Apple switching to pentium?

rutt

This rumor is all over the internet. It's been brewing for a good long while. Apple really does have a huge preformance problem with PowerPC and looking forward this is only likely to get worse. But the transition seems pretty darn challenging to me. Knowing that Apple is a year or so from introducing much faster products that will obsolete the software investment in PPC, well, does that make you more or less likely to make a new Apple hardware investment?

My horizon on this was a little short, but I think I had the big picture right.

patch29

I was going to post this too. The last rumor statements are pretty bold and are coming from cnet, article here.

I don't know about a new purchase. I am hoping they will give us something great tomorrow, but no real rumors, but I still hope (New Powerbook, with new chip, fingers crossed). If not I think I will finally take the plunge on a new G5 dual. It all depends on what they announce tomorrow. I could hold off, but several times a week I need the speed and simply deal with it for now.

rutt

patch29 wrote:

I was going to post this too. The last rumor statements are pretty bold and are coming from cnet, article here.

I don't know about a new purchase. I am hoping they will give us something great tomorrow, but no real rumors, but I still hope (New Powerbook, with new chip, fingers crossed). If not I think I will finally take the plunge on a new G5 dual. It all depends on what they announce tomorrow. I could hold off, but several times a week I need the speed and simply deal with it for now.

My guess is that you are unlikely to get that new Powerbook. Notebook chips is one of the big motivators for Apple switching. There just isn't a compettive PPC option for them to use in a notebook; Intel is too far out ahead in this area.

Richard

patch29 wrote:

...If not I think I will finally take the plunge on a new G5 dual. It all depends on what they announce tomorrow. I could hold off, but several times a week I need the speed and simply deal with it for now.

I would think more than twice before purchasing anything. Long ago, I bought the last Mac based on the 68xxx chip. One year later, Apple introduced the Power PC chip and guess what? Within another year, there was no new software for the lowly 68040 Quadra. Unless you are comfortable that you have all the software you are going to need within the lifetime of your next machine, buying a PowerPC based Mac now seems like a risky investment.

Andy

patch29 wrote:

If not I think I will finally take the plunge on a new G5 dual.

oh sure. but y'all have no problem pushing me into one, eh

rutt

andy wrote:

oh sure. but y'all have no problem pushing me into one, eh

Andy, I think you'll live. Me, too. (And I can't even say that I didn't listen to me! I knew what I was doing.)

But what about Apple? How do they manage this transition? What happens to their computer sales over the next year or so? How do they get Adobe and others on board? I suppose, one possibility, is that their pentium based computers actually run windows based software. This isn't that hard a technical challenge, especially if Apple gets a little help from Microsoft, one of its big investors. On linux, the windows emulator, WINE, does an OK but not great job of running PS7. Also, expect Vmware and/or similar on the new Apple platform. Being able to run all the windows software will be a plus for Apple. Competing on a level playing field in terms of processor performance and price/performance will also be a plus. But without native versions of flagship applications, I think the platform will lose differentiation to both windows and linux. So there is an interesting challenge for them.

Don't get me wrong. Steve Jobs is much better at this than I could ever hope to be. I just wish I could read his mind.

pathfinder

rutt wrote:

Andy, I think you'll live. Me, too. (And I can't even say that I didn't listen to me! I knew what I was doing.)

But what about Apple? How do they manage this transition? What happens to their computer sales over the next year or so? How do they get Adobe and others on board? I suppose, one possibility, is that their pentium based computers actually run windows based software. This isn't that hard a technical challenge, especially if Apple gets a little help from Microsoft, one of its big investors. On linux, the windows emulator, WINE, does an OK but not great job of running PS7. Also, expect Vmware and/or similar on the new Apple platform. Being able to run all the windows software will be a plus for Apple. Competing on a level playing field in terms of processor performance and price/performance will also be a plus. But without native versions of flagship applications, I think the platform will lose differentiation to both windows and linux. So there is an interesting challenge for them.

Don't get me wrong. Steve Jobs is much better at this than I could ever hope to be. I just wish I could read his mind.

Sounds like their stockholders are not going to be happy Monday either! Interesting situation - surely this was all discussed in committee before Apple made this decision. This creates uncertainty, and stockholders do not like that! Arghhh.

DavidTO

This rumor has been around a LONG time. The only difference this time is that the news source is more reliable.

There are so many factors that we don't know about, it's hard to say how much validity this rumor has.

The biggest problem, IMO, is that the software developers have to go through yet another migration to another platform, and we'll certainly lose some along the way.

OSX is easily ported to Intel, and most likely already is. The Maklar project has been going on for a while, if the rumor sites are at all right about that.

Personally, I think there are other areas that Apple's been slow on. Graphics cards and using them for rendering is something that Core Image is just starting to address.

Anyway, high-end workstations based on Intel chips are most likely 2 years away, 1 year at best, so IMO any investment you've made to date is fine. Heck, at this point Apple could conceivably make this transition before MS even starts to catch up with the release of Longhorn.

And yes, Apple could benefit from faster chips, but the old saw about usability is very valid. Reference the Intel exec who said he spends an hour every week on his daughter's PC dealing with viruses and spyware, and saying that the only way to really deal with it is to get a Mac.This series is also interesting.

tlittleton

I don't know. At first I thought that they wouldn't do it. They just released Tiger, which though I havent used it yet, I understand to be a substantial upgrade(?). But then again, OS-X is a UNIX based OS. I wouldn't think it would be that hard to make some kernel changes and release an Intel x86 compatible version of OS-X.

I would think the main things marketing wise that would be holding Apple back would be that famous "Intel Inside" logo right below the Apple on a G5...

I also think that if they do go to an Intel chip, the chip will not be called a Pentium.

rutt

DavidTO wrote:

This rumor has been around a LONG time. The only difference this time is that the news source is more reliable.

There are so many factors that we don't know about, it's hard to say how much validity this rumor has.

A lot more reliable. The New York Times and The San Jose Mercury News both have the story on their web sites. Something is going to happen. We just don't exactly know what.

DavidTO wrote:

The biggest problem, IMO, is that the software developers have to go through yet another migration to another platform, and we'll certainly lose some along the way.

That's the interesting puzzle. How do they get through this and not end up with some real hard years. I can think of all kinds of things, but the only ones that don't seem like business disasters involve Intel making something that runs PPC instructions. But just how likely is that? I suppose from Intel's point of view, they don't care. Their whole goal is just to keep their fabs busy. The micro architecture underneath modern Pentiums (Yamhill) could just as easily support PPC as x86. The translation engine from PPC to the microcode would be tons simpler than the X86 engine. I believe Apple owns enough PPC architecture for this to be legally feasible. But this is just speculation, of course. I find that an interesting game. We should be able to score it tomorrow.

DavidTO wrote:

Personally, I think there are other areas that Apple's been slow on. Graphics cards and using them for rendering is something that Core Image is just starting to address.

But Apple already has world class partners here. They can use anything availble for the PC market. It's the darn processor where they bet on the wrong horse. And as time goes by, the results of this bad bet will just get worse and worse. Say what you like, Apple can't afford to be 1/2 as fast per processor as commodity PCs that are much cheaper. Apple can't afford to compete with multiple core chips when they don't have any such thing. There is a limit to the power of the Jobs Reality Distortion Field.

DavidTO

rutt wrote:

A lot more reliable. The New York Times and The San Jose Mercury News both have the story on their web sites. Something is going to happen. We just don't exactly know what.

Well, they have the exact story from the original news source, only reprinted. Yes, it's in the NYT, but they didn't do any original reporting to back up the other source, they just decided to trust that one original source. We'll see tomorrow.

rutt wrote:

But Apple already has world class partners here. They can use anything availble for the PC market. It's the darn processor where they bet on the wrong horse. And as time goes by, the results of this bad bet will just get worse and worse. Say what you like, Apple can't afford to be 1/2 as fast per processor as commodity PCs that are much cheaper. Apple can't afford to compete with multiple core chips when they don't have any such thing. There is a limit to the power of the Jobs Reality Distortion Field.

They can use any graphics card, they just don't, and they don't use them as effectively as they could.

Also, I'm not so sure that they bet on the wrong horse. Meaning (and I'm no expert), I don't believe that the technology is inherently any worse, it's just that without the volume to drive it, the progress is going to be slower. The competition for a larger pool of dollars is what is pushing the x86.

rutt

DavidTO wrote:

Also, I'm not so sure that they bet on the wrong horse. Meaning (and I'm no expert), I don't believe that the technology is inherently any worse, it's just that without the volume to drive it, the progress is going to be slower. The competition for a larger pool of dollars is what is pushing the x86.

It doesn't matter why the horse loses the race. If it doesn't cross the line first, no roses.

PPC is a much nicer architecture than X86. So are MIPS and Sparc for that matter. The nicest of all was Alpha. No matter. Volume wins in today's world. Even Intel can't compete with itself. XA64 (Itanium) is quite a bit slower than Xeon no matter how much Intel wishes this weren't true. X86 volume means it makes sense for Intel to spend virtually anything on each successive X86 design. This just isn't true of anything else.

DavidTO

Here's an interesting article that summarizes the reaction to the rumors.

DavidTO

rutt wrote:

It doesn't matter why the horse loses the race. If it doesn't cross the line first, no roses.

PPC is a much nicer architecture than X86. So are MIPS and Sparc for that matter. The nicest of all was Alpha. No matter. Volume wins in today's world. Even Intel can't compete with itself. XA64 (Itanium) is quite a bit slower than Xeon no matter how much Intel wishes this weren't true. X86 volume means it makes sense for Intel to spend virtually anything on each successive X86 design. This just isn't true of anything else.

Exactly.

mercphoto

rutt wrote:

But Apple already has world class partners here. They can use anything availble for the PC market. It's the darn processor where they bet on the wrong horse. And as time goes by, the results of this bad bet will just get worse and worse.

Being someone who used to work at the Somerset Design Center, part of the AIM alliance that developed the G3 and G4 processors, I have some things I could say about that but won't. Let me just simply say that Apple's processors woes rest as much on their shoulders as it does on IBM or Freescale's. Things look different from the inside.

As per what will happen Monday, while it might involve Intel in some way, I would actually expect more of a new product announcement, probably a home entertainment device, rather than "we're switching processors". I expect the current Macs to stay Power PC, and to see a brand new device on an Intel processor. Just my guessing.

As per the wrong horse theory, I now work for AMD. I've been in both worlds. Texas Instruments for PC's, then Motorola for PPC, now AMD for x86 again. Without a doubt, its the market that bet on the wrong processor architecture, not Apple.

rutt

mercphoto wrote:

As per the wrong horse theory, I now work for AMD. I've been in both worlds. Texas Instruments for PC's, then Motorola for PPC, now AMD for x86 again. Without a doubt, its the market that bet on the wrong processor architecture, not Apple.

I think that's an oxymoron.

I worked at SGI on two MIPS processors. One of my really good friends was the architect of Pentium 2, so I guess we can blame a lot on him.

X86 is really ugly. But the market bet on it, and it was a self fulfilling prophecy. After Pentium 2, the architectural disadvantage of X86 vs the RISC machine was gone. So the X86 world never had to face the wrenching architectural changes that Apple has been through before and perhaps again.

In the best of all possible worlds, the good guys and the nice instruction set architectures always win. But in this case the wrong horse won, which made it the right horse in terms of betting after all.

mercphoto

rutt wrote:

But in this case the wrong horse won, which made it the right horse in terms of betting after all.

You missed my point. The x86 architecture is SO UGLY that even Intel tried to get the market away from it, with Itanium. Their goal was a good one. It just so happened that their implementation was poor. Itanium is also an ugly architecture. The market wisely turned down switching from the old but established ugly architecture for a new and unknown ugly architecture. It is quite possible that Intel is unable to design a nice processor architecture. Of course, it doesn't stop them from making money. The book "Accidental Empires" is now floating through my memory...

Adam Smith was wrong. Seldom does the best product win in the market place.

DavidTO

Can someone explain to me how the new XBox gets a 3.2ghz PPC processor, but the Mac is stuck at 2.7?

David_S85

Probably not a pentium
Transitions are always difficult, but if the end justifies the means, then its good for the company and ultimately the whole market. Apple's on a roll right now, irrespective of their recent stock pricings.

Pentiums have also had their knocks. I can't get much to run on my old PII machine these days either . My guess is that Apple won't be using current P4 designs, per se; rather something hybrid oriented, and dual core processor (best of both worlds?).

As I recall, the PPC was a Motorola design and fab, was it not? Apple seeking new biz partners doesn't seem all that odd to me. Might end up being less expensive overall to consumers and Apple than beating a dying horse :deadhorse a few more times (PPC chips). I wrote all this so I could finally use the deadhorse smiley thing.

DavidTO

There's also this article from friday, saying that Apple's going to announce dual core processors.

ChrisJ

DavidTO wrote:

Can someone explain to me how the new XBox gets a 3.2ghz PPC processor, but the Mac is stuck at 2.7?

rofl

The power of the Dark Side is unfathomable.

mercphoto

DavidTO wrote:

Can someone explain to me how the new XBox gets a 3.2ghz PPC processor, but the Mac is stuck at 2.7?

Because the game machine G5's are not the same as the Apple G5. They are actually different design teams, with different needs and specs. What works for Sony does not work for Apple.

Another person wrote:

As I recall, the PPC was a Motorola design and fab, was it not?

No. Power PC was an IBM architecture, scaled down from their Power architecture for larger, powerful servers. Motorola became a licesee for the architecture (Freescale still is), and the A-I-M alliance was founded. A processor would be designed by a single team of employees from both companies. At one point, as a Motorola employee I had an IBM first-report, and he reported to a Motorolan. For various reasons the alliance fell apart. I was with Motorola at Somerset when the "divorce" happened. Stressful times.

At current moment, all G4's are made by Freescale, and all G5's are made by IBM. The divorce happened during development of the G4, and IBM declined the opportunity to the G4.

patch29

Here is another take from a blog at wired.com. We might know shortly.

I could go for a dual core G5. or a super powerbook.

Baldy

When I worked for Steve at NeXT, I was so sick of running on dead-end chips that I called Andy Grove and pitched a NeXTstep (which became OS X) port to Intel architecture.

Intel paid us to do it and helped with the code. It took us 6 months and when we finished, NeXTstep ran better on it than on the sucky Moto chips we were running on.

But nooooo..... Steve wanted to stick with Moto.

Later, Gil Amelio said the reason Apple bought NeXT instead of Be was that NeXTstep ran on Intel chips, which was very important to them, and Be OS didn't. It was the deciding factor.

But noooooo..... Steve wanted to stick with Moto/IBM.

FINALLY! It's about time.

DavidTO

Well, it's true! (It's in reverse order, as they post new updates live during the keynote, so it may seem confusing at first)

appleinsider.com wrote:

Under the transformation: Widget/Scripts/Java Just work, Jobs says. Cocoa apps will take a few days to update. Meanwhile, Carbon Apps will take a few weeks. Jobs tells carbon developers to start using Xcode. Over half of developers using Xcode. Next Xcode (version 2.1) will be delivered today. News Xcode generates a single "universal binary" that supports both PowerPC and Intel x86 processors. Available to everybody at registration desk following the keynote.
Mac OS X has been leading secret double life, Jobs proclaims. Every release of Mac OS X has been built for both Intel and PowerPC-based Macs over the last 5 years. Mac OS X is cross-platform by design. Jobs shows all Mac OS X Tiger running on Intel. All features are already compatible with Intel-based processors. It's not done yet, but will be put into the developer hands for finishing.
There is no G5 PowerBook yet. Future products can't be build on IBM PowerPC processors, Jobs says. Intel has better performance and delivers much better performance per watt. Starting next year the first Macs with Intel processors will debut. They'll begin shipping by next WWDC (June). The transition will be mostly complete by 2007 WWDC. It's a two-year transition.
INTEL RUMORS TRUE: Jobs says there have been two major transitions for Mac: 68K to PowerPC and then Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. Now it's time for third transition to Intel-based Macs. Developers will begin to make the transition now. While users can begin to switch next year. Apple is making the move "because we want to make the best computers for our customers."
Mac OS X "Leopard" is due at the end of 2006

mercphoto

I understand your frustration, Baldy, from the Apple side. Rest assured, the Moto/IBM side had just as much frustration with Apple, as Apple had with Moto and IBM. Apple is not a particularly good customer to deal with. There is a reason why IBM and Freescale slowly stopped paying attention to Apple.

mercphoto

Baldy wrote:

When I worked for Steve at NeXT, I was so sick of running on dead-end chips

And per that remark, the leading selling 32-bit processor is a Freescale G4. That's correct, more total volume sales than Intel. Hardly dead-end.

There's more to life than personal computers...

rutt

Well, a Pentium-M based Powerbook within a year. It's not what Patch was hoping for, but it's good news in the long run for PB fans. Notice that they have Adobe signed up. That was my main question mark. Man, those guys are hard to deal with!

Too bad no Buck Rodgers to make the transition easier. It's going to hurt Apple's computer sales in the short term, I'd think. But what do I know?

patch29

rutt wrote:

Well, a Pentium-M based Powerbook within a year. It's not what Patch was hoping for, but it's good news in the long run for PB fans.

I am glad to hear about future moves which should increase performance are coming for the PB, but now I am unsure about a G5 purchase. I might just keep on waiting. I have waited almost a year so far, what's another year. I would really like a new computer, but with the uncertainty of exactly what is coming, when it will be available, when the software I want will run at full speed on it and how much it will be cost, is a huge ???? Time to sit and wait.

mercphoto

patch29 wrote:

Time to sit and wait.

To me, the biggest problem with the switch isn't the switch itself. Its the fact that there is a year before anything is available. Why in the world didn't Steve have something ready to go at the time of this announcement?

I'm a big fan of Macs. I was considering a Mac Mini as part of an entertainment strategy. Run a big 300G FireWire drive off it, store all my CD's in Apple Lossless Compression, run the audio via TOSLink to my receiver. Instant access to all my music at only a small sound degradation over my Arcam CD23 player. Then run the DVI ouptut to a hi-def television, and it also becomes my DVD player.

Would have been sweet. But now I also wonder, why buy a PowerPC-based Mac now?

patch29

mercphoto wrote:

Would have been sweet. But now I also wonder, why buy a PowerPC-based Mac now?

I cannot see buying one either, unless my PB dies, but it is covered under warranty through this November.

I also am not sure I want to buy the first next generation PB with the first Intel chip, but given that I will have waited almost four years if it comes out in a year I will be due for a new PB and will probably take the plunge. Hopefully they will being to leak news on what new hardware will come out, when, price.......