ok i dunno if this has been said. i dunno what the heck apple is doing. they have good relations with 2 of the 3 companies that make the cell processor. is it just me or does the cell processor just SMOKE AND BEAT any processor out there. i know apple is not "favoring" IBM right now because of their chip shortages, but isn't it worth it to get their hands on the cell. i mean common the cell practically uses the same kind of chip architecture and so WHY THE HECK NOT !!! few app and OS changes. So this seems like a stupid move.
Also i think that steve knows this and has anyone thought that this intel thing might just be a bridge until CELL has fully matured? also although Intel is big aren't they like the worst chip makers?
If anyone wants to explain this in more detail to me please e-mail
In one of the WWDC follow ups, I seem to remember Steve (or someone from Apple) saying that the cell WAS considered, but it had two problems: (1) It wasn't a general purpose processor and (2) It would require a lot of code changes to use it (implying more than moving to Intel would). You'd have to search other forums for comparisions of cell vs "pc" processors. So Apple claimed that it wasn't a "few" changes to move to the cell, nor would it do everything that it needed (i.e., maybe Apple would need some bigger cell derivative)?
I don't trust Intel with their DRM crap or their competence.
I would trust Apple's competence. They know they have an excellent security edge over Windows and they wouldn't use EFI if it were as half baked as you seem to think.
Quote:
Their firmware can access the hardware from under the OS, including the hard disk. Add to the fact that EFI is always running and can be accessed via network, you can have firmware viruses which spread regardless what OS you have installed and wreak havoc on your data.
It is my understanding that the network stack is only available in the pre-boot environment. Once the OS loader is finished using whatever pre-boot services it needs from EFI, it calls an exit function and those services are no longer available to the system. I also doubt Intel would be stupid enough to have this network stack automatically open a port to which other computers on the network could connect and executive code. That would be ridiculous, Intel's engineers aren't morons.
EFI actually looks like it's probably better than Open Firmware. It seems like an evolved version of OF, so I'm not sure what the opposition to it is on your part.
well thanks for setting me straight on the CELL and the whole intel thing so i guess i' ll just have to cope with the fact G6 will be an intel. hopefully it will be called g6.
I would trust Apple's competence. They know they have an excellent security edge over Windows and they wouldn't use EFI if it were as half baked as you seem to think.
HA!
Just because Windows is a scum hole of viruses, worms, spyware, and trojans doesn't make Apple competent.
Conversely, Intel is heavily promoting what it calls "active management technology" (AMT) in the new chips as a major plus for system administrators and enterprise IT. Understood to be a sub-operating system residing in the chip's firmware, AMT will allow administrators to both monitor or control individual machines independent of an operating system.
Additionally, AMT also features what Intel calls "IDE redirection" which will allow administrators to remotely enable, disable or format or configure individual drives and reload operating systems and software from remote locations, again independent of operating systems. Both AMT and IDE control are enabled by a new network interface controller
That is certainly cause for major concern but it has nothing to do with the EFI, the firmware end of things, which is what I was referring to.
Part of the whole trusted computing 'platform', if you will, is it has to be initialized from the beginning. If you wanted the kernel or a firmware driver to run within a trusted address space it would have to be initialized by the firmware.
Part of the whole trusted computing 'platform', if you will, is it has to be initialized from the beginning. If you wanted the kernel or a firmware driver to run within a trusted address space it would have to be initialized by the firmware.
You are, of course, right. I stand corrected. Any of these things would have to live in the firmware. But that's exactly how it will be circumvented. Intel is wasting its time, and so is Apple if it thinks this will be the holy grail of copy protection. It will fail. Miserably.
ok i dunno if this has been said. i dunno what the heck apple is doing. they have good relations with 2 of the 3 companies that make the cell processor. is it just me or does the cell processor just SMOKE AND BEAT any processor out there.
You really don't want to use a cell processor in a PC. They are great chips for certain very specific tasks. They have a scaled down PPC core with 8 DSP-like cores in them. Those DSP cores can do some pretty amazing things, but are difficult to program, and best suited for constrained problems.
You are not going to see cell processors used in workstations from anyone (IBM included) that compete well with general purpose processors. Apples and oranges, really.
You really don't want to use a cell processor in a PC. They are great chips for certain very specific tasks. They have a scaled down PPC core with 8 DSP-like cores in them. Those DSP cores can do some pretty amazing things, but are difficult to program, and best suited for constrained problems.
You are not going to see cell processors used in workstations from anyone (IBM included) that compete well with general purpose processors. Apples and oranges, really.
It really isn't so bad as you think. The Power core in the Cell is in-order, but its clock rate is very high. Even if you didn't use any of the SPEs for anything the machine would perform like a dual 970 @ ~1.5 GHz (for a 2-way SMT 4 GHz Cell Power core). And there are a lot of things it wouldn't have to do since the OS could offload tasks to the SPEs (all graphics, audio, video, and possibly networking). On the other hand, that isn't a leading edge number so obviously Apple doesn't feel it is good enough.
well thanks for setting me straight on the CELL and the whole intel thing so i guess i' ll just have to cope with the fact G6 will be an intel. hopefully it will be called g6.
It was a pretty accurate and interesting read, up until the point where Mr Murphy decided to throw Sun into the mix. Of course, Sun's own President and COO recently blogged about how Apple should be using Solaris 10 on their Macs.
It really isn't so bad as you think. The Power core in the Cell is in-order, but its clock rate is very high. Even if you didn't use any of the SPEs for anything the machine would perform like a dual 970 @ ~1.5 GHz (for a 2-way SMT 4 GHz Cell Power core). And there are a lot of things it wouldn't have to do since the OS could offload tasks to the SPEs (all graphics, audio, video, and possibly networking). On the other hand, that isn't a leading edge number so obviously Apple doesn't feel it is good enough.
I don't think that Apple made his decision on a leading edge number question, or any other marketing reasons.
The decision they took was a difficult one, they may have considered the cons and advantages of every solutions. The truth is , that the cell chip was not good enough for Apple.
Agreed. Even IBM realized that mach was a waste of time and energy. Apple lost me, but not my wife, with the switch to X. I was never a fan of the nExt architecture and by extension X, and the few interface gains in X were offset by the losses. X could and still can't make its mind up. Is it a unix box? Is it mach? All of that has limited what could be done, and now that the hardware will be identical does open Apple up to some potentially unflattering comparisons. For all the talk in this thread about giving credit to Intel for producing competitive hardware, everyone should be willing to admit that MS can produce very competitive performance, as the linux folks have seen from time to time, especially in the enterprise space.
You've missed Mac OS X. Check out the tech specs because it is way beyond a "few interface gains". The applications and key technologies are way beyond "unix" and "mach" confusions. BTW - this is a common misunderstanding for MS and unix users.
Hi PowerDoc => You're meaning that Apple made his decision itself?
OK, but aren't we all talking about more than only one man's decision?
I guess he was quite sure and sincere to upset all of us while he couldn't tell that:
"Sorry, no 3 Ghz today"; OK, I guess we all did understand. Didn't we?
But, Was it worth for a full switch to Intel on the fly straight away? Have you expected a turning back like he did, say, 1 month ago for instance?
Are we all so sure by now that IBM with its own R&D dpt made the step on 2002 with APPLE could have only finished poorly 2 years after?
Will there be no more next-gen Chips till next year from IBM? Or is it a simple a personal revenge from some guy? Just wondering...
How about the Hi-tech Fab in NY? You know, the high-end video clip from IBM or APPLE (whatever it is) to be now used by : MS, SONY & NINTENDO?
Powerdoc, there're too many information missing I can't deal with, perhaps like you can't, but I can't honestly believe IBM is so naive and Apple so stupid within only a few months till today.
I won't pronounce the first 5 first letters begining in the word: INTELLIGENCE
PS: As a real French Mac lover with it's own broken speaking.
but I can't honestly believe IBM is so naive and Apple so stupid within only a few months till today.
As much as I love RISC processors and the PowerPC in particular, there's no denying that even back in the days when PowerPCs were clearly smoking Intel's offerings, Apple has always been held back by supply problems. Neither Motorola nor IBM were ever good at meeting demand for the PowerPC. It seems reasonable to assume that this was a large part of the decision as well.
Okay Sorry in advance if these points are already posted, I'm way busy with work and still catching up on the thread.
I keep hearing a couple of things over and over which need to be clarified (if not already).
1) While AMD Chips are bad ass they do not have the major advantage of providing integrated chip sets and bus tech/archetecture. This frees up Apple engineering and cash that previously went into designing bus's and chip sets as well as processor design input. AMD doesn't sell the whole widget, and we know how everyone loves a complete turn key solution.
In addition Intel is moving aggressively in combining as many mobile laptop technologies onto their chip and chip sets as possible, which contrast to Freescale which is focusing on embedded processors.
2) This transition couldn't have happened earlier because of the need to support Classic Apps decently as well as moving developers to Cocoa and Carbon. In a way I bet there was an internal roadmap to switch to X86 as soon as certain milestones were met with OS X and to have a wait and see attitude as far as the continuing progress of PPC.
There's a few things Apple can do right now to keep loyal users from defecting to Wintel (instead of Mactel.)
1) Apple has never been good about upgrades. Though several third parties have had processor upgrades over the years, Apple users could never just buy a new motherboard and shove it in the case.
Solution: Commit today that there will be a legitimate hardware upgrade program for all Mac purchasers as of the date of the announcement (June 6, 2005)
2) Commit to supporting G4/G5 binaries for at least 3 years after the last box rolls off the assembly line.
3) Be bold. Beat the 1 year promise for a Mactel box and release the new laptop sooner than later, even if it doesn't have the new Yonah chip.
4) Spiff software ISVs who get their apps ready early. Cash does wonders...
5) Commit to a dual-core x64 processor at a minimum at the high end. Wintel users with big bucks can now get dual core Opteron or Xeon very high speed workstations.
Comments
Originally posted by yourmom98
ok i dunno if this has been said. i dunno what the heck apple is doing. they have good relations with 2 of the 3 companies that make the cell processor. is it just me or does the cell processor just SMOKE AND BEAT any processor out there. i know apple is not "favoring" IBM right now because of their chip shortages, but isn't it worth it to get their hands on the cell. i mean common the cell practically uses the same kind of chip architecture and so WHY THE HECK NOT !!! few app and OS changes. So this seems like a stupid move.
Also i think that steve knows this and has anyone thought that this intel thing might just be a bridge until CELL has fully matured? also although Intel is big aren't they like the worst chip makers?
If anyone wants to explain this in more detail to me please e-mail
In one of the WWDC follow ups, I seem to remember Steve (or someone from Apple) saying that the cell WAS considered, but it had two problems: (1) It wasn't a general purpose processor and (2) It would require a lot of code changes to use it (implying more than moving to Intel would). You'd have to search other forums for comparisions of cell vs "pc" processors. So Apple claimed that it wasn't a "few" changes to move to the cell, nor would it do everything that it needed (i.e., maybe Apple would need some bigger cell derivative)?
Originally posted by the cool gut
ok
Its just you who thinks the cell processor just smokes and beats any processor out there.
Originally posted by strobe
I don't trust Intel with their DRM crap or their competence.
I would trust Apple's competence. They know they have an excellent security edge over Windows and they wouldn't use EFI if it were as half baked as you seem to think.
Their firmware can access the hardware from under the OS, including the hard disk. Add to the fact that EFI is always running and can be accessed via network, you can have firmware viruses which spread regardless what OS you have installed and wreak havoc on your data.
It is my understanding that the network stack is only available in the pre-boot environment. Once the OS loader is finished using whatever pre-boot services it needs from EFI, it calls an exit function and those services are no longer available to the system. I also doubt Intel would be stupid enough to have this network stack automatically open a port to which other computers on the network could connect and executive code. That would be ridiculous, Intel's engineers aren't morons.
EFI actually looks like it's probably better than Open Firmware. It seems like an evolved version of OF, so I'm not sure what the opposition to it is on your part.
Originally posted by AppleRISC
I would trust Apple's competence. They know they have an excellent security edge over Windows and they wouldn't use EFI if it were as half baked as you seem to think.
HA!
Just because Windows is a scum hole of viruses, worms, spyware, and trojans doesn't make Apple competent.
Read THIS! Especially the part about AMT:
Conversely, Intel is heavily promoting what it calls "active management technology" (AMT) in the new chips as a major plus for system administrators and enterprise IT. Understood to be a sub-operating system residing in the chip's firmware, AMT will allow administrators to both monitor or control individual machines independent of an operating system.
Additionally, AMT also features what Intel calls "IDE redirection" which will allow administrators to remotely enable, disable or format or configure individual drives and reload operating systems and software from remote locations, again independent of operating systems. Both AMT and IDE control are enabled by a new network interface controller
Originally posted by strobe
HA!
Just because Windows is a scum hole of viruses, worms, spyware, and trojans doesn't make Apple competent.
Read THIS! Especially the part about AMT:
That is certainly cause for major concern but it has nothing to do with the EFI, the firmware end of things, which is what I was referring to.
Originally posted by AppleRISC
That is certainly cause for major concern but it has nothing to do with the EFI, the firmware end of things, which is what I was referring to.
Part of the whole trusted computing 'platform', if you will, is it has to be initialized from the beginning. If you wanted the kernel or a firmware driver to run within a trusted address space it would have to be initialized by the firmware.
Originally posted by strobe
Part of the whole trusted computing 'platform', if you will, is it has to be initialized from the beginning. If you wanted the kernel or a firmware driver to run within a trusted address space it would have to be initialized by the firmware.
You are, of course, right. I stand corrected. Any of these things would have to live in the firmware. But that's exactly how it will be circumvented. Intel is wasting its time, and so is Apple if it thinks this will be the holy grail of copy protection. It will fail. Miserably.
Originally posted by yourmom98
ok i dunno if this has been said. i dunno what the heck apple is doing. they have good relations with 2 of the 3 companies that make the cell processor. is it just me or does the cell processor just SMOKE AND BEAT any processor out there.
You really don't want to use a cell processor in a PC. They are great chips for certain very specific tasks. They have a scaled down PPC core with 8 DSP-like cores in them. Those DSP cores can do some pretty amazing things, but are difficult to program, and best suited for constrained problems.
You are not going to see cell processors used in workstations from anyone (IBM included) that compete well with general purpose processors. Apples and oranges, really.
Originally posted by moki
You really don't want to use a cell processor in a PC. They are great chips for certain very specific tasks. They have a scaled down PPC core with 8 DSP-like cores in them. Those DSP cores can do some pretty amazing things, but are difficult to program, and best suited for constrained problems.
You are not going to see cell processors used in workstations from anyone (IBM included) that compete well with general purpose processors. Apples and oranges, really.
It really isn't so bad as you think. The Power core in the Cell is in-order, but its clock rate is very high. Even if you didn't use any of the SPEs for anything the machine would perform like a dual 970 @ ~1.5 GHz (for a 2-way SMT 4 GHz Cell Power core). And there are a lot of things it wouldn't have to do since the OS could offload tasks to the SPEs (all graphics, audio, video, and possibly networking). On the other hand, that isn't a leading edge number so obviously Apple doesn't feel it is good enough.
Originally posted by yourmom98
well thanks for setting me straight on the CELL and the whole intel thing so i guess i' ll just have to cope with the fact G6 will be an intel. hopefully it will be called g6.
a g6 Sextium
2/ Regarding the CELL, did anyone by any chance already read this article from a guy named Paul Murphy. I just discovered it today.
Here's the link:
http://www.winface.com/inside/maccell.html
So, what do you think about it?
BTW, I'm still piss off with this IntelMac thing....
Originally posted by Macfr3ak
2/ Regarding the CELL, did anyone by any chance already read this article from a guy named Paul Murphy. I just discovered it today.
Here's the link:
http://www.winface.com/inside/maccell.html
So, what do you think about it?
It was a pretty accurate and interesting read, up until the point where Mr Murphy decided to throw Sun into the mix. Of course, Sun's own President and COO recently blogged about how Apple should be using Solaris 10 on their Macs.
Originally posted by Programmer
It really isn't so bad as you think. The Power core in the Cell is in-order, but its clock rate is very high. Even if you didn't use any of the SPEs for anything the machine would perform like a dual 970 @ ~1.5 GHz (for a 2-way SMT 4 GHz Cell Power core). And there are a lot of things it wouldn't have to do since the OS could offload tasks to the SPEs (all graphics, audio, video, and possibly networking). On the other hand, that isn't a leading edge number so obviously Apple doesn't feel it is good enough.
I don't think that Apple made his decision on a leading edge number question, or any other marketing reasons.
The decision they took was a difficult one, they may have considered the cons and advantages of every solutions. The truth is , that the cell chip was not good enough for Apple.
Originally posted by urp
Agreed. Even IBM realized that mach was a waste of time and energy. Apple lost me, but not my wife, with the switch to X. I was never a fan of the nExt architecture and by extension X, and the few interface gains in X were offset by the losses. X could and still can't make its mind up. Is it a unix box? Is it mach? All of that has limited what could be done, and now that the hardware will be identical does open Apple up to some potentially unflattering comparisons. For all the talk in this thread about giving credit to Intel for producing competitive hardware, everyone should be willing to admit that MS can produce very competitive performance, as the linux folks have seen from time to time, especially in the enterprise space.
You've missed Mac OS X. Check out the tech specs because it is way beyond a "few interface gains". The applications and key technologies are way beyond "unix" and "mach" confusions. BTW - this is a common misunderstanding for MS and unix users.
OK, but aren't we all talking about more than only one man's decision?
I guess he was quite sure and sincere to upset all of us while he couldn't tell that:
"Sorry, no 3 Ghz today"; OK, I guess we all did understand. Didn't we?
But, Was it worth for a full switch to Intel on the fly straight away? Have you expected a turning back like he did, say, 1 month ago for instance?
Are we all so sure by now that IBM with its own R&D dpt made the step on 2002 with APPLE could have only finished poorly 2 years after?
Will there be no more next-gen Chips till next year from IBM? Or is it a simple a personal revenge from some guy? Just wondering...
How about the Hi-tech Fab in NY? You know, the high-end video clip from IBM or APPLE (whatever it is) to be now used by : MS, SONY & NINTENDO?
Powerdoc, there're too many information missing I can't deal with, perhaps like you can't, but I can't honestly believe IBM is so naive and Apple so stupid within only a few months till today.
I won't pronounce the first 5 first letters begining in the word: INTELLIGENCE
PS: As a real French Mac lover with it's own broken speaking.
Originally posted by Macfr3ak
but I can't honestly believe IBM is so naive and Apple so stupid within only a few months till today.
As much as I love RISC processors and the PowerPC in particular, there's no denying that even back in the days when PowerPCs were clearly smoking Intel's offerings, Apple has always been held back by supply problems. Neither Motorola nor IBM were ever good at meeting demand for the PowerPC. It seems reasonable to assume that this was a large part of the decision as well.
I keep hearing a couple of things over and over which need to be clarified (if not already).
1) While AMD Chips are bad ass they do not have the major advantage of providing integrated chip sets and bus tech/archetecture. This frees up Apple engineering and cash that previously went into designing bus's and chip sets as well as processor design input. AMD doesn't sell the whole widget, and we know how everyone loves a complete turn key solution.
In addition Intel is moving aggressively in combining as many mobile laptop technologies onto their chip and chip sets as possible, which contrast to Freescale which is focusing on embedded processors.
2) This transition couldn't have happened earlier because of the need to support Classic Apps decently as well as moving developers to Cocoa and Carbon. In a way I bet there was an internal roadmap to switch to X86 as soon as certain milestones were met with OS X and to have a wait and see attitude as far as the continuing progress of PPC.
1) Apple has never been good about upgrades. Though several third parties have had processor upgrades over the years, Apple users could never just buy a new motherboard and shove it in the case.
Solution: Commit today that there will be a legitimate hardware upgrade program for all Mac purchasers as of the date of the announcement (June 6, 2005)
2) Commit to supporting G4/G5 binaries for at least 3 years after the last box rolls off the assembly line.
3) Be bold. Beat the 1 year promise for a Mactel box and release the new laptop sooner than later, even if it doesn't have the new Yonah chip.
4) Spiff software ISVs who get their apps ready early. Cash does wonders...
5) Commit to a dual-core x64 processor at a minimum at the high end. Wintel users with big bucks can now get dual core Opteron or Xeon very high speed workstations.