MacOs 10.5 (Leopard) will run on Intels!

[N4CR]

So by going intel... all the mac's are going to overheat.. just like the p4 preshots? Bet the intel architecture will suck too
Methinks they should have stayed with IBM and had a nibble on the cell chip franchise, then mabey the 'omfg fastest computer' claims would be true for a change

[James Deuce]

phooey. FreeBSD does not Aqua and Darwin make. Anyway the macs run BSD, not Free BSD.

Try Pear out for size in the meantime if you're feeling particularly geekish

MayDyaBoit!

[James Deuce]

Seriously? As a primary OS on a desktop and not a server? How are you finding it?

No, just giving Macboy, err, Riffer a wind up

I've used FreeBSD for proprietary network management packages from Bay, Dowty, and IBM in the past.

[Skunk]

Apple to Transition to Intel Processors
---------------------------------------
by TidBITS Staff

At Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC) today, Steve Jobs
dropped a bombshell on the Mac community by confirming rumors
that the company will transition its computers from the PowerPC
architecture to Intel processors by 2007. The news was leaked
in the Wall Street Journal two weeks ago and confirmed by CNet
and the Wall Street Journal last week.

http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html

The reason? Power. Citing each company's processor roadmaps
beyond 2006, Jobs said that the PowerPC provides 15 "units of
performance" per watt, while Intel's processors will be able
to offer 70 units per watt. Jobs also mentioned that they've
been unable to get a PowerPC G5 processor that will run cool
enough to put into a laptop, a long-standing sore point among
PowerBook aficionados.

However, you won't be able to run out and buy any
old Intel box and install Mac OS X, according to comments by
Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller; Apple will restrict
the operating system to Apple-sold Intel computers. It's likely
that these future Macs will be able to run Windows applications
better than with today's emulation software.

Jobs said that Apple has been co-developing an Intel-based version
of Mac OS X for the last five years in order to keep its options
open; every release of Mac OS X has been compiled in-house for
Intel processors. During the WWDC keynote, Jobs demonstrated
third-party applications such as Photoshop CS2 running on a
3.6 GHz Pentium 4 processor-based system under Mac OS X 10.4.1.

Apple plans to ship low-end Macs using Intel processors by this
time next year, while higher-end systems for professionals will
appear in 2007. Jobs specifically apologized to those who surely
wished they could have a PowerBook G5 by now, so we wouldn't
be surprised to find a high-end laptop high on the development
priority list.

**DRM in the Chip** -- One aspect of this transition that could
prove interesting, in all positive and negative connotations
of the word, is the so-called "trusted computing" capabilities
of Intel's CPUs. Little has been done with them yet, but as we
understand these capabilities, they're designed to work with
a Microsoft digital rights management (DRM) system. There's
no telling if or how they may play into Apple's existing music
or future video plans.

**Making the Transition** -- Developers who use Xcode should be
able to make minor changes for their programs to work with Intel
processors. Compiled binary applications will be able to contain
the processor-dependent code for both PowerPC and Intel chips,
meaning that developers can release a single program for both
types of Macs. Jobs said that more than half of current Apple
developers use Xcode and another 20 percent were planning to
start using it soon. Not surprisingly, he suggested that everyone
else get on the bandwagon, too.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/xcode/

Jobs also discussed Rosetta, a binary translator that turns
PowerPC code into code for Intel chips on the fly. While this
kind of conversion has been used for some forms of emulation
by other companies in the past, Jobs indicated that Rosetta is
optimized enough to avoid comparisons with the often clunky and
funky operation of Classic within Mac OS X. It should be a more
seamless experience for Mac users, comparable to the PowerPC
transition, when the vast majority of older 680x0 applications
simply ran. Jobs demonstrated Photoshop CS2, Microsoft Office,
and Quicken running in unmodified PowerPC-binary form using
Rosetta. Of course, just because they run doesn't guarantee
that they will run well, especially for something like Photoshop,
which is commonly used to benchmark processor speeds. However,
it does signal to users that they don't have pay for upgrades
to all of their software, as many did with the Mac OS 9 to
Mac OS X transition simply to run it on a new architecture.

Apple has a long history of carrying its older users on its back
as it forges across a river dividing two architectures. The change
from 680x0 to PowerPC was generally good - with exceptions - and
Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X was a long, slow, but ultimately successful
transition as developers produced applications that could run in
Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X. Even the addition of a 64-bit processor
in the form of the PowerPC G5 produced relatively few problems.

**Small Developer Crunch?** The Intel processor transition is
likely to affect smaller developers much more than larger ones.
Most large software companies that create products for Mac OS X
also have Windows versions. The code base can be largely
identical. Smaller developers typically program for a single
platform and may not have the financial or staff resources for
the testing necessary.

**Too Hot to Handle?** In the past, Intel chips ran hotter and
required more power than comparable PowerPCs. But the company
has learned a lot from tuning its Pentium 4M and Pentium M
for laptops, and its new dual-core architecture that has the
equivalent of two processors in a single integrated circuit
package doesn't double heat or power as it doubles computational
performance. (Multi-core technology is apparently the near-term
future of most processors, with IBM releasing a nine-core system
called Cell.)

Beyond wattage figures, IBM and Intel had closed the gap on true
computational measures, a previous bone of contention dubbed the
"megahertz myth" when focusing on cycles per second instead of
actual tasks completed. Intel has suffered a number of setbacks
in the last year that have slowed their processor speed targets,
but is still on track to outpace IBM dramatically in the future.
IBM has had noticeable stumbles including delayed G5 deliveries
last summer that pushed G5 iMacs back three months.

Apple has basically conceded that PowerPC G5 chips cannot be
made cool enough to be used in laptops, which means that unless
Freescale Semiconductor (Motorola's spun-off chip division) can
produce much faster PowerPC G4s, Apple will wind up releasing only
modestly faster PowerBooks for a full two years, which could cost
them quite a bit of the pro and speed-demon markets.

It's likely that Apple's roadmap shift to Intel will cause
financial analysts and business writers to tell the public and
institutions that Apple now is on a secure footing, no longer
tied to a small fraction of a tiny part of IBM's current revenue,
but is rather tying its hopes on the core business of the world's
largest chipmaker. On the other hand, the stock market generally
considers change to be a bad thing, and there's a distinct tinge
of defeat in switching CPUs (ignoring of course, that what makes
the Mac different has always been the operating system, not the
technical details of the hardware underpinnings).

Even more significant is that Windows XP and Longhorn will
be facing head to head challenges with Mac OS X on what is
likely to be highly comparable equipment. Running a native
Intel Photoshop under Mac OS X versus Windows XP will reveal
more about the efficiencies of Unix and Apple's implementation
than any of the apples to oranges (or Apples to Redmonds) tests
yet performed.

From http://www.tidbits.com

[riffer]

Even more significant is that Windows XP and Longhorn will
be facing head to head challenges with Mac OS X on what is
likely to be highly comparable equipment. Running a native
Intel Photoshop under Mac OS X versus Windows XP will reveal
more about the efficiencies of Unix and Apple's implementation
than any of the apples to oranges (or Apples to Redmonds) tests
yet performed.

They'll find that it doesn't run any faster using a *nix environment.

*nices just handle multiple CPU requests more efficiently. You can't use any more than 100% of the CPU.

You can make a Windows pc run fast. Just turn off most of the services.

And as for MacBoy, I'll have you know I have at least four different OSes at home... and only one is MacOs.

[James Deuce]

They'll find that it doesn't run any faster using a *nix environment.

*nices just handle multiple CPU requests more efficiently. You can't use any more than 100% of the CPU.

You can make a Windows pc run fast. Just turn off most of the services.

And as for MacBoy, I'll have you know I have at least four different OSes at home... and only one is MacOs.

MayDyaBoit! - Again!

[bugjuice]

not read all of it yet, but apparently a good read:

What was not said..

[Skunk]

not read all of it yet, but apparently a good read:

What was not said..

What he misses there is that Apple have said that it will not run on any PC. Only Macs with Intel inside.

How they will achieve that I don't know.

[Skunk]

They'll find that it doesn't run any faster using a *nix environment.

*nices just handle multiple CPU requests more efficiently. You can't use any more than 100% of the CPU.

You can make a Windows pc run fast. Just turn off most of the services.

And as for MacBoy, I'll have you know I have at least four different OSes at home... and only one is MacOs.

Motherboard design will come into it a bit, as I see it it's only the CPU that is being replaced, not the whole box. Obliviously there is more to it than that but the essential CPU clock speed argument will be settled.

I had hopes of installing 10.4.1 on my PC but it's not to be...

[Jeremy]

So by going intel... all the mac's are going to overheat.. just like the p4 preshots? Bet the intel architecture will suck too
Methinks they should have stayed with IBM and had a nibble on the cell chip franchise, then mabey the 'omfg fastest computer' claims would be true for a change

You wouldn't want a Cell processor in a computer. They're next to useless for any sort of branching pathway. Sure you can render reflective water really fast but as soon as you get to an if then else statement they become unbelieveably slow.

Anyway we're stuck with MacOS only running on Mac hardware. Though there are some rather telling things from them picking Intel.

1: DRM. Even more locked in than PowerPC, no installing anything they don't want you to on this computer.
2. Are they going to keep using the G5 processors as well? P4 and Xeon chips lose to G5s, if they'd gone for AMD then they could have used Opterons which thrash G5s. Maybe they secretly want the intel chips to be a failure so they can go back to PowerPC claiming that it's a "superior architecture"

I can see one advatage though, ram is finally going to drop down in price for those running a mac. Though I certainly won't be using a Mac until they sort out the massive problem the OS has with threads, it's simply unacceptable that it takes 10 times the time any other OS does to create new threads.

[Skunk]

You wouldn't want a Cell processor in a computer. They're next to useless for any sort of branching pathway. Sure you can render reflective water really fast but as soon as you get to an if then else statement they become unbelieveably slow.

Anyway we're stuck with MacOS only running on Mac hardware. Though there are some rather telling things from them picking Intel.

1: DRM. Even more locked in than PowerPC, no installing anything they don't want you to on this computer.
2. Are they going to keep using the G5 processors as well? P4 and Xeon chips lose to G5s, if they'd gone for AMD then they could have used Opterons which thrash G5s. Maybe they secretly want the intel chips to be a failure so they can go back to PowerPC claiming that it's a "superior architecture"

I can see one advatage though, ram is finally going to drop down in price for those running a mac. Though I certainly won't be using a Mac until they sort out the massive problem the OS has with threads, it's simply unacceptable that it takes 10 times the time any other OS does to create new threads.

I thought they were using the same RAM? I get mine from a PC shop. My G5: DDR SDRAM PC3200U-30330. Isn't this 'standard'?

Most reports mention the future pathway of the chip design. That's why they're dropping the IBM chip.
I think they'll be using Intels 64 bit chip (whatever that's called), can't see them going back to a 32 bit.

[bugjuice]

they're also dropping the IBM chip cos it gets too hot and can't be design, developed and built quickly enough to meet demand. The 2.5GHz chips were the first macs to be water cooled. Now they figured out how to cool them a bit better, they released the 2.7 water cooled. They still can't break the 3GHz mark without a neuclear meltdown, so they need a new angle. The Intel chips can be developed further and quicker, and don't produce as much heat. Can't remember the scale Jobs was using, but per watt, the G5 chips were 15 threads (?) per watt, where as the Intel chips could realistically reach 70 by comparison. It's the power they're after, and Intel will deliver, where as IBM can't.

What really gets me is that the Xbox has their processors based on the G5 chip. Apple have water-cooled dual 2.7s at the moment. The Xbox has 3 x 3.2GHz in a smaller box, and as of yet, no mention of water-cooling.. go figure..

Anyway, as bizarre as it seems and as let down as a lot of people seem to feel, this can only be a good thing, and Apple have always seemed to pull things like this off in the past, so what's to stop them doing it again? They did it a few years ago from Motorolla (G3 & G4 chip) to IBM for the G5...

I have heard a rumor of the new start up chime tho, don't think I like it: