Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

4-6 Processor Macs?

Re: OSX on AMD

Originally posted by DavidRavenMon


The big problem here is that even if Apple got OS X to run on an x86 CPU (and they can, since NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP did), you would need all new software, since your PPC applications would not run on the new processor.

This is the same deal with Linux x86 vs. Linux PPC, except you can't recompile most Mac software.

Apple needs to do something though, and fast!
Click to expand...
I personally don't believe the x86 rumors, but if Apple could get all the big hitters to code to the Cocoa frameworks, they could have those app's recompiled for x86 with just a flip of the Project Builder's switch. Remember "Yellow Box" - that's Cocoa. (As long as they have kept the OPENSTEP - er, Yellow.. er, Cocoa frameworks x86 friendly in house)
 
Das Beemer

We are so overwrought about Moto the slug, and AMD the Great, that I haven't seen yet another option discussed too much in this thread as yet. IBM knows how to make fast PPCs, in decent quantities, and likes the server market better than iToys. What if those chips are the basis for the server?

Of course there are some non-trad-server-markets Apple could sell a rackmount t, that WANT at least something like the DSP of altivec included, the only ace in the hole Moto holds. Music and Graphics people will be buying these rackmounts, often for very small networks.

So perhaps they could have a few altivec chips in some servers, and IBM silicon in the others, depending on the customers needs.

Or perhaps the DSP of altivec could be successfully handed over to a daughtercard or two (ala the extreme quartz idea), for rack mounts that need them.

Apple merely needs to buy altivec from moto, and hire out someone that knows how to manufacture chips on time and in quantity.
 
Re: Das Beemer

Originally posted by Wry Cooter
Apple merely needs to buy altivec from moto, and hire out someone that knows how to manufacture chips on time and in quantity.
Click to expand...
That's assuming that Motorola is willing to sell them Altivec. And that's a HUGE assumption. Apple isn't Motorola's only customer for PPC chips. In fact, Apple isn't even Motorola's biggest customer.

If Cisco wants Altivec chips, then Motorola's going to produce them. They don't want Apple "buying" Altivec and turning around and letting IBM get their grubby hands on it. Then MOT would have to deal with a competitor for the Cisco business.

More likely is that Motorola liscences Altivec to IBM for use ONLY in Macs. Then, Motorola would supply the G4 and IBM would supply the G5. And no one would complain about speeds in the "pro" line Macs.
 
Gigawire to come?

Here are my thoughts…
The server will be stripped down to server essentials so I agree with a very basic video card, if any.
I think we could possibly see speed bumped Firewire (Gigawire) and support for clustering via the faster Firewire.
DDR is a sure thing. Something very surprising in bus speed is very likely.
Fan(s) are definitely in it. (dah)
1.4GHz G4's are likely on the high end version.
I would be surprised to see quad G4's, my understanding is that we will have to wait for the G5 to see quads.
…just thoughts, I'm sure I know less than most here, so feel free to bash me.
 
Why the speed?

What makes you think the Apple server will be faster (in GHz) than the PowerMac line? If you look at the servers out there on the market, generally that have slightly slower processors than the desktop(consumer) market. What the server market tends to focus on is reliability, and robustness. I for one might expect to see slightly slower G4s with dual, maybe quads, and a very robust bus, and huge cashe.

Just some food for thought.
 
I didn't realize this was on Apple's site--

Sybase
“Administrative, content management and asset management systems need an enterprise-class database solution and Mac OS X provides an excellent opportunity,” said Dr. Raj Nathan, senior vice president and general manager, Sybase Enterprise Solutions Division. “We are currently working to make Sybase OpenClient SDK available on Mac OS X later this spring and will follow with our enterprise database server (ASE) later in the year. With Apple’s strengths in the education and creative professional markets, it is simply smart business for us to bring Sybase to the Mac.”

Looks like they are taking an opportunity to increase revenues. Apple provides heavy machinery, Sybase provides the software. Looks like they'll be the only "big name" db on OS X. Hopefully this will be a "If we build it, they will come" scenario. I need IBM Websphere/DB2/MQSeries so I can stay at home more. :)
 
Re: Re: OSX on AMD

Originally posted by eirik
?????

I'm not a programmer anymore and I never wrote a major application. BUT, as I understand it, one programs to the operating systems API's. So, if Apple and partners were to develop compilers for MacOS on x86, then it should recompile. Now, Apple may have to lose and gain a few API's, however. But then again, AltiVec is very generalized matrix operations as opposed to x86 SIMD.

So, I don't understand your post. As far as I know, even Adobe doesn't program to a specific CPU.
Click to expand...

My point is what about software you bought when you were running OS X on PPC? You would have to update to new versions.

OS X does have some hardware abstraction, due to the Mach kernel, and the way Cocoa works, it would be easy to recompile for x86 (yellowbox) since they would share the same libraries. But a lot of programs are Carbon, and I dont think that would be an easy task.

Apple has switched CPUs in the past, with narry a hickup, so who knows?

I'm not a programer however, I just play one on TV. ;)
 
Originally posted by gjohns01

Looks like they are taking an opportunity to increase revenues. Apple provides heavy machinery, Sybase provides the software. Looks like they'll be the only "big name" db on OS X. Hopefully this will be a "If we build it, they will come" scenario. I need IBM Websphere/DB2/MQSeries so I can stay at home more. :)
Click to expand...

That is neither GOOD nor likely, in regards to the exclusivity . (BTW, how did you eke out 'only' from that press release)

They will be -A- big name database on OS X, not "the only".

Much is being done to help the other big boys DBs run on OS X too. And that is the only way big business would give them a second look.
 
Originally posted by Wry Cooter


That is neither GOOD nor likely, in regards to the exclusivity . (BTW, how did you eke out 'only' from that press release)

They will be -A- big name database on OS X, not "the only".

Much is being done to help the other big boys DBs run on OS X too. And that is the only way big business would give them a second look.
Click to expand...

I eked out 'only' by counting Oracle/IBM/Sybase/SQL Server as "big name". That's what is used in the Fortune "name your number". I know there is mySQL, PostgreSQL, Frontbase, Openbase, and a host of others. I'm just talking about the BIGBIG boys.

I agree that there are steps being taken to address big business. It's taking a little longer than I would like, but it's happening.
 
Originally posted by gjohns01


I eked out 'only' by counting Oracle/IBM/Sybase/SQL Server as "big name". That's what is used in the Fortune "name your number". I know there is mySQL, PostgreSQL, Frontbase, Openbase, and a host of others. I'm just talking about the BIGBIG boys.

I agree that there are steps being taken to address big business. It's taking a little longer than I would like, but it's happening.
Click to expand...

My problem was in counting Oracle/IBM/Sybase/SQL Server as separate names. Thanks for the clarification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back