It's possible that for Apple's future plans involving nano-scale engineering this is the quickest route for Apple to get an "in"... In another 5 to 10 years, nano-tech will be far more advanced and there will be more MEMS integration in handheld devices.
Yep, that was my guess the moment I heard of apple buying this company. Apple seriously need to be on the forefront of the nano revolution we are on the brink of, this is hopefully a step in the right direction.
I mean - a real time system responds instantly (in real time). Very useful for nuclear power plants to be able to shut down a problem instantly, rather than after they finish calculating whatever else they were working on.
"The power plant could not be shut down because Microsoft Word 2008 cancelled the process. Would you like to force quit the application?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQ78
Could it be possible that Apple is looking for a way to distinguish it's hardware from typical PC hardware by adding co-processor technology that would be fully supported by OSX, making it scream on Apple hardware?
Once the distinction between running OSX on Apple hardware (with co-processors) and running it on non-Apple hardware is made, it could open the doors to license a non-coprocessor supported version of OSX on PCs?
I don't see it. The distinction media acceleration would make would be negligible. I can already play HD movies on a Mac Mini, co-processors add nothing meaningful. This would have mattered when CPUs were too slow to do these things.
On the subject of the PPC chip, isn't it possible for them to use the intellectual property they have acquired to improve Intel's Atom chip? P.A Semi is a fabless semiconductor company meaning they have to outsource the actual chip development.
Who would Apple outsource this development to? IBM? I don't think so.
Apple have acquired chip design engineers, some of whom worked on Intel's chips too, not a company that builds processors. If they can design a power efficient PPC chip, what's to stop them designing a better Atom chip that is outsourced to Intel for fabrication and exclusive to Apple's mobile devices?
Whatever they do, I think that if PPC or x86 is in the next iphone revision, it surely opens up the possibility for Flash on the iphone.
That was something we were all excited about, but the usual happened.
We were all excited about the idea that the Cell might also be used as a co-processor, but the same thing happened there as well.
I really don't expect much from this purchase.
It think the engineers will be, to a certain extent, dispursed amongst the different engineering groups at Apple, with a core looking a new, interestng technologies, and improvements.
I simply DON'T see Apple designing their own processor. And anything they may do for the ARM here will be short term at best. Once Intel gets up to speed with Atom, it will be all over.
I'm pretty confident that Apple has the SDK running on x86 right now, and that it has been from the very beginning, as has the rest of the development.
We all know that Apple, along with at least Intel's other big clients, has had knowledge about this development (Atom) from the very beginning.
Remember that we couldn't understand why Jobs got up that June afternoon, a time that now seems to be so very long ago in the past, and pointed to a chart showing Intel's performance per watt compared to IBM. That was when the Prescott was the big joke, and when we were all still deriding Intel.
Well, Apple, and others, were given the scoop on Core long before we had any idea.
The same thing is true here
I doubt if Intel would have even come up with these new chips if they didn't have good assurance from their biggest likely customers of strong interest and the likelihood of adoption.
Don't forget that it's the PPC based designs from PA that's garnered interest, not ARM designs!
If Apple abandons the PPC line, which they seem to want to do, then there is no real advantage to this purchase, expertise or not. There are several very competent companies working on ARM designs, and it's not likely that a team from PA can do anything with them that's not already being done.
Then I wholeheartedly agree with you. Atom power output can not compete with ARM at this point. I believe the slowest Atom chip in the works is 800MHz, which is almost double the current under-clocked speed of the iPhone at 412MHz.
Even if the iPhone was clocked to it's 620MHz maximum it would still be slower. But more importantly, it would be much more power efficient that the Atom chip which still killing the battery. I have to agree with AnandTech that it's 5-10 years before Intel would be able to have anything that can compete with ARM.
That's nonsense.
As soon as 32 nm is out, Atom will leap over ARM. Intel is capable of doing more than any other company in the field. I respect Anand for what they do, but this prediction is one for the trash.
Atom already has several performance advantages. Intel has shown that it can move much more quickly than its competitors when it feels it must.
Remember that Intel sold off its own previous mobile processor family. At the time, people thought that Intel wasn't interested in the category, but these new chips show that Intel had a better idea. This is a first generation product, a "tick" so to speak. We'll see what happens when 2009 rolls around.
We do not know what any new chip will or will not be able to do, OS support included.
Actually we might know. It is not impossible to get info about new chips. Yeah some stuff is under NDA but a lot of hardware gets released that eventually makes its way into Apple products months later.
Quote:
I don't believe for a second that Apple's recent successes have anything whatsoever to do with whether Macs can run Windows.
Then yo are living in a very rarefied would colored Rose. The evidence is very clear and frankly overwhelming. If it wasn't for Intel hardware I would have never purchased my mew MBP. There is no way to get around my need to run MS OS'es and software from time to time. The Mac gives me the ability to stay as far away from MS OS'es as is possible but still have immediate access when needed.
That is just me. A lot of other people have switched to the MAC for the same reason. Better to ask around to find out why many people have switched to a Mac recently.
"The power plant could not be shut down because Microsoft Word 2008 cancelled the process. Would you like to force quit the application?"
I don't see it. The distinction media acceleration would make would be negligible. I can already play HD movies on a Mac Mini, co-processors add nothing meaningful. This would have mattered when CPUs were too slow to do these things.
On the subject of the PPC chip, isn't it possible for them to use the intellectual property they have acquired to improve Intel's Atom chip? P.A Semi is a fabless semiconductor company meaning they have to outsource the actual chip development.
Who would Apple outsource this development to? IBM? I don't think so.
Apple have acquired chip design engineers, some of whom worked on Intel's chips too, not a company that builds processors. If they can design a power efficient PPC chip, what's to stop them designing a better Atom chip that is outsourced to Intel for fabrication and exclusive to Apple's mobile devices?
Whatever they do, I think that if PPC or x86 is in the next iphone revision, it surely opens up the possibility for Flash on the iphone.
Whatever they do, I think that if PPC or x86 is in the next iphone revision, it surely opens up the possibility for Flash on the iphone.
I can excuse the garbage prior to this but what they hell does PPC or X86 have to do with running Flash? Let me point out, it has nothing to do with it!!!!! It is the number one issue when it comes to Browser reliability on browsers of all types on all platforms. Beyond that it burns CPU cycles and wastes memory.
Let me just say I'm a bit frustrated by it not being on the iPhone but I understand and respect Apples decision to draw a line in the sand and kept the platform as stable as they can. That line has nothing to do with the processor at the center of the iPhone though. If need be ARM can run Flash just as well as any other processor.
As soon as 32 nm is out, Atom will leap over ARM. Intel is capable of doing more than any other company in the field. I respect Anand for what they do, but this prediction is one for the trash.
Atom already has several performance advantages. Intel has shown that it can move much more quickly than its competitors when it feels it must.
Remember that Intel sold off its own previous mobile processor family. At the time, people thought that Intel wasn't interested in the category, but these new chips show that Intel had a better idea. This is a first generation product, a "tick" so to speak. We'll see what happens when 2009 rolls around.
I hope you are right, even just to push competition from ARM developers. Intel certainly has the money, aptitude and drive to make Atom a worthy contender.
You think Apple's huge uptick in sales has nothing to do with Macs now being able to natively run Windows? s.
Nothing whatsoever. I know there are a few people who were already Mac users who are now using Windows on their Macs, but there is no chance in hell that any statistically significant number of PC users have bought a Mac to run windows on it. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been drinking too much of the Cupertino Kool-aid.
Quote:
Do you agree that it's got something to do with x86? Do you agree that if they had stuck with PPC, the Mac would be doing much worse than it is now?
Yes. because Moto and IBM were not keeping up with mobile chips and the iBook/Powerbook lines were falling too far behind. The switch to x86 allowed Apple to bring their laptops back to current specs. Macbook and Macbook Pros were finally worth buying, so there was an obvious surge in sales.
I know there are a few people who were already Mac users who are now using Windows on their Macs, but there is no chance in hell that any statistically significant number of PC users have bought a Mac to run windows on it. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been drinking too much of the Cupertino Kool-aid.
Wouldn't that be Redmond Kool-aid? While a sale of a Mac to run Windows is still a sale, if there were a lot of Mac owners running Windows most of the time, then I don't think the company or its fans would want to admit that.
Wouldn't that be Redmond Kool-aid? While a sale of a Mac to run Windows is still a sale, if there were a lot of Mac owners running Windows most of the time, then I don't think the company or its fans would want to admit that.
Doesn't matter either way, because it's a fantasy.
Doesn't matter either way, because it's a fantasy.
It's not about "running Windows" in the way you seem to mean-- buying a Mac to serve primarily as a Win box.
It's about providing a comfort factor for switchers-- it's now trivially simple to install and use Windows apps, in an environment that barely disturbs the sense of being in OS X.
Even if a potential user never uses the functionality, it's a great selling point-- yes, you can use that PC only app that would have been a deal breaker.
Being able to buy one machine that can run everything is no small incentive.
Doesn't matter either way, because it's a fantasy.
I certainly can't account for all switchers but every single switcher I personaly know felt that the piece of mind knowing that the option for Windows was always in reach in case they didn't like OS X as much as thought they would or if they needed an app that wasn't available.
While the Apple Stores are great for trying out a Mac it's not common for most people to invest in a higher-end computer that they may later find to be unsuitable. Don't overlook peace of mind as a selling point.
If you search for comments on the pre-Boot Camp, dual boot challenge you'll find many plenty of excited people who disagree with your assesment.
edit: Pipped by Addabox. What he said. iPhone slows down my typing.
Nothing whatsoever. I know there are a few people who were already Mac users who are now using Windows on their Macs, but there is no chance in hell that any statistically significant number of PC users have bought a Mac to run windows on it.
What you originally said was that you thought that Macs' newfound ability to run Windows has nothing to do with their increase in sales.
What you've said above is something different and I agree with you. The number of people buying Macs just to run Windows on them (and never OS X) is very, very small.
But that the Mac can now run Windows natively brought down a huge barrier to adoption. People can now switch without fear; they need that one Windows-only app? No problem. They're not sure they'll really like OS X? No problem, they can always install and use Windows instead if necessary.
Doesn't matter either way, because it's a fantasy.
I think it does matter given that you're trying to tie a motive to the one with the fantasy. If the motive doesn't fit, then your explanation doesn't fit either.
All I can say is, iPhone-haters can yap all they want, but under any reasonable set of scenarios, competitors such as RIM are pwned in this space (of course, only if your horizon extends longer than that of a gnat).
Nothing whatsoever. I know there are a few people who were already Mac users who are now using Windows on their Macs, but there is no chance in hell that any statistically significant number of PC users have bought a Mac to run windows on it. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been drinking too much of the Cupertino Kool-aid.
Think again. Of the few people I know, all of them switched to Apple because they heard about Apple adopting Intel chips. All of them.
All I can say is, iPhone-haters can yap all they want, but under any reasonable set of scenarios, competitors such as RIM are pwned in this space (of course, only if your horizon extends longer than that of a gnat).
There a lot of quotable sentences in that article. I've said this before, even if you hate the iPhone and Apple the affect it is having is good for every consumer that owns a cell phone, especially a smart phone.
Is there any truth to the claim that RiM devices are much more secure than the iPhone?
PS: I wonder how long before RiM clashes their exorbitant PUSH subscription fees.
Comments
It's possible that for Apple's future plans involving nano-scale engineering this is the quickest route for Apple to get an "in"... In another 5 to 10 years, nano-tech will be far more advanced and there will be more MEMS integration in handheld devices.
Yep, that was my guess the moment I heard of apple buying this company. Apple seriously need to be on the forefront of the nano revolution we are on the brink of, this is hopefully a step in the right direction.
Behold the new Mac Quantum....
I mean - a real time system responds instantly (in real time). Very useful for nuclear power plants to be able to shut down a problem instantly, rather than after they finish calculating whatever else they were working on.
Could it be possible that Apple is looking for a way to distinguish it's hardware from typical PC hardware by adding co-processor technology that would be fully supported by OSX, making it scream on Apple hardware?
Once the distinction between running OSX on Apple hardware (with co-processors) and running it on non-Apple hardware is made, it could open the doors to license a non-coprocessor supported version of OSX on PCs?
I don't see it. The distinction media acceleration would make would be negligible. I can already play HD movies on a Mac Mini, co-processors add nothing meaningful. This would have mattered when CPUs were too slow to do these things.
On the subject of the PPC chip, isn't it possible for them to use the intellectual property they have acquired to improve Intel's Atom chip? P.A Semi is a fabless semiconductor company meaning they have to outsource the actual chip development.
Who would Apple outsource this development to? IBM? I don't think so.
Apple have acquired chip design engineers, some of whom worked on Intel's chips too, not a company that builds processors. If they can design a power efficient PPC chip, what's to stop them designing a better Atom chip that is outsourced to Intel for fabrication and exclusive to Apple's mobile devices?
Whatever they do, I think that if PPC or x86 is in the next iphone revision, it surely opens up the possibility for Flash on the iphone.
Ah ha! It was a couple of years later than I thought, but the co-processors were called "TriMedia". Here's a few pages for those that are interested:
CNET news article
Page with lots of details of a prototype TriMedia card
See bottom of this page
That was something we were all excited about, but the usual happened.
We were all excited about the idea that the Cell might also be used as a co-processor, but the same thing happened there as well.
I really don't expect much from this purchase.
It think the engineers will be, to a certain extent, dispursed amongst the different engineering groups at Apple, with a core looking a new, interestng technologies, and improvements.
I simply DON'T see Apple designing their own processor. And anything they may do for the ARM here will be short term at best. Once Intel gets up to speed with Atom, it will be all over.
I'm pretty confident that Apple has the SDK running on x86 right now, and that it has been from the very beginning, as has the rest of the development.
We all know that Apple, along with at least Intel's other big clients, has had knowledge about this development (Atom) from the very beginning.
Remember that we couldn't understand why Jobs got up that June afternoon, a time that now seems to be so very long ago in the past, and pointed to a chart showing Intel's performance per watt compared to IBM. That was when the Prescott was the big joke, and when we were all still deriding Intel.
Well, Apple, and others, were given the scoop on Core long before we had any idea.
The same thing is true here
I doubt if Intel would have even come up with these new chips if they didn't have good assurance from their biggest likely customers of strong interest and the likelihood of adoption.
Don't forget that it's the PPC based designs from PA that's garnered interest, not ARM designs!
If Apple abandons the PPC line, which they seem to want to do, then there is no real advantage to this purchase, expertise or not. There are several very competent companies working on ARM designs, and it's not likely that a team from PA can do anything with them that's not already being done.
Then I wholeheartedly agree with you. Atom power output can not compete with ARM at this point. I believe the slowest Atom chip in the works is 800MHz, which is almost double the current under-clocked speed of the iPhone at 412MHz.
Even if the iPhone was clocked to it's 620MHz maximum it would still be slower. But more importantly, it would be much more power efficient that the Atom chip which still killing the battery. I have to agree with AnandTech that it's 5-10 years before Intel would be able to have anything that can compete with ARM.
That's nonsense.
As soon as 32 nm is out, Atom will leap over ARM. Intel is capable of doing more than any other company in the field. I respect Anand for what they do, but this prediction is one for the trash.
Atom already has several performance advantages. Intel has shown that it can move much more quickly than its competitors when it feels it must.
Remember that Intel sold off its own previous mobile processor family. At the time, people thought that Intel wasn't interested in the category, but these new chips show that Intel had a better idea. This is a first generation product, a "tick" so to speak. We'll see what happens when 2009 rolls around.
We do not know what any new chip will or will not be able to do, OS support included.
Actually we might know. It is not impossible to get info about new chips. Yeah some stuff is under NDA but a lot of hardware gets released that eventually makes its way into Apple products months later.
I don't believe for a second that Apple's recent successes have anything whatsoever to do with whether Macs can run Windows.
Then yo are living in a very rarefied would colored Rose. The evidence is very clear and frankly overwhelming. If it wasn't for Intel hardware I would have never purchased my mew MBP. There is no way to get around my need to run MS OS'es and software from time to time. The Mac gives me the ability to stay as far away from MS OS'es as is possible but still have immediate access when needed.
That is just me. A lot of other people have switched to the MAC for the same reason. Better to ask around to find out why many people have switched to a Mac recently.
I don't see it. The distinction media acceleration would make would be negligible. I can already play HD movies on a Mac Mini, co-processors add nothing meaningful. This would have mattered when CPUs were too slow to do these things.
On the subject of the PPC chip, isn't it possible for them to use the intellectual property they have acquired to improve Intel's Atom chip? P.A Semi is a fabless semiconductor company meaning they have to outsource the actual chip development.
Who would Apple outsource this development to? IBM? I don't think so.
Apple have acquired chip design engineers, some of whom worked on Intel's chips too, not a company that builds processors. If they can design a power efficient PPC chip, what's to stop them designing a better Atom chip that is outsourced to Intel for fabrication and exclusive to Apple's mobile devices?
Whatever they do, I think that if PPC or x86 is in the next iphone revision, it surely opens up the possibility for Flash on the iphone.
This is basically what I've been saying.
Whatever they do, I think that if PPC or x86 is in the next iphone revision, it surely opens up the possibility for Flash on the iphone.
I can excuse the garbage prior to this but what they hell does PPC or X86 have to do with running Flash? Let me point out, it has nothing to do with it!!!!! It is the number one issue when it comes to Browser reliability on browsers of all types on all platforms. Beyond that it burns CPU cycles and wastes memory.
Let me just say I'm a bit frustrated by it not being on the iPhone but I understand and respect Apples decision to draw a line in the sand and kept the platform as stable as they can. That line has nothing to do with the processor at the center of the iPhone though. If need be ARM can run Flash just as well as any other processor.
Dave
Flash isn't on the iPhone because it SUCKS!
That's nonsense.
As soon as 32 nm is out, Atom will leap over ARM. Intel is capable of doing more than any other company in the field. I respect Anand for what they do, but this prediction is one for the trash.
Atom already has several performance advantages. Intel has shown that it can move much more quickly than its competitors when it feels it must.
Remember that Intel sold off its own previous mobile processor family. At the time, people thought that Intel wasn't interested in the category, but these new chips show that Intel had a better idea. This is a first generation product, a "tick" so to speak. We'll see what happens when 2009 rolls around.
I hope you are right, even just to push competition from ARM developers. Intel certainly has the money, aptitude and drive to make Atom a worthy contender.
You think Apple's huge uptick in sales has nothing to do with Macs now being able to natively run Windows? s.
Nothing whatsoever. I know there are a few people who were already Mac users who are now using Windows on their Macs, but there is no chance in hell that any statistically significant number of PC users have bought a Mac to run windows on it. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been drinking too much of the Cupertino Kool-aid.
Do you agree that it's got something to do with x86? Do you agree that if they had stuck with PPC, the Mac would be doing much worse than it is now?
Yes. because Moto and IBM were not keeping up with mobile chips and the iBook/Powerbook lines were falling too far behind. The switch to x86 allowed Apple to bring their laptops back to current specs. Macbook and Macbook Pros were finally worth buying, so there was an obvious surge in sales.
I know there are a few people who were already Mac users who are now using Windows on their Macs, but there is no chance in hell that any statistically significant number of PC users have bought a Mac to run windows on it. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been drinking too much of the Cupertino Kool-aid.
Wouldn't that be Redmond Kool-aid? While a sale of a Mac to run Windows is still a sale, if there were a lot of Mac owners running Windows most of the time, then I don't think the company or its fans would want to admit that.
Wouldn't that be Redmond Kool-aid? While a sale of a Mac to run Windows is still a sale, if there were a lot of Mac owners running Windows most of the time, then I don't think the company or its fans would want to admit that.
Doesn't matter either way, because it's a fantasy.
Doesn't matter either way, because it's a fantasy.
It's not about "running Windows" in the way you seem to mean-- buying a Mac to serve primarily as a Win box.
It's about providing a comfort factor for switchers-- it's now trivially simple to install and use Windows apps, in an environment that barely disturbs the sense of being in OS X.
Even if a potential user never uses the functionality, it's a great selling point-- yes, you can use that PC only app that would have been a deal breaker.
Being able to buy one machine that can run everything is no small incentive.
Doesn't matter either way, because it's a fantasy.
I certainly can't account for all switchers but every single switcher I personaly know felt that the piece of mind knowing that the option for Windows was always in reach in case they didn't like OS X as much as thought they would or if they needed an app that wasn't available.
While the Apple Stores are great for trying out a Mac it's not common for most people to invest in a higher-end computer that they may later find to be unsuitable. Don't overlook peace of mind as a selling point.
If you search for comments on the pre-Boot Camp, dual boot challenge you'll find many plenty of excited people who disagree with your assesment.
edit: Pipped by Addabox. What he said. iPhone slows down my typing.
Nothing whatsoever. I know there are a few people who were already Mac users who are now using Windows on their Macs, but there is no chance in hell that any statistically significant number of PC users have bought a Mac to run windows on it.
What you originally said was that you thought that Macs' newfound ability to run Windows has nothing to do with their increase in sales.
What you've said above is something different and I agree with you. The number of people buying Macs just to run Windows on them (and never OS X) is very, very small.
But that the Mac can now run Windows natively brought down a huge barrier to adoption. People can now switch without fear; they need that one Windows-only app? No problem. They're not sure they'll really like OS X? No problem, they can always install and use Windows instead if necessary.
Doesn't matter either way, because it's a fantasy.
I think it does matter given that you're trying to tie a motive to the one with the fantasy. If the motive doesn't fit, then your explanation doesn't fit either.
Being able to buy one machine that can run everything is no small incentive.
I second that. Anyone who tries to tell me otherwise needs to pull their head out of (as TBS censors like to say) the grass.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/te...=1&oref=slogin
All I can say is, iPhone-haters can yap all they want, but under any reasonable set of scenarios, competitors such as RIM are pwned in this space (of course, only if your horizon extends longer than that of a gnat).
Nothing whatsoever. I know there are a few people who were already Mac users who are now using Windows on their Macs, but there is no chance in hell that any statistically significant number of PC users have bought a Mac to run windows on it. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been drinking too much of the Cupertino Kool-aid.
Think again. Of the few people I know, all of them switched to Apple because they heard about Apple adopting Intel chips. All of them.
Think again. Of the few people I know, all of them switched to Apple because they heard about Apple adopting Intel chips. All of them.
Could you clarify? Your response backs up bsenka's statement if it's because of the switch to X86 and not the later option to run Windows if need be.
Wow... take a look at this story in NYT today.... actually, forget the story, just click on the graphic that says "A Narrower Lead."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/te...=1&oref=slogin
All I can say is, iPhone-haters can yap all they want, but under any reasonable set of scenarios, competitors such as RIM are pwned in this space (of course, only if your horizon extends longer than that of a gnat).
There a lot of quotable sentences in that article. I've said this before, even if you hate the iPhone and Apple the affect it is having is good for every consumer that owns a cell phone, especially a smart phone.
Is there any truth to the claim that RiM devices are much more secure than the iPhone?
PS: I wonder how long before RiM clashes their exorbitant PUSH subscription fees.