Y Apple will never release a x86 version of Mac OS X!

[peter2002]

Because Apple would promptly go out of business.

If Apple ported their Mac OS X to x86, it would be no time before hackers would reverse engineer and eliminate any hardware or software protection and make the free version available on KaZaA, iMesh, Gnutella, etc. Why buy a Mac when you download one for free? Only die hard fans would buy a new one.

With the free warez version of Mac OS X, anybody could download and run any Mac OS X program using a dual boot partition program on a WIntel/AMD PC without having to buy a new or old Mac, and run OS X faster to boot with the new 3.06GHZ P4HT.

It would open a huge pandora's box since most of the hacking is on the Windows side, not Mac. That's why baby.

Going with the IBM 970 or praying for a killer G5 is their only hope.

Peter :)

[edesignuk]

You have a valid point. In the windows world I can find you ANY application you want, wether or not finding it be a simple as a search on KaZaA or if you have to do a little hunting, it can always be found. The amount of WaReZ out there is amazing!
Of course there is a little in the Mac world too, but on no where near the scale.
Also your comments on downloading the OS, again very true.
Just days after XP Pros release the corporate edition was already on KaZaA, then with the release of SP1 which you couldn't install onto the pirated corporate edition which had made its way around the entire world, there was a crack for the installation of SP1 on the corporate edition produced, it's insane!

[springscansing]

Originally posted by edesignuk
You have a valid point. In the windows world I can find you ANY application you want, wether or not finding it be a simple as a search on KaZaA or if you have to do a little hunting, it can always be found. The amount of WaReZ out there is amazing!
Of course there is a little in the Mac world too, but on no where near the scale.
Also your comments on downloading the OS, again very true.
Just days after XP Pros release the corporate edition was already on KaZaA, then with the release of SP1 which you couldn't install onto the pirated corporate edition which had made its way around the entire world, there was a crack for the installation of SP1 on the corporate edition produced, it's insane!

I guess you haven't been on Carracho or Hotline lately. NONE of my friends payed for Jaguar.

[springscansing]

Originally posted by peter2002
Because Apple would promptly go out of business.

If Apple ported their Mac OS X to x86, it would be no time before hackers would reverse engineer and eliminate any hardware or software protection and make the free version available on KaZaA, iMesh, Gnutella, etc.

With the free warez version of Mac OS X, anybody could download and run any Mac OS X program on a WIntel/AMD PC without having to buy a new or old Mac, and run OS X faster to boot with the new 3.06GHZ P4HT.

It would open a huge pandora's box since most of the hacking is on the Windows side, not Mac. That's why baby.

Going with the IBM 970 or praying for a killer G5 is their only hope.

Peter :)

There's always ways to built your own PPC box and run OS X on it. I don't see how this would be any different.

[sparkleytone]

building your own ppc box is nowhere near as cost effective as building an x86 box. thats why it would be so different.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by peter2002
Because Apple would promptly go out of business.

If Apple ported their Mac OS X to x86, it would be no time before hackers would reverse engineer and eliminate any hardware or software protection and make the free version available on KaZaA, iMesh, Gnutella, etc.

With the free warez version of Mac OS X, anybody could download and run any Mac OS X program on a WIntel/AMD PC without having to buy a new or old Mac, and run OS X faster to boot with the new 3.06GHZ P4HT.

It would open a huge pandora's box since most of the hacking is on the Windows side, not Mac. That's why baby.

Going with the IBM 970 or praying for a killer G5 is their only hope.

Peter :)

then why doesn't microsoft go out of business?...they are hacked and they are pirated everywhere...while windows does have security features, they are hard for the average user to set up

apple may not ever have a commercial os x for wintel, but that does not mean they should forever keep that option closed

this high tech field changes so fast that few have been able to accurately predict its direction and one can never say never

[Wash!!]

X86 is a dead chip!!! get it already.

They can do now if they wanted, the code is already inside jaguar all they have to do is turn it on.

They are waiting for a better chip from IBM and forget Moto they are done for.

my two cents.

[mac15]

I can't belive people say, there will be no x86 macs, ofcourse there will be, IBM suck, AMD is good, and I have it on good authority that we will see x86 macs, and they are so much faster than the PPC, so nyeh

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by mac15
I can't belive people say, there will be no x86 macs, ofcourse there will be, IBM suck, AMD is good, and I have it on good authority that we will see x86 macs, and they are so much faster than the PPC, so nyeh

Regardless of whether OSX will go x86, how can you say IBM sucks, and AMD is good.

AMD is the bastard stepchild of the processor world. Fast, usable, but not as trusted or trustworthy as either IBM or Intel chips.

Aside from that, the IBM Power4 is king of the chip mountain right now, and the IBM Power5 will likely be king of the chip mountian next year.

Meanwhile AMD is building really fast chips for k!113r g@m!ng d00dz, and has pushed their corporate chip back again...will we ever see the HamOpteron?

AMDs are great chips for homebuilt systems, cost cutting, etc., but they certainly cannot compete with IBM, Intel, Moto, or Sun for enterprise work, and may never do so if they can't get the HamOptimusPrime transformed from a dream into reality...

[mac15]

I can asure you know, IBM will not be king, AMD will rule in a year or 2.

[Nipsy]

In 2 years, AMD may have made some inroads into business servers, perhaps a supercomputer or 2...if they ever finish their chip, and surive their financial woes.

And don't forget that AMD is maintaining IA32 in their 64 bit chip...

The Power4 of today beats the HamOptithingy of tomorrow in all your spec benchmarks, and I'm sure things will stay that way.

In 2 years, Power5's will have better TPM, vastly greater installed base, etc.

AMD is untrusted in the enterprise because they don't have history (just like the Xserve), so even if they can intro a great product, it will take 2 years for them to begin building real trust.

Power, Xeon, UltraSparc, PA-RISC, etc. are trusted enterprise soultions. Itanium 2 will have to work hard to recover from the failures of Itanium 1, but Intel's marketing budget is probably bigger than AMDs R & D budget.

Not that I think AMD entering into enterprise computing is a bad thing, it will just be a long and hard road for them, and they certainly need to think about the cheapo server market served by Xeon/Itanium Dells, HPs, Compaqs, etc. before they try to take on the heavy iron of IBM, Sun, Fujitsu/Seimens, or HP.

[mac15]

I'm not allowed to say anything, but yeah AMD and Apple, you will be so suprised :D

[Nipsy]

If (big if) AMD does partner with Apple, I pray I am still able to get a 970 (or two) in a pro machine...

[mads]

Wouldn't OS X on an x86 be very unstable?

Now Apple can fine tune the software to go with the hardware. If X is released for x86 so it would run on almost all hardware, Apple could not do this anymore.

I think it would be a better idea to partner with AMD or IBM (if they haven't already) to make the G5.

[MacAficionado]

Again, why is it impossilble for AMD to build a PowerPC chip?
I know they don't build them right now, but couldn't they just expand and move into the PPC market. It doesn't sound too far fetched to me!

We can just hope! We all know the PPC needs some help, maybe AMD could provide it.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Nipsy




AMD is the bastard stepchild of the processor world. Fast, usable, but not as trusted or trustworthy as either IBM or Intel chips.



and the best value for performance on the market today:D

[mac15]

I have no probelm with either of the 4 Chip makers, they are all good

but they have a few flaws is all

IBM: to slow on bringin new chips out
Motorola : to slow on bringin new chips out
Intel : M$ run them basically
AMD : Not as fast as intel with their updates, but is the best choice for apple

[al256]

Originally posted by springscansing


I guess you haven't been on Carracho or Hotline lately. NONE of my friends payed for Jaguar.

That's a GREAT way to support Apple!!!

[MacAztec]

We ALL know Apple wouldnt make OS X for the PC, but how about AMD making PPC Chips for the mac? Thats what im talkin about....:cool:

[mac15]

Originally posted by MacAztec
We ALL know Apple wouldnt make OS X for the PC, but how about AMD making PPC Chips for the mac? Thats what im talkin about....:cool:

This is how it gonna happen

AMD making x86 chips for the mac, and they are mac controlled, so you can only run OSX or whatever apple has on it.

The PPC hasn't got much long to go.

[alset]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


then why doesn't microsoft go out of business?...they are hacked and they are pirated everywhere...while windows does have security features, they are hard for the average user to set up


MS can stay in business because they control Office. That will keep MS alive, even after you cut off it's head and run a stake through it's heart.

Think about it... how many large corporations are willing to install pirated software on every machine they have? Pirating is more of a user issue. Employees might load up software they pirated, but the administration is not likely to take the chance on an entire network.

Dan

[MacAztec]

Originally posted by mac15


This is how it gonna happen

AMD making x86 chips for the mac, and they are mac controlled, so you can only run OSX or whatever apple has on it.

The PPC hasn't got much long to go.

Exactly. I was thinking this, OR AMD making PPC chips FOR Apple.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by MacAztec


Exactly. I was thinking this, OR AMD making PPC chips FOR Apple.

it might be hard, but AMD is in the business of making chips and doing it for a better price than anybody else

and we can't rule out intel on making ppc chips

apple is such a tiny microcosm in silicon valley and high tech that it seems unlikely apple will have more of a choice than motorola and ibm

as long as apple continues producing good machines and keeps their four-five percent share happy, they will keep making a profit, although small...but stable

that's where the bmw analogies make sense...we know that bmw will never sell as many vehicles as a major japanese or american maker, but they will have a steady stream of customers who want somehting with that little extra quality

a lot of the specialty car companies like lambroghini, volvo, and jaguar are owned by more common, but larger/richer car companies

so even if apple became a division of dell or microsoft one day, the mac users of the world would demand that the quality stay high...even if that meant higher prices

sometimes it would be nice if the two steves owned apple, but apple is owned by the shareholders and it is always ultimately them who speak with their money

[springscansing]

Originally posted by al256


That's a GREAT way to support Apple!!!

Notice I didn't say that pirating Jaguar was a good thing... I own it.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by mac15


This is how it gonna happen

AMD making x86 chips for the mac, and they are mac controlled, so you can only run OSX or whatever apple has on it.

The PPC hasn't got much long to go.
Mmmm hmmm. And what's going to happen in six years when AMD finally goes belly-up? Is Apple going to get IBM to continue production of this bastard x86 processor of AMD's?

AMD is a joke. Anyone advocating a switch to this tech needs to get a life.
Originally posted by MacAztec
We ALL know Apple wouldnt make OS X for the PC, but how about AMD making PPC Chips for the mac? Thats what im talkin about....:cool:
AMD hasn't got the manufacturing capability. They're barely able to compete in an economy of scale with Intel as it is. They don't need their resources to become even more strained by manufacturing processors for a company that, like jefhatfield said, is a mere microcosm in Silicon Valley.
Originally posted by mac15
I have no probelm with either of the 4 Chip makers, they are all good

but they have a few flaws is all

IBM: to slow on bringin new chips out
Motorola : to slow on bringin new chips out
Intel : M$ run them basically
AMD : Not as fast as intel with their updates, but is the best choice for apple
Perhaps this comment alone is the true indicator of your complete cluelessness.

You speak as if "bringin new chips out" is like baking cookies or something - just finding the right ingredients in the right proportions and mixing them together and baking them and voila. It's a HUGE undertaking that requires MANY MONTHS of time and hundreds of millions of dollars in expenditures. If you think IBM is taking a long time with the 970, imagine how long AMD would take bringing out the same chip (in its plant which doesn't even have the technology to build them). Can you say 2008?

"M$" does not run Intel any more than Intel runs MS. Like them or not, the relationship between Intel and MS has been full of friction for quite a while. Intel is a fan of Linux and MS has no other choice as to whose processors to run on.

[jefhatfield]

i don' think AMD will bother will apple until apple's market share goes up...if it does

intel is a big and slow company, so AMD being smaller and more innovative can always give intel competition but will not overtake intel anytime soon

home comuting processors is only a part of what intel does so they have to worry about competition from other fronts

like i said, for now, apple is with ibm and motorola...for the forseeable future

[szark]

Originally posted by peter2002
If Apple ported their Mac OS X to x86, it would be no time before hackers would reverse engineer and eliminate any hardware or software protection and make the free version available on KaZaA, iMesh, Gnutella, etc. Why buy a Mac when you download one for free? Only die hard fans would buy a new one.

With the free warez version of Mac OS X, anybody could download and run any Mac OS X program using a dual boot partition program on a WIntel/AMD PC without having to buy a new or old Mac, and run OS X faster to boot with the new 3.06GHZ P4HT.

I personally hope that Apple is able to survive without moving to x86. However, I wanted to add my opinion on why it would not be so simple to achieve this miracle hack you speak of.

Even if someone could figure out how to make a version of OS X on x86 boot on a non-Apple machine, they could only use the same processor/motherboard/chipset combination that Apple used unless they wrote additional drivers to support the other hardware options. Right now the x86 version of Darwin (http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/6.0/install.x86.txt) only runs on Intel processors with a 440BX chipset. Unless additional support code is written, it won't run on any other hardware. (AMD,VIA,SiS,NVidia,etc.) Same thing with the full OS X version -- it would only run if you matched the hardware in machines supplied by Apple.

So, while it might be possible to hack it to run on a non-Apple machine, it would take a lot of time and work to make it run on all x86 hardware.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by alex_ant
You speak as if "bringin new chips out" is like baking cookies or something - just finding the right ingredients in the right proportions and mixing them together and baking them and voila. It's a HUGE undertaking that requires MANY MONTHS of time and hundreds of millions of dollars in expenditures. If you think IBM is taking a long time with the 970, imagine how long AMD would take bringing out the same chip (in its plant which doesn't even have the technology to build them). Can you say 2008?
(Hammer) Opteron and Athlon 64, 1H03.
PowerPC 970, 2H03.

Both are very similar in terms what they can do and how they are manufactured.

Hammer can do 32bit and 64bit, so does *gasp* IBM's PowerPC 970 and AMD is beating IBM to it.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

(Hammer) Opteron and Athlon 64, 1H03.
PowerPC 970, 2H03.

Both are very similar in terms what they can do and how they are manufactured.

Hammer can do 32bit and 64bit, so does *gasp* IBM's PowerPC 970 and AMD is beating IBM to it.
Yes, Hammer can "do" 32 and 64-bit. 32 and 64-bit x86. It will run PowerPC code how? And it will feature what kind of replacement for AltiVec? And it's been delayed how many times? I don't understand. You're basically saying you want Apple to switch to AMD because the Opteron will be out <6 months sooner?

And in terms of moving to 64-bit, AMD is one of the last processor companies on earth to do this. IBM was years ahead of both AMD and Intel with 64-bit PPC chips - it's just that they were never used in Macs.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by alex_ant

Yes, Hammer can "do" 32 and 64-bit. 32 and 64-bit x86. It will run PowerPC code how? And it will feature what kind of replacement for AltiVec? And it's been delayed how many times? I don't understand. You're basically saying you want Apple to switch to AMD because the Opteron will be out <6 months sooner?

And in terms of moving to 64-bit, AMD is one of the last processor companies on earth to do this. IBM was years ahead of both AMD and Intel with 64-bit PPC chips - it's just that they were never used in Macs.
You never said it had to exclusively run PowerPC code.

IIRC, Hammer has 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, and so on. Similar enough to Altivec.

I want Apple to switch to Hammer because it will be out earlier, run faster than the 970s, etc.

Yes, IBM has had 64bit for a long time. But you were talking about the PowerPC 970. That's both 32bit and 64bit AND it is a desktop chip. POWER4 is not a desktop chip.

Both the Hammer series and PowerPC 970 are desktop/workstation processors and AMD has announced theirs for a while, has worked a very long time on it, and is releasing it 1H03.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

You never said it had to exclusively run PowerPC code.

IIRC, Hammer has 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, and so on. Similar enough to Altivec.

I want Apple to switch to Hammer because it will be out earlier, run faster than the 970s, etc.

Not only is AltiVec far beyond these in performance and implementation, it's what Mac software already uses. No porting necessary.

The 970 will be slightly slower than the Hammer at integer and fp speed, but it will have greater memory bandwidth and AltiVec-on-steroids which no PC processor will be able to compete with. It will rock your socks in the multimedia & graphics & audio apps which are Apple's bread & butter.
Yes, IBM has had 64bit for a long time. But you were talking about the PowerPC 970. That's both 32bit and 64bit AND it is a desktop chip. POWER4 is not a desktop chip.
I wasn't talking about the Power4. There have been various 64-bit PPC-compatible desktop-worthy chips available for years. One being the 620 from the late '90s. If you want to make a case for Apple switching to AMD, feel free, but AMD is not beating anyone to 64-bit.
Both the Hammer series and PowerPC 970 are desktop/workstation processors and AMD has announced theirs for a while, has worked a very long time on it, and is releasing it 1H03.
You're saying Apple should make the switch despite mere months of time difference between the release of these two chips, and I believe that would be a monumentally, catastrophically dumb decision, for reasons everyone else has already outlined in this thread, which I've not seen seriously challenged.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by alex_ant
Not only is AltiVec far beyond these in performance and implementation, it's what Mac software already uses. No porting necessary.
Then why is the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP slapping the G4 silly. In fact, the people who report OS X and FCP running on an "AMD" box says it's significantly faster.
The 970 will be slightly slower than the Hammer at integer and fp speed, but it will have greater memory bandwidth and AltiVec-on-steroids which no PC processor will be able to compete with. It will rock your socks in the multimedia & graphics & audio apps which are Apple's bread & butter.
Altivec-on-steroids? Last time a couple people informed Altivec on the PowerPC 970 didn't improve that much over the G4. But I'll have to see.

From what I remember, Hammer has HT 6.4GB/sec just like the PowerPC 970. Infact, the Hammer can have three HT links providing up to 15 or possibly much higher GB/sec of throughoutput than the 970.
You're saying Apple should make the switch despite mere months of time difference between the release of these two chips, and I believe that would be a monumentally, catastrophically dumb decision, for reasons everyone else has already outlined in this thread, which I've not seen seriously challenged.
Yes, six months ahead is a lot. Just when the PowerPC 970 is going to be used in Power Macs, AMD will have had improved and released faster Hammers.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Then why is the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP slapping the G4 silly. In fact, the people who report OS X and FCP running on an "AMD" box says it's significantly faster.
Everybody knows the G4 sucks now. But AltiVec - the faster version of which will be implemented in the 970 - will be faster than anything the P4 or Athlon or Hammer will be able to compete with.
Altivec-on-steroids? Last time a couple people informed Altivec on the PowerPC 970 didn't improve that much over the G4. But I'll have to see.
Even if the specs of the AltiVec unit were unchanged compared to the version on the G4, performance would still be much better due to the bandwidth problems being eliminated.
From what I remember, Hammer has HT 6.4GB/sec just like the PowerPC 970. Infact, the Hammer can have three HT links providing up to 15 or possibly much higher GB/sec of throughoutput than the 970.
If I'm not mistaken, the Hammer's bus is 533MHz and capable of 5.4GB/s vs. the 900MHz 7.2GB/s bus of the 970. (At least according to the chart on this page (http://www.architosh.com/news/2002-10/2002c-1014-powerpc907-1.phtml))

Also, although the Hammer will be released before the 970, the 970 will be on .09 micron before the Hammer. Clearly the 970 will be a very competitive chip; it would be foolish to throw this away and bet the company on x86.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by alex_ant
Everybody knows the G4 sucks now. But AltiVec - the faster version of which will be implemented in the 970 - will be faster than anything the P4 or Athlon or Hammer will be able to compete with.

Interesting that you know that this is true now. What are your sources? etc. :rolleyes:

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Interesting that you know that this is true now. What are your sources? etc. :rolleyes:
Well, cripes, how could it not be true? Intel and AMD have nothing on the horizon that could possibly compete with any kind of next-generation AltiVec unit that could possibly appear in the 970. Even if the 970's AltiVec unit is extremely weak - as "weak" as the G4's - it will still have much more memory bandwidth available to it and will be able to perform much better than it does now (since bandwidth is currently the limiting factor in its performance). Meaning if a well-tuned AltiVec program running on a 1GHz G4 can dust a similar program running on a 2GHz Athlon now, it would be a virtual certainty that the same program running on a 1.8GHz 970, with vastly greater memory bandwidth than a G4, would dust the same program optimized for a 2GHz Hammer.

[Sun Baked]

Ars Technia's Perpetual Future Apple CPU Thread (http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=3470943335)

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by alex_ant

Well, cripes, how could it not be true? Intel and AMD have nothing on the horizon that could possibly compete with any kind of next-generation AltiVec unit that could possibly appear in the 970. Even if the 970's AltiVec unit is extremely weak - as "weak" as the G4's - it will still have much more memory bandwidth available to it and will be able to perform much better than it does now (since bandwidth is currently the limiting factor in its performance). Meaning if a well-tuned AltiVec program running on a 1GHz G4 can dust a similar program running on a 2GHz Athlon now, it would be a virtual certainty that the same program running on a 1.8GHz 970, with vastly greater memory bandwidth than a G4, would dust the same program optimized for a 2GHz Hammer.

intel is way ahead...but maybe not in doing the programs we may like...intel has a 3 ghz chip already...can't be that bad