Member Avatar for Ghost

What do you think about Apple using Intel chips?

  • 5 Contributors
  • 5 Replies
  • 109 Views
  • 4 Weeks Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by StandardsDT

Dani AI

Generated

Apple moving the Mac CPU family is a platform-level change, not just a marketing tweak. The practical consequences fall into three buckets: buying decisions, developer work, and vendor/driver support. Below are concise, actionable points that build on the observations already in this thread from , , and .

For buyers and admins: compile a short inventory of mission-critical apps, plug-ins and hardware (printers, audio interfaces, capture cards). Confirm vendor statements for the new machines before committing. Keep a tested, bootable backup and a rollback plan. If business continuity is critical, delay moving core production machines until native support for essential tools is confirmed.

For developers: prioritize portability fixes. Audit the codebase for architecture-specific assembly, compiler intrinsics, manual byte packing, and assumptions about integer/pointer sizes. Replace ad-hoc types with fixed-width types (for example, uint32_t), centralize byte-order handling, and isolate platform-specific code behind clean interfaces. Add architecture-conditioned builds and automated tests to CI so regressions are caught early. Performance-sensitive modules should get native builds and tuning rather than relying on translation during runtime.

For ISVs and hardware vendors: driver-like components, kernel modules, and binary plug-ins are the highest-risk items and should be ported first. Publish a clear compatibility matrix and recommended upgrade path for customers. Coordinate with upstream library maintainers when your app depends on third-party native libraries.

In summary: the transition can bring benefits, but it requires planning and testing. The ecosystem adapts over time (as reminded), yet the caution about third-party support raised by is well founded — testing and vendor confirmation are the safest way forward.

Recommended Answers

All 5 Replies

Member Avatar for Catweazle

Very little actually. It's simply a sensible move on Apple's part, because Intel can more reliably produce adequate processors than IBM seems to be able to.

Won't effect software at all, probably, because existing software can still be run via a software technology to be called 'Rosetta'. Even if that proves to give a performance 'hit' (which it's reported not to) then it's still untrue to claim that existing software (won't run).

By the way, there's an existing topic about this in the appropriate forum section:
http://www.daniweb.com/techtalkforums/thread25138.html

Member Avatar for kc0arf

Hi,

I have to choose other. I think it is great that Apple is looking at Intel for processor support, and I think the programs will work nicely.

Apple's Mac line has already had 2 major computing shifts. The first time was when we went from Motorola 680x0 code to the PowerPC code (anyone remember fat binaries?) The second shift was from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. In both cases, the world did not stop, but yes, some notable thorns (hello QUARK!) did not optimize their software for the new platform in a timely matter.

I am excited.

Christian

Member Avatar for StandardsDT

cpu is low for priorities list. they should mainly be focusing on other things for their computer. dont get me wrong i really like apple computers but they should be focusing more on their other things such as some of things they cant match up to that microsoft has that apple doesnt. the only thing apple really has going for them is the image manipulation.

- Dave

Member Avatar for alc6379

cpu is low for priorities list. they should mainly be focusing on other things for their computer. dont get me wrong i really like apple computers but they should be focusing more on their other things such as some of things they cant match up to that microsoft has that apple doesnt. the only thing apple really has going for them is the image manipulation.

- Dave

With the exception of gaming, what exactly is the Mac lacking?

I can't think of a single category that a Mac can't compete with a PC on nowadays. Sure, you might not get completely native ports of many PC programs for the Mac, but I'm not really seeing a lack on their side of the fence.

Member Avatar for StandardsDT

With the exception of gaming, what exactly is the Mac lacking?

I can't think of a single category that a Mac can't compete with a PC on nowadays. Sure, you might not get completely native ports of many PC programs for the Mac, but I'm not really seeing a lack on their side of the fence.

Macs lack in alot of respects. Software availability being their biggest obstacle. I would not say they lack in power just simply they lack in market share and market compatability. I see more software coming out for Linux these days than I see for Mac.

- Dave

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.