Topic: Apple and Intel - Together at last??!?

[Clark Kent]

Well, it's true, Apple is dumping the POwer PC Chips for intel brand chips.  They don't want OS X to run on any non mac PC, but they will set it up so it CAN run windows.  Good news for drawing in new mac users, terrible for all of us that are already mac users.

http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+aligns+with+Intel/2100-7341_3-5733756.html?part=rss&tag=5733756&subj=news

[Javora]

In his speech, Jobs revealed that Apple has been developing all versions of OS X since its inception to run on Intel and PowerPC chips.

"Mac OS X has been leading a secret double life the past five years," he said.

Yeah really big secret there Jobs...      

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.

And the stupidity continues, not that it was a real suprise but still bad decision IMHO.  This is one of the biggest reasons why people don't switch to Mac's.  Nobody wants to spend a huge amount of money for hardware that is outdated before they buy it.  If Apple really wanted to gain market share they would have closed down Apple's PC hardware division and started selling the Mac OS on the shelf like Microsoft.  I think the real benefit are those that already are Mac addicts but have bought a separate Windows machine for work and or an occasional game or two.  However if these people plan on moving WinXP from their PC system to the Mac system they are in for a big suprise.

Maybe in another ten years Apple will come the rest of the way and finely dump the Mac only hardware.  Until then I'll wait, I've waited this long already.

[Clark Kent]

I think apple maintains such a tight grip on it's hardware is because it over complicates the OS development process.  Third party architecture requires special drivers, which makes the stock OS unstable.  By limiting what computers Apple OS can run on, you add to the stability of the OS.  DO NOT FLAME ME AS THIS IS NOT MY OWN ARGUMENT , AND I DO NOT CLAIM IT TO BE TRUE.
I personally am a mac fan as it is more functional for me than any PC I've ever used.  I don't have to worry about viruses, spyware etc etc, and I have been able to work easily with all but one file I've taken from a PC environment.  The OS never crashes, and I've only had one freeze since I went OS X.  Sometimes a program (AOL and MS Word are the only two that this has happened to , surprise surprise) will crash, but the rest of the OS remains unaffected.  It even interfaced instantly with a projector last week at school when the specially built PC couldn't.
In short, my Mac just simply works, so I stand by it.  I am wary, however of the change. 

[Death_Merchant]

I agree with Clark Kent (except for that avatar choice... my God man, have you no mercy?!?!)

A close architecture, while annoying to those who live to tweak and optimize their PCs, keeps my Mac running solidly.

However, this switch to Intel is a blow to those needing a Mac upgrade. What are we to do?
1) Buy a dead-end G5, or
2) Wait over a year for rev 1 of an Intel Mac?

[Clark Kent]

I'd say buy regardless.  I've been watching the keynote address, and it sounds like there are some pretty good advances with the current line of chips before everything swithes.  I expect rosetta toget better by the time the first high end intel macs are released.   I'm sure the new Powermacs will be 64 bit, or Apple would not be jumping in like this, and I expect that the Intel Powermacs won't be out until 2007, so just go on as you would normally.
Brian

[Death_Merchant]

Check out Wired's musing as to what this is all REALLY about....

and you thought it was just for laptops?

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html

[Javora]

I agree with Clark Kent (except for that avatar choice... my God man, have you no mercy?!?!)

A close architecture, while annoying to those who live to tweak and optimize their PCs, keeps my Mac running solidly.

However, this switch to Intel is a blow to those needing a Mac upgrade. What are we to do?
1) Buy a dead-end G5, or
2) Wait over a year for rev 1 of an Intel Mac?

I agree with the argument that Apple is using, it's simple logic and I understand where they are coming from.  But look at how much hardware is in a PC now days.  About 10 different motherboard manufactures.  Only two companies make almost all of the graphics cards and TV tuner cards.  Only one company makes most of the sound cards, the rest is on-board or sub 2% market share companies.  The CD/DVD drives are all standard.  Hard drives pretty much take care of them selves.  What’s left modems/10-100-1000 network jacks and the return of the 3.5" floppy (ok I threw the floppy in for kicks and giggles    )?  Most of what’s left is connected threw an USB/Firewire port with many already having proven Mac drivers.

So what are we talking about here, about 20~30 different device drivers for internal components at most??!?  Given that I'm just not sure that argument holds water like it used to 5~10 years ago.  Granted most if not all of the Mac's drivers are on the Rom chips but come on, if Apple can't handle 20~30 extra drivers than what they are used to than what the heck are they doing in the computer business??!?  Bottom line the people at Apple appear to be control freaks and will more than likely need a management change before we finally see the Mac OS on the store shelves.  IMHO is the only thing that will really bring apple out of the niche market and into competition with Microsoft.

The other thing I see as an issue with Intel processors in the Mac machines is that virus writers will find it easier to write viruses for the Mac.  All that is needed now is a low-end Mac and a copy of WinXP for a duel boot machine.  A lot of the coding problems that made Mac viruses unfeasible will soon be resolved.  You Mac owners may want to keep your antivirus definitions updated more regularly when the change occurs.

The one good thing that I see from all of this is that game companies may find it worthwhile now to include Mac support for their games.  Game ports to the Mac platform should be much easier after the switch.

As for what to buy in the mean time I think that's obviously going to be up to the individual Mac user.  If they have a Mac that is over 2 years old or the machine can't do the things that they need to do now then going to the latest current G5 would be the thing to do.  This would also give these people time to wait until the high-end Intel Mac's are out and all of the transition kinks are worked out.  But if I had a new Mac or a Mac that is less than a year old then I would wait until I feel the time is right.  Your mileage may very.

[Javora]

Check out Wired's musing as to what this is all REALLY about....

and you thought it was just for laptops?

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html

Hmmm, that seems to contradict what Nemesis found about the Pentium D.  Here is the link to the thread where I’m quoting him:

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163356665.0.html

Intel denies the DRM in the Pentium D:

Link to full article

The Intel Pentium D Processor and the Intel 945 Express Chipset family do not have unannounced embedded DRM technologies.

While Intel continues to work with the industry to support other content protection technologies, we have not added any unannounced DRM technologies in either the Pentium D processor or the Intel 945 Express Chipset family.

I would guess that a backlash had begun and Intel felt compelled to deny this to protect themselves.  I hope so because then they might reconsider any future plans along these lines.

Hmmm, is Intel telling the truth about the Pentium D or are they trying to deceive customers into buying this DRM crap hoping we won’t find out??!?  Or at least deceive the customers until it is too late for any organized customer outrage to do anything about it.  Or does this Wired article have its facts mixed up.  *Shrugs*

[Clark Kent]

I agree with Clark Kent (except for that avatar choice... my God man, have you no mercy?!?!)

A close architecture, while annoying to those who live to tweak and optimize their PCs, keeps my Mac running solidly.

However, this switch to Intel is a blow to those needing a Mac upgrade. What are we to do?
1) Buy a dead-end G5, or
2) Wait over a year for rev 1 of an Intel Mac?

A friend of mine works for WSJ, and he sent me this article, it might help you in your decision process:

PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY
By WALTER S. MOSSBERG   

What the Apple Plan
To Switch to Intel Chips
Means for Consumers
June 9, 2005; Page B1

The war in Iraq rages on, the European Union is fraying and North Korea may have nuclear weapons. But if you read the business and technology news this past week, all of that seemed to pale before an event variously described as seismic, epic and stunning: Apple Computer has decided to adopt processors made by Intel for its future Macintosh computers.

There's a reason this was big news in the computer world. For decades, Intel's chips have been tightly linked to the software of Apple's archrival, Microsoft, and Apple has touted as superior the IBM PowerPC chips that powered the Mac. Plus, Apple CEO Steve Jobs, probably the most charismatic business leader in America, attracts attention for anything he does, even though his Macintosh has a tiny share of the PC market.

But what does Apple's move mean for the average consumer, who just wants the best computer for the job?

In the long term, the change will strengthen Apple and the Mac, which is good news for anyone devoted to that platform or considering switching to it. That's because Intel's processors and other chips will give Apple more options than IBM's products could for building Macs that run faster and cooler, and have longer battery life. The first Intel-based Mac is due in spring 2006.

Even consumers who use Microsoft Windows, which runs on the vast majority of computers, will benefit, because the Mac's impact on the industry is vastly greater than its market share. Apple is the most innovative major computer maker, and the only one largely dedicated to serving consumers instead of large corporate customers. Almost everything it does is later copied by the Windows PC makers, so keeping Apple strong and innovating is good for Windows users, too.

In the short run, however, the chip changeover should make little difference to average consumers. For all but the techiest techies, changing the processor in these machines will be a nonevent, sort of like changing the engine in next year's Lexus cars. As long as the new engine is at least as fast and smooth as its predecessor, few drivers would notice or care.

What makes a Mac a Mac isn't the processor under the hood. It's Apple's elegant operating system, OS X, which won't see major changes for 18 months, and the company's stylish hardware designs, which it will continue to produce. When you peer at the screen of the first Intel-based Mac, it will look just like today's PowerPC Macs, only it should run faster.

Of course, if Apple fails to execute the switch well or the Intel processors don't meet expectations, the Mac could be in trouble. And users would lose if too many third-party software developers decline to spend the money and time to convert their products so they run on the Intel chips.

Here are answers to a few common questions I've received about the switch.

Should people hold off buying a Mac that uses the IBM PowerPC processor, which Apple will soon abandon, and wait for the new Intel Macs?

No. If you need a new computer and the Mac was the right choice for you last week, it's still the right choice. Today's PowerPC Macs are, in my view, the best consumer computers on the market, and Apple plans to roll out additional PowerPC models this year.

Plus, all new software for the Mac will continue to run on PowerPC models for at least a few more years, the likely life of any Mac you buy now. That's because Apple has created a tool for software developers that easily creates "universal" programs capable of being run on either the PowerPC or Intel models.

Now that Apple will be using the same processor as Dell, H-P and other competitors, will people be able to run the Mac operating system on these non-Apple machines?

Unless some hacker does a masterful job, the answer is no. Apple intends to keep its operating system and hardware tied tightly together. The new Intel-based versions of the Mac's OS X operating system will be designed so that they cannot run on non-Apple hardware, and Apple has no plans to license OS X to other PC makers.

Will users be able to install and run Microsoft Windows on the new Intel-based Macs?

Apple's official position is that it won't block the use of Windows on its new machines. Unofficially, however, the company says people won't be able to just buy a copy of Windows XP and install it on an Intel-based Mac. That's because Apple is unlikely to build in all the standard under-the-hood hardware pieces that Windows is designed to mate with. And it won't supply any special software called "drivers" to help Windows use the unique under-the-hood hardware Apple will use.

However, I expect some third-party company to supply the missing drivers and otherwise make it possible to run Windows on an Intel-based Mac. Microsoft itself might even do this. That would allow Mac users to run Windows programs that lack Mac equivalents at speeds comparable to a Windows computer's.

Will Mac prices fall due to the switch to Intel?

There's no way to tell now, but I doubt it. Apple's lower volumes, higher quality and unusual designs will likely keep it out of the very basement of the market.

[Javora]

Apple is the most innovative major computer maker, and the only one largely dedicated to serving consumers instead of large corporate customers.

 

But yet most games are only released on the PC, I guess gamers aren't consumers.   

[Clark Kent]

I'm not much a game person, since flight sims and SFC are about the only games that attract me, but last I checked at the applestore they had an entire wall of name brand games.

[Javora]

I'm not much a game person, since flight sims and SFC are about the only games that attract me, but last I checked at the applestore they had an entire wall of name brand games.

Which is only about 4% of the total PC games that are out or are coming out.  So either that wall includes every game since StarCraft or that wall isn't all that big or that wall includes something other than games.      

Fact is gaming companies don't want to produce game for a 2% market share.  That is why games like Battlefield 1 or 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, and other main stream games won't show up on the Apple system.  And I'm not talking about port-overs either, I'm talking about games released specifically for the Mac.  Not that Jobs has made it easy for companies to make games for Apple since Jobs has stated in the past (unless his mindset has changed recently) that games weren't meant for the Mac.

[Clark Kent]

I think he's recently had a change of heart and sees that stance is not doing him any good.  The only games I ever see on the shelves at any store, be it for mac or pc are name brand ones, i.e. current popular games.The other 96% or whatever does not concern me, so I have no idea what is out there.
the only point I am trying to make is that there is most likely alot more out there for the mac than you might think.  Things have changed for macs over the last 5-6 years, and you might be surprised at what's available on the mac.
Don't take that as a statement of trying to convert you.  If you are a game fanatic, I'd still agree that a desktop PC is your best choice for playing games hard core on.  Whatever your computing preferences, I'm sure you have wha'ts best for you, and I'm sure it works great for your needs.
The mac market, however is fairly unique.  Alot of people don't really know that we're even around, let alone what we can do with our macs.  As far as being innovative, I'd have to agree that Apple does push the market in that area.  Windows was a hack of the Apple OS (still is)  Longhorn seeks actively to mimic and copy OS X, the first computers with optical drives were macs, the first ones to push USB and firewire were macs.  there's a huge list here.  Apple, for having such a small market share, is bold, and pushes computing convention.  Then the PC companies swoop in, use Apple innovations for their own PCs, often for cheaper. 
Anyway, keep your PC, be happy with it.  At least I hope you're much happier with your PC than I am with mine.  All I can say is I got my mac because it works for me and I like it.  If you feel different fine, but you sound very anti mac, which automatically tempts me to be defensive.

[Nemesis]

first ones to push USB and firewire were macs. 

Apple does have a lot of firsts (unlike MS) but USB is not one of them.  It was developed specifically for the PC and was on PCs first. 

The problem Apple has is that they abandoned their original audience when they created the Mac.  The Apple I, Apple II and Apple III were all open at the hardware level.  Anything someone wanted to do with an Apple computer was fine with Apple the company.  Then along comes the Mac and they sealed it off as a hardware no fly zone.  It became you can do anything WE think you need to do.  Yes they eventually changed but by then the original audience was on the PC bandwagon.

Then along comes IBM and creates the PC using the Apple I-III openness.   IBM proceeded to dominate the PC industry and did so until they did 2 things. 

1/ Hold back on the next generation 386 machines leaving the opening for Compaq to establish the way 386 PCs were defined. 

2/ MCA (Micro Channel Architecture) IBM's attempt to seal things off like Apple did, the PC industry just waved goodbye and IBM became irrelevant as a PC standards setter.  OS/2 while technically superior was another lock in to IBM failure.  They needed to make OS/2 more open to generic PCs like DOS and Windows but they couldn't bring themselves to be open that way - then. 

If the Mac had been open from the beginning the whole PC field would I think be different.  If IBM had not tried to hold back the tide (the 386) and change the PC to an IBM proprietary architecture (and OS) then the "lesser" companies like Compaq and Dell would have been held back for years. 

Microsoft is progressively going more to the "what WE decide" way that damaged Apple and IBM so badly.  I expect it to end the same way for Microsoft.  This is an opening that Apple could use to become relevant again.

[Javora]

I think he's recently had a change of heart and sees that stance is not doing him any good.  The only games I ever see on the shelves at any store, be it for mac or pc are name brand ones, i.e. current popular games.The other 96% or whatever does not concern me, so I have no idea what is out there.

I hope you're right, I think games and gaming is the only way Apple is going to get out of that 2% market share.  As it stands now IIRC, Battlefield 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, and Star Wars Battlefront 2 (like most of the Star Wars titles) will not appear on the Mac.  I'm hoping and praying that the move to Intel will convince game producers to jump on the Apple bandwagon, I think it is the only way Apple will ever get out of the market share basement.

All I can say is I got my mac because it works for me and I like it.  If you feel different fine, but you sound very anti mac, which automatically tempts me to be defensive.

Ok now I can see where you are coming from.  For the record I don't hate any type of Hardware/Software (with the exception of Digital Rights Management Hardware/Software), rather it be Apple, Microsoft, ATI, nVidia etc.  They all have their good and bad points.  I do however hate fan boys, the people who will sing praises of a certain item even if problems and/or shortcomings are smacking them in the face.  I can understand the mentality, these people spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on a product or platform and they don't want to feel that they have made a mistake given the money they have spent.

For instance I use WinXP and Microsoft Office.  I can't talk about all the problems they have as Frey doesn't have that much hard drive space on his server.     Spell/Grammar checker would take up a good amount of space all by itself.  However I don’t go ballistic just because someone attacks Window/Office.  Even though I have invested thousands of dollars into this system, I know it has shortcomings.  No one can’t have the perfect computer platform, it’s just not out there.  I just wish more people would realize that.

And I don't hate the Mac, in fact I dream of the day that Apple has a 46~50% market share.  I also dream of the day I can dual-boot Mac/WinXP on my PC.  I want Apple to be in direct competition with Microsoft, I think it will be the only way software innovation will really get off the ground.  Until then I'll take what ever Apple can come up with three years later when Microsoft decides to incorporate it.  But I don't ever see Apple getting to that point until they open up the hardware, and game producers jump on board.  It's like Apple (Jobs) is doing everything they can to shoot themselves in the foot.  Heck, look at the bottom of Nemesis's last post, he stated exactly how I feel and wrote it down better than I ever could (BTW great job Nemesis  ).  And I think that is where my frustration towards Apple is coming from, I'm not trying to attack you directly but instead I'm openly mocking Apple for the choices they have made.

[Clark Kent]

For the record, nemesis, I didn't say apple devloped USB, just that they were the first to push it.  Their iMacs, which were then "consumer" designed machines came standard with USB and firewire, and walked away from SCSI and what was then more standard connection devices.  The majority of PCs are still playing catch up on that move.

I think he's recently had a change of heart and sees that stance is not doing him any good.  The only games I ever see on the shelves at any store, be it for mac or pc are name brand ones, i.e. current popular games.The other 96% or whatever does not concern me, so I have no idea what is out there.

I hope you're right, I think games and gaming is the only way Apple is going to get out of that 2% market share.  As it stands now IIRC, Battlefield 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, and Star Wars Battlefront 2 (like most of the Star Wars titles) will not appear on the Mac.  I'm hoping and praying that the move to Intel will convince game producers to jump on the Apple bandwagon, I think it is the only way Apple will ever get out of the market share basement.

All I can say is I got my mac because it works for me and I like it.  If you feel different fine, but you sound very anti mac, which automatically tempts me to be defensive.

Ok now I can see where you are coming from.  For the record I don't hate any type of Hardware/Software (with the exception of Digital Rights Management Hardware/Software), rather it be Apple, Microsoft, ATI, nVidia etc.  They all have their good and bad points.  I do however hate fan boys, the people who will sing praises of a certain item even if problems and/or shortcomings are smacking them in the face.  I can understand the mentality, these people spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on a product or platform and they don't want to feel that they have made a mistake given the money they have spent.

For instance I use WinXP and Microsoft Office.  I can't talk about all the problems they have as Frey doesn't have that much hard drive space on his server.     Spell/Grammar checker would take up a good amount of space all by itself.  However I don’t go ballistic just because someone attacks Window/Office.  Even though I have invested thousands of dollars into this system, I know it has shortcomings.  No one can’t have the perfect computer platform, it’s just not out there.  I just wish more people would realize that.

And I don't hate the Mac, in fact I dream of the day that Apple has a 46~50% market share.  I also dream of the day I can dual-boot Mac/WinXP on my PC.  I want Apple to be in direct competition with Microsoft, I think it will be the only way software innovation will really get off the ground.  Until then I'll take what ever Apple can come up with three years later when Microsoft decides to incorporate it.  But I don't ever see Apple getting to that point until they open up the hardware, and game producers jump on board.  It's like Apple (Jobs) is doing everything they can to shoot themselves in the foot.  Heck, look at the bottom of Nemesis's last post, he stated exactly how I feel and wrote it down better than I ever could (BTW great job Nemesis  ).  And I think that is where my frustration towards Apple is coming from, I'm not trying to attack you directly but instead I'm openly mocking Apple for the choices they have made.

Sounds like we're mostly at an understanding on this.  It's a sensitive issue for me, since I remember the "good ole" mac vs pc debates where it went from "I like PCs more" to "you're an idiot for using a mac" very quickly, along with other unneccesarily abusive language.  Hope you see why I'm touchy about it. 
As for your hopes for Apple, the Apple OS still won't run on a regular PC after the change, witout a hack, but I'm sure some enterprising individuals will figure out how to do that in short order.  The biggest obstacle to getting more developers for the mac is that the mac uses a completely different type of OS than windows.  The good news is that the days of the classic OS, which was completely unique and different than anything out there is gone.  The Mac OS now is Unix based, which will help, but I don't know how much.    The new macs will most likely be able to run a windows partition, rather than an emulator, so your vision of a Apple/Windows dual boot machine is most likely coming soon.
My biggest problem in computing is windows.  I've gotten sick and tired of all the bugs that the software giant can't seem to work out.  I've gone from system crashes every week, to a system that has frozen once in the last year, which is unbelievably gratifying for me.  Yeah, I know it's not perfect, the mac OS has it's limitations too, but I am happier with it.  I wonder, though, how well the new Intel OS X will run on the Intel machines.
46-50% market share?  I don't know about that.  at that level Apple would be too big a contendor for Microsoft's tastes.  I seriously doubt MS would allow such a thing to happen.  Typically when a smaller company like Apple starts to gain market share, the Big fish jumps in and finds some way to eat up the little fish.

[Javora]

Sounds like we're mostly at an understanding on this.  It's a sensitive issue for me, since I remember the "good ole" mac vs pc debates where it went from "I like PCs more" to "you're an idiot for using a mac" very quickly, along with other unneccesarily abusive language.  Hope you see why I'm touchy about it.

Oh, no, I'm not going to belittle you for your choice.  The Mac is what works for you and that's all that matters.

As for your hopes for Apple, the Apple OS still won't run on a regular PC after the change, witout a hack, but I'm sure some enterprising individuals will figure out how to do that in short order.  The biggest obstacle to getting more developers for the mac is that the mac uses a completely different type of OS than windows.  The good news is that the days of the classic OS, which was completely unique and different than anything out there is gone.  The Mac OS now is Unix based, which will help, but I don't know how much.    The new macs will most likely be able to run a windows partition, rather than an emulator, so your vision of a Apple/Windows dual boot machine is most likely coming soon.

Yeah I saw what the Apple reps. said about Mac OS not running on a PC, I think that reality is still a long way off.  Personally I don't want to use Apple hardware, as it will still be too restricting, as I like to upgrade my hard ware once in a while.  I've waited this long for the Mac OS on my PC I can wait a while longer.

Apple will have no problem finding developers for the Mac.  In fact I'd be surprised to see any of the current developers jump ship.  Don't get me wrong those current developers are going to complain and whine about the change but I don't think they are going anywhere.  If any of the developers to quit, Apple will have no problem finding new ones, look how many developers are producing products for the iPod.

I wonder, though, how well the new Intel OS X will run on the Intel machines.
46-50% market share?  I don't know about that.  at that level Apple would be too big a contendor for Microsoft's tastes.  I seriously doubt MS would allow such a thing to happen.  Typically when a smaller company like Apple starts to gain market share, the Big fish jumps in and finds some way to eat up the little fish.

Apple has been running the Mac OS on an Intel system for years now, if anything you are going to see a speed increase instead of a decrease.  If the machines do end up slower Jobs might was well resign now and save Apple board the trouble of firing him.

As for the market share I do think it could happen, and I don't think there is a damn thing that Microsoft could do about it.  The U.S Federal court already deemed Microsoft a monopoly.  If Apple started gaining market share and Microsoft did anything to hinder that, Microsoft would end up right back in court facing possible breakup of the company.

[Javora]

Found this article that may ease Apple owners fears of Intel based Mac's.  Here is the link:

http://msn.com.com/2100-3513_22-5739589.html?part=msn&subj=ns_2543&tag=mymsn

Developers get taste of Intel-based Macs
By Ina Fried, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: June 10, 2005, 4:00 AM PT
In late-night sessions this week, Apple developers have been getting their first look at how much work they have ahead to convert their programs to run on Intel-based Macs.

After announcing the big shift on Monday, Apple Computer has offered developers an early chance to get their bearings, with labs of Intel-based Macs up and running at its Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco. The labs were open until 9 p.m. on Monday and Wednesday and until midnight Tuesday.

And though Apple won't start selling Intel-based Macs to customers until sometime next year, the Mac maker is leasing test machines to developers for $999 starting this month.

Fetch Software president Jim Matthews said his company has been through past transitions, including the mid-'90s shift from Motorola's 68000 family of chips to PowerPC processors and the more recent move from OS 9 to OS X. Matthews said he appreciates the advance notice Apple is giving developers this time around.

"Apple is giving us plenty of time and hardware we can test on, which wasn't the case the last time," Matthews said.
For developers, the amount of work needed to make their code ready for next year's arrival of Intel-based Macs varies considerably. For Mac programs that are fairly new, written after the arrival of Mac OS X in Apple's Cocoa environment, the changes can be made in a matter of hours, or even less in some cases.

"We've already ported our app to Intel," said Wil Shipley, CEO of Delicious Monster Software. "All we had to do was click one button. It took about 40 seconds. It ran perfectly on the sneak-preview Intel Macs here at WWDC."
But for others, the changes will be more complex. For those whose applications were developed prior to Mac OS X and then "carbonized" to run natively in OS X, the work is somewhat more involved. If developers have used Apple's Xcode tools, it is still only a matter of weeks, at most, Apple said. But, if developers used tools from Metrowerks, they must first bring their code over to Apple's tools and then begin the work of tweaking the software for Intel's chips.

Microsoft is among those in that last camp. Both Virtual PC and Office for Mac were developed in Carbon, using tools from Metrowerks. Microsoft said it doesn't know how much work it has ahead of itself.
"That's one of the main things our developers are looking at," said Scott Erickson, group product manager for Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit. Microsoft has already said it will make future versions of Office run natively on Intel chips, but it has yet to detail plans for Virtual PC, software that allows Windows programs to run on a Mac.

Developers seem generally upbeat, though. Bare Bones Software has had a team of workers testing code on the Intel machines Apple has made available. CEO Rich Siegel said the early testing largely confirms the belief that the effort needed won't be extraordinary.

"Our initial analysis and prediction of a smooth transition still appears to be accurate, even after a few days of review and analysis," Siegel said in an e-mail interview. "There are some adjustments to be made, but nothing particularly daunting."
One community where there are signs of discontent is the high-end computing market Apple has garnered with Mac OS X. There has been much discussion in recent days on Apple's mailing lists for scientific and technical computing issues about the work those developers face. Many have written optimizations and code that specifically targets the PowerPC's AltiVec instructions.

Though Apple believes that there is not that much work for most developers, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller said the company is trying to be careful not to trivialize the work that needs to be done.
He notes that the work required to take OS 9 applications and make them run natively in OS X, a process known as Carbonization, ended up being tougher than Apple had thought. "That turned out to be more work than we all expected" Schiller said in an interview Monday. "This is not near the (same) effort."

For smaller companies that may not want to invest the time or the $1,000 to rent the Intel system, a company called Advenio has a service in which it will do the necessary porting work. As an indication of the relative time involved, the company is charging a flat $100 fee to create a universal binary of a Cocoa application; the fee for porting a Carbonized program starts at $500 and depends on the amount of work involved.

Fetch Software's Matthews said he is not too worried about the time needed to move applications over to the Intel chips, especially as compared with past transitions. "I think this is probably going to be the least traumatic switch for our software."
Of more concern, though, is what customers do during an uncertain time for the Mac, as Apple tries to continue selling PowerPC-based Macs while laying plans for a day when such machines will be entirely supplanted by Intel machines. "It's going to be fine as long as customers don't freak out, as long as customers don't stop buying Macs," Matthews said.

[Nemesis]

A related link

[Nemesis]

Another link