Apple would still be vertically integrated. Mac OS X will only run on Apple machines, so they can't gain OS share to lose hardware sales.
i am NOT in favour of licencing the OS to OEM's.
Yes it make sense, but how do you prevent people from buying OS X ?
Currently you can find tons of OS X around the market. OS X is 150$. OS X is a unix soft, and thus unlike olders géneration Macs are not very dependant of the ROM.
What hardware protection will allow you to disable OS X to run on others computers ?
Quote:
I take the point on Altivec, and if it is so important it can be added as a seperate chip. I have heard rumours about the possiblity of that.
Separate chips are very bad for performances. In the past Apple has a project to do a specialised daughter card with Philips trimedia chips (dsp chips) : it never arrived. an altivec unit within a chip will be always faster than a separate chip.
Co-processors existed in the past like the 80387. Intel and Mot quickly integrated them in the chip, for cost and speed reasons.
Seperate chips are a regression.
And integrating a altivec unit on a X86 chip will be a big deal : the architecture is very different.
Quote:
know of 5 people: from my wife , to my brother, to about 3 other friends and colleagues who would switch if they didn't have to upgrade all their software immediately, and could handle the transition in stages.
So you are in favor of two booting OS. This is a quite good argument, an argument already pushed by Intel with his HyperOS chip : the ability to run different OS without too many performance penalties. Intel himself thinks that X86 chips are not good candidate for Apple, otherwise they will not push this project.
Quote:
So a dual booting PC/Mac would do the business. To at least double the market share. There is a huge demand for this - look at how linux i s spreading. And for people who do not detest Windows, even they like options, and a dual booting Mac gives them options.
IBM already tried this experience with one of his PPC chip able to run both X86 code and PPC code. This projec failed. It's not a good example for Apple.
Apple also used to have PC card inside : they cost a fortune and have low performances : buying a PC was a far better option.
And the principal point is : The X86 intel chips are reaching their last years of life. Switching from PPC to X-86 will be a pretty bad move, it will means two transitions in five years for people willing to follow Apple. Intel is fully aware of this, that why they present new projects including the Vanderpool project.There is no future in the next decade for the X-86 chips. Apple can continue to use PPC chips for the next coming two decades.
And the principal point is : The X86 intel chips are reaching their last years of life. Switching from PPC to X-86 will be a pretty bad move, it will means two transitions in five years for people willing to follow Apple. Intel is fully aware of this, that why they present new projects including the Vanderpool project.There is no future in the next decade for the X-86 chips. Apple can continue to use PPC chips for the next coming two decades.
OK, lets agree that the transition be to the Vanderpool chip, if possible.
They can add the altivec funtctionality to a new chip , if necessary. What percentage of Apples products use that specific API anyway? Altivec is massively over-rated - the windowserver uses OpenGL to transform it's windows and that will just port to the exact same chipset on the new APple machine running with an intel cpu.
OK, lets agree that the transition be to the Vanderpool chip, if possible.
May make the transition easier.
WHERE does it say that Vanderpool chips will be anything other than x86?
You are a ****ing retard man. It Apple did what you want, we would go through years of chaos switching architectures, get in return... slightly easier virtualization. Whoop-de-****ing-do.
Hilarious. You are a child. Now go play with your toys.
if by the way, you thought the suggestion was in fact "dumb" ( no bigger word - no more biting vocablularly? Of course not) you could in fact point to the "dumbness" - argued the point and won , or lost.
Altivec is largely unimportant - i have been writing for the Macfor years and have yet to have to optimise any code for altivec. nor has any major external developer. Name a few.
If it were necessary, for internal Apple api, it could be added as a seperate chip.
Isn't it interesting that you have thousands of posts to your name, little child, and yet have not acquired neither any forum etiquette nor an ability to argue your point like a grownup.
Right, I generally stay in forums until the idiots take over, so discuss amongst your selves.
Altivec is largely unimportant - i have been writing for the Macfor years and have yet to have to optimise any code for altivec. nor has any major external developer. Name a few.
The only reason the Mac was competitive during the G4 years in the high-end creative pro market was because applications like Photoshop and Final Cut Pro did contain, and still do contain, AltiVec code.
Quote:
Originally posted by asdasd
If it were necessary, for internal Apple api, it could be added as a seperate chip.
Doing that would negate any performance benefit. Better off leaving it out altogether.
Quote:
Originally posted by asdasd
Right, I generally stay in forums until the idiots take over, so discuss amongst your selves.
I'm guessing you don't stay very long in any forum then.
Programing and computer engineering isn't clap on clap off process. And a "simple recompile" is not simple.
A "simple recompile" is assuming the program was ment for modular use when it was made or rewrote. That itself would make people laugh pretty hard in the business world. This is like assuming everyone follows traffic laws.
Most likely if a switch happens you'll have companies telling a couple of poor saps that they need to pull unreasonable overtime for a while.
Most likely if a switch happens you'll have companies telling a couple of poor saps that they need to pull unreasonable overtime for a while.
Nah, most likely if a switch occurs, Adobe and the other big players will tell us to just run the x86 version of their apps. It saves them time, money, and energy. Eventually there would be no Mac developers targeting specifically OS X (why would you have two seperate x86 trees, when you can have one that works everywhere?). So OS X would die off, and Apple then has no advatage over Dell, and many disadvantages (small customer base, higher prices, etc).
Unfortunatly asdasd is so convinced he is correct, he doesn't want to hear alternative arguments. He spouts BS like "add AltiVec as another chip", and "who uses AltiVec anyways" Someone didn't do their homework before claiming "this is all Apple needs to do"...
He even took the time to register such a well thought out name for this forum, as he knew that he would become a good memeber, and continue posting for days to come. Oh, wait. Nope he just made a BS name, posted 8 times, and says he doesn't plan on coming back. *sniff* *sniff* I think I smell a troll...
I don't stay long in these forums because I am not interested in cults, but reasonable discussion.
Let me further say this:
I am certain that within 2 years Apple will announce a move to Intel, maybe in parallel with PPC development for now. I won't be back to say I told yo so.
Trolls don't make reasonable arguments backed up with statistical analysis that none of you cultists can answer. I am an adult, and you area all children, and as I have thousands of stock in Apple I willl take my discussions to more adult financial sites.
The altivec doesn't matter. Take this
Quote:
The only reason the Mac was competitive during the G4 years in the high-end creative pro market was because applications like Photoshop and Final Cut Pro did contain, and still do contain, AltiVec code.
I see, but they wouldn't have been competitive against what? Intel chips without altivec? So why not just have the better processor?
Quote:
Programing and computer engineering isn't clap on clap off process. And a "simple recompile" is not simple.
It is if you use Cocoa, or Carbon. I work in the business world. I used to write stuff using OpenStep that ran on windows. Explain why a properly written carbon app would not just recompile and work?
Quote:
Nah, most likely if a switch occurs, Adobe and the other big players will tell us to just run the x86 version of their apps. It saves them time, money, and energy. Eventually there would be no Mac developers targeting specifically OS X (why would you have two seperate x86 trees, when you can have one that works everywhere?). So OS X would die off, and Apple then has no advatage over Dell, and many disadvantages (small customer base, higher prices, etc).
If Apple has no advantages over Dell why do you buy it? The OS in 10.0 had no advantages over anything. People buy branded hardware and pay a premium for that.
The whole point is to increase the small customer base to 10% - and since I think that would happen - none of these manufacturers could get away with not producing the OS X version.
In any case nobody is producing any software for 3% of the market. Adobe is producing software for what is 50% of their market, and that is not likely to change.
Trolls don't make reasonable arguments backed up with statistical analysis that none of you cultists can answer. I am an adult, and you area all children, and as I have thousands of stock in Apple I willl take my discussions to more adult financial sites.
I am certain that within 2 years Apple will announce a move to Intel, maybe in parallel with PPC development for now. I won't be back to say I told yo so.
Great. so you are just one of hundreds who have predicted this. And so far none have them have been correct. Why will you be the one?
Quote:
Trolls don't make reasonable arguments backed up with statistical analysis that none of you cultists can answer.
Stats? what stats? All I saw was stuff you pulled out of thin air about how Apple would instantly get 10% or 20% marketshae. Anything to back that up? I didn't think so.
Quote:
I am an adult, and you area all children, and as I have thousands of stock in Apple I willl take my discussions to more adult financial sites.
Thousands of shares
I myself have about 16 (and damn pround of it), and have held them for a while now (back when Apple was riding up at $120+ and then when it dipped after the spilt to $14)
Quote:
The altivec doesn't matter.
Yes it does. I believe enough people have proven why it does, and you have said nothing to refute this. Only "it doesn't matter". Explain why? Maybe you could also exaplin why Intel trys to follow suit with SSE/SSE2? And if you say one thign about Apple using SSE/SSE2 instead of Altivec, we know you are just full of it.
Quote:
It is if you use Cocoa, or Carbon. I work in the business world. I used to write stuff using OpenStep that ran on windows. Explain why a properly written carbon app would not just recompile and work?
Platform optimizations (like Altivec, or more general non-Altivec G4/G5 optimizations). An application like FCP, Photoshop, OS X, iTunes, etc can't simply just be recompiled.
Quote:
If Apple has no advantages over Dell why do you buy it?
That is just it. Right now there is an advantage (or at least a difference). Mac OS X on a PPC is the advantage in my mind. If Apple goes to x86, OS X will eventually die (see OS/2, or the countless other "Apple shodul move to x86" threads), and then there is no advantage over Dell.
Quote:
The whole point is to increase the small customer base to 10%
I would argue it already is at 10% in the consumer space, where it really matters for developers.
Quote:
none of these manufacturers could get away with not producing the OS X version.
Buzz.. wrong. Adobe has an x86 product currently. Apple moves to x86. Why would Adobe spend time/money/resources tweaking their already existing x86 product for the new Apple x86, when they could just say buy the Windows version as it will run for you as is. No compnay in its right mind would build two versions of its apps for one platform, when they have one version that runs everywhere.
Quote:
In any case nobody is producing any software for 3% of the market. Adobe is producing software for what is 50% of their market, and that is not likely to change.
Again, I would argue that Apple has greater than 3% of the market 90% of developers shodul care about. Its really too bad that IDG/Garner don't ever show this info, and peopl e(like yourself) are mistaken on the issue.
Further, if no one was producing software for what you call "3%" of the market, what is all this I have running on my computer?
I think at this point it's obvious that "asdasd" is not stupid, but a simple troll. I'm guessing the best thing to do is ignore him until one of the admins get around to banning him.
As someone who also has a vested interest as a stockholder, an Apple move to Intel at this point would be disastrous.
NeXT failed in their attempts to move from the 68k chips over to Intel. The BeOS was also a miserable failure in moving from PowerPC to Intel. Why OS X would fare any better is something that is hard to understand.
The main difference between an Apple machine and a PC is essentially the CPU. The other components are basically the same.
At one time, the PowerPC was dominant in its performance. It wasn't until the G4 debacle with Motorola that the PowerPC fell behind. At present, the PowerPC has regained its dominance.
Intel does not have a consumer based 64 bit processor and AMD is gasping for air. AMD cannot continue to finance further development for the Opteron like IBM for the PowerPC. By the time Intel gets a credible 64 bit x86 chip to the market, the PowerPC may be completely out of reach.
With this being the case, why on earth would Apple make another jolting switch to a new CPU?
Granted, Apple could make such a transition relatively painless. But why would they chew up precious resources in designing new machines, programming a new software development environment, and upsetting both IBM and Microsoft in the process?
Building Intel based hardware does not automatically mean that Apple machines would become less costly either.
It is understandable that Intel would want OS X on their own chips. It ensures that Intel maintains its dominant position. Having an alternative and superior Apple OS run on what has become the superior desktop chip by IBM must be causing them some concern. Apple and IBM now have the potential to render Intel and Microsoft irrelevant.
However, if Intel or AMD wants OS X, they should be finance Apple to do it. Apple should NOT be wasting their precious resources in moving to an inferior chip. They should be every ounce of energy into OS X development along with the 970, 980, and 9x0 chips.
I as a stockholder absolutely do not desire any independent movement on Apple's part toward x86 systems.
Apple will get their 10% market share and perhaps higher. In another decade, PowerPC chips will likely dominate the market. Granted that most of them will likely be running an IBM version of Linux, but they will dominate. Intel will be relegated to the low end market of very cheap computers and AMD will go into oblivion. Apple will very likely gain dominance in the consumer market, however. OS X and Apple's well-crafted applications will ensure a very bright future.
IBM will move the corporate world over to Linux on PowerPC and Apple the consumer market over to OS X on PowerPC.
That is precisely Intel's biggest fear and their new found vigor in attempting to come up with a viable alternative for Apple to turn to.
With Apple's commitment to the 970, IBM has a partner that can ensure the PowerPC's success. As long as the chip has the potential of being a money maker, IBM would likely be willing to commit the resources to further development and keeping the chip at the cutting edge.
Getting Apple off of IBM chips should be Intel's biggest priority and they need to do it pronto. Intel's problem is that such a move would smack Microsoft in the face and Intel is not yet ready to face off with Redmond.
I don't really understand why, but Intel seems more fearful of facing off with Microsoft than with IBM and Apple. They need to commit and commit fully as soon as possible. They need to remain married to Microsoft or annul the marriage and get into bed with Apple. Apple does not and should not partake in the adulterous affair that Intel is proposing. Apple has its own dedicated partner and should remain faithful.
Intel wants to keep their relationship with MS, but are inviting Apple into their bed. Well, the only thing I see coming from that one is Apple landing into bankruptcy.
Unfortunately, Intel is married to a drunken and abusive partner. They know that it is a destructive relationship, but just cannot pull away. Microsoft is involved in an adulterous relationship of its own with AMD and is so willing to use it as a club. Intel cannot turn anywhere else, so they court Apple's OS X and Linux.
However, OS X belongs to the PowerPC. If Intel wants OS X, they have the resources to fund the project or to do one of their own with Linux
Apple would do well to leave that one alone. Intel is going to have to solve their own problems. How they deal with the 970 and upcoming 980, much less IBM's Power 5 will be quite interesting.
Altivec aside, Intel has no immediate 64 bit chip as an alternative to the 970. And don't be bringing the ailing AMD into the picture. Those guys are hemorrhaging cash fast.
I haven't seen any AMD Opteron sales figures, but IBM may have sold more 970 chips in one day with the Virginia Tech order than the number of Opterons AMD has sold thus far. Given this scenario, why would Apple even want to use AMD?
Why would AMD machines be any better for running Linux than IBM Power or PowerPC machines either? Is there really any realistic expectation that MS will get a 64 bit Windows OS to the market before Apple releases a fully 64 bit OS X?
For all of the talk about the Boxx Opterons, how many of those things are in operation? I can't even remember the last time I saw a Windows laptop running an AMD chip.
Sorry for the verbose reply, but moving their hardware over to Intel CPUs is not in Apple's best interest. If I were an Intel stockholder, I'd be rooting for it hugely. But, alas, I am not. I have a vested interest in Apple. Apple throwing out their substantial interests in PowerPC and Altivec code seems ludicrous.
I do fully expect IBM to release PowerPC machines running Linux. The machines will likely be hacked to run OS X or vice versa. Staying on PowerPC does not guarantee that Apple will not have to address issues with cloning either, but that is another topic.
Go crow somewhere else. OS X on Intel just isn't going to happen.
Apple will get their 10% market share and perhaps higher. In another decade, PowerPC chips will likely dominate the market. Granted that most of them will likely be running an IBM version of Linux, but they will dominate. Intel will be relegated to the low end market of very cheap computers and AMD will go into oblivion. Apple will very likely gain dominance in the consumer market, however. OS X and Apple's well-crafted applications will ensure a very bright future.
"dominance" in the consumer market?? The powerpc will "dominate". Sheesh. Crazy talk.
I am as much as fan as OS X as the next man ( and seemingly more of a fan of the hardware than many here) but that is not going to happen - even with the Intel switch. Nor is Linux going to be that popular either. The vast majority of machines will run wintel in 10 years time, as now.
I agree that Intel would want a way to get out of the abusive marriage with Microsoft. I see an investment in Apple as a good thing. In any case I am not "crowing", nor "trolling" I am a fan of Apple and clearly would like them to do well, and better.
The emotional investment people have in the actual chip on the computer they buy confuses me.
The emotional investment people have in the actual chip on the computer they buy confuses me.
There is not so much emotional investment in the PPC chip line in Apple products.
The problem is that changing the heart of Apple's computer means a major transition.
During the last decade 2 major transitions occured : the PPC one, and the OS X one.
The PPC one, was a rugh one ( even if Apple did a great job with the emulation), many consumers where obliged to buy the new optimised version of softwares in order to get advantage of the new PPC code.
The OS X one, was also a great transition, a transition who is not finished yet, and who will not be achieved until 2 or 3 more years.
Apple consumers think that they have faced enough transitions. They don't want an another one, and especially a huge one, like changing of chip, especially if this chip belong to an old family with no future.
The next big transition will be for the PC world : it will be the transition from X86 generation to a new generation of chip. Apple have suceeded two transitions, but his customers will prefer to stay quiet for the 2 next coming decades. At least it's my case.
but that is not going to happen - even with the Intel switch.
Sheesh make up your mind. You your self proclaimed an instant 10-20% marketshare with the switch to Intel. Now you say that 10% "is not going to happen"?
Anyways, I think this whole argument has been shut down until you can back up your claims (or lack thereof) with some proof (in some form or another). All you do is call us kids, and claim you already posted statistical evidence.
...and isn't it a 'Mac on x86' thread in disguise?
Where are the Mac on Itanium/x86-64/Crusoe threads? \
Quote:
In another decade, PowerPC chips will likely dominate the market.
Same things were said in 1993 and again in 96/97 when Apple produced the first 300MHz personal computer, the 6500. Although PowerPC is better positioned than in 2000, it would take quite a leap forwards for it to dominate in the PC CPU space. Perhaps Intel/AMD will drop the ball on agreeing/financing an x86 successor?
Edit: I'll add my support to the Altivec fan club: Altivec is a rather nicely designed and useful SIMD set and would be rather hard to bolt onto a non-PowerPC CPU in an efficient manner.
Where are the Mac on Itanium/x86-64/Crusoe threads? \
Same things were said in 1993 and again in 96/97 when Apple produced the first 300MHz personal computer, the 6500. Although PowerPC is better positioned than in 2000, it would take quite a leap forwards for it to dominate in the PC CPU space. Perhaps Intel/AMD will drop the ball on agreeing/financing an x86 successor?
Edit: I'll add my support to the Altivec fan club: Altivec is a rather nicely designed and useful SIMD set and would be rather hard to bolt onto a non-PowerPC CPU in an efficient manner.
Yes it's quite unlikely that the powerPC become dominant in the PC market. However the powerPC seems to be dominant in the embedded market.
I doubt that Intel and Amd will make an agreement. This could arrive unless if their situation is critical. This two companies are in competition. Intel will be happy to see AMD sink and AMD dreams to be the first chip supplier of the PC market. Intel is also in competition with IBM (itanium vs power X serie)
Intel is pushing for the end of the decade his next technologie : vanderpool, and AMD is pushing X86 64 bit isa. Some rumors said that in fact the Prescott chip has unactive 64 bits isa registers. No one can say for sure what will be the landscape of PC chip in 2010.
Comments
i don't think you got it.
Apple would still be vertically integrated. Mac OS X will only run on Apple machines, so they can't gain OS share to lose hardware sales.
i am NOT in favour of licencing the OS to OEM's.
Yes it make sense, but how do you prevent people from buying OS X ?
Currently you can find tons of OS X around the market. OS X is 150$. OS X is a unix soft, and thus unlike olders géneration Macs are not very dependant of the ROM.
What hardware protection will allow you to disable OS X to run on others computers ?
I take the point on Altivec, and if it is so important it can be added as a seperate chip. I have heard rumours about the possiblity of that.
Separate chips are very bad for performances. In the past Apple has a project to do a specialised daughter card with Philips trimedia chips (dsp chips) : it never arrived. an altivec unit within a chip will be always faster than a separate chip.
Co-processors existed in the past like the 80387. Intel and Mot quickly integrated them in the chip, for cost and speed reasons.
Seperate chips are a regression.
And integrating a altivec unit on a X86 chip will be a big deal : the architecture is very different.
know of 5 people: from my wife , to my brother, to about 3 other friends and colleagues who would switch if they didn't have to upgrade all their software immediately, and could handle the transition in stages.
So you are in favor of two booting OS. This is a quite good argument, an argument already pushed by Intel with his HyperOS chip : the ability to run different OS without too many performance penalties. Intel himself thinks that X86 chips are not good candidate for Apple, otherwise they will not push this project.
So a dual booting PC/Mac would do the business. To at least double the market share. There is a huge demand for this - look at how linux i s spreading. And for people who do not detest Windows, even they like options, and a dual booting Mac gives them options.
IBM already tried this experience with one of his PPC chip able to run both X86 code and PPC code. This projec failed. It's not a good example for Apple.
Apple also used to have PC card inside : they cost a fortune and have low performances : buying a PC was a far better option.
And the principal point is : The X86 intel chips are reaching their last years of life. Switching from PPC to X-86 will be a pretty bad move, it will means two transitions in five years for people willing to follow Apple. Intel is fully aware of this, that why they present new projects including the Vanderpool project.There is no future in the next decade for the X-86 chips. Apple can continue to use PPC chips for the next coming two decades.
And the principal point is : The X86 intel chips are reaching their last years of life. Switching from PPC to X-86 will be a pretty bad move, it will means two transitions in five years for people willing to follow Apple. Intel is fully aware of this, that why they present new projects including the Vanderpool project.There is no future in the next decade for the X-86 chips. Apple can continue to use PPC chips for the next coming two decades.
OK, lets agree that the transition be to the Vanderpool chip, if possible.
May make the transition easier.
Originally posted by asdasd
They can add the altivec funtctionality to a new chip , if necessary. What percentage of Apples products use that specific API anyway? Altivec is massively over-rated - the windowserver uses OpenGL to transform it's windows and that will just port to the exact same chipset on the new APple machine running with an intel cpu.
DUMBASS ALERT
Originally posted by asdasd
OK, lets agree that the transition be to the Vanderpool chip, if possible.
May make the transition easier.
WHERE does it say that Vanderpool chips will be anything other than x86?
You are a ****ing retard man. It Apple did what you want, we would go through years of chaos switching architectures, get in return... slightly easier virtualization. Whoop-de-****ing-do.
Barto
DUMBASS ALERT
Hilarious. You are a child. Now go play with your toys.
if by the way, you thought the suggestion was in fact "dumb" ( no bigger word - no more biting vocablularly? Of course not) you could in fact point to the "dumbness" - argued the point and won , or lost.
Altivec is largely unimportant - i have been writing for the Macfor years and have yet to have to optimise any code for altivec. nor has any major external developer. Name a few.
If it were necessary, for internal Apple api, it could be added as a seperate chip.
Isn't it interesting that you have thousands of posts to your name, little child, and yet have not acquired neither any forum etiquette nor an ability to argue your point like a grownup.
Right, I generally stay in forums until the idiots take over, so discuss amongst your selves.
Originally posted by asdasd
Altivec is largely unimportant - i have been writing for the Macfor years and have yet to have to optimise any code for altivec. nor has any major external developer. Name a few.
The only reason the Mac was competitive during the G4 years in the high-end creative pro market was because applications like Photoshop and Final Cut Pro did contain, and still do contain, AltiVec code.
Originally posted by asdasd
If it were necessary, for internal Apple api, it could be added as a seperate chip.
Doing that would negate any performance benefit. Better off leaving it out altogether.
Originally posted by asdasd
Right, I generally stay in forums until the idiots take over, so discuss amongst your selves.
I'm guessing you don't stay very long in any forum then.
Barto
A "simple recompile" is assuming the program was ment for modular use when it was made or rewrote. That itself would make people laugh pretty hard in the business world. This is like assuming everyone follows traffic laws.
Most likely if a switch happens you'll have companies telling a couple of poor saps that they need to pull unreasonable overtime for a while.
...and isn't it a 'Mac on x86' thread in disguise?
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Kuku
Most likely if a switch happens you'll have companies telling a couple of poor saps that they need to pull unreasonable overtime for a while.
Nah, most likely if a switch occurs, Adobe and the other big players will tell us to just run the x86 version of their apps. It saves them time, money, and energy. Eventually there would be no Mac developers targeting specifically OS X (why would you have two seperate x86 trees, when you can have one that works everywhere?). So OS X would die off, and Apple then has no advatage over Dell, and many disadvantages (small customer base, higher prices, etc).
Unfortunatly asdasd is so convinced he is correct, he doesn't want to hear alternative arguments. He spouts BS like "add AltiVec as another chip", and "who uses AltiVec anyways"
He even took the time to register such a well thought out name for this forum, as he knew that he would become a good memeber, and continue posting for days to come. Oh, wait. Nope he just made a BS name, posted 8 times, and says he doesn't plan on coming back. *sniff* *sniff* I think I smell a troll...
Let me further say this:
I am certain that within 2 years Apple will announce a move to Intel, maybe in parallel with PPC development for now. I won't be back to say I told yo so.
Trolls don't make reasonable arguments backed up with statistical analysis that none of you cultists can answer. I am an adult, and you area all children, and as I have thousands of stock in Apple I willl take my discussions to more adult financial sites.
The altivec doesn't matter. Take this
The only reason the Mac was competitive during the G4 years in the high-end creative pro market was because applications like Photoshop and Final Cut Pro did contain, and still do contain, AltiVec code.
I see, but they wouldn't have been competitive against what? Intel chips without altivec? So why not just have the better processor?
Programing and computer engineering isn't clap on clap off process. And a "simple recompile" is not simple.
It is if you use Cocoa, or Carbon. I work in the business world. I used to write stuff using OpenStep that ran on windows. Explain why a properly written carbon app would not just recompile and work?
Nah, most likely if a switch occurs, Adobe and the other big players will tell us to just run the x86 version of their apps. It saves them time, money, and energy. Eventually there would be no Mac developers targeting specifically OS X (why would you have two seperate x86 trees, when you can have one that works everywhere?). So OS X would die off, and Apple then has no advatage over Dell, and many disadvantages (small customer base, higher prices, etc).
If Apple has no advantages over Dell why do you buy it? The OS in 10.0 had no advantages over anything. People buy branded hardware and pay a premium for that.
The whole point is to increase the small customer base to 10% - and since I think that would happen - none of these manufacturers could get away with not producing the OS X version.
In any case nobody is producing any software for 3% of the market. Adobe is producing software for what is 50% of their market, and that is not likely to change.
Originally posted by asdasd
Trolls don't make reasonable arguments backed up with statistical analysis that none of you cultists can answer. I am an adult, and you area all children, and as I have thousands of stock in Apple I willl take my discussions to more adult financial sites.
Originally posted by asdasd
I am certain that within 2 years Apple will announce a move to Intel, maybe in parallel with PPC development for now. I won't be back to say I told yo so.
Great. so you are just one of hundreds who have predicted this. And so far none have them have been correct. Why will you be the one?
Trolls don't make reasonable arguments backed up with statistical analysis that none of you cultists can answer.
Stats? what stats? All I saw was stuff you pulled out of thin air about how Apple would instantly get 10% or 20% marketshae. Anything to back that up? I didn't think so.
I am an adult, and you area all children, and as I have thousands of stock in Apple I willl take my discussions to more adult financial sites.
Thousands of shares
I myself have about 16 (and damn pround of it), and have held them for a while now (back when Apple was riding up at $120+ and then when it dipped after the spilt to $14)
The altivec doesn't matter.
Yes it does. I believe enough people have proven why it does, and you have said nothing to refute this. Only "it doesn't matter". Explain why? Maybe you could also exaplin why Intel trys to follow suit with SSE/SSE2? And if you say one thign about Apple using SSE/SSE2 instead of Altivec, we know you are just full of it.
It is if you use Cocoa, or Carbon. I work in the business world. I used to write stuff using OpenStep that ran on windows. Explain why a properly written carbon app would not just recompile and work?
Platform optimizations (like Altivec, or more general non-Altivec G4/G5 optimizations). An application like FCP, Photoshop, OS X, iTunes, etc can't simply just be recompiled.
If Apple has no advantages over Dell why do you buy it?
That is just it. Right now there is an advantage (or at least a difference). Mac OS X on a PPC is the advantage in my mind. If Apple goes to x86, OS X will eventually die (see OS/2, or the countless other "Apple shodul move to x86" threads), and then there is no advantage over Dell.
The whole point is to increase the small customer base to 10%
I would argue it already is at 10% in the consumer space, where it really matters for developers.
none of these manufacturers could get away with not producing the OS X version.
Buzz.. wrong. Adobe has an x86 product currently. Apple moves to x86. Why would Adobe spend time/money/resources tweaking their already existing x86 product for the new Apple x86, when they could just say buy the Windows version as it will run for you as is. No compnay in its right mind would build two versions of its apps for one platform, when they have one version that runs everywhere.
In any case nobody is producing any software for 3% of the market. Adobe is producing software for what is 50% of their market, and that is not likely to change.
Again, I would argue that Apple has greater than 3% of the market 90% of developers shodul care about. Its really too bad that IDG/Garner don't ever show this info, and peopl e(like yourself) are mistaken on the issue.
Further, if no one was producing software for what you call "3%" of the market, what is all this I have running on my computer?
NeXT failed in their attempts to move from the 68k chips over to Intel. The BeOS was also a miserable failure in moving from PowerPC to Intel. Why OS X would fare any better is something that is hard to understand.
The main difference between an Apple machine and a PC is essentially the CPU. The other components are basically the same.
At one time, the PowerPC was dominant in its performance. It wasn't until the G4 debacle with Motorola that the PowerPC fell behind. At present, the PowerPC has regained its dominance.
Intel does not have a consumer based 64 bit processor and AMD is gasping for air. AMD cannot continue to finance further development for the Opteron like IBM for the PowerPC. By the time Intel gets a credible 64 bit x86 chip to the market, the PowerPC may be completely out of reach.
With this being the case, why on earth would Apple make another jolting switch to a new CPU?
Granted, Apple could make such a transition relatively painless. But why would they chew up precious resources in designing new machines, programming a new software development environment, and upsetting both IBM and Microsoft in the process?
Building Intel based hardware does not automatically mean that Apple machines would become less costly either.
It is understandable that Intel would want OS X on their own chips. It ensures that Intel maintains its dominant position. Having an alternative and superior Apple OS run on what has become the superior desktop chip by IBM must be causing them some concern. Apple and IBM now have the potential to render Intel and Microsoft irrelevant.
However, if Intel or AMD wants OS X, they should be finance Apple to do it. Apple should NOT be wasting their precious resources in moving to an inferior chip. They should be every ounce of energy into OS X development along with the 970, 980, and 9x0 chips.
I as a stockholder absolutely do not desire any independent movement on Apple's part toward x86 systems.
Apple will get their 10% market share and perhaps higher. In another decade, PowerPC chips will likely dominate the market. Granted that most of them will likely be running an IBM version of Linux, but they will dominate. Intel will be relegated to the low end market of very cheap computers and AMD will go into oblivion. Apple will very likely gain dominance in the consumer market, however. OS X and Apple's well-crafted applications will ensure a very bright future.
IBM will move the corporate world over to Linux on PowerPC and Apple the consumer market over to OS X on PowerPC.
That is precisely Intel's biggest fear and their new found vigor in attempting to come up with a viable alternative for Apple to turn to.
With Apple's commitment to the 970, IBM has a partner that can ensure the PowerPC's success. As long as the chip has the potential of being a money maker, IBM would likely be willing to commit the resources to further development and keeping the chip at the cutting edge.
Getting Apple off of IBM chips should be Intel's biggest priority and they need to do it pronto. Intel's problem is that such a move would smack Microsoft in the face and Intel is not yet ready to face off with Redmond.
I don't really understand why, but Intel seems more fearful of facing off with Microsoft than with IBM and Apple. They need to commit and commit fully as soon as possible. They need to remain married to Microsoft or annul the marriage and get into bed with Apple. Apple does not and should not partake in the adulterous affair that Intel is proposing. Apple has its own dedicated partner and should remain faithful.
Intel wants to keep their relationship with MS, but are inviting Apple into their bed. Well, the only thing I see coming from that one is Apple landing into bankruptcy.
Unfortunately, Intel is married to a drunken and abusive partner. They know that it is a destructive relationship, but just cannot pull away. Microsoft is involved in an adulterous relationship of its own with AMD and is so willing to use it as a club. Intel cannot turn anywhere else, so they court Apple's OS X and Linux.
However, OS X belongs to the PowerPC. If Intel wants OS X, they have the resources to fund the project or to do one of their own with Linux
Apple would do well to leave that one alone. Intel is going to have to solve their own problems. How they deal with the 970 and upcoming 980, much less IBM's Power 5 will be quite interesting.
Altivec aside, Intel has no immediate 64 bit chip as an alternative to the 970. And don't be bringing the ailing AMD into the picture. Those guys are hemorrhaging cash fast.
I haven't seen any AMD Opteron sales figures, but IBM may have sold more 970 chips in one day with the Virginia Tech order than the number of Opterons AMD has sold thus far. Given this scenario, why would Apple even want to use AMD?
Why would AMD machines be any better for running Linux than IBM Power or PowerPC machines either? Is there really any realistic expectation that MS will get a 64 bit Windows OS to the market before Apple releases a fully 64 bit OS X?
For all of the talk about the Boxx Opterons, how many of those things are in operation? I can't even remember the last time I saw a Windows laptop running an AMD chip.
Sorry for the verbose reply, but moving their hardware over to Intel CPUs is not in Apple's best interest. If I were an Intel stockholder, I'd be rooting for it hugely. But, alas, I am not. I have a vested interest in Apple. Apple throwing out their substantial interests in PowerPC and Altivec code seems ludicrous.
I do fully expect IBM to release PowerPC machines running Linux. The machines will likely be hacked to run OS X or vice versa. Staying on PowerPC does not guarantee that Apple will not have to address issues with cloning either, but that is another topic.
Go crow somewhere else. OS X on Intel just isn't going to happen.
Apple will get their 10% market share and perhaps higher. In another decade, PowerPC chips will likely dominate the market. Granted that most of them will likely be running an IBM version of Linux, but they will dominate. Intel will be relegated to the low end market of very cheap computers and AMD will go into oblivion. Apple will very likely gain dominance in the consumer market, however. OS X and Apple's well-crafted applications will ensure a very bright future.
"dominance" in the consumer market?? The powerpc will "dominate". Sheesh. Crazy talk.
I am as much as fan as OS X as the next man ( and seemingly more of a fan of the hardware than many here) but that is not going to happen - even with the Intel switch. Nor is Linux going to be that popular either. The vast majority of machines will run wintel in 10 years time, as now.
I agree that Intel would want a way to get out of the abusive marriage with Microsoft. I see an investment in Apple as a good thing. In any case I am not "crowing", nor "trolling" I am a fan of Apple and clearly would like them to do well, and better.
The emotional investment people have in the actual chip on the computer they buy confuses me.
Originally posted by asdasd
The emotional investment people have in the actual chip on the computer they buy confuses me.
There is not so much emotional investment in the PPC chip line in Apple products.
The problem is that changing the heart of Apple's computer means a major transition.
During the last decade 2 major transitions occured : the PPC one, and the OS X one.
The PPC one, was a rugh one ( even if Apple did a great job with the emulation), many consumers where obliged to buy the new optimised version of softwares in order to get advantage of the new PPC code.
The OS X one, was also a great transition, a transition who is not finished yet, and who will not be achieved until 2 or 3 more years.
Apple consumers think that they have faced enough transitions. They don't want an another one, and especially a huge one, like changing of chip, especially if this chip belong to an old family with no future.
The next big transition will be for the PC world : it will be the transition from X86 generation to a new generation of chip. Apple have suceeded two transitions, but his customers will prefer to stay quiet for the 2 next coming decades. At least it's my case.
Originally posted by asdasd
but that is not going to happen - even with the Intel switch.
Sheesh make up your mind. You your self proclaimed an instant 10-20% marketshare with the switch to Intel. Now you say that 10% "is not going to happen"?
Anyways, I think this whole argument has been shut down until you can back up your claims (or lack thereof) with some proof (in some form or another). All you do is call us kids, and claim you already posted statistical evidence.
...and isn't it a 'Mac on x86' thread in disguise?
Where are the Mac on Itanium/x86-64/Crusoe threads?
In another decade, PowerPC chips will likely dominate the market.
Same things were said in 1993 and again in 96/97 when Apple produced the first 300MHz personal computer, the 6500. Although PowerPC is better positioned than in 2000, it would take quite a leap forwards for it to dominate in the PC CPU space. Perhaps Intel/AMD will drop the ball on agreeing/financing an x86 successor?
Edit: I'll add my support to the Altivec fan club: Altivec is a rather nicely designed and useful SIMD set and would be rather hard to bolt onto a non-PowerPC CPU in an efficient manner.
Originally posted by Stoo
Where are the Mac on Itanium/x86-64/Crusoe threads?
Same things were said in 1993 and again in 96/97 when Apple produced the first 300MHz personal computer, the 6500. Although PowerPC is better positioned than in 2000, it would take quite a leap forwards for it to dominate in the PC CPU space. Perhaps Intel/AMD will drop the ball on agreeing/financing an x86 successor?
Edit: I'll add my support to the Altivec fan club: Altivec is a rather nicely designed and useful SIMD set and would be rather hard to bolt onto a non-PowerPC CPU in an efficient manner.
Yes it's quite unlikely that the powerPC become dominant in the PC market. However the powerPC seems to be dominant in the embedded market.
I doubt that Intel and Amd will make an agreement. This could arrive unless if their situation is critical. This two companies are in competition. Intel will be happy to see AMD sink and AMD dreams to be the first chip supplier of the PC market. Intel is also in competition with IBM (itanium vs power X serie)
Intel is pushing for the end of the decade his next technologie : vanderpool, and AMD is pushing X86 64 bit isa. Some rumors said that in fact the Prescott chip has unactive 64 bits isa registers. No one can say for sure what will be the landscape of PC chip in 2010.