MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
53,534
15,253
The Inquirer posts more rumors regarding Apple and AMD's relationship...


The galley gossip is that Apple has placed an order for Hammerish chipolatas but it won't launch possibly until early 2004 when Microsoft Palladium comes like a thief in the night for all X86 CPUs everywhere.

Also mentioned is that there would be no standalone Marklar (OS X on x86) -- which would mean Apple-branded AMD boxes.

The Inquirer has had a poor record in past rumors.
 

crassusad44

macrumors 6502a
Nov 30, 2001
546
0
Scandinavia
Hmmmm....

Interesting...... Very inte.... oh... The Inquirer.... blah...

Why do they even bother with AMD rumors??? If Apple is going to jump to another chip, it will be the PPC 970 from IBM. Expect to see it in 6-8 months time...
 

macmunch

macrumors regular
Jan 6, 2002
116
0
But it would be the best ...

It would be the best what apple could do !!!!

Imagine, the most people especiall gamers will then not choose Intel chips anymore (because they also support palladium) so they will choose the very fast Hammer !

And if Apple would bundle it with OS X or will optimize the OS X for the Hammer.Also AMD will help to this because then they can steal more market from Intel ! The than have people a alternitive to MS systems and the programmers worldwide will have very less work to bring the apps to OS X (PC) because the dont must optimize the apps for new hardware ! (Its the same PC hardware like on MS systems )

If they will pass this chance !
Then apple will go down (I hope not but it would or will happen)


Remember, a long time ago the Clones it was a very big chance and then they canceld it !
 

Kid Red

macrumors 65816
Dec 14, 2001
1,412
147
Wether fake or not, having an Apple branded amd box is the only way to do pc. Keep X on our side but give us their architecture and allow AMD to duke it out with intel while we reeps the rewards.

Either way, we will be loving life this fall.
 

GPTurismo

macrumors 6502
May 4, 2001
275
0
Montgomery, AL USA
I am tired of the rumors. They are sickening.

I got in an arguement about people complaining abotu SGI machines running at such slow megahertz, and why not go AMD?

I had to point out a few things that effect performance more.

The main thing being bitage and component communication speed. SGi machines kick butt because their components talk FULL SPEED to each other individual component. I still can't remember the name. Interweave connect or somehting fancy and catchphrashish.

The problem with AMD arch is the current system has a very limiting bus speed. The PPC970's bus speed is at half the processor speed, which is 900 megahertz. That might seem not that fast but you want smaller multipliers, so there it's 1:2, compared to the 1:5 of the p4 and 1:6 on some amd's.

Then there is the actual components. The more legacy components and processor dependant heavy components you loose more resources.

Apple is positioning themselves as a higher tier machine (finally) instead of trying to compete head to head with the lower grade commercial/consumer products.

Which is one reason they are probably going with hyper transport, which will make components more expensive since a lot ofthe bigger pc makers / component manufacturers are not wanting to shift to it.

I hope this makes sense >_< I am trying to type it as fast as I can without making it pure rubbish... :-*

-GPT

Also AMD is trying to steal more market from intel by getting deeper in MS's pants. Thats why they said they were going to support palladium way before intel had considered an answer.
 

zarathustra

macrumors 6502a
Jul 16, 2002
771
2
Boston
Re: But it would be the best ...

Originally posted by macmunch
And if Apple would bundle it with OS X or will optimize the OS X for the Hammer.Also AMD will help to this because then they can steal more market from Intel ! The than have people a alternitive to MS systems and the programmers worldwide will have very less work to bring the apps to OS X (PC) because the dont must optimize the apps for new hardware ! (Its the same PC hardware like on MS systems )

If they will pass this chance !
Then apple will go down (I hope not but it would or will happen)


Remember, a long time ago the Clones it was a very big chance and then they canceld it !

How many times do we have to say this : Apple will not ship OSX to a x86 platform for OEMs.

Also, the clones of the 90s almost killed Apple totally - they should have licensed the MacOS back before Windows 3.0, then we would have a totally different computing world. But hindsight is 20/20, so let's not even bring this up.
 

brandon6684

Guest
Dec 30, 2002
538
0
Didn't AMD announce support for Palladium well before Intel? Apple is nearing the end of fa rocky tranistion to a new OS, why would they further complicate things with a new arciitecture? At least with OS X they could at least accomodate most incompatible apps thourgh Classic, but switching to x86 won't be able to effectively emulate PowerPC unless the Hammer is a gigantic leap ahead of it's 32-bit predecessors, which while improved, it won't be that much better. The only place that Apple would consider going x86 is servers, and IBMs chips would be much beter suited for that. While Apples running AMD chips would make likely make Macs more popular, they would lose a lot of ISVs and old mac users. It jut doesn't all work out.
 

Frobozz

macrumors demi-god
Jul 24, 2002
1,142
91
South Orange, NJ
No, no, no, no, NO.

No way. Stop the insanity!!! They probably purchased a couple chips to test for their Palladium takeover of x86. They're a far cry from cranking out x86 based Macs. Maybe in the server market, but x86 is way too hot and inneficient to risk screwing up your consumer orientied plans.
 

rt_brained

macrumors 6502a
Jan 13, 2002
551
0
Creativille
"Hammerish Chipolatas?"

Lemme get this straight...The secret ingredient in AMD's amazing new processor comes from a flavorful smoked pepper native to the Central and South American region?

No wonder those chips run so hot.
 

GPTurismo

macrumors 6502
May 4, 2001
275
0
Montgomery, AL USA
Originally posted by rt_brained
"Hammerish Chipolatas?"

Lemme get this straight...The secret ingredient in AMD's amazing new processor comes from a flavorful smoked pepper native to the Central and South American region?

No wonder those chips run so hot.

And they're tasty too!
 

Phechs

macrumors member
Dec 27, 2002
55
0
Crep

The inguirer's rumors are usually crap, don't invest any faith in the issue.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,889
1,478
Palookaville
Re: No, no, no, no, NO.

Originally posted by Frobozz
No way. Stop the insanity!!! They probably purchased a couple chips to test for their Palladium takeover of x86. They're a far cry from cranking out x86 based Macs. Maybe in the server market, but x86 is way too hot and inneficient to risk screwing up your consumer orientied plans.
Exactly. If there's any truth to this rumor (which considering the source...), it probably has naught all to do with some imminent leap to x86. Apple has to be running Project Marklar on either Intel or AMD -- so what's the big deal about which one?
 

bdkennedy1

Suspended
Oct 24, 2002
1,275
528
"How many times do we have to say this : Apple will not ship OSX to a x86 platform for OEMs.

Also, the clones of the 90s almost killed Apple totally - they should have licensed the MacOS back before Windows 3.0, then we would have a totally different computing world. But hindsight is 20/20, so let's not even bring this up."


So basically Apple has just been developing Marklar for the past 4 years for their own amusement?

In the 90's, OS X didn't exist and decent X86 hardware didn't exist to make it feasible for clones.

Apple is spending a chunk of money on Marklar for a reason, and it totally makes sense to use it. I think this is the smartest thing Apple could do.
 

ffakr

macrumors 6502a
Jul 2, 2002
617
0
Chicago
Re: But it would be the best ...

Originally posted by macmunch

Imagine, the most people especiall gamers will then not choose Intel chips anymore (because they also support palladium) so they will choose the very fast Hammer !

Um, No.

Gamers won't give two craps about an Apple branded hammer box in 2003. Games aren't 'written' for an architecture as much as they are writted for a software IDE. If all games were written in straight ANSI C, developers would port everything to the Mac OS X because it wouldn't take more effort than flipping a flag on the compiler.

Games are written for Direct X, or OpenGL. They use Microsoft's routines for window and button drawing... they use MS routines for networking...

This is why there are software houses like Aspire that specialize in porting Mac games.. and why it takes them months and months to do it... they translate the readable source from DX to OGL.. they translate from Windows calls to Mac system calls.. then they compile it to run on the PPC (and Mac OSX).

If Apple releases an Apple only X86 box, where is the advantage? Windows software won't run on it, unless you include an Wine-like Windows Emulation layer... or license Windows and run it like bluebox (which would tack more cost on). This would essentially make OSX for x86 just another OS/2. Remember how well OS/2 fared with it's superior technology?
PowerPC code run in emulation will run like crap... Like VPC does now with windows programs.

There would be two, maybe three outcomes of an Apple branded AMD box...

1) Apple doesn't have hardware from IBM or Moto that is as fast as hammer, so people stop buying PPC computers. Apple trades their 'one vendor' problems for another 'single vendor' situation. Remember.. AMD has had erratta issues that have kept Athlon clocks down... Motorola isn't the only one with issues, they are just worse than everyone elses. End result, Developers eventually move more efforts to x86-64 code and people with a LOT of money invested in PPC are f'ed.
2) Apple releases it, but no one cares because fast, low-power G4s and scary fast 970s are also being produced. Developers don't bother with the new platform for the most part, which makes users not bother with it. It essentially dies, sucking boat loads of Apple R&D down with it.
3) Apple puts some sort of ROM on the board, making it impossible to run Windows on the box also... PC users hate the new proprietary box and decry Apple... especially because the custom apple AMD box is much more expensive than one from off the shelf components........... or the exact opposite, Apple makes a fairly standard box allowing OSX to run on standard X86-64 hardware. No one buys the more expensive but pretty Apple boxes, they just build Hammer computers and pirate OS X (like every other install of a MS OS).
 

rjrufo

macrumors regular
Sep 18, 2002
207
1
Boston
I don't have a lot of knowledge on the subject, but I do have an imagination. My imagination tells me that Apple may be coming out with an AMD box. I don't think that it will be the only chip in future Macs, but possibly an option for the higher end machines. My imagination definetly doesn't think that they'll release OS-X for other manufacturers to put on thier machines, but keep OS-X on Apple branded machines.

Now, if I could only get my imagination to tell me the truth...
 

Hawthorne

macrumors regular
Jul 1, 2002
198
0
In front of my Mac
Originally posted by bryank1



So basically Apple has just been developing Marklar for the past 4 years for their own amusement?

In the 90's, OS X didn't exist and decent X86 hardware didn't exist to make it feasible for clones.

Apple is spending a chunk of money on Marklar for a reason, and it totally makes sense to use it. I think this is the smartest thing Apple could do.

Like it was for Be? Or NeXT? Or Novell? Or IBM, with OS/2? Your reality check just bounced, dude.

Motorola is to chip manufacturing what Joel Schumaker is to directing movies. They goofed up the PPC, and Marklar was developed as Apple was looking for an alternative, ANY alternative to their bumbling ways. They now have the 970, though, so Marklar has been shifted to being kept alive as a possible alternative to MS's nigh-unto useless Palladium-restricted OS of the future. Once people realize how Microsoft owns them, body and soul, Apple will have an open, non-DRM solution for them to switch to. But only, and I cannot stress this enough, ONLY if it does *not* cannabilize the sales of Apple-branded hardware.
 

nighthawk

macrumors regular
Jan 3, 2003
104
0
There is one other option that nobody has mentioned that is as likely of a possibility as the other options mentioned above.

Remember the original PPC PowerMac Series (6100 & 8100) had the option of having an Intel chip in addition to the mac hardware.

Maybe Apple Powermac machines are going to start being 3-Processor (or 4) machines with one AMD chip to handle all X86 code. In addition, Apple could be using the Malkar project to port CERTAIN TASKS over to the X86 chip to reduce the load off of the PowerPC chips.

Technically, it would be difficult, but not TOO unlikely. This might even be a practical use for the AMD HyperTransport to have high-speed communicatation between the two types of processors.
 

bdkennedy1

Suspended
Oct 24, 2002
1,275
528
Originally posted by GPTurismo
I agree with ffakr. Apple on AMD wouldn't help them more than it would hurt them. All it would do would help make some of you whinemongers be quiet :)

Let's see... $600 for a Power PC chip or $200 for a top of the line AMD chip. No, saving $400 wouldn't be at all an interest to Apple.
 

jettredmont

macrumors 68030
Jul 25, 2002
2,731
328
Originally posted by bryank1
"How many times do we have to say this : Apple will not ship OSX to a x86 platform for OEMs.

Also, the clones of the 90s almost killed Apple totally - they should have licensed the MacOS back before Windows 3.0, then we would have a totally different computing world. But hindsight is 20/20, so let's not even bring this up."


So basically Apple has just been developing Marklar for the past 4 years for their own amusement?

No. Marklar, if it is ever released, will be on Apple-only hardware (tied to Apple MoBo's and ROMs), is what bryank1 is saying. That seems to be the consensus view on the matter.

Marklar is "if Moto and IBM's chips fall too far behind Intel/AMD..." scenario fallback plan. It is not "let's see if we can give our hardware buiness to the Wintel vendors and see what they can make of it" plan. It is insurance, and cheap at that. It gives Apple options. Apple likes options.


In the 90's, OS X didn't exist and decent X86 hardware didn't exist to make it feasible for clones.

Apple is spending a chunk of money on Marklar for a reason, and it totally makes sense to use it. I think this is the smartest thing Apple could do.

From the reports I've seen, Marklar is a minor project compared to Apple's overall organization. Which is great, as an insurance plan. Of course, most revolutions come from small teams, but that doesn't mean Apple has a massive vested interest in whatever is to become of Marklar.
 

bdkennedy1

Suspended
Oct 24, 2002
1,275
528
Originally posted by Hawthorne


Like it was for Be? Or NeXT? Or Novell? Or IBM, with OS/2? Your reality check just bounced, dude.

Those OS's failed because they didn't have the backing of developers, backing of companies or had inferior products. I don't recalling Be or NeXT having 5% market share and the large following Apple has right now.

For the first several years, Be competed with Mac and failed. Strapped for cash, only in its last year did it start selling x86 versions, which was by then way too late. No one wanted to develop programs for it.

NeXT wasn't polished enough to compete with Windows.

OS/2 IBM didn't really give a crap about. It was a joint venture between them and Microsoft and when Micrsoft pulled out the rug from underneath them, IBM didn't have the skills or knowledge to compete with Windows NT.

Novell....morons.

Apple has everything these companies didn't have. Marklar has been in development for 4 years and they're going to use it for something whether you think it's stupid or not.
 

lmalave

macrumors 68000
Nov 8, 2002
1,614
0
Chinatown NYC
Originally posted by nighthawk
There is one other option that nobody has mentioned that is as likely of a possibility as the other options mentioned above.

Remember the original PPC PowerMac Series (6100 & 8100) had the option of having an Intel chip in addition to the mac hardware.

Maybe Apple Powermac machines are going to start being 3-Processor (or 4) machines with one AMD chip to handle all X86 code. In addition, Apple could be using the Malkar project to port CERTAIN TASKS over to the X86 chip to reduce the load off of the PowerPC chips.

Technically, it would be difficult, but not TOO unlikely. This might even be a practical use for the AMD HyperTransport to have high-speed communicatation between the two types of processors.

Hmm...very interesting idea. Have real freakin' AMD x86 chip as an emulation subsystem. Like you said though, there would be technical challenges - the PPC and x86 have completely different instruction sets so you'd still have to isolate the x86 and have a translation layer. And you'd have to incorporate into OSX the ability to run Windows programs on this x86 chip seamlessly somehow. Very intriguing, though. Considering the cost and complexity, though, it would only be worthwhile if Apple though that it would get them a lot more switchers...
 

pyrotoaster

macrumors 65816
Dec 28, 2002
1,004
0
Oak Park, IL
I'll eat my Newton hat.

Not just is this a report from a site with a laughable reputation, but Apple isn't leaving Motorola for AMD:mad:. They're leaving Motorola for IBM:D.
Seriously, Motorola is a lousy company, and unless they produce the 2 GHz G5 within the next six to eight months (maybe twelve, depending on how Mr. Jobs sees all of this), Apple will (I mean should) leave them for IBM's new PowerPCs.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.