Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Laboratory >

Apple to announce Intel 'Switch'... rumours or truth?

16:38 / 06.06.05

orignal news link

Lots of tech news sites are reporting this horrifying story, but is there any truth in it? And more importantly, what do people think about this happening?

--
My two cents;
Well it is reported everywhere that they are switching to Intel, but it does seem a little stupid to switch an award wining and speedy architecture over to being Intel based systems.

For a long time I’d planned to buy a Mac, what I do for a living would be helped greatly by having one, the main thing for me was cost, top end PC's were a lot cheaper than top end Mac's.
If this change does go ahead I personally won’t be buying a Mac, as the main drive for me to get one (even above the OS) was the fact the Apple/IBM architecture was so much better than the Intel/AMD equivalent.

Todays Link

Your thoughts...?

16:56 / 06.06.05

So you don't think a switch of architecture would also translate into a lower price on Macs?

I'm not saying that I think this is necessarily a good thing, most industries could do with more meaningful competition rather than less and chip architecture is no different...

17:42 / 06.06.05

Does it make a difference who makes the chips?

Apple aren't going to move to x86, that would be utterly insane. They're not going to do anything that will affect the architecture in such a way that all current software has to be recompiled and everyone with older machines is fucked.

17:58 / 06.06.05

Well... here we are. OSX on Intel. It seems that Apple had been deving "Marklar" since around the time of Rhapsody (pre-OSX).

A link from Macintouch.

This does not mean that any PC users will be able to run OSX, just that the guts of the machine will be Intel-based instead of the PowerPC architecture. It does seem that Apple systems will be able to run Microsoft OSes though not officially supported.

It's hard to comprehend this at first since it seems that all processor manufacturers are hitting a "wall" with the scalability of their current tech. It also appeared that the AIM alliance had a one-up on other chip-makers with their forward thinking use of RISC implementation, etc.

I'm just hoping that performance and cost benefits will trickle down to the consumer more readily. It would be nice to open up some of the motherboard tech (PCI-E, workstation class GPUs, etc.) that high-end PCs have now and make Apple hardware more affordable. Apple's build quality is bar-none.

18:23 / 06.06.05

Well it is reported everywhere that they are switching to Intel, but it does seem a little stupid to switch an award wining and speedy architecture over to being Intel based systems.

From what I understand, the chief reason for the switch is that the IBM chips that Apple has been using run too hot for their laptops. Intel run just as fast but cooler.

So you don't think a switch of architecture would also translate into a lower price on Macs?

Not likely. A bit element in Apple's higher prices is their style, and that's not likely to change. They cater to a higher end market and are not interested in bargain pricing. Just switching the chip maker is not going to affect Apple's corporate identity, and therefore it's not going to affect their pricing.

18:24 / 06.06.05

A bit element

Sorry, that should be big. Funny how one letter can change the meaning....

18:27 / 06.06.05

Holy poop.

semioticrobotic

18:34 / 06.06.05

I'm still a bit confused by the reports and the impact of The Switch. What long term effects does this have on the computer I use right now (just got my new iMac G5 with PowerPC last week)?

Does this mean future software releases -- like new versions of Office or Photoshop -- won't run on my PowerPC computer because they'll be designed for the Intel chipset?

semioticrobotic

18:48 / 06.06.05

I may just have answered my own questions by reading parts of Apple's press release:

---

"We plan to create future versions of Microsoft Office for the Mac that support both PowerPC and Intel processors," said Roz Ho, general manager of Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit. "We have a strong relationship with Apple and will work closely with them to continue our long tradition of making great applications for a great platform."

"We think this is a really smart move on Apple's part and plan to create future versions of our Creative Suite for Macintosh that support both PowerPC and Intel processors," said Bruce Chizen, CEO of Adobe.

---

Also from Macintouch:

"In addition, as we speculated, Apple will provide a revolutionary code-translation system, which it calls "Rosetta", to run existing PowerPC applications on the Intel platform, supposedly without great performance penalties."

---

But what a hassle.

19:43 / 06.06.05

This is bullshit.

I am severely annoyed.

19:43 / 06.06.05

This is the smartest move Apple could make. Ideally, OSX will become fully interoperable with non-Apple boxes. Apple's been hampered by the smaller install base for their operating system.

Now, they'll be able to have OSX installed on every $300 box flying out of WalMart, AND sell those snazzy Cadillacs of laptops. It'll be the biggest hit since the iPod.

20:12 / 06.06.05

OSX will become fully interoperable with non-Apple boxes
Never happen. Apple has already stated as much. Remember, just beacuse it has an Intel processor doesn't mean that it will run on a Walmart Special any more than OSX can run on an old PPC Sparc server. This also doesn't mean that we'll be seeing a decent game selection for Macs either.

This just means that the G5 my boss just got me will be obsolete sooner, when the developers decide it isn't worth their time to recompile for two hardware platforms. No, Adobe won't do that too soon, but the thousands of little developes will, just like they did with FAT applications during the 86k/PPC changeover.

semioticrobotic

22:15 / 06.06.05

lekvar: This just means that the G5 my boss just got me will be obsolete sooner, when the developers decide it isn't worth their time to recompile for two hardware platforms. No, Adobe won't do that too soon, but the thousands of little developes will, just like they did with FAT applications during the 86k/PPC changeover.

I was afraid of this, which is why I asked. There goes the investment I just made. I thought this computer -- which I bought last month -- would last me four more years. Guess not.

23:40 / 06.06.05

Does this mean I should start looking *really hard* at BeOS?

Is they still around, anyway? I just read that Neal Stephenson essay over the weekend....

-----

By the way, this thread would make a really good Laboratory topic. OK if I move it in a bit?

09:59 / 07.06.05

Quoting:
The Guardian
and The Register

"Using Intel chips could also make Mac products more powerful, thinner and cooler"

"Apple software developers are forced to rewrite programs to work with the new processors"

"It could cost hundreds of millions of dollars of re-engineering,"
"It's not easy work. It's deep work at the base of the software kernel."
(that’s a kick in the teeth for Apple lovers)

Also to pick up on some other of your comments;

"The most important reasons [for adopting Intel] are... as we look ahead we can envision some amazing products for you, and we can't imagine how we will get there building them with the PowerPC chipset,"

meaning Apple will have to recompile/code all/most of its products when they switch to Intel based systems. How well will they support old products after the switch will be anyone’s guess...

And as for OSX never running on PC...

"OS X can already compile to Intel"
"To prove his point, he demonstrated the Tiger operating system running multiple desktop widgets, and opened Microsoft Office and Adobe System's documents, all on top of an Intel Pentium 4 3.6GHz system. Jobs said OS X already "sings" on Intel."

Seems like they've been planning this for a long while to me.

i wonder how long it will be until we see Apple OS's on PC's and Longhorn on a Mac?!... This is indeed a sad time

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

10:19 / 07.06.05

Hahaha!! Suffer, you style-obsessed geeky types! Not like your beloved Apple to make business decisions that end up costing the core client base a small fortune, now is it?

Brilliant. With any luck Logic will have to be re-engineered and start working on PC's again, as I'm starting to feel the pinch and do not relish the thought of having to learn Nuendo (I loathe Cubase). (Apple bought Emagic, who make Logic Audio, a top spec DAW. First move - cancel it on the PC...in spite of having just sold thousands of PC users a brand new update and hardware interface requiring support and so on and so forth...caused a *bit* of a storm at the time, especially considering the proportion of the market that actually use Apples compared to PC's.)

So I, for one, am glad, and I use both platforms without any particular preference - apart from the Logic thing.

Anyway, surely Apple are only allowed to exist so Bill Gates doesn't face even more monopoly litigation than he already has?

10:30 / 07.06.05

From the bbc

Because of the sheer volume of chips that Intel makes the move could mean that Apple computers become significantly cheaper.

I have a feeling that Apple is seriously setting it's sights on the wider home computer market and will further shave the price in future...

11:05 / 07.06.05

Move this to Switchboard, please, Grant!

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

11:53 / 07.06.05

Because of the sheer volume of chips that Intel makes the move could mean that Apple computers become significantly cheaper.

Nah, I don't buy it...Apple computers aren't expensive because the chipset inside them is expensive, in the same way that Calvin klein boxer shorts aren't expensive because of the fabric they are made of.

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:03 / 07.06.05

But Intel will probably subsidise the chips, which Apple have the option of taking off the list price (although they probably won't - now the lowest-end Apple laptop has dipped below the psychologically importatn $1,000 mark, why cut further?)...

Either this or a laptop G5 was, of course, going to happen as soon as I bought a Mac. It's just fate.

semioticrobotic

15:03 / 07.06.05

I followed Mac news, rumors and gossip for more than a year before buying my iMac G5. I thought it was the perfect time to buy -- new iMac models just released, Tiger just released, educational discounts in full swing.

And then this. Fate. Bingo.

alejandrodelloco

15:45 / 07.06.05

I am full of wookee rage! I am pretty sure this is my last mac anyway, but now that I know that my hardware is, for all intents and purposes, doomed to a wretched obsolesence, I am gonna have to go hardcore AMD64 with debian from here on out. TAKE THAT MONKEYBOY JOBS AND YOUR DAMNNED DIRTY INTEL!

On another note, who is kinda creeped out by the prospect of Intel bringing more DRM to the apple platform? *shudder*

16:09 / 07.06.05

Could someone explain in small syllables why this means current powerbooks will become obsolete any sooner than they would have originally?

19:43 / 07.06.05

OK, I'm as irritated as any Apple fanboy, but it's time to dispel some myths.

(quotes are from this article at news.com)

1-Forward compatability.
When the P4 Macs come out, the old PPC-compiled apps will run in an emulation layer much like Classic, called Rosetta. Jobs promised that Rosetta will perform better than Classic. God knows it couldn't be worse.
...Apple has a transcoding tool called Rosetta that will allow programs written for PowerPC chips to run on Intel-based machines. "Every application is not going to be universal from Day 1," Jobs told the audience.

2-Backwards compatability.
All binaries (applications) compiled out of Xcode will have the PPC executable and the Intel executable bundled together. NexT (the OSX precursor) did this too. As I understand it, if this is done right, it would this mean that both older and newer chipsets are supported with a minimum of fuss. Theoretically it means that development for Mac, Windows, Unix and Linux could all be done on on a single machine with a single programming environment (something else that NexT was shooting for).
Mac developers will be able to create universal binaries of their programs that will run on both types of chips.

3-Mac on non-Apple hardware.
...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.
Having said that, many people have noticed that yesterday was in fact been a cold day in Hell.

22:21 / 07.06.05

Bryan, I wouldn't sweat buying a new Mac. New applications will probably be served up using "Fat" binaries for quite some time, much the same way they were when PowerPC 601's came out to replace the 68K chips from Motorola. A G5 isn't a slow computer by any stretch of the imagination.

00:08 / 08.06.05

Yeah, this is a lot like the fat binary days of going from 68k to PowerPC. Everyone who owns a mac now will be sure to get full-use out of it (3-4+ years). Things do peter out in the end, but you should also expect that from 4 yr old hardware.

Watching the keynote gave me a much better feel about the changeover. Jobs gave the presentation on an Mac OS X / Intel machine and had the Xcode 2.1 demo to offer a glimpse of what some porting to Intel can looked like. Considering it's a full year till some Intel hardware becomes available (Pro machines probably longer), the performance of the machine wasn't bad at all. Photoshop took a while, but it was starting up fresh and was being emulated with Rosetta. Imagine when the hardware and software are to proper spec and native. The performance of the first Intel powerbook is gonna be a huge step forward for new platform acceptance.

I also think that Jobs has a few cards up his sleeve.

Even though future consoles are all moving to custom PowerPC and/or Cell configs, he had to have seen some trouble ahead for the architecture. Whereas console makers are looking to make a big sale that'll last around 5 years on the latest tech, Apple has to provide a wide offering of various types of updated tech every year. I'm sure Intel is scaling better in the near future and has a good roadmap that we're not completely privy to. On top of that, I wouldn't be surprised if he's looking to transform computing through the use of devices outside of our current experience that will need Intel's strengths in other chip tech.

I think Jobs understands that Apple has to be more competitive so there is a clearer choice for people to buy a superior computing experience. Prices may end up being a bit cheaper than they currently are up front for Macs (though cost of ownership is generally less than for a PC). 3rd party hardware will also follow suit. Sitting on the Intel architecture will also offer Mac users the option to run Windows or Wine to see benefits in things like native PC gaming, etc. Roll in the fact that Malware and Virii are practically side-stepped with OS X and there's a few compelling options to ponder.

semioticrobotic

02:14 / 08.06.05

funkaoshi: Bryan, I wouldn't sweat buying a new Mac. New applications will probably be served up using "Fat" binaries for quite some time, much the same way they were when PowerPC 601's came out to replace the 68K chips from Motorola. A G5 isn't a slow computer by any stretch of the imagination.

Thanks for helping quell my fears, Funk. I don't regret my recent purchase; I suppose I'm just frustrated because my timing means I'll be walking on pins and needles every time I want to download/buy new software, etc. I didn't think I'd have to worry about compatibility with my processor. And what new versions of the OS? How long will Apple support PowerPC, do you suppose?

At least I have about a year until the shift has occured fully. I shouldn't worry too much right now, I suppose.

Netbanshee, you all make some good points to put my mind at ease as I crawl into bed.

08:41 / 08.06.05

"Mac on Intel raises the possibility that a volume manufacturer, like a Dell, could pick-up development and distribution of the Mac, helping - over time - take Mac out of its creative market place niche, turning it into more of a mainstream alternative to Windows"

Thats interesting, very interesting...

13:11 / 08.06.05

It's an angle if the hardware business ends up constraining Apple. If they end up sticking to solutions that are mostly software along with iPod-like hardware offerings, it would mean they think that they have gotten their foot in the PC door and see some amazing growth in the market for them. I just don't see it happening any time soon, if ever, but it's an open option if it ever needs to be one. Supporting the multitude of drivers, etc. would be a HUGE hurdle though.

Apple will soon be processor independent because of this move. Even if current talk sounds like a dead-end in the PowerPC world, it mostly just FUD. They have to make the initial break more compelling before they start to hint at all of their strategic options. Apple will be able to do quite a bit more in the coming years if they pull this off.

semioticrobotic

18:49 / 21.08.06

With the introduction of the Mac Pro a few days ago, Apple has finished its transition to Intel processors. I am reading surprisingly few reports of foul-ups and disgruntled users. Can we try a post-transition check-in? How has everyone seen the transition affect the user?

The G5 about which I talk upthread is still one of the loves of my life, and I've since purchased a Universal app for it (the new iLife suite), which runs quite well. The transition hasn't much impacted my habits just yet, but I'm hankerin' for one of them thar MacBooks, and I'm wondering if trying to maintain one Intel machine and one PowerPC machine will be too tiring.

19:00 / 21.08.06

I got an iMac not too long ago. So far Rosetta does almost exactly what it was advertised as doing - very few crashes with older programs, high levels of compatibility, but not nearly the speed that His Steveness boasted of. The Adobe Apps run considerably slower than they do on my dual G5 machine at work. I was really hesitant to buy Revision A technology but my fears have so far been unfounded. I've also been happy with the rate at which developers have been able to trot out Universal Binaries. Others have not been as on the ball as they ought to be though. I'm thinking of Adobe here. No Intel code until 2007, possibly as late as second or third quarter, and it's most likely to be in the form of an upgrade rather than a patch. Grrrrrrrrrrr.

semioticrobotic

20:19 / 21.08.06

So, to be clear:

Rosetta is part of Intel OSX builds, and it translates PowerPC-only software for use on Intel systems.

Universal Binaries contain code for both architectures, and thus run natively on both.

Is this correct?

00:50 / 22.08.06

Yeah, sorry. Rosetta "translates" PowerPC code into something the Intel Macs can use, in realtime. It works pretty transparently with smaller apps, but the Adobe RAM-hogs tend to grind.

21:36 / 23.08.06

maybe this should be in a "stupid questions" thread, but could someone give me a basic answer as to why i can run windows on my new macbook (which i've quickly fallen madly in love with, btw...), but someone with a regular pc with new-ish intel chips couldn't run osx on it?

22:47 / 23.08.06

The short version: Apple computers fulfils Windows' minimum requirements, which are pretty broad considering the vast variations in hardware it's expected to run on. The The thing to remember about Apple, though, is that they are, first and foremost, a hardware company, and the Mac OS is a perk of owning Apple hardware. As such the requirements for running Mac OS are quite narrow: it only* runs on Apple equipment.

*barring the mad haxx0rz who've managed to force it t run on a generic PC.