I dagens TidBits kan man bl.a. læse følgende:
TidBITS#782/06-Jun-05
Are you sitting down? Apple is switching to Intel processors, starting
next year. Read on for our analysis.
Apple to Transition to Intel Processors
by TidBITS Staff <editors@tidbits.com>
At Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC) today, Steve Jobs
dropped a bombshell on the Mac community by confirming rumors that the
company will transition its computers from the PowerPC architecture to
Intel processors by 2007. The news was leaked in the Wall Street Journal
two weeks ago and confirmed by CNet and the Wall Street Journal last
week.
<
http://developer.apple.com/ wwdc/>
<
http://www.apple.com/ pr/ library/ 2005/ jun/ 06intel.html>
The reason? Power. Citing each company's processor roadmaps beyond 2006,
Jobs said that the PowerPC provides 15 "units of performance" per watt,
while Intel's processors will be able to offer 70 units per watt. Jobs
also mentioned that they've been unable to get a PowerPC G5 processor
that will run cool enough to put into a laptop, a long-standing sore
point among PowerBook aficionados.
However, it's important to note that the WWDC keynote was short on hard
details: no specific hardware nor specific gigahertz targets were
mentioned. Support for other hardware that Apple software depends
heavily on, such as AltiVec, was also not addressed. However, you won't
be able to run out and buy any old Intel box and install Mac OS X,
according to comments by Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller;
Apple will restrict the operating system to Apple-sold Intel computers.
It's likely that these future Macs will be able to run Windows
applications better than with today's emulation software.
Jobs said that Apple has been co-developing an Intel-based version of
Mac OS X for the last five years in order to keep its options open;
every release of Mac OS X has been compiled in-house for Intel
processors. During the WWDC keynote, Jobs demonstrated third-party
applications such as Photoshop CS2 running on a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4
processor-based system under Mac OS X 10.4.1.
Apple plans to ship low-end Macs using Intel processors by this time
next year, while higher-end systems for professionals will appear in
2007. Jobs specifically apologized to those who surely wished they could
have a PowerBook G5 by now, so we wouldn't be surprised to find a
high-end laptop high on the development priority list.
DRM in the Chip -- One aspect of this transition that could prove
interesting, in all positive and negative connotations of the word, is
the so-called "trusted computing" capabilities of Intel's CPUs. Little
has been done with them yet, but as we understand these capabilities,
they're designed to work with a Microsoft digital rights management
(DRM) system. There's no telling if or how they may play into Apple's
existing music or future video plans.
Making the Transition -- Developers who use Xcode should be able to make
minor changes for their programs to work with Intel processors. Compiled
binary applications will be able to contain the processor-dependent code
for both PowerPC and Intel chips, meaning that developers can release a
single program for both types of Macs. Jobs said that more than half of
current Apple developers use Xcode and another 20 percent were planning
to start using it soon. Not surprisingly, he suggested that everyone
else get on the bandwagon, too.
<
http://www.apple.com/ macosx/ features/ xcode/>
Jobs also discussed Rosetta, a binary translator that turns PowerPC code
into code for Intel chips on the fly. While this kind of conversion has
been used for some forms of emulation by other companies in the past,
Jobs indicated that Rosetta is optimized enough to avoid comparisons
with the often clunky and funky operation of Classic within Mac OS X. It
should be a more seamless experience for Mac users, comparable to the
PowerPC transition, when the vast majority of older 680x0 applications
simply ran. Jobs demonstrated Photoshop CS2, Microsoft Office, and
Quicken running in unmodified PowerPC-binary form using Rosetta. Of
course, just because they run doesn't guarantee that they will run well,
especially for something like Photoshop, which is commonly used to
benchmark processor speeds. However, it does signal to users that they
don't have pay for upgrades to all of their software, as many did with
the Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X transition simply to run it on a new
architecture.
Apple has a long history of carrying its older users on its back as it
forges across a river dividing two architectures. The change from 680x0
to PowerPC was generally good - with exceptions - and Mac OS 9 to Mac OS
X was a long, slow, but ultimately successful transition as developers
produced applications that could run in Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X. Even the
addition of a 64-bit processor in the form of the PowerPC G5 produced
relatively few problems.
Jobs also announced that Mac OS X 10.5 will be codenamed Leopard and
ship in late 2006 or early 2007, around the same time as Microsoft
Longhorn - just to heighten the comparison, one wagers.
Small Developer Crunch? The Intel processor transition is likely to
affect smaller developers much more than larger ones. Most large
software companies that create products for Mac OS X also have Windows
versions. The code base can be largely identical. Smaller developers
typically program for a single platform and may not have the financial
or staff resources for the testing necessary.
But Apple made overtures to cater to this audience, which includes
thousands of companies that currently release Mac software. Select and
Premier members of Apple's Developer Connection will be able to purchase
a $999 Developer Transition Kit that comprises an Intel processor-based
computer and preview releases of Mac OS X and Apple software. This
system won't be available to the general public, nor will it work like a
normal consumer system, being geared for programming and testing.
Interestingly, developers will have to return these Intel boxes by the
end of 2006 - it's a loan, not a purchase.
<
http://developer.apple.com/ transitionkit.html>
Too Hot to Handle? In the past, Intel chips ran hotter and required more
power than comparable PowerPCs. But the company has learned a lot from
tuning its Pentium 4M and Pentium M for laptops, and its new dual-core
architecture that has the equivalent of two processors in a single
integrated circuit package doesn't double heat or power as it doubles
computational performance. (Multi-core technology is apparently the
near-term future of most processors, with IBM releasing a nine-core
system called Cell.)
Beyond wattage figures, IBM and Intel had closed the gap on true
computational measures, a previous bone of contention dubbed the
"megahertz myth" when focusing on cycles per second instead of actual
tasks completed. Intel has suffered a number of setbacks in the last
year that have slowed their processor speed targets, but is still on
track to outpace IBM dramatically in the future. IBM has had noticeable
stumbles including delayed G5 deliveries last summer that pushed G5
iMacs back three months.
Gutting Sales? Technical issues aside, the real question is the reaction
of consumers and professionals. Do customers respond to this
announcement by embracing the current Macintosh platform more heavily,
knowing there's a steady uptick ahead for processor performance with
what could be a relatively seamless transition that allows them to use
current software? Or will hardware sales plummet as companies and
individuals decide to wait for faster machines in a year or two? (We
always suggest buying what you need when you need it; there's invariably
going to be something newer, better, and faster around the corner, and
it's silly to wait forever until they stop innovating.)
Apple has basically conceded that PowerPC G5 chips cannot be made cool
enough to be used in laptops, which means that unless Freescale
Semiconductor (Motorola's spun-off chip division) can produce much
faster PowerPC G4s, Apple will wind up releasing only modestly faster
PowerBooks for a full two years, which could cost them quite a bit of
the pro and speed-demon markets.
It's likely that Apple's roadmap shift to Intel will cause financial
analysts and business writers to tell the public and institutions that
Apple now is on a secure footing, no longer tied to a small fraction of
a tiny part of IBM's current revenue, but is rather tying its hopes on
the core business of the world's largest chipmaker. On the other hand,
the stock market generally considers change to be a bad thing, and
there's a distinct tinge of defeat in switching CPUs (ignoring of
course, that what makes the Mac different has always been the operating
system, not the technical details of the hardware underpinnings).
Even more significant is that Windows XP and Longhorn will be facing
head to head challenges with Mac OS X on what is likely to be highly
comparable equipment. Running a native Intel Photoshop under Mac OS X
versus Windows XP will reveal more about the efficiencies of Unix and
Apple's implementation than any of the apples to oranges (or Apples to
Redmonds) tests yet performed.
--
Per Erik Rønne