This is great: I don't even need to type because Dave/Wiz has already written for me.
One other aspect that I find kind of shortsighted about the Silverthorne is that it's core appears to be in the 25M transistor range. That's pretty big. With new process technology, even 3-stage pipeline CPUs can get into 1GHz territory. The utter simplicity afforded by 3-stage CPUs means the cores are small and hence are better for multicore implementations.
The embedded space is actually much bigger than what you describe. Many an embedded device can have is program changed or updated.
I understand. I had am embedded computer in my E-6 processor. We did get updates for it. But, you couldn't add programs. The purpose to true embedded computers it to run the device, not to do independent work as in a "regular", general purpose, computer.
Quote:
I like ot think of smart phones as small computers. If we could get this across to manufactures we might be able to get the sorts of open devices we want in the way of hand held devices.
I agree. But only the more sophisticated models would be able to do that.
My new Tv runs GNU. I only found out because the LGPU is in the back of the manual. Naturally, it has an embedded cpu. I'll find out which once the service manual I ordered comes in.
This can be firmware upgraded, but that's all. Typical.
Quote:
Err yes there is. The Silverthorne will execute the same code as the rest of Intels hardware but that is not the same thing as saying it will be optimal. Considering the limitations of the execution environment it might take a lot of work to a code base to get acceptable performance. While this isn't a case of running a completely different instruction set it none the less highlights that the core of Silverthorne is very different than modern Intel processors.
Dave
no one is saying optimal. Optimal doesn't matter. no one expects these small devices to be as complex as laptops, or desktops.
Well first most software is written in C/C++ or a high level language these days so that kinda nixes issues with code compatibility. Second machine specific code will execute very differently on Silverthorne so what is optimized for one processor might suck on Silverthorne.
C variant code is not compatible without work. It's not that simple. Portability requires much more than a high level language. Yes, it's much easier than binary, or assembly, but if it were that simple, Apple could have stuck with the PPC line, and Windows would have run at near full speed, rather than at 15% of full speed.
Very little machine coding is done these days, but even then it's not that much of a problem.
I don't see that as even a remote argument. Intel has canceled a lot of x86 processors over the years. Netburst was dropped like a rock and that is a recent example. Silverthorne will stay around if it is profitable that is about it. To be profitable it needs to demonstrate that it is better in some ways than ARM.
Quote:
I don't think that will be difficult for Intel to do for certain classes of devices. I'm not convinced that it will be a success in the smallest hand held devices though.
I think it's an excellent argument.
Quote:
This would almost be perfect of ASUS's Eee PC. There are a number of low power platforms this could power in the future. A Newton 2 should be high on Apples wish list. Ok so that is my wish list but you get the idea.
That's why I mentioned the Asus. It's a small, cheap, low power, and low performance, very basic machine.
Quote:
I think it is a question of how strongly the processor gets adopted outside of Apple. The problem is Intel will have to work hard for that market, it isn't a shoe in.
Intel will have to do some convincing. But I don't think it will be too hard a sell, especially as it gets better.
Quote:
The G4 was perfectly suitable for computers. The problem was that the market wasn't large enough to justify the R & D investment. So it quickly fell behind the rapid development on i86. I'm hoping that Silverthorne doesn't fall into this abyss.
The G5 745x line was fine, except for the speed problems. But the 7447, and later 7448 line, was meant for embedded uses, for which it was fine. It wasn't that great for laptops, and was worse for desktops.
Quote:
By the way in many ways Silverthorne is very similar to older processors. The in order execution being one feature that is a throw back to the past. In fact I suspect that an old G4 would perform on a par with Silverthorne.
Yes. Very possible.
Quote:
I would hope so just to make the product a success.
Well for phones every single milliwatt makes a difference. It is still not clear how this processor stacks up against ARM power (as in watts) wise. There is a big difference between 500 milliwatts from Silverthornes processor and 450 milliwatts from a ARM SOC. Remember that Silverthorne apparently still needs a support chip so that is additional power.
At this point in time the processor is still a two chip deal where ARM has very notable single chip solutions. Board space is a big deal for cell phones.
On bigger devices Silverthorne quickly gains an advantage. Simply because there is enough board space and power available to make up for Silverthornes current fat.
Maybe. But do remember that Intel has a major advantage in process technology. It's certainly possible that those advances will move Intel's product faster than the competition.
Quote:
To an extent it is true sure. I think the big factor for forward looking managers is that it is a 64 bit platform. We won't be running out of address space with this guy at all.
Every bit (bad pun) helps.
Quote:
The big problem if you want to buy into this platform is that there is nothing from Apple to indicate where they are going with the platform. For example I mentioned Bluetooth which needs to support more profiles, there is no indication form Apple at all that this will happen. With the looming SDK this really limits what one can design for the platform. Apple should simply come clean with a development road map so that we can determine if the Touch series devices will be able to support our hoped for apps.
The SDK is an important element but we also need to know where they are going with the OS. I mentioned Bluetooth above but there is a lot of other work that should be done. All of these things being resolved would turn the iPhone into a real platform to deliver apps.
There is never anything from Apple to let us know where they are going, except for the iPhone, about which they had no choice.
Quote:
What I was trying to say and apparently missed the boat is that the rumors about Intel involved in custom chips for Apple, did they mean the processor in AIR or something else. Is that something else an Apple specific Silverthorn chipset?
I've heard the rumors but of course there is little information. The rumor may simply have been about the custom work done for AIR or not.
The chip for the Air is standard. The packaging is not, but apparently will be sold, later, to other companies as well.
Quote:
Monitors to me are not that big of a deal. At least not today. I might be needing a bigger monitor in the future but that is old age. What I want has a monitor that fits into the palm of my hand. It should also do Cell or WiMax communications and be cheap. The last thing Apple needs to do is to introduce another over priced machine like AIR or the 32 GB Touch.
Dave
It means a lot to me, as I still do a lot of photo editing, and some video as well. I need a graphics quality monitor, and I like them as big as I can get them.
Enzio and NEC just came out with really good 30" models, and if Apple doesn't respond by the time I need to move to one, I won't wait.
Well I don't think anybody wants to see them go away. The problem is does intel have a plan in place to sell enough of them to make production likely into the far future? Or to look at it another way how many of these does intel have to sell to be considered successful and how many do they have to sell to keep the R & D machine for them going.
That is in a nutshell the concern. Some people see a huge adoption rate but frankly I just don't know. Intel probably will know in three years.
Dave
I would suspect that Intel has already (months ago) shown these to all of their partners. I'm willing to bet that a number have shown interest.
Eventually, processing will become small enough, and cheap enough, and will have enough memory available for even the cheapest, and tiniest devices to run a full OS.
And eventually you might remove your head from your butt, but it's doubtful to happen anytime soon...
And eventually you might remove your head from your butt, but it's doubtful to happen anytime soon...
It amazes me the people start there first post on a forum acting like a jackass. Did you create the account to make that "prolific" statement or did you create it some time ago waiting for the right comment to reply to?
Melgross said "eventually" in his statement and you concluded yours with "not anytime soon". That implies that you aren't ruling out that it could happen "eventually".
If you look at the history of computers, the reduction of HW sizes and costs and energy usage, as well as its increase in capacity and speeds far outweighs the increase in size of operating systems.
It amazes me the people start there first post on a forum acting like a jackass. Did you create the account to make that "prolific" statement or did you create it some time ago waiting for the right comment to reply to?
I think maybe a regular like wilco, vinea or someone else might have set up a second account just to say that.
Quote:
If you look at the history of computers, the reduction of HW sizes and costs and energy usage, as well as its increase in capacity and speeds far outweighs the increase in size of operating systems.
Operating systems have gotten huge though. Didn't System 7 used to fit on a floppy? Now, Leopard has a million files. The problem here is that the idea of "a full OS" changes over time too. There are credit card sized computers now, as well as systems on a chip that will run Linux and maybe an older version of Windows.
And eventually you might remove your head from your butt, but it's doubtful to happen anytime soon...
Do you think you can post something intelligent? I know it's tough, with your head in your butt and all.
But, you could at least try.
Though I suppose that someone with a screen name of SE30 is looking backwards all of the time, hence the head in the butt fixation, so I suppose you really can't imagine anything new, or useful.
I think maybe a regular like wilco, vinea or someone else might have set up a second account just to say that.
I doubt it's vinea. While he sometimes attacks me, he wouldn't do it like that. While I don't always agree with him, and we go to it, he's more intelligent than that.
Quote:
Operating systems have gotten huge though. Didn't System 7 used to fit on a floppy? Now, Leopard has a million files. The problem here is that the idea of "a full OS" changes over time too. There are credit card sized computers now, as well as systems on a chip that will run Linux and maybe an older version of Windows.
They certainly have gotten much bigger. But OS X on the iPhone, and supposedly on the iTouch and Atv as well, is about 700 MBS in size. Who would have thought that could happen, ten, or even five years ago?
They certainly have gotten much bigger. But OS X on the iPhone, and supposedly on the iTouch and Atv as well, is about 700 MBS in size. Who would have thought that could happen, ten, or even five years ago?
The interesting thing with Linux and now Mac OS/X is that they are very adaptable to the product at hand. Linux obviously more so but that is another discussion. So if one has a product, lets say a hand held tablet you can tailor what is installed to the device. I'm not sure what the mix is on that 700MBs, but I do wonder how much of that is the OS proper and how much is the applications.
This gives Apple two advantages that I can see right off the bat. One is that they can get by with reduced storage requirements. The second is that they can keep out old API's and cruft. For the rest of use there is the freedom to add back what we see as missing, thus much of BSD and a few good apps have been place back on things like Touch and the iPhone.
Mobile OS to me gives Apple a chance to do house cleaning in a major way for devices that will use it in the future. It is why I see future tablets from Apple using it instead of the old Mac OS. It forces support of the future instead of the past. So I see things like Mobile OS expanding in size, but built on modern API's supporting future devices not the pasts platforms.
The interesting thing with Linux and now Mac OS/X is that they are very adaptable to the product at hand. Linux obviously more so but that is another discussion. So if one has a product, lets say a hand held tablet you can tailor what is installed to the device. I'm not sure what the mix is on that 700MBs, but I do wonder how much of that is the OS proper and how much is the applications.
This gives Apple two advantages that I can see right off the bat. One is that they can get by with reduced storage requirements. The second is that they can keep out old API's and cruft. For the rest of use there is the freedom to add back what we see as missing, thus much of BSD and a few good apps have been place back on things like Touch and the iPhone.
Mobile OS to me gives Apple a chance to do house cleaning in a major way for devices that will use it in the future. It is why I see future tablets from Apple using it instead of the old Mac OS. It forces support of the future instead of the past. So I see things like Mobile OS expanding in size, but built on modern API's supporting future devices not the pasts platforms.
Dave
From what Jobs said, that's just the OS.
What Apple did is to strip out all of the parts that had no purpose on the iPhone. That would include the huge number of printer drivers in every conceivable language, monitor profiles, fonts, language supplements, etc. It also includes the Finder, and all that goes with it.
The rest is still all of the actual OS, though I imagine they also left out such things as Apache, Python (maybe not, in that case). Possibly the UNIX frameworks not needed, X Windows, etc.
So if the actual OS is maybe one third to one half of the memory footprint, and all of the rest is specific to a more standard computer, then it can be said that all of the OS is included, and be correct.
It is always good to bump a thread with real news. In this case Intel is offering the trade name of ATOM for the Silverthorne processor. Might be a sign of things to come, that is add a couple of ATOMs to a wafer and you end up with a molecule. HaHa
I shouldn't be laughing because this is likely what Intel is thinking. That is a modular set of components that can be brought together to satisfy a customers need. Or to put it another way the age of processors customized to a customer needs has arrived.
The only thing that bothers me is that I honestly think that "Atom" is already being used somewhere on processor related hardware. I'm sure Intel researched this name so maybe we are good to go.
As to Apple they have better get cracking on Newton2 Ipod Touch Maxi or whatever you want to call it.
The only thing that bothers me is that I honestly think that "Atom" is already being used somewhere on processor related hardware. I'm sure Intel researched this name so maybe we are good to go.
The only hits I found was a snake oil manufacturer:
I was thinking along these lines: "http://www.basicmicro.com/". They have been around for a very long time so I can't believe Intel missed them. Of course this is a trade name for a preprogrammed processor so maybe Intel doesn't see a conflict. Or maybe they just paid big bucks for the right to use the name.
It would be a huge shame if the name had to be changed or we ended up in another distracting trade legal action.
Dave
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
The only hits I found was a snake oil manufacturer:
Comments
One other aspect that I find kind of shortsighted about the Silverthorne is that it's core appears to be in the 25M transistor range. That's pretty big. With new process technology, even 3-stage pipeline CPUs can get into 1GHz territory. The utter simplicity afforded by 3-stage CPUs means the cores are small and hence are better for multicore implementations.
The embedded space is actually much bigger than what you describe. Many an embedded device can have is program changed or updated.
I understand. I had am embedded computer in my E-6 processor. We did get updates for it. But, you couldn't add programs. The purpose to true embedded computers it to run the device, not to do independent work as in a "regular", general purpose, computer.
I like ot think of smart phones as small computers. If we could get this across to manufactures we might be able to get the sorts of open devices we want in the way of hand held devices.
I agree. But only the more sophisticated models would be able to do that.
My new Tv runs GNU. I only found out because the LGPU is in the back of the manual. Naturally, it has an embedded cpu. I'll find out which once the service manual I ordered comes in.
This can be firmware upgraded, but that's all. Typical.
Err yes there is. The Silverthorne will execute the same code as the rest of Intels hardware but that is not the same thing as saying it will be optimal. Considering the limitations of the execution environment it might take a lot of work to a code base to get acceptable performance. While this isn't a case of running a completely different instruction set it none the less highlights that the core of Silverthorne is very different than modern Intel processors.
Dave
no one is saying optimal. Optimal doesn't matter. no one expects these small devices to be as complex as laptops, or desktops.
Well first most software is written in C/C++ or a high level language these days so that kinda nixes issues with code compatibility. Second machine specific code will execute very differently on Silverthorne so what is optimized for one processor might suck on Silverthorne.
C variant code is not compatible without work. It's not that simple. Portability requires much more than a high level language. Yes, it's much easier than binary, or assembly, but if it were that simple, Apple could have stuck with the PPC line, and Windows would have run at near full speed, rather than at 15% of full speed.
Very little machine coding is done these days, but even then it's not that much of a problem.
I don't see that as even a remote argument. Intel has canceled a lot of x86 processors over the years. Netburst was dropped like a rock and that is a recent example. Silverthorne will stay around if it is profitable that is about it. To be profitable it needs to demonstrate that it is better in some ways than ARM.
I don't think that will be difficult for Intel to do for certain classes of devices. I'm not convinced that it will be a success in the smallest hand held devices though.
I think it's an excellent argument.
This would almost be perfect of ASUS's Eee PC. There are a number of low power platforms this could power in the future. A Newton 2 should be high on Apples wish list. Ok so that is my wish list but you get the idea.
That's why I mentioned the Asus. It's a small, cheap, low power, and low performance, very basic machine.
I think it is a question of how strongly the processor gets adopted outside of Apple. The problem is Intel will have to work hard for that market, it isn't a shoe in.
Intel will have to do some convincing. But I don't think it will be too hard a sell, especially as it gets better.
The G4 was perfectly suitable for computers. The problem was that the market wasn't large enough to justify the R & D investment. So it quickly fell behind the rapid development on i86. I'm hoping that Silverthorne doesn't fall into this abyss.
The G5 745x line was fine, except for the speed problems. But the 7447, and later 7448 line, was meant for embedded uses, for which it was fine. It wasn't that great for laptops, and was worse for desktops.
By the way in many ways Silverthorne is very similar to older processors. The in order execution being one feature that is a throw back to the past. In fact I suspect that an old G4 would perform on a par with Silverthorne.
Yes. Very possible.
I would hope so just to make the product a success.
Well for phones every single milliwatt makes a difference. It is still not clear how this processor stacks up against ARM power (as in watts) wise. There is a big difference between 500 milliwatts from Silverthornes processor and 450 milliwatts from a ARM SOC. Remember that Silverthorne apparently still needs a support chip so that is additional power.
At this point in time the processor is still a two chip deal where ARM has very notable single chip solutions. Board space is a big deal for cell phones.
On bigger devices Silverthorne quickly gains an advantage. Simply because there is enough board space and power available to make up for Silverthornes current fat.
Maybe. But do remember that Intel has a major advantage in process technology. It's certainly possible that those advances will move Intel's product faster than the competition.
To an extent it is true sure. I think the big factor for forward looking managers is that it is a 64 bit platform. We won't be running out of address space with this guy at all.
Every bit (bad pun) helps.
The big problem if you want to buy into this platform is that there is nothing from Apple to indicate where they are going with the platform. For example I mentioned Bluetooth which needs to support more profiles, there is no indication form Apple at all that this will happen. With the looming SDK this really limits what one can design for the platform. Apple should simply come clean with a development road map so that we can determine if the Touch series devices will be able to support our hoped for apps.
The SDK is an important element but we also need to know where they are going with the OS. I mentioned Bluetooth above but there is a lot of other work that should be done. All of these things being resolved would turn the iPhone into a real platform to deliver apps.
There is never anything from Apple to let us know where they are going, except for the iPhone, about which they had no choice.
What I was trying to say and apparently missed the boat is that the rumors about Intel involved in custom chips for Apple, did they mean the processor in AIR or something else. Is that something else an Apple specific Silverthorn chipset?
I've heard the rumors but of course there is little information. The rumor may simply have been about the custom work done for AIR or not.
The chip for the Air is standard. The packaging is not, but apparently will be sold, later, to other companies as well.
Monitors to me are not that big of a deal. At least not today. I might be needing a bigger monitor in the future but that is old age. What I want has a monitor that fits into the palm of my hand. It should also do Cell or WiMax communications and be cheap. The last thing Apple needs to do is to introduce another over priced machine like AIR or the 32 GB Touch.
Dave
It means a lot to me, as I still do a lot of photo editing, and some video as well. I need a graphics quality monitor, and I like them as big as I can get them.
Enzio and NEC just came out with really good 30" models, and if Apple doesn't respond by the time I need to move to one, I won't wait.
Well I don't think anybody wants to see them go away. The problem is does intel have a plan in place to sell enough of them to make production likely into the far future? Or to look at it another way how many of these does intel have to sell to be considered successful and how many do they have to sell to keep the R & D machine for them going.
That is in a nutshell the concern. Some people see a huge adoption rate but frankly I just don't know. Intel probably will know in three years.
Dave
I would suspect that Intel has already (months ago) shown these to all of their partners. I'm willing to bet that a number have shown interest.
Eventually, processing will become small enough, and cheap enough, and will have enough memory available for even the cheapest, and tiniest devices to run a full OS.
And eventually you might remove your head from your butt, but it's doubtful to happen anytime soon...
And eventually you might remove your head from your butt, but it's doubtful to happen anytime soon...
It amazes me the people start there first post on a forum acting like a jackass. Did you create the account to make that "prolific" statement or did you create it some time ago waiting for the right comment to reply to?
Melgross said "eventually" in his statement and you concluded yours with "not anytime soon". That implies that you aren't ruling out that it could happen "eventually".
If you look at the history of computers, the reduction of HW sizes and costs and energy usage, as well as its increase in capacity and speeds far outweighs the increase in size of operating systems.
It amazes me the people start there first post on a forum acting like a jackass. Did you create the account to make that "prolific" statement or did you create it some time ago waiting for the right comment to reply to?
I think maybe a regular like wilco, vinea or someone else might have set up a second account just to say that.
If you look at the history of computers, the reduction of HW sizes and costs and energy usage, as well as its increase in capacity and speeds far outweighs the increase in size of operating systems.
Operating systems have gotten huge though. Didn't System 7 used to fit on a floppy? Now, Leopard has a million files. The problem here is that the idea of "a full OS" changes over time too. There are credit card sized computers now, as well as systems on a chip that will run Linux and maybe an older version of Windows.
And eventually you might remove your head from your butt, but it's doubtful to happen anytime soon...
Do you think you can post something intelligent? I know it's tough, with your head in your butt and all.
But, you could at least try.
Though I suppose that someone with a screen name of SE30 is looking backwards all of the time, hence the head in the butt fixation, so I suppose you really can't imagine anything new, or useful.
I think maybe a regular like wilco, vinea or someone else might have set up a second account just to say that.
I doubt it's vinea. While he sometimes attacks me, he wouldn't do it like that. While I don't always agree with him, and we go to it, he's more intelligent than that.
Operating systems have gotten huge though. Didn't System 7 used to fit on a floppy? Now, Leopard has a million files. The problem here is that the idea of "a full OS" changes over time too. There are credit card sized computers now, as well as systems on a chip that will run Linux and maybe an older version of Windows.
They certainly have gotten much bigger. But OS X on the iPhone, and supposedly on the iTouch and Atv as well, is about 700 MBS in size. Who would have thought that could happen, ten, or even five years ago?
They certainly have gotten much bigger. But OS X on the iPhone, and supposedly on the iTouch and Atv as well, is about 700 MBS in size. Who would have thought that could happen, ten, or even five years ago?
The interesting thing with Linux and now Mac OS/X is that they are very adaptable to the product at hand. Linux obviously more so but that is another discussion. So if one has a product, lets say a hand held tablet
This gives Apple two advantages that I can see right off the bat. One is that they can get by with reduced storage requirements. The second is that they can keep out old API's and cruft. For the rest of use there is the freedom to add back what we see as missing, thus much of BSD and a few good apps have been place back on things like Touch and the iPhone.
Mobile OS to me gives Apple a chance to do house cleaning in a major way for devices that will use it in the future. It is why I see future tablets from Apple using it instead of the old Mac OS. It forces support of the future instead of the past. So I see things like Mobile OS expanding in size, but built on modern API's supporting future devices not the pasts platforms.
Dave
The interesting thing with Linux and now Mac OS/X is that they are very adaptable to the product at hand. Linux obviously more so but that is another discussion. So if one has a product, lets say a hand held tablet
This gives Apple two advantages that I can see right off the bat. One is that they can get by with reduced storage requirements. The second is that they can keep out old API's and cruft. For the rest of use there is the freedom to add back what we see as missing, thus much of BSD and a few good apps have been place back on things like Touch and the iPhone.
Mobile OS to me gives Apple a chance to do house cleaning in a major way for devices that will use it in the future. It is why I see future tablets from Apple using it instead of the old Mac OS. It forces support of the future instead of the past. So I see things like Mobile OS expanding in size, but built on modern API's supporting future devices not the pasts platforms.
Dave
From what Jobs said, that's just the OS.
What Apple did is to strip out all of the parts that had no purpose on the iPhone. That would include the huge number of printer drivers in every conceivable language, monitor profiles, fonts, language supplements, etc. It also includes the Finder, and all that goes with it.
The rest is still all of the actual OS, though I imagine they also left out such things as Apache, Python (maybe not, in that case). Possibly the UNIX frameworks not needed, X Windows, etc.
So if the actual OS is maybe one third to one half of the memory footprint, and all of the rest is specific to a more standard computer, then it can be said that all of the OS is included, and be correct.
I shouldn't be laughing because this is likely what Intel is thinking. That is a modular set of components that can be brought together to satisfy a customers need. Or to put it another way the age of processors customized to a customer needs has arrived.
The only thing that bothers me is that I honestly think that "Atom" is already being used somewhere on processor related hardware. I'm sure Intel researched this name so maybe we are good to go.
As to Apple they have better get cracking on Newton2 Ipod Touch Maxi or whatever you want to call it.
Dave
The only thing that bothers me is that I honestly think that "Atom" is already being used somewhere on processor related hardware. I'm sure Intel researched this name so maybe we are good to go.
The only hits I found was a snake oil manufacturer:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01...m_chip_at_ces/
And one research project:
http://www.ist-world.org/ProjectDeta...b9949526d16383
It would be a huge shame if the name had to be changed or we ended up in another distracting trade legal action.
Dave
The only hits I found was a snake oil manufacturer:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01...m_chip_at_ces/
And one research project:
http://www.ist-world.org/ProjectDeta...b9949526d16383