You can't be serious...skunk said:
The entire consol market is going PPC, and then Jobs RDF kicks in and move us to x86 of all possible chips.The x86 is passe if any.
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.
'Intel Based Mac' Rumor Roundup...
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The entire consol market is going PPC, and then Jobs RDF kicks in and move us to x86 of all possible chips.The x86 is passe if any.
Sayer said:
Apple didn't help 'create' the ARM processor. The ARM processor per se was developed by Acorn in 1987 as a step forwards from the 6502 family. ARM stands for Acorn RISC Machine.
Apple helped develop the processor, at a relatively late stage. Most of the ARM development was advanced by Samsung or DEC, IIRC.
nomore said:
They acquired it from C|Net so no new info or sources
Only 6 hours to go have to do my exam first though
I wasn't being serious, but I'm sure the fact that IBM is making all the console chips has a lot to do with it. No incentive for R&D on the 970.Dr.Gargoyle said:You can't be serious...
Which makes sense considering that the PPC chips produced for the consoles are highly specialized chips made exactly for this purpose. They are far from being a normal CPU that can be used in a normal PC...Dr.Gargoyle said:You can't be serious...
They still beat the **** out of the PPC970... not too bad for a passé design. Don't you think? Fact is that development costs are too high for IBM to develop a dedicated Desktop or Laptop CPU (considering the little market share of Apple). And just making derivates from server CPUs doesn't cut it on the long run, as we can see in Apple's current product line-up.Dr.Gargoyle said:
The x86 platform will go on to be developed for years. The best thing is that you have two CPU manufacturers competing on that platform. A guarantee for progress. And if one day the whole x86 caravan will move on to a new architecture, Apple just has to follow and doesn't have to face the emerging problems alone. It will have the same impact on everybody using these processors, which is about 98% of the market these days.
groovebuster
First of all, in science you can have huge datasets spanning over decades. when you evaluate this dataset you need more or less the exact same program or you will have to redo all the runs. Most depts tweak an existing program to fit their needs exactly. Moreover, people are scared stiff about stability. Any minor corruption of the data would imply that all the results are faulty. In fact it is quite common that depts are using old OS and programs/apps just because they have been tested and found reliable.groovebuster said:Can you please elaborate on this one? I still fail to see what would cause this...
groovebuster
My impression is that most depts prefer stability, continuity over speed.
If there is any doubt about the results you find, other scientists MUST be able to do the exact same experiment.
As it is now you can run DOS programs from the 90ies on the wintel platform. ANother transition by Apple could scare off the last people.
Besides, money is always an issue in education and science. I doubt that it would be considered as good economy staying with a platform in an endless transition.
Ok, then we are on the same page...skunk said:
What about IBM licensing the PPC to Intel? It would be a win win situation for IBM, right?
I agree (somewhat)... However, problem with the PPC is lack of R&D. getting Intel in the market would certainly increase R&D. Since PPC is mainly IBM property (I initially thought it was AIM), IBM would be in a win win situation if they licensed the PPC to Intel. Intel would probably love to get into the PPC race, especially after being snubbed by MS on the Xbox.groovebuster said:
Too hot, too big, too slow, no dual core, no laptop unit. That was 2003, remember?Mitch1984 said:
Mitch1984 said:
Well 2003 is two years ago and the G5 still hasn't hit 3.0Ghz.
But the main reason, IMHO, is the failure of IBM/FS to produce a good mobile chip. It's been two years and still no mobile G5.
***
Quick aside, the change I can deal with, waiting for the keynote--not so much.
Yeah. I've got a ton of things to do today, but I just can't get off this bloody site!tdewey said:
Well, I don't get it. After reading 3000+ posts, I really don't understand what is going on here. The whole thing just doesn't make any sense. It seems to me that Apple has decided to "switch" in a short period of time. Actually, I don't mind to use Intel on my Mac (doesn't mean I like it!!), but why I have to wait 2 years?! Pentium-M chips are all over the world. They are everywhere on earth! Also, if the emulation stuff is so cool, why Apple wants us to wait 2 years for it?! Just release Intel Mac tomorrow...why 2 years later? By 2007, OSX is going to face Longhorn, not WinXP. If everything works out as many people mentioned, Apple should have use Intel five years ago! Why they have to wait two more years?! It sounds like nothing is ready at this moment.
To be honest, I don't think Apple can even survive for 2 more years. Who is going to buy PPC Mac now? Any new PC switchers will be scare away and never buy Mac again. I was planning to buy a new Powerbook, no matter it's G5 or 7448, this summer. After this news confirmed, I will go for Intel (well, I am listening to you...Apple). However, I won't wait 2 years, I will buy a Pentium-M notebook this week. I know I will miss OSX which is very stable, virus free and never rebooting itself like windows. However, rebooting the whole Mac system every few years is just not a good idea!
Pentium-M chips are all over the world. They are everywhere on earth! Also, if the emulation stuff is so cool, why Apple wants us to wait 2 years for it?! Just release Intel Mac tomorrow...why 2 years later? By 2007, OSX is going to face Longhorn, not WinXP. If everything works out as many people mentioned, Apple should have use Intel five years ago! Why they have to wait two more years?! It sounds like nothing is ready at this moment. To be honest, I don't think Apple can even survive for 2 more years. Who is going to buy PPC Mac now? Any new PC switchers will be scare away and never buy Mac again. I was planning to buy a new Powerbook, no matter it's G5 or 7448, this summer. After this news confirmed, I will go for Intel (well, I am listening to you...Apple). However, I won't wait 2 years, I will buy a Pentium-M notebook this week. I know I will miss OSX which is very stable, virus free and never rebooting itself like windows. However, rebooting the whole Mac system every few years is just not a good idea!
I don't understand that Apple hasn't focused more on the EDU market, specifically on the science community. Scince community has always by tradition been UNIX. Stability is essential.
If you can get professors use OSX it more or less force the students to run OSX in order to complete their exams. Most students can only afford one computer. Consequently, you will get students using Macs for a couple of years at the University. My bet is that this will be their prefered computer when they come out in the labormarket. Most people are lazy, and they dont want to go through the trouble of learning a new OS.
I just don't get it why Apple hasn't seen this before.
The current trend seem on the contrary to alienate the science community.
If you can get professors use OSX it more or less force the students to run OSX in order to complete their exams. Most students can only afford one computer. Consequently, you will get students using Macs for a couple of years at the University. My bet is that this will be their prefered computer when they come out in the labormarket. Most people are lazy, and they dont want to go through the trouble of learning a new OS.
I just don't get it why Apple hasn't seen this before.
The current trend seem on the contrary to alienate the science community.
For a start, the news items say laptops will be 2006, and secondly, they may be sooner. I'd wait a few hours before making that purchase...Lifto said:
So you are telling me that a recompilation of software is not feasible?Dr.Gargoyle said:
WHat does that have to do with the initial problem?Dr.Gargoyle said:
In know that, but what's the problem here? If they resist to update OS or Software they can't use modern hardware anyway, except in emulation mode. But this is something tehy will be able to do anyway. You don't really think Apple would not find a way to run Software coded for PPC CPUs on their still to be announced new hardware platform?Dr.Gargoyle said:
Another reason why this isn't really an argument. There are the two possibilities then I mentioned before... staying on the old hardware or emulation on new hardware.Dr.Gargoyle said:
Still software is a well defined collection of functions. It is highly unlikely that for one platform 1+1=2 and for the other one 1+1=1.9. If that would be the case you could also not trust the results in first place because you culd never be sure if there isn't an error margin you don't know about.Dr.Gargoyle said:
I can still run OS9 programs in my PowerMac... and I am pretty sure that this will still last for a while.Dr.Gargoyle said:
Dr.Gargoyle said:
???
Every platform is in an endless transition. Actually it was due to Mac OS X that the scientific community gained interest again in the Mac platform. Recompiling for a x86 processor will do the job in 99.99% of the cases and should deliver the same results. As I mentioned before... 1+1=2, no matter if my calculator has an IBM or an Intel/AMD logo...
I know about the Pentium bug a few years ago, so don't even mention it!
groovebuster
adam1185 said:
What Mr. Bill Palmer fails to understand in his rebuttal is that there won't need to be a video iPod to make the "iTunes" movie store successful. Steve has said it before and I agree that nobody wants to watch a video on an iPod. Get that store accessible from my 50" HDTV though, and that's a whole new ballgame
