PPC's have instructions that are used in OpenFirmware. x86 chips do not. Therefore OF can't be used on the new machines.
This statement doesn't make any sense. Open Firmware uses FORTH that it compiles at boot time and is processor independent-- that was half the point. The original thinking was that it would hopefully replace BIOS and x86-specific assembly in the low-level device drivers on motherboards and expansion cards. Unfortunately, the only systems that used OpenFirmware were PowerPCs and Sparcs-- no x86 machine ever was released with OF.
Actually if Apple wants to include firewire it won't be a problem. Intel has their own chipset for firewire, or they can use Apple's. Intel's chipset for firewire is top rate, just like Apple's.
I wasn't aware that Intel had integrated firewire into its Pentium chipsets ?
I wonder is this is the start of the Microsoft model: Writing software for hardware built by other companies...
Well, in reality...it is all shades of gray. Is Apple a hardware company? Software company? Both?
First...Apple doesn't (really) build computers. They design, package and market them. Apple has outsourced manufacturing for some time now. Recently they got out of the business of designing (or at least co-designing) CPUs. This latest news suggests that Apple is experimenting with outsourcing the design of motherboards, etc. If it goes well, what would stop Apple from contracting Intel to design even more of their boards? Probably nothing. So, then...Apple isn't doing anything but specing the hardware design, creating the packaging (nice looking cases) and creating the software (OS, et al).
Second...hardware is worthless without software. So, from a certain point of view (and not really a "tortured" one either), Apple is a software company that simply packages and sells their software (primarily an OS) differently than Microsoft does.
Third, it is not unheard of for Microsoft to "dictate" (or at least strongly suggest) a base level of PC (hardware) features and functions. You could say that Microsoft has outsourced everything (below the OS).
So...Apple really is a software company...with a unique approach to packaging and selling their software. The Mac mini really drove this concept home for me. I mean look at it. Look at the box at the stores. It is hardly distinguishable from a software box. And, truth be told, it is a software box...you just don't need to install the software from a CD. Just plug in power, keyboard, mouse and display. Laptops remove even those last three steps.
Apple's approach has a number of disadvantages to be sure...but some advantages as well:
- controlling the hardware execution environment can help make sure everything "just works"
- shipping software with only your hardware can reduce piracy
Apple is probably moving the direction you suggest. But it will be done in a controlled manner. Steve has a lot of experience behind him on this from both Apple and NeXT. It will likely begin with only some authorized vendors (Sony at first would be my guess, then Lenevo. After that, thanks to the nature of market consolidation, Apple has only two choices HP/Compaq and Dell...each of which controls about 40% of the PC market).
So...Apple really is a software company...with a unique approach to packaging and selling their software. The Mac mini really drove this concept home for me. I mean look at it. Look at the box at the stores. It is hardly distinguishable from a software box. And, truth be told, it is a software box...you just don't need to install the software from a CD. Just plug in power, keyboard, mouse and display. Laptops remove even those last three steps.
Apple's approach has a number of disadvantages to be sure...but some advantages as well:
- controlling the hardware execution environment can help make sure everything "just works"
- shipping software with only your hardware can reduce piracy
Apple is probably moving the direction you suggest. But it will be done in a controlled manner. Steve has a lot of experience behind him on this from both Apple and NeXT. It will likely begin with only some authorized vendors (Sony at first would be my guess, then Lenevo. After that, thanks to the nature of market consolidation, Apple has only two choices HP/Compaq and Dell...each of which controls about 40% of the PC market).
YES...This is what I have been saying for a long time, and it is only a matter of time before the OS is sold without hardware, Yes, you will still be able to get the great hardware that Apple designs, but for those of us who arent fucking millionairs, we will be able to spend $1500 and a weekend and have a system that likely would smoke apples $3000 unit out of the box (considering Apple ships their units with the bare minimum HDD and ram.)
Apple will have deals with the vendors, but they will come out a year later and say "well, our deal with dell/lenovo/hp is going just great, but the OS image is all over the internet and there are many people using it illegitimitly that would gladly pay for it were it not tied to hardware, so here it is, OSX shrinkwrapped for any x86 box...and it is $249, with subsequent updates being $129"
This statement doesn't make any sense. Open Firmware uses FORTH that it compiles at boot time and is processor independent-- that was half the point. The original thinking was that it would hopefully replace BIOS and x86-specific assembly in the low-level device drivers on motherboards and expansion cards. Unfortunately, the only systems that used OpenFirmware were PowerPCs and Sparcs-- no x86 machine ever was released with OF.
I meant x86 machines, and the rest follows below. I should have been clearer.
Actually, it's the device tree. The Intel Macs don't supply a complete device tree. (From Apple's developers' Guide, pg 52).
If you can find any reference to any cpu other than ARM, PPC, or SPARC, I would be interested to know, as would the OFWG.
Now, here's the interesting part. While in theory, any cpu or bus can work, in reality, it can't.
"The architecture is independent of the underlying instruction set, bus, operating system, and so on. However, the core requirements and practices specified by the standard are augmented by platform-specific requirements. For example, processors such as PowerPC and SPARC, or buses such as PCI and Sun's SBus, have their own requirements and bindings. The union of the core and platform-specific requirements provides a complete firmware specification for that platform."
I do not know how reliable "The Inquirer" is but they are running a story that Intel is going to drop the "Intel Inside" logo for a new one. If this is true then maybe we will see it during start up when the hardware is getting checked and then the Apple logo will appear while the OS is starting. Doing this could keep stickers off the case while still advertising Intel and it would have the benefit of only being seen when booting.
Their new identity is already done.
The new branding system that goes along with it in addition to the new logo will be launched to the public in an ad campaign early in the new year.
I dont think you will see stickers, but with all the talk of boot chime changes, I have to wonder if this little ditty will greet Macintel users on boot.
I dont think you will see stickers, but with all the talk of boot chime changes, I have to wonder if this little ditty will greet Macintel users on boot.
let?s not also forget that Intel also offers marketing dollars (several hundred million, if I?m not mistaken) to [computer manufacturers] who display the 'Intel Inside,' 'Pentium,' and 'Centrino' logos on their hardware," Margevicius added. "I would expect Apple to do the same."
Check the bottom of your ibook or powerbook now. Apple has logos for the FCC, CE, VCI and another logo etched into the case. I assume that the "intel inside" logo will just be alongside these on the case. Nothing to worry about. Anyway, if they do put stickers on - theyre just stickers! They peel off
I don't think a lot of the article is reliable in the first place. It doesn't make much sense when PowerMacs are the Apple flagship workstation. The processors suggested would not be in a position to compete with other workstation class computers using a pair of some form of dual core XEON. Unless I missed something, and BOXX, and Alienware do not intend on using the most powerful processors possible in their next generation workstations then I wouldn't expect to see anything less in a PowerMac.
Unless intel is doing something drastic to the XEON that would make it obselete for high performance systems I just wouldn't expect see a Woodcrest, or even a Clovertown in PowerMacs. After Apple, and Nvidia finally made a quadro available I can't imagining Apple trying to go to market with a workstation that was second tear performance rated compared to BOXX, and Alienware.
While it may be nice to visit the days of the 1980s and the early 1990s, when keying hardware to software was a process that demanded years of preparation and planning, the process is just not that difficult these days.
So, we have processors that are several orders of magnitude more powerful than those of a few years ago and can easily perform, in software, what once took specialized hardware. Remember the intro of MPEG2 encoding on software a few years ago. How we went from it taking 24X the time to only 2x the time? Note how Apple had the chip designed to do certain maths very, very well, and had the details of what that math did in software. Create some chips with some very powerful built-in functions, then create softwware to supply data to those functions. Not perfect, but a very good way of pushing the processing into the realm that you can change on a moment's notice: software.
Your Mac is almost a PC now, anyway, except for the cpu and the mobo and the chips required for them to work.
Remember Jobs' comments months before Apple bought NExT: that he would ride the Mac for all it was worth until the next big thing came around.
It is not at all out of possibility that Apple may move out of computer hardware completely.
What was the path taken by NExT before Apple snapped it up? I think you'll see similarities.
This is Jobs last chance to really compete against Windows, to show that the Mac OS really is superior and have the marketplace agree. Don't, not even for a moment, think that Jobs is above such an in-your-face fight. Hell, he doesn't even have to win. Just getting 7-10% of the market would be enough to get Apple-compatible software, etc on store shelves alongside Win stuff.
And, don't think for a moment, that Jobs wouldn't take Intel with him on that journey. Intel hates being captive to MSFT. Linux is a joke for mass appeal. Apple's competition on the same platform would make MSFT easier to bargain with and give Intel room to move the platform forward at their pace, not MSFTs.
I thought this was going to be something new. We've been saying this was possible for months.
I take all of these reports from reliable sources with a grain of salt. Until Steve stands on stage and declares them the truth.
As far as the Intel stickers. Come on Jobs is not going to allow Intel stickers.
But being over looked is the fact that the processor is already prominently displayed on Apple laptops. Embossed under the screen is displayed PowerBook G4 or iBook G4.
The future is likely to see embossed in the same place PowerBook Intel Duo or iBook Intel Solo. In a clean font with a neutral color.
All of our "production" boxes run Linux. Most employees use a Dell Laptop running Go Global to access them. With its Unix foundation, Mac OS X integrates seamlessly into this environment.
Over the next 3 years, Apple must continue to improve Mac OS X and make it an attractive platform for developers and end users. It certainly is today.
Some of my favorites are the little things ? the ease at which photos move from Mail to iPhoto, hooking up a new digital camera and importing photos without a hitch, not having to deal with Norton Anti-virus. I?m spending this holiday with my wife?s relatives ? mostly PC users. It seems like everyday there?s a new crisis on somebody?s PC laptop.
It doesn?t really matter how Intel-based PowerMacs come into existence ? as long as they continue to advance the same value-proposition that previous generation Macs offered. It probably makes sense to put the Intel sticker on the box if it comes with marketing dollars and lower prices. Dell is all over cable advertising its PCs.
Comments
...custom microprocessor chip-set that would appear only in Apple systems...
I wonder if this is another way that Apple will prevent other x86 boxes from running OS X while still maintaining compatibility with a base x86.
Hey, if they convinced IBM to graft a Velocity Engine on to a POWER chip, why not convince Intel to do something custom for them?
Originally posted by melgross
We've had a big thread about this on ARs. It's amazing how something this unimportant can garner so much chatter.
So true. Just look what replies you got here.
Originally posted by sc_markt
I wonder is this is the start of the Microsoft model: Writing software for hardware built by other companies...
Since when Motorola AND IBM dropped the desktop and laptop ball, Apple had hardly any choice to do otherwise.
Originally posted by melgross
PPC's have instructions that are used in OpenFirmware. x86 chips do not. Therefore OF can't be used on the new machines.
This statement doesn't make any sense. Open Firmware uses FORTH that it compiles at boot time and is processor independent-- that was half the point. The original thinking was that it would hopefully replace BIOS and x86-specific assembly in the low-level device drivers on motherboards and expansion cards. Unfortunately, the only systems that used OpenFirmware were PowerPCs and Sparcs-- no x86 machine ever was released with OF.
Originally posted by webmail
Actually if Apple wants to include firewire it won't be a problem. Intel has their own chipset for firewire, or they can use Apple's. Intel's chipset for firewire is top rate, just like Apple's.
I wasn't aware that Intel had integrated firewire into its Pentium chipsets ?
Originally posted by sc_markt
I wonder is this is the start of the Microsoft model: Writing software for hardware built by other companies...
Well, in reality...it is all shades of gray. Is Apple a hardware company? Software company? Both?
First...Apple doesn't (really) build computers. They design, package and market them. Apple has outsourced manufacturing for some time now. Recently they got out of the business of designing (or at least co-designing) CPUs. This latest news suggests that Apple is experimenting with outsourcing the design of motherboards, etc. If it goes well, what would stop Apple from contracting Intel to design even more of their boards? Probably nothing. So, then...Apple isn't doing anything but specing the hardware design, creating the packaging (nice looking cases) and creating the software (OS, et al).
Second...hardware is worthless without software. So, from a certain point of view (and not really a "tortured" one either), Apple is a software company that simply packages and sells their software (primarily an OS) differently than Microsoft does.
Third, it is not unheard of for Microsoft to "dictate" (or at least strongly suggest) a base level of PC (hardware) features and functions. You could say that Microsoft has outsourced everything (below the OS).
So...Apple really is a software company...with a unique approach to packaging and selling their software. The Mac mini really drove this concept home for me. I mean look at it. Look at the box at the stores. It is hardly distinguishable from a software box. And, truth be told, it is a software box...you just don't need to install the software from a CD. Just plug in power, keyboard, mouse and display. Laptops remove even those last three steps.
Apple's approach has a number of disadvantages to be sure...but some advantages as well:
- controlling the hardware execution environment can help make sure everything "just works"
- shipping software with only your hardware can reduce piracy
Apple is probably moving the direction you suggest. But it will be done in a controlled manner. Steve has a lot of experience behind him on this from both Apple and NeXT. It will likely begin with only some authorized vendors (Sony at first would be my guess, then Lenevo. After that, thanks to the nature of market consolidation, Apple has only two choices HP/Compaq and Dell...each of which controls about 40% of the PC market).
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So...Apple really is a software company...with a unique approach to packaging and selling their software. The Mac mini really drove this concept home for me. I mean look at it. Look at the box at the stores. It is hardly distinguishable from a software box. And, truth be told, it is a software box...you just don't need to install the software from a CD. Just plug in power, keyboard, mouse and display. Laptops remove even those last three steps.
Apple's approach has a number of disadvantages to be sure...but some advantages as well:
- controlling the hardware execution environment can help make sure everything "just works"
- shipping software with only your hardware can reduce piracy
Apple is probably moving the direction you suggest. But it will be done in a controlled manner. Steve has a lot of experience behind him on this from both Apple and NeXT. It will likely begin with only some authorized vendors (Sony at first would be my guess, then Lenevo. After that, thanks to the nature of market consolidation, Apple has only two choices HP/Compaq and Dell...each of which controls about 40% of the PC market).
YES...This is what I have been saying for a long time, and it is only a matter of time before the OS is sold without hardware, Yes, you will still be able to get the great hardware that Apple designs, but for those of us who arent fucking millionairs, we will be able to spend $1500 and a weekend and have a system that likely would smoke apples $3000 unit out of the box (considering Apple ships their units with the bare minimum HDD and ram.)
Apple will have deals with the vendors, but they will come out a year later and say "well, our deal with dell/lenovo/hp is going just great, but the OS image is all over the internet and there are many people using it illegitimitly that would gladly pay for it were it not tied to hardware, so here it is, OSX shrinkwrapped for any x86 box...and it is $249, with subsequent updates being $129"
Originally posted by Booga
This statement doesn't make any sense. Open Firmware uses FORTH that it compiles at boot time and is processor independent-- that was half the point. The original thinking was that it would hopefully replace BIOS and x86-specific assembly in the low-level device drivers on motherboards and expansion cards. Unfortunately, the only systems that used OpenFirmware were PowerPCs and Sparcs-- no x86 machine ever was released with OF.
I meant x86 machines, and the rest follows below. I should have been clearer.
Actually, it's the device tree. The Intel Macs don't supply a complete device tree. (From Apple's developers' Guide, pg 52).
If you can find any reference to any cpu other than ARM, PPC, or SPARC, I would be interested to know, as would the OFWG.
Now, here's the interesting part. While in theory, any cpu or bus can work, in reality, it can't.
"The architecture is independent of the underlying instruction set, bus, operating system, and so on. However, the core requirements and practices specified by the standard are augmented by platform-specific requirements. For example, processors such as PowerPC and SPARC, or buses such as PCI and Sun's SBus, have their own requirements and bindings. The union of the core and platform-specific requirements provides a complete firmware specification for that platform."
This is the reality.
EDIT: Sorry, the area between quotes is from:
http://www.kernelthread.com/publications/firmware/
Bolding is mine.
Originally posted by troberts
I do not know how reliable "The Inquirer" is but they are running a story that Intel is going to drop the "Intel Inside" logo for a new one. If this is true then maybe we will see it during start up when the hardware is getting checked and then the Apple logo will appear while the OS is starting. Doing this could keep stickers off the case while still advertising Intel and it would have the benefit of only being seen when booting.
Their new identity is already done.
The new branding system that goes along with it in addition to the new logo will be launched to the public in an ad campaign early in the new year.
the new logo is a really nice refinement.
Originally posted by Nine-Seventy
Please please please no 'Intel Inside' stickers
I dont think you will see stickers, but with all the talk of boot chime changes, I have to wonder if this little ditty will greet Macintel users on boot.
<ducks>
Originally posted by cinder
Their new identity is already done.
The new branding system that goes along with it in addition to the new logo will be launched to the public in an ad campaign early in the new year.
the new logo is a really nice refinement.
It's said to be released January.
Hmm, just in time for the new Mac's?
Originally posted by a_greer
I dont think you will see stickers, but with all the talk of boot chime changes, I have to wonder if this little ditty will greet Macintel users on boot.
<ducks>
The only ditty I got was my Amazon page.
let?s not also forget that Intel also offers marketing dollars (several hundred million, if I?m not mistaken) to [computer manufacturers] who display the 'Intel Inside,' 'Pentium,' and 'Centrino' logos on their hardware," Margevicius added. "I would expect Apple to do the same."
HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My 2¢.
Originally posted by hmurchison
When do I get my Quad Woodcrest Powermac?
Unless intel is doing something drastic to the XEON that would make it obselete for high performance systems I just wouldn't expect see a Woodcrest, or even a Clovertown in PowerMacs. After Apple, and Nvidia finally made a quadro available I can't imagining Apple trying to go to market with a workstation that was second tear performance rated compared to BOXX, and Alienware.
While it may be nice to visit the days of the 1980s and the early 1990s, when keying hardware to software was a process that demanded years of preparation and planning, the process is just not that difficult these days.
So, we have processors that are several orders of magnitude more powerful than those of a few years ago and can easily perform, in software, what once took specialized hardware. Remember the intro of MPEG2 encoding on software a few years ago. How we went from it taking 24X the time to only 2x the time? Note how Apple had the chip designed to do certain maths very, very well, and had the details of what that math did in software. Create some chips with some very powerful built-in functions, then create softwware to supply data to those functions. Not perfect, but a very good way of pushing the processing into the realm that you can change on a moment's notice: software.
Your Mac is almost a PC now, anyway, except for the cpu and the mobo and the chips required for them to work.
Remember Jobs' comments months before Apple bought NExT: that he would ride the Mac for all it was worth until the next big thing came around.
It is not at all out of possibility that Apple may move out of computer hardware completely.
What was the path taken by NExT before Apple snapped it up? I think you'll see similarities.
This is Jobs last chance to really compete against Windows, to show that the Mac OS really is superior and have the marketplace agree. Don't, not even for a moment, think that Jobs is above such an in-your-face fight. Hell, he doesn't even have to win. Just getting 7-10% of the market would be enough to get Apple-compatible software, etc on store shelves alongside Win stuff.
And, don't think for a moment, that Jobs wouldn't take Intel with him on that journey. Intel hates being captive to MSFT. Linux is a joke for mass appeal. Apple's competition on the same platform would make MSFT easier to bargain with and give Intel room to move the platform forward at their pace, not MSFTs.
just my 2 cents tho
I take all of these reports from reliable sources with a grain of salt. Until Steve stands on stage and declares them the truth.
As far as the Intel stickers. Come on Jobs is not going to allow Intel stickers.
But being over looked is the fact that the processor is already prominently displayed on Apple laptops. Embossed under the screen is displayed PowerBook G4 or iBook G4.
The future is likely to see embossed in the same place PowerBook Intel Duo or iBook Intel Solo. In a clean font with a neutral color.
Over the next 3 years, Apple must continue to improve Mac OS X and make it an attractive platform for developers and end users. It certainly is today.
Some of my favorites are the little things ? the ease at which photos move from Mail to iPhoto, hooking up a new digital camera and importing photos without a hitch, not having to deal with Norton Anti-virus. I?m spending this holiday with my wife?s relatives ? mostly PC users. It seems like everyday there?s a new crisis on somebody?s PC laptop.
It doesn?t really matter how Intel-based PowerMacs come into existence ? as long as they continue to advance the same value-proposition that previous generation Macs offered. It probably makes sense to put the Intel sticker on the box if it comes with marketing dollars and lower prices. Dell is all over cable advertising its PCs.