Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
OS X

Journal LordBodak's Journal: Mac Users - Are We Switching to Intel? 18

Journal by LordBodak
Going into WWDC today, there's an awful lot of talk that the PPC -> Intel switch is going to be announced today, with low-end machines switching in 2006 and high-end machines sometime in 2007.

Does this make any sense to anyone? It was two years ago in this very same keynote that the G5 was introduced, bringing 64-bits to the Mac world. Two years later, Intel still doesn't have a viable 64-bit consumer chip. Athlon64 has caught on well, but we're talking about a switch to Intel, not AMD.

Why would we want to go backwards? The x86 architecture really sucks (and I speak from experience having developed at the assembly level on it), while I personally find PPC an elegant architecture. The G5 is currently at 2.7GHz and seems to easily outperform anything Intel has to offer. The G4 is behind the times, but I can't believe a G5 PowerBook is a long way off, and the desktops have all switched (except the Mini, which is it's own story).

I'm concerned, because I don't see the logic behind a switch that takes a step back, and I don't like the idea of seeing OS X and application developers having to make a significant platform change. Not to mention what it might do to Mac sales in the next two years-- why buy a PPC Mac when they've announced it's being made obsolete?

I'm concerned about what might happen at today's keynote. It's at 10:00AM PDT.

Update: So there it is. Intel based Macs starting next year. Not a word on what processor they will use. Developer kit will be available, containing a 3.6GHz Pentium 4. So two years after introducing 64-bits to the masses, Apple is now going to hand their developers a 32-bit chip based on a 20 year old architecture and tell them it's the future.

And IBM is going to make out like a bandit. The game companies are abandoning Intel: all three of the next generation game consoles are based on the PPC. IBM developed a spectacular processor (primarily) for Apple and now they are free from Apple's demands on where it goes from here. They're free of Apple's demands on manufacturing, which will help them meet the needs for Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft for the new consoles.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mac Users - Are We Switching to Intel? More

Mac Users - Are We Switching to Intel?

Comments Filter:
  • It makes me sad that I will never be able to buy a good computer again. I'm going to go cry now.
    • Steve Jobs was getting really angry about Mac rumours spoiling his keynote fun, so he decided to partake in a little revenge by leaking the made-up "secret" that Apple was having serious talks with Intel.

      Whew. I feel better now.
  • I hate to break it to you, but the G5 is far from perfect. Anandtech had a great article comparing the latest G5's, Pentium 4's, and Opterons right here. [anandtech.com]

    The quick and dirty summary: The Opteron owns all and Linux outclasses OS X as a server OS (see the MySQL and Apache benchmarks.)

    Of particular concern to me, is the G5's memory latency leaves a lot to be desired. Since I do a lot of work in image processing, this matters because most image processing is memory bound, not CPU bound. (As a side note: The

    • That aside, more than likely Intel is producing a new kind of chip.

      I think Intel will be releasing a PPC chip. Giving Apple the existing choices of Motorola and IBM, adding an Intel PPC would just offer more choices without platform changes.

      • That is the most likely scenario. The question is: will Intel be able to pull it off correctly. On the other hand: Intel may be wanting to get in the PPC market since so many game consoles are based on it.

        It might prove to be a good business decision for them.

        • I'm with you on that. I think this really is the death knell for the Itanium architecture. Itanium is already a niche chip, and I bet the altivec stuff can do just as well in the number crunching areas where Itanium does excel. Intel will source PPC to Apple, and develop it as a server/workstation chip. Linux PPC is a mature product with a large installed base, so they wouldn't be taking any huge risks there. They have a chance to take the PPC core to places that AMD can't take their chips.

          Look for M

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • From today's version of the NYTimes headlines:

    Apple Plans to Switch From I.B.M. to Intel for Chips
    By JOHN MARKOFF and STEVE LOHR

    The move is a chesslike gambit in a turf war that pits the personal computer industry against an emerging world of consumer electronics focused on the digital home.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06app le.html?th&emc=th [nytimes.com]

    I didn't RTFA, but thought you might be interested.

    ....Bethanie....

  • I don't see this as anything like your interpretation. I can't imagine them going for anything less than 64 bits, which implies at least Itanium 2. This makes sense with the 2006-2007 timeline. It also fits with the sort of processor that Apple seems to prefer (68000 series, then PowerPC).

    I can't see Jobs going back to an x86 architecture, anyway. Despite the fact that I don't agree that it sucks - for what it is, an early-80s based design. One of the prime requisites has always been backward comp
    • Itanium 2 could make sense, but does it _really_ offer anything IBM isn't offering with the PPC970? Note that all of the next generation console game systems are going with IBM PPC chips.

      Increased accessibility for the mainstream remains to be seen. I do not believe we will see OS X running on anything but Apple-branded hardware, no matter whose chip is on the inside.

      Unless they've got something spectacular up their sleeves, a platform shift to anything that's not PPC would have a huge impact on user

      • The "increased accessibility" is a PR thing, nothing more. To the extent that most people understand processors, they know Intel. So Apple becomes more familiar, less exotic. More within the concept of buying. This is fairly nebulous, though, and I would guess that Apple is getting significant price/delivery concessions from Intel -- as there really seems to be nothing concrete that Apple stands to gain by switching to Intel.

        Good point about the architecture. Jumping into PPC chips might also be a

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I don't really care what processor Apple uses as long as they keep releasing quality hardware and software products. However, I don't have a large investment in software, so it wouldn't cost me very much to make the switch to another processor. If I had to pay to upgrade thousands of dollars of software so it didn't run in emulation mode I would not be very happy.
  • and i'm doubtful about apple migrating to x86. *if* they were to do such a thing, the only advantage i can see is that it would be easier to get native x86 programs to work on their platform, thereby taking away the barrier to entry from people who don't switch because of applications only available for x86 (vast majority of games, 3ds max, xsi, etc.). there would be fewer mac only programs to port to x86 than the other way around.
    • just had another thought. amd's strategy is "x86 everywhere," in main CPUs, in portable CPUs, in controller chips, everywhere. what if this is a test into PPC for intel to see if it's worth trying to move away from x86 to a new hardware platform? intel already tried to make itanium the successor to x86, but it didn't work out. if a company with intel's resources were able to provide the chips, it's possible microsoft would consider a windows platform migration.
  • Just because they're using an x86 chip doesn't mean that they're going to stick with the broken x86 BIOS. I'm willing to bet they'll design something that will let them use x86 chips with something like their current Openboot PROM....which should help discourage the cloners too....
  • Dude, email me (gmail: logansbro)! I'd love to meet you in person. I'm at WWDC also. tomorrow I will be wearing a red shirt and my badge says "Bryan Thompson
    Loy Enterprises". If you see me, flippin' say hi!

    aaanyway... I think the switch is going to be a decent deal. I thought it was very cool that the machine he was demo-ing with was running Intel and he ran all of the apps on it. yes, there will be problems, but Rosetta will help the stragglers and lazy programmers, and some of the developers I c

Slashdot Top Deals

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.

Close