[DM-MUG] The Intel move...an interesting discussion which may be of interest

Sun Jul 10 10:38:46 CDT 2005

As an aside, Apple demoed a 3.6 GHz P4 running OS X at the WWDC and it
booted OSX in 12 seconds. It can't be all bad...

On 7/10/05 9:58 AM, "Ray Bowler" <rbowler at mchsi.com> wrote:

> Thanks Victoria for one of your helpful posts.
> 
> A couple of points from my own point of view. I needed a computer
> which would be faster and run OS X. (For one thing I could not share
> printers between our two machines when one was running OS 9 and this
> has been a big help now).  I had put it off for a long time but I
> finally bought a Mini. As one of the posters said I should be able to
> use it for a lot of years. So I don't regret it(( I bought my 6500
> just at the end of the previous chip switch and all software came in
> "Fat" apps.). One should emphasis that in 5 years Apple has faced the
> questions--such as how to get their software to run on an Intel chip.
> Personally I think that Apple was forced into this decision.
> IBM/Mortorola were unable to deliver on promises for faster chips and
> the Intel based systems were devastating Mac sales on on speed alone.
> It became a matter of survival.
> 
> At 9:01 AM -0500 7/10/05, Victoria L. Herring wrote:
>>> C
>>> Hi Walt,
>>> 
>>> My take is that the poster has it pretty much right on the money.
>>> Apple is switching to Intel because of Intel's ability to meet
>>> development and production goals; their emphasis on low-heat,
>>> mobile-
>>> enabled chips; and the PowerPC required too much overhead expense
>>> on the part of Apple. Although the PowerPC has always been the
>>> better design, Intel has consistently been able to squeeze the
>>> maximum out of their designs. As we've all seen, IBM and Motorola
>>> have had difficulties delivering on the promise of their designs.
>>> 
>>> The migration to Intel is based, from a developer's perspective, on
>>> the use of Universal Binaries. A Universal Binary is a compiled
>>> application that will run on OS X/PowerPC or OS X/Intel. Developers
>>> using Xcode to create Universal Binaries will be able to convert
>>> their apps in most cases with a minimum of effort. This is
>>> important not only in looking at how rapidly software will be
>>> ported to OS X for Intel; it also means that because the same
>>> binary will work in either hardware environment, the software you
>>> buy now will work on your PowerPC computer, the Universal Binary
>>> software you buy in a year will work on your PowerPC computer, and
>>> the Universal Binary software you buy in two years will work on
>>> your PowerPC system.
>>> 
>>> At some point Apple will drop the Universal Binary approach, and
>>> developers will create apps optimized specifically for Intel chips.
>>> I think it will take a while for that to happen, though. It's
>>> important to remember that Apple has been creating Intel builds of
>>> OS X (an operating system - the most complex piece of software on
>>> your computer) for five years now. OS X was intentionally created
>>> to be as platform neutral as possible. Given these two pieces of
>>> information, and Apple's unrivaled track record at managing
>>> transitions of this kind, I'm convinced that buying a PowerPC
>>> machine now will not be a bad investment.
>>> 
>>> I actually just picked up a new 15" PowerBook last week, because
>>> I'll no longer have the luxury of hooking my 12" PowerBook (which
>>> is a fantastic little machine) to a CRT monitor at the office
>>> (unfortunately students don't get their own offices at the law
>>> library). I needed a bigger screen, and for a nanosecond I pondered
>>> getting a Dell laptop. Then I came to my senses.
>>> 
>>> Here's a pretty neat bunch of quotes from developers about how easy
>>> it is to port apps to Universal Binary format:
>>> http://developer.apple.com/transitionquotes.html
>>> 
>>> As a side note, I think Apple's strategy and execution in the last
>>> three years or so is better than it's ever been. The fact that
>>> they've been preparing for this contingency for so long and are
>>> willing to make such a big move in a proactive fashion makes me
>>> think we'll be seeing many more exciting things from Apple in the
>>> next few years.
>>> 
>>> Erik Schmidt
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 9, 2005, at 11:17 AM, Walt Atwood wrote:
>>> 
>>>>  I also subscribe to a local Mac user group's e-mail list.
>>>> 
>>>>  One gentleman on the list, an amateur videographer, has the
>>>> following to say
>>>>  about pending G5 processors. Anyone care to comment on this?
>>>> 
>>>>  --WA
>>>> 
>> Message: 1      
>>    Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:00:25 -0400
>>    From: dgh <zaphod at madbbs.com>
>> Subject: dual core G5s
>> 
>> IBM has officially announced the dual core G5 chips in Japan today.
>> Officially labeled the PowerPC 970MP, the chips pack several power
>> conservation features that allow frequency and voltage demands to
>> adjust on the fly. It's also possible to completely cut power to one
>> of chip's cores when high performance computations are not needed.
>> 
>> According to IBM, the 970MP will be made available in speeds ranging
>> from 1.4 to 2.5GHz. It's believed that Apple has been working with
>> prototypes of the chips since 2004 and could use them in a
>> forthcoming update to its Power Mac G5 desktops, the company said.
>> 
>> What this all breaks down to is that Apple should have a new dual G5
>> dual core Power Mac Tower sometime in the very near future. Jobs had
>> said in his keynote speech last month that there are still "great" G5
>> machines in the works and I'm sure that the dual core, dual G5
>> machine should be available soon.
>> 
>> Of course, one of the main problems facing Apple is to get people to
>> buy one now, knowing that Apple is switching to Intel starting next
>> year. If you were planning on buying a new tower Power Mac G5 before
>> they announced the Intel switch then you should still get the G5
>> tower. Switching to Intel is a move that is not a speed/performance
>> based move. The G5 architecture is still a superior design, with the
>> super fast bus, RAM, and other connections, the G5 is one of the
>> fastest computers available (and a dual/dual G5 will increase that by
>> 50-70%). Any "new" software that comes out for Intel Macs will also
>> work on G5 based Macs, so software shouldn't be a concern. Plus, if
>> you are getting one because you want to do video or multimedia or 3D
>> work, then the G5 is still a better answer than Intel because it is
>> not known whether Apple can get their high end apps (Final Cut Pro,
>> etc.) rewritten for Intel by the time the machines hit the market.
>> 
>> dave h.
>> 
>> --
>> Victoria L. Herring, Attorney, Civil Rights, Discrimination &
>> Employment Law, <http://www.HerringLaw.com>;  Travel research and
>> planning, <http://www.JourneyZing.com>;  Des Moines, Iowa,
>> 515-255-4475.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dmmug mailing list
>> Use this Address to send mail to the list:
>> Dmmug at dmmug.org
>> Use this page to modify subscription options:
>> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/dmmug
> 