Here we see Steve Jobs announcing that Apple will begin using Macs with Intel processors & that Mac OS X was being built for Intel since the beginning.
"I think a lot of you would like a G5 in your PowerBook, and we haven't been able to deliver that to you yet." Imagine this kind of transparency from Apple today.
Lowend plastic white and black macbooks had a portion of the handrest degrading and detaching, Apple eventually replaced them at no cost well beyond the warranty. Today's highend macbooks have keys detaching and glitching in other ways and apple doesn't give a shit and announces a $ 400 iPhone SE which is a 5 year old phone with upgraded processors. I really liked apple when it was the underdog.
Daniel Lim But It lived on in the xbox 360 as a tri-core monster, in the ps3 as the cell processor and in the wii. Ibm is still using their power-7 chip in server grade hardware. Anyway, I still use my G5, work really great with the software I have for it.
Sad audience clapping, but IBM/Toshiba almost killed SONY, and hopefully Apple avoided that sad end, better was let PowerPC die not Apple, since NeXT Step was compilet to many many different architectures. Core 2 Duos ULV series were and still are best processor they made 2006-2009. MacBook AIr was possible because of that transition. Apple was riding the best horse that's for sure. Intel is dying right now - end of their physical advantage - 10nm and further killed ability to compete with 7nm TSMC/AMD. Currenly Apple should switch at least in Mac's to AMD keep Intel in laptops then make transition to ARM keeping AMD in Macs. Im sure last year or this year Jobs would announce Apple switch to AMD Zen2 and Navi. Intel P4 struggled with Athlons 64 and PowerPC was still stong, but still IBM had no option with SOI to compete with intel's 90, 65nm, then 45nm HKMG 18 months advantage and Core architecture. Still big chalenge for AMD's RAM subsystem to beat Core's 45-64ns access time RAM. WIth PowerPC they begin to have at least 2-3x worse processors in efficiency and future as he shown would be disaster. It was Jobs good choice, and last moment to do so.
@@themaritimegirl that's a stupid answer as AMD was putting the pentium 4's under the table at the time of the pentium 4's it just shows how old and not with the times apple was with tech improvements from the amd cpu's of the time were used to make the core line of cpu's which copied tech ideas from AMD to make them run faster and better like moving the memory controller on to the cpu for faster performance faster pipelines and best of all 64 bit
@@raven4k998 The switch was to Intel Processors, not AMD processors. Obviously Apple were going to go with the larger company. Also the Pentium 4 was already 64-bit at this time. Not that mattered, because the first Intel Macs used the Core series, and within months went to the 64-bit Core 2 series.
Pretty damn impressive that he claimed in 2005 that OS X sets Apple up 'for the next 20 years' - a very bold and unbelievable claim, and yet 14 years on, it's still going.
@@avakining Not really. His statement was on the general technology that OS X introduced, as it was a completely different OS from the "Classic" versions of the Mac OS (System 1.0 to Mac OS 9). iOS, iPadOS, watchOS, tvOS and, yes, macOS 11 still use the fundament laid with OS X, derived from NeXT.
@@ADeeSHUPA Steve Jobs delivering the ARM transition he was more about putting as much power into the mac as possible and arm is not that powerful and starting to have heat issues
@@raven4k998 what heat issues? the m1 outperforms many intel macs and delivers that with less heat output and energy consumption than the intel macs ever did
@@bycuritiba apple had heat issues with there intel laptops if the m1 can overheat then trust me apple will find a way to make it happen so you have to buy another it's the apple way kind of like bendgate but with heat instead of bending lol and one easy way to make it overheat could be to increase it's clock speed and give it more power to run stable trust me higher speed mean more heat it's just physics for you
Lol. Apple didn't change after Steve Jobs. They only lost a very charismatic sales Person. They sucked back then exactly as hard, as they do today. Steve Jobs only convinced people better, that they need the Crap they produce.
I think that with Jobs, a new "Pro" machine would be worthy of that moniker and the iOS GUI would not be a blurry mess. Jobs never compromised or let things slide. He controlled. Typography, design and differentiation across the product line were things he cared about.
Jobs was just the better Sales Person. Like they had with jobs also poorly crafted Macbooks, where Graphics Chips would simply die due to bad manufacturing. Or Screens tearing apart due to bad factoring. Often no refund or anything, although they screwed up, not the Customer. Or remember the iPhone 4? What a great product! Hold it like a fucking phone and you loose all connectivity. What was the error? Bad crafting? Bad placement of Antennas? Anything that has to do with how this thing was craftet? No, of course not, you where holding it wrong! According to jobs. It is just an illusion, that Apple was any better back then. He was a (for whatever reason) beloved Salesperson, that could really convince you that you need that product.
MetalheadBuser You are just repeating yourself without adding anything relevant to the topic. Saying that he was a salesperson is diminishing his contribution. A salesperson is an underling. Jobs was the very top dog. He drove the company forward, and his focus was _product_ _design_ . The problem is that when Jobs resigned, there was nobody to take on Job's job: he had been too arrogant to train any successors. The company has been too complacent because of its financial success. Therefore, we have seen bad design and bad product decisions in the last seven years, and not much new and interesting. The shoddy quality of some products throughout the years is an issue, but another issue. That is Tim Cook's domain and he should be fully blamed for that - both past and present problems.
Only someone like Steve could have delivered groundbreaking news like that so effortlessly. Maybe if he was behind the USB-C announcement,or the headphone jack removal announcement, it would have been so much smoother.
Yep - USB-C, headphone jack and the Apple watch would have all happened differently under Jobs. I expect that the watch would have had an ultra low power watch mode that would run for weeks or months just as a basic watch with date / time if the battery ran low.
@@TechRyze I think at the very least the first AW under Steve would have been more AW Ultra like. I have an Ultra and I can go a couple of days in between charges which is much more acceptable than being tethered to the wall every night.
@@RabbitConfirmed apple's ARM processors are way more powerful than any others, and they're already beating lower-end Intel. So it won't be the same as Chromebooks.
It's not that they couldn't do it, it's just that IBM/Motorola couldn't make it work. The PowerPC G4 chips were already woefully under-powered and the G5 barely able to tow the line despite insane power consumption. It was clear that they couldn't make a G5 chip low power enough to run in a laptop. This was at a time when Intel could easily outperform a PowerPC G5 using a Core2Duo at a fraction of the power.
@@jblyon2 It's true, they couldn't, because the problem with the G5 / 970 is that it was based on a server CPU, the IBM Power 4, it wasn't designed with performance per watt in mind, ibm could have done something like what P.A. Semi did with the PA6T, a CPU with the PowerPC ISA focused on performance per watt, but they never did it. It's funny that Apple ended up buying P.A. Semi after switching to Intel.
2005 Apple: We're shipping with Intel microprocessors because of their power consumption. Intel: Hell Yea! 2020 Apple: We're moving to ARM microprocessors because of their power consumption Intel: Et tu brute?
Well actually they ended up making this transition much faster than what Jobs announced here. A year after this presentation they revealed the first Mac Pro which was the only mac that didn't had intel yet..
It's amazing watching this keynote and feeling like it is the 2020 announcement of the transition to Apple Silicon. The influence of Jobs is still present in Apple
Not really, since Jobs died, the company went down further and further, but since they'll make money anyways, they have no reason tontry and change that.
It was is if he had to get ready to make an announcement. Like taking a deep breath before going on a rant. I doubt he originally intended it but Steve was known to do things like this. I can’t believe I have to explain this.
It was nervous audience laughter in response to the classic Steve Jobs understatement.. as in "only 2 challenges! haha!". I was in the audience sitting next to a guy who had just completed a $50k program of work optimising his software for PowerPC. He was laughing in a kind of hysterical way right from the moment this began.
I am. Still shocked. Goobye Bootcamp and goodbye Windows/Linux running natively on Mac. And probably some developers are going to leave the platform. I'm excited too because of the benefits, but still.. not sure.
@@jsward96 They have already tried multiple times. Even if they move - 90% of Windows software will be lost by the move to ARM. The whole point of Windows is to have compatibility with x86 software. If they remove it - what's the point of Windows?
@@NomadicDmitry Why can't they make a dynamic binary translator like Apple did with Rosetta? When Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel, the Intel Macs could still run PowerPC software until Lion. They've said that a new version of Rosetta will facilitate the transition from Intel to ARM as well.
@@RabbitConfirmed don't get me wrong, my 2014 MBP also runs incredibly well but seeing a Pentium 4 with a spinning disk loading apps that blazingly quick makes me wonder if macOS couldn't be more refined and even faster at this point in time, specially considering Metal and the expertise of working with Intel for 15 years now.
@@gartblaum Man, people still believe that crap, all these years later ? As soon as ARM is scaled up to desktop/server grade it becomes essentially on par with modern x86 hardware, it's really not any better. If it was better, server hardware designers worldwide would've done it already en masse. The ARM instruction set is very old too by this point, almost 40 years. The real future is RISC V, everybody knows it at this point. It it does switch to ARM, Apple will only do it for a single reason, to control as much as possible the IP inside a computer, down to the CPU. They can even choose how much they need and where to contract the manufacturing to. You can't do that with Intel. They want a bigger portion of the CPU design roadmap in their hands, just like in the PowerPC days.
The simple fact the Apple dares to have transitions like this even when their business model is perfectly successful proves how different they are from every other technology company in the world. Microsoft Sony and Samsung don’t tend to change things when it’s not broken, Apple refuses to ever believe somethings good enough and they always progress forward. Regardless of some weird mistakes throughout their journey and expensive premiums for their products this is why I’m along for the ride.
didn't he just show the g5 kicking the crap out of the intel cpu when he introduced the g5 and now switching over the intel? why does he not show the intel cpu holding it's own at least with the G5 doing what the G5 was doing to the intel cpu?
@@raven4k998that was in 2003. by the time apple shipped intel macs, they were dual-core, 64-bit, & could play multiple HD videos without dropping a frame.
Still my favourite clip at 6:24, after revealing the presentation has been running on Intel, one developer looks enthralled and the other looks like Steve just ran his cat over, then reversed back over it.
The change from Power PC to Intel just nearly wrecked my job back in the day! Third-party software providers took 2 years to deal with the change. Old news, but wow - it was a serious mess back then.
And that it gave users more Power to tap on, too. :) Check out POWER9 and how they destroy even the latest Xeon & AMD processors in all 3 vectors: Raw performance, performance per watt & price. Not that the move wasn't justified back then: It wasn't clear when or if IBM was going to reach where they have today. Google Talos II by Raptor Computing / Engineering, btw.
only the g5 had heat issues. otherwise they were great for performance per watt. Their top performance competitiveness suffered once x86 went into a clockrate war with itself in 1998-99 and it never recovered. The last overly competetive PPC machine that Apple released was probably Blue and White.
amazing to watch a person present like he has the balls of one of the worlds largest companies casually in his hands while being so calm...the guy was a genius
I did several cars with ILLUSTRATOR and it all went well, circles no problem we started with wheel-bases and those are four tyres then we also made the interieur, we designed from outside to inside, thanks Steve for that experience, loved it. Kind Regards.
yeah my core duo mac runs hot, i got it in september of 2006. Even though it runs hot i still love this machine and work great in the winter months when i need to stay warm.
Not really. Although an Intel Pentium was used for the demo of this presentation, there was never a Mac using Pentium. In fact, they used Intel Core and Core 2 on their device. Refer to 3:00 , Steve Jobs said that they are looking for the future map of Intel (which they had already announce) which mean he was saying that Core and Core 2 CPU has a good power efficiency.
@@tsmc689 I don't think that you got a joke. I was writing about how none of the Pentium 4 chips were ever efficient. They were so horrible architecturally that Northwood variant got infamous for Northwood sudden death syndrome, from excessive rates of electromigration (excessive voltage and excessive heat output), causing chip internals from inside of it to migrate out of their places and pretty quickly wear down the chip on atomic scale. And as expected most Pentium 4s were very inneficient CPUs. Athlon 64 chips from AMD ran much cooler and needed less volts. It was so bad, that this level of failure was never again repeated in CPU industry. Not ever FX 9590 or i9 11900K ran so hot that their atoms literally migrated out of chips and made them die. Later revisions of Pentium 4 fixed electromigration problem, but they performed poorly, still needed high voltage and still had high heat output. Some idiot at Intel even decided to put two Pentium 4s onto same substrate and release that as Pentium D. Needless to say, it was no competitor for AMD's Athlon 64 X2 chips.
It's an Instruction Set as well, which defines compatibility. It's like AMD, Intel and in the past some others. They all use the X86-instruction set. XENON is also fully compatible with the PowerPC instruction set. The Power instruction set was the predecessor of the PowerPC, but PowerPC is not a pure extension and will not run all Power code natively, it misses some instructions.
I think this is what separates successful companies from ones that will crumble. Unlike Motorola or IBM, Apple was forward thinking enough to push for change even when business was good- even with the risks that came along with it.
For Hackintosh there are ways to get it on AMD, that requires kernel recompiling, and custom kexts however. They do not have AMD test machines in the company, so therefore there is no chance of a native build. Even though the basic x86_64 Assembly does not differ on these Architectures, EFI dropped the chance of AMD native happening.
Actually, the Intel x86 processors today have RISC and CISC aspects. In some instances the x86 chip "translates" CISC code into RISC-like micro-ops and then back to CISC code. As processors have ramped up in overall speed, CISC has moved a bit towards RISC and vice versa, so as I understand things, the instruction set is blurred as compared to back in the mid-1990's when there were clear distinctions between RISC and CISC.
If Mac OS X has always been made for Intel processors, I wonder if I could get my hands on those Intel versions from before 10.4. If Apple is generous and still has those builds lying around, I think it would be pretty fun to poke around with those Intel versions, maybe even install one on a Hackintosh.
yes, actually if anyone remembers Apple Rhapsody was for both Intel and PowerPC processors, which later became OS X server then OS X. Most likely OS X Server and every OS X beta and of course the final releases were still being compiled for Intel in secret.
I don't see what was so surprising about OS X running on Intel since its inception - NeXTSTEP ran on Intel and SPARC, openly, when NeXT's own hardware failed to sell.
@@RedHairdo DR1 and DR2 (5.0 and 5.1) both had x86 versions. Rhapsody at that time was basically NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP with a Mac OS 8 interface stuck on top, with a few key classic Mac OS bits ported over, like QuickTime. By the time it was released to the public as "Mac OS X Server" (which still sported the Mac OS 8 interface), it only supported PowerPC. It later sort of got forked and evolved into OS X.
What set Steve Jobs era apart from everything else in the industry was Apple’s transparency back them. “We couldn’t deliver that to you yet” and “Our products are not as efficient as we wanted” are things we don’t hear from them anymore.
