Anyway, Apple switching (LOL) to Intel is possible but not probable but if it does come to pass then ... oh boy will the Windows fans laugh so hard into their cheap 3Ghz Dells. ROFL.
Good point. Who'd buy a $1000 3GHz Mac when you can get one from Dell for half that? With LCD monitor!
I believe it when I see it. Currently, I very much suspect bovine manure, because:
- Apple depends of 3rd party developers to develop for the platform (this is especially true for Adobe and other heavyweights). After a painful transition from 68K -> PPC, painful years of developing for an abortive OS effort (Copland), going back to an aging API, then moving to a complely new paradigm (OS X) now another switch to a old/new platform? Guess what, a lot of developers would pull the plug and concentrate on their Windows offerings to prepare for the first major switch since win95 (Longhorn).
- Instant death of their hardware business. Why would anyone buy a PPC Mac now if they might be able to run a tweaked version of OS X on their Dull boxes?
- Running OS X and Win 2K side by side on the same box would be _hugely_ embarrassing for Apple. Believe it or not, but OS X is no powerhouse. It delivers decent speed, but not more. Due to its very complex UI layer and microkernel structure, it would appear sluggish. A first, mostly unoptimized, release would look rather sad side by side with a windows box.
- Ever contemplated the fate of OS/2? Superior OS, vanished because people just installed Windows on the same boxes.
If anything, I could believe Programmers speculation of an intel RISC core with a PPC ISA decoder to make it a virtual PPC. But nevertheless, I am curious what monday will bring
I believe it when I see it. Currently, I very much suspect bovine manure, because:
- Apple depends of 3rd party developers to develop for the platform (this is especially true for Adobe and other heavyweights). After a painful transition from 68K -> PPC, painful years of developing for an abortive OS effort (Copland), going back to an aging API, then moving to a complely new paradigm (OS X) now another switch to a old/new platform? Guess what, a lot of developers would pull the plug and concentrate on their Windows offerings to prepare for the first major switch since win95 (Longhorn).
- Instant death of their hardware business. Why would anyone buy a PPC Mac now if they might be able to run a tweaked version of OS X on their Dull boxes?
- Running OS X and Win 2K side by side on the same box would be _hugely_ embarrassing for Apple. Believe it or not, but OS X is no powerhouse. It delivers decent speed, but not more. Due to its very complex UI layer and microkernel structure, it would appear sluggish. A first, mostly unoptimized, release would look rather sad side by side with a windows box.
- Ever contemplated the fate of OS/2? Superior OS, vanished because people just installed Windows on the same boxes.
If anything, I could believe Programmers speculation of an intel RISC core with a PPC ISA decoder to make it a virtual PPC. But nevertheless, I am curious what monday will bring
This is right. It's what we've been saying when the first rumor came out.
In addition, would developers maintain two tracks for their programs? With some 25-30 million PPC machines out there, they couldn't very well abandon that market. If the line only moves towards x86 over a one or two year period, what happens during that time?
Our discussions included the virtualization hardware that Intel developed. They said that other OSes would work on those chips. Presumably this would work in real time, not the way VPC works now. So if this would occur, it would be with these chips.
I really can't see Adobe and others re-writing all of their software again. It's not a simple re-compile. A tremendous amount of hand tweaking would be required in order to get performance back up.
Remember Office 6?. What a dog it was? That was because it was a Windows port with little hand tweaking. The reason that that latest versions work so well is because they are developed independently of the Windows version. Other than MS who is going to bother?
Well, two days to go. I just hope my stock doesn't do anything funny again.
You're clutching at straws and quoting someone who is doing likewise. Just because Programmer is saying the things most Mac fanatics want to hear does not make them true.
You're right, it is just a forlorn hope in the face of news that I really don't want to be true. Unfortunately there seem to be business realities which might make it true. However...
Quote:
First question: after people here have been rubbishing Intel's products for years why expect something creative from them? For that matter, when has Intel ever been creative?
Actually their x86 designs are fairly innovative -- how else could they get the ancient x86 up to its current speeds? The main problem is that they've been saddled with their own situation... something they've been trying to change repeatedly for years.
Quote:
Yes Intel has been "stuck" with x86 for a long time. And you know why? Cause the revenues just from that chip line alone dwarfs the economies of several countries. Intel stuck with x86 is like saying MS is stuck with Windows. Trust me - you too would love to be "stuck" with a near monopoly that is the x86.
Not entirely -- the fact that they've tried to create several chip lines as replacements for x86 means they have reason to do so (IA-64 is the latest).
Quote:
Why does the "horrid x86 ISA" suck? Don't quote me that only # of registers rubbish please. No x86 does not have Altivec but, frankly, it doesnt seem to have affected performance too badly. I dont think losing Altivec keeps Steve awake at night.
It is a heck of a mess and there are all sorts of reasons it sucks. And AltiVec is significantly better than SSE -- look at vector benchmarks and you'll see that.
Quote:
And one does not just stick a different decoder chip anywhere. IBM has been the top patent filer for years. Only God, and the patent office, know which thick maze of patents covers PPC. Tell me why Intel will bother to go through the hassle/licensing fees? Just becase the Dear Leader says so?
I was glib in my statement, but the fact remains that the x86 portion of Intel's chips these days is a module that decodes the x86 stream into their internal microops. Intel is the king of this approach and they probably hold tons of patents on it.
Doesn't anyone else remember that Apple sponsored Exponential back in the mid-90s. That was a small startup who was building a high frequency (for the time) PPC design. They could use PPC because Apple licensed it to them. Never flew because they weren't big enough to compete with Moto/IBM and the 604e handed them their lunch. Intel is a lot stronger.
Quote:
Anyway, Apple switching (LOL) to Intel is possible but not probable but if it does come to pass then ... oh boy will the Windows fans laugh so hard into their cheap 3Ghz Dells. ROFL.
It would be political egg-on-the-face, but that has happened to Steve with both Moto and IBM. I'm more concerned about the serious mess it would make of the Mac market during the transition, which would take years to settle down. An x86 emulator of PPC would not do well, the big/little endian issue is a pretty serious one in a lot of code, and a lot of developers would just be fed up with yet another transition.
There is an extra bonus for Intel here... PPC has had a bunch of design wins lately, and if Intel could offer PPC cores that might let them pre-empt IBM and Motorola.
All that said, I don't think any of this is particularly likely.
all this just makes me think there might be a new OS announcement tomorrow. Perhaps an embedded OS for a tablet or new product which just might use an Intel chip. The iPod has its own little OS...why not another? Why not a new small or embedded OS on a Intel based device?
In any case, I think it might be an exciting week, at least I hope so. No news would be boring...
I think the only thing holding back Apple is Apple. Most people (not geeks that run speed test, nor gamers that prefer video games on a supped up computer instead of a game console) really could care less what chip is inside their box! I've heard the argument that cheaper chips would allow Apple to become the new Dell (ugh) and expand its user base with really cheap Macs. Macs are not that more expensive component wise to most PCs. Apple sees itself as a quality brand and it prides its corporate self in the luxury of detail it supplies its hardware and software.
I'm not saying that using Intel chips will not happen, it just wont happen for the reasons most posters here have mentioned. I think the speed issue is low on the list of priorities with other technologies (we may discover on Monday) being the real reason.
The most sensible voice for years on Appleinsider, Programmer nails it. An Apple-Intel partnership surely implies something genuinely creative, not the all-too-obvious direct switch to x86. If Monday augurs anything, it's in the direction of innovation and surprise, not retrenchment. Otherwise, Apple really would be shooting themselves in the loins.
I agree. Apple was part of AIM and likely has rights to the PPC instruction set and vector processor. Apple could license Intel to make a them a chip, say based on the Pentium M for notebooks. Intel may be eager to do this to get PPC experience. The Itanium isn't exactly taking off, so Intel may be considering becoming part of Power Everywhere eventually. This would be Intel testing the waters.
I've gotten some sleep and managed to get over the shock.
Let's parse the CNet article carefully, namely the first graf:
Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994, but will begin a phased transition to Intel's chips, sources familiar with the situation said.
What I think as I reread the CNet story with a clearer mind is that the writer had just a few nuggets of truth, but lacking the context we get here on Future Hardware, wrote something that ends up as science fiction fantasy on a par with Robert Heinlein. Note carefully the story doesn't say "Apple will adopt x86 chips" but "Apple... will begin a phased transition to Intel's chips, sources familiar with the situation said."
The more I think about this, the more I think what will happen Monday is that Uncle Steve will announce a line of microprocessors from Intel that will run PPC code, but will not have anything to do with x86 ISA.
To put it another way: Steve's announcing he's got a deal for Intel to produce PPC core chips. IBM and Intel have had cross licensing deals in the past (anyone remember the "Blue Lightening" 80286 kinda-sorta-clone?). Cross-licensing the PPC stuff would be a stretch, but not an insurmountable deal, particularly with Uncle Steve zapping people with RDF.
And of course, leave it for a story like this to leak out, ensuring maximum buzz for the Stevenote. Just try and tell me some PR hand isn't behind this.
.....And of course, leave it for a story like this to leak out, ensuring maximum buzz for the Stevenote. Just try and tell me some PR hand isn't behind this.
it was fucking brilliant. complete lockdown, then a few days before the stevenote, over the weekend, boom..! the storm hits
you could smell it in the wind in the deathly silent calm of monday-friday this week... it was a little too quiet.
I have to say that the same nonsense is repeated each time this idea is repeated. It will happen and I have been supporting this idea for years.
Quote:
I believe it when I see it. Currently, I very much suspect bovine manure, because:
- Apple depends of 3rd party developers to develop for the platform (this is especially true for Adobe and other heavyweights). After a painful transition from 68K -> PPC, painful years of developing for an abortive OS effort (Copland), going back to an aging API, then moving to a complely new paradigm (OS X) now another switch to a old/new platform? Guess what, a lot of developers would pull the plug and concentrate on their Windows offerings to prepare for the first major switch since win95 (Longhorn).
The transition is a recompile for the vast majority of devlopers it will take a build cycle i.e. less than a hour, or less than a day for Adobe.
Quote:
- Instant death of their hardware business. Why would anyone buy a PPC Mac now if they might be able to run a tweaked version of OS X on their Dull boxes?
Apple is not licencing the operating system so noone could legally install it on the dell machine. All they are doing is changing the cpu in Apple boxes.
Quote:
- Running OS X and Win 2K side by side on the same box would be _hugely_ embarrassing for Apple. Believe it or not, but OS X is no powerhouse. It delivers decent speed, but not more. Due to its very complex UI layer and microkernel structure, it would appear sluggish. A first, mostly unoptimized, release would look rather sad side by side with a windows box.
That is a problem for the OS team to fix. For historical reasons - the function dispatching in Objective C, and the Mach Kernal - are still more optimised for Intel as it stands. OS X will seem fast enough on the latest cpus, and in any case Apple may not want to put windows on the Mac boxes they release. OSX will not be available elsewhere, but people who are contemplating a switch may well be more likely to switch to an Apple machine which can ( or does) run windows for a transition period.
This has nothing to do with cheapness, either. Apple will offer a premium for a dual booting machine, and will do windows better than windows machines ( i.e. by porting the iLife suite to windows)
As a wintel ( with or without dual boot) manufacturer Apple has to chance to massively increase it's sales, as it's product recognition is far greater than it's marketshare as it is.
Quote:
In addition, would developers maintain two tracks for their programs? With some 25-30 million PPC machines out there, they couldn't very well abandon that market. If the line only moves towards x86 over a one or two year period, what happens during that time?
They would keep one track and recompile as a Fat package. The application package would contain a ppc binary and an intel binary. The package is already setup for that. ( It is also set up to allow cocoa based apps - at least - to run on Windows - which is not the same, note, as running on OS X on Intel).
Actually their x86 designs are fairly innovative -- how else could they get the ancient x86 up to its current speeds?
Never miss a chance to rubbish the x86 do you? If Intel and AMD can get archaic, messed up x86 to nearly 4Ghz why can't the same be done for the cool, sexy G5?
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
Not entirely -- the fact that they've tried to create several chip lines as replacements for x86 means they have reason to do so (IA-64 is the latest).
A chip line is NOT the same as an architecture. The only attempt Intel has made to supplant the x86 is the Itanium which has flopped very, very badly.
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
It is a heck of a mess and there are all sorts of reasons it sucks. And AltiVec is significantly better than SSE -- look at vector benchmarks and you'll see that.
Saying its a mess and "all sorts of reasons" is just a subjective opinion and hand-waving. If altivec is faster than SSE3 the reason is the implementation. I repeat, SSE3 being slower than Altivec is not, in the grand scheme of things, of major consequence. And hoping Altivec will keep Apple from Switching ( ), well...
A new decoder would be a major problem and takes time. And probably require a new chip, i.e. you don't just take an existing P4 and change its microcode.
Intel licensing PPC would be interesting and would allow it to supply the xbox360.
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
All that said, I don't think any of this is particularly likely.
Steve's no. 1 rule is never f*ck with the brand. There is no conceivable way that Apple will transition to a chip that it might have to share with somebody else in the desktop/ consumer space. It's also inconceivable that Apple would consider a OS transition at this time. It is conceivable however that 'Nipple' have agreed to an exclusive PPC chip spec. that will come on line in 18 - 24 months. Quite what the upside for Intel is who knows? Steve has little interest in the share price (which will see a hike if this turns out to be true) but the G5 was supposed to end the speed wars and its hurting Apple's strategy in the pro space that Apple is lagging once more.
Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist
Eric,
You're probably correct in many ways, but the idea that Lenovo wouldn't be allowed to sell products in China seems a little unlikely given that it apparently has a 30% market share in the PRC. It also sells product into India through the IBM channel.
I've never said anything about not being "allowed" to sell anything. I'm talking about lukrative market segments being "closed off" due to other companies allready exploiting them.
I allso highly doubt that Levono would go for a OSX solution. There's (of course) allways the chance of things working out, but I judge it as being a very small one.
Anyway, lets just agree to dissagree. And we'll see what happens on monday.
This is purely major FUD being spread by the Michael Dells of the world - because Apple is about to take/demonstrate the 970MP from IBM running near 3ghz - hopefully mated to a Cell, and it is going to blow away anything Intel can manage.
All this is, is a last minute attempt to seed the public with the perception that Apple uses Intel chips, before they get their ass handed to them on a plate.
For Chrissakes, if Apple were going to go to x86 they would be using dualCore Opterons, because even they hand Intel thier asses on a plate compared to the Pentium D.
Wait, it won't be called the Power Mac then because it won't be using IBM's Power architecture then.
Not exactly. All Macs are running on PowerPC architecture. The iMac is running on IBM's Power architure and its not called a PowerMac! And the PowerMac has been called the Powermac for a long time, before there was even such thing as the G5 processor.
Also Apple PowerBook isn't running on a IBM processor, its running on a Freescale G4 just like the eMac, iBook, and Mac Mini.
So to conclude, theres no reason why Apple would have to change the name to PentiumMac or some weird name like that.
If Apple were switching to another instruction set, I don't believe it would happen gradually, over the time period indicated in the CNET article. It would be carefully planned in advance and happen fairly quickly. Then there would be a period of time where all software would have two separate versions of the program, satisfying demand for both the installed base and new Macs.
No. The time frame given by CNET suggests a PPC processor from Intel.
Its a bit odd that MS has dropped intel in favour of IBM for the xbox, and now Apple might be doing the opposite, are the two events in anyway connected?
This is purely major FUD being spread by the Michael Dells of the world - because Apple is about to take/demonstrate the 970MP from IBM running near 3ghz - hopefully mated to a Cell, and it is going to blow away anything Intel can manage.
All this is, is a last minute attempt to seed the public with the perception that Apple uses Intel chips, before they get their ass handed to them on a plate.
For Chrissakes, if Apple were going to go to x86 they would be using dualCore Opterons, because even they hand Intel thier asses on a plate compared to the Pentium D.
I think you may be right about this. I just can't see Apple moving to x86 at this point. They've spent years touting the superiority of PPC. Then there are the programming and compiling issues. The obstacles are enormous and the whole plan doesn't see to have much benefit.
That is unless, as you said, Steve through a fit and went shopping. I will believe this one when I see it.
This could also be a giant ploy by Apple that has several effects:
1) Creates industry buzz before announcement
2) Makes CNet look like the hack job it is....years of negative Apple press? There's a solution for that and it's a nice unsubstantiated and perhaps totally inaccurate story. Apple would have to take pleasure at CNet losing all credibility and having to report on a Intel-destroying IBM chip at the same time, especially after years of biased reporting.
Comments
Originally posted by UnixPoet
Anyway, Apple switching (LOL) to Intel is possible but not probable but if it does come to pass then ... oh boy will the Windows fans laugh so hard into their cheap 3Ghz Dells. ROFL.
Good point. Who'd buy a $1000 3GHz Mac when you can get one from Dell for half that? With LCD monitor!
- Apple depends of 3rd party developers to develop for the platform (this is especially true for Adobe and other heavyweights). After a painful transition from 68K -> PPC, painful years of developing for an abortive OS effort (Copland), going back to an aging API, then moving to a complely new paradigm (OS X) now another switch to a old/new platform? Guess what, a lot of developers would pull the plug and concentrate on their Windows offerings to prepare for the first major switch since win95 (Longhorn).
- Instant death of their hardware business. Why would anyone buy a PPC Mac now if they might be able to run a tweaked version of OS X on their Dull boxes?
- Running OS X and Win 2K side by side on the same box would be _hugely_ embarrassing for Apple. Believe it or not, but OS X is no powerhouse. It delivers decent speed, but not more. Due to its very complex UI layer and microkernel structure, it would appear sluggish. A first, mostly unoptimized, release would look rather sad side by side with a windows box.
- Ever contemplated the fate of OS/2? Superior OS, vanished because people just installed Windows on the same boxes.
If anything, I could believe Programmers speculation of an intel RISC core with a PPC ISA decoder to make it a virtual PPC. But nevertheless, I am curious what monday will bring
Originally posted by Smircle
I believe it when I see it. Currently, I very much suspect bovine manure, because:
- Apple depends of 3rd party developers to develop for the platform (this is especially true for Adobe and other heavyweights). After a painful transition from 68K -> PPC, painful years of developing for an abortive OS effort (Copland), going back to an aging API, then moving to a complely new paradigm (OS X) now another switch to a old/new platform? Guess what, a lot of developers would pull the plug and concentrate on their Windows offerings to prepare for the first major switch since win95 (Longhorn).
- Instant death of their hardware business. Why would anyone buy a PPC Mac now if they might be able to run a tweaked version of OS X on their Dull boxes?
- Running OS X and Win 2K side by side on the same box would be _hugely_ embarrassing for Apple. Believe it or not, but OS X is no powerhouse. It delivers decent speed, but not more. Due to its very complex UI layer and microkernel structure, it would appear sluggish. A first, mostly unoptimized, release would look rather sad side by side with a windows box.
- Ever contemplated the fate of OS/2? Superior OS, vanished because people just installed Windows on the same boxes.
If anything, I could believe Programmers speculation of an intel RISC core with a PPC ISA decoder to make it a virtual PPC. But nevertheless, I am curious what monday will bring
This is right. It's what we've been saying when the first rumor came out.
In addition, would developers maintain two tracks for their programs? With some 25-30 million PPC machines out there, they couldn't very well abandon that market. If the line only moves towards x86 over a one or two year period, what happens during that time?
Our discussions included the virtualization hardware that Intel developed. They said that other OSes would work on those chips. Presumably this would work in real time, not the way VPC works now. So if this would occur, it would be with these chips.
I really can't see Adobe and others re-writing all of their software again. It's not a simple re-compile. A tremendous amount of hand tweaking would be required in order to get performance back up.
Remember Office 6?. What a dog it was? That was because it was a Windows port with little hand tweaking. The reason that that latest versions work so well is because they are developed independently of the Windows version. Other than MS who is going to bother?
Well, two days to go. I just hope my stock doesn't do anything funny again.
Originally posted by UnixPoet
You're clutching at straws and quoting someone who is doing likewise. Just because Programmer is saying the things most Mac fanatics want to hear does not make them true.
You're right, it is just a forlorn hope in the face of news that I really don't want to be true. Unfortunately there seem to be business realities which might make it true. However...
First question: after people here have been rubbishing Intel's products for years why expect something creative from them? For that matter, when has Intel ever been creative?
Actually their x86 designs are fairly innovative -- how else could they get the ancient x86 up to its current speeds? The main problem is that they've been saddled with their own situation... something they've been trying to change repeatedly for years.
Yes Intel has been "stuck" with x86 for a long time. And you know why? Cause the revenues just from that chip line alone dwarfs the economies of several countries. Intel stuck with x86 is like saying MS is stuck with Windows. Trust me - you too would love to be "stuck" with a near monopoly that is the x86.
Not entirely -- the fact that they've tried to create several chip lines as replacements for x86 means they have reason to do so (IA-64 is the latest).
Why does the "horrid x86 ISA" suck? Don't quote me that only # of registers rubbish please. No x86 does not have Altivec but, frankly, it doesnt seem to have affected performance too badly. I dont think losing Altivec keeps Steve awake at night.
It is a heck of a mess and there are all sorts of reasons it sucks. And AltiVec is significantly better than SSE -- look at vector benchmarks and you'll see that.
And one does not just stick a different decoder chip anywhere. IBM has been the top patent filer for years. Only God, and the patent office, know which thick maze of patents covers PPC. Tell me why Intel will bother to go through the hassle/licensing fees? Just becase the Dear Leader says so?
I was glib in my statement, but the fact remains that the x86 portion of Intel's chips these days is a module that decodes the x86 stream into their internal microops. Intel is the king of this approach and they probably hold tons of patents on it.
Doesn't anyone else remember that Apple sponsored Exponential back in the mid-90s. That was a small startup who was building a high frequency (for the time) PPC design. They could use PPC because Apple licensed it to them. Never flew because they weren't big enough to compete with Moto/IBM and the 604e handed them their lunch. Intel is a lot stronger.
Anyway, Apple switching (LOL) to Intel is possible but not probable but if it does come to pass then ... oh boy will the Windows fans laugh so hard into their cheap 3Ghz Dells. ROFL.
It would be political egg-on-the-face, but that has happened to Steve with both Moto and IBM. I'm more concerned about the serious mess it would make of the Mac market during the transition, which would take years to settle down. An x86 emulator of PPC would not do well, the big/little endian issue is a pretty serious one in a lot of code, and a lot of developers would just be fed up with yet another transition.
There is an extra bonus for Intel here... PPC has had a bunch of design wins lately, and if Intel could offer PPC cores that might let them pre-empt IBM and Motorola.
All that said, I don't think any of this is particularly likely.
In any case, I think it might be an exciting week, at least I hope so. No news would be boring...
I'm not saying that using Intel chips will not happen, it just wont happen for the reasons most posters here have mentioned. I think the speed issue is low on the list of priorities with other technologies (we may discover on Monday) being the real reason.
Originally posted by Sybaritic
The most sensible voice for years on Appleinsider, Programmer nails it. An Apple-Intel partnership surely implies something genuinely creative, not the all-too-obvious direct switch to x86. If Monday augurs anything, it's in the direction of innovation and surprise, not retrenchment. Otherwise, Apple really would be shooting themselves in the loins.
I agree. Apple was part of AIM and likely has rights to the PPC instruction set and vector processor. Apple could license Intel to make a them a chip, say based on the Pentium M for notebooks. Intel may be eager to do this to get PPC experience. The Itanium isn't exactly taking off, so Intel may be considering becoming part of Power Everywhere eventually. This would be Intel testing the waters.
Let's parse the CNet article carefully, namely the first graf:
Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994, but will begin a phased transition to Intel's chips, sources familiar with the situation said.
What I think as I reread the CNet story with a clearer mind is that the writer had just a few nuggets of truth, but lacking the context we get here on Future Hardware, wrote something that ends up as science fiction fantasy on a par with Robert Heinlein. Note carefully the story doesn't say "Apple will adopt x86 chips" but "Apple... will begin a phased transition to Intel's chips, sources familiar with the situation said."
The more I think about this, the more I think what will happen Monday is that Uncle Steve will announce a line of microprocessors from Intel that will run PPC code, but will not have anything to do with x86 ISA.
To put it another way: Steve's announcing he's got a deal for Intel to produce PPC core chips. IBM and Intel have had cross licensing deals in the past (anyone remember the "Blue Lightening" 80286 kinda-sorta-clone?). Cross-licensing the PPC stuff would be a stretch, but not an insurmountable deal, particularly with Uncle Steve zapping people with RDF.
And of course, leave it for a story like this to leak out, ensuring maximum buzz for the Stevenote. Just try and tell me some PR hand isn't behind this.
Originally posted by Sam Damon
.....And of course, leave it for a story like this to leak out, ensuring maximum buzz for the Stevenote. Just try and tell me some PR hand isn't behind this.
it was fucking brilliant. complete lockdown, then a few days before the stevenote, over the weekend, boom..! the storm hits
you could smell it in the wind in the deathly silent calm of monday-friday this week... it was a little too quiet.
I believe it when I see it. Currently, I very much suspect bovine manure, because:
- Apple depends of 3rd party developers to develop for the platform (this is especially true for Adobe and other heavyweights). After a painful transition from 68K -> PPC, painful years of developing for an abortive OS effort (Copland), going back to an aging API, then moving to a complely new paradigm (OS X) now another switch to a old/new platform? Guess what, a lot of developers would pull the plug and concentrate on their Windows offerings to prepare for the first major switch since win95 (Longhorn).
The transition is a recompile for the vast majority of devlopers it will take a build cycle i.e. less than a hour, or less than a day for Adobe.
- Instant death of their hardware business. Why would anyone buy a PPC Mac now if they might be able to run a tweaked version of OS X on their Dull boxes?
Apple is not licencing the operating system so noone could legally install it on the dell machine. All they are doing is changing the cpu in Apple boxes.
- Running OS X and Win 2K side by side on the same box would be _hugely_ embarrassing for Apple. Believe it or not, but OS X is no powerhouse. It delivers decent speed, but not more. Due to its very complex UI layer and microkernel structure, it would appear sluggish. A first, mostly unoptimized, release would look rather sad side by side with a windows box.
That is a problem for the OS team to fix. For historical reasons - the function dispatching in Objective C, and the Mach Kernal - are still more optimised for Intel as it stands. OS X will seem fast enough on the latest cpus, and in any case Apple may not want to put windows on the Mac boxes they release. OSX will not be available elsewhere, but people who are contemplating a switch may well be more likely to switch to an Apple machine which can ( or does) run windows for a transition period.
This has nothing to do with cheapness, either. Apple will offer a premium for a dual booting machine, and will do windows better than windows machines ( i.e. by porting the iLife suite to windows)
As a wintel ( with or without dual boot) manufacturer Apple has to chance to massively increase it's sales, as it's product recognition is far greater than it's marketshare as it is.
In addition, would developers maintain two tracks for their programs? With some 25-30 million PPC machines out there, they couldn't very well abandon that market. If the line only moves towards x86 over a one or two year period, what happens during that time?
They would keep one track and recompile as a Fat package. The application package would contain a ppc binary and an intel binary. The package is already setup for that. ( It is also set up to allow cocoa based apps - at least - to run on Windows - which is not the same, note, as running on OS X on Intel).
Originally posted by Programmer
Actually their x86 designs are fairly innovative -- how else could they get the ancient x86 up to its current speeds?
Never miss a chance to rubbish the x86 do you? If Intel and AMD can get archaic, messed up x86 to nearly 4Ghz why can't the same be done for the cool, sexy G5?
Originally posted by Programmer
Not entirely -- the fact that they've tried to create several chip lines as replacements for x86 means they have reason to do so (IA-64 is the latest).
A chip line is NOT the same as an architecture. The only attempt Intel has made to supplant the x86 is the Itanium which has flopped very, very badly.
Originally posted by Programmer
It is a heck of a mess and there are all sorts of reasons it sucks. And AltiVec is significantly better than SSE -- look at vector benchmarks and you'll see that.
Saying its a mess and "all sorts of reasons" is just a subjective opinion and hand-waving. If altivec is faster than SSE3 the reason is the implementation. I repeat, SSE3 being slower than Altivec is not, in the grand scheme of things, of major consequence. And hoping Altivec will keep Apple from Switching (
A new decoder would be a major problem and takes time. And probably require a new chip, i.e. you don't just take an existing P4 and change its microcode.
Intel licensing PPC would be interesting and would allow it to supply the xbox360.
Originally posted by Programmer
All that said, I don't think any of this is particularly likely.
Neither do I. But I will not be heartbroken by it
Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist
Eric,
You're probably correct in many ways, but the idea that Lenovo wouldn't be allowed to sell products in China seems a little unlikely given that it apparently has a 30% market share in the PRC. It also sells product into India through the IBM channel.
I've never said anything about not being "allowed" to sell anything. I'm talking about lukrative market segments being "closed off" due to other companies allready exploiting them.
I allso highly doubt that Levono would go for a OSX solution. There's (of course) allways the chance of things working out, but I judge it as being a very small one.
Anyway, lets just agree to dissagree. And we'll see what happens on monday.
Originally posted by iDave
I guess we'll soon see those goofy blue men dancing around Macs.
Yeah, right.
Plus, the "din dong din dong" sound and logo "INTEL INSIDE" at the end of ads.
This is purely major FUD being spread by the Michael Dells of the world - because Apple is about to take/demonstrate the 970MP from IBM running near 3ghz - hopefully mated to a Cell, and it is going to blow away anything Intel can manage.
All this is, is a last minute attempt to seed the public with the perception that Apple uses Intel chips, before they get their ass handed to them on a plate.
For Chrissakes, if Apple were going to go to x86 they would be using dualCore Opterons, because even they hand Intel thier asses on a plate compared to the Pentium D.
Originally posted by Rolo
Wait, it won't be called the Power Mac then because it won't be using IBM's Power architecture then.
Not exactly. All Macs are running on PowerPC architecture. The iMac is running on IBM's Power architure and its not called a PowerMac! And the PowerMac has been called the Powermac for a long time, before there was even such thing as the G5 processor.
Also Apple PowerBook isn't running on a IBM processor, its running on a Freescale G4 just like the eMac, iBook, and Mac Mini.
So to conclude, theres no reason why Apple would have to change the name to PentiumMac or some weird name like that.
No. The time frame given by CNET suggests a PPC processor from Intel.
Originally posted by MarcUK
I'll tell you exactly what this is..
This is purely major FUD being spread by the Michael Dells of the world - because Apple is about to take/demonstrate the 970MP from IBM running near 3ghz - hopefully mated to a Cell, and it is going to blow away anything Intel can manage.
All this is, is a last minute attempt to seed the public with the perception that Apple uses Intel chips, before they get their ass handed to them on a plate.
For Chrissakes, if Apple were going to go to x86 they would be using dualCore Opterons, because even they hand Intel thier asses on a plate compared to the Pentium D.
I think you may be right about this. I just can't see Apple moving to x86 at this point. They've spent years touting the superiority of PPC. Then there are the programming and compiling issues. The obstacles are enormous and the whole plan doesn't see to have much benefit.
That is unless, as you said, Steve through a fit and went shopping. I will believe this one when I see it.
This could also be a giant ploy by Apple that has several effects:
1) Creates industry buzz before announcement
2) Makes CNet look like the hack job it is....years of negative Apple press? There's a solution for that and it's a nice unsubstantiated and perhaps totally inaccurate story. Apple would have to take pleasure at CNet losing all credibility and having to report on a Intel-destroying IBM chip at the same time, especially after years of biased reporting.