Apple-Intel deal - what's the fuss?

If you read technology industry news with any regularity, chances are you’re going to be hearing a lot over the next few days about Apple’s announcement that they will begin using Intel processors in Macintosh computers, switching away from the PowerPC processors manufactured by IBM. (Apple, Motorola, and IBM joined forces in the early 1990s to design and manufacture the PowerPC chips.) There’s a lot of gossip and misinformation about what this really means, but here are the highlights as I understand them. These are in no particular order.

Apple achieves speed parity with Windows manufacturers. This is probably one of the best reasons for the switch. Apple has long had to combat the perception that its computers were slower (when in fact they were often faster) because the clock speeds at which PowerPC chips run are often lower than their Intel counterparts. Apple called this the “megahertz myth” and did their best to educate users to the fact that what actually mattered were the number of instructions a processor could run per second. Unfortunately the perception remained and the megahertz myth became a gigahertz gap, especially when IBM couldn’t produce PowerPC G5 chips at the clock speeds they claimed they would be able to, on the timetable they predicted—to the point that the fastest Macs actually were slower than the fastest Windows machines. (How they compared in actual efficiency of the operating system and software performance, I don’t know.) Perhaps more importantly, IBM has yet to produce a G5 that runs at a temperature low enough to be installed in a laptop computer. With the switch to Intel chips, Apple can match any competitor’s chip speeds.

Most current software will be compatible with the new Intel Macs. Apple claims they have an emulation layer that will allow code written for PowerPC chips to be run on the Intel Macs without significant loss of speed. If true, this will mean a much smoother transition to the new Mac order, especially for those of us with beloved older applications. (Like me and the previous version of Stickybrain .) This had better be darned good though, because the previous emulation environments we’ve had to deal with (like “Classic,” which emulates OS 9), have been extremely poor. By the way, it looks like Classic will finally be a thing of the past with the introduction of the Intel Macs. If you have a Classic app you’re still using, better find a replacement soon. Other exceptions to the legacy software rules include anything that relies on kernel extensions, applications that require a G4 or G5 processor be present, and certain Java applications. These things will have to be rewritten for the new architecture.

In theory, an Intel Mac could be dual-booted into Windows. This is perhaps the most exciting aspect of the switch for me, and I suspect for most users once they really think about it. Previously, if you wanted to run Windows on a Mac, you were stuck with the awful Virtual PC emulator to do so. With an Intel processor in the box, there’s no reason that Apple couldn’t allow for Windows to also be installed to run natively on the computer. You couldn’t run them side-by-side of course, and there are some definite technical and financial reasons Apple might not want to allow such a thing. If they did, however, it would be a lot easier than it is now. There are already versions of Linux that run on Apple hardware, so it’s not as if no one’s ever thought about doing this before.

Your existing Windows box will never run Mac OS X. A lot of Windows folks rubbed their hands together at the prospect of a Mac OS that might run on their existing Intel platforms, but the truth is that Apple will always maintain tight control over the hardware and software end of things. So although there might be a Mac that runs Windows, OS X will never install on your Dell. Sorry.

Buying a Mac will be a tricky proposition for the next year or so. Personally I was hoping for some new hardware announcements, particularly in the notebook arena, but that didn’t happen. Now I’m left wondering how long I’ll be able to stick it out without a new laptop, and what PowerPC products we’ll see announced between now and the time the new Intel Macs begin shipping. I think there will be a large number of holdouts—people will obviously want to delay their new computer purchases until the new machines appear. There’s no reason to believe, however, that the next operating system (announced as “Leopard,” if you’re the kind of person who digs the jungle cat monikers) and even the one after that won’t run on PowerPC chips. The question is whether third-party vendors will always offer two versions of their software. I’m not even sure that will be necessary—will there be “fat binary” applications that automatically detect which architecture they’re using?

For the most part, end users won’t notice the difference. Honestly. Do you notice when your car dealership starts selling cars with Goodyear tires instead of Firestone? This is just as much of a non-issue to the average Mac user. Some people will care, some people will notice, but overall it’s a lot of bitching and moaning about nothing.