 |
Search |
|
|
|
|
Classic 2 Guys |
|
10 Random Stories:
|
|
|
|
Apple and Intel - What Does It All Mean? |
|
 Well, I have been picking the feathers out of my teeth all week from eating crow. That's right. I never would have expected Apple to make the switch. I believed Apple was possibly making a deal with Intel, but Intel makes many more chips other than processors. I thought that was a more likely path for Apple to take.
I have let the news sink in for the last few days and more and more this is looking like a decision Apple was forced to make. Lets look at the reasons.
1. Supply.
This is one of the largest. Apple has continually had supply problems with IBM. IBM just hasn't been able to keep up with the demand of G5 processors that Apple has been placing on them. Why? Well, Apple only makes up about 2% of IBMs world wide chip sales. That's why. Apple just isn't a large enough player to shake IBMs boat. I think Apple was very tired of playing second fiddle.
This is also why Apple didn't go with AMD (who admittedly has better 64 bit technology). AMD has also been plagued by delivery and supply problems. Intel, if anything, is great at producing mass quantities of chips and delivering so everyone is happy.
That brings us to myth number 1. Apple will be using special versions of Intel's chips. No they won't. If they did, that would put them right back in the same position as they were with IBM. A 'one of' customer with small volumes. Apple will be pulling their chips off the shelf like everyone else. This will also help them in price. Special 'one of' chips would cost more.
That brings us to myth number 2. Wow, now we can get cheap Macs! Well, no. Apple will undoubtedly get better pricing on CPUs, but it won't be that much better. Apple might get enough of a break to fill out the specs in other areas (RAM, video, etc) but don't expect any drastic price point reductions.
2. IBM hasn't delivered on performance.
This I think comes in at number 2, but it is very close to being neck and neck with number 1. Jobs made some heavy promises that IBM hasn't delivered on. The biggest being a 3 GHz G5 machine. IBM has been unwilling or unable to put the resources into this problem (I am an engineer by trade and know very well that anything can be overcome with time and money). There has also been a trickle down effect for the mobile line that is really taking a hit. I am not saying that they need a 3 GHz chip in the notebook, but the specs of the G4 chips that are shipping in the current notebooks are lackluster at best (167MHz system bus). There is getting less and less differentiation between the iBooks and PowerBooks. Apple needs to fix this.
That brings us to prediction 1. Mobiles will be the first machines to get an Intel chip. The mobile line has no where to go but up. If they stay at the current revision cycle (currently about 9 months) look for a revision of the PowerBook line in September/October. That puts the next revision at June/July 2006. Hmmm. Jobs said that they hoped to have products in the market place with Intel chips by WWDC 2006. Isn't that convenient?
3. Apple needs a company that is willing to throw resources at making better CPUs.
Intel spends a ton of money on R&D. They were a little slow getting out of the gate on 64 bit technology, but I think they are just drafting behind the lead car to save a little fuel before they put the hammer down. As I stated earlier, IBM just wasn't willing to do this.
I don't think there is much more to it than that. Apple wants to make great machines so that they can keep marketing the best user experience possible. I don't think Apple is going to lower the bar any,
Let's get on with the myths.
Myth 2: I can't wait to run Mac OS X on my Dell. You won't be able to. Jobs made it really clear in the keynote that Intel versions of Mac OS X will only run on Apple hardware. Now, that being said it is very possible that someone will hack this. Apple has had to think about this. I don't think that it will hurt the market any. Not everyone will have the technical savvy enough to do this. People who will be doing it wouldn't have bought a Mac in the first place, or already own a Mac and are doing it just because.
Myth 3: I can't wait to run Windows on my Macintosh Intel box. Well, maybe. Phil Schiller (Apple vice president) told the press that Apple wasn't going to be doing anything that would keep you from running Windows on Apple hardware. That being said, he also didn't say Apple would help you. The technical challenges are probably on par with getting Mac OS X to run on a Dell, but who knows. We don't have any real hardware yet. Which brings us to Myth 4.
Myth 4: Man, the benchmarks on the P4 Mac suck. Well, yes, they do. Two important things to think about with these reports on the internet. Yes, someone ran Xbench on one of the developer boxes at WWDC. The boxes at WWDC ARE NOT a Macintosh with an Intel chip. Xbench hasn't been ported to Intel yet, so they ran an emulated version of Xbench using Rosetta. If anything, this was a test of Rosetta. It is a pretty good indication of what Rosetta can and can't do. Even if Xbench were ported, it would be wrong because the developer hardware is just that: DEVELOPER HARDWARE.
The development kit is little more than a P4 motherboard bolted inside a G5 case. This is not shipping hardware and Apple has said so. In fact, the developers have to ship the hardware back to Apple next year.
Performance is not the goal of these machines. Compatability is. It is a way for the developers to get going on the ports of their software. Let's wait until we get some real hardware before we have this discussion again.
What does all of this mean to the average user? Well, to be honest, not much. Really. Don't panic. There are at least 1-2 revs of each line in production now, maybe more.
If you were planning on going out and getting a new Mac then I say go do it. Nothing has really changed. When the new Intel machines come out, your software isn't going to magically quit working. It will run just fine. You might get left out of some updates, but that can happen any time. Nothing new. But new cool Macs are just around the corner! If you think this way, then you would never buy a machine. There are ALWAYS new cool Macs around the corner. You Mac is a lot like a car. As soon as you open the box (or drive the car off the lot) it is obsolete. Live with it. That is no excuse not to buy a computer. If you need a new Mac, go out and get one. Take the same precautions you normally would. Look at the cycle releases - Are we close to a possible revision? If you are close to an expo wait. You never know what they will pull out at an expo. But as I said, if I needed a machine today, I'd go buy one.
But I will be able to run windows programs on the new hardware! Yes and no. Yes, because you already can through VirtualPC. No you will not be able to run any old Windows programs. It is quite possible that you will get much better performance on VirtualPC on the new machines, but no one knows. VirtualPC isn't ported yet. Lets wait and find out. There is more to the story than just CPU architecture. This applies to Wine and any other emulator/translator as well. There is a LOT of work to do. Let's not count our chickens just yet.
That brings us to Rosetta. Jobs spoke about Rosetta being the technology that gets you PPC applications to 'just work' on Intel based Macs. Well, yes and no. Your application has to fall into a pretty tight area to run well under Rosetta. It is very likely that if your application would run under Rosetta, then it will be ported anyway, so you won't have to worry.
The only reason I am bringing this up now is because it plays an important part in whether or not you should upgrade now. Rosetta does give incredible performance to some applications as far as emulators/translators go. But it is still an emulator/translator.
There is a pretty good chance that the software you run now will run faster on your machine than it would on one of the Intel boxes. Most software will have Intel versions when the new hardware is debuted. The rub will come if your software doesn't (it might be a rough port for the vendor, who knows?) or you have to buy a new version to get an Intel compatible version. This must be taken into consideration before you decide to wait. You might be shooting yourself in the foot.
It is going to be a long transition. If you are in the market for a PowerMac, it could be 2 1/2 years before the Intel boxes come. Jobs said that they 'hoped' to have the transition complete by 2007. It could be longer. Again, I say if you need it buy it. Don't wait.
It is pretty clear that the announcement on Monday was pointed at Apple developers. The only thing that puzzles me is why they made it public. They could have put their top 100 developers in a room, threw an NDA at them, and announced this whole thing at Macworld in January. Why spill the beans in public? We'll have to see.
If you need a new Mac go get one. If you can wait a bit, do. There will be some really great Macs coming in the next few months. Don't wait for the Intel machines. You could be waiting a long while.
|
|
June 10 2005, 12:05 PM EDT, by |
Comments:
|
| DJLC |
6/10/05, 8:23 PM EDT |
So true. Again, it might be smart of Apple to allow us to run Windows the same way we run OS 9. That could really threaten Microsoft. If Apple doesn't pre-install Windows, but includes a "Windows Environment" (like the Classic Environment) - then a switcher could install Windows XP with the disc left from their old PC. If that happens enough, M$ could be in some trouble. I'm not saying the M$ will die, but the Windows unit could very well fall. M$ would still have alot more though - XBox, the hardware unit, and whatever bunch of bull[doodoo] they have besides Windows.
|
| Zach Littleman |
6/10/05, 11:23 PM EDT |
very pleased.. you said everything... i wish the whole, i dont undesrtand mac people and the windows idiots read this site.. they would learn a lot. and get a good laugh
|
| DanP |
6/11/05, 1:01 PM EDT |
This is Apple we're talking about so the Macintels will be unique. Intel doesn't just make chips, they also make chipsets and whether Apple or Intel supply the chipsets they will be at least slightly unigue. Intel would also like to see faster adoption of their new technology. The developer machines have that ugly PC BIOS. Intel wants PC manufacturers to adopt EFI which is similiar to Open Firmware. It also might not be as long a transition as stated. After waiting so long for a 3GHz G5, there's probably a lot of wiggle room in Apple's plan.
|
| Stevie Stets |
6/11/05, 10:27 PM EDT |
When I watched the Keynote, I was very impressed by the power of Rosetta. I never dreamed that cross platform (x86 to PowerPC) could be performed so quickly. The closest experience I have had is Virtual PC, and that doesn't even come close to what I witnessed with Rosetta. Just what is Microsoft's problem? I hate those douchebags.
|
| asld3 |
6/11/05, 10:54 PM EDT |
I think you were right on. I have a theory about your last question that is consistent with some of your logic as well.
I believe there's a good chance that we will see a MacIntel much sooner than later. Jobs made it public and set the deadline so far away in time so that people would continue to buy the existing IBM based machines. Jobs has to know exactly how long it is going to take for the vast majority of software to be ported over and given your confirmation on the rapidity of the switch; it points to the announcement being aimed at the buying public even more than at the developer community. I would guess that we may start to hear about MacIntels even as early as this fall and it may very well be the Mac mini that is the first to switch--it also needs a low power chip and it would be a good marketing move to use the form factor squarely aimed at Microsoft's market share--it would be optimal to get OS X out there on the intel chip while longhorn still languishes in development.
|
| nhmacusr |
6/12/05, 9:48 AM EDT |
Stevie Stets,
Steve had very limited demos of Rosetta at the Kynote. He also picked two applications that are written to run on many of Apple's machines. If you read the Apple Developers documentation on Universal binaries you will find that Rosetta is very limiting. It basically emulates/translates a G3. Many, Mny applications that are out there will not run. You are also goingg to only get 80% at best. If you noticed, all Steve really did was open some documents/pictures and scroll the scroll bars. He didn't really 'do' anything. He also chose his words very carefully. It is not as grand as he pretends. As I said in the article, it really won't make much difference in the end. All of the software that would run under Rosetta will be ported anyway. I just wouldn't bank on your current versions running ot running well.
|
| DJLC |
6/13/05, 3:36 AM EDT |
It doesn't matter. We plan to keep one of these old Blue & Whites around for that after we get our Intel Macs. There's no shame in keeping your old system until all your stuff is ported over. Not too hard, either.
|
| nhmacusr |
6/13/05, 5:59 AM EDT |
DJLC,
The issue really comes into play if you are ready for a new system now. I say buy now. Don't wait for the new machines. Software that won't run at all under Rosetta won't run under a Blue & White either (most of this is very high end stuff - Scientific/audio/video).
|
| DJLC |
6/13/05, 10:59 AM EDT |
That's true. Although I don't think you should buy a new system now. Perhaps an older system and soup it up some - much like I did my B&W. And really, it can run most of what you can run on your fancy G5 - Final Cut Pro, LiveType, Halo, etc. If you REALLY need it though, you could get a new system - but for the consumer market there really isn't much point. A Mac can usually survive 6-7 years of system updates (look at the iMac G3s, or my B&W). I wouldn't bother buying a new one if its life would be truncated to more like 1 major system update (Leopard).
|
| Jonahan |
6/13/05, 12:43 PM EDT |
Veddy nice, veddy nice... it's way cool to read an informed piece like this from someone that has such a good grasp of the chip-maker's world and the developer world.
This site totally rocks!
Oh wait, I may be a bit biased. ;-)
|
| Gary Green |
6/23/05, 1:32 AM EDT |
Any reason In-hell can't mfgr a G6 PowerPC? They don't HAVE to make a Pentium. They do make other chips.
|
| Zim |
7/5/05, 3:26 PM EDT |
Well the dev box has many flaws amoung which is the lack of a real 3d card so it's not an accurate mesure of the performance of OSX in X86.
Why they did not use a geforce 6800 for the dev box is beyound me.
Esp since all macs since 1997 have used ATI and nvidia chipset for graphics.
As for the rosseta emulator they really should add altivec translation or equipt transistion macs with a low end PPC processor such as the e700 it also can act as a media and bus accelerator when the machine is running in X86 mode this would help net needed speed and give apple a means of preventing the installation of OSX on a standard PC.
Any drm type stuff would be quickly broken.
Also I really really hope apple does not produce powerbooks with intel based video as I adviod these on the PC side because games blow on them.
As for CPu choice I still think AMD would be a better choice more 64 bit experiance and less hated by mac followers.
Though I think PPC still has life lift in it esp in the multi core G4 class cpus such as the e700 and e660.
Also they could have used cell and cell's spus would be very usefull in photoshop once plugs are written to take advantge of them.
Do not get me going on the weak general purpose unit in cell since most of the stuff you buy a fast CPU for are graphic intensive type applications .They really need fast vector units ,a very fast bus and a good video card.
Most people would not even notice a cell machine being slower in gerneral purpose PPC execution then a G5 what they will notice would be that their games and multimedia apps would fly once ported over to take advantge of cell's SPUs and that their graphics card now has a really fat data pipe between it and the processor.
This is why AMD cpus are faster in most applications then intel's because they have a better FPU ,better vector units along with faster busses on average also more cache.
Computer are not the same type of animal they were in the 80s or even the 90s.
But this change to X86 could be a good thing in that it can free apple from depending on one chip maker since serveral manufactures make X86 cores.
If they want a uber fast server they could easily use the AMD opteron or if they want a low power tablet they could enlist VIA's ultra low power processors though often the subject of a joke do offer over 2x the flop per watt intel's pentium D mobile family does. BTW D means dual Pentium M core with emt 64 not drm that little piece of evil lives in some but not all 945 chipsets.
|
| Zim |
7/5/05, 3:43 PM EDT |
On intel making a PPC compatible I see no reasons other then legal as to why they can't but since apple has rights to the PPC they could liciense it to intel.
All modern X86 processor are RISC or VLIW cpus with what's called an X86 decocder on silicon.
But this could cause the same vendor lock in they have with IBM if the intel PPC feature set divirges from the IBM family like what has happened with ibm and freescale.
IBM wants to do high end servers and super computers" blue gene is the fastest system in existance" while freescale wants to concentrate on embedded since thats where they have most of their sells are.
Just about every settop box and most high end cameras have a powerPC in them and of course all next gen consoles.
Also apple will have less voice with intel then they had with IBM and freescale.So getting them to make a custom chip might prove impossible.
this is also why I feel apple cannot prevent OSX from being run on any common PC.
Since the only thing setting the macintel apart from a PC will be a bios and maybe a drm chip .
To a determinded hacker that is not much of a barrier.
Rember running OS6/7 on atari ST's and amigas?
|
This article is archived, so you may not comment on it.
(The good news is there's always the shoutbox, the forums or the contact form if you're socially-inclined at the moment!)
|
|
|
|
Site Links |
|
|
|
|
Deep Thoughts |
|
|
If you're a circus clown, and you have a dog that you use in your act, I don't think it's a good idea to also dress the dog up like a clown, because people see that and they think, "Forgive me, but that's just too much."
|
|
Around Da Web |
|
| iProng: |
iPhone steals show at CTIA Wireless 2007
|
DLO offers dual cover fashion case for iPod
|
AT&T received 1M inquiries on iPhone
|
| MacDailyNews: |
Ars Technica in-depth review: Apple TV ?impressed all those who touched it?
|
Inside Apple?s Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard Server OS
|
The chips inside Apple TV
|
| Think Secret: |
Adobe Creative Suite 3 pricing revealed
|
|
|
We Like: |
|
|
|
|
Side Projects |
|
Jonahan
- JediPoker.net
- Jonahan.com
- iProng
- MacProng
iKen
Jedbeck
J.P.
|
|
