[Quoth_the_Raven]

Life goes on. Change is good. Enjoy it. I, for one, love the fact that there's always something exciting going on in the world of Mac.
If anything, developers should rejoice. This provides them with a potentially huge source of revenue. The users benefit too, with the promise of universal binaries.

[Quoth_the_Raven]

I can't understand why you'd wait. By the time there is significant user migration to the Mac/Intel platform, it might be time to upgrade your hardware anyway. Of course, the Dual G5 will probably still be going strong and running all of the latest versions of FCP, etc. (don't forget about universal binaries).

[Wormwood]

In reply to:

---

Wouldn't Metrowerks want to recompile their product to do the same on the iNtel proc.? I know they'd be going up against Apple's Xcode, but CodeWarrior has an established user base that will still want to keep using a product they're familiar with just on the iNtel chip. One would hope that their code was developed using a higher level development system.

---

Oopsie, Freescale sold their x86 compiler technology to Nokia last year... CW can't make x86 binaries anymore! (The managers that are running what's left of Metrowerks have to be kicking themselves in the head at this point!)

[cseeman]

As a small video business a computer's useful life it critical. We can only guess what the developers will do in the end. Normally the computer I purchase now would hold on as my "lead" computer until somewhere between late 2007 to early 2009 depending on what I need for my clients and new software (like Motion) which requires more recent technology.
My HUNCH is that software that supports altivec (video and graphics software for example) will be the first to be dead ended since it will be the toughest to maintain. My HUNCH is the hardware sales for PPC computers is going to drop so the "user base" will change over quickly. I'd be one of a small number of professionals who made their Mac purchase in this 2 year period (and next year's numbers are likely to be smaller). Hence I speculate that a Dual G5 purchased today will have a shorter useful life than a Dual G5 purchased in 2003 or a G4 purchased in 2001/2002.
Rather than support for PPC/Altvec extending 2.5 years 2007, I think it'll be more like a year (maybe less) since they'll likely be a big bump up in purchases made by professionals who bought between 2001-2004 and held off.

[AlanCE]

what in theeee hell are you talking about. if you change your code for version 7.0 of whatever and you fix all that altivec crap, it's GONE. next build you do, it's still GONE. version 8 rolls around, still using universal binaries, that Altivec code is STILL GONE. /edit my point here... developers fix it once and forget about it, it's not like the altivec hurdle will recur every build they do.
by 2007 i'm guessing 20% of mac users will be have Mactel boxes, but about 10% of all macs in use will be Mactel. Developers simply cannot aim at that tiny portion of an already small market, they will still be making fat ppc/x86 code for 4, 5, 6 years at least. /edit #2 UGH, what i meant by that first sentence but failed to articulate: 20% of mac users might buy new Mactel boxes, but many will keep their old PPC boxes or sell them or donate them etc... i.e. new mactel boxes will be in circulation but the vast majority in use are still PPC. my brain is mushy today.
My 11 month old G5 is going to run everything until i replace it somtime in 2007 or 2008, i have no worries about that. My mother in law is still getting a new imac on my advice (and i do like her).
why some of you think developers are going to abandon PPC versions of their code simply because a frew mac users buy mactel boxes in a year is baffling. The main mass of mac consumers will be nowhere near a Mactel majority in 2-3 years.

[MacGod]

Here's the big thing that I wonder about the whole Apple --> Intel thing (I've posted this to several forums in the hope that someone can give me some insight):
1) Why not use the Cell processor? From everything I've read about it, the Cell provides amazing speed, modest power requirements, excellent expandability and a dynamic, improving future product pipeline. And it's PowerPC-based. So why not move to that? Is IBM reserving all of them for the games market? Could they simply not guarantee enough supply to Apple to make them happy?
2) If you're really going to change horses and go x86, why Intel, not AMD? Again, I've read numerous reviews and articles that show pretty clearly that AMD's Opteron ships blow the doors off anything Intel has to offer. I know AMD's power consumption tends to be less-than-ideal, but are laptops really important enough that Apple is willing to settle for an inferior desktop/server processor to accommodate the laptop segment? And why not go for a mix of AMD and Intel if that's the case-Intel for PowerBooks, AMD for XServes/PowerMacs? Other manufacturers mix-and-match their CPUs between the two companies, why can't Apple?
I realise that nobody who will read this board was sitting in on the Apple-IBM-Intel meetings where all this was decided, but I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts. Thanks.

[jmincey]

"Life goes on. Change is good."
I do not need to be instructed on this. Your zen-like observation notwithstanding, merely to raise questions about one change is not then to suggest I oppose ALL change. What makes a change either good or bad lies in the nature and merits of the change in question and not in the mere intrinsic existence of change for its own sake.
Or would you never vote for the incumbent candidate in an election?

[patriotusa]

In reply to:

---

I was planning on getting a Dual G5 this week. That's changed. As a small video business I expect to get a new computer every 2-3 years anyway. The question is now the machine's long term compatibility with future software. Normally my older machines remain in service running CURRENT software albeit a bit more slowly.

---

I think you failed to understand a key part of Jobs's speech, and the article above. Read the following carefully:

In reply to:

---

Because of Apples new Universal Binary approach, developers can deliver a single program that contains within it both Intel and PowerPC versions of their software. You wont have Intel apps PowerPC apps floating around, making it easy to click on the wrong one (and making it impossible to drag-and-drop software from an Intel Mac to a PowerPC one). And future Mac software will likely be sold simply as Mac software, not specifying whether its Mac for Intel or Mac for PowerPC youll install it, double-click on the program, and your computer will use the right code for its processor.

---

In other words, all new software will almost certainly be written as universal binary, running on both hardware platforms. As many others have already said, there are far too many PPC Macs out there for developers to suddenly stop supporting them. I suspect it will be at least five to seven years before the majority of Macs are Intel based.
If it makes you feel any better, I just ordered a G4 Powerbook yesterday with no regrets or concerns whatsoever.

[Kerrigore]

In reply to:

---

1) Why not use the Cell processor? From everything I've read about it, the Cell provides amazing speed, modest power requirements, excellent expandability and a dynamic, improving future product pipeline. And it's PowerPC-based. So why not move to that? Is IBM reserving all of them for the games market? Could they simply not guarantee enough supply to Apple to make them happy?

---

I'm no expert, but from what I've read, cell is all but useless as a general computing processor because it by nature must be specifically designed for a certain task; the ones going into the PS3 are designed to play games. Basically, they strip out all the other parts of the chip required to do other things in order to make the chip itself faster, more efficient, etc. The bottom line seems to be that a cell, while excellent for something like the PS3, would actually end up slower than today's processors when used most daily applications.

In reply to:

---

2) If you're really going to change horses and go x86, why Intel, not AMD? Again, I've read numerous reviews and articles that show pretty clearly that AMD's Opteron ships blow the doors off anything Intel has to offer. I know AMD's power consumption tends to be less-than-ideal, but are laptops really important enough that Apple is willing to settle for an inferior desktop/server processor to accommodate the laptop segment? And why not go for a mix of AMD and Intel if that's the case-Intel for PowerBooks, AMD for XServes/PowerMacs? Other manufacturers mix-and-match their CPUs between the two companies, why can't Apple?

---

No one really knows, but the consensus as far as I have seen is that one or more of the following may be true:
a) Intel may have been willing to cooperate more in negotiations; it is possible that AMD had some unreasonable conditions, or were just being kind of standoffish
b) Apple sees something we don't. Since this is a change "looking forward", Apple obviously wants to go with the company that it believes will have the strongest future. Yes, the current Opterons are said to be superior to intel offerings, but do you really think that will neccesarily be the case a year from now, when the macintel boxes come to fruition? What happens if a year and a half from now Apple releases a Powermac sporting Dual Pentium D processors?
c) Apple may not want to tie themselves to the "underdog" in the PC chip making market. They see intel with its superior marketshare, resources, development budget, etc... and maybe they see a company with the very advantages Apple lacks. I mean, Apple just got through dealing with IBM's inability to ship them the volume of chips they want. Do they want to tie themselves to the company with the biggest production capacity? Of course.
d) The "power vs performance" argument. Maybe Apple believes that looking forward, efficiency may prove to be more important than raw power. What does it matter if you have a chip running at 5 GHz if it takes a fan the size of a CD case to cool it? Perhaps apple feels that intel is better equipped to deal with the "heat wall" issue than AMD currently is.
But most of all, I do think that if they had to, Apple could make the transition to AMD in the future.
Hope this offers some insight, maybe some other more knowledgable people will be able to provide more in depth explanations =)

[Nobody]

Whatever, man. Nothing but negativity from the Mac "faithful" (which, the term "faithful" would seem to be a bit of an oxymoron, listening to some of you since this announcement).
The bad part is I can almost feel some of your undisclosed thoughts:
"Oh man, now we're in bed with the "darkside." Oh dude, what will we do now?
"Aw man, I can't believe Apple is going to use those processors that evil Microsoft company uses."
"WHOA! DUDE! It's seeming more and more [all the time] that Apple may be as capitalist in design, as a company, as those evil and greedy Wintel ogres."

Well, first of all, A little darkness makes one appreciate the light a lot more... not that I agree with ANY of that silly "darkside" neurosis.
Secondly, who cares what MS uses to run their crappy OS... "It's about the OS itself, stupid!"
And for those old world Mac users who dreamed of one day having everything handed to them free, as Open-Sourced hardware and software, and who felt Apple was ONLY playing along with the capitalist corporate "meanies" in an effort to beat them at their own game and use the rewards only for "noble" ventures is living somewhere, well, in the 60's! NEWS FLASH* Apple is just as corporate and money-hungry as any other compnay out there. And why shouldn't they be? They ARE a company who's survival depends solely on them turning profit.
As far as all other fears expressed, the worse part is no one knows a thing about how the Mac OS and it's assorted applications will run on Intel, with the exception of Apple and Intel themselves. I think the Mac OS is going to absolutely fly now, the way it should have run all along. But what do I know? I know NOTHING yet, and that's my point.
You don't know a thing about Rosetta, yet you're already assuming (as if you know anything) Rosetta is going to make apps as sluggish as those "current excuses for software" we all know as "emulators." The article's writer already stated the demos shown at WWDC, complete with Office Suite and Photoshop, appeared not to have experienced ANY hits in performance whatsoever. Yet you apparently skipped right over that line, when reading.
Again, no one, outside of Apple and Intel, yet know how things are going to run. So instead of knee-jerking with this announcement, and lamenting the fact Apple has now joined forces with the "darkside" (which is the silliest thing one could possibly be concerned with), wait and see what happens... wait before you get your panties in a bunch. Why stress? It's going to happen! Either live with it or place your rear on your shoulders and switch to Wintel (although you could go back to pencil and paper if you like!).
I for one am ecstatic about this move... it's been a long time in coming as far as I'm concerned. And I'll quote one of the developers for my main reason for wanting this switch:
"We need to be with the company (which is obviously neither IBM or Moto) thats going to be investing several billion dollars a year and making the fastest chips available (which would be Intel). What were going to get is really freaking fast Macintoshes.
Did you hear that? "Really freaking FAST Macintoshes"... something I think Apple should have been more considerate of years ago.
When the time comes and this entire issue turns out to be the end of Apple Computer and the Mac OS as we know it, then, and only then should you have major fits of frustration over this move. At that point I will gladly join you in your mourning.
Apple's going to get chips as fast as they need them now, no waiting, and we're going to get machines who's speeds match their superior design, period. I say "Hello Intel, goodbye IBM and Moto lamers... good riddance." Apple deserves better treament and devotion than they've received from those two "ball-dropping" companies for years now. IBM dropped the ball just as they've done with just about everything else they've ever put their hands on. Remember, Gates got DOS from IBM years ago and the rest is history. IBM could have been in MS' place but their uninsightful leadership screwed that moved.
Have a coke and a smile, and let Stevie and Co. worry about the details. As much as I disagree with many of Apple's decisions, they are more privy to what's actually going on over there on the left coast than I am. Actually, I think this a brillaint move by Jobs... it shows he's willing to do whatever it takes to continue Apple's business success.
I think this is a wonderful move... a move which will benefit the Mac community in ways we cannot even begin to imagine at this point. (Especially when some of you are about to have massive coronaries over the move)
Don't put the gun to your head yet... give it [at least] a couple of months! :-P

[jmincey]

"It's about the OS itself, stupid!"
If this were true, Apple would not have made the switch from IBM to Intel to begin with. Clearly Jobs himself contends that the processor matters and plays a role in a user's computing experience.
Or did you not mean to take this position yourself and instead you are only quoting a sample argument of those who take a contrary point of view? (Later you say you are ecstatic about this move so presumably you feel that the processor does matter at least to a degree.)

[cseeman]

In reply to:

---

what in theeee hell are you talking about. if you change your code for version 7.0 of whatever and you fix all that altivec crap, it's GONE. next build you do, it's still GONE. version 8 rolls around, still using universal binaries, that Altivec code is STILL GONE.

---

You write version 8 adding new features. Some of those features need to use altvec on PPC and you have to make sure both work. Altivec doesn't go away UNLESS you simply abandon it in version 8. It remains to be seen whether Jobs promise of simplicity is truly what he says it is.
There's also the after sales tech support issues. I do this professionally. Not only will you be dealing with different iterations of OS and Quicktime and different 'puters with changes to chips and graphics cards over a few years, you throw in different processors into the mix now.
Do you know the problems FCP users had with various version of Panther 10.3.4 through 10.3.9, and the problems varied based on version of Quicktime and PowerPC/Graphics Card (Quicksilver G4 vs MD G4, different generataions of G5 and the various Graphics cards used at the time? The tech support and compatibility issues even using the same code can be problematic. You magnify that with another processor type. SOME developers may drop PPC support soner than later because the trouble shooting becomes a cost issue.
There comes a point when a developer as well as Apple will say, want to run the latest version of X than get your new MacIntel. My HUNCH, is that'll start to happen around late 2007 (30 months from now).
Job's keynote to WWDC is very much a sales pitch to developers, not a true technical guarentee of anything.

[Silversmith]

Riiiiight. Apple is in a "Death Rattle." Even with the switch to In-Hell chips, the Mac OS is so far superior to anything that has come out of Redmond (or will, as Longhorn is just Win-blows ME, the Return of The OS From Hell), that the chance Apple will die due to quality concerns is nil.
As long as the majority of QUALITY printed matter, music, and graphics is created on anything other than Win-blows, Apple's existence is in ZERO danger.
And that's the facts, Jack!

[Silversmith]

In reply to:

---

The current Mac market share is about 1'5% worldwide. Mac developers could sell to such 98'5% soon.
For that it is only required that Apple takes these steps now that we have a new MacTel platform (as compared to the WinTel one):
1 - Mac OS X runs on any PC-Windows box.
2 - Mac OS X becomes open source and free (as Linux).
That means hundreds of millions of current Windows users will switch to Mac OS X. Windows and Linux will be history,
And Apple could prosper as Microsoft does (selling software), as well as selling top Macs a top price, music, movies, iPods, and new innovations...

---

What KIND of CRACK are you smoking, Win-Tel, loser boy?
The Mac OS will NEVER run on your garden variety crap-box PC from Wally-World, so grow up, and get used to it. And it will NEVER be free! The Mac OS is what makes Apple what it is!
Whatever you're smoking, put it down and DON'T share it with the rest of us....