Hindsight is a wonderful thing; the early (32-bit!) days of MacIntel

[IndigoQuack]

Just a bit of geeky rumination on a Saturday afternoon... I know it's all a very long time ago now and doesn't matter, but as someone who began the transition from PowerPC to Intel with the original 1.83GHz Core Duo MacBook, I can't help but feel that Apple missed a trick by not just waiting to begin the transition with the x64 Core 2 Duo chips (and I seem to recall that C2D powered Macs did begin to appear fairly quickly afterwards anyway!)

There must have been a reason why they didn't do this (financial, probably?) but it would definitely have been a lot 'cleaner.' I actually didn't have a lot of love for my MacBook at the time, and it felt like quite a 'compromised' product to me. The fact that it, and the other Core Duos, were cut-off from OS support after only Snow Leopard left a bit of a bad taste too. I get that Apple really had to get something out there quickly (particularly in the MacBook Pro space, given the lack of a PowerBook G5) but the brief 32-bit only Intel Macs felt like a bit of an unnecessary step in the transition.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out with the Apple Silicon transition... I don't expect Apple to ditch Intel support with the upcoming macOS 14 (although you never know!) but when they eventually do drop Intel, it'll be interesting to see when the first-get AS machines start being dropped. My hunch is that they won't repeat the same mistake as there's no need to - even the low-end ASi machines are outstandingly capable.

BTW After the disappointment of the initial MacBook, I can assure you that I became an Intel Mac true believer eventually I'm still rocking my 13" 2012 MBP (upgraded with SSD, 16Gb RAM and running Ventura thanks to OCLP) and it still works beautifully for me. It may well be the best Mac I've owned out of all the 68k, PPC and Intel models that I've had over the years!

 

[retta283]

I suspect the reason for this is simply that Apple didn't know in Q2 or Q3 of 2005 that the Core 2 Duo was inevitable (or even that it existed) in Intel's product pipeline. If I recall, Intel co-operated quite closely with Apple for shipping the Intel Macs at the time that the Core Duo released, the chip didn't exist before then. It is almost stunning how quickly the Core Duo became irrelevant specifically by Intel's standards, but Apple likely didn't plan on it slipping away so quickly.

In 2005 Intel was still trying to push Itanium. It was pressure from AMD that caused them to cave and make the x86-64 processor.

 

[IndigoQuack]

If I recall, Intel co-operated quite closely with Apple for shipping the Intel Macs at the time that the Core Duo released, the chip didn't exist before then.

Good point! I think we were all expecting the first Intel Macs to feature the Pentium 4 (eek) or even the Celeron in the case of the iBook (double eek!) since they were Intel's main CPU brands at the time. Indeed, the developer kit was just a standard Pentium 4 motherboard in a Power Mac G5 case. When the 'Core Duo' finally arrived, it was new and unexpected.

There were a lot of what turned out to be unfounded worries during that time... My own favourite recurring 'fear' was that our beautiful Macs would end up being sullied with 'Intel Inside' stickers 😛

In 2005 Intel was still trying to push Itanium. It was pressure from AMD that caused them to cave and make the x86-64 processor.

Another good point. I'd forgotten all about the Itanium architecture!

 

[Amethyst1]

I suspect the reason for this is simply that Apple didn't know in Q2 or Q3 of 2005 that the Core 2 Duo was inevitable (or even that it existed) in Intel's product pipeline.

Rumours of "Conroe", a new 64-bit desktop CPU that wouldn’t be a Pentium 4 were around in 2004. I’m sure Apple were closely watching what Intel were up to back then so they would have been aware of these rumours. I’m fairly sure they had OS X running on the Pentium M, too.

Indeed, the developer kit was just a standard Pentium 4 motherboard in a Power Mac G5 case.

The Pentium 4 was the only choice back then since the Pentium M lacks SSE3 which Intel OS X makes use of.

My own favourite recurring 'fear' was that our beautiful Macs would end up being sullied with 'Intel Inside' stickers 😛

Same here. I hate those stickers meant to show off a machine's specs anyway, they make a machine look cheap and ridiculously outdated once it is, well, outdated. Cars don't have those stupid stickers either.

When the 'Core Duo' finally arrived, it was new and unexpected.

I don't think so, since it was demo-ed in 2004. The Pentium M had been around and very successful for a couple of years since its introduction in March 2003 and by 2005, it had become apparent that dual-core CPUs were the way forward (e.g. Athlon 64 X2; Pentium D) so it was absolutely logical for Intel to release a dual-core version of the Pentium M: the "Core Duo" — which was also the first mobile dual-core CPU. But it was destined to be/become a stop-gap solution until the arrival of the first Intel CPUs based on the actually new Core architecture ("Core 2").

 

[velocityg4]

I suspect the reason for this is simply that Apple didn't know in Q2 or Q3 of 2005 that the Core 2 Duo was inevitable (or even that it existed) in Intel's product pipeline. If I recall, Intel co-operated quite closely with Apple for shipping the Intel Macs at the time that the Core Duo released, the chip didn't exist before then. It is almost stunning how quickly the Core Duo became irrelevant specifically by Intel's standards, but Apple likely didn't plan on it slipping away so quickly.

In 2005 Intel was still trying to push Itanium. It was pressure from AMD that caused them to cave and make the x86-64 processor.

Intel is generally quite open about their timeline. They don't list all the specific model numbers and specs ahead of time. But what major features and manufacturing tech they will use and around what time to expect these products.

I'd assume Apple went with Core Duo. Because they were ready to release an Intel Mac and that is the CPU Intel had available. At least available in time for testing and getting Apple's supply chain in order.

At the time Apple was hurting some from a slump in PowerPC sales. In part due to the Ghz gap and the announcement that they were switching to Intel. They had to get something out ASAP. The funny part of the Ghz gap being that Core Duo and Core 2 Duo had a much lower clockrate than the Pentium 4 but dominated it in performance. Notice how quickly they stopped crowing about clock rate once they released low clock rate chips.

 

[Amethyst1]

I'd assume Apple went with Core Duo. Because they were ready to release an Intel Mac and that is the CPU Intel had available.

If the Core Duo had not existed in early 2006, they could have as well have gone with the Pentium M. The Macs that needed a performance boost the most were the Mac mini/iBook/PowerBook G4 and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the iMac G5.

The funny part of the Ghz gap being that Core Duo and Core 2 Duo had a much lower clockrate than the Pentium 4 but dominated it in performance. Notice how quickly they stopped crowing about clock rate once they released low clock rate chips.

That was due to the P4's architecture which required high clock speeds to perform. As long as the P4 was current, pretty much all they could do was increase the clock speed further and further before eventually realising that a 4 GHz part wouldn't happen (too hot/power-hungry) and they needed to look somewhere else for their next CPU. And of course consumers had to be told ASAP that having "the most gigahertz" no longer mattered because they wouldn't have bought Core (2) Duo machines otherwise.

In 2005 Intel was still trying to push Itanium.

The problem which doomed Itanium for consumers was that it runs existing 32-bit x86 code at devastatingly low speeds. x86-64 CPUs run 32-bit x86 code just as quickly as 32-bit CPU, making them a viable upgrade path for anyone.

 

[m1maverick]

I suspect the reason for this is simply that Apple didn't know in Q2 or Q3 of 2005 that the Core 2 Duo was inevitable (or even that it existed) in Intel's product pipeline. If I recall, Intel co-operated quite closely with Apple for shipping the Intel Macs at the time that the Core Duo released, the chip didn't exist before then. It is almost stunning how quickly the Core Duo became irrelevant specifically by Intel's standards, but Apple likely didn't plan on it slipping away so quickly.

In 2005 Intel was still trying to push Itanium. It was pressure from AMD that caused them to cave and make the x86-64 processor.

If memory serves correctly, and it's been almost 20 years, there was discussion as to why Apple didn't choose AMD as , at the time, AMD was performing better than Intel. The speculation is Apple was privy to Intel's product roadmap and concluded in the long run Intel had the better product.

 

[retta283]

To address the quotes of my post, yes, it is likely that Apple knew more of Intel's product timeline than I suspected. Even I knew that Intel was abandoning Itanium and moving to make an x86-64 processor in the 2005-06 era, the evidence was quite clear on that front. I still do believe it would've been untenable for Apple to decide in mid-2005 to wait for the C2D if they had known it was for sure coming a little over a year later. As mentioned before, there was never going to be a PowerBook G5.

It's entirely likely that I knew more 18 years ago as I was involved in the software industry around that time, but details became hazy over time... I am 65, after all.

One thing I can remember with sharp certainty is that the P4 had definitely been exhausted by 2004-05, perhaps a few of you remember the phrase 'PrescHOT'.

 

[velocityg4]

... And of course consumers had to be told ASAP that having "the most gigahertz" no longer mattered because they wouldn't have bought Core (2) Duo machines otherwise.

I remember how fun it was trying to convince people that a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo was better than a 3Ghz Pentium 4. When I was trying out a business of building gaming computers.

 

[Amethyst1]

I remember how fun it was trying to convince people that a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo was better than a 3Ghz Pentium 4.

I remember nearly everyone of my friends questioning my choice of AMD CPUs back then because "Intel haz moar giggahurtz."

 

[gpat]

Rumours of "Conroe", a new 64-bit desktop CPU that wouldn’t be a Pentium 4 were around in 2004. I’m sure Apple were closely watching what Intel were up to back then so they would have been aware of these rumours. I’m fairly sure they had OS X running on the Pentium M, too.

So much that they shipped an actual Pentium M computer running a form of OSX, in the shape of the Mk1 Apple TV.
But yeah they totally should have either waited for 64-bit, or completed the transition earlier by ditching the G5 chip altogether.
Not enough people do remember what a fluke of a generation the G5 was.

 

[B S Magnet]

So much that they shipped an actual Pentium M computer running a form of OSX, in the shape of the Mk1 Apple TV.
But yeah they totally should have either waited for 64-bit, or completed the transition earlier by ditching the G5 chip altogether.
Not enough people do remember what a fluke of a generation the G5 was.

Apple of now, thinking fondly on the Pentium Ms to help their transition and their first AppleTVs, when deciding to name their Silicon CPUs… “Mx” and not “Sx”. 😵

 

[IndigoQuack]

Another thing I remember about the original MacBook was the negative reaction among the Mac faithful to Apple using integrated "vampire" graphics. I know things have developed a long way with integrated graphics since then, but back in 2006 it was seen as a shock event - especially because we'd previously been (probably unjustifiably) smug about PowerPC Macs having dedicated graphics while low-end PC competitors compromised and used onboard graphics. I look back and cringe at some of my snobby 'fanboi' views from back then! Then again, I seem to remember even Apple railed against integrated graphics in some of the marketing around the original G4 mini, only to contradict themselves with the Intel release. Oops!

In fairness though, the GMA950 chipset *did* actually suck! The 'HD 4000' Intel Graphics on my elderly 2012 MBP are decent enough for my purposes (native Metal support for one thing - which means even Ventura runs well)

Oh, and while I remember... There was also the very short-lived Mac Mini Core Solo! Going by the above discussion, I'm guessing the Core Solo was essentially just a rebadged Pentium M. Although at least the CPU was socketed so it was (theoretically) upgradeable.

 

[B S Magnet]

Another thing I remember about the original MacBook was the negative reaction among the Mac faithful to Apple using integrated "vampire" graphics. I know things have developed a long way with integrated graphics since then, but back in 2006 it was seen as a shock event - especially because we'd previously been (probably unjustifiably) smug about PowerPC Macs having dedicated graphics while low-end PC competitors compromised and used onboard graphics. I look back and cringe at some of my snobby 'fanboi' views from back then! Then again, I seem to remember even Apple railed against integrated graphics in some of the marketing around the original G4 mini, only to contradict themselves with the Intel release. Oops!

The first two integrated graphics by Intel on the early MacBook/Mac mini products were utter garbage, and they quickly became bottlenecks as one tried to upgrade their OS later on. The GMA 950 and X3100 were both awful. Their only saving grace, with time passed: they weren’t the ATI/AMD and Nvidia GPUs which failed on the MBPs.

I can live with, say, the HD 3000 iGPU in a 2011-era MBP. Some can’t. But Intel really didn’t fully pick up their own past slack until the HD 4000 GPU in their Ivy Bridge architecture of 2012.

In fairness though, the GMA950 chipset *did* actually suck! The 'HD 4000' Intel Graphics on my elderly 2012 MBP are decent enough for my purposes (native Metal support for one thing - which means even Ventura runs well)

I ought to actually read the whole of your post before I try replying to it.

Oh, and while I remember... There was also the very short-lived Mac Mini Core Solo! Going by the above discussion, I'm guessing the Core Solo was essentially just a rebadged Pentium M. Although at least the CPU was socketed so it was (theoretically) upgradeable.

Oh, @Amethyst1 some time back threw in an even slower Core Solo CPU to see how slow the Mac mini could go.

 

[gpat]

Another thing I remember about the original MacBook was the negative reaction among the Mac faithful to Apple using integrated "vampire" graphics. I know things have developed a long way with integrated graphics since then, but back in 2006 it was seen as a shock event - especially because we'd previously been (probably unjustifiably) smug about PowerPC Macs having dedicated graphics while low-end PC competitors compromised and used onboard graphics. I look back and cringe at some of my snobby 'fanboi' views from back then! Then again, I seem to remember even Apple railed against integrated graphics in some of the marketing around the original G4 mini, only to contradict themselves with the Intel release. Oops!

The GMA950 were definitely the weakest point of the original Macbook... but the whole system was light years ahead of the G4 laptops in 2005.
iBooks and PowerBooks couldn't even exploit their Radeon graphics as the rest of the system would act as a huge bottleneck.
Also I remember the positive surprise about the Macbooks never having single core CPUs but starting with dual cores even at the baseline. That should be recalled as well.

 

[Amethyst1]

So much that they shipped an actual Pentium M computer running a form of OSX, in the shape of the Mk1 Apple TV.

Of course. I always forget the original AppleTV.

Then again, I seem to remember even Apple railed against integrated graphics in some of the marketing around the original G4 mini, only to contradict themselves with the Intel release.

Yeah, that was fun.

In fairness though, the GMA950 chipset *did* actually suck!

The GMA X3100 that followed was better but still a prime example of why integrated graphics were best avoided at that time. The NVIDIA GeForce 320M that some 2010 Macs have was very good for its time though.

Going by the above discussion, I'm guessing the Core Solo was essentially just a rebadged Pentium M.

Yep (but built on a 65 nm node, with a higher FSB, SSE3 and VT-x). It's still faster than a G4 though...

Although at least the CPU was socketed so it was (theoretically) upgradeable.

Oh, @Amethyst1 some time back threw in an even slower Core Solo CPU to see how slow the Mac mini could go.

Core Solo? A Celeron M 410 is where it's at

 

[B S Magnet]

The GMA X3100 that followed was better but still a prime example of why integrated graphics were best avoided at that time. The NVIDIA GeForce 320M that some 2010 Macs have was very good for its time though.

Watching the X3100 choke at the Desktop, on an MB4,1 running a patched Sierra, never gets old.

 

[Amethyst1]

Watching the X3100 choke at the Desktop, on an MB4,1 running a patched Sierra, never gets old.

Time for a supercharger.

 

[B S Magnet]

Time for a supercharger.

Hahaha, unless it’s given back to me (I hope not), I gave away that MB to an 8yo girl to play on (but she soon got tired of it and found it “too old”). Can’t fault her: it still had a spinner in it.

 

[Amethyst1]

I gave away that MB to an 8yo girl to play on (but she soon got tired of it and found it “too old”).

Spoiled kid. 8-year-old me would have loved any computer

 

[TheShortTimer]

Spoiled kid. 8-year-old me would have loved any computer

Any computer?

 

[B S Magnet]

Spoiled kid. 8-year-old me would have loved any computer

She has her screen (tablet), knows how to manipulate the TV with a “hey g@@gle”, and she also gets to play on her older brother’s Switch. Them kids these days! They want it all done for them! Back in my day, we had to literally tell the computer what to do! Load this and run that and break this over here and…”

That said, she has confessed to me, once, how she’s amazed by all the things I can do with the computers I bring over (typically, either my A1261 or A1278) or when she sees all the computers functioning in my home — “even though they’re all old!” This was during a moment when she was thinking about being a programmer, but that was also, like, over a year ago.

I think there must be some internal paradoxes going on in the back of her mind: “yah, she uses old, slow computers, but she’s doing all sorts of sorcery with them!” That also said, she’s slowly, but increasingly, taken on her other brother’s penchant for describing the music I listen to as “retirement boogie”. —_—

 

[B S Magnet]

Any computer?

That’s… intimidating.

 

[TheShortTimer]

That’s… intimidating.

Not as intimidating as this computer...

 

[Amethyst1]

Any computer?

As long as it has loads of blinkenlights