Apple will switch to Intel in 2006 (CONFIRMED!!!!one)

[Xon]

We don't actually know why performance was so poor, however. Is it the OS? Different I/O management? Would Linux on PPC perform better? Does GCC produce inferior code on the G5 vs. IA32/AMD64?

The OS X kernel is an mostly single thread kernel with incredibly course grain locks. The kernel allows 1 thread for IO ops, & 1 thread for network ops and maybe a few more.

It is really hamstrung for multi-thread/process high load IO.

[Xon]

Holy fuck.

Mac on intel is confirmed. Feel the PR spin! 2nd hand linky.

"We don't know how to build them with the future of the PPC roadmap"

[Durandal]

It's true.

There comes a time when every man has to eat his words. I just ate mine. This totally blind-sided me.

[Durandal]

Edited thread title to reflect the veracity of this monumental announcement. Hell has just frozen over.

[Master of Ossus]

Here's a Reuters link.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL.O: Quote, Profile, Research) on Monday said it will shift to using Intel Corp. (INTC.O: Quote, Profile, Research) microprocessors in its Macintosh computers, severing its long relationship with International Business Machines Corp., which had supplied chips to Apple.

Apple said it would move all of its flagship Macintosh computers to Intel processors by the end of 2007.

Apple has publicly expressed frustration with IBM (IBM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) as a supplier in recent quarters. IBM had problems producing enough working versions of its PowerPC 970 chip, which Apple calls the G5. Also, IBM has yet to produce a version of the G5 that consumes less power and would be suitable for use in Apple's laptop personal computers.

Edit: Steve Jobs is now on record saying that the Intel chips are better. Nice work, Mac Marketing.

[Stravo]

As a non Mac User whose only experience with an Apple was sitting in front of a '84 era Mac to learn how to use computers in Grammar school just why is this such a earth shaking moment? So Apple is doing the right thing - in their minds -and letting Intel make their chips. Sounds like a smart business move to me if their current supplier is not cutting it. Sorry if this sounds ignorant but I just haven't a clue about Apple save for their Ipods.

[Xon]

Apple often has trumpted the advantages of the PPC (aka mac hardware) over intel stuff. And there has been some serious PR spin to the effect of this.

Publicly admitting that intel tech is actually better is a massive 180 degree turn for Apple.

[The Grim Squeaker]

If they start making powerful chips,
that can actually play most games (read non mac games) then i’ll finally be able to convert to the cult

[Uraniun235]

Someone said this at Slashdot:

I felt something, a disturbance in the network, as if a million mac zealots cried out in horror and were suddenly silenced.

[Durandal]

Apple often has trumpted the advantages of the PPC (aka mac hardware) over intel stuff. And there has been some serious PR spin to the effect of this.

Publicly admitting that intel tech is actually better is a massive 180 degree turn for Apple.

Apparently, Intel has been courting Apple for a while. I'll play Monday Morning Quarterback here and totally reverse what I said less than 24 hours ago.

Apple probably took a good look at the roadmaps for PowerPC and x86, and clearly, for the desktop, x86 looked a hell of a lot better. PowerPC is a fine architecture. It'll be in all 3 next-gen consoles, but that doesn't mean that it'll keep on scaling. Once the design for all 3 consoles is solidified, there's no need to keep improving the processors. All IBM has to do is keep the yields up and lower the costs. Plus, since IBM has these huge contracts now, they really don't have too much financial stake in keeping the 970 apace with Intel's offerings.

The simple fact is that Intel is the biggest desktop chip maker. And Apple figured, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Now they're going directly up against Microsoft. They're going to keep on talking smack to Longhorn, and 2007, when both Longhorn and Leopard (the next version of OS X) hit, it'll be a very interesting time for computing.

[Mr Bean]

Someone said this at Slashdot:

I felt something, a disturbance in the network, as if a million mac zealots cried out in horror and were suddenly silenced.

The days of x86 Vs Mac are over, come my people let us dance in the streets and get plastered to all hell

-------
Edit: And as Durandal has observed this lets Mac FINALY... and I mean FINALY come in direct compettion with Windows.

Speaking of which I need to get back to setting out all the space heaters here in hell, it is a bit chilly.

[MKSheppard]

Perhaps now I shall take a look at MacOS, since it will be capable of running on PC hardware eventually; there will be no need for me to buy
an entirely new rig to try out an OS...

[Zaia]

Publicly admitting that intel tech is actually better is a massive 180 degree turn for Apple.

What if this is the beginning of the end?

[MKSheppard]

What if this is the beginning of the end?

Sega no longer makes hardware, yet we see Sonic games...

[phongn]

There's no guaruntee that your standard beige-box PC will run OS X.

[Mr Bean]

Publicly admitting that intel tech is actually better is a massive 180 degree turn for Apple.

What if this is the beginning of the end?

This is the computer equivlant of the Berlin Wall coming down, Finaly those East Apple fanboys will be brought out of their oppresive closed system and into the chaotic freeworld of the West x86

(Comparsion swiped from an arsetechnic poster on this news)

[phongn]

(Comparsion swiped from an arsetechnic poster on this news)

I love Ars

[Beowulf]

My source who works for Apple is doubtful that Mac OSX will run on standard PC hardware.

He also states however, that it may be possible to run WXP on their hardware, with a bit of hacking... It's sorta above his paygrade right now though.

[Praxis]

Actually...I'm quite impressed.

I thought it would be a horrible move but after the details I've read...it's not so bad!

I'm just as shocked as Durandal, but Apple has done FAR better than I thought would be possible for the transition.



Basicly, XCode as of this date automatically makes 'fat binaries' when code is compiled. Every application created after today will have both x86 and PowerPC compiled code.

Here's the trick- they're using Transitive's QuickTransit emulation technology, the one that was reported to be so fast that most of us (definitely me) thought it was vaporware- on the x86 version of Mac OS X to run the OS X software compiled before today.


So PowerPC Macs can run all existing software and all future software natively- x86 can run all future software natively, and run all existing software through emulation (seamless, in the background).

I'm genuinely impressed with Apple. They'll actually manage a seamless transition the way this is going, and for a while will be selling both PowerPC and x86 Macs at the same time. There's no risk in buying a PowerPC Mac as all the binaries are 'fat'.

[Praxis]

BTW. Mac OS X on x86 means...we can install WINE

I already got WINE running on my Mac, except that I can only run Windows/PowerPC apps (very, VERY few of which exist, just some ports of Notepad and Minesweeper)

[Crossroads Inc.]

I have my doubts. On one hand I'm worried about Apple getting anywhere close to the company that Whores itself out to Darth Gates. On other hand, IBM simply does NOT have manufacturing capacity to deal with Mac's growing needs.

[Beowulf]

Open Firmware is not going to be used, which means it's likely that the MacTels will use standard PC BIOSes.

http://tinyurl.com/a9zn8

[Durandal]

Open Firmware is not going to be used, which means it's likely that the MacTels will use standard PC BIOSes.

http://tinyurl.com/a9zn8

Doubtful. Intel hates the BIOS. Any x86-based Macs will likely use EFI.

Perhaps now I shall take a look at MacOS, since it will be capable of running on PC hardware eventually; there will be no need for me to buy an entirely new rig to try out an OS...

I seriously doubt it, at least for the short term. This move does probably mean that Apple's top-end hardware will be noticeably cheaper, though. SGI has no problem locking their customers into their custom Windows OS on their x86 hardware, so I don't see why Apple would have a problem doing the same. All it takes is some custom northbridge logic, and any would-be hackers out to get OS X up and running on a Dell are screwed.

There are two reasons why Apple will almost certainly pursue this strategy.

1. They still bank on providing "the whole widget." Apple is a small company compared to Microsoft. They can't add operating system-level support for every possible custom x86 configuration out there. It's simply not feasible for them. They'll likely support a very strict combination of parts. Hell, Intel might even make them custom motherboards. The "it just works" appeal of Mac OS X is very strong and very viable as a selling point. They'll pick a set of hardware that works for them and make it "just work."

2. If Apple sold OS X as capable of running on commodity x86 hardware, they'd be directly in competition with Microsoft. At which point Microsoft would just muscle them out of the market by dropping prices on OEM (and maybe even retail) versions of Windows XP. Microsoft has the cash reserves to win a war of attrition against Apple.

This does not, however, preclude Apple from offering Mac OS X on commodity hardware down the line. But it certainly won't be in the immediate future. Apple has to wet its feet in the market first. My guess is that they'll gradually add support for various popular motherboards, NICs, sound cards, etc ... behind the scenes as a "just in case" option. If and when they grow enough and establish enough of a presence that Microsoft can't just cut them out, then they can release the commodity version of OS X for beige box PCs. A lot of this will depend on how well Longhorn is received.

However, with this change, the Mac platform gains a roadmap that is designed around the idea of desktop computing. There will be no more "bake offs" for Apple to pin its credibility on. Its systems will be directly comparable with offerings from Dell and HP, which is a big plus. It also means that Apple will be forced to drop, or at least trim down considerably, their customarily stratospheric margins. The OS will also become a much bigger factor in consumer decision making. And frankly, Tiger wipes the floor with XP in virtually every department.

In all likelihood, this still will not sate the x86 modders' dreams of running OS X on their commodity hardware. That's simply an unrealistic desire in today's computing market. However, they'll be able to get basically the same hardware for a reasonable price, bundled with really kick-ass software. And as far as the common user goes, they get a cheaper rig on which they don't have to worry about viruses and spyware. Also note that Microsoft, if they really want to sell more Windows licenses, can create a version of VirtualPC with the Windows APIs natively implemented on OS X x86, which will make emulation far more feasible. Remember, Microsoft doesn't give a shit what kind of hardware you use. A Windows license is a Windows license.

As to development, I can say with confidence that probably 90% of all apps created within the past 4 years will be trivial to port over. The stuff I write should just recompile without any modification to the source at all. And if the people who do really compute-intensive stuff have designed their software intelligently, like Wolfram Research has, the transition should be similarly painless for them. If not, well hey, let this be a lesson to design your software intelligently from the beginning.

At the end of my Monday Morning Quarterback session, I frankly don't think that Apple had a choice here. They tried IBM, and IBM couldn't stay competitive in terms of price or heat. And why would they need to? Apple accounted for a very small portion of their business. Partnering with Intel, Apple now has a CPU supplier for which its small marketshare isn't a concern. Freescale wasn't delivering on the e600, either. And the gap between the Pentium-M and the G4 in the PowerBooks was already embarrassingly wide enough. Apple tried sticking with PowerPC, but it just didn't work out. Too bad, but that's life.

As a side-note, Mac OS X's "double life" is really a testament to the pragmatism buried underneath all that ideology at Apple. People think Jobs is so arrogant because he likes to come up on-stage and trash the competition. But behind the scenes, he can see the writing on the wall. Mac OS X really struts its stuff with this development. It turns out that the OS is very modular. Can you imagine how long it would take Microsoft to perform a similar feat with XP? It'd be a nightmare.

[Master of Ossus]

I have my doubts. On one hand I'm worried about Apple getting anywhere close to the company that Whores itself out to Darth Gates. On other hand, IBM simply does NOT have manufacturing capacity to deal with Mac's growing needs.

Bullshit. IBM is manufacturing every CPU for all three next-gen consoles. If Apple isn't getting supplied it's because IBM doesn't take them seriously and not because they don't have the manufacturing ability to handle them.

[MKSheppard]

All it takes is some custom northbridge logic, and any would-be hackers out to get OS X up and running on a Dell are screwed.

Nice way to win over people who are considering jumping from Windows to
OS X, "Hey, you'll have to buy a whole new computer!"

They can't add operating system-level support for every possible custom x86 configuration out there.

Agreed; they should however make it capable of supporting the
most popular x86 hardware; ATI/NVIDIA video cards, Soundblaster
audio, and basically the most popular mobo manufacturers. Basically
big brand name hardware, not clones.

Microsoft has the cash reserves to win a war of attrition against Apple.

Apple also has a fairly decent cash flow from iPod; so they'd be able to
afford such an attritional war for a bit.

People think Jobs is so arrogant because he likes to come up on-stage and trash the competition.

He is; he's been trashing the x86 core for almost 15 years, and now he
says "Oops, I guess x86 is more powerful after all."