*CONFIRMED* Mac OS X on x86 after this year! - Page 2

[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>What would require the "transition to the OS X operation system", before having options?????</strong><hr></blockquote>

OS9. Ever seen the OS9 kernel running on a platform other than PPC? The OSX kernel does.

[quote]Originally posted by Rhumgod:
<strong>
PPC by AMD = interesting. I remember when AMD bought out a company by the name of NexGen which started the whole upward swing (it was a RISC processor that emulated CISC instructions, and quite fast too) toward the Athlon. Could be a possibility but I have a gut feeling that since IBM already makes G3s for Apple, that they will be the ones with the new chip for the new PowerMac. And to that end, I am guessing it will be a POWER 5 variant.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Rumour has it IBM has now got the rights to use Altivec, so with Book E architecture a custom CPU with the PPC instruction set is very possible.

As for Jobs comments, that was his way of leaving things open but in all honesty Apple going x86 is as likely as Texaco going solar!

Apple will never use Intel chips. It would be like Yoda having tea and crumpets withe the Emperor.

Got to give it to Mr. Jobs, for someone who apparently really despises rumors, he just loaded both barrels of all rumor sites shotguns.

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]Originally posted by heh2k:
<strong>runtime translation isn't necessary. translate ppc -&gt; x86 and cache the resulting native (x86) binary, and it will run plently fast. </strong><hr></blockquote>

But not nearly as fast as code written and compiled for the x86 in the first place. It would put Apple right back in last place in terms of the speed race, and each processor upgrade would speed up the competition at least as much as it sped them up. No, this would be folly. It would also throw away the advantages that PPC does provide -- like lower power consumption & heat output, and AltiVec.


Steve meant exactly what he said: they want options, they like options. Options for choosing the processor and its supplier.

Given the decoder/core style of many of today's designs this seems like a more likely direction than moving the whole Mac user base to yet another instruction set architecture -- especially an old/creaking one. Imagine all the options they'd have if Moto, IBM, and AMD were all making PowerPCs. G4s from Moto, POWER5s & Sahara G3s from IBM, and new things from AMD (possibly an Operton w/ PPC decoder?). Apple invested a fair bit of money in Exponential back in the mid-90s in order to see what they could do with their new ideas for another PowerPC design... it didn't pan out then, but a third supplier can't be far from Apple's collective mind.

[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>I wouldn't read too much into the quote, but in the immortal words of Arty Johnson it is "veerrrrryyyyy interesting".
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Amazingly no one has completed the quote and called the idea "..but alsho shtuhpid". I think it has some interesting parts to it myself.

[quote]<strong>
Also, what does Steve's quote"that first the company had to finish the transition to the OS X operating system, expected around the end of this year. " mean??????

What would require the "transition to the OS X operation system", before having options?????

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Anyone remember the rumor/Steveism *can't remember which it is* that a future evrsion of OS X will not allow OS 9 booting? Would this also take out Classic? If going beyond say 10.2.3 *achievable by December if the usual pace of a month or so per dot increase* would mean no more booting into 9 or even more drastically into Classic at all, then we would see MANY ticked off Mac users and developers.

Ok... this is definitely an amusing thread to read. I like to think about the future as much as anyone else, and this comment by SJ gives us all pause....

But for everyone saying "it can't be done" and "too much effort" etc. That's pretty much BS. Anyone who knows how OpenStep worked knows moving to a new CPU with OSX once EVERYTHING is OSX native - is a SNAP.

It was very, very, very common for an OpenStep app to be what they called a "fat binary." Like in the days with the transition from 68k to PPC - only this "fat binary" meant running on (usually) FOUR different CPUs - HP, 68k, Sparc, and x86. Cocoa's modular nature allowed this with very little overhead in terms of disk usage - and it just took a simple compile to get that stuff working on another platform. We're talking almost no work here.

So - after making the transition to OS X, it's true. Apple can have options - they can make a new platform on another chip, and everyone just has to build their app for 2 chips - EASY in the land of NeXT (nee OSX).

Oh, and as for the OS having stuff in it for i386, that's there for darwin, and some is in there because it was there in OpenStep 4.2 - it's sometimes better just to leave it alone than remove it and risk breaking some dependency that you haven't though of, especially when it doesn't take up much space, and that space isn't at a premium anymore anyway.

Well.... speculate on.....

The question is not Do they have it ?
THEY HAVE

The question is when will we have it ?

2003
2004
2late

Just wondering how many of you who were planning on buying a new mac in the near future are still going to after reading this statement by Jobs? After reading this myself, I am now re-evaluating my plans to buy a new ppc Powermac, even if Apple does come out with an ass-kicking G5 next month. Even more serious is the affect this may have on the plans of the average computer user out there who was considering upgrading or buying a new mac. I'm sure many of them who have some computer knowledge are going to be wondering the same thing. This stupid statement by Jobs is absolutely not going to do anything to increase ppc mac sales for Apple.
Nice move Steve. Now you have many of us wondering if our ppc macs are going to be made obsolete by intel macs in the near future.

And what about the developers out there who are working or planning to make new ppc apps for OS X. Are you wondering if your time and investment in your new apps will going to be flushed down the drain if Apple moves to Intel?

Seems to me that Steve Jobs should retract this statement whether or not its true. Its an irresponsible statement and bad for business.

Personally I don't think SJ has the Brass-ones to do it.

But if its true. YEAH.

If Apple became a compiler writer this would be absolutely perfect.

Anyone could write anything and have it be multiplatform.

I do not think Apple would lose much in PPC sales because there is a fundamental quality in the PPC architecture that is respected by most people that work with it.

all it means to me is that apple will make faster computers in the future. This is already the case. This won't stop me a buying a new G4 XXX (?1.4 hopefully) with DDR if they come out in August. When new fatser machines come out I will evaluate them and determine if the speed/features warrant another upgrade. However, I use mine 99% for work and can evaluate based on how much time it takes to do certain operations. Increased speed is hard to evaluate in some cases beacaue it is a perception. However, when working with &gt;500MB geotiff files speed is easy to evaluate.

My assumption and this is not coming from my friend or anyone else is this:

Consumer and Pro-Sumer Models: AMD type PPC processor with AltiVec and nVidia nForce. Don't forget that AMD and Mot are partners on many things and AMD and nVidia are very very close and Apple is very close to nVidia.

Servers: IBM Power4 or at least a variation of it.

That way Apple is still not putting all of thier eggs in one basket like they did with Mot. And that way Apple has a very very serious server processor.

To the person who said that Apple would not go with AMD cause they are not making money. Almost every single major corporation out there is having trouble right now including Motorola, Intel and AMD. (IBM posted a profit though ) So is Apple as well. That arguement means nothing.

Dual Boot. Man this has been the subject of many heated debates between my friend and I these past few days. He swears that at every turn with the people at Apple he knows and that he bullshits with about rumors, they do not deny this rumor, ever. One guy he spoke to recently just sat quiet for a miniute or two and then changed the subject, didn't even say "that's ridiculous" or anything like that. My friend said his reaction was more like: "how did that get out?"

Hagen Kirk
LOL

I had actually forgotten about the rest of Arty Johnson's quote" "..but alsho shtuhpid""

I'm still laughing.

Thank you, you made my day <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]Originally posted by Bodhi:
<strong>...Dual Boot...</strong><hr></blockquote>

OS X makes that reality so such closer.

Of course the next step would be a Virtual Machine server able to have each user pick what OS they want when they log in. All able to share resources simultaneously.

I won't hold my breath waiting, but it is certainly a feasible conclusion to where OS X could go in the future.


Say Cheese... Click

[quote]Originally posted by nothing:
<strong>Ok... this is definitely an amusing thread to read. I like to think about the future as much as anyone else, and this comment by SJ gives us all pause....

But for everyone saying "it can't be done" and "too much effort" etc. That's pretty much BS. Anyone who knows how OpenStep worked knows moving to a new CPU with OSX once EVERYTHING is OSX native - is a SNAP.

It was very, very, very common for an OpenStep app to be what they called a "fat binary." Like in the days with the transition from 68k to PPC - only this "fat binary" meant running on (usually) FOUR different CPUs - HP, 68k, Sparc, and x86. Cocoa's modular nature allowed this with very little overhead in terms of disk usage - and it just took a simple compile to get that stuff working on another platform. We're talking almost no work here.

So - after making the transition to OS X, it's true. Apple can have options - they can make a new platform on another chip, and everyone just has to build their app for 2 chips - EASY in the land of NeXT (nee OSX).

Oh, and as for the OS having stuff in it for i386, that's there for darwin, and some is in there because it was there in OpenStep 4.2 - it's sometimes better just to leave it alone than remove it and risk breaking some dependency that you haven't though of, especially when it doesn't take up much space, and that space isn't at a premium anymore anyway.

Well.... speculate on.....</strong><hr></blockquote>

While its true that NextStep/OpenStep went from the 68040 -&gt; x86 -&gt; PowerPC, that is a considerably different thing than from moving all of MacOSX and its applications over to a new platform (x86 or otherwise). People see some left over bits hanging around and think that "it wouldn't be that hard", but it would be an enormous undertaking and it would once again disrupt the Mac community and further fragment Apple's user base. It took Apple 4 years to get everything settled down after the PowerPC transition, and the debris from that is still hanging around. The Cocoa stuff might transition to a new platform reasonably well, but that leaves Carbon and a whole bunch of fairly new code which never existed on the OpenStep platform -- not to mention an ever increasing amount of AltiVec code which would need to be rewritten in assembly language to stay close to its current performance levels. 3rd parties would need to be on-board to transition their hardware drivers yet again.

Apple needs time between these transitions to focus on value-added features, and to let developers get on with the process of building better products. Just because they might be able to pull off such a transition as soon as next year, doesn't mean they should. I think Jobs' comment was simply saying: "okay, we've just about got the MacOSX situation under control now and then we'll be able to look around and evaluate what to do next". It isn't even close to meaning: "CONFIRMED, we're going to x86".

Dual boot is a wise transitional strategy, until Apple has a fast PPC option (Power 5, or a custom G5 design) or until it becomes clear that getting such a fast PPC option is not likely or not feasible. In the first case, they switch back to pure PPC, in the second they dump PPC and go with some other instruction set.

As for who would be providing the other instruction set... AMD/Nvidia is the most likely. It's even possible that a PPC version of Opteron is in the works, although the flexibility of OS X makes this not absolutely necessary - they could go with the standard Opteron plus Altivec.

Any app written in a high level language (C, C++, etc) for OS X, either Carbon or Cocoa, could be easily recomplied for x86 or the 64 bit extension of x86 used in Opteron. No rewrites necessary. The only sticking point would be PPC assembly... but I'm guessing the vast majority of apps that use PPC assembly are doing so to get at Altivec - so if Altivec units were present, those assembly instructions would still work, no code rewrite necessary. The only instructions that would be left out in the cold would be nonAltivec PPC assembly, and those could be translated - presumably these aren't very common, so most folks wouldn't notice a thing. Alternatively, if this is really an issue, just put a G3 in there to handle nonAltivec PPC assembly. But I really suspect the Opteron architecture could do a nice job with nonAltivec PPC instructions... a modest speed hit maybe, but not enough to really notice in the vast majority of applications. Besides, Opteron's raw speed might make up for the translation hit anyway (as in the 68000-&gt;PPC transition).


We live in interesting times...

[quote]Originally posted by Hagen Kirk:
<strong>

Anyone remember the rumor/Steveism *can't remember which it is* that a future evrsion of OS X will not allow OS 9 booting? Would this also take out Classic? If going beyond say 10.2.3 *achievable by December if the usual pace of a month or so per dot increase* would mean no more booting into 9 or even more drastically into Classic at all, then we would see MANY ticked off Mac users and developers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You mean the 20+ million mac users who haven't upgraded to OSX yet will be upset that an OS they don't use won't boot 9 any longer?

[quote]Originally posted by Bodhi:
<strong>Consumer and Pro-Sumer Models: AMD type PPC processor with AltiVec and nVidia nForce. Don't forget that AMD and Mot are partners on many things and AMD and nVidia are very very close and Apple is very close to nVidia.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

All sorts of arrangements could happen... perhaps AMD just becomes a fab for Moto so that Moto doesn't need to spend all the money to build these expensive fabs. They already did this with IBM. Perhaps they (AMD) will use this to slip into the PPC design business. If their core is general enough then they may want to maximize their return on investment in it, and spending a bit more (or having Apple fund) to put a PPC decoder on it could get them a new steady stream of revenue. Remember the chip margins in the x86 world have been cut to the bone, and beyond. AMD might be able to charge Apple a bit more since Apple actually has margins, unlike the PC makers.

[quote]<strong>
Servers: IBM Power4 or at least a variation of it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just because the POWER4 is a server processor doesn't mean that IBM can't build really fast desktop processors. The core of the POWER4 is similar in concept and complexity to the PentiumIV. On the next generation of process (0.13 or 0.1 micron) we could see a POWER4-derived desktop PowerPC that can give Intel a run for its money. IBM hasn't built it yet because the machines they sell are servers. Given a customer who sells desktops, they would design a desktop chip.

[quote]<strong>
That way Apple is still not putting all of thier eggs in one basket like they did with Mot. And that way Apple has a very very serious server processor.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

In a way it still pigeonholes Apple though -- their servers are dependent on IBM and their desktops on somebody else, and their notebooks on somebody else. Better would be multiple choices for each line of product. If they can get all of their suppliers to build PowerPC w/ AltiVec & HyperTransport (for example) then they can suddenly mix and match parts depending on whatever their requirements are.

[quote]<strong>
To the person who said that Apple would not go with AMD cause they are not making money. Almost every single major corporation out there is having trouble right now including Motorola, Intel and AMD. (IBM posted a profit though ) So is Apple as well. That arguement means nothing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Except that AMD is probably hungry for more business!

[quote]<strong>
Dual Boot. Man this has been the subject of many heated debates between my friend and I these past few days. He swears that at every turn with the people at Apple he knows and that he bullshits with about rumors, they do not deny this rumor, ever. One guy he spoke to recently just sat quiet for a miniute or two and then changed the subject, didn't even say "that's ridiculous" or anything like that. My friend said his reaction was more like: "how did that get out?"</strong><hr></blockquote>

It could always be an internal Apple project that won't necessarily see the light of day. In a practical sense such a machine has never been a commercial success -- processors are fairly expensive (in terms of cost, space in the machine, power and heat) so any machine that has to have two of them is going to be at a disadvantage. Having two that use the same bus (i.e. SMP G4s) is much cheaper and more efficient. Running two OS's means you have to pay for two (in terms of money, memory, and disk space). OSX's fat binaries might let you have a mutant OS that knows how to load the appropriate binary onto two different processors, but that gets into all sorts of weird issues as well. Interesting project, but I really hope that Apple isn't seriously entertaining the idea -- if you think the Xserve is a "hack", its got nothing on this idea.

The Itanium isn't going to be an option, at least not for another generation or two -- except at the server level. When the EPIC project was in its early days didn't Jobs come out and say something about it? I only vaguely remember, but at one stage or another pretty much everybody was talking about it. Since then pretty much everybody has been ignoring it.

bah, powerpc is a nice platform if you have a nice implementation. this whole x86 humbug makes even less sense than a transition to macos 7 would. besides, it would probably be against Apples corporate identity.

"think different, use what everyone else does" yeah right

apple only needs a fat-bandwidth-bus attached G4 or better and those tasty Radeon 9700 cards.

Technically, it would be possible for Apple to go Intel.

Business wise, it would be a dumb idea. Here are some thoughts:

1) The only reason Apple would go Intel would be if Apple came to a realization that no PPC will ever be able to match or beat Intel for the forseeable future. While this is a possibility, I wouldn't bet on it.

2) Even suggesting this sort of thing could be similar to the MS nonsense where it publicly scolds Apple for not advertising OS X. In short, this could be a way of Jobs helping to light a fire under MOT's butt.

3) If Apple were to go Intel, they would be competing against every other commodity PC clone company where no innovation happens, just assemble boxes - cheaply! We all know Apple could not survive in this type of atmosphere. In short, Apple would become a software only company. With a much smaller budget, don't expect them to buy other companies and keep coming out with great new products and great updates to the OS nearly as often.

4) What about the developers? Apple has been pushing the OS X thing for some time. Apple would have to move OS X along quite a bit further (users adoption rate that is), before this would be possible.

5) Has nobody learned the lessons of OS/2? Great, OS X is better than Windows XP? So what, OS/2 was far better than Windows 3.1. The masses still standardized on Windows. Further, OS/2 lost because it could run Windows programs. This is why developers stopped making OS/2 specific versions of their software.

6) Lessons from Linux. This is a carry-over from the previous point. Yes, many will argue that Linux on the desktop is not ready for prime time. I'd even agree to that. However, more importantly, Linux boxes can be setup for dual boot. As long as it's possible for each machine to run Windows, the likelyhood of a Linux desktop version of any given software is just not very likely.

Anyway, the list goes one... For Apple to survive doing this, they would have to make their Intel based Macs not compatible with Windows, and hope that Windows doesn't make itself compatible with Intel based Apple machines. At the same time, users will scream out for better PC emulation, etc. Either way, it's a losing proposition for Apple.

No, instead, Apple would be better off designing their own PPC based chips and have them manufactured by someone else. Given the flexibility of MOT's Book E architecture, this just might be possible.

Steve

aahhhhhh what does dual boot mean exactly!!!

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Too many x86 wishful thinkers around here. If you read that quote, Steve never says x86 is the options he's considering. I think he's got a processor option up his sleeve and it's a PowerPC variant. I think the people speculating it's an Apple/IBM/AMD/Nvidia chip are closer to what Steve's up to.

Of course I may be totally wrong.

[ 07-18-2002: Message edited by: Leonard ]</p>

It is like the Amiga, they are hoping on porting to the X86 to get more life into the OS. Be did this with BeOS, and NeXT did it with NeXTOs/NeXTStep. Basically the WINTEL X86 systems are a much larger market and it will help get more marketshare.

Consider this, the X86 based Amigas:

<a href="http://www.computing-extreme.com/amiga/AmigaXspec.html" target="_blank">http://www.computing-extreme.com/amiga/AmigaXspec.html</a>

<a href="http://www.computing-extreme.com/amiga/AmigaEX4100spec.html" target="_blank">http://www.computing-extreme.com/amiga/AmigaEX4100spec.html</a>

<a href="http://www.computing-extreme.com/amiga/AmigaEX4500spec.html" target="_blank">http://www.computing-extreme.com/amiga/AmigaEX4500spec.html</a>

Apple could have a plan for making their own X86 system to at least run Darwin, and get ready for an OSX port if there is enough demand for the X86 based Apple system. The Amiga X86 systems would be idea for porting Darwin to, because they are basically an X86 clone and are designed to run Linux and OpenBSD. If Apple ported OSX to these Amiga X86 systems, I doubt it would run 68K or PowerPC apps, but the existing OSX apps can be recompiled to the X86 format to run on the X86 OSX system. Apple could make a PCI card with a G3 or G4 processor on it to run PowerMac programs on an X86 system.

But the question is would Adobe, Macromedia, etc keep two versions of an x86 app? If Apple made an X86 box, I would expect Adobe to say goodbye Apple, consumer go buy windows and run our product.

And to say "a simple recompile..." how many apps have you written? While it is true that some apps can compile between the different Unixes, it is generally because there is no machine specific code in them. If your app has any ppc assembly, or altivec code (iDVD, DVD studio Pro, FCP, iMovie, iTunes, almost every Apple App), a "simple recompile" won't do you jack! A rewrite of those segments are in order (and to get the same level of optimizations would require some major effort).

If it were me, and I had an x86 program that currently ran in Windows, and I was told by Apple I would need to rewrite my PPC app, and now manage 2 X86 ports, I would say screw you. I just spent this time getting my app ready for OS X PPC, optimizing and all, and now I am told OS X PPC is dead, long live OS X86? What developer in their right mind would go along with this?

Next question is why would you pay for an Apple x86 box? What advantage would Apple have over say Dell? The two machines would have the EXACT same specs, but the Dell is about $1k cheaper? If I had to rebuy my apps, buy a new machine, and buy a new OS, why not make the jump to x86 intel and get 100% of the benifits?

I don't want to leave Apple. I have used one for 10 years now, and programmed on one for like 3. But if Apple does go to X86, it will be a long hard think I will need to have.

Ben

What I find comical is from an offhand comment by Mr. Jobs about the possibility of options and options are good, the rumor mill is arguing the pros and cons of going X86.

Poor Steve, must be heck living with watching everything you say, because sooooo much is read into his comments.

This is his own little hell he created by insisting on such secretiveness and not allowing adequate road maps to be published.

It should be noted that apparently Steve Jobs was asked about alternative processors such as those by Intel. He was not asked if he would consider Intel specifically as an alternative. It could be AMD, IBM or just about anybody. It could also simply mean PowerPC chips made by someone other than Motorola.

Hmmm, apple holds release of powermacs, nvidia announces nforce 2, ATI announces Radeon 9700... connection? No.

If you tried, you'd get PPC601 66MHz performance (tops) on a P4 3GHz.

Actually I dont think that you could even get that. I beleive that Mac emulation is currently limited to 68k chips. However the AMD Hammer is 64 bit all around so emulating a PPC is... possible...

Would it be possible to put a cheap embedded PPC on the motherboard of an X86 Mac such that it handled code translation to the X86 part untill the majority of major apps were recompiled/rewritten for OSX86?

Intresting idea but I doubt it. Youd need to recode the OS methinks.

I'd hardly call the Itanium a 'good' chip
Good? No.
However AMDs Hammer is looking VERY promising...

I see this switch as a good thing, especially as Im planning on upgrading when the next generation of chips comes out. I may just have to wait for apples decision though...

[quote]Originally posted by sc_markt:
<strong>Just wondering how many of you who were planning on buying a new mac in the near future are still going to after reading this statement by Jobs? After reading this myself, I am now re-evaluating my plans to buy a new ppc Powermac, even if Apple does come out with an ass-kicking G5 next month. Even more serious is the affect this may have on the plans of the average computer user out there who was considering upgrading or buying a new mac. I'm sure many of them who have some computer knowledge are going to be wondering the same thing. This stupid statement by Jobs is absolutely not going to do anything to increase ppc mac sales for Apple.
Nice move Steve. Now you have many of us wondering if our ppc macs are going to be made obsolete by intel macs in the near future.

And what about the developers out there who are working or planning to make new ppc apps for OS X. Are you wondering if your time and investment in your new apps will going to be flushed down the drain if Apple moves to Intel?</strong><hr></blockquote>

In the time frame it would take to have an Intel version of OS X out there, any current hardware, Intel or PowerPC, will be considered obsolete. The vague possibility of Apple switching to Intel chips some time in the unspecified future is no more of a reason to hold off buying a new Mac than is worrying that your computer will be obsoleted when 2.5 Terahertz artificially-intelligent quantum flux processors come out.

[MWNY 03, and no 2.5 THz AI-QFP Power Macs!? Apple is doomed! ]

As for software developers worrying about wasting effort on PowerPC code: Except for assembly language, often not used at all (and when used, typically sparingly in small performance-critical routines), most software would port just by recompiling for a different target processor. I'm not claiming it's snap-your-fingers easy, but for most software it won't be a huge effort. Linux users currently depend a great deal on using the same apps on different platforms, simply by recompiling open source code.

Apple could do what they did when switching to PowerPC too... let the OS run PowerPC code in an emulation mode. Or, if it's cheap enough, through in a PowerPC for backward compatibility. One way or another, Apple would never make the switch to Intel if they didn't have a way to support old software during a long transition period.

Also, if OS X/Intel ever happens, the switch isn't going to happen overnight. There'd still be a good sized OS X/PowerPC market to sell to for some time. Creating Intel versions of Mac software could be put off by software makers until the market share for those versions was worth the effort.

[quote]<strong>Seems to me that Steve Jobs should retract this statement whether or not its true. Its an irresponsible statement and bad for business.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Like I said above, Intel or not, your computer will be considered obsolete anyway by time anything happens on this front. You could get a lot of good use out of a new Mac in the meantime, and that Mac won't simply shut down and stop working for you just because it's no longer the hottest new toy on the block.

Now, waiting a few weeks for a new Power Mac... that's a different story!

[ 07-18-2002: Message edited by: shetline ]</p>

What about paying Transmeta to develop a processor that runs the PPC platform? There could be issues with this though. Big Endian vs. Little Endian comes to mind. I'm not really sure exactly how much of Transmeta's current processors are implemented in hardware, so it could be trivial to get PPC going w/ code morphing, or it could be a gigantic headache.

At other forums, people have mentioned the possibility of a x86 system w/ a PPC PCI daughtercard to provide compatability, but again, Endian-ness becomes a problem.

It's certainly technically feasable to move to x86, but it would almost certainly require VM software to run old applications, or Apple could implement something like Windows on Windows to make it completely transparent to the user whether native code or PPC running in a VM was being used.

Apple missed their biggest opportunity to transition when they released OS X. OS X broke binary compatability anyway, so switching hardware platforms wouldn't have been that big of an issue.

[quote]Apple missed their biggest opportunity to transition when they released OS X. OS X broke binary compatability anyway, so switching hardware platforms wouldn't have been that big of an issue.
<hr></blockquote>

If Apple did an x86 transition then, Classic wouldn't have been possible without some form of emulation - not only Power PC emulation, but 68k emulation; since parts of Mac OS 9 still run in 68k. IE: The existing 68k emulator would need to be rewritten, in addition to writing a form of Power PC emulation.

Without Classic, it's entirely possible that Mac OS X wouldn't have caught on.

[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: PipelineStall ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>Except that AMD is probably hungry for more business!</strong><hr></blockquote>
As always you made a great post but I am going to pick on this bit a little. People hoping to see AMD work with Apple right now are probably kidding themselves. AMD is really intent on moving itself into the server market and its own technologies right now. They don't have the manpower to develop chips for Apple as well currently.

They would be far better focusing on restructuring their own business making it so they are actually turning a profit instead of attempting to endlessly expand. Endless attempts at expansion usually end up in a massive implosion and AMD is far better off looking towards consolidation right now.

They could work on fabrication although I am not sure they have the facilities once they finish ramping up other things. I don't know on that one.

Either way I would be comfortable placing my money on IBM long before AMD.

[ 07-18-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Telomar:
<strong>
As always you made a great post
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thanks.

<strong> [quote]
but I am going to pick on this bit a little. People hoping to see AMD work with Apple right now are probably kidding themselves. AMD is really intent on moving itself into the server market and its own technologies right now. They don't have the manpower to develop chips for Apple as well currently.

They would be far better focusing on restructuring their own business making it so they are actually turning a profit instead of attempting to endlessly expand. Endless attempts at expansion usually end up in a massive implosion and AMD is far better off looking towards consolidation right now.

They could work on fabrication although I am not sure they have the facilities once they finish ramping up other things. I don't know on that one.

Either way I would be comfortable placing my money on IBM long before AMD.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree completely, actually. I've never been a believer in the idea that AMD would split its focus and jump into the PPC camp. People keep talking about it though and I don't pretend to know what is going on in the bowels of these companies.

Using AMD fab capacity to manufacture Moto or Apple PPC designs is destinct possiblity and it has been entertained in the past, at least according to rumour.

I've said it before... Moki has the closest thing to credibility in this circus of a forum, and his money seems to be on an IBM design for the next generation flagship desktop PowerPC. Sounds plausible to me, as does the suggested mid-to-late '03 timeframe.

[quote]Originally posted by apple.otaku:
<strong>It should be noted that apparently Steve Jobs was asked about alternative processors such as those by Intel. He was not asked if he would consider Intel specifically as an alternative. It could be AMD, IBM or just about anybody. It could also simply mean PowerPC chips made by someone other than Motorola.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yep. Could even be somebody like VIA. Don't they own the results of all that research money Apple spent on PPC developement some years ago?

Out of the blue but if Apple goes Intel, is it really difficult to leave carbon/os9 dead and create a carbon/windows environment ?
This way developer have nothing to do (if this layer is completely transparent with no recompile) and in one day all the mac community have all the windows apps for free with the Aqua look and the simplicity of Mac OS X. I can't see adobe or macromedia be furious at that. But the problem here lies with all the direct calls to windows API like DirectX, etc. Apple need to do some reverse engineering. Is this difficult ?
The only one who would be very angry is MS (they can't stop office for windows...) Even the macintosh developer can be happy with that because now they can create apps for 100% of computers out there.
In the end things would be the same as now for Apple because Mac OS X is far more superior, easier and fun than windows. And with proprietary hardware we will have still the same cool factors and better engineering than Dell, Hp, etc. With iApps, and ProApps on top of that.
The second thing is... is it possible to create an altivec ship for Hammer or the PIV ?
The third thing is price... can't see Apple manage that well.
What do you think ?

1) OS X is the best OS (Unix with a true GUI)

2) I know some people who will install OS X instead of NT, but they don't want to buy Mac (to expensive and they have networks of PC). So, OS X running on Intel/AMD should be a COOL thing.

3) An OS X for Intel/AMD won't kill Mac IF they have better hardware (CPUs G5/Power 4/Power5, MB, GPU,..) at the right price. Even more, tehy can make the Mac the best platform for video/movie/music.

MNWY02 : <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Appleworm ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>But not nearly as fast as code written and compiled for the x86 in the first place. It would put Apple right back in last place in terms of the speed race, and each processor upgrade would speed up the competition at least as much as it sped them up. No, this would be folly. It would also throw away the advantages that PPC does provide -- like lower power consumption & heat output, and AltiVec.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And that is why Apple releasing Mac OS X for x86 won't happen. Programmer, you rule.

Lets all be rational and look at the PowerPC Compliant options here.

As I said in another thread,

"As far as good news, I don't see any on the G4 front. It's fallen so far behind. Of course it has, it's aimed at the embedded market, not Apple. That shift to embedded is Apple's problem with the PowerPC.

However, Apple can use that "downward shift for more sales" to it's advantage. IBM makes the Power line, only uses them in big ass servers, and wants more sales. The Power5 in 2004 retargets the Power line downwards, but still way ahead of anything Intel/AMD. So, wait for an ass-kicking in 2004."

Barto

My 2 cents worth...I think Steve was yanking our chain a bit when he made those comments...possibly as a reaction to some of the negative comments about .mac charges and the lack of hardware upgrades.
However when he says options for processors, my humble opinion is:

Intel: (not x86 but maybe Itanium) No Chance too much bad blood between them.

IBM: (Power 5) Good choice, my fave as they have the power to get where steve wants to be, which as someone already said, is the high end creatives. Consumers are a nice money maker but his eyes are on the prize.

Sun: (Sparc) Good chip, fast, good rep in creative market, i think it's very possible. Also works great in Multiprocessor forms.

AMD (Hammer or PPC producer) Hammer I think is unlikely but PPC production maybe, but i think they'd have so much catching up to do that Apple will still be way behind.

Motorola (G5) Apple might as well buy the chip division and let IBM use it for manufacturing, make a heap of cash out of the lease of the facilities and use the chip IBM builds Power4/5/whatever, call it a G5 and kick some wintel butt.

But hey, I'm just burned 'cos I fell down the stairs and my TiBook didn't survive!

[quote] <hr></blockquote>

out of place I know, apologies, but has anyone else commented on Apple no longer using Garamond Condensed as there corporate font for products/software?...started with the eMac but even Jaguar has it now...Gramaond only really appears in connection with Apple the company, the mac and it's products are all in (what looks like) Gills Sans Bold. Anyway, sorry, eeerrr...Power5, go IBM!
[quote] <hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by robster:
<strong>
Intel: (not x86 but maybe Itanium) No Chance too much bad blood between them.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Make a OSX86 release for x86 to convince some IT engineers that OS X is &gt;&gt;&gt; Linux &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; winXP, winNT. Let them touch how good OS X is (stability security, GUI, network manager, tools...) !!!
When they have been conviced, they will buy Mac with a OSX.


[quote]<strong>
IBM: (Power 5) Good choice, my fave as they have the power to get where steve wants to be, which as someone already said, is the high end creatives. Consumers are a nice money maker but his eyes are on the prize.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

and POWER 4 for XServe

[quote]<strong>
Sun: (Sparc) Good chip, fast, good rep in creative market, i think it's very possible. Also works great in Multiprocessor forms.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

..."macintosh the best platform for Java"... why not but not as good as the POWERs

[quote]<strong>
AMD (Hammer or PPC producer) Hammer I think is unlikely but PPC production maybe, but i think they'd have so much catching up to do that Apple will still be way behind.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

AMD and Apple... see the story during next month

[quote]<strong>
Motorola (G5) Apple might as well buy the chip division and let IBM use it for manufacturing, make a heap of cash out of the lease of the facilities and use the chip IBM builds Power4/5/whatever, call it a G5 and kick some wintel butt.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why not ? But Moto need chips...

Good point one and all, Appleworm..can you elaborate more on the AMD/Apple thing?

[quote] <hr></blockquote>