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

nixd2001

macrumors regular
Aug 21, 2002
179
0
UK
Re: Mac with Intel Chip?

Originally posted by Dave Marsh

Apple produces the best personal computers around, albeit not the fastest.

<sarcasm>

Hey! Steady on there! You're suggesting quality enters in to the equation.... That's pretty revolutionary talk.

</sarcasm>

I'm still amused that the cost and performance number comparison debates so studiously avoid ever letting the word quality creep in to the discussion.
 

Dave Marsh

macrumors regular
Jul 23, 2002
210
0
Sacramento, CA
Mac on Intel Compatibility

My point isn't that standard PC hardware couldn't work with Mac OS X for Intel, but that it likely won't with much hardware out of the box. I remember all too well the RAM fiasco we had moving from Mac OS 9 to X because the installer decided the old RAM wasn't good enough for the upgrade. I also had a legacy printer, scanner, ADB to USB adapters, and the like that still don't work, so I've had to replace the hardware that I continue to need. My Saitek joystick only works, somewhat, because of a third party app I recently acquired.

So, assuming Apple could even make any money out of this scenario, what's the ordinary user who's looked at MacOS X in a store, and heard all the kudos about its ease of use to think when he rushes home, reformats his hard drive, and installs it, only to find that some critical piece of hardware for him no longer works? How's that contribute to Apple's ease of use legend? At that moment, MacOS X simply becomes another OS product, with the same issues of every OS, except on the Windows side the issues have been dealt with. Yes, he can contact the vendor. (My experience here is that the vendor simply tells me to buy their newest hardware. What possible incentive do they have to write drivers for legacy hardware just for Apple to reap the profits?)

So, I guess I don't basically disagree with you, but I do believe the devil would be in the details...the specific and huge range of hardware currently in use in the PC world. I also believe this would be a catastrophe for Apple. Apple would basically be setting up the clones scenario all over again, only this time it would be with every PC vendor in the world. Apple's hardware would certainly not be able to compete at cost against a barebones PC setup. While that might seem a plus to some, Apple has to pay for all that R&D and industrial design that other vendors don't. How would Apple survive? And finally, would Microsoft just sit on the sidelines and allow another OS compete on its proprietary turf? I think not.
 

Catfish_Man

macrumors 68030
Sep 13, 2001
2,579
2
Portland, OR
OK, here's the situation...

...
Reasons for Apple to switch to an x86 processor (Hammer, or Pentium 4):
1) Speed advantage until 2H03
2) Easier Windows emulation
3) High MHz numbers for marketing

Reasons for Apple to not switch to an x86 processor:
1) All PowerPC optimizations would have to be thrown out (including all Altivec code)
2) All software would have to be recompiled (at the very least)
3) The speed advantage would be negligible after the PowerPC 970 comes out (more on this at the end)
4) PC hackers would almost inevitably reverse engineer the "won't boot on a generic PC" protections that Apple would put into OSX
5) New versions of all software would have to be bought
6) Many developers wouldn't switch (since they just went through one switch, from 9 to X), they'd just develop for Windows instead
7) Having to support two different processors for a long time would be a major drain on their budget (especially since they'd have to optimize for two different architectures)
8) Intel and AMD are both trying to get rid of x86 (Intel with IA-64, AMD with x86-64), why would Apple switch to it now?
9) easier speed comparisons would highlight any low performance areas (and we know OSX still isn't that fast)





PowerPC 970 vs. Prescott Pentium 4:
970 has 6.4GB/sec of memory bandwidth
Prescott has 5.3GB/sec
970 uses 42 watts of power
Prescotts power consumption is unknown, but will likely be similar
970 is on .13 micron SOI
Prescott is on .09 micron
970 starts at 1.8GHz
Prescott will likely be at 3.6GHz
970 will likely get about 4 IPC
Prescott will probably get about 2 IPC
970 is built for multiprocessing and multicore
Prescott can't do multiprocessing
970's memory bus runs at 1/2 the processor frequency
Prescott's is 667MHz.

Overall performance will likely be similar, with the Pentium 4 taking a lead in single precision integer and double precision vector, and the 970 leading in double precision integer, floating point, and single precision vector. In multiprocessor systems, the 970 will crush the Pentium 4, but will be more expensive. When the 970 switches to .09 micron circuitry (which should be well before Intel switches to .065), dual core 970s become practical, the clock frequency can go higher (the bus frequency would go up with it), the power consumption is lower, and it's cheaper and smaller.

Any comparisons to the Intel Itanium or Itanium2 processors, or AMD Opteron processors are useless as they are intended for entirely different markets (and VERY different price ranges). Useful comparisons will be against AMD Athlon64s, and Intell Pentium 4s (or they may call it the Pentium 5 by then).
 

AssassinOfGates

macrumors 6502
Jul 17, 2002
303
0
A cardboard box.
Re: Re: From MacCentral Report: Apple will go Intel next year

Originally posted by jefhatfield


sounds like an interesting article and who ever thought that a machine built by apple would ever use a microprocessor built by IBM?

Umm my powermac 7500 has an old IBM PPC chip in it.
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
Re: Re: Re: From MacCentral Report: Apple will go Intel next year

Originally posted by AssassinOfGates


Umm my powermac 7500 has an old IBM PPC chip in it.

i was talking about way before the aim alliance when ibm was the big brother of computing before microsoft came in and took everything over;)
 

Catfish_Man

macrumors 68030
Sep 13, 2001
2,579
2
Portland, OR
Re: Re: Re: Re: From MacCentral Report: Apple will go Intel next year

Originally posted by jefhatfield


i was talking about way before the aim alliance when ibm was the big brother of computing before microsoft came in and took everything over;)

The iBook and CRT iMac both use post-AIM IBM chips. I see your point though, luckily IBM seems to have changed greatly since then.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.