PDA

View Full Version : So what do you think about Apple switching to Intel?


cameranerd74
06-07-2005, 04:46 PM
At first, I was just shocked, but after thinking about it... I see the logic. I think it will be a positive move for Apple and for Mac users.

However, this raises a lot of questions... What's to become of PPC Macs? How much backwards compatibility will there be? Should I buy a new Mac now... or wait?

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but it seems like we finally got through the transition of Mac OS X. Now we're starting into another transition. Where is the sanity? ;)

chris_on_hints
06-07-2005, 05:22 PM
I recommend checking out the quicktime stream of the keynote address - it really is amazing to see all of the OSX apps (iPhoto, iCal, Safari etc) running on a Pentium 4...

...yes it is running on x86 - and EVERY version of OSX (10.0 onwards) has been compiled for both PPC and x86, which Jobs described as their backup plan. I assume Jobs is pissed off that IBM have been so bad at delivering on their G5 promises - where is that 3GHz chip we (and steve) were promised two years ago?? we are up to 2.7 and that needs water cooling! Im not suprised Jobs has spat his dummy out and decided that this is enough and is taking Apple to use a new chip maker.

BUT, why not AMD? As others have mentioned, AMD have 64 bit chips. They have dual-core 64 bit chips. They sound nice - why didnt apple go with them?

My guess is that Intel have technology to provide on-chip DRM (digital rights management). This could be used by apple for two reasons:
1) iTunes purchases would be protected - I hear that the hardware DRM is harder to get around than software
2) it might prevent OSX being installed on 'non-approved' (ie not Mac) PC's

Maybe he thinks that a chip manufacturer like Intel (ie HUGE) will be able to supply the chips ON TIME (hear that IBM?) and will offer regular speed improvements. And also, maybe IBM will be too busy making chips for all the new consoles to bother with a two-bit player like apple.

just my two cents. i personally think this could be good for apple, and good for us. maybe a headache for developers. i cant wait for the G6 (ie x86!)

Regarding whether to buy a new mac now or to wait:
-iMac G5 is great value, and is a nice machine.
-the iBooks are cheap and cheerful, and fast enough for non-power users
-the mac mini is going to be the first one to run x86
-there will not be a powerbook G5

These factors suggest that power users will all be hanging back - unless apple release some serious price cuts / product upgrades to tempt us. The PPC is not dead yet - they are nice chips and perform well (even if a little hot!) for most home users...

CAlvarez
06-07-2005, 06:09 PM
Nearly all of my Windows servers are AMD-based. The Opteron simply can't be touched by Intel's offerings even at double the price. I find Intel x86 processors annoying to work with, of poor value, and not entirely reliable on the high end.

I hope there is something up Jobs' sleeve, because from my current view, this is a truly stupid move.

CAlvarez
06-07-2005, 06:42 PM
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1824705,00.asp

Dvorak thinks it's a great idea, which confirms it's not. Dvorak is a raving moron.

styrafome
06-07-2005, 07:02 PM
It really does help to watch the keynote stream before commenting. Answers a lot of questions, though not all. Go ahead and skip the early parts that recap the iPod. Weird, though...toward the end Steve starts sounding like the overlord from the 1984 Mac commercial. Speaking slowly and glaring at the crowd, against the dark Death Star-colored backdrop of the Tiger box... "Apple is strong...and the Mac is strong...this is a great time...building for the future, to make us even stronger...we will begin the third transition today...PowerPC bad...Intel good...create universal binaries...we will be victorious..." OK maybe not an exact quote. :D

I'm not against the transition. I just thought that part of the speech was a little odd.

yellow
06-07-2005, 07:41 PM
While I am a bit anxious at the Intel move, as I'm not a huge fan of Intel's products, I can understand the move. In the long term, IBM simply cannot deliver what they promised. In the 2 years that Apple has used the PPC970(fx) as it's "flagship" chip, IBM has managed to make a speed jump of .2GHz. Yes, that's right. The 2.7GHz chip you use now, is simply an over-clocked 2.2GHz chip. Hence the need for liquid cooling. IBM simply cannot deliver on the speed (nor, I hear, on the demand) required by Apple.. for the moment this is OK, but what happens in 2 years from now, 5 years from now, when Apple falls further and further behind on the MHz race? How long will we, Apple fans, be happy with .1GHz speed bump? We won't be.

So.. the MHz myth be damned. The leap to the leading processor chip provider on the planet. Maybe it's not as good as AMD, but Intel has the cash and R&D to provide the product and keep "innovating" new products. So, in a business sense (coming from a non-business minded poster), this jump makes some sense.

There is an opportunity here that Apple cannot pass up, too. For the foreseeable future, you will still have to buy a Mac to run OS X. What processor is chugging away doesn't matter at all. Mostly, this will be a "seamless" move.. (the psychological impact of an 'Intel Inside' is the biggest problem for me). Things will still be Mac, still be OS X, still be Apple, as we all know an love. But, what happens when/if this MacIntel can also dual-boot Windows? Interesting. What happens if Apple actually grabs a bit more market share, and Longoverdue actually sucks (hypothetically, frankly I think it'll be a fairly good M$ OS product for once), will we see Apple converting from a hardware company to a software company? Interesting.

Despite my initial horror, I actually have faith in SJ to keep Apple out of the crapper. He brought it back from the brink of ruin once, and make it a very profitable company. I don't see him killing it now. I look forward to seeing what Apple has to offer in the future.

Just don't put an Intel Inside sticker on my Mac, and I'll continue my fan-boi-dom.







This post brought to you by Old Speckled Hen (http://www.oldspeckledhen.co.uk/index2.html). :D

maclova
06-07-2005, 08:06 PM
I think the switch may actually be better for Apple as it'll give them some advantages they don't currently have that could help them obtain more of the technology market. For example since they'll be using the x86 archetecture they could create their own modified version of Wine and embed it into their next version of MacOS X to enabled cross-compatibility with Micro$oft applications without having to resort to the purchase of the very expensive PC emulator currently on the market by Apple/Micro$oft (hopefully since Wine is free it'd become a free and included part of MacOS X)

chris_on_hints
06-08-2005, 01:40 AM
Styrafome - yes, that bit of the speech was probably over-rehearsed. It was a hard sell. I can imagine most of the small developers were developing a real sweat... especially the ones who dont get access to one of these P4 development machines

Yellow - I agree with your summary of IBM and their non-delivery of a workable chip. The G5 is nice, but not fast enough for the needs of Power users. It works really well in the iMac, and i can forsee the iMac being one of the last ranges to convert to Intel.

Maclova - the Wine thing is a really good point. (WINE is not and emulator - but runs windows apps without the need for windows. but you do need an x86) I will keep my fingers crossed for that. Maybe some developers will drop their PPC source code and just make sure their XP version runs through Wine???

chris_on_hints
06-08-2005, 01:45 AM
Oh, and can I make some predictions (ie guess):

1) mini Mac is first to intel (Jobs said that himself)
2) the laptops are next (Powerbook first)
3) the Intel chips will be 64-bit. They have to be. Jobs wouldnt be daft enough to go back 'down' to 32 (unless it was only in the mini or eMac range and the PowerMacs were dual 64-bit)
4) Maybe the iMac will stay G5 to use up all the IBM stock (ha!) and the eMac will go straight from G4 to Intel.

I am keeping my fingers crossed for a good, fast, light and energy-efficient (ie long battery life) intel-based laptop to be released next summer. This is perfect for me, as that is around the time I was thinking of getting a Powerbook any way....

mclbruce
06-08-2005, 01:53 AM
I think that Intel Macs will be the last computers made by Apple. They will not gain Apple many new customers, sales and market share will be about the same when the transition is complete as now.

At some later time Apple will face difficulties selling computers. The reason doesn't matter: economic downturn, shakeout in the computer industry, whatever. When Apple hits a rough time they will stop making computers and concentrate on OS software, which will run on many Windows computers.

Apple will offer to certify other manufacturer's computers for it's OS and will sell some certified computers in Apple Stores.

Eventually Steve Jobs retires, one of the other manufacturers buys Apple, and the whole story fades into the depths of history. GeoWorks was a good OS that ran on Windows machines, as was GEM before it, running on DOS hardware.

...as the Kansas tune plays in the background...

Photek
06-08-2005, 03:04 AM
I agree with mclbruce, I think this is all part of a long term plan to get OSX to every computer user.... Why tell people it CAN run on a Pentium machine, but say you have no plans to let people do that. I think when the transition has gone smoothly to intel and ipod has done even better and the mac market share is up to 5 or 6 % they may well start doing macs for everyone.
I think that the IBM chips must have been seriously flawed for Apple to jump into bed with intel, I am sure it must of been one hell of a decision to make.

(also the PearPC team must be wondering what they have been doing for the past 5 years!!)

rgray
06-08-2005, 07:16 AM
Is Apple a hardware or a software company? What better way to get OSX on every desktop than to have an OSX that, in fact, runs on every computer?

In a face to face showdown on the same platform(s), OSX will (assuming we truly believe our own hype about the utter superiority of the Mac OS) thrash Windows. Windows has never been seriously challenged on an even field and it will be interesting to see how Willy-boy responds, so if you see a lot of M$ shares suddenly on the market..................

Of course then OSX would be ubiquitous which some (see Mad as Hell series) (http://www.securityawareness.blogspot.com/) think is Windows biggest problem.

And when OSX goes mainstream how far behind do you think the malware crowd will be...

But those who thrive on the relative uniqueness of Mac/OSX, and who have supported Apple against the odds with our hard earned $$$, are sh!t outta luck...

Stevie has synically used Mac loyalists to develop all the (extended) "digital hub" applications (iApps) on OSX. Now he's going to toss the whole thing to the great unwashed....

Bet you we see OSX/Intel with a full iLife bundle (damn, I paid to that) for about $50, at least as an introduction..... The 'first' OSX virus(es) will appear less than a day later...

Maybe it is time to finally go Linux for good.........

cameranerd74
06-08-2005, 08:36 AM
By the way... here (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/) is the keynote video everyone is talking about, in case you haven't seen it yet. The keynote answers some questions about the transition, but it's the Apple-approved, stockholder-friendly answers. I think Apple is upset with IBM for not getting the G5 chip to 3 Ghz like they promised. That probably has a lot to do with it. It just seems strange that after years of touting "the megahertz myth" and the "benefits" of PPC, they change to Intel. It makes me wonder if now is the time to buy a new Mac, or if it's better to wait. Meanwhile, while Apple migrates towards Intel, Microsoft is hard at work on the new PPC-powered Xbox. A friend of mine thinks this move isn't just to spite Microsoft, though I doubt it.

hayne
06-08-2005, 09:12 AM
It just seems strange that after years of touting "the megahertz myth" and the "benefits" of PPC, they change to Intel.
As was made clear by the keynote, it's all about what is going to happen in the future with PPC vs Intel. I.e. PPC may have been better in the past or even in the present (?), but projections into the future apparently show it losing to Intel. Previous projections (a few years ago) showed the reverse, but these have not come to pass - for whatever reason.

styrafome
06-08-2005, 10:51 AM
Not just IBM losing to Intel, but IBM not even being around to lose. If IBM is going to embedded CPUs and server CPUs, there wouldn't be a CPU left for Apple to use in laptops and desktops. That's what Apple started to realize. They had to get out while the gettin' was good. That's what the disappointed Mac users don't realize. It isn't between Intel and IBM. It's between having an Intel CPU or...having no CPU at all.

Klingsor
06-08-2005, 11:49 AM
Hi

As some of you I was first shocked by the announcement Apple goes Intel, but after watching Steve Jobs Presentation my afterthoughts were WOW !

After reading about the subject, I can understand why Apple chose Intel instead of another company. The main reason (among others), is the unbreakable hardware lock protection feature of Intel Processors, that will prevent installing of Mac OS X in none Apple hardware (ie: Other PC's).

However, I still don't understand how native 64 bit software compiled in PPC G5 runs on 32 bit Intel Pentium processors (despite Rosetta), as shown in the keynote. The Intel inside PowerMac shown is a developer computer, and maybe in 2006 the PowerMac will be shipped with Intel 64 bit Xeon EM64T processor(s) ...?

Any thoughts about this ?

hayne
06-08-2005, 03:26 PM
However, I still don't understand how native 64 bit software compiled in PPC G5 runs on 32 bit Intel Pentium processors (despite Rosetta), as shown in the keynote.

I don't recall seeing any 64-bit software being demoed in the keynote.
Apple's documents say that the Rosetta emulator/translator does not support software that is specifically targeting the G4 or G5 (as opposed to a generic PPC), so it seems that is not possible.

mclbruce
06-08-2005, 03:46 PM
In a face to face showdown on the same platform(s), OSX will (assuming we truly believe our own hype about the utter superiority of the Mac OS) thrash Windows. Windows has never been seriously challenged on an even field Steve Jobs tried challenging Windows once before with NeXT, NeXTStep, and particularly OpenStep. I'm sure he was serious about it. He was not successful. I'll admit he has more going for him today. But if Microsoft stops shipping Office on OS X that will put a major dent in any progress OS X makes in taking over Windows.

cameranerd74
06-08-2005, 04:09 PM
I will say this though... I think Apple is doing this transition the right way. 1 year before the Intel Macs start shipping, 2.5 years before PPC Macs are gone for good. ...And they announced it at WWDC, along with copies of Xcode for everybody. ...And they developed Rosetta to aid in the transition. I think this transition will probably go much smoother than the 9 to X transition.

Phil St. Romain
06-08-2005, 04:27 PM
Steve Jobs tried challenging Windows once before with NeXT, NeXTStep, and particularly OpenStep. I'm sure he was serious about it. He was not successful. I'll admit he has more going for him today. But if Microsoft stops shipping Office on OS X that will put a major dent in any progress OS X makes in taking over Windows.

I don't think NeXT was much of a challenge when it first came out, as it cost at least five times more than a PC and three times more than a Mac. The later development of OpenStep could have been a challenge had it come out earlier and been implemented on more hardware. By the Fall of 95, however, Windows had become firmly established as the standard for most home and small business users, and so it's been since.

I'm not sure this move is intended to be a challenge to Windows as much as a step to insure the Mac's survival. After all, if you will be able to run Windows on one of these Intel Macs, then MS shouldn't be too threatened by that at all. That would also complicate the stats on market-share as well, wouldn't it?

mclbruce
06-08-2005, 08:52 PM
I'm not sure this move is intended to be a challenge to Windows as much as a step to insure the Mac's survival.I agree.

After all, if you will be able to run Windows on one of these Intel Macs, then MS shouldn't be too threatened by that at all.That is certainly a joker in the deck. Phil Schiller was quoted as saying something like Apple won't support running Windows on Intel Macs but if someone else comes along and does that Apple won't be upset. A nice easy, legal, commercially supported way to have a dual boot system would be interesting indeed. And if you could buy it in an Apple Store, well, that would be even more interesting!

MBHockey
06-08-2005, 09:41 PM
I certainly like the idea to be able to dual boot my future (2007-2008) Mac into either Leopard or Longhorn (while i would primarily use Leopard). Running Windows apps at native (or near native) speeds will be a big plus for me as there are some CAD programs out there only available for Windows, and running them in Virtual PC isn't really even a feasible option at the moment.

I like the idea that the OS won't change (besides being compiled for an intel processor, but i seriously doubt i'd be able to tell the difference).

I am quite eager to actually use MacOS X powered by an Intel processor, to see how fast it feels. Initial reports, although against a signed contract with Apple, have leaked about the performance of the 3.6 GHz P4 machines, and they are saying that "the thing is fast".

This leaves me optimistic about the performance of these processors in the future.

I also like the fact that we'll probably see more frequent, major upgrades from Intel in the MHz region, whereas with IBM, updates have been slowing to a crawl and this was evident by the insignificant speed bump to 2.7 GHz from 2.5 in about a year.

snoware
06-08-2005, 11:57 PM
I certainly like the idea to be able to dual boot my future (2007-2008) Mac into either Leopard or Longhorn (while i would primarily use Leopard). Running Windows apps at native (or near native) speeds will be a big plus for me as there are some CAD programs out there only available for Windows, and running them in Virtual PC isn't really even a feasible option at the moment.


The education market will love dual boot. No more MAC or WIN debates. Stubborn teachers glued to their win apps, who are in the majority in our board, can boot Longhorn. Enlightened teachers will boot Leopard. Students can learn both OS on the same hardware. Software written for only one of the OS will be accessible from all computers. Education IT departments will only need to stock parts for one brand of computer.

When dual boot is possible, Apple will clean up the education market for good. There will be no reason to buy a winbox.

Once they have the entire education market, the apple brand will be implanted on every young mind in every developled nation in the world, even if they do see a WIN destop on it every once in a while.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

smashing
06-09-2005, 04:53 AM
When Mac OS X is shrinkwrapped for generic PC's (as it certainly will), Linux heads with their investment in PC hardware and self build boxes will have the world's best GUI running on a Unix shell at their disposal. How to take over the entire computer market in three steps - genius.

chris_on_hints
06-09-2005, 01:25 PM
I am quite eager to actually use MacOS X powered by an Intel processor, to see how fast it feels. Initial reports, although against a signed contract with Apple, have leaked about the performance of the 3.6 GHz P4 machines, and they are saying that "the thing is fast".

yeah - it looked really good in the keynote speech... Steve made a point of firing up a range of iApps (Safari, iPhoto, iCal) and they all looked great. I was assuming he had a G5 powermac under his desk, as he has done since they came out! That was a P4 3.6Ghz single processor machine....

If you havent watched the keynote yet, i recommend you do so. Much better to have first-hand info (albeit from SJ and his blinding charisma).

chris_on_hints
06-09-2005, 01:27 PM
The education market will love dual boot.

Hmm. No way I would dual boot. I would stick with Wine or its equivalent so that Win apps were running on top of OSX. If I needed any win apps, that is...

RacerX
06-09-2005, 02:37 PM
Oddly when people (even in this forum) talk about NeXT's past and how it failed when going up against Windows they never note the fact that NeXT never went up against Windows.

NeXT was never able to make a product that could be sold in the desktop market.

Why? Apple Computer Inc.

When Jobs left Apple and took a ton of people with him, Apple sued.

The terms of the settlement were that NeXT would not accept anyone from Apple for an 18 month period and that NeXT Computer would never compete with Apple in their key market... the desktop.

Well, you can't go after Windows (a desktop operating system) when you aren't supposed to compete in the desktop market.

NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP were never able to compete. Not because they weren't way better than Windows, but because they couldn't be sold within that market.



As for the topic at hand...

I don't think that any of us is really going to know what the future is bringing until late 2006.

This is a bottom-up transition, and Apple isn't planning on replacing the G5 until mid 2007 (the G4s are on the chopping block first). If Intel has something in the works that is better than a G5, odds are that we aren't going to know about it for another year or so... and that it won't be shipping until mid 2007.

snoware
06-09-2005, 03:13 PM
Hmm. No way I would dual boot. I would stick with Wine or its equivalent so that Win apps were running on top of OSX. If I needed any win apps, that is...

Might be fine for older, computer competent students, but when using computers with younger or less experienced students (and some teachers) anything but native will cause confusion.

Maybe your reason not to boot windows natively is the risk of viruses. Our board has slapped Deep Freeze on all its win boxes. With Deep Freeze viruses, spyware etc are gone after a restart.

chris_on_hints
06-09-2005, 04:20 PM
Might be fine for older, computer competent students, but when using computers with younger or less experienced students (and some teachers) anything but native will cause confusion.

I completely agree.

Maybe your reason not to boot windows natively is the risk of viruses. Our board has slapped Deep Freeze on all its win boxes. With Deep Freeze viruses, spyware etc are gone after a restart.

Yes, and I really dont like windows - its layout with the taskbar at the bottom means that having 10-15 apps open simultaneously makes the taskbar useless (as you cant spot which button corresponds to which window, and cant click a button to bring all the windows of a single app to the front).

But viruses and spyware are a really good reason for just running Win apps, not the whole OS. Maybe longhorn will change that. XP stopped the whole 'windows crashes every 5 mins' problem... so maybe there is hope for wintels yet??

MBHockey
06-09-2005, 05:39 PM
Doubtful. Windows' security problems stem from the very roots of the OS, and I don't think a simple service pack (as many Windows enthusiasts are saying Longhorn resembles more of a "Service Pack 3" type of upgrade than anything else) is going to fix.

snoware
06-09-2005, 05:53 PM
I completely agree.
its layout with the taskbar at the bottom means that having 10-15 apps open simultaneously makes the taskbar useless


True, the dock and expose make OS X far superior.


But viruses and spyware are a really good reason for just running Win apps, not the whole OS. Maybe longhorn will change that. XP stopped the whole 'windows crashes every 5 mins' problem... so maybe there is hope for wintels yet??

What I hate about Windows is the CTRL ALT DELETE - END TASK infinite loop. I've always been able to exit a crashed Mac app with a single Command Option Esc - Force Quit routine.

chris_on_hints
06-10-2005, 01:39 AM
Windows' security problems stem from the very roots of the OS

I agree. Its a silly idea to link every part of the OS with every other, meaning that a single compromised system can let a malicious hacker/program gain 'complete control over your system'. Seems like 99% of the Windows updates quote the same line...

...oh and XP is really just a shell for running IE, which seems to be involved in every part of the GUI... if IE crashes (or you restart 'explorer.exe') the whole desktop, taskbar, windows explorer windows and IE windows all die.....Gates is an idiot for this (IMHO - but lets not start a flame war, ok?) and is reliant on his market share for maintaining loyalty to windows. Its rare to hear someone saying 'i choose windows cos its good' - they all say 'but everyone runs windows, so should I'. First thing a potential switcher asks - 'But what about compatability?'

While I am on my rant, I think the best thing the anti-monopoly lawyers here in europe and over there in the US could do would be to force MS to release the technical specs and open source drivers for:
-NTFS
-all the office formats, so they dont have to be reverse-engineered
-windows networking

Then compatability wouldnt be an issue, and people could make a REAL choice between Windows, Linux, OSX etc.

hayne
06-10-2005, 01:52 AM
-all the office formats, so they dont have to be reverse-engineered

It was recently announced that future MS Office products will use an XML-based format and that this XML format will be made public. Apparently there will be upgrades to even the current versions of MS Office to allow use of this new format.

chris_on_hints
06-10-2005, 02:34 AM
It was recently announced that future MS Office products will use an XML-based format and that this XML format will be made public. Apparently there will be upgrades to even the current versions of MS Office to allow use of this new format.

I had heard about the new ".docx" xml format, but not that it would be made public... I hope they are true to their word.

ArcticStones
06-10-2005, 03:56 AM
I think one of the most interesting analyses on the Apple-Intel deal is offered by Robert Cringely (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html)

He asks five very fundamental questions that others seem to have overlooked:

1.) Whatever happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?
2.) What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?
3.) Where the heck is AMD?
4.) Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
5.) Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?

Based on that, he offers a VERY interesting train of thought.
His conclusion is, well - radical! (Read it for yourself.)


With best regards,
ArcticStones

voldenuit
06-10-2005, 06:01 AM
It was recently announced that future MS Office products will use an XML-based format and that this XML format will be made public. Apparently there will be upgrades to even the current versions of MS Office to allow use of this new format.
Whoever evaluates this move should be aware of the recent adoption of

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office

a really open standard.

M$ seems to run yet another smokescreen-PR-strategy like they did in the past on other occasions.
If they were about open standards, we'd know it...

voldenuit
06-10-2005, 06:17 AM
To evaluate the Cringely story, you should consider that, while the oddball ideas tossed around are interesting food for thought, it is slighly pitiful that he quotes http://p2pnet.net/story/5134 where you can find a long quote from http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelxbench.html simply omitting that the performance tested was not the hardware, but the Rosetta-performance.

Using skewed quotes to make your point is not exactly what you'd expect from an honest columnist.

cameranerd74
06-10-2005, 10:16 AM
... 2.) What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system? ...

I doubt Apple will abandon their 64-bit development. Apparently, the low end Macs will get Intel processors first, with the high end Machines changing over towards (or during) 2007. My guess is, by then they'll have figured out a way to make the Itanium (or whatever the latest 64-bit chip is at the time) run with Mac OS X. Also, when new 64-bit chips come out, the Itaniums (and other current 64-bit chips) will become more affordable, and may be used in iMac level systems. Who knows? Maybe they'll change the whole line to give users more headless chocies like the Mac mini. In any case i doubt we'll see Apple move backwards in this area, especially with the G5 replacement.

chris_on_hints
06-10-2005, 01:29 PM
I doubt Apple will abandon their 64-bit development. Apparently, the low end Macs will get Intel processors first, with the high end Machines changing over towards (or during) 2007. My guess is, by then they'll have figured out a way to make the Itanium (or whatever the latest 64-bit chip is at the time) run with Mac OS X. Also, when new 64-bit chips come out, the Itaniums (and other current 64-bit chips) will become more affordable, and may be used in iMac level systems. Who knows? Maybe they'll change the whole line to give users more headless chocies like the Mac mini. In any case i doubt we'll see Apple move backwards in this area, especially with the G5 replacement.

I agree. But there isnt much reason to have a 64bit Mac mini or iBook... at least in the first Intel generation. The PowerMac and PowerBook line should be on 64bit by the end of the transition, which is plenty of time for Intel to get 64bit chips ready. Just cos AMD has them now doesnt mean that they are right for Apple.

Someone has also made the point that Intel make chipsets for motherboards in addition to CPU's, which would be great for apple as they could have a single manufacturer making both (and ensure both fully support OSX).

dukeinlondon
06-10-2005, 05:06 PM
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1824705,00.asp

Dvorak thinks it's a great idea, which confirms it's not. Dvorak is a raving moron.

I agree. Still writing though.

dukeinlondon
06-10-2005, 05:25 PM
I think one of the most interesting analyses on the Apple-Intel deal is offered by Robert Cringely (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html)

He asks five very fundamental questions that others seem to have overlooked:

1.) Whatever happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?
2.) What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?
3.) Where the heck is AMD?
4.) Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
5.) Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?

Based on that, he offers a VERY interesting train of thought.
His conclusion is, well - radical! (Read it for yourself.)


With best regards,
ArcticStones


I read cringely post and the underlying supposition is that there is a significant market out there of people wanting to switch away from windows... I use Linux and MacOs and in the last few years, I've hardly met anyone that was even interested in considering switching to whatever.

People don't care about OSes, they care about apps, and silly one at that. they care about Messenger, kazaa, and god know what else, and they care about finding all apps in the start menu, not in the application tab of finder or wherever other environment wants to put them.

So creating that market out of nowhere will be sooo expensive ! Think of the number of developpers that will have to be convinced to do a port to MacOsX in addition to the current OSX developpers ? And if Apple comes up with a large OEM scheme, I guess Microsoft will have to react.

If Cringely is right, then Jobs is really pushing his luck imho

mclbruce
06-10-2005, 09:20 PM
I think one of the most interesting analyses on the Apple-Intel deal is offered by Robert Cringely (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html)

He asks five very fundamental questions that others seem to have overlooked:

3.) Where the heck is AMD?
AMD does not make motherboards. Intel does. If Apple decides to stop making hardware they can talk with Intel about producing OS X spec motherboards and offering them for sale. I'm guessing some of these motherboards would be Windows spec as well. If so then any boxmaker could make OS X/Windows boxes instead of just Windows boxes. They would deal with Intel and just pick and choose an appropriate motherboard. It would be very easy.

I do not know if Apple is planning to get out of the hardware business. In fact I do not think it's a good idea. But the move to Intel will make it easy for Apple do this if they want to.

voldenuit
06-10-2005, 10:28 PM
Ars Technikas John Siracusa wrote a thoughtful paper about the switch:

http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ars

--
But it was an old tradition that away over there stood the infinite loop,
from which at times superior processors took sail, never to return.

cameranerd74
06-11-2005, 11:38 AM
I looks like the Intel Powermac (http://www.powerpage.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/powerpage.woa/wa/story?newsID=14643) is really just a mini-ATX board in a G5 case. That's probably why they want them all back. ;)

Anyway, I went to a 3 hour lunch wth my local Apple rep yesterday, and we talked a lot about the Intel transition. He thinks the iBooks will be among the first to transition and they'll get Pentium M processors. He also sees a Windows layer (Wine environment) in the near future, but does not think dual booting (Longhorn/Leopard) will ever be supported by Apple... but probably made possible through 3rd party solutions. Overall, he said he's sad about the change, but thinks it will be positive. Still, he added, "when they roll out the last PPC-powered Macs... I'll be buying two."

Quanto
06-11-2005, 04:37 PM
I was really interested to hear comments on I Cringely's article. Saw that one at Ars Tech too.

We are incredibly sad about Steve's decision. Why? We just moved back to Apple from Win$Tel in late 2003. It has been a simply wonderful and incredible experience for us, nearly all GOOD!

We left Win$Tel mainly because we felt they really didn't give a damn about us.

They also made us feel stupid. Something was always breaking and support types essentially said we shouldn't be trying to support ourselves because we (they didn't say this, but we felt it) are incompetent and stupid. But we are not! We are customers!

Apple has a much more powerful OS than any lap-desk top system in its ease of use and its reliability.

Now, back to I Cringely. He seems to us to be finding $Value in what Apple and Intel want, doesn't he?

But do they want what I-We want?

Do you think they do? Did I Cringely impy that?

We tend to agree that MAC OS X will have better performance and performance growth with Intel than with IBM. We just thought that IBM was a better, customer oriented supplier. It seems they have fallen back into the old Bill Aker days: customers AND EMPLOYEES (edited all caps in after submission) be damned!

One final note which is just our local opinion: digital will be dead in fewer than two decades! Perhaps not hybrids, though...

From our perspective that imminent 'truth' trumps whatever I Cringely, Apple, Intel, and M$ do.

Thank you for reading,

Doug.

CCS
06-20-2005, 11:32 AM
I think this is a really good move for Apple. The problem is that IBM screwed Apple. Apple wanted a G5 PowerBook and a 3.0Ghz G5 years ago. I am sure Apple said to IBM, look we want a PowerPC chip like this with these specs. IBM replies, look giving your market share and the all the R and D its gonna take, we just can't do that, but we can give you a lower grade chip. Apple took that as a slap in the face. What your not gonna give us what we want, cya we're out of here! So Apple had to turn else where, and the ideal place was Intel.

NeXTLoop
06-20-2005, 02:36 PM
I don't think there's any chance of Apple releasing OS X on generic PC's. Jobs is (thankfully) too controlling. He wants to be in control of the entire user experience, including hardware.

If Apple allowed OS X to be installed on any generic computer, OS X would soon degenerate into Windows. There would be virtually no way of preventing X from becoming just as unstable, just as unreliable, and just as prone to hackers and viruses.

yellow
06-20-2005, 02:44 PM
I am sure Apple said to IBM, look we want a PowerPC chip like this with these specs. IBM replies, look giving your market share and the all the R and D its gonna take, we just can't do that, but we can give you a lower grade chip. Apple took that as a slap in the face. What your not gonna give us what we want, cya we're out of here! So Apple had to turn else where, and the ideal place was Intel.

All the current speeds of G5s are simply overclocked 2.2GHz original. That's as fast as IBM could make them. 3 years, and 200MHz. :confused:

dukeinlondon
06-20-2005, 03:57 PM
I share Linspire's Robertson disappointment. The switch won't mean a thing if they don't let Dell, Lenovo and John Doe install OSX on the machine they like, even if that means being careful with supported components and chipset in the first few months. Instead of which, it'll be just a Mac, with the same natural limitations of a closed platform.

I hope cringely is right.....

hayne
06-20-2005, 04:49 PM
I share Linspire's Robertson disappointment. The switch won't mean a thing if they don't let Dell, Lenovo and John Doe install OSX on the machine they like, even if that means being careful with supported components and chipset in the first few months. Instead of which, it'll be just a Mac, with the same natural limitations of a closed platform.

The switch isn't supposed to "mean a thing". In fact in a successful transition, you couldn't tell any difference between a Mac that has an Intel inside and one that has some other CPU chip. The innards shouldn't matter.
Of course being able to run Windows natively on a Mac would be quite useful, but I'm talking about the OS X side of things. The OS X experience should be the same no matter what chips are inside.

Your "Just a Mac" is my "It's a Mac!".
Your "natural limitations of a closed platform" is my "natural advantages of a well-designed and carefully controlled platform"

ArcticStones
06-20-2005, 05:00 PM
Your "Just a Mac" is my "It's a Mac!".
Your "natural limitations of a closed platform" is my "natural advantages of a well-designed and carefully controlled platform"

Hayne, that slight difference in attitude means a world of difference. So far Apple has been the undisputed master of inspiring attitude. Given a successful transition (and Iím very optimistic), they will have far more people thinking along those lines.

Apple is not just a brand. To use a marketing catchword: It is a love brand.

Or as you put it: "It's a Mac!"

dukeinlondon
06-21-2005, 01:32 AM
I don't care about running windows or anything else on a Mac. The regret I have is that "the well designed and carefully controlled platform" also means that its reach will be just as limited as now.

It might be a profitable strategy for Apple, but it won't deliver anything to end users in terms of broader software and hardware support for OSX. It fact the transition will mean even less support whilst it happens.A more open platform strategy (and I am not talking running OSX on absolutely anything either) would have almost certainly delivered that.

NovaScotian
06-21-2005, 08:19 AM
I don't care about running windows or anything else on a Mac. The regret I have is that "the well designed and carefully controlled platform" also means that its reach will be just as limited as now.

It might be a profitable strategy for Apple, but it won't deliver anything to end users in terms of broader software and hardware support for OSX. It fact the transition will mean even less support whilst it happens.A more open platform strategy (and I am not talking running OSX on absolutely anything either) would have almost certainly delivered that.
I'm with ArcticStones: I'll bet that during the transition both "G" machines and "I" machines will be available, and I'll be very surprised if you can tell the difference without running a system profile, speed aside.

Photek
06-27-2005, 07:53 AM
On a slightly allied note..... what do you think will last longest? G4 or G5?

If apple 'intel' the PB, PM and Imac first then the G5 chip would have had a very short life indeed and the G4 would live on! (for a bit)

If apple 'intel' the mini and the ibook first then the G4 is dead, but the speed ratio between the low end macs and the high end macs could be really close!

I wonder if apple will astonish everyone and simply roll out a complete intel line up as of next year?! and death both the PPC chips into history.

ps I am not trying to make a point, just thinking out loud. :D

cameranerd74
06-27-2005, 09:17 AM
Personally, I think the G4 will go first. The Mac mini, PowerBook, and iBooks will likely be replaced with Pentium M equivalents. I think the G5 will be around for a while. However, I think that we may see some new lower-priced server offerings (in addition to the G5 Xserve). Perhaps a Xeon-powered Server.

chris_on_hints
06-29-2005, 12:53 PM
I think cameranerd74 (good name!) is correct in that the G4's will go first.

The mac magazine here in the UK, MacUser, published some benchmarks which showed that the P4 3.4GHz MacTel which was supplied to developers was quite a lot slower in actual number crunching when compared to a G5 iMac or dual 2.7G powermac G5.

Although it runs really HOT, the G5 does perform and will be around for a while (especially if apple can update their G5 ranges or drop their prices...)