Apple ditches PowerPC in favor of Intel

[Jolly Rogers]

Steve Jobs previews Mac with an Intel brain at WWDC 2005

At its Worldwide Developer Conference today, Apple® announced plans to deliver models of its Macintosh® computers using Intel® microprocessors by this time next year, and to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007. Apple previewed a version of its critically acclaimed operating system, Mac OS® X Tiger, running on an Intel-based Mac® to the over 3,800 developers attending CEO Steve Jobs’ keynote address. Apple also announced the availability of a Developer Transition Kit, consisting of an Intel-based Mac development system along with preview versions of Apple’s software, which will allow developers to prepare versions of their applications which will run on both PowerPC and Intel-based Macs.

“Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “It’s been ten years since our transition to the PowerPC, and we think Intel’s technology will help us create the best personal computers for the next ten years.”

“We are thrilled to have the world’s most innovative personal computer company as a customer,” said Paul Otellini, president and CEO of Intel. “Apple helped found the PC industry and throughout the years has been known for fresh ideas and new approaches. We look forward to providing advanced chip technologies, and to collaborating on new initiatives, to help Apple continue to deliver innovative products for years to come.”

“We plan to create future versions of Microsoft Office for the Mac that support both PowerPC and Intel processors,” said Roz Ho, general manager of Microsoft’s Macintosh Business Unit. “We have a strong relationship with Apple and will work closely with them to continue our long tradition of making great applications for a great platform.”

“We think this is a really smart move on Apple’s part and plan to create future versions of our Creative Suite for Macintosh that support both PowerPC and Intel processors,” said Bruce Chizen, CEO of Adobe.

The Developer Transition Kit is available starting today for $999 to all Apple Developer Connection Select and Premier members. Further information for Apple Developer Connection members is available at developer.apple.com. Intel plans to provide industry leading development tools support for Apple later this year, including the Intel C/C++ Compiler for Apple, Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple, Intel Math Kernel Libraries for Apple and Intel Integrated Performance Primitives for Apple.

I guess it's only a matter of time before haxxors make cheap Intel systems that can run Mac OS X.

[Dat Pinche Haro!]

i guess it's about time...but come on...there's probably an assload of people already using pentiums or amd chips to run their apple computers...this just means apple has decided that they wanna have intel on their side and get away from IBM....

[yellowlightman]

there's probably an assload of people already using pentiums or amd chips to run their apple computers...

Er, no.

As a Mac user, I'm not sure what to think. As long as it's better for the company, I'm all for it.

[myk]

I don't get it-I always thought that Apple insisted on using technology that had nothing to do with Intel or AMD thus lending to their "uniqueness."

[JB0]

i guess it's about time...but come on...there's probably an assload of people already using pentiums or amd chips to run their apple computers...

How? MacOS is compiled to run on a PowerPC, which is non-x86.

Before that, it was compiled to run on a 68000, which is ALSO non-x86.

If you stuff an Athlon 64 into a G5 tower, you get... a big non-fuctional cheese-grater.

If you stuff a MacOS X disk into a IBM-compatible PC you get... a big non-functional beige box.

It's like expecting Playstation 2 sofware and GameCube software to work in the same system.

this just means apple has decided that they wanna have intel on their side and get away from IBM....

Most likely theory I've seen is that IBM's failed to meet promised deliveries lately, so they're gonna have Intel manufacturing their processors, but they'll still use the PowerPC family.

Less likely, but far juicier, is Itanium-based Macs.

I seriously doubt they're moving to x86.

[Jolly Rogers]

Apple had a fallout with IBM because IBM was slow in delivering the PowerPC chips to Apple, most likely costing them signficant business as a result.

Uniqueness isn't worth much if the company has a problem delivering it.

[Dangard Ace]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5733756.html?tag=st.prev

IBM failed to deliver promised speeds. Apple trying something new. OS X has been supposedly running on Intel and AMD chips ever since the inception of X. Know what? I don't care. As long as the OS remains the same and it has the hardware to back it up, I'm happy.

[JB0]

I don't get it-I always thought that Apple insisted on using technology that had nothing to do with Intel or AMD thus lending to their "uniqueness."

More along the lines of whatever's "best".

The original Macs used 68000s. And they blew the doors off of anything in the x86 family at the time.

When they moved to PowerPC, it was a similar situation. PPC blew the 68k away, as well as the competing x86 chips.

Modern x86 chips are roughly equal to the G5s Apple uses, which is why I don't think they're going for another architecture swap. But the x86 chips are cheaper...

[myk]

Well, I think that cheaper would be the key term in this situation, right?

[JB0]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5733756.html?tag=st.prev

IBM failed to deliver promised speeds. Apple trying something new. OS X has been supposedly running on Intel and AMD chips ever since the inception of X. Know what? I don't care. As long as the OS remains the same and it has the hardware to back it up, I'm happy.

And it's official, they're changing architectures. Making my chatter meaningless.

...

But it doesn't say if it's x86 or IA64! GO ITANIUM!

</hopeless_dream>

[armentage]

Personally I don't care if a chip is "better" if it costs much more and runs less software. The PowerPC is a loser in my book. AMD Athlons manages to CRUSH Intel chips in terms of performance and cost, while still being 100% compatible with the x86 instruction set.

Now we have to wait and see if Apple does anything stupid to tie you into Apple hardware only (i.e. some sort of funky closed chipset). I'm sure the hackers in Taiwan will find ways around any restrictions Apple comes up with!

[Hurin]

Dogs and cats. . . living together! MASS HYSTERIA!

[Oihan]

Meh, I have a Pentium 4 2.8GHz w/HTT in my computer at home and it does the job I suppose. But I'm upgrading to an Athlon 64 3200+ with the Venice core in it soon. As far as I'm concerned, it's all about the 64-bit processing.

Edited June 6, 2005 by Oihan

[Max Jenius]

Dogs and cats. . . living together! MASS HYSTERIA!

that's exactly the first thought that went through my mind...

[Gaijin]

Dogs and cats. . . living together! MASS HYSTERIA!

[Zentrandude]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5733756.html?tag=st.prev

IBM failed to deliver promised speeds.  Apple trying something new.  OS X has been supposedly running on Intel and AMD chips ever since the inception of X.  Know what?  I don't care.  As long as the OS remains the same and it has the hardware to back it up, I'm happy.

And it's official, they're changing architectures. Making my chatter meaningless.

...

But it doesn't say if it's x86 or IA64! GO ITANIUM!

</hopeless_dream>

don't worry we like it when you go off on about things like that. keeps the boards alive

anyways abacus > pcs

[ewilen]

IBM wasn't keeping up with speed for the G5 and even more important, there was nothing in the pipeline that delivered G5 or better performance yet was power/heat compatible with a notebook. Armentage raises some interesting points--will Apple under Jobs continue to be anti-clone? I think the answer is yes, because Jobs has always viewed Apple as a hardware company.

In fact I've read that the PPC in itself is cheaper than Pentiums. I doubt that Apple is going to lower the price of their hardware, or allow clones, unless they can figure out how to make money by other means. But the other half of Armentage's objection may be addressed--having an Intel chip at the heart of the machine probably can't hurt cross-platform porting.

And yes, it does seem that they'll be Pentiums, not Itanium-based.

Apple will offer a Developer Kit, which includes 3.6GHz Pentium 4. OS X 10.4.1 for Intel (preview release). Order today; available in two weeks.

(From http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/wwdc/05/index.html ) Edited June 7, 2005 by ewilen

[armentage]

Itanium is long dead, and so is Intel IA64.

Intel is going to start shipping 64-bit chips that use AMD's 64-bit specification. This was announced a few months ago.

My friends that know anything about CPU architecture always swear up & down that IA64 was total garbage from the start, where as AMD64 was much better.

Did you all read today how Laptop sales have outpaced desktop sales for the first time this last year? Intel Centrino based systems are pretty awesome, maybe Apple is looking to the future already!

[Kamineko]

IBM wasn't keeping up with speed for the G5 and even more important, there was nothing in the pipeline that delivered G5 or better performance yet was power/heat compatible with a notebook. Armentage raises some interesting points--will Apple under Jobs continue to be anti-clone? I think the answer is yes, because Jobs has always viewed Apple as a hardware company.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see a Mac Mini with a Centrino sticker in it . . .

[Noyhauser]

Itanium is long dead, and so is Intel IA64.

Intel is going to start shipping 64-bit chips that use AMD's 64-bit specification. This was announced a few months ago.

My friends that know anything about CPU architecture always swear up & down that IA64 was total garbage from the start, where as AMD64 was much better.

Did you all read today how Laptop sales have outpaced desktop sales for the first time this last year? Intel Centrino based systems are pretty awesome, maybe Apple is looking to the future already!

Actually I had read reports that there was serious problems with the next generation apple notebooks, that they couldn't fit a G-5 chip because it had too much heat. There was even talk that it would have to use a liquid cooling system it ran so hot. So this might make sense since their note book buisness has been doing quite well as of late.

[armentage]

Also remember that the FIRST thing Jobs did when he took over in 1995 was to cancel all of the Apple 3rd party licenses.

There was a time when in the early 90s when Apple was allowing other companies (PowerComputing among others) to build Mac Clones, that used the same PowerPC chips and could boot the old MacOS system. Apple was making money charging for the OS and some of the firmware only.

As soon as the NeXT merger happened, Jobs canceled all those contracts, and re-focused Apple as a hardware company. This was also around the same time Bill Gates gifted Apple a few hundred million bucks...

God I hope Apple farts MS. I love Windows (vs Unix) for crazy reasons, but lately WinXP has begun to suck. Too complicated, bloated.... not like Win2K and NT were back when they first shiped. Maybe the competition will do MS some good.

[armentage]

That is pretty funny, right?

Apple switches to Intel the same time that Microsoft switches the XBox to PPC!

Stop the ride, I want to get off!

[JB0]

Itanium is long dead, and so is Intel IA64.

Intel is going to start shipping 64-bit chips that use AMD's 64-bit specification. This was announced a few months ago.

My friends that know anything about CPU architecture always swear up & down that IA64 was total garbage from the start, where as AMD64 was much better.

From what I'd heard, the Itanium was a quite nice processor... when running in native mode.

It totally sucked for x86 code, unarguably, but I'd heard Itanium code kicked ass.

I do feel obliged to point out that just because Apple uses an x86 doesn't necessarily mean it will use an IBM-compatible architecture.

At this point I couldn't possibly venture a guess as to whether they will, though.

[JB0]

Itanium is long dead, and so is Intel IA64.

Intel is going to start shipping 64-bit chips that use AMD's 64-bit specification.  This was announced a few months ago.

My friends that know anything about CPU architecture always swear up & down that IA64 was total garbage from the start, where as AMD64 was much better.

From what I'd heard, the Itanium was a quite nice processor... when running in native mode.

It totally sucked for x86 code, unarguably, but I'd heard Itanium code kicked ass.

I do feel obliged to point out that just because Apple uses an x86 doesn't necessarily mean it will use an IBM-compatible architecture.

At this point I couldn't possibly venture a guess as to whether they will, though.

Jobs leaves that responsibility to the developers hands since the OSX is "processor independent" as Steve would put it. Since OSX's incarnation 5 years ago they developed the OSX to run on either processor. It is left for the developers to write code for either the PowerPC and/or Intel architecture in a move that Jobs has stated as "universal binaries" on Xcode.

Is that directed to the IA64 part or the IBM-compatible architecture part?

[armentage]

Well...

Let's not get carried away here. It's just UNIX underneath the covers, with some device drivers for the graphics hardware and such, and then the display system. It's not X-Windows (thank god) and I'm not sure if its Display Postscript or something new, but whatever it is, I'm sure it makes no difference what platform its compiled on

You could say the same thing about WinXP. In fact, it was written to run on many different CPUs. It used to run on the DEC Alpha, PowerPC, HP/PA, etc etc etc. I mean, in the end all its doing is adding up numbers and jumping to registeres. Who cares how the code is pipelined or optimized??? Users certainly don't.

Hell, Linux is the same way. Jobs is just blowing smoke with that talk.

Edited June 7, 2005 by armentage

[Jawjaw]

I love how Apple users get worked up over such stupid things. I bet most of them have never even seen their processor in their precious Apple computer. If the OS runs the same, who cares what it runs on? The PC has two choices for cpu's: AMD and Intel. Without being told, you couldn't tell which is running in any given system.

[Hiriyu]

That is pretty funny, right?

Apple switches to Intel the same time that Microsoft switches the XBox to PPC!

Stop the ride, I want to get off!

What is this, Bizarro world? LMFAO

[eugimon]

well, if this drives down the cost of a mac to something reasonable.. it's certainly a good thing. gotta feel for IBM though.. they invented the PC and they're just slowly being pushed out of it... oh well.

[Effect]

I agree if this makes the Apple computers cost less then I'm all for it. That has really been the only reason I haven't gotten one, the cost. I'd much rather own a Apple G5, iMac, or Powerbook over my PC to be honest. I just like using those more and I'm more comfortable with it. Four years of using and working on them in high school will do that to you I guess and even after 4 hours of college with PCs, I still prefer the Apple. Getting away from PC gaming anyway other then certain games. Just price wise, even with student discounts is really high.

Edited June 7, 2005 by Effect

[JB0]

well, if this drives down the cost of a mac to something reasonable.. it's certainly a good thing. gotta feel for IBM though.. they invented the PC and they're just slowly being pushed out of it... oh well.

Ummm, no.

Altair 8800: 1975.

Apple 1: 1976.

Apple 2: 1977.

IBM PC 5150: 1981.

IBM invented the IBM PC ARCHITECTURE, which is the basis for the mdoern IBM-compatible PC. They did NOT invent the personal computer.

[al0324]

But would you buy an intel driven mac or a powerPC mac? Since both processors will see its production numbers go up and driving the price down. I can only see that Apple will introduce a whole new line much like the Mac mini or implement it on existing products. They of course won't cannibilize their procucts on each other so the logical solution is to put an Intel on possibly their most popular products; the iMac, iBook and mini as well as their iPod line if an update will occur within this year. This will give them a little more room to compete in the windoze world.

well, it'll have to be an intel driven mac now... as they've got plans i'm sure to phase out powerpc within the next two years or so. This will stagger Apple sales now for sure. People wanting to upgrade will probably wait to see what's gonna happen.

I was all set and ready to fork out some $$$ and get a powerPC... but now i'll just wait and see what happens. THe powerPC at work will get me by.

I have no problem with having an Intel in my comp - wouldn't mind it at all for a mac. it's the winXP os that's a different story -

also - with an intel based chip, how will mac sell their comps vs other options like dell and such? oOoo that's something to ponder.

[Gunbuster]

Itanium is long dead, and so is Intel IA64.

Intel is going to start shipping 64-bit chips that use AMD's 64-bit specification.  This was announced a few months ago.

My friends that know anything about CPU architecture always swear up & down that IA64 was total garbage from the start, where as AMD64 was much better.

From what I'd heard, the Itanium was a quite nice processor... when running in native mode.

It totally sucked for x86 code, unarguably, but I'd heard Itanium code kicked ass.

I do feel obliged to point out that just because Apple uses an x86 doesn't necessarily mean it will use an IBM-compatible architecture.

At this point I couldn't possibly venture a guess as to whether they will, though.

Jobs leaves that responsibility to the developers hands since the OSX is "processor independent" as Steve would put it. Since OSX's incarnation 5 years ago they developed the OSX to run on either processor. It is left for the developers to write code for either the PowerPC and/or Intel architecture in a move that Jobs has stated as "universal binaries" on Xcode.

Is that directed to the IA64 part or the IBM-compatible architecture part?

From both since OSX runs natively on 64 and not being dependent on the parameters of a processor makes it more compatible.

Wait a sec, I thought the Mac OS was written for RISC processors (PPC)? If they want it to be more compatible with the X86, wouldn't they have to change the OS architecture to work CISC processors (intel)?

Also, Microsoft does own part of Apple. So in buying Mac, you still supporting MS

[armentage]

Mac OS was not "written for RISC" or whatever. Operating systems haven't been written for one particular platform for a LONG time.

The current MacOS is a heavily updated version of the old NeXT Step operating system, which Apple aquired along with Mr Jobs in the late 90's.

NeXTStep ran on the Motorola 68000 series of processors, before being ported over to the x86. MacOS X was a port TO the PPC! MacOS X was running on Intel chips years before it ever made it to the PowerPC.

Anyway, these points are all very moot and uninteresting. They haven't mattered in decades. The OS "kernel" is ported to a new architecture, and most programes/code should run just fine with a little tweaking and a recompile (which is exactly what Apple is saying about the transition)

The trouble is that you will have to get Intel-Mac versions of all your apps, and that's going to be a lot of work for developers, a lot of expense. Aside from having to replace their (generally) expensive developer boxes with the new Mac-Intel boxes, they will have to go throught their programs with a fine-tooth comb looking for the few small differences that do exist between the x86 and PPC as far as real user apps are concerned (the Big-Endian vs Little-Ending bullshit debalce that has been hampering cross-platform development for decades)

From what I understand, Apple is already releasing a "Mac-Intel preview" CD, which, I am just guessing here, will be MacOS compiled for a standard, everyday IBM PC (or Dell, Gateway, HP, etc.) That will go a long way towards helping with the transition. Also, since the x86 is a very well known and understood platform, with extremely efficient compilers already available, you can bet developers will squeeze every drop of power out of it right from the get-go!

Personally, as a software developer, I can't think of a more fantastic development!

For users, it'll be a rough road for a few years...

[ewilen]

The trouble is that you will have to get Intel-Mac versions of all your apps, and that's going to be a lot of work for developers, a lot of expense.

Jobs claims it won't be too bad, giving an example of Mathematic being tweaked and recompiled in a couple hours. As well, there will be a compability mode which Jobs claims will be transparent and incur a very small performance hit (more like the transition to PPC from 68k than the Classic mode under OS X).

From what I understand, Apple is already releasing a "Mac-Intel preview" CD, which, I am just guessing here, will be MacOS compiled for a standard, everyday  IBM PC (or Dell, Gateway, HP, etc.)

What I've read is that Apple will provide a transition development kit including an x86 based Mac to developers. I really doubt that Apple wants a version of the OS in the wild that could be used on a vanilla PC.

[Matt Random]

It was a challenge for my company to port our Linux software to IA64. Our customers (the chip designers and manufacturers of the world) never really jumped onto the IA64 bandwagon. I'm not even sure if we're building on that platform anymore. It was much easier to do the port to AMD64 and our customers seem happier with the machines.

Porting is often a little more involved than marketing people would like you to believe. Getting something to compile is just the first step. The time consuming step is assuring that each and every piece of the functionality still works. Then there's all the tweaking and benchmarking to keep the runtime acceptable.

I prefer not to use the 64 bit EXEs if at all possible since there a performance hit associated with the additional addressing overhead.

IBM needs to do something to get their stock price back into the 90s and somehow I don't think this is it