Jobs said there are a lot of products Apple envisions for the coming years, but "we don't know how to build them with the future PowerPC road map."
Jobs added that most of the necessary OS work has been done, but developers will have to do some work to make their applications work on Intel-based machines.
Transcoding tool to the rescue Programs written will require various amounts of effort--from a few days of tweaking to months of rewriting--depending on the tools used to create them.
Some software that's insulated from the underlying chips, such as widgets and Java applications, will work without modification, Jobs said.
Going forward, Mac developers will be able to create universal binaries of their programs that will run on both types of chips.
In the meantime, 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.
A Microsoft executive said the company would create universal binaries with future versions of Office for the Mac. And Adobe Systems CEO Bruce Chizen told developers they can be "absolutely sure" his company would support Apple's transition.
"The only question I have, Steve, is: What took you so long?" Chizen said.
Also on Monday, Jobs said the next version of OS X, called Leopard, will be released in late 2006 or early 2007. That is the same time frame as Microsoft's next Windows update, dubbed Longhorn, he noted. Microsoft has said Longhorn will be released by late 2006.
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
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.
So now Apple can start leveraging all the Linux\Unix work without PPC binaries - they loose the RISC advantage but they gain all that work for free - also, major Software companies had started ditching the Mac (see Adobe) because the second OS environment was not Mac anymore but Linux - now the Mac can get back in the saddle.
The Intel switch could be good for low end, and casual users, but don't downplay the loss of a RISC processor to people depending on the PPC as a workhorse. The G5 was comparable or lagging the P4 in many everyday areas, but the RISC PPC G5 still wipes the floor with the P4 when it comes to video rendering and MPEG2 encoding (non-card based). If you want verification, check out PC Magazine's recent review of the PowerMac G5.
I don;t care who makes the chip, really. What I lament is the loss of a RISC processor! To think they would dump RISC for CISC disppoints me to noi end. Looks like I'm gonna have to beg, borrow or steal to get my hands on one of the new G5s :(
download the mp3 file for Episode 8 and hear a very good discussion on the pros and cons of this decision. It sounds like the guy who is adamantly against this move starts coming around by the end of the group discussion.
OK, I am a die hard Apple evangelist. The rumors leading up to this announcement had my brain in a twist.
While one of the primary reasons I have always been a Mac loyalist, has been Apples' decision to find the architecture that will deliver their vision of personal computing, I find myself questioning my personal angst.
This is not any different than Apple has done all along. They simply turned to the future and asked themselves, "what's next?", as they have always done. No one can imagine the firestorm of controversy and internal consternation this created. But the bottom line was where is the future, and what archictecture will allow them to continue on that path? The G5 is an awesome chip, but without further development, who cares?! A G5 mac is still a treasure, and will continue to be for a couple of years, but without development/improvement that will pass.
I watched the keynote, on my Mac-mini, with QT7 and Tiger, and experienced the best streamed wide screen video ever. I felt my stomach twist on the Intel announcement. But then it was revealed that the Mac Steve was running the demo on was a Pentium 4 based computer. Next came the announcement of XCode 2.1 and unverisal binaries.
In the end, I realized it was a matter of conception. Apple wasn't selling out. Apple wasn't giving up their control on designs. Apple was looking for future **********, and who was going to deliver it. Strangely enough, and quite so ironic, it turned out to be Intel. Damn, I still can't believe it. But there you go. Maybe I will be able to afford a Dual G5 XServe at the end of the year now.
By the way, Intel must have showed Apple some pretty damn exciting stuff for this to happen in the first place, barring IBMs mis-steps. I would have thought AMD would have been their partner, but that only illustrates what the rest of us don't know when we aren't on the inside.
I just can't find it in myself to accept this yet. I keep pinching myself, and yet i don't wake up! People are already starting to call them "Mactel," for God's sake!!!!!!!
Okay, I'm calming down... but even with the "economies of scale" that Intel offers driving reduced priced Macs (and hopefully building market share), I still can't help being utterly disappointed in the move to x86. I know it's not just the guts that count, but... well, okay... it is the guts that count! At least, more than people want to admit! That's part of what makes a Mac a Mac.
I don't care about the theology of the Mac vs Windows arguments. I say we should cram the megahertz myth (or even the myth that there is a myth, if you don't go in for that). We're making a huge change in the guts of our babies, and that does make a difference! Speed boosts now, but at what cost later? Will Final Cut Pro still work as well on CISC as it does on RISC? What happens to all the work done on the system bus for the G5? Those pipes rock! Will we lose those improvements? I'm assuming Altivec is probably a thing of the past! (of course, I haven't had the time to watch the keynote yet)
I guess I'm curbing my "enthusiasm" for the time being, while at the same time, recognizing that the sky probably isn't falling. Probably.
I can't believe that so many of you obviously didn't at least watch the keynote conference. The only way to find out what is up is to get it straight from the horses mouth.
Apple is NOT getting out of the hardware business. Apple is NOT going generic. Apple IS changing the heart of their CPUs from a G5 to an undisclosed Intel chip. Apples OS DOES run on an Pentium just fine.
It is JUST the CPU, not the architectural design, not the casing not anything but the CPU. They did this because IBM has not been able to deliver on the promise of the G5. In the mean time, Intel has made strides to cover their past mis-steps, and MORE than likely demonstrated a chip design that blew past what IBM has promised.
There's mention that the plan is to create Mac machines/devices with Intel products inside. There is really NO mention to make Mac OSs run on clone-able PC-based Intel inside x86 machines/devices.
Pretty misleading reading only the first few paragraphs of the reports. But look at the last paragraph:
...
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.
...
So there's really nothing that should make Mac lovers worry about their recent Mac investments. It's the same thing... only different inside.
Let's get something straight here: why did Apple REALLY switch?
1. Could it be that IBM wanted to make more $ off Microsoft Xbox 360 units, and Sony Cell units then the piddly supply to Apple? 2. What about Intel's Pentium D and dual core 64bit chips? Remember, the CPUs you get in machines next month were scaled out years ago, fabricated 12 months ago and now shipping to your door in nice, silver boxes. 3. Cool(ing). I know my 2Ghz P4 runs quieter than my Dual 2ghz G5 (especially when Photoshop CS runs with 2gig RAM). 4. Control. Jobs is losing it with IBM. IBM has the supply, and Apple needs faster, cooler, smaller G5 chips for mobile (poweerbooks) and faster (Where the 3ghz Steve?) multi-cores for G5 and G6... 5. IBM miffed that Apple Xserve eating at lower-end server market with its own chips! Conflict of interest?
This isn't a bad thing. What is bad is the idea that a single CPU is the root of evil. When in fact, neither Microsoft nor Apple have provided the user with an outstanding, revolutionary, spam-free, virus-free, malicious-free operating system that is redundant, repairing, easy to use, upgrade free and scalable. From patches, to hotfixes, to updates, to forcing the user to upgrade hardware every 18 months or be left behind "cutting edge", to hacking the cases to run them faster (because we need speed to run this bloated OS and applications that we really don't own)
Personally, whatever tool does the job, efficiently and cheaply, is what I would buy. The more use I get out of it, the better I feel it justifies the cost.
OTOH, I can see people like me purchasing a G5 Mac just to be sure I have a good, solid (known) system for the next 5 years. I don't want to be buying a first revision Mac with a completely different kind of processor. I'll give them a year to work out the kinks in the hardware, and for the software to "catch up".
I can also see some companies buying palets of these things to ensure current software will have hardware to run on for the next decade.
If you're in the market for a new computer now, I don't see anything standing in the way of buying a G5.
Even the most rosiest estimates put Apple at about 3% share of computers sold with most estimating at 1-2%. No where NEAR 16%. I actually think if they pull this intel switch off it will be very beneficial to Apple as a lot of PC users would like to have OSX run on their Windows machines as a dual operating system setup. Then you might see Apple % share grow.
Im not an expert on CPU design, and I dont program for a living, so I have no first hand experience when it comes to dealing with x86 vs. PowerPC chips. However I have studied what a variety of more knowledgeable people have said on these issues in the past (ArsTechnica, AnandTech, etc ...), so right or wrong I have a few opinions (some of which I've posted on elseware).
First, regarding both x86 vs. PPC performance: Everything Ive read on the subject ranks PPC chips with Altivec as stronger overall performers than most of Intels products at any given clock speed (the Pentium M and Pentium III being exceptions). Further, like AMDs Athlon, current IBM PPCs seem capable of anything a Pentium 4 is, and in some tasks are better, despite almost a full gigahertz penalty. Finally, all supercomputer lists show systems with PPC chips doing more with less (and Apples G5 systems at a lower price point) than anything else out there. Here again, AMDs offerings are strong as well, if not quite as cheap. So for those reasons, if nothing else, I cant accept the notion that Intel's x86 is the architecture for Apple to be basing its future on from a performance standpoint, especially without the help of Altivec or even 64bit capability (which apparently is going to be the case). Cooling issues are where Intel has advantages, but the G4 is no slouch in that regard either. Therefore, unless Intel has something truly amazing coming down the pike in the next 2 years, this wholesale switch to their chips could easily result in a loss of performance on the Mac platform. I dont think thats out of the realm of probability, let alone possibility.
Second, regarding OSX performance: As a recent Anandtech shootout against Linux and Windows on a variety of Intel and AMD machines has shown, most real world performance problems found on the Macintosh platform originate in the Mac OS itself. The deficiencies they found in OSX were predominantly as a server - the gist being that, while the BSD/Unix kernel is very capable, the OSX overlay is horribly un-optimized for dealing with high numbers of hits that a server OS has to contend with. They found a few areas where the competitors could match or exceed OSX capability as a desktop OS too. This may be why each version of OSX has given its users a performance upgrade; theres simply been a lot of room for improvement. Regardless, while OSX is clearly more usable and secure than Windows, and probably is roughly equal in performance as a workstation, there are still things that could be done on the software side of the equation to make overall performance on a Mac better, that have nothing to do with the CPU at all. The point being that making a major CPU change across the entire product line, at least for performance reasons, again becomes a less compelling argument.
Third is cost and supply: Every report Ive read says IBM sells chips to Apple at prices equal to or less than Intel sells to their present customers. Theres no advantage there. Supply issues were a big problem in the beginning with the G5, but that had as much to do with industry-wide problems transitioning to the 90nm process. I havent heard of anything to suggest IBM isnt meeting demand now. Perhaps expectations of future growth cant be met? Thats a question I have yet to see addressed. But if all the above is true, then whats left for motivation? Is that Jobs isn't getting a 3Ghz G5, even when all other CPUs are hitting a similar wall, really the primary reason for something so radical?
As I said, I am not an expert all of the above is based solely on what Ive read. However, if this info is even halfway correct, it doesnt seem to me that this move is a no-brainer for Apple. On the contrary, if the performance argument (not the only one, but arguably the most important) cant be clearly made for changing the CPU across the entire product line, then it makes me wonder how other factors will impact this transition. Apple isnt anywhere near mainstream yet; if their loyal customer base is alienated enough (and many seem to be at least a little ruffled over this), could that derail the companys current upward sales trend? Could possible performance issues (either from a new CPU architecture, a software emulation induced slowdown, some combination thereof, or just general bugs & teething problems inherent in such a wholesale shift) turn off a large number of potential new customers? Could simple uncertainty about the platform, which such news is certain to engender in some quarters, do the same? Could all of these issues, and others I cant even think of, all snowball in a negative way?
I dont know the answer to those questions, but I do believe they have to be asked. What Jobs didn't mention during his presentation is that all of Apple's transitions prior to this point (PPC chips and OSX) have been almost by necessity the upside of moving was too big to ignore. This one doesnt seem to fit that mold. And if the most obvious and compelling reason for an undertaking like this is lacking higher levels of performance then that might mean problems for the rest of the plan. Call it the Law of Unintended Consequences, but if the fundamentals arent sound, then smaller and unforeseen hurdles have a much bigger impact on the outcome than objective forecasting might anticipate.
Personally, I think Apple should have hedged their bets and stuck with PPC, at least in PowerMac & XServe, in conjunction with an infusion of new Intel blood in the Mac Mini and perhaps high end PowerBooks but thats it. You not only take advantage of Intels only real strengths (supply certainty and cooling), but also potentially light a fire under IBMs butt regarding totally valid concerns about future growth and support. Assuming shipments of Macs continue to rise, with the growth potential of the platform thus being impossible to ignore, IBM would certainly make the smart business move and put more resources into its Apple partnership. In fact, I think the absolute likelihood of this happening shows the shortsightedness of IBM just sitting back and letting Apple slip away, even at this 11th hour.
The 20 million units per year expected from game console sales vs. the 'only' 5 million current Mac PPC units per year is IBMs Great Seducer, apparently. Yet thats only the present state of affairs. Given Apples current sales trajectory (and no ahem- unexpected development messing it up) it would be foolish to not anticipate greater Mac yearly sales, maybe 1/2 to 3/4 the number of consoles in the next few years thats real money. There are many more people in the market for computers than for Xboxes/PSwhatevers/Nintendo stuff combined, so the upside could be huge. IBMs position sort of reminds me of the ridiculous rebuff of cash generating Pixar by Eisner/Disney.
Barring the 'hedged bet' option coming about however, it is my opinion that the current all-Intel-or-nothing state of affairs is far more risky for Apple than it appears. Certainly no other player has as much to lose. For the record, I like Apple products and would be happy for this to work out. But, any good reasons notwithstanding, if I had to make a bet today I would lay my money against a stronger Apple Computer Co. based on 100% Intel x86 technology.
Intel usually means X86 but does not have to be standard PC Arch chipset!
Dual cores, mobile chips, Centrino, later Wimax chips makes good business sense for Apple regardless of the "disreputation" of Intel to some customers.
I believe since the first MarkLar machines will be NOT compatible to mainstream PCs, they will have significant advantages in most aspects and will be priced competitively (i hope very much).
Most would be willing to pay a 20-30% premium over a standard "kick-ass" $1100 PC. I would. I would buy two!. Hows that. It might take another 3 years of Marklar machines before Apple becomes pressured to offer MacOS to mainstream PCs. Then its OS Wars Round X @ 2010!. Wow, what a great future we shall have. The journey is the *best* part!.
Old post, but funny how all this seemed to play out. But hey, I AM the crazy one, the ***hole guy from Seattle that doesn't know what he is talking about.
MAC OSX ON 64AMD/INTEL? MAYBE...WITH V-CHIP. Posted by: Llib Setag Posted on: May 23, 2005, 12:47 PM PDT Story: Apple to Intel: Some advantage, lots of risk MacOSX86: First it would have to be with an AMD64/Intel64 bit chip system to operate like it does on the IBM PowerPC 64 bit G5 chips on Macs.
Second, WHAT IF Apple manufactured the PC Box with a proprietary V-Chip from Apple WITH a PC-64? Apple could quality control the box,QC testing, install high end graphics cards, use 8 MB RAM,install all the drivers needed for PC devices (USB2/FIREWIRE) from a large variety of vendors (like they do on a MAC)so plug&play works right out of the box. Apple Monitors already work with Wintel PCs. High end Industrial Design for box, etc.
MAC-G5 computer with MacOSX Tiger & 64 bit PowerPC, PLUS MAC-86 computer with MacOSX86 & V-CHIP. MacOSX86 only works if V-Chip is installed on an APPLE-PC (i.e. not Dell/HP/Gateway PCx86)
Apple sells software & hardware to Windows/Linux people, in ADDITION to Mac base.
Third: What if this was like the Mac Mini? A AMD64/Intel64 bit chip based Mini with Tigerx86 + V-CHIP? Use any Monitor/Keyboard/Mouse/external devices that you want OR already own.
iPods work on Macs / Mac86 / Wintel PCs.
Win/Win for all...!
If Apple can "switch" to a UNIX based 64bit chip/OS system in just a few years, they can do this too.
It has been rumoured (not confirmed) that deep in the vaults under Cupertino IS a version of Mac OSX that can run on Intel/AMD/x86 chip as a "plan B". NeXT was UNIX platform that ran on Intel chips, & this was a Jobs Project too PLUS NeXT was integrated into MacOS to create Mac OSX/UNIX...
It's Just a Chip...It's Just a Chip...It's Just a Chip...It's Just a Chip...It's Just a Chip...It's Just a Chip...It's Just a Chip...It's Just a Chip...It's Just a Chip...It's Just a Chip...It's Just a Chip...It's Just a Chip...
Seriously, folks...this is NO big deal. It is JUST a chip. There are already more than a few Intel chips floating around inside your G4 right now.
I've been an Apple/Mac user for 25 years...and I've seen chips come and go. A Chip is not the heart and soul of our machines.
Repeat after me, please: "It's Just a Chip..." Anton - ThatAppleGuy.com
Does this mean that a person would be able to run Windows, and hence all PC based software on a MAC? Would OS X Leopard also be able to run PC based software? Not a computer expert so please forgive the ignorance.
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
The Samsung Galaxy mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
Tor's "obfsproxy" technology would make encrypted data look innocuous and let it dodge government censors. That could help citizens in Iran reach blocked sites as antigovernment protests reportedly loom.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
but don't downplay the loss of a RISC processor to people
depending on the PPC as a workhorse. The G5 was comparable
or lagging the P4 in many everyday areas, but the RISC PPC G5
still wipes the floor with the P4 when it comes to video rendering
and MPEG2 encoding (non-card based). If you want verification,
check out PC Magazine's recent review of the PowerMac G5.
I don;t care who makes the chip, really. What I lament is the loss
of a RISC processor! To think they would dump RISC for CISC
disppoints me to noi end. Looks like I'm gonna have to beg,
borrow or steal to get my hands on one of the new G5s :(
download the mp3 file for Episode 8 and hear a very good discussion on the pros and cons of this decision. It sounds like the guy who is adamantly against this move starts coming around by the end of the group discussion.
this announcement had my brain in a twist.
While one of the primary reasons I have always been a Mac
loyalist, has been Apples' decision to find the architecture that
will deliver their vision of personal computing, I find myself
questioning my personal angst.
This is not any different than Apple has done all along. They
simply turned to the future and asked themselves, "what's
next?", as they have always done. No one can imagine the
firestorm of controversy and internal consternation this created.
But the bottom line was where is the future, and what
archictecture will allow them to continue on that path? The G5
is an awesome chip, but without further development, who
cares?! A G5 mac is still a treasure, and will continue to be for a
couple of years, but without development/improvement that will
pass.
I watched the keynote, on my Mac-mini, with QT7 and Tiger,
and experienced the best streamed wide screen video ever. I felt
my stomach twist on the Intel announcement. But then it was
revealed that the Mac Steve was running the demo on was a
Pentium 4 based computer. Next came the announcement of
XCode 2.1 and unverisal binaries.
In the end, I realized it was a matter of conception. Apple wasn't
selling out. Apple wasn't giving up their control on designs.
Apple was looking for future **********, and who was going to
deliver it. Strangely enough, and quite so ironic, it turned out to
be Intel. Damn, I still can't believe it. But there you go. Maybe I
will be able to afford a Dual G5 XServe at the end of the year
now.
By the way, Intel must have showed Apple some pretty damn
exciting stuff for this to happen in the first place, barring IBMs
mis-steps. I would have thought AMD would have been their
partner, but that only illustrates what the rest of us don't know
when we aren't on the inside.
myself, and yet i don't wake up! People are already starting to
call them "Mactel," for God's sake!!!!!!!
Okay, I'm calming down... but even with the "economies of scale"
that Intel offers driving reduced priced Macs (and hopefully
building market share), I still can't help being utterly
disappointed in the move to x86. I know it's not just the guts
that count, but... well, okay... it is the guts that count! At least,
more than people want to admit! That's part of what makes a
Mac a Mac.
I don't care about the theology of the Mac vs Windows
arguments. I say we should cram the megahertz myth (or even
the myth that there is a myth, if you don't go in for that). We're
making a huge change in the guts of our babies, and that does
make a difference! Speed boosts now, but at what cost later? Will
Final Cut Pro still work as well on CISC as it does on RISC? What
happens to all the work done on the system bus for the G5?
Those pipes rock! Will we lose those improvements? I'm
assuming Altivec is probably a thing of the past! (of course, I
haven't had the time to watch the keynote yet)
I guess I'm curbing my "enthusiasm" for the time being, while at
the same time, recognizing that the sky probably isn't falling.
Probably.
Eric
the keynote conference. The only way to find out what is up is
to get it straight from the horses mouth.
Apple is NOT getting out of the hardware business. Apple is
NOT going generic. Apple IS changing the heart of their CPUs
from a G5 to an undisclosed Intel chip. Apples OS DOES run on
an Pentium just fine.
It is JUST the CPU, not the architectural design, not the casing
not anything but the CPU. They did this because IBM has not
been able to deliver on the promise of the G5. In the mean time,
Intel has made strides to cover their past mis-steps, and MORE
than likely demonstrated a chip design that blew past what IBM
has promised.
Pretty misleading reading only the first few paragraphs of the reports. But look at the last paragraph:
...
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.
...
So there's really nothing that should make Mac lovers worry about their recent Mac investments. It's the same thing... only different inside.
1. Could it be that IBM wanted to make more $ off Microsoft Xbox 360 units, and Sony Cell units then the piddly supply to Apple?
2. What about Intel's Pentium D and dual core 64bit chips? Remember, the CPUs you get in machines next month were scaled out years ago, fabricated 12 months ago and now shipping to your door in nice, silver boxes.
3. Cool(ing). I know my 2Ghz P4 runs quieter than my Dual 2ghz G5 (especially when Photoshop CS runs with 2gig RAM).
4. Control. Jobs is losing it with IBM. IBM has the supply, and Apple needs faster, cooler, smaller G5 chips for mobile (poweerbooks) and faster (Where the 3ghz Steve?) multi-cores for G5 and G6...
5. IBM miffed that Apple Xserve eating at lower-end server market with its own chips! Conflict of interest?
This isn't a bad thing. What is bad is the idea that a single CPU is the root of evil. When in fact, neither Microsoft nor Apple have provided the user with an outstanding, revolutionary, spam-free, virus-free, malicious-free operating system that is redundant, repairing, easy to use, upgrade free and scalable. From patches, to hotfixes, to updates, to forcing the user to upgrade hardware every 18 months or be left behind "cutting edge", to hacking the cases to run them faster (because we need speed to run this bloated OS and applications that we really don't own)
Personally, whatever tool does the job, efficiently and cheaply, is what I would buy. The more use I get out of it, the better I feel it justifies the cost.
This announcement from Apple is telling people do NOT bye any products from me for the next 12 months, wait for the new models to come out.
It make no sense to me, apple zero their sale statistics by making this announcement.
Viron.
Viron.
sure I have a good, solid (known) system for the next 5 years. I
don't want to be buying a first revision Mac with a completely
different kind of processor. I'll give them a year to work out the
kinks in the hardware, and for the software to "catch up".
I can also see some companies buying palets of these things to
ensure current software will have hardware to run on for the
next decade.
If you're in the market for a new computer now, I don't see
anything standing in the way of buying a G5.
If can't beat them join them.
living, so I have no first hand experience when it comes to
dealing with x86 vs. PowerPC chips. However I have studied
what a variety of more knowledgeable people have said on these
issues in the past (ArsTechnica, AnandTech, etc ...), so right or
wrong I have a few opinions (some of which I've posted on
elseware).
First, regarding both x86 vs. PPC performance: Everything Ive
read on the subject ranks PPC chips with Altivec as stronger
overall performers than most of Intels products at any given
clock speed (the Pentium M and Pentium III being exceptions).
Further, like AMDs Athlon, current IBM PPCs seem capable of
anything a Pentium 4 is, and in some tasks are better, despite
almost a full gigahertz penalty. Finally, all supercomputer lists
show systems with PPC chips doing more with less (and Apples
G5 systems at a lower price point) than anything else out there.
Here again, AMDs offerings are strong as well, if not quite as
cheap. So for those reasons, if nothing else, I cant accept the
notion that Intel's x86 is the architecture for Apple to be basing
its future on from a performance standpoint, especially without
the help of Altivec or even 64bit capability (which apparently is
going to be the case). Cooling issues are where Intel has
advantages, but the G4 is no slouch in that regard either.
Therefore, unless Intel has something truly amazing coming
down the pike in the next 2 years, this wholesale switch to their
chips could easily result in a loss of performance on the Mac
platform. I dont think thats out of the realm of probability, let
alone possibility.
Second, regarding OSX performance: As a recent Anandtech
shootout against Linux and Windows on a variety of Intel and
AMD machines has shown, most real world performance
problems found on the Macintosh platform originate in the Mac
OS itself. The deficiencies they found in OSX were predominantly
as a server - the gist being that, while the BSD/Unix kernel is
very capable, the OSX overlay is horribly un-optimized for
dealing with high numbers of hits that a server OS has to
contend with. They found a few areas where the competitors
could match or exceed OSX capability as a desktop OS too. This
may be why each version of OSX has given its users a
performance upgrade; theres simply been a lot of room for
improvement. Regardless, while OSX is clearly more usable and
secure than Windows, and probably is roughly equal in
performance as a workstation, there are still things that could
be done on the software side of the equation to make overall
performance on a Mac better, that have nothing to do with the
CPU at all. The point being that making a major CPU change
across the entire product line, at least for performance reasons,
again becomes a less compelling argument.
Third is cost and supply: Every report Ive read says IBM sells
chips to Apple at prices equal to or less than Intel sells to their
present customers. Theres no advantage there. Supply issues
were a big problem in the beginning with the G5, but that had as
much to do with industry-wide problems transitioning to the
90nm process. I havent heard of anything to suggest IBM isnt
meeting demand now. Perhaps expectations of future growth
cant be met? Thats a question I have yet to see addressed. But
if all the above is true, then whats left for motivation? Is that
Jobs isn't getting a 3Ghz G5, even when all other CPUs are
hitting a similar wall, really the primary reason for something so
radical?
As I said, I am not an expert all of the above is based solely on
what Ive read. However, if this info is even halfway correct, it
doesnt seem to me that this move is a no-brainer for Apple.
On the contrary, if the performance argument (not the only one,
but arguably the most important) cant be clearly made for
changing the CPU across the entire product line, then it makes
me wonder how other factors will impact this transition. Apple
isnt anywhere near mainstream yet; if their loyal customer base
is alienated enough (and many seem to be at least a little ruffled
over this), could that derail the companys current upward sales
trend? Could possible performance issues (either from a new
CPU architecture, a software emulation induced slowdown, some
combination thereof, or just general bugs & teething problems
inherent in such a wholesale shift) turn off a large number of
potential new customers? Could simple uncertainty about the
platform, which such news is certain to engender in some
quarters, do the same? Could all of these issues, and others I
cant even think of, all snowball in a negative way?
I dont know the answer to those questions, but I do believe they
have to be asked. What Jobs didn't mention during his
presentation is that all of Apple's transitions prior to this point
(PPC chips and OSX) have been almost by necessity the upside
of moving was too big to ignore. This one doesnt seem to fit
that mold. And if the most obvious and compelling reason for an
undertaking like this is lacking higher levels of performance
then that might mean problems for the rest of the plan. Call it
the Law of Unintended Consequences, but if the fundamentals
arent sound, then smaller and unforeseen hurdles have a much
bigger impact on the outcome than objective forecasting might
anticipate.
Personally, I think Apple should have hedged their bets and
stuck with PPC, at least in PowerMac & XServe, in conjunction
with an infusion of new Intel blood in the Mac Mini and perhaps
high end PowerBooks but thats it. You not only take
advantage of Intels only real strengths (supply certainty and
cooling), but also potentially light a fire under IBMs butt
regarding totally valid concerns about future growth and
support. Assuming shipments of Macs continue to rise, with the
growth potential of the platform thus being impossible to
ignore, IBM would certainly make the smart business move and
put more resources into its Apple partnership. In fact, I think
the absolute likelihood of this happening shows the
shortsightedness of IBM just sitting back and letting Apple slip
away, even at this 11th hour.
The 20 million units per year expected from game console sales
vs. the 'only' 5 million current Mac PPC units per year is IBMs
Great Seducer, apparently. Yet thats only the present state of
affairs. Given Apples current sales trajectory (and no ahem-
unexpected development messing it up) it would be foolish to
not anticipate greater Mac yearly sales, maybe 1/2 to 3/4 the
number of consoles in the next few years thats real money.
There are many more people in the market for computers than
for Xboxes/PSwhatevers/Nintendo stuff combined, so the upside
could be huge. IBMs position sort of reminds me of the
ridiculous rebuff of cash generating Pixar by Eisner/Disney.
Barring the 'hedged bet' option coming about however, it is my
opinion that the current all-Intel-or-nothing state of affairs is
far more risky for Apple than it appears. Certainly no other
player has as much to lose. For the record, I like Apple products
and would be happy for this to work out. But, any good reasons
notwithstanding, if I had to make a bet today I would lay my
money against a stronger Apple Computer Co. based on 100%
Intel x86 technology.
I believe since the first MarkLar machines will be NOT compatible to mainstream PCs, they will have significant advantages in most aspects and will be priced competitively (i hope very much).
Most would be willing to pay a 20-30% premium over a standard "kick-ass" $1100 PC. I would. I would buy two!. Hows that.
It might take another 3 years of Marklar machines before Apple becomes pressured to offer MacOS to mainstream PCs. Then its OS Wars Round X @ 2010!.
Wow, what a great future we shall have. The journey is the *best* part!.
But hey, I AM the crazy one, the ***hole guy from Seattle that doesn't know what he is talking about.
MAC OSX ON 64AMD/INTEL? MAYBE...WITH V-CHIP.
Posted by: Llib Setag
Posted on: May 23, 2005, 12:47 PM PDT
Story: Apple to Intel: Some advantage, lots of risk
MacOSX86:
First it would have to be with an AMD64/Intel64 bit chip system to operate like it does on the IBM PowerPC 64 bit G5 chips on Macs.
Second, WHAT IF Apple manufactured the PC Box with a proprietary V-Chip from Apple WITH a PC-64?
Apple could quality control the box,QC testing, install high end graphics cards, use 8 MB RAM,install all the drivers needed for PC devices (USB2/FIREWIRE) from a large variety of vendors (like they do on a MAC)so plug&play works right out of the box. Apple Monitors already work with Wintel PCs.
High end Industrial Design for box, etc.
MAC-G5 computer with MacOSX Tiger & 64 bit PowerPC, PLUS MAC-86 computer with MacOSX86 & V-CHIP. MacOSX86 only works if V-Chip is installed on an APPLE-PC (i.e. not Dell/HP/Gateway PCx86)
Apple sells software & hardware to Windows/Linux people, in ADDITION to Mac base.
Third: What if this was like the Mac Mini? A AMD64/Intel64 bit chip based Mini with Tigerx86 + V-CHIP?
Use any Monitor/Keyboard/Mouse/external devices that you want OR already own.
iPods work on Macs / Mac86 / Wintel PCs.
Win/Win for all...!
If Apple can "switch" to a UNIX based 64bit chip/OS system in just a few years, they can do this too.
It has been rumoured (not confirmed) that deep in the vaults under Cupertino IS a version of Mac OSX that can run on Intel/AMD/x86 chip as a "plan B". NeXT was UNIX platform that ran on Intel chips, & this was a Jobs Project too PLUS NeXT was integrated into MacOS to create Mac OSX/UNIX...
Just a thought...
Chip...It's Just a Chip...It's Just a Chip...It's Just a Chip...It's Just a
Chip...It's Just a Chip...It's Just a Chip...It's Just a Chip...It's Just a
Chip...
Seriously, folks...this is NO big deal. It is JUST a chip. There are
already more than a few Intel chips floating around inside your
G4 right now.
I've been an Apple/Mac user for 25 years...and I've seen chips
come and go. A Chip is not the heart and soul of our machines.
Repeat after me, please: "It's Just a Chip..."
Anton - ThatAppleGuy.com
Thanks.