x86 will never happen-windows on the mac will never happen-this has been discussed before -why would Apple want to move to inferior hardware and software?
[quote]For Apple to ever get the average person to choose a Mac they need to offer a regular PC that can run Windows and also OS X. Your average person is not adventurous. It is too much to expect them to take a blind jump to the Mac. They are not going to spend $1100 for a machine that can't run Windows (VPC doesn't count). BUT, if you give them a regular PC that costs $200 more than a Dell, looks really cool, and also runs OS X, then they have very little to lose. If they don't like the Mac, they paid a little more and still have a cool looking computer that runs Windows. <hr></blockquote>
What???
Try Apple loses their shirt. Why on this Earth would Apple put or the competitors OS right on the same machine. This invites users to acclimate themselves to the PC and you'd see their next purchase would be PC only. I disagree with your "average user" is not adventurous or need run windows. I consider my Mother an average user who didn't have a computer 3 years ago. She needed Office and Outlook. That was it. She really didn't care about the OS because her concerns where with the apps required for here to migrate documents from work to home. That is Microsoft's hook.
[quote]The other reason to go to x86 is that sales of PowerMac G4s have steadily decreased from 350K-400K down to 167K last quarter. It's got nothing to do with the recession. The drop has been going on for two years and started exactly when the megahertz gap opened up. Steve would have more info than us to decide whether Motorola had any really hope of keeping up with x86 and he probably knew they didn't. <hr></blockquote>
That may be true however one could easily argue that Powermac sales have dropped because with the advent of the iMac "consumer" Mac sales were reinvigorated. I know that the last years of the Performa line where bleak. Performas had a bad name and people did not want them hence Apple distanced itself from the Perfoma moniker and came out with the iMac. The iMac's name still has cachet. Heck I still want one.
[quote]If Apple is going to move to x86, quite obviously it is the best time and probably necessary to totally leave Classic behind. Classic can't be ported to x86. Is it just coincidence that the time when they stop booting of Classic is the exact same time when Steve says it is now possible to look at other processor options? I don't think so. Not having Classic will require less RAM and a lttle less hard drive space. Ditching Classic is one of the obvious steps necessary in moving to x86. <hr></blockquote>
Mmmmm Altivec? Let's be honest. Developers are not going to be led around by Apple. You even stated above that Powermac sales are down so what "pull" would Apple have asking Developer who just busted their keisters to Carbonize..now they have to prepare for X86. The Revolting would be BLOODY. Many might just cancel Mac development and go Windows since they'd be targeting the platform anyways.
[quote] So maybe at MacWorld we'll see a major attack from Apple. Macs starting to move to x86 and OpenOffice being promoted because Microsoft Office costs $459 which keeps a lot of people from switching. <hr></blockquote>
Don't hold your breath. Everyone IMO who support a theory of OSX on X86 seems to be forgetting the key factors.
1. Apple stands to gain very little from X86. Speed is cyclical. 3 years ago PPC was faster. 3 years from now it may be the fastest again. You don't go changing platforms because the winds change.
2. Developers. They are simply NOT going to put up with having to tweak their codebase again. Remember they have performance numbers to hit as well. What's OSX x86 going to do for them. They're not guaranteed more sales. Bad Biz Prop here.
3. Apple has no control over X86 specs. Intel dominates what gets put in to chipsets. Intel is just now adding FW to their chipsets. What? Apple could design their own. Well hell they might as well stay PPC if they're going to be designing MB for features they like.
4. Marklar is no different than the rumored Star Trek(OS9 on X86). It's a last gasp net that Apple could deploy as a stripped down company fighting to stay alive.
Summation
The education market is important but IMO not enough for Apple to take huge losses. OSX will allow them to make gains and keep current core strongholds together. Apple needs range. Intel has Celeron to complement the P4. Apple now how the G4 to complement the G5. This will allow better lowend machines which help get Apple back in the edu market.
Apple has to leverage their investment in Powerschool. Unfortunately most School Dist are so cash starved they fling themselves at the lowest bidder. Even if this means engaging in controversial or unethical practices like companies advertising products or services in classrooms.
X86 has too many downsides and not enough upside. Apple is too small a player..for now.
"Why on this Earth would Apple put or the competitors OS right on the same machine. This invites users to acclimate themselves to the PC and you'd see their next purchase would be PC only."
I see this argument a lot and I think it is erroneous. Right now, 3% of people buy Macs. Why do they pay more to buy a Mac? Because they enjoy using a Mac a lot more than Windows. Apple is not fooling anyone. People will only continue to buy a Mac if they enjoy the experience. If you put Windows on most current Mac users hard drives now, they are still going to buy Mac software because they like MacOS. They would probably buy Windows games though.
Now suppose Apple gets a Switcher. That person already has a PC and PC software. If the Switcher doesn't see anything special or better about MacOS then their next computer will be a PC anyway since it is cheaper. Apple can't hold anyone hostage or fool anyone. They are only going to get repeated sales if people want to use their product. Putting Windows on the a Mac is not a disadvantage. I would guess that 80% of Mac users at least know somewhat how to use Windows anyway and are making a conscious choose NOT to use Windows.
"She really didn't care about the OS because her concerns where with the apps required for here to migrate documents from work to home."
I don't think this is how it works for the average person. The average person knows Windows, or thinks they know Windows. They have suffered a good deal through Windows arbitrarities and they think that learning about a computer is uncomfortable. They don't want to throw away all the knowledge they have about Windows and jump sight unseen to a new platform. If they had Windows on the same computer then they have almost nothing to lose. They paid a couple of hundred dollars more to also have OS X. If they don't find OS X interesting they are simply where they started. Having Windows on the computer reduces the barrier to entry. You don't have to have OS X INSTEAD OF Windows, you can have it IN ADDITION TO Windows. You might be afraid to go out and have a full scale meal at a Thai restaurant if you've never had Thai food before. But if you go to a Chinese restaurant, you may be willing to try a Thai appetizer at someone's suggestion. It's less of a barrier to entry, which is important when people are naturally reluctant to try new things.
You (Hmurchison) say that your mother was willing to go to the Mac because the apps were there. Well, she is then obviously not the typical person. The typical person does not take the suggestion to go to the Mac. If they did Apple would have much more than 3% marketshare. I recommend Macs all the time but because they seem to be on an island away from the mainstream, it's like recommending someone to vacation in Swaziland. If you put OS X on the same computer (made only by Apple) as Windows, they are no longer on an island but an option the average perrson can try with basically no risk.
Microsoft could just agressively pursue the graphics/education markets with massive price cuts and free software.
Getting my point everyone? Microsoft BIG. Apple SMALL.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Government BIGGER. They could and in my opinion they would have killed Apple a while ago if they didn't fear that the gov would pull a Standard Oil or AT&T on them. For real this time.
Apple using Marklar is so Marklar. I've heard of Marklar Marklar and Apple new Marklar will use Marklar. But DELL won't Marklar the Marklar since Marklar is only for Marklar Marklar.
The big problem with this rumour is timming...Apple has announced the end of dual boot, but not the end of Clasic. As stated by Apple and others since the days of Rhapsody, Clasic will not run of X86. The early X86 versions of Rhapsody did not include Blue Box, aka Classic. Apple needs at least another year for OS 9 to age before it can successfully sell a box that does not have OS 9 compatability. Also for any native programs to work of this hybrid computer, the developers would have to recompile for the X86, and the PPC. This is a little much to ask of the developers right now.
Now on a positive note, Apple did have Rhapsody working for X86. I had those developer CD's (still do somewhere). To think that they just killed that code is nieve. Just look at Ink, recycled from the Newton. Apple has a lot invested in an X86 version both with the Next purchase, and development at Apple. I'm sure they are keeping it for a rainy day, but I doubt that day is here yet.
To address the low cost model for education, sell them a powerfull server and a number of thin client Macs using G3+SIMD (Gecko, IBM already makes it....) with airport connectivity and you have a real winner. Another advantage is that you can make a thin client really stripped down, which makes them "through aways" (more money to fix than replace) so Apple make more money when students break them (not covered by warrenty). Other areas to strip down are hard drive (20 GB is enough, 40 overkill for a classroom setting), a modem? (Come on!) orderd as Eathernet or AirPort (why both?) Apple could cut the cost quite a bit if they really wanted to....they just havent yet
[QB]So now Apple will somehow maintain PPC-32, PPC-64, and X86 machines simultaneously. <hr></blockquote>
Don't forget that AMD is pushing for IA-64 which will arrive sometime next year, so in the not so distant future, Apple would have to move the x86 code to 64 bit too.
I have a suspicion that the GPU makers will over the next decade overtake the the CPU makers. QE points in that direction, Windows will have a similar scheme in the near future, but both platforms are starting to get cards that can be asked to do even more. The situation may come where the CPU is just around to administer the OS and the bulk of heavy number crunching gets done by the GPU. When/if that happens, x86 or PPC, or whatever they got cooking, won't matter nearly as much as having a motherboard and interconnect that lets the GPU stretch its legs. IBM may save Apple, but so long as Apple keeps it's motherboards up-to-date, nVidia, ATI, Videologic et al... they will keep us out of trouble. May take a few years, though.
There are two competing 64-bit successors to IA-32 (aka x86 aka i386).
AMD backs "x86-64", which is a 64-bit version of IA-32. This should increase memory efficency and offers 100% backwards compatibility. Apple would not have to shift X from x86 to x86-64.
"Hammer" x86-64 chips will use an Athlon core with a HyperTransport bus and an onboard DDR-RAM controller.
Intel backs IA-64, co-developed with HP, an EPIC (Explicitally Parallel Instruction Crap). I would be lying if I told you I knew how EPIC works.
Thanks for proving your total lack of a sense of humor.
G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apparently a little too dry for your tastes, read it again out loud while immitating Hugh Grant. Cary Grant works, too. Don't try Lou though, not funny.
The more that I think about this prospect the more I have to agree with Programmer, et. al. I cannot come up with a compelling reason that this would be of benefit to Apple.
Competing with Gateway and Dell would be better served with an low cost G3 solution. Of course that still doesn't help them with the hundreds of schools that have bought ultra cheap PC's in the last couple of years.
That said, the source of this rumor is definitely in a position to know what they are talking about. Of course, the gap between development and business plan is often huge and, as someone pointed out, the are not always on the same page.
<strong>There are two competing 64-bit successors to IA-32 (aka x86 aka i386).
AMD backs "x86-64", which is a 64-bit version of IA-32. This should increase memory efficency and offers 100% backwards compatibility. Apple would not have to shift X from x86 to x86-64.
"Hammer" x86-64 chips will use an Athlon core with a HyperTransport bus and an onboard DDR-RAM controller.
Intel backs IA-64, co-developed with HP, an EPIC (Explicitally Parallel Instruction Crap). I would be lying if I told you I knew how EPIC works.
Intels roadmap shows Itanum2 in high end workstations for this half of the year. Intel intends to migrate the whole line to Itanium. Mind it will take quite a few years but Intel knows the x86 architecture has a limited lifespan. I think the phrase is 'long in the tooth'. Itanium is a superior architecture. In competes very well with the POWER4 even at a 300MHz disadvantage.
That's why it's my theory that Intel knows it has dug itself in a hole by bumping up the frequency of it's consumer chips so much with little reguard for actual performance increases. You cannot apply the same techniques to the Itanium in the same way you can with conventional RISC and CISC processors. Itanium gets it's strength from parallelization and compiler optimizations. x86 presently overcomes it's shortcomings with brute force (like revving a car to it's red line to get out of the mud). The PowerPC and Itanium use grippier tires and bottom end torque rather to get out of the same jam. They both get the job doen but one has its limit. You can't keep revving it up. But you can always design grippier tires and what not.
Intel needs to de-emphasize frequency like I've said many times before. But it looks like their x86 marketing department seems to be thinking 'future be damned. Lets ratchet this up until it can't go any more!'. Short term solution. Itanium: long term solution.
[quote]I have a suspicion that the GPU makers will over the next decade overtake the the CPU makers. QE points in that direction, Windows will have a similar scheme in the near future, but both platforms are starting to get cards that can be asked to do even more.<hr></blockquote>
Windows *already* does this, and has been doing this for years. It's not something that will be done by Windows "in the near future". Hardware accelleration of the display was a good idea, and Apple agreed and also implemented it with QE.
gpus are indeed getting more programmable, but only in the most basic sense. It will be a long while before the gfx cards do a lot more than graphics.
The only reason Apple will do this (and yes Marklar does exist with X running on a AMD box according to someone I've spoken to) would be if IBM and Moto fail to deliver for Apple. Apple would die quicker at 1.8ghz when AMD and Intel are at 4ghz +. So this would be a to survive option, running X on an AMD chip that would only boot X. Apple is hoping that X will save it regardless what platform it runs on. The advantages over Dell, HP, Gateway, etc would be Apple's box also runs X. So you'd have a dual boot of X and Windows. I'd buy that over a Dell if it came to it.
<strong>The only reason Apple will do this (and yes Marklar does exist with X running on a AMD box according to someone I've spoken to) would be if IBM and Moto fail to deliver for Apple. Apple would die quicker at 1.8ghz when AMD and Intel are at 4ghz +. So this would be a to survive option, running X on an AMD chip that would only boot X. Apple is hoping that X will save it regardless what platform it runs on. The advantages over Dell, HP, Gateway, etc would be Apple's box also runs X. So you'd have a dual boot of X and Windows. I'd buy that over a Dell if it came to it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that there is one other option for Apple to do this, and that is if their hardware is superior enough over Intel.AMD's offerings to warrent the cost of the Apple PPC systems. If the G5 or whatever had the same advantages in speed that the G4 promised when it was released, then Apple MIGHT be able to market a version of their OS for x86 to gain market share (OS) at a faster rate than hardware sales alone could offer them. This would also be a good way to intro Windows users to the Mac OS. It would not be an easy task for Apple, and could hit into hardware sales. But if Apple hardware were good enough, then it might just work.
Windows *already* does this, and has been doing this for years. It's not something that will be done by Windows "in the near future". Hardware accelleration of the display was a good idea, and Apple agreed and also implemented it with QE.
gpus are indeed getting more programmable, but only in the most basic sense. It will be a long while before the gfx cards do a lot more than graphics.
neye</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please explain how Windows has been doing this for years. QE is different from Hardware Acceleration. I'm not too sure Windows has anything yet that can equal QE.
Windows *already* does this, and has been doing this for years. It's not something that will be done by Windows "in the near future". Hardware accelleration of the display was a good idea, and Apple agreed and also implemented it with QE.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, if you count any acceleration of the display by the GPU, Mac OS has been doing it for something like 15 years. Formac even had a card out for a while that accelerated fonts.
However, that all used 2D acceleration (bitmap caching, essentially), or dedicated hardware for e.g. MPEG decoding. OS X 10.2 has the first production GUI to use the 3D (vector) engine of a graphics card - prior graphics cards just weren't up to the task.
This has some very nice side effects. For example, in OS X 10.1 it was very difficult to get 2D (Quartz) and 3D (OpenGL) to work together, because OpenGL "punched a hole" through Quartz to draw to the screen. As of QE, everything is OpenGL, so overlaying 2D vectors on top of OpenGL frames is pretty seamless. I'm not sure, but QuickTime should be more transparently interoperable with Quartz and OpenGL now as well.
Microsoft demoed something like QE a few years ago, but it never shipped.
<strong>The only reason Apple will do this (and yes Marklar does exist with X running on a AMD box according to someone I've spoken to) would be if IBM and Moto fail to deliver for Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's the only condition under which I can make sense of this rumor.
Dual-booting Windows makes even less sense: Then Apple because another Microsoft OEM, which means they'd have to agree to the uniform OEM license that Microsoft has, which means Gates would have them over a barrel. And Apple would be paying Microsoft for the OS licenses in addition to shouldering the costs for their own systems, which would make their computers more expensive.
I can also see this as the "or else" of an attempt by Steve to bring AIM back together. I can't see Apple favoring it as a strategy. It's almost all downside.
Comments
What???
Try Apple loses their shirt. Why on this Earth would Apple put or the competitors OS right on the same machine. This invites users to acclimate themselves to the PC and you'd see their next purchase would be PC only. I disagree with your "average user" is not adventurous or need run windows. I consider my Mother an average user who didn't have a computer 3 years ago. She needed Office and Outlook. That was it. She really didn't care about the OS because her concerns where with the apps required for here to migrate documents from work to home. That is Microsoft's hook.
[quote]The other reason to go to x86 is that sales of PowerMac G4s have steadily decreased from 350K-400K down to 167K last quarter. It's got nothing to do with the recession. The drop has been going on for two years and started exactly when the megahertz gap opened up. Steve would have more info than us to decide whether Motorola had any really hope of keeping up with x86 and he probably knew they didn't. <hr></blockquote>
That may be true however one could easily argue that Powermac sales have dropped because with the advent of the iMac "consumer" Mac sales were reinvigorated. I know that the last years of the Performa line where bleak. Performas had a bad name and people did not want them hence Apple distanced itself from the Perfoma moniker and came out with the iMac. The iMac's name still has cachet. Heck I still want one.
[quote]If Apple is going to move to x86, quite obviously it is the best time and probably necessary to totally leave Classic behind. Classic can't be ported to x86. Is it just coincidence that the time when they stop booting of Classic is the exact same time when Steve says it is now possible to look at other processor options? I don't think so. Not having Classic will require less RAM and a lttle less hard drive space. Ditching Classic is one of the obvious steps necessary in moving to x86. <hr></blockquote>
Mmmmm Altivec? Let's be honest. Developers are not going to be led around by Apple. You even stated above that Powermac sales are down so what "pull" would Apple have asking Developer who just busted their keisters to Carbonize..now they have to prepare for X86. The Revolting would be BLOODY. Many might just cancel Mac development and go Windows since they'd be targeting the platform anyways.
[quote] So maybe at MacWorld we'll see a major attack from Apple. Macs starting to move to x86 and OpenOffice being promoted because Microsoft Office costs $459 which keeps a lot of people from switching. <hr></blockquote>
Don't hold your breath. Everyone IMO who support a theory of OSX on X86 seems to be forgetting the key factors.
1. Apple stands to gain very little from X86. Speed is cyclical. 3 years ago PPC was faster. 3 years from now it may be the fastest again. You don't go changing platforms because the winds change.
2. Developers. They are simply NOT going to put up with having to tweak their codebase again. Remember they have performance numbers to hit as well. What's OSX x86 going to do for them. They're not guaranteed more sales. Bad Biz Prop here.
3. Apple has no control over X86 specs. Intel dominates what gets put in to chipsets. Intel is just now adding FW to their chipsets. What? Apple could design their own. Well hell they might as well stay PPC if they're going to be designing MB for features they like.
4. Marklar is no different than the rumored Star Trek(OS9 on X86). It's a last gasp net that Apple could deploy as a stripped down company fighting to stay alive.
Summation
The education market is important but IMO not enough for Apple to take huge losses. OSX will allow them to make gains and keep current core strongholds together. Apple needs range. Intel has Celeron to complement the P4. Apple now how the G4 to complement the G5. This will allow better lowend machines which help get Apple back in the edu market.
Apple has to leverage their investment in Powerschool. Unfortunately most School Dist are so cash starved they fling themselves at the lowest bidder. Even if this means engaging in controversial or unethical practices like companies advertising products or services in classrooms.
X86 has too many downsides and not enough upside. Apple is too small a player..for now.
<strong>
Don't hold your breath. Everyone IMO who support a theory of OSX on X86 seems to be forgetting the key factors.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You forgot the one EVERYONE forgets. Microsoft.
So many of these ignorant discussions assume that Apple would somehow compete on an equal footing with Microsoft. This of course is laughable.
Microsoft just has to pull Office off Mac and your left with a platform no one would touch. Case in point: Linux, BeOS, OS/2.
Microsoft could just agressively pursue the graphics/education markets with massive price cuts and free software.
Getting my point everyone? Microsoft BIG. Apple SMALL.
"Why on this Earth would Apple put or the competitors OS right on the same machine. This invites users to acclimate themselves to the PC and you'd see their next purchase would be PC only."
I see this argument a lot and I think it is erroneous. Right now, 3% of people buy Macs. Why do they pay more to buy a Mac? Because they enjoy using a Mac a lot more than Windows. Apple is not fooling anyone. People will only continue to buy a Mac if they enjoy the experience. If you put Windows on most current Mac users hard drives now, they are still going to buy Mac software because they like MacOS. They would probably buy Windows games though.
Now suppose Apple gets a Switcher. That person already has a PC and PC software. If the Switcher doesn't see anything special or better about MacOS then their next computer will be a PC anyway since it is cheaper. Apple can't hold anyone hostage or fool anyone. They are only going to get repeated sales if people want to use their product. Putting Windows on the a Mac is not a disadvantage. I would guess that 80% of Mac users at least know somewhat how to use Windows anyway and are making a conscious choose NOT to use Windows.
"She really didn't care about the OS because her concerns where with the apps required for here to migrate documents from work to home."
I don't think this is how it works for the average person. The average person knows Windows, or thinks they know Windows. They have suffered a good deal through Windows arbitrarities and they think that learning about a computer is uncomfortable. They don't want to throw away all the knowledge they have about Windows and jump sight unseen to a new platform. If they had Windows on the same computer then they have almost nothing to lose. They paid a couple of hundred dollars more to also have OS X. If they don't find OS X interesting they are simply where they started. Having Windows on the computer reduces the barrier to entry. You don't have to have OS X INSTEAD OF Windows, you can have it IN ADDITION TO Windows. You might be afraid to go out and have a full scale meal at a Thai restaurant if you've never had Thai food before. But if you go to a Chinese restaurant, you may be willing to try a Thai appetizer at someone's suggestion. It's less of a barrier to entry, which is important when people are naturally reluctant to try new things.
You (Hmurchison) say that your mother was willing to go to the Mac because the apps were there. Well, she is then obviously not the typical person. The typical person does not take the suggestion to go to the Mac. If they did Apple would have much more than 3% marketshare. I recommend Macs all the time but because they seem to be on an island away from the mainstream, it's like recommending someone to vacation in Swaziland. If you put OS X on the same computer (made only by Apple) as Windows, they are no longer on an island but an option the average perrson can try with basically no risk.
[ 09-16-2002: Message edited by: spindler ]</p>
<strong>
Microsoft could just agressively pursue the graphics/education markets with massive price cuts and free software.
Getting my point everyone? Microsoft BIG. Apple SMALL.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Government BIGGER. They could and in my opinion they would have killed Apple a while ago if they didn't fear that the gov would pull a Standard Oil or AT&T on them. For real this time.
Marklar. No Marklar.
Now on a positive note, Apple did have Rhapsody working for X86. I had those developer CD's (still do somewhere). To think that they just killed that code is nieve. Just look at Ink, recycled from the Newton. Apple has a lot invested in an X86 version both with the Next purchase, and development at Apple. I'm sure they are keeping it for a rainy day, but I doubt that day is here yet.
To address the low cost model for education, sell them a powerfull server and a number of thin client Macs using G3+SIMD (Gecko, IBM already makes it....) with airport connectivity and you have a real winner. Another advantage is that you can make a thin client really stripped down, which makes them "through aways" (more money to fix than replace) so Apple make more money when students break them (not covered by warrenty). Other areas to strip down are hard drive (20 GB is enough, 40 overkill for a classroom setting), a modem? (Come on!) orderd as Eathernet or AirPort (why both?) Apple could cut the cost quite a bit if they really wanted to....they just havent yet
reflux adj. Returning, or flowing back; reflex.
<hr></blockquote>
Thanks for proving your total lack of a sense of humor.
G-News
[QB]So now Apple will somehow maintain PPC-32, PPC-64, and X86 machines simultaneously. <hr></blockquote>
Don't forget that AMD is pushing for IA-64 which will arrive sometime next year, so in the not so distant future, Apple would have to move the x86 code to 64 bit too.
PPC-32, PPC-64, x86 (IA-32), IA-64?
insane.
AMD backs "x86-64", which is a 64-bit version of IA-32. This should increase memory efficency and offers 100% backwards compatibility. Apple would not have to shift X from x86 to x86-64.
"Hammer" x86-64 chips will use an Athlon core with a HyperTransport bus and an onboard DDR-RAM controller.
Intel backs IA-64, co-developed with HP, an EPIC (Explicitally Parallel Instruction Crap). I would be lying if I told you I knew how EPIC works.
IA-64 is only used/planned for server chips.
Barto
[ 09-17-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
<strong>
Thanks for proving your total lack of a sense of humor.
G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apparently a little too dry for your tastes, read it again out loud while immitating Hugh Grant. Cary Grant works, too. Don't try Lou though, not funny.
Competing with Gateway and Dell would be better served with an low cost G3 solution. Of course that still doesn't help them with the hundreds of schools that have bought ultra cheap PC's in the last couple of years.
That said, the source of this rumor is definitely in a position to know what they are talking about. Of course, the gap between development and business plan is often huge and, as someone pointed out, the are not always on the same page.
<strong>There are two competing 64-bit successors to IA-32 (aka x86 aka i386).
AMD backs "x86-64", which is a 64-bit version of IA-32. This should increase memory efficency and offers 100% backwards compatibility. Apple would not have to shift X from x86 to x86-64.
"Hammer" x86-64 chips will use an Athlon core with a HyperTransport bus and an onboard DDR-RAM controller.
Intel backs IA-64, co-developed with HP, an EPIC (Explicitally Parallel Instruction Crap). I would be lying if I told you I knew how EPIC works.
IA-64 is only used/planned for server chips.
Barto
[ 09-17-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Intels roadmap shows Itanum2 in high end workstations for this half of the year. Intel intends to migrate the whole line to Itanium. Mind it will take quite a few years but Intel knows the x86 architecture has a limited lifespan. I think the phrase is 'long in the tooth'. Itanium is a superior architecture. In competes very well with the POWER4 even at a 300MHz disadvantage.
That's why it's my theory that Intel knows it has dug itself in a hole by bumping up the frequency of it's consumer chips so much with little reguard for actual performance increases. You cannot apply the same techniques to the Itanium in the same way you can with conventional RISC and CISC processors. Itanium gets it's strength from parallelization and compiler optimizations. x86 presently overcomes it's shortcomings with brute force (like revving a car to it's red line to get out of the mud). The PowerPC and Itanium use grippier tires and bottom end torque rather to get out of the same jam. They both get the job doen but one has its limit. You can't keep revving it up. But you can always design grippier tires and what not.
Intel needs to de-emphasize frequency like I've said many times before. But it looks like their x86 marketing department seems to be thinking 'future be damned. Lets ratchet this up until it can't go any more!'. Short term solution. Itanium: long term solution.
Windows *already* does this, and has been doing this for years. It's not something that will be done by Windows "in the near future". Hardware accelleration of the display was a good idea, and Apple agreed and also implemented it with QE.
gpus are indeed getting more programmable, but only in the most basic sense. It will be a long while before the gfx cards do a lot more than graphics.
neye
<strong>The only reason Apple will do this (and yes Marklar does exist with X running on a AMD box according to someone I've spoken to) would be if IBM and Moto fail to deliver for Apple. Apple would die quicker at 1.8ghz when AMD and Intel are at 4ghz +. So this would be a to survive option, running X on an AMD chip that would only boot X. Apple is hoping that X will save it regardless what platform it runs on. The advantages over Dell, HP, Gateway, etc would be Apple's box also runs X. So you'd have a dual boot of X and Windows. I'd buy that over a Dell if it came to it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that there is one other option for Apple to do this, and that is if their hardware is superior enough over Intel.AMD's offerings to warrent the cost of the Apple PPC systems. If the G5 or whatever had the same advantages in speed that the G4 promised when it was released, then Apple MIGHT be able to market a version of their OS for x86 to gain market share (OS) at a faster rate than hardware sales alone could offer them. This would also be a good way to intro Windows users to the Mac OS. It would not be an easy task for Apple, and could hit into hardware sales. But if Apple hardware were good enough, then it might just work.
<strong>
Windows *already* does this, and has been doing this for years. It's not something that will be done by Windows "in the near future". Hardware accelleration of the display was a good idea, and Apple agreed and also implemented it with QE.
gpus are indeed getting more programmable, but only in the most basic sense. It will be a long while before the gfx cards do a lot more than graphics.
neye</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please explain how Windows has been doing this for years. QE is different from Hardware Acceleration. I'm not too sure Windows has anything yet that can equal QE.
<strong>
Windows *already* does this, and has been doing this for years. It's not something that will be done by Windows "in the near future". Hardware accelleration of the display was a good idea, and Apple agreed and also implemented it with QE.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, if you count any acceleration of the display by the GPU, Mac OS has been doing it for something like 15 years.
However, that all used 2D acceleration (bitmap caching, essentially), or dedicated hardware for e.g. MPEG decoding. OS X 10.2 has the first production GUI to use the 3D (vector) engine of a graphics card - prior graphics cards just weren't up to the task.
This has some very nice side effects. For example, in OS X 10.1 it was very difficult to get 2D (Quartz) and 3D (OpenGL) to work together, because OpenGL "punched a hole" through Quartz to draw to the screen. As of QE, everything is OpenGL, so overlaying 2D vectors on top of OpenGL frames is pretty seamless. I'm not sure, but QuickTime should be more transparently interoperable with Quartz and OpenGL now as well.
Microsoft demoed something like QE a few years ago, but it never shipped.
[ 09-17-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>The only reason Apple will do this (and yes Marklar does exist with X running on a AMD box according to someone I've spoken to) would be if IBM and Moto fail to deliver for Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's the only condition under which I can make sense of this rumor.
Dual-booting Windows makes even less sense: Then Apple because another Microsoft OEM, which means they'd have to agree to the uniform OEM license that Microsoft has, which means Gates would have them over a barrel. And Apple would be paying Microsoft for the OS licenses in addition to shouldering the costs for their own systems, which would make their computers more expensive.
I can also see this as the "or else" of an attempt by Steve to bring AIM back together. I can't see Apple favoring it as a strategy. It's almost all downside.