Mac + Intel??

I would think that the idea of Apple switching to x86 processors would
be absurd. They must be planning to have Intel make PPC processors.
Wouldn't they have to be prepared to drop Mac hardware if they're going
to force themselves to port their OS to the same processor that everyone
else uses? However, it would be interesting if, when you buy a new Dell,
they ask, "Would you like that with Mac or Windows?"

PS. Whatever they're planning, I think it's going to bring MS one step
closer to the grave.

t.whid wrote:
> If anyone else out there is as obsessed with the **Big News** coming today at 1PM (EDT), this site is going to be doing live coverage:
>
> http://www.macrumorslive.com/web/
>
> Also, good posts about it:
>
> http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/see_you_intel
>
> http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/intel_apple_odds_and_ends
>
> The speculation is running rampant on slashdot and other sites:
>
> http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid/06/06/0951202
>
> http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/06/06/1131250.shtml?tid8&tid1&tid=3
>
> It's been reported on CNet, WSJ and the NYTimes too, so this doesn't seem like just another rumor.
>
> http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.top
>
> http://tech.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06apple.html
>
> And this is funny: http://stevenf.com/mt/archives/2005/06/apple_to_switch.php
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

–
_______________________________
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://pallit.lhi.is/panse

Lorna
http://www.this.is/lorna
_______________________________

Hi Pall,

I don't know about absurd. One article I didn't link to has a pretty
good speculative arg:

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html

The key is the emulator from Transitive (http://www.transitive.com/).

Also, just because it's running on an x86 chip doesn't mean that any
intel-based PC could run OS X. Apple can lock it down via other
hardware that only Apple is allowed to manufacture (motherboard). At
least that's my understanding, I'm no expert on this kind of thing. Of
course you'll have some hackers out there making it work on a regular
ole PC box, like Dell. But it might not be a big consumer thing or
blessed by Apple (or Dell for that matter).

Or this could be the big market grab. Maybe OS X will run on regular
old PCs. I doubt it tho, Apple is as much a hardware company as it is a
software company (if not more so) and that move would probably kill
their hardware business or seriously hurt it.

We shall see…

Jobs keynote starts at this time in your locale:

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?
month=6&day=6&year 05&hour&min=0&sec=0&p1"4

On Jun 6, 2005, at 10:59 AM, Pall Thayer wrote:

> I would think that the idea of Apple switching to x86 processors would
> be absurd. They must be planning to have Intel make PPC processors.
> Wouldn't they have to be prepared to drop Mac hardware if they're
> going to force themselves to port their OS to the same processor that
> everyone else uses? However, it would be interesting if, when you buy
> a new Dell, they ask, "Would you like that with Mac or Windows?"
>
> PS. Whatever they're planning, I think it's going to bring MS one step
> closer to the grave.
>
> t.whid wrote:
>> If anyone else out there is as obsessed with the **Big News** coming
>> today at 1PM (EDT), this site is going to be doing live coverage:
>> http://www.macrumorslive.com/web/
>> Also, good posts about it:
>> http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/see_you_intel
>> http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/intel_apple_odds_and_ends
>> The speculation is running rampant on slashdot and other sites:
>> http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid/06/06/0951202
>> http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/06/06/1131250.shtml?
>> tid8&tid1&tid=3
>> It's been reported on CNet, WSJ and the NYTimes too, so this doesn't
>> seem like just another rumor.
>> http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100
>> -1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.top
>> http://tech.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06apple.html
>> And this is funny:
>> http://stevenf.com/mt/archives/2005/06/apple_to_switch.php
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at
>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
> –
> _______________________________
> Pall Thayer
> artist/teacher
> http://www.this.is/pallit
> http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
>
> Lorna
> http://www.this.is/lorna
> _______________________________
>
>
>

===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===

Macnn live report say it's true:

"Transition to Intel-based Macs. Developers Now. Next year for users.
"Because we want to make the best computers for our customers." No G5
PowerBook yet. Future products can't be build on IBM of PowerPC.
Intel has performance and better performance per watt. Intel delivers
much better performance per watt. Starting next year the first Macs
with Intel processors. Shipping by next WWDC. Mostly complete by 2007
WWDC. Complete by the end of 2007. Two-year transition."

http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/wwdc/05/index.html?

Wow.

- Rob.

It's true:

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html


Pall Thayer wrote:

> I would think that the idea of Apple switching to x86 processors
> would
> be absurd. They must be planning to have Intel make PPC processors.
> Wouldn't they have to be prepared to drop Mac hardware if they're
> going
> to force themselves to port their OS to the same processor that
> everyone
> else uses? However, it would be interesting if, when you buy a new
> Dell,
> they ask, "Would you like that with Mac or Windows?"
>
> PS. Whatever they're planning, I think it's going to bring MS one
> step
> closer to the grave.
>
> t.whid wrote:
> > If anyone else out there is as obsessed with the **Big News** coming
> today at 1PM (EDT), this site is going to be doing live coverage:
> >
> > http://www.macrumorslive.com/web/
> >
> > Also, good posts about it:
> >
> > http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/see_you_intel
> >
> > http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/intel_apple_odds_and_ends
> >
> > The speculation is running rampant on slashdot and other sites:
> >
> > http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid/06/06/0951202
> >
> >
> http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/06/06/1131250.shtml?tid8&tid1&tid=3
> >
> > It's been reported on CNet, WSJ and the NYTimes too, so this doesn't
> seem like just another rumor.
> >
> >
> http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.top
> >
> > http://tech.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06apple.html
> >
> > And this is funny:
> http://stevenf.com/mt/archives/2005/06/apple_to_switch.php
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> –
> _______________________________
> Pall Thayer
> artist/teacher
> http://www.this.is/pallit
> http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
>
> Lorna
> http://www.this.is/lorna
> _______________________________

On Jun 6, 2005, at 1:36 PM, Rob Myers wrote:

> Macnn live report say it's true:
>
> "Transition to Intel-based Macs. Developers Now. Next year for users.
> "Because we want to make the best computers for our customers." No G5
> PowerBook yet. Future products can't be build on IBM of PowerPC. Intel
> has performance and better performance per watt. Intel delivers much
> better performance per watt. Starting next year the first Macs with
> Intel processors. Shipping by next WWDC. Mostly complete by 2007 WWDC.
> Complete by the end of 2007. Two-year transition."
>
> http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/wwdc/05/index.html?

Holy shit.

"Mac OS X has been leading secret double life. Every Mac project build
for Intel and PowerPC and Intel. Every release of Mac OS X has been
built for both Intel and PowerPC-based Macs. For the last 5 years."

The amount of secrecy and NDAs that it must have taken to keep this
secret for literally 5 years is mind-boggling.

Then:

"Rosetta is a dymanic binary translator. Runs PowerPC code on
Intel-baesd Macs. Transparent to users. Pretty fast. Jobs demos Rosetta
used to run PowerPC macs on Intel-based Macs. Jobs shows Microsoft
Excel/Word running on Intel-based Mac (without any porting and/or
recompiling). Jobs also shows Photoshop CS2 with all plugins that are
translated and run on Intel-based Mac without significant speed
decrease."

And:

"News Xcode generates a single "universal binary" that supports both
processors."

So the idea is to emulate away the chip itself with Rosetta as a layer
between OS X and the chip itself. This seems a step better than their
transition from 68K chips to PowerPC chips; if I remember correctly,
then they compiled the OS separately for each chip, and programmers had
the option of shipping "fat binaries" that contained both a 68K version
and a PowerPC version of the same program.

This might make Java folks sweat a bit more; this is the sort of
emulation that Java was supposed to take care of, only its claims of
universality never really took.

I wonder if one of the main reasons for this is to move Apple
consistently into lower price ranges, to offer products from
super-elite-expensive and high-school-kid cheap. Both the iPod and the
Macs have steadily moved into low-end markets, now you can get an iPod
(Shuffle) for $99. Moving into Intel territory puts more commodity
pressure on chipmakers everywhere: If you can emulate away dependency
on the chip itself, there's no lock-in to keep you from switching.

As to whether or how they'll stop people from running dual-boot OS X
and Windows, that remains to be seen.

Francis Hwang
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: 212-219-1288x202
AIM: francisrhizome
+ + +

On 6 Jun 2005, at 19:33, Francis Hwang wrote:

> Holy shit.

Satan just uploaded a picture of the condensation on his thermometers
to flickr.

> "Mac OS X has been leading secret double life. Every Mac project
> build for Intel and PowerPC and Intel. Every release of Mac OS X
> has been built for both Intel and PowerPC-based Macs. For the last
> 5 years."
>
> The amount of secrecy and NDAs that it must have taken to keep this
> secret for literally 5 years is mind-boggling.

It's an open secret. NeXT ran on x86, and developers were *not* happy
when Yellow Box (the old codename for Cocoa, which is just the
updated NeXT APIs) for x86 was cancelled. Darwin has an x86 version,
and everyone knew Apple were compiling MacOS X on x86 "just in case".

What is amazing is that they kept the Intel deal quiet until last
week and the Mathematica port quiet until today.

> Then:
>
> "Rosetta is a dymanic binary translator. Runs PowerPC code on Intel-
> baesd Macs. Transparent to users. Pretty fast. Jobs demos Rosetta
> used to run PowerPC macs on Intel-based Macs. Jobs shows Microsoft
> Excel/Word running on Intel-based Mac (without any porting and/or
> recompiling). Jobs also shows Photoshop CS2 with all plugins that
> are translated and run on Intel-based Mac without significant speed
> decrease."

We've been there before with the 68k -> PowerPC transition. This
looks like it will be much smoother.

> And:
>
> "News Xcode generates a single "universal binary" that supports
> both processors."
>
> So the idea is to emulate away the chip itself with Rosetta as a
> layer between OS X and the chip itself. This seems a step better
> than their transition from 68K chips to PowerPC chips; if I
> remember correctly, then they compiled the OS separately for each
> chip, and programmers had the option of shipping "fat binaries"
> that contained both a 68K version and a PowerPC version of the same
> program.

Don't forget the 68k emulator on Power Macs, and the Classic
environment on X. MacWrite 1.0 from 1984
will run on X (in classic on the 68k VM)…

> This might make Java folks sweat a bit more; this is the sort of
> emulation that Java was supposed to take care of, only its claims
> of universality never really took.

Java's more a platform. The cross-platform thing has passed to QT and
increasingly WxPython.

> I wonder if one of the main reasons for this is to move Apple
> consistently into lower price ranges, to offer products from super-
> elite-expensive and high-school-kid cheap.

I've seen some analysis of this. IBM may have been cheaper for chips
than Intel!

> Both the iPod and the Macs have steadily moved into low-end
> markets, now you can get an iPod (Shuffle) for $99. Moving into
> Intel territory puts more commodity pressure on chipmakers
> everywhere: If you can emulate away dependency on the chip itself,
> there's no lock-in to keep you from switching.
>
> As to whether or how they'll stop people from running dual-boot OS
> X and Windows, that remains to be seen.

Since the hardware will be Apple-specific, just a Mac with an x86
rather than a PPC, outside of the 1337 hacker krew dual boot will be
rare.

But this does show that Apple should have bough Be rather than NeXT.
Joke, joke. :-)

- Rob.

Wow, that's pretty shocking. I have mixed feelings though. I really
don't know what to think. I have to buy a new laptop in a couple of
months. All set to buy a powerbook, but now… They've mussed it all up.

Found this, "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.""

So they're not ready to kill MS just yet. Doesn't mean they won't though.

I'd be interested in hearing from Windows users out there, if you could
run Mac OS X on your current hardware for nothing more than the price
(USD 129), would you switch?

Pall

t.whid wrote:
> It's true:
>
> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
>
>
> Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>
>>I would think that the idea of Apple switching to x86 processors
>>would
>>be absurd. They must be planning to have Intel make PPC processors.
>>Wouldn't they have to be prepared to drop Mac hardware if they're
>>going
>>to force themselves to port their OS to the same processor that
>>everyone
>>else uses? However, it would be interesting if, when you buy a new
>>Dell,
>>they ask, "Would you like that with Mac or Windows?"
>>
>>PS. Whatever they're planning, I think it's going to bring MS one
>>step
>>closer to the grave.
>>
>>t.whid wrote:
>>
>>>If anyone else out there is as obsessed with the **Big News** coming
>>
>>today at 1PM (EDT), this site is going to be doing live coverage:
>>
>>>http://www.macrumorslive.com/web/
>>>
>>>Also, good posts about it:
>>>
>>>http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/see_you_intel
>>>
>>>http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/intel_apple_odds_and_ends
>>>
>>>The speculation is running rampant on slashdot and other sites:
>>>
>>>http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid/06/06/0951202
>>>
>>>
>>
>>http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/06/06/1131250.shtml?tid8&tid1&tid=3
>>
>>>It's been reported on CNet, WSJ and the NYTimes too, so this doesn't
>>
>>seem like just another rumor.
>>
>>>
>>http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.top
>>
>>>http://tech.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06apple.html
>>>
>>>And this is funny:
>>
>>http://stevenf.com/mt/archives/2005/06/apple_to_switch.php
>>
>>>+
>>>-> post: [email protected]
>>>-> questions: [email protected]
>>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>
>>http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>
>>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>>>+
>>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>Membership Agreement available online at
>>
>>http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>>–
>>_______________________________
>>Pall Thayer
>>artist/teacher
>>http://www.this.is/pallit
>>http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
>>
>>Lorna
>>http://www.this.is/lorna
>>_______________________________
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

–
_______________________________
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://pallit.lhi.is/panse

Lorna
http://www.this.is/lorna
_______________________________

Am I missing something? I do not see how this news impacts anyone except shareholders in Intel, Apple or Motorolla. It is as if Ford announced that it would start using Mazda Engines.

For the record: I develop on Windows XP (VB 6) using a VIA based Mini-Box for clients/money and OS X.3 (Java/Python) on a G3 Powerbook Pismo for art and love.

Jason Van Anden

Hi Jason,

Being a cross-platform type you should be especially happy. Most things I'm reading speculate that you'll be able to run Virtual PC on a Mac with no performance hit. So basically, unless MS quashes it, you can run both OSs on Apple hardware – making your life easier most likely.

There a bunch of other reasons that folks are interested but there's so much cover elsewhere…

As far as net art (or even software art) is concerned, I don't see any big implications, I'm more interested from the craftsman-concerned-about-his-tools perspective.

Jason Van Anden wrote:

> Am I missing something? I do not see how this news impacts anyone
> except shareholders in Intel, Apple or Motorolla. It is as if Ford
> announced that it would start using Mazda Engines.
>
> For the record: I develop on Windows XP (VB 6) using a VIA based
> Mini-Box for clients/money and OS X.3 (Java/Python) on a G3 Powerbook
> Pismo for art and love.
>
> Jason Van Anden
>

Hi t.whid,

Good point regarding VirtualPC. I currently accomplish this by connecting my Mini-Box to my Powerbook via crossover cable and running Windows Remote Access. Dorky to be sure, but personally entertaining.

J


t.whid wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
> Being a cross-platform type you should be especially happy. Most
> things I'm reading speculate that you'll be able to run Virtual PC on
> a Mac with no performance hit. So basically, unless MS quashes it, you
> can run both OSs on Apple hardware – making your life easier most
> likely.
>
> There a bunch of other reasons that folks are interested but there's
> so much cover elsewhere…
>
> As far as net art (or even software art) is concerned, I don't see any
> big implications, I'm more interested from the
> craftsman-concerned-about-his-tools perspective.
>
> Jason Van Anden wrote:
>
> > Am I missing something? I do not see how this news impacts anyone
> > except shareholders in Intel, Apple or Motorolla. It is as if Ford
> > announced that it would start using Mazda Engines.
> >
> > For the record: I develop on Windows XP (VB 6) using a VIA based
> > Mini-Box for clients/money and OS X.3 (Java/Python) on a G3
> Powerbook
> > Pismo for art and love.
> >
> > Jason Van Anden
> >

One other thing that came out during the keynote yesterday was lots of details regarding how podcasts will be integrated into iTunes.

THIS was very exciting to me. The implementation looks great.

You watch the speech via Apple's site here:
http://stream.apple.akadns.net/

To sum it up (if I'm remembering correctly), one can access podcasts via the iTunes Music Store. You see a big juicy iTMS-like page of all sorts of available podcasts, when you subscribe, the podcase becomes something like a special playlist that lives in the left-hand column with your other playlists, smartlists, etc.

Jason Van Anden wrote:

> Hi t.whid,
>
> Good point regarding VirtualPC. I currently accomplish this by
> connecting my Mini-Box to my Powerbook via crossover cable and running
> Windows Remote Access. Dorky to be sure, but personally entertaining.
>
> J
>
>
> t.whid wrote:
>
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > Being a cross-platform type you should be especially happy. Most
> > things I'm reading speculate that you'll be able to run Virtual PC
> on
> > a Mac with no performance hit. So basically, unless MS quashes it,
> you
> > can run both OSs on Apple hardware – making your life easier most
> > likely.
> >
> > There a bunch of other reasons that folks are interested but there's
> > so much cover elsewhere…
> >
> > As far as net art (or even software art) is concerned, I don't see
> any
> > big implications, I'm more interested from the
> > craftsman-concerned-about-his-tools perspective.
> >
> > Jason Van Anden wrote:
> >
> > > Am I missing something? I do not see how this news impacts anyone
> > > except shareholders in Intel, Apple or Motorolla. It is as if
> Ford
> > > announced that it would start using Mazda Engines.
> > >
> > > For the record: I develop on Windows XP (VB 6) using a VIA based
> > > Mini-Box for clients/money and OS X.3 (Java/Python) on a G3
> > Powerbook
> > > Pismo for art and love.
> > >
> > > Jason Van Anden
> > >

>Hi Jason,
>
>Being a cross-platform type you should be especially happy. Most
>things I'm reading speculate that you'll be able to run Virtual PC
>on a Mac with no performance hit. So basically, unless MS quashes
>it, you can run both OSs on Apple hardware – making your life
>easier most likely.
>
>There a bunch of other reasons that folks are interested but there's
>so much cover elsewhere…
>
>As far as net art (or even software art) is concerned, I don't see
>any big implications, I'm more interested from the
>craftsman-concerned-about-his-tools perspective.
>

i'm with jason on this one (see below). but it's not even precisely
like replacing the whole engine, more like another manufacturer
producing the turbines. and then how is it because "competing"
platforms use parts made at the same general address, does it mean
anything? they could get their ac plugs from the same factory too?

i used to use virtual pc when it was by connectix but then there
really were no "performance hits" probably still aren't. (could use
USB/firewire, modem, local network, compilers, monitors, …) it
just let you run win os like another program on a mac. but these
days, almost every mac program opens/saves as a pc version (photoshop
- 99% of images, appleworks - Word docs, … ) if need be, osX makes
networking PCs effortless. there's really no reason for it now.
(have 1 win, 1 linux, but since there's nothing i couldn't do on the
macs, haven't turned either on in months.)


9 times out of 10, visiting an office of computers at some arty
non-profit. all they do, on macs or pcs, is look at the web, send
email, use a word processor, a scheduling program, and maybe a really
easy spread sheet/db program. these "arty" offices are still
amazingly "lo-tek", (but why would they need to be higher tech?).
the tasks use such a tiny percent of the resources of computers made
by anyone in the last 5 years, there's hardly any point in faster
machines. these users rarely have the urge, much less an inkling
their machines could be used to integrate programing, interactivity,
animation, music (that relies on strict timing) assembled from clips,
… much less even applying effects to 2 hour videos. i have seen
more offices migrate to mac, just because they are a lot nicer to use
on a day-to-day basis, but nothing performance related.


people certainly aren't wrong for not using computers to program, but
it's a little like buying a truck and not wanting to put anything in
the bed of it. code is just the main way to make these expensive
processors more efficient. (most hand helds do everything most folks
actually need, so why spend the extra $$$ on a computer?) the
differences between motorola and intel chips is comparatively
insignificant. i doubt we are at all a representative cross-section
of computer users, but how many folks, even among us, primarily do
their work in assembly, or actually have a concrete reason to favor
any particular processor (given the same os)?


>Jason Van Anden wrote:
>
>> Am I missing something? I do not see how this news impacts anyone
>> except shareholders in Intel, Apple or Motorolla. It is as if Ford
>> announced that it would start using Mazda Engines.
>>
>> For the record: I develop on Windows XP (VB 6) using a VIA based
>> Mini-Box for clients/money and OS X.3 (Java/Python) on a G3 Powerbook
>> Pismo for art and love.
>>
>> Jason Van Anden
>>
>+
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php