Apple to switch to Intel processors (for really real)

[I[HATE]Everything]

Looks like all those rumors were true. Check (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8109913/) it (http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM,+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.lede) out (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,939886,00.asp).

SAN FRANCISCO - Apple Computer Inc. Monday said it will shift to using Intel Corp. microprocessors in its Macintosh computers, severing its long relationship with International Business Machines Corp., which had supplied chips to Apple.
So, does this mean I can dual boot? I'd like to have a good OS and one that plays games :)

Editor: The last link is a "prediction" from 2003.

[bapenguin]

Apple switches from IBM to Intel.
Microsoft switches from Intel to IBM (360).
Sky falls.

[kokyunage]

Hopefully this will mean cheaper and more powerful Apple machines.

[netcraazzy]

Wow, just wow.

In other news, IBM announces that a recent increase in available manufacturing capacity will guarantee 1 million Xbox 360 CPUs available at launch! :D

[ldi222]

If Apple had trouble getting Power PC Chips from IBM, I wonder if Microsoft will as well? And if the Power PC Chips are hard to get from IBM, how is Sony going to get large quantities of The Cell?

How is the Mac OS being re written to run on Intel Architecture going to change the Wintel PC? Are we PC users really going to have an option to run a unix based Apple OS? I doubt that's Apples intention but how will they prevent it?

Very interesting.

[KarmaGhost]

If dual boot proves possible, I wonder how Mac fanatics will react.

[crackeriah]

If Apple had trouble getting Power PC Chips from IBM, I wonder if Microsoft will as well?
AFAIK, the main problem isn't supply, but the PowerPC roadmap didn't guarantee the same performance-per-watt as the x86 roadmap.

So, game consoles have absolutely nothing to worry about, since their chips are custom designed and will stay the same for the console's lifespan.

[normyk]

5 years they have had their OS's running on Intel. They have been planning this for a looong time. I'm really getting a good laugh out of this whole thing. I really hope I can pick my hardware and dual boot.

ldi222 - I was just thinking the same thing about the cell - though I was wondering if the reason they couldn't get proper yields for apple was because they were focused on the cell (which they still don't have yeilds on last I heard)

[Kentor]

If Apple had trouble getting Power PC Chips from IBM, I wonder if Microsoft will as well? And if the Power PC Chips are hard to get from IBM, how is Sony going to get large quantities of The Cell?

How is the Mac OS being re written to run on Intel Architecture going to change the Wintel PC? Are we PC users really going to have an option to run a unix based Apple OS? I doubt that's Apples intention but how will they prevent it?

Very interesting.
Apple probably isn't having any problems getting PPC970/970FX chips from IBM, but they cannot argue with IBM to make any customizations, lower prices, etc since Apple does not ship PPCs in significant volumes. Now with Xbox 360/PS3/Revolution, Apple has virtually no bargaining power at all.

The core of Mac OS X has been running on x86 for nearly 5 years now. Darwin x86 is an official build (http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/6.0/release.html). Also, Mac OS X is based upon the NextSTEP OS code base (which is to say the Mach 3.0.x microkernel matched with kernel services) using BSD 4.4 more heavily than NextSTEP's old proprietary kernel services. Mach 3.0.x and BSD 4.4 have had x86 targets for even longer.

EDIT:
-fixed spelling mistakes

[pur3r4ge]

If dual boot proves possible, I wonder how Mac fanatics will react.

As an official "Mac fanatic" (ok, my main machine is a PC, but I do prefer OS X as an OS), I'd say reaction will be favorable to dual booting. Or even a better VirtualPC implementation. What Mac fanatics will cry and moan about is the difficulty of transition, having gone through a major platform migration 10 years ago, and massive OS migration for the last 5 years.

I wouldn't hold your breath for a dual booting mac, though. I'm willing to bet that there will be some proprietary additions to the x86 architecture to make it "uniquely Mac", and to prevent the production of cheaper mac clones. Keep in mind there was a time when Mac clones were allowed, but Apple put the kibosh on that practice.

[Skookum]

Everything']

So, does this mean I can dual boot? I'd like to have a good OS and one that plays games :)

I'm thinking "No" for now, at least until they say otherwise. It seems more likely that Intel will produce a chipset specifically for the Mac OS. How could they be thinking all that different if it were exactly the same architecture as a Windows machine? In this manner, they can continue to avoid direct competion with Microsoft, with an OS that won't run on the same machine as a PC. I think the closest similarity between Intel Macs and Intel PC's will be the "Intel Inside" sticker on the box (if Macs can actually stomach that). Still, we all live in hope :)

[gravey]

Don't count on dual-booting at all. Apple is a software and hardware company. From a Slashdot comment (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/06/1752234&tid=118&tid=179&tid=3#12738425):

The announcement is not that Apple is porting OS-X to run on ANY x86 box. It's that they're going to port it to run on THEIR x86 box. You're not going to be able to fire up OS-X on your Dell, Acer, Gateway, or eMachines PC. You're still going to be buying Apple's low-to-mid-range hardware (eMac line?). It's just going to have an Intel processor inside instead of the PPC. The release says they will be using the processor in their mid-range boxes, not their high-end boxes. So the demographic who will be buying the G5s in the future are be the same ones who're buying it now. People with a need for a stinky-fast machine that runs OS-X.

Edit: Besides VirtualPC, it's been pointed out that you might be able to look forward to Linux on a Mac, and WINE. I wonder, tho, how much easier it might be to make Mac versions of (many more) games (on time)? Have your cake and eat it too.

[Kentor]

I'm thinking "No" for now, at least until they say otherwise. It seems more likely that Intel will produce a chipset specifically for the Mac OS. How could they be thinking all that different if it were exactly the same architecture as a Windows machine? In this manner, they can continue to avoid direct competion with Microsoft, with an OS that won't run on the same machine as a PC. I think the closest similarity between Intel Macs and Intel PC's will be the "Intel Inside" sticker on the box (if Macs can actually stomach that). Still, we all live in hope :)
Who cares about the chipset... the WWDC keynote is over and Apple will be running on x86.

[megatron666]

I think some of you are getting way ahead of yourselves if you think that you'll be able to boot up your dell with OSX. Only the processor for these machines are changing. That is a big deal but what about the motherboards? The chipsets on the motherboards? Network cards? Sound cards?

Remember, Apple is a hardware company first. That is where they make most of their profits. And they write the software to work with THEIR hardware. Not anyone elses. That's why I can't just buy a linksys network card and pop it into a mac and have it work.

Hopefully this changeover will have one good effect for macs: video card drivers might be upgraded faster. Right now linux drivers get more upgrades than mac drivers where video cards are concerned.

[falak]

Could this be linked (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000170045682/) to a previous story (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2624)? Unlikely, if the denials are true. According to the Slashdot Overmind, a more likely reason is that the PPC architecture was becoming difficult to work into the Apple notebooks. Apparently.

[Kentor]

Edit: Besides VirtualPC, it's been pointed out that you might be able to look forward to Linux on a Mac, and WINE. I wonder, tho, how much easier it might be to make Mac versions of (many more) games (on time)? Have your cake and eat it too.
Mac OS X is already using BSD 4.4... why would you want to goto Linux? On the subject of WINE, the Darwine project has rough preliminary porting of WINE done for Mac OS X.

[Nimos]

I can't stop having a really pessimistic feeling regarding Apple's future right now. They have a hell lot of work in their hands, most important : trying to convince the few remaining mac developers to change platform .... again ! I fear that Apple is teh doomed ... but if i am wrong and they can survice this, they can survive anything. Damn it , there was just one alternative to the ageing x86 architecture and now it's gone...

[Sinistar]

After "hanging" with the Apple for 15+ years I have to say the move to Intel is heartbreaking. I can't imagine a future where I work and play on the same machine - that seems so PC to me ;)

[pur3r4ge]

Look at the end of this article (http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+aligns+with+Intel/2100-7341_3-5733756.html?tag=nl). Looks like you'll be able to install windows on a mac, but not vice versa.

[XenonCJ]

My oh my what WILL the Mac snobs do now?

[gravey]

Mac OS X is already using BSD 4.4... why would you want to goto Linux? On the subject of WINE, the Darwine project has rough preliminary porting of WINE done for Mac OS X.
I wouldn't buy a Mac to run Linux on it just cos I could (tho I, personally, couldn't), but I imagine there's a small group that would get a kick out of that.

[gravey]

My oh my what WILL the Mac snobs do now?
Pay less for their Macs would be my first guess.

[Subbacultcha]

Apple will survive as long as it continues churning out fashion accessory-crippleware and musical hard drives. Dumbass yuppies won't give a damn whether the CPU is RISC or CISC: when then whole computing experience is simplified to a toddler level it is irrelevent what is in the shitbox as long as it's white and shaped like a desk lamp.

Apple is as much an evil empire as Microsoft, every much as cynical and greedy no matter how the marketing assholes try to spin it. Apple is like the 40 year old corporate exec at a party, bobbing his head to RnB music. Fuck em.

[chechenepiphany]

Pay less for their Macs would be my first guess.
right, so apple's new hardware will get cheaper how? come on, they thrive on those overpriced machines. tit for tat theyre more costly, and i dont think thats about to change.
Apple, Intel, and x86: Axis of evil (http://onebutan.com/Apple_on_x86_FAQ)

[Skookum]

Look at the end of this article (http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+aligns+with+Intel/2100-7341_3-5733756.html?tag=nl). Looks like you'll be able to install windows on a mac, but not vice versa.

Indeed:

"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."

Sounds like running a PC emulator on an Intel Mac might be a little easier than it is now, but dual booting Tiger and WinXP ain't gonna happen.

[Taco]

What would be the point in running Windows on a Mac? Other than paying $1,500 more for a slower system....

[Stryfe01]

Well i was reading about this from earlier today. My thoughts are leaning towards what this guy at wired.com thinks. Seems easiest to do...

"As initially reported, there are a couple of big problems with Apple moving to Intel. The biggest is shifting all the Mac software to a new platform. Apple apparently mulled moving to Intel a few years ago, when Motorola's chip development fell woefully behind, but Steve Jobs nixed it because of the massive disruption it would cause developers.

What's new this time is a fast, transparent, universal emulator from Transitive, a Silicon Valley startup.

Transitive's QuickTransit allows any software to run on any hardware with no performance hit, or so the company claims. The techology automatically kicks in when necessary, and supports high-end 3D graphics. It was developed by Alasdair Rawsthorne. "

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html?tw=wn_story_related

[Kentor]

Transitive's QuickTransit allows any software to run on any hardware with no performance hit, or so the company claims. The techology automatically kicks in when necessary, and supports high-end 3D graphics. It was developed by Alasdair Rawsthorne.
By no performance hit they apparently mean 80% performance of a recompile without platform specific optimization in the average case scenario.
http://www.transitive.com/features.htm

[mister_slim]

Wow, just wow.

In other news, IBM announces that a recent increase in available manufacturing capacity will guarantee 1 million Xbox 360 CPUs available at launch! :D
So, 400 thousand or so 360s for the US launch? Better preorder now.
If dual boot proves possible, I wonder how Mac fanatics will react.
My oh my what WILL the Mac snobs do now?
I think I'll continue to enjoy well designed and reliable hardware and software. But you can imagine me crying and/or slitting my wrists if you so wish.
I'm thinking "No" for now, at least until they say otherwise. It seems more likely that Intel will produce a chipset specifically for the Mac OS. How could they be thinking all that different if it were exactly the same architecture as a Windows machine? In this manner, they can continue to avoid direct competion with Microsoft, with an OS that won't run on the same machine as a PC. I think the closest similarity between Intel Macs and Intel PC's will be the "Intel Inside" sticker on the box (if Macs can actually stomach that). Still, we all live in hope :)
Why avoid direct comparison with MS? As long as Apple sticks to their own hardware design they'll look better than a Windows machine. I do hope I never have to see an "Intel Inside" sticker next to the Apple logo.

[gleeful]

Apple will survive as long as it continues churning out fashion accessory-crippleware and musical hard drives. Dumbass yuppies won't give a damn whether the CPU is RISC or CISC: when then whole computing experience is simplified to a toddler level it is irrelevent what is in the shitbox as long as it's white and shaped like a desk lamp.

Apple is as much an evil empire as Microsoft, every much as cynical and greedy no matter how the marketing assholes try to spin it. Apple is like the 40 year old corporate exec at a party, bobbing his head to RnB music. Fuck em.

well said, well said.

[Last of the Red Hot Mamas]

Dumbass yuppies won't give a damn whether the CPU is RISC or CISC

Man, this Iran-contra thing sounds pretty bad, I wonder if Reagan will survive it.

Has anyone seen that Breakfast Club movie yet?

[Edwin]

http://www.business.auburn.edu/~nairana/hellfreeze.jpg

[bapenguin]

http://www.business.auburn.edu/~nairana/hellfreeze.jpg

Fucking classic.

[51|RandoM]

Imagine if Mac users could dual-boot to windows on their mac boxen. Suddenly, the tiny mac game library wouldn't be an issue anymore.

Personally, I wouldn't mind paying the premium for apple hardware if it would run windows too, especially their notebooks.

[gravey]

right, so apple's new hardware will get cheaper how? come on, they thrive on those overpriced machines. tit for tat theyre more costly, and i dont think thats about to change.
Apple, Intel, and x86: Axis of evil (http://onebutan.com/Apple_on_x86_FAQ)
Why not? If Apple could lower their prices since they'll be using x86, even a little, why wouldn't they want to do that in order to compete more fiercely with Dell et al.?

[chechenepiphany]

because expensive hardware is keeping them alive.