Apple and IBM's PowerPC Potential

[AidenShaw]

The high-end desktops and the XServes will be G5's and G6's. Laptops might be split and the rest would be intel and used by gamers.

IMO - wrong!

Fat binaries won't work long term.

Developers won't want to code and test for both environments, nor will they want to cripple one to support the other.

The whole "fat binary" argument lives in the outer boundaries of the RDF. Nobody with experience in software engineering or product support will believe it!

 

[dontmatter]

Like I said...NOTHING to do with Games. Getting more games on the Mac platform is nowhere near reason enough to switch processor architectures. This is ALL because a certain someone has egg in their face regarding 3GHz. Think about it.

no, because only a pretty limited population is aware of the famed "3GHz promise" and think there is egg on anybody's face.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple is planning on making an iPod with FULL mac capabilities to REALY get to the masses. There is the momentum for this, marketing-wise. Technically, they need a cool and low power processor and they need LOTS of them. Intel is their best partner for that.

Interesting, but Windows runs on cell phones and PDAs with cell phone and PDA chips.

Hardware independence would do the same for Apple - sorry, but I don't buy your argument. Apple could put OSX-CE on an ARM or other PDA chip without causing an upheaval for the mainstream.

 

[eXan]

I hate IBM and I hate their idiotic PowerPC chips.

I wonder why?

I hope IBM finaly builds mobile G5s, so Apple have to cancel Intel transition for a while

 

[eSnow]

Motorola, IBM, intel...

Somehow, the current situation re: intel is all too familiar to me.

When the PPC switch was announced, Apple touted the new CPU as a speed demon and showed some bull-**** graphics to "prove" the future based on the roadmap. Of course, intel and the x86-technologie were doomed to be left behind.

When they introduced the G4, the "supercomputer on a chip" arrived. Future projections were rosy and the demise of intel imminent.

When Apple finally switched to IBM and the 970, Jobs announced a future 3Ghz and closing of the performance gap. x86? too hot, thing of the past.

Now, intel has given Jobs a roadmap that proves beyond doubt that their future offerings will run cooler and faster than anything else. Not today, but in 2006/2007.

I am curious what the fvcking baaaah-lambs that now sing intels praise will say after the Macintels fail to gain marketshare and still are more expensive and still don't feature the latest and greatest CPUs.

Make no mistake: Apple is not a high-volume customer to intel - even less than it was for IBM or Freescale. They can buy some run-of-the-mill designs or leave it. By kicking IBM in the teeth, Jobs has severed any plan B he might have had and now is left to intels mercy.
If you dream of intel wanting to get away from MS: forget it. They make like 90% of their business selling chips to run Windows on it.

 

[GregA]

I still think it's a volume issue for IBM. They could develop ppc chips for Apples needs, but with a market share well under 5%, it's just not worth the effort for IBM at this time.

It does seem that IBMs attentions are elsewhere.

Interesting thought:
IBM could produce a 3 ghz multicore chip for Apple... They in fact are producing one for Microsoft. The chip designs are not that dissimilar.<snip>
The heat issues also makes one wonder too, because the Xbox360 is a tiny box compared to a PowerMac.

I wonder if IBM offered that option to Apple, but Apple wanted to differentiate itself from an XBox?

I really don't know too much about processors as I'd like to but I was reading about the DRM features in some x86 chips and how Apple could take advantage of that to beging a truly legal movie download system. It seems something very believable, and it would seem to me as a real reason to switch to Intel

Perhaps this is a reason for switching, though I have GREAT fears for both competition and DRM if Intel's solution is THE ONLY solution.

Yonah isn't going into the PowerMacs. The iMac maybe but not the PowerMacs. There is a reason why the PowerMacs will be the last to go Intel. It's because the Intel chips destined for the PowerMacs will not be available until late 2006 to early 2007. Also, I really wouldn't expect a G5 MP at 3.0 GHz. It will likely start out at around 2.3 to 2.5 GHz, a bit slower than what we have now.

I actually agree with what you say here, but notice the assumptions you've made - you say "There is a reason why the PowerMacs will be the last".... who ever said they'd be the last to go to Intel? Who said which chips they'd use? I agree with your guess but notice that it is a guess... Steve may allow certain assumptions to stick around

 

[slidingjon]

Somehow, the current situation re: intel is all too familiar to me.

When the PPC switch was announced, Apple touted the new CPU as a speed demon and showed some bull-**** graphics to "prove" the future based on the roadmap. Of course, intel and the x86-technologie were doomed to be left behind.

When they introduced the G4, the "supercomputer on a chip" arrived. Future projections were rosy and the demise of intel imminent.

When Apple finally switched to IBM and the 970, Jobs announced a future 3Ghz and closing of the performance gap. x86? too hot, thing of the past.

Now, intel has given Jobs a roadmap that proves beyond doubt that their future offerings will run cooler and faster than anything else. Not today, but in 2006/2007.

I am curious what the fvcking baaaah-lambs that now sing intels praise will say after the Macintels fail to gain marketshare and still are more expensive and still don't feature the latest and greatest CPUs.

Make no mistake: Apple is not a high-volume customer to intel - even less than it was for IBM or Freescale. They can buy some run-of-the-mill designs or leave it. By kicking IBM in the teeth, Jobs has severed any plan B he might have had and now is left to intels mercy.
If you dream of intel wanting to get away from MS: forget it. They make like 90% of their business selling chips to run Windows on it.

besides the volume, from what I understand, Apple is getting the best price point in the market for the chips. I don't think Intel will be making loads of money off them. It has been Intel's mantra for the past ten years to get apple "at all costs". welp....they got them. now, let's deliver.

 

[Coca-Cola]

It will be nice to have a decent supply of chips delivered on time. Thanks intel!

 

[podsalyer]

You got it ! Just remember the new QT H 264 standard and its high
compression datas ! They have a lot in their production tube.

Don`t forget the new game consoles ! X Box 3 - 3.2 PPCs,
Nintendo Revolution 4 - 2.5 Ghz PPCs with a pricing of ca. 300 Dollar.
Expensive Powermac 2 2,7 Ghz Units - sounds like a joke to customers !

Last Chance: Transmit to X86 ! Wait some month for the upcoming
developments at Dell and HP.

A lot is strange these days !

 

[joeboy_45101]

Well dudes !

I hate it to say but steve`s plan is to attack windows.
The foolish developers and the idiot users (us) help to
prepare for Jobs last battle. The iPod helped to bring
in enough money to develop such a mega - strike.
All will be transformed for the PC Platform, OEM Sale
in the End. Treason, for sure - and we pay the price.
The next big thing after iTunes is for sure a iMovie Pod and Store.
DRM in a well controlled Intel Machine - Hollywood Business...
But the Mac as it was ended finally on 6th this month !
Sorry, i hate these words...but the Mac has not only changed
his mind - it also lost his soul !
Stay Hungry - stay foolish Steve said...I complete...stay yourself

Very poetic. Let me continue...

The moment will come that this whole OS war will have seemed like a dream
when the masses come to realize that they have been using the same Operating System all along, sort of like Adam and Eve discovering that they are naked after taking a bite of the apple in the garden of Eden or like the end sequence of Super Mario Bros. 2. There was no Windows there was no Mac OS X, it was all just an illusion and we will be wiping the dust from are tired little eyes wondering what just happened. Bill Gates doesn't exist and neither does Steve Jobs, they were just figments of a larger more powerful and omnipresent CEO's imagination.

 

[GregA]

What steve hasn't said?

It's interesting looking at what Steve Jobs says and trying to read between the lines. We know that he sometimes says one thing with just a little vagueness when he has something up his sleeves. Flash based music players not worth it, anyone?

Of course any guesses would be wild speculation....

For instance, by doing this switch he's forcing developers to stop using Altivec and asking them to write directly to Apple's vector processing instructions. This is necessary to move to Intel, but it also means Apple could release a Power5 based Xserve early next year (Power5 has no Altivec) and any developers with Altivec code will have already updated their applications to run fine.

Apple is forcing codewarrior developers to switch to Xcode and in doing this they move ALL OSX development to Xcode.... they actually get a large base of developers on their respectable cross-platform development environment... where could this lead?

Have we all noticed how Apple keep saying "Intel", and not "x86"? Now I would never believe Intel would make a custom chip for Apple, it's just not worth it. But, IBM has a radical design in Cell, so is Intel designing something else radically different? With Rosetta integrated with the OS, and having developers on Xcode, Apple gain great flexibility with their processor etc - maybe they've got something else in mind come 2007? (Or maybe the processor flexibilty is just an opening for Itanium?)

Of course, with everyone on Xcode, and keeping a high standard of usability too... could Apple decide to allow developers to compile for Linux too? Or even Windows? Could Xcode become THE place for cross platform development?

What else is happening due to the switch that might not be obvious?

What about the "transition"? When I hear transition I think that one line of Macs at a time will stop running PPC and start running Intel. What other ways can a transition occur? Is it possible to have multicore Powerbooks available from BOTH Freescale (G4) and Intel (Yonah) for all of 2006? Or a high end PowerMac running Intel alongside new G5s? (of course if one processor is hugely faster for the same cost this wouldn't be any use!)

Just thinking of what we've ASSUMED from the announcement (because most people, myself included, have taken the little information from Apple with roadmaps from Intel and DEDUCED the path that Apple will take).

What will Apple really do?
Greg
ps. Oh, a last thought... could they also release a PowerMac running with the same chip as the XBox360?

 

[strale]

I don't know how fast the G5 MPs are. But they should be arround 3 ghz. That is quite faster than Intels 2.13ghz. (yeah, I know. Clockspeed isnt all, but everyone knowes that PPC are as fast or faster than X86 per clock cykle)

That isn't true for the Pentium M, a Pentium M at the same clock cycle would be MUCH faster than a G5. They are just better. (I don't like Intel for x86 compatiblity, but they sure spend a whole lot more money in new chips than IBM, they throw money at the problem, and IBM don't) While a P4 is damn slow at the same clock cycle.

Every Notebook at Aldi/Lidl/Walmart/dunno outperforms a Powerbook G4, and they have longer battery life. Apple need something for their pro notebook line. Forgot? Last year was the year of the Notebook ... and it still isn't only the year of HD.

 

[podsalyer]

Tree

Very poetic. Let me continue...

The moment will come that this whole OS war will have seemed like a dream
when the masses come to realize that they have been using the same Operating System all along, sort of like Adam and Eve discovering that they are naked after taking a bite of the apple in the garden of Eden or like the end sequence of Super Mario Bros. 2. There was no Windows there was no Mac OS X, it was all just an illusion and we will be wiping the dust from are tired little eyes wondering what just happened. Bill Gates doesn't exist and neither does Steve Jobs, they were just figments of a larger more powerful and omnipresent CEO's imagination.

Very Poetic ! But humans define themselves as individuals with own
will. But Mr. God Gates had only one will - to make us same to him.
Mac Users resisted and kept their lives - not ending in dirt !
Heya - No mind salvery !

 

[jouster]

Since they have dual binaries in the software, why not have a dual hardware lineup?

Because they've said that this won't happen.

And I imagine devs are pretty relieved.

 

[sjk]

I honestly thought the average computer user was more flexible in their ability to quickly adapt to basic changes in a GUI. But what I have learned over time is that most computer users don't actually seem to understand the basic concepts of a GUI and them apply them in a general context to a GUI which is subtly different to what they are used to. They learn operations by rote, and then when something like the program launch menu is in a different spot, or the window controls are on the left side of the title bar instead of the right, they are thrown into a tailspin, get rapidly frustrated, and give up on the Mac within a few minutes, declaring it to be 'wrong'.

Many people use computers with simple, limited procedural practices that lack a flexibility of conceptual understanding most of us here probably take for granted. Unfamiliarity sometimes triggers stubborn obstacles of resistance rather than being accepted challenges worth overcoming.

I was pleasantly surprised (and impressed, actually ) when a friend who recently bought his first Mac (from me) proved there are exceptions. After two weeks on his own with OS X he'd already accomplished several things he'd previously accepted as hopeless while bumbling in the dark with Windows. Somehow that contrast of experience sparked his interest in figuring thing out (on OS X) instead of being frustrated by them (on Windows). When he called the other day to share his excitement I knew I was witnessing a "silly" "switcher" story unfolding if ever there was one.

 

[Music_Producer]

Its about the PRICING! Period.

IBM can make higher end processors, faster processors, but for those of you who simply fantasize about a company producing faster chips as if there were no price issues involved, stop and look at the business part of it.

Would you buy a powermac G4 @ 3.0 ghz if it were priced at $3999? Seriously? I remember, on Friday, when rumors of the Apple-Intel deal came up and I immediately called up a friend of mine who works for Intel. I asked him "Is this true? Apple going with intel chips? Why?" And he replied "Pricing. Our chips are faster and cheaper. IBM can't compete with our pricing"

I posted that here and of course, everyone laughed and went "ho ho ho , apple will never go with intel, ho ho ho we will see what steve says" Sure enough, apple announced that the rumors were true.

If there's anything to 'blame' or 'thank' as the reason for this move, its the ipod. It shows that a good design combined with a fair price point will sell thousands - millions of units and that is what precisely apple is doing now. They won't care about the geeks who spend all day comparing the PPC to the Intel chipset and arguing about it. If I can buy a powermac for $699 with mac os x..hell I'll buy 2.

 

[thoroughbred]

Its all business

Actually I think IBM can make the chipsets. They have issued the most amount of patents in the world for the last 6 years running. They practically invented the PC. There products are some of the best, and they don't strive to be the largest market share leader. They actually are an innovative company. However they also need money to survive. You see Apple don't selll enough processors to give IBM enough revenue, and IBM don't sell enough Processors generally for them to be able to spend large amounts on research and development. Intel however are huge in processor manufacturing, they don't neccassarily need new factories everytime a new processor is invented, they don't need new emplyees for all that is required in the feild of processor manufacture. IBM however, do need all of this, they are fairly small in comparison, in this particular field. I do think that IBM give very realistic claims, and I do beleive that they've got the 3Ghz its just too expensive for the PM. I wouldn't at all be surprised if they had 12-15Ghz processors running up in there testing labs, but its all too inefficient for the current market. You lot are very naive, did you know that Porsche plan there cars out 11 years in advance. I'm sure all the large company's inviloved in technology do, its just that they are not cost effective. So they spend the rest of the time trying to make them cheaper to run, make and perform.

I think moving to Intel is a bad move. Apple is all about using different processors. The processors in Apple's are always designed to run differently to Intels. Apple's can always multi task better, they are also better with graphics. Thats the way they were made. They last a lot longer, by this I mean, the more you use a processor the slower they get, over the years processors do get slower, but I've always found the Intels slow down a lot quicker. Its the whole philosophy behind it. You know, "we got slower clock speeds, but I bet we can still take you on." Intel have this whole thing about the fastest clock speed, they don't care about innovation, they don't want to invent new things, they don't try to keep the cycles in the processor low, or the pipelines or anything like that. They just make sure they have big numbers and people then fall for it all, and buy ********s. That whole mentality makes me dislike Intel.

I will try to use a Power PC MAC for as long as I can.

 

[plastique45]

Just BS PR damage control. IBM promised a 3GHz G5 in 2004, all they could deliver was an overclocked 2.2GHz. Their iMac chip supply was so low and delayed, Apple had to go without ANY inventory for a while.

Screw you IBM.

 

[chatin]

I think moving to Intel is a bad move. Apple is all about using different processors. The processors in Apple's are always designed to run differently to Intels. Apple's can always multi task better, they are also better with graphics. Thats the way they were made. They last a lot longer, by this I mean, the more you use a processor the slower they get, over the years processors do get slower, but I've always found the Intels slow down a lot quicker. Its the whole philosophy behind it. You know, "we got slower clock speeds, but I bet we can still take you on." Intel have this whole thing about the fastest clock speed, they don't care about innovation, they don't want to invent new things, they don't try to keep the cycles in the processor low, or the pipelines or anything like that. They just make sure they have big numbers and people then fall for it all, and buy ********s. That whole mentality makes me dislike Intel.

I will try to use a Power PC MAC for as long as I can.

Very true. The true powermacs will die with the last PowerPC CPU. That doesn't mean that Apple can't go off in an entirely new direction and be sucessful.

 

[eude]

I think apple is planning on making an iPod with FULL mac capabilities to REALY get to the masses. They need a cool and low power processor and they need LOTS of them. Intel is their best partner for that.

Interesting, but Windows runs on cell phones and PDAs with cell phone and PDA chips.

Hardware independence would do the same for Apple - sorry, but I don't buy your argument. Apple could put OSX-CE on an ARM or other PDA chip without causing an upheaval for the mainstream.

Apple still wants to conquor the computer market and battle windows. The consumer-computer market, that is. And the consumer-computer market is changing from desktops to laptops to pocketsize.

Apple will want to make a pocketsize device that fully replaces the consumers desktop or laptop. The iPod is Apple's current strongest product and ideal to develop so it can replace home-computers. Imagine a Macmini but then even a little smaller - for your pocket - and then sold under the all familiar name: iPod. Hopefully that will get the consumer-masses running for the stores - Apple hopes.

But it will need to have a full-fledged OSX - and Windows - running on it, not a stripped down version like windows has for phones and PDA's. Apple will need LOTS of lowpower processors for this. Intel is their partner.

or am i realy talking buttshit? :-/

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Just BS PR damage control. IBM promised a 3GHz G5 in 2004, all they could deliver was an overclocked 2.2GHz. Their iMac chip supply was so low and delayed, Apple had to go without ANY inventory for a while.

Screw you IBM.

So true, my father use to say you cant sell out of a empty store, Both IBM and Motostink are guilty of forcing Apple to do this. Plus the PPC cant hang chip vs chip and everyone but the zealot knows this.

 

[dsharits]

I hate IBM and I hate their idiotic PowerPC chips. Long live Intel!!!

Wow, that is the last thing I ever expected to read on a Mac discussion board. I guess tha whole world is turned upside-down these days. Microsoft using a PPC in the Xbox, Apple using Intels, scary.

 

[MattG]

Woulda coulda shoulda. S*** or get off the pot, IBM.

 

[BWhaler]

Man the media pisses me off. Stupid sycophants.

It didn't occur to a tech writer to follow-up with a question about the 3.0Ghz chip being a year late and no hope in sight?

And IBM is a bunch of lying assbags. Trying to spin what was obviously a change of heart. They got 3 big chip deals for the next generation game consoles, and didn't honor their relationship with Apple.

Typical IBM. Not that Intel are a bunch of good guys either. But spare us IBM sending some lackey to the press so you don't look stupid.

 

[GregA]

It didn't occur to a tech writer to follow-up with a question about the 3.0Ghz chip being a year late and no hope in sight?

Good comment.

Even something like "You say the Power architecture is capable of low power, were you actually making something low power?"