or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › *CONFIRMED* Mac OS X on x86 after this year!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

*CONFIRMED* Mac OS X on x86 after this year! - Page 3

post #81 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by robster:
<strong>Good point one and all, Appleworm..can you elaborate more on the AMD/Apple thing?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Something is coming during August. Maybe it could be an hMac (hammerMac)...
If nothing come during the next 12 months from AMD/Apple this will be suprising because of the contacts they have. But, I don't know what the annoucement will be (hammer mac, G5 built by AMD,...). But this is an option and it doesn't prevent the power4/5 for servers/high-end macs, the G5 from Moto to wait for the Power4/5, hammer, or anything else inlcuding OSx86, nVidia...

MWNY02: <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
post #82 of 340
From MacRumors today, it seems Job's comment was taken out of context.

[quote] Steve Jobs: "The roadmap on the PowerPC actually looks pretty good and there are some advantages to it. As an example, the PowerPC has something in it called AltiVec, we call the Velocity Engine -- it's a vector engine -- it dramatically accelerates media, much better than, as an example, the Intel processors or the AMD processors... so we actually eek out a fair amount of performance from these things when all is said and done. And the roadmap looks pretty good. Now, as you point out, once our transition to Mac OS 10 is complete, which I expect will be around the end of this year or sometime early next year and we get the top 20% of our installed base running 10, and I think the next 20 will come very rapidly after that. Then we'll have options, then we'll have options and we like to have options. But right now, between Motorola and IBM, the roadmap looks pretty decent. "
<hr></blockquote>
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
post #83 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by blue2kdave:
<strong>From MacRumors today, it seems Job's comment was taken out of context.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

VE (velocity engine a vectorial processing unit) is an add-on of Moto to PowerPC that accelerates a lot media and makes the difference between G4 and P4 less than the MHz let us supposed (the MHz myth campaign). BUT with AMD and Intel &gt; 2GHz, they must have at least 1.5 GHz G4. But, this imply tio developpers to optimize their apps to use Altivec. So better will be a G5 (with or without VE) at 2.0 or 2.5 GHz (with the right bus, graphic card, serial ata 133...).

And, yes Moto and IBM are good options : the G4/5 (consumer macs) for the first and G3/POWER4/5 for the second (high end mac and XServe)

One more thing, Mac are under 32 bit system and CPU, they need a 64 bit one (especially for media apps)


MWNY02 : <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Appleworm ]

[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Appleworm ]</p>
post #84 of 340
Just an add-on :

OSx.2 Jaguar is faster than 10.1 because they optimize it for altivec (maybe for the next gen of graphic card too).

MWNY02 : <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
post #85 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

3rd parties would need to be on-board to transition their hardware drivers yet again.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Like I've said before, I don't necc think this is a lock or anything, but the idea is very interesting to me. This specific point can make an interesting point with the conspiracy theorists tho....How come so many popular applications haven't ported to OS X yet? Most of the music business hasn't ported it's software yet, altho this is mostly because things weren't working correctly with plugins. What if the other reason were that Apple had already had them starting on the NEXT version of their software, so they will be X compatible under a different proc? Just an extra thought to make people wonder more. I have NO contacts at all
Come visit ISCA, the world's biggest free telnet-based BBS at either of the following:
http://www.iscabbs.com or telnet://bbs.isca.uiowa.edu
Reply
Come visit ISCA, the world's biggest free telnet-based BBS at either of the following:
http://www.iscabbs.com or telnet://bbs.isca.uiowa.edu
Reply
post #86 of 340
Didn't this get kicked around when OS X first came out? And it was all a bunch of hot air then. I don't give it too much stock now either...
When it's my turn to be God you're going to be in real trouble...
Reply
When it's my turn to be God you're going to be in real trouble...
Reply
post #87 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by Appleworm:
<strong>VE (velocity engine a vectorial processing unit) is an add-on of Moto to PowerPC that accelerates a lot media and makes the difference between G4 and P4 less than the MHz let us supposed (the MHz myth campaign). BUT with AMD and Intel &gt; 2GHz, they must have at least 1.5 GHz G4. But, this imply tio developpers to optimize their apps to use Altivec. So better will be a G5 (with or without VE) at 2.0 or 2.5 GHz (with the right bus, graphic card, serial ata 133...).

And, yes Moto and IBM are good options : the G4/5 (consumer macs) for the first and G3/POWER4/5 for the second (high end mac and XServe)

One more thing, Mac are under 32 bit system and CPU, they need a 64 bit one (especially for media apps)
</strong><hr></blockquote>

What matters is not clock rate, it is system performance. If Apple somehow builds systems which kick the crap out of a 4 GHz P4, but do it using a 1 GHz processor, then they are the performance champs. If they get a new 15 GHz PowerPC that is only 10% faster than the current PowerMac, then they aren't. Look at the POWER4 -- it is extremely fast at a mere 1 GHz. There is no magic threshold that they must pass or die. They don't even have to be the absolute performance champs (even if that could be defined) -- they just have to be competitive in terms of price/performance at their price points.

Also, a 64-bit system isn't required and most of its benefits will only be seen by high end server or scientific compution applications. All other things being equal a 64-bit machine will typically be slower than a 32-bit machine for most tasks. Remember that this only refers to the size of the processor's integer registers (and thus memory addresses), and few applications need &gt;4 GB of address space and work with integers outside of that range. In all other ways the G4 is already a 64 or 128-bit machine, and it supports up to 16 GB of physical memory.

Processor &lt;-&gt; memory bandwidth is currently where the G4 is most severely held up (especially in a dual processor machine), and the sooner that a new PowerPC comes along to correct this, the better.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #88 of 340
[quote] Just an add-on :

OSx.2 Jaguar is faster than 10.1 because they optimize it for altivec (maybe for the next gen of graphic card too).

<hr></blockquote>

Wrong. Jagwire is faster for many reasons not the least of which is the fact that apps are now compiled with GCC 3.1 which compiles code that runs faster.

[quote] One more thing, Mac are under 32 bit system and CPU, they need a 64 bit one (especially for media apps) <hr></blockquote>

Others are better qulaified on this but very very few apps will benefit from a 64bit chip with the apps most people use today.


[quote] MWNY02 : <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <hr></blockquote>

What were you expecting? A G5? Don't believe the rumor sites and maybe you won't be dispointed.

Wanted new g4 towers? wait a month.
post #89 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by blue2kdave:
<strong>From MacRumors today, it seems Job's comment was taken out of context.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

You beat me to it... thanks for posting the whole comment. There have been many examples of being quoted out of context, but this one is particularly severe! Must have been done by somebody who desperately thinks that switching to x86 would actually do something positive for Apple.

Can we close this thread now? I think it has been beated to death yet again.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #90 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by blue2kdave:
<strong>From MacRumors today, it seems Job's comment was taken out of context.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, noticd that. But doesn't seem like anyone else can read. This is the perfect example of how rumours get started, inaccurate representation of the facts. But people continue along with their dreams.
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #91 of 340
"What matters is not clock rate, it is system performance."

Yes. Though 'mhz' may help in the performance 'perception'...especially in terms of 'mhz' heads for the switch campaign. However...

"If Apple somehow builds systems which kick the crap out of a 4 GHz P4, but do it using a 1 GHz processor, then they are the performance champs."

I'd sooner take a Pentium stuffing PPC at 1 gig than...a paper thin 'mhz' champ... (Power 4...der-rool, der-roooool...)

"If they get a new 15 GHz PowerPC that is only 10% faster than the current PowerMac, then they aren't. Look at the POWER4 -- it is extremely fast at a mere 1 GHz. There is no magic threshold that they must pass or die."

Correct.

"They don't even have to be the absolute performance champs (even if that could be defined) -- they just have to be competitive in terms of price/performance at their price points."

Which, at the moment they're not. Not even close.

As many creative benches from Lightwave to Photoshop show. It's funny. I spent much of my time moaning about this disparity. And criticised for wanting better price/performance ratio. Yet when Apple didn't release improved hardware (eg 'power'Macs...) at the show...people on these boards went nuts!

"Processor &lt;-&gt; memory bandwidth is currently where the G4 is most severely held up (especially in a dual processor machine), and the sooner that a new PowerPC comes along to correct this, the better."

Yes. It is. However, adding a few extra fpu to the G4 would make it more competitive. Afterall, the x86 already has 'bandwidth'. The G4 is only playing catch up on this. My point is that the G4 needs something more to make up for the 18 month 'debacle'. I think we'd call that something a 'G5' on Rio.

As always, Programmer, a handsome post.

Lemon Bon Bon

[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #92 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>
As many creative benches from Lightwave to Photoshop show. It's funny. I spent much of my time moaning about this disparity. And criticised for wanting better price/performance ratio. Yet when Apple didn't release improved hardware (eg 'power'Macs...) at the show...people on these boards went nuts!


Lemon Bon Bon

[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

What people went nuts? I'm still waiting til August to determine what they have to offer. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt til then.
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #93 of 340
Here is the actual quote:

Steve Jobs: "The roadmap on the PowerPC actually looks pretty good and there are some advantages to it. As an example, the PowerPC has something in it called AltiVec, we call the Velocity Engine -- it's a vector engine -- it dramatically accelerates media, much better than, as an example, the Intel processors or the AMD processors... so we actually eek out a fair amount of performance from these things when all is said and done. And the roadmap looks pretty good. Now, as you point out, once our transition to Mac OS 10 is complete, which I expect will be around the end of this year or sometime early next year and we get the top 20% of our installed base running 10, and I think the next 20 will come very rapidly after that. Then we'll have options, then we'll have options and we like to have options. But right now, between Motorola and IBM, the roadmap looks pretty decent. "

Note that nowhere is he talking about switching to Intel. Check out the bold!

This whole thread was based on a quote which was taken out of context.
post #94 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by kupan787:
<strong>Here is the actual quote:

Steve Jobs: "..... But right now, between Motorola and IBM, the roadmap looks pretty decent. "

.</strong><hr></blockquote>

decent... decent?.. From the man who coined the phrase "Insanely Great", decent sounds like "poor".

MSKR

"Just tell them that Ben Franklin said it, and everyone will believe the sentiment."
Reply
"Just tell them that Ben Franklin said it, and everyone will believe the sentiment."
Reply
post #95 of 340
a few things:


Apple has [and will continue to have] more than 1 OS;

there is the FAT CLIENT = OSX
there is the THIN CLIENT= iPod OS
there is the SERVER ..........= OSX SERVER

now that we're *nix, 64 bit processor is right around the corner.

to complete a true coup d'etat
at least the THIN CLIENT OS must (i)Sync with all x86 in existence.

at some point Apple must release at least an "LE" version of their OS to re-Hijack every desktop computer on every desk in the world.
post #96 of 340
[quote]
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).[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

First of all calling C a high level language is an interesting statement. C is one of the most high performing languages above Assembler code becuase it is so LOW level. I mean yeah it's easier to do more complicated stuff than Basic, Fortran, Cobal, or any of the others, but it's not high level.

Now secondly. It is not just a simple recompile that is needed to move from one processor to another. Yeah people always say that, but once you try you start realizing that Big-Endianess versus Little-Endianess makes a huge difference when casting from int to char. In one case you loose the high order bits, while in the other you loose the low order bits. Yeah most people don't think about that when they are programming, but once you hit bugs like that you realize how difficult your port is going to be.

Other things that crop up are stupid designs in the Intel architecture versus good ones in other Processor families. For one thing Intel does not have an atomic increment method for use with multi-processor machines. That will cause you so much trouble it's unbelievable. And on top of that Intel's architecture for multi-processor systems in general is piss poor.

Porting from one architecture to another is never just as simple as a recompile. Just take a look at some GNU code and take a look at all the #DEFINE statements which change how a program runs on different platforms!

All of those problems can be avoided if programmers stick to the conventions set forth in Cocoa, and more generically C standards, but just ask one and you will find out many don't do this.

Now the advantage of the Mach kernel is that it has great Hardware abstraction, and as long as Apple Engineers have been coding properly, it shouldn't take the OS much time to be ported over to Intel, or any other platform.

The applications are a completely different issue. It will take all the people who engineered those a while to get them ported, since most likely they weren't using any abstraction tools.

Sorry for ranting.
How did I get a monkey stuck in my computer?
Reply
How did I get a monkey stuck in my computer?
Reply
post #97 of 340
common sense is never a rant -
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #98 of 340
Hmm... Steve talkng about moving to X86, huh? I wonder if they'll blacklist him from the next Macworld for spreading rumors. heh


The truth is, though, he was quoted out of context. All of the speculation is not only a waste of time, but also a bit pointless. There's something coming down the line, and it'll happen for Macworld SF or before, and it's NOT an x86 chip, I gaurantee it.
post #99 of 340
A shame, X86 Macs would have been cheaper to make. But ultimately the PowerMac is the way to go for the Mac's future. I can't wait to see the G5 chips. Apple is just recently started to use dual processor Macs and is using SMP. The Amiga will have SMP when AmigaOS 5.0 is finished, if you ask me Amiga should have done SMP way back in 1992.
post #100 of 340
The Apple speed argument is a futile discussion. Higher clocking chips are not always faster. X86 (Intel) is concerned with high clock rates as to sell and market their chips. The Pentium 4 was designed with this in mind. Porting OS X to x86 would ensure they could market their machines using clock speed as a comparison to wintel. Remember back to 96/97. Apple had the highest clocking chips with the 603e (first to 300mhz) as well as the 604e. Though these chips clocked as fast and were in fact faster than x86 chips, this did not help Apple sell machines. In addition when the g3s were introduced, they originally clocked lower than the 6043, but were in fact better performers. What does this prove:

High clock speed does not mean better performance or increased sales.

If Apple switched to X86 they would loose all the advantages of PPC such as cooler operation and the use of lower wattage. The transition would be more difficult than 68k to PPC because X86 is not so much faster that it could emulate PPC at the same speed as the machines today. Developers are just catching up with porting to OSX, do they want to re-write their apps again?

What should Apple do?

Design efficient computer with performance in mind. The G4 is a fast chip, but in its current incarnation it is limited. Apple needs to improve bus and ram speed. Multiple processors/cores are another way to increase performance.

Future providers: I'd say they will stick with Motorola for another 6 to 9months with the G4. Next year sometime the will bring out a fifth generation PPC chip. I don't know who will provide it (IBM most likely) but I still have confidence in PPC and Apple ability to design fast computers.
post #101 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by Orion:
<strong>A shame, X86 Macs would have been cheaper to make. </strong><hr></blockquote>

From what information I have, Apple makes most of their profits from hardware sales. So, just wondering if you think Apple would be able to sell an X86 mac box for $1000.00 more than a dell box given that the dell box was almost identical to the mac box?
post #102 of 340
what is the matter with you people, your reading way to far into an off hand remark. maybe if SJ had some elaborate, yet hypothetical conversation with this reporter concerning your misplaced desires to have intel inside apples ass, then yeah this topic would be warranted. such a conversation never took place, well outside your delusional psychotic episodes at any rate. so we have a "possibility" of something grand and wondrous in the near future, and that too might be reading into that statement a bit much. anything beyond that is gross and overindulgent speculation from overly active imaginations. listen to the developers, it would be a nightmare, knife twisting transition for apple (sorry for the paraphrase ladies an gents, hope you can forgive) to try and get "EVERYTHING" over to X86 on the heels of the classic-X transition. i for one would seriously consider dropping the apple/mac after about 20 years of use, aqua has brought me pretty damn close already. selling out to the wintel world would be the final act in apples fall from grace, the only thing worse would be them selling out to the RIAA. maybe you could, can or will construe my arguments as being at fault in logic or authority, but this theory lacks merit for further contemplation.
sure im an expert, of what i cant remember.
Reply
sure im an expert, of what i cant remember.
Reply
post #103 of 340
Oh, can you be a little bit more dramatic, please?

Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #104 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by Masker:
<strong>

decent... decent?.. From the man who coined the phrase "Insanely Great", decent sounds like "poor".

MSKR

</strong><hr></blockquote>

If the stories about how he reacted to the great magahertz drought of 1999" (Moto stuck at 500 forever) have any truth to them, I think his concept of decent may be better then ours.
*sigh*
Reply
*sigh*
Reply
post #105 of 340
there is also this disruptive archetecture emerging:

"grid and cluster server technology"


One recent article concerned the monster Linux cluster system being constructed for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. When complete, the cluster will combine 1,920 Xeon CPUs into a system capable of generating 9.2 trillion calculations a second. Unfortunately for chip makers like Intel, grid and cluster architecture means that the fastest way to improve overall performance may not involve paying big money to buy the next generation of Itanium 2 CPUs. The Xeon chip was new in 1998.


attr:newsforge
post #106 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by BlueJekyll:
<strong>

First of all calling C a high level language is an interesting statement. C is one of the most high performing languages above Assembler code becuase it is so LOW level. I mean yeah it's easier to do more complicated stuff than Basic, Fortran, Cobal, or any of the others, but it's not high level.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

C shure IS a high level languge AFAIK. Any language that is independent of the hardware's instruction-set is considered to be, according to every thing I've ever read. That pretty much amounts to everything above assembler. I'm not really a programmer though, so everything I've read might be wrong, though it would surprise me. Any book on the history of computing will refer to C as high level.
peace!
post #107 of 340
"ZDNet has the bad news that AMD is still hemorrhaging money at an alarming rate. Losses this quarter are $184.9 Million, compared to a profit of $17.4 million last year. Their revenue dropped from $985 million to $600 million, a very steep decrease. Analysts have urged AMD to introduce new chips at a higher margin and price-point in order to shore up the bottom line, but so far AMD isn't heeding the advice. Analysts speculate that in order to survive, AMD will have to find higher ground so that their chips are still less expensive than Intel but have a higher margin than they currently do. AMD will have to stop waging such a severe price-war, because unless it improves product margins, it cannot compete with the deep pockets of Intel, who currently has the fastest real-world performance in the desktop CPU market. Analysts seem to think that AMD customers would still be willing to buy AMD chips even at higher prices, provided they still offer fair value."

Firing Squad.com

Er. AMD are going to have to be careful. Intel do have deep pockets. They can sit this one out and watch AMD bleed to death.

Will Apple base their cpu roadmap on a company losing this amount of money? Motorola already are losing more than this.

However...would you move from one crisis company losing money to another?

Apple may be able to help them with their margins though... Especially in the Server space they just entered...hmmm.

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #108 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>"ZDNet has the bad news that AMD is still hemorrhaging money at an alarming rate. Losses this quarter are $184.9 Million, compared to a profit of $17.4 million last year. Their revenue dropped from $985 million to $600 million, a very steep decrease. Analysts have urged AMD to introduce new chips at a higher margin and price-point in order to shore up the bottom line, but so far AMD isn't heeding the advice. Analysts speculate that in order to survive, AMD will have to find higher ground so that their chips are still less expensive than Intel but have a higher margin than they currently do. AMD will have to stop waging such a severe price-war, because unless it improves product margins, it cannot compete with the deep pockets of Intel, who currently has the fastest real-world performance in the desktop CPU market. Analysts seem to think that AMD customers would still be willing to buy AMD chips even at higher prices, provided they still offer fair value."

Firing Squad.com

Er. AMD are going to have to be careful. Intel do have deep pockets. They can sit this one out and watch AMD bleed to death.

Will Apple base their cpu roadmap on a company losing this amount of money? Motorola already are losing more than this.

However...would you move from one crisis company losing money to another?

Apple may be able to help them with their margins though... Especially in the Server space they just entered...hmmm.

Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>


AMD has a really good opportunity with the X86-64 (Hammer) technology. It offers 64 bit power with true 32 bit compatibility. Intel has nothing that can compete at this point. MS has already confirmed they will be supporting this new architecture, so has the Linux community.

If this is successful, it will take intel a while to catch up. AMD needs to price these parts realistically, not at the firesale prices they sell the current Athlons at.

What I would REALLY like to see is a proprietary form of the X86-64 that Apple could use to replace the G series. It would take a modification of the OS, but not as much as many believe since BSD is extremely portable. However, all the apps would have to be redone to be workable on the platform. This would be even more disruptive than the switch to OS X in the first place.

The long term benefit to Apple would be that they have a company that innovates as their main supplier. AMD has legions of Athlon fanboys that would sing the praises of such a move. In the X86 enthusiast world, intel is second only to Microsoft in the sheer badwill they have generated. I know, I'm one of them. Enthusiasts have a lot of power in determining the direction of the market since they are influential to their friends, family, and the companies they work for.

Apple seems to discount the fanboy types, but I think they do this to their detriment. These guys have a lot of power.

The benefit to AMD would be that there would be a guaranteed market for at least a portion of their chips, chips they could sell at a bit of a premium and not be undersold by the grey market like happens currently.
post #109 of 340
I had a massive reply to something in this thread then my browser crashed. Now I'm just peeved

If I can be bothered I will rewrite it later today otherwise you can all just wonder about what wonderful things I had to say <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #110 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by Thresher:
<strong>The long term benefit to Apple would be that they have a company that innovates as their main supplier. </strong><hr></blockquote>

IBM already makes PowerPCs, they are extremely innovative, they aren't hemoragging badly, and Apple has an existing relationship with them. If IBM & Apple produced machines based on a new leading edge PowerPC, they'd have an enormous group of "fanboys" around them faster than you could blink -- "fanboys", at least the ones worth their salt, go where the cool stuff is.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #111 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

IBM already makes PowerPCs, they are extremely innovative, they aren't hemoragging badly, and Apple has an existing relationship with them. If IBM & Apple produced machines based on a new leading edge PowerPC, they'd have an enormous group of "fanboys" around them faster than you could blink -- "fanboys", at least the ones worth their salt, go where the cool stuff is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM is the most relevant alternative chip supplier for the next generation of powermac.
post #112 of 340
....and this thread is still open?? Apple never said anything about going to x86. Move on nothin to see here
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #113 of 340
Well at least consider the possibility that OSX could be ported to the X86 platform. But Apple wouldn't do it for several reasons:

#1 It would take sales away from the PowerMacs.

#2 MacX86 systems would not be able to run PowerPC or 68K code. Even if the PowerPC code was emulated, it would be dog-slow.

#3 The Mac would lose the advantages of the PowerPC based Macs. As in lower power consumption, RISC based processing, etc.

#4 Apple would have to redesign the PC, maybe make a new ROM, improve Plug-N-Play (aka Plug-N-Pray), and remove some of the legacy devices (Serial, Parallel, ISA, PS/2 keyboard and mouse) and stick with USB and Firewire instead. Etc.

#5 Apple would have to find a way to run OSX only on Apple brand X86 Macs, not Dells and Compaqs and Gateways. Otherwise why bother making a X86 machine when you lose sales to those who can make them cheaper and sloppier? It is the Fast Food problem.

#6 It would tick off Mac Users who already bought the PowerPC based Macs. What is in it for them if a X86 Mac comes out?

#7 Microsoft would have Apple under its thumb more, to license Windows to Apple to run as a dual-boot on the X86 Mac machines. Who really wants to run Windows on a Mac anyway?
post #114 of 340
Listen to what Jobs says yourself, nothin to do with x86

<a href="http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/analyst_meeting_q302/" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/analyst_meeting_q302/</a>

one-hour audio stream
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #115 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by sc_markt:
<strong>

From what information I have, Apple makes most of their profits from hardware sales. So, just wondering if you think Apple would be able to sell an X86 mac box for $1000.00 more than a dell box given that the dell box was almost identical to the mac box?</strong><hr></blockquote>

With one small difference, the Apple box will have the Apple logo on it. That alone is worth the extra $1000.00 isn't it? Most likely ships with OSX pre-loaded, and the Dell box is pre-loaded with Windows XYZ.
post #116 of 340
Ah but they should at least consider a different chip. If not an X86, then maybe a Sparc, Alpha, or ARM chip. Apple could take advantage of different systems and port OSX to many different popular platforms because the base of OSX is BSD Unix, which is portable. Imagine if Apple made a deal with HP to run OSX on HP9000 systems instead of HPUX? It would be as big as IBM 390s running Linux.
post #117 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by bluesigns:
<strong>Unfortunately for chip makers like Intel, grid and cluster architecture means that the fastest way to improve overall performance may not involve paying big money to buy the next generation of Itanium 2 CPUs. The Xeon chip was new in 1998.


attr:newsforge</strong><hr></blockquote>

You do realize that this article is referring to the Pentium 4 Xeons, don't you? If you think that the Xeon is still based on the PIII I suggest you stop posting and embarrassing yourself.
post #118 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by Cable:
<strong>Well at least consider the possibility that OSX could be ported to the X86 platform. But Apple wouldn't do it for several reasons:

#1 It would take sales away from the PowerMacs.

#2 MacX86 systems would not be able to run PowerPC or 68K code. Even if the PowerPC code was emulated, it would be dog-slow.

#3 The Mac would lose the advantages of the PowerPC based Macs. As in lower power consumption, RISC based processing, etc.

#4 Apple would have to redesign the PC, maybe make a new ROM, improve Plug-N-Play (aka Plug-N-Pray), and remove some of the legacy devices (Serial, Parallel, ISA, PS/2 keyboard and mouse) and stick with USB and Firewire instead. Etc.

#5 Apple would have to find a way to run OSX only on Apple brand X86 Macs, not Dells and Compaqs and Gateways. Otherwise why bother making a X86 machine when you lose sales to those who can make them cheaper and sloppier? It is the Fast Food problem.

#6 It would tick off Mac Users who already bought the PowerPC based Macs. What is in it for them if a X86 Mac comes out?

#7 Microsoft would have Apple under its thumb more, to license Windows to Apple to run as a dual-boot on the X86 Mac machines. Who really wants to run Windows on a Mac anyway?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Some thoughts on your points:

1. If Apple's x86 machines sold well, this would not be important.

2. Apple would most likely go with x86-64. By the time they released their machines the Hammer would clock around 3GHz. I am not a high level programmer but I think Apple programmers would be able to get the Hammer to emulate a PowerPC at 10% to 20% of its clock speed, meaning it would be able to emulate a 300MHz to 600MHz PPC. This would be enough for basic PowerPC emulation.

3. x86 can be low power, like Via's C3 or the Speedstep P4 or Mobile Athlon. Low-power consumption is not pursued like it is with the PowerPC because x86 is not focused on integrated platforms like the PowerPC really is. Also, the fact that the PowerPC is RISC based is not a virtue in and of itself, and can not be claimed as a benefit without a deeper explanation.

4. I will address the ROM issue in point 5, but the old idea that plug and play does not work on PCs is flat out fud. I have never had a USB device, a PCI card, or a Parallel port printer fail to be recognized and installed easily in all the years I have had PCs. As I have stated many times, I have both Macs and PCs yet I appreciate the way Windows will inform you a new device has been installed and will attempt to locate drivers for it. Even better, if your device was made in 2001 or before, the drivers will most likely be included in XP. About the removal of legacy ports, this has already been done to some extent on most PCs. I do not think you can get any new PC or motherboard that has ISA slots, and for total legacy removal, check out Abits new AT7 Max series.

5. Instead of using a PCs standard bios, Apple could continue to use Open Firmware. This would enable them to build machines that would continue to have nice features such as OS level bootable drive selection, key commands at startup such as CD boot, Firewire disk mode, etc. Also, this would prevent any average user from being able to boot OS X on their standard PC.
<a href="http://www.firmworks.com/www/ofw.htm" target="_blank">Open Firmware Info</a>

6. New and faster Macs.

7. Dual boot is a dumb idea, just get 2 computers.
post #119 of 340
[quote] FotNS
You do realize that this article is referring to the Pentium 4 Xeons, don't you? If you think that the Xeon is still based on the PIII I suggest you stop posting and embarrassing yourself. <hr></blockquote>


you've missed the point entirely.

grid and cluster architecture is just one of numerous ways of looking at this problem from a bit of a diferent angle.

rather than picking the peanuts out of the sh!t
with numbers comparisons and wild fantasies
about making 3rd party applications producers
re-write their programs yet again to service
5% of the computing market in the next 12 months-

maybe the head needs to be pulled completely out of the ass
to look around at the big picture:

-grid and cluster / smp possibilities
-licensing and outsourcing of fabrication of PPC/altivec
-applying some actual business accumen to force Motorolla to do what they are supposed to do.

to get Motorolla to stop Bitch slapping us around and nurse this PPC through to when the whole world switches to 64bit, Apple needs a wedge. And right now they don't have one.


i don't think you can see the forest for the trees;
right now this is more a business thing -
than a technology thing.
post #120 of 340
[quote]Originally posted by bluesigns:
<strong>
to get Motorolla to stop Bitch slapping us around and nurse this PPC through to when the whole world switches to 64bit, Apple needs a wedge. And right now they don't have one.

i don't think you can see the forest for the trees;
right now this is more a business thing -
than a technology thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

One thing for sure, being locked into the PowerPC and having to depend on Motorola really limits Apple. If Motorola has another shortage, then the new Macs are delayed again. Intel and AMD chips are in large supplies and hardly ever have a shortage. But if AMD can be used to make PowerPC chips, then Apple gains yet another valueable resource.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › *CONFIRMED* Mac OS X on x86 after this year!