Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
440 Forums _ Comments _ Apple goes Intel. Why?
Posted by: news Mon 6 Jun 2005, 20:42
Comments about:
http://www.macmusic.org/news/view.php?lang=EN&id=3312
Posted by: BobbiStyle Mon 6 Jun 2005, 20:42
Hi Peeps
Had a Mac since 1987. Always for Muzak.... Gutted. R.I.P.
BUT... Let's not forget that Gates purchased all the PowerPC chips for his XBox. (Kinda, low end versions anyway) which put Apple in need of a new chip manufacturer.
For a self confessed Mac Bigot and Intel/Windows hater, it's a dark DARK day.
Peace
Bobbi
http://nav.440network.com/out.php?mmsc=forums&url=http://www.bobbistyle.com/
Posted by: vaal Mon 6 Jun 2005, 21:07
Everyone needs to relax, it's going to be just fine. IBM apparently broke promises to Apple with their PowerPC line and the roadmap is actually looking pretty bleek. The "Cell" processors in the new gaming consoles are somewhat scaled down versions of the PPC 970.
Apple didn't have a choice at this point, and I'm happy that they decided to go this way given all that's happened. AMD would've been a better choice in my opinion, but I guess now they have all the options in the world.
Maybe there will be a RISC-based processor in Apple's future someday that they will actually benefit from. At this point, though, it's not going to come from IBM. At least not in the near future.
Posted by: BobbiStyle Mon 6 Jun 2005, 21:24
Hi Vaal
I agree about the IBM "lack", which is what I was hinting at.
Just saddened. Love my G5!
Cheers
Bobbi
Posted by: maxryzone Mon 6 Jun 2005, 21:31
can someone explain in clear terms what this all means to my current software (Macromedia, Final Cut Pro, Adobe Illustrator) - will all this be wasted??
I was about to purchase the iLife, Garageband and the Logic 7 Upgrade - what should I do???
Posted by: vaal Mon 6 Jun 2005, 22:12
No, absolutely nothing is wasted, it won't affect your current software at all. Go about your usual lives. :]
And I do very much love my Power Mac G5, however, the lack of PCI-e bothers me a bit. Especially when I look at some of the newer technologies coming out that require it. That goes for my PowerBook G4, too. The Alienware desktop and mobile workstations make me jealous.
Posted by: Jsegura Mon 6 Jun 2005, 23:02
Apple cannot marry with anybody. If IBM, that by the way is not at its better moment, does not work, that Intel come or the one that is able to construct a Powerbook G5 or Power Mac G6. The future it must be cleared.
Posted by: lepetitmartien Mon 6 Jun 2005, 23:25
I didn't put everything into the news, I tried to concentrate on the main with some depth and personal ARRRGGGGh 
The fat code will run on PPC and Intel and Apple will support PPC still after the 2006 date.
On the software side, it's a rather safe path if everything is as Steve said (easiness to recompile), on the hardware I much more in doubt, it'll restrain people to buy new hardware. It's really sad as IBM has some really fine CPUs in the Power family (G5 is a Power4 lite).
The 2 important things…
- nowhere it is said it'll run on x86 CPUs…
- nowhere it is said it'll be "PCs"
But we lack most of the important informations in fact to really know what's happening save the input needed for developers and end users, the real deal on the architecture is unknown yet. 
Posted by: indebttome Tue 7 Jun 2005, 00:13
Let's remember this, as well - although OSX is great, one of the things that makes it that way is the control over the hardware. I have seen people posting elseware about running OSX on their Dell, etc. This won't happen. Apple will build boxes, as they do now and always have, specific to the OS. (Remember the clones fiasco in the 90s). By controlling the platform, you give more power to the OS - you sell machines, and you eliminate stupid Windows things like spending 2 hours loading a driver for your printer or new card.
Their will be Apple architecture - as there is now, and PC platforms, as there are now.
Posted by: abcdaniel Tue 7 Jun 2005, 00:15
this is CRAP! Longevity, come on!
it won't be as crap if:
We get a goddamn 64bit version of PPC OSX IN TIME for software dev to get out 64bit versions of their softs. Apple, you know what's up!
My G5 has got several years as a top machine ahead of it, I thought, but now... hmm, I don't know. Might sell it, or what? Use wintel at school, won't be so hard to switch. There I sort of know what I am getting, at least, and for a cheaper $.
This means dedication to the G5 will be... out the window. I bought my G5 for hardware, software AND longevity.
Well, whatever. Tired of all this transitions. Get a cheap PC, mod it to run OSX, if it seems worth it. It won't be if there are more shit transitions ahead...
Posted by: lepetitmartien Tue 7 Jun 2005, 00:19
Just wrote something really stupid, it'll run on x86, the development kit is a PIV.
And we still don't know 90% of the real deal (motherboard, in/out, CPU, etc etc).
A side note on rosetta, the emulator of PPC code to run on x86 (from Apple developer documentation):
- Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9
- Code written specifically for AltiVec
- Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane
- Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor
- Applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions
- Kernel extensions
- Bundled Java applications or Java applications with JNI libraries that can’t be translated
So recent apps will need either the universal code or the x86 only to run. ESPECIALLY OURS.
I may don't care what's the CPU inside (as long as there's not a ugly sticker written intel inside that s…s) but as a customer, I'd like not to have to buy the software again and again and again.
Also, Logic users must be laughing a lot…
Posted by: abcdaniel Tue 7 Jun 2005, 06:05
Yeah, really, f*** it. New versions, new versions, new versions. How long time ago users (especially musicians) painfully moved their creative environment to OSX? Too long ago, eh? Let's do it again! Superfun! Transitions, dammit!
Who knows what kinda crazy transitions these people got in their mind for the future? They are surely taxing their user base.
If apple don't end up supporting the PPC for a LONG time ahead, I have doubts if I'll be buying a "mac" again. Feeling seripusly cheated as a loyal consumer.
At this point, all the clumpsyness of using Wintel seems overshadowed buy the hungryness for transitions by Apple; that hungryness makes Apple humpty dumpty.
Posted by: vaal Tue 7 Jun 2005, 08:30
I'm sure that Apple didn't want to have to make this transition, but they were pretty much forced into a corner. I've been paying attention to both Intel and AMD's progress over the past year, and it seems that their roadmaps look really good. A lot better than the PowerPC roadmap, anyway.
There's a reason why most people, including myself, use the Mac platform. It's certainly not because of the hardware, although the designs are great, they've been lacking a lot of the newer technologies found on the x86 side. PCI-e is a great example of that. Now, there should be no reason why Mac users get left behind.
Another great thing about this transition is that there is a greater potential of Apple gaining more marketshare, and at the same time gain a lot of new developers. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a surge in Mac gaming, for example.
Before anyone gets all bent of shape over this transition, just remember that it's for the best, and that PowerPC can no longer benefit Mac users with its future roadmap. That's just an unfortunate fact of life.
Posted by: abcdaniel Tue 7 Jun 2005, 10:25
Isn't mr Steve known for being a bit** to work with sometimes? This move seems irratic, sort of like a feud, kindergarten style. Apple wonn't play with IBM anymore!
The mac hardware is tight, nicely integrated, fast, high quality at this moment. It has got a robust architecture and lots of bandwith. What is x86?!?
Of course mac os is the main feature of a mac, but with another os mac hardware would still be attractive as hell. It is for a lot of linux nerds.
Remember moving all your apps from OS9 to OSX? I recently did that, and it sucked. Now we have to do it again and it will again suck, but the two combined in these 4-5 years are just horrible.
Posted by: coldharbour Tue 7 Jun 2005, 11:27
Yeah well, at the moment PPC is looking pretty good - but where's the 3 GHz G5.. where is PowerBook G5? In the end IBM just could not deliver and a companyl like Apple can't just stand waiting while Wintel machines overtake in performance.
Apple's share of IBM's production is less than 2% so Apple does not have much leverage there. Apple certainly is in no position to force IBM to develop more powerful and energy efficient processors for their machines, especially now when IBM has their "not-suitable-for-desktop-machines-or-laptops" -cell technology sold to Sony and Microsoft.
As Steve said, it won't be nothing like that. The universal FAT binaries will run on both x86 and PPC architecture, and Rosetta will make PPC binaries run on x86 machines in a totally transparent way.
x86 architecture will bring a load of *NIX apps over to Macintosh, plus that we'll see a lot more software in general released on Mac because porting is not an issue anymore.
You can also scrap VirtualPC as there'll probably be a WINE style solution to runnung Windows apps straight on OS X. You can probably also boot your machine natively to Windows if you like - but PC users will not be able to use OS X. I'm sure Apple will take care of that in their new Intel motherboards. Just remember that it has been impossible to crack Logic 7, protected with a mere USB dongle.
Just think what that'll do to Apple's market share. A whole lot of switchers are on their way.
Posted by: abcdaniel Tue 7 Jun 2005, 12:35
But as lepetitmartien said:
QUOTE
Rosetta is designed to translate currently shipping applications that run on a PowerPC with a G3 processor and that are built for Mac OS X. Rosetta does not run the following:
- Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9
- Code written specifically for AltiVec
- Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane
- Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor
- Applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions
- Kernel extensions
- Bundled Java applications or Java applications with JNI libraries that can’t be translated
So recent apps will need either the universal code or the x86 only to run. ESPECIALLY OURS.
Just as we couldn't run OS9 music apps under Classic in OSX, we won't be able to run OSX PPC music apps under Rosetta in OSXwintel. We will have to upgrade again, and wait for softdevs to make "Rosetta-carbonized" versions.
I see this over the coming 5 years as being a very bad experience. After that, after mac has settled down into a stabile platform, it might be a good thing. But then again, maybe we will have to make another transition at that time.
Now it seems like a better solution to make apple into a software company, and drop the hardware. Make OSX run on any x86 box, then at least we as users will not be forced into the whimsyness af apple and partners. That is acceptable and a bit fun, having a closed intel box not knowing when the next transition will come is not.
Posted by: chidders Tue 7 Jun 2005, 12:48
Er... Am I missing something?
When this move to INTEL chips takes place does Steve Jobs plan to visit every current Mac user and force them to buy a new one? Does this move somehow make every old Mac in the world stop functioning?
I have a G5, and I'm looking forward to many years of good service out of it. That's one of the reasons I bought a Mac. It does me proud now, and I can't see what will stop it working when the new INTEL based ones come out.
Posted by: coldharbour Tue 7 Jun 2005, 13:07
It's not Rosetta, it's Universal Binaries that'll be the answer. It's not a matter of "carbonizing", it's just a matter of recompiling.
Recompiling is not a major task but I'm sure some discontinued software and legacy products will not end up running on x86. I don't see that as a big problem. That happened with OS9 -> OSX transition as well and we've survived.
But I agree, it causes a bit of stress. If I buy a new x86 Mac I don't want to pay Apple anything extra to get my Logic Pro 7 running on it. And it won't run on Rosetta, I want the recompiled and optimized version and I want it for free. And I don't want to hear about 3rd party plug-ins not working or not being compiled.
We'll see how it goes. But looking at the big picture, I think moving on to Intel was a great strategic move from Apple.
Is it possible to get a straight URL to that document?
It doesn't stop working, but you'll just have to hope that all the software you need is being released as universal binaries for years to come - not only compiled for x86 architecture. Steve Jobs or anybody can not guarrantee that.
Posted by: vaal Tue 7 Jun 2005, 14:40
When this move to INTEL chips takes place does Steve Jobs plan to visit every current Mac user and force them to buy a new one? Does this move somehow make every old Mac in the world stop functioning?
I have a G5, and I'm looking forward to many years of good service out of it. That's one of the reasons I bought a Mac. It does me proud now, and I can't see what will stop it working when the new INTEL based ones come out.
Your machine won't be obsolete, nothing will stop functioning. Like he said in the keynote, they have some more PPC-based Macs in the pipeline. There is absolutely NO REASON why you should stop your life at all. ALL of your current apps will work, as well as future apps.
EVERYTHING IS OKAY!! :]
Posted by: abcdaniel Tue 7 Jun 2005, 18:15
i've might have worked myself up a bit here... was drunk when writing my first angry-post ...hung over when writing the next... now I'm getting closer to equilibrium...
...but I'm thinking like this:
During this coming year, instead of having software developers optimizing their code for the G5, getting the maximium performance and stability out of our hard/soft combos, they will shift focus to the coming x86 architecture.
Right now we have great machines, functioning nicely indeed (except for teh funny sounds when scrolling ) But haven't many of us thought about the 64bit architecture? About how our G5's will get better and better the more 64bit OSX and software becomes?
The power of the G5 will probably never get properly tapped. And in a couple of years PPC code will get downprioritized and we won't have access to the latest software. At least not optimized.
And I don't know if a recompile is enough; all code written for altivec will either have to be lost or added (depending on if you're developing for x86 or PPC) and altivec is an integral part of the G4/G5 performance.
Yeah, yeah, now let's make some music.
Posted by: lepetitmartien Wed 8 Jun 2005, 00:31
The big problem we face is altivec, it'll need work from editors, and it means $$$ upgrades AGAIN in the end for us. And it's a bore.
I'm rather confident on the hardware (given the hints about the forthcoming Intel CPU) even if I think that having Power5/6 would have been great, but it's not a safe road unfortunately. Now lets see a few things…
- Winsh... will run most possibly, it can be useful even for us (need samplitude ?)
- on the game prospect, for the same reasons, it's not sure games will be brought to mac…
- No one will be able to say macs are crap because we'll run on similar platforms.
- It's an opportunity to bring more switchers if the computers are affordable… they could have the best of both worlds.
- Hey, we'll have computers in mactel and PPC… it does mean also, if IBM or Fresscale comes with a marvel, nothing impeach Jobs to tell us: "hey, just one more thing, PPC is not dead" And apple will be on both intel and PPC still (and why not AMD one day and either way we'll be safe for the future. On that part Jobs is keeping options open. The move is necessary to bring us more power and certainly cheaper computer (hope hope), but as there's a transition, it will keep opportunities open and we have a trojan horse to invade wintel (bwahahaaa). I'm sure Steve didn't say everything. He keeps doors open, and he's free of ANY founder or at least he'll be fast. We move to a multiplatform OS, it is what it means, even if the hardware is specific. if the aim is to have a 20% market share, it makes sense.
- next year will be a great time to have G5 nodes
Now, please, no Intel stickers on our mactel, it's just plain UGLY. 
Posted by: coldharbour Wed 8 Jun 2005, 10:36
I think the loss of Altivec will be mostly compensated by the overall increase of processor speed by the time first Intel-PowerMacs are introduced.
Posted by: stratology Wed 8 Jun 2005, 17:02
"- No one will be able to say macs are crap because we'll run on similar platforms."
Everyone will be able to say Macs are crap because we'll run on similar platforms.
Posted by: lepetitmartien Wed 8 Jun 2005, 17:03
An interesting article on http://nav.440network.com/out.php?mmsc=forums&url=http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ars, not far from my personal mood… 
Posted by: stratology Wed 8 Jun 2005, 17:18
Ars Technica was always one of the best sources I used for arguments for PowerPC, against Intel, their articles about G4/P4 (and OSX etc.) are among the best on the web..
Saw Siracusa's article yesterday, not far from my personal mood either..
Frank
Posted by: jeffca Wed 8 Jun 2005, 19:15
Hey, Guys!
If you read between the lines of Steve Jobs keynote at WWDC and take note of the backdrop projection screen, it's all there. While Jobs was diplomatic, the Keynote screen shows an image of a G5 and has "3.0 Ghz?" next to it.
Apple, apparently, has not been happy with IBM missing big deadlines and offering poor CPU yeilds like Motorola used to and is now in a great position to bail on them.
I'd love to have a G6 with 2 dual-core CPU's, but that just ain't gonna happen. Too bad, but then it's not going to affect me one way or the other. I just need the fastest box I can get with OS X on it. The processors don't matter as long as they are beasts!
jeff
Posted by: lepetitmartien Thu 9 Jun 2005, 03:12
It's clear Steve decided that enough was enough, IBM may have its schedule, but Apple must go on whatever happens.
We have some details on the development kits Apple "rents" $999 to developers. It's on http://nav.440network.com/out.php?mmsc=forums&url=http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/. Remember it's only a development platform, nothing to do with the real thing when it will come.
And Steve said and re-said, there's more PPC product coming in.
Meanwhile, I 
my G5
Posted by: lepetitmartien Thu 9 Jun 2005, 19:30
here is the post of a friend on http://nav.440network.com/out.php?mmsc=forums&url=http://www.gaygeeks.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=352&post_id=7041&order=0&viewmode=flat&pid=7018&forum=1#forumpost7041
ocdude38
Post 1:
Despite all that, the developer documentation that Apple released specifically says that the new platform will use a BIOS, not Open Firmware. Anand on http://nav.440network.com/out.php?mmsc=forums&url=http://anandtech.com covers some of this (http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2439). You can also download the documents for yourself and read them if you want. I breezed over them just to get an overview. As I said before this wil be VERY, VERY, VERY good for the Apple platform. Are you aware that the 128MB ATI 9200 Mac Edition costs $125+? The same card for a PC can be purchased for $39.99 at Newegg!!!!!!!! THAT is why BIOS based motherboards will be better than OpenFirmware. The chip makers should only need to produce one BIOS that will be compatible on any x86 platform when Apple starts using the new motherboards.
Post 2:
Apple's move to Intel designed chips caught me by surprise a much as anyone.
I was certain that Apple would use Intel to build PowerPC chips in the same
way Apple moved AltiVec to IBM designs.
The move to Intel designs for laptops designs make sense as the M series are
a superior design to desktop Pentiums (NetBurst, heat, hide design problems
with clock speed, yada yada)
The move to Intel for desktop machines seems foolish on it face until you
look at the time frame for their integration into the high-end Macs.
High-end Macs migrate to Intel LAST at the end of two years. What is
happening in 2 years at Intel?
That appears to be the timeframe for the release of a chip designed by a
very NON-Intel design team. Specifically, the old DEC Alpha team. If anyone
remembers DEC Alpha's they were the fastest processors available in the
90's. Consistently outperforming everything. 64-bit, multiprocessor from day
one with a very elegant, efficient design. DEC was, unfortunately, a
foundering company with a very 70's management style and vision. As a result
a superior chip design lost in the market place. Compaq knew even less than
DEC so the design team jumped ship. HP was even more clueless. For several
years now Peter Bannon and his old Alpha design team (over 300 of them) have
been working on Intel's next generation 64-bit designs. Their first design
for Intel, not-polluted by previous Intel in-house missteps, is planned for
a 2007 release. Interesting timing is it not.
Here is some background:
* http://nav.440network.com/out.php?mmsc=forums&url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/10/intels_tanglewood_pumped_full
* http://nav.440network.com/out.php?mmsc=forums&url=http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20030702corp.htm
* http://nav.440network.com/out.php?mmsc=forums&url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/02/mister_tanglewood_tapped_as_intel
* http://nav.440network.com/out.php?mmsc=forums&url=http://boston.internet.com/news/article.php/2231171
Apple's high end machines may be running on an Intel CPU but it may be
unlike any other Intel cpu seen before. Designed by a team that has been
producing elegant, efficient designs (two words not used to describe Intel
designs) a more than a decade before IBM had a 64-bit desktop design.
I LOVE this post
Posted by: lepetitmartien Fri 10 Jun 2005, 16:23
And Apple posted in its news a link for the column of http://nav.440network.com/out.php?mmsc=forums&url=http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20050609.html, so he must not be saying that much stupidities
Posted by: abcdaniel Sat 11 Jun 2005, 18:53
Oooh, then maybe OSX will go 64bit! And maybe my softs will go 64bit! And maybe my G5 will live happily evver after!
Things are starting to sound sweet, thanks for digging it up lepetitmartienn! If these coming Intel processors materialize. maybe I'll scrap the G5... nah, it's too cool.
Posted by: lepetitmartien Sun 12 Jun 2005, 03:48
Uh, OS X is partly 64 bits, G5 are 64 bits (with a 128 bits bus)…
Now, 64 bits are not of use if you browse the net or try to type something in Office. now for video, audio, 3D…
The ALPHA boys possibility, is really exciting, even If I believe the first x86 mac will be laptops with some centrino (or something similar, I don't know the Intel future range by heart and I don't want to learn it the same, got better things to do as it's in the laptops that the gap is growing…
Posted by: abcdaniel Sun 12 Jun 2005, 08:20
Yeah, I at least am approaching the limit where things are getting too techie for me.
I thought that in order for 64bit to take full affect, the OS needs to be fully 64bit, at least in its core features (nontechie terms here, hehe ), and that the apps had to be coded and compiled to take advantage of the 64bit OS and 64bit processor all the way. Isn't it so?
Right now OSX is partly 64bit, but not enough to make full 64bit apps possible, isn't it so?
Yeah, I'll drop it now, this is truly my techielimit.
Posted by: lepetitmartien Mon 13 Jun 2005, 01:39
The 64 bitness of an OS is at multiple levels, OS X started with the memory, and Tiger goes further (I don't remember the details). G4 are basically 32 bit chips, but the data path is 128 as all PPC. G5 is a 64 bit chip, which understand 32 too, still with the 128 bit data path (that's the chunks moving in).
In fact on a 32/64 processor (I hope I won't say to many stupidities, it's from memory) to get the advantage of 64 bits (which are only important for big numbers crunching as in audio) you need for the most part in the OS and the apps, only the parts that are really worthy to be 64 to do. the rest written for 64 bits will only boost things marginally of at all (it may even slow down things).
So with a memory organized in 64, parts of the OS (and more to come) in 64, and part of apps too, it's a good way to make it easy on developers and benefit still from the boost.
I won't go further, I'm not able too, and also, it's not that important for us. what is important is:
- we have a partly 64 bits system, and it's build in the parts that benefit the most of it (unfinished yet but still further already than XP 64 as far as I know)
- our memory is 64 (that was why we could have 8 GB or RAM on G5 uh!)
- developers can code part of their apps in 64
- G5 are made for it.
- the Intel 64 CPUs are coming next year (don't search the coincidence, it's not one!)
note there's ONE drawback with 64 bit, in memory it takes live estate. 64 eats RAM!
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)