Apple to switch to intel chips in 2006

[KernelPanic]

I think Apple has their hands full enough right now trying to get their customers switched over to 64-bit computing with the G5. We are not going to see another major architecture shift for a while.

I agree.

[choasforages]

man, pass me a puff or two of whatever divine herb your smoking.....cusae ain't no way in hell apple is going to switch from ppc to x86......

lets think about it for a while, current x86 chips are nothing more then a translater connected to a very fast risc chip. micro ops and all. my wet dream would be to bypass the x86 core and directly interface with risc engine behind most modern x86 implamentations....then agian, im not nearly a good enough asm hacker to do such.

now, ppc is straight risc, not to mention, the g5 implemantion has a short pipeline, like 6 steps, unlike the pentium 4s 20 step pipeline.....
the pentium 4s only purpose in life is not performance per say....but a physics experiment of howmany times we can get the fucker to tick

[WMD]

the g5 implemantion has a short pipeline, like 6 steps,

You forgot the "1" in front of the 6.  That's right.  16 steps.  The G4 was 9.

Current Pentium 4s are 31.

[toadlife]

You forgot the "1" in front of the 6.  That's right.  16 steps.  The G4 was 9.

Current Pentium 4s are 31.

Athlons were 10 and Athon64's are 12.

If this is in fact true (we will find out VERY shortly), there is no way Apple would use the P4 line. The P4 line was doomed from the start to fail. Something along the line of Intel's Pentium M's would be a more feasable choice.

[WMD]

MacWorld:

The rumors are true: Intel will be inside

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

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

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

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

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

Transition to Intel by 2007, and yes, Marklar exists

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

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

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

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

Apple needs developers' help to complete the transition

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

Widget, scripts and Java applications should work in the new environment without any conversion, said Jobs. Cocoa-based applications will require "a few minor tweaks and a recompile." Carbon-based applications require "a few more tweaks," recompiling, and "they'll work," said Jobs. And projects built using Metrowerks' CodeWarrior need to be moved to Xcode.

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

A new build of Xcode, version 2.1, is being released today. This new release enables developers to specify PowerPC or Intel architectures. "... and you're going to build what's called a universal binary. It contains all the bits for both architectures," said Jobs. "One binary, works on both PowerPC and Intel architecture. So you can ship one CD that supports both processors."

Jobs is retarded now.

[Refalm]

I think Jobs is counting on Windows Longhorn to fail miserably.

For this, Apple needs to get their marketing straight for once and bring out their Mac OS X for x86 version with realistic system requirements for it to have somewhat larger market share at all.
Overall, I'm positive about these developments. This could turn out very nicely.

[piratePenguin]

whoa.

So would I be able to run Mac OS X on this PC or will they not make the drivers for non-Macs, and make it impossible for someone else to make them?

[cahult]

Once again Apple have given IBM the boot. The first boot was in 1984, now it may be a real boot. If IBM had made the chips for PowerMac G5 as fast as Apple would have wanted we should have reached G5 3,5 GHz by now. Now, it seems that Intel is going to do that instead. I wonder what that processor will look like. We can call it X86 but it won

[Refalm]

whoa.

So would I be able to run Mac OS X on this PC or will they not make the drivers for non-Macs, and make it impossible for someone else to make them?

Wait, hold on. Forget everything I said in the last post.

Something is somewhat unclear to me. Is Apple switching to the same CPU architecture as Windows or another architecture that happens to be created by Intel?

[WMD]

Jobs demonstrated a P4 3.6GHz machine running OS X.  So, yeah, x86.

But they may not let the OS run on typical PCs, via using a different BIOS or something.

[toadlife]

Come eat your CROW skyman8081!!

:p

[toadlife]

Jobs demonstrated a P4 3.6GHz machine running OS X.  So, yeah, x86.

But they may not let the OS run on typical PCs, via using a different BIOS or something.

Yes. jobs said he won't let people run OSX on non apple computers.

[WMD]

Apparently they have a PPC emulator that runs at near-native speed on x86.  Given the efforts of PearPC, I don't see how they did/can do this.

[M51DPS]

The BIOS will probably be Open Firmware like in Mac's today, but it is just that.... what is the point of using x86 if people cannot use commodity PC's? I thought the point was removing the issue of "overpriced hardware" even more than what they are trying with the Mac mini. Isn't PowerPC 970 supposed to be better than x86-64?

And I really wanted a Cell processor in my Mac....

[toadlife]

Apparently they have a PPC emulator that runs at near-native speed on x86. Given the efforts of PearPC, I don't see how they did/can do this.

He's probably lying. I bet the performance will be horrid when running through the emulator.