Mac transition to Intel processors: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:02, 15 June 2005

Latest revision as of 05:46, 6 August 2025

(999 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|2005–2006 change of processors in Apple computers}}

{{current}}

{{About|Apple's transition of its Mac computers from the PowerPC architecture to Intel processors|details on the architecture of Intel-based Apple computers|Apple–Intel architecture}}

{{mergefrom|MacIntel}}

{{Use mdy dates|date=June 2013}}

{{AppleIntel}}

{{macOS sidebar}}

The '''Mac transition to Intel processors''' was the process of switching the [[central processing unit]]s (CPUs) of [[Apple Inc.|Apple]]'s line of [[Mac (computer)|Mac]] and [[Xserve]] computers from [[PowerPC]] processors over to [[Intel]]'s [[x86-64]] processors.{{efn|Initial models featured a [[IA-32|32-bit x86]] CPU, and were subsequently replaced with an [[x86-64]] CPU.}} The change was announced at the 2005 [[Worldwide Developers Conference]] (WWDC) by then-Apple CEO [[Steve Jobs]], who said Apple would gradually stop using PowerPC [[microprocessor]]s supplied by [[Freescale]] (formerly [[Motorola]]) and [[IBM]].<ref name="apple-pr-2005">{{cite web |title=Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006 |url=https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2005/06/06Apple-to-Use-Intel-Microprocessors-Beginning-in-2006/ |website=[[Apple Inc.]] |access-date=23 June 2020 |date=6 June 2005 |archive-date=January 30, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180130185804/https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2005/06/06Apple-to-Use-Intel-Microprocessors-Beginning-in-2006/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

At the [[2005]] [[Worldwide Developers Conference]] (WWDC), [[Apple Computer]] [[CEO]] [[Steve Jobs]] made the historic announcement that the [[microprocessor]]s powering his company's [[Apple Macintosh|Macintosh]] [[computer]] range would '''transition''' from [[PowerPC]] parts supplied by [[Motorola]] and [[IBM]], to those of hitherto rival company [[Intel]].

The transition was the second time Apple had switched the processor [[instruction set architecture]] of its personal computers. The first was in 1994, when Apple discarded the Mac's original [[Motorola 68000 series]] architecture in favor of the then-new PowerPC platform.<ref name="CNET1">{{cite news |last1=Shankland |first1=Stephen |title=Apple gives Macs a brain transplant with new Arm chips starting this year |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-gives-macs-a-brain-transplant-with-new-arm-chips/ |access-date=23 June 2020 |work=[[CNet]] |date=22 June 2020 |archive-date=December 17, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201217001241/https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-gives-macs-a-brain-transplant-with-new-arm-chips/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

==History==

Apple's initial press release originally outlined that the move would begin by June 2006, with completion slated by early 2008 – the transition had proceeded faster than anticipated. The first-generation Intel-based Macs were released in January 2006 with [[Mac OS X Tiger|Mac OS X 10.4.4 Tiger]]. In August, Jobs announced the last models to switch, with the [[Mac Pro]] available immediately and the Intel [[Xserve]] available by October,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.macworld.com/article/1052233/liveupdate.html|website=[[Macworld]]|title=WWDC Live Keynote Update|first=Peter|last=Cohen|date=August 6, 2006|access-date=November 20, 2019|archive-date=June 6, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190606021417/https://www.macworld.com/article/1052233/liveupdate.html|url-status=live}}</ref> although shipments for the latter computer line did not start until December.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://images.apple.com/xserve/pdf/Xserve_TechnologyOverview12202006.pdf |title=Xserve Technology Overview|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201223000409/https://images.apple.com/xserve/pdf/Xserve_TechnologyOverview12202006.pdf|archive-date=December 23, 2020|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Jobs began by examining the previous transitions successfully completed during the Macintosh's lifetime. The first, itself a processor transition, migrated the platform from the [[68K]] series of chips from Motorola to their new generation of [[PowerPC]] parts developed jointly with Apple and IBM.

The final version of [[Mac OS X]] that ran on PowerPC processors was [[Mac OS X Leopard|Leopard]], released in October 2007, with PowerPC binary translation support (using [[Rosetta (software)|Rosetta]]) persisting up through the following version, [[Mac OS X Snow Leopard|Snow Leopard]].<ref>{{cite press release | url=https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2008/06/09Apple-Previews-Mac-OS-X-Snow-Leopard-to-Developers/ | title=Apple Previews Mac OS X Snow Leopard to Developers | publisher=[[Apple Inc.|Apple]] | date=June 9, 2008 | access-date=2017-12-04 | archive-date=November 1, 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171101112448/https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2008/06/09Apple-Previews-Mac-OS-X-Snow-Leopard-to-Developers/ | url-status=live }}</ref> Support was later dropped in [[Mac OS X Lion|Lion]].

More recently Apple has transitioned the [[operating system]] for their computers from [[OS 9]] to a modern [[Unix]]-like operating system known as [[Mac OS X]]. OS X was derived from [[NeXTSTEP]] which was bought by Apple for the purpose, and [[FreeBSD]] which is what everything except the [[GUI]] is based upon. OS X now includes features such as [[pre-emptive multitasking]], lacking in previous versions of the OS, as well as a [[graphical user interface]] that devotees of the platform believe represents the real "heart" of the Mac. For these users, the nature of the processor powering the system is of less consequence than having an OS that for them improves the speed with which they can accomplish tasks.

In 2020, Apple announced that it would [[Mac transition to Apple silicon|shift its Mac line to Apple silicon]], which are [[ARM architecture|ARM]]-based systems-on-a-chip developed in-house.<ref name="CNET1"/>

A long-rumoured internal project within Apple, known as "[[Marklar]]" was designed to ensure that builds of Mac OS X were sufficiently [[cross-platform]] as to compile for both PowerPC and x86-class processors. Jobs confirmed at the conference that every version of OS X had been thus compiled, continuing the cross-platform tradition of NeXTSTEP and FreeBSD. It is not known what other processors, if any, Apple maintains current builds for.

==Background==

==Reasons for the Transition==

[[File:PPC-970fx.jpg|thumb|280px|A PowerPC 970FX processor, which was used in a number of Apple computers featuring PowerPC G5 processors]]

Based on Apple's saying, IBM's failure to deliver a faster PPC chip is the main cause of the switch. However, Apple's lower-single-digit marketshare in the personal computer business also implies that Apple could not buy enough chips to support Macintosh-oriented R&D for newer PPC chips.

Apple had been using PowerPC processors in its products for 11 years when the move to Intel processors was announced.

At 2003's WWDC keynote address, Jobs unveiled a [[Power Mac G5|Power Mac]] with a processor from IBM's [[PowerPC 970|PowerPC G5]] product line,<ref name="MacStories1">{{cite news |last1=Hackett |first1=Stephen |title=The Mighty Power Mac G5 |url=https://www.macstories.net/mac/the-mighty-power-mac-g5/ |access-date=23 June 2020 |work=MacStories |date=14 June 2018 |archive-date=November 26, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201126190843/https://www.macstories.net/mac/the-mighty-power-mac-g5/ |url-status=live }}</ref> the first personal computer to feature a [[64-bit computing|64-bit]] processor.<ref name="MacStories1"/>

Two years earlier, Jobs had introduced the [[PowerPC 970|PowerPC G5]] processor and promised that within a year the [[clock speed]] of the part would be up to 3 [[Gigahertz|GHz]]. In the meantime Motorola had spun off the PowerPC production into another company, [[Freescale]], and this company had a [[dual-core]] [[PowerPC G4|G4]]-class chip in the pipeline.

He promised a 3 [[Hertz|GHz]] Power Mac G5 within 12 months, but never released such a product.<ref name="MacStories1"/> In 2004's WWDC keynote address, Jobs addressed the broken promise, saying IBM had trouble moving to a fabrication process lower than the [[90 nm process]].<ref name="MacStories1"/> Apple officials also said in 2003 they planned to release a [[PowerBook]] with a G5 processor,<ref name="iMore1">{{cite news |last1=Hackett |first1=Stephen |title=The Switch to Intel |url=https://www.imore.com/switch-intel |access-date=23 June 2020 |work=[[iMore]] |date=24 June 2016 |archive-date=July 26, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200726071411/https://www.imore.com/switch-intel |url-status=live }}</ref> but such a product never materialized. [[Tim Cook]], then Apple's Executive Vice President of Worldwide Sales and Operations, said during an earnings call that putting a G5 in a PowerBook was "the mother of all thermal challenges".<ref>{{cite news |title=Analysis: Timing Isn't Right for G5 PowerBook |url=https://www.macworld.com/article/1042635/pbg5.html |access-date=25 June 2020 |work=MacJournals.com (Via [[Macworld]]) |date=7 February 2005 |archive-date=August 12, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200812094034/https://www.macworld.com/article/1042635/pbg5.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

Unfortunately the 3 GHz G5 was not achieved even two years later and rumours continue that IBM's low yields on the [[POWER4]]-derived chip were to blame. Further, IBM had been unable to lessen the heat produced by the chip sufficiently to enable it to be deployed in a [[laptop]] computer, now the fastest growing segment of the [[personal computer]] industry.

In addition, there were reports that IBM officials had concerns over the profitability of a low-volume business, which caused tensions with Apple and its desires for a wide variety of PowerPC processors.<ref name="CNET2">{{cite news |last1=Shankland |first1=Stephen |title=Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips |url=https://www.sfgate.com/technology/cnet/article/Apple-to-ditch-IBM-switch-to-Intel-chips-2665610.php |access-date=24 June 2020 |work=[[CNet|CNet News.com]] (Via SFGate.com) |date=4 June 2005 |archive-date=July 26, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200726071652/https://www.sfgate.com/technology/cnet/article/Apple-to-ditch-IBM-switch-to-Intel-chips-2665610.php |url-status=live }}</ref>

Overall, the public impression is of a Freescale somewhat more interested in [[Embedded system|embedded applications]], and an IBM increasingly distracted by [[Video game console|games consoles]]. Whilst the latter are obtaining PowerPC cores at 3 GHz, they will remain unchanged for many years after deployment. In contrast Apple needs a steady stream of incremental improvements without having the sales volumes to drive manufacturers to achieve them.

==History==

Meanwhile the [[x86]] [[instruction set]] architecture has achieved massive market penetration, in particular at the desktop scale. Intel itself is the world's largest chip vendor and has significant [[brand]] awareness among the consumers Apple would like to target. Intel is able to provide Apple with a complete system rather than just a processor and can do this in a volume unlikely ever to be tested.

===1980s===

Apple's efforts to move to Intel hardware began in 1985. After Jobs left the company an internal proposal was quickly disapproved by management,<ref name="LowEndMac1">{{cite web |last1=Hormby |first1=Tom |title=Star Trek: Apple's First Mac OS on Intel Project |url=https://lowendmac.com/2014/star-trek-apples-first-mac-os-on-intel-project/ |website=LowEndMac |access-date=24 June 2020 |date=27 April 2014 |archive-date=January 15, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210115071539/https://lowendmac.com/2014/star-trek-apples-first-mac-os-on-intel-project/ |url-status=live }}</ref> which also declined a late-1980s proposal by [[Andy Grove]] of Intel for Apple to migrate to x86.{{r|forbes20031009}}

===1990s===

Apple has relied on two companies for its microprocessor chips and in neither case was there anywhere else to turn when they could not apparently deliver. This psychology may be reflected in Apple's choice of Intel. Although the latter is still a single company it is the largest in the sector and one whose [[Desktop computer|desktop]] ambitions are unlikely to be undermined by other market considerations. Moreover, should Intel fail to deliver, a move to an alternate supplier (such as [[AMD]]) would be an easier objective then either the 68K-PowerPC transition, or the PowerPC-Intel one.

In the 1990s, Intel often took out ads in ''[[Macworld]]'' convincing Macintosh users to switch to PCs powered by Intel CPUs.<ref>{{cite magazine | url=https://archive.org/details/MacWorld_9312_December_1993/page/n3/mode/2up | title=Intel advertisement |magazine=[[MacWorld]] | date=December 1993 }}</ref>

The first known attempt by Apple to move to Intel's platform was the [[Star Trek project]], a code name given to a secret project to run a port of [[Classic Mac OS]] [[System 7]] and its applications on an Intel-compatible personal computer. The effort began on February 14, 1992, with the blessing of Grove.<ref name="LowEndMac1"/>

==Benefits of the Move==

Apple leaders set an October 31 deadline to create a working prototype. The team met that deadline, and had a functional demo ready by December. [[John Sculley]]'s departure during the Star Trek project was a factor in the project's termination. [[Michael Spindler]], who took over as Apple's CEO, instead devoted most of Apple's resources to [[Power Macintosh]], the ongoing transition to PowerPC.<ref name="LowEndMac1"/>

The first and most tangible benefit of the transition will be any performance improvement in Apple [[Computer hardware|hardware]]. Whilst Apple equipment is not slow at the present time, Jobs implied in his presentation that the performance of PowerPC was likely to tail off going forward, and in particular that the [[performance per watt]] (that is, the speed per unit of heat generated) would not be able to match that in the [[Technology roadmapping|roadmap]] provided by Intel. With laptop sales being such a important segment of the market, the ability for Apple to rapidly develop lightweight, highly-performant devices with long battery life cannot be overstated.

After Apple's 1997 acquisition of [[NeXT]], Apple began to rework their [[NeXTSTEP]] operating system into a successor to the classic Mac OS, codenamed [[Rhapsody (operating system)|Rhapsody]]. Jobs (who rejoined Apple upon the purchase) demonstrated an Intel-compatible build of Rhapsody to [[Dell]] founder and namesake [[Michael Dell]]. Jobs offered to license the new OS to Dell for its PCs, so that users could choose between it and [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]]. However, Dell declined when Jobs insisted that the company license the operating system for every PC it ships, regardless of whether or not the user wanted to use Mac OS.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Guglielmo|first=Connie|title=The Apple-Dell deal that could have changed history|url=https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/the-steve-jobs-deal-with-dell-that-could-have-changed-apple-and-tech-history/|access-date=2021-10-29|website=CNET|language=en|archive-date=October 29, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211029173341/https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/the-steve-jobs-deal-with-dell-that-could-have-changed-apple-and-tech-history/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Advocates of the transition also point out [[software]] benefits. Technical users will appreciate the ability of Apple systems to run all four classes of software at near native speeds; OS X binaries, [[Java programming language|Java]] applications, [[GNU]]/x86 applications and potentially now [[Win32]]/[[Microsoft .NET|.NET]]/x86 applications. No other hardware vendor can offer more than three of these. [[Virtual PC]], a [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] emulation solution for Apple PowerPC sold by [[Microsoft]], could now enjoy much more success with performance improved through [[Virtualization|virtualisation]] rather than [[emulation]]. For those customers wishing to achieve a more conventional environment, a [[Dual boot|dual]], triple, or even quadruple boot solution (with [[OpenSolaris]] say), would be possible on an x86 Apple device. Apple have already indicated they do not intend to take steps to prevent other operating systems being deployed on their new machines.

===Early 2000s===

Although most games are constrained through the use of [[DirectX]] [[Application programming interface|API]]'s not available for the Apple architecture (on either processor type), reductions in the time required to port these from Windows nevertheless might be observed if developers are able to ignore [[endian]] issues associated with moving from x86 to PowerPC.

[[File:Steve Jobs Presentation 1.jpg|thumb|Then-CEO Steve Jobs announces the Intel transition at WWDC 2005.]]

In the years since the end of the Star Trek project, there were reports of Apple working to port its operating system to Intel's x86 processors, with one engineer managing to get Apple's OS to run on a number of Intel-powered computers.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Savov |first1=Vlad |title=The humble beginnings of OS X on Intel |url=https://www.theverge.com/2012/6/11/3077651/apple-intel-mac-os-x-retrospective |access-date=24 June 2020 |work=[[The Verge]] |date=11 June 2012 |archive-date=July 26, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200726072137/https://www.theverge.com/2012/6/11/3077651/apple-intel-mac-os-x-retrospective |url-status=live }}</ref>

In 2001, Jobs and then [[Sony]] president [[Kunitake Andō]] reportedly had a meeting to discuss the possibility of running Apple's operating system on its [[Vaio]] computers. Jobs even presented a Vaio running Mac OS. Such negotiations ultimately came to nothing.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Souppouris |first1=Aaron |title=Steve Jobs wanted Sony VAIOs to run OS X |url=https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/5/5380832/sony-vaio-apple-os-x-steve-jobs-meeting-report |access-date=24 June 2020 |work=[[The Verge]] |date=5 February 2014 |archive-date=February 1, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210201115332/https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/5/5380832/sony-vaio-apple-os-x-steve-jobs-meeting-report |url-status=live }}</ref>

==Hurdles Associated with the Move==

In 2002, it was reported that Apple had more than a dozen software engineers tasked to a project code-named "Marklar," with a mission to steadily work on maintaining X86-compatible builds of Mac OS X.<ref>{{cite news |last1=dePlume |first1=Nick |title=Apple Keeps x86 Torch Lit with Marklar |url=https://www.eweek.com/apple/apple-keeps-x86-torch-lit-with-marklar |access-date=24 June 2020 |work=[[eWeek]] |date=30 August 2002}}</ref>

Not all the outcomes are positive however, and the Macintosh community has voiced its fear and uncertainty since the announcement was made.

It was noted in 2003 by IBM in an article published to its [[intranet]] that Apple felt a transition to Intel would present massive software changes that it wanted to avoid.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Kim |first1=Arnold |title=IBM on Apple/Intel and the G5 |url=https://www.macrumors.com/2003/09/12/ibm-on-apple-intel-and-the-g5/ |access-date=24 June 2020 |work=[[MacRumors]] |date=12 September 2003 |archive-date=October 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201020005737/https://www.macrumors.com/2003/09/12/ibm-on-apple-intel-and-the-g5/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Nevertheless, rumors of an impending announcement of a transition to Intel cropped up in 2000 and 2003.<ref name="MacRumors1">{{cite news |last1=Kim |first1=Arnold |title='Intel Based Mac' Rumor Roundup... [Updated x2] |url=https://www.macrumors.com/2005/06/05/intel-based-mac-rumor-roundup/ |access-date=25 June 2020 |work=[[MacRumors]] |date=4 June 2005 |archive-date=October 31, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201031220502/https://www.macrumors.com/2005/06/05/intel-based-mac-rumor-roundup/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Psychological===

Sculley said in 2003 that not choosing Intel for Apple was "probably one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made". Apple did not foresee Intel's ability to improve x86's [[complex instruction set computing|CISC]] architecture to match [[RISC]], and did not have access to commodity x86 components to compete on price with rivals like [[Dell]], he said.<ref name="forbes20031009">{{Cite magazine |date=2003-10-09 |title=Ex-Apple CEO Regrets Nixing Intel |url=https://www.forbes.com/2003/10/09/1009intelpinnacor.html |access-date=2025-06-28 |magazine=Forbes |language=en}}</ref>

Apple has benefited greatly among its user community from the [[psychology]] of "[[Think Different|thinking different]]." Many Apple users for example, have enjoyed the ready availability of a consumer desktop that was completely separated from the "[[Wintel]]" alliance. Those often very technically-inclined users, now feel betrayed by an Apple that has apparently sold its soul. Users express what to [[IBM PC|PC]] advocates seem relatively insignificant fears, e.g. that Apple will include the "[[Intel Inside]]" logo on the computer, but this is really the surface view of a deeper foreboding that the Intel supertanker will simply crush the minnow Apple. That the latter might become a "[[me too]]" vendor of PCs, particularly if Apple is buying the complete system from Intel and not simply the main [[CPU]], has echos of the gradual decline of other companies previously involved with Intel. These arguably include [[Silicon Graphics]], [[BeOS]], as well as NextSTEP itself. A source of chips from AMD would have retained the performance crown and allowed the naysayers to remain on-board.

===2005===

This suggests that the purchasing [[demographic]] of the company's machinery might change from that of technical users now turning to [[Linux]] or a [[BSD]] which they can use on any preferred configuration, while consumers increasingly disillusioned with Windows' repeated security scares rotate towards Apple as the most obvious desktop alternative. It is likely that the latter demographic represents a much larger market than the former.

News reports of an impending announcement by Apple to transition to Intel processors surfaced in early June 2005,<ref name="CNET2"/> close to that year's WWDC. The announcement was made during that year's WWDC Keynote Address.<ref name="apple-pr-2005"/>

At the time Apple announced the transition, Jobs attributed the switch to a superior product roadmap that Intel offered,<ref name="CNET3">{{cite news |last1=Crothers |first1=Brooke |title=Four years later: Why did Apple drop PowerPC? |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/four-years-later-why-did-apple-drop-powerpc/ |access-date=23 June 2020 |work=[[CNet]] |date=15 June 2009 |archive-date=November 12, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201112033651/https://www.cnet.com/news/four-years-later-why-did-apple-drop-powerpc/ |url-status=live }}</ref> as well as an inability to build products envisioned by Apple based on the PowerPC product roadmap.<ref name="iMore1"/> Meanwhile, pricing disputes with IBM, in addition to a desire by Apple to give its computer the ability to run [[Microsoft Windows]], were reportedly factors for the switch as well.<ref name="CNET1"/><ref name="CNET3"/>

Finally there is the supposed cleaner architecture of the PowerPC. Advocates of this architecture suggest that x86 has succeeded in the marketplace by sheer strength of [[research and development]] cash, rather than because it is an inherently better design. Moreover, they suggest that a large amount of historical baggage is carried around by x86 for [[backwards compatibility]] reasons that isn't needed by Apple. Others counter that whilst the demonstration machine was a [[Pentium 4]], at no point did Jobs say that x86 would be the final deployed chip. Also, arguments about the cleanliness of [[RISC]] vs [[CISC]] is moot these days, since even CISC designs are RISC at the core. Nevertheless PowerPC advocates are having to eat a certain amount of [[humble pie]] at the precise moment at which PowerPC seemed to be in the ascendent with even Microsoft choosing it for [[XBox 2]]. It may be that since Microsoft was so ambitious in cultivating alternative chip suppliers in AMD and IBM, that Intel made Apple an impossible-to-refuse offer so as to cultivate an alternative operating system supplier...

==Reaction to the change==

===Hardware oriented===

At the time, a research director for [[Ovum Ltd.]] called the move "risky" and "foolish", noting that Intel's innovation in processor design is overshadowed by both AMD and IBM.<ref name="Computerworld1">{{cite news |last1=Bennett |first1=Amy |title=Apple shifting from PowerPC to Intel |url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/2809210/apple-shifting-from-powerpc-to-intel.html |access-date=4 August 2020 |work=[[Computerworld]] |date=2005 |archive-date=November 13, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201113060929/https://www.computerworld.com/article/2809210/apple-shifting-from-powerpc-to-intel.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Another analyst said the move risks diluting Apple's value proposition, since it will now have less control over its product road map, in addition to the risk of alienating its loyal users.<ref name="Computerworld1"/>

===AMD===

The most obvious problem Apple has to deal with in the short term, even assuming that they are able to carry users with them to the new processor, is the so-called "[[Osbourne effect]]." This is named after Adam Osbourne who was so successful at marketing his upcoming new devices that customers stopped buying the current offerings in anticipation of their arrival. The company went bankrupt before they could be completed and shipped.

Some observers expressed surprise that Apple made a deal with Intel instead of with [[AMD]].<ref name="MacWorld1">{{cite news |last1=McLaughlin |first1=Laurianne |title=Analysis: Why Apple picked Intel over AMD |url=https://www.macworld.com/article/1046961/intelvsamd.html |access-date=24 June 2020 |work=[[MacWorld]] |date=14 September 2005 |archive-date=October 24, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201024040545/https://www.macworld.com/article/1046961/intelvsamd.html |url-status=live }}</ref> By 2005, AMD had become popular with gamers and the budget conscious,<ref name="MacWorld1"/> but some analysts believed AMD's lack of low-power designs at the time was behind Apple's decision to go with Intel.<ref name="MacWorld1"/>

In 2011, Apple investigated using AMD's low power [[AMD Fusion#Llano .2832.C2.A0nm.29 2|Llano APU]] for the [[MacBook Air]], but eventually opted for Intel due to AMD's potential inability to supply enough Llano processors to meet demand.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.semiaccurate.com/2011/11/17/apple-macbook-air-with-amd-processor-dead/ |title=Exclusive: Apple MacBook Air with AMD processor dead |date=2011-11-17 |publisher=[[SemiAccurate]] |access-date=December 31, 2012 |archive-date=January 31, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130131005152/http://www.semiaccurate.com/2011/11/17/apple-macbook-air-with-amd-processor-dead/#.UQnAMC_P32c |url-status=live }}</ref>

Clearly Apple needed to involve developers at an early stage so that software would be available for the new machines when they begin retail. But the reason the announcement has been relatively low-key is so as not to alienate users who might otherwise have bought a PowerPC Macintosh but will now delay purchasing until the new Intel variants have become available. Apple has more cash available than did the Osbourne company, but no company will wish to sit on stockpiles of unsold products for long.

===32-bit regression===

There are questions over the extent to which Apple will retain control over the non-processor components of the system design. The interior of a current Apple G5 is as much a work of art as the exterior. Apple is traditionally a systems builder and if it is simply purchasing whole, or nearly whole, motherboards and chipsets from Intel then it is not apparent how much [[industrial design]] [[Product differentiation|differentiation]] can be expected. On the other hand, Apple is a very agile vendor with little historical baggage to carry. Intel may treat Apple rather as [[Ford]] does [[Aston Martin]] - a way to test the latest and greatest technology in a premium product hand-crafted for maximum effect before some months later the technology filters down to cheaper systems. At the very least, purchasing most components from Intel ought to guarantee cost savings at the [[wholesale]] level.

Apple had created the world's first consumer 64-bit desktop computer with its G5 based line-up; however, the first Intel-based Macs included only [[Intel Core Duo]] processors, which were 32-bit. Apple refreshed its line of computers six months later, adding Intel's new [[Intel Core 2 Duo]] 64-bit processors.

===Concerns over Rosetta performance===

Apple has indicated that the new Intel PCs will not use their traditional [[Open Firmware]]. Some users swear by certain features in this technology (particularly "[[Firewire Target Disk Mode]]") and the loss would be keenly felt. A new Intel technology for [[firmware]], [[Extensible Firmware Interface]] (EFI), promises more functionality and removes the traditional PC reliance on the [[BIOS]], seen as non-standard and dated.

When [[Rosetta (software)|Rosetta]] was announced, it was noted that the translation software is designed to translate applications that run on a "PowerPC with a G3 processor and that are built for Mac OS X."<ref name="CNET4"/> It was noted at the time that translated software performs at a level between 50% and 80% of native software.<ref name="CNET4"/><ref>{{cite news |last1=Norr |first1=Henry |title=Core Duo iMacs debut speedy new chips |url=https://www.macworld.com/article/1049163/intelimacs.html |access-date=4 August 2020 |work=[[Macworld]] |date=28 January 2006 |quote=Second, programs that do run on the translator generally work at roughly half the speed they deliver on PowerPC processors... |archive-date=December 6, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201206194123/https://www.macworld.com/article/1049163/intelimacs.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The announcement caused concerns over performance.

===Intel===

Intel itself is seen among the Macintosh community as being a purveyor of hot-running chips. Indeed, this unfortunate feature of the [[Pentium]] range was the subject of a mickey-taking "Burning Bunnies" advertisement by Apple. If Intel can indeed produce cooler chips (and the widely acclaimed [[Pentium-M]] series demonstrates that should be possible) then only the lingering marketing message need be overcome. However versus the current G5, floating point performance is seen as limited and the number of registers available to applications is rather fewer than in a PowerPC alternative. Moreover it is not clear whether the next generation of Intel chips will be able to match [[AltiVec]] functionality and is [[32-bit]] only, at a point when Apple has made [[64-bit]] a cornerstone of its marketing.

At the time the transition was announced, it was noted that a degree of enmity towards Intel exists amongst some fans of Apple products, due to Intel's close identification with Microsoft.<ref name="SanJoseMercuryNews1">{{cite news |last1=Chmielewski |first1=Dawn |title=2005: Changing Apple"s core — Jobs says Intel chips will replace IBM in Macintosh beginning next summer |url=https://www.montereyherald.com/2015/03/04/2005-changing-apples-core-jobs-says-intel-chips-will-replace-ibm-in-macintosh-beginning-next-summer/ |access-date=24 June 2020 |work=[[The Mercury News|San Jose Mercury News]] (via [[The Monterey County Herald|Monterey Herald]]) |date=7 June 2005 |archive-date=November 10, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201110001518/https://www.montereyherald.com/2015/03/04/2005-changing-apples-core-jobs-says-intel-chips-will-replace-ibm-in-macintosh-beginning-next-summer/ |url-status=live }}</ref> In addition, It was noted by Intel's then CEO, [[Paul Otellini]], that Apple and Intel's relationship was strained at times, especially due to Apple's commission of an ad that shows Intel processors being outperformed by PowerPC processors.<ref name="SanJoseMercuryNews1"/>

While there were questions over whether Apple would put the [[Intel Inside]] stickers on its products, Jobs dispelled such a possibility, saying it is redundant when Apple's use of Intel processors is well-known.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Pot |first1=Justin |title=Why Don't Macs Have "Intel Inside" Stickers? |url=https://www.howtogeek.com/318892/why-dont-macs-have-intel-inside-stickers/ |website=How-To Geek |access-date=23 June 2020 |date=24 July 2017 |archive-date=November 27, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201127001940/https://www.howtogeek.com/318892/why-dont-macs-have-intel-inside-stickers/ |url-status=live }}</ref> "Intel Inside" stickers have never been included on any Apple product.<ref>{{cite magazine | url=https://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2007/08/apple-fan-frenz/ | magazine=Wired | first=Charlie | last=Sorrel | title=Apple Fan Frenzy: Stickergate | date=August 13, 2007 | access-date=March 5, 2017 | archive-date=March 3, 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140303092956/http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2007/08/apple-fan-frenz/ | url-status=live }}</ref>

Finally it has been rumoured that Apple was backed into this position by content producers eager for Apple to take advantage of Intel's otherwise roundly condemned [[Trusted computing|on-chip]] [[Digital rights management|digital rights management]] (DRM). This seems unlikely since Apple would not be able to take advantage of it on PowerPC boxes and users would simply continue using their current equipment for tasks requiring DRM. Nevertheless there is every chance that this technology will be used to prevent OS X from working on non-Apple "[[white box]]" PCs, a position Apple is determined to maintain despite this limiting the potential take-up of the OS.

===Osborne effect===

For Apple to allow otherwise would cannibalise the hardware sales which still form a very large percentage of their revenue. Whilst Apple devotees anticipate that a "win" for the [[Software cracking|cracking]] community of such scale as OS X on an unsupported but highly-desirable top-end [[Opteron]] for example, means that it will be inevitably tried, they see the demographic of people willing to accept the consequences of this (such as not being able to use [[Software Update]] for example) as being relatively small. This is an unproved hypothesis, however.

There was concern that an early announcement of the change would cause an [[Osborne effect]],<ref>{{cite news |last1=Andrew |first1=Orlowski |title=The Osborne Effect spooks Apple |url=https://www.theregister.com/2005/06/08/apple_osborne_effect/ |access-date=23 June 2020 |work=[[The Register]] |date=8 June 2005 |archive-date=November 24, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201124174343/https://www.theregister.com/2005/06/08/apple_osborne_effect/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Cooper |first1=Charles |title=Apple and the "Osborne Effect" |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-and-the-osborne-effect/ |access-date=23 June 2020 |work=[[CNet]] |date=14 July 2005 |archive-date=June 25, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200625113437/https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-and-the-osborne-effect/ |url-status=live }}</ref> but it would merely mean only a delay of purchases of Mac computers by retail and institutional customers, not permanent cancellations, and that Apple had enough cash on hand to weather a possible decline in computer sales.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Pogue |first1=David |title=Considering the Macintel Alliance |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/16/technology/circuits/considering-the-macintel-alliance.html |access-date=4 August 2020 |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=16 June 2005 |archive-date=September 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220915140122/https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/16/technology/circuits/considering-the-macintel-alliance.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

Analysis of financial data suggests that the Osborne Effect did not materialize, with sales for Macs growing by 19% and 37% in the two quarters following March 2006.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Gassée |first1=Jean-Louis |title=Osborning The Mac. Or Not. |url=https://mondaynote.com/osborning-the-mac-or-not-f0bbf4c319f0 |website=Monday Note |access-date=23 June 2020 |date=14 June 2020 |archive-date=June 14, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200614220541/https://mondaynote.com/osborning-the-mac-or-not-f0bbf4c319f0 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Finally the use of x86 means that software performance will be much more transparent than when features of the PowerPC enabled [[Benchmark (computing)|benchmarkers]] to hide behind the "[[MHz myth]]." This was a claim that clock speed hid the true story of a computer's performance as it didn't take account of differences between architectures. While ostensibly true, it allowed machines deficient in specification to be sold long after upgrades were due. Now, identical applications placed side-by-side on OS X and a competing operating system will be comparable based purely on the speed of the software.

===ExistingProduct applicationscompatibility===

The [[Classic environment]], the [[Mac OS 9]] virtualization measure for Mac OS X, was not ported to the x86 architecture,<ref>{{cite web |title=Why doesn't Apple support MacOS 9/Classic on Intel-based Macs? |url=https://everymac.com/mac-answers/mac-os-9-classic-support-faq/why-did-apple-abandon-macos-9-classic.html |website=EveryMac.com |access-date=23 June 2020 |date=12 July 2006 |archive-date=April 3, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190403193212/https://everymac.com/mac-answers/mac-os-9-classic-support-faq/why-did-apple-abandon-macos-9-classic.html |url-status=live }}</ref> leaving the new Intel-powered Macs incompatible with [[classic Mac OS]] applications without a proper third-party PowerPC emulator.

There were also concerns over third-party software support, with reaction to the change being mixed amongst the software developer community, due to a need to recompile software for compatibility on Intel-based Macs.<ref name="SanJoseMercuryNews1"/> In early 2006, it was reported that a number of software companies, such as [[Adobe Inc.|Adobe]], [[Aspyr]] and [[Microsoft]], were not ready to release [[universal binary]] versions of their software offerings.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Shimpi |first1=Shimpi |title=Apple Makes the Switch: iMac G5 vs. iMac Core Duo |url=https://www.anandtech.com/show/1936 |access-date=24 June 2020 |work=AnandTech |date=30 January 2006 |archive-date=July 26, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200726071220/https://www.anandtech.com/show/1936 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Ironically, because of the NeXTStep and FreeBSD cross-platform heritage it is likely that [[Application software|application]]-related disruption will be minimal. The evolution depends somewhat on the as-yet unresolved question of whether the transition is to Intel, or to a dual-platform strategy that includes Intel.

===Technical issues===

Firstly, Java applications that don't rely on [[JNI]], [[Dashboard (software)|Dashboard]] [[Widgets]], and [[Scripting programming language|scripts]] that execute inside an [[Interpreter (computing)|interpreter]] all work immediately on both processors and are immune from changes. OS X applications that can't be migrated run inside a PowerPC [[Binary translation|dynamic translator]] on Intel called "[[Rosetta (software)|Rosetta]]." This has limitations, most particularly in that it can't run [[AltiVec]] code, but most applications that use AltiVec fall back to a [[PowerPC G3|G3]] instruction set when AltiVec is not found and will still run in that configuration under Rosetta. Rosetta itself is broadly a better solution than [[Classic (Mac OS X)|Classic]] was for OS 9, as it doesn't require a whole OS to be loaded as a sub-system before the application can work and translations are [[cache]]d for maximum performance on the second and thereafter executions.

In the years prior to Apple's announcement of the transition, it was noted that there was a debate over the difference of [[endianness]] between Intel and non-Intel processors, as well as the merits of each CPU architecture.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Verts |first1=William T. |title=An Essay on Endian Order |url=https://people.cs.umass.edu/~verts/cs32/endian.html |access-date=30 June 2020 |date=19 April 1996 |archive-date=December 7, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201207165011/https://people.cs.umass.edu/~verts/cs32/endian.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The difference in endianness meant that some software could not simply be recompiled; it required changes to make it work on processors of either endianness.<ref>{{cite web |title=When Apple made the switch from PowerPC to Intel x86, what did that entail for their programmers? |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/AskComputerScience/comments/1tg6dw/when_apple_made_the_switch_from_powerpc_to_intel/ |website=[[Reddit]] |access-date=30 June 2020 |date=2013 |quote=...Note also that PPC is big-endian and Intel is little-endian, so in practice a lot of software couldn't just be recompiled; any place where the byte order was assumed had to be fixed... |archive-date=September 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220915140206/https://www.reddit.com/r/AskComputerScience/comments/1tg6dw/when_apple_made_the_switch_from_powerpc_to_intel/ |url-status=live }}</ref>{{Unreliable source?|reason=This statement is indisputably true and correct but the reference is a comment on Reddit. Surely a better source can be found.|date=January 2022}}

==Transition process==

AltiVec itself has been encapsulated since [[Mac OS X v10.3|OS 10.3]] by a vectorisation library that should enable [[Vector processor|vector]]-aware applications to be ported readily. It is understood that Intel's [[SSE3]] is being extended to make it "better for games" but this may in fact include certain AltiVec-related changes as well.

[[File:Steve Jobs Presentation 2.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Steve Jobs reveals Mac OS X running on [[Pentium 4]] hardware.]]

===2005===

A simple recompilation step that generates a Universal (previously called "[[Fat binary|Fat]]") Binary is expected for [[Cocoa (API)|Cocoa]] applications. [[Carbon (API)|Carbon]] applications may require some additional tuning but not of the complexity of the transition from OS 9. It is worth noting that this is only likely to happen when the target wasn't specifically x86. For example, games ported from x86 or Virtual PC applications are unlikely to get significant PowerPC optimisations if the strategy being pursued is an eventual migration entirely away from the minority architecture.

During Apple's 2005 [[WWDC]], the company introduced a [[Developer Transition Kit#Developer Transition Kit (Intel)|Developer Transition Kit]] consisting of a prototype Intel-based Mac computer, along with preliminary versions of [[Mac OS X Tiger]] and [[Xcode#2.x series|Xcode]], which allowed developers to prepare future versions of their software to run on both PowerPC and Intel-based Macs.<ref name="apple-pr-2005"/>

To allow apps built for PowerPC-based Macs to run on Intel-based Macs without recompilation, a [[dynamic binary translation]] software called [[Rosetta (software)|Rosetta]] was created.<ref name="CNET4">{{cite news |last1=Shankland |first1=Stephen |title=The brains behind Apple's Rosetta: Transitive |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/the-brains-behind-apples-rosetta-transitive/ |access-date=24 June 2020 |work=[[CNet]] |date=8 June 2005 |archive-date=March 1, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160301203848/http://www.cnet.com/news/the-brains-behind-apples-rosetta-transitive/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

The one facet of current Mac OS X that will be lost with the switch is support for Classic, the 'Blue Box" compatibility layer that allows OS 9 applications to functin under OS X.

==Future=2006===

On January 10, Apple unveiled an [[iMac (Intel-based)|Intel-based iMac]],<ref>{{cite news |title=Apple debuts Intel-powered Macs |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4600442.stm |access-date=25 June 2020 |work=[[BBC News]] |date=10 January 2006 |archive-date=January 26, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126054011/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4600442.stm |url-status=live }}</ref> as well as a 15-inch [[MacBook Pro]] laptop, which replaced the similarly sized [[PowerBook]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Apple Introduces MacBook Pro |url=https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2006/01/10Apple-Introduces-MacBook-Pro/ |website=[[Apple Inc.]] |access-date=25 June 2020 |date=10 January 2006 |quote=MacBook Pro is up to four times faster than the product it replaces, the PowerBook G4, running industry standard benchmarks. |archive-date=January 8, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100108140023/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/jan/10macbookpro.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

On February 28, a [[Mac mini]] featuring an [[Intel Core|Intel Core Duo]] processor was unveiled.<ref>{{cite web |title=Apple Unveils Mac mini with Intel Core Duo |url=https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2006/02/28Apple-Unveils-Mac-mini-with-Intel-Core-Duo/ |website=[[Apple Inc.]] |access-date=25 June 2020 |date=28 February 2006 |archive-date=October 3, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191003041138/https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2006/02/28Apple-Unveils-Mac-mini-with-Intel-Core-Duo/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

It seems as of this writing that the transition is fully away from PowerPC although internal builds of these may proceed as have Intel builds for the last five years. Apple has shown that it likes to have processor options and will act on them if the business case seems appropriate. Within the same department, builds should also include those for AMD, as well as SPARC and even [[Cell (microprocessor)|Cell]].

On April 5, the dual-boot software [[Boot Camp (software)|Boot Camp]] was released as a trial version, which allowed Intel-based Mac owners to run Mac OS X and [[Microsoft Windows]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Apple makes Macs run Windows XP |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4880022.stm |access-date=25 June 2020 |work=[[BBC News]] |date=5 April 2006 |archive-date=January 13, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210113183146/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4880022.stm |url-status=live }}</ref>

AMD was the obvious and in many opinions preferable choice for Apple. There are good reasons for even the most ardent detractor to grudgingly admit the benefits of x86 but those same ardent individuals are unlikely to accept Intel at all. AMD has the performance crown and with new production facilities can meet Apple's volume requirements. Moreover since they do not supply the entire platform, there would be less anxiety among the Apple customer base about the loss of identity. AMD were selected by [[Sun Microsystems]] to power their recent workstation range and Sun's technical demographic is not dissimilar to Apple's.

On April 24, a MacBook Pro replacement for the 17-inch PowerBook was announced.<ref>{{cite web |title=Apple Introduces 17-inch MacBook Pro |url=https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2006/04/24Apple-Introduces-17-inch-MacBook-Pro/ |website=[[Apple Inc.]] |access-date=25 June 2020 |date=24 April 2006 |archive-date=March 28, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100328153158/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/apr/24macbookpro.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

However, Sun is not a laptop vendor and AMD does not appear to offer laptop specification chips of the same calibre as Intel. They are also still bound to IBM's apparently failing process technology. Apple may pursue a dual-supplier strategy with AMD in the future to enable those Wintel detractors to once again adopt the platform.

On May 16, a replacement for the [[iBook]], called [[MacBook]], was announced, thus completing the transition of Apple's laptop line to Intel processors.<ref>{{cite web |title=Apple Unveils New MacBook Featuring Intel Core Duo Processors |url=https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2006/05/16Apple-Unveils-New-MacBook-Featuring-Intel-Core-Duo-Processors/ |website=[[Apple Inc.]] |access-date=25 June 2020 |date=16 May 2006 |archive-date=April 3, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190403090703/https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2006/05/16Apple-Unveils-New-MacBook-Featuring-Intel-Core-Duo-Processors/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

Cell does sport a general-purpose PowerPC core as well as the multiple [[SIMD]] cores and while is not intended as a workstation chip has been recently demonstrated powering a Linux environment. This required significant effort to establish however. Finally Itanium has not been a market success and would arguably not improve the Xserve line's penetration if adopted.

On July 5, a replacement for the [[eMac]], a special configuration of a 17-inch iMac for use in education, was announced.<ref>{{cite web |title=Apple Introduces $899 Education Configuration for 17-inch iMac |url=https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2006/07/05Apple-Introduces-899-Education-Configuration-for-17-inch-iMac/ |website=[[Apple Inc.]] |access-date=25 June 2020 |date=5 July 2006 |archive-date=January 13, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200113010341/https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2006/07/05Apple-Introduces-899-Education-Configuration-for-17-inch-iMac/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

Not counting Itanium, the roadmap for Intel in the immediate future suggested by [http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.ars Ars Technica] includes "[[Pentium M|Yonah]]" (a dual-core Pentium-M successor with a 65nm process), "[[Pentium M|Sossaman]]" (a desktop version of Yonah) and "[[Pentium M|Conroe]]" (another desktop Pentium-M successor, and [[64-bit]]). None of these processors have been confirmed for Apple at this stage. It is likely that laptop and lower-end machines will be revised first as they are most in need of refresh in comparison to the market as a whole. High-end machines will be revised last as the current G5 is still very competitive and an Intel alternative would not appear to add a great deal of performance.

On August 7, Apple unveiled a replacement for the PowerMac, [[Mac Pro]],<ref name="MacTransitionComplete">{{cite web |title=Apple Unveils New Mac Pro Featuring Quad 64-bit Xeon Processors |url=https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2006/08/07Apple-Unveils-New-Mac-Pro-Featuring-Quad-64-bit-Xeon-Processors/ |website=[[Apple Inc.]] |access-date=25 June 2020 |date=7 August 2006 |archive-date=January 15, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210115200242/https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2006/08/07Apple-Unveils-New-Mac-Pro-Featuring-Quad-64-bit-Xeon-Processors/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and an Intel-based version of [[Xserve]].<ref name=":1">{{cite web |title=Apple Introduces Xserve with Quad 64-bit Xeon Processors |url=https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2006/08/07Apple-Introduces-Xserve-with-Quad-64-bit-Xeon-Processors/ |website=[[Apple Inc.]] |access-date=25 June 2020 |date=7 August 2006 |archive-date=December 7, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201207034347/https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2006/08/07Apple-Introduces-Xserve-with-Quad-64-bit-Xeon-Processors/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The unveiling of the Mac Pro was touted by Apple as a completion of its transition to Intel, and said the entire process took 210 days.<ref name="MacTransitionComplete"/>

Less realistically, it is possible that Apple is using this hardware change in order to rekindle previous opportunities to license the operating system. Other than Apple no major vendor sold a desktop PowerPC based system. Now it is possible that Apple will select certain hardware suppliers to increase the roll-out of OS X without simply unbundling the operating system and rekindling the "clone wars." As an existing hardware partner for the [[iPod]], [[Hewlett Packard]] seems a plausible choice.

===Ongoing support for PowerPC following transition===

Alternatively Apple could license Sun Microsystems to bring the OS to AMD processors. Apple already has a deep relationship with Sun through Java. Apple has licensed this and related technologies for some time and Sun have incorporated certain desktop Java recommendations from Apple into the source base. [http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/20050605 Most recently] [[Jonathan I. Schwartz|Jonathan Schwartz]] of Sun has even dared suggest [[OpenSolaris]] as an alternative kernel for Mac OS X instead of [[XNU]], a move that for many long-time operating system watchers, would bring together the best of all worlds.

[[Mac OS X Snow Leopard|Mac OS X Snow Leopard (10.6)]], released in August 2009, was the first version of Mac OS X (later [[macOS]]) to require a Mac with an Intel processor, ending operating system support for PowerPC Macs three years after the transition was complete.<ref>{{cite web |title=Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard Installation and Setup Guide |url=https://manuals.info.apple.com/MANUALS/1000/MA1172/en_US/Snow_Leopard_Installation_Instructions.pdf |website=[[Apple Inc.]] |access-date=25 June 2020 |date=2009 |quote=To upgrade to Snow Leopard or install Snow Leopard for the first time, you must have a Mac with: An Intel processor |archive-date=November 27, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201127111822/https://manuals.info.apple.com/MANUALS/1000/MA1172/en_US/Snow_Leopard_Installation_Instructions.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Apple to Ship Mac OS X Snow Leopard on August 28 |url=https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2009/08/24Apple-to-Ship-Mac-OS-X-Snow-Leopard-on-August-28/ |website=[[Apple Inc.]] |access-date=25 June 2020 |date=24 August 2009 |archive-date=December 9, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191209130359/https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2009/08/24Apple-to-Ship-Mac-OS-X-Snow-Leopard-on-August-28/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Support for Rosetta was removed from Mac OS X with the release of [[Mac OS X Lion|10.7 Lion]], which was released in July 2011, five years after the transition was complete.<ref>{{cite news |title=Inside Mac OS X 10.7 Lion: Missing Front Row, Rosetta and Java runtime |url=https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/02/26/mac_os_x_lion_drops_front_row_java_runtime_rosetta.html |access-date=25 June 2020 |work=[[AppleInsider]] |archive-date=November 27, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201127150940/https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/02/26/mac_os_x_lion_drops_front_row_java_runtime_rosetta.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Mac OS X Lion Available Today From the Mac App Store |url=https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2011/07/20Mac-OS-X-Lion-Available-Today-From-the-Mac-App-Store/ |website=[[Apple Inc.]] |access-date=23 June 2020 |date=20 July 2011 |archive-date=July 10, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180710135400/https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2011/07/20Mac-OS-X-Lion-Available-Today-From-the-Mac-App-Store/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The last Apple application to support PowerPC processors was iTunes 10.6.3, which was released on June 11, 2012.<ref>{{cite web |title=iTunes 10.6.3 |url=https://support.apple.com/kb/dl1575?locale=en_US |website=[[Apple Inc.]] |access-date=25 June 2020 |date=11 June 2012 |archive-date=January 25, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210125061255/https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1575?locale=en_US |url-status=live }}</ref>

Apple has a policy of placing products that have not been sold for more than five years, but less than seven years, as "vintage", meaning hardware services from Apple Stores and service providers are subject to availability of inventory, or as required by law. After a product has not been sold for more than seven years, it is considered "obsolete", meaning it is not eligible for hardware support.<ref name="AppleVintageObsolete">{{cite web |title=Vintage and obsolete products |url=https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624 |website=[[Apple Inc.]] |access-date=25 June 2020 |archive-date=November 16, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181116063147/https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624 |url-status=live }}</ref> All PowerPC-based Macs were obsolete by 2013.

== See also ==

In spite of the PowerPC machines being considered obsolete, use of the systems remains popular in [[retrocomputing]]; multiple community projects exist that aim to allow PowerPC Macs to carry out modern tasks, such as the [[Classilla]] and [[TenFourFox]] web browsers.

==Legacy==

A [[Mashable]] article in 2016 noted that the decision to switch to Intel processors gave many people who wanted a Mac, but couldn't commit to giving up Windows, a way to have both via Boot Camp and a number of virtualization programs,<ref name="Mashable1">{{cite news |last1=Warren |first1=Christina |title=10 years on, Apple's risky move to Intel Macs is one of its biggest successes |url=https://mashable.com/2016/06/29/intel-macs-at-10/ |access-date=25 June 2020 |work=[[Mashable]] |date=29 June 2016 |archive-date=November 24, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201124123250/https://mashable.com/2016/06/29/intel-macs-at-10/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and that Mac, as a computer platform, had a renaissance following the transition, with more apps being developed.<ref name="Mashable1"/> The article also said following the transition to Intel, Mac, while still outsold by Windows and other computer systems, has had a remarkable comeback, and also noted that Mac users tend to be loyal to the Apple ecosystem, which leads to purchases of other Apple products such as [[iPad]], [[iPhone]] and [[Apple Watch]].<ref name="Mashable1"/>

On June 22, 2020, Apple announced plans to [[Mac transition to Apple silicon|transition the Macintosh to ARM processors]] over a two-year period, following a roadmap similar to the Intel transition, including [[Universal 2 binary|universal binaries]] and a [[Rosetta 2]] compatibility program. Apple had been using ARM processors in the [[iPhone]] since 2007, and had been using them in the [[iPad]], [[iPod Touch]], [[Apple TV]], and [[Apple Watch]] as well, and had been designing its own ARM processors since the [[Apple A6]] in 2012.

==Timeline==

*June 6, 2005: Apple announced its plans to switch to Intel processors at the [[WWDC|Worldwide Developer Conference]] and released a Developer Transition System, a PC running an Intel build of Mac OS X 10.4.1 in a modified [[Power Mac G5]] case, to all Select and Premier members of the Apple Developer Connection at a price of $999.<ref name="apple-pr-2005"/><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://vintagemacmuseum.com/the-apple-developer-transition-system-a-trojan-horse-powermac/|title=The Apple Developer Transition System – a Trojan Horse PowerMac|website=The Vintage Mac Museum|access-date=November 7, 2017|archive-date=November 7, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107111936/http://vintagemacmuseum.com/the-apple-developer-transition-system-a-trojan-horse-powermac/|url-status=live}}</ref>

* January 10, 2006: Jobs announced the first two computers in this series, the 15" [[MacBook Pro]], the first laptop to support [[SATA]], and [[iMac|iMac Core Duo]] line, both using an [[Intel Core|Intel Core Duo]] chip and offered to trade in the Developer Transition Kits for iMacs.

* February 28, 2006: Jobs announced that the [[Mac mini]] now also comes with [[SATA]] connection and an [[Intel Core]] chip, in either the Solo or Duo varieties.

* April 5, 2006: Apple announced the release of '''[[Boot Camp (software)|Boot Camp]]''', which allowed users of Intel-based Macs to run [[Windows XP]]<ref>{{cite web|website=[[BBC News]]|date=April 5, 2006|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4880022.stm|title=Apple makes Macs run Windows XP|access-date=April 5, 2006|archive-date=April 9, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060409112301/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4880022.stm|url-status=live}}</ref> (later versions of Boot Camp allow later versions of Windows).

* April 24, 2006: Apple announced the 17" MacBook Pro, replacing the 17" [[PowerBook]].

* April 27, 2006: Intel announced that processors with the [[Core (microarchitecture)|Core microarchitecture]] would be released months sooner than previously thought.

* May 16, 2006: Apple announced the 13" [[MacBook]] with [[SATA]] support, replacing both the [[iBook]] line and the 12" PowerBook.

* June 26, 2006: Intel announced the [[Xeon#Dual-Core Xeon|Xeon 5100 series]] server/workstation CPU.<ref>{{cite web|website=[[MacWorld]]|date=June 26, 2006|url=https://www.macworld.com/article/1051533/woodcrest.html|title=Intel rolls out 'Woodcrest' chip|first=Shelley|last=Solheim|access-date=November 20, 2019|archive-date=June 28, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190628202944/https://www.macworld.com/article/1051533/woodcrest.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

* July 5, 2006: Apple announced a special educational configuration of the [[iMac]], replacing the old [[PowerPC G4|G4]] [[eMac]].

* August 7, 2006: "Transition Complete" - Apple announced the Intel-based [[Mac Pro]] and [[Xserve]], replacing the [[Power Mac G5]] and Xserve G5, at the [[Worldwide Developers Conference]]; both use the Xeon 5100 series ("[[Woodcrest (microprocessor)|Woodcrest]]") processors.<ref name="MacTransitionComplete" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" />

* October 26, 2007: Apple shipped [[Mac OS X Leopard|Mac OS X 10.5]] "Leopard", the final release with PowerPC support. Macs using a [[PowerPC 7xx|G3]] processor cannot boot this operating system as the backwards compatibility with them have been removed, only [[PowerPC G4|G4]] and [[PowerPC 970|G5]] processors with a minimum 867&nbsp;MHz clock speed are supported. Although it runs on PowerPC machines, it omits the [[Classic environment]], ending Apple's support of software for the [[classic Mac OS]].

* August 28, 2009: Apple shipped Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" exclusively for Intel Macs. PowerPC Macs cannot boot this OS as the backwards compatibility with them have been removed. This is also the final release with Rosetta, allowing PowerPC software to run on an Intel Mac.

* March 1, 2011: The beta version of the then-upcoming [[Mac OS X Lion]] removed "Rosetta" and lost the ability to run PowerPC based software.<ref>{{cite web|website=[[MacWorld]]|date=March 1, 2011|url=https://www.macworld.com/article/669343/no-java-rosetta-or-front-row-in-lion.html|title=No Java, Rosetta, or Front Row in Lion|first=Ashleigh|last=Macro|access-date=August 22, 2022|archive-date=August 22, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220822062008/https://www.macworld.com/article/669343/no-java-rosetta-or-front-row-in-lion.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

* June 23, 2011: Support for Mac OS 10.5 Leopard came to a end, formally ending Apple's support of PowerPC hardware on Mac OS X.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9244852/Apple_signals_end_to_OS_X_Snow_Leopard_support|title=Apple signals end to OS X Snow Leopard support|quote=Apple provided the final update to Leopard in June 2011|first=Gregg |last=Keizer|date=December 17, 2013|website=[[Computerworld]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140407021432/http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9244852/Apple_signals_end_to_OS_X_Snow_Leopard_support|archive-date=April 7, 2014|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9246609/Apple_retires_Snow_Leopard_from_support_leaves_1_in_5_Macs_vulnerable_to_attacks |title=Apple retires Snow Leopard from support, leaves 1 in 5 Macs vulnerable to attacks |first=Gregg |last=Keizer |date= February 26, 2014 |website=[[Computerworld]] |access-date=2014-05-09 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140528150522/http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9246609/Apple_retires_Snow_Leopard_from_support_leaves_1_in_5_Macs_vulnerable_to_attacks |archive-date=May 28, 2014 |df=mdy-all }} See the graph picture on the web</ref>

* July 20, 2011: The release of Mac OS X 10.7 Lion formally ended Apple's development of PowerPC-based software.

* August 7, 2011: PowerPC hardware reached "vintage" status having been discontinued five years prior, ending most of Apple's service and parts support for PowerPC hardware.

* June 11, 2012: Apple released iTunes 10.6.3, their last application with support for PowerPC processors.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://support.apple.com/kb/dl1575?locale=en_US|title=iTunes 10.6.3|website=support.apple.com|access-date=November 20, 2019|archive-date=January 25, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210125061255/https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1575?locale=en_US|url-status=live}}</ref>

* August 7, 2013: PowerPC hardware reached "obsolete" status having been discontinued seven years prior, ending all of Apple's service and parts support for PowerPC hardware.

* February 25, 2014: Support for Mac OS 10.6 Snow Leopard was dropped, formally ending Apple's support of PowerPC-based software.

==See also==

* [[Hackintosh]]

* [[Star Trek project]]

* [[Universal binary]]

* [[Mac transition to PowerPC processors]]

* [[Mac transition to Apple silicon]]

== Notes ==

{{Notelist}}

==References==

{{Reflist}}

== External links ==

* [https://web.archive.org/web/20090301215628/http://developer.apple.com:80/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/ Apple Universal Binary Programming Guidelines]

* [https://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1909736,00.asp Can Developers Give Mactel an Enterprise Boost?]

* [https://www.apple.com/macosx/compatibility/ Boot Camp, Apple's solution to running Windows operating systems via a dual-boot method]

{{Intel}}

[[Category:Macintosh platform]]

[[Category:Intel]]