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
WooDaddy - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
I didn't see Anand mention whether or not any booed the statement about switching to Intel. I would.I just switched and love it. Granted I'm using a Dell laptop right now, I'm saving my pennies for an ibook.
As far as Intel/AMD is concerned, it is about brand and supply. AMD has always had a tough time providing the supply that their customers needed. Now to stop you ahead of time, here's the deal. Dell never took AMD because of supply issues, but Dell sells millions of PCs per year. Apple sells only thousands. Also, Apple spent the past 5 years with Intel so they are more so looking at their own experience with the x86 architecture. Remember, it's only been pretty recent that AMD has seriously stomped all over Intel as far as performance, cost AND power consumption.
Who knows, maybe one day Apple may look at AMD but considering the investment they've put in, it won't be a smart business move.
Personally, I'm crying inside. I loved the fact that Apple was independent of the x86 world.
ksherman - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
dont you see! the goodness comes from the fact that we can use OSX on x86 processors! not only that, but we will now have the apple software at our finger tips! and the ease at making the transition is also sweet! the only thing to stop this from being the greatest thing that has ever happened, is if we can use everything on an AMD chip...Icehawk - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
I don't know why anyone would suddenly think there will be drivers for everything and that they will work as well as stuff on a MS platform just because Apple is going x86.unhaiduc - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
(sorry for the prev blank post)um.. why isnt anyone saying anything windows?
let me illustrate.. one of the main, if not the biggest, reasons i run windows xp is because all my software is made to run on windows.. the reason i 'hate' (correction: hated) macs so much is because they have so little market share and thus do not have the same oppertunities as x86.. (video card, sound card, ram, overclocking, games, apps, etc) but now.. i mean.. we have a direct competitor with windows xp, no? i mean if the new mac os (X2? ;) will be able to do everything windows can (and run the *same* apps), and doesnt crash every 30 seconds then why not switch?.. (im kidding, but i secretly was in love with the mac os's for a long time)
im sure someone will come up with a way to run mac-os on amd.. im sure asus is all over this, seeing their rebelious nature (865 pat.. the p4-m adapter.. 775 overclocking..etc)
unhaiduc - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
JarredWalton - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
34 - I think that's the major factor that most people are overlooking. Meron/Conroe will be 65nm dual core processors based on the NEXT Intel architecture. Most likely, the best of the Pentium M and NetBurst architectures will be combined. Word is that they're looking at 4-issue cores (vs. 3-issue on current architectures). Combine that with all the power saving features of Banias/Dothan, and it sounds very promising. They can also address some of the limitations of the current Pentium M platform (i.e. lack of FPU/SSE power and bandwidth relative to NetBurst).Valkin - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
AMD is not an American company?barnett25 - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
"SO WILL IT BE POSSIBLE TO BUILD A HOMEMADE X86 SYSTEM AND THROW THIS OS ON IT?or is it just the same apple, locking down ever component, reducing piracy etc."
The day Apple does that is the day they go out of buisness. How many people do you know (with homemade PCs) that run cracked Windows? Heck, with OSX it's even easier, there's no serial number to hinder you in pirating the OS. Plus Apple can't make a fraction of what they do now if they only sell the OS. I for one can't wait to get one of these and dual-boot Windows on it (Apple has said they won't prevent you from doing this).
cryptonomicon - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
SO WILL IT BE POSSIBLE TO BUILD A HOMEMADE X86 SYSTEM AND THROW THIS OS ON IT?or is it just the same apple, locking down ever component, reducing piracy etc.
radx - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
This is smashing! I've always been curious about Macs. Now I think I might be able to. Say i might have to buy a MAC PC but once i get tired of any of the hardware i might just as well upgrade -myself-.Some other nice stuff
- Finally nice gaming graphic cards w/ drivers!
- You bought a 600$ graphic card? and you want a MAC now? shit thats a drag.. well not anymore! You'll just move it over to your MAC PC :) (IF they keep the PCI-E)
All in all, I like to think this all being of good. I have today an AMD 64 because Intel sucks today. But I still beileve that Intel will have a winner the day they move their techiniques from the Centrino platform to the desktop world. I say, i have a friend who've got an AMD laptop. It's so hot you can fry eggs on it! I've got two Centrino setups and they run cool and quiet all the time. I'd never buy an AMD laptop today, until they shape up and improve their chips that is.
And for all of you who wonders why Intel rather than AMD? I got one answer to add to the pile.
Because Intel is an American company. I know it's not a big thing but add that along to all the other stuff people have been saying here it kind of makes more sense... Think about it!
Just my two cents.