Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006
Over the weekend, us Mac fan boys were startled when we read reports that Apple would announce a switch to Intel processors, a brand typically associated with Windows computers. Would this even be possible? Many predicted that Apple would hire Intel simply to fabricate the processors they use now. Macheads suggested this wasn't about processors at all but instead about another Intel technology like WiMax. Rumors of Apple computers running on Intel processors were perennial. I honestly thought that the whole story was bunk.
Crazily enough, it was true. As the press release says, "Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006."
Apple is promising two important things:
- Easy transition for developers. If you've been using Apple's tools for developing software, you can already create a version of your software that runs on an Intel-powered Mac with little effort. Just a few tweaks, and you're solid. If not...
- Backwards compatibility. Using a technology called Rosetta, Intel-powered Macs will be able to run older software that was created for the PowerPC-powered Macs using processors made by Motorola and, more recently, IBM. Though it was demonstrated today with a behemoth like Photoshop, still, I'll believe this when I see it.
This is all about laptops. IBM can't make a G5 cool enough to put in a Powerbook. Intel makes the best processors and chipsets for notebooks. Done.
Plus, IBM promised a 3GHz G5 two years ago -- they've only gotten to 2.7GHz, and it requires a giant liquid-cooled heatsink. While I still think that PowerPC has huge advantages over x86 for general processing, IBM and Freescale (formerly Motorola's processor division) can't deliver because they don't have enough customers.
(SIDENOTE: XBOX360, PS3, and Nintendo Revolution will ALL have PowerPC processors, but they run commands in series, not out of series, which a general computing processor needs to do in order to handle the multitude of tasks that are thrown at it.)
There are a bunch of Apple Fan-Boys on forums right now screaming about this. Fuck them. My choice to buy a Mac had very little to do with the processor. It's been about the OS and the aesthetics. I use an Apple for the operating system, not for the processor.
Apple has to prove that this transition will be seamless, though. They said that OS X has always supported Intel chips, that it has always supported compiling software for Intel chips, and that the new machines will be able to emulate the old machines with
little loss in speed. That last bit I'm tentative to believe.
OS X will still only run on Apple machines, you can be sure of that. You won't be able to run OS X on a Dell.
So Fan Boys: This is GOOD news, not bad news. If Apple can prove that I won't skip a beat when I upgrade my Powerbook, then you have nothing to worry about, do you?
UPDATE: The press release doesn't do a great job of explaining what actually happened today.
UPDATE 2: Even better.
UPDATE 3: The best way to understand what happened yesterday is to see what happened yesterday: enter the Reality Distortion Field. Furthermore, if you're interested in my speculation on some of the more nerdy details of this switch (as if this post wasn't nerdy enough), read the comments.
And one final comment now that I've slept on it: Remember that this choice has very little to do with the boxes, really; this is about running OS X. Most people who bash Macs nowadays have never used OS X. Now that one will compare the power of Macs one-to-one with PCs, the only thing left for the trolls to bash is OS X, and frankly, they won't have much to argue against. This choice is not bad for Apple or consumers; it's actually fantastic for Apple and consumers. Fan boys, bitch all you want. We'll still get powerful computers running our favorite operating system. We'll just get those powerful computers a little easier, and how is that bad?
6 Comments:
Seems odd. I'm no computer expert but I thought the whole advantage of the Mac for graphics-based applications was the greater throughput of their processor. If they switch to Intel gear then they lose this advantage. The hardware is just another PC then.
As for running OS X you can already do it on Linux-based systems since they are both Unix-based command line operating systems. As Linux is on the whole a more customizable, open-source thing it is truly everything Mac claims to be.
So what is left for Apple? Will you really be such a huge Apple fan when their only advantage is a funky looking box? Not much of a reason to buy a computer, is it?
Seems like a mistake to me. But I'm not a billionaire computer genius like Steve Jobs so I'll try to keep my second-guessing to a minimum.
You are referring to what Apple calls the "Velocity Engine" (Motorola called it Altivec). It's very similar to the acceleration units that IBM strapped to the Cell processor that is going into the PlayStation 3. Intel's equivalent, the SSE, is widely considered to be, well, not as good. One of the reasons Apple's multimedia offerings were so kick as was precisely because the code was optimized for that Altivec unit.
This Rosetta technology that Apple claims will allow one to run their old software on the new machines will not support Altivec.
However, OS X 10.4 introduced the concept of Core Image, where graphics processing is offloaded to the video card's processor. I think this technology is meant to replace Altivec.
A lot of your points seem valid, and a lot of Mac fans fear a lot of what you're saying. I don't think they should.
The hardware will NOT be a PC. Sure, it will use commodity parts. However, part of the reliability of the Mac is Apple's control over the OS and the hardware, picking and choosing the parts that go in it to guarantee they will work. Furthermore, PCs use BIOS to allow Windows to communicate with the hardware in the computer. BIOS is old and withered and nasty. Macs use Open Firmware, a much more robust system. OS X won't boot without it. (Open Firmware is so expandable, though, that I won't be surprised when someone figures out how to boot Windows on an Intel-powered Mac.)
You can't just run OS X on a Linux-based system. Yes, they are both UNIX systems. However, the Mac On Linux application requires a PowerPC processor. I'm sure there will be an Intel version of MOL, but considering setting up Linux is not for the faint of heart, it will be the domain of extreme nerds.
As for what's left for Apple, there's a lot left. I honestly don't care what parts my computer runs on, as long as I can run OS X, which I truly think kicks Windows' ass in the aspects that I need it to kick ass in. OS X still has graphics advantages (ColorSync, for one). If running Intel processors and chipsets means I can still run OS X and maybe, just maybe, I can buy a Mac cheaper because the parts used to build it are more mainstream, then others will think that, too. Maybe even you.
Besides, I think a funky looking computer -- in my case, a 1" thick laptop make of aluminum -- is a grand reason to buy a computer.
Apple still has a lot of advantages. A LOT. This switch to Intel, if they can pull it off smoothly -- and I'm still quite tentative about that, honestly) -- this transition will be seamless, unnoticeable to users, and make Macs more affordable and more marketable (Intel bumps their speeds up far more often than IBM or Motorola).
Whoops:
"Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors do not use Open Firmware."
Didn't mean to seem like I was dumping on Apple. They are great systems that are vastly superior to the bloated crapware being offered by Microsoft.
I've never used OS X but I have no question that it is superior to Windows. I am the only non-Mac in my study group and I have admired the functionality and performance of the Powerbook from a distance.
As a recent Linux (Simply Mepis 3.3) convert I am a little like one of those obnoxious people who try to sell you flowers on streetcorners and tell you about "the light." I think everyone should go Linux - even Mac fans. You can dual-boot after all.
I hope the switch to Intel is as smooth as you assume it will be. Just be wary of becoming one of those Star Wars-esque uberfans who can't admit when the giant capitalist godheads they admire have blown cheese.
My brother is a former Linux zealot who went Mac. I believe he actually dual-booted for a while, but he reached a point where he was running all of the open-source apps he needed under OS X and didn't need the dual-boot anymore.
I asked him about the Intel switch and said, "I can't wait for my Pentium-powered Powerbook." He's a bigger nerd than me and not the passionate knee-jerker that I am when it comes to Macs, and if he's on board, then I'm not worried.
I'm sorry if you felt I was jumping on you. I didn't mean to. I'm just, as I said, passionate.
I'm seriously considering a Linux server for music and home web serving. I've never heard of that distro. Do you like it?
Never felt like you were jumping on me. I appreciate your passion and am well aware that this is a blog partially dedicated to Mac-love. After girl-on-girl love it's one of my favorite types.
I do love the Mepis distro. It is simple enough for a long time Windows user to enjoy and can still be torn to the ground and rebuilt if I ever feel adventurous. I'm such a geek that I'm a computer geek wannabe. I don't know anything but I wish I did. So being finally free of Windows is a pretty big deal for me.
I think open source is the future and it looks like Apple and OS X are far more ready for that future than the boys up in Redmond. I bet that'll irk old Bill Gates right up until he buys our children and uses them as garden lanterns.
Post a Comment
<< Home