Startup Puts a Twist on PowerPC

[MacBytes]

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Startup Puts a Twist on PowerPC

Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug

[Mudbug]

Let's play a game.

Rewrite this sentence using proper grammar/english so that it makes sense:

The Silicon Valley chip startup, run by chip legend Dan Dobberpuhl—Dobberpuhl, its CEO, presided over the development of the Alpha processor while at Digital Equipment Corp.—lifted its veil of secrecy Monday.

[wrldwzrd89]

Originally Posted by Mudbug

Let's play a game.

Rewrite this sentence using proper grammar/english so that it makes sense:

This isn't too hard. The problem with it is immediately obvious to me.

Here's the original:

The Silicon Valley chip startup, run by chip legend Dan Dobberpuhl—Dobberpuhl, its CEO, presided over the development of the Alpha processor while at Digital Equipment Corp.—lifted its veil of secrecy Monday.

Here's my modified version:

The Silicon Valley chip startup, run by chip legend Dan Dobberpuhl (Dobberpuhl, its CEO, presided over the development of the Alpha processor while at Digital Equipment Corp.) lifted its veil of secrecy Monday.

There's still one problem with it - what does the "its" in "its CEO" refer to?

[mad jew]

Originally Posted by wrldwzrd89

There's still one problem with it - what does the "its" in "its CEO" refer to?

The company AFAIK.

[nagromme]

This PPC report is interesting because I do hope the PPC has a nice future ahead of it. But this doesn't sound relevant to Macs directly: nothing is coming any time soon, and when it does, it will be targeted to devices other than computers.

[MacsRgr8]

Don't tell me have we the wrong timing.....

In 2007 Apple, just after finishing its PPC >> Intel switch, will do an Intel >> PPC transition. The new ultra-low powerconsumption PPC chips forced the decision.
Steve comments: "Well, it's better to switch back immediately while all the developers stlll have their PPC code".



Edit: must-remember-to-change-avatar (and corrected errors...)

[LEgregius]

Sounds like they are just a bit too late for Macs. If they are successful, it will make me very sad. The PPC architechture is so much better than the X86. PPC has almost kept up with x86 with a small percentage of the money thrown at it. Now, if they had just done it two years ago...

[maddav]

The first chips are due in the 3rd quarter of 2006. Meanwhile, Apple plans to move to the Intel processor architecture by June 2006.

Whoops!

[swissmann]

I wonder how these will compare performance and power consumption wise to Intel's offerings when they are released. Switching to Intel is a lot of work. I hope it was the right decision and remains the best option because Intel stays on the ball with development. I also hope that all software gets ported quickly. Rosetta looked nice but I would prefer to skip it entirely if possible.

[plastique45]

Originally Posted by LEgregius

Sounds like they are just a bit too late for Macs. If they are successful, it will make me very sad. The PPC architechture is so much better than the X86. PPC has almost kept up with x86 with a small percentage of the money thrown at it. Now, if they had just done it two years ago...

How is it better? x86 has always been faster and more advanced. Just look at Centrino vs PPC Laptop chips...

Let's get rid of this smoke screen technology once and for all.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

well, good for them.. doesn't do us a lick of good, but maybe processor upgrades for existing desktops will benefit.

[Anawrahta]

too little too late

by the time this chips are in devices, the available x86 equivalents will be faster and even lower power.

but look on the bright side, maybe there might be some options in the future for upgrading your old PPC

[nagromme]

Does anyone really think this STARTUP is such a sure bet that Intel is a bad choice?

This startup MAY meet their goal of having an actual product by late next year. (In what kind of QUANTITIES?)

And if they do, it's chips for printers and networking devices, NOT for computers. They're positioned BELOW IBM's chips, but above Freescale's.

I wish good luck to them, but this is hardly a boat that Apple has missed

[Dunepilot]

Originally Posted by plastique45

How is it better? x86 has always been faster and more advanced. Just look at Centrino vs PPC Laptop chips...

Let's get rid of this smoke screen technology once and for all.

Nonsense. x86 has not "always been faster". The PPC has trumped the best offerings from Intel and AMD a number of times over the years (notably when the G5 was first introduced and during the period where the PowerMac was going through Blue and White G3 - G4 transition).

And using the term "more advanced" without any further explanation tells us nothing. Why would you say that technology (x86) that has been fairly stagnant until recently is "more advanced"? Before the introduction of the Pentium-M PPCs were a better option for mobile computing.

[~Shard~]

Originally Posted by nagromme

Does anyone really think this STARTUP is such a sure bet that Intel is a bad choice?

This startup MAY meet their goal of having an actual product by late next year. (In what kind of QUANTITIES?)

And if they do, it's chips for printers and networking devices, NOT for computers. They're positioned BELOW IBM's chips, but above Freescale's.

I wish good luck to them, but this is hardly a boat that Apple has missed

I agree. Plus, by the time these are even released, if they are released in the first place, Intel will probably have even lower-power offerings available for their computers.

Not concerned by this bit of news at all, and it definitely doesn't make me question Apple's decision to move to Intel.

[MacsRgr8]

OTOH.. if everyone were to use universal binaries.....

Face it: in 2006 and 2007 most Macs out there will still have some kind of PPC chip (G4 or G5) in it, so most developers will use universal binaries, won't they? Will Adobe CS 3 be universal?

If the Intel transition really succeeds, only about half of all Macs running Tiger or later will have an Intel CPU IMHO half way 2008.

Universal is the key.

Switch back to PPC ?? Why not.

[rikers_mailbox]

The Silicon Valley chip startup, run by chip legend Dan Dobberpuhl—Dobberpuhl, its CEO, presided over the development of the Alpha processor while at Digital Equipment Corp.—lifted its veil of secrecy Monday.

I'll take a stab.

Current CEO Dan Dobberpuhl, former developer of the Alpha processor at Digital Equipment Corp., announced the Silicon Valley chip startup Monday.

meh. still needs work. I'm not sure if it was actually Dan who made the annoucement.

[camomac]

hmmm... this is definately a little too late. too bad, really.

[RobHague]

Why does Apple have to have its entire range running on Intel CPU's? Never understood that - Im sure Universal Binarys will be around for a while, just how far ahead into the future are they seeing?? Arent they are cutting their own options by saying 'We are dumping PPC and going totally x86'.... what if by the time this happens there are very nice low power PPC chips on offer, and rather nice high-end PPC chips. I was looking at the benchmarks for Intels dual core's and it looks like AMD are handing them an ass-beating most of the time. Think its a mistake to lock themselves to INTEL.

What wrong with them selling a mix of systems running Intel/PPC?

[combatcolin]

Good for the Amiga anyway.

[wozzlewoozle]

wait.. I think if you listen very carefully perhaps...yes there it is, the sound of Steve Jobs tearing up the contract with intel...

[Darwin]

I guess it is a bit late now, however I would want to see if these guys could supply the demand that a client like Apple would require

After all that has been a problem with Freescale and IBM

If they can do it they might have a chance in the future

[longofest]

Interesting. But we don't even know if these chips will be at all advanced. I mean, all we know is that they will be PowerPC. 64bit? Altivec? Even G3-class, or are they talking about going back to 604e days...

I LOVE PowerPC and POWER, but you gotta regard stuff like this with grains of salt.

[ibook30]

Originally Posted by RobHague

Why does Apple have to have its entire range running on Intel CPU's? Never understood that - Im sure Universal Binarys will be around for a while, just how far ahead into the future are they seeing?? Arent they are cutting their own options by saying 'We are dumping PPC and going totally x86'.... what if by the time this happens there are very nice low power PPC chips on offer, and rather nice high-end PPC chips. I was looking at the benchmarks for Intels dual core's and it looks like AMD are handing them an ass-beating most of the time. Think its a mistake to lock themselves to INTEL.

What wrong with them selling a mix of systems running Intel/PPC?

I would guess that the idea behind telling the world " we are dumping PPC and going totally x86" is to commit. Let Intel know that apple will be a good customer, and prepare the masses for the change. I don't think Apple will be locked into one chip set for life.

I am also tuned into Darwin's comment - part of the problem with PPC was producing enough in a timely fashion. I don't know if that will change.

[Chaszmyr]

Originally Posted by MacsRgr8

Don't tell me have we the wrong timing.....

In 2007 Apple, just after finishing its PPC >> Intel switch, will do an Intel >> PPC transition. The new ultra-low powerconsumption PPC chips forced the decision.
Steve comments: "Well, it's better to switch back immediately while all the developers stlll have their PPC code".



Edit: must-remember-to-change-avatar (and corrected errors...)

Fat binaries... Apple can switch back whenever they want, or use both PPC and x86 at the same time. Most apps will continue to support both platforms.