By Paul Carlin
It seems most people have the “who cares what is inside” attitude, not me. Maybe I need to think different some more.
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. Instead, we have Yet Another Transition (YAT) where we have to update all our software, that seems to happen every 5 years on the Mac platform. Eventually PPC machines will stop being developed for so we will not get the latest and greatest.
Despite the Dual Core nature of the new chips the new Intel Macs are not beating the pants off the single core PowerPC. You would think, if they were going through all this effort of switching architectures, they would be seeing much better performance. Apple claims 2 to 3 times better performance but most independent tests show rough equivalence with Intel beating it by a little and in some tests the G5 beats the Intel easily.
I don’t mean to imply moving to Intel will not be successful for Apple, but it could be quite risky, because clone manufacturers can come in and start running OS X on their hardware. Apple is a hardware company, they make most of their money on hardware. Intel’s TPM (digital rights management) does not seem to be very good for preventing Mac OS X from running on a stock PC. It has been hacked many times. Some thought that moving to Intel would bring the price down, economies of scale and all that. The first prices for the MacBook Pro and iMac have not borne that out. They are just as expensive. Did Apple get a bigger margin? Who knows? The fact is, the Intel Mac is not cheaper than the previous model.
Also, now Intel owns the desktop, what is to say that they will do the right thing now that they have no competition? I suppose there is AMD, but they do not really represent a major difference in chip design philosophy. It also seemed that PPC was gaining momentum with Microsoft and Sony moving to the platform for gaming. Apple ran the other way.
Now there are, of course, some advantages, it now becomes possible to have a virtual machine, that runs Windows software at native speeds. Software that never ran very well on a Mac will now run well. This is a double edged sword however, because some companies will just take their existing Windows software and not update it to work well in the Mac environment. Sure you will be able to run it, but it will be clunky and not take advantage of all the features the platform has to offer. Some companies may just decide to not even continue development for the Mac saying the VM is a solution. Another advantage, I suppose, is being able to boot Windows on a Mac. Apple has said they will do nothing to prevent this, but this is not really a huge advantage to a long time Mac user.
The main thing is that would me happier about this is if they announced that Universal binaries must exist indefinitely and that should IBM fix its heat and power problems then we can go back to PPC if they are faster and better. I am all for flexibility, if Intel is better now then lets use it, PPC is better then use that. Apple has proven that it does not matter the chip is underneath, they can still run their OS. They could play one company off the other to get what they wanted. They could use PPC for high end server machines and Intel on others if they offer better power consumption. They could let competition work for them, but this is not what Apple announced, they announced a marriage with Intel and from the looks of it this is what they are going to keep for the foreseeable future. What happens when the Intel honeymoon is over? What happens when they have told all the developers to forget the PPC? Do we do YAT again?
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. I will have a very hard time forgiving Apple for doing this. I think I will find that I just don’t care that much about the hardware and maybe I care less about Apple than I used to. Perhaps
this is how it should be, maybe I should find other interests. Apple could have changed a lot of things, and has changed, a lot of things over the years, but this one that I am having a hard time with.
Advertisements:
• MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
• iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
• iMac and MacBook Pro owners: Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using dial-up service. $49.00.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
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
dub, you’re incorrect. Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.4 and all apps that come preinstalled on the new iMac and MacBook Pro are 100% native. They have all been recompiled as universal binaries to run natively on the Intel Core Duo.
Of course, most third party applications are still PowerPC only and have to run in the Rosetta emulation layer…
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.