As OSX is now capable of running on both architectures and mosr apps universal binaries, this leaves the door open to use the best of both worlds. Is it likely that say a Power 6 could be used in a high end server whilst using Intel in desktop machines?
Comments
As OSX is now capable of running on both architectures and mosr apps universal binaries, this leaves the door open to use the best of both worlds. Is it likely that say a Power 6 could be used in a high end server whilst using Intel in desktop machines?
Definitely possible, and Apple knows well the frustration of being dependent on one platform (eg: Motorolla woes of the 90s).
That said:
--Writing new software optimized for both PPC and Intel takes more time, meaning developers are likely to make it work on PPC, and focus optimizations on Intel binary.
--Unlike Motorolla, Intel has massive PC chip sales, thus focuses tremendous R&D on the kinds of chips Apple wants.
--Unlike Motorolla, Intel has direct competion in the form of AMD, so remains diligent and aggressive re: tech improvements.
--Using Intel motherboards allows Apple to use cheaper (by volume) components. Graphics cards are an obvious win here, but the savings extend to most of the chips and hardware controllers in the systems.
From that perspective, my guess is that Apple will be fine letting PPC support fade away over time. ie: As existing PPC owners upgrade to Intel machines over the next few years.
IBM manufactures PPC products for themselves and now for Microsoft and Sony game consoles. Who knows where this will lead. It definitely will keep IBM interested in advancing their cpus and the insturction set architecture.
If I were Apple I would definitely maintain builds of Mac OSs on PPC.
Definitely possible, and Apple knows well the frustration of being dependent on one platform (eg: Motorolla woes of the 90s).
--Unlike Motorolla, Intel has direct competion in the form of AMD, so remains diligent and aggressive re: tech improvements.
-
and apple just need to make drivers for amd chip sets and boards to use there chips and they run the same x86 code as the intel chips do.
Set me straight if i have this wrong.
--Writing new software optimized for both PPC and Intel takes more time, meaning developers are likely to make it work on PPC, and focus optimizations on Intel binary.
I thought the point of Universal software was to write applications once and have them run well with either processor.
--Using Intel motherboards allows Apple to use cheaper (by volume) components. Graphics cards are an obvious win here, but the savings extend to most of the chips and hardware controllers in the systems.
Chip sets yes, but I think Apple makes their own motherboards. No? By the way, according to one post I read, Apple could use Intel board by replacing the BIOS chip with Apple's propriety chip. What do you think?
I thought the point of Universal software was to write applications once and have them run well with either processor.:
The bulk of code can be written to compile for either PPC or Intel. But if you want to optimize low-level logic so that it runs at optimal speed, you need to code for a specific instruction set (meaning chip). eg: Photoshop filters, video codecs, etc...
Something like TextEdit doesn't require such. But most of the key Pro apps that drive the Mac use in design & production require such custom coding to run at the same speeds as their Windows counterparts.
By example, consider how long it took Adobe to release the CS3 universal binary apps. And how important that release was to both Apple and Macintel sales. ie: How many people were media pros were waiting to buy a Macintel when Photoshop et alia were universal.
Chip sets yes, but I think Apple makes their own motherboards. No? By the way, according to one post I read, Apple could use Intel board by replacing the BIOS chip with Apple's propriety chip. What do you think?
As I understand it, Apple used all proprietary chips in the PPC days (aside from the CPU). But at this point, there is no reason for Apple to do so, unless their proprietary tech is better than the vendor options.
Key being, economy of scale. Mac hardware has always been expensive, due to the large R&D cost per Mac sold. With Mac now using Intel chips, they can use standard PC hardware components that are manufactured in the hundreds of millions, not millions (Apple alone).
That said, I gather Apple still uses their own WiFi chips in their laptops. My point is simply that, aside from the cases, Apple's hardware costs could now rival Dell's.
...
I thought the point of Universal software was to write applications once and have them run well with either processor.
...
MacOS X does not run on two lines of processors, it runs on three--at least. These are the Freescale/IBM PPC, the Intel x86, and the Intel processor used in the iPhone. The notion that Apple is going to drop MacOS X's processor-agnostic ability in favor in favor of optimized x86 builds is silly. There may be reasons for third-party commercial developers and vertical market developers to develop x86-optimized or x86-exclusive builds. For the general market, every current processor is more than fast enough to handle Universal Binaries. Apple is not going to make itself dependent on one ISA, especially while it is producing products based on several ISAs.
"I thought the point of Universal software was to write applications once and have them run well with either processor."
The reason for universal binary is to make new software compatible with legacy PPC systems. That is the only reason. THere are still more PPC based Macs out there than intel, and Apple was not going to switch processors and piss off millions of Mac users by shutting them out of all future Apple softwares.
The reason for universal binary is to make new software compatible with legacy PPC systems. That is the only reason. THere are still more PPC based Macs out there than intel, and Apple was not going to switch processors and piss off millions of Mac users by shutting them out of all future Apple softwares.
I understand why Apple developed the Universal binaries. I also believe that Apple will continue to provide Universal binary development kit from now on. So, PPC code could be with us for a very long time.
Also, Apple adopted Intel so they could make more aggressive inroads into MS territory. A plan which I was sure would not work... their spectacular increase in computer sales tells me they made the right move.
They switched to intel because IBM was not a capable of accommodating Apples needs and didn't even try. They were incapable of making a G5 laptop processor because Apple was not big enough for them to bother. They were far too interested in pooring all their time and effort into Nvidia, Sony, and Microsofts needs.
As OSX is now capable of running on both architectures and mosr apps universal binaries, this leaves the door open to use the best of both worlds. Is it likely that say a Power 6 could be used in a high end server whilst using Intel in desktop machines?
Apple never used the Power3, 4 or 5, processors when they could have, and I doubt you'll see them using the Power 6 processor for anything now. Why would they? They don't need it, and have never shown any interest in it. Plus they now have intel as partner who is trying to recapture the server market from AMD and if anyone deserves it; they deserve what little server business Apple has after the way IBM snubbed them. I highly doubt you'll see Apple with IBM again.
I thought the point of Universal software was to write applications once and have them run well with either processor.
Let's not forget that OS X itself is not Universal. They have separate builds for PPC and Intel. Sooner or later, Apple will tire of devoting part of their limited development resources to the PPC code base, targeted at a customer base that can only shrink. Remember that they stopped supporting Classic, a very similar situation. I give PPC another 4-5 years before OS X 10.7 no longer supports it. At which point, no big deal, people can either just stay with the last version of the OS that works for them or they can buy new machines to replace their slow, 6+ year old antiques.
PPC is used from the embedded market to the main frame market. It has only recently lost the desktop market when Apple left.
IBM manufactures PPC products for themselves and now for Microsoft and Sony game consoles. Who knows where this will lead. It definitely will keep IBM interested in advancing their cpus and the insturction set architecture.
If I were Apple I would definitely maintain builds of Mac OSs on PPC.
The problem is that Freescale hadn't produced a desktop chip for more than two years before Apple left.
The development of the G5 has slowed down seriously, even before Apple left.
One thing that bothered me about the PPC chips the last two to three years Apple was using them was that Intel was incorporating many features into the cpu's, controllers, and chipsets that Apple wasn't seeing with the PPC.
The chips that IBM produces for the game machines are not in the direct line of the PPC familly. Their development will have little use for the PPC's that Apple could use.
The Cell is too impossible a thought to even contemplate.
This would be costing Apple a lot to incorporate if they weren't on the Intel platform. I'm sure that was one of the reasons why they switched.
There is simply no way they could go back.
Fortunately, the x86 isn't going away.
They won't have to.
MacOS X does not run on two lines of processors, it runs on three--at least. These are the Freescale/IBM PPC, the Intel x86, and the Intel processor used in the iPhone. The notion that Apple is going to drop MacOS X's processor-agnostic ability in favor in favor of optimized x86 builds is silly. There may be reasons for third-party commercial developers and vertical market developers to develop x86-optimized or x86-exclusive builds. For the general market, every current processor is more than fast enough to handle Universal Binaries. Apple is not going to make itself dependent on one ISA, especially while it is producing products based on several ISAs.
I'm willing to believe that after a while, Apple will abandon the PPC. When will this happen? When the use of a new version of the PPC version falls too far below a profitable level for Apple to continue to maintain full PPC staffing.
I think it's possible that 10.6 will be the last full PPC version. After that, they will maintain it for a while, and then drop it. If it takes two and a half years for 10.6 to arrive, then that would be almost three years from now. It seems like a reasonable timescale. By maintaining the 10.6 OS with updates, as they do now, it would be just as viable as the Intel version until 10.7 comes out, possibly another two and a half years after 10.6.
That would give the PPC version a full five and a half years of equality with the Intel version before it's totally obsoleted when 10.7 comes out.
Look at how they did it for the 68xxx and OS 9 to OS X moves.
Let's not forget that OS X itself is not Universal. They have separate builds for PPC and Intel. Sooner or later, Apple will tire of devoting part of their limited development resources to the PPC code base, targeted at a customer base that can only shrink. Remember that they stopped supporting Classic, a very similar situation. I give PPC another 4-5 years before OS X 10.7 no longer supports it. At which point, no big deal, people can either just stay with the last version of the OS that works for them or they can buy new machines to replace their slow, 6+ year old antiques.
Ah, I just saw your post after I made mine.
Amazing! We're thinking alike!
Neither performance nor watt where the reason for the switch. It was money, that's all. ...
To the man whose only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
These discussions about whether or not Apple will continue to support the PPC orbit about the desktop personal computer [and possibly, servers]. When Apple announced its switch from the PPC to Intel's processors, it said that the switch would allow it to build new and innovative products. It is now doing just that. The Apple TV is a new Apple product which is not a PC. The iPhone is a new Apple product which is not a PC or a server. Both new Apple non-PC products run MacOS X. In its heyday, OpenSTEP ran on several processors--Intel x86, Motorola 680x0, Sun SPARC, HP PA, and others. OpenSTEP's prodgeny, MacOS X, will continue to run on multiple processors because Apple will sell devices based on a wide array of processors. Whether or not one of those processors is the PowerPC is besides the point.
MacOS X does not run on two lines of processors, it runs on three--at least. These are the Freescale/IBM PPC, the Intel x86, and the Intel processor used in the iPhone. The notion that Apple is going to drop MacOS X's processor-agnostic ability in favor in favor of optimized x86 builds is silly. There may be reasons for third-party commercial developers and vertical market developers to develop x86-optimized or x86-exclusive builds. For the general market, every current processor is more than fast enough to handle Universal Binaries. Apple is not going to make itself dependent on one ISA, especially while it is producing products based on several ISAs.
Last I checked they never said what the iPhone's CPU was and Intel denied having a chip in there. Whether it's Xscale or some other CPU though, it's probably using the ARM architecture.
So in order: PowerPC, x86, and ARM.
I understand why Apple developed the Universal binaries. I also believe that Apple will continue to provide Universal binary development kit from now on. So, PPC code could be with us for a very long time.
Not a very long time. 4-5 years at most. Maybe less if we're lucky.
As OSX is now capable of running on both architectures and mosr apps universal binaries, this leaves the door open to use the best of both worlds. Is it likely that say a Power 6 could be used in a high end server whilst using Intel in desktop machines?
Nope. Not happening ever again, at least not in Desktops, Laptops, or Servers. If Apple makes a new electronic with OS X embedded and PPC makes sense then, that's the only chance I see for it. But even then, they could just stick with ARM or x86.
Sebastian