PDA

View Full Version : Behind the Apple-Intel Deal, IBM Surprised


Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jun 11, 2005, 11:45 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/11/technology/11apple.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1118507841-ikuIy5LEXmd82gbzGx1//A) provides some details behind Apple's switch to Intel. Of note, IBM was in the dark about the transition until very late in the game.

Several executives close to the last-minute dealings between Apple and I.B.M. said that Mr. Jobs waited until the last moment - 3 p.m. on Friday, June 4 - to inform Big Blue [IBM]. Those executives said that I.B.M. had learned about Apple's negotiations with Intel from news reports and that Apple had not returned phone calls in recent weeks.

IBM claims pricing was the major issue, while Apple insists performance delivery was at the core of the switch.

The New York Times also confirms that Apple has investigated other chips as well. Apple reportedly met with Sony regarding the Cell design but Jobs "was disappointed with the Cell design, which he believes will be even less effective than the PowerPC."

UberMac
Jun 11, 2005, 11:48 AM
Surprised IBM were left in the dark so long...shows how powerful Apple must be I guess. Nice to see details will be emerging. Guess it's not much of a surprise that IBM make excuses about price, they wouldn't want their products lookin' bad.

Jedda
Jun 11, 2005, 11:48 AM
Thats the Jobs in true form.

Interesting to see an insight into his thoughts on the Cell. I'll be interested to see how this whole thing pans out.

cube
Jun 11, 2005, 11:50 AM
Who says the PowerPC is not effective??

beatle888
Jun 11, 2005, 11:53 AM
Who says the PowerPC is not effective??


i believe it was steve jobs.

arn
Jun 11, 2005, 11:53 AM
... so one concern is what keeps IBM interested in developing PowerPC processors in the meanwhile? Contractual obligation?

I don't know if the 970's are used in volume much elsewhere.

arn

iJaz
Jun 11, 2005, 11:53 AM
I am quite surprised about the poor performance of the Cell chip that everybody is hyping.

mxpiazza
Jun 11, 2005, 11:54 AM
everything i hear about the cell is terrible... how the xbox360* processing is lightyears ahead of the tech specs and performance that the cell brings to gaming, and now jobs saying that it will be even worse than the PPC... the cell sure isn't getting much good press.

and i'm sure Jobs dumping on the PPC is really going to make anyone want to buy a PPC mac in the next 18-24 months....

ZLurker
Jun 11, 2005, 11:54 AM
Anyone care to enlighten us that don't subscribe to the post?

iJaz
Jun 11, 2005, 11:54 AM
i believe it was steve jobs.
He just said it was not power effective.

wildmac
Jun 11, 2005, 11:54 AM
IBM didn't fee like discounting the underperforming chips now that they had the Xbox deal.

Apple (and we!) wanted the faster and non-melting chips.

IBM was really surprised?.... They didn't have a clue?... If so, then thats really shows the core of the problem. IBM was comfortable enough with what they had with Apple that they didn't have a clue. They didn't see that the Powerbooks sucked, and that people were not buying them, which hurt Apple.

And we wonder why IBM has been trending downwards all these years?

Mord
Jun 11, 2005, 11:55 AM
... so one concern is what keeps IBM interested in developing PowerPC processors in the meanwhile? Contractual obligation?

I don't know if the 970's are used in volume much elsewhere.

arn


only in IBM blade servers, and i think you can buy some motherboard from someone which runs a form of linux :S

beatle888
Jun 11, 2005, 11:56 AM
I am quite surprised about the poor performance of the Cell chip that everybody is hyping.


isnt that how it always is? im not surprised. and i wont be surprised if it turns out to be the best chip in the future.

GroundLoop
Jun 11, 2005, 11:56 AM
... so one concern is what keeps IBM interested in developing PowerPC processors in the meanwhile? Contractual obligation?

I don't know if the 970's are used in volume much elsewhere.

arn

I would hope that Apple secured a contract for the next year an a half or the Mac lineup is going to go stale very soon. I doubt that Jobs would have let an oversight like that slip through.

Hickman

ZLurker
Jun 11, 2005, 11:57 AM
... so one concern is what keeps IBM interested in developing PowerPC processors in the meanwhile? Contractual obligation?

I don't know if the 970's are used in volume much elsewhere.

arn
Im guessing the PPC lineup we will see in PM is already in preproduction state. Apple is just waiting for the right moment for the upgrade. They have to play their cards right so they dont stand with a new PM that wont be upgraded for 2 years.
I bet they could put 970mp in right now but thats the last card they have for another 2 years.....

wildmac
Jun 11, 2005, 11:58 AM
... so one concern is what keeps IBM interested in developing PowerPC processors in the meanwhile? Contractual obligation?

I don't know if the 970's are used in volume much elsewhere.

arn


if they have the fab process already in place, why not sell some more chips?...

but I disagree with a lot of folks thinking that faster chips might be coming out. With IBM's problems in this area already, now they'll be much less motivated to do it.

We might not see ANY speed increases in Apple hardware for the next 2 years in some cases. That could kill Apple.

Josh396
Jun 11, 2005, 11:58 AM
... so one concern is what keeps IBM interested in developing PowerPC processors in the meanwhile? Contractual obligation?

I don't know if the 970's are used in volume much elsewhere.

arn
I was wondering the same thing. I don't know of anyone else that would use the 970 and what is IBM to do now with the 970MP? My guess Apple wasn't impressed at all with the 970MP or that IBM had no chance at all of a mobile version of the G5, although I would have thought the Dual Core G4 from Freescale would have been better then a G5. The PowerPC should stay alive due to all 3 next generation gaming consoles but I don't believe they are of the 970 family. Maybe IBM continues development and hopes for a breakthrough with their chips in order to bring Apple back? I don't think theres any chance at all for that but maybe.

swissmann
Jun 11, 2005, 11:59 AM
IBM saying it was a cost issue doesn't help them much either. I can see them not saying there were performance/power issues but mention that they are too expensive too that really hits them from both sides. IBM chips are hot, not improving quickly in performance, and are expensive too? Wow.

Josh396
Jun 11, 2005, 12:02 PM
Im guessing the PPC lineup we will see in PM is already in preproduction state. Apple is just waiting for the right moment for the upgrade. They have to play their cards right so they dont stand with a new PM that wont be upgraded for 2 years.
I bet they could put 970mp in right now but thats the last card they have for another 2 years.....
I was thinking the same thing about the 970MP too. My guess is that it is close to ready but they are waiting for the perfect timeframe before the Intel switch to intice buyers.

beatle888
Jun 11, 2005, 12:02 PM
He just said it was not power effective.


um ok. i didnt mean to imply it didnt make toast very well.

cube
Jun 11, 2005, 12:03 PM
He just said it was not power effective.

He said the planned implementations would not be power-effective, not the architecture.

ZLurker
Jun 11, 2005, 12:08 PM
Here is some interesting reading from ibm:s hompage:
http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2005/06/2006_06_10.html

News

Keeping a secure footing in shifting chip landscape


Squeezing ever more transistors onto a single chip means microprocessors are running hotter and drawing more power. And that means design challenges and chip-performance trade offs. At the same time, the microprocessor market is shifting. Personal computers constitute a maturing market, while demand is being driven by proliferating mobile devices, the spread of broadband data connections and the advent of the digital home.
IBM clearly saw the branching paths of chip technology many years ago and is meeting the challenges of the new era, particularly with its family of POWER chips. Industry-leading design innovation is pushing POWER inside a wider range of products, from gaming consoles to company servers and lightning-fast supercomputers -- and the Power.org open development community ensures that collaboration fuels the accelerated evolution of POWER chip technology.
Learn more:
The Future is Wide Open: Understanding IBM’s Strategy

unfaded
Jun 11, 2005, 12:09 PM
i believe it was steve jobs.

Hahahahaha, oh wow, I laughed so hard at this that I woke up my roommates.

IJ Reilly
Jun 11, 2005, 12:12 PM
i believe it was steve jobs.

Actually, it was the writer. It's not a direct quote from anyone.

Side note: I was surprised to find a veteran tech writer like John Markoff falling back on that terrible old "Macintosh faithful" cliché not once but twice in this article. Come on John, you're better than that!

iJaz
Jun 11, 2005, 12:13 PM
He said the planned implementations would not be power-effective, not the architecture.
He compared the performance per watt projected mid 2006 (and beyond). And Intel beat PPC, 70 to 15 (units of performance per watt).

cube
Jun 11, 2005, 12:15 PM
He compared the performance per watt projected mid 2006 (and beyond). And Intel beat PPC, 70 to 15 (units of performance per watt).

Yes. That's comparing implementations.

bort
Jun 11, 2005, 12:16 PM
I am quite surprised about the poor performance of the Cell chip that everybody is hyping.

The reason I believe the cell was not considdered is that it multiplies the strengths and weakenesses of the PPC. You will have notcied that in benchmarks, the 970 eaither comes in at 70% perfomance of its competitors, or 200+%. This would be even more extreme in the cell, somehere at 30~50%, and 800+%. Unfortunately the number of benchmarks that show the 800% improvement would be reduced, and those that show the 50% loss would be increased.

The cell would make a good co-processor addon to get that 800% boost on code it is good for ( streaming media, vector calculations, highly paralell graphics rendering ), while having a more traditional CPU ( not the cut down one on the cell itself) handle the general computing tasks.

Given the target and volume of the cell, and the spread of low-lactency peripheral interconects ( like PCIe, which seems to be ont he new "MacTel" boxes ), one could get 90% of the benefits of the cell from an addon card with the same connection width as a GFX card. The local memory of the SPE's would mask the added latency of the peripheral bus nicely.

Marianco
Jun 11, 2005, 12:17 PM
The problem of going with a game CPU such as IBM's CELL and Xenion chips is that performance progress is very slow. You don't have better and better chips each year as with PC Chips such as Intel's Pentium. This is because a game console does not have to be updated every year - it gets updated every 6-7 years. PC's on the other hand, have to be updated each year or less in order to be competitive. THUS, the CELL and Xenion chips - despite their power today - will be STAGNANT in progress over the next 6-7 years. During this time, Intel's chips will only become more powerful and faster. IBM LOVES the idea of not having to pour development costs into making new versions of the CEL and Xenion each year. Unfortunately, despite the current power of the CELL and Xenion chips, that is all you will get for the next 6-7 years. Note that the CELL is not even designed for PC use. It can only address 256 megabytes of memory - due to limitations of its memory bus - despite its speed. It would take another two years to be able to churn out CELLs good enough for PC use (i.e. which can address more memory). It would take another two years to be able to churn out CELLs which can have low enough power requirements to make it into laptops. To Apple, this would mean stagnation and eventual death.

Intel's processors on the other hand, have to improve each year to remain competitive. AND Intel can produce bulk numbers of their processors. AND Intel chips have low power requirements NOW for laptop use. For Intel to survive, it has to aggressively innovate and progress quickly. Look at how Intel developed a RISC core with a CISC wrapper to improve the Pentium's performance compared to RISC chips like the PowerPC. Eventually, the Pentium outstripped the PowerPC on almost all tasks. Despite the CELL's current power, I believe Intel (because it has to), will improve their chip power to the point it will also be faster than the CELL. Remember that the CELL's progress will be stagnant over the next 6-7 years because IBM will not have to innovate.

Apple absolutely made the right choice by choosing Intel. I wished they had done so years ago instead of foreseeing the dead-end that PowerPC would head into. As former Apple CEO John Sculley said, not going Intel was his BIGGEST mistake.

IBM claims pricing was the major issue, while Apple insists performance delivery was at the core of the switch.

The New York Times also confirms that Apple has investigated other chips as well. Apple reportedly met with Sony regarding the Cell design but Jobs "was disappointed with the Cell design, which he believes will be even less effective than the PowerPC."

beatle888
Jun 11, 2005, 12:20 PM
you guys nitpick all you want. its obvious what jobs is saying. otherwise we would still be looking at a future with the PowerPC.

i can here the responses now.


actually we do have a future with PowerPC. Apple isnt making the swith to Intel until 2006 starting with the lower line. most likely the mini, then moving on to the pro line the following year. the PowerPC to Intel transition, according to my calculations and profound knowledge on the subject, should be complete by 2007.



:rolleyes:
sure what ever makes you feel useful.

jhu
Jun 11, 2005, 12:21 PM
if they have the fab process already in place, why not sell some more chips?...

but I disagree with a lot of folks thinking that faster chips might be coming out. With IBM's problems in this area already, now they'll be much less motivated to do it.

We might not see ANY speed increases in Apple hardware for the next 2 years in some cases. That could kill Apple.

like how the old g4s killed apple?

wdlove
Jun 11, 2005, 12:24 PM
Hopefully Apple has a good contractual agreement with IBM that will last through 2007. It will certainly depend on the usefulness of the 970 to IBM if any additional upgrades will continue. Just have to hope something is in the pipeline already.

scu
Jun 11, 2005, 12:26 PM
I was thinking the same thing about the 970MP too. My guess is that it is close to ready but they are waiting for the perfect timeframe before the Intel switch to intice buyers.

Agreed. I think they will introduce a faster PowerPC Chip just before Christmas or early fall. That will most likely be the last major speed upgrade. It should be a big enough speed bump to keep the Mac Faithful happy for a good 12 months. By early 2006 Apple should have another great product such as the iPod to make up for a decrese in PowerMac sales.

I very much doubt IBM was in the dark. That is not how big companies work. IBM might have informed Apple that they have hit a brick wall and any further improvements in speed would be followed by a significant jump in prices for those faster chips. I am sure the Apple/IBM contract is very detailed with many exemptions and exits for both companies. Technology is very fluid and hard to predict therefore one can only promise so much.

At some point Apple informed IBM that the present situation is unacceptatble and they will be shopping for suppliers who can deliver. This alone should not give IBM a reason not to make a good faith effort in continuing to provide Apple with what is reasonable and affordable.

In five years a great book can be written about how Apple's problems with IBM led to the doubling of its market share.

Marianco
Jun 11, 2005, 12:28 PM
Note that the CELL is essentially a weak PowerPC core with 8 programmable Altivec units surrounding it. The 8 programmable Altivec units behave like DSPs - able to do parallel processing work at nigh speed.

The problem is that much personal computer work is serial not parallel. Outside of graphics and scientific number crunching, almost everything else is done serially in the CPU. Thus, dual or quad FULL cores are better for personal computer work.

Apple SOLVED the problem of faster parallel processing by harnessing the existing power of the programmable GPUs in the graphic cards provided by ATI and nVidia. These GPUs have much more power now than the CELL processor. Newer ones can easily outstrip the CELL processor. People don't realize how powerful their graphics cards are when used for other functions. Mac OS X no longer needs to use the Altivec processor to speed up its graphics. It instead gives the work to the GPU - which does a fantastic job of speeding up drawing the user interface - as much as 2000% faster, or more.

Thus with Intel providing leading edge general purpose CPUs and ATI/nVidia providing leading edge GPUs, Apple is no longer constrained in power as it has been over the past several years.

Note that when Sony advertises the terraflops of power provided by the Playstation 3, it does not tell you that most of that power is provided by the GPU - not the CELL.

The reason I believe the cell was not considdered is that it multiplies the strengths and weakenesses of the PPC. You will have notcied that in benchmarks, the 970 eaither comes in at 70% perfomance of its competitors, or 200+%. This would be even more extreme in the cell, somehere at 30~50%, and 800+%. Unfortunately the number of benchmarks that show the 800% improvement would be reduced, and those that show the 50% loss would be increased.

poundsmack
Jun 11, 2005, 12:29 PM
intel had to do some good enticing to apple too....i mean intel must have made this deal worth wild for apple

LGRW3919
Jun 11, 2005, 12:29 PM
... so one concern is what keeps IBM interested in developing PowerPC processors in the meanwhile? Contractual obligation?

I don't know if the 970's are used in volume much elsewhere.

arn

I believe you're right about the 970's but the Xbox 360 and the Nintendo Revolution will both be using PowerPC cores. That's a lot of volume.

roadapple
Jun 11, 2005, 12:32 PM
Sounds like the lower power and higher speed ppc chips Steve has been promising are possible, but IBM did not think it was worth the effort for the projected apple market size. Bottom line that IBM wanted more money then Apple was willing to pay to continue the development of the ppc. Jobs called Intel, great chips, low price, good future with or without Apple involved.


Anyone care to enlighten us that don't subscribe to the post?

You can access the site using fake info and invalid email accounts. Wonder how much spam JoeSmith@hotmail.com gets?

Object-X
Jun 11, 2005, 12:34 PM
The article also points out that the negotiations with Sony also fell through. It made it sound that Sony was pushing Apple to adopt the Cell chip for access to their other products. I interpret that to mean the PS3. I really thought that Apple would strike up a deal with Sony to create a product for the home, but doesn't look like that will happen now.

So, that leaves Apple moving forward with Intel to create something for the home. This leads me to believe that Apple has something up their sleeve. They must feel pretty strong that they can fight both Sony and Microsoft in the home theater space. It seems pretty clear that Sony and MS are betting the farm that their consoles will be their pathway into our homes, but I get this funny feeling that Jobs has a different idea.

Products we want to make in the future he said. Hmm... rumors of Intel mini computers. Hmmm... Holographic (http://www.inphase-tech.com/technology/pdf/WhatisHDS.pdf) data storage that boggles the mind. H.264 changes everything...hmmm... A streaming media server is my guess. Might it look something like this (http://www.videonetworks.com/index.htm) ? Why put a HD disc in your console when you can stream all your movies from a media library without getting up off your fat a$$. :)

Marianco
Jun 11, 2005, 12:35 PM
I think IBM will come out with the dual-core PowerPC chip at 3 GHZ soon. This will be then the end of the road. It will keep Mac fans happy for the next couple of years. Apple can come out finally with a quad CPU desktop. Then in 2 years, Apple will have it's first full-blown Intel desktop Macs.

Unfortunately, IBM will have no laptop CPU. Apple will probably use Freescale's 2 GHz dual-core G4s for its laptops. These should keep things going for the next two years - they will be faster overall than current PC single CPU laptops. Then in June 2006, Apple will come out with its first Pentium-M laptops.

I myself would buy a dual-core G4 laptop since the current ones are running out of steam for myself.

Agreed. I think they will introduce a faster PowerPC Chip just before Christmas or early fall. That will most likely be the last major speed upgrade. It should be a big enough speed bump to keep the Mac Faithful happy for a good 12 months. By early 2006 Apple should have another great product such as the iPod to make up for a decrese in PowerMac sales.

In five years a great book can be written about how Apple's problems with IBM led to the doubling of its market share.

LGRW3919
Jun 11, 2005, 12:37 PM
In five years a great book can be written about how Apple's problems with IBM led to the doubling of its market share.


The G5 did the doubling? I'd have to say that since the G5 is only in two hardware line for Apple that this statement is highly controversial. The G4 is in the rest. The Mac mini was Apple's posterboy in the January Quarter, based on a G4 as you all well know, getting articles reviewing it and praising Apple for it EVERY DAY (My google alerts for Apple constantly had a few).

Now this may change in the coming months as Apple moves products to the PPC G5, as Jobs said, "We have some awesome PowerPC products in the pipeline."

Marianco
Jun 11, 2005, 12:39 PM
The CELL is not ready for the desktop. AND it certainly is not ready for a laptop.

The CELL can only use 256 megabytes of RAM. It would have to be redesigned to address the 8 gigabytes of RAM current PowerMacs can use. That would take 2 years.

The CELL has a weak PowerPC core. For general computing use, this has far lower power than the current PowerPC 970. Almost all computing work is done Serially not Parallely (outside of graphics and scientific computing).

The CELL is not ready for laptop use. It would take 2-4 years to redesign it for laptop use.

All of these features and more make the CELL very disappointing to Apple.

The CELL is good for graphic intensive applications such as games and video, but weak in so many other areas.

The article also points out that the negotiations with Sony also fell through. It made it sound that Sony was pushing Apple to adopt the Cell chip for access to their other products. I interpret that to mean the PS3. I really thought that Apple would strike up a deal with Sony to create a product for the home, but doesn't look like that will happen now.

So, that leaves Apple moving forward with Intel to create something for the home. This leads me to believe that Apple has something up their sleeve. They must feel pretty strong that they can fight both Sony and Microsoft in the home theater space. It seems pretty clear that Sony and MS are betting the farm that their consoles will be their pathway into our homes, but I get this funny feeling that Jobs has a different idea.

Products we want to make in the future he said. Hmm... rumors of Intel mini computers. Hmmm... Holographic (http://www.inphase-tech.com/technology/pdf/WhatisHDS.pdf) data storage that boggles the mind. A streaming media server is my guess. Might it look something like this (http://www.videonetworks.com/index.htm) ? Why put a HD disc in your console when you can stream all your movies from a media library without getting up off your fat a$$. :)

LGRW3919
Jun 11, 2005, 12:46 PM
actually we do have a future with PowerPC. Apple isnt making the swith to Intel until 2006 starting with the lower line. most likely the mini, then moving on to the pro line the following year. the PowerPC to Intel transition, according to my calculations and profound knowledge on the subject, should be complete by 2007.

So are you assuming every single Mac buyer will switch to intel by 2007 or that apple will have all products based on intels by 2007. I can tell you that there will be a lot of PPC's out there still in use in 2008 and 2009.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 11, 2005, 12:47 PM
This whole thing is just so funny, After years of no progress and constant lies from Motorola Jobs sure as heck wasnt going to go through that again with IBM doing the same darn thing. Im glad IBM found out in the news and i dont blame Apple for not returning these slackers phone calls. IBM doesnt even advertise their own 970s, they advertise their Intel Powered machine. PPC dont let the door kick you in your _ _ _ on the way out. Take Moto stink with you. 10 years late but its still a good thing. :cool:

beatle888
Jun 11, 2005, 12:48 PM
The article also points out that the negotiations with Sony also fell through. It made it sound that Sony was pushing Apple to adopt the Cell chip for access to their other products. I interpret that to mean the PS3. I really thought that Apple would strike up a deal with Sony to create a product for the home, but doesn't look like that will happen now.

So, that leaves Apple moving forward with Intel to create something for the home. This leads me to believe that Apple has something up their sleeve. They must feel pretty strong that they can fight both Sony and Microsoft in the home theater space. It seems pretty clear that Sony and MS are betting the farm that their consoles will be their pathway into our homes, but I get this funny feeling that Jobs has a different idea.

Products we want to make in the future he said. Hmm... rumors of Intel mini computers. Hmmm... Holographic (http://www.inphase-tech.com/technology/pdf/WhatisHDS.pdf) data storage that boggles the mind. H.264 changes everything...hmmm... A streaming media server is my guess. Might it look something like this (http://www.videonetworks.com/index.htm) ? Why put a HD disc in your console when you can stream all your movies from a media library without getting up off your fat a$$. :)


im not so sure about that whole media/computer systems now. i just ordered a new cable box from my cable company for $9 a month. it records up to 70 hours of tv. its like a tivo. it seems that the cable companies already got a head start in this area. they already have movies you can preview>watch>record...and its happening NOW.

cable companies have the content>delivery method>users and now an inexpensive box.

agreenster
Jun 11, 2005, 12:49 PM
Man, someone must have lost their job at IBM. Why did the Apple Account Exec not pick up the phone and get a meeting scheduled? Whether or not its a huge financial blow to IBM, they sure lost part of their reputation as being the sole chip supplier to the most innovative computer company in the world.

If they heard the rumors, and then didnt receive calls from Apple, they should have known something was up. Either that, or they just didnt care and were tired of dealing with Jobs.

beatle888
Jun 11, 2005, 12:51 PM
So are you assuming every single Mac buyer will switch to intel by 2007 or that apple will have all products based on intels by 2007. I can tell you that there will be a lot of PPC's out there still in use in 2008 and 2009.


your either very funny or your just skimming these posts. what you are commenting on is from a post i made mocking all the nitpickers on this site. you illustrated my point beautifully. thank you. :p

Photorun
Jun 11, 2005, 01:07 PM
This whole thing is just so funny, After years of no progress and constant lies from Motorola Jobs sure as heck wasnt going to go through that again with IBM doing the same darn thing. Im glad IBM found out in the news and i dont blame Apple for not returning these slackers phone calls. IBM doesnt even advertise their own 970s, they advertise their Intel Powered machine. PPC dont let the door kick you in your _ _ _ on the way out. Take Moto stink with you. 10 years late but its still a good thing. :cool:

Wow, this is a scary week, first Apple switches to Intel and, after the dust settles, I'm actually pretty excited about it, and NOW I'm nodding my head in agreement for the first time ever to a Dont Hurt Me post... what's next, pigs flying?

Photorun
Jun 11, 2005, 01:11 PM
Also, though a bit OT to this or any topic, seeing how MacRumor's designates user's quantity of posts by chip numbers of Apple computers and on (6502, 68020, etc.), I wonder how long/many posts someone will have to have to get up to the Pentium M/Yonah, etc?

stridey
Jun 11, 2005, 01:23 PM
Also, though a bit OT to this or any topic, seeing how MacRumor's designates user's quantity of posts by chip numbers of Apple computers and on (6502, 68020, etc.), I wonder how long/many posts someone will have to have to get up to the Pentium M/Yonah, etc?

Well, is anybody even past the Motorola chips? I know I haven't seen any PowerPC chips yet...

Nugget
Jun 11, 2005, 01:25 PM
your either very funny or your just skimming these posts. what you are commenting on is from a post i made mocking all the nitpickers on this site. you illustrated my point beautifully. thank you. :p
Or, more likely, he just had trouble discerning your meaning through your countless grammatical and spelling mistakes. I had to read your "mocking" comment several times before I had it figured out, and even then I wasn't certain that my guess was correct. It was not at all clear that that paragraph in the middle was meant to be sarcasm.

Your loose grasp of the english language leads to posts which are very difficult to understand. Consequently, perhaps you should consider spending more time articulating your meaning. -- or at least try to be less snarky when other people misunderstand your confusing posts.

Stella
Jun 11, 2005, 01:27 PM
Who says the PowerPC is not effective??

He didn't say the PPC was less effective.. he said Cell processor is less effective than the PPC.

I suppose its the way you read it - you could read it both ways - that he also infers the PPC processor is ineffective, like you say.

By the sounds of it Apple did the necessary homework to make an informed decision - Cell processor, AMD, and Intel.

Chomolungma
Jun 11, 2005, 01:30 PM
Well, is anybody even past the Motorola chips? I know I haven't seen any PowerPC chips yet...


i think you can get it with a donation or payment. If not, it may be a good idea. I'm sure a good number of people will donate to get a Pentium avatar.

-chomo

macmax77
Jun 11, 2005, 01:31 PM
Maybe Jobs knows his cancer is going to take him on vacation to the other side and wants to take Apple with him to rest in peace.

cube
Jun 11, 2005, 01:32 PM
He didn't say the PPC was less effective.. he said Cell processor is less effective than the PPC.

I suppose its the way you read it - you could read it both ways - that he also infers the PPC processor is ineffective, like you say.


The post states "he believes will be even less effective than the PowerPC", so it is saying that the PPC is not effective.

narco
Jun 11, 2005, 01:33 PM
I heard that IBM lost interest in the deal anyway; claiming they weren't making much money through Apple. This is so dramatic. People are already saying that Jobs should be removed for his dumb decisions like he was before. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Fishes,
narco.

SiliconAddict
Jun 11, 2005, 01:34 PM
See. Trust that Apple DID do their homework before making the decision. As for IBM. I have zero doubt in my mind anymore that Apple leaked the information. The date stamp for the article from c|net making not bold claims such as negotiations but the outright statement of transition was 5PM PST. They notified Big Blue at 3PM PST. That wasn't just a lucky shot. One can't help likening it to the Japanese notifying the US (late) of their attack on Pearl Harbor. The timing is JUST TOO perfect.

You can bet that it Jobs himself who made the call. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall of IBM's exec who took that call. :D It prob came as one hell of a surprise but I doubt IBM is losing any sleep over it. PowerMac chips are a drop in the bucket at the end of the day. If they can sell of their valuable ThinkPad line without breaking a sweat what do they care if Apple runs away.

DickArmAndHarT
Jun 11, 2005, 01:44 PM
I like the fact IBM saying "pricing issues" maby well be getting getting fast Intel Processors, and big price decreases. Maby Intel is truthful in saying it was price more than performance (i called steve a fibber) I think this is looking better for us every minute. Is apple trying to decrease price, but cannot because IBM processors were two expensive. Ahh this could be a magical transition.

jseamster
Jun 11, 2005, 01:45 PM
Guys, let's be honest with ourselves... Most of the comments here sound like either completely unfounded speculation or snippets of information gathered from a number of external articles which have been recklessly reassembled.

Would Steve Jobs really be solely making a final decision on a choice of two processor roadmaps? Keep in mind that when he introduced the G5 processor, he mostly joked his way through its improved performance features like advanced pipelining and predictive branching.

And there is little or no reason to why the Cell processor would even be considered for comparison or reference when deciding Apple's CPU future. The design of the Cell is not geared toward PC design and was never meant to be.

I realize that I didn't add anything here but let's stop going back and forth with borrowed commentary and misinformation. I hope we can all still go to the movies together this weekend.

MikeBike
Jun 11, 2005, 01:46 PM
IBM was really surprised?.... They didn't have a clue?... If so, then thats really shows the core of the problem. IBM was comfortable enough with what they had with Apple that they didn't have a clue. They didn't see that the Powerbooks sucked, and that people were not buying them, which hurt Apple.


The is an interesting point.
These guys were clueless about market conditions and the need for competitiveness? Plus, they've lost the DREAM, you know, to be an actual Player in the Game. Not just a side show attraction.
They where comfortable to kiss off the business. After all this is their ONLY CHANCE to sell Desktop and Laptop chips.
What was the GOAL here, JUST to fufill Apple's Contract OR Get back in the Game and take the whole PIE away from Intel.
Apparently, they were only interested in Just Filling the Contract. Which they did poorly.

heisetax
Jun 11, 2005, 01:47 PM
So are you assuming every single Mac buyer will switch to intel by 2007 or that apple will have all products based on intels by 2007. I can tell you that there will be a lot of PPC's out there still in use in 2008 and 2009.


I'd say that a lot of people will choose not to switch. Just like the vast number of OS 9 users, there will be a large number of PPC users using both OS 9 & OS X. Because of the need for new software, many will not switch until 2015. Remember Mac hardware will last longer than other hardware. I still have customers using pre PPC Macs for their daily work.

Bill the TaxMan

beatle888
Jun 11, 2005, 01:51 PM
-- or at least try to be less snarky when other people misunderstand your confusing posts.


your right. he could of just misunderstood. but i'll tell you what, your post was definetly uncalled for. so the other poster and i had a misunderstanding. thats honest enough. yours on the other hand was downright nasty....are you here to save the day Mr. butt nugget? or is that SUPER butt nugget? i can see you now in your brown cape and leotard with that butt nugget logo proudly worn on your chest.


sorry but i think you were out of line. my post was not even close to being as acrid as yours. did someone wipe you the wrong way this morning?





i do however understand your point that he might of just misunderstood. i didnt think so at first....but maybe he did. WHO CARES though, i mean really.

MikeBike
Jun 11, 2005, 01:55 PM
Note that the CELL is essentially a weak PowerPC core with 8 programmable Altivec units surrounding it. The 8 programmable Altivec units behave like DSPs - able to do parallel processing work at nigh speed.

The problem is that much personal computer work is serial not parallel. Outside of graphics and scientific number crunching, almost everything else is done serially in the CPU. Thus, dual or quad FULL cores are better for personal computer work.

Apple SOLVED the problem of faster parallel processing by harnessing the existing power of the programmable GPUs in the graphic cards provided by ATI and nVidia. These GPUs have much more power now than the CELL processor. Newer ones can easily outstrip the CELL processor. People don't realize how powerful their graphics cards are when used for other functions. Mac OS X no longer needs to use the Altivec processor to speed up its graphics. It instead gives the work to the GPU - which does a fantastic job of speeding up drawing the user interface - as much as 2000% faster, or more.

Thus with Intel providing leading edge general purpose CPUs and ATI/nVidia providing leading edge GPUs, Apple is no longer constrained in power as it has been over the past several years.

Note that when Sony advertises the terraflops of power provided by the Playstation 3, it does not tell you that most of that power is provided by the GPU - not the CELL.


Nice Post, stated well.
I also beileve the Cell doesn't have in hardware the code necessary for user switching? Which IBM said could be implemented in software. ( Software is 10 time slower then a hardware feature ) Pointing to Cell being really designed for it's specific, primary purpose: Single User Games.

kaos
Jun 11, 2005, 01:59 PM
Just from my own sampling of Apple fanatics - friends who buy a lot of Apple gear, from G5s to PBs and iPods - I think there may be a far more significant Osborne effect than Jobs and Apple realize. Personally, I used to update my PB every 9mos or so. I'm going to try and hang on to it now until Intel's real notebook procs hit in '07.

And, given the transition timeframe, I'm going to do what was unthinkable before this transition was announced - take a real look at Longhorn and evaluate moving back to Windows. I think it's likely I'll stick with OS X, but I would probably not have even given Windows serious consideration without this move by Apple. Hopefully (for Apple) I'm more the exception than the rule, but I think this was the wrong time to make such a transition.

MikeBike
Jun 11, 2005, 02:10 PM
Just from my own sampling of Apple fanatics - friends who buy a lot of Apple gear, from G5s to PBs and iPods - I think there may be a far more significant Osborne effect than Jobs and Apple realize. Personally, I used to update my PB every 9mos or so. I'm going to try and hang on to it now until Intel's real notebook procs hit in '07.

And, given the transition timeframe, I'm going to do what was unthinkable before this transition was announced - take a real look at Longhorn and evaluate moving back to Windows. I think it's likely I'll stick with OS X, but I would probably not have even given Windows serious consideration without this move by Apple. Hopefully (for Apple) I'm more the exception than the rule, but I think this was the wrong time to make such a transition.


ROFL: Thanks, Waiting for Longhorn really got to me.

First, there can Only be an Osborne effect if you think,
- All Software will be ready by 2006
- You use VirtualPC for 90% of your programming needs.
Then, it would be effective to wait for Intel.

Otherwise,
One Last Buy, is the more effective strategy.
And this has two choices.
1) Buy the Best you can afford -- because your a Pro user and you Need the Horsepower or
2) Downgrade your purchase to a lesser model and wait for the transition to finish, then by an Intel pc, if you're not a heavy pro user.

kirk26
Jun 11, 2005, 02:15 PM
IBM suprised? Not really. This is the first news story I've read claiming this. All other sites are saying IBM got tired of Apple and wanted to concentrate on gaming consoles.

narco
Jun 11, 2005, 02:15 PM
Hopefully (for Apple) I'm more the exception than the rule, but I think this was the wrong time to make such a transition.

I hardly think this is the wrong time to do so. Sure, it would have been better before the iPod "halo effect" came into place, but Mac sales are still rising so it's best to do this now rather than wait and have all the new switchers deal with this transition.

Fishes,
narco.

heisetax
Jun 11, 2005, 02:23 PM
Guys, let's be honest with ourselves... Most of the comments here sound like either completely unfounded speculation or snippets of information gathered from a number of external articles which have been recklessly reassembled.

Would Steve Jobs really be solely making a final decision on a choice of two processor roadmaps? Keep in mind that when he introduced the G5 processor, he mostly joked his way through its improved performance features like advanced pipelining and predictive branching.

And there is little or no reason to why the Cell processor would even be considered for comparison or reference when deciding Apple's CPU future. The design of the Cell is not geared toward PC design and was never meant to be.

I realize that I didn't add anything here but let's stop going back and forth with borrowed commentary and misinformation. I hope we can all still go to the movies together this weekend.



Steve Jobs always has trouble talking hardware because he is a saleman, not a computer engineer. If he lived in most other areas of the country I could see him as a used car saleman. He just tells you what he wants you to know. Just enough to make the sale. LIke a used car salsman, we must always check what he says. This is the only way we have to tell how much if any truth he tells us.

How could the PPC be better than Intel yesterday, but now Intel is so much better than the PPC used in the Mac? When were we lied to. My money would go to both times.

My plans are to stay with the PPC Macs I have at this time. To extend the time that I can use them, I will also cancel all plans to update my software. Remember, new software requires new hardware.

Do you believe that IBM would deliver a dual core 3 GHz PPC to Apple at this time. I would think that they have stopped all development of the PPC 970. It has too narrow of a market at present with Apple sales going lower everyday. With this change of processors two things will happen. First those that like the PPC like me will buy the latest & greatest PPC G5 to help insure that they have a working computer for 5 to 10 years into the future. I so far have chose not to reward Apple for changing processors. My PowerMac G5 upgrade has been cancelled for the present. This action by PPC supporters would help Apple in the short term. Then those that want to support the Intel Mac will put off their purchases until the Intel Macs come out. As Steve Jobs has declared the PPC Mac junk & the new Intel Mac to be the greatest Mac ever to be made, I would think that sales would take a gigger cut from waiters that PPC users. Who wants to spend $3,000-8,000 on a new PPC Mac system that Steve Jobs has alreeady declared as dead?

My opinion is support the PPC Mac if your hardware is getting very old. All others should put a boycott on all thing Apple. This could start with the Intel Macs for those that need their iPods. In recent years Apple has changed to a music company away from a computer company. This Intel move will divide the already small Mac market into pieces. Maybe too many to keep it alive.

To many the processor does not matter. To many like me it is all about the processor. I chose the Mac 21 years ago & I still am just as anti-Intel as I was then. I was a Heath-Kit computer user before that time. They chose to make IBM Clones with Intel 8086 processors in them. Being anti Intel I chose not to follow. Now Apple is making the same decision. This time I will make the same decision, not to follow my computer manufacture. This is limiting my choices severly. That is why I must keep what I haverunning for as long as I can.

Who knows what will be available in the 5-10 years before I will have to make any new purchases. Others won't be as severve as I am.

I did this same multi year wait from my Clones, & this will be easier as my 5 Clones still all run at least OS 9.2.2. 2 have G4's in them, 2 have G3's & one is still a 250 NHz 604e. All have 1 GB of ram in them. They also have USB & FW. THis is just proof that you don't need the latest & greatest to do your needed & useful work.

Bill the aging TaxMan

javiercr
Jun 11, 2005, 02:23 PM
I am quite surprised about the poor performance of the Cell chip that everybody is hyping.

Cell is made for video games and may be for video, a graphics card kind of requirements, nobody said it was good for general computing.

lewdvig
Jun 11, 2005, 02:25 PM
no more "cell is better" talk - I hope.

cygnus23
Jun 11, 2005, 02:27 PM
...And, given the transition timeframe, I'm going to do what was unthinkable before this transition was announced - take a real look at Longhorn and evaluate moving back to Windows. I think it's likely I'll stick with OS X, but I would probably not have even given Windows serious consideration without this move by Apple. Hopefully (for Apple) I'm more the exception than the rule, but I think this was the wrong time to make such a transition.

So previously your sole motivation for buying Apple was a devotion PPC processors? If the new MacTel machines have better cost/performance than the PPC boxes you were willing to upgrade every nine months, how does that necessitate switching to an OS that is still at least 18 months away...it sounds to me like nothing is changing, but the engine.

Some_Big_Spoon
Jun 11, 2005, 02:32 PM
No one in the zealot crowd seems to be acknowledging the distinct possibility that PPC Macs will not progress over the next 2 years and that Mac sales will suffer much due to that.

I just bought a 20" iMac for heavier lifting over a truly pathetic 12" PB, and I'd be insane to buy a PPC Mac before the "transition". These things (PPC Macs) are dead in the water despite what the BOZO's say over and over.

PPC's not dead as IBM seems to be doing fine putting them in their own stuff and other people's, but the PPC 970 series is dead and buried as IBM has no reason, other than whatever the duration of their contract is, to develope them. Think about it, I'm sure there was explicit language in the Apple/IBM contract about performance improvements and IBM hasn't/can't deliver, so, if they know know that they really don't have to, why bother any more when they're already persona non grata at Apple?

MikeBike
Jun 11, 2005, 02:34 PM
Steve Jobs always has trouble talking hardware because he is a saleman, not a computer engineer. If he lived in most other areas of the country I could see him as a used car saleman. He just tells you what he wants you to know. Just enough to make the sale. LIke a used car salsman, we must always check what he says. This is the only way we have to tell how much if any truth he tells us.

How could the PPC be better than Intel yesterday, but now Intel is so much better than the PPC used in the Mac? When were we lied to. My money would go to both times.

My plans are to stay with the PPC Macs I have at this time. To extend the time that I can use them, I will also cancel all plans to update my software. Remember, new software requires new hardware.

Do you believe that IBM would deliver a dual core 3 GHz PPC to Apple at this time. I would think that they have stopped all development of the PPC 970. It has too narrow of a market at present with Apple sales going lower everyday. With this change of processors two things will happen. First those that like the PPC like me will buy the latest & greatest PPC G5 to help insure that they have a working computer for 5 to 10 years into the future. I so far have chose not to reward Apple for changing processors. My PowerMac G5 upgrade has been cancelled for the present. This action by PPC supporters would help Apple in the short term. Then those that want to support the Intel Mac will put off their purchases until the Intel Macs come out. As Steve Jobs has declared the PPC Mac junk & the new Intel Mac to be the greatest Mac ever to be made, I would think that sales would take a gigger cut from waiters that PPC users. Who wants to spend $3,000-8,000 on a new PPC Mac system that Steve Jobs has alreeady declared as dead?

My opinion is support the PPC Mac if your hardware is getting very old. All others should put a boycott on all thing Apple. This could start with the Intel Macs for those that need their iPods. In recent years Apple has changed to a music company away from a computer company. This Intel move will divide the already small Mac market into pieces. Maybe too many to keep it alive.

To many the processor does not matter. To many like me it is all about the processor. I chose the Mac 21 years ago & I still am just as anti-Intel as I was then. I was a Heath-Kit computer user before that time. They chose to make IBM Clones with Intel 8086 processors in them. Being anti Intel I chose not to follow. Now Apple is making the same decision. This time I will make the same decision, not to follow my computer manufacture. This is limiting my choices severly. That is why I must keep what I haverunning for as long as I can.

Who knows what will be available in the 5-10 years before I will have to make any new purchases. Others won't be as severve as I am.

I did this same multi year wait from my Clones, & this will be easier as my 5 Clones still all run at least OS 9.2.2. 2 have G4's in them, 2 have G3's & one is still a 250 NHz 604e. All have 1 GB of ram in them. They also have USB & FW. THis is just proof that you don't need the latest & greatest to do your needed & useful work.

Bill the aging TaxMan

Bill the TaxMan,
What's your problem with Intel's future road map?
A Dual Core 64bit Pentium M Powerbook would be just a sweet as a dual core G4 from Freescale. Sure, I'd rather get it from Freescale, but, they are taking their good old time to deliver the chip as well. So, what choice do we have?

IBM won't invest in it's own product.
Freescale has been talking about it's dual core for what a year now?
Talk is cheap.
I think we're all abit tired of it.

kaos
Jun 11, 2005, 02:36 PM
ROFL: Thanks, Waiting for Longhorn really got to me.


Lol. As much of an Apple fanatic as I am, I figured there would be plenty of those who can't even think straight when someone mentions Microsoft or Longhorn in a post. I didn't say I was waiting for Longhorn, or that I would do so, or expect anyone else to do so. I said it was bad timing for Apple to be in the middle of a transition when Msft releases their next OS, and it would prompt me to consider switching back in a way I would probably not if the Mac platform were more stable. I doubt I'm alone in that, although a better platform may prompt many in the larger Windows user base to do the same.

My fundamental point is that the Mac has some very nice momentum right now. Jobs showed that in his presentation. It's a big gamble to make a change like this right at the point where the Mac platform has moved from losing market share to gaining it. We'll know soon enough (6mos) whether announcing this transition hurts sales or not.

MikeBike
Jun 11, 2005, 02:41 PM
I just bought a 20" iMac for heavier lifting over a truly pathetic 12" PB,

Yes, you would be insane to buy another machine( unless it's a Mini ), if you just bought a 20" iMac. But, someone with a 3 or more year old machine has to ask himself what kind of software does he run, and will it be converted, does he want to be on the bleeding edge of half is software not working? If it's Apple based, this type of user shouldn't be waiting around for the Intel Miracles.

I don't plan to wait.
But, I don't think I now need the 2.7 Powermac.
A Dual 2.0 might be the perfect machine. And after the dust settles, I can get an Mac-x86 and run Folding@home / and a database / turn the old machine into a server.

kaos
Jun 11, 2005, 02:42 PM
So previously your sole motivation for buying Apple was a devotion PPC processors? If the new MacTel machines have better cost/performance than the PPC boxes you were willing to upgrade every nine months, how does that necessitate switching to an OS that is still at least 18 months away...it sounds to me like nothing is changing, but the engine.

No, I bought it for the OS, no doubt. But I could generate a list of a dozen persistent complaints with Apple's products (hardware and software). None of those items would be that my Macs run too slowly. My point is that I'm a huge Apple fan, but not an Apple zealot and so I am not taking it on faith they will manage this transition well. If I think they're having quality problems tranitioning to the new platform, I'd check out Longhorn (assuming it is even out there at the same time) and evaluate making the switch. Given my prior experience with Msft, I would not even think it possible they have a better platform were it not for the doubts I now have about Apple's future.

w_parietti22
Jun 11, 2005, 02:48 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

IBM claims pricing was the major issue, while Apple insists performance delivery was at the core of the switch. "

If this is true... does this mean cheaper Macs? :) Or does Apple just make more money?

Sun Baked
Jun 11, 2005, 02:49 PM
In the end, Mr. Jobs was given no choice but to move his business to Intel, when I.B.M. executives said that without additional Apple investment they were unwilling to pursue the faster and lower-power chips he badly needs for his laptop business.

"Technical issues were secondary to the business issues," said an executive close to the I.B.M. side of the negotiations. Because the business was not profitable, I.B.M. "decided not to continue to go ahead with the product road map." Basically I can see why IBM was caught flat footed and thinks it was a cost issue.

When you are asking a company to start coughing up $100 and $250 million dollar bills (or more) to help "entice" IBM to pursue some of the research to build the next generation chip -- and have a horrid current ability to deliver today's chip.

Do they really think Apple will do it? :rolleyes:

Basically it sounds like IBM killed the roadmap for desktop chips beyond PPC970 when the interested customers didn't buy it -- the chip was a flop and only Apple got "stuck" with it, therefore there was no reason for IBM a pay for the P5UL, P6UL, etc. Let's have Apple pay.

Even IBM declined to use the chip in a desktop machine and/or workstation.

gwangung
Jun 11, 2005, 02:51 PM
"How could the PPC be better than Intel yesterday, but now Intel is so much better than the PPC used in the Mac"

Check the clock speeds. Do the math. Not hard to figure out; when clock speeds were roughly the same, PPC could be the same, but if the clock sppeds for PPC are half or worse than Intel, then Intel is easily better.

If you can't figure that out, then perhaps you ARE the simpleton you claim everyone else is.

MikeBike
Jun 11, 2005, 02:56 PM
If this is true... does this mean cheaper Macs? :) Or does Apple just make more money?

"Technical issues were secondary to the business issues," said an executive close to the I.B.M. side of the negotiations. Because the business was not profitable, I.B.M. "decided not to continue to go ahead with the product road map."

Does that sound like money or IBM Mgmt having no Long Term Vision.
Why was the business not profitable?
Because, IBM couldn't deliver on it's promises?
IBM wouldn't build a laptop chip?

It takes money ( R&D ) to make money.
Secondly, what about IBM losing sales to xServe.
They may have gotten a bit confused about their Goals.
- Did they want to lose current server sales to less expensive Apple Servers now but become the chip supplier for Apple's growing Laptop and Desktop market share.
- Instead of looking at it as a partnership, with both parties profiting and driving for a long term goal, they just looked at the current situation and said "the Heck with it".

Whatever.
Play Games IBM.

puuukeey
Jun 11, 2005, 02:56 PM
so much of whats being said on this board is about emotions. like the world of corporate technology is a freakin soap opera. gateway cheated on adobe's boyfriend with a dotcom. no. its all lies. everyones trying to cover their ass and protect their image in the media.

I can not believe that in the hundreds of pages of forums on the subject, there have been only a few that deal with contracts and pricing. t

sord
Jun 11, 2005, 03:00 PM
IBM suprised? Not really. This is the first news story I've read claiming this. All other sites are saying IBM got tired of Apple and wanted to concentrate on gaming consoles.
Exactly why they may have been suprised. If IBM was tired of Apple, they would probably expect to drop Apple instead of Apple dropping them. If IBM wanted to drop Apple they could do it at the right moment and if this is the case, Steve just took the ball into his court by picking his timing and doing it before IBM screwed Apple.

iMeowbot
Jun 11, 2005, 03:02 PM
no more "cell is better" talk - I hope.
You'll see more of it. Expect at least one of the Cell players to get some massively parallel computational beast in a decent spot on the Top 500.

But then, reality sets in when thinking of how many programs we run that would actually benefit from MPP or more vector processors. Encoding/decoding a compressed movie, or formatting rich text, or calculating a spreadsheet, is loaded with sequential dependencies. You can "cheat" some and try to guess ahead, but ultimately it runs into the same kinds of problems that make people itch when they see that a uniprocessor has long pipelines. Much of that computational power would be thrown away or untapped in very common desktop applications.

iMeowbot
Jun 11, 2005, 03:11 PM
... so one concern is what keeps IBM interested in developing PowerPC processors in the meanwhile? Contractual obligation?
We really don't have any information about chip R&D that Apple may have already bought. If Apple funded the 970MP (where is that thing?), they're still going to get it. Besides, IBM probably already have a blade with the 970MP's name on it.

gwangung
Jun 11, 2005, 03:22 PM
Something else to think about: I hear far more in business case studies of companies who hang on too long to a past architecture or business model than I do about companies who move too fast. There are risks involved in this move, but these actions are of a company which is nimble and ready to take risks, which is a hallmark of sucessful companies.

ixus
Jun 11, 2005, 03:29 PM
no more "cell is better" talk - I hope.

CELL is ofcourse better! x86 architecture is damn old and it's drawing us backward! Just because we have to stay "compatible" with old x86 and windows software architecture, major cpu calculation and software architecture still have to stay in 32bit bandwidth.

Taking advantage of new architecture (like CELL, 68040 => PPC) require complete rewrite and redesign of software architecture. Redesigning and rewriting 10 mils of codes is pain in the ass and no one in the software industries even want to think about it. But if done properly, the benefit is huge, think about the switch from 68040 => PPC, Win9x => WinXP, or even OS9 => OSX.

So now Apple is switching BACKWARD to X86 architecture, oh great, software companies now have a much better time writing and selling softwares because now not only it requires MUCH less effort is developing, but also increases the prospects thus the sales of products. Yes, you will get more PC games. And Apple will once again increases the sales and market share. (OSX WILL DEFINITELY BE ABLE TO BE RUN ON A DELL COMPUTER, LIKE IT OR NOT. Because X86 OSX is designed to run on STANDARD Intel architecture (bios) , based on x86 debian linux.) Just don't expect any major computing advantage from an APPLE.

Personally knowing many IBM engineer, IBM is committed to the future of the PowerPC line. IBM has increased the capacities of their NY fab plant many times for the PPC and Cells, well before any official Cell announcement. It is Apple who wish not to be the underdog and committed to the future of the computing.

By the way, for the professionals demand performances and wouldn't mind to rewrite every single line of codes from scratch, they wouldn't bother to look at the outdated x86 architecture. Good luck with your "new" Mactel PC, and be sure to read more rumors and press releases to expand your knowledges, Fanboys!

themacman
Jun 11, 2005, 03:32 PM
the future of apple is riding on the next gen intel processer. It must be so much faster hten the current g5's for apple to change that much.

gwangung
Jun 11, 2005, 03:36 PM
CELL is ofcourse better!

For what?

cube
Jun 11, 2005, 03:38 PM
IBM surprised? I don't think so. Now you know why they got rid of their PC division..

512ke
Jun 11, 2005, 03:51 PM
"IBM surprised?"

IBM is acting like they were caught off guard.

Why would Steve piss them off by not giving 'em a hint ahead of the switch announcement?

Steve still needs IBM to provide chips during the transition (2 yrs? 3 yrs?).

Why cut what you can untie?

But then again... you look at the Pixar/Disney history. It seems driven by a few really forceful personalities... as much as by "logic".

I figure... IBM pissed Steve off... He was like, I'm not only gonna change, I'm gonna tell the world via my actions... stuff it, IBM.

Anarcho-Commie
Jun 11, 2005, 03:59 PM
Yes, you would be insane to buy another machine( unless it's a Mini ), if you just bought a 20" iMac. But, someone with a 3 or more year old machine has to ask himself what kind of software does he run, and will it be converted, does he want to be on the bleeding edge of half is software not working? If it's Apple based, this type of user shouldn't be waiting around for the Intel Miracles.

I don't plan to wait.
But, I don't think I now need the 2.7 Powermac.
A Dual 2.0 might be the perfect machine. And after the dust settles, I can get an Mac-x86 and run Folding@home / and a database / turn the old machine into a server.

yeah, thats what i did. i was going to get the 2.7 powermac but just got the 2.0. should be here next week!. yaay!
:confused:

Trekkie
Jun 11, 2005, 04:06 PM
Surprised IBM were left in the dark so long...shows how powerful Apple must be I guess. Nice to see details will be emerging. Guess it's not much of a surprise that IBM make excuses about price, they wouldn't want their products lookin' bad.

You don't have to be powerful to not return phone calls. Petty, yes, Powerful, no.

I'm betting dollars to donuts it was about price, plain and simple. Intel 'incents' you pretty heavily with all sorts of little programs to use their chips, and their chips alone. You want fun, negotiate by saying you're going to use another chip vendor and more money appears as incentive not too...

Of course it's all 'marketing dollars' or 'rebates on volume' etc. I'm sure Apples volumes were a blip on the radar of a $96B company like IBM.

Though I'm pretty disappointed, at the workstation class (powerMac) level I don't see what Xeon has to offer over PowerPC, but at the notebook level I see tons of things power (wattage) related.

ixus
Jun 11, 2005, 04:10 PM
For what?

Unlike other fanboys saying, Cell is more than capable of running traditional OS thread. You will soon be seeing Linux running on Cell, guarantee!. The problem is all OS and softwares will have to be rewritten, and possibly redesign.

It is like a dual core 64bit Intel pentium M, with 64bit power core and very low power consumption, except it's ultra scaleable. Its architecture is designed to be scaleable, multiple processors (10s, 20s) can be work together in ease with very little modification on the software side. Its calculating power is undisputed. And most importantly, it's actually in production in IBM NY plant, as well as Sony Plant in Japan, right now, at this very moment.

It could well be used in Apple future Powerbook laptop. It's Apple who would not only need to rewrite the entire OSX and its development suite, and to gain 3rd party support of the completely new architecture.

It might be understandable why Apple would switch to x86 instead of future power/cell. After all, money matters. But blaming IBM for future roadmap and performance/watts is just plain BS. Apple is not so "innovative" no more.

Well, think about it, even Intel tried and can't switch away from x86 architecture.

Ti_Poussin
Jun 11, 2005, 04:16 PM
What amaze me here, is that people seem to think that making a microfabrication chip is easy as hell, only willing to do it is enough to create it. Microfabrication can go wrong very quickly, problems can occure at any step and there's a lot of step to bring a silicium substrat to a fonctional chip. I believe that IBM though the roadmap of the 970 would be easier than it's really is. They don't have the experience of those fabrication for making low power, small chip or portable chip. They get ability to make big server chip.

Apple seem to have plan this switch since a long time, so don't just blame IBM over this one, I think Motorola have a part to play in it. But it's hard for those two compagnie to justify an invenstement for such a small market that Mac are. Let's face it, Apple haven't any choice and they did it right. I feel a bit sad, cause I prefere the PPC design over the X86 soo many times, hope Intel change the X86 into something great now on.

About the cell chip is a great chip, it's not only for gaming console by the way like many where saying. Parallele computing yes, but it have a lot of punch for what it does, vector computing. Vector computing is the future of very demanding multimedia stuff. Cell is an architecture by the the way, the PS3 use one kind of the cell chip for a specific application gaming console. You could change a cell chip to use it in almost anything. But, most software aren't code to use it's power, they're code for Intel architecture X86. Developpe software in the Cell chip way to do stuff and bring it a great compiler, you may get blow with it's capability. But again, popularity win over technology again. I wish people got a class in school name "Technology, understand it, don't get foul by number". Maybe a day will come.

polyesterlester
Jun 11, 2005, 04:19 PM
Several executives close to the last-minute dealings between Apple and I.B.M. said that Mr. Jobs waited until the last moment - 3 p.m. on Friday, June 4 - to inform Big Blue [IBM]. Those executives said that I.B.M. had learned about Apple's negotiations with Intel from news reports and that Apple had not returned phone calls in recent weeks.

That sounds like how most of my relationships end.

Evangelion
Jun 11, 2005, 04:23 PM
I am quite surprised about the poor performance of the Cell chip that everybody is hyping.

The Cell absolutely kicks ass on some certain tasks. And it's mediocre on some others. as a general-purpose CPU Cell is way behind current PPC's and x86-CPU. And general-purpose-CPU is what Apple wants/needs. But it's not what Sony wants//needs for PS3.

pubwvj
Jun 11, 2005, 04:26 PM
Just from my own sampling of Apple fanatics - friends who buy a lot of Apple gear, from G5s to PBs and iPods - I think there may be a far more significant Osborne effect than Jobs and Apple realize. Personally, I used to update my PB every 9mos or so.

WoW! I love people like you. You help lower the price of technology for the rest of us. I update my PB and other computers about once every five years (or longer). Let me know when you're dumping your PB.

CmdrLaForge
Jun 11, 2005, 04:27 PM
... so one concern is what keeps IBM interested in developing PowerPC processors in the meanwhile? Contractual obligation?

I don't know if the 970's are used in volume much elsewhere.

arn
Money?

slackpacker
Jun 11, 2005, 04:28 PM
CELL is ofcourse better! x86 architecture is damn old and it's drawing us backward! Taking advantage of new architecture (like CELL, 68040 => PPC) require complete rewrite and redesign of software architecture. Redesigning and rewriting 10 mils of codes is pain in the ass and no one in the software industries even want to think about it. But if done properly, the benefit is huge, think about the switch from 68040 => PPC, Win9x => WinXP, or even OS9 => OSX.

So now Apple is switching BACKWARD to X86 architecture, oh great, software companies now have a much better time writing and selling softwares because now not only it requires MUCH less effort is developing, knowledges, Fanboys!

Dude you know nothing...

Dude where is the Cell Processor.... So we/Apple should wait for a non existent chip. Dude What are the most powerful laptops today... PowerPC.... Cell? No its Intels Pentium M processor based laptops. I don't care how great the Cell is its not ready for prime time yet and we would have to wait another year for it to be ready. Plus the thing must be a beast to program for.... dont let SONY fool you with all their marketing.

Regards,

SLACKPACKER

Evangelion
Jun 11, 2005, 04:29 PM
The CELL can only use 256 megabytes of RAM.

Where did you hear THAT claim? Hell, IBM is planning to sell servers with Cell-CPU's, and I'm pretty sure their mx RAM wont be 256MB! Not to mention workstations and the like.

slackpacker
Jun 11, 2005, 04:31 PM
Unlike other fanboys saying, Cell is more than capable of running traditional OS thread. You will soon be seeing Linux running on Cell, guarantee!. The problem is all OS and softwares will have to be rewritten, and possibly redesign.

Well, think about it, even Intel tried and can't switch away from x86 architecture.


And like any of us CARE about Linux.... this is an OS X board... I care about OS X.... not your FANBOY mentality over Linux and the Cell.

tdewey
Jun 11, 2005, 04:31 PM
Though I'm pretty disappointed, at the workstation class (powerMac) level I don't see what Xeon has to offer over PowerPC, but at the notebook level I see tons of things power (wattage) related.

You're talking today. What about tomorrow?

An (as yet unreleased) dual-proc Conroe has much to offer, over the (as yet unreleased) dual-proc 970MP.

A 2007+ Intel roadmap (with a quad-proc Whitefield) has much to offer a 2007+ IBM lack-of-roadmap.

Finally, MacOS will be prove to the Windows world that it kicks the crap out of Windows XP.

fuzzwud
Jun 11, 2005, 04:34 PM
\

You can access the site using fake info and invalid email accounts. Wonder how much spam JoeSmith@hotmail.com gets?


Not much spam ... getting to read the news on nytimes.com is free once you register. it's a good place for news.

GFLPraxis
Jun 11, 2005, 04:34 PM
I am quite surprised about the poor performance of the Cell chip that everybody is hyping.

I'm not.

The Cell is just a PowerPC processor with SPE's attached. The SPE's only do floating point calculations and can't do branching, so are absolutely useless for anything except VERY specific types of work like rendering.

iMeowbot
Jun 11, 2005, 04:35 PM
The problem is all OS and softwares will have to be rewritten, and possibly redesign.
Rewritten and redesigned. That makes it just like the Transputer, then: it's the wave of the future and always will be.

tdewey
Jun 11, 2005, 04:36 PM
Just from my own sampling of Apple fanatics - friends who buy a lot of Apple gear, from G5s to PBs and iPods - I think there may be a far more significant Osborne effect than Jobs and Apple realize. Personally, I used to update my PB every 9mos or so.



WoW! I love people like you. You help lower the price of technology for the rest of us. I update my PB and other computers about once every five years (or longer). Let me know when you're dumping your PB.

How could anyone update a PB every 9 months? I've got a 12" from 2003 that I might update in 2006 with a Yonah PB. Three years is about my usual update cycle.

Silencio
Jun 11, 2005, 04:37 PM
Unlike other fanboys saying, Cell is more than capable of running traditional OS thread. You will soon be seeing Linux running on Cell, guarantee!. The problem is all OS and softwares will have to be rewritten, and possibly redesign.

It could well be used in Apple future Powerbook laptop. It's Apple who would not only need to rewrite the entire OSX and its development suite, and to gain 3rd party support of the completely new architecture.

It might be understandable why Apple would switch to x86 instead of future power/cell. After all, money matters. But blaming IBM for future roadmap and performance/watts is just plain BS. Apple is not so "innovative" no more.

Well, think about it, even Intel tried and can't switch away from x86 architecture.

Yes, the biggest problem with Cell is that so much code has to be rewritten to make it work -- even more code changes than the x86 conversion would take! And I am still not convinced that Cell would make a useful CPU for general-purpose computing, let alone run cool enough or energy-efficient enough to be workable in a laptop.

IBM can spin it all they want about "cost", but they just don't have an answer for high-performance portable computing, where so much of the market growth is/will be taking place. Apple cannot risk falling even further behind in that space.

Apple may be switching to x86, but they do not have to adopt all the legacy cruft that holds back mainstream PCs. I'm sure Intel is stoked to have a hardware/OS partner that can help them show off what they can really do.

It will be interesting to see what these "great PowerPC products coming" are that Steve Jobs mentioned twice in the keynote. I'm sure the 970MP will surface... eventually. Apple's high-end machines will be transitioning last to Intel, after all.

Someone mentioned Freescale's Dual-core "G4" a while back. It's a non-starter AFAIK due to Freescale's MaxBus, which would require a lot of work for Apple to adopt. More work than it's worth, most likely, amongst numerous other reasons (some of which are undoubtedly political).

Apple has such tremendous customer (if not developer) loyalty, that I expect the impact on PowerPC sales in the next 12-18 months will be real, but not at all debilitating. I am getting extra laughs out of the resurrection of the "Osborne effect" phrase, reminding me of a hilarious call Steve Jobs once made to Osborne's secretary back in the day: http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Tell_Adam_Hes_An_*******.txt&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium

And one more thing: I'm sure Apple has some other non-computer "digital lifestyle" device due to reach the market soon that'll help them through this transition period.

Moxiemike
Jun 11, 2005, 04:43 PM
Steve Jobs always has trouble talking hardware because he is a saleman, not a computer engineer. If he lived in most other areas of the country I could see him as a used car saleman. He just tells you what he wants you to know. Just enough to make the sale. LIke a used car salsman, we must always check what he says. This is the only way we have to tell how much if any truth he tells us.

How could the PPC be better than Intel yesterday, but now Intel is so much better than the PPC used in the Mac? When were we lied to. My money would go to both times.

My plans are to stay with the PPC Macs I have at this time. To extend the time that I can use them, I will also cancel all plans to update my software. Remember, new software requires new hardware.

Do you believe that IBM would deliver a dual core 3 GHz PPC to Apple at this time. I would think that they have stopped all development of the PPC 970. It has too narrow of a market at present with Apple sales going lower everyday. With this change of processors two things will happen. First those that like the PPC like me will buy the latest & greatest PPC G5 to help insure that they have a working computer for 5 to 10 years into the future. I so far have chose not to reward Apple for changing processors. My PowerMac G5 upgrade has been cancelled for the present. This action by PPC supporters would help Apple in the short term. Then those that want to support the Intel Mac will put off their purchases until the Intel Macs come out. As Steve Jobs has declared the PPC Mac junk & the new Intel Mac to be the greatest Mac ever to be made, I would think that sales would take a gigger cut from waiters that PPC users. Who wants to spend $3,000-8,000 on a new PPC Mac system that Steve Jobs has alreeady declared as dead?

My opinion is support the PPC Mac if your hardware is getting very old. All others should put a boycott on all thing Apple. This could start with the Intel Macs for those that need their iPods. In recent years Apple has changed to a music company away from a computer company. This Intel move will divide the already small Mac market into pieces. Maybe too many to keep it alive.

To many the processor does not matter. To many like me it is all about the processor. I chose the Mac 21 years ago & I still am just as anti-Intel as I was then. I was a Heath-Kit computer user before that time. They chose to make IBM Clones with Intel 8086 processors in them. Being anti Intel I chose not to follow. Now Apple is making the same decision. This time I will make the same decision, not to follow my computer manufacture. This is limiting my choices severly. That is why I must keep what I haverunning for as long as I can.

Who knows what will be available in the 5-10 years before I will have to make any new purchases. Others won't be as severve as I am.

I did this same multi year wait from my Clones, & this will be easier as my 5 Clones still all run at least OS 9.2.2. 2 have G4's in them, 2 have G3's & one is still a 250 NHz 604e. All have 1 GB of ram in them. They also have USB & FW. THis is just proof that you don't need the latest & greatest to do your needed & useful work.

Bill the aging TaxMan


Did the Intel boogeyman steal your baby or something? God. You never once explained why you're so anti-intel, so we can just assume that you really have no basis for your comments.

Tell us all why you're so anti-intel? give us some reasons. Concrete ones. And how about some reasons why the PPC is SO great for your work? C'mon, just saying without backing it up is dangerous. FUD territory.

gwangung
Jun 11, 2005, 04:46 PM
Unlike other fanboys saying, Cell is more than capable of running traditional OS thread.

Realllllly? Not from what I've seen. Multi-media stuff, yeah....but I think you're a bit shaky on how it would handle more day to day tasks.

nagromme
Jun 11, 2005, 04:49 PM
The top-selling desktops and notebooks at Amazon.com used to be mainly Macs.

A week after the Intel deal... they still are.

Those stats get updated frequently.

Desktops:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/pc/565098/ref=pd_ts_pc_nav/

Notebooks:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/pc/565108/ref=pd_ts_pc_nav/

And if you're wondering how Apple might finance a half-year sales lull...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/electronics/172630/ref=pd_ts_e_nav/
(Good grief! There isn't a non-iPod MP3 player anywhere in the top 20 at the moment.)

Amazon's customers don't represent the entire public--NO online shopping site does, since many people don't shop online. I'd say their customers may represent people ahead of the crowd--they hint at future buying patterns. I make that guess not just because online shopping is a recent wave, but because they sell many more laptops then desktops--and we've seen that trend begin in the rest of the market too.

But if Amazon's customers aren't the entire market, they're not mainly Mac users either. Most of their customers have always been PC users, and they offer great sales on both platforms. Yet in the last year, Macs have crept into the top sellers--and stayed there.

I don't think the rest of the world will catch up to match Amazon--Macs won't be THE top-selling computers instantly--but it tells me a LOT more acceptance of Macs is growing.

If that acceptance faces a 6-month lull in laptops (which outsell desktops) until MWSF 06, Apple will survive that easily, and then the wave of pent-up demand will arrive.

Moxiemike
Jun 11, 2005, 04:51 PM
The top-selling desktops and notebooks at Amazon.com used to be mainly Macs.

A week after the Intel deal... they still are.

Those stats get updated frequently.

Desktops:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/pc/565098/ref=pd_ts_pc_nav/

Notebooks:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/pc/565108/ref=pd_ts_pc_nav/

And if you're wondering how Apple might finance a half-year sales lull...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/top-sellers/-/electronics/172630/ref=pd_ts_e_nav/
(Good grief! There isn't a non-iPod MP3 player anywhere in the top 20 at the moment.)

Amazon's customers don't represent the entire public--NO online shopping site does, since many people don't shop online. I'd say their customers may represent people ahead of the crowd--they hint at future buying patterns. I make that guess not just because online shopping is a recent wave, but because they sell many more laptops then desktops--and we've seen that trend begin in the rest of the market too.

But if Amazon's customers aren't the entire market, they're not mainly Mac users either. Most of their customers have always been PC users, and they offer great sales on both platforms. Yet in the last year, Macs have crept into the top sellers--and stayed there.

I don't think the rest of the world will catch up to match Amazon--Macs won't be THE top-selling computers instantly--but it tells me a LOT more acceptance of Macs is growing.

If that acceptance faces a 6-month lull in laptops (which outsell desktops) until MWSF 06, Apple will survive that easily, and then the wave of pent-up demand will arrive.

You, my friend, tell it like it is plainly and beautifully. Congrats on your vision. :)

aegisdesign
Jun 11, 2005, 05:03 PM
I'm not.

The Cell is just a PowerPC processor with SPE's attached. The SPE's only do floating point calculations and can't do branching, so are absolutely useless for anything except VERY specific types of work like rendering.

And the PowerPC CPU in the Cell is a cut down effort that can't do out of order processing and has less functional units. If you give it plain old multi-threaded PPC code, it'll suck. You'd have to rewrite a lot of your code for the Cell. And then write some more code to use the SPEs.

I can see why initially at least, the Xbox 360 with it's 3 core cutdown PPC chip would be more appealing to developers. There must be quite a learning curve to get the best out of the Cell.

And I can see why neither is the right choice for the Mac.

aegisdesign
Jun 11, 2005, 05:15 PM
"How could the PPC be better than Intel yesterday, but now Intel is so much better than the PPC used in the Mac"

Check the clock speeds. Do the math. Not hard to figure out; when clock speeds were roughly the same, PPC could be the same, but if the clock sppeds for PPC are half or worse than Intel, then Intel is easily better.

If you can't figure that out, then perhaps you ARE the simpleton you claim everyone else is.

Baloney. The Pentium M that we're more than likely shifting too runs at a much lower clockspeed than the Pentium 4 and beats it. The AMD Opteron runs at a lower speed than the G5 and generally beats it. I'd be surprised if a 2.5Ghz Pentium M doesn't beat the G5 also.

Clock speed isn't the only indication of performance.

FelixDerKater
Jun 11, 2005, 05:17 PM
This is starting to sound a bit like the way things were moving before Jobs's exile from Apple.

~loserman~
Jun 11, 2005, 05:28 PM
IBM saying it was a cost issue doesn't help them much either. I can see them not saying there were performance/power issues but mention that they are too expensive too that really hits them from both sides. IBM chips are hot, not improving quickly in performance, and are expensive too? Wow.


One thing of note....
Yes the 970 is hot... but it can operate at 85c and still be within specs.
On our xserves we have noted that operating temperature has never exceeded 62c and we typically have ours running at 100% utilization 24/7

I honestly believe they can run even without the fans.

cygnus23
Jun 11, 2005, 05:30 PM
I loved my Amiga 500, 4000 and 1200. I would have been happy to buy new models with Intel processors. Unfortunately, the enormous technical lead that the Amiga had, was squandered. Who cares what processor Macintosh runs on - as long as Macintosh runs.

It seems like the only thing we'd really need to worry about is Microsoft switching to something better...

~loserman~
Jun 11, 2005, 05:31 PM
And the PowerPC CPU in the Cell is a cut down effort that can't do out of order processing and has less functional units. If you give it plain old multi-threaded PPC code, it'll suck. You'd have to rewrite a lot of your code for the Cell. And then write some more code to use the SPEs.

I can see why initially at least, the Xbox 360 with it's 3 core cutdown PPC chip would be more appealing to developers. There must be quite a learning curve to get the best out of the Cell.

And I can see why neither is the right choice for the Mac.

It really depends on the development environment. If Sony has good dev tools then they can mitigate the complexity of dev for the cell/PS3.

gwangung
Jun 11, 2005, 05:58 PM
Baloney. The Pentium M that we're more than likely shifting too runs at a much lower clockspeed than the Pentium 4 and beats it. The AMD Opteron runs at a lower speed than the G5 and generally beats it. I'd be surprised if a 2.5Ghz Pentium M doesn't beat the G5 also.

Clock speed isn't the only indication of performance.

I'm being very simplistic about it. But there was considerable promise around the G5, which were quite competitive at its initial introduction. That promise hasn't been kept...and I think that's an objective look at things.

Fukui
Jun 11, 2005, 05:59 PM
Vector computing is the future of very demanding multimedia stuff. Cell is an architecture by the the way, the PS3 use one kind of the cell chip for a specific application gaming console. You could change a cell chip to use it in almost anything.
But cells vector units can only handle single precision floating point.
I think that will limit some aspects... its already probably why they stuck an altivec unit in there. In fact, why coulnd't they just take a standard PPC core, stick 4 altivec on there and be done with it?

The whole Cell philosophy is super-multi-threading of everything. Something that is very difficult for standard desktops apps to really take advantage of. Makes debugging a hell of alot harder too. Second, on cell, would each thread (how many can it take anyways 9 or more?) be as fast for each process using it? Would you rather have 9 threads running so-so speed and can only be SIMD, or have only 2 or 4 much faster general pourpose threads like the pentium-D?

I think thats what steve meant by dissapointing.

MacVault
Jun 11, 2005, 06:12 PM
... so one concern is what keeps IBM interested in developing PowerPC processors in the meanwhile? Contractual obligation?

I don't know if the 970's are used in volume much elsewhere.

arn

yea, but... who the heck would be interested in buying a PowerPC(Mac) from now on? So, maybe there's no need for IBM to develop anymore. Just make a few of the current designs to sell til the switch to Intel.

MontyZ
Jun 11, 2005, 06:28 PM
My plans are to stay with the PPC Macs I have at this time. To extend the time that I can use them, I will also cancel all plans to update my software.
Hope that works out for ya.

My opinion is support the PPC Mac if your hardware is getting very old. All others should put a boycott on all thing Apple. This could start with the Intel Macs for those that need their iPods.
YAWN. Same garbage you keep posting here over and over.

I smell a gnome. I mean troll.

MontyZ
Jun 11, 2005, 06:30 PM
Wow, Steve must have been really pissed at IBM.

I say screw IBM, they've never really been a friend of Apple from the very beginning anyway. Cut them loose. Sayonara Big Blue!

springdaddy
Jun 11, 2005, 06:33 PM
Wow, Steve must have been really pissed at IBM.

I say screw IBM, they've never really been a friend of Apple from the very beginning anyway. Cut them loose. Sayonara Big Blue!

Exactly. From the looks of things, Jobs probably got fed up with IBM not giving Apple the upgrades in chips that would keep Macs in check with PCs. Every 7 to 9 months for upgrades wasn't cutting it and I think Jobs realized that if they wanted to make a dent in market share, it was time to move on. And I'm glad they did.

gangst
Jun 11, 2005, 06:36 PM
yea, but... who the heck would be interested in buying a PowerPC(Mac) from now on? So, maybe there's no need for IBM to develop anymore. Just make a few of the current designs to sell til the switch to Intel.

Many people will still by PowerPC Macs for many reasons, they need a new Mac urgently, new designs that Apple said they'd bring out, plus there are lots of Apple consumers who don't know anything about the move to Intel, neither do they understand what it means, so why would they care?

And for IBM to stop developing would be like flushing money away after investing millions if not billions in chip designs and their fabrication plant in Fishkill, NY.

And what do you mean by 'Just make a few of the current designs to sell til the switch to Intel.' are you referring to Apple or IBM. If you are referring to IBM, they won't just stop making chips till Apple swaps to Intel, because they have plenty of chips to make for Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, themselves, plus Apple was only 2% of their chip business now they have these massive contracts with Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo etc, so I doubt they'd just quit making chips, be a little stupid of them.

tdewey
Jun 11, 2005, 06:41 PM
If that acceptance faces a 6-month lull in laptops (which outsell desktops) until MWSF 06, Apple will survive that easily, and then the wave of pent-up demand will arrive.

I think this is right on. There is no reason not to buy an iMac, PowerMac or Xserve right now. We know there can't be a Mactel version of any of these three until at Q2-Q3 2006 (assuming a Q2 or Q3 release of Conroe -- 64bit dual-core based on Yonah/Pentium-M).

I think most people assume there will be a 970MP update to the PowerMac and Xserve--but it is anybody's guess when that'll happen. Paris? MacWorld in Jan?

There is some reason to hold off on a purchase of a mini, iBook or PowerBook given the 4Q 2005 or 1Q 2006 release of Yonah which everyone assumes (probably correctly) is going into these three machines. We may see a minor (7448??) update to these at Paris--I don't know.

springdaddy
Jun 11, 2005, 06:45 PM
I think this is right on. There is no reason not to buy an iMac, PowerMac or Xserve right now. We know there can't be a Mactel version of any of these three until at Q2-Q3 2006 (assuming a Q2 or Q3 release of Conroe -- 64bit dual-core based on Yonah/Pentium-M).

I think most people assume there will be a 970MP update to the PowerMac and Xserve--but it is anybody's guess when that'll happen. Paris? MacWorld in Jan?

There is some reason to hold off on a purchase of a mini, iBook or PowerBook given the 4Q 2005 or 1Q 2006 release of Yonah which everyone assumes (probably correctly) is going into these three machines. We may see a minor (7448??) update to these at Paris--I don't know.

I just bought my PowerBook in Febuary, and I know that I will, for sure, be buying one when the first Intel chips are used in the new PBs.

tdewey
Jun 11, 2005, 06:46 PM
CELL is ofcourse better! x86 architecture is damn old and it's drawing us backward! Just because we have to stay "compatible" with old x86 and windows software architecture, major cpu calculation and software architecture still have to stay in 32bit bandwidth.
*snip*!

Um. Check out the arstechnica article

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-1.ars

Cell rocks at in-order execution of floating-point--awesome for rendering. However, Cell sucks at out-of-order execution which is kinda necessary for the modern multi-tasking operating system.

Nevermind that gaming CPUs are only updated every three to four years.

Anyway good luck with the linux on Cell. Sure it can be done, but why would anyone do it?

tdewey
Jun 11, 2005, 07:02 PM
How could the PPC be better than Intel yesterday, but now Intel is so much better than the PPC used in the Mac? When were we lied to. My money would go to both times.

How is this impossible? Whenever G4 and G5 were initially released they were better than the equivalent Intel chips. It is now long after the initial release and the 3Gh and mobile G5 still aren't here. When did you stop using your brain?



My plans are to stay with the PPC Macs I have at this time. To extend the time that I can use them, I will also cancel all plans to update my software. Remember, new software requires new hardware.

So you diss PPCs up above and then say you're going to stick with them?



My opinion is support the PPC Mac if your hardware is getting very old. All others should put a boycott on all thing Apple. This could start with the Intel Macs for those that need their iPods. In recent years Apple has changed to a music company away from a computer company. This Intel move will divide the already small Mac market into pieces. Maybe too many to keep it alive.

Okay. So you want to lead a boycott of Apple and this will do what if successful? Ensure that software stops being written for the computers you own?


To many the processor does not matter. To many like me it is all about the processor. I chose the Mac 21 years ago & I still am just as anti-Intel as I was then. I was a Heath-Kit computer user before that time. They chose to make IBM Clones with Intel 8086 processors in them. Being anti Intel I chose not to follow. Now Apple is making the same decision. This time I will make the same decision, not to follow my computer manufacture. This is limiting my choices severly. That is why I must keep what I haverunning for as long as I can.

And you hate Intel because.... ? They fired you? Refused to hire you? You bought a Mac because it didn't have an Intel processor? If you're serious, that may be the dumbest reason I've ever heard for going Mac.

Well if you don't care about the OS--why not just run Intel on your PPC forever. Cheers.

iJed
Jun 11, 2005, 07:03 PM
By the way, for the professionals demand performances and wouldn't mind to rewrite every single line of codes from scratch, they wouldn't bother to look at the outdated x86 architecture. Good luck with your "new" Mactel PC, and be sure to read more rumors and press releases to expand your knowledges, Fanboys!

As a professional software engineer I am extremely happy that Apple is migrating to x86. Coding for something like the Cell would be completely impractical for 95% of applications. When (or if) parallelising compilers become commonplace then maybe it will be time to take another look at such an architecture but there is no reason it cannot derive from x86 just like Cell has done from PPC.

However you look at it it would be ridiculous to have everything rewritten for something like the Cell. Only a total idiot would even think this possible in the real world.

Edit: Just to clarify: the Cell is not, and never was, suitable for putting in a Mac. I'm sure that it will offer excellent capabilities to gaming but in general purpose applications it would totally cripple the computer. I am sick of the idiots on these forums talking about how great the Cell would be in a Mac. This is simply ********.

sacear
Jun 11, 2005, 07:11 PM
Who says the PowerPC is not effective??I think Jobs means the development and delivery of the chip to Apple was not effective and that the same would be true of the Cell chip. The article author was generalizing.

What is interesting to note is that that line in the article is in quotation marks, yet also in the third person. I have never heard Jobs refer to himself in the third person, so I think the author has misplaced some quotation marks.The New York Times also confirms that Apple has investigated other chips as well. Apple reportedly met with Sony regarding the Cell design but Jobs "was disappointed with the Cell design, which he believes will be even less effective than the PowerPC."

Truffy
Jun 11, 2005, 07:30 PM
I have never heard Jobs refer to himself in the third person, so I think the author has misplaced some quotation marks.Actually, it sounds like a press briefing or the like.

~Shard~
Jun 11, 2005, 07:40 PM
All I can say is business is business. Jobs is no dummy, and knows what he's doing. I have every faith that this move to Intel will be the right call for Apple's plans in the near future. Well, until Intel promises more than they can deliver, and Jobs moves to AMD... ;)

chatin
Jun 11, 2005, 07:43 PM
Jobs needs to get comfortable with being predictable in his old age. Everyone will know what to expect from Apple by looking at Intel's website. And as Steve said, he's set for the next 20 years with OSX.

But what if another Apple comes along and uses a better chip and makes better software? Say something 10 times more powerful than anything on Apple's map. And a nice compiler that will port xcode quickly to the mystery hardware.

Jobs will be very surprised at how many customers walk toward the bright lights. :cool:

sacear
Jun 11, 2005, 07:46 PM
This is starting to sound a bit like the way things were moving before Jobs's exile from Apple.Umm, no, not as a remember that, not even close. Jobs' continuous reduced responsibilities that eventually led to him leaving Apple was a politically based power struggle orchestrated by John Sculley. Sculley actually did build Apple into the worldwide company Jobs envisioned, yet Sculley also set-up Apple's weaknesses in the process. Sculley was a business visionary, but not a technology visionary (he did envision the Newton before its time though), he did not understand the technological product Apple was selling, even though he thought he did. Sculley started the downward spiral that Spindler could not reverse and eventually just gave up and continued to drive downward. Amelio just put Apple into immediate emergency triage and tried to stop the bleeding the best he could, yet all the while milking Apple for all he could get. Amelio had no technological vision for Apple and did not know what to do with all the partially completed products in Apple's R&D. Amelio knew Jobs was a technological visionary and Jobs' company NeXT had an OS that worked on the then new PowerPC CPUs. So Amelio bought NeXT and hired Jobs as a technology consultant. If anyone did not see the writing on the wall at that moment, then they just were not looking. Yet, fortunately for Apple, Macintosh, and the world, things worked out very well.

VanNess
Jun 11, 2005, 07:51 PM
IBM essentially gives two excuses: First, the Apple PC market wasn't large enough. Complete BS. IBM isn't a small naive company. They did their due diligence. They had Apple sales figures and projections before the agreement took place and knew precisely what they were getting into. Second, cost. Again, complete BS. Besides the reasons noted above, their cost couldn't have wavered from projections unless there were major technical problems on their end requiring additional resources (expenses) to resolve. Frankly, if that were the case, that's their problem. But I see IBM has made no such admission.

The fact is, IBM made promises and they didn't deliver. The G5 updates have been nothing short of miserable, barely enough just to sustain the Powermac line since the it took the G5 badge. IBM promised a 3ghz G5 a year after the introduction of the 2 ghz model. It's still a no-show. No G5 of any kind for Apple laptops. All things being equal, had IBM actually kept it's end of the bargain, then their excuses might seem more worthy of attention, but it plainly obvious that they didn't. IBM is just employing a little game of misdirection. Shift attention away from it's pathetic performance with the G5, and simply exploit the general perception of Apple's low market share in hopes that everyone will just accept that familiar sounding song and not bother to closely examine how IBM actually performed under the deal. Analysts note that the impact for IBM is negligible because the Apple's G5 "only" accounted for 2 percent of the output from it's NY plant. Gee, that's interesting. What was the other 98 percent doing while Apple had to publicly postpone the introduction of G5 iMac for months due to the shortage of IBM's G5 chips? Yes, as another poster said, IBM is just playing games now.

Regarding the Intel vs PPC issue, it's a no-brainer. Apple biggest challenge going forward wasn't choosing a new CPU vendor, it was too assure software compatibility for both PPC and Intel. Apple has a reputation as being a smart company, and the plan they've come up with is effectively bulletproof. If there was a major problem, you would have heard about it by now from the developers, all of whom are conveniently gathered under one roof this time and thus easy to poll. Apple's major software providers have all come forward and signed on to the plan. In fact, virtually NONE of the software developers has come forward with a story that Apple's switch has presented major obstacles for them going forward. Thats a major (and thus far, hugely overlooked) achievement for Apple. Most of the attention has squared on the somewhat ironic fact that Apple is switching to Intel processors

Well, seeing how IBM did such a thorough job of screwing the pooch, it isn't all that ironic, as we'll see soon enough. The "osborne effect" is another issue that's dead on arrival. First, it assumes that Apple has pre-announced a product that has such tremendous appeal that it's entire computer line will be overlooked in anticipation of it. Apple hasn't announced any future products, in fact, they remain steadfastly tight-lipped about future products as they always have. Second, the switch away from PPC processors assumes that Mac buyers purchased Mac's because of the PPC processor. The fact is, blasphemous as it may sound around here right now, no one really cares about the processor. Most consumers don't even understand how a processor works, much less understand it's role is inside the computer (the megahertz myth). What consumers do care about however is the computer they buy - the box that they pay for, turn on and use everyday. I think any honest Mac user will admit that it's the combination of the OS, software, style, and machine speed (however the user may quantify it) that make up the reasons for buying an Apple box. If the OS is Mac, and the machine is fast, then it's all good. And that's where Apple wins.

All Apple needs to do with it's next hardware update, whether it's PPC or Intel, is to provide something that is roughly 20 percent faster than the machine it replaces. That's pretty much what they've done in the past and if they continue to do so, no one is going to care about what company makes the CPU inside or is going to complain.

But what about the "superiority" of the PPC design? Well, it is. Everything Apple said about the PPC is true. If I were in the market for a new computer and Apple happens to update with a faster PPC model, I'd buy it with no second thoughts. I got a faster computer than the one I had before. Good for me.

So what about all of that PPC goodness when Apple makes the switch to Intel? Two words: Moore's law. Intel has repeatedly stated the company is steadfastly committed to adhering to Moore's law. On the other hand, the G5 has only recently wheezed to 2.7 ghz, still no 3 ghz G5 and counting after a year after IBM announced it's birthday. In this case, Moore's law works decidedly in Apple's favor. When IBM's and Freescale's PPC runs out of gas (if they haven't already), along comes Intel to save the day and picks up the slack. The bottom line is the Apple customer always gets a faster Apple box, and the Intel vs PPC argument isn't going to stop it.

nagromme
Jun 11, 2005, 07:57 PM
I have never heard Jobs refer to himself in the third person
Steve is gettin' frustrated!


It's fun to sling blame and watch the tech soaps, but the coming phase-out of the desktop PPC isn't necessarily IBM's "fault" any more than it is Apple's:

* Maybe IBM COULD advance the G5 line... but it would cost a lot more than they once expected. Enter Intel, who has fast chips coming based on the Pentium M.

* Maybe Apple COULD pay IBM enough for that to happen, but Mac prices would skyrocket to the point of killing the platform. Enter Intel, who reportedly has offered Apple LOWER prices than IBM did, rather than higher.

So when Apple says it's about speed and future technologies, that's probably true. And when IBM says it's about pricing, that's probably true too.

It's not always black and white. What IS clear is that in the future, IBM chips were going to be a problem for the Mac platform. And a well-planned solution is now in place with Intel.

sushi
Jun 11, 2005, 08:05 PM
All I can say is business is business. Jobs is no dummy, and knows what he's doing. I have every faith that this move to Intel will be the right call for Apple's plans in the near future. Well, until Intel promises more than they can deliver, and Jobs moves to AMD... ;)
Or back to the PowerPC! :eek:

Actually, everyone that is a Mac user should be excited and happy about this transition.

Why?

Because if Apple can make a truly portable OS, then who cares what the engine will be in the future. Ten years from now, the Mac OS could very well be running on something that is not even available today.

Flexibility is key in the tech world.

And Mr. Steve Jobs is showing how Apple leads the way.

Is the transition going to be smooth? They never are. However, for Apple, this is their third major one. Each time they get better at it.

I for one an very optomistic about the future possibilities.

Sushi

sacear
Jun 11, 2005, 08:10 PM
IBM essentially gives two excuses:...

<snip>

The fact is, blasphemous as it may sound around here right now, no one really cares about the processor. Most consumers don't even understand how a processor works, much less understand it's role is inside the computer (the megahertz myth). What consumers do care about however is the computer they buy - the box that they pay for, turn on and use everyday. I think any honest Mac user will admit that it's the combination of the OS, software, style, and machine speed (however the user may quantify it) that make up the reasons for buying an Apple box. If the OS is Mac, and the machine is fast, then it's all good. And that's where Apple wins.

All Apple needs to do with it's next hardware update, whether it's PPC or Intel, is to provide something that is roughly 20 percent faster than the machine it replaces. That's pretty much what they've done in the past and if they continue to do so, no one is going to care about what company makes the CPU inside or is going to complain.

But what about the "superiority" of the PPC design? Well, it is. Everything Apple said about the PPC is true. If I were in the market for a new computer and Apple happens to update with a faster PPC model, I'd buy it with no second thoughts. I got a faster computer than the one I had before. Good for me.

So what about all of that PPC goodness when Apple makes the switch to Intel? Two words: Moore's law. Intel has repeatedly stated the company is steadfastly committed to adhering to Moore's law. On the other hand, the G5 has only recently wheezed to 2.7 ghz, still no 3 ghz G5 and counting after a year after IBM announced it's birthday. In this case, Moore's law works decidedly in Apple's favor. When IBM's and Freescale's PPC runs out of gas (if they haven't already), along comes Intel to save the day and picks up the slack. The bottom line is the Apple customer always gets a faster Apple box, and the Intel vs PPC argument isn't going to stop it.Thank you VanNess for such a well written post. That is a post of just reason and insight. Something that is greatly needed among all the "Chicken Little 'The Sky is Falling'" type posts around here. Good job. Please keep up the good work. :)

DPazdanISU
Jun 11, 2005, 08:14 PM
its obvious apple went to intel because IBM was focusing soley on server/video game consoles. That left apple in the dark for the past 2 years and now they are like screw BIG BLUE we are going elsewhere. I like this however I was looking forward to powerful dual core 64bit processors in macs... how is intel's progress on 64bit? aren't they in that weird variable 32bit/64bit processor thing. like its not pure 64 bit...? :confused:

gigapower
Jun 11, 2005, 08:23 PM
Gee, that's interesting. What was the other 98 percent doing while Apple had to publicly postpone the introduction of G5 iMac for months due to the shortage of IBM's G5 chips?

Making nVidia GeForce 6800 GPUs.

sacear
Jun 11, 2005, 08:31 PM
It's fun to sling blame and watch the tech soaps, but the coming phase-out of the desktop PPC isn't necessarily IBM's "fault" any more than it is Apple's:

* Maybe IBM COULD advance the G5 line... but it would cost a lot more than they once expected. Enter Intel, who has fast chips coming based on the Pentium M.

* Maybe Apple COULD pay IBM enough for that to happen, but Mac prices would skyrocket to the point of killing the platform. Enter Intel, who reportedly has offered Apple LOWER prices than IBM did, rather than higher.

So when Apple says it's about speed and future technologies, that's probably true. And when IBM says it's about pricing, that's probably true too.

It's not always black and white. What IS clear is that in the future, IBM chips were going to be a problem for the Mac platform. And a well-planned solution is now in place with Intel.nagromme that is also a very good post. Thank you. I feel much better about reading this thread now (and this forum!). I was really feeling hammered by all the panic posts. It's not like the Macs (PPCs) were completely cancelled (a la Newton) last Monday and we won't be getting new Macs until 2006. It was just an announcement to developers to start getting ready for the "addition" of Intel CPUs (no mention of x86 specifically) into the Macintosh line-up. :D

From what I've heard and read (yet politely correct me if I am misinformed), Jobs did not close the door on PPC (IBM and Freescale), in fact, seems he left the door open. Seems to me he simply added Intel to the CPU vendor list.

blitzkrieg79
Jun 11, 2005, 08:42 PM
its obvious apple went to intel because IBM was focusing soley on server/video game consoles. That left apple in the dark for the past 2 years and now they are like screw BIG BLUE we are going elsewhere. I like this however I was looking forward to powerful dual core 64bit processors in macs... how is intel's progress on 64bit? aren't they in that weird variable 32bit/64bit processor thing. like its not pure 64 bit...? :confused:


The entire 64-bitness is over rated in my opinion, 64bits alone don't give anyone any performance boost, you still need an OS that will fully take advantage of all the memory (4 GB and above) for it to make any sense, maybe this will matter in few years but right now I don't think it is a major issue, same as onchip mem controllers, benchmarks show how Opterons "rule" Intels offerings but those are synthetic nonrelevant benchmarks, in real world apps it doesn't make a whole lot of difference, processing times are basically similar, right now no one has any major advantage over anyone... Software hasn't catched on...

Intel is planning to go all 64bit by 2007 to the best of my knowledge (kind of fits with Apples transition, doesn't it)

Anyway, the more I read about Intel and Microsoft, the more I get a feeling that Intel doesn't like MS a whole lot, in fact they wouldn't mind of trying something new with a company that would offer another proven OS and the ability to quickly adapt to new technologies...

Intel and entire PC industry is crippled with standards of all sorts, ATX this, Parallel port that, Intel is kind of stuck because PC industry is afraid of moving at a faster pace and because of this technology is kind of crippled...

What I see with Intel and Apple, Intel has a partnership with a company not afraid of changes, not afraid of new alternate ways, and because of this I think that Apple might actually help Intel develop other better newer technologies, maybe even introduce a totally new non PPC non x86 architecture... Right now Intel has a partner that both can experiment and implement really what they really desire as Apple is the only company that controls its own hardware and software...

I am wondering about Altivec, Apple has a lot of experience with this, I wonder what it would take for Apple to help design with Intel another vector processing unit similar to Altivec on PPC...

Apple presents an opportunity for Intel to totally run away from its current designs and start from scratch with something totally new and actually implement it without MS (and PC standards) involved with it...

tdewey
Jun 11, 2005, 09:05 PM
Intel is planning to go all 64bit by 2007 to the best of my knowledge (kind of fits with Apples transition, doesn't it)
t...


Intel is 64bit now (in hot cores). Will have dual-(cool)core 64bit by 2H 2006.

However, Yonah is 32bit so if first Mactels are dual-core Yonahs (PB's/mini/iBook) they will be (obviously) 32bit. Of course, they're 32bit single-core G4 now...

iPC
Jun 11, 2005, 09:06 PM
He just said it was not power effective.
cell is similar to the PS2 when that came out. nobody could write good code for it... so everyone said it was crap. entirely not true. the problem with cell is it requires code that does a lot more than current stuff now does (cache handling etc.). something different is called crap. very funny ironic coming from the Mac community... :rolleyes:

sacear
Jun 11, 2005, 09:07 PM
What I see with Intel and Apple, Intel has a partnership with a company not afraid of changes, not afraid of new alternate ways, and because of this I think that Apple might actually help Intel develop other better newer technologies, maybe even introduce a totally new non PPC non x86 architecture... Right now Intel has a partner that both can experiment and implement really what they really desire as Apple is the only company that controls its own hardware and software...

I am wondering about Altivec, Apple has a lot of experience with this, I wonder what it would take for Apple to help design with Intel another vector processing unit similar to Altivec on PPC...

Apple presents an opportunity for Intel to totally run away from its current designs and start from scratch with something totally new and actually implement it without MS (and PC standards) involved with it...Yes, indeed. I agree with your assessment. I also wonder about AltiVec and how that is going to be handled with Intel.

scu
Jun 11, 2005, 09:09 PM
IBM essentially gives two excuses: First, the Apple PC market wasn't large enough. Complete BS. IBM isn't a small naive company. They did their due diligence. They had Apple sales figures and projections before the agreement took place and knew precisely what they were getting into. Second, cost. Again, complete BS. Besides the reasons noted above, their cost couldn't have wavered from projections unless there were major technical problems on their end requiring additional resources (expenses) to resolve. Frankly, if that were the case, that's their problem. But I see IBM has made no such admission.

The fact is, IBM made promises and they didn't deliver. The G5 updates have been nothing short of miserable, barely enough just to sustain the Powermac line since the it took the G5 badge. IBM promised a 3ghz G5 a year after the introduction of the 2 ghz model. It's still a no-show. No G5 of any kind for Apple laptops. All things being equal, had IBM actually kept it's end of the bargain, then their excuses might seem more worthy of attention, but it plainly obvious that they didn't. IBM is just employing a little game of misdirection. Shift attention away from it's pathetic performance with the G5, and simply exploit the general perception of Apple's low market share in hopes that everyone will just accept that familiar sounding song and not bother to closely examine how IBM actually performed under the deal. Analysts note that the impact for IBM is negligible because the Apple's G5 "only" accounted for 2 percent of the output from it's NY plant. Gee, that's interesting. What was the other 98 percent doing while Apple had to publicly postpone the introduction of G5 iMac for months due to the shortage of IBM's G5 chips? Yes, as another poster said, IBM is just playing games now.

Regarding the Intel vs PPC issue, it's a no-brainer. Apple biggest challenge going forward wasn't choosing a new CPU vendor, it was too assure software compatibility for both PPC and Intel. Apple has a reputation as being a smart company, and the plan they've come up with is effectively bulletproof. If there was a major problem, you would have heard about it by now from the developers, all of whom are conveniently gathered under one roof this time and thus easy to poll. Apple's major software providers have all come forward and signed on to the plan. In fact, virtually NONE of the software developers has come forward with a story that Apple's switch has presented major obstacles for them going forward. Thats a major (and thus far, hugely overlooked) achievement for Apple. Most of the attention has squared on the somewhat ironic fact that Apple is switching to Intel processors

Well, seeing how IBM did such a thorough job of screwing the pooch, it isn't all that ironic, as we'll see soon enough. The "osborne effect" is another issue that's dead on arrival. First, it assumes that Apple has pre-announced a product that has such tremendous appeal that it's entire computer line will be overlooked in anticipation of it. Apple hasn't announced any future products, in fact, they remain steadfastly tight-lipped about future products as they always have. Second, the switch away from PPC processors assumes that Mac buyers purchased Mac's because of the PPC processor. The fact is, blasphemous as it may sound around here right now, no one really cares about the processor. Most consumers don't even understand how a processor works, much less understand it's role is inside the computer (the megahertz myth). What consumers do care about however is the computer they buy - the box that they pay for, turn on and use everyday. I think any honest Mac user will admit that it's the combination of the OS, software, style, and machine speed (however the user may quantify it) that make up the reasons for buying an Apple box. If the OS is Mac, and the machine is fast, then it's all good. And that's where Apple wins.

All Apple needs to do with it's next hardware update, whether it's PPC or Intel, is to provide something that is roughly 20 percent faster than the machine it replaces. That's pretty much what they've done in the past and if they continue to do so, no one is going to care about what company makes the CPU inside or is going to complain.

But what about the "superiority" of the PPC design? Well, it is. Everything Apple said about the PPC is true. If I were in the market for a new computer and Apple happens to update with a faster PPC model, I'd buy it with no second thoughts. I got a faster computer than the one I had before. Good for me.

So what about all of that PPC goodness when Apple makes the switch to Intel? Two words: Moore's law. Intel has repeatedly stated the company is steadfastly committed to adhering to Moore's law. On the other hand, the G5 has only recently wheezed to 2.7 ghz, still no 3 ghz G5 and counting after a year after IBM announced it's birthday. In this case, Moore's law works decidedly in Apple's favor. When IBM's and Freescale's PPC runs out of gas (if they haven't already), along comes Intel to save the day and picks up the slack. The bottom line is the Apple customer always gets a faster Apple box, and the Intel vs PPC argument isn't going to stop it.

Excellent post. I am one of thoose who will buy the next big G5 that comes out. It will last me a minimum of 3 years. I believe Steve when he says we have some great PPC in the pipline. Now I just hope he is referring to the PowerMacs and not some iMacs or the MacMini.

I had my G3 233mhz for 4 years and it served me well. A nice new Dual Core 3 Ghz system will do the same for me once again. And in four years I am pretty sure Apple will have a 9 GHz Intel PowerMac that will replace my PPC.

SiliconAddict
Jun 11, 2005, 09:15 PM
Just from my own sampling of Apple fanatics - friends who buy a lot of Apple gear, from G5s to PBs and iPods - I think there may be a far more significant Osborne effect than Jobs and Apple realize. Personally, I used to update my PB every 9mos or so. I'm going to try and hang on to it now until Intel's real notebook procs hit in '07.


The notebooks will be out in '06 and I can tell you right now their current Pentium M processors are REAL enough to trash the crap out of any powerbook in a shootout. By midyear of '06 the G4 PowerBook is going to be a punchline in a leno gag.

MagnusDredd
Jun 11, 2005, 09:20 PM
The switch to Intel is the obvious result of what is, and has been going on with regards to the companies in question.

1) Apple, started with the 68k, moved to PPC when it became apparent that 68k was not going anywhere. Had good luck on a few occasions, 603e hit 300Mhz before Intel or AMD. Altivec is damned powerful, in the uncommon cases that it's greatly useful. However when the G4 couldn't exceed 500Mhz for what seemed like forever... It began to really hurt. The IBM move was likewise an obvious choice at the time. Although the Legacy NeXT-based stuff was very portable, the albatross of classic was hanging around OSX's neck keeping it on PPC. At that time PPC was the only option. The IBM 970, all in all, is an incredible CPU with a great deal of promise. Fully utilized, it has the capacity to stomp anything Intel makes currently into the ground. Unfortunately GCC does not generate very optimized code for it, even after the work Apple did to make it better. IBM has XLC, as well as XLF, that generate code that will outperform GCC in nearly every instance by a mile, except that it was never made available for use by Cocoa or Carbon apps. The code can be optimized by hand, but that takes tons of develoepr time. PPC assmbly gurus are less plentiful than x86 ones, and since the Mac market is as small as it is, it's hard to convince a developer to spend tons of time optimizing by hand, since that can kill their profits. So while extremely optimized code would have made the CPU kick serious butt, very few apps are really seriously optimized to take full advantage. Furthermore the G5 generates too much heat to be moved into a laptop, and seemed to be that way for the forseeable future. Which leaves Apple using Motorola/Freescale chips which don't even have a DDR FSB yet, and while Motorola/Freescale does make CPUs that do have a better FSB, they are so seriously targeted for the embedded market that they cannot be used.

This left Apple in a terrible predicament. However they had a wildcard, and that is that NeXTStep is the most multiplatorm friendly OS ever made. So they can move to an completely alien architecture, and with a few tweaks, most Cocoa apps are ready to go onto another platform in less than a day or so. What should be realized is that if Apple does the work (and it'd be quite a bit), it should be just as easy for a Cocoa developer to port their apps to Itanium, or Xscale, or whatever the next thing that comes around is. And have one copy of their app "just work" on all platforms without any issues by the end user at all. As a matter of fact, NeXTStep already had this ability (68k, PPC, x86, PA-Risc) years ago.

More on the other companies after I eat dinner....

Note: Delicous Library was Intel-Mac compatible with only a recompile, which reportedly took 40 seconds.

SiliconAddict
Jun 11, 2005, 09:23 PM
CELL is ofcourse better!

This coming from an engineer who designs processors as a career right? Right? No? Then stop talking about something you don't know squat about.

Everyone needs to shut up about the cell.
OMG OMG!! Its the cell processor! Its going to solve world hunger! Cure cancer! Cure AIDS! reseed the ozone layer and decrease greenhouse gases by 60%. How will it do this? No idea but it will.

mvc
Jun 11, 2005, 09:23 PM
The notebooks will be out in '06 and I can tell you right now their current Pentium M processors are REAL enough to trash the crap out of any powerbook in a shootout. By midyear of '06 the G4 PowerBook is going to be a punchline in a leno gag. Well, hopefully, by Mid 06, the Powerbooks will be intel, i would expect them to be first or second item to actually change over (after the Mac Mini perhaps).

And if Apple can ramp up the speed of changeover, don't you think they will?

MacGrande
Jun 11, 2005, 09:37 PM
Platform heel thickness G5 powerbooks with 20 minutes of battery life - next Tuesday? :rolleyes:
All of you who said that G5 powerbooks were never coming out...

SiliconAddict
Jun 11, 2005, 09:39 PM
Well, hopefully, by Mid 06, the Powerbooks will be intel, i would expect them to be first or second item to actually change over (after the Mac Mini perhaps).

And if Apple can ramp up the speed of changeover, don't you think they won't?


Oh I know they can put a Pentium M in a PowerBook. Hell if they wanted to they could have introed a Pentium M PowerBook at WWDC. The power requirments and heat build-up is easily compairable to the G4. Less if I remember right. They could have easily throw an Intel mobo in a PowerBook case and called it done but we all know that isn't Apple's style. I fully expect a PowerBook demoed at MW to be released before 2nd quarter. I mean right NOW. Intel is demoing the chips NOW: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/display/20050411010317.html


The kicker in the link above:

ng the demonstration at Intel Developer Forum in Tokyo, Japan, Intel showcased Yonah-based mobile computer, packed with an array of multimedia features, including a wide-screen and a web-cam, as well as a very slim and stylish desktop PC. It is unclear yet whether any of computer makers will actually employ the Yonah processor into desktops.

I know of one computer maker who will be using one and that is Apple for their Mac Mini. Dual core PowerBooks and dual core Mac Mini system with an updated and faster PowerBook at the end of the year along with the iMac probably running Pentium D's.

And look at the date stamp on that link: 04/11/2005. They have almost a year to continue to tweak this thing and when it comes out Apple is going to be able to ship these things in FORCE. No more 4 week wait times. Imagine people who order their PowerBook the day it is announced gets it in a week. That would be something.


Beyond the CPU I'm excited to get a glimpse as to what designs Apple has in store. Up til now they have had to cater to severe thermal issues. Everyone put on your thinking caps and bibs and imagine the possibilities. I’m betting Apple’s engineers are having a freaking blast with Pentium’s and possible designs. I mean imagine 2nd generation x86 PowerBook that is 1/2" thick. Excuse me. I need a cold shower.....

tdewey
Jun 11, 2005, 09:51 PM
And if Apple can ramp up the speed of changeover, don't you think they will?

Very interesting point. I think once the Yonah PowerBooks are introduced and their pwnage over the G4 PBs becomes widely known Apple may need to speed the changeover to prevent a serious Osborne effect.

Supa_Fly
Jun 11, 2005, 10:00 PM
1st SiliconAddict, I love that humorous line! I really needed that, and hope those still even mentioning the Cell in using computers recognizes.

* Maybe IBM COULD advance the G5 line... but it would cost a lot more than they once expected. Enter Intel, who has fast chips coming based on the Pentium M.

I strongly disagree, IBM has been spending time researching their SOI and manufacturing processess with Toshiba, Sony, AMD and others for their respective cpu designs. There is no excuse that IBM can give about not advancing the PowerPC 970 any further than it has for the last 12 months, Kelly III "We have a roadmap that is going to knock your socks off" , seeing how it has gained vast knowledge about cpu's during this time or even longer.

I wonder how recent sales & development helped to increase Kelly III's pay?!!


IBM essentially gives two excuses: First, the Apple PC market wasn't large enough. Complete BS. IBM isn't a small naive company. They did their due diligence. They had Apple sales figures and projections before the agreement took place and knew precisely what they were getting into. Second, cost. Again, complete BS. Besides the reasons noted above, their cost couldn't have wavered from projections unless there were major technical problems on their end requiring additional resources (expenses) to resolve. Frankly, if that were the case, that's their problem. But I see IBM has made no such admission.

The fact is, IBM made promises and they didn't deliver.

I totally agree. IBM isnt stupid nor is niave. The enter into any kind of contract anymore without first planning and seeing all possible avenues open to THEM. Their excuses, for technical issues of advancing the PPC 970 - after gaining recent knowledge of other advances their working on - I wont buy into. They helped AMD when they were stuck, look at their cpu's now! Apple worked with them and came up with an amazing asic for the PPC 970 - Apple engineers did their part. So IBM has made no such admission for issues with cpu advancement other than going from 130 to 90nm process. The entire Industry had this issue; Jobs had to be the front man to mention this, not IBM's Kelly III. However Intel has already overcome this - without working with cpu designs with Toshiba, Sony, and AMD!! I truely begin to realize why Jobs made his decision for the FUTURE - yes not immediately, but the future of Apple's cpu's in a step by step implimentation process. Why cant people see that this is a step by step course of action. They still haven't mentioned what CLASS of cpu their going to use - educated guesses & speculation yet nothing proven as of yet. We'll see by 3rd or 4th qtr next year.

Arn great job on finding more info regarding this. This must be causing family enjoyment issues for you and serious lack of sleep. I for one am very greatful & hope that your family can understand and support you.

MagnusDredd
Jun 11, 2005, 10:29 PM
2) Intel

Intel's history before the Pentium Classic is immaterial to this discussion. Intel's Pentium Classic (P5 architecture) was nothing special in it's time and still isn't. However the original replacement for it, the Pentium Pro (beginnings of P6), was a pretty nice upgrade to it. However there was a great deal of legacy 16 bit code still in use and the PPro sucked at running it. Enter the Pentium II, which was the first iteration of the P6 architecture. The P6 architecture basically brought about having the ISA (commands the CPU takes) not neccesarily the same as what the CPU uses internally in order to get the job done. So while the nasty legacy instructions from the 286 still worked, they were not used by the CPU to crunch numbers. The Pentium 3 was an evolutionary upgrade, basically just another revision of the P6 architecture. The P3 series chips while beginning to run pretty hot, don't compare with the space heater P4 models. The P4's (Netburst architecture) basic idea was that you take a little bit of data at a time, but make a long line of it and make it process a little at a time, but damned fast. Intel felt that they could simply keep upping the clock speed (which is what many people think makes a CPU fast), and reap the benefits of the Mhz-Myth while getting more and more performance. The price of this was that the CPUs were retardedly hot, and performed up to 40% slower than the Pentium 3 it replaced when run at the same clock speed (Mhz). The original idea was that the Netburst architecture would be adjusted from time to time, but clocked up to 10Ghz before it ran out of steam. This couldn't have been farther from the truth.

So during the transition to 90nm (the width of the wires in the CPU), and after far more revisions to Netburst than had been anticipated, and getting stomped by Opterons in performance, Intel took it like a man, and admitted that Netburst was done. All this time, the P6 architecture continued to evolve and Intel realizing that they had the answer they needed already, abandoned their roadmap containing Netburst and replaced it with one using dual core P6 chips. The Penium-M or P4 Mobile isn't really a P4 at all. It's an updated, modernized P3. Centrino laptops all use this chip. The Pentium M has not been updated to the point where it has the same FSB or high clock speeds of the P4, however another site recently showed that a Pentium-M can compete with a P4 favorably in gaming benchmarks even though it only uses 25% the power of the P4 and has much slower memory access and clock speed. An updated (modern FSB, etc) multicore Pentium-M is an attractive CPU indeed.

Furthermore Intel's main business with these chips is to supply Personal Computer vendors for laptops and deaktops. This means that Dell, HP, Gateway, Sony, Toshiba, now Apple, and tons of other computer makers all share the costs of paying for Intel's development of desktop/laptop chips. Intel has bet their business on being able to compete in this arena, and while they don't always have the fastest or cheapest x86 CPUs, they are cheap enough, they are fast enough, and they can make enough to meet everyones needs with chips to spare...

From the software side of things, everyone and their brother is familiar with x86. Many people, when they talk about programming in assembly, seem to forget that x86 assembly is simply one of many assembly languages. It's so pervasive that many developers have x86 assembly gurus in house to hand optimize code for their programs. Futhermore GCC's Intel output is better due to the fact that so many more people work on making it better. And if that's not enough, according to Apple, Intel's compilers will be made to work with Apple developer tools at some point. Intel's compilers are much better at outputting x86 optimized code, because they don't have to support anything other than x86 if for no other reason. Also since Intel lives or dies by their CPUs, it's in their best interest to make Intel compiler generated applications FAST.

Applications ported to MacOS X for Intel from Windows should be able to take advantage of the hand coded optimizations for x86. While this will not affect the ability of an app to run on both platforms, it will help to make them faster on Intel Macs. In the future, OSX games that are ported from windows when run on Intel Macs will kick the crap out of their PPC brothers due to this. This effect will not be immediate, but should probably crop up a year or so after the Intel machines begin shipping. I don't expect Photoshop to run as fast on an Intel Mac for some time to come. If I were a graphics/publishing house, I'd start buying machines about now, or perhaps wait for discounts. I wouldn't buy a rev 1 Intel-Mac as a publishing house, especially given that the G5 Macs are still competitive as is true with many other apps that have been suitably optimized for PPC. I'm also not sure how long it will take for Final Cut Intel will take to reach comparable performance. The G5 really kicks ass with Final Cut Pro. It will take a while to optimize the non-ported applications for the Intel Platform.

Abstract
Jun 11, 2005, 10:33 PM
I think Steve is an idiot.

Maybe he shouldn't burn ALL bridges the way he does. I mean, his software works on both PPC and Intel with universal binaries, so if Intel DOESN'T deliver, a transition back to PPC couldn't be too difficult. However, they shouldn't screw relationships up before leaving. Its not good business. Now I know some of the Mac faithful will say, "He's Steve Jobs and you're not, so what do you know?" Well, it seems that he probably doesn't know much more than others out there.

Moto and IBM would take Apple back as clients, but I'm sure that's only when Steve is gone from Apple.

MikeTheC
Jun 11, 2005, 10:42 PM
And, given the transition timeframe, I'm going to do what was unthinkable before this transition was announced - take a real look at Longhorn and evaluate moving back to Windows. I think it's likely I'll stick with OS X, but I would probably not have even given Windows serious consideration without this move by Apple. Hopefully (for Apple) I'm more the exception than the rule, but I think this was the wrong time to make such a transition.


Please, spare us. Apple changes the CPU and simultaneously impliments everything necessary to ensure we users won't notice a hiccup and that's going to push you into looking at Windows? Why, because your next Mac may well be x86 based?

I personally look forward to the change. I like the fact that Apple's setting themselves up to take advantage of Intel and, whether they ever try it or not, AMD as well. I mean, technically, they're in the same processor space as AMD, so competition between Intel and AMD will now directly benefit Apple, in addition to the hypothetical capability for Apple to use AMD CPUs after all is said and done.

You use Mac OS X. You're running, by definition, a UNIX-based OS. It's more stable and has a broader base of developer support (due to it's BSD heritage) than Microsoft. It's written by people (in and out of Apple) who take pride in what they do. And you honestly think Microsoft's going to top that? Given their history to date, can you be sure they'll ever produce an OS that's technologically superior to what's available elsewhere?

~Shard~
Jun 11, 2005, 10:45 PM
I think Steve is an idiot.

Maybe he shouldn't burn ALL bridges the way he does. I mean, his software works on both PPC and Intel with universal binaries, so if Intel DOESN'T deliver, a transition back to PPC couldn't be too difficult. However, they shouldn't screw relationships up before leaving. Its not good business. Now I know some of the Mac faithful will say, "He's Steve Jobs and you're not, so what do you know?" Well, it seems that he probably doesn't know much more than others out there.

Moto and IBM would take Apple back as clients, but I'm sure that's only when Steve is gone from Apple.

I wouldn't go so far as to call Steve Jobs an idiot. I think he has a unique business style which could be considered questionable, even arrogant at times, but I definitely wouldn't call him an idiot. It's just the way he operates, and in the end, he sees results and holds strong to his convictions. Stubborn? Perhaps, but that can be a good thing or a bad thing...

And I'm not saying it's the right way to do things, but it seems to work at the end of the day. I guess the same could be said for Gates and Elison though too - it doesn't make them right, but makes them the leaders that they are, like them or not... :cool:

MagnusDredd
Jun 11, 2005, 10:48 PM
3) AMD

This will be the easiest part. AMD only really started becoming interesting with the Athlon. The Athlon Series is a great set of chips, that athough hot, have been very performance competitive for whatever Intel has made at the time. The x86 CPU performance crown has been traded back and forth between them for a while. Skipping to the current situation, AMD has one hell of a CPU with their current Opteron and Athlon 64s. Onboard memory controller, NUMA support under certain OSes, 64bit x86 instructions, nice chipset features, expandability, and unbeatable pricing. What they don't have are three major things. They don't produce a platform, meaning they really don't market a full approach setup, meaning board, video, sound, chipset, CPU, etc all designed to take the best advantages of each other. They don't have anything that can compare to the Pentium-M's power conservation, which doesn't really sacrifice speed. While a mobile Athlon 64 can make a great gaming laptop, it runs too hot and consumes too much power to really work in a Powerbook. Lastly, AMD simply does not have the manufacturing reserves that Intel does. While they may at times kick Intel's butt at the high end, and they certainly kick Intel's butt for price, they cannot guarantee a large enough volume of chips to not make Apple nervous. That and the lack of a suitable laptop solution are deal-breakers.

Note: My gaming rig is an Athlon, I had planned on building an Athlon 64 gaming rig soon and giving the old rig to the wife for Sims 2 (which runs like crap on her machine). Not sure what I'm going to do now, but I wanted to point out that I'm certainly no AMD basher.

MikeTheC
Jun 11, 2005, 10:52 PM
We were basically Motorola and IBMs love puppets for years, about the only thing they didn't include with their promises was a tube of KY Jelly.

ROFLMAO!!! How true, how true!

solvs
Jun 11, 2005, 10:54 PM
The G5 did the doubling?
I think scu meant the lack of new G5s are going to cause the doubling. As in, Apple moved to Intel because it had to thanks to IBM's incompetance (or whatever). They looked at their options, none were sufficient. The Cell isn't as great for regular computers as we armchair engineers thought, Freescale's going nowhere, and IBM is not only dropping the ball but also wanting to charge more. So we move to Intel, get some decent CPUs in a timely manner, and maybe even grow some market share.

I know notebook sales will increase, as the G4 is in even worse shape right now than the G5. And the next Pentium M should be even better than the one that's out now, which isn't all that bad (now the P4, on the other hand...). If Intel goes with a similar desktop CPU, they may even be back to beating AMD, which a lot of us like, but they have their own production issues. Luckily, if Apple wants, they can move between Intel and AMD if they wanted, a lot easier than PPC and x86. Though, thankfully, they have plpanned ahead, so even the PPC to Intel move won't be too painful.

I'm sure there are new Macs coming out in between now and then. For awhile, Apple will sell both PPCs and Intels. And they will continue to support PPC for sometime, though of course it's days may be numbered (probably in the years though). I'm sure people with older software to run will be buying, as will those who don't know (or care) the difference. Especially with some nice price drops (I hope).

jhu
Jun 11, 2005, 10:57 PM
"How could the PPC be better than Intel yesterday, but now Intel is so much better than the PPC used in the Mac"

Check the clock speeds. Do the math. Not hard to figure out; when clock speeds were roughly the same, PPC could be the same, but if the clock sppeds for PPC are half or worse than Intel, then Intel is easily better.

If you can't figure that out, then perhaps you ARE the simpleton you claim everyone else is.

ppc has been behind all the intel/amd processors for many years both in clock speed and performance. thus the marketing department over at apple has been lying and people are still willing to believe them.

MikeTheC
Jun 11, 2005, 11:05 PM
tdewey:

Regrettably, it will only prove that to those who care. (That doesn't make it less true, btw.)

* Edited to fix the quotation.

aswitcher
Jun 11, 2005, 11:05 PM
IBM have made Steve look publically stupid with promises of 3GHz. No surprise he negiotated things on the quiet.

Cheaper Macs with ability to boot into Windows...works for me. Should work for millions of wouldbe switchers...

nagromme
Jun 11, 2005, 11:07 PM
From what I've heard and read (yet politely correct me if I am misinformed), Jobs did not close the door on PPC (IBM and Freescale), in fact, seems he left the door open. Seems to me he simply added Intel to the CPU vendor list.

I am SURE Apple has not, in private, closed the door on PPC. They used Intel as a "just case" plan for 5 years. They can do the same with PPC--and it would be wise.

But publicly, the door WILL close by the end of 2007. Steve said that's when the transition to Intel would be complete. Any return to PPC would be out of necessity, and FAR in the future. (But obviously, it could be a very easy transition back. And it could end up with both CPU lines in the mix--but that kind of complexity is not the current plan. After the transition, starting by 2008, all Macs will be Intel--or maybe AMD and Intel.)

New apps will still run on PPC of course, due to universal binaries.

MikeTheC
Jun 11, 2005, 11:13 PM
IBM can spin it all they want about "cost", but they just don't have an answer for high-performance portable computing, where so much of the market growth is/will be taking place. Apple cannot risk falling even further behind in that space.

Everything else aside for the moment, this is absolutely true. I forget where I read it recently but I saw an article which stated that notebook sales have exceeded desktop sales for the first time ever. I have a feeling this trend is going to continue based on the fact that more people need portability of a general computing platform than those who need expandability, given the processing capabilities, integrated I/O set, and baseline graphics processing capabilities inherent in basically ANY computer.

Yes, I know there are a lot of hard core gamers out there in the world who will tell you they'd never own a laptop (certainly not as their main computer) and there are those out there who would be quick to add they'd never use a laptop because they have some kind of specialized need for expandability. However, the overwhelming majority of those people are Windows users. And, in my experience, the overwhelming majority of Windows users are NOT high-end gamers, etc., so I see them as being in basically the same camp as Mac users for this.

Stella
Jun 11, 2005, 11:17 PM
Apple have said there are PPC based products in the PIPE line. I think you could be pretty sure that apple will be developing PPC builds of OSX after the transition is complete - 'just in case'.

Additionally, Apple could offer machines based on Intel and PPC to suite people's needs and the processor at the time..

I think you are quite right - the future will certainly be considered.

I am SURE Apple has not, in private, closed the door on PPC. They used Intel as a "just case" plan for 5 years. They can do the same with PPC--and it would be wise.

But publicly, the door WILL close by the end of 2007. Steve said that's when the transition to Intel would be complete. Any return to PPC would be out of necessity, and FAR in the future. (But obviously, it could be a very easy transition back. And it could end up with both CPU lines in the mix--but that kind of complexity is not the current plan. After the transition, starting by 2008, all Macs will be Intel--or maybe AMD and Intel.)

New apps will still run on PPC of course, due to universal binaries.

Platform
Jun 11, 2005, 11:18 PM
If this is true... does this mean cheaper Macs? :) Or does Apple just make more money?

Proberly 50/50 ;) :p

nagromme
Jun 11, 2005, 11:18 PM
2) Intel

Thanks for the mini overview.

And I agree that the transition from "PowerPCs being fastest" to "Intel Macs being fastest" is not a sudden thing. And that it will take time for some big apps to be optimized for truly BEST speed on Intel Macs. But they may still outrun PPC Macs, simply because faster Intel chips will be coming.

MikeTheC
Jun 11, 2005, 11:19 PM
Exactly. From the looks of things, Jobs probably got fed up with IBM not giving Apple the upgrades in chips that would keep Macs in check with PCs. Every 7 to 9 months for upgrades wasn't cutting it and I think Jobs realized that if they wanted to make a dent in market share, it was time to move on. And I'm glad they did.
Well, even a 7-9 month cycle would have been fine if the jumps had been big enough. Obviously, they weren't.

pigwin32
Jun 11, 2005, 11:26 PM
Not much spam ... getting to read the news on nytimes.com is free once you register. it's a good place for news.
Check out BugMeNot.com (http://bugmenot.com), just enter the site name and get your free signon. Sweet.

MagnusDredd
Jun 11, 2005, 11:31 PM
4) IBM

This is the last part and probably the most interesting. IBM's role in this has certainly been an interesting one. I'll skip to just before the introduction of the IBM PPC 970. IBM is a systems/support company. They excel at making solutions and then backing them up with the weight of the company. They have made and will continue to make some of the most incredible Big-Iron in the world. IBM is really at the heart of the AIM alliance since most if not a vast amjority of the Power and PPC instruction set was created by them. Before the advent of the PPC 970, IBM took the wraps off of it's Power 4 CPU, which was simply unbelievable for the time. The Power 4 is a dual core CPU, which takes loads of data at a time, the CPUs on the chip can communicate directly with each other, it has a built in memory controller, can access gobs of memory, 4 chips are placed in a chip carrier and each chip has a high speed channel to 2 or 3 others (I forget), etc, etc.... Truly the chip was a feat of engineering. It raged it's way across the benchmarks, with very little to equal it. The problems were that since the chip was only in serious hardware (and nothing Pentium or AMD based counts in this arena), and so few companies can afford servers that hardcore, IBM could not spread the developement costs among enough customers to drive the price per customer down. The CPU was also terribly hot, and not suitable for blades or small form factor rack mount systems. So the PPC 970 was born. It's a watered down single cored version of the Power 4 (oversimplification perhaps). The point is that now IBM had something that was suitable for sale in the millions of CPUs, which they could work on and find ways to improve their Power line of chips, keeping their Big-Iron business competitive with sales from the lower end. The 970 was perfect for this. It was a great performing chip with the ability to handle serious amounts of memory (much more than Apple systems can take), can run 8 to a board (no extra glue logic), has a badass FSB supporting a crossbar interface, etc. However it is certainly not a cool CPU. Futhermore sales weren't high enough for IBM to justify dumping the amount of money into it that would be required to make a serious low power version. To complicate matters the only major OEM selling 970s competes with them for lower end server sales (IBM sells a PPC 970 blade server). Not sure if IBM sat on their hands because of this, but it has been speculated.

Enter the Cell. The Cell is an incredibly interesting chip. It has a watered down PPC core, and 8 sub-CPUs that can accept streams of data. It's an embedded video processor designer's worst nightmare. The thing will probably chew through video encoding/processing like nobody's business. Once again IBM can use research spent on it to help them update their server chips, and they should have plenty of funding due to the fact they're in the next Playstation. While this is speculation, I'd imagine they'd destroy any processor on earth at running Seti@home or RC5. However those two apps don't work like the standard applications a home or office user runs.

Here's the catch. To make the Cell run at such a high clock speed and as cool as it does, the PPC core of the cell has been greatly simplified. This means that for normal usage the PPC core of the Cell would suck. This is due to a lack of decent branch prediction, support for out-of order execution, etc, etc, etc. Futhermore to make use of the SPE's (or sub-units) of the Cell, programmers would have to completely rethink the way they program, the core of an OS on the chip would have to be almost completely rewritten, etc, etc. As of right now there are no Cell programming gurus. And it will be some years before anyone has really gotten a strong enough feel for the way the chip works to really hand optimize code for it to the level of the G5's or Pentium's code. It has been suggested that the Xbox 360 have the same or less ability to run AI, or physics than the current Xbox due to how cut down the general purpose CPU (PPC 970) unit is. This is not something I want in my computer. Likewise due to these issues multitasking performance (running M$ Word with Norton Antivirus running) would probably be horrible.

pigwin32
Jun 11, 2005, 11:42 PM
Baloney. The Pentium M that we're more than likely shifting too runs at a much lower clockspeed than the Pentium 4 and beats it. The AMD Opteron runs at a lower speed than the G5 and generally beats it. I'd be surprised if a 2.5Ghz Pentium M doesn't beat the G5 also.

Clock speed isn't the only indication of performance.
Yep, sometimes I think when a major event like this occurs it's best just to bury your head in the sand for a couple of weeks until the clueless get tired of dribbling nonsense into their keyboards. Of course being a rumours site the signal to noise ratio tends to be low anyway. And when it's The Steve the formula becomes SNR = P(signal) / P(noise) - P(RDF).

MikeTheC
Jun 11, 2005, 11:42 PM
IBM essentially gives two excuses: First, the Apple PC market wasn't large enough. Complete BS. IBM isn't a small naive company. They did their due diligence. They had Apple sales figures and projections before the agreement took place and knew precisely what they were getting into. Second, cost. Again, complete BS. Besides the reasons noted above, their cost couldn't have wavered from projections unless there were major technical problems on their end requiring additional resources (expenses) to resolve. Frankly, if that were the case, that's their problem. But I see IBM has made no such admission.
Nailed this one perfectly.

The fact is, IBM made promises and they didn't deliver. The G5 updates have been nothing short of miserable, barely enough just to sustain the Powermac line since the it took the G5 badge. IBM promised a 3ghz G5 a year after the introduction of the 2 ghz model. It's still a no-show. No G5 of any kind for Apple laptops. All things being equal, had IBM actually kept it's end of the bargain, then their excuses might seem more worthy of attention, but it plainly obvious that they didn't. IBM is just employing a little game of misdirection. Shift attention away from it's pathetic performance with the G5, and simply exploit the general perception of Apple's low market share in hopes that everyone will just accept that familiar sounding song and not bother to closely examine how IBM actually performed under the deal. Analysts note that the impact for IBM is negligible because the Apple's G5 "only" accounted for 2 percent of the output from it's NY plant. Gee, that's interesting. What was the other 98 percent doing while Apple had to publicly postpone the introduction of G5 iMac for months due to the shortage of IBM's G5 chips? Yes, as another poster said, IBM is just playing games now.
'Nother home run. Way to go!

Regarding the Intel vs PPC issue, it's a no-brainer. Apple biggest challenge going forward wasn't choosing a new CPU vendor, it was too assure software compatibility for both PPC and Intel. Apple has a reputation as being a smart company, and the plan they've come up with is effectively bulletproof. If there was a major problem, you would have heard about it by now from the developers, all of whom are conveniently gathered under one roof this time and thus easy to poll. Apple's major software providers have all come forward and signed on to the plan. In fact, virtually NONE of the software developers has come forward with a story that Apple's switch has presented major obstacles for them going forward. Thats a major (and thus far, hugely overlooked) achievement for Apple. Most of the attention has squared on the somewhat ironic fact that Apple is switching to Intel processors

Well, seeing how IBM did such a thorough job of screwing the pooch, it isn't all that ironic, as we'll see soon enough. The "osborne effect" is another issue that's dead on arrival. First, it assumes that Apple has pre-announced a product that has such tremendous appeal that it's entire computer line will be overlooked in anticipation of it. Apple hasn't announced any future products, in fact, they remain steadfastly tight-lipped about future products as they always have. Second, the switch away from PPC processors assumes that Mac buyers purchased Mac's because of the PPC processor. The fact is, blasphemous as it may sound around here right now, no one really cares about the processor. Most consumers don't even understand how a processor works, much less understand it's role is inside the computer (the megahertz myth). What consumers do care about however is the computer they buy - the box that they pay for, turn on and use everyday. I think any honest Mac user will admit that it's the combination of the OS, software, style, and machine speed (however the user may quantify it) that make up the reasons for buying an Apple box. If the OS is Mac, and the machine is fast, then it's all good. And that's where Apple wins.

All Apple needs to do with it's next hardware update, whether it's PPC or Intel, is to provide something that is roughly 20 percent faster than the machine it replaces. That's pretty much what they've done in the past and if they continue to do so, no one is going to care about what company makes the CPU inside or is going to complain.
Ding ding ding!!! As they say in Battlestar Galactica: TNS, "Full colors!"

I'm a dedicated Mac user. I use a Mac because it's a Mac. Because it uses some version of Mac OS. Because it isn't DOS (in ages past) or Windows. And while a CPU matters to me, it matters in the sense of it's functionality, feature set, and speed, NOT who's logo is stamped on it. And, frankly, if Intel has become "all that and a bag of potato chips", then that's fine and I'll hapilly use a Mac with one of Intel's CPUs stuck in it.

My only hope is that Apple can get done with Intel what it's gotten done from Microsoft's Mac Business Unit: Mac-First and Mac-Only performance and features enhancements. But even if they go with a standard Pentium whatchamacallit, that, too, has it's advantages.

But what about the "superiority" of the PPC design? Well, it is. Everything Apple said about the PPC is true. If I were in the market for a new computer and Apple happens to update with a faster PPC model, I'd buy it with no second thoughts. I got a faster computer than the one I had before. Good for me.

So what about all of that PPC goodness when Apple makes the switch to Intel? Two words: Moore's law. Intel has repeatedly stated the company is steadfastly committed to adhering to Moore's law. On the other hand, the G5 has only recently wheezed to 2.7 ghz, still no 3 ghz G5 and counting after a year after IBM announced it's birthday. In this case, Moore's law works decidedly in Apple's favor. When IBM's and Freescale's PPC runs out of gas (if they haven't already), along comes Intel to save the day and picks up the slack. The bottom line is the Apple customer always gets a faster Apple box, and the Intel vs PPC argument isn't going to stop it.
Absolutely right. And I'm glad to see Apple finally being able to take advantage of it.

MikeTheC
Jun 12, 2005, 12:00 AM
The entire 64-bitness is over rated in my opinion, 64bits alone don't give anyone any performance boost, you still need an OS that will fully take advantage of all the memory (4 GB and above) for it to make any sense, maybe this will matter in few years but right now I don't think it is a major issue, same as onchip mem controllers, benchmarks show how Opterons "rule" Intels offerings but those are synthetic nonrelevant benchmarks, in real world apps it doesn't make a whole lot of difference, processing times are basically similar, right now no one has any major advantage over anyone... Software hasn't catched on...
So I've read and been informed by knowledgable sources myself.

Intel is planning to go all 64bit by 2007 to the best of my knowledge (kind of fits with Apples transition, doesn't it)
Yathink?!?

Anyway, the more I read about Intel and Microsoft, the more I get a feeling that Intel doesn't like MS a whole lot, in fact they wouldn't mind of trying something new with a company that would offer another proven OS and the ability to quickly adapt to new technologies...

Intel and entire PC industry is crippled with standards of all sorts, ATX this, Parallel port that, Intel is kind of stuck because PC industry is afraid of moving at a faster pace and because of this technology is kind of crippled...

What I see with Intel and Apple, Intel has a partnership with a company not afraid of changes, not afraid of new alternate ways, and because of this I think that Apple might actually help Intel develop other better newer technologies, maybe even introduce a totally new non PPC non x86 architecture... Right now Intel has a partner that both can experiment and implement really what they really desire as Apple is the only company that controls its own hardware and software...

I am wondering about Altivec, Apple has a lot of experience with this, I wonder what it would take for Apple to help design with Intel another vector processing unit similar to Altivec on PPC...

Apple presents an opportunity for Intel to totally run away from its current designs and start from scratch with something totally new and actually implement it without MS (and PC standards) involved with it...
Oh yes, absolutely. Even the Linux world is saddled with this stuff, from what I've seen. Really, Apple's the only OS vendor in a position to do this. I have a feeling this may be a very synergistic relationship. Steve already said that Apple and Intel engineers are "getting along famously", and this may be helpful in a number of respects beyond what a lot of people suspect.

Here's the deal, as I see it: Microsoft doesn't rule the hardware, as such, so it's not like Microsoft's in a position to do theoretical hardware design testing and research and then put out a reference MB for the industry to use. Apple does, Apple is, therefore Apple can. What this means is that all those looking for an at least somewhat-paved R&D road for newer, better computers for which to write an OS (such as the Linux crowd) will be winners, too. Also, because this isn't all just about Apple and Intel but, as I've mentioned in an earlier post, Intel-AMD, Apple is also in a completely win-win scenario here, too.

Other than in a purely marketing and commercial sense, Apple's real competition is NOT Microsoft. It's Linux. The Linux community is (from the point-of-view of an average Mac or Windows user) quietly gathering up open-source equivalents (some darn good ones, too) of every major (and minor) app out there, and since the preference by-and-large in the Linux community is to use x86 hardware (basically because it's cheap and plentiful), they will be among the first to jump onto any new x86 platform that results in some form or fashion from Apple and Intel's development efforts.

Anyhow, that's a completely different tangent, totally off-topic here, but suffice to say many stand to benefit here, and amongst those who will benefit are ABSOLUTELY us end users.

sacear
Jun 12, 2005, 12:23 AM
I think Steve is an idiot.

Maybe he shouldn't burn ALL bridges the way he does. I mean, his software works on both PPC and Intel with universal binaries, so if Intel DOESN'T deliver, a transition back to PPC couldn't be too difficult. However, they shouldn't screw relationships up before leaving. Its not good business. Now I know some of the Mac faithful will say, "He's Steve Jobs and you're not, so what do you know?" Well, it seems that he probably doesn't know much more than others out there.

Moto and IBM would take Apple back as clients, but I'm sure that's only when Steve is gone from Apple.From what I've heard and read (yet politely correct me if I am misinformed), Jobs did not close the door on PPC (IBM and Freescale), in fact, seems he left the door open. Seems to me he simply added Intel to the CPU vendor list.

SiliconAddict
Jun 12, 2005, 12:37 AM
I think Steve is an idiot.
However, they shouldn't screw relationships up before leaving. Its not good business. Now I know some of the Mac faithful will say, "He's Steve Jobs and you're not, so what do you know?" Well, it seems that he probably doesn't know much more than others out there.


Nope I say he's human. I think most of us have wanted to burn a bridge here or there when we've left a job from time to time. Most of us have the good sense to hold our tongue. Most of us have the good sense that burning bridges keeps us from using those bridges again. In Steve's case (Note that I'm not a psychiatrist I just play one on the net ;) ) the guy has displayed the inability to keep his emotions in check. Call it immaturity. Call it an ego thing. Call it whatever you want. I don't think its so much that he's an idiot as he simply lets his emotions run the show from time to time. This is doubtless a double edged sword from the business standpoint.

SiliconAddict
Jun 12, 2005, 12:40 AM
Check out BugMeNot.com (http://bugmenot.com), just enter the site name and get your free signon. Sweet.


Firefox has a plugin. Just right click in the user name and select bugmenot and poof....it fills out the username and password *Virtually pats the FireFox software* Gooood little browser....good.

Orlando Furioso
Jun 12, 2005, 12:42 AM
(Note that I'm not a psychiatrist I just play one on the net ;) )

how would you analyze his [Señor Jobs] use of black slacks during the keynote in place of the usual blue-jeans?

I for one thought they were damn sexy with a touch of sophistication. =)

IJ Reilly
Jun 12, 2005, 12:58 AM
He didn't say the PPC was less effective.. he said Cell processor is less effective than the PPC.

I suppose its the way you read it - you could read it both ways - that he also infers the PPC processor is ineffective, like you say.

By the sounds of it Apple did the necessary homework to make an informed decision - Cell processor, AMD, and Intel.

Once again, the article does not quote Steve Jobs using the word "effective." This word is used in the context of a paraphrase of second-hand remark. So essentially, this could very well be just the writer's, and nobody else's.

iMeowbot
Jun 12, 2005, 01:00 AM
From what I've heard and read (yet politely correct me if I am misinformed), Jobs did not close the door on PPC (IBM and Freescale), in fact, seems he left the door open. Seems to me he simply added Intel to the CPU vendor list.
I think that Apple may have have had this switch planned since the Clone Wars in 1997 when Jobs came back. Both Moto and IBM were seriously screwed over by that. Moto even left the desktop CPU market for a time, and IBM began putting the heavier R&D payment requirements on Apple, after Apple went cutting heads. It really looks as though OS X on PowerPC was a necessary evil (for Apple) to buy time to get classic applications ported to Carbon and Cocoa. I doubt they'll produce any PPC Macs after 2007, save for a lifeboat model if enough customers scream for more time.

Ravenflight
Jun 12, 2005, 01:02 AM
Intel is 64bit now (in hot cores). Will have dual-(cool)core 64bit by 2H 2006.

However, Yonah is 32bit so if first Mactels are dual-core Yonahs (PB's/mini/iBook) they will be (obviously) 32bit. Of course, they're 32bit single-core G4 now...
Yes but how will 32bit dual core Yonah stack up against the 32bit dual core G4 that Freescale announced 9 months ago? Remember Jobs said "Exciting PowerPC products are still in the pipeline" I don't think by "Exciting" he meant another 100Mhz speed bump. However it might mean a dual core G4 Powerbook! :rolleyes:

iMeowbot
Jun 12, 2005, 01:25 AM
Remember Jobs said "Exciting PowerPC products are still in the pipeline" I don't think by "Exciting" he meant another 100Mhz speed bump.
Then again, he called the iPod Sock "revolutionary" ...

pigwin32
Jun 12, 2005, 01:25 AM
I think IBM will come out with the dual-core PowerPC chip at 3 GHZ soon. This will be then the end of the road. It will keep Mac fans happy for the next couple of years. Apple can come out finally with a quad CPU desktop. Then in 2 years, Apple will have it's first full-blown Intel desktop Macs.

Unfortunately, IBM will have no laptop CPU. Apple will probably use Freescale's 2 GHz dual-core G4s for its laptops. These should keep things going for the next two years - they will be faster overall than current PC single CPU laptops. Then in June 2006, Apple will come out with its first Pentium-M laptops.

I myself would buy a dual-core G4 laptop since the current ones are running out of steam for myself.
Personally I think this is one of the reasons Steve bit the bullet, the PBs are getting long in the tooth and are not keeping pace with their larger Wintel cousins and laptops are outselling desktops. I don't think we will see another rev of the current PowerBook line unless it's to drop in the Freescale single core pin-compatible MPC7448 chip.

Plus I wouldn't be surprised if the PB line was the first Macintel, it sure could benefit from the speed increase and would give Apple the opportunity to release a new enclosure and provide higher resolution displays. I'm a little disappointed that neither IBM nor Freescale were able to provide a low power processor in the required timeframe, the Freescale dual-core chip looked promising.

I guess we may not ever know what really sparked the announcement, perhaps it was the latest delay from IBM or Freescale that finally tipped Steve over the edge. Intel is quite a different beast and no stranger to litigation, in comparison Apple is a minnow, hopefully Steve hasn't bitten off more than he can chew.

MontyZ
Jun 12, 2005, 01:44 AM
Because if Apple can make a truly portable OS, then who cares what the engine will be in the future. Ten years from now, the Mac OS could very well be running on something that is not even available today.

Flexibility is key in the tech world. And Mr. Steve Jobs is showing how Apple leads the way.

Is the transition going to be smooth? They never are. However, for Apple, this is their third major one. Each time they get better at it.
I totally agree. Making Apple's OS more portable and not so reliant on the chips or hardware would make it very attractive to all kinds of electronic devices, like cell phones, DVRs, Blackberrys, digital cameras and video cameras, etc.

Can you image how cool it would be to plug in your Motorola cellphone running OSX Mini that would sync up with the mothership G5 with ease and without compatibility problems? Your phone could be an icon on your desktop just like a mounted drive. Email, phone book, calendar is all easily synced and you can easily copy files or music over to your phone via Bluetooth. Maybe even drop widgets on the devices to add pre-sets or certain feature sets to the devices.

Apple is already publicly dabbling in that area with Motorola/iTunes. I would love to buy a Palm PDA and replace the Palm OS with OSX Mini PDA Edition. If my cellphone, PDA, laptop and desktop all speak the same language, they could communicate much easier.

Who knows what's up Steve's sleeves!

pigwin32
Jun 12, 2005, 01:45 AM
I'd say that a lot of people will choose not to switch. Just like the vast number of OS 9 users, there will be a large number of PPC users using both OS 9 & OS X. Because of the need for new software, many will not switch until 2015. Remember Mac hardware will last longer than other hardware. I still have customers using pre PPC Macs for their daily work.

Bill the TaxMan
My goodness, what sort of work are they doing? Surely upgrading to a Mac Mini at least would be a productive upgrade.

Ravenflight
Jun 12, 2005, 01:55 AM
Then again, he called the iPod Sock "revolutionary" ... They were! There had been zero innovation in the sock industry till Steve came along with this revolutionary idea! :D :D :p

sacear
Jun 12, 2005, 02:04 AM
...the vast number of OS 9 users...Vast? Of OS 9 users? Where? Compared to what?
...there will be a large number of PPC users using both OS 9 & OS X.I don't think so. There might be a large number of PPC users using OS X.

pigwin32
Jun 12, 2005, 02:05 AM
Firefox has a plugin. Just right click in the user name and select bugmenot and poof....it fills out the username and password *Virtually pats the FireFox software* Gooood little browser....good.
Nice, I'm obviously not keeping my plugins up to date.

wildmac
Jun 12, 2005, 02:14 AM
I have to really wonder about all the optimists that are saying we'll be seeing serious updates to existing Mac G4/G5 hardware in the next 2 years before the Mactel systems come out. what are they basing this on?... Jobs gave no real indications or promises of new hardware.

Judging by IBM's supposed surprise about Apple switching CPU vendors, they were either unaware on unconcerned about Apple's frustrations with the current state of the PowerPC. Now that the switch will be announced, how will they respond?...

If IBM couldn't produce faster processors before, how would they now, with even less motivation? And what happens if IBM moves more of their fab production to making chips for their new buddy Microsoft?..

While I highly doubt that IBM would cut Apple off, it seems highly likely that we may not see ANY increases in the speeds of processors that Apple gets from IBM. Do you like that 2.7 G5?.. Its a good thing, you'll be using it for 2 years. The only products that may get speed gains are the consumer end ones, by going to chips that are closer to or the same as what are being used in the professional models, thus cannibalizing sales on the high-end.

This may be an incredibly dry time for Mac hardware. I hope Apple survives it.

sushi
Jun 12, 2005, 02:32 AM
<snip>

Who knows what's up Steve's sleeves!
I can imagine a lot! :D

Enjoyed your comments. You hit some ideas. SJ doesn't say things lightly. For example, the G5 will be at 3Ghz by such a time. Apple sees a future with many new products on the horizon. Some of these may be like the iPod -- a departure from their normal bread and butter.

How frustrating it must be not to be able to bring these ideas to execution because one of your key suppliers just isn't going down the path that you need them to be.

We've waited how long for the G5 at 3Ghz...and the G5 Powerbook. The wait goes on.

Steve and company had to make a judgement call that would ensure Apple's furture growth and development of new products. For whatever reason, it seems like IBM is stagnate at this time.

Yet at the same time, he did not close the door on them. If in the future, cell technology takes off and decent compilers can be made for traditional apps and OS type stuff who knows what will happen. Apple could move right back to IBM and the cell sometime down the road is Intel stagnates.

A few years ago, I knew the head of Motorolla Japan. One time we were having dinner and I asked him or rather made a comment about how much I liked the PowerPC (G4 was new) that Apple was using. His comments were not what I expected and left me somewhat disappointed.

As they say, hindsight is everything. Looking back, the writing was on the walls but I missed it. Guess I had blinders on because I liked the PowerPC concept so much and believed in Motorolla and IBM.

It is not easy changing a key supplier, nor making the shift that Apple has undertaken. Apple was getting forced into a corner -- a place that they do not want to be.

Glad to see Steve and company have the guts to be flexible.

So like are the new Intel PowerBooks going to be out next Tuesday or what?! :D :D :D

...figured I would be the first to get this one in! :p ;)

Sushi

iMeowbot
Jun 12, 2005, 03:01 AM
They were! There had been zero innovation in the sock industry till Steve came along with this revolutionary idea! :D :D :p
My Microsoft director's chair is still sturdy and comfy after 20 years of daily use. Let's see how well these so-called innovative socks hold up :p

Also buried in this NYT article is the tidbit that the first Macintels should be shipping in January. If Apple are really that far along, I wouldn't be expecting anything other than (hopefully decent) bumps.

MacTruck
Jun 12, 2005, 04:20 AM
Um, lets all keep in mind that the "Promised" Intel dual core chip is just that, "Promised". IBM and Freescale also "Promised a dual core chip but until I see it for sale somewhere it does not exist.

The tech industry is full of promises. Take a look at some old apple commercials found online. Even back as far as the Powerbook 5300 apple touted voice activation and all kinds of cool stuff that just doesn't work practically. The tech industry is all about getting things to work but not work practically. I remember when Cell phone modems were being touted as the greatest thing. That was 1996. I have only recently been able to use this technology practically.

The bottom line is that chips have reached their limit in speed no matter who makes them. Dual cores are the new thing because a single core chip is as maxed out as they will ever get. Moores law has reached its peak. Apple had that problem years ago with G4 and decided to just double the chips to increase speed. Personally I think that all computers need 2 processors for multitasking. So intel hit its limit with P4 at 3.8ghz. No 4ghz chips ever to be produced. In reality 2.8ghz is the fastest anybody can make a chip. P4 is expanded to increase clock speed not performance. Look at AMD, Intel Pentium M ( a real cpu unlike P4) and IBM. All have maxed out at these speeds roughly. 65nm chips coming out? How did they tackle the problems inherit in the 90nm process? The only way computers will get faster are less bloated OSes and software. If I were to run windows 95 on my 2ghz Pentium M thinkpad it would be the fastest computer ever. XP slows it down just like OSx slows down a new mac compared to OS9.

No, apple got dumped by IBM because IBM is now a game console chip manufacturer and they don't have to innovate for a while with that. With apple they are forced to work weekends to innovate and with the ceiling being so low with processors they can't and/or won't so they don't care about apple. IBM makes server chips that can get AC pumped into them to stay cool. I am sure once intel reaches 2.7ghz with Pentium M (if they ever do) they will be using liquid cooling and heatsinks the size of shoe boxes for their cooling needs as well.

Lets just get something straight, intel has nothing revolutionary in the pipeline. It just makes better business sense for Jobs and apple to use them. Cost effective, better relationships, better supply... whatever it is its not innovation that put apple to intel its business. So stop thinking you will see a super duper apple computer with an intel cpu inside. In 2 yrs it won't be that much better. Just will have a dual cpu in them (maybe). I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the first intel macs with just a 2ghz Pentium M inside and not dual core. Besides won't the Dual core 2ghz G4 with a 667bus be out by then?


Voice activation, dual core. Whatever. It is all hype. Let me see it in the store then I will believe it.

opq
Jun 12, 2005, 04:54 AM
Anyway, the more I read about Intel and Microsoft, the more I get a feeling that Intel doesn't like MS a whole lot

Of course not... It was MS who forced Intel to adopt AMD's 64-bit instructions for their EM64T technology, right? (the whole use AMD's or we won't have 64-bit Windows XP support you!)

solvs
Jun 12, 2005, 05:02 AM
ppc has been behind all the intel/amd processors for many years both in clock speed and performance. thus the marketing department over at apple has been lying and people are still willing to believe them.
Um, no. The PPC is faster... in some apps. The G5 when it first came out was revolutionary, but has since languished. Much like the G4. A good chip, but without proper development, it goes nowhere fast. Notice there have been no recent bakeoffs, and a lot of wishing for high-clocked but cooler running G5s, and bitching about the G4. Intels chips have a better FUTURE. As in laptops in a year and desktops within the next year. It's not about the past or the present, it's about what's coming next.

Marketing isn't about lying, it's about focusing on the strengths and downplaying the weaknesses. And these things change with time. ;)

ThatSoundAgain
Jun 12, 2005, 05:52 AM
Um, no. The PPC is faster... in some apps. The G5 when it first came out was revolutionary, but has since languished. Much like the G4. A good chip, but without proper development, it goes nowhere fast. Notice there have been no recent bakeoffs, and a lot of wishing for high-clocked but cooler running G5s, and bitching about the G4. Intels chips have a better FUTURE. As in laptops in a year and desktops within the next year. It's not about the past or the present, it's about what's coming next.

Marketing isn't about lying, it's about focusing on the strengths and downplaying the weaknesses. And these things change with time. ;)

Yup, the PPC line is faster at some things.. What worries me is that the "performance per watt" slide said "integer performance" on the vertical axis. It's no secret that integer operations have traditionally been x86's strong point, while PPC with Altivec excelled mostly at floating point. That slide may have looked quite different with FP performance instead..

Of course this is a non-issue with no low-power 970 in sight. Apple needs to compete in the portable market, so this move makes sense. I just hope that Intel can crank up their FLOP performance somehow, if nothing else then just by throwing Moore's law at it. That would benefit people like me, who'd like a capable notebook for real-time video and 3D-rendering / video editing as well as people out there wanting Virginia Tech-style clusters.

cube
Jun 12, 2005, 06:28 AM
However, Cell sucks at out-of-order execution which is kinda necessary for the modern multi-tasking operating system.


Out of order execution does not help with multitasking.

nms
Jun 12, 2005, 07:09 AM
Has Stever really burned bridges? I mean, Motorola/Freescale are still knocking around in various Apple incarnations. And...IBM may be surprised because they don't really know what's going on, like us. It'll clear up in a couple of weeks, i mean the iBook hasn't been updated for 300 days or something, so Apple isn't going to go another 300-600 without updating them!

iJed
Jun 12, 2005, 07:16 AM
Yup, the PPC line is faster at some things.. What worries me is that the "performance per watt" slide said "integer performance" on the vertical axis. It's no secret that integer operations have traditionally been x86's strong point, while PPC with Altivec excelled mostly at floating point. That slide may have looked quite different with FP performance instead..


Yes the x87 floating point architecture has always been a week point. This is especially true for the P4. Fortunately SSE2/3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_SIMD_Extensions) go a long way to improving this situation.

Wyrm
Jun 12, 2005, 07:42 AM
He compared the performance per watt projected mid 2006 (and beyond). And Intel beat PPC, 70 to 15 (units of performance per watt).

That's an interesting point. What did that chart mean? He was implying that the intel roadmap is showing 4-5x the performance per watt of the ppc, right?

That either means he believes Intel chips will run 4-5x ultra-cool, low power, or 4-5x the performance at the same level? Or a mix of twice the performance, half the power? Hmmm.

Well, I guess we've been suckered before in this arena.

I'm still for making OSX support both architectures, forever! That way you give IBM a little incentive to improve the PPC970. A little more cache perhaps? I mean at least Motorola was active in improvement... not getting very far, but they were trying.

Is the PowerMac truly not going to improve for 2 years?

Heck the XBox CPU Xenon is a triple cored, dual thread per core 3.2Ghz+, and it doesn't run as hot as a single 970. Pay Microsoft get one of these in the PowerBook. IBM could probably tack on an AltiVec or two... maybe even drop a core... better or worse than the current G4? Of course IBM is not planning on improving performance on these Xenon things for 5 years.

I agree that the Cell probably isn't that great for a general purpose CPU. Great for decoding 48 streams of video at the same time, and probably 10 times worse than Altivec to write code for.

-Wyrm

Wyrm
Jun 12, 2005, 07:53 AM
Out of order execution does not help with multitasking.

You are correct.

Out of order execution helps with a compiler that can't perform the out of order at compile time. I'm sure there are some special cases that the compiler couldn't do this, but I can't think of any right now, and I'm sure they are as rare as a Coelacanth in your bathtub.

I think most compilers now address this, so all that silicon is effectively redundant now. Well, except for ancient compiled code that is, and where does that exist in the Mac world?

-Wyrm

Roller
Jun 12, 2005, 08:08 AM
In his keynote last week, Jobs confirmed longstanding rumors that Apple had been developing an Intel-compatible version of OS X for years (a secret double-life, as he put it).

In order to support PPC-based Macs, Apple's going to have to contunue to develop both versions for several years, well after the entire product line goes Intel and Leopard ships. At least Apple has a model for that in the 68k-PPC transition.

The question is will Apple continue to hedge its bets beyond that? For that matter, will they also create in-house versions for other processors like the Cell?

themacman
Jun 12, 2005, 09:09 AM
In his keynote last week, Jobs confirmed longstanding rumors that Apple had been developing an Intel-compatible version of OS X for years (a secret double-life, as he put it).

In order to support PPC-based Macs, Apple's going to have to contunue to develop both versions for several years, well after the entire product line goes Intel and Leopard ships. At least Apple has a model for that in the 68k-PPC transition.

The question is will Apple continue to hedge its bets beyond that? For that matter, will they also create in-house versions for other processors like the Cell?
wouldnt that be a lot of trouble for something steve jobs said wasnt going to be in desktop machines

cube
Jun 12, 2005, 09:11 AM
You are correct.

Out of order execution helps with a compiler that can't perform the out of order at compile time. I'm sure there are some special cases that the compiler couldn't do this, but I can't think of any right now, and I'm sure they are as rare as a Coelacanth in your bathtub.

I think most compilers now address this, so all that silicon is effectively redundant now. Well, except for ancient compiled code that is, and where does that exist in the Mac world?

-Wyrm

Out of order comes into effect when you have previous instructions waiting for data or execution units, while latter ones are ready.

tdewey
Jun 12, 2005, 09:26 AM
No 4ghz chips ever to be produced. In reality 2.8ghz is the fastest anybody can make a chip. P4 is expanded to increase clock speed not performance. Look at AMD, Intel Pentium M ( a real cpu unlike P4) and IBM. All have maxed out at these speeds roughly. 65nm chips coming out? How did they tackle the problems inherit in the 90nm process? The only way computers will get faster are less bloated OSes and software. If I were to run windows 95 on my 2ghz Pentium M thinkpad it would be the fastest computer ever. XP slows it down just like OSx slows down a new mac compared to OS9.


"Intel's leading strained silicon technology, first implemented in our 90-nm process technology, is further enhanced in the 65-nm technology. The second generation of Intel strained silicon increases transistor performance by 10 to 15 percent without increasing leakage. Conversely, these transistors can cut leakage by four times at constant performance compared to 90-nm transistors. As a result, the transistors on Intel's 65-nm process have improved performance without significant increases in leakage (greater electrical current leakage results in greater heat generation)."

http://www.intel.com/technology/silicon/si08042.htm



I am sure once intel reaches 2.7ghz with Pentium M (if they ever do) they will be using liquid cooling and heatsinks the size of shoe boxes for their cooling needs as well.


Pentium-M's have been overclocked to 2.6 Ghz with no problem. http://forums.legitreviews.com/about1525.html


Lets just get something straight, intel has nothing revolutionary in the pipeline.


Depends on how you defined revolutionary. I think Jobs is onto something with the low-power as revolutionary. Taiwan Inc. has recently begun releasing desktop mobos for Pentium-M processors. When I travel I like to use my XP notebook (w/ Pentium-M) because it has a longer battery life and runs cooler (though, admittedly, part of the issue with the battery life is the ***-up battery in my 12").


Voice activation, dual core. Whatever. It is all hype. Let me see it in the store then I will believe it.

Can't argue with this.

biohazard6969
Jun 12, 2005, 09:44 AM
what a kick in the pants

AidenShaw
Jun 12, 2005, 10:01 AM
Out of order execution helps with a compiler that can't perform the out of order at compile time. I'm sure there are some special cases that the compiler couldn't do this, but I can't think of any right now, and I'm sure they are as rare as a Coelacanth in your bathtub.
For starters, cache misses are dynamic and cannot be predicted by the compiler - especially if the program contains conditional statements and loops. (The compiler can make some guesses about cache behaviour - but in a multi-tasking, multi-processing there's a lot of randomness.)

When the compiler does it, OOOE is called "scheduling". It's fine if you're willing to schedule your application for a particular processor, but you have to choose whether it should run better on a PPC970 or a PPC970fx (even among closely related chips, there can be differences in scheduling, cache behaviour, ....).

When the chip does OOOE, however, the chip itself can "reschedule" dynamically - accounting for both randomness and architectural differences.

Jmitch
Jun 12, 2005, 10:26 AM
intel had to do some good enticing to apple too....i mean intel must have made this deal worth wild for apple


Yes. But the thing I still don't understand is why Jobs would unveil this information so early. People have been saying all along that this is really going to drive down the sales of the current line up. How could Jobs overlook that fact? Does he not want to sell computers for another what few years before the Intel line-up comes to existence?

Apple is making the switch to Intel and ditching the old stuff. Who would want to buy the old stuff now? I mean does anyone else see how this could really hurt Apple? I just don't see the logic.

~Shard~
Jun 12, 2005, 10:35 AM
Yes. But the thing I still don't understand is why Jobs would unveil this information so early. People have been saying all along that this is really going to drive down the sales of the current line up. How could Jobs overlook that fact? Does he not want to sell computers for another what few years before the Intel line-up comes to existence?

Apple is making the switch to Intel and ditching the old stuff. Who would want to buy the old stuff now? I mean does anyone else see how this could really hurt Apple? I just don't see the logic.

As has been mentioned countless times before in this and other threads, Jobs has done everything to ensure sales will not decline. He has indicated this will be a gradual transition, he introduced XCode 2.1 with universal binaries so existing and new PPC machines will not become useless once the Intel systems are released, and said there are still many PPC products in the pipeline. He has gone to great lengths to make the transition a smooth one.

Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with his timing - it is perfect, in fact. Do you think the developer community would prefer to find out about this switch only a few months before it happens? That would royally screw them over! How would they possibly have enough time to prepare and port their apps? The whole thing would be a mess and there would be a lot of ill feelings towards Apple as a result. With the announcement coming now, Jobs has given all the developers out there fair warning and had allowed for them to prepare and begin coding with universal binaries so that when the migration actually begins, everyone will be prepared and everything will run smoothly. Jobs announced this when he did because he had the developers in mind, the timing was perfect.

rotorblade
Jun 12, 2005, 10:39 AM
I'm still for making OSX support both architectures, forever! That way you give IBM a little incentive to improve the PPC970. A little more cache perhaps? I mean at least Motorola was active in improvement... not getting very far, but they were trying.

I agree. With Steve's penchant for pissing people off or throwing one of his kiddy tantrums, we could find ourselves going through a similar transition 5 or 6 years from now when he dumps Intel because he's not happy about something. A frightening thought, yet not out of the question.

m-dogg
Jun 12, 2005, 10:44 AM
Just from my own sampling of Apple fanatics - friends who buy a lot of Apple gear, from G5s to PBs and iPods - I think there may be a far more significant Osborne effect than Jobs and Apple realize. Personally, I used to update my PB every 9mos or so. I'm going to try and hang on to it now until Intel's real notebook procs hit in '07.

Fortunately for Apple, I think you are the minority with your 9 month update cycles on $2000 - $3000 laptops...

tdewey
Jun 12, 2005, 10:53 AM
For starters, cache misses are dynamic and cannot be predicted by the compiler - especially if the program contains conditional statements and loops. (The compiler can make some guesses about cache behaviour - but in a multi-tasking, multi-processing there's a lot of randomness.)

When the compiler does it, OOOE is called "scheduling". It's fine if you're willing to schedule your application for a particular processor, but you have to choose whether it should run better on a PPC970 or a PPC970fx (even among closely related chips, there can be differences in scheduling, cache behaviour, ....).

When the chip does OOOE, however, the chip itself can "reschedule" dynamically - accounting for both randomness and architectural differences.

This hits it. The Cell is not designed for a modern multi-tasking operating system like MacOS or XP. The Cell is designed to run an OS that is running just one Media/Render-intensive program at a time.

greenstork
Jun 12, 2005, 11:12 AM
He just said it was not power effective.

And when half of your computer business -- portability -- is ineffective, that essentially makes the chip ineffective.

tdewey
Jun 12, 2005, 11:14 AM
Out of order execution does not help with multitasking.

Would you rather I had said multi-threading?

johnpaul191
Jun 12, 2005, 11:28 AM
IBM doesnt even advertise their own 970s, they advertise their Intel Powered machine.

IBM does advertise their blade servers on TV/cable. those are available with IBM or Intel chips.

johnpaul191
Jun 12, 2005, 11:42 AM
im not so sure about that whole media/computer systems now. i just ordered a new cable box from my cable company for $9 a month. it records up to 70 hours of tv. its like a tivo. it seems that the cable companies already got a head start in this area. they already have movies you can preview>watch>record...and its happening NOW.

cable companies have the content>delivery method>users and now an inexpensive box.


if you ever used TiVo you would see how much better their software/interface is.

cable companies also already have you paying for the box, and that cost is subsidized with your cable bill. you cable company is also alrady feeding your box a schedule gris (TiVo has to make a national schedule your Tivo can sync with). my understanding is that cable companies added PVR features because they were losing customers to DSS (which has has PVR for years now). supposedly if they had a way to keep out theft, but not have to provide boxes the cable companies would back it. they see boxes as needed technology now, but a big expense.

that's why the cable companies, in general, strongly support the future of cable cards (1). the thing is they hate generation 1 cards (out now) because they are one way cards. they will not allow interaction (you to buy pay per view movies or video on demand stuff). once the 2nd generation of cable cards rolls out i wonder how many cable companies will still promote PVR boxes. you could buy an off the shelf TiVo and pop in the card from your provider.

(1) if you do not know what a cable card is, it is literally just a little card with the proprietary info from your cable company. it allows them to know you have the device on the cable network and it will allow the channels you subscribe to. instead of the $9 a box cost to rent a month they are more like $1 or $2. you use the TV (or other device, like tivo) tuner to pick a channel and not a set top box. if you look on the back of a new larger TV you will see a cable card slot. there is a government mandated rollout date that is in progress now... starting with larger TVs and working its way down.

cube
Jun 12, 2005, 11:55 AM
Would you rather I had said multi-threading?

It's not for multi-threading, either.

jcgerm
Jun 12, 2005, 12:01 PM
As has been mentioned countless times before in this and other threads, Jobs has done everything to ensure sales will not decline. He has indicated this will be a gradual transition, he introduced XCode 2.1 with universal binaries so existing and new PPC machines will not become useless once the Intel systems are released, and said there are still many PPC products in the pipeline. He has gone to great lengths to make the transition a smooth one.

Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with his timing - it is perfect, in fact. Do you think the developer community would prefer to find out about this switch only a few months before it happens? That would royally screw them over! How would they possibly have enough time to prepare and port their apps? The whole thing would be a mess and there would be a lot of ill feelings towards Apple as a result. With the announcement coming now, Jobs has given all the developers out there fair warning and had allowed for them to prepare and begin coding with universal binaries so that when the migration actually begins, everyone will be prepared and everything will run smoothly. Jobs announced this when he did because he had the developers in mind, the timing was perfect.

Exactly. Also, think about Tiger's release. A large number of apps were ported to work on Tiger by its release date. When the first Intel box hits the shelf I bet that most apps will be ready to go. The only reason sales will drop will be ignorance and misinformation. PPC Macs will be supported for many years to come and you can bet that developers will support PPC and Intel Macs for years to come as well.

johnpaul191
Jun 12, 2005, 12:07 PM
Just from my own sampling of Apple fanatics - friends who buy a lot of Apple gear, from G5s to PBs and iPods - I think there may be a far more significant Osborne effect than Jobs and Apple realize. Personally, I used to update my PB every 9mos or so. I'm going to try and hang on to it now until Intel's real notebook procs hit in '07.

And, given the transition timeframe, I'm going to do what was unthinkable before this transition was announced - take a real look at Longhorn and evaluate moving back to Windows. I think it's likely I'll stick with OS X, but I would probably not have even given Windows serious consideration without this move by Apple. Hopefully (for Apple) I'm more the exception than the rule, but I think this was the wrong time to make such a transition.

obviously nobody knows for sure, but the notebooks may be first to jump in mid 2006. the assumption is that Apple will take all the G4 based machines and roll them to Intel starting about June 2006. the actual quote from Jobs said that by the time WWDC 2006 happens the first of the Intel based systems will be out. since Intel has has experience getting their chips into laptops etc it is possible that Apple will want to move the laptops before the Mac Mini. the Mini will probably be using a laptop processor anyway (so the rumors say). who knows what will happen with the eMac in the next year or so anyway. if an iMac can be a G5 i would think an eMac could be too. the fate of the eMac is probably dictated by schools and how many still want a CRT Mac. that leaves Powerbooks and iBooks with G4 chips, and doubtful G5 upgrades coming.

to be honest i think i will be buying at least one more PPC Mac.. maybe two. both my desktop machine and my ibook are getting old. i have been pondering an upgrade for a little while now (i just keep spending the money on something else). i also have no fear of owning a PPC Mac when the Intel ones come out. i trust it will work for a while to come. at some point it may not run the newest software, but it will still work. any computer you buy will get old. that's just how it is.

while the laptops may be on the sooner side of the upgrades... i do not think my desktop tower can hold out for 2+ years. if you watch the keynote he said that most all Macs *should* be over to Intel by June 2007, and if not then by the end of 2007. 2.5 years without upgrading an already older desktop machine is not sounding like something i want to do. i am happy enough with the PPC chips. i really believe a lot of the decision was Apple looking at the future. the problem is not just that IBM is a little behind speeds today, but what they PLAN on having out in 5 years versus what Intel plans to have out in 5 years. maybe IBM is not optimistic about turning the next POWER chip into a PPC? maybe their ideas do not sit well with Apple. who knows. IBM will still be selling the chips to game consoles, and they still sell them in servers.


as for switching to M$ Windows......
that's silly. Apple will be shipping some Intel based Macs before Longhorn is on the shelf. 10.5 will ship late 2006 or early 2007. that's before all Macs are even Intel, so no matter how paranoid your friends are we know that OS will totally support PPC chips. i think it's a safe bet that 10.6 will support PPC chips too, and Apple is slowing down on OS X releases. say 10.5 comes out in January 2007, then it is not unrealistic to expect 10.6 around January 2009? remember not everyone upgrades the day the new OS ships. even if PPC support is not in 10.6, your computer you buy this week can be totally supported till at least sometime in 2009? that seems adequate to me. that's longer life than M$ windows machines will last. they say a lot of PCs being sold today do not meet the expected requirements for Longhorn.

~Shard~
Jun 12, 2005, 12:17 PM
The only reason sales will drop will be ignorance and misinformation.

That pretty much sums it up. I'm curious however who will actually be ignorant to all of this - the tech savvy Mac users like us, who follow the goings-on of Apple closely, watched the Keynote, etc., understand the situation and realize this is not something to be concerned about with respect to compatibility, etc. On the other end of the spectrum, there are Mac users who couldn't even tell you what processor is in their Mac right now, and may not even be aware when Macs make the move to Intel, and won't care, because everything will "just work". I guess it will be the people in the middle whom we'll have to properly educate and ensure there is no misinformation out there. But hey, that's what these Forums are for! Communication and education is a good thing. :) :cool:

johnpaul191
Jun 12, 2005, 12:28 PM
yea, but... who the heck would be interested in buying a PowerPC(Mac) from now on? So, maybe there's no need for IBM to develop anymore. Just make a few of the current designs to sell til the switch to Intel.

a lot of people do not care. they buy a Mac for OS X, not for PPC chips. if they need a new computer now, they are not going to wait till 2007. i have talked to Mac people this weekend that did not even hear about the Intel switch. they were mildly curious, but did not really care. it will have no impact on their plans to upgrade. some were planning on buying new Macs within the next month or so. one was going to buy and iBook in the next few days. you may call them dumb, but that's not how they see it. not everyone freaks out about being one step behind when a new Mac comes out. they buy their computer to help them do their work, not for bragging rights. these are people that do design work or other things that will benefit from having a newer machine.

how many people have a relatively high end mac and use it for nothing more than internet access, iTunes, text editing and iPhoto? i know a few.

johnpaul191
Jun 12, 2005, 12:30 PM
Fortunately for Apple, I think you are the minority with your 9 month update cycles on $2000 - $3000 laptops...

fortunately? i would think the shareholders would like a lot more customers like that!

johnpaul191
Jun 12, 2005, 12:39 PM
Yes. But the thing I still don't understand is why Jobs would unveil this information so early. People have been saying all along that this is really going to drive down the sales of the current line up. How could Jobs overlook that fact? Does he not want to sell computers for another what few years before the Intel line-up comes to existence?

Apple is making the switch to Intel and ditching the old stuff. Who would want to buy the old stuff now? I mean does anyone else see how this could really hurt Apple? I just don't see the logic.

it's not old. there will be new PPC hardware coming before the intel switch. they are not ditching, they are planning for the future. unless you are a developer, this change will not mean much of anything to you. it should mean faster machines, but to the average user it will be no different than if IBM suddenly got their chip fab in high gear.

like i said in another post, i know people that are unfazed and still planning to upgrade. people buy a new machine when they need it. if you can wait 2.5 years just to have the first Intel machine, then you must not really do anything important on your computer, or anything processor intensive (making me wonder why you NEED the first of the new Intel chips anyway).

let me tell you something..... cars will eventually get much better fuel efficiency and have safer designs. all current gasoline cars will one day be obsolete. people are still buying these old designs. internal combustion design is ridiculously old technology. i have no idea why any people buy them. do you? they must not read newspapers or watch TV.

12thgear
Jun 12, 2005, 12:58 PM
It's interesting that everyone is so concerned about declining sales in the interim period before the first Intel Macs are introduced. It makes sense. I think power users and notebook buyers may hold out. As a bit of a mix of both types of users, I've been holding out for the first major PowerBook update, whether it's a G5, dual core Freescale G4, or now, a Pentium-M.

What's great though is there have been countless posts on these forums in the past complaning about how Apple was so tight-lipped, and didn't offer any sort of roadmap.

Well now we have one. Granted it's drawn in the sand with a pointy stick, but it's something. I'll be very curious to see 1) how it affects sales and 2) if this is a new trend for Apple. If we start seeing consistent, frequent updates, maybe Apple will be willing to be a little more forthcoming. Apple's past schedule has basically consisted of infrequent, significant upgrades, so everyone made a game of figuring out the best times to purchase.

manu chao
Jun 12, 2005, 01:11 PM
Just from my own sampling of Apple fanatics - friends who buy a lot of Apple gear, from G5s to PBs and iPods - I think there may be a far more significant Osborne effect than Jobs and Apple realize. Personally, I used to update my PB every 9mos or so. I'm going to try and hang on to it now until Intel's real notebook procs hit in '07.

And, given the transition timeframe, I'm going to do what was unthinkable before this transition was announced - take a real look at Longhorn and evaluate moving back to Windows. I think it's likely I'll stick with OS X, but I would probably not have even given Windows serious consideration without this move by Apple. Hopefully (for Apple) I'm more the exception than the rule, but I think this was the wrong time to make such a transition.

For Powerbooks I agree to certain extent. G5 products might not suffer too much since it will take at least one year and probably two years until most apps are updated (and optimized) for Intel procs. During this transition period, any G5 will run circles around any Intel-Macs when using Rosetta based apps.

rotorblade
Jun 12, 2005, 01:40 PM
As it stands, peripheral support from some companies is lackluster/shakey at best when it comes to the Mac. I can't help but wonder how many manufacturers will decide this move to Intel is the final straw and decide to drop Mac support for their peripherals and/or devices? Anyone have an idea how much work will be required for drivers to work with OS-X on Intel?

iBug2
Jun 12, 2005, 02:07 PM
I won't wait for the intel's definitely, I need a high end mac now but should I wait a little more? Maybe new IBM chips will come? Apple will update its towers definitely before the intels, probably twice. But still, when will the update come?

beatle888
Jun 12, 2005, 02:25 PM
Guys, let's be honest with ourselves... Most of the comments here sound like either completely unfounded speculation or snippets of information gathered from a number of external articles which have been recklessly reassembled.

Would Steve Jobs really be solely making a final decision on a choice of two processor roadmaps? Keep in mind that when he introduced the G5 processor, he mostly joked his way through its improved performance features like advanced pipelining and predictive branching.

And there is little or no reason to why the Cell processor would even be considered for comparison or reference when deciding Apple's CPU future. The design of the Cell is not geared toward PC design and was never meant to be.

I realize that I didn't add anything here but let's stop going back and forth with borrowed commentary and misinformation. I hope we can all still go to the movies together this weekend.



Amen Brother.

though i guess theres nothing anyone can really say except for how we feel about the situation. its really rather boring actually. i cant wait for the next big story/rumor.

irobot2003
Jun 12, 2005, 02:25 PM
The is an interesting point.
These guys were clueless about market conditions and the need for competitiveness? Plus, they've lost the DREAM, you know, to be an actual Player in the Game. Not just a side show attraction.
They where comfortable to kiss off the business. After all this is their ONLY CHANCE to sell Desktop and Laptop chips.
What was the GOAL here, JUST to fufill Apple's Contract OR Get back in the Game and take the whole PIE away from Intel.
Apparently, they were only interested in Just Filling the Contract. Which they did poorly.

I think they had the dream, but the dream turned into a bit of a nightmare (certainly for Motorola) when Jobs unilaterally killed the clones.

The gaming market (I imagine bigger than Apple) gave IBM a chance to increase their customer base for PPCs, and Apple wasn't sharing enough of the development costs for them not to go for that.

We'll never know if killing the clones was the best in the long term, but that decision I think contributed to IBM/Moto's ambivalence to PPCs for Apple...

beatle888
Jun 12, 2005, 02:29 PM
wouldnt that be a lot of trouble for something steve jobs said wasnt going to be in desktop machines


jobs doesnt seem to like to disclose anything unless he has to. just because he says no to something now doesnt mean that apple wont prepare for when that "no" turns into a "yes". its sorta like what just happened with intel. or what about the flash based iPods. both of these examples were originally declared by jobs as something apple wasnt interested in. my point is...no one knows what apple is going to do, especially the posters on a fan rumor site.

Roller
Jun 12, 2005, 02:43 PM
wouldnt that be a lot of trouble for something steve jobs said wasnt going to be in desktop machines

Yes, but he also said that Apple's been creating Intel builds of OS X for five years, well before the G5 switch, so who knows? This amounts to an insurance policy for Apple - the question is whether the premium's too high.

MikeAtari
Jun 12, 2005, 02:45 PM
I think they had the dream, but the dream turned into a bit of a nightmare (certainly for Motorola) when Jobs unilaterally killed the clones.

The gaming market (I imagine bigger than Apple) gave IBM a chance to increase their customer base for PPCs, and Apple wasn't sharing enough of the development costs for them not to go for that.

We'll never know if killing the clones was the best in the long term, but that decision I think contributed to IBM/Moto's ambivalence to PPCs for Apple...


- You say it was the clones but that was what 10 years ago.
- The current situation has these elements.
Apple is the ONLY seller of PowerPc Desktop and Laptops.
Apple is selling less expensive xServes using the 970 then IBM.
( Now IBM could educate it's buyers about the benefits of the True POWER Line, better protection against Cosmic Radiation with protected datapaths from memory to the cpu for example. )
But the trend is commodity hardware, and the xServer is commodity hardware compared to the Power servers.

Finally, no one has brought up the Bill Gates Sleeze Factor.

IBM has always been willing to "Follow the Money" in the short term, even if in the long term it hurt them.
So, here's some
<Speculation>
Microsoft goes to Power for Games.
But, Gates says we also want a SLOWER ROADMAP for our friends at APPLE.
We don't want our IP mixed with their IP.
We don't want you to sell Apple cheap processors.
To Gates it's just a game of Chess and he enjoys screwing the competition.
So, did IBM agree to onerous new contract terms with Microsoft to screw Apple?
We need a Deep Blue Throat to find out.
</Speculation>

VanNess
Jun 12, 2005, 02:53 PM
I agree. With Steve's penchant for pissing people off or throwing one of his kiddy tantrums, we could find ourselves going through a similar transition 5 or 6 years from now when he dumps Intel because he's not happy about something. A frightening thought, yet not out of the question.

I don't think you understand. Apple didn't do this simply because Jobs was pissed (although he would have every right to be). Apple did this because they had absolutely no other choice available to them. No matter how clever or innovative your plans are for a transition like this, no company would ever take on something this enormous at this time unless they had no other conceivable option available to them. You can bet the farm that if there was a sliver of a chance for IBM to keep pace with the rest of the industry, developing advancing and delivering the PPC, then the big switch to Intel would of never happened. There's been a lot of tabloid-like references to Jobs personality, but he's also almost universally regarded as pretty charismatic guy. As Apple's unofficial lead marketer, he has a unique ability (actually rare for a company CEO) to connect with ordinary people as well as industry professionals. He's also regarded as being very sharp, and as a technology visionary, he's been right on the money almost every time. But even all of those qualities won't save him (or Apple) if the products he sells come up empty-handed next to the competition.

It doesn't seem to be sinking in how royally IBM f'd up with the G5. IBM says they were "surprised," but how on earth could that possibly be? They've been sending the message consistently to Apple since the introduction of the G5 - via broken promises, massive shipment delays, and anemic G5 updates - that they were incapable of being a viable CPU solutions provider. Furthermore, IBM is no stranger to the computer technology industry. Having failed itself in the PC business, IBM probably better than most understands that maintaining key strategic technologies on your platform are essential for survival in today's market. To say that they were "surprised" by Apple's move to Intel assumes that they are either clueless about the very basics of computer industry competition, or they were unable to meet their technology commitments for internal reasons unrelated to cost (if cost was really an issue, that would have been vetted by the parties before this. Therefore no claim of "surprise"). No matter how you spin it, in the end IBM looks hopelessly feckless. And for Apple, that spells trouble with a capitol T.

In fact, if you want another clue regarding how bad this was for Apple, it was when Jobs declared that this was going to be "the year of HD video." Well, H264 is here. Now look at the processor requirements for playing H264 HD content on Apple's Quicktime website. Looks like they are pretty much locked into the upper end of the G5 line, not much headroom left over. Even the 1.6 G5 can't do it, and the G4's, which includes EVERY Apple laptop, need not apply. H264 is a massively important technology for Apple going forward on both the consumer and professional level, and about 3/4 of it's own computer line-up is presently shut out from playing just a 2 minute movie trailer.

Of course, that's not a reason to throw a tantrum. It's a reason to directly address the problem with real solutions for customers, not with another round of delays, excuses, and broken promises. The obsolescence clock is always ticking, whether your name is Steve Jobs or not.

By the way, thanks to scu and sacear for your comments earlier, Appreciate it.

beatle888
Jun 12, 2005, 03:02 PM
For Powerbooks I agree to certain extent. G5 products might not suffer too much since it will take at least one year and probably two years until most apps are updated (and optimized) for Intel procs. During this transition period, any G5 will run circles around any Intel-Macs when using Rosetta based apps.


where do you get the time frame of one to two years to update and optimize to a point where the intel will out perform a G5? didnt they demonstrate that Mathmatica was recompiled in two hours AND running multiple computations?
I think you might be wrong...we will see. you have to remember OSX was designed to run on other chips from the beginning. if the app is native OSX it should be cake to recompile. im not worried about performance at all.



we will see.

irobot2003
Jun 12, 2005, 03:21 PM
- You say it was the clones but that was what 10 years ago.
- The current situation has these elements.
Apple is the ONLY seller of PowerPc Desktop and Laptops.
Apple is selling less expensive xServes using the 970 then IBM.
( Now IBM could educate it's buyers about the benefits of the True POWER Line, better protection against Cosmic Radiation with protected datapaths from memory to the cpu for example. )
But the trend is commodity hardware, and the xServer is commodity hardware compared to the Power servers.

Finally, no one has brought up the Bill Gates Sleeze Factor.

IBM has always been willing to "Follow the Money" in the short term, even if in the long term it hurt them.
So, here's some
<Speculation>
Microsoft goes to Power for Games.
But, Gates says we also want a SLOWER ROADMAP for our friends at APPLE.
We don't want our IP mixed with their IP.
We don't want you to sell Apple cheap processors.
To Gates it's just a game of Chess and he enjoys screwing the competition.
So, did IBM agree to onerous new contract terms with Microsoft to screw Apple?
We need a Deep Blue Throat to find out.
</Speculation>

Yes killing the clones was almost 10years (7.5 or so) ago but I think it fairly closely coincided (perhaps coincidentally) with Motorola's lack of enthusiasm for investing lots of money in PPC development for PCs... which triggered a whole sequence of events leading to the present situation. Of course Motorola's inability to improve 68K performance was the thing that led to the switch to PPC in the first place.

In some ways Motorola (Freescale now I guess) again is the cause for this transition as well, since they weren't able to get G4 performance up to par, and IBM apparently wasn't interested in catering to Apple's laptop market.

I actually had a related thought to the Microsoft/IBM Machiavellian speculation, and that was what if Microsoft tries to undercut the Intel/Apple collaboration by getting Intel to develop Micorsoft/Windows specific performance enhancements in the next couple of years...

bbyrdhouse
Jun 12, 2005, 03:38 PM
As soon as the switch to Intel takes place, or as soon as ne iMacs, eMacs and mini's are avaiable I will purchase 3-4 of one of them or maybe a mixture.

Although I am a little bummed that I just purchased my first Powerbook in February and now the switch to Intel.

After gloating to all of my buddies about the mghtz myth and everything I have a little bit of egg on my face. But I do think that this will be better for Apple in the long run. Hopefully this also means more software companies will support the Mac platform.

Also, I guess this means that Suse Linux will run on the new Macs. Cool!!! A Powerbook that runs Suse.

rotorblade
Jun 12, 2005, 03:43 PM
I don't think you understand...

I understand Steve's reason(s) for going to Intel and your take on the matter doesn't differ much from mine. Sorry you spent all that time commenting on something I already agree with.

beatle888
Jun 12, 2005, 03:44 PM
Although I am a little bummed that I just purchased my first Powerbook in February and now the switch to Intel.



why would you be bummed? your powerbook will be supported without any differences to you and probably break down due to long life before it isnt supported anymore.

dont be bummed. its unwarranted.

aswitcher
Jun 12, 2005, 04:17 PM
After gloating to all of my buddies about the mghtz myth and everything I have a little bit of egg on my face.


Thats an interesting point...shouldn't Macs rip on Intel with their unix os given the low clock cycles they currently use?

12thgear
Jun 12, 2005, 04:23 PM
After gloating to all of my buddies about the mghtz myth and everything I have a little bit of egg on my face.

That'll teach you not to gloat. Though you may feel bad, look on the bright side; you can't possibly look as silly as Steve!

Still, the MHz myth is not myth. Clock cycles aren't everything. Intel has proven that with their Pentium-M architecture.

irobot2003
Jun 12, 2005, 04:24 PM
[...] You can bet the farm that if there was a sliver of a chance for IBM to keep pace with the rest of the industry, developing advancing and delivering the PPC, then the big switch to Intel would of never happened. [...]
It doesn't seem to be sinking in how royally IBM f'd up with the G5. IBM says they were "surprised," but how on earth could that possibly be?
[...]

I think it's overstating it a bit to say that IBM royally screwed up... First we (or at least I) don't know exactly what the agreement they had with Apple was, other than apparently (based on what Jobs said) they promised 3GHz by last year. Second a 2.7GHz G5 is quite competitive with a 3.6GHz Xeon for applications it was designed for (see the recent arstechnica article). Although agreed that it lags a bit behind AMD.

Did IBM agree to target laptops with the G5? Again, I personally don't know, maybe they did. However, it could be the deal was that IBM would provide bragging rights on high-end pro-desktops and Moto/Freescale would take care of laptops/consumer machines.

True IBM had problems with their process, but apparently so did the rest of the industry.

I don't think IBM could be surprised that Jobs was unhappy with their current relationship, but I imagine the way the split went down might have been unexpected.

dontmatter
Jun 12, 2005, 04:31 PM
I don't get it.

Why surprise the company you're leaving? Don't you want to make the threat, try and bargin and see if they can give you something better, first? If you're gonna leave, you should at least see if you can force them into working a bit for you first.

Maybe they got a contract down for specs and numbers of chips for this year, first, and didn't want to loose bargaining power for that?

Or maybe they've been making the threat for so long, it's been taken as an empty threat, and this is part of Jobs trying to project his personality, make intel work harder, because now they know, that they won't see the end coming if they screw up, he'll go behind their backs and get what he wants?

I'd actually bet on the last one. It's good to have the image of playing hardball.

BenRoethig
Jun 12, 2005, 04:32 PM
Hopefully Apple has a good contractual agreement with IBM that will last through 2007. It will certainly depend on the usefulness of the 970 to IBM if any additional upgrades will continue. Just have to hope something is in the pipeline already.

Yeah. Excuse my language here but if Steve pissed off IBM buy keeping them out of the loop on this? If they choose not to produce chips, Steve's transition schedule is null and void.

chatin
Jun 12, 2005, 04:54 PM
Yeah. Excuse my language here but if Steve pissed off IBM buy keeping them out of the loop on this? If they choose not to produce chips, Steve's transition schedule is null and void.

Just in case, I bought this closeout iMac G5 at Compusa this afternoon. Brand new, giveaway priced at $749. "managers special" It's only a 1.6 but I upgraded my own RAM for $19 (after rebate!) and put in the Tiger upgrade DVD from my mac mini.

I set the processor control form auto to highest to give the illusion that I spent real money on an expensive Mac PPC! ;) Compusa reported brisk sales of the bargain machines. :)

macorama
Jun 12, 2005, 04:58 PM
If they choose not to produce chips, Steve's transition schedule is null and void.
Not much chance of that. Semiconductor fabrication isn't something you just start or stop all of a sudden. IBM would have investment in materials and fabrication based on their existing contracts with Apple, so they'd be losing out too if they stopped production for Apple. From what I've read it was a pretty low margin business for IBM anyway, so if anything they'd be trying to make sure Apple all the Chips they'd planned on, otherwise they'd be behind.

Plus I'm sure the contracts are pretty water tight, and Apple's legal team would just love to have a go at IBM!

AidenShaw
Jun 12, 2005, 05:03 PM
Just in case, I bought this closeout iMac G5 at Compusa this afternoon. Brand new, giveaway priced at $749. "managers special" It's only a 1.6 but I upgraded my own RAM for $19 (after rebate!) and put in the Tiger upgrade DVD from my mac mini.
Too bad that you decided to *pirate* 10.4 for the iMac, rather than buy an honest copy.

Don't complain too loudly when Leopard has an activation mechanism....

xy14
Jun 12, 2005, 05:28 PM
I just wanted to say that when I was in Minneapolis, the whole city was covered with silhouette ads. I have a pic too..

http://atlas.walagata.com/w/xy1990/ipod.jpg

That was on the Hiawatha (55) Line.

toneloco2881
Jun 12, 2005, 05:52 PM
Too bad that you decided to *pirate* 10.4 for the iMac, rather than buy an honest copy.

Don't complain too loudly when Leopard has an activation mechanism....

Oh please. He obviously just shelled out bucks for a mini, and went out and bought an iMac shortly thereafter. There's worse things in the world then taking a copy of an OS that you legally own and bending the rules a little bit. Im not advocating piracy, but its getting a little old all the people talking about "pirating" the OS, and the ramifications of such. Steve Jobs just announced Tiger was the fasting selling release in OS history. I don't think that lends itself to this notion that a activation key needs to be put in place. It might be done, but I assure you it's not due to "lost" sales. Just imho... :)

rotorblade
Jun 12, 2005, 06:02 PM
Too bad that you decided to *pirate* 10.4 for the iMac, rather than buy an honest copy.

Don't complain too loudly when Leopard has an activation mechanism....

The fact that he bought it this afternoon entitles him to an upgrade. I would agreee that if he doesn't take advantage of the Mac up-to-date program, then he is pirating OS-X. On the other hand, if he installed an existing copy in anticipation of sending for and receiving his u-t-d copy, I see nothing wrong with that. As he provided little information regarding his intention, I'll reserve judgement.

fluidinclusion
Jun 12, 2005, 06:25 PM
IBM have made Steve look publically stupid with promises of 3GHz. No surprise he negiotated things on the quiet.

Cheaper Macs with ability to boot into Windows...works for me. Should work for millions of wouldbe switchers...

Agreed, and Jobs also sort of apologized for IBM instead of criticizing them (by explaining the difficulty in 90 nm process, etc.). He gave them several months, and they didn't produce. That's probably the reason he opened the door to Intel.

chatin
Jun 12, 2005, 06:36 PM
The fact that he bought it this afternoon entitles him to an upgrade. I would agreee that if he doesn't take advantage of the Mac up-to-date program, then he is pirating OS-X. On the other hand, if he installed an existing copy in anticipation of sending for and receiving his u-t-d copy, I see nothing wrong with that. As he provided little information regarding his intention, I'll reserve judgement.

That's what they told me at CompUSA. I will be sure to send in the receipt for a legal license. I certainly don't believe the news is a license to steal - the OS anayway!
:)

wdlove
Jun 12, 2005, 06:46 PM
Yeah. Excuse my language here but if Steve pissed off IBM buy keeping them out of the loop on this? If they choose not to produce chips, Steve's transition schedule is null and void.

The relationship between Apple and IBM may have soured. IBM will still have to produce the chips that have been contracted. Wouldn't be surprised that if any further development would be halted.