Mac and CMx2

[junk2drive]

Apple to switch to Intel chips next year.

CNET News article

Debate as to need for software rewrites.

[Pzman]

CPU chips vs OS are two different things J2D.

[aka_tom_w]

I would guess (and it would be a well educated guess)

that Apple will make the shift to the Intel chip transparent to the user by way of an update or modification to OS X (the operating system System 10) that will mean there is no change to the way ALL the other current Mac software that already runs on OS X now.

To do otherwise would be a form of technical suicide for Apple.

Don't worry, the prices will come down, the processors will become faster and all the current OS X applications will run the same as they do now after Apple releases the appropriate System software updates to run on the new intel processors OR Intel will MAKE the processors to Apple specs. One way or the other it should be a no brainer for Mac users and it should be seemless or they would not do it.

(*I hope*)

-tom w

[junk2drive]

You two need to read the article at the link.

"The announcement is expected Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco, at which Chief Executive Steve Jobs is giving the keynote speech. The conference would be an appropriate venue: Changing the chips would require programmers to rewrite their software to take full advantage of the new processor.

IBM, Intel and Apple declined to comment for this story. "

[Cameroon]

I'll throw in my 2 cents and say that I feel that it's 99.99% unlikely that Apple is going to switch to an x86 (aka Intel/AMD) architecture. It would be suicide in every conceivable area for Apple as a company.

However, Intel could manufacture or develop and produce PPC chips, or chips for a device, or something like that, without Apple hurting themselves.

Assuming that the .01% possibility occurred, to make it "seamless" would be impossible. The fastest x86 chips to date couldn't emulate a PPC fast enough to make any "legacy" application work at a reasonable speed.

It would drive out all the commercial Apple developers who've had to go from 680x0 to PPC and OS 9 to OS X for a niche market (of which I am part). It would destroy the "elitism" that a lot of Mac fans feel. It would demolish all of the marketing and positioning of PPC vs the "wintel world".

Basically, they would throw away all their advantages (minor or not) for something that isn't terribly important (Mhz) for most people who buy Macs these days. "Hard core" gamers will buy a Windows machine for the titles, and those are your consumers who purchase high-mhz Windows systems.

Switching to an x86 architecture wouldn't make any game developers suddenly switch to the Mac. The problem for game developers isn't the chip under the hood, it's the OS and libraries. So it isn't like we (Mac users) would get anything out of it except marginally faster (maybe) processors.

Bottom line, I think the size of the rumor is bogus and ridiculous. I could see a "using an Intel chip for something that isn't a Mac" or partnering with Intel to make PPC chips, but not a shift to an x86 CPU.

[jeffsmith]

Apple has played around with a version of their OS for Intel for years Link to "Star Trek"

So I wouldnt be surprised that they may have been developing OSX for Intel right from the start

EDIT: but like Cameroon said

why would Apple give up the Advantages it has

[aka_tom_w]

"Bottom line, I think the size of the rumor is bogus and ridiculous. I could see "using an Intel chip for something that isn't a Mac" or partnering with Intel to make PPC chips, but not a shift to an x86 CPU."

Absolutely

YES

I agree completely

-tom w

[ June 05, 2005, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[junk2drive]

I was listening to an L.A. radio program on computers. The host is a big fan of Mac for home users. His opinion is that either CNET is going to have a big fiasco on it's hands or Apple is making a big mistake.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Cameroon:

I'll throw in my 2 cents and say that I feel that it's 99.99% unlikely that Apple is going to switch to an x86 (aka Intel/AMD) architecture. It would be suicide in every conceivable area for Apple as a company.

Completely agree, and Jobs has never been known for taking steps backward. Also, it is possible that this is not an entire switch. I've heard rumors that Apple is primarily in the market for processors for laptops. The G5 can't be made small & cool enough to put into a Powerbook

[Battlefront.com]

This is the latest from MacOS Rumors... a largely reliable source:

http://www.macosrumors.com/20050523A.php

Steve

[junk2drive]

That article just made too much sense.

[Kilroy Lurking]

Hi there!

Just to add my two cents (lira) as a legacy mac user it seems entirely possible that within a couple of years "games" will be played on the new generation of soon to be released X-box/playstation hardware devices that promise tripple core 3GH CPUs coupled with OOTW state of the art Graphic whatsits all for less than $500. Although most games for this type of system would not/do not interest me (but I would have to fight off the grand-children) this is a much more realistic "investment" than a new high end Mac. (Though for the life of me I can't understand how a games machines can be made so much cheaper and yet have such overall superior game performance).

Also given that these machines will suposedly be internet savvy I think that if my middle name was B*ttl*fr*nt I would be checking out the possibility of a CMX tie up together with the feasability of hosting an on-line persistant WW2 battle environment using the CMX game engine. Would'nt that be nice? - I might even fork out for a monthly sub.

Anyway tomorrow Steve the magnifico will be pulling his magic rabbits (Tigers?) out of his reality distortion field and all will be revealed. In the meantime I am thinking that the latest revision of the G5 iMac looks to have a good bang to buck ratio should my B&W decide to rollover and die.

Regards to all and thanks for this amazingly worthwhile Forum.

.

[throwdjohn]

so long as CMx2 will be on mac...and long ago i asked and was told it was....so ill be happy. and while CM on a platform online WOULD be nice, it seems that computer games dont transfer well to consoles do to lack of a cursor.

[Cameroon]

Thanks for pointing out that article Steve. That does sound like a viable possibility.

Though, honestly, I think I'd rather see CNET get a little (big?) egg on their face. I'm sick of rumors being "reported" as "news" and "fact" by all of our news outlets.

[jeffsmith]

UPDATE from MACOSRumors

the site Steve linked to earlier

[ June 05, 2005, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: jeffsmith ]

[aka_tom_w]

more here web page

[aka_tom_w]

this is not NEW news but relevant:

from here

Quote:

Apple may use Intel chips for Macs

Mon May 23, 2005 8:51 PM BST

Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS

By Duncan Martell

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL.O: Quote, Profile, Research) has been in talks that could lead to it using Intel Corp. (INTC.O: Quote, Profile, Research) chips in its Macintosh computers, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, reigniting decade-old speculation and sparking a 5 percent rise in Apple's stock price.

The report, citing two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies, said Apple was expected to agree to use Intel chips. But it said the talks could break down or could be a tactic to gain negotiating leverage with Apple's current chip supplier, International Business Machines Corp. (IBM.N: Quote, Profile, Research).

At stake for Apple is a more predictable and consistent supply of microprocessors -- the computing engine in computers -- as well as potentially lower prices for Apple Macintosh computers, which historically have cost more than PCs running Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) Windows operating systems.

Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy and Apple spokesman Steve Dowling declined to comment on the report, which they termed "rumor and speculation."

But industry analysts on Monday expressed skepticism that Apple would soon drop IBM's PowerPC processor for Intel's Pentium chips, which power more than 80 percent of the world's personal computers, noting the momentous task of porting, or rewriting, Apple's OS X operating system as well as all the software programs that run on PowerPC chips to Intel's.

"It's just too much software to have to change," said Kevin Krewell, editor-in-chief of newsletter Microprocessor Report. "This is just putting more pressure on IBM to fix these problems."

IBM has in the past had problems in producing enough working G5 PowerPC processors for Apple's Power Mac computers and the G5 chip uses too much power, hence producing too much heat, to be used in its popular iBook and PowerBook laptops.

Though Apple has less than a 3 percent share of the PC market, its embrace of Intel chips would mark a fundamental change to the computer industry's historic alliances and rivalries. Apple has long blazed its own path by avoiding chips from Intel or rival processor maker Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD.N: Quote, Profile, Research), which together power nearly all the world's PCs.

"It's like Ferrari going to BMW for an engine," said Richard Doherty, the research director for technology consulting and research firm Envisioneering. "This is seen as a whole changing of church."

"To port to an x86 platform would be a massive undertaking and I'm highly suspicious of that," said Tim Bajarin, an analyst at Creative Strategies, referring to Intel chips.

Apple always has a lot of projects in the works and could be evaluating Intel chips for use in future products, Bajarin said, adding that when Apple co-founder and chief executive Steve Jobs was asked Sunday night at a Wall Street Journal technology conference whether Apple would use Intel chips, "Jobs basically said no."

"He said, 'We've had talks with Intel' and that's about it," Bajarin said.

Shares of Apple rose $2.02, or 5.4 percent, to $39.57 in morning trade and shares of Intel rose 26 cents, or 1 percent, to $26.61.

Analyst Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group said any such transition to Intel chips would not be easy for Apple. "Apple has put so much behind the PowerPC in terms of how much better the PowerPC is than Intel's processors," Enderle said. "It is risky." (Additional reporting by Daniel Sorid in San Francisco and Bill Berkrot in New York)

[aka_tom_w]

More news here in anticpation of the Key Note at 1 pm EST 10 Am PST

latest link update web page

[aka_tom_w]

its TRUE

"10:31 AM: The Intel Processor switch transition will be long term, with most of the product line in the Intel based chips, June 2007. Steve notes that the Marklar rumors that have been circulating for years are true, that the last five versions of Mac OS X has been compiled for both the PPC and Intel based chips."

Live from the Keynote

[aka_tom_w]

Holy CRAP:

Live Updates Site:

10:32: The demos of the last half-hour of Tiger cuts been one has Pentium 4.

10:31: We face two challenges. The first, is Mac OS X one INTEL. We' ve been maintaining Mac OS X one INTEL AND PPC, secretly, for the past 5 years, just in box. Now is the time. Every prior release of multiple Mac OS X has been compiled for architectures.

10:30: June 2006 will begin our INTEL transition. By June 2007, we will Be complete.

10:29: Why are we switching to INTEL? INTEL offers great performance. INTEL offers great power consumption. The transition will take has few years, goal it will Be worth it. We want to Be making the best computer for the customer going forward.

10:27: We' ve been through many transistions. 680x0 to PowerPC, Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. Today we begin has third transition. It' S true; We are switching to INTEL.

10:24: Mac OS X 10.5 will Be called Leopard.

10:16: iTunes has has podcast directory now.

[aka_tom_w]

10:35am PDT - “Here’s the geekout for developers”. Widgets, scripts, Java: they’ll just work. Cocoa - Xcode: small tweak, recompile. Carbon - Xcode - a few weeks of tweaking, recompile. Carbon- Metroworks: Move to XCode.

10:37am PDT - There’s a checkbox for builds: “Intel, PowerPC” that makes a cross-platform single binary.

10:38am PDT - Theo Gray, cofounder of Wolfram Research, comes onstage to talk about porting Mathematica in the past 5 days.

10:39am PDT - “I get the most ridiculous phone calls from Apple sometimes. This was like 9 c’clock at night and he says, ‘I can’t tell you what it is, but …” they flew out a developer with source code to do a demo for today.

10:40am PDT - Theo is hilarious. “I said, ‘I’ll send out our crack team of Mac developers that we keep on standby.’” Turns to guy standing next to computer. “That’s you, Rob.”

[jeffsmith]

[ June 06, 2005, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: jeffsmith ]

[aka_tom_w]

10:45am PDT - Steve back onstage: “Not every application will be Universal on Day 1.” A new technology, Rosetta, will run existing PowerPC apps on Intel. Dynamic binary translation, transparent to users. “Fast (enough),” the slide jokes, that most users won’t know.

10:46am PDT - Demo: MS Word PowerPC binary on Intel. Excel spreadsheet. They’re no notably slower than usual. Photoshop still takes forever to load, but all the plugins work. Photoshop Filters seem fast enough.

10:49am PDT - Select and premier ADC member software developers will be getting a build kit.

10:50am PDT - Roz Ho, General Manager of Microsoft’s Macintosh Business Unit, is onstage to talk about what MS is doing for the Intel platform.

[aka_tom_w]

10:41 AM: Again, Steve mentions that most applications will only need a recompiling to be compatible. For other applications, he's referenced a technology called "Rosetta", which will translate PPC instructions for Intel Processors will be done in real time.

[aka_tom_w]

gotta go

there is a running text update here

web page here