or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel-based Macs coming soon?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel-based Macs coming soon? - Page 5

post #161 of 434
I think this is media fluffing to wrile up all us mac users. Get the rumor mills going and get us all crazy and confused. Then Steve will announce something about the Power6 crap and goodies about IBM's new direction. Intel has no reason to make deals with Apple. Apple doesn't generate enough sales for Intel to yawn at.
post #162 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Why do fuckheads like this only ever show up on AI?

Go to Anandtech if you think some of this is bad. All it takes on most of the threads is to say that you are a Mac user...
post #163 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by UnixPoet
Look, I am just enjoying the sight of you lot squirming. Even if the switch does not come to pass, which is likely, reading people's rationalizations, backpedalling, disbelief, etc has been hugely entertaining. The creative attempts at explaining away the Switch have been hilarious.

Somehow your posts read more like you wished the people would squirm, rationalize, backpedall, etc. so you can gloat. There are no creative attempts at explaining away the switch, the people are merely discussing the possible scenarios which range from an Intel PPC chip, to an existing Intel core with a PPC decoder to a true x86 CPU. You, on the other hand, seem to be desperately looking for some Mac zealots losing face (cue in your egg on face.. comments to programmer's posts, which don't seem at all desperate or zealotish, at least not the way you are implying) so you can point and lol at them.

If you need to point and lol on people on a message board to feel better - well, maybe Intel and Apple will give you enough oppurtunity to do so. You just need to actually do it with people who really are on the desperate zealot side insted of making yourself look stupid by lolling reasonable arguments.
oy!
Reply
oy!
Reply
post #164 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by xype
Somehow your posts read more like you wished the people would squirm, rationalize, backpedall, etc. so you can gloat.

No need for wishing - enough material as it is

And it's not as if schadenfraude is new to this forums. Witness the, sometimes justified, gloating and abuse heaped on Windows users.

Quote:
Originally posted by xype
You, on the other hand, seem to be desperately looking for some Mac zealots losing face (cue in your egg on face.. comments to programmer's posts, which don't seem at all desperate or zealotish, at least not the way you are implying)

Actaully Programmer is one of the more level-header people around here as long as you dont mention x86. As for "desperately looking" - dude the only thing I am desperate for is the final of the French Open which promises to be excellent.

Quote:
Originally posted by xype
You just need to actually do it with people who really are on the desperate zealot side insted of making yourself look stupid by lolling reasonable arguments.

What reasonable arguments can be put forward when solid facts are lacking? All is much hot air and speculation. Only fools, and analysts, are given to that sort of thing. I prefer to wait for Monday.
Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong.
-- Richard Feynman
Reply
Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong.
-- Richard Feynman
Reply
post #165 of 434
I don't know how many more transitions Apple can make and still keep their installed base and developers behind the Mac. If Apple is struggling with the G5, it would seem to make more sense to stick with a Xenon or Cell, but tweaked for the desktop. On the otherhand if x86 was the basis of a new Mac, it would be much easier to port Windows software over. You can then say that OS X and Windows would be competing on the same level somewhat, although I'm sure you'll probably still have Apple designed hardware.
Mac Pro 2.66GHz-16GB RAM-4x2TB HD-Dual 23" ACDs-OS X.6.5
iMac 27" 3.06GHz-16GB RAM-1TB HD-OS X.6.5
iPad 64GB Wifi/3G-iOS 4.2 beta 3
iPhone 3GS 32GB-iOS 4.2 beta 3
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66GHz-16GB RAM-4x2TB HD-Dual 23" ACDs-OS X.6.5
iMac 27" 3.06GHz-16GB RAM-1TB HD-OS X.6.5
iPad 64GB Wifi/3G-iOS 4.2 beta 3
iPhone 3GS 32GB-iOS 4.2 beta 3
Reply
post #166 of 434
If the news is true, I would expect Mac sales to slow and this wouldn't be good news for the bottom line and of couse the APPL stock. I know I wouldn't want to purchase a new Mac if I knew the processors were going to change. Besides, what are the developers to do? Are they going to want to go through this?

Another point ... how will Apple support OS X on the PowerPC for existing systems/customers and OS X on Intel for new systems/customers? I would think that Apple would need to ramp up on numerous levels ... developers, management, support, sales, etc ... That isn't going to be cheap.
post #167 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleInsider
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal on Saturday confirmed CNET's report, stating that an industry executive "familiar with the matter" verified the schedule outlined in the story.

----

This sounds nothing more than the WSJ reading Scoble's blog, which I've referenced in another post.
post #168 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by iCreate
I don't know how many more transitions Apple can make and still keep their installed base and developers behind the Mac. If Apple is struggling with the G5, it would seem to make more sense to stick with a Xenon or Cell, but tweaked for the desktop. On the otherhand if x86 was the basis of a new Mac, it would be much easier to port Windows software over. You can then say that OS X and Windows would be competing on the same level somewhat, although I'm sure you'll probably still have Apple designed hardware.

x86 does not at all make it easier to port Windows software over. They use two completely separate sets of APIs and Frameworks. The only way it's "easier" is if Apple integrates a windows emulator, which would be kinda lame unless it actually displays the programs with an Aqua look.
post #169 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by iCreate
I don't know how many more transitions Apple can make and still keep their installed base and developers behind the Mac. If Apple is struggling with the G5, it would seem to make more sense to stick with a Xenon or Cell, but tweaked for the desktop. On the otherhand if x86 was the basis of a new Mac, it would be much easier to port Windows software over. You can then say that OS X and Windows would be competing on the same level somewhat, although I'm sure you'll probably still have Apple designed hardware.

When we look at Apple with PPC then they must also have some custom support chips as well. These chips could make manufacturing more difficult. Put yourself in Apples shoes and you are managing the flow of chips to your MB manufacturer, if they have problems how is it resolved? For example say a company is assembling the MBs and iBooks, if they run out of a curtain chip then they have to wait for more supply. Now let's say that they have problems making a similar 'book for Dell, they pick up the phone and talk to the other assembler down the road and get enough of a supply to get them through. In other words, the custom chips are not only more expensive but can be expensive to manufacture with. If Apple is to compete they need to be on board the same boat. I would also think that IBMs inability to produce a low enough power chip to go into the 'Books is hurting Apple. Using PowerPC chips and support chips means that Apple must help design the MB maybe to the point of doing it all. On the Intel side Apple can pick-up the phone and any number of factories in China have a long experience with those chip-sets. Send the SOPs, the QC / QA requirements, the drawings custom or purchased, have their engineers get with Apples engineers and a new MB is on its way. An entire industry is built around this, using custom chips Apple must swim up-stream most of the time.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #170 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by UnixPoet
No need for wishing - enough material as it is

And it's not as if schadenfraude is new to this forums. Witness the, sometimes justified, gloating and abuse heaped on Windows users.

Actaully Programmer is one of the more level-header people around here as long as you dont mention x86. As for "desperately looking" - dude the only thing I am desperate for is the final of the French Open which promises to be excellent.

What reasonable arguments can be put forward when solid facts are lacking? All is much hot air and speculation. Only fools, and analysts, are given to that sort of thing. I prefer to wait for Monday.

UnixPoet, just who do you think you're impressing with your inane commentaries? Anyone remotely familiar with AI knows that Programmer is the real deal. It was quite kind of him to even dignify your posts with his responses.

A switch to an Intel ISA makes absolutely no sense. Anyone who believes such a move would be profitable is ignorant and seriously deluded. Intel ISA = Apple's demise. People say SJ is mercurial, but it would take a deranged person to plot the course outlined by C|Net.
PPC4EVER
Reply
PPC4EVER
Reply
post #171 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Because I let go, seeing as he/she doesn't really know what it means to be POSIX compliant, does not mean that she actually scored any point in this debate.

In any case, GNU/Linux is POSIX compliant and is the only OS that runs on as many as 10 different architectures.

it's cool mate, i was just being a smartass

btw, i'm not up late. it's 9PM now where i am and french open finals on now

gawd its going to be a painful 24++ hours till the steveNote. why do we always make ourselves suffer like this? oh, the insanity
post #172 of 434
You heard it here first, folks:

PowerMacintosh G6 @ 4ghz.
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
post #173 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by g3pro
You heard it here first, folks:

PowerMacintosh G6 @ 4ghz.


if this is true i will personally paypal $5.00 AUD to you. once the keynote is complete, if it is true, you can PM me your paypal account. $5.00 AUD = US$4.something
post #174 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman

if this is true i will personally paypal $5.00 AUD to you. once the keynote is complete, if it is true, you can PM me your paypal account. $5.00 AUD = US$4.something

You're confident enough to bet against it but only up to $5 AUD ?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #175 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
btw, i'm not up late. it's 9PM now where i am and french open finals on now

Sunilraman - the time you quoted is either a crude approximation or you live in one very strange timezone!
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #176 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Why do fuckheads like this only ever show up on AI?

Never been to MacDailyNews I take it?

Consider yourself lucky.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #177 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by g3pro
You heard it here first, folks:

PowerMacintosh G6 @ 4ghz.

Great, I'm looking for it.
post #178 of 434
The more I think about this, the more it doesn't make sense. Even if Apple was switching, Steve would never announce it during a keynote. Think about it. Steve gets up there and works the crowd to generate applause. Any x86 announcement would generate either crickets chirping or some serious boos. Steve doesn't like to be booed, I would think.

And x86 makes no sense. It would make backwards compatibility with PPC Macs a royal pain in the butt unless they plopped another chip in there.

I do think Intel could fab something for Apple, but I also think this could be smoke from other sources in an attempt to cloud a big announcement by IBM and Apple.
post #179 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
You're confident enough to bet against it but only up to $5 AUD ?

i am poor at the moment, so i am confident, but poor
i've been using my dad's ibook for the past 7 months \
post #180 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by IQatEdo
Sunilraman - the time you quoted is either a crude approximation or you live in one very strange timezone!

GMT+8
now is 10.37pm

1+ hour into the french open men's finals
post #181 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by jfdesign
Here's my 2 cents. Maybe Intel is providing a custom OEM daughter card for Apple that will allow the Mac to have the PPC chip and the x86 chip in the same box, with lo level software that recognizes the difference. Now imagine being able to run Windows Programs NATIVELY on the Mac. Insert a PC install disc and it "just works". Developers have a choice... Mac or PC. Launch MS Access or some other MS only program, and it just runs... albeit with some ugly interface leftovers for the program. This becomes the final incentive for PC users to switch to Mac software when they see how the Ugly MS counterparts look. Mac users get the best of both worlds. Virtual PC is history. Your Mac is simply THE computer. Software platforms become a thing of the past. All the Windows people could start using Macs and not lose their software investment. Switchers in the droves. Intel makes more money, MS makes less and less. Dell can jump in a lake.

The oerating system is 100% Mac with custom software directing the CPU calls to the right CPU.

Thoughts??

I would love that , Apple would then have insective to use WINE and make it better like they did with Konqueror -> safari and they can give back to the community to make linux an even more viable option for "legacy" x86-32 hardware
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #182 of 434
I will kill myself if Mac OS X gets ported to x86 but Apple makes this little snotty proprietary system check that only lets me run Mac OS X on x86-based Macs. That would be the stupidest thing ever. Instead, throw your hardware away, Apple, and make your profits off of a Mac OS X that any person with a computer can run. I think that if that happened, we'd see 25% Mac marketshare over the course of a year or less.
post #183 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Mac
UnixPoet, just who do you think you're impressing with your inane commentaries? Anyone remotely familiar with AI knows that Programmer is the real deal. It was quite kind of him to even dignify your posts with his responses.

A switch to an Intel ISA makes absolutely no sense. Anyone who believes such a move would be profitable is ignorant and seriously deluded. Intel ISA = Apple's demise. People say SJ is mercurial, but it would take a deranged person to plot the course outlined by C|Net.

No pedestal, please. UnixPoet has a legitimate difference of opinion on the importance of ISA.


As a software guy, I have a clear view of what it costs to modify existing software. What the X on x86 rumor proposes is a massive change to all software in the Mac universe. The cost of doing this will be enormous, even for those companies which simply hit a switch and recompile... if that happens even once. If nothing else you have to go back through your quality assurance testing (you do have that right) to make sure that it all worked. And on any piece of software of significant size there are going to be issues that require programmer time to fix. Software that is already cross-platform is not 100% cross-platform between OSX on PPC vs. x86 because the x86 variant has not been available for testing. There is much more to software development than just recompiling. Apple has a huge investment in their software, so they must know this.

Hardware is expensive too, but a single project could bring a PPC product into Intel's lineup. This project could be the conversion of an existing PPC to Intel's fab, or it could be the modification of one of Intel's own core designs to support the PPC ISA (hugely simplified by their seperate decoder architecture -- modifying a PPC to decode x86 would be much much harder). Either way it would leave Apple able to buy from 3 processor vendors, covering a very wide range of performance/price/power capabilities. It would also not disrupt the customer base at all, and it is well within even a fraction of the value of the money that Apple has in the bank right now.

We'll see tomorrow what truth there is behind these rumors, and what reasoning Steve's team is using.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #184 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
No pedestal, please. UnixPoet has a legitimate difference of opinion on the importance of ISA.


As a software guy, I have a clear view of what it costs to modify existing software. What the X on x86 rumor proposes is a massive change to all software in the Mac universe. The cost of doing this will be enormous, even for those companies which simply hit a switch and recompile... if that happens even once. If nothing else you have to go back through your quality assurance testing (you do have that right) to make sure that it all worked. And on any piece of software of significant size there are going to be issues that require programmer time to fix. Software that is already cross-platform is not 100% cross-platform between OSX on PPC vs. x86 because the x86 variant has not been available for testing. There is much more to software development than just recompiling. Apple has a huge investment in their software, so they must know this.

Hardware is expensive too, but a single project could bring a PPC product into Intel's lineup. This project could be the conversion of an existing PPC to Intel's fab, or it could be the modification of one of Intel's own core designs to support the PPC ISA (hugely simplified by their seperate decoder architecture -- modifying a PPC to decode x86 would be much much harder). Either way it would leave Apple able to buy from 3 processor vendors, covering a very wide range of performance/price/power capabilities. It would also not disrupt the customer base at all, and it is well within even a fraction of the value of the money that Apple has in the bank right now.

We'll see tomorrow what truth there is behind these rumors, and what reasoning Steve's team is using.

I completely agree with you about the difficulty of bringing software over. I've said this over and over again. Some people just don't seem to want to believe it.

I'm not so sure about Intel (or AMD) manufacturing a PPC though. Even though Apple is one third of the PPC group, and has had input on the designs, I don't know if the agreements would allow them to outsource a chip by themselves. They might have to get both IBM and Freescsle to sign off on that, and what would be their incentive? With IBM's Power Everywhere initiative, Apple's defection would have the effect of setting that back severely. Why would others join if the major customer for the chips defects? And Freescale is still advancing their G3 and G4 designs. They would lose sales as well.

With the posts about a 4GHz Mac using Intel's chips out here I'm wondering if it's understood that Apple's 2.7GHz machine has achieved approximate parity with Intel's fastest Xenon and AMD's fastest Opteron? Intel won't be reaching 4GHz, just a small bit further ahead than they are now, until 65nm comes on line next year.

If it's thought that a PPC manufactured by Intel will reach that speed, I can only say to keep dreaming. It's not just the fab, but the chip design that's responsible for the chip speed. Intel only reached 2GHz on the Itanium this year. Hp's fastest mini computer chips have only reached 1.1GHz, though analysts thought they would be a bit higher (Hp could have brought them out at 1.3, but didn't, for marketing reasons, as they are switching to other chips).

I can't (won't?) believe that IBM's GX chips are that far behind schedule. If they do come out with a 3GHz GX and (or) a 3GHz MP this year, then it would be fine. Even by January. Something has to be done about the portable line though, SOON.

I really don't see this happening, but I have to admit that it is always possible.

Especially with Jobs in charge.
post #185 of 434
im scared. i have a part of my brain which is telling me this entire thing is absolutely false, and the only intel announcement we would see tmrw is the possible intel based mac tablet. but if this is all true, steve better be prepared for the mixed reactions, and if there is one thing that companies despise, its a mixed reaction to their business ventures.
post #186 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
If nothing else you have to go back through your quality assurance testing (you do have that right) to make sure that it all worked.

QA? I think I remember hearing about that. Isn't that what software manufacturers used to do to work the bugs out of their product before releasing it? But I thought that all went out the window, with them now allowing the populace, for the small fee of buying the software, to do that testing for them...
post #187 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I can't (won't?) believe that IBM's GX chips are that far behind schedule. If they do come out with a 3GHz GX and (or) a 3GHz MP this year, then it would be fine. Even by January. Something has to be done about the portable line though, SOON.

I agree, and I speculated elsewhere that this deal may not be about a move from PPC or the G5 but a replacement for the hoary old G4. While everyone is wetting themselves because the G5 has only scaled from 2.0 to 2.7GHz, in that time the G4 has gone from 1.42 to a whopping 1.67! And still on a 167MHz bus! If IBM has been unable to deliver a promised portable chip, and Freescale seems to be MIA, I can see Apple demanding whatever is necessary for them to take PPC to Intel and have them fab a Centrinoesque PPC chip for portables and the mini.
post #188 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
x86 does not at all make it easier to port Windows software over. They use two completely separate sets of APIs and Frameworks. The only way it's "easier" is if Apple integrates a windows emulator, which would be kinda lame unless it actually displays the programs with an Aqua look.

Sure it is.
Mac Pro 2.66GHz-16GB RAM-4x2TB HD-Dual 23" ACDs-OS X.6.5
iMac 27" 3.06GHz-16GB RAM-1TB HD-OS X.6.5
iPad 64GB Wifi/3G-iOS 4.2 beta 3
iPhone 3GS 32GB-iOS 4.2 beta 3
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66GHz-16GB RAM-4x2TB HD-Dual 23" ACDs-OS X.6.5
iMac 27" 3.06GHz-16GB RAM-1TB HD-OS X.6.5
iPad 64GB Wifi/3G-iOS 4.2 beta 3
iPhone 3GS 32GB-iOS 4.2 beta 3
Reply
post #189 of 434
Based on my experience with NeXT, there is no reason why OSX on Intel wouldn't work. While AltaVec is not available for Intel, this is not necessarily a show stopper. Apple owns AltaVec. It could be ported.

If the report that Intel would start at the bottom is true, one could speculate on an OSX solution that could run most important Windows applications natively but without the maintenance cost, security and virus issues of the Windows OS.

A $400 Mac Mini that runs Windows applications natively, would not have Microsoft seat license, maintenance costs and security concerns. This would be a very big deal in corporate IT. This would allow seamless migration to a far superior system today for a fraction of the cost of an XP seat.

This would give IT a solution to security, their most pressing problem. Now. Not in two years. It would do so for a fraction of the cost and do so with the performance of Longhorn. Now. Not in two years.
post #190 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by BrunoBruin
I agree, and I speculated elsewhere that this deal may not be about a move from PPC or the G5 but a replacement for the hoary old G4. While everyone is wetting themselves because the G5 has only scaled from 2.0 to 2.7GHz, in that time the G4 has gone from 1.42 to a whopping 1.67! And still on a 167MHz bus! If IBM has been unable to deliver a promised portable chip, and Freescale seems to be MIA, I can see Apple demanding whatever is necessary for them to take PPC to Intel and have them fab a Centrinoesque PPC chip for portables and the mini.

Hoary, I've always liked that word.

The worst thing about the G4 is that performance has not increased much with the speed increase, if at all.

I just sent Powerlogix an e-mail because I'm about to upgrade two of my machines shortly. I think it bears being put in my post for thought. I'm awaiting an answer from then, as I sent it Friday afternoon.


Here it is:

"This is pre-sales, but it's a tech question as well, so I'm not sure if you will want to answer it or pass it on.

There are now two different lines of processors that you have.

The 1.33 7457 and the 1.8 7447a, both duals.

I'm trying to decide what to get for my Digital Audios.

The confusing thing here is the speed vs. cache. I remember the last G4 Macs. One was a dual 1.25 with 1MB cache, and the other was a dual 1.42 with 2MB cache. The 1.42 only beat the 1.25 by about 6%. As I remember that the Mac's bus was limited to about 1.3GHz throughput, the cpu's were starved. The only reason that the 1.42 was faster was because of the larger cache. And that was with a 167MHz bus. The story should be even worse at 133.

So now we have either chips that are slower but with a 2MB cache running at 1.33GHz vs. chips with no L3 cache running at 1.8GHZ.

It doesn't seem to me that there is a performance advantage to the 7447a's, and that they might actually be a detriment.

So, other than a power advantage, what is the true story here?

Which should I use? Do you have tests comparing the two on the same machine, preferably a 133MHZ one?

This isn't easy to decide. I have two machines that I want to upgrade. One now, and one later this summer. I would like some peace of mind about this.

Best regards, Mel Gross."
post #191 of 434
Quote:
As a software guy, I have a clear view of what it costs to modify existing software. What the X on x86 rumor proposes is a massive change to all software in the Mac universe. The cost of doing this will be enormous, even for those companies which simply hit a switch and recompile... if that happens even once. If nothing else you have to go back through your quality assurance testing (you do have that right) to make sure that it all worked. And on any piece of software of significant size there are going to be issues that require programmer time to fix. Software that is already cross-platform is not 100% cross-platform between OSX on PPC vs. x86 because the x86 variant has not been available for testing. There is much more to software development than just recompiling. Apple has a huge investment in their software, so they must know this.

Well as a software guy that specialised in OS X for a long time I know that this is not much of an issue. The recompile will take the same time as a compile for ppc ( and could be attempted on a ppc machine if intel binaries are released in a sdk). Testing isn't much of an issue either, the programs are written on top of carbon, or cocoa, or other api ( like openGL), or even the OSX unix layer, all of which do not have to change. The chip will change under the application developer, but so what? That happens with normal transitions to G4/G5 chips. OS X is written to be processor independent. In other words there is no need for developers to really test anything - it should just work. All bugs are Apple bugs - the developer has to be aware of nothing. Apple will probably issue testing machines to certain developers - but not to iron out developer bugs caused by developers - but bugs that Apple has in it's frameworks, mostly.

This is an order of magnitude easier than the transition to ppc for 68k, or the transition to Carbon from the old OS 9 api set for carbon coders. The transition to Carbon forced old OS 9 developers to use a modern version of the old OS 9 api set ( which was a mess) and to replace processor dependent code like assembly - or old api which were dangerous. The carbon api was a large subset of the OS 9 codebase ( and added some new api sets, of course), but was still only 80%, so it took Adobe a long time to port photoshop.

That work -having been done - does not have to be redone. It should Just Work.

By the way this is exactly what Apple will say tomorrow.

(The only fly in the ointment is altivec. I am sure that altivec will be included on the new machine's chipset somewhere.)
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #192 of 434
Remember the hints that Steve dropped this spring about talks with 3 of the top PC makers. As hard as it may be to believe, the current stories could very well be about licensing. His hints are usually well planned.

Also don't forget the odd quote from Intel's Otellini, " "If you want to fix it tomorrow, maybe you should buy something else."
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
post #193 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by shawk
Based on my experience with NeXT, there is no reason why OSX on Intel wouldn't work. While AltaVec is not available for Intel, this is not necessarily a show stopper. Apple owns AltaVec. It could be ported.

If the report that Intel would start at the bottom is true, one could speculate on an OSX solution that could run most important Windows applications natively but without the maintenance cost, security and virus issues of the Windows OS.

A $400 Mac Mini that runs Windows applications natively, would not have Microsoft seat license, maintenance costs and security concerns. This would be a very big deal in corporate IT. This would allow seamless migration to a far superior system today for a fraction of the cost of an XP seat.

This would give IT a solution to security, their most pressing problem. Now. Not in two years. It would do so for a fraction of the cost and do so with the performance of Longhorn. Now. Not in two years.

This isn't really correct though. If you read back here you will se why it isn't that easy. We seem to be doomed to repeating the same things over and over.

While OS X could undoubledly run on x86, that isn't the problem, it's the programs that run on OS X that are the proble. Not as easily solved.

The other strange thing about this rumor is why Apple would take the lowest machines in their lineup and bring them to an x86, if the question is that of speed for the high end machines. This boggles the mind. Apple could always move the lowest machine upwards in the processor line if they had to.

If the Mini and the eMac were the problems, they could have always put a 1.5GHz G5 in either. It would give a 40% boost over a 1.4 GHz G4. That doesn't consume much power, and doesn't put out that much heat. The eMac would have been fine for this as is. The Mini could have been an inch higher and no one would have commented. It still would have been very small and quiet. A 1.5GHZ would only need 20 watts or less. If you look at the charts at IBM you would see that a 2GH FX chip needs much less power than the old design.
post #194 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by asdasd
Well as a software guy that specialised in OS X for a long time I know that this is not much of an issue. The recompile will take the same time as a compile for ppc ( and could be attempted on a ppc machine if intel binaries are released in a sdk). Testing isn't much of an issue either, the programs are written on top of carbon, or cocoa, or other api ( like openGL), or even the OSX unix layer, all of which do not have to change. The chip will change under the application developer, but so what? That happens with normal transitions to G4/G5 chips. OS X is written to be processor independent. In other words there is no need for developers to really test anything - it should just work. All bugs are Apple bugs - the developer has to be aware of nothing. Apple will probably issue testing machines to certain developers - but not to iron out developer bugs caused by developers - but bugs that Apple has in it's frameworks, mostly.

This is an order of magnitude easier than the transition to ppc for 68k, or the transition to Carbon from the old OS 9 api set for carbon coders. The transition to Carbon forced old OS 9 developers to use a modern version of the old OS 9 api set ( which was a mess) and to replace processor dependent code like assembly - or old api which were dangerous. The carbon api was a large subset of the OS 9 codebase ( and added some new api sets, of course), but was still only 80%, so it took Adobe a long time to port photoshop.

That work -having been done - does not have to be redone. It should Just Work.

By the way this is exactly what Apple will say tomorrow.

(The only fly in the ointment is altivec. I am sure that altivec will be included on the new machine's chipset somewhere.)

Yes, a recompile will work. That's never been questioned here. But a recompile will result in some very bloated code. Code that will run slowly, because platform crossed re-compiles are inefficient. Even with a compatibility layer.

This leads to painstaking hand tuning. Altivec is not the same thing as SSE, or whatever the initials are, I for get at the moment. As this provides a big boost to numerous areas, even of the OS itself, I don't know how this would be easy.

Here in 10.4 Apple is using Altivec for Extreme as well as its other uses. This would all have to be remapped. Sometimes there will be nothing equivalent to remap it to, and a compromise will have to be made. OS X is not Windows or Linux. It does things differently.

I'm not saying that it can't be done, but it won't be that easy. And going to the low end machines first is ass backwards.
post #195 of 434
Maybe its me - but I can no longer find the sessions schedules for WWDC. Portends no more PPC on schedule?
post #196 of 434
wouldn't it be interesting if apple said it not only was switching to intel-based acrhitecture, but that *gasp* apple would be the first out of the gate with apps that took advantage of such architecture, like new versions of iwork, the ilife suite, the production studio suite, etc.

we'll ignore the fact that apple would anger just about every large software manufacturer out there...
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #197 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by rok
wouldn't it be interesting if apple said it not only was switching to intel-based acrhitecture, but that *gasp* apple would be the first out of the gate with apps that took advantage of such architecture, like new versions of iwork, the ilife suite, the production studio suite, etc.

we'll ignore the fact that apple would anger just about every large software manufacturer out there...

I just wonder what would happen to the performance to programs such as FCP. Apple highly optimized it for the G5.

I've had a *huge* increase in rendering speed from that.
post #198 of 434
I'm hoping this Intel story is a leaked fake to bring attention to tomorrow's WWDC speech by Jobs where he announces a super fast G6 dual core cell based PPC chip that just flat out blows away anything from Intel or AMD by a magnitude or more.
post #199 of 434
I suppose everyone gets to post a speculative note this weekend.

CNET is so coy and vague with their article. WSJ isn't any more specific. Still, something must be up with Apple and Intel.

Witness the odd endorsement of Apple by Paul Otellini last week. Sure, he's pimping the security features of Intel's new D Series. But it's a very interesting reference.

Then there's the Intel Mac Mini clone we've all seen. Unless this was done with the blessings of Apple, its design is so impossibly derivative as to invite a common law trademark challenge from Cupertino.

We also have Transitive's teasing reference to a "second company" that's ready to deploy their technology in early 2005. Sounds like this technology is for real, even allowing a modest performance hit.

On the other hand, IBM is already tipping what will become Power 6. They clearly think PPC is still the future.

My opinion is worth what you're paying for it, but here goes:

* Apple will retain PowerPC as its native architecture.

* Intel will supply its dual-core Pentium D chips for use in Apple's laptops. It will run OS X via Transitive's emulation technology. This array will be plenty snappy for the marketplace and provide Apple with modern mobility hardware.

* Pro-level gear will run OS X natively on IBM Power chips. Developers need not change their code. Current customers with investment in PPC needn't jump off the nearest bridge. All is well.

I suppose it is also possible that Apple will begin producing the Mini and eMac with a Pentium or Celeron M chipset, also running OS X via Transitive's emulation. The iMac is selling well as-is on the G5 platform. No need to mess with it.

The upside to all this chipmongering would be to catch-up Apple in the mobility market in very short order. We could have greatly improved Powerbooks and a refreshed iBook almost immediately, product-differentiated by dual- or single-core chipsets. When a true Power alternative is ready for the Powerbook, it gets dropped in without upsetting the developers and the consumer base.

Apple serves notice to IBM that it is very, very serious about chip supply. The next step would be a painful transition to x86, which I still doubt, or a jointly developed high-end Power chip with Intel. I'm not sure Power licensing would allow the latter alternative, though.
post #200 of 434
... and one more thing.

I think it is of great interest that Apple is currently running some very expensive, double-truck print ads featuring OS X. You'll notice the only hardware shown is Apple's new display line, which can be plugged into pretty much anything these days.

Since OS X currently requires Apple hardware, these ads are like writing a sales contract without a line for a signature.

My suspicion is that Apple will be primarily known as an entertainment brand a decade from now, marketing appliances that sell and store music and video content on demand. To achieve this, Apple must increase their market share.

If OS X can run via emulation on Intel-chipped Apple hardware, it could also run on these new Mac Mini clones. They were displayed running Windows, but could just as easily represent a careful program to license OS X on non-Apple boxes.

Tough to say.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel-based Macs coming soon?