AMD/nVidia OSX hybrid rumors...

[pc_convert?]

Read this at the inquirer about a possible OSX hybrid.

How valid do people think this is. Personally I've thought something like this could happen. Not that it will be OSX but darwin is open source so it is possible that a large enough company could basically come up with a OS based on OSX.

I think this would be really bad for Apple...but I also think the chances of it happening are nill.

 

[Taft]

Blah!

This is tripe. The article's evidence is itself just speculation. The letter that is linked to on the page is just some guy rationalizing a conclusion he has arrived to by himself. Speculation, guessing and rationalization of his own ideas. Its no rumor; its really just a guy spouting.

I (and I'd guess many others here) do not believe Apple will ever do this. At least not in the forseeable future. Show me some hard evidence (any evidence!) to the contrary and then maybe we'll talk.

Matthew

 

[IndyGopher]

This? tripe? you besmirch the good name of cow guts. This will happen right after they release the 2 GHz dual processor iMac with the 24" Cinema display.

 

[alex_ant]

You know, I have confidence that this is nothing but speculation as well, but I can't help but let it worry me a bit. It's not that my worry is justified - it's that I'm terrified at the mere thought of Apple embracing AMD, because doing so would mean the end of PowerPC. I mean, face it. It would. Apple couldn't sell AMD and PPC machines side-by-side - the PPCs would get spanked, they'd be more expensive, and they wouldn't sell. And Apple would not keep alive such a huge cash drain in actively supporting a "dead architecture" for long.

Apple + AMD = Bye bye to my beloved $2300 4-month-old PowerBook, just when the future was looking so rosy...

Apple + AMD = Me never forgiving Apple, and probably hobbling off to the Amiga or forcing myself to believe that BeOS is not dead or something.

Alex

 

[macstudent]

Didn't slashdot.org run a fake news story about that merger on april 1st? April fools day was quite interesting at that site.

 

[mac15]

This? tripe? you besmirch the good name of cow guts. This will happen right after they release the 2 GHz dual processor iMac with the 24" Cinema display.

lol that true maybe you should think before you post

 

[tortus]

Apple+AMD Hammer=

Apple+AMD Hammer=a lower cost powermac. I think we would all enjoy this. For all of you that don't know, AMD will be releasing the Hammer family of 64 bit processors later this year. The specs look good. Tom's Hardware actually got to see a working prototype.

G5 vs. Hammer. No one can say. There is nothing solid concerning g5 performance (nothing at all.)

I just want Apple to possibly competively price their powermacs. Or, they can just charge us the inflated prices and maintain the market share and pray that we don't become dismayed with them.

 

[cb911]

OSX on a AMD Hammer would kill Mac sales. this probably won't happen, but if it did Apple would have a better, faster 64 bit processor anyway.

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by cb911
OSX on a AMD Hammer would kill Mac sales. this probably won't happen, but if it did Apple would have a better, faster 64 bit processor anyway.

Faster, maybe. But not better. All I can say is, drop that sucker into a PowerBook and you have a PowerSkillet.

Am I the only one who thinks dumping the PPC would be like dumping your loving and dependable girlfriend just because you want some other bird who, although she is empty and braindead and wears gobs of make-up, has bigger tits?

Alex

 

[Taft]

Lower price...

Why does everyone automatically assume that a AMD chip in a Mac would make the Mac a lower price?

Sure the chip itself is going to be marginally lower in cost. But Apple is still going to use a proprietary design for its motherboard, its own design for casing and keyboard and mice. The notebooks would still come with high quality screens and airport compatibility.

Basically what I'm saying is that the real reason behind Apple's higher price is its high quality craftsmanship, total integration of parts, and beautiful and innovative designs. Swapping in a marginally cheaper chip won't change that.

Matthew

 

[tortus]

Big Tits

Always go for the big tits! They are fun to play with.

On a serious note, I think it is about time that Apple stopped being so stubborn concerning their system architecture. All I want is a PowerMac that is more affordable, can take CPU upgrades, and has big tits.

For Example, if Apple gave a few mobo companies exclusive rights (licenses) to develop motherboards for powermac g4's we would see DDR in our systems and bigger tits.

Apple likes to hide in a closet for two years then pop-out for a moment to show the world what it was doing in the closet. After Apple has blessed us with its brilliance, they go right back into their damn closet while the rest of the world turns their gaze to their dull PCs to conduct business and play Counterstrike.

Come on Apple, think Tits!

 

[jadam]

ummm. you guys dont know nothing about what your talking about. AMD could always license PPC.

The AMD clawhammers are probally ganna be the best new processors
1)the clawhammers will be built on a .13micron manufactuaring process, the next model series will be .09microns
2)they are not really x86 processors, but x86-64 processors with support for x86 apps, though if OSX were to be ported to them, it would run in pure 64-bit mode!!.
3)AMD has a much much much much much better R&D team then motorolla.
4)AMD comes out with new processors every month!!
5)AMD's processors are a **** load cheaper than motorolas G4 prices, A duall GHZ system costs twice as much as a dual 1.4GHZ Athlon XP system
6)AMD isnt into the money like INTEL, they make efficient processors, the new G5's that mot wants to come out with, with the like 15stage pipeline is bigger than the athlons 12stage, but smaller than the P4's 20stage

 

[tortus]

I agree

I would love Apple to allow AMD to supply us with the chips. I have been a huge fan of AMD. I believe in their company and I believe in their products. Motorolla is a big disappointment relative to AMD or Intel. They have yet to work out all the glitches in fabrication. AMD is at the top of its game and is about to leap ahead of the entire chip world with its .13 micron manufacturing process.

And yes, AMD has much better R&D than Motorola. Me sitting on the toilet reading Maxim has more R&D than Motorolla.

I will be very upset at Apple if the g5 does not out perform the hammer series from AMD.

 

[digital1]

I personally think that the G5 has the possibility of outperfroming the AMD chips. Is the G5 Motorola/IBM/ Apple 's cut of a fully design 64 bit processor? Is the G4 64-bit. I thought it was....

 

[tortus]

g4 is 128 bit

The G4 is a 128 bit processor but it can only handle a 32 bit instruction set. It can take in 128 bits of data at a time (which is 4 X32 bit data chunks simultaneously), but is still limited to 32 bits of instruction.

The Hammer processes 64 bit instruction and is also designed to handle 32 bit instruction so you can run win 98 on it without buying a new version of windows.

The g5 will be 64 bit in the way that the hammer is 64 bit.

 

[guv]

why is every1 against an osx port onto chips designed for windows?? that could open up a masssive market, open up to thousands of people not willing to buy a mac, but kinda like the idea of having the mac os... or are u all to busy screaming ur lungs out at M$ too realise its them that would loose out..

 

[tortus]

I'm all for it

If you have two comparable system architectures, the better OS will win outright.

Itanium, hammer, or g5...the OS is what makes the system great. So, Apple...cut us a break. losen up a bit.

Plus, PowerMac Hammer has such a nice ring to it.

 

[alex_ant]

Re: g4 is 128 bit

Originally posted by tortus
The G4 is a 128 bit processor but it can only handle a 32 bit instruction set. It can take in 128 bits of data at a time (which is 4 X32 bit data chunks simultaneously), but is still limited to 32 bits of instruction.

AltiVec is 128-bit. The G4's integer and fp units are both 32-bit. The G4 is by all common definitions a 32-bit CPU. If you can tell me the G4 supports 128-bit long integers, I've got a bridge I want to sell you! Cheap!

Alex

 

[alex_ant]

Re: Lower price...

Originally posted by Taft
Sure the chip itself is going to be marginally lower in cost. But Apple is still going to use a proprietary design for its motherboard, its own design for casing and keyboard and mice. The notebooks would still come with high quality screens and airport compatibility.

What makes you think that by changing to x86, Apple would not succumb to the lure of lower product cost by integrating cheap custom Soyo boards into their systems or something? Once they're on the same playing field as everyone else, they've got to compete by the same rules, no matter which OS they use. Because you have to admit that while OS X x86 might attract a small segment of geeks, Windows would still dominate. Doesn't matter which OS is superior. "It runs all my software," says the soccer mom.

Alex

 

[alex_ant]

Re: I'm all for it

Originally posted by tortus
If you have two comparable system architectures, the better OS will win outright.

As BeOS proved, right? And Linux... and OS/2... and DR-DOS...

Itanium, hammer, or g5...the OS is what makes the system great.

You've just refuted your own argument. If the OS is what makes the system great, why should Apple bother porting to x86? The system is already great. Apple is making money, unlike the PC vendors you are proposing that it imitate, and now you want to do away with this. Why?

Plus, PowerMac Hammer has such a nice ring to it.

The "Power" was originally appended to the Mac after the adoption of the PowerPC. (M68K... Mac. PowerPC... Power Mac.) If there were a Mac that used the Hammer, its proper name would have to be HammerMac, and that's just retarded.

Alex

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by guv
why is every1 against an osx port onto chips designed for windows??

Geez, how many times do those of us who are against such a port have to repeat ourselves?

that could open up a masssive market, open up to thousands of people not willing to buy a mac, but kinda like the idea of having the mac os...

Why doesn't BMW just start selling shoddy Geo clones? That could open up a massive market, open up to thousands of people not willing to buy a BMW, but who kinda like the idea of having a German-engineered car.

Alex

 

[yanny]

I don't understand!

Why people keep wanting the impossible?

I am not a computer scientist or programmer or engineer, but I have used many different system, many versions of Windows from 3.1 and Mac from System 6, so I guess I am an experience user.

And I don't think Apple will by any remote chance porting OS X to run on Intel or AMD chips. My opinion is based on my professional experience. The main reason for Apple not porting OSX to Intel/AMD is apps. If OSX get ported to Intel/AMD, where can we get apps to run on the Mac ? It's taken long enough for the established company to port PPC apps to OS X: and another transition again? Look what happened to BeOS? Super cool OS with no apps?

I don't know about other pc/Mac users thinking OSX on Intel is cool, but remember Apple is a hardware company, they make their money by selling hardware. Who's going to buy Macs if it has no apps to run on? I use Macs to earn a living, and I have been trying to switch to OS X for 6 months now and still trying, because the apps that I use to earn money aren't available for OS X yet.

Porting OS X to Intel would kill Apple!

 

[yanny]

I don't understand!

Why people keep wanting the impossible?

I am not a computer scientist or programmer or engineer, but I have used many different system, many versions of Windows from 3.1 and Mac from System 6, so I guess I am an experience user.

And I don't think Apple will by any remote chance porting OS X to run on Intel or AMD chips. My opinion is based on my professional experience. The main reason for Apple not porting OSX to Intel/AMD is apps. If OSX get ported to Intel/AMD, where can we get apps to run on the Mac ? It's taken long enough for the established company to port PPC apps to OS X: and another transition again? Look what happened to BeOS? Super cool OS with no apps?

I don't know about other pc/Mac users thinking OSX on Intel is cool, but remember Apple is a hardware company, they make their money by selling hardware. Who's going to buy Macs if it has no apps to run on? I use Macs to earn a living, and I have been trying to switch to OS X for 6 months now and still trying, because the apps that I use to earn money aren't available for OS X yet.

Porting OS X to Intel would kill Apple!

 

[mischief]

It would make more sense the other way.

There was a rumor a while back that Apple's latest G5 test box had both an AIM G5 (pair) and an AMD Athlon.

This would make sense as Apple's always made their $$$ on HW and their ceasefire with M$ is up just before MWNY. I figure you could build X.2 to gut XP the way it guts Classic........non bootable but will run it's own stuff in isolation.......Darwin does all the I/O and such.

 

[alex_ant]

Re: It would make more sense the other way.

Originally posted by mischief
There was a rumor a while back that Apple's latest G5 test box had both an AIM G5 (pair) and an AMD Athlon.

This would make sense as Apple's always made their $$$ on HW and their ceasefire with M$ is up just before MWNY. I figure you could build X.2 to gut XP the way it guts Classic........non bootable but will run it's own stuff in isolation.......Darwin does all the I/O and such.

Apple has already done something similar to this in the past, haven't they? (Hardware inside a Mac that could run DOS and Win 3.1) And correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't very successful. Apple would need to:

1) Add an Athlon along with PC-compatibility hardware
2) Develop the Yellow Box-like Windows compatibility layer
3) Charge each implementation for the Windows license

All that would add at least $500 to the cost of each Mac. Why not just run Virtual PC instead? Or buy a whole separate PC, for that matter?

And why would Apple want to do this, anyway? The only reason people are talking about porting OS X to Intel is because of the PPC-falling-behind issue. Adding Windows compatibility to the Mac wouldn't have any effect on this.

Alex