Apple switches to Intel

[james]

This is what it's all about:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... 7NYzUK0h88

I don't think Apple was as concerned with the G5 towers as they were with IBM's failure to get a G5 with low heat/power for a powerbook. The laptop is a key strategic component to Apple's future hardware sales (and those of the entire industry).

also see here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... 7NYzUK0h88

[james]

...and here's what we can look forward to:

http://news.com.com/Intel+spills+beans+ ... 29925.html

[AD80]

I don't think Apple was as concerned with the G5 towers as they were with IBM's failure to get a G5 with low heat/power for a powerbook. The laptop is a key strategic component to Apple's future hardware sales (and those of the entire industry).

I think it was about equal. They WERE concerned with the G5 towers. No 3ghz chip a year late, and the existing chips needed to be water cooled becuase they ran so hot. Those are major concerns.

I personally cant wait to see the next generation PB's running on intel. If nothing else, it'll push dell and the other guys to step up their designs.

[Sage]

I don't think Apple was as concerned with the G5 towers as they were with IBM's failure to get a G5 with low heat/power for a powerbook. The laptop is a key strategic component to Apple's future hardware sales (and those of the entire industry).

I think it was about equal. They WERE concerned with the G5 towers. No 3ghz chip a year late, and the existing chips needed to be water cooled becuase they ran so hot. Those are major concerns.

Indeed. But like I said, Apple engineers have already stated that the processor and chipset running in the current development boxes will not be used in production models. Speculation from all the major news sites is that Apple will be using the upcoming dual-core Pentium M, not only in laptops but in desktops as well. It's been posited that what Apple really wants is to get away from the idea of a separate machine. Look at the iMac. Throw a dual-core Pentium M in there and you can make it even smaller.

That's why their schedule is interesting. They can put the Pentium M into things like notebooks and the Mac Mini by 2006, and once the chip gets the EM64T extensions and becomes 64-bit, they can replace the iMac and PowerMac models as well.

[AD80]

I think Apple is really gonna push the PC designers in a good way. Processor wise the same stuff is gonna be available for everybody so it'll benefit everone.

But regardless, the G5 platform was a dead end. Anyway you look at it, if everything was as good as they first claimed there would have been no switch. I remember the first key note on the G5 Steve Jobs said "dont worry, this platform's got legs". Apparently not.

[semiquaver]

The problem was that IBM lacked incentive to move the platform forward.

[Sage]

The problem was that IBM lacked incentive to move the platform forward.

Indeed. Once they won the contracts for the various game consoles, why bother developing processors for a computer company that represents about 3% of their total chip business?

The hilarious thing is that video game consoles get sold at a loss. The money is usually in selling the SDK for the console to game companies. Or at least, that's how it's always been in the past.

Oh, and AD80, here's something from Walt Mossberg of the WSJ, who first broke the Intel story:

Now that Apple will be using the same processor as Dell, H-P and other competitors, will people be able to run the Mac operating system on these non-Apple machines?

Unless some hacker does a masterful job, the answer is no. Apple intends to keep its operating system and hardware tied tightly together. The new Intel-based versions of the Mac's OS X operating system will be designed so that they cannot run on non-Apple hardware, and Apple has no plans to license OS X to other PC makers.

Will users be able to install and run Microsoft Windows on the new Intel-based Macs?

Apple's official position is that it won't block the use of Windows on its new machines. Unofficially, however, the company says people won't be able to just buy a copy of Windows XP and install it on an Intel-based Mac. That's because Apple is unlikely to build in all the standard under-the-hood hardware pieces that Windows is designed to mate with. And it won't supply any special software called "drivers" to help Windows use the unique under-the-hood hardware Apple will use.

However, I expect some third-party company to supply the missing drivers and otherwise make it possible to run Windows on an Intel-based Mac. Microsoft itself might even do this. That would allow Mac users to run Windows programs that lack Mac equivalents at speeds comparable to a Windows computer's.

[AD80]

Will users be able to install and run Microsoft Windows on the new Intel-based Macs?

Apple's official position is that it won't block the use of Windows on its new machines. Unofficially, however, the company says people won't be able to just buy a copy of Windows XP and install it on an Intel-based Mac. That's because Apple is unlikely to build in all the standard under-the-hood hardware pieces that Windows is designed to mate with. And it won't supply any special software called "drivers" to help Windows use the unique under-the-hood hardware Apple will use.

However, I expect some third-party company to supply the missing drivers and otherwise make it possible to run Windows on an Intel-based Mac. Microsoft itself might even do this. That would allow Mac users to run Windows programs that lack Mac equivalents at speeds comparable to a Windows computer's.

Thats the most sugar coated YES I've seen. They're just trying not to scare the Mac users. If they're not blocking it, it'll be done. Even if they do block it it'll be done. XP is unstopable.

[SaviorNeeded]

(runs to buy Apple stock)

Tom

[larsfarm]

If they're not blocking it, it'll be done. Even if they do block it it'll be done.

MS bought Connectix and with it Virtual PC, didn't they? Solving the Virtual PC problem just became a whole lot easier...

[james]

I'm really surprised to see anyone would want to run windows on Apple hardware. Hasn't most of the criticism of Apple been on the hardware end - low (raw) cpu, expensive etc?

Honestly, I would have bought the cheapest dell laptop out there if I could run OSX on it seemlessly. I live at the low end.

To be fair, I probably can speak for many when I say that the small premium I've paid for my macs has been completely justified. Apple's integrated build quality has been friendly to those of us on a budget. We have very dependable machines that require little maintenance and last for years. I expect a large portion of the user-installed base will not migrate quickly. If it's not broke, don't fix it. That's not fanaticism, it's common sense.

Meanwhile, Dell will sell at a loss to win business for the long term. How is Apple going to compete with that? Will the average public user justify a premium when both have the same "intel inside" sticker on the box?

Ultimately, OS X seems to be designed from the ground up to be completely portable. Steve won't get burned again. Apple has positioned itself to go wherever the chips are.

So why not have full disclosure and sell OS X to everyone? ..maybe after a few years of competing with Dell? By contrast, I think Microsoft is vulnerable. I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple surprise us again after it's obvious how many people are downloading a OSX for PC hack on P2P networks next year.

[ModuLR]

OSX is portable because it's BSD. Darwin has been running on x86's form the jump. Apple wins in that it's getting chips. It's laptop models will finally get a chip deserving of it's sleek design. I would hope the price tag comes down a bit. I honestly don't really buy into the quality of parts theory (beyond the casing), especially if you are using a decent PC. You are paying for a smaller production scale. My sony laptop screen is every bit a wondeful as my powerbooks. The internal yamaha soundcard is every bit as quiet. All the ports are functional. The hard drives, memory, and what not are likely from similar sources... etc. Besides I've got an old 800Mhz, 400Mhz, 166Mhz homebuilt pc's that are every bit as functional as before. I idea that PC's just suddenly break any become unusable is a misnomer. Of course, there are horror stories on both ends...

but I digress ... I think apple stands to gain from this decission. I'm honestly happy to see it happen. I agree with AD80 in that it migth stir a bit more competition which is a good thing. I'll also look forward to turning in my powerbook at work for a new mactel one! However, it still won't change the fact that it runs OSX... I might get hung for saying this, but... while I think OSX is fresh and innovative in many respects.. it's a flat out resource hog.. which is totally unnecessary considering it's a *nix underneath. It should be a lot more scalable (IMHO of course.. mac folks, plz don't kill me... ).

[LBN]

I don't think it would be in Apple's best interest to ensure any kind of transparent Windows compatibility in OS X. Sure, things like Virtual PC and maybe a VMware/OSX will get a speed-bump from running on Intel and not having to do instructions translation but I don't think Apple will encourage any kind of solution that will allow you to simply double-click a Windows binary and run it under OS X. Most computer professionals agree that this is what killed off IBM's very nice OS/2 operating system. It ran Windows programs without modification so why should developers target OS/2 specifically as a platform?

Of course this doesn't stop any kind of third-party attempt at such a product. WINE has had a degree of success doing this under Linux so it would probably be possible under OS X.

[kpbpsw]

Actually I think it was Intel that pushed for this not Apple, as intel has the most to gain, they have been having a hard time of it lately as ll the next gen stuff like Xbox II, Sony Playstation3 and Nintendo are all non intel boxes! AMD is beating them in the gammer market for performance and in the server market. Most of the new home server boxes are going linix on power pc (like the new Motorola AS set top boxes).

Intel needs the win now as they have been having a hard time with the current market but they know and I am sure convinced Apple that they have what it takes to regain performance and low power leadership in the near future.

Intel has the desgin and manufacutring capablites to blow everyone (IBM, AMD and Freescale) with dual cores and 65nM capablites. IBM and AMD are still having problems with 90nM.

Next year sometime when Intel rolls out the 65nM stuff they will have the most powerful and lowest power/heat processors in the world even if the architecture is limited in some ways. By moving back to the PIII rather than the P4 hey have moved to a design that has a smaller pipeline so it is harder to run at as high raw speeds but can do more with less and is better suited to multi-processors. The Intel designs still have to maintain backwards X86 compatibility but hey continue to move it forward with significant updates to the architecture making it more a hybrid risc design.

I agree that in purely architectural terms the powerPC is better but that is worth 20 to 30 percent (at best) boost in performance and typicaly the Intel parts have been running more than 30% faster than the powerpc chip available. And they have been improving the architecture all the time. They have caught up and surpassed in many time periods the buss issues and memory access problems of the past.

Any way my Apple powerbook is still faster than my dells that are running much faster processor speeds but the intel stuff keeps keeps getting better and the G4 is topped out. Where as my dual AMD machine is as fast as my dual G5 desktop. And OSX is much more powerful than XP but XP keep getting better. Keeping Apple and MS competing will only improve both operating systems if only they could get the keyboard functions to be the same it would be a lot easier to move back and forth between them.

Ken


Some things to look at:
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/0 ... pentium_d/
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/0 ... 65nm_cpus/

[Muzik 4 Machines]

...

Next year sometime when Intel rolls out the 65nM stuff they will have the most powerful and lowest power/heat processors in the world even if the architecture is limited in some ways. ....

http://news.com.com/Intel+spills+beans+ ... 29925.html