I am afraid you still don't get it! Do you understand that Apple currently supports 5 (FIVE) processor architectures? Will they bet there will be no changes in processor architectures the next couple of decades? Because the legacy code in OS X goes before NEXT, there is some older UNIX stuff there, so may be more than 2 decades.
And Yellow Box is another story - it is about support of Apple frameworks under Windows, not about supporting Intel. Apple never made Yellow box widely available, but it was there for a while for OEM use, to fill the gap for some software vendors running on NEXT before OS X was there. But thats not the point...
I get it very well.
Apple supports what they need to support for product lines going forward. They are NOT going to continue to support a line that is moving backwards. Which is what you and some other here seem to want.
Apple is not Amiga. It is a company that has an increasingly large presence in all markets it's involved in.
The PPC is dead and gone for Apple. Why is this so hard to believe?
Why do you think Jobs, when he dropped the name "Power" from Apple's products, said that "We are through with Power"?
Do you think that Apple is planning products that they know no one seriously wants?
Apple was IBM's only real customer other than its own servers. Apple would have had to pay some development costs in order to continue development of the 970 series and beyond. When it came right down to it, staying with the PowerPC was a bigger pain than it was worth.
Correct, what I said!
Apple was estimated to be about 75% of IBM's PPC customer base. Other than IBM's own servers, there were some small companies making machines, and boards, based on the product, but no large production products were out there.
IBM was trying to convince others to move to PPC, but wasn't having much success.
Don't know if anybody has said this yet but I wonder if Apple keeps an up to date version of OS X for the PPC platform? (like they did for Intel)
FWIW, I wish Apple would offer both computers with both PPC and Intel chips in them. I'd prefer the freescale 8641D processor over anything Intel has now as it has dual altivec units, an onboard memory controller and is dual core.
Don't know if anybody has said this yet but I wonder if Apple keeps an up to date version of OS X for the PPC platform? (like they did for Intel)
FWIW, I wish Apple would offer both computers with both PPC and Intel chips in them. I'd prefer the freescale 8641D processor over anything Intel has now as it has dual altivec units, an onboard memory controller and is dual core.
Obviously Apple is because the G5 is a PPC, and 10.5 will be a universal binary for some PPC machines like the G5, and I think 10.6 will be but I have doubts that 10.7 will.
Intel has it's own SIMD (altivec) and it is a quad core, plus there is going to be an ODMC, and hyper-threading on their mid 2008 processors. A dual socket quad core machine will act like a 16 processor machine, and ZBrush 3 is one application that can take total advantage of that.
I don't see how freescale can compete with intel in any way. Not now, and definitely not in the future.
Apple was estimated to be about 75% of IBM's PPC customer base. Other than IBM's own servers, there were some small companies making machines, and boards, based on the product, but no large production products were out there.
IBM was trying to convince others to move to PPC, but wasn't having much success.
In all fairness, the only real chance IBM had for any significant PPC orders was if Apple agreed to license OSX.
That's absurd! No customer should ever have to pay for more than the product. It's not as though Apple was the only customer for the chips, even though they were the largest. This was up to IBM. If they wanted to sell their chips to a wider audience (and remember they used those chips in their own servers) then they had the responsibility to do their own investments. IBM was pushing the idea of a ciommunity of PPC users. It never got off the ground. If Apple had to bribe IBM, by paying them an extra hundred million or two each year, to help pay for R&D, Apple's costs would have risen too high, and then you would have complained about Apple's even higher pricing.
Well then MS is absurd and Sony too and let's not forget Nintendo. They paid for developing their cpus and even worse they were stupid enough to order millions in advance. Then comes Prima Donna Jobs and makes demands, well we know the outcome. Trust me no one sheds a tear at IBM over losing Apple and getting all console makers instead. Step out of the sdf for a second.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
If you're so far out of it that you haven't been paying attention to what Intel is doing, and to what IBM hasn't been doing, you won't believe me anyway. Read some of the articles here about Intel.
Well so you not able to name one. That's pathetic. I'm just not blinded as you that's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I'm not going to go looking for a lot of software. But this is an example of what I mean. We're seeing some heavy hitters in the Windows business space moving to the Mac because of the switch to Intel. I have others bookmarked, But I don't have time now to find them.
First totally unimportant company with an unimportant product. Secondly how can you tell that this has anything to do with the switch? Maybe the made a linux to fbsd port.
Well I sure hope apple supports PPC for years to come. Just a year and a half ago, I purchased the latest and greatest 17" Powerbook 1.67 G4, 7200 RPM HDD and maxed with 2 GB RAM.
Now, I can't even use the Adobe Master Collection because some apps are intel only.
What?!?!
Not everyone can afford to upgrade in between five years! I must say, I thought everything was going to be Universal.
At least apple needs to fully support and optimize for PPC for at least 5 years.
Don't be like MS and cut support after 2 years just so you can push the new stuff. Support the people that got you here.
Well then MS is absurd and Sony too and let's not forget Nintendo. They paid for developing their cpus and even worse they were stupid enough to order millions in advance. Then comes Prima Donna Jobs and makes demands, well we know the outcome.
I pointed out your mistake earlier, and you are making it again. When IBM amortizes development cost over a great number of products, cost per unit to the customer is less. IBM can sell game console CPUs with less added for design and development because they have a large order. It's that simple. All makers of game consoles compete on a more or less equal footing.
Apple was in a bad position with IBM. With a much smaller CPU order, the cost of deign and development was high per chip. Manufacturers purchasing Intel chips for PCs were in a superior competitive position, using high volume CPUs. Apple had no choice, really, but to switch.
Let's make an example. Say IBM and Intel spend about the same for developing a CPU. If IBM's chip is used in 3 percent of the market, and Intel's in 80 percent, you can see Apple is paying about 27 times as much per unit for development costs. On top of that, IBM would not have the manufacturing economies of scale that Intel has. So, the bottom line is that Apple was paying a hell of a lot more for IBM CPUs than they now pay for Intel CPUs.
The example is flawed because it assumes just a single CPU for the entire market, but you get the idea.
Damn Adobe. Evidently Adobe still does not use Universal code. No?
Acrobat 8 is Universal. Adobe developed its follow-on to Acrobat 7 as UB. Unlike some developers--including many much smaller developers--Adobe does not upgrade its products for the sole purpose of taking advantage of new hardware.
At least apple needs to fully support and optimize for PPC for at least 5 years.
......
\\.
Don't fret. They probably will support your PowerBook or whatever it was, but I think the G4 machines are going to be useless, and incompatible sooner than the G5's. It's a matter of how much power newer applications and operating systems will need, and I don't think the G4's will run at all past leopard. They don't support all the features in tiger. They just can't handle it. What should apple do? Some features are just too powerful to run on a G4.
Would you please explain how a G4 will be incompatible and a G5 not?
I have a G4 and I do not have the **water drop effect in dashboard. I can not use **Motion, or **Aperture. The system requirements are going to be too demanding for older machines. It's that simple.
Don't know if anybody has said this yet but I wonder if Apple keeps an up to date version of OS X for the PPC platform? (like they did for Intel)
FWIW, I wish Apple would offer both computers with both PPC and Intel chips in them. I'd prefer the freescale 8641D processor over anything Intel has now as it has dual altivec units, an onboard memory controller and is dual core.
Of course they do. They have to.
They just stopped selling PPC machines, there's lots of them out there.
They will have a PPC version of 10.6. But, I'm pretty certain that it will be the last.
Well then MS is absurd and Sony too and let's not forget Nintendo. They paid for developing their cpus and even worse they were stupid enough to order millions in advance. Then comes Prima Donna Jobs and makes demands, well we know the outcome. Trust me no one sheds a tear at IBM over losing Apple and getting all console makers instead. Step out of the sdf for a second.
Sony OWNS the IP for the Cell, along with IBM and Toshiba. They ALL developed it.They were producing it themselves as well.
Have you any evidence that Nintendo is paying IBM for the R&D for their chip?
You're just making things up here.
Quote:
Well so you not able to name one. That's pathetic. I'm just not blinded as you that's all.
First totally unimportant company with an unimportant product. Secondly how can you tell that this has anything to do with the switch? Maybe the made a linux to fbsd port.
It shows how little you know about these companies.
I have a G4 and I do not have the **water drop effect in dashboard. I can not use **Motion, or **Aperture. The system requirements are going to be too demanding for older machines. It's that simple. . .
Okay. Je comprends. There is always the minimum performance requirements, such as CPU clock rate. I thought you were referring to features, like the G4 and G5 have AltiVec, but the G3 does not.
Okay. Je comprends. There is always the minimum performance requirements, such as CPU clock rate. I thought you were referring to features, like the G4 and G5 have AltiVec, but the G3 does not.
Needless to say, what I said about that has noting to do with my earlier statement that I doubt Apple will support PPC beyond 10.6. I would be very surprised if it made it to 10.7 but there is no chance they will be releasing versions beyond that, and that is not only because of system requirements, but developer resources. They may update it in house for "just in case" reasons, or for new developer training or something, but otherwise PPC will go the way of the Dodo.
Comments
I am afraid you still don't get it! Do you understand that Apple currently supports 5 (FIVE) processor architectures? Will they bet there will be no changes in processor architectures the next couple of decades? Because the legacy code in OS X goes before NEXT, there is some older UNIX stuff there, so may be more than 2 decades.
And Yellow Box is another story - it is about support of Apple frameworks under Windows, not about supporting Intel. Apple never made Yellow box widely available, but it was there for a while for OEM use, to fill the gap for some software vendors running on NEXT before OS X was there. But thats not the point...
I get it very well.
Apple supports what they need to support for product lines going forward. They are NOT going to continue to support a line that is moving backwards. Which is what you and some other here seem to want.
Apple is not Amiga. It is a company that has an increasingly large presence in all markets it's involved in.
The PPC is dead and gone for Apple. Why is this so hard to believe?
Why do you think Jobs, when he dropped the name "Power" from Apple's products, said that "We are through with Power"?
Do you think that Apple is planning products that they know no one seriously wants?
Apple was IBM's only real customer other than its own servers. Apple would have had to pay some development costs in order to continue development of the 970 series and beyond. When it came right down to it, staying with the PowerPC was a bigger pain than it was worth.
Correct, what I said!
Apple was estimated to be about 75% of IBM's PPC customer base. Other than IBM's own servers, there were some small companies making machines, and boards, based on the product, but no large production products were out there.
IBM was trying to convince others to move to PPC, but wasn't having much success.
FWIW, I wish Apple would offer both computers with both PPC and Intel chips in them. I'd prefer the freescale 8641D processor over anything Intel has now as it has dual altivec units, an onboard memory controller and is dual core.
The PPC is dead and gone for Apple. Why is this so hard to believe?
So if IBM had a superior PPC processor for cell phones, you think Apple would not be interested?
. . . I wonder if Apple keeps an up to date version of OS X for the PPC platform? (like they did for Intel)
Of course, but Apple is not keeping it secret, as with the Intel build.
Don't know if anybody has said this yet but I wonder if Apple keeps an up to date version of OS X for the PPC platform? (like they did for Intel)
FWIW, I wish Apple would offer both computers with both PPC and Intel chips in them. I'd prefer the freescale 8641D processor over anything Intel has now as it has dual altivec units, an onboard memory controller and is dual core.
Obviously Apple is because the G5 is a PPC, and 10.5 will be a universal binary for some PPC machines like the G5, and I think 10.6 will be but I have doubts that 10.7 will.
Intel has it's own SIMD (altivec) and it is a quad core, plus there is going to be an ODMC, and hyper-threading on their mid 2008 processors. A dual socket quad core machine will act like a 16 processor machine, and ZBrush 3 is one application that can take total advantage of that.
I don't see how freescale can compete with intel in any way. Not now, and definitely not in the future.
Correct, what I said!
Apple was estimated to be about 75% of IBM's PPC customer base. Other than IBM's own servers, there were some small companies making machines, and boards, based on the product, but no large production products were out there.
IBM was trying to convince others to move to PPC, but wasn't having much success.
In all fairness, the only real chance IBM had for any significant PPC orders was if Apple agreed to license OSX.
That's absurd! No customer should ever have to pay for more than the product. It's not as though Apple was the only customer for the chips, even though they were the largest. This was up to IBM. If they wanted to sell their chips to a wider audience (and remember they used those chips in their own servers) then they had the responsibility to do their own investments. IBM was pushing the idea of a ciommunity of PPC users. It never got off the ground. If Apple had to bribe IBM, by paying them an extra hundred million or two each year, to help pay for R&D, Apple's costs would have risen too high, and then you would have complained about Apple's even higher pricing.
Well then MS is absurd and Sony too and let's not forget Nintendo. They paid for developing their cpus and even worse they were stupid enough to order millions in advance. Then comes Prima Donna Jobs and makes demands, well we know the outcome. Trust me no one sheds a tear at IBM over losing Apple and getting all console makers instead. Step out of the sdf for a second.
If you're so far out of it that you haven't been paying attention to what Intel is doing, and to what IBM hasn't been doing, you won't believe me anyway. Read some of the articles here about Intel.
Well so you not able to name one.
I'm not going to go looking for a lot of software. But this is an example of what I mean. We're seeing some heavy hitters in the Windows business space moving to the Mac because of the switch to Intel. I have others bookmarked, But I don't have time now to find them.
http://www.kx.com/news/press-releases/pr070417.php
First totally unimportant company with an unimportant product. Secondly how can you tell that this has anything to do with the switch? Maybe the made a linux to fbsd port.
Now, I can't even use the Adobe Master Collection because some apps are intel only.
What?!?!
Not everyone can afford to upgrade in between five years! I must say, I thought everything was going to be Universal.
At least apple needs to fully support and optimize for PPC for at least 5 years.
Don't be like MS and cut support after 2 years just so you can push the new stuff. Support the people that got you here.
Ah well, time will tell.
Well then MS is absurd and Sony too and let's not forget Nintendo. They paid for developing their cpus and even worse they were stupid enough to order millions in advance. Then comes Prima Donna Jobs and makes demands, well we know the outcome.
I pointed out your mistake earlier, and you are making it again. When IBM amortizes development cost over a great number of products, cost per unit to the customer is less. IBM can sell game console CPUs with less added for design and development because they have a large order. It's that simple. All makers of game consoles compete on a more or less equal footing.
Apple was in a bad position with IBM. With a much smaller CPU order, the cost of deign and development was high per chip. Manufacturers purchasing Intel chips for PCs were in a superior competitive position, using high volume CPUs. Apple had no choice, really, but to switch.
Let's make an example. Say IBM and Intel spend about the same for developing a CPU. If IBM's chip is used in 3 percent of the market, and Intel's in 80 percent, you can see Apple is paying about 27 times as much per unit for development costs. On top of that, IBM would not have the manufacturing economies of scale that Intel has. So, the bottom line is that Apple was paying a hell of a lot more for IBM CPUs than they now pay for Intel CPUs.
The example is flawed because it assumes just a single CPU for the entire market, but you get the idea.
Now, I can't even use the Adobe Master Collection because some apps are intel only.
What?!?!
. . . I thought everything was going to be Universal.
Damn Adobe. Evidently Adobe still does not use Universal code. No?
Damn Adobe. Evidently Adobe still does not use Universal code. No?
Acrobat 8 is Universal. Adobe developed its follow-on to Acrobat 7 as UB. Unlike some developers--including many much smaller developers--Adobe does not upgrade its products for the sole purpose of taking advantage of new hardware.
.....
At least apple needs to fully support and optimize for PPC for at least 5 years.
......
\\.
Don't fret. They probably will support your PowerBook or whatever it was, but I think the G4 machines are going to be useless, and incompatible sooner than the G5's. It's a matter of how much power newer applications and operating systems will need, and I don't think the G4's will run at all past leopard. They don't support all the features in tiger. They just can't handle it. What should apple do? Some features are just too powerful to run on a G4.
Don't fret. They probably will but I think the G4 machines are going to be useless, and incompatible sooner than the G5's.
Would you please explain how a G4 will be incompatible and a G5 not?
Would you please explain how a G4 will be incompatible and a G5 not?
I have a G4 and I do not have the **water drop effect in dashboard. I can not use **Motion, or **Aperture. The system requirements are going to be too demanding for older machines. It's that simple.
**All of which are available in newer G5's.
Don't know if anybody has said this yet but I wonder if Apple keeps an up to date version of OS X for the PPC platform? (like they did for Intel)
FWIW, I wish Apple would offer both computers with both PPC and Intel chips in them. I'd prefer the freescale 8641D processor over anything Intel has now as it has dual altivec units, an onboard memory controller and is dual core.
Of course they do. They have to.
They just stopped selling PPC machines, there's lots of them out there.
They will have a PPC version of 10.6. But, I'm pretty certain that it will be the last.
So if IBM had a superior PPC processor for cell phones, you think Apple would not be interested?
No. They would not.
Not that IBM has any interest in that market anyway.
In all fairness, the only real chance IBM had for any significant PPC orders was if Apple agreed to license OSX.
That's possibly true.
We know the chance of that happening anytime soon.
Though there is actually a greater chance of it happening now.
Well then MS is absurd and Sony too and let's not forget Nintendo. They paid for developing their cpus and even worse they were stupid enough to order millions in advance. Then comes Prima Donna Jobs and makes demands, well we know the outcome. Trust me no one sheds a tear at IBM over losing Apple and getting all console makers instead. Step out of the sdf for a second.
Sony OWNS the IP for the Cell, along with IBM and Toshiba. They ALL developed it.They were producing it themselves as well.
Have you any evidence that Nintendo is paying IBM for the R&D for their chip?
You're just making things up here.
Well so you not able to name one.
As usual, you're wrong.
I'l give you one just because you're lazy.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2135201,00.asp
First totally unimportant company with an unimportant product. Secondly how can you tell that this has anything to do with the switch? Maybe the made a linux to fbsd port.
It shows how little you know about these companies.
I have a G4 and I do not have the **water drop effect in dashboard. I can not use **Motion, or **Aperture. The system requirements are going to be too demanding for older machines. It's that simple. . .
Okay. Je comprends. There is always the minimum performance requirements, such as CPU clock rate. I thought you were referring to features, like the G4 and G5 have AltiVec, but the G3 does not.
Okay. Je comprends. There is always the minimum performance requirements, such as CPU clock rate. I thought you were referring to features, like the G4 and G5 have AltiVec, but the G3 does not.
Needless to say, what I said about that has noting to do with my earlier statement that I doubt Apple will support PPC beyond 10.6. I would be very surprised if it made it to 10.7 but there is no chance they will be releasing versions beyond that, and that is not only because of system requirements, but developer resources. They may update it in house for "just in case" reasons, or for new developer training or something, but otherwise PPC will go the way of the Dodo.