Too many x86 wishful thinkers around here. If you read that quote, Steve never says x86 is the options he's considering. I think he's got a processor option up his sleeve and it's a PowerPC variant. I think the people speculating it's an Apple/IBM/AMD/Nvidia chip are closer to what Steve's up to.
It is like the Amiga, they are hoping on porting to the X86 to get more life into the OS. Be did this with BeOS, and NeXT did it with NeXTOs/NeXTStep. Basically the WINTEL X86 systems are a much larger market and it will help get more marketshare.
Apple could have a plan for making their own X86 system to at least run Darwin, and get ready for an OSX port if there is enough demand for the X86 based Apple system. The Amiga X86 systems would be idea for porting Darwin to, because they are basically an X86 clone and are designed to run Linux and OpenBSD. If Apple ported OSX to these Amiga X86 systems, I doubt it would run 68K or PowerPC apps, but the existing OSX apps can be recompiled to the X86 format to run on the X86 OSX system. Apple could make a PCI card with a G3 or G4 processor on it to run PowerMac programs on an X86 system.
But the question is would Adobe, Macromedia, etc keep two versions of an x86 app? If Apple made an X86 box, I would expect Adobe to say goodbye Apple, consumer go buy windows and run our product.
And to say "a simple recompile..." how many apps have you written? While it is true that some apps can compile between the different Unixes, it is generally because there is no machine specific code in them. If your app has any ppc assembly, or altivec code (iDVD, DVD studio Pro, FCP, iMovie, iTunes, almost every Apple App), a "simple recompile" won't do you jack! A rewrite of those segments are in order (and to get the same level of optimizations would require some major effort).
If it were me, and I had an x86 program that currently ran in Windows, and I was told by Apple I would need to rewrite my PPC app, and now manage 2 X86 ports, I would say screw you. I just spent this time getting my app ready for OS X PPC, optimizing and all, and now I am told OS X PPC is dead, long live OS X86? What developer in their right mind would go along with this?
Next question is why would you pay for an Apple x86 box? What advantage would Apple have over say Dell? The two machines would have the EXACT same specs, but the Dell is about $1k cheaper? If I had to rebuy my apps, buy a new machine, and buy a new OS, why not make the jump to x86 intel and get 100% of the benifits?
I don't want to leave Apple. I have used one for 10 years now, and programmed on one for like 3. But if Apple does go to X86, it will be a long hard think I will need to have.
What I find comical is from an offhand comment by Mr. Jobs about the possibility of options and options are good, the rumor mill is arguing the pros and cons of going X86.
Poor Steve, must be heck living with watching everything you say, because sooooo much is read into his comments.
This is his own little hell he created by insisting on such secretiveness and not allowing adequate road maps to be published.
It should be noted that apparently Steve Jobs was asked about alternative processors such as those by Intel. He was not asked if he would consider Intel specifically as an alternative. It could be AMD, IBM or just about anybody. It could also simply mean PowerPC chips made by someone other than Motorola.
Hmmm, apple holds release of powermacs, nvidia announces nforce 2, ATI announces Radeon 9700... connection? No.
If you tried, you'd get PPC601 66MHz performance (tops) on a P4 3GHz.
Actually I dont think that you could even get that. I beleive that Mac emulation is currently limited to 68k chips. However the AMD Hammer is 64 bit all around so emulating a PPC is... possible...
Would it be possible to put a cheap embedded PPC on the motherboard of an X86 Mac such that it handled code translation to the X86 part untill the majority of major apps were recompiled/rewritten for OSX86?
Intresting idea but I doubt it. Youd need to recode the OS methinks.
I'd hardly call the Itanium a 'good' chip
Good? No.
However AMDs Hammer is looking VERY promising...
I see this switch as a good thing, especially as Im planning on upgrading when the next generation of chips comes out. I may just have to wait for apples decision though...
<strong>Just wondering how many of you who were planning on buying a new mac in the near future are still going to after reading this statement by Jobs? After reading this myself, I am now re-evaluating my plans to buy a new ppc Powermac, even if Apple does come out with an ass-kicking G5 next month. Even more serious is the affect this may have on the plans of the average computer user out there who was considering upgrading or buying a new mac. I'm sure many of them who have some computer knowledge are going to be wondering the same thing. This stupid statement by Jobs is absolutely not going to do anything to increase ppc mac sales for Apple.
Nice move Steve. Now you have many of us wondering if our ppc macs are going to be made obsolete by intel macs in the near future.
And what about the developers out there who are working or planning to make new ppc apps for OS X. Are you wondering if your time and investment in your new apps will going to be flushed down the drain if Apple moves to Intel?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In the time frame it would take to have an Intel version of OS X out there, any current hardware, Intel or PowerPC, will be considered obsolete. The vague possibility of Apple switching to Intel chips some time in the unspecified future is no more of a reason to hold off buying a new Mac than is worrying that your computer will be obsoleted when 2.5 Terahertz artificially-intelligent quantum flux processors come out.
[MWNY 03, and no 2.5 THz AI-QFP Power Macs!? Apple is doomed! ]
As for software developers worrying about wasting effort on PowerPC code: Except for assembly language, often not used at all (and when used, typically sparingly in small performance-critical routines), most software would port just by recompiling for a different target processor. I'm not claiming it's snap-your-fingers easy, but for most software it won't be a huge effort. Linux users currently depend a great deal on using the same apps on different platforms, simply by recompiling open source code.
Apple could do what they did when switching to PowerPC too... let the OS run PowerPC code in an emulation mode. Or, if it's cheap enough, through in a PowerPC for backward compatibility. One way or another, Apple would never make the switch to Intel if they didn't have a way to support old software during a long transition period.
Also, if OS X/Intel ever happens, the switch isn't going to happen overnight. There'd still be a good sized OS X/PowerPC market to sell to for some time. Creating Intel versions of Mac software could be put off by software makers until the market share for those versions was worth the effort.
[quote]<strong>Seems to me that Steve Jobs should retract this statement whether or not its true. Its an irresponsible statement and bad for business.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said above, Intel or not, your computer will be considered obsolete anyway by time anything happens on this front. You could get a lot of good use out of a new Mac in the meantime, and that Mac won't simply shut down and stop working for you just because it's no longer the hottest new toy on the block.
Now, waiting a few weeks for a new Power Mac... that's a different story!
What about paying Transmeta to develop a processor that runs the PPC platform? There could be issues with this though. Big Endian vs. Little Endian comes to mind. I'm not really sure exactly how much of Transmeta's current processors are implemented in hardware, so it could be trivial to get PPC going w/ code morphing, or it could be a gigantic headache.
At other forums, people have mentioned the possibility of a x86 system w/ a PPC PCI daughtercard to provide compatability, but again, Endian-ness becomes a problem.
It's certainly technically feasable to move to x86, but it would almost certainly require VM software to run old applications, or Apple could implement something like Windows on Windows to make it completely transparent to the user whether native code or PPC running in a VM was being used.
Apple missed their biggest opportunity to transition when they released OS X. OS X broke binary compatability anyway, so switching hardware platforms wouldn't have been that big of an issue.
[quote]Apple missed their biggest opportunity to transition when they released OS X. OS X broke binary compatability anyway, so switching hardware platforms wouldn't have been that big of an issue.
<hr></blockquote>
If Apple did an x86 transition then, Classic wouldn't have been possible without some form of emulation - not only Power PC emulation, but 68k emulation; since parts of Mac OS 9 still run in 68k. IE: The existing 68k emulator would need to be rewritten, in addition to writing a form of Power PC emulation.
Without Classic, it's entirely possible that Mac OS X wouldn't have caught on.
<strong>Except that AMD is probably hungry for more business!</strong><hr></blockquote>
As always you made a great post but I am going to pick on this bit a little. People hoping to see AMD work with Apple right now are probably kidding themselves. AMD is really intent on moving itself into the server market and its own technologies right now. They don't have the manpower to develop chips for Apple as well currently.
They would be far better focusing on restructuring their own business making it so they are actually turning a profit instead of attempting to endlessly expand. Endless attempts at expansion usually end up in a massive implosion and AMD is far better off looking towards consolidation right now.
They could work on fabrication although I am not sure they have the facilities once they finish ramping up other things. I don't know on that one.
Either way I would be comfortable placing my money on IBM long before AMD.
but I am going to pick on this bit a little. People hoping to see AMD work with Apple right now are probably kidding themselves. AMD is really intent on moving itself into the server market and its own technologies right now. They don't have the manpower to develop chips for Apple as well currently.
They would be far better focusing on restructuring their own business making it so they are actually turning a profit instead of attempting to endlessly expand. Endless attempts at expansion usually end up in a massive implosion and AMD is far better off looking towards consolidation right now.
They could work on fabrication although I am not sure they have the facilities once they finish ramping up other things. I don't know on that one.
Either way I would be comfortable placing my money on IBM long before AMD.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree completely, actually. I've never been a believer in the idea that AMD would split its focus and jump into the PPC camp. People keep talking about it though and I don't pretend to know what is going on in the bowels of these companies.
Using AMD fab capacity to manufacture Moto or Apple PPC designs is destinct possiblity and it has been entertained in the past, at least according to rumour.
I've said it before... Moki has the closest thing to credibility in this circus of a forum, and his money seems to be on an IBM design for the next generation flagship desktop PowerPC. Sounds plausible to me, as does the suggested mid-to-late '03 timeframe.
<strong>It should be noted that apparently Steve Jobs was asked about alternative processors such as those by Intel. He was not asked if he would consider Intel specifically as an alternative. It could be AMD, IBM or just about anybody. It could also simply mean PowerPC chips made by someone other than Motorola.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. Could even be somebody like VIA. Don't they own the results of all that research money Apple spent on PPC developement some years ago?
Out of the blue but if Apple goes Intel, is it really difficult to leave carbon/os9 dead and create a carbon/windows environment ?
This way developer have nothing to do (if this layer is completely transparent with no recompile) and in one day all the mac community have all the windows apps for free with the Aqua look and the simplicity of Mac OS X. I can't see adobe or macromedia be furious at that. But the problem here lies with all the direct calls to windows API like DirectX, etc. Apple need to do some reverse engineering. Is this difficult ?
The only one who would be very angry is MS (they can't stop office for windows...) Even the macintosh developer can be happy with that because now they can create apps for 100% of computers out there.
In the end things would be the same as now for Apple because Mac OS X is far more superior, easier and fun than windows. And with proprietary hardware we will have still the same cool factors and better engineering than Dell, Hp, etc. With iApps, and ProApps on top of that.
The second thing is... is it possible to create an altivec ship for Hammer or the PIV ?
The third thing is price... can't see Apple manage that well.
2) I know some people who will install OS X instead of NT, but they don't want to buy Mac (to expensive and they have networks of PC). So, OS X running on Intel/AMD should be a COOL thing.
3) An OS X for Intel/AMD won't kill Mac IF they have better hardware (CPUs G5/Power 4/Power5, MB, GPU,..) at the right price. Even more, tehy can make the Mac the best platform for video/movie/music.
<strong>But not nearly as fast as code written and compiled for the x86 in the first place. It would put Apple right back in last place in terms of the speed race, and each processor upgrade would speed up the competition at least as much as it sped them up. No, this would be folly. It would also throw away the advantages that PPC does provide -- like lower power consumption & heat output, and AltiVec.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And that is why Apple releasing Mac OS X for x86 won't happen. Programmer, you rule.
Lets all be rational and look at the PowerPC Compliant options here.
As I said in another thread,
"As far as good news, I don't see any on the G4 front. It's fallen so far behind. Of course it has, it's aimed at the embedded market, not Apple. That shift to embedded is Apple's problem with the PowerPC.
However, Apple can use that "downward shift for more sales" to it's advantage. IBM makes the Power line, only uses them in big ass servers, and wants more sales. The Power5 in 2004 retargets the Power line downwards, but still way ahead of anything Intel/AMD. So, wait for an ass-kicking in 2004."
My 2 cents worth...I think Steve was yanking our chain a bit when he made those comments...possibly as a reaction to some of the negative comments about .mac charges and the lack of hardware upgrades.
However when he says options for processors, my humble opinion is:
Intel: (not x86 but maybe Itanium) No Chance too much bad blood between them.
IBM: (Power 5) Good choice, my fave as they have the power to get where steve wants to be, which as someone already said, is the high end creatives. Consumers are a nice money maker but his eyes are on the prize.
Sun: (Sparc) Good chip, fast, good rep in creative market, i think it's very possible. Also works great in Multiprocessor forms.
AMD (Hammer or PPC producer) Hammer I think is unlikely but PPC production maybe, but i think they'd have so much catching up to do that Apple will still be way behind.
Motorola (G5) Apple might as well buy the chip division and let IBM use it for manufacturing, make a heap of cash out of the lease of the facilities and use the chip IBM builds Power4/5/whatever, call it a G5 and kick some wintel butt.
But hey, I'm just burned 'cos I fell down the stairs and my TiBook didn't survive!
out of place I know, apologies, but has anyone else commented on Apple no longer using Garamond Condensed as there corporate font for products/software?...started with the eMac but even Jaguar has it now...Gramaond only really appears in connection with Apple the company, the mac and it's products are all in (what looks like) Gills Sans Bold. Anyway, sorry, eeerrr...Power5, go IBM!
Intel: (not x86 but maybe Itanium) No Chance too much bad blood between them.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Make a OSX86 release for x86 to convince some IT engineers that OS X is >>> Linux >>>>>> winXP, winNT. Let them touch how good OS X is (stability security, GUI, network manager, tools...) !!!
When they have been conviced, they will buy Mac with a OSX.
[quote]<strong>
IBM: (Power 5) Good choice, my fave as they have the power to get where steve wants to be, which as someone already said, is the high end creatives. Consumers are a nice money maker but his eyes are on the prize.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
and POWER 4 for XServe
[quote]<strong>
Sun: (Sparc) Good chip, fast, good rep in creative market, i think it's very possible. Also works great in Multiprocessor forms.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
..."macintosh the best platform for Java"... why not but not as good as the POWERs
[quote]<strong>
AMD (Hammer or PPC producer) Hammer I think is unlikely but PPC production maybe, but i think they'd have so much catching up to do that Apple will still be way behind.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
AMD and Apple... see the story during next month
[quote]<strong>
Motorola (G5) Apple might as well buy the chip division and let IBM use it for manufacturing, make a heap of cash out of the lease of the facilities and use the chip IBM builds Power4/5/whatever, call it a G5 and kick some wintel butt.
<strong>Good point one and all, Appleworm..can you elaborate more on the AMD/Apple thing?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Something is coming during August. Maybe it could be an hMac (hammerMac)...
If nothing come during the next 12 months from AMD/Apple this will be suprising because of the contacts they have. But, I don't know what the annoucement will be (hammer mac, G5 built by AMD,...). But this is an option and it doesn't prevent the power4/5 for servers/high-end macs, the G5 from Moto to wait for the Power4/5, hammer, or anything else inlcuding OSx86, nVidia...
Comments
Of course I may be totally wrong.
[ 07-18-2002: Message edited by: Leonard ]</p>
Consider this, the X86 based Amigas:
<a href="http://www.computing-extreme.com/amiga/AmigaXspec.html"; target="_blank">http://www.computing-extreme.com/amiga/AmigaXspec.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.computing-extreme.com/amiga/AmigaEX4100spec.html"; target="_blank">http://www.computing-extreme.com/amiga/AmigaEX4100spec.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.computing-extreme.com/amiga/AmigaEX4500spec.html"; target="_blank">http://www.computing-extreme.com/amiga/AmigaEX4500spec.html</a>;
Apple could have a plan for making their own X86 system to at least run Darwin, and get ready for an OSX port if there is enough demand for the X86 based Apple system. The Amiga X86 systems would be idea for porting Darwin to, because they are basically an X86 clone and are designed to run Linux and OpenBSD. If Apple ported OSX to these Amiga X86 systems, I doubt it would run 68K or PowerPC apps, but the existing OSX apps can be recompiled to the X86 format to run on the X86 OSX system. Apple could make a PCI card with a G3 or G4 processor on it to run PowerMac programs on an X86 system.
And to say "a simple recompile..." how many apps have you written? While it is true that some apps can compile between the different Unixes, it is generally because there is no machine specific code in them. If your app has any ppc assembly, or altivec code (iDVD, DVD studio Pro, FCP, iMovie, iTunes, almost every Apple App), a "simple recompile" won't do you jack! A rewrite of those segments are in order (and to get the same level of optimizations would require some major effort).
If it were me, and I had an x86 program that currently ran in Windows, and I was told by Apple I would need to rewrite my PPC app, and now manage 2 X86 ports, I would say screw you. I just spent this time getting my app ready for OS X PPC, optimizing and all, and now I am told OS X PPC is dead, long live OS X86? What developer in their right mind would go along with this?
Next question is why would you pay for an Apple x86 box? What advantage would Apple have over say Dell? The two machines would have the EXACT same specs, but the Dell is about $1k cheaper? If I had to rebuy my apps, buy a new machine, and buy a new OS, why not make the jump to x86 intel and get 100% of the benifits?
I don't want to leave Apple. I have used one for 10 years now, and programmed on one for like 3. But if Apple does go to X86, it will be a long hard think I will need to have.
Ben
Poor Steve, must be heck living with watching everything you say, because sooooo much is read into his comments.
This is his own little hell he created by insisting on such secretiveness and not allowing adequate road maps to be published.
If you tried, you'd get PPC601 66MHz performance (tops) on a P4 3GHz.
Actually I dont think that you could even get that. I beleive that Mac emulation is currently limited to 68k chips. However the AMD Hammer is 64 bit all around so emulating a PPC is... possible...
Would it be possible to put a cheap embedded PPC on the motherboard of an X86 Mac such that it handled code translation to the X86 part untill the majority of major apps were recompiled/rewritten for OSX86?
Intresting idea but I doubt it. Youd need to recode the OS methinks.
I'd hardly call the Itanium a 'good' chip
Good? No.
However AMDs Hammer is looking VERY promising...
I see this switch as a good thing, especially as Im planning on upgrading when the next generation of chips comes out. I may just have to wait for apples decision though...
<strong>Just wondering how many of you who were planning on buying a new mac in the near future are still going to after reading this statement by Jobs? After reading this myself, I am now re-evaluating my plans to buy a new ppc Powermac, even if Apple does come out with an ass-kicking G5 next month. Even more serious is the affect this may have on the plans of the average computer user out there who was considering upgrading or buying a new mac. I'm sure many of them who have some computer knowledge are going to be wondering the same thing. This stupid statement by Jobs is absolutely not going to do anything to increase ppc mac sales for Apple.
Nice move Steve. Now you have many of us wondering if our ppc macs are going to be made obsolete by intel macs in the near future.
And what about the developers out there who are working or planning to make new ppc apps for OS X. Are you wondering if your time and investment in your new apps will going to be flushed down the drain if Apple moves to Intel?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In the time frame it would take to have an Intel version of OS X out there, any current hardware, Intel or PowerPC, will be considered obsolete. The vague possibility of Apple switching to Intel chips some time in the unspecified future is no more of a reason to hold off buying a new Mac than is worrying that your computer will be obsoleted when 2.5 Terahertz artificially-intelligent quantum flux processors come out.
[MWNY 03, and no 2.5 THz AI-QFP Power Macs!? Apple is doomed!
As for software developers worrying about wasting effort on PowerPC code: Except for assembly language, often not used at all (and when used, typically sparingly in small performance-critical routines), most software would port just by recompiling for a different target processor. I'm not claiming it's snap-your-fingers easy, but for most software it won't be a huge effort. Linux users currently depend a great deal on using the same apps on different platforms, simply by recompiling open source code.
Apple could do what they did when switching to PowerPC too... let the OS run PowerPC code in an emulation mode. Or, if it's cheap enough, through in a PowerPC for backward compatibility. One way or another, Apple would never make the switch to Intel if they didn't have a way to support old software during a long transition period.
Also, if OS X/Intel ever happens, the switch isn't going to happen overnight. There'd still be a good sized OS X/PowerPC market to sell to for some time. Creating Intel versions of Mac software could be put off by software makers until the market share for those versions was worth the effort.
[quote]<strong>Seems to me that Steve Jobs should retract this statement whether or not its true. Its an irresponsible statement and bad for business.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said above, Intel or not, your computer will be considered obsolete anyway by time anything happens on this front. You could get a lot of good use out of a new Mac in the meantime, and that Mac won't simply shut down and stop working for you just because it's no longer the hottest new toy on the block.
Now, waiting a few weeks for a new Power Mac... that's a different story!
[ 07-18-2002: Message edited by: shetline ]</p>
At other forums, people have mentioned the possibility of a x86 system w/ a PPC PCI daughtercard to provide compatability, but again, Endian-ness becomes a problem.
It's certainly technically feasable to move to x86, but it would almost certainly require VM software to run old applications, or Apple could implement something like Windows on Windows to make it completely transparent to the user whether native code or PPC running in a VM was being used.
Apple missed their biggest opportunity to transition when they released OS X. OS X broke binary compatability anyway, so switching hardware platforms wouldn't have been that big of an issue.
<hr></blockquote>
If Apple did an x86 transition then, Classic wouldn't have been possible without some form of emulation - not only Power PC emulation, but 68k emulation; since parts of Mac OS 9 still run in 68k. IE: The existing 68k emulator would need to be rewritten, in addition to writing a form of Power PC emulation.
Without Classic, it's entirely possible that Mac OS X wouldn't have caught on.
[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: PipelineStall ]</p>
<strong>Except that AMD is probably hungry for more business!</strong><hr></blockquote>
As always you made a great post but I am going to pick on this bit a little. People hoping to see AMD work with Apple right now are probably kidding themselves. AMD is really intent on moving itself into the server market and its own technologies right now. They don't have the manpower to develop chips for Apple as well currently.
They would be far better focusing on restructuring their own business making it so they are actually turning a profit instead of attempting to endlessly expand. Endless attempts at expansion usually end up in a massive implosion and AMD is far better off looking towards consolidation right now.
They could work on fabrication although I am not sure they have the facilities once they finish ramping up other things. I don't know on that one.
Either way I would be comfortable placing my money on IBM long before AMD.
[ 07-18-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
<strong>
As always you made a great post
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks.
<strong> [quote]
but I am going to pick on this bit a little. People hoping to see AMD work with Apple right now are probably kidding themselves. AMD is really intent on moving itself into the server market and its own technologies right now. They don't have the manpower to develop chips for Apple as well currently.
They would be far better focusing on restructuring their own business making it so they are actually turning a profit instead of attempting to endlessly expand. Endless attempts at expansion usually end up in a massive implosion and AMD is far better off looking towards consolidation right now.
They could work on fabrication although I am not sure they have the facilities once they finish ramping up other things. I don't know on that one.
Either way I would be comfortable placing my money on IBM long before AMD.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree completely, actually. I've never been a believer in the idea that AMD would split its focus and jump into the PPC camp. People keep talking about it though and I don't pretend to know what is going on in the bowels of these companies.
Using AMD fab capacity to manufacture Moto or Apple PPC designs is destinct possiblity and it has been entertained in the past, at least according to rumour.
I've said it before... Moki has the closest thing to credibility in this circus of a forum, and his money seems to be on an IBM design for the next generation flagship desktop PowerPC. Sounds plausible to me, as does the suggested mid-to-late '03 timeframe.
<strong>It should be noted that apparently Steve Jobs was asked about alternative processors such as those by Intel. He was not asked if he would consider Intel specifically as an alternative. It could be AMD, IBM or just about anybody. It could also simply mean PowerPC chips made by someone other than Motorola.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. Could even be somebody like VIA. Don't they own the results of all that research money Apple spent on PPC developement some years ago?
This way developer have nothing to do (if this layer is completely transparent with no recompile) and in one day all the mac community have all the windows apps for free with the Aqua look and the simplicity of Mac OS X. I can't see adobe or macromedia be furious at that. But the problem here lies with all the direct calls to windows API like DirectX, etc. Apple need to do some reverse engineering. Is this difficult ?
The only one who would be very angry is MS (they can't stop office for windows...) Even the macintosh developer can be happy with that because now they can create apps for 100% of computers out there.
In the end things would be the same as now for Apple because Mac OS X is far more superior, easier and fun than windows. And with proprietary hardware we will have still the same cool factors and better engineering than Dell, Hp, etc. With iApps, and ProApps on top of that.
The second thing is... is it possible to create an altivec ship for Hammer or the PIV ?
The third thing is price... can't see Apple manage that well.
What do you think ?
2) I know some people who will install OS X instead of NT, but they don't want to buy Mac (to expensive and they have networks of PC). So, OS X running on Intel/AMD should be a COOL thing.
3) An OS X for Intel/AMD won't kill Mac IF they have better hardware (CPUs G5/Power 4/Power5, MB, GPU,..) at the right price. Even more, tehy can make the Mac the best platform for video/movie/music.
MNWY02 : <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Appleworm ]</p>
<strong>But not nearly as fast as code written and compiled for the x86 in the first place. It would put Apple right back in last place in terms of the speed race, and each processor upgrade would speed up the competition at least as much as it sped them up. No, this would be folly. It would also throw away the advantages that PPC does provide -- like lower power consumption & heat output, and AltiVec.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And that is why Apple releasing Mac OS X for x86 won't happen. Programmer, you rule.
Lets all be rational and look at the PowerPC Compliant options here.
As I said in another thread,
"As far as good news, I don't see any on the G4 front. It's fallen so far behind. Of course it has, it's aimed at the embedded market, not Apple. That shift to embedded is Apple's problem with the PowerPC.
However, Apple can use that "downward shift for more sales" to it's advantage. IBM makes the Power line, only uses them in big ass servers, and wants more sales. The Power5 in 2004 retargets the Power line downwards, but still way ahead of anything Intel/AMD. So, wait for an ass-kicking in 2004."
Barto
However when he says options for processors, my humble opinion is:
Intel: (not x86 but maybe Itanium) No Chance too much bad blood between them.
IBM: (Power 5) Good choice, my fave as they have the power to get where steve wants to be, which as someone already said, is the high end creatives. Consumers are a nice money maker but his eyes are on the prize.
Sun: (Sparc) Good chip, fast, good rep in creative market, i think it's very possible. Also works great in Multiprocessor forms.
AMD (Hammer or PPC producer) Hammer I think is unlikely but PPC production maybe, but i think they'd have so much catching up to do that Apple will still be way behind.
Motorola (G5) Apple might as well buy the chip division and let IBM use it for manufacturing, make a heap of cash out of the lease of the facilities and use the chip IBM builds Power4/5/whatever, call it a G5 and kick some wintel butt.
But hey, I'm just burned 'cos I fell down the stairs and my TiBook didn't survive!
[quote] <hr></blockquote>
[quote] <hr></blockquote>
<strong>
Intel: (not x86 but maybe Itanium) No Chance too much bad blood between them.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Make a OSX86 release for x86 to convince some IT engineers that OS X is >>> Linux >>>>>> winXP, winNT. Let them touch how good OS X is (stability security, GUI, network manager, tools...) !!!
When they have been conviced, they will buy Mac with a OSX.
[quote]<strong>
IBM: (Power 5) Good choice, my fave as they have the power to get where steve wants to be, which as someone already said, is the high end creatives. Consumers are a nice money maker but his eyes are on the prize.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
and POWER 4 for XServe
[quote]<strong>
Sun: (Sparc) Good chip, fast, good rep in creative market, i think it's very possible. Also works great in Multiprocessor forms.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
..."macintosh the best platform for Java"... why not but not as good as the POWERs
[quote]<strong>
AMD (Hammer or PPC producer) Hammer I think is unlikely but PPC production maybe, but i think they'd have so much catching up to do that Apple will still be way behind.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
AMD and Apple... see the story during next month
[quote]<strong>
Motorola (G5) Apple might as well buy the chip division and let IBM use it for manufacturing, make a heap of cash out of the lease of the facilities and use the chip IBM builds Power4/5/whatever, call it a G5 and kick some wintel butt.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why not ? But Moto need chips...
[quote] <hr></blockquote>
<strong>Good point one and all, Appleworm..can you elaborate more on the AMD/Apple thing?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Something is coming during August. Maybe it could be an hMac (hammerMac)...
If nothing come during the next 12 months from AMD/Apple this will be suprising because of the contacts they have. But, I don't know what the annoucement will be (hammer mac, G5 built by AMD,...). But this is an option and it doesn't prevent the power4/5 for servers/high-end macs, the G5 from Moto to wait for the Power4/5, hammer, or anything else inlcuding OSx86, nVidia...
MWNY02: <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />