Or all the talks over the last years have simply been misconstrued and this is the true result of them.
Or not. However, many projects that companies like Apple work on are contingency projects, or never see the light of day for other reasons. Witness "StarTrek" -- MacOS ported to x86 a decade ago or so.
Yes. If you really need it spelled out again, I though I was pretty clear last time.
Just look at the Mercury Computer Systems products with G4s in them? The MPC7410s are used in modules/nodes for scaleable computing of whatever kind customers want.
And Apple didn't just stumble on the benefits of AltiVec. They had a bigger part in its development than you may believe.
Look, it is possible that either BR or Barto may be right on this; the point is that we simply don't know yet.
1) It is reasonable to assume that for AMD, capturing the Airport Extreme market was a Big Deal. Apple likes having options, and may have had several on what to do. The high-level talks may have been what it took to seal the deal.
2) With Motorola floundering, Apple may have been seriously considering moving to the Opteron processor - thus high-level talks would be appropriate. Perhaps IBM came in later with their ideas for the 970 which Apple found could be tinkered with a bit to fit what they were looking for with far less effort.
Either scenario is still reasonable at this point. Let's drop the name-calling and finger-pointing, at least until we know more of what's been going on behind the scenes!
At least that's my point of view on this at the moment.
Look, it is possible that either BR or Barto may be right on this; the point is that we simply don't know yet.
Hear, Hear!
Whatever the orgins of the G4 may be, it is a "dead-end" chip that is simply being nursed along for our application. Motorola has been floundering for a while, with much of the good manufacturing and technical folk being hired away by Intel. It was pretty embarassing when IBM made the G4 chips that Motorola said could not be made. Then, Motorola withdrew the license for IBM to make them.
From my point of view, the relationship between Apple and Motorola has been on the rocks since the cloning diasaster that Motorola said cost them $100M. My guess is that ever since, the priority for chip development has been anywhere but for Apple. Need I say more than G5? Hello? (insert sound of deep echo in well here).
My guess is that the 970 chip was developed by IBM as a means of broadening its customer base and helping them write off their considerable R&D and Fab expenses for the Power4 processor. It's pretty nifty how the chip is a near drop-in replacement for the G4 from Apple's software point of view.
As far as chosing AMD for chips, Apple may or may not do it. Such contingency planning is perfectly normal in other supply chains. For example, if you're big enough you may force your suppliers to cross-license their patents with their fellow competitors to ensure you'll always have a inexpensive supply of parts. Perfectly normal in the Auto industry!
Frankly, I don't care what chip powers my computers. I want them to be fast, capable, and usable. The chip is something I never interface with directly anyway. It is simply a means to an end re: getting my computational needs done. Cheers!
Comments
Originally posted by BR
Or all the talks over the last years have simply been misconstrued and this is the true result of them.
Or not. However, many projects that companies like Apple work on are contingency projects, or never see the light of day for other reasons. Witness "StarTrek" -- MacOS ported to x86 a decade ago or so.
Originally posted by AirSluf
Yes. If you really need it spelled out again, I though I was pretty clear last time.
Just look at the Mercury Computer Systems products with G4s in them? The MPC7410s are used in modules/nodes for scaleable computing of whatever kind customers want.
And Apple didn't just stumble on the benefits of AltiVec. They had a bigger part in its development than you may believe.
1) It is reasonable to assume that for AMD, capturing the Airport Extreme market was a Big Deal. Apple likes having options, and may have had several on what to do. The high-level talks may have been what it took to seal the deal.
2) With Motorola floundering, Apple may have been seriously considering moving to the Opteron processor - thus high-level talks would be appropriate. Perhaps IBM came in later with their ideas for the 970 which Apple found could be tinkered with a bit to fit what they were looking for with far less effort.
Either scenario is still reasonable at this point. Let's drop the name-calling and finger-pointing, at least until we know more of what's been going on behind the scenes!
At least that's my point of view on this at the moment.
Originally posted by TJM
Look, it is possible that either BR or Barto may be right on this; the point is that we simply don't know yet.
Hear, Hear!
Whatever the orgins of the G4 may be, it is a "dead-end" chip that is simply being nursed along for our application. Motorola has been floundering for a while, with much of the good manufacturing and technical folk being hired away by Intel. It was pretty embarassing when IBM made the G4 chips that Motorola said could not be made. Then, Motorola withdrew the license for IBM to make them.
From my point of view, the relationship between Apple and Motorola has been on the rocks since the cloning diasaster that Motorola said cost them $100M. My guess is that ever since, the priority for chip development has been anywhere but for Apple. Need I say more than G5? Hello? (insert sound of deep echo in well here).
My guess is that the 970 chip was developed by IBM as a means of broadening its customer base and helping them write off their considerable R&D and Fab expenses for the Power4 processor. It's pretty nifty how the chip is a near drop-in replacement for the G4 from Apple's software point of view.
As far as chosing AMD for chips, Apple may or may not do it. Such contingency planning is perfectly normal in other supply chains. For example, if you're big enough you may force your suppliers to cross-license their patents with their fellow competitors to ensure you'll always have a inexpensive supply of parts. Perfectly normal in the Auto industry!
Frankly, I don't care what chip powers my computers. I want them to be fast, capable, and usable. The chip is something I never interface with directly anyway. It is simply a means to an end re: getting my computational needs done. Cheers!
Originally posted by Clive
Why would anyone think that, it hasn't happened!? Power4 is PPC too.
Power4 is a POWER chip. PowerPC is similar, but not identical.
Originally posted by iNub
Power4 is a POWER chip. PowerPC is similar, but not identical.
Power4 is a POWER chip but it's still as much a PPC chip as the G4 is a PPC chip.
Apple will NEVER change hardware platforms without giving developers at least 6 months advance notice.
Originally posted by iNub
Power4 is a POWER chip. PowerPC is similar, but not identical.
POWER is a PPC and has the same ISA as a G3 or G4, but with extensions. It could run MacOS X.
They are also aimed at the big-iron end of computing, not the desktop/portable/embedded end of PowerPC.
Barto