In June 2005 , Steve Jobs announced that the Mac would be leave the PowerPC chip behind for a new generation of Mac systems based on processor made by Intel . For longtime Mac exploiter , that announcement was a psychological impact — one-half of the former Wintel “ evil empire ” was now playing on our team . And for Mac developer , the announcement was like the shot from a starting gun : it was time to commence the backwash to make their program compatible with Intel processors .
Back then , there were lots of questions about the Intel conversion — and precious few solution . Fortunately , now that it ’s 2006 , the contingent of the move to Intel are begin to derive into focus . We ’ve got our first two Intel Mac systems , the first prescribed Intel - aboriginal release of Mac OS X , and even a new Intel cow dung applied science — Core couplet — powering things behind the scenes . As a result , we be intimate much more about the Intel conversion — and so should you .
Here , in ready to hand question - and - resolution form , is what you need to know about the current state of the Intel - Mac marriage .
So there ’s an Intel Saratoga chip in a Mac . Why should I wish ?
If you ’re a insouciant Mac user , you should n’t care . If you ride down at an Intel - based Mac , it ’ll still feel on the dot like a Mac . However , the transition to Intel chip will affect many Mac users , specially those who rely on one-time software system that has n’t yet been updated for Intel - free-base Macs . And the Intel transition will have a long - term impact on the Mac humankind , strike the designing and velocity of new Macs for old age to follow .
We used to have G3 , then G4 , then G5 . So what ’s inside these new scheme … a G6 ?
G5 is the last grand we ’ll see . The cow dung power the unexampled iMac and MacBook Pro systems is Intel ’s brand - Modern Core Duo C.P.U. . It ’s a Saratoga chip designed to be both potent and energy - efficient , and it was designed by Intel for use in laptops … although clearly it ’s also appropriate for use in extremist - tenuous desktops like the iMac .
Like the G5 chips in the last round of drinks of Power Macs , the Core Duo is what ’s called adual - corechip . That have in mind that there are essentially two C.P.U. brains on the Core Duo chipping , providing the amphetamine of two processors , but with sight of zip efficiencies . It ’s also got 2 MB of storey 2 memory cache , which is speedy RAM that ’s attached directly to both central processor nitty-gritty — that ’s four times more cache than on former Power Macs and iMacs . ( And since one single memory cache is shared by both processor core rather than split up into two , it ’s even more efficient . )
The end result of all this is that although the Core Duo chipping in the iMac and MacBook Pro are standardized in clock speed to their G4 and G5 opposite number , the systems are much faster because the chips have two processor core rather of one and a lot more memory cache tup .
Wait a second … what about the “ MHz myth ? ” I thought when we went to Intel , we were go to get fulgent - firm chip shot !
A comic matter pass off on the manner to 3GHz , and it happened to both IBM and Intel . Intel , which had succeed at drive micro chip clock speeds higher and eminent and convincing customer that clock speed equated to real central processor carrying into action , hit a clock - velocity wall . To learn Apple applied scientist evidence it , Intel realized that it need to make a 90 - point turn , go through a seriously painful transition time period , and revamp its processor roadmap to emphasize more efficient chips that could do more at down in the mouth clock speeds .
That was a decision that fed immediately into Apple ’s determination to make the move to Intel . With the later generation of Intel chips , such as the Core Duo , Apple finally has a exercise set of chip that provide the thermal- and major power - management strengths of the G4 processor ( lively for laptops and cozy iMac cases ) , but with speed more in line with the power - hungry , super - hot G5 processor .
Okay , so … Core Duo . Is there also a Core Solo ?
You’vebeen peeking . Indeed , there is — Intel ’s got a lower - office , lower - warmth sibling to the Core Duo yell the Core Solo . When we require Apple about its choice of the Core Duo for the iMac and MacBook Pro , company representatives said that “ using dual - effect processors for these products was just the right thing to do . ”
Of course , when Apple makes statements , you ’ve got to parse them carefully . What we take on out of this statement is that youmightsee a Core Solo processor in some other Macs in the time to come — ones that do n’t need the power of a three-fold - core chip . For example , future Mac minis , iBooks , or even extremist - low-cal notebooks might be candidates for such a chip . But that ’s sheer speculation on our part . Intel ’s engender lots of chips . Apple will use some of them . That ’s what we know .
So how much work did Apple need to do to make OS XTC run on Intel ?
Steve Jobs might have had a grin on his aspect when he told the story last June , but he was n’t josh : ever since the beginning of Mac OS X , there was a group at Apple dedicated to accumulate and operate OS X on Intel processors . OS X originated as NextStep / OpenStep , an operating organisation that originated on Motorola - found chips and later also ran on Intel chips , so Apple had a number of a heading start .
From the very start , Apple want to keep its selection open . And so when it come time to make the modulation , the company did n’t need to establish a grand project to make the modulation . It just involve to bring this sens - work project out into the light .
Now with the release of these new systems , there are two versions of Mac OS X 10.4.4 : one compose for Intel and the other for PowerPC .
How is this dissimilar from the OS 9 changeover ?
It ’s middling dissimilar . For most developers , change their software to run on Intel central processing unit will be quite a bite easier than making that software package die hard natively in OS X. From a user view , an Intel - based Mac system will look just like a PowerPC - based organisation . Mac OS X is remaining the same ; it ’s just the underlie processor that will be different .
Does this bear upon the software I already own ? What will happen to my software package if I grease one’s palms an Intel - ground system ?
The Intel edition of Mac OS X feature a technology calledRosetta , which Apple key as a dynamical computer code transcriber . Basically , Rosetta takes program code created to run on a PowerPC mainframe and translate that codification into its Intel equivalent .
If you call back running 680×0 code ( say , Microsoft Word 5.1 ) on a Power Mac back in the mid-90s , you have sex what this means : programme run slower when they ’re not running on their native processor . Our initial testing have that out .
Back in the twenty-four hours , we used to say that programs such as Word 5.1 were running in “ 680×0 emulation . ” Rosetta is a alike system , but Apple is trying very hard not to use the wordemulationhere , largely because most people think of programs such as practical PC when they hear that word . Rosetta is n’t anything like Virtual microcomputer or even classical — in fact , from a user ’s perspective , there ’s no way to say when you ’re using a political program running in Rosetta or when you ’re run aUniversalprogram — Apple ’s term for a programme that runs natively on both PowerPC and Intel processor .
Last June , there was a lot of speculation that Rosetta would refuse to black market certain kinds of programs . But according to Apple , that ’s not true — Rosetta will judge to work anything you throw at it . However , programs that are passing processor - intensive will in all probability not run at satisfactory speeds , if they go at all .
Will Classic mode go under Rosetta ?
No , Classic way wo n’t take to the woods on Intel Macs at all . If you still rely on Classic applications , Intel - based Macs are n’t going to work out for you . This would plausibly be a good time to begin investigate OS X - aboriginal option to the Classic plan you ’re presently using .
How can I secernate if a programme I ’ve got is Universal or not ?
The only existent way you ’ll be able-bodied to state what processors a program is compiled for will be to pick out a program in the Finder and choose Get Info . In the General section of the Get Info window , after sort : app , you ’ll see a parenthetical phrase : Intel , PowerPC , or Universal . ( Some — but not all — cosmopolitan political platform also provide an “ undetermined using Rosetta ” checkbox that might be utilitarian in certain oddball situations , much as “ Open using Classic ” is today . )
best yet , check with developers of the programs you ’re concerned in to see if they ’ve got a Universal version in the works . They ’ll probably be happy to tell you .
Will I have to buy new variant of my computer software specifically to endure on an Intel - based Mac ?
As with the PowerPC and OS X transitions , there ’s no single answer . Different developers will handle thing differently . One company might propose an Intel - compatible version as a free upgrade ; another might build up it into the next major release and charge you for the exclusive right .
In the past few months , many developers have loose venial updates to their products that have also transformed them into Universal programs;Bare Bones Software’sBBEdit andTLA Systems’DragThing both fall in this category . Apple itself has said that Final Cut Studio , Logic Pro , and Aperture will all be usable in Universal shape in March for a $ 45 “ cross - grade ” fee . It ’s potential that programs from with child developer — Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop , for example — won’t be general until the next full translation of those products is released .
Because of Apple ’s new “ Universal Binary ” advance , developer can save a single program that contains within it both Intel and PowerPC versions of their software package . You wo n’t have unlike apps , such as “ iPhoto ( Intel ) ” and “ iPhoto ( PowerPC ) ” float around . If that was the case , it would be easy to select the wrong one , and impossible to tangle - and - drop software from an Intel Mac to a PowerPC one . Future Mac software will likely be sold simply as Mac software package , not specifying whether it ’s Mac for Intel or Mac for PowerPC — you ’ll instal it , doubly - tap the program , and your data processor will use the veracious code for its CPU .
Now that the first new Intel Macs have come out , should I go grease one’s palms one ?
It depends . Our science laboratory test designate that an iMac Core Duo does black market native program 1.1 to 1.3 clock time as fast as an iMac G5 , and perform even better with program that take advantage of multiple processors . And if you ’ve gone a few years between iMac rise , you ’re in all probability not to even notice the operation hit when running applications with Rosetta .
For more on whether this is the right iMac for you , mark off out Henry Norr ’s critique of the new manikin .
Will any microcomputer be capable to go Mac OS X for Intel ?
Last summertime , Apple released a little act of Intel mental test system of rules to Mac developers . In the intervening time , enterprising hackers have gotten grip of the rendering of Mac OS X on those systems and figured out how to get it to range on received personal computer hardware . Will the same thing hap with the novel version of Mac OS X for Intel ? Our guess is yes , but chances are it will be a chore that will only take spot in the cyberspace ’s back - alleys , and will probably require some technical art to achieve .
Apple will probably put up a few thousand heavy - gist hacker ( who would never pay for Mac hardware anyway ) hunt down OS X on their PCs ; however , if any ship’s company came along with a handy service program that rent you set up bone disco biscuit on your PC , you could count on Apple process them into obliviontout rooms .
Can these Intel - based Macs run Windows ?
Ask people from Apple this question , and they ’ll do one of two matter : shrug , or plug their pinna and act they ca n’t see you . essentially , Apple ’s prescribed insurance is that if someone want to see out how to run Windows on a Mac , they can go ahead and do it , but Apple does n’t want to know about it .
One interesting quirk of these Modern Intel - based Macs is that , unlike the developer psychometric test system released last summer , these systems use Intel ’s Extensible Firmware Interface ( EFI ) instead of the tried - and - true BIOS that Graeco-Roman PC use . Windows XP does n’t really support EFI , although the approaching Windows Vista will .
So the question is , how will people get Windows to run on the Mac ? We ’re sure someone much smarter than us will figure it out . Whether you ’ll be able to re - boot into Windows or persist it in some variety of compatibility box — hello , practical PC!—remains to be seen .
Does this signify that Open Firmware is deadened ?
oddball alert ! If you ’re someone who deal about Open Firmware — that ’s the package that incline on your Mac before the Mac OS actually boots up — don’t fright . characteristic such as the Open Firmware password remain under EFI ; you may also still hold down the T key to put an Intel - base Mac into FireWire Target Disk Mode ; and you may still hold down the choice key to get a tilt of phonograph record to boot from . Group administrator can even put Intel Macs to reboot off of a electronic web volume using NetBoot .
