Comments on: Apple throws the switch, aligns with Intel

CEO Steve Jobs confirms News.com report on the change during keynote speech at developer conference in San Francisco.

[lingsun]

Apple had no choice

Apple had no choice. Not if they didn't want to fall further and further behind in speed.

[sutai]

it's about time

It's about time Apple went this route. There were a lot of rumors about this when they switched to OS X since the base system they started with was actually an x86 core... More importantly, we will finally be able to do actual head to head speed tests instead of Apple's knowingly falsified speed tests.

[taznar]

Apple speed tests...

vs. Intel's knowingly true speed tests.

Apple's turned back to tech leadership

In 1984 my Apple Lisa sported a true 32-bit processor (as did every Mac, subsequently.) Intel's state-of-the-art chip was 16-bit and many 8-bit "Intel-insides" were still around. Then the Apple's graphical interface and 16-times faster processor and the bundled Office-like software suite blew everyone else away and Microsoft's only today catching up, reliability-wise.
Yesterday's announcement that Apple would switch to Intel chips hid the bigger, gloomier message--Apple was spurning AMD's 64-bit retail leadership as well as Sun's rock-solid, Unix-proven 64-bit technology.
Today's gloomy for tech-heads but it looks like the marketing fluffers will be busy massaging the truth out of this story in their special way.

[sutai]

can't we all get along?

Mac and Windows users have been arguing for years over which system is better, and this debate is only going to get worse once they are both running on the same processor where you can really do head to head competitions... But regardless of your preference, the switch to Intel will make it better for Apple to compete and possibly grab more market share. Switching to Intel should also drop costs significantly for the end user. It will also help developers because they will be able to unify their code base giving both platforms the latest and greatest. Apple is still Apple... OS X is still going to be OS X. All that's changing is what's under the hood. This should actually be a pretty smooth transition.

[mcthingy2]

No

No

[sutai]

I wish they went with AMD

I actually wish Apple went with AMD because that would have brought both companies together to fight the Windows and Intel dominance...

[JuggerNaut]

Me too...

I would have preferred AMD over Intel since AMD seems to be
delivering great CPUs as of late.

Apple's shift to Intel

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.

[Eric W]

It's good for low end users...

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 :(

good discussion on this found at...

http://thisweekintech.com/node/3792

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.

[wazzledoozle]

It is x86, photo proof

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/tradeshows/2005/WWDC/p436.jpg

[Thomas, David]

Strange, Ironic, a Definite Twist of Fate

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.

[Eric W]

I'm with you, but...

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.

Eric

[Thomas, David]

IT'S JUST THE CPU, CALM DOWN!

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.

[Mendz]

Future Mac - Intel Inside

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.

[Below Meigh]

Doomsayers repent! Maybe the PPC wasn't all that?

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.

apple sales to zero until new intel machines out

Who would bye OLD IBM technology apple machines knowing that next year all new software will be running on the NEW intel architecture?

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.

[taznar]

Buy 'em while you can...

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.

I'm sure Apple is aware of the consequences.

They will have a smooth migration path for their current and would be customers.

If can't beat them join them.

16% Are you on something?

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.

[bcsaxman]

100% Intel Not Good for Apple

I?m not an expert on CPU design, and I don?t 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 I?ve
read on the subject ranks PPC chips with Altivec as stronger
overall performers than most of Intel?s products at any given
clock speed (the Pentium M and Pentium III being exceptions).
Further, like AMD?s 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 Apple?s
G5 systems at a lower price point) than anything else out there.
Here again, AMD?s offerings are strong as well, if not quite as
cheap. So for those reasons, if nothing else, I can?t 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 don?t think that?s 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; there?s 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 I?ve read says IBM sells
chips to Apple at prices equal to or less than Intel sells to their
present customers. There?s 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 haven?t heard of anything to suggest IBM isn?t
meeting demand now. Perhaps expectations of future growth
can?t be met? That?s a question I have yet to see addressed. But
if all the above is true, then what?s 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 I?ve read. However, if this info is even halfway correct, it
doesn?t 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) can?t 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
isn?t 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 company?s 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
can?t even think of, all snowball in a negative way?

I don?t 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 doesn?t 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
aren?t 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 that?s it. You not only take
advantage of Intel?s only real strengths (supply certainty and
cooling), but also potentially light a fire under IBM?s 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 it?s 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 IBM?s
Great Seducer, apparently. Yet that?s only the present state of
affairs. Given Apple?s 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 ? that?s 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. IBM?s 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!.

[Llib Setag]

I TOLD YOU SO...BUT NOOOOOOOO!

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...

Just a thought...

Your new manta is...

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.....

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.

Thanks.