Apple and Intel, What Does It Really Mean?

The fact that Apple is moving to Intel chips has certainly raised a lot of questions and noise. It is an interesting change for Apple to be sure. And who would have guessed that as Apple moves to Intel Inside, Microsoft is moving to PowerPC? The new Xbox will be PPC, and if I read Microsoft’s rumblings correctly, so may some PCs be soon too.

 

For me, this brings up a lot of questions for which I do not
have the answers, but I would to take a stab at some and starting a discussion
in any case on the them all. Your thoughts are welcome:

 

• Apple, for years, has told us that Megahertz does not matter. For years we have been told that a 2 GHz PPC is better than a 3.5 GHz Intel part. For years, we have been told of the amazing superiority of the PPC architecture over Intel, and how Intel’s architecture is based on old, outdated ways reaching near the top of the ability to grow.
  • So, has this all been untrue? I think not. In fact, I suspect that Apple’s move comes on the heels of Intel’s new 64-bit architecture changes. While still kept mostly under wraps, it looks like Intel, and AMD both will introduce new 64-bit architectures that are not based on the Win32 instruction set any more. Steve Balmer himself said that to continue to work on Windows in 64 bit, everyone would need to switch to .Net, basically Microsoft’s answer to Java, a byte code interrupted or compiled-on-the-fly technology. Why is this necessary? Obviously to allow the code to support multiple processor architectures. This would also indicate to me that ANY processor could be used if you had the right core OS and a good just-in-time compiler.
  • Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have all chosen PowerPC parts for their new game machines. Since gaming machines need the best of the best to be cutting edge, would this not imply that these companies see the PowerPC as the better processor? I would say yes. It also tells me that Microsoft already has a version of XP nearly ready to run on PowerPC. Isn’t Xbox OS just a modified version of Windows XP Media Edition? But if Apple has to compete with these three companies for PPC parts in the future, do they foresee supply problems? If I were Apple, I would!
  • As
    for Megahertz, even Intel and AMD now number their parts without the
    speed. The concept of megahertz seems to be outdated. Who cares? It is
    how the system responds, and that is more about the OS than the processor
    in most cases.
• Is
  Apple trying to compete against PCs in price, and also in a measurable
  performance?
  • No
    doubt, if they use the same processor, they should be able to deal to
    similar prices. But then again, to get the same price Dell gets, Apple
    will need to sell as many computers as Dell. Can they do this? We shall
    see.
  • On
    performance, I do not know. So far, the benchmarks show that the best G5
    runs better than the best Pentium. However, we are talking about a new
    line of 64-bit processors architectures from Intel. Maybe Apple has seen
    these babies and they kick butt over anything IBM has, if you will excuse
    the pun, in the pipeline. It may be because of this new performance that
    Apple wants to switch.
• Will
  developers accept this?
  • So Apple needs to convince their developers AGAIN to switch to a new processor. Does this really matter? Probably not. Given today’s technology in compilers, as long as the OS remains constant, if a good Apple compiler is produced, recompiling your applications for a different processor should not be a big deal if designed well. But this will be up to Apple to make work smoothly.
  • Compatibility becomes an issue. If I upgrade from a G4 or G5 to a new Intel based Mac, what happens to all my current and existing software? Many of these companies will NOT build a new version, and if they do, will I have to buy a whole not product to keep working? Apple needs Gary Dividian again to write a very good translator or emulator to keep “old” PPC programs running on the new architecture. This worked fairly well in the 68K to PPC transition. Can they do this again? I think they will have to do this to be successful.
• How
  does Apple convince their current customers and potential new customers as
  well as developers that this new transition will not just make Apple a
  technology dud?
  • Again, this is a difficult problem. Their last transition of processors cost Apple an estimated 5% market share, and the transition was actually done smoothly. The transition to OS-X seems to have cost them another estimated 2% market share. I am sure similar fears along with predictions of Apple’s doom and gloom will flood the market and scare away buyers and upgraders. How does Apple quell these fears?
  • For
    me, the Macintosh will still be the Macintosh. Do I really care what
    processor is inside my cool looking laptop if it is still a Mac? No!
    Especially no if it is cheaper and faster. That is the real issue here.
    To remain successful, they need to keep current Mac users happy, and that
    will be the hardest trick of all. When I switched from 68K to PowerPC
    based machines, I was not a happy camper. They were slower and there was
    not a lot of native software readily available. Yet, the transition
    worked, all my stuff continued to run, and the fact the processor changed
    meant very little to me in the long run. I have to hope Apple will figure
    this out again.
  • The
    last transition has developers fleeing the scene. How does Apple keep
    them now? Will this transition actually make it easier for Windows
    programs to be ported to the Mac in the future? If that is the case,
    maybe we see more programs for the Mac?
  • Or
    is it possible that Macintosh will have a unique, available only to Apple
    processor from Intel? No one has suggested this, but it is possible that
    the processors Apple uses will not be available to other PC makers. In
    that case, what really changes for incompatible Mac to PC issues?
  • If
    it is compatible, will Virtual PC run even better now?
    style=”mso-spacerun: yes”> 😉
• Monday, Steve admitted that the change will not be fast, and there was also noise about already working on this for 5 years. “This is not a transition that will happen overnight… “It’s going to happen over a period of years” What does this mean?
  • Frankly,
    that scares me. If it takes Apple 5 years plus another 2 to get the OS
    onto Intel, how long will it take developers to make the switch? Will
    they even try? Does this indicate the switch is not easy? It was these
    words by Steve that worried me most.
  • Steve also announced a “transition kit” that translates programs written for the PowerPC to run on Intel equipped Macs. This will be interesting to see how well it works, as this is KEY to keeping customers happy. And on just how many programs will it really work?
• How
  does Apple protect it self from clone makers? Will Dell and Gateway now be
  able to make Mac clones? Since more and more of Mac hardware is COTS
  (Commercial Off The Shelf) parts, how does Apple protect its hardware
  sales?
  • This is a tough problem for Apple, but perhaps a boon for Mac users. Cheaper clones would hut Apple’s own sales of hardware, but sell more operating systems. Does Apple still make enough on the low-end machines to care? Last time Apple looked at clones, their margins were as high as 65% on some machines, so hardware sales losses were critical to Apple. With margins in the 20% range these days, and perhaps even lower in the MacMini, perhaps having others build low end Mac clones is a good thing.
  • Of
    course, if this does happen, more Macs means more issues with virus and
    malware eventually. The bad with the good.
• What
  are the other issues?
  • As
    everyone knows, there has been no G5 PowerBook so far, although many
    expect one soon. One advantage to Intel based parts is that they
    currently offer better power management on the high end. Apple needs this
    to continue its PowerBook line. For the portables, this seems very good
    news. While the specific on what Intel parts Apple plans to use are not
    known, you can be sure power consumption will be high on the list of
    requirements to make a new high end PowerBook possible.
  • Cheaper parts? New Intel parts are never cheap, but neither are new PPC parts. Assuming that Intel followers make “clone” chips, prices for Intel based or compatible processors could drop prices faster.
  • Will
    the Mac start-up sound be changed to the Intel sound?
  • Why has Apple not moved to “Cell”, the IBM part co-developed with Sony and Toshiba, or another bleeding edge Cell processor? This is a mystery to me actually. The “trend” in processors has been slowing moving to multiple processor core architecture for some time, and this is truly the next generation in processing, a place Apple has tried to be. Perhaps the Intel chips Apple chose will also have this kind of processing power. Intel has been leaking info about multi-core parallel processors in new designs for a while. Maybe we get some new Intel design to make Macs even better?
  • Do
    software developers need to keep a Intel and PPC version under
    development? And if yes, for how long? This could be a real problem.
  • What will Apple’s support for older machines be during and after the transition? Apple has been well known for leaving older machines behind more quickly.

 

So these are just some of the things that come to mind when
I think of the transition. What will it really mean? If Apple handles it
correctly, very little I am sure.
Mac will still be running OS-X (or maybe OS-XI by that time) and it will
still look and fell like a Mac. Unfortunately, it will just have that almost
impossible to remove INTEL INSIDE sticker near the keyboard. So maybe I no
longer need to worry about how Apple with get people to buy a PC anymore. They
will just build one themselves.