Freescale CEO on Apple, Intel and IBM

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

CNet provides (http://news.com.com/Is+the+PowerPC+due+for+a+second+wind/2008-1006_3-5983157.html?tag=st.prev) an interview with Michel Mayer, CEO of Freescale Semiconductor. Freescale is the Motorola (http://guides.macrumors.com/Motorola) spin-off which provides Apple with the PowerPC G4 (http://guides.macrumors.com/G4) processor used in the Mac Mini and current Mac Laptops. Apple has a contract with Freescale to fulfill G4 processor orders until as late as Dec 31, 2008 (http://news.com.com/2061-10793_3-5843820.html?tag=nl) if required. (Apple is under no obligation to continue purchasing them through that time, however.)

The interview provides some confirmation (http://news.com.com/Is+the+PowerPC+due+for+a+second+wind+-+page+2/2008-1006_3-5983157-2.html?tag=st.num) of Apple's earlier consideration to move to Intel.

In my previous job, I ran IBM's semiconductor business. So I've seen both sides of the Apple story, because I sold the G5 to Steve (Jobs) the first time he wanted to move to Intel.

This information was previously revealed (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/09/20030912124002.shtml) in an internal IBM newsletter about Apple's potential switch to Intel at that time. Instead, Apple went forward with the PowerPC 970 (G5).

Meanwhile, Mayer goes on to say that IBM's focus has shifted to consoles:

IBM decided not to take the G5 into the laptop and decided to really focus its chip business on the game consoles.

[bigandy]

it was obvious early on of IBM's shift towards consoles but for them to basically admit they couldn't be arsed making a laptop spec version of the G5 would just make me want to slap them, if i was apple..

[dogsbody]

I agree. They need a series of varying-degree-of-firmness slaps.

Now all we need, to ensure a good level of irony, is to find someone who's become so proficient at stealthy operations (by playing on an IBM-processor equipped games console) that they can sneak into IBM headquarters and administer some large-scale slappage.

*SLAP* :eek:

[Daschund]

One more thing to back Jobs decision of moving to Intel... Don't know if they knew at the time that IBM was shifting priorities, but it was the right move to do after all...

Daschund

[ksz]

So IBM just brought this upon themselves, although now they claim to have a low-power version of the G5 (whose performance relative to the G4 is questionable). If Jobs had considered moving to Intel waaay back then, I wonder if in retrospect the switch to IBM was a mistake. The PowerPC never really outshined Intel's processors. It was (is?) a good processor, but it never managed to outdistance itself from the competition.

[~Shard~]

Very interesting that he sold Jobs the G5 the first time he wanted to move to Intel. ;) With this, and the fact that OS X has been co-developed on Intel platforms since it's inception, you can see where Jobs's head was at all this time. No portable G5 solutions was probably the straw that broke the camel's back.

[Aggamemnon]

Well I'm glad Apple are moving and besides, IBM always used to be the enemy.

Now things are going back to the way they were before :)

[Ktulu]

It's completely possible that Steve Jobs wanted to do a two fold transition. When OS X was first introduced he might have wanted to also switch to Intel proc. My basis for this is due to the 'double' life OS X has been leading since it was introduced. IBM convinced him of this "great new processor" coming so he stuck it out. Now, like others have mentioned with the lack of portable level processors he has finally said enough's enough.

Just my thoughts on this.

[Dont Hurt Me]

G5 was a waste of time for Apple, It wont go mobile, needs a gigantic cooling solution, plus they needed two CPU's to compete with one cpu from the otherside. I bet if Jobs could go back into time there wouldnt be a G5. Apple produced a lot of spin around that G5, G5 products have all had some major teething problems. This will be a very short lived processor as Apple history go's.

[hcuar]

G5 was a waste of time for Apple, It wont go mobile, needs a gigantic cooling solution, plus they needed two CPU's to compete with one cpu from the otherside. I bet if Jobs could go back into time there wouldnt be a G5. Apple produced a lot of spin around that G5, G5 products have all had some major teething problems. This will be a very short lived processor as Apple history go's.

I'm not sure about "compete"... My dual 1.8 at home kicks the crap out of my 2.8 Ghz P4 at work. My P4 hangs and slows like crazy. My PM gets used for some pretty heavy processing at home with no slow downs. I'm very picky about speed and I hope that the new Pentium based Macs will perform at the level of the current PPC guys.

[~Shard~]

Well I'm glad Apple are moving and besides, IBM always used to be the enemy.

Now things are going back to the way they were before :)

Apple used Intel before? :p ;) :cool:

[AidenShaw]

G5 was a waste of time for Apple, It wont go mobile, needs a gigantic cooling solution, plus they needed two CPU's to compete with one cpu from the otherside. I bet if Jobs could go back into time there wouldnt be a G5...
And in 2008, if Jobs could go back in time he'd say:

"Why were we so stupid - we never should have done OSX on 32-bit x86 systems. If we'd waited a few more months for Merom, we could have done a true 64-bit port - so that all OSX on Intel would have been full 64-bit. Now we've got all this 32-bit baggage to carry around, and we're still working on the transition from OSx86 to OSx64 64-bit."

Hindsight is always perfect.

[rockandrule]

Not too sure about the comment of the G5 practically being worthless. I've never sat on an Intel/Windows computer which after 2 years of heavy use works just like it is out of the box, if not quicker with the OS updates. I'm sitting here on a dual 2.0GHz bought in January of 2004 and it's still kicking the hell out of the can.

[rosalindavenue]

Seems like a pretty weasely move on IBM's part-- I'm sure they sold Steve the G5 with plenty of assurances that there would be a laptop solution. According to this guy, "IBM decided not to take the G5 into the laptop and decided to really focus its chip business on the game consoles." I wonder when Apple learned about IBM's "decision."

[iDM]

So thats why we never got the G5 PowerBook huh? I always thought it was b/c they couldn't get off their a** and figure it out.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I'm not sure about "compete"... My dual 1.8 at home kicks the crap out of my 2.8 Ghz P4 at work. My P4 hangs and slows like crazy. My PM gets used for some pretty heavy processing at home with no slow downs. I'm very picky about speed and I hope that the new Pentium based Macs will perform at the level of the current PPC guys.You still are comparing a two cpu machine with a single cpu machine, The new Intels will outperform their current ppc counteparts be assured of that. Toms Hardware has a nice look at whats coming. Low power and high performance is the key for Apples future. Yonah looks very good but it successors look even better. Jobs knows this.

[aquajet]

And in 2008, if Jobs could go back in time he'd say:

"Why were we so stupid - we never should have done OSX on 32-bit x86 systems. If we'd waited a few more months for Merom, we could have done a true 64-bit port - so that all OSX on Intel would have been full 64-bit. Now we've got all this 32-bit baggage to carry around, and we're still working on the transition from OSx86 to OSx64 64-bit."

Hindsight is always perfect.

Yeah right, a few more months...

This switch can't come soon enough. Jobs should have switched the first time.

[rickag]

Or this could be corporate spin. I believe IBM did have plans to use the 970 series in servers and blades. And maybe corporate politics came into play. Didn't the semiconductor division get taken over by another division within IBM. just pondering:cool:

[AidenShaw]

You still are comparing a two cpu machine with a single cpu machine...
And comparing a standalone system at home with one on a company network, probably with remote filesystems on a busy network, with whatever apps the company decides to run.

[dernhelm]

IBM decided not to take the G5 into the laptop and decided to really focus its chip business on the game consoles.


I wonder what time-frame this quote is referring to. Is he saying that even before Apple decided to switch to Intel IBM made this decision? Or is he just stating the obvious - now that Apple has switched to Intel, IBM dropped the G5 laptop chip.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I have to laugh everytime I see a IBM commercial advertising blades,servers etc and everytime with Intel inside. I have never seen a IBM commercial saying hey look at this machine with our PPC in it? Heck if IBM doesnt even push its PPC why should anyone else? IBMs heart never was in G5, just as Motorolas heart was never in G4. It sure will be nice to have a cpu maker who is focused on your product( computers) and not consoles or toaster ovens & cars.

[Studawg7]

I have to laugh everytime I see a IBM commercial advertising blades,servers etc and everytime with Intel inside. I have never seen a IBM commercial saying hey look at this machine with our PPC in it? Heck if IBM doesnt even push its PPC why should anyone else? IBMs heart never was in G5, just as Motorolas heart was never in G4. It sure will be nice to have a cpu maker who is focused on your product( computers) and not consoles or toaster ovens & cars.


well said. ibm makes more money on their joke of a consulting service, which only really trys to sell their IT equipment. ibm got out of computing (lenova or whatever that company in china is called) it makes sense they would not be interested in Apple's computers. and the article clearly states Freescales position, selling products to the automakers (which is a HUGE business for them). way to go apple for looking for a new supplier.

[Kace]

bad move on IBM.. 5 years from now.. game consoles would be stuck at 20million or whatever a year (or life cycle)... and apple would be shipping at parity with dell...
long shot, maybe... 10 years perhaps??
once os XI comes out...
if apple do manage to pull of a digi mediacenter.. who knows maybe we would see a powerPOD... a culmination of the future PSP and PS??
----hmmm...
ibm shouldve put more money (and heart) in the g5.. they will live to regret it..

[ogun7]

G5 was a waste of time for Apple, It wont go mobile, needs a gigantic cooling solution, plus they needed two CPU's to compete with one cpu from the otherside. I bet if Jobs could go back into time there wouldnt be a G5. Apple produced a lot of spin around that G5, G5 products have all had some major teething problems. This will be a very short lived processor as Apple history go's.

Remember the problems Apple had with the previous 2 generations of iMacs overheating. The G5 never delivered for Apple's overall strategy. Unfortunately, as much as we all love PowerMacs, iBooks and PowerBooks is what keeps the computer division afloat.

If IBM couldn't deliver on the Apple's top sellers on the computer side and their chips overheat on the second best sellers, what is Uncle Steve supposed to do?

[itsa]

This is either the best thing Apple has ever done or... the end of Apple Computers.

[AidenShaw]

If IBM couldn't deliver on the Apple's top sellers on the computer side and their chips overheat on the second best sellers, what is Uncle Steve supposed to do?
Maybe if you phrased this "and their chips are too hot for the second best sellers" it would be better.

It isn't IBM's fault if Apple puts IBM chips into systems with inadequate cooling systems - it's Apple's fault for bad thermal engineering.

[Super Dave]

So IBM just brought this upon themselves, although now they claim to have a low-power version of the G5 (whose performance relative to the G4 is questionable). If Jobs had considered moving to Intel waaay back then, I wonder if in retrospect the switch to IBM was a mistake. The PowerPC never really outshined Intel's processors. It was (is?) a good processor, but it never managed to outdistance itself from the competition.

That's not true. During the Power Computer days, the various clone manufacturers were well ahead of Intel competitors.

Also, the Quad G5 arguably kicks any processor out there's bum quite nicely to this day. And before we write off Altivec, it has been a great leverage for specific Applications. The PowerPC was never that shabby in its day, except in Mhz terms, or possibly near the end in Apple's portable line.

I am still glad Apple is switching as IBM does need a good slap, but to say the PowerPC never really outshined Intel isn't quite accurate.

David:cool:

[dongmin]

Meanwhile, Mayer goes on to say that IBM's focus has shifted to consoles:

What's ironic is that Apple in a way is going the same route. What this Mayer guy is saying about the future being in consoles and consumer electronics is on the money. Sure we'll have desktops for work and for high-end gaming solutions. But you can kind of see the vast majority of home users moving to media/game consoles.

If this 'Media Mini' and new content delivery system, as rumored, works out, it could be the next iPod, the Next Big Thing. And Apple could sell as many of these as they do the iPod. Think 5-10 million units a quarter, outselling the xbox, playstation, or whatever. Of course, these Apple consoles will be powered by Intel's Viiv, not PPC. What sweet revenge that would be!

[iDM]

What's ironic is that Apple in a way is going the same route. What this Mayer guy is saying about the future being in consoles and consumer electronics is on the money. Sure we'll have desktops for work and for high-end gaming solutions. But you can kind of see the vast majority of home users moving to media/game consoles.

If this 'Media Mini' and new content delivery system, as rumored, works out, it could be the next iPod, the Next Big Thing. And Apple could sell as many of these as they do the iPod. Think 5-10 million units a quarter, outselling the xbox, playstation, or whatever. Of course, these Apple consoles will be powered by Intel's Viiv, not PPC. What sweet revenge that would be!

I like the theory, I personally would love to have a home media center created by Apple. Front Row is definitely a step in the right direction but something the size of the mini with access to DVR, my iTunes, my iPhoto and my Movies on my network computers(while supporting network access so my lazy as* doesn't have to get up) would definitely sell me!

[m-dogg]

I like the theory, I personally would love to have a home media center created by Apple. Front Row is definitely a step in the right direction but something the size of the mini with access to DVR, my iTunes, my iPhoto and my Movies on my network computers(while supporting network access so my lazy as* doesn't have to get up) would definitely sell me!

I wouldn't even mind if it was a little larger than the mini, so long as it stays within the standard VCR/DVD player size...

[-hh]

G5 was a waste of time for Apple, It wont go mobile, needs a gigantic cooling solution, plus...

You might want to go back and look historically at how Intel was doing back 3-4 years ago when this CPU decision was effectively made: Pentiums were quite power hungry, hot running beasts, as this was really before the days of the Pentium M (and later, Centrino) less hot/hungry portable chips.

... they needed two CPU's to compete with one cpu from the otherside.

Mac's have had multiple CPU's in their genetic code for years. While sometimes it was necessary to "keep up with the Intels", it wasn't always necessary ... guess you don't remember the Quad 604 systems offered by DayStar or Totalimpact. In any event, having a MP system frequently in the product line provided both the marketing base as well as the high end hardware to mature the Application coding base for vendors to provide support.


This will be a very short lived processor as Apple history go's.

The G5's already been around for over 2 years and will likely make it to age 3.

I don't recall the specifics, but I'm sure someone can dig up the lifespans of other "shortlived" CPU's, IIRC, the 601, the 604 (not 604e), perhaps even the 68020 (IIRC) and the 65C02.

-hh

[Dont Hurt Me]

A MacMini entertainment center would do great, just give it a good enough video card and it will also compete with consoles for that living room space. It has to allow for Windows to run those PC games, then why bother with any other equipment? games,software,Tv,Music & vVdeo all in one little box brought to you by Apple & Intel. Its a match made in heaven. I told folks here couuple of years ago Steve played Golf with the Former Intel Top dog. Deals get done ,idea's talked about while playing golf.;) Way i see it the only thing holding Apple down all these years was oddball ppc. No more ports!:cool:

[amigabill]

it was obvious early on of IBM's shift towards consoles but for them to basically admit they couldn't be arsed making a laptop spec version of the G5 would just make me want to slap them, if i was apple..

Surely Apple ws in a position to know about the low-power G5 chips coming from PA Semi. They sound quite suitable for laptop applications and even have most of the northbridge type stuff built-in.

There must be more to the switch than just a laptop capable G5 chip.

[Soulstorm]

Surely Apple ws in a position to know about the low-power G5 chips coming from PA Semi. They sound quite suitable for laptop applications and even have most of the northbridge type stuff built-in.

There must be more to the switch than just a laptop capable G5 chip.
Indeed there is! Look at an article by arstechnica.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050606-4974.html

It provides some very useful information.

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw
And in 2008, if Jobs could go back in time he'd say:

"Why were we so stupid - we never should have done OSX on 32-bit x86 systems. If we'd waited a few more months for Merom, we could have done a true 64-bit port - so that all OSX on Intel would have been full 64-bit. Now we've got all this 32-bit baggage to carry around, and we're still working on the transition from OSx86 to OSx64 64-bit."

Hindsight is always perfect.


Yeah right, a few more months...

This switch can't come soon enough. Jobs should have switched the first time.

Is it really that urgent? Sales were pretty good last quarter!

The silence about OSx64 is unsettling - you'd think that the roadmap would at least be out there, so that developers who are porting to OSx86 would be able to plan ahead.

Maybe Apple's planning a Windows-like 32-bit sandbox (like WOW on XP 64-bit), or even planning to use VT to run OSx86 in a virtual machine beside OSx64.

I would hope that they're not planning to duplicate the lame 64-bit implementation that's part of Tiger on OSx64.

[BenRoethig]

bad move on IBM.. 5 years from now.. game consoles would be stuck at 20million or whatever a year (or life cycle)... and apple would be shipping at parity with dell...

Apple getting 10% is the market is a long shot at best, let alone Dell's 30%. Their machines do not have universal appeal.

[kirk26]

I'm not sure about "compete"... My dual 1.8 at home kicks the crap out of my 2.8 Ghz P4 at work. My P4 hangs and slows like crazy. My PM gets used for some pretty heavy processing at home with no slow downs. I'm very picky about speed and I hope that the new Pentium based Macs will perform at the level of the current PPC guys.

Sounds like someone doesn't know how to use Windows. Dual 1.8 (mac)=Intel (year 2001 PC's).

[pgwalsh]

One more thing to back Jobs decision of moving to Intel... Don't know if they knew at the time that IBM was shifting priorities, but it was the right move to do after all...

Daschund
I couldn't agree with you more. I just wish they did it during the initial switch, so I wont have to upgrade all my applications again. That's the bummer part of the switch to Intel.

[shawnce]

Surely Apple ws in a position to know about the low-power G5 chips coming from PA Semi. They sound quite suitable for laptop applications and even have most of the northbridge type stuff built-in.
...and what is PA Semi track record? What volume can they supply? At what prices? etc.

Likely far to much risk for Apple taste (and mine having invested in Apple).

There must be more to the switch than just a laptop capable G5 chip.

Yeah... like never really meeting performance/power rations or clock rates with the G5 (as I programmer I do love the G5 and PPC ISA but...). Also this implies that IBM is generally walking away from consumer grade general processors to console cpu and cell processors.

In other words many reasons exist that when summed pushed them to make the switch.

[shawnce]

The silence about OSx64 is unsettling - you'd think that the roadmap would at least be out there, so that developers who are porting to OSx86 would be able to plan ahead.

Yeah as a developer this is the main unsettling and unanswered aspect of the transition plan and documentation that Apple has outlined to date. I would love to know more about what the road map looks like.

Given this it seems sure that our only 64b addressing systems will remain G5/PPC based into 2007 (as Apple generally implied).

[woolfgang]

Why are people talking s##t about the G5? I do video editing and graphics. I had to work in an office for two months with both a dual Xeon 3G and a dual 2.5 G5 with 2GB each. When I worked on cross platform programs, the G5 was obviously faster. The G5 is not the future, but it still kicks ass. I also have a Dual G4 1.25 at home I used for video editing and it's still fast.

[~Shard~]

Why are people talking s##t about the G5? I do video editing and graphics. I had to work in an office for two months with both a dual Xeon 3G and a dual 2.5 G5 with 2GB each. When I worked on cross platform programs, the G5 was obviously faster. The G5 is not the future, but it still kicks ass. I also have a Dual G4 1.25 at home I used for video editing and it's still fast.

Agreed. PPC is the past, and Intel is the future for Apple, however that doesn't automatically make the PPC a crappy processor. I know I wouldn't complain if I had a quad PowerMac right now... ;) :cool:

[bousozoku]

well said. ibm makes more money on their joke of a consulting service, which only really trys to sell their IT equipment. ibm got out of computing (lenova or whatever that company in china is called) it makes sense they would not be interested in Apple's computers. and the article clearly states Freescales position, selling products to the automakers (which is a HUGE business for them). way to go apple for looking for a new supplier.

IBM didn't get out of computing, but stopped trying to keep their x86 PC business going by selling it to Lenovo of China.

IBM has 2 midrange lines and a mainframe line that do quite well in the industry plus the fault-tolerant Sequent subsidiary. IBM's database business is quite vital, also. With their Informix group (the original UNIX database people) and the DB2 group (the original relational database people), they have the majority of sales in the market.

Apple's management didn't care past the launch of PowerPC machines because someone else was eating their lunch--Power Computing. They waited too long, trusted Motorola, made IBM wait for leftover sales and, in general, hurt themselves.

Motorola decided that it knew better than IBM and created the G4 on its own, which stalled Apple almost immediately and certainly embarrassed the hell out of them. "We're going to charge you the same amount for your machines, but we're going to decrease performance...because a supercomputer is too much for mere users to handle." Perhaps, saying that, they would have looked less stupid.

I'm glad Freescale isn't completely gone. The world needs a prime example of arrogance and stupidity and brilliance and ineptitude to continue. (Yes, AltiVec was brilliant. The fact that the G4 was little more than a host to the AltiVec unit was really inept, especially when they couldn't produce a 50 MHz clock speed enhancement for over a year.)

[BlizzardBomb]

Is it really that urgent? Sales were pretty good last quarter!

The silence about OSx64 is unsettling - you'd think that the roadmap would at least be out there, so that developers who are porting to OSx86 would be able to plan ahead.

Maybe Apple's planning a Windows-like 32-bit sandbox (like WOW on XP 64-bit), or even planning to use VT to run OSx86 in a virtual machine beside OSx64.

I would hope that they're not planning to duplicate the lame 64-bit implementation that's part of Tiger on OSx64.

Umm... I think the main reason the switch is happening is because the old 32-bit G4 (and its crappy FSB) simply cannot deliver the goods in today's laptop world. And anyways, the G5 can't go much faster in an iMac due to heat issues and Jobs said the transition would be complete in 2007 (Hint hint Power Macs). The pros outweigh the cons by a mile.

[the_ki]

I'm not sure about "compete"... My dual 1.8 at home kicks the crap out of my 2.8 Ghz P4 at work. My P4 hangs and slows like crazy. My PM gets used for some pretty heavy processing at home with no slow downs. I'm very picky about speed and I hope that the new Pentium based Macs will perform at the level of the current PPC guys.You still are comparing a two cpu machine with a single cpu machine, The new Intels will outperform their current ppc counteparts be assured of that. Toms Hardware has a nice look at whats coming. Low power and high performance is the key for Apples future. Yonah looks very good but it successors look even better. Jobs knows this.You're also (I think) comparing Mac OS X to Windows, which, on completely equal machines, will be a huge difference.

[nagromme]

Of thinking Apple's decision NOW is based on factors from years ago that Apple just didn't see. Intel's future (Pentium M and beyond) really IS different from its past (Netburst.) PowerPCs have done VERY well, but they're not going any further. Intel is.

What Apple did do is keep their options open--which took no small effort! Very good planning.

For people who think Apple should have finished a fully 64-bit version of OS X (Leopard?) and THEN told developers to start getting ready for the transition... I fear that would have delayed things far more than a few months. And I'm an Apple consumer who is NOT willing to wait for a next-gen laptop. I AM willing to wait for certain apps to get faster (Photoshop). In addition, assuming that Apple can't pull off a 32-bit to 64-bit transition well is to deny Apple's proven talent for big transitions! Compromises are needed sometimes--but "wait 6-12 months" sounds like the wrong compromise to me.

(Also I think the article author may be going a little far to say that no innovation is left with computers, but of course he now runs a non-computer company.)

Anyway, the PowerPC had great potential, as some G5 quad owners can attest! I hope it goes on in other forms--Cell, etc.--even if it can't have a future in computers.

(Meanwhile some tech writers are saying IBM already HAS a laptop G5 they can deliver in quantity, and that Intel has failed with Yonah and does NOT have the ability to deliver in quantity. :o Sounds questionable to me. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=165437 )


The PowerPC never really outshined Intel's processors.
Actually it clearly DID at times--and for some important tasks, it still does. The Intel change is, once again, about the future as much as the present. (The PRESENT need is for laptops--the G4 needs a successor.)

[p0intblank]

They decided to forget about the G5 notebook and shift their focus into the console world? Smells like some bad cover-up to me. :rolleyes: I hate it when companies make poor excuses like this one.

[FFTT]

I think SJ needed the fastest available processor at the time to prove
OSX after too much negative PR about OS9, the security hassles and conflicts.

IBM fit the bill and the rest is history.

Now that OSX is proven SJ can take his business anywhere he wants to.

[phraktyl]

One of these days I'm going to stop getting attached to IBM products, as I have a history of being shafted...

[shamino]

ibm got out of computing (lenova or whatever that company in china is called) it makes sense they would not be interested in Apple's computers. ...
Computing is a lot more than PC's. Please don't confuse the two.

IBM still sells quite a lot of "big iron", based on POWER (http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/p/) and z/Architecture (http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/) (The successor to the s/360/370/390 line.)

You're right that they decided to get out of the PC business, and Apple was right to not try and remain attached. But don't confuse this with the much broader field of "computing".

[AidenShaw]

Umm... I think the main reason the switch is happening is because the old 32-bit G4 (and its crappy FSB) simply cannot deliver the goods in today's laptop world. And anyways, the G5 can't go much faster in an iMac due to heat issues and Jobs said the transition would be complete in 2007 (Hint hint Power Macs). The pros outweigh the cons by a mile.
I think that your response missed the context....

I wasn't saying not to switch - I was saying that waiting a few more months and switching to 64-bit x64 might make more sense.

As it is, Apple will be forcing 2 transitions on its software partners - one to 32-bit OSx86, then later another one to 64-bit OSx64....

Perhaps it would be better to only do one switch, to 64-bit OSx64 with true 64-bit support (GUI/Cocoa/Carbon). That way, all MacIntel software would be fully 64-bit.

And remember that the usual "ballpark" figure is that x64 mode is 10-20% faster than x86 mode on the same hardware.

[ksz]

The PowerPC never really outshined Intel's processors.
Actually it clearly DID at times--and for some important tasks, it still does. The Intel change is, once again, about the future as much as the present. (The PRESENT need is for laptops--the G4 needs a successor.)
Just as AMD's current processors are considered better than Intel's in a variety of ways, the lead is not very significant and Intel is not nearly out of the game. Similarly, there were times when PPCs were faster by a significant margin and boasted innovations like AltiVec and fostered debates on RISC vs CISC, but those leads and those debates quickly evaporated as Intel gained steam and IBM/Motorola lost steam -- and lost it in a big way. Excitement over the PPC Roadmap that peaked on that historic day when Jobs introduced the PowerMac G5 has now become a dim memory, while continued use of the 7447 with a 167/333 MHz bus in the PowerBook is an ongoing reminder of being stuck in the past.

They were unable to increase performance and unable to innovate with new on-chip features and unable to produce parts quickly in needed quantities (a slow yield ramp particularly for the 90nm process at IBM's Fishkill plant).

The PowerPC may have left the gate running, but since the late 130nm period to the current early 65nm period, the pace has slowed to a crawl. They are not competing aggressively in a market that demands aggressive progress. The PPC is not outshining or outdistancing the competition in any significant way.

[nagromme]

I wasn't saying not to switch - I was saying that waiting a few more months and switching to 64-bit x64 might make more sense.
Would x64 run in some way on 32-bit Intel chips too? I hadn't heard that.

Or are you saying that within a few months, all PCs even on the low end (like the Mini) will have 64-bit processors? No more Dothans or Yonahs within a few months?

[Fukui]

As it is, Apple will be forcing 2 transitions on its software partners - one to 32-bit OSx86, then later another one to 64-bit OSx64....

Perhaps it would be better to only do one switch, to 64-bit OSx64 with true 64-bit support (GUI/Cocoa/Carbon). That way, all MacIntel software would be fully 64-bit.
While I would agree with that premise, I think customers wouldn't stand for having to re-buy or re-download thier apps just to get 64-Bit and just to run them on thier new Macs...

Perhaps apple has a strategy similar to Rosetta that will let 32-bit apps run along side, when apple does intend to ship x64 systems.

This may be better for developers because they can choose to move to 64-bit when they need/want to.

[generik]

While I would agree with that premise, I think customers wouldn't stand for having to re-buy or re-download thier apps just to get 64-Bit and just to run them on thier new Macs...

Perhaps apple has a strategy similar to Rosetta that will let 32-bit apps run along side, when apple does intend to ship x64 systems.

This may be better for developers because they can choose to move to 64-bit when they need/want to.

Erm.. 32 bit programs can run on a 64 bit system, however device drivers that operate in kernel mode are a different story altogether.

[Fukui]

Erm.. 32 bit programs can run on a 64 bit system, however device drivers that operate in kernel mode are a different story altogether.
Hmm, Ok but why then is there a big stink about making everything 64bit?
I thought X64 could only run in 64-Bit only mode or only 32-bit?

[shamino]

Hmm, Ok but why then is there a big stink about making everything 64bit?
I thought X64 could only run in 64-Bit only mode or only 32-bit?
A lot of people seem to believe that 64-bit means 32-bit incompatibility. But it's not true. At least not in the AMD-style 64-bit model (which Intel is supporting in their newest chips.) This is very different from older 64-bit chips (like Itanium) which are not compatible with 32-bit code.

As for making everything 64-bit, it could be done, but there's really little point to it. Unless your program requires large registers or more than 4G of address space, moving to 64-bit is counterproductive. You gain no additional performance, and increase the memory footprint (since memory pointers all become twice as large.)

Apple's solution with the G5 (support both 32- and 64-bit code) is best. Let the developers choose which model to code their apps to. (But I do hope they eventually ship 64-bit equivalents to all of the APIs, so 64-bit code doesn't need to shunt all UI calls though 32-bit code.)

Sun used a similar solution for Solaris - a 64-bit kernel that supports both 32- and 64-bit apps, so it's not like this is a terribly unusual concept.

[shawnce]

As for making everything 64-bit, it could be done, but there's really little point to it. Unless your program requires large registers or more than 4G of address space, moving to 64-bit is counterproductive. You gain no additional performance, and increase the memory footprint (since memory pointers all become twice as large.)

Not fully true in the case of AMD's (Intel's) 64b ISA since when in that mode they took additional liberties to change the ISA giving the compiler/programmer access to more named registers. So you can see a performance increase even for applications not needing 64b addressing.

In the case of PPC you have the same number of registers regardless of using 64b or 32b addressing. So the negatives of moving to 64b addressing isn't offset by gaining access to more named registers.

...at least that I how I understand things the last time I looked this over...

Apple's solution with the G5 (support both 32- and 64-bit code) is best. Let the developers choose which model to code their apps to. (But I do hope they eventually ship 64-bit equivalents to all of the APIs, so 64-bit code doesn't need to shunt all UI calls though 32-bit code.)

Yes what Apple is doing for G5 (PPC ISA) is a good thing and I would love to see full support for 64b addressing across all frameworks / libraries on Mac OS X.

[shawnce]

Or are you saying that within a few months, all PCs even on the low end (like the Mini) will have 64-bit processors? No more Dothans or Yonahs within a few months?

He is saying (and what I generally have been expecting myself but...) if Apple waits a little bit they could skip Dothans and Yonahs and go direct to first of the next generation cores which all have 64b addressing capabilities. The amount they have to wait is really close to being able to have product shipping by WWDC 2006, as they implied at WWDC 2005.

I will say that I expect the Intel replacements for Power Mac to be using a 64b capable core hence those as expected will likely be near the last to switch to Intel.

[Kai]

The story probably goes like this:
IBM makes the G5 because they themselves can put it in smaller blades, which the Power4 is unsuited for. They provide the chip to Apple at no design cost, also as a show of good faith.
Then Apple wants a Laptop G5. IBMs beancounters say "well, we can't make use of this chip ourselves, so this will cost you $xy Mill for design!"
Then Jobs decides to throw a tantrum because the millions of blind followers (like many on this forum for example) that believe his every word actually inflated his ego into perverse proportions and made him believe he is god and he can do whatever he likes and everyone has to bow to his will and do stuff for him at no cost. Even though he has $8 billion in the bank now, mind you.
IBM doesn't balk, Apple refuses to pay for design, then IBM decides to focus on the people that DO pay for their custom designs: Sony/Toshiba and M$.
Apple feels neglected and El Turtleneck decides to redefine the concept of a hissy fit by switching to Intel. He tells a few lies on stage about the IBM that couldn't to make aforementioned blind followers recite his "point of view" in forums the world over to take his sweet revenge on IBM, because they wouldn't bow to The Diva's will!

Unfortunately Mr. Jobs hasn't spent a single thought on the consequences in his blind rage. For example that Intel has just blown the whole P4 and is lagging badly behind AMD, that the transition to 64bit is just fullscale underway on x86 (and here - contrary to PPC/64bit - there is actually some nice performance to be gained through extra registers, the last "free lunch" before they all have to multithread their code for Multicore-CPUs!) or that he will be producing exactly one single line of non-64bit-capable Intel-Macs that will require testing and compiling of 32bit-versions of ALL PROGRAMS atleast until 2010!
What el Stevo also forgot was that Apples own Pro-Suite and ********s of Audio-Software makes heavy use of Altivec. And no: SSE is *not* a substitute, because a 64bit ALU still remains a 64bit ALU!... A 3.6 GHz P4 with Hypnothreading is 3 times slower in Altivec-Emulation than a 1.5 GHz Powerbook G4...

And what most Macrumors-Readers fail to realize is that sites like this will mostly cease to exist. As will the appeal of Keynotes for anything that's not software... Because: Who exactly is holding their breath to see Apple releasing Computers with tech that Dell and others have been selling for the past 3 months?

Please check which vendor will get the latest Intel-chips first:

[ ] the vendor from Texas with 18% global marketshare
[ ] the vendor from California with 3.5% global marketshare

You may hold your breath for a fancy new case-design, i know i won't... Optics are a nice bonus, but putting a pwetty bow on a pile of shyte won't make me crave it!

And hey Intel-Lovers, you're in for a big surprise: OS X will still be slower on Intel than Windows or Linux. Why? Because Windows and Linux have had YEARS OF OPTIMIZING on x86! And they're both still using a GUI that is generations behind OS X (well, we can only hope for Vista to slow down Windows - a lot!). And Software-Developers will STILL optimize their stuff for Windows first and Mac only as an afterthought!

And you're in for even more surprises: Game developers will still develop for DirectX which means the OpenGL-Mac-Versions of Games will still be stuck with not-as-well-optimized Ports from Mac-Gamecompanies. Windows will still get new hardware way earlier than OS X because NOTHING in the drivers can be re-used for OS X' completely different driver model & APIs.
NOTHING will actually change for the better! Apple may be using the same Architecture as the other 95% of the planet, but OS X will STILL HAVE 3.5% MARKETSHARE!
Okay, *something* will change: You'll hear ALOT more "sorry, we won't do a Mac-Version - why don't you just install Windows?" And you'll be able to run Windows-Programs in Emulation much faster than before. It completely defeats the purpose of using a Mac in the first place, but hey, who's gonna be picky? Hooray, the future is bright! \o/

We will simply see no more hardware innovations like Firewire, Gigabit-Ethernet (comes in pretty handy now with Xsan and Xgrid, right, Steve?) or Airport long before everyone else got them. Why? Because in his hissy fit Uncle Steve didn't consider what consequences it has when a vertical vendor loses control over the hardware completely....

"Macs are working so well because Apple makes everything" - yeah right, not anymore, dude! Wake up and smell the coffee!

Phew, but that Yonah surely rocks, yeah! Why don't you start thinking for only a fraction of a second of consequences before you blindly reurgitate Steve's lies?

[Flynnstone]

Seems like a pretty weasely move on IBM's part--

Who's the weasel? Mayer?

[Kai]

And anyways, the G5 can't go much faster in an iMac due to heat issues

Complete BS. The new iMacs are much much more silent and don't even start their fans when you put them under load. Makes you wonder why when the G5 is operating at its limit, right?

The pros outweigh the cons by a mile.

More BS. Read above. I'd love to see you refute this!

[Flynnstone]

What el Stevo also forgot was that Apples own Pro-Suite and ********s of Audio-Software makes heavy use of Altivec. And no: SSE is *not* a substitute, because a 64bit ALU still remains a 64bit ALU!... A 3.6 GHz P4 with Hypnothreading is 3 times slower in Altivec-Emulation than a 1.5 GHz Powerbook G4...

True. Altivec is superior to SSE. I think Apple has a trick up its sleeve. I believe all Apple computers have a Real video card. Real graphics cards are hardware accelerators. The GPUs have more horsepower than the CPU. AMD/Intel/PPC, doesn't matter. But GPUs are more like Altivecs (&SSE). The trick is to get the data from the CPU/memory to the GPU efficiently.

Also I don't believe too much of what this Mayer guys says. He's not really in the picture anymore. Also I don't know of any 16bit PowerPCs as he says.
Perhaps he's just a snake oil salesman.

[Kai]

Of thinking Apple's decision NOW is based on factors from years ago that Apple just didn't see. Intel's future (Pentium M and beyond) really IS different from its past (Netburst.) PowerPCs have done VERY well, but they're not going any further. Intel is.

What makes you think IBM will cease its CPU-Development? With all their "Power now" efforts and the licensing and all? And do you actually believe the new consoles will be the last generation of consoles ever? And that all of them will be switching (back in M$' case) to Intel with the next generation?
Wait for IBM to show some sample of the Power6 on next year's MPF.

Oh, have you noticed IBM already has an integrated memorycontroller in the Power5 and there's NONE to be found AT ALL on Intels just recently castrated roadmap?

What Apple did do is keep their options open--which took no small effort! Very good planning.

Yeah, just like Intel made Yamhill with x86-64 in case the Itanic failed. However, having a Plan B doesn't mean that Plan B is the better choice. Especially if you're solely responsible for Plan A failing!
And as for "keeping options open": Apparently Steve doesn't like to have choices all that much anymore these days, otherwise he wouldn't have wed himself exclusively to Intel and would not SWITCH to x86, but sell PPC alongside x86!

Anyway, the PowerPC had great potential, as some G5 quad owners can attest! I hope it goes on in other forms--Cell, etc.--even if it can't have a future in computers.

Just think of a G5 with a Cell as a co-processor for FCP, Motion, Shake, Logic, Core Image and Compressor, together with a nice API 3rd party developers could make use of. Just think for a second and start weeping. I don't know how Sony will manage to make use of this chip for a game console, but i do know for certain that it's absolutely perfectly suited for said programs/tasks!

[skunk]

A 3.6 GHz P4 with Hypnothreading is 3 times slower in Altivec-Emulation than a 1.5 GHz Powerbook G4If it's using Hypnothreading, I'm not surprised. Falling asleep on the job.

[Kai]

Just as AMD's current processors are considered better than Intel's in a variety of ways, the lead is not very significant and Intel is not nearly out of the game.

"Not very significant". Yeah, right.. (http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=paxville&page=9)

The PowerPC may have left the gate running, but since the late 130nm period to the current early 65nm period, the pace has slowed to a crawl. They are not competing aggressively in a market that demands aggressive progress. The PPC is not outshining or outdistancing the competition in any significant way.

Incase you didn't notice: The Slowdown in clock scaling and performance-scaling was true for the WHOLE industry during the past 2-3 years! I remember when AMD effectively advanced 70 MHz (!) in one year! And when Intel was stuck AGES on 3-3.2 GHz before the Prescott came out (which was a dud basically and totally didn't deliver on power promises!)

Which is why everybody is going multicore now, and IBM wasn't exactly very late with the 970MP, not in respect to their own roadmap neither in respect to Intel and AMD (infact Intel released their Dualcore-Xeon (again a huge dud!), the only contender for a 970MP because the Pentium D doesn't do Dual-CPU also in November AFTER the first 970MP Macs shipped!)

[Kai]

If it's using Hypnothreading, I'm not surprised. Falling asleep on the job.

I do sincerely hope you don't actually think this was NOT a joke on purpose.. Otherwise I'd really ultimately lose belief that humor on the Internet ever works!

[skunk]

I do sincerely hope you don't actually think this was NOT a joke on purpose.. I'm very glad to hear it. Obviously I'm not up to speed with PC humour.

I'll get my coat...
:) :o

[Kai]

A lot of people seem to believe that 64-bit means 32-bit incompatibility. But it's not true. At least not in the AMD-style 64-bit model (which Intel is supporting in their newest chips.) This is very different from older 64-bit chips (like Itanium) which are not compatible with 32-bit code.

Hmm, i kinda wonder what that big chunk on the Itanic-Die labelled "IA32" is for then! ;-)

As for making everything 64-bit, it could be done, but there's really little point to it. Unless your program requires large registers or more than 4G of address space, moving to 64-bit is counterproductive. You gain no additional performance, and increase the memory footprint (since memory pointers all become twice as large.)

This may be true for PPC and other ISAs that were designed with 64bit in mind right from the start. However: AMDs x86-64 is a completely different ballgame. You don't just have twice the registers now (keep in mind x86 is traditionally register-starved!) but also other nice enhancements that definately speed up ANY program made for it instead of x86-32!

[Donm]

Who exactly is holding their breath to see Apple releasing Computers with tech that Dell and others have been selling for the past 3 months?

Please check which vendor will get the latest Intel-chips first:

[ ] the vendor from Texas with 18% global marketshare
[ ] the vendor from California with 3.5% global marketshare



The one thing I can comment on is this...
Dell and apple will get access to the latest chips at the same time. What they choose to do, and when is another matter. I'm actually a PC guy, but have recently experienced macs for the first time. From this experience I can tell you that I would not buy another Dell. The quality is not there.

I'm sure you probably know this already but apple is actually growing much quicker than any other PC OEM, with higher margins and the most loyal following. Being on the same platforms as Dell and the others forces their hand to some degree because people will be able to take intel roadmaps and determine what apple should be doing, but at the same time apple is an innovator compared to any other PC OEM, and they will take intel technologies and design new things that the old pc oem's would never. Why? because they(Dell, HP, ect) wait for intel to make the standards, design the reference platforms and build white boxes, so all the have to do is validate, add their logo and box (ok, so I'm over simplifying, but there's some truth to it). Apple will design new usages around new technologies, like VT, like AMT, like LT, etc. Intel will use apple as the golden child against their other customers, showing them how closely they should be working and that the oem should be pushing the envelope, not just build black or white boxes. anbd imagine the leverage on MS as apple adopts hardware technologies into the OS that MS didn't want to, or didn't plan on it for another refresh. All of the sudden MS is on the defensive when it comes to platform technology adoption and integration.

[Kai]

The one thing I can comment on is this...
Dell and apple will get access to the latest chips at the same time. What they choose to do, and when is another matter. I'm actually a PC guy, but have recently experienced macs for the first time. From this experience I can tell you that I would not buy another Dell. The quality is not there.

I'm sure you probably know this already but apple is actually growing much quicker than any other PC OEM, with higher margins and the most loyal following. Being on the same platforms as Dell and the others forces their hand to some degree because people will be able to take intel roadmaps and determine what apple should be doing, but at the same time apple is an innovator compared to any other PC OEM, and they will take intel technologies and design new things that the old pc oem's would never. Why? because they(Dell, HP, ect) wait for intel to make the standards, design the reference platforms and build white boxes, so all the have to do is validate, add their logo and box (ok, so I'm over simplifying, but there's some truth to it). Apple will design new usages around new technologies, like VT, like AMT, like LT, etc. Intel will use apple as the golden child against their other customers, showing them how closely they should be working and that the oem should be pushing the envelope, not just build black or white boxes. anbd imagine the leverage on MS as apple adopts hardware technologies into the OS that MS didn't want to, or didn't plan on it for another refresh. All of the sudden MS is on the defensive when it comes to platform technology adoption and integration.

Hmm, looking at your location makes me pay extra attention to your words, that much is certain! ;-)

I see where you're coming from, and this sounds like a plausible scenario, in fact this more or less exactly was my first (then still positive) idea of what the future might be like with Intel and Apple. However, there are some things to consider: Neither M$ nor Dell will be content to play the second fiddle to Apple at Intel, so they will take measures to ensure this is not happening. Dell could f.ex. switch to AMD, which would hurt Intel bigtime (Biggest vendor, 18% Marketshare, all Intel!). M$ could do the same and choose to support AMDs versions of said Intel technologies instead of the Intel versions f.ex.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Intel is by far not the sole advancer of technology in the PC world. Alot of other companies (e.g. Nvidia/ATI for GPUs etc.) contribute to the general advancement just as much, and they will continue to focus on Windows first. This means that for anything that's not straight Intel tech Apple would still be way behind Windows! And how often does Intel release really new technology that would be worth to build custom-made stuff for? Once every 2 years? I can't even remember the last one, i think that would be SSE3 (whose usability beyond SPEC is questionable) or Hypnothreading!... No, I don't count the NX-Flag and x86-64 as Intel-Tech! ;-)

And thanks, i'd rather prefer not to see what "innovative" uses Apple finds for LaGrande! ;-) I don't like my own computer locking me out of things on my harddrive!...

[nagromme]

He is saying (and what I generally have been expecting myself but...) if Apple waits a little bit they could skip Dothans and Yonahs and go direct to first of the next generation cores which all have 64b addressing capabilities. The amount they have to wait is really close to being able to have product shipping by WWDC 2006, as they implied at WWDC 2005.
I know, but that depends on two things that would be news to me:

1. Merom and Conroe being ready in EARLY 2006 instead of late 2006-2007 as was the consensus, I had thought.

2. CHEAP, LOW-end Merom-series chips being ready at the same time. Otherwise, you can't have ALL Intel Macs be 64-bit. You've left the Mac Mini and iBook out in the cold.

I had thought Yonah variants (like Yonah1/Core Solo and Sossaman) are expected months after Yonah (Yonah2/Core Duo) comes out. So I don't see how they'd immediately dump Yonah1 AND Dothans, replacing them all with new 64-bit CPUs that are cheap enough for bottom-end machines. Not in the "few months" time frame.

And if we're talking a year or more, that's too long to stick with G4.


And do you actually believe the new consoles will be the last generation of consoles ever? And that all of them will be switching (back in M$' case) to Intel with the next generation?
The fact we've been discussing, though: IBM isn't getting out of the PowerPC, they are focussing on PowerPC for game consoles instead of for computers. The needs are NOT the same for computers and for consoles. Especially when it comes to laptops. So yes, of course there will be more consoles in future, very likely non-Intel ones. That won't help Apple make a PowerBook G5.

The emotional rollercoaster that results from the Intel change is a short ride for some, a longer one for others :) Either way, enjoy the ride! Big changes are fun to watch, and this one happens to be for the better.

[~Shard~]

Hmm, Ok but why then is there a big stink about making everything 64bit?
I thought X64 could only run in 64-Bit only mode or only 32-bit?

Hopefully by the time I buy my next Mac in 2007 everything will finally be really, truly, honestly, 100%, really, actually 64-bit. :cool:

[Donm]

Hmm, looking at your location makes me pay extra attention to your words, that much is certain! ;-)

I see where you're coming from, and this sounds like a plausible scenario, in fact this more or less exactly was my first (then still positive) idea of what the future might be like with Intel and Apple. However, there are some things to consider: Neither M$ nor Dell will be content to play the second fiddle to Apple at Intel, so they will take measures to ensure this is not happening. Dell could f.ex. switch to AMD, which would hurt Intel bigtime (Biggest vendor, 18% Marketshare, all Intel!). M$ could do the same and choose to support AMDs versions of said Intel technologies instead of the Intel versions f.ex.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Intel is by far not the sole advancer of technology in the PC world. Alot of other companies (e.g. Nvidia/ATI for GPUs etc.) contribute to the general advancement just as much, and they will continue to focus on Windows first. This means that for anything that's not straight Intel tech Apple would still be way behind Windows! And how often does Intel release really new technology that would be worth to build custom-made stuff for? Once every 2 years? I can't even remember the last one, i think that would be SSE3 (whose usability beyond SPEC is questionable) or Hypnothreading!... No, I don't count the NX-Flag and x86-64 as Intel-Tech! ;-)

And thanks, i'd rather prefer not to see what "innovative" uses Apple finds for LaGrande! ;-) I don't like my own computer locking me out of things on my harddrive!...


;)

you know your stuff, I'll give you that.

[ksz]

"Not very significant". Yeah, right.. (http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=paxville&page=9)
Yeah, right (http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page24.html). There are several pages of benchmarks here published by Tom's Hardware. AMD's processors have a nice performance edge almost across the board, but the difference is "not very significant". Your link shows 2x improvement over Intel, but that's not evident in Tom's benchmarks. You can always twist benchmarks just as you can twist a "study" to suit your foregone conclusions.

Incase you didn't notice: The Slowdown in clock scaling and performance-scaling was true for the WHOLE industry during the past 2-3 years! I remember when AMD effectively advanced 70 MHz (!) in one year! And when Intel was stuck AGES on 3-3.2 GHz before the Prescott came out (which was a dud basically and totally didn't deliver on power promises!)

Which is why everybody is going multicore now, and IBM wasn't exactly very late with the 970MP, not in respect to their own roadmap neither in respect to Intel and AMD (infact Intel released their Dualcore-Xeon (again a huge dud!), the only contender for a 970MP because the Pentium D doesn't do Dual-CPU also in November AFTER the first 970MP Macs shipped!)
Intel developed two generations of the Pentium M as well as an ultra-low voltage version of the chip. They introduced HyperThreading and will have Virtualization Technology on the desktop with Yonah. Intel has also pushed aggressively on new process technologies and have had better success than IBM.

To their credit, IBM has produced noteworthy advances (alone or in partnership) in process technology including the copper damascene process, strained silicon, SOI, double-gated FinFETs, improved junction properties with high-k dielectrics, etc. etc. The problem the industry as a whole encountered 2-3 years ago was power management and high leakage currents. These two issues brought conventional scaling to a virtual standstill as the average power density increased to about 13 Watts / cm^2. A steam iron, by comparison, dissipates 5 Watts per cm^2. The industry as a whole rode the CMOS power curve up to its very limits, and is actively searching for new materials and techniques to continue to increase both performance and packing density while managing heat dissipation and leakage. This is a very difficult problem, which is a key reason for the paradigm shift away from raw Mhz to increased function.

In effect, if you cannot continue to jam more speed, then you must jam more features. This is the driving force behind dual and multi core processors, VT, additional FPUs, improved vector units, more L1 cache, etc. More features are going on-chip because the customer is not going to pay top dollar without a good reason. Clock speed has been the historical justifier for top dollars, but that's changing.

I don't fault IBM for technological incompetence. I do fault them for problems with execution in the time to ramp yield, in the time to introduce more differentiation based on features, and in the time to introduce low-power mobile models.

[DakotaGuy]

For all the people on this board that wishes Apple would have never went with the G5 in the first place, know that we would all be computing with Pentium 4's right now. Is the P4 a better processor then the G5? I don't think so, but the way things go around this place anymore many would say it is.

[Prom1]

@AidenShaw;

Whomever said that Apples' switch to Intel would possibly force 2 transitions on developers - one of OS X to 32-bit x86, the other on x86-64bit??

This transition kit & annoucement was supposed to prepare developers for summer 2006 right? If your thinking the first release of dual core Intel chips for early January/February, Apple still has enough time & allows Intel some time for x86-64EM chips for summer right?

Am I missing something here?

[AidenShaw]

Would x64 run in some way on 32-bit Intel chips too? I hadn't heard that.

Or are you saying that within a few months, all PCs even on the low end (like the Mini) will have 64-bit processors? No more Dothans or Yonahs within a few months?
Even current Celerons are 64-bit today in the Intel world.

Dothan (and Yonah) are about the only 32-bit chips around (except for older 32-bit designs that are still around for compatibility or low end stuff).

P4s, Xeons, and the Merom laptop chip that is due around WWDC are all x64 chips (with fully compatible 32-bit mode).

[AidenShaw]

@AidenShaw;

Whomever said that Apples' switch to Intel would possibly force 2 transitions on developers - one of OS X to 32-bit x86, the other on x86-64bit??

This transition kit & annoucement was supposed to prepare developers for summer 2006 right? If your thinking the first release of dual core Intel chips for early January/February, Apple still has enough time & allows Intel some time for x86-64EM chips for summer right?

Am I missing something here?
The Apple Intel Developer's Transition Kit released last WWDC is a 64-bit Pentium system, the hardware to do 64-bit is already in the developer's hands.

What's coming next summer are the 64-bit follow-ons to Yonah - 64-bit low power chips.

I'm just confused by Apple's abandonment of 64-bit, after so much over-the-top, almost dishonest, hype of 64-bit as the future.

I wonder why Apple didn't:

- make the DTK version of OSX pure, true 64-bit - and have only 64-bit tools
- add a "short address" mode to the toolset, so that a program would load in low 32-bit addresses, and addresses could be stored as 32-bits in memory and expanded to 64-bits when used. This could make 32-bit to 64-bit ports much easier for those apps that don't need the expanded address space. (Alpha used this trick to run 32-bit NT on a chip without a 32-bit mode).
- Rosetta could still run 32-bit mode PPC programs (after all, it's an emulator), but use the x64 ISA for added performance

As it is, Apple has implicitly disavowed all of its 64-bit advertising and marketing, and will be forced to make its software partners do another port to 64-bit. They'll be giving Microsoft a 20% performance lead on the same hardware all the time that OSX is stuck in 32-bit.

The alternative - delay the first MacIntels until Merom is out, a few months and would still mostly meet the WWDC deadline. (Too bad The Steve said "By this time next year" again. :eek: )

[nagromme]

Even current Celerons are 64-bit today in the Intel world.

Dothan (and Yonah) are about the only 32-bit chips around (except for older 32-bit designs that are still around for compatibility or low end stuff).

P4s, Xeons, and the Merom laptop chip that is due around WWDC are all x64 chips (with fully compatible 32-bit mode).
That sounds like the very EARLIEST possible date for Merom. Do you have any recent info to suggest that Merom will BE that early? I still see recent reports that say they might not ship in quantity until early 2007. Don't get me wrong, I'd like them to be earlier :) I just haven't been seeing those expectations. Much less the kind of certainty that would be needed, if Apple was going to stake its whole laptop line on a G4-to-Merom scenario. If you have good reason to be that certain, then that makes me happy... for the sake of my Conroe PowerMac :)

In any case, WWDC is 7 months off, and I think Apple isn't necessarily wrong to get the G4 out of PowerBooks before then. (I wouldn't want a Celeron PowerBook though! Give me my dual cores--I can make do with 32 bits.)

Re OS X being slower than Windows due to the 64-bit issue: I won't be at ALL surprised if it's slower for OTHER reasons, regardless. It's a very different design, and some things will be slower or faster. I'll take OS X's design even if it IS 20% slower than Windows (on hardware faster than I'm used to anyway). In other words, I don't see raw benchmark speed as something Apple must target above all other factors. Apple CAN'T have ALL factors in their favor at once: best OS, top speed, AND shipping NOW. They have to compromise. A 32-bit compromise (YonahBook instead of waiting another 6-12 months on G4) isn't an automatic mistake in my view. I do understand the merits of your suggested compromise too--stick with G4 for at least another half a year. But for my needs, I hope it's not the compromise Apple makes.

[bousozoku]

For all the people on this board that wishes Apple would have never went with the G5 in the first place, know that we would all be computing with Pentium 4's right now. Is the P4 a better processor then the G5? I don't think so, but the way things go around this place anymore many would say it is.

The G5s are just fine.

I just wish that Apple had never decided to go with the G3 or G4 processors. AltiVec has some great points but neither the G3 or G4 could hold a candle to the 604/604e in terms of double precision floating point performance. It's there that the original PPC processors were exemplary and, with the exception of the 603/603e/603ev were quite a bit better than any processors Intel could muster at the time.

The trouble is that Motorola wanted the embedded market to buy PPC processors and they had to kill the power usage. In the end, the G4 ended up being the worst of both worlds with terrible power consumption while AltiVec was running and pathetic double-precision floating point performance.

I'm sure the manager on watch at the time has it boldly emblazoned on his resume though.

[solvs]

I wonder why Apple didn't:
They haven't done anything yet. Wait until the models are actually shipping, then you can complain. Plus, I've heard Leopard will completely change things (mostly for the better), so who says Tiger has to be anything other than what it is already? This is just a transitional period. Maybe we'll get 32 bit minis and iBooks, then 64 bit PowerBooks and upgrades across the line from there.

We need Intels as soon as we can get them (never thought I'd say that).

[BlizzardBomb]

Complete BS. The new iMacs are much much more silent and don't even start their fans when you put them under load. Makes you wonder why when the G5 is operating at its limit, right?

Then why is the new iMac clocked at 2.1Ghz. An incredible .1Ghz faster. If that was the only updated bit of the new iMac, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in real world apps without a stopwatch or some benchmarking tools.

I think that your response missed the context....

I wasn't saying not to switch - I was saying that waiting a few more months and switching to 64-bit x64 might make more sense.



Oh sorry my misunderstanding. Well when you think about it, this January launch date may not happen and instead it would be used to demo the new Intel Macs. The summer launch date may be the one after all? But if its January after all I guess its Apple's desicion.

[curmi]

Apple release G5 Macs.

Microsoft see this and see the momentum. They have to stop the momentum of Apple and OS X. No way they can release this G5 in a laptop - that will make the PowerBook look enticing to businesses.

They talk to IBM. "We want you to concentrate on G5s for consoles. We'll use you exclusively for the 360 - but you have to concentrate on us, not others".

IBM does the maths. Apple are just too small. Ta da.

[Fukui]

A lot of people seem to believe that 64-bit means 32-bit incompatibility. But it's not true. At least not in the AMD-style 64-bit model (which Intel is supporting in their newest chips.)

Thanks. Then maybe apple does know what its doing... :eek:

[AidenShaw]

A lot of people seem to believe that 64-bit means 32-bit incompatibility.
Actually, my argument is that 32-bit means 64-bit incompatibility.

(32-bit OSx86 source will need to be ported to 64-bit OSx64 source, and tested - and both 32-bit and 64-bit will need to be supported.)

As for making everything 64-bit, it could be done, but there's really little point to it. Unless your program requires large registers or more than 4G of address space, moving to 64-bit is counterproductive.
As has been pointed out - true for the G5, but not true for x64.

x64 mode has twice as many 128-bit SSE registers, and nearly three times as many usable general-purpose integer/address registers. This can give a boost to most programs due to the ability to hold more data in registers and spend less time shuffling between registers and memory.

Apple's solution with the G5 (support both 32- and 64-bit code) is best. Let the developers choose which model to code their apps to. (But I do hope they eventually ship 64-bit equivalents to all of the APIs, so 64-bit code doesn't need to shunt all UI calls though 32-bit code.)

Sun used a similar solution for Solaris - a 64-bit kernel that supports both 32- and 64-bit apps, so it's not like this is a terribly unusual concept.
Apple's current 64-bit support is a joke. For 64-bit "support", you need to re-architect your application into separate programs using a client-server model (32-bit GUI client, 64-bit compute server).

Remember that Apple shipped an OSX update that completely disabled 64-bit support - and nobody noticed for a while (certainly nobody in QA or beta testing noticed)! Really shows how popular it is.

The only extended memory support that is worse than Tiger's is the old AWE (Address Windowing Extensions) (http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/en/datacenter/help/default.asp?url=/windows2000/en/datacenter/help/address_windowing_extensions.htm) on Windows 2000 that forced the programmer to manually remap a section of 32-bit address space to different regions of a larger physical address space.

[Kai]

Yeah, right (http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page24.html). There are several pages of benchmarks here published by Tom's Hardware.

That's a Game benchmark. We're talking about Dualcore-CPUs. In particular Paxville, which is not in there. So what are you talking about?

AMD's processors have a nice performance edge almost across the board, but the difference is "not very significant". Your link shows 2x improvement over Intel, but that's not evident in Tom's benchmarks. You can always twist benchmarks just as you can twist a "study" to suit your foregone conclusions.

Well, this _may_ be due to the fact that Tomshardware is notoriously very Intel/nVidia-friendly, more than is acceptable, which is also the reason why Anand split off IIRC!...
It may also be due to the fact that Dual-Dualcore is a totally different ballpark than Single-Dualcore (see Tomshardware). Because Intel is especially bad in Dual Dualcore (in contrast to the Opteron or 970MP) because they squeeze EVERYTHING over one FSB! Intel's last Netburst-Xeons (Dempsey) coming Mid-2006 have a Cinebench-Score of 883 on four 3.2 GHz Cores. The Dual 2.7 GHz G5 does 709 while the Quad 2.5 GHz G5 does 1150 and a Dual Opteron 280 (2.4 GHz) does 1104!

What i quoted is a friggin Apache-Benchmark. If that's not a proper measure of an Enterprise-Level Pro-CPU i don't know what is!
You may also look one page earlier to see some media encoding benchmarks of Paxville and one page after to see Sciencemark-Benchmarks. They show the same picture: Intel is getting its butt handed to them by AMD!

Intel developed two generations of the Pentium M as well as an ultra-low voltage version of the chip. They introduced HyperThreading and will have Virtualization Technology on the desktop with Yonah.

Wow, so Yonah is a desktop-CPU now? I never knew, when did Intel change this? ;-)
Hypnothreading is NOT, i repeat NOT in the Pentium-M. Neither is it in the Yonah. Furthermore Intel's stayed mum on the topic even with Merom! The word on the street is that the Pentium-M uses its resources so efficiently that Hypnothreading yields no improvements, so Intel will probably abandon it...

Intel has also pushed aggressively on new process technologies and have had better success than IBM.

Aha, so that's why Dell had to dump the Prescott from their lineup when it was released until further notice?
Gosh, i remember the HUGE uproar when Apple downclocked the G4 by 50 MHz when it was released because Moto couldn't get 500 MHz ones done in volume! Strangely enough nobody seems to remember Intels Prescott-disaster with Dell!...

To their credit, IBM has produced noteworthy advances (alone or in partnership) in process technology including the copper damascene process, strained silicon, SOI, double-gated FinFETs, improved junction properties with high-k dielectrics, etc. etc.

...and FC-BGA, and SSDOI, and copper, and Dualcore. In retrospective IBM is responsible and pioneered most innovations in Chip manufacturing (and design) during the last 7 years. Intel's always only been on the forefront of Die-Shrinks. And that was only a few months with 90nm (hard earned months if you ask Dell!), let's see how it turns out with 65nm!


The problem the industry as a whole encountered 2-3 years ago was power management and high leakage currents. These two issues brought conventional scaling to a virtual standstill as the average power density increased to about 13 Watts / cm^2. A steam iron, by comparison, dissipates 5 Watts per cm^2. The industry as a whole rode the CMOS power curve up to its very limits, and is actively searching for new materials and techniques to continue to increase both performance and packing density while managing heat dissipation and leakage. This is a very difficult problem, which is a key reason for the paradigm shift away from raw Mhz to increased function.

In effect, if you cannot continue to jam more speed, then you must jam more features. This is the driving force behind dual and multi core processors, VT, additional FPUs, improved vector units, more L1 cache, etc. More features are going on-chip because the customer is not going to pay top dollar without a good reason. Clock speed has been the historical justifier for top dollars, but that's changing.

Here, let me sum up what you're saying in one sentence: "You're right - Singling out IBMs problems was wrong of me"

I don't fault IBM for technological incompetence. I do fault them for problems with execution in the time to ramp yield, in the time to introduce more differentiation based on features, and in the time to introduce low-power mobile models.

Low-power models are a CUSTOM DESIGN, because IBM themselves have no use for this! Everyone but Apple knows that if you have a custom design done for you, you have to pay for it. Sony/Toshiba did it. Even M$ did it, and they're friggin M$! Only El Turtleneck didn't want to pay, so here we are looking forward to the mediocrity that is Intel!

Btw: IBM isn't a company that thrives on Chip sales alone, like Intel or AMD is. Back when they introduced the G5 it was clear that with one single OEM with 3.5% marketshare worldwide we would just still NOT see new generations and variations of chips released on a quarterly basis as is the case with Intel and AMD! Be realistic!

[devman]

Actually, my argument is that 32-bit means 64-bit incompatibility.

(32-bit OSx86 source will need to be ported to 64-bit OSx64 source, and tested - and both 32-bit and 64-bit will need to be supported.)


As has been pointed out - true for the G5, but not true for x64.

x64 mode has twice as many 128-bit SSE registers, and nearly three times as many usable general-purpose integer/address registers. This can give a boost to most programs due to the ability to hold more data in registers and spend less time shuffling between registers and memory.


Right, so let's be clear about cause and effect here. This is not about 64bit, it's really about being register starved. An implementation has mixed the two things together.

Apple's current 64-bit support is a joke. For 64-bit "support", you need to re-architect your application into separate programs using a client-server model (32-bit GUI client, 64-bit compute server).

I disagree. It's not a joke. As you point out above in your post, on the G5 things are different. On the G5 64bit was truly about address space and the very-specialised scientific apps. Everyone else would be penalised by 64bit pointers to windows and widgets and, and, and...

Thus on the G5 Apple's approach to 64 bit was not a joke. It was a way to give people that had such specialised needs access to 64bit without penalising everyone else (the overwhelming majority).

Now this also ignores the very large crowd though that kept bleating about 64bit simply because "it's bigger than 32" without really having any idea what it was they were asking for.

Remember that Apple shipped an OSX update that completely disabled 64-bit support - and nobody noticed for a while (certainly nobody in QA or beta testing noticed)! Really shows how popular it is.

Well then maybe it isn't such a big deal... :rolleyes:

[ksz]

Kai,

You're coming across as a man with a lot of emotional baggage to carry. What is the point you're making? That Jobs should have paid IBM handsomely to keep innovating and producing the PPC line? Apparently Intel is too mediocre and IBM is in need of lots of cash (and a lot of good luck in their ability to bring up yields).

Your point?

[AidenShaw]

Right, so let's be clear about cause and effect here. This is not about 64bit, it's really about being register starved. An implementation has mixed the two things together.
I think that I've been pretty clear that the performance improvements due to enhancements in the x64 ISA are important across the board, even to programs with no need for > 2GiB of virtual address space.

By not having 64-bit support, OSx86 is handicapped by 10-20% (typical) compared to 64-bit Windows/Linux.

In addition, there's the prospect of a disruptive transition to OSx64 in the future.

[minimax]

Yeah, right (http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page24.html). There are several pages of benchmarks here published by Tom's Hardware. AMD's processors have a nice performance edge almost across the board, but the difference is "not very significant". Your link shows 2x improvement over Intel, but that's not evident in Tom's benchmarks. You can always twist benchmarks just as you can twist a "study" to suit your foregone conclusions.



And ALWAYS take artificial benchmarks with a teeny weeny drop of salt.
It's funny how people say the pentium M is so much faster as the G4 and point to the infamous Cinebench results on Barefeat (how could a benchmarking site be less professional btw?)

1) the G4 is rather weak in FP tested in cinebench but much stronger in Vector and Integer
2) artificial benchmarks in general inflate performance differences out of propertion, i.e. a 50% difference might well be 20% or less in reality (and benchmarks based on real applications show this very clearly)
2b) a newer processor is always optimised for existing benchmarks, so you need to use a benchmark that is newer then the processors used *
3) both are on completely different platforms

I would not be too surprised if the G4 actually holds up pretty well against the Yonah in real benchmarks on the same platform (OSX PPC vs OSX x86) accross the spectrum.

* 2b might explain 2

/off topic

[nagromme]

Any word on my question above, re getting Merom-based 64-bit Intel chips into ALL computer models, from the low to the high, inside of a few months (not a best-case time, a certainty Apple can count on), without low-end machines costing more than today?

Because otherwise, the people saying "wait for Merom and stay with G4" don't have a case. I'd love to be convinced of that optimistic timetable for a full range of Merom-based chips, low to high, portable to desktop. A range that includes the Mac Mini and the iBook, not just the PowerBook.


Everyone but Apple knows that if you have a custom design done for you, you have to pay for it. Sony/Toshiba did it. Even M$ did it, and they're friggin M$! Only El Turtleneck didn't want to pay, so here we are looking forward to the mediocrity that is Intel!
I'll let you research Intel's upcoming chip platforms yourself (they're not mediocre), but regarding Apple paying IBM to make the chips they need--like high-speed laptop G5s... Yes, of course if Apple threw enough money at IBM, in theory anything could be done. BUT:

1) IBM had a history of saying something could be done and then being wrong. So then Apple accepts being late AND having to pay more than IBM said? When IBM told Apple 3GHz in a year, I'm sure they didn't say "but we might ask for more money than you can afford to pay." They thought it could be done more cheaply and quickly than it could. Not a good business partner--unless of course you sell consoles which a) only need a new CPU every few years and b) are expected to be sold at a loss anyway.

2) If Apple DID pay IBM the extra amounts required to help IBM meet its promises, then Macs would cost huge amounts more. (And STILL be released late when IBM misses its deadlines.) Is that a solution?

So maybe it's not IBM's "fault" that they can't provide Apple with a solution for the future (only their fault that they incorrectly thought they could). But Apple DOES still have to look for a solution. The Pentium 4 isn't it. Motorola isn't it. But Intel's future Pentium M-derived chips ARE it.

Can you name any current PC maker that uses custom-made processors designed just for their unique computers, pays the development costs to the chip-maker, and still manages to be priced competitively and sell at the same profits other PC companies make? If not, then who is "everybody but Apple"?

It sounds like you're trolling--which I don't think is the case, I think you're just really emotional about this issue. I understand: PowerPC really did have potential, and it's a shame there was no way to realize it without making Macs cost a lot more. Step back and look into all the realities of this transition and you will feel much better.


I would not be too surprised if the G4 actually holds up pretty well against the Yonah in real benchmarks on the same platform (OSX PPC vs OSX x86) accross the spectrum.
But you'd have to compare DUAL G4s. Yonah had dual cores, and every OS X can benefit from that.

Some apps are multithreaded to take best advantage of it, but I'm led to believe that ANY app will get some boost, because the OS will run the foreground app on one CPU and all the system functions--and other current apps--on the other CPU. So even a single-CPU app gets a CPU to itself, which never happens on a single G4 that's also running the OS. Then add the fact that real multi-processing apps will be increasingly common.

[shamino]

Hmm, i kinda wonder what that big chunk on the Itanic-Die labelled "IA32" is for then! ;-)
Don't know, but it's certainly not for x86 compatibility. Itanium's total incompatibility with x86 softwre is what killed it as a viable product.

What i quoted is a friggin Apache-Benchmark. If that's not a proper measure of an Enterprise-Level Pro-CPU i don't know what is!
And most consumers don't run enterprise web servers on their desktops.

If you're interested in running a server, which will be running in a machine room, you don't need a Mac with all of its UI overhead. The applications you're holding up as a benchmark are the kind that are best suited to Linux PCs (or larger UNIX systems from IBM, Sun and SGI) not anything running Mac OS.

As others have said, you're picking and choosing unrealistic benchmarks in order to make your point.

[Hiroshige]

Michel Mayer says he sold Steve Jobs the G5, fine.
But he is the President of the company that is still producing an outdated G4 at 130 nanometers when Intel and AMD and IBM long since stepped down to 90 and Intel is weeks away from going to 65.
As I said the day of the Intel announcement, Jobs should have put Mayer on the video screen and said, "You have failed me for the last time Michel Mayer," and done a force choke on him.

[minimax]

But you'd have to compare DUAL G4s. Yonah had dual cores, and every OS X can benefit from that.

Some apps are multithreaded to take best advantage of it, but I'm led to believe that ANY app will get some boost, because the OS will run the foreground app on one CPU and all the system functions--and other current apps--on the other CPU. So even a single-CPU app gets a CPU to itself, which never happens on a single G4 that's also running the OS. Then add the fact that real multi-processing apps will be increasingly common.

No you don't, as there will also be single core Yonah's. It is very likely to the point of almost certain that Apple will use those for the mac mini and ibook.

[bousozoku]

...
I disagree. It's not a joke. As you point out above in your post, on the G5 things are different. On the G5 64bit was truly about address space and the very-specialised scientific apps. Everyone else would be penalised by 64bit pointers to windows and widgets and, and, and...

Thus on the G5 Apple's approach to 64 bit was not a joke. It was a way to give people that had such specialised needs access to 64bit without penalising everyone else (the overwhelming majority).

Now this also ignores the very large crowd though that kept bleating about 64bit simply because "it's bigger than 32" without really having any idea what it was they were asking for.
...

I don't usually agree with AidenShaw but Apple went down a haphazard path toward supporting 64-bit computing. Other than the way they enabled 64-bit memory addressing (on a 42-bit address bus), they'll have to re-think them later as most of their techniques have come and gone within other UNIX-based operating systems.

It was all about disturbing the fewest number of people and spending the least cash to do it. The choices were many:


Downplay the fact that Mac OS X doesn't truly support the G5
Create a 64-bit version of Mac OS X to support the G5, abandoning 32-bits
Turn on bridge mode by itself
Turn on bridge mode and use old techniques to support 64-bits


Obviously, they did the latter but they also do a bit of the first along with it. It's not a joke but remembering how they supported PowerPC processors in System 7, Mac OS 8, and Mac OS 9, it could be a very long time until they take things seriously.

[nagromme]

No you don't, as there will also be single core Yonah's. It is very likely to the point of almost certain that Apple will use those for the mac mini and ibook.
I agree, on the low-end that's what Apple is almost certain to use. Very possibly preceded by Dothan Pentium Ms, since Yonah2 is expected before Yonah1. Or Apple might just wait for Yonah1. Not every Mac will get dual cores.

The need to move on from the G4 is more urgent in the PowerBook line, and that's where the early excitement will be: Apple's first dual-core laptops.

[Sunrunner]

What this story really indicates is that the long term co-platform development of OS X was for more than "just in case". I think Steve likely saw the direction where he wanted to go with Apples product line and the direction Intel was taking it's processor roadmap had some commonality. Also, with the possibility of multi-OS hardware, what better way to make true inroads into eroding Microsofts marketshare?

[SiliconAddict]

Gah....people are pulling some of these specs out of their [bleep]. Aiden where are you getting 10-20%? Seriously. And 32-bit code can sure as hell run in a 64-bit environment assuming you have OS support. I've been running 32-bit apps on my AMD64 Athlon at work that is running Windows XP 64-bit edition. No problems at all.
You act as if Apple hasn't taken any of this into consideration. Do you really think that Apple wasn't aware of Intel’s roadmap when they made the plunge?
Anyone care to take bets on how Leopard (Prob coming in early Spring 2007.) will support 32/64 bit software? What you say? You have no idea what is in store for Leopard? OK then.
Its a moot point anyways for all but the most hard core apps that are practically coded on the metal. Most app (all?) converted over to x86 are being migrated to XCode. As such don't you think that XCode is going to be/is ready for the migration between 32-bit and 64-bit?

Again people are pulling crap out of thin air without giving Apple the benefit of the doubt. Apple has done this type of migration before. They know what they are doing. Sit back and chill for a few months. Guaranteed that some of you will be eating your posts in the end.

[SiliconAddict]

No you don't, as there will also be single core Yonah's. It is very likely to the point of almost certain that Apple will use those for the mac mini and ibook.

There is still some contention as to when single cores will be shipping. I've read everything from January '06 - Mid Summer '06. What I think can be agreed upon is when Apple's high end mobile wares go to Merom that there is a good possibility that Apple's low end systems such as the iBook and Mac mini will go to dual core Yonah's. (Assuming the price drops that is.) I think, NOTE: think, Apple's ultimate goal is to get dual cores/and or CPU's across the board at some point. Also keep in mind that if its true that the Mac Mini may be going entertainment center on us that could necessitate a dual core. H.264 isn't exactly processor friendly even at 720p. Not to mention 1080p which would chew up and spit out a Mac Mini.

[Flynnstone]

... for the sake of my Conroe PowerMac :)

I'll have my Conroe PowerMac mid January 2006 ! ( Lake Conroe that is :D )

[Kai]

I'll let you research Intel's upcoming chip platforms yourself (they're not mediocre),

Anything that everyone uses is mediocre...

1) IBM had a history of saying something could be done and then being wrong.

Hmmm, let's see:
Montecito promised for 2004. Then 2005. Now it's 2006. Foxtron completely dumped. Tukwila promised to bring eternal bliss and infinite processing power through a complete re-design, now it's just a lame Itanic-goodbye-version. 4 GHz P4 cancelled. New proper FSB moved to 2007. Whole Netburst-line cancelled prematurely, long before reaching the promised 9-10 GHz. Should i go on or do you see the fallacy in your argumentation?

Not a good business partner--unless of course you sell consoles which a) only need a new CPU every few years and b) are expected to be sold at a loss anyway.

Apparently alot of huge corporations think IBM is a very good business partner. In fact that's where they make most of their money: Big business. The difference to Apple being their other customers don't beyotch and moan and frequently pay for IBMs services...

Seriously: If there's one company that's notoriously known to act childish and unprofessional because of an ego-tripping CEO, it's Apple. Need i say "manually crossing out Radeons from Cube Spec-sheets"?

2) If Apple DID pay IBM the extra amounts required to help IBM meet its promises, then Macs would cost huge amounts more. (And STILL be released late when IBM misses its deadlines.) Is that a solution?

Apple has $8 Billion in the bank now. 8 friggin billion! What for is all that money if not for R&D? I have always valued Apple as one of the few remaining Computer manufacturers to actually still do R&D, with the rest of them just following the Dell "just put the bruises on the banana and off it goes"-Model. Well, not anymore they don't! Besides: CPU design-cost is a one-time cost and does not at all scale with the number of CPUs produced.

Can you name any current PC maker that uses custom-made processors designed just for their unique computers, pays the development costs to the chip-maker, and still manages to be priced competitively and sell at the same profits other PC companies make? If not, then who is "everybody but Apple"?

Gosh, that's a lot of determinators you're throwing at me there. I'll take the liberty to not adhere to all of them: Sony paid them. M$ paid them (that's "everybody but Apple"! But it also perfectly normal in other fields of electronics, who ever said i was talking specifically of Computers?). Besides: Sun still designs their own stuff.


Don't know, but it's certainly not for x86 compatibility. Itanium's total incompatibility with x86 softwre is what killed it as a viable product.


Wrong. Its totally ridiculous performance with x86 is what killed it! Plus it being much much too late!
Itanic CAN run x86-Software. The emulation is even hardwired into the Chip (Intel wants to take it out and do it in software though (like F/X32), just iike they should've done right from the start!)


And most consumers don't run enterprise web servers on their desktops.


Doesn't matter. Take Media-Encoding, still the same laughable performance! You missed the point, the point was that these benchmarks were questioned for credibility. An Apache-Benchmark, on a server-CPU. Yeah right! ;-)

The Xeon has always been the contender for the G5. So the Paxville is the perfect comparison for the 970MP! The 970MP (and the Opteron) seriously kick its ass, even if you can't stand to hear that shiny-happy-people-Intel is just ridiculously outclassed right now...

The applications you're holding up as a benchmark are the kind that are best suited to Linux PCs (or larger UNIX systems from IBM, Sun and SGI) not anything running Mac OS.

Media Encoding isn't done on the Mac? Or Science work? Wow, i bet there are a few hundred thousand people who beg to differ! ;-)
And what exactly gives you the idea it will be ANY different in any other benchmark? Hell, its Cinebench-Performance also TOTALLY SUCKS!


As others have said, you're picking and choosing unrealistic benchmarks in order to make your point.


i call BS. Just because you don't like the results doesn't make these results "unrealistic". GamePCs tests have been recited the web over, by various respected sources (e.g. Arstechnica). What exacty gives you the right to question their credibility? Bring on YOUR results then! Oh! You don't have any? Then how come you know the ones I'm quoting are "unrealistic"?
..and i'll say it again, just to make sure: Media Encoding IS ACTUALLY A VERY POPULAR DESKTOP-TASK!


No you don't, as there will also be single core Yonah's. It is very likely to the point of almost certain that Apple will use those for the mac mini and ibook.

Then they won't come in January. Check the roadmaps, single core Yonahs are scheduled for mid-2006!


Gah....people are pulling some of these specs out of their [bleep]. Aiden where are you getting 10-20%?

If you informed yourself before drivelling and questioning others numbers you'd know this yourself. Epic has said so when talking about their Unreal-Version for the Opteron. Cinebench also clearly shows it: 1107 for a Dual 275 Opteron in 32bit, 1381 in 64bit. 24,7% gain, hello thar!


You act as if Apple hasn't taken any of this into consideration. Do you really think that Apple wasn't aware of Intel’s roadmap when they made the plunge?


Well - if they did: Where's their friggin plan for x86-64bit? Apple simply does NOT SAY A SINGLE THING on the topic! Which should have the bells ringing for anyone with just half a brain!..
Wouldn't you think they should actually TELL developers how they're gonna proceed with 64bit when they're totally unexpectedly introducing x86 right in the middle of the big 32->64bit transition in the PC-world?


As such don't you think that XCode is going to be/is ready for the migration between 32-bit and 64-bit?


Well - it can be made ready. Right now it isn't AT ALL! What exactly is the point in moving your code over from 32bit PPC to 32bit Intel and then moving it AGAIN from 32bit Intel to 64bit Intel? How many developers (and customers! Think "have to buy new versions"!) will seriously put up with this everlasting transition crap, especially considering the OS X transition is just over?

Fact: In five years, when Apple dumps support of the last PPC-Macs and the Intel-Switch is finally over there will be NO Software still made for 32bit! Just like there's none anymore that doesn't use SSE2, because Intels Compilers automatically generate it!

Apple has done this type of migration before. They know what they are doing.

Apple has moved to a mainstream CPU before? Wow, i never knew! Jeez, stop with the Steve-reurgitating pretty please: This is NOT like 68k->PPC! Apple is not just switching CPUs, they are ENTERING THE X86-MARKET this time and they do NOT have any control over the CPU anymore!

Right now it doesn't look AT ALL like they know what they're doing. See: Missing x86-64-Plan!


There is still some contention as to when single cores will be shipping. I've read everything from January '06 - Mid Summer '06.

Name one source that says January 06.


Also keep in mind that if its true that the Mac Mini may be going entertainment center on us

"To go entertainment center on us" has to go down in history as one of the most d*mb sounding expressions ev4r....

[nagromme]

Apple has $8 Billion in the bank now. 8 friggin billion! What for is all that money if not for R&D?
This is your argument for saying that Apple could pay more to make IBM get their job done, and yet not have to raise Mac prices as a result? In other words, Apple wouldn't be making a profit on those product lines, but that's OK because they have enough money already? They'd be taking a loss on every Mac, yet not go bankrupt for years! I like it! But it's out of touch with business reality.

Gosh, that's a lot of determinators you're throwing at me there. I'll take the liberty to not adhere to all of them:
Precisely. You are carefully picking and choosing which "facts" not to ignore--and the ones you are choosing are often irrelevant to the current reality. (Which is troll-like behavior.) So, which of my determinators did you decide you could throw out because it's not relevant to Apple's situation? They ALL are. So you can't throw them out or your attempted point about Apple being too stingy to pay IBM is not made.

I'm not seeing a coherent argument to respond to--and that tells me that even YOU don't take your posts too seriously. I would recommend my fellow forum-goers share your attitude in that matter :) You sound deeply angry, but you're really just having fun. And fun is what Mac rumors should be about :)

I am reminded of the methods here:
http://homepage.mac.com/bhoglund/forumFudsters.html

[Flynnstone]

I like to look at it as ... Apple isn't going x86, but going CPU agnostic. Since Apple has been running OS X on x86 for quite a while, I wouldn't be surprised if they have it running on an ARM CPU in a PDA. Or Sun big iron processors.

[Kai]

This is your argument for saying that Apple could pay more to make IBM get their job done, and yet not have to raise Mac prices as a result?

I didn't say "pay more", i said "pay". As in: Pay them any money at all to have custom chips designed!


In other words, Apple wouldn't be making a profit on those product lines, but that's OK because they have enough money already? They'd be taking a loss on every Mac, yet not go bankrupt for years! I like it! But it's out of touch with business reality.


Excuse me, have you recently looked at how long Apple sells one CPU? The G4 is now six years old and Apple has surely sold some 15 Million of them - at least! Are you honestly trying to tell me a one-time development cost would still matter?
And in how far would a one-time cost raise the price of EVERY Mac? Price-raises are just for rising component costs - if there are price raises at all, it's been some time since i saw one in the IT-sector (oh wait - there will be one from a $80-CPU to a $150-CPU with some wellknown Computer manufacturer soon! ;-).
Besides: Do you even have a glimpse of a clue what Apples profit margins are? They're in a range that PC-Makers have wet dreams about at night! Apple could EASILY earn a lot less (like they have chosen to do f.ex. with the Mac mini!) and still have a profit way way beyond anything the PC OEMs are seeing!


Precisely. You are carefully picking and choosing which "facts" not to ignore--and the ones you are choosing are often irrelevant to the current reality.

More BS from you. I was talking about custom chip designs in general. YOU limited it to PC-Makers! Hence it's my perfect right to bring it back to where it started from and ignore your wrongly inserted denominators.
In how far is the simple fact that you pay someone to build you a custom chip "irrelevant to the current reality"? And what's a "current reality" anyway? Are we in for a complete overhaul, yes?

(Which is troll-like behavior.)

Nice trick. You eat your own words, hence the other person is automatically a troll. Hmm, i wonder why you don't say a single thing about the all the slips, broken promises and fudgeups in Intels roadmaps that i quoted!...

So, which of my determinators did you decide you could throw out because it's not relevant to Apple's situation?

The "PC-Makers" one. Because neither the Xbox nor the PS3 is a PC. And because this is also standard practice in other areas of electronics.

They ALL are.

No. Read above.

So you can't throw them out or your attempted point about Apple being too stingy to pay IBM is not made.

BS. If you add denominators to my original statement it is my perfect right to remove them and get back to what i originally said. You may try to steer the discussion into waters that suit you better, but these games won't work with me, dude!...

I'm not seeing a coherent argument to respond to--

Well, i can't help you there then.. If you don't want to see it, there's nothing i can do about it.
Here's what i say in bold letters, to help you understand:

Custom Chip design is something you pay for

In fact it's really simple, just _try_ to grasp it!...

and that tells me that even YOU don't take your posts too seriously.

Is that so? That's some impressive logic, really.. Honestly: I don't have the slightest idea how you end up with this conclusion, but it sure is entertaining!

I would recommend my fellow forum-goers share your attitude in that matter :) You sound deeply angry, but you're really just having fun. And fun is what Mac rumors should be about :)

Actually i'm having a bit of fun with you because much of what's said on here is so easily refuted, but it's a bit like shooting sitting ducks...

I'm not having fun thinking of Apple switching to Intel. See first posting by me in this thread as to why. Until i get answers to all of this, I'll remain furious. Why? Because i just don't like being lied to, and by now it's darn obvious Steve Jobs is lying!...

I am reminded of the methods here:
http://homepage.mac.com/bhoglund/forumFudsters.html

Haha, that's nice. Who would you think pays me? Apple? Intel? I'm most curious to see what company you could possibly come up with! ;-)

[minimax]

Kai, I am saying this nicely, but you have an attitude problem and need to tone down.

A FUDer doesnt need to get payed, and in 99< % probably isnt. The point from the linked article was that you're a 'loser' if you don't get payed for it as you have nothing to win or loose but your own ego.

The paper, rock, scissors comparison was pretty relevant for your case. You choose the artificial benchmarks that suit you best to make your point but you know damn well any serious comparison between the athlon and the pentium m with real application based benchmarks that cover the whole spectrum (not just FP) doesnt show the figures you are claiming to be representative for their performance.

I hope you take this advice to heart. We have an 'ignore user' function on this forum and if you persist in this behaviour I'm quite sure you will end not only on mine.

[Kai]

Kai, I am saying this nicely, but you have an attitude problem and need to tone down.

There's only one person who has an attitude problem. He's usually wearing a turtleneck and many many people even keep bolstering his ego to make it even worse.
Well, him and maybe the guys that call GamePCs benchmarks "unrealistic" and hallucinate something about "numbers pulled out of your *ss"...

A FUDer doesnt need to get payed, and in 99< % probably isnt. The point from the linked article was that you're a 'loser' if you don't get payed for it as you have nothing to win or loose but your own ego.

So when I point out serious flaws in Apples strategy that nobody so far was able to refute just remotely i do FUD? That's really an interesting concept to avoid actually listening to what the other guy is saying. Pretty lame and childish, too. Think covering your ears with your hands singing "Lalalala! I'm not hearing you, FUDer!"

I would call people who can't think for themselves and rely on Father Steve to do the thinking for them ("Apple knows what it's doing" - yeah right: Think Cube, Pippin, Newton, Copland, Licensing and the whole shebang of wrong Apple decisions throughout its history!) "losers", but you might see things different...

The paper, rock, scissors comparison was pretty relevant for your case. You choose the artificial benchmarks that suit you best to make your point but you know damn well any serious comparison between the athlon and the pentium m with real application based benchmarks that cover the whole spectrum (not just FP) doesnt show the figures you are claiming to be representative for their performance.

We're talking about the Paxville DC-Xeon, which is the current 970MP contender, not a Notebook-CPU. Amazing you haven't even realized that by now... *I* chose the Paxville as an example, so i set the rules. If you quote the Pentium-M now, YOU're doing the paperrockscissors-thing to ME!

But: The difference to the paper, rock, scissors analogy on that page is that there are mobile CPUs, Desktop CPUs and Workstation/Server-CPUs, and each of them can be compared separately to their AMD and IBM equivalents (except for IBM in mobile, which is not there) , not with one single imaginary Intel-Chip (which would be the Honda Accord in the example!). Right now Intel is pretty behind on the Desktop and completely destroyed on the Workstation/Server and can only show a lead on the Notebook. And we all know the real numbercrunching is done on Notebooks, right... FYI: Apples mobiles sell like hotcakes IN SPITE of the G4 being seriously outdated by now...
So summing up we have: 0:1 on the Desktop for AMD, 0:2 on the Workstation/Server and 1:0 for Intel in the mobile space. I'd say AMD definately leads 1:3!

btw: You might want to read this (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122236,00.asp):

"First Dual-Core Pentium 4 a Rush Job, Intel Says - Design rushed out the door to beat AMD, Intel engineer says."

This (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/29/intel_xeon_2009/page2.html) is also highly interesting:

"Second-class Intel to trail AMD for years
[...]
Nathan Brookwood, an analyst at InSight 64, summed up the issues well in a research note issued this week.
"If Intel is ever to reclaim the performance lead from AMD, it must make the transition to an on-chip memory controller," he wrote.
"Intel slated Whitefield (a Xeon) and Tukwila (an Itanium) as its first processors to incorporate on-chip memory controllers. Tukwila will still use this approach, but Tigerton, Whitefield's replacement, will rely on a memory controller built into the chipset that supports the CPU, Intel's traditional approach, rather than a controller built into the CPU itself. Given the two year cycles that drive Intel's server roadmaps, this means that Intel will not be able to field a server processor with an on-board memory controller until 2009 at the earliest. Between now and then, we see little likelihood that Intel will be able to claim performance leadership."

[...]

As stated, Intel will struggle to match Opteron in the next 18 months but instead of rolling out Opteron killers in 2007, Intel will introduce more processors tied down by its aging architecture dependencies. The company does not have a realistic chance of besting Opteron on typical server benchmarks until the new chips arrive in 2009. By that time, AMD will have new four-core designs of its own and who knows what other innovations."

I hope you take this advice to heart. We have an 'ignore user' function on this forum and if you persist in this behaviour I'm quite sure you will end not only on mine.

Feel free to ignore me if you choose to. But ignoring won't make the very real very burning open questions on Apples switch go away...

[minimax]

btw: You might want to read this:

"First Dual-Core Pentium 4 a Rush Job, Intel Says - Design rushed out the door to beat AMD, Intel engineer says."


Thanks for that info, geez I didnt know that :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
You need to stop beating the dead horse called Netburst.

[themacmaestro]

i find it hard to believe that Steve Jobs would let one person talk him into a decision...

[nagromme]

Rock paper scissors is exactly it :D Comparing Apple's processor choice to other PC makers isn't relevant, but comparing to game consoles that sell at a loss is? Sounds like what's "relevant" might be based more on what he WANTS to talk about. ;) Ah well, it was fun while it lasted.

I guess after the coming transition we'll see if Intel is as bad as he claims to expect :p

[bousozoku]

Please remember to keep things civil. Name calling and abusive behaviour isn't good for you or the rest of us. Besides, if that's the real you, it might be a good idea to search for a better way of doing things.

If that isn't enough, there is not only an ignore function--there is a ban function--for these forums. :D

[Little Endian]

I wish Cnet asked this Mayer guy why Freescale or Apple did not go ahead with the 7448 G4 in the last PowerBook revision. The 7448 G4 would have been a very nice upgrade and a last hurrah for the Moto/Freescale PowerPC on the Mac.

http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/fact_sheet/MPC7448FACT.pdf

Why did we not get this chip? Was Apple not willing to pay? Was Freescale not willing to commit to production? Would this chip have performed better than the first intel chips in first generation macintels? I guess we will never know.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I wish Cnet asked this Mayer guy why Freescale or Apple did not go ahead with the 7448 G4 in the last PowerBook revision. The 7448 G4 would have been a very nice upgrade and a last hurrah for the Moto/Freescale PowerPC on the Mac.

http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/fact_sheet/MPC7448FACT.pdf

Why did we not get this chip? Was Apple not willing to pay? Was Freescale not willing to commit to production? Would this chip have performed better than the first intel chips in first generation macintels? I guess we will never know.
though its clock went up it L3 was removed meaning not much gained. Its performance is about that of G4s with less clocks and a L3 and no its performance wont touch the Yonah thats coming from Intel. It offered very little if anything for apple.

[Little Endian]

though its clock went up it L3 was removed meaning not much gained. Its performance is about that of G4s with less clocks and a L3 and no its performance wont touch the Yonah thats coming from Intel. It offered very little if anything for apple.

The 7448 Doubled the L2 cache to 1 Megabyte twice that of the current 7447 G4s and 4 times that of the L3 cache G4s which only had 256Kb of L2 albeit with 1-2Mb of much slower L3. I think you are getting 7448 confused with 7447. The Altivec registers are improved, faster FSB, faster memory and the chip could have been clocked as high as 2Ghz all while being even more energy efficient and cooler.

Yonah is a good chip but we may not see it until mid next year and the 7448 could have tided us over till then. Also I would not be surprised if high end PowerPC chips trounce Yonah and whatever chips are used in the first wave of intel macs. While rosetta supports Altivec it still won't be as fast as hardware altivec and in the beginning most apps from Apple and even more so third parties won't be optimized to truly flex X86 muscle at least in the first year.

[Aggamemnon]

On the other hand, why should Apple invest in a platform they wish to move away from?

[shamino]

On the other hand, why should Apple invest in a platform they wish to move away from?
You've got the chronology backwards. Apple decided to ditch IBM as a result of IBM refusing to manufacture the chips Apple wanted (without a huge "investment" payment above and beyond the cost of buying the chips.)

[Aggamemnon]

IBM make G5.

Why should Apple invest in buying a new G4 when they have decided to abandon it?

[Dont Hurt Me]

The 7448 Doubled the L2 cache to 1 Megabyte twice that of the current 7447 G4s and 4 times that of the L3 cache G4s which only had 256Kb of L2 albeit with 1-2Mb of much slower L3. I think you are getting 7448 confused with 7447. The Altivec registers are improved, faster FSB, faster memory and the chip could have been clocked as high as 2Ghz all while being even more energy efficient and cooler.

Yonah is a good chip but we may not see it until mid next year and the 7448 could have tided us over till then. Also I would not be surprised if high end PowerPC chips trounce Yonah and whatever chips are used in the first wave of intel macs. While rosetta supports Altivec it still won't be as fast as hardware altivec and in the beginning most apps from Apple and even more so third parties won't be optimized to truly flex X86 muscle at least in the first year.where is this 7448? please dont tell me its on paper.

[shamino]

IBM make G5.

Why should Apple invest in buying a new G4 when they have decided to abandon it?
OK. One of us has something confused.

As far as I know, freescale has never asked Apple for "investment" money as a prerequisite to new processor development. If you're talking about the G4, I don't understand what "investment" you're referring to.

If you're merely asking why Apple would put a G4 into a new computer, keep in mind that the Intel transition is not going to happen overnight. Apple will upgrade some models soon, and some a year or more later, ultimately completing the transition before the end of 2007.

Although we are expecting the current G4 systems to be the first to go Intel, Apple has said nothing about this schedule. They might not all transition immediately. They may even keep one or two G4 systems in production until the very end of the Intel transition. If they do this, then a decision to use the most recent G4 variant available would not surprise me.

[nagromme]

Assuming some G4 models won't go Intel right away, another reason not to use a newer G4 is if (just a possibility) Motorola is unable to deliver them in quantity. Sometimes that has been an issue for Apple: a chip exists, but orders can't be filled. Sticking with the same G4 might remove that question.

In any case, the question is about to become less important: when Apple's delayed by Intel it will be at the same time as the rest of the industry!

[Flynnstone]

OK. One of us has something confused.

As far as I know, freescale has never asked Apple for "investment" money as a prerequisite to new processor development. If you're talking about the G4, I don't understand what "investment" you're referring to.



There was AIM (Apple IBM Motorola) that jointly developed the PowerPC for the desktop.

[AidenShaw]

There was AIM (Apple IBM Motorola) that jointly developed the PowerPC for the desktop.
"It's dead, Jim"

[sushi]

Very interesting that he sold Jobs the G5 the first time he wanted to move to Intel. ;) With this, and the fact that OS X has been co-developed on Intel platforms since it's inception, you can see where Jobs's head was at all this time. No portable G5 solutions was probably the straw that broke the camel's back.
Yep. It looks like Steve was being very cautious while at the same time willing to take a risk on a newer and better architecture of the G5 at the time.

Just goes to show, that great leaders always have a plan B.

Now this also ignores the very large crowd though that kept bleating about 64bit simply because "it's bigger than 32" without really having any idea what it was they were asking for.
Isn't this the truth!

Buzzwords. It's all about buzzwords! :(

I like to look at it as ... Apple isn't going x86, but going CPU agnostic. Since Apple has been running OS X on x86 for quite a while, I wouldn't be surprised if they have it running on an ARM CPU in a PDA. Or Sun big iron processors.
You raise and interesting possibility.

What if Apple was working on more than just the PowerPC and x86 platforms?

Being platform agnostic would allow Apple to easily change in the future to the best hardware option at the time. While no small undertaking, it would help secure their future regardless of who is the processor/mobo leader.

Sushi

[Flynnstone]

With a "C" compiler and proper coding, the CPU doesn't really matter. Except for performance. One big factor that is essentially outside the realm of the compiler is "Endianness". But it appears that Apple has that licked.

Does OS X on x86 (developer) rely on the video card or GPU heavily? Is most or all done in software with a video buffer? If so, ports to a decent PDA or a Cray would be relatively little work.

If they support too many processors, I can see fat binaries get getting realy fat :D

[~Shard~]

Yep. It looks like Steve was being very cautious while at the same time willing to take a risk on a newer and better architecture of the G5 at the time.

Just goes to show, that great leaders always have a plan B.

Very well said. It's reasons like this why I have a great deal of confidence in Jobs. Hopefully it's not that blasted Steve RDF coming into play again... ;) :cool:

[sushi]

Hopefully it's not that blasted Steve RDF coming into play again... ;) :cool:
And that Kool-Aid tastes so very good too! :D

[shamino]

What if Apple was working on more than just the PowerPC and x86 platforms?
There's been no evidence (and in the case, not even rumors), but anything's possible.

There are a few other processor architectures that haven't been used in Macs yet (like SPARC and MIPS), but I doubt Apple would ever use them, because they're pretty much proprietary and controlled by one specific vendor that wants to use them for their own products.

All this being said, it would not surprise me in the least if Apple decides to keep a working non-Intel version of Mac OS (PPC?) long after the official product line becomes Intel-only, in order to be prepared to switch again, if circumstances should force that option.

Such a policy also forces developers to keep platform-portability in mind at all times, greatly easing the transition if another switch should become necessary, even if that switch isn't to the same chipset as the internal prototype build.

[Hattig]

There are a few other processor architectures that haven't been used in Macs yet (like SPARC and MIPS), but I doubt Apple would ever use them, because they're pretty much proprietary and controlled by one specific vendor that wants to use them for their own products.


SPARC isn't proprietary, it's an open specification. Fujitsu designs and makes their own fast SPARC64 processors for their systems.

Sun's Niagara 2 processor (2007) may be a very nice processor for a (multithreaded applications) desktop system. 64 threads across 8 cores. Per thread performance won't be great, but per processor performance will be stellar (again, for multithreaded tasks). Per processor integer performance on the current 32-thread Niagara processor is already amazing, but FP isn't really a feature. And there are a lot of FP tasks that can be extensively multithreaded...

MIPS does have some patented features however, hence China's dragon chip doesn't implement those parts.

[AidenShaw]

SPARC isn't proprietary, it's an open specification.
SPARC isn't proprietary...that's rich.

[mdavey]

SPARC isn't proprietary...that's rich.

* The SPARC instruction set is published as IEEE Standard 1754-1994.
* SPARC specifications are available for licensing by any person or company, giving customers flexibility and freedom to design their own solution.
* Control of the SPARC architecture is in the hands of an independent, non-profit organization, SPARC International, whose membership is open to everyone.
* All technical information about the architecture is available for free and without royalties from SPARC International's public website. Anyone is welcome to download the SPARC specifications, which provide all of the technical requirements needed to design processors and other products based on the open SPARC standard.

As Hattig pointed out, Fujitsu and Sun Microsystems provide architectures (as well as the European Space and Technology Centre). The architectures are used by various vendors including Fujitsu, Sun Microsystems, Tadpole and Toshiba Corporation.

[Flynnstone]

There's been no evidence (and in the case, not even rumors), but anything's possible.

There are a few other processor architectures that haven't been used in Macs yet (like SPARC and MIPS), but I doubt Apple would ever use them, because they're pretty much proprietary and controlled by one specific vendor that wants to use them for their own products.

I don't know of rumors around x86. There was speculation :) But I agree anything is possible.
Intel is proprietary. Apple has chosen them.

[rayz]

Anything that everyone uses is mediocre...

Ok, hang on a sec.

A few years ago, I thought that the PPC was a chip that was used pretty much exclusively by Apple. As it turns out, the revenue that Apple generates for IBM through using the PPC was pretty insignificant compared to the embedded devices, licensees and server installations.

Apple certainly wasn't a big enough customer to warrant IBM continuing development of what was effectively a custom chip ... for free. That would only serve to annoy much larger customers who understand custom designs need to be paid for.

Between MS, Sony and Nintendo I imagine that IBM will shift a much larger number of 'paid for' custom chips than the relatively small number of 'freebies' that they have to furnish Apple with. So, no great loss for IBM. A little bit of crowing from the Mac community is nothing they won't get over.

But what I think you're missing is the reason why IBM aren't interested in desktop chips in the first place. PCs are a commodity, and as such it will become increasingly difficult to make money building them.

Dell knows it (that's why they spend millions in R&D trying to scrape every dollar off the cost of building a machine),

MS knows it (that's why they dumped Intel and went hell for leather into the console market; they were even prepared to dump a problem console on the market, making a loss on each unit, just to get a leg up on the competition).

Sony has always known it ... :-)

And most importantly, IBM knows it (which is why sold their PC division to Lenevo).

Basically, Apple had nowhere else to go but Intel; economies of scale means they can get chips at a better price than they can get from AMD (even though most folk seem to think that Intel chips cost more than PPC chips), and it certainly isn't worth building custom bits, for a commodity item like a PC.
Do you think that Apple would sell more machines with a custom processor, even if it was faster? I don't think so; folk are not that bothered about the odd Mhz here and there anymore.

They could have gone with another PPC outfit like PA Semi; but that company (and their chip) is still very much unproven.

Sparc? Dunno. Don't know much about Sparc.

So although they will now same chips and components as everyone else, at least they'll be going for the cheapest option.
Now I notice a few members of the Mac community believe that Intel will be providing special treatment for Apple; providing them with new components before anyone else, or building special technology exclusively for Apple.

I don't think this will be the case fo a number of reasons.

1/. It's the whole 'custom chip' argument all over again. If IBM won't customize for free fo a customer who represents tiny proportion of their revenue, then Intel certanly won't for a company that represents an even smaller proportion of their revenue. This would put Apple in the same position they were in with IBM, and in a few years time, Apple would have to move again.

2/. Er ... Intel have already stated that Apple will get no special treatment and they will get the chipsets at the same time as everyone else ... :-)
However, just because other manufacturers get the same tech at the same time, doesn't mean that they will release at the same time. They have more configurations to test and a lot more OS options to worry about.
If I were Dell, I'd let Apple release first! Then once Apple has taken the 'early adoper hit, release their own new machines. Being second won't make that much difference.

So I really don't see any advantage of going the custom chip route for a desktop PC ... a console or PVR maybe, but for a commodity PC. I just don't think it would make a difference to sales.

What might make a big difference though, is the ability to run Windows apps on Macs at native speeds. Now that would be a big seller all round, and would not be possible if they stayed with the PPC.

Windows users would not lose their favourite apps by moving to the Mac; Microsoft would shift a few more Windows licenses and so I don't see them blocking such a move. In fact, since it may lead to the larger software houses telling Mac users to 'just run the Windows version', then I reckon MS would be over the moon by such a move (something that may or may not cause a problem for Apple depending on their future plans).

If you know how to make the 'custom chip' idea fly, I'd love to hear it.

I think in this instance, you may find that 'mediocre' is the way forward ...

[mdavey]

If you know how to make the 'custom chip' idea fly, I'd love to hear it.


They alreay have a custom chip in most deisgns: The I/O chip (variously known as Intrepid, KeyLargo, K2 and others - depending on architecture). I'd expect this to continue, with Apple adding video codecs including H.264 into the mix (it already supports various audio codecs).

[rayz]

They alreay have a custom chip in most deisgns: The I/O chip (variously known as Intrepid, KeyLargo, K2 and others - depending on architecture). I'd expect this to continue, with Apple adding video codecs including H.264 into the mix (it already supports various audio codecs).

Yep; and how has having them helped increase their market share or lower their prices?

[shamino]

Yep; and how has having them helped increase their market share or lower their prices?
So you believe what? That Apple should abandon any and all custom chips? And then what? Sell generic PC motherboards in fancy cases?

Mac customers are not interested in buying PC's in fancy cases. If they wanted that, they could buy from Sony.

[shamino]

Between MS, Sony and Nintendo I imagine that IBM will shift a much larger number of 'paid for' custom chips than the relatively small number of 'freebies' that they have to furnish Apple with. So, no great loss for IBM.
Also the fact that game consoles don't get upgraded every three months. IBM may be willing to design those chips for free, since they will be stamping them out for 3-5 years without any design changes.

You don't get that economy of scale from desktop computer chips, because the products get upgraded too quickly.
But what I think you're missing is the reason why IBM aren't interested in desktop chips in the first place. PCs are a commodity, and as such it will become increasingly difficult to make money building them.
This is a reason why companies got out of the PC business. It says nothing about chipmakers.

Using your logic, AMD and Intel should sell their x86 products to third world countries. But it isn't going to happen. Because the pricing crunch you talk about affects the system-builders, not the chipmakers.
MS knows it (that's why they dumped Intel and went hell for leather into the console market; they were even prepared to dump a problem console on the market, making a loss on each unit, just to get a leg up on the competition).
Maybe. Or maybe wishful thinking.

MS also was getting pissed off about people installing Linux on their XBox. Moving to an incompatible chipset was as much an effort to shake off the hackers (at least briefly) as it was due to chipset pricing.

As for taking losses, every game console is sold at a loss. This has nothing to do with the chip inside.
What might make a big difference though, is the ability to run Windows apps on Macs at native speeds. Now that would be a big seller all round, and would not be possible if they stayed with the PPC.
Maybe in the short term. In the long term, it would destroy the Mac market. Which is why I don't believe Apple will ever bundle Windows emulation software.
Windows users would not lose their favourite apps by moving to the Mac; Microsoft would shift a few more Windows licenses and so I don't see them blocking such a move. In fact, since it may lead to the larger software houses telling Mac users to 'just run the Windows version', then I reckon MS would be over the moon by such a move (something that may or may not cause a problem for Apple depending on their future plans).
This is one of the things that seriously crippled the OS/2 software market. It was good enough at running Windows apps that many vendors refused to develop native apps. They told customers "run the Windows version". And when Windows evolved to an architecture incompatible with OS/2, they just said "get bent".

And MS took advantage of this by telling the world that OS/2 has no native apps. A complete lie, but people believed it because few native apps were made by the most popular Windows-app vendors.

You bundle good Windows emulation with Mac OS, and I guarantee you the same thing will happen. The big players (like Adobe) will abandon all Mac development and tell people to just buy the Windows version. The public will see this and decide "if I'm just running Windows apps, then I'll be better off buying a Windows PC".
I think in this instance, you may find that 'mediocre' is the way forward ...
If you want Apple to end up selling mediocre products.

Do you seriously think OS X is so great that people would choose to buy "mediocre" computers in order to run it? Somehow I don't think so.

[rayz]

So you believe what? That Apple should abandon any and all custom chips? And then what? Sell generic PC motherboards in fancy cases?

Mac customers are not interested in buying PC's in fancy cases. If they wanted that, they could buy from Sony.

Well according to Jobs, the most important thing is the operating system, not the hardware, so yes, I really think that you won't see much hardware differentiation from now on (apart from any custom hardware to prevent the operating system running on generic PCs).

A few clever bods seem to have already got MacOSX Intel running on machines other than the Apple devkit (which is pretty much a generic PC anyway)

One other thing though. While its fine to blame IBM for the performance of Apple machines, bear in mind that the rest of the unit is designed by Apple; this includes buses that are out of dat compared with the rest of the industry and low amounts of memory fitted as standard.
Now that they are building the same machines as everyone else, Apple won't be able to get away with it; since comparisons are much easier to make. This will be a real win for Mac customers.

[rayz]

Also the fact that game consoles don't get upgraded every three months. IBM may be willing to design those chips for free, since they will be stamping them out for 3-5 years without any design changes.

Apparently, Microsoft has paid for the custom design work on the chip. They could have licensed the reference designs and done it themselves, but I guess this is IBM's area.
If IBM had done carried out the work for free then they believe that MS will sell enough of these things to make it worthwhile; something they obviously didn't believe with Apple.

This is a reason why companies got out of the PC business. It says nothing about chipmakers.

It points to a general feeling at IBM that there is no money to be made in the desktop.

Maybe. Or maybe wishful thinking.

Who knows? Can't say if they are right or wrong until the figures are in.

MS also was getting pissed off about people installing Linux on their XBox.
Moving to an incompatible chipset was as much an effort to shake off the hackers (at least briefly) as it was due to chipset pricing.


If that was the case then they could easily solved that with a custom chip ... :-)
Besides which, there are a number of Linux installations that run on the PPC, so that's not really going to help.

Maybe in the short term. In the long term, it would destroy the Mac market. Which is why I don't believe Apple will ever bundle Windows emulation software.

That depends on how Apple sees its future market. And of course, they don't have to develop the emulation; Microsoft will. And if Intel's Virtualization technology flies then it should be fairly seamless.

This is one of the things that seriously crippled the OS/2 software market. It was good enough at running Windows apps that many vendors refused to develop native apps. They told customers "run the Windows version". And when Windows evolved to an architecture incompatible with OS/2, they just said "get bent".

True.

You bundle good Windows emulation with Mac OS, and I guarantee you the same thing will happen. The big players (like Adobe) will abandon all Mac development and tell people to just buy the Windows version.

I'm pretty sure that Adobe would LOVE to do that. They're having to make a major upgrade to their whole software line AGAIN. Still, since they're going to charge for it, I guess that'll sweeten the blow somewhat. With any luck they can share a lot more of the code between the platforms.

The public will see this and decide "if I'm just running Windows apps, then I'll be better off buying a Windows PC".

This may happen anyway, whether Apple wants it to or not. What they need is another good reason to keep people running Macs, rather than placing artificial blocks to prevent them from running Windows at a decent speed.


If you want Apple to end up selling mediocre products.

Do you seriously think OS X is so great that people would choose to buy "mediocre" computers in order to run it? Somehow I don't think so.

Apple certainly thinks so; though its possible that the desktop computer line will not be their main focus in the future, in which case, it probably won't matter that much.


So what kind of custom chip do you think will make the difference?

[shamino]

Apparently, Microsoft has paid for the custom design work on the chip. They could have licensed the reference designs and done it themselves, but I guess this is IBM's area.
Since when did Microsoft gain any kind of chipmaking expertise? Do you seriously think a bunch of second-rate software people could design a processor? Even with a reference design? The entire concept is hysterical.
It points to a general feeling at IBM that there is no money to be made in the desktop.
It points to a general feeling that there is no money to be made selling Windows PC's. PC's are not the entirity of the desktop. Today, IBM sells quite a lot of UNIX workstations - which are desktop systems, not servers - based on POWER.
That depends on how Apple sees its future market. And of course, they don't have to develop the emulation; Microsoft will. And if Intel's Virtualization technology flies then it should be fairly seamless.
You put quite a lot of faith in Microsoft's ability to write efficient code. I don't. They've sold VPC for Windows for quite a while, it's far from seamless and entails quite a performance hit.
This may happen anyway, whether Apple wants it to or not. What they need is another good reason to keep people running Macs, rather than placing artificial blocks to prevent them from running Windows at a decent speed.
Shipping the exact same hardware that everybody else is shipping is not a way to convince customers to remain.

I can just imagine the ad campaign: Buy our stuff, it's now exactly the same as everybody else's!
So what kind of custom chip do you think will make the difference?
It's not the presence/absence of a custom chip that matters. Designing and selling superior hardware is what matters. And this can't be done by selling what amounts to Dell/Compaq/whatever junk in a pretty case.

[Randall]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

CNet provides (http://news.com.com/Is+the+PowerPC+due+for+a+second+wind/2008-1006_3-5983157.html?tag=st.prev) an interview with Michel Mayer, CEO of Freescale Semiconductor. Freescale is the Motorola (http://guides.macrumors.com/Motorola) spin-off which provides Apple with the PowerPC G4 (http://guides.macrumors.com/G4) processor used in the Mac Mini and current Mac Laptops. Apple has a contract with Freescale to fulfill G4 processor orders until as late as Dec 31, 2008 (http://news.com.com/2061-10793_3-5843820.html?tag=nl) if required. (Apple is under no obligation to continue purchasing them through that time, however.)

The interview provides some confirmation (http://news.com.com/Is+the+PowerPC+due+for+a+second+wind+-+page+2/2008-1006_3-5983157-2.html?tag=st.num) of Apple's earlier consideration to move to Intel.



This information was previously revealed (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/09/20030912124002.shtml) in an internal IBM newsletter about Apple's potential switch to Intel at that time. Instead, Apple went forward with the PowerPC 970 (G5).

Meanwhile, Mayer goes on to say that IBM's focus has shifted to consoles:
I told you IBM didn't know how to make a portable version of G5. Apple had no choice but to bail on PPC. Oh well, I really didn't need another space heater anyway. :p Let's go x86!!!

[Randall]

Well according to Jobs, the most important thing is the operating system, not the hardware, so yes, I really think that you won't see much hardware differentiation from now on (apart from any custom hardware to prevent the operating system running on generic PCs). It is now officially impossible to stop OS X from running on generic x86 based PCs. Mearly the fact that hardware drivers are not availabe for the ample amount of x86 hardware out there is the only thing standing in the way.

[shamino]

It is now officially impossible to stop OS X from running on generic x86 based PCs. Mearly the fact that hardware drivers are not availabe for the ample amount of x86 hardware out there is the only thing standing in the way.
Why? Because one stranger on a blog site says so?

[rayz]

Since when did Microsoft gain any kind of chipmaking expertise? Do you seriously think a bunch of second-rate software people could design a processor? Even with a reference design? The entire concept is hysterical.

Well, that was just an example of one possible route they could have taken. Besides which, they could have done what they always do when faced with a similar situation; buy the expertise in. Still, with IBM providing the facilities, there was no need.

It points to a general feeling that there is no money to be made selling Windows PC's. PC's are not the entirity of the desktop. Today, IBM sells quite a lot of UNIX workstations - which are desktop systems, not servers - based on POWER.

Hardly what I would call a commodity desktop unit, unless you happen to have one in your house. .. :-/

You put quite a lot of faith in Microsoft's ability to write efficient code. I don't. They've sold VPC for Windows for quite a while, it's far from seamless and entails quite a performance hit.

Well, I have an XP development box here running two web servers, three different JDKs, a couple of games, a number of IDEs with a few devices plugged in for good measure. I've yet to crash it after on year of intense use.

Meanwhile, my MacOSX installation was being crashed by visiting certain web pages with Safari. Although the problem was corrected with an upgrade, I had to ask, what has gone wrong with the design of an OS when it can be crashed by a web browser? A web browser built by the same company that built the OS.

So while I have no reason to trust that MS knows how to secure an OS, I don't have a problem with them building efficient code, and with the Macs running Intel chips, then it'll only make their job easier. A few yars down the line, we may just have one Office for all ....

Shipping the exact same hardware that everybody else is shipping is not a way to convince customers to remain.

But it's the obvious way to bring new customers in who don't want to leave their applications behind. You've already bought your Mac, so you're pretty much off the sales radar anyway. And the great thing about the Mac community from Apple's point of view, is that they will pretty much follow the company line. If Jobs gets up on stage and explains the advantages of having the ability to run Windows apps, then who's going to argue the point with him?
Besides, I imagine a 3rd party will handle that side of things, but Apple will sell the software on their site.

I can just imagine the ad campaign: Buy our stuff, it's now exactly the same as everybody else's!

Or

Buy our stuff, and bring your stuff with you.

It's not the presence/absence of a custom chip that matters. Designing and selling superior hardware is what matters. And this can't be done by selling what amounts to Dell/Compaq/whatever junk in a pretty case.

Apple is building a PC, using Intel bits. The dev kit is a PC, folk are running MacOSX Intel on Sony laptops. Exactly what is Apple going to do to differentiate their machines?

[shamino]

Hardly what I would call a commodity desktop unit, unless you happen to have one in your house. .. :-/
So now you redefine your terms. "Desktop" now means "commodity desktop". Why don't you just define it to mean "$400 Dell system" while you're at it - this way you can say that everybody else has "abandoned" it.
Well, I have an XP development box here running two web servers, three different JDKs, a couple of games, a number of IDEs with a few devices plugged in for good measure. I've yet to crash it after on year of intense use.

Meanwhile, my MacOSX installation was being crashed by visiting certain web pages with Safari. Although the problem was corrected with an upgrade, I had to ask, what has gone wrong with the design of an OS when it can be crashed by a web browser? A web browser built by the same company that built the OS.
And I can cite you plenty of users with the exact opposite experience (myself included) where OS X has never crashed even once, but Windows bluescreens when visiting some web sites with IE.

My opinion of MS's programmes has nothing to do with this, however. It comes from the fact that MS has never developed an original application, even once. All their main products are acquisitions from other companies, and after acquisition, those products got bigger and slower, bogged down with broken, useless features.

And WinXP is no exception. They got a good kernel (NT) by hiring a mess of former DEC engineers, and then they killed it by adding on dozens of layers of code that bog down the system in abstractions and eye candy, in the name of "portability", even though they've abandoned every attempt to port their code to non-x86 platforms.
So while I have no reason to trust that MS knows how to secure an OS, I don't have a problem with them building efficient code, and with the Macs running Intel chips, then it'll only make their job easier. A few yars down the line, we may just have one Office for all ....
Inability to write secure code is a serious problem that reflects on an overall attitude problem. They don't think it matters. They don't care about their customers. The only reason they're trying to hack security in now is because large customers were threatening legal action.

As for "one Office", think again. The OS differences between Mac OS and Windows are tremendous. Using the same chip isn't going to make porting one bit easier.
But it's the obvious way to bring new customers in who don't want to leave their applications behind. You've already bought your Mac, so you're pretty much off the sales radar anyway. And the great thing about the Mac community from Apple's point of view, is that they will pretty much follow the company line. If Jobs gets up on stage and explains the advantages of having the ability to run Windows apps, then who's going to argue the point with him?
I'm glad you have no problem expressing such contempt for everybody else here.
Besides, I imagine a 3rd party will handle that side of things, but Apple will sell the software on their site.
Like happens right now. But if you think Apple is going to start promoting Macs as a Windows application platform, you're deluding yourself.
Apple is building a PC, using Intel bits. The dev kit is a PC, folk are running MacOSX Intel on Sony laptops. Exactly what is Apple going to do to differentiate their machines?
You seem to be under the impression that the shipping systems will be identical to the dev kits.

They have stated many times that developers should not make that assumption. But I suppose you know better, right?

[rayz]

So now you redefine your terms. "Desktop" now means "commodity desktop". Why don't you just define it to mean "$400 Dell system" while you're at it - this way you can say that everybody else has "abandoned" it.

You misunderstand. No-one is abandoning the desktop; its just that companies such as IBM and Dell are finding it increasingl difficult to make money building them. This is why IBM is now focussing on high end machines, cinsoles and embedded devices.

And I can cite you plenty of users with the exact opposite experience (myself included) where OS X has never crashed even once, but Windows bluescreens when visiting some web sites with IE.

I'm sure you can .... :-)
But I don't have to run their systems; I have to run mine. The Safari problem was well documented on MacIntouch a while back, which is where I found out what was going on. As I said I was little shocked; I haven't seen a site crash a whole operating system since Windows98. I'm told the reason is that the webkit is a pretty low-level component, which is what seems to make the OS vulnerable to these kind of crashes.

My opinion of MS's programmes has nothing to do with this, however. It comes from the fact that MS has never developed an original application, even once.

That's funny. I think they developed Office themselves from Day 1. ... :-)

All their main products are acquisitions from other companies, and after acquisition, those products got bigger and slower, bogged down with broken, useless features.

As I said, Office is a home grown product, but even so, Apple is not much better.
MacOSX acquired from NeXT
Final Cut aqcuired from Macromedia
Can't remember where they bought iTunes from. Casady &Green if memory serves. I think I had it on my machine when it was called SoundJam

And WinXP is no exception. They got a good kernel (NT) by hiring a mess of former DEC engineers, and then they killed it by adding on dozens of layers of code that bog down the system in abstractions and eye candy, in the name of "portability", even though they've abandoned every attempt to port their code to non-x86 platforms.

Sounds a lot like MacOSX actually.
Acquired from NeXT. Loads of extra layers added (such as BSD, which again, Apple did not write), then shipped on machines with not enough memory to run the eye-candy routines.
And the MacOSX interface is a real mess at the moment. Why can't they settle on one look and feel across the applications?
Eye-candy aside, XP gets big points in my book by allowing you to roll back the OS installation with a simple click, if you mess it up somehow. Really wish Apple would build that one into MacOSX (actually, they may have done, but I might not have found it yet).
And why doesn't Apple give you a basic backup/restore program? What's that about? It's a basic OS requirement if you ask me.
Still, MacOSX obviously wins out on the portablility, but with Intel dominating the desk chips, that's probably not such

Inability to write secure code is a serious problem that reflects on an overall attitude problem.

And let's not forget the first release of Dashboard that allowed potentially dangerous widgets to be installed on systems without so much as a 'hello, I'm a widget!'. Unforgivable, especially when happened to Microsoft's 'ActiveX on the Web' plans when they made the same mistake. Because of their attitude, ActiveX will never flourish on the web (thank God); it was surpising to see Apple carelessly make the same mistake.

MS attitude to security is not the problem; their codebase is. The original code was never designed for the kind of security that the internet demands, and ceaselessly patching it has made the situation worse IMO. Vista is the clean sweep they should have made years ago.
Still, with a correctly configured Firewall and a good Av program, XP is as secure as houses.

They don't think it matters. They don't care about their customers. The only reason they're trying to hack security in now is because large customers were threatening legal action.

... rather like Apple only sorting out problems with the iPods when folk take them to court ... :-).
Apple would have left the glaring holes in Dashboard if folk hadn't taken them to task about them. But tha's corporations all over I'm afraid; do the least and try to get the most in return.
The more I talk to you, the more I realise that only thing really separating the two companies is current mindshare (Apple) and current marketshare(Microsoft)

As for "one Office", think again. The OS differences between Mac OS and Windows are tremendous. Using the same chip isn't going to make porting one bit easier.
You're missing the point. No-one will have to port anything. The next generation of Intel chips will b able to run multiple Os at the same time, using virtualization. I don't think it will be too difficult for MS to leverage this in future versions of Virtual PC, to allow Windows to run on th Mac at native speeds (can't imagine what kind of memory requirements something like that will have though).

I'm glad you have no problem expressing such contempt for everybody else here.

Oh, stop being such a drama queen... :-D
And before you start, that's just a figure of speech.

Like happens right now. But if you think Apple is going to start promoting Macs as a Windows application platform, you're deluding yourself.
You seem to be under the impression that the shipping systems will be identical to the dev kits.

They're not promoting it as a Windows platform; they're promoting it as a universal platform.

Going back to the OS/2 argument though. It ran Windows in a much safer environment, but I don't think the developers saiying 'just run the windows version' was the main problem; an app is an app is an app. IBM's promotion was astonshingly poor (they wouldn't even bundle it with their own systems). MS had greater mindshare and they could just pull the plug at any time, without worrying about legal action.
I don't think this situation applies to Apple. They don't need anyone else to distribute their OS, they enjoy a high level of public visibility thanks to the iPod, and I'm not sure that MS would feel the need to break Wndows support on the Mac.

I think that Apple knows that there is an advantage in increasing the user base. The biggest single barrier to that is applications. If folk can move without fear of losing their favourite Windows application, or of being incompatible with the rest of their workmates, then I believe that the platform can start to make some real inroads. Build the market and developers will follow.
One thing that impresses me about the Mac as a development platform (although I don' use it as one myself), is the quality of the apps that are on it. I believe that many Mac developers have a passion for the platform that shows in their work.
Now at the end of the day, the applications are what counts. Your attachment to your OS is very touching, but what is keeping folk on Windows is the stuff they can run, not the OS they can run it on. Apple needs to able to match and surpass this experience, or they may as well just do what a lot of folk think they're going to do, leave thye desktop to MS and just concentrate on being a content/device provider.

They have stated many times that developers should not make that assumption. But I suppose you know better, right?

I think what you're afraid of is that now that Apple is facing MS on its own turf, they will get crushed. Artificial limitations to keep Windows at arm's length may be one way forward, but if that's all they've got, then they're going to be in real trouble. Now we're going to learn if Apple does genuinely provide a better experience at a better price, without the PPC barrier to hide behind.

I think they are at least going to try to offer something unique, other than just hiding behind a DRM chip (which what you seem to think they will do). They have no choice.

And you still haven't said what unique piece of hardware is going to make Apple's Intel box, better than any other Intel box. Bear in mind that Intel will be supplying the same components to everybody.

[shamino]

That's funny. I think they developed Office themselves from Day 1. ... :-)
MS Word (for DOS) was based on Bravo, a Xerox PARC product. Charles Simonyi (Bravo's creator) left PARC to join Microsoft in 1981, bringing his code with him. Word was released in 1983. Word for the Mac was based on Word for DOS. Word for Windows was based on the Word for the Mac.

Excel was original, developed after Multiplan failed to compete against Lotus 1-2-3.

PowerPoint was developed by Bob Gaskins, for a company called Forethought. They were acquired by Microsoft.

So, no Office (the bundle) was definitely not developed in-house "from Day 1".
Still, with a correctly configured Firewall and a good Av program, XP is as secure as houses.
Sure. And if you weld armor plating onto your Yugo, it will survive a collision with an SUV. Doesn't make a Yugo a safe vehicle.
You're missing the point. No-one will have to port anything. The next generation of Intel chips will b able to run multiple Os at the same time, using virtualization.
Intel promised the same thing when the 386 was introduced. Never happened. The much-touted virtual-x86 mode was used to let OS/2 and Windows run multiple DOS boxes, but it never went beyond that.

Will the next generation of this concept do any better? Maybe, but I won't believe it until after I see it actually being used by a shipping product. Until then, it's just marketing hype.
They're not promoting it as a Windows platform; they're promoting it as a universal platform.
Oh really? Please show me where Apple is promoting their hardware as a platform for non-Apple operating systems. Their statement that they won't take explicit action to block third-party systems is hardly promotion.
I think that Apple knows that there is an advantage in increasing the user base.
You still seem to think Apple will increase their user base by lowering themselves to selling the same commodities that everybody else sells. This concept makes absolutely no sense.
The biggest single barrier to that is applications. If folk can move without fear of losing their favourite Windows application, or of being incompatible with the rest of their workmates, then I believe that the platform can start to make some real inroads. Build the market and developers will follow.
And if people find that the new system works exactly the same as their old system, they'll decide that there's no advantage to switching.
One thing that impresses me about the Mac as a development platform (although I don' use it as one myself), is the quality of the apps that are on it. I believe that many Mac developers have a passion for the platform that shows in their work.
Which doesn't amount to anything if you convince your customer base to run nothing but their pre-existing Windows apps.
but what is keeping folk on Windows is the stuff they can run, not the OS they can run it on.
What is keeping folks on Windows is inertia, plain and simple. People don't want to buy what they don't understand, even if they hate what they're currently using. This includes both corporate IT types (who are supposedly paid to know better) and end-users.
I think what you're afraid of is that now that Apple is facing MS on its own turf, they will get crushed.
And the industry is littered with the burnt-charred remains of everybody who tried.
And you still haven't said what unique piece of hardware is going to make Apple's Intel box, better than any other Intel box. Bear in mind that Intel will be supplying the same components to everybody.
I never said that they require unique hardware. I said they won't be shipping stock third-party motherboards. This solution may or may not include custom chips.

You seem to think that this is an all-or-nothing deal - either everything is custom and proprietary or everything is re-labeled Dell parts. There are an infinite number of possibilities in between these two extremes.

The only thing we do know is that the developer test boxes are not examples of the final product. We've been explicitly told that several aspects of it will be different.

[rayz]

MS Word (for DOS) was based on Bravo, a Xerox PARC product. Charles Simonyi (Bravo's creator) left PARC to join Microsoft in 1981, bringing his code with him. Word was released in 1983. Word for the Mac was based on Word for DOS. Word for Windows was based on the Word for the Mac.

I'd be surprised if any of the orginal codebase from DOS is still there! Word is acompletely different beast (and a lrg one at that!)

Excel was original, developed after Multiplan failed to compete against Lotus 1-2-3.

Mmm. Oddly enough, I though Excel was bought in.

PowerPoint was developed by Bob Gaskins, for a company called Forethought. They were acquired by Microsoft.

Never knew that!

So, no Office (the bundle) was definitely not developed in-house "from Day 1".

I'd be surpised if you'd find any original code left in Office from those days, but it is a fair point.

But you haven't answered the question about Apple' own stable MacOSX? iTunes? Final Cut? WebObjects? Motion? None of these are originals either.

Sure. And if you weld armor plating onto your Yugo, it will survive a collision with an SUV. Doesn't make a Yugo a safe vehicle.

Kind of helps though doesn't it? ... :-/

Intel promised the same thing when the 386 was introduced. Never happened. The much-touted virtual-x86 mode was used to let OS/2 and Windows run multiple DOS boxes, but it never went beyond that.

Oh, but it did work didn't it?

You still seem to think Apple will increase their user base by lowering themselves to selling the same commodities that everybody else sells. This concept makes absolutely no sense.

And you don't seem to realise that they already have! May I refer you once again to Jobs' statement at the WWDC. The OS is the differentiator, not the hardware. That's what the man said. No real point disputing it.

What is keeping folks on Windows is inertia, plain and simple. People don't want to buy what they don't understand, even if they hate what they're currently using. This includes both corporate IT types (who are supposedly paid to know better) and end-users.

Then Apple may as well pack up the whole computing match and just focus on devices and content then.

never said that they require unique hardware.

Then what are you saying?

I said they won't be shipping stock third-party motherboards. This solution may or may not include custom chips.

Then what is the point of doing your own motherboards unless they're unique? The only thing that has been really unique about Apple motherboards is their size and the fact that aren't as up to date.

You have yet to come up with this differentiator that will make Apple machines unique in the future.


You seem to think that this is an all-or-nothing deal - either everything is custom and proprietary or everything is re-labeled Dell parts. There are an infinite number of possibilities in between these two extremes.

All I'm saying is that aside from the OS, the machine will basically be a PC that will run Windows. I just don't see what Apple has to gain by doing their own motherboards. There motherboards were never superior to the ones on the Intel side anyway.

We've been explicitly told that several aspects of it will be different.

Got a link for that? Only thing we know so far is that Apple will include a custom chip that will prevent OSX from running on anything but an Apple machine. Is that the great hardware innovation you are referring to?

[shamino]

I'm not going to continue to discuss this with you on a point-by-point basis, because we're getting absolutely nowhere repeating ourselves, but I will post my source for my claim that the DTK boxes are not going to be like the commercial units, since you seem to believe I'm making this up out of whole cloth.
Got a link for that? Only thing we know so far is that Apple will include a custom chip that will prevent OSX from running on anything but an Apple machine. Is that the great hardware innovation you are referring to?
The following FAQ entry quotes the same source that I and everybody else read several months ago:

http://appleintelfaq.com/#17

Dean Reece of Apple had this to say on the topic:

We realize there are lots of folks that need to know what is going to be in the ROMs on these new machines, and what partition scheme will be used. Unfortunately, we are not yet in a position to make that information available, but we will communicate it as soon as we reasonably can. Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product.

The general consensus I've heard from other developers is:

1) They don't want us to use BIOS
2) If they haven't heard of EFI, they want us to use OF
3) If they have heard of EFI, they want us to use EFI

This is not a statement about what Apple will use, just what I've heard from developers that have an opinion on the subject.

Hang in there...
- Dean

To repeat: Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product.
If you still think they're going to be shipping off-the-shelf PC motherboards, go right ahead and believe that, but the one (and only) source from within Apple that has said anything on the subject says that this is an unwarranted assumption, citing two key features that are likely to be different.

[rayz]

If you still think they're going to be shipping off-the-shelf PC motherboards, go right ahead and believe that, but the one (and only) source from within Apple that has said anything on the subject says that this is an unwarranted assumption, citing two key features that are likely to be different.

Mmm .. don't think I said that Apple would ship the devlopment boxes as the final product. What I did say was that Apple will be making generic PCs that can run Windows.

I was going to add that Apple obviously won't sell you copy of Windows to go with your Mac, then someone pointed out that they
already do (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71908/wo/7S4rP7pQzul72NfcYmu1AHQEE0E/2.0.19.1.0.8.25.7.11.3.3)

Yes, Apple has said all along that the development machines will not be the same machines that will be shipped (one would hope they get a nicer case at least!).

Apple will ship machines based on some future Intel technology, fair enough.

What you fail to grasp is that the same technology will be available to all PC manufacturerers, at the same time. Whether they choose to use it or not is a different matter, but the fact remains that it will be available to them.

To suggest that Intel will only make EFI availabe to Apple and not Dell (wow!) is just .. well ... odd.

So again, I fail to see what bit of custom technology Apple is going to use to separate them from the rest of the Intel world. And by the way, just having your own motherboard doesn't separate you from the crowd, unless there's something about it that no-one else can do. Any bit of non-generic technology (aside from a custom DRM chip!) will do. I just don't think it'll have anything like that at all.

Maybe Apple is working on some optical chips in the bowels of Cupertino, but somehow I doubt it.

You link is just a pointer to another piece of generic Intel technology that Apple may or may not use, but will be available to everybody, which is what I've been saying all along.

So unless you can come up with some bit of tech that Apple will use, that is not available to other PC OEMs, then I agree; we're all done.

[IamBob]

Custom Chip design is something you pay for

A custom chip design, sure. However, we're not talking "custom chip design" in the traditional sense - more like an optimized version of existing designs which should've been in the works from the beginning.

IBM screwed up. They should've had the foresight - they sell boxes with G5s in them(w/ higher margins than Apple's, IIRC). IBM's customers don't want improved power efficiency and/or more computational power per-rack? I find that hard to believe.

Never-mind the 3Ghz miss.

[Fukui]

IBM screwed up. They should've had the foresight - they sell boxes with G5s in them(w/ higher margins than Apple's, IIRC). IBM's customers don't want improved power efficiency and/or more computational power per-rack? I find that hard to believe.

Never-mind the 3Ghz miss.
Its likely also a conflict of interest. Imagine if the 970 was way more powerfull and also more effecient than the Power 5/6, then they cant sell chips for U.S $10,000 a piece anymore.

The chips for video games can be faster because they are extremely specialized and therefore have a limited use to the customers of the power series... its kind of like intel delaying xeon to 64-bit cause they wanna sell itanium... its thier baby.

[rayz]

A custom chip design, sure. However, we're not talking "custom chip design" in the traditional sense - more like an optimized version of existing designs which should've been in the works from the beginning.

No matter what you call it, its custom design work. The chip that's powering the new XBOx360 is a derivative of the same PPC technology, and Microsoft still had to pay for it


IBM screwed up. They should've had the foresight - they sell boxes with G5s in them(w/ higher margins than Apple's, IIRC).

If IBM believed that Apple would ever sell enough machines to make the development worthwhile, then they may have been a little less reluctant to foot the bill. I mistakenly believed that Apple was a major IBM customer, but apparently only 2% (though some sites say the figure may have been as high as 5%) of the PPC revenues. So it's very unlikely that IBM was going to do free work for that ... :-/


IBM's customers don't want improved power efficiency and/or more computational power per-rack? I find that hard to believe.

Well, yes they do. An IBM will continue to provide that for paying customers. The vast majority of PPC chips end up in embedded systems, so I imagine that lower power/high perfomance is a requirement.

Remember that Jobs never said that IBM wasn't capable of doing it; that may be a lie that may or may not trip him up later on. What he said was that Intel offered a roadmap that was better suited Apple's plans, and this is perfectly true.

Cheap fast chips that Apple can buy off the shelf. Much cheaper than custom design work.

[Never-mind the 3Ghz miss.

Well to be honest, everyone missed their target this year, which is one of the reasons that Intel decided to sweep MHz under the carpet and go for a power/performance measure instead. MHz is a pretty meaningless measure anyway.
As an aside though; IBM was actually closer to achieving their stated target that Intel; they also had a greater %age increase in MHz than Intel too. But they did miss 3GHz, yes.

Now about that promise of hitting the magical 3. Can anyone find which IBM executive actually SAID they would do it? I can find lots of references fore Jobs saying it; but IBM seemed to have been pretty silent on it.
I find it a little odd that IBM would have agreed to continue development at that point in time, without having gotten an agreement from Apple to pay for it.