Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple and Intel

switchers and clones

welcome to the world of mac. we been down the clone road before, big disaster for Apple. Cost them billions. Nearly wiped them out. Maybe it was useful as a learning experiance, but so many people missed that era, and clamour to try it again . . .
 
Originally posted by kansaigaijin:

welcome to the world of mac. we been down the clone road before, big disaster for Apple. Cost them billions. Nearly wiped them out. Maybe it was useful as a learning experiance, but so many people missed that era, and clamour to try it again . . .
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. Clones are definitely not the way to go. I remember those days (shudder).

dh
 
Originally posted by topicolo
But those power computing machines were SOOOOO much better than Apple's. *sigh* I want a PowerCenter Pro 210 *drool*
Click to expand...

I had one of those... Actually, I HAD that one. Let me tell you something, the motherboard on it turned brittle after only 3 years, where systems from Apple are still good and strong.

They did have some good points to them, but I firmly believe that the quality of material is better coming from Apple.

Before anyone starts blaming the environment the computer was in, I am in MA, where we have cold winters, and mostly mild summers (low 80's for the next week or so for highs). I did have an AC in the room with the computer, so it wouldn't get too hot in there. I also have seen Apple systems that we NOT in air conditioned rooms, and the plastics are STILL good and strong (NOT brittle). :p
 
Originally posted by alex_ant
Power Computing also made the only quad-CPU Mac ever, didn't they? Ahh, I remember those days... pining away for the perfect computer on which to run Rhapsody... :)
Click to expand...

Actually, according to all the information I have, there have not been any Mac (clone or not) with anything more than dual processors. Power Computing was making dual processor systems while Apple was not.

To date, there have not been any computers with more than two processors (except for extremely high end servers and mainframes). With peecee's you have to seriously hunt for anything with more then one processor. Apple, on the other hand, puts them right out in the open for everyone to see and know about. :D
 
What was Michael Dells' relationship with Power Computing... wasn't Power founded by an old partner or executive of his?
 
Originally posted by AlphaTech
Actually, according to all the information I have, there have not been any Mac (clone or not) with anything more than dual processors. Power Computing was making dual processor systems while Apple was not.
Click to expand...
Sadly I am mistaken about the quad machine... I guess I got carried away in my dreaming.
 
Had to chime in...

I do not see what Apple's potential adoption of AMD or Intel CPUs has to do with making clones. Apple would be in the PC cloning business if they started trying to put out Windows systems. They're not. The idea here is that Apple would use x86 mobos but put OS X on them. I fail to see how this makes the Mac a clone platform.

But while this whole thing does appeal to me, I also agree with some posters who pointed out the potential pitfalls. Would this not wreak havoc with Apple's developers? They JUST finished porting some major apps to OS X on PPC hardware. Now they'd have to do that all over again. Unfortunately, however, this may be a necessary evil. This "evil" might be lessened a bit if Apple went into it slowly, much like they made the transition to PPC from 68k. Perhaps get the developers to start reprogramming their wares first, provide them with prototype X-on-x86 systems, then begin releasing them commercially with the software ready to go? I dunno.

Sorry, but until Moto and IBM decide to start putting some real development effort into their desktop chips, they are not worthy of Apple's business.

Part of my feelings come from being tired of reading reviews like this: http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm

I know that Charlie White LOVES to rip the Mac in his columns, but he's written some really nice things too about the Mac. It's only when he makes speed comparisons that he starts flaming the platform. But the bad thing is, he's not the only one. In terms of the markets Apple seems truly intent on owning--content creation, DV editing, etc.--the Mac simply can not compete speed- or price-wise. Not good. Apple needs to do something and they know it.
 
If there was an apple computer that has the whole apple look to it, and it had a blazing fast AMD processor in it, I would definitely buy it. I think that this isnt a off-the-wall possibility. :D We might be seing 2 and 3 GHz apples before we expect them.
 
Re: Had to chime in...

Originally posted by Kethoticus
Would this not wreak havoc with Apple's developers? They JUST finished porting some major apps to OS X on PPC hardware. Now they'd have to do that all over again. Unfortunately, however, this may be a necessary evil. This "evil" might be lessened a bit if Apple went into it slowly, much like they made the transition to PPC from 68k. Perhaps get the developers to start reprogramming their wares first, provide them with prototype X-on-x86 systems, then begin releasing them commercially with the software ready to go? I dunno.
Click to expand...

Its an evil they can't afford. Developers, big ones, are already fed up.

Right now its a vicious cycle, or perhaps a series of overlapping ones. The simple solution, for Apple to be able to move to another chip, would be for all apps to be completely rewritten in Cocoa. As long as the installed base still has to use classic because some apps and drivers are lagging, a carbonized app is the best developers dare do. Meanwhile, people do not update to OS X, because their crucial apps are not Native yet. Or their Macs can't perform well with OS X. New Apps and New Macs cost money. No one has money these days. Some people are not moving to X until they buy a new mac. Apple can only throw so many free apps to nudge updating to X, or buying a new mac, that is, if they -can- make a new mac, dependant on the abilities of their CPU supplier.

Its possible that the gears start turning faster to get everyone on the same page, once quark is native, once the new Pro Tower is available etc...

Transition is hard.
 
Re: Re: Had to chime in...

Originally posted by Wry Cooter



Transition is hard.
Click to expand...

i remember how hard it was to go to usb for us users and some of the people who crowed about that one...all new peripherals and expense to us

os x still has people that don't want to go there

and if and when apple changes chip suppliers, there will also be resistance there, too

apple inc is a business and if they need to survive, they have to roll with the changes in high tech

i remember pc people who didn't want firewire because it was from apple but now all those people have it in the form of ieee 1394
 
Originally posted by AlphaTech


Actually, according to all the information I have, there have not been any Mac (clone or not) with anything more than dual processors. Power Computing was making dual processor systems while Apple was not.
Click to expand...

DayStar Genesis MP systems came in dual and quad configurations. Apple essentially used their api's for their own dual config with systems like the 9600/200MP.
 
People have to admit that it's flat out amazing(or stupid depending on how you look at it) what Apple has been able to do with their hardware and OS over the years since the first Mac to attempt to keep pace with the x86 crowd.

68k->PPC->trash the OS roadmap for Mac OS 8 and on->Mac OS X->new cpu ???

As we know talking of the past isn't typically all that constructive but one has to wonder that if Moto would have kept pushing the 68k chips and Apple stayed with them, what might have happened?

For what it's worth I've been told in the past by someone in the know that the worst thing that could have ever happened was Moto getting involved with MS on bringing WinNT over to PPC. When that happened, Intel woke up(Moto underestimated them) and became more agressive by dumping more cash into that architecture that everyone kept predicting(and still does) would collapse on itself and then Moto found themselves getting burned by MS. When the WinNT strategy fell apart so did the PPC development and has been for the most part in disarray ever since.
 
man, even those powerbase computers were cool. I actually drooled when they released their PowerTower Pro 275Mhz G3. Oh well, 3 years would have been long enough for me. I would've upgraded long before that.
 
Re: Port to x86 - a little history

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Darwin is already running on a very limited set of x86 machines. I wouldn't be surprised if Avi and his guys have kept the Quartz & Aqua code as portable as possible too. In which case, Cocoa app's that stuck to the Cocoa frameworks should be a fairly simple re-compile.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that Apple already refers to thier systems as "mixed endian" machines. While the PowerPC is big-endian, the PCI bus is little-endian. Regardless, I just don't see how Apple could effectively support both PPC and x86/x86-64 at the same time. I suspect this would mean 2 disparate sets of drivers for peripherals, and yes, fat Cocoa binaries. This just flat-out couldn't prove to be an easy transition.
I know very little about Carbon, but I would not think it would be easy to move them to x86 as entire API's would need to also be ported that never were written for x86 before. That could be a big deal as much of the large app's out there are not 100% Cocoa - including: Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, IE, Netscape, MS Office X, AppleWorks, etc...
Click to expand...
Most poignant argument against a transition to x86 yet. Consider that QuarkXPress 5 still doesn't use enough OS9 API's to make the transition to Carbon a quick process by any means. I'll bet it will be mid-2003 by the time those sloths finally release a Carbon port. The Carbon framework relies heavily on PPC hardware.
On a side not, since OS X runs on a G3, AltiVec is not a requirement. (Although, doing any equivalent 3DNow! or SSE2 calls where they use AltiVec today would be nice)
Click to expand...
From what I understand, neither of the x86's SIMD cores are nearly as extensible as altiVec... If they were, you would think that the x86 distributed.net clients would crunch keys alot faster than they currently do (the altiVec core is in heavy use on the PPC side)

Frankly I see either of 2 scenarios in Apple's CPU future... An IBM multi-core, cache-galore cpu with enough FPU-oomph to relegate altiVec moot - or a non-x86 AMD cpu based loosely on Hammer with big-endian PowerPC compatibility. OS X-x86 just 'aint an option IMHO.
 
Originally posted by wake up Jobs!!!
I allways thought the apple clones seemed to be "ahead" of apple in apples own computer platform, just me?

GaBe
Click to expand...

It was more that they leveraged the market differently. Power would build machines that Apple at the time didn't consider directly on target, and picked up a lot of customers that didn't fit those categories. Motorola took advantage of their closeness to the CPU supplier. Power marketed like Dell, Motorola marketed like whatever. And Apple at the time, pretty much had its head firmly up its ass. Spindler days, right? Apple was entering new distribution streams that nearly bowled them under, creating too many models of machines (to insure floor space) and having too much inventory languishing in odd channels of Sears and Circuit City with nary a soul to know enough to sell them, with return policies that exacerbated that.
 
Originally posted by dhdave


Intel is the chip leader by MILES. AMD chips and their accompanying chipsets aren't anywhere NEAR as stable as their Intel counterparts and they aren't near as fast. Go to Anandtech.com and research the benchmarks, then come back and run your mouth.

Personally I hope Apple doesn't have to go with Intel, AMD or any X86 architecture. Especially after all the time and money they've invested bad-mouthing it. But something tells me this is definitely in the cards. While it will be fascinating to watch this play out, I can't see Apple as a "clone" manufacturer a la Dell, Gateway, etc. Will they somehow figure a way to ensure that OS X only runs on Apple hardware? And if they don't, what will become of Apple hardware? Apple makes all of it's money on hardware sales, doesn't it?

dh
Click to expand...

You are a moron. I own an AMD XP2100+ and a laptop with an AMD Duron. They are flawless and blow my parents Celeron and P4 systems out of the water. Sure you'll always be able to compare the latest Xeon and 2.whatever GHZ P4's have better benchmarks then AMD, but when comparing comprable P4 & AMD processors...... AMD blows intel out of the water.

Unstable??? Ugh yhea ok???
 
Originally posted by 3777
You are a moron. I own an AMD XP2100+ and a laptop with an AMD Duron. They are flawless and blow my parents Celeron and P4 systems out of the water. Sure you'll always be able to compare the latest Xeon and 2.whatever GHZ P4's have better benchmarks then AMD, but when comparing comprable P4 & AMD processors...... AMD blows intel out of the water.

Unstable??? Ugh yhea ok???
Click to expand...

I also have an XP2100+ inside the game pc that i constructed. In my own experiences, AMD processors are rock solid and DON'T fail. I have a server that I also built inside my office at work that has been running for over 2 years now, 24/7. It ONLY goes down when there is a power failure in the building.

As far as I can tell the XP2100+ beats intel in every part that matters, one of them being cost.
 
AMD

I bought the laptop refurbed with a Duron to save money, I wasn't expecting much...... but it was so much better then the celeron it's not even funny. Then I decided to break the bank on a desktop system (to go with my iMac DV.....yes I love apple too!) ......I could have gotten any Intel P4 chip I wanted....... but I chose an Alienware Aurora system.......loaded to the teeth, I paid more then some people pay for cars......... and made sure it had an Athalon processor in it........ that should tell you what I think of AMD!!!

P.S. If Apple is going to make a move I hope they go with AMD, Intel is overrated, underperforming JUNK!!!
 
3777, I probably could add up all I have spent on the game pc (that I constructed), but it would probably depress me. I would wager to say that I have invested close to $3k in it. That inclused all my recent upgrades (two 160GB drives, set as RAID 0 :eek: ), and the one I will be doing in September (Radeon 9700 :D).

I emailed my favorite indian (at the Geek Boutique) and they have a projected date of Sept. 1 for the card being available. That is not set in stone, since things don't always ship on time from the factory, nor do the distributors always get enough to go around. I have developed a good working relashionship with them over the past 2+ years, and will continue to purchase items from them. They have always treated me right, and stand behind what they sell. If they don't have it in the store, or on the web site, chances are they can get it (within a few days too).
 
AlphaTech,

Just wanted to say publicly that I apologize for being rude. Rereading what I wrote while reading 3777's post, I realized that what I said ("then come back and run your mouth") was pretty ignorant. It was nothing personal and I'm sorry for any offense taken.

dh
 
Originally posted by dhdave
AlphaTech,

Just wanted to say publicly that I apologize for being rude. Rereading what I wrote while reading 3777's post, I realized that what I said ("then come back and run your mouth") was pretty ignorant. It was nothing personal and I'm sorry for any offense taken.

dh
Click to expand...

I didn't even see if you were pointing that thing at me... It looked like it was between you and 3777. ;) Calm down boys, or the gods and moderators might take notice. :eek: :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back