SiliconAddict
macrumors 603
pigwin32 said:
Firefox has a plugin. Just right click in the user name and select bugmenot and poof....it fills out the username and password *Virtually pats the FireFox software* Gooood little browser....good.
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.
Behind the Apple-Intel Deal, IBM Surprised
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Firefox has a plugin. Just right click in the user name and select bugmenot and poof....it fills out the username and password *Virtually pats the FireFox software* Gooood little browser....good.
Orlando Furioso
macrumors 6502
SiliconAddict said:
how would you analyze his [Señor Jobs] use of black slacks during the keynote in place of the usual blue-jeans?
I for one thought they were damn sexy with a touch of sophistication. =)
iMeowbot
macrumors G3
I think that Apple may have have had this switch planned since the Clone Wars in 1997 when Jobs came back. Both Moto and IBM were seriously screwed over by that. Moto even left the desktop CPU market for a time, and IBM began putting the heavier R&D payment requirements on Apple, after Apple went cutting heads. It really looks as though OS X on PowerPC was a necessary evil (for Apple) to buy time to get classic applications ported to Carbon and Cocoa. I doubt they'll produce any PPC Macs after 2007, save for a lifeboat model if enough customers scream for more time.sacear said:
Yes but how will 32bit dual core Yonah stack up against the 32bit dual core G4 that Freescale announced 9 months ago? Remember Jobs said "Exciting PowerPC products are still in the pipeline" I don't think by "Exciting" he meant another 100Mhz speed bump. However it might mean a dual core G4 Powerbook! 🙄tdewey said:
Personally I think this is one of the reasons Steve bit the bullet, the PBs are getting long in the tooth and are not keeping pace with their larger Wintel cousins and laptops are outselling desktops. I don't think we will see another rev of the current PowerBook line unless it's to drop in the Freescale single core pin-compatible MPC7448 chip.Marianco said:
Plus I wouldn't be surprised if the PB line was the first Macintel, it sure could benefit from the speed increase and would give Apple the opportunity to release a new enclosure and provide higher resolution displays. I'm a little disappointed that neither IBM nor Freescale were able to provide a low power processor in the required timeframe, the Freescale dual-core chip looked promising.
I guess we may not ever know what really sparked the announcement, perhaps it was the latest delay from IBM or Freescale that finally tipped Steve over the edge. Intel is quite a different beast and no stranger to litigation, in comparison Apple is a minnow, hopefully Steve hasn't bitten off more than he can chew.
I totally agree. Making Apple's OS more portable and not so reliant on the chips or hardware would make it very attractive to all kinds of electronic devices, like cell phones, DVRs, Blackberrys, digital cameras and video cameras, etc.sushi said:
Can you image how cool it would be to plug in your Motorola cellphone running OSX Mini that would sync up with the mothership G5 with ease and without compatibility problems? Your phone could be an icon on your desktop just like a mounted drive. Email, phone book, calendar is all easily synced and you can easily copy files or music over to your phone via Bluetooth. Maybe even drop widgets on the devices to add pre-sets or certain feature sets to the devices.
Apple is already publicly dabbling in that area with Motorola/iTunes. I would love to buy a Palm PDA and replace the Palm OS with OSX Mini PDA Edition. If my cellphone, PDA, laptop and desktop all speak the same language, they could communicate much easier.
Who knows what's up Steve's sleeves!
My goodness, what sort of work are they doing? Surely upgrading to a Mac Mini at least would be a productive upgrade.heisetax said:
They were! There had been zero innovation in the sock industry till Steve came along with this revolutionary idea! 😀 😀 😛iMeowbot said:
I have to really wonder about all the optimists that are saying we'll be seeing serious updates to existing Mac G4/G5 hardware in the next 2 years before the Mactel systems come out. what are they basing this on?... Jobs gave no real indications or promises of new hardware.
Judging by IBM's supposed surprise about Apple switching CPU vendors, they were either unaware on unconcerned about Apple's frustrations with the current state of the PowerPC. Now that the switch will be announced, how will they respond?...
If IBM couldn't produce faster processors before, how would they now, with even less motivation? And what happens if IBM moves more of their fab production to making chips for their new buddy Microsoft?..
While I highly doubt that IBM would cut Apple off, it seems highly likely that we may not see ANY increases in the speeds of processors that Apple gets from IBM. Do you like that 2.7 G5?.. Its a good thing, you'll be using it for 2 years. The only products that may get speed gains are the consumer end ones, by going to chips that are closer to or the same as what are being used in the professional models, thus cannibalizing sales on the high-end.
This may be an incredibly dry time for Mac hardware. I hope Apple survives it.
Judging by IBM's supposed surprise about Apple switching CPU vendors, they were either unaware on unconcerned about Apple's frustrations with the current state of the PowerPC. Now that the switch will be announced, how will they respond?...
If IBM couldn't produce faster processors before, how would they now, with even less motivation? And what happens if IBM moves more of their fab production to making chips for their new buddy Microsoft?..
While I highly doubt that IBM would cut Apple off, it seems highly likely that we may not see ANY increases in the speeds of processors that Apple gets from IBM. Do you like that 2.7 G5?.. Its a good thing, you'll be using it for 2 years. The only products that may get speed gains are the consumer end ones, by going to chips that are closer to or the same as what are being used in the professional models, thus cannibalizing sales on the high-end.
This may be an incredibly dry time for Mac hardware. I hope Apple survives it.
sushi
Moderator emeritus
I can imagine a lot! 😀MontyZ said:
Enjoyed your comments. You hit some ideas. SJ doesn't say things lightly. For example, the G5 will be at 3Ghz by such a time. Apple sees a future with many new products on the horizon. Some of these may be like the iPod -- a departure from their normal bread and butter.
How frustrating it must be not to be able to bring these ideas to execution because one of your key suppliers just isn't going down the path that you need them to be.
We've waited how long for the G5 at 3Ghz...and the G5 Powerbook. The wait goes on.
Steve and company had to make a judgement call that would ensure Apple's furture growth and development of new products. For whatever reason, it seems like IBM is stagnate at this time.
Yet at the same time, he did not close the door on them. If in the future, cell technology takes off and decent compilers can be made for traditional apps and OS type stuff who knows what will happen. Apple could move right back to IBM and the cell sometime down the road is Intel stagnates.
A few years ago, I knew the head of Motorolla Japan. One time we were having dinner and I asked him or rather made a comment about how much I liked the PowerPC (G4 was new) that Apple was using. His comments were not what I expected and left me somewhat disappointed.
As they say, hindsight is everything. Looking back, the writing was on the walls but I missed it. Guess I had blinders on because I liked the PowerPC concept so much and believed in Motorolla and IBM.
It is not easy changing a key supplier, nor making the shift that Apple has undertaken. Apple was getting forced into a corner -- a place that they do not want to be.
Glad to see Steve and company have the guts to be flexible.
So like are the new Intel PowerBooks going to be out next Tuesday or what?! 😀 😀 😀
...figured I would be the first to get this one in! 😛 😉
Sushi
iMeowbot
macrumors G3
My Microsoft director's chair is still sturdy and comfy after 20 years of daily use. Let's see how well these so-called innovative socks hold up 😛Ravenflight said:
Also buried in this NYT article is the tidbit that the first Macintels should be shipping in January. If Apple are really that far along, I wouldn't be expecting anything other than (hopefully decent) bumps.
MacTruck
macrumors 65816
Um, lets all keep in mind that the "Promised" Intel dual core chip is just that, "Promised". IBM and Freescale also "Promised a dual core chip but until I see it for sale somewhere it does not exist.
The tech industry is full of promises. Take a look at some old apple commercials found online. Even back as far as the Powerbook 5300 apple touted voice activation and all kinds of cool stuff that just doesn't work practically. The tech industry is all about getting things to work but not work practically. I remember when Cell phone modems were being touted as the greatest thing. That was 1996. I have only recently been able to use this technology practically.
The bottom line is that chips have reached their limit in speed no matter who makes them. Dual cores are the new thing because a single core chip is as maxed out as they will ever get. Moores law has reached its peak. Apple had that problem years ago with G4 and decided to just double the chips to increase speed. Personally I think that all computers need 2 processors for multitasking. So intel hit its limit with P4 at 3.8ghz. No 4ghz chips ever to be produced. In reality 2.8ghz is the fastest anybody can make a chip. P4 is expanded to increase clock speed not performance. Look at AMD, Intel Pentium M ( a real cpu unlike P4) and IBM. All have maxed out at these speeds roughly. 65nm chips coming out? How did they tackle the problems inherit in the 90nm process? The only way computers will get faster are less bloated OSes and software. If I were to run windows 95 on my 2ghz Pentium M thinkpad it would be the fastest computer ever. XP slows it down just like OSx slows down a new mac compared to OS9.
No, apple got dumped by IBM because IBM is now a game console chip manufacturer and they don't have to innovate for a while with that. With apple they are forced to work weekends to innovate and with the ceiling being so low with processors they can't and/or won't so they don't care about apple. IBM makes server chips that can get AC pumped into them to stay cool. I am sure once intel reaches 2.7ghz with Pentium M (if they ever do) they will be using liquid cooling and heatsinks the size of shoe boxes for their cooling needs as well.
Lets just get something straight, intel has nothing revolutionary in the pipeline. It just makes better business sense for Jobs and apple to use them. Cost effective, better relationships, better supply... whatever it is its not innovation that put apple to intel its business. So stop thinking you will see a super duper apple computer with an intel cpu inside. In 2 yrs it won't be that much better. Just will have a dual cpu in them (maybe). I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the first intel macs with just a 2ghz Pentium M inside and not dual core. Besides won't the Dual core 2ghz G4 with a 667bus be out by then?
Voice activation, dual core. Whatever. It is all hype. Let me see it in the store then I will believe it.
The tech industry is full of promises. Take a look at some old apple commercials found online. Even back as far as the Powerbook 5300 apple touted voice activation and all kinds of cool stuff that just doesn't work practically. The tech industry is all about getting things to work but not work practically. I remember when Cell phone modems were being touted as the greatest thing. That was 1996. I have only recently been able to use this technology practically.
The bottom line is that chips have reached their limit in speed no matter who makes them. Dual cores are the new thing because a single core chip is as maxed out as they will ever get. Moores law has reached its peak. Apple had that problem years ago with G4 and decided to just double the chips to increase speed. Personally I think that all computers need 2 processors for multitasking. So intel hit its limit with P4 at 3.8ghz. No 4ghz chips ever to be produced. In reality 2.8ghz is the fastest anybody can make a chip. P4 is expanded to increase clock speed not performance. Look at AMD, Intel Pentium M ( a real cpu unlike P4) and IBM. All have maxed out at these speeds roughly. 65nm chips coming out? How did they tackle the problems inherit in the 90nm process? The only way computers will get faster are less bloated OSes and software. If I were to run windows 95 on my 2ghz Pentium M thinkpad it would be the fastest computer ever. XP slows it down just like OSx slows down a new mac compared to OS9.
No, apple got dumped by IBM because IBM is now a game console chip manufacturer and they don't have to innovate for a while with that. With apple they are forced to work weekends to innovate and with the ceiling being so low with processors they can't and/or won't so they don't care about apple. IBM makes server chips that can get AC pumped into them to stay cool. I am sure once intel reaches 2.7ghz with Pentium M (if they ever do) they will be using liquid cooling and heatsinks the size of shoe boxes for their cooling needs as well.
Lets just get something straight, intel has nothing revolutionary in the pipeline. It just makes better business sense for Jobs and apple to use them. Cost effective, better relationships, better supply... whatever it is its not innovation that put apple to intel its business. So stop thinking you will see a super duper apple computer with an intel cpu inside. In 2 yrs it won't be that much better. Just will have a dual cpu in them (maybe). I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the first intel macs with just a 2ghz Pentium M inside and not dual core. Besides won't the Dual core 2ghz G4 with a 667bus be out by then?
Voice activation, dual core. Whatever. It is all hype. Let me see it in the store then I will believe it.
blitzkrieg79 said:
Of course not... It was MS who forced Intel to adopt AMD's 64-bit instructions for their EM64T technology, right? (the whole use AMD's or we won't have 64-bit Windows XP support you!)
solvs
macrumors 603
Um, no. The PPC is faster... in some apps. The G5 when it first came out was revolutionary, but has since languished. Much like the G4. A good chip, but without proper development, it goes nowhere fast. Notice there have been no recent bakeoffs, and a lot of wishing for high-clocked but cooler running G5s, and bitching about the G4. Intels chips have a better FUTURE. As in laptops in a year and desktops within the next year. It's not about the past or the present, it's about what's coming next.jhu said:
Marketing isn't about lying, it's about focusing on the strengths and downplaying the weaknesses. And these things change with time. 😉
solvs said:
Yup, the PPC line is faster at some things.. What worries me is that the "performance per watt" slide said "integer performance" on the vertical axis. It's no secret that integer operations have traditionally been x86's strong point, while PPC with Altivec excelled mostly at floating point. That slide may have looked quite different with FP performance instead..
Of course this is a non-issue with no low-power 970 in sight. Apple needs to compete in the portable market, so this move makes sense. I just hope that Intel can crank up their FLOP performance somehow, if nothing else then just by throwing Moore's law at it. That would benefit people like me, who'd like a capable notebook for real-time video and 3D-rendering / video editing as well as people out there wanting Virginia Tech-style clusters.
nms
macrumors member
Has Stever really burned bridges? I mean, Motorola/Freescale are still knocking around in various Apple incarnations. And...IBM may be surprised because they don't really know what's going on, like us. It'll clear up in a couple of weeks, i mean the iBook hasn't been updated for 300 days or something, so Apple isn't going to go another 300-600 without updating them!
iJaz said:
That's an interesting point. What did that chart mean? He was implying that the intel roadmap is showing 4-5x the performance per watt of the ppc, right?
That either means he believes Intel chips will run 4-5x ultra-cool, low power, or 4-5x the performance at the same level? Or a mix of twice the performance, half the power? Hmmm.
Well, I guess we've been suckered before in this arena.
I'm still for making OSX support both architectures, forever! That way you give IBM a little incentive to improve the PPC970. A little more cache perhaps? I mean at least Motorola was active in improvement... not getting very far, but they were trying.
Is the PowerMac truly not going to improve for 2 years?
Heck the XBox CPU Xenon is a triple cored, dual thread per core 3.2Ghz+, and it doesn't run as hot as a single 970. Pay Microsoft get one of these in the PowerBook. IBM could probably tack on an AltiVec or two... maybe even drop a core... better or worse than the current G4? Of course IBM is not planning on improving performance on these Xenon things for 5 years.
I agree that the Cell probably isn't that great for a general purpose CPU. Great for decoding 48 streams of video at the same time, and probably 10 times worse than Altivec to write code for.
-Wyrm
cube said:
You are correct.
Out of order execution helps with a compiler that can't perform the out of order at compile time. I'm sure there are some special cases that the compiler couldn't do this, but I can't think of any right now, and I'm sure they are as rare as a Coelacanth in your bathtub.
I think most compilers now address this, so all that silicon is effectively redundant now. Well, except for ancient compiled code that is, and where does that exist in the Mac world?
-Wyrm
Double- or triple-life?
In his keynote last week, Jobs confirmed longstanding rumors that Apple had been developing an Intel-compatible version of OS X for years (a secret double-life, as he put it).
In order to support PPC-based Macs, Apple's going to have to contunue to develop both versions for several years, well after the entire product line goes Intel and Leopard ships. At least Apple has a model for that in the 68k-PPC transition.
The question is will Apple continue to hedge its bets beyond that? For that matter, will they also create in-house versions for other processors like the Cell?
In his keynote last week, Jobs confirmed longstanding rumors that Apple had been developing an Intel-compatible version of OS X for years (a secret double-life, as he put it).
In order to support PPC-based Macs, Apple's going to have to contunue to develop both versions for several years, well after the entire product line goes Intel and Leopard ships. At least Apple has a model for that in the 68k-PPC transition.
The question is will Apple continue to hedge its bets beyond that? For that matter, will they also create in-house versions for other processors like the Cell?