Mac transition to Intel processors: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:23, 18 June 2005

Revision as of 17:07, 19 June 2005

Line 2:

{{mergefrom|MacIntel}}

At the [[2005]] [[Worldwide Developers Conference]] (WWDC), [[Apple Computer]] [[CEO]] [[Steve Jobs]] made the historic announcement that the [[microprocessor]]scompany poweringwas hisbeginning company'sa [[Appletransition Macintosh|Macintosh]]from the use of [[computerPowerPC]] range would '''transition''' from [[PowerPCmicroprocessor]]s parts supplied by [[Motorola]] and [[IBM]] in their [[Apple Macintosh|Macintosh]] [[computer]]s, to thoseprocessors ofdesigned hithertoand rivalmanufactured companyby [[Intel]], a chief supplier for most of Apple's competitors.

==HistoryPrecedents==

The Macintosh line underwent a similar transition in the [[1990s]], when Apple switched from the use of Motorola's [[68K]] series of chips to their [[PowerPC]] processors, developed jointly with Apple and IBM. This took several years, and was accomplished by Apple producing versions of the [[Mac OS]] which could run on either platform, fairly low-level emulation of the 68K architure by the PowerPC models, and third party developers releasing "fat binaries" that could run natively on either architecture.

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.

More recently Apple has transitioned the Macintosh line from the earlier [[Mac OS]] family to [[Mac OS X]], a [[Unix-like]] operating system with a different user interface. This transition also took a number of years (a small percentage of older Macintoshes still run the earlier operating system), and was facilitated by the inclusion of [[Classic (Mac OS)|Classic]], an evironment in which an instance of [[Mac OS 9]] could be run, permitting the execution of programs which had not been ported to Mac OS X.

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]]. [[Mac OS X|OS X]] was derived from [[NeXTSTEP]] which was bought by Apple for the purpose, based on a [[Mach_kernel|Mach kernel]] a [[FreeBSD]] low-level API and propietary high-level APIs such as [[Carbon_(computing)|Carbon]], [[Cocoa_(API)|Cocoa]] and so on. 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.

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 atthis, the conferencestating that every version of OS X had in fact been thus compiled, continuingfor theIntel cross-platformprocessors tradition ofas NeXTSTEPwell andas FreeBSDPowerPC. It is not known what other processors, if any, Apple maintains current builds for.

==Reasons for the Transition==

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.

Jobs stated that Apple's primary motivation for the transition was their disappointment with the progress of IBM's development of PowerPC technology, and their greater faith in Intel to meet Apple's needs. In particular, he cited the [[performance per watt]] (that is, the speed per unit of heat generated) projections in the [[Technology roadmapping|roadmap]] provided by Intel. This is an especially important consideration in laptop design.

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.

UnfortunatelyIn 2003, Jobs had introduced Macintoshes based on the 3[[PowerPC GHz970|PowerPC G5]] wasprocessor notand achievedpromised eventhat twowithin a year the [[clock speed]] of the part would be up to 3 [[Gigahertz|GHz]]. Two years later, 3 GHz G5s were still not available, and rumours continuecontinued 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 sufficientlyproved toan enable itobstacle to bedeploying deployedit in a [[laptop]] computer, nowwhich had become the fastest growing segment of the [[personal computer]] industry.

Some observers were surprised that Apple had not made a deal with [[AMD]], which has in recent years become a strong competitor to Intel, sometimes introducing technologies more quickly than the traditional industry leader. AMD's shorter track record and smaller production capacity, and Intel's significant [[brand]] awareness among the consumers and ability to also provide Apple with complete motherboard designs, have been offered as possible reasons for the choice of Intel.

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.

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.

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.

==Benefits of the Move==

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.

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.

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.

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.