MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Intel Macs are way faster. Stop whining.

hey Nick - do you have one? I'm curious - most people talking about 'how much faster' the mac-intels are (or are going to be) don't have one, and don't know what they're talking about. Just wanted to make sure you weren't one of those. The question is how much of it is marketing, and how much of it is religion? If Apple wants to put Intel in the box, so be it. If Apple wanted to put AMD in the box, we'd hear the same back-and-forth. Most people don't care what runs their Mac - the fact that it doesn't run windows is the big seperation gap. PPC has been great - but the truth is, if they could get the power consumption to 'acceptable' levels, they would. Sure Intel's going to have the road map for a brighter future, and why shouldn't they? IBM's been in it a really long time. PPC works for me. I'm able to do things that windows users struggle with every day, every task. Surely some of us see the big deal with the new YAT but how many of us really care? If Apple says 'this is a big deal, a better future' how can they be wrong? Sure, Intel's saving them lots more money than just the processor - tracings on logic boards, as well as RAM and other components they've been offering for cheaper - I'm sure that has a lot to do with it. I don't care what runs in my mac - I just want it to run, everyday, every hour, every execution.

yeah, intel macs are way faster. but that's not right answer. the problems are behind the scenes. what about this. Various software you can have right now will run with intel mac? personally, I hate to run Rosetta emulator which is slower than I think. faster but not much. if you go to http://www.macworld.com, there are comparison between intel mac and powerPC with iLife 06. about average only 1.2 ~ 1.6 faster. that's not my expectation. of course, next time when you will buy new mac, it will be much better than now. in terms of time, I don't recommand that you buy it right now. wait for few more months. unlikely previous transition, it needs two different ways to do for hardware, software. so wait for right time.

You've cottoned on to such a great idea: keep both architectures and all your options stay open and force developers to keep producing universal binaries.

But unless we want to go back to updating our Windows XP boxes 3 times a week, and reinstalling them once a month and rebooting them 4 times a day - you do remember those days, don't you? - and not only Windows' crappy interface, but the crappy interfaces of every windows app - then we'll keep taking it up the bum from Apple with a coke can, and we'll be happy about it.

The speed difference is immediately clear in the form factors Apple has already transitioned. Whether it will still be there in the Pro desktop and server space is yet to be seen, but anecdotal evidence tells us that Apple should have no problem delivering machines that perform at least as well on some tasks, exceedingly well at other tasks and maybe a little slower in a small handful of tasks. At the end of the day, Mac users won't be worse off for performance and in the consumer level desktop and notebook space, Mac users will be far better off for performance.

Get past your Intel is evil days. Intel has changed a LOT. They have seen the light and are now very focused on delivering the kinds of processors that Apple needs to keep designing innovative computers. Intel was only ever the enemy because they supplied the processors that Microsoft Windows runs on. Now we should look at Intel as the ally that is going to help Apple take back the PC market. In the end, that's the best thing Apple can do for Mac users and Windows users, because it will restore balance to the market, and Mac users will no longer be second class citizens.

I do agree that I would like to see Apple sell themselves as a CPU agnostic vendor. They can still do that. Being 100% committed to Intel is the right thing to do during this hard transition period. In a couple of years, once everything is a universal binary, there's nothing stopping Apple from releasing a new line of servers or high end workstations that use AMD or PowerPC processors. We don't know for a fact that Apple intends to eventually promote Intel ONLY binaries. Why would they? If most of the work is being done by the compilers, then there is no reason to kill PowerPC support except for a slight savings in support costs I suppose.

All I can say is that every YAT Apple has put us through has made the platform stronger in the long run. They haven't steered us wrong before, so lets put some faith in Apple that they have put some serious thought into going with Intel.

All I know is I have never been so anxious for a new computer as I am right now waiting for my MacBook Pro to ship. Except maybe when I was waiting to get my very first Mac. The year ahead is going to be so much fun as app after app gets released as universal. I'm sure the machine is going to feel much faster right off the bat in most of my day to day stuff (Safari, Finder, Mail, Address Book, iCal, iLife, iWork), but as the weeks go by, every new updated app I install, and OS update is going to feel like my computer is just getting faster as updated compilers and better experience has developers squeezing every last ounce of performance out of those beautiful dual cores.

"Personally, I think Apple could have worked things out with IBM but chose not to, Was it egos? Lack of resources at IBM? Wanting something new? Who knows?"

YOU don't know. But you'll whine all the same.

IBM hardly makes money in the Mac business, compared to consoles. The ONLY thing Apple could have done to "work things out" is to double the price of Macs and give the cash to IBM.

But would that have made IBM suddenly able to keep their promises?

And Freescale has been worse. They want to make chips for phones, that's where the money is at. Apple can't force them into anything.

One thing the author doesn't mention is speed and cost of porting Windows apps to the mac. Supposedly, it will be quicker and easier to port to the mac Intel for apps developed for the pc first. That's no small advantage if true.

I think the intel processor all about leveling the playing field. Apple has a better chance of beating MS and the rest of the clones out there if they can decrease the confusion - bit by bit - of which processor is better.

From now on the processer argument is a mute point. What Apple needs to focus on now in a very serious manner is letting people know that there is a HUGE difference in the OS's of Apple and MS.

Case in point: Just got my hair cut today and they were having trouble with their PC. Drivers not working - so no music. I made mention of the fact that I don't have those problems because I use a Mac. The comment I got was, "What's the difference" Meaning, what's the difference between a Mac and a PC. They thought that all computers are the same. In their mind Apple doesn't even exist as a viable alternative - it's just the same as a Dell or Gateway etc.

These people are not stupid, but I think they represent a great cross section of computer buyers saying, "What's the difference - a PC is a PC".

Come on Apple it's time to open their eyes - Wide.


MW - "nation" as in Nation Wide

they haven't even optimized the software to run on the intel hardware... tiger isn't even native and what apple just rolled out a few weeks ago isn't obviously not going to be the flagship hardware piece of apple... that's still yet to come. it's easy to critcize what hasn't happened yet, but the potential is there.... and there's alot of potential packed into the first few steps apple has taken

they haven't even optimized the software to run on the intel hardware... tiger isn't even native

things change, move on. it was all about putting faster chips in laptops. couldnt do it with PPC chips. bloody simple. can you imagine how it wouldve looked if the windows mob had dual core intel chips in there laptops and we still had bloody G4s!! like steve said, they had to do it. maybe the G5 had alot of potential, but IBM were not good enough to come up with a viable laptop solution.

Oops, I guess the quote tag doesn't work... Sorry for fscking up the formatting guys!

Is there a reference of what bbcode tags work on MDN? They used to have a page that showed them all, but I can't find it anymore...

You say the speed difference is not that dramatic? That it's only a little faster than an equivalently clocked G5?
Try using a powerbook G4 as your main machine for a while. While it's acceptable for everyday tasks such as word processing and web surfing, it's noticeably slower than a PC for heavy duty tasks. I am a software engineer.. and while I love the elegance and security of the MacOS.. the relatively slow speed of the laptops drives me crazy. The speed difference between a Core Duo laptop and a G4 laptop is huge.

bobo,

As would be dual core PowerPC with a new bus architecture. I bet that would be quite a bit faster.
.

The Intel Macs have way faster hardware. If you are not running native software on them and you expect native performance, than you will get exactly what you deserve.

The Intel Core Duo is neck-and-neck with the G5 for floating point performance, and it trashes the G5 in integer performance. Oh, and the dual-core Intel can be used everywhere that only a single-core G5 or *shudder* G4 was being used. The Core Duo absolutely demolishes the G4 Macs in terms of hardware performance, and they are significantly faster than the single-core G5 Macs because they are dual-core. Duh.

The software and hardware issues should be discussed separately. I've played with an iMac Core Duo, using universal binary stuff (OS X, iLife 06), and it blew away the iMac G5 sitting next to it. It boots twice as fast. Everything is noticeable snappier. iTunes visualization gets way higher framerates. iPhoto is much snappier. I've seen the benchmarks - the Core Duo more than makes up for the lack of Altivec, judging from Quicktime media converting performance (which is all floating point and altivec-enabled).

Wah, wah. This really is a whiny piece. Even though some ideas are valid [no, not the idea of perpetual universal binaries; that's just silly], they lose their force in this completely self-pitying sob story. Oh, woe is me, I am not special anymore because Apple joined the Intel crowd. What a load of crap.

Macs are still special and better, in part because of elegant design in the hardware, in huge part because of the software, and in large part because of the total integratove experience. If you can't hold your head high on that, you don't deserve a Mac. But the former superiority of the chip platform has been eroded, and in laptop-land, we are sucking hind teat. Or, at least we WERE, until last week. I am waiting on my MacBook Pro, and I am thrilled to be at chip parity, with a completely superior machine and interface. But of you want to kick butt, get a Quad G5; it's still a screamer and will be for some time to come. Eventually, some software might not be updated for it, but I suspect that will be long past the machine's prime ROI.

BTW, my first iMac Intel arrived yesterday, and no, it's not 2-3 times faster at everything, but it's faster at a lot. And in 24 hours of hitting it pretty hard--including running Office 2004, Safari, GraphicConverterI have had no spinning beachballs.

The really interesting thing about Core Duo is that it is the cheap mobile chip. The workstation stuff is coming later. By Q3 this year, the Core Duo will get replaced by a 64bit version, codenamed Merom, so we'll have 64bit MacBooks and iMacs.

So, Intel was pictured as part of the evil empire, but go back a little before that in time and what was the symbol of the evil empire itself?
IBM.

I bought my first computer in 1998 and that was a Mac but I have made an emotional attachment to which hardware-parts it is made up of. On the other hand, I have always thought that PCs can be splendid machines - they only suffer from a mediocre OS...

But I am not a technician, of course.

"but I have made an emotional attachment" should of course be:
but I have NEVER made an emotional attachment...

I think many of you are missing the point, that dual core intel is the next generation. The next generation dual core Freescale or IBM chips would have probably given similar benefits. Yes, Freescale does have a low power dual core PPC.

I agree with Paul. The switch to Intel is a bad move for Apple. I've been around a while with computers and some changes are good; but, some changes spell the end of an OS. In fact, many more OSs have failed than succeeded and now that Mac OS is based on the Intel architecture, it will be much easier to defeat.

Let me explain: IBM developed OS/2 and produced an excellent OS. It ran circles around Windows and was/is rock solid. Microsoft developed Win95, split from IBM and used software to dual boot OS/2 and Windows.
...heck, even IBM allowed dual boot on their machines. Everybody said, at the time, "great, now an OS/2 machine can run anything"....and what happened to OS/2?

I believe that Microsoft will add a patch or a 3rd party will create the ability to run Windows natively on a Mac. Software developers will say "why develop for the Mac when Windows runs everywhere." If Apple makes it easy to boot Windows, Mac OS will suffer.

Wow, what a whiny piece of garbage! Yes, let's dredge up and spew out all the anti-Intel crap one more time, and call it an article. Just about everything in this article has been debated and fairly well debunked in forum comments.

clone manufacturers can come in and start running OS X on their hardware.

Uh, no. They can't. For one thing, they'll get sued. The OS X license prohibits installing it on non-Apple hardware. For another, it's already a complicated joke to install the 10.4.3 developer build on a PC, and the new Macs' use of EFI will make that even more difficult.

The most a manufacturer could do would be to create an OS X-compatible PC, and sell it with no operating system. Aside from a tiny population of uber-geeks, nobody would buy it. (And the TPM might even prevent this solution. Oh, but the writer dismisses the TPM, saying "It has been hacked many times" without giving any examples. There's cutting-edge journalism for you!)

Eventually PPC machines will stop being developed for so we will not get the latest and greatest.

Presumably yes, but by the time that happens, your PPC Mac will be many, many years old and you'll be ready to replace it anyway. Remember, the decision to stop supporting PPC is not up to the developers!! XCode has two compilation options: "PPC-only" and "Universal Binary". There is no "Intel-only" option. When such an option is added, only then does the clock start to tick on PPC Macs' obsolescence.

It also seemed that PPC was gaining momentum with Microsoft and Sony moving to the platform for gaming. Apple ran the other way.

Oh fer Pete's sake, not the "Apple shoulda used the Cell processor" argument again! How many times does this horse$#!+ have to be debunked? The Cell would make a horrible PC processor! It's optimized for high-parallel graphics processing. Lay this one to rest, PLEASE!!

I could go on, but it would require reading more of this crap, and it isn't worth my time. Please, MDN, try to be a bit more selective when handing out editorial assignments.

I don't think I made any mention of the cell processor, just that PowerPC is become more prevalent. Lets not put words in my mouth.

There are videos of OS X booting on a stock Dell. They could have been faked, I suppose. There have been plenty of reports of TPM being hacked in earlier versions of the Intel OS X betas. Maybe Apple patched all issues and TPM will work, history has shown otherwise, most protection schemes are hacked. Clone manufacturers could ship machines that are OS X ready, maybe not ship with it pre-installed.

Those who think that IBM did not care about Apple's market share. When the processor is 1/3 of the cost of the machine, I don't think we are talking peanuts here. What about Intel? Do you really think Apple's market share matters that much to them? How much leverage do really think Apple will have with them? I think Apple represents a mind share thing rather than a market share thing. IBM, probably, did appreciate the mind share aspects of their partnership.

The author makes a valid point that I think a lot of people are missing. The performance gains of the new macbooks are only so great because it is being compared to a chip that is a full 2 generations behind. Getting the original G5 into a powerbook proved to be either impossible or impossible within apple's aesthetic design requirements, but the low power 970's or 980 could have gone in and maybe would have proved a competitor to these intel chips. Why didn't they?

For years, Apple and IBM have not been making their best effort to get what Apple needs. This is partially because Apple is a small part of IBM's POWER Business but also because Steve has been planning the switch to Intel since he came back to Apple. NeXT ran on x86, and even after years of optimizations for OS X on PPC, it was never as fast as it should have been. Anytime you can add features AND increase speed, which each release of OS X has, it shows how horribly optimized the old code was.

If Apple and IBM made their best efforts to give apple what it needed they could probably have kept pace with Intel, but we can't know that for sure. Intel's faulty architecture of 10 years ago has been replaced by something similar to PPC with some crap added on to allow windows to run. Coupled with their R&D;budget that exceeds the POWER division's this may put Intel in a better place to design consumer chips. I don't know the details of what changes IBM has recently made and what they are planning on doing in the next few years so it's impossible to say which processors WOULD have been better, but the fact that Steve allowed his relationship with IBM to lag, means that they weren't going to catch up to what Intel is putting in the next generations.

Basically I think this decison was made by Steve long ago, probably for business reasons and Apple's and IBM's decreased commitment to each other make it look like it's being made for performance reasons today. What are those business reasons? Intel's desire to introduce technology that MS is too slow to adopt? Economies of Scale? (looking less likely) Dual booting machines? Easier porting of software? Entertainment Solutions, ala the digital living room? I'm afraid it is for contect/DRM/trusted comptuting module reasons which I will likely boycott anyway so I, like the author, want to know what would have happened if they had given their all to PPC.

Reasons for not liking the intel transition that I forget to mention:
Price, apple got PPC chips cheaper than most manufacturers get Intel chips, so unless economy of scale really kicks in, we're not getting better prices or features on our macs.
Loss of firewire 800 could mean Apple is moving away from it entirely or it just had to cut costs due to the processor.
Other losses possibly due to price: modem, s video, 8x dual layer DVD burner.
Loss of alitvec
Obviously there are a lot of benefits, the macbook pro is clearly faster than my powerbook but if Apple really wanted to I think they could have brought the speed without going Intel, and could have kepy altivec.

Jay, good points, Jobs made his mind up long ago, probably all the way back to 2001 and let the partnership whither.

"How much leverage do really think Apple will have with them?"

It absolutely doesn't matter. As long as AMD keeps Intel competitive, we are going to be better off with Intel.

We can thank AMD for Intel winning out over PowerPC... Kind of funny.

Jay:

If Intel's cheap 32bit laptop chip can kick butt over G5 at a powerformance per watt and performance per dollar level, then I think Steve made the right decision.

"We can thank AMD for Intel winning out over PowerPC... Kind of funny"

How is that? What are you referring to?

The bottom line is that the Intel hardware platform caught up, surpassed, and continues to accelerate past Apple/PowerPC's old architectures. While there are occasional hiccups with IRQs or whatnot at the driver level, the user never needs to know anymore. EFI is better than OpenFirmware. Intel chips, chipsets, and integrated functionality beats Apple's old parts in features, speed, AND power consumption. They have economies of scale.

The bottom line, though, is that Apple's still a maverick that controls the whole experience. They can still switch vendors, choose firmwares, fit chipsets into bizarre shapes to fit their latest case, etc. Despite being "just another PC vendor", they are still the only one for whom good design goes to the core.

jake,

AMD has kept Intel on their toes for the past several years. They've been in a pretty fierce war over CPU performance, in which AMD is pretty much winning in the desktop market and Intel is winning in the mobile market (especially with the new Core Duo). Anyways, now that we Mac users are getting Macs with Intel-powered Macs, we can thank AMD for keeping the intense pressure on Intel to drive performance up to where it is. Contrast that to the G5, which had no competition on the Mac - it's getting beat out by the latest 32 bit mobile chip from Intel. Without competition from AMD, I doubt that Intel would be offering CPUs that would be nearly as fast right now.

Attention Paul Carlin:

It's the OS and not the CPU that makes a Mac a Mac. You shortsighted thinking is precisely what would keep the Mac's marketshare at 2% forever...

Here's my thoughts:

In the first place, this editorial is clearly emotional for the person involved, and isn't really approaching this from a balanced, nuanced place. However, as a clear mac-addict-fanatic (which we all are to some degree, I expect), he's fully proving Apple's worth over Windows: how many PC users get this attached, get this emotional, over hardware and software?

So let's stop attacking him for being emotional and get to the facts of the matter.

I was surprised that Apple chose the iMac to make Intel's desktop debut. As a desktop chip, the PowerPC G5 is very powerful and quick, one of the best chips in the business. As such, while I was initially worried watching the Job's MacWorld podcast (having just bought a 20-inch iMac G5 in December), I knew that beyond a slight up-tick in performance, the iMac G5 and the iMac Intel would be identical computers in most ways. The macworld.com benchmark testing proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt: having the G5 beat the Intel a couple of times, and mostly running only a little tiny bit slower the rest of the time (is that 15 second faster song burn really all that much more remarkable?) So really, aside from Intel's start-up technology and slightly better performance than the G5, I don't think that current iMac users will feel left behind in the Intel transition. I guess choosing the iMac as the desktop launch pad indicates that Apple believes in Intel so much that they will port it to the flagship before the other desktop products. If anything, the iMac Intel is as much publicity ploy as product. However, in terms of processor need and speed, the Mac Mini could have really used that Intel chip!

The new MacBookPro, replacing the PowerBook G4 wasn't a shock at all. In fact, I chose the G5 iMac because the G4 PowerBook was insanely slow. Seriously…to spend a couple of thousand dollars on a computer that runs like an eMachines PC clone is pretty lame. Without a portable G5 chip, Apple really had no choice, because their G4 notebooks are significantly weaker than their PC counterparts.

Do I think the Intel chips detract from the differences that so define Apple computers? Not really…if anything they place the benchmark off of the now-shared processing platform and on to the operating system. Now, if Windows runs slower and less efficiently…we'll all know, beyond a shadow of a PPC vs Intel doubt, that it's software, not hardware that's killing the PC.

I think we're all going to have Universal apps for the next half decade or so…and then it will all be Intel…but 3-5 years is pretty much the life of a computer these days anyway, so really? Who cares? If it still barks, walks and talks like a Mac, who cares if it has an Intel heart?

The dual-core Intel iMac absolutely has 2-3 times the power of the single-core G5 iMac; whether the software you are running on it takes advantage of that extra power is another question.

I remember when we made the transition from 68k to PowerPC (i.e IBM). At the time IBM was truly regarded as the evil empire by many and I remember people expressing views identical to this one. Its just history repeating itself....

The transition will be bumpy and it will take a while for the true performance of these new machines to be seen but in the long run, it'll be worth it.

Remember, its about the software. Not the hardware.

Boy, there is sure a lot of wild assumptions here by some people. Some of whom also don't have their facts straight before they went off.

People, we are not going to have to run Rosetta for everything forever. People had to run classic for a long time only because they wouldn't let go of some old software that had long ago been updated to OS X that they refused to upgrade to.

Pro apps from apple will be Universal in March. Not in a year, but in two months. If you are so worried about dismal performance under Rosetta, just watch for your favorite apps getting Universal builds, then buy.

I think the video ports dropped from the MacBook Pro are recovered via the adapter for the video port. The ports were probably not that used by most and just costing everyone else. Similar story for the modem, only that is a bit more extra cost. FW800 same too. Only a very few used it, so get a card for it when one comes out and don't buy that laptop until one is available. They traded that cost savings for other things like the built-in camera that more people will use.

According to a June 11, 2005 eWeek article *What's Really Behind the Apple-Intel Alliance* By JOHN MARKOFF, the biggest reason for going with Intel was economic - IBM wanted Apple to help pay developement costs [like M$oft did for X-Box uP] & Jobs didn't.

Similar situation with Moto/Freescale - Apple wouldn't help with $ to get faster FSB G4s.

Finally, but IMO most significantly, the Intel switch is nearly the final step by Steve Jobs in erasing all traces of Sculley, Gasse and Spindler et al from the Mac, thus re-claiming it as "his" computer. He's already changed the OS to NextStep, now he's dumping IBM & Motorola. He'll likely dump the Tower Macs soon, too. He doesn't want users to be able to monkey with the "perfect" computers he sells them, so open architecture's gotta go. The Mac line-up will likely consist of laptops, Minis, iMacs & servers.

SJobs is "claiming" the Mac the way a dog "claims" a fire hydrant - by urinating on it.

Whenever SJ has inflicted his idea of fanless perfection on computers, the results have been suboptimal. Apple ///. Original unexpandable 128k Mac. Cube. The Mac likely would have died in the late '80s if Jobs had stayed at Apple because the Mac II and its descendants would never have existed. The last Mac might've looked like the original neXT cube - a single MO drive & closed box.

More recent examples of Jobs' "perfection" are the titanium and aluminum G4 PowerBooks. Exquisite design but the paper-thin shells and cramped interiors render them far too fragile to endure the slings and arrows of inevitable misfortune of portable life.

A portable should be able to suffer minor accidents without a scratch or hiccough, but an Al book dents. From an engineering standpoint it would make sense to add 1/2" to each dimension and use the extra space for a thicker shell with consequent greater durability, and more design flexibility. Is a 1.5" thick computer somehow inherrently less "perfect" than a 1" thick one? Size and weight differences would be trivial, and the durability difference could be dramatic.

The Intel switch isn't likely motivated by IBM's inability to supply G5 chips Apple "needs". More likely they won't expend great effort to create what SJobs "wants" - infinite processing power together with infinitesimal power consumption and consequent heat generation - and at a bargain price. The eWeek article *Chip Vets Line Up For New PowerPC Processors* By David Needle [October 24, 2005] indicates that P.A. Micro has put together a world-class group of uP designers to create a scalable range of G5-based PPCs with power efficiency as the main focus.

It would be relatively easy to design a portable around IBM's newly announced low-power G5 if you let the engineers do the designing instead of Steve Jobs. Let engineers decide things like cooling needs, body shell thickness, &c;within general guidelines like "as small and light as possible with a given size LCD display and sufficient ruggedness for portable use". Then let Jonathan Ive make it pretty. But SJ seems obsessed with 1" thick laptops.

64-but X86 notebook chips by end of '06? Don't bet on it. Intel's roadmaps aren't any more accurate than anyone else's. They've repeatedly painted themselves into corners in the past by thinking only of the past. "Outside the box" isn't their style. [Think 8086, 432, 960, Itanium aka Itanic] The ultimate result is the Pentium family - basicallly malignant 8085s designed by Rube Goldberg on acid.

If you spent as much time optimizing code for it as has been spent optimizing for x86, you could make a cheese sandwich look like a good processor. RISC processors inherrently shift more work onto compilers than CISC, and thus far relatively little effort has been aimed in that direction for the gcc compiler PPC variant.

Note that Anandtech's recent PPC tests under Yellow Dog Linux 4 using the latest gcc version showed a 70% improvement in floating point performance over the gcc version they tested with earlier. The mid-section of the PPC newest version of gcc finally got some PPC-specific tweaking. You can't paste a PPC back end onto a compiler that's highly optimized for x86 and get optimal PPC performance. The PPC has a main register set with 32 gp registers; x86 has 4 gp and 2 index registers [vector & FP sections are roughly equivalent twixt the 2 families]. OS-X & all aps compiled with Apple's supplied gcc are created with much less than desireable PPC optimization.

SJobs said Mac-OS X86 has been under development for 5 yrs. Why didn't he devote those efforts to optimizing PPC gcc? Why didn't he invest some of Apple's several bilion $ cash with Moto & IBM to get the uPs he "needs"? My guess is he's been planning the switch all along.

Apple's recent changes are causing many of us to rethink our platform/OS choices. Although I have been an Apple user since 1983, I find it more difficult to remain with my favorite fruit company. Windoz is a royal pain in the backside; however, Micro$oft does endeavor to maintain backward compatibility with applications with each incarnation of Windoz. Every time Apple changes chip architecture, it "widows" a number of apps that many users need. I have jumped through emulation hoops for a decade or so, and am growing weary of the changes. I will miss Apple's wonderful designs, creative apps, and user community, but my next computer will be a PC. I guess I'm getting too old for the rollar coaster ride. I'll leave the fun to a younger generation who are arriving at Apple's doorstep with iPods in their hands, and Macintels in their briefcases.

Within a month or two or less OSX is going to be running on a cheap Walmart special and by extension in most Asian countries on a cheap PC, Apple never has had to worry about that they will. The PPC was a great dongle, also notice the price on those Macbook Pro's, going to intel didn't drop the price.

F.C. Kuechmann good points, yep, seems that almost every play in job's book has happened at NeXT. Started with 68000 then moved to intel. Moving to Intel did not save NeXT. This was what he planned for Apple long ago, why else would they be spending their development resources with a parallel Intel build from when OS X was being developed. I agree, Apple could have made the IBM relationship work but chose not to. Even perhaps setting unreasonable expectations for the G5 reaching 3Ghz a year before it could be ready, then using that as a justification for why the switch was necessary.

Fluff story.

DanoX:
"Within a month or two or less OSX is going to be running on a cheap Walmart special..."

so what's your point?


Billy Bob:
Please, do us all a favor and go to Windows where you belong.

F.C. Kuechmann:

Maybe you should go buy yourself a nice new Alienware laptop with an Athlon64 FX60 in it. It comes in a tough plastic case that's about two inches thick and has outrageous performance.

Meanwhile I'll be enjoying my nice new 1" thick MacBook Pro, with several times your battery life and one third your weight.

How many times will we hear the same silly drivel? Many more, I guess.

Let's debunk this shit once and for all:

Personally, I think Apple could have worked things out with IBM but chose not to, Was it egos? Lack of resources at IBM? Wanting something new? Who knows? A dual core PPC with a new bus architecture could have been just as fast or faster, IBM could have done some work on lowering power consumption.

Yes, and Danny De Vito *could* be a major NBA player. Only not in this world. In your daydreaming maybe.

Now, about what you "personally think": have you any reason to doubt Apple's frankness when stating the reasons for the switch? If IBM could lower the power consuption they would have done it. They could not and they did not. In a years time and more, even though initially the promised they would try to do it ASAP. Furthermore, IBM (not Apple) came forward later and admitted that the problem of G5 Power Consuption was a very difficult one. This does not only affect portables, but also the Mac Mini and possible future and thinner iMac designs. Any compact case design would suffer (heck, even PowerMac G5's suffer: they use huge elaborate cooling systems).

This is only one thing. The other thing is that IBM and Freescale weren't interested in the platform. Updates were few and far between since Apple was a minor customer to them (Freescale has the embedded market, IBM has game consoles, servers, etc). How do I know? Do I simply believe Apple's bull? No, I heard it from the horse's mouth, from Motorola's CEO who was previously head of the IBM G5 division. Here it is:


Q: Weren't you there during the discussions when IBM convinced Apple to adopt the G5?

Mayer: In my previous job, I ran IBM's semiconductor business. So I've seen both sides of the Apple story, because I sold the G5 to Steve (Jobs) the first time he wanted to move to Intel.

Q: Five years ago?

Mayer: Yeah, that's about right. So I sold the G5. First I told IBM that we needed to do it, and then I sold it to Apple that the G5 was good and it was going to be the follow-on of the PowerPC road map for the desktop. It worked pretty well. And then IBM decided not to take the G5 into the laptop and decided to really focus its chip business on the game consoles.

(Interview on News.com)

If you don't believe Apple, at least believe the Freescale/ex-IBM guy for heaven's sake. Or, else, go put on your tin foil hat.

Some kook comments:

More recent examples of Jobs' "perfection" are the titanium and aluminum G4 PowerBooks. Exquisite design but the paper-thin shells and cramped interiors render them far too fragile to endure the slings and arrows of inevitable misfortune of portable life.


WTF? Don't you know that PBs are among the most durable laptops out there? "Far too fragile"??? What have you been smoking? In fact, most on the road pro's in extreme conditions (music gigs, djing, photography, cinema etc) use PBs!

The man continues:

The Intel switch isn't likely motivated by IBM's inability to supply G5 chips Apple "needs". More likely they won't expend great effort to create what SJobs "wants" - infinite processing power together with infinitesimal power consumption and consequent heat generation - and at a bargain price.

Ha, you're killing me. Suddenly every spotty teenager can talk business decisions, and has deep insights at what a company decides.

The dellusional rambling continues:

Jobs said Mac-OS X86 has been under development for 5 yrs. Why didn't he devote those efforts to optimizing PPC gcc?

Because he saw that PPC was a dead end. Because he actually WAS on the phone and in the room when negotiating with IBM and Freescale and you weren't. That's all there is to it!

Yes, a dual core PPC there was. But one chip does not THE FUTURE make. The magic word is ROADMAP. Intel had a roadmap: it had to, this is its core business. IBM and Freescale did not, even if they had a couple or less models for future production. Half-arsed commitment just doesn't cut it.

Why didn't he invest some of Apple's several bilion $ cash with Moto & IBM to get the uPs he "needs"? My guess is he's been planning the switch all along.

WTF? Really WTF?!!! Because for a COMMERCIAL company it makes sense to buy its components on the cheap. Spending ...several BILLIONS $ to keep a ....suppliers technology floating DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. Not for Apple, not for the consumer.

Even if Intel's CPUs are more expensive that PPCs condidering solely their price, if you add the $$$ Apple would have to pay to keep G5 afloat, and the $$$ lost for not having their laptop lines updated with current professors, they come a lot cheaper. But ofcourse they do: if they wouldn't Apple wouldn't use them.

You can argue that they are not a good move from a philosophical standpoint. But not from a BUSINESS/PRICE standpoint. WTF do you think? That you, a spotty teenager or simply Mac Daily News poster, know what is best business decision and Apple's board DOES NOT?
I don't think so!

Mostly there are not a lot of technical or business arguments as to why I don't like the Intel Mac, mostly emotional, I feel like Intel has been the enemy from the early days of my computing experience. This is a very tough pill to swallow, now the Mac is just another Intel box. Some of what was special about the Mac is gone, a differentiator that made the Mac seem better. I will have a hard time rallying behind the hardware aspects of these Intel based Macs. Every other Intel PC box will have the same thing. It is like turning to the dark side.

"Fetisism of small differences" is called in shrink speak. Who the fuck cares whats in the box? The only nuissance is that temporarily we will have to rebuy our software (cross-grade, more like it). And for a while, like 6-7 months we will have to use some apps under Rosetta. That's all. The faster and easiest transition in the history of computing!

But a normal person (as opposed to a spooty laid-less computer geek) does not care what's in the box. What they care is what they can DO with the box. And this is all about software, not hardware. Oh, and 5% and 10% differences in speed do not even count. That's why an audio or movie professional can make do with an 2 year old Mac while the whiney nerds compain if that or this benchmark is like 2% slower. Like it matters. Like 02:24 rendering time is different than say 02:35.

As for Intel being an "Evil Empire". WTF? What's an "Evil Empire" in technological parlance? Nothing, it is just fanboy-ism. (IBM used to be the evil empire in Mac days of old, since idiots always have something to hate instead of loving and using the platform they care about).

Last, but now least.

P.S Oh, and concerning AMD. It's in the arch stupid! It doesn't matter that Apple choose Intel for now (based on endless meetings, discussions and negotiations which surely have happened but YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT while Mr. Jobs does since he was there, so he was better informed). It's all in the arch. Apple may, if so choose, use AMD after the transition to x86 arch is completed. Or even Transmeta (are they even still around?).

You're quite right about the performance issue and about the need to continue with the PPC.

On the other hand, I believe the issue with IBM wasn't price, performance, or capacity related but a difference in policy with IBM artifically slowing G5 evolution to presure Apple toward Cell knowing that this would give IBM virtual control of Apple's software assets and direction.

So what are Apple's choices? admit Intel was a mistake, release a G5 64bit Powerbook line (1.8Ghz, 13W), use the dual core 32bit G4 (8841D, 2.0Ghz, 14W) in the ibook/mini; re-invent MacOS X for Linux as a separate business aimed at generating higher quality and higher volume software, and ultimately move either to custom designed PPC or SPARC.

This gives them an opportunity to become wildly popular on x86 (the MacOS X desktop on Linux), kick MS in the teeth (Office on Linux), get their ivideo rental into production, and improve brand credibility first by fessing up to a mistake and then by offering a premium PPC mac line.

The performance issue seems to be quite clear from the real-world benchmarks, not the Apple marketting spin RDF benchmarks - a single core G5 is only slightly slower than an Intel Core Duo running at the same clock speed.

Benchmarks show that whilst the Intel iMac is generally 20-30% faster then the G5 iMac it gets out-paced by the PowerMac Dual G5 2.0GHz across the board. See, for example, http://veerle.duoh.com/

The implication is quite clear that if IBM or Freescale devoted the resources they could produce chips that cream the Intel Core Duo.

It's a shame that IBM and/or Freescale didn't deliver a low power high performance chip suitable for use in a laptop. Right now the Intel chip on the desktop makes only vague sense in the iMac - the Core Duo just doesn't cut it for the higher-end.

Hey Nick -- I surmise you may be young, and enjoying cracking on anyone who speaks a word of constructive criticism in Apple's direction; however, remember that computers are inanimate objects created by man to serve man. A computer "platform" choice is NOT equal to choosing a spouse, or a religious affiliation. For the most part, computers are used to accomplish tasks, to entertain, or to educate.

Apple has, by far, the most sophisticated operating system on the market. The integration of hardware, applications, and their operating system has been, and will continue to be a huge benefit for most users. I personally have directed hundreds of people to purchase Apple products over the last 20+ years, and will do so in the future, for those to whom Apple makes sense: that is about 80% of computer users in my humble estimation.

Yet, Apple's low market share has always been a hindrance to broad software support. Yes! The major players are Apple supporters - they have enough financial capitol enabling them to maintain an Apple presence, even with relatively low sales figures (in relation to the Windoz world.) The problem this presents is broad-based support for Apple, particularly in the vertical markets.

I happen to be one of those individuals who works in a market that has very little software support in the Apple community. The frustration for people like me is the fact that smaller software companies can not withstand the incessant changes at Apple: new processor architectures, Apple's choice to not fully support legacy apps in their new offerings, and the endless POINT upgrades to the software that creates havoc for developers. Obviously, the very methodologies that keeps Apple on the cutting edge of innovation is the very method that leads to some software firms choosing the bland, monotonous Windoz world -- a world that is boring, but consistently boring. For the small developer, boring is good. (I speak simplistically, but the point is made.)

I have not articulated this as fully or as well as I should, but I hope the point is made, and I am sure others understand the basic truths presented here. Again, Apple is is BEST at what they do! Apple computers have been in my family for about 23 years - some of my family will continue to use them. Yet, if a person's SOFTWARE is not available, or crippled by your computer company's software/hardware road map, then you have little choice but to be logical, and do what is necessary.

My situation is NOT an isolated case. I am aware of many other users battling the same issues. This is not good for Apple. Hey! Nick can write me off as needing to "go where I belong" but the bottom line is Apple should NOT BE HAPPY when long-timers like me are forced to jump ship.

For some time I have been concerned about the electromigration problems in the newer processors. Bob Pease, who writes a column for Electronic Design, wrote a column about these concerns a few years ago. I think that it is possible that the newer processors may become flaky after a few years of use. I also have not heard any comments recently about the use of ECC memory in the machines. Seymour (?) Cray did not even put parity checking in his 1960's super computers. One bad bit could take a computer center down for a week! I have had endless trouble with flaky memory with problems not identified by the techtool diagnositics. The Apple Hardware Test is somewhat better, but it evidently will not catch all the memory problems. "Memtest" is supposed to catch problems not found by either TechTool or the Apple Hardware Test.

If Intel is getting their speed gains by using lower Voltage swings, this could also lead difficult to diagnose problems.

One person at Apple did admit to me that the lack of ECC memory could lead to problems. ECC memory only adds about 10% to the manufacturing cost and can save the user thousands in lost time.

Ok ... here's the though question ... do I buy a G5 high-end tower now, or do I try to wait for an Intel Mac tower to be released?

Oh this is rich, now we find out that the Intel chips are more expensive than the PowerPC and only 25% faster. So much for a smart business move.

http://cestockblog.com/article/5966

More reports show it is only 25% faster

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2148912/intel-mac-fail-speed-test

From: Nick

Maybe you should go buy yourself a nice new
Alienware laptop with an Athlon64 FX60 in it.
It comes in a tough plastic case that's about
two inches thick and has outrageous
performance.

No thanks. Don't need one. But it was designed by engineers with ruggedness in mind.

Meanwhile I'll be enjoying my nice new 1"
thick MacBook Pro, with several times your
battery life and one third your weight.

I'm enjoying my 28mm thick 17" PowerBook.


From: foljs



Mayer: In my previous job, I ran IBM's
semiconductor business. So I've seen both
sides of the Apple story, because I sold the
G5 to Steve (Jobs) the first time he wanted to
move to Intel.

Q: Five years ago?

Mayer: Yeah, that's about right. So I sold the
G5. First I told IBM that we needed to do it,
and then I sold it to Apple that the G5 was
good and it was going to be the follow-on of
the PowerPC road map for the desktop. It
worked pretty well. And then IBM decided not
to take the G5 into the laptop and decided to
really focus its chip business on the game
consoles.

Like I said before, Jobs has been planninng the Intel move for years.

And one big reason IBM focused on game consoles is the customers [Micro$oft, Sony etc] put up a few billion $ for development.


Some kook comments:

More recent examples of Jobs' "perfection" are
the titanium and aluminum G4 PowerBooks.
Exquisite design but the paper-thin shells and
cramped interiors render them far too fragile
to endure the slings and arrows of inevitable
misfortune of portable life.


WTF? Don't you know that PBs are among the
most durable laptops out there? "Far too
fragile"??? What have you been smoking? In
fact, most on the road pro's in extreme
conditions (music gigs, djing, photography,
cinema etc) use PBs!

So? I use one myself. It's got a nice dent in the top shell from a 6" drop onto the seat holddown rail on a 757 [turbulence at a bad time caused the drop]. Cost $600 to replace the electroluminescent panel after the drop too.

A long-time friend is a top exec at NBC News Chicago. Their field crews use PowerBooks for on-site editing. The only complaint they have is lack of durabilituy. Too easy to dent.


Ha, you're killing me. Suddenly every spotty
teenager can talk business decisions, and has
deep insights at what a company decides.

After spending 30+ years working with uPs & reaping a fortune in the software business & investments, I'm hardly a spotty teenager. I and several others I know have been long-time observers, at varying distances, of SJobs. Apple is Jobs - it's that simple.


Because he saw that PPC was a dead end.
Because he actually WAS on the phone and in
the room when negotiating with IBM and
Freescale and you weren't. That's all there is
to it!

According to the business press & other sources, Jobs wasn't on the phone with IBM & Freescale, & Jobs wouldn't return their calls.

Yes, a dual core PPC there was. But one chip
does not THE FUTURE make. The magic word is
ROADMAP.

Like the P.A. Micro roadmap for low power G5 chips, maybe? If Apple was interested in the PPC, they'd have known that a line of lp G5s is on the way.

Intel had a roadmap: it had to, this is its
core business.

Not long ago Intel's roadmap said Itanium would be its only 64-bit chip. In the late '70s the x86 roadmap stopped at the 8086/88. The future was the i960 and 432 Ada chip.

IBM and Freescale did not, even if they had a
couple or less models for future production.
Half-arsed commitment just doesn't cut it.

Apple's half-arsed commitment to PPC is one reason IBM/Freescale weren't willing to risk a lot just to meet Apple's wants.


Why didn't he invest some of Apple's several
bilion $ cash with Moto & IBM to get the uPs
he "needs"? My guess is he's been planning the
switch all along.

WTF? Really WTF?!!! Because for a COMMERCIAL
company it makes sense to buy its components
on the cheap. Spending ...several BILLIONS $
to keep a ....suppliers technology floating
DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. Not for Apple, not for
the consumer.

In the first place, much of the PPC's design was determined by Apple's need to emmulate 68k. Apple was originally a partner in the design. Buying components on the cheap is what ruined Compaq. And Micro$oft, Sony et al seem to think it makes sense to invest in IBM's technology. Apple owns a bunch of the PPC patents. They'd be investing in their own technology with their putative partners.

Even if Intel's CPUs are more expensive that
PPCs condidering solely their price, if you
add the $$$ Apple would have to pay to keep G5
afloat, and the $$$ lost for not having their
laptop lines updated with current professors,

IBM's 13-15 watt G-5s could've been in PowerBooks by now. And the cost to "keep G5 afloat" would be minimal, less agravating to small SW developers.


You can argue that they are not a good move
from a philosophical standpoint.

Not a good move to go back to mutant 8085 technology from 1975.

But not from a BUSINESS/PRICE standpoint.

SJ treated IBM/Freescale execs like peons. He didn't "negotiate" with equals - he made demands of "inferiors". That is hardly good business practice.

WTF do you think?

That the biggest reason for the switch was Jobs re-claiming the Mac as "his" computer.

That you, a spotty teenager or simply Mac
Daily News poster,

I designed a uP based burglar alarm controller in 1974, was an early invester in Broderbund Software, and have published articles &c;in Nibble, Microcomputing, Computer Shopper, MacTech, Dr Dobbs. I was on the "Ask Byte" column staff 1985-9 and at Circuit Cellar Ink for 10 years after that. I've designed-implemented-programmed everything from the control section of a gate & barrier system used in fish hatcheries [several dozen at last count] to volcano monitoring packages. I'm currently working on articles for MaacTech and Dr Dobbs.

What's your pedigree? Are you just somebody who likes to call other people names like "spotty teenager".

and Apple's board DOES NOT?
I don't think so!

Apple's board is packed with people who think Jobs is the second coming.

The point is simply that Jobs' past record on hardware decisions is not encouraging. The original Mac over-heated, had a dinky 400k floppy for storage. The Mac Cube overheated, esp the VRM.