Hi all,

I know there are lots of Mac users here, as well as Windows and Linux users; maybe the most even distribution of the three in any community I've seen. So I wanted to know what you all think of Apple's decision. Just to avoid the misconceptions that plague the other threads on the subject I've read...

1) Apple has stated that they will be taking steps to prevent MacOS from running on non-Apple hardware. On the other hand, I've seen posts by people at WWDC that claim that the Mactels on display have bog-standard motherboards and no sign of openfirmware. It is therefore likely that, at some point, a version will circulate that can be run on unapproved (but driver-supported) hardware.

2) Apple has also officially stated that it will be possible to run Windows and Linux on the Mactels, and that they won't try to prevent it (or support it).

3) NEXTSTEP, from which OSX was originally derived, had FAT binaries (what Apple is now calling universal binaries). These FAT binaries were quite easy to create back then, and ran on 3 different architectures. It is therefore believable that creation of Power/Intel binaries will be quite easy for developers. When Apple transitioned from the 68000 series to powerpc, applications continued to be compatible with the older architecture even when the apps couldn't really run with the older machines' resources. In other words, lets not worry about where the current mac owners will be software-wise in a couple years.

4) Viruses and malware make use of holes in the operating system. What chip the system runs on has no impact on this. I'd think this was obvious, but you should see all the Mac users in other threads crying about how they'll be in the same boat as the Windows users.

5) The Megahertz-Myth. Back when Apple was trying to convince people that their chips weren't slower than the higher-clocked procs in the PC world, they may have gone too far in their statement of the case. Nevertheless, it is true that clock-speed is not the only indicator of performance. In fact, it is likely that the Mactels will use Pentium-M derivitives, which are proof-positive that even Intel knows that clock-speed isn't everything. So lets not go on about this either:)

Whats left to talk about? Well, I'm hoping you all have a few insights I haven't thought of. I have a few thoughts and speculations I'll wait on posting until we have a discussion going.

~Michael

Thanks for the info, I found the windows on mactel useful information, perhaps these will be out before spore is, then I wouldn't have to wait for either a port or to purchase a windows computer. :)

On the mactels at WWDC, I doubt the OS has too much in terms of checking the with the computer in order to be installed as the OS is most likely not done, just a demo. Same for the machines, no point with hardware to be checked if the os doesn't check yet.

I won't elaborate much on this issue as I don't know anything about computers. In fact, thank you Michael for enlighting me/us (hehe, I hope I'm not the only ignorant guy around).

For a below-average customer, Intel-inside Mac sounds like an Itani flying a Prom... or more seriously an Alfa Romeo with a General Motors engine. No longer so attractive.

I had heard rumors of this back when 10.2 came out, that Apple had a bunch of PC's in their Cupertino HQ in a secret room, running a version of 10.2 on Intel hardware. The irony! How funny would THAT be, eh? Eh?

Of course, being a Mac bigot, I dismissed this possibility out of hand.

/me eats crow.

The slashdot posts on this are all pretty funny.

Several thoughts from a consultant's point of view... I know we all hate consultants... but I have been asked my opinion on this a LOT lately.

1) Don't expect to see ANY Intel based machine (Not released by Apple) running OS X. While this would be possible with some development, I don't believe it's in Apple's game plan. In short, allowing clones is against Steve's strategy to increase (substantially) Apple share in the personal computer marketplace. With total control over the hardware and the operating system, it's much easier to build solid performing systems. This is something that Microsoft does not enjoy. It could provide Apple with a competative advantage in the long run.

2) The internal chip doesn't matter. What makes a Mac a Mac is Apple. It's the engineering of the hardware package as well as the engineering in thier software that makes the Mac the experience that it is. Quality software and solid hardware is what makes the package. And yes, Intel had quality problems at one point as well as IBM... but they have been able to design quality chips for quite some time. Apple means so little to IBM that I do believe that hurt the relationship. Intel has been courting Apple for quite some time. Expect a higher level of cooperation between these companies. Motorola is "right out."

3) "I fear all we have done is awaken the sleeping giant" << or something like that. While AMD does have some technical advantages over some Intel chips right now, Intel didn't take AMD seriously for quite some time. Now that they are a viable competitor Intel WILL answer with better, faster stronger chips in the not so distant future.

4) Intel is VERY open to non-Microsoft initiatives. Internally, Intel has made the switch to Linux on machines in it's design department citing any number of advantages for that application. Expect a very open mind from Intel when dealing with Apple.

5) As consumers we'll finally be able to compare A to A... that is same processor running Windows vs OS X with like applications. This will be an interesting comparison especially for the winner.

Interesting thoughts to ponder:
A) with an Intel processor, it will be MUCH easier for Apple to provide the capability to run Windoze based applications... stay tuned here... as this ability would dramatically enable Apple to move into the Personal Computer Market.

B) Apple will not allow their quality or experience to diminish. I'd even bet that the deal allows use of the Intel chips without "Intel Inside" stickers... or at least I hope so... :D

C) IBM was NOT Steve's decision in the first place... so that kinda set all of this up as soon as Steve took over Apple again in the 90s.

D) I've seen many people out there condemming Apple for this move. Well, we all have brains and the ability to form opinions. But again, the Macintosh was/is not definced by the PPC processor. It's defined by Apple and the software that is runs. Apple is all about the experience.

I could keep going here... and I'm not defending Apple here.. but I am warming to the decision that this is a sound move for Apple in the long term. AMD is a question mark... did Apple look at them seriously? This is hard to say, perhaps some light will be shed in the future.

--Beo

Apple's probably going for brand recognition with Intel. Plus, they do have some fairly nice processors (again, Banias). They're also significantly larger than AMD, which means more money for R&D.

Making OS X specific to Apple machines should be fairly easy. They could use a custom motherboard with a specialized chip, and code OS X to not work without it.

As for emulation... Can you say coWindows?

What about classic support? Some of the classic/carbonized appls won't be able to be changed due to their producers umm, not being around. Like Deus Ex. All I know is that there are TONS of games that only run in classic, and the intel macs better support classic but this guy here-----> http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/classic_not_supported

Says somewhere in the this -----> http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary.pdf
that classic apps will NOT be supported. I don't like that at all.

Thanks for the thread, momerath.

Well, there's a ton of thoughts, dunno where to start. First, now that it's official, I can't wait for the Intellimac/Mactel/whatever. The performance of the Pentium Mac Steve Jobs used in his Keynote was impressive! No doubt "OS X sings on Intel".
I think I'm not the only one who figured that his current machine should run well enough until the first Intellimacs (I chose that name) show up, so I expect Apple's sales to go down a lot until 2006. But they'll probably survive it, at least there's the iPod.

I just read this article, which I think sums it up very good:

http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ars

Now, for the future, and especially, running Windows on Macs (or VPC with almost native speed): Well, I had enough time to fall in love with OS X, and actually, I had to. Now, do the switchers have to? They might be interested in OS X, but then don't know anything about it, and if they don't understand it within the first 24 hours, they might just install their WindowsXP and never boot into X again... Imagine alle those white iBooks running Windows... that hurts.
And Mac Gaming? There were many different thoughts in the IMG poll, and I fear it might be the death of Mac gaming as we know it. Who will buy the overprized Mac versions from Macsoft or Aspyr when all you have to do ist start Windoze, pick up a $5 copy of that game you like in any PC-store and play it? Since I'm constantly broke, I'll probably go that way.

Hardware-wise, I expect a lot and I hope Apple will bring it. I expect them to ditch PCI-X and go for PCI-Extreme. I've never seen a single PCI-X card anywhere, but a lot of cool graphics cards for PCI-Extreme, and I want that stuff (and yes, I expect an easy way to get this nice hardware to work in a Mac).
With Intel's new mobile processors I think we can expect very nice i- and Powerbooks that run a few hours longer than the current models. as for the Powermac line, I hope they wont go with normal desktop CPUs, I expect them to have the top of the line 64bit CPUs. And the iMac: Top of the line Mainstream chips.
Macs just have to be better.

Macguy, classic apps are from 6 or so years ago. Your computer will still be working so you can use those apps for quite awhile. (Macs have this knack for going and going and going, kinda creepy.)

My two main concerns are: windows running on the mac (as Laika suggested), and of course Altivec.

There is no doubt that windows will run on these machines, even if not as a dual boot, someone will come out with a WINE equivalent that will do the trick.
The game industry is going to be the most effected, all mac users know how rare it is to get the big games on our computers, and when they do come it's undoubtedly very late, and never quite looks as good.
I HATE windows, as anyone in #vendetta would easily attest too had they been present while I tried to get a WinXP box to connect to a wireless router.
But, if a game comes out I want to play, I'll boot up in windows and play it, why not?
I'd prefer the WINE method, but I'm not against a dual boot.
Either way, I don't see myself waiting months for a mac version of a game.

Now the Altivec thing
While this may not be a big deal to the casual user, I can say without doubt that Altivec plays a large part in the performance of the highly tuned apps like Final Cut.
Even my G4 seems deadly slow compared to a G5 due to all the streamlining.
For those unfamiliar with altivec it's a vector processing unit, and essentially the main difference between a G3 and a G4 chip, some people have argued the G3 is actually faster at the same clockspeed for non altivec enabled apps.
For anyone who's used things like photoshop, of final cut on a G3 and a G4 you can see the difference.

Intel apparently has something similar to altivec known as SSE (SSE3 would be the latest version). From what i've read it's actually more diverse and easier to implement than altivec, but I've also read it's not present on the Pentium m line of chips. So it's doubtful the laptops will ever be close to the performance of the desktops.

I'd like to know from anyone more technically minded than myself, how much difference SSE would make to performance.
Am I worried about nothing? are Intel's top offerings that much faster than the G5 that it doesn't matter?
And from the programmers... How long do you think it would take to optimize everything for the intel chips? They seem to make performance improvements with every new version of altivec apps, so should we expect a larger increase in performance on the second intel version? assuming they're still figuring out how to do it on the first.

Heh, thanks lemming, I thought that too. I could still use this emac, or my old 400Mhz imac to run classic apps. I'm just concerned about that fact that from what i've heard an P4 processor is 32 bit, and that's what's in the developers kit which is a power mac. Does this mean after finally geting the 64 bit system on the 64 processors, apple is going to go backwards?

I've never had a G5, in fact this is only my second computer and it's a 1.25Ghz G4. I don't know how a G5 performes with tiger the supposid 64 bit system. But I'm just wondering why the developer kits didn't include a faster intel, like one that was 64 bit. Hum, I really hope apple knows what they're doing. Hell, watching the WWDC actually made me feel alright about the transition. Damn steve jobs and his brainwashing ways. :D

OK so they did the unthinkable. Moving to Intel does sound like a bad move at first, that is assuming that they are using an existing chip.

What if new Mactel chips are in late development / early production. After all P4 has been around for a while now and speeds seem to have stalled. Im sure their not just idly sitting by.

Apple will probably use chips with E64MT, so bittage won't be a problem.

They'll most likely be starting with the first or second generation of desktop-targetted pentium-m derivatives which aren't out yet (yonah, I think the next one is codenamed). These are supposed to have SSE3 and amd6.. er EM64T;) Right now the devboxes have high end p4s in them, probably because they already have SSE3 and EM64T. I did see someone comment that an apple dev had told them not to count on SSE3 support, so maybe they'll have a model or two (powerbook?) with earlier chips.

xbench screenshot http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=24837

from here -----> http://www.macrumors.com The story should be the second one down.

PS The first story is about a new security update. Go get it guys!( and gals)

Oof, the x86 system got pwned.

More info on the new x86 junk. Also a little info about rosetta.
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com

The x86 system got pwned because XBench ran inside Rosetta, which means the XBench score is the result from an emulated PowerPC. Try that with PearPC.

Ars Technica has another great article up on this subject which contradicts what I said in this thread. I tend to trust them, so I guess "yonah" will have SSE3, but not EM64T, and not the other way around as I thought. Since it will likely only be used to replace G4s in the mini and i/powerbooks, it shouldnt really affect those with the (incorrect) perception that their 64 bit chip is superior to all 32 bit ones. At any rate, the speculative roadmap on the first page is likely to be the best info we'll get on the subject until Apple announces something officially.

http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.ars

Even without SSE3 you still have SSE and SSE2, heh. I for one am one of those waiting for that beat up and made to run on generic intel hardware copy of OSX. With an open kernel I really dont see how they can stop it, any hardware protection can be emulated, and the linux community is pretty effective at making drivers now.