Apple switches to Intel

[james]

Really. Google it or go here:

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/wwdc05keynote.html

OS X has been in dual development for 5 years for X86. New machines ship next year.

[imember]

It's quite revolutionary news. I'm somewhat positive, though it certainly has it's risks. It's success depends on the transition OS, as the same OS will have to run on both RISC's and CISC's. I have to say I'm a little weary about this because I doubt the OS can be fully optimized for both at the same time.

Could be good, could be bad, we'll see...

[braj]

I'd love to have a Apple PC that could dual boot Windows. Hopefully that's a possibility.

[AD80]

I think this is good news for everyone. G4 hardware was the main reason I avoided apple like the plague. I'm possitive that they'll do better with the new processors. Powerbooks with Pentium-Ms are gonna fly! I might even pick one up .

[titanium]

Apple is going with Intel because
a) IBM doesn't give a shit about Apple because they are only like 3% of their business
b) IBM didn't deliver on performance and low power as originally promised
c) IBM will be balls out making millions of PPCs for Xbox 360 anyway
d) Intel chips have better performance/power ratio (MIPS/W)
e) OS X has been running on x86 for the last 5 years
f) i'm sure there are lots of other reasons, probably not publicized

And don't worry OS X won't run on vanilla X86 PCs, it will only run on x86 macs. But it will kick ass when emulating windows.

[chico.co.uk]

And don't worry OS X won't run on vanilla X86 PCs, it will only run on x86 macs.

They're going to cripple FreeBSD so it doesn't run on PC hardware? Phew. That's a weight off my mind.

[NAS]

So Apples line of RISC is better doesn't stand anymore ?
Even though we all know it is true (PC User for ever because i can build em cheap)

[braj]

So Apples line of RISC is better doesn't stand anymore ?
Even though we all know it is true (PC User for ever because i can build em cheap)

I really think it's all about portables. IBM couldn't deliver a cool portable G5 so Apple was forced to go elsewhere. Even if a G5 could be cool enough, it still couldn't compete with Centrinos in battery life.

[Sage]

So Apples line of RISC is better doesn't stand anymore ?

No, it still stands. As an architecture, the PowerPC is better than x86 in just about every way. The problem is that no one is developing it.

The chips IBM is producing for various game consoles are not suitable for real computers. They are PowerPC derivatives. You *might* be able to get away with using an Xbox chip in a computer, but realize that it needs to be water-cooled.

IBM simply isn't developing the G5. They got what they wanted out of Apple, which was a high-profile client that lasted long enough to win them some lucrative contracts to put chips into game consoles. And once they got that, they no longer had any reason to further develop the PowerPC. In fact, there is some speculation that IBM has been intentionally holding back with the G5 so that it won't cut into sales of their super-expensive Power line of high-end server processors. Freescale is still getting its bearings after being spun off from Motorola, and they appear to be going after the embedded market. So there won't be anything coming from them anytime soon, either.

It's simple, really. Apple is switching to x86 because that's all there is now. PowerPC will exist for a few more years, and then it'll die, having been killed off by the very manufacturers who designed it.

[whyterabbyt]

Sage quoth
No, it still stands. As an architecture, the PowerPC is better than x86 in just about every way.

If you're including the Athlon64 in that, then you're dead wrong.

[bewing77]

But it will kick ass when emulating windows.

I didn't think about this until now, but this could really be quite big. The new intel macs should, like you say, be able to emulate windows with little or no preformance loss. That should take care of any of my few reasons to still keep a windows box around.

I am actually very positive about this. The G5 where going nowhere, while intel remains the leading cpu manufacturer. Sure, presently AMD has the edge, but intel has the stability apple needs. And intel cpus are definatly going somewhere and faster then the G5s. Hopefully by next year intel will have learned from their mistakes with the p4.

[braj]

I'm also enthusiastic. It will hopefully mean buying one box instead of two. And MS should be happy with that since they get their money for their OS.

[valley]

Sage quoth
No, it still stands. As an architecture, the PowerPC is better than x86 in just about every way.

If you're including the Athlon64 in that, then you're dead wrong.

Even for 32bit x86s that statement is not valid. One could create benchmarks that show x86 to be superior in the majority of cases, or one could create benchmarks to show that PowerPC is superior in the majority of cases.

In reality they are broadly equal, with each having its own strengths and weaknesses.

Personally I wonder what this augers for AMD. Clearly the market is moving away from desktop chips and increasingly towards laptop friendly processors (how ironic to see the PIII back as Intel's flagship of the future ). That Apple is ready to end its life long love affair with Motorola and IBM, clearly a chipset manufacture that wants to stay in business is going to need a solid notebook processor line. The AMD64 is a fine processor, but AMD haven't shown much success at challenging Intel in the notebook space so far...

[edit] - whilst in reply to the rabbyt, this is more of a follow on from his post than it is directed at him, as he knows this stuff as well as anyone.

I really hate that it is now necessary to add disclaimers to every damn post around here.

[Sage]

Sage quoth
No, it still stands. As an architecture, the PowerPC is better than x86 in just about every way.

If you're including the Athlon64 in that, then you're dead wrong.

You miss my point. What part of "as an architecture" did you not understand?

I'm not talking about specific processors, I'm talking about the potential of the architecture. For instance, PowerPC was designed as a 64-bit architecture from the get-go, with the ability to be dumbed down to 32 bits until 64-bit computing became necessary. Native binary compatibility was built into the design from day one.

x86_64, on the other hand, is extended from a 32-bit architecture, which is itself extended from a 16-bit architecture. Comparatively, it's a kludge (A GOOD kludge, mind -- no one's knocking AMD's resourcefulness). But it's the only way you could get native binary compatibility with IA-32 on a 64-bit chip.

PowerPC is also bi-endian, making it extremely flexible (and I wouldn't be surprised if that plays a factor in this transition to Intel chips).

Of course the Athlon64 is great -- AMD has been working their asses off to make it so. By the same token, Intel has sunk a lot of time and money into the development of low-heat/low-power processors, and as a result, they've got the best mobile solution on the market for the next few years.

I realize "architecture" means little when it comes to actual products, but that's my whole point -- IBM introduced the G5 two years ago, and never bothered to develop it further. Outside of a few speedbumps and a die shrink, there have been no improvements to the design. Instead, they spent their resources developing game console chips. I think it's wasted potential, and I think it's a shame.

[AD80]

I'm also enthusiastic. It will hopefully mean buying one box instead of two. And MS should be happy with that since they get their money for their OS.

Exactly. I'm actually looking forward to all this. Apple and Intel vs. AMD and Dell. Products can only get faster and cheaper and better. And OSX will keep pushing Microsoft to improve.