Intel Inside
New Chip. Same Mac?
09 June 2005 Justin Williams Skip to comments
26 Comments
(
Closed)
With the recent news that Apple will be migrating away from PowerPC processors to those made by Intel, the Mac community has been abuzz with discussion of our new overlords. Justin Williams explains why we are switching, when we are switching, and what it means to Mac users.
iTunes on Windows. Windows not sucking. Snow in San Diego. Steve Jobs in black slacks. These are all signs that hell has frozen over. None of these, however, can compare to Apple deciding to switch from PowerPC processors to Intel. The processor is the brain of your Mac. Anytime you are exporting an iMovie to Quicktime or fixing your photographs in Photoshop, you are using the Mac’s processor. Currently Apple computers are using PowerPC processors like the G4 and G5.
At Steve Jobs’ annual keynote presentation at the 2005 Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC), the Mac faithfuls saw Apple CEO Steve Jobs announce that the rumors of the past week were true. Apple is indeed moving away from the G4 and G5 and, instead, embracing the Pentium. Signed with an embrace between Jobs and Intel CEO Paul Otellini, the move marks the third transition in the Mac’s history.
The first came back in the early 1990s when Apple moved the Macintosh from the old 68k architecture to PowerPC. The 68k used a CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computers) architecture, and Apple was trying to squeeze every ounce of power from it. Dubbed the “Jaguar” project, PowerPC brought a RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) architecture to the Mac platform. With this new architecture, Apple began shipping some of the fastest personal computers available on the market.
The switch to PowerPC was not as simple as popping one chip out and putting another one in. There was an issue with none of the 68k software being compatible with the new chip. To alleviate this issue, Apple had to emulate the 68k processor in Mac OS 7 and beyond. This let all old software run on new Macs. Software would then have to be rewritten to work natively on the new PowerPC architecture.
The second transition was more recent: Mac OS X. In 2001, Apple abandoned 16 years of architecture in the classic OS and moved to a modern, Unix-based platform. All the software that was written for the classic OS had to be ported to run natively on Mac OS X. Developers had to invest time and resources towards “Carbonizing” applications. As you may remember, many of your favorite applications were not available at the launch of OS X. Microsoft Office, for instance, wasn’t released natively for OS X until 10.1 was released. With the transition to OS X, Apple also began releasing revisions to the operating system on an almost yearly basis to improve the new OS. For example, the original release of Mac OS X did not have support for DVD burning. That didn’t return until 10.1. Labels were a thing of the past until Panther.
The transition to Mac OS X was complete with Panther. Most Macs are now running the new operating system and almost all applications have been ported over. Now complete, Apple has decided to make another switch: Intel. What does this mean for Mac users around the world? Will developers have to rewrite software? Is my Mac obsolete? I will try to answer those questions and more in this article.
Didn’t we set them on fire?
Since the introduction of the Macintosh, PCs and Macs have had different chips behind them. Windows ran on Intel’s x86 platform on a variety of chips: Intel’s Pentium or AMD’s Athlon line. Apple ran on the PowerPC. Coming in 2006, that will be a thing in the past because of the transition to Intel.
Many have touted this as hypocrisy on Apple’s part. For years Apple has been touting how much better their processors are compared to Intel. Back in 1996, Apple went so far as to run a commercial that apologized for the Power Mac G3 “burning the Pentium” in speed comparisons. In the commercial, a fire man extinguished one of Intel’s Bunny Men.
Besides engulfing Intel’s chips in flames, Apple has also been posting speed tests comparing their most powerful Macs against Intel’s top-of-the-line machines for years. Even today you can see one of these comparisons on the Power Mac G5 home page. Along with several bar charts, Apple states:
Nearly Two Times Faster Than Pentium 4
To demonstrate the superiority of the Power Mac G5, Apple conducted tests using Adobe Photoshop CS 8.0, the most widely used application among creative professionals. Adobe Photoshop is a particularly effective cross-platform measure of system performance because it has been optimized for both Macintosh and Windows platforms. Apple ran the tests using a 600MB Photoshop file and a suite of 45 commonly used Photoshop actions, including file saving, image adjustments, mode changes and filters. Apple measured the time to execute each filter or function and compared the performance of all actions using an indexed score.
Despite Apple’s assault on the Intel line of chips, the two companies have courted many times in the past on the subject of Apple switching to the chips. Before Apple migrated to the G5, there were rumors of a switch to Intel. Apple was frustrated with Motorola’s inability to improve the G4’s speed and performance. IBM came forward and showed off it’s PowerPC 970 chip. The 970 became the G5 and it seemed like Apple had a processor that would last for another five years at least.
Even with the introduction of the G5, there were still lingering rumors of an Intel switch in the future. Since the introduction of Mac OS X, rumors sites have reported on the Marklar project. The rumored project’s focus was keeping a version of Mac OS X compatible with Intel’s x86 line of processors. This was an insurance policy of sorts for Apple if the G4 or G5 didn’t pan out. The rumors were true, as Steve Jobs stated at WWDC. Touting IBM’s inability to increase the speed of the G5 or get a chip available for a Powerbook G5, Jobs detailed the Marklar project on-stage.
Two years ago at the introduction of the G5, Jobs promised Mac users a G5 running at 3 Gigahertz 365 days later at WWDC04. Fast forward to today, it is two years later and there is still no 3 Ghz G5. Apple has also been unable to put a G5 in a Powerbook, which is something Mac user have been clamoring for. Since the G5 uses so much power and puts off so much heat, there are several issues that make it difficult to put the processor in a portable. In its present state, a G5 Powerbook would have horrible battery life probably give your leg a second degree burn. Sacrificing the size and battery life that the Powerbook line is known for is not something Apple would do, so the G4 remained. With the switch to Intel chips, the power consumption and heat issues will be a thing of the past.
The transition to Intel chips will not be an overnight thing. This will be a two year project. You most likely won’t see a Mac running on Intel until next year. Jobs promised that by WWDC next year, we would have a Mac with Intel chips. He did not state what Mac that would be, or if there would be multiple products with the chips. By the time WWDC 2007 arrives, the entire line should have migrated away from PowerPC.
What’s this mean for you?
As a Mac user, you will notice some changes with the switch to Intel. Most of your applications should run out of the box on Intel thanks to a new technology called Rosetta. Rosetta is a transparent layer that will run on top of Mac OS X to emulate the PowerPC. Rosetta is a PowerPC G3. This is somewhat similar to what Virtual PC does so that you can run Windows on a Mac. Unlike Virtual PC, however, you won’t have to launch an application or run your applications in a constrained environment. The speed of your applications under Rosetta is unknown. Steve Jobs demoed several applications running under the environment during his keynote and they seemed to perform quickly. Rumors have circulated that Jobs’ machine had 4 Pentium 4 chips in it. Even if it is true, keep in mind that Apple has almost a year to perfect this technology, and any performance you see today could be totally different to what you see in a year.
This is a temporary solution while developers work to bring native versions of their application to the new platform. As they do, applications will run natively on Intel chips without the support of Rosetta. You will then notice speeds similar to your current G5 chips, and possibly faster.
Even if you don’t switch to an Intel chip in the next few years, Apple is not abandoning you. Developers will have the ability to create their applications to run on both platforms from a single executable. Dubbed a universal binary, when you launch an application, it will determine whether you are running an Intel or PowerPC chip and then run the files necessary to launch the application.
Not everything is well for Mac users, however. According to preliminary documents on the new Intel architecture, if you run any applications in Classic, you may not be able to run them on an Intel-based Macintosh. Phil Schiller, an Apple Senior Vice-President, told ZDNet:
[Classic support is] certainly not very high on the priority list… In recent versions of Mac OS X, we actually stopped installing Classic by default because very few—if any—people use it anymore…We’ve done research to determine who buying new products from us is using Classic. You really can’t find hardly anyone who does anymore
If there is enough of an outcry, Apple may work towards making Classic compatible with Intel-based Macs, but I don’t see it happening. It’s time to come to the realization that Classic is dead, and it isn’t coming back. Rest in peace.
Another area that you may run into problems is if you run applications that take advantage of the AltiVec technology in PowerPC chips. Ray-tracing, 3D modeling and other processor-optimized applications such as those will most likely be unable to run under Rosetta. Performance would be far too slow.
There are a few other restrictions to applications that can run under Rosetta:
- Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor will not run. Remember, Rosetta emulates a G3 processor.
- Applications that depend on kernel extensions will not run. You can check what kernel extensions are installing on your system by typing
kextstat | grep -v apple. in Terminal. This will show you all non-Apple extensions. Even Apple extensions will have to be rewritten. I assume this was part of the Intel-ifying of Mac OS X. - Bundled Java applications won’t run either.
If you are a gamer, the results of the Intel switch are still up in the air. It’s no secret that presently it’s difficult to get any decent games ported over to the Mac. Since Apple won’t be locking the hardware to prevent the installation of Windows, it is conceivable that you could configure a dual-boot environment. What this means is that for gaming you could run a native version of Windows XP. Whenever you want to play games, you can reboot your Mac and launch into Windows.
Most current games will be unable to run at all in Rosetta. Games by design are coded to take advantage of the AltiVec engine to squeeze as much performance as possible. Since that is not emulated, the game will need to be recompiled as a universal binary. Good luck getting game developers to port your ancient copy of Quake 2 to Intel.
Many novice users will see that Apple is running on the same Pentium chips that their Windows machines are running and assume they can then run Windows applications. That is not the case. Windows and Mac OS X are still worlds apart in terms of applications. You will still need to run your Windows applications in an emulator like Virtual PC. While the hardware is changing, the software is still a hurdle.
Developers, Developers, Developers
Apple has gone to great lengths to make sure the change in processors is as transparent and easy on users as possible. They have also done their best to ensure that most developers can easily port their applications to the Intel platform with little fuss.
To ease in the transition, Apple unveiled ADC members Xcode 2.1. The new version of the Apple development environment allows for the creation of universal binaries. For Cocoa applications, you set the application’s target SDK to be 10.4u and then set the Architectures to be both Intel and PowerPC.
As a developer, one of the questions I had was concerning the difference in file size between a current Mac OS X application and one compiled for both Intel and PowerPC. To test this, I checked out a fresh copy of my open source to-do list application Check Off from my Subversion server and compiled it for both platforms. First, I created a PowerPC only binary in Xcode 2.1 using the default Deplyoment build settings using the PowerPC-only Mac OS X 10.4 SDK. Next, I created a universal binary with the same settings, but built against the 10.4u SDK. As you can see there is little difference in the size. As always, your application’s mileage may vary.
Where developers will run into problems is if they are using processor-specific code. The PowerPC is big endian while Intel chips are little endian. Endianness deals with the byte order numbers are stored on your system. If your application is concerned with byte orders, this transition will be painful.
If you are using Metrowerks’ Codewarrior instead of Xcode, there will be even more pain. Codewarrior does not support universal binaries, so developers working in that environment will have to switch to Xcode and then port their applications. There is no word on whether Metrowerks will build support for universal binaries into their application.
From talking to developers at WWDC, many have been able to get their applications running on Intel with little trouble. The key is the Cocoa framework. Apple said that it should take Cocoa developers less than two weeks to get their applications ported, and for many, it’s just a few button clicks. Carbon developers using Xcode will have a bit more work, but not nearly as much as those in Codewarrior.
To help ease the transition, Apple is making available transition kits to Select and Premier ADC members that include an Intel based Power Mac, sample code and technical support. The kit is $999, but you will have to return the Mac in a year. If you are a small shareware developer that uses Cocoa, you probably don’t need to spend the thousand dollars on the development kit. The kit is more designed for large shops that make software full-time. Even so, I still want one!
Is it the right time to buy?
After evaluating all of this, many users will ask themselves if the time is right to buy a new Macintosh with a PowerPC chip that will be nonexistent in a year or two? Absolutely. When people ask me when they should buy a new Mac, I always tell them to get it when they need it. If you need a new Mac to complete your work and can’t go on with your current machine any longer, go buy a new desktop or portable. It will be supported for many years to come. If you can wait, wait.
Personally, I was going to purchase a new Powerbook this summer, but I have decided to hold out for an Intel-based Mac. I have a 500MHz G3 iBook that is long in the tooth, but since I only use it to check e-mail, do light Xcode development, and take class notes in VoodooPad, I don’t need the horsepower at this moment. I have a desktop with more than enough horsepower to accomplish the high-end tasks I want to complete.
On my personal weblog, I sought out the opinion of regular Mac users on the switch to Intel. I got responses from graphic designers, Windows developers and regular Mac users. Here is what they are saying. Feel free to share your opinion in the comments.
If switching to Intel will allow Apple to remain on the cutting edge then I am all for it. There are rumors that the cost of Macs will go down and performance will go up. That would be great. PowerPC didn’t live up to their end of the deal with Steve. I think things might have been different if he could have stood on stage and announced a Powerbook G5. Since he couldn’t, I can’t say I blame him for the switch. — Emily Hambidge, MacZealots Editor
Apple is a great software company that makes its living on hardware sales. I want the beauty and ease of Mac OS X with the compatibility and convenience of running the operating system that everyone else is. This will let it happen. It’s the great equalizer…Goodbye megahertz myth and rationalizing slower performance. Choices will be made on the power of the software, the service to developers and customers and the quality of the hardware versus the price. Let the better software company win. — Judi Sohn
As long as the compuer works and is able to run my applications, I really don’t care who makes the chips inside my computer and if Apple can make the best machines with an Intel cpu, so be it, I’m still going to use it if it works just as good as it does with the PPC. — Margus Holland
Quick, who is the manufacturer and what is the model number of the CPU in your iPod? Answer: Doesn’t matter. — Scott Schram
Everytime this has happened in the past, Apple has lost clients. However, they will be bringing their Operating System to the largest hardware market available and therefore may gain some new clients. Microsoft should be revising their strategy to meet the challenge that will most deffinately be placed on them once Apple is available for Intel-based CPUs. — Mark Hagan
Justin Williams is founder and chief author for MacZealots. He switched to the Mac almost five years ago hasn't looked back since. When not blogging or coding, you can find him watching copious amounts of TV. Justin can be reached at
Reader Comments (26)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed below are those of their authors and not necessarily endorsed or supported by MacZealots.com. In all cases, the comments provided here are offered as a courtesy and will be moderated. Any content deemed off-topic or offensive will be removed without notice. Posting a comment here boils down to two things: 1.) Think before you type 2.) Respect the thoughts of others. See our commenting guidelines and/or privacy policy for more information.
#1) On June 10, 2005 7:19 AM
Bob Cringely has a very different take on the switch. He says it is all about business.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
#2) On June 10, 2005 1:18 PM
Great summary Justin! By now, I think most Mac users, myself included, are ready to put this topic behind us and continue to focus on what the future will bring. Apple has established en excellent track record of producing great products. Moreover, I think Steve’s decision to switch to Intel processors is a direct reflection of the commitment he feels necessary for Apple to continue down the path of innovation for several years to come.
#3) On June 11, 2005 12:22 PM
Unbelievable! Microsoft switches its OS aka Windows XP to the PPC platform. Drops Intel. See latest article on …
#4) On June 12, 2005 6:30 PM
Does this mean Linux on Intel is dead? Mac OS X for Intel now means there is a great Unix-based OS for the Intel architecture.
#5) On June 14, 2005 8:52 PM
Thanks for the well-explained article!
Apple’s future looks interesting. Perhaps Mactels (Mac+Intels) can run software as fast as Office on XP. I’ll be looking forward to the day when Macs won’t be “slower” than PCs running XP.
Having no support of AltiVec is a big downside, but I don’t play games on the Mac as much; I’ll be satisfied if Quartz Extreme runs well on Mactels.
#6) On June 17, 2005 2:46 PM
I’ll try to bi mild here.
Apple+Intel … the 2 big intimidators on the market officialy getting married. 2 of the worst.
For all of you that are not into PCs (win), Intel has a horrible record on standard for CPU slots and sockets. they trail badly behind AMD, ask any hardcore gamer. It’s about performance per dollar.
OK, so on one side we have the horrible record of intel for CPU Socket CONSISTENCY.
Add to that the Apple horrible record for OS (backward-compatibility) CONSISTENCY.
And you get an INCOSISTENCY behemoth.
…rough times are ahead of MAC zealots.
#7) On June 18, 2005 1:53 PM
I think Jerome is right on the whole topic about AMD vs Intel that Amd is better but the switch i think is very important to mac users.
I use my macs for video and 3d work and the rendering time is killing me and we need faster processors.
i have a dual 2.7 with 4.5 gb ram and it takes me 3 to 4 hours to encode a 2.5 hr movie to mpeg 2. If the encode would be faster then realtime like hardware encoders i would be a very happy man. So maybe the switch is the right way to go.
#8) On June 19, 2005 4:07 AM
The departure of Classic is not a good thing for geologists. Early on, and through the mid to late 90s, there were still a number of developers who were producing a variety of geological mapping programs for the Mac. Failure of Apple to court or help these developers of earth science software meant that more and more of these Mac-based applications vanished as Mac earth science software users dwindled. So, unfortunately, the only Mac geological mapping programs that are still around are orphan products that never made the switch to OsX - MCadContour, Surface III and MacGridzo. They still run under classic and are the ONLY really cartographic products focused on geologic uses. With the appearance of Intel-based Macs those of us in the geological community are left with few options.
The only viable choices will probably be the few GIS programs that support geological mapping (TNTMips which is very expensive and open source GRASS) but that have very steep learning curves and which mostly deal with functionality not useful in geological mapping.
The loss of Classic for the few of us trying to do geological mapping on a Mac will be disasterous.
#9) On June 20, 2005 10:08 PM
(Relatedly?) I’ve heard rumours that the next generation of Mac OS would not be based on Darwin/BSD core but a new core would be written by Apple. Is that true?
#10) On June 22, 2005 7:12 AM
I have a feeling that Apple will be selling more hardware when they switch to Intel. Why? You may say so.
I say, Apple hardware design is excellent. Windows people always wanted such high quality and nice looking hardware. Windows running on Intel Mac boxes is now possible — and native. No emulation.
Apple will make up lost customers.
I look at it this way:
- Intel will be slower in the beginning.
- I see PowerBooks running Intel M processors.
- I can play (Windows-only) great games on my Intel PowerBook. Windows.
- Microsoft will love this switch. It allows them to sell Windows to more customers.
- If you have seen latest Tiger benchmarks on PowerPC G5 Dual 2.7Ghz, you will know that PowerPC is not doing Tiger any good.
- Price going down? No. For one, quality is NOT going down. Okay? www.alienware.com Some PCs cost more than PowerMacs with Dual 2.7Ghz. Price going up? May be in some configuration.
No more. The show will start in 2006. So, let’s see! :)
#11) On June 22, 2005 4:19 PM
@Art Busbey:
You may check out the following geo mapping apps: Geo-T by www.interstudio.net, thuban.intevation.org , www.crog.org/dplot/ , Triangle Man by www.islandspirits.com , Geo3D or Metes and Bounds which are listed at osx.hyperjeff.net/apps. There also is GRASS GIS for Mac OS X: wwwamb.bologna.enea.it/forgrass/ . Further software info sites are www.macscience.net and www.ggsd.com (just go to Main Index)!
#12) On June 23, 2005 1:43 PM
@Art Busbey: www.gueritte.plus.com/geomax.html (a very good Mac GIS resource) !
#13) On June 25, 2005 9:01 AM
re: geoscience apps: How about the Generic Mapping Tools ( www.geoware-online.com/products.html ). Also worth a visit: www.ruf.rice.edu/~ben/gmt.html (see iGMT) and www.ncl.ucar.edu/Download/macosx.shtml !
#14) On June 25, 2005 9:18 AM
A must-visit for geo pros: www.geocap.no (which also should run on Mac OS X).
#15) On June 25, 2005 9:19 AM
A must-visit for geo pros: www.geocap.no (which also should run on Mac OS X).
#16) On July 6, 2005 8:59 PM
As a scientist who does some fairly heavy computational work on G5-based PowerMacs, and has adopted Objective-C/Cocoa for the development of new applications, I have a couple of concerns about the switch. (1) Is Apple serious about supporting 64-bit computing? Xcode 2.1 only supports the i386 instruction set, so at present there are no 64-bit extensions (AMD64 or EM64T). (2) How will the float-point performance of the Intel chips measure up to that of the G5’s which have 2FPUs in addition to the Altivec unit. I haven’t seen either of these points addressed in much detail in either the Apple developer material, or in the various blogs.
Apple’s scitech mailing list has been filled with much angst about the switch, but it seems to me that this has received little attention outside of the science community.
Apple up till now has courted computational science, but is it loosing interest as it seeks wider markets?
#17) On July 14, 2005 8:02 PM
Muuu!
#18) On August 13, 2005 4:51 PM
I think Intel should start to agree on and define a roadmap and publish it when they feel it is a little more sturdy, people don’t know which way it is going for sure.
Is it going to be pentium 4 systems exactly the same as they are now? with a big red Apple with a bite in it sticker over what used to say Compaq?
or are they going to use Apple Mac devices and interupts and pheripherals,
a brand new socket ? or slot?
will it have the heat problems of quad pumped ? will their be a dual core version? with future support for quad core?
a Pentium-M on desktop, or a variation with some G5 instruction or some G5 abilities?
will there be mix and match of PCI devices and Mac devices?
will it be a more stream lined system (hardware) than windows machines?
Some concerns about Intel architecture:
small L1 cache ?? from Pentium to Pentium 4
Pentium-M has a decent sized L1 cache
Apples FSB is up to 1350Mhz straight pumped on server editions
Intel took the dead DEC quad pumped FSB and implemented it in all their
chips
DEC went under because of EV7 problems (and EV9) which was very unfortunate
transistors work best with 1’s and 0’s
not 0 1 2 3
less switching time and distance with just 0 and 1
leave quantum computing to a specialized device (a tube/ micro-tube array? - expensive and not very paved)
Quad pumped are up to 1066Mhz and generating more heat than ever.
and generates at least 35% more heat per effective Mhz, and heat per sq mm is something to pay attention to.
What was wrong with single pumped????
LGA775 - what a Land Grid array - all the pins are ass backwards
but I don’t know enough about LGA to really complain about it
Does a giant L2 Cache really add any signifigant performance that is worth the extra heat per square mm????
why isn’t 64KB or 128KB or 256KB of L2 Cache
enough?
Why isn’t Apple getting AMD to do their dirty work?
when I disable my L2 cache I lose about 5% performance and 12% heat.
Low power PCs - why not make a new standard low voltage PCI for lower power but still powerful performance?
If my PC tower is 450W - 550W and my monitor is 350W - 600W how much heat difference is that from just sitting in front of my stove and turning the burner up to 7??
or 10 in some cases.
On a hot sunny day I’ll be thinking wow I should have gotten an air conditioner instead.
would’ve been cheaper.
on the other hand (OTOH) in winter I would like to have a somewhat of a power hungry machine.
a nice five point dial on the front of a case that has connection to the motherboard
so at high I can run it at full speed on the CPU and the recommended voltage.
but can turn it down to low power mode from high/normal to mid high performance to medium to med-low to low.
where low is the reasonably slowest CPU freq and voltage settings I would still want to use the computer at. and I could re-boot to normal speed for gaming and high end stuff.
The most power hugry devices are: the CPU, Hard Drives, Video card.
There should be a LCD in the Front case indicating speed and voltage and maybe estimated wattage
This would also be a solution for CRO - IBM committed to CRO - Continuous Reliable Operation. of their devices.
That is something server builders look for. Just One factor though among a handful such as eas of use and what ever,.
keeping power down and reliability up.
Having a master and slave configuration of CPUs might help also for example a 3 processor die, two slave that talk back and for and perform tasks and a master that is able to assign tasks and monitor and perform tasks on the side. and having a master board with daisy chaining slave boards.
Each for a server node or set of nodes.
Steve Jobs is a Business man, so Is Mr. Otellini.
What they need is a Nerd like me.
I offer my services starting at $600 an hour.
Tongue in cheek there. =P
#19) On September 8, 2005 11:53 PM
the Motorola 68k series were all RISC chips.
modern Pentiums are internally RISC, but have a hardware instruction translation layer that converts from legacy x86 CISC instructions to a internal RISC instruction set. This is wasted silicon that only takes away from perforance and/or efficiency.
as was proven by MIPS vs. VAX, CISC is a thing of the past. luckily Intel is hamstrung by legacy interoperability. They tried to escape with Itanium but no one else jumped on. So they are still stuck with the flawed x86 ISA. and now so is Apple.
#20) On September 27, 2005 11:36 PM
Steave this is it you just lost Apple & your “Mac” to the PC buying punk’s that can & will steal your OS Apple is nolonger a NASA Moon rover or a Sic, Math CPU it is a Dell in a nice box that for 3,000 can fun OS X & maybe XP at the sametime but Longhorn? Cross your fingers Steave what Berry said is right RISC is Intel remember Next WDF? why would you try & F%^*$# your self agen & me as well I like my G5 & PowerBook. Apple will lose big if they don’t stay with the New Freescale PowerPC’s or IBM’s Power.org tha
#21) On October 4, 2005 1:14 PM
I think the switch to Intel is good. Though it still presents problems in the near future for current and new mac users of today. This is a big change and do I think Mac fans (normal users and developers) will tag along behind Apple for this rough journey? I predict for some yeah, they will stick behind Apple, but a lot will say enough is enough and the whole “Apple Buzz Theory” will work againest them. It’s going to be a bumpy ride for customers and developers as customers just want something that works and isn’t going to give them a lot of trouble. Developers on the other hand don’t want to continue the switch up game time after time. Mac’s will lose the buzz if they continue being a novelty.
The whole of Apple needs to be locked in a large room, with an average PC custom built… The door should be locked and they shouldn’t be allowed out until they are able to make OS X run nativly without any complications or problems. Customers/users should be able to add hardware of their chioce and Apple should keep up with this - not the customers keeping up with Apple. This will put the “choice” back into the customer’s/user’s hands.
You know, I am currently typing this short article on my brand new iBook G4. I am over all happy with it, however there are some problems and things that irritate me. I want to plug in my camera and use it. But, it won’t work. You know, if that were to be different and I could plug in any old camera and it would just work - I think that would mean more to me and be more signifigant than the type of CPU the computer has in it. I don’t want to worry about more - I want to worry about less. Make the current work well - then and only then move on to bigger and better things.
#22) On October 11, 2005 8:58 AM
well thats the great thing about this switch. more software companies are going to be producing for the new macs. The cpu architecture is the same so the main problem will be switching over to the unix based system. In the future those kind of problems will work themselves out not through apple but the software companies that make products for the mac
#23) On October 20, 2005 6:33 AM
hi guys,
some of you were refering to the GIS ressources page for OS X , well it has moved .
It is now on www.gueritte.net/geomax.html
#24) On November 30, 2005 5:14 PM
I have just found out about the new intel based macs and have read all I can about the subject. I am a longtime mac user and need/want a new computer. I was about to buy a dual 2.3 when I learned about the intel switch. I don’t know if I will buy a new mac now, or buy a cheap dell to tide me over while Apple finishes its transformation. This is all very confusing and making the right choice calls for much speculation.
#25) On December 16, 2005 12:51 AM
I think it’s better for Apple to concentrate and spend on other research. The entire in-house design thing is too much for Apple to handle it.
#26) On February 7, 2006 11:27 PM
I want to know why no one has made an application for the translation of processor instruction code and OS/API calls. A one-time emulator. I say make this, and not worry about the chip- just make it as efficient as possible.
People should be able to port their own software on demand, from any platform they choose to any other, and even automatically optimise it to take advantage of all available instruction sets. It’s simple. Specifiy aplication origins, identifying APIs, instruction sets, OS, etc. Then generate an extended code matrix that could run indipendently on a machine, then translate all intermediate code to native, and simplifiy code with API/OS calls. If people weren’t jerks about “intellectual property”, then this wouldn’t be an issue. Capitalsim [stinks] for advancing technology. We should have one IT entity that we control in a purely democratic fashion. If only… Anyone for further discussion: ethana2@gmail.com. Adios.