. . . there is NO WAY Apple would go down this path. could you just imagine how confused the consumer would be or how enraged the developer would be. PPC will disappear from Apples line as fast as it can. . .
Apple is already headed down this path and is committed to it for several years. Consumers will be quite familiar with Mac OS and software applications running on both PPC and Intel Macs, and will not be confused if it stays that way. Also, if Apple's tools are as good as reported, it will not be a big deal for developers to keep making both Intel and PPC versions.
I think it was necessary for Apple to transition all Macs to Intel quickly, to get developers on board. Afterward, however, it makes sense to me to use the best processor for the job, whether it be an Intel x86 or PPC. IBM and Sun already offer products with a variety of CPUs. It doesn't seem to be difficult for them, and their customers no doubt like to have selection. Apple's great advantage will be a common distribution of the OS and software that supports both CPUs.
I don't see any reason why Apple should not buy processors from both Intel and AMD. They sourced from IBM and Motorola, Apple will just pick the best processor for the job. What we do know is at the planned launch Intel will get the first orders, so I would assume that for the bottom end products Intel has or will have the best processors for that line up. Later things might change, and Steve is not afraid of change.
Regarding Hypertransport: Apple would commit suicide if it didn't include that as part of it's negotiations, seeing how it is a founding member of the Consortium.
Regarding CSI: The following article, back in late March has some illuminating remarks.
Intel's CSI bus will first appear on the Tukwila, a multicore version of the Itanium CPU that's set to ship in 2007. The CSI bus is also expected to appear the same year that versions of Intel's X86 Xeon server CPUs, probably including the chip code-named Whitefield, which will use "many more" than two cores, said Gelsinger.
AMD made HyperTransport an industry-standard interconnect that is now used on a variety of chips, including network processors from Broadcom Corp. and PMC-Sierra Inc. Intel has not yet decided whether it will do the same with CSI. The final spec is being hammered out by engineers working with the server CPU design teams, a source close to the project said.
The CSI interconnect is optimized for low latency when used as a cache-coherent processor bus in four-processor systems. However, it can also be used to link up to 16 CPUs for the high-end X86 systems built by OEMs such as IBM, NEC and Unisys. In addition, CSI will be used without cache coherency as a standard way to link north- and south-bridge chips in a processor core logic set.
By using a common interconnect as a chip-to-chip link, Intel will be able to develop similar board-level designs and software tools for Itanium and Xeon systems. That could reduce the costs of supporting the two server architectures.
Nothing in this reference is earth shattering. However, the proven technologies from the Hypertransport Consortium has plenty of presentations to wet our appetites.
When all personal computers run Intel CPUs (since nothing in the current environment seems to prohibit Intel from arm-twisting everyone to stop using AMD, as they have been doing), there will be no need for any further technological innovation. Oh, we can do a speed bump here and there, I suppose. Just wait and see - Intel will make Motorola look good.
Oh, and you think Apple will be able to move to something else? Funny. Like Hungary choosing a new government in 1956.
Reality for Apple that continues to haunt them is they don't manage to secure negotiations and on-going relations with chipmakers that encourages them to always build the current chip designs keeping them viable in the market spaces Apple targets--Apple would be wise to make sure their x86 port still works on AMD as it has in the past, in-house.
The best thing Apple can do is eschew trying to differentate themselves via hardware motherboards. It's an uphill battle. They should be focusing on overall design and ensuring OS X is peerless in functionality.
Plus they still are very well positioned to really capitalize on their lead in digital music. By staying proprietary at the software level they can reduce R&D expenditure and push additional funds in other areas.
Regarding Hypertransport: Apple would commit suicide if it didn't include that as part of it's negotiations, seeing how it is a founding member of the Consortium. ...
I think nearly everyone on this board is out of their minds. This whole move is about going to generic Intel hardware. Intel does not and will not license Hypertransport. They have their own technologies and only copy other people's. They are the Microsoft of hardware. Intel's people may speak pretty words, but in action they are as unyeilding as Stalin. This is well-known and has been for years. Where have you guys been? Wake up and smell the bitter, cold coffee.
The report says that despite Apple's reluctance to sell Mac OS X on other Intel-based PCs, a few carefully selected deals could greatly expand Mac OS X's marketshare: "The Intel product line, with its economy of scale, low power consumption, and integrated digital rights management will open up a range of possibilities for consumer products that offer what Apple does best: new capabilities that you never knew you wanted but can't wait to get once you see them in action."
To me this is what is the cherry on tp for Apple AND Intel. "New capabilities that you never knew you wanted but can't wait to get once you see them in action." Intel wants to make the hardware but needs a partned to help them sell the product to MS. Intel is getting to be al about the rest of the hardware "Platformization" but needs to see how it is accepted in the market. That is what is the real bonus for Apple, plus cooler running CPUs.
Apple is already headed down this path and is committed to it for several years. Consumers will be quite familiar with Mac OS and software applications running on both PPC and Intel Macs, and will not be confused if it stays that way. Also, if Apple's tools are as good as reported, it will not be a big deal for developers to keep making both Intel and PPC versions.
No they aren't going down the path you suggest. Steve clearly said the transition was to Intel hardware by 2007. To do otherwise after publicly stating that game plan would be very difficult for developers and users.
Quote:
I think it was necessary for Apple to transition all Macs to Intel quickly, to get developers on board. Afterward, however, it makes sense to me to use the best processor for the job, whether it be an Intel x86 or PPC. IBM and Sun already offer products with a variety of CPUs. It doesn't seem to be difficult for them, and their customers no doubt like to have selection. Apple's great advantage will be a common distribution of the OS and software that supports both CPUs.
You're not going to get the developers on board if they can't be certain of which processor they will be targetting. Sure it is possible to offer a large number of CPU's, if you have the high margains on the equipment and can derive other income off the hardware. This isn't the market that PC hardware plays in though.
As long as apple is trying to support two CPU's they will be at a disadvantage. Even MS has found little advantage in trying to support odd processors.
As to selection that is exactly what Apple hardware was, an alternative selection. With this conversion that will no longer be the case.
Quote:
(Added text to make less ambiguous.)
I hope I don't sound to terse but these dreams don't key in at all to what Apple has stated. You are spinnning your wheels holding out hope that PPC will be around after 2007. It is not like I want to say things like that as I would have preferred that apple stayed with PPC, but the announcement was pretty clear.
Regarding Hypertransport: Apple would commit suicide if it didn't include that as part of it's negotiations, seeing how it is a founding member of the Consortium.
Well I believe the move to Intel is a big mistake. I didn't think of it in terms of suicide but that would be an accurate description.
Personaly I would have to think that a few members of the consortium are more than a little unhappy right now. Apple will go with off the shelf Intel hardware and that is not likely to include Hypertransport.
Quote:
Regarding CSI: The following article, back in late March has some illuminating remarks.
Nothing in this reference is earth shattering. However, the proven technologies from the Hypertransport Consortium has plenty of presentations to wet our appetites.
I don't see Apple abandoning this effort. I see Apple shaping the CSI specification or having Intel fab a chipset for their needs.
Hypertransport has really worked out well for AMD but Apple will apparently be walking away from the technology. There is the very remote possibility that Apple will build its own chip sets and incorporate hypertransport there. But that is about it and the chance that that would happen is so thin as to be a drowning hazzard.
Well I believe the move to Intel is a big mistake. I didn't think of it in terms of suicide but that would be an accurate description. . .
What are you seeing that makes you think this way? Sorry to be picky, but only a few things about this move to Intel could spell Apple's doom.
1) Going with a supplier that cannot deliver the goods? We can forget this one, as Apple will be better off than ever with regard to supply of chips of every kind.
2) Loss of customers? I don't know about this one, but I sense Apple will attract as many new customers as it alienates current customers.
3) Loss of developers? I got a call from a developer just before the WWDC keynote, while he was waiting for Steve to come on stage . Neither he nor the others with him believed the rumors about Intel. Afterward, he was almost in disbelief. Now, he is rather enthusiastic about it and thinks it will work fine. That's what I see. Maybe you see something different?
We really differ on this issue. I believe the transition to Intel it the best thing Apple could do right now, both technically and from a business standpoint. It's far from perfect, but it makes a lot of sense, especially with all that Apple has done to make it easier for developers.
However, I also don't think Apple is getting married to Intel. Apple is doing what is best for this point in time. A few years down the road Apple will do what is best at that time. I have discussed this briefly with the developer I mentioned above.
He will need to support the PPC for many years, and really doesn't have a problem with this. He says most code will be easy by using Apple tools. Unfortunately, he makes heavy uses of vector processing in ways that is not handled by Apple's accelerate framework. It all has to be redone for the Intel instruction set. On the brighter side, he is planning Windows versions of his applications and will need to do this work anyway.
First off I am not nearly as computer savvy as most people on this forum. Anyway, I am a lifetime mac user (1st computer was a 180 MHz performa) and for the past four years I used my 533 MHz G4 PPC to get through college. During that time I never had a single problem with my computer. However, all three of my suitemates had Dells (2 desktops and a laptop) newer than my mac and all had constant problems with them, both hardware and software. This, along with things I had heard, led me to believe that macs, for the most part, used better hardware and software than the PCs. But, to me it sounds as if the future intel based macs are just PCs running a mac OS. It seems that people are getting excited about this just because macs will be using processors with a higher MHz label than before but isn?t this like judging a car simply on horsepower without taking things like handling, weight and reliability into consideration?
In short I guess my questions are:
Are the new intel based macs just going to be a dell in a pretty case?
What is going to set future macs apart from PCs if anything?
PS?sorry if a question like this has already been posted. I am using a dial up connection and searching the forum for an answer to this was getting too painful.
Are the new intel based macs just going to be a dell in a pretty case?
What is going to set future macs apart from PCs if anything? . . .
You have some very legitimate concerns that may not have been discussed. Most answers people give is that it's the Mac OS and Apple applications that will set the Mac apart from the other PCs. Style and elegant physical design are also mentioned. Yet neither of these address your concern about reliability.
If you think about the PC failures you experience, likely it was not the Intel chip set that caused the problem. Apple can continue to have higher quality standards for the internal working part, like drives and power supplies.
It seems that people are getting excited about this just because macs will be using processors with a higher MHz label than before
Actually, all Mac/Intel speculation centers on Yonah, Sossaman, and Merom Intel processors. Yonah will not be faster than 2.1 GHz when 1st shipped, Sossaman (Yonah for blade servers) likely limited to 2.5 GHz or less and Merom in late 2006 and 2007 might not break 3 GHz.
Quote:
Are the new intel based macs just going to be a dell in a pretty case? What is going to set future macs apart from PCs if anything?
I'm relatively confident that Apple will take Intel's "Napa" platform chips and create a custom motherboard to fit Apple's unique computer designs. The manufacture of such a custom motherboard will be subject Apple's standards. This is essentially what happens now with all of the current chips.
So they really won't be a Dell in a pretty case. One interesting question will be whether Apple will support all of the hardware features in Intel platform hardware. They may not.
Actually, all Mac/Intel speculation centers on Yonah, Sossaman, and Merom Intel processors. Yonah will not be faster than 2.1 GHz when 1st shipped, Sossaman (Yonah for blade servers) likely limited to 2.5 GHz or less and Merom in late 2006 and 2007 might not break 3 GHz. . .
Intel may like Apple as a customer because Apple appreciates good technology, not just top MHz. The fact that Apple was first to make extensive use of USB was not lost on Intel I'm sure.
Intel may like Apple as a customer because Apple appreciates good technology, not just top MHz. The fact that Apple was first to make extensive use of USB was not lost on Intel I'm sure.
I agree and think that Intel may regard their relationship as a boon. It would allow them to showcase their technical expertise in a fantastic industrial design. They have no need for legacy, so it may be that technology can find is way into Apple products quickly (as long as Intel can supply the support chipsets etc). I think it may be that Apple will be the 'flagship' for Intel (much more so than Dell ever could - even with the volumes they shift).
Comments
Originally posted by wizard69
. . . there is NO WAY Apple would go down this path. could you just imagine how confused the consumer would be or how enraged the developer would be. PPC will disappear from Apples line as fast as it can. . .
Apple is already headed down this path and is committed to it for several years. Consumers will be quite familiar with Mac OS and software applications running on both PPC and Intel Macs, and will not be confused if it stays that way. Also, if Apple's tools are as good as reported, it will not be a big deal for developers to keep making both Intel and PPC versions.
I think it was necessary for Apple to transition all Macs to Intel quickly, to get developers on board. Afterward, however, it makes sense to me to use the best processor for the job, whether it be an Intel x86 or PPC. IBM and Sun already offer products with a variety of CPUs. It doesn't seem to be difficult for them, and their customers no doubt like to have selection. Apple's great advantage will be a common distribution of the OS and software that supports both CPUs.
(Added text to make less ambiguous.)
Regarding CSI: The following article, back in late March has some illuminating remarks.
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...cleID=60405584
...Intel CSI
Intel's CSI bus will first appear on the Tukwila, a multicore version of the Itanium CPU that's set to ship in 2007. The CSI bus is also expected to appear the same year that versions of Intel's X86 Xeon server CPUs, probably including the chip code-named Whitefield, which will use "many more" than two cores, said Gelsinger.
AMD made HyperTransport an industry-standard interconnect that is now used on a variety of chips, including network processors from Broadcom Corp. and PMC-Sierra Inc. Intel has not yet decided whether it will do the same with CSI. The final spec is being hammered out by engineers working with the server CPU design teams, a source close to the project said.
The CSI interconnect is optimized for low latency when used as a cache-coherent processor bus in four-processor systems. However, it can also be used to link up to 16 CPUs for the high-end X86 systems built by OEMs such as IBM, NEC and Unisys. In addition, CSI will be used without cache coherency as a standard way to link north- and south-bridge chips in a processor core logic set.
By using a common interconnect as a chip-to-chip link, Intel will be able to develop similar board-level designs and software tools for Itanium and Xeon systems. That could reduce the costs of supporting the two server architectures.
Nothing in this reference is earth shattering. However, the proven technologies from the Hypertransport Consortium has plenty of presentations to wet our appetites.
http://www.hypertransport.org/tech/t...sentations.cfm
I don't see Apple abandoning this effort. I see Apple shaping the CSI specification or having Intel fab a chipset for their needs.
Originally posted by cubist
When all personal computers run Intel CPUs (since nothing in the current environment seems to prohibit Intel from arm-twisting everyone to stop using AMD, as they have been doing), there will be no need for any further technological innovation. Oh, we can do a speed bump here and there, I suppose. Just wait and see - Intel will make Motorola look good.
Oh, and you think Apple will be able to move to something else? Funny. Like Hungary choosing a new government in 1956.
Reality for Apple that continues to haunt them is they don't manage to secure negotiations and on-going relations with chipmakers that encourages them to always build the current chip designs keeping them viable in the market spaces Apple targets--Apple would be wise to make sure their x86 port still works on AMD as it has in the past, in-house.
Plus they still are very well positioned to really capitalize on their lead in digital music. By staying proprietary at the software level they can reduce R&D expenditure and push additional funds in other areas.
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Regarding Hypertransport: Apple would commit suicide if it didn't include that as part of it's negotiations, seeing how it is a founding member of the Consortium. ...
I think nearly everyone on this board is out of their minds. This whole move is about going to generic Intel hardware. Intel does not and will not license Hypertransport. They have their own technologies and only copy other people's. They are the Microsoft of hardware. Intel's people may speak pretty words, but in action they are as unyeilding as Stalin. This is well-known and has been for years. Where have you guys been? Wake up and smell the bitter, cold coffee.
edit: Read this article, for starters.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24383
Lots more where that came from.
Originally posted by mmmpie
but with actual cash support for marketing
Right on mmmpie.
Intel will throw some big bucks Apple's way.
Jobs will find a way to make it tasteful...
The report says that despite Apple's reluctance to sell Mac OS X on other Intel-based PCs, a few carefully selected deals could greatly expand Mac OS X's marketshare: "The Intel product line, with its economy of scale, low power consumption, and integrated digital rights management will open up a range of possibilities for consumer products that offer what Apple does best: new capabilities that you never knew you wanted but can't wait to get once you see them in action."
To me this is what is the cherry on tp for Apple AND Intel. "New capabilities that you never knew you wanted but can't wait to get once you see them in action." Intel wants to make the hardware but needs a partned to help them sell the product to MS. Intel is getting to be al about the rest of the hardware "Platformization" but needs to see how it is accepted in the market. That is what is the real bonus for Apple, plus cooler running CPUs.
Originally posted by snoopy
Apple is already headed down this path and is committed to it for several years. Consumers will be quite familiar with Mac OS and software applications running on both PPC and Intel Macs, and will not be confused if it stays that way. Also, if Apple's tools are as good as reported, it will not be a big deal for developers to keep making both Intel and PPC versions.
No they aren't going down the path you suggest. Steve clearly said the transition was to Intel hardware by 2007. To do otherwise after publicly stating that game plan would be very difficult for developers and users.
Quote:
I think it was necessary for Apple to transition all Macs to Intel quickly, to get developers on board. Afterward, however, it makes sense to me to use the best processor for the job, whether it be an Intel x86 or PPC. IBM and Sun already offer products with a variety of CPUs. It doesn't seem to be difficult for them, and their customers no doubt like to have selection. Apple's great advantage will be a common distribution of the OS and software that supports both CPUs.
You're not going to get the developers on board if they can't be certain of which processor they will be targetting. Sure it is possible to offer a large number of CPU's, if you have the high margains on the equipment and can derive other income off the hardware. This isn't the market that PC hardware plays in though.
As long as apple is trying to support two CPU's they will be at a disadvantage. Even MS has found little advantage in trying to support odd processors.
As to selection that is exactly what Apple hardware was, an alternative selection. With this conversion that will no longer be the case.
Quote:
(Added text to make less ambiguous.)
I hope I don't sound to terse but these dreams don't key in at all to what Apple has stated. You are spinnning your wheels holding out hope that PPC will be around after 2007. It is not like I want to say things like that as I would have preferred that apple stayed with PPC, but the announcement was pretty clear.
Dave
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Regarding Hypertransport: Apple would commit suicide if it didn't include that as part of it's negotiations, seeing how it is a founding member of the Consortium.
Well I believe the move to Intel is a big mistake. I didn't think of it in terms of suicide but that would be an accurate description.
Personaly I would have to think that a few members of the consortium are more than a little unhappy right now. Apple will go with off the shelf Intel hardware and that is not likely to include Hypertransport.
Quote:
Regarding CSI: The following article, back in late March has some illuminating remarks.
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...cleID=60405584
Nothing in this reference is earth shattering. However, the proven technologies from the Hypertransport Consortium has plenty of presentations to wet our appetites.
http://www.hypertransport.org/tech/t...sentations.cfm
I don't see Apple abandoning this effort. I see Apple shaping the CSI specification or having Intel fab a chipset for their needs.
Hypertransport has really worked out well for AMD but Apple will apparently be walking away from the technology. There is the very remote possibility that Apple will build its own chip sets and incorporate hypertransport there. But that is about it and the chance that that would happen is so thin as to be a drowning hazzard.
Originally posted by wizard69
Well I believe the move to Intel is a big mistake. I didn't think of it in terms of suicide but that would be an accurate description. . .
What are you seeing that makes you think this way? Sorry to be picky, but only a few things about this move to Intel could spell Apple's doom.
1) Going with a supplier that cannot deliver the goods? We can forget this one, as Apple will be better off than ever with regard to supply of chips of every kind.
2) Loss of customers? I don't know about this one, but I sense Apple will attract as many new customers as it alienates current customers.
3) Loss of developers? I got a call from a developer just before the WWDC keynote, while he was waiting for Steve to come on stage . Neither he nor the others with him believed the rumors about Intel. Afterward, he was almost in disbelief. Now, he is rather enthusiastic about it and thinks it will work fine. That's what I see. Maybe you see something different?
We really differ on this issue. I believe the transition to Intel it the best thing Apple could do right now, both technically and from a business standpoint. It's far from perfect, but it makes a lot of sense, especially with all that Apple has done to make it easier for developers.
However, I also don't think Apple is getting married to Intel. Apple is doing what is best for this point in time. A few years down the road Apple will do what is best at that time. I have discussed this briefly with the developer I mentioned above.
He will need to support the PPC for many years, and really doesn't have a problem with this. He says most code will be easy by using Apple tools. Unfortunately, he makes heavy uses of vector processing in ways that is not handled by Apple's accelerate framework. It all has to be redone for the Intel instruction set. On the brighter side, he is planning Windows versions of his applications and will need to do this work anyway.
Jerry
In short I guess my questions are:
Are the new intel based macs just going to be a dell in a pretty case?
What is going to set future macs apart from PCs if anything?
PS?sorry if a question like this has already been posted. I am using a dial up connection and searching the forum for an answer to this was getting too painful.
Originally posted by jiggz
. . . In short I guess my questions are:
Are the new intel based macs just going to be a dell in a pretty case?
What is going to set future macs apart from PCs if anything? . . .
You have some very legitimate concerns that may not have been discussed. Most answers people give is that it's the Mac OS and Apple applications that will set the Mac apart from the other PCs. Style and elegant physical design are also mentioned. Yet neither of these address your concern about reliability.
If you think about the PC failures you experience, likely it was not the Intel chip set that caused the problem. Apple can continue to have higher quality standards for the internal working part, like drives and power supplies.
Originally posted by jiggz
It seems that people are getting excited about this just because macs will be using processors with a higher MHz label than before
Actually, all Mac/Intel speculation centers on Yonah, Sossaman, and Merom Intel processors. Yonah will not be faster than 2.1 GHz when 1st shipped, Sossaman (Yonah for blade servers) likely limited to 2.5 GHz or less and Merom in late 2006 and 2007 might not break 3 GHz.
Are the new intel based macs just going to be a dell in a pretty case? What is going to set future macs apart from PCs if anything?
I'm relatively confident that Apple will take Intel's "Napa" platform chips and create a custom motherboard to fit Apple's unique computer designs. The manufacture of such a custom motherboard will be subject Apple's standards. This is essentially what happens now with all of the current chips.
So they really won't be a Dell in a pretty case. One interesting question will be whether Apple will support all of the hardware features in Intel platform hardware. They may not.
Originally posted by THT
Actually, all Mac/Intel speculation centers on Yonah, Sossaman, and Merom Intel processors. Yonah will not be faster than 2.1 GHz when 1st shipped, Sossaman (Yonah for blade servers) likely limited to 2.5 GHz or less and Merom in late 2006 and 2007 might not break 3 GHz. . .
Intel may like Apple as a customer because Apple appreciates good technology, not just top MHz. The fact that Apple was first to make extensive use of USB was not lost on Intel I'm sure.
Originally posted by snoopy
Intel may like Apple as a customer because Apple appreciates good technology, not just top MHz. The fact that Apple was first to make extensive use of USB was not lost on Intel I'm sure.
I agree and think that Intel may regard their relationship as a boon. It would allow them to showcase their technical expertise in a fantastic industrial design. They have no need for legacy, so it may be that technology can find is way into Apple products quickly (as long as Intel can supply the support chipsets etc). I think it may be that Apple will be the 'flagship' for Intel (much more so than Dell ever could - even with the volumes they shift).