Let's play a little game called "let's find the right forum to post in!"
I can see it going either way, but everything Intel seemed centered in the hardware forum. The whole discussion is around a piece of Intel HARDWARE. But thanks for the exposure of the post to two forums.
I can see it going either way, but everything Intel seemed centered in the hardware forum. The whole discussion is around a piece of Intel HARDWARE. But thanks for the exposure of the post to two forums.
you're welcome. It appeared that it was more of a MacOS X thread, so that's why I moved it.
I wonder how long Apple will continue to develop OS X for PowerPC now? Will it continue to go on behind the scene after the Intel switch is complete, as another "just in case" scenario?
I wonder how long Apple will continue to develop OS X for PowerPC now? Will it continue to go on behind the scene after the Intel switch is complete, as another "just in case" scenario?
Interesting question. Having a back up plan payed off immensely in this case, so no reason to not have some other backup plan. Who knows what it will be though.
I wonder how long Apple will continue to develop OS X for PowerPC now? Will it continue to go on behind the scene after the Intel switch is complete, as another "just in case" scenario?
I would hope so. Also, this makes PPC still a 1st class processor for OS X. Can Windows and its apps say the same?
It leaked plenty of times, and was dismissed as rediculous. I brought it up as an option myself 6 months ago, and was bombarded with condesending hate posts.
I think he meant that the actual software wasn't leaked.
The move to x86 was never a question of if; it was just a question of when.
First step was to migrate the Mac OS to a Unix like platform and of course they chose the platform that came from Next. That meant porting from x86 to PPC.
So basically what Apple did was to keep the x86 version of the Next Computer OS in sync with the PPC version. Because they knew full well that that step two was to move to x86.
We are not sure, that the Intel switch was the plan A. It could just be a plan B in case that the PPC line was disapointing.
The G5 was a nice desktop chip, but was a terrible mobility chip read inexistant. In the contrary the pentium M are awesome. Apple did not have to choose between plan A or plan B. IBM choosed for Apple.
10.4 marked the transition to OS X. The very next WWDC the switch is announced. Developer friendly, seamless as possible. Even the developer tool, and for what amounts to the majority off applications it really is not a hell of a lot more then one tickbox to make an app that runs on IA-32 as well as PPC.
Yeah, this is really impressive. The technology end I'm utterly not concerned about.
The amount of Chicken Littling and FUD spewing is worrisome though. People who haven't a clue about how the system works are *convinced* of the most inane things, and willing to spout them to anyone who will listen. Apple's biggest problem with this won't be engineering, but marketing.
you have to wonder if Microsoft has soemthing similar about back up plans. If x86 fell of the face of the earth, could they have switched to PPC? Something Else?
Andrew Neff, analyst at Bear Stearns, (predicted in 2002) there's a better than 80% chance that within four years Apple will think "less different" and stamp its machine with a brand that says "Intel Inside."
Scroll down towards the bottom, looking for a longish post by chrisale.
1) Intel PCI-X boards for G5 boxes will be sold at a later date?
2) Rosetta lets PPC code run on Intel... and vice-versa?
Whaaaaaa?
1) Sounds kind of strange, it worked in the past but with an upcoming (let alone current) Intel processor, it seems that PCI-X wouldn't have enough bandwidth to make this worth while
2) Well the vice-versa Apple obviously has the technology for "QuickTransit for Power?/PowerPC?. Allows application binaries compiled for a MIPS®, x86 or mainframe processor to run on a POWER?/PowerPC? based computer. Application binaries compiled for other processors will be supported soon. Operating system call mapping from any Unix/Linux-like operating system or any mainframe operating system to any Unix/Linux-like operating system is supported." Which should perform with less performance degredation than the current release of Rosetta (due to the vastly larger set of programmer available registers on PPC). Whether or not Apple has actually developed this version of QuickTransit into a sort of "Attesor" is an open question though.
you have to wonder if Microsoft has soemthing similar about back up plans. If x86 fell of the face of the earth, could they have switched to PPC? Something Else?
Well that's not really *Windows*... more like an embedded version, ala PocketPC. It's got a highly restricted subset of the code, and only has to be concerned with a particular set of drivers that will never change.
Comments
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Let's play a little game called "let's find the right forum to post in!"
I can see it going either way, but everything Intel seemed centered in the hardware forum. The whole discussion is around a piece of Intel HARDWARE. But thanks for the exposure of the post to two forums.
Originally posted by msantti
Well, does Apple now start a new secret project running on something else for a "just in case" scenario.
Who says they haven't already.
Originally posted by inslider
I can see it going either way, but everything Intel seemed centered in the hardware forum. The whole discussion is around a piece of Intel HARDWARE. But thanks for the exposure of the post to two forums.
you're welcome. It appeared that it was more of a MacOS X thread, so that's why I moved it.
Originally posted by Xool
Who says they haven't already.
They have an ultra secret one they've been running for 10 years. OSX has been leading a secret triple life, 68K COMPATIBILITY OMGZOR
Originally posted by bborofka
I wonder how long Apple will continue to develop OS X for PowerPC now? Will it continue to go on behind the scene after the Intel switch is complete, as another "just in case" scenario?
Interesting question. Having a back up plan payed off immensely in this case, so no reason to not have some other backup plan. Who knows what it will be though.
Originally posted by spyder
... 68K COMPATIBILITY OMGZOR
Originally posted by bborofka
I wonder how long Apple will continue to develop OS X for PowerPC now? Will it continue to go on behind the scene after the Intel switch is complete, as another "just in case" scenario?
I would hope so. Also, this makes PPC still a 1st class processor for OS X. Can Windows and its apps say the same?
Originally posted by e1618978
It leaked plenty of times, and was dismissed as rediculous. I brought it up as an option myself 6 months ago, and was bombarded with condesending hate posts.
I think he meant that the actual software wasn't leaked.
Originally posted by sillyfool
The move to x86 was never a question of if; it was just a question of when.
First step was to migrate the Mac OS to a Unix like platform and of course they chose the platform that came from Next. That meant porting from x86 to PPC.
So basically what Apple did was to keep the x86 version of the Next Computer OS in sync with the PPC version. Because they knew full well that that step two was to move to x86.
We are not sure, that the Intel switch was the plan A. It could just be a plan B in case that the PPC line was disapointing.
The G5 was a nice desktop chip, but was a terrible mobility chip read inexistant. In the contrary the pentium M are awesome. Apple did not have to choose between plan A or plan B. IBM choosed for Apple.
"We transition to OS X. Then we'll have options."
10.4 marked the transition to OS X. The very next WWDC the switch is announced. Developer friendly, seamless as possible. Even the developer tool, and for what amounts to the majority off applications it really is not a hell of a lot more then one tickbox to make an app that runs on IA-32 as well as PPC.
This executive team can execute.
The amount of Chicken Littling and FUD spewing is worrisome though. People who haven't a clue about how the system works are *convinced* of the most inane things, and willing to spout them to anyone who will listen. Apple's biggest problem with this won't be engineering, but marketing.
Then again the majority of folks really do not differentiate between one chip or another.
A Mac will still be a Mac.
The only thing I'm worried about is AltiVec, but that's another topic.
Originally posted by Harald
Steve Jobs, from 2002.
Andrew Neff, analyst at Bear Stearns, (predicted in 2002) there's a better than 80% chance that within four years Apple will think "less different" and stamp its machine with a brand that says "Intel Inside."
Give that man a raise.
Scroll down towards the bottom, looking for a longish post by chrisale.
1) Intel PCI-X boards for G5 boxes will be sold at a later date?
2) Rosetta lets PPC code run on Intel... and vice-versa?
Whaaaaaa?
Originally posted by Kickaha
This is intriguing: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/...3003573731/p/8
Scroll down towards the bottom, looking for a longish post by chrisale.
1) Intel PCI-X boards for G5 boxes will be sold at a later date?
2) Rosetta lets PPC code run on Intel... and vice-versa?
Whaaaaaa?
1) Sounds kind of strange, it worked in the past but with an upcoming (let alone current) Intel processor, it seems that PCI-X wouldn't have enough bandwidth to make this worth while
2) Well the vice-versa Apple obviously has the technology for "QuickTransit for Power?/PowerPC?. Allows application binaries compiled for a MIPS®, x86 or mainframe processor to run on a POWER?/PowerPC? based computer. Application binaries compiled for other processors will be supported soon. Operating system call mapping from any Unix/Linux-like operating system or any mainframe operating system to any Unix/Linux-like operating system is supported." Which should perform with less performance degredation than the current release of Rosetta (due to the vastly larger set of programmer available registers on PPC). Whether or not Apple has actually developed this version of QuickTransit into a sort of "Attesor" is an open question though.
Originally posted by Jwink3101
you have to wonder if Microsoft has soemthing similar about back up plans. If x86 fell of the face of the earth, could they have switched to PPC? Something Else?
*cough* Xbox *cough*
Originally posted by JLL
I think he meant that the actual software wasn't leaked.
JLL's got my back