[insane_cobra]

*checks the calendar... nope, not April the 1st*

Don't know what to say.

A wise decision or the first step on Apple's way into oblivion? Could it be that in a year or two we'll be able to run both MacOS and Windows on the same hardware? Providing it really happens. I know there are more differences between the two platforms than just the CPU, but still.

[pinkgothic]

So they're moving from big-endian to little-endian? Emulating that ought to be hell...

[insane_cobra]

Well, I don't think that's gonna be such a big problem, but the transition will definitely be a painful process.

[Sage]

That rumor has raced all over the Mac-related sites all weekend, and it's supposed to be either confirmed or denied by Apple tomorrow.
Apple has had some supply problems with IBM's chips, so if they're going to contract Intel to produce those same chips under license, that might not be a bad thing.
We'll find out for sure on Monday.
(and yes, Cobra, I checked my calender when I first heard the rumor, too)

ScottMate

[Jake]

My thoughts:

1) I'm almost positive that it's true.

2) Apple very seamlessly survived a CPU changeover before, when they moved from Motorola 680x0 chips to PowerPC, and I am sure - if there is an architecture change - they wouldn't let the next transition to go any less smoothly (in fact, I bet they'd prefer it went even more smoothly), so they'll probably be presenting some very clever solutions for making the changeover seamless.

3) There will probably be at least one clever twist on what people think will be a simple architecture change, which when revealed, will make the whole thing make more sense than it does on first glance (except to people on the Internet who will decide not to listen, and proclaim that it's the doom of Apple after simply reading a headline).

4) Modern-day Apple (post-iMac & post-Jobs' return to the company, and especially post iPod) has been very clever, and very precise with what products they announce, and what products they choose to stop focusing on and let drop behind. The iMac, iPod, iBook, G5 desktop, and MacOS X (not to mention iLife the iTunes Music Store, and the acquisition of Final Cut Pro and Shake) have all been successes for Apple in recent years, and with the exception of the G4 Cube which was quickly dropped, they haven't made many huge major blunders, or supported copious amounts of money-losing or company-sinking projects like they did in the past (Newton, Mac clones, Multiple spinoff companies, huge OS overhauls that went nowhere, a non-competitive line of printers, and software projects like OpenDoc and ProjectX/HotSauce). With that in mind, I suspect any architecture change they have in mind has been carefully calculated to make them more successful, not less. The insane company-sinking pet project is a thing of the past at Apple. The Apple of today isn't one to make rash insane decisions with no motivation other than "some department lead thought it would be clever, but didn't bother to ask anyone."

All of that said, I wouldn't be surprised if I was entirely wrong. Apple is a pretty unpredictable company especially in days leading up to a big expo - prediction stories by Cnet and the like that go up the day before the show are usually 50/50 on whether or not they're right. So... we'll see.


I bet I'm right though

[SoccerDude28]

I wonder why they didn't go with AMD instead seeing that they have the superior processors?

[Jake]

Talks with AMD are also rumored.

[Zygomaticus]

I'm an ardent PC user (and not because I hate Apple or anything, it's just that I've never used them and am used to the PC) but have been following Apple's progress ever since I tried Mac OSX on my cousin's Mac Mini and liked it. Ever since then I've been thinking of getting either the iMac G5 or a Powerbook. So I'm curious, what repercussions could this have for the Mac user apart from, say, potential incompatibilities caused by old software on new hardware? Would this make a Mac more like a PC?

[Jake]

I imagine if Apple really does switch processors, they'll make sure the end user notices next to nothing. I'm almost entirely sure that new Apples, even if they use x86 processors, will remain closed systems just like current Macs - that's one of the main reasons you buy a Mac - the fact that Apple controls every component of the Mac from the specific parts inside to the mouse and keyboard to the OS you run. The upside, I suspect, to using x86, is that Macs will run cooler (allowing faster laptops, which are currently stuck using G4's since G5's cant run cool enough and with the lower power requirements of a notebook), faster, and have more frequent processor speed updates.

Everyone is saying "every single program will need to be recompiled!!!" which, in the long run may be true, but remember: When Apple switched to PowerPC from 680x0, they continued to support 680x0 programs without recompile, though they urged developers to eventually update their code to be PowerPC native. They did the same thing when they switched from MacOS 9 to the BSD-based MacOS X - Apple provided a solution for 9 code to continue to function fine in X as it did in 9 (with exceptions for things with semi-hacked direct hardware access like some games and really odd utilities), but for the performance boosts offered in X, they asked developers to eventually recompile. I suspect we'll see a very similar situation to that if there is an architecture shift. Everything we have now will work fine on whatever's next, but over the next couple years we'll be seeing patched or updated versions of software to fully explode brains on the new stuff.

[Sage]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

I wonder why they didn't go with AMD instead seeing that they have the superior processors?

Upon first hearing this rumor, that was my thought as well.

ScottMate

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Thrift Store Scott

Upon first hearing this rumor, that was my thought as well.

ScottMate

Maybe Intel just gave them a better deal...

[Sage]

Two facts make me very skeptical of this rumor:
1. This story was originally reported by cnet, and all subsequent articles have just re-hashed what cnet originally reported.
2. www.thinksecret.com, whose past predictions and speculations have been accurate enough to get them sued by Apple on more than one occasion, say they have heard nothing of such an alliance.
One way or another, we'll find out tomorrow.

ScottMate

[Aj_]

If Apple switches to x86 then hopefully Macs will become cheaper and a lot more powerful. Right now, PC processors are just faster, and hardware like GPUs get released much sooner on the architecture although they are basically the same product. Macs are far too expensive, and while the Mac mini is a step in the right direction, I don't see any Macs suitable for a mid range desktop, or for the extreme highend.

Right now I think AMD CPUs are much faster, cheaper, and 64bit. Intel CPUs don't seem like a viable option in any desktop setup, or business application. While the Pentium M is the king in the notebook scene and in shuttles (small form factor etc...

I can only see this as a step up for Apple, maybe more software could be ported.

[Jake]

My G5 handles the "extreme high end" just fine... not as a gaming machine, but as a professional grade production machine, which is what it's meant to be. iMacs are allegedly mid-range, but I've always thought they were slightly overpriced.

We'll see, Monday, I guess.

[Sage]

The G3 iMacs were competitively priced and sold like hotcakes, but the G4 and G5 versions sacrificed function and low price for breath-taking forms, and are a bit overpriced in my opinion as well.
The eMac, which goes for $794 all day long, is much more like the original iMac in price, form factor, and equipment levels. If I could stop spending my money by flying to Reno for a few days every chance I get, I'd buy one of these myself, but a new computer is only new for a few months and then it's just another old computer.
As the local thrift stores are full of old computers now that go for a small percentage of their original price, I'd rather wait and buy a used eMac in a few years than take a huge hit in depreciation now.

ScottMate

[Jake]

the eMacs are realllllly bulky though, in my opinion. I'd much rather get a Mini and some random display.

[Zygomaticus]

I fell in love with the latest iMac the moment I saw it. Just a crush really, as I too agree that it is slightly overpriced for what it offers on the inside. I too would prefer a Mini instead and use a switching device thingy with the monitor for my current desktop, if I get anything at all.

Or else, I might just wait another year. I feel guilty buying new computers too often, and I got a new laptop only 9 months ago, so no new computer for me for another year or so.

[Jake]

Boing! Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006


- Steve Jobs confirmed that every build of MacOS X from the start has been co-developed "in secret" to work on Intel chips. (lots of people knew about this, or suspected it, though) A "just in case" backup plan that they're now acting on. In addition to demoing OS X, Jobs also showed iPhoto and some other Apple software that they've already got ready, running normally (or better than normally) on an Intel based mac dev kit.

- The newest OS X development tools (Xcode v2.1), available today, compiles existing Cocoa applications, with just minor tweaks, to a new "universal binary" format that will work on PPC and x86 based OS X machines. Various developers came up and talked about how their modern OS X stuff was converted over to work on Intel based OS X builds in times ranging from 5 days to 2 hours (the developers of Mathematica were the ones who cited 2 hours time for porting their PPC OS X build over to an Intel OS X build).

- There is also a piece of software called "Rosetta" which runs existing PowerPC based MacOS X code on upcoming x86-based OS X systems, probably in a similar way to the original Power Macs emulated 680x0 code, or how MacOS X emulates MacOS 9 stuff - more or less seamless to the end user. Rosetta is apparently "pretty fast," but stuff running through Rosetta is nowhere near as clean or quick as recompiled code. The current OS X version of Microsoft Word was shown running normally on OS X for Intel using Rosetta.

In two weeks Apple will start renting out P4 based OS X dev kits to developers. They plan on starting the rollout to have some Intel-based Macs in 2006, with the whole line changed over by the end of 2007.

Originally Posted by a friend of mine transcribing steve jobs from the wwdc keynote

"Because we want to make the best computers going forward. I stood up and promised 3GHz and a G5 in a laptop 2 years ago and we can't do that. as we look ahead, we need to build some great products, but we don't know how to build them with the PPC roadmap. Intel's performance/watt is much better than PPC. this transition will happen over the period of a few years. starting next year Macs with intel processors. Macs with intel processors shipping by WWDC 2006, transition mostly complete by WWDC 2007, and complete by end of 2007."

[Jake]

There's a nice writeup at Macworld.com: http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06...date/index.php

[Intrepid Homoludens]

So, what's the deal with the Intel chips? How will it help the Macs be better?