|
| Saturday, June 25, 2005 |
|
Apple/Intel FAQ
What did Apple announce at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) on June 6, 2005?
Where can I find out more official information about this announcement?
Why did Apple make this change?
What has Apple done to prepare for this transition?
Has Apple ever made a transition of this magnitude before?
Will all of my applications run on a PowerPC- or x86-based Mac OS X system?
What about 64-bit computing?
What about AltiVec/VMX/Velocity Engine?
Why did Apple pick Intel instead of AMD?
Will an x86-based Mac run Windows?
Will any x86-based PC run Mac OS X?
Are PowerPC-based Macs now obsolete?
I was thinking about buying a Mac. Should I not buy one now?
Will Mac OS X be more susceptible to Windows viruses and other malware, or other Windows-specific problems now that it will be running on x86-based hardware?
Will an Intel-based Mac be just the same as any other PC? What will make it unique?
Will Intel-based Macs be as cheap as other PCs?
Will the new Intel-based Macs use BIOS? What will the partition scheme be?
Will the new Intel-based Macs use special proprietary Intel processors and/or chipsets?
Where can I find out more information?
What did Apple announce at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) on June 6, 2005?
Apple announced that it is transitioning from PowerPC processors provided by IBM and Freescale (formerly Motorola) to x86 architecture processors from Intel. The first Intel-based Macs will ship before mid-2006, and the transition will be complete by the end of 2007.
Where can I find out more official information about this announcement?
Apple press release
Intel press release
WWDC keynote address (Transcript)
Why did Apple make this change?
The following scenario likely contributed to this decision:
IBM has been unable to meet its performance commitments for the PowerPC 970 family (G5) processors. In mid-2003, IBM promised 3 GHz G5s to Apple by mid-2004. As of mid-2005, 3 GHz G5s are still not available, over two years after the initial announcement, and over one year after the promised delivery.[1]
Meanwhile, Microsoft has announced that IBM will make 3.2 GHz triple-core G5 derivatives available to Microsoft for Xbox 360.[2] IBM is also concentrating efforts on chips for Nintendo Revolution and Sony PlayStation 3.[3, 3.1] With IBM concentrating on expensive high-end server class processors and the console and embedded markets, and with Apple at less than 2%[4] of IBM's PowerPC business, it was clear IBM's priorities were focused elsewhere.
Apple is also less than 3%[4] of Freescale's PowerPC business, with Freescale focusing on embedded, communications, and automotive markets. The priorities of IBM and Freescale do not coincide with performance and other needs of the traditional desktop and portable computing marketplace.
What has Apple done to prepare for this transition?
Apple has been publicly maintaining the core OS of Mac OS X, Darwin, for both PowerPC and x86 platforms since the release of Mac OS X. Internally, Apple has been secretly maintaining Mac OS X in its entirety and all Apple applications for both PowerPC and x86 for over 5 years, since before Mac OS X's public release.[5] Mac OS X's predecessors also ran on x86.
Apple has made available Xcode 2.1, which adds the capability of creating PowerPC/x86 universal binaries. Xcode 2.1 can be used on either PowerPC or x86 systems to create universal binaries. Application developers already using Xcode in most cases need only recompile their application with an additional checkbox adding x86 architecture support.
Apple has also licensed[6] QuickTransit from Transitive Corporation for Rosetta, a realtime binary translation system to support PowerPC binaries seamlessly on x86 hardware. The current performance of Rosetta is impressive.[7] Rosetta is not a separate environment like Classic. Applications running under Rosetta look, act, and feel exactly like Mac OS X applications always have.
Apple has also made a Developer Transition Kit, an x86-based machine running Mac OS X, available immediately to Apple developers for testing.
Has Apple ever made a transition of this magnitude before?
Yes. In 1994, Apple began a transition from Motorola's 68K architecture to the new Apple/IBM/Motorola PowerPC platform. The PowerPC processor included the capability to emulate 68K instructions, allowing almost all 68K applications to run.[8]
In 2001, Apple began a transition from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. Mac OS X included the capability to run almost all Mac OS 9 applications.[9]
In both cases, Apple demonstrated the ability to make major hardware and software transitions as seamless as practical.
Will all of my applications run on a PowerPC- or x86-based Mac OS X system?
Yes.
By the time x86-based Macs ship, most major software developers will already have recompiled with native x86 support. Those that haven't will continue to run seamlessly under Rosetta. For details on what Rosetta supports, see this page.
The majority of developers compiling for Intel support will already be using Xcode, meaning that continued PowerPC support is as also as simple as a checkbox.
See here for more details.
What about 64-bit computing?
Apple has not forgotten about 64-bit computing, or x86-64. However, Apple is trying to make the initial phase of the transition as simple as possible. 64-bit is a requirement for systems utilizing more than 4GB of RAM, which will be a necessity for some applications in the future, and is currently possible on today's Apple systems; Apple knows 64-bit capability is a requirement.
What about AltiVec/VMX/Velocity Engine?
AltiVec instructions, because they are processor-specific, must be replaced on Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors. You can choose from these two options:
- Use the Accelerate framework. The Accelerate framework, introduced in Mac OS X 10.3 and expanded in 10.4, is a set of high-performance vector-accelerated libraries. It provides a layer of abstraction that lets you access vector-based code without needing to use vector instructions yourself or to be concerned with the architecture of the target machine. The system automatically invokes the appropriate instruction set.
- Port AltiVec code to the Intel instruction set architecture (ISA). The MMX, SSE, SSE2, and SSE3 extensions provide analogous functionality to AltiVec. Like the AltiVec unit, these extensions are fixed-sized SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) vector units, capable of a high degree of parallelism. Just as for AltiVec, code that is written to use the Intel ISA typically performs many times faster than scalar code.
See here for more details.
Why did Apple pick Intel instead of AMD?
AMD was approached, but supply problems similar to those with IBM appeared likely. Also, Intel has been courting Apple for many years. Perhaps some of that effort has paid off. Further, this announcement was designed to be one of political expedience, convenience, exclusivity, and simplicity. The focus was to not scare the analysts and financial markets; those circles are happy with the "Intel" announcement. Further, you must look at Intel's roadmap one to two years into the future to see the types of processors Apple will be using; i.e., they won't be Pentium 4. Finally, since Apple has shown it is willing to switch processor architectures entirely, nothing prevents Apple from availing itself of the best x86 and x86-64 processor technologies available from other x86 vendors once the x86 transition is complete or well underway - including those from AMD, as do many other PC vendors.
Will an x86-based Mac run Windows?
Perhaps not directly, since Apple will likely not be maintaining driver and other support profiles for Windows, but since it will be an x86 architecture, it is very likely that there will be Virtual PC-like products that run Windows and Windows applications in a virtual machine environment at or near the native speed of the hardware. That is, just as fast as if Windows were running on that actual hardware. It is also possible to support DirectX, meaning that Windows games could directly run on x86-based Macs.
It is also likely that other environments for running Windows applications without Windows, such as WINE, will become available.
Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller said Apple would not prevent users from installing Windows on Intel-based Macs:
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."[10]
Will any x86-based PC run Mac OS X?
No.
Apple, via the Mac OS X EULA, US law, and non-support of the product, will not allow Mac OS X to run on x86 hardware, at least in the near term. No doubt someone will hack it to run on various non-Apple x86 configurations, but this will be limited to a relatively small group of people due to the legal prohibitions and non-support, and such use will impact Apple minimally.
In the future, after the x86 transition is complete, it is possible that Apple could consider allowing Mac OS X to run on specific non-Apple hardware. But this is likely to not occur for the foreseeable future; if you want to run Mac OS X, you must still purchase an Apple computer:
Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.[10]
Are PowerPC-based Macs now obsolete?
Not any more than any other PowerPC-based Mac is or ever has been. Support is eventually dropped for all older hardware in the current OS (for example, for PowerPC G3-based systems). Apple usually supports older hardware for an average of 6.5 years in the current OS, and there is no reason to believe that level of support will change, regardless of the processor contained in the hardware that supplants it.
Further, Mac OS X currently has an approximately two year lifecycle. Apple has announced that Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard" will ship at the end of 2006 or early 2007 (thus, Macworld San Francisco 2007 seems a likely target). Apple has also specifically stated that Leopard will support PowerPC. Therefore, just from the official information we know today, it can be inferred that Apple will support PowerPC hardware with the current OS until at least 2009. Also, Apple has provided security updates for the version of Mac OS X immediately previous to the current release since Mac OS X 10.0. Therefore, we can further infer that security updates will be available for Mac OS X running on PowerPC until at least 2011. However, it is likely that PowerPC support will continue beyond this, given Apple's history of legacy hardware support in its operating systems. The official statement from Apple is that PowerPC support will continue for "a long time".
I was thinking about buying a Mac. Should I not buy one now?
x86-based Macs won't even begin shipping until mid-2006, and PowerPC systems will still be shipping until late 2007. If a current Mac hardware offering was appropriate for your needs before the x86 announcement, it is still appropriate now, and will be for its lifetime. Also, buying a Mac is still the only way to run Mac OS X.
Will Mac OS X be more susceptible to Windows viruses and other malware, or other Windows-specific problems now that it will be running on x86-based hardware?
No. It is the operating system, not the underlying hardware, that gives Mac OS X its security.
Will an Intel-based Mac be just the same as any other PC? What will make it unique?
While Apple will use Intel processors in the Intel-based Macs, Apple will still control the design and features of the motherboard, the enclosure, and other included items. Apple's concentration on included features, industrial design, and quality workmanship will not change.
Will Intel-based Macs be as cheap as other PCs?
Even in the traditional PC world, there are wide variations in price for machines that may appear outwardly similar. Since Apple will likely continue to devote significant resources to quality, design, and features, Apple machines will likely continue to be more expensive than the cheapest PCs, but competitive with high-end quality offerings from other manufacturers.
Will the new Intel-based Macs use BIOS? What will the partition scheme be?
It is not yet known. The Developer Transition Kit uses an Intel BIOS (not Phoenix BIOS as has been reported by some web sites). Dean Reece of Apple had this to say on the topic:
We realize there are lots of folks that need to know what is going to be in the ROMs on these new machines, and what partition scheme will be used. Unfortunately, we are not yet in a position to make that information available, but we will communicate it as soon as we reasonably can. Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product.
The general consensus I've heard from other developers is:
1) They don't want us to use BIOS
2) If they haven't heard of EFI, they want us to use OF
3) If they have heard of EFI, they want us to use EFI
This is not a statement about what Apple will use, just what I've heard from developers that have an opinion on the subject.
Hang in there...
- Dean
Information on EFI:
Intel Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI)
EFI Wikipedia article
To repeat: Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product.
Will the new Intel-based Macs use special proprietary Intel processors and/or chipsets?
No[11]:
Intel has indicated to MacFixIt that upcoming Macs based on the company's chipsets will not be proprietary. In other words, the processors and associated components used by Apple will be the same Intel products available to other PC manufacturers, not products designed specifically for Apple.
According to an Intel representative, the company "will sell Apple products that are available to other customers." The representative also noted that Intel will not have to make any modifications to its current manufacturing process in order to fulfill Apple's needs -- in terms of both volume and design.
This revelation further bolsters the notion that commercially shipping Intel-based Macs will be able to boot and run Windows XP and other x86-compatible operating systems. However, speculation remains regarding potential modifications that will be made on Apple's end. Presumably, some customization, corresponding to functionality in the OS, will be necessary to ensure that only Apple-produced Intel systems will be able to run Mac OS X.
Where can I find out more information?
Apple & Intel: What you need to know (Macworld)
Macs on Intel: Special Report (MacInTouch)
This site is not affiliated with Apple Computer, Inc.
|
| posted by Perimbean @ 10:15 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
