“The headline of Apple’s press release reads, ‘Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006.’ How did it come to this? What’s it all mean? Here’s how I feel as a Mac enthusiast since 1984, an engineer by education, a programmer by profession, and an all-around Apple geek,” John Siracusa writes for Ars Technica.
Siracusa outlines reason why he thinks Apple broke from IBM, writing, “It’s a simple equation really: angry Jobs plus an IBM that doesn’t feel like it needs Apple anymore equals no more IBM CPUs for future Macs.”
Along the way, Siracusa mourns the Power PC, confessing, “I’m one of the biggest x86 haters. I’ve often argued that the collective human effort spent making fast implementations of the bass-ackwards x86 ISA would be much better spent elsewhere.”
Siracusa then explores some remaining mysteries, such as, “One thing in particular was made notable by its absence. Here’s the $64 million question: WTF happened to AMD? …If you’re Steve Jobs, how is AMD not your very first call?”
Siracusa concludes, “If all goes as planned, the Mac platform will be stronger in a couple of years than it is today. (Who knows, maybe Doom 4 will even get decent frame-rates.) I’ll buy a multi-core, multi-CPU x86-64 Mac and I’ll like it because it’ll be fast, good-looking, and it’ll run Mac OS X. But I’ll still think of what might have been…and what someday might be again. Call me a hopeless romantic. I’ll miss the PowerPC.”
Full article here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Switch to Intel processors unlikely to threaten Apple Mac’s security – June 07, 2005
Apple+Intel news is no reason not to buy a new PowerPC-based Mac today – June 07, 2005
Apple to use Intel microprocessors beginning in 2006, all Macs to be Intel-based by end of 2007 – June 06, 2005
Hey, what great press!
When’s the last time someone called the G5 architecture “bass-ackwards”?
What an embarrassment.
Quote: “…of the bass-ackwards x86 ISA…”
He called the x86 bass-askwards, not the G5. No need to worry, this move to Intel will turn out to be one of the best and smartest things Apple has ever done…
PPC be damned, I don’t give a shit what’s inside as long as it’s fast…and as long as it’ll run OS X…
Who gives a sh*t about the PPC. As long as what’s inside is fast and as long as it runs OS X, that’s all I care about…
Several years ago, IBM declared that the PC was DEAD.
Maybe its just me, but I think this was a very, very BAD sign.
Sigh. For the millionth time: It’s the software, not the silicon, that matters. PPC vs. Pentium is the undercard. The title fight is OS X vs. Windows. And Microsoft is looking pretty punchy these days…
I feel the same way as the author… PowerPC is so much more elegant, so it’s a shame to see it lose. It’s too bad that nobody but Apple ever put Velocity Engine to good use, and that Motorola and IBM both took their sweet time updating the PowerPC CPUs.
Still – I’m excited about Mac OS X on Intel, the way Apple is going about it. It is going to be an awesome trip for us Mac users!
Here is how this whole thing appears to me. Lap tops have just exceeded desktops recently in sales. Lap tops are where IBM could / would not be of any real help.
It seems to me that Intel makes the best performing laptop chips. I may be a layman here, but a recent Consumer’s Reports found the Centrino chip to have some definite performance advantages in laptop performance.
Now apple is back in the running for competitive, best in class laptop performance, assuming it can use Centrio or whatever Intel has up its sleeve.
[“Siracusa then explores some remaining mysteries, such as, “One thing in particular was made notable by its absence. Here’s the $64 million question: WTF happened to AMD? …If you’re Steve Jobs, how is AMD not your very first call?”]
Maybe because his friend was already working at Intel?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue wink” style=”border:0;” /> 
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”downer” style=”border:0;” />
Does Intel even have 64 bit chips ready? I thought only PPC & AMD had them. Goodbye complex calculations.
I’ll miss the PPC too. 🙁
Winston –
Windows isn’t even a contender as far as I’m concerned. I’m totally not interested in the virus-ridden, spyware-infested piece of bloatware that Windows has continued to be. As much as Motorola and IBM lagged at getting CPU upgrades done, Windows has lagged far worse at gettting Windows upgrades done! WindowsXP shipped in October 2001, and Longhorn is coming in early 2007, minus most of its interesting features… like WinFS and hardware tie-ins to the video card for the GUI (like Mac OS 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 have to increasing degrees).
It’s time for Intel users to drop Micro$oft and go with Apple! Micro$oft has provided nothing but disappointments for years!
One other thought. . . . . Does the power pc (and perhap cell?) version of OSX now go into hiding in that “secret double life” in Apple’s labs?
“Hey, what great press!
When’s the last time someone called the G5 architecture “bass-ackwards”?
What an embarrassment.”
Misquoting an article printed right in front of your eyes.
What an embarrassment.
just for everyone to know:
I have got in confirmed: the next line of macintosh hardware will be based on an intel processor, but it will not be pentium.
All I can say is that Sony won’t be so proud of its cell in a few months…
mac freak –
The PowerPC version of Mac OS X is still in active, public development…
The Cell version, PSP version, DEC Alpha version and TRS-80 versions are still in secret development though. They will all be unveiled in 2007, with the advent of Apple’s new “yo-mama-so-fat binaries”.
Bingo.
Ok, I just can’t keep it a secret.
The next line of macintosh hardware will be based on…
drum roll please…
Intel processors!!
I’ll bet you never saw that coming! BOO-YA!
I think Ricardo was asking a sarcastic and hypothetical question. as in,
When’s the last time someone called the G5 architecture “bass-ackwards”?
NEVER
pointing out that only x86 would ever be called bass-ackwards.
Most people have no clue on something like this.
I just called up a friend who I switched to the Mac recently. He hadn’t even heard about the switch to Intel!!! For those of us who follow such things this is earth shaking news. For the average user, they have no idea what the move to Intel means and probably could care less as long as OS X continues to “just work” and be secure. Most have just a vague impression that “Intel makes good chips” because of all the Intel marketing over the years.
Anyway, long story short, I had to figure out how to explain what the move meant in a sound byte for the guy. Pretty much what I said was that after Apple makes the move, Macs may be able to run windows as well as OS X and all the old software will still work. Maybe the old apps will run just a tiny bit slower but they probably won’t be able to tell the difference. That was even probably more information than he wanted, what most people are probably gonna come away from this is “Macs will be able to run windows as well as OS X”. Except for the perhaps the geekiest of us, people will see this as a good move for Apple and their market share is gonna soar after the switch.
In the mean time tru Macheads in the know will continue to buy Macs unless they absolutely have to run windows for work or something and then they might wait on a purchase to get the increased functionality. The worst I can see happening is Apple sales flattening out to match the PC industry as a whole for a while and then take off like a rocket after the switch.
Sadly gone are the days of proudly saying that our computers run on different hardware and OS. I suppose we can still say we have a different OS but it lacks the full mac mystique which implied that the machine and the OS were totally different. I agree with Siracusa to a very large extent. Jobs is making a virtue out of necessity because you can bet your ass that had IBM indicated that there was a low power version of the G5 coming soon and some speed bumps for the desktops he would be happily staying with the PowerPc architecture. But the effectiveness of his RDF on most people never ceases to amaze me. The same way we all denied the fact that the classic OS froze constantly and defended it as the best OS on the planet until OS X came along then it was as though MacOs never existed except when we were saying how much better X was compared to 9 or Windows.
I , for one, plant to reboot my G3 ibook into OS 9 now and enjoy a few hours of a mac being a mac…running a unique OS on a unique machine.
Intel’s “Roadmap” means the same thing to me as Longhorn and the 3Ghz PPC. Just because they may have really great plans for releasing a really great product, it doesn’t mean it will actually work or it might take two years longer than they initially thought to get it actually produced and working. And to all of you that say it doesn’t matter what chip is being used, well, that’s fine unless the type of chip dictates how quickly and smoothly certain software features work.
btw, what the PHOCK did happen to AMD?
64-bit is 64-bit.
I’d much rather have a dual AMD than a dual craptel anyday…
“I , for one, plant to reboot my G3 ibook into OS 9 now and enjoy a few hours of a mac being a mac…running a unique OS on a unique machine.”
A vacation filled with crashes every 10 mins is headed your way soon. Take some pictures, will you? Enjoy the trip down memory lane.
“I’d much rather have a dual AMD than a dual craptel anyday…”
It’s not like thats not an option. Buy your AMD, run Linux, and be done with it…or buy a G5 or wait and run Intel…either way, just stop whining.
Worst-case scenario: Apple exits the computer business, becomes a software and consumer appliance maker, and licenses out its OS (sound familiar?) Mac OS X then just might have a shot at Windows.
stantheman(real one):
OS8/OS9 on a heavy-use production Mac was/is still more stable than any Windows version I’ve ever encountered.
Oh I forgot, you just re-installed Windows for the tenth time this year, so your PC is running smooth today. My bad.
There are some stereotypically ignorant, biased Windows commenters at the end of this otherwise “OK” article: http://www.eweek.com/talkback_details/0,2278,s=25988&a=153533,00.asp?m=8445
Go get ’em.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Darn it!! Wrong link above! This is why I don’t carve names into tombstones for a living.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” /> This is the correct address: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1824781,00.asp
Ummm…When used normally OS 9 doesn;t freeze every ten minutes. It is still faster than windows or X in any situation. But my point was ( as you so elegantly displayed) that as mac users we are quick to jump on the Jobs bandwagon. OS 9 was the best OS in the universe for us until we were herded into X ( which I like too) and now we decry the original MacOS as a crashing nightmare. It was perfectly fine for its time ..and still is perfectly fine …depending on what you need. BTW it hasn’t crashed yet on my vacation and I have run photoshop (faster), Fireworks ( faster) and word ( faster but admittedly with less eye candy). I am writing this on my G5 but my ibook is certainly very happy running 9.
P.S. Thanks” Informed” for defending our old mothership.
Personally, I don’t care what OS you use as long as it isn’t windows….
windows is like cigarettes… we know its bad, but come on, everyone else is doing it.
we know its bad, but come on, everyone else is doing it.
—
Hmm? well.. if you consider the IT guys are like the cigarette companies, lying to keep their $$$.. okay.. the analogy is a little wonky..
PEOPLE aren’t addicted to windows at all.. at least cigarettes give you a rush of ‘personality’ (think Prozac).. Windows gives you.. Minesweeper..
At the end of the day, one of the reasons businesses don’t want Apple because they want to be able to threaten their supplier to not get hosed. ie. threaten the Dell guy that they’ll go with HP if he doesnt give them a better deal.
it’s about leverage. Same thing goes from pepsi/coke. Pepsi won’t get wiped out because it’s valuable to have them as a ‘threat’ if Coke gets greedy with their pricing..
THE CHIPS ARE DOWN
History may show that IBMs failure to deliver a 3 GHz processor on time actually turned out to be a blessing-in-disguise for Apple.
In the unwanted breathing space Apple found itself in, the company had time for reflection. Intel had long since abandoned the ‘megahertz myth’ race yet Apple has still been very much on the old racetrack in terms of what it corporately defines, and aggressively projects, as the ‘value’ of a personal computer.
This ‘one-horse’ race – even if it was being won (which it very likely wasn’t) – was becoming an ever more hollow victory. I large hike in processor size from, say, 2.6 GHz to 3 GHZ is a far less noticeable performance gain for consumers these days than in the heady times when a leap from 333 MHz to 500 MHz resulted in a blazing shift in performance. Almost all the tasks today’s personal computers are called upon to perform (in both home and business) can achieved with what could be called ‘almost instant’ response. I’m not going to get frustrated waiting 6 seconds for a Photoshop filter to run – though I used to when the same process took 10 minutes a decade ago.
The effort in loping just a few seconds off the speed of most everyday processes resulted in Apple being the ‘hare’ – but also very much the ‘tortoise’. It placed them in a sort of ‘splendid isolation’… exclusive – but also ‘excluded’ from what has the promise to be a far more meaningful and intellectually rewarding contest for the company.
This week’s news is all about Apple CHANGING RACES and the sacrifices the company has had to make under-the-hood so it can begin – in earnest – the competition with Windows for a prize of untold value.
“I got a Dell with a 4Ghz Intel processor and it cost $499.”
“I got an Apple with a 4Ghz Intel processor and it cost $2,499.”
Apple is now competing directly with Dell.
Will the average person pay the Apple premium?
“I have no theories here, only the expectation that Apple will indeed use x86-64 CPUs in its high-end products.”
Ahh, finally someone in the press writing it. I posted that on Monday soon after the keynote.
If you are only reading MDN excerpts do yourself a favor: read the whole article. And I underline his conclusion:
“If all goes as planned, the Mac platform will be stronger in a couple of years than it is today. (Who knows, maybe Doom 4 will even get decent frame-rates.) I’ll buy a multi-core, multi-CPU x86-64 Mac and I’ll like it because it’ll be fast, good-looking, and it’ll run Mac OS X.”
I have not put the romantic touch on the PowerPC. Good, very good NOW, but in two years, with IBM not delivering, it will be a shame in comparison with new multi-core x86-64 chips Macs will sport: you know the names of the chips. Already leaked.
Isadora, let me add what apparently everyone is forgetting about Macs and that will not change:
“I got a Dell with a 4Ghz Intel processor and it cost $499.”, runs Windows, riddled with viruses, lousy components, plastic case, my colleagues has it in repair shop after a week. It breaks under your hands.
“I got an Apple with a 4Ghz Intel processor and it cost $2,499.”, runs OS X Leopard and also Windows applications if I need. It is unbreakable, everything I throw at it simply works. True plug and play, no external drivers madness to install, virus free, no pre-historic registry corruption at every installation of anything. It’s a blast. Wow, at $2,499 is actually cheap compared to a $499 Dell with crappy elements all over the place.
Dell should be free: it costs $499 just for the CPU. The rest is refurbished crap and a crappy OS.
Unless you are a tool, yes, you will still buy the better value: A MAC.
BTW, the Mini Mactel will also keep its price tag, hence, what are you complaining about?
A PC configured as a top of the line Mac TODAY, costs about the same, in some cases even more. Will to change.
At $499 you buy a crap PC. Get a Mini Mactel: do yourself a favor if that is your budget.
iPodder, I’m not trying to play down the noticable and unsurpassed care that Apple pays to its hardware design, but simply saying that ALL Dells (and all Wintel PCs) are per definition crap is a form of FUD, too.
I bought a Dell Dimension (850 Mhz) in 2001 and have had zero hardware trouble (apart from the extra CD drive I built in, it is not reading very well any more. But that CD drive, I took it from a Packard Bell from the year of our Lord 1996. 8 years of loyal service is enough ROI by any sane persons standards. That Packard Bell (233 MMX), by the way, extended with some extra RAM and networkcard, still serves faithfully as an internet proxy, running Win98 and all.) Dells and Packard Bells aren’t exactly cheap (in Wintel terms, that is) either. There are good parts out there and one pays for them.
Not everything that is cheaper than a Mac is per definition bad. Don’t fall into the trap of answering FUD with FUD, that’ll just damage the credibility of yourself and the Mac user in general.
At the moment (but Steve did it once again – in a few years the tables will be turning – provided OSX will be available for ‘low-end’ (or rather: non Mactel) hardware) it is possible to build a Wintel machine that runs circles around a Mac that costs the same, HARDWARE-WISE.
>>> Nick: “Apple’s new “yo-mama-so-fat binaries”.
lol !!!
Hybrid: I know
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
As iPodder I could let myself go crazy
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Anyway, it is undeniably so that CPU is not just what is that makes a Mac.
These screams of “we are Doomed” “Apple the new Dell” are hysterical, I hope you agree with that.
But the colleague having his new Dell back for repair after the first week is a true story
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
As a matter of fact, maybe it is Windows the culprit: I see Linux PC just working beautifully. Just put Windows in them and in a month they are debris
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
People thinking that Apple will turn into Dell because of a chip change are indeed hysterical. Should this all mean that Apple will become a software only enterprise, then it would be fair to say that they will be the new M$, though
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
{progress}, absolutely!
CNET on Rosetta:
“History says that binary translation basically doesn’t work,” said Illuminata analyst Gordon Haff. “The day may come when someone can do a good enough job with it, but that concept has been thrown out there many times in the computer industry, and it’s always fallen flat on its face.”
But Los Gatos, Calif.-based Transitive is willing to set high expectations when comparing software compiled natively for the new processor to that compiled for the older processor and running on the new one.
In the case of Transitive’s first customer, Silicon Graphics Inc., software for the older processor generally runs at least 80 percent the speed of native software, Wiederhold said. But that high score stems partly from the fact that the SGI systems are used for graphics tasks, which have little or no translation penalty, he said.
With more computationally intense tasks, the performance of translated software is between 60 and 80 percent of native software, Wiederhold said.
Another skeptic is Nathan Brookwood of Insight 64. “Everybody always has said 50 (percent) or 60 percent and delivered 30 (percent) or 40 percent,” he said. Among those who have tried: Digital Equipment Corp.’s FX!32 to run x86 Windows programs on computers with Alpha chips; Hewlett-Packard’s Aries software to run HP-UX software for PA- RISC chips on Itanium; and Intel’s IA32-EL software to run software for x86 chips on Itanium.
Jobs was satisfied, though. During his demonstration, Jobs said translated software runs “pretty fast,” though his presentation’s slide said performance is “good (enough).” His demonstration computer had a 3.6GHz Pentium 4 and 2GB of memory.”
“”How compatible your application is with Rosetta depends on the type of application it is,” Apple said. “Applications that have a lot of user interaction and low computational needs, such as a word processor, are quite compatible. Those that have a moderate amount of user interaction and some high computational needs or that use OpenGL are, in most cases, also quite compatible. Those that have intense computing needs aren’t compatible.””
There ya’ go, right from Apple. I’m sure the scientific community, music studios, etc, are REALLY HAPPY to hear this. /sarcasm off
So you get a shi**y proc that runs with ~30% of the speed lopped off.
Well, that didn’t take long. The XBench scores are in over on MacRumors:
Apple G5: 305.46
MacIntel: 63.23
Granted, I realize it’s early, but how embarrassing.
Anyone who thinks that “the most intense computing needs” programs aren’t going to be recompiled for universial binaries are f**king insane.
Protools, Logic, Final Cut Studio, Photoshop… all the big boys that matter to professionals are going to have universal libaries…
Calm down! This would apply to programs like Adium or Transmit… where a slight hit won’t give a hill of beans… it’s not like we’re going to play doom 4 thru rosetta… that’s just retarded thinking!
I wonder if the new Macs will have those ugly “Intel Inside” stickers on them. Could you imagine opening a new PB and seeing that plastered in the lower right hand corner? *ugh*
Scientific community is pretty happy actually. It means porting sw from Linux will be way more easily done, gcc would create optimized code for the Mac instead of waiting for full PowerPC optimization (gcc 4.0 has just started but a long way to go, instead, it is already there).
In SF, with Apple engineers a major scientific framework has been ported in a matter of hours to the Mac with Intel processors there and it is running just fine. NDA covers actual benchmarks and one using this Developers kit cannot provide actual results.
Only able to say this: yes, scientific community is happy about the news.
Copernicus, looks like you missed this on MacRumors:
“ThinkSecret notes that the Intel Mac scored well in both the Quartz graphics and OpenGL graphics tests “almost matching or exceeding dual-2.5GHz G5 score”.”
XBench scores are for XBench through Rosetta and MacRumors is the first to say “meaningless anyway”
AND, hard to say this anyway, the Pentium 4 3.6 GHz is not what will power Macs in 2006. It is kind of mid-range thing, not the rumored MP ones.
“Copernicus, looks like you missed this on MacRumors:”
No I didn’t actually. The nearly identical OpenGL scores are due to to those tests doing direct GPU calls, the processor has little involvement, hence the parity.
It pains me to see these scores come out. I realize they mean little, but yet the press will have a field day with them.
iPodder…Thank you for apologizing for apple and making excuses for them. You can always be depended on being there when it is needed.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Hmmmmmmmm….you know there really is not going to be any new Mac computer news for the next year or two other than:
Benchmarks of Apple vs Windows OS on an Intel Chip.
So….guess it is time to go on a vacation from MDN for the next year or two or I will relive this Apple vs Windows OS on an Intel Chip discussion/argument 365 days a year for the next two,3,4 years…
I hear that no sooner had SJ done the big switcheroo, IBM sent their latest 3.33 Ghz PowerPC to Apple with a note saying they were glad to finally get rid of Jobs. Stevie had gone from wining and dining, to whining and maligning, and they were sick of it. They’d had this faster chip for a while but were waiting for Stevo to jump ship so that they could get on with their gaming chips.
Jobs didn’t go with AMD because their logo didn’t have as nice a sound as the Intel ding-dong on an iPod.
No matter what YOU think remember!…. STEVE IS NOT STUPID!
I’m sick of hearing that all that matters is the OS. Yes, that is the major part. And Intel dosen’t mean that we are all doomed. But, I want the best under the hood for my video editing work. That’s why I stood by the PPC. It always preformed better at video FPU calcs. It also always felt faster when I worked on it. I have a 866 G4 Powerbook that feels like it works better with DV footage then my friends 3.0 GHz P4 with 1 Gig of RAM.
Sure, we don’t know what a P4 is capable of with out having to deal with Microsoft’s bloated OS.
I still hope Alti-vec resurfaces on the Intel chips Apple uses. You should be able to bolt that on to anything.
so we complain about how Longhorn will require the user to have only the best and fastest equipment out there today in order to run effectively. Well, it looks like the new Macs will also need to run on yet to be invented processors and top of the line hardware in order to be effective. In other words, you’re still going to have to spend a couple thousand on a Mac unless you want a really slow and unresponsive mini based on cheap parts.
Did you jsut say slow and unresponsive mini?!?!?
HAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAH!!!!!
my 1.25 with 512 is a rockin fast workstation!
I used to have an 867G4 and it was freaking fast!
I can only imagine that a 1.42 with 1GB ram in a mini would freakin ROCK!
and the mini is very well equiped, it is not substandard at all, current speck with the powerbooks pretty much wich are robust!
even the video is good considering..
and anything that makes the my next mac faster and more efficient is okay by me!
I was looking for a reason to like intel again…
and now I have one.
I’ve never encountered more whiners in my whole life.
god,
My brief experience with a Mac mini showed it to be very responsive and suitable for many tasks. My complaint isn’t about how good the mini is now, but how good it will be in the future. If it wants to keep the $500 price tag, it’s going to have to use pretty inferior hardware. Look at the $500 Dells and the processor and hardware inside is hardly exciting. OS X may be able to run “good enough” but I’m guessing some of the software and Rosetta is going to have a hard time keeping up when it’s crippled because of a lackluster processor.
Copernicus,
What’s embarrassing? A development system running a benchmarks through emulation on a CPU that likely won’t see the light of day in any PowerMac?
This is a DEVELOPMENT system, and hence incomplete. It’s for developers to port code over with Xcode 2.1 and get used to the new environment, sort out bottlenecks, and deliver quality software for when the new machines are actually delivered starting a year from now.
We’re a year away from an Intel-based Mac. I suggest folks reserve judgement until then. Frankly, Apple won’t ship any Intel-base system if it slower than what it is currently offering.
“But I’ll still think of what might have been…and what someday might be again. Call me a hopeless romantic. I’ll miss the PowerPC.”
I’m with ya, Mr. Siracusa. I’m with ya all the way.
MW = “gone”
see this chart: omg!:
and those are singe core and relitivly low bus and memory speeds!! MWHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Queeezies: all that NDA allows me to say. And all that will not target my office number too easily either
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
“It pains me to see these scores come out. I realize they mean little, but yet the press will have a field day with them.”
———-
Apollo 1 caught fire on the launch pad. Ten missions later, we made it to the moon.
The Apple-Intel alliance is TWO DAYS OLD. Patience, grasshopper…
Those benchmark scores are AWESOME! Don’t you people realize that XBench was running through an emulation layer (namely Rosetta) to get those numbers? This bodes well for Rosetta.
Who said that Apple is going to use Pentium?
I did not here anything like that here in the WWDC!
Apple is going to use Intel’s new processors next year no one has said that it is x86.
First of all it has to be 64bit native…
’nuff said
“Intel’s ‘Roadmap’ means the same thing to me as Longhorn and the 3Ghz PPC. Just because they may have really great plans for releasing a really great product, it doesn’t mean it will actually work or it might take two years longer than they initially thought to get it actually produced and working.
I would tend to agree–Roadmaps are what an example of what a company would like to do. Changing market conditions, technical difficulties, etc. can change this.
Consider Intel’s mythical 4GHz Intel chip. Never happened (contrary to what some say, there is no Intel 4GHz chip). They hit the wall around 3.8GHz. This is why Intel is no longer talking about speed in hertz.
There’s always WinFS, as another example. It’s been on Microsoft’s roadmap since the mid-90s and was always going to appear in the next version of Windows. It’s also always the first thing that gets cut.
IBM’s “Roadmap” for the PowerPC looked pretty awesome back in 2003 and Apple showed how great IBM’s chips are. I’m sure that’s what got Sony and Microsoft interested in working with IBM. With lots of other PowerPC customers, IBM sees little need to devote lots of time and effort to PowerPCs which meet Apple’s specs. Not for the million or so units that Apple will sell. Sony & Microsoft will sell ten times that number, so they get more attention. And IBM’s roadmap falls further behind.
So Intel’s roadmap looks better than what IBM and Freescale are talking about. Will Intel deliver? I think so–if nothing else, Intel is delivering these chips for both PCs and Macs. About the only concern I have is that Apple may be losing a hardware advantage. For example, one of the things that makes the Mac mini possible is that it has good performance and it’s not hot. I’m sure Intel will create chips which will do the same thing. But the chips will be available for everyone, meaning that Apple won’t have hardware that the PC world can’t compete with. If Apple can build a small box with a Pentium M, so can any number of PC companies.
“Who said that Apple is going to use Pentium?
I did not here anything like that here in the WWDC!
Apple is going to use Intel’s new processors next year no one has said that it is x86.”
While I agree that Apple did not commit to a specific processor (eg, Pentium 4 3.6GHz), it’s because Apple will be using various Intel processors depending on what they are building. No, you probably won’t see a 64-bit laptop from Intel, either. But you’ll see laptops that are just as fast as they are now getting twice the battery life.
“First of all it has to be 64bit native…”
Uh…Intel has a 64-bit processor. No, it won’t work in a laptop. But neither will anything from IBM or Freescale.
If you are here at WWDC, wander down to the Universal Binaries Lab over lunch and check out the test machines. Give them the benefit of the doubt–stuff hasn’t been heavily optimized. Last night, I tried running an HD QuickTime 7 stream and it did a pretty good job (at least as long as HyperThreading was on).