AMD and Apple Rumors Part II

[3-22]

Yeah, right...

Originally posted by Pismo
Now, if AMD could build Apple a 64-bit PPC processor instead of an x86 processor, that would be awesome!

Worst rumor yet. As much as I think OS X for x86 has a snow ball's chance in hell, I think AMD setting up a production line just for Apple even crazier. AMD is already dumping huge amounts of resources and money into there new x86 64-bit chip.

Motorola and IBM sell most of the PPC chips they make to people besides Apple. (Apple is probably a pretty small buyer, but buy the higher end chips) Most PPC's end up in network appliances, specialized systems, routers, NAS boxes, etc.

Apple just needs to dump Motorola, and get in with IBM. They are pushing PPC chip technology (POWER4) for there mid-range/mainframe's, while Motorola appears happy producing the slower chips for embedded applications. Maybe because of R&D costs... IBM has deep pockets, and are innovators both in storage and processor technology.

 

[benixau]

All new mac HDDs are IBMs.

The only other two manufacturers who are developing HDD technology is Maxtor and Fujitsu. Maxtor is developing serial ata drives and fujitsu is developing 2.5" (notebook) drives. they hope to have a 100GB 2.5" drive out by the end of Q1-03.

The 60GB hard disks in the older pbs i think were fujitsus. The new ones are IBMs.

 

[nixd2001]

It might be worth drawing out the distinction between who *designs* a processor and who *fabricates* the processor. If Fishkill ain't going to be delivering the right volumes with the right type of fab capabilities, all IBMs other capabilities are irrelevant. Maybe AMD is going to fab the 970 because IBM won't be ready for a year. From Apple's viewpoint, one design and two fab lines long term gives price/dual-source advantages....

So all these "AMD welded shut" Macs - did they need different executables or could they use a standard Mac OS X executable????

 

[bluecell]

I think most of you are missing the point. Look, when I first heard of such a rumor I thought that it would be a mistake for Apple to make such a move. After hearing all of the arguments and thinking about it even further, I've come to the conclusion that Apple NEEDS to make this move.

First of all, it would make Windows users much more comfortable switching to the Mac platform. The fact is, the "megahertz myth" IS a reality. Apple's getting destroyed by the constant development of x86, while it takes almost a year for there to be a PowerPC upgrade. That scares many Windows users who want to switch to Mac, as it does a lot of Mac users. Something has to change.

On another level, MacOS X isn't even optimized for the PowerPC's RISC architecture. It's written for CISC (x86). This was obviously a very calculated move on Apple's part. There's an interesting article about this on Unsanity.org (MACH-O ABI). For developers, I imagine the switch from PowerPC to x86 would be as easy as some recompiling. Many of the technologies in MacOS X suggest that this kind of a change is possible. It would also make cross-platform developing a bit easier.

Now, just because Apple moves to something like AMD's x86-64 Hammer processor doesn't mean that the Mac OS would be able to run on machines from other hardware vendors. Apple would most definitely lock their beloved OS to their own hardware. That seems to be what scares some Mac users when talking about this subject. As a consumer, I would be more comfortable if Apple kept the monopoly on hardware in a world where the PC market is saturated.

So, do I think that Apple will make the move to AMD? YES! It would be the healthiest thing for them. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened at Macworld SF in January.

 

[iJed]

Re: LOL (literally)...

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
... AMD has a bigger production capacity than IBM??? What is this person smoking? AMD has capacity problems just making Athlons. IBM makes POWER4s, G3s, all the GameCube chips, 604es, etc...

AMD makes many many times the desktop chips that IBM makes.

Also, the Hammer doesn't use a memory bus

How does it communicate with its memory then? Magic?

 

[cubist]

Hey maybe AMD is making the processor for the iWalk!

Apple's new PDA/Phone/Tablet! Oh and digital movie camera too. It features infrared connectivity so you can connect it to your stereo.

 

[lmalave]

This text I just posted in response to another question on another thread, but it is even more relevant in this thread:

Personally, I think Apple should definitely stay the course with the PPC. The next few months are going to be rough for Apple from a marketing point of view if Moto and IBM don't come through with new chips, but after that I think they'll be cruising. OS X performance should continue to improve, and with even faster chips the interface will be super-responsive. I mean, how fast does a computer need to be?

Personally, I think Apple is well positioned for the maturation stage of the PC market. It's like the early days of the auto industry. After almost every household already had a Model T Ford, and cars were already as fast, as big, and as cheap as they needed to be, then car makers had to start competing on features and design. Ford had a seemingly insurmountable market share lead selling their boring, generic Model T, until GM with its innovative designs and varied product lines started eroding Ford's market share, eventually overtaking it completely.

Since Apple has proven again and again that it has tremendous strength in product design, I would say it's in great shape for the future. Keep in mind the PPC chips help Apple add features to its computers: long battery life, low heat dissipation, quiet (or non-existent) fan. With $4 Billion in cash reserves, a sterling (and strengthening) reputation for innovation and product quality, and great new chips on the horizon, Apple can afford to ride out these rough spots and look toward a much brighter future.

 

[G4scott]

Isn't Mac OS X made so that with just some different software underpinnings, it'll work on any system architecture? Isn't that what Apple meant when they were waiting for more developers to switch to OS X before they open up their options? Maybe the reason new Macs won't boot into OS 9 is because they'll be using AMD chips, which can't run that old legacy code unless it's being emulated (can you say classic?) All of the signs are pointing to a more open, flexible OS that works on any platform Apple chooses to make it for. It would be the ultimate OS! (ok, well it already is, but it could put it ahead even more )

Or...

Maybe those boxes welded shut are being run by one of 2 things:
1. Aliens, and the have to weld the box shut so that no-one finds out
2. Hamsters- These are no ordinary hamsters... They're genetically engineered so they don't need sleep, food, or water, and they don't use the restroom. There's a little wheel inside of the box, and they welded it shut so that they don't escape...

 

[adamcoop]

Originally posted by G4scott

Maybe those boxes welded shut are being run by one of 2 things:
1. Aliens, and the have to weld the box shut so that no-one finds out
2. Hamsters- These are no ordinary hamsters... They're genetically engineered so they don't need sleep, food, or water, and they don't use the restroom. There's a little wheel inside of the box, and they welded it shut so that they don't escape...

I have a friend whose uncle works for a guy whose wife owns a Mac, and they told me that the new Macs would be powered by Apple Cider.

 

[beatle888]

Originally posted by bluecell
It's very doubtful that Apple will allow the Mac OS to operate on hardware from other vendors.

i was refering to the fact that apple will have
IBM, motorola and AMD to use as chip sources.

 

[reyesmac]

So? It won't change anything.

Whatever chip Apple uses will not matter because the experience of using OS X will not change. It better get faster because of it, but if you did not know that an x86 chip was in there, you would think it was a PPC chip. I doubt Apple would leave the PPC behind. Isn't that Apple PI thing a PPC motherboard? If thats where they are going, I guess they have figured out how to use an x86 chip on a CPU daughterboard or something. But when in the world are they gonna actually give us something!!!!!!

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by bluecell
First of all, it would make Windows users much more comfortable switching to the Mac platform.

Only if an x86 Mac were able to run Windows or Windows apps. And the PPC Mac can more or less run Windows apps already (the ones that don't require fast graphics or direct hardware access) with Virtual PC.

The fact is, the "megahertz myth" IS a reality.

I think what you mean to say is that it's not a reality... but I know what you mean and I agree, for the time being.

Apple's getting destroyed by the constant development of x86, while it takes almost a year for there to be a PowerPC upgrade. That scares many Windows users who want to switch to Mac, as it does a lot of Mac users. Something has to change.

I think Apple has plenty of loyal users who will stick with the platform for 7 to 13 more months until the 970 arrives. It's not like the Mac has a chance of dying in that time. Despite the performance disparity with PCs, the Mac's market share (depending on the source) is actually growing. I don't see how ditching this awesome future PPC in favor of an inferior x86, and going through all the pain of a platform change just to shave a few months off people's wait would be worth it.

On another level, MacOS X isn't even optimized for the PowerPC's RISC architecture. It's written for CISC (x86). This was obviously a very calculated move on Apple's part.

It's written to be platform-independent. It is designed to be easily portable to any platform. It is not "written for CISC." It actually contains a fair amount of AltiVec enhancement that will run on nothing but PowerPC. And it has nothing to do with a calculated move - it has to go with good coding practice and keeping options open, which is a good idea for any software project. Mac OS X is descended from one of the most portable commercial workstation OSes ever.

For developers, I imagine the switch from PowerPC to x86 would be as easy as some recompiling.

Assuming that's as easy as it would be to port the software, end users and developers would still have to deal with:

- Chaotic distribution issues (Will this box of software run on my x86 Mac? Will this run on my PPC Mac?)
- Cross-platform issues (Sure OS X runs on 2 architectures now, but will developers take advantage of that, or will they only develop for one from now on because it's easier?
- Increased testing & support overhead

(Don't underestimate the seriousness of these - they add, IMO, too much complexity to what is supposed to be a simple, carefree platform.)

Now, just because Apple moves to something like AMD's x86-64 Hammer processor doesn't mean that the Mac OS would be able to run on machines from other hardware vendors. Apple would most definitely lock their beloved OS to their own hardware.

I give Hong Kong hackers precisely 9 days to have it running on Joe Blow's white box Athlon, and less than 90 days to see support for 95% of all PCs built within the last 4 years.

That seems to be what scares some Mac users when talking about this subject. As a consumer, I would be more comfortable if Apple kept the monopoly on hardware in a world where the PC market is saturated.

I agree that Apple needs to retain control of its hardware.

So, do I think that Apple will make the move to AMD? YES! It would be the healthiest thing for them. I wouldn't be surprised if it happened at Macworld SF in January.

Being a Mac follower, it's important to make the distinction between what would be smart for Apple and what Steve Jobs will actually do. He doesn't always do what's smart. (That's not to say I think an x86 Mac would be smart - not at all.) In order to predict Apple's moves, though, you've got to understand Steve and the way he thinks - his ideologies, sense of aesthetics, business tactics, etc. An x86 Mac would be the most un-Steve-like thing ever.

 

[3777]

I don't care what Apple does as long as they do something, because they are getting their a$$ kicked right now and their hardware development since 1999 has been very unimpressive. Right now all iBooks should be G4, and they should have G5 1.7-2ghz Powerbooks and Powermacs, heck even iMacs and EMacs...... so who cares what they do as long as they do something. Nobody could be worse then what they currently have.

P.S. If enough money were offered I think AMD would develop and produce a PPC chip....... Apple's potential market share.....if their great looking hardware actually catches up...... is limitless......

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by G4scott
2. Hamsters- These are no ordinary hamsters... They're genetically engineered so they don't need sleep, food, or water, and they don't use the restroom. There's a little wheel inside of the box, and they welded it shut so that they don't escape...

Do all hamsters use the restroom in Texas? Because where I'm from, they usually just go all over their wood shavings.

Seriously though, I see a problem with this design. First, the ventilation inside the case would probably suck the hamster right into the power supply, where it would be made into fried hamster soufflet. Even if the hamster could somehow manage to hold on, it would be deafened by the fan noise.

 

[Frobozz]

NO WAY

Come on.... this is the worst rumor I've heard yet about AMD and Apple. The only part of this rumor which is likely is the 64bit part... a 64bit PPC. Even if AMD was to somehow help IBM with fabrication, it will be for a PPC chip. I don't see how that is even a possibility though, since IBM has the larger capacity four-fold.

The next new chip will be the 970 Power 4, which will be dubbed the G5. It's logical, it won't break away from PPC (which apple won't do for a MINIMUM of 4 years from now), and it makes marketing sense.

 

[bluecell]

Re: NO WAY

Originally posted by Frobozz
Come on.... this is the worst rumor I've heard yet about AMD and Apple. The only part of this rumor which is likely is the 64bit part... a 64bit PPC. Even if AMD was to somehow help IBM with fabrication, it will be for a PPC chip. I don't see how that is even a possibility though, since IBM has the larger capacity four-fold.

The next new chip will be the 970 Power 4, which will be dubbed the G5. It's logical, it won't break away from PPC (which apple won't do for a MINIMUM of 4 years from now), and it makes marketing sense.

The truth is that IBM and Motorola have let Apple down in a big way. AMD will most likely be Apple's next move. If you don't think the rate of x86 development matters to Windows users who want to switch to Mac, you are very mistaken. Considering MacOS X isn't even optimized for PPC, a switch to AMD's x86-64 looks pretty good.

How exactly does it make marketing sense for Apple to stay with PPC?

 

[mymemory]

Originally posted by blueBomber
in all honesty, either chip is going to be fast, but think of all the ppc apps that would have to be recompiled to work on an x86 mac..

I for one do not feel like buying Photoshop again...

Do you buy soft?.... Oups! Sorry, I do buy all my software too

 

[crassusad44]

Originally posted by Pismo
Now, if AMD could build Apple a 64-bit PPC processor instead of an x86 processor, that would be awesome!

The original article does state a big question: Will AMD provide an x86 chip, or a PPC chip?

I would be better if AMD supplied a new 64 bit chip, rather than Moto... (the article says Apple will introduce a 64 bit chip within the next few months...)

 

[jaykk]

This site is somewhat believable...but it doesn't make any sense. Apple just convinced major software vendors to port their software to Mac OS X. Now again another port to AMD/Intel is too much for software developers. Do you think Adobe and all will rewrite/recompile/port their Software every year ? Or apple will have to have another Classic environment to run Mac OS X on AMD.. Whatever it is, Apple needs to keep their options open. May be Apple is interested in AMD's Fab alone..

 

[vniow]

Originally posted by crassusad44


The original article does state a big question: Will AMD provide an x86 chip, or a PPC chip?

I would be better if AMD supplied a new 64 bit chip, rather than Moto... (the article says Apple will introduce a 64 bit chip within the next few months...)

AMD is definaltly releasing two 64-bit x86 chips, the Clawhammer for consumers (getting one as soon as I can afford it) and the Opteron for servers. The Hammer will be marketed as a +3400 but with a clock speed of about 2.1Ghz (I think, somewhere around that at least)

I don't see Apple moving completly away from PPC anytime soon, but if it doesn't take much trouble and it won't be too confusing for the average consumer to recompile OSX and all the apps over to x86 (I really have no idea whether it's just a simple recompile or something much more complex, maybe someone can fill me in?

) then I can see them using both in future Macs.
But only if it wouldn't take up too many resources which I'm not sure of.

It's not very likely and I don't see them doing this, but I wouldn't be totally shocked if they did.

 

[mania]

let me say that i am sys admin on a linux box and much of the software i install can be compiled for just about anything out there. its NO big deal. we act like software developers will run away and cry cause they don't know how to compile for a different chip. geez.

that being said a switch to x86 is unlikely at this time, however, macbodille or whatever seems to have a good source since they called a few things right in the past. also the dropping os9 boot signifies something. i for one do not even have classic installed.

i totally agree with the guy who said i don't care what they do just do something to make things faster!

 

[Apple][Forever]

grr.

Thiswillnothappenthiswillnothappenthiswillnothappen.

One simple reason, which has been stated here before:

ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF CURRENT MACINTOSH APPLICATIONS will not run on an x86 mac.

Unless there is an emulation layer. Not just a VM like Classic, but a full emulation layer like Virtual PC.

Have you run Virtual PC?

It takes 5 minutes for Windows 98 to boot on my G4/600. It takes about 20 seconds for the start menu to appear.

Emulation is SLOW, folks. You can kiss the 1.2 GHz of extra speed GOODBYE.

And, yeah, software developers could recompile everything. I'm sure all the Altivec programmers are going to love reoptimizing for x86-64. And, unless software companies want to give away a lot of work for free, no one in their right mind is going to upgrade EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF SOFTWARE on their system.

Now, if the PPC970 did not exist and Apple looked completely screwed, it might be worth it to them to get over these hurdles. But with promising developments 9 months to a year away, they're OK. The only people who really NEED faster macs will not get them as quickly as they like, but with Apple's recent media acquisitions the software side should keep them on board until then.

Personally, I think AMD is working with Apple, perhaps in bus technologies. But AMD is already losing serious ground to Intel, so I don't see them shifting too many resources over to 5% of the PC market.

 

[Sun Baked]

Sort of funny that people think IBM needs AMDs help in producing chips.

100% of CPUs will be moved to silicon-on-insulator by 2003, says CEO

By J. Robert Lineback
Semiconductor Business News
(07/13/01 11:54 a.m. EST)

SUNNYVALE, Calif. -- In a bold move to convert 100% of its PC processors to silicon-on-insulator technology, Advanced Micro Devices Inc. has begun pilot production of 0.13-micron SOI processes in Dresden, Germany, with a target to start up volume fabrication by the end of this year, said AMD officials here during a conference call with analysts.

The 0.13-micron SOI technology was jointly developed with Motorola Inc. under an ongoing R&D alliance, which is also focused on other next-generation processes such as copper interconnects and low-k dielectrics. AMD has also licensed SOI design libraries from IBM Corp. These technologies are expected to play a role in migrating all of AMD's PC processors to silicon-on-insulator processes during the next couple of years, said Hector De J. Ruiz, president and chief operating officer.

AMD eyes copper, 1-GHz chip

By Michael Kanellos and Jim Davis
Staff Writers, CNET News.com
July 20, 1998, 8:20 PM PT

update Motorola's chip division and Advanced Micro Devices detailed a technology-sharing alliance today that will give AMD the ability to make copper-based microprocessors and give Motorola needed components to build "system-on-a-chip" parts for intelligent devices.

AMD also indicated that it is planning to push its next-generation K7 processor up to a speed of 1 GHz (1,000 MHz) in the year 2000. Copper will first appear on AMD's K7 at that time.

"Such a chip would be the fastest [Intel]-compatible processor, at least in terms of raw clock speed, available," according to the Microprocessor Report's Jim Turley in a report released today.

Under terms of the seven-year patent licensing deal between the two companies, AMD will have access to Motorola's copper interconnect technology, which will allow AMD to shift from chips using aluminum circuit interconnections, and other microprocessor manufacturing technology.

Yesterday, AMD and Motorola announced they would collaborate on making copper chips. But IBM maintains that it holds a substantial lead in this field.

Yes I can see how IBM would need AMD - as a revenue source and licensee of IBM technology.

 

[ddtlm]

Stupid Rumor

I have a hard time understanding how this rumor got posted to the front page ... someone up there needs to put a lameness filter in place.

 

[mwob]

From my view, if Apple were to switch to a hardware technology that creates significant new incompatibilites with current software, I would be less likely to purchase a new Mac, not more (at least in the near term). I'm not in the computer industry. I'm someone who simply uses them to get some work done (and have some fun). I've purchased several new Macs each year for the last several years and tend to be an early adopter of their innovations. I moved to OS X quickly but found it semi-painful, until recently, because much of the software I used was not OS X native. Only now have things seem to return back to "normal", since all the major packages I use are native (and I could finally afford to upgrade to them). I would loathe the idea of having to, yet again, purchase software upgrades for the sole reason of maintaining my current level of productivity.
I love fast hardware as much as the next guy. But, if I'm faced with having to re-purchase all my software... well, I think I might settle for something a bit slower, but more compatible.