Briefly: Power6, EMI bought out, YouTube on Apple TV

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 63
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Aegis, you know that that's all true now.



    We aren't denying that it's true now.



    I'm saying, for example, and so are others, that Apple will come out with a 10.6 for PPC. That will happen about two and a half to three years from now.



    After that introduction, Apple will keep it current with 10.6 for x86 until 10.7 comes out, another two and a half years, or so, later. The likelihood that Apple will have a 10.7 PPC version is extremely slight, almost non existent. That will be five to five and a half years from now though. That's what we're saying.



    You don't really think that Apple will produce another PPC machine during that time do you? It seems that the PPC is going away anyway soon.



    How many PPC machines will be left that long from now? Very few, I'm sure.



    I agree entirely.



    In addition to the scenario above, which I agree with, I also think it would be a mistake for Apple to close off cross platform development, not that I think they are doing it.



    At the moment, Apple have us committed to being no better than the other guys running on essentially the same hardware as them. You can argue that that's ok on two levels...



    1) We're never slower than the other guys

    2) They're never faster than us.



    It's about as exciting as a one make car racing series.



    In the old days of PowerPC, we may have been in the pits a few laps watching the Intel guys scream by but when we weren't we had our fast laps too.



    So, imagine this scenario. IBM releases a 6Ghz PowerPC based on POWER6 in 2008 that is 4 times quicker than anything from Intel. Apple takes 2 of them and drops them in to the old G5 jalopy making a PowerPC box that's 4 times faster than anything from Intel. Software 'just works'. Yes, I'm playing 'What If...' here and Yes I believe the chances of this are approaching zero, but go with it for a while.



    IBM have recently been having quite a run in the news with new process inventions and faster chips. East Fishkill is supposedly to be cranking out 0.32nm by 2010. PA Semi got their first chips out a while back too running extremely low power.



    My point isn't that they WILL or SHOULD release another PowerPC Mac, it's that if IBM, PA Semi or whoever makes some leap in technology, Apple shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth like that and they should be prepared for it. Like they kept x86 development of Next's x86 OS going, they should keep development of PowerPC OSX going, just in case. They're in a much better position with PowerPC of course as there's 1000s of software titles for it already and they've still got a good number of years left to support it anyway - no transition required.



    btw. The POWER6 is also going into the same 1u blades that IBM were previously using PowerPC 970s. ie. no bigger than an XServe. Apple's Intel XServes are total meh compared to the lead they had in the G4/G5 days.
  • Reply 62 of 63
    shaminoshamino Posts: 527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    The latest Adobe apps are Universal binaries, not Intel only. There's no reason why the apps would stop working if Apple just came out with another PPC Mac.



    You must've missed the announcement of Sound Booth. Adobe's latest and newest app will have no PPC support.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    But that's exactly what Apple are doing now or did I miss a memo where Leopard wasn't supported on PowerPC?



    No, but you must've missed the memo where Apple stopped making PPC-based Macs. Or have you found a way to order a G4/G5 system in 2007?

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    If you're the right person Apple will give you an iPod SDK.



    Where "right person" has nothing to do with your development skills, market presence, or ability to sell popular software. There are quite a lot of major game companies that have been refused access to the iPod SDK.



    That's hardly open, no matter what definition of the word you choose to use.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    Because the iPhone isn't an iPod. It's a much broader, more computer like environment than an mp3 player. Every smartphone platform going relies to some extent on 3rd party developers. Sure, Apple could do it all themselves but that seems just too stupid for words.



    Lots of people thought the iPod was also a stupid idea. Right up until it dominated the market.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    At the moment, Apple have us committed to being no better than the other guys running on essentially the same hardware as them.



    The same CPU chips. Not the same hardware. Mac motherboards are not the generic Intel ones that everybody else builds systems around. They have a different design, with different feature sets, and have different performance characteristics.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    So, imagine this scenario. IBM releases a 6Ghz PowerPC based on POWER6 in 2008 that is 4 times quicker than anything from Intel.



    ... and you can stop right here with this imagination. It won't happen. The low-end PPC branch of POWER's development was entirely to satisfy Apple. The reason IBM kept on refusing to improve the 970 (G5) was because Apple wouldn't pony-up all of the R&D money. If IBM won't pay for the development, and Apple won't, then who will? The game console manufacturers? Not likely, since game consoles never get CPU upgrades during a product's lifetime, and there is little reason to assume that the next-generation (3-5 years from now) will be PPC based either.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    ... Like they kept x86 development of Next's x86 OS going, they should keep development of PowerPC OSX going, just in case.



    They probably are doing this. But they're never going to tell.
  • Reply 63 of 63
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    I agree entirely.



    In addition to the scenario above, which I agree with, I also think it would be a mistake for Apple to close off cross platform development, not that I think they are doing it.



    At the moment, Apple have us committed to being no better than the other guys running on essentially the same hardware as them. You can argue that that's ok on two levels...



    1) We're never slower than the other guys

    2) They're never faster than us.



    It's about as exciting as a one make car racing series.



    In the old days of PowerPC, we may have been in the pits a few laps watching the Intel guys scream by but when we weren't we had our fast laps too.



    So, imagine this scenario. IBM releases a 6Ghz PowerPC based on POWER6 in 2008 that is 4 times quicker than anything from Intel. Apple takes 2 of them and drops them in to the old G5 jalopy making a PowerPC box that's 4 times faster than anything from Intel. Software 'just works'. Yes, I'm playing 'What If...' here and Yes I believe the chances of this are approaching zero, but go with it for a while.



    IBM have recently been having quite a run in the news with new process inventions and faster chips. East Fishkill is supposedly to be cranking out 0.32nm by 2010. PA Semi got their first chips out a while back too running extremely low power.



    My point isn't that they WILL or SHOULD release another PowerPC Mac, it's that if IBM, PA Semi or whoever makes some leap in technology, Apple shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth like that and they should be prepared for it. Like they kept x86 development of Next's x86 OS going, they should keep development of PowerPC OSX going, just in case. They're in a much better position with PowerPC of course as there's 1000s of software titles for it already and they've still got a good number of years left to support it anyway - no transition required.



    btw. The POWER6 is also going into the same 1u blades that IBM were previously using PowerPC 970s. ie. no bigger than an XServe. Apple's Intel XServes are total meh compared to the lead they had in the G4/G5 days.



    I'm happy you agree. That means something.



    Since Apple will continue development of the PPC OS for another three years, and support it for another two to three after that, we will see Apple holding the *possibility* of producing a (I no longer want to use PPC as the name) POWER box. But, it isn't very likely.



    Don't forget that Intel seems to be playing very nicely with Apple, and as their sales become much larger, and a greater percentage of Intel's sales, that will only increase. If Apple wants it, Intel will give them new chips ahead of anyone else. We've seen that with Yonah. If they want a faster chip than Intel is selling to anyone else, Intel will do that for them as well. We see that with the 3 GHz Cloverton's that Aple uses. So, while Apple might never be slower, they might still be faster—if they want to be.



    Software houses are increasingly going to discontinue support for PPC product, or not having a PPC version at all when new products come out, as is being pointed out by Shamino. There are a few other products that are not PPC compatible already. They are NOT going to want to go back.



    This situation is going to be made worse by the fact that POWER is not 100% compatible with PPC software, and will increasingly diverge.



    X86 is also increasingly diverging. Already, there are many instructions that are not directly comparable. Sometimes there is no way to duplicate a function of one chip on another, and some less than desirable workaround must be used. This will only get worse over time.



    It's also political. I doubt very much that Apple would want to be seen as harking back to the "old days". Customers, and developers, would not look kindly on such an action, no matter what the supposed performance would be. When Jobs said that "We are finished with Power." I think both customers, and developers, expect him to stick to it.



    This is a far greater decision than coming out with a video iPod after saying that it wasn't a good idea, or a Mini after saying that they wouldn't compete in the low price market.



    I think, from what you've said, that you don't expect them to do it any more than I do.



    The only possible reason I can think of that would allow them continue POWER development on the back burner is that they are now, and becoming even more of, a large, highly profitable company. A low level project like this, somewhere in the bowels of their new, much larger campus, could be much more affordable than it ever was in the past.



    But, I still don't think they will do it.
Sign In or Register to comment.