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
fishbits - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
"but why intel and not amd is really odd to me"Because AMD can't supply enough chips as it is already, and Apple can't wait around hoping/expecting it will get better?
"It would be interesting if you could buy an Apple MB (thus acquiring the appropriate BIOS/ROM) and a copy of OS X and then build your own computer around that? That would be kind of cool!"
Of course you will be able to! You'll just have to pay full system price same as always, and throw away the stylish case. What, did you think Apple existed as a computer company based on the value of their hardware and software? If that were the case they could sell their OS and hardware seperately. They're selling style, and God bless 'em there's people willing to pay for that over performance. Apple makes great products, and if they ever divorce their prices from an image campaign, I'll be happy to buy some.
"Now that Macintosh is going to use Intel processors in their Macs, I don't what the difference will be between a Mac and an average x86 computer from Dell. ... So basically, all I'd be getting for the price of today's Macs will be a Dell in a nice case and funky monitor."
A funny trap, isn't it? "Apple rules! Their CPU is a bazillion times better than any Intel crap! But... now that Apple is using Intel... uhhh... I either have to lose my Intel hate and admit that they make good chips too, or I have to abandon my support for Apple. And once I abandon Apple, I'll be running on... ummm... an Intel (or AMD) chip." Who said it's always easy being a fanboi? You constantly run the risk of reality intruding.
But hey, the Xbox 360 is just around the corner, since it's the CPU that defines the system to you, I guess that makes it an Apple rig. Who says you can't game on an Apple?
sprockkets - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
QUICK! HIDE ALL THE "BENCHMARKS" THAT SHOW THE PPC PROCESSOR 100-200% QUICKER THAN ANYTHING INTEL HAS!!!southpawuni - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
The biggest shame is that they wont go head to head with MS in the OS market.Seems to me that Apple REALLY decided to give up in the hardware market for good now that they are sucking on Intel's ta-ta's.
With all the coolest features and changes to Longhorn being ripped out, I've lost nearly all interest in the new OS.
Everyone is looking for an alternative to Windows, the time is nigh..
I think Macs will continue to be a joke, just make Apple more money per unit maybe now.
Its the OS market that, if played properly, could reap them "microsoft"-level rewards...
If MS starts throwing their weight around, maybe they'll actually give us WinFS and other features they cut out to get it out the door and make a killing faster. Apple can always threaten Intel and run to AMD if they need too, just like Dell. :)
Apple will never make it in hardware.. they make gimmicks, and a nice OS.. thats it. Hence this move means little to anyone other than their bottom line.
To me, the real money would come if they'd sell OSX on massive scale.
Now lets get it in stores for every X86 machine.
gibhunter - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
I'm sure it will take less than 6 months before we see a crack for a hardware based DRM.gibhunter - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
You and everyone else know that Pentium 4 days are numbered. You can bet your ass that next gen Pentium will be very similar to Centrino in power usage and not much different from A64 in architecture. It will be a great CPU (AMD might still have something better though).Personally, I hope OSX becomes a valid alternative to Windows. With the transition to x86, Apple is one step closer.
mistersnail - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
Well, I'm sort of left disappointed. If this was already said, sorry, I didn't read all the posts.Now that Macintosh is going to use Intel processors in their Macs, I don't what the difference will be between a Mac and an average x86 computer from Dell. I mean, from my view of things, we're going to have a dual CPU (most likely dualcore) Mac PC that'll produce results most likely nearly identical to a well-tweaked (if at all) Intel computer. So basically, all I'd be getting for the price of today's Macs will be a Dell in a nice case and funky monitor. Booya...
And yah, they have gone AMD. They would have had a much more powerful line-up of systems... Let alone the fact that they'd be much easier to cool.
Freakin' dumb fools at Mac... I'm sure they're not that dumb. They were probably bought out by Intel on that idea. My guess is that Mac said to Intel and AMD: "Whoever gives us the best deal will get their processors in our future systems. Cheers!"
Just watch Dell switching from Intel to AMD...
ProviaFan - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
#16 (Bowsky): Unfortunately, AMD seems to be rushing headlong into the abyss of hardware DRM with "Presidio" in some of their newest CPUs. So AMD users won't be left out after all... but I'd rather it were not that way. :(srg - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
Well, I'd still never buy an apple then.srg
mikecel79 - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
#15 Dell is shipping BTX platforms now with their new Optiplex GX520 and GX620 lines. I am expecting a shipment of them soon. So it looks like Intel has a company using them already.Bowsky - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
I read earlier that the reason Apple choose Intel and more specifically the Pentium D over AMD and other processors was because of the chip level copy protection Intel has added to that line of CPUs. Rumor has it that Steve Jobs is once again planning to start an online media store, this time for video. In the same article (I believe its in today’s Anandtech News) it states that the major media companies would not allow their media to be distributed without Intel's hardware level DRM.This continues to be sour news for AMD fans. Not only does this mean AMD chips will not be found in Macs (unless AMD adopts Intel's DRM), but this also means that eventually, when this online media store makes its way onto the PC market, AMD users will be shut out.