This article answers some of my questions in this turbulent time…
Q: Will x86 Macs be cheaper than today’s Macs?
A: A better question would be, “Will x86 Macs be cheaper than ‘equivalent’ PowerPC-based Macs would have been had the IBM relationship not gone south?” My answer is “no.” Expect Macs to remain more expensive than PCs.
Q: Will I be able to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC?
A: No.
Q: Try and stop me!
A: Apple most assuredly will—try, that is. And they’ll fail, just like Microsoft failed to stop people from installing Linux and MAME on the Xbox. But like MS, all Apple has to do is make sure that only Slashdot-reading, VoIP-using, PC-assembling, DMCA-breaking geeks hack their way to an “unapproved” configuration of hardware and software. If it’s illegal (thanks to the Mac OS X EULA or the DMCA) or at least “technically complex and/or annoying” to run Mac OS X on non-Apple x86 hardware, Apple will be able to absorb any loss in hardware sales attributable to geeks and hardware hackers.
Q: Will future Macs use Pentium 4 CPUs like Apple’s x86 developer kit announced today?
A: Probably not. I expect Apple to start with Intel’s next generation of multi-core CPUs. Hannibal will have more to say about this issue.
Q: Will I be able to run Windows applications on an x86 Mac?
A: Not unless you also run Windows on it.
Q: Okay, will I be able to boot an x86 Mac into Windows?
A: No.
Q: Try and sto—
A: See earlier answer about running Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC. Update: I missed this quote from Phil Schiller. “That doesn’t preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac. They probably will. We won’t do anything to preclude that.” My reaction to this new information can be found in the article discussion thread.
Q: Will I be able to run Windows on an x86 Mac?
A: With something like Virtual PC, yes. (Well, VMware, really.) Only it’ll actually be fast now, close to native speed if all goes well.
Q: Will Apple provide a VMware-like environment to run Windows applications at near-native speeds on x86 Macs running Mac OS X?
A: No.
Q: Okay, then will someone other than Apple provide one?
A: Yes.
Q: Will Apple continue to design its own motherboards, or will it use commodity PC parts?
A: I think Apple will continue to produce custom designs, or will “bless” a particular PC motherboard/chipset maker (like Intel, for instance…) and contract them to build boards/chipsets that suit Apple’s needs.
Q: Will Apple’s planned emulation of the PowerPC ISA on an x86 chip really work?
A: It’ll be “good enough,” but not nearly as good as 68K emulation was on the PowerPC.
Q: Will developers get onboard with such a big change, or will they revolt and abandon ship?
A: If history is any indication, enough developers will ride out the storm to maintain the life of the platform.
Q: Will porting Mac OS X applications to x86 really be easier than porting classic Mac OS applications to Mac OS X was?
A: Yes.
Q: Will Apple maintain an internal PowerPC build of Mac OS X even after moving its entire product line to x86 processors “just in case” they ever need to switch back?
A: I hope so, if only to continue to enforce the discipline of portability.
Q: Is Microsoft worried that every Windows user is suddenly a potential Mac OS X user if Apple ever decides to give up or de-emphasize its hardware business?
A: You bet your ass they are. Don’t believe the hype. Microsoft worries about everything, and this is more than a little blip on their radar.
Q: Would Apple ever do that? You know, sell Mac OS X to current Windows users to install on their existing PCs?
A: Someday, maybe, but not soon, and probably only after Apple is convinced that such a market exists and is big enough to be worth sacrificing their own hardware business. How will Apple be convinced of this? Why, by the number of people “illegally” installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, of course. Multiply that number by the the inverse of the ratio of geeks to “normal” people and you get a rough estimate of the total number of potential software-only Windows-to-Mac OS X switchers. Then comes an awkward call to Michael Dell…
Q: Will x86 Macs come with a two-buttons mouse?
A: Hey, we’re just taking about moving an entire platform to a new CPU architecture (again). Let’s not get crazy!
Q: Did you notice that none of the pictures of PowerPC chips shown in the slides during the WWDC keynote presentation had the “G5” logo on them? Instead, they all had a generic purple badge with “PowerPC” written on it.
A: Yeah, I noticed that too. Steve angry! Steve smash IBM!
Q: Can you wrap this thing up already?
A: Sure.
The end
There’s no two ways about it, I’m in stage 4: depression. A lot of people are excited about the prospect of a future Apple without the dark cloud of CPU uncertainty over its head. I like that idea too, but I only wish it had come to fruition through IBM. After the G5 introduction, I thought it had. I was actually encouraged by IBM’s game console contract wins. It seemed like the PowerPC ISA had a bright future. Maybe it does, but apparently not with Apple.
I’ve also heard this transition compared to the 68K-to-PowerPC change. Emotionally, nothing could be further from the truth. As technically risky as the PowerPC move was—arguably a lot more risky than moving to the dominant x86 ISA and the dominant CPU maker—it at least had an air of technology-based excitement. Apple was moving to a new, better ISA. The x86 ISA is anything but new, and few would call it “technically better” than the PowerPC ISA. Yes, Apple is assured a steady stream of competitive CPUs as long as Windows targets the same ISA, but at a cost. Apple’s CPUs may no longer be slower than the competition, but they also give up any hope of being faster.
That, in a nutshell, is why this is a dark day for Apple. It’s yet another little thing that Macs used to do, if not always better, then at least differently than Windows PCs. Macs are now slightly less special.
If all goes as planned, the Mac platform will be stronger in a couple of years than it is today. (Who knows, maybe Doom 4 will even get decent frame-rates.) I’ll buy a multi-core, multi-CPU x86-64 Mac and I’ll like it because it’ll be fast, good-looking, and it’ll run Mac OS X. But I’ll still think of what might have been…and what someday might be again. Call me a hopeless romantic. I’ll miss the PowerPC.
Nice rundown. Are you in the “make OSX an option for all x86 machines” or the “you can have my proprietary hardware when you pry it out of my cold dead hands” crowd?
“you can have my proprietary hardware when you pry it out of my cold dead hands”–
I don’t think heavens OS should be in the unwashed hands of the heathen masses…
So then maybe we in the unwashed x86 masses can quit contributing GPL’d BSD and LINUX kernel code for Apple to use for free?
Just kidding. While I certainly hope this brings about the desired result of cheaper development and availability of lower cost chip sets in the short term, I’m afraid Steve and crew need to take a long look at the world around them and realize that hardware has become a commodity item.
While I realize it’s not their stated purpose, it’s highly likely the only way Apple will be able to Crush the Demoniac is by marketing the overall supremacy of their photo, music, video, production suite, browsing, emailing, file-finding, very easy to use and even easier to secure software instead of alien-feeling and seemingly overpriced machines.
fucking a, my posts never show up on here duder. what the hell?