Steve talked about the two major challenges with the shift to x86:
- Getting Mac OS X run on Intel
- Intel versions of Applications
The first challenge ended up not being much of one at all, as Jobs revealed that OS X has been running on x86 platforms for the past 5 years; every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel.
OS X has been living a secret double life for the past 5 years.
This picture highlights the building on Apple's Cupertino campus where x86 development has taken place for the past 5 years.
As we mentioned before, the entire keynote was actually done on a Pentium 4 3.6GHz system with 2GB of DDR memory.
All of the slides featuring an Intel die shot were actually of the dual core Pentium D, but for whatever reason, the keynote (and its demos) as well as the developer kit were done on a single core Pentium 4 3.6GHz processor.
The second challenge is obviously a bit more complicated, but with the OS already working on Intel platforms, one major hurdle is a non-issue.
At the conference, Apple released an updated version of their Xcode development suite. Xcode 2.1 will let you compile to both PowerPC and Intel architectures, creating a universal binary and allowing developers to ship one copy of software that supports both processors.
A checkbox in Xcode 2.1 will allow developers to create a universal binary that will run on both PPC and Intel platforms.
Apple also committed to supporting both PowerPC and Intel architectures for "a long time" in the future.
The transition in architectures will be an overlapping one.
In order to show just how easy it would be to port OS X applications to the Intel platform, Apple comissioned the developers of Mathematica to port their application to an Intel dev kit. The entire Mathematica 5 app was compiled and running on Intel OS X platforms within 2 hours using Xcode 2.1.
Although Apple is pushing very hard for developers to begin creating universal binaries immediately, they recognized that not all applications would have Intel support on Day 1. Enter: Rosetta.
Rosetta is a binary translator that will allow PowerPC applications to run on Intel CPUs that will ship when Apple begins their transition. We have seen binary translators used in the past. They are never fast, but Apple insists that it will be "fast enough" for those applications that aren't Intel compatible on Day 1.
Steve demo'd Rosetta by opening Microsoft Word, Excel as well as Photoshop to show that it just worked. Loading Photoshop took a fairly long time and we'd expect the larger titles like Photoshop to be available as an Intel version when Apple starts shipping hardware.
OS X (PowerPC) Photoshop running on an Intel OS X system using Rosetta.
Apple will be releasing a Development Platform configured with a 3.6GHz Pentium 4 and will be priced at $999. Apple mentioned that this wouldn't be a product and is strictly for development purposes, and as such, it must be returned by 2006. The development platforms will begin shipping in about 2 weeks.
Microsoft had a representative drop by and pledge support for universal binaries in all future versions of Microsoft Office for the Mac platform, although they didn't commit to a specific time frame for release. Bruce Chizen, CEO of Adobe, also dropped by to pledge his support for the OS X Intel platforms.
In a very impressive showing, Paul Otellini, President & CEO of Intel, dropped by to commemorate the partnership. Paul went through the histories of both Apple and Intel, touching on everything from the founding of each company to the 1996 Apple commerical where they set the Intel bunny on fire:
But, now all hard feelings are set aside and the two companies should be bringing forth some pretty interesting technologies moving forward.
We think that the move to Intel (or x86 in general) makes a lot of sense for Apple, especially with dual core CPUs being widely available by the time that their transition begins in the middle of 2006. If any company can pull off this large of a transition, it is Apple; and the move to do it quick and as painless as possible is really the only way to do it.
While it does seem like it would hurt Apple's desktop sales throughout the end of this year, by offering support for both PowerPC and Intel architectures for the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that it would hurt Apple too much. Pushing for a quick transition starting as early as possible in 2006 would obviously minimize the negative impact that today's announcement will have on revenue.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
65 Comments
View All Comments
JAS - Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - link
Video of the WWDC keynote:http://stream.apple.akadns.net
Quiksel - Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - link
oh my god, can't you people just stop all the bitchin and complainin about the possibility that you might not be able to run OS X on a normal home-built PC? I mean, if you're all willing to pay $100-200 just for a damn software license for OS X (as someone mentioned earlier), why not get a GOD DAMNED MAC MINI and STFU? You guys are all fuckin retards if you think that this is anything more than a processor switch. A PROCESSOR SWITCH, not a PLATFORM SWITCH. It'll still be a GOD DAMNED MAC, so if you want OS X, GET A GOD DAMNED MAC.geez, with all the speculation and other bitchin and bullshit comments, this entire comment thing has been entirely a waste of time. I wish I didn't read all these comments. :(
xype - Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - link
"Why is that ironic? Because all AnandTech readers know that presently AMD provides far better performance per watt than Intel."Surely you're not that naive, Anand? Apple is not switching now, but in 2006-2007. Or are you claiming that you KNOW AMD will have better performance per watt in one year's time?
Googer - Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - link
Apple is no longer an apple, they are now just another PC clone.Scott66 - Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - link
Apple through there universal binary code will enable software to run on both powerpc and intel processors. Nice little bit of infor that OSX has been running on intel for 5 years. They already have binary translation software Rosetta to allow PPC based software not written in Xcode to run on Intel machines. The software pieces are in place for a much smoother transition than Motorola to PowerPC 10 years ago and so much better than Win 98 to ME or even 2000.Now it is the hardware side of the equation. Guess what guys, you won't be able to just buy OSX and put in on your machine at home. It will run only on Mac hardware that happens to have Intel Processors. Apple is already switching to "PC" standards for video cards, memory, and interconnects but they use Apple drivers and software. It is just like Linux in that if your hardware doesn't have drivers supporting the Operating System, the components become interesting paper weights or door stops.
Apple is once again seeing a desired outcome and making the technology fit their dreams. Let's hope they can continue their rate of growth and show the Personal Computer Industry some innovation. Competition is healthy and should be encouraged.
JAS - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
Has Apple Computer said whether their next operating system release, OS 10.5 "Leopard," will run on PowerPC Macs -- or only on Intel processors?sphinx - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
It was bound to happen sooner or later. IBM has been doing to much lately with Sony and Microsoft, that they put Apple on the back burner. IBM just doesn't have the capacity to take care of everyone's needs.I think this is a great move by Apple. Did he mention anything about the Xserve
knitecrow - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
I am a moderate apple fan, not even hardcore, and I am infuriated by the decision.My only hope is that I'll be able to run a hacked OS X on my $600 athlon64 system over the overpriced intel junk apple is going to start selling.
How low the mighty have fallen. Apple is now going to peddle intel cpus, chipsets, wi-fi chips etc.
downtowncb - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
I meant #45, sorry.downtowncb - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
As much as I'd like to think that Apple cares about the PC enthusiast market, they really don't. They have closed hardware, don't care too much about games (if at all), and haven't really done anything to woo the PC enthusiasts over. That being said, they're not too worried about the negative effects of the Intel over AMD solution. They are going for more market share, quantity over quality. If somebody told Steve Jobs, "Hey, you're alienating the PC enthusiast market by not choosing AMD!" he'd probably say, "And that changes what?"Also, even though AMD is the performance winner today, Apple probably has some insight into the future of both Intel and AMD, and sees a brighter future over at Intel. Plus, they don't care how good AMD chips are at games like most of us do, not to mention all the other reasons for their choice listed here already.
Also #44, Apple shipped over a million computers in the last quarter alone, if I'm not mistaken.