Poll: Apple's Next Processor should be?

[MacRumors]

Vote: Poll: Apple's Next Processor should be? (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=151&ref=forums.macrumors.com)

[Mr. Anderson]

IBM 970 - the potential is just too great. Going to a 64bit chip, faster bus, stick with the something that doesn't require major changes to all the software....

D

[NavyIntel007]

Whoever says intel or AMD should be banned from macrumors for life.

[howard]

OF COURSE the 970

ibm kicks butt

[wdlove]

Originally posted by dukestreet
IBM 970 - the potential is just too great. Going to a 64bit chip, faster bus, stick with the something that doesn't require major changes to all the software....

D

I agree with you dukestreet. Just hope we can have the best of both worlds. Having the PPC 970 and the ability of current software to function, a bridge the gap patch!

[mangoman]

Really fuggin' fast and released very soon. Nuff said.

[strider42]

Originally posted by howard

ibm kicks butt

I know its been said before, but its relaly ironic that IBM can be called upon in such manners now considering the history of Apple and IBM as competitors in the early days. Wasn't the guy on the screen in the 1984 commercial supposed to represent IBM.

I agree though, the 970 is the best way to go at this moment in time in my opinion.

[FelixDerKater]

PPC 970.

We lost enough developers going from OS 9 to OS X. The last thing we need is another round of waiting for applications and drivers like we had moving to OS X. The ability of the 970 to run 32-bit PPC code natively is awesome.

[nighthawk]

I am all for the 970... but it would be nice to see Apple put an AMD/Intel on the motherboard (or add-on card) in addition for VirtualPC type tasks. Heck, even a 1.2Ghz Duron (about $50) would be cool.

But what I REALLY want to see is Apple starting to see it's own brand of GeForce cards for upgrading older macs.

[wms121]

but let IBM make it.

Moto just ain't gonna get there...and I know a IBM marketing person who 'tried to get' someone to find something on POWER7's..POWER12's for that matter..and they almost ran her off the newsgroup.

A dual 970 (or 980 if we have to wait) and Moto's architecture for
crossbar switched memory would still help the graphics people...
not everyone wants a modified server beastie.

Anyone like the TM8000? That's Transmeta's 256 bit chip.

God and George Bush help Steve Jobs when Apple decides to go to a 256 bit operating system.

wake me when the war is over and we have TRUE 64 bit apps...

[Dont Hurt Me]

Not only should it be the 970, but they need to use it in every product so everything they sell will smoke the wintels. Iam sure we will see the 970 xserve, powermac and then powerbook. But to keep that damn G4 in the imac is saying you dont want to increase sales in the consumer line. Its allready bad enough you cant upgrade the imac so why not use a 970 in it! STEVE JOBS and you BONUS making executives are you listening?

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Whoever says intel or AMD should be banned from macrumors for life.

Nah, look at all the people who don't want a new computer but make theirs to look like OS X, they would jump on it immdetaly...

on other note: What the hell, who clicks the other cat.? What other processor do you want?

'Go back to the G3!' -- no not gonna happen
'um... I hit this by accident' -- good answer. :D

[Freg3000]

Power PC 970. It is the future for Apple.

One a side note, does anyone think Apple will drop Moto as a supplier entirely and just use better G3's (the ones coming with Altivec and stuff) for all other products that don't have the 970?

Kill the G4 completely? Any takers?

[cc bcc]

I don't really care what cpu is in my computer or who made it, as long as it is FAST and runs my apps without problems. I think only the PPC 970 can do both, and it's 64 bitness and continuing development (ppc 980 is also on the way) makes this the perfect candidate. I really can't imagine Apple choosing another cpu.
Apple could never have the fastest computer when they'd go with x86. Also, people would compare prices on equally equiped wintel and apple machines, Apple can never win that.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by MrMacman
Nah, look at all the people who don't want a new computer but make theirs to look like OS X, they would jump on it immdetaly...

on other note: What the hell, who clicks the other cat.? What other processor do you want?

'Go back to the G3!' -- no not gonna happen
'um... I hit this by accident' -- good answer. :D

Apple makes more money on hardware than they ever would selling $130 copies of OS X.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by nighthawk
I am all for the 970... but it would be nice to see Apple put an AMD/Intel on the motherboard (or add-on card) in addition for VirtualPC type tasks. Heck, even a 1.2Ghz Duron (about $50) would be cool.

But what I REALLY want to see is Apple starting to see it's own brand of GeForce cards for upgrading older macs.
If all Macs ran Windows and PC software out of the box at full performance, there would be no incentive for anyone to support Mac software.

What I want to know is, who are the 64 idiots who voted x86?

[edenwaith]

I say we just all need to go back to vacuum tubes! Forget those fancy-schmancy microprocessors! Vacuum tubes are, and have always, been the true way to go! Bigger IS better! I want a computer the size of Canada so I can play a rousing game of...um...Pong! That's right...Pong! It was all over after that. Why anyone even decided to make any other game after the fabulous game of Pong is beyond me...why, back in my day...

[sososowhat]

I sure you'll all correct me for being way off base, and I'm ready to ask some naive questions that I'm totally open to hearing good answers to.

What I love about my Mac is
a) the operating system
b) the apps
c) the ergonimics, fit, finish & feel

I don't give a hoot what processor it's running...so long as it's fast. As Adobe pointed out so nicely the other day: the current Mac isn't fast. My 1GHz PPC w/ 1.75 Gig of RAM crawls compared to my XP machine when manipulating my 9000 digital photos.

Why not take the "but is it as fast as a PC" out of the hardware realm & reduce the performance question to one about system software, where Jaguar & beyond can kick butt over Microsoft bloat-wear, by using the same chip (not necessarily motherboard) as a PC?

Intel's got even more billions of $$ to spend on chip development than IBM does. Unless you really believe that the future of 970's will make Apple consistently faster than (not just "nearly as fast as") Intel chips, why not just go the simple route & remove the question of relative processor speed from the Apple vs PC equation.

I have the feeling that when people here think Intel, they think Wintel - evil, dark side. Intel chips do a great job running Linux. I don't see why they can't be just as great running OS X. Wouldn't that open up a whole world of less expensive, cutting edge hardware? Wouldn't it open up the possibility of that 3% market share going much, much higher?

So, hate me if you like, but I ask: what exactly about being great would be compromised if Apple made its wonderful product using an Intel chip? Maybe that's thinking just a little too different for the Apple faithful?

Ok, now eat me alive.

[edenwaith]

Originally posted by FelixDerKater
PPC 970.

We lost enough developers going from OS 9 to OS X. The last thing we need is another round of waiting for applications and drivers like we had moving to OS X. The ability of the 970 to run 32-bit PPC code natively is awesome.

'Lost' developers? It seems to me, that with OS X, Apple has gained many new developers in the process. The number of Classic apps I've created: 1. The number of OS X apps I've created: a lot more than 1, with many more ideas in the pipeline for OS X. There is one app I'm going to try and create using Carbon, but I haven't been able to find many decent Carbon-OS 9 resources. Even some more recent books like Mac OS X Programming introduce Carbon, but only for the OS X environment (as the book title mentions). Even a brief look through the amount of OS X programming is quite amazing and encouraging.

Granted Quark might be having fun wearing new calluses on their posteriors with all they sitting around they've done, but it seems like close to every other company with some dedication to the Mac has ported their major apps to Mac OS X. There is an interesting article in the latest issue of MacTech by one of the creators of Transmit FTP and the transition of rewriting Transmit for Cocoa.

The only other form of product which I'm not seeing often being ported to OS X are games, but even still some of them are being ported by nice companies like Blizzard or by third-parties like Omnigroup.

However, I do agree that if Mac OS X was publicly ported to the x86 architecture, I'm guessing that a lot of programs would need to be recompiled (and some reprogrammed) to work on the x86 architecture, and that would be a pain. No matter how great, easy, or cool an OS is, it is still nothing if it does not have applications to run on it.

[Catfish_Man]

Transmeta's TM8000 (Astro) looks like it could be very interesting. If Apple could persuade Transmeta to do a high performance (rather than low power) chip with a PPC version of its code morphing software, we could get an x86/PPC compatible chip with decent performance. Unfortunately, decent is really not enough at this point, and Transmeta probably couldn't be persuaded to do that for Apple. Therefore, I'm voting for the 970.

[szark]

Originally posted by sososowhat
So, hate me if you like, but I ask: what exactly about being great would be compromised if Apple made its wonderful product using an Intel chip? Maybe that's thinking just a little too different for the Apple faithful?

Let me put it this way:

What exactly about being great would be compromised if Apple dropped OS X and began shipping Windows?

Intel's chips aren't the best, just the fastest. They designed the P4 core for raw speed at the expense of efficiency and heat. Some people prefer processors that are more efficient and less power hungry. It's a choice, just like we prefer OS X over Windows.

Choice is good for everyone -- if there were no other processor makers, Intel wouldn't have any need to improve their chips at the rate they do now. Good ideas come from competition. Having another major desktop processor to compete with Intel will benefit everyone as they invent new techniques and designs to improve the performance and speed of their processors. Without the competition of IBM and AMD, Intel's processor development would slow dramatically.

Apple's best move would be to keep that competition alive, and that means choosing the 970.

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Whoever says intel or AMD should be banned from macrumors for life.

Ban me then. :D

I choose the 64-bit processors that AMD are doing.

[wdlove]

I trully want what is best for Apple and its future. We definitely need a faster processor. Steve Jobs knows more than alot of us, after all he is the CEO of Apple. I think that we will have to wait for the WWDC!

[beez7777]

i was the 666th person to vote 970. must be some sort of sign or something.......or maybe i'm just really tired.......

[sososowhat]

Originally posted by szark
Let me put it this way:

What exactly about being great would be compromised if Apple dropped OS X and began shipping Windows?


Well, lots of things. Windows is definitely inferior to OS X, and Apple wouldn't be Apple shipping Windows. So far, I haven't heard anything that says an OS X machine running on Intel would be inferior to one running on Moto or IBM. As I said, what I love about my Mac is the OS, the Software and the Fit & Finish. Not the chip.

Originally posted by szark
Apple's best move would be to keep that competition alive, and that means choosing the 970.

Ok, so it might be better for the world if Intel has competition. Does that make it better for Apple? Or for Mac users? IBM will make chips regardless of whether Apple uses them.

[scem0]

Well, I put other because I think their next processor should
be based off DNA or something increadible like that, which
would get rid of the speed issue in general. But that isn't going
to happen, but I think realisticly apple should go with the IBM
970. ;)

[GeneR]

iThink we should go into the future, buy a computer that is as fast as the Earth Simulator in Japan, bring it back to the present and...


;)

The 970 all the way, dude. Do we even have to discuss it? :D

[jethroted]

Bring home the power 5 baby!

[scem0]

anything that is fast and that works. :rolleyes: ;)