I'm still trying to grasp why Apple would benefit from emulating the crap that is Windows.
Switchers are looking to get AWAY from Wintel not stare out it once again when booting into OSX.
Apple's got much more stuff to work on than integrating Windows.
Funny how most of the Mac users ranting about "losing" VPC didn't even own a copy. So much for VPC being an indespensible app <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Well yeah, but they don't do them one line at a time!
Seriously though, I think the big problem is not so much the actual time it takes to do deposition and etch the traces, etc. but more in determining what the optimal time and technique to use at each stage is. Initially, it's an ongoing process that's constantly being tweaked, but once you hit a sweet spot, you pretty much nail it down and crank them out. And judging by the way they went from 1.8Ghz at the top end of the range (in October) to 1.8GHz at the bottom end (now), I'd say they've come pretty far in determining what that "sweet spot" is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tomb of the Unknown, that's all well and good, but I believe it still takes about 60 days to manufacture a cpu from start to finish.
Ok, I'm asking for help.
The Pentium took about 90 days to manufacture, around the clock, 24 hours a day production time, from start to finish . In previous posts here and elsewhere, the time to manufacture cpu's has been mentioned to be about 60 days, from start to finish.
Does any one know if this has been significantly reduced?
<strong>I'm still trying to grasp why Apple would benefit from emulating the crap that is Windows.
Switchers are looking to get AWAY from Wintel not stare out it once again when booting into OSX.
Apple's got much more stuff to work on than integrating Windows.
Funny how most of the Mac users ranting about "losing" VPC didn't even own a copy. So much for VPC being an indespensible app <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
"I would love to try out OS X but I have this huge investment in all this Windows software - I can't afford to buy a new Mac along with new versions (where they exist) of all my old software!"
An example from my own life: I'm teaching an online chemistry course. One of my students sent me her assignments in WordPerfect format. I have Office X, but I can't open .wpd files with it. I had to download it to my Windows box so I could run WordPerfect. Sure would have been nice to have been able to load WordPerfect on my Mac. I don't need Windows emulation often enough to justify VPC, but the alternative is generally having to deal with two computers.
There are thousands of people running around with VPC on their PowerBooks because they need to access both OSes and only have one computer available.
Apple killed the clones a long time ago. They want to control the software AND the hardware. This has its pros and cons, but Apple can do good things by controlling the operating system and the hardware that runs it.
If they put out an x86 version of OS X, they lose control of the hardware. And most people won't spend money to buy a consumer Mac when they can get a decent PC for half the price and still run a superior operating system. Apple will get some money off of the OS license and possibly increase marketshare, but I wouldn't call these people switchers and I sure wouldn't call this strategy a success. I don't see them running OS X on x86 and then realizing that they should have paid twice as much to run it on Apple hardware. I'll bet that Apple would rather sell a 1499$ iMac than a 130$ OS X license and have the hardware control severed.
I believe that Apple would use Markler as a last resort, as something to fall back on if the shit hits the fan.
Just think about it. It's not the win-win situation that some of you believe.
<strong>Think about this when you think about Markler.
Apple killed the clones a long time ago. They want to control the software AND the hardware. This has its pros and cons, but Apple can do good things by controlling the operating system and the hardware that runs it.
If they put out an x86 version of OS X, they lose control of the hardware. And most people won't spend money to buy a consumer Mac when they can get a decent PC for half the price and still run a superior operating system. Apple will get some money off of the OS license and possibly increase marketshare, but I wouldn't call these people switchers and I sure wouldn't call this strategy a success. I don't see them running OS X on x86 and then realizing that they should have paid twice as much to run it on Apple hardware. I think they'd rather sell a 1499$ iMac than a 130$ OS X license and have the hardware control severed.
I believe that Apple would use Markler as a last resort, as something to fall back on if the shit hits the fan.
Just think about it. It's not the win-win situation that some of you believe.
Apple killed the clones becouse they were not increasing the market share of the Macintosh OS computers significantly enough to offset the loss in market share of Apples Macintosh hardware. Basically the Clones were eating into Apples sales too much without attracting enough "switchers" so that Apple could make up for the loss of hardware sales with gains in software licenses.
Marklar will only work if Apple can gain enough software sales to make up for any losses in hardware sales that they would experience due to lower cost PC boxes.
Marklar will only work if Apple can gain enough software sales to make up for any losses in hardware sales that they would experience due to lower cost PC boxes.
That's why I'm stoked about the notion of built-in, fast IA-32 emulation in OS X. Instead of moving OS X to PC boxes, we move Windows to Apple boxes. Apple still controls the hardware, but also offers a hand up to fence-sitters. As the new switcher buy new software, they get OS X native versions for better performance, but meanwhile their old software runs just fine.
I'm probably getting carried away with this, but it is possible that the 970 could offer high enough performance that it can offer an emulated Windows environment on par with the the best x86 systems. Wouldn't it be interesting if the Macintosh were the fastest Windows computer around?
[quote] Apple killed the clones becouse they were not increasing the market share of the Macintosh OS computers significantly enough to offset the loss in market share of Apples Macintosh hardware. Basically the Clones were eating into Apples sales too much without attracting enough "switchers" so that Apple could make up for the loss of hardware sales with gains in software licenses.
Marklar will only work if Apple can gain enough software sales to make up for any losses in hardware sales that they would experience due to lower cost PC boxes. <hr></blockquote>
You can't tell me that PCs at half to two thirds the cost of a Mac wouldn't eat into Apple sales. Even when Apple is tearing Intel a new asshole with the 970, people would buy the cheap PC and run OS X becuase there are plenty of things people can do with the hundreds and hundreds of dollars they save by going with PC hardware. Not everyone buys the highest end machines.
<strong>everyone sure has gotten their expectations up. There has been no announcement that apple will even use the 970 or anything else for that matter. THey could do something completely arbitruary. Lets get back to earth. Mac users this is Houston... do you read me?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, let's just look at the facts:
1) the 970 has Altivec ?.
2) The 970 is a 32/64 bit CPU with no emulation for 32 bit
3) the G4 is tanked, end of life and suffering from major low clock speeds and poor performance.
IBM have had a welcome surprise at the onset of production of the PPC 970. The amount of valid processors reaching 2 Ghz or more has surpassed all their expectations. The chip should be available in July!
IBM's future chip plans:
In Spring 2004 it will be superceded with a 970CX version etched in 0.09 microns and reserved for portables. At the same time, the Power 5 will be available, starting at between 1.5 and 2.5 GHz. Further still, the PPC 980 will be a Power 5 light + Altivec expected to operate between 2.8 and 4.5 GHz. There should also be a super version which will be a Power 5 that is not castrated with Altivec. It will be named the PPC 9800. In 2006 we will be seeing the PPC 990...
As you'll have gathered, Apple's sales will take off
- [Rumor] Apple has very advanced prototypes of the PPC 970 motherboard (they received CPUs more than 2 months ago). As on other protypes that we've seen, the CPU is aligned at 45 degrees. The prototype supports DDR400, USB 2.0 and AGP 8x. It is very well advanced even though there are still some problems with the bus.
>>
My French is far from fluent but I think the facts are translated OK. I hope 'anonymous' is credible. Seems very promising but I'll leave it to those who know far more than me to draw whatever they will from this rumour.
Hmmmm, current estimated ship time for a PM tower at Apple store? 3-4 weeks.
Interesting.</strong><hr></blockquote>Come on, they just released new ones. That delay is only on the dual 1.4, which is a new chip. The other models say "same day."
An example from my own life: I'm teaching an online chemistry course. One of my students sent me her assignments in WordPerfect format. I have Office X, but I can't open .wpd files with it. I had to download it to my Windows box so I could run WordPerfect.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, all you need is MacLinks Plus. It converts WP files to mac office. And it converts hundreds of other file formats as well!
Hmmmm. What was that picture a while back showing a blurry cpu at a 45* angle?!
[quote] NB: Motorola 7457 will still have a place in the Apple product line. It's going in the new iPod!
vinney57
Well fark my old boots...I've gone all tingly...
I think the implications of this are huge. One of them is the likelyhood of OSX on Intel...Oh yes my friends. The move to Intel was espoused as a solution to performance problems...how wrong we were. The port to Intel will be an aggressive move aimed right at Microsnot's arse, Think about it, if you are totally confident that you have the best specced, best designed, FASTEST machines around then there is nothing to fear. Get the great unwashed playing with OSX on their digusting beige boxes and then sell 'em a REAL computer...Oh the irony!
I can't stop smiling....
Anonymous Karma
Junior Member
Originally posted by moki:
there may be more than one bag of sand, too... two more that I can think of actually... I posted it here as well:
Remember that about the same time moki started talking about GP-UL, he was also making unhelpful yet teasing comments about OS X on x86.
Folks, I think there's more here than meets the eye.
<hr></blockquote>
The three prongs of Moki's trident.
More and more intriguing is an Apple/Intel 'X' Marklar 'marketshare' Mac that tears M$ a new *sshole as they try to 'Palladium' an unsuspecting and gullible public. That would be a steel capped punt to M$'s nuts. If you've got 970-990s coming on tap... When do you do Marklar?
From a position of strength.
The 970 on the PPC side...and disatisfaction with M$'s Palladium will open up a window of opportunity for Apple that they won't be getting for another decade.
This is their chance to go for M$'s throat.
Bundle a free copy of 'Aqua Open Office' with every Mac sold in Apple stores?
A PPC 970 Mac that can emulate a 1 gig Pentium 3 under Virtual PC? (Cynic in me. Can you guess why M$ bought to kill VPC? )
You aint getting to 8 Billion turnover unless you have something compelling to bring to your product line.
That aint another bumped G4 tower folks.
It has to be something more compelling. Now I can see why Freddy Anderson and Apple are being more bullish. (I can also see why Steve Jobs blurted his 10% figure!)
970.
Loads more software.
Loads more Apple stores to shift kit.
Marklar to 'demo' 'X' to a PC owning 95%, many of whom are p*ssed at M$'s pending licensing gluttony.
Put 970 and no license fees in X-serve?
See some Fortune 500 companies doing an 'Enterprise' switch.
In case you hadn't noticed, that costs $100 - about the same price as VPC. It used to come with the Mac OS, but that ended with OS 8, IIRC. I already had a PC with WP loaded, so that was considerably more cost-effective. Since I encounter this situation rarely, it isn't worth getting MLP or VPB. And if my Mac had built-in emulation, I wouldn't need MLP, either...
Dedicated Mac users generally have little use for Windows emulation. Its main value would be in enticing switchers by lowering the "entry fee" to getting onto OS X.
Comments
Switchers are looking to get AWAY from Wintel not stare out it once again when booting into OSX.
Apple's got much more stuff to work on than integrating Windows.
Funny how most of the Mac users ranting about "losing" VPC didn't even own a copy. So much for VPC being an indespensible app <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>
Well yeah, but they don't do them one line at a time!
Seriously though, I think the big problem is not so much the actual time it takes to do deposition and etch the traces, etc. but more in determining what the optimal time and technique to use at each stage is. Initially, it's an ongoing process that's constantly being tweaked, but once you hit a sweet spot, you pretty much nail it down and crank them out. And judging by the way they went from 1.8Ghz at the top end of the range (in October) to 1.8GHz at the bottom end (now), I'd say they've come pretty far in determining what that "sweet spot" is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tomb of the Unknown, that's all well and good, but I believe it still takes about 60 days to manufacture a cpu from start to finish.
Ok, I'm asking for help.
The Pentium took about 90 days to manufacture, around the clock, 24 hours a day production time, from start to finish . In previous posts here and elsewhere, the time to manufacture cpu's has been mentioned to be about 60 days, from start to finish.
Does any one know if this has been significantly reduced?
<strong>I'm still trying to grasp why Apple would benefit from emulating the crap that is Windows.
Switchers are looking to get AWAY from Wintel not stare out it once again when booting into OSX.
Apple's got much more stuff to work on than integrating Windows.
Funny how most of the Mac users ranting about "losing" VPC didn't even own a copy. So much for VPC being an indespensible app <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
"I would love to try out OS X but I have this huge investment in all this Windows software - I can't afford to buy a new Mac along with new versions (where they exist) of all my old software!"
An example from my own life: I'm teaching an online chemistry course. One of my students sent me her assignments in WordPerfect format. I have Office X, but I can't open .wpd files with it. I had to download it to my Windows box so I could run WordPerfect. Sure would have been nice to have been able to load WordPerfect on my Mac. I don't need Windows emulation often enough to justify VPC, but the alternative is generally having to deal with two computers.
There are thousands of people running around with VPC on their PowerBooks because they need to access both OSes and only have one computer available.
Apple killed the clones a long time ago. They want to control the software AND the hardware. This has its pros and cons, but Apple can do good things by controlling the operating system and the hardware that runs it.
If they put out an x86 version of OS X, they lose control of the hardware. And most people won't spend money to buy a consumer Mac when they can get a decent PC for half the price and still run a superior operating system. Apple will get some money off of the OS license and possibly increase marketshare, but I wouldn't call these people switchers and I sure wouldn't call this strategy a success. I don't see them running OS X on x86 and then realizing that they should have paid twice as much to run it on Apple hardware. I'll bet that Apple would rather sell a 1499$ iMac than a 130$ OS X license and have the hardware control severed.
I believe that Apple would use Markler as a last resort, as something to fall back on if the shit hits the fan.
Just think about it. It's not the win-win situation that some of you believe.
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: FrostyMMB ]</p>
<strong>Think about this when you think about Markler.
Apple killed the clones a long time ago. They want to control the software AND the hardware. This has its pros and cons, but Apple can do good things by controlling the operating system and the hardware that runs it.
If they put out an x86 version of OS X, they lose control of the hardware. And most people won't spend money to buy a consumer Mac when they can get a decent PC for half the price and still run a superior operating system. Apple will get some money off of the OS license and possibly increase marketshare, but I wouldn't call these people switchers and I sure wouldn't call this strategy a success. I don't see them running OS X on x86 and then realizing that they should have paid twice as much to run it on Apple hardware. I think they'd rather sell a 1499$ iMac than a 130$ OS X license and have the hardware control severed.
I believe that Apple would use Markler as a last resort, as something to fall back on if the shit hits the fan.
Just think about it. It's not the win-win situation that some of you believe.
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: FrostyMMB ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple killed the clones becouse they were not increasing the market share of the Macintosh OS computers significantly enough to offset the loss in market share of Apples Macintosh hardware. Basically the Clones were eating into Apples sales too much without attracting enough "switchers" so that Apple could make up for the loss of hardware sales with gains in software licenses.
Marklar will only work if Apple can gain enough software sales to make up for any losses in hardware sales that they would experience due to lower cost PC boxes.
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: @homenow ]</p>
<strong>I wonder if the delayed 17" might ship with a 970.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please tell me that was a joke. Not going to happen.
- Snowster
<strong>
Marklar will only work if Apple can gain enough software sales to make up for any losses in hardware sales that they would experience due to lower cost PC boxes.
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: @homenow ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's why I'm stoked about the notion of built-in, fast IA-32 emulation in OS X. Instead of moving OS X to PC boxes, we move Windows to Apple boxes. Apple still controls the hardware, but also offers a hand up to fence-sitters. As the new switcher buy new software, they get OS X native versions for better performance, but meanwhile their old software runs just fine.
I'm probably getting carried away with this, but it is possible that the 970 could offer high enough performance that it can offer an emulated Windows environment on par with the the best x86 systems. Wouldn't it be interesting if the Macintosh were the fastest Windows computer around?
Marklar will only work if Apple can gain enough software sales to make up for any losses in hardware sales that they would experience due to lower cost PC boxes. <hr></blockquote>
You can't tell me that PCs at half to two thirds the cost of a Mac wouldn't eat into Apple sales. Even when Apple is tearing Intel a new asshole with the 970, people would buy the cheap PC and run OS X becuase there are plenty of things people can do with the hundreds and hundreds of dollars they save by going with PC hardware. Not everyone buys the highest end machines.
The only "conventional wisdom" (among us rumorfreaks) about the 970 and apple hardware I can think of is:
1. Apple systems with the 970 will probably be available in September-October. Possibly later, but not earlier.
2. The 970 might perhaps possibly maybe go into the powerbook before years end.(If Desktops get it as early as Sept-Oct, that is)
3. Consumer products won't get the 970 until way later than the pro machines. Second half of 2004 if we're lucky.
moki, do you agree to the above being conventional wisdom about apple and the 970, or am i missunderstanding your post?
<strong>
Hmmmm, current estimated ship time for a PM tower at Apple store? 3-4 weeks.
Interesting.</strong><hr></blockquote>
WWDC / Quicktime Live?
could this be a possible release date? The 'hollywood' crowd would be in the same room as the developers...
<strong>everyone sure has gotten their expectations up. There has been no announcement that apple will even use the 970 or anything else for that matter. THey could do something completely arbitruary. Lets get back to earth. Mac users this is Houston... do you read me?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, let's just look at the facts:
1) the 970 has Altivec ?.
2) The 970 is a 32/64 bit CPU with no emulation for 32 bit
3) the G4 is tanked, end of life and suffering from major low clock speeds and poor performance.
1+2+3 = 970
<<
Thanks to anonymous for the info
IBM have had a welcome surprise at the onset of production of the PPC 970. The amount of valid processors reaching 2 Ghz or more has surpassed all their expectations. The chip should be available in July!
IBM's future chip plans:
In Spring 2004 it will be superceded with a 970CX version etched in 0.09 microns and reserved for portables. At the same time, the Power 5 will be available, starting at between 1.5 and 2.5 GHz. Further still, the PPC 980 will be a Power 5 light + Altivec expected to operate between 2.8 and 4.5 GHz. There should also be a super version which will be a Power 5 that is not castrated with Altivec. It will be named the PPC 9800. In 2006 we will be seeing the PPC 990...
As you'll have gathered, Apple's sales will take off
- [Rumor] Apple has very advanced prototypes of the PPC 970 motherboard (they received CPUs more than 2 months ago). As on other protypes that we've seen, the CPU is aligned at 45 degrees. The prototype supports DDR400, USB 2.0 and AGP 8x. It is very well advanced even though there are still some problems with the bus.
>>
My French is far from fluent but I think the facts are translated OK. I hope 'anonymous' is credible. Seems very promising but I'll leave it to those who know far more than me to draw whatever they will from this rumour.
<strong>
Hmmmm, current estimated ship time for a PM tower at Apple store? 3-4 weeks.
Interesting.</strong><hr></blockquote>Come on, they just released new ones. That delay is only on the dual 1.4, which is a new chip. The other models say "same day."
<strong>
An example from my own life: I'm teaching an online chemistry course. One of my students sent me her assignments in WordPerfect format. I have Office X, but I can't open .wpd files with it. I had to download it to my Windows box so I could run WordPerfect.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, all you need is MacLinks Plus. It converts WP files to mac office. And it converts hundreds of other file formats as well!
<a href="http://www.dataviz.com/products/maclinkplus/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.dataviz.com/products/maclinkplus/index.html</a>;
[quote] NB: Motorola 7457 will still have a place in the Apple product line. It's going in the new iPod!
vinney57
Well fark my old boots...I've gone all tingly...
I think the implications of this are huge. One of them is the likelyhood of OSX on Intel...Oh yes my friends. The move to Intel was espoused as a solution to performance problems...how wrong we were. The port to Intel will be an aggressive move aimed right at Microsnot's arse, Think about it, if you are totally confident that you have the best specced, best designed, FASTEST machines around then there is nothing to fear. Get the great unwashed playing with OSX on their digusting beige boxes and then sell 'em a REAL computer...Oh the irony!
I can't stop smiling....
Anonymous Karma
Junior Member
Originally posted by moki:
there may be more than one bag of sand, too... two more that I can think of actually... I posted it here as well:
Remember that about the same time moki started talking about GP-UL, he was also making unhelpful yet teasing comments about OS X on x86.
Folks, I think there's more here than meets the eye.
<hr></blockquote>
The three prongs of Moki's trident.
More and more intriguing is an Apple/Intel 'X' Marklar 'marketshare' Mac that tears M$ a new *sshole as they try to 'Palladium' an unsuspecting and gullible public. That would be a steel capped punt to M$'s nuts. If you've got 970-990s coming on tap... When do you do Marklar?
From a position of strength.
The 970 on the PPC side...and disatisfaction with M$'s Palladium will open up a window of opportunity for Apple that they won't be getting for another decade.
This is their chance to go for M$'s throat.
Bundle a free copy of 'Aqua Open Office' with every Mac sold in Apple stores?
A PPC 970 Mac that can emulate a 1 gig Pentium 3 under Virtual PC? (Cynic in me. Can you guess why M$ bought to kill VPC?
You aint getting to 8 Billion turnover unless you have something compelling to bring to your product line.
That aint another bumped G4 tower folks.
It has to be something more compelling. Now I can see why Freddy Anderson and Apple are being more bullish. (I can also see why Steve Jobs blurted his 10% figure!)
970.
Loads more software.
Loads more Apple stores to shift kit.
Marklar to 'demo' 'X' to a PC owning 95%, many of whom are p*ssed at M$'s pending licensing gluttony.
Put 970 and no license fees in X-serve?
See some Fortune 500 companies doing an 'Enterprise' switch.
Watch the skies begin to fall...
I'm so happy, my head's caving in...
Lemon Bon Bon :eek: <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
<strong>
Unfortunately, Bochs is so amazingly slow that I think you may as well give up on that idea.
...so, what ideas should we not give up on?
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: McCrab ]</p>
<strong>
Uh, all you need is MacLinks Plus. It converts WP files to mac office. And it converts hundreds of other file formats as well!
<a href="http://www.dataviz.com/products/maclinkplus/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.dataviz.com/products/maclinkplus/index.html</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
In case you hadn't noticed, that costs $100 - about the same price as VPC. It used to come with the Mac OS, but that ended with OS 8, IIRC. I already had a PC with WP loaded, so that was considerably more cost-effective. Since I encounter this situation rarely, it isn't worth getting MLP or VPB. And if my Mac had built-in emulation, I wouldn't need MLP, either...
Dedicated Mac users generally have little use for Windows emulation. Its main value would be in enticing switchers by lowering the "entry fee" to getting onto OS X.
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
<hr></blockquote>
95% to aim at. They've already got Winblows.
They aint got a Mac. That's a big Pie to aim at.
Lemon Bon Bon
Moki, did you read the 'opinion' piece on the front page?
Lemon Bon Bon