I ugens TidBits kan man bl.a. læse om Apples udskiftning af PowerPC med
Intel:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple and Intel: The Biggest Non-News of the Year
by Adam C. Engst <ace@tidbits.com>
Apple's announcement last week that Macs would be switching away from
the PowerPC chip to Intel-based CPUs sure was exciting, wasn't it? After
all, Intel is part of the massive Wintel conspiracy that all
right-thinking members of the Macintosh rebellion have been fighting
against for so many years, correct? (Psst... That's Star Wars you're
thinking of. What we have here is just a bunch of technology companies
jostling for position.)
Honestly, as soon as my brain stopped spinning from the unexpectedness
of it all, I've come to think that this announcement is the biggest
non-news event of the year for the vast majority of Macintosh users. Our
friend Jason Snell of Macworld has done a bang-up job of answering the
most common questions surrounding the announcement, so I encourage you
to read his piece; I won't attempt to replicate it here. Instead, here
are the three reasons why I'm unperturbed, along with some counterpoint
from that little voice in the back of my head.
<
http://www.macworld.com/ 2005/ 06/ features/ intelfaq/>
Nothing even begins to change for us users for a year, when Apple plans
to release the first Macs that will use some chip from Intel. Apple
isn't specifying a chip, because it will depend on which one makes the
most sense at that point for the Macs that will be first in line to get
it (likely the lower end of the Mac line). And since it will take two
years for the majority of the Mac line to switch, and until the end of
2007 before Apple plans to stop making PowerPC-based Macs, I just can't
see this announcement affecting my life in the near term. So what all
the fuss boils down to is that Apple will be releasing new Macs (and a
new version of Mac OS X) in a year. I could have guessed that, and
knowing that the Macs might have a different CPU doesn't change the fact
that they're still vaporware.
For counterpoint, it's worth noting that many organizations have
purchase plans that extend years in advance. Obviously, those
organizations now know that if they wait 12 to 30 months, they'll be
able to purchase Macs that will likely be able to run Windows software
at full performance. For such organizations, or anyone who doesn't mind
delaying an upgrade until 2006 or 2007, waiting may make sense, and that
in turn may hurt Apple's sales in the meantime. Remember, though, that
Apple has over $6 billion in cash and no long-term debt, which will help
ease any pain from transition. So even though Apple would prefer to not
lose any sales, the company can weather a downturn.
When push comes to shove, I don't care what CPU is inside my Mac, just
as I don't care what chip runs my iPod, my cell phone, or my washing
machine. To be fair, that's not entirely true. I care what CPU is in my
Mac only to the extent that it enables Mac OS X to operate with
acceptable performance and to run the software I need. When I next need
to buy a new Mac, I'll have to evaluate whether or not the CPUs
currently in use - from whatever company - meet those basic
requirements. For instance, our plans to buy a new Power Mac G5 for
Tonya remain unaffected. She needs a faster Mac to replace her aging 733
MHz PowerPC G4-based QuickSilver, and in keeping with our basic
approach, we'll buy the Mac that provides the most performance for the
money at the point in time when it's necessary. It would be nonsensical
for Tonya to wait a year or two to buy an Intel-based Mac; if she needs
the power now, as she does, she should buy a Mac now. (And she will,
once she gets the opportunity.)
On the other hand, Tonya and I use mainstream applications that don't
take advantage of the Velocity Engine (also known as AltiVec) unit in
the PowerPC chips. The impression I've gotten from talking with
developers is that software that relies on the Velocity Engine will
require significantly more effort to port to the Intel architecture; as
such, users who rely on audio or video software may find themselves
waiting for versions that will run on new Intel-based Macs, or they may
find their software improving at a slower rate in situations where
developers choose to concentrate on porting to Intel chips instead of
adding new features. So, some users will likely suffer in the
transition, or find themselves limited in the Macs they can buy and use
in the 2 to 4 year time-frame.
I don't see any significant philosophical difference between Intel and
IBM as Apple's primary chip supplier. There's no underdog here, just a
bunch of 600-pound gorillas, and I certainly hope that Intel can meet
Apple's need for chips better than IBM and Motorola/Freescale have over
the years. Even if I was horribly offended by Apple's move for some
reason, what's the alternative? Switching away from a Mac would entail
using an x86-based chip (though a system could be purchased from AMD
rather than Intel), so that doesn't seem like much of a statement. And
switching would also require using Windows or some flavor of Unix; to my
mind that would be a matter of cutting off my nose to spite my face.
That said, if you feel betrayed by Apple, it's not entirely surprising.
After all, it wasn't long ago that Steve Jobs featured demonstrations of
how the PowerPC beat the pants off the Pentium in head-to-head Photoshop
tests. In other words, Apple has played up the us-versus-them mentality
at the chip level, and is now paying the price with a certain set of
customers.
Final Thoughts -- In the end, I see no reason we shouldn't take Steve
Jobs at his word with regard to why Apple announced this switch. It's
not so much about which chips are available today as what Apple sees as
being available in several years. Despite the fact that Apple has been
compiling Mac OS X for Intel chips all along, there's no question that
the transition will require a lot of effort for Apple and for Macintosh
developers. It's not a decision Apple would have made lightly, and for
the most part, neither Apple nor developers gain anything by it in the
short term. But in the long term, if Apple has made the right decision,
the Mac will benefit with increased performance across the line. Users
will like the increased performance and design possibilities opened up
for Apple, as well as the increased performance for Windows
applications. And if all that is true, Apple will sell more Macs and
increase the size of the market for developers.
But that's all in the future. For now, the announcement means great PR
for Intel, a lot of work for Apple and Mac developers, and business as
usual for the rest of us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tjae, jeg er så mere interesseret i om det gamle programmel vil kunne
køre på den nye arkitektur, herunder Classic med understøttelser af 68K
programmer.
--
Per Erik Rønne