Apple goes Intel: It's true!

Steve's just finished up delivering his keynote, but it looks like all those years PC nerds spent debating Apple fanboys about x86 vs. PowerPC performance weren't exactly for nought—at today's Apple WWDC in SF, Jobs declared the PowerPC has been "living a secret double life." We know it's more than just getting 15 "integer perf units" per watt to Intel's 70—like, say, having consistant troubles getting to that magical 3.0GHz marker, or those pesky heat issues. Steve's solution? Go Intel. And just as everyone had been expecting, a secret Intel build of OS X had been kept in house for the past half decade, just waiting for a reason to be loosed upon the world. They expect the full transition to Intel-based machines to be complete by 2007, as speculated, but we're still in the dark about how Mac is going to make OS X beige-box PC-proof—or if they even are.

[iDean @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I feel Raped, i really didnt want this to happen! Goodbye to Apple as we know it!

[narco @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

So does this mean my current dual 2.0ghz G5 will be worth peanuts by the time I sell it next year?

Fishes,
narco.

[OddManOut @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I wonder what this means for AMD...

[Frankie Dewar @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Pentium M > G4
Pentium 4 < G5

Just gotta hope those Pentium D's are the business for high end users.....

[Clickandrun @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

So, i don't know a whole lot about the technical stuff.... but i own a powerbook...what does the switch mean to me?

[Daniel @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Screw Apple. I've stood by them for so many years now and they stab me in the back like this! I am so angry! Hate hate hate. I need a recommendation for a Linux distribution.

[warrenpeace @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Eff me.

[Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I felt the transition was going to be more, how do you say, dramatic. I have only one question left, now who will I fight with over which processor is faster? AMD is out of the question. I now feel as if I'm sucking on the teat of the "establishment".

[Jacob @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Why would you feel betrayed?

How could this possibly be bad for the apple customer?

[Timmah! @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

bwahahahahahahah!!!

[keith @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

um. does anybody else see this as a good way to get osx on to windows-based pcs? Gives people more options on what OS they want on their computer. I mean, if Apple release a version of OSX that will on run a PC, how many poeple do you think will switch. There are going to be a lot compiling issues, but there is a lot mainstream software on OSX now.

[sickpuppy @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

4 - Daniel

you muppet, Apple will be better off without the idiots like you anyway, so off you go.

This is good news for them and their customers; wider audience, faster specs...

Who knows, maybe it'll prompt M$ to pull their bloody finger out and sort out Longhorn and all their other hundreds of crumby software probs...

[design4use @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Why does everybody get so excited. It doesn't matter anymore what's inside (despite Intel's marketing campaign), as long as the OS X and all the apps run and we get the same fine Industrial Design you have a bona fide Macintosh.
On top of that we get industrial strength CPUs that actually have a roadmap and can actually be used for laptops. PowerPC was nice while it lasted but it's an industry joke now.

[brizor @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

blasphemy, however, i do hope that apple beige-box proofs the x86 version of OS X. Or even, is Intel just going to produce a Power PC based chip? we will have to wait and see for this all. Alot is still left in the fog right now i think.

[Nic @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I think a lot of people are going to make ridiculous thoughts of leaving Apple. Although I'm really confused right now about the ins and outs of how a switch is going to happen, generally it's going to be the same Apple, just powered by a different chip.

What bothers me is the seemingly obvious sacrifice in power. Look at the performance claims by the G5. How is Intel going to even come close now? Didn't they hit a wall, too?

[Blue Balloon @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

don't take prejudge and wait until the prove show up.

[d @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

but will the new os and futre apps work with current chips or are they now worthless?

[Tony C @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Correction -- OS X has led a double life, not the PowerPC.

[Stu @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

OS X for PC hardware? I hope so!

[my name @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

ok, so what effect is this going to have on apple computers, will it really be that bad for the performance of macs?

[RR @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

No AMD? That is the bad news here and not the transition to x86. I feel bad for the Apple fans. I guess they have to drop their Apple Mac's and go back to pre-computer times. Typewriter it is guys.

[Vinay Venkatesh @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

pfft. I'm divided on the issue. I think that there are a lot of advantages on this move. But I'm against it on principal. RISC is better than CISC! The least apple could have done is gone AMD.

On the question of PC proofing, I'm sure apple's hardware will run windows. The question is will normal beige boxes run mac os x. My gut says no, since apple is still a hardware company (though, I suppose that might be changing).

On the plus side - advantages, I'll be able to dual boot should I need it. I'll be able to run windows applications in Mac OS X, using a recompiled (for Mac OS X) wine - (the current hurdle for wine is getting a decent emulation speed of x86 instructions on the ppc chip - and this would change that).

But AAAAAARGH!

[JoeMc72 @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

#10 (keith) - My thoughts exactly. I'm pretty sure the architecture will be different somehow...

[j @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

number 11 what are u talking bout they said x86

[Entica @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

All I want to know is how close will this bring us to being able to run Windows apps in OSX? I realize they need the Windows API's but hopefully a hardware based emulator comes out or something. That would be cool.

On a second note: the latest generation of Intel chips have really sucked compared to AMD. I wonder if the new "Intel based" OSX will run on AMD as well? It's all X86 right?

[Sedbeeks @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Brizor, why would Stevie J show the world Mac OSX on x86 architecture if Intel were going to release a powerPC based processor. Its gonna be an x86 architecture system running macs from now, the only "fog" is whether the "Marklar" will rely on other mac independent components and not just the processor to stop PC users installing it.
I personally see this is a bold move which had to happen one day and when better to do it when apple is invincible!!!

[Sadmacfan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I'd have rather seen them go with AMD. At least AMD is *doing* something with the x86 architecture and making it better, AND they have a 64-bit chip that works.

I don't think Intel will be making a RISC based chip (do they even know how?), Steve even said that they've had OS X running on the x86 for the last 5 years. So, how long until we can start building our own Macs? What about Apple "controlling" the desktop to avoid conflicts like Windows has to?

[Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I agree with #12. What happened to Apples claims of being the fastest desktop in the world. Does Steve Jobs even pay attention to his past presentations about how fast the G5 was compared to the P4. Oh well the media coverage can't be bad, but right now I feel like Julius Caeser.

[Lee @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

What a strange world we live in. Who would expect to see Microsoft distributing Mac development kits and PowerPC processors and Apple switching to Intel chips, all announced in the same year?

[Bryan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

What this really amounts to is a *major* snub for IBM. Jobs basically said IBM's Power roadmap sucked the big one. Scary!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch. Mac fans, don't worry. You'll still get lots of metal-cased goodness on your desktop, or creamy lacquered laptops. The 'Intel Inside' sticker peels right off, and then you won't know the difference (except the price should be lower!).

[markm @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I am a developer. I really like the G5 chip but lets all be honest here. IBM is not delivering. There is no 3GHz G5 and they are not close to getting the G5 into a powerbook.

I love Apple hardware, but I love their software more. And this is a needed change to preserve the OS. I imagine that the G5 supply is only going to get worse with 3 going into every xbox.

XCode 2.1 will build binaries for both platforms. Maybe Apple will keep the G5 in some of its high end systems. They have more options now than ever before!

[Dual Boot @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Why would loyal Apple users that have been dedicated to their battle to convert Windows users be upset that perhaps the door is open to actually getting people to come over to OS X without having to spend a fortune on over-priced hardware?

[Virtuous @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Better performing iBooks and Powerbooks! I could care less about desktops.

[j @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

21. no need for hardware emulator ...if almost identical just need simplier software layer...
beeter question how long til cracke version of OSX appears online

[Ryan V @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I just bought a dual 2.0 g5...
but...
i plan on buying an apple laptop next year :)
i dont really care as long as the processors are not amd...i have a thing against amd...
gave me poor performance the first time...i dont want poor performance again...

[Pete @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

This doesn't bode well for customers wanting to buy an Apple now since it will be obsolete by next year. I've got a bad feeling about this. Will Apple be able to get by until next year with news like this???

[Andrew Kaufmann @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Am I the only one that finds it moderately weird that people take it personally when a company makes a switch? It's not like they dissed my mom. They switched chipmakers.

"Does Steve Jobs even pay attention to his past presentations about how fast the G5 was compared to the P4."

Sure, the G5 is probably faster than the P4... but Apple isn't looking at today's specs. Remember, they're planning on really rolling things out for 2007. Apple probably looked at both IBM's tech roadmap and Intel's tech roadmap, and liked Intel's better. I think the G5 not being laptoppable had a big part in this.

The G5 might be the fastest processor in 2005; but will it be in 2007? Doubtful. I'd wager Intel is going to provide something pretty spiffy to make it worthwhile.

[Timerider @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

#1, #5, I feel the same way. Why Apple, why!? I don't want OS X running on any computer other than Apple. Why must you betray IBM and other Apple followers? Why can't you just find ways to improve PowerPC prossesors?

And about #2, What will happen to other Macs are we just suposed to buy new computers in two years, or put off buying one until then?

You hurt me Apple, you hurt me bad.

[Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.

[Jay @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

You guys...this is brilliant!

Apple on Intel will further kill Microshit, and Leopard will seal Billy boys coffin once and for all!!

Also, Jobs never said it was going to be Intel ONLY. He said there will be both now and that the transition should be complete in 2007. However, by then, if IBM delivers, trust me...we will still see G5 CPUs in Macs!!

This is going to sky rocket Apple's market share!! Buy Stock NOW!!

[PEM @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Ok does everyone forget that not so long ago Apple used Intel chips. There was a huge outcry back then when apple switched to IBM. Who says the new intel chip will be x86 in nature, it could something totally new in nature. Apple was all but dead before the powerpc came along and that had nothing to do with intel and all to do with Apple. Apple is just shaking things up and keeping it fresh.

[Evan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I think it's great news. Current hardware you own still works as well today as it did yesterday. Software built with fat binaries will run on Intel or PPC. Rosetta will deal with software that isn't updated. No one gets hurt. The Mac OS is still fantastic and secure. And for the first time in *ages* we're free of constant worry about the future of our CPU supplier's willingness to manufacture for our small market segment.

If you were using a Mac out of love for PPC and not out of love for the software you actually interface with, then I suppose you can be angry about this, but I doubt there are lots of people out there who fit that description.

[Permanent4 @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Don't cry for IBM. All those CPUs that won't go into Apples anymore will just go into PlayStation3, Xbox 360 and possibly Nintendo Revolution as well. IBM blocked Intel from the console market, so Intel knocked IBM off Apple.

I think IBM may get the better of the deal. Sony will sell a lot more PS3's than Apple will sell Pentium-powered Mac Minis. Granted, those aren't PowerPC chips, but it's not like IBM won't be manufacturing CPUs for *someone*.

More to the point, does the move to an Intel-based signal that Apple is transitioning from hardware company to software company/MP3 player maker? Will Dell be making PCs capable of running OS X by 2009? Apple sure sold a lot of copies of Tiger in the last month, after all...

[Ryan V @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

i agree with Andrew Kaufmann..
with intel rolling out their dual core systems (which i personally think kicks the g5's butt...), i think intel will provide apple with better performance, considering that apple does a good job with keeping systems cool...
its more like a perfect match up...
intel with power/heat..apple with design and cooling :)

[RR @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Ryan V you have to get over the AMD poor performance thing. That was back when the K6 was available. Today every Athlon64 X2 kicks Intels P4D a** when benchmarked.

[AndreAmsterdam @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

It seems to me fairly clear that the Pentium for mac is locked in a way or another. The developer kit ($999) is composed by Mac OSX for Intel AND a 3.2 Pentium processor. there will be no use to buy the processor if it is not modified.
my .02

[Atanas Boev @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Come on guys. For many years Apple has been good exactly for that - letting the users create, instead of bothering with software issues. 8+3 filenames. Config.sys. Disk partitioning. All these were transparent to the (normal) user.
As for me, I don't bother which CPU in in the Mac. And this is the way it *should* be for every OS, imho.

[Chris Iremonger @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Remember this is supposed to take place in 1 year from now. New chips will be out. I have a feeling Apple is going to still be running "closed" systems. I think this means with out a hack OS X will not run on any old Intel P4 based system. I am not sure how they will try to do this other than some kind of motherboard chip like Apple's own Northbridge.

I hope that this means to me is that MS will come out with support for the apple systems (why not all MS cares about is selling software) or a hack will come out that lets me dual boot into Windows and OS X. I would love to run OS X for dev work and to still boot windows to play games. I can just see it now; a 15" Powerbook that lets me play all my windows games on it.

[PXLated @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

Dave Winer just posted that it WILL NOT run on garden variety Dels, etc. However, there will be nothing preventing one from also installing their copy of Windows. A true dual system. The security of Mac OSX and the games of the PC...One year and counting before the major switch-a-roo starts. For us Mac people, no need to fuss, it's seamless (or so they say).

[Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:54AM]

I do hope intel does do something to make this switch "worthwhile". Maybe something by the name of the Pentium MICROSOFT Share Stealer (PMS for Short). That is a sticker I would be proud to sport on my powerbook PMS. However knowing Apple, that sticker may end up laser etched into the surface.