Will the "Macintel" systems run MacOS X? What version?

On June 20, 2005, EveryMac.com published:

Yes. As Apple's June 6, 2005 press release states that the transition to Intel-based processors will begin in mid-2006 [it began January 10, 2006, a full six months earlier than announced], it is likely that the initial "Macintel" systems will ship with a version of MacOS X 10.4 "Tiger" designed to run on Intel. In his WWDC keynote, also on June 6, 2005, Steve Jobs stated that Apple intends to release MacOS X 10.5 "Leopard" in late 2006 or early 2007, so one could expect "Macintel" systems shipped in either late 2006 or early 2007 to ship with MacOS X 10.5 "Leopard" pre-installed.

On January 10, 2006, Apple introduced the iMac "Core Duo" and MacBook Pro, the company's first Intel-based systems, both of which shipped with a version of MacOS X 10.4 "Tiger".

Will MacOS X "Leopard" run on PowerPC-based Macs?

Although nothing has been officially announced regarding MacOS X 10.5 "Leopard" compatibility, if history is any indication, Apple likely will make MacOS X 10.5 "Leopard" compatible with both recent PowerPC-based systems and "Macintel" systems.

Assuming that MacOS X 10.5 "Leopard" is released as scheduled, the installed based of PowerPC-based Macs will be far larger than the installed base of "Macintel" systems, and as a result, it would make financial sense to continue to support PowerPC-based systems. Again, if Apple continues to follow its previous pattern, it seems likely that at least the version after MacOS X 10.5 "Leopard" also will support PowerPC-based systems.

Apple likely will not discontinue MacOS support of existing PowerPC-based systems until the installed base is small enough that it is not profitable to release additional versions of the MacOS for these systems or the PowerPC-based systems are too slow to accommodate whatever technological advances may be made.

Will existing MacOS X applications be able to run on "Macintel" systems?

On June 20, 2005, EveryMac.com speculated that:

A good percentage of existing MacOS X applications will be able to run on "Macintel" systems using the "Rosetta Universal Binary Translator", but as one would expect, these applications will run more slowly than they would if they were "native" for Intel processors.

If history is any indication, this transition likely will result in the early "Macintel" systems performing more slowly, or at least no faster, than late PowerPC-based models while each are running software optimized for the PowerPC. The transition between 68k-based and PowerPC-based Macs produced similar initial results, where late 68k-based Macs, such as the Quadra 840AV, were faster than early PowerPC-based Macs, such as the Power Macintosh 6100/60 when both were running software designed for 68k Macs. It was only after software became optimized for PowerPC processors did the performance gains become more apparent. Upgrading software, however, is a substantial investment that should be noted when considering a "Macintel" system.

In general, the above is correct. However, for detailed performance information of each Intel-based Mac running both native applications and applications using "Rosetta", please refer to the particular Q&A for the system of interest (direct links are available on the upper left hand side of the page).

Will applications written for MacOS X for Intel run on PowerPC-based Macs?

Apple intends for applications written for MacOS X for Intel to also run on PowerPC-based Macs. As Steve Jobs mentioned in his June 6, 2005 keynote at WWDC, Apple's Xcode 2.1 makes it "easy" to create applications that are compatible with both PowerPC and Intel by building a "universal binary". Describing this to developers, Jobs says "That's the binary that's going to contain all the bits that run both the architectures and so the loader for each one loads the right set of bits and goes. One binary works on both PowerPC and Intel architecture. So you can ship one CD that supports both processors. . . So we want to support both of these processors into the future and universal binaries is the way to do it."

However, developers are independent, and although most likely will do as Apple requests and release applications designed to run on MacOS X for PowerPC and MacOS X for Intel, others may decide to release applications solely for MacOS X for Intel, depending on the time of release and the size of the installed base.

A C|Net interview with Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen provides modest insight into the development process. Chizen states that "Steve [Jobs] likes to trivialize the process and make it seem easy, but moving the apps over is not that easy. . . Getting over to "MacTel" ["Macintel"] is work. I think in the long run it's going to be great because what the users will get is better performance. . . and greater value. At Adobe, we tend to optimize for Intel today on the Windows side. The fact that we'll be able to optimize for Intel cross-platform will make it even better for us." Chizen also states that he would "be surprised" if Adobe did a "Macintel" only release of Photoshop, but didn't explicitly state that Adobe will continue to release Photoshop for MacOS X for PowerPC.

For extensive information on creating a universal binary, please refer to Universal Binary Programming Guidelines, provided by Apple's extensive Developer Transition Resource Center.

Will the "Macintel" systems be able to run "MacOS 9/Classic" applcations?

No. Unfortunately, as the "Rosetta Universal Binary Translator" cannot run "Classic/MacOS 9" applications, there is no support for these applications on "Macintel" systems. If you have mission critical applications that are only available for MacOS 9 or earlier, you likely would be best served by maintaining a PowerPC-based Mac.

For information on third-party efforts to run MacOS 9 applications on Intel-based Macs, please refer to "Are there any third-party programs to run MacOS 9/Classic applications on Intel Macs?"

Permalink | Report an Error/Typo | Sign Up for Site Update Notices