You guys are misinterpreting the meaning of "tier." I simply mean that they don't have the installed volumes of, say, Intel, Samsung, Moto/Freescale, or IBM in each of their respective markets.
Being first tier means that you shape the way the industry goes. AMD does not. The fact that they are married to someone else's instruction set and general dogma is evidence enough.
One other thing. A first tier company is not one who shapes the industry, but one that is looked to first when large companies do their buying.
When Boeing buys computers, they are likely to look first at Dell and Hp. IBM too, for other machines these days. Gateway would be second tier.
When those manufacturers look to buy chips, more of them are first looking to AMD for their top of the line servers and workstations. Dell has other reasons to stay with Intel, but that seems as though it's going to change.
By the way. I'm not arguing that Apple should have gone to AMD. I've been saying the opposite. It's just that AMD isn't big enough, and it hasn't produced laptop chips until recently.
Interesting thing about all this is that whatever process was going on between IBM and Jobs, and whatever the motivation of the parties, in the final analysis it was IBM that played Jobs like a fiddle. In retrospect, it seems like IBM was interested in owning the console market all along, and needed a showcase for the G5 architecture as a PR device towards that end. Apple provided the showcase. IBM got the contracts. IBM stopped delivering for Apple, almost instantly - assuming they ever had any intention to deliver at all. Jobs doesn't often get played like that. It's remarkable he's been as (publicly) good-humored about it as he has.
There is no argument against the statement that AMD's chips perform better than Intels, as well as using less power.
Actually, AMDs chips so far have used vastly more power, especially in areas where power usage is important (laptops).
The Turion64 is a nice improvement, but so far I still don't see it massively used in laptops. The Celeron M / Pentium M set of chips is quite a good design (though I personally still prefer the G4's, if only it would scale).
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I don't remember MS and Adobe balking.
They did. The original Rhapsody plans (which didn't have anything Carbon-like -- remember yellow box, blue box, red box?) did not make developers happy.
Interesting thing about all this is that whatever process was going on between IBM and Jobs, and whatever the motivation of the parties, in the final analysis it was IBM that played Jobs like a fiddle. In retrospect, it seems like IBM was interested in owning the console market all along, and needed a showcase for the G5 architecture as a PR device towards that end. Apple provided the showcase. IBM got the contracts. IBM stopped delivering for Apple, almost instantly - assuming they ever had any intention to deliver at all. Jobs doesn't often get played like that. It's remarkable he's been as (publicly) good-humored about it as he has.
Oh, that's an interesting take on events!
Maybe Steve's seeing it as a win/win situation: He eventually got what he wanted (Intel chips) and IBM got what it wanted (the games console business) and Apple and IBM both got respect again in the meantime. Well, except for the 3 GHz fiasco...
Actually, AMDs chips so far have used vastly more power, especially in areas where power usage is important (laptops).
The Turion64 is a nice improvement, but so far I still don't see it massively used in laptops. The Celeron M / Pentium M set of chips is quite a good design (though I personally still prefer the G4's, if only it would scale).
They did. The original Rhapsody plans (which didn't have anything Carbon-like -- remember yellow box, blue box, red box?) did not make developers happy.
I'm not talking about those laptop chips. Remember I said that AMD had nothing much there yet. I specifically said Opteron and Athlon. In the high end chip market, AMD has been walking all over Intel. But, go check the ratings of the desktop lines.
I was looking at what the article said, that Jobs was thinking about going to Intel five years ago. That would have been Intel/OS X.
Re-read T'hain Esh Kelch's post and replace the final "Intel - Classic" with "Intel: Classic". Then I think you'll understand what he's saying (i.e., that OS9/Classic doesn't run on OSX/Intel and thus would not have been a viable transition to OS X; without Classic, Apple would have a hard time convincing users to move to OS X).
Re-read T'hain Esh Kelch's post and replace the final "Intel - Classic" with "Intel: Classic". Then I think you'll understand what he's saying (i.e., that OS9/Classic doesn't run on OSX/Intel and thus would not have been a viable transition to OS X; without Classic, Apple would have a hard time convincing users to move to OS X).
Ok, I see what you mean.
But that was a choice by Apple. Perhaps a bit underhanded, eh? Their way of finally killing off classic and all of the old stuff they no longer want to support, but that millions still use. Sort of like MS discontinuing support for 98.
Does that mean if you get the traction control busy enough on a slippery surface, you can expect to hear some air cooling fan come on to chill the busy G4's? Poor BMW customers, this PowerBook owner sympathises with their prospective plight!
And next week, BMW will announce they're dropping Freescale for Intel.
But not only don't we know what Apple had in the labs then, they could have come up with something if they needed to.
They didn't do the switch, so they didn't need come up with something.
True, but the OS 9-OS X switch was plenty complicated without throwing in a processor switch, and it's hard to imagine Apple could have managed an OS 9 emulation layer within an OS X Intel port. Even if they did, you have to figure it would be a fair sight harder slog than Classic.
Imagine it-- "Please buy our new Intel machines. We have software that will allow you to kinda sorta run your OS 9/Motorola apps within a somewhat flakey environment that you've never seen and which we're still working the kinks out of and for which there is little native software".
True, but the OS 9-OS X switch was plenty complicated without throwing in a processor switch, and it's hard to imagine Apple could have managed an OS 9 emulation layer within an OS X Intel port. Even if they did, you have to figure it would be a fair sight harder slog than Classic.
Imagine it-- "Please buy our new Intel machines. We have software that will allow you to kinda sorta run your OS 9/Motorola apps within a somewhat flakey environment that you've never seen and which we're still working the kinks out of and for which there is little native software".
That is one tough sell.
It may have been. But it wouldn't have been my sell.
The article clearly said that JOBS was interested in doing it, and was apparently talked OUT of doing it.
So they must have thought it through. Then they must of had a way of doing it then. What if he wasn't promised those chips?
The thing we know is that Apple is going Intel because it's a better total package, including a wider range of products, and better fab, and, most of all, a much more heavily funded and talented long-term research department than what anyone else in the industry has.
No. We do not know this is why Apple is going Intel instead of AMD. We know that Apple is going Intel, and we know these things are true, but connecting them is speculation. It may be informed speculation, but it is still speculation unless you can find a press release from Apple stating such.
It may have been. But it wouldn't have been my sell.
The article clearly said that JOBS was interested in doing it, and was apparently talked OUT of doing it.
So they must have thought it through. Then they must of had a way of doing it then. What if he wasn't promised those chips?
We would be using Mactels today.
Good point, although who knows where Steve's head was at 5 years ago.
He might have been thinking it would be poetic justice if he just basically turned Apple into Next by another name, keeping OS 9 legacy support in older machines only and bringing out all new Intel/Next/OS X machines, no OS 9 at all, thereby validating his choices while in exile.
Crazed, no doubt, but then our Steve has never been one to hesitate at the big gesture if he thinks he's right.
Had Apple made this transition five years ago, making Classic work on Intel would probably have been a priority. Don't be misled; it's possible. With enough knowledge (which Apple has since lost some of, no doubt) and enough motivation (which Apple doesn't have much of anymore) it could have been sluggish but flawless.
I don't know why this is being treated as major news, since the death of the Mac was foreshadowed back in 2002. If you look back you'll find Rothenberg and Ciarelli's "Apple Keeps x86 Torch Lit With Marklar" that confirmed the Marklar project, Apple's threats to Motorola of an Intel switch and the Power4 derivative that turned out to be the 970. It was all there, back in 2002 - admittedly I too missed the article and was shocked to see it foretell the future after I stumbled on it in the aftermath of WWDC '05. Oh the horror, the technological horror.
Remember the skunkworks project codenamed Star Trek where Apple engineers got System 7 to run on an Intel chip back in the early 90's? Scully and others then buried that project and continued touting the benefits of the PowerPC RISC chip over Intel's chips.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
Well now, this figures, doesn't it?
Now it's clear. IBM didn't want to make a laptop G5. Otherwise we could have had one.
I still think that Apple should have gone x86 when OS X first came out.
Everything had to be rewritten back then anyway. This way they wouldn't have had two transitions to make.
It would have been cheaper and easier for everyone involved.
Apple had one thing to get OS9-->OSX switchers back then, and that was basically impossible in my eyes if we were going Intel - Classic.
Originally posted by Booga
I guess now we know who promised Steve Jobs that the G5 would be at 3GHz by last summer.
Good one.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
You guys are misinterpreting the meaning of "tier." I simply mean that they don't have the installed volumes of, say, Intel, Samsung, Moto/Freescale, or IBM in each of their respective markets.
Being first tier means that you shape the way the industry goes. AMD does not. The fact that they are married to someone else's instruction set and general dogma is evidence enough.
One other thing. A first tier company is not one who shapes the industry, but one that is looked to first when large companies do their buying.
When Boeing buys computers, they are likely to look first at Dell and Hp. IBM too, for other machines these days. Gateway would be second tier.
When those manufacturers look to buy chips, more of them are first looking to AMD for their top of the line servers and workstations. Dell has other reasons to stay with Intel, but that seems as though it's going to change.
By the way. I'm not arguing that Apple should have gone to AMD. I've been saying the opposite. It's just that AMD isn't big enough, and it hasn't produced laptop chips until recently.
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
Apple had one thing to get OS9-->OSX switchers back then, and that was basically impossible in my eyes if we were going Intel - Classic.
Good one.
I wasn't suggesting that Apple go Intel/Classic.
I was looking at what the article said, that Jobs was thinking about going to Intel five years ago. That would have been Intel/OS X.
Originally posted by melgross
There is no argument against the statement that AMD's chips perform better than Intels, as well as using less power.
Actually, AMDs chips so far have used vastly more power, especially in areas where power usage is important (laptops).
The Turion64 is a nice improvement, but so far I still don't see it massively used in laptops. The Celeron M / Pentium M set of chips is quite a good design (though I personally still prefer the G4's, if only it would scale).
Originally posted by melgross
I don't remember MS and Adobe balking.
They did. The original Rhapsody plans (which didn't have anything Carbon-like -- remember yellow box, blue box, red box?) did not make developers happy.
Originally posted by Towel
Interesting thing about all this is that whatever process was going on between IBM and Jobs, and whatever the motivation of the parties, in the final analysis it was IBM that played Jobs like a fiddle. In retrospect, it seems like IBM was interested in owning the console market all along, and needed a showcase for the G5 architecture as a PR device towards that end. Apple provided the showcase. IBM got the contracts. IBM stopped delivering for Apple, almost instantly - assuming they ever had any intention to deliver at all. Jobs doesn't often get played like that. It's remarkable he's been as (publicly) good-humored about it as he has.
Oh, that's an interesting take on events!
Maybe Steve's seeing it as a win/win situation: He eventually got what he wanted (Intel chips) and IBM got what it wanted (the games console business) and Apple and IBM both got respect again in the meantime. Well, except for the 3 GHz fiasco...
Originally posted by Chucker
Actually, AMDs chips so far have used vastly more power, especially in areas where power usage is important (laptops).
The Turion64 is a nice improvement, but so far I still don't see it massively used in laptops. The Celeron M / Pentium M set of chips is quite a good design (though I personally still prefer the G4's, if only it would scale).
They did. The original Rhapsody plans (which didn't have anything Carbon-like -- remember yellow box, blue box, red box?) did not make developers happy.
I'm not talking about those laptop chips. Remember I said that AMD had nothing much there yet. I specifically said Opteron and Athlon. In the high end chip market, AMD has been walking all over Intel. But, go check the ratings of the desktop lines.
Originally posted by melgross
I wasn't suggesting that Apple go Intel/Classic.
I was looking at what the article said, that Jobs was thinking about going to Intel five years ago. That would have been Intel/OS X.
Re-read T'hain Esh Kelch's post and replace the final "Intel - Classic" with "Intel: Classic". Then I think you'll understand what he's saying (i.e., that OS9/Classic doesn't run on OSX/Intel and thus would not have been a viable transition to OS X; without Classic, Apple would have a hard time convincing users to move to OS X).
Originally posted by melgross
I wasn't suggesting that Apple go Intel/Classic.
I was looking at what the article said, that Jobs was thinking about going to Intel five years ago. That would have been Intel/OS X.
Right, but managing the transition to OS X required backward compatibility with the installed user base.
Transitioning to OS X and Intel at the same time would have been like going to OS X without classic or Intel without Rosetta.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Re-read T'hain Esh Kelch's post and replace the final "Intel - Classic" with "Intel: Classic". Then I think you'll understand what he's saying (i.e., that OS9/Classic doesn't run on OSX/Intel and thus would not have been a viable transition to OS X; without Classic, Apple would have a hard time convincing users to move to OS X).
Ok, I see what you mean.
But that was a choice by Apple. Perhaps a bit underhanded, eh? Their way of finally killing off classic and all of the old stuff they no longer want to support, but that millions still use. Sort of like MS discontinuing support for 98.
Originally posted by addabox
Right, but managing the transition to OS X required backward compatibility with the installed user base.
Transitioning to OS X and Intel at the same time would have been like going to OS X without classic or Intel without Rosetta.
But not only don't we know what Apple had in the labs then, they could have come up with something if they needed to.
They didn't do the switch, so they didn't need come up with something.
Originally posted by fuyutsuki
Does that mean if you get the traction control busy enough on a slippery surface, you can expect to hear some air cooling fan come on to chill the busy G4's?
And next week, BMW will announce they're dropping Freescale for Intel.
Originally posted by melgross
But not only don't we know what Apple had in the labs then, they could have come up with something if they needed to.
They didn't do the switch, so they didn't need come up with something.
True, but the OS 9-OS X switch was plenty complicated without throwing in a processor switch, and it's hard to imagine Apple could have managed an OS 9 emulation layer within an OS X Intel port. Even if they did, you have to figure it would be a fair sight harder slog than Classic.
Imagine it-- "Please buy our new Intel machines. We have software that will allow you to kinda sorta run your OS 9/Motorola apps within a somewhat flakey environment that you've never seen and which we're still working the kinks out of and for which there is little native software".
That is one tough sell.
Originally posted by addabox
True, but the OS 9-OS X switch was plenty complicated without throwing in a processor switch, and it's hard to imagine Apple could have managed an OS 9 emulation layer within an OS X Intel port. Even if they did, you have to figure it would be a fair sight harder slog than Classic.
Imagine it-- "Please buy our new Intel machines. We have software that will allow you to kinda sorta run your OS 9/Motorola apps within a somewhat flakey environment that you've never seen and which we're still working the kinks out of and for which there is little native software".
That is one tough sell.
It may have been. But it wouldn't have been my sell.
The article clearly said that JOBS was interested in doing it, and was apparently talked OUT of doing it.
So they must have thought it through. Then they must of had a way of doing it then. What if he wasn't promised those chips?
We would be using Mactels today.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
The thing we know is that Apple is going Intel because it's a better total package, including a wider range of products, and better fab, and, most of all, a much more heavily funded and talented long-term research department than what anyone else in the industry has.
No. We do not know this is why Apple is going Intel instead of AMD. We know that Apple is going Intel, and we know these things are true, but connecting them is speculation. It may be informed speculation, but it is still speculation unless you can find a press release from Apple stating such.
Originally posted by melgross
It may have been. But it wouldn't have been my sell.
The article clearly said that JOBS was interested in doing it, and was apparently talked OUT of doing it.
So they must have thought it through. Then they must of had a way of doing it then. What if he wasn't promised those chips?
We would be using Mactels today.
Good point, although who knows where Steve's head was at 5 years ago.
He might have been thinking it would be poetic justice if he just basically turned Apple into Next by another name, keeping OS 9 legacy support in older machines only and bringing out all new Intel/Next/OS X machines, no OS 9 at all, thereby validating his choices while in exile.
Crazed, no doubt, but then our Steve has never been one to hesitate at the big gesture if he thinks he's right.