and is symptomatic of Apple's inability to consistently produce a decent Operating System.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
no u
You would think that this shouldn't be shocking because beginning around May 25 rumors started spreading. How long does it take you guys to mourn?
I lost my karma, last april fools...
At the very least, this puts Apple in the /. HoF
How about now.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
First, no matter how fast the processor, people will be typing and clicking stuff that makes the computer do things that the have to wait for. And if we are going to count millions of people using millions of computers for decades, the amount of time spent waiting adds up to a huge hit to quality of life.
Second, Moore's Law may not be the kind of thing that you can just take for granted on a five year timescale. There are laws of physics that are starting to interfere. And so far we haven't come up with a way to make an atom of silicon any smaller, or an electron any less charged. So the speed we have at our disposal shouldn't be considered unlimited.
In truth, my expectation is that we'll get quantum computers running that will perform far in excess of the Moore's Law benchmark. But, I still feel strongly about my first point, that it nonetheless makes sense to compile things as efficiently as possible.
oh, and as for the other comment: my SE/30 wore out years ago, and my powerbook 180 (the same thing as the 165c, but with active matrix grey scale rather than passive matrix color) is in pieces, and will possibly work if I replace the fuse (again!) and add an external scsi drive.
(actually, the drive working is more amazing than the machine!)
hawk
http://www.nextcomeurope.com/ultrasparc/767/767S+/ 767S+.htm
I can't believe I just read 39 (nested) pages of this discussion, and NOBODY mentioned the obvious solution (to me, anyway):
... I want to see the reasons why this *can't* be done.
Take the 2.7 GHz dual-CPU G5, and remove one of the G5 CPUs and retro-fit the 3.6 GHz P4.
Let the P4 be the "master" CPU and the G5 be the "slave" CPU. Run the kernel on the P4 and when it detects a non-Universal Binary app that's PPC-only, schedule it to be run on the "slave" G5 CPU.
I'm sure there's lots of issues involved (especially if there's an endian-ness issue, and the PowerPC app running on the G5 wants to trap into the kernel, running over on the P4 CPU), but surely there's got to be a way to do something like this? Rosetta would still be needed for single-CPU machines, but why not use this approach for the dual-CPU boxes and get the best of both worlds?!? Got an AltiVec app? No problem! Still need Classic? No worries!
Go ahead, shoot it down
I (AC) wrote:
... here, I meant Apple should take the ... , not some enterprising hobbyist. Sorry for the unintended confusion.
Take the 2.7 GHz dual-CPU G5, and remove one of the G5 CPUs and retro-fit the 3.6 GHz P4.
I should've clarified - by the Take the
For my purposes, I actually prefer MS Paint. It's fast, it's simple, it doesn't cost $500 bucks or whatever, it doesn't take 5 minutes to load up....If I'm doing real heavy work with multiple layers, I use the Gimp. It's free, and I have used it enough that the layout seems natural to me, while the Photoshop way of doing things seems unnatural and difficult.
heh, he heh heh, heeeeee-haaaaaw.