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.
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
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
C|Net employs journalists, not bloggers.
For more information, click here.
Here's Apple's press release.
Dispel any remaining doubts; we are now living in the evil mirror universe.
Possibly not - the new version of XCode builds universal binaries for both Intel and PPC. So, what's the problem again?
You have plenty of time. The rumors were only half-true.
Apple is adopting Intel, but is not "ditching" IBM.
New G5 towers will still be around for at least another year, and probably at least two. Intel is probably going to start by replacing the G4 CPUs in Powerbooks and minis.
At the Stevenote, he informed devs that they would be supporting both platforms for a long time to come.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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.
1. If Rosetta works as well as demonstrated (Jobs showed unmodified PPC versions of Photoshop+filters and MS Office running happily and fast on the Intel Mac box) then this will be less painful than you think.
2. The way the Intel and PowerPC raodmaps are going I think in three uears time there will be a HUGE difference in capability. Jobs was demoing a Pentium 3.6GHz quad for God's sake!
RTFA. The announcement is not that Apple is porting OS-X to run on ANY x86 box. It's that they're going to port it to run on THEIR x86 box. You're not going to be able to fire up OS-X on your Dell, Acer, Gateway, or eMachines PC. You're still going to be buying Apple's low-to-mid-range hardware (eMac line?). It's just going to have an Intel processor inside instead of the PPC. The release says they will be using the processor in their mid-range boxes, not their high-end boxes. So the demographic who will be buying the G5s in the future are be the same ones who're buying it now. People with a need for a stinky-fast machine that runs OS-X.
Also does this mean I will be able to buy a Dell PowerEdge 2850 running Mac OSX Server?
Not likely. See above.
Do you have any evidence to back this assertion? Generally speaking, Altivec in the G5 has the same function and performance as SSE2 in the Pentium 4. I use floating point functions that I have developed and coded in assembly language myself, and I don't see any difference between Altivec and SSE2 at the fundamental level.
Most of the derogatory comments by Apple users about the supposed shortcomings of SSE2 are ill informed, they seem to confuse SSE2 with MMX. Optimization for either the Altivec or SSE2 is a complex subject. First, one has to find an algorithm that works well for vector operations, which means making sure that add and multiply operations will overlap correctly. Then one has to adapt that algorithm for the cache size, CPU clock, and memory bus cycle times. The main problem here is to avoid starving the cache. One has to balance how many operations are done by the CPU for each byte that comes from/to RAM and make sure that the timing is right. All these factors vary a lot between different CPU, mobo, and RAM models. To state that Altivec is either better or worse than SSE2 is simplistic, they are functionally identical and the relative performance between them will be determined by secondary factors.
The biggest problem in SSE2 is that the only compiler that optimizes it well is Intel's, gcc sucks when generating code for the P4, but with hand-optimized code this is irrelevant. If the Intel architecture that Apple will adopt has SSE2, this could be very good news for developers. Let's hope Apple implements efficient optimization for SSE2.
X11 isn't suddenly going to become the native Mac GUI.
Mac already has excellent X11 support not meaningfully worse than Linux's
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."
Is apple going to sell prototypes of Apple Intel systems to any developer who wants to test their app?
Um, yes. => "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."
Yes, you should have read all the keynote transcripts. They did the same thing when the PowerPC came out, developers were given prototype 6100s as part of their developer kit.
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
As others have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the dev kit includes the hardware. They aren't just shipping a Tiger CD you pop into your dell.
Oh, I see.
Thats why I run World of Warcraft, Half Life 2, and Farcry, on my AMD64 box, at *native* speeds, in SuSE 9.3.
With Cedega, a Wine derivative.
No, not any Windows software.
But lots of Windows software works *very* well under Wine, even Direct3D apps.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Nice post Troll, you really doesn't have a clue how IBM makes its money nowdays, does you?
You need to be an ADC Select or Premier Member. (Most people are ADC {Free} members).
Yea, RISC won. Look inside any modern x86 processor, or one of the 3/4 billion ARM processors shipped last year...
The x86-based Macs Apple will be making available to developers only at the same time as the preview version of OS X. RTFA.
Given that we're running on Mac OS X these days, the application that executes this will terminate almost immediately with an access violation.
"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]"
Is apple going to sell prototypes of Apple Intel systems to any developer who wants to test their app?
Yes.
The kit will include a 3.6GHz, Pentium-based Mac. (Probably similar to the one Jobs used for the entire keynote leading up to the announcement)
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
Is there a 64-bit x86 laptop available now?
Yes.
Many.
at walmart even
IANAL, but I play one on
As one of the few Terra Soft / slashdotters, it is my pleasure to represent the company on this situation:
I guess you're wrong.
This is a change, and a big change at that, but our business has changed before, and we're fighters. Apple isn't the only company producing PPC hardware, and we already have established business connections with several other PPC-based manufaturers.
-AJ
no comment
The answer is no, you will not. http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+align s+with+Intel/2100-7341_3-5733756.html?tag=macintou ch
A quote from the link.
About OpenOffice.org you are WRONG!
OpenOffice.org does not run on a Mac because it is either a X11 or Windows GUI app. It has nothing to do with the CPU. OpenOffice.org runs perfectly well on my Linux/PPC.
So until someone ports the GUI for OpenOffice.org to Mac Quartz nothing will change.
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
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.
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.
Heh, it gets worse. Enderle was right too.
Enderle vs. Chaffin debate from macnewsworld.com
Um. RTFA?
It doesnt _have_ to "work both ways".
New binaries will be released with both PPC and x86 object code - "universal binaries". Generating them will be as easy as a click of a button (xcode 2.1).
OSX has had this ability for a _long_ time thanks to bundles and property lists which make all this architecture-specific stuff transparent, flexible, and forward compatible.
Now if a vendor chooses to release an x86-only OSX build of their application, then that is their choice to make. But it is a stupid one as they lose out on a huge existing market of PPC macs. So your complaints should be directed at stupid lazy vendors -- not apple.
Worry not. The "Intel inside" graphics are an incentive, not a requirement, of a relationship with Intel. Intel subsidizes your ad budget if you put the decals in the appropriate places. Apple will probably pass on this, at least as far as the case is concerned.
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
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.
" Will intel incorporate a tasteful logo on the new macs?"
Apple rules their branding with an iron fist. Any agreement Intel has with manufacturers will be along the lines of "use the sticker, get a small discount" or similar business arangement - ie, something to be negotiated, not carved in stone. Whether or not an intel sticker goes on the mac will be entirely up to apple. And if they do choose to put intel on the boxes, the apple design department will have a big say as to how and where.
"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."
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
Available here.
-ch
Probably because Intel is a one stop shop.
For the Powerbooks, you can get Intel processor + Intel centrino.
For desktop, you get Intel processor + intel chipset + intel sata + intel pci-e, etc.
The AMD solution will force Apple to communicate with AMD and Via/Nvidia, etc. to just get the basics going.
"1. If Rosetta works as well as demonstrated (Jobs showed unmodified PPC versions of Photoshop+filters and MS Office running happily and fast on the Intel Mac box) then this will be less painful than you think."
Anything CPU intensive will be iffy on Intel processors, and emulation of Altivec code is explicitly
not supported by Rosetta.
". The way the Intel and PowerPC raodmaps are going I think in three uears time there will be a HUGE difference in capability. Jobs was demoing a Pentium 3.6GHz quad for God's sake!"
That was a single processor machine.
It'll be okay for most legacy apps, but anything that actually cares how fast a machine is will have to be native. There is no way around this.
Also, while Intel processors will be faster per watt, a given thread will not be faster. All the CPU manufacturors have hit a performance wall in terms of how much work can be done in one processor, and even if you have a dual-core dual-CPU machine, one thread will have to run on one core, and under emulation that means every thread will be slower.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
wrong wrong wrong. even the 9600MP got surpassed speed-wise by the later G3s. You can't run two streams of DV25 on a 9600, which is basically required these days for decent editing workflow. For more card slots, everyone is using an expansion chassis, often with a dual G4. They only cost about a grand, and the benefits are HUGE. Digi sells expansion chassis with the HD and Accel DSP cards, and they work just fine.
According to Apple's Universal Binary whitepaper (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/C onceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary.pdf), the Intel Macs will NOT be using Open Firmware...
I can't wait to see what people are able to do (legitimately or not) with the x86 dev boxes...
If you saw the video of the keynote, you'd know that Jobs was running the entire presentation from a system running Mac OS X - a Pentium 4 system, specifically. He even showed off the "About this Mac" window that showed it in no uncertain terms. So yes, this does mean Pentium 4 (maybe Pentium M for laptops) systems running OS X.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Yeah because 68k->ppc and fat binaries so obviously destroyed apple.
And for those of you who didn't use macs back then, 68k emulation on ppc was much slower than native 68k. The first powerpcs (66mhz 601) simply weren't fast enough - there were no eg 2ghz G5s back then. A modern mac emulates 68k faster yes, but back then -- no.
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
To Apple's credit, they are providing a nice API to take the drudgery out of writing your own vector code; they call it the Accelerate framework, and it's been around since 10.3.
Speaking of differences between AltiVec and SSE/SSE2/SSE3:
I haven't covered all the bulleted items, just the ones that were of interest to me. I also found the following interesting:
So, yeah, there are some of the big glaring differences between SSE/SSE2/SSE3 and AltiVec/VMX. Some of the differences are just that, differences. Others are a pain. I have a feeling more developers are going to rely on Apple's abstraction framework rather than hand-tweaking vectorized code, or else they'll rely on auto-vectorization from the compiler. For pre-existing code, though, it's going to be a bitter pill to swallow; nobody wants to throw out painstakingly hand-optimized vector code.
Apple's gcc supports universal (fat) binaries. XCode uses gcc for compilation, but it's just a wrapper. Gcc still works fine without it.
These new x86 processors have way more innovation in them than the 10 year old new and clean design of the PPC. They are not CISC processors anymore in that they internally are RISC/CISC hybrids. The PPC has grown in the other direction, and is now also a RISC/CISC hybrid.
From an architectural standpoint, PPC is still a lot cleaner than x86. But the immense brainpower and $ that Intel has put behind x86 made it into something that is hard to beat even with a cleaner design.
In the end, it's a matter of priorities: Intel had to go low-power and had the resources to develop this technology while the company line was going in the exact opposite direction (P4). Now they are killing with it. Even AMD is way behind regarding low power chips.
IBM never wanted to commit the resources or people to make the G5 portable. They would have had to spend serious money - chip design is extremely expensive - and hire very very good people. IBM never had this commitment.
Besides, I have this feeling that the G5 was designed with some P4-envy in mind: Huge pipeline, high clock speeds. And using lots of power and generating lots of heat... Intel had the Pentium-M as a 'plan B' for this boneheaded strategy, whereas Apple/IBM did not.
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.
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.
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.
Looks pretty clear that IA-32 is the supported ISA.