- Related Stories
-
Intel-Apple coupling could woo Hollywood
June 4, 2005 -
Internet busy with talk of Apple-IBM parting
June 4, 2005 -
Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips
June 3, 2005
CEO Steve Jobs announced Monday that Apple will gradually shift its Mac line to Intel-based chips over the next two years. The move confirms a timetable first reported by CNET News.com.
Jobs' announcement formed the centerpiece of a keynote speech to Mac programmers attending the company's annual Worldwide Developer Conference here. The conference, expected to draw some 3,800 attendees this year, is a traditional venue for Apple product launches.
"Mac OS X has been leading a secret double life the past five years."
Apple Computer CEO
In his speech, Jobs revealed that Apple has been developing all versions of OS X since its inception to run on Intel and PowerPC chips.
"Mac OS X has been leading a secret double life the past five years," he said.
The move to Intel marks a tectonic shift for Apple, which has used processors from IBM and Motorola (now Freescale Semiconductor) throughout the life of the Mac. However, the company has changed architectures before, shifting in the 1990s from Motorola's 68000 family of chips to the PowerPC architecture jointly developed by IBM and Motorola.
Jobs also noted the significant effort required earlier this decade when Apple moved from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. Although the operating systems are only a digit apart, he noted that the move to a Unix-based system was a major shift. "This was a brain transplant," Jobs said.
The CEO showed a demo of the Tiger operating system on an Intel-based machine, saying, "We've been running on an Intel system all morning."
Apple's new core
Two years ago at the same conference, Jobs introduced the first G5-based Power Macs and promised developers that the company would have a 3GHz PowerMac within 12 months. The company still doesn't have a machine that fast. "We haven't been able to deliver," he said. Nor has Apple been able to introduce a G5-based laptop--something Jobs said "I think a lot of you would like."
Things weren't looking better in the coming months, Jobs said, saying that IBM's PowerPC road map would only deliver about a fifth the performace
See more CNET content tagged:
Steve Jobs,
IBM PowerPC,
Apple Computer,
shift,
Apple Power Mac
It's hard being a Mac user. I just bought my (Power)Book and now it's useless. :(
Tought to say if Apple's gonna survive this one.
Itanium is a far superior CPU Architecture and Apple's OS X running on Itanium makes much more sense and Apple gets the added benefit of kicking sand in IBM's face...
I would buy an Itanium workstation running OS X.
disappointment for Intel. It would be a terrible mistake for Apple to
port to Itanium.
I think ultimately, Jobs just shot himself in the abdomen. Apple's marketing position-- somewhat pricey hardware that requires users buy manufacturer unique software-- kills any hope fo further penetration in the notebook or desktop markets at a time when notebook computers are outselling desktops.
Furthermore, it's unlikely software developers are going to want to ship two differents versions of the same application in one box. They were forced into that posiion years ago and balked.
Anyone want to bet that over the long haul, Apple is an acquisition candidate for either Sun or Oracle?
--Jim Forbes
an old Apple reporter
Still if Apple were to climb into a "premium partner" class within Intel, a specialised Chipset development by Apple but manufacturered by Intel is likely.
How about InfiniBand architecture rather than the dated North Bridge/ South Bridge design ?. PCI-X certainly would certainly be the featured I/O bus.
There might be an AMD Design alternative later. This , if using the Dual core or quad core Athlon64 with quad hypertransport, this can be rather compelling. In any case, the future would be bright for Apple having had the mass market chips available in the X86 world and the multitute of talents to create, just about the ultimate X86 machine yet. We shall see!. I am very hopeful Apple with their talents and Intel with their resources will deliver a very compelling design for MacOS.
common programming. And Apple thinks that this is a survivable
decision?????
On the other hand, maybe this is the ultimate Windows vs Linux
battle. That one is morre problematic.
etc...) Without the constent fear of viruses, spyware malware etc...
if you're smart enough OSX is in your future.
>with common programming. And Apple thinks that this is a
>survivable decision?????
On the surface this looks like a bad decision. How will Apple justify charging more for a Mac (with Intel) over a PC (with Intel). Most consumers won't care if the Intel Inside is an x86 or an Itanium or a Gift From God.
And this could make G5 and G4 sales plummet.
I dabble in Linux for just the ability to learn and grow in my field. OSX will be just another skill to learn.
I think many Windows user's would jump ship like rats jumping from a flaming garbage barge. While I wouldn't touch Apple hardware (I don't like their little monopoly) I would switch to OS X in an instant.
Robert
battle. That one is morre problematic."
It's UNIX, not Linux. Linux is UNIX based though.
But yes, this is a good way to give UNIX to the people, and let people see its superiority over "Windoze" which will finially push MS only to develop new gaming systems instead of better operating systems, which seems to be their current primary focus now. But still, the change from RISC to CISC, in the humble opinon of this programmer, will result in a huge performance loss for people that really need the PowerPC to do hardcore processes. I use my mac for more than surfing the net, sure the Intels may be nice for that. But what about rendering huge video files, or handling all the load on my Xserve I bought for my office. I know Apple has gone through many steps like this in the past, where it looked like they lost their mind, and everything turned out great. However, I along with millions of others are sceptical about this one.
impossible-to believe. If anything this levels the playing field and
allows OS X to shine even brighter. Sounds to me like you seem to
think OS X is garbage just like Windows. If you use Linux I have an
even harder time believing this. Linux and OS X have a common
ancestor: UNIX. If anything I would think Linux users would give
OS X way more credit than Windows.
Jobs: We were just kidding when we posted that. Believe me now and doubt me later, Intel is superior.
Apple Sheep: huh
Jobs: Basically we are upgrading but continue to buy soon to be obsolete Apple products until the transition is complete.
having said that I'd say that the G5 is/was a great CPU. The
problem is that it's not going anywhere, especially in the mobile
arena. So when Apple chose and marketed the G5, it was the
better choice.
Today is another day. The G5 is stagnant and x86 is a better
choice for the future (not yesterday, not today -the future). Jobs
knows when a horse is dead, and moves on. That's actually a
good thing.
And speaking as someone who's been through the 68k-PPC
transition, a Mac you buy today or 6 months from now does not
become obsolete simply because Apple starts using a different
processor. All computers become obsolete as soon as the next
one is born, and even the Mac you buy today may very well lead
a longer useful lifetime than the PC you buy today.
I think you'll see more crying because of the loss of Classic
compatibility than you will because of the loss of the PPC.
Intel it damages the credibility of Apple. Was all that was
said about the G4 and the G5 lies, or bending the truth?
Up til now I've been giving "buy" recommendations left and
right, now I've revoked them all. Resellers already seem to
be selling out the machines they have in the shelves at
remarkably low prices.
The Berlin wall was brought down by a slip of tongue, like
the Osborne computer company.
future. The question is; will AmigaOS4 beat Longhorn to market?
support? parts? upgrades?
If the Amiga is a massive do-it-yourself hobby item, it's no answer
at all.
if this is the case, how can they expect sales to increase. the mac base is very small to begin with and now, many will feel violated with the new change to intel, so apple risks losing many loyal followers anyway.
sorry, but someone will come up with a way for this to happen. and i'll just wait it out.
No one is leaving and Apple and most 3rd party users will continue to support PPC for at least the next 5 years at which time they will have definately upgraded their computers.
This is a good move, and I agree with Chizen, what took you so long!
architecture. As demonstrated by Steve Jobs, all versions of OSX
have been compiled and run on Intel machines.
I am sure Intel was not the only chip they were looking at.
Question is, what did Intel show Apple? Guess we will have to wait
and see.
surrounding it, a lot of your customers are worried about this
switch to Intel. Many say that the PowerPC is fine and there's no
need to switch. They say that a decision like this is going to
force many customers away. They say that Intel charges more
than twice as much for their chips comparable to the PowerPC.
Your loyal customers are worried right now. Can you keep the
same high standards for design, stability, security, and ease-of-
use? Is this going to hurt the developers? What about the price?
Your equipment is already expensive, but then again it is top of
the line, and I know that I personally, like many customers,
don't really mind spending nearly $3,000 for the 17" PowerBook
because I know that it will still be near top of the line 2 or 3
years down the road.
I feel that in the coming months, before you even begin
designing and building Intel-based systems, you need to start
talking to the consumer. You need to create an open forum for
discussions of the issues mentioned above. You have an
installed base somewhere near 16%, and I know that you as well
as Mac loyalists don't want to see that shrink. I love my
PowerBook, but if I have to spend $5,000 on the next PowerBook
when it comes time to upgrade, I'm probably going to get a Dell
just because I can't afford to buy a Mac anymore. I know yours
is a company full of intelligent and talented people, and I would
truly hate to see your products grow so expensive because of
this move that even people like me who swear they'll never buy a
Windows machine make the switch BACK to the dreaded Wintel
platform because your harwarde has gotten so expensive.
Yours is a great company that's been through Hell and back and
has still, somehow, managed to produce some of the greatest
products the PC industry has ever seen. It would truly be a
shame if this switch forces your company back into the position
it was in during the 90's. I sincerely hope that you'll open up the
lines of communication and begin seriously considering and
releasing information on pricing and development, and keep the
customer informed of the progress made on the Intel platform. I
hope you can hold Intel to the same high standards that you
hold your own design teams. I'd really like to see this move as
the beginning of Apple reclaiming it's rightful place os a true
dominant force on the PC industry, instead of the underdog that
it has been and, admittedly, still is.
Feature per feature and MIPS per MIPS, they could roughly be the same or slight advantage for Apple. We don't know the details of the chip deal, so its hard to just assume higher price for Intel processors.
A future powerbook for $5000 ?. You must be joking!. Possibly a $2000 Powerbook thats the fastest in the world of notebooks at the time.
I think Apple upgrade their hardware a little more frequently than that! I can let you off with poor phrasing there but...
"You have an installed base somewhere near 16%"
Where did you get that number from?!? Lol.
I'm not anti-Mac. I'm not anti-Linux. But I do like my Windows box. Does everything (except my laundry). Compatible with everything (except my gran). This "less secure" stigma annoys me too. Windows seems to have more holes only because its user base is so much larger under which to discover them. But I digress.
Apple have been getting stronger year-on-year, and Apple's hardware market is dominated by OSX (surprisingly). I welcome their entry into x86 and will give their OS a dual-boot try-out as I have every other flavour I've come across. I am, however, going to point-blank refuse to use a one-enourmous-button i've-got-no-fingers-of-which-to-speak mouse!
Well done Apple. Welcome to the big boys arena.
creating cutting edge technology and PC packaging. I hope they
will start a "Mac certified" program for hardware so they can still
tightly control the hardware-software integration, but basically
allow anyone willing to adhere to this hardware standard to run OS
X. They would likely have an instant OS hit with a huge user base
that people will flock to to get the gerat OS software lacking bugs,
worms, and viruses.
"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. "
Looks like IBM just blew it, thinking that Jobs was bluffing again. It is unfortunate that the Mac won't benefit from PowerPC usage in the game consoles.
compaines to make "clones" and it was an unmitigated disaster.
They won't make the same mistake again. One of the key
reasons that Apple computers work so well is because Apple has
an amazing amount of control over the systems.
Conversely, Microsoft's business model is the complete
opposite. It's worked well for them in that it's made them lots of
money, but the problem then becomes stability. If 1,000
different companies make Windows machines and 1,000 more
companies write software, there is no way they would be able to
fully test every configuration out there. If they tried, we'd still be
waiting on Windows 98.
Yup. Time to kill myself.
All purchased apps will soon include binaries for both CPU's. Just run the applications as you normally would.
The only people who might have compatibility issues are the early adopters of Intel Macs. Their old PowerPC-only Mac software won't work.
Change can be good!
This could be a very good thing for Apple.
realities of apples position."
Personally, I prefer Apple capitulating to "banal realities" than living
within a reality distortion field.
Just have to get throught he emotion to the logic. Not that its all
that easy to do when it comes to branding and marketing.
much to do with securing video distribution rights just like Apple
did with music via the iPod. Check the other articles, and wait for
what OS X will be able to do inthe near future. This could make
Windows Media look like a total waste of time and effort.
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
Apple was looking for a hardware solution to DRM. Scary stuff.
I'm a solid Windows user despite trying out the competition, and I think that WMP is a waste of time already! VLC all the way!
Thus dosen't say that we can just pick up a copy of Mac OS X and run it on our home PC's.. just that they will have a "Mac" with an Intel x86 processor in it. Obviously the innards of a "Mac" will now change although I think you'll find it will inherit some of the PowerPC stuff.. for example: No BIOS, it will have still have OpenFirmware instead and other intrinsic "Mac" things.
..anyway I was just reading between the lines, Mac OS X isn't for everyone.
are saying that Apple is indeed dropping Open Firmware in this
move. Too bad, really.
practically said their new boxes will probably be able to run
Windows.
Apple makes the nicest high-end laptops (PowerBook) and
desktops (G5 tower and iMac G5).
Plus, they'll have to remain competively priced.
There are still too few details about this whole change available to make any decisions about whether this is a clever move or horrible misstep but one thing is certain, IBM must have been a really hard partner to work with or Intel has offered a huge incentive to Apple to force Apple to make a change like this.
Al least until MS gets the idea to diverge with Airhorn.
Does anyone know how the Intel chips compare in regards to battery life?
actually really similer to my 1.5ghz (15 inch) powerbook. arouund a
dvd + 30 mins of light work for both of them. If i got the larger
battery with the sony model then it would be longer but thats an
optional extra. still happier with my powerbook though
The processor that an OS runs under has very little to do with its security. Keep in mind that Linux also runs on x86, and still has better security in many distributions than OS X.
Indeed, none of the concerns I've read in the replys to this story are valid for a processor switch. Intel x86 processors - and their supporting circuitry - are generally lower priced than those for PowerPCs (check prices for PPC for Amiga boards vs. Intel boards), and get comparable or better performance (depending on factors such as time of the year, phase of the moon, benchmarking utility used, mood of the reviewer, company that owns the reviewer, what the reviewer had with his beef chow mein at lunch last thursday, etc).
I bet you're waiting for me to say more about Intel processors. That's it. Price and speed. That's ALL that matters.
Ok, one other thing matters: Fault frequency. The number of uncaught errors that occur per successful instruction processed. IBM's PPC has a fault frequency of 2 faults per 100 trillion instructions. Intel's x86 has a fault frequency of... 2 faults per 100 trillion. AMDs have an FF of 4 faults per 100 trillion. (aren't you glad they went with Intel?)
For all intents and purposes, Apple made a lateral move in terms of price and performance (the marginal cost of porting software - anywhere from 2 manhours to 40 manhours per major third-party application - will initially cancel out the initial savings of using a less expensive processor and logic set). So why move?
I believe Apple is positioning themselves to actually compete with Microsoft. Yes, I assume that OS-X will be locked to Apple hardware initially, but it won't last. Jobs likely knows this: Within a week of the first release of OS-X, x86 edition, there will be a patch that will allow a user to run OS-X on arbitrary x86 hardware, with full driver support.
My guess is that it'll be just a little more complicated than swapping out the OS-X kernel for the Darwin kernel - just like that which has been done in order to run OS-X on arbitrary Amiga hardware.
Darwin, being open source and meant for consumption computers, has a range of device drivers rivaling that of linux, which is to say, incomplete, but only slightly.
Jobs will appear, then, to "give in to the masses" and release x86 for the generic PC, using the Darwin driver set.
Why go through all this trouble?
A couple of reasons. One, Apple is trying to sneak up on Microsoft. MS is a behemoth, and can and will crush Apple with any number of false accusations, surreptitious lies, supposed patent violations, and about as much legal crap as they can land on Apple. If Apple is to compete with Microsoft, they have to sidestep into a position where it's feasible.
Second, Apple does NOT want to leave it's loyalists in the cold. If all else fails, they need their 16% install base. Rest assured, OS-X and the applications you love will not stop being built for PowerPC just because they're finally releasing Marklar. (Yes, Marklar. It was the code name for OS-X x86, and if you didn't know that, it would explain why you're scared.) Apple also doesn't want the purchasers of its hardware to think they've been gypped as PC users just plop OS-X on their bad-ass $1100 PCs. The way Apple's doing it, the bad-ass $1100 Mac will be availble before OS-X for the generic x86 is availble.
Anyways, thank you for not paying attention, as is the wont of these forums.
intel tune, or the bloody blue man group and no intel stickers or
start up logos on my mac please. Actually this move is pretty smart
especially since intel do make good mobile chips (and notebooks
are becomming really popular) and we can now get better graphics
cards too. Once all the work is done and intel and apple keep on
progressing this will be a golden age.
the Mobile, and Phone market.
- X86-based Mac = Windows on Apple?
-
by
June 6, 2005 1:48 PM PDT
- If Apple switches hardware and OS architecture to X86, doesn't that mean I will be able to install Windows on the new Macs (and Powerbooks - hmmm, will tehy change name to Intelbooks or Pentibooks??). Vice versa, wouldn't the Apple OS then run on any PC??
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
- Yes, thats possible
-
by mikeg4936
June 6, 2005 3:08 PM PDT
- On this c|net article, it mentions the ability to run Windows on a Mac perfectly. However, OS X won't be available to PC users at all.
-
View
reply
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (171 Comments)