A year ago Moki posted that Apple would build x86 boxes in addition to their existing PowerPC lineup. These are most likely restricted to servers and server software, or specialized deliveries for other specialized markets. If Pixar needs the best possible bang for the buck and Apple wants them to run Xserves, then currently Apple will need to deliver them x86-based Xserves. Fortunately Pixar is relatively ISA-agnostic so when the 970 arrives and beats the crap out of the x86 then they can use those too.
[quote] They need a desktop cpu. But they don't have enough in the bank to do the whole cpu bag themselves. Instead. They do the next best thing and have rough idea of what they need to compete and go to some CPU maker with the cloud and proven performance/server track record to deliver CPUs to clients. <hr></blockquote>
...and the point I was trying to make but didn't...was that Apple may get favourable pricing if they have helped pay the R&D on the 970. Dual 970s at the current 'power'Mac price breaks would be exceptional. Rather than a CPU that looks on an equal footing with a 3.6 gig Pentium 4 we could have a POWERMac dual 970. Apple gets them cheaper and can put more in the box to sweep past any Dell box and Apple keep their premiums? Just a thought considering their strategic wranglings on the Monitor front. Maybe this kind of clever partnering can give Apple the edge they need.
[quote] A year ago Moki posted that Apple would build x86 boxes in addition to their existing PowerPC lineup. These are most likely restricted to servers and server software, or specialized deliveries for other specialized markets. If Pixar needs the best possible bang for the buck and Apple wants them to run Xserves, then currently Apple will need to deliver them x86-based Xserves. Fortunately Pixar is relatively ISA-agnostic so when the 970 arrives and beats the crap out of the x86 then they can use those too. <hr></blockquote>
And a couple of incisive comments made by Moki and re-articulated by Programmer. The fact that Marklar may not be a 'Reflex nuclear strike' on Wintel but rather, a 'tactical' nuke that is used in selective markets. eg Business/specialised markets etc. Renderfarm for Pixar? X-serve with Intel CPUs in them running on Marklar. A 'business' layer strategy. Allow Apple to penetrate the business markets. Once they have a strong foothold there...ignorance and anti-Apple consolidation will begin to evaporate as Apple becomes more pervasive and persuasive option.
<strong>... Unless Intel's chips lose a LOT of weight in terms of heat production or unless they offer the chips for a much nicer price tag to Apple...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Intel chips aren't expensive at all. They're winning the price war with AMD.
Interesting thread... but all I can add is that the elsewhere mentioned website is not exactly what you would call a "100% dependable source" for news on the 'net. To that extent, most sites are plagued by mistakes and misinterpretations due to the dynamic nature of the 'net itself. Now a days, it seems like almost no one cares to verify sources or filter out misleading reports. In this day and age of up-to-the-minute reporting and in-your-face news, it seems to me that being there first supersedes reliable content. That, by itself, is a shame.
I am not trying to imply the report is totally bogus, but rather that one should always take (mis)information like this with a grain of salt.
As to the topic at hand and as if anyone cared for my opinion, I would like to remind everyone that Pixar (like Apple) is a business and its goal is to make money. If porting its (renderman) rendering software to whatever platform means lower cost as a whole, well, it's a no brainer decision. While I agree that the mentioned move might be plausible or perhaps even a done deal, I wouldn't read too much beyond that.
Oh, by the way, there is a tidbit there from the *other* chip company about the move being due to an effort for getting the best image quality. For those who constantly bash Jobs' so called "RDF", well, this is a clear example that, to be fair, you should bash the other side too. I don't think I have to explain the obvious.
"...and one more thing": I am having a terrible day, so please disregard everything I typed here and move on to the next post below.
And a couple of incisive comments made by Moki and re-articulated by Programmer. The fact that Marklar may not be a 'Reflex nuclear strike' on Wintel but rather, a 'tactical' nuke that is used in selective markets. eg Business/specialised markets etc. Renderfarm for Pixar? X-serve with Intel CPUs in them running on Marklar. A 'business' layer strategy. Allow Apple to penetrate the business markets. Once they have a strong foothold there...ignorance and anti-Apple consolidation will begin to evaporate as Apple becomes more pervasive and persuasive option.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doesn't anyone remember OS/2? I remember a time when it was far superior to windows, ran on existing intel computers, even ran most windows apps, was backed by a really large and successful company (IBM) and, at a time when microsoft didn't have as large a market share as they have today. I even heard that IBM spent around 4 billion marketing it. Today, OS/2 is practically dead and Windows XP is far better than 3.1 was and is in general, on par with OS X except that microsoft has 95% of the market, probably 50X more apps available for it and is MUCH larger than Apple is. I don?t see how Apple is going to conquer the computer world by moving OS X to intel hardware when IBM couldn?t do it and at a time when IBM was much bigger than microsoft. In addition, OS X is slow, probably slower on intel than Xp is and let?s not forget that Apple makes most of their money on hardware. Are they going to sell comparably equipped boxes for 30% more than Dell just because they run OS X? I don?t think so.
ie Apple agree to pay for half or all of the development costs of the 970 or of including the SIMD unit and the continuing 'Power' derivative...and in return, Apple get a cutting edge desktop CPU. A concession is IBM can use it in its battle for Linux server marketshare and Apple get to counter the Wintel performance 'myth' with hard spec' numbers.
If Apple can play shrewd hardball business re: monitors (where Apple, incidentally, ceded exclusivity for a huge price break...) then who is to say they can't do the same with CPUs?
They need a desktop cpu. But they don't have enough in the bank to do the whole cpu bag themselves. Instead. They do the next best thing and have rough idea of what they need to compete and go to some CPU maker with the cloud and proven performance/server track record to deliver CPUs to clients.
We also have to keep in mind what IBM has planned down the pipe ... the Power5.
The Power5 is in itself an incredible chip, more powerful than the Power4, yet able to scale down to even blade servers (VERY unlike the previous Power4) ... it, or some very close derivative (much closer to it, than the 970 is to the Power4) seems to be exactly where Apple needs to go in the future - an extremely powerful chip, with low power, from a large vender, who's doing everything it can to optimize the chip for Unix.
This is not what Intel's up to.
Jumping to Intel in the short term might win a battle, and in some very narrow vertical markets, it might even make some sense TODAY. But in the long term, taking advantage of the 64 bit transition by leaveraging the PowerPC's built in compatability AND IBM's PowerX juggernaught (so much closer to Apple's field of play than Intel is), it would probably be a mistake for Apple to kill the PowerPC baby now: regardless of the pain the PowerPC currently brings Apple.
Hell, from what I read about the Power5, it seems the 970 might actually be a stop-gap chip, rather than the 7457, until the Power5 comes out (2004).
Anyway, this article is very mind blowing on the Power5: it's worth checking out.
yea, only problem is that the chips would not work in the hardware designs apple has.
you think Apple's gonna be able to put a P4 in the 1 inch Powerbook? or even iMac?
and what about software.... recompile may work for some but then wat about optimizations.... do developers write for both PPC and Intel?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think Apple could. After all, desktop P4s are going into those big-ass Alienware and Toshiba laptops...and Shuttle mini-PCs.
But would it help Apple's bottom-line and move more Macs out the door? I don't think so.
Perhaps Steve is working with Intel and IBM. He did say he "likes to have options." However, we'll probably see the 970's before anything else. I think Marklar and Intel are future projects that are maybe targeted for sometime next year. Apple will proabably make two BTO options for their products. The consumer could choose between IBM 970, slower than Intel but retains less heat and is much more compact. They would also be able to choose the Intel chip which would be faster but will be hotter and extremely large.
<strong>Doesn't anyone remember OS/2? I remember a time when it was far superior to windows, ran on existing intel computers, even ran most windows apps, was backed by a really large and successful company (IBM) and, at a time when microsoft didn't have as large a market share as they have today. I even heard that IBM spent around 4 billion marketing it. Today, OS/2 is practically dead and Windows XP is far better than 3.1 was and is in general, on par with OS X except that microsoft has 95% of the market, probably 50X more apps available for it and is MUCH larger than Apple is. I don?t see how Apple is going to conquer the computer world by moving OS X to intel hardware when IBM couldn?t do it and at a time when IBM was much bigger than microsoft. In addition, OS X is slow, probably slower on intel than Xp is and let?s not forget that Apple makes most of their money on hardware. Are they going to sell comparably equipped boxes for 30% more than Dell just because they run OS X? I don?t think so.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your point is completely correct, but not applicable in this case. You are looking at it the wrong way. Rather than looking at it as Apple moving MacOS X into Microsoft's platform playground, look at it as Intel moving into Motorola's playground. Apple isn't trying to jump platform, Apple is "innovating" on their own hardware platform. This is not the same thing -- people won't buy a Dell and run MacOS X on it, they'll buy an Apple and run MacOS X on it. It'll just happen to have an Intel processor in it, and that processor will just happen to use the IA-32 or IA-64 instruction set.
And I'm not talking about Apple moving their entire lineup (consumer, notebooks, desktops) to an Intel processor, just one of their server machines. The really cunning thing about this is that it gets some key software over to the new processor without having to move it all over there. And most of it is open source so it probably already builds fine on x86. Things like the iApps, browsers, and all the other thousands of user software doesn't have to move. Some of it may start to, just because small developers often do things like that just for the heck of it, but by and large the Mac world will carry on, led forward by the carrot of the 970, POWER5, etc. This approach lets Apple become more platform "nimble" which is good thing considering the Motorola-induced pain of the last couple of years. The G4 started out as really good processor, but Motorola just hasn't kept up with the Intel juggernaught. IBM looks like they are able, willing, and even anxious to do so but I wouldn't blame Apple for hedging their bets a little (in fact it would be irresponsible if they didn't).
But IBM's going to kick some serious butt so in the end this will all be academic.
When Steve Jobs took over Pixar, he learned very quickly that the engineers there were not going to accept any gratuitous platform changes. The Pixar employees who use the equipment make the purchasing decisions, and Jobs pays the bills. Pixar is a technology testbed for Jobs, but not in the sense that he foists technology on them to see what happens (at least, not in production): Instead, they tell him in no uncertain terms what they need to do their jobs, and he takes notes.
There are two things to consider with Pixar abandoning Sun: First of all, the move is not so much to Intel as to Linux, which is an excellent choice for renderfarms, and will probably remain so for a while. Intel happens to be the engine underneath, because right now the P4 does what they need done fastest, and also because, ports notwithstanding, Linux' preferred platform is x86 - and, again, that will remain true for some years before even a behemoth like IBM can hope to change it. Linux does, however, give Pixar the option of switching the underlying engine and recompiling if a more compelling CPU appears.
As for Apple using x86, I'm glad LBB picked up on my old reasoning that if they went this way, it would be in the server market: Apple has very little legacy in the way here, UNIX apps really don't care (but Linux apps prefer x86), and x86 has a lot of momentum in the server arena that PPC does not - but, of course, Apple can also offer PPC servers once IBM kicks in. They will still be in an interesting situation here, because there are now several horses to bet on on the other side (IA-32, IA-64, x86-64) and Apple choices could have long-term ramifications - especially, say, if Apple jumps aboard iTanic just as IBM deploys the 970 iceberg to sink it, or if Apple takes a risk with AMD's x86-64, or keeps its options open with IA-32 and gives Intel one more reason to sink iTanic themselves and fall back on their contingency plan.
I really don't believe any of this Apple using Intel stuff. I suppose it is possible for, maybe even beneficial, for apple to use the P4 in the Xserves. It just seems to hard to believe. And to much trouble and money having PPCs and x86 CPUs in your computers. I would think it would be a lot better for apple to just use the 970 as their main CPU. Maybe the G4 will stay around for the iMac or something, but over all I believe the G4 is dead. However, it will not be replaced with a x86 chip. The most obvious, really obvious, choice for apple is the IBM 970.
If IBM can play both sides of the fence with the pSeries and xSeries servers, then why can't Apple? The desktop market is a whole different ballgame, but it can benefit from (and help pay for) the ongoing POWER/PowerPC development.
Pity there is so little real info on the POWER5 -- IBM likes to make it sound like they've got an ace up their sleeve on that one.
...from what I read about the Power5, it seems the 970 might actually be a stop-gap chip, rather than the 7457, until the Power5 comes out (2004).</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 970 would be quite the stopgap. I really don't see a processor on the level of the Power4 or Power5 going into an Apple prosumer machine unless it gets tremendously cheaper and cooler. The 970 would make me happy for years on end.
A rumor of Steve Jobs presenting at Intel's conference was posted on LoopRumors on Jan 20th... but quickly removed after no further information became available. An extensive thread discussing this rumor along with a digital photo is available in the forums.
I really don't believe it. If it was true we would be able to find real information on the fact.
[quote] If IBM can play both sides of the fence with the pSeries and xSeries servers, then why can't Apple? <hr></blockquote>
Exactly.
X-serve and X-Raid to come. That says, 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink...'
M$ are, ironically, following the 'not invented here syndrome' and Apple are, equally ironically, supporting and driving the major open standards in software.
It would be stupifying to suggest that Apple aren't considering a similar multi-threaded approach to hardware, in particular, CPUs. Not likely to happen in 2003...but when M$ gets jiggy with 'Palladium' (or whatever the 'bad pressed' OS is now called...) then Apple deploys a tactical nuke. Something that could well get them over the 10% mark if 2003 and India don't.
This is Next, is it not?
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. I like the sound of the Power5. It could be awesome. And we're all watching for the 970 when the Power5 derived cpu may be the one to truly lead the Apple performance charge for their Shake workstation market. Intel spinning the tyres on 4 giggers and IBM heading to multicores and multiprocessors that behave as one?
But I still don't think any of these possibilities stops Apple having a bite at the Intel cherry. It maybe a soft IT market...but Dell and HP are still selling lots of 'Intel Inside' kit. That's alot of 'mindshare' and faith. I think Apple should buy into that faith. Somehow. But not at the expense of losing control of 'X' (the crown jewels) or the hardware. And there are many ways Apple won't lose control. They still make the box. It just may be x86 code inside, an Itannic or P4 inside. But it will still be controlled by the Messiah.
The proverb of Macosunix could come round to hardware.
Macosunix is working. Apple is in unchartered waters. Unix and Java geeks are doing it on the best laptops around: Apple ones.
A reason Apple might be warming up to Intel may be more political than a simple need to change platforms. Apple needs to continue to be a driving force in technology, making revenue from licensing their technology to support their R&D which in turn gives their hardware the technology edge. For example, maybe Apple is trying to woo Intel to adopt Firewire more fully and even integrate it alongside USB2 in their future chipsets. Any advantage to their chipsets (Intels) would be beneficial to them as it would help them sell more versus losing money to VIA or SiS. or maybe Apple wants to work with Intel developers to improve Quicktime performance on x86 or IA64. Or it could be something else entirely.
<strong>A reason Apple might be warming up to Intel may be more political than a simple need to change platforms. Apple needs to continue to be a driving force in technology, making revenue from licensing their technology to support their R&D which in turn gives their hardware the technology edge. For example, maybe Apple is trying to woo Intel to adopt Firewire more fully and even integrate it alongside USB2 in their future chipsets. Any advantage to their chipsets (Intels) would be beneficial to them as it would help them sell more versus losing money to VIA or SiS. or maybe Apple wants to work with Intel developers to improve Quicktime performance on x86 or IA64. Or it could be something else entirely.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe Apple's PDA or Tablet will use Intel chips??
Comments
<strong>one thing that is strange is that on the powermacs web page there is no P4 chip listed on the performance graphs anymore...
I think</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's because your monitor isn't wide enough.
...and the point I was trying to make but didn't...was that Apple may get favourable pricing if they have helped pay the R&D on the 970. Dual 970s at the current 'power'Mac price breaks would be exceptional. Rather than a CPU that looks on an equal footing with a 3.6 gig Pentium 4 we could have a POWERMac dual 970. Apple gets them cheaper and can put more in the box to sweep past any Dell box and Apple keep their premiums? Just a thought considering their strategic wranglings on the Monitor front. Maybe this kind of clever partnering can give Apple the edge they need.
[quote] A year ago Moki posted that Apple would build x86 boxes in addition to their existing PowerPC lineup. These are most likely restricted to servers and server software, or specialized deliveries for other specialized markets. If Pixar needs the best possible bang for the buck and Apple wants them to run Xserves, then currently Apple will need to deliver them x86-based Xserves. Fortunately Pixar is relatively ISA-agnostic so when the 970 arrives and beats the crap out of the x86 then they can use those too. <hr></blockquote>
And a couple of incisive comments made by Moki and re-articulated by Programmer. The fact that Marklar may not be a 'Reflex nuclear strike' on Wintel but rather, a 'tactical' nuke that is used in selective markets. eg Business/specialised markets etc. Renderfarm for Pixar? X-serve with Intel CPUs in them running on Marklar. A 'business' layer strategy. Allow Apple to penetrate the business markets. Once they have a strong foothold there...ignorance and anti-Apple consolidation will begin to evaporate as Apple becomes more pervasive and persuasive option.
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>... Unless Intel's chips lose a LOT of weight in terms of heat production or unless they offer the chips for a much nicer price tag to Apple...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Intel chips aren't expensive at all. They're winning the price war with AMD.
I am not trying to imply the report is totally bogus, but rather that one should always take (mis)information like this with a grain of salt.
As to the topic at hand and as if anyone cared for my opinion, I would like to remind everyone that Pixar (like Apple) is a business and its goal is to make money. If porting its (renderman) rendering software to whatever platform means lower cost as a whole, well, it's a no brainer decision. While I agree that the mentioned move might be plausible or perhaps even a done deal, I wouldn't read too much beyond that.
Oh, by the way, there is a tidbit there from the *other* chip company about the move being due to an effort for getting the best image quality. For those who constantly bash Jobs' so called "RDF", well, this is a clear example that, to be fair, you should bash the other side too. I don't think I have to explain the obvious.
"...and one more thing": I am having a terrible day, so please disregard everything I typed here and move on to the next post below.
And a couple of incisive comments made by Moki and re-articulated by Programmer. The fact that Marklar may not be a 'Reflex nuclear strike' on Wintel but rather, a 'tactical' nuke that is used in selective markets. eg Business/specialised markets etc. Renderfarm for Pixar? X-serve with Intel CPUs in them running on Marklar. A 'business' layer strategy. Allow Apple to penetrate the business markets. Once they have a strong foothold there...ignorance and anti-Apple consolidation will begin to evaporate as Apple becomes more pervasive and persuasive option.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doesn't anyone remember OS/2? I remember a time when it was far superior to windows, ran on existing intel computers, even ran most windows apps, was backed by a really large and successful company (IBM) and, at a time when microsoft didn't have as large a market share as they have today. I even heard that IBM spent around 4 billion marketing it. Today, OS/2 is practically dead and Windows XP is far better than 3.1 was and is in general, on par with OS X except that microsoft has 95% of the market, probably 50X more apps available for it and is MUCH larger than Apple is. I don?t see how Apple is going to conquer the computer world by moving OS X to intel hardware when IBM couldn?t do it and at a time when IBM was much bigger than microsoft. In addition, OS X is slow, probably slower on intel than Xp is and let?s not forget that Apple makes most of their money on hardware. Are they going to sell comparably equipped boxes for 30% more than Dell just because they run OS X? I don?t think so.
<strong>Macwhispers.com
ie Apple agree to pay for half or all of the development costs of the 970 or of including the SIMD unit and the continuing 'Power' derivative...and in return, Apple get a cutting edge desktop CPU. A concession is IBM can use it in its battle for Linux server marketshare and Apple get to counter the Wintel performance 'myth' with hard spec' numbers.
If Apple can play shrewd hardball business re: monitors (where Apple, incidentally, ceded exclusivity for a huge price break...) then who is to say they can't do the same with CPUs?
They need a desktop cpu. But they don't have enough in the bank to do the whole cpu bag themselves. Instead. They do the next best thing and have rough idea of what they need to compete and go to some CPU maker with the cloud and proven performance/server track record to deliver CPUs to clients.
It could only be IBM.
But I wonder the exact 'wording' of the deal...
...and the breakers and cessions on both sides.
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
We also have to keep in mind what IBM has planned down the pipe ... the Power5.
The Power5 is in itself an incredible chip, more powerful than the Power4, yet able to scale down to even blade servers (VERY unlike the previous Power4) ... it, or some very close derivative (much closer to it, than the 970 is to the Power4) seems to be exactly where Apple needs to go in the future - an extremely powerful chip, with low power, from a large vender, who's doing everything it can to optimize the chip for Unix.
This is not what Intel's up to.
Jumping to Intel in the short term might win a battle, and in some very narrow vertical markets, it might even make some sense TODAY. But in the long term, taking advantage of the 64 bit transition by leaveraging the PowerPC's built in compatability AND IBM's PowerX juggernaught (so much closer to Apple's field of play than Intel is), it would probably be a mistake for Apple to kill the PowerPC baby now: regardless of the pain the PowerPC currently brings Apple.
Hell, from what I read about the Power5, it seems the 970 might actually be a stop-gap chip, rather than the 7457, until the Power5 comes out (2004).
Anyway, this article is very mind blowing on the Power5: it's worth checking out.
<a href="http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/02/04/HNibmroad_1.html"; target="_blank">Power5 Insights</a>
[edit, grammar grammar grammar]
[ 02-08-2003: Message edited by: OverToasty ]</p>
<strong>
yea, only problem is that the chips would not work in the hardware designs apple has.
you think Apple's gonna be able to put a P4 in the 1 inch Powerbook? or even iMac?
and what about software.... recompile may work for some but then wat about optimizations.... do developers write for both PPC and Intel?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think Apple could. After all, desktop P4s are going into those big-ass Alienware and Toshiba laptops...and Shuttle mini-PCs.
But would it help Apple's bottom-line and move more Macs out the door? I don't think so.
Just a thought.....
[ 02-08-2003: Message edited by: Omek ]</p>
<strong>Doesn't anyone remember OS/2? I remember a time when it was far superior to windows, ran on existing intel computers, even ran most windows apps, was backed by a really large and successful company (IBM) and, at a time when microsoft didn't have as large a market share as they have today. I even heard that IBM spent around 4 billion marketing it. Today, OS/2 is practically dead and Windows XP is far better than 3.1 was and is in general, on par with OS X except that microsoft has 95% of the market, probably 50X more apps available for it and is MUCH larger than Apple is. I don?t see how Apple is going to conquer the computer world by moving OS X to intel hardware when IBM couldn?t do it and at a time when IBM was much bigger than microsoft. In addition, OS X is slow, probably slower on intel than Xp is and let?s not forget that Apple makes most of their money on hardware. Are they going to sell comparably equipped boxes for 30% more than Dell just because they run OS X? I don?t think so.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your point is completely correct, but not applicable in this case. You are looking at it the wrong way. Rather than looking at it as Apple moving MacOS X into Microsoft's platform playground, look at it as Intel moving into Motorola's playground. Apple isn't trying to jump platform, Apple is "innovating" on their own hardware platform. This is not the same thing -- people won't buy a Dell and run MacOS X on it, they'll buy an Apple and run MacOS X on it. It'll just happen to have an Intel processor in it, and that processor will just happen to use the IA-32 or IA-64 instruction set.
And I'm not talking about Apple moving their entire lineup (consumer, notebooks, desktops) to an Intel processor, just one of their server machines. The really cunning thing about this is that it gets some key software over to the new processor without having to move it all over there. And most of it is open source so it probably already builds fine on x86. Things like the iApps, browsers, and all the other thousands of user software doesn't have to move. Some of it may start to, just because small developers often do things like that just for the heck of it, but by and large the Mac world will carry on, led forward by the carrot of the 970, POWER5, etc. This approach lets Apple become more platform "nimble" which is good thing considering the Motorola-induced pain of the last couple of years. The G4 started out as really good processor, but Motorola just hasn't kept up with the Intel juggernaught. IBM looks like they are able, willing, and even anxious to do so but I wouldn't blame Apple for hedging their bets a little (in fact it would be irresponsible if they didn't).
But IBM's going to kick some serious butt so in the end this will all be academic.
There are two things to consider with Pixar abandoning Sun: First of all, the move is not so much to Intel as to Linux, which is an excellent choice for renderfarms, and will probably remain so for a while. Intel happens to be the engine underneath, because right now the P4 does what they need done fastest, and also because, ports notwithstanding, Linux' preferred platform is x86 - and, again, that will remain true for some years before even a behemoth like IBM can hope to change it. Linux does, however, give Pixar the option of switching the underlying engine and recompiling if a more compelling CPU appears.
As for Apple using x86, I'm glad LBB picked up on my old reasoning that if they went this way, it would be in the server market: Apple has very little legacy in the way here, UNIX apps really don't care (but Linux apps prefer x86), and x86 has a lot of momentum in the server arena that PPC does not - but, of course, Apple can also offer PPC servers once IBM kicks in. They will still be in an interesting situation here, because there are now several horses to bet on on the other side (IA-32, IA-64, x86-64) and Apple choices could have long-term ramifications - especially, say, if Apple jumps aboard iTanic just as IBM deploys the 970 iceberg to sink it, or if Apple takes a risk with AMD's x86-64, or keeps its options open with IA-32 and gives Intel one more reason to sink iTanic themselves and fall back on their contingency plan.
Pity there is so little real info on the POWER5 -- IBM likes to make it sound like they've got an ace up their sleeve on that one.
<strong>
...from what I read about the Power5, it seems the 970 might actually be a stop-gap chip, rather than the 7457, until the Power5 comes out (2004).</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 970 would be quite the stopgap. I really don't see a processor on the level of the Power4 or Power5 going into an Apple prosumer machine unless it gets tremendously cheaper and cooler. The 970 would make me happy for years on end.
Why doesn't the CEO of Pixar use Apple computers?
If they aren't good enough for Pixar why should anyone else buy them?
Why is Pixar porting the Renderman application to Linux but not Mac OS X?
Great
<strong>This could lead to big problems for Apple if the press shines this in the wrong light. I can see it now...
Why doesn't the CEO of Pixar use Apple computers?
If they aren't good enough for Pixar why should anyone else buy them?
Why is Pixar porting the Renderman application to Linux but not Mac OS X?
Great
Well, since that story was completely made up, I wouldn't worry to much about it.
<a href="http://www.macrumors.com"; target="_blank">www.macrumors.com</a>
A rumor of Steve Jobs presenting at Intel's conference was posted on LoopRumors on Jan 20th... but quickly removed after no further information became available. An extensive thread discussing this rumor along with a digital photo is available in the forums.
I really don't believe it. If it was true we would be able to find real information on the fact.
Exactly.
X-serve and X-Raid to come. That says, 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink...'
M$ are, ironically, following the 'not invented here syndrome' and Apple are, equally ironically, supporting and driving the major open standards in software.
It would be stupifying to suggest that Apple aren't considering a similar multi-threaded approach to hardware, in particular, CPUs. Not likely to happen in 2003...but when M$ gets jiggy with 'Palladium' (or whatever the 'bad pressed' OS is now called...) then Apple deploys a tactical nuke. Something that could well get them over the 10% mark if 2003 and India don't.
This is Next, is it not?
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. I like the sound of the Power5. It could be awesome. And we're all watching for the 970 when the Power5 derived cpu may be the one to truly lead the Apple performance charge for their Shake workstation market. Intel spinning the tyres on 4 giggers and IBM heading to multicores and multiprocessors that behave as one?
But I still don't think any of these possibilities stops Apple having a bite at the Intel cherry. It maybe a soft IT market...but Dell and HP are still selling lots of 'Intel Inside' kit. That's alot of 'mindshare' and faith. I think Apple should buy into that faith. Somehow. But not at the expense of losing control of 'X' (the crown jewels) or the hardware. And there are many ways Apple won't lose control. They still make the box. It just may be x86 code inside, an Itannic or P4 inside. But it will still be controlled by the Messiah.
The proverb of Macosunix could come round to hardware.
Macosunix is working. Apple is in unchartered waters. Unix and Java geeks are doing it on the best laptops around: Apple ones.
'X' is like the Sermon from the Mount.
We should take note and watch the skies...
[ 02-08-2003: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>A reason Apple might be warming up to Intel may be more political than a simple need to change platforms. Apple needs to continue to be a driving force in technology, making revenue from licensing their technology to support their R&D which in turn gives their hardware the technology edge. For example, maybe Apple is trying to woo Intel to adopt Firewire more fully and even integrate it alongside USB2 in their future chipsets. Any advantage to their chipsets (Intels) would be beneficial to them as it would help them sell more versus losing money to VIA or SiS. or maybe Apple wants to work with Intel developers to improve Quicktime performance on x86 or IA64. Or it could be something else entirely.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe Apple's PDA or Tablet will use Intel chips??