“I can foresee a future where the best engineers at Intel move to the Apple project. Being able to start with a blank slate for x86 will probably be the most interesting job over there,” Sam Pullara writes for javarants.com.
“For the past 25 years or so the x86 has been forced to be backwards compatible back to the original MS-DOS. This includes all aspects of the architecture, from the instruction set, to the memory system, and even the BIOS. If you made an x86 machine without this backwards compatibility, could you do better? I think this is the question that Jobs is posing to Intel right now. Ironically, this new system would probably still run Linux, but running stock Windows might be difficult. It’s hard to say how much of that backwards compatibility is required for Windows to boot, let alone run programs,” Pullara writes.
“At the current x86’s core is a RISC chip with a big huge layer of crud on top if it that emulates all the CISC instructions. That layer could be trimmed. The current chipsets contain tons of legacy support that could be jettisoned, as Intel has shown with tons a prototypes that were never picked up by the industry because of Windows users who demand that Lotus 1-2-3 still runs on it,” Pullara writes. “The form factor of the board is completely open for discussion as there need not be a standard case that accepts it. So if they really take advantage of the situation I could see a Mac running on Intel that is faster than the fastest Windows PC.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: “Intel has shown with tons a prototypes that were never picked up by the industry because of Windows users who demand that Lotus 1-2-3 still runs on it.” LOL!
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Universal Binaries forever: Apple could use PowerPCs in Mac lineup at will – June 13, 2005
Computerworld’s ludicrous subtitle: ‘Mac users say they have no plans to switch – yet’ – June 13, 2005
What happens when world’s No. 1 Apple brand is combined with No. 5 Intel brand? – June 13, 2005
Video of Mac OS X 10.4.1 for Intel running on Dell laptop posted online – June 13, 2005
Report: Apple Mac OS X 10.4.1 for Intel hits piracy sites – June 11, 2005
Is Apple setting up the ultimate “Switcher” campaign by preparing to let Mac OS X speak for itself? – June 10, 2005
Intel-based Macs running both Mac OS X and Windows will be good for Apple – June 10, 2005
Twin Mac website debuts, dedicated to dual booting Intel-based Macs running Mac OS X and Windows – June 10, 2005
Cringley: Apple and Intel to merge; Steve Jobs finally beats Bill Gates – June 09, 2005
Fortune: Apple’s switch to Intel processors to accelerate Windows users switching to Mac OS X – June 09, 2005
Will developers stop writing Mac applications if Apple ‘Macintel’ computers can run Windows? – June 08, 2005
Why buy a Dell when Apple ‘Macintel’ computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows? – June 08, 2005
Apple to use Intel microprocessors beginning in 2006, all Macs to be Intel-based by end of 2007 – June 06, 2005
meh
I find all this talk really exciting because now that the freaking out is diminishing, the possibilities are becoming clearer.
Change is good!
Wow, would be cool to have it beat the pants off a windoze machine for Gaming using the very same chip. People would be diving off windoze like rats off a sinking ship. But interim wise I personally would like to have a dual bootable machine cuz my company has proprietary windoze only software. Now if Macs gain enough of a foothold that it makes sense to come out with a Mac edition……..
Uh, duh. The answer is obviously yes. You’ll see…::whistle::
There goes the dual-boot plan.
Not so fast Russell. Apple is working on an emulation layer (not at native speed) that will ensure some sort of compatibility to archaic x86 CISC instructions.
I, too am excited to hear of all the possibilities that are being thrown around. I am dying to buy a new powerbook to replace my aging iBook, but with everyone’s positive conjecture about what products might be on their way I’m consider holding off. The problem is that it will be 2 years before all the initial round of Apple-with-Intel products are out. Well I’m sure I can pony up the dough in 2 years and pick-up an Intel Mac, if something REALLY cool does come out. Decisions, decisions
Thurridiot blogged on this article. What a total tool. He is so bipolar he nowadays he is even praising and trashing the Mac WITHIN THE SAME SENTENCE.
Example from Thurridiots blog entry: “The Mac is about the synthesis of design and aesthetics, taken even to the point of absurdity”
That guy is just too weird and gives new meaning to the word “blathering”.
hmm, this seems wrong if you remember Bill G. saying:
DOS isn’t done until Lotus doesn’t run…
oops, though I doubt if you want to give him any more hits (I am regretting making the trip already), I should reference the above with a link.
http://www.internet-nexus.com/2005_06_05_archive.htm#111852664349360401
I’m sure if Apple can come up with Rosetta now, Microsoft will be able to come up with something “innovative” along the same lines come 2010.
I just hope the BIOS goes. I really hate all that IRQ10 crap.
Wow, would be cool to have it beat the pants off a windoze machine for Gaming
——–
*snicker… video games.. hee hee..
Yes, they could and no, they won’t. That yould put apple back in a small pool, paying more to get less attention. The biggest advantage for apple in this deal is being able to gain benifit from using the most widly used CPU’s. This will guarantee that development never falls behind for them. IBM could have done this for apple, but they didn’t because apples small market share made it not as enticing to IBM as the console market is. Look at what they are doing there.
This move is about moving to this hardware, not about going for the best architecture you could get.
“…MacDailyNews Take: “Intel has shown with tons a prototypes that were never picked up by the industry because of Windows users who demand that Lotus 1-2-3 still runs on it.” LOL!…”
I know Mac users who are the same way. I have a client that won’t go to OS X because her old copy of Address Book Plus won’t work in Classic.
Intel won’t develop separate hardware for Apple, will they? Seems like that would represent a serious conflict of interests.
And at some point, Mickey will drop DOS. They’ve watched Apple piss off its customers and developers TWICE by making their programs obsolete. And *they’re* still in business. Microsoft *can* simply say “fuhgettaboutit” and let the stragglers deal.
if intel will develop chips that drop legacy bios. who’s to say that the switch will initially be on off the shelf intel chips then slowly integrate new tech that will blow the chips off of windows oems.
“The current chipsets contain tons of legacy support that could be jettisoned”
The current chipses contain so much real-estate, that this legacy support is no longer a significant issue
I’ve already commented about exactly this possibility on previous article posts. It’s not as outrageous as it sounds. Consider:
1) Intel has already tried to introduce a successor to x86 with the Itanium, but failed even with support from HP. Why? Because Microsoft refused to develop for it.
2) Why does Intel want to replace x86? One, because it knows better than anyone else that the x86 ISA is getting creaky, but two (and more importantly), a post-x86 chip that suceeds in the marketplace would kill off AMD and Via. Or at least relegate them to has-been status.
3) Why does an Apple and Intel hookup make so sense? What if Paul Otellini gave Steve Jobs a peek at a post-x86 chip chip Intel was working on in its skunk lab? It’s doubtful next year’s dual-core Yonah Pentium M processor approaches the “70 processing units per watt” that Steve Jobs referred to compared to IBM’s 15 processing units per watt.
It’s likely this hypothetical Intel chip is BEYOND x86.
With Apple, Intel gets a willing partner with a proven history of making successful architectual transitions. Remember, PowerPC and its derivatives, Cell and the Xbox 360 chip, are ONLY around today because of Apple’s support.
With Universal Binaries, Apple has the ability to offer near instantaneous OS and app support for any architecture. A lot of developers at the WWDC reported literally being able to generate working Universal Binaries in a few minutes.
The problem is that the most mission-critical apps are the ones that need the most work to get them to “Univeral Binary compliant” code quality, mostly because those apps have been around the longest (Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop). But with Microsoft and Adobe essentially being forced by Apple to get their codebases up to snuff, once you are in Universal Binary land, you have the ability to create native apps for any processor.
2006 and 2007 are the Intel transition years. But I think it’s becoming more and more likely that Steve Jobs was looking at the possibilities in 2010, when the world will be ready to finally leave x86 behind (with Intel’s help).
They can port to just about any chip… they’re abstracting most of the hardware away (witness the “Accelerate” framework to replace native SSE/Altivec instructions)… once the Intel changeover is complete, they’ll have a software base (internally and externally) which is able to run on both big endian and little endian chips – which is pretty much most of them out there, and from 32 bit to 64 bit.
Note their own suggestions of using (if you must) “__LITTLE_ENDIAN__” (or __BIG_ENDIAN__) macros… rather than “__i386__” or “__ppc__”. This is surely very obvious where this is leading.
Nothing’s stopping Apple from porting to the next greatest high speed chips from anyone. OS X could conceivably run anywhere and on anything with enough guts.
D’oh, NewType said basically the same thing!
Oh well. I’d like to add that as well as leaving behind x86 in 2010, we’ll also leave behind that woefully bloated garbage called Windows as well.
I think the most important announcement Steve Jobs DIDN’T make at in his keynote is “there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. That doesn’t preclude someone from running it on a Mac”. What this astonishing statement (by Phil Schiller) stops short of saying is that Apple may fully support running Windows APPLICATIONS on a Mac.
By the way, I note Phil goes in for none of this controversial ‘Mactel’ or ‘MacIntel’ for describing his company’s new computers, opting for ‘Intel-based Mac’ instead, hmm… IbM anyone?
notatotalsucker, no problem – I think many of us are thinking the same things ( great minds think alike, right?)
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”raspberry” style=”border:0;” />
But yeah, that would be the other side effect of Apple and Intel being able to offer complete OS and app support for the post-x86 processor in 2010. Microsoft would dismiss it at first, and when the chip takes off because of its vastly superior performance/power ratio with full MacOS support and all the apps there, the world will discover that Windows will be too creaky to make the transition.
Windows will live and die on x86, which is a tantalizing possibility that is only a few year away in the making.
I think it’s unlikely that the chip they use will not be x86 based. Two reasons:
1. Phil Schiller said Windows would run on an Intel based Mac. Therefore, it has to be a chip that Windows will run on.
2. The development systems they sent out had Pentium 4’s in them. Therefore, it has to be something pretty similar or what would be the point?
ndelc,
If you are following the thread of the article and the conversation, we are not talking about the Intel-based Macs that will appear in 2006 and 2007. People are speculating and hypothesizing what might happen post-switch to Intel. And if you are looking at a 2010 or 2015 timeframe, there are a lot of intriguing possibilities to consider.
That’s the mythical special Mac chip right there: the lean, mean, uber-fast Pentium D4M (Dual4Mac) 😀