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.
Somebody send this guy some Worcestershire sauce. I hear it goes well with felt.
No time for that now! I have to work up my new explanation of why CISC is better than RISC, MMX is better than AltiVec and only an idiot would ever think otherwise!
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Sticking with the Mac would be annoying and difficult because of compatibility headaches, so you're switching to Linux?
I'll believe that when the Red Sox win the World Series!
...did he say anything about a two-button mouse?
we are now living in the evil mirror universe
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.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
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.
Just for the OS? I'm wondering.
Yes.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X
And WINE/VirtualPC running so well may be the biggest disaster for MacOS -- why should Microsoft continue to support MSOffice/Mac when you can just run the Windows version in WINE? Why should Adobe build Acrobat for MacOS, when the Windows version (runs just as fast in WINE!) has more features and costs less??
Good Windows emulation is probably what killed OS/2, it can kill OS X too...
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
Sorry, just seemed appropriate.
I am trolling
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!
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
"Like Fermat's theorem, it's a puzzle we may never solve" - Captain Jean-Luc Picard
Karma: Excer..ex...excellahhh...realll good (mostly affected by drinking not done in moderation)
Dude, do you even know what "recompiling" means? Your entire post is nonsense.
/unix software on OS X is that GUI apps don't share quite the same API, which means they have to be run in an X server app, which is sort of kind of like wine, only 100% compatible and 100% ugly.
Linux apps are ALREADY recompilable and compatible for mac. All of them, just about. There were only problems when OS X beta first hit, and that was mostly because people had been writing their Makefiles poorly.
Modern computer software is almost never CPU-tied. The only problem is you have to recompile to run on different CPUs, which means you have to have source code. Linux apps, conveniently, you usually do, meaning transitioning between CPU archs as a linux user is effortless in a way it will not be for OS X users. The only problem with linux
This means no more second-class Mac versions of popular OS apps.
I assure you, no. The reasons inkscape is broken on my mac have nothing whatsoever to do with processors. I don't know what the holdup on openoffice 2.0 is, but I think it's less to do with chips and more to do with APIs. If there's some incompatibility between OO2 and Apple X11 I'm sure it would be fixed by now if someone felt like using a word processor inside the X11 battlemech were worth it.
What you're saying is kind of like "no more second-class windows versions of popular OS apps" because Cygwin exists there.
WINE will run on a Mac. This is *HUGE*. Imagine running any Windows software, at native speeds, with OpenGL support, on Mac OS X.
That does have interesting implications. But it's going to require a LOT of work to make that work, above and beyond what Wine's already doing. Wine will have to be practically rewritten for cocoa. Otherwise we'll be running the partially-incompatible wine translation layer inside the compatible-but-awkward X11 translation layer. Eww. I don't really expect wine for os x to get to the point your average person can run it for a long time, and I don't expect it to really work ever unless Apple themselves decide to put some work into it.
And Wine doesn't mean much to me personally. Again, great for Apple, great for switchers, not so much for anyone who's already invested in the mac. Windows apps are half the reason windows isn't worth using. The only thing it's really got worth keeping are games, and well, not only are those what Wine is worst at, that's what that little multicolored box plugged into my TV is for.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Agreed. This just a couple of weeks after Intel's CEO recommends buying a Mac if you want "safety from security woes". In hindsight, that was a whopping hint.
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.
I freely and publically admit to being one of the people who said that no way would Apple be that stupid. I was wrong- Apple was that stupid.
When Apple does not die as a result of this, I trust that at some point you'll be as open and honest as you are now and admit that in retrospect it was you who were that stupid, and not Apple.
I know this because Tyler knows this.
As a mac user who bought a single-processor G5 a month before Apple dropped it from their line, and a 2nd Gen. iPod two months before they released the 3rd Gen, this for me is the last straw.
Aww. That must have sucked. I presume both those devices just upped and died the moment they were outdated by superior technology ? That's why I never buy any technology that is in danger of being improved: you should see my mousetrap !
Once my current G5 has outlived it's useful life, I'm unlikely to buy Apple again.
I'm sorry I don't understand: I thought Apple had bilked you by 'dropping [it] from their line.' You say it still has a useful life ?
Why? The Apple fans that buy Macs because they have OMG PPC970 will be chased away, sure. But not the ones that buy Macs because they are Macs. As long as it runs OSX and Photoshop, looks pretty sitting on their desk, and Steve Jobs said "Hey, you know, this is pretty good!" they are sold. The fact that they will most likely cost significantly less will be an added bonus for them, and likely attract even more customers than the switch chased away. People will likely not buy Dells, only to load them with OSX, because people generally use their computer the way it came until it dies. If someone wants OSX, they will buy an Apple, just like they do now.
And nothing has been said yet on if you WOULD be able to load it on any Dell or Gateway system. It could very well need some proprietary Mac hardware to run on. The CPU may be the core of the computer, but there are other things, too, such as the chipset and BIOS that could be Apple-exclusive.
I fail to see how this can have a SIGNIFICANT impact to Apple's install-base in the short term, and only see good things in the long term.
/usr/games/fortune
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!
That is no iMac. It is a workstation.
You can't win. But, there are alternatives to fighting...
This is a huge blow to PowerPC's credibility, though.
Not according to the NYT.
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, N.Y. And while the microelectronics business as a whole is strategically important for I.B.M., it is a small part of the revenue of a company that increasingly focuses on services and software. A. M. Sacconaghi, an analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein & Company, estimates that the company's technology group - mostly microelectronics - will account for less than 3 percent of I.B.M.'s revenues and 2 percent of its pretax income this year.
For years, according to industry analysts, the work for Apple has been barely a break-even business for I.B.M. When the two companies were negotiating a new contract recently, Mr. Jobs pushed for price discounts that I.B.M. refused to offer. For I.B.M., "the economics just didn't work," said one industry executive who was briefed on the negotiations. "And Apple is not so important a customer that you would take the financial hit to hold onto the relationship."
I'm more interested in this quote:
However, [Apple Senior Vice President Phil] 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."
Too bad. I'd like to run OS X w/out having to pay an Apple hardware premium.
FreeSpeech.org
Intel + Mac = IMac
I prefer Mac + Intel = Mattel.
No, that only happens after if Jobs would announce that Apple is ditching OS X for Windows.
This only caused the I/O of some geeks to choke up due to wrong endianness. But for most Mac users the network flows as calm as ever.
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
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.
Maybe Apple won't let OS X run on custom x86 boxes but I wonder if Microsoft is going to release Windows for x86 Macs. This might force Apple to think about supporting all PCs. well, that's very unpropable but still we can always dream :)
Chances are the Intel macs will have Open Firmware instead of a PC-style BIOS. There's a lot more to the PC architecture than the processor, and the OS legitimately relies on all of it. You'll be able to use the CPU from your commodity PC hardware, but you won't get it to read your hard drive unless you have a motherboard with Apple's firmware, and it won't run at all unless there's physical RAM where the BIOS is on a PC.
Lawyers?