AMD and Apple Rumors Part II [Archive]

3-22

Nov 21, 2002, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Pismo
Now, if AMD could build Apple a 64-bit PPC processor instead of an x86 processor, that would be awesome!

Worst rumor yet. As much as I think OS X for x86 has a snow ball's chance in hell, I think AMD setting up a production line just for Apple even crazier. AMD is already dumping huge amounts of resources and money into there new x86 64-bit chip.

Motorola and IBM sell most of the PPC chips they make to people besides Apple. (Apple is probably a pretty small buyer, but buy the higher end chips) Most PPC's end up in network appliances, specialized systems, routers, NAS boxes, etc.

Apple just needs to dump Motorola, and get in with IBM. They are pushing PPC chip technology (POWER4) for there mid-range/mainframe's, while Motorola appears happy producing the slower chips for embedded applications. Maybe because of R&D costs... IBM has deep pockets, and are innovators both in storage and processor technology.

benixau

Nov 21, 2002, 08:25 PM

All new mac HDDs are IBMs.

The only other two manufacturers who are developing HDD technology is Maxtor and Fujitsu. Maxtor is developing serial ata drives and fujitsu is developing 2.5" (notebook) drives. they hope to have a 100GB 2.5" drive out by the end of Q1-03.

The 60GB hard disks in the older pbs i think were fujitsus. The new ones are IBMs.

nixd2001

Nov 21, 2002, 08:27 PM

It might be worth drawing out the distinction between who *designs* a processor and who *fabricates* the processor. If Fishkill ain't going to be delivering the right volumes with the right type of fab capabilities, all IBMs other capabilities are irrelevant. Maybe AMD is going to fab the 970 because IBM won't be ready for a year. From Apple's viewpoint, one design and two fab lines long term gives price/dual-source advantages....

So all these "AMD welded shut" Macs - did they need different executables or could they use a standard Mac OS X executable????

bluecell

Nov 21, 2002, 08:49 PM

I think most of you are missing the point. Look, when I first heard of such a rumor I thought that it would be a mistake for Apple to make such a move. After hearing all of the arguments and thinking about it even further, I've come to the conclusion that Apple NEEDS to make this move.

First of all, it would make Windows users much more comfortable switching to the Mac platform. The fact is, the "megahertz myth" IS a reality. Apple's getting destroyed by the constant development of x86, while it takes almost a year for there to be a PowerPC upgrade. That scares many Windows users who want to switch to Mac, as it does a lot of Mac users. Something has to change.

On another level, MacOS X isn't even optimized for the PowerPC's RISC architecture. It's written for CISC (x86). This was obviously a very calculated move on Apple's part. There's an interesting article about this on Unsanity.org (http://www.unsanity.org/archives/2002_10.php) (MACH-O ABI). For developers, I imagine the switch from PowerPC to x86 would be as easy as some recompiling. Many of the technologies in MacOS X suggest that this kind of a change is possible. It would also make cross-platform developing a bit easier.

Now, just because Apple moves to something like AMD's x86-64 Hammer processor doesn't mean that the Mac OS would be able to run on machines from other hardware vendors. Apple would most definitely lock their beloved OS to their own hardware. That seems to be what scares some Mac users when talking about this subject. As a consumer, I would be more comfortable if Apple kept the monopoly on hardware in a world where the PC market is saturated.

So, do I think that Apple will make the move to AMD? YES! It would be the healthiest thing for them. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened at Macworld SF in January.

iJed

Nov 21, 2002, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
... AMD has a bigger production capacity than IBM??? What is this person smoking? AMD has capacity problems just making Athlons. IBM makes POWER4s, G3s, all the GameCube chips, 604es, etc...

AMD makes many many times the desktop chips that IBM makes.

Also, the Hammer doesn't use a memory bus

How does it communicate with its memory then? Magic?

cubist

Nov 21, 2002, 08:51 PM

:D Apple's new PDA/Phone/Tablet! Oh and digital movie camera too. It features infrared connectivity so you can connect it to your stereo.

lmalave

Nov 21, 2002, 08:53 PM

This text I just posted in response to another question on another thread, but it is even more relevant in this thread:

Personally, I think Apple should definitely stay the course with the PPC. The next few months are going to be rough for Apple from a marketing point of view if Moto and IBM don't come through with new chips, but after that I think they'll be cruising. OS X performance should continue to improve, and with even faster chips the interface will be super-responsive. I mean, how fast does a computer need to be?

Personally, I think Apple is well positioned for the maturation stage of the PC market. It's like the early days of the auto industry. After almost every household already had a Model T Ford, and cars were already as fast, as big, and as cheap as they needed to be, then car makers had to start competing on features and design. Ford had a seemingly insurmountable market share lead selling their boring, generic Model T, until GM with its innovative designs and varied product lines started eroding Ford's market share, eventually overtaking it completely.

Since Apple has proven again and again that it has tremendous strength in product design, I would say it's in great shape for the future. Keep in mind the PPC chips help Apple add features to its computers: long battery life, low heat dissipation, quiet (or non-existent) fan. With $4 Billion in cash reserves, a sterling (and strengthening) reputation for innovation and product quality, and great new chips on the horizon, Apple can afford to ride out these rough spots and look toward a much brighter future.

G4scott

Nov 21, 2002, 09:14 PM

Isn't Mac OS X made so that with just some different software underpinnings, it'll work on any system architecture? Isn't that what Apple meant when they were waiting for more developers to switch to OS X before they open up their options? Maybe the reason new Macs won't boot into OS 9 is because they'll be using AMD chips, which can't run that old legacy code unless it's being emulated (can you say classic?) All of the signs are pointing to a more open, flexible OS that works on any platform Apple chooses to make it for. It would be the ultimate OS! (ok, well it already is, but it could put it ahead even more :D )

Or...

Maybe those boxes welded shut are being run by one of 2 things:
1. Aliens, and the have to weld the box shut so that no-one finds out
2. Hamsters- These are no ordinary hamsters... They're genetically engineered so they don't need sleep, food, or water, and they don't use the restroom. There's a little wheel inside of the box, and they welded it shut so that they don't escape...

adamcoop

Nov 21, 2002, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by G4scott

Maybe those boxes welded shut are being run by one of 2 things:
1. Aliens, and the have to weld the box shut so that no-one finds out
2. Hamsters- These are no ordinary hamsters... They're genetically engineered so they don't need sleep, food, or water, and they don't use the restroom. There's a little wheel inside of the box, and they welded it shut so that they don't escape...

I have a friend whose uncle works for a guy whose wife owns a Mac, and they told me that the new Macs would be powered by Apple Cider.

beatle888

Nov 21, 2002, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by bluecell
It's very doubtful that Apple will allow the Mac OS to operate on hardware from other vendors.

i was refering to the fact that apple will have
IBM, motorola and AMD to use as chip sources.

reyesmac

Nov 21, 2002, 09:46 PM

Whatever chip Apple uses will not matter because the experience of using OS X will not change. It better get faster because of it, but if you did not know that an x86 chip was in there, you would think it was a PPC chip. I doubt Apple would leave the PPC behind. Isn't that Apple PI thing a PPC motherboard? If thats where they are going, I guess they have figured out how to use an x86 chip on a CPU daughterboard or something. But when in the world are they gonna actually give us something!!!!!!

alex_ant

Nov 21, 2002, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by bluecell
First of all, it would make Windows users much more comfortable switching to the Mac platform.
Only if an x86 Mac were able to run Windows or Windows apps. And the PPC Mac can more or less run Windows apps already (the ones that don't require fast graphics or direct hardware access) with Virtual PC.
The fact is, the "megahertz myth" IS a reality.
I think what you mean to say is that it's not a reality... but I know what you mean and I agree, for the time being.
Apple's getting destroyed by the constant development of x86, while it takes almost a year for there to be a PowerPC upgrade. That scares many Windows users who want to switch to Mac, as it does a lot of Mac users. Something has to change.
I think Apple has plenty of loyal users who will stick with the platform for 7 to 13 more months until the 970 arrives. It's not like the Mac has a chance of dying in that time. Despite the performance disparity with PCs, the Mac's market share (depending on the source) is actually growing. I don't see how ditching this awesome future PPC in favor of an inferior x86, and going through all the pain of a platform change just to shave a few months off people's wait would be worth it.
On another level, MacOS X isn't even optimized for the PowerPC's RISC architecture. It's written for CISC (x86). This was obviously a very calculated move on Apple's part.
It's written to be platform-independent. It is designed to be easily portable to any platform. It is not "written for CISC." It actually contains a fair amount of AltiVec enhancement that will run on nothing but PowerPC. And it has nothing to do with a calculated move - it has to go with good coding practice and keeping options open, which is a good idea for any software project. Mac OS X is descended from one of the most portable commercial workstation OSes ever.
For developers, I imagine the switch from PowerPC to x86 would be as easy as some recompiling.
Assuming that's as easy as it would be to port the software, end users and developers would still have to deal with:

- Chaotic distribution issues (Will this box of software run on my x86 Mac? Will this run on my PPC Mac?)
- Cross-platform issues (Sure OS X runs on 2 architectures now, but will developers take advantage of that, or will they only develop for one from now on because it's easier?
- Increased testing & support overhead

(Don't underestimate the seriousness of these - they add, IMO, too much complexity to what is supposed to be a simple, carefree platform.)
Now, just because Apple moves to something like AMD's x86-64 Hammer processor doesn't mean that the Mac OS would be able to run on machines from other hardware vendors. Apple would most definitely lock their beloved OS to their own hardware.
I give Hong Kong hackers precisely 9 days to have it running on Joe Blow's white box Athlon, and less than 90 days to see support for 95% of all PCs built within the last 4 years.
That seems to be what scares some Mac users when talking about this subject. As a consumer, I would be more comfortable if Apple kept the monopoly on hardware in a world where the PC market is saturated.
I agree that Apple needs to retain control of its hardware.
So, do I think that Apple will make the move to AMD? YES! It would be the healthiest thing for them. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened at Macworld SF in January.
Being a Mac follower, it's important to make the distinction between what would be smart for Apple and what Steve Jobs will actually do. He doesn't always do what's smart. (That's not to say I think an x86 Mac would be smart - not at all.) In order to predict Apple's moves, though, you've got to understand Steve and the way he thinks - his ideologies, sense of aesthetics, business tactics, etc. An x86 Mac would be the most un-Steve-like thing ever.

3777

Nov 21, 2002, 10:05 PM

I don't care what Apple does as long as they do something, because they are getting their a$$ kicked right now and their hardware development since 1999 has been very unimpressive. Right now all iBooks should be G4, and they should have G5 1.7-2ghz Powerbooks and Powermacs, heck even iMacs and EMacs...... so who cares what they do as long as they do something. Nobody could be worse then what they currently have.

P.S. If enough money were offered I think AMD would develop and produce a PPC chip....... Apple's potential market share.....if their great looking hardware actually catches up...... is limitless......

alex_ant

Nov 21, 2002, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by G4scott
2. Hamsters- These are no ordinary hamsters... They're genetically engineered so they don't need sleep, food, or water, and they don't use the restroom. There's a little wheel inside of the box, and they welded it shut so that they don't escape...
Do all hamsters use the restroom in Texas? Because where I'm from, they usually just go all over their wood shavings. :)

Seriously though, I see a problem with this design. First, the ventilation inside the case would probably suck the hamster right into the power supply, where it would be made into fried hamster soufflet. Even if the hamster could somehow manage to hold on, it would be deafened by the fan noise.

Frobozz

Nov 21, 2002, 10:21 PM

Come on.... this is the worst rumor I've heard yet about AMD and Apple. The only part of this rumor which is likely is the 64bit part... a 64bit PPC. Even if AMD was to somehow help IBM with fabrication, it will be for a PPC chip. I don't see how that is even a possibility though, since IBM has the larger capacity four-fold.

The next new chip will be the 970 Power 4, which will be dubbed the G5. It's logical, it won't break away from PPC (which apple won't do for a MINIMUM of 4 years from now), and it makes marketing sense.

bluecell

Nov 21, 2002, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Frobozz
Come on.... this is the worst rumor I've heard yet about AMD and Apple. The only part of this rumor which is likely is the 64bit part... a 64bit PPC. Even if AMD was to somehow help IBM with fabrication, it will be for a PPC chip. I don't see how that is even a possibility though, since IBM has the larger capacity four-fold.

The next new chip will be the 970 Power 4, which will be dubbed the G5. It's logical, it won't break away from PPC (which apple won't do for a MINIMUM of 4 years from now), and it makes marketing sense. The truth is that IBM and Motorola have let Apple down in a big way. AMD will most likely be Apple's next move. If you don't think the rate of x86 development matters to Windows users who want to switch to Mac, you are very mistaken. Considering MacOS X isn't even optimized for PPC, a switch to AMD's x86-64 looks pretty good.

How exactly does it make marketing sense for Apple to stay with PPC?

mymemory

Nov 21, 2002, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by blueBomber
in all honesty, either chip is going to be fast, but think of all the ppc apps that would have to be recompiled to work on an x86 mac..

I for one do not feel like buying Photoshop again...

Do you buy soft?.... Oups!:D Sorry, I do buy all my software too:rolleyes:

crassusad44

Nov 21, 2002, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by Pismo
Now, if AMD could build Apple a 64-bit PPC processor instead of an x86 processor, that would be awesome!

The original article does state a big question: Will AMD provide an x86 chip, or a PPC chip?

I would be better if AMD supplied a new 64 bit chip, rather than Moto... (the article says Apple will introduce a 64 bit chip within the next few months...)

jaykk

Nov 21, 2002, 10:58 PM

This site is somewhat believable...but it doesn't make any sense. Apple just convinced major software vendors to port their software to Mac OS X. Now again another port to AMD/Intel is too much for software developers. Do you think Adobe and all will rewrite/recompile/port their Software every year ? Or apple will have to have another Classic environment to run Mac OS X on AMD.. Whatever it is, Apple needs to keep their options open. May be Apple is interested in AMD's Fab alone..

vniow

Nov 21, 2002, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by crassusad44

The original article does state a big question: Will AMD provide an x86 chip, or a PPC chip?

I would be better if AMD supplied a new 64 bit chip, rather than Moto... (the article says Apple will introduce a 64 bit chip within the next few months...)

AMD is definaltly releasing two 64-bit x86 chips, the Clawhammer for consumers (getting one as soon as I can afford it) and the Opteron for servers. The Hammer will be marketed as a +3400 but with a clock speed of about 2.1Ghz (I think, somewhere around that at least)

I don't see Apple moving completly away from PPC anytime soon, but if it doesn't take much trouble and it won't be too confusing for the average consumer to recompile OSX and all the apps over to x86 (I really have no idea whether it's just a simple recompile or something much more complex, maybe someone can fill me in?http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/smiley.gif) then I can see them using both in future Macs.
But only if it wouldn't take up too many resources which I'm not sure of.

It's not very likely and I don't see them doing this, but I wouldn't be totally shocked if they did.

mania

Nov 21, 2002, 11:16 PM

let me say that i am sys admin on a linux box and much of the software i install can be compiled for just about anything out there. its NO big deal. we act like software developers will run away and cry cause they don't know how to compile for a different chip. geez.

that being said a switch to x86 is unlikely at this time, however, macbodille or whatever seems to have a good source since they called a few things right in the past. also the dropping os9 boot signifies something. i for one do not even have classic installed.

i totally agree with the guy who said i don't care what they do just do something to make things faster!

Apple][Forever

Nov 21, 2002, 11:20 PM

Thiswillnothappenthiswillnothappenthiswillnothappen.

One simple reason, which has been stated here before:

ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF CURRENT MACINTOSH APPLICATIONS will not run on an x86 mac.

Unless there is an emulation layer. Not just a VM like Classic, but a full emulation layer like Virtual PC.

Have you run Virtual PC?

It takes 5 minutes for Windows 98 to boot on my G4/600. It takes about 20 seconds for the start menu to appear.

Emulation is SLOW, folks. You can kiss the 1.2 GHz of extra speed GOODBYE.

And, yeah, software developers could recompile everything. I'm sure all the Altivec programmers are going to love reoptimizing for x86-64. And, unless software companies want to give away a lot of work for free, no one in their right mind is going to upgrade EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF SOFTWARE on their system.

Now, if the PPC970 did not exist and Apple looked completely screwed, it might be worth it to them to get over these hurdles. But with promising developments 9 months to a year away, they're OK. The only people who really NEED faster macs will not get them as quickly as they like, but with Apple's recent media acquisitions the software side should keep them on board until then.

Personally, I think AMD is working with Apple, perhaps in bus technologies. But AMD is already losing serious ground to Intel, so I don't see them shifting too many resources over to 5% of the PC market.

Sun Baked

Nov 21, 2002, 11:20 PM

100% of CPUs will be moved to silicon-on-insulator by 2003, says CEO

By J. Robert Lineback
Semiconductor Business News
(07/13/01 11:54 a.m. EST)

SUNNYVALE, Calif. -- In a bold move to convert 100% of its PC processors to silicon-on-insulator technology, Advanced Micro Devices Inc. has begun pilot production of 0.13-micron SOI processes in Dresden, Germany, with a target to start up volume fabrication by the end of this year, said AMD officials here during a conference call with analysts.

The 0.13-micron SOI technology was jointly developed with Motorola Inc. under an ongoing R&D alliance, which is also focused on other next-generation processes such as copper interconnects and low-k dielectrics. AMD has also licensed SOI design libraries from IBM Corp. These technologies are expected to play a role in migrating all of AMD's PC processors to silicon-on-insulator processes during the next couple of years, said Hector De J. Ruiz, president and chief operating officer.

AMD eyes copper, 1-GHz chip

By Michael Kanellos and Jim Davis
Staff Writers, CNET News.com
July 20, 1998, 8:20 PM PT

update Motorola's chip division and Advanced Micro Devices detailed a technology-sharing alliance today that will give AMD the ability to make copper-based microprocessors and give Motorola needed components to build "system-on-a-chip" parts for intelligent devices.

AMD also indicated that it is planning to push its next-generation K7 processor up to a speed of 1 GHz (1,000 MHz) in the year 2000. Copper will first appear on AMD's K7 at that time.

"Such a chip would be the fastest [Intel]-compatible processor, at least in terms of raw clock speed, available," according to the Microprocessor Report's Jim Turley in a report released today.

Under terms of the seven-year patent licensing deal between the two companies, AMD will have access to Motorola's copper interconnect technology, which will allow AMD to shift from chips using aluminum circuit interconnections, and other microprocessor manufacturing technology.

Yesterday, AMD and Motorola announced they would collaborate on making copper chips. But IBM maintains that it holds a substantial lead in this field.

Yes I can see how IBM would need AMD - as a revenue source and licensee of IBM technology.

ddtlm

Nov 21, 2002, 11:40 PM

I have a hard time understanding how this rumor got posted to the front page ... someone up there needs to put a lameness filter in place.

mwob

Nov 21, 2002, 11:58 PM

From my view, if Apple were to switch to a hardware technology that creates significant new incompatibilites with current software, I would be less likely to purchase a new Mac, not more (at least in the near term). I'm not in the computer industry. I'm someone who simply uses them to get some work done (and have some fun). I've purchased several new Macs each year for the last several years and tend to be an early adopter of their innovations. I moved to OS X quickly but found it semi-painful, until recently, because much of the software I used was not OS X native. Only now have things seem to return back to "normal", since all the major packages I use are native (and I could finally afford to upgrade to them). I would loathe the idea of having to, yet again, purchase software upgrades for the sole reason of maintaining my current level of productivity.
I love fast hardware as much as the next guy. But, if I'm faced with having to re-purchase all my software... well, I think I might settle for something a bit slower, but more compatible.

iShater

Nov 22, 2002, 12:19 AM

Well, AMD's chips currently sell fairly cheep compared to Intel, and I believe their profit margins are low. I am totally guessing here, but wouldn't producing PPC chips for a customer like Apple actually bring them more money? no real competition (MOT :rolleyes: ).

Also, I thought they had some fancy fab facility in Dresden, Germany.

Personally, I would love to have AMD or ANYBODY get into the PPC market and start cranking out some more chips to
1) help improve performance
2) include newer technologies on the logic boards
3) drive prices down
4) force innovation

aaaaaaaaaaahhhh ... we can dream ... :D

utilizer

Nov 22, 2002, 12:40 AM

I hate to say it, but if Apple doesn't make the switch, I'll make it for them by switching to AMD myself. Probably Linux but I wouldn't rule out XP totally. Look, lets be serious here -- 3.06 Ghz RIGHT NOW, compared to TWO 1.25 Ghzs and STILL can't top anything even with the shorter pipelines; I've heard it all before. Puh-leez.
And you're telling me 1.7 Ghz by January of 2004?! Are you out of your mind Apple?! By that time Intel should be up to 4.5 Ghz and AMD will be at about 3.2 Ghz roughly, slaughtering Apple in speed comparsions. Hell, they do that now! And that 7457 G4 (I can't believe we're still using these G4s) to be unveiled at MWSF won't be the knight in shinning armor everybody is purporting it to be.
These AMD rumors are real and have substence. The question is is Apple going to fire the gun that they have cocked?
They better, or else more will switch. Software optimization only can go so far and if it means I have to leave Final Cut Pro for Adobe's Premiere then so be it. At least it'll be leaps and bounds faster than the overpriced hardware they're offering us right now. I love the Mac platform but the only thing that I can justify using it for in the near term with the current offerings of hardware is an Internet surfing machine to organize things like word processing, Excel stuff, accounting and e-mail. Everything else that I have been using it for (Photoshop, FCP, Flash, GoLive, Maya, Lightwave and Bryce) have been recently left in the dust for quite sometime, most notably by some 2.8 Ghz Dells we have at work. And yes, the G4s do beat out the Dells sometimes in Photoshop running consecutive filters but who does that?! No, you wait and apply filters one at a time to evaluate whether it looks good or not, then you move on.
So I may not upgrade my Pismo; this just might be my last Mac. I need to see some solid evidence soon since rendering times are precious and the amount of money we spend on Macs aren't backed up by their claims. Hype and no action I'm sorry to say. :(

scem0

Nov 22, 2002, 01:52 AM

Is apple trying to make Moto, AMD, and IBM all compete against each other, and
therefore make faster processors cheaper, and therefore make
all our lives happier? I hope so :D

bluecell

Nov 22, 2002, 02:22 AM

The PowerPC DOESN'T WORK IN APPLE'S FAVOR ANYMORE!!! They absolutely have to make the move to AMD. Their x86-64 processor is amazing and it would be a mistake to pass it up.

Doesn't anyone realize that Apple only holds 5% of the market? The processor speeds in the PC world ARE killing Apple's sales. The transition for developers wouldn't be difficult. Apple really needs to have options with the directions that they appear to be taking. AMD can help provide those options, IBM and Moto cannot.

Rumor has it that Moto's selling off most of their semiconductor unit and IBM is taking their own directions. This will be a great change for everyone.

:)

Xtreme

Nov 22, 2002, 04:02 AM

Hopefully this might clear things up ...

*******************************
I have yet again recieved rumors which you will like. Quite obviously they are from an anonymous source, But he/she has an excellent reliability.

- Apple will migrate to a 64bit CPU in the coming months.

- The processor will probably come from AMD rather than IBM, the former having a much greater production capacity.

- It's worth noting that as far as the PC platform is concerned, a mass market AMD made 64bit CPU is almost ready. It also has the advantage of being backwards compatible with 32bit software.

- So will it be an AMD x86 or PPC processor that will end up a MAC ?

- On a final note, Autodesk and Lotus Server are currently developing their software for MacOS X.

[Here is the message I recieved]

So, the rumors that involved AMD are not true. I came back from COMDEX, and i spoke to somone who is very familiar to the long term strategies of AMD. He is an analyst who usually has to sign NDA's. I met up with him before the Hector Ruiz (AMD's CEO) keynote speech.

I asked him "What will Hector end up saying ?" He replied, "There's a rumor that he will make a big announcment about an association with another company"

I personally never believed these rumors, and after this I am convinced that it's just a fantasy that lives in the spirits of ignorant people.
*******************************

nigel_t

Nov 22, 2002, 05:44 AM

The thing about this whole CPU thing is that although IBM may have said they promise some muscle for apple, Apple themselves have not said a word about the whole thing so I don't see why people are saying PPC or AMD or what ever, just wait and see, They(APPLE) are auctioning off evrything next month so there must be some stuff coming.
So chill out dudes.
:D

skunk

Nov 22, 2002, 06:38 AM

Anyone notice the interesting LaCie 500GB drive on the same page at MacBidouille? That's what I call back-up!

G4scott

Nov 22, 2002, 07:24 AM

Apple likes to keep things secret. It adds to the 'aura' or Apple. Besides, it makes rumor sites like this popular. Do you see any windowsrumors.com or intelrumors.com websites? I don't think so...

I just want to have one thing clarified...

If Apple were to switch to an x86 platform, would it require a recompile of just the OS, or of every Mac application out there? I thought that with Cocoa, the apps would be able to run on OSX regardless of the platform its running on...

hobie

Nov 22, 2002, 07:40 AM

Even if Apple was to jump on x86, do OS X apps really need to be recompiled? Yes, AltiVec is implemented now, but then again, no iBook can make use of it (G3), and they still run quite smooth.
Now from my point of view, all what has to be done is to optimize OS X for x86 as a base, and all recent X apps will run on it. Take Linux: it runs on PPC AND x86, just a few kernel changes have to be made, but do the apps have to be recompiled?!? So far not, everything that runs on Linux, runs on either platform, without changes and such stuff!

And what is the issue with a OS X port to x86? Do you guys really think this would break Apple's neck? I'd rather say it'll help to gain market-share. I know a lot of guys who search for alternatives for Windows without spending a fortune or fuzzling around with Linux. When Longhorn comes out with all it's digital rights management stuff and so on, even more users will get rid of M$. Now image Apple is in place then and offers a sleek, clear and highly usable OS, without useability restrictions, just to put it on the old beige boxes... Doesn't sound bad to me.

And to all those guys who mentioned low production capacities at AMD:
They indeed have a reasonable new factory in Germany, just waiting to max out production! There still are capacities left...
And since AMD has to cope with stability problems due to VIA platform chips, I bet they are keen to prove their processor stability by putting them onto Mac platforms.

just my 2 cents

hobie

Nov 22, 2002, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by G4scott

I just want to have one thing clarified...

If Apple were to switch to an x86 platform, would it require a recompile of just the OS, or of every Mac application out there? I thought that with Cocoa, the apps would be able to run on OSX regardless of the platform its running on...

My saying...

eric_n_dfw

Nov 22, 2002, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by hobie
ETake Linux: it runs on PPC AND x86, just a few kernel changes have to be made, but do the apps have to be recompiled?!? So far not, everything that runs on Linux, runs on either platform, without changes and such stuff!

You are very wrong.

There's a LOT of x86 only linux software out there. This is why there are always separate downloads for x86 and PPC linux. It can take a fair bit of work for a large, x86 package to be ported to PPC. Don't believe me? Try downloading even the source code to an x86 Linux app and try building it on Yellow Dog (PPC) linux. Unless someone has added PPC support, it will not work 90% of the time.

MisterMe

Nov 22, 2002, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by hobie
Even if Apple was to jump on x86, do OS X apps really need to be recompiled? Yes, AltiVec is implemented now, but then again, no iBook can make use of it (G3), and they still run quite smooth.
Now from my point of view, all what has to be done is to optimize OS X for x86 as a base, and all recent X apps will run on it. Take Linux: it runs on PPC AND x86, just a few kernel changes have to be made, but do the apps have to be recompiled?!? So far not, everything that runs on Linux, runs on either platform, without changes and such stuff!

And what is the issue with a OS X port to x86? Do you guys really think this would break Apple's neck? I'd rather say it'll help to gain market-share. I know a lot of guys who search for alternatives for Windows without spending a fortune or fuzzling around with Linux. When Longhorn comes out with all it's digital rights management stuff and so on, even more users will get rid of M$. Now image Apple is in place then and offers a sleek, clear and highly usable OS, without useability restrictions, just to put it on the old beige boxes... Doesn't sound bad to me.

And to all those guys who mentioned low production capacities at AMD:
They indeed have a reasonable new factory in Germany, just waiting to max out production! There still are capacities left...
And since AMD has to cope with stability problems due to VIA platform chips, I bet they are keen to prove their processor stability by putting them onto Mac platforms.

just my 2 cents
Linux does not run the same binaries of PPC as it does on Intel. They are different. A UNIX or Linux software vendor may distribute its application as either source code or a make file which is then compiled as binary on the target system. Most UNIX/Linux software is distributed this way, but it is novel in the personal computer industry.

DakotaGuy

Nov 22, 2002, 08:30 AM

Is this whole x86 rumor going to turn into an iWalk rumor? I am already getting tired of hearing about this everyday, but nobody really knows anything about it. For all we know, AMD and Apple might not be anything.

bbyrdhouse

Nov 22, 2002, 09:11 AM

Well, I think it is pretty obvious that Apple needs to do something to fill in the speed gap. I know that MGHTZ isnt everything, but if Apple is trying to increase it's market share they are going to have to understand that when the average user walks into a CompUSA and goes to look at all the "pretty" macs and then strolls over to the PC side of the store and sees a Processor 2 or 3 times faster than the mac and cheaper to boot. The average user says "hey I can do without all the good looks"
I am saying it IS a problem!

A move to AMD only makes sense, but as one reader stated erlier that it's not about good sense it's about Steve Jobs. Personally I think he relishes being the "underdog" the "few, the proud, the Mac owners" and I think he wants to keep it that way. I dont think he has ANY intention of filling in the "speed gap".

Now for other news. Apple will come out with some sort of PDA! Mark it down! Thats what the iCal is all about

lelereb

Nov 22, 2002, 09:11 AM

My brother has a Compaq laptop with a P4 1.4 ghz... it doesn't impress me so mutch... it's not so responsive... and has a battery life time of 2.5 hours.

I'm not sure x86 are so good processors, they are builded to declare a lot of mhz, 'couse mhz is the only think that normal people can understand of a processor, regardless of real speed.

My brother's previous laptop was a compaq with a PIII 1133 mhz, and was a bit faster than the actual one with the P4 1.4 ghz. Strange.

GPTurismo

Nov 22, 2002, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw

You are very wrong.

There's a LOT of x86 only linux software out there. This is why there are always separate downloads for x86 and PPC linux. It can take a fair bit of work for a large, x86 package to be ported to PPC. Don't believe me? Try downloading even the source code to an x86 Linux app and try building it on Yellow Dog (PPC) linux. Unless someone has added PPC support, it will not work 90% of the time.

Try using SuSE PPC bud...

As for this arguement.

PR wise, apple will shoot itself in the foot changing over to an x86 style system.

First, it's CISC, and the only place cisc is really great is in large database applications do to the slow steadiness of the system.

Second, the fight against the megahertz myth. If for the past 4 years they have fought it and say, OOPS, our mistake, you guys were right, they will loose a TON of respectability in the market by the industry and definately by the average consumer.

Third, Apple has tons of money invested in Altivec, they bet the farm on it, and to ditch it now, they would basically be conceding to wintel and saying "You guys are right"

Fourth, Altivec is an extended VMX, which is a risc only instruction set. Not going to see that on Intel's or AMD's CISC archetectures anytime soon

Fifth, AMD, even though I like their products, isn't highly innovative themselves. Basically everything they have built in the past 6 years has been vastly off of Intels R&D. When Intel had a major chip shortage, they had to go to AMD since they were the only ones that were capapable and willing to help them fabricate. THe big thing Intel had to do is allow AMD have access to all their RnD, and AMD has used all of that to develop all of their processors. AMD as an entity HEAVILY relies on others for their RnD, and that can be bad news in the long run. This is also one reason they don't want to leave x86 behind. Also not having to fund an extensive RnD department is one reason their costs are lower than anyone elses.

Sixth, Apple has already said they are supporting Hyper Transport, which is where all the AMD + Apple rumors started anyway. But Tons of companies are supporting hypertransport.

So personally, I think it's the hyper transport issue, and with the PPC970 supporting altivec, maybe it has something with either a) amd making the PPC chips earlier than IBM can, or something to do with the mobo's, maybe AMD is going to make UMA 2.0, or even with all the Digitial Lifestyle Devices, maybe amd is going to help apple build something sice their chips are usually cheaper.

I think this speculation is stupid, and uneccessary. Finally, if you are so damn concerned with megahertz and thing it matters, go ahead and jump ship. Your whining is old.

GPT

PS. Megahertz only matters to boys with small pee pees and have to compensate somehow :)

agreenster

Nov 22, 2002, 09:13 AM

Boy oh boy oh boy.

Its been a LONG time since I have seen such anger in the hearts of Mac loyalists.

I get the feeling that their anger has nothing to do with the rumor, but more to do with the fact that no one knows what approach Apple will take if they DO decide to switch to AMD.

Will OSX need only a recompile?

Will the software need adjusted to meet the new processor requirements?

Will Apple still luv us now that they have switched to the 'dark side' of processing? :rolleyes:

Point is people--no one knows. Apple and AMD may really have a trick up their sleeve. Maybe they dont. But dont be so angry and confrontational to people who are simply opening their eyes up to the possibility.

Maybe, just maybe Apple engineers who have tons of credentials have already addressed all the problems we have mentioned (ya think?) and are solving them as we type.

Just wait and see--and if nothing pans out, so what? Just enjoy the fact that you know something is cooking at Apple, and (one way or another) we are all going to be in 64-bit hog heaven sometime soon.

GPTurismo

Nov 22, 2002, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Is this whole x86 rumor going to turn into an iWalk rumor? I am already getting tired of hearing about this everyday, but nobody really knows anything about it. For all we know, AMD and Apple might not be anything.

Amen to that

agreenster

Nov 22, 2002, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by GPTurismo

PS. Megahertz only matters to boys with small pee pees and have to compensate somehow :)

Honestly sir, I could give two *****s about MhZ. But one thing I know for sure. My dual Xeon blows the doors off of a dual 1gHz G4.

Pick your Application. Photoshop, Premiere, Maya, Flash, DVD Playback, Cinema4D, the list goes on and on and on.

The Macintosh needs to speed up. Period. If Apple wants to continue to push themselves as a home multimedia computer, then they need to perform better than the competition.

I can see future Dell ads:

"Who wants to sit around Christmas afternoon waiting for my iMovie to Render? I switched to a Dell and could export my holiday home digital video in half the time. Hi, Im Ellen Feiss, and I saved Christmas!"

Frobozz

Nov 22, 2002, 09:30 AM

"The truth is that IBM and Motorola have let Apple down in a big way."

No, only Motorola. IBM has been priducing high quality, high mhz, and high production yield G3's for years now. They could have been doing G4's, but didn't see the market. That's not letting Apple down, that a business decision that shouldn't have effected Apple if Motorola had kept up their end of the G4 deal.

"AMD will most likely be Apple's next move. If you don't think the rate of x86 development matters to Windows users who want to switch to Mac, you are very mistaken."

LOL. Oh yes, clearly!

"Considering MacOS X isn't even optimized for PPC, a switch to AMD's x86-64 looks pretty good."

Actually, it is. It's saturated with AltiVec code, but the core is platform independent.

"How exactly does it make marketing sense for Apple to stay with PPC?"

They will not move to x86. It's not going to happen.

1) Even if they _could_ countrol the hardware with an x86 box (they can't), they'd never do it. Easily hacked via software.

2) Too much consumer confusion. Apple is a simple OS/hardware strategy, and the OS X/OS 9 situation is already straining this considerably.

3) Their marketing is directly based on the AltiVec component of the PowerPC, which is a smaller marketing component of the "our chips are better" campaign. They CAN successfully argue a 1.0 GHz G4 is as fast as a 1.75 - 2.0 GHz P4. The problem they run in to is the fastest G4 will probably only be 1.4 GHz in January x 2 = 2.8 GHz. So, if you have a program optimized for dual processors you are close to a single processor 3.08 GHz P4 system. Dual P4's aren't as beneficial as dual G4's, so they are close--- but need to ramp up to probably 2.0 Ghz soon.

4) That would be admitting they lost. They won't do that. Mac OS has always been tied to the belief that efficient design is more important than anythign else. Even the 64 bit AMD hammer isn't an efficient design-- it consumes MASSIVE amounts of power and generates a lot of heat. That means you can't use it in a laptop and won't be able to for a LONG time.

5) The PowerPC architecture is an excellent laptop chip. Apple sells a lot of laptops and their laptop line is faster than anything in the PC world. Not so with their desktops.

6) They'd inevitably split their developers into two camps-- x86 and PPC. Another death blow.

Clockwork

Nov 22, 2002, 09:37 AM

At the moment Apple is selling computers like they haven't done in a long time. They are one of the few companies in the industry today that are NOT actually in a state of crisis. (Dell are doing exceptionally well, but they are scraping prices and are creating a false market wich will probably bounce back in their face). We have customers coming to us because they are looking for other options than Windows and they like the look and feel of the Macintosh computer. They don't care if intel have pumped their crippled x86 cpu's up to 3 ghz and included this thing called hyperthreading(OEM's ship hyperthreading as default off... hmmmm, I wonder why?) I can spend 20 minutes talking about the functions of OSX and when I come to the part where I'm about to talk about the cpu and architecture they want to know more on OSX. That's why Gateway got the cold shoulder for their Profile4 and Apple has recieved all those great reviews for their iMac line even though the Profile4 has a 2.8 ghz chip and the iMac is at 800. The point is that Apple is really not in such a hurry to get faster chips out. They can wait until MWNY for the IBM 970 to intro in the XServe and PowerMac line, because they are sitting on another goldmine. OSX and the iApp's. I'm a student and sell mac's part time at a Apple dealership. The rest of the day I spend shooting film and working in After Effects, FCP3, and DVD Studio Pro. It works like a charm on our dual ghz system's. The last two apps are the best in the business and they don't even exist for Wintel PC's, so when someone say that they would gladly trade away FCP to start working on a PC with Adobe Premiere just to get that extra mhz boost I don't know what to say except that you must have had some REALLY BIG problems with your Mac. Every company has it's downturn every once in a while, but It's not Apple's fault that we are getting lower clocked cpu's. Motorola needs to get the G4 to 0.13 micron to reduce heat and power usage + be able to clock the G4 at a higher frequency. 2003 shall be a very exciting year for those of us who are still sticking with the mac platform.

Groovsonic

Nov 22, 2002, 09:57 AM

Just to correct agreenster, it would be Janie Porsche that saved Christmas on her crappy dell, not ellen fiess.

agreenster

Nov 22, 2002, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Clockwork
The rest of the day I spend shooting film and working in After Effects, FCP3, and DVD Studio Pro. It works like a charm on our dual ghz system's. The last two apps are the best in the business and they don't even exist for Wintel PC's

You've obviously never actually worked in the editing business.

AVID, my friend, is the best in the business. And yes, it is used on a PC very often, and very well. Just watch any credits on any film. They often have the AVID logo at the end.

Final Cut Pro is making headway.

But noe of this is my arguement. My first response to your post is that Mac people sometimes become to zealous and forget that performance isnt such a bad thing. The current line of PC's are cheaper and more responsive. Windows isnt very fun, but its a tradeoff for the performance you get.

For example, I just rendered (here at work) a minutes worth of video, uncompressed at 640x480 on a dual 1ghz G4 and a dual Xeon. The same file, both in Premiere-- took 7minutes on the PC---13 minutes on the Mac.

Now, had I been exporting a half hour worth of stuff....well, you get the idea.

bluecell

Nov 22, 2002, 10:07 AM

I give up. Most of you seem to be missing the bigger picture. Apple only has 5% of the market. That's not going to change unless they make some changes. The sad reality is that Apple is losing out with PPC. They need OPTIONS. Anyone who has questions relating to recompiling and OS optimization should check out the article on Unsanity.org entitled MACH-O ABI (http://www.unsanity.org/archives/2002_10.php). OS 9 is now a legacy OS. OS X is a whole new start for Apple. Are you going to stop using Mac when Apple starts using AMD processors? No, you won't. You'll just have a faster machine running an amazing OS.

agreenster

Nov 22, 2002, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Groovsonic
Just to correct agreenster, it would be Janie Porsche that saved Christmas on her crappy dell, not ellen fiess.

I know. I was just mentioning Ellen Feiss again because she makes me laugh.

Oh, and BlueCell, thanks for an insightful post. Mac People WONT stop using a MAc just because it has an AMD processor. In fact, give em a week, and they will start wearing AMD t-shirts.

DharvaBinky

Nov 22, 2002, 10:16 AM

I know just enough about Machine and OS architecture to ask this stupid question:

Why couldn't a system have both a PPC and an Athlon?

All applications interact with the upper layers of the system architecture. Those interact with the kernel. The kernel interacts with the processor. Right? Since both PPC and Athlon are Big Endian they could store their information in the same registers in the kernel. Couldn't the kernel direct x86 instructions to an Athlon and PPC instructions to the g4?

Native execution of the instructions would allow for some serious increases in clock speed. Additionally, since there would be a native X86 in the box, wouldn't they be able to exploit the work of the various WINE teams? Or for people who needed more "windows" than WINE, a "native" version of Virtual PC could be released.

<Shrug>

Flame me and list the myriad of reasons I know nothing about anything.

:)

Binky

Kelson

Nov 22, 2002, 10:20 AM

This is a repost of my comments on this subject from the poll a few days ago.

----------------------------------------------------
This whole discussion is far beyond being ridiculous at this point.

There are a few simple reasons why Apple will NOT move to x86.

1. This involves much more than just 'recompiling' applications. There is the endian issue to deal with.

2. 3rd Party developers will not put up with another platform change this soon after the OS9 to OSX migration.

3. This would indicate to the market that Apple is adrift from a leadership standpoint.

4. It would lead to consumer demand for Apple to support every bit of hardware available for the PC, creating the instability issues seen on the Wintel platform.

5. Apple would have to cut prices drastically and compete with x86 hardware pricing, which would reduce margins. This would ultimately lead to layoffs at Apple and a declining stock price.

6. Microsoft would very likely refuse to port Office OS X to the x86 platform, citing lack of demand or some other excuse. Apple depends on Office and that move by Microsoft would kill Apple.

7. It would be a complete betrayal of all their current installed base. All development on PPC based apps would cease, leaving everyone with a Mac high and dry. As mentioned above, 3rd party would migrate to linux or windows development.

Apple uses their software to sell their hardware. Right now, they are in a bit of a slump because of the issues surrounding the lack of a G5 processor. It is not just Apple that is seeing decreased sales right now, it is the entire industry. If Apple is smart, they will position themselves well for an upturn in computer sales, which is turning into a cyclical market. This means getting their product line established by the end of 2003 around the next generation architectures.

The challenges with moving to a non-PPC architecture are significant and would take LONGER than waiting for the PPC970. It does not matter if OS X is ready to run on x86 if there are no applications. The PPC970 will be shipping within the next 12 months. In the mean time, we will all just continue to make do with what is available. We can also be confident that Apple will take this time to continue to improve OS X by adding new functionality and features, which will make the arrival of the PPC970 that much better.

The current G4 systems may be slower than the P4 3ghz systems. Fact is, there are not that many people rushing out to buy top of the line P4 systems, because very few people really need that processing speed. The vast majority of people I know are still running older Pentium II, or Pentium III systems, because they work just fine. A very large number of people are still running Win95 for the same reason. This delay in product cycle WILL NOT KILL APPLE. Doing something rash could.

About future processor fab choices.

AMD - They are to small and losing money. They do not have the ability to start fabbing PPC chips.

MOT - They are moving away from the PPC from all appearances

IBM - The leader in the chip fabrication industry. They are able to provide stable chip supplies and R&D to make Apple successful.

Be patient, enjoy the software updates to Jaguar and the upcoming Panther releases. Look at the other advances in hardware outside just CPU's. I firmly believe that Apple will be bringing it all together to provide the most impressive computing platform ever seen by/at MWSF '04. (Sounds like a long time, but it is only a year off.)

BTW - Go look at their financials. Their revenue levels for 2001 are just slightly off from 1999. Tho 2000 was a great year for them. I am interested to see the 2002 revenue number, but they do not indicate a significant decline in market share. I'm seeing a 10% decline in 2001 revenue from 1999 revenue.

That is why after 14 years of being a Mac-Hater, I've finally become a switcher with the release of the new 1Ghz Powerbooks....

- Kelson

Frobozz

Nov 22, 2002, 10:31 AM

You are correct, sir! YES! :-)

GPTurismo

Nov 22, 2002, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Kelson
Yadda Yadda Yadda

Amen Brotha

eric_n_dfw

Nov 22, 2002, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by GPTurismo
Try using SuSE PPC bud...
Okay - and I still will have less binary (pre-compiled) app's than x86 SuSE Linux does. I also will find a lot of app's source distributions don't provide a build configuration for PPC.

Originally posted by GPTurismo
PR wise, apple will shoot itself in the foot changing over to an x86 style system.

First, it's CISC, and the only place cisc is really great is in large database applications do to the slow steadiness of the system.
RISC vs. CISC is an old arguement and Intel/AMD have proven that, on the desktop, it is a moot point. They've, basically, bolted a CISC-like frontend to RISC cores and are achieving great results thoguh brute-force, high MHz. Besides, what on earth makes you say a CISC based database is faster than a RISC one? Tell that to IBM and Sun who sell multi-million dollar database hardware to Fortune 100 companies. All on RISC chip machines.
(And what do you mean by "the slow seadiness of the system"?)

Originally posted by GPTurismo
Fourth, Altivec is an extended VMX, which is a risc only instruction set. Not going to see that on Intel's or AMD's CISC archetectures anytime soon
What are you smoking? AltiVec is just another vector processer (albiet awesome one) - consider is MMX/SSE done right. It acutally, is kind of "no-RISC" if you ask me. RISC chip instruction sets do very small operations, very fast. AltiVec instructions are more CISC like, doing a ton of stuff at once.

Originally posted by GPTurismo
Fifth, AMD, even though I like their products, isn't highly innovative themselves. Basically everything they have built in the past 6 years has been vastly off of Intels R&D. When Intel had a major chip shortage, they had to go to AMD since they were the only ones that were capapable and willing to help them fabricate. THe big thing Intel had to do is allow AMD have access to all their RnD, and AMD has used all of that to develop all of their processors. AMD as an entity HEAVILY relies on others for their RnD, and that can be bad news in the long run. This is also one reason they don't want to leave x86 behind. Also not having to fund an extensive RnD department is one reason their costs are lower than anyone elses.
I had not heard this before, do you have any links to news stories on that? (AMD fabricating for Intel) I'd be interested in reading about it.

Originally posted by GPTurismo
I think this speculation is stupid, and uneccessary. Finally, if you are so damn concerned with megahertz and thing it matters, go ahead and jump ship. Your whining is old.
Frankly, if OS X ran on something other than PPC, I would. Unfortunately, it doesn't, I hate Winblows and I need MS Office applications.

Originally posted by GPTurismo
PS. Megahertz only matters to boys with small pee pees and have to compensate somehow :)
And anyone rendering DV footage or 3d or large databases (where AltiVec cannot help) , or compiling larger applications (where AltiVec cannot help either)

tgrundke

Nov 22, 2002, 10:41 AM

Wow. What a discussion.

There is plenty of evidence toward this move-most important of all I believe is Apple's call to make all new Macs after December boot OSX only.

For all the naysayers who think Apple will never get developers to recompile-have we thought that Apple may have found a way around such an issue? Perhaps the performance gains will be such that the overhead by any form of emulation (I'm talking out of my ass here, anyone may correct me) will be negated?

Regardless, I think it would be a great move. They'll probably try it first on the XServe and then deploy it down the lineup.

Let's face it, kids-no matter what Apple's marketing schtick says about "megahertz myth", it s a load of bull. Sales of PowerMacs demonstrates clearly that Apple is providing little reason to upgrade to new hardware for all but the most power-hungry individuals.

At this point, almost any move would be a good move.

Uragon

Nov 22, 2002, 10:46 AM

Just a question....

Was just reading an article from ATAT...is Amd Support same as AMD Support with MacOS 10.2 features?

Clockwork

Nov 22, 2002, 10:50 AM

You've obviously never actually worked in the editing business.

You're right. I have never worked in the editing business. I'm still a student.
We use both Avid Xpress DV and Final Cut Pro 3. Most of us find FCP to be more "ease of use", but still equally as powerful and it is really improving rapidly (can't wait til' #4). I know Avid make some really heavy editing solutions, but thats further up the ladder. Apple just have'nt climbed that high yet, but when they do.... maybe they will buy Avid and integrate it's technology into FCP(Not likely though), but they did buy Emagic and scrap Logic for Windows and Linux. That was one of the most preferred soundstudio programs.
I'm getting away from what this thread is really all about.
I'm afraid that AMD are also falling behind in the microprocessor race just like Moto did(remember when we actually had the fastest cpu's). AMD are loosing money and cutting jobs. Dell where supposed to use AMD Opteron cpu's in their servers, but have instead opted for Itanium 2 from Intel. That is a major blow for AMD. They are also having a hard time convincing customers that their processors are equally as fast as Intel's. Naming a processor 2800+ when it clocks at 2200 mhz seems even more desperate then what Apple has been doing. Plus the fact that it's hard to even get your hands on a 2800+(someone mentioned AMD being able to produce at higher rates than IBM?).
I'm hoping that "Big Blue" will be able to deliver next summer, so we can have some G5's in time for MWNY. I'm really excited about the 970 and so are the people at ArsTechnica and that's got to say something because they seem to know a thing or two about microarchitechture. You should check out their in-depth review. It might bring new faith into the fact that IBM is Apple's future choice of cpu's.

tgrundke

Nov 22, 2002, 11:01 AM

Kelson, a few things:

I cannot discuss the software issue as my knowledge is not up to par in that department. But I do question some of your assumptions. First of all:

3. This would indicate to the market that Apple is adrift from a leadership standpoint.

I don't necessarily agree. Why would the adoption of another chip vendor (assuming that the inconvenience to is minimal) be seen as Apple being adrift? I see it more as being very pragmatic and intelligent in the face of Motorola's inability to provide needed performance gains.

4. It would lead to consumer demand for Apple to support every bit of hardware available for the PC, creating the instability issues seen on the Wintel platform.

Once more: how do you come to this conclusion? The boxes would still be Apple-only, not 3rd party clones. Just because it runs an AMD chip doesn't mean that people will *think* it should support the Wintel hardware world. You can be certain that Apple will make sure people do not equate AMD with a Wintel box. Just as the G4 is known as the "Velocity Engine Chip", you can be certain that any AMD chip will be named something else to keep peoples' minds off AMD and on Apple.

5. Apple would have to cut prices drastically and compete with x86 hardware pricing, which would reduce margins. This would ultimately lead to layoffs at Apple and a declining stock price.

I disagree entirely, and your argument here is baseless. As I stated before-the addition of AMD does not require Apple to become a member of the Wintel universe. Apple would push very hard to keep the brand recognition strong that they are unique, yet compatible with the Wintel universe. Just as Apple uses chips from IBM, it doesn't mean that Apple competes with IBM! The addition of AMD would permit Apple to compete with the Wintel world in means of raw performance, little else.

7. It would be a complete betrayal of all their current installed base. All development on PPC based apps would cease, leaving everyone with a Mac high and dry. As mentioned above, 3rd party would migrate to linux or windows development.

Possible-once again, I don't know enough of the technical aspects to make a commentary.

Apple uses their software to sell their hardware. Right now, they are in a bit of a slump because of the issues surrounding the lack of a G5 processor. It is not just Apple that is seeing decreased sales right now, it is the entire industry. If Apple is smart, they will position themselves well for an upturn in computer sales, which is turning into a cyclical market. This means getting their product line established by the end of 2003 around the next generation architectures.

Read the numbers, please. Apple's sales have been hardest hit. Dell has managed to increase its sales through this entire "downturn". The sales are out there, but Apple's not getting them. The market is consolidating (ergo Gateway, HP/Compaq are losing sales-but more due to those going to Dell than to a bad market). Apple does well to implement the latest technologies and architectres-and they are well positioned. But the performance issue is dogging them terribly today.

agreenster

Nov 22, 2002, 11:10 AM

Good post. It proves that you are thinking about the isuue, instead of what other people are doing and just having a knee-jerk reaction to the possibility that Apple is switching processors.

About Avid, I was simply pointing out that Apple doesnt necessarily have the market cornered with FCP, and the reason is because they dont have horsepower to back it up. I would have to say that the vast majority of the editing market would prefer FCP over Avid anyday, if they could only see more performance. With HDTV becoming mainstream, and larger resolution become attractive to the consumer (Imax, HD-DVD's, 2k Film Quality at home...etc), Apple hardware is going to have to step it up to compete.

FCP I love---Motorola G4, I dont.

blueBomber

Nov 22, 2002, 12:09 PM

this is starting to sound more like the usual "Apple is dead" talk than anything else. In all honesty, who cares what processor they use? As long as people can still turn on their Mac and use it however they choose, thats whats important. Apple gears most of it's products toward the general consumer, the switch ads are clear evidence of this. Apple will do whatever is best for consumers, period. Don't try to figure out what Apple (or Steve) is doing, just sit back and enjoy the ride :cool:

richard5mith

Nov 22, 2002, 12:27 PM

But OSX already has Amd Support. :)

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/compare.html

Bottom of the page, bottom item underneath "Other Features".

-----------------------
www.allapple.com
All Apple. All the Time.

pgwalsh

Nov 22, 2002, 01:01 PM

Oops forgot to add this.

I heard in another forum within MacRumors that AMD chips were based on RISC, but you CISC emulation. This isn't the first time I've heard this. It would be interesting if true.

With Apple and AMD both being part of the HyperTransport consortium, maybe they'll use AMD to fab ppc based chips for a HyperTransport based system. However, this is extreme speculation, but that's why I'm at macrumors.

For anyone to say that Apple purchasing chips from AMD wouldn't mean much to AMD, they're wrong. AMD needs all the business they can get. Apple would be a great source of revenue for them. If you want to weigh in cost benefit then you may come up with an argument, but they wouldn't do it unless both parties come out as winners. That's just the way you do business, unless, you're Micro$oft.

Hmm... Maybe the 970 will be for the XServe and AMD PPC 64 will be for consumers. Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe AMD is designing PPC 64 chips that will be fabbed for Apple in IBM's NY plant based on HyperTransport, Alti-Vec and genetically engineered hamsters.

From someone's earlier post, I have NT for ppc.

mwob

Nov 22, 2002, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by blueBomber
this is starting to sound more like the usual "Apple is dead" talk than anything else. In all honesty, who cares what processor they use? As long as people can still turn on their Mac and use it however they choose, thats whats important. Apple gears most of it's products toward the general consumer, the switch ads are clear evidence of this. Apple will do whatever is best for consumers, period. Don't try to figure out what Apple (or Steve) is doing, just sit back and enjoy the ride :cool:

Very lively and interesting thread.

I tend to fall in-line with blueBomber on this one. It makes little difference to me what processor is under the hood. So long as they keep the OS, peripherals and software running smoothly I'll stay with the Mac platform. Macs have never been the fastest or cheapest, but they have long remained the best and most innovative when you examine the platform as a whole. In past years I upgraded for speed. In recent years, when I upgrade to a new Mac it's largely been driven by Apple's addition of new features (OS X, DVD-R, iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, etc.). So, on the consumer side of things, Apple needs to do what's right to keep delivering innovative machines that work and work well. If this means switching chips, then do it; so long as it remains essentially transparent to us.

MisterMe

Nov 22, 2002, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by richard5mith
But OSX already has Amd Support. :)

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/compare.html

Bottom of the page, bottom item underneath "Other Features".

-----------------------
www.allapple.com
All Apple. All the Time.
And this (http://www.am-utils.org/) is the Amd support that it has: http://www.am-utils.org/

GPTurismo

Nov 22, 2002, 01:37 PM

Larger Databases need more processor power? Then why do tell are people using large clusters of Sun systems using 700 > megahertz processors. BEcause in largescale databases you want

Reliability, easy scalability for storage, and consistancy. Larger logic requiring tasks like heavy indexing will bring any system down unless pushed off to another machine.

DV? I now people using linux and higher end apps on gigahertz p3's. Same as 3D. That's all a pipe dream that you idiots swim in. Welcome to the real world kiddies. The only reason you HAVE TO HAVE megahertz is to play games. If you are in an industry that requires such power you need to go get real equipment from Linux clusters, or even the big dogs like SGi/Irix. In clusters, megahertz per machine isn't that super important, as long as you have controllers than can maintain them which requires better coding.

It's like in cars, I don't care if your car has 1000 HP, but if it doesn't have the design and engineering and transmission, to torque conversion etc. to use that power and to handle turns, all you have is a land rocket and that is good for only one thing. Going fast. Nothing else.

GPT

DakotaGuy

Nov 22, 2002, 01:39 PM

Is the PowerPC 970 dead? Sure sounds like it with all of these x86 rumors.

GPTurismo

Nov 22, 2002, 01:42 PM

Yeah, the PPC970 is dead and the iWalk lives

:o

And Disney really bought apple 9 years ago. They just have kept it secret all this time... You know Steve J....

cubist

Nov 22, 2002, 02:50 PM

Yes, no matter what people will tell you, applications do have to be recompiled when you change to a CPU with a different instruction set. SUSE comes on 7 CDs, plenty of space for multiple binaries. PPC binaries will definitely NOT run on an X86 CPU, nor the reverse, without an emulation layer (think "like watching paint dry").

However, I think I heard someone say the welded-shut machines run Mac OS X Server. This makes a huge difference! Nobody runs applications on the server, they run them on client machines. When you're running Mac OS X Server, all the software you run comes from one supplier - Apple. There is no reason whatsoever Apple couldn't make an XServe box with an Athlon or two in it, and an Opteron next year. It could be cheap, fast and very good. X Server already comes with Apache and MySQL, right? Add PostgreSQL or maybe even Oracle, and you've got a box that corporate America could rack up by the thousands. Who cares what instruction set it runs inside?

MacCoaster

Nov 22, 2002, 03:02 PM

To the people who were talking about Linux on PPC binaries/sources/whatever...

PPC Linux binaries indeed won't run on x86 Linux and vice versa.

BUT, MOST of those open source programs can work on either processor, just a compile away.

To the guy who mentioned "packages." Those are binaries. And guess what, binaries are produced from sources.

KDE works great on Linux/PPC as it does on Linux/x86.

Same concept can be applied to Mac OS X, especially with Cocoa and FAT binary Apple has been doing with 68k/PPC. Compile for both PPC and x86, then distribute.

To that dude who said Mac OS X applications 100% wouldn't run on x86. You're wrong. In fact, there is this one clone of NeXTstep's Mail program (now Mac OS X Mail), which is open source, and is done in GNUstep, works well natively with Cocoa on Mac OS X and natively with GNUstep on Linux. Same GUI, but beauty of it is menus are different in how it is implemented (vertical menus in (NeXT|GNU)step, horizontal menus in Mac OS X), but they're from the same source.

So yes, a simple recompile is possible if the developers put in time.

utilizer

Nov 22, 2002, 03:42 PM

After reading some of your comments, I'm more and more convinced that Apple blew it. The switch doesn't seem likely on their end, but it does on mine. It's really a shame that so many of us loyal Mac users are switching due to low morale!
They had the chance to get on Moto's a*s about the G5 matters but didn't. Too bad. I can't afford to wait until MWNY; I'll give them till MWSF then make my decision as to whether or not I'll invest in XServes and PowerMac towers. Until then, looks like this tired Pismo wants to be the administrator console for the servers and then a new 1Ghz PB is in my hands as my personal management computer. Now Apple, get me to your towers so it can function as my primary work machine and not a 3.06 Ghz Dell.

rt_brained

Nov 22, 2002, 05:17 PM

I've had it with these d'AMD rumors.

alex_ant

Nov 22, 2002, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by bluecell
I give up. Most of you seem to be missing the bigger picture. Apple only has 5% of the market. That's not going to change unless they make some changes. The sad reality is that Apple is losing out with PPC. They need OPTIONS. Anyone who has questions relating to recompiling and OS optimization should check out the article on Unsanity.org entitled MACH-O ABI (http://www.unsanity.org/archives/2002_10.php). OS 9 is now a legacy OS. OS X is a whole new start for Apple. Are you going to stop using Mac when Apple starts using AMD processors? No, you won't. You'll just have a faster machine running an amazing OS.
Yes, and we'd have a faster machine running an amazing OS with the PPC 970 as well. And in that case, we'd even be able to run all our old software on it!

pianojoe

Nov 22, 2002, 08:59 PM

Some 80 posts up somebody asked if programs would have to be recompiled to run on a hypothetical (and highly improbable) x86 version of Mac OS X. Some other people have stated that the answer isn't known.

The answer is:

Yes. All software (but Java apps) needs to be recompiled.
All software that talks to the hardware (drivers, anyone?) needs to be rewritten from the ground up. (Most of this is done by the OS.)
The OS itself needs much more than a simple recompile.

HP haven't managed to come up with a (functional) driver for my scanner since the introduction of OS X, but they "are working on it". Do you really believe all third-party drivers will be rewritten AGAIN?

scem0

Nov 23, 2002, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by wrkalot
Would some one please pass the popcorn?

Would a mod please get rid of you and wt_brains useless comments?

It would be very nice if this rumor came true because I think we
all want a fast processor come January. But I think All the reasons
Kelson stated make good sense, but I also think BlueCell makes
a good point. I think that if apple has a simple way to migrate
to the an x86 AMD chip then they should do that, but there are
many reasons why this wouldn't be easy. But if possible, then
they should do it. I don't know what to make of this AMD support
in Jaguar stuff - but it looks promising for those that are pro-switching
to AMD.

scem0

Nov 23, 2002, 12:51 AM

Something's wrong with the edit feature. Oh well, I meant to say
wt_brain's. That all I wanted to correct, and I ended up
having a useless comment myself. I couldn't help mine though,
they posted theirs willingly.

Sorry. Please delete this.

Dj Kioto

Nov 23, 2002, 02:56 AM

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/compare.html

look at the bottom in the "other features"

"Amd Support"

I'm sure that is some other Amd, and people are just finding reasons to keep this rumor going (I read this on www.appleturns.com, they are jonzing for some apple news bad, but they got it from MacOSRumors.com...).

What Amd is it, anyone have a clue?

Dj Kioto

Nov 23, 2002, 02:58 AM

there are more than one page,...I had wondered why no one had mentioned it, nevermind...

steve53e

Nov 23, 2002, 06:57 AM

By the time I need to purchase my next computer (2005 or 2006), we may have an answer to this on-going rumor. See you then!

ibjoshua

Nov 23, 2002, 07:36 AM

Have you guys/gals(?) really got nothing better to do?

who really cares as long as your mac rocks?

i_b_joshua

Wry Cooter

Nov 23, 2002, 09:19 AM

:o
Once upon a time there were some very good chip design and fabrication patents. There was an auction of this wonderful intellectual property. Everyone wondered who it was that won this marvelous prize.

This was several years ago. The folks winning the goods? AMD.

The problem with this entire discussion is that people are equating AMD = x86. That isn't really the point.

The point is, if there is any credence to these rumors, the important bit is that it is anti wintel alliance if anything. No to windows, no to intel, no to x86.

Yes to another supplier, someone that can and does meet volume demand for the desktop market. With help from the others. Moto keeps their toes in a bit, at least the PPC people do, while Moto Mothership can shuffle off the horrible demand of actually being asked to manufacture something they apparently cannot.

Most PPCs will be coming from IBM and AMD. These will be faster, and cheaper, and more flexible. And they will work best with Mac OS and other *nix, while easing recompiles of source which may have been written for, oh an intel design somewhere.

nsean

Nov 23, 2002, 10:01 AM

According to the OS X features comparison chart found at http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/compare.html Jaguar has support for AMD. It is found in the 2nd from bottom section. Just thought I would let you all know.

nixd2001

Nov 23, 2002, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by nsean
According to the OS X features comparison chart found at http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/compare.html Jaguar has support for AMD. It is found in the 2nd from bottom section. Just thought I would let you all know.

Urm, are people confusing "auto mount daemon" with "advanced micro devices" here?

bbyrdhouse

Nov 23, 2002, 11:01 AM

I think people were being facetious when they were reffering to Amd support.

I am planning on getting a new mac for Christmas or sometime after Christmas, but I am now wondering if I should wait till after MWSF to get it.

Also, If I were to get a new iBook will it be outdated in a year? By outdated I mean will new programs and OSX updates be unable to work on it because it has G3 instead of G4.

MacCoaster

Nov 23, 2002, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by bbyrdhouse
Also, If I were to get a new iBook will it be outdated in a year? By outdated I mean will new programs and OSX updates be unable to work on it because it has G3 instead of G4.
Find a "G4" only program. Run it on your G3.

Slow (probably), but runs.

Lesson: you can run G4 programs on G3 processors because G3 has most, if not all, G4's instruction set (ISA), minus AltiVec.

Unless Mac OS X drops G3 support (like they dropped 603/604 "support" in Jaguar), your G3 should be fine for years to come. We just have to wait and see.

macoasisohio

Nov 23, 2002, 12:20 PM

AMD making the new G5 chip instead of Intel?
Sorry guys, I've been predicitng this for 6 months. Why?

•Since Intel can't reconfigure it's server chip to use with Apple for another YEAR,
•Since many upper echalon wonks at Apple SEVERLY distrust and dislike Intel,
•Since AMD is direct competiton wtih Intel, (see previous)
•Since AMD <clearly> makes a superior product,

I then state that the "Intel is going to make Apple's G5 chip" deliberate ruse.

I may be wrong, but I've got a 450 batting average at this point on what Apple is going to do in the future: time will tell.....

dekator

Nov 23, 2002, 03:13 PM

written this on the MacBidouille site:

[MàJ]
Voici le message que j'ai reçu. Sa langue maternelle n'étant pas le Français, excusez son ortographe.

Alors, les rumeurs qui s'agit AMD ne sont pas vrai. Je reviens de Comdex, et j'ai parlé avec quelque q'un qui est très familier avec la stratégie à long terme de AMD. Il est analyste qui par habitude doit signer des accordes de non-révélation. Je l'ai vus avant le discours principal de Hector Ruiz, Chef d'AMD. J'ai demandé, "qu est-ce que Hector vas dire?" Il y'avait un rumeur qu'il y devait être une grande annonce par Ruiz au sujet d'un associé avec une autre compagnie. Cette analyste m'a dit: <<Je ne crois pas les rumeurs au sujet d'Apple et AMD, et vous ne devriez pas, non plus.>>
Je n'ai jamais cru ces rumeurs, et apres cela je suis convaincu qu ilsexistent seulement dans les esprits des personnes ignorantes.

Which translates: <Here's a message I received:
The rumors concerning AMD are incorrect. I've just returned from Comdex where I talked to someone being intimately familiar with the long term strategy of AMD. He's an analyst and thus normally under a non-disclosure agreement. I saw him before Hector Ruiz, AMD's chief gave his talk. I asked him: "What will Hector say?". There is a rumor that there will be a major announcement by Ruiz concerning going together with a big company.
The analyst replied: "I don't believe the rumors concerning Apple and AMD and you shouldn't either." I never believed those rumors and after that I'm sure they only exist in the minds of ignorant people.>

Well, what to make of that? Personally, I don't think Apple's gonna drop the PPC any time soon. So, will AMD produce for Apple ? Who knows...

DakotaGuy

Nov 23, 2002, 03:50 PM

Call me crazy, but I think it would be nuts for Apple to dump the easy transistion to the PPC 970 and IBM for a little company like AMD who might be facing the same problems Motorola is right now in the future. Just remember, if Apple goes x86 and AMD faulters, then where do we go, Intel?

As far as Apple needing AMD for enough production...that is a joke. IBM could deliver more then enough chips for Apple and then many more. I say let Motorola continue to develop the G4 for the consumer machines and laptops and let IBM take on the Power line. If everyone would settle down a little, you can see the roadmap on the 7457 looks very good for the consumer machines and the laptops and the 970 would work well in the PowerMacs and Xserves.

What is wrong with this theory? I bet something like this will happen more so then Apple ditching Moto and IBM for one company AMD. Really can AMD supply all of Apple and their PC customers. How well off is AMD?

I thought Power Macintosh was named so because they had a Power PC processor?

DakotaGuy

Nov 23, 2002, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by scem0

Would a mod please get rid of you and wt_brains useless comments?

It would be very nice if this rumor came true because I think we
all want a fast processor come January. But I think All the reasons
Kelson stated make good sense, but I also think BlueCell makes
a good point. I think that if apple has a simple way to migrate
to the an x86 AMD chip then they should do that, but there are
many reasons why this wouldn't be easy. But if possible, then
they should do it. I don't know what to make of this AMD support
in Jaguar stuff - but it looks promising for those that are pro-switching
to AMD.

Just a few weeks ago when the PowerPC 970 was introduced you were high on it and was going to save up your money for one, now you want an AMD? AMD is starting down the same path Moto did a couple of years back. They are behind in MHz so what do they do...start naming their processors 2300, 2800, etc. Intel has taken over the PC market and will continue to have the money to have it's way with AMD. When it is all said and done in the end there will be 2 major chip builders, IBM and Intel. I think Apple can see the writing on the wall for AMD. For everyone that wants Apple to go with AMD, don't come crying in a few years, saying Apple needs to dump AMD now because they are going bankrupt. "Big blue" is a MUCH safer and more stable bet for Apple then AMD is. Of course there is always Intel, but we won't go there....

This thread is getting way old...so this is the last post I will make to it.......

scem0

Nov 23, 2002, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy

Just a few weeks ago when the PowerPC 970 was introduced you were high on it and was going to save up your money for one, now you want an AMD? AMD is starting down the same path Moto did a couple of years back. They are behind in MHz so what do they do...start naming their processors 2300, 2800, etc. Intel has taken over the PC market and will continue to have the money to have it's way with AMD. When it is all said and done in the end there will be 2 major chip builders, IBM and Intel. I think Apple can see the writing on the wall for AMD. For everyone that wants Apple to go with AMD, don't come crying in a few years, saying Apple needs to dump AMD now because they are going bankrupt. "Big blue" is a MUCH safer and more stable bet for Apple then AMD is. Of course there is always Intel, but we won't go there....

This thread is getting way old...so this is the last post I will make to it.......

No, I want AMD come Jan. but I want apple to use the 970
when it comes available. I certainly won't be mad if apple doesn't
use AMD though. I just thing that an AMD chip would be much
faster then a moto chip.

Catfish_Man

Nov 24, 2002, 01:00 AM

...
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/11/24/0556252.shtml?tid=142

http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2002/11/19/rtr799607.html

How about we hope Apple doesn't switch to AMD soon for a change.

job

Nov 24, 2002, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by scem0
No, I want AMD come Jan. but I want apple to use the 970
when it comes available.

So you want Apple to switch to x86 and then several months later go back to PPC architecture.

Brilliant.

Wry Cooter

Nov 24, 2002, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by hitman

So you want Apple to switch to x86 and then several months later go back to PPC architecture.

Brilliant.

That isn't what was said. He only said he wanted AMD as yet another supplier, not that he wanted OS X on an X86. Nothing says anything AMD supplies HAS to be an x86 based design.

Macunix!

Nov 24, 2002, 08:54 AM

check out http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/compare.html

down near the bottom it appears "Amd support" for Jaguar.

What the hell can that Amd mean??

Cheers.

MisterMe

Nov 24, 2002, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Macunix!
check out http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/compare.html

down near the bottom it appears "Amd support" for Jaguar.

What the hell can that Amd mean??

Cheers.
This has been covered elsewhere, probably in this thread. Amd stands for AutoMount Daemon.

Launch Terminal.

Type "man amd".

Read and be wise.

Sun Baked

Nov 24, 2002, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by MisterMe
This has been covered elsewhere, probably in this thread. Amd stands for AutoMount Daemon.

Launch Terminal.

Type "man amd".

Read and be wise.
Never happen...

They take too much joy in being dense as a rock.

bluecell

Nov 24, 2002, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by hitman

So you want Apple to switch to x86 and then several months later go back to PPC architecture.

Brilliant. I want Apple to do something different than what they've been doing. I've said it before, IBM and Motorola seem to be incapable of giving Apple the options they need. Apple's been living on 5% of the market for way too long. They need to get that 6%, 7% and higher.

Why do most of you want Apple to be crippled? The 970 just isn't enough. The G4 is tired, the G3 is outdated and I don't expect IBM to anything differently. Why is everyone so afraid of AMD? They're a good company. That Forbes article really doesn't shine light on anything. It's too bad some of you aren't able to look at this rationally.

bbyrdhouse

Nov 24, 2002, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by bluecell

I want Apple to do something different than what they've been doing. I've said it before, IBM and Motorola seem to be incapable of giving Apple the options they need. Apple's been living on 5% of the market for way too long. They need to get that 6%, 7% and higher.

Why do most of you want Apple to be crippled? The 970 just isn't enough. The G4 is tired, the G3 is outdated and I don't expect IBM to anything differently. Why is everyone so afraid of AMD? They're a good company. That Forbes article really doesn't shine light on anything. It's too bad some of you aren't able to look at this rationally.

Amen to that!
:D

eric_n_dfw

Nov 24, 2002, 03:48 PM

bluecell

Nov 24, 2002, 05:14 PM

For some reason, most of you here seem to think that the 970 is going to bring Apple out of the black hole that is the PPC. NO!!! The FACT is that IBM and Motorola have crippled Apple when it comes to competing with AMD and Intel offerings on other platforms. I talked to some of my programmer friends and they all say the same thing. This should be a relatively painless move if they do it sooner rather than later. Steve Jobs said it himself, once most developers move to OS X, then they would have OPTIONS. He could've easily said "no, it can't be done," but he didn't. He realizes that this is what he needs to do. A move to AMD would be a tiny entrance into a large spectrum for Apple.

Look, the PPC 970 is just one processor. Yes, it's 64-bit, but so are AMD's Opteron and Athlon 64 processors and Intel's Itanium2. All of which show higher performance than the PPC 970. In the 32-bit world, RISC would be favorable to CISC. But as you can see here (http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/x86-64_wp.pdf), it doesn't seem to make a difference. Do you realize that MacOS X isn't even optimized for PPC? I have more faith in AMD maintaining development of their x86-64 processors than I have for IBM maintaining their PPC processors. And there is plenty of room for development with x86-64.

Oh, and the PPC 970 is about a year away. I think I speak for most Mac users when I say the G4 should be dead and buried. The G5 doesn't look that exciting in comparison to the 64-bit AMD offerings. Besides, the G5 roadmap has been static for a while now. Motorola will just set Apple back even further. Since AMD does produce in high volume, I'm willing to bet that their offerings are more cost effective than the IBM PPC 970.

wdlove

Nov 24, 2002, 05:34 PM

We are left to trust that Steve Jobs will make the correct decision & soon. I trust the Mac experts on this forum to sort out the issues, thanks!

MacCoaster

Nov 24, 2002, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
And the x86 architecture isn't outdated? The PowerPC ISA is several generations newer than x86, and as long as Intel has to keep backward compatibility with the 80386 (and debatably the 8086) chip, it will stay that way.
Right and how has the PowerPC G4 changed significantly since Motorola introduced it?

Since the G4 introduction, we've seen Pentium III, Pentium 4, Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon 64/Opteron. All with significant changes. P4 just got HyperThreading, for example; AMD going 64bit as another example (in desktop).

What, it'll take us ANOTHER year to come out with a decent PowerPC? :o

[edit] BTW, how different is it for Motorola and IBM to maintain PPC backwards compatibility in their lines (i.e. you can still run 601 code on your dual G4) than it is for Intel to maintain the x86 line.

crackpip

Nov 24, 2002, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by bluecell
Why do most of you want Apple to be crippled? The 970 just isn't enough. The G4 is tired, the G3 is outdated and I don't expect IBM to anything differently. Why is everyone so afraid of AMD? They're a good company. That Forbes article really doesn't shine light on anything. It's too bad some of you aren't able to look at this rationally.

Ahhh, we are fortunate to have bluecell. Someone who can take all of the potential issues with a switch in processors and simplify them to a single concept, performance. Through rational thought, the path is clear, we must switch to AMD chips. The huge increase in performance has been proven. There are no rational reasons for which we should use the 970. And the G4, it isn't suitable to power my digital watch. Developers, they are of no concern. They will do what Apple tells them, and they will do it in a timely manner.

Such clear insight into an issue is rarely seen. Long have I thought about what would be the proper solution for apple's predicament, but I just could not reach a decision as to whether or not many of the issues, previously posted in this thread, preclude the switch to AMD processors. But now I am certain. No thought of those issues is necessary. Indeed, we have all the information we need. Apple, IBM, and AMD have no additional insight into this matter. For no more is required. The case for a switch to AMD could not be any clearer if it were flashed in front of our faces 85 times a second.

To facilitate this wisdom reaching the apple decision making machine, I have created a new site. http://newappleceo.org. This site will be dedicated to convincing Steve Jobs that he should step down as CEO and hire bluecell as his replacement.

Join me macforums readers, we, the mac faithful, need this.

crackpip

Catfish_Man

Nov 24, 2002, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by bluecell
For some reason, most of you here seem to think that the 970 is going to bring Apple out of the black hole that is the PPC. NO!!! The FACT is that IBM and Motorola have crippled Apple when it comes to competing with AMD and Intel offerings on other platforms. I talked to some of my programmer friends and they all say the same thing. This should be a relatively painless move if they do it sooner rather than later. Steve Jobs said it himself, once most developers move to OS X, then they would have OPTIONS. He could've easily said "no, it can't be done," but he didn't. He realizes that this is what he needs to do. A move to AMD would be a tiny entrance into a large spectrum for Apple.

Look, the PPC 970 is just one processor. Yes, it's 64-bit, but so are AMD's Opteron and Athlon 64 processors and Intel's Itanium2. All of which show higher performance than the PPC 970. In the 32-bit world, RISC would be favorable to CISC. But as you can see here (http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/x86-64_wp.pdf), it doesn't seem to make a difference. Do you realize that MacOS X isn't even optimized for PPC? I have more faith in AMD maintaining development of their x86-64 processors than I have for IBM maintaining their PPC processors. And there is plenty of room for development with x86-64.

Oh, and the PPC 970 is about a year away. I think I speak for most Mac users when I say the G4 should be dead and buried. The G5 doesn't look that exciting in comparison to the 64-bit AMD offerings. Besides, the G5 roadmap has been static for a while now. Motorola will just set Apple back even further. Since AMD does produce in high volume, I'm willing to bet that their offerings are more cost effective than the IBM PPC 970.

...the Itanium 2 costs over 1000 dollars per chip. It's a SERVER chip. Don't compare it to the 970. It competes with the Power4+ (which scores higher than it, btw, and is PowerPC)
Also, IBM only makes G3s for Apple, so they can't possibly have been "crippling" Apple.
As for OSX not being PowerPC optimized, "every pixel on the screen touches the Altivec unit" (Steve Jobs. Quote may not be exactly right). Altivec is PowerPC only.
About the 970 not beating the Athlon64, perhaps you haven't noticed, but NEITHER OF THEM ARE OUT YET. You're basing your comparisons off of wishful thinking and marketing numbers. In fact, SPEC numbers for the Athlon64 haven't been released, so I'm not sure how you're comparing the two processors (SPEC numbers were released for the Opteron, which is a SERVER CHIP).
Lastly, AMD just gave up (see my earlier post). They have stated that they are not going to compete with Intel on performance anymore. That leaves a choice between the P4 (32 bit, power hungry, no multiprocessing), the Itanium (incredibly expensive and power hungry), the PowerPC 970 (low power, fast, multiprocessing capable, massive company backing it, more versions planned), and something Moto may come out with (who knows).

Basically, most of the stuff you just said was either made up, incorrect, useless, or complete speculation. Go get some real information.

Catfish_Man

Nov 24, 2002, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Right and how has the PowerPC G4 changed significantly since Motorola introduced it?

Since the G4 introduction, we've seen Pentium III, Pentium 4, Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon 64/Opteron. All with significant changes. P4 just got HyperThreading, for example; AMD going 64bit as another example (in desktop).

What, it'll take us ANOTHER year to come out with a decent PowerPC? :o

[edit] BTW, how different is it for Motorola and IBM to maintain PPC backwards compatibility in their lines (i.e. you can still run 601 code on your dual G4) than it is for Intel to maintain the x86 line.

...but the change from G4 to G4+ was MAJOR redesign (lengthening the pipelines and adding vector dispatch units is very non-trivial). The P3 uses the same core (P6) as the Pentium Pro and Pentium 2. The only major redesigns in x86 have been the Athlon and the Pentium 4. Also, the 970 comes out in less than a year, AMD's 64 bit stuff is massively delayed, and HyperThreading actually hurts performance in many cases.
Maintaining backwards compatibility is similar, but x86 is about a decade older (at least) than PowerPC. 10 years from now, PowerPC will have similar problems to what x86 is having now.

eric_n_dfw

Nov 24, 2002, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Since the G4 introduction, we've seen Pentium III, Pentium 4, Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon 64/Opteron. All with significant changes. P4 just got HyperThreading, for example; AMD going 64bit as another example (in desktop).
Like someone else said - the P4 is the first real re-designe since the P-Pro. And, IBM tried and dumped HyperThreading a while ago in the Power series because the down sides of it were greater that it's up side.

Originally posted by MacCoaster
[edit] BTW, how different is it for Motorola and IBM to maintain PPC backwards compatibility in their lines (i.e. you can still run 601 code on your dual G4) than it is for Intel to maintain the x86 line.
Because the PowerPC is more than a decade newer than the x86. :rolleyes:

bluecell

Nov 24, 2002, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
...the Itanium 2 costs over 1000 dollars per chip. It's a SERVER chip. Don't compare it to the 970. It competes with the Power4+ (which scores higher than it, btw, and is PowerPC)
Also, IBM only makes G3s for Apple, so they can't possibly have been "crippling" Apple.
As for OSX not being PowerPC optimized, "every pixel on the screen touches the Altivec unit" (Steve Jobs. Quote may not be exactly right). Altivec is PowerPC only.
About the 970 not beating the Athlon64, perhaps you haven't noticed, but NEITHER OF THEM ARE OUT YET. You're basing your comparisons off of wishful thinking and marketing numbers. In fact, SPEC numbers for the Athlon64 haven't been released, so I'm not sure how you're comparing the two processors (SPEC numbers were released for the Opteron, which is a SERVER CHIP).
Lastly, AMD just gave up (see my earlier post). They have stated that they are not going to compete with Intel on performance anymore. That leaves a choice between the P4 (32 bit, power hungry, no multiprocessing), the Itanium (incredibly expensive and power hungry), the PowerPC 970 (low power, fast, multiprocessing capable, massive company backing it, more versions planned), and something Moto may come out with (who knows).

Basically, most of the stuff you just said was either made up, incorrect, useless, or complete speculation. Go get some real information. No, everything I said has been FACTUAL. The PPC 970 won't go into production until late 2003, but the SPECs have been up for a while (check Architosh (http://www.architosh.com)). I have seen the SPECs for the AMDs and they are here (http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000312). AMD's processors will be out Q1 2003. AMD DID NOT GIVE UP. Check out the Hector Ruiz's keynote on C|NET (http://www.cnet.com). And about the marketing numbers-last time I checked Apple only had about 5%. You completely missed the boat.

Catfish_Man

Nov 24, 2002, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by bluecell
No, everything I said has been FACTUAL. The PPC 970 won't go into production until late 2003, but the SPECs have been up for a while (check Architosh (http://www.architosh.com)). I have seen the SPECs for the AMDs and they are here (http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000312). AMD's processors will be out Q1 2003. AMD DID NOT GIVE UP. Check out the Hector Ruiz's keynote on C|NET (http://www.cnet.com). And about the marketing numbers-last time I checked Apple only had about 5%. You completely missed the boat.

1) The SPEC numbers you linked to are for the Opteron which is not a desktop chip. Read your own links. If you can find Athlon64 SPEC numbers, please post them. I'm quite interested in how it's going to do.
2) Marketing numbers, in this context, means made up estimates of SPEC scores to keep investors happy, not market share.
3) AMD giving up: http://slashdot.org/articles/02/11/24/0556252.shtml?tid=142

Anything else?

lmalave

Nov 24, 2002, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by bbyrdhouse
I think people were being facetious when they were reffering to Amd support.

I am planning on getting a new mac for Christmas or sometime after Christmas, but I am now wondering if I should wait till after MWSF to get it.

Also, If I were to get a new iBook will it be outdated in a year? By outdated I mean will new programs and OSX updates be unable to work on it because it has G3 instead of G4.

There's no way Apple will make its OS incompatible with G3 for at least the next 3 years. Not while Apple is still pushing G3-equipped iBooks and CRT iMacs to educational customers. I mean, they just caused enough disruption to their customer base by moving to a non-backward compatible OS X. There's no way they'll do anything similarly disruptive for a long, long time. Same reason why there's absolutely no chance that they're moving to the x86 platform.

Even if Apple started losing massive market share in the professional Graphics, Audio, Video, etc. markets that actually need t he horsepower, they'll go to extreme measures to stay with the PowerPC, since not doing so would be a marketing disaster. So at the high end they'd either have to pack in even more processors (Quad-CPU or even eight-way). Or maybe even start using the Power4 before the 970 comes out.

That being said, I actually feel pretty good about IBM and the 970. I don't understand why people are so pessimistic. Keep in mind, IBM has said that they're going to use the 970 themselves to make lower-end (relative to the Power4) Linux machines. a very different situtation from Motorola, where building CPUs is at best a distraction from their core business(es). I believe that IBM going to pull through with this, perhaps even ahead of schedule. I think at this time next year, IBM will be launching a two-pronged assault on Intel: trying to take a chunk of the low to mid-range Linux server market share (the existing high-end Power4 servers can already be configured with Suse Linux Enterprise), and helping Apple make inroads in desktop market.

ddtlm

Nov 24, 2002, 11:46 PM

lmalave:

I mean, they just caused enough disruption to their customer base by moving to a non-backward compatible OS X. There's no way they'll do anything similarly disruptive for a long, long time. Same reason why there's absolutely no chance that they're moving to the x86 platform.
Damn right!

Wry Cooter

Nov 25, 2002, 04:30 PM

I mean, they just caused enough disruption to their customer base by moving to a non-backward compatible OS X. There's no way they'll do anything similarly disruptive for a long, long time. Same reason why there's absolutely no chance that they're moving to the x86 platform.

Which is why its important to reiterate- (I think this is the third time I've said this)-- there is nothing that says any business between Apple and AMD has to be x86 based. AMD can easily fab other chips.

The other downside of Apple moving to an x86 chip at this time-- any one buying a machine with such a chip inside, would want to install Windows on it as well, due to the amount of software available written for x86s. There would be a few people with Intels wanting to use OS X -along with windows, red hat, whatever, but not as many that would merely not bother. It would certainly give developers a reason to stop coding for Mac OS X altogether, all you would do is give Intel boxes a unix with a decent GUI

Too much of Apples income is dependant on Hardware sales, not software. They simply can compete against a behemoth 20 times their size on OS sales alone.

wdlove

Nov 25, 2002, 07:17 PM

Are you saying that an X86 platform machine could run multiple OS at the same time?

Wry Cooter

Nov 25, 2002, 07:22 PM

no.

MacCoaster

Nov 25, 2002, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by wdlove
Are you saying that an X86 platform machine could run multiple OS at the same time? Originally posted by Wry Cooter
no.
x86 can very well run multiple OSes at the same time. You can do this with VMware (http://www.vmware.com/) [vmware.com] under Linux and Windows 2000/XP, BOCHS (http://bochs.sourceforge.net/) [sourceforge.net], and others.

Wry Cooter

Nov 25, 2002, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by MacCoaster

x86 can very well run multiple OSes at the same time. You can do this with VMware (http://www.vmware.com/) [vmware.com] under Linux and Windows 2000/XP, BOCHS (http://bochs.sourceforge.net/) [sourceforge.net], and others.

That is a good thing to know, but it still wasn't what I was saying, which is why I was rather short.

I hope that the question was even raised does not mean someone thinks that multiple OSes were somehow not possible. Their simultaneous use was not an issue. Even if you did have to reboot, people really don't mind rebooting to use another OS. They may be a lot less likely to go to the trouble however.

But I doubt anyone would care that much about developing for MacOS if it moved to an x86-- anyone with an x86 machine is going to want the option to boot into Windows, even if they want to stay in *nix all of the time, or even a *nix with a nice gui, like OS X. Or even running Windows on top of that *nix.

The point is, development would pretty much stop for OS X then, and every developer would stick with developing only for windows. Red Rover has come over, game over, fire the mac guys it all runs on intel now. OS X on an x86 would be running blue box [or whatever color 'windows' on the mach kernal bed is] , much more often than we are running Classic. And why run in such a mode, when you can be native in windows? If a better interface was all that people wanted, a lot more people would be using BeOS on x86.

AMD can do things for Apple that have nothing to do with having an x86 legacy on a chip- they give a damn about making, and can make, chips in volume and on time, which is more than you can say for Motorola. This doesn't make them a more obvious choice than IBM, but I say it is very possible for them to be a player.