Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yvan256 said:
I think most everyone knows that (or at least a lot of people).

The real question is: can Cell be added (even externally) to a generic PowerPC chip to equal the custom PPC+Altivec chip that Apple wants? Sort of like how Amiga had external co-processors.

The cell already contains a "custom PPC" Core. The difference is the "spu's" that are bolted to it.

It has excellent performance in one specialized area, making it specialized to a task. It does not have good general purpose computing power as needed on a desktop. Could Nth Million of them be tied together to produce "yada yada"... Perhaps... But? WHY? The same could be said of any existing processor.

Trust me, the Cell is about 1/10th as interesting and powerful as the marketing / rumors make it out to be. Do you see either Intel or AMD heading in the direction of the cell? I don't. And I am fairly confident that if the architecture was THAT much better, they would not be sitting around going... oh nice, that is going to destroy us shortly. Guess well sit back and watch!
 
It may not be an x86 chip. What if Intel are taking over the IBM PPC manufacturing, or developing something similar them selves?

Until Steve Jobs turns round and says “This is the future for Mac processors and it’s a <what ever chip>” there is stuff all we can do.

However, what ever chip form Apple does decide on they will have a bullet proof strategy for the transition. *sits with optimists hat on*


:D
 
I don't think so...

Macwhispers - is it fair to compare a Voodoo Eden PC to a Mac mini/eMac/iBook? Aren't most Voodoo's much more expensive then the aforemenioned low-end Macs?

Besides the Mac Mini, Apple makes an average of $350 on each computer - more if you count AppleCare and displays. They just wouldn't make the same amount of money off software. So what if they blew away MSFT's marketshare? It wouldn't matter, they wouldn't be around. 75% of their sales is computers, 15 % iPods and their ilk, and a teensy-bit is software. They just don't make the money off Tiger.

For anyone to say "neener-neener, MSFT makes money off software only, why couldn't Apple?" Because MSFT already HAS the market share, MSFT sells XP Pro for $300, compared to Tiger's cost of $130.

"Nothing Apple can do will result in a sudden, large migration of corporate desktops to OS X. But, the consumer, small office, education, and (don't forget) the enterprise spaces are not as tied to Microsoft. Huge sales gains can be had in these spaces with an x86 compatible OS X."

If OS X was compatible with x86, there would be no incentive to buy an Apple-labeled OS X machine, now would there? Kiss goodbye to your revenue, Apple. Sales gains of software, maybe, but not monetary gains for our favorite company.

I can see Apple releasing a crippled version of OS X (OS X-lite?) just to show Windows users that there IS indeed an alternative and that there IS such thing as a virus-free computer. There could be a seperate market around this crippled OS. However, Apple can't abandon the PPC version of OS X because all of the software developed for it runs on it. They would have to port it all over. Either that, or Intel would make PPC chips, but as I've commented before, I find that unlikely as IBM probably owns most of the intellectual property related to PPC.

Calih
 
My guess is that IF this rumor is true, Jobs will announce a new Pentium M based Powerbook tomorrow. People keep talking about the transition, but perhaps there is no transition, perhaps the real truth is that Apple will use multiple suppliers, i.e. IBM for high end PPC based machines where heat isn't really an issue and Intel for laptop machines where the Pentium M really is a fantastic chip. That's my guess.
 
Loge said:
While this information appears convincing, the question arises how does Apple retain its revenue stream during the transition - if we are to believe that the first Intel based Macs appear during 2006 and the rest in 2007? As well as not wanting to purchase deprecated hardware, purchasers would be worried that Apple could even survive the transition.

I believe that most consumers will not be aware of the platform switch and they will the once providing most of the sales. Mention PPC, GHz, Pentium M and they will have no idea what those things mean or what they correspond to. Moreover, either is it good or bad (fast or slow)

That is just my opinion and fell free to correct me.
 
365 said:
My guess is that IF this rumor is true, Jobs will announce a new Pentium M based Powerbook tomorrow. People keep talking about the transition, but perhaps there is no transition, perhaps the real truth is that Apple will use multiple suppliers, i.e. IBM for high end PPC based machines where heat isn't really an issue and Intel for laptop machines where the Pentium M really is a fantastic chip. That's my guess.

Makes no sense to run 2 seperate code bases for desktops and laptops. While the transitive technology (or whatever they have up their sleeves) will EASE the transition, it will not be a permanent solution. It will be one boat or the other, dividing itself will surely lead to failure and confusion, as well as decreased performance across the board due to inability to optomize for any one platform. Short term, possibly, but long term? Its going to be a full transition.
 
Loge said:
As well as not wanting to purchase deprecated hardware, purchasers would be worried that Apple could even survive the transition.

That exactly right. It's the question that throws the biggest wrench into this supposed news story. It's either false, or Jobs has to have something to show and not just tell.
 
MacCheetah3 said:
Hi
Two things...
1) This "decision" would put the final nail in the coffin for Apple. It would be a disaster to say the least.

2) If it were to happen, my last Apple computer (Mac) would be the last / best PowerPC based system <Period>

tomorrow will start the countdown for the first ever mac os x virus. here is to hoping those wintel chips would only be used to run the iPod. oh. and again, tomorrow will be start the creation of the first iPod virus. damn you intel.
 
shawnce said:
Yes it is true the vast majority of "viruses" in the world are compiled to x86 instructions but they also depend on Windows operating system to exist with specific functions, etc. in well know memory locations (talking about buffer overrun exploits for example).

If using Mac OS X on x86 those things wouldn't exist at all or in the locations that x86 "viruses" expect, they wouldn't work. In other words Mac OS X wouldn't magically gain exposure to viruses simply because they use a CPU that can execute instructions that most viruses are compiled to.
I'm not saying current Win32 (or Win64) viruses will suddenly be able to infect an x86 based Mac. That doesn't make sense. But suddenly all x86 native virus writers would compete to be the first to bust Mac OS X, and with an inferior hardware platform (security wise) it's just a matter of time, very short time, before someone finds a hole to exploit in FreeBSD (buffer overflows flourish) or even Aqua (Dashboard, anyone?) and writes a virus partially with assembly code for x86 and BINGO: The Mac OS X virus is born...
 
MacPhreak said:
#2 - The price per chip would most likely be higher than what Dell, HP, Sony, etc, would pay, since Apple would account for such a tiny portion of their sales. Dell would have a hissy if Apple got a lower price.

#3 - x86 has run into a wall, as well, as has been mentioned here several times.

And your last comment-- If my memory serves, there are considerably less transistors in a G5 than in a P4, something like 50 million vs. 200 million, which is one of the reasons the G5 is (supposedly) cheaper to manufacture.

#2) Intel wants the Apple win, they'll give them a very good deal.

#3) Absolutely true, but Intel is moving much faster to dual-core than IBM/FS. Lacking telepathy, I can't beam into Jobs' mind, but I'm going to guess that he is doing this switch because he knows that IBM/Freescale are not moving quickly enough to dual-core (perhaps because IBM is spending all its time with MS' Xbox 360 team??)

#4) IIRC, P4 and G5 have about the same transistor count (+- 5 million or so). The much higher count you're offering (200m) might be for the P4 EE.

I'm guessing that eWeek is "cheating" and comparing the G5 to a speciality chip (e.g Itanium 2).
 
I know nothing about this really, but what will happen is this:

- Apple will bump the specs for iBook/Powerbook/Mac Mini. This will keep sales up for a while.

- Apple will announce OS X for x86 (as of now), making it possible to run Mac OS on any PC and still use existing apps with help of Transitive.

- Apple will announce a shift to Intel (x86) with start at middle of 2006. So when Apple has x86 systems out people will be used to Apple and Mac OS and people will shift to Mac hardware as well...

:eek:
Hey, it could happen!! :D
 
365 said:
My guess is that IF this rumor is true, Jobs will announce a new Pentium M based Powerbook tomorrow. People keep talking about the transition, but perhaps there is no transition, perhaps the real truth is that Apple will use multiple suppliers, i.e. IBM for high end PPC based machines where heat isn't really an issue and Intel for laptop machines where the Pentium M really is a fantastic chip. That's my guess.

What software will this x86-based notebook run?
 
Calihafan said:
75% of their sales is computers, 15 % iPods and their ilk, and a teensy-bit is software.
Actually revenue wise iPods make up about 35% of Apple's sales with Macs about 46% and software around 6% (last quarters numbers) the rest comes from iTMS/iPod related items and peripherals. Expect software to be higher this quarter thanks to Tiger's release.
 
MacPhreak said:
#2 - The price per chip would most likely be higher than what Dell, HP, Sony, etc, would pay, since Apple would account for such a tiny portion of their sales. Dell would have a hissy if Apple got a lower price.
Apple have something that Dell don't, namely lots of interesting patents covering media delivery, and that's a market where Intel really, really want to be.
 
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
I'm not saying current Win32 (or Win64) viruses will suddenly be able to infect an x86 based Mac. That doesn't make sense. But suddenly all x86 native virus writers would compete to be the first to bust Mac OS X, and with an inferior hardware platform (security wise) it's just a matter of time, very short time, before someone finds a hole to exploit in FreeBSD (buffer overflows flourish) or even Aqua (Dashboard, anyone?) and writes a virus partially with assembly code for x86 and BINGO: The Mac OS X virus is born...


Whatever, there were buffer overflow problems on the PPC too, but Apple fixed them. Why wouldn't they do the same for x86? In addition, how would the virus spread without outlook? Hardware has very little to do with viruses, if the OS doesn't allow access to the problems, there is no problem. PPC is not some sort of magic platform nor is x86 inherently evil.

Isaac
 
Not so sure.....

I love OS X, but at the same time, I don't think it really addresses some of the things (mostly related to file management) that long-time Windows users expect. The "Finder", frankly, kind of sucks when it comes to needing to rename/delete/copy/move large numbers of files and folders around.

For example, I often encounter strange little "glitches", like I hold down "open-apple" and click on multiple files to highlight them all. Then I try to hold down the mouse button and drag the selected group to the trash can or over to a new folder. Sometimes it works great. Other times, it immediately deselects all the items except the one I have the pointer immediately over. (Seems to be better behaved if I make sure I only point at the little icons to the left of the filenames, rather than pointing at some other part of the highlighted file; but still - this isn't intuitive/friendly at all.)

Along the same vein, there's just something ever so slightly "off" about the timing of some of these actions. It's hard to even explain, but when you use Windows, things just seem to happen at the correct pace when you click to select or double-click shortcuts, etc. In Mac OS X, I more often find myself accidently doing things like not quite waiting long enough after single-clicking a filename to rename it. Having Stuffit Expander as the "de-facto" standard for compressed Mac files only adds to the problems. Sometimes you try to, say, decompress a whole set of partial files back into a single .dmg. You double-click the first segment and Stuffit tries launching a program to merge all the pieces first and then uncompress the whole merged "chunk". That may fail, depending on the file creator/type info on some of the segments. But if you right-click on that same first segment, traversing the menus for Stuffit and "Expand" - it seems to work fine, uncompressing the set without trying to launch a tool to merge it first. What's with that??

Also, without going to the terminal and issuing Unix commands, there's really no easy way to rename a group of files all in one shot. (EG. I want to rename 50 files without extensions so they all have a .doc on the end.) Some sort of pop-up window for applying "batch" changes to groups of selected files would go a long way towards making it more powerful, IMHO.



Caudor said:
I believe this is Apple's attempt to get back in the ring for another swing at Microsoft. Apple has the world's best OS and they know it. Microsoft reputation is at an all-time low. Longhorn is still way off and even average users tire of security issues. By gaining Intel (and possibly others like HP) as an ally, this represent the opening salvo of a new OS WAR!

It is also possible that Apple and Intel are joining forces to woo Hollywood with some grand plan.

If Apple ever plans to stand up to MS, this is a great time to do it.
 
animefan_1 said:
What software will this x86-based notebook run?
Just read your signature! If an x86 based notebook is released tomorrow, you can be sure that all of the current apps would work fine. Whether that's done via software or hardware emulation doesn't really matter (and I don't really care) as long as the performance is there. Why are people assuming that Apple is looking to decrease their machines performance and/or break compatibility with current apps?

Isaac
 
redAPPLE said:
tomorrow will start the countdown for the first ever mac os x virus. here is to hoping those wintel chips would only be used to run the iPod. oh. and again, tomorrow will be start the creation of the first iPod virus. damn you intel.


That makes no sense. The hardware does not stop viruses! It is the software that stops viruses. OSX would stop viruses on intel or any other piece of hardware, period. Why would OSX be any more prone to viruses with an intel chip versus an PowerPC G4 or G5?
 
isaacc7 said:
Whatever, there were buffer overflow problems on the PPC too, but Apple fixed them. Why wouldn't they do the same for x86?
You always want to fill those overflow holes as you find them, as they're a cause for concern, for all systems. But the PPC will NOT run malicious code from a overflow. An x86 will.

isaacc7 said:
In addition, how would the virus spread without outlook?
There are lots of port scanning worms crawling the net. You have file share networks and IM worms. I think most infections today are happening without the "aid" of Outlook (express).

isaacc7 said:
Hardware has very little to do with viruses, if the OS doesn't allow access to the problems, there is no problem.
That's not entirely accurate, because assembly code doesn't care what OS the hardware is running.

isaacc7 said:
PPC is not some sort of magic platform nor is x86 inherently evil.
Yes it is! That's why I've vowed to be true to the light PPC side of the force and not venture over to the dark x86 side... :p
 
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
You always want to fill those overflow holes as you find them, as they're a cause for concern, for all systems. But the PPC will NOT run malicious code from a overflow. An x86 will.
Umm... yeah PPC will. :(
 
calyxman said:
So two big headlines coming on Monday.

This:

xinsrc_572060205205534326573.jpg


and This:

capt.ny12406042225.michael_jackson_ny124.jpg



The press will be having an orgy.


Oh man, those are the 2 worst images ever pixelized.
 
kingtj said:
I love OS X, but at the same time, I don't think it really addresses some of the things (mostly related to file management) that long-time Windows users expect. The "Finder", frankly, kind of sucks when it comes to needing to rename/delete/copy/move large numbers of files and folders around.
[...]
Also, without going to the terminal and issuing Unix commands, there's really no easy way to rename a group of files all in one shot. (EG. I want to rename 50 files without extensions so they all have a .doc on the end.) Some sort of pop-up window for applying "batch" changes to groups of selected files would go a long way towards making it more powerful, IMHO.
Automator...?
 
jope76 said:
I know nothing about this really, but what will happen is this:

- Apple will bump the specs for iBook/Powerbook/Mac Mini. This will keep sales up for a while.

- Apple will announce OS X for x86 (as of now), making it possible to run Mac OS on any PC and still use existing apps with help of Transitive.

- Apple will announce a shift to Intel (x86) with start at middle of 2006. So when Apple has x86 systems out people will be used to Apple and Mac OS and people will shift to Mac hardware as well...

:eek:
Hey, it could happen!! :D


o dear - i am still gobsmacked wait and see what the man has to say for himself
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.