Steve talked about the two major challenges with the shift to x86:
- Getting Mac OS X run on Intel
- Intel versions of Applications
The first challenge ended up not being much of one at all, as Jobs revealed that OS X has been running on x86 platforms for the past 5 years; every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel.
OS X has been living a secret double life for the past 5 years.
This picture highlights the building on Apple's Cupertino campus where x86 development has taken place for the past 5 years.
As we mentioned before, the entire keynote was actually done on a Pentium 4 3.6GHz system with 2GB of DDR memory.
All of the slides featuring an Intel die shot were actually of the dual core Pentium D, but for whatever reason, the keynote (and its demos) as well as the developer kit were done on a single core Pentium 4 3.6GHz processor.
The second challenge is obviously a bit more complicated, but with the OS already working on Intel platforms, one major hurdle is a non-issue.
At the conference, Apple released an updated version of their Xcode development suite. Xcode 2.1 will let you compile to both PowerPC and Intel architectures, creating a universal binary and allowing developers to ship one copy of software that supports both processors.
A checkbox in Xcode 2.1 will allow developers to create a universal binary that will run on both PPC and Intel platforms.
Apple also committed to supporting both PowerPC and Intel architectures for "a long time" in the future.
The transition in architectures will be an overlapping one.
In order to show just how easy it would be to port OS X applications to the Intel platform, Apple comissioned the developers of Mathematica to port their application to an Intel dev kit. The entire Mathematica 5 app was compiled and running on Intel OS X platforms within 2 hours using Xcode 2.1.
Although Apple is pushing very hard for developers to begin creating universal binaries immediately, they recognized that not all applications would have Intel support on Day 1. Enter: Rosetta.
Rosetta is a binary translator that will allow PowerPC applications to run on Intel CPUs that will ship when Apple begins their transition. We have seen binary translators used in the past. They are never fast, but Apple insists that it will be "fast enough" for those applications that aren't Intel compatible on Day 1.
Steve demo'd Rosetta by opening Microsoft Word, Excel as well as Photoshop to show that it just worked. Loading Photoshop took a fairly long time and we'd expect the larger titles like Photoshop to be available as an Intel version when Apple starts shipping hardware.
OS X (PowerPC) Photoshop running on an Intel OS X system using Rosetta.
Apple will be releasing a Development Platform configured with a 3.6GHz Pentium 4 and will be priced at $999. Apple mentioned that this wouldn't be a product and is strictly for development purposes, and as such, it must be returned by 2006. The development platforms will begin shipping in about 2 weeks.
Microsoft had a representative drop by and pledge support for universal binaries in all future versions of Microsoft Office for the Mac platform, although they didn't commit to a specific time frame for release. Bruce Chizen, CEO of Adobe, also dropped by to pledge his support for the OS X Intel platforms.
In a very impressive showing, Paul Otellini, President & CEO of Intel, dropped by to commemorate the partnership. Paul went through the histories of both Apple and Intel, touching on everything from the founding of each company to the 1996 Apple commerical where they set the Intel bunny on fire:
But, now all hard feelings are set aside and the two companies should be bringing forth some pretty interesting technologies moving forward.
We think that the move to Intel (or x86 in general) makes a lot of sense for Apple, especially with dual core CPUs being widely available by the time that their transition begins in the middle of 2006. If any company can pull off this large of a transition, it is Apple; and the move to do it quick and as painless as possible is really the only way to do it.
While it does seem like it would hurt Apple's desktop sales throughout the end of this year, by offering support for both PowerPC and Intel architectures for the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that it would hurt Apple too much. Pushing for a quick transition starting as early as possible in 2006 would obviously minimize the negative impact that today's announcement will have on revenue.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
65 Comments
View All Comments
santa590 - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
31)It's not Windows apps ported to OS X. It's OS X apps for PPC ported to OS X for x86 (or intel).
Pandaren - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
To all Intel bashers: Yonah, Merom, and Conroe. That's why Apple is making the switch.finbarqs - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
haha i think it's more of Apple's way to take away from some of microsoft's storm. In fact, i think that's what apple has been planning all this time... to become a bigger player in the computing market. Apple always have their niche 5% market. With the transition to Intel's x86 architecture, They can finally take away some of the storm that's been blessed with microsoft. Now people will have a choice of either OSX or Windows... Finally Microsoft's quality control will go up!Wightout - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
31) i would think that it is for the same reason that BMW dosn't want their cars in every home. it would destroy the value and prestiege of owning one. You would loose the idea that you and your mac are special UNLIKE everyone else.hoppa - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
I really can't see why Apple wouldn't want to release OS X for general x86, other than their image. They would make a hell of a lot more selling their OS than they would lose selling proprietary hardware. Especially if, as they claim, Windows apps can be ported to OS X in a couple hours! I'd be one of the first to switch . And I may actually even consider buying it!-andy
fishbits - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
"On another point, if they don't want to make their OS run on anthing but Intel and specific hardware, just what is the advantage?"Because they can charge more for it to Apple loyalists who can't go out and build their own. Maybe one day Apple buyers will say "Hey! We're pretty much getting PC hardware and dropping an extra $1000 or so for the OS and a case!" Will have to see if that happens, and then what Apple's reaction will be. Maybe when they figure out that the Power PC was just a good CPU and not a magical entity, and that Intel will be providing chips that are even better (with Apple itself shouting Pentium love from the rooftops) the minds will uncloud.
I'd love it if it meant I could get OS X for $100-200 (money Apple's currently not getting), and more folks could give OS X a try without dismissing it due to price of entry.
"For that matter, the argument of AMD can't handle the capacity is crap. What is 1.8% of the market? AMD can't handle that?"
Sure they can, but not without conceding that part of what we currently think of as the x86 market. Apple and AMD may yet do great things together some day, but it's far more vital that they gain ground in their current markets before taking on something new. When AMD's not teetering on the edge anymore (hopefully soon) they'll have more breathing room for such projects.
wilburpan - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
One more item in favor of Intel CPU's over AMD:Multitasking performance appears to be consistently better with Pentium D chips over Athlon 64 with today's options. See the "Intel Dual Core Performance Preview Part II: A Deeper Look" article on Anandtech: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
Again, if Apple wants to be at the legendary living room digital hub, multitasking performance may be a priority over FPS in a FPS.*
* Frames per second in a first person shooter. I've always wanted to say that. :)
sprockkets - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
On another point, if they don't want to make their OS run on anthing but Intel and specific hardware, just what is the advantage? So it has a different processor in it, and one that is according to apple much slower.For that matter, the argument of AMD can't handle the capacity is crap. What is 1.8% of the market? AMD can't handle that?
That's Dell's argument too, but then again, over the past year Intel has been pretty slow as well to deliver. And it's not as if 100% of your processor shipments will turn AMD overnight.
Wightout - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
hopefully there wont be that stupid insignia plastered to the front of all the new mac machines, or any of the laptops. yuuuuck.....!Anemone - Monday, June 6, 2005 - link
Should be X86 I think and thus AMD as well but that's just my $.02. Overall a nice move and one where we might be finally able to directly compare OS's on the same platforms...Nice!