Dear Apple, I am among the many switchers you successfully brought to your platform. And now I plan to switch back. Simply put, after reading this press release, I no more think the Mac has any future as an interesting hardware or software platform. I further believe that you have made such a bafflingly shortsighted decision that I worry about the sanity of your management staff, enough to dread more of these moves. I also disbelieve most of the claims that have been made today as purely hilarious.I do not expect you to keep reading beyond the latest paragraph but I’ll keep typing anyway.
First of all, you’re making an unnecessary shift. Were mentioned two previous transitions, both were painful but necessary; this one is not only even more painful but completely superfluous. In a period where the PC market falls into a seemingly bottomless bit, sales of Apple’s computers are rising. You’re gaining market share. Want to gamble everything when you have nothing to win and everything to lose? Some would claim neither IBM or Motorola could deliver for the notebooks but is Intel’s offering any better? I’ll elaborate on this fallacy later on.
I do not believe either fat binaries or dynamic recompilation will solve compatibility issues between architectures:
I just learned that dynamic recompilation won’t work if the executable requires a G4, G5 or Altivec (among other things). Great, meaning most assembly code must be rewritten for x86 as well as many optimized binaries. How about device drivers? Must third parties write two versions of their drivers to be compatible with Macs? Weren’t they already scared away from the platform because of lack of market share?
Aren’t you worried that dynamic recompilation, working only one way, will leave current PPC users in the dust? I am worried that in a year from now third parties will start releasing Intel-only binaries because it’s less hassle. It is particularly worrisome since many will start porting their applications to the Mac because of this transition. Right now I wouldn’t think of buying a PPC Mac. I believe your sales will crash starting from now. Besides, that’s not the only reason why it will happen: potential customers approving the switch will obviously wait while those ambivalent or disapproving will still prefer to stay away from an architecture that has been announced will become obsolete.
You’re claiming that recompiling PPC binaries on the fly for x86 processors is fast enough. My personal experience with such recompilation prevents me from believing such a thing. It’s going to be awfully slow, probably just as much as Java, or any software that runs in a virtual machine. Apart from that, loading time will be atrociously slow. Caching recompiled code might be an option, but then it will break any applications that internally generate code (like most emulators) or modify their own code segment (many useful anti-debugger tricks are based on that principle), while requiring even more disk space.
The use of fat binaries is an inelegant bloat. That means twice the required disk space and twice the download time (at the very least). As for developers, that also means twice the assembly code (as mentioned above; for many applications, that means almost twice the development time), twice the compiler glitches (as a programmer, I can attest there will be quite many), severe endianness issues (data on file must be read by platforms with different byte ordering, meaning many patches), and more frustrating surprises.
What’s the point of choosing Intel as a partner anyway? A company having so little vision that it has bet its future on the infamous Itanic and is now left with no long-term alternative? You claimed that IBM couldn’t deliver its 3GHz G5 but isn’t Intel having the same problem? Where is the 4GHz Pentium 4? Can you really believe its notable absence is due to a “marketing decision” as they claim? You claimed that Intel chips are faster but then how about your previous claims about the Megahertz myth (which is truly a myth anyway)? You claimed that Intel could provide faster, low-power chips for laptops but aren’t they using low-performance Pentium M‘s, Centrinos (performance being especially bad when it comes to integer computation and many multimedia tasks like DivX encoding, and what to say of the fact that the benchmarks giving it an edge, even for day to day applications use Pentium 4’s with at most 1Mb L2 cache while newest ones have 2Mb)? Because Pentium 4’s in notebooks heat so much that the fan must blow continuously — forget thin, quiet laptops. By the way, how about your shift to 64-bit machines? What’s the point of switching Powerbooks to Pentium M’s, a 32-bit processor, since your original complaint is that you couldn’t put a G5 in, a 64-bit processor? Or if you plan to use real P4’s in Powerbooks, I wish you luck. Speaking of 64-bit, don’t you mind at all that Intel, once owning its own architecture, is now following AMD’s lead by copying x86-64? By the way, aren’t you a bit worried about the fact that Intel is losing ground to AMD in the desktop processors market (since last year) just like nVidia is against ATI in the graphics chipsets market (thes two companies have a lot in common by the way) and that you may have to divorce from them even before marriage has been consumed? Oh, and how to explain that x86 processors are so much better than PPC (that can’t be further from the truth) given that everyone else is switching to the latter architecture, even Microsoft with the XBOX 360? Do you really feel the need to run counter-mainstream at all costs, enough not to learn of the mistakes of others?
You claimed that Mac OS X will never run on generic PC’s. You wanna bet? How about I predict that whatever scheme you have in mind to prevent this will be defeated almost immediately by hobbyists, may it be engraved into the BIOS or otherwise? That software like VMWare (or better, upcoming Linux kernel versions) running an operating system on top of another may easily support the Mac? If it’s so much about the OS like many Mac users claim, why would they bother buying Apple hardware when they can just copy the OS and crack it? Or do you plan to introduce such insane amounts of DRM into your operating system that it will alienate even legitimate users?
Aren’t you awfully worried that Wine will be ported for the Mac? And then that switchers will keep using Windows applications on their new machines? Far from being good news as a transitional help, that means a far less reliable platform overall. Gone will be the days of the secure operating system with solid applications — a Mac will just be another PC, with the same awful reputation than Wintel machines (actually, it will even run Windows — even if not officially supported). Give a warm welcome to mail worms (or do you seriously think people will abandon Outlook, even those switching to Mac OS X?), Internet Explorer security issues, and more.
On top of that, all of this is bound to make the system more complex, therefore inherently less reliable and secure. And what to say about the memory usage, which is obviously bound to rise significantlty? Isn’t that going to deter performance even more than it already does?
I guess you didn’t think of the fact that making so many transitions every now and then may also scare many potential customers and partners away, if only because they worry about you making more of such reckless transitions or simply out of frustration. Or perhaps having to pay an extra $999 for your Developer Transition Kit will do the trick.
Let’s summarize the above: this transition means a likely dark period of low sales, plenty of nasty software issues for both users and developers, hardware issues for laptops (supposedly the main reason for the transition), your reputation sinking rock bottom over time for all the reasons mentioned above, a complete absence of vision just as characteristic of your new partner, and overall a move just so devoid of meaning that I couldn’t believe the rumors until I read the press releases. In short, so long Apple. It was good while it lasted.
About the author:
I am a low-level, embedded computer programmer who started like many on a Windows desktop, then switched to Linux, then switched to the Mac. And plans to switch back to Linux before long.
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
whine whine. the fact of the matter is, it is STILL a mac.
I wonder whether IBM has its hands full since they now are to supply all the nextgen consoles… surely in comparison Apple are a small customer.
…until I realized that laptops are Apple’s bread and butter (at least as far as computer hardware goes. There is of course always the iPod) and that all of Steve’s talk of computational performance per watt had everything to do with maximizing CPU power *and* battery life.
Apple’s in a really lousy situation right now. Their laptops, the heart of their business, are underpowered in comparison to both PC laptops and their desktops. The G5 PowerBook was always a pipe dream… the CPU is simply not cut out to compete against the Pentium M in the portable market.
So that’s it. Look forward to fancy high end Intel-powered Apple notebooks in the near future.
Yea, the G5 is too big, too power consuming, and too hot for a laptop. I think the writer didn’t know this – or was too naive
Yes, it is still a Mac, and on an Intel platform it will have something akin to CrossOver Office to run Windows applications. It will be able to run x86 linux binaries just like some free *BSDs. We are talking about a truly universal workstation platform, that will run software made for its competitors with no performance hit, with an OS X desktop! Sweet
The benchmarks he cites on tbreak.com as “proving” that the Pentium M is a slow worthless chip have about as much validity as the bencmarks that Apple cites “proving” that the G5 is 300x faster than a P4. Specifically, pcmark puts a HUGE emphasis on memory bandwidth, and systems that provide more, do better on pc mark. The i855gme chipset that was tested with the pentium-m only allows for a single channel of pc2100 ram. On from there, he doesn’t even consider that the chips that the Intel Macs will ship with might actually be better than the ones available now.
As for the dynamic recompilation, I have no doubt that in some applications, it will run just fine, while in others it will be dog slow. The best way to get a feel for what this might be like, give a recent cvs checkout of pearpc a spin and install osx on it. You can safely bet that the performance will be better than that, as under the rosetta emulation, only the actual application code has to be emulated instead of the whole OS. All the OS library support code will still run natively.
The letter defends IBM and attacks Intel, like IBM has never made mistakes. Yes, Itanium was not a success, but what about the IBM projects that have failded. That happens. You put products in the market, some fail other succeed. You think that Steve Jobs wouldnt like to stay with Power. They know what they doing. I am not a Mac user, but I which the best of the luck to the Mac users, developers, designers and everybody associated with Mac. Keep putting great products out there.
People need to understand that Apple wouldn’t have done this unless absolutely necessary. This same guy would’ve started an open letter to Apple in 6mo about the lack of progress in the hardware lines.
This was a big decision for Apple. People act like there was a wonderful PPC roadmap ahead and Apple decided to switch to Intel because they had nothing better to do with their time.
GROW UP! This was a huge decision based on what was most likely a dead-end IBM roadmap. If IBM stopped developing the PPC CPU, what were Apple’s other choices?
I further believe that you have made such a bafflingly shortsighted decision …
It’s neither baffling or shortsighted – it was explained, at the keynote, that PPC chips simply won’t offer the performance necessary in the years to come. Why do you find the switch baffling on that basis … ?
Yes but now Mac means PC clone made by third parties with an Apple badge as opposed to a seperat hardware platform.
Apple can only differentiate itself based on the OS now. Hardware is gone. That may be good or bad depending on how you look at it, but the consumer desktop and notebook market is poorer for it in my opinion.
I think the author is right for many points, the halo effect might become a negative halo effect. People do not want to be the next guinea pig. People will wait. Sales at apple might be in jeopardy.
I do not agree that running on an Intel platform brings in all the crap that Windows carries along. Isn’t Linux running on the same crap but without IE, blue screens and mail worms ?
Mac OS X is based on a solid BSD foundation.
A Mac will always be a Mac, despite the platform it runs on.
BTW, who knows what Intel has in the pipeline ? If Steve Jobs has been able to hide for 5 years the Intel ‘Just in Case’ scenario… With Longhorn coming in and the 64 bit halo effect to the desktop, maybe Intel has some more to show…
my 2 cents.
They are just changing the chip set.
A Mac will be still a Mac.
A developer that makes an application will still support an install base of 20 million ppc macs (potentional customers) – with the development tools provided from apple (Xcode) producing universal binaries (ppc and intel) there are little things to do to remain ppc compatible and new applications will be tested from start on both platforms so there really is no need to do code translation in both directions.
Code translation is more for developers who are late or for older apps that aren’t supported anymore – at this time I think only classic (Mac OS 9/68k) users will be affected.
I am still thinking about buying new ppc machines and don’t expect support being dropped during the normal lifespan (say 5-6 years).
Irony is defined as a Mac users who raves about the elegance of PowerPC, then starts harping about “Itanic”.
The cloning issue is silly. APPLE WILL NOT ALLOW OSX TO RUN ON OTHER PEOPLES HARDWARE! If people circumvent Apple’s protection, it will be a small number of technically sophisticated people – no big deal.
Apple’s OS and software should be what differentiates Macs from the PC. It is superior! Now, all things being equal your choice of computer will depend on the OS. I could care less what crunches the numbers in my iMac as long as I can use OS X and the related software – The Mac experience is MOSTLY about the OS.
Facts:
1. IBM doesn’t want to deliver a laptop CPU, since only Apple needs it and Apple is too small a customer for IBM compared to the console business.
2. Laptops are the most sold computers (vs. desktop) last year.
3. Intel has the best mobile CPU platform (Centrino).
Add 1+2+3.
whats the deal here.
only thing is that Apple will be using Intel processors period.
as for apple market share increasing that was due to software, people didn’t went for it because it came with PPC (if they did they were very few & mainly PPC fan)
most people wouldn’t even know the different if they had got their G5 with Intel chip & even if they did they wouldn’t have cared as long as their stuff was working
i am looking forward the possibility of a dual boot with windows. hate windows, but i play games and there are many games not ported to os x. so it would be nice to boot into xp once in a while just to play a game.
Don´t you guys see it? Apple is a business and it´s looking for ways to make money. “The Mac experience is MOSTLY about the OS.” Exacly! It´s only a matter of time for OSX to run on any cheap x86 hardware, not only apple “branded” x86, but also the Dell or the HP you are using. Most people are sick of MS bullshit and OSX is a real alternative. Let´s leave Linux on the servers.
Esteban
“I am still thinking about buying new ppc machines and don’t expect support being dropped during the normal lifespan (say 5-6 years).”
Exactly….it will take much longer than 2 years to get 20 million PPC using mac users over to Mactels. This is why developers will continue to keep PPC code in their universal binaries.
The PPC will be the predominant CPU type for Apple developers to write applications for….for at least 4-6 years.
But as an emerging and future market developers will develop x86 programs and include them in the UBs so they court the inevitable new platform.
Apple’s plans are as solid as one could expect during a difficult transition time.
I heard this same grousing when Apple transitioned to PowerPC in 1995, and again when they made the jump to OS X. Where are those naysayers now? There are always those willing to second guess a company’s decisions, but the truth is that only time will tell if a critical decision pans out. No one but Apple knows what Apple has up its sleeve. The WWDC keynote made it obvious that this was not a spur-of-the-moment decision, no matter how volatile or childish Jobs is. Apple has been carefully preparing for such an eventuality for years, and I’m willing to bet that only Apple and Intel know for sure precisely what processor will find its way into Macs in 18 months time. Remember also that Apple contributed to the design of the PowerPC, and retains some IP rights to aspects of the design, so it will be interesting to see if Apple contributes to the design of the forthcoming processor.
Lashing Apple’s decision based on Intel’s current offerings makes no sense. Let’s wait until the Intel-based Macs appear before we pass judgement.
I am no Apple user but I respect them for some of the things that they have done in the past. As much as I understand why Apple had to go with Intel I could never support them for not breaking the tradition and choosing AMD for the processor manufacturer. After all the whole point was to get something more powerful than a g4 and I really don’t see how a p4m fits the picture. The p4 though revamped is still yesterday’s technology with slow fsb and no 64 bit instruction support. Also dual core is not coming to the mobile Intel market for quite some time and AMD is once again ahead of Intel there. Plus 64bit mobile CPUs have been in AMD’s bag for quite a while now. Sure adding the extra registers in no big deal and Intel can fix that is a day or so but the fact of the matter is that they haven’t. And while all this is not that big of a deal for a Windows user it should be a huge deal for Apple. After all Apple has been perfecting a 64 bit OS for the last 3-4 years and MS just released their abomination.
So while some of the claims of the author might be way too strong and short-fused I thing he is expressing the general opinion of many of the Mac developers. After all Mac OS is starting to get more expensive than even Windows and this is really sad. Plus the switch over to x86 is going to introduce Apple to the PC related phenomenon of mass piracy and I am not sure the company is really up for it … but time will tell
Geez Apple makes a solid business decision to layout a successful roadmap for the future and people whine like babies. Even with intel CPU’s the machines will not really be IBM PC’s. All of Mac’s problems like like of software slow processors speed jumps and expense disapears with the intel switch. Get over it Macs have a serious future now be happy.
“Facts:
1. IBM doesn’t want to deliver a laptop CPU, since only Apple needs it and Apple is too small a customer for IBM compared to the console business. ”
And so what ? Freescale will have the dual core G4 (e600) at autumn, 2Ghz with DDR2, PCI-Express support high FSB and low consumption. and the G4 64 bit early in 2006.
You are right, Apple hadn’t any alternatives ….
talk about chicken little. do you really think a billion dollar company that has to answer to millions of shareholders would make a decision like this without thinking about these issues? Do you think that this kind of decision was made without months upon months of research and planning?
A whine is acceptable if the whiner knows what he’s talking about, but this guy is completely clueless! This whole letter is nothing more than hurt PPC fanboy’s overflowing emotions put to words. I had no idea OSNews would publish such a pathetic piece of writing.
That melody from Adam Sandler song is buzzing in my head after I read that article.
1. More jobs will be created around apple/intel than ppc/apple will ever mananage in 10 years.
2. PPC distribitions will die out eventually to the point of obscurity.
3. I wish apple moved up the date of the switch by 6 month and deliver something very soon. I can’t wait that long. I know it will be slow, but it will give access to ordinary cs students who don’t have $500 and $3500 for a ADC membership. Even if it is slow, geeks will make it better quicker than you can say jackrabitt and imagine 1000 rabbits doing it at once in your head.
I can’t say I feel the same only b/c I’m not a Mac user. I just know that IBM wasn’t exactly putting their nose to the grindstone when it came to the 3GHZ G5. Steve Jobs has been embarrassed many times over b/c IBM keeps promising but doesn’t deliver. The only way to go that I saw was that Apple adopt the new Cell processor – although being new tech I’m not really sure why this wasn’t an acceptable option. I thought cell was based on Power and wouldn’t be hard to write to. IBM is miles ahead of the game with the cell. Intel & AMD don’t have an answer for it. Anybody know what happened?
How can you say Rosetta will be slow when it was demoed running the PCU intensive Photoshop at what seemed a perfectly acceptable speed. Big and CPU hungry apps like Photoshop will be ported by the launch and Rosetta will be reserved for older apps or ones whose ports are not yet complete for whatever reason. The lack of classic support is no big deal, the only app I have that runs under classic is Civilisation Call to Power which I will continue to run on my Mac Mini. Java is not (as has been pointed out so many times on OSNews) a slow system, JIT dynamic recompilation allows really quite fast execution, have you ever used a Transmeta system? They perform well (for their market) yet the entire thing is dynamically recompiled.
Dynamic recompilation of device drivers is IMPOSSIBLE due to their low level nature. Roisetta is not designed to replace x86 ports but to assist the switch over just as the 68k emulator in MacOS 8 and 9 was.
Apple know far more than us about IBM and Freescale roadmaps. If IBM are conentrating on consoles. If they are unable to get yields up and power consumption down, if they are unable to increase clock speeds or introduce multi core systems soon then Apple will know about it and if they feel it is a long term problem they will shift. THis is not an easy decission to make and a lot of thought will ahve been put into it. This is NOT Apple/Jobs throwing a mardy with IBM but a carefully planned long term stratagy.
Saying the Pentium M is an awfully performing chip is also rediculus. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html shows that it can and does beet top of the line P4 and Athlon64 systems in real world games. the lack of SSE (and possibly HT) puts it further behind in Video encoding apps but they will be present in future versions, as will EM64T and dual cores. Right now Intel have a more complete package, there is still no PCI-Express or DDRII etc. support on PPC and there may well not be any time soon. Intel on the other hadn have it now, it is shipping.
I dislike Intel chips, I would be much happier with AMD macs and I still belive that PowerPC is a superior system I think the x86 design is old and flawed while the PPC design is a nice new, clean implementation and Altivec kickes the crap out of SSE3 but the implementations are stil slightly lacking, there is still no definite performance advantage of PPC over x86. The x86-64/EM64T design goes a long way towards impriving the x86 architecture; the new array of general purpose registers are a god send and SSE3 is a step in the right direction (towards AltiVec/VMX).
This guy should stay away from writing technical letters. First, what’s the fuss about this assembly code blah. … who still writes a significant protion of their product in assembly? No one. Only very small, optimized bits are written and then abstracted to a high level. Plus, I can’t think of very many scenarios that actually require that type of optimization. Certainly 99% of all software products do not require this.
Second, what’s up with his understanding of viruses and their propogation? I would love to see someone execute a virus for Windows on any platform that’s not Windows. Linux runs on x86 hardware and it’s not plagued with viruses. Get a grip on OS security…
Third, what’s wrong with Wine and more generally interoperability with other operating systems. Running Windows apps through an emulation or abstraction layer on another OS doesn’t make the other OS unstable. Stability is the job of the OS, not the applications. …that’s something that he should have learned when he switched to Linux.
Fouth. What’s with complexity -> less reliability? Tell that to the Solaris folks. 🙂
Bottom line is that Apple needs a processor that can deliver the highest performance, especially in the notebook market. The G5 is nice, and I’m sad to see the PowerPC go since this will most likely be the end of it on the desktop – but IBM couldn’t deliver the power – especially for notebooks, and the Apple line is under powered. Plus, there are plenty of pluses for running on an x86 platform. Virtualization with other OSs (when do you think IBM would add virtualization instructions to the G5 – never), compatibility layers for Linux and Windows binaries (you better believe the Crossover folks are going to be loving this), software vendors only having to optimize assembly code for one architecture (the 0.1% products that actually have some assembler in them). All that good stuff, along with IBM’s bad performance, makes for a strong case to switch.
I’m surprised they didn’t do it sooner.
We have a YEAR before anything of substance is known about Mac on Intel. The OS will be evolved and the hardware will be evolved beyond anything that is available today.
In the meantime, YOU CAN PAY APPLE $1000-$1500 for the privilege of debugging OS X for Intel.
Honestly, in a year so much can change it is impossible to say what will happen. When Longhorn ships, it will be 5 years ahead of OS X 10.4, at least. And in a year Linux will be close to what OS X 10.3.X is today.
Interesting times.
Looks like it’s back to Windows for you then my boy – I wish you well. Personally I’ll stick to my G3 iBook until the new Intel Macs get released and the glitches (if there are any) get ironed out. As it is, the PPC Apples will probably still hold their value fairly well compared to Windows laptops on eBay.
So, do I care about the switch to Intel? No – I didn’t buy a Mac for the processor after all, I bought it for OSX!!
Don’t these idiots realize that regardless of what processor any future mac is running, the user will not notice any difference from running on a PPC processor? It is the software that you are interested in, not the processor. NeXT ran on many different processors. I have the Pentium version of OpenStep and It does not run any different than the 68k version, except that it runs faster on the Pentium Pro 200 than the 68040 NeXT machine. This is what you can expect from the x86 version of OSX. IBM is simply not interested in making desktop processors. Intel is. If Apple had released some small speed bumped G5/G4 machines, everyone would complain about how slow/overpriced they are, and how much faster their P4/Opteron chips are. Even in the demo Steve Jobs did with the Intel based system seemed much faster than my Dual 1.8 G5. If Apple can provide machines with better/faster specs than current PPC speeds at the same price point with new Intel based macs, then I am happy.
Cell processor is completely inappropriate without rewriting every line of code in every application….out-of-order execution is horrible – IT”S NOT A DESKTOP CPU! PERIOD!
Dual-core e600 from Freescale is an embedded processor and there has been no indication they would sell it as a discrete processor.
Mobile CPUs were a problem, but the G5 roadmap for Powermacs was still a problem. It’s dead at 2.7GHz……with all the fab problems unless IBM started selling tons of it’s own equipment with the PPC970 in it, selling Apple a couple million G5s per year is a losing proposition…..ever try finding an IBM product with the G5 in it….you have to look long and hard!
As an audio maker, Apple is good enough on producing iPod. Then it does not care about the chip it is using.
OTOH, IBM is a good CHIP MAKER, it does not care what an audio maker wants.
The end of the computer Apple. Let’s focus on the Audio Apple.
OHNOES!!!!
Worst, article, evah.
The cell is a stripped down PPC64 core with 7 custom co-processors which would be hard to take advantage of in an OS, you would need to a least recompile and prefereably optimise all the apps just as they had to do for Altive. Also, there are yeild problems with the cell, most will be used in the PS3 and the rest will go to IBM and Toshiba first not to mention that we have not seen any desktop chipsets demoed for it yet, the closest is a blade server.
The e600 based 8641D faces a similar problem, the only chipset on the market that can connect to the host via PCI-Express is made by ULI, that doesn’t give you a lot of flexibility.
The transition probably means a delay of 2 years in the progression of OS X 64-bit support. You shouldn’t expect a 64-bit x86 next year since the developer boxes are only 32-bit.
Even if sales of Macs decline the iPod is more than enough to tide them over then there is the small matter of the $6bn in the bank…
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/,
most of your points are refuted by someone who is there on a intel/mac.
Unneccesary Shift?
Jobs explained this one… When your processor isn’t really going anywhere and you can’t even put it in a laptop in the forseeable future, I think that is justification switch.
Rewritting Device Drivers?
It’s UNIX under the hood. Recompile the source and you have a driver ready.
Releasing Intel Only Binaries because it is too much of a hassle to make fat binaries?
Last time I checked, clicking on two checkboxes isn’t that difficult to do.
Twice the size for binaries means twice the size for files to download?
Looking at most apps, it is comprised of a small amount of binaries and a lot of content (images, sounds, etc…) so two binaries does not mean twice the size.
I stopped after this because the author didn’t seem to do too much research/thinking.
“They are using a Pentium 4 660. This is a 3.6 GHz chip. It supports 64 bit extensions, but Apple does not support that *yet*. The 660 is a single core processor. However, the engineers said that this chip would not be used in a shipping product and that we need to look at Intel’s roadmap for that time to see what Apple will ship.”
Why do you expect developers will release Intel only binaries in a year? Intel powered macs will have only just started appearing and dropping PPC support would lose a lot of customers. For current applications it should be fairly easy to keep PPC compatibility for the future. I don’t expect to see Intel only apps until at least 2008, and even then not many of them. There is plenty of life left in new PPC machines.
Fat binaries will increase program size, but probably not to 2x the size as you suggest. Most programs include icons, pictures, sound, data files that won’t need to be duplicated. Small applications may not include many extra data files but they are small enough that even if the size doubles it won’t matter much. Few desktop applications include much if any assembly code anymore.
I’m going to trust Apple when they say they’ve looked at the roadmaps and determined that PPC won’t allow the future products they want to make. Even if there is a chance the pentium M is a bit slower then some alternatives I’ll give up a little for extra battery life. I can’t imagine Apple placing a desktop chip in a laptop and I’m amazed you even suggest it. True, many of Intel’s processors aren’t 64 bit now, but that might change in a year. I doubt Apple is too worried about AMD since they can switch fairly easily.
Maybe I haven’t read it yet, but can you point to some specific information that says memory usages will rise? The complexity will increase so much that systems become less secure and reliable? They aren’t introducing additional APIs and most of it will even use the same code. It doesn’t seem likely to introduce new security exploits.
The only reason Apple may be decreased sales in the next 6 months is because people like you are scaring customers for no good reason.
“This transition is not about current P4 vs G5. It is about the future directions of the processor families. Intel is committed to desktop/notebook and server in a big way. Freescale/IBM are chasing the embedded market and console market. Apple would have been in a lurch in 2 years.”
from xlr8 article.
To be honest, good to see you leaving the party. I think Apple is making a better move. If you want to whine, go whine to IBM who is no providing the chips it needs. Apple is being smart to get out while the getting is good.
Now go soak your head…
Read this when you are done.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10794
yeah whatever…
You put an advertisement in the middle of a letter to someone? How rude.
I am a low-level, embedded computer programmer who started like many on a Windows desktop, then switched to Linux, then switched to the Mac. And plans to switch back to Linux before long.
I take it you are also going to be switching back to x86 Linux then? If so you might like to check out the new x86 Macs coming out in about a year. Apparently you’ll be able to boot all 3 platforms which would put your extensive cross platform experience to good use.
With the global economy probably entering recession over the next 5 years it seems tech companies are rationalising their strategic priorities, much like eveyone else. If Apple has to shift then I think yesterday is the best time to do it.
And since it’s a done deal … all power to unix on the x86! Here’s to Linux and BSD against a bloated Longhorn.
This hinges upon the enthusiasm and dedication Intel decides to devote to Apple and it’s Engineers.
When at NeXT Intel promised huge amounts of technical resources, including marketing dollars to promote NeXTSTEP 3.x for Intel.
It never materialized. All device drivers were written in-house, all system configurations done in-house, hardware certification $5k in-house.
Now eliminate the cloning and we reduce our system configurations ala current Macs.
Without actual third party OEM support that goes beyond the delivery of hardware and some reference materials, ala the NeXT experience with Intel, Matrox, DEC excluded, Creative Labs, Trident, and all the other former and now bought out device driver vendors, Apple will once again be on bending knees begging for Intel to be gracious.
With Hypertransport a shoe-in, Apple will develop board controller to manage its future custom motherboard design. So much for unified motherboard design and reducing manufacturing costs–this will annoy Wall Street.
Will nVidia actually write I/O Kit certified device drivers, and ATI, and all other third parties so that the Mac experience on Intel will feel as seemless as it does on the PPC?
I had to support and configure NeXTSTEP for Intel @NeXT. The just works was not an option. Once it worked it was smooth. Apple will have to lock down the hardware as it presently does. This lock-down will not reduce the system costs. Systems will be on-target with present day costs/performance +/- 10% in my estimation.
The big IF is whether Intel will deliver regardless of what sorts of pressures Microsoft puts on them during the QA Cycle Longhorn goes through regarding all its clone vendors.
Meanwhile, AMD is an option, if Intel doesn’t provide acceptable levels of aide during this transition, and it’s still x86 compatible.
I don’t share the writers feelings. I couldn’t be happier. I think we might finally see lower cost macs and real competition for MS. That is wonderful from my perspective.
The real value is in the software not the hardware though altivec was nice.
I have mixed feelings, I belive that PPC is superior to Intel in an theoretical sense. However, in the real world this has not been the case. Compilers tend to not take advantage of the PPC. Also improvements have been slow in comming. Combine this with the fact that I am forced to run windows compilers (I am an embedded OS developer), the ability to run VPC at near native speeds is a great thing.
So what makes a Mac a Mac? It is the OS. This will be a little bit of a headache for developers, but the mix of processors should insure that the fat binary catches on, and good cross platform programming practices are followed. This will be good for the industry. Especially if we can convince Apple to release Cocoa for Windows. The dream of OpenStep/Rhapsody may eventually come about – Write once, run everywhere.
For Apple, this means that they can shift between CPU’s as the market dictates.
Will the emulation be fast enough? Yes, most programs will run on my old 500MHz iBook today, and from what i saw it was running much faster than my 5 year old mac.
My question to you is why did you switch to the mac? I switched (back) for the OS, not the processor. As much as i prefer the PPC, it is the OS that makes it a Mac. When you switch back to linux, are you going to stick with PPC? I am betting not, and I would argue that OS X on either platform gives you all the good of linux combined with all the benifits of the mac as well.
Hmm…doesn’t sound like ‘whining’ to me. Sounds like a well formed rebuttal to Apple’s announcement, backed up with solid evidence. Maybe you should get a dictionary and look up the definition of ‘whine’.
I have been a Mac, Linux and Windows user for the past six years and have seen all three platforms mature side-by-side. I have owned two PowerBooks and a used PowerMac, and yet I agree completely with Jobs here, despite not thinking he’s anywhere near the genius he’s made out to be. The move to Intel will make it easier for Apple to sell cheaper hardware and it will let them do things they previously couldn’t.
My PowerBook gets about 1 hour of battery life now with its 1Ghz G4. Maybe I should accept 20 minutes of battery life as a “compromise” for using a G5 in a Powerbook. Excuse me, but I don’t give a damn about the hardware, but the software that’s availible for Macs, especially the OS. If Apple can do great things on PowerPC, then surely they can do them on x86.
Go ahead and switch back to Linux. Clearly you’re one of those nerds who needs to use it to make yourself feel like you’re part of an elite because it’s so much more complicated to use Linux as a desktop than a Mac. Why did you switch in the first place?
What’s going to give me a good laugh is when Apple’s critics end up coming crawling back to MacOS X when the Intel version ends up kicking Windows XP’s teeth in. I would be shocked if Apple doesn’t do some good price dropping to reflect the savings from switching to x86. I have a feeling that this is going to be the watershed moment in Apple’s history that gets Apple’s marketshare to go back up to double digits. With Macs becoming closer in price to Dell PCs, it’ll be a bad era for many PC vendors.
I thought Apple moved from IBM to Intel, but somehow it seems Apple moved from OSX to Windows. Who cares what kind of hardware is underneath?
For one thing there are a half million developers, NeXT didn’t have that and Apples been writing it on X86 all along, plus all the other App’s. It’s not anything new to them. WE all new by rumors this was happening.
This guy is a insane who scribed this letter!
Intel is the best choice.
IBM sat on it’s heat sink and could’t deliever enough 970s…had to hand pick them!
I’m sure in about 5 years we will find out what was said CEO to CEO between Apple and IBM.
IBM like Moto promised but didnt’ deliver. MS should be concerned!
The guy also says he’s going back to Linux….what for? Doesn’t his current Maac work good anymore?? What happened to it? Apple not supporting it?? Give me a BREAK! OS X is the same as on the PPC and X86. x86 opened more possiblities for Apple and customors. Better partner too!
People aren’t getting it. This is about chip availability not performance. Steve is lying about that. The PPC roadmap is quite strong which is why so many companies are moving to it. Intel just doesn’t care about what Apple want’s or when they want it. Neither does Intel really but they at least have chip availability. As a Mac user since 1984 I am looking at various Linux distro’s I’m tired of all Apple’s shifts. Also consider what OS X will be like without Altivec speedwise. The emulation will be horrid, far worse than the terrible problems that occurred during the last emulation where the OS was also emulated in large parts and it took years to make it PPC native.
1. Unnecessary shift? I guess he wants there to only be 2.9 ghz G5s in his powermac 2 years from now.
2. Companies aren’t stupid. Who will produce Intel only binaries a year from now when the overwhelming majority of users are on PPC machines? Anyone doing that would not sell much software. I personally would still buy a shiny new dual-proc Powermac if they start lower the prices before the Intel version comes out. PPC software will still be around for years.
3. Device Drivers? Haven’t hardware manufacturers made drivers for XP, 2000, 98, Me and Linux simultaneously? Now, all of the sudden when it comes to Apple, it’s too hard?
4. I may be wrong on this but isn’t on the fly recompilation altogether different from emulation? Isn’t Rosetta an emulator? From what I’ve read today, a single P4 (not the intended platform) did not perform poorly at all compared to a dual proc Powermac. Even still, it is irresponsible to benchmark a product that is neither close to release stage nor is it running on its intended, final platform.
5. Fat binaries. I disagree with the writer. I think it is a rather elegant transitional solution to the situation.
6. Why is he worried about P4s when we’re talking about next year. Again, if we’re lucky, maybe IBM will give us 2.8 G5s by December.
7. Recompile Assembly code??? That will surely alienate tons of people. All 10 of them.
Frankly, I’m astounded that someone at OSNews considered this “news” enough to make it its own article. There is enough real news out there to report on rather than a disgruntled user’s rant. Everyone has an opinion, an opinion isn’t “news”, information is. Maybe this is also the year that OSNews has decided to become a tech blog.
Moderate away!
“I heard this same grousing when Apple transitioned to PowerPC in 1995, and again when they made the jump to OS X. Where are those naysayers now?”
Well here’s one right here and I remember what an awful experience that was. At that time I was the Systems Maanger for a company that had hundreds of Macs and it was a significant and long term disruption to our ability to get work done. This new emulation will be far worse. How many companies that use Macs are up for going through this again?
Apparently you weren’t around during the heyday of NEXTSTEP. As a former sysadmin of a quad-architecture NetInfo network, let me assure you, this is how is was and how it will be again.
While I would never deign to put words in Steve’s mouth, I believe that he is of the mindset that Quality software is platform agnostic. The Mac devotee doesn’t care which company’s trademark is on their CPU. They care about a Quality experience.
Windows users have to spend their time as system administrators, or face premature death of their krufty system of choice.
Mac OS X users just get on with _using_ their systems, being productive and getting the value out of them which they expect.
Mac OS X will continue to provide all of the Quality of the current G5 experience, without the weaknesses of an undependable supply chain, incompatible byte-code architecture with the mainstream world, adn all of the FUD from the Wintel camp. Like “Blade.” All of the strengths with none of the weaknesses.
Windows apps will run without command translation. PPC apps will run in Rosetta. Someone will figure out an AltiVec accellerator, so don’t even go there. SoftPC/VirtualPC/WINE will run natively.
P4 sux gonads. But, the Pentium M is very nice for portables. I bet the 2007 64-bit multicore Pentium M will be everything you wanted from your mythical G5. I still have a TiBook 550 and it runs great as a portable. Dells from the same vintage are already dead. That’s the value Apple provides. That Quality of build will not change.
No need to be a Chicken Little. I bet you were one of those people who decried the end of Apple when they went to IDE drives (if you were even in the field that far back). Or were you a doomsayer in 1996 with the clones?
I was a NeXT user when NeXT reverse-acquired Apple, and I have been patiently waiting for Apple to prune its old crappy legacy and bring the world up to where OpenStep was in 1997. This is another step in the right direction.
Come on… We’ve had disputes before about what passes for content here on OSNews, but this is a new low.
Yeah, there are a lot of people upset about the switch to Intel, but a lot of those people, including this nutjob who got you to post his complaint letter, have no more of an idea of what the future holds than you or I do. The fact that he no longer sees his Mac as relevant due to ths announced switch says that he’s more into having a trophy, or being different than the norm, than he is in a quality computing experience.
You know what? The guy who wrote this whiny letter, and those like him (Look around the Net… the whiners aren’t as numerous as those who see this as a good thing, but they’re out there nonetheless) are going down the same road as all the Amiga nutcases have! In a year or so, you’ll see Apple steaming along nicely, growing the brand as they suck up X86 users, and you’ll see people like this dork lamenting the late great Mac, which was the pinacle of computers in his opinion. I’m sure these types of people will soon be lamenting that all future OS’s, including future versions of OSX will not be able to match the combination of the mighty PPC and OSX match.
Sound familiar? If it doesn’t, then you’ve never ran into one of the mighty Amiga lovers out there, who still croon abuot the forthcoming OS4, and how it’s going to completely renew the computing world with its prowess and speed.
Even though it’s what? Like 5 years overdue at this point (15 -20 years, if you want to go back to when the Amiga first started going downhill), yet there’s nutcases around the world who swear by Amiga, and who complain bitterly whenever someone suggests they change.
Just like the author of this “letter” is doing.
I would question how this got posted on OSNews in the 1st place, but I think we all remember the fiasco surrounding Eugenias open complaint letters about her iBook. Not comparing her to this guy, but why peoples personal complaints are considered newsworthy items on this site, are beyond me. Keep that stuff to the forums, and let news fill your front page up.
This kinda stuff brings the whole site down IMHO.
Not a single thing you said makes any sense or shows any knowledge of what is happening.
I don’t use a Mac, but my wife has one. I use Linux with an Athlon 64. The point being that just as one OS (Windows) is a bad idea, one CPU is equally bad. It’s one thing that IBM can’t or won’t deliver any real improvements on their CPU (whether the techniology has hit a ceiling or not is debatable), but to roll over and join the Intel crowd sounds too much like everyone using Windows because everyone else is. In fact, since Athlon’s are code-compatible with Pentium 4s, I wonder why Apple counldn’t switch back and forth as pricing on the two CPUs fluctuate.
Food for thought.
“I don’t share the writers feelings. I couldn’t be happier. I think we might finally see lower cost macs and real competition for MS. That is wonderful from my perspective.
The real value is in the software not the hardware though altivec was nice.”
Dream on if you think Macs will be cheaper. No way that will happen. Altivec was (is) more than nice. It’s the only reason Apple did so well with Photoshop filters etc compared to other platforms.
I’m not impressed that moving to Intel is particularly important. It’s definitely not worth the press it’s gotten.
The only benefit is accessibility of lower power CPUs for laptops (though, it appears AMD would have been a better choice there).
Cost? There’s no reason the switch will make a difference. Disruption in support? The plan they have for the transition sounds fine — I imagine that there might be minor issues, but most software ought to run stably and perform fairly well via Rosetta or what have you (there’s repcendent for that). Drivers? Well, new drivers pop-up all the time for Windows revisions, new hardware, etc. no biggie there. Viruses? These buggers are not OS/software independent, so no problem there…
For most consumers, the actual CPU inside the machine is not going to make much of a difference unless there’s a very substantial performance difference. A lot of the performance hits are likely to be absorbed by the microkernel (which has considerable overhead to beign with, but it’s acceptable) and never appear as a problem.
Yeah, but Marc, remember that when we were building out 486s with NS 3.2, we had ISA interface cards. We had to hardwire the jumpers of our ProAudioSpectrum 16 ISA cards by hand and tell the system where all of the IRQs were being allocated. Remeber the Adaptec ISA SCSI cards which had to be set to IRQ10? Sure glad the DPT2021 solved that one.
Anyway, my point is, yes, NEXTSTEP for Intel was tough to configure in 1993. But, those were different times. Windows didn’t even come with an IP stack then (remember Crynwyr and Wollongong?). I hardly think that a modern Apple machine (which is essentially an OpenFirmware-enabled standard PCI/PCI-X box now anyway) will be anywhere close to as problematic. Heck, a Mini is basically all laptop with a G4. You could pop a Pentium M in there an no one would know.
Remeber when we could run NEXTSTEP 3.3 on SPARC? It was so nice to not have IRQ and driver issues. The driver set was tiny. I have a feeling that the new Apple boxen wil be just the same. This isn’t “Revenge of the Clones.” This is “A New Hope.” Pardon the Star Wars bastardizations.
Maybe.
But don’t we as Mac users hold at least part of the key to that? Vote with your wallet, folks.
If you want native ports, tell the manufacturer. And refuse to buy the WIndows version. Look for native alternatives.
Just say NO to Windows software via VPC or Dual Boot.
And most importantly, if a mac native version DOES appear, BUY it. Yes, PAY for it.
It should be easier than ever, at least in theory to port. All you have to do is maintain different front ends.
It’s economics. If there is a market, stuff will appear. It’s YOU, the mac user, that will create the market.
That was the biggest whine I’ve ever read here. If a company’s business decisions have that kind of effect on the author, I’d suggest Prozac…
Dude, you are just p*ssed you didn’t find out about the switch before you got your Mac.
I am also sorry that Apple is switching to Intel, the PPC is superior to x86 chips. However, (1) there are now (fairly) clean design x86 chips thanks to AMD, Intel will also have clean design chips in a couple of years (right when the Power Macs will be switching.) (2) In case you didn’t here, notebooks now account for over 50% of the computer market. How do you expect Apple to ignore this market? IBM had no interest in scaling the G5 to fit in a laptop, Apple was between a rock and a hard place. The G4 is obsolete, there won’t be able to hang onto it that much longer.
So Apple decided to bite the bullet while they have the iPod craze to cushion the inevitable decline in sales during the transition. And what makes you think that Apple will be tied to Intel? As opposed to the PPC landscape, Apple will now have choice of processor supplier. Why do you think that anything prevents them from selling AMD boxes? With the PPC, Apple was at IBM’s mercy.
Also if you thought that Apple’s were “special” because of the PPC, you were deluded. Apple’s hardware has been standardizing on regular “PC” components for quite some time, ditching many of their proprietary technology. The CPU switch is just the culmination of this switch. What makes Mac special is the front-to-back wholesale design and integration of the hardware and software of the machines.
Unlike you, I think most people will see the ability to run Windows natively with the Mac on the same hardware as a good thing. As I said, you are just p*ssed you didn’t find out about the news before you bought your new toy.
You seem to pining for a future that no longer exists. There was a time when the PowerPC was going to race ahead of x86 and sell Macs all on its own. But it didn’t happen and it never will. Maybe if Apple hadn’t dumped on Motorola’s Mac clone business it would’ve been better, but it’s ancient history.
If they can see IBM being just the same as Motorola, then they’re right to make a bold decision and make it early. How long were we stuck at the 500mhz G4 ceiling? It seemed like forever – I’m typing this on a G4/500, but the machine I had 4 years earlier was a G3/266! The fastest Powerbook today is a G4/1.67ghz – not a great breakthrough.
I really wanted IBM to make the G5 into a x86-beater and I’m a bit sad that yet again we have a transition to make. But any future transition will be one that pretty much the whole computer market has to make. Another thing that will change is that people can make like-for-like comparisons more easily. This might give us more for our money and will also show that anyway, Macs are better value than people think.
WINE: Are people REALLY going to run Outlook Express and IE? They’d have to know what WINE is, how to install it and how to copy their mailbox across. Are people like that stupid enough to choose Outlook Express? I doubt it, but frankly, that’s their problem. It would, however, make my life as a web developer a whole lot easier.
Anyway WINE will stick out like a sore thumb on OS X, just like Classic and X-Windows. If it doesn’t on Linux, that’s because – just my personal opinion! – the interface is already uglier and more inconsistent.
As for FAT binaries, well we’ve been here before. In the past, for years developers offered a choice of 68k/PPC/FAT versions, so you make your choice, now as then.
Your complaints apply to Windows and Linux only more so. That might be a reason to go and run a Solaris box or something, but strange reasoning to switch to Linux.
I don’t know much about what he wrote, but I can say this. I want to buy a MAC, but now I’m waiting and I am sure a lot of other people are now. Why buy a PPC machine if they will be releasing on an entirely differnt processor? Sure they claim 5 years of support, but they can’t say the same for eveyone who releases software for them. This may be a good short term move and from the financial end it may make sense as the ipod can carry them. I even understand the G4 Power book problem, but it is going to hurt the pocket for a little while.
1. Macs being interesting :: I’m sure that Apple doesn’t care about Macs being an interesting hardware platform. They care more about success. Let’s face it, when something becomes the biggest, it isn’t interesting because it is common. Intel processors are common and so they are uninteresting. This comment is just plain stupid because it is simply arguing that people should do things differently simply to be different.
2. FAT binaries – the author says it will require at least twice the disk space if not more. In fact, really, the most it could use is twice the disc space and never more. In reality, it will be much less than half because all of the graphics, configuration files, etc. will not be duplicated. The author also doubts that it will be easy to recompile code for different processer architectures. Well, for most programs, it’s a simple and automated process.
3. Worms/virii – anyone with any knowledge would know that Windows worms won’t hurt the Mac on x86 any more than they would hurt Linux on x86.
The fact is that this person is pissed, probably because he is a low-level programmer whose PowerPC skills will be useless (or much less in demand) once Apple moves to x86.
The fact is that Apple hasn’t been able to update their iBook in about 8 months now and it doesn’t look like they will be able to update it anytime in the near future. The info that’s coming in about these new boxes is showing that they are as fast or faster than the fastest stuff Apple has today when running native code and the fact is that the translation software just isn’t going to be a big deal since most apps will simply recompile.
Talk about a troll.
Excellent article. A+
I wasn’t aware Mac programmers still hand crafted everything in assembly. This is obviously the REAL reason why the platform is dead now, will be dead after the switch, and in fact was always dead.
Every other platform makes use of “high level lanaguages” like C. If Mac developers have been forced to use assembly all this time, no wonder no one ports decent software to Mac OS!
I have switched my parents and girlfriend over to the Mac OS X side, and not a single one knows what a PowerPC is. Heck, my parents call the computer case the CPU or hard drive. To us extremists, this will be a noticeable change, as we are actively looking for possible issues. The average users will most likely not even experience a hiccup. As long as it runs that familiar Mac OS X desktop, and their Safari and Mail applications and Dashboard widgets work, the majority of people will not even notice a difference.
What people on these computer-centric websites overlook is that the average user is just that, a user. They are not a custom computer builder, the majority never even open up their systems (they instead ask me to install their memory). Apple’s plan to give up to a year for the developers to ready their applications before the hardware is available, and I feel the transparent dual-platform application-package is a very smart move. With this notice, by the time the first system rolls off the line, the majority of mainstream applications will already be available. By the time the transition is planned to be complete, the developers will have been given two-years to ready for the new Intel-based Macintosh platform.
> Even though it’s what? Like 5 years overdue at this point (15 -20 years, if you want to go back to when the Amiga first started going downhill), yet there’s nutcases around the world who swear by Amiga, and who complain bitterly whenever someone suggests they change.
And this is what passes for content?
Exactly how fast was the Amiga going downhill 20 years ago?
Most Amiga owners do NOT say OS 4 is going to renew the computing world with its power. Most of them are already running the pre-release and know it’s far from perfect, but are just happy to be running it all the same.
And I’m not surprised they complain when you call them a ‘nutcase’ for sticking with what they like.
This site is about alternative OSes – any more you’d like to pick on?
You wrote:
Yeah, but Marc, remember that when we were building out 486s with NS 3.2, we had ISA interface cards. We had to hardwire the jumpers of our ProAudioSpectrum 16 ISA cards by hand and tell the system where all of the IRQs were being allocated. Remeber the Adaptec ISA SCSI cards which had to be set to IRQ10? Sure glad the DPT2021 solved that one.
Anyway, my point is, yes, NEXTSTEP for Intel was tough to configure in 1993. But, those were different times. Windows didn’t even come with an IP stack then (remember Crynwyr and Wollongong?). I hardly think that a modern Apple machine (which is essentially an OpenFirmware-enabled standard PCI/PCI-X box now anyway) will be anywhere close to as problematic. Heck, a Mini is basically all laptop with a G4. You could pop a Pentium M in there an no one would know.
Remeber when we could run NEXTSTEP 3.3 on SPARC? It was so nice to not have IRQ and driver issues. The driver set was tiny. I have a feeling that the new Apple boxen wil be just the same. This isn’t “Revenge of the Clones.” This is “A New Hope.” Pardon the Star Wars bastardizations.
I totally remember those days. Personally, I enjoyed getting my hands dirty and discovering all the nuances necessary to make NEXTSTEP scream on Intel.
I also remember the WindowServer fixes that never were found until the merger that made the screen redraw rate sore and Peter G. quote, “It’s just like butta.”
I was stoked to see Rhapsody on Intel, get the proposal organized with some brilliant minds all to have it put into the trash heap, as a not going to happen.
I just annoyed me seeing Openstep turn into such a delay I left.
Let’s hope they keep Ivy and the design team churning out systems with the Intel mods so we can enjoy the best damn operating system.
Unfortunately, my biggest gripe is the lack of Vertical Menus as a dwrite.
Give me that option and the ability of some of the NeXTKeyboard layout and I’ll be one happy pig in shit.
After I downloaded XCode2.1 and saw WOF Java 5.3 I was happy and hopeful we’ll get Cocoa back in WOF but I noticed the OpenFirmware note stating it isn’t going to be there for Intel. To me this smells of a new solution that Intel and Apple have been working on that will be specific to the new Macs. Personally, if this elimininates some of the ROM issues with VESA and other crap, so be it.
Steve just needs to realize that being the best means you are always the target by the rest to be kicked around.
When I see Adobe releasing ObjC/Cocoa CS3 applications then I’ll know Pigs really can Fly.
I hope the new systems have some DSPs on board so they can really do some interesting work for the Audiophiles. Perhaps a real NeXTDimension solution on a chip that completely works and accelerates H.264? Who knows?
Hindsight is 20/20 and if they hadn’t tanked Apple Enterprise I wouldn’t be writing this since I’d most likely still be there and living in expensive Cupertino, limpin’ along, but at least enjoying my career.
> I have switched my parents and girlfriend over to the Mac OS X side, and not a single one knows what a PowerPC is. Heck, my parents call the computer case the CPU or hard drive
I haven’t told my friends about this particular piece of news because I know it’ll be the least interesting thing they’ve ever heard.
The Mac always was supposed to be the ‘computer for the rest of us’ but it always ended up being a little elite. I hope this helps them sell to the average iPod buyer..
>I am among the many switchers you successfully brought to your platform. And now I plan to switch back.
I read the whole article, but it was this line that interests me. Honestly, this is the only line that really matters.
So my question is, why did you switch to a Mac to begin with? Has that changed? Why do you plan on switching back?
The only difference is that Apple is using x86. Switiching back would require you to use x86. Has anything that made you want to use Macs initially changed?
This letter is well written, but written by what I define as what’s wrong with macintosh users.
What is going to be the difference. It’ll look like a mac, use the same os, your same apps, and you’re complaining because there’s an intel processor in there?
Apple is a lot smarter than you. I’m sure they’ve gone through all of this over the last 5 years, plus who even knows what’s gonna happen in a year. A lot, I would guess…
Use your writing talent and attention for detail writing about how much the Republican party blows =)
These people were drinkng the koolaid for all these years that the G5 was a “supercomputer” and it didn’t have all the x86 “cruft”, but of course with laptops now outselling desktops the reality of the situation hit home for Jobs and co, finally realizing that they were going to be in big trouble withtout making the switch.
How many of these whiners even know what to do with PowerPC assembly code?
Just a thought to people comparing current situation to the 68k to PPC. I had a PowerPC Mac in the 90s, used it constantly for years,it was great, but the company I bought it from (Apple) NEVER provided a native operating system for it. huge important chunks of system 7/8/9 were 68k running in emulation. Apple are now moving to intel, and they demo’ed a native operating system, the same day they announced the shift. That seems like a big difference.
I would have thought apple to go AMD rather than intel, intel’s like super mainstream company and AMD’s always been the ‘little-different-a-little-better” company. it would feel weird to have my think different box thinking like a DELL, but I guess we shall see.
but it wont be “thinking” like a Dell, it will have a similar “brain capacity” but it’s operating system, its “thinking”, will be entirely different, and arguably much superior.
If what I’ve heard about the lack of development of future desktop PPC processors is true then Apple didn’t have much of a choice. They may still be fairly competitive at the moment, but if they stuck with PPC in the long term Macs would fall far behind in speed.
Apple have switched CPU in the past when it became clear that the M68k didn’t have a future as a high performance CPU. I think that Mac OS X will make this transition even easier and more successful.
NeXTSTEP was successfully ported to different platforms and the majority of apps were released for all of them. Even when NeXTSTEP had been available for years on faster Intel hardware, people still released apps for 68k too. IMO NeXTSTEP’s failed despite the support for multiple platforms, not because of it. I think Apple have learned from that failure and will not make the same mistakes.
That’s the key. I’m going to assume that a whole lot of even regular apps were written with substantial amounts of 68k assembly language back then, not to mention the actual operating system.
In so many ways this is a non-event, except it for being a smart business move for Apple. Apple didn’t even try to keep it a secret that they’ve always kept x86 builds in parallel with the powerpc.
The only people I really see this affecting is someone like YellowDog and maybe some people that do ports of games to Mac (and that assumes that virtualization will be so good that degradation will be negligable). Actually, I was over at InsideMacGames and most of the game makers were on board with the decision. Once you get past some initial setup using native APIS its pretty much all OpenGL and straight C++ anyway. Now game makers don’t have to worry about altivec, or powerpc assembly, or endian issues.
As a new Mac Mini owner I must say I am disappointed that my device will be obsolete in a year or so (as new MacIntel specific apps come out). Apple has lost some of the mystique that got me interested in the first place. My Mac Mini has now become a cute toy rather than a stepping stone into things OSX.
Contrary to marketing hype, conversions on this scale ALWAYS suck even a little. I don’t want to have to provide support at the ground level.
I do think Apple’s move makes business sense in the long run. If they can survive the short term hit to their business that I suspect will happen and still have an affordable, compelling product in a few years then I may reconsider.
Fanaticism aside there are just too many questions/unkowns to really commit.
I wish them the best of luck..
E.
Sorry if this has been said before, but i don’t understand the authors comments on the fact that once hacked, mac os x will run on any x86 processor but it will be unstable.
That might be due to the fact that it’s not supposed to run on generic machines, Mac OS X is supposed to run on Mac’s, X86 or PPC.
AltiVec: Apple engineer wrote it, they can rewrite it for Intel and do better.
“I was a NeXT user when NeXT reverse-acquired Apple, and I have been patiently waiting for Apple to prune its old crappy legacy and bring the world up to where OpenStep was in 1997. This is another step in the right direction”.
NeXT technology had brought Apple out of a dark-rotten age. New thinking will bring it more.
Intel is the right move.
last month i was about to fork out the cash for a new mac just to try and run linux on it, but now there’s no more reason for me to buy a mac (ppc).
long live AMD/linux
I’m a new Mac Mini owner to, but I will buy a Intel powered Mac when they are avalible and try to pick up a cheap dual PPC Mac between time if they are offered. Why because the PPC 970 isn’t obsolete! They all can be used for years, because of the Universal Code………did you forget about that?
Or is the Mac bad now that it will have a different chip(Intel)in it?
people say ‘unstable’.. well this will lead to stability.
ok, the ‘little elite’ does not make a business very profitable. they have to push out volume and the excessively cheap intel cpus will help apple increase its profit margin by a huge amount.
we’ll see more ordinary people buy macs instead of a tiny group of ‘mac loyalists’
long ago, IBM was the big bad person and intel was good.
it looks like apple is back in its mindset when it became so incredibly succsesful
For this, anyway. I’m a little bummed, because I too expected great things from IBM and the PPC family. But Jobs had to acknowledge reality, and so do the rest of us.
And with that in mind, I won’t be buying Macs ever again either (I’ve bought 5 so far since 1992), not because of the cpu switch, but because of their general unsavory and MS-like business practices.
Linux isn’t a fall-back, it’s the platform of the future.
If you switch to Linux over a CPU change, I doubt that you actually bought a Mac at all. If you do actually do have a Mac, you can still enjoy the hardware and run Linux. Although, I am not sure why anyone would WANT to run linux if they had an OSX system to use (unless, as a software engineer, they were paid to).
The Mac is about the OS experience and the hardware design. It is NOT about the CPU it uses.
Also, you may want to give Jobs the benefit of the doubt on this switch issue. He has started (3) companies from scratch, all of which were successful and (2) that are extremely successful and he runs both of them, simultaneously. He may have a little more business acumen than you or I.
Vertical menus ? Have you tried this :
http://homepage.mac.com/khsu/DejaMenu/DejaMenu.html
Good for those with 2 displays too : you can have your application menu on any screen, just under your mouse pointer.
this can only HELP the mac platform in the long run. What makes the mac interesting is not the slow power pc chips. its interesting because its designed well. the software, the hardware, much thought goes into the design of such things with a mac. Anyone who says that the current x86 chips are poorly designed or have inherent flaws because its x86 do not know a thing about processors. it may have made a difference when risc first came along, when x86 processors were still termed as cisc chips. but computer chips had FAR less transistors than they do now. and x86 chips are no longer cisc, they are termed post RISC now. because these chips take the best of risc ideas, and merge them with new designs that are even better.
in 2 more years there would be no faster power pc chips, its best to switch to something now. the other option is to let your business fall flat on its face. because there is no chips to power your computers.
apple is lucky they were looking to the future when they made os 10.
I just bought a 20′ iMac G5 and was going to buy the next release of the PowerBook. With the transition announcement, I’ve decided to buy a new Pentium M/Centrino laptop instead. It’s not a good feeling when you know the machine you just bought will be phased out in 2 years time. Will never buy another Apple again.
While i respect the author’s concern what does he propose Apple do? Had he put forth a viable alternative to Apple’s move, he would have positioned his rant from an emotional outburst to a cogent analysis. No such luck….
Chestbeating about the switch to Intel is ill-informed and silly. We expect this from fringe Linux nutjobs, not from rational people.
Jobs clearly indicated he needs the kind of chips Intel is going to deliver, because IBM is not going to deliver them. No chips, no business. IBM’s failure to produce the chips Apple wants has aleadry meant that there’s no 3 mHz G5 machine. Apply clearly wants to launch small mobile consumer-level computing devices, like the iPod, and it can’t do that as long as IBM is shipping them chips that generate enough heat to melt plastic.
As long as the software runs the same, there is no reason for users to care what is inside the box. Remember. OS X is a Unix variant written in C. Why was Unix writen in C? So it is portable from one architecture to another.
Remember, if Apple didn’t tell you what kind of chips were inside, you wouldn’t know the difference.
You wrote:
Vertical menus ? Have you tried this :
http://homepage.mac.com/khsu/DejaMenu/DejaMenu.html
Good for those with 2 displays too : you can have your application menu on any screen, just under your mouse pointer.
It doesn’t specifically mention the tear-off menu option and if it doesn’t have it yet I hope it gets implemented.
Thank you for this information.
-Marc
With a little effort (possibly), will I be able to run Windows on these new Intel Macs? Probably. Therefore, that makes them PC’s. People will be buying nothing but Apple-flavored Wintel boxes, running MacOS X. No thank you.
Being a Mac user… a really, REALLY enthusiastic, die-hard Mac user… I don’t own a Mac JUST because it’s made by Apple. Nor JUST because I love MacOS X. Not even because I love JUST the hardware. It’s a combination of all three! It’s a synergistic combination that you simply can’t explain. You simply MUST be there, to know the feeling. One without the other weakens the whole.
I only hope MacOS X can manage to kick some Longhorn booty on the other side of the fence. In a BIG way!
Luposian
Why would someone switch and use Windows, because Apple is using Intel. It’s very lame. Zealots are impossible to please. I thought zealots throw-up at the sight of a Win-pc.
Still the same OS X, just on another chip.
Time for Apple to get off of the sinking ground of the PPC. I mean it’s a good chip, but it can’t keep up with X86 all the time. Dang things heat of like fire-bands anyways.
Liquid-cooled Macs…come one! No new G5 Powerbooks. IBM could hardly deliver 2.5 chips. They had to hand pick them.
XBox maybe in trouble. If IBM couldn’t keep up with a Million Chips a year. What will it do with a quarter of a billion orders?
I still want a PPC Mac. I hope prices are cut to a grand for a dual chip. It will be good for performance for a good couple of years.