Apple Switching to Intel Processors

[Chaos]

After much speculation, Apple and Intel have announced that they will be beginning to use Intel processors in Macs within the next two years.

Apple previewed a version of its critically acclaimed operating system, Mac OS® X Tiger, running on an Intel-based Mac® to the over 3,800 developers attending CEO Steve Jobs' keynote address. Apple also announced the availability of a Developer Transition Kit, consisting of an Intel-based Mac development system along with preview versions of Apple's software, which will allow developers to prepare versions of their applications which will run on both PowerPC and Intel-based Macs.

This widely-circulated piece of news has included pieces on The Register, Slashdot, Macslash, and Engadget.


Personally, I may consider going back to a PC, next computer I buy, and use Linux or *BSD, depending on how well or badly Apple pulls this off. Other people have also expressed some doubt as to how well this may work for Apple.

[hacker]

Apple moving their platform from PowerPC to Intel does not mean that OSX will be running on your PC machine (i.e. the same one you could run Windows on).

It will likely be just as proprietary hardware as Mac hardware is today, but powered by future (not invented yet) Intel x86_64 processors that run cooler than today's Pentium M processor line.

Of course within hours, this same hardware will be running Linux, and through Rosetta (or Universal Binaries), will be running Microsoft Windows applications, but don't expect to simply buy OSX for x86 to "dual boot" on your PC anytime soon. OpenFirmware is quite non-PC-like, and not likely to be found on any clone motherboard, so thats a blocker.

Its going to be an interesting few years, but its just proving what I said publically on a couple of mailing lists about 6 years ago...

"We'll all be running multiple operating systems on the same hardware at the same time... and we won't care. Your applications will 'Just Work' and you won't have to worry about them crashing."

With virtualization software becoming near real-time production quality and processor speeds getting fast enough to close the gap between emulation and "real", it makes sense to start building virtualization hooks into the raw silicon itself. Put a JIT for runtime application/endian translation into the silicon and run a minor translation layer at the application level, and you've pretty much solved the problem of OS-specific applications and binaries.

This is where we're heading... the OS will become anonymous and you won't need to know, or care, what the underlying OS is, just as long as your applications continue to function.

[Alexander Turcic]

I tend to agree with David. It's possible that Apple users won't even notice the difference once the switch is done. The only one who loses in this deal is obviously IBM.

[Brian]

I don't understand all of the negative reactions to this transition from some Apple zealots. IBM has been treating Apple as a low priority and hasn't delivered benchmarks as promised. Meanwhile, Apple has been preparing OSX secretly behind the scenes (since day 1) for a scenerio where they would need to switch to Intel.

If the OSX user experience is the same on PPC and Intel, why should the end-user really care, and why would any reasonable person threating dumping OSX due to such a transparent switch? I just don't get it.

Apple (Steve Jobs) says that they want to work with Intel to make the best computers and provide users with the best OS and computing experience possible. Intel has been going through some rough times, but they seem like they are extremely happy to have Apple as one of their customers. They may not be the biggest customer when compared to Dell, but they will certainly be one of, if not the most important customer. Why? Because while Dell is working on pumping out volume and commodity PCs, Apple's DNA is to innovate. Intel has similar DNA and could really use the partnership with Apple to push themselves and innovate, something that they haven't been doing much of lately.

I've been planning on 'switching' to OSX for a while, and this news does not deter me or give me hesitation at all. If anything, it will allow for a smoother transition as virtualization of my PC applications on OSX (using something like VMWare for OSX which will now be very likely) should now be possible with little to no performance hit due to emulation like Virtual PC.

Switchers will soon have one less reason to take the plunge once this transition takes place.

Brian

[Alexander Turcic]

Check out this "discussion". Quite entertaining.

[Alexander Turcic]

I just read this on Slashdot:
"Mac Daily News is reporting that Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger for x86 processors has been leaked to the internet already. Apparently the version running on the development kit machines is easily transfered to run on any x86 machine. Conspiracy theorists unite: an Apple marketing scheme?"

Also check out this image that supposedly shows an Intel PC running OS X:
http://img173.echo.cx/my.php?image=osxonintel5wg.jpg and the supposed .nfo from the release:
http://groups.google.es/group/alt.ma...O&rnum=1&hl=en

Anyways, I wouldn't recommend downloading this beast; a) obviously it's illegal and b) fakes are spreading so fast that chances are you'd be downloading some kind of movie you certainly didn't want to watch.

[doctorow]

Some group called Mage supposedly released "Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger *PROPER*... it's hard to believe but I think the whole thing is not a fake!

[Colin Dunstan]

Originally Posted by doctorow

Some group called Mage supposedly released "Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger *PROPER*... it's hard to believe but I think the whole thing is not a fake!

Sorry to disagree, but other sources say it's all fake! From Neowin:

Update: It's becoming clear that this story is fake / untrue. A file floating around torrent hubs, suggested to be an x86 build of OS X, which was in fact a large collection of text files.

[hacker]

Originally Posted by Colin Dunstan

...which was in fact a large collection of text files.

But were the text files any good? Maybe we can turn them into ebooks! <grin>

[Chaos]

I don't really see why someone would mislabel text files in such a way... Really, what's the point? If it was spyware/virus/etc. infested it would be bad, but it would at least be obvious what they were trying to do.

But text? "I will now read you to death with my gigabytes of text!"

[Alexander Turcic]

Think Secret likes to get sued it seems... they have another Apple scoop with nice screenshots showing the first Intel-based development systems for Apple developers.

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelmac.html

This is Interesting:

As for installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, attempts to boot from the included Mac OS X for Intel disc resulted in an error message on both a Dell and off-brand PC. The message states that the hardware configuration is not supported by Darwin x86.

Sources have indicated that Apple will employ an EDID chip on the motherboard of Intel-based Macs that Mac OS X will look for and must handshake with first in order to boot. Such an approach, similar to hardware dongles, could theoretically be defeated, although it's unknown what level of sophistication Apple will employ.

How long will it take crackers to break the check? One day? One week? Who cares, eventually it'll be broken, as history teaches us.

[hacker]

They won't be able to break the check, unless they change the processor. With Intel putting their LaGrande technology into the Pentium-D and later series of chips that Apple will be using, it will be incredibly difficult for them to break it... since the OS itself "authenticates" to the processor... in silicon.

Unless someone can binary-patch the OS to ignore that check or somehow run an opcode to "fake" the proper handshake, good luck. Its very easy to stop someone from doing this with integrity checking of the binaries used for the authentication from several other vectors.

If some can actually make a hardware/chipset workaround that fakes the authentication (i.e. by soldering more components to the system boards), I applaud them, but it still won't matter, since you won't be able to run Windows on the final Apple hardware and Apple OSX/i probably won't run on a clone... not if there isn't a huge number of people writing drivers for both platforms for the foreign hardware they're going to find at install time.

After all, what is the point? Running XP on Apple hardware with sub-optimal drivers or running OSX with binary patches on "foreign" hardware that it wasn't optimized to run on? I don't see the point...

But there's a good chance Linux will run on that hardware, of course. <grin>

[Alexander Turcic]

Originally Posted by hacker

But there's a good chance Linux will run on that hardware, of course. <grin>

Heh. Interesting discussion. I wasn't aware how the Intel security measurements are going to work. Sounds indeed more difficult to break. But still... remember when the XBox came out... Microsoft engineers were hoping that it was impossible to find the private key of the RSA pair needed for proper code signing, due to its hardware layout (the bus is supposedly so fast that, so Microsoft did hope, it was impossible to sniff the traffic coming through it). And then there was Bunnie from MIT and showed us a lot of impressive hardware/software reverse engineering.