AMD/nVidia OSX hybrid rumors... [Archive]

alex_ant

Apr 8, 2002, 08:27 PM

You know, I have confidence that this is nothing but speculation as well, but I can't help but let it worry me a bit. It's not that my worry is justified - it's that I'm terrified at the mere thought of Apple embracing AMD, because doing so would mean the end of PowerPC. I mean, face it. It would. Apple couldn't sell AMD and PPC machines side-by-side - the PPCs would get spanked, they'd be more expensive, and they wouldn't sell. And Apple would not keep alive such a huge cash drain in actively supporting a "dead architecture" for long.

Apple + AMD = Bye bye to my beloved $2300 4-month-old PowerBook, just when the future was looking so rosy...

Apple + AMD = Me never forgiving Apple, and probably hobbling off to the Amiga or forcing myself to believe that BeOS is not dead or something.

Alex

macstudent

Apr 8, 2002, 09:41 PM

Didn't slashdot.org run a fake news story about that merger on april 1st? April fools day was quite interesting at that site.

mac15

Apr 9, 2002, 12:05 AM

This? tripe? you besmirch the good name of cow guts. This will happen right after they release the 2 GHz dual processor iMac with the 24" Cinema display.

lol that true maybe you should think before you post

tortus

Apr 9, 2002, 01:34 AM

Apple+AMD Hammer=a lower cost powermac. I think we would all enjoy this. For all of you that don't know, AMD will be releasing the Hammer family of 64 bit processors later this year. The specs look good. Tom's Hardware actually got to see a working prototype.

G5 vs. Hammer. No one can say. There is nothing solid concerning g5 performance (nothing at all.)

I just want Apple to possibly competively price their powermacs. Or, they can just charge us the inflated prices and maintain the market share and pray that we don't become dismayed with them.

cb911

Apr 9, 2002, 03:35 AM

OSX on a AMD Hammer would kill Mac sales. this probably won't happen, but if it did Apple would have a better, faster 64 bit processor anyway.

alex_ant

Apr 9, 2002, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by cb911
OSX on a AMD Hammer would kill Mac sales. this probably won't happen, but if it did Apple would have a better, faster 64 bit processor anyway.
Faster, maybe. But not better. All I can say is, drop that sucker into a PowerBook and you have a PowerSkillet.

Am I the only one who thinks dumping the PPC would be like dumping your loving and dependable girlfriend just because you want some other bird who, although she is empty and braindead and wears gobs of make-up, has bigger tits?

Alex

Taft

Apr 9, 2002, 08:12 AM

Why does everyone automatically assume that a AMD chip in a Mac would make the Mac a lower price?

Sure the chip itself is going to be marginally lower in cost. But Apple is still going to use a proprietary design for its motherboard, its own design for casing and keyboard and mice. The notebooks would still come with high quality screens and airport compatibility.

Basically what I'm saying is that the real reason behind Apple's higher price is its high quality craftsmanship, total integration of parts, and beautiful and innovative designs. Swapping in a marginally cheaper chip won't change that.

Matthew

tortus

Apr 9, 2002, 12:07 PM

Always go for the big tits! They are fun to play with.

On a serious note, I think it is about time that Apple stopped being so stubborn concerning their system architecture. All I want is a PowerMac that is more affordable, can take CPU upgrades, and has big tits.

For Example, if Apple gave a few mobo companies exclusive rights (licenses) to develop motherboards for powermac g4's we would see DDR in our systems and bigger tits.

Apple likes to hide in a closet for two years then pop-out for a moment to show the world what it was doing in the closet. After Apple has blessed us with its brilliance, they go right back into their damn closet while the rest of the world turns their gaze to their dull PCs to conduct business and play Counterstrike.

Come on Apple, think Tits!

jadam

Apr 9, 2002, 12:10 PM

ummm. you guys dont know nothing about what your talking about. AMD could always license PPC.

The AMD clawhammers are probally ganna be the best new processors
1)the clawhammers will be built on a .13micron manufactuaring process, the next model series will be .09microns
2)they are not really x86 processors, but x86-64 processors with support for x86 apps, though if OSX were to be ported to them, it would run in pure 64-bit mode!!.
3)AMD has a much much much much much better R&D team then motorolla.
4)AMD comes out with new processors every month!!
5)AMD's processors are a **** load cheaper than motorolas G4 prices, A duall GHZ system costs twice as much as a dual 1.4GHZ Athlon XP system
6)AMD isnt into the money like INTEL, they make efficient processors, the new G5's that mot wants to come out with, with the like 15stage pipeline is bigger than the athlons 12stage, but smaller than the P4's 20stage

tortus

Apr 9, 2002, 12:21 PM

I would love Apple to allow AMD to supply us with the chips. I have been a huge fan of AMD. I believe in their company and I believe in their products. Motorolla is a big disappointment relative to AMD or Intel. They have yet to work out all the glitches in fabrication. AMD is at the top of its game and is about to leap ahead of the entire chip world with its .13 micron manufacturing process.

And yes, AMD has much better R&D than Motorola. Me sitting on the toilet reading Maxim has more R&D than Motorolla.

I will be very upset at Apple if the g5 does not out perform the hammer series from AMD.

digital1

Apr 9, 2002, 12:26 PM

I personally think that the G5 has the possibility of outperfroming the AMD chips. Is the G5 Motorola/IBM/ Apple 's cut of a fully design 64 bit processor? Is the G4 64-bit. I thought it was....

tortus

Apr 9, 2002, 12:32 PM

The G4 is a 128 bit processor but it can only handle a 32 bit instruction set. It can take in 128 bits of data at a time (which is 4 X32 bit data chunks simultaneously), but is still limited to 32 bits of instruction.

The Hammer processes 64 bit instruction and is also designed to handle 32 bit instruction so you can run win 98 on it without buying a new version of windows.

The g5 will be 64 bit in the way that the hammer is 64 bit.

guv

Apr 9, 2002, 12:45 PM

why is every1 against an osx port onto chips designed for windows?? that could open up a masssive market, open up to thousands of people not willing to buy a mac, but kinda like the idea of having the mac os... or are u all to busy screaming ur lungs out at M$ too realise its them that would loose out..

tortus

Apr 9, 2002, 01:01 PM

If you have two comparable system architectures, the better OS will win outright.

Itanium, hammer, or g5...the OS is what makes the system great. So, Apple...cut us a break. losen up a bit.

Plus, PowerMac Hammer has such a nice ring to it.

alex_ant

Apr 9, 2002, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by tortus
The G4 is a 128 bit processor but it can only handle a 32 bit instruction set. It can take in 128 bits of data at a time (which is 4 X32 bit data chunks simultaneously), but is still limited to 32 bits of instruction.
AltiVec is 128-bit. The G4's integer and fp units are both 32-bit. The G4 is by all common definitions a 32-bit CPU. If you can tell me the G4 supports 128-bit long integers, I've got a bridge I want to sell you! Cheap!

Alex

alex_ant

Apr 9, 2002, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Taft
Sure the chip itself is going to be marginally lower in cost. But Apple is still going to use a proprietary design for its motherboard, its own design for casing and keyboard and mice. The notebooks would still come with high quality screens and airport compatibility.
What makes you think that by changing to x86, Apple would not succumb to the lure of lower product cost by integrating cheap custom Soyo boards into their systems or something? Once they're on the same playing field as everyone else, they've got to compete by the same rules, no matter which OS they use. Because you have to admit that while OS X x86 might attract a small segment of geeks, Windows would still dominate. Doesn't matter which OS is superior. "It runs all my software," says the soccer mom.

Alex

alex_ant

Apr 9, 2002, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by tortus
If you have two comparable system architectures, the better OS will win outright.
As BeOS proved, right? And Linux... and OS/2... and DR-DOS...
Itanium, hammer, or g5...the OS is what makes the system great.
You've just refuted your own argument. If the OS is what makes the system great, why should Apple bother porting to x86? The system is already great. Apple is making money, unlike the PC vendors you are proposing that it imitate, and now you want to do away with this. Why?
Plus, PowerMac Hammer has such a nice ring to it.
The "Power" was originally appended to the Mac after the adoption of the PowerPC. (M68K... Mac. PowerPC... Power Mac.) If there were a Mac that used the Hammer, its proper name would have to be HammerMac, and that's just retarded.

Alex

alex_ant

Apr 9, 2002, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by guv
why is every1 against an osx port onto chips designed for windows??
Geez, how many times do those of us who are against such a port have to repeat ourselves?
that could open up a masssive market, open up to thousands of people not willing to buy a mac, but kinda like the idea of having the mac os...
Why doesn't BMW just start selling shoddy Geo clones? That could open up a massive market, open up to thousands of people not willing to buy a BMW, but who kinda like the idea of having a German-engineered car.

Alex

yanny

Apr 9, 2002, 04:09 PM

Why people keep wanting the impossible?

I am not a computer scientist or programmer or engineer, but I have used many different system, many versions of Windows from 3.1 and Mac from System 6, so I guess I am an experience user.

And I don't think Apple will by any remote chance porting OS X to run on Intel or AMD chips. My opinion is based on my professional experience. The main reason for Apple not porting OSX to Intel/AMD is apps. If OSX get ported to Intel/AMD, where can we get apps to run on the Mac ? It's taken long enough for the established company to port PPC apps to OS X: and another transition again? Look what happened to BeOS? Super cool OS with no apps?

I don't know about other pc/Mac users thinking OSX on Intel is cool, but remember Apple is a hardware company, they make their money by selling hardware. Who's going to buy Macs if it has no apps to run on? I use Macs to earn a living, and I have been trying to switch to OS X for 6 months now and still trying, because the apps that I use to earn money aren't available for OS X yet.

Porting OS X to Intel would kill Apple!

yanny

Apr 9, 2002, 04:56 PM

mischief

Apr 9, 2002, 05:01 PM

There was a rumor a while back that Apple's latest G5 test box had both an AIM G5 (pair) and an AMD Athlon.

This would make sense as Apple's always made their $$$ on HW and their ceasefire with M$ is up just before MWNY. I figure you could build X.2 to gut XP the way it guts Classic........non bootable but will run it's own stuff in isolation.......Darwin does all the I/O and such.

alex_ant

Apr 9, 2002, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by mischief
There was a rumor a while back that Apple's latest G5 test box had both an AIM G5 (pair) and an AMD Athlon.

This would make sense as Apple's always made their $$$ on HW and their ceasefire with M$ is up just before MWNY. I figure you could build X.2 to gut XP the way it guts Classic........non bootable but will run it's own stuff in isolation.......Darwin does all the I/O and such.
Apple has already done something similar to this in the past, haven't they? (Hardware inside a Mac that could run DOS and Win 3.1) And correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't very successful. Apple would need to:

1) Add an Athlon along with PC-compatibility hardware
2) Develop the Yellow Box-like Windows compatibility layer
3) Charge each implementation for the Windows license

All that would add at least $500 to the cost of each Mac. Why not just run Virtual PC instead? Or buy a whole separate PC, for that matter?

And why would Apple want to do this, anyway? The only reason people are talking about porting OS X to Intel is because of the PPC-falling-behind issue. Adding Windows compatibility to the Mac wouldn't have any effect on this.

Alex

yanny

Apr 9, 2002, 06:39 PM

Couldn't have agreed more.

sturm375

Apr 10, 2002, 01:43 PM

First let me say that I like AMD as a company a lot. I own a self built Dual Athlon MP 1600+ (1.4Ghz). From what I have read, the AMD Hammer will be a compromise between a 32-bit Processor(x86) and the Intel Itanium. Not being a doctorate in electrical enginering, or chip manufacturing, I don't know the specifics, but it will allow the Hammer to run 32-bit apps faster than the Itanium, however native 64-bit apps will run slower than the Itanium.

Anyway, Apple has for years made a pretty penny boasting about how certian Photoshop filters run faster on half the Megahertz. If Apple incorporated the AMD chip, this would no longer be the case, and they would have to actually benchmark on a level playing field. This would in due course leave the graphic designers out in the cold.

Apple has a basic choice, Customer loyalty, or profit margin. The more Apple goes toward the PC side of the market, the more people will buy, but they will sacrifice some of their halmarks. Then again stagnation is also a sure way of killing one's self.

I can say this, I would be very tempted to buy an Apple Pro G5 if it incorporated the AMD Hammer CPU. At the moment I am not the target market for Apple, at least not in the desktop.

digital1

Apr 10, 2002, 02:38 PM

I think that by apple keeping with what they have it allows them to be different than the crowd, which is what has been apples philosophy. Not following the crowd, but standing different. I personally think that by Apple going to AMD it would be a bittersweet transition. I think they should continue to push the IBM/Motorola chip. There are manufacturing processes that could significantly help in the developement of the processor if they are implemented correctly. It has lots of potential that they just have to tap. I am a computer engineering student so some of this I do know :) :D BUT, if they do go to AMD, I wouldn't complain to much. AMD has lots to offer in terms of technology and they are a good company, and all too often they are overlooked for their technical achievements. Either way they would be moving forward as a company and maturing. Just one path they follow may not go so well with apple loyalists. just my 2 cents...

mcrain

Apr 10, 2002, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by sturm375
First let me say that I like AMD as a company a lot. I own a self built Dual Athlon MP 1600+ (1.4Ghz).

Athlon and Moto's chips have one thing in common that Apple seems to like. Their chips perform far better than their GHz speed. For example, the 1600 is a 1.4Ghz chip that performs like a 1.6Ghz pentium. The 2100 is a sub 2Ghz chip that performs like a P4 at 2.1 Ghz. The Moto chips also perform far better than their speed, thus the MHZ myth!

Apple and Athlon could work together just fine, and then Apple wouldn't even have to change their advertising campaigns.

alex_ant

Apr 10, 2002, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by sturm375
First let me say that I like AMD as a company a lot. I own a self built Dual Athlon MP 1600+ (1.4Ghz). From what I have read, the AMD Hammer will be a compromise between a 32-bit Processor(x86) and the Intel Itanium. Not being a doctorate in electrical enginering, or chip manufacturing, I don't know the specifics, but it will allow the Hammer to run 32-bit apps faster than the Itanium, however native 64-bit apps will run slower than the Itanium.
Itanium was intended to be a server / high-end workstation chip. It is suited to neither. I don't think ANY modern 64-bit chip will run 64-bit software slower than the Itanium. What a smelly piece of arse that chip is.
Apple has a basic choice, Customer loyalty, or profit margin. The more Apple goes toward the PC side of the market, the more people will buy, but they will sacrifice some of their halmarks. Then again stagnation is also a sure way of killing one's self.
I think it's a choice between customer loyalty and GROSS profit, not customer loyalty and NET profit. Could Apple sell at least twice as many computers if they had AMD chips in them? Possibly. Could they be as profitable as they are now? I don't think so. I think they would be eaten alive by Dell and Compaq and Gateway, and I think having OS X on Intel, while it would attract the geeks, would only be a liability. As I said, it doesn't matter whether OS X is superior. Few people really want OS X. They want Windows, because Windows is what their brother/sister/friend tells them they should be using. "Windows runs all the software. Windows plays all the games." Etc., etc. And it is all true, of course. "Port RtCW to OS X for Intel, id Software," says Apple. "We just busted our behinds porting it to OS X for PPC, and now you want us to port to INTEL? Piss off," says id Software.
I can say this, I would be very tempted to buy an Apple Pro G5 if it incorporated the AMD Hammer CPU. At the moment I am not the target market for Apple, at least not in the desktop.
I would be very tempted to send you anthrax in the mail if you bought an Apple Hammer system, because there goes my $2300 PPC investment! And everyone else's as well! Uh-oh, I think I've just triggered my ISP's DCS-1000...

Alex

Vilacr

Apr 10, 2002, 08:41 PM

I read on cnet today IBM may be poised to buy Sun to have all access to java. The writer of the article said IBM may do this to take on M$ and .NET. To avenge what M$ did to them in the early years. How about Apple drop moto join IBM and take down M$. As for porting OS X to AMD I don't think so. If you want to run unix on a peecee buy one without an OS and install linux.

Nipsy

Apr 11, 2002, 02:19 AM

If you are trying to make a credible argument, spell Motorola correctly.

It seems that a slew of people arguing the merits of AMD, Intel, IBM and Motorola seem to think they look like more intelligent posters by mis-spelling Motorola. I know I probably wouldn't listen to someone who told me to buy an 'Aplle', I would laugh if you told me how fast your 'Intell' machine is, so please, no more 'Motorolla'.

I know that harping on spelling is pretty feeble, but this is a proper name, and the number of people mis-spelling it everywhere is alarming.

M o t o r o l a

alex_ant

Apr 11, 2002, 02:47 AM

Thanks, Nipsy. I would like to take that topic and expand upon it:

"They're" is a contraction of "they are."
"Their" indicates possession.
"There" indicates place.

"You're" is a contraction of "you are."
"Your" indicates possession.

"We're" is a contraction of "we are."
"Were" indicates a state of being in the plural past tense.

"It's" is a contraction of "it is."
"Its" indicates possession.

If this seems like too much, don't worry! Be persistent. Most fourth graders are able to understand this eventually - it just takes time and experience. Thankyouallverymuch!

Alex

cb911

Apr 11, 2002, 05:20 AM

ok Alex, me try tobe a good sp3ller....

:p

th3r3 i5 no w4y th4t AMD w1ll b3 abl3 t0 d0 a d3al w1th Apple. AMD ju5t w4nt Apple's pr0fit. th3n ag4in, w0t th3 h3ll m3 kn0w ab0ut 4ny 0f thi3??? wh0 c4re5 1f Apple w4nt to d0 d3al w1th any0n3 .........

:D :D

Dunepilot

Apr 11, 2002, 05:20 AM

that there have been some excellent posts on this thread, particularly by Alex Ant.

It's getting more unusual on MOSR to have a reasoned discussion without people becoming obnoxious/abusive.

Have a nice day (and listen to my demos at the link below)

:D

cb911

Apr 11, 2002, 05:30 AM

h3y l00k at th4t! m3 and Dunepilot h4v3 p0st at 3xactly th3 s4me t1m3! mu5t b3 v3ry rare. :eek:

d0n't t4ke m3 wr0ng Dunepilot, m3 n0t b3ing obnoxious 0r abusive, m3 0nly pr4cticing my n3w alph4b3t! m3 0nly d0 n3w alph4b3t in thi5 thr3ad!:D :D :D

ibjoshua

Apr 11, 2002, 08:52 AM

as far as I know neither IBM nor AMD have a history of manufacturing machinery for killing foxes. Whereas motorrrrrrrollllaaaa has been known to make a tool (torture implement) that looks like an oversized curling iron which when shoved up a fur animal's rear end will electrocute the animal so as not to damage the coat.

i'd prefer to buy either of these companies chips if i could.

alex_ant

Apr 11, 2002, 03:18 PM

Dunepilot - Thanks.

i_b_joshua - Ouch!

eirik

Apr 11, 2002, 08:06 PM

Glad to see another poster pushing grammar. Way to go!!!

Eirik

eirik

Apr 11, 2002, 08:33 PM

When I think of AMD production, I don't just think about their fabs and their ability crank out quality chips at a very competitive price. There can be no success in production without production R&D.

Motorola has some incredible technologies, yet it seems to struggle to go the next step and improve their production such that they yield faster chips, higher yield percentage, etc.

I attribute this to two causes. First, Motorola semiconductor's primary target market segment is embedded processors. Second, where personal computer processors are concerned, Motorola does not enjoy an economy of scale anywhere near that of Intel and AMD. However, the G4 straddles these two market segments, so there is some economy of scale.

In the embedded market, is clock speed the single most compelling feature, with no close seconds? No. In the PC market, clock speed, and computation speed by implication, is far in the way the most compelling feature, nearly drounding out other measures. Of course, the laptop market and now the server blade market are elevating the importance of power consumption.

The bottom line is that Motorola's first priority is to satisfy its embedded market demands, even at the sacrifice of Apple's demands, if necessary. That means Apple's need for high computation performance competes with power consumption and other features important to the embedded market.

Despite all this, Motorola has done an extremely impressive job with what is has accomplished. Bear in mind that it has done so with considerably less resources than Intel or AMD.

My hope with respect to AMD is not that Apple would produce Mac's with AMD x86 CPU's. it is that Apple will somehow get the rights to Motorola's intellectual capital so that it can outsource production to AMD. And that includes production R&D!!! I suspect that AMD could crank out the PPC 8500/7500 a hell of a lot faster than Motorola, if it were in AMD's interests. So what can Apple do to make it in AMD's interests? Is Apple a big enough fish to potentially divert, albeit temporarily, some of AMD's resources from its battle with arch rival Intel? Maybe not; I don't know.

Now nVidia doesn't manufacture CPU's or GPU's. It designs and outsources their production. I'm sure nVidia works very closely with its partners' production R&D personnel. So, it is not absolutely inconceivable that Apple could partner with nVidia in the design of CPU's based on Apple acquired Motorola intellectual property (AltiVec, SOI, etc.) so that Apple doesn't have to become a full-fledged semiconductor designer. Then, their designs could be outsourced...

One last question, does anybody know what Apple has gained and is doing with its acquisition of Raycer (years ago), the graphics hardware company? How might that influence Apple's hardware under the hood?

Eirik

alex_ant

Apr 11, 2002, 09:49 PM

eirik, you made some very good points. But I was always under the impression that AMD was having enough problems keeping up with demand for its own chips. Is this accurate? If so, AMD might not be too keen on spreading its resources even thinner to manufacture another potentially-competing CPU. But, I don't know what their take on that would be.

And as far as acquiring the rights to Motorola's intellectual capital and outsourcing production to AMD, it could also outsource production to IBM. IBM could easily compete with AMD and Intel in terms of manufacturing capability. They used to manufacture a great deal of Cyrix chips, which would have been competitive with Pentiums if they hadn't had such poor FPUs.

I wonder if having PPC development take place in two (three?) separate companies as it currently does is anything like the open-source software world, where multiple virtually-identical projects are worked on at the same time, ultimately providing more choice for the end user but also duplicating effort and theoretically stunting growth in absolute terms. (KDE/GNOME for instance.) If so, if there were some way of shifting PPC development (but not necessarily manufacturing) to one primary company, like IBM, wouldn't this help Apple? Certainly there are still embedded and low-power PPCs to profit from, and there's no reason Motorola would have to cease their involvement with those. But Motorola just doesn't seem to be very concerned with their desktop computer chips.

I'm envisioning a world where IBM is the sole producer of desktop-class PPCs, where the PPC doesn't need a huge market to survive because it mostly consists of technology trickled down from IBM's server chips (like Power4). Of course, it would also be possible to just put a Power4 in every Mac, but I guess it would be nice to keep the price of the iMac under $5000, wouldn't it. :)

Alex

eirik

Apr 11, 2002, 10:19 PM

Alex,

I hadn't heard of AMD's difficulties in meeting market demand. Its a good piece of information to have. And, I agree that that would factor greatly in AMD's decision-making.

I wonder if Motorola would be interested in off-loading some of its fab infrastructure to AMD. That might help Motorola lower operating costs and increase cash flow while giving AMD a quick (presumably) solution to the volume constraints that AMD is facing.

And of course, it would be likely that Motorola might want to part with more than AMD would need to offset its volume constraints. Having a deal with Apple on top of that might make such a deal even more appealing to AMD.

IBM playing a more significant role in Apple's CPU supply? I'd like that. The rumor mill seems to indicate that IBM isn't so hostile to SIMD as it was before. A deal where Apple and IBM acquire some of Motorola's intellectual property might make a greater role in Apple's CPU supply more appealing to IBM. I'm not saying that IBM is not interested in Apple CPU supply. I suspect, however, that if IBM had a greater interest, it would be doing more than just offering higher speed G3's, which aren't fully MERSI compliant and are a floating point lightweight (?).

Apple has a similar problem with IBM, but less that of Motorola because IBM is definitely focused on producing CPU's for servers and mainframes in addition to their embedded market targeting. Oh yeah, the deal with Sony helps Apple too.

As far as I know, IBM has nothing as good as AltiVec. I can see why most server applications in today's (I suspect this will change) market may be better off with more processors as opposed to fewer processors with SIMD. However, the embedded market and the desktop/workstation markets seem absolutely ripe for SIMD.

Another point in favor of IBM, if Apple acquired Motorola's intellectual property and outsourced exclusively to IBM, Apple would become that much more important and influential upon IBM. I wonder if that would make a big enough difference to motivate IBM to apply more R&D in DIRECT support of Apple's interests?

I am a bit puzzled about IBM in regard to their production prowess. On the one hand, they are producing fantastic low power processors. But, on the other hand, they are not doing much better than Motorola as far as clock speed or serial computational performance, at least with respect to the G3. I've heard the rumors that IBM has had much faster G3's available for Apple for a long time but I've always felt that this was false.

Anyway, IBM could certainly be a greater asset to Apple in my humble opinion. And further, they would be very helpful in the long term with their great efforts toward compound semiconductor development such as with Silicon Germanium and other materials.

With Apple taking a greater role in their CPU design, I should think that not only could it outsource to AMD or IBM but to other fabs too, such as National Semiconductor and several Pacific Rim firms.

Apple could move to IBM and totally depend on IBM, placing its fate in IBM's hands. Or, Apple could form its own CPU design team but risk obscuring the core competancies and distracting/diverting resources away from their immediate target market. Tough decisions and interesting converstation.

Cheers,

Eirik

Dunepilot

Apr 12, 2002, 06:09 AM

whether the AIM alliance are even considering what we write on these forums. They might be financially-uniformed ideas at times (no offence intended to any posters) but they're ideas nonetheless, and unless something is done sometime in the not-too-distant future, Apple are going to have a problem of a much greater magnitude than they do now.

Something that has occurred to me (and may well be completely wrong), is the possibility that Apple might be moving towards the G4 as a replacement for the G3s throughout its product segments (as was indicated by the intro of the flat-panel iMac) as a short-term move, perhaps hoping to give Motorola a financial kick-back by using only their processors until some grand G5-related production change comes about, perhaps swinging things in IBM's favour.

Or maybe it's just that IBM aren't too interested in the market provided by Apple now that they have Nintendo's Gamecubes selling well worldwide.....

alex_ant

Apr 13, 2002, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by Dunepilot
whether the AIM alliance are even considering what we write on these forums. They might be financially-uniformed ideas at times (no offence intended to any posters) but they're ideas nonetheless, and unless something is done sometime in the not-too-distant future, Apple are going to have a problem of a much greater magnitude than they do now.
I would guess that all our ideas are probably highly uninformed and based off inaccurate information that has filtered mostly through shoddy not-very-journalistic online sources. I would be very surprised (and concerned) if the AIM alliance was not already all too aware of the subjects about which we only have tiny shreds of knowledge. But if someone in the AIM alliance really is reading these threads, then I hope this person will send me a private message so I can tell them where to send the check for all the great ideas I'm giving them. :D (OK, I'll split it with some of the rest of you weenies)
Something that has occurred to me (and may well be completely wrong), is the possibility that Apple might be moving towards the G4 as a replacement for the G3s throughout its product segments (as was indicated by the intro of the flat-panel iMac) as a short-term move, perhaps hoping to give Motorola a financial kick-back by using only their processors until some grand G5-related production change comes about, perhaps swinging things in IBM's favour.
I don't know. What is IBM's relationship with the G5? I wish the situation were clearer than this whole AIM alliance thing, in which it seems impossible to keep track of who is manufacturing what, who is designing what, who owns the rights to what and whether or not those rights are transferrable, etc. My first reaction would be that Apple is moving to the G4 just because the G4 is generally superior to the G3 in terms of performance - I wouldn't immediately propose some sort of conspiracy theory. Then again, if we all knew what was going on inside the head of Mr. Jobs, this site would not exist, would it. :)

Alex

eirik

Apr 13, 2002, 03:29 PM

DunePilot:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something that has occurred to me (and may well be completely wrong), is the possibility that Apple might be moving towards the G4 as a replacement for the G3s throughout its product segments (as was indicated by the intro of the flat-panel iMac) as a short-term move, perhaps hoping to give Motorola a financial kick-back by using only their processors until some grand G5-related production change comes about, perhaps swinging things in IBM's favour.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as I know, IBM is not producing any G4's for Apple or anyone else. There were rumors to this effect many times. But, I have never seen a credible source say so. Now, this is not to say that I have seen every publication and press release on this subject, however.

To me, the G3 is a dead end!!! It is not MERSI compliant, so it sucks in multiprocessor configurations. It has no single instruction multiple data (SIMD), such as AltiVec. And it has rather mediocre floating point performance. The primary thing going for the G3 is its relatively low power consumption.

As far as I know, the G3 is suffering from the same clock speed constraints as the G4. Rumors to the contrary have yet to be confirmed. Further, even if this were so, higher clocked G3's than G4's would cause product line dissonance: confuse customers because the segmentation of the product line appears to overlap and defy the consumers understanding of which unit to select.

So to DunePilots point, I believe Apple's expansion of the G4 in the Mac product line is driven by two factors. Obviously, the G4 is superior to the G3 and therefore would tend to sell more units, provided their presence does not cause product line dissonance among consumers. Second, the higher the unit volume of production for the G4, the large denominator for unit costs, where the numerator is the sum of fixed and variable costs. This means that Apple gets cheaper G4's per unit but more importantly it means that Motorola gets higher margins per unit.

In short, I believe Apple is simply trying to drive up unit volume with Motorola to induce Motorola to devote more resources and increase their sense of urgency toward G4 production, all of this in the context of serving Apple's interests more.

The downside to this may be that increasing Motorola's volume does so at the price of decreasing IBM's volume. Thus, Apple becomes less significant to IBM.

I really hope that Apple buys Motorola's relevant intellectual property (AltiVec, SOI, etc.). Then, Apple may grow its own semiconductor design unit and/or form a close strategic relationship with someone else. IBM would be awesome.

BTW, IBM recently announced several deals, such as with Sony, Toshiba, and another Japanese firm. The bottom line regarding these deals, one of which calls for system on a chip advances, is that according to the article, IBM is finally allowing one of its customers to say what is put in the cookie batter (can't remember the metaphor too clearly now, very tired). This is significant in that Apple clearly wants more influence with its semiconductor suppliers. Apple can buy some valueable portions of Motorola's intellectual property. So, Apple could by extension get IBM to work on processors that specifically serve the interests of Apple whereas past efforts have straddled those of Apple's and others.

Eirik

Dunepilot

Apr 13, 2002, 08:16 PM

but nonetheless,

what I was suggesting was an Apple strategy that said

short-term - get as many Macs on the G4 as possible. Get Motorola some financial reward from their involvement in Apple, with the knowledge that

long-term - Apple will move the G5, perhaps primarily from IBM (for all I know, this might be wrong).

It would be a strange model to follow, but Apple have never played it straight (I feel stangely drawn to the 'macs and sexuality' topic again.....:D )

Taft

Apr 13, 2002, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by alex_ant

What makes you think that by changing to x86, Apple would not succumb to the lure of lower product cost by integrating cheap custom Soyo boards into their systems or something? Once they're on the same playing field as everyone else, they've got to compete by the same rules, no matter which OS they use. Because you have to admit that while OS X x86 might attract a small segment of geeks, Windows would still dominate. Doesn't matter which OS is superior. "It runs all my software," says the soccer mom.

Alex

The thing is that Apple going x86 isn't going to necessarily get them cheaper components. That was my original point. They are still going to put firewire in all of their computers (internal and external ports), as well as a modem, and an ethernet port...ALL ON THE MOTHERBOARD. And that motherboard has to fit in some cases into the 3/4" thick TiBook and round bottomed iMac. Is Soyo going to make those super cheap? I dunno, but I kinda doubt it.

And that still doesn't address other components they include like those painstakingly designed cases and enclosures, the keyboards and mice which are of great quality and construction, look good and cost a bit of $$. And the great quality screens they sell. Are they going to sacrifice Apple design and quality to make the product cheaper? History says no.

Finally, Apple sells their OS and "the Mac experience" as their primary product. Some people wouldn't care about the hardware they had as long as it ran the experience and did it fast and capably. But the experience necessitates high hardware integration and ease of use that comes at a high design and manufacturing cost. That ease of use also means a certain amount of backward compatibility. Is Adobe going to port all of their code to x86 after just porting it from OS 9 to OS X? Not bloody likely.

The x86 move is not likely and, in my opinion, wouldn't cause any significant price slashes on Apple's products. AMD making PPC chips??? Thats at least a plausible consideration from Apple's standpoint and might yield the performance gains that Motorola has not been able to provide.

Matthew

tortus

Apr 13, 2002, 09:27 PM

I can't believe how long this thread has gotten.

alex_ant

Apr 13, 2002, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Taft
The thing is that Apple going x86 isn't going to necessarily get them cheaper components. That was my original point. They are still going to put firewire in all of their computers (internal and external ports), as well as a modem, and an ethernet port...ALL ON THE MOTHERBOARD. And that motherboard has to fit in some cases into the 3/4" thick TiBook and round bottomed iMac. Is Soyo going to make those super cheap? I dunno, but I kinda doubt it.
Why do you doubt it? Shuttle already makes a mini PC like you describe that has a motherboard 8 inches on a side. Firewire, a modem, and Ethernet are all trivial. Tons of PC motherboards already have everything onboard (except Firewire, but like I said, adding that would be trivial). And no, it wouldn't have to fit inside a 3/4" thick PowerBook because essentially all notebook computers use custom motherboards. Certainly all of Apple's do. Soyo can make ANYTHING cheap. Soyo is the epitomy of cheapness.
And that still doesn't address other components they include like those painstakingly designed cases and enclosures, the keyboards and mice which are of great quality and construction, look good and cost a bit of $$. And the great quality screens they sell. Are they going to sacrifice Apple design and quality to make the product cheaper? History says no.
History says no, but Apple has never been on the same playing field as the PC manufacturers. What is the average person going to buy - an ugly Dell that costs less and is faster than an Apple, or an Apple that costs more, runs almost NO software whatsoever, and is substantially slower than the Dell but is shiny and curvy? I mean, I like shiny and curvy computers just as much as the next person, but... Apple, of course, already sells computers that are slower than the competition, and the only reason they can get away with it is because there are enough supplementary distinctions in their products to outweigh the drawbacks. An Apple x86 machine, no matter how you frame it, does not include these distinctions, and is thus doomed.
Finally, Apple sells their OS and "the Mac experience" as their primary product. Some people wouldn't care about the hardware they had as long as it ran the experience and did it fast and capably. But the experience necessitates high hardware integration and ease of use that comes at a high design and manufacturing cost. That ease of use also means a certain amount of backward compatibility. Is Adobe going to port all of their code to x86 after just porting it from OS 9 to OS X? Not bloody likely.
So... because the Mac experience necessitates high hardware integration and ease of use that comes at a high design and manufacturing cost, you want Apple to stop doing what they're doing well (PowerPC machines), and go head-to-head with the big boys, in the process slaughtering themselves because they are not able to compete? I just don't get it.

I am unable to see what you're trying to accomplish in your post. It seems as if you've selectively argued a couple of the points everyone in this thread has made against Apple x86 machines, ignoring all the rest.

Alex

mozez

Apr 13, 2002, 10:19 PM

guys, please look at this a different way for a second. SGI had irix, it's own form of unix, that ran it's graphics apps that nobody else could run. it was faster than anybody else's computers as well. it was much more expensive and had it's own hardware, much like apple. ya know what made their stock drop to under a dollar, made them so broke and ready to sell? they went to a x86 cpu, which made it able to use their stuff on pcs, which didn't help them, it killed them, they are standing on the ledge.
ibm isn't doing much for apple, they helped motorola, b/c motorola can't do much more. they actually have processors, ibm that is, which are risk and can crush the altivec, it would spank it. they even have the license for altivec and choose not to use it b/c it's nothing to them. why can't people realize that the processor ain't all that great g4, g5, doesn't matter. they use an old ass front side bus, and old, old pc 133 chipset, 32 bit pci slots and you only get about 3, so much for paying more because it's top quality. no, apple uses old architecture and tries to convince people it's better by relying on it's processors name. you think many people looked at the new imac and bought it for it the look, not what it has inside. did people look that it only has 256k cache, or that it has a 100mhz bus, or that it has sdram, not ddr, or that it has some of the slowest osx speed records thus far? people bought it for the look, the coolness of it. not the hardware, cause the hardware sucks, it flat out does and anybody who thinks differently is just dumb, knows nothing about how computers work and refuses to learn anything.
i think the reason so many people want this change really isn't a change in processor, they want a change in price. apple already gets spanked by dell, hp, compaq, and why? cause you get your sunday paper with an entire computer for $299 (read the fine print and add a few hundred) but still you know what i'm saying. it's not the processor i think people ahve an issue with in this thread, it's the price. apple many times has claimed that it's the price per cpu that causes it's high prices as well as superior os. well, i love osx, so they are definitly right there, but really, motorola has hurt them in not finding a better way. fine keep the risk, keep altivec, hell, my powerbook 400 kicks in photoshop against pcs double the speed, given i have a faster bus and 1mb cache compaed to the imac. but the price of the cpu needs to come down. so, if apple said, here's the real question folks, if apple said, we'll drop the price of the whole machine, and you can choose either an amd hammer or g5, i don't think mac owns would choose the amd if it was the same price tag.
it'd be neat to have a dual athlon running osx, with it's 266 bus and 333 ddr chipset, onboard scsi and more, but i more see apple as a package deal, machine and os, if you allow amds to run osx, it means intel could probably run it, which means people would custom build a pc, then just buy the os, or more likely, download the os, and apple would get killed on that, cause mac sales would drop like hell in hardware. that's my two cents.

Taft

Apr 13, 2002, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by alex_ant

I am unable to see what you're trying to accomplish in your post. It seems as if you've selectively argued a couple of the points everyone in this thread has made against Apple x86 machines, ignoring all the rest.

Alex

My original post was against Apple moving to x86 (though I might not have made that clear). My point was that just because Apple goes to x86 doesn't mean their computers would be any cheaper--which is a reason against moving. This is because it would effectively gain you only an increase in MHz while costing you back-compatibility and not really lowering prices. Little-tiny gain, and much loss. Not cool.

And I haven't visited this thread in a while so I wanted to reply to your comment, so thats why it seems a bit selective.

I think we are on the same side. Moving to x86 would be a bad, bad, bad idea. Though I still disagree about an Apple move to x86 lowering prices significantly on their line.

One other question (and this is an actual question, not sarcasm or anything)...I know that there are other small/thin/crazily shaped computers out there, but aren't they generally priced much higher than your garden variety computer? From the evidence I've seen this is the case, but I'm not exactly up on the latest prices in the Wintel market.

Matthew

eirik

Apr 13, 2002, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by alex_ant

[/b]
So... because the Mac experience necessitates high hardware integration and ease of use that comes at a high design and manufacturing cost, you want Apple to stop doing what they're doing well (PowerPC machines), and go head-to-head with the big boys, in the process slaughtering themselves because they are not able to compete? I just don't get it.

I am unable to see what you're trying to accomplish in your post. It seems as if you've selectively argued a couple of the points everyone in this thread has made against Apple x86 machines, ignoring all the rest.

Alex [/B]

I agree, Apple customers buy Mac's because they are comprehensively integrated systems. The CPU and limited set of video cards are throughly integrated, tested such that their motherboards are designed specifically for the components and visa versa. Similarly, the software and hardware is tightly integrated.

Also, I believe these customers also choose Mac's because of its industry leading single instruction multiple data capability, provided by the G4.

I'm not so sure, however, just how important it is to these customers that there be a PowerPC inside. I would not say that with certainty because many Apple, and AMD, customers tend to have a David and Goliath complex or favor the underdogs. If AMD made an x86 CPU with a comparable SIMD implementation in terms of performance as well as ease of software development, I wonder if a significant number of Apple customers would be disappointed?

Now, such a beast might consumer more power. However, for desktops, few folk really care, provided the PC isn't obnoxiously loud due to fan noise.

Now, assume for a moment that an x86 box satisfies Apple's hardware requirements in general. I am very confident that Apple would enjoy all of the cooperation from the manufacturer in integrating it into Apple's motherboard design, et al.

Please note, I AM NOT ADVOCATING a move to x86!!! I've read (don't know how credible the source) that while MacOS X and Cocoa applications would migrate relatively painlessly but that Carbon applications would be painful because those API's do not exist in x86 form. If this is true, then the x86 ought to have a hell of a performance and economic advantage over PowerPC to justify the effort by Apple.

I say by Apple because I presume that if Apple compiles the Carbon API's in x86 form, that most Carbon apps would be fine. As for AltiVec enhanced apps, I suspect that all of those software developers' efforts to write the software in terms of matrix operations and all of the other methods so as to exploit AltiVec would be wasted unless the x86 handled such algorithms well.

Well, I'm out of my element here.

To sum up, I don't think we would see radical changes in Apple's price structure if their Mac's were based on x86's. I don't buy the argument that market pressure due to a reference effect from Windows machines that use x86 would do so because as Alex said, Apple customers are buying a thoroughly integrated hardware/software solution.

Eirik

eirik

Apr 13, 2002, 11:22 PM

Mozez, you make some good points. Though, you'd make them more effectively if you wrote your posts in multiple paragraphs with no more than 2 grammatical subjects each.

I don't believe CPU cost is the single largest factor in establishing Apple's minimum prices. Motorola and IBM sell the same CPU's to many other customers in the embedded market.

Now, cost is obviously not the only driver of price. Naturally, there is perceived and real value-based pricing derived from the overal system that Apple offers.

But in as far as cost is a major driver, if not the one, I believe Apple's primary cost driver stems from volume. Dell buys well over ten times (I have no idea what the actual figure is.) the number of hard drives, video cards, and other common components that Apple. Consequently, Dell enjoys channel power that commands large volume discounts that Apple can only dream of acquiring.

As for how the mini-PC manufacturers attain such low pricing, hence low costs, they employ motherboards and other compound components that are mass produced by the likes of IBM, AMD, and others. Again, economy of scale works against Apple in this way.

Mozez makes another really good point about consumer preferences. The PowerPC's and Apple's motherboards are certainly NOT cutting edge performance in terms of raw numbers. Only when AltiVec is involved does Apple stay competitive.

Fortunately for Apple, performance is driven by applications that are either satisfied by the video card or by AltiVec, which does so wonderfully. Those applications include games, multimedia processing, DVD ripping, just to name a couple.

However, how much faster does a CPU have to be for web browsing, email, office, and most other applications? Here, the bottleneck is often some kind of a serial dependency where either an application is not thoroughly multithreaded or it has to wait for data from a network.

Apple's multiprocessors can really kick butt with multithreaded applications because G4 is fully MERSI compliant. I read in a post recently that the Athlon is supposedly MERSI compliant. But, I'm not totally convinced until I read it form a credible source. Mutliprocessors don't have to add a $1000 to price!!!

While Mozez was ranting about the motherboard and RAM, I found my head nodding in frenzied agreement. This is very frustrating given that these elements are within Apple's control.

I suspect that a familiar obstacle blocks Apple from implementing DDR and other speed enhancements: limited volume. Perhaps Apple figures that an upgrade of just faster RAM and a faster bus would not do enough for consumers to motivate them to buy new Mac's in high enough volume to keep component unit costs down. So, maybe that is why Apple is waiting for a major CPU upgrade before they upgrade the bus, RAM and other components.

Man, I hope we see a fast ****ing G5 that stomps all over Pentiums and Athlons this summer. Let it be, baby; let it be!!!

Eirik

alex_ant

Apr 14, 2002, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Taft
One other question (and this is an actual question, not sarcasm or anything)...I know that there are other small/thin/crazily shaped computers out there, but aren't they generally priced much higher than your garden variety computer? From the evidence I've seen this is the case, but I'm not exactly up on the latest prices in the Wintel market.
That Shuttle computer I mentioned, the SV24, has two built-in USB ports, 2 Firewire ports, Ethernet, 2 serial ports, a parallel port, s-video out, built-in sound, ATA-100, and one free PCI slot. No CPU is included, but it supports any Socket 370 chip with a 66, 100, or 133MHz FSB. So for less than $400 you can have a 1GHz computer in a cube that is 7" by 7.5" by (I don't know). This computer has a page at http://www.spacewalker.com/sv24.htm if you're interested. I'm not sure what point I'm trying to prove, but here it is anyway. :)

Alex

alex_ant

Apr 14, 2002, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by alex_ant

That Shuttle computer I mentioned, the SV24, has two built-in USB ports, 2 Firewire ports, Ethernet, 2 serial ports, a parallel port, s-video out, built-in sound, ATA-100, and one free PCI slot. No CPU is included, but it supports any Socket 370 chip with a 66, 100, or 133MHz FSB. So for less than $400 you can have a 1GHz computer in a cube that is 7" by 7.5" by (I don't know). This computer has a page at http://www.spacewalker.com/sv24.htm if you're interested. I'm not sure what point I'm trying to prove, but here it is anyway. :)

Alex

Sorry, I forgot to mention the fact that you would have to add a hard drive and RAM to the price of that, but you get the idea.

digital1

Apr 15, 2002, 08:59 AM

Mozez, you have to consider something too, Apple utilizes the whole architecture. That is what Risc is based on Not the processor alone the architecture. I do have to admit, the overall speed of everthing with the G4 is utilizing older technology, but that is the beauty of a RISC architecture, you can be using some of the oldest methods of data transfer and still get lots of effieciency. RISC isn't all about speed, its about how efficiently calculations can be handled.

ibjoshua

Apr 15, 2002, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by alex_ant

Sorry, I forgot to mention the fact that you would have to add a hard drive and RAM to the price of that, but you get the idea.

don't forget monitor, keyboard, mouse

mcrain

Apr 15, 2002, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Vilacr
How about Apple drop moto join IBM and take down M$. As for porting OS X to AMD I don't think so.

Because whenever companies that are not related (subsidiaries or the like) band together in order to affect competition, they are subject to being hit with an antitrust lawsuit.

pc_convert?

Apr 16, 2002, 01:44 PM

Taft said,

I (and I'd guess many others here) do not believe Apple will ever do this. At least not in the forseeable future.

I think you missed the point. I never said that Apple would do this.

Darwin is open source, therefore anyone could take darwin and build an OSX like OS even MS if it was so inclined.

I AMD/Nvidia could basically build an OS that looked like (within reason), and provided similar functionality to OSX.

I was speculating on what effect this would have on Apple..if any.

Like you said I don't think it will ever happen but...thats whats these forums are for.

mischief

Apr 17, 2002, 01:27 PM

What if it's about an Apple/nVidia/AMD collaboration to make a super graphics card?

jerry

Apr 19, 2002, 04:33 AM

Interesting thread...

I just hopped on over to see what's up in the Mac world.

As an AMD investor I think I can help this discussion out a bit.

1. Amd at present can make around 8 million chips a quarter. They are very constrained. A few months back they decided to outsource with Taiwan chip maker UMC. Starting Q4 they will begin making chips for AMD as AMD's fab30 starts its hammer ramp. AMD also is going 50/50 on a fab with UMC that will come on line in I believe 2005. I'm not sure what Apple's volumes are, but AMD basically sells every chip they make so I can't see Apple outsourcing/using AMD for awhile. AMD lacks BIG OEM deals because they are basically a 1 fab company at the moment and have a tough time selling that they can dedicate steady volume to an OEM.

2. AMD may actually be at fault of G4 (?) shortages. AMD's new CEO is a former Motorola exec and since coming to AMD he has brought many Motorola engineers with him. A nice pun is that AMD means 'another motorola division'.... Now about buying up IP. Amd already works very close with both Motorola and IBM for R&D. AMD 'learned' SOI that will be in Hammer from IBM. On a side note, I don't think (IMHO) that Motorola will hold onto its CPU division. A few people in this thread mentioned someone buying Motorola's IP and I personaly don't think that's out of the question.

3. I need to get to bed so I need to cut this much shorter then I wanted to, but I basically think that IBM will bail you guys out, Apple will not support AMD/Intel chips and all and all it will be a good thing for Apple. And for the kicker, AMD is 'selling their soul' to MSFT right now to get 64bit support. MSFT would never go ahead with that if AMD did anything to help Apple.

Hope I helped.