The "industry standard" is not just an x86 box, it is an x86 box running Windows OS. Apple cannot compete within this "standard." The word 'standard' is misused here, mostly by the Wintel crowd. It is a platform and there are standards for this platform. Apple has a different platform with different standards.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The PC processor market has one industry standard. This standard is not Intel, as the name "Wintel" may suggest, but the x86 processor.
You suggest that the word "standard" is misused because Apple uses a *different* processor. This is irrelevant. Apple, contrary to popular belief, makes PCs. The industry standard processor for PCs is once again, x86. Apple has decided not to use the industry standard for it's processor. This in no way implies that Apple has *different standards*. It implies that Apple has decided to create perceived value through differenciation in technology. However, Apple's plan has backfired. The only way to rectify the situation is to adopt the industry standard--in this case, the x86 platform.
The industry standard processor for PCs is once again, x86. Apple has decided not to use the industry standard for it's processor...
The only way to rectify the situation is to adopt the industry standard--in this case, the x86 platform.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Utter nonsense. There is no such thing as 'standard processor architecture'. Some of them are suitable for one sort of tasks, others do better in different applications. You cannot say that sedan is a standard and hatchback is not, though you can drive both.
PowerPC is really much better than x86 in some areas. It's your choice to stick to the architecture which best suits your needs.
Currently x86 is so popular only thanks to Microsoft. Had Gates chosen to use 68k at some point, Intel would now have been a marginal company making 'strange non-standard CPUs'. Microsoft made Intel and not the other way round.
The PC processor market has one industry standard. This standard is not Intel, as the name "Wintel" may suggest, but the x86 processor.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes and no.
Darwin/x86 only runs on Intel processors, not AMDs. And more tellingly, it came out in the last round of the antitrust trial that Ruiz had basically agreed to testify on behalf of Microsoft in exchange for Gates allowing Windows to run on the new Athlons. Similarly, Gates threatened to make Windows fail to run on Intel processors if Intel didn't terminate their PC software division with extreme prejudice.
Different processors are different processors, even if the ISAs are compatible. And it's become clear that MS has an absolute say in which x86-compatible processors get to play in the big pool.
If Apple migrated to an AMD-based processor, MS would have Apple and AMD both by the short hairs. It's no accident that every other commercial OS to try running on this so-called "standard" has failed. MS makes sure that it happens.
That's the largest long-term advantage to PPC: IBM fairly despises Microsoft, and Motorola has little or nothing to do with them, so Apple's platform has a degree of independence from MS control under this arrangement.
As for IBM's alleged inability to compete with Intel: IBM's POWER engineers would be greatly amused to hear that. The PPC already has a number of advantages over Intel's offerings, although power-no-object, single-core performance is not currently one of them. But small, clean designs can be designed, fabbed and updated by smaller teams for less money. The future is multiprocessing - eventually, massive multiprocessing - and PPC is much better suited for that role than x86 is. Only a behemoth like Intel could keep chips as convoluted as the Pentium and the Itanic going, but that also means that they have to fling much more money and many more personnel at those processors to keep them going. That's a weakness that can be exploited, along with the per-CPU cost and heat dissipation problems.
Apple will use AMD products in their hardware, but not their CPUs.
Utter nonsense. There is no such thing as 'standard processor architecture'.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I said industry standard. I did not say "standard processor architechture." I agree with you that there is a difference, but I didn't say there wasn't.
[quote]<strong>
Some of them are suitable for one sort of tasks, others do better in different applications. You cannot say that sedan is a standard and hatchback is not, though you can drive both.
PowerPC is really much better than x86 in some areas. It's your choice to stick to the architecture which best suits your needs.
Currently x86 is so popular only thanks to Microsoft. Had Gates chosen to use 68k at some point, Intel would now have been a marginal company making 'strange non-standard CPUs'. Microsoft made Intel and not the other way round.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't matter how we have arrived at the industry standard--all that matters is that we're here. If Apple hadn't pushed the processor wars so much, nobody would care what's under the hood of a Macintosh PC, and your argument might hold water.
And more tellingly, it came out in the last round of the antitrust trial that Ruiz had basically agreed to testify on behalf of Microsoft in exchange for Gates allowing Windows to run on the new Athlons. Similarly, Gates threatened to make Windows fail to run on Intel processors if Intel didn't terminate their PC software division with extreme prejudice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is interesting. Do you have any links to that info? I'd like to read some of that myself.
Are you suggesting that AMD processors can run Windows because Bill Gates says they can? I didn't realize Bill had magical powers--indeed I thought it was the engineers at AMD who created this phenomenon.
At any rate, you're still not proving why x86 isn't an industry standard.
[quote]<strong>
Different processors are different processors, even if the ISAs are compatible. And it's become clear that MS has an absolute say in which x86-compatible processors get to play in the big pool.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your own comments only suggest that Bill Gates has control over Windows.
[quote]<strong>
If Apple migrated to an AMD-based processor, MS would have Apple and AMD both by the short hairs. It's no accident that every other commercial OS to try running on this so-called "standard" has failed. MS makes sure that it happens.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
BeOS ran on x86. Are you suggesting they went under because of Microsoft? That's what Jean Louis Gassee would like to think. Maybe it's because it didn't have enough market to develop for. Linux runs on x86.
I also fail to see why MS would have Apple or AMD by the "short hairs". Could you elaborate on this a bit more?
[quote]<strong>
That's the largest long-term advantage to PPC: IBM fairly despises Microsoft, and Motorola has little or nothing to do with them, so Apple's platform has a degree of independence from MS control under this arrangement.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm still failing to see the "MS control" you're talking about. As far as suggesting that IBMs distaste for Microsoft is some sort of strategic advantage--you seem to imply that a business succeeds relative to its degree of disposition with the competition. If only that were true, we'd all be billionaires for hating Microsoft!
As for IBM's alleged inability to compete with Intel: IBM's POWER engineers would be greatly amused to hear that. The PPC already has a number of advantages over Intel's offerings </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure the folks over at Sony had a few chuckles when VHS was released as well.
As far as these "advantages" that PPC has over x86... when do we get to see them? If IBM only supplies them to Apple and a few other refugees, how are they going to compete financially with Intel's R&D department?
[quote]<strong>
Apple will use AMD products in their hardware, but not their CPUs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have no evidence to support this claim.
Futhermore, as much as I appreciate your post, it doesn't really make a case against x86 being the industry standard processor.
Uh... with all due respect, sir, cover-up, or not, Ruiz is an officer of a company listed on a regulated stock exchange. Maybe you think people are all liars and that's just how business is done, but there are rules which if an officer of a listed company breaks, can land him in jail.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, Ruiz is an officer of a company listed on a regulated stock exchange? Is that like a CEO or something? He must cover his ass a lot.
[quote]<strong>
What I expect you to believe, sir, is that Ruiz has no indication whatsoever that Apple is even interested in AMD's products.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, if you expect me to believe that, then perhaps I should also believe that O.J. Simpson is innocent.
Uh... how about a spoken statement from the other, equally accountable party? All of a sudden Apple's word is good to you, but AMD's is not?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
A written statement from an officer of Apple on Apple letterhead and signed with a date would be great, thanks.
[quote]<strong>
In legal terms, there is no difference between what is said and what is written, except that the written, signed document is easier to defend in court. Ruiz obviously has no intention of denying what he said clearly, in a published interview.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? Did you learn this by watching Judge Judy or The People's Court?
Ruiz has nothing to deny, because he hasn't really said anything, has he?
[quote]<strong>
May I ask how old you are and how familiar you are with corporate law and not just your media-fuelled opinion of corporate habits?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, if you have to resort to argumentum ad hominem, then perhaps your argument doesn't really hold water. I certainly don't see what my age has to do with anything.
Power Firmware(tm) Boot Firmware with CHRP Support
The Common Hardware Reference Platform (CHRP) Specification describes a family of machines based on the PowerPC(tm) processor that are capable of booting multiple operating systems including Mac OS, Windows NT, AIX® and Solaris(tm). The CHRP Specification requires the use of Open Firmware. Power Firmware(tm) boot firmware source code with CHRP support is available for product development now!
The CHRP specification and the CHRP Binding to Open Firmware are readily available.
At this moment in time, CHRP-compliant reference platforms and systems are being created. FirmWorks is enabling the creation of these first generation machines by adding CHRP enhancements to Power Firmware(tm). One such reference design is the IBM Long Trail. The enhancement of Power Firmware to provide complete support for CHRP is well underway and full support will be available coincidentally with CHRP-compatible operating system availability as shown below: <hr></blockquote>
Also
[quote] The CHRP (Common Hardware Reference Platform) and the PPCP (Power PC Platform) are the basis for the new Computers coming out from numerous vendors. These computers will be able to run multiple OS's nativily. The OS that are currently going to be available for CHRP will be Mac OS, Window NT, Solaris, OS/2, and AIX. The computers will support both Mac and IBM compatible peripheral devices. <hr></blockquote>
and:
[quote]
he New POP Culture
Thursday, May 25, 2000
by Colin Cordner
A few months ago, IBM made a momentous shift in its PowerPC strategy with the announcement that it would freely share its "PowerPC-Open-Platform" (POP) reference design with any and all interested parties. This shift in policy is one in a long line of measures in IBM's concerted attempts to upset a status-quo that has seen it relegated to the position of "Just-Another-Computer-OEM", in a industry they largely helped found, by companies they unwittingly helped build to their current positions at the top of the foodchain (Microsoft and Intel). IBM's two more interesting paths to this end- adopting and supporting Linux, and the PowerPC microprocessor - represent "Big Blue's" big sticks (or maybe stakes) aimed at upsetting the positions of Microsoft and Intel, respectively. With POP, those two strategies have converged.
The PowerPC microprocessor - developed in conjunction with Apple Computers Inc., and Motorola Semiconductors, and based heavily on IBM's homegrown "Power" RISC architecture - has for years been marketed by the Apple-IBM-Motorola (AIM) alliance as being a superior competitor to the x86 family of processors which has come to dominate the microcomputing platform...
...The last cohesive attempt at marketing a standard PowerPC platform- CHRP (Common Hardware Reference Platform) - died a messy death as all three members failed or backed out of their obligations. Even as I write this, Apple stands as the sole major vendor of PowerPC personal computers, IBM's own PowerPC-based RS/6000 line of servers occupies a niche at the high-end of the market, and the remainder of PowerPC sales are made up of sales to the market for embedded chips and the makers of PowerPC upgrade cards. ...
<hr></blockquote>
I may not have everything right, but I know that CHRP is not firmware, it is a hardware reference platform, which was a joint venture motherboard design within the AIM aliance. I believe that IBM was doing the actual design, and Apple was setting some of the specs that they would support. that platform. Around the time that Apple killed off the clones, they droped the support for the CHRP motherboards from their roadmap. The Idea for the CHRP was to build a viable alternative to the intel platform. To this end Windows NT and OS/2 were proted, though I do not know if they were ever fully working, commercial releases, and Amiga was working on a port of their OS as well to the CHRP platform. At the time, the only commercially viable OS that was available for the Power PC WAS the Mac OS, and when they droped it, IBM lost their largest established customer for the CHRP platform.
The UMA motherboard is an Apple design, not an IBM CHRP motherboard.
P.S. If you are going to flame someone do enough research to know what you are talking about. I admit that I make mistakes, but as you can see from the quotes, and links above CHRP is a PowerPC platform, and not firmware.
<strong>This has been discussed before, but it bears repeating. Killing the clones did not limit the market for the PowerPC because they sold to the same customers as Apple. They cut the pie into smaller slices rather than increasing the size of the pie.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually I was working for a company that was granted a license to sell the Mac OS by Motorola. After the contract was signed an investigation took place and it was "determined" that the guidelines weren't being followed properly.
I have been reinvestigating Apple's licensing scenerio as Apple seems to be in the same spot they were in 1996-97. The general concensus is that Apple pulled the plug because the clones weren't helping to expand the Mac market, in fact, Power Computing was kicking Apple's ass. The fact is, there wasn't enough time to determine if the clones would in fact expand Apple's market. Steve pulled the plug primarily because his "vision" is an expensive one. Steve Jobs has always been a man of style over substance--his pursuit for perfection killed NeXT, after all.
If given enough time, would the Apple clones have increased market share? Why did Steve really pull the plug? Was Apple's unstable OS ready for prime-time? What sort of situation is Apple in right now that reminds us of the past?
Why do you believe that IBM cannot compete with Intel on processors, because of the resources that Intel have available, and that x86 is an effective standard, whereas Apple can compete with Microsoft?
Intel has a much lesser market share of the processor market than Microsoft has of the OS market, Intel's market cap. is slightly less than that of IBM, whereas Microsoft's is nearly 60 times Apple's. If you cannot fight a standard on the hardware front, how can you on the software front. (Even more so if you consider that Microsoft are known to have abused their monopoly before.)
Only one possible conclusion, might as well give up now.
Macluv you seem to be making a supreme effort to show faith in Intel to continue the progress they have made in the last few years. I have tried to explain in technical terms that they are starting to show cracks in their ability to continue to be a leader. Yes they have a strong market now but it's theirs to lose and if it's true what you say that people don't care what processor is in the box then Intel could lose their big market pretty easily. How can x86 be a standard if people don't care about which CPU is there. Is it perceived performance then?
Intel have pushed clock speed hard and the result has been extreme heat disapation, record die sizes and higher prices. In fact they have pushed so hard that switching to the next smaller chip process is likely to be less of a show stopper than it normally would be. In other words the difference between standing up at a keynote and saying "We are proud to announce that the new chip process will bring the Pentium 4 to 3.4Ghz at 60Watts" (still damn hot) instead of being able to say "We are proud to announce that the new chip process will finally enable us to introduce today the new dual core Pentium 4 2.2Ghz chip at 40 Watt power draw" What if they slow down and someone passes them for an extended period of time? It could easily happen.
The portable arguement I made in another thread is an important issue as well. Going to x86 would kill Apple's portable line.
Now on the other hand IBM according to you couldn't possibly make their processors more attractive to computer users. IBM is leading Intel in servers and now that some of that server tech is ready for the desktop market, they have a real chance of making a strong showing and even surpassing x86. While intel has been hitting the clock speed, IBM has been making advances in internals such as copper interconnects and SOI that make chips more efficient and more able to accept higher speeds when they are possible (without burning a hole in the floor or your unmentionables). It may make for slower progress (in peoples perception) but you can use the same chip in that laptop that you use in the desktop. Want to edit that movie on your laptop? Go ahead it can handle it.
Another issue is that RAM technology is starting to show speed limits that will take time to break through. People are starting to talk about latency issues. Intel got a big boost over Apple by plunging into DDR but that party is starting to look like it may be over. A shift to multiple cores, MP and other things may become more important while RAM tech improves more slowly.
You cannot separate business and technical issues. Your right introducing a CD with OSX for Intel bundled with a port of something like Wine or Lindows and all the iApps and maybe a new Appleworks would be a pretty easy and profitable business decision for Apple to make in the short term but then the technical problems would set in. If the release was for PC's in general I can guarantee you that it would be a support nightmare beyond anything Apple customers have ever seen. The PC platform is a mess of third party hardware and causes huge technical problems from machine to machine.
I still say proprietary Apple x86 hardware would not have a lower price than the current ones but not because Jobs is greedy but because of sales volume. I am convinced there would also be technical and developer problems with those machines as well.
I am convinced that the IBM 970 is not a turkey and will be exactly what Apple needs for next year and in the future. We'll just have to wait ad see who's right.
[quote]<strong>This link explains that GNU Darwin can now be used on AMD machines. Where there's a will there's a way I guess.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That does not disprove my point: That it is the software vendors, not the hardware vendors, who provide platform compatibility, even when the ISA is the same.
If, as you assert, it was AMD who made their processors compatible with OS' that ran on Intel, then GNU/Darwin would always have run on AMD processors and Ruiz could have laughed at Gates.
[quote]<strong>This is interesting. Do you have any links to that info? I'd like to read some of that myself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Links are a bit hard to come by, because online newspapers tend to charge for their archives.
Wired might be a good place to start looking, since they covered the trial well. And, of course, Google and/or Watson and/or Sherlock could probably turn some results up in a hurry.
I don't have the time to do the spelunking myself, but I've followed the trial closely for all the years it's gone on. I'll post links as I find them.
[quote]<strong>Are you suggesting that AMD processors can run Windows because Bill Gates says they can? I didn't realize Bill had magical powers--indeed I thought it was the engineers at AMD who created this phenomenon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your own first link proves you wrong. Did the original Darwin developers prevent GNU/Darwin from running on AMD processors with magic? Or is it necessary - and altogether possible - that it's the software that ultimately decides what it'll run on and what it won't? Gates controls the software, therefor the platform. If he wanted to, he could have Windows running on Intel processors and PPCs, but not AMD processors. NT was ported to PPC a few years ago, after all. And Alpha.
The OS is the gatekeeper.
[quote]<strong>At any rate, you're still not proving why x86 isn't an industry standard.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To the extent that it is, it's entirely because Windows is an industry "standard" that has sofar chosen to run on all processors compatible with the x86 ISA. There's nothing inevitable about this: Gates could drop any particular vendor or line of x86 processors at any time. It just hasn't been in his interest to do that yet.
[quote]<strong>Your own comments only suggest that Bill Gates has control over Windows.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Think about what that means, though: How is all the R&D you're talking about paid for? By sales of machines running Windows. Take away Windows, and what sustains the processor line? Linux? Apple?
[quote]<strong>BeOS ran on x86. Are you suggesting they went under because of Microsoft? That's what Jean Louis Gassee would like to think. Maybe it's because it didn't have enough market to develop for. Linux runs on x86.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There was that little detail about MS OEM licensing. First, MS charged OEMs for a copy of Windows for every CPU shipped, no matter which OS the CPU shipped with, so that the OEMs had no incentive to ship anything else (including the license-free Linux and BSD operating systems). When the antitrust trial brought that to light, MS switched to simply leaning heavily on the OEMs not to ship anything else. Intel does the same thing - use our stuff or get cut off. Monopolies can be nasty that way.
Of course, the fact that Jean Louis Gasbag was running Be didn't help. Nor did it help that BeOS was in perpetual beta. But even ignoring those problems, they never had a chance.
As for Linux, it's a hobbyist OS, so it can sustain itself as an aftermarket, noncommercial venture. That's one reason why MS is afraid of it - the vendor pressure that MS has traditionally used to lock competitors off of its platform doesn't work. But, of course, the biggest Linux advocate now is IBM, and they're making sure that Linux runs on nearly everything they make. Including the PPC. Further, there is no analogy between Linux and OS X. OS X has gobs of proprietary code, and a single vendor behind it, so it's vulnerable in the same ways that Be and OS/2 and company were. Linux could survive if IBM and Sun lost interest and Red Hat and O'Reilly went under, the same way that BSD has continued on.
[quote]<strong>I also fail to see why MS would have Apple or AMD by the "short hairs". Could you elaborate on this a bit more?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Simple: MS already has AMD by the short hairs, because if MS decides that Windows won't run on the Athlon 64 or the Opteron, AMD is dead (look at their financials). Now, let's say Gates is not happy with Apple and AMD working together. So he waits until they've spent lots of money, and Apple has (with any luck) gotten its body of developers and its mass of legacy migrating over to the new platform. Then Gates calls Ruiz, and says that Ruiz can choose between running Windows on his CPUs, or running Mac OS X. If you were Ruiz, what would you do? Keep in mind that he's had already agreed to embarrass himself in court so that Windows would run on the Athlon. And thus, to the extent that Apple has put their eggs in AMD's basket, they're also at MS' mercy.
[quote]<strong>As far as suggesting that IBMs distaste for Microsoft is some sort of strategic advantage--you seem to imply that a business succeeds relative to its degree of disposition with the competition.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, no.
I'm stating outright that since IBM and Moto are fairly independent of Microsoft, and since Windows doesn't run on the PPC, MS can't exert anywhere near the same level of control over them that they exert over AMD and Intel. This is a political advantage in favor of the PPC. It is a truth in business that if you despise and distrust another business, you probably hold them at arm's length to the greatest extent possible, for better or for worse. So it's an incentive for IBM to remain largely independent.
[quote]<strong>As far as these "advantages" that PPC has over x86... when do we get to see them? If IBM only supplies them to Apple and a few other refugees, how are they going to compete financially with Intel's R&D department?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You already can see the advantages. If Apple moves to x86, the iBook and the TiBook vanish, the iMac LCD vanishes, the eMac vanishes, and the Xserve vanishes. In their place are products that are not significantly smaller, lighter, quieter or better performing than what Dell would offer for less money - and they'd run a nonstandard platform to boot. PPCs tend to have better performance per watt, and much lower energy consumption, which gives Apple's designers much more leeway than PC designers have, and which also is a make-or-break feature for clustering. The PPC also has the best vector unit available, by a margin. Where it - and therefor, the PPC - is currently lacking is in brute, single-core performance and memory-to-CPU bandwidth. But neither of these disadvantages are intrinsic to the PPC architecture. Neither would require all that much work to address, either. If Moto were not busy scrambling to solve problems that have nothing to do with the PowerPC, both would probably have been addressed by now. Mot SPS's chip design skills have been best-of-breed since the original 68K at the latest. Their problems lie elsewhere.
As for IBM: Do you have any idea how enormous IBM is? They can and do throw mind-boggling amounts of money and talent at extremely high technology for their chip design and fab divisions. Their #1 customer is IBM itself, and the fact that their offerings are popular with Apple and with the consoles simply makes the market even larger, and lowers the per unit cost for IBM. PPCs are already significantly cheaper than x86 processors, differences in volume notwithstanding.
[quote]<strong>Futhermore, as much as I appreciate your post, it doesn't really make a case against x86 being the industry standard processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
x86 isn't the industry standard processor. It's a common ISA. And that's entirely because of Windows. The fact that it's on more desktops than any other CPU doesn't mean that it's an common platform, because it has a big, aggressive gatekeeper whose product runs on nearly every single one of those desktops. The fact that it's not a common platform - a standard in the sense that the PPC is, say, or ARM - moots the fact of its ubiquity.
Further, Apple has a tremendous amount of say in the PPC. Apple convened the alliance that led to the PPC in the first place, they worked closely with Moto on the G3 (which was designed to get around the bottleneck caused by the slow busses Apple was using in their machines by using aggressive caching), and the lead architect for AltiVec was an Apple employee. This is important because, as your argument requires, the capabilities of the CPU go a long way to determining the capabilities of any platform it runs: No AltiVec, no Final Cut Pro. Under the current arrangement, Apple can plan long-term hardware and software strategies around things like AltiVec. Even if MS decided to let Apple do whatever they liked with Intel and AMD, they would become a very small customer that would be hard pressed to make any demands of their suppliers, so they'd have to look at what Intel and AMD were doing for their biggest customer - Microsoft - and adapt accordingly. Then it would be Apple's R&D against Microsoft's, with Microsoft calling the shots. And if IBM can't compete with Intel's R&D, what makes you think Apple has a chance? If you think Apple has a chance, why doesn't AIM have a shot at besting Intel? They've done it before.
One more thing along those lines: IBM and Moto are both designing processors to be easily customized for customers (The Gecko PPC is one such example). This is another powerful capability that Apple could make use of that neither Intel nor AMD can answer - certainly not for as small a customer as Apple would be.
The HyperThreaded version of the Pentium IV will consume over 100 watts. The 970 will consume 19 watts on release, and then promptly migrate to a .1 micron process, allowing it to consume about 30% less than that. Even if the 970 has 80% of the PIV's performance, Apple will be able to offer it in notebooks, and in quadruple-processor workstations that are no larger or hotter than single-processor PIV workstations. It's a sweet CPU: versatile, scalable and powerful.
Exactly. Would he say "Yes, Apple is looking at our processors and should ahve them out next year. We love our new partnership with Apple and look forward to many years of OS X on x86."
Yea, so since he didn't say that, the rumor is dead. Come on people, don't you know Steve and Co. by now? No one is going to say anything about anything without it coming from Steve's lips.
(not that I believe the rumor, but this hardly cornfirms the contrary)
This is the start of a massively quoted text, please bear with me.
[quote]
Amorph
Darwin/x86 only runs on Intel processors, not AMDs. And more tellingly, it came out in the last round of the antitrust trial that Ruiz had basically agreed to testify on behalf of Microsoft in exchange for Gates allowing Windows to run on the new Athlons. Similarly, Gates threatened to make Windows fail to run on Intel processors if Intel didn't terminate their PC software division with extreme prejudice.
<hr></blockquote>
Of course it is possible for any manufacturer of anything to design a specific piece of software only to run on certain hardware, it probably can be circumvented but that is not really the point, the point is that it would be against any software developers interest to design software that only ran on a limited selection of hardware, look where it got Apple.
Secondly it is just ridicules that MS threatened to make Windows incompatible with AMD, they would loose a large percentage of customers, kick start Linux and dent their image forever, every costumer would have to consider if his or hers brand new machine could run windows next year.
Regarding the speculation if AMD was offered anything, the Inquirer speculates, among with quite a few others:
?We wonder if this is a quid-pro-quo? Some are rumouring that Microsoft will help AMD launch its Hammer family of processors later this year by coming out right on time with a 64-bit OS for the platform.?
If Apple migrated to an AMD-based processor, MS would have Apple and AMD both by the short hairs. It's no accident that every other commercial OS to try running on this so-called "standard" has failed. MS makes sure that it happens.
<hr></blockquote>
They failed because there wasn?t enough software for them or/and they wasn?t as good as windows.
[quote]
Amorph
The PPC already has a number of advantages over Intel's offerings, although power-no-object, single-core performance is not currently one of them. But small, clean designs can be designed, fabbed and updated by smaller teams for less money.
<hr></blockquote>
Economics of scale.
[quote]
Amorph
Apple will use AMD products in their hardware, but not their CPUs.
<hr></blockquote>
What, flash ram? AMD only makes flash ram and CPUs, their motherboard business was only of necessity, AMD have no intention of becoming a motherboard company.
[quote]
nebcon65
I have tried to explain in technical terms that they are starting to show cracks in their ability to continue to be a leader
<hr></blockquote>
Yes they are cracking now, cracking about 3.06GHz.
[quote]
nebcon65
Intel have pushed clock speed hard and the result has been extreme heat disapation, record die sizes and higher prices. In fact they have pushed so hard that switching to the next smaller chip process is likely to be less of a show stopper than it normally would be
<hr></blockquote>
Reduction in die size is a boost in clockspeed not a reduction, it is desirable to get a CPU early after a die size reduction as these overclock very well.
[quote]
nebcon65
The portable arguement I made in another thread is an important issue as well. Going to x86 would kill Apple's portable line.
<hr></blockquote>
I?m sure that I saw a portable x86 somewhere last week...
[quote]
Amorph
If, as you assert, it was AMD who made their processors compatible with OS' that ran on Intel, then GNU/Darwin would always have run on AMD processors and Ruiz could have laughed at Gates.
<hr></blockquote>
Darwin or Linux hardly makes a difference, but again there is no reason to do this, it would be very counterproductive.
[quote]
Amorph
Gates could drop any particular vendor or line of x86 processors at any time.
<hr></blockquote>
Since all PC are made of generic part this would be impossible.
[quote]
Amorph
If Apple moves to x86, the iBook and the TiBook vanish, the iMac LCD vanishes, the eMac vanishes, and the Xserve vanishes.
<hr></blockquote>
I have already mentioned the x86 portables, and 1U servers have been around for a long time.
[quote]
Amorph
As for IBM: Do you have any idea how enormous IBM is? ... Their #1 customer is IBM itself, and the fact that their offerings are popular with Apple and with the consoles simply makes the market even larger, and lowers the per unit cost for IBM. PPCs are already significantly cheaper than x86 processors, differences in volume notwithstanding.
<hr></blockquote>
Do you have any idea how enormous Intel is? IBM makes and sells, among others CPUs these CPU are high end, sold in limited quantities and at a very high margin, there fore IBM can sustain its CPU business. Apple would have to pay for the development for the Celeronised Power4, not making it cheap. That said IBM is the only way for Apple.
[quote]
Amorph
The HyperThreaded version of the Pentium IV will consume over 100 watts. The 970 will consume 19 watts on release, and then promptly migrate to a .1 micron process, allowing it to consume about 30% less than that. Even if the 970 has 80% of the PIV's performance, Apple will be able to offer it in notebooks, and in quadruple-processor workstations that are no larger or hotter than single-processor PIV workstations. It's a sweet CPU: versatile, scalable and powerful.
<hr></blockquote>
Actually the Pentium4 3.06GHz consumes 82 watts, and Intel is moving to 0.9 nm Q4 2003.
Still I have a feeling that x86 exists and maybe it is possible to make a x86 CPU with a lover power consumption, if I were Intel I would mark these with a M, to indicate something, don?t know what though
If a P4m won?t cut it there is the upcoming Banias
?There's more complete data on the Banias chips. The 1.70, the 1.60 and the 1.50GHz Banias chips will have a TDP of [email protected] volts in performance mode, while in battery mode it will be 600MHz, [email protected] volts. Average power of these processors is less than one Watt.?
If Ruiz claims he "has no indication", especially with the ephasis he placed, and then it turns out he is in negotiations with Apple to use his products, he could very well be going to jail.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps you should find another lawyer if s/he has been informing you that this sort of behavior is a crime. And stop watching that Judge Judy show.
<strong>Exactly. Would he say "Yes, Apple is looking at our processors and should ahve them out next year. We love our new partnership with Apple and look forward to many years of OS X on x86."
Amorph, in your quest to find a suitable answer to the question "Why isn't x86 the standard" you have indeed created a slippery slope.
Rather than try to wade through the complexity of your position, I'll address only one point:
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>x86 isn't the industry standard processor. It's a common ISA. And that's entirely because of Windows. </strong><hr></blockquote>
How the x86 came to be the industry standard is irrelevant. For planning long-term strategies, all that matters is that we know that it's here now. For the sake of case-based reasoning, how we have arrived at x86 is important, but that's where the importance of history ends.
You also seem to be pointing out that the PPCs technological benefits over x86 somehow displace x86 as the standard. This arguement is along the same terms as: Because Beta has a better format than VHS, VHS can't be considered to be the industry standard.
Apple lost sight of becoming a standard a long time ago. With OS X it has the capacity to compete directly with Windows. But it won't be able to compete in a commodity market unless it adopts the industry standard processor. AMD's processors are already in-line with Intel's. Looking to the future at what IBM "might" bring us is bad decision making. We need to go with what the technology that brings us improvements today, not tomorrow.
[EDIT]: Sorry, I also wanted to say that you seem to have taken the position that Apple is doing fine right now.
From the perspective of the Apple fanatic, of course, Apple can do no wrong. From the perspective of the investor, however, Apple is once again becoming a bad joke, despite the good PR. Apple has been rated an "F" by Schwabb's new system, which is the worst. Apple's board of directors has been rated among the 8 worst in America by BusinessWeek. On a scale of 1-10, Hoover's rates Apple's stock at 4, which is a pass.
If Apple doesn't reconsider it's business design, which should include a proven upgrade path worth investing in, then it's going to be doomed. Humpty Dumpty will have a great fall, and all the iMacs and iBooks and iPhones in the world aren't going to be able to put him back together again. Not even an iPod.
Perhaps you should find another lawyer if s/he has been informing you that this sort of behavior is a crime. And stop watching that Judge Judy show.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jesus could this guy use any more smilies? I swear MacLuv averages 2.34 smiles per post. It would be easier to take you seriously if it all your posts weren't riddled with smilies...
[quote]<strong>Obviously I'm not the one who's ignorant if you believe that industrial sabotage isn't a Federal offense.
In the wake of Microsoft's antitrust suit and the fall of Enron, I doubt Mr. Gates will be issuing any orders to sabotage AMD as your post suggests.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have to believe that you have very little clue as to what you are talking about. Did you not see what Microsoft did to get into their big lawsuit? And did you see the settlement. Basicly they were told go ahead, do it again, we sure don't mind. So I agree with tonton, you are very much the "ignorant" one with regards to this. To compare Microsoft to Enron is ludicrous. Enron only lied about a few financal deals, and got destroyd (execs in jail). Microsoft did so much shit, and got nothing more than a slap on the wrist...
Since I don't know either of you (MacLuv or tonton), I can only judge you from reading your posts. I feel tonton seems like he knows more of what he is talking about. MacLuv can't refute the argument, only dis the poster, and spout ignorance.
Tonton, you seemed obsessed with trying to take me to school--and you're also thread stalking me just to try and prove your point.
Your cut and paste approach to winning this argument is getting you nowhere. You're building a mountain out of a molehill by trying to convince me that Ruiz is liable to stockholders for what he "didn't" say. You want to prove that Apple has no interest in AMD because of what Ruiz said.
I don't believe that Jobs and Ruiz haven't been talking. There's nothing you, or anyone else, can do or say to convince me otherwise. Sorry.
I have to believe that you have very little clue as to what you are talking about.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm talking about industrial sabotage being a Federal offensse. What are you talking about?
[quote]<strong>
Did you not see what Microsoft did to get into their big lawsuit?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I'm sorry, I must have been washing my hair. What happened?
[quote]<strong>
And did you see the settlement. Basicly they were told go ahead, do it again, we sure don't mind. So I agree with tonton, you are very much the "ignorant" one with regards to this.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Regards to what? Do you even know what we're talking about?
[quote]<strong>
To compare Microsoft to Enron is ludicrous. Enron only lied about a few financal deals, and got destroyd (execs in jail). Microsoft did so much shit, and got nothing more than a slap on the wrist...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Enron only lied about a few financial deals? Really? Like, are you talking about claiming that extra parking ticket as a meal or something?
FYI-- I wasn't comparing Enron to Microsoft. Read my post again before you start flaming me. In fact, read this entire thread again before you start flaming people. You've obviously come in the middle of a conversation.
Comments
<strong>
The "industry standard" is not just an x86 box, it is an x86 box running Windows OS. Apple cannot compete within this "standard." The word 'standard' is misused here, mostly by the Wintel crowd. It is a platform and there are standards for this platform. Apple has a different platform with different standards.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The PC processor market has one industry standard. This standard is not Intel, as the name "Wintel" may suggest, but the x86 processor.
You suggest that the word "standard" is misused because Apple uses a *different* processor. This is irrelevant. Apple, contrary to popular belief, makes PCs. The industry standard processor for PCs is once again, x86. Apple has decided not to use the industry standard for it's processor. This in no way implies that Apple has *different standards*. It implies that Apple has decided to create perceived value through differenciation in technology. However, Apple's plan has backfired. The only way to rectify the situation is to adopt the industry standard--in this case, the x86 platform.
<strong>
The industry standard processor for PCs is once again, x86. Apple has decided not to use the industry standard for it's processor...
The only way to rectify the situation is to adopt the industry standard--in this case, the x86 platform.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Utter nonsense. There is no such thing as 'standard processor architecture'. Some of them are suitable for one sort of tasks, others do better in different applications. You cannot say that sedan is a standard and hatchback is not, though you can drive both.
PowerPC is really much better than x86 in some areas. It's your choice to stick to the architecture which best suits your needs.
Currently x86 is so popular only thanks to Microsoft. Had Gates chosen to use 68k at some point, Intel would now have been a marginal company making 'strange non-standard CPUs'. Microsoft made Intel and not the other way round.
<strong>
The PC processor market has one industry standard. This standard is not Intel, as the name "Wintel" may suggest, but the x86 processor.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes and no.
Darwin/x86 only runs on Intel processors, not AMDs. And more tellingly, it came out in the last round of the antitrust trial that Ruiz had basically agreed to testify on behalf of Microsoft in exchange for Gates allowing Windows to run on the new Athlons. Similarly, Gates threatened to make Windows fail to run on Intel processors if Intel didn't terminate their PC software division with extreme prejudice.
Different processors are different processors, even if the ISAs are compatible. And it's become clear that MS has an absolute say in which x86-compatible processors get to play in the big pool.
If Apple migrated to an AMD-based processor, MS would have Apple and AMD both by the short hairs. It's no accident that every other commercial OS to try running on this so-called "standard" has failed. MS makes sure that it happens.
That's the largest long-term advantage to PPC: IBM fairly despises Microsoft, and Motorola has little or nothing to do with them, so Apple's platform has a degree of independence from MS control under this arrangement.
As for IBM's alleged inability to compete with Intel: IBM's POWER engineers would be greatly amused to hear that. The PPC already has a number of advantages over Intel's offerings, although power-no-object, single-core performance is not currently one of them. But small, clean designs can be designed, fabbed and updated by smaller teams for less money. The future is multiprocessing - eventually, massive multiprocessing - and PPC is much better suited for that role than x86 is. Only a behemoth like Intel could keep chips as convoluted as the Pentium and the Itanic going, but that also means that they have to fling much more money and many more personnel at those processors to keep them going. That's a weakness that can be exploited, along with the per-CPU cost and heat dissipation problems.
Apple will use AMD products in their hardware, but not their CPUs.
[ 12-03-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>
Utter nonsense. There is no such thing as 'standard processor architecture'.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I said industry standard. I did not say "standard processor architechture." I agree with you that there is a difference, but I didn't say there wasn't.
[quote]<strong>
Some of them are suitable for one sort of tasks, others do better in different applications. You cannot say that sedan is a standard and hatchback is not, though you can drive both.
PowerPC is really much better than x86 in some areas. It's your choice to stick to the architecture which best suits your needs.
Currently x86 is so popular only thanks to Microsoft. Had Gates chosen to use 68k at some point, Intel would now have been a marginal company making 'strange non-standard CPUs'. Microsoft made Intel and not the other way round.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't matter how we have arrived at the industry standard--all that matters is that we're here. If Apple hadn't pushed the processor wars so much, nobody would care what's under the hood of a Macintosh PC, and your argument might hold water.
[ 12-03-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
Darwin/x86 only runs on Intel processors, not AMDs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.macslash.com/article.pl?sid=02/04/19/2239200&mode=nested"; target="_blank">This link</a> explains that GNU Darwin can now be used on AMD machines. Where there's a will there's a way I guess.
[quote]<strong>
And more tellingly, it came out in the last round of the antitrust trial that Ruiz had basically agreed to testify on behalf of Microsoft in exchange for Gates allowing Windows to run on the new Athlons. Similarly, Gates threatened to make Windows fail to run on Intel processors if Intel didn't terminate their PC software division with extreme prejudice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is interesting. Do you have any links to that info? I'd like to read some of that myself.
Are you suggesting that AMD processors can run Windows because Bill Gates says they can? I didn't realize Bill had magical powers--indeed I thought it was the engineers at AMD who created this phenomenon.
At any rate, you're still not proving why x86 isn't an industry standard.
[quote]<strong>
Different processors are different processors, even if the ISAs are compatible. And it's become clear that MS has an absolute say in which x86-compatible processors get to play in the big pool.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your own comments only suggest that Bill Gates has control over Windows.
[quote]<strong>
If Apple migrated to an AMD-based processor, MS would have Apple and AMD both by the short hairs. It's no accident that every other commercial OS to try running on this so-called "standard" has failed. MS makes sure that it happens.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
BeOS ran on x86. Are you suggesting they went under because of Microsoft? That's what Jean Louis Gassee would like to think. Maybe it's because it didn't have enough market to develop for. Linux runs on x86.
I also fail to see why MS would have Apple or AMD by the "short hairs". Could you elaborate on this a bit more?
[quote]<strong>
That's the largest long-term advantage to PPC: IBM fairly despises Microsoft, and Motorola has little or nothing to do with them, so Apple's platform has a degree of independence from MS control under this arrangement.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm still failing to see the "MS control" you're talking about. As far as suggesting that IBMs distaste for Microsoft is some sort of strategic advantage--you seem to imply that a business succeeds relative to its degree of disposition with the competition. If only that were true, we'd all be billionaires for hating Microsoft!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]<strong>
As for IBM's alleged inability to compete with Intel: IBM's POWER engineers would be greatly amused to hear that. The PPC already has a number of advantages over Intel's offerings </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure the folks over at Sony had a few chuckles when VHS was released as well.
As far as these "advantages" that PPC has over x86... when do we get to see them? If IBM only supplies them to Apple and a few other refugees, how are they going to compete financially with Intel's R&D department?
[quote]<strong>
Apple will use AMD products in their hardware, but not their CPUs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have no evidence to support this claim.
Futhermore, as much as I appreciate your post, it doesn't really make a case against x86 being the industry standard processor.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 12-03-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>
Uh... with all due respect, sir, cover-up, or not, Ruiz is an officer of a company listed on a regulated stock exchange. Maybe you think people are all liars and that's just how business is done, but there are rules which if an officer of a listed company breaks, can land him in jail.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, Ruiz is an officer of a company listed on a regulated stock exchange? Is that like a CEO or something? He must cover his ass a lot.
[quote]<strong>
What I expect you to believe, sir, is that Ruiz has no indication whatsoever that Apple is even interested in AMD's products.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, if you expect me to believe that, then perhaps I should also believe that O.J. Simpson is innocent.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]<strong>
Uh... how about a spoken statement from the other, equally accountable party? All of a sudden Apple's word is good to you, but AMD's is not?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
A written statement from an officer of Apple on Apple letterhead and signed with a date would be great, thanks.
[quote]<strong>
In legal terms, there is no difference between what is said and what is written, except that the written, signed document is easier to defend in court. Ruiz obviously has no intention of denying what he said clearly, in a published interview.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? Did you learn this by watching Judge Judy or The People's Court?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Ruiz has nothing to deny, because he hasn't really said anything, has he?
[quote]<strong>
May I ask how old you are and how familiar you are with corporate law and not just your media-fuelled opinion of corporate habits?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, if you have to resort to argumentum ad hominem, then perhaps your argument doesn't really hold water. I certainly don't see what my age has to do with anything.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>
It would seem that you have the timeline very wrong. CHRP is very much alive. My PowerBook is a CHRP machine.
[ 12-02-2002: Message edited by: Mr. Me ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote] <a href="http://www.firmworks.com/www/chrp.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.firmworks.com/www/chrp.htm</a>;
Power Firmware(tm) Boot Firmware with CHRP Support
The Common Hardware Reference Platform (CHRP) Specification describes a family of machines based on the PowerPC(tm) processor that are capable of booting multiple operating systems including Mac OS, Windows NT, AIX® and Solaris(tm). The CHRP Specification requires the use of Open Firmware. Power Firmware(tm) boot firmware source code with CHRP support is available for product development now!
The CHRP specification and the CHRP Binding to Open Firmware are readily available.
At this moment in time, CHRP-compliant reference platforms and systems are being created. FirmWorks is enabling the creation of these first generation machines by adding CHRP enhancements to Power Firmware(tm). One such reference design is the IBM Long Trail. The enhancement of Power Firmware to provide complete support for CHRP is well underway and full support will be available coincidentally with CHRP-compatible operating system availability as shown below: <hr></blockquote>
Also
[quote] The CHRP (Common Hardware Reference Platform) and the PPCP (Power PC Platform) are the basis for the new Computers coming out from numerous vendors. These computers will be able to run multiple OS's nativily. The OS that are currently going to be available for CHRP will be Mac OS, Window NT, Solaris, OS/2, and AIX. The computers will support both Mac and IBM compatible peripheral devices. <hr></blockquote>
and:
[quote]
he New POP Culture
Thursday, May 25, 2000
by Colin Cordner
A few months ago, IBM made a momentous shift in its PowerPC strategy with the announcement that it would freely share its "PowerPC-Open-Platform" (POP) reference design with any and all interested parties. This shift in policy is one in a long line of measures in IBM's concerted attempts to upset a status-quo that has seen it relegated to the position of "Just-Another-Computer-OEM", in a industry they largely helped found, by companies they unwittingly helped build to their current positions at the top of the foodchain (Microsoft and Intel). IBM's two more interesting paths to this end- adopting and supporting Linux, and the PowerPC microprocessor - represent "Big Blue's" big sticks (or maybe stakes) aimed at upsetting the positions of Microsoft and Intel, respectively. With POP, those two strategies have converged.
The PowerPC microprocessor - developed in conjunction with Apple Computers Inc., and Motorola Semiconductors, and based heavily on IBM's homegrown "Power" RISC architecture - has for years been marketed by the Apple-IBM-Motorola (AIM) alliance as being a superior competitor to the x86 family of processors which has come to dominate the microcomputing platform...
...The last cohesive attempt at marketing a standard PowerPC platform- CHRP (Common Hardware Reference Platform) - died a messy death as all three members failed or backed out of their obligations. Even as I write this, Apple stands as the sole major vendor of PowerPC personal computers, IBM's own PowerPC-based RS/6000 line of servers occupies a niche at the high-end of the market, and the remainder of PowerPC sales are made up of sales to the market for embedded chips and the makers of PowerPC upgrade cards. ...
<hr></blockquote>
I may not have everything right, but I know that CHRP is not firmware, it is a hardware reference platform, which was a joint venture motherboard design within the AIM aliance. I believe that IBM was doing the actual design, and Apple was setting some of the specs that they would support. that platform. Around the time that Apple killed off the clones, they droped the support for the CHRP motherboards from their roadmap. The Idea for the CHRP was to build a viable alternative to the intel platform. To this end Windows NT and OS/2 were proted, though I do not know if they were ever fully working, commercial releases, and Amiga was working on a port of their OS as well to the CHRP platform. At the time, the only commercially viable OS that was available for the Power PC WAS the Mac OS, and when they droped it, IBM lost their largest established customer for the CHRP platform.
The UMA motherboard is an Apple design, not an IBM CHRP motherboard.
P.S. If you are going to flame someone do enough research to know what you are talking about. I admit that I make mistakes, but as you can see from the quotes, and links above CHRP is a PowerPC platform, and not firmware.
[ 12-03-2002: Message edited by: JCG ]</p>
<strong>This has been discussed before, but it bears repeating. Killing the clones did not limit the market for the PowerPC because they sold to the same customers as Apple. They cut the pie into smaller slices rather than increasing the size of the pie.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually I was working for a company that was granted a license to sell the Mac OS by Motorola. After the contract was signed an investigation took place and it was "determined" that the guidelines weren't being followed properly.
I have been reinvestigating Apple's licensing scenerio as Apple seems to be in the same spot they were in 1996-97. The general concensus is that Apple pulled the plug because the clones weren't helping to expand the Mac market, in fact, Power Computing was kicking Apple's ass. The fact is, there wasn't enough time to determine if the clones would in fact expand Apple's market. Steve pulled the plug primarily because his "vision" is an expensive one. Steve Jobs has always been a man of style over substance--his pursuit for perfection killed NeXT, after all.
If given enough time, would the Apple clones have increased market share? Why did Steve really pull the plug? Was Apple's unstable OS ready for prime-time? What sort of situation is Apple in right now that reminds us of the past?
Why do you believe that IBM cannot compete with Intel on processors, because of the resources that Intel have available, and that x86 is an effective standard, whereas Apple can compete with Microsoft?
Intel has a much lesser market share of the processor market than Microsoft has of the OS market, Intel's market cap. is slightly less than that of IBM, whereas Microsoft's is nearly 60 times Apple's. If you cannot fight a standard on the hardware front, how can you on the software front. (Even more so if you consider that Microsoft are known to have abused their monopoly before.)
Only one possible conclusion, might as well give up now.
michael
Intel have pushed clock speed hard and the result has been extreme heat disapation, record die sizes and higher prices. In fact they have pushed so hard that switching to the next smaller chip process is likely to be less of a show stopper than it normally would be. In other words the difference between standing up at a keynote and saying "We are proud to announce that the new chip process will bring the Pentium 4 to 3.4Ghz at 60Watts" (still damn hot) instead of being able to say "We are proud to announce that the new chip process will finally enable us to introduce today the new dual core Pentium 4 2.2Ghz chip at 40 Watt power draw" What if they slow down and someone passes them for an extended period of time? It could easily happen.
The portable arguement I made in another thread is an important issue as well. Going to x86 would kill Apple's portable line.
Now on the other hand IBM according to you couldn't possibly make their processors more attractive to computer users. IBM is leading Intel in servers and now that some of that server tech is ready for the desktop market, they have a real chance of making a strong showing and even surpassing x86. While intel has been hitting the clock speed, IBM has been making advances in internals such as copper interconnects and SOI that make chips more efficient and more able to accept higher speeds when they are possible (without burning a hole in the floor or your unmentionables). It may make for slower progress (in peoples perception) but you can use the same chip in that laptop that you use in the desktop. Want to edit that movie on your laptop? Go ahead it can handle it.
Another issue is that RAM technology is starting to show speed limits that will take time to break through. People are starting to talk about latency issues. Intel got a big boost over Apple by plunging into DDR but that party is starting to look like it may be over. A shift to multiple cores, MP and other things may become more important while RAM tech improves more slowly.
You cannot separate business and technical issues. Your right introducing a CD with OSX for Intel bundled with a port of something like Wine or Lindows and all the iApps and maybe a new Appleworks would be a pretty easy and profitable business decision for Apple to make in the short term but then the technical problems would set in. If the release was for PC's in general I can guarantee you that it would be a support nightmare beyond anything Apple customers have ever seen. The PC platform is a mess of third party hardware and causes huge technical problems from machine to machine.
I still say proprietary Apple x86 hardware would not have a lower price than the current ones but not because Jobs is greedy but because of sales volume. I am convinced there would also be technical and developer problems with those machines as well.
I am convinced that the IBM 970 is not a turkey and will be exactly what Apple needs for next year and in the future. We'll just have to wait ad see who's right.
That does not disprove my point: That it is the software vendors, not the hardware vendors, who provide platform compatibility, even when the ISA is the same.
If, as you assert, it was AMD who made their processors compatible with OS' that ran on Intel, then GNU/Darwin would always have run on AMD processors and Ruiz could have laughed at Gates.
[quote]<strong>This is interesting. Do you have any links to that info? I'd like to read some of that myself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Links are a bit hard to come by, because online newspapers tend to charge for their archives.
Wired might be a good place to start looking, since they covered the trial well. And, of course, Google and/or Watson and/or Sherlock could probably turn some results up in a hurry.
I don't have the time to do the spelunking myself, but I've followed the trial closely for all the years it's gone on. I'll post links as I find them.
[quote]<strong>Are you suggesting that AMD processors can run Windows because Bill Gates says they can? I didn't realize Bill had magical powers--indeed I thought it was the engineers at AMD who created this phenomenon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your own first link proves you wrong. Did the original Darwin developers prevent GNU/Darwin from running on AMD processors with magic? Or is it necessary - and altogether possible - that it's the software that ultimately decides what it'll run on and what it won't? Gates controls the software, therefor the platform. If he wanted to, he could have Windows running on Intel processors and PPCs, but not AMD processors. NT was ported to PPC a few years ago, after all. And Alpha.
The OS is the gatekeeper.
[quote]<strong>At any rate, you're still not proving why x86 isn't an industry standard.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To the extent that it is, it's entirely because Windows is an industry "standard" that has sofar chosen to run on all processors compatible with the x86 ISA. There's nothing inevitable about this: Gates could drop any particular vendor or line of x86 processors at any time. It just hasn't been in his interest to do that yet.
[quote]<strong>Your own comments only suggest that Bill Gates has control over Windows.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Think about what that means, though: How is all the R&D you're talking about paid for? By sales of machines running Windows. Take away Windows, and what sustains the processor line? Linux? Apple?
[quote]<strong>BeOS ran on x86. Are you suggesting they went under because of Microsoft? That's what Jean Louis Gassee would like to think. Maybe it's because it didn't have enough market to develop for. Linux runs on x86.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There was that little detail about MS OEM licensing. First, MS charged OEMs for a copy of Windows for every CPU shipped, no matter which OS the CPU shipped with, so that the OEMs had no incentive to ship anything else (including the license-free Linux and BSD operating systems). When the antitrust trial brought that to light, MS switched to simply leaning heavily on the OEMs not to ship anything else. Intel does the same thing - use our stuff or get cut off. Monopolies can be nasty that way.
Of course, the fact that Jean Louis Gasbag was running Be didn't help. Nor did it help that BeOS was in perpetual beta. But even ignoring those problems, they never had a chance.
As for Linux, it's a hobbyist OS, so it can sustain itself as an aftermarket, noncommercial venture. That's one reason why MS is afraid of it - the vendor pressure that MS has traditionally used to lock competitors off of its platform doesn't work. But, of course, the biggest Linux advocate now is IBM, and they're making sure that Linux runs on nearly everything they make. Including the PPC. Further, there is no analogy between Linux and OS X. OS X has gobs of proprietary code, and a single vendor behind it, so it's vulnerable in the same ways that Be and OS/2 and company were. Linux could survive if IBM and Sun lost interest and Red Hat and O'Reilly went under, the same way that BSD has continued on.
[quote]<strong>I also fail to see why MS would have Apple or AMD by the "short hairs". Could you elaborate on this a bit more?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Simple: MS already has AMD by the short hairs, because if MS decides that Windows won't run on the Athlon 64 or the Opteron, AMD is dead (look at their financials). Now, let's say Gates is not happy with Apple and AMD working together. So he waits until they've spent lots of money, and Apple has (with any luck) gotten its body of developers and its mass of legacy migrating over to the new platform. Then Gates calls Ruiz, and says that Ruiz can choose between running Windows on his CPUs, or running Mac OS X. If you were Ruiz, what would you do? Keep in mind that he's had already agreed to embarrass himself in court so that Windows would run on the Athlon. And thus, to the extent that Apple has put their eggs in AMD's basket, they're also at MS' mercy.
[quote]<strong>As far as suggesting that IBMs distaste for Microsoft is some sort of strategic advantage--you seem to imply that a business succeeds relative to its degree of disposition with the competition.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, no.
I'm stating outright that since IBM and Moto are fairly independent of Microsoft, and since Windows doesn't run on the PPC, MS can't exert anywhere near the same level of control over them that they exert over AMD and Intel. This is a political advantage in favor of the PPC. It is a truth in business that if you despise and distrust another business, you probably hold them at arm's length to the greatest extent possible, for better or for worse. So it's an incentive for IBM to remain largely independent.
[quote]<strong>As far as these "advantages" that PPC has over x86... when do we get to see them? If IBM only supplies them to Apple and a few other refugees, how are they going to compete financially with Intel's R&D department?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You already can see the advantages. If Apple moves to x86, the iBook and the TiBook vanish, the iMac LCD vanishes, the eMac vanishes, and the Xserve vanishes. In their place are products that are not significantly smaller, lighter, quieter or better performing than what Dell would offer for less money - and they'd run a nonstandard platform to boot. PPCs tend to have better performance per watt, and much lower energy consumption, which gives Apple's designers much more leeway than PC designers have, and which also is a make-or-break feature for clustering. The PPC also has the best vector unit available, by a margin. Where it - and therefor, the PPC - is currently lacking is in brute, single-core performance and memory-to-CPU bandwidth. But neither of these disadvantages are intrinsic to the PPC architecture. Neither would require all that much work to address, either. If Moto were not busy scrambling to solve problems that have nothing to do with the PowerPC, both would probably have been addressed by now. Mot SPS's chip design skills have been best-of-breed since the original 68K at the latest. Their problems lie elsewhere.
As for IBM: Do you have any idea how enormous IBM is? They can and do throw mind-boggling amounts of money and talent at extremely high technology for their chip design and fab divisions. Their #1 customer is IBM itself, and the fact that their offerings are popular with Apple and with the consoles simply makes the market even larger, and lowers the per unit cost for IBM. PPCs are already significantly cheaper than x86 processors, differences in volume notwithstanding.
[quote]<strong>Futhermore, as much as I appreciate your post, it doesn't really make a case against x86 being the industry standard processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
x86 isn't the industry standard processor. It's a common ISA. And that's entirely because of Windows. The fact that it's on more desktops than any other CPU doesn't mean that it's an common platform, because it has a big, aggressive gatekeeper whose product runs on nearly every single one of those desktops. The fact that it's not a common platform - a standard in the sense that the PPC is, say, or ARM - moots the fact of its ubiquity.
Further, Apple has a tremendous amount of say in the PPC. Apple convened the alliance that led to the PPC in the first place, they worked closely with Moto on the G3 (which was designed to get around the bottleneck caused by the slow busses Apple was using in their machines by using aggressive caching), and the lead architect for AltiVec was an Apple employee. This is important because, as your argument requires, the capabilities of the CPU go a long way to determining the capabilities of any platform it runs: No AltiVec, no Final Cut Pro. Under the current arrangement, Apple can plan long-term hardware and software strategies around things like AltiVec. Even if MS decided to let Apple do whatever they liked with Intel and AMD, they would become a very small customer that would be hard pressed to make any demands of their suppliers, so they'd have to look at what Intel and AMD were doing for their biggest customer - Microsoft - and adapt accordingly. Then it would be Apple's R&D against Microsoft's, with Microsoft calling the shots. And if IBM can't compete with Intel's R&D, what makes you think Apple has a chance? If you think Apple has a chance, why doesn't AIM have a shot at besting Intel? They've done it before.
One more thing along those lines: IBM and Moto are both designing processors to be easily customized for customers (The Gecko PPC is one such example). This is another powerful capability that Apple could make use of that neither Intel nor AMD can answer - certainly not for as small a customer as Apple would be.
The HyperThreaded version of the Pentium IV will consume over 100 watts. The 970 will consume 19 watts on release, and then promptly migrate to a .1 micron process, allowing it to consume about 30% less than that. Even if the 970 has 80% of the PIV's performance, Apple will be able to offer it in notebooks, and in quadruple-processor workstations that are no larger or hotter than single-processor PIV workstations. It's a sweet CPU: versatile, scalable and powerful.
[ 12-03-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>The only thing this might confirm is that Ruiz is smart about keeping his mouth shut.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. Would he say "Yes, Apple is looking at our processors and should ahve them out next year. We love our new partnership with Apple and look forward to many years of OS X on x86."
Yea, so since he didn't say that, the rumor is dead. Come on people, don't you know Steve and Co. by now? No one is going to say anything about anything without it coming from Steve's lips.
(not that I believe the rumor, but this hardly cornfirms the contrary)
[quote]
Amorph
Darwin/x86 only runs on Intel processors, not AMDs. And more tellingly, it came out in the last round of the antitrust trial that Ruiz had basically agreed to testify on behalf of Microsoft in exchange for Gates allowing Windows to run on the new Athlons. Similarly, Gates threatened to make Windows fail to run on Intel processors if Intel didn't terminate their PC software division with extreme prejudice.
<hr></blockquote>
Of course it is possible for any manufacturer of anything to design a specific piece of software only to run on certain hardware, it probably can be circumvented but that is not really the point, the point is that it would be against any software developers interest to design software that only ran on a limited selection of hardware, look where it got Apple.
Secondly it is just ridicules that MS threatened to make Windows incompatible with AMD, they would loose a large percentage of customers, kick start Linux and dent their image forever, every costumer would have to consider if his or hers brand new machine could run windows next year.
Regarding the speculation if AMD was offered anything, the Inquirer speculates, among with quite a few others:
?We wonder if this is a quid-pro-quo? Some are rumouring that Microsoft will help AMD launch its Hammer family of processors later this year by coming out right on time with a 64-bit OS for the platform.?
<a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=3264"; target="_blank">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=3264</a>;
[quote]
Amorph
If Apple migrated to an AMD-based processor, MS would have Apple and AMD both by the short hairs. It's no accident that every other commercial OS to try running on this so-called "standard" has failed. MS makes sure that it happens.
<hr></blockquote>
They failed because there wasn?t enough software for them or/and they wasn?t as good as windows.
[quote]
Amorph
The PPC already has a number of advantages over Intel's offerings, although power-no-object, single-core performance is not currently one of them. But small, clean designs can be designed, fabbed and updated by smaller teams for less money.
<hr></blockquote>
Economics of scale.
[quote]
Amorph
Apple will use AMD products in their hardware, but not their CPUs.
<hr></blockquote>
What, flash ram? AMD only makes flash ram and CPUs, their motherboard business was only of necessity, AMD have no intention of becoming a motherboard company.
[quote]
nebcon65
I have tried to explain in technical terms that they are starting to show cracks in their ability to continue to be a leader
<hr></blockquote>
Yes they are cracking now, cracking about 3.06GHz.
[quote]
nebcon65
Intel have pushed clock speed hard and the result has been extreme heat disapation, record die sizes and higher prices. In fact they have pushed so hard that switching to the next smaller chip process is likely to be less of a show stopper than it normally would be
<hr></blockquote>
Reduction in die size is a boost in clockspeed not a reduction, it is desirable to get a CPU early after a die size reduction as these overclock very well.
[quote]
nebcon65
The portable arguement I made in another thread is an important issue as well. Going to x86 would kill Apple's portable line.
<hr></blockquote>
I?m sure that I saw a portable x86 somewhere last week...
[quote]
Amorph
If, as you assert, it was AMD who made their processors compatible with OS' that ran on Intel, then GNU/Darwin would always have run on AMD processors and Ruiz could have laughed at Gates.
<hr></blockquote>
Darwin or Linux hardly makes a difference, but again there is no reason to do this, it would be very counterproductive.
[quote]
Amorph
Gates could drop any particular vendor or line of x86 processors at any time.
<hr></blockquote>
Since all PC are made of generic part this would be impossible.
[quote]
Amorph
If Apple moves to x86, the iBook and the TiBook vanish, the iMac LCD vanishes, the eMac vanishes, and the Xserve vanishes.
<hr></blockquote>
I have already mentioned the x86 portables, and 1U servers have been around for a long time.
[quote]
Amorph
As for IBM: Do you have any idea how enormous IBM is? ... Their #1 customer is IBM itself, and the fact that their offerings are popular with Apple and with the consoles simply makes the market even larger, and lowers the per unit cost for IBM. PPCs are already significantly cheaper than x86 processors, differences in volume notwithstanding.
<hr></blockquote>
Do you have any idea how enormous Intel is? IBM makes and sells, among others CPUs these CPU are high end, sold in limited quantities and at a very high margin, there fore IBM can sustain its CPU business. Apple would have to pay for the development for the Celeronised Power4, not making it cheap. That said IBM is the only way for Apple.
[quote]
Amorph
The HyperThreaded version of the Pentium IV will consume over 100 watts. The 970 will consume 19 watts on release, and then promptly migrate to a .1 micron process, allowing it to consume about 30% less than that. Even if the 970 has 80% of the PIV's performance, Apple will be able to offer it in notebooks, and in quadruple-processor workstations that are no larger or hotter than single-processor PIV workstations. It's a sweet CPU: versatile, scalable and powerful.
<hr></blockquote>
Actually the Pentium4 3.06GHz consumes 82 watts, and Intel is moving to 0.9 nm Q4 2003.
<a href="http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q4/021114/p4_306ht-04.html"; target="_blank">http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q4/021114/p4_306ht-04.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6285"; target="_blank">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6285</a>;
Still I have a feeling that x86 exists and maybe it is possible to make a x86 CPU with a lover power consumption, if I were Intel I would mark these with a M, to indicate something, don?t know what though
If a P4m won?t cut it there is the upcoming Banias
?There's more complete data on the Banias chips. The 1.70, the 1.60 and the 1.50GHz Banias chips will have a TDP of [email protected] volts in performance mode, while in battery mode it will be 600MHz, [email protected] volts. Average power of these processors is less than one Watt.?
<a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6396"; target="_blank">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6396</a>;
Still I often se just regular P4 in laptops, these aren?t suited for much use on a battery but many notebooks never leave the desk.
<strong>
Dude, you're so ignorant...
{bogus statement snipped...}</strong><hr></blockquote>
Obviously I'm not the one who's ignorant if you believe that industrial sabotage isn't a Federal offense.
In the wake of Microsoft's antitrust suit and the fall of Enron, I doubt Mr. Gates will be issuing any orders to sabotage AMD as your post suggests.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Perhaps you have put too much faith in the Anarchist's Cookbook?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>
If Ruiz claims he "has no indication", especially with the ephasis he placed, and then it turns out he is in negotiations with Apple to use his products, he could very well be going to jail.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps you should find another lawyer if s/he has been informing you that this sort of behavior is a crime. And stop watching that Judge Judy show.
<strong>Exactly. Would he say "Yes, Apple is looking at our processors and should ahve them out next year. We love our new partnership with Apple and look forward to many years of OS X on x86."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Now there's a quote that might get Ruiz in trouble.
Rather than try to wade through the complexity of your position, I'll address only one point:
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>x86 isn't the industry standard processor. It's a common ISA. And that's entirely because of Windows. </strong><hr></blockquote>
How the x86 came to be the industry standard is irrelevant. For planning long-term strategies, all that matters is that we know that it's here now. For the sake of case-based reasoning, how we have arrived at x86 is important, but that's where the importance of history ends.
You also seem to be pointing out that the PPCs technological benefits over x86 somehow displace x86 as the standard. This arguement is along the same terms as: Because Beta has a better format than VHS, VHS can't be considered to be the industry standard.
Apple lost sight of becoming a standard a long time ago. With OS X it has the capacity to compete directly with Windows. But it won't be able to compete in a commodity market unless it adopts the industry standard processor. AMD's processors are already in-line with Intel's. Looking to the future at what IBM "might" bring us is bad decision making. We need to go with what the technology that brings us improvements today, not tomorrow.
[EDIT]: Sorry, I also wanted to say that you seem to have taken the position that Apple is doing fine right now.
From the perspective of the Apple fanatic, of course, Apple can do no wrong. From the perspective of the investor, however, Apple is once again becoming a bad joke, despite the good PR. Apple has been rated an "F" by Schwabb's new system, which is the worst. Apple's board of directors has been rated among the 8 worst in America by BusinessWeek. On a scale of 1-10, Hoover's rates Apple's stock at 4, which is a pass.
If Apple doesn't reconsider it's business design, which should include a proven upgrade path worth investing in, then it's going to be doomed. Humpty Dumpty will have a great fall, and all the iMacs and iBooks and iPhones in the world aren't going to be able to put him back together again. Not even an iPod.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>
Perhaps you should find another lawyer if s/he has been informing you that this sort of behavior is a crime. And stop watching that Judge Judy show.
Jesus could this guy use any more smilies? I swear MacLuv averages 2.34 smiles per post. It would be easier to take you seriously if it all your posts weren't riddled with smilies...
[quote]<strong>Obviously I'm not the one who's ignorant if you believe that industrial sabotage isn't a Federal offense.
In the wake of Microsoft's antitrust suit and the fall of Enron, I doubt Mr. Gates will be issuing any orders to sabotage AMD as your post suggests.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have to believe that you have very little clue as to what you are talking about. Did you not see what Microsoft did to get into their big lawsuit? And did you see the settlement. Basicly they were told go ahead, do it again, we sure don't mind. So I agree with tonton, you are very much the "ignorant" one with regards to this. To compare Microsoft to Enron is ludicrous. Enron only lied about a few financal deals, and got destroyd (execs in jail). Microsoft did so much shit, and got nothing more than a slap on the wrist...
Since I don't know either of you (MacLuv or tonton), I can only judge you from reading your posts. I feel tonton seems like he knows more of what he is talking about. MacLuv can't refute the argument, only dis the poster, and spout ignorance.
<strong>Fraud
{snipped for space consideration}
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tonton, you seemed obsessed with trying to take me to school--and you're also thread stalking me just to try and prove your point.
Your cut and paste approach to winning this argument is getting you nowhere. You're building a mountain out of a molehill by trying to convince me that Ruiz is liable to stockholders for what he "didn't" say. You want to prove that Apple has no interest in AMD because of what Ruiz said.
I don't believe that Jobs and Ruiz haven't been talking. There's nothing you, or anyone else, can do or say to convince me otherwise. Sorry.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>
I have to believe that you have very little clue as to what you are talking about.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm talking about industrial sabotage being a Federal offensse. What are you talking about?
[quote]<strong>
Did you not see what Microsoft did to get into their big lawsuit?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I'm sorry, I must have been washing my hair. What happened?
[quote]<strong>
And did you see the settlement. Basicly they were told go ahead, do it again, we sure don't mind. So I agree with tonton, you are very much the "ignorant" one with regards to this.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Regards to what? Do you even know what we're talking about?
[quote]<strong>
To compare Microsoft to Enron is ludicrous. Enron only lied about a few financal deals, and got destroyd (execs in jail). Microsoft did so much shit, and got nothing more than a slap on the wrist...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Enron only lied about a few financial deals? Really? Like, are you talking about claiming that extra parking ticket as a meal or something?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
FYI-- I wasn't comparing Enron to Microsoft. Read my post again before you start flaming me. In fact, read this entire thread again before you start flaming people. You've obviously come in the middle of a conversation.
Rude. Totally.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
PS... thanks for the comic relief.