Apple's Press Release

[willrob]

At its Worldwide Developer Conference today, Apple announced plans to deliver models of its Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors by this time next year, and to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007. Apple previewed a version of its critically acclaimed operating system, Mac OS X Tiger, running on an Intel- based Mac to the over 3,800 developers attending CEO Steve Jobs' keynote address. Apple also announced the availability of a Developer Transition Kit, consisting of an Intel-based Mac development system along with preview versions of Apple's software, which will allow developers to prepare versions of their applications which will run on both PowerPC and Intel-based Macs.

"Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "It's been ten years since our transition to the PowerPC, and we think Intel's technology will help us create the best personal computers for the next ten years."

"We are thrilled to have the world's most innovative personal computer company as a customer," said Paul Otellini, president and CEO of Intel. "Apple helped found the PC industry and throughout the years has been known for fresh ideas and new approaches. We look forward to providing advanced chip technologies, and to collaborating on new initiatives, to help Apple continue to deliver innovative products for years to come."

"We plan to create future versions of Microsoft Office for the Mac that support both PowerPC and Intel processors," said Roz Ho, general manager of Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit. "We have a strong relationship with Apple and will work closely with them to continue our long tradition of making great applications for a great platform."

"We think this is a really smart move on Apple's part and plan to create future versions of our Creative Suite for Macintosh that support both PowerPC and Intel processors," said Bruce Chizen, CEO of Adobe.

The Developer Transition Kit is available starting today for $999 to all Apple Developer Connection Select and Premier members. Further information for Apple Developer Connection members is available at developer.apple.com. Intel plans to provide industry leading development tools support for Apple later this year, including the Intel C/C++ Compiler for Apple, Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple, Intel Math Kernel Libraries for Apple and Intel Integrated Performance Primitives for Apple.

[terryj]

WTF?!?!

so now, will the machines be dual OS bootable?
( Win Longhorn and Tiger?)

[MerlinMacuser]

Isn't this one of the signs of the Apocalypse?

[Ladd]

My crystal ball predicts that Intel CPU chip that the Mac OS X will run on will be Mac-specific; i.e. you will need that special CPU chip to run OSX, it won't run on a plain ol' Dell or eMachines from Wal-Mart.

I'm willing to bet that the Intel "DRM built into the CPU" feature will be used also.

Will the Mac also load and run some version of Windows? That's certainly possible. If the Transitive Emulator works as well as they are hinting that it will, running Windows might not be necessary though.

I'll leave it to gear-heads to debate the relative merits of Motorola, IBM, or Intel CPUs -- I personally don't care if my computer runs on hamsters as long as it will run OS X.

[coldheart]

The motto goes from "Think Different" to "Think the Same"

[WiseWeasel]

As long as MacOS X runs as expected, and processor-native builds of software come out quickly (as indications point to), this really shouldn't affect us too much, other than hopefully getting better performance (or there wouldn't be much of a reason to switch). For example, MacTheRipper should be able to compile for x86 without changing a thing (apart from checking an option in Xcode); at least in theory. Overall, the transition to x86 will be much easier on developers than the transition from MacOS 9 to X, since so few apps use assembly nowadays. The only major problem developers will face are testing and bugfixing issues if there are any differences in behavior on different CPUs.

[pixeljammedia]

I've always thought that what makes Apple "Different" was their user experience. Is the iPod the most economical MP3 player? Not really, but the iTMS and iTunes and the iPod make for a great unified music experience. iLife, iWork, Final Cut Studio provide the same thing in their respective genres. Ask any Mac user and they'll explain that it is just more enjoyable using a Mac. There are less crashes, no viruses, fewer worries from day to day. As long as they can continue that user experience they will keep their user base. As long as they can keep their hardware profit margins they'll be fine. A component is a component. I'm just sad that my Dual 2.5 is obsolete in 3 years.

[vitualis]

My crystal ball predicts that Intel CPU chip that the Mac OS X will run on will be Mac-specific; i.e. you will need that special CPU chip to run OSX, it won't run on a plain ol' Dell or eMachines from Wal-Mart.

Read the actual announcement. As I have written in the other thread, there is absolutely no reason why Intel would create a new CPU for Apple and nor would it be economically feasible to do so. Apple is going to be using standard Pentium 4 CPUs.

There may well be proprietary components in the mobo or chipset to prevent non-Apple machines from running MacOS x86 though.

I'm willing to bet that the Intel "DRM built into the CPU" feature will be used also.

There is no special DRM feature in the new P4s. That was a rumour that has been proven incorrect.

Regards.

[spiderman2k1]

download this radio show the people from TECHTV talk about this

http://www.twit.tv/hi-b/

[spiderman2k1]

Apple exec: Windows may run on Intel Macs, but OS X won't run on PCs


http://digg.com/apple/Apple_exec:_Windows_may_run_on_Intel_Macs,_but_OS_X_won_t_run_on_PCs

[miksu]

Well, P4 will be buried (fortunately) by the day Apple is using Intel chips. So, no current P4 toaster will be seen in Mac, except development units. Mini would be rather Maxi with 120W TDP Prescott CPU (it's G4 is somewhere near 8-10W TDP).

IMHO, PPC would have been better. It's more sophisticated and IBM still has more advanced mfg. facilities and technologies (advanced SOI etc.).

[vitualis]

I think that the argument that the PPC is more "sophisticated" is a very flawed. Obvious Apple is chasing where the future of desktop CPUs are... which is not the PPC. IBM has made no great advances in the PPC for a while. They are probably more interested in the Cell processor as a line of development and interesting though this is, it is unlikely to be ready for desktop computing in the short to medium term.

Also, a Mini running on a Pentium M will have a TDP of around 25 Watts AND will have processing power comparable to the P4s and A64s. The G4 is two, perhaps even three generations out of date compared to the latest x86 CPUs... and there is no indication from IBM of making a G5 processor that could run in a low heat and low power environment.

Regards.

[pixeljammedia]

As far as "more sophisticated" manufacturing, both IBM and Intel have 90nm fabs with the 12 inch wafers. They have both developed .13 micron processes, both using copper. I don't see there being much difference in manufacturing cepability.

Give Intel manufacturing their due. (as a former Intel manufacturing tech AKA "WIP Monkey" I may be a bit biased) This has never really been about the quality of IBM vs. Intel die. My problems with Intel have always stemmed from their marketing. Over-hyping clock speed, re-branding standard 802.11 technology as Centrino, the stripped-down chip that is the Celeron... none of this has been about the engineering and quality of the chip but how they have been sold. PC stability issues have always come from the security of Windows and the chimera of multiple hardware suppliers. Macs and Apple will be fine using Intel chips. The P4 process is stable as is Itabium and multicore systems are becoming more and more ubiquitous. The differences between RISC and CISC are almost too inconsequential to talk about. In other words I stand by my previous assessment, a component is a component. If I have a chevy or a ford under the hood I do not care as long as it drives.

[miksu]

IMHO, Intel has been one to adopt technologies, not to develop. No SOI from Intel. Copper for few years now, G3 (PPC750) has used copper wiring since -98 or -99. All G4s use Cu-tech and Altivec is still superior to newest SSE.

[qshartle]

Well, this sounds interesting. I am going to guess that apple is trying to lower the costs of their comps, to increase their profits even more. Either way I am still going to keep my PPC comps on hand in case that the intel versions arent up to what they are meant for.


Q

[Ladd]

...there is absolutely no reason why Intel would create a new CPU for Apple and nor would it be economically feasible to do so. Apple is going to be using standard Pentium 4 CPUs.

I can see a scenario with Apple using off-the-shelf CPUs -- then they will add a proprietary ROM to the motherboard (like they did back in the old days) that will be necessary to boot the Intel OS X.

Net result is the same -- no Intel OS X on anything but Apple-branded hardware.

[willrob]

Whatever form the transition takes, it will spell higher costs to the end user. IF you upgrade to the new hardware, will it require new versions of Final Cut Pro or DVD Studio Pro for example? Yes. Will your Classic apps still run? No. Will your current apps run on the new hardware? Not unless Apple creates something similar to Classic for current apps. If they don't, that's more money out of pocket.

If you don't upgrade your hardware, you have to wonder how long software developeres, such as Adobe, Macromeida, etc, will produce two versions of their applications. It may be easy for them to do this, with the transition application Apple has created; and the market share for the installed base of Tiger & Panther users will probably be larger—at least initially—than the Leopard users, so they will likely do it for a few years.

But eventually we will either have to make the move—hardware and software—or be content with our current technology. Blueray, by the time it arrives, might only be available on the new platform.

[terryj]

Here's where this is all headed:

start here, then read all corrosponding links through out:

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html






SpoilerS:

It makes PERFECT SENSE.... Apple has been headed towards
an all in one iEntertainment store for a LOONG time, and
now with the advent of the Pentium D chips, Hollywood
will stop once and for all any illegal copying of movies
and "casual ripping".
Best to keep a hold of your current machines boys and girls!

[DereX888]

It makes PERFECT SENSE.... Apple has been headed towards
an all in one iEntertainment store for a LOONG time, and
now with the advent of the Pentium D chips, Hollywood
will stop once and for all any illegal copying of movies
and "casual ripping".
Best to keep a hold of your current machines boys and girls!

LOL you mean "Hollywood will stop once and for all any illegal copying of movies and "casual ripping" among them entire few percent of Mac users worldwide?

Apple's market share was shrinking significantly every year since "Windows 95 on a PC" took over personal comuting, and it would go down to ZERO in next couple of years, isn't it obvious? This 'sudden' (to some) switch to x86 architecture was the only viable soluion for Apple to survive.
As I said in other thread - it is to mutual benefit of current PC users and Mac users: 'PC users' will have new OS to choose from - some kind of MAC OS for x86, while 'Mac users' will have abundance of PC gear to use from.
Ofcourse it won't be that easy at the begining, but in 5 years or less Im almost sure I will be reading this old post on a "PC with Mac OS for x86" build around motherboard sporting some logo saying "designed for Windows/Mac OS"

Face it: PCs are superior to Macs already (hardware-wise), all they need is good OS. Mac OS X for x86 is all it needs.

[miksu]

Face it: PCs are superior to Macs already (hardware-wise), all they need is good OS. Mac OS X for x86 is all it needs.

PCs aren't nowhere near superior form technological point. That's fact. P4 and all x86 compatibles have lot of hardware built-in, that is only required because of compatiblity with ancient and buried 8088/8086/386 CPUs. You can ask these things from anyone who does programming. P4 has bad bus design, if compared to AMD64 or PPC970. PPC970 has full duplex bus running at over GHz (that's BOTH directions). Only to mention few things even current Mac/PPC arhitecture is far superior. For example, Ars Technica has more about those things. www.arstechnica.com

As engineering student, I like elegant and sophisticated technology and solutions. x86 hardly is elegant.

About marketshare, it's been rather steady 3...3,5%. Not going to zero. As markets grow, percentage hasn't declined. It means more sold units.

Maybe we soon have floppy drives (since Intel chipset has support) and PS/2 ports, RS-232, IEEE1284 (Centronics, LPT) and other antiquated (legacy) stuff that every PC has (and Intel does in chipsets). Better get used to fiddling BIOS-options like ISA Memory Hole 15-16Mb, Spread spectrum control, AGP aperture size, LPT use DMA1, GateA20 control option, to mention few

From engineering point, Intel and whole x86 sux. Even old Motorola 68000 series is even currently much more elegant than x86. And that architecture is almost as old as x86.

[rumplestiltskin]

I was perusing the Intel "Processor Roadmap" and saw that horrific Celeron still dragging its nappy a** along the gutter, so to speak.

If Apple ever sticks one of those turd droppings into an "Intel Mac", I'll lead the rabble in burning down 1 Infinite Loop.

(I know they won't do it but it would be a nightmare, eh?)

[rumplestiltskin]

From engineering point, Intel and whole x86 sux. Even old Motorola 68000 series is even currently much more elegant than x86. And that architecture is almost as old as x86.

The soul of a Mac is OSX. There's your elegance. Let the geeks argue about CPUs while the rest of us get down to business with OSX on our Macs. Which processor is in your Mac? It doesn't matter as long as it screams and is stable.

While I'd love to get one of those "seed" P4 Tower units ($999+$500 for the Select ADC membership), having to return it at the end of 2006 would be a real downer. Perhaps I'd be better off learning Xcode and C++ to prepare and simply run it on the dual-G5 sitting on my desk right now.

[vitualis]

PCs aren't nowhere near superior form technological point. That's fact. P4 and all x86 compatibles have lot of hardware built-in, that is only required because of compatiblity with ancient and buried 8088/8086/386 CPUs. You can ask these things from anyone who does programming. P4 has bad bus design, if compared to AMD64 or PPC970. PPC970 has full duplex bus running at over GHz (that's BOTH directions). Only to mention few things even current Mac/PPC arhitecture is far superior. For example, Ars Technica has more about those things. www.arstechnica.com

As engineering student, I like elegant and sophisticated technology and solutions. x86 hardly is elegant.

Sorry, but elegance does not equal superiority. It depends on your perspective.

I think that most people agree that the P4 is not as "elegant" as the G5 but let us consider this clearly. Yes, the P4 has all sorts of clunky bits in it that allows it to maintain binary compatibility with my old DOS 1.0 software. The G5 does not. And yet, the best P4 processor is frankly miles ahead of performance compared to the best G5 processor. The best Athlon64 processor not only outperforms the G5 but also has much much lower thermal envelop. And let us not forget the Pentium M. Better performance per clockspeed and vastly lower power consumption.

And it maintains binary compatibility.

From engineering point, Intel and whole x86 sux. Even old Motorola 68000 series is even currently much more elegant than x86. And that architecture is almost as old as x86.

Yes, but people buy a computer clearly not from an engineering point of view.

As for your AltiVec statement, it is not better than SSE/2/3 in a pragmatic sense simply because most things aren't optimised for it. GCC (compiler used for MacOS X), does a pretty poor job at creating AltiVec optimised code (and SSE optimised code too). The Intel compiler, however, does a pretty darn good job at making SSE optimised code and it makes a real difference.

Regards.

[vitualis]

The soul of a Mac is OSX. There's your elegance. Let the geeks argue about CPUs while the rest of us get down to business with OSX on our Macs. Which processor is in your Mac? It doesn't matter as long as it screams and is stable.

Agreed. People love Macs because of its look and because of Mac OS. What's inside is really somewhat beside the point.

From a "technical" point of view, the Mac mini is absolutely pathetic. That doesn't stop it from being very popular and having it's own market and uses.

Macs using Intel processors will mean that Macs will stay contemporary with CPU and chipset/platform developments on the "PC" side which is a great thing.

Regards.

[miksu]

Mac Mini is far from pathethic. PC that have same price tag doesn't offer any better performance. Not to mention high quality, one thing why people are ready to pay more for having Mac. It's not only OSX.

Quality of chipsets, PPC970 chipset is superior to any current Intel mainstream chipset. Higher transfer rates etc, more comparable to nVidia chipsets for AMD (Hypertransport) than Intel things..

Instructions per clock cycle, G4 is in about same league as Pentium M and neither of them can be compared to P4 or PPC970. P4 was supposed to reach 6GHz at least, obviously it never will.

[the future]

Apple switched to x86 for one reason alone: IBM couldn't (or wouldn't) deliver a notebook CPU (a "mobile G5") able to compete with the Pentium-M. As laptop marketshare steadily increases, this was inacceptable.

Todays desktop PPCs (970fx AKA "G5" and the rumored multi-core version 970mp) are just as fast as anything Intel or AMD have to offer (with certain idividual strenghts/weaknesses each CPU/CPU family has).

[dcsos]

Without spyware and Code Bloat,
OS X will run far more efficiently than
Longhorn, and perhaps even trounce XP's poor performance on the INTEL chip!

[miksu]

Apple switched to x86 for one reason alone: IBM couldn't (or wouldn't) deliver a notebook CPU (a "mobile G5") able to compete with the Pentium-M. As laptop marketshare steadily increases, this was inacceptable.

Todays desktop PPCs (970fx AKA "G5" and the rumored multi-core version 970mp) are just as fast as anything Intel or AMD have to offer (with certain idividual strenghts/weaknesses each CPU/CPU family has).

Very likely reason. Few sources in semiconductor industry have said, that Apple propably gets their 970s cheaper than what they pay for Intel.

970MP isn't only rumor, since some of its design guides can be obtained from net. And, it's likely to find it's way into Mac, Intel thing or not.

The less spoken thing is, how this influences future Intel chips. IBM added Altivec into PPC970 afterwards (VMX), it may be found also in future Intel chips, depending on the ownership of IP behind.

And then, of course the question, what happens, if Intel isn't going to be able deliver in high end? Don't say Itanic, it's been buried already and would mean third codebase to maintain.

[vitualis]

Instructions per clock cycle, G4 is in about same league as Pentium M and neither of them can be compared to P4 or PPC970. P4 was supposed to reach 6GHz at least, obviously it never will.

Perhaps you should stop looking at the Apple "benchmarks" and have a look on the net at real independent ones (i.e., SAME program, compiled for different platforms). The G4 has on a per clockrate basis, about the same performance as a Pentium III processor. It is better than the P3 in some regards. It is worse than the P3 in others.

It is nowhere even close to be in the same league as the Pentium M.

Again, at a per clock rate basis, a single core Athlon64 has superior performance to dual G4. When you take into account that both the Pentium M and Athlon64 clock much higher than the G4, it is completely out classed in terms of performance.

As for Pentium M vs. Pentium 4 (Prescott), have a look at Tom's Hardware Guide's comparison: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html

On a per clockrate basis, the Pentium M owns the P4. Of course the P4 can run at quite at a much higher clockrate. Even so, the best P-M compares quite favourable with the best single-core P4 (or A64).

The G5 is a nice processor but it is not the Pentium killer it is made out to be. It may well have had superior performance when it first came out, especially in dual-CPU configurations. However, the P4 and Athlons have improved markedly in the last 2 years. The G5 has not. Look at independent benchmarks. The top end single CPU P4/Athlon64/FX systems have performance near or at that of dual-G5. Dual-Xeon/Opteron systems surpass dual-G5 easily.

Most people can freely acknowledge that the G5 is a very nice CPU and that the system architecture on a Mac is probably more "elegant" than in a standard Pentium or Athlon box. However, if you want to go technical, it is the end performance that counts. For some reason, despite all these semi-magical superiorities of the Mac hardware and crappiness of the x86 side, a high end P4 or Athlon system has vastly superior performance to a high end Mac. If you are looking at a "bang for your buck" value rating, the Macs definitely lose out.

As for not being able to get a similarly priced system compared to a Mac mini on the PC side with superior performance, you have got to be joking. Yes, you cannot get something of that remarkable form factor but quite frankly, you would be hard pressed to find a low end, el cheapo, "student" PC that doesn't have vastly superior processing power at that price. Anyone who thinks that people buy the Mac mini for its performance are deluded.

Regards.

[vitualis]

The less spoken thing is, how this influences future Intel chips. IBM added Altivec into PPC970 afterwards (VMX), it may be found also in future Intel chips, depending on the ownership of IP behind.

And then, of course the question, what happens, if Intel isn't going to be able deliver in high end? Don't say Itanic, it's been buried already and would mean third codebase to maintain.

The boundless optimism and arrogance of the Mac fanboy...

Apple is a small customer for both IBM and Intel. That Intel will deliberately change their CPU production for Apple? Not very likely.

IBM's future focus on multicore processors and the Cell processor will more than likely not be ready for desktop computing in the short to medium term. Gaming consoles have different requirements to workstations or desktop PCs (which is why the Xbox got such excellent gaming performance out of such a weakling CPU).

On the x86 side, both Intel and AMD are going towards multicore processors in a different strategy -- that is more compatible with desktop computing. In reality, Apple made the logical choice. The x86 platform for all its flaws WILL have much better performance for desktop computing in the short to medium term. Even Jobs (for all his x86 bashing and PPC evangelising) knew that the PPC path may eventually be limited. Why else would he have kept Mac OS X fully compiled for both PPC and x86? Personally, I think that his strategy is damned clever. Not only has he shown that migration to x86 from PPC is possible, but that it is ALREADY a reality.

Regards.