[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Detrius

Of course, it's not the same for Carbon applications...

Stop spreading lies!

[iDriveX]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Steve is too paranoid and too much of control freak to let just anyone install OS X on just any box.

Come on guys... we are talking about Steve here.

A few times he has been around that track
So it's not just gonna happen like that

DAT WOULD BE B A N A N A S

This sh1t is bananas - B A N A N A S - This sh1t is bananas - B A N A N A S!

[euphras]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I think I'd have to load up on the latest pre-Intel Mac models, as many as I could afford, because I might not buy any "Intel" Mac products again.

...like you did with the 68k hardware back in 1994??!?

C´mon, Intel is just a chip maker like AMD or Big Blue. And yes there already were AMD chips inside Powermacs....ever had a closer look at the first PPCs? AMD chips soldered.......get the picture?

[iDriveX]

I HATE CHANGE!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Seriously, it won't be that big a deal. Promise.

[budster101]

Really? All I care about is the OS. As long as the PC has OS X I don't care. That would mean a DEATH to WINDOWS.

Given a choice between OS X and Windows on a PC, who do you think would vote for Windows?

One guess: They have the letters MCSE at the end of their title.

[milhous]

it just seems odd that after all these years of apple extolling the merits and superiority of the powerpc risc architecture that steve would just suddenly decide that just because ibm is having scalability issues that they'd finally decide to jump shimp. having cpus not scale fast enough isn't a new problem to apple. if scalability was such a dealbreaker to steve, he would've left motorola a long time ago.

i'd be surprised if they made the switch. but realistically, i think the ppc will prevail. if the g5 has hit a speed bottleneck, then it's time to quickly move to the next generation (g6,etc.) of chips.

[Hash]

  i think this one is a very good reading:

http://blog.hardmac.com/archives/new...e-a-revolution

and helps understand the situation a lot

[osxisfun]

there could be politics going on IBM that we do not know about (that started with the no 3gig g5 and is ending with the toy compnies taking up all the fab lines)

48 more hours!

[Lateralus]

I see too many problems with this situation to believe what C|Net says verbatim.

My theory: Apple is growing leary of the stagnation periods they've experienced with Motorola during the G4 era and now with IBM in the G5 era.

I'm placing my bets on Apple going to Intel to be true, but not to investigate an x86 migration, but to invite Intel into the PowerPC consortium. This would, of course, alleviate the problems that come with Apple's total reliance on IBM and create additional competition between Motorola and IBM to protect their own PowerPC sales by keeping ahead of Intel, thus benefiting Apple with better processor pickings.

Fact of that matter is, I really don't think the Mac can survive another platform migration and I think Apple knows this. At 3% marketshare, this is way too big of a gamble and it could easily end with the death of the platform. The time to have done this would have been during the transition to OS X. Getting developers to migrate their software from OS 9 to OS X while remaining on PowerPC was enough of a bitch that I sincerely doubt they'd be willing to do it all over again for a processor architecture migration just a few years later.

Additionally, I think Intel sees the writing on the wall. With every non-PC sector looking to PowerPC/POWER and other RISC chips, along with the stagnation we're seeing with the Pentium 4 (which really isn't saying much for how much further Intel will be able to drag x86), they may actually be the ones wanting to migrate their market to a new platform.

If somebody has already said this, sorry, but I aint reading this whole thread.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Detrius

one more thing... do you guys even remember the BIG detail about OS X's capabilities that made it such a great move for Apple? Cocoa applications are bundled as a folder. As such, a single application is capable of running natively on multiple hardware platforms. Customers would not have to worry about whether to download the Mac-x86 or Mac-PPC version. They would still just download the Mac version. The 20MB version of Safari that comes with 10.4 only has 1MB of platform dependent files--the actual binary that launches. Everything else in that remaining 19MB is processor independent. This would not be a logistical nightmare for customers, as a small 1MB upgrade would make their 20MB application Mac-x86-compatible.

You're right that I hadn't considered this, but I'm not sure how big a difference it would make to the overall point. This would still require every single developer to recompile their software — which, as you can see from the simple upgrade from 10.3 to 10.4, at least would take a good long while. Not only that, it would require them to care enough to recompile their software in this special way every time (and essentially maintain two code branches for one platform), which is also not incredibly likely. And no matter how you slice it, all your old software would be completely obsolete.

Originally Posted by Detrius

Of course, it's not the same for Carbon applications... maybe a Carbon developer can shed more insight into whether or not this would be a big deal on that side.

Carbon uses the same bundle architecture that Cocoa does. I'm not sure what difference you're thinking of.

[mitchell_pgh]

As long as:
1) Prices stay the same or decrease
2) The quality stays about the same
3) I don't notice any issues (AKA "this program only runs on OS X PPC")
4) Speed continues to increase
5) It runs OS X

I won't care.

I think Apple is really looking at the mobil market and thinking (there simply isn't a portable G5 solution), but I could be wrong. Should be an interesting week next week.

[Hash]

My guess- the next PowerMac will use Intel processor, powerbooks a kind of Pentium M, and OS X will run native on it, while existing software will use QuickTransit (from Transitive Technologies) (a translation layer for apps to run on different architecture) to run on the chip without recompiling. That version of OS X will be 10.5

[budster101]

The OS should be hard wired into the systems, and burned on a chip with firmware updates...

Secure.
Fast.
Convenient.

[rhombus]

Surely if this is true, Apple will lose massive amounts of revenue on lost hardware sales between the announcement and mid 2006/2007, which is when the hardware transition will be complete according to the CNet article:
"Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said."

Who would buy PPC Macs knowing they would be obsolete in less than two years? Do Apple expect to sell any non-Intel hardware, especially PowerMacs after they have announced they are abandoning PPC?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by nath

That's not a necessary outcome to Apple using Intel chips. Remember hearing about all that DRM jazz Intel are looking to embed chip-side from here on in? That doesn't have to just be restricted to preventing people stealing WMA content.

That too...

But I don't think I would want that DRM system applied to my beloved Macs.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Please tell me their was a missing emoticon with that last statement...

[ReggieX]

All chip makers are having trouble with 90nm process, so it's not like Apple running to Intel with the PPC designs are suddenly going to have Intel making them, yeesh.

My bet: video iPod using ARM.

[Chuckit]

Why would they move lower-end models first? Lower-end models are never the first to move to a new processor (see the PowerPC, the G3, G4 and G5, including any laptops within those lines). Ugh, this story is so ridiculous. I can't believe we're actually discussing this.

[pat++]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Why would they move lower-end models first? Lower-end models are never the first to move to a new processor (see the PowerPC, the G3, G4 and G5, including any laptops within those lines). Ugh, this story is so ridiculous. I can't believe we're actually discussing this.

Because lower end models do not need pro apps. iApps are fine and will be available from the beginning as Apple just need to compile them for x86. It will take more time for MS/Adobe to recompile there apps (These are Carbon apps, old code, and will probably require more work than a new Cocoa app). The same true for FCP...

[Big Mac]

This story is absolutely ridiculous, and I cannot believe so many have fallen for it. How can anyone believe the article when it says there will be a fractured transition path between consumer and professional Macs? SJ and his board would all have to be on the shrooms and hitting the crack pipe hard to ever consider such actions. This would most definitely mean the death of the Mac, at a time when Apple has been riding high and has no motive to take such desperate actions. Stop for a second to fathom the gigantic transition cost to users and developers. Here's some of what we'll see come to pass before an x86 transition:

1. President George W. Bush outted as a homosexual
2. Mideast peace
3. Star Wars Episodes VII, VIII, IX
4. Flying monkeys emanating from butts

Oh, one more thing - if WWDC 2005 were really going to have earth shattering announcements, wouldn't it have been promoted as such? The only thing the ads have promoted, AFAIK, is application development for Tiger. Do you really want to believe the marketing for this year's event is phony? Outlandish and reprehensible reporting. Everyone who was duped will feel quite foolish Tuesday morning.

[euphras]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Why would they move lower-end models first? Lower-end models are never the first to move to a new processor (see the PowerPC, the G3, G4 and G5, including any laptops within those lines). Ugh, this story is so ridiculous. I can't believe we're actually discussing this.

That´s one of the most thoughtful considerations in this thread. In doing this Apple would indirectly admit to switch to inferior hardware

But like Chris stated, as long as it runs OS X and there are no glitches in terms of user experience i wouldn´t care if a Intel chip (Who has said it would be an X86 based one??) runs inside a Mac.

[BrunoBruin]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

I'm placing my bets on Apple going to Intel to be true, but not to investigate an x86 migration, but to invite Intel into the PowerPC consortium....Getting developers to migrate their software from OS 9 to OS X while remaining on PowerPC was enough of a bitch that I sincerely doubt they'd be willing to do it all over again for a processor architecture migration just a few years later.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Intel may very well manufacture chips for Apple, but I can't imagine that they will be x86. I would have bought that prior to the move to the G5, as a way to get out from under Moto's rotting corpse, but instead Apple recommitted to PPC.

The other thing that smells fishy here is the suddenness of it all. I mean, come on. We hear rumors about point updates to Keynote. A major shift in architecture, requiring a recompiled OS and applications, drops out of nowhere?

Speaking of poor old Moto/Freescale, maybe an Intel deal isn't about IBM at all, but a replacement for the G4. That's where Apple is seriously behind, after all. Maybe Apple has contracted Intel to fab a Centrino-esque chip for portables, mini, et al. That certainly makes more sense, and is more urgent, than a replacement for the G5.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Detrius

one more thing... do you guys even remember the BIG detail about OS X's capabilities that made it such a great move for Apple? Cocoa applications are bundled as a folder. As such, a single application is capable of running natively on multiple hardware platforms. Customers would not have to worry about whether to download the Mac-x86 or Mac-PPC version. They would still just download the Mac version. The 20MB version of Safari that comes with 10.4 only has 1MB of platform dependent files--the actual binary that launches. Everything else in that remaining 19MB is processor independent. This would not be a logistical nightmare for customers, as a small 1MB upgrade would make their 20MB application Mac-x86-compatible.

Of course, it's not the same for Carbon applications... maybe a Carbon developer can shed more insight into whether or not this would be a big deal on that side.

Um... you don't have to be a Carbon developer to see that this is wrong. Just control-click on iTunes, a Carbon app, and notice that the "Show Package Contents" option is there. Browse to your heart's content. You could also control-click on any other Apple-made Carbon app such as the Finder, the Dock, or AppleWorks, or you can control-click on many third-party Carbon apps such as Adobe Reader, StuffIt Expander, Palm Desktop, Windows Media Player, Finale, DragThing...

What you are referring to are CFM Carbon apps. Those indeed do not use bundles, but instead distribute everything in the resource fork. There are a few apps which are inexplicably still built this way (*cough* MS Word *cough*), but as you can see, I've been randomly clicking on third-party Carbon apps in my Applications folder, and so far I've found 6 third-party apps that used bundles, and for ones that didn't, it was basically the MS Office apps.

Not that I think this makes the Intel article more believable, because as someone else pointed out, you'd have to have every developer recompiling their apps to a fat binary, and then you'd have to expect each one of them to own one of each architecture of machine in order to be able to test their app on both systems. Since many apps wouldn't get recompiled, and since many shareware/freeware developers probably wouldn't bother making fat binary apps, application availability would become much more complicated...

[bradoesch]

Originally Posted by iKevin

=====Re: use AMD======

Heck no, then we'd be right back in the mhz gap problem . . . look at the current AMD processors. They're having to "PR - performance rate" them just to look like they're keeping up.

AMD CPUs don't have to "look" like they're keeping up, they are. The AMD 64 FX chips are just as fast or faster then the hottest offering from Intel.

[hudson1]

No one should underestimate Apple's ability to do something that conventional wisdom says can't be done or is at least too hard to do to be practical. It's been commented many times that applications will need a major rewrite. What if Apple has devised a way for that not to be necessary? They pulled off a major architecture change in the early 90s and it was about as transparent as it could be.

If this alleged move away from IBM is true (and I have no idea if it is), you have to wonder if it's rooted in Jobs/Apple saying that we're going to cast our lot with processor makers who care about the PC business. Has IBM put so many of their eggs in the game console business, without coming up with laptop or dual-processor chips in the meantime, that Apple has said "that's enough"?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Great, we just got over the whole conversion to carbon and now something like this?

Remember how long Quark and Photoshop took? And that was just to make the apps carbon. Can you imagine a switch like this?!

[Spliffdaddy]

Welcome to x86

To all the naysayers in Mac-land .....

What did you think I was doing for the past 5 months?

You'll learn to like it, I promise.

Keep in mind that only 4% of Mac users know where their CPU came from.

peace out.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by AssassyN

This will help tremendously and will surely drive prices down and speed up. I hope it's true.

No, and no.

If Apple switches to Intel CPUs, the speed will be marginal for integer, and unless Intel has some special AltiVec version of the Pentium processor we don't know about, then vector and floating point is going to SUCK ASS compared to the G5.

And how would it be cheaper? By what, $50? If that even? Probably 90% of the components in a Mac are the same components in a PC. What you're paying for is the brand and the hardware to run the software. Switching to Pentiums, Celerons, and Xeons isn't going to make it any cheaper.

Apple can provide innovative industrial designs all they want; but the second OS X runs on x86 architecture, they're going to get slaughtered by Dell.

[osxisfun]

>OS X runs on x86 architecture,

Unless OSX intel needs a new DRM typed CPU or a certain Mobo chipset or some such. That's assuming its a straight x86 and not some hybrid type chip.

41 hours.

[osxisfun]

Is this new? (from the macrumors thread)

Update:


"CNET on Friday reported that Apple would announce the transition plan June 6. It reported that Apple would move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007. An industry executive familiar with the matter, contacted Saturday, verified that schedule."

Source: The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB...news_technology (paid subscription required)

Did the WSJ just confirm by asking their source if the the CNET story has the correct timeline?

(assuming the WSJ source is not pulling their legs.)

[esXXI]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

Is this new? (from the macrumors thread)

Update:


"CNET on Friday reported that Apple would announce the transition plan June 6. It reported that Apple would move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007. An industry executive familiar with the matter, contacted Saturday, verified that schedule."

Source: The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB...news_technology (paid subscription required)

Did the WSJ just confirm by asking their source if the the CNET story has the correct timeline?

(assuming the WSJ source is not pulling their legs.)

By the wording it seems WSJ contacted someone who verified it.

(/Me returns to cradling doubt)

[alphasubzero949]

This whole thing is FUD, pure and simple.

Panther was considered the "end of the OS X transition" by Steve at the WWDC last year. If it took that long for developers to get on board and get their acts together, imagine what would happen if Apple really did switch to Intel architecture. How long do you suppose developers will port all of their apps over? Is it going to require another four years?

If OS X moves to x86, you can kiss MS anything goodbye as Redmond would act quick to snuff out the competition. Windows is too firmly entrenched for Apple to pull off such a move.

[Cadaver]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS]B U L L S H ! T[/FONT]

[osxisfun]

Interesting anon /. post:

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.p...1&cid=12723681

(found on macrumors thread)

If the moto clause exists then apple can take all the ip to intel and say, let's make a deal.

[himself]

It's been said many times before, but I'll say it once more: I find this story extremely hard to believe. It's been explained eloquently already, but there are too many obstacles. Yes, only a small band of Mac users know or care what brand of processor is powering their computer (about 9%), but that matters little when you have to deal with:

1.Convincing the major (and some minor) software developers that it will be worth their time and money to go along with it (not easy). If the software ain't there, nobody will buy... and they still won't care what brand of processor is beneath the hood.

2.Convincing pro consumers (arguably the ones who keep Apple alive when times get hard, and even when they're good) that it is worth their time and money to reinvest in both hardware and software the next time they decide it is time to upgrade one or the other (and believe me, Adobe, MS, and Quark, et.al. will not be offering free upgrades to the x86-compatible versions of their software, not with the time and trouble it may possibly take to make the transition).

3.The prospect of moving to a processor architecture that is on its way out. I'm willing to bet that MS is working on a plan to get out of the x86 morass (anyone remember the CHRP platform proposed in the mid 90's?), and it would be foolish for Apple to jump into the pit and take MS's place. Also, there is this myth that it is the processor that makes Windows and the apps that run on it perform better. The truth is, it's primarily software. The software is heavily optimized for the x86, and Windows employs numerous "shortcuts" to enhance performance on the hardware, in spite of stability. If Apple and 3rd party developers had the tools (and incentive) to thoroughly optimize their software for the PPC and the OS, this whole argument would be moot.

The only reasonable explanations I can think of are:

1.Apple building a cheap enterprise-level server using x86 chips, but unable to run any of the current PPC applications

2.Apple inviting Intel into the PPC Consortium

3.Apple building a new consumer-level device (the next "iPod") using Intel processors.

The rest of it, I can't imagine why it would happen. Someone mentioned earlier how Apple has tons of experience in this "transition" thing and how they can pull it off, and that Apple hasn't made any major blunders... I don't know what you would consider major, but they have made numerous blunders, it's just that most folks don't remember those. People will remember this. Hopefully, Apple hasn't gotten so cocky that they believe that they can risk any type of hardware/software transition and be good at it. The 680x0 to PPC transition was one thing, and the OS 9 to OS X migration was pretty smooth... but PPC to x86 (hardware and software?) is a different story altogether, and times have changed quite a bit from the early PPC days. Seriously, at some point, Apple is gonna have to settle in and hunker down, or they will forever be a company "in transition." That is not always good for business.

[osxisfun]

From AI threads:

Apple is looking to hire a czech bios guy.

Robert Scoble (m$ main blogger dude) says:

Make no mistake. This is a real story and I've gotten confirmation from people who know. I can't say more, though, cause I don't want Apple to sue me to find out my sources.

http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2005/06/03.html#a10320

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Why would Apple do this in the first place? It is because they think the G5 has no future or because they think more apps will come out for OSX or to get OSX to run on PC clones (like the HP iPod).

[osxisfun]

because ibm has dropped the ball on 3 gigs, on low power(pb) versions, and who knows maybe dual core was supposed to ship already.

if apple gets to keep the ip if ibm fouls up then they can go to intel and have them make them and in return let them use the tech for their own as a sort of cross polination investment.

long term pc supply for apple: good

[Zimphire]

Who knows. We will see Monday.

Till then I am not commenting too much.

[himself]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Why would Apple do this in the first place? It is because they think the G5 has no future or because they think more apps will come out for OSX or to get OSX to run on PC clones (like the HP iPod).

I hope this isn't a case of Apple switching to Intel in an attempt to punish IBM... talk about cutting off you nose to spite your face...

[himself]

If this is a case of Apple switching to x86 (which I still doubt and will continue to doubt until I hear it from the Steve's mouth), and not inviting Intel into the PPC consortium, what will Apple do with it's share of the PPC IP?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

DAT WOULD BE B A N A N A S

Yeah, and we all know that other Steve, the monkey !

-t

[osxisfun]

>Intel into the PPC consortium,

who says they aren't inviting them?

Its definately a strong possiblity. there is lots of room there is apple gets the ip if ibm fails(ed)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by iDriveX

This sh1t is bananas - B A N A N A S - This sh1t is bananas - B A N A N A S!

Maybe that's gonna be the startup song when installing OS XI on Intel X86...

-t

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Maybe that's gonna be the startup song when installing OS XI on Intel X86...

-t

That would be awesome.

[khans]

Once upon a time there was a company called Next which developed a hardware (and a software platform to go with it) that was at least 10 years ahead of it's time. The hardware was phenomenal (black hardware) and the operating system (Nextstep 3.3) rock solid.

Next priced itself out of the hardware market and ported Nextstep to work on intel hardware (and sun and hpa hardware). They did a phenomenal job. Nextstep worked exceedingly well on intel hardware and Next engineers figured out a way to package the applications such that they could seamlessly run across platforms (quad fat).

Next for the most part became a software company. Over time it's interest in Nextstep declined in favor of writing custom frameworks for large enterprises (EOF, WebObjects etc.). Then one fine day Apple acquired Next and suddenly the OS came to life again (and was reborn in the shape of Mac OS X).

If Apple is going to support both Intel and PPC platforms, with the move to Intel primarily to increase market share, maybe lower prices, and offer MSFT some real competition I think the strategy is brilliant.

However, if Apple is moving to Intel because they have no choice (PPC not up to par, or some back handedness from IBM (and MSFT wink wink) then I fear history may repeat itself.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Keep in mind that only 4% of Mac users know where their CPU came from.

That's the whole point. That 4% (or 9%, or whatever) would be the same percentage of users who would understand why some OS X software only works on this machine, and some OS X software only works on that machine.

Originally Posted by hudson1

No one should underestimate Apple's ability to do something that conventional wisdom says can't be done or is at least too hard to do to be practical. It's been commented many times that applications will need a major rewrite. What if Apple has devised a way for that not to be necessary? They pulled off a major architecture change in the early 90s and it was about as transparent as it could be.

That major architecture change was to a processor that was twice the speed of the old one. They were able to pull it off because they were able to emulate the processor at reasonable speeds. The speed difference isn't nearly that large here, and unless Apple pulls a huge rabbit out of its hat, this would break all existing software. Period.

[hyteckit]

It Will Happen!

[klinux]

Originally Posted by Agasthya

I'll believe it when Steve says it. Until then, nope.

Talk about a cult of personality. And you wonder why people call certain Mac fan zealots.

[Kerrigan]

I would say that this rumour has a good chance of coming true. Why? Because the rumours that are the most disappointing and bizarre are the ones that come true.

That said, I have to point out that this is the best Mac forum thread evar. In what other thread have the majority of Mac-fans defended Intel and talked about the Death of Apple? What has happened to the world? You people are supposed to be the ones scoffing at Intel and saying that Apple will be in business forever. Now suddenly everything is turned around. There must be something in Revelations about this.