For those of you who didn't already know, Apple will change from the PowerPC to the Pentium microprocessor, while keeping all software backward compatible to all existing PowerPC Macintosh computers. The reason seems to be that modern Pentiums deliver considerably more performance per unit of heat production and that IBM can't deliver low-energy 3 GHz G5 microprocessors in time. Apple considers Notebooks as key products, so that's why this is so important (heat production isn't really that big an issue for desktop PCs).
The first Macintosh to be converted is rumoured to be the Mac Mini. But rumours around Apple have been wrong again and again. Surely no-one had expected this policy change by Apple, turning to Intel as its microprocessor supplier.
URL: Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006
BTW OS X has secretively been developped by Apple for both X86 and PPC from the start (version 10.0).
Apple goes Intel
Moderators: Víctor Paredes, Belgarath, slowtiger
So, does this mean there'll be a price jump? and will there be that nice level 2 cache business that they have on the pentiums?
--Scott
cribble.net
cribble.net
@Cribble: What I've read so far, Apple will be using the Pentium available in 2006, not the currently available Pentiums, but I guess those will have level 2 cache as well. Anyway, if Intel can't keep its end of the bargain, Apple will look for another supplier, I'm sure. This will be an incentive for Intel to keep the price low. In contrast to WindowsXP, MacOSX (at least the kernel) is not CPU specific.
However, application software is (in both cases). So the question is not so much what the hardware prices are going to do, but rather if third-party application and driver software developers are willing to produce fat binaries, which contain runcode for both PPC and X86 CPUs, for the same price as the PPC software.
In theory, the rosetta stone system should be sufficient to test if an application runs on both types of systems (PPC and X86), but in practice this could not be always the case. It's said that there will be a PPC emulator to run PPC specific software with no loss of speed on a X86 powered Mac. I doubt if that's possible, so software developers will be inclined to write X86 specific code for time-critical parts (and not the corresponding PPC code, because that's history anyway).
I would probably not be one of the first to buy the new system, because I've read that Apple is notorious for producing not very stable first versions (e.g. the first iMac G5s had problems inserting CDs and DVDs, the early eMacs had CRT blackout problems when the sound was constantly played at max volume etc.).
However, application software is (in both cases). So the question is not so much what the hardware prices are going to do, but rather if third-party application and driver software developers are willing to produce fat binaries, which contain runcode for both PPC and X86 CPUs, for the same price as the PPC software.
In theory, the rosetta stone system should be sufficient to test if an application runs on both types of systems (PPC and X86), but in practice this could not be always the case. It's said that there will be a PPC emulator to run PPC specific software with no loss of speed on a X86 powered Mac. I doubt if that's possible, so software developers will be inclined to write X86 specific code for time-critical parts (and not the corresponding PPC code, because that's history anyway).
I would probably not be one of the first to buy the new system, because I've read that Apple is notorious for producing not very stable first versions (e.g. the first iMac G5s had problems inserting CDs and DVDs, the early eMacs had CRT blackout problems when the sound was constantly played at max volume etc.).
And don't forget about the Mac laptops batteries overheating recently.I would probably not be one of the first to buy the new system, because I've read that Apple is notorious for producing not very stable first versions (e.g. the first iMac G5s had problems inserting CDs and DVDs, the early eMacs had CRT blackout problems when the sound was constantly played at max volume etc.).
I hope that in the near future more time is spent trying to solve the heat and power issues involved with CPU's. More processing speed isn't nearly as big a neccesity as solving these bottlenecks. Bring up a system monitor and watch it for a bit, and you'll see how little the average use actually maxes out CPU cycles.
From what I understand it was really a heat/power issue that kept the G5 from being integrated into a laptop and one of the key reasons that they're making the switch to intel.