Interesting words from the businesswire article: "We can continue to do business the old way, or we can choose a new direction to move the technology industry as a whole forward. I urge you to demand that those companies who are currently serving you today begin developing technology not for its own sake. Not in isolation from the real world. But in line with what you are really trying to do."
Is it aimed at Apple or at convincing PC companies t o use the Athlon 64?
<strong>Interesting words from the businesswire article: "We can continue to do business the old way, or we can choose a new direction to move the technology industry as a whole forward. I urge you to demand that those companies who are currently serving you today begin developing technology not for its own sake. Not in isolation from the real world. But in line with what you are really trying to do."
Is it aimed at Apple or at convincing PC companies t o use the Athlon 64?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, you guys amaze me. Ruiz gives the lamest keynote in history filled with marketing non-speak like the above, doesn't even mention the Mac in any conceivable context and you still want to believe it's all some secret plan with Apple. Give it up. Now.
<strong>....Pardon me while I go kill myself....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why? The PPC 970 is coming our way next year. It'll be a big improvement over what we've got now. ANd personally, I'd rather have a PPC 970 mac than an AMD based mac. And more so when the dual core PPC 970's are available...
Agreed. The statement above from Ruiz is just Techno-BS.
Let's keep our focus on IBM's Power4. It's the most logical CPU to use in future Mac hardware.
A move to X86 would require software developers to make modifications to their software. I doubt many would bother after they had already made changes just to move to OSX. You would also have to toss out Classic compatibility.
Ensign: I agree. Apple is a good company, but could be a great company. It just simply refuses to pursue that path. Apple will just keep shooting itself in the foot until its $4 billion is frittered away to nothing about 137.2 years from now. However, once SJ dies and stops getting those insane bonuses, the cash burn rate will slow significantly....
Wow, you guys amaze me. Ruiz gives the lamest keynote in history filled with marketing non-speak like the above, doesn't even mention the Mac in any conceivable context and you still want to believe it's all some secret plan with Apple. Give it up. Now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's see.
NeXT ran on X86.
Darwin runs on X86
It would be stupid for Apple not to explore running Mac OS X on x86.
My opinion? Should Apple switch over to X86 or Athlon 64? NO! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I will qualify it by saying, it is a good thing to keep your options open.
Comment:I don't think this is a very big surprise. I f Apple were to do such an extreme shift, it would probably be anounced at Macworld.
Question: I know people have asked this before but I'm still inclined to ask. to my unserstanding he new x86 chips like the P4 and Athlon are in essence RISC CPUs running CISC x86 instructions. Now I know RISC does not equal PPC, PPC is an instruction set that runs on RISC based CPUs. My question therefore is if it has RISC components,could it modified into a PPC much in the same that these chips process x86 code. I know that transmetta has a technology like this, but I have never heard AMD or Intel describe a similar technology. Even if AMD or Intel were totally disinterested in Making a PPC CPU, is there any way that Apple themselves could do this modification (I think its unlikely but I figured I may as well ask).
I know that the general consensus in the Mac community is that the PPc 970 is going to be the nextgen cpu for Apple, and I have to agree that this is most likely what is going to happen. However I think that many people in this forum are quick to dismiss any alternative CPU choice becides a 970. This is a rumor forum that should speculate/discuss future possibilities, not just the most likely/obvious ones. I think Apple has a decent track record of being able to surprise us, so we should not be so quick to dismiss the next big surprise.
It would be stupid for Apple not to explore running Mac OS X on x86.
My opinion? Should Apple switch over to X86 or Athlon 64? NO! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I will qualify it by saying, it is a good thing to keep your options open.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How well did NeXT run on x86 or was that what processor it was designed for?
Creating PowerPC decoders as replacements for the x86 ones should be possible. However, there are major problems: the PowerPC ISA may not be a good fit to the underlying RISC acrhitecture, the core's register resources may reflect x86's eight General Purpose Registers rather than PowerPC's 32, etc...
Comments
O, if not for the great PR machines of the world, what would we ramble on about in Future Hardware?
<a href="http://www.amdzone.com/#2"; target="_blank">http://www.amdzone.com/#2</a>;
Could the "new licensee" of the rumors be Gibson? :eek: (Second topic in the list)
[ 11-19-2002: Message edited by: alikat ]</p>
Is it aimed at Apple or at convincing PC companies t o use the Athlon 64?
Nothing happened. Nothing will happen. At least not at Comdex.
<strong>Interesting words from the businesswire article: "We can continue to do business the old way, or we can choose a new direction to move the technology industry as a whole forward. I urge you to demand that those companies who are currently serving you today begin developing technology not for its own sake. Not in isolation from the real world. But in line with what you are really trying to do."
Is it aimed at Apple or at convincing PC companies t o use the Athlon 64?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, you guys amaze me. Ruiz gives the lamest keynote in history filled with marketing non-speak like the above, doesn't even mention the Mac in any conceivable context and you still want to believe it's all some secret plan with Apple. Give it up. Now.
<strong>....Pardon me while I go kill myself....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why? The PPC 970 is coming our way next year. It'll be a big improvement over what we've got now. ANd personally, I'd rather have a PPC 970 mac than an AMD based mac. And more so when the dual core PPC 970's are available...
[ 11-19-2002: Message edited by: sc_markt ]</p>
Let's keep our focus on IBM's Power4. It's the most logical CPU to use in future Mac hardware.
A move to X86 would require software developers to make modifications to their software. I doubt many would bother after they had already made changes just to move to OSX. You would also have to toss out Classic compatibility.
<strong>
Wow, you guys amaze me. Ruiz gives the lamest keynote in history filled with marketing non-speak like the above, doesn't even mention the Mac in any conceivable context and you still want to believe it's all some secret plan with Apple. Give it up. Now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's see.
NeXT ran on X86.
Darwin runs on X86
It would be stupid for Apple not to explore running Mac OS X on x86.
My opinion? Should Apple switch over to X86 or Athlon 64? NO! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I will qualify it by saying, it is a good thing to keep your options open.
<strong>Amd have the rights to produce the G5</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really, what's a G5?
Amd has the rights to produce PPC chips
Question: I know people have asked this before but I'm still inclined to ask. to my unserstanding he new x86 chips like the P4 and Athlon are in essence RISC CPUs running CISC x86 instructions. Now I know RISC does not equal PPC, PPC is an instruction set that runs on RISC based CPUs. My question therefore is if it has RISC components,could it modified into a PPC much in the same that these chips process x86 code. I know that transmetta has a technology like this, but I have never heard AMD or Intel describe a similar technology. Even if AMD or Intel were totally disinterested in Making a PPC CPU, is there any way that Apple themselves could do this modification (I think its unlikely but I figured I may as well ask).
I know that the general consensus in the Mac community is that the PPc 970 is going to be the nextgen cpu for Apple, and I have to agree that this is most likely what is going to happen. However I think that many people in this forum are quick to dismiss any alternative CPU choice becides a 970. This is a rumor forum that should speculate/discuss future possibilities, not just the most likely/obvious ones. I think Apple has a decent track record of being able to surprise us, so we should not be so quick to dismiss the next big surprise.
<strong>
Let's see.
NeXT ran on X86.
Darwin runs on X86
It would be stupid for Apple not to explore running Mac OS X on x86.
My opinion? Should Apple switch over to X86 or Athlon 64? NO! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I will qualify it by saying, it is a good thing to keep your options open.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How well did NeXT run on x86 or was that what processor it was designed for?
And there's always the problem of Altivec.