[quote]Apple does a Photoshop bakeoff - 2GHz Pentium Mac vs. 2GHz Pentium PC and the Mac STILL kicks *** because the OS is inherently faster...that's a lot more impressive to consumers than reading through the MHz myth. <hr></blockquote>
There is no reason to think this would happen.
In fact, if both Macs and PCs had the same CPUs, then it would be one less reason to buy a Mac. Currently the G4 is faster at SOME things. If Apple can ever get a fast PPC chip with Altivec, they will be able to sell Macs that toast Wintels at virtually every task.
Some of you seem to forget that if Apple switched to Intel and or AMD, they'd always have the chips the competition would also have. Thus there would be virtually no way to have a faster machine than the competition, only the other chipsets could be faster, and that is generally a small margin.
Also it would likely enable users to run Apple's OS on non-Apple hardware, and that can't be in Apple's interest.
The whole "let's move to x86" blasphemy is simply based on teenage wet dreams and total lack of considerations.
Does anyone really think that Apple is secretly working on a PowerPC chip? They are part of the alliance. It makes more sense than them switching to x86. They have full rights to make a processor based on the Book-E implementation. Licensing Altivec would be a trivial matter and the burden of making a high MHz processor for desktop use would be lifted off of Motorolas back. Apple could contract any number of manufacturers to produce the chip. There are some cheap Taiwanese companies and also IBM and Motorola are possibilities. Anyone knows who manufactures their support chips now? Is it still TI?
<strong>Does anyone really think that Apple is secretly working on a PowerPC chip?</strong><hr></blockquote>Sure. I believe they played a role in designing previous chips, too.
Sort of speaking about G-News comment; moving to x86 architecture would be a bad idea, they would lose their hardware division and most of the company. Then again Microsoft is threatening to cut Windows out (like it would happen anyways), but someone would need to take over the monopoly. If it wasn't about the hardware Apple would be just the guys to do it. The best OS out there for the common user.
I also think that apple has taken a large part of developing the G5, but we just don't know, but with the attitude MOTO seems to have at the moment, who knows??
I also think that apple has taken a large part of developing the G5, but we just don't know, but with the attitude MOTO seems to have at the moment, who knows??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Given that Apple played a large role in developing the PowerPC itself (the project lead was an Apple employee), the G3, and the G4, I would not be in the least bit surprised to find out that they have a hand or two in the G5 - whatever that turns out to be.
I also wouldn't be surprised if they come up with some interesting uses for the modularity Book E allows. We might see more designs than just chip-with-L3 and same-chip-without-L3 in the future.
I don't think they're going to drop PPC anytime soon. However, if they were planning it (or even have it as some kinda last ditch contingency plan) then the Wintel transition from 32bit to 64bit would be the obvious time to do it. At that time x86 software will be under the a similar transition as 68K to PPC. It'd be a good time to switch for macs as well because neither side will offer perfect compatibility to either customers or developers and thus no real incentive to abandon one platform for the other (at least not over compatibilty issues). Likely a switch from 32bit to 64bit PPC wouldn't be perfectly clean either, so if there are going to be issues for backwards compatibility and devs in any case, that is your one chance to minimize the relative pains of changing platforms.
A few months ago some company claimed it could do a very good job of emulating PPC on AMD hardware. hmmm... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> nah
Matsu, that company that ran PPC on an AMD is called Transitive Technologies, they use software called Dynamite to run PPC code at 1Ghz on a 1.4Ghz AMD athlon.
However, this technology is difficult to use, as it would take a lot of skill to be able to use altivec emulated instructions using a pentiums SIMD (or whatever it is).
In fact, if both Macs and PCs had the same CPUs, then it would be one less reason to buy a Mac. Currently the G4 is faster at SOME things. If Apple can ever get a fast PPC chip with Altivec, they will be able to sell Macs that toast Wintels at virtually every task.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's a good chance it would happen, because the Mac OS by pure design takes less power to run than Windows - it's one of the features that allows us to remain competitive on speed despite the GHz-Gap. (Before you attack me, note that I'm not saying it's the only reason, the main reason, etc. - it is *A* reason). Thus, it stands to reason that running on the same hardware, the Mac would still be faster than Windows - universally, not just at some things, because more processor power can be devoted to application tasks and less to the OS. That's the type of thing that consumers would respond to ("The Mac OS is so efficient, it trumps Windows apps even on the same hardware.")
[quote]There's a good chance it would happen, because the Mac OS by pure design takes less power to run than Windows - it's one of the features that allows us to remain competitive on speed despite the GHz-Gap. (Before you attack me, note that I'm not saying it's the only reason, the main reason, etc. - it is *A* reason). Thus, it stands to reason that running on the same hardware, the Mac would still be faster than Windows - universally, not just at some things, because more processor power can be devoted to application tasks and less to the OS. That's the type of thing that consumers would respond to ("The Mac OS is so efficient, it trumps Windows apps even on the same hardware.")<hr></blockquote>
<strong>Fact: Motorola makes the fastest available PowerPC, and has done for about two years. This is ANY WAY YOU COUNT IT - megahertz, or real benchmarks. IBM, for all its bluster, makes second-class chips when it comes to desktop PowerPCs.
</strong> <hr></blockquote>
Well there isn't much reason for IBM TO make the fastest PowerPC chips right now, is there? If they went to all the trouble of designing/manufacturing them, they still couldn't sell them to Apple until the current PowerPC agreement has reached its end this summer.
You could go down to your basement and make the fastest PowerPC chip ever conceived, but if nobody's buying I'm betting you're not gonna think it's worth the time or trouble.
Not to mention the fact that if they do have something like that going on, it's more than likely not being publicized to anyone except Apple execs who can keep their mouths shut about it.
If they went to all the trouble of designing/manufacturing them, they still couldn't sell them to Apple until the current PowerPC agreement has reached its end this summer.
Is this a fact? Does the current agreement end this summer? maybe the G5 is ready but waiting in the wings for the legalities to subside...
Is this a fact? Does the current agreement end this summer? maybe the G5 is ready but waiting in the wings for the legalities to subside...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the way it works now, as I understand it, is that Moto must be the main supplier,and Apple can go to IBM for some short period of time (90 days rings a bell) in the event of a shortage from Moto...but not just because IBM has a better chip. It's caused a lot of tension between the parties at different times during the partnership, and I'm sure that come this summer when things are due to be reworked, some sort of alternate agreement will be reached...anything from letting Apple choose its provider (and thus promote some real competition between the two other partners), or Apple has the option to buy full PPC rights to do with as it pleases.
Comments
There is no reason to think this would happen.
In fact, if both Macs and PCs had the same CPUs, then it would be one less reason to buy a Mac. Currently the G4 is faster at SOME things. If Apple can ever get a fast PPC chip with Altivec, they will be able to sell Macs that toast Wintels at virtually every task.
Also it would likely enable users to run Apple's OS on non-Apple hardware, and that can't be in Apple's interest.
The whole "let's move to x86" blasphemy is simply based on teenage wet dreams and total lack of considerations.
G-News
<strong>Does anyone really think that Apple is secretly working on a PowerPC chip?</strong><hr></blockquote>Sure. I believe they played a role in designing previous chips, too.
Over .................................................. .......Over
Here .................................................. .......Here
.. | .................................................. .............|
. V .................................................. .............V
ROCK .................................................. .... HARD
.................................................. ..............PLACE
[ 03-05-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
<strong>Why do you think apple haven't dumped MOTO?
Over .................................................. .......Over
Here .................................................. .......Here
.. | .................................................. .............|
. V .................................................. .............V
ROCK .................................................. .... HARD
.................................................. ..............PLACE
[ 03-05-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
If this is true and apple's entire product line is being dictated to by matters they cannot control then surely apple are screwed.
What happens if MOTO embark on another G4 fiasco where they cannot supply what they claim (or god forbid even with the G5)?
I also think that apple has taken a large part of developing the G5, but we just don't know, but with the attitude MOTO seems to have at the moment, who knows??
<strong>Thanks for the info Amorph.
I also think that apple has taken a large part of developing the G5, but we just don't know, but with the attitude MOTO seems to have at the moment, who knows??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Given that Apple played a large role in developing the PowerPC itself (the project lead was an Apple employee), the G3, and the G4, I would not be in the least bit surprised to find out that they have a hand or two in the G5 - whatever that turns out to be.
I also wouldn't be surprised if they come up with some interesting uses for the modularity Book E allows. We might see more designs than just chip-with-L3 and same-chip-without-L3 in the future.
A few months ago some company claimed it could do a very good job of emulating PPC on AMD hardware. hmmm... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> nah
However, this technology is difficult to use, as it would take a lot of skill to be able to use altivec emulated instructions using a pentiums SIMD (or whatever it is).
<strong>
There is no reason to think this would happen.
In fact, if both Macs and PCs had the same CPUs, then it would be one less reason to buy a Mac. Currently the G4 is faster at SOME things. If Apple can ever get a fast PPC chip with Altivec, they will be able to sell Macs that toast Wintels at virtually every task.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's a good chance it would happen, because the Mac OS by pure design takes less power to run than Windows - it's one of the features that allows us to remain competitive on speed despite the GHz-Gap. (Before you attack me, note that I'm not saying it's the only reason, the main reason, etc. - it is *A* reason). Thus, it stands to reason that running on the same hardware, the Mac would still be faster than Windows - universally, not just at some things, because more processor power can be devoted to application tasks and less to the OS. That's the type of thing that consumers would respond to ("The Mac OS is so efficient, it trumps Windows apps even on the same hardware.")
S
Linkage?
Anything?
Beuller?
<strong>Fact: Motorola makes the fastest available PowerPC, and has done for about two years. This is ANY WAY YOU COUNT IT - megahertz, or real benchmarks. IBM, for all its bluster, makes second-class chips when it comes to desktop PowerPCs.
</strong> <hr></blockquote>
Well there isn't much reason for IBM TO make the fastest PowerPC chips right now, is there? If they went to all the trouble of designing/manufacturing them, they still couldn't sell them to Apple until the current PowerPC agreement has reached its end this summer.
You could go down to your basement and make the fastest PowerPC chip ever conceived, but if nobody's buying I'm betting you're not gonna think it's worth the time or trouble.
Not to mention the fact that if they do have something like that going on, it's more than likely not being publicized to anyone except Apple execs who can keep their mouths shut about it.
S
Is this a fact? Does the current agreement end this summer? maybe the G5 is ready but waiting in the wings for the legalities to subside...
<strong>
Is this a fact? Does the current agreement end this summer? maybe the G5 is ready but waiting in the wings for the legalities to subside...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the way it works now, as I understand it, is that Moto must be the main supplier,and Apple can go to IBM for some short period of time (90 days rings a bell) in the event of a shortage from Moto...but not just because IBM has a better chip. It's caused a lot of tension between the parties at different times during the partnership, and I'm sure that come this summer when things are due to be reworked, some sort of alternate agreement will be reached...anything from letting Apple choose its provider (and thus promote some real competition between the two other partners), or Apple has the option to buy full PPC rights to do with as it pleases.
S