Apple HAS switched to lntel!!!

Yeah, I've had time for the news to sink in.

I'm currently running a single 1 Ghz Mirror Mac, upgraded with 1.2 GIG RAM, Radeon 9600, and some accessories. My choices now?

Switch to a PC and run Windoze (not acceptable for me)

Stick with my old Mirror Mac for another year or two (acceptable)

Buy a current Mac system now and enjoy it for a year or two. When the new Intel-based machines arrive, I'll have a buffet of new systems to choose from...or I can stick with it newer mac until I decide to upgrade.

The latter option makes the most sense to me, so I'm good. I'm sure this platform transition is best for Apple in the long run as well.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Thornir Alekeg said:
Looks like starting with models next year. I wonder how this will play out with the graphic design and animation people. I thought the whole "floating point" thing with PPC chips was what made Macs superior for that kind of work.

The AltiVec units in the PPC chips were extremely efficient for proccessing a lot of the Photoshop kind of operations. But PPC clock speeds have languished so long that its not the edge it used to be.

Though it was never really the performance that drew most people to macs, it was the generally hassle free nature of the operation and use of the computers that attracted a lot of the creative types. They wanted to do something with it and not bother with having to learn obsure commands.

************************************************
On a separate Note -

One of the things that a few of the articles pointed out, was that the real advantage to Apple of switching to intel, was not the processors, but the system chip sets for memory controllers, glueing on PCI, AGP slots etc.

Creating these has taken a substantial amount of the resources that Apple has had to invest in creating new systems/motherboards and is one of the main reasons why Apple has tended to stick with models as long as they do. Despite what a lot of people think Apple is not going to be saving any money on using Intel CPUs, they were getting the PPC chips at a very good price.

The other question is what exactly will this mean for running windows and third party hardware.

Since Macs will now be using the exact same hardware as the windows machines, it should be possible to simply install windows on an HD partition and dual boot, or with a multi-proc system have both OS's running at the same time. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that we would be able to simply build systems off the shelf and install OSX on them. Jobs is too much of a control freak to permit something like that. Despite iTunes and iPods, Apple still makes the majority of it's money off of hardware. So the question becomes how integrated will they make using windows with the Mac OS? Might get some of the game whiners to shut up about that sort of thing at least. I suspect that Apple will really miss Virtual PC at that point, since it would likely have made it much simple and easier, not to mention more secure with it's Virtual Computer approach to things.

On the bright side we should get at least as ready access to new hardware as the Linux people do. Since it should be at least as easy to write/modify the drivers for OSX as it is to make them for Linux. Which should ease the graphics card access considerably at least.
 
Last edited:

Wow. I sure didn't see that one coming...

Well, ok, except for the half dozen or so Mac news outlets that ran 'switch to Intel' stories over the weekend and reported it as fact :confused: :heh:

But still. From what I read and heard last night (watched the keynote address online) a fairly large portion of the current PPC software should run on the Intel systems under a behind the scenes translator they call Rosetta.

It sounds like a reasonable change given the roadmaps for the two chip platforms - and the fact that IBM hasn't been able to deliver 3 GHz G5s or portable G5s. I understand there have been some significant technical hurdles, but the Steve promised them two years ago...

Any way you slice it, an interesting development.

R E
 

Raging Epistaxis said:
...a fairly large portion of the current PPC software should run on the Intel systems under a behind the scenes translator they call Rosetta.

Except code which relies upon a G4 or G5 processor, AltiVec, etc. :/
 

Aeolius said:
Except code which relies upon a G4 or G5 processor, AltiVec, etc. :/

Not necessarily. I can't say much more because of the nature of the information here at the conference, but there is very little of that going on, heck, Mathematica 64 compiled for X86 relatively quickly.

The question we want to ask is: What kind of performance hit will we be taking by making a Universal Binary that has to have the Altivec stuff emulated through Rosetta? Apple has done this before when they switched from 68K to ppc. I hope they've learned something by now.
 

The only thing wrong with G4/G5/Altivec code is if the developers didn't include the ability to run the software on G3's. In other words, if they coded it so it requires G4/G5/Altivec registers to function, they have to rip that code out and rewrite it. If the app gracefully falls back to standard G3 instructions, it will run on Rosetta.
 

Reading some of the after action reports, it's looking increasingly like the motivation for the switch wasn't so much the PPC now as a year or two down the road.

IBM is getting geared up to make chips for the next gen consoles, since all of them are running off of one of their chips or a variation there of. Which means that they are going to be focusing on producing tens of millions of chips for those systems and not on producing the kind of PPC chips Apple needs. Their efforts in that realm obviously already having been inadiquate.

So basically what it looks like things have come down to is that Apple couldn't get anyone to continue investing in the kind of chips they would have needed to keep with the PPC platform. Motorola, gave up on that several years ago and IBM would be increasingly distracted by the chips for the consoles. That doesn't really leave Apple anywhere to go but X86.

Now you can speculate as to why Apple hasn't gone with AMD rather than Intel, but I suspect its a simple matter of marketing and economics. Intel has vastly greater resources for marketing and has been wooing Apple for decades. So it seems likely that they've offered Apple some significant inducements to go with them and Apple will be able to benefit all the marketing hype behind "Intel Inside". In other words, going with Intel is probably calculated to help get them through the transistion period.

I suspect that we will see Apple dabbling at least in using AMD Chips in about 2 years once the transition has been completed. They won't need Intel as much at that point.

Of course it's fairly pointless to speculate on what the chips will be like by then. An entirely new generation of chips will be out by then, quite possibly quad core chips or something like that. The system architecture will likely be as important or more important than the processors at that point, since the more processors you put into a system the better that system has to be designed if you are going to get the full benefit from them.
 

Rackhir said:
I wonder what this will do to apple's sales? Are you going to want to invest $3,000 in a top of the line mac if they are moving to a completely new architecture in 6 months? I have been eyeing a new powerbook, but this does make me stop and think.
I was hesitant about getting a new PowerMac at first, too, but after reading the discussion over at http://www.macintouch.com, I'm not that concerned any more.

The Mac line won't be all-Intel until the end of 2007 (and who knows if Apple will meet that date?). Even at that point, you're going to have first-generation MacTel boxes that will probably have their share of bugs; remember the data corruption and FW issues with the Rev 1 G3's, anyone? I do, as I own one. :)

Regardless, even starting at that point, it's going to be years before a "hard switch" away from PPC boxes will be necessary, as universal binary support will likely last for a long time, and developers will take a while to get their apps fully Intel-savvy.

Ergo, I'd rather get one of the relatively mature G5 designs now that will last me at least until I'd be looking at getting a new Mac anyway (3-5 years or so) than wait for bleeding edge MacTel models that I may very well regret buying.

And, who knows? Maybe we'll see some price breaks on the current lineup in the near future.

That is, we'd better see some price breaks in the near future. :]
 

Remove ads

Top