or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will Apple use another Power PC processor?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will Apple use another Power PC processor? - Page 3

post #81 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, for computers it is dead and gone.

Who is going to produce a media center with these chips? .

Main frames and servers, so no it's not dead for computers, just desktops.

Some people already consider the xbox a media center.

both of which use PPC set architecture.
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 #82 of 127
What it takes to support more processor architectures?
(a follow-up for my previous posts on this thread)

Many members posting here think that changing processor architecture means rewriting a lot of code by the majority of developers in order to "optimize" it for the new processor. This is not the case. Here is why.

From programmers point of view, processors differ mainly in the following:
  • instruction set
  • byte order (big endian vs. little endian)
  • data register size (may affect data alignment) and addressable memory (processor "bittness")
  • vector processing units or other processor-specific features
The instruction set is handled by the compiler, unless you are writing in assembler (very, very few programmers do). Every processor vendor will make sure there is a compiler available for the most widely used languages for it's processor. One of the most widely used compilers, used by Apple's Xcode as well, is GCC - GNU Compiler Collection, which provides compilers for a number of programming languages for a wide range of processors. Other compilers, e.g. from Intel or IBM, may be used, but they are not free for developers and are bound to specific processors, and are not commonly used. So, in general, the programmer needs to do NOTHING to compile for the processor architecture on which he/she is compiling. The compilers are capable to cross-compile - to compile for an architecture, different from the one it is running on. For example, you can compile for PPC on Intel computer and vice versa.

In many cases the developer has to take care of byte order, in particular, when reading data streams from disc or network. In order to keep the code portable, there are some simple rules which should be followed here. Apple provides several ways for bite-swapping, including macros and functions. Bite-swapping errors may introduce bugs, but now apple had already fixed most of them (it has to support both endian versions for now). It is not a big deal to keep the code endian-savvy. Moreover, it is considered bad programming practice not to do so.

Most of the old mac fans tend to believe that mac developers were working a lot to support AltiVec. This is not the case. Apple did, and the the majority of the results of this work is embedded in a very small number of frameworks and libraries (compared to the entire code base). The only thing the developers need to do is to use them. The AltiVec optimized code is a small part of the Mac OS and large part of it is "concentrated" in a known places, so there is no need to go through all the code to make the switch if needed. Some developers do use processor vector units explicitly, but a very small percent of the developer community. Most of the developers rely on auto vectorization by the compiler, or, more importantly, on other compiler optimizations. You may be surprised to know, but most of the executable code out there, including the OS itself, is OPTIMIZED FOR SIZE, NOT FOR SPEED.

There is much more trouble to support 32 bit and 64 bit than the other differences. This is more difficult to explain but I will give it a try. When you have a function call in your code, you don't care about the processors instruction set, endianness or vector units. This is handled by the compiler. But the function always has a definite return type, for example, integer or float. So far so good. But what you should do if you want to take advantage of the processors larger data register size? You need a new function which returns the corresponding long data type. In your code you have to check the processor for which the code compiles, and select the function you want to use. And you have to make this for every call for a potentially large number of functions. This is a HUGE problem. To make it worce, most of the code relies on different libraries. You need libraries which are specifically made to support 64 bit (as said earlier, just recompiling for a different processor is much simpler), so you may have to wait untill the author of the said libary makes it 64 bit savvy.
Leopard will have full 64 bit support (that is, all Leopard's frameworks and libraries). Some of the applications (from Apple and third parties) will not. But Apple will provide tools to make the support for 32 and 64 bit much easier than the above scenario.

To summarize, Apple's code portability is a HUGE advantage over Windows (Linux is very portable however). Now, when Apple improved and "tested" it's portability, it will be ultra-stupid not to keep it that way, even when the current crop of PPC installed base fades away. Most of the code in Mac OS will survive more than one processor architecture. And Apple will want to "have options", both for future processor architectures, and for licensing Mac OS to third parties (remember, Windows has big trouble supporting multiple architectures).

Sorry for the long post. Hope it makes some points more clear.
post #83 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow View Post

But what you should do if you want to take advantage of the processors larger data register size? You need a new function which returns the corresponding long data type.

This is some simplification of the real situation. In reality, when a 64 processor processes 32 bit data, it's registers are "half empty". Sometimes you may improve data processing using all 64 bits - that is where you will want to consider 64 bit support.

You can use 64 bit data in a 32 bit processor, but the compiler will need to replace a one-line operation with larger number of instructions, which is slower and you will not want to use it on a 32 bit processor if you can avoid this.

Also, there are address/pointer related issues. Some data types and structures will need to change to support much larger address space.

For computers, 64 bit is the main trend. But the processor in the iPhone or other small devices is unlikely to go 64 bit anytime soon. They simply don't need 64 bit in a meaningful way.
post #84 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Sony OWNS the IP for the Cell, along with IBM and Toshiba. They ALL developed it.They were producing it themselves as well.

Have you any evidence that Nintendo is paying IBM for the R&D for their chip?

You're just making things up here.

It was part of the 1billion deal between Nintendo and IBM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

As usual, you're wrong.

I'l give you one just because you're lazy.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2135201,00.asp

Again a meaningless link. Wow Intel continues to develop new Cpus, well that's a suprise! Oh and they are really faster than a 2 year old G5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It shows how little you know about these companies.

No it shows that google did provide you with a real sample.

But here's one for you:

http://arstechnica.com/articles/colu...c-20050710.ars
post #85 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow View Post

What it takes to support more processor architectures?
(a follow-up for my previous posts on this thread)

Many members posting here think that changing processor architecture means rewriting a lot of code by the majority of developers in order to "optimize" it for the new processor. This is not the case. Here is why.

From programmers point of view, processors differ mainly in the following:
  • instruction set
  • byte order (big endian vs. little endian)
  • data register size (may affect data alignment) and addressable memory (processor "bittness")
  • vector processing units or other processor-specific features
The instruction set is handled by the compiler, unless you are writing in assembler (very, very few programmers do). Every processor vendor will make sure there is a compiler available for the most widely used languages for it's processor. One of the most widely used compilers, used by Apple's Xcode as well, is GCC - GNU Compiler Collection, which provides compilers for a number of programming languages for a wide range of processors. Other compilers, e.g. from Intel or IBM, may be used, but they are not free for developers and are bound to specific processors, and are not commonly used. So, in general, the programmer needs to do NOTHING to compile for the processor architecture on which he/she is compiling. The compilers are capable to cross-compile - to compile for an architecture, different from the one it is running on. For example, you can compile for PPC on Intel computer and vice versa.

In many cases the developer has to take care of byte order, in particular, when reading data streams from disc or network. In order to keep the code portable, there are some simple rules which should be followed here. Apple provides several ways for bite-swapping, including macros and functions. Bite-swapping errors may introduce bugs, but now apple had already fixed most of them (it has to support both endian versions for now). It is not a big deal to keep the code endian-savvy. Moreover, it is considered bad programming practice not to do so.

Most of the old mac fans tend to believe that mac developers were working a lot to support AltiVec. This is not the case. Apple did, and the the majority of the results of this work is embedded in a very small number of frameworks and libraries (compared to the entire code base). The only thing the developers need to do is to use them. The AltiVec optimized code is a small part of the Mac OS and large part of it is "concentrated" in a known places, so there is no need to go through all the code to make the switch if needed. Some developers do use processor vector units explicitly, but a very small percent of the developer community. Most of the developers rely on auto vectorization by the compiler, or, more importantly, on other compiler optimizations. You may be surprised to know, but most of the executable code out there, including the OS itself, is OPTIMIZED FOR SIZE, NOT FOR SPEED.

There is much more trouble to support 32 bit and 64 bit than the other differences. This is more difficult to explain but I will give it a try. When you have a function call in your code, you don't care about the processors instruction set, endianness or vector units. This is handled by the compiler. But the function always has a definite return type, for example, integer or float. So far so good. But what you should do if you want to take advantage of the processors larger data register size? You need a new function which returns the corresponding long data type. In your code you have to check the processor for which the code compiles, and select the function you want to use. And you have to make this for every call for a potentially large number of functions. This is a HUGE problem. To make it worce, most of the code relies on different libraries. You need libraries which are specifically made to support 64 bit (as said earlier, just recompiling for a different processor is much simpler), so you may have to wait untill the author of the said libary makes it 64 bit savvy.
Leopard will have full 64 bit support (that is, all Leopard's frameworks and libraries). Some of the applications (from Apple and third parties) will not. But Apple will provide tools to make the support for 32 and 64 bit much easier than the above scenario.

To summarize, Apple's code portability is a HUGE advantage over Windows (Linux is very portable however). Now, when Apple improved and "tested" it's portability, it will be ultra-stupid not to keep it that way, even when the current crop of PPC installed base fades away. Most of the code in Mac OS will survive more than one processor architecture. And Apple will want to "have options", both for future processor architectures, and for licensing Mac OS to third parties (remember, Windows has big trouble supporting multiple architectures).

Sorry for the long post. Hope it makes some points more clear.


I think your taking this away from what the real question is. Which is will Apple use a PPC again. I'd say the overwhelming majority agree; that answer is no.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #86 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post


I think your taking this away from what the real question is. Which is will Apple use a PPC again. I'd say the overwhelming majority agree; that answer is no.


I wouldn't call it an "overwhelming majority," but no matter what most people believe, it's Apple who will make this decision. Some here think Apple may use another PPC desktop or laptop chip someday. Others of us think it's more likely a consumer gadget that'll get a PPC, if anything does.

All in all, the subject has created far more discussion than it's worth. Wouldn't you agree?

post #87 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

PPC is used from the embedded market to the main frame market. It has only recently lost the desktop market when Apple left.

IBM manufactures PPC products for themselves and now for Microsoft and Sony game consoles. Who knows where this will lead. It definitely will keep IBM interested in advancing their cpus and the insturction set architecture.

If I were Apple I would definitely maintain builds of Mac OSs on PPC.

I concur. The " just in case" scenerio could happen again, like Steve had said when he first officially mentioned the Intel switch from PPC, they could then go back if need be in the future.
post #88 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Read the history of this reply. I asked whether Apple would use a PPC chip in the iPhone if IBM made a superior cell phone processor. Onlooker's reply was no, because Apple got into bed with Intel. Naturally I asked why Apple should be more restricted than Dell and HP, or any other company for that matter? These companies use chips from other vendors, and it doesn't appear to hurt the relationship with Intel. Since I referred specifically to the iPhone, not Macintosh computers, a requirement to use only Intel chips makes even less sense.

Your post here doesn't relate to the discussion between onlooker and me.


Apple will not keep PPC code around forever, that doesn't restrict Apple to using only Intel either. Chances are they will use only Intel for the next 5-10 years or longer, if for no other reason than to keep it simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamm View Post

The latest retail version of OS X Server (10.4.7) is universal. I thought Leopard was going to be too.

It is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

No argument here. Apple will use X86 type chips in Macintosh computers from now on. However, this does not mean Apple should use only X86 chips in other products. In fact, the iPhone and iPod do not use the X86 as you know.

Is it more difficult to keep OS X working on PPC than ARM? I don't think so. If IBM is developing a really great PPC chip for the cell phone, why not keep the PPC code and drop ARM? I believe this could happen. What are the odd? Not very good, but possible.

We are all speculating here, and no one has yet provided an inside track to say which scenario will emerge. I agree that the PPC is not very likely, but I object to it being dismissed as essentially impossible. That's all.





No, but if IBM wants to succeed greatly, it will learn from anyone and anything it can.


Since we both agree that the chances of PPC knocking ARM out are unlikely, why suggest it? If Apple thinks they need to keep PPC around for this, they will, but they likely won't continue supporting PPC at all. The IPod uses it yes, but that's not even OS X, it's Pixo.

The iPhone also probably uses ARM, even if it's an Xscale chip, it's still ARM, so there's little chance they will keep PPC around just for that.

Apple originally used PPC because it was the only CPU that could emulate the Motorola 68000 series for the portions of System 7 written in Assembly.

Sebastian
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #89 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

Main frames and servers, so no it's not dead for computers, just desktops.

Some people already consider the xbox a media center.

both of which use PPC set architecture.

Try Media Center Extender (TM).

Microsoft really does make no sense sometimes. Windows Media Player and Windows Media Center share very little, whenever I used Media Center I always felt like I was navigation the Explorer for specific File Types in a MCE interface, and the idea of having both a Media Center and a Media Center Extender (both are made for connecting to the TV) is an oxymoron.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow View Post

Sorry for the long post. Hope it makes some points more clear.

No need to apologize, I enjoyed the read.

Sebastian
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #90 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

...

Apple originally used PPC because it was the only CPU that could emulate the Motorola 68000 series for the portions of System 7 written in Assembly.

...

The emulator used in PPC-based Macs emulated 680x0 code irrespective of the language from which it was compiled. The PPC's ISA was well-suited for emulation, but was by no means necessary for emulation. There is no better proof of this than Rosetta, x86-based software which emulates the PPC.
post #91 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

The emulator used in PPC-based Macs emulated 680x0 code irrespective of the language from which it was compiled. The PPC's ISA was well-suited for emulation, but was by no means necessary for emulation. There is no better proof of this than Rosetta, x86-based software which emulates the PPC.

It's what was, not what is. The Intel chips can emulate PPC chips now, but they had a very hard time doing so with Motorola Chips in 1994.

Sebastian
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #92 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Read the history of this reply. I asked whether Apple would use a PPC chip in the iPhone if IBM made a superior cell phone processor. Onlooker's reply was no, because Apple got into bed with Intel. Naturally I asked why Apple should be more restricted than Dell and HP, or any other company for that matter? These companies use chips from other vendors, and it doesn't appear to hurt the relationship with Intel. Since I referred specifically to the iPhone, not Macintosh computers, a requirement to use only Intel chips makes even less sense.

Your post here doesn't relate to the discussion between onlooker and me.


You might remember that you did ask me the question first.

But, the other point to your post was that Dell and others use AMD chips. You specifically referred to AMD. As AMD doesn't manufacture a chip for a phone, you moved your question back to computer chips.

I properly replied to that with the correct rebuttal.

You can roll your eyes all you want, but you must understand your own post first, before you criticize a reply to it.
post #93 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

No argument here. Apple will use X86 type chips in Macintosh computers from now on. However, this does not mean Apple should use only X86 chips in other products. In fact, the iPhone and iPod do not use the X86 as you know.

Is it more difficult to keep OS X working on PPC than ARM? I don't think so. If IBM is developing a really great PPC chip for the cell phone, why not keep the PPC code and drop ARM? I believe this could happen. What are the odd? Not very good, but possible.

We've gone over this so many times already that it's becoming difficult to try to say it in another way.

You won't let go of the idea that IBM has nothing to offer Apple. They aren't moving into the area of phone chips.

Apple is through with using major chips in their products that don't have a proven lineage, and aren't being used by enough others so that they won't disappear, or will fail to be systematically updated.

Every time Apple moves to a new chip type it means that they have to develop new IP. That means developing new API's, which is a lot of work.

Apple is interested in using products from companies that are experienced in producing products for the industries they are moving into. Another Intel chip for the ATv, and possibly the well established family of ARM's for the phone.

Why would Apple even consider an unproven chip from a company with no history of producing product in that field?

IBM has now proven themselves to be fickle enough about a customer that they themselves were attempting to get.

Don't forget that IBM knew quite well the number of chips that Apple was going to buy over the next few years. They also knew that Apple desperately wanted a high performance low power chip for their laptops.

There was no excuse to back off on the R&D required for Apple's needs when they campaigned for Apple to use them, and knew of their needs.

If Apple were my company, I would never trust IBM's chip making unit again. There are plenty of other companies who are thrilled at the possibility of having Apple as a customer, and who are bending over backwards to please them. Even Intel is doing that. We have plenty of evidence of it.

Quote:
We are all speculating here, and no one has yet provided an inside track to say which scenario will emerge. I agree that the PPC is not very likely, but I object to it being dismissed as essentially impossible. That's all.

If that's all, will you accept a possibility of 0.00001%?

Quote:
No, but if IBM wants to succeed greatly, it will learn from anyone and anything it can.


IBM is doing quite well. They are not in the business that Apple is. They, like almost every other company, have to divulge their future moves to their customers in advance.
post #94 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow View Post

3. Keeping many architectures for computers only complicates support, so Apple will avoid it. The reason for this is NOT OPTIMIZATION as many here seems to believe, design and manufacturing costs of motherboards, testing and compatibility are more important here - see my next post.

Actually, it's both. The hardware problem is a good mention. But, if there is no new hardware to develop to, there will be no new boards to design and manufacture. If IBM stops making the 970, as now seems quite possible, then there will be NO new chips from them to work with. The Power line is simply not in Apple's sights.

Quote:
4. Apple is widening the base of hardware running Mac OS X. It may make sense to have different architecture for some range of devices (iPods, iPhones or whatever Apple decides to introduce next), if no suitable option from Intel is available. NOTE: iPod currently does not run OS X, but it is likely that the future versions will use it.

Yes, we basically agree with that.
post #95 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow View Post

What it takes to support more processor architectures?
(a follow-up for my previous posts on this thread)

Many members posting here think that changing processor architecture means rewriting a lot of code by the majority of developers in order to "optimize" it for the new processor. This is not the case. Here is why.

From programmers point of view, processors differ mainly in the following:
  • instruction set
  • byte order (big endian vs. little endian)
  • data register size (may affect data alignment) and addressable memory (processor "bittness")
  • vector processing units or other processor-specific features
The instruction set is handled by the compiler, unless you are writing in assembler (very, very few programmers do). Every processor vendor will make sure there is a compiler available for the most widely used languages for it's processor. One of the most widely used compilers, used by Apple's Xcode as well, is GCC - GNU Compiler Collection, which provides compilers for a number of programming languages for a wide range of processors. Other compilers, e.g. from Intel or IBM, may be used, but they are not free for developers and are bound to specific processors, and are not commonly used. So, in general, the programmer needs to do NOTHING to compile for the processor architecture on which he/she is compiling. The compilers are capable to cross-compile - to compile for an architecture, different from the one it is running on. For example, you can compile for PPC on Intel computer and vice versa.

In many cases the developer has to take care of byte order, in particular, when reading data streams from disc or network. In order to keep the code portable, there are some simple rules which should be followed here. Apple provides several ways for bite-swapping, including macros and functions. Bite-swapping errors may introduce bugs, but now apple had already fixed most of them (it has to support both endian versions for now). It is not a big deal to keep the code endian-savvy. Moreover, it is considered bad programming practice not to do so.

Most of the old mac fans tend to believe that mac developers were working a lot to support AltiVec. This is not the case. Apple did, and the the majority of the results of this work is embedded in a very small number of frameworks and libraries (compared to the entire code base). The only thing the developers need to do is to use them. The AltiVec optimized code is a small part of the Mac OS and large part of it is "concentrated" in a known places, so there is no need to go through all the code to make the switch if needed. Some developers do use processor vector units explicitly, but a very small percent of the developer community. Most of the developers rely on auto vectorization by the compiler, or, more importantly, on other compiler optimizations. You may be surprised to know, but most of the executable code out there, including the OS itself, is OPTIMIZED FOR SIZE, NOT FOR SPEED.

There is much more trouble to support 32 bit and 64 bit than the other differences. This is more difficult to explain but I will give it a try. When you have a function call in your code, you don't care about the processors instruction set, endianness or vector units. This is handled by the compiler. But the function always has a definite return type, for example, integer or float. So far so good. But what you should do if you want to take advantage of the processors larger data register size? You need a new function which returns the corresponding long data type. In your code you have to check the processor for which the code compiles, and select the function you want to use. And you have to make this for every call for a potentially large number of functions. This is a HUGE problem. To make it worce, most of the code relies on different libraries. You need libraries which are specifically made to support 64 bit (as said earlier, just recompiling for a different processor is much simpler), so you may have to wait untill the author of the said libary makes it 64 bit savvy.
Leopard will have full 64 bit support (that is, all Leopard's frameworks and libraries). Some of the applications (from Apple and third parties) will not. But Apple will provide tools to make the support for 32 and 64 bit much easier than the above scenario.

To summarize, Apple's code portability is a HUGE advantage over Windows (Linux is very portable however). Now, when Apple improved and "tested" it's portability, it will be ultra-stupid not to keep it that way, even when the current crop of PPC installed base fades away. Most of the code in Mac OS will survive more than one processor architecture. And Apple will want to "have options", both for future processor architectures, and for licensing Mac OS to third parties (remember, Windows has big trouble supporting multiple architectures).

Sorry for the long post. Hope it makes some points more clear.

That's nice, except that you've oversimplified dramatically.

In a pefect world, what you said would be true. But, the world is far from perfect.

Developers have complained mightily about XCode's deficiencies. this is not new.

Despite what you say, using Altivec is NOT something that Apple can take care of except in the simplest of ways. That's why Adobe had to come out with a code package for PS to enable it to work with Altivec. And even that only worked for a few of the most popular filters.

There are optimising compilers, and non-optimising compilers. There are compilers designed to make things look good on SPEC tests, but perform miserably on real-world assignments, etc. Are the libraries complete or not?

There are so many areas to talk about that we can't do it here.

I will remind people that when Jobs announced that they were moving to X86, we had a demo of Mathamatica. "It just took a few hours", they thrillingly proclaimed.

But it took quite a few months before an x86 product was released.
post #96 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


You won't let go of the idea that IBM has nothing to offer Apple. They aren't moving into the area of phone chips.


I agree with your first sentence, IBM has nothing for Apple today. We don't know what IBM will be doing tomorrow however. The reason I picked on phone chips is the great number of such chips sold. If IBM believed they could build a much better chip than ARM for a phone, IBM just might take it on. I guess I don't like to write off a company like IBM just because of bad past experiences.

It's likely not worthwhile for Apple to keep OS X up to date for the PPC for decades, but Apple could be prepared to go back to the PPC if the opportunity presents itself. That basically is all I'm saying. We disagree on the odds of something like this happening, but otherwise I haven't disagreed with very much of what you normally post.

The biggest reason I keep replying is that I feel you misinterpret what I am trying to say, and I try to defend myself.

post #97 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

I agree with your first sentence, IBM has nothing for Apple today. We don't know what IBM will be doing tomorrow however. The reason I picked on phone chips is the great number of such chips sold. If IBM believed they could build a much better chip than ARM for a phone, IBM just might take it on. I guess I don't like to write off a company like IBM just because of bad past experiences.

It's likely not worthwhile for Apple to keep OS X up to date for the PPC for decades, but Apple could be prepared to go back to the PPC if the opportunity presents itself. That basically is all I'm saying. We disagree on the odds of something like this happening, but otherwise I haven't disagreed with very much of what you normally post.

The biggest reason I keep replying is that I feel you misinterpret what I am trying to say, and I try to defend myself.


I'm not misinterpreting it. I reply to exactly what you are saying. perhaps you are not saying what you mean to.

But, you also ignore the reasons that I, and others, give for what we're saying, and then just keep repeating yourself.

It makes for a difficult conversation.

I gave you very good reasons why Apple shouldn't consider IBM again, but you don't respond to them at all.
post #98 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


You might remember that you did ask me the question first.


I did remember, and that's why I said "read the history of this reply." In the reply to onlooker I said, "I'll ask you the same question I asked melgross."


Quote:

But, the other point to your post was that Dell and others use AMD chips. You specifically referred to AMD. As AMD doesn't manufacture a chip for a phone, you moved your question back to computer chips.


No, no, that's wasn't my point at all. I was referring to companies that use Intel chips a great deal, but are free to use other vendors. So I was stating that Apple should be free to use other vendors than Intel, for whatever product Apple makes: computers, iPods, iPhones and so on.

In my reply to onlooker, where this all came from, I could have misinterpreted what onlooker said; I'm not sure. Onlooker disagreed with me, but never criticized my reply. (Unlike others in this discussion. Just joking around.)

post #99 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

I did remember, and that's why I said "read the history of this reply." In the reply to onlooker I said, "I'll ask you the same question I asked melgross."




No, no, that's wasn't my point at all. I was referring to companies that use Intel chips a great deal, but are free to use other vendors. So I was stating that Apple should be free to use other vendors than Intel, for whatever product Apple makes: computers, iPods, iPhones and so on.

In my reply to onlooker, where this all came from, I could have misinterpreted what onlooker said; I'm not sure. Onlooker disagreed with me, but never criticized my reply. (Unlike others in this discussion. Just joking around.)


So then let's get the history correct.

We are talking about Apple's possibilities of going back to, or adding another PPC (or more likely POWER, as the PPC seems to be condemed to the trash shortly) to their lineup sometime in the future.

You think that's possible, while we don't.

So far, so good (I think).

But, then you mentioned the phones, and asked if we though that Apple would use an IBM chip if they came out with one, and if it was better than what was out there. We said that we didn't think they would.

Then you said, and I quote, so that you can see your own words:

Quote:
Why should Apple be more restricted than Dell and HP in what it does? Dell and HP use Intel chips, but do these companies not also use AMD at times?

I replied that AMD and Intel both produce x86 chips, so it doesn't matter which one is used, and that the PPC is quite different, so it's not the same thing at all.

No one is denying that Apple uses other chips when required. But, you have to actually read the entire post we write so carefully. You seem to be skipping most of what we say in your replies. I've said that before. I reply fully to your posts. I give reasons for what I think to be true. I write out a logical argument, give information. I take you seriously.

You ignore all of it.

You must reply to our points. You refuse to do that.
post #100 of 127
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...n-to-32nm.html

Kind of relevant in an indirect sort of way.

"IBM alliance will take the fight with Intel down to 32nm"
By Jon Stokes | Published: May 24, 2007 - 02:43PM CT

Quote:
IBM, Chartered, Samsung, Infineon, and Freescale will all be working together on the next-generation 32nm process, with IBM partner AMD also reaping the benefits through an existing deal. (Recall that 32nm is when IBM will introduce its "airgap" technology.)

In the immortal words of Rosanne RosannaDanna, " You just never know Mr. Feder."
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 #101 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

It's what was, not what is. The Intel chips can emulate PPC chips now, but they had a very hard time doing so with Motorola Chips in 1994.

...

In your previous post, you claimed that the PPC was chosen to emulate 680x0 assembly routines. You were wrong. The PPC was chosen to emulate 680x0 binaries. Learn the difference. In your previous post, you said that PPC processor was the only processor that could do the job. You were wrong. The PPC may have been the best, but there was a huge difference between being the best and being the only. That was true in 1994. It is true now.
post #102 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...n-to-32nm.html

Kind of relevant in an indirect sort of way.

"IBM alliance will take the fight with Intel down to 32nm"
By Jon Stokes | Published: May 24, 2007 - 02:43PM CT



In the immortal words of Rosanne RosannaDanna, " You just never know Mr. Feder."

I don't see how that really changes things from Apple's standpoint. Intel will probably beat IBM to 32nm and have shown that the core microarch. has legs. It would seem to me that IBM would have to go even smaller, faster and lower power than Intel to even get Apple to give them a second look. Why would Apple and Mac users give up the Intel advantages (greater selection of chips, chipsets, Virtualization) just to have ppc chips that are just as fast or only marginally faster than Intels offerings?

I would agree that it's hard to say never but I think Apple will stick with intel through Gesher.
post #103 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

In your previous post, you claimed that the PPC was chosen to emulate 680x0 assembly routines. You were wrong. The PPC was chosen to emulate 680x0 binaries. Learn the difference. In your previous post, you said that PPC processor was the only processor that could do the job. You were wrong. The PPC may have been the best, but there was a huge difference between being the best and being the only. That was true in 1994. It is true now.

I don't mind learning the difference, but the impression that I have is that Apple went with PowerPC because x86 was too slow emulating whatever Assembly code was in the System/Finder software at the time... and if it's so slow that Apple couldn't or wouldn't use it, then yeah, it sounds like PowerPC was essentially their only option. The alternative would be x86 CPUs but System 7 would have been too slow to use and Apple still wasn't capable of getting a new OS out at the time until they bought NeXT.

Sebastian
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #104 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I don't see how that really changes things from Apple's standpoint. Intel will probably beat IBM to 32nm and have shown that the core microarch. has legs. It would seem to me that IBM would have to go even smaller, faster and lower power than Intel to even get Apple to give them a second look. Why would Apple and Mac users give up the Intel advantages (greater selection of chips, chipsets, Virtualization) just to have ppc chips that are just as fast or only marginally faster than Intels offerings?

I would agree that it's hard to say never but I think Apple will stick with intel through Gesher.

No problem here, and yes never is a long time.
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 #105 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


I write out a logical argument, give information. I take you seriously.

You ignore all of it.

You must reply to our points. You refuse to do that.


You are a hard man melgross. No, I don't ignore your information. I might misinterpret what you say, but ignore it? Never. And I take you very seriously. That is why I keep trying to defend myself, and what I say.

Regarding this misunderstanding, onlooker must take half the blame. It's the kind of thing that happens a lot I believe. I took his word literally, rather than seeing the underlying meaning. I'll explain:

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post


. . . Apple got into bed with the PPC years ago and stayed with it for the longest time. Now Apple is in bed with intel, and they will remain there for probably longer.


Onlooker said essentially that Apple used the PPC for a long time, but is now using Intel, when it would have been less confusing to me if he said X86. I took this to mean, at least in part, that Apple is locked into Intel the way Apple was locked into the PPC. So my reply was a general one. Apple is, or should be, free to use any 'vendor' and any chip 'architecture' that Apple wishes to use. That's it. My exact words were:

"Why should Apple be more restricted than Dell and HP in what it does? Dell and HP use Intel chips, but do these companies not also use AMD at times? I don't think Intel expects Apple to never use another chip vendor. What about the iPod and iPhone? These are different enough markets to warrant another vendor if the product is right."

Is this mess getting any clearer?

post #106 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

I don't mind learning the difference,

There is no better time than the present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

but the impression that I have is that Apple went with PowerPC because x86 was too slow emulating whatever Assembly code was in the System/Finder software at the time...

Impressions are not facts. And once again, computers do not run assembly language. Assembly is a low-level human-readable language which is compiled into binary or machine language. Computers run binaries. An emulator runs the binary of one computer on a computer with a different ISA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

and if it's so slow that Apple couldn't or wouldn't use it, then yeah, it sounds like PowerPC was essentially their only option. The alternative would be x86 CPUs but System 7 would have been too slow to use and Apple still wasn't capable of getting a new OS out at the time until they bought NeXT.

...

There are rumors dating back to the late 1980s of Star Trek, an x86-based Mac. However, x86 was not a serious candidate as the replacement for the 680x0:

The early 1990s was the era of the Pentium which couldn't do [floating point] math.

Intel processors of the era--the 386, 486, Pentium, and Pentium II--produced enormous amounts of heat. Each successive family required x86 OEMs to reengineer their offerings to deal with the heat. Heat production was one of the things which killed the Pentium II for general-purpose computing.

There was a general consensus that RISC was the future of computing. The x86 was antediluvian even by CISC standards. There were several RISC alternatives. HP had Precision Architecture. Sun Microsystems had SPARC. DEC had Alpha. IBM had POWER. And Motorola had 88000. The 88x00 was the early frontrunner to replace Motorola's 680x0 as the brains of the Mac. NeXT designed but never sold the NeXT RISC Workstation based on the 88x00. The Data General AViiON midrange was based on the 88x00. The AViiON was the subject of one of the most important books about computers in the 1990s.

Apple's stated reason for going with POWER was that its ISA was better suited for emulation than Motorola's 88x00. This is no doubt true--partially. However, I am convinced that another important consideration was the choice turned IBM into a partner. In the early 1990s, IBM was a pretty good partner to have.
post #107 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post


Onlooker said essentially that Apple used the PPC for a long time, but is now using Intel, when it would have been less confusing to me if he said X86. I took this to mean, at least in part, that Apple is locked into Intel the way Apple was locked into the PPC. So my reply was a general one. Apple is, or should be, free to use any 'vendor' and any chip 'architecture' that Apple wishes to use. That's it. My exact words were:


Is this mess getting any clearer?


I used "PPC" because it was more than just IBM. There was the IAM PPC alliance. Now Apple is still innovating, but with intel.
Intel, I don't believe, is as difficult to work with as IBM and motorola were, but I don't see Apple partnering with AMD for anything. They have no reason to. And AMD is in bed with IBM from time to time so I don't really don't see Apple going there. Don't forget that IBM basically told Apple they were not worth their time. Apple didn't take kindly to that. What do you think Apple is going to do? Get big enough to be worth their time and come crawling back to them and say are we big enough now.... Will you do our chips for us again Big Blue? Apple is going to shove it down their throats. And with intel of all people. You never would have believed it 4 years ago.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #108 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

I don't mind learning the difference, but the impression that I have is that Apple went with PowerPC because x86 was too slow emulating whatever Assembly code was in the System/Finder software at the time... and if it's so slow that Apple couldn't or wouldn't use it, then yeah, it sounds like PowerPC was essentially their only option. The alternative would be x86 CPUs but System 7 would have been too slow to use and Apple still wasn't capable of getting a new OS out at the time until they bought NeXT.

Sebastian

Let's be clear about something here. Going back to 68xxx chips, Apple had a better time of it than x86 users did.

The Moto 68xxx line was simply a better IP. It was a 16/32 bit chip, where Intel's was at first an 8/16 bit chip. The memory model was vastly better, etc. No question about it. At that time, Intel was not quite the powerhouse, or had the best process, just the opposite. IBM invested plenty in Intel, back in the eighties, because it was afraid that Intel might go out of business. That investment required Intel to share their IP with others. IBM itself was making x86 chips for a while, until Intel grew bigger and strong enough that IBM lost the concern that they would be in trouble.

Apple had NO intention of going to x86. It wasn't even a question. I was around back then, and I remember it well. I still have many computer mags from that era, and the idea was not even brought up as speculation. Just the opposite.

Apple went with the PPC because of all of that, and the continuity of remaining with Moto. They were considered to be the high end chip manufacturer then. Don't forget that Apple was also working on OSes with IBM (Pink, Taligent), and had a business relationship. IBM, Moto, and Apple formed the consortium to design, and built the PPC line together. Apple contributed micro code, among other things.

The PPC was a much better processor than the new Pentium.

The prediction was that it would take the computer market over from x86.

And, it might have, if MS didn't decide to discontinue NT for PPC shortly after its appearance.

The PPC line continued to give Apple a big performance advantage over the PC (esp. after Windows 3.1 came out, which wiped out the advantage PC's had over Apple's bitmapped OS)

The Mac was often 30% faster in integer, and 40% faster in float over comparable speed x86 chip machines.

When Altivec came out, that advantage increased to 100%, or more, for those operations that could be vectorized.

When I bought my daughter the new 450MHz G4, it was the fastest personal computer in the world, by a good margin.

It was only after a year, or so, when Moto continued to fail to deliver new higher speed chips secveral times a year as they had been dong previously, that Apple's performance faltered.

It took somewhat over a year, when Intel's chips reached 1 GHz, that PC's began to reliabibly outpace Apple's. Shortly before that, Apple began delivering dual chip machines.
post #109 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post


Don't forget that IBM basically told Apple they were not worth their time. Apple didn't take kindly to that. What do you think Apple is going to do? . . .


Yeah, that is one aspect of it that I didn't take into account. Steve didn't take kindly to IBM's actions. He likely got great pleasure making the announcement that Apple is going with Intel chips.

However, I was mentally getting a different picture. IBM sees the profit that can be made selling PPC phone chips to everyone. IBM's design crew whips up a chip that significantly outperforms ARM, and approaches Apple. Apple does the smart thing and designs it into the iPhone, giving Apple yet another advantage over the competition.

IBM picks Apple because the iPhone is an advanced design and gets a lot of attention. IBM knows that the other vendors will follow Apple in selecting the IBM phone chip, in an attempt to stay competitive. IBM approaches business in an intelligent manner and does not mind apologizing to Apple. Business is business, and personal feeling just get in the way.

Will the chip be in the first iPhone? I doubt it, but I'd give it the weather forecast odds of 5 or 10 percent chance of happening sometime. I don't expect you to agree with me. This is just the fun of discussions.

post #110 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Yeah, that is one aspect of it that I didn't take into account. Steve didn't take kindly to IBM's actions. He likely got great pleasure making the announcement that Apple is going with Intel chips.

However, I was mentally getting a different picture. IBM sees the profit that can be made selling PPC phone chips to everyone. IBM's design crew whips up a chip that significantly outperforms ARM, and approaches Apple. Apple does the smart thing and designs it into the iPhone, giving Apple yet another advantage over the competition.

IBM picks Apple because the iPhone is an advanced design and gets a lot of attention. IBM knows that the other vendors will follow Apple in selecting the IBM phone chip, in an attempt to stay competitive. IBM approaches business in an intelligent manner and does not mind apologizing to Apple. Business is business, and personal feeling just get in the way.

Will the chip be in the first iPhone? I doubt it, but I'd give it the weather forecast odds of 5 or 10 percent chance of happening sometime. I don't expect you to agree with me. This is just the fun of discussions.


Too many assumptions.

It would cost IBM a good $200 million, or more, to develop a chip for a phone. Given the heavy competition in that space, it's unlikely they would consider it.

Why would you assume that IBM, or anyone, could do more than design a new chip that is anything more than incrementally better than what is out at the time?

And are the other leading manufacturers, who have the IP for this, and the patents, standing still? IBM would have to work around that.

And IBM would "pick" Apple? No manufacturer picks a customer. they announce their impending product at the appropriate trade fair, and describe it.

The potential customers look at what is presented, and if they are interested, THEY make advances to see more, under non-disclosure rules.

If they like what they see, they MAY ask for samples, when, and if they are produced, which depends on the interest shown by those potential customers. Mind you, the word is customers. With an "s". They won't produce product without a broad interest level.
post #111 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addison View Post

As OSX is now capable of running on both architectures and mosr apps universal binaries, this leaves the door open to use the best of both worlds. Is it likely that say a Power 6 could be used in a high end server whilst using Intel in desktop machines?

yeah, heard about the all-powerful, Power 6, could be. I think AMD has a lot to bring to the table the future too, perhaps that is why the santa rosa didn't make it in the macbooks, they could be waiting for AMD, which historically has been innovative where it needs to be. Power 6 on the server side though, should get interesting.
post #112 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunkDifferent.com View Post


yeah, heard about the all-powerful, Power 6, could be. . . . Power 6 on the server side though, should get interesting.


I'm a little out of date, but the last I heard, the Power Series were huge processors in a cast the size of a VCR tape. (Well, that may be exagerating a little. ) The Power Series is for mainframe computers, nothing that Apple would be building anytime soon.

Apple used the PPC, a condensed version of the Power Series. The G5 or 970 PPC was modeled after the Power 4. So a PPC modeled after the Power 6 might be called a G6. Since there is no PPC modeled on the Power 5, the G numbers would finally be even with the Power Series number.

Now that Apple is partnered with Intel, we may have a future Mac chip based on the Itanium. Lord help us if that happens.
post #113 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunkDifferent.com View Post

yeah, heard about the all-powerful, Power 6, could be. I think AMD has a lot to bring to the table the future too, perhaps that is why the santa rosa didn't make it in the macbooks, they could be waiting for AMD, which historically has been innovative where it needs to be. Power 6 on the server side though, should get interesting.

I wouldn't count out Santa Rosa in a MBP. I think Apple doing to the MacBook what they always do with the MacBook. Keep the price down so it's affordable. MBP is a completely different monster. And it needs to run Apples Pro Apps with speed. It's not built, or marketed around affordability. That would be a bad idea.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #114 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


Too many assumptions.


Nothing like a cold dose of reality to spoil a perfectly wonderful theory.

Seriously though, I think your criticisms are over zealous, though they have a lot of merit. When a company proceeds very cautiously, there is danger of not doing anything really significant. A successful entrepreneur once told me my business plan was garbage, because I had contingencies for everything, in the event it didn't succeed. "You can't be a success if you plan for everything to fail," were his words to me. He may have been too extreme, but there is something to what he said.


Quote:

It would cost IBM a good $200 million, or more, to develop a chip for a phone. Given the heavy competition in that space, it's unlikely they would consider it.


This admonition is valid when a company does not have a better mouse trap. If the market is large enough, IBM could have been exploring a phone processor for some time now. If preliminary studies were promising, IBM may have gone on to building prototypes.


Quote:

Why would you assume that IBM, or anyone, could do more than design a new chip that is anything more than incrementally better than what is out at the time?. . . And are the other leading manufacturers, who have the IP for this, and the patents, standing still? IBM would have to work around that.


This is IBM, big IBM with some top talent. If the market is big enough, IBM may consider it worth pursuing.


Quote:

And IBM would "pick" Apple? No manufacturer picks a customer. they announce their impending product at the appropriate trade fair, and describe it.


Normal procedure, true. Yet, is it against the rules to do something different? In the case of a phone processor, which is an established market, a new strategy could be called for. Get it into a high profile product like the iPhone. It would call attention to the processor. Typically, nobody gives a rip about what processor is in a phone. This approach could change things, and make all cell phone vendors take notice, because the public is taking notice.

post #115 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Nothing like a cold dose of reality to spoil a perfectly wonderful theory.

Seriously though, I think your criticisms are over zealous, though they have a lot of merit. When a company proceeds very cautiously, there is danger of not doing anything really significant. A successful entrepreneur once told me my business plan was garbage, because I had contingencies for everything, in the event it didn't succeed. "You can't be a success if you plan for everything to fail," were his words to me. He may have been too extreme, but there is something to what he said.

Having had two sucessful businesses, I would have to say that you must always have a backup plan or two. you also must be fully financed. One reason why many businesses fail is because they haven't enough capital.

Quote:
This admonition is valid when a company does not have a better mouse trap. If the market is large enough, IBM could have been exploring a phone processor for some time now. If preliminary studies were promising, IBM may have gone on to building prototypes.

We would have heard about a new processor from IBM long before prototypes are built. That's the very last process in a long drawn out string of steps that must be taken. Before they are ready to tape out, all potential customers have been thoroughly informed at the public forums, as I said earlier. Just as almost all new processes are announced years before they are undertaken, new chip families are also announced well before any possible manufacture.

That's just the way it's done.

Quote:
This is IBM, big IBM with some top talent. If the market is big enough, IBM may consider it worth pursuing.

Everyone has top talent. IBM is not special here. How do you think Intel was able to turn their shjp around so quickly? And what about Broadcom, and Qualcomm, and others? They almost invented the industry. They also have top talent.

If their talent was so great, what happened to the G5, both desktop and portable?

Quote:
Normal procedure, true. Yet, is it against the rules to do something different? In the case of a phone processor, which is an established market, a new strategy could be called for. Get it into a high profile product like the iPhone. It would call attention to the processor. Typically, nobody gives a rip about what processor is in a phone. This approach could change things, and make all cell phone vendors take notice, because the public is taking notice.


It's normal procedure, because that's the way it's done. Always. They MAY ask a company if it's interested, but that's all.

If their product is so superior, they certainly don't need Apple as a special customer. After all, even Apple expects to take only 1% of the business. These aren't iPods.
post #116 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


We would have heard about a new processor from IBM long before prototypes are built. That's the very last process in a long drawn out string of steps that must be taken. Before they are ready to tape out, all potential customers have been thoroughly informed at the public forums, as I said earlier. Just as almost all new processes are announced years before they are undertaken, new chip families are also announced well before any possible manufacture.

That's just the way it's done.


Well, we didn't hear about the G5 except for a vague paper to be given at a future microprocessor conference. There were rumors, but the information came after Apple announced it. I could be a little off on that, but not much. I was following the rumors.

We would have known even less about the 970 MP dual core G5, if someone hadn't posted a PDF spec sheet of it on AppleInsider forum. Since security has gotten tighter, I suspect a cell phone chip development program could be kept secret today.

The reason IBM might offer it to Apple first would be strictly marketing. Get it into a high profile product first to show off its advantages. The rest of the market will come when the demand for the new chip grows. This is not such a far out scheme.

post #117 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Well, we didn't hear about the G5 except for a vague paper to be given at a future microprocessor conference. There were rumors, but the information came after Apple announced it. I could be a little off on that, but not much. I was following the rumors.

No, we heard about the G5 well in advance of its appearance, at the annual microprocessor conference. that's where all the chip companies make announcements about new technology, and products. They also show off their wares, and pre-production samples, working, if possible.

This isn't a rumors conference, even though that may be the way you get your news.

Try this site. It's from the conferences.

http://www.mdronline.com/mpr/index.html

Quote:
We would have known even less about the 970 MP dual core G5, if someone hadn't posted a PDF spec sheet of it on AppleInsider forum. Since security has gotten tighter, I suspect a cell phone chip development program could be kept secret today.

No, YOU wouldn't have known.

Quote:
The reason IBM might offer it to Apple first would be strictly marketing. Get it into a high profile product first to show off its advantages. The rest of the market will come when the demand for the new chip grows. This is not such a far out scheme.


What they do is make it known to the industry in plenty of time for everyone to find out what they need. Whoever is interested makes it known.

I don't know why you have to make up scenarios that don't exist.
post #118 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


No, we heard about the G5 well in advance of its appearance, at the annual microprocessor conference.


Did you check the dates of both this conference and the G5 Power Macintosh introduction? We heard the G5 paper just a couple weeks or so before Apple showed off the G5 Mac, just enough time to peak everybody's interest in Apple's announcement. This is not what you implied at all in a previous statement you made.

Quote:

We would have heard about a new processor from IBM long before prototypes are built.


So, rather than hearing about the G5 long before prototypes were built, as you claim, we in fact heard about it only after G5s was already in production at IBM's Fishkill manufacturing facility. Your estimate is off by about 18 months, no?



Quote:

I don't know why you have to make up scenarios that don't exist.


Regarding the G5, IBM already did what I suggested that IBM do with a phone processor, keep it a secret until it is announced in a fairly high profile product. So why is my phone chip scenario that difficult to believe? Unless it has been disclosed otherwise, IBM could be in full production of a PPC phone chip at this very moment. I don't expect it, but there is already a precedence for something like this.

post #119 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Apple had NO intention of going to x86. It wasn't even a question. I was around back then, and I remember it well. I still have many computer mags from that era, and the idea was not even brought up as speculation. Just the opposite.

Apple went with the PPC because of all of that, and the continuity of remaining with Moto. They were considered to be the high end chip manufacturer then. Don't forget that Apple was also working on OSes with IBM (Pink, Taligent), and had a business relationship. IBM, Moto, and Apple formed the consortium to design, and built the PPC line together. Apple contributed micro code, among other things.

The PPC was a much better processor than the new Pentium.

The prediction was that it would take the computer market over from x86.

And, it might have, if MS didn't decide to discontinue NT for PPC shortly after its appearance.

The PPC line continued to give Apple a big performance advantage over the PC (esp. after Windows 3.1 came out, which wiped out the advantage PC's had over Apple's bitmapped OS)

The Mac was often 30% faster in integer, and 40% faster in float over comparable speed x86 chip machines.

When Altivec came out, that advantage increased to 100%, or more, for those operations that could be vectorized.

When I bought my daughter the new 450MHz G4, it was the fastest personal computer in the world, by a good margin.

It was only after a year, or so, when Moto continued to fail to deliver new higher speed chips secveral times a year as they had been dong previously, that Apple's performance faltered.

It took somewhat over a year, when Intel's chips reached 1 GHz, that PC's began to reliabibly outpace Apple's. Shortly before that, Apple began delivering dual chip machines.

Thank god some people here are old enough to remember that...

I remember the days where everyone was naive enough to believe that the whole PC industry was going to move to the PPC based Common Hardware Reference Platform (CHRP). At the time, the x86 platform was really a mess (it got much better since then), and the goal was to move personal computing forward to a well defined platform basis. RISC cpus were seen as the "cpus of the future" and many believed that they would replace CISC chips.

CHRP PCs would've run a variety of OSes, Windows NT, UNIX, Mac OS (Copland), Taligent and other futuristic vaporware OSes. Everything appeared to be going nice and well, until Microsoft decided to back-off and discontinue work on the PPC version of NT. With MS out of the picture, CHRP simply couldn't have become what it was intended for.

As for the PPC, as you mentioned, in the first few years it was noticeably faster than Pentiums. And not only because it was faster at the same clock speed, but during those days Moto was releasing PPC that had a faster clock speed than the fastest Pentium.

But around the time the PPC hit 500Mhz, troubles began... Not only Moto had problems actually producing and shipping the chips, but it took something like a year and a half until they were able to break the 500Mhz barrier. It took them an eternity to reach 1Ghz, and Moto never reached 2Ghz with the G4. Then we have the G5 IBM story, which the rest of you kids should know about.
post #120 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Did you check the dates of both this conference and the G5 Power Macintosh introduction? We heard the G5 paper just a couple weeks or so before Apple showed off the G5 Mac, just enough time to peak everybody's interest in Apple's announcement. This is not what you implied at all in a previous statement you made.

What are you talking about? That's wrong.

Quote:
So, rather than hearing about the G5 long before prototypes were built, as you claim, we in fact heard about it only after G5s was already in production at IBM's Fishkill manufacturing facility. Your estimate is off by about 18 months, no?

No.

Quote:
Regarding the G5, IBM already did what I suggested that IBM do with a phone processor, keep it a secret until it is announced in a fairly high profile product. So why is my phone chip scenario that difficult to believe? Unless it has been disclosed otherwise, IBM could be in full production of a PPC phone chip at this very moment. I don't expect it, but there is already a precedence for something like this.


No.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Will Apple use another Power PC processor?