[proger]

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

Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006

WWDC 2005, SAN FRANCISCO—June 6, 2005—At its Worldwide Developer Conference today, Apple® announced plans to deliver models of its Macintosh® computers using Intel® microprocessors by this time next year, and to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007. Apple previewed a version of its critically acclaimed operating system, Mac OS® X Tiger, running on an Intel-based Mac® to the over 3,800 developers attending CEO Steve Jobs’ keynote address. Apple also announced the availability of a Developer Transition Kit, consisting of an Intel-based Mac development system along with preview versions of Apple’s software, which will allow developers to prepare versions of their applications which will run on both PowerPC and Intel-based Macs.

“Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “It’s been ten years since our transition to the PowerPC, and we think Intel’s technology will help us create the best personal computers for the next ten years.”

“We are thrilled to have the world’s most innovative personal computer company as a customer,” said Paul Otellini, president and CEO of Intel. “Apple helped found the PC industry and throughout the years has been known for fresh ideas and new approaches. We look forward to providing advanced chip technologies, and to collaborating on new initiatives, to help Apple continue to deliver innovative products for years to come.”

“We plan to create future versions of Microsoft Office for the Mac that support both PowerPC and Intel processors,” said Roz Ho, general manager of Microsoft’s Macintosh Business Unit. “We have a strong relationship with Apple and will work closely with them to continue our long tradition of making great applications for a great platform.”

“We think this is a really smart move on Apple’s part and plan to create future versions of our Creative Suite for Macintosh that support both PowerPC and Intel processors,” said Bruce Chizen, CEO of Adobe.

The Developer Transition Kit is available starting today for $999 to all Apple Developer Connection Select and Premier members. Further information for Apple Developer Connection members is available at developer.apple.com. Intel plans to provide industry leading development tools support for Apple later this year, including the Intel C/C++ Compiler for Apple, Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple, Intel Math Kernel Libraries for Apple and Intel Integrated Performance Primitives for Apple.

Intel (www.intel.com), the world’s largest chip maker, is also a leading manufacturer of computer, networking and communications products.

Since most likely it will be standard x86, I will be able to install mac on my celeron . (I'll probally have something better by 2006..)

 

[Betamax]

Debatable. Apple officialy said that they aren't going to allow OSX to run on non macs, so that basically means some kind of security lockout. If I was to hazard a guess, it'll most likely be hardware based. However that is not to say that some bright spark won't crack it

Actually the more interesting question is will windows run on x86 macs? Or more to the point will windows apps. It would be quite easy for m$ to recreate the win api on top of OSX if they felt like it, and it would give much better performance that vpc does currently.

 

[Viper_Viper]

What about merging with intel?

Anyone see this as a possiblility?

 

[Valcrist]

I don't think they will merge with Intel.

IMO this is a good move on Apples part. PowerPC chips are better, but IBM just can't keep up with demand on them for Apple, which as made some delivers late and such. Also the next gen systems using PowerPC chips will cause even more stress on IBM, and I think that Apple is afraid they will fall to the wayside. Remember Steve Jobs promised that we would have 3.0 GHZ G5's by now, but we don't. Also the PowerPC chips run way to hot to put in a laptop. I think this will drive down the cost of Apple's making them more competitive, as well as offering more choice's. The mac Mini showed that with a better priced apple, peope will jump on it. Just some facts for you all.

1. Apple has alwasy had an x86 compiled version of thier os.

2. The "New" OSX will still only run on apple hardware, although a simple crack and some third party drivers would fix that.

3. Windows programs still will not run on OSX, _BUT_ with said crack running them would be alot easier (think wine).

 

[Ramsus K]

There might be other benefits as well.

http://www.unsanity.org/archives/000044.php

I ran across that while looking up some technical documents.

 

[__Xzyx987X]

I dunno about this. If Apple is making it's computers x86 now, then what's left to differentiate them from a normal PC? The OS? If that were the case then why shouldn't Apple just focus on that and quit selling hardware altogether?

 

[Valcrist]

Thre processor isn't the only thing...

The logic board "mother board" is going to be different, as well as ALL of the other parts, the only real thing changing is the processor itself. Apple is in the buisness of selling computers, just thier computers are all proprietary and only run thier os (or linux ). Apple has always prided itself in the quality of its products. So even if its all proprietary, its very high quality proprietary. The OS is thier biggest thing now, because OSX is just so fugging awesome. As was all thier past OS's at the time they were out, but Apple owners will still have that distinct difference than regular PC owners. I own both a PC and an Apple. I for one hope that Apple keeps things the way they are, they would loose badly to microsoft if they went for just straight software. The whole having to have an Apple computer keeps them going, and keeps them "different". Which is very appealing to most consumers.

 

[D.D.]

iirc isnt there something awfully backwards bout OSX >_>?

also....what other parts will be different? i thot apples nowadays use ide/sata....agp/pci-express...ddr ram...pci slots..usb and firewire...i dunno what kinda sound??? i dunno im actually really clueless bout macs.

 

[Talbain]

Except that Apple computers, beyond the "mystique" of not having one, are effectively useless. While I'm sure there are many great proprietary programs out there for Macs, there are probably 10 out there for Windows, and it's likely at least one of them will do the same job just as effectively. The real problem with Macs essentially lies in compatibility... or perhaps, that most people develop for a Windows platform, because it's the most commonly used. Which is actually unfortunate, because Windows is a terrible operating system, and Linux is by far more efficient. But, Microsoft has made most of their money selling compatability. If Macs want to really penetrate the market, they'll have to address this issue. Apple's biggest advantage right now is that they have a lot of control over all aspects of their systems, from hardware to software, and Intel expands the hardware frontier.

 

[Ramsus K]

I don't need five different Photoshops to do graphics work; I just need Adobe Photoshop. The same concept applies to most everything else, and Mac OS X does have enough high-quality software available for most tasks to make it much more than "useless."

Not to mention Mac OS X has color calibration integrated so well with ColorSync that you can actually get some predictable results, even with the built-in display calibration wizard. I can barely say such a thing for Windows, and X11 on Linux doesn't even have any decent tools for calibrating the monitor aside from shooting in the dark at gamma curves.

And the only compatibility issues I've encountered wouldn't apply to most home users. They'd only apply to web designers and developers. I hear gamers whine about Macs not having enough games, so them too.

 

[Betamax]

Except that Apple computers, beyond the "mystique" of not having one, are effectively useless. While I'm sure there are many great proprietary programs out there for Macs, there are probably 10 out there for Windows, and it's likely at least one of them will do the same job just as effectively. The real problem with Macs essentially lies in compatibility... or perhaps, that most people develop for a Windows platform, because it's the most commonly used. Which is actually unfortunate, because Windows is a terrible operating system, and Linux is by far more efficient. But, Microsoft has made most of their money selling compatability. If Macs want to really penetrate the market, they'll have to address this issue. Apple's biggest advantage right now is that they have a lot of control over all aspects of their systems, from hardware to software, and Intel expands the hardware frontier.

Not wanting to sound like a macolyte (there enough of them in the world ) but the compatibilty issue is a myth which stems from the old pre OSX days. OSX is a UNIX os, the same as linux. Since panther added X11 support, OSX will run about 99% of all linux software directly. All you have to do is to install a package manager, (eg gentoo's emerge or debian's apt-get ) to download all the "linux" software. The remaining 1% is software that has x86 assembly within the code, and that will all now work with the switch to intel.

In addition, unlike linux, OSX does not have the same issues attracting commerical vendors to the platform. I agree that OSX is less attractive than windows for them, however most of the major ISP's have mac versions of their products (including microsoft and their office software. It'll be a cold day in hell when they release an official linux version ).

Hardware wise, its core, darwin is open source. Therefore in theory anyone with enough knowhow can hack up a driver should they desire to.

So as you can see compatibility isn't a problem for the mac platform. The problem really is the percieved notion about a lack of compatibility. Apple don't do themselves any favours here either. Eg// Macs have supported 2 button mice since OS 8 yet they still ship macs with crappy 1 button mice, so everyone assumes that macs only work with a 1 button mouse. If they want to become more successful, they really need to try and overcome these common misconceptions. In regards that, switching to the same processors as windows pc's is a pretty good start

 

[rup1033]

why use intel?

I heard previously not certain as to where that they were planning to use AMD64 based dual core processors. I personally would never purchase a apple / Intel PC.