No where do I see Steve mentioning ANYTHING about MacOS performance on Intel. Omitting that is like saying it sucks.

This is really a crazy thing! I can't believe they have decide to do it. This is a black day in the Apple history.

as game console sales drive dramatic increases in IBM chip performance and intel's x86 architecture fails to see those dramatic performance increases. And cell phones take over the iPod market.

I just want to know if, a year from now, I'll be able to load OSX onto my POS 3.4Ghz P4 Dell computer at home and it will run. Somehow, I bet not.

Will Apple still have own proprietary hardware or any white box will do? I guess I'm not buying any new Macs till I know for sure what the options will be.

According to Jobs' keynote, it's simple to produce dual binaries. Hopefully debugging will be as "simple". If it's as simple as it sounds, then why won't developers support PPC for a number of years? If the systems are viable, they can still sell SW and the PPC SW can be produced simultaneously with Mactel versions. I tend to doubt that it will be quite as painless as Jobs noted though having 5 years of experience and planning sure helps.

This should be a VERY interesting time for Apple and the users. :-)

You are able to run OS X on your desktop now, just get a developer kit with Tiger preview for $1000.

any video, any motherboard, any bios, so it's should run on the white box otheriwise there was no reason for apple to become a software vendor.

...exactly what Intel's superior roadmap is, exactly? Just curious.

Doesn't universal binaries mean that new applications will be backwards compatible and therefore we can continue to buy current machines without fear of imminent obsolescence?

This is absolutely ASININE. SJ should be sacked. now. He just took a big dump on every person who bought a G5-based macintosh. You thought you were making a wise investment buying at the beginning of a new generation of high-performance macs? No A$$hole! You just bought into a dead end!

Class action lawsuit time. I want all that f**ing money I spent on my PM G5 back.

...that it would run on any video, motherboard, or bios? So if I got a copy of it right now, Tiger for Intel I mean, i could presumably run it on my white box AMD-powered 2GHz box?

I'd bet that there will be a clause in the Developer agreement specifying some time frame for supporting PPC systems.. or something to that effect.

According to Macintouch, Phil Schiller said OS X will NOT run on white boxes - ONLy on Apple hardware. Perhaps someone will figure out a way, perhaps not, but for the moment - no "Mac on Dell." But Windows, while not supported, will also apparently not be impossible to install as a dual boot. (I suspect lots of free utilities to help out from third parties.) Certainly WINE will be a big option.

Still trying to figure out what to do about my need for a new ibook.

I was going to buy a new G5 but now I'm not sure if it's a good idea...

Now we will see the full power of the dark side of the force...

Universal binary may mean we will be able to run the new & old software, but for how long and how many company's will adopt this and not just start programing for x86...

my new plan find a pirated x86 version of 10.4.1 in a few weeks and try it on my gf's dell... then i can decide if i have to buy a Apple x86 or if it will run on any x86... and also see if i should get a top end g5 now and just use that until apple gets its sense back and switches back to ppc... x86 has too many hardware errors internally, security wise... it's not all microsofts fault with windows... also as was shown @ wwdc office for mac runs on x86 OS X so they're already ahead of the game... intel should have just started making ppc chips!!!

I spent a boat load of money on my G5 and shortly, once the transition is full swing it will be incompatible to any new software released. I could have purchased a PC to start with and not have this blow up in my face.

I know, it wouldn't run OSX, beautiful interface, spyware yada yada yada.

What it would have done is cheaper and more expansive software availablity.

Mike

He clearly states apps will be built for BOTH PPC & Intel... therefore, HOW is a current G5 a "Dead End"? - Example: Next Photoshop can run on BOTH TYPES of Macs. Re-read.

Now we will see the full power of the dark side of the force...

Universal binary may mean we will be able to run the new & old software, but for how long and how many company's will adopt this and not just start programing for x86...

my new plan find a pirated x86 version of 10.4.1 in a few weeks and try it on my gf's dell... then i can decide if i have to buy a Apple x86 or if it will run on any x86... and also see if i should get a top end g5 now and just use that until apple gets its sense back and switches back to ppc... x86 has too many hardware errors internally, security wise... it's not all microsofts fault with windows... also as was shown @ wwdc office for mac runs on x86 OS X so they're already ahead of the game... intel should have just started making ppc chips!!!

Somebody wants and old and used PowerMac G4? I made "the transition" to linux amd64 this evening. Took me only 5 minutes, not 2 years or so....

regards Andy

Intel 6/6/06 Coincidence?

I think not.

Now we will see the full power of the dark side of the force...

Universal binary may mean we will be able to run the new & old software, but for how long and how many company's will adopt this and not just start programing for x86...

my new plan find a pirated x86 version of 10.4.1 in a few weeks and try it on my gf's dell... then i can decide if i have to buy a Apple x86 or if it will run on any x86... and also see if i should get a top end g5 now and just use that until apple gets its sense back and switches back to ppc... x86 has too many hardware errors internally, security wise... it's not all microsofts fault with windows... also as was shown @ wwdc office for mac runs on x86 OS X so they're already ahead of the game... intel should have just started making ppc chips!!!

Well, I'll buy the last PPC version of a G5 in 2007 I guess. Even if software doesn't get updated, I'd rather have my PPC than a crappy x86.

wow, never thought this would ever happen. Intel Inside Sticker on a Macintosh? surely the sky will fall, pigs will fly, etc etc. seriously, i think this is a positive thing for macs. Intel has and always will have faster chips (and more) than IBM or Moto. What im really liking is their Pentium M, witch beats even the Athlon64 FX in some tasks when put in a desktop mobo...this would be a juicy chip for upcomming powerbooks, wich use the bus-starved G4. and dual core Pentium D's? wow...this make me think. now that Mac OSX is made to run on x86 chips....could anybody do it? or does it have to be done on 'apple approved' intel chips? if it can be done on any modern (A64,P4) x86 chips...WOW....a direct competition to Windows...uncle bill must be on suicide alert as we speak. finally a real OS war. apple seems to have fired a first salvo..godamn...this outght to be very interesting.....

The hardware will remain proprietary, PPC hardware will be supported for at least 5 years followint the transistion. You won't be running OS X on a Dell.

THIS SUCKS!!!!

I recently paid $1,299 for the Final Cut Pro Studio software to run on my Dual 2Ghz PowerMac. I figured I would buy a new PowerMac early next year.

Now I do not know what to do.

If I buy a PPC PowerMac, then it will be a lame duck product.

If I buy an Intel PowerMac, then all of my PPC software will be useless.

Will Apple give me a free copy of Final Cut Pro Studio for Intel whenever they introduce it or will I be forced to buy an "upgrade" ?

Well, Motorola failed and IBM is failing. What exactly was Apple suppose to do? Most of the benefits are obvious like elimination of the speed gap. There are a whole host of unanswered question though, like an eMac bought today running software released in 2008, just three years into the future. Apple answered PowerPC code of today running on those future Mactels but what about the PowerPC Macs? This is the right solution and is as good of a time as any; while Apple is strong and growing. How painful the transition, well, that remains to be seen. I believe this is the right move and I think it was going to happen sooner or later due to the technical requirements of processor design and production. If IBM would hardly notice the lost of business due to Apples change over, one must wonder how long Apple could continue buy this expensive chips and how long consumer would pay for said higher prices. Apple will probably take a serious hit in hardware sales this year. Thank god for the iPod, eh.

Is it possible to make an x86 OS not run on anything than a mac? Not competing with microsoft is a good thing (for now at least).

the processor cost about the same Intel / AMD or PowerPC_ This won't drastically drop the cost of the machines_

Don't expect to see a fully loded system for $1000_ Apple hardware has always been a higher upfront cost_

But then again - there are usually much less problems systemwise and less down time in the long run on Macs - so hopefully Apple will stick to that concept_

If you want to update to the latest apps and the latest OS on your current iMac for the next 7 years you will run into problems Intel or no Intel chips in Macs. I think that after three to four years you will probably have to upgrade your computer if you want to be able to run the latest OS and apps. So no don't sell the iMac, keep it for the next 7 years. Apple will support OS X on PPC for at least another 7 years I assume and you will only need support for another 4, and after that you run the machine as it is. Plus, from the way it sounds transition will not even be as bad as it was from OS9 to OS X. While I am not happy about the transition, I don't think there is anything that will change the decision, plus in the end it might actually be good (faster laptops and maybe even cheaper ones too). Plus, as long as they don't slap the stupid "Intel Inside" sticker on the powerbooks, I don't think anybody will realize the difference, it is still OS X -- PPC or Intel.

But this means that some college kids will "port" OS X on a win machine and we will be "forced" to buy cheap machines to run OS X....apple becoming a software company? Does apple want to take over windows? it does'nt look good....

With this announcement, why would anyone buy an apple computer for the next year??? I was in the market for a powerbook- and was hoping for some type of update to come today.

No way I buy an apple product now, that will likely be dead-end within the year.

This may, or may not, be a good annoucement. Why couldn't apple wait until they actually had some hardware in place before they brought this announcement out? Could the Mac Mini not have waited 3 months for this????

This will be the biggest bluff in history. Apple will move to the cell processor blowing everybody away!

"... He just took a big dump on every person who bought a G5-based macintosh. You thought you were making a wise investment buying at the beginning of a new generation of high-performance macs? No A$$hole! You just bought into a dead end! Comment posted by: jcadam"

Uh, you don't seriously consider a computer to be an investment do you? You need a serious reality check if you did. If he hadn't done this, Apple would quickly become a fourth class citizen to Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft as they take up resources at IBM. What choice did he have? Would you prefer to be perpetually slower then just about every PC on the market? I spent just as much as you did on your G5, but I know something that you clealy dont: This is the tech industry; things change. Get over it.

"... He just took a big dump on every person who bought a G5-based macintosh. You thought you were making a wise investment buying at the beginning of a new generation of high-performance macs? No A$$hole! You just bought into a dead end! Comment posted by: jcadam"

Uh, you don't seriously consider a computer to be an investment do you? You need a serious reality check if you did. If he hadn't done this, Apple would quickly become a fourth class citizen to Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft as they take up resources at IBM. What choice did he have? Would you prefer to be perpetually slower then just about every PC on the market? I spent just as much as you did on your G5, but I know something that you clealy dont: This is the tech industry; things change. Get over it.

First, Apple becomes a software company. THEN, Microsoft buys them, takes over the OS, and calls it "Windows".

In my opinion, it's a huge mistake to make this announcement without being able to say, "Starting this afternoon, you can buy the new _____ with an Intel Pentium 4 processor inside."

This BS of "we'll have these in place within the next couple years" is total garbage.

Sure, this is the tech industry - but nobody wants to throw away money.

C'mon people. Whoever thinks Apple is going to remain a hardware company still must believe Apple isn't really going to migrate to an x86 architecture, even if SJ says it is.

Doesn't anybody understand what this quote means? "Next year will be about Leopards, the next version of Mac OS X. More than processor, hardware, the "soul of the Mac" is the operating system."

Wow, he can even put the writing on the wall and you still won't believe.

'nuf said.

Will Rosetta work the other way, converting intel-based apps to PPC apps? That's the only way I see that our computers haven't been completely abandoned. Otherwise, it just might be "time to get a Dell" the next time my Mac needs replacing.

I think Apple probably considered the best way to make this happen. I am sure Apple forecasted the future of chips and how that weighed in with the Mac OS. It makes a lot of sense to get apps ready for new hardware ahead of time. I do think they should have mentioned something about current and near future PowerPC based hardware. How long will it my PowerBook continue to run new hardware? That seems to be the biggest concern at the moment.

"THIS SUCKS!!!! I recently paid $1,299 for the Final Cut Pro Studio software to run on my Dual 2Ghz PowerMac. I figured I would buy a new PowerMac early next year. Now I do not know what to do. If I buy a PPC PowerMac, then it will be a lame duck product. "

No offence, but that's the stupidest thing I've read here today. Since you seem to buy new PowerMac's every couple of years, how exactly would buying a Dual G5 early next year put you at a disadvantage. It's not like FCP won't run on your G5 - it will. Even new versions will continue to run on PPC long after you've upgraded your hardware - even after your new machine next year.

I think a need another shot from Steves Reality Distortion field.... cause I am not convinced.. If I am understanding this correctly all future versions of software will quickly be ported to x86 versions making my beautiful cube obsolete. Who will want to write software for three platforms Xx86 (os X on intel) Wintel and! X PPC. The future is dark and I am very scared.

There won't be any need -- future programs will be compiled for BOTH! The point of Rosetta is to allow programs that haven't been updated yet to run on OS X for Intel. Why on earth would you need this the other way around when future programs will work on PPC natively just fine?

The panicking over this is ridiculous.

You are going to buy an x86, because you don't want an x86....uhm, go ahead and good riddance, you don't make any sense at all.

this isn't like the 680x0 transition to powerpc... this is different because your apple mac x86 can run windows too, so your investment is as safe as an investment gets...

people who left the platform over the powerpc chip, didn't want to chance powerpc, and bought x86... now you buy the apple, it is x86...you don't like it, just boot into your other OS of choice...nobody's stopping you.

this is a great move for apple, and of course they have to announce a 2 year transition, and then they'll bump it up for this christmas....plans change. THey have to look like they are in no hurry now...we are all shocked by the news. But when we are clamouring for the intel boxes by christmas...intel boxes will be shipped too.

"Apple answered PowerPC code of today running on those future Mactels"

No Apple did not answer anything really.

Explain how the current PPC version of Final Cut Pro Studio with all of its low level PPC and Velocity Engine optimization is going to run on an Intel based Mac. Through an emulation layer? No thanks. The performance hit would be unbearable.

This announcement is insane.

He clearly states apps will be built for BOTH PPC & Intel... therefore, HOW is a current G5 a "Dead End"? - Example: Next Photoshop can run on BOTH TYPES of Macs. Re-read. and The hardware will remain proprietary, PPC hardware will be supported for at least 5 years followint the transistion. You won't be running OS X on a Dell.

Doesn't the dual-binary work only if the developer compiles it for both. If Adobe next month decides they only want to bother with Intel development, what's to stop them? Will Rosetta be able to fix this type of omission, or is that only for those willing to give Apple even more of your money to stay "Up-to-date".

PPC hardware will be supported by Apple, but does that mean they'll support it with all their software, or will FCP, iLife, etc end up being Intel-only the next year or two, and basically they're just promising that they'll answer the phone when my DVD drive stops working?

And remember they promised in the past 'full support for all current macs', when they went to OS X, only to find out 'full support' was a little fuzzily defined.

And are these Intel machines going to be better then the PC c*** out there? I mean, are we really going to have a stupid-a** BIOS, where you need to specify ports to enable to get a drive to work, or that you don't have a floppy, or what order to boot devices from? Will we now have all those wonderful interrupt conflicts that you still get on Windows to this day? After 20 years, PCs still have these crappy controllers in them. Don't know why. They keep improving something that should have destroyed years ago.

And too bad none of this helps get more drivers for what are now PC-only peripherals, any more selection of video cards, etc. Still have to get those OS X drivers written, which no one wants to do.

Will I be able to run OS X on a $500 Dell notebook? If so, I think I like this. iBooks are beautiful, but they've been out for four or five years in their present form, and I still haven't had the $$$ for one.

I have a Dell laptop I won, I currently run Linux and Windows on it, but OS X would be wonderful!

There are a lot of people out there that need to take some tranquilizers.

For pity's sake, when the first Intel PowerMacs are available two years from now, there will be an installed base of millions of PPC-based Macs. Do you think developers are so stupid as to only have programs available to run on the newest machines and ignore the huge number of existing users? Some day, if all goes well, the number of Intel-based Macs may so outnumber the number of PPC-based machines that developers stop supporting them. At the absolute earliest, that might be five or six years down the road. How many developers put a lot of effort into supporting OS 9 now? Do we care?

Computers advance. Jobs has to do what's best for the platform. This isn't a sudden idea, this is an option that he has spent a lot of time preparing for if IBM couldn't make things work. IBM blew it. On the other hand, by pushing developers to use universal binaries, if IBM gets their act together, there's nothing to prevent switching back.

It's perfect. Jobs can, thanks to careful preparation, shift to Intel. But the structure of the OS allows him to keep Intel on their toes, because he can jump back to PPC any time he needs.

Chill out, dudes.

"Will I be able to run OS X on a $500 Dell notebook? If so, I think I like this. iBooks are beautiful, but they've been out for four or five years in their present form, and I still haven't had the $$$ for one."

If that becomes a possibility- then I am right there with you, and very excited about this move.

Also-- does that mean when I go to the store to buy a new game, I can just buy the PC version of the game, rather than having to search for a Mac version?

i smell bacon...

a good ploy to induce sales of yet another OS...

and provide endless new work for developers...

1. How long is the life of a normal mac anyway? if its 2 years than I would go ahead and get and get a new PPC mac right now. If Its longer than it makes sense to wait. 2. Is the x86 chip the one that will be in future macs? Isnt the x86 chip less powerful than the PPC chip? 3. Is the transition to x86 a good thing?? Only time will tell. The transition from OS9 to OSX did lose many, some are still on OS9

That is what this is about. Intel makes chips for 81% of the market. Will Apple's box really be proprietary or will Dells be simply "unsupported" like upgrade CPUs? You bet Steve wants you to buy a Dell with OS X and an HP and on and on. It puts Gates right where he wants him. WinBlows 2003 server or OS X server, check the pricing, check the stability, check the security, head to the check out, without Windows! Works with AD, heh, works without it too… if it can sit on legacy mutiproc servers it will be a major major coup. Billy having to stand up on the quality of his stuff??? hee hee hee bring it on.

I was pretty surprised and pissed at first.... now after thinking about it for a while, it doesn't sound too bad. My Mac is feeling kind of old (800Mhz G4) and my PC laptop is a 3.2Ghz P4 with 128MB ATI 9700 GPU and a monitor rez of 1920x1200. I would LOVE to be able to load this thing up with OSX!!!

Talk about increasing your market share!!! If all a windows user has to do is buy a $120 OS, This could be awesome!

For all you who say the "Osborne effect" will kill Apple....maybe you should take a peek at the billions (that's "billions" with a B) that Apple has in the bank. They can absorb a short term financial hit quite easily, especially if the iPod continues to sell even reasonably well. And their core audiences - education, graphics and video professionals, etc. - aren't going to delay a purchase they need just because it's not Intel. Clean your glasses, folks, and look at this clearly.

Re: If OS X will run on "any" Intel hardware, I seriously think that it WILL. I see people requesting this kind of support via VMware, so as long as your White Box system can run VMware, it'll run OS X in a virtual machine.

I doubt Microsoft wills support it within Virtual PC, though.

Hayesk, my Dual 2Ghz G5 is 2 years old. So I was thinking I would get a new PowerMac next year when it will be about 3 years old. I do not think that is very unusual.

Buying a Dual G5 early next year would put me at a disadvantage because of the software. Final Cut Studio and all of my apps will continue to run on PPC hardware, but the platform is being phased out. The next time that I buy a computer, I will want it to fulfill my needs for at least 2-3 years. There is no guarantee that a 2006 PPC Mac would be able to do that because there is no guarantee that developers will actively develope PPC apps.

Yes, I know that Apple's developer tools will cross compile, but that does not mean that the developers will actively support both platforms. Developers certainly will not invest as much time into optimizing PPC apps as they will invest into optimizing for the Intel Mac. Cross compiling is not going to be perfect anyway; so they may not even bother providing a PPC compatible binary if they run into bugs.

When Apple changed from 68K to PPC, there were a lot of PPC only apps put out because developers did not think it was worthwhile to spend their time supporting the obsolete 68K platform. I see no reason for it to be any different this time.

Hey, if one year from now, I can load the latest version of X onto my hp notebook computer -- I'll be tickled pink.

But somehow I don't see apple completely abandoning the hardware business -- not with the current investment.

It won't be a situation where you can just go buy a copy of the OS and put it onto any machine.

No real upgrades to the PowerMac line for 2+ years (end of 2007???). Alright! Who wants anything like PCI-Express, or better subsystems. Not I, nor any other Mac user. We want overpriced hardware that has the smell of obsolesence (you can say all you want that it won't be obsolete, but I want proof that ALL programs will be compiled dual-binary and RELEASED that way, not just that it can be done, but WILL BE done). But hey, who doesn't want to spend $3000 at the end of next year for a computer that is basically they same thing that is selling today? Or is Apple actually expecting that IBM will still get them decent supplies of improved chips over the next two years. I doubt it.

Two years is a long time to wait for these new, more powerful machines.

Oh, and what else does this mean? Well, it means DVORAK was RIGHT! OMG! And not only that, but that other guy, David Coursery (? You know who I mean) who can't get anything right, was right (although he predicted this a year or two ago, but, like rumor sites, he'll take credit even if he was off by ten years - you know what I mean "As first predicted here in 1993, Apple is switching to Intel processors").

Another question is: Will Windows work on a Intel Mac?

BTW, if getting stuff to work for Intel is no big deal, why is apple offering a dev kit for $1000? Seems like a waste, since it'll just work. Right?

BTW, if getting stuff to work for Intel is no big deal, why is apple offering a dev kit for $1000? Seems like a waste, since it'll just work. Right?

I think this is a good move. IBM's PPC is going nowhere, and cell chips are not going to fit into a laptop. Have you seen the heat sinks on the prototype!? It's like they strapped a ceiling fan on top of the chips.

Mobile computing is the way of the future for most people, and intel has the best mobile chips coming.

Will Apple survive? Survival, IMO, is connected to market share. With market share brings software and momentum. One of the big reasons why people are not switching is software. This has nothing to do with better technology. Most people who work don't care what's in the box. They care that they can do the work that they have always done on their computers. They don't want to deal with cross-platform issues or learn new things. This is why Wintel won. They have the software base, and that trumps all.

One big problem right now is that if an apple user collaborates with a PC user, there are problems with MS Office documents. The files are not 100% compatible (links, graphics, tables etc.). So when collaborators send files back and forth again and again, it's a big hassle. So who wins? PCs win. Anyone who wants to go Apple can't, because it's not worth the hassle. Time is money. Now some here will say it's MS who is at fault. Well whatever the case, that potential switcher will not switch. Period. Who cares? The upshot is that it's not practical to switch.

There are other issues like VPN, web-based programs that require explorer, and programs that are not available on macs. One can't even watch MLB on webcast with a mac!

Software issues block potential switchers. That's the bottom line. Sometimes it's just one thing that blocks switching.

With Apple on Intel, you can have the best of both worlds. More switchers will mean more market share, which implies more native software developers.

So apple has to play this card. They've known it for at least 5 years.

Go Apple!

OS X X86 it is! This made the most sense for a number of reasons which were outlined in my previous posts.

Well all you people with your heads in the ground can come up for air now. :-)

Intel 6/6/06 Coincidence?

I think not.

So funny... It is the Mark of the Beast next year!

"Buying a Dual G5 early next year would put me at a disadvantage because of the software. Final Cut Studio and all of my apps will continue to run on PPC hardware, but the platform is being phased out. The next time that I buy a computer, I will want it to fulfill my needs for at least 2-3 years."

And you never plan to upgrade Final Cut in that time? (BTW, SJ said all Apple projects have been required to run on Intel, so it's likely that the current version is already compatible.)

Think about this: you will not be the only one in that situation. As long as there is a significant customer base, the developers will make software for it. If they only make Intel software, their potential customer base will be very, very tiny for a long time.

"And their core audiences - education, graphics and video professionals, etc. - aren't going to delay a purchase they need just because it's not Intel."

babywriter, I'm a network admin at a K-12 school district, and we need to purchase servers this summer. Our purchasing cycle is far longer than business, we'll probably have to live with this server decision for the next 6-8 years. We can't delay (current servers are all 6+ years old), and how can I recommend purchasing G5 XServes if I know going in they will be end-of-life in 2 years? My choice was between OSX Server and Netware (our existing NOS). This announcement has me re-thinking to make sure I purchase something I'll be able to support years from now...

[i] Doesn't the dual-binary work only if the developer compiles it for both. If Adobe next month decides they only want to bother with Intel development, what's to stop them?[/i]

Backwards compatibility with older PPC processors is also one of those things that only works if the developer wants it to. What's to stop Adobe from next month deciding that they don't want their software to run on G4s? Oh, uh... money. They will sell more if they still support the machines that people still use.

And about the Dev kit... just because applications may only need a simple recompile doesn't mean that hardware drivers will only need a simple recompile. Also, if a game company wanted to port Half Life 2 to Mactel, they would have to have a box to try it out on. Just because most software is going to be easy to port doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be tested. It also doesn't mean that it will all be easy to port. Anyone who wrote assembly will have to do some serious work.

>Do you think developers are so stupid as to only have programs available to run on the newest machines and ignore the huge number of existing users?

Yes. Or do you have an OS 9 version of Adobe InDesign CS?

For those who will lament the passing of Altivec optimisation, comparatively few applications made full use of it anyway! Okay, some of the heavy video/graphical apps did and for that I have two words...core image. The Apple roadmap of shifting graphically intensive tasks to the GPU is clear evidence of what Apple has had up it's sleeve especially since development in GPU technology is screaming along compared with CPU development. I think it's clear that Steve and Co. have thought long and hard about this. I'm curious as to the actual spec of Steve's prototype demo machine? Did somebody say quad processor? And if so, why?

>>Do you think developers are so stupid as to only have programs available to run on the newest machines and ignore the huge number of existing users?

>Yes. Or do you have an OS 9 version of Adobe InDesign CS?

An OS upgrade is quite different. Even when OS X was first released, you didn't need to have a BRAND NEW Mac to run it.

So do those poor souls who just shelled out $500 for a Select Developer membership/Tiger Starter Kit get a $500 break on the $1000 MacIntel Developer Kit?

Anyone know what the reaction of the developer audience was?

Does this mean Apple really has abandoned HyperCard?? (OK, that was a joke.)

>>BTW, if getting stuff to work for Intel is no big deal, why is apple offering a dev kit for $1000? Seems like a waste, since it'll just work. Right?

The developer kit includes an Intel-based Mac. You might need one of those, don't you think?

>An OS upgrade is quite different. Even when OS X was first released, you didn't need to have a BRAND NEW Mac to run it.

Right, sorry I meant: an 68XXX version of Adobe InDesign 1.0!

Interesting annoucement....I actually don't think the transition is a bad thing....I'd love to have a fast video card tied to Mac OS. And since the current MacOS is binary compatible I don't see any problems with future software updates to the OS.

My bigger question relates to the many emulations already running under OSX....now another one PPC? Hmmm....

TGF

So I think the next killer app for Mac is Windows! If you can dual boot your system with Mac OS Intel and Windows.......can I just say wow! I would have to assume that Apple will require Apple branded hardware to run the Mac OS so for someone who is interested in both platforms buying the Apple hardware is an obvious decision. Also we can have our cake and eat it too. No longer the need to play cool games on your friends PCs. Just boot into Windows and game on.

"babywriter, I'm a network admin at a K-12 school district, and we need to purchase servers this summer. Our purchasing cycle is far longer than business, we'll probably have to live with this server decision for the next 6-8 years. We can't delay (current servers are all 6+ years old), and how can I recommend purchasing G5 XServes if I know going in they will be end-of-life in 2 years? My choice was between OSX Server and Netware (our existing NOS). This announcement has me re-thinking to make sure I purchase something I'll be able to support years from now... "

JEndahl, thanks for your insight here. That's something I hadn't thought of...and I certainly wouldn't claim to have a better knowledge of your needs than you have. I can see your dilemma.

When it comes to Apple software (i.e., system software releases), it has been my experience that Apple supports older systems for a good long time. For example, my rev B iBook (blueberry) has been supported on OSX all the way up until 10.4 (no Firewire, unfortunately). That's about four years, I think, and typical for Apple.

So if you need these servers to last six to eight years, then, yeah, you might have an issue. I guess it all depends on what you will be doing with them....and you know that better than anyone. Good luck as you decide.

I think that the transition will hurt Apple in the short term, but in the long term it is necessary.

We know Steve has been eyeing the move for 5 years now. Why is he ready? Well remember that Apple is debt free. iPods are kicking butt. He can afford to take a hit right now on the computer division. If he waits any longer, iPods or iTunes might lose steam. He really needs to do this now.

I am new to Apple (last three years), and I have to admit that it hurt when I saw an Apple logo with an intel inside logo emblazoned on the Apple symbol. But I have to say this is for the best.

Also keep in mind that Apple has to make the initial move to Intel. They have 80% of the PC chip market. But no one says that they have to stay there. In 3 years I could see them going to AMD. It wouldn't require changing any code....

...I know SJ said Cocoa apps will require a few tweaks and a recompile, but what specifically happens to Objective-C as a language? Does anyone know?

What about all the linux apps for x86? Mac users will be able to use all the software out there for whatever purpose. This is good! Macs will be able to run nearly everything made for a PC! The best will be to have a window running a linux/unix app, a window for windows, all running in OSX.

Laptops with dual core pentium M will have the power to do it all!

sharkie

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

You will not be able to run OS X/Intel on any other hardware then Apple's.... but you will be able to run Windows on your Mac.

"...I know SJ said Cocoa apps will require a few tweaks and a recompile, but what specifically happens to Objective-C as a language? Does anyone know?"

That is the language of OS X... that's not going to change.

Settle down. How are you going to sue - what is your case?

"My computer works just fine and will continue to do so for years, just as if this announcement weren't made. But I want some money!"

???

back several versions ago - and I haven't really enjoyed using it ever since...

Bug tolerance degraded to design flaw tolerance, some problems were never or only fixed in the next major paid upgrade, the current icons look like little cartoons, and in general the user experience for me, while some new features were very welcome, has generally moved the tolerance of the lesser evil rather than enthusiasm...

...two steps back.

What happened to 64-bit?

Altivec?

Surely these technologies are fairly useful in a pro machine???

"What happened to 64-bit? "

You are assuming OSX will be running on what is CURRENTLY available from Intel. In two years, or even one, a 64-bit desktop processor from them is extremely likely.

""You will not be able to run OS X/Intel on any other hardware then Apple's.... ""

Exactly! A lot of people have got confused and didn't realise this. OS X for Intel is not going to run on any old PC, thats for sure.

Although significant, this change is not going to be nearly as drastic as many fear it will be..

Name a computer that can run OS X, Windows, Linux, and Unix. If you said the new x86 Mac, you are correct.

If you are a business, why not buy a computer that runs the most advance and secure OS in the world, as well as the other OS's for compatibility?

If you be a game developer, how hard can it be to make hybrid games for the x86 Macs? Seems simpler than it is now.

If Rosetta can translate PPC code to x86 Mac code, how hard would it be to make Rosetta translate x86 Windows code to x86 Mac code? How many more apps would be available on this new universal platform.

Maybe I'm deluding myself, but isn't the glass about to runneth over?

>BTW, if getting stuff to work for Intel is no big deal, why is apple >offering a dev kit for $1000? Seems like a waste, since it'll just work. >Right?

Because the dev kit contains prototype hardware to run on. You have to give the prototype back to Apple when the test period is over. Steve is selling you unfinished product and getting it back to boot. Now, that's smart!

Read the Universal_Binary pdf. Some things just aren't 'that compatible' w/ rosetta. Annoying IBM was arrogant and a bridge burner. Charging crazy dollars for the dev kit (which probably locks down your copy to the machine) is out of control. This is a bet...a bet that intel will come up w/ something fast enough to compensate for the losses of the G4/G5 enhancements. SIMD. There are less 'significant bits' available for vector ops on intel and hey guess what...

Divide by Zero = crash All that stuff that was optimized gets endian reversed, slowed down, and since it's done RISC style in the first place, there's no way of controlling positioning on the nice little intel chip w/o our friend the pointer from h***. It's not a picnic ppls. It may have been a great way to go, but hows about just slapping in an x86 card and having done w/ it. What's up w/ quartz 2d extreme? The OpenGL stuff needs reworking. If it isn't working on tiger (ppc) yet, then when's it working on MOI?

Also, w/o a doubt, not letting it run on any box (w/o support since you aren't buying an apple machine..at first) is kinda braindead.

Your Final Cut stuff will work just fine. You don't think Apple is going to have that as universal binaries on day one? New compiled version (works great on G5, works great on MOI). It is BIOS and not OF, so what...built in operating system whatever you want..Once the boot order is set it's all good, and don't think apple won't have the bios flashed and tweaked to be useful to the most braindead IT guy.

Still...premature emaculation.

I will hold off my next purchase of a mac until I see the dust settle. then my ultimate question will be based on the cost of software updates. I have Final Cut Pro and Adobe CS to consider. I have NO intention in running them in some emulation mode unless it gives me roughly 95% of the native performance. Assuming that will NOT be the case, I am now waiting to see if Adobe and Apple provide a "normal" update pricing for these products and what the update costs for all of my other software will be. I have no intention on paying for a new Apple and all new software. I simply can't afford that. If I have to take THAT hit, I will end up with a much less expensive Dell and all new Windows based software. And then I'll have to pop for virus and net barrier software to boot. I will be crunching some serious numbers, and I'll be waiting a lot longer than I planned before my next purchase. I don't care much if the box has intel or ppc inside, but I DO want to know if I am about to be forced into buying a new Photoshop, or get some minor discount which is my sad guess. Apple used to be able to sell the idea that they had better software and better hardware. They will have a harder time making the hardware distinction now.

Here is the problem. I had a blue and white mac that I used for about 6 years. This year I upgraded to a new dual G5. Now about six months later I find out I have a boat anchor in my hands. Even worse is the software that will be obsolete.

Maybe I'll get 3 more years out of this G5 box. The problem will be when the Apple security updates stop.

Maybe the new x86 mac will sell for $400. Now its just x86 so why the hardware price premium?

Just reminds me of seeing grad students years back. They were all using next step boxes. Though, next step was gone.

Be OS has been down this path before?

I've been reading around the web (thanks RSS) and one line that stood out more than any other was this statement made by SJ today, "2 years ago I stood on stage and promised you 3.0GHz". I've read a lot on this failed promise in the forums and on these comment boards over the years. It was clearly eating away at Apple too. IBM simple can't deliver, period. If anything, Apple should be applauded for choosing Intel and not "F"ing about with AMD for their chips. I mean if your going to make the switch, do it right. Another thing I have been picking up online is this, 'it doesn't matter what chip is running inside'. This next year will be interesting indeed.

I'm for sure going to nix that 10.5 update. Lets just throw another $120 log onto the fire. Ah, then there is the $999 ..

the reason we all had to have a computer last six years was cause they were so outrageously expensive.... your purchase of a computer today...and let me say, I will gladly purchase a boat anchor (at the right price of course)....because that computer will last plenty long, and it won't have to last six years anymore, we'll be on the x86 upgrade (and pricing structure) cycle

I cannot believe a network admin thinks an Xserve is a bad choice...good grief, its priced so much lower than that SPARC or PA-RISC, or MIPS box that many of us use for networking servers and by the way...2 of those 3 chips are being replaced with itanium

over 50% of HP's high end unix servers are still sold pa-risc THIS YEAR...and we've known for years that its being phased out, the market is that way, because tried and true is better than the unknown and pa-risc is still a viable chip for now....buy next years, or next decades hardware next year or next decade....you buy today what you need today.

unbelievable...network admins of all people are not waiting for next years box...they want to buy now, BEFORE the architecture changes....

mac ppl....geez, 'nuff said

"And you never plan to upgrade Final Cut in that time? (BTW, SJ said all Apple projects have been required to run on Intel, so it's likely that the current version is already compatible.) "

Although you clearly do not know what you are talking about, I will respond anyway.

My copy of Final Cut pro Studio does not use any fat binaries. It is NOT already compatible. Are you suggesting that Apple is going to give me the Intel version for free next year if I decide to buy an Intel Mac?

Otherwise, my issue is the same as I stated before. The $1,299 that I just spent on Apple software (not to mention the Adobe software that I bought a little over a month ago) is not going to be any good on an Intel based Mac. If I were to buy a $3000 PowerMac next year, I would want to continue to use my existing software for a while rather than be pushed into spending a few thousand dollars more to upgrade to Intel recompiles.

The fact that I would probably upgrade Final Cut Pro Studio in the next 3 years does not mean that I want to upgrade again within the next year.

"Your Final Cut stuff will work just fine. You don't think Apple is going to have that as universal binaries on day one? New compiled version (works great on G5, works great on MOI)."

I am sure Apple will have it, but that does not mean that they are going to give it to me. The brand new copy that I just bought will not work just fine. I would be better off waiting until Apple does release the fat binaries rather than having bought it now.

Sorry Apple, great hardware and software but you wont be seeing any of my money now for years.

Why would I buy a New Mac now (just cancelled my order for 2 Mac minis and a laptop) when I know next year its redundant.

Why would I buy Mac hardware next year or the year after, will this shift be like the clones and be a 2 year wonder ?

How long before hackers get ALL of OSX running on a standard PC machine..... can my next OSX machine be a Dell ?

If Apples fortunes plummet will Sony buy Apple for the iPod then sell off OSX, Quicktime, etc to Microsoft ?

Maybe the pundits have had it right all along, that Apple was dying. Has the last few years been like remission in cancer, everything looks better, health is returned, strength is back..... them wham within a short period you are dead ?

Sorry apple, but I see this as the first of the death throwes......

The funny thing is, Apple has been scared of the number 3 since the Apple 3.... well look at the Mac.... 1: 680x0 series 2 PPC series 3 X86 series..... and DISASTER

If Apple is there in 5 years time and looking healthy still I may buy Mac again, but the reality is..... well..... been nice knowing you, may your death be gracefull.

The key is profit margin. Harware sales have very small margins, Software is high profit ticket!

Expect new OS to "call home" to prevent piracy and to force more "users" to be legitimate!

Just like razors and printer manufactures "give away" the product to sell the blades and cartridges!

Wow. How about you just commit suicide now. What a positive person!

Right SJ is going to let his life's work be sold off. Apple is Jobs' baby. He's going to do what ever it takes to try and beat everyone else. It's an ego thing.

Keith here on the other hand. Buh Bye. Have fun.

Macs are overall good computers but when the new intel macs are being spat out, I think I'll wait until all the hardware glitches and software issues are sorted out before I upgrade my ibook 1ghz.

My next question. What will happen to the mac zealots who love their IBM chips and always criticising Intel? Will they all turn into hypocrites?! heheheh :)

What the bloody blazes is it with you people?

They're changing the processor. That's it. The box and everything else in it will still be Apple-quality hardware. Just because they have an Intel chip doesn't infect the computer with Dell cooties.

There are millions of PPC-based Macs out there. They won't all turn to pumpkins when the new Intel-based machines come out. The developers are not going to stop writing code that will work on PPCs any time soon. Any computer you buy this year or next year will have software available for it for years to come.

You want to move the PPC software to your new Intel Mac in two years? Quoting from the Macobserver coverage of the keynote:

"Mr. Jobs showed Quicken, Excel and Photoshop, compiled for the Power PC processor, working on an Intel-based Mac, completely transparent..."

Apple will do everything possible to make a smooth transition. I fully imagine that yes, they will upgrade your Final Cut Pro Suite to the fat binaries necessary for free. They aren't stupid, and know this transition will make people really nervous. They will continue to work hard to make customers comfortable and happy with the move.

Stop thinking with your guts and use your brains for a few minutes. This is not a religious sacrilege or political sellout. It's a move to make the Mac more successful. All this whining and crying and dithering about boat anchors and cancelling orders makes us Mac people look like flaming idiots.

I remember seeing the demonstration of Photoshop for OSX, you know using carbon to get things there quicker...... 2 years later and photoshop was released, never mind about how long Quark and others were to go OSX, in fact one application we use all of the time "Scifinder" is still not running under OSX we have to keep classic installed.

Reality is, why buy yesterdays hardware, we know now it is dead, so lets all just wait until the X86 ones are ready, can apple survive no sales for that long ? Then there is the bleeding edge factor for the new hardware, the transitions Apple has made have not been painless.

I guess it may also be worth waiting for longhorn to see how good it will be, after all if I need to buy new hardware, and software to keep everything native the why not shift totally to wintel ?

If you think about, Apple must be pretty confident that OS X will smoke Windows in terms of speed to use the same processor. Before, they can always fall back to saying that comparison is difficult between different processors, but now they can't hide behind that anymore.

All you whiners make me laugh. One month or so ago, you were all hoping for another CPU change, from G5 to Cell.

Why, you are going to tell me you all thought this was going to be a "plug-and-play" change? It would have probably required far more re-design of the OS that we all love than the current change. At least with x86 we have double processors NOW and quad processors by the end of next year.

At the end of the day, it's Jobs' company and if he choses to go x86, there's not much you guys can do about it. And so far, there's not much he's done that didn't turn well. I'm ready to bet that once we see the results of that change, we'll all be happy about it because of the increased speed and battery life.

I think some people who are a bit of the more serious types, who probably don't even rant in public forums, would have been shocked had apple announced the switch today, and then had hardware for sale too....they'd say, why didn't you warn us!

so this is the warning, but the one year timeline is really just for those cautious people to feel good about and that they've been properly warned...apple better be prepared to switch tactics and release something by christmas.

I have found in the business world, the moment after a plan is formulated, you start divirging from it...apple should update to intel cpu's by this year, before christmas...and if they aren't prepared to do that, then what they heck are they going to intel for...I mean the real reason to go to intel is the predictable upgrade cycle...they better hitch their wagons to a 3 month upgrade cycle, and start now.

The lifespan of the Mac you buy today will probably just about last until the next big thing from Apple which would have required an update *anyway*.

Get on with your lives already and keep the faith.

Why do you hear less moaning and groaning with every new release of the OS even though it WILL eliminate the lowest end Macs? As it stands now, my PBG3/400 will probably never make it to see the light of Leopard anyway...

It is not the processor that makes using a mac a unique computing experience.

It is the Operating System. IBM did not have any incentive to push the roadmap, so Apple went for a change. This is a business decision. Good for Apple. We live in a capitalist society. If IBM really wanted to keep Apple's business, then they would have processors at 3.8GHz now. But it wasn't worth it, so Apple is doing what they feel is right for them.

I personally don't give a Rats Butt if the processor runs off of squirrels eating acorns.

As long as I have OS X, and the stylish, elegant hardware I have come to expect from Apple, then let's bring on Intel, the squirrels, or whatever.

I am grabbing a bucket of popcorn as I watch the bickering unfold. Previous the zealots have an uniform target = Intel/Microsoft/Dell. Now the cult seems to have splintering factions. How exciting.

Don't get me wrong, there are many sane and wonderful Mac users out - the above is not for you.

"Somebody wants and old and used PowerMac G4? I made "the transition" to linux amd64 this evening. Took me only 5 minutes, not 2 years or so...."

Translation: "Waaaaaaahhhhhh, I'm going to take my ball and go home."

Good riddance, crybaby. Nobody cares...

Good lord, the bellyaching and whininhg from Mac zealots. Even when I was a faithful Mac user I still couldn't stand the attitude of the Mac zealots.

I am a proud Linux user - GNOME 2.10 under Ubuntu Linux. What an amazing OS. We gladly welcome the disaffected Mac users to Ubuntu.

Otherwise, you should all be THANKING Stevo. Jobs has SAVED Apple's computer line. Don't you get it? The G5 was going nowhere. IBM no longer showed interest in dveloping the G5 to keep it competitive. You heard Jobs say that IBM had no "roadmap" for continued development. What is Jobs supposed to do??? Stay 2.whatever Gigs forever?? It's about $$$ and market share. When your primary chip supplier is shuffling its feet, has no real plan for the future, has no plan for notebooks (where the $$$ is), and has a much more lucrative contract with someone else, what do you do? You move on.

What will happen to Apple in the next 2-3 years. I really don't know. Will it suffer or even "die"? I don't know, maybe. The first year or two will tell the tale. Has Jobs prevented a premature death?

You bet.

Everyone needs to understand that Apple was in real danger here. It was time to move on.

Will your PowerPC rigs still be useful? Yes, for a time that is beyond the projected release of Intel Macs. That's good news. You have all been given a full years' warning.

Does it mean Mac-lovers will steel feel bad, looking at their shiny new PowerPCs, thinking that they no longer have that "special" hardware? Yes.

Get over your hurt feelings and understans that all of you mac users were teetering on the very brink with IBM. The move HAD to be made.

Be hopeful. Apple is a Phoenix that has always risen from its own ashes.

After seeing Mac OS slowly transform into a clone of Windows XP, I decided to go with the original and switch to the PC platform.

Looks like I got out just in time.

I'm not an Intel fan, I'd much rather Apple continue to use the PowerPC, however, given the fact that it's now two years after the G5 was introduced and we still don't have a 3GHz+ CPU, I'd say it's definitely time to move on. WTF do you think Apple is supposed to do? Sit around and wait while the "darkside" continues to advance at a regular pace? No! They need to get OS X running on the best available systems. In two years time, Intel has outlined where'd they be, apparently IBM has not.

Intel is not the enemy here, Microsoft and Windows is still Apple's main competition. Why? Because no one cares about what CPU is in their computer, they just want to be able to use the damned thing without struggling to do so.

This also doesn't mean Apple is leaving current users out in the cold. When Apple went from 68000 to PowerPC in the early 90's, it wasn't until five or six years later that they finally stopped supporting those old systems.

Jeezus, talk about over-reacting to something that's really not that big of a deal.

I have a theory around this. I think Apple is positioning itself to take on Longhorn head on upon its release.

Apple has been able to get OS9 apps to run (relatively) seamlessly in OS X. It seems to me, that on an Intel processor, they have a reasonable shot at doing the same thing with Windows apps. Mactel won't be able to run Windows, but it could run Windows APPS - natively and seamlessly - with 'almost' the OS X experience. Being a Windows developer (iTunes, QT, etc.), they have insight into the Windows APIs - would they be able to code the OS X behavior for those into a 'Windows layer'?

If Apple can do this, Windows customers now have an option when M$ asks them to upgrade to Longhorn - they can look at Longhorn and Leopard on even footing and make the best choice for them. They can run all their apps in either OS seamlessly.

They're not talking about this now, because it would disincent developers from building native versions of major apps, and they need native apps to get a strong footing. I'm thinking when they announce Leopard, they'll announce this 'feature'.

It would be a risky move, but has a potentially huge payoff. Will be interesting to see how this plays out...

... 100%.

People whine too much.

It's not like you won't be able to get 'fat' binaries that run on both platforms. And I bet many/most software developers will offer updates to fat binaries as part of their regular upgrade processes. I expect Photoshop CS2 to be updated to be 'fat' in the next major update, or if they've upgraded to 10.0 by then, that will be 'fat'.

And so on.

First off:

1. They are changing the processor, not the OS X APIs. Recompiles should work without issue, since the APIs are the same. If s/w is using hidden APIs or doing other things like assembly language calls, then rewrite will be in order.

2. They're changing the CPU! The CPU has nothing to do with the design of the motherboard. We're not going to deal with any kind of quirkly PC BIOS here. I'm sure Apple will design a motherboard that uses OpenFirmware like the current motherboards. Remember Sun Microsystems also uses OpenFirmware on their servers and workstations and they use SPARC chips. So the firmware obviouusly is not processor specific. Heck the average Mac motherboard is so much like a PC motherboard. It uses PC RAM, IDE connectors and PCI slots.

Calm down. Deep breath. Wait till programs like GuestPC can launch Intel apps transparently to the user inside of OS X without needing to have a seperate Windows and desktop.

It is the biggest blow to Apple and it will definitely kill the company. Basically this move indirectly say that Apple is gone, it will be another DELL-wannabe company with no credibility with pricing, and because OS X is such a resource hog to begin with it will be destined to run miserably slow on Intel processor.

I tell you the truth: The real reason Apple moved to Intel is because they had to. Microsoft and Sony are taking up all available PowerPC chips, and there just isn't enough room for Apple to squeeze in and grab a few for their computers. Since Microsoft and Sony are MUCH better money making opportunity with MUCH bigger market share, IBM/Freescale just don't have enough time to babysit Apple. So Apple got kicked out, and since Intel is the only company out there feeling like taking a crying baby they went for it. Intel will be just like IBM. They, too, don't have *that* much time dealing with crybabies. They've got 80% of the PC market to take care first. Apple will be their third or forth priority.

Everyone, migrate to PC hardware NOW. Windows will rule forever. Your investment will be protected under Microsoft/DELL. At the very least you can build your own computer on the Windows PC side. With OS X you are screwed forever like you all have been since 1984.

I'll say it again.

IBM had no real plan for Apple. IBM goes where the money is. Apple goes where the $$$ is as well.

PowerPC chips were expensive to produce, and when I saw a G5 that was FULL of fans, I knew something was not quite right. But that's a different issue.

IBM: No roadmap for continued 64-bit technology. No roadmap for Notebook technology. That Cell cpu would run too hot. A 3ghz G5 is promise that will likely be unfulfilled. So, a Notebook G5 will never happen. Why would IBM contune to spend $$$ on Apple when it can have the planet's most popular console all to itself, running different technology?

Apple: It's only chip-supplier wants to bascially pull out of the game. Apple has no choice but to look around, or it will very soon be faced with ZERO cpu availablity. AMD currently produces the fastest 64-bit cpu for desktops. Intel has $$$ to burn. Intel lost a key console contract. It's looking around to make up for this. Apple sees Intel, and Intel sees Apple. Who to choose? Intel already is the major cpu player in the market. Intel says "Yeah,the Itanium is a flop, but we'll give you a 64-bit rig on which to run. You have no ral choice anyway, unless you want to go with AMD. But with us you'll at least get maximum exposure and an already huge market."

Apple had no choice. Once again, the Mac will be resurrected. Jobs faced a huge problem with IBM. Who can blame IBM for moving on to consoles? On that note, who can blame Apple for leaving a supplier that had no plan to continue competitve production?

The choices: Intel or AMD.

Intel offered a good deal: Survival. Plus a bigger market.

Get it?

This officially kills Classic... May it rest in peace....

The financial reporter on WCBS-AM has been calling the company "Apple iPod" for about 9 months, indicating his opinion that the future for Apple is to shift away from being a computer company to becoming an entertainment company, like Sony. With computers being commodity-priced, there's not a lot of money in being the best; just in being the biggest seller. So if the computer side of the company wanes, as long as they develop big-selling techno items, like the iPod, all the stockholders and financial reporters will be happy. As computer buyers, however, they'll be reluctant to trust a company that keeps changing direction.

Not sure about this. I hate Intel almost as much as MS and have never owned or reccomended one of their chips. Always lackluster performance and reliability at high prices.

However, Apple should have went AMD. They have almost always put out the better performing chips with the best technology. They have a kick-butt, low power 64-bit chip TODAY and have been able to supply where Intel has fallen flat.

But, if OSX can run on any x86 machine, that would be great as I could roll my own with an AMD inside (just like I did on the PC side) and still run the best OS.

Or I can just ditch the Mac altogether (how I love the OS) and either: 1) go back to Winblows 2) go to Linux

Decisions, decisions.

Don't want an Intel CPU at all but love the OS.

Will be interesting.

Some have said that a computer isn't an investment. That's not how they have been marketed by Apple, however. Apple knew they were asking you to go against the Wintel tide at a premium price, so they sold it as an investment in performance, long-term value, and forward compatibility within their product lines. The "G5 performs better than Pentium" pages and papers are still on their website, as are the guarantees that you are buying a total architecture, not just a box or an OS. Glib statements that "nothing has changed" are just talk. We must wait to see what is delivered, and whether developers desert Apple *AGAIN* (it happened the last two transitions, and it can happen again - that's why it was announced at WWDC, and not an EXPO)

Rosetta is interesting. But it did take some time to get that photoshop application running. Maybe they need to cache the translation of the program to speed things up. ( or maybe they already do ?)

Its just unfortunate to go back to the future with x86. Too bad IBM and Moto have other priorities. I just have the feeling Apple is the yapping poodle crying for attention. Little market share and little sway.

Why does it kill classic? They just recompile the emulator.

Now will Microsoft make a new build of Virtual PC? I bet wine will be a better alternative on the x86 box. What about Quark they were lagging before I recall.

This entire effort is going to rise or fall on Rosetta and these dual builds. If I could only have waited a year. Zealots/whining whatever. Its good to be cautious in these situations. I'm skeptical because I've been through 2 transitions already. On a positive note, they are ahead of the game. I'm going to get hit when they stop the upgrades for my G5. So, I could have had the box for X years but now its like X/3 years of lifetime. That is my hangup.

If the economy goes sour, real estate crash etc, I could see Apple being bought out by microsoft. I could see a windows replacement.

I truly am disapointed in my fellow mac users. I have been using apple's since my parents bought us kids an Apple IIE, I couldn't even think of buying anything but a mac. So, you bought a New G5 congrats, but that machine will last beyond the support of apple. I read how most you b**** about the small speed bump when the last G5's came out, now they are moving to a platform where speed will be the same as windows boxes, that takes their only advantage away. Now apple will be able to go head to head with Micro$oft and their clan. Off the subject but this explains the mac mini clone.

I was also underwhelmed.

Office seemed to open up SLOWER than my G4/1.67 Powerbook. File loads, especically that Word doc where you could practically watch the screen redraw...

Photoshop starts up slow on all platforms (as do all Adobe apps for some reason). But the performance as Steve was clicking around was underwhelming as well.

I know this is still very beta stuff, but if this is the "speed" of the P4 Macs, it is underwhelming to say the least. We all knew the P4 is a vastly inferior architecture to anything (Especially AMD), but damn, that was BAD!

I can see several reasons why this is a good move on the part of Apple.

1. With consoles dominating the PowerPC market, they will inevitably have more control as to which direction the chip is headed. I doubt Apple wants Microsoft (OS competitor) and Sony (iPod competitor) determining the direction their hardware goes in.

2. The PowerPC project, at least the chips that made it into Macs was a break even business for IBM. What does this mean? It means that Apple is not a priority. Money is always the priority in business, and if consoles were IBM's priority, chip supply issues may become an even bigger issue then they were before.

3. Steve may be making the big move to try and unseat Microsoft or at least take back some market share. Now I know this sounds far fetched, but remember, Steve has an enormous ego, and I'm sure it's crying for him to get back at Gates in a sneaky fashion. He would never admit this now, because it would ruin his sneak attack. Just think of it. What if Apple sells Intel computers with MacOS preloaded but that can still run Windows? Think of the sales pitch "Now you can try Mac OS X, the most advanced operating system in the world with no risk. We're so confident in its superiority that this machine will run Windows too. If you don't like Mac, you can switch right back to Windows". Who in their right mind would switch from Mac to Windows when MacOS is preloaded. If they did, I'm confident they'd dig up their MacOS CD in no time to switch back. But at that point it wouldn't matter, because Apple will have already sold the hardware, which is where they make most of their money. And they won't have an excuse for being much more expensive than their Windows counterparts now that the hardware is so similar. Therefore consumers have nothing to lose, and everyone knows that Apple is king at producing reliable hardware, well, as reliable as you can get in the desktop computer industry.

4. When MacOS X was in it's infancy, they were working on an environment called Red Box, which ran windows applications in a Mac environment. Could this still be in the catacombs of Apple just like this intel version of the OS was? A decent windows compatibility environment may be much more feasible now. If you ask me, I think it's entirely possible that Steve has a phased plan to take over the world. I know he thinks he can.

5. Intel's roadmap for processors puts them far ahead of IBM in a couple years. What's more is that they still have a 64 bit processor that was never picked up, and millions went into development. With Apple, they may have a willing partner to exploit this new chip design and make back the money they lost. Also, IBM has a bad reputation, they told Steve he'd have a 3 GHz processor in 6 months. 2 years later, he has a 2.7 GHz processor that could heat a small town in the arctic.

6. Intel is a better choice for portable and wireless technology and consumer electronics devices. Apple knows the value of stepping outside the desktop arena. They want a willing partner to elegantly blend entertainment and computing. They also want a chip they can put in a laptop.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if this is some kind of 5-10 year plan of Steve's to take over the computing world. He has the one company who can produce enough chips to do it behind him, and he is positioned to execute one of the most brilliant, although risky as all h*** business plans ever. If anyone can pull it off, it's Apple.