How Apple could switch to AMD [Archive]

chicagdan

Apr 12, 2002, 03:55 PM

The assumption on this board is that if there ever was an OS-X port to Intel/AMD hardware, the clones would kill Apple. But what if Apple simply locked them out?

They do that now with pre-G3 Apple Computers on OS-X, even if equipped with upgrade processors. How hard would it be for Apple to create an install program that would only allow OS-X to be installed on a Apple branded AMD machines? Sure, Sonnet provides a workaround for installing the software anyway, but I'm sure Apple could come up with a way to truly lock the door to clones running OS-X.

And that way, Apple could continue to maintain quality control over the peripherals (not to mention their sales margins), but would gain the speed and price-performance advantages of the AMD Hammer processors.

At the very least, it would make sense for Apple to port an AMD version just in case Motorola continues to be a pain in the ass who can't deliver any processor speed bump in sufficient quantities.

Geert

Apr 12, 2002, 04:08 PM

Never! That is what Steve would say, if people want to be running OS X, let them buy a Mac!

chicagdan

Apr 12, 2002, 04:12 PM

Again, you miss my point ... it WOULD be a Mac, it just would use an AMD processor instead of a Motorola or IBM processor. Why does Apple necessarily have to mean PowerPC? It doesn't and it's foolish for Apple to sell it's soul to one of the worst run corporations in the world (Motorola.)

Biggles

Apr 12, 2002, 04:14 PM

bah! dont you guys see that it there's nothing "technically" stopping Apple from porting to x86? It would only cripple Apple as a company. Just imagine Apple going out to all their developers and saying, "hey guys! nice job on carbonizing all that software so it would work on OS X....but now we need you to rebuild everything so it works on the x86 platform. So how 'bout it buddies?"

See what I mean?

You cant just switch chips and everything will be alright. None of the software would work. Absolutely none of it. Sure you could provide an emulator, but it wouldnt be fast enough. Well i guess it could be benificial in the long run, but most likely it would cause Apple to go bankrupt before the benifits start coming in.

MacManiac1224

Apr 12, 2002, 04:21 PM

biggles, you are 100% right

DakotaGuy

Apr 12, 2002, 04:31 PM

I don't care what anybody else thinks, but I am sticking by my opinion that the PowerPC is still the best processor out there. Sure they are up on us right now on Mega-Hertz, but not on technology. Everyone thinks the AMD is a great processor and it is good, but just think what a G4 could do if it was running at 1.7 GHz... I agree Motorola needs to get more speed packed in, but it will come, and when it does, the whole idea of switching to AMD or worse yet Intel will be a mute point...

alex_ant

Apr 12, 2002, 04:51 PM

I'm so sick of all this x86 talk.

Originally posted by chicagdan
The assumption on this board is that if there ever was an OS-X port to Intel/AMD hardware, the clones would kill Apple. But what if Apple simply locked them out? They do that now with pre-G3 Apple Computers on OS-X, even if equipped with upgrade processors. How hard would it be for Apple to create an install program that would only allow OS-X to be installed on a Apple branded AMD machines? Sure, Sonnet provides a workaround for installing the software anyway, but I'm sure Apple could come up with a way to truly lock the door to clones running OS-X.
There is no way to truly "lock the door." Ask Sony, ask Nintendo, ask Microsoft. No matter how good the protection is, some Taiwanese kid will be smart enough to break it. If not some Taiwanese kid, then some Taiwanese semiconductor megacorportation full of brilliant engineers and piles of cash. The DMCA does not apply outside the U.S., and I'm not sure it would apply even inside the U.S. in this situation anyway.

Even if this were unlikely, which it isn't, imagine the consequences. Apple shifts its entire focus over to x86 (because this is what it would have to do if it wanted to enter the x86 world - jump in headfirst), and everything is going well for Apple for a while (relative to everything going well for Enron in the months before its demise, anyway), and then, what's this? Tom's Hardware is reporting that some shop in Hong Kong has broken Apple's protection scheme! Well, game over. Apple gets a place in the cemetary across from Be. Apple is finished, all because they tried to appease the demands of a small group of pizza-faced Slashdot-reading nerdboy virgins who want more fps in Unreal Tournament.

And that way, Apple could continue to maintain quality control over the peripherals (not to mention their sales margins) but would gain the speed and price-performance advantages of the AMD Hammer processors.
Yes, they could. And by doing so, they would also:
- Backstab their millions of loyal PPC Mac users who have no software or hardware upgrade path
- Backstab their thousands of loyal PPC Mac software developers who have just finished, or are still working on, huge projects to port their software from Classic to OS X
- Divert resources away from the PPC architecture, essentially killing its use in their machines
- Kill AltiVec, a major selling point for one of Apple's primary target markets
- Be on the same playing field as Dell, Gateway, IBM, Compaq, etc., and forced to play by the same rules in terms of pricing, thus eliminating any chance of the kind of profits they are making now

At the very least, it would make sense for Apple to port an AMD version just in case Motorola continues to be a pain in the ass who can't deliver any processor speed bump in sufficient quantities.
SGI thought that, and look at them now. They had a perfectly good software and hardware architecture, and they were doing quite well financially (the myriad news reports of their demise failed to take into consideration their substantial classified government sales, for which earnings were not reported). But they were not content. They decided to dump MIPS and embrace the "future" - x86 and Itanium. Bigger markets, more money to be made, right? SGI got eaten alive. Absolutely skewered. They pissed off their customers, they pissed off their developers, and look at them now. X86 is a cauldron of death.

Alex

alex_ant

Apr 12, 2002, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by chicagdan
Again, you miss my point ... it WOULD be a Mac, it just would use an AMD processor instead of a Motorola or IBM processor.
Fair enough...
Why does Apple necessarily have to mean PowerPC? It doesn't and it's foolish for Apple to sell it's soul to one of the worst run corporations in the world (Motorola.)
How is Apple selling its soul? They're raking it in! Jobs is wiping his ass with thousand dollar bills! Show me another computer company in the same market as Apple who is doing as well as Apple is, who can sell a notebook computer with a *550* MHz processor and still have it sell like hotcakes. Apple is having it ****ing large, man, and you are proposing that they do away with this and shoot themselves in the head. I'm glad you're not running the company, mate, or I'd be stuck on a Compaq.

Alex

Nipsy

Apr 12, 2002, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by chicagdan
Why does Apple necessarily have to mean PowerPC?

Many million man hours. Figure those man hour at $40 per.

Let's say ten million man hours (500 developers, working 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, over the last 10 years), which is pretty damn conservative in my opinion.

10,000,000 x 40 = 400,000,000M USD

Now if Apple were to make up this effort alone, they would need to hire 5,000 developers, and put them on it for a solid year. They would also have to hire 500 managers, and 500 administrative staff.

Now Apple has doubled in size overnight, so they need a new building, which will take a year to build, etc.

And when this enormous process is over, PPC programs including OSX will run on a processor which has spent at least 50 million man hours become Windows' b i t c h.

Why not just throw that 400 million at Motorola as a bid for the IP, and the workstation staff for the G*, and get the ball rolling right?

alex_ant

Apr 12, 2002, 06:06 PM

Abercrombieboy, In terms of bang-per-MHz, there are several processors superior to even the PPC, but I will agree with you in spirit. The PPC seems to offer just the right combination of speed, cost, and power consumption. (Well, okay, maybe not speed at the moment.)

Alex

Rower_CPU

Apr 12, 2002, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by chicagdan
The assumption on this board is that if there ever was an OS-X port to Intel/AMD hardware, the clones would kill Apple. But what if Apple simply locked them out?

They do that now with pre-G3 Apple Computers on OS-X, even if equipped with upgrade processors. How hard would it be for Apple to create an install program that would only allow OS-X to be installed on a Apple branded AMD machines?

There are workarounds out there besides the Sonnet...here's a pic of X running a 604e my friend set up: http://homepage.mac.com/robin_martin/images/604e.jpg

Please stop these posts everyone...I'm really sick of seeing this pop up every few days. I have heard Apple employees respond directly to people asking this question, their answer: Why?

Apple has no reason to port OS X to the x86 platform...now or ever...

rainman::|:|

Apr 13, 2002, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by alex_ant
Abercrombieboy, In terms of bang-per-MHz, there are several processors superior to even the PPC, but I will agree with you in spirit. The PPC seems to offer just the right combination of speed, cost, and power consumption. (Well, okay, maybe not speed at the moment.)

Alex

Oh come on, in theory it's a better processor... some company *coughmoterolacough* is just dragging it's feet a bit. a lot. If the speed actually increased a lot, and not just enough to get by, there'd be none of this talk...

I really don't see what switching processors, if it were even feasible, would accomplish. On the positive side, the PPC speed lag is challenging Apple to produce an OS that runs smoothly and quickly, and feels responsive, even on low MHz chips... I'd love to see M$ do that...

pnw

alex_ant

Apr 13, 2002, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by paulwhannel

Oh come on, in theory it's a better processor... some company *coughmoterolacough* is just dragging it's feet a bit. a lot. If the speed actually increased a lot, and not just enough to get by, there'd be none of this talk...

I really don't see what switching processors, if it were even feasible, would accomplish. On the positive side, the PPC speed lag is challenging Apple to produce an OS that runs smoothly and quickly, and feels responsive, even on low MHz chips... I'd love to see M$ do that...

pnw
Didn't you read any of my other posts in this thread? I think I'm on your side here.

Alex

AlphaTech

Apr 13, 2002, 12:05 PM

IF Apple was to ever port over to the peecee hardware, it would take all the hardware makers to support OS X. They would have to make drivers work for OS X, which can take more then a little time. Consider how long those hardware companies work on their product. It has taken them years to get the drivers to work right under windblows, and now you want them to do the same for the Mac OS??? You will have them rolling all over the place laughing. Not gonna happen.... no matter how much you want it, still not gonna happen. Consider how long OS X was in public beta version, and that was for use on Apple hardware. How long has Apple been working on OS X?? How many years??? And you want them to spend that much time, porting over to the x86 architecture??

Before you even THINK about it, there is NO WAY you will be able to use ANY x86 chip on Apple hardware/motherboards. It would be like sending someone that only spoke Russian to the middle of the South American rain forest, and expect them to be able to communicate. It would take YEARS to get that to work too. If the guy didn't become dinner before then (for someone or some animal).

Let the peecee porting die as it should... when m$ ****'s the bed, many will flock to the Mac, and see what they have been missing for all those years. :D

rainman::|:|

Apr 13, 2002, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by alex_ant

Didn't you read any of my other posts in this thread? I think I'm on your side here.

Alex

Ah, forgive me, I realize that... just wanted to offer my opinion and took this point to jump in :) i do that far too often...

pnw

eirik

Apr 14, 2002, 12:29 AM

First, I am NOT an x86 advocate!!! At least not until the performance advantage were to get incredibly huge.

This is something of an academic question: what is actually done to migrate to another CPU?

The OS (Mach and Darwin) is rumored to be totally portable.

Quartz and other Apple enhancements to the OS would have to be recompiled. However, wouldn't some code have to be completely re-written?

The Cocoa API's are said to be totally ported. But, the Carbon API's are said to not be ported. So, is porting the Carbon API's simply a matter of recompiling? Or, as I suspect, some code needs to be re-written. Well, can any one cite any specific examples in programming speak? I'm just curious.

As for the 3rd party applications, if the OS and its API's are ported, don't the 3rd party folk just have to recompile? No, well, would one of you programming gurus please share with us an example of three to illustrate the dilemma?

Again, I'm not advocating this here. Yet, in a way, it really is more than just an academic query. Maybe the x86 is a bad, bad choice. But as LowEndMac recently wrote, there are a number of other CPU alternatives. Hell, in this article, it asserts that a few engineers even managed to get OS X to run on a GeForce4 alone. If Apple concludes that it must move to a superior CPU, all of these migration issues would have to be addressed. So, am I the only one curious about what actually be required to make it happen. I don't care for the generalities that have thus far been posted in this and other threads. Come on Gurus, please grace us with your knowledge and wisdom!!!

Eirik

jefhatfield

Apr 14, 2002, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by alex_ant

Fair enough...

How is Apple selling its soul? They're raking it in! Jobs is wiping his ass with thousand dollar bills! Show me another computer company in the same market as Apple who is doing as well as Apple is, who can sell a notebook computer with a *550* MHz processor and still have it sell like hotcakes. Apple is having it ****ing large, man, and you are proposing that they do away with this and shoot themselves in the head. I'm glad you're not running the company, mate, or I'd be stuck on a Compaq.

Alex

now just convince investors and then we will be fine;)

gbojim

Apr 14, 2002, 09:54 PM

A brief answer to porting to another CPU...

Darwin is pretty much running on x86. This is actually the easiest thing to port since there are few devices that have to be supported.

There have been all kinds of rumors regarding what other code has been ported to x86, and I would not be surprised if most if not all of them are true. When you are a company like Apple, the R&D teams generally "try" all kinds of things to see how easy or difficult it is to get them to work, including getting your code to work on different platforms.

In many cases, you do not have to do a lot more than recompile to get it "to work". The problem is that there is a big difference between getting it to work and creating a product that can be sold and works well.

One of the biggest issues is device drivers and we know how many thousands of devices would have to be supported to switch. I know that Apple could come out and say OS X runs on x86 and here is a limited set of devices that are support. I can't imagine the bad press they would get if they did not support almost everything. Not to mention the complaining we see every day because there is some device or other that we want to use with OS X and we can't because there is no driver.

One of the other big issues is performance. Many people complain about OS X being slow. Apple has been optimizing OS X now for over a year - mostly the GUI. We're finally starting to see some good results from that effort. A great many of those improvements are due to utilizing Altivec. We all know from the Photoshop demos that there is nothing in the x86 world that can hold a candle to Altivec. Imagine the amount of time it would take them to re-optimize for X86.

Then consider the apps. The apps that don't take advantage of Altivec could be ported pretty easily. But the apps that are optimized for Altivec like Photoshop, FCP, etc. would have to have all of the Altivec specific code replaced, and that is a big job. Most likely result - many key app developers say enough is enough and they no longer support the Mac.

So - it can be done and the work is not all that hard. There is just a lot of it and it is very time consuming. Most likely to the point that it is not practical.

j763

Apr 14, 2002, 10:30 PM

I have a friend who works for apple who is on a project porting darwin to x86...

...but don't expect to see the whole OS X for x86, cos it isn't going to happen... And don't hold out for Darwin to be publicly available for a little while yet.

Rower_CPU

Apr 14, 2002, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by j763
I have a friend who works for apple who is on a project porting darwin to x86...

Yeah, and my Grandma is working on the G5...:rolleyes:

AlphaTech

Apr 14, 2002, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU

Yeah, and my Grandma is working on the G5...:rolleyes:

Cool... I would be more inclined to believe that then someone working at Apple to port OS X to the x86 architecture.

Gelfin

Apr 15, 2002, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by j763
I have a friend who works for apple who is on a project porting darwin to x86...

...but don't expect to see the whole OS X for x86, cos it isn't going to happen... And don't hold out for Darwin to be publicly available for a little while yet.

Erm, Darwin for x86 is available now. It has been available at the same revision level as the PPC version for a long time now. You can download an ISO from http://www.darwin.org/projects/darwin/1.4/release.html .

AlphaTech

Apr 15, 2002, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by Gelfin

Erm, Darwin for x86 is available now. It has been available at the same revision level as the PPC version for a long time now. You can download an ISO from http://www.darwin.org/projects/darwin/1.4/release.html .

Only one issue... "Known to not be supported: All AMD and VIA based systems." That is found at http://www.darwin.org/projects/darwin/1.4/x86_install_notes.txt

I believe that with how narrow the compatibility list is, it won't be practical for some time to come, if ever.

Since I have an AMD powered peecee, and it won't work on it, it doesn't do me any good. I also don't have an intel ethernet controller (using 3com). IF it ever comes out for the hardware that I do have, I will snag it in a heartbeat, if not less.

Gelfin

Apr 15, 2002, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Only one issue... "Known to not be supported: All AMD and VIA based systems." That is found at http://www.darwin.org/projects/darwin/1.4/x86_install_notes.txt

I believe that with how narrow the compatibility list is, it won't be practical for some time to come, if ever.

Hey, the title of the thread notwithstanding, you guys just said "x86." Besides which, Darwin is open source, after all. You want it to work on AMD, you fix it. ;)

krossfyter

Apr 15, 2002, 02:12 AM

why is chicagdan silent now?

Xapplimatic

Apr 15, 2002, 04:19 AM

It would be foolish to switch processors at this point. Especially right after a major OS overhaul. Developers are still twichy from the OS rewrites.. led alone having to recompile for another processor. That would be way to much change, too soon. That having been said, I'm not impressed by AMD nor Intel for the very same reason and wouldn't think of having one when neither have Velocity Engine. Oh ya, Hammer is 64-bit you say... Whatever, G5 is out in June at >1.6 Ghz introductory clockspeed.. and it has even more 128-bit Velocity engine parallel processing than current G4s.. which will make even the Hammer look like its asleep at the wheel. We'd all be dAM'D if Apple switched processor types now! With the G5 just around the corner, there just isn't compelling reason to destroy Apple's software and developer base. Have patience Danielson. It will be worth the wait.

krossfyter

Apr 15, 2002, 04:30 AM

why is chicagdan silent now?

Mr. Anderson

Apr 15, 2002, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by krossfyter
why is chicagdan silent now?

A double post from krossfyter? Or were you just stepping up again and taunting chicagdan?;)

After a whole life in the computer world as the 'other' company, for Apple to switch processors would make them no different than Gateway, Dell, Compaq! Well, except that their design would set them apart, at least for a little while.

Even though its possible to port OSX for the AMD, it won't happen. But it would be interesting if we ever see a VirtualApple app for PCs so you could try to run FCP, iPod, iTunes, iMovie on a non-Apple machine.

AlphaTech

Apr 15, 2002, 09:18 AM

I don't know how well it works, but there is an app called SoftMac that allows you to run the Mac OS on the peecee. I got a demo cd when I went to MWNY last year, but never bothered with it. It might be worth looking into, to give some peecee people that want to see how great the Mac OS is a try at it (without having to shell out $$ for a complete system). Granted, it won't perform as well as the Mac OS does on it's own hardware, but it might be a tool to bring more people over to the better side of computing :D.

mcrain

Apr 15, 2002, 10:11 AM

Why would the OS have to be ported to x86? I mean, if the next version of the AMD chip is 64 bit, couldn't apple just have AMD make a version of that chip that is Apple only, I mean, not x86?

Forgive me, and dont' flame me, I just honestly don't know.

mcrain

Apr 15, 2002, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by AlphaTech
I don't know how well it works, but there is an app called SoftMac that allows you to run the Mac OS on the peecee. I got a demo cd when I went to MWNY last year, but never bothered with it. It might be worth looking into, to give some peecee people that want to see how great the Mac OS is a try at it (without having to shell out $$ for a complete system). Granted, it won't perform as well as the Mac OS does on it's own hardware, but it might be a tool to bring more people over to the better side of computing :D.

Sort of how like Virtual PC is designed to show mac users the benefits of PCs and Windoze?

Ha, I'm only kidding. I'm dying here, that's just hilarious...

Actually, I'd love to get my hands on that software so I could get used to the OS before I bought my first Apple (first since I was about 12) and so I could convice my wife that the world won't end if we don't have windoze on our computer. (But I know how to use windoze. Why do we have to change...)

AlphaTech

Apr 15, 2002, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by mcrain
Why would the OS have to be ported to x86? I mean, if the next version of the AMD chip is 64 bit, couldn't apple just have AMD make a version of that chip that is Apple only, I mean, not x86?

Forgive me, and dont' flame me, I just honestly don't know.

It's not that simple. There is more then just the pysical difference between processors, there is the encoding on them too. Currently, motorola is the only one that can produce the Altivec equiped chips. They are not allowing IBM to make them, although I thought that IBM was coming out with something that functions essentially the same.

Do you have any idea as to how long it has taken Moto to get to the G4 processor?? How many thousands of hours of R&D went into the processor??? I believe, but an not certain, that they have also been working on the G5 processor for some time now. Over a year, if not even longer. They can't just squeeze out a new processor every six months to a year. Look how long intel took to make their latest, and how long since the release of the previous to get to the newer. Same with AMD.

ejm625

Apr 15, 2002, 11:17 AM

sturm375

Apr 15, 2002, 11:58 AM

Forgive me if I am being ignorant here:

I thought the whole point of the "advanced OS" was to discontinue the power each application holds over the CPU. Along with this I thought that most if not all calls the applications make go to the OS, not to the hardware itself. So if Apple ports OS X to an x86 processor, the application's theroetically shouldn't have to be re-written, as they can make the same calls to the OS, and get the same results. If I am mistaken in this, then shame on the application engineers. The whole idea of modularity is thrown out the window by making direct calls to hardware.

Also, I almost hate to bring this up, but the PPC is not a better, or worse processor than AMD, or Intel. That is like saying that a hack-saw is better than a wood saw. These tools are somewhat specialized, you wouldn't use a hack-saw to saw down a tree, just as you wouldn't usw a wood-saw to cut a piece of metal. You don't see a Graphic Artist using an Intel platform, and you don't see CAD Engineers working on a Mac. Do not be fooled, there is a good reason for this, and it has nothing to do with user interface. See some of my previous posts if you are curious, or email me, I just don't feel like typing it out one more time.

Also we are talking about Processors, not co-processors(Velocity Engine). It shouldn't be too hard to apply an Velocity Engine to the AMD chipset. Since all AMD chipsets and Intel chipset have their own propritary technologies that do something similar to the Velocity Engine.

On the other hand, in a few years all this will be mote. Intel and AMD are already producing at the .9 Micron level. Somewhere around the .5 Micron level, a pesky little thing called Quantium Mechanics rears it's ugly little head, and the electron paths short out. So we are going to have to look at the possiblity of light, as opposed to electrons, to process.

AlphaTech

Apr 15, 2002, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by sturm375
On the other hand, in a few years all this will be mote. Intel and AMD are already producing at the .9 Micron level. Somewhere around the .5 Micron level, a pesky little thing called Quantium Mechanics rears it's ugly little head, and the electron paths short out. So we are going to have to look at the possiblity of light, as opposed to electrons, to process.

Wrong... AMD is still at the .13 micron level, and are not getting any smaller until sometime next year (second half at the earliest and THEN going to the .9 micron level). I don't know where you got your info, but I pulled mine direct from AMD's web site. The info can be found at http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_608,00.html I didn't even bother looking at intel, since I will NEVER get one of their processors, so I don't care what they do.

As for Apple using an AMD processor to run their OS. You would negate ALL of the advantages, and code, that has been created to have software take advantage of the G4 (and the 'velocity engine'). Do you really want to piss off Adobe that much??? I bet Apple doesn't.

Also, the altivec core is heavily integrated into the G4 chip. I would imagine something along the same lines will be in the G5 (if not an improved version).

gbojim

Apr 15, 2002, 01:21 PM

Also we are talking about Processors, not co-processors(Velocity Engine). It shouldn't be too hard to apply an Velocity Engine to the AMD chipset. Since all AMD chipsets and Intel chipset have their own propritary technologies that do something similar to the Velocity Engine.

Actually, that is not an easy task. Altivec is a generic SIMD whereas the AMD and Intel extensions are specific to graphics and different to each other. Also, Intel nor AMD could copy Altivec since it is patented.

Result - the apps that do not need Altivec are easy to port, but those that are Altivec optimized either have to have the Altivec component rewritten twice (once for Intel and once for AMD) or they lose the performance advantage of Altivec.

sturm375

Apr 15, 2002, 01:28 PM

I did not mean that they are available to consumers, but the fact that they have a timetable set for deployment, means thay have produced some prototypes at the.9 Micron level. Chip developers do a lot of things they don't advertise on their websites. I have heard credible reports of Intel running a P4 at 8-10 Ghz. They haven't released the AMD 64-bit chip to the public yet, however I have seen Linux distrobutions that claim to support it. I don't dispute this because I have also seen reports that some of the major Linux players were heavily consulted in the design of AMD's chip.

I also didn't mean that, Adobe for instance, hasn't programed direct to hardware, I just meant that they shouldn't. They should be calling to the OS, then it is Apple's sole responsiblilty to maintain the calls to hardware. That is theoretically what the OS is supposed to do. Besides, Adobe hasn't even tried to optimize for the Intel world, and they still sell loads to the Intel world.

AlphaTech

Apr 15, 2002, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by sturm375
I did not mean that they are available to consumers, but the fact that they have a timetable set for deployment, means thay have produced some prototypes at the.9 Micron level. Chip developers do a lot of things they don't advertise on their websites. I have heard credible reports of Intel running a P4 at 8-10 Ghz. They haven't released the AMD 64-bit chip to the public yet, however I have seen Linux distrobutions that claim to support it. I don't dispute this because I have also seen reports that some of the major Linux players were heavily consulted in the design of AMD's chip.

I also didn't mean that, Adobe for instance, hasn't programed direct to hardware, I just meant that they shouldn't. They should be calling to the OS, then it is Apple's sole responsiblilty to maintain the calls to hardware. That is theoretically what the OS is supposed to do. Besides, Adobe hasn't even tried to optimize for the Intel world, and they still sell loads to the Intel world.

Adobe HAS made code within their programs to take advantage of the Altivec core. Where have you been??? That was one of the large announcements that came out not long after the G4 was introduced.

As for AMD and 64-bit processors... read up on the AMD XP chip series... they are 64-bit. They are also in both desktops being made as well as for sale by themselves (for people wanting to make computers with them inside).

I'm sure that they are working on making the chips use the .9 micron process, but who knows what stage they are at... It is highly likely that they are still in the design stage, or working the major bugs out of the process alone. Never mind actually making any chips. As for the time frame, that is probably being optimistic. With stating half-years, they could release them on the last day of that span and get away with it. IF it doesn't get delayed that is, which computer items are often known to have happen.

Oh yeah, one other thing... I wouldn't believe anything about intel coming out with fast/good products until it has actually hit the market, and passed it's first recall.

We have also been hearing rumors/credible reports of the G5 at over 1.3GHz for some time now. People claiming that they have them, or seen them, but no solid evidence as of yet. Just becuase someone took a bong hit and claims to have seen something, doesn't mean that it is actually out there.

gbojim

Apr 15, 2002, 02:37 PM

I also didn't mean that, Adobe for instance, hasn't programed direct to hardware, I just meant that they shouldn't. They should be calling to the OS, then it is Apple's sole responsiblilty to maintain the calls to hardware. That is theoretically what the OS is supposed to do. Besides, Adobe hasn't even tried to optimize for the Intel world, and they still sell loads to the Intel world.

I do not expect Adobe programs directly to hardware. Apple does provide the the APIs to take advantage of Altivec and I would be amazed if Adobe does not use them. The problem is that the APIs Apple makes available for Altivec are totally different than what could be made available for the Intel for AMD processors - so the APIs would most likely change.

mcrain

Apr 15, 2002, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Oh yeah, one other thing... I wouldn't believe anything about intel coming out with fast/good products until it has actually hit the market, and passed it's first recall.

Dude, you are one jaded cat. You sound like an old ex-girlfriend. Wow, intel must have really given you a royal scre**ing at some point.

You know of course that lots of people used to say the same sorts of things about our dearly beloved harleys. By the way, my bike was in and out of the shop, nothing major, and I'm still picking the bugs out of my teeth.

AlphaTech

Apr 15, 2002, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by mcrain

Dude, you are one jaded cat. You sound like an old ex-girlfriend. Wow, intel must have really given you a royal scre**ing at some point.

You know of course that lots of people used to say the same sorts of things about our dearly beloved harleys. By the way, my bike was in and out of the shop, nothing major, and I'm still picking the bugs out of my teeth.

I have never owned anything from intel, and plan to keep things that way. My bro-in-law purchased a peecee not long after I got my Mac clone. He went with the p2, since the pee3 was just coming out, very shortly after it got the recall. He made a huge mistake in getting a compaq system, which he didn't realize until he tried to load some games for his kids. Those same games ran without a hitch on my Mac :D.

Every Harley rider knows that there were the dark years of AMF and HD. Those are in the past now, and quality has been through the roof for some years now. HD bikes are the standard that all the rest are held up to. So far, I have yet to find any other bikes that have the same quality of fit and finish as the Harley's do. Then again, when you are shelling out that kind of money, you sort of expect it.

Oh yeah, I got my first bill for the loan that I got from HD for my ride... What other vehicle maker, and loan holder, puts 'new loan - thank you' on the statement??? It's the little touches that makes things so much nicer :D

Oh yeah, you are supposed to keep your mouth closed when you are going down the road... keeps the bugs out. Either that, or get a windshield or face shield for your helmet. :rolleyes:

sturm375

Apr 15, 2002, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by AlphaTech

Adobe HAS made code within their programs to take advantage of the Altivec core. Where have you been??? That was one of the large announcements that came out not long after the G4 was introduced.

Read Carefully!

I said that Adobe has not even tried to optimize for the INTEL platform. And they still sell loads of product to the INTEL (x86) platform.

As for Athlon XP being 64-bit, I'll have to check out their website, but I bet it is 64-bit like the G4 is 128-bit:) Meaning it has to do with their respective "Velocity Engines", the actual processor is only 32-bit wide.

eirik

Apr 15, 2002, 03:56 PM

Guys, what does it actually mean to optimize for AltiVec?

One way to do so is to construct your algorithms in the form of matrix mathematics because AltiVec loves matrix math and one's compiler will automatically do the Altivec coding for you once you write in terms of matrices. Here is an excellent article:

O'Reilly Network article on AltiVec Programming (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mac/2002/04/05/altivec.html)

Someone said earlier that the AMD and Intel single instruction multiple data (SIMD) implementations are specialized for multimedia whereas AltiVec is more generalized.

Well, can someone post something about the API's that are typically employed for AltiVec acceleration that would necessitate reprogramming?

I don't know how AMD and Intel handle matrix operations. But if they can handle them, the code would work. If their SIMD is designed to handle matrix operations, then application code may need little if any rework. Matrix math is an excellent construct for complicated operations of large quantities of data. I suspect many programmers don't fully utilize this construct as they should.

Another poster mentioned that applications should be written for the OS and not the CPU. I agree!!! Does anyone know of any specific exceptioins?

People talk of drivers requiring re-writes. Well, no ****!!! But would one of you programming geniuses out there give us a little insight into just that entails?

I hope a radically improved G4 or G5 will render all of this discussion moot. But just in case Apple does need to make a CPU switch, these discussions would prove useful. Nonetheless, they should be very instructive, making us all better Mac users.

Eirik

AlphaTech

Apr 15, 2002, 03:57 PM

sturm375, let the pipe dream of Apple switching to an AMD processor go. It's not gonna happen. At least not processors built on the x86 architecture. Maybe, HUGE maybe, they would join the partnership and make additional Gx chips. They would need to re-tool in order to do that, which would probably be more cost then they can afford to put out. Considering how intel is the major chip for many peecee's (not because of cost, but because they have everyone snowed). AMD is holding on, and trying to make advances that put them on better footing to compete with intel in the peecee marketplace.

I would rather see IBM make the G5 or G6 processor, since they already make the G3 faster and better then motorola does.

Rower_CPU

Apr 15, 2002, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by sturm375

Read Carefully!

I said that Adobe has not even tried to optimize for the INTEL platform. And they still sell loads of product to the INTEL (x86) platform.

As for Athlon XP being 64-bit, I'll have to check out their website, but I bet it is 64-bit like the G4 is 128-bit:) Meaning it has to do with their respective "Velocity Engines", the actual processor is only 32-bit wide.

Actually with the Photoshop 6.0.1 update the added patches for better performance on the P4...sounds like optimization to me. ;)

gbojim

Apr 15, 2002, 05:44 PM

Well, can someone post something about the API's that are typically employed for AltiVec acceleration that would necessitate reprogramming?

You already found it in the article you quoted. Following is a code snippet from that article:

for (i=1; i<=n/4; i++) {
z[i]=vec_add(x[i],y[i]);
}

The vec_add part is vector addition which can only be done with a vector processor - e.g. Altivec. For those of you not into programming, vec_add is a function provided in OS X which is part of the Altivec API. Intel and AMD do not use generic vector processors, so Apple would have to somehow figure out how to view your vector info as if it were multimedia data. Not sure how to do that - I've never tried but I expect it is possible. Then, they would have to figure out how to switch between Intel and AMD because their instructions are different. I don't know how possible it would be to make the OS figure out if it was AMD or Intel or PPC on the fly and use the right instructions, I can't think of any way to do it right now. Any other systems programmer types have an idea? If they can't figure out how to do that, then the function of vec_add changes possibly to the point the app developer has to recode that part of the app.

People talk of drivers requiring re-writes. Well, no ****!!! But would one of you programming geniuses out there give us a little insight into just that entails?

You have some sort of device - say a network adapter. The device has a very specific set of parameters that must be adhered to when you talk to it for it to work properly. For example, on the network adapter there are certain memory addresses where you pick up packets that have been received. The operating system also has a very specific set of parameters that must be adhered to when a device talks to the OS for the OS to work properly (ie the APIs). For example, a certain OS function would have to be called when the network adapter receives a new packet. The driver is the code that interfaces between the function calls provided by the OS APIs and the specifics of the device itself. Every device needs a unique driver for every OS you want it to work with. (Some companies are designing hardware now where they can use one driver for an entire family of devices.) So for every device that needs to talk to the OS, someone needs to write the program - normally in C, to make that interface happen.

Hope this helps.