Prognog or Eggnog? ATAT's "visions" - Page 2

[quote]Originally posted by DaveGee:
<strong>The two cpu's are TOTALLY different and Apple would be better off closing up shop if they were forced to jump to Intel. Does anyone really think OS X that was built around a RISC based PowerPC CPU can just be 're compiled' for a CISC based Intel CPI?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Um, actually Apple already has an intel version of Darwin, which IS essentially Mac OS X more than the PPC is.

<a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/" target="_blank">http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/</a>

While it's true programs would have to be recompiled, I don't think it's actually the chore many people think it is. Most programs I've seen source code for literally have one or two variables that are processor specific. The compiler does all the recoding.

And Unix is supposed to be processor independent. That's sort of the point. I'm not saying it would be easy, but I don't believe it is impossible or would take years, yadda yadda.

But I'm no pro by any means. Just relating what I know from hanging with hardcore linux heads.

ditto What Willoughby said.

SDW2001 hope you fill better after that rant. Maybe you should forward it to Apple to vent some more frustration.

Although, I think everyone at Apple probably has similar frustrations w/ Motorola.

[quote]Originally posted by DaveGee:
<strong>
Sure you can say... well then port OS X over to Intel and eff Mot/IBM but lets be realistic here, Apple can't do that and everyone here should know it. The two cpu's are TOTALLY different and Apple would be better off closing up shop if they were forced to jump to Intel. Does anyone really think OS X that was built around a RISC based PowerPC CPU can just be 're compiled' for a CISC based Intel CPI?

Sorry but even someone with the little programming background I have knows it would be years worth of work by then Intel might have migrated to RISC itself...
Dave</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually Darwin (the underpinnings of OSX) already runs on x86, see
<a href="http://www.darwin.org" target="_blank">Apple Open Source</a> most of the rest is high level language stuff (objective C NEXTish stuff that used to run on x86 as well) that would work with a recompile and some small changes, you´d have to replace the Altivec code which is mainly assembler, but versions exist that don't use that in order to run on G3 machines. Of course you have to chuck out the classic stuff.
I would not be at all suprised if Apple actually OSX running on x86 hardware somewhere in a dungeon.

Michael

[quote]Originally posted by DaveGee:
<strong>

SDW... I sure do feel your pain but Apple can't sell what isn't available and to come out and totally blame Apple for something that is Moto's fault isn't really fair.

Sure you can say... well then port OS X over to Intel and eff Mot/IBM but lets be realistic here, Apple can't do that and everyone here should know it. The two cpu's are TOTALLY different and Apple would be better off closing up shop if they were forced to jump to Intel. Does anyone really think OS X that was built around a RISC based PowerPC CPU can just be 're compiled' for a CISC based Intel CPI?

Sorry but even someone with the little programming background I have knows it would be years worth of work by then Intel might have migrated to RISC itself...

Apple is stuck between a rock and a hard place and I for one think they are doing the best they can... Mot or IBM will break the speed limit soon, that I'm sure of but I think MWSF isn't going to be the place where it will happen but come summer... it's off to the races!

Dave</strong><hr></blockquote>

I never said that. I never even suggested it that Apple ports OSX to x86. Give me a break, I KNOW it is not all Apple's fault. What I am saying is that to me, someone on a consumer level, my perception is that Apple should have said "Hey, IBM, we know MOT is supposed to have the rights to the G4 but they essentially breached their contracts with us by sticking us against the clock speed wall.....so **** them. It is your turn".

I think it is a timing thing. MOT said it expected the G4 to scale well (what else would they say). In Fall 99, when G4's were going to ship, Apple learned that MOT had problems with the chip and couldn't deliver enough 500MHZ chips. Steve flipped, then proceeded to keep the price the same for the downgraded models......

Here is the tough part. What did MOT do next? Did they tell Apple they had it under control and they could expect scaling soon? I think so. I think that is the reason Apple stayed with them. MOT couldn't deliver again @MWNY and jobs had no choice but to put duals in to accomodate for speed. By this point MOT may have been telling Apple not to worry because the G4+ was almost done and it would scale nicely. That is where we are now....right? And it has gained a whopping 367MHZ in a year and a half.

Did they lie again? Is that why Apple trusted them? Or does the G5 somehow come into play?

My theory is that Apple got involved in PPC development and will release G4 Apollos in the iMacs and TiBooks and G5's in the towers.

If MOT has been telling the truth about the PPC timetable or they are as incompetent at manufacturing/yields as they appear to be, then Apple is pretty damn dumb. I think MOT has lied time and time again to cover up their own disinterest in the PPC.

Who knows when it will end. If Apple doesn't release hugely speed bumped PM's I am going to start emailing them like a whore (whatever that means).

You guys might think I'm crazy. but this MHZ gap thing has got to stop. Maybe when Intel debuts their Itanium chip at 800MHZ it WILL.