Schiller and MacOS X on Intel (Quote)

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 27
    AMD and Intel are planning to have virtualization built into their next line of CPUs. This could give Apple the window it needs to run on x86 but still keep the legacy baggage of current apps.



    Wintel (MS and Intel) isn't as powerful as it used to be, thanks to AMD offering some promising ideas (like a 32bit/64bit cpu) and linux/unix gaining steam in the server world. If that weren't the case, then x86-64 wouldn't exist at all. Intel didn't want to have 64bit on x86. They wanted IA64 to be the exclusive 64bit CPU for the masses. Despite the huge amount of money that was dumped into Itanium, it still hasn't taken very well. Sales are up lately, but IBM just launched a great Xeon SMP system. Xeon, of course, now has x86-64 as well. This leads us back to virtualization. I think Intel's hope is still force IA64 this way. AMD's reasoning might be otherwise. Either way, it will be interesting to see how virtualization will turn out for other OS's.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 27
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    But seriously, Apple is being left behind at 2.5GHz while AMD chips are soaring.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 27
    jonejone Posts: 102member
    AMD is soaring at 2.6Ghz?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 27
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JonE

    AMD is soaring at 2.6Ghz?



    Dude, that's a whole 100MHz!



    Oh wait, it's not 1996 anymore.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 27
    Huh? Are you guys suggesting that clock speed is the only thing that matters? If this were true, then the K8 would be getting smoked by the 3.8ghz P4. I can assure you that it doesn't. There are considerable architectural differences among the P4, K8, and G5, so to assume that they all perform the same at 2.5ghz is just plain silly. I think that if Apple adopted the K8, you would certainly see some performance gains, even without a big clockspeed improvement.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 27
    murkmurk Posts: 935member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    So if we ask him if he's a Martian sent to subjugate the Terran population, and he says no, then he must be?



    So you also have the those suspicions?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 27
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    So if we ask him if he's a Martian sent to subjugate the Terran population, and he says no, then he must be?



    By definition.



    There is nothing to say that Apple could not port OSX to Intel and use special boards that would be able to run OSX and Windows. However this seems to be a reciepe for disaster, in that why would anyone port their apps to MacOSX? If the Macintosh computers can run Windows then why write for Mac. The best answer is, all of the programmers working on apps for Linux and Unix. Make them a great platform, with a great OS with lots of services, (Core Audio, Image, Data, etc.) Provide them with great tools that they cannot find other places, and charge them little to nothing compared to the competition and show them an expanding market. I think that when you see Tiger, Quicktime7, Xcode, and the continued progression of the halo effect, that is the best that Apple can do. And the number of applications on MacOSX is going up. This takes time. I also failed to mention the next best thing to the Halo effect and that is hackers and Windows security issues, even more switchers.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.