There are a lot of people feeling betrayed by Steve Jobs today. The Mac faithful bought into every facet of the machine's special nature, including its non-Intel soul. Now, that key differentiator between the magic Macintosh and the evil Wintel has been lost: how can they look OS X in the eye again?
They should chill. Nobody buying a computer does so for the processor. This is a source of much sadness to those who appreciate good design: over the years, the Intel architecture has seen off any number of technically superior competitors. Even at birth the 8086 chip was something of a kludge, designed to work efficiently with small amounts of memory at the expense of making the systems software harder to write. Deep within the latest Pentiums, some of that legacy remains: in terms of aesthetics, this is the ugliest heart to beat within the Macintosh.
That doesn't matter. What matters is that Macintosh will be cheaper and faster than otherwise, and Apple now has the option of changing processor manufacturers again without any fuss whatsoever.
The effects on software — the stuff that people do buy computers for — will be subtle. As with the transition from the 68000 architecture to Power PC, there'll be a range of effects. Some software won't work well with Rosetta, the PowerPC translation program that will run old software on the new platform. It won't be updated and it will die with the old hardware. Some will work well enough, although there will be a performance hit. Some will be released in Intel form. By and large, although not without pain, the Apple world will move across.
Expect a slew of numbers. If there's one thing the technical press and its readers like, it's benchmarks — and in this case, there's no faffling ambiguity over what the figures mean and whether they're relevant to real life. Power PC versions will be run alongside Intel versions and the results endlessly descried for significance. Not that it matters: there's no going back.
Talkback
Well, that was a well thought out piece. And yes, I agree with what you said -- sorry can't provide any controversy here. After this transition, Apple will have the pick of the litter in component suppliers. It may have chosen Intel to supply its x86 processors this time, but if Intel gets out of line in the future, it can choose AMD instead. One of the best things about the x86 world -- there is real competition here.
Why didn't apple go with AMD?
The Intel x86 is not smart architecture with full of restrictions for keeping backward compatibilities, but Apple chose it for their future, rather than new generation Itanium chip. This decision shows that to have second source suppliers for Mac's MPU is quite important for Apple's business operation.
Why didn't Apple go with AMD? Rumour has it that AMD couldn't guarantee the volume.
I Fully agree. By making this move, they will be a viable option to all users who may have gone in for Microsoft of Linux on intel platform.
Linux is one pain in Microsoft's behind - so why not OS X on intel ?
It all depends on how Jobs and the people at Apple pull it off with respect to software and stability - but all in all Apple will be a serious contender for volume for the first time in its history.
Balmer might begin loosing the last few hairs on his head over the next few years....
And that's why he's the editor. Beautiful piece of writing Rupert. Keep it up. I can't wait to wake up to OSX on my tv, my ipod, my home and my work pc.
' Even at birth the 8086 chip was something of a kludge, designed to work efficiently with small amounts of memory at the expense of making the systems software harder to write. Deep within the latest Pentiums, some of that legacy remains: in terms of aesthetics, this is the ugliest heart to beat within the Macintosh.' What is this about? In the beginning memory and storage technology was just as much of an infant as any other aspect of computing (except perhaps the mathematics). Keeping code tight, compact, succinct and efficient was a premium concern in order that 'the rest of us' without access to IBM's behmoths could excercise a little intellectual muscle. Making software harder to write? That's like saying making English more difficult to speak. It's not better to be lazy just because we can be. If developers took the trouble to understand what beats at the heart, they might take the time to work in harmony with it and write code which doesn't simply fill up empty space, but does something useful; quickly. Consider the heart, don't ignore the possibilities simply because there may be an apparently easier solution to your task. Write good, neat code and keep it short. I prefer the 680X0 series anyhow.