Ruminations on the Macintel announcement
So the unthinkable is true: Apple will use Intel-made CPUs in future Mac designs. The resulting gnashing of teeth and tearing of clothing and hair among the Mac-Macs of the world is, sadly, predictable and not very surprising.
It's still way too early for anyone to make an accurate assessment of how this is going to change things, but I have a few early thoughts I want to get out while they're still fresh.
On armchair quarterbacking
A lot of folks wonder why Apple didn't go with AMD over Intel, etc. I don't think they're really looking at the long view on this, and seeing what Intel's processor roadmap holds for the next couple of years. Let me emphasize that: for the next couple of years. It'll be 2007 by the time Apple switches to an all-Intel architecture, and by then, Intel's CPU offerings are going to look very different than they do now.
On strident reactions
I've read more than one comment in various online forums from dyed-in-the-wool Mac heads who shriek, "An Intel-based Macintosh shall not sully my desk, now or ever!" Good riddance to bad rubbish. If they're that hardcore, chances are that they're probably still using a Quadra with Mac OS 9.2 on it because they didn't like Mac OS X either -- which means they're not helping anyone's bottom line, who's trying to make a business out of this. Even if they're up to date, damn it, we as an industry have to grow out of fanboyish behavior sooner or later. That sort of attitude is downright creepy and it's done as much to make us pariahs as it has to thrill researchers who do business studies about the phenomenal loyalty of Mac users.
Developers, developers, developers
I think Steve put a good spin on how easy it is to develop universal binaries, but a quick check of the docs put up on Apple's Web site show that this won't be an easy row to hoe for many Mac developers. Bigendian/littlendian issues, AltiVec optimizations and more are likely to cause some real pains for developers who want to support the new hardware.
Speaking of which, the reports I've seen suggest that Rosetta basically doesn't do anything for AltiVec enhanced apps. PowerPC-binary game performance would have already gotten screwed having to run in emulation on the new iron, and now it's doubly-screwed. That's not good news. But you know what? A lot can change in a year or two. So I'm not putting all my eggs in one basket just quite yet.
Ultimately, my point is this: Who really cares what's under the hood, as long as the user experience is as good or better? Or am I just being naive?
Comments
Nice summary! I agree that for the end user, almost nothing changes; there's still the good old Mac hardware and software and it'll continue to work (for 99%).
Also interesting is that it will be possible to run Windows on these Intel-based Macs (for obvious reasons). Apple even confirmed this. This should bring a whole lot of games to the Mac. Woot. :)
Posted by: Denis Defreyne | June 7, 2005 11:38 AM
What Apple confirmed is that it wouldn't do anything to keep Windows from working on a new Intel-based Mac. But there's a world of difference between that, and, say, an Intel-based Mac that runs Windows well. That could make worlds of difference for the Macintosh game market as we know it.
Posted by: flargh | June 7, 2005 11:58 AM
Agreed. Windows may not run well on Intel-based Macs at all; I guess Windows' support for Mac hardware would be rather lacking.
I wonder whether WINE will work, or if we'll have to boot into Windows. Eww. ;)
Posted by: Denis Defreyne | June 8, 2005 12:00 PM
I think it's too early to tell what will happen. I can say that, Intel Inside or not, no Mac of mine will have WinXP on it..
Posted by: Alphax | June 10, 2005 05:24 PM