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
SilentRunning - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
Lets see Apple gets intel CPU, and Intel finally gets a company willing to adopt their BTX standard (just a thought).PrinceXizor - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
I knew AMD was in laptops, but I totally whiffed on the fact that they aren't in more mobile units. Good points.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! (imo).
P-X
jediknight - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
Well, my hopes were up after hearing this.. only to be quickly deflated:"However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."
(source: ZDNet.com)
ACK. Wasn't that the whole POINT of having MacOS on x86??! (at least, from an enthusiast POV)
ShinKen - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
From what I read over at engadget, Apple will most likely use custom bios or something to let OS X know it ok to boot. Also it was mentioned that they would not prevent users from installing windows on apple hardware.wilburpan - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
Two more reasons for choosing Intel over AMD:1. Multimedia performance. Currently, the one area where Intel chips have and edge seems to be multimedia applications. This may be an indicator of Apple's wish to continue to be the digital hub of your living room.
2. Notebooks. Unless I'm an idiot, the main use of AMD CPUs in notebooks have been in large 8-10 lb. desktop replacement notebooks. If Apple is to continue making small notebooks, Pentium M's have a long and impressive track record.
Speedo - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
But it sure would have been a great opportunity for AMD to grow, if they had gotten the deal. But I agree with #6.One thing I wonder after reading the article, is if there would be a way for the x86 compiled OS X to run on a normal PC platform. But of course Apple doesn't want this to happen for obvious reasons, and so I guess they will make it impossible (no drivers for other than Apple hardware etc). But it would have been cool to dualboot between OS X and Longhorn :)
ProviaFan - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
I have to ask, aside from driver support (or lack thereof), why wouldn't Apple make everything else proprietary? (particularly, the BIOS / firmware) Given their past trends, I doubt that there will be some hardware compatibility list that you could assemble a PC from that would be able to run OS X/x86.plewis00 - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
Does it matter what CPU it actually is? Isn't x86 all pretty much the same, and AMD is pretty similar, should be compatible.I'm guessing they went with Intel because as much as you all hate to admit it, Intel has a lot more clout than AMD does now or in the foreseeable future...
Questar - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
He said why he didn't use AMD:Performance per watt in 2006.
I'm sure apple knows more than you about Intel's 2006 processor plans.
PrinceXizor - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
Why Intel?1. Because its Intel. Brand name. The defacto standard (whether you like it or not).
2. Price. I'm sure the price Apple is getting is better than what AMD can afford to give them.
3. Stability. Intel is hugely capable of being around for a LONG time.
4. Just because Prescott's are hotter than Athlon64's doesn't mean that they aren't cooler than equivalently performing PowerPC processors. Why do you think we DON'T have 3.0Ghz Power PC's?
5. Do you really think Intel doesn't KNOW they have a super hot chip in Prescott?
5b. Do you really think Intel is going to STAY hotter than AMD? (umm...original Athlon's anyone? They didn't stay space heaters forever).
5c. Do you really think we know more about Intel 's roadmap for the next 10 years including projected TDP than Apple does?
AMD may have the slight performance edge (currently by the way, merely currently) but Intel still produces a fine processor that will siginificantly improve the overall value of an Apple computer.
Its really quite easy to see why they would choose Intel over AMD.
I'm sure I'll be labeled a fanboi...but, my next processor choice will most likely be an AMD processor, so there :P~~~
:)
P-X