[quote]Originally posted by Bodhi:
<strong>My friend 'in the know' if you could say that has been whispering this to me for about two weeks now. He has heard that Apple has a partnership with AMD. He has also heard that Apple plans to release boxes that Dual Boot.
The second one I am leery of but he swears on the first, and this is the same guy who told me about the solid state scroll on thhe new iPods about two weeks ago. I don't think Apple is looking to go x86, they would piss off too many developers. But a PowerPC made by AMD would work well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
d00d! If you could get your buddy to elaborate on this....it would be very cool!
Could this partnership with AMD have to do with a mobo chipset, and Apple will continue to use Moto as their CPU supplier? Or do you think this AMD-Apple partnership is about CPUs?
And, aren't all current Macs "Dual Boot", in that one can boot into OS X or OS 9? Or do you mean dual boot, as in, these new "Macs" will be able to boot either OS X, or Windows?
Or could this Dual Boot mean that one boots into OS X on PPC for older apps, but boots into OS X on x86 for newer apps?
What troubles me about all this is the following:
1. Mac developers, including Apple, have invested a great amount of resources in Altivec. From OS X to Photoshop to screen savers, a multitude of Mac code has been written with Altivec in mind. Now that the G4 is finally in both pro AND consumer Macs, a developer can write altivec code with the knowledge that ANY Mac user will benefit. Futhermore, altivec optimizations are now an incentive for all mac users to choose a particular piece of software over another. It would be a small tragedy if right when Altivec was finally gaining widespread adoption and support, Apple abandoned it.
2. The transition to OS X continues, and by the looks of things, it will be years before the Mac user base has fully migrated to OS X, with OS 9 native apps being relics from the past. This transition is costly to both Apple and developers, AND to Mac users. Mac users who switch to OS X are also compelled to replace all of their software with OS X native versions, if not immediately, then after a few months of using the classic environment. For Apple to undertake another major transition within the next few years would be dangerous. Not only would Apple risk alienating developers (some who have invested lots of time and money in Altivec optimizations, imagine all the Mac programmers who've taken the time to learn how to code for altivec), but more importantly, Apple could alienate the entire Mac user base. Asking them to buy all new software once is bad enough, but doing it again....I don't see many people sticking with the platform. The migration to OS X is confusing enough for most people, try throwing in a concomitant migration to a different CPU architecture and you suddenly have a bunch of confused Mac users who will see Windows as being more simple and cheaper.
3. Motorola DOES have some sort of "G5" ready, and IBM has the Power 5 which will supposedly be good for workstations. With options like these, why would Apple choose x86? Furthermore, x86 is supposedly near the end of it's life. I don't understand the technical reasons, but it's something I've read a few places. Not in the next few years, but certainly within the next decade. IF Apple were to choose a new architecture, wouldn't it be better to choose something that is new, with a long life ahead of it, rather than something in it's twilight years, with the end in sight, like x86?
Eh, just some ideas.