I just had a thought, what would compell Windows users to go out and buy OS X if it were in their market? Most average windows users that I know, don't know or care about their operating system, as long as it does what they need it to do. I try explaining to them how there's something much much better, but they don't seem to get it. They're not gonna dish out over 100 bucks to get another OS when the one they have (sort of) works fine. I'm talking about your average Windows user. The point I'm making is that taking this fact that windows users aren't ever quick to upgrade into consideration. I don't think that apple would be able to support itself on OS sales alone.
If you think that no Windows users would install OS X on their PCs, then even less will shell out $1500+ for a new Mac.
But Mac OS X will be compiled with the VLIW compiler. And thus it WON'T RUN on P4s, P3s, or AMD anything. The initial versions may be straight x86 of course, but that only gets the hackers addicted to OS X and when Leopard is VLIW only (i.e. Apple only), there is a reason to switch to the Apple hardware.
If developers want to recompile their apps in the future, they can; but there is no ultra-compelling reason to do so - they can't be pirated to a Dell because OS X won't run on a Dell (unless Apple wants to allow Dell to use the VLIW chips under strict co-branding).
There must have been some deal made with Intel other than just the price of the chip - and I think it had to do with Apple getting to make a machine that will run Windows while still keeping OS X completely Apple-only. Intel could have agreed to sell the VLIW chips in x86-only mode to everyone except Apple - nobody else would want the VLIW anyway except people who want to get OS X without buying an Apple machine.
Anybody think of why this wouldn't work?
Seems it would be in Apple's interest for them to consider such a strategy, assuming it's feasible from both a hardware and software perspective (which we don't fully know, yet). Offhand I don't see any definitive reason, obvious or subtle, why it wouldn't work although someone else may find one.
At any rate, I personally think that your average non-technical joe schmo, who hasn't gone to an apple store and seen the light, will buy the cheapest computer he can buy from Best Buy, (or whatever the Best Buy guy can sell him). And he'll use Win XP Home Edition forever. BTW - Don't count on Best Buy selling a Mac very well. They had a Mac Mini set up at our store and it didn't have a keyboard because they sold it! I said, "how will you show spotlight to people?" He said, "What's Spotlight?" This is why Apple is so huge on retail right now. What would happen to all their retail stores if they licensed OS X on PCs?
Lundy I think you are really close to the truth. And there is ample evidence to support your hypothesis.
First of all we have to recognize that Steve Jobs has a big ego and he wants to be second to none. I think that?s true. I don?t think it?s a bad trait as long as that ego can be tempered with reason and wisdom. I also think Steve has big ideas: he wants and needs certain freedoms and independence from the PC industry at large to implement his ideas.
Intel has to have some plan that really impressed Steve to switch teams like this. Many including myself don?t believe its only because of power consumption.
Second fact. Intel wants to move on from x86. I haven?t been reading much about Intel for the past few years, so I?ve had to catch up the past couple of months. X86 essentially is an old technology, largely the only reason it is still used is because of backward compatibility. The disadvantage of this as new technology is added to x86 little of the old technology is taken away. That has ultimately made x86 very inflexible. X86 cores have millions of transistors. As more transistors are added the chip consumes more power and produces more heat. Then there is the on chip x86 instructions decoder which takes a significant amount of room and power.
Over time billions in R&D are being put into x86 design to work around the problems of x86, and keep it going. There are in fact newer chip architectures which have significantly far more room for growth and innovation. Architectures such as IBM?s Power and Intel?s Itanium.
Intel has also been in a low profile struggle with Microsoft. The two companies don?t seem to be headed in the same direction any more. I?ve read that new markets such as China are not openly embracing Intel because, to embrace Intel brings Microsoft.
As Lundy said Itanium is based on VLIW (Very Long Instruction Word). VLIW uses software compliers to translate x86 instructions into VLIW instructions. Over the past ten years Intel has invested billions of dollars of development into Itanium architecture. But the Itanium has proven to be largely a failure in the PC market. At this point Itanium is the scrappy step child that most kick around, even calling it the Itanic (Titanic).
Mostly from what I see the Itanium is so scorned because of its attempt to move the PC industry away from x86. I read that its first version was very poor, but has greatly improved over the years. The Itanium is currently used in high end workstations, mainframes, and super computing.
Intel exclaims Itanium is its answer to RISC processors most namely Power PC. Intel needed an answer to the Power 4 architecture which the Mac G5 is based on. Itanium was supposed to be that answer but no one supported it.
CEO of Intel has said:
Quote:
Long term, the architecture Itanium needs to aim at is [IBM's] Power line. We have nothing in our existing 32-bit line capability that can compete with Power. It's a very high performance line.
When Itanium was introduced Intel billed it has its next evolution in chip architecture and a new instruction set (IA-64). Intel was partnered with HP on Itanium design and implementation. Nearly all of the major PC world announced support for Itanium: Microsoft, IBM, SGI, Compaq, SUN?.and the list goes on.
In reality all of those companies bailed on Itanium support. IBM obviously because of its competition with Power. The rest largely because of continued support for x86. Even HP is pulling out its support. All of HP?s Itanium designers have now gone to Intel, and HP may be bailing on Itanium support altogether.
Intel did not want to implement 64 bit computing into its x86 architecture because it wanted to move the industry over to Itanium which is natively 64 bit. That misstep left AMD room to implement its own AMD64 bit standard, which Microsoft adopted as its 64 bit instruction set in XP 64. To stay competitive that forced Intel to adopt AMD64 in its future line of x86 chips, which it calls EM64T.
Intel is lukewarm on its support for AMD64, calling it a feature enhancement for x86. They still promote Itanium and IA-64 as a fundamental change in architecture.
Today the few working Itanium stations are mostly running Linux. Microsoft has weak server support for Itanium, and cancelled its plans for an XP version running on Itanium. This leaves Intel holding a billion dollar boondoggle.
However what may save Itanium or more specifically VLIW architecture is the advancement of Power PC. IBM can adapt Power architecture in ways that are nearly impossible with x86. That is the reason Xbox 360, Playstation 3, Nintendo are using it. Itanium (VLIW) is the only other major architecture that can keep pace.
Intel has made some interesting acquisitions. The original VLIW designs that inspired the Itanium were from a Russian company called Elbrus. Intel bought Elbrus last year, and is integrating its designs into Itanium. HP engineers from the Itanium team were transferred to Intel. And Intel has gained software that allows x86 software to run on RISC microprocessors, which is related to running x86 binaries on Itanium.
X86 cores need out of order execution, have small architectural registers, and the x86 instruction decoder takes a significant amount of energy. Intel Pentium chips have extremely long pipelines, which draw more power and produce more heat.
VLIW chips can be designed with fewer transistors than commonly used in x86 currently, by only using transistors that significantly increase performance, x86 decompiling is done in software that does away with on chip decoders, has a short pipeline, strictly in order execution, and no branch prediction. VLIW chips can use multiple low power cores, larger file registers (SSE can be made to compete and surpass Altivec), and support hyperthreading.
This architecture allows for processors that will run at 2 to 3 Watts and are just as fast. Same as Jobs has described.
To hear this sounds as though Intel is continuing to support and enhance Itanium, inspite of the fact that the PC industry at large is ignoring it.
If you have a great technology that none of the mainstream OEM?s will support (because it is too new) who do you call?
Steve Jobs!
Where does Apple come into this? Tom Yager from Info-World describes it.
Quote:
"IBM and Freescale, Apple?s previous CPU suppliers, both said the same thing about Apple?s departure: Thank God, now we can get back to serving our other customers. Apple pushed IBM and Freescale to advance PowerPC technology further and faster than the majority of their customers expected or required. I hope Apple makes itself another pain in Intel?s ass."
At this point Intel is being beaten by Power 5 architecture in the supercomputer scale, and is being beaten on the desktop and lower server scale by AMD. Intel needs a partner to help them innovate.
Strangely enough John C Dvorak predicted this two years ago, and gives as a good explanation as any to why Apple is going with Intel.
Quote:
?Itanium. What will be radical is the company's choice of processor. Apple will announce its use of the Itanium chip, which can be used in such a multiprocessor design and will become the first desktop use of the chip. The choice of the Itanium is suggested by four factors.
First, there is zero evidence that Apple is talking to AMD?and it would if it were staying with the x86 legacy chips.
Second, Apple likes to make jazzy announcements in which it claims to be the first or the most aggressive in a market. The Itanium fills the bill perfectly, because Jobs can lord it over current PC makers with all sorts of performance claims.
Third, if Apple optimizes the OS X kernel for the Itanium, the likelihood of the Apple OS being ripped off by normal PC users is nil. And finally, by choosing the Itanium, Apple will have an ally in Intel, who will put its design team to work for Apple and perhaps even invest in the company, knowing AMD is not in the picture.
There is no doubt that a MacIntel machine could supplant the Wintel platform. And most likely, the entire hungry Linux community could port all the x86 Linux code to the MacIntel OS within weeks, creating a huge flood of good products.?
A Macintel running an Itanium processor would be a huge shift in the computer industry.
First and most obvious would be Apple and Intel working together with Intel processors inside of a Macintosh. That?s weird enough in itself.
Steve Jobs will have teamed with a larger supplier and the ability to have common Intel motherboards using common PC components. Apple will also have the ability to be on the ground floor of pushing another powerful CPU architecture.
With the major PC industry at large treating Itanium as a laughing stock. Apple using Itanium would validate Intel and its investment in VLIW and IA-64. A Macintosh and OS X powered by the Itanium is huge validation and marketing for the platform.
Its doubtful Apple will use the current Itanium design as it was not made for the laptop or low power consumption. Plus the current Itanium line costs $900 to $4000. I imagine Intel will have to design a new line that scales from laptops, desktops, to servers.
As far as the time table I would guess Apple will need to bring laptop and desktop Itaniums right away. They may introduce x86 computers first, but that forces Apple to support three different OS types. PowerPC, x86, and VLIW.
The current developer boxes are to be returned as Apple has said they will be useless in the future. My guess is they will need to switch to Itanium with Tiger in ?06.
One potential problem I?m not sure of. If OS X is VLIW native to gain optimum performance applications will need to be complied in VLIW instruction set. Of course the chip can decode x86 to VLIW, but the app would be faster if it were VLIW native. It should be easier to recompile from x86 to VLIW than it is to recompile from PPC to x86.
To look at the whole situation it makes sense.
But we will have to wait and see how it all plays out.
While there is a certain logic to it all, the dev kit is compiling x86 code and that is specifically what the dev docs say the target is. Doesn't matter what words Steve used in the keynote, the dev docs are the bottom line. VLIW as a target has a different compiled binary and performance profile. The situation too much like the 68K to PPC transition for me to feel that is what Apple is doing in the middle if PPC to x86 transition without telling anyone.
While there is a certain logic to it all, the dev kit is compiling x86 code and that is specifically what the dev docs say the target is. Doesn't matter what words Steve used in the keynote, the dev docs are the bottom line. VLIW as a target has a different compiled binary and performance profile. The situation too much like the 68K to PPC transition for me to feel that is what Apple is doing in the middle if PPC to x86 transition without telling anyone.
Agreed, to further that a quote from the Intel is supposed to release something new thread:
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Sure they did.
The developer docs are all about converting to 32bit X86, optimising for SSE2 or SSE3, endian issues. They aren't about some mythical new non-X86 architecture.
...and time will tell if that's always the case.
The dev machines use P4s why use them if they could have used Itanium? I believe that the target is x86, Intel is going after Itanium, not Apple. At least I don't see that. THW did a piece on Dothan and it runs up with P4s and the rest, while putting out 37W. Yonah, I know my spelling is off, is an improved Dothan core in a two core package. Again I think that the target is x86, the reason that Apple did not talk to AMD is because Apple is also after the rest of the chips, Centrino anyone?
the dev kit is compiling x86 code and that is specifically what the dev docs say the target is.
This is the wrinkle in my speculation.
If Apple were planning to use Itanium or some other VLIW variation. Why would they have developer kits compile for x86, and not tell anyone VLIW is the final chip?
There are a few possible reasons for this.
Perhaps the new Itanium chips will not be ready until mid ?06 . Apple revealing its use of Itanium would be a huge shock and Jobs would wait to show a working Itanium Macintosh before he tips his hand.
Perhaps recompiling from PPC to x86 is most of the work of the transition.
In the future Intel should have improved the ability of the Itanium to decode x86 binaries much faster than previous versions. If Mac developers do nothing else Itanium will be able to decode their x86 applications and run them. But I?m sure applications would still run faster if complied to run natively on VLIW.
When it reveals Itanium to the world Apple would present a way to recompile from x86 to VLIW with little effort from developers.
Admittedly it is a bit convoluted. But it is possible.
Perhaps Macintels will use Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest. But I can?t think of a convincing reason why.
First if Apple were looking at x86 why would they not even consider AMD. Whose processors even into next year should still beat Pentium M and Xeon in performance and power management.
Second the future G6 would have surely been based on IBM?s Power 5 architecture.
Why would Apple pass two superior architectures to power future Mac?s on a family of processors based on Centrino?
I don't understand the logic in that. But it is possible.
The dev machines use P4s why use them if they could have used Itanium?
Because as I said......
Quote:
Its doubtful Apple will use the current Itanium design as it was not made for the laptop or low power consumption. Plus the current Itanium line costs $900 to $4000. I imagine Intel will have to design a new line that scales from laptops, desktops, to servers.
Quote:
the reason that Apple did not talk to AMD is because Apple is also after the rest of the chips, Centrino anyone?
[B]Going from a G5 to a Centrino is a step backwards in processing power.
I beg your pardon? I've never seen a G5 laptop. You know of any? 'Cause that's what Centrino's are. Nevermind that PC manufacturers abuse the brand name. It's meant to be, and it mainly is, Mobile Technology used in laptops.
A 2.13 Ghz Pentium M with Wi-Fi and an Intel Chipset is definitely better than anything offered currently by Apple. And from the looks of it, anything offered by Apple in the future too - prior to their switch.
Quote:
Consider the potential of a G6 (Power 5) Centrino is a huge step backwards.
The potential may be there, but Centrino is a mobile technology, and considering that IBM has proven itself to be unable (or perhaps, unwilling) to offer even a POWER 4 derivative for laptops, I highly douubt that anything that comes from POWER 5 will be available even for PowerMacs, let alone for the Centrino intended market - laptops.
Perhaps I will, but at what, 1.3 Ghz? And the possibilities of that happening are very slim.
Quote:
Even if Apple never developed a G5 laptop that still doesn't mean Centrino is better than all other options.
All other options currently include G4s. You mean to tell me that a 1.67 (or 1.7 as has been reported) G4 with 512 L2 Cache, a 167 Mhz FSB is better than a 2.13 Ghz Pentium M with 2 MB L2 Cache and a 660 Mhz FSB?
Comments
You guys are brilliant.
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
I just had a thought, what would compell Windows users to go out and buy OS X if it were in their market? Most average windows users that I know, don't know or care about their operating system, as long as it does what they need it to do. I try explaining to them how there's something much much better, but they don't seem to get it. They're not gonna dish out over 100 bucks to get another OS when the one they have (sort of) works fine. I'm talking about your average Windows user. The point I'm making is that taking this fact that windows users aren't ever quick to upgrade into consideration. I don't think that apple would be able to support itself on OS sales alone.
If you think that no Windows users would install OS X on their PCs, then even less will shell out $1500+ for a new Mac.
Originally posted by Placebo
If you think that no Windows users would install OS X on their PCs, then even less will shell out $1500+ for a new Mac.
Who knows. Never underestimate the irrationality of customers' purchasing decisions?
Originally posted by lundy
But Mac OS X will be compiled with the VLIW compiler. And thus it WON'T RUN on P4s, P3s, or AMD anything. The initial versions may be straight x86 of course, but that only gets the hackers addicted to OS X and when Leopard is VLIW only (i.e. Apple only), there is a reason to switch to the Apple hardware.
If developers want to recompile their apps in the future, they can; but there is no ultra-compelling reason to do so - they can't be pirated to a Dell because OS X won't run on a Dell (unless Apple wants to allow Dell to use the VLIW chips under strict co-branding).
There must have been some deal made with Intel other than just the price of the chip - and I think it had to do with Apple getting to make a machine that will run Windows while still keeping OS X completely Apple-only. Intel could have agreed to sell the VLIW chips in x86-only mode to everyone except Apple - nobody else would want the VLIW anyway except people who want to get OS X without buying an Apple machine.
Anybody think of why this wouldn't work?
Seems it would be in Apple's interest for them to consider such a strategy, assuming it's feasible from both a hardware and software perspective (which we don't fully know, yet). Offhand I don't see any definitive reason, obvious or subtle, why it wouldn't work although someone else may find one.
Originally posted by alliancep.s.i
-When theyre computer crashes and all there precious family photos they took with there digital camera are gone
No system is fully immune to that. Hopefully the victim learns the valuable lesson of making backups.
Originally posted by Placebo
THAT'S WINDOWS, NOT PC HARDWARE.
You guys are brilliant.
no, you're the brilliant one.
At any rate, I personally think that your average non-technical joe schmo, who hasn't gone to an apple store and seen the light, will buy the cheapest computer he can buy from Best Buy, (or whatever the Best Buy guy can sell him). And he'll use Win XP Home Edition forever. BTW - Don't count on Best Buy selling a Mac very well. They had a Mac Mini set up at our store and it didn't have a keyboard because they sold it! I said, "how will you show spotlight to people?" He said, "What's Spotlight?" This is why Apple is so huge on retail right now. What would happen to all their retail stores if they licensed OS X on PCs?
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
What would happen to all their retail stores if they licensed OS X on PCs?
Thought I already asked that, adding a wisecrack about them becoming iPod stores.
Anyway, it's yet another reason why I don't see Apple licensing OS X.
First of all we have to recognize that Steve Jobs has a big ego and he wants to be second to none. I think that?s true. I don?t think it?s a bad trait as long as that ego can be tempered with reason and wisdom. I also think Steve has big ideas: he wants and needs certain freedoms and independence from the PC industry at large to implement his ideas.
Intel has to have some plan that really impressed Steve to switch teams like this. Many including myself don?t believe its only because of power consumption.
Second fact. Intel wants to move on from x86. I haven?t been reading much about Intel for the past few years, so I?ve had to catch up the past couple of months. X86 essentially is an old technology, largely the only reason it is still used is because of backward compatibility. The disadvantage of this as new technology is added to x86 little of the old technology is taken away. That has ultimately made x86 very inflexible. X86 cores have millions of transistors. As more transistors are added the chip consumes more power and produces more heat. Then there is the on chip x86 instructions decoder which takes a significant amount of room and power.
Over time billions in R&D are being put into x86 design to work around the problems of x86, and keep it going. There are in fact newer chip architectures which have significantly far more room for growth and innovation. Architectures such as IBM?s Power and Intel?s Itanium.
Intel has also been in a low profile struggle with Microsoft. The two companies don?t seem to be headed in the same direction any more. I?ve read that new markets such as China are not openly embracing Intel because, to embrace Intel brings Microsoft.
As Lundy said Itanium is based on VLIW (Very Long Instruction Word). VLIW uses software compliers to translate x86 instructions into VLIW instructions. Over the past ten years Intel has invested billions of dollars of development into Itanium architecture. But the Itanium has proven to be largely a failure in the PC market. At this point Itanium is the scrappy step child that most kick around, even calling it the Itanic (Titanic).
Mostly from what I see the Itanium is so scorned because of its attempt to move the PC industry away from x86. I read that its first version was very poor, but has greatly improved over the years. The Itanium is currently used in high end workstations, mainframes, and super computing.
Intel exclaims Itanium is its answer to RISC processors most namely Power PC. Intel needed an answer to the Power 4 architecture which the Mac G5 is based on. Itanium was supposed to be that answer but no one supported it.
CEO of Intel has said:
Long term, the architecture Itanium needs to aim at is [IBM's] Power line. We have nothing in our existing 32-bit line capability that can compete with Power. It's a very high performance line.
When Itanium was introduced Intel billed it has its next evolution in chip architecture and a new instruction set (IA-64). Intel was partnered with HP on Itanium design and implementation. Nearly all of the major PC world announced support for Itanium: Microsoft, IBM, SGI, Compaq, SUN?.and the list goes on.
In reality all of those companies bailed on Itanium support. IBM obviously because of its competition with Power. The rest largely because of continued support for x86. Even HP is pulling out its support. All of HP?s Itanium designers have now gone to Intel, and HP may be bailing on Itanium support altogether.
Intel did not want to implement 64 bit computing into its x86 architecture because it wanted to move the industry over to Itanium which is natively 64 bit. That misstep left AMD room to implement its own AMD64 bit standard, which Microsoft adopted as its 64 bit instruction set in XP 64. To stay competitive that forced Intel to adopt AMD64 in its future line of x86 chips, which it calls EM64T.
Intel is lukewarm on its support for AMD64, calling it a feature enhancement for x86. They still promote Itanium and IA-64 as a fundamental change in architecture.
Today the few working Itanium stations are mostly running Linux. Microsoft has weak server support for Itanium, and cancelled its plans for an XP version running on Itanium. This leaves Intel holding a billion dollar boondoggle.
However what may save Itanium or more specifically VLIW architecture is the advancement of Power PC. IBM can adapt Power architecture in ways that are nearly impossible with x86. That is the reason Xbox 360, Playstation 3, Nintendo are using it. Itanium (VLIW) is the only other major architecture that can keep pace.
Intel has made some interesting acquisitions. The original VLIW designs that inspired the Itanium were from a Russian company called Elbrus. Intel bought Elbrus last year, and is integrating its designs into Itanium. HP engineers from the Itanium team were transferred to Intel. And Intel has gained software that allows x86 software to run on RISC microprocessors, which is related to running x86 binaries on Itanium.
X86 cores need out of order execution, have small architectural registers, and the x86 instruction decoder takes a significant amount of energy. Intel Pentium chips have extremely long pipelines, which draw more power and produce more heat.
VLIW chips can be designed with fewer transistors than commonly used in x86 currently, by only using transistors that significantly increase performance, x86 decompiling is done in software that does away with on chip decoders, has a short pipeline, strictly in order execution, and no branch prediction. VLIW chips can use multiple low power cores, larger file registers (SSE can be made to compete and surpass Altivec), and support hyperthreading.
This architecture allows for processors that will run at 2 to 3 Watts and are just as fast. Same as Jobs has described.
To hear this sounds as though Intel is continuing to support and enhance Itanium, inspite of the fact that the PC industry at large is ignoring it.
If you have a great technology that none of the mainstream OEM?s will support (because it is too new) who do you call?
Steve Jobs!
Where does Apple come into this? Tom Yager from Info-World describes it.
"IBM and Freescale, Apple?s previous CPU suppliers, both said the same thing about Apple?s departure: Thank God, now we can get back to serving our other customers. Apple pushed IBM and Freescale to advance PowerPC technology further and faster than the majority of their customers expected or required. I hope Apple makes itself another pain in Intel?s ass."
At this point Intel is being beaten by Power 5 architecture in the supercomputer scale, and is being beaten on the desktop and lower server scale by AMD. Intel needs a partner to help them innovate.
Strangely enough John C Dvorak predicted this two years ago, and gives as a good explanation as any to why Apple is going with Intel.
?Itanium. What will be radical is the company's choice of processor. Apple will announce its use of the Itanium chip, which can be used in such a multiprocessor design and will become the first desktop use of the chip. The choice of the Itanium is suggested by four factors.
First, there is zero evidence that Apple is talking to AMD?and it would if it were staying with the x86 legacy chips.
Second, Apple likes to make jazzy announcements in which it claims to be the first or the most aggressive in a market. The Itanium fills the bill perfectly, because Jobs can lord it over current PC makers with all sorts of performance claims.
Third, if Apple optimizes the OS X kernel for the Itanium, the likelihood of the Apple OS being ripped off by normal PC users is nil. And finally, by choosing the Itanium, Apple will have an ally in Intel, who will put its design team to work for Apple and perhaps even invest in the company, knowing AMD is not in the picture.
There is no doubt that a MacIntel machine could supplant the Wintel platform. And most likely, the entire hungry Linux community could port all the x86 Linux code to the MacIntel OS within weeks, creating a huge flood of good products.?
A Macintel running an Itanium processor would be a huge shift in the computer industry.
First and most obvious would be Apple and Intel working together with Intel processors inside of a Macintosh. That?s weird enough in itself.
Steve Jobs will have teamed with a larger supplier and the ability to have common Intel motherboards using common PC components. Apple will also have the ability to be on the ground floor of pushing another powerful CPU architecture.
With the major PC industry at large treating Itanium as a laughing stock. Apple using Itanium would validate Intel and its investment in VLIW and IA-64. A Macintosh and OS X powered by the Itanium is huge validation and marketing for the platform.
Its doubtful Apple will use the current Itanium design as it was not made for the laptop or low power consumption. Plus the current Itanium line costs $900 to $4000. I imagine Intel will have to design a new line that scales from laptops, desktops, to servers.
As far as the time table I would guess Apple will need to bring laptop and desktop Itaniums right away. They may introduce x86 computers first, but that forces Apple to support three different OS types. PowerPC, x86, and VLIW.
The current developer boxes are to be returned as Apple has said they will be useless in the future. My guess is they will need to switch to Itanium with Tiger in ?06.
One potential problem I?m not sure of. If OS X is VLIW native to gain optimum performance applications will need to be complied in VLIW instruction set. Of course the chip can decode x86 to VLIW, but the app would be faster if it were VLIW native. It should be easier to recompile from x86 to VLIW than it is to recompile from PPC to x86.
To look at the whole situation it makes sense.
But we will have to wait and see how it all plays out.
Originally posted by Hiro
While there is a certain logic to it all, the dev kit is compiling x86 code and that is specifically what the dev docs say the target is. Doesn't matter what words Steve used in the keynote, the dev docs are the bottom line. VLIW as a target has a different compiled binary and performance profile. The situation too much like the 68K to PPC transition for me to feel that is what Apple is doing in the middle if PPC to x86 transition without telling anyone.
Agreed, to further that a quote from the Intel is supposed to release something new thread:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Sure they did.
The developer docs are all about converting to 32bit X86, optimising for SSE2 or SSE3, endian issues. They aren't about some mythical new non-X86 architecture.
...and time will tell if that's always the case.
The dev machines use P4s why use them if they could have used Itanium? I believe that the target is x86, Intel is going after Itanium, not Apple. At least I don't see that. THW did a piece on Dothan and it runs up with P4s and the rest, while putting out 37W. Yonah, I know my spelling is off, is an improved Dothan core in a two core package. Again I think that the target is x86, the reason that Apple did not talk to AMD is because Apple is also after the rest of the chips, Centrino anyone?
the dev kit is compiling x86 code and that is specifically what the dev docs say the target is.
This is the wrinkle in my speculation.
If Apple were planning to use Itanium or some other VLIW variation. Why would they have developer kits compile for x86, and not tell anyone VLIW is the final chip?
There are a few possible reasons for this.
Perhaps the new Itanium chips will not be ready until mid ?06 . Apple revealing its use of Itanium would be a huge shock and Jobs would wait to show a working Itanium Macintosh before he tips his hand.
Perhaps recompiling from PPC to x86 is most of the work of the transition.
In the future Intel should have improved the ability of the Itanium to decode x86 binaries much faster than previous versions. If Mac developers do nothing else Itanium will be able to decode their x86 applications and run them. But I?m sure applications would still run faster if complied to run natively on VLIW.
When it reveals Itanium to the world Apple would present a way to recompile from x86 to VLIW with little effort from developers.
Admittedly it is a bit convoluted. But it is possible.
Perhaps Macintels will use Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest. But I can?t think of a convincing reason why.
First if Apple were looking at x86 why would they not even consider AMD. Whose processors even into next year should still beat Pentium M and Xeon in performance and power management.
Second the future G6 would have surely been based on IBM?s Power 5 architecture.
Why would Apple pass two superior architectures to power future Mac?s on a family of processors based on Centrino?
I don't understand the logic in that. But it is possible.
Originally posted by Brendon
The dev machines use P4s why use them if they could have used Itanium?
Because as I said......
Its doubtful Apple will use the current Itanium design as it was not made for the laptop or low power consumption. Plus the current Itanium line costs $900 to $4000. I imagine Intel will have to design a new line that scales from laptops, desktops, to servers.
the reason that Apple did not talk to AMD is because Apple is also after the rest of the chips, Centrino anyone?
The rest of what chips?
And why would Apple want to use Centrino?
Originally posted by TenoBell
And why would Apple want to use Centrino?
Why not?
Centrino is the whole package: Pentium M, Intel Chipset, and a Wi-Fi card.
Why design your own chipsets when you can get them ready and in excellent condition/quality? Why waste time & money?
Look at the entire equation.
Going from a G5 to a Centrino is a step backwards in processing power.
Consider the potential of a G6 (Power 5) Centrino is a huge step backwards.
Originally posted by TenoBell
[B]Going from a G5 to a Centrino is a step backwards in processing power.
I beg your pardon? I've never seen a G5 laptop. You know of any? 'Cause that's what Centrino's are. Nevermind that PC manufacturers abuse the brand name. It's meant to be, and it mainly is, Mobile Technology used in laptops.
A 2.13 Ghz Pentium M with Wi-Fi and an Intel Chipset is definitely better than anything offered currently by Apple. And from the looks of it, anything offered by Apple in the future too - prior to their switch.
Consider the potential of a G6 (Power 5) Centrino is a huge step backwards.
The potential may be there, but Centrino is a mobile technology, and considering that IBM has proven itself to be unable (or perhaps, unwilling) to offer even a POWER 4 derivative for laptops, I highly douubt that anything that comes from POWER 5 will be available even for PowerMacs, let alone for the Centrino intended market - laptops.
A 2.13 Ghz Pentium M with Wi-Fi and an Intel Chipset is definitely better than anything offered currently by Apple.
I'm looking at the future.
I've never seen a G5 laptop.
Oh chances are really good that you will.
Even if Apple never developed a G5 laptop that still doesn't mean Centrino is better than all other options.
Originally posted by TenoBell
[B]I'm looking at the future.
The future is Yonah, and a little later, Merom.
Oh chances are really good that you will.
Perhaps I will, but at what, 1.3 Ghz? And the possibilities of that happening are very slim.
Even if Apple never developed a G5 laptop that still doesn't mean Centrino is better than all other options.
All other options currently include G4s. You mean to tell me that a 1.67 (or 1.7 as has been reported) G4 with 512 L2 Cache, a 167 Mhz FSB is better than a 2.13 Ghz Pentium M with 2 MB L2 Cache and a 660 Mhz FSB?
Those who hold out any hope of running OS X on generic PC's. Will stick to the notion no matter what that Apple has to run OS X on x86.
Inspite of the fact Apple has said OS X will not run on anything but a Mac.