“Mac OS X has been leading a secret double life. There have been rumors to this effect… We’ve had teams working on the ‘just in case’ scenario.” said Steve Jobs. Apple will ship a Mac with Intel processors by June 6th, 2006, as reports said. It should be complete by June 2007. Says that Intel offers a better roadmap for the markets that Apple services. Jobs talked about IBM missing the 3 GHz mark for the G5 and not being able to put one in a PowerBook. Today’s WWDC demonstration has been done entirely on an Intel Mac Xeon-P4. Developers applauded Steve when he said that both processors would be supported for a long time and the core to this will be universal binaries. ‘Rosetta’ will allow PowerPC compiled apps to work on an Intel Mac. UPDATE: After Jobs’ presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. “That doesn’t preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will,” he said. “We won’t do anything to preclude that.” However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers’ hardware. “We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac.“
CONFIRMED: Apple to use Intel Chips – *updated*
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Mac will keep this proprietary – there will be no MacOSX for the mass generic PCs.
What’s keeping them from adding just a USB key or a PCI-E card that’s required for MACs running on OSX?
Unless you can make hardware regular PC hardware will be locked-out
Is there any indication as to what will happen with product warranties? I don’t doubt that Apple will not cover my brand new system. Its just that I bought an iMac G5 last week (hasn’t shipped yet) with an Apple Care 3 year warranty.
This is the biggest announcement the computing world has seen in YEARS. This topic is bound to become one of the most speculated upon at OSNews. Years from now our grandchildren will ask, “Grandaddy, where were you when Apple switched to Intel?” And I will be able to tell them, “I was at OSNews.”
From what it seems, APPL is going to deplete their supply of PPC chips. Also they are prob waiting till the next version of the OS comes out and tie the two together. That is why they are waiting.
I don’t know why they’re using Intel. AMD are the best x86, and especially 64-bit, chips out there. Bang goes any aspirations of maintaining current quality for Apple then. But, I suppose if IBM couldn’t put the G5 in a laptop then that’s a bit of a problem for Apple. Then you’ve got the Cell processor around the corner.
I can’t help feeling that there’s more to this than meets the eye though.
“Intersting and, IMHO, a stupid move. Chiplevel DRM on Intel processors means I will go through many contortions to avoid getting one.”
I totally agree with you. If Apple gets scraped it will be totally Steve’s fault. Other than that I don’t know _what_ to say. I am in the same condition I will be in the next few days … in loss of words. A very dark day for computing.
Just a couple of things I’m pondering: Will it be x86-64, and will I be able to build my own (using AMD processors and a third party motherboard)?
Slashdot crashed and burned :
503 Service Unavailable
The service is not available. Please try again later.
Strategically, everything lines up for IBM to screw up the PPC970 family… so that Apple is forced to Intel. Which creates more competition for the Evil Empire and allows for a greater level of Mac/BSD/Linux cross-pollination.
My bet is that IBM is secretly laughing… no more low-volume G5 and a present for Billy G all in one.
No
It’s not ‘over’ for Apple, this is a new start…one that will allow them to thrive in the future.
There is NO WAY I’d ever buy a Mac, too much of a premium for hardware I do not want and have little control over. Although I’ve always admired OSX, I could never use it.
There is no doubt in my mind now, I will switch over to using OSX in the near future – the only other OS I’ve used on a consistent basis is BeOS. I know many many people who feel the way I do.
The hardcore Mac base will not stop using them, regardless of their hollow threats…but the admirers from afar like me WILL switch and try it out, where they would not have otherwise. Good move.
1. The development machine is a 32-bit machine – you can’t test 64-bit programs on it.
2. Who is going to buy a new G4/G5 based machine now? They are dead technologies now!
3. Why don’t they realese OS X 10.4.1 for x86 right now? If it’s not finished yet how can I belive their statements and demonstrations.
4. Why apple bothers with building x86 based Macs If evreybody will be able to buy better systems for less money for sure.
From reading some complaints above, it seems that finally all of us who cannot spend more than a hundred bucks on used computers at ebay we will be able to buy dual G5s. Right on!!
Still using NeXTstep 3.3 on Motorola and PA-RISC 🙂
I am still in shock but i’ll be really happy if i can buy a $999 power MAC from apple next year which retains the advantages of apple (aka: fewer hardware headaches).
Are they going to be using firmware updates in the hardware like they currently in the PPC. That could prevent alot of clones from coming out and keep MS happy. If done, MS will probably still make Office for the MAC.
So what does osnews crowd think about the limiting of said hardware. Yes, tons of folks are tasting crow about now; say the switch would never happen.
Opinions?
If you may have noticed not one major hardware company sells AMD on a full product line, only here and there? Why? Because AMD has a problem with quality and supply.
With Intel you know no matter what you will get what you want, when you need it! They have the plants, they have the money and they will get you straight. If you have a problem with AMD then you have to hope they can fix it in a timely manner. (Which has not always been the case)
I just saw the update. I have to buy a mac and its hardware in order to run OSX still. I guess they don’t value the sales they could get by allowing it, whether they support me or not. Shame
Steve should have kept this a secret from everyone until the transition ACTUALLY HAPPENED. That way, a few months after we all bought new PowerBook “G5″s he could have said “Oh, and by the way, you’ve crossed over to the dark side! MWA HA HA!”
Seriously, I don’t think this is going to ruin Apple. They’ve been through a lot. At least now they have the revenue from iPod/iTunes and a damn sexy UNIX based OS to keep them afloat. When their new shiny white Macs come out in ’06/07, you’ll all be in line to buy them just like you have up until now. At least they’ll be faster.
Get a life, folks. It’s a processor. Steve didn’t ask you to get a divorce and give him the kids. He’s asking you to use the platform that the rest of them are using so that they can keep up with technology for a change. And a good change at that.
The sad part about the whole thing is that a 8bit arch that should or never been allowed to be 16bit( let alone 64bit), is being pushed as the way forward.
Power was the way forward. A chip that can, and will progress. Pentiums are a dead horse being floged. I had hoped that for once the technologically advance solution would prevail.
Let the market decide, I pray that mac x86 saga will be like the clone mac saga and will die a swift quick death.
Or maybe Apple-vador will only see the light when Luke beats the crap out of him.
I hate to keep laughing but there were so many people insisting this would never happen, just like the predictions prior to the mini that Apple would never release a headless, cheap mac.
I’m sure this will run on standard processors. It would cost *way* too much to have Intel fab specific chips for Apple. However, I could see a modified motherboard or some specialized hardware to keep OS X on Apple hardware. However, if Apple is serious about going after Microsoft, they may allow the OS to run on standard equipment. The mac is more about the OS than the hardware anyway, so I don’t think the chip ever amounted to much (except in the eyes of the PPC fanboys who won’t admit they’re falling behind).
Having just purchased a mini I’ll be quick to purchase the Intel offering and pass the mini along to someone else in the family. With XCode delivering binaries for both systems there’s no reason that the mini won’t be able to run software for a long time.
This isn’t the deathknell for Apple, folks. It’s an aggressive move and it’ll be interesting to see where they go from here. Ain’t competition grand?
According to the CNet article they will not be allowing Mac OS X on non-Mac hardware. This will help keep Microsoft off their back too much. Who knows, maybe once they get settled in and finish the x86 transition they will shift to releasing it for other machines. Especially if the hardware business starts to decline.
So Apple want me to use a more power-hungry chip, that needs more cooling, and they want me to go back to 32 bit computing?
I hope they’re kidding or they just forgot to mention that they’ll be running on 64-bit as well.
Apple post the webcast somewhere as they typically do? Nothing on the event site or Quicktime section.
That’s too bad.
Keep playing Games IBM.
I can’t wait for Microsoft to start to squeese them on price.
Fools.
They don’t need a custom chip, all they need is their own firmware. Remember several years SGI decided to get into x86 market, they released machines with standard Pentium III’s however they ported their firmware (PROM) from their IRIX/MIPS machines to replace what would be standard BIOS in PC’s.
OSX_x86 will no doubt only run on the new x86 macs. They won’t support install on standard PC’s cause of the firmware.
As for people talking bout Netburst. It’s a development platform for god sake. Basically it’s fine giving people P4 Mac’s at moment to get through most of the porting issues with ppc->x86. I reckon the production mac_x86’s will use the dual core Pentium M that will be released in 2006 (Yonah)
Also the P4 is currently available in 64bit form (iAMD64 as theinquirer likes to call it)
Who’d go out and buy a Mac TODAY. I was planning to get one in a month or two– now I don’t know.
This COULD be the end of AAPL.
It WILL be a much bigger blow to IBM than they realize. The XBox chip may have volume, but they won’t have the margins the 970 had.
IF AAPL manages to not fold in the next 12 months, Red Hat is toast.
Effect on MSFT? Well, people have had OS’s superior to Windows in every way EXCEPT number of apps. (I am talking about LINUX, obviously) for several years. Yet few have deleted XP and made the move up. Why? In part because IN GENERAL, it’s not so easy to get a box with LINUX pre-installed, and OS installation on the PC side is traditionally something worrisome. AAPL’s entry, clearly, would change that.
My best guess: in five years (to quote Highlander) “there can be only one. I hope that one is AAPL; at least I could live out my life with a good OS, if not a good CPU.
Welp, looks like MSFT has signed up to continue to make Office, supporting PPC and x86 w/ “fat” or “universal” binaries. That was the only point that I really cared about.
Also, Jobs said they are going to continue to release new PPC systems and continue to support them. I expect that I’ll be able to run Office 12 for Mac and Leopard (10.5) on PPC, so when the powerbooks get another speed bump, I’ll probably pick up a new PPC model.
– Kelson
http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+aligns+with+Intel/2100…
“””
After Jobs’ presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. “That doesn’t preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will,” he said. “We won’t do anything to preclude that.”
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers’ hardware. “We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac.”
“””
Two important things:
President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. “That doesn’t preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will,” he said. “We won’t do anything to preclude that.”
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers’ hardware. “We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac.”
Does this mean Linux will never run on a Mac/Intel machine?
MS and Sun will pay for the rights to run Windows or Solaris x86 on a Mac/Intel but I don’t think IBM will be given the rights to run Linux
Even if Apple doesn’t allow OS X on home-built PC’s, Dell’s, etc. they’re still at an advantage. I’m assuming they wont shut out running Windows on the hardware, but this way if you’re nervous about switching you can try OS X without worying about having dead-end hardware if you don’t like it.
I doubt anyone would want to switch from OS X to Windows but at least now you should be able to buy a mac without the wories of it becoming a possible paperweight if you don’t like it.
Again, good move from Apple. Between this and the mini I’m wondering if they aren’t after Microsoft in the long run.
1) Get a virus free Mac today?
2) Wait and get a machine that can run: OS X, Windows and Linux on x86-64?
Oh, and Screw You IBM.
I’m sorry, but how come the X-Box 360 is going to be runnig “tweaked” PPC 3.+ Ghz proccessors while Apple computers got stuck with PPCs running at 2.+ Ghz. Did they know that Apple was going to do this and thats why they just didn’t deliver these speeds to Apple? maybe they knew that just the consoles were going to given them enough profit that they didn’t need a partnership with Apple anymore?
You all really think everyone is going to run out and buy an x86 computer, because they DON’T WANT TO BUY AN x86 computer…
thats what you are essentially saying, when you talk about buying a dell because appled dropped powerpc….it makes no sense.
You will buy a windows machine, if you were going to buy a windows machine anyway…and you’ll buy a mac if you want os X, and os X hasn’t changed at all today.
The big impact this has today, is on Linux…Mac OS X will gain linux binary compatibility very shortly…and will overnight be the unix-variant that runs linux apps, that also runs Microsoft Office, Adobe CS, and other business apps…I cannot see anyone adopting a variant of linux…when Mac OS X runs linux binaries too…and I’m not surprised Microsoft supports this…apple co-opting linux, at least means that they get to deal with a competitor that plays by the same rules.
With Darwin available for x86 it’s only a matter of time before someone hacks it up. Also with no difference in processor it will emulate quite nicely in vmware (or bochs whatever).
Remember at this time Yellow dog Linux is supported by apple on Macs. (They give you the same warrenty if you buy a mac from Yellow dog with YDL on it)
I doubt this will change.
There are reports at GameFAQs that this is the biggest world-wide historic event since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Mind you I find that a bit extreme, it is a very significant event in the history of computing. Things will never be the same.
But on to DRM. How will the recently announced DRM capabilities of the Intel Pentium 4 CPU affect Mac OS X? Will Mac users, typically independent of such restrictions, but affected by the DRM-infested processors from Intel? Will our media be compromised?
Someone at arstechnica reported rumors that apple was concerned that IBM was deliberately keeping the power pcs slow to avoid competition between apple and its servers/workstations.
“how is that a big deal. it will still be an apple, not a commodity built Dell system.
And the article ddidnt say anything abotu being X86, but rather intel processor (they do make more than just x86s
this is not gonna change much, it will be the same thing as before, just a faster processors
this was a total nonanouncement because honestly, it wont change things much. apple delivers the total package and it is basically immaterial what one individual component happens to be”
What are you saying dude? `x86 processors are faster than a G5 processor’ since when? x86-processors are *scrap* when compared to `G’ processors. The same scrap that any apple computer became today: G processors just got their death sentence. In two years or so, no new applications – not anything. A friend of mine just bought a dual G5 … what is he supposed to do with it? He invested 3,000$+ in buying it. In a best-case case scenario his mac will make it for a couple of years. A couple of years for a computer that (if apple kept on the G-line) would provide enough computational power for _at_least_ another 7 years. Think about it: It’s over. Apple, with a fantastic move lost _too_ many customers today. I wish it good luck with the ones it got – even though I don’t think it will have any.
IBM didn’t go after marketshare.
So, they lost. Simple.
The interesting thing about this is the rumored(?) dual core laptop chip from Intel. Sweet to run, OS X, and using Virtual PC( Windows, Linux ). That’s the ONLY up side.
Have to say goodbye to PowerPC.
That’s the downer.
Apple Sales guy: yeah this costs more because, it uses better hardware than dell:::o^%&%!^$#$!^&((::: sorry better operating system than dell.
Customer: But I heard Bill’s Horn, I mean longhorn is pretty stable and usable, and there are thousands of apps ready to be loaded on to it,,,,,
Apple Sales guy: but you get the exclusivity of having paid a few hundred dollars more than your neighbour who uses a crappy dell
Customer: %#(^$%*#(&)
I think a lot of people assume this means running Mac OS X on a PC. It doesn’t. What this amounts to is an Intel x86 powered machine, probably still with the Open Firmware they have now and all the usual hardware restrictions.
Personally, I think that if they don’t allow normal PC hardware out there to run fine on a Mac then they’ll be blowing both their legs away because it’s a fantastic opportunity to grow their market through the huge supply available. It wouldn’t mean not being able to restrict their Macs either.
They’re also in the happy position that if Intel mucks them about and pisses them off in the future then they can really easily make a line of Macs that use AMD without affecting anyone adversely in any way. I’m actually pretty confident we’ll see that as Apple seem to be learning their lessons. Considering their recent run-ins with IBM I’m sure that situation makes Apple feel much more comfortable. Let’s face it, IBM have a monopoly on producing PPC processors because they’re the only company large enough to produce them.
Won’t happen, the price of Macs will not go down by much and it will still be much cheeper to run Linux on Intel then Mac on Intel. The only people that are helped by this anouncement is Apple because they will keep up on the tech spec side.
What next, M$ licencing OS X, a PPC windows version, a four button Apple mouse, aplications that run on both os x and windows, OS X IBM compatible…
Must be interesting times at the Apple marketing department, after claiming that the G5 was so much faster and more advanced than anything Intel had produced. How they’re gonna sell this?
Maybe apple wants to become a new Microsoft, producing a OS, some small entertainment devices and peripherals and online services, and this is just a step towards phasing out pc and server manufacturing. The iPod is already their main cash cow.
Would be interesting to see Longhorn and OS X.x running on the same machine though. Then we’ll finally have some good benchmarks.
If apple made OS X run on any x86 pc, they could easily have a 50% market share, but with Longhorn having many of the same features there isn’t much reason for a pc user to switch to apple now.
for the people here who just said apple commited suicide you are crazy this is a major even in the computer industry that is going to turn things upside down. my prediction because a shift to intel chips macs will finally be speed competive with pc’s and second because of the shift to intel they will be able to market machines at a lower cost. apple is not stupid they know that there is a huge market dieing for apple computers and the apple mindset at a reasonable price point.
my prediction apple is having a rebirth here and along with linux in 10 years they will surpass gates and company for os market share for consumer level computers. microsoft needs to really take this as a wakeup call and get there act together because consumers are tired of there products and want something fresh that works and they see it in apples some of this might be a missconception on there part but apple is going to come out on top here.
Apple will release their boxes with Intel chips and their Mac Roms and Openfirmware.
Someone soon, will manage to create a hack that will load the roms and firmware in memory for the OS X to think they are running in an Apple created Intel mobo.
but that is the beauty in this. Apple can now retain its margins and charge lower prices. Apple may only cost a little more than a dell and it will actually be because of the better OS and probably higher quality parts/box.
FTA:
“However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers’ hardware. “We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac.””
I still believe that there will be issues via BIOS that will prevent people from running OS X on standard White Box hardware.
See the post entitled “FIRMWARE”.
For some strange irony, head over to http://www.apple.com/switch/stories/
What happens if Microsoft releases a “Windows Platform Runtime” package for these new macs to run Windows software?
There would be no business case for writing native OSX apps.
It looks like PowerPC has left the PC world and now its destiny is in the world of the GC (game console).
I think custom x86 motherboards will be the key piece of hardware that will make it a mac. MB’s are easier and cheaper to customize than the cpu. An Intel MB with a little bit of extra code in the bios for the OS to check would all that is needed to keep Apple x86 OS running only on Apple hardware. They might use stock MB’s and the only difference between Apple and non-Apple is the bios. That would be the simplest and cheapest method of hardware lockdown.
Other, non-Apple motherboards wouldn’t have the special bios and so could be blocked at the OS level. This is speculation of course, and we will all have to wait and see what happens.
1) I really don’t understand the mac-loyalists rants like “oh apple is doomed, oh crazy Steve”. Macs have used common CPUs before the powerPC transitions and they’ll use common CPUs in the future. What’s the problem with that? Do they feel less Macintoshes?
2) What is really unique to the Mac today is the overall design. Hardware AND (mostly) software. OsX IS far better work-friendly and productive than windows.
3) OSX runs on P4 hardware today. Maybe it will run on unmodified PCs in the future, just like it did on Atari STs and Amigas in the past. Would it be officially supported by Apple or through VMWare, I really don’t care. All I know is that I’ll probably be able to run OsX on boxes I’ve built. And that’s not great, that’s outstanding.
4) Apple will have to worry less about making CPUs and more about designing the units, refining the OS etc. They’ll innovate using existing tecnologies (like they did with the iPod) without having to reinvent them.
5) To those saying that Apple is not a serious company, and that this is the beginning of the end, I might remind that that we’re talking about a company able to produce constant upgrades of its OS year after year while mantaining two versions of the same os for different platforms in-house. Think about the OS industry as a whole and the competition attitude. Think about Microsoft inability to push innovation and fast-paced, featuyre rich upgrades. My XPs are years old and while perfectly updated still lacks features found in other Oses.
In the end, a bold, incredible move by Apple. A move for the good.
> We’re getting a demonstaration of Mathematica at work. It’s
> quite impressive, of course, and it’s working on an Intel
> Mac. – posted by Dave
Far more impressive than the other two major x86 Mathematica installs, I’m sure. (Sarcasm)
What I find most-interesting here is Apple again dragging out Wolfram’s flagship CAS for parading a new processor. When they switched to the PPC970, they had them trumpet how much better the Mac port was than the x86 port performance-wise. Now they’re using them to show how simple it will be for developers to port their software to the new Mac/x86. I don’t understand why Apple keeps using Wolfram for their propaganda. What percentage of Mac users even own a license for Mathematica?
I should mention that Mathematica’s kernel where the platform-specific computational code resides is both highly-optimized for the x86 already and GUI-agnostic. There should be preciously little in the GUI that would require any modification–especially because they have their very-own multiplatform toolkit that they use for constructing Mathematica. Any of the changes necessary would be very-localized. I wouldn’t be surprised if their modifications were largely conditional compilation changes.
In other words, programs designed to be multiplatform are much easier to port. That really doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone, I’m sure. It unfortunately doesn’t mean that people with performance-critical code for the PPC (say a lot of Altivec) are going to have equally-painless transitions if they don’t already have a deep investment in an x86-optimized backend.
On the other hand, companies that have deep-investments in x86-optimized codepaths will probably be intrigued by the prospect of a Mac/x86 market. Porting suddenly becomes much less expensive.
Cedega might have a customer base that isn’t averse to paying actual money to them if they can offer a wide-range of DirectX titles painlessly to Mac/x86, too.
I’m interested in the performance figures of Rosetta. While I suspect that I’ll buy a Mac/x86 and not have very much concern about existing software, I’m interested in its performance and design from an academic perspective.
Now all Linux apps will work on Mac OSX-86 with little, if any work. The Mac just opened itself up to a whole world of apps. Hopefully, Java developers will benefit as well. Sun should now be able to release the latest Java for the Mac as easily as it now does for Windows and Linux.
Not with Apple’s consent, but this will make emulators easier, make whitebox hacks easy etc.
According to the industry, I shouldn’t be able to rip DVDs with free software either, yet I can. I can assure you people will get this working on whiteboxes. Steve just removed 99% of the roadblock to get OSX available on Dell computers, the last 1% can be done by the community.
PearPC and its ilk just became viable.
Please don’t tell me “wrong”, because you were likely one of the people swearing up and down a week ago that OSX would never run on x86, or when you heard the Intel rumours, went nuts stating over and over again that Intel != x86, because you just couldn’t stand the idea of eating crow. Face it, a lot of people were wrong on this.
Is it just me or does anyone else find it really weird that they’d announce that x86 Mac’s would be around in one year? Who the hell would buy a Mac now knowing that they’re moving in another direction in a year? Mind you Apple will no doubt support G4/G5’s for some time to come, it’s just strikes me as odd.
Doubly, I finally “get” the Linux on PPC thing. I just hope Apple isn’t too serious about locking us onto specific boxes with some sort of chip-level trick (See “Linux on PPC thing…” — I’ve learned my lesson). Instead I hope they’re implying some sort of custom Intel chip.
Lastly, P4? I thought everyone and their mother knew AMD makes a better x86 chip?
“What happens if Microsoft releases a “Windows Platform Runtime” package for these new macs to run Windows software?
There would be no business case for writing native OSX apps. ”
Somebody answer THIS.
“Lastly, P4? I thought everyone and their mother knew AMD makes a better x86 chip?”
AMD has supply and quality problems that is why no major vender uses them as their main processer line. Plus Intel can offer better prices.
this means that Mac users will no longer have to wait for compatible versions of graphics cards to be produced 6 months after their release for PCs.
Virtual PC for Mac should be quite fast now once they are running on the same processor architectures.
..even deeper in Apple’s labs, a side project has been operating with every version of OS8,9 and X running on a 68060 box.
“What happens if Microsoft releases a “Windows Platform Runtime” package for these new macs to run Windows software?
There would be no business case for writing native OSX apps. ”
Somebody answer THIS.
I doubt that. There’s a lot of OS X specific features that are rather enticing for developers, e.g. CoreData.
I predict that by this Christmas Apple will be ahead of schedual and release a cool new “Intel based” Apple Macintosh running all the iApps, Final Cut, Motion, Shake and Photoshop.
What the heck took them so long to switch anyways! IBM, Moto have been dogs…..slow!
In fact this is the greatest move Apple could do, think of it:
– They are not going to prevent people from running windows on their hardware, and they would be foolish to do so ! Every mac-x86 buyer will be able to run windows especially games, something mac PPC could always dream of. You get best of both world
– being able to run windows on mac hardware will be good for microsoft (more users) and very bad for linux (less potential users)
I think in the very long term they are after microsoft. It is very likely at some point that macos x86 will be hacked to run on some non-mac hardware but that will be totally illegal anyway…
Interesting also that all this was announced on D-Day? Have the beaches finally been breached? Is this Steves way of saying “let the battle begin”?
Intel processors provide more performance per watt than PowerPC processors do, said Jobs. “When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PoweRPC gives us 15 units of perfomance per watt, but Intel’s roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do,” he explained.
IBM, What Have You Done?!?
I’d like Apple to offer Macs with AMD X2 or Opteron inside – Quote from Anandtech :
“The most ironic part of it all? Apple’s biggest reason for moving happens to be performance per watt, where according to Apple, Intel will significantly outperform the PowerPC starting in 2006 and moving forward:
Why is that ironic? Because all AnandTech readers know that presently AMD provides far better performance per watt than Intel. During the keynote, Steve never mentioned whether or not you’d be able to run non-Intel x86 processors on the new port of OS X. We’d guess that AMD CPUs would have no problem running, but driver support for AMD platforms may not necessarily be there. ”
Give me AMD x86-64’s any day for the desktop.
Anon
The processors IBM is producing for Microsoft are not identical to the processors used by Apple. The PPC is a diverse line of processors with varying-degrees of compatible ISAs. Just because IBM is delivering what Microsoft requires for the next three years for the XBox 360 doesn’t mean that it is going to deliver what Apple needs to be performance-competitive for years to come.
This is a pretty good long-term decision, and Mac users should really be pleased that they’ll be moving to a platform that regularly meets performance improvement deadlines, instead of risking being stuck in the position they were in with the G4, or even the current iBook/Powerbook. I’m still not certain why they opted for Intel over AMD, when AMD could easily fab Apple’s current requirements and their processor architecture has been shining.
“AMD has supply and quality problems that is why no major vender uses them as their main processer line. Plus Intel can offer better prices.”
Simply not true. AMD has no more problems than Intel.
They’re bravely going where they need to go.
Instead of hanging onto IBM’s vaporware tentacles, they’re foraging forward into an oblique future. This move could kill them, but I think not… Good things will come of this in the end.
Even if someone does hack the Intel version of OX X to run on generic hardware, who is going to write the drivers for, say, wireless cards, the chipsets on AMD (and non-Intel Intel systems, like VIA, nVidia, ATI, etc.). Just getting OS X to agree to install itself on a given system is pointless … how could OS X for Intel install onto my AMD64 laptop? No hardware companies would bother to write drivers for an OS that doens’t officially exist (OS X on commodity hardware).
If Apple doesn’t want OS X on generic hardware, it won’t work on generic hardware. At least, it won’t work well enough to be usable.
..to debut with some of the BeOS/Zeta userland.
Well, I might have BeOS run on a Mac, after all. Live is a fascinating and warped thing.
“”What happens if Microsoft releases a “Windows Platform Runtime” package for these new macs to run Windows software?
There would be no business case for writing native OSX apps. ”
Somebody answer THIS.”
Well, because of “Cocoa”, it is allegedly MUCH easier to write for OS X than Windoze– anyone out there who has done it and can comment?
I agree they maybe after MS and windows.
“I just hope Apple isn’t too serious about locking us onto specific boxes with some sort of chip-level trick (See “Linux on PPC thing…” — I’ve learned my lesson). Instead I hope they’re implying some sort of custo..”
I think they will “LOCK” it tight and continue locking it in different ways.
“Windows Platform Runtime”.
1) They Could. But, it wouldn’t look or work native. They’d lose sales.
2) Which would allow an Office Suite on Mac to gain sufficient market share and praise to attack the Windows base.
Difference is that Intel has three times as many plants and can get over their problems much quicker. Also hey have much more money to make sure they do.
If AMD was so good then why do Dell, HP/Compaq, Gateway and now APPL still use Intel?
x86 is more open than PPC. PPC is mostly open for the most part but not as open as SPARC. x86 is open for everyone since intel holds an almost monopoly on it.
AMD has had a bad reputation for their previous x86 CPUs. The Athlon XP and Duron Lines sucked, they had a high failure rate and had no heat protection like intel’s did.
Now, Athlon 64 FX & Opteron are VERY VERY good processors, they just cost too much in my opinion. They are rock solid and are excellent in a server environment.
I think Apple should use Opterons and Athlon 64 FX’s because they are so awsome but they probably did not because they are too expensive and amd has a bad reputaiton
intel was probably a better choice, since most non-computer nerd people think amd is “generic” which they kinda are.
So what if the instruction set is different. Who cares?? This means that the Mac will have a solid future and not live in a world with just a few CPUs
you all were VERY wrong. for a long time. I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many wrong people. It’s like watching folks get tossed out of the matrix. You should see the looks on your faces!
meh – this only affects the fanboys, really.
>AMD has supply and quality problems that is why no major vender uses them as their main processer line. Plus Intel can offer better prices.
And intel chipset just owns…Via or nvidia ( barely better ) chipset for an apple? Let me laugh~
Finally less company for making the motherboard the better it is.
and i was going ot switch over to apple too. not anymore. now i cant wait for longhorn. it’s almost like steve wantst o kill apple
AMD is not all that profitable compared to intel.
Intel is on SOLID financial ground.
Oh yeah, Intel was an early investor in Apple too which probably helped. They are coming together again.. aww how sweeet
Even if someone does hack the Intel version of OX X to run on generic hardware, who is going to write the drivers for, say, wireless cards, the chipsets on AMD (and non-Intel Intel systems, like VIA, nVidia, ATI, etc.).
Couldn’t OSS enthusiasts write these using Darwin x86?
“”Even if someone does hack the Intel version of OX X to run on generic hardware, who is going to write the drivers for, say, wireless cards, the chipsets on AMD (and non-Intel Intel systems, like VIA, nVidia, ATI, etc.).”
Couldn’t OSS enthusiasts write these using Darwin x86?””
Just a guess, but I believe the DRM on new Intel chips will work nicely when locking down MOSX on Apple hardware.
and then the platform issue is largely irrelevant. it runs where it runs best. let’s be pragmatic about it, folks.
Personally if at some point there will be Apply Laptop runing OS X *and* the same laptop can run Windows (whatever flavor is available at that point) with no problems, I would be delighted have a dual boot of Windows and OS X on the same machine. Now I have windows and RH Linux on my laptop, and Linux simply can’t take advantage of all hardware options I have on my laptop.
>If AMD was so good then why do Dell, HP/Compaq, Gateway and
>now APPL still use Intel?
because Intel is a much more famous brand name and that sells better to computer illiterates?
Often when Apple make a big announcement it immediately appears on apple.com. Not so with this.
This was announced at a Developer conference, Apple knows it core market doesn’t care. Apple makes its x millions a year selling to non-techie customers, people who barely comprehend what a processor is, far less who makes it. Sure, some people may not buy a Mac now because its “intel”, but they will be a small fraction Apples customers. The people who buy the products who pay the wages at Apple aren’t going to care in twelve months when the new 4 Ghz Mac Mini retailing at $375 appears in the local mall, and it also comes with all the software they need to do the things they want with their new computer (“iLife”).
As for the professional crowd, pre-press: Adobe/Macromedia are on board, microsoft are on board, AFAIK most of the important video stuff is made by Apple anyway, so they are all happy. I think this is a non-event. The biggest news is that, if you want, you can buy an Apple computer and dual boot Windows with it.
“Personally if at some point there will be Apply Laptop runing OS X *and* the same laptop can run Windows (whatever flavor is available at that point) with no problems”
If anything, VPC will run at near system speed. You can literally run your Windows within MOSX.
I will mark the Mac off my shopping list until 2006 because why would I want to buy a mac that uses PPC when they are about to switch to PPC?
This will hurt apple’s sales greatly!
>They might use stock MB’s and the only difference between Apple and non-Apple is the bios.
I certainly hope so, but since it takes only a few minutes to reflash the bios I really don’t think so.
Couldn’t OSS enthusiasts write these using Darwin x86?
You’re talking about an entire underground movement to port drivers to an illegal platform. Given how sue-happy Apple has been in the past, I don’t think it’d work. Every time some website went up with info about OS X on generic hardware Apple would just start screaming “DMCA!” and quash it.
Maybe hacked OS X on commodity hardware with homegrown drivers stolen from Linux will become the OS of choice for the warez and script kiddies in the future. Who knows.
> The NetBurst architecture (Pentium 4) is on its last few
> breathes… then again it dual cores would play much better
> in OSX anyhow.
There’s nothing about OS X that makes it superior for multithreaded development than NT or Linux. Consumer Power Macs simply shipped with two processors, whereas most PC manufacturers didn’t opt for the more-expensive workstation/server processors and chipsets from AMD and Intel because there was little performance reason for the program typically used by their customers to justify the cost. Intel also didn’t exactly make it friendly to do so chipset-wise, either.
Apple is most-likely going to be deploying on the future of Pentium-M line in the long-term, since that’s where Intel is moving.
“Difference is that Intel has three times as many plants and can get over their problems much quicker. Also hey have much more money to make sure they do.
If AMD was so good then why do Dell, HP/Compaq, Gateway and now APPL still use Intel?”
If Mac OS X is so good why do Windows have more than 90% of the market?
Dell, HP/Compaq and Gateway probably have binding contracts with Intel (correct me if I’m wrong but they also don’t sell computers without windows).
Why not have AMD in your servers (which has a smaller volume of sales), Intel in your consumer systems, and PowerPC in your high end workstations?
It’s only because of Steve’s ego that he’s making the switch wholesale – to get back at IBM for making him look like a fool for his ‘3.0Ghz’ promise.
PowerPC on floating point operations SLAUGHTER Intel chips….can you really believe they are going to start selling their XServe’s with a P4 inside? Even Dell/HP sell their servers with Xeon’s in them.
.. it’s great. In the end it will. I guess all our PPCs boxes are SETI@Home candidates in about 4/5 years. In the mean time, the tiger eat their youngs
If it works -tiger- why selling your box. In two or three years, you’d be using another box anyways. So don’t be fool. Do not sell your PPC today
Keep it forever.
I was excited about this until I read this update..
Poor decision Apple!!
The hardware may be moving to Intel but OSX will still be propritary to Apple hardware. The G5 is the fastest processor on the planet. What’s the point?
yeah right! Pay prwmium prices for x86 ultracommoditized crapitecture?!
6/6/2005 R.I.P. Apple
Anyone know of any decent UltraSPARC, ppc970, ARM, or other RISC arch based desktop machines/boards?
i dont know why people are so upset and saying things like “its over”. its still a mac, still running os x, still running the same apps. if you didnt open it up and actually look inside you would never know anything changed. plus there may be the added bonus of being able to run windows off a partition(once someone comes up with a hack to do it) so i see this as added value, nothing lost.
I have no trouble with Apple switching to x86. They’ve switched before, and assuming they don’t go out of business, they’ll switch to something else in the future.
The _BIG_ problem is how they timed this switch… namely, it won’t occur for another year and won’t be finished for another year after that. Who’s the idiot who thought that would work? Someone who’s never worked with computers obviously.
Apple’s last switch to PowerPC worked because the machines and OS were available at the instant the switch was announced. One day it was 68K, and the next everything is PPC. No waiting a year or two.
See, most people who were thinking of moving to Apple will now wait for the new machines. Who in their right mind will buy a machine with only two or three years of life in it? Windows people scratch their head at that since Windows forces them to upgrade every other year anyway.
The problem is Mac people DON’T upgrade every other year. Most Mac people keep their Macs from five to eight years. No Mac user will buy a current G5 as it no longer has five to eight years of life.
Apple WILL lose vast amounts of money in the next two years. Fortunately for Apple, they have billions in the bank. They will eat through most of it as G5 sales tank and people wait for the new machines.
On the plus side, looks like collectors will be able to pick up some good bargains for their collection of obsolete computers.
You’re talking about an entire underground movement to port drivers to an illegal platform.
Darwin/x86 is an entirely legal platform. It just so happens it’s the core for Mac OS X, and drivers written for the former will work on the latter. Plus, there is nothing Apple can do to stop you from writing whatever drivers you want for their OS, just like they can’t stop you from writing whatever programs you want.
Indeed, its not even clear that Apple can stop you from running OS X on whatever PC you want. If you clean-room reimplement the Apple BIOS, you can run it on whatever you want and Apple has no legal standing to stop you. Remember: copyright law gives authors no control over how you can use a work, just over how you can copy the work. If I want to take a book that some guy spent 20 years painstakingly crafting and using its pages for toilet paper, there is nothing he can do to stop me.
Apple the perennial losers, if they could only pull their heads out just far enough they’d have partnered with AMD instead.