Clarification: Steve Jobs and OS X on Intel

Discussion in 'MacRumors News Discussion (archive)' started by arn, Jul 18, 2002.

  1. arn
    macrumors god

    arn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    #1
    The quote regarding Steve Jobs on Intel may have been misrepresented by the Reuters article. The quote came from Apple's Q3 Financial Analyst Meeting Q&A. From that broadcast, here is the entire quote in context:

    (5m 40s) Steve Jobs was asked about porting Mac OS X to Intel:

    Steve Jobs: "The roadmap on the PowerPC actually looks pretty good and there are some advantages to it. As an example, the PowerPC has something in it called AltiVec, we call the Velocity Engine -- it's a vector engine -- it dramatically accelerates media, much better than, as an example, the Intel processors or the AMD processors... so we actually eek out a fair amount of performance from these things when all is said and done. And the roadmap looks pretty good. Now, as you point out, once our transition to Mac OS 10 is complete, which I expect will be around the end of this year or sometime early next year and we get the top 20% of our installed base running 10, and I think the next 20 will come very rapidly after that. Then we'll have options, then we'll have options and we like to have options. But right now, between Motorola and IBM, the roadmap looks pretty decent. "

    ... so it looks like discussions of OS X on Intel/AMD may be a premature. (despite repeated speculation on this topic)
     
  2. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #2
    IBM......
     
  3. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    10 Minutes from Disneyland
    #3
    i like the IBM chipsets, and chips...plus, they can get things out quickly...moto ain't as fast, but they're good too...
    Moto R&R and IBM product...good idea i think
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    groovebuster

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    3rd rock from the sun...
    #4
    What else...

    ... Steve could say about the road map??? It is just typical marketing bla bla...

    The road moap looked promising two yerars ago and look where we are now!

    I only believe in processors that I can buy in an actual machine! Before it is only hot air! Especially when Motorola is involved!

    So bring it on Steve! Give us pro users gear again that makes us remember why we chose Apple once as our primary platform... with every day you wait longer more pro users are looking for alternatives.

    groovebuster
     
  5. macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #5
    Well personally i think this sounds promising.... Steve is obviously not going to be that happy about clock speeds that a quite away behind the competition, and he'll undoubtedly be aware of the next major revisions of the PPC chip whether it be from IBM or Motorola........ but I keep saying I'd like to see the 2 working closer together with regards to the future of the PPC..... then we'll really begin to see performance increases!

    PPC chip architecture still has enormous potential...... and in my opinion is still the superior chip architecture in comparison to Intel and AMD.........
     
  6. macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #6
    What ever proccessor Apple goes with, the chip needs to be like the P4 where it is easy to increase the clock speed, even if it is not the fastest. P4 chips are not as fast as AMD in the mid range, but their high end P4s are much faster than AMD.

    This is the only way Apple will get into the other 95% of the market, making computers that look great and sound great value to money. I can remember a time with the PPC chip actually had higher clock speeds than Intel / AMD and the Macs sounded better value for money as well. (about 1997).
     
  7. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    #7
    how about

    OS X on x86-64? totally doable, has a pretty nice register set for an x86 chip, cool hypertransport technology, and so on. I just wanna see windoze DIE! Not that I'm biased or anything =P
     
  8. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    #8
    I couldn't give a damn what processor is inside my Mac, so long as it's fast, stable, decent value and runs the software I want.
     
  9. macrumors regular

    medazinol

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    Toronto
    #9
    I echo the same sentiment as others around here, I don't care what chip is in my Mac as long as its fast. I just hope if they did this that we don't get the same MB architecture as the PC, keep the Mac chipset, change the CPU and works around it.

    On the other hand its nice to see Steve not using the RDF™ full tilt. Notice he said "decent" instead of intense supelatives. I think internally they reliaze they need to look elsewhere when the chips are down so to speak...
     
  10. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    #10
    What would be nice is if I could buy a Mac (lets ignore technical and marketing issues for a moment) which would allow me to have a dual boot Mac OS X/Win XP system.

    That way I could use 3dsMax and play games on the Windows boot, and use OS X for everything else and not need the two computer set-up I have now.

    Although I'm sure this could be done, I'm equally sure it won't.

    Alternativly, I'd be just as happy if they released ALL games for the Mac at the same time as the PC versions and 3dsMax was made for Mac OS X.

    Oh well, I can dream...
     
  11. macrumors 68000

    topicolo

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    #11
    I'm just afraid that IBM and moto will fall farther behind over time because their R&D spending is so much less than those of Intel or AMD.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #12
    Motos priorities are definitely mixed, gotta make those craptastic phones, you know. I fell that they have been letting apple dangle off, and they should be abandoned for that very reason, I'd just want the PPC to go with apple.
     
  13. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2002
    #13
    Altivec forever?

    What Jobs seems to say is that they are going to stick with Altivec; in order to see IBM Power chips in future Macs they will have to agree with Moto and support Altivec. Or maybe there will be a future Hammer with Altivec?
     
  14. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #14
    I still need some clarification

    originally posted by Steve Jobs

    "Now, as you point out, once our transition to Mac OS 10 is complete, which I expect will be around the end of this year or sometime early next year and we get the top 20% of our installed base running 10, and I think the next 20 will come very rapidly after that. Then we'll have options, then we'll have options and we like to have options."


    Options for what, a different chip manufacturer? Think Different in like 6 months to a year? Or is he talking about something else all together?
     
  15. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    #15
    I doubt we will see anything of the like as long as someone is expending resources to further the POWER/PowerPC line. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue in the Mac community (especially among the consumer level) when you have to worry about binary compatibility of your applications. And you're not going to be able to run code emmulation for PPC to x86 (a la the 680x0 to PPC emmulator when we had to switch to PPC) either because when you waste enough processor cycles on emmulating PPC code, you might as well use the Win/x86 native version of your app.

    Developers don't want to manage TWO sets of Mac binaries either. They were reluctant enough to port to OS X at first. I'm sure they'd be thrilled (note sarcasm) when Apple goes knocking on their door asking them to make sure it runs on two different microarchitectures. Apple doesn't have enough marketshare to ask that of most.

    SGI hasn't been too successful with the Intel platform, Sun dropped Intel support for Solaris since it was too much of a pain, and let's not even get started on the whole NeXT fiasco.

    I don't think anyone knows the answer for this except the involved parties. The AIM guys have been pretty quiet about this supposed desktop G5 chip from Mot. I can say though, that there seemed to be much more activity when there were more desktop customers (ie. the clones). Mot seems to be focused on the embedded market, and IBM is focused on POWER for servers. Where are those blazing fast RS/6000 workstations (or whatever they call them now "<insert meaningless number here>Series") with PowerPC chips at the center, eh?

    I think Apple is focusing on what they need to focus on at this point and that's balancing the system architecture with software. Quartz Extreme is a good example, and the new system controller ASICs in the XServes look promising. Hopefully we'll see memory bandwidth increased on motherboards either via DDR or Rambus and maybe some custom proprietary technology that will keep Apple ahead of the commoditized pee cee hardware. We'll know for sure when the new PowerMacs come out I guess. Anyway, thanks for listening to my rant.
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    Sayer

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #16
    Gotta love the media

    Everyone seems to be skipping over the blatant lie the media put into Steve's mouth to make their point that Apple needs to switch from PowerPC to Intel/AMD.

    Ah well, lap it all up. The people who know the truth will be in the position to change the world when needed.

    Anywho its not Motorola's fault Apple isn't using ATA/133 in current Macs. Its not Motorola's fault Apple has not upgraded AirPort to anything newer (there is newer tech for existing 802.11b thats 1/4 the size of the current PC card).

    Its not Apple's fault however that Motorola can't get better results from its PowerPC development. Apple is not a microelectronics manufacturer. Apple contributes some effort to the design of PowerPC, but does not actually have to MAKE the things or anything else as complicated. Apple made the iPod using completely third-party tech except for iTunes (oh wait they purchased that from someone else originally too).

    In the current mess of 1-2 year old tech overall in the G4 the fault lies with Apple about 80% and Moto 20% (what about IBM? They could have licensed AltiVec if they really wanted to or were pushed by Apple).

    In the end you can second guess the CEO of Apple all you want, but only a few people on this planet know what Apple's long term goals are and none of you are in that group. Obviously Steve is focused on software more than hardware, thats just how he is.

    Maybe Apple could buy some engineers away from Intel or Motorola to build better motherboards, they certainly are laying off a lot of people at those places. Instead of hiring the guy who makes Chimera who bitches about having to use a "slow and sluggish" Mac and then prances around at how he now works at Apple. Whatever.
     
  17. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #17
    The high-clock philosophy of Intel and AMD is stupid. Yes, it makes for fast chips, but it also makes for 5-pound heat sinks, horrible energy efficiency, 10,000 rpm fans, and sizzling chip temperatures. Nevermind the fact that x86 is a horrible architecture which nobody can wait for to die after it finally morphs into whatever 64-bit deviants it happens to morph into. Nobody can compete with these brute-force x86-style architectures anymore - what makes you think Apple could? They're trying and failing.

    Apple needs a good, low-power, efficient, inexpensive MERSI-compliant chip that they can use in multiprocessing configurations. Take MIPS for example, it doesn't score very well in benchmarks, but SIX 500MHz R14000s consume less power than ONE Itanic, and together trounce it in performance at many tasks. They could put dual Sahara G3s in a PowerBook and get better battery life, much better performance, and less heat output than one G4 does. Apple can't compete on x86's playing field anymore - it's time to think smart and change the rules of the game.

    Alex
     
  18. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    #18
    I agree with alex_ant and kenohki. When I purchase software for my Mac, I do not want to get an error saying "Oops, your computer has a PPC processor in it and this program requires an X86 processor. Contact your vendor to get the PPC version." Also, can you imagine Apple trying to squeeze a Pentium III or 4 into a PowerBook or iBook? That's not going to happen...ever. X86 should have been replaced years ago but because of Intel's and AMD's push for insane clock speed's, they've screwed themselves and can't switch to the next architecture.

    Imagine this scenario, the last X86 chip Intel releases is a P4 running at 3 Ghz. Do you think that people are just going to cheer when they release it's successor (the Itanium) at 1.5 Ghz? Are people going to forget what Intel's marketing has beaten into their heads for the last 15 years? I don't think so.

    Intel is scared and they should be. When Itanium is released, Intel is going to have to do some damage control and say that despite what they have been telling everyone, clock speed does not matter. This alone is enough to scare them but think about what Motorola and/or IBM is going to have ready when the Itanium is released (possibly a 2 Ghz G5, multiple cores, fraction of heat, size, cost, etc.). Intel is crapping their pants just thinking about it and they are going to hold onto the X86 architecture and keep squeezing as much clock speed as they can out of the Pentiums until they can't get any more.

    It would be stupid of Apple to bail out now as it would be to sell all of your stocks when you know a turnaround is not far off. Stick it out and you will be rewarded.
     
  19. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    #19
    I don't think Apple will ever go x86. Simply because the pc world is moving away from it too with 64bit processors and OS's. The Itanium is not x86 and won't run on your retail version of XP or Win2K. It needs XP for 64bit. Someone brought up a great point in another thread. They said Apple can't afford to switch platforms again as they've just done with OS X. Software companies don't want to code their apps all over agian. However, the software companies are going to have to do that for the pc world because they'll have to make their apps 64bit compatible (by the year 2005 they say). The next version of Windows (codename Longhorn) will be a 64 bit only OS and won't be compatible with older hardware (due out in early 2005). This is where Apple could jump into the pc hardware market. When the companies are converting their apps to 64bit, they may be more apt to code apps for OS X on pc hardware.
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    beatle888

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    #20
    Re: Gotta love the media

    Hehe.....liked your post.


    Hello world!
    Go get the new "Heathen" album by David Bowie
    since it's release its been in the top 20 in over five
    different countries.

    Plus Pete Townsend and other guest appearances.
     
  21. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2002
    #21
    Games can be a vitial key to Apple sales...

    Games can be a vitial key to attracting new owners to Apple. While Apple has some decent games, they're still too few and too long until they're release when compared to the FLOOD of Windows games.

    My question is... If and or when Apple goes to a Pentium chip, wil that make game conversion FASTER/EASIER? Is it 'just the OS' that's the limitation or just the chip/processor?

    EA for example, has the Sims, one of the BEST SELLING game series of all times. Its ported to the Mac by Aspyr..however, they don't release it until MONTHS after its already been out on the Win platform.

    Not that I want to put Aspyr out of business (a company which I love!!) but if EA had the Mac OS on a Pentium chip..could they squeeze out games for Mac and Windows simultanious?? If so, we'd get their hugely popular EA Sports titles..

    This is just conjecture but am curious...
     
  22. sjs
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2002
    Location:
    GA
    #22
    Arn, what misrepresentation?

    I have been wondering what was misrepresented between the Reuters article and the actual conference. I see no difference at all. In both places they quoted SJ as saying that after the OSX transition is done, about the end of this year, they will have options regarding the question of which chips are used. There is no contradiction.

    Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but are you trying to divert attention from this issue? Did Apple send you a cease and desist?
     
  23. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #23
    Re: Re: Gotta love the media

    Finally something worth yapping about! Pete Townshend could teach these nu-metal kids a thing or two about how to play the guitar...
     
  24. sjs
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2002
    Location:
    GA
    #24
    BTW

    Did you ever ask yourself why the question of using other companies chip rests on finishing the OSX transition? Logically it seems to make no sense. Upon further thought, perhaps they have several more features they are working on as updates for Jaguar in the latter part of this year (incl dot-mac stuff). So the software engineers are too busy for anything else.

    Then in the early part of next year, let Jaguar rest for a while and they could begin re-compiling OSX to run on Intel/AMD chips in Mac hardware.

    Thoughts???????
     
  25. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #25
    Re: Games can be a vitial key to Apple sales...

    Probably not... OS X is still dramatically different from Windows. Most games are written specifically for Win32 and DirectX (except id's games and a few others), which means lots of porting work to move them to OS X and OpenGL, no matter which chip OS X is running on.
     

Share This Page