or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › [Closed due to flaky BB] Next Powermac 970 with up to 2,5 GHZ ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Closed due to flaky BB] Next Powermac 970 with up to 2,5 GHZ ? - Page 6

post #201 of 477
[quote] Playing the sandbag game:
- The 970 is quad pumped giving an effective bus of 1.8 Ghz! Yes, a bus faster than any G4...
- IBM licenses OSX for some markets. This breaks the long time business objection of Apple being single source.
- The 970 is used across the board. Prices are set more by the box and features than by processor.
- The towers are dual with a quad on top or in a rack.
- The 12" powerbook replaces the iBook. A version with a polycarbonate case is called the eBook.
- Apple engineers a graphics card that has a GPU from ATI or nVidia but also has a G4ish chip: one integer, no fpu, one altivec and a pile of L2. Quartz moves entirely to the graphics board. Now you know what Racer was doing. Code name: Ludicrous Drive.
- The UI becomes totally vector based and thus scalable for different pixel densities.
- Apple and IBM intro high end monitors that are 200ppi.
- Apple intros a headless, affordable, iBriq for the hacker/server/renderfarm crowds.
- Apple engineers a memory controller with a large "L3ish" built in. Memory controller controls it completely. In this way it can optimise it for many processors at once while minimising bus snooping. The "L3" is large enough to preclude the need for external RAM in some of the more modest machines...like the iBriq.
- Bandwidth is so high every machine can channel Steve's RDF in real time. Steve turns into a big glowing ball on stage and ascends to become the first Star Child. Stanley Kubrick rolls in his grave.

<hr></blockquote>

I gotta see that.

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 #202 of 477
[quote] <a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2131244,00.html?rtag=zdnetukhompage" target="_blank">http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2131244,00.html?rtag=zdnetukhompage</a>
Sources are saying Apple is a customer.

But...not until next(?!) year?

Tell me...say it aint so...

Lemon Bon Bon
<hr></blockquote>

Boo-hoo?

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 #203 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>

Dedicated Mac users generally have little use for Windows emulation. Its main value would be in enticing switchers by lowering the "entry fee" to getting onto OS X.

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: TJM ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm a dedicated Mac user, but I also have to earn aliving from people who are dedicated Windows users - I'm an IT consultant/project manager/cook/bottle washer - so I need to be able to run Project (FastTrack doesn't do everything I want) and a couple of other bits and pieces.

VPC or another emulator would not just be for making life easier for switchers - it has the effect of turning the Mac into the digital equivalent of the Swiss Army Knife or Leatherman tool.
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]

"What's your point?" ~ Mark Solomon...
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]

"What's your point?" ~ Mark Solomon...
Reply
post #204 of 477
I've felt the need to elaborate on my comments concerning the untenability of both the OS X x86 and the Mac OS X + Integrated Win32 Box ideas. Take a second to think about it with me.

Why OS X x86 Won't Come Out

As I said before, I believe OS X x86 is kept up-to-date with the PPC binary and that it is a last resort contingency option. Here's why Apple will not announce and market it:

1) Where are the apps? Here's an obvious issue. Customer puts OS X x86 on a PC and marvels at Aqua. He or she browses with Safari and writes something in TextEdit. Okay, Customer thinks, "OS X is a nice OS. Now what?" What applications will the customer run outside of those bundled with the OS? Where are the third party apps that so many rely on? Where's Photoshop or Flash MX? Where are the games? What can be done with this environment? The Mac applications on the market WILL NOT run on a Wintel box Of course, shareware people would pretty quickly recompile for Intel. And if there were incentive, some third parties would provide an Intel binary. But there wouldn't be any such incentive. The Mac's third party support is limited enough, so releasing OS X x86 with virtually no third party support would be a disaster.

2) It would kill Apples hardware If you wish to ignore the first reason, and you believe OS X x86 could be a success, you have to ask yourself why Apple would do it. It would obviously hurt its hardware division, as others have stated. If OS X x86 were a viable product, people would favor it because PC hardware will always be cheaper than Apples. Apple would have to price the OS far too high in order to make up lost revenue from hardware cannibalization. OS X x86 would kill Apple hardware, and I dont think Apples prepared to do that.

3) It would panic the Mac community No matter what one says, a highly publicized, consumer version of OS X x86 would panic the Mac community. We would legitimately fear that Apple could plan to move to x86 fully. Especially if OS X x86 took off, that fear would ominously cloud the Macs future.

4) How to Support PCs A significant amount of Windows development costs goes to trying to support the myriad of PC variants out there. The PC world is a jumbled mess -- just look at how many different motherboards there are. Moreover, Apple has enough trouble supporting the comparatively few designs it produces. Now you can avoid this trap by suggesting only certain machines will be supported, but if you do you still have to defend your argument against all the other issues.

5) If successful, MS would go nuts If the product were successful, MS could quickly obliterate Apple. MS was able to evade the government yet again, so finally taking out Apple wouldnt be too risky, especially if MS felt vulnerable.

Why Mac OS X + Integrated Win32 Box wont come out

I have fewer objections to the scheme above, but I maintain its just as infeasible as OS X x86. It seems like a great idea ostensibly, though. What Mac user wouldnt want to be able to run the occasional Windows application in a transparent, Classic-like environment? And with the 970, wed have emulation speed that would be worth writing home about. Yet, the one major problem is the OS/2 example. IBM created an OS far superior to Windows that ran Windows software with nearly full speed and compatibility. So why did OS/2 die? Its because it ran Windows software so well that no one bothered to code OS/2 applications!

Many developers barely have the desire to code for the Mac anyway, and now wed be providing a really great incentive to halt development totally. Consider the following scenario:

Customer: Hi, Im a Mac user who is really interested in running your software. When do you plan to make an OS X version?
Customer Service: Unfortunately, we have no such plans, sir.
Customer: Well Im really sorry to hear that. May I ask why not?
Customer Service: We decided to discontinue our Mac development a few months after Apple came out with Mac OS 10.3, which features great Windows emulation. We have certified our Windows product to run with full compatibility in Mac OS 10.3.
Customer: Thanks so much for your time.

If the Mac came out of the box with nearly perfect, adequately fast, transparent Windows support OS X development would die. If that were to happen, the Mac users who had not yet jumped ship would be forced to run emulated Windows applications much of the time. Mac sales would plummet through the ground, because no one would have any reason to buy a Mac at that point. (Are you going to purchase a premium-priced Mac to emulate Windows software on, or are you going to buy a cheap, much faster Dell?) I know that if I were a developer and my Windows binaries ran well emulated in OS X, I wouldnt be able to justify OS X development. The only reason we have any third party software is because were barely relevant (and becoming increasingly irrelevant due to shrinking market share) and were a vocal group. If anyone has any problems with the logic contained herein, please feel free to challenge it. Otherwise, lets not waste time on a moot issue.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>
PPC4EVER
Reply
PPC4EVER
Reply
post #205 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Big Mac:
<strong>
If anyone has any problems with the logic contained herein, please feel free to challenge it. Otherwise, lets not waste time on a moot issue.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

... yeah, especially after the OS/2 lesson, it's virtually certain that the temptation to encapsulate Windows is a trap, a siren call to the rocks ...

But there's one difference between the IBM OS/2 situation and the current Apple one, I have no idea if it's significant, so I'll let others decide.

Apple constrols the hardware. Perhaps, by integrating so much better "Digital Lifestyle" type ports (FireWire) and software, that for people to bother trying to do the same thing on windows becomes just too much of a hassle, and it's just cheaper and less of a headache to just buy the Mac.

Once again, this is a very loose argument, it depends on that case actually being true, and Apple being able to effectively market that truth past MS FUD ...

Unless Apple has some sort of Killer value proposition well beyond the half fleshed out escape from the OS/2 trap as mentioned above, I think, if Apple tried the OS/2 road ... they'd probably be making a big mistake.
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
post #206 of 477
Here's a crazy assed idea:

What if the 970's 64bit abilities put it so far past the x86 architecture, that if Apple decided to include a very powerful OS/2 type emulator for 32bit Windows in OSX ... it would still force any developer who wanted to write killer 64bit version of their program to write it to OSX, rather than to the 32bit Windows emulator?

Thus, if you buy a 970.

1 - all your old 32bit Windows software will still work.

2 - but any new killer 64bit software, can't be written for the emulator, and must be written to OSX native, and will kick ass.

Thus OSX + the 970 becomes a nice migration path for Windows users to go 64bit, and switch at the same time.

As to whether this will benefit Apple more, than it will hurt Apple by the effects of the, as earlier mentioned "OS/2 Trap" is something better speculated, than tested in the real world at this point.

&lt;/mooting&gt;
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
post #207 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Big Mac:
<strong>
If the Mac came out of the box with nearly perfect, adequately fast, transparent Windows support OS X development would die. If that were to happen, the Mac users who had not yet jumped ship would be forced to run emulated Windows applications much of the time. Mac sales would plummet through the ground, because no one would have any reason to buy a Mac at that point. (Are you going to purchase a premium-priced Mac to emulate Windows software on, or are you going to buy a cheap, much faster Dell?) I know that if I were a developer and my Windows binaries ran well emulated in OS X, I wouldn?t be able to justify OS X development. The only reason we have any third party software is because we?re barely relevant (and becoming increasingly irrelevant due to shrinking market share) and we?re a vocal group. If anyone has any problems with the logic contained herein, please feel free to challenge it. Otherwise, let?s not waste time on a moot issue.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

The key here to me is the term "adequately fast". OS/2's problem was that there was no real speed difference between its native OS/2 and emulated Windows environments, since they both ran natively on x86 hardware - so indeed there was no real advantage (at least superficially) for using native OS/2 software.

Emulating the x86 environment on the PPC will of necessity incur a performance penalty. If the 970 offers high enough performance that emulated x86 is as fast as current x86 hardware, the native PPC code will be substantially faster. I have a hard time believing that people would be content running emulated Windows programs, when they know an OS X native version would run significantly (20-50%) faster. I may put up with it for the current version of PhotoShop that I own, but for darn sure the next version would be the OS X version.
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #208 of 477
If half of what David M says comes true, we'll all be in Apple heaven sometime by 2004. :-)

My only add to David's comments would be for the iBriq to be silent as well (a la Cube). I do not *need* the cube shape, but I do want a no-compromise headless machine that is ___silent___ (for media room).

Other than that, I 110% agree with David M's suggestions! :-)
post #209 of 477
The thing about the cube was that it wasted so much space. 3 inches of the Cube's hight was wasted by a clear base. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> It would be nice to have a modular cube, like the Linux Briq, that could be used for processor intensive tasks that don't require the 4 hard drive support and 66-mhz, 64-bit PCI slots that the xServe offers.
post #210 of 477
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Big Mac:
<strong>
Why OS X x86 Won't Come Out
</strong>

Good topic!

<strong>
As I said before, I believe OS X x86 is kept up-to-date with the PPC binary and that it is a last resort contingency option. Here's why Apple will not announce and market it:
</strong>

Definitely, OS X is in ready shape. With Motorola as partner, it would be irresponsible not to have a contingency plan. However, it's also a wise engineering decision to find subtle bugs (which may be missed on PPC) and keeping options open (which Steve would appreciate).

<strong>
1) Where are the apps? [...] The Mac applications on the market WILL NOT run on a Wintel box
</strong>

Wrong. I would bet Apple has taken pains to ensure their API's are platform (CPU) independent. NeXT was doing that over a decade ago, and running on Intel would require it (see your point above). Otherwise, even the Apple apps would be prone to breakage. Granted, a few API oversights probably exist, but overall Apple *needs* the API's to be CPU architecture independent for the contingency strategy you outline above.

IOW, the API's will largely support the current software with a recompile. Various apps may have problems introduced with the transition, but those should be vendor specific code --- which would need fixing before shipping app fat for both PPC and Intel OS X boxes. NeXT already did fat binaries as well, so that's a proven technology which Apple already has (they probably use it regularly to run apps on Marklar for testing, verification).

<strong>
2) It would kill Apple?s hardware
</strong>

I suspect this is the issue at the forefront of Apple's current strategy. Yes, this is a key issue. I wonder what happens if Apple's hardware is so superior that this issue is moot, though. Then, what does Apple do?

With the prospect of PPC970, this question becomes interesting. Would Apple then feel comfortable releasing OS X Intel? If so, prospective customers looking to switch could do so without the huge barrier presented by (new Apple) hardware costs. Instead, they could deploy OS X on their existing hardware, and phase in new Apple hardware on their own schedule as desired.

Apple gains potentially huge numbers of customers, serious revenue from OS X Intel sales in large numbers, and (in long run) gains a large base of upgrade customers to Apple hardware.

OS X Intel could transform Apple almost overnight.

<strong>
If you wish to ignore the first reason, and you believe OS X x86 could be a success, you have to ask yourself why Apple would do it.
</strong>

Whoops, already answered that. See above, i.e., to gain easy OS X revenue, convert large numbers of corporate users, and gain future hardware/software customers (not to mention grow their customer base to attract 3P software development).

<strong>
3) It would panic the Mac community
</strong>

Can't follow that line of thought. I bet a huge number of prospective corporate customers would be relieved that Apple has a growth strategy. They would feel much more comfortable using existing hardware rather than betting the farm on all new hardware (at great expense). So, I see comfort going up, though it would be fun to read all the misperceptions in media until the reality set in (:-).

<strong>
4) How to Support PCs
</strong>

Good point. I assume two strategies. 1) Apple would support hardware selectively. In GPU (graphics), OS X already requires latest generation hardware, so that removes many generations of ugly hardware (except in VGA mode or something). So OS X itself requires certain calibre hardware. 2) OS X Intel numbers would be quite large ($$$). Marklar doesn't really cost Apple anything more than it currently does. Apple has a good device driver architecture. Apple would need to use that architecture and spend some of it's Intel revenue to support hardware (that big customers ask it to support). Also, there are now very few major hardware vendors out there. The Intel market has been consolidating. Apple could focus on supporting HP, Dell, and IBM hardware offerings, and other stuff could be supported 3P or with additional effort. The really needy customers would find a way to get the hardware, and Apple would be supporting most corporate customers already by supporting the big 3.

This would cost $, but probably in small proportion to the revenue Apple gained from OS X Intel sales. It would be an ongoing cost though, until h/w vendors helped out as OS X gained market share (and h/w vendor customers demanded such support direct).

<strong>
5) If successful, MS would go nuts If the product were successful, MS could quickly obliterate Apple.
</strong>

I would hope not, but this is a real point. Even if MS chose not to obliterate Apple, they could control their destiny in some ways. If the MS control (in general marketplace) continues to erode, however, even MS would be unable to stop the Linux/IBM/Apple juggernaut.

I guess the key here is timing. Apple needs to be fully committed to this strategy before employing it. There won't be much room for backpedaling once Apple unleashes OS X Intel. Apple will need to be serious and committed, since it's such a high risk/high return strategy.

<strong>
Why Mac OS X + Integrated Win32 Box won?t come out
</strong>

You've given me a cool idea. What if Apple were to release a custom, headless Intel box which talked directly to Mac/OS X through firewire 800 (i.e., networking, for all graphics, h/d access, and keyboard/mouse) to provide a PC compatibility? The box could be cheap (cheaper even than Xbox since it would contain no hard drive), and could be speedy silent and compact. Apple could sell it as optional equipment. It could run Windows (for backwards compatibility). It wouldn't be great for games, but business could love it. Apple could tie it as tightly as they want to Mac OS X using Windows drivers, etc.. The Apple box would give it it's display, networking, keyboard/mouse, power (?), etc.. The Windows box would show up as a window (or variety of windows a la VirtualPC). That could be a nice optional piece of equipment that would solve the VPC void created by MS's recent purchase. The box would be relatively cheap and easy to upgrade, and Apple could equip it with all the Apple stuff Apple desires (e.g., FW800, Rendezvous, etc.). Hmm...

<strong>
If anyone has any problems with the logic contained herein, please feel free to challenge it. Otherwise, let?s not waste time on a moot issue.
</strong>

Moot? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> This issue was interesting even before the latest IBM 2.5GHz announcement. It's been interesting for years. It just continues to get more interesting as MS's monopoly grip weakens, MS licensing and security issues alienate well-heeled corporations and (!) governments, Apple's hardware begins standing on its own merits, and Apple's OS X matures into a genuine value add for corporate America and other large organizations (with Linux's complementary help). I just wonder when the time will come.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: occam ]

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: occam ]</p>
post #211 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by os10geek:
<strong>The thing about the cube was that it wasted so much space. 3 inches of the Cube's hight was wasted by a clear base. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> It would be nice to have a modular cube, like the Linux Briq, that could be used for processor intensive tasks that don't require the 4 hard drive support and 66-mhz, 64-bit PCI slots that the xServe offers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So true. The only thing it needs is support for a full size AGP slot/grafix card.

And im not talking nVidia FX which needs an extra PCI place for a hairblower!
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
post #212 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>

Boo-hoo?

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

The exact same quote appeared in their article of last year as I pointed out on the MacRumors comment system. Don't worry - it's cut and paste journalism, not a change of plans (as far as we know).
All these worlds are belong to us, except Europa. Take off no zigs there.
Reply
All these worlds are belong to us, except Europa. Take off no zigs there.
Reply
post #213 of 477
Does Apple use those non-fan, thermoelectric cooling modules in their machines? It would be nice if they did. They are silent, power-efficient, and small. Would be nice in the PB's, or the iBooks for that matter.
post #214 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Anonymous Karma:
<strong>
The exact same quote appeared in their article of last year as I pointed out on the MacRumors comment system. Don't worry - it's cut and paste journalism, not a change of plans (as far as we know).</strong>
<hr></blockquote>

Nice catch. I was hoping it was something of the sort but didn't know where to look.

Your regularly scheduled 970 anticipation can now return to normal.
post #215 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>

Boo-hoo?

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

The article also states the 1.8 - 2.5GHz range for the 970 AFTER it migrates to a 0.09µm process.

Can't seem to access the IBM press release any more, but I thought it mentioned the higher range still using a 0.13µm process.
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 #216 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>

The article also states the 1.8 - 2.5GHz range for the 970 AFTER it migrates to a 0.09µm process.

Can't seem to access the IBM press release any more, but I thought it mentioned the higher range still using a 0.13µm process.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It DID say that...
Apple Computer, Inc.

AKA the Microsoft R&D Department
Reply
Apple Computer, Inc.

AKA the Microsoft R&D Department
Reply
post #217 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Anonymous Karma:
<strong>Basically, what I'm saying is - if IBM put the money into designing this for Apple (not that they wouldn't get any use out if it themselves, but I don't think they would have made it this ambitious otherwise) then there's some kickback for them in the deal. Whether that's IBM workstations running OS X or something completely different I don't know.

[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Anonymous Karma ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well Intel is doing quite nicely making all those processors for the PC market. I thnk IBM may be prepared to invest in the hope that a good chip will lift Apples share of the market.
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
post #218 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights:
<strong>Beats me what they do with Pentiums. It's already designed-- they just have to pack sand, er, so to speak.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not talking about designing processors, I'm talking about the actual time it takes to manufacture a processor.


[quote]Originally posted byMacJedai:

<strong>And "Rickag", I tend to agree with "Rhumgod", because the 970 production process testing was half way completed in early November 2002 on 200mm and 300mm wafers.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not talking about designing processors, I'm talking about the actual time it takes to manufacture a processor.

Obviously my communication skills are very lacking. Let me start over.

#1. Transcendental Octothorpe stated,"PPC970 production starting in MARCH."

#2 Based on Transcendental Octothorpe's statement, I said that since it takes about 60 days to manufacture a cpu:

-if IBM starts making 970's on March 1st the first finished cpu's will come off the production floor around June.

-if IBM starts making 970's on March 31st the first finished cpu's will come off the production floor around July.

#3. Then an inventory must be built up before shipment/production by Apple. That would indicate what a July to August introduction?

Because of subsequent posts, I'm now confused. How long does it take to manufacture a cpu. I'm not talking about designing the cpu. And published literature states unequivocally that it took 90 DAYS, around the clock, 24 hours a day to manufacture a pentium processor. THEY were not talking about designing, ramping up, tweeking the design they were talking about manufacturing the cpu.

I guess my point is, that even if Transcendental Octothorpe is correct, then it will be months before Apple will even announce an Apple computer that contains a 970, and shipping products 5-6 weeks after the announcement which is now a hallmark of Apple computer.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
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 #219 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Derrick 61:
<strong>

It DID say that... </strong><hr></blockquote>

Just seconding this.

IBM's own release said '1.8-2.5 GHz' and '0.13um.' YMMV.
post #220 of 477
anybody want to take a guess at how many towers Apple will sell that first quarter with a 970 in them?

I'll say anywhere between 275,000 to 325,000 (there's a lot of built up "im waiting for the G5" purchases)
post #221 of 477
Big Mac : Great post. I agree with a lot of it. I used to think that really great IA-32 emulation and integration built in to OS X could work, but your points made good sense and I don't think I'd support that idea anymore.

[quote] Originally posted by Over Toasty:

What if the 970's 64bit abilities put it so far past the x86 architecture, that if Apple decided to include a very powerful OS/2 type emulator for 32bit Windows in OSX ... it would still force any developer who wanted to write killer 64bit version of their program to write it to OSX, rather than to the 32bit Windows emulator? <hr></blockquote>

I disagree. I have large doubts that software developers would adopt 64-bits for such a small platform if that platform can emulate their optimized 32-bit x86 version of the software. It won't cost them a penny more and they can save an assload by halting OS X development, but still making it available for OS X, running under emulation. Then they can then concentrate all of their effort on IA-32 and cover all bases. When they already have a good product for 95% of the market that runs fine in 32-bits, why put money into making it that much better for 3% of the market with 64-bit code. You don't have to believe me, but think for a bit about what _developers_ would do (and what would be in the developors' best interests) and you might come to the same conclusion. Maybe not, but I think my point holds SOME water.

[quote] As to whether this will benefit Apple more, than it will hurt Apple by the effects of the, as earlier mentioned "OS/2 Trap" is something better speculated, than tested in the real world at this point. <hr></blockquote>

That pretty much holds true for all of this speculation, but by examining similar events in the past and working out _logical_ scenarios, I think prediction of what would happen in the real world becomes a bit more clear.
post #222 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>

The key here to me is the term "adequately fast". OS/2's problem was that there was no real speed difference between its native OS/2 and emulated Windows environments, since they both ran natively on x86 hardware - so indeed there was no real advantage (at least superficially) for using native OS/2 software.

Emulating the x86 environment on the PPC will of necessity incur a performance penalty. If the 970 offers high enough performance that emulated x86 is as fast as current x86 hardware, the native PPC code will be substantially faster. I have a hard time believing that people would be content running emulated Windows programs, when they know an OS X native version would run significantly (20-50%) faster. I may put up with it for the current version of PhotoShop that I own, but for darn sure the next version would be the OS X version.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think you missed the point. The problem is that developers would halt OS X development, not that we'd halt use of OS X native apps. Developers can save a lot of money if OS X can suddenly run x86 out of the box. They will no longer need to worry about coding for OS X, for 3% of the market, when we'd be able to run their IA-32 coded software. Why would developers care about the performance of the software when run under emulation? I really, really doubt that they all would. Perhaps a few developers would continue on with OS X native out of good faith or because they just prefer the platform, but it would be in the developers' (not ours) best interest to halt OS X developement and concentrate fully on x86 development.

People would not be content using x86 under the performance hit that emulation would incurnot OS X users, and not potential switchers. Developers would be content to drop multiplatform development and put all efforts on a single track. The point lies with what the developers would do.
post #223 of 477
Good points OCCAM.

The most fundamental question is whether applications presently written for OS X could run on OSX/x86/Marklar without substantial effort by the software vendors. If a major effort were required, one would have to question whether the vendor would make the effort for a 3% market share company. The expense may not be justified.

Many people insist that Apple is a hardware company. It is simply a business, the purpose of which is supposed to be to earn a profit for the shareholders. One might even go so far as to ask whether Apple has the courage of their convictions about the desirability of their products. What distinguishes Apple is not the hardware, but the software. The hardware's purpose is simply to run the software without which the hardware has little utility other than as a decorative object or paper weight.

Borrowing the famous question, does Apple want to change the world or sell sugar water for the rest of its life?

This is a bit like the Beta-Max/VHS arguments about which one was superior. The answer soon became clear. VHS dominated. The rest was irrelevant. Scot McNealy says that Intel just stumbled into success with 32 bit processors and challenges their readiness to move to 64 bit processors (not to mention the lack of a 64 bit OS at this time). All that is probably true, but the fact remains that X86 dominates the desktop computing world. That is where the largest potential market is.

It would be interesting to see how much of the cost of designing a Mac is attributed to things such as the engineers Apple keeps who are supposedly doing the design work on the G4 that Motorola is not and various things that need not be done at all if Apple were to adopt a platform which were based upon standard equipment that is being developed by other people. Presumably Apple would then have to develop the OS and Firmware/BIOS and some drivers in cooperation with the vendors. It would seem that costs could be much lower.

All of this seems most unlikely to happen under present management unless they are forced into it with no other choice in order to survive.

At some point, it would seem that Apple needs to actually grow, not merely talk about growth, if it is to avoid becoming entirely irrelevant, like the Beta-Max.
post #224 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by occam:

<strong>
1) Where are the apps? [...] The Mac applications on the market WILL NOT run on a Wintel box
</strong>

Wrong. I would bet Apple has taken pains to ensure their API's are platform (CPU) independent. NeXT was doing that over a decade ago, and running on Intel would require it (see your point above). Otherwise, even the Apple apps would be prone to breakage. Granted, a few API oversights probably exist, but overall Apple *needs* the API's to be CPU architecture independent for the contingency strategy you outline above.

IOW, the API's will largely support the current software with a recompile. Various apps may have problems introduced with the transition, but those should be vendor specific code --- which would need fixing before shipping app fat for both PPC and Intel OS X boxes. NeXT already did fat binaries as well, so that's a proven technology which Apple already has (they probably use it regularly to run apps on Marklar for testing, verification).
<hr></blockquote>

How can you say with any certainty that he is wrong? Have you been developing Markler? Not to say that Big Mac is certainly right, but who's to say that he is certainly wrong.

[quote]
<strong>
2) It would kill Apple?s hardware
</strong>

I suspect this is the issue at the forefront of Apple's current strategy. Yes, this is a key issue. I wonder what happens if Apple's hardware is so superior that this issue is moot, though. Then, what does Apple do?

...

Apple gains potentially huge numbers of customers, serious revenue from OS X Intel sales in large numbers, and (in long run) gains a large base of upgrade customers to Apple hardware.

OS X Intel could transform Apple almost overnight.

<hr></blockquote>

Yes they gain potential customers for the OS, but they won't be selling many of those people machines. You think the revenue from increased OS sales is what Apple wants to take on the other 97%? No, they want to customer to get the full Apple experienceand pay the full Apple price of a Mac. 3D artists, video producers/editors, professionals, etc, will buy the superior hardware, but not everyone will pay for higher price for superior hardware or even wants/needs it, so they won't pay. They'll stick with the $400 eMachine.

[quote]
<strong>
[/b] If you wish to ignore the first reason, and you believe OS X x86 could be a success, you have to ask yourself why Apple would do it.
</strong>

Whoops, already answered that. See above, i.e., to gain easy OS X revenue, convert large numbers of corporate users, and gain future hardware/software customers (not to mention grow their customer base to attract 3P software development).
<hr></blockquote>

Gain easy (?) OS X revenue? At what benefit to Apple? Are these corporate users really going to convert or just buy new PCs to run OS X? Why not just aim to get these people WITHOUT an x86 OS X, to run the Apple OS on the Apple hardware. THAT is a win for Apple.

[quote]
<strong>
3) It would panic the Mac community
</strong>

Can't follow that line of thought. I bet a huge number of prospective corporate customers would be relieved that Apple has a growth strategy. They would feel much more comfortable using existing hardware rather than betting the farm on all new hardware (at great expense). So, I see comfort going up, though it would be fun to read all the misperceptions in media until the reality set in (:-).
<hr></blockquote>

I really doubt the reality would be any form of acceptance. Not from those interested in Apple's success.

Apple has a growth strategy, you can rest assured of that. I hope that it involves beating the pants off PC hardware with the PPC970 and all the fix-ins that it can handle. x86 would be de-evolution (or whatever the word is, I don't feel like looking it up) and wouldn't make a success out of Apple.

[quote]
<strong>
Why Mac OS X + Integrated Win32 Box won?t come out
</strong>

You've given me a cool idea. What if Apple were to release a custom, headless Intel box which talked directly to Mac/OS X through firewire 800 (i.e., networking, for all graphics, h/d access, and keyboard/mouse) to provide a PC compatibility? The box could be cheap (cheaper even than Xbox since it would contain no hard drive), and could be speedy silent and compact. Apple could sell it as optional equipment. It could run Windows (for backwards compatibility). It wouldn't be great for games, but business could love it. Apple could tie it as tightly as they want to Mac OS X using Windows drivers, etc.. The Apple box would give it it's display, networking, keyboard/mouse, power (?), etc.. The Windows box would show up as a window (or variety of windows a la VirtualPC). That could be a nice optional piece of equipment that would solve the VPC void created by MS's recent purchase. The box would be relatively cheap and easy to upgrade, and Apple could equip it with all the Apple stuff Apple desires (e.g., FW800, Rendezvous, etc.). Hmm...
<hr></blockquote>

I'm not sure if I should laugh or if you are actually being serious. As if Apple is going to sell computer with Intel chips and a Microsoft operating system. They would be selling for their competition! Does this make sense to you? Plus, if Apple offered its buyers a PC to compliment the Mac, they would be telling their customers "The Mac won't do everything that you need it to do, but this PC, it will, so buy one". Apple suggest to it's consumers that a Mac isn't good enough by itself? Never. EVER.

Businesses would love the idea of a PC. Wait, they already do. They already use PCs, and that's why most of them don't use Macs. And they wouldn't adopt them with your 'cool idea'.

I could go on and one about how rediculous this idea is.

Since you think it's such a cool idea, just put it into action for yourself by buying a PC and a KVM swithcer. Or, to even further follow your idea, network them and run the PC in a window via VNC. You can do it, but Apple won't.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: FrostyMMB ]</p>
post #225 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by RBR:

The hardware's purpose is simply to run the software without which the hardware has little utility other than as a decorative object or paper weight.
<hr></blockquote>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the hardware has utility in that it makes money for Apple. That's why Apple will continue to sell hardware, and will continue to retain control of it.
post #226 of 477
]Originally posted by Big Mac:

If anyone has any problems with the logic contained herein, please feel free to challenge it. Otherwise, let?s not waste time on a moot issue.

What's to stop M$ from making a kick-a$$ program to emulate Windoze on a mac. Apples opened up the flood gates with recent software releases.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Bigc ]</p>
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 #227 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by FrostyMMB:
<strong>

I think you missed the point. The problem is that developers would halt OS X development, not that we'd halt use of OS X native apps. Developers can save a lot of money if OS X can suddenly run x86 out of the box. They will no longer need to worry about coding for OS X, for 3% of the market, when we'd be able to run their IA-32 coded software. Why would developers care about the performance of the software when run under emulation? I really, really doubt that they all would. Perhaps a few developers would continue on with OS X native out of good faith or because they just prefer the platform, but it would be in the developers' (not ours) best interest to halt OS X developement and concentrate fully on x86 development.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And how long do you think developers would remain in business who ignore their customers' wishes? (can you say "Quark"? I knew you could! {RIP, Fred Rogers!}). If the demand is there, the developers will supply it. Do you think graphics professionals would accept an "adequate" version of PhotoShop knowing they could get a significant speed boost with an OS X native version? Look at how many have been abandoning the Mac for the improved speeds in the x86 world in the last couple of years. Teenagers would demand OS X native versions of their favorite games so they can brag about their framerates in Doom VIII or whatever. Raw speed is a major selling point in many markets - even when it is actually irrelevant. IMO, that is the point that you are missing.

Most people who use VPC do so because they have to have access to both OSes for their jobs, and can only carry around one computer. VPC is slow as a slug, but it works, so people put up with it. Given their druthers, they'd use native software on either a Mac or a PC if they could, purely because of the speed. Speed is the main drawback to widespread adoption of emulation.

If a Mac emulator existed for PCs that was as fast as the best Apple hardware, I'd use it - as would most Mac users, I expect; Apple hardware isn't that much nicer than generic PC stuff - I buy Apple computers to use the Mac OS. So I'd buy a cheap PC box and get my Mac OS, too. As it is, such an emulator doesn't exist so I buy a Mac to run the Mac OS. Now turn it around - if an x86 emulator existed for PPC that was as fast as my PC, I'd buy a Mac and run my Windows software on it instead - and get vastly improved speeds when I move to native OS X apps (don't forget the lure of 64 bits, too, as was pointed out). I'd much rather have one computer to mess with than two (well, the spoiled brat inside me would like about 20 just to brag about it, but the adult me would want just one ). Based on my own understanding of the personal computer market and the hows and whys of purchasing decisions, I remain adamant that fast (as fast as x86 hardware but not as fast as OS X native on a 970), reliable x86 emulation within OS X would be a boon to Apple. As always, YMMV.

edit: quoted wrong paragraph <img src="embarrassed.gif" border="0">

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #228 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Bigc:
<strong>]Originally posted by Big Mac:

If anyone has any problems with the logic contained herein, please feel free to challenge it. Otherwise, let?s not waste time on a moot issue.

What's to stop M$ from making a kick-a$$ program to emulate Windoze on a mac. Apples opened up the flood gates with recent software releases.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Bigc ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple probably wont sell it at their stores if they see it as a threat. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
MM
post #229 of 477
[QUOTE]Originally posted by FrostyMMB:

<strong>
How can you say with any certainty that he is wrong? Have you been developing Markler? Not to say that Big Mac is certainly right, but who's to say that he is certainly wrong.
</strong>

Three reasons.

1) The hard part is to solve the problem the first time. After that, it's simply maintenance. IOW, it's a freebie since NeXT already had done it.

2) Avi was head of NeXT engineering and is Apple head of engineering. The knowledge base and technical prowesse of Avi will continue to be brought to bear on Apple engineering as long as Avi is there. I.e., Avi would maintain the technical flexibility for the negligible cost.

3) Business necessity requires Apple to have a contingency plan for OS X. Business strategy requires them to be ready to take advantage of opportunities. Apple is not stupid.

Those three reasons combined with rumors confirming make me certain.


<strong>
You think the revenue from increased OS sales is what Apple wants to take on the other 97%?
</strong>

Selling 25c CD's for $130 is a great business. It got MS where it is today. So, yes, I do think Apple would delight in that business to increase their market share.

Combine that with the radical decrease in cost of entry to customers who have Intel but want OS X, and you can see that the strategy would be to sell them s/w now so you can prepare to sell them h/w later (at their upgrade time). That's also a desirable strategy.

<strong>
Apple has a growth strategy, you can rest assured of that. I hope that it involves beating the pants off PC hardware with the PPC970 and all the fix-ins that it can handle. x86 would be de-evolution (or whatever the word is, I don't feel like looking it up) and wouldn't make a success out of Apple.
</strong>


I agree crackerjack 970 performance is top priority. Agreed.

However, to get people to switch (e.g., corporations, real estate agents, mom-and-pop stores) who are dependent on Windows, you need to wean them off of Windows without cutting off their access completely. IOW, provide a safe way for them to transition. Many industries have custom software which is (for historical reasons) windows based. Apple can not change that overnight. Apple needs to provide a back-bridge while these people comfortably migrate forward. That's the value (to Apple) of backwards windows compatibility. It's a necessity to get the bulk of switchers.

<strong>
I'm not sure if I should laugh or if you are actually being serious. As if Apple is going to sell computer with Intel chips and a Microsoft operating system. They would be selling for their competition! Does this make sense to you?
</strong>

You make a good point. To be fair to me, the box could run Linux or any other Intel s/w as well (but that's not the main point). The windows compatibility on the cheap could be cool and useful (if VPC is not available). That's what I was thinking... errr... brainstorming.

<strong>
Plus, if Apple offered its buyers a PC to compliment the Mac, they would be telling their customers "The Mac won't do everything that you need it to do, but this PC, it will, so buy one". Apple suggest to it's consumers that a Mac isn't good enough by itself? Never. EVER.
</strong>

As a practical matter, Windows is a necessity for historical reasons. Apple can only benefit by lowering the barrier to switching. Providing decent backward compatibility for potential switchers is to Apple's advantage.

<strong>
Since you think it's such a cool idea, just put it into action for yourself by buying a PC and a KVM swithcer. Or, to even further follow your idea, network them and run the PC in a window via VNC. You can do it, but Apple won't.
</strong>

Just bought VPC6/W98 to ensure my backward compatibility, and so I can get rid of my Windows h/w. That's a good first step. Eventually, I'll find/develop/buy replacements for the Windows, and then I (and hopefully many others) will not need the backward compatbility. In the meantime, it's often a necessity regardless of the frustration it causes.
post #230 of 477
If Apple goes with the 970, they are all set for an indefinite amount of time. IBM will keep on advancing the 9xx family at a steady, competitive rate, and since the 970 is a low-end server processor, the roadmap is pretty solid and unclouded. If Apple does that. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. They are driving me insane! Why does Apple keep everything under the control of Men in Black that come to your door and try to cover up any leaks you might of seen? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
post #231 of 477
Trying to rescue this thread from a disscussion on emulation... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

(Putting aside disscussion of heat and cost that we won't resolve any time soon )
[quote]Originally posted by Nevyn:
<strong>
Ok.
What I was trying to say is this:
The G4 when introduced had a (very brief) reign at the top. It hasn't been until this last year/year and a half that Mac people have really started hurting speedwise. (Ignoring _price_) Part of the reason it hasn't hurt so much as P4's Hz climbed like a rocket is Altivec - which is somewhat crippled in current G4/G4+ chips simply by the bus.

The 970 should _demolish_ the G4+. The bus improvements, extra FPU... That's what the Spec stats _show_.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup! If you want to argue... :cool: :cool:

Seriously, I have always hoped, from my current position as a win-thlon user and past Amigoid, that the PPC would rule enough for me to be a switcher. The G4 gave a lot of hope, particularly since it had a far superior SIMD to MMX. SSE and SSE2 have since eroded some of that superiority but I still think VMX/AltiVec rock. The 970 will give AltiVec a hugh boost! It still won't satisfy it even since its theoretical throughput at 1.8 GHz is in the order of 100MB/s (yep bytes)!
[quote]<strong>
You are right, those stats do not show the 970 crushing the P4....

But anything that demolishes the G4+ _that_ bad should be better off that 'competitve with x86'. Spec didn't show the G4 doing as well against the Pentiums as the photoshop tests/RC5/other altivecable tests showed either.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good points. However, look at the highly SSE2 optimised Lightwave results for the P4. It usually does much better than a G4 to the point that it blows it away! So we really need to see a thourough bake-off review by some *PC* web site (to swing the bias the other way) that shows the 970 doing a trample-a-thon before we can jump for joy.
[quote]<strong>
At the very least, I'd say that a custom written demo utilizing the 970's features should be disturbing. The P4's version wouldn't have access to 64-bit calcs, which we'd be sure to use lots of, the P4's version couldn't keep all the computation units filled (since they can't all be used simultaneously), and AV with a lot more bus to play with....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep, lets see a cool demo that an AltiVec guru and an SSE2 guru optimise for their respective platforms! :cool: Remember though that the P4's SSE2 can do double precision floating point precisely because it can't use it's FP unit(s) concurrently with SSE2.

It is too early to tell yet but we can still have hope.
MM
post #232 of 477
I just had a kind of wild and wacky idea. But what if we are on the verge of a new age in computing history. Here is how I see the industry in two years. Gateway will be gone. leaving only Apple, IBM, Dell, HP and to a lesser extent Sony.

Once the 970 comes out i see IBM (un)offically breaking away from Microsoft and will push Linux only systems powered by their own PowerPC 750 and 970 series CPUs. IBM will become thee offical place for Linux people and for busnisses who want the Linux solution.

Apple, using IBM's PowerPC CPUs and OS X, offically becomes the the place to go for a Unix solution and multimedia solution.

For those wanting the Wintel solution, it will be mostly Dell. HP will more or less concentrate in the server area.

I think with IBM in bed with Linux very good things will happen to that OS once IBM really gets behind it fully.

could be an interesting future. thoughts?
post #233 of 477
Back on the Bochs issue, see this<a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0302/28.wintel.php" target="_blank"> MacCentral Story</a>.
Although it is a given that Bochs isnt currently up to speed, it looks like thats being worked on.
"WinTel 1.0.0 include increased performance -- more than 200 percent faster than previous WinTel releases,"
It also looks like they are addressing instalation ease of use issues as well.
<a href="http://openosx.com/wintel/" target="_blank">OpenOSX Wintel 1.0.0</a>
This may not be as good an implimentation as what Connectix offered, but I certainly dont consider it to be "mature" yet either. Given some time (and help from Apple) it may be a viable option.
post #234 of 477
200% increase is no slouchy.

Most basic software should be 'useable'.

Given the speed of the 970, or dual 970s at 2.5 gig and Altivec advantage...this product could be an adequate 'Virtual PC'.

And let's face it. It can only improve.

Face it, M$, you can't buy out the Opensource movement. Apple are onto a winner. Is it any surprise they didn't even blink when M$ aquired VPC? M$ are missing the point.

With their Unix, Apple can just cherry pick an open source app/piece of code and wodge a bit of Aqua on top...and POW, 'Safari'. THUMP! OpenOffice becomes Appleworks 7... SMACK! They get their own Aquafied VPC.

When Freddy Anderson said: 'Software. Lots of.' Safari is the tip of the iceberg. Instead of making ten apps from the ground up, Apple can probably take what's out there and make 20 apps. 25% of Apple's revenue came from Software and services last quarter. Alot of people wax lyrical about 'Marklar' and it killing Apple hardware sales. Smell the coffee, folks. Apple's increasing software revenue all the time, right under our noses. If they keep releasing new software at the last couple of years rate of progress they'll be heading to 50% of revenue per quarter. Apple are reducing their dependence on hardware only revenue. A 'hardware' company that wakes up and finds out, 'Er...aren't we really a software company?'

Still, I don't see Apple giving up their box making in the next five years! Not unless they merged with Adobe!

Open Source and Linux is going to be like the Barbarian hordes chipping away at the Roman Empire.

Sooner or later...

Lemon Bon Bon

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]

[ 03-01-2003: 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 #235 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by PowerPC:
<strong>I just had a kind of wild and wacky idea. But what if we are on the verge of a new age in computing history. Here is how I see the industry in two years. Gateway will be gone. leaving only Apple, IBM, Dell, HP and to a lesser extent Sony.

Once the 970 comes out i see IBM (un)offically breaking away from Microsoft and will push Linux only systems powered by their own PowerPC 750 and 970 series CPUs. IBM will become thee offical place for Linux people and for busnisses who want the Linux solution. </strong><hr></blockquote>

You're leaving out Sun, who are currently in a bind, but who are themselves looking at Linux at least for some work.

Also, Dell is in a curious position because Microsoft is getting into hardware. They already sell MS-branded PCs in some parts of the world, and then of course there's the XBox. Version 1 was a game station, but MS' ambitions for the platform are a lot bigger than that. Games are just the hook. I wouldn't be surprised if what we now recognize as the PC market becomes owned by white box makers and vertical solutions providers (Dell, HPaq, possibly IBM as well). The home market has always been an afterthought for most PC vendors, so once MS goes directly after it with their (non-commodity) XBox platform I can see them retreating quickly.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #236 of 477
Conspiracy theorists, take heed: The IBM press release touting the 1.8-2.5GHz blades has vanished, according to a <a href="http://www.macgamer.com" target="_blank">MacGamer</a> update.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #237 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by os10geek:
<strong>If Apple goes with the 970, they are all set for an indefinite amount of time. IBM will keep on advancing the 9xx family at a steady, competitive rate, and since the 970 is a low-end server processor, the roadmap is pretty solid and unclouded. If Apple does that. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. If. They are driving me insane! Why does Apple keep everything under the control of Men in Black that come to your door and try to cover up any leaks you might of seen? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Because Apple really, really, really, likes to make money. Otherwise, there's this thing called going out of business. It's what happens when you don't make money. That's what happens when you pre-announce hardware that is 5x faster than what is currently offered. It's already bad enough. The people running Apple have these things called brains, and they don't want to make an already bad situation worse.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Spart ]</p>
post #238 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>Conspiracy theorists, take heed: The IBM press release touting the 1.8-2.5GHz blades has vanished, according to a <a href="http://www.macgamer.com" target="_blank">MacGamer</a> update.</strong><hr></blockquote>

There's still a reference to the PPC 970 Blades here:
<a href="http://www-5.ibm.com/de/pressroom/cebit2003/en/highlights/index.html" target="_blank">IBM CBit Highlights</a>, and the picture of the prototype 970 Blade is still here:<a href="http://www-5.ibm.com/de/pressroom/cebit2003/en/photos/innovations/innovations.html" target="_blank">Photos</a>, but the rest of the info indeed seems to have disappeared! :eek:

You don't suppose a certain Apple CEO bit some ears off over the phone at IBM? Geez, I love all this cloak-and-dagger stuff!
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #239 of 477
Thank you not only for the compliment but for defending some of my positions in my stead, FrostyMMB. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to address many of occam's points. The one thing that's really worth mentioning though is the potential third party software support for OS X x86.

Occam contends that I am wrong when I state that there wouldn't be any third party support. Perhaps I should clarify my position. Yes, Apple does have experience with fat binaries from OpenStep, which ran on x86 as well as other platforms. Here's the rub, however. We know that Cocoa applications would easily recompile for OS X x86, since that's what they did in the past. But would the Carbon API be fully working? Carbon isn't as portable as Cocoa because it wasn't designed to be. Yet, let's also assume, for the sake of argument, that Carbon applications could be easily recompiled for x86 and that they would run pretty bug free. The point I was making in my previous post has nothing to do with software recompilation. I'm simply saying that if OS X x86 were launched tomorrow, there would be virtually no third party support simply because all of the binaries on the market today are PPC only. That's the point I was making.

I guess this thread may as well turn into an emulation/OS X x86 discussion afterall because the subject of our conversation disappeared, as Amorph noted. That's really scary indeed. One hopes that Apple simply requested the press release be pulled so it wouldn't steal the thunder. Otherwise, it would be terrible to get psyched for a 2.5GHz 970, only to be greeted by a top end of 1.8.

[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>
PPC4EVER
Reply
PPC4EVER
Reply
post #240 of 477
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>

There's still a reference to the PPC 970 Blades here:
<a href="http://www-5.ibm.com/de/pressroom/cebit2003/en/highlights/index.html" target="_blank">IBM CBit Highlights</a>, and the picture of the prototype 970 Blade is still here:<a href="http://www-5.ibm.com/de/pressroom/cebit2003/en/photos/innovations/innovations.html" target="_blank">Photos</a>, but the rest of the info indeed seems to have disappeared! :eek:

You don't suppose a certain Apple CEO bit some ears off over the phone at IBM? Geez, I love all this cloak-and-dagger stuff!</strong><hr></blockquote>

I can't believe that Steve has that much influence over IBM. It is very surprising that Apple was able to get IBM to remove this information. Especially since Apple has not announced it is even using this chip. To me this is even more evidence that Apple will be using it. IBM doesn't have anywhere near the concern that Apple does for preannouncing products. Only Apple would care that much to have the information removed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › [Closed due to flaky BB] Next Powermac 970 with up to 2,5 GHZ ?