Apple @ Comdex

lwellslwells
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Two tidbits from AMDZone (so they may not be that reliable?):



[quote]Apple & Hammer

Reported by: Rob Squires

At: 1:34 PM

Source: website



Well I was installing the latest version of Darwin this morning, and ran across the following links on Apple's open-source site. It looks like Apple is supplying some information to their developers for the x86-64 platform when it comes to compiling software.

<hr></blockquote>



More <a href="http://www.amdzone.com/#13"; target="_blank">here</a>.



[quote]Large Apple Presence At Comdex

Reported by: Chris Tom

At: 7:10 PM

Source: phone



Well our man Rob Squires is already down at Comdex ready for the Bill Gates keynote. Word at the show is that there is a lot of people from Apple at the show. Rumor has it that they may be present at Hector Ruiz's keynote on Tuesday. Will there be an AMD and Apple joint announcement? Stay tuned. I'll be flying into Vegas early Monday morning, and thanks to the 3G card from Verizon Wireless I'm testing I should be able to do regular updates from the show floor.<hr></blockquote>



More <a href="http://www.amdzone.com/#5"; target="_blank">here</a>.



Interesting, even if they prove to be way off base.



Regards,

Lucien.



[ 11-18-2002: Message edited by: lwells ]</p>
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 73
    henriokhenriok Posts: 537member
    Cool It would be nice to see Darwin on a 64-bit platform before 970.

    If we look to the facts: Apple is porting Darwin to x86-64. But if you ignore the rumors of an Apple/AMD-collaboration @ Comdex, the cool stuff stays there.



    [ 11-18-2002: Message edited by: Henriok ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 73
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    Er, isn't it true that most x86 chips "decode" x86 before actually working with it? How about the Hammer architecture being more efficient at using PPC code than x86 code (as the CPU input format, so to say).



    Oh well, I doubt the AMD/Apple scenario, but still it would be interesting to see PPC-Hammer.



    Otoh, wasn't AMD part of the HT consortium as well as Apple is?
  • Reply 3 of 73
    g::mastag::masta Posts: 121member
    Apple posted that version of Darwin a month ago. old news. means nothing other than trying to get faster development that they can insert into both versions.
  • Reply 4 of 73
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    We don't even know whether IA64 or X86-64 will prevail. Apple will not hitch itself to another 3 legged dog.
  • Reply 5 of 73
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    <a href="http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/1493581"; target="_blank">Boink</a>.
  • Reply 6 of 73
    henriokhenriok Posts: 537member
    In all fairness, we don't really know if PPC will prevail. It might be a good for Apple not to exclude any possibilities.. even if they include another three legged dog.
  • Reply 7 of 73
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Could be that airtooth-blueport card in the making there Belle. Could also mean that those techs end up on the Mobo, which I'd rather not see actually. A standardized PC-Card, mounted internally, connected to a built in 2.4-5Ghz antenna, would be even better for consumer options. Right now wifi is an alphabet soup and you can't really be sure what your campus/work-place will end up with. My University has just started to implement a wireless program and they're going with 802.11b and 11a, not g. You may end up with 11a at work and b on campus/home. Better to have an upgrade option as it looks to be a while before manufacturers settle down to one wifi standard.
  • Reply 8 of 73
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    I doubt that Apple would allow AMD to make the anouncement of a platform shift, they would make that anouncement at SF in January when Steve is the center of attention, or at an Apple event, again with Steve center stage.



    Another point to make, people are pro-X86 becouse Windows computers are less expensive than Macs, and more powerfull. However this switch wouldnt mean a less expensive Mac becouse X86 chips are more expensive than PPC currently do. Since Apple would need to keep the cost of their boxes the same, or cut the cost ( I think that market forces would demand that they lower the cost if they wanted to be successfull), with a move to X86 Apple would have to eat the cost difference by reducting their profit margin.



    Then there is the issue of "Classic Applications" which by all reports would not run on an X86 box. There are a few lingering Apps which are not carbon or cocoa. One of these is in a "Core" Apple market, Quark Xpress. This is still the de-facto DTP application, though InDesign is gaining. A move to X86 at this time would cut of computers in this market untill Quark is able to finally ship an OS X version. This could also initiate a large scale conversion of this "Core" customer to windows computers, which have a native version of Quark available today.



    And a last note, if Apple does make an announcement, it will probably be that of a future shift to an AMD chip, and not an immediate move. An immediate move would probably bring a multitude of investor law suits stating that Apple had "misslead investors", as well as bring about tension between Apple and developers. Apple would have to state their intentions well ahead of the move, like they did with the move to PPC chips.
  • Reply 9 of 73
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    perhaps it isn't a platform shift but simply an OS X for Athlons or something.



    I don't know... personally I don't think any of this is true but I guess an OS X version for X86 would be more likely than Apple temselves shifting to X86.
  • Reply 10 of 73
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>perhaps it isn't a platform shift but simply an OS X for Athlons or something.



    I don't know... personally I don't think any of this is true but I guess an OS X version for X86 would be more likely than Apple temselves shifting to X86.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's a spin that we haven't really considered (at least from what I've read). But what would that do for applications? Does the app rely on the processor or the OS?
  • Reply 11 of 73
    serranoserrano Posts: 1,806member
    I linked to this thread from the continuous future processor thread over at Ars <a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=3470943335&r= 8700924935#8700924935" target="_blank">here</a>.
  • Reply 12 of 73
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Bob Enderle will shoot a load if Apple and AMD announce a partnership of any kind tomorrow. Even if it isn't Apple leaving PPC, Bob will claim he predicted it. What a tard.
  • Reply 13 of 73
    @homenow@homenow Posts: 998member
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>perhaps it isn't a platform shift but simply an OS X for Athlons or something.



    I don't know... personally I don't think any of this is true but I guess an OS X version for X86 would be more likely than Apple temselves shifting to X86.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That would be equivalent to bringing back the clones, which according to Steve, almost killed Apple the last time. It would also be a death knell for the PPC platform, why buy more expensive and slower computers? Apple would be betting on OS X as a software company, and conceding the hardware. This is agenst all of Apples statements over the past few years, and would not be a good way to keep investors happy.
  • Reply 14 of 73
    imacman287imacman287 Posts: 80member
    How about this: what if there were two decoders on chip, a PPC and a x86-64? They could add dual decoders to smooth the transition to x86-64 if that is what they wanted to do, or use it for a windows compatibility mode. There are many things that a processor that is compatible with two instruction sets could to. Also, if anyone has ever noticed, AMD is has never been mentioned at an expo for speed comparisons, and they have been comparing PPC processors to x86 processors for years... they could have been working with AMD all that time.



    [ 11-18-2002: Message edited by: imacman287 ]</p>
  • Reply 15 of 73
    ensign pulverensign pulver Posts: 1,193member
    [quote]Originally posted by imacman287:

    <strong>How about this: what if there were two decoders on chip, a PPC and a x86-64? They could add dual decoders to smooth the transition to x86-64 if that is what they wanted to do, or use it for a windows compatibility mode. There are many things that a processor that is compatible with two instruction sets could to. Also, if anyone has ever noticed, AMD is has never been mentioned at an expo for speed comparisons, and they have been comparing PPC processors to x86 processors for years... they could have been working with AMD all that time.



    [ 11-18-2002: Message edited by: imacman287 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The whole dual chip/dual boot/Windows compatibility layer concept is fundamentally flawed.



    Native support for Windows would kill the Mac platform in 90 days. Why develop Mac software for a machine that runs existing Windows apps just fine?



    If you need to run a specific application for which there is absolutely no Mac equivalent, then run it in VirtualPC. If VirtualPC runs it too slowly, then your needs are not met by the Mac platform, and Apple loses your business. If this is the price we pay for the best OS and industrial design on the planet, then so be it.



    [ 11-18-2002: Message edited by: Ensign Pulver ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 73
    bostonmjhbostonmjh Posts: 56member
    I am not saying that this will happen, but would explain the new design with the large heatsink and all those vent holes
  • Reply 17 of 73
    erbiumerbium Posts: 354member
    Uhmm...



    Has anyone here realised that this big news might not be about Apple, but about Dell instead?



    Apple would likely announce something of this magnitude by themselves. Dell on the other hand... well who cares.



    I'm betting it's Dell.



    Read this. Fifth paragraph from the bottom.

    <a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t693-s2125921,00.html"; target="_blank">ZDNet news page</a>



    [ 11-19-2002: Message edited by: erbium ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 73
    costiquecostique Posts: 1,084member
    [quote]Originally posted by imacman287:

    <strong>How about this: what if there were two decoders on chip, a PPC and a x86-64?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    A decoder is not enough. You need a code compiled for the specific CPU architecture, otherwise it's nothing more than an inefficient emulator. All in all, the difference between x86 and PPC is so huge (including the number of registers) that it would make the latest AMD perform like 68040. Impractical and hardly possible.



    What if AMD has agreed to manufacture G5 (or whatever Apple pulled from Moto) at their factory? That might prove impressive. I know little about CPU manufacturing process, but once a CPU is designed, it should not take years to tune the equipment which is already capable of making other CPUs. What do you think about it?
  • Reply 19 of 73
    erbiumerbium Posts: 354member
    Consider this.



    Why in the world would AMD's BIG announcement be for a company that hold only 5% of the computer marketshare. :confused:



    I think the Comdex crowd is looking for something a little closer to the PC world.



    [ 11-19-2002: Message edited by: erbium ]</p>
  • Reply 20 of 73
    costiquecostique Posts: 1,084member
    [quote]Originally posted by erbium:

    <strong>Consider this.



    Why in the world would AMD's BIG announcement be for a company that hold only 5% of the computer marketshare. :confused:



    I think the Comdex crowd is looking for something a little closer to the PC world.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yes, and all that Apple is there for is, at best, a 3-minute announcement about a new Airport chip made at AMD or Intel. We should not hold our breath.
Sign In or Register to comment.