Mac and CMx2

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by 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

Mac OS X has been "leading a secret double life" for the past five years, said Jobs. "So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years."

[aka_tom_w]

Dual boot Macs???

on the SAME hardware

maybe

QUOTE:

from here web page

Enter another one of Intel's platform pieces, VT (Virtualization Technology).

VT makes it possible for one machine to run several different operating systems at once.

Intel has partnered with software virtualization pioneer VMware to implement its own software layer for VT; Microsoft will have another.

VT demos have been fairly primitive so far, forcing users to switch from one virtual desktop to another to run software in different partitions.

Microsoft has the technology to create a more natural windowed environment, but so does Apple—and Apple has proved more agile in developing user-interface technology over the last few years.

Again, Jobs said nothing about this prospect, but I know Apple could make this work, and I doubt they'll overlook the opportunity.

Properly implemented, an x86 Mac wouldn't need to boot Windows to run Windows software.

Mac OS would be the primary operating system, but if the customer wants Windows, Windows could get its own partition.

With Windows running on the same machine, Apple can make Windows applications part of the Mac OS X environment.

Apple could end up with the best of all worlds—simultaneous Mac OS and Windows operation on a wide range of commodity platforms.

Today, it isn't practical for Apple to develop its own tablet computers or eight-way servers because of hardware engineering costs.

With suitable hardware available off the shelf in the PC industry, Apple can create such systems just by doing the necessary software development. Most of this work, in fact, has already been done.

Reaching this promised land will still take a lot of hard work by Apple and its independent software developers.

Apple is targeting the 64-bit mode of Intel's x86 processors (the mode originally developed by AMD and dubbed AMD64).

Apple already has 64-bit support in Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger), but almost none of the Tiger code runs in 64-bit mode. Apple will have to make the transition to x86 and 64-bit operation at the same time.

It's unclear how much of this work has been done. Jobs announced that for the last five years, it has pursued a cross-platform development strategy; Apple's operating systems and applications have all been built and tested for x86 and PowerPC compatibility.

But Apple hasn't had access to 64-bit x86 platforms for all this time. I think it's likely that the 64-bit transition is still under way in Cupertino.

It's ironic that up in Seattle, Microsoft is moving the other way.

We usually think of Microsoft as a software company, but it sells many more Xbox consoles than Apple sells Macs.

With similar needs for multimedia processing and price/performance, and a large installed base of x86 software, Microsoft selected PowerPC for its next-generation Xbox 360.

For similar reasons, Sony is moving from MIPS processors to PowerPC in PlayStation 3, and Nintendo is sticking with PowerPC for its forthcoming Revolution system.

IBM designed all three of these new PowerPC processors; together, the three consoles will ship almost as many processors as Intel.

Apple's future includes less RISC, but more risks.

Faced with a straight-up choice between Windows Longhorn and Mac OS X "Leopard" on the same hardware, some Microsoft customers will switch—but will there be more switchers than Apple would have attracted to the PowerPC platform?

And what about Apple's short-term prospects? Pending the arrival of better Intel microprocessors, the first generation of x86-based PCs won't be dramatically better than the new Power Macs Jobs promised us.

Power Macs will also have better software support for years to come, but will Apple's existing customers be comfortable buying a platform that is scheduled for cancellation?

Apple is looking at a year or two of combining nervous uncertainty with the hope of fantastic success. Realizing this dream will require a lot of engineering effort from Apple and Intel, and a lot of faith from Apple's faithful. web page

[ June 06, 2005, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Pzman]

Sounds like a sad day for Apple IMO. Looks like I may want to get a G5 in a few years, before everything switches.

[aka_tom_w]

its hard to say

There is for sure and intial intense emtional shock in regards to shacking up with what is largely perceived to be one half of the Evil Wintel Empire.... BUT it might not be so bad.

But..... Maybe Macs will get Faster and Cheaper processors

Maybe we can buy hardware that will run BOTH Mac and windows operating systems seemlessly and simultaneously!

(Windows only boxes Will NEVER run the Mac OS X but intel bozes from apple MIGHT support windows if the customer buys it as a seperate OS and installs it)

Maybe it is a positive thing for Apple.

at least I sure hope it is because to be honest it "feels" for all the world like a "sell out" and that Jobs and Apple have "soiled" themselves on Intel's "welcome" mat.

oh well

it will take a FULL two years to complete the transition and in the mean time we can expect there will be no new Power PC Mac hardware offerings. So that means what they are selling right now is what they will market and offer for the forseeable future... (the next year)

the Mac Mini is slated to be the first hardware platform to host the new Intel chip (what ever it is)

its all VERY interesting for Mac folks!

-tom w

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

it will take a FULL two years to complete the transition and in the mean time we can expect there will be no new Power PC Mac hardware offerings. So that means what they are selling right now is what they will market and offer for the forseeable future... (the next year)

Watch the keynote to see that that is a false asuption. Jobs stated that there are more PPC machines in the pipes. Currently, the G5 is better than what Intel has to offer, so for the immediate future I suspect the high end Macs will be G5's. However, Intel is putting far more effort into improving their processors than IBM is, so long term, I think Apple is making the right move. I think Intel will be much more of a partner in a partnership with Apple than IBM is.

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks Berlichtingen

Good point

I have not seen the Keynote yet.

This is another update:

"Intel-based Macs to include 'Rosetta' for legacy apps

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 @ 7:55am

Apple yesterday announced that its Intel-based Macs will include Rosetta, a technology that will allow them to run PowerPC applications. The technology allows the thousands of applications already available for PowerPC-based Macs to run on the new Intel architecture. In his WWDC keynote, Steve Jobs yesterday demonstrated both Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop running on an Intel-based Mac using the Rosetta technology, claiming that the experience would be transparent to the end user--unlike the Classic, Apple's emulation layer for running Mac OS 9 applications on Mac OS X. According to PC Pro, not all applications will be compatible with Rosetta, including those that have "intense computing needs" such as 3D modelling or ray tracing applications.

"Not all OS X applications will run under Rosetta and some will run better than others. Applications that have a lot of user interaction and low computational needs, such as a word processor, are quite compatible. Those that have a moderate amount of user interaction and some high computational needs or that use OpenGL are, in most cases, also quite compatible. Those that have intense computing needs aren't compatible. This includes applications that need to repeatedly compute fast Fourier transforms (FFTs), that compute complex models for 3-D modelling, or compute ray tracing."

[aka_tom_w]

MO at WWDC - Analysts Have More Questions Than Answers For Intel-Based Macs

by Brad Cook, 5:55 PM EDT, June 6th, 2005

Human beings have always feared the unknown, so it wasn't a surprise when Apple announced on Monday that it is moving to Intel-based Macs starting next year and many of its customers and developers reacted with apprehension. With scant hard details available, analysts contacted by The Mac Observer painted a picture of short-term confusion, followed by a possible medium-term sales dip for Apple, with a final long-term outlook that could be very positive for the company, assuming many questions get answered.

"It comes down to how good a sales job Steve Jobs did today," Jupiter Research analyst Joe Wilcox said. "Apple is in a hard place, because architecture changes are difficult to make."

"I know it's early, but more information than standard PR boilerplate would have been helpful," added NPD analyst Steve Baker. "[Apple's developers] are people committed to the Mac; they need more hand-holding. In the long run, they'll be happy, but in the short term, they will ask 'What does this mean to me? How much will it cost me? What does it mean for the platform going forward?'"

Once Apple gets beyond the short term, however, Mr. Wilcox saw several advantages the company will receive from its partnership with Intel. "Intel does a lot of work with software developers," he explained, "so Apple will get some of that benefit. On the chipset level, Intel provides a lot of its own that come with Bluetooth or WiFi or integrated graphics and so forth. That could reduce costs for Apple and increase their margins.

"And the whole notebook issue will be solved: Intel has Centrino, which means low power, low heat and long battery life. There doesn't appear to be a portable G5 chip in the future."

"If you had to pick one reason [why this happened], [the notebook issue] had to be it," said Mr. Baker. "In the long run, it will be positive for market share, especially as we see the transition to notebooks, given IBM's inability to get the G5 into a notebook. That would have become a big problem for Apple in the next couple years."

In the long term, Mr. Wilcox was unsure if the partnership will yield more market share for Apple. "It's too early to take a guess," he said. "But this could help with expansion into new markets. Apple created an iPod division, and if it adds other consumer devices, Intel could provide the chipsets for them."

Mr. Wilcox was also hesitant to discuss Apple's short-term outlook, given the speculation by some pundits that today's news could mean flat or even declining Mac sales until the new machines hit the market. Mr. Baker didn't foresee an immediate drop, but "when you get closer to the switch-over date, a lot of people may hold off on their purchases."

And while it's probably safe to assume that Apple will lock down its Intel-based Macs to ensure that consumers can't buy garden variety PCs and install Mac OS X on them, IDC analyst Roger Kay said that if the company doesn't do a good job of that, it "will end up where Microsoft is. Apple hasn't had a lot of copy protection, but if they don't control this, they will have the same piracy problems as Microsoft. This could also put Apple hardware sales in jeopardy, if people can buy any x86 platform and run Mac OS X on it."

"There are still a lot of unanswered questions," summed up Mr. Baker. "How will Apple make sure people are still buying PowerPC products for the next two years? What's their strategy to prevent cloning? What kind of products will come out first? We still haven't seen the full disclosure behind this."

[Andreas]

This is from MacUser:

Moreover, not all OS X applications will run under Rosetta and some will run better than others. Applications that have a lot of user interaction and low computational needs, such as a word processor, are quite compatible. Those that have a moderate amount of user interaction and some high computational needs or that use OpenGL are, in most cases, also quite compatible. Those that have intense computing needs aren't compatible. This includes applications that need to repeatedly compute fast Fourier transforms (FFTs), that compute complex models for 3-D modelling, or compute ray tracing.

Apple has also ensured that once developers begin to port their software to the new platform, PowerPC users will not be excluded. Mac applications will run as universal binaries that will run natively on either processor and, says Apple, deliver optimal performance for both.

In a note to developers it explains that as most existing application code is high-level source code it is already platform-independent and that creating a universal binary involves making just a 'few adjustments'. This is not on the same scale as the huge rewrites that were required when moving applications from OS 9 to OS X, and hopefully the upgrade cost to users will reflect that.

[MikeyD]

This all somewhat increases the chance that in a short while I'm going to be printing out the system requirements for T72:Balkans (which I assume is probably close to CMx2's requirements), marching down to the computer store, holding my nose, and buying a gaming pc.

Apple probably feels they can now take a gamble on their computers since most of their money's actually being made from ipods.

[Kilroy Lurking]

Maybe thereare possibilities in this direction -

The enquirer

[Battlefront.com]

From our prespective this is very interesting! I used the very first Mac in 1985 and bought my first one in 1987. I've been using one daily ever since (even when I had to use PCs ). I bought a PowerMac 7200 upgrade for my IIvx as soon as PPC came out. Actually... what the heck did I do with that machine after I retired it?

My take on this is that it is an imperfect solution to a problem outside of Apple's control. By that I mean the problems with the PowerPC partnership. And therefore, imperfect or not it is the best choice.

It does seem that for the short term the G5 is still the superior choice. I am still using a G4 and will likely buy a G5 later this year.

For Battlefront things are a little less clear as to what we will do for Mac support. Due to mysterious probelms with the direction of compilers (now partially explained by the chip switch) we decided to code for the PC first and wait for things to shake out before moving the code over to the Mac. Now with this chip announcement the decision we made some months ago is reinforced in a positive way. The port to the Mac won't take long (4 weeks?) so it doesn't hurt us to hold off until the last minute, so to speak. By the time we do start the port hopefully everything will settled down and we can make the RIGHT decisiosns this time.

As you recall, it was Apple's unclear vision and conlficting information about OSX that is the reason why CMx1 doesn't run on OSX. We are facing an equally uncertain time from Apple about yet another major technology shift. We've been burned before (more than once) by these transitions so the longer we wait the better it is for everybody.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As you recall, it was Apple's unclear vision and conlficting information about OSX that is the reason why CMx1 doesn't run on OSX. We are facing an equally uncertain time from Apple about yet another major technology shift. We've been burned before (more than once) by these transitions so the longer we wait the better it is for everybody.

That's my thinking too. These sudden and profound shifts by Apple have been unfortunately timed from BFC's point of view, and it's better to wait and make reasonably sure you know which way they are going to jump rather than put in months of work only to see it go down the drain.

Even if it means we Mac owners have to wait a few months longer for ours, in the end it would be worth it to be sure that we have something that will enjoy maximum performance on our machines.

Michael

[Jarmo]

Do I read this correctly? No simultaneous Mac&PC release this time?

Anyway, good to see it's not a case of "That's it!

Apple screwed us over for the last time! PC only now on!".

[ June 11, 2005, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Jarmo ]

[Battlefront.com]

No, we aren't saying anything of the sort. What we are saying is that there is currently no simultaneous cross platform development. We do hope to release both versions at the same time, but that largely depends on how quickly things sort themselves out. We're pretty confident that by the time we get to "make or break" time on porting that the development stuff will be all set and we can just bull on ahead without getting burned.

Steve

[gibsonm]

Steve,

Sounds like a plan.

And hopefully by then I‘ll have a new PowerBook (hopefully with a removeable “Intel inside” sticker) to run it off.

[aka_tom_w]

I hope the using Xcode is part of the Master Plan

good luck

-tom w

[Pzman]

I just hope CMX2 will run on the older chip set.

[GreenAsJade]

"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

Ya gotta admit, doncha, that this is pretty funny in retrospect...

[aka_tom_w]

Ok ok

I was wrong, I am still in a state of shock and denial and utter DISBELIEF

(really)

-tom w

[Panzer76]

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.

BUSTED Kneel to the PC supremacy Mac users!

[aka_tom_w]

Its actually just superior Intel MOBILE processor chip technology Apple is seeking but nevermind.

-tom w

[Pzman]

LOL... PC noobs, they never know till its too late.

[blassty]

When I saw the headline news and read all the articles about Apple moving to Intel, the only developer I thought of was Battlefront. Horrific questions and thoughts that went through my head were "My god, what if BF is using CodeWarrior!?" or "What if this pisses off BF and stop development for Macs?!?!" I got really worried.

[RMC]

I'm a Mac outsider and have no dog in this fight, but I have to wonder why Apple would want to hook up with Intel after so many years of being different.

Seems to me that if they wanted to change processor vendors, they should consider AMD. AMD has the better architecture of the two at the moment and doesn't have nearly the same overbearing image that Intel does.

[Kurtz]

Originally posted by RMC:

AMD has the better architecture of the two at the moment

But Intel let Apple peek into their crystal ball and see what lies in the future. I'm sure Apple talked to AMD as well, but Intel was apparently able to present a more interesting deal.

Besides, it's not so much about technology, it's more about logistics. Intel has bigger resources and will hopefully be able to deliver what they've promised.

I agree on the image, but we'll soon see a "1984-style" transformation. "

"Intel has the best processors. Intel has always had the best processors".