Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Intel
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple, if it really wants to survive in the long run, has to become more dependent on its software than its hardware for the bottom line. People update their software more frequently than they update their hardware. I mean except for those of us doing high-end graphics and video editing, how many people really need faster than dual-gig processors for writing e-mail, balancing their checkbooks, etc. ?
I think if OSX is everything Apple wants us to believe it is, then I'm sure like other Unix operating systems it can be platform independent. That was also one of the original design goals of Windows NT. Create a device layer between the OS and the hardware so that software running on top of the OS doesn't have to care what the hardware is.
I love the MAC environment and do all of my video and image editing on it, but I struggle to justify paying a premium for the hardware when I want a separate system to run my home office applications like MS-Word and Quicken.
When I have a lot of peripherals to connect to my computer and I don't want to plug and pray, give me MAC hardware/software all the way, when this is not an issue, give me a cheap Dell with OS X running on it.
David
I think if OSX is everything Apple wants us to believe it is, then I'm sure like other Unix operating systems it can be platform independent. That was also one of the original design goals of Windows NT. Create a device layer between the OS and the hardware so that software running on top of the OS doesn't have to care what the hardware is.
I love the MAC environment and do all of my video and image editing on it, but I struggle to justify paying a premium for the hardware when I want a separate system to run my home office applications like MS-Word and Quicken.
When I have a lot of peripherals to connect to my computer and I don't want to plug and pray, give me MAC hardware/software all the way, when this is not an issue, give me a cheap Dell with OS X running on it.
David
hmmm
we were just talking about this before the expo and
everybody was saying how apple should go with a
different manufacturer for chips......we were saying that....we
didnt care what hardware apple ran on as long as
it was faster......well, Im not going to back paddle on
that one.....if we could have the speed of the rest
of the computer world and osx....thats fine with me...
but not if it would KILL apple.....thats the only stipulation.
we were just talking about this before the expo and
everybody was saying how apple should go with a
different manufacturer for chips......we were saying that....we
didnt care what hardware apple ran on as long as
it was faster......well, Im not going to back paddle on
that one.....if we could have the speed of the rest
of the computer world and osx....thats fine with me...
but not if it would KILL apple.....thats the only stipulation.
From the beginning, this has been a possibility. The simple answer is, no. Developers wouldn't have to rewrite anything. They would, however, have to recompile everything. So, now you'd have to have a disk the is Mac OS X, PPC, and another disk for Mac OS X on Intel.
However, NO CLASSIC APPS WOULD WORK AT ALL. The original code name for Classic was Blue Box. Blue Box existed on PPC builds of Mac OS X from the beginning. Red Box existed on Intel compatible builds of Mac OS X. What is Red Box? Basically, it's the equivalent of Classic, but instead of providing a classic Mac environment, it provided a classic Windows environment. Blue Box cannot run on Intel, and Red Box cannot run on PPC.
Now, as I understand it, part of the reason that this has never been more than a behind the scenes project (part of the technical reason, leaving business reasons aside for the moment) is that one of the strengths of Mac OS X is its integration with the hardware. Apple knows exactly what hardware is out there that Mac OS X needs to deal with. Now, if they were to release Mac OS X for Intel, they'd need to deal with every variation of PC hardware out there for at least the past couple of years. This includes not only Dell, Compac, IBM, but also the corner computer assembler, and the guy who built a computer in his basement from spare parts. This presents a tremendous technical challenge. Failure could ruin the reputation of Mac OS X being so stable and easy to use. Certainly, not a road to be ventured down lightly.
Personally, I do hope that Apple stays away from the x86 architecture world. It's nice to have options. Everyone I know that has worked with hardware from both sides has always said that Mac hardware is much higher quality than anything that you can get in the Intel/AMD world.
Could this week get any more miserable for Apple fans? First the news that there will be no upgrade pricing for 10.2. Then $100/year for ".Mac" (which is the most retarded name ever, by the way). Then no new Power Macs at Macworld (aside from the fact that when we WILL see them, they'll only be speed-bumped again anyway). Then a glimmer of truth to the OS X on x86 rumors. I predict that the Mac loyalist population will be down 20% by year's end solely due to mass suicides.
Re: Not gonna happen
Altivec would be one of the easiest parts to transition!
Most of the instructions can be mapped
in a straightforward fashion onto AMD or Intel SIMD
instructions (SSE/SSE2/3DNow!). Other kinds of
hand optimizations would be more difficult
to duplicate, although this might not have a big
impact on how quickly a port could appear.
The largest problems will arise from hardware dependent
code. If Apple has encapsulated the hardware dependent
stuff intelligently, they should be able to port OSX without
too much mess.
The biggest problem for developers would presumably
be driver related. Assuming Apple addressed a standardized
proprietary supported hardware configuration (a single
mobo/chipset/cpu family), it seems as though they could
tackle this as well.
Cheers, Yon
Altivec would be one of the easiest parts to transition!
Most of the instructions can be mapped
in a straightforward fashion onto AMD or Intel SIMD
instructions (SSE/SSE2/3DNow!). Other kinds of
hand optimizations would be more difficult
to duplicate, although this might not have a big
impact on how quickly a port could appear.
The largest problems will arise from hardware dependent
code. If Apple has encapsulated the hardware dependent
stuff intelligently, they should be able to port OSX without
too much mess.
The biggest problem for developers would presumably
be driver related. Assuming Apple addressed a standardized
proprietary supported hardware configuration (a single
mobo/chipset/cpu family), it seems as though they could
tackle this as well.
Cheers, Yon
I'll take your hardware after you off yourself...
I, for one, was really hoping to NOT see any updates to the PowerBook line. Since I am not in the market for a second Mac system at this point, it doesn't really matter to me.
I DO want to see the upgrade price extended to people that purchased at least the current generation of systems (towers, iBooks, TiBooks...) since they all came with the software coupons. Maybe make it even cheaper (free?) for people that also purchased 10.1 when it came out. I have done both things, and have the coupons to proove it.
Re: AMD or Intel PowerPC
Hey megawad... I vote that they allow AMD to do it... Currently AMD (and even intel) is producing new chip lines much faster then motorola is.
Hey megawad
... I vote that they allow AMD to do it... Currently AMD (and even intel) is producing new chip lines much faster then motorola is.
Intel is not the only chip maker in town.
I believe that Apple will NEVER make a Mac that will be capable of running the Windows OS. It will NEVER run on Intel brand chips. It will NEVER be as compatible with all the hardware/pci cards/video cards available for the pc.
Apple will most likely make a motherboard that will work with one of intels competitors or whichever chip company makes a chip that runs cool, doesnt matter if its x86 or not. They said they would have options. Frying an egg on top of an iBook is not what I would call a feature. Since the chip and the motherboard wont be 100% pc compatible, you wont be able to run Windows on it. However I do see the possibility of running windows apps although that would not work with major windows apps. It would be like a really crappy version of classic.
Apple will do the Apple thing and make a computer that is as compatible as the ones we have now as far as hardware is concerned. It will have the possibility of running more hardware just like ours but it wont until the companies port their drivers to run on OS XI. So we would be in the same place as we are now. Only marketshare can help get more drivers ported over.
You will not be able to use anything that is not mac compatible from a pc like just like today. You will not be able to build your own mac unless you use mac compatible parts from macs bought from apple. You wont get to use classic unless it is in a virtual pc kind of application. Apple will not advertise a change to another chip as a move to a more pc compatible mac.
On the upside it would mean that after a while, the imac and powermacs will go down in price and the laptops will be on par as far as speed is concerned with desktops. Clock speeds will be much higher and go up faster. And the best part I think is that we will be able to laugh at PC people because we took PC hardware and made it run "lightyears" ahead of their own setup.
I believe that Apple will NEVER make a Mac that will be capable of running the Windows OS. It will NEVER run on Intel brand chips. It will NEVER be as compatible with all the hardware/pci cards/video cards available for the pc.
Apple will most likely make a motherboard that will work with one of intels competitors or whichever chip company makes a chip that runs cool, doesnt matter if its x86 or not. They said they would have options. Frying an egg on top of an iBook is not what I would call a feature. Since the chip and the motherboard wont be 100% pc compatible, you wont be able to run Windows on it. However I do see the possibility of running windows apps although that would not work with major windows apps. It would be like a really crappy version of classic.
Apple will do the Apple thing and make a computer that is as compatible as the ones we have now as far as hardware is concerned. It will have the possibility of running more hardware just like ours but it wont until the companies port their drivers to run on OS XI. So we would be in the same place as we are now. Only marketshare can help get more drivers ported over.
You will not be able to use anything that is not mac compatible from a pc like just like today. You will not be able to build your own mac unless you use mac compatible parts from macs bought from apple. You wont get to use classic unless it is in a virtual pc kind of application. Apple will not advertise a change to another chip as a move to a more pc compatible mac.
On the upside it would mean that after a while, the imac and powermacs will go down in price and the laptops will be on par as far as speed is concerned with desktops. Clock speeds will be much higher and go up faster. And the best part I think is that we will be able to laugh at PC people because we took PC hardware and made it run "lightyears" ahead of their own setup.
Doesn't make any sense to me. I switched over to MAC to get rid of all these PC related problems. PC's have so many different options, MAC is just reliable and plain simple.
All this hardware talk is gonna start becoming an Attack of the MAC Clones.
Then Apple will hire some dude that looks like the 'dude' from dell to promote and sell their Macs.
All this hardware talk is gonna start becoming an Attack of the MAC Clones.
Then Apple will hire some dude that looks like the 'dude' from dell to promote and sell their Macs.
INTEL != WINTEL
If Apple did move to an INTEL-based processor (or AMD), this would not mean they would be building PC's. They would have no need to take on the 20 year old baggage of the PC. They would not be Windos compatible / PC compatible machines. They would be Macs with Intel or AMD CPU's.
There is a difference. Apple must remain a hardware company.
blakespot
If Apple did move to an INTEL-based processor (or AMD), this would not mean they would be building PC's. They would have no need to take on the 20 year old baggage of the PC. They would not be Windos compatible / PC compatible machines. They would be Macs with Intel or AMD CPU's.
There is a difference. Apple must remain a hardware company.
blakespot
Re: Re: AMD or Intel PowerPC
as for AMD,it is very possible,i don't remember exactly but..someone licensed or allowed AMD to take a look at PowerPC architecture (motorola maybe? if someone remembers please tell)
and both Apple and AMD are members of Hypertransport group.. (are they?)
Intel? naahh.. Apple always shows how macs are faster then Intel,they wouldn't be doing that if they knew they must switch to Intel,that would be suicide.
hey alpha..how comei didn't saw you on IRC? people are wondering where are youOriginally posted by AlphaTech
Hey megawad
as for AMD,it is very possible,i don't remember exactly but..someone licensed or allowed AMD to take a look at PowerPC architecture (motorola maybe? if someone remembers please tell)
and both Apple and AMD are members of Hypertransport group.. (are they?
)Intel? naahh.. Apple always shows how macs are faster then Intel,they wouldn't be doing that if they knew they must switch to Intel,that would be suicide.
While Apple may switch from Motorola to IBM, Intel, AMD, Transmeta, or whatever, you will *never* be able to buy a Dell and install OSX on it. Not a chance. No way. Apple has to control the hardware too, or you end up with the same problems that the Wintel world has -- infinite hardware configurations leading to all kinds of compatibility problems. Apple should NEVER stop making hardware.
And that "if they want to survive in the long run" comment was pretty funny -- Apple's been around longer than every other PC manufacturer out there except IBM
And that "if they want to survive in the long run" comment was pretty funny -- Apple's been around longer than every other PC manufacturer out there except IBM
Maybe we all agree?
Apple should make the hardware, but it should be able to use chips from AMD, Intel and so on. The OSX / Apple software would require recompiling and would come with an install disc for PPC or another disc for x86.
Assuming this is doable with OSX's Unix core, isn't that all GOOD? What could be bad about that?
Apple should make the hardware, but it should be able to use chips from AMD, Intel and so on. The OSX / Apple software would require recompiling and would come with an install disc for PPC or another disc for x86.
Assuming this is doable with OSX's Unix core, isn't that all GOOD? What could be bad about that?
Thought: Apple cozies up to a PC maker, and establishes a realtionship to build a PC (or maybe just parts, mobo, etc... specifically designed for OS X with extremely rigid hardware requirements... can't just slap any old hardware in, needs higher end stuff that is meant for X on PC.
I am thinking of a company they are kind of cozying up to... Sony. Imagine a Vaio running X, not that I would want to see that!
Contingency plans
Here's what Apple needs if it decides to move away from the Motorola PowerPC: An architecture that:
1) Is reasonably fast
2) Has good long-term survival prospects
3) Consumes reasonable amounts of power
4) Will scale upward in performance steadily and rapidly
5) Is inexpensive
6) Is suitable for everything from small notebooks to rack-mount servers to multi-CPU workstations
Let's look at the options.
Alpha: Meets 1.
PA-RISC: Meets 1.
SPARC: Meets 1 and 2.
Itanium: Meets 1, 2, and 4.
IBM G3: Meets 2, 3, and 5.
POWER4-derivative: Meets 1, 2, 4, possibly 5, and possibly 6.
x86: Meets 1, 2, 4, 5, and possibly 6.
MIPS: Meets all of them.
Remember the rumors of Apple buying SGI a while back? Guess whose markets in midrange graphics and visualization Apple is aggressively pursuing: SGI's. Isn't it interesting that SGI designs its own chips? At the moment, their fastest chip runs at 600MHz, but it performs faster than a 1GHz G4 (AltiVec aside). Note, though, that it only consumes 18 watts of power on a .13u process. Think of what that could mean for Apple.
Here is what a buyout of SGI would give to Apple:
- A great, efficient, scalable processor architecture that, although low-clocked, is still a good performer (substantially better than PPC) and is on the cutting edge of processor design without being tied to any single manufacturer.
- With that processor architecture would come a way out of PowerPC, or a backup plan if they decide to stick with PowerPC.
- A better foothold in the low-end and midrange graphics markets, not to mention complete domination in high-end graphics. (High margins and big profits)
- An excellent engineering team, responsible for pioneering NUMA etc.
- An awesome filesystem (XFS)
- Instant cred in the Unix markets. Nobody's going to be saying "Apple is a toy maker" when there exist 1024-processor Apple Origin 3000s.
- Huge discounts on hardware for Pixar.
A MIPS Mac would mean an INCREASED distinction between Macs and PCs, not the decreased distinction everyone seems to be (stupidly) clamoring for. Imagine a quad-CPU MIPS Mac that would draw less power than a single-CPU Itanium or POWER4 - not to mention all 4 CPUs combined would cost less.
I really hope Apple does NOT move anywhere NEAR x86, as it is a crap, brute-force hack job of an architecture (I said crap, not slow) that has spelled either gloom or death for most every alternative OS maker ever to set foot on it (Be, NeXT, and IBM come to mind; Linux is small beans and mostly non-commercial and it doesn't count). Let's embrace modernity and efficiency! Let's snub our noses at the 6-pound heat sinks and 10,000 rpm cooling fans and 400-watt power supplies of the x86 world. They may be faster, but they're nowhere near as elegant or well-designed.
Alex
Here's what Apple needs if it decides to move away from the Motorola PowerPC: An architecture that:
1) Is reasonably fast
2) Has good long-term survival prospects
3) Consumes reasonable amounts of power
4) Will scale upward in performance steadily and rapidly
5) Is inexpensive
6) Is suitable for everything from small notebooks to rack-mount servers to multi-CPU workstations
Let's look at the options.
Alpha: Meets 1.
PA-RISC: Meets 1.
SPARC: Meets 1 and 2.
Itanium: Meets 1, 2, and 4.
IBM G3: Meets 2, 3, and 5.
POWER4-derivative: Meets 1, 2, 4, possibly 5, and possibly 6.
x86: Meets 1, 2, 4, 5, and possibly 6.
MIPS: Meets all of them.
Remember the rumors of Apple buying SGI a while back? Guess whose markets in midrange graphics and visualization Apple is aggressively pursuing: SGI's. Isn't it interesting that SGI designs its own chips? At the moment, their fastest chip runs at 600MHz, but it performs faster than a 1GHz G4 (AltiVec aside). Note, though, that it only consumes 18 watts of power on a .13u process. Think of what that could mean for Apple.
Here is what a buyout of SGI would give to Apple:
- A great, efficient, scalable processor architecture that, although low-clocked, is still a good performer (substantially better than PPC) and is on the cutting edge of processor design without being tied to any single manufacturer.
- With that processor architecture would come a way out of PowerPC, or a backup plan if they decide to stick with PowerPC.
- A better foothold in the low-end and midrange graphics markets, not to mention complete domination in high-end graphics. (High margins and big profits)
- An excellent engineering team, responsible for pioneering NUMA etc.
- An awesome filesystem (XFS)
- Instant cred in the Unix markets. Nobody's going to be saying "Apple is a toy maker" when there exist 1024-processor Apple Origin 3000s.
- Huge discounts on hardware for Pixar.
A MIPS Mac would mean an INCREASED distinction between Macs and PCs, not the decreased distinction everyone seems to be (stupidly) clamoring for. Imagine a quad-CPU MIPS Mac that would draw less power than a single-CPU Itanium or POWER4 - not to mention all 4 CPUs combined would cost less.
I really hope Apple does NOT move anywhere NEAR x86, as it is a crap, brute-force hack job of an architecture (I said crap, not slow) that has spelled either gloom or death for most every alternative OS maker ever to set foot on it (Be, NeXT, and IBM come to mind; Linux is small beans and mostly non-commercial and it doesn't count). Let's embrace modernity and efficiency! Let's snub our noses at the 6-pound heat sinks and 10,000 rpm cooling fans and 400-watt power supplies of the x86 world. They may be faster, but they're nowhere near as elegant or well-designed.
Alex
MacOS X + x86 != "Wintel"
I've read all of these replies and thought of a couple of things...
Firstly, "Wintel" implies windows. If you were running MacOS on Intel hardware or AMD or whatever, it wouldn't be Wintel, it'd be Mactel or something equally as perverse.
Secondly, Yes, all apps would have to be recompiled to run *natively*, but Apple has made an art out of "transitioning" from instruction set to instruction set and code base to code base. Remember, they've done this before when we went from 680x0 to PPC. In that case, they ran an entire emulated instruction set in the L1 cache of the "new" PPC CPUs... It's conceivable (although distasteful, in my opinion) that with a modern CPUs large L2 full speed caches, this could be done again... thus easing the developer's need to immediately re-write.
Thirdly, in the case of a continuing degredation of the relationship with PPC, I think something like this:
http://www.theregus.com/content/3/24988.html
is far more likely. Not only could Crusoe be loaded with PPC instruction sets, but OS X's nice SMP (or even better OS XI) would rip with a gaggle of CPUs. It also fits in with Apple's design ethos, low noise, low heat, low power, etc...
Any bets on an AMD Athlon (the 64-bit ClawHammer variety) or Opteron processors with PPC emulators in the L2 cache vs Tmeta?
*grin*
Ryan
I've read all of these replies and thought of a couple of things...
Firstly, "Wintel" implies windows. If you were running MacOS on Intel hardware or AMD or whatever, it wouldn't be Wintel, it'd be Mactel or something equally as perverse.
Secondly, Yes, all apps would have to be recompiled to run *natively*, but Apple has made an art out of "transitioning" from instruction set to instruction set and code base to code base. Remember, they've done this before when we went from 680x0 to PPC. In that case, they ran an entire emulated instruction set in the L1 cache of the "new" PPC CPUs... It's conceivable (although distasteful, in my opinion) that with a modern CPUs large L2 full speed caches, this could be done again... thus easing the developer's need to immediately re-write.
Thirdly, in the case of a continuing degredation of the relationship with PPC, I think something like this:
http://www.theregus.com/content/3/24988.html
is far more likely. Not only could Crusoe be loaded with PPC instruction sets, but OS X's nice SMP (or even better OS XI) would rip with a gaggle of CPUs. It also fits in with Apple's design ethos, low noise, low heat, low power, etc...
Any bets on an AMD Athlon (the 64-bit ClawHammer variety) or Opteron processors with PPC emulators in the L2 cache vs Tmeta?
*grin*
Ryan
Apple on Intel = bye bye apple
Try to get this:
You can not make ia32 or ia64 (just to cover both intel and amd) computers that doesn´t run windows. Not even Apple.
Motorola can make faster chips and better chipsets than Intel; Intel (or AMD) would never grace Apple with better chips than Microsoft. Its a question about 95% versus 5% markeed share of the desktop.
You put a intelchip in, you will have to compete with Dell. All the R/D have to compete in Wintel time/space. Apple would be dead as fast as Be or Next.
There is one competitor to Windows on ia 32/64 and that is the free unixes. NOT ONE general high performance commercial OS has managed to survive.
And this perforrmance goes to and from. The current G5 clocking to 2,4 Ghz smokes everything at the moment; its simply a question of yields.
And that is the only wish I cold have: Motorola could develop the chips... But Intel should be alowed to produce the chips.
Because, as incompetent Intel is in chip design, they kick some serious ass in chip production, getting it smaller and cooler than any chipmaker today.
But if you ever wants to se mac´s perform better than PC, you have to stay on Motorola
Try to get this:
You can not make ia32 or ia64 (just to cover both intel and amd) computers that doesn´t run windows. Not even Apple.
Motorola can make faster chips and better chipsets than Intel; Intel (or AMD) would never grace Apple with better chips than Microsoft. Its a question about 95% versus 5% markeed share of the desktop.
You put a intelchip in, you will have to compete with Dell. All the R/D have to compete in Wintel time/space. Apple would be dead as fast as Be or Next.
There is one competitor to Windows on ia 32/64 and that is the free unixes. NOT ONE general high performance commercial OS has managed to survive.
And this perforrmance goes to and from. The current G5 clocking to 2,4 Ghz smokes everything at the moment; its simply a question of yields.
And that is the only wish I cold have: Motorola could develop the chips... But Intel should be alowed to produce the chips.
Because, as incompetent Intel is in chip design, they kick some serious ass in chip production, getting it smaller and cooler than any chipmaker today.
But if you ever wants to se mac´s perform better than PC, you have to stay on Motorola
It's a good idea, but...
If people know that it's an x86 box, they're going to want to be able to use their hardware with it, and when they realize they can't, they'll get pissed, and start clamoring for support for their hardware on petitiononline and so forth.
Alex
If people know that it's an x86 box, they're going to want to be able to use their hardware with it, and when they realize they can't, they'll get pissed, and start clamoring for support for their hardware on petitiononline and so forth.
The problem with this is that once you've got OS X running on x86, it will theoretically run on any x86 chip. Of course it will be locked to a single make and model of machine, presumably with the use of a proprietary ROM chip or something, but how long will it take for some 18 year-old Taiwanese kid to load the necessary part(s) of OS X in a hex editor, fix that, and put the hacked OS X on a p2p service so that the rest of the world can install it on whatever PC they choose? My guess is probably about three weeks.
Alex
Re: x86
originally, steve jobs was closed to the other "options" and said it was technically impossible...yeah, right...he he
now, he has taken away the smokescreen and he is being realistic and not being a stick in the mud
i applaud steve for looking at options
intel, amd, whatever...as long as i can have a computer made by apple in front of me with a mac os, i will be happy
apple inc is no longer a company owned by the two steves...fortunately or unfortunately, apple inc is owned by shareholders
originally, steve jobs was closed to the other "options" and said it was technically impossible...yeah, right...he he
now, he has taken away the smokescreen and he is being realistic and not being a stick in the mud
i applaud steve for looking at options
intel, amd, whatever...as long as i can have a computer made by apple in front of me with a mac os, i will be happy
apple inc is no longer a company owned by the two steves...fortunately or unfortunately, apple inc is owned by shareholders
I really don't care what chip they use so long as it's fast, reliable and works well for laptops. The Mac OS is why most of us use a Mac anyways.
Re: Maybe we all agree?
Alex
What would be bad about it is that one side or other would feel "neglected." Neither would be satisfied because they would see the grass being greener on the other side of the fence. I think it would also cause PPC OS X users to feel abandoned. Indeed, it would make it very easy for Apple to abandon its PPC owners. And given what seems like its complete disregard for its customers' wishes lately (.Mac, slow ass dated super-expensive Macs, no reduced-cost 10.2 upgrade, and so on), I'm not sure I would want that.
Alex
Not really... as soon as they added "required" 3D-Now! instructions, you've ruled out Intel. Alternatively, you could just use AMD's x86-64 set which is *totally* dissimilar to the Intel Itanic. And AMD's crucial need for "legitimate" OEM customers would just scream for a special-edition of the chip that could include some MacOS specific "boot" instruction. *evil grin*
Not that I want this to happen... I'm just playing SatanClara's Advocate... What ever happened to that processor (can't remember the name) which ran at a mere 100MHz but was massively parallel in-chip? I think going the *OTHER WAY* on MHz would be the best way to defeat the MHz myth. By significantly clocking *DOWN* it would bring attention to the fact that MHz was nothing... which could do nothing but bolster anti-Intel fervor...
Ryan