Apple/IBM split - Mac to use Intel

http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.lede

Well at least IBM still has the PS3, XBOX 360, and Nintendo Revolution chip business and its much larger market share Boy it would suck to be a Mac developer - OS updates breaking all your stuff, and now a shift to an entirely new architechture AGAIN. Bravo Apple on that legendary stability. I wonder how this will affect the SL Mac client?

When I heard this news, I immediately thought it would herald the coming of OS X on the PC. However, Apple's surely going to demand that Intel develop a proprietary, overpriced, and inferior architecture of its own for them.

Didn't Apple just switch from Motorola a couple of years ago?

Maybe we should hear what Steve Jobs has to say at 10am before all you Mac haters throw a party.

Hay I am not a Mac hater.... I am a Apple Computer Inc. Hater!

News from MacCentral.com:

The rumors are true: Intel will be inside

Jobs talked about the major transitions in the Mac's life -- starting from the Mac's Motorola 68000-series processor to PowerPC. "The PowerPC set Apple up fro the next decade. It was a good move," he said.

"The second transition was even better -- the transition from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X that we just did," he continued. "This was a brain transplant. And even though these operating systems (9 and x) vary only by one in name, they are very different, and this has set Apple up for the next 20 years."

As the Intel logo lowered on the stage screen, Jobs said, "We are going to make the transition from PowerPC to Intel processors, and we are going to do it for you now, and for our customers next year. Why? Because we want to be making the best computer for our customers looking forward."

"I stood up here two years ago and promised you 3.0 GHz. I think a lot of you would like a G5 in your PowerBook, and we haven't been able to deliver that to you," said Jobs. "But as we look ahead, and though we've got great products now, and great PowerPC products still to come, we can envision great products we want to build, and we can't envision how to build them with the current PowerPC roadmap," said Jobs.

Intel processors provide more performance per watt than PowerPC processors do, said Jobs. "When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PoweRPC gives us 15 units of perfomance per watt, but Intel's roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do," he explained.

Transition to Intel by 2007, and yes, Marklar exists

"Starting next year, we will introduce Macs with Intel processors," said Jobs. "This time next year, we plan to ship Macs with Intel processors. In two years, our plan is that the transition will be mostly complete, and will be complete by end of 2007."

Jobs then confirmed a long-held belief that Apple was working on an Intel-compatible version of Mac OS X that some have termed "Marklar."

Mac OS X has been "leading a secret double life" for the past five years, said Jobs. "So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years."

Jobs demonstrated a version of Mac OS X running on a 3.6GHz Pentium 4-processor equipped system, running a build of Mac OS X v10.4.1. He showed Dashboard widgets, Spotlight, iCal, Apple's Mail, Safari and iPhoto all working on the Intel-based system.

Apple needs developers' help to complete the transition

"We are very far along on this, but we're not done," said Jobs. "Which is why we're going to put it in your hands very soon, so you can help us finish it."

The future of Mac OS X development is moving to Xcode, said Jobs. Of Apple's top 100 developers, more than half -- 56 percent -- are already using Xcode, and 25 percent are in the process of switching to Xcode. "Less than 20 percent are not on board yet. Now is a good time to get on board," said Jobs.

looks official now



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/apple_chips;_ylt=AjGtSS1YHylMLWdg6OgYHPgEtbAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

You may now return to your regularly scheduled "OMG APPLE SUCKS LOL STUPID GAY ONE BUTTON MOUSE ROFL" discussion.

Yah Torley, but it's amazing to me how many blindly anti-apple people still don't know you can plug a multiple button mouse into a Mac and use it.

Intel processors provide more performance per watt than PowerPC processors do, said Jobs. "When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PoweRPC gives us 15 units of perfomance per watt, but Intel's roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do," he explained.

Here I been told that PowerPC was so much faster then a Intell. LOL! Nice to see they didn't change the story.

I don't care about 1 button mouse. I just dislike the company as a whole.

Microsoft ain't any better.

I'd say the best OS to date is still Linux (just my opinion). Yet, I don't use Linux, I have tried in the past.
It was easy, slick, and started up right away and ran everything in the instant.

The only drawback is, that it's not compatible with some games. Which being a heavy gamer, I depend a lot on Microsoft.

As far as Mac is concerned, 3 cheers for them and Intel, I think this will give them a boost and eventually kick Microsoft out the door.

Mac kicking Microsoft, LOL man your killing me. Mac and Linux are just staying here to give people like me something to LOL about.

It would be neat if Apple was planning to release a "PC version of OS X". People have been asking for this since OSX came out. It would allow the OS to succeed or fail on its own and indeed serve as direct competition to Windows. Meanwhile, Apple hardware would also sink or swim on it's own as one of the most heavily advertised advantages of Apple hardware has been the fact that it doesn't have all the faults of Intel.

Now there is going to have to e a HUGE amount of backpedalling by Apple on their marketing message. People with long memories will be re-playing those switch ads as jokes for years.

The really bad news about this is that it sounds like OS X will NOT run on any ordinary PC but only one some Apple "special". YOu can bet that these machines will continue to retail for more than a Dell and for far more than some of the "generic" PCs. Do they really think that the Apple logo alone is enough to sell these things at a premium?

Benchmarks have shown that what REALLY slows down Apples with respect to PCs these days are the OS, not the hardware. Linux on PowerPC beats Linux on Intel, and Linux vs Windows on similar equipment is a split decision. So OS X vs Windows on similar hardware is going to look very bad for Apple.

For simple applications it may be true that very little conversion will be necessary to support both hardware platforms. I'd be interested to hear if the LL people think they will be able to simply recompile the OS X version of SL to run on the new hardware. Apple may well complete their transition by 2007, but applications vendors as well as some hardware makers will be struggling with this for years. At what point do they say to the "legacy" Apple users "so-sorry"?

I for one won't be "switching" too an Intel based Apple. In fact, since I think this might be a kiss-of-death for Apple (over a three or four year timeframe) I'll probably go ahead and switch mine to Linux and go back to dual-booting to run SL just like I did on my old Intel box.

It's a crying shame.

Microsoft is already on its way out with the removal of several key features of Longhorn. If you hadn't read that already. The marketing and developers of MS are disgusted by this, simply because Longhorn couldn't cut the mustard. In which case, since it can't do that, MS will fail.

I have no other choice but to run Microsoft, but if I 'Had to' I would choose Linux.

But as far as Apple, I believe by going Intel, they got an upper hand. For be on the lookout for their next OS: Tiger (Mac OS X 10.4). Has some pretty neat features.

Microsoft is a dying breed.

Processor differences have not been a major marketing point for Apple since around 1996...almost a decade. Apple has been maintaining a version of OSX for Intel in-house, parallel to their official PPC versions, for five years. This transition has been in the works for a while.

The switch ads were focused on Windows, not Intel.

Control of both the OS and the hardware is one of Apple's primary differentiators, and an important reason why the Mac experience is so good. That will not change. The move to Intel is predicted to lower the price of Macs, which are pretty much already competitive with similarly-configured prebuilt machines from mainstream PC vendors. Anyway, if the Apple logo alone is already enough to sell computers with PPC chips inside, why would that change with an Intel inside?

Benchmarks have become a surprisingly ineffective marketing tool to the general public. Most PC vendors rely on price to draw in their customers. Benchmarking is important to niche markets, like gaming, but for the most part all the computer-buying public wants to know is "is it fast enough for the money?" OSX on Intel certainly will be. As for actual performance? We'll have to wait and see...

The strategy is to give developers the tools (Xcode) to produce fat binaries, supporting both processors:

"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.

Adobe's CEO Bruce Chizen said that the Intel-transition "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."

This is a good time to make the transition. Apple is stronger and more profitable than they've been in years, and they have a great OS which is gaining a reputation for stability, security, and ease-of-use. The iPod/iTunes combo remains hugely popular, and is just the initial foray into what will become a much broader media strategy. It had become time to address the shortcomings of IBM's lackluster PPC production.

Intel has better mobile chips than the PPC side, so you'll see an immediate performance difference in Apple's already popular portable offerings. IBM was continually unable to meet Apple's demand for chips, particularly the fastest, highest-margin ones; Intel will not have that problem. For those two reasons alone the move to Intel will strengthen Apple's position. It has also been widely speculated that Intel's on-chip DRM has helped Apple convince movie studios to participate in the expansion of iTunes (with its already huge market advantage) into the soon-to-explode movie download and in-home media management markets.

Whatever chip I have in my Mac, I'll continue to to be grateful that I never have to dual-boot.