- Related Stories
-
The arrival of Apple's Intel era
January 23, 2006 -
Ten thoughts on the new Intel iMac
January 20, 2006 -
FAQ: Will your Intel-based Mac run Windows?
January 20, 2006 -
Intel releases pricing, specs on new chips
January 5, 2006 -
Is the PowerPC due for a second wind?
December 6, 2005 -
The brains behind Apple's Rosetta: Transitive
June 8, 2005
The reasons Apple switched to Intel chips for its Macintosh computers: speed, heat and the death of the Megahertz Myth.
The New York Times
The story "Intel inside the Mac. Huh?!" published January 28, 2006 at 11:00 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.
i'm just waiting for the apple fans to explain the $50 premium for a program that you already hold not only a license to, but support rights (for a specified time increment). please... explain that to me? i understand that the transition is expensive to implement, thats why they adverstise and try and sell more units, like everyone else in the game.
jobs is a moron to think that the intel transition will go smoothly if he continues to ostracize the "creative" mac base. those people that use apples for multimedia content creation/manipulation... you damn well better give them a free upgrade, cause lord knows half of their programs won't be working with this new hardware anyway. and this is not to the mention the fact that the true hurt will come when third parties take after this model, (i.e. adobe, marcomedia, protools) and start charging for an upgrade to what is essentially the same product.
still, i'm getting ahead of myself... apple hasn't yet (to my knowledge) released plans for a replacement to the powermac g5 (which is likely to the be the system these people are using, or some older derivation).
Now that the Intel(TM) versions of Apple(TM) software runs more than twice as fast as the Power(TM) version, it?s kinda hard to argue. There is the argument that the versions for the old architecture was hopelessly inefficient, and that the switch was just an opportunity to fix old design flaws, but that makes Apple(TM) look very bad. I wish we could tell, but that would require that corporation to switch to the open source software paradigm.
but remember, now everyone is on the same field, everyone is
intel... so no need for justification. "
Actually, they appear to run faster than all but the fastest
PowerPC chips.
I agree a $50 "crossgrade" is unreasonable... Apple's dropped it
for Aperture, but no word on whether all the crossgrades will be
free.
In the long term it won't matter. The switch to Intel will mean
much faster Macs and the ability to get new features into the
chipsets faster. While the lack of Classic may hurt some for
awhile, there will almost certainly be a third-party solution, and
the need will quickly fade anyway as native replacements are
found.
All in all, the future looks bright.
work perfectly fine. No one is forcing them to upgrade from on
computer to another. If you don't feel like paying the 50 bucks for
the newer version to use it on your newer computer, then don't buy
that newer computer. Stick with the one you got, obviously it's
worked so far. I'm sorry but Apple has given plenty of warnings
about what Rosetta can and can't handle. If people still buy the
new macs and scratch their heads why final cut won't work, they
should return the machine....really.
But when? Curious minds need to know...
are mostly about the software, with hardware information included
where it's absolutely necessary.
The switch to Intel processors doesn't change the OS for the user in
any appreciable way, with the exception of Rosetta for early
adopters. From a publishing standpoint there's no reason to rush a
book out the door.
This is why macs run better and windows is crap. Windows is so ingrained in legacy, to the point where windows is a big POS, due to its millions of lines of code. Hey Bill, have a set, get rid of the old code and force your customers to buy new apps. Its not like they'll leave you or something.
millions of lines of code in OSX are somehow better?
ERR: Logic flawed. Please re-enter equation.
As a matter of fact it was intel that started the whole spin that raw speed = performance. So claiming that this was a reason why apple switched to intel is just plain shorsighted, it was like you were just looking for an extra excuse.
That's your perception problem. Surely you can understand. The face marketing competition from a company the size and breadth of which they can't possibly hope to effectively compete against. Sadly IBM didn't make things any easier for Apple. Now that they joined up with Intel they no longer even have to advertise the performance of the chip - relative to competition - just style and that which distinguishes Apple.
I know there are other reasons why Apple went Intel than what were listed, I just don't know what they are.
Heat isn't the reason Apple switched, I guarentee you that. If it was, how would Apple know how much heat a non-production CPU (at the time) would produce. True, it was based on the great Pentium-M core, but still the only true basis for this decision was the Prescott, which ran muy caliente.
the processors. While AMD has a very good track record in this
regard, Intel has much more capacity overall and a proven record of
providing product on time and to spec. Apple got burned by not
having a promised 3GHz PowerPC CPU. While it may be a "myth",
people on both sides still often believe that MHz (or GHz)=better.
I'm not saying AMD couldn't do the same, but AMD right now isn't
as productive as Intel.
Nothing says that Apple can't go with AMD for their desktops - although it would be a safe bet that Apple worked out some deal - either price, priority in production or both to go exclusivly with Intel.
And while AMD holds the current lead, there is nothing to say in a year that Intel won't be right back in there. Despite all the fanboy hardware sites (for either camp - AMD or Intel) I'm sure there is more going on in the back end than we know.
It's not so much a strategic move for world domination, as it is a strategic move to make the best products, and broaden the available options for Mac fans.
It also manages to run rings around Windows by capitalizing on a strength of Mac OS X Mach Kernel: Hardware portability, the ability to quickly migrate code to another platform.
Once again, Apple will lead when it comes to adopting new processor technologies, simply because the competition's operating system is too tied into the hardware.
When a dramatically better chip becomes available, one can be that Apple will be the first to be able to use this new technology, while the competition gets mired in migration issues.
The x86 platform, as advanced as the core duo is, is around 20 years old. Steve sees that. A move forward to more advanced architectures is pending. By jumping into the x86 pool and announcing, "I'm one of the Boys," Steve increases the chances of getting more people to join him when he decides to stand up and leave saying "The water's already too cold, let's get to the new HOT pool!"
Mac Itaniums, anyone?
Lately CNET has engaged in some very discriptive "news" which tend to sound like advertisements for one product and bashing out on another. This article was supposed to be why apple switched to intel; not how great they look, how sleek they are, how nice the case is, and claims of being virus free.
How about delivering the news, without bashing out on one product and advertising another?
> have no viruses
Name a virus for Mac OSX. Really, I'm curious. Could break a new story here in the Cnet forums.
>Symantec who has an entire mac antivirus suite
A solution looking for a problems, perhaps? Symantec has a suite because they need to sell product. Just because they have a suite, doesn't necessarily mean there is a need for it.
>Lately CNET has engaged in some very discriptive
>"news"
Much like this shill comment?
>How about delivering the news, without
>bashing out on one product and advertising
>another?
Does crow go well with astroturf? Just curious.
Calling BS on this post!
"Tell that to Symantec who has an entire mac antivirus suite"
One of the worst written pieces of software extant. Ask any real
Mac user.
"and tell that to all my apple customers who have viruses spring
up on them all the time"
Could you please provide examples of these virii?? None of us
other Mac users seem to know anything about them. If you have
truly found a Mac virus or 2 maybe you could become famous by
outing them to the world.
Troll!
Dave
Symantec is crap. Total crap. Ever install their firewall software? Well don't bother, it installs hidden files on the drive that totally negate the built-in firewall, which is more than adequate.
And before you, or a troll replies with "OS X WILL have a virus when it gains more market share" I'd like to add this: Apple has 5%+ of marketshare. That's more than Dell. "Security through obscurity" is not the answer. "Security through Security" IS. Just because Microsoft didn't build any of their OS's with security in mind, doesn't mean Apple didn't.
Get your facts straight before you go on a rant.
mp3virus.gen
look at the url below: http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,63000,00.html?tw=rss.TEK
I had tons of Mac OS X boxes ruined and brought to me. So please quit getting your ego involved in this, and finally realize that there are tons of malware and viruses made for the Darwin (BSD) core as well.
Thank YOu!
There are two things that have come to irritate me. The first is when you glance at someone and they proceed to ask you in very un-nice way if you have a staring problems. The second is people calling other people trolls or just name calling in general.
If it makes you feel better to call someone a name then look at a mirror and go to town. Everytime I read a post that starts off or ends with name calling I loose all respect for the poster. It tells me that they are basically nothing more than people trying to elicit a response through abusive writing. It also flips that little switch in my head that say's this person doesn't know anything of any importants.
I only say this because I have noticed the word troll being used a lot to describe people in these forums. I've even had it used to describe myself (big suprise). Come on people grow up already. You want to be heard then say something worth listening to.
Uh-huh - doing it for the greater good, eh?
>because I have noticed the word troll being used
>alot to describe people in these forums.
Well, there is quite a bit of trolling going on. Along with name calling. Sounds about right for an Internet based message board.
You suprised because???
>I've even had it used to describe myself (big
>suprise).
Ahah! Got called a name yourself.
Buck up - it's just an Internet message board - not much you can do about it.
Except post on-topic. You were going to comment about this story, right?
Intel has been behind the performance curve for years when it comes to their top of the line CPUs. They got lucky when their small design outpost in Israel bucked the company and came up with a good laptop chip based on the PIII (after it had been officially been declared "dead"). Granted, Intel has since been smart enough to try & milk that old (if reliable) cow for the next decade, but they've really had no choice since the big-money Itanium & Netburst architectures turned into such busts. And certainly that's not indictative of an innovative design, 'performance first' organization. There's just no rational reason for Jobs to have instigated such a massive shift to them if those qualities had been his sole, or even main, criteria.
AMD has the best performing CPUs on the x86 side of the fence, bar none, and no one whose seen both companies' plans expects that to change throughout the decade. AMD will have closed the gap with Intel on the lowpower/laptop front this year as well (this also predicted by industry insiders, for quite a while). For those reasons, as well as Intel's lackluster track record for well over half a decade now vs their main competitor, the 'performance via x86' logic would dictate Apple going with AMD.
As for production quantities, it's well known Apple isn't getting all the chips it wants from Intel already (shades of IBM/Freescale, eh?). It has to be remembered that while Intel has more capacity than any other CPU maker, they also have an equally great customer base, all demanding their 'latest & greatest'. So if Jobs truely expected a dramatically better supply situation with Intel, he was deluding himself. Moreover, AMD has opened 2 new major high tech fabs since the Apple announcement. Do you seriously think Jobs wasn't privy to that bit of info? Everyone else was. AMD is still smaller in production output, but those two fab additions mean a much larger relative increase in capacity for them vs their customer base. In other words, Apple should have seen that it would have an easier time getting it's CPU supply by being one of AMDs biggest cutomers with the highest profile, rather than Intel's high profile-yet-small market *****. Medium fish, meet massive pond.
No - Apple made this change because Intel is heavy into video; whole hardware solutions (Viiv), DRM technologies (Trusted Platform Modules), and the favor of the content providers - something that being the 'big dog' trying to establish DCMA frendly standards will obviously give them. Clearly Apple wants to be as big in video as they currently are in audio. So it's just as clear to me that they saw a shortcut worth taking by pairing with Intel to get there. All the rest of these rationals are just pure wishful thinking.
Jobs is betting the future of his company on movies and TV shows, delivered over the internet, and watched on locked down Intel boxes. He thinks people will be over-awed by this new video paradigm, so much so that they won't care that Apple actually could have been making better, higher performing computers by going to AMD, or even - yes Virginia - staying with IBM, Freescale,and the new up and comer in the PPC world PA Semiconductor.
What no seems to be talking about is how Freescale has had dual core, low power, high FSB speed G4s for months, at exactly the same clock speed range as Intel's vaunted Yonah. Or how PA Semi is adding much higher clockspeeds and cache levels to that very same formula, for a CPU scheduled to debut before the end of 2006. Those two companies in tandem essentially refute Job's claim that PPC was going nowhere on the mobile front. And as for desktop/workstations and servers ... don't make me laugh. IBM will be eating Intel's lunch on that front for the forseeable future. And if you think Cell isn't tailor made for video devices, then you just aren't paying attention.
The only thing Intel has that they don't is the size and industry clout that Apple thinks it needs to be top dog in a video-centric world. Personally, I think Jobs is going to find out soon how that's a 'cart before the horse' strategy. How the best really DOES win the day eventually. And frankly, I think ignoring these things is a reliable recipe for going nowhere, fast.
Flame away Mac fanboys, Intel apologists, and stock market bulls ... I know I'm in the minority. But I still think "the future" only "looks bright" (as I've seen written ad nauseum by people who are easily dazzled) if you believe Apple crashing and burning due to this bad 'stategery' decision will produce the kind of light you like to see by.
especially with shared memory.
I'd said all along that if Steve was truly visionary, he'd have
bought AMD.
There's a lot of stories as to why Steve fipped to Intel and many
make sense. (I thought John Carmack's comments about the
PPC, after porting Doom 3 to the PPC, were the final nail in the
coffin.) But here's what I believe the bottom line truth is. Intel
was at Steve's door, often, often, often, with flowers and candy,
wispering sweet nothings in his ear. And with IBM over playing
their new toys, the 360 and PS3, not paying Steve his "proper
attention", Steve bolted. It does happen in business as well as
life.
- still as bogus as before
- by ajbright January 30, 2006 5:30 PM PST
- The processor only plays a small part in today's speed equation, the bottlenecks coming thick and fast now that the processor outperforms almost everything else.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- quad core?
- by mortis9 February 3, 2006 4:41 AM PST
- where did you here that from? please do tell... insert a link or something.
- Like this
-
(54 Comments)Video cards are also blindingly fast, memory is reportedly about to hit quad channel (speeding itself up by a factor of 4 over the original DIMM) and even hard disks are entering their second SATA generation.
However the bits that link all these things together vary so much by motherboard, let alone the difference in architecture between a Mac and a PC, that even the same processor in 3 different PCs can produce wildly different results.
Hard disks and removable media remain the slowest parts of the equation - but once that data is in memory - on the motherboard, in the processor cache or on the video card, it's the rest of the architecture that makes a difference.
PCI Express is great, but I reckon still is not as fast as the actual processor that drives it - and that's before we see the emergence of the quad core beast from AMD this year - probably in the autumn, late summer at the earliest.
So the bottom line is there is no way to compare one computer against another without actually using both of them yourself, for an extended period of time - preferably at least a month, during which you use to death all of the applications that are important to your everyday life.
As that's not really feasible for anyone except an unbiased reviewer, forget wondering which one is faster, and just get the computer you want.