Plan in place for Intel based macs?

Has it been decided whether/when these machines will be supported? I know they haven't been released yet, but we all know they're coming in at most six months (and perhaps sooner, depending on whether one believes rumor sites). Ability to support SL is an important consideration as I consider my next mac.

I've just heard faint rumours. Apparently, registered Mac developers will have no problems at all in producing two sets of compiled versions (one for the PowerPC, one for Intel) from exactly the same set of source code. While I have my doubts on the "ease", the truth is, the same happened when Apple was supporting both the Motorola 68000 series and the PowerPC. Some of you may remember the "fat binaries" that would run perfectly on both platforms. And later, when Mac OS X came out, you also had an option to compile a single version that worked on both Mac OS 9 and OS X (which was used by some game companies since they had their own, non-standard interfaces).

I expect that the same will apply to PowerPC/Intel versions of SL. We can only hope

Most of the basic code should be fine, XCode will produce dual binaries automatically. One of the things that I remember being concerned about, though, is direct support for graphics hardware. That's not going to work the same between old PPC macs and new x86 ones. I think.

Really need some sort of proper Mac programmer to comment here.

Apple's Universal Binary approach should work for SL's case. If it doesn't, the fault will fall completely on Linden Labs. The Intel-based developer Macs and all the software to make and test universal binaries came out the day that Intel-Macs was announced. I would be very disappointed in LL if they did not get started on it right away, as my next computer will most likely be this new breed of Mac.

Although not having a mac myself im sure i read somewhere on the forums that they had ordered the x86 mac development kit a while ago

We do indeed have one of the secret Intel Inside-Macs here in the office. We affectionately call it the Intellitosh and we have developers already working on versions for both the Intel Mac and the PowerPC Mac. We will not be abandoning the PowerPC-based Macs in the forseeable future. If we did, we'd have a lot of new Macs to buy for the office

Good to hear, Brent! Although they really aren't that secret as my 3-person company has one, too.

Envisions Dual 4.0 (Intel), pure 64-bit Quad using the Mac architecture on a 8Mbit/sec connection.

The IBM clone makers (Dell, Gateway, etc...) should be very concerned.

Sounds, sweet, Brent.

Any one able to disclose performance information on the Intel Mac boxes?

Of course.. I have to wonder if they will also work with AMD, since they are designing Mac for "x86". Personally, I cant wait to dual-boot it, especially if it runs better than windows.

Gateway, Dell, etc should not be worried, if it outperforms Windows, then they will start selling Mac boxes like everyone else. I would assume that Apple will liscense Macintosh OS similar to other OSes currently on the market. The company who should be worried is Microsoft.

Of course this means that I will have to learn to tech support Macintosh, but then Im not too worried about that =)

Oh, and before someone flames the "running better than windows" line above, the reasons that I run Windows over Macintosh are simple. 1: Mac cant run all my games. 2: Macs are too damn expensive for their limited hardware (of course I have heard that they use their hardware much better than a Windows box, but I havent seen any first-hand proof of this)

God, Im gonna get flamed... not trying to bait it, but I dont think I can avoid it either now =(

You will not be able to "legally" dual-boot unless Steve Jobs does a 180. Which he's been known to do. "We will never release a video iPod."

What I mean is that Steve Jobs has stated if you buy a Intel-based Mac, it will be hard-wired to not run Windows. And vice-versa, if you buy the Intel version of OS X, it will not run on non-Apple hardware.

I really hope Jobs changes his mind on this, because the CEO of Dell said if they did, they would start shipping OS X with new Dells.

If Apple wants to truly compete with Microsoft, they MUST get rid of the hardware fetish they currently have. Microsoft doesn't dabble in hardware when it comes to their OS. I mean, they don't say, in order to run Windows, you also need to buy your hardware from us, too.

Apple must take that approach. If they do, I can almost guarantee you we would see their market share in the OS world skyrocket. OS X is much, much better than Windows. This coming from a lifelong PC user, who used to dual in the old Usenet flamewars on Mac vs. PC.

Think of the market share that Apple would help generate if they agreed to sell the Intel-based Mac with their OS preloaded, but ALLOW a windows OS to be dual booted.

One of the main reasons why macs run so much better than your average crashy windows box is the "hardware fetish" though. You may be right in that recent macs have moved away from good hardware design in favour of more utilitarian crap (G5 iMac "shoebox" and the mac "doughnut box" mini), but those are lousy computers next to the other designs.

OS-X is way better than windows from a user standpoint, but a great deal of windows problems stem from the "try to make it work on any old crap computer" problem. The last thing I would like to see is this kind of frustration repeated on the Mac.

I would expect "mac branded" intel boxes at the very least and *no* support for anyone wanting to make OS-X work on just any old box. I would like to see intel inside, but also I would like to see them go back to the more interesting, innovative, and better performing designs which made them good in the first place.

So true, Aaron. The Mac architecture is so superior, why would Apple abandon? Steve's strategy is to bring Intel to Mac.... not bring Mac to IBM clones, Windoze, and those *ugh, plastic boxes know as PeeCee's.

Yeah, I run MS Office for Mac, and it totally outperforms MS for Windows on my IBM clone. I will really have absolutely no need for a Windoze based machine when the Intel based Mac become reality.

Can't wait.

It's looking very likely that this will be allowed. They've even filed a patent on it.

It's the reverse (Mac OS X running on generic PCs) that Apple don't want to allow (and have stated "will not be possible". They still make more money on the hardware than on the OS and want to keep that business.

That said, plenty of people want to run OS X on their generic Intel boxes, and the hackers have so far broken every protection Apple's put out there. It's going to be an interesting 2006 for Mac fans.

I was a YUGE Mac fan back in the 90s. Notsomuch in recent years, cost certainly being a factor. I'm really looking forward to seeing how this whole implementation of "Intel-based Macs" will go. As an OS, I find OS X so slick and appealing, but of course, I can't run it on my Intel-based PC. It'll be fascinating indeed to see what happens in 2006 AD. I'm excited.

In an effort to prevent this spiraling into a platform war and divert your attention, let me offer this.

http://www.folklore.org/

Some Apple anecdotes from the distant past. Most Mac fans would (should) probably already know this.
For the PC users, its still worth a read. What I liked about it was the human factor behind the birth of the Macintosh and far less technological info. It was an era of gung ho technologists trying to do their best.

It all comes down to the price, when only one company makes the hardware the price will stay high. The multiple hardware makers keeps the price lower. That will keep the Mac from being bigger than the PC.

Apple (VP Phil Schiller) has actually publicly stated (at the WWDC where they were intorduced) that they would http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+aligns+with+Intel+-+page+2/2100-1014_3-5733756-2.html?tag=st.next "do nothing to preclude that" referring to dual booting an Intel Mac to windows, but that they would not allow booting OSX on non-Apple hardware. This is actually the fat edge of the sales wedge for them. If existing windows users can simply dual boot into windows, they have one less excuse to preclude buying a Mac. It makes it a much easier sell, when the risk of OS change is reduced.

Not entirely true. If you have a pretty powerful computer, you can run OS X on an Intel in its mediocre form by using the stuff at http://www.pearpc.net. I tried it out and its what convinced me to actually check out Macs, having had them off my radar for over a decade. I then visited an Apple store and was sold. Well, not completely, because I can't afford them right now. I'm hoping cheaper-to-produce Intels will see a good price drop in Macs, which will, in turn, increase their market share.

Now that the release of fueled Macs has been officially announced, I'd like to hear more about the current stage of development on bringing SL into Universal Binary, which will allow it to run natively on both PowerPC & Intel architectures.

It's completely coincidental that there is an SL release today, right?

I had planned to buy a G5 iMac today, deferred until after MWSF so that I would get the rumoured iLife '06 bundled. After Steve's little surprise I have of course shifted my order to the shiny new box, although I do worry some about getting one of the early machines... not really my usual style.

These things should be pretty good SL platforms, certainly a lot better than the PC I'm replacing this with for my main development desktop. So, yeah, universal binaries "soon" would be great. Pretty please?

Failing that, can anyone who has actually done it confirm that SL runs acceptably under Rosetta?

Myself, I just found out about the new $1999 Macbooks...


You know, when I bought this powerbook, I researched the DEVIL out of Apple and other sites. At no time did they hint that their would be this level of upgrade for the same price...

Dangit... Now I have to go to Comp-USA and discuss this with them... I'm still in the 21 days to return, but I HATE doing that to them when it's Apple's little gameplan to make a tech-jump like this.

Worst thing about it: I won't have a choice. I'm screwed if I stay with this version of hte powerbook for 3 years... it will be obsolete as software designers full the CPU power of the new system.

<sigh> And I LIKED this powerbook too...

Yeah, an update from LL would be great. My company got an email from Apple a few minute after Jobs showed the new Intel macs saying it was time to ship our Universal Binaries... it was so perfectly timed...

We are currently developing the "Mactel" build of Second Life. We have ... er, "successfully"* connected it to an internal grid and we anticipate an Alpha Beta Kappa (go team!) by the end of January 2006.

*by "successfully" we mean the computer didn't implode and tear open the fabric of space-time, nor were any puppies harmed. The Mactel build is not ready for QA'ing yet but we will keep you posted

Your friendly Mac Linden,
Brent Linden

Great to know you're making such good progress Brent!

Has anyone tried running the regular PowerPC SL build on an intel Mac yet? Does it run (under Rosetta?)? If so, what kind of performance does it give? Better or worse than a G4/G5 mac?

I may go to an Apple store this weekend and try to run SL on an intel iMac if they'll let me...

Thanks!
Craig