The reason Apple went to Intel is because they wanted to use Intel's chips. The same ones they will be selling to everyone else.
That's the power of a Mactel alliance. Apple will have what, 6 months, or even a year or more of an advantage? Intel gains control of its own destiny again. This can't happen with that disparate Linux crowd. They don't agree on anything.
Good discussion guys; melgross has hit it on the button however.
Remember that Apple's production execution has come on in leaps and bounds in the past couple of years and I believe they feel they are ready to take on Dell in the commodity computer business. Remember also that Apple ARE price competitive with Dell in the ranges in which they compete. The Intel deal will allow Apple to increase their model range to compete in almost every sector with Dell.
The dream for Apple is to have boxes that cost the same and run at the same speed (and run Windows if you really want) yet the user experience is completely transformed; That's what Apple does best and thats where they can really compete.
You guys are going to be surprised. Apple's prices are going to be competitive with Dell's. They are not going to be $400 more.
Finally, some one that agrees with me. I'm not sure where everyone gets the idea that Macs are $1000 to $1500 more expensive than Dell. Every time I've gone to Dell's website and compared comparably equipped computers the prices are close, sometimes Dell is cheaper, sometimes Apple is cheaper.
For example, the company I work for bought about 25 Dell desktops with 17" LCD monitors, replacing many Macs. The claim was that they were much cheaper. They are nice little machines, but have integrated graphics that use system ram instead of dedicated ram. They slow to a crawl if many applications are open are a pain to network. The total cost was about $1200 each. At the time the 17" G5 iMacs were running $1299. Either we got screwed by Dell or just maybe the Apple tax is currently largely myth.
The main difference is speed depending on the applications. Now the difference in speed will be mostly irrelevant.
Look guys, If Apple comes out with the first machine(s) by JUNE, there won't be a 64 bit cpu in them. That means that a 64 bit OS serves no purpose.
So a 64-bit 10.4 serves no purpose because Apple is still selling 32-bit G4 iBooks and PowerBooks? Would replacing like with like be a backwards move? No. So...
Your entire line of reasoning falls down because your premise is ridiculously wrong and ignores existence of current hardware that directly contradicts it.
If Apple does their job right it isn't just between OS X and Vista; will the Dell have Firewire 800? Gigabit Ethernet? a competitive video card that isn't soldered onto the board and sharing main memory?
[/B]
Unless I bought a top end PowerBook or PowerMac neither would an Apple, shared memory aside.
Also, I don't think that Intel's Integrated Graphics is that bad these days. Certainly not as bad as some of the chipsets used in lower end Macs. With Intel's 'platformisation' the hardware is going to get even closer too between a Dell and an Apple.
Hardware specs are no longer going to be Apple's selling point. It's all about software and design now. I'd hope that Apple thinks there are enough people that actually care about the OS and the plastic casings.
The main difference is speed depending on the applications. Now the difference in speed will be mostly irrelevant.
I hope so. If speed differences show up running the same applications on both OSX and Vista on almost identical hardware then Apple will have a lot of questions to answer.
At least when it was PPC v Intel they could hide behind architecture and even compiler differences. Now they can't.
This was a couple pages back, but it seems like a relevant place to inject my comments still...
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
So far, Intel 64bit offers no speed advantage over 32bit I gather. AMD on the other hand does. Intel had their hands forced to support AMD's 64bit ISA by Microsoft deciding to support that instead of Intel.
You said it: "so far". You'll note that Apple is waiting for newer chips.
Quote:
Development cost - totally agree but if that was the case developers would have seen 64bit compiler tools and the transition kit wouldn't be a Pentium4 32bit.
Right now most Mac developers are using 32-bit code. Very few are doing 64-bit work. They are not going to want to transition to 64-bit and x86 at the same time (this includes Apple's OS code). One thing at a time is easier, and means Apple can use the generic 32-bit compiler and 32-bit hardware to get moving in the right direction.
Quote:
We'll have the Intel 32bit to 64bit transition to do some point in the future again. Roll on Universal Binaries with 3 ISAs in them - IA32, X64 and PPC.
Not if all (non-developer preview) machines that Apple ships are x64. In this case any x86 machine Apple ships will be able to run both 32-bit and 64-bit x86 programs. There are (well, might be -- I don't know if any developers have bothered yet) 32-bit and 64-bit PPC fat binaries because there are PPC machines that can only run 32-bit PPC code. If every x86 machine that Apple ever ships is x86-64 then any 64-bit code anyone writes for x86 will work on them all.
Intel has to maintain backwards compatibility in its chips for the PC market, so Apple doesn't have to worry about sending developers the wrong message by starting with providing them a 32-bit machine.
My point wasn?t so much directly about Apple and Itanium. The point was Intel does not fear investing in new architectures.
True but equally they are a business.
It's clear now that despite numerous attempts by Intel, from i860 to Itanium, that to leave behind X86 and even Windows - remember they invested a lot in BeOS - they have has to leverage their core saps - Wintel users.
I think you're right that they, more than anyone can create a new architecture and make it work but they know where their money comes from. Any new architecture has to be based on 32bit X86 compatibility.
I think Apple know that too.
Dell don't care - they'll sell whatever is popular to whoever wants it.
Microsoft don't care - once they own a market they'd rather sell you the same old crap.
So a 64-bit 10.4 serves no purpose because Apple is still selling 32-bit G4 iBooks and PowerBooks? Would replacing like with like be a backwards move? No. So...
Your entire line of reasoning falls down because your premise is ridiculously wrong and ignores existence of current hardware that directly contradicts it.
Your post is worthless because you haven't said anything to show that your disagreement is anything but frustration on your part.
We are talking about Intel chips. As far as we know now, Apple's first Intel based machines will use 32 bit Intel chips. We might not see 64 bit based Macs with an Intel chip inside until the end of 2006. That is about the same time Leopard will be coming out. If this is so, then it would make perfect sense for Apple to get 10.4 for Intel off the ground as the 32 bit OS THAT IT IS NOW.
There is simply no way that Apple can work this Intel based OS into a 64 bit model by an early enough date to get it out to the developers in time for them to get any of their code moved over to 64 bits for a June release of machines which will, no doubt, be 32 bits anyway.
It makes perfect sense to have this work be done in Leopard instead.This way Apple will have a congruity between its machines and its OS. Perfect timing.
If you need a 64 bit Mac, I suggest that you buy a current one based on the G5.
If you don't understand this, then there's no point in bothering.
Apple may open up future OS for all Wintel machines, but apple will sell hardwares along with it.
I would bet on that not happening for a long long time.
Apple just don't have the engineering dept big enough to cope with supporting 'all Wintel machines'. Microsoft don't either these days and they're narrowing down more and more onto a completely certified environment and set of supported hardware.
Apple may be able to support a subset of 'all' Wintel hardware but it'll be quite narrowly set and be largely dependent on 3rd parties to provide certified hardware support.
So it'll be Intel, ATI or Nvidia for graphics, Intel only motherboards and chipsets, 3-4 SCSI or SATA cards, 5-6 DVD drives - stuff like that. And the self builders will complain like mad when Apple does an update and they've broken their SATA driver and the 3rd party company hasn't updated it yet.
You have to remember that Apple updates it's OS every couple of months with new kernels and extensions sometimes. Microsoft does it every few years.
I?m not saying Intel is motivated to action through fear. I?m saying quite the opposite that Intel has not used fear as a reason for inaction.
Intel has been developing Itanium for over ten years and it has yet to sell at the volume you are describing. But they continue to develop it.
That's only part of what I said there. I also said:
"It wasn't fear that they looked at when they decided to do it either."
Itanium was hoped to sell in larger quantities then they are of course.
Intel/Hp's plans was to make increasingly lower cost versions of the IA-64 line, therefore enabling them to eventually take over entirely fron x86. That won't happen now.
x86 does nothing to reinforce Microsoft in anything. If anything it weakens their market confidence. How does Apple justify developers porting to the specific vaguaries of x86 and then tell Adobe "Oh btw rewrite that optimized code you just rewrote for our new architecture please. We just commited you to 150 man years of labour to hide our corporate plans, you can throw that code away."
The simple answer to that is that Apple wanted Adobe to port it's products from the unportable codewarrior codebase they currently have to Xcode. It may be 150 man years of labour to do that now but the next switch, now it's on XCode, uses veclib, core and cocoa, requires little more than a recompile to get it working on a new architecture.
Adobe uses an abstract library of it's own to do it's interfaces with a lot of code shared between Mac and Windows. Apple needed that ported. That's been done already despite the protests about how tricky the port is by Chizen.
Quote:
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
Intel's opportunity to update the ISA was before Microsoft coded 64 bit windows. Oncce AMD beat them to the punch, the window closed. Apple is Not the same kind of window, because they do not represent nearly the same install base. Maybe 5 years from now there will be another window.
With the speed Intel reverse engineered EMT64 into their Netburst chips I'd guess that it wouldn't be too much of a stretch for them to add that in for compatibility to a future architecture even if they came out with a new more advanced architecture. At some point the IA32 and EMT64 ISA will move out of the CPU into software with a more refined core architecture. It has to - Intel can't carry around all those transistors to support legacy 8086-80386 code and hit it's power promises. That'd give legacy Windows support and Mactel support but allow Intel to shed off it's legacy it so wants to do. Apple can then gradually move also but allow IA32 apps to run in the meantime and PPC through Rosetta.
Maybe Rosetta is the software that lets Intel shed off it's IA32 legacy finally. Maybe there's some kind of intermediate Transmeta kind of thing happening. Who knows. I think it's possible down the line, if not probable. At the moment the transition is about cross platform compatibility.
That's only part of what I said there. I also said:
"It wasn't fear that they looked at when they decided to do it either."
Itanium was hoped to sell in larger quantities then they are of course.
Intel/Hp's plans was to make increasingly lower cost versions of the IA-64 line, therefore enabling them to eventually take over entirely fron x86. That won't happen now.
They infact seem to have gone the other way, adding huge caches to them in an attempt to compete with POWER5, which still rules the roost in what us old timers used to call 'mini computers'.
They infact seem to have gone the other way, adding huge caches to them in an attempt to compete with POWER5, which still rules the roost in what us old timers used to call 'mini computers'.
Yeah, and this is because it hasn't lived up to expectations. It was not only supposed to be several times as powerful as it is, but it was supposed to compete against POWER 3 at that level. They are, even now, having severe problems with the process. The 3GHz version that was supposed to come out with 24MB cache will now be, at best, 2GHz. The 800FSB will apparently be 400MHz rather than the 800 it was intended to be.
Quite a comedown.
I'm happy that we do agree about the stripping out of old code from the x86 series. That's going to be the way it will be done. Not new lines from scratch.
Of course, I think we can all agree that as we look past the 6 ot 7 years mark from now, all of this begins to get hazy.
If Apple does their job right it isn't just between OS X and Vista; will the Dell have Firewire 800? Gigabit Ethernet? a competitive video card that isn't soldered onto the board and sharing main memory? Will it have a good out-of-box experience, with useful, well designed software already installed? Will the Dell be known for working well with all their other gadgets? Will the Dell look like a cheap toy box or will it's attention to design be engaging?
I believe they feel they are ready to take on Dell in the commodity computer business.
You guys are going to be surprised. Apple's prices are going to be competitive with Dell's. They are not going to be $400 more.
If Dell really saw Apple as a threat I don't see a scenario where Apple will be able to compete with Dell on price and performance in the x86 world.
There is no reason why Dell will not be fully able to match an x86 Macintosh spec for spec. The Macintosh will have a better box design true. But the spec's would be the same. Dell can sell the same spec computer for a cheaper price and lower margin than Apple is able.
This is what the commodity market is about. This is a market most companies are having a tough time with and is a market Apple will not enjoy high margins and profits.
Intel won?t really make any type of significant amount of money from Apple in x86 chips. From a business point that makes them almost the perfect platform for experimentation.
Intel will still make the lions share of its money from the Windows world.
Quote:
It's clear now that despite numerous attempts by Intel, from i860 to Itanium, that to leave behind X86 and even Windows - remember they invested a lot in BeOS - they have has to leverage their core saps - Wintel users.
I think you're right that they, more than anyone can create a new architecture and make it work but they know where their money comes from. Any new architecture has to be based on 32bit X86 compatibility.
Yes without a doubt Intel has learned a lot from its failures with Itanium. They attempted to quickly push the industry onto Itanium with weak support for x86. Instead a of a gradual transition.
They probably felt if they continued to support x86 there would be little motivation to move to Itanium.
I?m sure they have learned whatever they do in the future it has to have excellent execution of x86 and now x64 code.
If Intel were to attempt a new architecture with Apple this certainly would be at the top of the list of criteria.
So far I don?t see Intel giving up and reluctantly staying with x86. From most of what I?ve read Intel publicly states EMT64 is not an advanced architecture it is only a feature of old x86 technology. They still maintain IA-64 is an advancement.
I?ve read other analysts agree to this. From the standpoint of compilers. Once most of the work can be done in compilers the original architecture doesn?t matter any more.
Apple didn't specifically say that they would be using x86, it's pretty obvious that they will. There is no way that they send out those developer machines otherwise. Haven't I said that several times already/ Are you ignoring the importance of that? You think that Apple will pull a fast one at the last minute?
"Oh come on.....
You don't think they are debating these same issues?"
No.
Yes its clear Apple will use 32 bit x86. At this moment it is not clear Apple will use AMD64 and follow the same path of the larger PC industry.
No I don?t think Apple will pull anything. Apple has actually left a nice gap open for themselves. Even if Apple chooses to use EMT64 developers will still have more work to do, but it will be easier for everyone is on XCode.
Its also possible Apple is using x86 as a starting point of the transition and has no plans of staying there. In fact no one is staying purely with 32 bit x86.
If Apple does use an alternative 64 bit architecture of course it would support 32 bit x86.
If Apple executives have not pondered all of their options and pondered the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Then they are not very good executives.
Yes its clear Apple will use 32 bit x86. At this moment it is not clear Apple will use AMD64 and follow the same path of the larger PC industry.
No I don?t think Apple will pull anything. Apple has actually left a nice gap open for themselves. Even if Apple chooses to use EMT64 developers will still have more work to do, but it will be easier for everyone is on XCode.
Its also possible Apple is using x86 as a starting point of the transition and has no plans of staying there. In fact no one is staying purely with 32 bit x86.
If Apple does use an alternative 64 bit architecture of course it would support 32 bit x86.
If Apple executives have not pondered all of their options and pondered the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Then they are not very good executives.
^^^^Yeah, that process is called running proof of concept on prototypes. EMT64 prototype silicon has been available for months. In general chip prototypes begin seeing integration labs 18 months before production runs begin. Now look back the calendar and see how long Intel had available to work the full monty on Apple by helping Apple toy around with the good stuff in a back lab on an Intel campus. All while IBM was slipping delivery schedules, missing speed targets, pushing Cell and trying to change the structure (++$$) of the follow on CPU contracts.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Your post is worthless because you haven't said anything to show that your disagreement is anything but frustration on your part.
We are talking about Intel chips. As far as we know now, Apple's first Intel based machines will use 32 bit Intel chips. We might not see 64 bit based Macs with an Intel chip inside until the end of 2006. That is about the same time Leopard will be coming out. If this is so, then it would make perfect sense for Apple to get 10.4 for Intel off the ground as the 32 bit OS THAT IT IS NOW.
There is simply no way that Apple can work this Intel based OS into a 64 bit model by an early enough date to get it out to the developers in time for them to get any of their code moved over to 64 bits for a June release of machines which will, no doubt, be 32 bits anyway.
It makes perfect sense to have this work be done in Leopard instead.This way Apple will have a congruity between its machines and its OS. Perfect timing.
If you need a 64 bit Mac, I suggest that you buy a current one based on the G5.
If you don't understand this, then there's no point in bothering.
I still don't see how you keep couching this as a bad thing. It's just a thing, and completely consistent with the current product lineup you seem to want to throw out the window. And I really should agree with the bold part because you just made my point for me [only I used an existence proof to do in 2 sentences what you took a couple dozen to do.]
Your understanding of OS design leaves a bit to be desired as well. You need to read up on Mach and how it abstracts the hardware, then you can begin to deal with poking around in Darwin and have any hope of finding anything meaninful. Only a few engineers in Apple need to really be up on those aspects, everyone else, including the majority of the non-driver producing OS team doesn't need to muk about those hardware issues. How the hell do you think they managed Star Wars and Marklar for so long?
I suggest you leave the feature scheduling predictions out of your prognostications until you understand what's really required.
^^^^Yeah, that process is called running proof of concept on prototypes. EMT64 prototype silicon has been available for months. In general chip prototypes begin seeing integration labs 18 months before production runs begin. Now look back the calendar and see how long Intel had available to work the full monty on Apple by helping Apple toy around with the good stuff in a back lab on an Intel campus. All while IBM was slipping delivery schedules, missing speed targets, pushing Cell and trying to change the structure (++$$) of the follow on CPU contracts.
I still don't see how you keep couching this as a bad thing. It's just a thing, and completely consistent with the current product lineup you seem to want to throw out the window. And I really should agree with the bold part because you just made my point for me [only I used an existence proof to do in 2 sentences what you took a couple dozen to do.]
Your understanding of OS design leaves a bit to be desired as well. You need to read up on Mach and how it abstracts the hardware, then you can begin to deal with poking around in Darwin and have any hope of finding anything meaninful. Only a few engineers in Apple need to really be up on those aspects, everyone else, including the majority of the non-driver producing OS team doesn't need to muk about those hardware issues. How the hell do you think they managed Star Wars and Marklar for so long?
I suggest you leave the feature scheduling predictions out of your prognostications until you understand what's really required.
Please don't tell me about my lacking qualities. This is a business model. Whether or not you understand that.
An "existence proof". I have degrees in biology, psychology. with a minor in physics, and I've never heard of an "existence proof". Would you at least get it right?
Apple is throwing its present machines out, not me.
I explained why I believe what I do. You don't seem to like reasoned explanations. The time line has been discussed to death. I'm using it as basis for my conclusions. If you have a different one, fine.If you can't explain your statements other than to say "you're wrong", then there isn't any point in talking.
Now, at least, you're saying something.
But it still misses the point. Mach doesn't do the work that has to be done. You understand nothing about hardware abstraction if you think that. If that were true, then no work would have to be done at all. We wouldn't need two binaries becausr Mach would take care of it for us. It doesn't. I suppose you can explain exactly how it does. With references from Apple's documentation to show that you haven't misinterpeted it.
But it still misses the point. Mach doesn't do the work that has to be done. You understand nothing about hardware abstraction if you think that. If that were true, then no work would have to be done at all. We wouldn't need two binaries becausr Mach would take care of it for us. It doesn't. I suppose you can explain exactly how it does. With references from Apple's documentation to show that you haven't misinterpeted it.
Please, your post is a joke.
Now you just failed Computer Architecture too. Different processor, different binary; same code but run the appropriate compiler on the appropriate architecture. That has absolutely nothing to do with the OS's capabilities. I do like the gloves on the floor challenge to provide something which does not exist though. It gives you the mental hope to claim I am avoiding your point when I don't provide it.
Biology and Physics backgrounds are great ways to tell us you know computer science, thanks for straightening that one out.
Existence proof -- I touch the mouse and keyboard, therefore I know they exist. It's not the thing you publish in a journal. It's the metaphorical example that convinces you that following a certain line of research has a high probability of paying off because a working solution actually exists in some other system. Very useful in my field - Cognitive science/autonomous robotics.
Beware, I only do a "little" bit of customized OS work for the critters. The rest of my time is trying to make them as smart as retarded mice.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
The reason Apple went to Intel is because they wanted to use Intel's chips. The same ones they will be selling to everyone else.
That's the power of a Mactel alliance. Apple will have what, 6 months, or even a year or more of an advantage? Intel gains control of its own destiny again. This can't happen with that disparate Linux crowd. They don't agree on anything.
Good discussion guys; melgross has hit it on the button however.
Remember that Apple's production execution has come on in leaps and bounds in the past couple of years and I believe they feel they are ready to take on Dell in the commodity computer business. Remember also that Apple ARE price competitive with Dell in the ranges in which they compete. The Intel deal will allow Apple to increase their model range to compete in almost every sector with Dell.
The dream for Apple is to have boxes that cost the same and run at the same speed (and run Windows if you really want) yet the user experience is completely transformed; That's what Apple does best and thats where they can really compete.
Originally posted by cubist
You guys are going to be surprised. Apple's prices are going to be competitive with Dell's. They are not going to be $400 more.
Finally, some one that agrees with me. I'm not sure where everyone gets the idea that Macs are $1000 to $1500 more expensive than Dell. Every time I've gone to Dell's website and compared comparably equipped computers the prices are close, sometimes Dell is cheaper, sometimes Apple is cheaper.
For example, the company I work for bought about 25 Dell desktops with 17" LCD monitors, replacing many Macs. The claim was that they were much cheaper. They are nice little machines, but have integrated graphics that use system ram instead of dedicated ram. They slow to a crawl if many applications are open are a pain to network. The total cost was about $1200 each. At the time the 17" G5 iMacs were running $1299. Either we got screwed by Dell or just maybe the Apple tax is currently largely myth.
The main difference is speed depending on the applications. Now the difference in speed will be mostly irrelevant.
Originally posted by melgross
Look guys, If Apple comes out with the first machine(s) by JUNE, there won't be a 64 bit cpu in them. That means that a 64 bit OS serves no purpose.
So a 64-bit 10.4 serves no purpose because Apple is still selling 32-bit G4 iBooks and PowerBooks? Would replacing like with like be a backwards move? No. So...
Your entire line of reasoning falls down because your premise is ridiculously wrong and ignores existence of current hardware that directly contradicts it.
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
If Apple does their job right it isn't just between OS X and Vista; will the Dell have Firewire 800? Gigabit Ethernet? a competitive video card that isn't soldered onto the board and sharing main memory?
[/B]
Unless I bought a top end PowerBook or PowerMac neither would an Apple, shared memory aside.
Also, I don't think that Intel's Integrated Graphics is that bad these days. Certainly not as bad as some of the chipsets used in lower end Macs. With Intel's 'platformisation' the hardware is going to get even closer too between a Dell and an Apple.
Hardware specs are no longer going to be Apple's selling point. It's all about software and design now. I'd hope that Apple thinks there are enough people that actually care about the OS and the plastic casings.
Originally posted by rickag
The main difference is speed depending on the applications. Now the difference in speed will be mostly irrelevant.
I hope so. If speed differences show up running the same applications on both OSX and Vista on almost identical hardware then Apple will have a lot of questions to answer.
At least when it was PPC v Intel they could hide behind architecture and even compiler differences. Now they can't.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
So far, Intel 64bit offers no speed advantage over 32bit I gather. AMD on the other hand does. Intel had their hands forced to support AMD's 64bit ISA by Microsoft deciding to support that instead of Intel.
You said it: "so far". You'll note that Apple is waiting for newer chips.
Development cost - totally agree but if that was the case developers would have seen 64bit compiler tools and the transition kit wouldn't be a Pentium4 32bit.
Right now most Mac developers are using 32-bit code. Very few are doing 64-bit work. They are not going to want to transition to 64-bit and x86 at the same time (this includes Apple's OS code). One thing at a time is easier, and means Apple can use the generic 32-bit compiler and 32-bit hardware to get moving in the right direction.
We'll have the Intel 32bit to 64bit transition to do some point in the future again. Roll on Universal Binaries with 3 ISAs in them - IA32, X64 and PPC.
Not if all (non-developer preview) machines that Apple ships are x64. In this case any x86 machine Apple ships will be able to run both 32-bit and 64-bit x86 programs. There are (well, might be -- I don't know if any developers have bothered yet) 32-bit and 64-bit PPC fat binaries because there are PPC machines that can only run 32-bit PPC code. If every x86 machine that Apple ever ships is x86-64 then any 64-bit code anyone writes for x86 will work on them all.
Intel has to maintain backwards compatibility in its chips for the PC market, so Apple doesn't have to worry about sending developers the wrong message by starting with providing them a 32-bit machine.
Originally posted by TenoBell
My point wasn?t so much directly about Apple and Itanium. The point was Intel does not fear investing in new architectures.
True but equally they are a business.
It's clear now that despite numerous attempts by Intel, from i860 to Itanium, that to leave behind X86 and even Windows - remember they invested a lot in BeOS - they have has to leverage their core saps - Wintel users.
I think you're right that they, more than anyone can create a new architecture and make it work but they know where their money comes from. Any new architecture has to be based on 32bit X86 compatibility.
I think Apple know that too.
Dell don't care - they'll sell whatever is popular to whoever wants it.
Microsoft don't care - once they own a market they'd rather sell you the same old crap.
Originally posted by Hiro
So a 64-bit 10.4 serves no purpose because Apple is still selling 32-bit G4 iBooks and PowerBooks? Would replacing like with like be a backwards move? No. So...
Your entire line of reasoning falls down because your premise is ridiculously wrong and ignores existence of current hardware that directly contradicts it.
Your post is worthless because you haven't said anything to show that your disagreement is anything but frustration on your part.
We are talking about Intel chips. As far as we know now, Apple's first Intel based machines will use 32 bit Intel chips. We might not see 64 bit based Macs with an Intel chip inside until the end of 2006. That is about the same time Leopard will be coming out. If this is so, then it would make perfect sense for Apple to get 10.4 for Intel off the ground as the 32 bit OS THAT IT IS NOW.
There is simply no way that Apple can work this Intel based OS into a 64 bit model by an early enough date to get it out to the developers in time for them to get any of their code moved over to 64 bits for a June release of machines which will, no doubt, be 32 bits anyway.
It makes perfect sense to have this work be done in Leopard instead.This way Apple will have a congruity between its machines and its OS. Perfect timing.
If you need a 64 bit Mac, I suggest that you buy a current one based on the G5.
If you don't understand this, then there's no point in bothering.
Originally posted by bitemymac
[B]
Apple may open up future OS for all Wintel machines, but apple will sell hardwares along with it.
I would bet on that not happening for a long long time.
Apple just don't have the engineering dept big enough to cope with supporting 'all Wintel machines'. Microsoft don't either these days and they're narrowing down more and more onto a completely certified environment and set of supported hardware.
Apple may be able to support a subset of 'all' Wintel hardware but it'll be quite narrowly set and be largely dependent on 3rd parties to provide certified hardware support.
So it'll be Intel, ATI or Nvidia for graphics, Intel only motherboards and chipsets, 3-4 SCSI or SATA cards, 5-6 DVD drives - stuff like that. And the self builders will complain like mad when Apple does an update and they've broken their SATA driver and the 3rd party company hasn't updated it yet.
You have to remember that Apple updates it's OS every couple of months with new kernels and extensions sometimes. Microsoft does it every few years.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I?m not saying Intel is motivated to action through fear. I?m saying quite the opposite that Intel has not used fear as a reason for inaction.
Intel has been developing Itanium for over ten years and it has yet to sell at the volume you are describing. But they continue to develop it.
That's only part of what I said there. I also said:
"It wasn't fear that they looked at when they decided to do it either."
Itanium was hoped to sell in larger quantities then they are of course.
Intel/Hp's plans was to make increasingly lower cost versions of the IA-64 line, therefore enabling them to eventually take over entirely fron x86. That won't happen now.
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
x86 does nothing to reinforce Microsoft in anything. If anything it weakens their market confidence. How does Apple justify developers porting to the specific vaguaries of x86 and then tell Adobe "Oh btw rewrite that optimized code you just rewrote for our new architecture please. We just commited you to 150 man years of labour to hide our corporate plans, you can throw that code away."
The simple answer to that is that Apple wanted Adobe to port it's products from the unportable codewarrior codebase they currently have to Xcode. It may be 150 man years of labour to do that now but the next switch, now it's on XCode, uses veclib, core and cocoa, requires little more than a recompile to get it working on a new architecture.
Adobe uses an abstract library of it's own to do it's interfaces with a lot of code shared between Mac and Windows. Apple needed that ported. That's been done already despite the protests about how tricky the port is by Chizen.
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
Intel's opportunity to update the ISA was before Microsoft coded 64 bit windows. Oncce AMD beat them to the punch, the window closed. Apple is Not the same kind of window, because they do not represent nearly the same install base. Maybe 5 years from now there will be another window.
With the speed Intel reverse engineered EMT64 into their Netburst chips I'd guess that it wouldn't be too much of a stretch for them to add that in for compatibility to a future architecture even if they came out with a new more advanced architecture. At some point the IA32 and EMT64 ISA will move out of the CPU into software with a more refined core architecture. It has to - Intel can't carry around all those transistors to support legacy 8086-80386 code and hit it's power promises. That'd give legacy Windows support and Mactel support but allow Intel to shed off it's legacy it so wants to do. Apple can then gradually move also but allow IA32 apps to run in the meantime and PPC through Rosetta.
Maybe Rosetta is the software that lets Intel shed off it's IA32 legacy finally. Maybe there's some kind of intermediate Transmeta kind of thing happening. Who knows. I think it's possible down the line, if not probable. At the moment the transition is about cross platform compatibility.
Originally posted by melgross
That's only part of what I said there. I also said:
"It wasn't fear that they looked at when they decided to do it either."
Itanium was hoped to sell in larger quantities then they are of course.
Intel/Hp's plans was to make increasingly lower cost versions of the IA-64 line, therefore enabling them to eventually take over entirely fron x86. That won't happen now.
They infact seem to have gone the other way, adding huge caches to them in an attempt to compete with POWER5, which still rules the roost in what us old timers used to call 'mini computers'.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
They infact seem to have gone the other way, adding huge caches to them in an attempt to compete with POWER5, which still rules the roost in what us old timers used to call 'mini computers'.
Yeah, and this is because it hasn't lived up to expectations. It was not only supposed to be several times as powerful as it is, but it was supposed to compete against POWER 3 at that level. They are, even now, having severe problems with the process. The 3GHz version that was supposed to come out with 24MB cache will now be, at best, 2GHz. The 800FSB will apparently be 400MHz rather than the 800 it was intended to be.
Quite a comedown.
I'm happy that we do agree about the stripping out of old code from the x86 series. That's going to be the way it will be done. Not new lines from scratch.
Of course, I think we can all agree that as we look past the 6 ot 7 years mark from now, all of this begins to get hazy.
If Apple does their job right it isn't just between OS X and Vista; will the Dell have Firewire 800? Gigabit Ethernet? a competitive video card that isn't soldered onto the board and sharing main memory? Will it have a good out-of-box experience, with useful, well designed software already installed? Will the Dell be known for working well with all their other gadgets? Will the Dell look like a cheap toy box or will it's attention to design be engaging?
I believe they feel they are ready to take on Dell in the commodity computer business.
You guys are going to be surprised. Apple's prices are going to be competitive with Dell's. They are not going to be $400 more.
If Dell really saw Apple as a threat I don't see a scenario where Apple will be able to compete with Dell on price and performance in the x86 world.
There is no reason why Dell will not be fully able to match an x86 Macintosh spec for spec. The Macintosh will have a better box design true. But the spec's would be the same. Dell can sell the same spec computer for a cheaper price and lower margin than Apple is able.
This is what the commodity market is about. This is a market most companies are having a tough time with and is a market Apple will not enjoy high margins and profits.
True but equally they are a business.
Intel won?t really make any type of significant amount of money from Apple in x86 chips. From a business point that makes them almost the perfect platform for experimentation.
Intel will still make the lions share of its money from the Windows world.
It's clear now that despite numerous attempts by Intel, from i860 to Itanium, that to leave behind X86 and even Windows - remember they invested a lot in BeOS - they have has to leverage their core saps - Wintel users.
I think you're right that they, more than anyone can create a new architecture and make it work but they know where their money comes from. Any new architecture has to be based on 32bit X86 compatibility.
Yes without a doubt Intel has learned a lot from its failures with Itanium. They attempted to quickly push the industry onto Itanium with weak support for x86. Instead a of a gradual transition.
They probably felt if they continued to support x86 there would be little motivation to move to Itanium.
I?m sure they have learned whatever they do in the future it has to have excellent execution of x86 and now x64 code.
If Intel were to attempt a new architecture with Apple this certainly would be at the top of the list of criteria.
So far I don?t see Intel giving up and reluctantly staying with x86. From most of what I?ve read Intel publicly states EMT64 is not an advanced architecture it is only a feature of old x86 technology. They still maintain IA-64 is an advancement.
I?ve read other analysts agree to this. From the standpoint of compilers. Once most of the work can be done in compilers the original architecture doesn?t matter any more.
Apple didn't specifically say that they would be using x86, it's pretty obvious that they will. There is no way that they send out those developer machines otherwise. Haven't I said that several times already/ Are you ignoring the importance of that? You think that Apple will pull a fast one at the last minute?
"Oh come on.....
You don't think they are debating these same issues?"
No.
Yes its clear Apple will use 32 bit x86. At this moment it is not clear Apple will use AMD64 and follow the same path of the larger PC industry.
No I don?t think Apple will pull anything. Apple has actually left a nice gap open for themselves. Even if Apple chooses to use EMT64 developers will still have more work to do, but it will be easier for everyone is on XCode.
Its also possible Apple is using x86 as a starting point of the transition and has no plans of staying there. In fact no one is staying purely with 32 bit x86.
If Apple does use an alternative 64 bit architecture of course it would support 32 bit x86.
If Apple executives have not pondered all of their options and pondered the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Then they are not very good executives.
I'm sure they went through some type of process.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Yes its clear Apple will use 32 bit x86. At this moment it is not clear Apple will use AMD64 and follow the same path of the larger PC industry.
No I don?t think Apple will pull anything. Apple has actually left a nice gap open for themselves. Even if Apple chooses to use EMT64 developers will still have more work to do, but it will be easier for everyone is on XCode.
Its also possible Apple is using x86 as a starting point of the transition and has no plans of staying there. In fact no one is staying purely with 32 bit x86.
If Apple does use an alternative 64 bit architecture of course it would support 32 bit x86.
If Apple executives have not pondered all of their options and pondered the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Then they are not very good executives.
I'm sure they went through some type of process.
Originally posted by melgross
Your post is worthless because you haven't said anything to show that your disagreement is anything but frustration on your part.
We are talking about Intel chips. As far as we know now, Apple's first Intel based machines will use 32 bit Intel chips. We might not see 64 bit based Macs with an Intel chip inside until the end of 2006. That is about the same time Leopard will be coming out. If this is so, then it would make perfect sense for Apple to get 10.4 for Intel off the ground as the 32 bit OS THAT IT IS NOW.
There is simply no way that Apple can work this Intel based OS into a 64 bit model by an early enough date to get it out to the developers in time for them to get any of their code moved over to 64 bits for a June release of machines which will, no doubt, be 32 bits anyway.
It makes perfect sense to have this work be done in Leopard instead.This way Apple will have a congruity between its machines and its OS. Perfect timing.
If you need a 64 bit Mac, I suggest that you buy a current one based on the G5.
If you don't understand this, then there's no point in bothering.
I still don't see how you keep couching this as a bad thing. It's just a thing, and completely consistent with the current product lineup you seem to want to throw out the window. And I really should agree with the bold part because you just made my point for me [only I used an existence proof to do in 2 sentences what you took a couple dozen to do.]
Your understanding of OS design leaves a bit to be desired as well. You need to read up on Mach and how it abstracts the hardware, then you can begin to deal with poking around in Darwin and have any hope of finding anything meaninful. Only a few engineers in Apple need to really be up on those aspects, everyone else, including the majority of the non-driver producing OS team doesn't need to muk about those hardware issues. How the hell do you think they managed Star Wars and Marklar for so long?
I suggest you leave the feature scheduling predictions out of your prognostications until you understand what's really required.
Originally posted by Hiro
^^^^Yeah, that process is called running proof of concept on prototypes. EMT64 prototype silicon has been available for months. In general chip prototypes begin seeing integration labs 18 months before production runs begin. Now look back the calendar and see how long Intel had available to work the full monty on Apple by helping Apple toy around with the good stuff in a back lab on an Intel campus. All while IBM was slipping delivery schedules, missing speed targets, pushing Cell and trying to change the structure (++$$) of the follow on CPU contracts.
I still don't see how you keep couching this as a bad thing. It's just a thing, and completely consistent with the current product lineup you seem to want to throw out the window. And I really should agree with the bold part because you just made my point for me [only I used an existence proof to do in 2 sentences what you took a couple dozen to do.]
Your understanding of OS design leaves a bit to be desired as well. You need to read up on Mach and how it abstracts the hardware, then you can begin to deal with poking around in Darwin and have any hope of finding anything meaninful. Only a few engineers in Apple need to really be up on those aspects, everyone else, including the majority of the non-driver producing OS team doesn't need to muk about those hardware issues. How the hell do you think they managed Star Wars and Marklar for so long?
I suggest you leave the feature scheduling predictions out of your prognostications until you understand what's really required.
Please don't tell me about my lacking qualities. This is a business model. Whether or not you understand that.
An "existence proof". I have degrees in biology, psychology. with a minor in physics, and I've never heard of an "existence proof". Would you at least get it right?
Apple is throwing its present machines out, not me.
I explained why I believe what I do. You don't seem to like reasoned explanations. The time line has been discussed to death. I'm using it as basis for my conclusions. If you have a different one, fine.If you can't explain your statements other than to say "you're wrong", then there isn't any point in talking.
Now, at least, you're saying something.
But it still misses the point. Mach doesn't do the work that has to be done. You understand nothing about hardware abstraction if you think that. If that were true, then no work would have to be done at all. We wouldn't need two binaries becausr Mach would take care of it for us. It doesn't. I suppose you can explain exactly how it does. With references from Apple's documentation to show that you haven't misinterpeted it.
Please, your post is a joke.
Originally posted by melgross
But it still misses the point. Mach doesn't do the work that has to be done. You understand nothing about hardware abstraction if you think that. If that were true, then no work would have to be done at all. We wouldn't need two binaries becausr Mach would take care of it for us. It doesn't. I suppose you can explain exactly how it does. With references from Apple's documentation to show that you haven't misinterpeted it.
Please, your post is a joke.
Now you just failed Computer Architecture too. Different processor, different binary; same code but run the appropriate compiler on the appropriate architecture. That has absolutely nothing to do with the OS's capabilities. I do like the gloves on the floor challenge to provide something which does not exist though. It gives you the mental hope to claim I am avoiding your point when I don't provide it.
Biology and Physics backgrounds are great ways to tell us you know computer science, thanks for straightening that one out.
Existence proof -- I touch the mouse and keyboard, therefore I know they exist. It's not the thing you publish in a journal. It's the metaphorical example that convinces you that following a certain line of research has a high probability of paying off because a working solution actually exists in some other system. Very useful in my field - Cognitive science/autonomous robotics.
Beware, I only do a "little" bit of customized OS work for the critters. The rest of my time is trying to make them as smart as retarded mice.