Not true. It is no more illegal to clone Mac hardware than it is to clone IBM hardware. However, it is illegal to build a computer that uses Apple's intellectual property without the company's permission. Back when Apple used the Toolbox ROM, it was simply a lot harder to reverse engineer the Mac than it was to reverse engineer the IBM PC. However, if you could have proven in court that your Mac clone used no Apple intellectual property, then it would have been legal for you to manufacture and sell it. That was never done.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wasn´t "Stolen from Apple Computers" burned into the registers of the rom (or was it only into the silicone?)
<strong>In fact, in Project Builder right now, you can select x86 as a build platform (it's always been this way). It'll fail on linking for lack of x86 frameworks/libs, but hey...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've only ever had the discover programming edition of it, but didn't CodeWarrior have some cross-platform (os9/win32) frameworks, too?
<strong>Altivec is just a name for a set of vector processing routines, no? (excuse my terminology?)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
AltiVec is a set of vector instructions and registers. It is intimately tied to the PowerPC architecture. x86 has MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNow!. SSE2 is arguably close to AltiVec, but still an inferior attempt at a SIMD unit. AMD could try introducing yet another variation into the x86 world (and they or Intel probably will eventually), but that would just make the situation worse. It might be okay for Apple, however, because they would choose a single processor for their machines (instead of the variety the Microsoft supports). There might be a couple of patents that AMD would need to license.
[quote]<strong>IF Apple is able to close the PERFORMANCE GAP (forget MHz), Why would they even need to port the OS to X86 at all, assuming that the only reason they'd do it is for the performance edge?
Personally, I get the feeling that Apple is listening, that they're focused on fixing the performance gap and that we should be doing a polite little queen-wave to the G4/moto era soon enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the wait is almost over -- the 970 will arrive this year and it will dramatically improve the performance of Apple's PowerMac line. Practically speaking, in a single processor vs. single processor situation I expect that the 970 will go toe-to-toe with the Pentium4 3.06 GHz even if the SPECmarks currently indicate that Intel will have the edge. Intel usually cheats on their SPECmark results more than IBM does. And in a multiprocessor situation the 970 should have an advantage over the P4. I don't really expect Apple to have significantly faster processors, but they'll use a less power to get equivalent performance. And that's a whole lot better than today's situation. IBM should be able to at least maintain processor parity going forward.
Of course the optimist in me hopes that they'll quickly get to 0.09 microns, ship a multi-threaded dual core 3 GHz 970 and smoke Intel's a$$.
[quote] Of course the optimist in me hopes that they'll quickly get to 0.09 microns, ship a multi-threaded dual core 3 GHz 970 and smoke Intel's a$$. <hr></blockquote>
programmer just made my nipples hard.....g
sorry programmer...love your posts...and now we have scared him off, never to return to AI again....
Uhm, the Mac is built on open and official Industry standards; especially a lot of the recent software and of course OS X itself. Furthermore, Apple has embraced open-source and it's showing in their products. Can't say the same for Microsoft, bud.
IMNSHO, there is nothing more proprietary than Windows. Period. As a matter of fact, Microsoft is trying its damnedest to lock it down even further so Windows is even more proprietary. Just wait until Palladium/Longhorn -- just because it's the most widespread doesn't make it the *standard* per se'.
Programmer, would you care to elaborate a bit more (if you are reading this that is)?\t
Uhm, the Mac is built on open and official Industry standards; especially a lot of the recent software and of course OS X itself. Furthermore, Apple has embraced open-source and it's showing in their products. Can't say the same for Microsoft, bud.
IMNSHO, there is nothing more proprietary than Windows. Period. As a matter of fact, Microsoft is trying its damnedest to lock it down even further so Windows is even more proprietary. Just wait until Palladium/Longhorn -- just because it's the most widespread doesn't make it the *standard* per se'.
Programmer, would you care to elaborate a bit more (if you are reading this that is)?\t
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well after thegelding's post I'm not sure how close I want to get.
Microsoft's platform is definitely proprietary from top to bottom, but that isn't necessarily all bad. What's bad about that platform is Microsoft's modus operandi, and their poor track record in software / API design. What's good about it is that it is a huge portion of the market. Some might say that a choice of hardware vendors is a big advantage, but I'd say its as much a curse as an advantage.
Apple's platform used to be entirely proprietary, but it has changed since MacOS X arrived. In many ways it is now based on industry standards, many tried and true from many companies and for a long time (Unix, mach, FreeBSD, OpenGL). Even some parts which are still proprietary have long and solid histories behind them (Cocoa == NeXTStep). Much of the system is still Apple's and only Apple's, and the hardware platform is only available from Apple. The entry fee, however, is Apple's pricing. The benefits are that you get to have a Mac, and it now includes all these standards.
"Proprietary" is a strange issue. I'd have to say that Apple is still "more proprietary" because you can only get compatible hardware from them, but practically speaking that isn't really an issue for that many potential customers. Price/performance is a bigger one.
IIRC, a lot of the clones didn't build their own boards... they bought 2nd hand boards with Apple ROMs still on them (some Tanzania Mobo's from the 4400 were common) and "remanufactured" a "clone" shell and new cpu bolted to actual Apple contents
<as i recall, this is the explicit definition of "thou shalt not" reverse-engineering in the warranty so is easy fodder for lawyers>
there was even one clone mfg who required you to ship your old mac to them first (so they could use the mobo ROM chips). no more.
as has been noted, this is less of an issue as Cupertino has adopted wider industry-standard components, but plenty of pieces of the chipset and ROM are still exclusively owned by Apple.
the only current AMD supply chain link with Apple, to my knowledge, is that AMD makes chips for the Airport Base Station
Comments
<strong>
Not true. It is no more illegal to clone Mac hardware than it is to clone IBM hardware. However, it is illegal to build a computer that uses Apple's intellectual property without the company's permission. Back when Apple used the Toolbox ROM, it was simply a lot harder to reverse engineer the Mac than it was to reverse engineer the IBM PC. However, if you could have proven in court that your Mac clone used no Apple intellectual property, then it would have been legal for you to manufacture and sell it. That was never done.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wasn´t "Stolen from Apple Computers" burned into the registers of the rom (or was it only into the silicone?)
<strong>In fact, in Project Builder right now, you can select x86 as a build platform (it's always been this way). It'll fail on linking for lack of x86 frameworks/libs, but hey...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've only ever had the discover programming edition of it, but didn't CodeWarrior have some cross-platform (os9/win32) frameworks, too?
That's what IBM thought until Compaq released the first PC clone by reverse-engineering the IBM Bios.
<strong>Altivec is just a name for a set of vector processing routines, no? (excuse my terminology?)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
AltiVec is a set of vector instructions and registers. It is intimately tied to the PowerPC architecture. x86 has MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNow!. SSE2 is arguably close to AltiVec, but still an inferior attempt at a SIMD unit. AMD could try introducing yet another variation into the x86 world (and they or Intel probably will eventually), but that would just make the situation worse. It might be okay for Apple, however, because they would choose a single processor for their machines (instead of the variety the Microsoft supports). There might be a couple of patents that AMD would need to license.
[quote]<strong>IF Apple is able to close the PERFORMANCE GAP (forget MHz), Why would they even need to port the OS to X86 at all, assuming that the only reason they'd do it is for the performance edge?
Personally, I get the feeling that Apple is listening, that they're focused on fixing the performance gap and that we should be doing a polite little queen-wave to the G4/moto era soon enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the wait is almost over -- the 970 will arrive this year and it will dramatically improve the performance of Apple's PowerMac line. Practically speaking, in a single processor vs. single processor situation I expect that the 970 will go toe-to-toe with the Pentium4 3.06 GHz even if the SPECmarks currently indicate that Intel will have the edge. Intel usually cheats on their SPECmark results more than IBM does. And in a multiprocessor situation the 970 should have an advantage over the P4. I don't really expect Apple to have significantly faster processors, but they'll use a less power to get equivalent performance. And that's a whole lot better than today's situation. IBM should be able to at least maintain processor parity going forward.
Of course the optimist in me hopes that they'll quickly get to 0.09 microns, ship a multi-threaded dual core 3 GHz 970 and smoke Intel's a$$.
programmer just made my nipples hard.....g
sorry programmer...love your posts...and now we have scared him off, never to return to AI again....
[[[the Mac platform is proprietary. ]]]
Uhm, the Mac is built on open and official Industry standards; especially a lot of the recent software and of course OS X itself. Furthermore, Apple has embraced open-source and it's showing in their products. Can't say the same for Microsoft, bud.
IMNSHO, there is nothing more proprietary than Windows. Period. As a matter of fact, Microsoft is trying its damnedest to lock it down even further so Windows is even more proprietary. Just wait until Palladium/Longhorn -- just because it's the most widespread doesn't make it the *standard* per se'.
Programmer, would you care to elaborate a bit more (if you are reading this that is)?\t
\t
--
Ed M.
<strong>The Nocturnal Wrote...
[[[the Mac platform is proprietary. ]]]
Uhm, the Mac is built on open and official Industry standards; especially a lot of the recent software and of course OS X itself. Furthermore, Apple has embraced open-source and it's showing in their products. Can't say the same for Microsoft, bud.
IMNSHO, there is nothing more proprietary than Windows. Period. As a matter of fact, Microsoft is trying its damnedest to lock it down even further so Windows is even more proprietary. Just wait until Palladium/Longhorn -- just because it's the most widespread doesn't make it the *standard* per se'.
Programmer, would you care to elaborate a bit more (if you are reading this that is)?\t
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well after thegelding's post I'm not sure how close I want to get.
Microsoft's platform is definitely proprietary from top to bottom, but that isn't necessarily all bad. What's bad about that platform is Microsoft's modus operandi, and their poor track record in software / API design. What's good about it is that it is a huge portion of the market. Some might say that a choice of hardware vendors is a big advantage, but I'd say its as much a curse as an advantage.
Apple's platform used to be entirely proprietary, but it has changed since MacOS X arrived. In many ways it is now based on industry standards, many tried and true from many companies and for a long time (Unix, mach, FreeBSD, OpenGL). Even some parts which are still proprietary have long and solid histories behind them (Cocoa == NeXTStep). Much of the system is still Apple's and only Apple's, and the hardware platform is only available from Apple. The entry fee, however, is Apple's pricing. The benefits are that you get to have a Mac, and it now includes all these standards.
"Proprietary" is a strange issue. I'd have to say that Apple is still "more proprietary" because you can only get compatible hardware from them, but practically speaking that isn't really an issue for that many potential customers. Price/performance is a bigger one.
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>
<as i recall, this is the explicit definition of "thou shalt not" reverse-engineering in the warranty so is easy fodder for lawyers>
there was even one clone mfg who required you to ship your old mac to them first (so they could use the mobo ROM chips). no more.
as has been noted, this is less of an issue as Cupertino has adopted wider industry-standard components, but plenty of pieces of the chipset and ROM are still exclusively owned by Apple.
the only current AMD supply chain link with Apple, to my knowledge, is that AMD makes chips for the Airport Base Station
Hammer? No. 970 yes. Soon.