[Benzyl]

Originally Posted by Brad Nope! Half of his reasons are still invalid because the P4 is a 32-bit CPU and there's been no mention of other processors.

Intel uses the P4 designation to indicate a broad range of chips. If you take a look at the website: http://www.intel.com/products/proces...ium4/index.htm you can see that almost everything 3 Ghz or faster has " Intel Extended Memory 64 Technology" http://www.intel.com/technology/64bi...ions/index.htm and is 64-bit ready. Since the first macs won't be shipping for another 6 to 8 months I would expect every CPU they use will support 64-bit registers and instructions.

Apple is very wise to use the Mach Micro-kernel to it's advantage. Mach gives Apple a quick way out of the grind IBM has been putting them through right now. I am no Intel fan, but I don't think anyone can say that IBM hasn't been a major thorn in Apple's side for the last two years. If Apple had been able to show dual 3.0 G5, 6 months ago and been able to wow people with 3.5 or 4.0 Ghz beasts at this conference then Apple wouldn't be getting in bed with Intel. Heck even a dual core 2.7 Ghz chip might have been enough, but IBM is spread to thin working on Cell, Power 6 and other technologies.

Mac lovers will have to realize that the system they love is the OS and the Apps not the hardware that runs them. When you can buy a Dual core 5 Ghz machine next year you can think of all the ways it is faster while you scratch the "Intel inside" sticker off the case.


Benzyl

[autodata]

Originally Posted by Brad Your Mac is not obsolete. Future versions of software will be available for it. It should easily last you for three years and beyond .

He'll just miss out on using or making any of the potentially cool hacks and applications that will only work on the intel macs. Three years from now we will have had two years of mainstream development on these things, three years total.

[Tuttle]

Originally Posted by BenP If Apple stops selling PPC machines after the move to Intel, what is the incentive for developers to do this? Why shouldn't they make Intel-only software, similar to OSX-only software?

None.

PPC owners will be just as much of a nuisance to developers as 68000 owners are today. Developers keeping around old PPC machines just for testing? No way. They'll be off in some corner in heaps right next to the old 68000 machines no one uses anymore. Or long since dumped in the trash - or sent to the recycler.

[torifile]

Originally Posted by BenP Sorry...bad analogy. The stuff Apple was saying when OSX was released made me think that Classic would continue to be a "live" OS as opposed to something to let you continue to use old stuff. I was new to Apple at that time so maybe I didn't pay enough attention. If Apple stops selling PPC machines after the move to Intel, what is the incentive for developers to do this? Why shouldn't they make Intel-only software, similar to OSX-only software?

Because it's a simple thing for them to do and increases their potential user-base by about 10 million? The worst that I can think is that application sizes will be inflated. It *should* be no different than having language localizations that aren't used (I never use the Danish translation, for example, but those language files are in my iLife apps). I'm sure you could even delete the binary you don't want it, if space is a concern.

*Remember that all the apps that can run in OS 9 and OS X natively (some carbon apps) also have a separate "classic" binary. I think it would be equivalent to this.

[worktop]

Flicking through the Universal Binary Guidelines, I noticed a few interesting points:
- Universal Binaries are already seem to be supported by Tiger PPC (you can tell a fat binary from Get Info)
- Rosetta looks analogous to Classic, and emulates G3 PPC code on an Intel Mac (i.e. non-Altivec code only)
- Both Panther and Tiger have an Altivec abstraction layer called the Accelerate Framework that avoids having Altivec-specific code
- Tiger x86 suports ISA/MMX as an alternative to Altivec
- G4 and G5 apps would need to be ported but don't need lots more work if written according to Apple guidelines.

Looks like a lot of the standard software will work 'out of the box' once run through XCode 2.1 and gcc 4.0 , and may be available much sooner than 2007.

Any real developers here able to comment on this (rather than this amateur)?

[torifile]

Originally Posted by Tuttle None. PPC owners will be just as much of a nuisance to developers as 68000 owners are today. Developers keeping around old PPC machines just for testing? No way. They'll be off in some corner in heaps right next to the old 68000 machines no one uses anymore. Or long since dumped in the trash - or sent to the recycler.

Tuttle, someone should change your user title to "FUD spreader" if you're being serious.

Viewscreen at WWDC shows IBM CEO Samuel J. Palmisano talking to subordinates. He realizes he is on camera and turns to face Jobs.

Palmisano: "Ah yes Mr. Jobs, we are getting ready to deliver your 970GX now."

Palmisano begins choking.

Jobs: "You have failed me for the last time, Palmisano."

Palmisano falls to the floor choking and soon is lifeless.

Next, Jobs gets Michel Mayer, the CEO of Freescale on the viewscreen.

Mayer: "Ah, Mr. Jobs, we are just getting ready to ship to you the 7448 chip with a 200 Mhz bus @ 2 Ghz."

Mayer beings choking and grasping his collar.

Jobs: "You have failed me for the last time, Mayer."

Mayer falls to the floor choking and soon is lifeless.

Originally Posted by Benzyl Mac lovers will have to realize that the system they love is the OS and the Apps not the hardware that runs them. When you can buy a Dual core 5 Ghz machine next year you can think of all the ways it is faster while you scratch the "Intel inside" sticker off the case.Benzyl

As I said before and I'll say it again: Apple used to be about fighting monopoly and uniformity on both the hardware and software fronts.

[darshu]

Some more information from the Universal Binary Guidelines available at
http://developer.apple.com/documenta...sal_binary.pdf

What Can Be Translated?
Rosetta is designed to translate currently shipping applications that run on a PowerPC with a G3
processor and that are built for Mac OS X.
Rosetta does not run the following:
? Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9
? Code written specifically for AltiVec
? Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane
? Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor
? Applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions
? Kernel extensions
? Bundled Java applications or Java applications with JNI libraries that can’t be translated

So Rosetta is certainly no pancaea look forward to buying new copies of Final Cut Pro Studio, etc.

[Tuttle]

Originally Posted by torifile Tuttle, someone should change your user title to "FUD spreader" if you're being serious.

I guess a lot of Mac users are dealing with this disaster by heading off to their own private happy places.

[kaseyha]

No, it's just that a lot of us do not see this as a "disaster".

I finally had to break down and buy an iBook recently because it was plainly obvious that IBM was not going to be able to provide an acceptable G5 chip for Apple to use in a laptop anytime soon. If Intel was able to convince Apple that they can provide the chips that Apple needs when Apple needs them, how could Apple not do this? I care about the OS and the Apps, not the specific hardware configuration, as long as it runs a Mac OS with Mac applications, who cares who makes the chips as long as they can keep up with current hardware demands?

OK, I have to weigh in. I’ve been a Mac user since I bought a MacPlus (memories…IIcx, PM 8500, G4, …). I have a G5 dual 2.5 and love it. I would never (willfully) switch. But…

I don’t see the upside in this; though I have read each of the posts. I will grant that the heart and soul of the Mac is the OS. It was with OS 1 and remains so in OSX. But do you really believe there will be such a thing as a “Mac”(read: hardware) in 5 years or just the MacOS that runs on the same hardware and competes against Windows/Linux/etc. Can Apple achieve a profit by creating new Macs if the Brand X machines will also run the OS? No profit = no machines no matter how well made or sexy. Is someone going to tell me that Apple will create a Mac-specific but Intel-based architecture that hosts only its OS? I find this hard to believe.

So the OS remains. Or does it. Just how many copies of the new MacOS will be needed by the WINTEL world? Switching will still require changing the programs as well and that means $. Will there be a large market shift from Intel machines running Windows to Intel machines running MacOS? Why should there be? That’s what the WINTEL would will ask and rightly so.

So I’ll gloom and doom this forum and you can correct/teach me. I look forward to it. I don’t understand how this is a good move. The arguments will have to be stronger than what I have read so far. Maybe if Apple had Quicktime streamed the Keynote I would already know and feel better. But then, maybe the ‘good news’ merited editing before transmission.

If its gonna be a brave new world out there, those smart folks at Apple will need to be ready. I’ll need a new Mac in a few years.

[sstensla]

What does this mean for us users of expensive dual G5 powermacs? Will this mean that we must transition to new computers in 2 years in order to keep up with newer software updates?

[ppolitop]

Well I am sorry, but people who state the opposites look to me like FUD spreaders. Guys, you know what you are talking about or you are just saying 'don't worry, everything will be ok?' in order to look wiser? Moreover, why don't you contradict the opposite false speculations like the ones stating taht more games will be availiable? The difficulty in porting is the API and OS not the CPU code! (e.g. DirectX)

I think that nothing will be ok. And I will prove my claims.

Altivec No application will ever be optimized for it again. Altivec brings huge difference in terms of performance for G4 and G5. And this kind of optimizations are difficult to code, cost money and are INCOMPARTIBLE with rosetta emulation. So, no sane company will spend money and programmers time to produce code that runs fast on your *brand new* G4/G5. Companies invest money to produce software thinking of long term benefit. In long term g4/g5 will be history. Look at rosetta emulation - no high end app will run on it (g3 emulation / no kext / no control panels). Already many corporations abandoned apple (adaptec, norton, etc) and they are going only to increase in number.

P4 Performance Check at distributed.net G4 and G5 performance. Check johnny the reaper performance. Check anandech / heck check apple claims here. No my friends P4 is not faster, I am sorry, not even on par to g5. That also means that you emulated application performance won't be OK as stated in the keynote. (Imagine what OK means when coming from the mouth of people that want to *sell* you a product - my guess would be SLOW). Moreover, P4 is not more power efficient than G5, in any way. Pentium M IS, though nobody talked about Pentium M which is beaten by g4 in many ways (especially in laptops - power consuption). Please check you facts before repeating like a parrot g5 thermal issues etc, there have been laptops in the intel world having WAY more power hunger proccessors than a g5@1,6ghz! To finish up with P4 performance : intel announced that will discontinue P4 line and will continue using the core of Pentium M derivatives. So, no it doesn't make sence in terms of performance to adopt the dying x86 techonology. Both powerPC and Cell are vastly superior. Don't buy whatever Steve sais, PLEASE.

Apple benefit As for Apple itself I really don't know if this move will help in any way. I can say from previous 'switch' experience that will propably zero the percentage of macs in no time. Previous switches (OS / CPU) cut down the apple market by half. The only thing that I could see happening is selling OSX for generic pc's but that was completely denied. Even if it wasn't denied, HW variety, piracy and competition to MS cannot be ignored as well! I clearly can't see any benefit from this move and I wonder how will apple survive while having low mac sales for at least two years (nobody buying phasing out HW or first rev new tech, slow intel HW). Having also screwed their fans that way, they have turned their best advertising team into bad publicity.

BUT... WHY? I already speculated that this switch has to do with DRM, TCPA, Palladium software control etc. If anybody else has more reasonable claims to make I will be happy to listen to them. But P4 beeing faster! I call BS! WTF guys you are being said "A > B" and you say "YES MASTER" and for the same thing you are being told the opposite "B > A" and you say again "YES MASTER?"

SO I ask you guys saying everything will be OK, why do you say this? I have more things in mind but feel too sick to write them. I really have to justify to my self the fact that I have been collecting money for two years to buy my brand new Power Mac. That power mac that no Software company will write code optimized for it again. that power mac that won't have any new games written for it. That power mac which belongs to the 'fading out' line of G5 proccessors that will not be developed any more (POWER IS different). I doubt even that any more effort will be put on optimizing further gcc 4.0 for altivec / gx. this would at least leave me with linux as an option.

Bye bye apple.

the doc

[Ryan]

First of all, who gives a shit if Apple is "fighting the Intel monopoly" with PowerPC chips? Seriously. Stop acting like a bunch of twelve year olds with these idealistic views of fighting "the Man".

Second, this transition is practically required for any kind of video store. Microsoft is positioning itself to provide Hollywood with a hardware-locked DRM scheme for movies, with Intel's help in engineering the hardware side. Chances of Microsoft allowing Apple in on this? Not good. If OSX and Windows are both using the same architecture, Microsoft can't claim incompatibilities when the inevitable anti-trust lawsuits spring up.

Third, you Mac will not drop dead the second Leopard comes out. I just bought a Powerbook and an eMac recently. I have no regrets. My Powerbook kicks ass! I'm not going to get rid of it just to be on the cutting edge. Is there seriously anything that the current crop of machines can't do that you need them to do(games don't count)? Sure, speed is nice, and very useful, but the fact of the matter is the G5 will still be relevant for some time.

Originally Posted by CubeDude First of all, who gives a shit if Apple is "fighting the Intel monopoly" with PowerPC chips? Seriously. Stop acting like a bunch of twelve year olds with these idealistic views of fighting "the Man".

Monopolies do not innovate and they do overcharge.

[ppolitop]

I still don't see any answer to the things I said. i didn't say anywhere that my machine is obsoletted today. tommorow is importand though! I don't care about monopoly with PPC stuff what I DO care is not having DRM and dangerous techologies such as http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html in my pc! I stated first that this has to do with some kind of DRM, but I hardly can see how this can benefit us the end users. I see slower proccessors, worse architecture, MORE EXPENSIVE MANUFACTURING - check the facts -, DRM and loss of many benefits for current users (check my previous post). So I feel bad. Please back up you claims that everything is at leas OK.

the doc

[FFL]

Originally Posted by BenP If Apple stops selling PPC machines after the move to Intel, what is the incentive for developers to do this? Why shouldn't they make Intel-only software, similar to OSX-only software?

Do you really think they'll be too lazy to check two check boxes instead of one?

[autodata]

But it's much bigger than that. Shiller's comments indicate that we will likely be able to run windows on intel apple hardware. That's just the beginning. People are no doubt going to take advantage of this switch and make some very cool applications, things that we haven't even thought of yet.

[BenP]

Isn't that just the compiler? Don't they still have to change the code?

[darshu]

Originally Posted by FFL Do you really think they'll be too lazy to check two check boxes instead of one?

That's actually something that bothers me. By default Xcode will only compile for the architecture you are building it on. i.e. Compile on an x86 Mac and it will only build an x86 binary, and vice versa for PPC. I would've preferred the default to have been for universal binaries. Moreover just because the code will compile on both platforms, doesn't mean that it will work on both platforms.

#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
int x = 0x12345678;
char* ptr = (char*)&x;

printf("%x\n", ptr[0]);
return 0;
}

This program will print 12 on a PPC mac, and 78 on an Intel Mac. This is a trivial example, but these sorts of things can creep into a program without a programmer realizing, especially any programmer who only programs on one CPU.

There are a host of other issues too. Yes in the best case a recompile and the program will just work -- but in the worst case things can be nasty, regardless of what Jobs says. I've programmed on x86, SPARC, PPC, MIPS. Including doing nasty things like writing an OS that interfaces with a little endian MIPS emulator on big endian SPARC. Things _can_ be nasty.

This may not be the end of the world, but it wont' be a cakewalk. Rosetta won't magically wash your clothes and make your x86 Mac sing to joys of PPC binaries. There is a relatively large list of programs I posted a while back that it will not be able to run. Read some of the documentation on porting Altivec to MMX/SSE/SSE2/SSE3 it's nasty.

Oh and there will be no Open Firmware on the Intel Macs... which increases my fears that we will not only be using x86 processors but basically standard PC architecture (yes, as long as it only runs on Apple machines we likely won't be exposed to the nastiness of that... but the poor hardware and device driver developers will suffer).

[worktop]

I think it's too soon to say whether this is a good thing or bad thing for Mac users and for Apple, because we don't really know anything for sure yet. A little Q&A session (see if you can spot the pattern):

Q: Which x86 Intel processor will Apple be using in their new Macs (Pentium D, Pentium M, Centrino, etc)?
A: We don't know yet.

Q: Will these new Macs also feature other Intel-related features (such as built-in DRM, WiMAX, etc)?
A: We don't know yet.

Q: Will Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard be released for PPC Macs?
A: We don't know yet.

Q: Will Windows run on Intel Macs?
A: We don't know yet.

Q: Will PPC Macs cease to exist after 2006?
A: We don't know yet.

Q: Will existing applications work on the new Intel Macs?
A: We don't know yet.

Q: Is the sky falling in?
A: We don't know yet.

I'd say it was too soon to decide whether to ditch the Mac for Wintel or Linux, or to blindly assume that everything will be fine, based on a one-hour Keynote WWDC presentation. Maybe we need a bit more time to assimilate this switch.

I did see a comment somewhere that said the keynote was running on a quad-processor 3.6GHz Intel Mac. How many quad-G5 boxes have we seen recently? Exactly. I say 'wait and see'.

In the meantime, the current hardware works just fine. I think the AppleNova adage 'if you need it, buy it now. If you don't, wait' applies here...

[FFL]

Originally Posted by BenP Isn't that just the compiler? Don't they still have to change the code?

Not much, depending on how the app is written.

In order to show just how easy it would be to port OS X applications to the Intel platform, Apple comissioned the developers of Mathematica to port their application to an Intel dev kit. The entire Mathematica 5 app was compiled and running on Intel OS X platforms within 2 hours using Xcode 2.1.

It looks like Metrowerks-based apps will require more time...

[autodata]

Originally Posted by worktop Q: Will Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard be released for PPC Macs? A: We don't know yet.

Well, if they are selling ppc mac right up to the 10.5 release date we can pretty safely assume it will. announced so far: 10.5 - late 2006, early 2007. last ppc: around "june 07" (according to the slide)

So according to what was said today, there will likely still be ppc macs being sold when 10.5 is released.

[naren]

I just watched the Keynote, perhaps it's the RDF, perhaps it's the 3 shots of tequila, but I'm feeling a whole lot better about this thing.

The keynote is here by the by: http://stream.apple.akadns.net/

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by ppolitop I still don't see any answer to the things I said. i didn't say anywhere that my machine is obsoletted today. tommorow is importand though! I don't care about monopoly with PPC stuff what I DO care is not having DRM and dangerous techologies such as http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html in my pc! I stated first that this has to do with some kind of DRM, but I hardly can see how this can benefit us the end users. I see slower proccessors, worse architecture, MORE EXPENSIVE MANUFACTURING - check the facts -, DRM and loss of many benefits for current users (check my previous post). So I feel bad. Please back up you claims that everything is at leas OK. the doc

I wasn't replying to you, but to the whole thread in general. The twelve year old comment was directed at others, not you. In fact, I hadn't seen your post. You finished yours first, while I was typing mine.

But anyways, I too am against DRM. I don't use iTunes anymore for this reason. I thought that the convenience was worth it, but I can wait a day or two for FedEx to get me the CD.

However, for the same reasons the RIAA required that Apple build a DRM scheme into iTunes, the MPAA will require similar restrictions.

Originally Posted by Dr. Simon Van Gelder Monopolies do not innovate and they do overcharge.

Intel has some incredible chip designs. Yes, the AMD chips are cheaper, at least retail, but have you ever seen the bulk discounts that Apple will be getting? I haven't, and unless you are pretty high up in Apple I doubt if you have either.

[Banana]

5 pages already, and no explanation on how P4 is supposed to be better than G5....



I can see plain as the sky that they've planned transitions but still.... What about performance?? Wasn't G5 supposed to be faster and better than any chips? Wasn't PPC supposed to be lean, mean code cruncher while x86 requires cream wheat and tapioca pudding diet to be moderately pleased???

Still waiting for some answers.....

[naren]

Originally Posted by Banana 5 pages already, and no explanation on how P4 is supposed to be better than G5.... Still waiting for some answers.....

The reason given by Steve during the Keynote was a "projected roadmap"; watt/performance ratio benefit of Intel, which is a little hard to believe, but whatever.... The ratio given was something like, 14:70 with Intel way out ahead.

[Kyros]

I think we should make it a rule that everyone must watch the keynote before they are allowed to post in this thread . Needs more Steve's Reality Distortion Effect!

I really do think it's a good move. IBM isn't giving them anything at all. The fact taht they are moving to another processor does not inherently imply company death. 68k to PPC worked, so this will work, too. As for the processors actually being better, One will not know until the computers ship, remember that much of what makes P4's slowish these days may be because Windows is inefficient. At the keynote, the computer seemed to run fine to me. They definitely know it is not going to be much slower, because they have been running OSX on x86 as long as they have been running it on PPC.

[BuonRotto]

Yeah, Intel is better as in better business, not necessarily technology, though there are some advantages there too. Most important in terms of tech is that Pentium M's have arguably the most bang for the buck for any processor that can be used in a notebook. Most important in terms of busines is that these chips are commodity, and Apple can simply jump on the volume bandwagon, and streamline its hardware development. There's immense range to the Intel offerings.

Interesting that Apple is basically putting CodeWarrior out to pasture and more or less forcing people to Xcode. Is the Finder still a Metroworks-built app?

[Banana]

Well that's a start.

I could hardly care less who make it, as long its made right. I'm just more bewildered that they're moving to a dying arch, when the current arch is going to be in other systems which demand much more...

I agree that its more about business... I just need someone to tell me its also good technology-wise....