|
===Hardware oriented===
There are questions over the extent to which Apple will retain control over the non-processor components of the system design. Apple is traditionally a systems builder, and some fear that Apple's [[industrial design]] philosophy may be impacted if Apple switches to generic parts. Others have said that the impact would be minimal, as Apple has slowly been switching to standard parts since the introduction of the PCI Power Mac in 1995, and that using a generic chipset in itself would not harm the Mac's image.
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.
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]], seenbut asApple non-standardhas andnot datedyet stated which system will be used. ▼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.
The use of the x86 architecture has brought forth the possibility of running Windows natively on Apple hardware, as well as using the [[WINE]] package to run Windows executables directly. Some fear that the change will make OS X a less valuable target for software developers, since Windows users could use WINE or a [[dual boot]] setup to run Windows apps instead; others say that it could be a boon to switchers, since they would not have to leave their Windows applications behind while trying out OS X. The idea of OS X being available on regular PCs has also been discussed, but Apple has said that they will not allow regular PCs to run OS X (though they have no concerns about Intel-based Macs running Windows).
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.
Intel is seen among the Macintosh community as being a purveyor of hot-running chips. Apple themselves mocked the Pentium range in their "Burning Bunnies" advertisements of the late 1990s, and the [[Pentium 4]] needs large amounts of power and cooling to operate, making it unsuitable for laptops and small PCs. However, the [[Pentium M]] chips, which were designed for laptop use, run much cooler than the Pentium 4, and Apple is expected to use these CPUs first.
▲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.
Finally, the relative "goodness" of the x86 architecture has been discussed. Critics of the switch say that x86 was a poor choice because of its lack of hardware [[register]]s compared to the PowerPC, the awkwardness of the x86 [[instruction set]], and the lack of [[AltiVec]]. Proponents have responded by saying that the x86 architecture has evolved greatly since the original 8086 was introduced, and that CPUs in general have combined [[RISC]] and [[CISC]] philosophies in their internal designs for some time, making the distinction obsolete; they also point out that improvements to [[SSE]] that can replace [[AltiVec]] are coming, and that most programmers rarely deal with x86's peculiarities now because the [[compiler]] does the work. Also, 64-bit capability was not mentioned in Apple's initial developer notes, which has worried some observers; it has since been indicated that the Pentium 4 in the developer machines has [[EM64T]] capability, and that all of the Intel chips due out by the time the Power Mac line switches over will be 64-bit. Apple has not yet released any plans for 64-bit Intel machines, though the capability will be there.
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.
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.
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.
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.
===Existing applications===
| 