PDA

View Full Version : Apple and Intel


arn
Jul 18, 2002, 11:51 AM
This Reuters story (http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=1214469) quotes Steve Jobs regarding the possibility of OS X on Intel:

Some analysts have also urged Apple to move to microchips from Intel Corp. INTC.O from those made by Motorola Inc. MOT.N and International Business Machines Corp. IBM.N to cut costs.

Asked about that possibility, Jobs said that first the company had to finish the transition to the OS X operating system, expected around the end of this year.

"Then we'll have options, and we like to have options," he said.

mcrain
Jul 18, 2002, 11:55 AM
Oh my... First, Apple turns the iPod into the iWalk, and now, Apple and Intel??

Oh, the irony....

Kethoticus
Jul 18, 2002, 12:02 PM
Frankly, I'd prefer AMD, but hey. Anything would be an improvement right now.

sjs
Jul 18, 2002, 12:06 PM
Back when Fortune Magazine did an article about OSX, well before its original release, the author suggested strongly that this type of move would occur due to the nature of UNIX. I felt then and now that either Apple will use Wintel parts or port to Wintel. The former is more likely and a better business model.

I will try to find a link.

Also, does the end of this year have any relation to when the PPC agreement ends?

AlphaTech
Jul 18, 2002, 12:09 PM
intel chips are NOT cheap... they are about 2x the cost of chips from AMD, and don't have the performance to come even close to justifying the extra cost.

IF Apple was to switch chip makers, they should go to AMD, who has a history of producing quality processors. In the recent past, intel has had to recall the first runs of their pentium chips (did that with the p3 and p4). AMD has not done that with their line of chips dating from the same time frame.

Besides, "intel inside" is NOT something I want to see on a Mac, EVER.

gopher
Jul 18, 2002, 12:11 PM
Transition will never be complete until QuarkXpress upgraded to Mac OS X. I don't use QuarkXpress but know lots of people who do, and have not upgraded to Mac OS X because of it. In fact all applications that are killer applications need to be updated before the transition is complete. Oh and the economy has to pick up again. Either that, or offer all updates at reduced cost. Get people in the ball game first before slapping them with higher fees. I might be able to afford it myself, but I can't afford to upgrade everyone I know.

aaronvegh
Jul 18, 2002, 12:19 PM
There's way more to moving to an x86 processor than porting the OS! Every single Mac application will also have to be imported. A new processor means a new instruction set. This will be just like moving apps from Classic to Carbon or Cocoa. Can you seriously expect Apple to put developers through that kind of transition so soon after OS X?

I suppose it's possible, but it's not terribly likely.

dhdave
Jul 18, 2002, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by AlphaTech:

intel chips are NOT cheap... they are about 2x the cost of chips from AMD, and don't have the performance to come even close to justifying the extra cost.

Intel is the chip leader by MILES. AMD chips and their accompanying chipsets aren't anywhere NEAR as stable as their Intel counterparts and they aren't near as fast. Go to Anandtech.com and research the benchmarks, then come back and run your mouth.

Personally I hope Apple doesn't have to go with Intel, AMD or any X86 architecture. Especially after all the time and money they've invested bad-mouthing it. But something tells me this is definitely in the cards. While it will be fascinating to watch this play out, I can't see Apple as a "clone" manufacturer a la Dell, Gateway, etc. Will they somehow figure a way to ensure that OS X only runs on Apple hardware? And if they don't, what will become of Apple hardware? Apple makes all of it's money on hardware sales, doesn't it?

dh

GPTurismo
Jul 18, 2002, 12:23 PM
I agree with DHDaves position that apple should not go Intel or AMD...

sjs
Jul 18, 2002, 12:24 PM
"The truly radical changes in OS X are under the hood. Based on Next's operating system, OS X is actually a blood relative of industrial-strength Unix operating systems like Sun's Solaris and Linux, the current freeware sensation; hence OS X is far less likely to crash than any previous Mac OS. Because of its lineage, Mac OS X may not even require a Mac; with a little fiddling by Apple, it could be made to work in Dells, Compaqs, or other Intel-based PCs. (Tevanian stresses that this is not one of Apple's immediate priorities.)"

http://www.fortune.com/indexw.jhtml?channel=artcol.jhtml&doc_id=00001614

sjs
Jul 18, 2002, 12:28 PM
Note that the latter part of the paragraph says OSX can be made to run on PC's and Tevanian says that is not currently (2000) in the plans.

Just think...you've got a Dell, you are sick of Windows. You order the $129 OSX and change your existing machine to OSX.

Huge profits for Apple. Plus those who like it...their next machine may be a Mac.

AlphaTech
Jul 18, 2002, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by dhdave
Intel is the chip leader by MILES. AMD chips and their accompanying chipsets aren't anywhere NEAR as stable as their Intel counterparts and they aren't near as fast. Go to Anandtech.com and research the benchmarks, then come back and run your mouth.

Listen up Bubba... I have a box sitting in my office with an AMD Athlon (650MHz) processor in it (slot A) that has been running 24/7 for OVER two years now. The ONLY time it has gone down is when the building has lost power. It is ROCK SOLID, end of story.

I have a game pc at home that I constructed and recently installed an XP2100+ chip into it. The 1.4GHz T-Bird was stable as all hell, and performed great, but I wanted the numbers, so I installed the 2100+ chip. That has also been ROCK SOLID.

Do I care about the benchmarks?? Not really, I know both these systems are solid as all hell, as is the system that I built for my mother (put a 1GHz T-Bird into that). I know from experience that the motherboard makes a HUGE difference when you are talking about a pc's performance and stability. Giga-byte boards are top notch when it comes to AMD processors. I use those in all the systems that I build and have NEVER had ANY issues with them. I tried an Asus board when I was constructing the game system (last year) and it was flakey as a bleach blonde. I went to the Giga-byte board I originally wanted (was talked into an asus board by a salesman, never went with anything he suggested after that) and it worked perfectly right out of the box.

You will never find an intel chip in any system I own, no matter what. So go take your intel benchmarks and shove them... :p

BTW, benchmarks CAN be manipulated to show just about anything you want them to. Real world performance is what really matters. Then you are talking about the entire system, NOT just the processor. :rolleyes: :p

nuckinfutz
Jul 18, 2002, 12:39 PM
What do you do with Altivec?

Apps would have to be rewritten.


all in all the marginal speed increase wouldn't be worth it.

theranch
Jul 18, 2002, 12:59 PM
This part of the article seems to back up the new powermac release in August....maybe.
----------------------
Chief Financial Officer Fred Anderson also said that there would be more new products this quarter and that Apple intended to price them competitively.
----------------------

type_r503
Jul 18, 2002, 01:01 PM
If apple switches to Intel then they would have the same hardware as their competitors. People would have no reason to spend twice as much for mac hardware anymore. They would simply by a Dell for $800 then $129 for OSX, instead of $2000 for the apple hardware.

type_r

Mr. Anderson
Jul 18, 2002, 01:05 PM
How would this effect the software? Would you be able to put OSX on any machine and it would run Mac software? I'm thinking that there would be a lot more to it, and it would be a bumpy road getting it up and stable for all apps.

Besides, if Apple ported to the PC - that would probably cause the eventual end of Apple Hardware as we know it. Apple would have to compete with the elcheapo machines, and they just can't win there - design or no design.

Not sure how happy I am about these *options* being open.

D

Grokgod
Jul 18, 2002, 01:06 PM
ONe major question has to be addressed.

Is OSX unix enough to be ported to a different chip without having to redo the applications that too SO long to get for OSX?

I do NOT think that the Software companies that took and are still taking their sweet time to create OSX apps are going to start ALL over again.

SO does anyone really know the answer to this?

barkmonster
Jul 18, 2002, 01:12 PM
I think mac will stick with IBM and Motorola for their consumer and desktop macs.

The one area where it wouldn't matter as much if it was OS X on intel or AMD is the servers.

I know they've only just come out but seeing as there would be far fewer applications needed on a server running OS X server, I think changing to a different chip in a year or so to decrease the cost of the Xserve would make sense, it would also totally seperate the servers from the desktops.

I don't see apple ever using AMD or Intel chips in their main product line, it would kill them. It's the mac's completely different design that accounts for a lot of it's character, if it's just another intel box with some flashy case and OS X, I can see a lot of mac owners in complete dismay, PC's would look even more value for money compared with macs if they we're practically the same apart from the OS.

thinmann
Jul 18, 2002, 01:19 PM
[i]Besides, "intel inside" is NOT something I want to see on a Mac, EVER. [/B]

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

iGav
Jul 18, 2002, 01:26 PM
Apple should just stick with the PPC...... if only Apple, IBM and Motorola started working togther properly we'd be away........

strider42
Jul 18, 2002, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by type_r503
If apple switches to Intel then they would have the same hardware as their competitors. People would have no reason to spend twice as much for mac hardware anymore. They would simply by a Dell for $800 then $129 for OSX, instead of $2000 for the apple hardware.

type_r

Apple uses a hardware rom to prevent such things, even on the current powerPC platform. Plus, the OS wouldn't be written to support any old random hardware. Just because a computer uses the same chipset doesn't mean the motherboard and other components are the same and supported (as evidenced by the fact that the OS install CD's that come with a mac won't work on newer or older machines that are fully capable of running the same version of the OS, apple updates the OS every single time a new machine comes out, whether or not they increase the version number)

zarathustra
Jul 18, 2002, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by sjs
Note that the latter part of the paragraph says OSX can be made to run on PC's and Tevanian says that is not currently (2000) in the plans.

Just think...you've got a Dell, you are sick of Windows. You order the $129 OSX and change your existing machine to OSX.

Huge profits for Apple. Plus those who like it...their next machine may be a Mac. :rolleyes:

Huge profits for Apple? Their next machine may be a Mac? I hope you just forgot to turn on your <sarcasm> tag. All they need is a manufactrer that can deliver PPC chips that fly - IBM? Or, as a far stretch, buy AltiVec, etc. and license it to AMD.

sith33
Jul 18, 2002, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Grokgod
ONe major question has to be addressed.

Is OSX unix enough to be ported to a different chip without having to redo the applications that too SO long to get for OSX?

I do NOT think that the Software companies that took and are still taking their sweet time to create OSX apps are going to start ALL over again.

SO does anyone really know the answer to this?

The thing is, even when you port *nix to another chip, you still have to recompile every application. Thats why there are different binaries for linux on x86 and linux on PPC. Now, in a totally GPL world, this isn't too hard to use - just recompile yourself. Now try and convince Adobe, Microsoft, Macromedia to release new versions of their apps. That's assuming a 1:1 port too, but that would only be the case if applications were totally abstracted to the various libraries (cocoa). In reality, it would probably be a significant undertaking to get photoshop/office/whatever up and running on an intel based OSX. So, then you have to convince all the OSX users to rebuy all their software *again* ... and so on.

I just can't imagine it happening. And anyways, who really needs all that cpu power? I went from a 1.2ghz athlon to an 800mhz imac and am more than happy - FCP, DVD Studio Pro... everything seems just fine to me. Oh well..

evilfunkgenius
Jul 18, 2002, 01:31 PM
just keep this in your head: how can apple make more money and gain more marketshare? because no doubt, that is what is in apple management's brains right now.

eg. the iPod is really desired for it's simplicity and design (interface and exterior), therefore it was made available to the wintel market to help profits. and transposed, this shows OS X having quite the same potential. additionally, computer systems have been merging features and blurring lines of difference for years now, and I think there are definately traces of some transition -- especially listening to the "windows compatibility" undertones in the recent announcements.

wether we fanatical "geeks" like it or not, as shown with .mac pricing, the bottom line reflects that apple is a growing public company and thus needs to make money, show profits and gain market share in whatever way they can do it.

topicolo
Jul 18, 2002, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
What do you do with Altivec?

Apps would have to be rewritten.


all in all the marginal speed increase wouldn't be worth it.

Meh, Apple would just need to tell both of the 2 companies that make altivec enabled software to update. :D

dhdave
Jul 18, 2002, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by type_r503:

If apple switches to Intel then they would have the same hardware as their competitors. People would have no reason to spend twice as much for mac hardware anymore. They would simply by a Dell for $800 then $129 for OSX, instead of $2000 for the apple hardware.

That's my feeling as well. I just don't see how they could make it work. UNLESS, there were a new chipset from the ground up that ran the processors. Not being a micro-electronics engineer I have no idea if that would even be possible.

dh

hochd
Jul 18, 2002, 01:43 PM
Apple, if it really wants to survive in the long run, has to become more dependent on its software than its hardware for the bottom line. People update their software more frequently than they update their hardware. I mean except for those of us doing high-end graphics and video editing, how many people really need faster than dual-gig processors for writing e-mail, balancing their checkbooks, etc. ?

I think if OSX is everything Apple wants us to believe it is, then I'm sure like other Unix operating systems it can be platform independent. That was also one of the original design goals of Windows NT. Create a device layer between the OS and the hardware so that software running on top of the OS doesn't have to care what the hardware is.

I love the MAC environment and do all of my video and image editing on it, but I struggle to justify paying a premium for the hardware when I want a separate system to run my home office applications like MS-Word and Quicken.

When I have a lot of peripherals to connect to my computer and I don't want to plug and pray, give me MAC hardware/software all the way, when this is not an issue, give me a cheap Dell with OS X running on it.

David

beatle888
Jul 18, 2002, 01:46 PM
we were just talking about this before the expo and
everybody was saying how apple should go with a
different manufacturer for chips......we were saying that....we
didnt care what hardware apple ran on as long as
it was faster......well, Im not going to back paddle on
that one.....if we could have the speed of the rest
of the computer world and osx....thats fine with me...
but not if it would KILL apple.....thats the only stipulation.

Snowy_River
Jul 18, 2002, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Grokgod
ONe major question has to be addressed.

Is OSX unix enough to be ported to a different chip without having to redo the applications that too SO long to get for OSX?

I do NOT think that the Software companies that took and are still taking their sweet time to create OSX apps are going to start ALL over again.

SO does anyone really know the answer to this?

From the beginning, this has been a possibility. The simple answer is, no. Developers wouldn't have to rewrite anything. They would, however, have to recompile everything. So, now you'd have to have a disk the is Mac OS X, PPC, and another disk for Mac OS X on Intel.

However, NO CLASSIC APPS WOULD WORK AT ALL. The original code name for Classic was Blue Box. Blue Box existed on PPC builds of Mac OS X from the beginning. Red Box existed on Intel compatible builds of Mac OS X. What is Red Box? Basically, it's the equivalent of Classic, but instead of providing a classic Mac environment, it provided a classic Windows environment. Blue Box cannot run on Intel, and Red Box cannot run on PPC.

Now, as I understand it, part of the reason that this has never been more than a behind the scenes project (part of the technical reason, leaving business reasons aside for the moment) is that one of the strengths of Mac OS X is its integration with the hardware. Apple knows exactly what hardware is out there that Mac OS X needs to deal with. Now, if they were to release Mac OS X for Intel, they'd need to deal with every variation of PC hardware out there for at least the past couple of years. This includes not only Dell, Compac, IBM, but also the corner computer assembler, and the guy who built a computer in his basement from spare parts. This presents a tremendous technical challenge. Failure could ruin the reputation of Mac OS X being so stable and easy to use. Certainly, not a road to be ventured down lightly.

Personally, I do hope that Apple stays away from the x86 architecture world. It's nice to have options. Everyone I know that has worked with hardware from both sides has always said that Mac hardware is much higher quality than anything that you can get in the Intel/AMD world.

alex_ant
Jul 18, 2002, 01:48 PM
Could this week get any more miserable for Apple fans? First the news that there will be no upgrade pricing for 10.2. Then $100/year for ".Mac" (which is the most retarded name ever, by the way). Then no new Power Macs at Macworld (aside from the fact that when we WILL see them, they'll only be speed-bumped again anyway). Then a glimmer of truth to the OS X on x86 rumors. I predict that the Mac loyalist population will be down 20% by year's end solely due to mass suicides.

Megaquad
Jul 18, 2002, 01:51 PM
Steve could be pointing that some other chipmaker might license PowerPC and Altivec technology's and create a competitive product for next generation of macs.

ot13r32
Jul 18, 2002, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
What do you do with Altivec?

Apps would have to be rewritten.


all in all the marginal speed increase wouldn't be worth it.

Altivec would be one of the easiest parts to transition!
Most of the instructions can be mapped
in a straightforward fashion onto AMD or Intel SIMD
instructions (SSE/SSE2/3DNow!). Other kinds of
hand optimizations would be more difficult
to duplicate, although this might not have a big
impact on how quickly a port could appear.

The largest problems will arise from hardware dependent
code. If Apple has encapsulated the hardware dependent
stuff intelligently, they should be able to port OSX without
too much mess.

The biggest problem for developers would presumably
be driver related. Assuming Apple addressed a standardized
proprietary supported hardware configuration (a single
mobo/chipset/cpu family), it seems as though they could
tackle this as well.

Cheers, Yon

AlphaTech
Jul 18, 2002, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Could this week get any more miserable for Apple fans? First the news that there will be no upgrade pricing for 10.2. Then $100/year for ".Mac" (which is the most retarded name ever, by the way). Then no new Power Macs at Macworld (aside from the fact that when we WILL see them, they'll only be speed-bumped again anyway). Then a glimmer of truth to the OS X on x86 rumors. I predict that the Mac loyalist population will be down 20% by year's end solely due to mass suicides.

I'll take your hardware after you off yourself... :D

I, for one, was really hoping to NOT see any updates to the PowerBook line. Since I am not in the market for a second Mac system at this point, it doesn't really matter to me.

I DO want to see the upgrade price extended to people that purchased at least the current generation of systems (towers, iBooks, TiBooks...) since they all came with the software coupons. Maybe make it even cheaper (free?) for people that also purchased 10.1 when it came out. I have done both things, and have the coupons to proove it. :D

AlphaTech
Jul 18, 2002, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Megaquad
Steve could be pointing that some other chipmaker might license PowerPC and Altivec technology's and create a competitive product for next generation of macs.

Hey megawad ;)... I vote that they allow AMD to do it... Currently AMD (and even intel) is producing new chip lines much faster then motorola is.

reyesmac
Jul 18, 2002, 02:33 PM
I believe that Apple will NEVER make a Mac that will be capable of running the Windows OS. It will NEVER run on Intel brand chips. It will NEVER be as compatible with all the hardware/pci cards/video cards available for the pc.

Apple will most likely make a motherboard that will work with one of intels competitors or whichever chip company makes a chip that runs cool, doesnt matter if its x86 or not. They said they would have options. Frying an egg on top of an iBook is not what I would call a feature. Since the chip and the motherboard wont be 100% pc compatible, you wont be able to run Windows on it. However I do see the possibility of running windows apps although that would not work with major windows apps. It would be like a really crappy version of classic.

Apple will do the Apple thing and make a computer that is as compatible as the ones we have now as far as hardware is concerned. It will have the possibility of running more hardware just like ours but it wont until the companies port their drivers to run on OS XI. So we would be in the same place as we are now. Only marketshare can help get more drivers ported over.

You will not be able to use anything that is not mac compatible from a pc like just like today. You will not be able to build your own mac unless you use mac compatible parts from macs bought from apple. You wont get to use classic unless it is in a virtual pc kind of application. Apple will not advertise a change to another chip as a move to a more pc compatible mac.

On the upside it would mean that after a while, the imac and powermacs will go down in price and the laptops will be on par as far as speed is concerned with desktops. Clock speeds will be much higher and go up faster. And the best part I think is that we will be able to laugh at PC people because we took PC hardware and made it run "lightyears" ahead of their own setup.

sphereboy
Jul 18, 2002, 02:33 PM
Doesn't make any sense to me. I switched over to MAC to get rid of all these PC related problems. PC's have so many different options, MAC is just reliable and plain simple.

All this hardware talk is gonna start becoming an Attack of the MAC Clones.

Then Apple will hire some dude that looks like the 'dude' from dell to promote and sell their Macs. :(

blakespot
Jul 18, 2002, 02:34 PM
If Apple did move to an INTEL-based processor (or AMD), this would not mean they would be building PC's. They would have no need to take on the 20 year old baggage of the PC. They would not be Windos compatible / PC compatible machines. They would be Macs with Intel or AMD CPU's.

There is a difference. Apple must remain a hardware company.


blakespot

Megaquad
Jul 18, 2002, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by AlphaTech


Hey megawad ;)... I vote that they allow AMD to do it... Currently AMD (and even intel) is producing new chip lines much faster then motorola is.
hey alpha..how comei didn't saw you on IRC? people are wondering where are you ;)
as for AMD,it is very possible,i don't remember exactly but..someone licensed or allowed AMD to take a look at PowerPC architecture (motorola maybe? if someone remembers please tell)
and both Apple and AMD are members of Hypertransport group.. (are they?:D)
Intel? naahh.. Apple always shows how macs are faster then Intel,they wouldn't be doing that if they knew they must switch to Intel,that would be suicide.

danman
Jul 18, 2002, 02:47 PM
The options Jobs was referring to were other PPC based chips. Namely Power4 Jnr. and Power5 in 2003/4

Steve M
Jul 18, 2002, 02:49 PM
While Apple may switch from Motorola to IBM, Intel, AMD, Transmeta, or whatever, you will *never* be able to buy a Dell and install OSX on it. Not a chance. No way. Apple has to control the hardware too, or you end up with the same problems that the Wintel world has -- infinite hardware configurations leading to all kinds of compatibility problems. Apple should NEVER stop making hardware.

And that "if they want to survive in the long run" comment was pretty funny -- Apple's been around longer than every other PC manufacturer out there except IBM :D

sjs
Jul 18, 2002, 03:07 PM
Apple should make the hardware, but it should be able to use chips from AMD, Intel and so on. The OSX / Apple software would require recompiling and would come with an install disc for PPC or another disc for x86.

Assuming this is doable with OSX's Unix core, isn't that all GOOD? What could be bad about that?

draekkyn
Jul 18, 2002, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Steve M
While Apple may switch from Motorola to IBM, Intel, AMD, Transmeta, or whatever, you will *never* be able to buy a Dell and install OSX on it. Not a chance. No way. Apple has to control the hardware too

Thought: Apple cozies up to a PC maker, and establishes a realtionship to build a PC (or maybe just parts, mobo, etc... specifically designed for OS X with extremely rigid hardware requirements... can't just slap any old hardware in, needs higher end stuff that is meant for X on PC.

I am thinking of a company they are kind of cozying up to... Sony. Imagine a Vaio running X, not that I would want to see that!

alex_ant
Jul 18, 2002, 03:30 PM
Here's what Apple needs if it decides to move away from the Motorola PowerPC: An architecture that:

1) Is reasonably fast
2) Has good long-term survival prospects
3) Consumes reasonable amounts of power
4) Will scale upward in performance steadily and rapidly
5) Is inexpensive
6) Is suitable for everything from small notebooks to rack-mount servers to multi-CPU workstations

Let's look at the options.

Alpha: Meets 1.
PA-RISC: Meets 1.
SPARC: Meets 1 and 2.
Itanium: Meets 1, 2, and 4.
IBM G3: Meets 2, 3, and 5.
POWER4-derivative: Meets 1, 2, 4, possibly 5, and possibly 6.
x86: Meets 1, 2, 4, 5, and possibly 6.
MIPS: Meets all of them.

Remember the rumors of Apple buying SGI a while back? Guess whose markets in midrange graphics and visualization Apple is aggressively pursuing: SGI's. Isn't it interesting that SGI designs its own chips? At the moment, their fastest chip runs at 600MHz, but it performs faster than a 1GHz G4 (AltiVec aside). Note, though, that it only consumes 18 watts of power on a .13u process. Think of what that could mean for Apple.

Here is what a buyout of SGI would give to Apple:

- A great, efficient, scalable processor architecture that, although low-clocked, is still a good performer (substantially better than PPC) and is on the cutting edge of processor design without being tied to any single manufacturer.
- With that processor architecture would come a way out of PowerPC, or a backup plan if they decide to stick with PowerPC.
- A better foothold in the low-end and midrange graphics markets, not to mention complete domination in high-end graphics. (High margins and big profits)
- An excellent engineering team, responsible for pioneering NUMA etc.
- An awesome filesystem (XFS)
- Instant cred in the Unix markets. Nobody's going to be saying "Apple is a toy maker" when there exist 1024-processor Apple Origin 3000s.
- Huge discounts on hardware for Pixar. :)

A MIPS Mac would mean an INCREASED distinction between Macs and PCs, not the decreased distinction everyone seems to be (stupidly) clamoring for. Imagine a quad-CPU MIPS Mac that would draw less power than a single-CPU Itanium or POWER4 - not to mention all 4 CPUs combined would cost less.

I really hope Apple does NOT move anywhere NEAR x86, as it is a crap, brute-force hack job of an architecture (I said crap, not slow) that has spelled either gloom or death for most every alternative OS maker ever to set foot on it (Be, NeXT, and IBM come to mind; Linux is small beans and mostly non-commercial and it doesn't count). Let's embrace modernity and efficiency! Let's snub our noses at the 6-pound heat sinks and 10,000 rpm cooling fans and 400-watt power supplies of the x86 world. They may be faster, but they're nowhere near as elegant or well-designed.

Alex

DharvaBinky
Jul 18, 2002, 03:30 PM
I've read all of these replies and thought of a couple of things...

Firstly, "Wintel" implies windows. If you were running MacOS on Intel hardware or AMD or whatever, it wouldn't be Wintel, it'd be Mactel or something equally as perverse. ;)

Secondly, Yes, all apps would have to be recompiled to run *natively*, but Apple has made an art out of "transitioning" from instruction set to instruction set and code base to code base. Remember, they've done this before when we went from 680x0 to PPC. In that case, they ran an entire emulated instruction set in the L1 cache of the "new" PPC CPUs... It's conceivable (although distasteful, in my opinion) that with a modern CPUs large L2 full speed caches, this could be done again... thus easing the developer's need to immediately re-write.

Thirdly, in the case of a continuing degredation of the relationship with PPC, I think something like this:

http://www.theregus.com/content/3/24988.html

is far more likely. Not only could Crusoe be loaded with PPC instruction sets, but OS X's nice SMP (or even better OS XI) would rip with a gaggle of CPUs. It also fits in with Apple's design ethos, low noise, low heat, low power, etc...

Any bets on an AMD Athlon (the 64-bit ClawHammer variety) or Opteron processors with PPC emulators in the L2 cache vs Tmeta?

*grin*

Ryan

popper
Jul 18, 2002, 03:30 PM
Try to get this:

You can not make ia32 or ia64 (just to cover both intel and amd) computers that doesnīt run windows. Not even Apple.

Motorola can make faster chips and better chipsets than Intel; Intel (or AMD) would never grace Apple with better chips than Microsoft. Its a question about 95% versus 5% markeed share of the desktop.

You put a intelchip in, you will have to compete with Dell. All the R/D have to compete in Wintel time/space. Apple would be dead as fast as Be or Next.

There is one competitor to Windows on ia 32/64 and that is the free unixes. NOT ONE general high performance commercial OS has managed to survive.

And this perforrmance goes to and from. The current G5 clocking to 2,4 Ghz smokes everything at the moment; its simply a question of yields.

And that is the only wish I cold have: Motorola could develop the chips... But Intel should be alowed to produce the chips.

Because, as incompetent Intel is in chip design, they kick some serious ass in chip production, getting it smaller and cooler than any chipmaker today.

But if you ever wants to se macīs perform better than PC, you have to stay on Motorola

alex_ant
Jul 18, 2002, 03:35 PM
It's a good idea, but...
Originally posted by draekkyn
Thought: Apple cozies up to a PC maker, and establishes a realtionship to build a PC (or maybe just parts, mobo, etc... specifically designed for OS X with extremely rigid hardware requirements... can't just slap any old hardware in, needs higher end stuff that is meant for X on PC.
If people know that it's an x86 box, they're going to want to be able to use their hardware with it, and when they realize they can't, they'll get pissed, and start clamoring for support for their hardware on petitiononline and so forth.
I am thinking of a company they are kind of cozying up to... Sony. Imagine a Vaio running X, not that I would want to see that!
The problem with this is that once you've got OS X running on x86, it will theoretically run on any x86 chip. Of course it will be locked to a single make and model of machine, presumably with the use of a proprietary ROM chip or something, but how long will it take for some 18 year-old Taiwanese kid to load the necessary part(s) of OS X in a hex editor, fix that, and put the hacked OS X on a p2p service so that the rest of the world can install it on whatever PC they choose? My guess is probably about three weeks.

Alex

jefhatfield
Jul 18, 2002, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Kethoticus
Frankly, I'd prefer AMD, but hey. Anything would be an improvement right now.

originally, steve jobs was closed to the other "options" and said it was technically impossible...yeah, right...he he

now, he has taken away the smokescreen and he is being realistic and not being a stick in the mud

i applaud steve for looking at options

intel, amd, whatever...as long as i can have a computer made by apple in front of me with a mac os, i will be happy

apple inc is no longer a company owned by the two steves...fortunately or unfortunately, apple inc is owned by shareholders

Jack Tenric
Jul 18, 2002, 03:52 PM
I really don't care what chip they use so long as it's fast, reliable and works well for laptops. The Mac OS is why most of us use a Mac anyways.

alex_ant
Jul 18, 2002, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by sjs
Apple should make the hardware, but it should be able to use chips from AMD, Intel and so on. The OSX / Apple software would require recompiling and would come with an install disc for PPC or another disc for x86.

Assuming this is doable with OSX's Unix core, isn't that all GOOD? What could be bad about that?
What would be bad about it is that one side or other would feel "neglected." Neither would be satisfied because they would see the grass being greener on the other side of the fence. I think it would also cause PPC OS X users to feel abandoned. Indeed, it would make it very easy for Apple to abandon its PPC owners. And given what seems like its complete disregard for its customers' wishes lately (.Mac, slow ass dated super-expensive Macs, no reduced-cost 10.2 upgrade, and so on), I'm not sure I would want that.

Alex

DharvaBinky
Jul 18, 2002, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
It's a good idea, but...


The problem with this is that once you've got OS X running on x86, it will theoretically run on any x86 chip. Of course it will be locked to a single make and model of machine, presumably with the use of a proprietary ROM chip or something, but how long will it take for some 18 year-old Taiwanese kid to load the necessary part(s) of OS X in a hex editor, fix that, and put the hacked OS X on a p2p service so that the rest of the world can install it on whatever PC they choose? My guess is probably about three weeks.

Alex [/B]

Not really... as soon as they added "required" 3D-Now! instructions, you've ruled out Intel. Alternatively, you could just use AMD's x86-64 set which is *totally* dissimilar to the Intel Itanic. And AMD's crucial need for "legitimate" OEM customers would just scream for a special-edition of the chip that could include some MacOS specific "boot" instruction. *evil grin*

Not that I want this to happen... I'm just playing SatanClara's Advocate... What ever happened to that processor (can't remember the name) which ran at a mere 100MHz but was massively parallel in-chip? I think going the *OTHER WAY* on MHz would be the best way to defeat the MHz myth. By significantly clocking *DOWN* it would bring attention to the fact that MHz was nothing... which could do nothing but bolster anti-Intel fervor...

Ryan

mox358
Jul 18, 2002, 04:05 PM
IBM isn't so hot with Windows anymore... they've dumped their all-in-one consumer pc and are focusing more on big buisness and linux. Linux and Mac OS X are very closely related. IBM also makes chips, (fast ones too) and knows how to speed them up. The demonstrated a 1GHz G3 last year before moto had even broke 800 mhz with the G4.

I'd love to see Apple buy altivec from moto and let IBM take over. IBM is a huge company and they're not going anywhere... they do a lot of buisness and aren't in the red every quarter like Moto.

The PPC architecture isn't bad... it's a lot better than x86, but while Intel and AMD put all these resources into x86, moto has really lagged behind with the G4.

Here's to hoping we stay with the PPC, but IBM lights a fire and gets up back to the Apple snail commercials. :)

alex_ant
Jul 18, 2002, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by DharvaBinky
Not really... as soon as they added "required" 3D-Now! instructions, you've ruled out Intel. Alternatively, you could just use AMD's x86-64 set which is *totally* dissimilar to the Intel Itanic. And AMD's crucial need for "legitimate" OEM customers would just scream for a special-edition of the chip that could include some MacOS specific "boot" instruction. *evil grin*
That's an idea - making OS X depend on a slightly modified AMD chip. I think that could work... not that I would want it to happen either... :)
Not that I want this to happen... I'm just playing SatanClara's Advocate... What ever happened to that processor (can't remember the name) which ran at a mere 100MHz but was massively parallel in-chip? I think going the *OTHER WAY* on MHz would be the best way to defeat the MHz myth. By significantly clocking *DOWN* it would bring attention to the fact that MHz was nothing... which could do nothing but bolster anti-Intel fervor...
This is why I brought up MIPS... MIPS is one of the only mainstream architectures left with that philosophy, along with Transmeta and the embedded architectures. Intel and AMD have embraced high-clock, high-power, high-heat, mad-performance, and nobody else can compete with that. (Heck, even AMD is having a hard time turning a profit with that philosophy.) That Register article that you linked to about the Transmeta parallel supercomputer could apply to MIPS just as well. Efficiency and parallelism over brute-force processing. Rather than more performance per CPU, the game becomes more performance per square (whatever unit of measurement).

I just wish I could grab Jobs by the turtleneck collar and shake him like mad, screaming "DO SOMETHING!!!! DO SOMETHING NOW!!!!" :)

Alex

AlphaTech
Jul 18, 2002, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by mox358
IBM isn't so hot with Windows anymore... they've dumped their all-in-one consumer pc and are focusing more on big buisness and linux. Linux and Mac OS X are very closely related. IBM also makes chips, (fast ones too) and knows how to speed them up. The demonstrated a 1GHz G3 last year before moto had even broke 800 mhz with the G4.

I'd love to see Apple buy altivec from moto and let IBM take over. IBM is a huge company and they're not going anywhere... they do a lot of buisness and aren't in the red every quarter like Moto.

The PPC architecture isn't bad... it's a lot better than x86, but while Intel and AMD put all these resources into x86, moto has really lagged behind with the G4.

Here's to hoping we stay with the PPC, but IBM lights a fire and gets up back to the Apple snail commercials. :)

IBM also has the resources to dedicate to developing the next generation chip for Apple, since moto seems to have lost the ball. I also think that AMD would be hungry enough to jump at the chance to partner up with Apple to produce chips. With either AMD or IBM, we wouldn't have any warning labels on the computers ("intel inside" label). AMD's current line of processors are very stable, fast, and of high quality. I don't think it would take them too long to tool a few factories to make chips for Apple as well as themself, if they even need to go that far.

It will be interesting to see over the next year or so what happens with the processors Apple uses.

h8teiris
Jul 18, 2002, 04:17 PM
i pray for this

alex_ant
Jul 18, 2002, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by AlphaTech
AMD's current line of processors are very stable, fast, and of high quality. I don't think it would take them too long to tool a few factories to make chips for Apple as well as themself, if they even need to go that far.
Except AMD only has one factory, it's running at max capacity, and AMD needs all the yields it can get in order to keep its prices as low as it can in its fierce price war with Intel.

redAPPLE
Jul 18, 2002, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by sjs
Note that the latter part of the paragraph says OSX can be made to run on PC's and Tevanian says that is not currently (2000) in the plans.

Just think...you've got a Dell, you are sick of Windows. You order the $129 OSX and change your existing machine to OSX.

Huge profits for Apple. Plus those who like it...their next machine may be a Mac.

... or the other way around... everybody pays $ 129 for OS X.xx

and everybody buys pcs, 'cause they are "fast" :eek:

The problem in this equation is, people who just care for "performance" would buy pcs.

Scary idea...

tychay
Jul 18, 2002, 05:19 PM
Since this rumor has appeared in various forms over the years, I've used a Mac (or at least since the 486 was introduced), I thought I'd answer some very honest questions non-Windows-using, Unix-programming Mac users may have about this (to the others who are familiar, I apologize).

Is it possible to port MacOS to Intel-based systems?
First it must be clear what is actually meanted by this question. First, this means MacOS X only, NOT MacOS 9. Not the latter is impossible (after all, Macs have VirtualPC), just unrealistic. Second, this means porting it to x86 hardware, not the software that typically runs on it (i.e. we are not talking about running this on the "Win" part of Wintel). This means Intel AND AMD processors and chipsets, but Apple may choose to only support one particular thing.

How hard would this port be to accomplish?
Well technically this would depend on how all of Apple's closed-source stuff is written, and Aqua in particular. If we are talking about the core of the operating system (the microkernel Mach and the OS called Darwin) then the answer is this has already been done. You can go buy any old PC-clone and drop in the MacOS core right now, people do this all the time. In fact, Mac OS X is actually ported from the OpenStep operating system which came from the x86 world (or the old pre-PPC 68k world as NeXTStepP) and Darwin is (I believe) a variant of NetBSD which is part of the BSD tree of Unix (there is a nice diagram somewhere on the net that shows the "family tree" of Unix from the beginning days at AT&T in the early 70's to Darwin, FreeBSD, and Linux of today).
So in summary, it's already been done and is done daily. Porting the Mac GUI may be as "simple" as "clicking a button" and probably is

Will my mac software run?
No. First you have to realize that probably only applications made in Cocoa would run on this theoretical system. This is because Cocoa actually came from the NeXT world (If you ever wondered why all the Cocoa classes seem to begin with "NS", note that NeXTStep begins has the same two letters as initials). The Carbon and Classic applications would probably not run. Porting Carbon would mean porting an API that was never written on x86 and porting Classic is roughly equivalent to writing VirtualMac for the PC.

Will my mac "Cocoa" software run?
No. It would need to be recompiled in developer tools to do so. This means the developer would have to "hit a button" and create a separate version of the application especially for MacOS X for x86.

Well then what about classic?
Sorry no classic. If its any consolation, there should be no reason why you can't run Windows 95 (or possibly even Windows NT/2000/XP) within this theoretical MacOS X for x86. The Linux world does this all the time with a package called VMWare. Since it is almost native, the response would be quite fast--much faster than VirtualPC. I think possibly the early incarnations of Rhapsody used to run Windows 95 within a "Yellow Box" much the same way Mac OS ran in a "Blue Box" (what eventually became "Classic").

Great, why hasn't Apple done this?
That's a business question more than a engineering one. But I think before one discusses this, we have to understand exactly what the MacOS X loses by going this direction. Basically what you get is Linux with a good user desktop environment (not to knock Gnome and KDE, but they are unusable to someone without an engineering bent).

Like what? It's going to be slow as a dog?
No, actually it will probably be faster. Intel processors may be poorly architected and we can debate processor religion until we're blue in the face (I have a friend who works at AMD and one who works at Intel, both world headquarters are within one mile of where I live), but the reality even if it is crappy, the monkeys on Intel systems are typing twice as fast as the monkeys on Motorolas (currently) and they're more likely to type the complete works of Shakespeare, even if some the backspace key is stuck on the Intel ones. To get an honest appraisal, check out BareFeats (Mac bias), Tom's Hardware (AMD bias), and AnandTech (Intel bias) and merge the results.

Then what is the problem?
Hardware. The reason the port is so "easy" from an engineering standpoint is because most of the hardware drivers have already been written. Mostly they were written for Linux and ported to BSD. But anyone who has ever used Linux, FreeBSD, or even Windows knows the nightmare that is hardware quality and driver support.

I'll give you some examples: There is a line of Sony notebooks that to this day have an unpatched bug in the BIOS that prevents Linux machines from taking advantage of Advanced Power Management (Microsoft is aware of this and has Windows patch this bug on the fly at startup). HP specs all their desktops with a WinModem combo Ethernet/modem as the modem. This piece of crap card is put in, not because it it is a good modem (in fact it the worst one you can buy), and not because it is has ethernet built in (because almost all the motherboards already have an ethernet built-in) but because it is the cheapest modem card on the market. You can buy a particular set of Linksys 802.11 cards that will not work, will never work on Windows (even though it is made for Windows) simply because the model number embedded in them doesn't exist, so the windows driver won't recognize the card. Go to Frys sometime and notice that more than half of all peripherals are returns. I used to think that this was a because people bought the things, used them once, and returned them, but after using Windows and Linux systems, the reality is that people bougth them and, for one reason or another, couldn't get them to work and returned them. Standard operating procedure is to buy the cheapest thing possible that matches our spec (firewire without power, USB 2.0 without drivers, storage based on size, video card based on the latest nVidia chipset) , dial tech support, and try to install the thing. If it works, you can hang up the phone; if you can't get it to work, maybe by then the muzak will have stopped on tech support. If they can't help, you go back to Frys and buy another card. I'd like to emphasize that all this stuff is designed for Windows.

I've seen some of the smartest people in the world "laid low" by this process because they missed a detail like they accidentally pulling out the IDE cable when they closed their computer case, or not trying to remove all WEP security from their wireless point before installing their 802.11 wireless card.

Maybe this doesn't happen in the Mac world maybe because the platform is superior. But most definitely because Apple controls the quality and design of the hardware--there aren't 30 chipsets floating around, and the most popular chipset isn't the cheapest--same with Airport cards, modems, and virtually every other part that often comes standard with a Mac.

Don't believe me? Go pick up a copy of PC World and read it.

You'll get to remember the nightmare the "rest of us" (who use and administrate WinTel and Linux-x86 sometimes) have to deal with every day.

tychay@mac.com

Huked on Fonick
Jul 18, 2002, 05:58 PM
If apple did team up with intell who said anything about using the x86 family of chip? I am not really sure but i belelve that the Intel Itanium is not a x86 ckass chip. I am sure you could get OS X to run on an x86 class processer but i dont really see why you would want to. x86 processors came out what 7 years ago. Sure there are sevel different types but there are still x86. They come out with new classes of G3 and G4 chips all the time but (example the new Sahara chip in my Ibook" but we call it a G3 therefore it looks like they arnt advanceing as much. Personaly i think that apple should turn to IBM. Common MOTO can even make a decent cell phone. If they did decided to USE x86 class chips i am sure they could get os x to run on it and adapt aplications with some work. I dont think that the real problem. The problem would come with drivers and the like. Have any of you ever installed Linux on a x86 machine. Its a bitch you have have a lot smaller choice of hardware (software modems,DVD players, CD burners, etc) dont wonk (i dont know if they due now but they dident when i was using lunix.) OS X would have this same problem. I am sure that someone who knew what there where doing could make OS x work on a PC. The reason why OS X is the only version of unix that runs on a mac is because apple programed it to work with the componets in a mac it knows what the hell everything is. You can allready emulate OS x on a PC but you cant due dittly **** on it. Same thing with Virtual PC you can imulate windows on a MAC but you cant due dittly **** on it other than play solitare and run basic Apps no 3d, etc cant burn CDS etc. It would be to complex to make Virtual PC know what the hell all those things are and it would make it to big. also if you guys have ever noticed but windows has a HUGE section for drivers so all those different compents you buy dirt cheep work..... kinda where as mac everything is made for OS 10 and OS 10 is program the compents so different things work alot better and more fluently without the resorces errors and i GET ALL THE TIME on my PC.

So if apple did use x86 chips it unlikly that you would see os X on a dull and if you did it would probably run really ****ty unless dull decided to expand from a Hardware company and program os x to work with there hardware or use MAC OS X native hardware. Also wouldent apple have to give Dull permission to use use OS X on there computer i am not sure how the copy right properties of this work but i am sure that apple has the name OS X and OS 10 copy righted so i am sure that they would not call it MAC OS X.

Persoanly i dont want to see "Intell Inside on my computer" and i dont want to see a sticker that says "Designed for Apple OS X". i wouldent mind if apple use AMDs. AMDs are great chips the 3 win desktop computers i have ALL have AMD chips and so does the laptop. I leave them running 24/7 and i have yet to have a problem with the chip. Like someone siad earler its the MOBO that matters and i agree. The only problems i have ever had is with Microsuck windows giving me internal errors and resorce errors with my sound video card and modem.

I think that apple needs to defently find a faster cheeper chip from somewhere.

-Pat

Oh yea another reason why Dull can sell computers so cheeply is they spend NO money and RD they are building the same computers they did 5 years ago. They just put new chips from other people in there and buy everything elce. Apples are so expensive because they have a huge RD cost. I mean its takes alot of money to come up with the I Programs like Itunes and Imovie. do you ever see anything like Dulltunes?? on Dulls?

If you want a cheep computer that runs(kind) but is just like one from 5 years ago then DUDE YOUR GETTING A DULL

If you want a computer that looks cool:) runs great, has great apps, but costs alittle more then buy a MAC. thanks all i ahve to say.

my 2 cents

wdodd
Jul 18, 2002, 05:59 PM
I think it makes perfect sense for Apple to make a new generation of computers based on x86 processors and chipsets. They might be ready to do that in 2 years or so when more (most?) apps (and users) are on MacOSX.

When a 1GHz PowerPC costs ~$300 and a 2GHz Athlon costs ~$150 it's easy to see the economies involved. Those aren't volume discount prices that OEM's would pay, but you get the idea. Combine standard parts with Apple's engineering and you get a nice machine with all the bells and whistles (firewire, DVD-R, etc.) for a competitive price with the Wintel OEM's.

PowerPC has always felt like it is on the verge of death and yet still maintains momentum in some way. Still, I think Jobs' comment about having "options" once the transition to OSX is complete is very telling. Maybe the reasons that Apple stuck with PowerPC to date will be negated by OSX. The real question may be what will Apple do with VirtualPC / Red Box / etc. when the hardware is almost the same as a standard PC? Will they try to use that as a way to get into the corporate market? Or will they avoid making it possible to run Windows on native hardware on an Apple box?

alex_ant
Jul 18, 2002, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by wdodd
I think it makes perfect sense for Apple to make a new generation of computers based on x86 processors and chipsets. They might be ready to do that in 2 years or so when more (most?) apps (and users) are on MacOSX.

When a 1GHz PowerPC costs ~$300 and a 2GHz Athlon costs ~$150 it's easy to see the economies involved. Those aren't volume discount prices that OEM's would pay, but you get the idea. Combine standard parts with Apple's engineering and you get a nice machine with all the bells and whistles (firewire, DVD-R, etc.) for a competitive price with the Wintel OEM's.
I don't think Apple would ever want to compete with Wintel OEMs. It's not in Jobs' blood. He's been in the industry for two decades now, and every single product he's ever sold has been "upscale" - more expensive, but better, than the competition. The Lisa... the Mac... the NeXT computers... NeXT software... modern Macs.

The exception to this is, whatever superiority the Mac has been relying on for the past 18 years is rapidly vanishing. Apple's similarities with NeXT at this moment in time are quite profound. NeXT and Apple both had/have a great OS (the same one, actually!) and excellent software. They both sold/sell hardware that was/is really cool but really expensive. The difference is that NeXT hardware had no performance problems but sold terribly, whereas Macs have major performance problems but sell somewhat well. Both situations presumably impede profitability. 1) Will Jobs decide to repeat what he did at NeXT - port his wonderful OS on over to one or more other platforms and leave the hardware business altogether? Or, 2) will he hang on in the hardware business?

If he chooses 1, he risks Apple becoming another late-stage NeXT, with a great niche OS and great niche software that nobody really cares about. In this case, there will be no Apple around to buy him out like there was last time. But - and it's a long shot - he could potentially usurp the Windows monopoly.

If he chooses 2, he risks alienating the Mac faithful by selling them overpriced machines that suck in performance. Kind of like what he's doing today, but on a more advanced level. But - and it's a long shot - he could potentially establish a viable, STABLE, and HEALTHY alternative to Wintel - by that, I mean no more predictions of Apple's imminent demise every other day, and a platform that everybody knows will be healthy and fast for a long, long time.

What I wouldn't give to sit down with Steve, drug him, and make the bastard talk.

Alex

Wry Cooter
Jul 18, 2002, 06:35 PM
Maybe the worst that could happen would be a return to CHRP, or have the ability to run windows apps inside a window ala classic, at a performance rate similar to a real PC rather than a virtual PC.

Aciddan
Jul 18, 2002, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by ot13r32


The biggest problem for developers would presumably
be driver related. Assuming Apple addressed a standardized
proprietary supported hardware configuration (a single
mobo/chipset/cpu family), it seems as though they could
tackle this as well.



NFORCE?

Being a new mac user (February with a 14" iBook) and a long time wintel user, I honestly think that such a move to intel wouldn't be too bright for hardware sales.

Becoming a significant player in Microsoft's market would be an even bigger problem. I doubt Microsoft would be feeling warm and fuzzy with a wintel move...

As mentioned in earlier posts - it's about time that Apple/Motorolla and IBM work together are they going to get anywhere.

it's ironic isn't it? Apple and Big Blue needing each other - but this needs to happen. These three companies need each other: Apple (platform/OS), Motorolla and IBM (Processors).

Also (now here I go into rant mode), Apple also needs to get its hardware (internals) out into clone machines. Apple needs to flood the market with clones in order to get everyone thinking OSX (Apple can still make profits by licensing bits and pieces that make a clone).

Apple can then start selling OSX and have this as its major revenue stream rather than hardware. Moto/IBM make heaps of chips so they become happy (possibly even branding their own clones - heh, IBM/OSX box!).

of course I'm ranting so take(grainOfSalt)...

-- Dan, who really shouldn't have as much coffee in the morning =)

eric_n_dfw
Jul 18, 2002, 07:02 PM
As others have said, OS X/Darwin has it's roots in OPENSTEP 4.2 (remember Rhapsody) which ran on 486 and Pentium boxes with specific hardware restrictions. It also ran on NeXT 680x0 machines.

Software developed to the OpenStep spec (notice the capitalization difference) put out by NeXT and Sun could be compiled to run on either of those versions of OpenStep as well as WinNT via OpenStep for Windows (what is now commonly known as the Yellow Box for windows) as well as Solaris and HP-UX using similar OpenStep Framework libraries. Those frameworks (the NS classes mentioned above) have evolved into the Cocoa we all know and love.

In the OPENSTEP Project Builder, when you built your app, you could tell it to compile for one or more of the 4 architectures, if you chose multiple ones it build what was called a "fat binary" that could execute on any of them; or, you could build binaries specifically for each platform.

Darwin is already running on a very limited set of x86 machines. I wouldn't be surprised if Avi and his guys have kept the Quartz & Aqua code as portable as possible too. In which case, Cocoa app's that stuck to the Cocoa frameworks should be a fairly simple re-compile.

I know very little about Carbon, but I would not think it would be easy to move them to x86 as entire API's would need to also be ported that never were written for x86 before. That could be a big deal as much of the large app's out there are not 100% Cocoa - including: Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, IE, Netscape, MS Office X, AppleWorks, etc...

On a side not, since OS X runs on a G3, AltiVec is not a requirement. (Although, doing any equivalent 3DNow! or SSE2 calls where they use AltiVec today would be nice)

Personally, I love the G4 (hence my sig line for the past several months) but I moved to Apple for OS X and love Final Cut Pro. I really could care less if it what chips it ran inside the box under my desk. I just want it to work and do it for a fair price.

wdodd
Jul 18, 2002, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
I don't think Apple would ever want to compete with Wintel OEMs[/B]
Maybe I was unclear. I don't mean that Apple would create boxes that would run Windows. I mean Apple would better compete with Wintel OEM's because their boxes would be a couple hundred dollars closer in price and the hardware specs would look similar.

What I expect is that Apple will create proprietary boxes that use all PC-standard components with a little ROM / custom BIOS in there that forces the hardware to find OSX (no Windows/Linux/etc.) and enables OSX (no OSX on wintel boxes w/o the ROM). This might be 2 years away based on my speculative interpretation of Jobs' comment that a year from now Apple will have "options" once the migration to OSX is more or less complete.

The other question I was trying to pose is... "if Apple has boxes that use PC components, will they promote VirtualPC as running Windows at native speeds?"

sageenos
Jul 18, 2002, 07:27 PM
Mac OSX is using the gnu compiler collection as it's main compiler, and gcc is already ported to various platforms so a simple recompile will suffice in the case of quite a bit of software. On the matter of altivec, Jaguar has gcc 3.1 with a modified math library to take advantage of altivec without jeopardizing application porting. So, if developers can stick to writing software without using hardware specific code it will just be a simple matter of using an x86 port of gcc instead of the ppc one to compile the software to be run on the x86 architecture.
The only matter then would be distributing software for both platforms. Open sourcing applications would solve that problem, but it would require users who might not be familiar with the development process to compile programs. Apple could possibly create a platform independant format for compiled apps that could translate the general code into a platform specific format at the first runtime. Probably an easier route would be to distribute two binaries and let the user choose what they need.

AmigaMac
Jul 18, 2002, 09:16 PM
I will jump ship if Apple goes Intel... no way am I going back to the x86 world!!

Helk I might as well go back to Windoze!!!

jefhatfield
Jul 18, 2002, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by AmigaMac
I will jump ship if Apple goes Intel... no way am I going back to the x86 world!!

Helk I might as well go back to Windoze!!!

intel and amd can make a chip for apple but it does not have to be x86

i am sure something can be worked out

is it easy?

perhaps not, but nothing is in this industry

we sent a man to the moon, so i don't think that intel or amd making a chip for apple is an impossibility

wake up Jobs!!!
Jul 18, 2002, 10:47 PM
Oh the humanity!(Hmmm did I spell that right?)

mccoma
Jul 18, 2002, 10:52 PM
At some point Apple will need to go to 64-bit for their processors. The current focus on video should be one of the big pushers (memory addressable without tricks). When this happens developers are going to recompile their apps. Endian issues aside (not lightly, but put them aside), this wouldn't be a bad time to switch if it is going to happen.

They really should be looking at a processor that can do two things: low heat / power and SMP capable (4+). MIPS would be interesting since it is manufactured by a lot of companies, but it has a embedded focus (other than SGI's designs). Make the Macs the platform for a lot of processors. "More storage - buy another drive, more speed - buy some more processors"

guerro
Jul 18, 2002, 11:04 PM
If Apple could just wrest control of Alti-Vec from Moto. Then tell Moto to take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut. Then tell IBM they are clear to roll this pig up and throw a strike. Meaning, IBM would have the green light to start making faster chips for Apple. And if IBM doesn't want to do it, then get AMD to make the chips. I think the key here is the fact that Moto is a huge anchor on yacht that is ready to set sail for greater things.

My 2

guerro
Jul 18, 2002, 11:05 PM
If Apple could just wrest control of Alti-Vec from Moto. Then tell Moto to take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut. Then tell IBM they are clear to roll this pig up and throw a strike. Meaning, IBM would have the green light to start making faster chips for Apple. And if IBM doesn't want to do it, then get AMD to make the chips. I think the key here is the fact that Moto is a huge anchor on yacht that is ready to set sail for greater things.

My 2Ē:rolleyes:

MisterMe
Jul 18, 2002, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by strider42


Apple uses a hardware rom to prevent such things, even on the current powerPC platform. Plus, the OS wouldn't be written to support any old random hardware. Just because a computer uses the same chipset doesn't mean the motherboard and other components are the same and supported (as evidenced by the fact that the OS install CD's that come with a mac won't work on newer or older machines that are fully capable of running the same version of the OS, apple updates the OS every single time a new machine comes out, whether or not they increase the version number)

Wake up and smell the '90's. Since the advent of Open Firmware, an open standard, the MacOS has been software exclusively.

Prior to Open Firmware, the MacOS was primarily ROM-based. It was effectively impossible to reverse engineer it

wdodd
Jul 18, 2002, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by mccoma
At some point Apple will need to go to 64-bit for their processors.
I'm glad you raised this point. 64-bit is likely 2 years away from reasonable acceptance in the x86 server market. Itanium2's improvements aside, Intel has a long, long ways to go before it wins over the Win2k server crowd (soon to be .NET Server crowd?). AMD has their 64-bit solution on the way as well.

I'll guess that it will be 4 years before 64-bit is entering the Wintel workstation/desktop market. From one point of view, Apple would score a marketing coup by delivering a 64-bit desktop solution in 3 years. Is that enough time to convert everyone to OSX and win the developers over with good cross-compilers?

And the real question, would 64-bit really help the graphics professionals? I understand the benefit to database apps....

MisterMe
Jul 19, 2002, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by Wry Cooter
Maybe the worst that could happen would be a return to CHRP, or have the ability to run windows apps inside a window ala classic, at a performance rate similar to a real PC rather than a virtual PC.

Boot your Mac to the the monitor. You will find that it is CHRP-based.

ibjoshua
Jul 19, 2002, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by Aciddan
it's ironic isn't it? Apple and Big Blue needing each other - but this needs to happen. These three companies need each other: Apple (platform/OS), Motorolla and IBM (Processors).


umm..
i think you'll find that neither IBM nor Motorola really give a damn about Apple.
most of Motorola's chips are used in embedded devices and IBM has it's paws in some much bigger honeypots.

as for the mac rom and the will it work? thread...
from what i can tell, if you want to make it work on a given chipset you will be able to do it eventually. as an earlier post said OS X is freeBSD at its core and versions of it already run on X86 chips. i have an old umax 900 (604e == G2) running OSX.1 (loaded for fun more than anything else) which just goes to prove that if you want it bad enough you can probably do it (especially if some anorak has done a bit of hacking and posted it on the net)

and in response to the guys talking about clones, where have you been? apple will not go down that road again. the clone makers didn't innnovate they just copied apple and undercut them with cheaper boxes. mac lovers like me bought them because when it comes down to it computers are still pretty expensive items and most of us (unfortunately) buy the functionality before the styling.


josh

kansaigaijin
Jul 19, 2002, 06:23 AM
welcome to the world of mac. we been down the clone road before, big disaster for Apple. Cost them billions. Nearly wiped them out. Maybe it was useful as a learning experiance, but so many people missed that era, and clamour to try it again . . .

dhdave
Jul 19, 2002, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by kansaigaijin:

welcome to the world of mac. we been down the clone road before, big disaster for Apple. Cost them billions. Nearly wiped them out. Maybe it was useful as a learning experiance, but so many people missed that era, and clamour to try it again . . .

Agreed 100%. Clones are definitely not the way to go. I remember those days (shudder).

dh

topicolo
Jul 19, 2002, 04:09 PM
But those power computing machines were SOOOOO much better than Apple's. *sigh* I want a PowerCenter Pro 210 *drool*

AlphaTech
Jul 19, 2002, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by topicolo
But those power computing machines were SOOOOO much better than Apple's. *sigh* I want a PowerCenter Pro 210 *drool*

I had one of those... Actually, I HAD that one. Let me tell you something, the motherboard on it turned brittle after only 3 years, where systems from Apple are still good and strong.

They did have some good points to them, but I firmly believe that the quality of material is better coming from Apple.

Before anyone starts blaming the environment the computer was in, I am in MA, where we have cold winters, and mostly mild summers (low 80's for the next week or so for highs). I did have an AC in the room with the computer, so it wouldn't get too hot in there. I also have seen Apple systems that we NOT in air conditioned rooms, and the plastics are STILL good and strong (NOT brittle). :p

alex_ant
Jul 19, 2002, 10:33 PM
Power Computing also made the only quad-CPU Mac ever, didn't they? Ahh, I remember those days... pining away for the perfect computer on which to run Rhapsody... :)

AlphaTech
Jul 19, 2002, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Power Computing also made the only quad-CPU Mac ever, didn't they? Ahh, I remember those days... pining away for the perfect computer on which to run Rhapsody... :)

Actually, according to all the information I have, there have not been any Mac (clone or not) with anything more than dual processors. Power Computing was making dual processor systems while Apple was not.

To date, there have not been any computers with more than two processors (except for extremely high end servers and mainframes). With peecee's you have to seriously hunt for anything with more then one processor. Apple, on the other hand, puts them right out in the open for everyone to see and know about. :D

Wry Cooter
Jul 19, 2002, 11:17 PM
What was Michael Dells' relationship with Power Computing... wasn't Power founded by an old partner or executive of his?

alex_ant
Jul 19, 2002, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by AlphaTech
Actually, according to all the information I have, there have not been any Mac (clone or not) with anything more than dual processors. Power Computing was making dual processor systems while Apple was not.
Sadly I am mistaken about the quad machine... I guess I got carried away in my dreaming.

Kethoticus
Jul 20, 2002, 04:56 AM
I do not see what Apple's potential adoption of AMD or Intel CPUs has to do with making clones. Apple would be in the PC cloning business if they started trying to put out Windows systems. They're not. The idea here is that Apple would use x86 mobos but put OS X on them. I fail to see how this makes the Mac a clone platform.

But while this whole thing does appeal to me, I also agree with some posters who pointed out the potential pitfalls. Would this not wreak havoc with Apple's developers? They JUST finished porting some major apps to OS X on PPC hardware. Now they'd have to do that all over again. Unfortunately, however, this may be a necessary evil. This "evil" might be lessened a bit if Apple went into it slowly, much like they made the transition to PPC from 68k. Perhaps get the developers to start reprogramming their wares first, provide them with prototype X-on-x86 systems, then begin releasing them commercially with the software ready to go? I dunno.

Sorry, but until Moto and IBM decide to start putting some real development effort into their desktop chips, they are not worthy of Apple's business.

Part of my feelings come from being tired of reading reviews like this: http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm

I know that Charlie White LOVES to rip the Mac in his columns, but he's written some really nice things too about the Mac. It's only when he makes speed comparisons that he starts flaming the platform. But the bad thing is, he's not the only one. In terms of the markets Apple seems truly intent on owning--content creation, DV editing, etc.--the Mac simply can not compete speed- or price-wise. Not good. Apple needs to do something and they know it.

scem0
Jul 20, 2002, 07:26 AM
If there was an apple computer that has the whole apple look to it, and it had a blazing fast AMD processor in it, I would definitely buy it. I think that this isnt a off-the-wall possibility. :D We might be seing 2 and 3 GHz apples before we expect them.

Wry Cooter
Jul 20, 2002, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Kethoticus
Would this not wreak havoc with Apple's developers? They JUST finished porting some major apps to OS X on PPC hardware. Now they'd have to do that all over again. Unfortunately, however, this may be a necessary evil. This "evil" might be lessened a bit if Apple went into it slowly, much like they made the transition to PPC from 68k. Perhaps get the developers to start reprogramming their wares first, provide them with prototype X-on-x86 systems, then begin releasing them commercially with the software ready to go? I dunno.


Its an evil they can't afford. Developers, big ones, are already fed up.

Right now its a vicious cycle, or perhaps a series of overlapping ones. The simple solution, for Apple to be able to move to another chip, would be for all apps to be completely rewritten in Cocoa. As long as the installed base still has to use classic because some apps and drivers are lagging, a carbonized app is the best developers dare do. Meanwhile, people do not update to OS X, because their crucial apps are not Native yet. Or their Macs can't perform well with OS X. New Apps and New Macs cost money. No one has money these days. Some people are not moving to X until they buy a new mac. Apple can only throw so many free apps to nudge updating to X, or buying a new mac, that is, if they -can- make a new mac, dependant on the abilities of their CPU supplier.

Its possible that the gears start turning faster to get everyone on the same page, once quark is native, once the new Pro Tower is available etc...

Transition is hard.

jefhatfield
Jul 20, 2002, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Wry Cooter



Transition is hard.

i remember how hard it was to go to usb for us users and some of the people who crowed about that one...all new peripherals and expense to us

os x still has people that don't want to go there

and if and when apple changes chip suppliers, there will also be resistance there, too

apple inc is a business and if they need to survive, they have to roll with the changes in high tech

i remember pc people who didn't want firewire because it was from apple but now all those people have it in the form of ieee 1394

Cappy
Jul 20, 2002, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by AlphaTech


Actually, according to all the information I have, there have not been any Mac (clone or not) with anything more than dual processors. Power Computing was making dual processor systems while Apple was not.

DayStar Genesis MP systems came in dual and quad configurations. Apple essentially used their api's for their own dual config with systems like the 9600/200MP.

Cappy
Jul 21, 2002, 12:04 AM
People have to admit that it's flat out amazing(or stupid depending on how you look at it) what Apple has been able to do with their hardware and OS over the years since the first Mac to attempt to keep pace with the x86 crowd.

68k->PPC->trash the OS roadmap for Mac OS 8 and on->Mac OS X->new cpu ???

As we know talking of the past isn't typically all that constructive but one has to wonder that if Moto would have kept pushing the 68k chips and Apple stayed with them, what might have happened?

For what it's worth I've been told in the past by someone in the know that the worst thing that could have ever happened was Moto getting involved with MS on bringing WinNT over to PPC. When that happened, Intel woke up(Moto underestimated them) and became more agressive by dumping more cash into that architecture that everyone kept predicting(and still does) would collapse on itself and then Moto found themselves getting burned by MS. When the WinNT strategy fell apart so did the PPC development and has been for the most part in disarray ever since.

topicolo
Jul 23, 2002, 08:58 AM
man, even those powerbase computers were cool. I actually drooled when they released their PowerTower Pro 275Mhz G3. Oh well, 3 years would have been long enough for me. I would've upgraded long before that.

wake up Jobs!!!
Jul 23, 2002, 09:56 AM
I allways thought the apple clones seemed to be "ahead" of apple in apples own computer platform, just me?

GaBe

gropo
Jul 23, 2002, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Darwin is already running on a very limited set of x86 machines. I wouldn't be surprised if Avi and his guys have kept the Quartz & Aqua code as portable as possible too. In which case, Cocoa app's that stuck to the Cocoa frameworks should be a fairly simple re-compile.Keep in mind that Apple already refers to thier systems as "mixed endian" machines. While the PowerPC is big-endian, the PCI bus is little-endian. Regardless, I just don't see how Apple could effectively support both PPC and x86/x86-64 at the same time. I suspect this would mean 2 disparate sets of drivers for peripherals, and yes, fat Cocoa binaries. This just flat-out couldn't prove to be an easy transition.I know very little about Carbon, but I would not think it would be easy to move them to x86 as entire API's would need to also be ported that never were written for x86 before. That could be a big deal as much of the large app's out there are not 100% Cocoa - including: Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, IE, Netscape, MS Office X, AppleWorks, etc...Most poignant argument against a transition to x86 yet. Consider that QuarkXPress 5 still doesn't use enough OS9 API's to make the transition to Carbon a quick process by any means. I'll bet it will be mid-2003 by the time those sloths finally release a Carbon port. The Carbon framework relies heavily on PPC hardware.On a side not, since OS X runs on a G3, AltiVec is not a requirement. (Although, doing any equivalent 3DNow! or SSE2 calls where they use AltiVec today would be nice)From what I understand, neither of the x86's SIMD cores are nearly as extensible as altiVec... If they were, you would think that the x86 distributed.net clients would crunch keys alot faster than they currently do (the altiVec core is in heavy use on the PPC side)

Frankly I see either of 2 scenarios in Apple's CPU future... An IBM multi-core, cache-galore cpu with enough FPU-oomph to relegate altiVec moot - or a non-x86 AMD cpu based loosely on Hammer with big-endian PowerPC compatibility. OS X-x86 just 'aint an option IMHO.

Wry Cooter
Jul 23, 2002, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by wake up Jobs!!!
I allways thought the apple clones seemed to be "ahead" of apple in apples own computer platform, just me?

GaBe

It was more that they leveraged the market differently. Power would build machines that Apple at the time didn't consider directly on target, and picked up a lot of customers that didn't fit those categories. Motorola took advantage of their closeness to the CPU supplier. Power marketed like Dell, Motorola marketed like whatever. And Apple at the time, pretty much had its head firmly up its ass. Spindler days, right? Apple was entering new distribution streams that nearly bowled them under, creating too many models of machines (to insure floor space) and having too much inventory languishing in odd channels of Sears and Circuit City with nary a soul to know enough to sell them, with return policies that exacerbated that.

3777
Jul 26, 2002, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by dhdave


Intel is the chip leader by MILES. AMD chips and their accompanying chipsets aren't anywhere NEAR as stable as their Intel counterparts and they aren't near as fast. Go to Anandtech.com and research the benchmarks, then come back and run your mouth.

Personally I hope Apple doesn't have to go with Intel, AMD or any X86 architecture. Especially after all the time and money they've invested bad-mouthing it. But something tells me this is definitely in the cards. While it will be fascinating to watch this play out, I can't see Apple as a "clone" manufacturer a la Dell, Gateway, etc. Will they somehow figure a way to ensure that OS X only runs on Apple hardware? And if they don't, what will become of Apple hardware? Apple makes all of it's money on hardware sales, doesn't it?

dh

You are a moron. I own an AMD XP2100+ and a laptop with an AMD Duron. They are flawless and blow my parents Celeron and P4 systems out of the water. Sure you'll always be able to compare the latest Xeon and 2.whatever GHZ P4's have better benchmarks then AMD, but when comparing comprable P4 & AMD processors...... AMD blows intel out of the water.

Unstable??? Ugh yhea ok???

AlphaTech
Jul 26, 2002, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by 3777
You are a moron. I own an AMD XP2100+ and a laptop with an AMD Duron. They are flawless and blow my parents Celeron and P4 systems out of the water. Sure you'll always be able to compare the latest Xeon and 2.whatever GHZ P4's have better benchmarks then AMD, but when comparing comprable P4 & AMD processors...... AMD blows intel out of the water.

Unstable??? Ugh yhea ok???

I also have an XP2100+ inside the game pc that i constructed. In my own experiences, AMD processors are rock solid and DON'T fail. I have a server that I also built inside my office at work that has been running for over 2 years now, 24/7. It ONLY goes down when there is a power failure in the building.

As far as I can tell the XP2100+ beats intel in every part that matters, one of them being cost.

3777
Jul 26, 2002, 12:13 PM
I bought the laptop refurbed with a Duron to save money, I wasn't expecting much...... but it was so much better then the celeron it's not even funny. Then I decided to break the bank on a desktop system (to go with my iMac DV.....yes I love apple too!) ......I could have gotten any Intel P4 chip I wanted....... but I chose an Alienware Aurora system.......loaded to the teeth, I paid more then some people pay for cars......... and made sure it had an Athalon processor in it........ that should tell you what I think of AMD!!!

P.S. If Apple is going to make a move I hope they go with AMD, Intel is overrated, underperforming JUNK!!!

dhdave
Jul 26, 2002, 01:05 PM
Posted by 3777:

You are a moron.

You're the one calling names, and I'M the moron??

dh

AlphaTech
Jul 26, 2002, 01:11 PM
3777, I probably could add up all I have spent on the game pc (that I constructed), but it would probably depress me. I would wager to say that I have invested close to $3k in it. That inclused all my recent upgrades (two 160GB drives, set as RAID 0 :eek: ), and the one I will be doing in September (Radeon 9700 :D).

I emailed my favorite indian (at the Geek Boutique (http://www.mohawkmem.com/)) and they have a projected date of Sept. 1 for the card being available. That is not set in stone, since things don't always ship on time from the factory, nor do the distributors always get enough to go around. I have developed a good working relashionship with them over the past 2+ years, and will continue to purchase items from them. They have always treated me right, and stand behind what they sell. If they don't have it in the store, or on the web site, chances are they can get it (within a few days too).

dhdave
Jul 26, 2002, 01:24 PM
AlphaTech,

Just wanted to say publicly that I apologize for being rude. Rereading what I wrote while reading 3777's post, I realized that what I said ("then come back and run your mouth") was pretty ignorant. It was nothing personal and I'm sorry for any offense taken.

dh

AlphaTech
Jul 26, 2002, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by dhdave
AlphaTech,

Just wanted to say publicly that I apologize for being rude. Rereading what I wrote while reading 3777's post, I realized that what I said ("then come back and run your mouth") was pretty ignorant. It was nothing personal and I'm sorry for any offense taken.

dh

I didn't even see if you were pointing that thing at me... It looked like it was between you and 3777. ;) Calm down boys, or the gods and moderators might take notice. :eek: :D

3777
Jul 26, 2002, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by dhdave
AlphaTech,

Just wanted to say publicly that I apologize for being rude. Rereading what I wrote while reading 3777's post, I realized that what I said ("then come back and run your mouth") was pretty ignorant. It was nothing personal and I'm sorry for any offense taken.

dh

No problem...... you weren't really rude...... but your statements about AMD were just flat out not true...... they make great processors and have no problems at all with stability. I haven't heard of any issues like that since a company called Cyrix had problems years ago.

3777
Jul 26, 2002, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by AlphaTech
3777, I probably could add up all I have spent on the game pc (that I constructed), but it would probably depress me. I would wager to say that I have invested close to $3k in it. That inclused all my recent upgrades (two 160GB drives, set as RAID 0 :eek: ), and the one I will be doing in September (Radeon 9700 :D).

I emailed my favorite indian (at the Geek Boutique (http://www.mohawkmem.com/)) and they have a projected date of Sept. 1 for the card being available. That is not set in stone, since things don't always ship on time from the factory, nor do the distributors always get enough to go around. I have developed a good working relashionship with them over the past 2+ years, and will continue to purchase items from them. They have always treated me right, and stand behind what they sell. If they don't have it in the store, or on the web site, chances are they can get it (within a few days too).

I was thinking of building a gaming PC, but when I added up the cost vs. one from Alienware it was only about $150 difference with all the components. (Not including XP Pro) ......I wanted to stress that I made choice of AMD over the Intel P4, and from everything I've experienced, AMD is just a better processor. The fact that it cost less would probably be all the more reason why Apple should pick them over Intel!

P.S. One of the reasons I got the Alienware ......the upcoming release of UT2003:D

dhdave
Jul 26, 2002, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by 3777:

but your statements about AMD were just flat out not true

I take issue with that, only because in my experience my statements are true. However, just like I am speaking from my experience you are speaking from yours and I respect that. Perhaps the problems were not with the Athlons but with me. I don't think so, but I'm willing to concede the point. In my experience the Athlons just constantly needed more tweaking. This setting wouldn't work with this board, or this card doesn't work in this slot. Or this card just doesn't work at all and the whole system crashes. My present PC (yuck, I hate saying that) was the first one I built with an Intel processor and chipset and it has been absolutely hands down the most stable system I've ever used. I was VERY reluctant to buy intel, but I'm glad that I did.

Anyway, bottom line, didn't mean to offend anybody personally. Did. Sorry. I really hope Apple doesn't have to switch. I LOVE the RISC architecture, but unless they can close the percieved speed gap, it's probably inevitible.

By the way, I saw a nice board on Tyan's website. Dual Athlon's in a regular ATX form factor . Hmmmm...... :)

dh

3777
Jul 26, 2002, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by dhdave


I take issue with that, only because in my experience my statements are true. However, just like I am speaking from my experience you are speaking from yours and I respect that. Perhaps the problems were not with the Athlons but with me. I don't think so, but I'm willing to concede the point. In my experience the Athlons just constantly needed more tweaking. This setting wouldn't work with this board, or this card doesn't work in this slot. Or this card just doesn't work at all and the whole system crashes. My present PC (yuck, I hate saying that) was the first one I built with an Intel processor and chipset and it has been absolutely hands down the most stable system I've ever used. I was VERY reluctant to buy intel, but I'm glad that I did.

Anyway, bottom line, didn't mean to offend anybody personally. Did. Sorry. I really hope Apple doesn't have to switch. I LOVE the RISC architecture, but unless they can close the percieved speed gap, it's probably inevitible.

By the way, I saw a nice board on Tyan's website. Dual Athlon's in a regular ATX form factor . Hmmmm...... :)

dh


Ok now I understand.......... what you said is true in some cases........ but it isn't a problem with the AMD Processor ...... when you are building a system, you have to be very careful to select a board that is "AMD Approved" ......... I found this out when I built my last AMD system before I bought the Alienware. Not all motherboards work with AMD's, but when you buy a Motherboard that is specifically approved for the Athalon, then you'll have no problems whatsoever. You'll have a great system too.

P.S. Sometimes it's easier just to buy the board / processor bundled together so you know you won't have any problems.

AlphaTech
Jul 26, 2002, 07:05 PM
Whenever you construct a peecee, it really pays off to do a bit of research on the components. Don't just purchase what you think will work together, make sure of it ahead of time.

In my own experience, Giga-byte makes the best motherboards for AMD chips out there. Of all the systems that I have built, those with Giga-byte boards have no problems. My first pc was built with a DFI board, which failed after only 2 years. I tried a supposedly great Asus board, only it refused to even show the pre-bios level correctly. I went to the Giga-byte board I originally wanted, and it worked 100%. It is still running very strong over a year later, without any problems. I was able to update the bios to get it to address the XP2100+ chip as well. The board came out before the AMD XP chips did.

Cappy
Jul 26, 2002, 07:12 PM
There are alot of people out there who will defend AMD to the death but they need to realize that while they've been great at keeping Intel honest by being a real competitor and providing awesome performance, the general consensus is that AMD(the cpu's) has a higher failure rate than Intel chips do. AMD is well aware of this and has been improving them. The Athlon XP made some progress on this front for them.

This is not saying that they suck or even that Intel is superior but that AMD chips do have a higher failure rate.

One more thing I should add for those that never have dealt with AMD chips is that since they generate so much heat, lots of "non-hobbyist" folks tend to not like all of the noise generated by the fans.

I could also pick apart things about the Intel chips but it looks like everyone here has pretty much stated them. ;)

ibjoshua
Jul 28, 2002, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by topicolo
man, even those powerbase computers ...... PowerTower Pro 275Mhz G3.

i don't remember any clone makers using the G3?? they were much quicker to market than apple with higher clocked processors though so it wouldn't have been surprising.

j

AlphaTech
Jul 28, 2002, 12:31 PM
That would be because it never shipped (according to the information I have). It was introduced in August of 97 and discontinued in September of 97 (one month). Apple made it too expensive for the clone makers to license the OS (from $50 in the beginning to $500 in the end per computer).

I do remember how the clones were the first to use newer items/technologies, or at least faster then Apple was. Things like a faster system bus for one. The PowerCenter Pro shipped with a 60MHz system bus, where most Apples (of that time) had either a 40MHz or 50MHz system bus.

Joshlew
Jul 28, 2002, 02:12 PM
I'd rather Apple go with AMD than Intel, but for God's sake don't do anything
for at least 2 years! The developers will FLIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

Cappy
Jul 28, 2002, 03:11 PM
I'm wanting to think that Motorola managed to get a G3 system out but not for long if they did. Those were rough days for Apple but it was the time we saw their turnaround for those who were around. Amelio originally had some sort of systems set to come out that was their Power line or some such codename where they used the 604e with some special L2 cache to speed things up. Umax also was going to do this. Power Computing and Motorola were on the right track with the G3 and Jobs saw this.

Amelio never did have a clue about the company or technology that he was running or rather ruining. The same guy who thought that the classic environment would be fine in a window on the screen. Oh well that's another story. At least he brought Jobs in. ;)

bieger
Jul 28, 2002, 03:45 PM
Interesting thought:

Why couldn't/wouldn't Apple put BOTH a Pentium 4 (or AMD) and a PowerPC in the same computer?

1) 2 Ghz Pentium 4 chips are less than $200. That doesn't seem like an amount that would change the cost structure of the machines. Plus they could make it optional if they didn't want to raise costs across the board.

2) Current software would not have to be recompiled as it could run on solely the PowerPC and ignore the Pentium if necessary. Meanwhile, new/recompiled software and OS X could take advantage of both types of processors.

3) Apple would reap the competitive advantages of BOTH processors, rather the living with the tradeoffs of just one or the other. This, of course, assumes that the appropriate tasks could be routed to the appropriate chips.

4) Hardware sales would not decrease since OS X would still require Apple's motherboard containing both chips.

5) It would be a great marketing move. The message could be "why get a Dell with just chip B when you could get an Apple with BOTH chips A & B, a better OS, and better hardware design to boot?"

6) It would also be a hedge. If one chip fell behind (as Moto has in the past), the other chip could evolve to take over more of the tasks until the loser is completely phased out.

7) If Apple chose, they could sell a computer that runs BOTH OS X and Windows. They could market this in the same way that they market Virtual PC: "There are occasionally times when you HAVE to run windows...now you don't have to buy two computers AND there's no performance tradeoff." This idea has some other political implications, but they could choose to do so.

Has Apple already thought of this? Is it technically feasible? Cost effective? Politically feasible?

Jeremy

Wry Cooter
Jul 28, 2002, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Cappy

Amelio never did have a clue about the company or technology that he was running or rather ruining.

That bed was on fire when he lay down on it, Cappy. It probably would have been in the dumper sooner without him. You might be thinking of an earlier CEO. Everyone Jumps on Amelio, but you don't hear too many people defending Spindler do you? Or Mr. Pepsi?


At least he brought Jobs in. ;)

Yep, and even Steve followed through on some of the ideas Gil started, he just made less apologies, played less of a good cop about things, because more drastic measures were needed. It doesn't help Amelio's rep that he felt he had to go around defending himself a bit out of proportion after he was canned or jumped ship, but that was the situation he was in... he fixed many problems and ended up taking most of the blame for earlier problems he inherited.
And some of those problems are still there, and repeatedly mentioned throughout this thread rather obviously. Rhymes with "no gondola."

Wry Cooter
Jul 28, 2002, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by bieger
Interesting thought:

Why couldn't/wouldn't Apple put BOTH a Pentium 4 (or AMD) and a PowerPC in the same computer?

<reasoning snipped>

Has Apple already thought of this? Is it technically feasible? Cost effective? Politically feasible?

Jeremy

I think the biggest potential pitfall is that developers would take this as a good reason to stop developing for the MAC OS completely. There are other political windfalls-- people would say the mac is dead that they had no choice but to move to REAL CPUS like Intel and AMD make.

If this were to be done at all- best to leave it to third Parties, the way Orange Micro used to make Intel cards for PCI slots. I would love to have a Mac that was also an excellent PC, but it really isn't a safe venture for a company with single digit market share to offer as a standard option, unless they want the implant to take over and kill them. Sort of like the first artificial hearts.

Probably the best deal would be for Apple to buy out Altivec completely, and have IBM become the main supplier. As it is rumors point to probably Motorola themselves farming out their chip manufacture to Taiwan somewhere.. they clearly can't hit the yields on their own.

Another possibility would be to have Nvidia or someone else create enough of a DSP cruncher especially for Mac that enough existing code can be funneled to, that it wont even matter if there is never a G5.

Cappy
Jul 28, 2002, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Wry Cooter


That bed was on fire when he lay down on it, Cappy. It probably would have been in the dumper sooner without him. You might be thinking of an earlier CEO. Everyone Jumps on Amelio, but you don't hear too many people defending Spindler do you? Or Mr. Pepsi?

I agree there have been problems with each one you mention but my beef with Amelio was that he was hyped up for a specific role to fix things and frankly I don't think he had a clue. He pretty much has admitted as much that he had no idea that Apple was the icon that it was.

Originally posted by Wry Cooter

It doesn't help Amelio's rep that he felt he had to go around defending himself a bit out of proportion after he was canned or jumped ship, but that was the situation he was in... he fixed many problems and ended up taking most of the blame for earlier problems he inherited.
And some of those problems are still there, and repeatedly mentioned throughout this thread rather obviously. Rhymes with "no gondola."

How many times did he publicly state that Jobs was not as good as he at running a company? Yes, he pointed out that Jobs was better with marketing but who's the guy running two billion dollar companies right now that are still successful to this day and he was center stage at turning them around?

I don't love Jobs by any means but he does fit the role and his best move was revamping the board. Something everyone previously knew was a big problem but did nothing about.

Amelio was nothing more than a bean counter and while, yes, he fixed some problems, there were other ways they could have been fixed and not hurt the image of Apple as well as development as much as it did during the Intenet boom. At least Spindler tried to control the cloning whereas Amelio opened the flood gates to near disaster.

At any rate we're way off topic so I'll try to shut up on this now. ;)