The real slap in the face from IBM would be to deliver low power 64bit laptops running linux at over 3Ghz when Apple releases Intel laptops.
So much of what gets made hinges on relationships and not technological hurdles.
The only area that Steve knows he can completely control is the Operating System. He has never been one to enjoy relying on Moto, IBM, Sun and even Intel for chips.
I think Steve is the issue here there are certainly options for both the desktops and the portables moving forward PPC wise. But if you are the type of person that burns bridges behind you then you really can't make use of those options!
Dave
Anyone else remember the 2002 roll-out of the PowerMac G5 with a big muckity-muck from IBM sharing the stage with Steve et al and running a little video on how marvelous the G5 manufacturing plant that IBM had just built-- sort of implying that they built it just to make Steve Happy? They had that on the Apple site for a long time..
Nevermind. Not much of an internet acronym buff. Figured it out. Why can't we write English properly just because we have the internets? I mean, shit, I'm high again, and I can still find the will to write in complete words and sentences. Are you just really busy, or what?
Shit, man, I'm stoned. This is weed is suprising my ass. It's red bud, and it looked like total shit. It's not even cured. My friend from work bought it from these kids that were saving up to go on a road trip because she thought that was cute. I didn't even think it would work. Free bud, and it's good. Yay!
Okay, sorry about all that. Uhh, $6 billion, then. Cool. Furthers my point. I kind of don't really keep up as well on the Apple shit these days. Fucking work and school and life getting in the way.
...The only area that Steve knows he can completely control is the Operating System. He has never been one to enjoy relying on Moto, IBM, Sun and even Intel for chips.
That is why it is best to take advantage of the switch now. If Apple can get the majoriaty of developers used to running Xcode and writing for universal bionaries then they are one step closer to processer independance and if Apple needs to switch again it will be that much easier on the developer and consumer, while giving Apple more flexability and choices. This would give Apple more bargining power with the suppliers, which should equate to a better profit margin for Apple and hopefully lower cost computers for the consumer.
I think Steve is the issue here there are certainly options for both the desktops and the portables moving forward PPC wise. But if you are the type of person that burns bridges behind you then you really can't make use of those options!
Sure there are options, but they aren't good options. The problem is primarily for notebooks and compact machines (iMac & mini) where performance/watt is the key criteria. Since the advent of the Pentium-M, neither Motorola nor IBM has had anything in the pipeline that is going to be able to compete -- especially once Intel gets the x86-64, big caches, higher clock rate, and 65nm happening. Motorola is just now getting to 90nm and their dual core solution is miles off, and IBM hasn't demonstrated any interest in this space at all since the 970FX failed to meet its thermal goals. It looks like Apple will continue to use the viable PPC options through 2006 (i.e. in the towers), but keeping their product line straddling two chip architectures just isn't feasible.
I also don't think the bridges are really burned -- it is just exceedingly unlikely that either FreeScale or IBM will ever target the machines that Apple needs to build. They certainly don't have the income from that market segment that they need in order to justify competing with Intel/AMD, so they focus on the markets where they do get enough money to be major players.
Even if IBM would supply much better CPUs. Will Apple invest in new motherboards and support chips to enable dual core CPUs and so on? I bought Macintoshes 1992, 1995 and 2000 so it is high time to get a new one that last me 4-5 years.
I can not imagine that a non PCIexpress non dual core G5 will be that useful in 2009 or so.
My guess is that when the G5 is EOL in 2007 it will still have AGP, one optical drive, two HD bays and two G5 CPUs single core close to 3 GHz and a some low end/mid range GPU that ATI still sell for AGP...
, and IBM hasn't demonstrated any interest in this space at all since the 970FX failed to meet its thermal goals.
...
I also don't think the bridges are really burned -- it is just exceedingly unlikely that either FreeScale or IBM will ever target the machines that Apple needs to build.
...
Which is too bad, because I believed IBM's Power Everywhere malarkey. There will be a gigantic gap in the everywhere - desktops - unless IBM has some super duper Linix stuff waiting in the wings. O/S -3 ?
Sure there are options, but they aren't good options.
I completely agree with you. I think in the long run Intel is the better chip maker. I'm fed up of waiting for a G5 PowerBook and being let down by IBM.
Which is too bad, because I believed IBM's Power Everywhere malarkey. There will be a gigantic gap in the everywhere - desktops - unless IBM has some super duper Linix stuff waiting in the wings. O/S -3 ?
IBM had a lot of expectations from the 970. They expected PowerPC based Machines to fully replace their Intel machines. IBM designed the PPC970 was much for them as they did Apple. However, that never came to pass. The sales of the JS20 blades weren't very good compared to the Intel based HS20s combine that with supply problems and you have a mess. I think there were questions about the G5's future about a year ago when we stopped hearing rumors about it's Power5 based successor. When things are going right you don't have no core changes (except shrinking) and no chipset changes for three years.
Even if IBM would supply much better CPUs. Will Apple invest in new motherboards and support chips to enable dual core CPUs and so on? I bought Macintoshes 1992, 1995 and 2000 so it is high time to get a new one that last me 4-5 years.
I can not imagine that a non PCIexpress non dual core G5 will be that useful in 2009 or so.
My guess is that when the G5 is EOL in 2007 it will still have AGP, one optical drive, two HD bays and two G5 CPUs single core close to 3 GHz and a some low end/mid range GPU that ATI still sell for AGP...
Apple's future Intel systems will have custom designed motherboards.
The real question will be do they keep Hypertransport [stupid if they don't]?
The integrated controller chips for Apple will also be custom designed.
Even the PC BIOS will be custom to include OS X hooks.
The less Apple has to work around kludges in Intel systems the faster and more reliable these systems will just work. They did the same with Moto and IBM.
Without complete control down to the assembly level the system will be less reliable.
Apple will help develop hardware chipsets to leverage Intel's future CPUs.
The pro line kicks butt right now. It could be faster, but a dual 2.7 for FCP, Pro Tools, or Adobe CS/Macromedia halls but for pros. However the Portable line is suffering horribly. Remember all the rumors of a G3 + altivec from Freescale!? Intel is the answer to this. Two year transition. Powerbook/iBook/Mini/eMac in that order. Eventuallly the Powermac. I wouldn't be surprised if the xServe kept the PPC (OS X Server) for quite some time if IBM can deliver a dual-core chip with decent heat ratings for a rack server.
I have a recording studio and my THREE year old dual 1ghz G4 still does the job without any speed issues. A faster FSB/Ram would probably speed things up a bit, but ProTools LE (cpu intensive) runs fine with 32 tracks, and Adobe CS2 runs fine as well for my web projects. The current PowerMac G5's will be viable for years to come.
Hopefully some minor price cuts will come in the coming two years though if Apple adopts common processors Intel sells in bulk to more PC manufactures, not just apple, unlike the IBM G5 (970).
The 15" PB (1.5ghz) I'm typing this on was purchased one year ago. Where is the portable line now? Up to 1.67ghz G4, but still a sorry 167mhz bus. My friends 1.8ghz ThinkPad's battery lasts almost twice as long as my PB and has a faster bus.
I'd still take any apple product any day just for OS X though..... I get a headache just thinking about windows.
I just can't believe they ditched the PPC once and
for all, leaving NO backdoor open.
From what IBM has been saying after this announcement, they ditched Apple. Or a better way of putting it, lost interest. And they are proving this by not hitting the 3 gig goal while at the same time killing our powerbook chances of ever seeing a G5.
Jobs never stated they were abandoning PPC. Just switching to Intel. I would guess that secret double life thing will continue. It was stated by Steve as being one of the rules from the very beginning of developing OS X.
I'm totally jazzed by the switch. Intel has indicated that they have been somewhat limited in their innovation by the mindless herd of the PC pack as well as the slow pace of MS to push or change their OS. We may see Apple and Intel challenging each other to push the edge even farther. I see this as good for the entire industry but even better for Apple. What will eventually happen to the PC makers if they are pushed to keep up with Apple on the same chip platform?
Why would they? It's a sale for them whether its running on an eMac or a Dell.
developers....won't they develop more for the mac os, or is it a wash???
also with MS comes MS control of the desktop, allows more people to use mac os 10.....better for switchers??
Im totally jazzed by the switch. Intel has indicated that they have been somewhat limited in their innovation by the mindless herd of the PC pack as well as the slow pace of MS to push or change their OS. We may see Apple and Intel challenging each other to push the edge even farther. I see this as good for the entire industry but even better for Apple. What will eventually happen to the PC makers if they are pushed to keep up with Apple on the same chip platform?
"Great PowerPC products" is so typical Steve Jobs. There are no exciting products with this CPU coming out of Apple anymore and he knows it. Maybe some 1.8Ghz Powerbook and a 3Ghz water-cooled overclocked 970, yes, but that's it.
Jobs kicked IBM and - to a lesser degree, since they are fading into oblivion anywayse, Freescale - publicly in the teeth. I don't expect IBM to take this gracefully or even to accellerate their product development. They obviously are focussing on servers and game consoles for the next years.
PPC is over for Apple, the last releases are incremental updates, nothing more.
"Great PowerPC products" is so typical Steve Jobs. There are no exciting products with this CPU coming out of Apple anymore and he knows it. Maybe some 1.8Ghz Powerbook and a 3Ghz water-cooled overclocked 970, yes, but that's it.
Jobs kicked IBM and - to a lesser degree, since they are fading into oblivion anywayse, Freescale - publicly in the teeth. I don't expect IBM to take this gracefully or even to accellerate their product development. They obviously are focussing on servers and game consoles for the next years.
PPC is over for Apple, the last releases are incremental updates, nothing more.
Perhaps, but it really depends on how bad things have gotten on IBM's PPC roadmap. Apple needs the lead time to get through the transition, so they have to start now even though there might be one more generation of IBM PPC products that will serve them well (e.g. 970MP). If they have contracts in place with IBM and the products are almost ready then we may see the best PowerMacs yet in 2006. The PPC's big weakspot is the notebook space, and since notebook sales are overtaking (or have overtaken) desktop sales this is critical to Apple and the primary motivator of the x86-switch. IBM has no interest in the notebook market -- they are going after game consoles and servers.
Comments
So much of what gets made hinges on relationships and not technological hurdles.
The only area that Steve knows he can completely control is the Operating System. He has never been one to enjoy relying on Moto, IBM, Sun and even Intel for chips.
Originally posted by wizard69
Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Steve is the issue here there are certainly options for both the desktops and the portables moving forward PPC wise. But if you are the type of person that burns bridges behind you then you really can't make use of those options!
Dave
Anyone else remember the 2002 roll-out of the PowerMac G5 with a big muckity-muck from IBM sharing the stage with Steve et al and running a little video on how marvelous the G5 manufacturing plant that IBM had just built-- sort of implying that they built it just to make Steve Happy? They had that on the Apple site for a long time..
A link is still there on the Hardware page for G5 describing IBM's "sophisticated process technology...
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
The real slap in the face from IBM would be to deliver low power 64bit laptops running linux at over 3Ghz when Apple releases Intel laptops.
...
That'd mean 2 hours later mac geeks try to
hack that machine in order to run Mac OS X, right?
Oh i love this Irony. Hacking a PPC in order to run
Mac OS X.
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
That'd mean 2 hours later mac geeks try to
hack that machine in order to run Mac OS X, right?
Oh i love this Irony. Hacking a PPC in order to run
Mac OS X.
Oh following Apple is a big roller-coaster. This would be funny, but also deeply ironic!
Originally posted by rickag
T-FTFY
Huh?
Originally posted by KeilwerthReborn
Huh?
Nevermind. Not much of an internet acronym buff. Figured it out. Why can't we write English properly just because we have the internets? I mean, shit, I'm high again, and I can still find the will to write in complete words and sentences. Are you just really busy, or what?
Shit, man, I'm stoned. This is weed is suprising my ass. It's red bud, and it looked like total shit. It's not even cured. My friend from work bought it from these kids that were saving up to go on a road trip because she thought that was cute. I didn't even think it would work. Free bud, and it's good. Yay!
Okay, sorry about all that. Uhh, $6 billion, then. Cool. Furthers my point. I kind of don't really keep up as well on the Apple shit these days. Fucking work and school and life getting in the way.
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
...The only area that Steve knows he can completely control is the Operating System. He has never been one to enjoy relying on Moto, IBM, Sun and even Intel for chips.
That is why it is best to take advantage of the switch now. If Apple can get the majoriaty of developers used to running Xcode and writing for universal bionaries then they are one step closer to processer independance and if Apple needs to switch again it will be that much easier on the developer and consumer, while giving Apple more flexability and choices. This would give Apple more bargining power with the suppliers, which should equate to a better profit margin for Apple and hopefully lower cost computers for the consumer.
Originally posted by wizard69
Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Steve is the issue here there are certainly options for both the desktops and the portables moving forward PPC wise. But if you are the type of person that burns bridges behind you then you really can't make use of those options!
Sure there are options, but they aren't good options. The problem is primarily for notebooks and compact machines (iMac & mini) where performance/watt is the key criteria. Since the advent of the Pentium-M, neither Motorola nor IBM has had anything in the pipeline that is going to be able to compete -- especially once Intel gets the x86-64, big caches, higher clock rate, and 65nm happening. Motorola is just now getting to 90nm and their dual core solution is miles off, and IBM hasn't demonstrated any interest in this space at all since the 970FX failed to meet its thermal goals. It looks like Apple will continue to use the viable PPC options through 2006 (i.e. in the towers), but keeping their product line straddling two chip architectures just isn't feasible.
I also don't think the bridges are really burned -- it is just exceedingly unlikely that either FreeScale or IBM will ever target the machines that Apple needs to build. They certainly don't have the income from that market segment that they need in order to justify competing with Intel/AMD, so they focus on the markets where they do get enough money to be major players.
I can not imagine that a non PCIexpress non dual core G5 will be that useful in 2009 or so.
My guess is that when the G5 is EOL in 2007 it will still have AGP, one optical drive, two HD bays and two G5 CPUs single core close to 3 GHz and a some low end/mid range GPU that ATI still sell for AGP...
Originally posted by Programmer
...
, and IBM hasn't demonstrated any interest in this space at all since the 970FX failed to meet its thermal goals.
...
I also don't think the bridges are really burned -- it is just exceedingly unlikely that either FreeScale or IBM will ever target the machines that Apple needs to build.
...
Which is too bad, because I believed IBM's Power Everywhere malarkey. There will be a gigantic gap in the everywhere - desktops - unless IBM has some super duper Linix stuff waiting in the wings. O/S -3 ?
Originally posted by Programmer
Sure there are options, but they aren't good options.
I completely agree with you. I think in the long run Intel is the better chip maker. I'm fed up of waiting for a G5 PowerBook and being let down by IBM.
Originally posted by rickag
Which is too bad, because I believed IBM's Power Everywhere malarkey. There will be a gigantic gap in the everywhere - desktops - unless IBM has some super duper Linix stuff waiting in the wings. O/S -3 ?
IBM had a lot of expectations from the 970. They expected PowerPC based Machines to fully replace their Intel machines. IBM designed the PPC970 was much for them as they did Apple. However, that never came to pass. The sales of the JS20 blades weren't very good compared to the Intel based HS20s combine that with supply problems and you have a mess. I think there were questions about the G5's future about a year ago when we stopped hearing rumors about it's Power5 based successor. When things are going right you don't have no core changes (except shrinking) and no chipset changes for three years.
Originally posted by DrBoar
Even if IBM would supply much better CPUs. Will Apple invest in new motherboards and support chips to enable dual core CPUs and so on? I bought Macintoshes 1992, 1995 and 2000 so it is high time to get a new one that last me 4-5 years.
I can not imagine that a non PCIexpress non dual core G5 will be that useful in 2009 or so.
My guess is that when the G5 is EOL in 2007 it will still have AGP, one optical drive, two HD bays and two G5 CPUs single core close to 3 GHz and a some low end/mid range GPU that ATI still sell for AGP...
Apple's future Intel systems will have custom designed motherboards.
The real question will be do they keep Hypertransport [stupid if they don't]?
The integrated controller chips for Apple will also be custom designed.
Even the PC BIOS will be custom to include OS X hooks.
The less Apple has to work around kludges in Intel systems the faster and more reliable these systems will just work. They did the same with Moto and IBM.
Without complete control down to the assembly level the system will be less reliable.
Apple will help develop hardware chipsets to leverage Intel's future CPUs.
I have a recording studio and my THREE year old dual 1ghz G4 still does the job without any speed issues. A faster FSB/Ram would probably speed things up a bit, but ProTools LE (cpu intensive) runs fine with 32 tracks, and Adobe CS2 runs fine as well for my web projects. The current PowerMac G5's will be viable for years to come.
Hopefully some minor price cuts will come in the coming two years though if Apple adopts common processors Intel sells in bulk to more PC manufactures, not just apple, unlike the IBM G5 (970).
The 15" PB (1.5ghz) I'm typing this on was purchased one year ago. Where is the portable line now? Up to 1.67ghz G4, but still a sorry 167mhz bus. My friends 1.8ghz ThinkPad's battery lasts almost twice as long as my PB and has a faster bus.
I'd still take any apple product any day just for OS X though..... I get a headache just thinking about windows.
"I'd still take any apple product any day just for OS X though..... I get a headache just thinking about windows."
many will think the same thing as apple moves to intel, now i wonder if MS will prevent it's os going into an apple computer
i think that is also an elegant solution, imagine schools could have both tiger and MS, what other vendor then can offer THAT flexibility
so maybe pipeline starts for school purchases.
steve is brilliant, flexibilty, reliability, low IT costs, ease of network management all scream EDUCATION MARKET
this is sooooo cooooool
Originally posted by NOFEER
transition timing of emac and ibook to coincide with education needs????
"I'd still take any apple product any day just for OS X though..... I get a headache just thinking about windows."
many will think the same thing as apple moves to intel, now i wonder if MS will prevent it's os going into an apple computer
Why would they? It's a sale for them whether its running on an eMac or a Dell.
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
I just can't believe they ditched the PPC once and
for all, leaving NO backdoor open.
From what IBM has been saying after this announcement, they ditched Apple. Or a better way of putting it, lost interest. And they are proving this by not hitting the 3 gig goal while at the same time killing our powerbook chances of ever seeing a G5.
Jobs never stated they were abandoning PPC. Just switching to Intel. I would guess that secret double life thing will continue. It was stated by Steve as being one of the rules from the very beginning of developing OS X.
I'm totally jazzed by the switch. Intel has indicated that they have been somewhat limited in their innovation by the mindless herd of the PC pack as well as the slow pace of MS to push or change their OS. We may see Apple and Intel challenging each other to push the edge even farther. I see this as good for the entire industry but even better for Apple. What will eventually happen to the PC makers if they are pushed to keep up with Apple on the same chip platform?
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Why would they? It's a sale for them whether its running on an eMac or a Dell.
developers....won't they develop more for the mac os, or is it a wash???
also with MS comes MS control of the desktop, allows more people to use mac os 10.....better for switchers??
Im totally jazzed by the switch. Intel has indicated that they have been somewhat limited in their innovation by the mindless herd of the PC pack as well as the slow pace of MS to push or change their OS. We may see Apple and Intel challenging each other to push the edge even farther. I see this as good for the entire industry but even better for Apple. What will eventually happen to the PC makers if they are pushed to keep up with Apple on the same chip platform?
very good point!!!!
Jobs kicked IBM and - to a lesser degree, since they are fading into oblivion anywayse, Freescale - publicly in the teeth. I don't expect IBM to take this gracefully or even to accellerate their product development. They obviously are focussing on servers and game consoles for the next years.
PPC is over for Apple, the last releases are incremental updates, nothing more.
Originally posted by Smircle
"Great PowerPC products" is so typical Steve Jobs. There are no exciting products with this CPU coming out of Apple anymore and he knows it. Maybe some 1.8Ghz Powerbook and a 3Ghz water-cooled overclocked 970, yes, but that's it.
Jobs kicked IBM and - to a lesser degree, since they are fading into oblivion anywayse, Freescale - publicly in the teeth. I don't expect IBM to take this gracefully or even to accellerate their product development. They obviously are focussing on servers and game consoles for the next years.
PPC is over for Apple, the last releases are incremental updates, nothing more.
Perhaps, but it really depends on how bad things have gotten on IBM's PPC roadmap. Apple needs the lead time to get through the transition, so they have to start now even though there might be one more generation of IBM PPC products that will serve them well (e.g. 970MP). If they have contracts in place with IBM and the products are almost ready then we may see the best PowerMacs yet in 2006. The PPC's big weakspot is the notebook space, and since notebook sales are overtaking (or have overtaken) desktop sales this is critical to Apple and the primary motivator of the x86-switch. IBM has no interest in the notebook market -- they are going after game consoles and servers.