Apple and AMD Rumors [Archive]

Frobozz

Nov 18, 2002, 10:03 AM

Isn't AMD and nVidia a part of the HyperTransport consortium? It's been rumored that Apple is working on a HyperTransport enabled motherbaord for quite some time. If this is true, I'll bet the announcement is that AMD will be manufacturing chips for the IBM 970 based motherboard. Apparently, these CPU's will require a different NorthBridge chip.

There's no way Apple is moving to x86 chips, unless perhaps AMD's new Claw Hammer 64 bit chip is a possiblitity. But, overall, I just don't see it. I've already written a exhausively long essay on these boards about how I don't see Apple essentially throwing out it's marketing campaigns for the past 5 years on a whim when such promising IBM chips are on the horizon. Also, it doesn't make sense to require developers to recompile just to run on a new machine. It's one thing to require a recompile for faster performace or 64 bit compilance. It's another thing entirely to render all existing apps either useless or severely speed hit.

DakotaGuy

Nov 18, 2002, 10:05 AM

This is all going to get so messy I might just get a PC, I don't want to deal with all these compatibility issues. They are so dumb to ditch PowerPC development right now and go to a 32bit x86, when the 64bit PPC 970 would keep classic compatibility with the 32bit PowerPC's and would be a smooth easy transition for everyone. This is a dumb move that Apple is making, I think in the end it will cost them the company and for what a freakin MHz number, and we only know the x86 speed with XP, who knows how well it is going to run OSX. It might turn out to be a dog at first and if it takes a year to get it optimised, Apple will be done, I can't believe they are really going to do this x86 thing, IMHO this a a bad move

Frobozz

Nov 18, 2002, 10:10 AM

A couple of people mentioned AMD manufacturing PowerPC chips for Apple. That sounds like a tantalizing and extrememly possible scenario. AMD has always been close to Apple, dspite staying out of the lime light. I think if AMD is not producing controller chips for the 970 based motherboards, then perhaps they are going to crank out G5/970 or G4/7455, etc. chips?

Falleron

Nov 18, 2002, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
They are so dumb to ditch PowerPC development right now and go to a 32bit x8....
Oh dear! Understand that there is NO way that Macs are going to use PC chips any time soon!

Pentium Killer

Nov 18, 2002, 10:17 AM

they will not do it,it is just a rumor,and a very unlikely one.Enough has been said about this,it will not happen,O.K.??;)

Cappy

Nov 18, 2002, 10:23 AM

I just don't see it. As much as I don't have a problem with Apple going x86, I just don't see it.

This is comdex we're talking about. The odds are more in favor that Apple is simply announcing their xraid setup and showing off their xserve with the latest Mac OS X even more.

With the xmas season upon us it just doesn't make sense to announce x86 systems that would be released anytime soon and kill xmas sales. Now I might see them making an announcement that they might migrate over in a year or so but anytime soon? Just don't see it.

If anything I could see an announcement of an Apple tablet or, dare I say it, pda long before an announcement to move to AMD chips. The only announcement I would guess to see that would deal with AMD chips and Apple's current line would be in the server field.

Since sometimes rumors have a small sliver of truth to them, I would wonder what other technologies AMD is involved in that Apple might be associating with them on an announcement. The only thing I know of would be hypertransport.

DakotaGuy

Nov 18, 2002, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
anyone else on pins & needles?

I'd love to see Apple release x86 boxes that just crush everything else out there.

Lethal

If this happens get ready to throw every PPC box in the trash in 6 months to a year, software development for the PPC will head the same way OS9 development has. Everyone that owns a Mac will have to update and my guess is they will loose a high % like myself who will have been totally betrayed by the move making me throw out good equipment.

Also the shift would have to be product wide, you can't just put an x86 in a PowerMac and leave a G4/G3 in the consumer products, you then have two platforms and two different software requirements, hell you have two Macs that are not even compatable with each other!!!!! You would have to replace the G4's with an Athlon or Pentium, and the iBooks and Ti Books with PIV mobiles, and Celeron mobiles...this will be a huge mess and we don't even know how these chips will perform on OSX. What if the same chip runs OSX slower then it does XP? That could really happen you know, then Apple has some serious issues, because they will then be benchmarked right up with XP because the system will be exactly the same except for the OS. Dumb Dumb Dumb Steve Jobs, you brought Apple back from Dead with the G3 and the iMac, but you are going to kill it just turning it into another Wintel box maker.....duh!

arn

Nov 18, 2002, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy

If this happens get ready to throw every PPC box in the trash in 6 months to a year, software development for the PPC will head the same way OS9 development has.

Actually - this is not true.

NeXTStep was available for multiple architectures, and people just generated Fat Binaries... with code for every platform.

Since the frameworks would be the same, there would be no extra effort in supporting PowerPC and x86.

arn

rugby

Nov 18, 2002, 10:31 AM

Quad-Hammer
Serial-ATA
onboard 7.1 THX sound
HT through the motherboard
PC400 Dual channel DDR RAM
8XAGP
700w PSU ;)
and OS X

Sounds good to me.

Thirteenva

Nov 18, 2002, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
This is all going to get so messy I might just get a PC, I don't want to deal with all these compatibility issues. They are so dumb to ditch PowerPC development right now and go to a 32bit x86, when the 64bit PPC 970 would keep classic compatibility with the 32bit PowerPC's and would be a smooth easy transition for everyone. This is a dumb move that Apple is making, I think in the end it will cost them the company and for what a freakin MHz number, and we only know the x86 speed with XP, who knows how well it is going to run OSX. It might turn out to be a dog at first and if it takes a year to get it optimised, Apple will be done, I can't believe they are really going to do this x86 thing, IMHO this a a bad move

Whoa there.....

Bit dramatic aren't we, this is a RUMOR, and a highly debated one at that. I think most people would agree that this is not going to happen. So RELAX, and don't stir everyone up and start getting angry over something that has NOT happened. If it does happen then you'll have plenty to panic about, but till then, settle down.

Geez, talk about flying off the handle. over a rumor no less.....

Datazoid

Nov 18, 2002, 10:40 AM

Looking at CNET's Comdex coverage, I found this:

Advanced Micro Devices, looking to find a niche in the business market, plans to announce a large corporate contract next week, according to company executives.

The new customer is a Fortune 500 company located in the northeast United States, according to executives. AMD Chief Executive Hector Ruiz will announce details of the contract during his keynote address at the Comdex Fall 2002 conference in Las Vegas next week.

The company is expected to adopt Hewlett-Packard's new Compaq D315 business desktop, said Kevin Knox, AMD's director of commercial segment marketing and business development. The Compaq D315 uses AMD's Athlon XP processor.
Doesn't sound much like Apple to me....http://news.com.com/2100-1040-965511.html

SpiffyGuyC

Nov 18, 2002, 10:42 AM

I think it's not unlikely at at some point Apple might transition to an x86 architecture. But if they do so, the smartest way might be to start out with XServe only. Blazing speed (using AMD's Hammer, likely) and the best OS for a server, and easier for x86 developers to port their software over. That's something that could be a big boost At the same time, XServe is too expensive for most consumers, and developers of non-server-specific software wouldn't have much of a compelling reason to port their apps yet. Still, it serves as a heads-up and allows preparation of such software for introduction with the next major release (rather than playing catch-up like with OS X 10.0/10.1 versions). It's an excellent way to prove the power of OS X on X86 and gain some marketshare in the server area without letting OS X for Intel into the hands of every bug-eyed consumer.

At the same time, I don't think AMD's "shattering" announcement or Apple's large Comdex presence have anything to do with it. In fact, aside from Hypertransport, I don't think the two will have anything to do with each other at this show. Apple could be updating their display line, making all iMacs 17", introducing Firewire RAID, or just showing off their "trojan horse" products - the new Windows iPod and Move2Mac software to all these PC-heads in time for the holiday buying season. A large presence doesn't necessarily mean they're up to something incredible, they might just be there to project an image of success and demonstrate some products that have serious potential with current PC users.

My $.02

-S

Gus

Nov 18, 2002, 10:43 AM

The whole "machines no longer booting into OS 9" thing would make a whole lot more sense if this happened.

Gus

gropo

Nov 18, 2002, 10:49 AM

I guess the concept of my post escaped many of you as evidenced in the continual "ALL OR NOTHING" attitude regarding OS X on x86/x86-64...

I'll restate it in a somewhat less obscure manner:

It's quite possible to support multiple CPU architectures on one system without breaking legacy compatability of that platform.

A great deal of microcomputer manufacturers employed this technique back during the somewhat rocky transition from 8-bit to 16-bit cpu's...

Apple already supports little-endian (x86) byte order on its PCI bus implementation, indicating that supporting both a big-endian and a little-endian cpu through a single or combination of northbridges shouldn't be too far of a stretch for them.

Such systems would still natively support Classic and Carbon applications, although the Cocoa libraries could be updated to be 'x86-64 aware'... Multithreading between the two architectures would be tricky, but entirely possible.

Win-32 emulation would be hardware-native, Connectix would be very happy - assuming Apple doesn't pull a 'Sherlock 3' on them.

I don't see Apple producing such monstrosities in any kind of mobile format at any point... Unless AMD eventually produces some zany dual-core CPU specifically for Apple's needs. The power consumption would be astronomical on a PPC/Hammer system.

Mr Jobs

Nov 18, 2002, 10:52 AM

come on people do you really think that an anouncement like this, the great one himself wouldn't want to do himself at his own keynote?

i think amd and apple do have an anouncement to make but nothing as big as the move to x86. maybe a small project togeather like the ericsson and apple one.

or how about this..."waahay darwin now also run on amd"

Backtothemac

Nov 18, 2002, 10:55 AM

Ok, all gather around quietly, listen carefully. It won't happen. Never, no way. nada!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chaszmyr

Nov 18, 2002, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Mr Jobs
come on people do you really think that an anouncement like this, the great one himself wouldn't want to do himself at his own keynote?

i think amd and apple do have an anouncement to make but nothing as big as the move to x86. maybe a small project togeather like the ericsson and apple one.

I am not sure I think that this announcement will be about Apple moving to X86... but it is possible that it is, because with the launch of the GeForce FX and 3ghz P4 this morning Apple might feel pressured on time.

IJ Reilly

Nov 18, 2002, 10:56 AM

If Apple was going to announce something as dramatic and earth-shattering as moving to x86, would Steve do it at Comdex or on their home turf, just six weeks off? In fact do these rumors even mention Uncle Steve being present at Comdex?

Untwisting my knickers...

gotohamish

Nov 18, 2002, 10:59 AM

I think the point everyone's missing is:

Apple would never adopt a publicly-know existing chip. All this talk of putting Athlons or P4 in Macs is rubbish.

Rarely have Apple announched a machine that had a range of capabilities, all of which we knew about.

If AMD and Apple are to work together it will be on a new architecture with back-system compatibility or a new chip with X only compatibility to compliment the announcement that the new machines in 2003 will only X-boot.

Thoughts?

sturm375

Nov 18, 2002, 11:00 AM

My bet is that if AMD and Apple are going to do anything, it will be a chip-set, not a processor. Apple has already decided on the DDR ram, and again others have already stated the Hypertransport stuff.

AMD and Producing PPC Chips:

I doubt it. AMD is a bigger Processor (non embeded) producer than Moto, however they are still not big enough to support that many lines of CPUs.

They might be able to put PPC emulation on there x86-64 chip (Hammer), as they've alway emulated the CISC/x86 anyway. (Little known fact: AMD produces RISC chips with a front end CISC emulater/translater). That's still a long-shot, as it would still require 2 seperate runs/lines of processors.

Of cource this still doesn't stop me from hoping Apple will just adopt the x86-64 as is. I know it's a long-shot, but I am a Cubs fan after all. I am used to dissappointment:D

QuiteSure

Nov 18, 2002, 11:03 AM

Of course, in Hype 101 you always use an exaggerated term to raise false expectations. Apple migrating to x86 chips would be probably be at least "shattering", but if that were to happen the advance hype word would be the more extreme "world-changing." Since Dell's move to AMD would only be "a shocker", a hype-watcher would expect the use of the word "shattering" in connection with that action. The first lesson of Hypeology: Excess begets success!

agreenster

Nov 18, 2002, 11:03 AM

Why all this b*tching and moaning about Apple switching to a "PC" processor? Are you all idiots? It isnt the HARDWARE that necessarily makes Apple superior to Windows machines--its the SOFTWARE! Its the Windows SOFTWARE that crashes.

Why dont you people who claim to be Apple supporters actually SUPPORT Apple when they *might* be deciding to switch processors? DOnt you think they have researched ways to make this transition smoothly?

I mean c'mon, hardly any of us here at Macrumors have the slightest clue how computers work compared to the technicians who get paid the big bucks to figure this stuff out on their own!

Point is, if Apple decides to put AMD chips in their computers, they will do it correctly and with the least amount of headache possible for the consumer. They arent stupid.

The real reason we should be upset isnt because Apple is supposedly switching, but that it has taken them THIS long to figure out how much SLOWER their G4 processors are compared to the super-fast and efficient AMD chip.

Furthermore, the people who are complaining about the switch right now are probably the same people who complain about the speeds of their boxes all the other 50 weeks of the year.

I give congrats to Apple if they are making such a bold move.

dongmin

Nov 18, 2002, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Frobozz
A couple of people mentioned AMD manufacturing PowerPC chips for Apple. That sounds like a tantalizing and extrememly possible scenario. AMD has always been close to Apple, dspite staying out of the lime light. I think if AMD is not producing controller chips for the 970 based motherboards, then perhaps they are going to crank out G5/970 or G4/7455, etc. chips?

Uh, why would AMD be manufacturing IBM chips when IBM is opening a new plant and they have the best manufacturing processes in the world?

Maybe other components of the motherboard, but AMD won't be manufacturing the CPUs. That's IBM's territory.

Plus, Apple will NOT announce a new technology unless it's included in a box that's shipping or unless it's something far far in the future. Such news would kill sales for current hardware.

Please people, get a grip.

Cappy

Nov 18, 2002, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Frobozz
AMD has always been close to Apple, dspite staying out of the lime light.

I just have to ask. What exactly is this based on? Aside from hypertransport which is fairly recent, what else have they been "close" in? Feel free to correct me but nothing to my knowledge unless you want to talk about rumors of clandestine meetings.

LethalWolfe

Nov 18, 2002, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy

If this happens get ready to throw every PPC box in the trash in 6 months to a year, software development for the PPC will head the same way OS9 development has. Everyone that owns a Mac will have to update and my guess is they will loose a high % like myself who will have been totally betrayed by the move making me throw out good equipment.

Also the shift would have to be product wide, you can't just put an x86 in a PowerMac and leave a G4/G3 in the consumer products, you then have two platforms and two different software requirements, hell you have two Macs that are not even compatable with each other!!!!! You would have to replace the G4's with an Athlon or Pentium, and the iBooks and Ti Books with PIV mobiles, and Celeron mobiles...this will be a huge mess and we don't even know how these chips will perform on OSX. What if the same chip runs OSX slower then it does XP? That could really happen you know, then Apple has some serious issues, because they will then be benchmarked right up with XP because the system will be exactly the same except for the OS. Dumb Dumb Dumb Steve Jobs, you brought Apple back from Dead with the G3 and the iMac, but you are going to kill it just turning it into another Wintel box maker.....duh!

Easy there trigger, no need to have a heart attack. ;)

I'm on "pins and needles" 'cause I want this rumor to be done with. I really don't care what the answer is I just want something to kill, or prove, all these x86 rumors.

So take a few deep breaths and wait until the announcement is made before viens in yer head start exploding. :)

LEthal

bbyrdhouse

Nov 18, 2002, 11:44 AM

While I for one think that the benefits to moving to x86 are more than the negatives, I do think that a "generic" box that is capable of running Window$ and OSX would be a mistake.

I also find it interesting that for a couple of years now APPLE has been waging the "MGHTZ MYTH" (they are right for the most part), but what I now think is curious is that about a year ago AMD adopted the same stance as APPLE in the MGHTZ war.

Whethor or not the announcement of APPLE switching to AMD's Hammer comes tomorrow or not I do think that this move is inevitable and will take place sonner rather than later.

But thats just me! If I had a dollar for everytime I have been wrong.......:rolleyes:

rugby

Nov 18, 2002, 11:46 AM

Blackcat

Nov 18, 2002, 12:02 PM

Checking out the Comdex website Apple is doing iPod related stuff. That's why they are there.

Cappy

Nov 18, 2002, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by rugby

Part of the reason IMO that Windows crashes is because of the multitude of hardware platforms it supports. How many different motherboard chipsets does WIndows XP support? Lots. Apple has enough problems getting OS X to be 100% stable on their own motherboards. Now add to that a couple hundred different chipsets and Houston, we have a problem.

Typically in the Windows world it's more up to the hardware manufacturers to build for support of Windows rather than MS build support for the hardware. Windows is never optimized for any x86 platform. This is one area where Apple could gain an edge if they moved to an x86 platform. They're better about putting the infrastructure in place for the developers to take advantage of things. In this case it would be things like SSE and 3DNow. Mac OS X apps could quite possibly run faster than Windows apps in some situations on the same hardware.

As for your note on crashing you're right that many times it is a hardware issue but typically it's more due to the hardware manufacturer cutting corners. Anything ranging from poor quality memory to buggy bios revisions to bad capacitors on the motherboard(Gateway knows all about this last one).

Chaszmyr

Nov 18, 2002, 12:10 PM

I was just browsing around Comdex's website, and there is a description of sorts of Ruiz's Keynote. It says things like there need to be "... innovations that have the potential to drastically improve the computing experience" and "Expect the unexpected"... I still don't think Apple wil be moving to X86, but those quotes do sound like they COULD be Apple.

wrylachlan

Nov 18, 2002, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by dongmin

Uh, why would AMD be manufacturing IBM chips when IBM is opening a new plant and they have the best manufacturing processes in the world?

Maybe other components of the motherboard, but AMD won't be manufacturing the CPUs. That's IBM's territory.

Plus, Apple will NOT announce a new technology unless it's included in a box that's shipping or unless it's something far far in the future. Such news would kill sales for current hardware.

Please people, get a grip.

There has been news that AMD got stung by overinvesting in Fabrication capacity which is being underused in the present slump. This might indicate that they are doing some production for outside companies, like maybe Motorola... who knows?

Kid Red

Nov 18, 2002, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Gus
The whole "machines no longer booting into OS 9" thing would make a whole lot more sense if this happened.

Gus
That's a good assumption I haven't thought of. I've heard that Apple will release a dual boot AMD and an IBM box, but I guess we will wait and see.

vniow

Nov 18, 2002, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

Easy there trigger, no need to have a heart attack. ;)

I'm on "pins and needles" 'cause I want this rumor to be done with. I really don't care what the answer is I just want something to kill, or prove, all these x86 rumors.

So take a few deep breaths and wait until the announcement is made before viens in yer head start exploding. :)

LEthal

AMEN!!! http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=160700

Blackcat

Nov 18, 2002, 12:24 PM

If AMD started working with Apple on MacOS X x86, Microsoft would suddenly stop XP running on IA64. This would kill AMD faster than Apple could save it, unless Apple bought AMD which would use the whole $5bn.

Make no mistake, Microsoft sees MacOS X as a threat. It only made profit on Windows and Office last quarter so won't stand anything eroding that, and an AMD/Apple CPU partnership might.

So I think there more important reasons why this won't happen. It's not like MS was particular scared by it's run in with the law.

agreenster

Nov 18, 2002, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Ok, all gather around quietly, listen carefully. It won't happen. Never, no way. nada!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"There was a lot of talk around the media people about Apple's presence so far at Comdex this year. In the Comdex press briefing we were told that Hector Ruiz would make a "shattering" anouncement about a new licensee. As much as Dell would be a shocker to the public, the shattering news would be Apple moving to the x86 platform.

This could be an additional explaination of why AMD has delayed the Hammer release. (so that Apple could ready their OS for the x86) Readers have commented about OS X support from companies such as Adobe and Macromedia. Yet just this week, Macromedia announced their support for the newest Apple OS"

I guess we will know 9AM Tomorrow morning when DR. Ruiz makes his speech.....huh?

Compufix

Nov 18, 2002, 12:35 PM

Just remember one thing. Microsoft even supported multiple CPu's with x86 support and Alpha support that they only just recent canned (well with NT 4 anyway)...so it is possible for them to focus on a server product that might be based on an AMD cpu...and maybe a OSX version of server to support it.

Guess we will see tomorrow exactly what is going on. I am guessing this will more of a supportive chipset rather than main CPU....but nowadays...you never know. However I would be totally surprised if they were able to pull something major off without even a hint previously...even though reports have surfaced regarding an X86 version of OSX existing....

Fins160

Nov 18, 2002, 12:37 PM

Here is the description of Ruiz's keynote on the Comdex website:

"Let's Get Real
It's time to put the Virtual-Pie-In-The-Sky visions aside. It's time to end the fascination with technology for technology's sake alone. It's time for demonstrating innovation that people can use, to talk in real-world terms about tangible benefits that technology is bringing to customers today. Paradoxically, more technology deployment has led to less innovation. In our rush to find the next big thing, it is easy to overlook the innovations that are driving demand right now. The road to recovery requires the entire IT industry to re-examine our value proposition, to make technology advances secondary to true innovations that have the potential to drastically improve the computing experience. Expect the unexpected as AMD CEO Hector Ruiz takes attendees through an insightful trip that outlines the real-world innovations that are expanding what is possible. From the back office to the home office and beyond, the road to recovery has already been paved. Are you ready?"

I dont think this has anything to do with apple, and as stated earlier, apple is supposed to be there for iPod related demos. I expect them to demonstrate the Move2Mac sofware, the iPod for windows, and talk about new IBM processors coming down the line. They would never announce an AMD switch at Comdex, with macworld being a few weeks away.

agreenster

Nov 18, 2002, 12:38 PM

...but I found this on Comdex.com....its a preview of his speech tomorrow

"Let's Get Real
It's time to put the Virtual-Pie-In-The-Sky visions aside. It's time to end the fascination with technology for technology's sake alone. It's time for demonstrating innovation that people can use, to talk in real-world terms about tangible benefits that technology is bringing to customers today. Paradoxically, more technology deployment has led to less innovation. In our rush to find the next big thing, it is easy to overlook the innovations that are driving demand right now. The road to recovery requires the entire IT industry to re-examine our value proposition, to make technology advances secondary to true innovations that have the potential to drastically improve the computing experience. Expect the unexpected as AMD CEO Hector Ruiz takes attendees through an insightful trip that outlines the real-world innovations that re expanding what is possible. From the back office to the home office and beyond, the road to recovery has already been paved. Are you ready?"

I wonder if Steve helped him write it? It sure sounds like Apple jargon.....

(boldface added for effect)

Moonlight

Nov 18, 2002, 12:42 PM

maybe it is for a new product...

Fins160

Nov 18, 2002, 12:42 PM

OK, Ruiz's keynote is about connectivity.

http://www.comdex.com/news/fall2002/index.php?d=features&s=common&c=amd_ruiz_interview

check that out. heh, Apple on AMD. I wont be waiting around for that one.

Timothy

Nov 18, 2002, 12:43 PM

It's an Apple/AMD partnership to build small chips for ultra-portable computers! In other words...an Apple PDA! :p

It will be an AMD chip, running OSX lite. (well, one can wish, right?) As such, since new versions of software would be needed anyway, why not start here?

springscansing

Nov 18, 2002, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by agreenster
...but I found this on Comdex.com....its a preview of his speech tomorrow

"Let's Get Real
It's time to put the Virtual-Pie-In-The-Sky visions aside. It's time to end the fascination with technology for technology's sake alone. It's time for demonstrating innovation that people can use, to talk in real-world terms about tangible benefits that technology is bringing to customers today. Paradoxically, more technology deployment has led to less innovation. In our rush to find the next big thing, it is easy to overlook the innovations that are driving demand right now. The road to recovery requires the entire IT industry to re-examine our value proposition, to make technology advances secondary to true innovations that have the potential to drastically improve the computing experience. Expect the unexpected as AMD CEO Hector Ruiz takes attendees through an insightful trip that outlines the real-world innovations that re expanding what is possible. From the back office to the home office and beyond, the road to recovery has already been paved. Are you ready?"

I wonder if Steve helped him write it? It sure sounds like Apple jargon.....

(boldface added for effect)

Mmm... jargonlicious.

Seriously though, I'd be pissed if Apple went x86. Not cause of anything else than jealousy though... I just bought a new dual 867 Friday. :-)

Let's all just wait and see. I say maybe 10% chance of Apple using AMD chips.

springscansing

Nov 18, 2002, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Fins160
OK, Ruiz's keynote is about connectivity.

http://www.comdex.com/news/fall2002/index.php?d=features&s=common&c=amd_ruiz_interview

check that out. heh, Apple on AMD. I wont be waiting around for that one.

It makes sense.... but... what's so "shattering" about that? Hm...

There must be something.

Cappy

Nov 18, 2002, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Blackcat
Checking out the Comdex website Apple is doing iPod related stuff. That's why they are there.

ipod related stuff at a convention featuring business computing solutions. That alone sounds a bit fishy. It costs alot of money for Apple to have a booth at one of these.

Cappy

Nov 18, 2002, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Blackcat
If AMD started working with Apple on MacOS X x86, Microsoft would suddenly stop XP running on IA64. This would kill AMD faster than Apple could save it, unless Apple bought AMD which would use the whole $5bn.

Make no mistake, Microsoft sees MacOS X as a threat. It only made profit on Windows and Office last quarter so won't stand anything eroding that, and an AMD/Apple CPU partnership might.

So I think there more important reasons why this won't happen. It's not like MS was particular scared by it's run in with the law.

If you factor out Linux, you would be right. However, Linux on the Opteron has the potential to put the hurt'n to Intel and MS if MS were to drop them. MS needs Intel to deliver a solution similar to the Opteron in order for MS to take control of the situation.

MisterMe

Nov 18, 2002, 12:59 PM

For all the weeping and wailing and knashing of teeth, it would seem that the Apple/AMD announcement will be about this (http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/1493581). For those of us who want Apple to continue to concentrate of the PPC, we have nothing to worry about. For those who want Apple to risk suicide by switching processors, it looks like that ain't gonna happen.

Read it and weep. (http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/1493581)

JupiterZen

Nov 18, 2002, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

Easy there trigger, no need to have a heart attack. ;)

I'm on "pins and needles" 'cause I want this rumor to be done with. I really don't care what the answer is I just want something to kill, or prove, all these x86 rumors.

So take a few deep breaths and wait until the announcement is made before viens in yer head start exploding. :)

LEthal

Yeah, that would be so nice and quiet. No more flamefilled, exploding threads, with people just screaming "Yes, blahblah" and "No Never, blahblah" to eachother.

Would be the end of a legendary time.

springscansing

Nov 18, 2002, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by MisterMe
For all the weeping and wailing and knashing of teeth, it would seem that the Apple/AMD announcement will be about this (http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/1493581). For those of us who want Apple to continue to concentrate of the PPC, we have nothing to worry about. For those who want Apple to risk suicide by switching processors, it looks like that ain't gonna happen.

Read it and weep. (http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/1493581)

The rumor said shattering... and there's nothing shattering about a 802.11 improvment... maybe this is it, but I doubt it. I doubt AMD chips in Macs too though. Hell, it might be nothing. Let's wait.

wwworry

Nov 18, 2002, 01:07 PM

Maybe something with wireless. Wireless and rendevous is what I predict, if anything. THis show is about gadgets and the user experience. This forum is about "when do we gets the G5?" but there are other things than that.

Rendevous is a really cool technology that could have lots of cool implementations. What about an iPod with rendevous? Or Phillips implementation? Or Apple's own method of a Tablet PC?

Or they could just be there to raise awareness of Apple technologies but that would be too simple, most of all it wouldn't be a g5opterhammeron.

pgwalsh

Nov 18, 2002, 01:15 PM

I wouldn't mind AMD producing chips for Apple. Not knowing enough about chip architecture in relation to PPC code and x86-64 code, how much would be involved for AMD to produce a PPC based chip? Probably a lot. I'm not sure what would require more work, AMD producing PPC based microprocessors or Apple and third parties supporting x86 and PPC. AMD would probably really like to have a Apple ordering microprocessors and Apple probably wants more than one supplier of microprocessors.

AMD already has a solid line of MP microprocessors on the market and Apple wants to offer MP computers. This could be a great match.

note:
I could certainly imagine Apple announcing hardware specs at someplace other than MacWorld Expo. Actually I'm all for that. They could save aesthetic and OS additions and improvements for MacWorld and announce hardware manufacturing improvements throughout the year. I think MacWorld should be focused on the OS and applications as apposed to hardware.

Apple IBM AMD – AIA http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwalsh/images/macbandit.gif

Blackcat

Nov 18, 2002, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Cappy

If you factor out Linux, you would be right. However, Linux on the Opteron has the potential to put the hurt'n to Intel and MS if MS were to drop them. MS needs Intel to deliver a solution similar to the Opteron in order for MS to take control of the situation.

Microsoft does indeed see Linux as a threat but knows business needs Office and desktop applications. Linux can offer these but it's still very technical and hard to support, it also has little from Adobe, Macromedia, etc etc

MacOS X on IA64 might offer business a more viable alternative desktop with industry support. It's all perception rather than AMD being better than Motorola, suddenly Apple becomes a player rather than a rebel.

Business prefers stability over radical thinking so a non MS desktop by a real company using a real CPU might be tempting, Microsoft would hate that.

For the same reasons Linux on Opteron is no big threat, it's too obscure currently. But X offers all the nicieties of a commercial OS, and the strength of Unix. That scares Bill.

springscansing

Nov 18, 2002, 01:40 PM

So what time tomorrow will be know what's what?

agreenster

Nov 18, 2002, 01:52 PM

9:00 AM Vegas Time (http://www.comdex.com/news/fall2002/index.php?d=keynotes&s=default)

agreenster

Nov 18, 2002, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Fins160
OK, Ruiz's keynote is about connectivity.

http://www.comdex.com/news/fall2002/index.php?d=features&s=common&c=amd_ruiz_interview

check that out. heh, Apple on AMD. I wont be waiting around for that one.

HELLO?? HALF of that interview was about marketing and offering the 64 bit Hammer for consumers---

AMD on Apple may be coming people.

Thank the maker!

ogun7

Nov 18, 2002, 02:38 PM

Everyone calm down, Ruiz's keynote will be about HyperTransport
Keynote=Connectivity
Apple+AMD=Hypertransport
Connectivity=Hypertransport

Remember Uncle Steve's Stockholder meeting, Macs will be on the PowerPC platform for a long time.

sweetaction

Nov 18, 2002, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by arn

I'm not holding my breath.

arn

We'll see what happens...

I think apple has been hitting home the fact that architecture is where performance is gained. Take apples new architecture and throw in some screaming AMD chips and that is a good, more affordable machine.

Run those new IBM chips in the high end apple gear and you got some powerhouse high ends.

Who makes the chips doesnt matter, its who uses them and how they are used that matters.

Then people can run OSX on their home built amd machines and it wont run as well as their own apple/amd machines, but they will be cheaper.

what a model! go apple.

GPTurismo

Nov 18, 2002, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by ogun7
Everyone calm down, Ruiz's keynote will be about HyperTransport
Keynote=Connectivity
Apple+AMD=Hypertransport
Connectivity=Hypertransport

Remember Uncle Steve's Stockholder meeting, Macs will be on the PowerPC platform for a long time.

No Joke. I agree. I mean the PPC 970 was designed to run on the hypertransport system. This is probably an announcement that in 2003 that apple will be fully supporting the hypertranport group and apple will be the first vendor to use it in commercial comps, or something.

So if there is a rumor is that Apple is definately going PPC970 and Hypertransport.

64-Bit in 2k3 all the way :D

beatle888

Nov 18, 2002, 03:22 PM

Blackcat

Nov 18, 2002, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by sweetaction

We'll see what happens...

I think apple has been hitting home the fact that architecture is where performance is gained. Take apples new architecture and throw in some screaming AMD chips and that is a good, more affordable machine.

Run those new IBM chips in the high end apple gear and you got some powerhouse high ends.

Who makes the chips doesnt matter, its who uses them and how they are used that matters.

Then people can run OSX on their home built amd machines and it wont run as well as their own apple/amd machines, but they will be cheaper.

what a model! go apple.

You are wrong on at least 2 points.

Firstly, going AMD does not mean $500 PowerMacs. As it is, G4s are a lot cheaper than P4s, AMD might be cheaper still but don't expect ANY pricedrops.

There is nothing much wrong with our architecture. The G4 needs a better bus but the rest is very good. Once IBM releases the 970 and G3 with VMX, problem solved.

And Finally, Apple won't allow home built Macs. To do that would be suicide.

QuiteSure

Nov 18, 2002, 03:25 PM

For we uninitiated, what is "Hypertransport?"

Frobozz

Nov 18, 2002, 03:36 PM

agreenster: "Are you all idiots?"

Well yes. Yes, we are. You're the only one with an opinion, don't you know?

MacCoaster

Nov 18, 2002, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Blackcat
If AMD started working with Apple on MacOS X x86, Microsoft would suddenly stop XP running on IA64. This would kill AMD faster than Apple could save it, unless Apple bought AMD which would use the whole $5bn.

Make no mistake, Microsoft sees MacOS X as a threat. It only made profit on Windows and Office last quarter so won't stand anything eroding that, and an AMD/Apple CPU partnership might.

So I think there more important reasons why this won't happen. It's not like MS was particular scared by it's run in with the law.
Btw, AMD isn't on IA64. That's Intel. AMD's Hammer series are x86-64.

Besides, if Microsoft thinks Mac OS X is a serious threat, why make Microsoft Office for it?

I think it's a great way to get out of the PowerPC hell. But as far as how they plan to do it or even if they plan to is still totally up to Apple and we don't know what they are exactly yet.

PowerPC 970 is an alternative, guys, but it still isn't a confirmation. 2003 will prove to be a very interesting year, no? :D

sturm375

Nov 18, 2002, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Blackcat

You are wrong on at least 2 points.

Firstly, going AMD does not mean $500 PowerMacs. As it is, G4s are a lot cheaper than P4s, AMD might be cheaper still but don't expect ANY pricedrops.

There is nothing much wrong with our architecture. The G4 needs a better bus but the rest is very good. Once IBM releases the 970 and G3 with VMX, problem solved.

And Finally, Apple won't allow home built Macs. To do that would be suicide.

P4 2.8GHz @ $385
Athlon 2700 XP (333 FSB) @ $352
G4 ????

How much does it cost to buy just a G4 processor? The prices above are from www.pricewatch.com, and I am sure that big OEMs get better pricing then the above.

We don't necessarily want cheaper(less expensive) Macs, we want faster.

At this point, no-one wants a home-built Apple. Mac means simplicity, thus the iMac. Apple does the work for you, so you don't have to.

Do I think Apple will go with AMD as their CPU, NO.

Do I want Apple to go with AMD as their CPU, YES.

raintalk

Nov 18, 2002, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by sturm375

We don't necessarily want cheaper(less expensive) Macs, we want faster.

I want a cheaper Mac.

MacCoaster

Nov 18, 2002, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by sturm375
P4 2.8GHz @ $385
Athlon 2700 XP (333 FSB) @ $352
G4 ????

How much does it cost to buy just a G4 processor? The prices above are from www.pricewatch.com, and I am sure that big OEMs get better pricing then the above.
I'm sure it's approximately close to:

NEW! PowerForce G4 Series 133
867MHz $449
1000MHz $699

NEW! PowerForce Dual G4 Series 133
Dual 867MHz $799
Dual 1000MHz $1199

So around $600 for a single 1 GHz Motorola PowerPC G4 7455. Ouch.

This is the only real way to get PowerPC chips, since stupid Apple solders the friggin processors. C'mon. I recently upgraded from Athlon 1.4 GHz to Athlon XP 2100+ rated at 1.733 GHz for $90. That's a 333MHz jump and about same percentage of jump you'd get from Dual 800 to Dual 1 GHz [1000/800 = 1.25, 1733/1400 = 1.24] all for $1100 more than a single Athlon XP 1.73 GHz processor. Same figures are true for single processor 800 MHz G4 to single processor 1 GHz G4, except it's $600 more!

To give this a better perspective, the Athlon 1.4 GHz and Power Mac G4 Dual 800 were in the same time frame basically. I chose my Athlon 1.4 GHz over the Power Mac G4 Dual 800 MHz, and I've upgraded already to 1.73 GHz, and if I had gotten the Dual 800 MHz, I'd have to pay $1100 [oops, was thinking the single processor] more for the same percentage of jump. Ridiculous! Besides, I'd have paid more for the Power Mac than this Athlon.

springscansing

Nov 18, 2002, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by sturm375

P4 2.8GHz @ $385
Athlon 2700 XP (333 FSB) @ $352
G4 ????

How much does it cost to buy just a G4 processor? The prices above are from www.pricewatch.com, and I am sure that big OEMs get better pricing then the above.

You picked pretty weird prices to prove your point.

An Athlon XP 2000 = $79
A Pentium 4 2ghz = $140 or 173 depending if it is sock 478 or not
A G4 500mhz = $279

And we all know the XP 2000 KILLS a 500mhz G4. It kills a 1ghz G4 even.

G4 chips are -expensive- and not very fast compared to Athlons and Pentium 4s... it's that simple.

springscansing

Nov 18, 2002, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

I'm sure it's approximately close to:

NEW! PowerForce G4 Series 133
867MHz $449
1000MHz $699

NEW! PowerForce Dual G4 Series 133
Dual 867MHz $799
Dual 1000MHz $1199

So around $600 for a single 1 GHz Motorola PowerPC G4 7455. Ouch.

This is the only real way to get PowerPC chips, since stupid Apple solders the friggin processors. C'mon. I recently upgraded from Athlon 1.4 GHz to Athlon XP 2100+ rated at 1.733 GHz for $90. That's a 333MHz jump and about same percentage of jump you'd get from Dual 800 to Dual 1 GHz [1000/800 = 1.25, 1733/1400 = 1.24] all for $1100 more than a single Athlon XP 1.73 GHz processor. Same figures are true for single processor 800 MHz G4 to single processor 1 GHz G4, except it's $600 more!

To give this a better perspective, the Athlon 1.4 GHz and Power Mac G4 Dual 800 were in the same time frame basically. I chose my Athlon 1.4 GHz over the Power Mac G4 Dual 800 MHz, and I've upgraded already to 1.73 GHz, and if I had gotten the Dual 800 MHz, I'd have to pay $600 more for the same percentage of jump. Ridiculous!

It's a RIPOFF! I sold my dual 450 and bought a NEW dual 867 and the difference was $150 LESS than the upgrade price! Plus I have a bigger HD, more RAM, better graphics card, faster system bus, etc!

Anyone who upgrades their dual machine is on crack.

MacCoaster

Nov 18, 2002, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by springscansing

You picked pretty weird prices to prove your point.

An Athlon XP 2000 = $79
A Pentium 4 2ghz = $140 or 173 depending if it is sock 478 or not
A G4 500mhz = $279

And we all know the XP 2000 KILLS a 500mhz G4. It kills a 1ghz G4 even.

G4 chips are -expensive- and not very fast compared to Athlons and Pentium 4s... it's that simple.
I wouldn't say weird. The processors are all one of the latest possibilities. I think he wanted to compare to the current 1.25 GHz G4.

Btw, I bought the 2100 for $79 or was it $89... yeah... point is... dirt cheap!

springscansing

Nov 18, 2002, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

I wouldn't say weird. The processors are all one of the latest possibilities. I think he wanted to compare to the current 1.25 GHz G4.

That's not really valid though since the latest P4, while the same price as the 1.25 G4 maybe, kills it speedwise.

Blackcat

Nov 18, 2002, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by sturm375

P4 2.8GHz @ $385
Athlon 2700 XP (333 FSB) @ $352
G4 ????

I think I read they are $350, depending on quantities/speed. Remember they are really embeded processors so are used in low cost applications as well.

MacCoaster

Nov 18, 2002, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by springscansing
That's not really valid though since the latest P4, while the same price as the 1.25 G4 maybe, kills it speedwise.
Exactly! Therefore, the Pentium 4 is better for the buck for performance.

DakotaGuy

Nov 18, 2002, 04:56 PM

If you had to make a bet for a million dollars and you only got it if you guessed Apple's next move, who would bet the million on the next processor family being the PPC 970 and who would bet it will be x86....just curious...

I would take my chance and bet for the PowerPC 970, at least I hope that is the road Apple takes, it sounds like it will work great for them and it just makes a lot more marketing sense IMO. Anyone think there is a better chance they will actually go x86 across the board next year and change their whole platform?

agreenster

Nov 18, 2002, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by sturm375

At this point, no-one wants a home-built Apple. Mac means simplicity, thus the iMac. Apple does the work for you, so you don't have to.

I dont think the announcement of AMD as their processor means we will be able to build our own Apple computers. It just means AMD will be under the hood of a proprietary Apple box instead of motorola.

Blackcat

Nov 18, 2002, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Btw, AMD isn't on IA64. That's Intel. AMD's Hammer series are x86-64.

Besides, if Microsoft thinks Mac OS X is a serious threat, why make Microsoft Office for it?

I think it's a great way to get out of the PowerPC hell. But as far as how they plan to do it or even if they plan to is still totally up to Apple and we don't know what they are exactly yet.

PowerPC 970 is an alternative, guys, but it still isn't a confirmation. 2003 will prove to be a very interesting year, no? :D

i86-64, yup, my brains gone. IA64 is 'Itanic'.

Microsoft had to make Office for 5 years and would look bad legally if it dropped support now. It also makes them money, more importantly.

We're not in PowerPC hell! We're in Motorola hell but the IBM 970 looks promising, and although it hasn't been confirmed, who else needs Altivec?

2003 does look like fun! Here's hoping not too late into '03!

Sun Baked

Nov 18, 2002, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
If you had to make a bet for a million dollars and you only got it if you guessed Apple's next move, who would bet the million on the next processor family being the PPC 970 and who would bet it will be x86....just curious...

I would take my chance and bet for the PowerPC 970, at least I hope that is the road Apple takes, it sounds like it will work great for them and it just makes a lot more marketing sense IMO. Anyone think there is a better chance they will actually go x86 across the board next year and change their whole platform?

Strange, I probably would have chosen the 7457 as the next upgrade to the 7455s.

And you did say the NEXT move.

jettredmont

Nov 18, 2002, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy

If this happens get ready to throw every PPC box in the trash in 6 months to a year, software development for the PPC will head the same way OS9 development has.

Hmmm. Well, considering the PPC-x86 shift would require little more than a recompile, I don't think that many developers would drop PPC support immediately. It would "fade" as apps get optimized for the other architecture, but not dropped, probably for a few years at least. Think about it: at what % of the Mac population do you cut PPC off? 50%? 10% ? 1%? There is a cost/benefit analysis there, and I just don't see the costs being very high except in the QA department.

Also the shift would have to be product wide, you can't just put an x86 in a PowerMac and leave a G4/G3 in the consumer products, you then have two platforms and two different software requirements, hell you have two Macs that are not even compatable with each other!!!!!

Why not? I mean, XServe for instance doesn't generally share apps with your home iMac, right? I would expect all new apps to be PPC/x86 fat, and remain so for quite a while.

...this will be a huge mess and we don't even know how these chips will perform on OSX. What if the same chip runs OSX slower then it does XP?

Ummm ... then Apple doesn't use that chip until OS X is marketable against Windows? I mean, you do understand that Apple will test these machines before selling them, right?

That could really happen you know, then Apple has some serious issues, because they will then be benchmarked right up with XP because the system will be exactly the same except for the OS.

I don't get this. On an application level, you could always benchmark Photoshop performance in Windows versus a Mac. On an OS level, you can always benchmark OS X performance versus Windows. How does it help knowing that under the OS is an x8 processer instead of a PPC? It changes nothing whatsoever.

If OS X is "slow" because of the PPC architecture or because it is poorly written, that does not matter for the end user. All that matters is, is a Mac fast enough for me, and if not, is a Windows machine faster?

I mean, Linux and Windows share processors and even often dual-boot on the same machine. And yes, Linux file browsers (KSE Konqueror and Gnome Nautilus) are slow compared to Window's Explorer, but that doesn't even register in most people's minds as a reason not to use Linux.

Dumb Dumb Dumb Steve Jobs, you brought Apple back from Dead with the G3 and the iMac, but you are going to kill it just turning it into another Wintel box maker.....duh!

Personally, I am giving Jobs the benefit of the doubt here. Until we know that Apple is scutting its hardware business to go full time into selling and promoting OS X on Intel/AMD franken-machines, and that OS X is indeed ten times slower than Windows on equivalent hardware, I am willing to believe that Apple's engineers will do their work and due dilligence.

scem0

Nov 18, 2002, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by rugby
Quad-Hammer
Serial-ATA
onboard 7.1 THX sound
HT through the motherboard
PC400 Dual channel DDR RAM
8XAGP
700w PSU ;)
and OS X

Sounds good to me.

That is kind of what I am thinking... But I still want my next comp
to have a 64 bit processor. If apple 'switches' :D to x86, then
prices will go down, and speed will go up. It sure does sound
good to me.

jettredmont

Nov 18, 2002, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by springscansing

The rumor said shattering... and there's nothing shattering about a 802.11 improvment... maybe this is it, but I doubt it. I doubt AMD chips in Macs too though. Hell, it might be nothing. Let's wait.

Hmmm ... Well, if Apple was to license AMD's chips for Airport instead of the Orinoco line, that would indeed be big news about an unexpected licensee.

Shattering? No.

Is Apple relocating to Boston? I doubt it.

I don't think Apple and AMD will announce any kind of partnership/deal here.

skunk

Nov 18, 2002, 05:35 PM

I want a cheaper, faster Mac....

MOM

Nov 18, 2002, 05:36 PM

Over at eweek there is an interesting article about speculation regarding an apple tablet. They go on to talk about apple's future use of IBM and moto chips. So, I guess we know where their million dollar bet is on. Check it out:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,713606,00.asp

MOM

peterjhill

Nov 18, 2002, 05:38 PM

I think that if Sun can run solaris on x86 machines and SPARCs, that Apple could easily have an OS that runs on both platforms. I would hope that a properly written application would run just fine with either system. Apple would have to rewrite the microkernel, and update some things like the IOkit, but I would think it would be a fairly smooth thing. It would certainly put more pressure on Motorola, if one of their OEMs stopped buying as many chips.

Blackcat

Nov 18, 2002, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by skunk
I want a cheaper, faster Mac....

We all do, but I still want it to be PPC based (but I don't care who makes the PPC)

MacCoaster

Nov 18, 2002, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by peterjhill
I think that if Sun can run solaris on x86 machines and SPARCs, that Apple could easily have an OS that runs on both platforms. I would hope that a properly written application would run just fine with either system. Apple would have to rewrite the microkernel, and update some things like the IOkit, but I would think it would be a fairly smooth thing. It would certainly put more pressure on Motorola, if one of their OEMs stopped buying as many chips.
And Linux runs on a million different CPUs. Let's port Mac OS X to every single CPU Linux supports! :rolleyes: :p

reyesmac

Nov 18, 2002, 05:58 PM

The shattering news is that Apple will lower the price of the powermac to about $200 or $250 above a similar spec brand name PC. Or maybe not. If they know they will lose the processor race for the next few years, they will lower prices. If they have a new chip to announce, they will keep the prices the same and announce a chip that really stands up to the PC chips.

scem0

Nov 18, 2002, 06:10 PM

I think apple should definitely consider this, and let motorola know
that they are serious about this, and get moto to get nervous
and actually put some brains into their microprocessor
manufacturing. The more compitition, the better is what I say...

unreg

Nov 18, 2002, 06:44 PM

The AMD line is Alpha derived. OSX could be rewritten/recompiled to run on AMD chips. The AMD chip could have the X86 compatibility stripped off and make it even easier for the OSX port, BUT, the 970 should be a better chip than anything used in desktop/ workstation environment and will not need a rewrite/recompile. If you read the specs and between the lines, Apple is already contracted to use the 970.
Please people, get over your PC envy or sell your Macs and actually buy and use a pc daily, then report back in 6 mos.

My guess is the AMD chipset for 802.11 and a hypertransport chipset.

Swinny

Nov 18, 2002, 06:48 PM

I'm going with the WiFi thingy...new Airport base station/card thats smaller and uses less power blah de blah de blah...full rendezvous support etc would certainly make sense of all the mentions for "connectivity". Would this new chipset make Airport cards more power efficient and cheaper?

Either that or Hypertransport obviously...

I personally can't see Apple announing an x86 switch at this time, unless the machines are ready to roll tommorow and that seems very unlikely from both a manufacturing and marketing point of view.

scem0

Nov 18, 2002, 06:52 PM

It does seem sort of weird for apple to switch from moto to AMD
to IBM all in such a short period of time. I don't see it happening
even though I would like it to happen. I am not going to get a
new computer for a while, so it doesn't even matter to me...:rolleyes:

creativeczar

Nov 18, 2002, 06:55 PM

Tonight on Screen Savers, Leo from Comdex said it was expected that Apple is the unamed partner with AMD.

flashfil

Nov 18, 2002, 07:00 PM

I've been selling macs for 2 yrs. Most of my customers don't give a toss about whats comming out in the next 2 yrs let alone the next 2 months - they care more about the quality of what they are producing. "Quark 5 not on OSX is as big a reason to hold back a new machine as it is the MHz difference/price, but then most of my customers are weird....!

Just got a "new new" dual gig - it's smells great and goes whiiiiiiirrrrrrrr!

fatalerror101

Nov 18, 2002, 07:03 PM

Well all we can really do now is sit back and watch the show. I hope that something good happens i.e we get a new mother board, or a "ipad", or something new. well that's the optomistic side of me, here's the realistic side we won't see anything new, macworld is not far off and anything of note will be in Job's Keynote at MWSF. Ok if I am so wrong I need to be shot, then do so. :)

G4 450, Dual G4 1 Gigahertz (133), Powerbook G4 1 Gigahertz

Over Achiever

Nov 18, 2002, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by flashfil
Just got a "new new" dual gig - it's smells great and goes whiiiiiiirrrrrrrr!

It smells great?:confused: :confused: :confused: :rolleyes:

Swinny

Nov 18, 2002, 07:16 PM

Actually...I'm reevaluating my earlier post...I'm now thinking...

WiFi iPod! (either built-in, or an add-on?)

Its the best time for a new iPod, just before Xmas with new portables just announced (and isn't about a year old now?!)...Recent rumours have pointed at a major update sometime soon and this would make a lot of sense cos AMD's new WiFi chipset is cheap and not power hungry (essential!). Jobs also said next iTunes would have Rendezvous support, and this is also rumours to be close...

How great would it be to just walk into ya room, stick ya 'Pod down on the desk and have it talk to ya Mac via Airport to update all ya playlists and songs etc automatically without even pluggin it in...OK, not as fast as Firewire obviously, but how many people would really be adding 100's of MBs of new MP3's everyday?

flashfil

Nov 18, 2002, 07:19 PM

You know that MAC smell. mmmmmmm!

jettredmont

Nov 18, 2002, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Swinny
Actually...I'm reevaluating my earlier post...I'm now thinking...

WiFi iPod! (either built-in, or an add-on?)

Its the best time for a new iPod, just before Xmas with new portables just announced (and isn't about a year old now?!)...Recent rumours have pointed at a major update sometime soon and this would make a lot of sense cos AMD's new WiFi chipset is cheap and not power hungry (essential!). Jobs also said next iTunes would have Rendezvous support, and this is also rumours to be close...

How great would it be to just walk into ya room, stick ya 'Pod down on the desk and have it talk to ya Mac via Airport to update all ya playlists and songs etc automatically without even pluggin it in...OK, not as fast as Firewire obviously, but how many people would really be adding 100's of MBs of new MP3's everyday?

Just remember that WiFi (802.11b) is about the same bitrate (and with higher latencies) as USB 1.1. This, as with BlueTooth, makes sense for synching little bits (cal, addressbook, etc), or for serving iPod tunes like iTunes is supposed to do over Rendezvous, but not for wholesale swapping in/out of gigs of music ...

Other than serving tunes over the network, I think bluetooth would be the more fitting technology to use here again.

suzerain

Nov 18, 2002, 07:44 PM

You know, if you think about this, just for a second, there are some facts staring us in the face.

(1) Motorola's semiconductor division has been losing money for a long time now.

(2) Motorola and Apple have a known public rift (over cloning), and Motorola has dropped the ball on development of newer, faster chips.

(3) Motorola hasn't made an announcement about anything dealing with desktop PowerPCs for months.

To me, this all adds up to Motorola no longer being involved actively in PowerPC development. It tells me they are just fulfilling their contracts with Apple.

If that's true, it would seem to me that the desktop chip market is something Motorola would gladly just shut down, in order to consolidate their efforts toward the embedded market, and save money.

It's also been *rumored* that Apple has (of late) taken a much more proactive effort in chip development (previously, under the AIM consortium, this was left to IBM and Motorola, and Apple concentrated more on the software).

Anyway, what I conclude from all this is that Apple has bought Motorola's intellectual property related to PowerPC. That would explain how IBM was able to develop an AltiVec clone without violating Motorola patents.

If you accept that conclusion, then you realise there's a missing piece in the PowerPC alliance. I think, for Apple's sake, it makes sense to have two different PowerPC suppliers, and two different companies contributing ideas to the PowerPC architecture.

So, could AIM simply become AIA? In other words, why not consider AMD as the new third partner in the PowerPC consortium?

That would certainly qualify as a "shattering" development, and it doesn't fly in the face of logic quite as much as Apple releasing X86 boxes. Sorry, that makes absolutely no sense with 970s on the way; Apple's just not ready for that kind of a paradigm shift right now.

Cappy

Nov 18, 2002, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Blackcat

Microsoft does indeed see Linux as a threat but knows business needs Office and desktop applications. Linux can offer these but it's still very technical and hard to support, it also has little from Adobe, Macromedia, etc etc

MacOS X on IA64 might offer business a more viable alternative desktop with industry support. It's all perception rather than AMD being better than Motorola, suddenly Apple becomes a player rather than a rebel.

Business prefers stability over radical thinking so a non MS desktop by a real company using a real CPU might be tempting, Microsoft would hate that.

For the same reasons Linux on Opteron is no big threat, it's too obscure currently. But X offers all the nicieties of a commercial OS, and the strength of Unix. That scares Bill.

Your comments are nice to hear for Apple fanatics but lets get real. Linux obscure? Are you still stuck in the mid-90's? Linux on the desktop? Who said anything about that?

MS has the desktop office market locked up and it'll be awhile before that can possibly ever change. The Opteron is initially targetted at the server market which is what I was referring to and is MS's only real interest in the cpu. The home market doesn't need 64 bit now or even for awhile and MS knows this.

Quite frankly MS really isn't all that worried about Macs. A few departments within MS might be because of the markets they want to dominate that the Mac is in but overall, they care more about what happens on the Linux front. Together they could be quite formidible but the Mac alone does not even come close to having Bill scared.

shadowfax0

Nov 18, 2002, 08:24 PM

Ok, so what happened exactly...?

DakotaGuy

Nov 18, 2002, 08:38 PM

It seems funny that the ball would get dropped so soon after the iBook and Powerbook were just updated. Do you think if they announce the new machines tomorrow they will be shipping them in the next few months. If this switch to the new processor is not ready to happen for the next year or so I think Apple would say nothing yet about it. Also do you suppose that Apple might change the name of their computer line to something different then Macintosh? With x86 it is basically a PC now running Mac OSX, maybe they would call it the Apple PC, or X box, if Microsoft did not all ready use it. It just seems to me an x86 just is not a Mac, because a Mac used to represent Think Different. and now they are just thinking the same.

Also if they are actually going through with this x86 project I think they are not very smart to go with AMD they should go with Intel. As I hate Intel, it is a much larger company, supplying almost all the chips to the desktop and laptop market. Intel is always ahead of everyone on technology because they have the capital to do it. If you want the most Mhz then you have to go with Intel. Dell, Gateway, IBM, Sony, HP/Compaq all use Intel almost exclusively anymore, if Apple is going to jump on the bandwagon to be the same then Intel is the only answer. AMD is going to head the same way Motorola has in the future, they just don't have the market or the cash to compete in the end.

Come to think of it...isn't IBM a much larger corporation then AMD? I would think IBM would have what it took to give Apple everything they need.

Cappy

Nov 18, 2002, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Blackcat

You are wrong on at least 2 points.

Firstly, going AMD does not mean $500 PowerMacs. As it is, G4s are a lot cheaper than P4s, AMD might be cheaper still but don't expect ANY pricedrops.

You really are stuck in the mid-90's. ;) Please demonstrate how the G4's are alot cheaper than P4's. If you talk top of the line for each line, "maybe". But consider the performance difference then. Compare apples to apples and you'll find G4's don't cut it in cost. Back in the mid-90's that was a different story as the PPC's were cheaper.

Originally posted by Blackcat
There is nothing much wrong with our architecture. The G4 needs a better bus but the rest is very good. Once IBM releases the 970 and G3 with VMX, problem solved.

Lets not go overboard on the blind optimism. AMD is preparing to breakout this year with their new technology(finally) and Intel is more of a force than you give credit for. While Intel often gets negative criticism for their cpu architecture, they are still delivering. So what it if the clock speed runs twice as fast to get the same or better performance. The end results and cost are what matters to them in the markets they strive to be successful in and they do that. Their customers are happy with them as well for the most part.

The only thing people can really complain about Intel P4's are battery life. Overall they're very reliable and do perform well. They're not first in every benchmark but none of the cpu platforms are. There's always a first, second, and third place performer. It doesn't mean the third place one is bad but that it merely came in third. Nothing wrong with that if the price is right and it gets the job done making users happy.

Frankly I'm tired of the bickering over this topic. No one knows what Apple is going to do. Based on what I know of Apple's and NeXT's past technology I've yet to see a compelling argument for one platform over the other. They both have certain guarantees and risks.

Cappy

Nov 18, 2002, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
It seems funny that the ball would get dropped so soon after the iBook and Powerbook were just updated. Do you think if they announce the new machines tomorrow they will be shipping them in the next few months. If this switch to the new processor is not ready to happen for the next year or so I think Apple would say nothing yet about it.

No one really knows what Apple is going to do but I can assure you that the odds are against them announcing any new systems to replace their current lines tomorrow. It would be suicide not just for xmas but for their customer base that just bought the new system released not long ago. As for announcing ahead of time they've done it before with the PPC announcement. The scenario is a little different but *if* they were to incorporate x86 into their product line, look for them to do it for one or two product lines only at first. Probably PowerMacs and Xserves initially. Wait a year or two and then move on if the advantages are there. They need to convince folks that PPC isn't just getting dropped like a rock.

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
It just seems to me an x86 just is not a Mac, because a Mac used to represent Think Different. and now they are just thinking the same.

Not at all. The debate over this will carry on for years among many Mac fans but many believe it's the OS that makes a Mac a Mac. Case design can carry over and frankly most users don't really care what's inside as long as it works, is fast, and fits well with their budget.

Titanium.X

Nov 18, 2002, 08:54 PM

Didn't they say the earth shattering announcement would involve a company located in the north eastern US? That eliminates Apple as a possibility.

Titanium.X

Cappy

Nov 18, 2002, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by MisterMe
For all the weeping and wailing and knashing of teeth, it would seem that the Apple/AMD announcement will be about this (http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/1493581). For those of us who want Apple to continue to concentrate of the PPC, we have nothing to worry about. For those who want Apple to risk suicide by switching processors, it looks like that ain't gonna happen.

Read it and weep. (http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/1493581)

I'd guess at this point that you're dead on but we'll know soon enough. This does sound like exciting technology for the marketplace whether Apple adopts it or not. I'd be shocked if they don't.

springscansing

Nov 18, 2002, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Titanium.X
Didn't they say the earth shattering announcement would involve a company located in the north eastern US? That eliminates Apple as a possibility.

Titanium.X

Seriously... well, who else IS in the north east? I can't think of anyone AMD would sell to...

Thresher

Nov 18, 2002, 09:29 PM

My 2 cents:

AMD will announce a Hypertransport chipset for Apple. They will not be making G4 processors.

There are several reasons AMD will not produce Hammer based Athlons for Apple, the primary one is their relationship with MS and the need for a 64 bit version of Windows XP. Selling Athlons to Apple would tick off MS in a big way.

If, and this is a big if, AMD WERE to start selling 64bit Athlons (Opteron is the server chip, Athlon will be the consumer version) to Apple, you can bet that Apple will have a proprietary motherboard or bootROM to keep the whitebox market from building their own Macs.

Much as I would love to see it, I just don't think there is a chance in heck of Apple using AMD chips. It's a shame, I think it would be good for both companies.

Upright Joe

Nov 18, 2002, 09:36 PM

Ok, there's no way apple is going to be switching to x86 - especially with the somewhat slow adoption rate of OS X. I'm still waiting for a good chunk of the software I use to be ported. There's no way they'd put developers through another major architecture switch so soon. It would be damned near suicidal even with all the portability stuff built into the development tools and OS.

As for AMD producing PowerPC-compatible chips at some point, I wouldn't rule that out at all. I once read a detailed comparison of the Athlon and G4 processors. The processors were remarkably similar (aside from extra layer required to decode x86 instructions of course). Actually, it's been a long time but wasn't there some relationship between AMD and motorola around development of the original Athlon?

Phipple

Nov 18, 2002, 11:58 PM

Apple bought AMD.

macphisto

Nov 19, 2002, 12:14 AM

Since I am only on a modem, :(, I have not taken the time to read all the posts, BUT, with that said, here is my 2 cents.

Since this would be a earth shattering announcement (for Apple to use AMD) I highly doubt that Steve would not want to make the announcement himself. Whether greatly or minutely publicized.

:rolleyes:

macphisto

Nov 19, 2002, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Phipple
Apple bought AMD.

When?

springscansing

Nov 19, 2002, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by macphisto

When?

They... didn't...

Cappy

Nov 19, 2002, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Phipple
Apple bought AMD.

Very unlikely but it would be earth shattering. Intel would be grinning ear to ear.

I still say the odds are more in favor of a wireless product(s) being announced using AMD's wireless technology. It makes the most sense at this point.

benixau

Nov 19, 2002, 01:01 AM

Maybe he meant they bought into AMD. as in a few million shares. i doubt apple would buy AMD outright. Do they even have enough cash to do that???

MacViolinist

Nov 19, 2002, 02:08 AM

I haven't read all of the threads about OS X on the x86, and perhaps I should before commenting, but here I go. Especially since this is a 5 page thread (currently) and no one is likely to read this.

I just don't uinderstand why it seems so unreasonable that a company could produce a killer OS that runs on virtually any machine and make money doing it. Do I really need to point out the fact that a company with a crappy OS has made more money than God by doing the same thing?

csimmons

Nov 19, 2002, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by Blackcat

We're not in PowerPC hell! We're in Motorola hell but the IBM 970 looks promising, and although it hasn't been confirmed, who else needs Altivec?

Hundreds of thousands of multimedia creators, musicians (like myself), filmmakers, video houses, graphics guys & girls, producers, composers, etc. who use Altivec enhanced products.

gooddog

Nov 19, 2002, 02:35 AM

Pardon my ignorance, but I'd like to know:

This processor ...

(1) how does it relate to Apple's anti-"MHz Myth" claims concerning
number and length of data "pipes" and the superior efficiency of the current,
slower chips ?

(2) will the faster processor have synergy with OS X so as to make it better than
Windows 2000 in a dramatic way ?

(3) will there be any compatability issues (re-write Jaguar, peripherals,
back-compatible app's etc.) with my current FP iMac 800 MHz ?

(4) what do you see as the most exciting benefit of the switch ?

Thanx in advance,

---gooddog

**********

daPhil

Nov 19, 2002, 02:44 AM

Apple will be using AMD ~2.7 ghz processors, i have this on very good authority.

TheCat

Nov 19, 2002, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by Frobozz
There's no way Apple is moving to x86 chips, unless perhaps AMD's new Claw Hammer 64 bit chip is a possiblitity. But, overall, I just don't see it. I've already written a exhausively long essay on these boards about how I don't see Apple essentially throwing out it's marketing campaigns for the past 5 years on a whim when such promising IBM chips are on the horizon. Also, it doesn't make sense to require developers to recompile just to run on a new machine. It's one thing to require a recompile for faster performace or 64 bit compilance. It's another thing entirely to render all existing apps either useless or severely speed hit.

at last! someone with some sense. Thank you

ennerseed

Nov 19, 2002, 04:02 AM

wireless firewire.......less

elmimmo

Nov 19, 2002, 04:25 AM

I know little of PowerPC lincensing issues, but why could not it be that AMD would be thinking on building a PowerPC-compatible non-x86 processor?

BTW, wasn't there a rumor that Motorola might be thinking of selling its desktop processor business?

Blackcat

Nov 19, 2002, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by Cappy

Your comments are nice to hear for Apple fanatics but lets get real. Linux obscure? Are you still stuck in the mid-90's? Linux on the desktop? Who said anything about that?

MS has the desktop office market locked up and it'll be awhile before that can possibly ever change. The Opteron is initially targetted at the server market which is what I was referring to and is MS's only real interest in the cpu. The home market doesn't need 64 bit now or even for awhile and MS knows this.

Quite frankly MS really isn't all that worried about Macs. A few departments within MS might be because of the markets they want to dominate that the Mac is in but overall, they care more about what happens on the Linux front. Together they could be quite formidible but the Mac alone does not even come close to having Bill scared.

Microsoft makes a loss on servers, people just don't see Windows as a server OS - that's what AIX, Solaris and Linux are for.

The Office market is locked up by Microsoft but Licensing 6.0 has made business think again. Currently Linux is the only possibility but isn't very user friendly. Apple has little business credibility now but a move to AMD would change that. Suddenly offices want Macs, and in turn XServes. Perhaps even open office on X.

MS needs the Windows/Office monopoly, it's the only area where they make money. They will defend it vigorously against any threat or percieved threat. Apple on AMD is one.

daPhil

Nov 19, 2002, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by Blackcat

Microsoft makes a loss on servers, people just don't see Windows as a server OS

What the hell are you talking about? IIS for W2K Server is one of the most common webservers out there... There are TONS of W2K server in the world...

flashfil

Nov 19, 2002, 05:03 AM

I thought that the main reason for not getting a mac server was because of the fact you can only use IDE drives and SCSI arrays are seen to be more reliable.

Or am I sadly mistaken...?

peterjhill

Nov 19, 2002, 05:28 AM

Originally posted by Blackcat

Microsoft makes a loss on servers, people just don't see Windows as a server OS - that's what AIX, Solaris and Linux are for.

The Office market is locked up by Microsoft but Licensing 6.0 has made business think again. Currently Linux is the only possibility but isn't very user friendly. Apple has little business credibility now but a move to AMD would change that. Suddenly offices want Macs, and in turn XServes. Perhaps even open office on X.

MS needs the Windows/Office monopoly, it's the only area where they make money. They will defend it vigorously against any threat or percieved threat. Apple on AMD is one.

ERRR. thank you for playing. Have you ever looked at the Microsoft Licensing scheme? Ever heard of a Client Access License (CAL). MS makes a fortune from all these huge companies where every desk is accessing a MS server. Not just for Win2k server, but also for every exchange user, SQL user.

And back to Apple, I don't believe that apps that do not try to directly access the hardware will have any problems running on an AMD based system. We all know that Apple already has the OS ported. I bet you didn't know that one person did the port, and it didn't take a heck of a lot of time. Darwin has been out for x86 for a long time.

I think Apple would be smart not to bet the farm that Motorola will continue to be a strategic partner. That looks like it is dying already. Then they would have IBM as the sole chip supplier.... Why not make sure you have a backup plan that works. Why not have PowerMac G4s and PowerMac AMDs or whatever. If they can use the best chip from either company, and everything is flawless from the customers point of view, for application compatibility, do it. It is not like Apple is going to sell Mac OS X that will run on a Crapway computer.

As for your previous comment about porting OS X to every platform that Linux runs on, that is just a really stupid comment. Linux is written by people who are volunteering their time. Mac OS X is written by a company that needs to make a profit. We are not going to see Mac OS X on an XBox (that would be great to see though). It won't run on my Tivo. (though apple really needs to make their own tivo, and I am not talking about a stupid eyetv thing.)

Blackcat

Nov 19, 2002, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by daPhil

What the hell are you talking about? IIS for W2K Server is one of the most common webservers out there... There are TONS of W2K server in the world...

Er, hello?

IIS gets maybe 30%, the rest are Apache and others. Don't take my word for it, look here http://www.netcraft.com/survey/

daPhil

Nov 19, 2002, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by Blackcat

Er, hello?

IIS gets maybe 30%, the rest are Apache and others. Don't take my word for it, look here http://www.netcraft.com/survey/

Like i said, its one of the most common (every 3rd one is W2K) in the world... And it will get even more common with the .NET platform.

peterjhill

Nov 19, 2002, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by Blackcat

Er, hello?

IIS gets maybe 30%, the rest are Apache and others. Don't take my word for it, look here http://www.netcraft.com/survey/

er, hello, do you know how many servers 30% of the web server market represents? even if only 10% of them have been paid for that is a bucketload of money in MS pockets.

35,114,328 sites. If 30% are IIS that would be around 10.5 million (catch that, MILLION) IIS web servers (half of them probably have been compromised and are also warez servers ;-) So, 10% of that would be 1 million, and MS charges what, about 500-1000 dollars per copy. That would be a half a billion to a billion dollars in sales. Still alot of money (and stupid people for running an IIS server).

I am not sticking up for MS, I am going off topic though. So I'll just say "Apple and AMD, yeah ;-)"

TechLarry

Nov 19, 2002, 07:43 AM

We can only hope!

TL

TechLarry

Nov 19, 2002, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
This might be real bad, if Apple comes out with these x86 boxes this winter, it means that in a few months software wise there will be no new development for the PowerPC because they will want you to switch over, meaning the machines people are buying right now will be junk in a few months.

Talk about pissed off people....I will be one...at least Windows sticks with x86 and that makes it easy for their customers, Apple switching all over on chips will make it real tough, because if they go x86 32 bit and then a few months later go x86 64 then they will have year old PowerPCs that are no longer supported, and a few month old 32bit x86's that are not...what a mess...if this all happens kiss them goodbye, they might as well load Xp on it

It would never happen that fast, and if it did, I have ZERO doubt that there would be a compatibility layer built in somewhere.

Remember, Apple HAS done this before, and quite successfully.

TL

TechLarry

Nov 19, 2002, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by sturm375
My bet is that if AMD and Apple are going to do anything, it will be a chip-set, not a processor. Apple has already decided on the DDR ram, and again others have already stated the Hypertransport stuff.

AMD and Producing PPC Chips:

I doubt it. AMD is a bigger Processor (non embeded) producer than Moto, however they are still not big enough to support that many lines of CPUs.

They might be able to put PPC emulation on there x86-64 chip (Hammer), as they've alway emulated the CISC/x86 anyway. (Little known fact: AMD produces RISC chips with a front end CISC emulater/translater). That's still a long-shot, as it would still require 2 seperate runs/lines of processors.

Of cource this still doesn't stop me from hoping Apple will just adopt the x86-64 as is. I know it's a long-shot, but I am a Cubs fan after all. I am used to dissappointment:D

Good bark, wrong tree.

AMD has been clear that it does NOT want to be in the chipset business.

They don't even want to design their OWN chipsets, even though theirs was the best on the market.

No, it's not about Chipsets. There's something else...

TL

TechLarry

Nov 19, 2002, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by agreenster
Why all this b*tching and moaning about Apple switching to a "PC" processor? Are you all idiots? It isnt the HARDWARE that necessarily makes Apple superior to Windows machines--its the SOFTWARE! Its the Windows SOFTWARE that crashes.

Why dont you people who claim to be Apple supporters actually SUPPORT Apple when they *might* be deciding to switch processors? DOnt you think they have researched ways to make this transition smoothly?

I mean c'mon, hardly any of us here at Macrumors have the slightest clue how computers work compared to the technicians who get paid the big bucks to figure this stuff out on their own!

Point is, if Apple decides to put AMD chips in their computers, they will do it correctly and with the least amount of headache possible for the consumer. They arent stupid.

The real reason we should be upset isnt because Apple is supposedly switching, but that it has taken them THIS long to figure out how much SLOWER their G4 processors are compared to the super-fast and efficient AMD chip.

Furthermore, the people who are complaining about the switch right now are probably the same people who complain about the speeds of their boxes all the other 50 weeks of the year.

I give congrats to Apple if they are making such a bold move.

Absolutely agreed.

One thing is for sure. If this does happen, it will bring the true, hard-core Apple Zealots out of the woodwork like spilled sugar.

The rest of us who understand what computing is all about will sit back and enjoy the show :)

TL

TechLarry

Nov 19, 2002, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Blackcat
If AMD started working with Apple on MacOS X x86, Microsoft would suddenly stop XP running on IA64. This would kill AMD faster than Apple could save it, unless Apple bought AMD which would use the whole $5bn.

Make no mistake, Microsoft sees MacOS X as a threat. It only made profit on Windows and Office last quarter so won't stand anything eroding that, and an AMD/Apple CPU partnership might.

So I think there more important reasons why this won't happen. It's not like MS was particular scared by it's run in with the law.

Yeah, an 85% profit margin if I remember correctly.

Microsoft has a lot more to be worried about than Apple, formost being how badly they are pissing off their customers right now with all their shenanigans.

TL

Blackcat

Nov 19, 2002, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by peterjhill

er, hello, do you know how many servers 30% of the web server market represents? even if only 10% of them have been paid for that is a bucketload of money in MS pockets.

The point was that MS has most of the webserver market. It doesn't, it has 30%. It makes no profit on server stuff, check the SEC filings.

Bradcoe

Nov 19, 2002, 08:25 AM

So where is the live coverage of Hector Ruiz's keynote?

Newton

Nov 19, 2002, 08:45 AM

Apple bought AMD. And if they didn't, they should. How great would it be for Apple to be there own PPC-manufacturer - No more bottlenecks. ;)

Dave K

Nov 19, 2002, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by sturm375

P4 2.8GHz @ $385
Athlon 2700 XP (333 FSB) @ $352
G4 ????

How much does it cost to buy just a G4 processor? The prices above are from www.pricewatch.com, and I am sure that big OEMs get better pricing then the above.

http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,1035_747_23,00.html

Suggested retail pricing for the MPC7445 at 800 MHz is $125 in 10k quantities. Suggested retail pricing for the MPC7455 at 1 GHz is $295 in 10k quantities

Circa 28-Jan-2002.

Add in costs for L3 and the custom daughterboard and the final price for finished product will go up.

springscansing

Nov 19, 2002, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by flashfil
I thought that the main reason for not getting a mac server was because of the fact you can only use IDE drives and SCSI arrays are seen to be more reliable.

Or am I sadly mistaken...?

Very sadly mistaken.

macphisto

Nov 19, 2002, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by springscansing

They... didn't...

I did not think so. But it would be a very interesting world if they did. :)

fourthtunz

Nov 19, 2002, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
This is all going to get so messy I might just get a PC, I don't want to deal with all these compatibility issues.

Want to deal with compatibility issues? Get a PC! Every member of my wifes family who got a pc had to take it back at least twice to get one that worked! Then they want my help!
All this for what? $700 spent and the only thing that I can see that is faster is the printer, which is usb, so I could have bought a $29 card for their Macs and then they could use usb.
I sat down at their new super pcs, which they use for e-mail and word processing, and guess what? online speed is still the same,limited by their crappy phone line!
Go ahead get a pc, but other than getting rid of some cash what is accomplished?
Daniel

springscansing

Nov 19, 2002, 09:36 AM

FROM AMDZONE.com:

Since the summer of 2000 when I was introduced to Mac OSX, I have been extremely excited about Apple's newest operating system. I have always been a x86 PC user subjected to using "Macs". When I learned that OSX was to be based on the BSD platform, my thoughts were that Apple was going to move away from the hardware market and directly into competition with good old Redmond. One would be led to think that this may be an easy step, but it is not just porting software to a new CPU. Apple would have to develop all their tools to compete with Microsoft, if certain products were discontinued for the OSX platform. Since the introduction of OSX, Apple has developed an application base that could compete with Microsoft.

That stance may have changed, if comments made by CEO Steve Jobs at the company's quarterly earnings confab. Asked whether Apple is now mooting a move to x86 chips, Jobs noted that that couldn't happen until the vast majority of its users and - more importantly - its developers have migrated to the UNIX-based Mac OSX. That won't have happened until the end of this year, he added.

Developers, users, as well as hardware vendors would need to be able to supply Apple at launch with quantity parts and software. Unlike the launch of the Athlon MP, AMD would need to have a flawless launch with quantity parts available for Tier 1 OEMs. After seeing the Sledgehammer 1.4ghz running at the Microprocessor Forum earlier this month, one can believe that the final product is ready and they are now in the process of creating a supply of processors, and speed grades for a January launch with multiple Tier 1 OEMs. Since Dresden still produces the performance Athlon XPs, an explanation of why we have not seen quantity of this product (XP 2600 & 2800) is simple. The majority of the production is geared up for Opteron product and what is left for XP product is being retooled to the Barton core for a mid-4th quarter launch. Many Opteron motherboards are almost ready to ship and should be ready to go through validation shortly with AMD.

With Apple looking for a 64-bit solution as well as needing to compete with other OEMs, there are very few choices. These include the Itanium 2, Opteron, and the PowerPC 64. The only two that are cost effective for the common user would be the PowerPC 64 and the Opteron. We know that the Opteron (clawhammer) will be priced combatively against other current multiprocessor solutions. One can assume that

Apple's "continued technical disadvantage" -- which we assume means the race for computer processing speed -- against Intel is expected to force it to adopt x86 technology by the end of 2003, according to a new report by Giga Information Group Inc., a global technology advisory firm.

Apple has the choice to use the new PowerPC 64 in their next generation of systems, but has yet to make an announcement of doing so which makes one think that they are evaluating their other options more seriously. For years Apple has stuck to a proprietary hardware solution until the last few years, in which they have adopted the more common PCI and AGP standards with their additional modifications.

But while that may be easy enough for a dedicated 64-bit microprocessor without native 32-bit support, like AMD's Hammer is likely to have, what happens to all the old OS9 apps and third party OSX apps?

POWER chips do have a 32-bit subset and so can run the old gear, a la Hammer.

The core of MacOSX is extremely portable, he said, and as NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP has run on SPARC, HP-PA/RISC, PowerPC, x86, and he said, perhaps the Alpha processor too.

I guess for now we will have to wait a couple more months until MacWorld, San Francisco, to see how Apple plays their cards. I hope that with the popularity of Linux and BSD, that a GUI like OSX will gain a strong foothold in the x86 market.

---

Sorry if this was posted already.

sturm375

Nov 19, 2002, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Dave K

http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,1035_747_23,00.html

Circa 28-Jan-2002.

Add in costs for L3 and the custom daughterboard and the final price for finished product will go up.

Here is the link to AMD pricing @ 1K trays:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609,00.html

In 1K volume you can get an XP 2700+ for $349ea. That's only $3 off the Pricewatch price!

I guess I am ignorant of the PPC world, why do you need to have a daughterboard for a processor?

Another interesting thought that I had is this:
Since we all assume the next processor Apple will use will be 64-bit, and they don't want to go with the Itanic, or Sparc, it pretty much boils down to either the IBM 970 or the AMD Hammer. What will the estimated pricing be on each of these? I've read anywhere from $400-$600 ea for the Hammer. Again that's only a rumor, since very few actual Hammer Processors are in existance.

Also, could Apple benifit (price wise) by going with the Hammer, due to the assumption that there will be a greater volume of Hammers sold? I don't think IBM has any other customers or applications for their 970, do they?

springscansing

Nov 19, 2002, 09:39 AM

I just want it to be true... even though I just bought my new mac! I KNOW! I can leave it in the box! It's not open yet... return!

MacIntyre

Nov 19, 2002, 09:40 AM

Both Apple and AMD are sponsors here at ApacheCon (http://www.apachecon.com) just across town from COMDEX. I'll be posting if I hear anything - nothing from Apple yet and the AMD guy will only answer my questions with "I cannot comment on that at this time." Pah....

springscansing

Nov 19, 2002, 09:52 AM

When is this particular announcement supposed to take place? What time should I start clicking my refresh button like an idiot?

DakotaGuy

Nov 19, 2002, 10:06 AM

From the sounds of things on here it sounds like Apple did go x86. I see where a few are talking about returning their new machines. Any more information about the x86 announcement?

e-coli

Nov 19, 2002, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by sturm375
How much does it cost to buy just a G4 processor?

about $250 manufacturing cost.

also, just because Apple licenses AMD technology doesn't mean they're going to use it. They may simply be trying to increase competition in the Mac processor marketplace.

Blackcat

Nov 19, 2002, 10:16 AM

Why are some of you so desperate to go x86? Opteron isn't out yet, but has been rumoured to debut at 500Mhz, nobody knows how it will scale, all we know is it's 100% incompatible with everything we have ever had.

What do all think we would gain?

agreenster

Nov 19, 2002, 10:33 AM

If you research some of the rumor links throughout this forum, you'll notice many statements referring to the fact that the Opteron hasnt been announced yet because AMD has been waiting for OSX to be configured for 64 bit........Regardless, its all about SPEED. Mac users (like myself) dont realize just how slow G4's really are until they start using PC's (which I have)

Photoshop, Maya, Premiere, etc. They are slower. They just are.

Switching to AMD processors would change all that.

***However, Im beginning to believe that this is all about HyperTransport........AMD and Apple have been forerunners on this tecnology since last year, and press covered it largely around July.

kudos for the first poster on this because I think they're right.....

DakotaGuy

Nov 19, 2002, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Blackcat
Why are some of you so desperate to go x86? Opteron isn't out yet, but has been rumoured to debut at 500Mhz, nobody knows how it will scale, all we know is it's 100% incompatible with everything we have ever had.

What do all think we would gain?

Even if the Opteron is only 500MHz it will still blow the doors off of the PPC 970 at 1.8GHz according to many on these boards. I think it is probably because x86 is a lot more advanced and modern compared to Power PC. I hate the idea they have switched, but I suppose I will have to live with it. Now all of our Macs are going to have those corny little "Intel Inside" or "AMD" decals all over them...arrgggh! and the chime at the end of all the commercials...

agreenster

Nov 19, 2002, 10:41 AM

64 bit, regardless of Mhz, is very very fast.

But there hasnt been any official announcement yet Abercrombie boy----

Sun Baked

Nov 19, 2002, 10:42 AM

If it happens maybe Steven will come an be a spokesperson for the new x86 Macs, he's got some free time - and so does the cow.

Blackcat

Nov 19, 2002, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by agreenster
If you research some of the rumor links throughout this forum, you'll notice many statements referring to the fact that the Opteron hasnt been announced yet because AMD has been waiting for OSX to be configured for 64 bit........Regardless, its all about SPEED. Mac users (like myself) dont realize just how slow G4's really are until they start using PC's (which I have)

Photoshop, Maya, Premiere, etc. They are slower. They just are.

Switching to AMD processors would change all that.

So basically it's not about what's best for Apple, it's a speed envy thing.

We'd all love faster Macs, but I'd rather not destroy all that has been done for 6 months of PC comparable speed before the lights go out. Never mind that in mid 2003 the 970 will be released with a 900Mhz bus. Never mind that all the classic apps wouldn't run. Never mind that a patch to install X on a Dell would be out in weeks.

No, forget logic, throw the baby out with the bath water. Lets get a quick fix.

Blackcat

Nov 19, 2002, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by agreenster
64 bit, regardless of Mhz, is very very fast.

But there hasnt been any official announcement yet Abercrombie boy----

64bit has nothing at all to do with speed. It is to do with data precision and address space.

Mr Jobs

Nov 19, 2002, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy

Even if the Opteron is only 500MHz it will still blow the doors off of the PPC 970 at 1.8GHz according to many on these boards. I think it is probably because x86 is a lot more advanced and modern compared to Power PC. I hate the idea they have switched, but I suppose I will have to live with it. Now all of our Macs are going to have those corny little "Intel Inside" or "AMD" decals all over them...arrgggh! and the chime at the end of all the commercials...

not sure where you got that from about a 500mhz Opteron blowing the doors of a 970 1.8Ghz, what a load of shi!

plus where also did you get the idea that a x86 is mor modern the a PowerPC, the x86 is CISC based and a powerpc is a RISC based processor. do some research, here's a clue RISC was introduced as a more modern approach to processor design.

Chaszmyr

Nov 19, 2002, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Blackcat

64bit has nothing at all to do with speed. It is to do with data precision and address space.

I believe 64 bit does have something to do with overall speed (ie memory retrieval), but it does indeed have nothing to do with processor speed.

springscansing

Nov 19, 2002, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Blackcat

So basically it's not about what's best for Apple, it's a speed envy thing.

We'd all love faster Macs, but I'd rather not destroy all that has been done for 6 months of PC comparable speed before the lights go out. Never mind that in mid 2003 the 970 will be released with a 900Mhz bus. Never mind that all the classic apps wouldn't run. Never mind that a patch to install X on a Dell would be out in weeks.

No, forget logic, throw the baby out with the bath water. Lets get a quick fix.

If by mid 2003 you mean late 2003, then yes. And currently the hammar is ahead of the power4 in the speed race, and the 970 will undoubtedly be slower than the power4. And I certaily doubt there will be a patch to install X on a Dell...

agreenster

Nov 19, 2002, 11:00 AM

I understand how 64 bit addressing works. Therefore, the more data you push, the faster your overall perfromance can be.

IBM 970, or AMD Hammer. I care not. Give me either.

But its not about speed ENVY, its about productivity, and the difference betwen sitting and waiting and getting something done.

STILL--regardless---This is all still about HyperTransport. Note my above posts.

Maybe even a Tablet lurking.......

Blackcat

Nov 19, 2002, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy

Even if the Opteron is only 500MHz it will still blow the doors off of the PPC 970 at 1.8GHz according to many on these boards. I think it is probably because x86 is a lot more advanced and modern compared to Power PC. I hate the idea they have switched, but I suppose I will have to live with it. Now all of our Macs are going to have those corny little "Intel Inside" or "AMD" decals all over them...arrgggh! and the chime at the end of all the commercials...

But x86 isn't more advanced at all. It has a higher clockspeed due to excessively long pipelines and a better bus, but a great deal of it is hype. Of course a 3Ghz P4 is faster than a 1Ghz G4, but is it 2Ghz worth faster? No.

Sure PPC has fallen behind due to Moto having no real incentive, but build G4s on a better process at .9nm and watch them speed up and get cheaper.

I think the 970 holds great promise. But we'll need to wait and see.

locovaca

Nov 19, 2002, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Mr Jobs

not sure where you got that from about a 500mhz Opteron blowing the doors of a 970 1.8Ghz, what a load of shi!

plus where also did you get the idea that a x86 is mor modern the a PowerPC, the x86 is CISC based and a powerpc is a RISC based processor. do some research, here's a clue RISC was introduced as a more modern approach to processor design.

the x86 instruction set is CISC. the Power PC instruction set is RISC. The Opteron is a RISC based processor that implements the CISC instruction set- in other words, it EMULATES a CISC, and is not a CISC in itself. This implies that, with a little engineering, it could also be used to implement a RISC instruction set.

Additionally, it wasn't a 500 mhz Opteron, it was more like 1.4 GHz or 2 GHz or something of that sort (I can't remember off of the top of my head). The 970 numbers are theoretical. The Opteron numbers are theoretical.

greg godwin

Nov 19, 2002, 11:08 AM

Any news on the keynote?

Thirteenva

Nov 19, 2002, 11:09 AM

OK, so what happened, what was the shattering anouncement by AMD??????

moosecat

Nov 19, 2002, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Thirteenva
OK, so what happened, what was the shattering anouncement by AMD??????

I would assume it's going on right now (scheduled to start 10 minutes ago), and I doubt it will be the first thing out of his mouth.

Bradcoe

Nov 19, 2002, 11:31 AM

Where can I get live updates to the keynote and comdex info!? AMDZONE.com had it yesterday but nothing today!

springscansing

Nov 19, 2002, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Bradcoe
Where can I get live updates to the keynote and comdex info!? AMDZONE.com had it yesterday but nothing today!

Yes yes! Help!

Bradcoe

Nov 19, 2002, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Blackcat

But x86 isn't more advanced at all. It has a higher clockspeed due to excessively long pipelines and a better bus, but a great deal of it is hype. Of course a 3Ghz P4 is faster than a 1Ghz G4, but is it 2Ghz worth faster? No.

Sure PPC has fallen behind due to Moto having no real incentive, but build G4s on a better process at .9nm and watch them speed up and get cheaper.

I think the 970 holds great promise. But we'll need to wait and see.

Instead of .9nm, you meant 0.09nm.

Blackcat

Nov 19, 2002, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Bradcoe

Instead of .9nm, you meant 0.09nm.

Yes :)

Cappy

Nov 19, 2002, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Blackcat

Microsoft makes a loss on servers, people just don't see Windows as a server OS - that's what AIX, Solaris and Linux are for.

The Office market is locked up by Microsoft but Licensing 6.0 has made business think again. Currently Linux is the only possibility but isn't very user friendly. Apple has little business credibility now but a move to AMD would change that. Suddenly offices want Macs, and in turn XServes. Perhaps even open office on X.

MS needs the Windows/Office monopoly, it's the only area where they make money. They will defend it vigorously against any threat or percieved threat. Apple on AMD is one.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion but get your facts straight. This is straight from Computerwire after the recent court issues:

"The Server Platforms division - which includes the company's Windows server operating system, SQL Server, Exchange Server and Systems Management Server products as well as client access licenses, training, certification and support and consulting services - reported revenue of $1.6bn, up 13% from $1.4bn last year."

It goes on to report:

"The Client, Information Worker and Server Platforms divisions were responsible for 36.3%, 29.3% and 21% of Microsoft's revenue in the quarter respectively and were also the only Microsoft segments to record operating income, according to the company's own internal accounting methods.

According to these non-GAAP consolidated calculations, the Client division recorded operating income of $2.5bn on revenue of $2.9bn, the Information Worker division reported operating income of $1.9bn on revenue of $2.4bn, and the Server Platforms division recorded operating income of $519m on revenue of $1.5bn."

Unless they got it wrong straight from MS which I doubt I think you might want to make a note of this. In addition to this a number of people use the webserver and other IIS services included in Win2k Pro and WinXP Pro to run for their servers thus the number they cite isn't accurate in the grand scheme of things since those do not seem to be included in the server platform statistic.

To sum it up...MS does not make a loss on their servers. Again this is the area MS is interested in with AMD's 64 bit technology. Cheap and powerful...and they can't have linux beating them on that front. The Mac is irrelavent to them on that platform at this point.

QuiteSure

Nov 19, 2002, 11:46 AM

Here is a poll being currently conducted on the AMD website:

- Weekly Polls -
Next AMD Customer?
Is Apple or Dell more likely to be the next AMD customer?

Apple is really thinking different!
63.07%
Dude, Dell!
36.96% Number of votes: 2827

Bradcoe

Nov 19, 2002, 11:52 AM

That poll is at www.amdzone.com, not AMD's company website.

Hawthorne

Nov 19, 2002, 11:59 AM

The earth-shattering announcement?

Covalent and Red Hat will develop a 64-bit version of Apache. (http://www.amdzone.com/releaseview.cfm?ReleaseID=1035) . Yawn. Well, not completely yawn, as that will mean good things for the Mac community in a year or so.

Honestly, the way everyone worked themselves into a semi-delusional fit believing $300 dual-hammer Macs were coming was ridiculous.

Bradcoe

Nov 19, 2002, 12:02 PM

does this mean they are the new licensee's?

synergy

Nov 19, 2002, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Hawthorne
The earth-shattering announcement?

Covalent and Red Hat will develop a 64-bit version of Apache. (http://www.amdzone.com/releaseview.cfm?ReleaseID=1035) . Yawn. Well, not completely yawn, as that will mean good things for the Mac community in a year or so.

Honestly, the way everyone worked themselves into a semi-delusional fit believing $300 dual-hammer Macs were coming was ridiculous.

What date is on that article you linked?
What is today's date?

conceptdev

Nov 19, 2002, 12:05 PM

The apache annoucement was from yesterday we do not yet know the content of the keynote .

gropo

Nov 19, 2002, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Hawthorne
The earth-shattering announcement?

Covalent and Red Hat will develop a 64-bit version of Apache. (http://www.amdzone.com/releaseview.cfm?ReleaseID=1035)Jebus.. I swear Apple has hired a team of people whose sole responsibility is to fill Apple rumor sites with as much noise as humanly possible......

agreenster

Nov 19, 2002, 12:20 PM

I cant find any way to get updates from the expo

Any clues?

Wes

Nov 19, 2002, 12:24 PM

The comdex site says they will have stuff from the keynote, it's about over now, WHERE IS THE INFO?

impierced

Nov 19, 2002, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by agreenster
I cant find any way to get updates from the expo

Any clues?

I was wondering the same thing, even AMDZone hasn't updated their pages to reflect today's information.

Hopefully real soon now...

hvfsl

Nov 19, 2002, 12:25 PM

Mac OS X on x86 would be the beginning of the end of Microsoft. People already want to switch to Linux, but it is still too hard to use. It is only a good thing. People stop complaining. If Apple do not switich or make cheap Macs, I will probably go to Windows because I am fed up of being out of date computers.

Blackcat

Nov 19, 2002, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Hawthorne
The earth-shattering announcement?

Covalent and Red Hat will develop a 64-bit version of Apache. (http://www.amdzone.com/releaseview.cfm?ReleaseID=1035) . Yawn. Well, not completely yawn, as that will mean good things for the Mac community in a year or so.

Presumably that would be extremely useful for a 64bit MacOS X?

Honestly, the way everyone worked themselves into a semi-delusional fit believing $300 dual-hammer Macs were coming was ridiculous.

Absolutely.
x86 Macs are totally doable, but that doesn't mean it will happen. Or should.

reyesmac

Nov 19, 2002, 12:28 PM

When was the last time good news came out of Apple that everyone was happy with? It's been years. Much of the stuff that comes out of Apple now sounds good when they give you their pitch, but it looks bad when you look at the specs.

Dave K

Nov 19, 2002, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by sturm375
I guess I am ignorant of the PPC world, why do you need to have a daughterboard for a processor?

Because the PPC is meant to be an embedded processor. Thus, the end user is responsible for packaging the chip into the format they need it in.

So, as near as I can tell from the PowerMacs I've worked on, Apple takes the finished chips from Moto and then puts them on their own private board/package so they can use the same motherboard in each machine and simply swap out the board/ package with the proper speed for the order coming down the line. If I recall correctly from the guy a while back who overclocked his 867 to 1Ghz, all the speed settings are hard soldered on that board/package.

impierced

Nov 19, 2002, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by hvfsl
Mac OS X on x86 would be the beginning of the end of Microsoft. People already want to switch to Linux, but it is still too hard to use. It is only a good thing. People stop complaining. If Apple do not switich or make cheap Macs, I will probably go to Windows because I am fed up of being out of date computers.

Yowsa... you're an out of date computer? Windows wont help you!!!

agreenster

Nov 19, 2002, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Blackcat

Absolutely.
x86 Macs are totally doable, but that doesn't mean it will happen. Or should.

Here's Proof (http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/DeveloperTools/gcc3/gcc/i386-and-x86-64-Options.html)

conceptdev

Nov 19, 2002, 12:32 PM

Due to the lack of updates let me propose wild inference #4. Our Doctor Ruiz is announcing something so wild and shocking that he is running way over time and everybody is far too transfixed by his speech to even think of giving us a hint... :eek:

Suspense is bad for my productivity :(

agreenster

Nov 19, 2002, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by gropo
Jebus.. I swear Apple has hired a team of people whose sole responsibility is to fill Apple rumor sites with as much noise as humanly possible......

This news came out the 17th.

Today is the 19th. You do the math

impierced

Nov 19, 2002, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by agreenster

Here's Proof (http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/DeveloperTools/gcc3/gcc/i386-and-x86-64-Options.html)

One must remember that gcc is a Unix utility that exists on multiple platforms.

Also NeXTStep (680xx) -> OpenStep (Intel) -> MacOS X (PPC).

Pentium Killer

Nov 19, 2002, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by hvfsl
Mac OS X on x86 would be the beginning of the end of Microsoft. .
This is definately not true.What makes you think of that?

Azzy

Nov 19, 2002, 12:40 PM

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-965511.html?tag=cd_mh

synergy

Nov 19, 2002, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Azzy
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-965511.html?tag=cd_mh

Someone already posted that here.

madforrit

Nov 19, 2002, 12:52 PM

Anyone got any REAL info from TODAY's announcement yet? :rolleyes:

Somebody

Nov 19, 2002, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Bradcoe

Instead of .9nm, you meant 0.09nm.

No, actually he meant 90 nm (nanometers). 0.09 microns (micrometers).

Bradcoe

Nov 19, 2002, 12:58 PM

Yup.

Azzy

Nov 19, 2002, 01:01 PM

sorry, didn't realize that was posted already.

Heres the Keynote news though...

http://www.amdforums.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=26

No apple dealings...

ennerseed

Nov 19, 2002, 01:01 PM

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/021119/190394_1.html

springscansing

Nov 19, 2002, 01:09 PM

Bah!

Blackcat

Nov 19, 2002, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by ennerseed
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/021119/190394_1.html

??? Indeed!

Did his keynote have a point at all? Apart from "buy Opteron" I mean?

agreenster

Nov 19, 2002, 01:14 PM

Hmpth.

Back to my dual Xeon I go.

madforrit

Nov 19, 2002, 01:14 PM

shattering my bum.:mad:

DakotaGuy

Nov 19, 2002, 01:18 PM

Where was the hype? Everyone was saying they were going to announce the Mac x86 or something like that, but after reading the article, Apple was not even mentioned in his speech. Who knows maybe Apple is actually going to go with the PowerPC 970 next year and are helping spread rumors like the AMD one, just to keep us all off base, who knows, they must know about places like this.

The way everyone sounded on here I was almost sure this was the big deal and just like that poof Apple was going to be an x86 PC. Who knows, maybe the PowerPC will live on...

Pentium Killer

Nov 19, 2002, 01:18 PM

What did you expect??Apple announcing that they are switching to AMD??If they announce anything like that,then they will do that in January.

madforrit

Nov 19, 2002, 01:20 PM

Apple teaming up with AMD? I never thought that would happen....although it would be shocking and interesting and what not.

BUT - I was anxious to hear some "earth-shattering" news from AMD about *something.*

Keynotes are such a letdown. And Ruiz probably didn't even wear a black mock turtleneck. :p

ennerseed

Nov 19, 2002, 01:25 PM

"Hammer.... Don't hurt em"

Cappy

Nov 19, 2002, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Dave K

Because the PPC is meant to be an embedded processor. Thus, the end user is responsible for packaging the chip into the format they need it in.

So, as near as I can tell from the PowerMacs I've worked on, Apple takes the finished chips from Moto and then puts them on their own private board/package so they can use the same motherboard in each machine and simply swap out the board/ package with the proper speed for the order coming down the line. If I recall correctly from the guy a while back who overclocked his 867 to 1Ghz, all the speed settings are hard soldered on that board/package.

I believe most of your comments are correct but it has nothing to do with the PPC meant to be an embedded processor. That is just the solution Apple felt was best.

GeeYouEye

Nov 19, 2002, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
The way everyone sounded on here I was almost sure this was the big deal and just like that poof Apple was going to be an x86 PC.

Look who's talking... :rolleyes:

benixau

Nov 19, 2002, 02:48 PM

So what. we will hopefully have a 64bit PPC chip in our computers by the end of next year. It will hopefully be faster (almost guarenteed) and have altivec or similar (almost guarenteed).

Macs dont need to have all that speed because our copmany puts the extra money we spend in hardware, into developing great software that isnt anywhere near as bloated as MS windblows. For that matter, a brand new install of linux by an idiot (mandrake) is also bloated.

If people would calm down and think rationally it would help. Apple may use AMDs in there computers. It would most likeley be a PPC chip much like the 970.

If AMD could supply it cheaper than it would probably go in the lower end machines with less speed.

This means everyone wins - Apple gets a good processor supplier; AMD gets another customer; Consumers get cheaper macs (hopefully)

what does everyone think about this outlook if apple started to use AMD chips??

GPTurismo

Nov 19, 2002, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Blackcat
Microsoft makes a loss on servers, people just don't see Windows as a server OS - that's what AIX, Solaris and Linux are for.

You're talking the high end market, which is at most 10% of the market. Most servers are file servers or simple internal servers for businesses. ANd yes MS makes money of them. The problem is that the 5% that is high end, ie IRIX, AIX, Solaris, and HP-UX, makes 80% of the money in the server market. When you need to do a big job you go that way. Plus that's the area linux is hurting most because you can get solid linux servers for 5 -15k and cluster them.

Still not as stable/powerful as the big boxes.

Blah Blah Blah.

I don't forsee apple going back to CISC chips anytime soon anyway, especially with everyone going RISC.