Apple to Swith To Intel

[Mcwop]

This one is juicy:

Jobs talked about the major transitions in the Mac’s life — starting from the Mac’s Motorola 68000-series processor to PowerPC. “The PowerPC set Apple up fro the next decade. It was a good move,” he said.

“The second transition was even better — the transition from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X that we just did,” he continued. “This was a brain transplant. And even though these operating systems (9 and x) vary only by one in name, they are very different, and this has set Apple up for the next 20 years.”

As the Intel logo lowered on the stage screen, Jobs said, “We are going to make the transition from PowerPC to Intel processors, and we are going to do it for you now, and for our customers next year. Why? Because we want to be making the best computer for our customers looking forward.”

“I stood up here two years ago and promised you 3.0 GHz. I think a lot of you would like a G5 in your PowerBook, and we haven’t been able to deliver that to you,” said Jobs. “But as we look ahead, and though we’ve got great products now, and great PowerPC products still to come, we can envision great products we want to build, and we can’t envision how to build them with the current PowerPC roadmap,” said Jobs.

Intel processors provide more performance per watt than PowerPC processors do, said Jobs. “When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PoweRPC gives us 15 units of performance per watt, but Intel’s roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do,” he explained.

Transition to Intel by 2007, and yes, Marklar exists

“Starting next year, we will introduce Macs with Intel processors,” said Jobs. “This time next year, we plan to ship Macs with Intel processors. In two years, our plan is that the transition will be mostly complete, and will be complete by end of 2007.”

Jobs then confirmed a long-held belief that Apple was working on an Intel-compatible version of Mac OS X that some have termed “Marklar.”

Mac OS X has been “leading a secret double life” for the past five years, said Jobs. “So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years.”

Jobs demonstrated a version of Mac OS X running on a 3.6GHz Pentium 4-processor equipped system, running a build of Mac OS X v10.4.1. He showed Dashboard widgets, Spotlight, iCal, Apple’s Mail, Safari and iPhoto all working on the Intel-based system. The system itself was not revealed.

[Big E]

Link ?

7890

[Eldo]

Been following this story today. Lots of hand wringing by some people, but I see it as a good move for Mac users. Faster processors, especially in portables, while still having the Mac OS experience. Current software will work on an Intel-based Mac and software companies are getting the tools to rework new versions of their programs to run on both Intel and PowerPC Mac computers.

Seeing an "Intel Inside" sticker on my next Mac will be the only difficult thing to get used to.

[Mcwop]

Link ?

7890

Start here

[PeachesN'Cream]

oh god please don't let them put an intel inside sticker on the new machines, that will hurt!

as mentioned above the Mac OS has always been the real deciding factor between the actual computing experience. who cares if it's a mouse wheel or an intel chip that makes your machine go so long as it goes and goes damn fast!

it still does feel a little icky tho.

i'm sure i'll get over it when they realease super fast pro level towers and laptops in a few years. plus i'd bet we can expect new hardware design with the new machines... apple stuff is alway so pretty.

[The Jackamo]

wait, since they've been naming the systems based on what processor it has in it, what will they be naming them in the future?

[slim]

it still does feel a little icky tho.

I don't understand why it's icky to have an intel chip but not icky to have an IBM chip.

[splat]

Apple to Swith To Intel

Swithing ith gay.

[shmerham]

This is a bit odd, as mac doesn't really make a lot of money directly off software sales, even though the software experience is a big draw. Even though they don't manufacture chips, most people don't realize this since they don't have the "intel inside" thing going on. I see this as potentially diminishing their brand image if the general public realizes that apple doesn't do 'everything' from the ground up.

[PeachesN'Cream]

I don't understand why it's icky to have an intel chip but not icky to have an IBM chip.

IBM and motorola were making chips JUST for apple. nobody else in the PC world was using them except for apple (to the best of my knowledge).

since the intel chips used in PCs will be the exact same chips used in the new macs it makes macs seem less specialized to the consumer. "the guts are the same they just look different" idea.

the primary difference will only be apples fantastic industrial design (i don't think anybody can argure that apple makes bad looking or feeling product) and the OS, which is equally fantastic.

some people are stoked on this switch (it should make for better faster macs, esp laptops) and it will provide for an honest head to head PC on windows 'vs' mac on OSX head to head photoshop etc... tests. the G5 towers have tratitionally kicked the crap out of PC's on photoshop tasks, however this may no longer be the case with the intel switch. the real difference will be the OS and maybe how well each program is compiled to run on each OS.

i'm gonna take my nerd glasses off now thanks!

[Lurch]

IBM and motorola were making chips JUST for apple. nobody else in the PC world was using them except for apple (to the best of my knowledge).

Apple was a very small consumer of the PowerPc chips. They are used mainly for imbeded products. Microsoft I believe is the biggest consumer using them in the Xbox.

[PeachesN'Cream]

Apple was a very small consumer of the PowerPc chips. They are used mainly for imbeded products. Microsoft I believe is the biggest consumer using them in the Xbox.

learn somethin' every day here on TGR. thanks.

[joshbu]

The PowerPCs being installed in Macs are built by IBM for Apple only. They are an evolution of the original single core PPC design.

The PowerPCs that will be in the next generation XBOX (The current generation is x86 based) and likely the Nintendo Revolution are based on IBM's newer Power4 multicore architecture. The Playstation3 will also be PowerPC based, but instead of "standard" multicore, will use IBM's still newer "Cell" architecture for mini functional units.

So, the game systems are all PowerPC based, but these aren't the same kind of CPUs that are going in Apples.

[cj001f]

So, the game systems are all PowerPC based, but these aren't the same kind of CPUs that are going in Apples.

no. Apple is switching because IBM was putting more development $ into the other flavors of PPC and wasn't willing to spend the $ to ensure a cheap competitive with Intel.