Apple Moves to All Dual-Processor Power Mac Lineup

Jason Siegel writes "Apple will no longer be selling single-processor Power Mac computers, according to GeekInformed. The company has officially dropped 1.8 GHz G5s from their lineup to pave the way for exclusively dual-processor Power Macs. The systems will range from dual 2 to 2.7 GHz G5s. This is the first significant announcement since the Worldwide Developers Conference declaration that Apple will transition away from PowerPC to Intel chips."

Still dual processor when they go Intel?

[gbulmash]

Here's a question, and my apologies if it's been asked and answered before. Will Apple stay the dual-processor course when they move to Intel? I don't mean dual core Pentiums. I mean two slabs of silicon, like a dual Xeon setup. And with Intel moving more and more to dual-core across the lines... Dual core, dual processor, OS/X... Dang.

Then again, who knows where desktop Linux will be in 16 months with the Mandrake/Connectiva/Lycoris mergers, the rise of Ubuntu... And think of that on dual core, dual processor... ohhh... Someone get me a tissue!

Regardless, next year's going to be interesting if you're in the market for a new box. :-)

- Greg

Re:Clearing existing component inventory?

[sH4RD]

Hey, if they're dropping prices, I'm dropped Benjamins.

Re:Why upgrade now?

[Anonymous Coward]

So who would buy dual PowerPC CPU now, knowing a major shift is happening in less than a year's time?

Um, the people who want to buy a Mac now? Intel processors coming out in the future doesn't suddenly make existing Macs stop working, and considering how long it will take Intel Macs to gain a majority of the Apple installed base, PPC is still going to be the most important Mac platform to support for years to come.

Apple Reducing Choice

[Nom du Keyboard]

So they're clearly reducing buyer's choices in scaling back the number of lines supported. Sounds like buyers now have the choices of Cheap (MiniMac) or Expensive (dual processor G5).

Must have run out of single-processor MBs and don't want to make more since the other reason (converting lines over to Intel manufacture) wouldn't seem likely given that the processors Apple intends to use aren't available from Intel yet.

I can't see how any of this is going to increase their marketshare any.

Encouragement for good SMP support?

[Sv-Manowar]

With the impending move to x86 architecture, this could be Apple posturing to encourage developers to work on the SMP capabilities of their programs. Intel's chips obviously feature things like HyperThreading and dual cores, making extracting the best possible performance require good SMP code. Obviously by phasing out the idea of a non-SMP 'Power' mac, Apple can encourage developers of scientific, processing and even mainstream applications (to an extent) to take better notice and make better use of SMP capable systems.

Orphan Machines?

[Greyfox]

Surely once Apple moves away from the PPC architecture, the developers will not continue developing software for the platform, will they? Will Apple provide an emulator so you can run X86 binaries on that spiffy PPC Mac you bought today? Wouldn't it be a performance hit to run programs that way?

Re:Still dual processor when they go Intel?

[amichalo]

There is disputable evidence that points to Apple's interest in supporting more than 2 processors. Take for example image [macrumors.com] which depicts two screen captures of an Apple system utility. The top one is an other version which was replaced with the bottom image that depicts an N+1 approach to processor display rather than the previous versions 1 or 2.

Certainly not an open and shut case.

Other ramblings and rumors came in the form of a January 2005 4 processor Xserve for research institutions. This never materialized. Perhaps it was too costly. I believe that at the time Apple was having such a hard time securing G5 chips from IBM that they would rather build 4 iMacs than 1 Xserve.

Still, there were rumors that the keynote announcing the Intel deal, which included a demo on a PowerMac, was in fact powered by a quad-Pentium powered box. Were these the musings of a frantic fanbase or real facts? Impossible for me to say.

I would say that Apple is the only manufacturer I can think of that has regularly embraced the multiprocessor market. OS X is more adept than Windows at taking advantage of a second processor, delivering more bang for the same buck. So I would not discount the >2 processor option coming in future Macs.

Worry

[renelicious]

I think my biggest concern is that Apple will make the shift to Intel and then shortly after IBM gets their productions ramped up. Apple decides to continue to produce G5 Macs and then after 6 months or so drops Intel altogether. Then those few that bought x86 systems become the bastard children that Apple wants to forget.

I just don't see what would keep them on Intel if IBM could start performing. They have always seemed to like to have the niche of a different architecture. I'm a little wary of the whole thing.

Re:PPC Software

[Macrat]

I'll be sure to upgrade with the last PowerMac PPC's sold because I know all my Mac apps will still run on it. Contrary to Apple's claims of a simply recompile, many software packages are going to need a lot of rework to run on Mac Intel boxes.

Re:Why upgrade now?

[Golias]

perhaps the odd app here and there will be incompatible, but at the same time, there does exist a very wide range of unique PPC apps currently that likely will never make their way to Intel.

I'll even put on my Carnac hat and break it down for you:

1. There will probably be a native WINE port for OS X within months of the first Mac-on-Intel release which will not run on the G5. This will allow the running of various Windows apps without rebooting or even leaving the OS X desktop. Geeks will love the fact that damn near all Windows and Linux software will in CPU-native mode within OS X, but old-school Mac heads probably won't care much.

2. It has already been announced that the Intel Macs will never be capable of running "Classic" applications. Fans of old Mac programs like Quark will be all a-tizzy about squeezing maximum life out of the remaining G5 systems, but nobody else will care.

Pretty much everything else is likely to work just fine on either platform.

platform cross

[Doc Ruby]

I'd love to see OSX become a *nix that takes advantage of any of a number of CPU configs. PPC/Intel, single/multi CPU... How about a multiCPU with both PPC and x86, that can run either instruction set's binaries natively? Put a 4PPC/4x86 headless VNC server in the rack, and never say "no" again to "does that app run on our machines?" As long as it's a *nix app, of course.

Re:Clearing existing component inventory?

[BlogPope]

First the notebooks will go x86, then the budget desktops; Mac Mini and iMac, and lastly the Powermac and XServe

Interesting, but I think part of that will be driven by the performance of the new chips. If the new chips are as fast as the G5's, this will cause some problems. I suppose the first batch might face issues with PPC emulation to slow them down, and from the sounds of it they may not even be 64 bit, both of which would fit in with your migration.

Still, if I can get dual G5's for the 1.8Ghz price point, I might take that option. I love the mini, but am nevous about the power of the G4. I have to agree with the GP that the iMac was really compelling, even though I already own a 24" LCD...

Re:Why upgrade now?

[MustardMan]

Take a look at the ended auction prices of old macs on ebay. You will most likely be surprised at how well macs hold their value. Yes, the apple pricing structure is a bit screwed up, but from an economical standpoint it can make a LOT of sense to buy a mac at a random point in time. Dells drop their value ten seconds after you click the "order" button. Macs can be resold for a decent amount of cash sometimes a couple of YEARS after release. In my opinion, economically it makes a lot more sense to buy a new mac whenever you need one. The money you will lose reselling it is well worth it to have the computer you need at the moment.

Re:Questionable Apple News

[dobesov]

Mac has never had good karam. there was once a time when APPLE had good karma. All of that karma came from one man. Steve Wozniak... (I persoanlly own a Apple IIgs Woz edition) he had little to do with the Mac line and nothing to do with its current incarnations. The Mac has always been a soul-less corporate invention created to seem as though it was nice. History aside, its a very Steve Jobs machine and Steve Jobs is a ruthless shrewed business man that will give Bill gates a run for his money on unethical behavior.

Now, Mac does HAVE karam in the senes that what goes around comes around. By keeping a strangle hold on their product and not promoting 3rd party hardware and software, they isolated themselves to a minority. Frankly i am happy to see them finally migrate a little closer to the free and open platform that the majority of us have used, developed on and loved for longer that PPC has existed.

P.S. I cant wait to run DOS gmaes native on a powerbook.

Re:Worry

[narratorDan]

Thought game, how many chips can you run Linux on? How much difference is there between ports of the same distro targeting different chips?
As one who lived through the shift from the 680x0 line to the PPC line, I remember the many headaches but I also remember how surprisingly smooth the shift was once all the developers were on the same game plan. I figure that IF IBM gets it's act together and is able to supply both the quantity and quality (read: chips faster than 2.5gHz ) of PPC chips that Apple wants Apple will use them in their high-end line like the XServe, PowerBook and PowerMac. The Intel chips would be used on the low-end such as the iBook, iMac and MacMini.
Now there would be a minor issue in the beginning on the topic of programs and hardware targeting one platform or the other but if the developers stick to Apple guidelines and target the OS rather than the hardware this will be less of an issue.
Even hardware (i.e. PCI cards) if it sticks to the Apple guidelines won't even need to know if it is in a X86 or PPC system.

Re:Your facts are wrong, wrong, wrong

[taharvey]

He does in his reply to himself above.

Sure Enough.

So the Opteron trades FP for int. hmmm, not very exciting.

Most operations you'll do on your desktop are integer-based unless you're into heavy CAD or image manipulation.

I'd suggest something different. The only Apps these days that don't use FP are the programs where you can't tell the difference between 1GHz and 4GHz (ie. word processing). FP is used intensivly thoughout a modern computer experience (graphics/sound/media/video/MP3s/games/3D).