What Today Really Means for Apple... and Everyone Else.

[Swad]

Today’s much anticipated MacWorld keynote brought Intel Macs – and OSx86 – to the masses. Apple today released the Intel-based iMac and newly christened MacBook Pro, along with a slew of universal products. iLife, iWork, iTunes and Quicktime will all run on the new Mactels. While many small time application developers have been porting their software since the transition announcement last year, larger software houses such as Microsoft and Adobe promise to have their applications ready soon. Apple’s pro apps, such as Final Cut, will be available by March.

 

Questions and Answers

Announcing the Intel Macs in January rather than June was a strategic wager. Unless Apple released the right products at the right time, some models would languish with buyers waiting for the new models to come.

 

This may still occur, but Apple covered both the desktop and portable markets with today’s announcement, and in doing so showed the world that they are fully committed to Intel transition. According to Steve’s keynote, all of Apple’s models will be transitioning to Intel chips by the end of the year.

 

The keynote answered many questions, such as how Apple would roll out Intel-native software and if the introduction of the Mactels would be accompanied by full redesigns. There are still many things we do not know, however. It remains to be seen how Apple will lock OS X to their own hardware, whether by a TPM chip similar to those found in the Developer Transition Kits or by some other means.

 

And although Steve promised nothing but a smooth transition to the Intel hardware, we must wait a few months to see if Apple has ironed out the wrinkles OSx86 watchers have seen for months. Finally, will the Intel transition mean greater interoperability with PC hardware, such as the ATI Radeon X1600 with which it ships?

The Meaning of It All

 

There are instants in life – never more than a few seconds – that cause me to reflect, “This… this is a moment in which things are changing. This is a landmark event.” Time will prove me wrong or right, but I can’t shake the feeling that Steve Jobs’ keynote at MacWorld 2006 will be one of those moments for the computing industry.

 

That’s a pretty grand statement – one almost worthy of Steve himself – but I think it has merit. Steve is a top-notch presenter and even the most aware among us struggle to keep the Reality Distortion Field in check. But Jobs’ presentation today does represent a turning point in modern computing: within a year, almost every major manufacturer will be building with x86 chips. In hardware, Apple and Dell will be almost identical. It is the philosophy of the company – and the devotion of its followers – that will separate the Apples from the Gateways of the industry.

 

Apple has gained much from its adoption of Intel chips – faster speeds, new technologies, etc. But it has also placed itself in a vulnerable position. It must now make the case that the Mac experience is more than just the sum of its processors and hard drives; there must be something unique about owning and using a Mac. Its processors, graphics cards, and OEM parts will be the same as their competitors – competitors such as Dell that excel at undercutting the prices of their adversaries.

 

Companies like Dell, however, are also forced to take note of Apple’s announcement. Consumers and stockholders will pressure PC makers with questions (be they subconscious or verbal) such as, “If Apple can build a better computer with the same parts, why can’t you?” Indeed, in the hours since the announcement, value comparisons between Apple, IBM, and Dell have already begun in our forum – comparisons unlike those we’ve seen before.

Commitments and Concerns

 

Contrary to what some have prophesied, Apple revealed today that they would not sacrifice the Mac on the altar of the iPod. They are committed to making computers that are more reliable and more beautiful than most PC makers. Yet the similarity of hardware forces us to ask - what now makes a Mac a Mac? Is the beauty case-deep or does it represent a more holistic philosophy of engineering? These are heady questions whose answers will be the Apple’s guiding light in the next few years.

 

It seems that today saw more than the introduction of two new Mac models – we saw the simultaneous creation of new opportunities and new concerns for the company from Cupertino that could. It would be hyperbole to say that today marks the beginning of Apple’s market takeover or a new revolution in the Valley. But it could be that with fresh hopes and fears, we’ve just witnessed the birth of a new Apple.

 

[Digg this article]

[domino]

Bravo! This is an excellent article. I also see it as an opportunity for those not with Apple, MS, or Intel. Those who maintain and consult now have the opportunity to broaden there field of experience and acquire more clients .

 

Cheers to you!

[avatar69]

Very well written article that knocks the nail on the head: What makes a Mac a Mac? Especially if Macs will be able to run XP/Vista natively, and mainstream consumers will be able to run a dual-os PC......then why not integrate into one? And what will that "one" be?

 

As it is I am now running on a home made P4 3.2 GHZ northwood, with a P4C800E motherboard, with a Dell 21" monitor, and an apple keyboard and mouse, dual booting 10.4.3 with XP.....how much more hardware / software integration can one ask for?

[Jim Kem]

Just a quick question here, i just need to know this soon.

If i go and buy out to the local Apple Center and get the new OS X Tiger ( Intel ), bring it home. Could i install it on my PC and use in the way i use XP ( as a main OS )?

[fotpunk]

Yet the similarity of hardware forces us to ask - what now makes a Mac a Mac?

[Digg this article]

 

First off, excellent article. To answer your question, what now makes a Mac a Mac, it’s simple once you realize what the most important news REALLY is – it’s OS X 10.4.4. Not the Intel Macs. Let me explain:

 

Apple cares about making money from hardware and software, but what it really really wants is to control the computer user interface. Apple seeks control by making the interface simple, secure and easy to use—and marketing that interface as cool and hip by capturing the techno-savvy first—ultimately making that interface the popular and preferred choice for consumers. Because once it controls the user interface, it can control which hardware (i.e. the iPod) and software (i.e. iTunes Music Store) you have to use—and more importantly, make money off both ends of the pipeline.

 

Microsoft has the current monopoly of the computer user interface today with Windows.

 

So understand that despite the (justifiable and nevertheless awesome) hubbub over the Intel Macs, it’s not what has Microsoft worried. It’s the fact that after five years of development, Apple actually has a competitor to XP and (eventually) Vista—and, more importantly, for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO COMPARE MAC AND PC INTERFACES HEAD TO HEAD on similarly equipped PCs.

 

Once again, Apple seeks control of the interface by making it (OS X) simple, secure and easy to use—and marketing that interface as cool and hip by capturing the techno-savvy first. That’s where you all come in. By ultimately [k]racking OS X and installing on “non-sanctioned” PCs, you’ll be generating the type of buzz that Average Joe and Gramma Jill are going to hear/read in the media—after all, if tech-savvy people are resorting to illegal means to run OS X on their PCs, it must be something hot and hip, right? And it will be this tech-savvy group (you all) that will ignite, create and spread the “Windows vs. OS X” debate. Exactly what Steve Jobs has been dying to do for years.

 

Of course, Apple will be pissed if you all wind up preferring Windows for some odd reason. Apple will also be pissed if you [k]rack OS X so well that Average Joe can figure out how to install on his “Dude It’s A Dell.” However, if you [k]rack OS X—but it remains TOO HARD (or too buggy) for Average Joe and Gramma Jill to install, Apple will live with that because when it comes to Joe’s and Jill’s PC-shopping time, they will choose the machine that makes it EASIEST to have both Windows and OS X (in case they can’t decide what they want). And that’s almost certainly an Apple:

 

So here’s how the fight over user interface control plays out in the next year or so:

* Apple likely owns much of the pre-Intel Mac-converted, they will buy Apple Intels

* Apple will win over those who choose OS X in the Windows vs. OS X debate

* Apple will win over those who are undecided over the Windows vs. OS X debate (or need Windows for business but prefer OS X); they will buy Apples to make it easier to dual boot

* This dual boot possibility will be a key selling point in the education market (only one PC does it all!)

* Apple will never own the bargain-basement PC consumer until a Mac Intel Mini arrives

* Apple won’t make inroads in the business market until Apple can dominate the consumer market

* Apple will never own the tech-savvy who can figure out how to dual boot effectively without an Apple Intel machine

 

The net result is a small but important increase in Apple’s control of the user interface (as well as increased sales on the hardware end of the pipeline). And if Apple can take just 5% of the interface away from Microsoft’s OS market by 2007, it will be a $mashing $uccess for Apple.

 

So Apple may not have been joking when it said “Introducing Longhorn”a while back with regard to OS X — it’s what makes a Mac a Mac, even on a PC.

[johnniecarcinogen]

One thing i found notable about the keynote was Roz Ho's (Microsoft spokesperson) anouncement that Microsoft has an "official agreement" that they will release and support Office on Mac for a minimum of 5 years. One can only wonder if Apple agreed to not compete with Windows directly.

[jegabla]

I think that 5 year agreement is in exchange for letting (not checking) windows installs in macintels, which is definitely possible (as confirmed by apple support according to some sites) and even probably easy.

 

Also note that it has been reported that the new EFI in macintels explicitly support a legacy mode for BIOS dependant operting systems. So apple is openly letting other OSs in, but does not support any problems you may have with them.

Edited January 11, 2006 by jegabla

[Guest terry]

Just a quick question here, i just need to know this soon.

If i go and buy out to the local Apple Center and get the new OS X Tiger ( Intel ),

There is no OS X for Intel as a retail product available yet, and it will probably take at least another half a year or even much, much longer until it will hit the stores.

 

bring it home. Could i install it on my PC and use in the way i use XP ( as a main OS )?

Short answer: No. This is technically impossible and Apple does not allow it.

 

Long answer: Depends. We do not know exactly yet which security measures Apple has taken to lock down the system to Apple hardware. Probably some highly experienced people will eventually find out how to crack it, but that's it: a crack. Nothing official, it will not be supported by Apple and cracking the OS might even be regarded as a criminal act. You might need a new crack for each and every new small update of Mac OS X that Apple is going to release.

 

Even longer answer: The developer release of Mac OS X for Intel has been successfully cracked quite a long time ago. It includes security measures that may be very much or not at all like those in the final product; we simply do not know at this early point. Browse this forum to get an idea about what the experience of running such an unsupported, cracked copy is like. If this all sounds too arcane to you, go out and buy the real thing, an original Intel Macintosh.

[ATG]

There is no OS X for Intel as a retail product available yet, and it will probably take at least another half a year or even much, much longer until it will hit the stores.

Short answer: No. This is technically impossible and Apple does not allow it.

 

 

Your first point misses the point. OS X for Intel has existed, in the lab, for about 5 years. This is not 'new' technology/software. As for waiting 6 months for an actual product, Mac OS X 10.4.4 (Intel/PPC) is available NOW.

 

As for taking Mac OS X and installing it on, say your DELL PC... don't hold your breath. It could happen but if you think LINUX is for geeks only, the OS X on DELL is even geekier.

 

As for taking WinXP and installing it on your Apple supplied hardware, this will happen. The question is: will it be a dual boot option or more along the lines of Virtual PC.

[Guest terry]

Your first point misses the point. OS X for Intel has existed, in the lab, for about 5 years. This is not 'new' technology/software. As for waiting 6 months for an actual product, Mac OS X 10.4.4 (Intel/PPC) is available NOW.

Sorry, I don't get your point. We didn't talk about the PPC version, not about Marklar, not even about the developer releases. The question was about the official, public Intel build. As factory-new Apple Macintosh machines are the only ones that are intended to run that build, there is no need to put it in the stores as a retail product. (Believe it or not, but the original poster didn't want to pirate that release like the average joe, he actually planned on buying the nifty retail box with his hard-earned money! I applaud that guy, but unfortunately his idea doesn't correspond with Apple's current business plans.)

 

This is just a wild guess, but I even assume that if in about half a year Mac OS X 10.5 were about to be released (with tightened security perhaps, if 10.4.4 really has been kinda rushed out in that respect?), this could be offered as a free upgrade to fresh Intel Mac owners, so still no public update in the stores.

 

As for taking Mac OS X and installing it on, say your DELL PC... don't hold your breath. It could happen but if you think LINUX is for geeks only, the OS X on DELL is even geekier.

Read carefully. I did not deny this possibility. In fact I do expect it to happen, sooner or later. I was trying to give the original poster who seemed to believe Mac OS X would install without a hitch on his vanilla PC a pragmatic outlook on what it means to cope with such an unsupported OS. I still believe I have given him a concise, but true and accurate description of that.

 

As for taking WinXP and installing it on your Apple supplied hardware, this will happen. The question is: will it be a dual boot option or more along the lines of Virtual PC.

I didn't talk about that, but, yes, I agree.

[ATG]

....The question was about the official, public Intel build. As factory-new Apple Macintosh machines are the only ones that are intended to run that build, there is no need to put it in the stores as a retail product...

 

Interesting...

 

I was only disputing your point about OS X not being available for months. It is available now. I haven't walked into an Apple store and their web site doesn't indicate if you can buy 'just' the software in a card board box. You may have to buy the Apple hardware to get it but you can get it. I think my misunderstanding of 'available' was a bit different then what you intended. Sorry, my bad.

 

My second/side point was that 10.4.4 was not exactly what I call rushed. Mac OS X has been running on desktop PC's for about five years. Every build for the PPC also had a secret build for the Intel chip. IMHO, it's not the software that has been rushed. In this case it was the final retail hardware that has been rushed. But since Intel actually designed the boards for Apple even that wasn't a design from scratch. We'll see in a few months if Apple and Intel did a good job or not.

 

As for 10.5 being free....Not gonna happen!

[Braveheart]

My 2 Cents.

I have been a member of this forum for many months now,

Im no Expert so bear with me.

I Agree and disagree with fotpunks post#5

I am currently Typing this on a Compaq Computer(Laptop),Using Mac OSx86 10.4.3 1111a

I agree with the comment that this will start a buzz for the average joe to go and think about buying macs, Good luck to them they are fantasic machines. and steve jobs must be lauphing all the way to the bank,

Before Steve Jobs announced moving to Intel, I never had any idea about Macs or the OS,

Now im pretty clued up about them. (I have learned so much thanks to the people in here)

I now Love the Machines, But they are not for Me , (I find them very difficuilt to f*** up) Thats what i like, Effing things up and then fixing them.(to much time on my hands)

 

 

But speaking in genaral terms, The people on these forums will probably use windows as there main OS, and keep using it, and just have a play with Mac os And Prolly Linux also, Not because we are hackers and are profiteering from this,we do it just because we can, and we enjoy doing so.

In Fact i would go as far as saying if you crawled over every inch of this website you would find not a single comment or statement about profiteering or making profit from our pastime.

I do enjoy the Mac people joining in on these forums to help us along our way.

Please keep this brilliant discusion going I love it.

As i said at the beggining this is my 2 cents.

[Dabbler]

I think we should keep in mind the distinction between x86 and the new dual core Intel chips Apple is using in their newly announced...uhhh..."PCs". I haven't heard any reports that Windows runs on this new chip. Nor have I heard that the new OSx86 runs on generic x86 chips. Apple probably isn't conceeding the hardware marketplace just yet.

[stryder]

If Microsoft can sell a copy of Windows to all the Mac users that buy Mactels, they would! Does Microsoft really care if EVERYONE buys an iMac instead of a Dell/HP/Gateway, then buys a copy of Windows for Mac/Intel? No! Microsoft would make the exact same amount of money.

 

As a matter of fact, maybe they would even prefer it! It would be an easy way for them to support a special version of Windows that would be more stable (far fewer drivers needed), and more secure in their eyes (easy way to lock-down for piracy).

 

How about all those business people carrying around laptops? If they want to run Mac AND Windows software, they either need to carry around two laptops (not going to happen), or have a Mac laptop and buy Virtual PC (current option). Virtual PC is very slow, but a real version of Windows that runs side-by-side in Mac OS X (ala Classic) would be extremely fast!

 

I'd say within a year we'll see a Microsoft product version of Windows geared specifically for Mac/Intel machines. If not even just for their laptops.

[Guest terry]

My second/side point was that 10.4.4 was not exactly what I call rushed.

Again, read carefully:

 

"with tightened security perhaps, if 10.4.4 really has been kinda rushed out in that respect?"

 

It might be possible that the first release does not take full advantage of all the possiblilities the new hardware offers to lock down OS X to Macs. They could "tighten", or "improve" their security by activating additional hardware features that no one before has thought they were actually present on the new Intel Macs. Just conjecture, I know, but it could happen. I wouldn't rule out that possibility completely.

 

Wouldn't that be funny? OS X 10.4.4 has been cracked. Another thread here appears: build your own, custom Intel Mac Clone for USD 250,-, or: the 500 dollar notebook that is your best MacBook clone. W00T! Folks rush out and buy the hardware that seems most appropriate. OS X 10.5 comes out with new security features. None of the old hardware stuff works. Folks buy new hardware. The next major update comes out, with changed protection, again: OS X 10.5.5. Half of the folks realize their boards are actually not so close to the Intel Mac specifications that running a cracked copy of OS X on them really makes fun — provided it still runs on them, anyway. Need to go out and buy a different, new board. And so on and so on. This continues for about two to three years, then, being kinda bored of this game, Apple has run out of ideas (and you have run out of place to store all your obsolete hardware you had to buy in order to keep up with Apple's pace), finally releasing OS X for vanilla PCs.

 

Mac OS X has been running on desktop PC's for about five years.

Look at the date I registered with this forum, and compare it to yours. Do you really think this has slipped my attention, and you need to tell me? I am familiar with NeXTstep and OPENSTEP, I know Rhapsody (including its Intel port) since its inception, and I first heard about the rumors concerning the Marklar project back in summer 2002.

 

As for 10.5 being free....Not gonna happen!

If they've done something really stupid with 10.4.4 that makes it easy to crack, easier than it could be thanks to TPM, EFI, or whatever, they will have no chance other than canning 10.4.4 and trying to remove it as quickly as possible from all desktops. They're currently doing that with the whole bunch of Developer Transition Kits, which probably costs them a whole lot more.

[jfman]

Terry, I think you have slightly misunderstood (or he didn't put very well) what he was trying to say.

 

He means OS X has been running on intel CPUs for 5 years (well... according to Steve anyway). It hasn't been publicly available until recently.

[Metrogirl]

Again, read carefully:

...

 

Hello Terry! Happy New Year! It's good to see that you are as informed as ever. But although I have the greatest of respect for your opinion and also for ATG's, this thread probably isn't the place for a protracted discussion of semantics. I think everyone knew what each of you meant.

[Guest terry]

Terry, I think you have slightly misunderstood (or he didn't put very well) what he was trying to say.

 

He means OS X has been running on intel CPUs for 5 years (well... according to Steve anyway).

Sure, that's what I have talked about in my posting above, Project Marklar. Although it was a secret, everyone knew about it even years before Mr. Jobs finally corroborated the rumors when he announced the switch.

 

Apple Keeps x86 Torch Lit with 'Marklar'

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1656622,00.asp

 

It hasn't been publicly available until recently.

Of course. Didn't question that anywhere.

 

Hello Terry! Happy New Year! It's good to see that you are as informed as ever. But although I have the greatest of respect for your opinion and also for ATG's, this thread probably isn't the place for a protracted discussion of semantics. I think everyone knew what each of you meant.

Hi Metrogirl, happy new year to you too! I promise I won't continue riding that dead horse, but allow me one final remark. I don't think that my last posting was all concerned with semantics, but mainly discussed a new idea that has not been brought up yet, being the possibility that the new Intel Apples might have some extended hardware security features that are not taken advantage of in the initial public releases of Mac OS X, but that might be activated later.

[bjr1028]

The user expirience is what makes a Mac a Mac. EFI is set up to work exactly as OpenFirmware. You won't know its there unless you need it. No outdated clunky bios. Mac OS X works exactly the same on Intel as it did on PowerPC.

[Frank Nospam]

If i go and buy out to the local Apple Center and get the new OS X Tiger ( Intel ), bring it home.

First off, I'm pretty sure that OSX for Intel is not yet for sale as standalone boxed software, since there are no Macs to install it on except for the brand new ones that already have it.

 

Second, OSX Intel uses the EFI bootloader instead of the standard BIOS that all current commodity mobos are based on. So even if you could buy it on CD, it wouldn't boot on your PC.

 

Third, installing OSX on PCs is what this entire web site is trying to accomplish, but has not yet succeeded. So the answer is no.

[Haplo]

Some interesting things I've been reading through on Apple's dev site (which I do frequent as a learning programmer) about the x86 architecture. We've all seen the performance and power benefits coming out of this move, but what about all the really stupid stuff that x86 is built around?

 

•First and foremost (although not necessarily the biggest problem with the system) is byte swapping. IMHO little-endian is a retarded inside out and backwards load of {censored}. It shouldn't matter, but now it does. PPC will save files in big endian while x86 saves them in little endian. What this means is that all file-based unibin mac apps will need to figure out which endian a file is actually saved in. Also, all data over most standard networks is sent in big endian, making the whole concept (I really don't see any advantages for little endian) really nothing more than extra work for everyone, including the processor.

 

•The main idea behind the CISC architecture is for application files to be smaller on disk (and in memory I suppose). However, if you have ever opened up a mac .app folder and checked the size of the binary on disk... it's tiny. probably 75-90% of an application's size comes from GUI data and additional resources. And that's just the app on disk, even more of a program's space in memory is taken up by the data it's working with. So we're stuck with this processor that has less instructions, but does a load/store for every operation, even when a single variable is needed for multiple operations. In short, 100% inefficiency. The second part of CISC is that all of the load/store and other things as well as breaking down these big operations has to be done with additional hardware on chip. Instead of sacrificing processing units (which would be about as dumb as CISC itself) they sacrifice the majority of the registers on chip and move most of the things that use registers on PPC to the stack on x86. On PPC, register based operations can cause an error but not stop the flow of operation. For example a divide by zero error (actually used as an example on the dev site) would cause an error on PPC, but the program would run regardless. On x86 a divide by zero is a fatal error and causes a crash. This means that windows' instability really might not just be the fault of crappy m$ programmers, but also the fault of a very picky and unintelligently designed chip.

 

Now, I don't want to make it sound like I'm bashing every aspect of x86, as it does have some good points, like the fact that it can process operations of variable byte sizes, which is a good thing to be able to do. However, it's clear that mac users may be inhereting some very bad things that come along with a chip that's like 20 years old (PPC is a much more advanced chip as far as being logically designed to be stable and efficient, it's just that intel is really good at making powerful processors, while PPC never made it to mainstream).