<strong>Maybe I missed it but where is the conformation I am sure I missed it where did Steve Jobs say we will be using X86 chips for Mac OS X next year?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It was taken out of context by Yahoo. But anyway Jobs said before they consider that possibility they will want to complete the OSX migration by the end of the year. After that, they will consider it an option to go the X86 route. Nothing has been done so far.
I don't know if anybody saw this today but somebody posted this on the Yahoo! financial site messge board. I didn't think much of it but when I saw the CNET Neff article.... maybe there is something in the water here.
Imagine for just one second that Apple had already made a completely successful transition to x86 (or Itanium2, or AMD-Hammer). They're selling at about the same pace hardware-wise as they are currently - somewhere in the top ten PC manufacturers.
They are _NOT_ anywhere near price competitive! In fact, it's substantially worse! The price-per-chip in PC-land is more than double the price-per-chip in PPC-land. Not to mention that the non-performance aspects of the PPC are so much better than for the x86 chips (heat, power-used) that it would drastically affect the industrial design. (Read, no more fanless anything, ever). Note also that the non-Dell box makers are whining that they can't realize the same economies of scale as Dell, which has them all haemorraging. Badly. All that extra difference in cost is just tacked up on top leading to a lot less $/computer for Apple.
Another aspect that would crop up: Apple uses hardware sales to subsidize R & D (read OS development). Dell doesn't spend much on OS development. So the price disparity will continue ad infinitum. (And if you don't think MS would ride a year of losses to kill a direct competitor, you're confused. They'd do it with a direct order from the justice department not to.)
So...
Two things going on.
1) Analyst talking to hear himself.
2) A remark from SJ that includes a comment about 'Mot & IBM roadmap look ok'. The full comment pretty clearly does _not_ point any specific directions, (as the title of this thread claims). Options good. Duh.
What roadmap?
There's all sorts of interesting things in the Mot8560 (which is NOT the G5, it's an embedded part). But... at most it seems like a 1.4 GHz out of Mot in the next 6mo. Dual 1.4s + OS improvements/graphics card improvements... A very solid computer. For now.
The real question is, why was IBM mentioned? The only thing they've made for Apple recently is the G3s in the iMacs. It was widely reported a year or two ago that IBM was grudgingly purchasing the right to manufacture AltiVec enabled things [remember back to the 'stuck at 500 MHz for way too long' fiasco?] A full Power4/5 would be insane. But the chip's instruction set is very similar, so it's conceivable that there's a desktop variant of them. And AltiVec is supposed to be a 5-10% increase in chip size. (Or it was on the first G4s compared to the then-current G3s). That's not so much.
Also note that Apple has the right to buy out the IP involved with G4 development. This could mean they could shop around. But, it can't be transmeta(not speedy enough), it can't be AMD (bleeding too bad), and it can't be Intel(bad blood) that's doing the fabbing.
The one area Apple could legitimately fight in a price/performance war vs x86 is when you start really ramping the number of CPUs up. Not 2x, 4x, keep going. Then the price difference between the ppc chips and the x86 chips starts to mount up quick. And they've been buying up chunks of a market that pays a STIFF price for their widgets. Not hard to sell a Shake monster machine bundled _with_ Shake for $12000 when the base price of Shake for the pc is $10000.
Anything that trickles down into the $3000 price range from there would be just dandy with me.
OS X on a PC could happen a year or more from now, but it would not be an savior of Apple, just a move to increase market share. There are two big issues.
First, it would be a support nightmare to make a blanket port to all PCs. So, if it happens I believe it will be to special motherboards, maybe teaming up with AMD. It will be a "See, OS X is available on the PC" marketing move. It would not replace the primary PowerPC Macs. An interesting thing about such a special OS X PC is that it could be made dual boot, and run Windows too.
Second is software. An OS X PC will not run existing Mac software. Its needs all new applications. Sure, it may not be a difficult port, but it still requires making new versions to sell. I don't think Apple would do this unless their market share goes a lot higher.
The PPC is the way to go, really. Look at what STI is up to. From what I hear, IBM will be providing a PPC processor for the PlayStation 3, and they likely hope to blow the Intel based XBox out of the water. IBM's new plant is for something big. Apple and IBM could both benefit by using this technology to also make desktop PPCs for Apple. Likely G4 replacements and on to the G5 too. I beleive Apple has taken care of the AltiVec issue, and have rights to use it. Probably the SIMD in the Apple PPC will be like AltiVec. The SIMD in the PlayStation 3 PPC will be something else, unless Sony and Toshiba are in on using it too.
some smart guy predicts apple will use intel and gives it an 80% change of happening in 2 to 4 years.</strong><hr></blockquote>The analyst really doesn't say a lot of any worth and a great deal of his conclusions seem basically plucked out of some fairly flawed thinking without a great deal to back it up.
Sorry but just about every company is making a push for a services based model of operation. I wrote a paper earlier in the year on that very subject, the shift from a resource to service driven economy.
I really wouldn't be inclined to listen to this guy as an analyst.
if AMD had Apple as a customer, perhaps they'd do better financially. how many PC boxmakers can AMD really count on anyhow? perhaps having Apple purchase large numbers of processors at a reliable rate might improve their financial status.
AMD is lean, mean and hungry. they want to do business.
<strong>I have four words regarding apple switching to intel: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmmmm... can you sign me up as a beneficiary?
A few points real quick.
1) Why do people think Apple must pick x86 _or_ a new PPC chip? "Options" are not gained by simply picking one or the other.
2) Once an application has been carbonized, or written in cocoa, making it work on another architecture really *isn't* that hard -- your primary problems will be dealing with endian issues, which generally only rear their ugly heads when reading/writing to the disk, and handling network packets.
3) Anyone coding for Mac OS X already has AltiVec special-cased for if they use it at all (which unfortunately few developers outside of Apple do). They do this so that their code runs on G3's.
4) Changing the processor core of a Mac doesn't change much, really -- what makes it a Mac isn't the CPU -- the transition from 68K to PPC proved that fairly well.
5) If Apple went with another processor architecture such as x86, that doesn't mean they need to make their OS work on _any_ x86 box (and the driver nightmare that entails), but rather just the boxen Apple produces.
6) If XP can also boot on said machines, well, that's a nice way to get past purchasing departments in corporate America.
I posted the message below on another rumor site's forum that I won't mention here. I post it again here simply because it's the same topic, and I still think much of it applies.
Sorry for anyone who had to read my rant twice...
----------
There is absolutely ZERO possibility that Apple will move to Intel chips in their own machines.Â* Not this year, not ever.Â* If anything, Apple might consider moving to AMD Athlon chips, and their future brethren.Â* Why?
a) AMD is another company that is in an "underdog" position like Apple, as far as overall market share, and Apple would be far more likely to want to invest money on AMD than the behemoth Intel.
b) Simple fact of the matter is than AMD Athlon chips are far superior in speed, at least when compared to Intel P4 chips.Â* I can't speak for Itanium, because I don't know anything about them and frankly don't care to.Â*
But even with AMD being a good chip and a far better friend to Apple than Intel ever would be, I still don't see it happening.Â* In fact, much of this Apple/AMD craze occurred because of rumors that Apple was talking to AMD about MANUFACTURING chips for them.Â* NOT designing chips for Apple...but using their facilities for manufacturing...what chip exactly (Apple designed or otherwise) was never stated.Â* That is the basis of much of this rampant (and untrue) Apple/x86 speculation.
Nor do I buy Apple shipping OS X for x86 ever.Â* There are a million reasons why it would look to the computer world as Apple "admitting defeat", and Jobs would never stand for that.
Something is up with IBM...all the signs point there.Â* The 700 MHz IBM G3 in the latest iBook is an amazing chip, only missing Altivec to be an otherwise superior design (for the majority of computing functions) to the Motorola G4 series.Â* And these latest rumors all SEEM to add up:
1) IBM just announced a major chip manufacturing plant, with the primary focus being Power4 chips.Â* IBM did NOT just spend billions of dollars to open up a manufacturing plant for Sony Playstation 3 chips...
2) While different in many ways that the real tech-heads can explain, the Power4 chips essentially CAN/DO run G3/G4 software.Â* But the major difference is that they are missing AltiVec, which OS X is optimized for.Â* (One more reason why going to Intel/AMD is a step BACKWARD...)
3) Reported many times, but often forgotten or mistaken, Apple has a contract with Motorola that expires THIS summer (2002) that gives them to right to buy the G4 outright from Motorola, including the complete rights to AltiVec.Â* Motorola wants to concentrate on embedded processors, and will give up the G4 to Apple.
4) Once Apple owns the G4/AltiVec, there is no reason AltiVec II (which already exists) cannot be added to custom Power4 chips built by IBM.Â* Motorola is no longer an issue, there are no licensing issues.Â* The ONLY reason AltiVec isn't on IBM chips is because Motorola wanted IBM to pay for it.Â* Apple and IBM, working together now with IBM as the sole Apple CPU supplier,Â* will have eliminated those issues.
5) The Power4 offers multiple cores, DDR, and all the fancy buzzwords everyone works themselves into a frenzy over, even though the majority of the whiners have have no idea at all why they think they need them to browse these rumor forums and play a few games.Â*
6) Apple has been buying out video production related software companies left and right...with an obvious need for a more powerful machine for serious uses such as this, how can anyone doubt that Apple is working on more than simple MHz upgrades?
Do I believe the machine coming in 2 weeks will encompass all of the above?Â* No.Â* But all of these facts are coming together... and Steve Jobs is far smarter than the pundits give him credit for.Â* Apple may be 6 months farther behind than we'd all like...but it's not because they don't know what they are doing.Â* They know EXACTLY...and they will jump ahead of the pack when the time is right, just as they have done throughout their history.
No, I am not a cheerleader for Apple.Â* I'm just paying attention to the big picture, and weathering the short term storm.Â* Everyone should try it...it's really not that bad if you pay attention.Â*
----------
One quick note I'm adding to my original post, having seen Moki's typically well-thought out message:
Though I have my doubts about a move to any x86 variant by Apple, I agree 100% with Moki that if Apple even attempted it, it would be a duplication of the 68k to PPC transition.
Apple designed, Apple built, different processor. But Apple releasing OS X to the unwashed masses of garage-built PCs with an infinite number of hardware variations? Never in this lifetime.
<strong>Nor do I buy Apple shipping OS X for x86 ever.Â* There are a million reasons why it would look to the computer world as Apple "admitting defeat", and Jobs would never stand for that.
Â* Â* Â* Â* -- Ensoniq</strong><hr></blockquote>
The same way Jobs would "never admit defeat" and stop making NeXT hardware, or port OpenStep from the Motorola 68040 to Intel hardware... oops, wait a minute, he did both once before, didn't he?
Don't let your personal feelings enter into it. I don't think anyone but engineers and computer hobbyists really care what chip is in a computer; most people just want their computers to run fast/well. Jobs just wants a larger share of the computer industry pie. I'm quite sure he'd exercise a number of "options" to get there.
Why wasn't it "admitting defeat" when Apple went from the Motorola 68040 to the IBM PowerPC architecture? Apple was just swaping out a slower chip for a faster chip -- the rest of the package, fit, finish, philosophy (and of course, the OS) remained pure Apple.
I see no reason why using an x86 processor would be any different -- it will get them through many corporate purchasing departments that simply won't consider a PPC machine no matter what the specs are. There is also no reason why an OS that runs on more than one platform needs to choose only one ISA.
<strong>I see no reason why using an x86 processor would be any different</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hm, I tought I oveheared a few people saying that the PowerPC architecture is actually superior to x86 stuff and that AltiVec is king - if these really are that good, would switching to x86 make sense at all?
I really wouldn't mind that much as long as it runs the software I want and behaves fast. But I would find it a bit weird for Apple to switch to none other than x86 - since they are one of the very few computer companies that can decide freely which CPU to use and that means they can simply get something really _new_ instead of an overclocked pentium/athlon.. I mean, wouldn't it be perhaps wiser to spend some cash and develop a next-gen RISC chip with phat bandwidth, good scalability, superb SIMD unit, etc?
Hm, I tought I oveheared a few people saying that the PowerPC architecture is actually superior to x86 stuff and that AltiVec is king - if these really are that good, would switching to x86 make sense at all? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, AltiVec really does kick ass. However, you have to special-case code for it, and most developers don't (which is a shame). However, would you rather have a processor at 1ghz that has a special vector instructions that few developers use, or a general purpose processor that is significantly faster?
Hey, if the G4 was hitting 2ghz+ right now, we wouldn't even be having this conversation -- it's be no contest. But that clearly isn't the case...
"Why wasn't it "admitting defeat" when Apple went from the Motorola 68040 to the IBM PowerPC architecture? Apple was just swaping out a slower chip for a faster chip -- the rest of the package, fit, finish, philosophy (and of course, the OS) remained pure Apple.
I see no reason why using an x86 processor would be any different -- it will get them through many corporate purchasing departments that simply won't consider a PPC machine no matter what the specs are. There is also no reason why an OS that runs on more than one platform needs to choose only one ISA."
Moki, along with Programmer, brings an ounce of sanity to these forums.
Excellent point. Well put.
I don't understand why people think x86 means a blanket apple port of it. It would be as proprietary as the boxes they make now.
It's all about the 'OS X'. Simple.
Dual Boot box to allow them to get into corporate American's knickers? Who knows. I wouldn't rule it out. Give people at least a chance to try OS X and see what they're missing! They'd get sales they aint getting now.
Lemon Bon Bon
Given Apple's fine record of handling transitions...I don't see any reason to doubt that an 'x86' trojan horse strategy wouldn't be equally 'seamless'.
Why not just bundle 'Virtual PC' with every Mac?
Conditional on a superior processor on way...
I don't think it's going to be slow running on a Power 4 variant.
Most 'Windows' people I know just do email, word processing and the odd game.
If they were creative they could run 'X' for the multimedia stuff. Figure it's superior and move themselves over to Mac X full time.
If Apple really wanted to switch to an x86 architecture, they would have done it back when they switched to PPC.
The only probably with PPC today is Motorola. If Apple is serious about increasing performance, it could already build boxes with IBM POWER 5's. No one could afford them, but hell, they'd be the fastest damn desktops on the planet.
So chill. Motorola PPC is dying, but the PPC has long legs left in it. And if some time in the future Apple wants to play with AMD or INTEL, I suspect it won't be with hardware. Imagine Apple licensing OSX to other companies to build the boxes. I think that's a lot more likely. It was hinted at a long time ago in early OSX development, and then trailed away, like most other rumors.
I might add that PPC is in the gamecube, it's going to be in the next playstation from what i understand, it's in hundreds of other products and in some damn high end servers. This sounds like the old 'Apple is going to die unless' nonsense that we've heard so many times before. This analysts prediction is predicated on PPC remaining behind intel for years to come.
I think IBM has something up it's sleeve. We'll see next year i guess. :eek:
Comments
<strong>Maybe I missed it but where is the conformation I am sure I missed it where did Steve Jobs say we will be using X86 chips for Mac OS X next year?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It was taken out of context by Yahoo. But anyway Jobs said before they consider that possibility they will want to complete the OSX migration by the end of the year. After that, they will consider it an option to go the X86 route. Nothing has been done so far.
<a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1001-948239.html?tag=fd_top"; target="_blank">http://news.com.com/2100-1001-948239.html?tag=fd_top</a>;
some smart guy predicts apple will use intel and gives it an 80% change of happening in 2 to 4 years.
<a href="http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=4686874&tid=aapl&sid=4686874&mi d=241568" target="_blank">http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=4686874&tid=aapl&sid=4686874&mi d=241568</a>
"Photos of Hammer motherboards show an odd PCI slot with extra pins. Speculation is the slot would take an Apple ROM."
They are _NOT_ anywhere near price competitive! In fact, it's substantially worse! The price-per-chip in PC-land is more than double the price-per-chip in PPC-land. Not to mention that the non-performance aspects of the PPC are so much better than for the x86 chips (heat, power-used) that it would drastically affect the industrial design. (Read, no more fanless anything, ever). Note also that the non-Dell box makers are whining that they can't realize the same economies of scale as Dell, which has them all haemorraging. Badly. All that extra difference in cost is just tacked up on top leading to a lot less $/computer for Apple.
Another aspect that would crop up: Apple uses hardware sales to subsidize R & D (read OS development). Dell doesn't spend much on OS development. So the price disparity will continue ad infinitum. (And if you don't think MS would ride a year of losses to kill a direct competitor, you're confused. They'd do it with a direct order from the justice department not to.)
So...
Two things going on.
1) Analyst talking to hear himself.
2) A remark from SJ that includes a comment about 'Mot & IBM roadmap look ok'. The full comment pretty clearly does _not_ point any specific directions, (as the title of this thread claims). Options good. Duh.
What roadmap?
There's all sorts of interesting things in the Mot8560 (which is NOT the G5, it's an embedded part). But... at most it seems like a 1.4 GHz out of Mot in the next 6mo. Dual 1.4s + OS improvements/graphics card improvements... A very solid computer. For now.
The real question is, why was IBM mentioned? The only thing they've made for Apple recently is the G3s in the iMacs. It was widely reported a year or two ago that IBM was grudgingly purchasing the right to manufacture AltiVec enabled things [remember back to the 'stuck at 500 MHz for way too long' fiasco?] A full Power4/5 would be insane. But the chip's instruction set is very similar, so it's conceivable that there's a desktop variant of them. And AltiVec is supposed to be a 5-10% increase in chip size. (Or it was on the first G4s compared to the then-current G3s). That's not so much.
Also note that Apple has the right to buy out the IP involved with G4 development. This could mean they could shop around. But, it can't be transmeta(not speedy enough), it can't be AMD (bleeding too bad), and it can't be Intel(bad blood) that's doing the fabbing.
The one area Apple could legitimately fight in a price/performance war vs x86 is when you start really ramping the number of CPUs up. Not 2x, 4x, keep going. Then the price difference between the ppc chips and the x86 chips starts to mount up quick. And they've been buying up chunks of a market that pays a STIFF price for their widgets. Not hard to sell a Shake monster machine bundled _with_ Shake for $12000 when the base price of Shake for the pc is $10000.
Anything that trickles down into the $3000 price range from there would be just dandy with me.
First, it would be a support nightmare to make a blanket port to all PCs. So, if it happens I believe it will be to special motherboards, maybe teaming up with AMD. It will be a "See, OS X is available on the PC" marketing move. It would not replace the primary PowerPC Macs. An interesting thing about such a special OS X PC is that it could be made dual boot, and run Windows too.
Second is software. An OS X PC will not run existing Mac software. Its needs all new applications. Sure, it may not be a difficult port, but it still requires making new versions to sell. I don't think Apple would do this unless their market share goes a lot higher.
The PPC is the way to go, really. Look at what STI is up to. From what I hear, IBM will be providing a PPC processor for the PlayStation 3, and they likely hope to blow the Intel based XBox out of the water. IBM's new plant is for something big. Apple and IBM could both benefit by using this technology to also make desktop PPCs for Apple. Likely G4 replacements and on to the G5 too. I beleive Apple has taken care of the AltiVec issue, and have rights to use it. Probably the SIMD in the Apple PPC will be like AltiVec. The SIMD in the PlayStation 3 PPC will be something else, unless Sony and Toshiba are in on using it too.
[ 08-03-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
<strong>this just in from cnet
<a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1001-948239.html?tag=fd_top"; target="_blank">http://news.com.com/2100-1001-948239.html?tag=fd_top</a>;
some smart guy predicts apple will use intel and gives it an 80% change of happening in 2 to 4 years.</strong><hr></blockquote>The analyst really doesn't say a lot of any worth and a great deal of his conclusions seem basically plucked out of some fairly flawed thinking without a great deal to back it up.
Sorry but just about every company is making a push for a services based model of operation. I wrote a paper earlier in the year on that very subject, the shift from a resource to service driven economy.
I really wouldn't be inclined to listen to this guy as an analyst.
AMD is lean, mean and hungry. they want to do business.
------------------------
In time.
<strong>I have four words regarding apple switching to intel: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmmmm... can you sign me up as a beneficiary?
A few points real quick.
1) Why do people think Apple must pick x86 _or_ a new PPC chip? "Options" are not gained by simply picking one or the other.
2) Once an application has been carbonized, or written in cocoa, making it work on another architecture really *isn't* that hard -- your primary problems will be dealing with endian issues, which generally only rear their ugly heads when reading/writing to the disk, and handling network packets.
3) Anyone coding for Mac OS X already has AltiVec special-cased for if they use it at all (which unfortunately few developers outside of Apple do). They do this so that their code runs on G3's.
4) Changing the processor core of a Mac doesn't change much, really -- what makes it a Mac isn't the CPU -- the transition from 68K to PPC proved that fairly well.
5) If Apple went with another processor architecture such as x86, that doesn't mean they need to make their OS work on _any_ x86 box (and the driver nightmare that entails), but rather just the boxen Apple produces.
6) If XP can also boot on said machines, well, that's a nice way to get past purchasing departments in corporate America.
Wall Street Guys: "You know Steve-O, Beef really taste's pretty good and it's neat to eat."
Steve-O: "I like to eat"
AI poster: "Steve Jobs will finally eat a 44oz porterhouse steak!"
Did I get it right?
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Sorry for anyone who had to read my rant twice...
----------
There is absolutely ZERO possibility that Apple will move to Intel chips in their own machines.Â* Not this year, not ever.Â* If anything, Apple might consider moving to AMD Athlon chips, and their future brethren.Â* Why?
a) AMD is another company that is in an "underdog" position like Apple, as far as overall market share, and Apple would be far more likely to want to invest money on AMD than the behemoth Intel.
b) Simple fact of the matter is than AMD Athlon chips are far superior in speed, at least when compared to Intel P4 chips.Â* I can't speak for Itanium, because I don't know anything about them and frankly don't care to.Â*
But even with AMD being a good chip and a far better friend to Apple than Intel ever would be, I still don't see it happening.Â* In fact, much of this Apple/AMD craze occurred because of rumors that Apple was talking to AMD about MANUFACTURING chips for them.Â* NOT designing chips for Apple...but using their facilities for manufacturing...what chip exactly (Apple designed or otherwise) was never stated.Â* That is the basis of much of this rampant (and untrue) Apple/x86 speculation.
Nor do I buy Apple shipping OS X for x86 ever.Â* There are a million reasons why it would look to the computer world as Apple "admitting defeat", and Jobs would never stand for that.
Something is up with IBM...all the signs point there.Â* The 700 MHz IBM G3 in the latest iBook is an amazing chip, only missing Altivec to be an otherwise superior design (for the majority of computing functions) to the Motorola G4 series.Â* And these latest rumors all SEEM to add up:
1) IBM just announced a major chip manufacturing plant, with the primary focus being Power4 chips.Â* IBM did NOT just spend billions of dollars to open up a manufacturing plant for Sony Playstation 3 chips...
2) While different in many ways that the real tech-heads can explain, the Power4 chips essentially CAN/DO run G3/G4 software.Â* But the major difference is that they are missing AltiVec, which OS X is optimized for.Â* (One more reason why going to Intel/AMD is a step BACKWARD...)
3) Reported many times, but often forgotten or mistaken, Apple has a contract with Motorola that expires THIS summer (2002) that gives them to right to buy the G4 outright from Motorola, including the complete rights to AltiVec.Â* Motorola wants to concentrate on embedded processors, and will give up the G4 to Apple.
4) Once Apple owns the G4/AltiVec, there is no reason AltiVec II (which already exists) cannot be added to custom Power4 chips built by IBM.Â* Motorola is no longer an issue, there are no licensing issues.Â* The ONLY reason AltiVec isn't on IBM chips is because Motorola wanted IBM to pay for it.Â* Apple and IBM, working together now with IBM as the sole Apple CPU supplier,Â* will have eliminated those issues.
5) The Power4 offers multiple cores, DDR, and all the fancy buzzwords everyone works themselves into a frenzy over, even though the majority of the whiners have have no idea at all why they think they need them to browse these rumor forums and play a few games.Â*
6) Apple has been buying out video production related software companies left and right...with an obvious need for a more powerful machine for serious uses such as this, how can anyone doubt that Apple is working on more than simple MHz upgrades?
Do I believe the machine coming in 2 weeks will encompass all of the above?Â* No.Â* But all of these facts are coming together... and Steve Jobs is far smarter than the pundits give him credit for.Â* Apple may be 6 months farther behind than we'd all like...but it's not because they don't know what they are doing.Â* They know EXACTLY...and they will jump ahead of the pack when the time is right, just as they have done throughout their history.
No, I am not a cheerleader for Apple.Â* I'm just paying attention to the big picture, and weathering the short term storm.Â* Everyone should try it...it's really not that bad if you pay attention.Â*
----------
One quick note I'm adding to my original post, having seen Moki's typically well-thought out message:
Though I have my doubts about a move to any x86 variant by Apple, I agree 100% with Moki that if Apple even attempted it, it would be a duplication of the 68k to PPC transition.
Apple designed, Apple built, different processor. But Apple releasing OS X to the unwashed masses of garage-built PCs with an infinite number of hardware variations? Never in this lifetime.
Â* Â* Â* Â* -- Ensoniq
<strong>Nor do I buy Apple shipping OS X for x86 ever.Â* There are a million reasons why it would look to the computer world as Apple "admitting defeat", and Jobs would never stand for that.
Â* Â* Â* Â* -- Ensoniq</strong><hr></blockquote>
The same way Jobs would "never admit defeat" and stop making NeXT hardware, or port OpenStep from the Motorola 68040 to Intel hardware... oops, wait a minute, he did both once before, didn't he?
Don't let your personal feelings enter into it. I don't think anyone but engineers and computer hobbyists really care what chip is in a computer; most people just want their computers to run fast/well. Jobs just wants a larger share of the computer industry pie. I'm quite sure he'd exercise a number of "options" to get there.
Why wasn't it "admitting defeat" when Apple went from the Motorola 68040 to the IBM PowerPC architecture? Apple was just swaping out a slower chip for a faster chip -- the rest of the package, fit, finish, philosophy (and of course, the OS) remained pure Apple.
I see no reason why using an x86 processor would be any different -- it will get them through many corporate purchasing departments that simply won't consider a PPC machine no matter what the specs are. There is also no reason why an OS that runs on more than one platform needs to choose only one ISA.
<strong>OSX can get better performance than Windows on an X86 system.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you know? Have you tried it already?
<strong>I see no reason why using an x86 processor would be any different</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hm, I tought I oveheared a few people saying that the PowerPC architecture is actually superior to x86 stuff and that AltiVec is king - if these really are that good, would switching to x86 make sense at all?
I really wouldn't mind that much as long as it runs the software I want and behaves fast. But I would find it a bit weird for Apple to switch to none other than x86 - since they are one of the very few computer companies that can decide freely which CPU to use and that means they can simply get something really _new_ instead of an overclocked pentium/athlon.. I mean, wouldn't it be perhaps wiser to spend some cash and develop a next-gen RISC chip with phat bandwidth, good scalability, superb SIMD unit, etc?
<strong>
Hm, I tought I oveheared a few people saying that the PowerPC architecture is actually superior to x86 stuff and that AltiVec is king - if these really are that good, would switching to x86 make sense at all? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, AltiVec really does kick ass. However, you have to special-case code for it, and most developers don't (which is a shame). However, would you rather have a processor at 1ghz that has a special vector instructions that few developers use, or a general purpose processor that is significantly faster?
Hey, if the G4 was hitting 2ghz+ right now, we wouldn't even be having this conversation -- it's be no contest. But that clearly isn't the case...
I see no reason why using an x86 processor would be any different -- it will get them through many corporate purchasing departments that simply won't consider a PPC machine no matter what the specs are. There is also no reason why an OS that runs on more than one platform needs to choose only one ISA."
Moki, along with Programmer, brings an ounce of sanity to these forums.
Excellent point. Well put.
I don't understand why people think x86 means a blanket apple port of it. It would be as proprietary as the boxes they make now.
It's all about the 'OS X'. Simple.
Dual Boot box to allow them to get into corporate American's knickers? Who knows. I wouldn't rule it out. Give people at least a chance to try OS X and see what they're missing! They'd get sales they aint getting now.
Lemon Bon Bon
Given Apple's fine record of handling transitions...I don't see any reason to doubt that an 'x86' trojan horse strategy wouldn't be equally 'seamless'.
Why not just bundle 'Virtual PC' with every Mac?
Conditional on a superior processor on way...
I don't think it's going to be slow running on a Power 4 variant.
Most 'Windows' people I know just do email, word processing and the odd game.
If they were creative they could run 'X' for the multimedia stuff. Figure it's superior and move themselves over to Mac X full time.
If Apple really wanted to switch to an x86 architecture, they would have done it back when they switched to PPC.
The only probably with PPC today is Motorola. If Apple is serious about increasing performance, it could already build boxes with IBM POWER 5's. No one could afford them, but hell, they'd be the fastest damn desktops on the planet.
So chill. Motorola PPC is dying, but the PPC has long legs left in it. And if some time in the future Apple wants to play with AMD or INTEL, I suspect it won't be with hardware. Imagine Apple licensing OSX to other companies to build the boxes. I think that's a lot more likely. It was hinted at a long time ago in early OSX development, and then trailed away, like most other rumors.
I might add that PPC is in the gamecube, it's going to be in the next playstation from what i understand, it's in hundreds of other products and in some damn high end servers. This sounds like the old 'Apple is going to die unless' nonsense that we've heard so many times before. This analysts prediction is predicated on PPC remaining behind intel for years to come.
I think IBM has something up it's sleeve. We'll see next year i guess. :eek:
<strong>I think IBM has something up it's sleeve. We'll see next year i guess. :eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>
"Is that a GP-UL in your pocket, or are ya just glad to see me?"