Slashdot Mirror
Pentium-Based Macs The Future of Apple?
seek3r writes "Found this interesting article on BusinessWeek.com regarding Apple's potential switch to Intel chips. I wonder what the implications this might have for Apple with regards to market share and software support. Have Motorola's chips really lagged behind Intel?"
Palladium/TCPA/DRM support?
I think it was the lack of competition in the Mac arena that left Motorolla high-and-dry when being compared to Intel now. I know you can't just measure MHz to MHz, but competition in any arena is better than none.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
...Or am I missing something? the G4 chip has been around for a long time...
In terms of hardware site fanboy numbers, sure. But we're hitting the point where few people [*] can tell the difference between 1GHz and 2.8GHz and even hardware engineers are starting to realize this, so maybe it Just Doesn't Matter.
One thing I respect about the PowerPC chips is that the power consumption is drastically lower than for x86 chips. Drastically. It would be a shame to lose that and have everyone using 100 watt processors a couple of years down the road.
[*] Those few people are disproportionately loud.
There is a world of difference between using an x86 processor, and using an x86-based PC. I suspect Apple has closely investigated hooking up an x86-64 (or two ;) to a custom motherboard/infrastructure that would solve many of the interrupt/expansion complexities of PCs. For example, they could adopt HyperTransport, which would make multiprocessing affordable, easy to design around and most of all, leading edge, which is important to some people. Remember, Apple is expert at getting a lot out of a little - it would not surprise me if they tied a Hammer to a custom motherboard and created a whole new architecture. And that wouldn't be a bad thing.
I bought my first PowerPC-based Mac during that short, happy time when we could actually claim, without a hint of guilt or fear of reprisal, that G3 chips were "pentium crushers."
Unfortunately, despite my love for the mac platform, and my desire to claim that our hardware is "just as good"... it's not. RISC vs CISC stopped being an issue when Intel chips became RISC chips pretending to be x86's. PowerPC's still do more per clock than Pentiums, but the differences in clock speed, bus speed, and sundry other ephemerals has finally gotten to the point where for 90% of tasks, intel chips are just faster.
Don't get me wrong, I don't plan to switch until they pry my computer from my clenched, arthritic hands... but I can no longer look a computer-newbie in the eye and tell him that "Macs are just as fast". Better experiences, maybe... but as fast? No.
Of course, for most people, we're close to that point where chip-speed stops mattering... (maybe 1-2 more cycles of Moore's Law ought to do it.) How many people think about the speed of their computer while surfing, emailing, word-processing, or any such thing? (I know, I know, it's a cliche, but cliches are cliches because they're _true_.)
I think, business-wise, a switch to intel would be near-suicide for Apple. But Motorolla is dead in the water, desktop-computer-wise. Perhaps this theoretical IBM chip is the future... who knows?
The real reason is: Microsoft.
That's right folks. If OSX works on PC hardware, it has suddenly just become a competitor to Windows. What happens then? No more Mac IE, no more Mac Office. Suddenly Macs are nothing more than expensive linux boxes with a groovy desktop.
Apple can't "test" the waters by having some PPC boxes and some Intel boxes, they just have to jump head long into competition against essentially Dell for hardware and Microsoft for software. It'll never happen.
basically it'll mean we won't have to pay exaggerated prices for Macs to be able to use OS X!!
You will never see MacOS X running on a generic x86 "beige box". Apple developed MacOS X for the sole purpose of selling hardware, that's where they make all their money, despite charging for Jaguar. (Sun are the same with Solaris). In addition, the "just works" ability touted as a major Mac selling point would cease to happen once they could not guarantee with any certainty exactly what hardware their OS was running on - this is the real problem faced by Microsoft, most Windows crashes boil down to needing to have drivers for every conceivable piece of hardware supported, and being unable to prove them all.
An x86 based Mac will have sufficient custom hardware on its motherboard that you will still only be able to run MacOS on Apple hardware.
For one, this has been rumored countless times before. Has it happened? No. Here's why.
One: Apple's revenue comes from it's hardware sales. If people can go out and buy plain vanilla PCs and install MacOS on them for significantly cheaper than they can buy a Mac, Apple's income will drop a great deal.
Two: As others have said, Apple's been with IBM and Mot. for a Very Long Time (tm). There have been rumors equally as valid as this one about apple developing it's *own* chip for fabbing at IBM (a company, unlike Mot., who can actually get decent yields).
Three: Again, as others have said, it's more probable that Apple will go with IBM's next-gen 64-bit desktop CPU. IBM makes good chips. They're not big in the desktop market, but the Power4 has been a big server chip for a while now, and with good reason. It was one of the first dual-chip-on-die procs that actually made public usage (afik), and did a large amount of ass-whipping.
To conclude: Apple going x86 would be stupid.
Have a nice day.
What? You want a sig?
The RISC vs CISC argument is all-but dead in the water by now. x86 chips are only CISC in the loosest sense of the word, for backwards-compatibility. They all run internal mini-RISC chips that convert CISC commands to RISC sequences via microcode.
This article chronicles some of Apple's challenges.
But on the topic. So Apple has 3 choices:
1. Wait for Motorola to get their act together. All the code optimization in the world won't make OS X as fast as it could be. Jaguar, for example, made my B&W G3 REALLY responsive compared to 10.1.5. But it occured to me, that's probably the last speed boost from software. You can only go so far.
2. Get the new IBM chip working. Hey, fine, it'll probably work. But it'll take a year or more to get it ported, documented, and in production. It won't be cheap, most likely. It will most likely be fast and powerful, but Apple walks a fine line WRT price.
3. Get Intel working. Hey, fine. Port OpenFirmware to an Intel-type mobo, then ship a computer that runs NONE of the software outside of the core OS. Wait for developers to buy one of these new machines to recompile their packages. This is where proprietary software bites you on the ass - you can't just wander between architectures with your source tarball and hope for the best. Oh, and of course, Classic won't work, and you're going to be stuck with whatever devices are already "cross platform". YOu can't just pick up a device from CompUSA and expect it to work.
The only plus I see to OSX/x86 is that the possibility for cheaper hardware might mean more people picking up an OS X box, and maybe some more drivers will be written. I'd buy one in a second, except... the majority of stuff in my Dock probably wouldn't be "ported" in the first year. So if it's under a grand, say, what good does it do me? No MacSQL, no EV Nova, no Remote Desktop... I need that stuff.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
Why is this so? Having never done dev work on an Apple I am pretty ignorant, but doesn't Apple release a basic API that doesn't change even when the underlying hardware changes (apparently not)? And why not release free tools into open source, so piles of developers are writing software for Apple for free?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Oh wait, they would be taking it out.
I'm confused
The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
But we're hitting the point where few people [*] can tell the difference between 1GHz and 2.8GHz and even hardware engineers are starting to realize this, so maybe it Just Doesn't Matter.
Definitely. PC manufacturers love to compete on Mhz, but a fast CPU is useless if it's starved of useful work by bottlenecks in I/O, memory bandwidth, etc. It's not unusual for a sub 1Ghz PC with good SCSI disks to handily outperform a 2Ghz+ machine with mere IDE.
Sun, SGI et al realized this years ago. Serious computing is limited not by clock speed of the CPU but by bus and memory bandwidth. That's why Sun sell systems with 300-400Mhz processors and gigaplane XB crossbar active backplanes. Nowadays with the increasing sophistication of consumer software (like the latest games), the same issues are recurring.
If you're buying a system in the near future, drop 500-1000 Mhz in CPU speed and buy faster disks or more memory with the money you saved.
Apple makes its money on hardware, so no matter which processor is in the box, buying a Mac will be necessary to run OS X, and it will still cost big bucks.
-A
From the article:
No.
I don't want a laptop that blows hot air like hair drier or desktops that have three fans. As people realizing (as another poster mentioned) the CPUs are fast enough, I don't see much point in abandoning the PowerPCs that are small, consume little energy, and hence run so much cooler. For me, computers that are quiet and cool are much preferable to the opposite.
Another thing the author of the column seems to forget is that PowerPC is not a chip solely from Motorola. The point that IBM is also a partner and develops PowerPC chips is completely missing.
Yes, I hate it when you can tell that an x86's tappets need adjusting just by listening to it.
RISC chips are so much more turquoise, too.
Tim
The whole RISC vs CISC argument is completely outdated. There is no such thing as pure CISC anymore. Please get with the times. You may love mac and that's fine but at least use up to date reasons for why mac is superior to pc. That's about as bad as a PC user dumping on macs "cause they only have one mouse button".
- Toby
Such a move on Apple's part would complicate matters significantly. Consider that if hardware devices would STILL need mac specific drivers to meet whatever "hardware security" apple uses to make their machines proprietary--Meaning much hardware STILL won't function with OS X, whether it's on top of Intel or a PowerPC proc from Motorola or IBM.
My favorite uninformed reader was this guy:
This guy doesn't understand the term "switch." If he starts off running an Intel PC, and buys an "Intel mac" what has he really changed? Still using the same ancient hardware architecture kludged on top of a 32-bit chip sucking more juice that an a electric battleship.
Who did what now?
The problem with Motorola's chips is that the front side bus (FSB) only runs at 167 Mhz. This means that Macs cannot truly take advantage of DDR RAM so long as they use the current line of chips, even though Intel machines have had this for two years now.
Back when the G4 was designed, things were looking bad for Apple, so Motorola retrenched into the embedded market. These processors need low power, not high bandwidth. That is why Apple laptops are so nice and Apple desktops are so lousy right now.
Furthermore, the focus on the embedded market is why Motorola does no deep instruction analysis (Again not needed in this market). Intel's investment in this area is what has helped their SPEC score over the years, not the clock speed.
There are rumors flying about a new IBM chip that fixes all of these problems, but that is all they are right now -- rumors.
This topic has been beaten to death here and on arstechnica.
:(
I personally can't see it happening for several reasons, the number one being software. Apple has commited to the intel/moto design, which includes a cpu library (altivec). Any 3rd party apps if not rewritten will need to be run in some horrible altivec->intel emulation kludge, which will be nightmareishly slow, and defeat the purpose.
Slower than the cartoon we know as XP? - probably not, but still slow.
The other thing is power consumption/heat dissipation - for mobile applications intel/amd just plain suck up too much juice and run too hot.
Apple is currently suffering because its chip suppliers have not been producing faster ships at the rate they should be, but until next month (chip conference) its all speculation as to what apples' long term plans are.
I've read this guy's writings before, and I find it annoying that his article got slashdotted. Now he is probably an even more highly regarded hack.
What interests me is that Apple hasn't said anything about this matter so far. These rumours must have their impact on Apple's sales; if I'd run a Mac-based shop and have plans to upgrade my systems, I would wait until I'm certain about the future; if they're really making the move I may postpone the upgrade. Apple must know this and must know about the rumours. Now there are 3 possibilities:
1. They're thinking about the possibility of making the move but don't know yet. In this case they will probably not say anything about this matter because it increases uncertainty.
2.They're not thinking about a move at all. They would most certainly let their customers know this to take away any uncertainty.
3.They're indeed planning to move. They don't want to make this known too soon since it will most certainly make buyers wait until the new systems are on the market.
So. We haven't heard anything from Apple yet so we're probably dealing with case 1. or case 3. here. :)
0x or or snor perron?!
The only real advantage of the PPC at the moment is that it lacks a lot of backwards compatibility cruft and, because of its RISC design, consumes less power and spreads less heat. It is a fine notebook CPU (and Apple is a fine notebook manufacturer). But Apple seems to have had no other chance but giving up this advantage by selling its newest line of desktop G4 Macs with dual CPUs, keeping up with Intel at least halfway with such a "hack".
gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
It's not unusual for a sub 1Ghz PC with good SCSI disks to handily outperform a 2Ghz+ machine with mere IDE
If you said "a clustered array of RAID5 15,000 RPM drives versus a 5400RPM single drive", then that would have made sense, but to use SCSI versus IDE as the big differentiation is just silly: The intrinsic SCSI advantage has been disproven countless times.
Sun sell systems with 300-400Mhz processors and gigaplane XB crossbar active backplanes
That's pretty disingenuous: Sun sells systems with tens or hundreds of those "300-400Mhz" processors, disproving your "CPU power doesn't matter" BS. I guarantee you that if Sun weren't sliding behind in the CPU game (it's hard to compete with AMD and Intel with such a small niche market) they'd sell much more powerful CPUs. Instead they compensate by clustering dozens of them together.
If you're buying a system in the near future, drop 500-1000 Mhz in CPU speed and buy faster disks or more memory with the money you saved.
You'd save next to nothing. An Athlon 2200+ costs $220 Canadian here, and puts you in the upper realm of CPUs. Considering that most power PCs have 512MB of RAM (which is virtually never exhausted. Despite having several development tools open, and SQL Server running, and several different browsers, I currently have 370MB free. Adding more memory will merely increase the capacitive load of my PC). Secondly, adding a faster disk only matters if you do tasks which are heavily disk I/O intensive, which the overwhelming majority are not (especially because people have so much memory, and hence disk cache). It's like saying you'll get better video encoding performance by equipping your PC with a faster CD-ROM drive.
This BS "CPUs are faster than we'll ever need" nonsense is as tired of an argument as it was a decade ago when contrarians were assuring us that a 386 was more power than any reasonable man would ever need. History has shown their claims to be absurd, yet as they say: History repeats itself. Take a man who claims that his Pentium 667 is "faster than I'll ever need" and give him a P4 2.2 to use for a week. Put him back on his 667. 9 times out of 10 he'll be on the phone to Dell to upgrade his PC. Most people who claim that they don't need better say so because they've never SEEN better.
Additionally, try doing some video editing on your PC. While the hard drive is a factor (because massive amounts of data are read and written), the processor is massively more an influence: An Athlon 2200+ will perform the task that much quicker than a Athlon 1500+, again thoroughly reputing your claims that processors are overpowered. That's especially telling as video processing is one of the most disk and memory bound activities.
Let's go over this one last time. First, Apple will never release OS X to run on a generic Intel PC. If they did, they'd sell about 100,000 copies to geeks who don't want to buy Apple hardware. When those geeks find out that there's no software for OS X/Intel, they'll gradually move back to dual booting Linux and WinXP, leaving OS X as an interesting oddity like the copy of BeOS they installed once too. I mean, you can only watch the genie effect or transparent Terminal windows on top of a screensaver running on the desktop so many times before it gets old.
Let's not even get into the nightmare that it is to support every piece of crap cheapo PC hardware combination like MS has to. Apple does not want that, period.
Why will there be no software? Look at how long it took (and is still taking in many cases) vendors to update their software for OS X. Now imagine Apple pissing them off by telling them to recompile and retest under OS X for Intel. Sure, that part probably won't be as big as moving from OS 9 (unless they've got a lot of endian or other hardware specific code), but recall how long it took vendors to switch to PowerPC native code. Ain't gonna happen. Let's imagine: OS X Intel comes out; Apple tries to convince developers to support it, but they (wisely) wait and see how it goes. Nobody buys it, and software vendors see that it's going nowhere, so they don't bother with it. No software == no point. Good luck!
Furthermore, what's the incentive to port to OS X Intel if (a) it's a relatively small, untested market, and (b) more importantly, they already have a Windows version that works fine? Along these lines, for Apple to provide any sort of VMware-like Windows emulation under OS X Intel would be suicide for the platform. Application vendors would just tell their customers to run it under Windows/VMware. What then is the incentive to develop a version for OS X Intel?
For Apple to move their own hardware to Intel would also piss off a lot of people. They pulled it off once with PowerPC, but that was truly necessary. It went amazingly smoothly, but it was really a couple of years before PowerPC native apps starting showing up in numbers and the newest PowerPCs were fast enough to emulate the old 68ks as fast as the last ones. Does anyone really want to go through all that again? It would be a couple of years before Apple would even hope to be up to par with Windows in performance! Not gonna happen.
Sure, I don't doubt that Marklar exists. It does give them that last desperation option, when there's no hope for anything else. But perhaps more importantly, it serves to improve the OS X codebase simply by making it platform transparent. The one instance where I could possibly see an Intel-based product from Apple would be XServe. Just a thought - but if you're not likely to be running PhotoShop or ProTools or Quark on a server, perhaps an Apple branded unit with Intel would work out with all Apple server software.
The only intelligent thing Haddad says is in the second to last paragraph, where he essentially acknowledges that software would be the biggest roadblock. Developers will likely balk at the prospect of porting to yet another platform, and "without software support, the Mac would truly be dead." Exactly.
Of course, the most likely scenario lies with the rumors of the Apple/IBM collaboration on a next generation PowerPC chip. That's where I'd put my money. Nobody knows if/when G5 will ever come out and Motorola doesn't seem to care about the non-embedded market. Hopefully IBM can bring Apple back to the days when PowerPC really did crush the Pentium. We'll see.
Say hello to zMac.
Some users, however, would welcome a PC version of OS X. That would enable Windows emulation software, such as VirtualPC by Connectix, to run much faster. "The ability to switch back and forth easily between OS X and Windows would be a major coup," says Sasaki. Ian Crooks, operations engineer at Pennsylvania-American Water Co., declares: "I for one would switch tomorrow if they would release a [Pentium] machine."
This is exactly why Apple should never port OS X to an Intel architecture.
Virtual PC would run much faster if it didn't have to emulate the microprocessor, true. So much faster that it would discourage companies from coding for OS X itself, because you could run their Windows products on VPC.
Not only that, but eventually somebody -- not Apple, certainly -- would release a project similar to WINE that would allow Windows programs to co-exist with OS X programs. It won't be completely compatible, of course -- especially as Microsoft changes the APIs -- but it would give companies another excuse not to develop for OS X.
A third factor is the cost of porting existing Macintosh OS X software to this new architecture. Facing that cost, why not port to Windows and let the Mac run your program through these emulation options?
As time goes by, Macintosh users would have to depend more and more on Windows software. Sure, they'd prefer software designed specifically for their platform, but developers won't be selling it, because it's easier and cheaper to code for Windows. Eventually, the users would just switch to Windows because Windows programs will run better on Windows computers.
I work in a lab where we produce a very widely used piece of scientific software, and we do benchmarking on everything from old 68k Macs to new Dual G4s to AMD and Intel boxes running both Windows and Linux. The fastest benchmark we have on record, despite the fact that we dropped over five grand on our dual G4, was an $1100 dual Athlon XP 1800+ using Intel's C compiler version 6. It's not just faster than the fastest Mac benchmarks, it's WAY faster. We haven't tried any higher dual Athlon systems, but I suspect they'd be faster still. I'm not saying that an Athlon system would be faster than a Mac in all circumstances (I don't know one way or another), but the benchmark I've got the most experience with has got the Macs losing in a landslide.
That being said, I think OSX beats the crap out of Windows as an OS, and I'd really love to see such a great OS on a cheap, fast box. Can't have everything, I suppose.
After spending so much time and effort bashing the Megahurtz Myth, there's no way they'd go with Intel P4 chips and their performence killing 20 stage pipeline.
OTOH, they might go x86-64 on the AMD Hammer series. Gobs of memory bandwidth, excellent FPU, high clockspeed and VERY high performence. Plus, by targeting x86-64 as their starting point, they get both optimized performence AND by definition don't run on 32-bit chips, so there's less whining from users about not running on their 32-bit generic PCs. They can go 8-way multiprocessor economically with the Opteron series too.
*sigh* I guess it works. You present a few facts, then use them as the launching point for unreasonable claims.
PPC != Apple. You start by attacking the XServe, which may be deserved, and expand the attack to the rest of the PPC family. It doesn't wash.
G4 does not compete with Xeon. POWER4 (itself a wholely compliant PPC chip) does, and you know what it Smokes Xeon as a server chip. Xeon scales to what 8 way, with a contorted memory bus structure? POWER4 scales to at least 24 way, probably higher if IBM cared to offer something bigger and integrates onto a modern server crossbar switch.
If Xeon is so good, why aren't companies converting their Sun/Oracle installations to it rather than RS/6000 POWER4 machines?
Please spare us the classic bait and switch strategy of arguments.
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
yeah they might like the fact x86-64 is all shiny and new (mac people are attracted to this and mr jobs loves it )
BUT
1/ you would have to get adobe to port photoshop all over again
(photoshop is a carbon app and has lots of PowerPC asm still in the mac version)
2/you would have to have an emulator not only for PowerPC but all the OS interfaces much like running VMware with the whole OS
(although VMware approach is of emulating the whole machine you could shortcut it as you only have limited amount to emulate)
3/ the back catalog of hardware that you have like the apple system controller + gigabit NIC ASIC would have to have serious work not just a tweak
so whats really going to happen then smarty pants ?
apple tweaks the system controller for either RapidIO or IBM interface depending on supplier
(you get the real thing which matters in computing BANDWIDTH )
they have a seperate level 3 cache that apple can mess around with to get extra performance and so sell differant machines at differant price points
apple use's MOT chips for laptops and IBM chips for servers
regards
John Jones
This highly depends on the application. A single SCSI drive against a single IDE drive performing a single task may show the same performance. However, when you add multiple tasks and a lot of disk access , SCSI beats IDE hands down. As you add drives (don't even bring up RAID yet), tag command queing and parallel data paths blows away IDE no question. Now, add RAID into the equation, especially looking a the huge caching controllers available for SCSI with no IDE counterpart and you see that SCSI is certainly the way to go. Computer manufactures aren't idiots; IDE is cheaper and if it were on equal footing with SCSI no one would offer SCSI solutions. That having been said, no high-performance workstations or servers use IDE.
Sun, HP, etc., have for years sold small MHz machines that outperform the GHz machines available mainly because they use RISC technology and aligned instructions. Clustering has not been a large part of Sun's business -- ever! And, as far as multiple CPU's in a single box, yes, all these systems offer and endorse this, but then so does Intel if you read their journals. Intel ran themselves into needing GHz clocking because of poor chip design (backward compatible to x86). Sun and others don't design chips in those ranges because of the cooling requirements and heat failure rates. It is far easier for them to make lower MHz machines with multiple processors because they run OS's and software that can work UMP or SMP, where Intel has issues in the common market environment (example: Windows 95/98 unable to work SMP).
Click here or here.
I also work on single processor Sun, SGI, and IBMs, all of which at lower Mhz are MUCH faster than my PC (except maybe the slower SGIs, like the Indigo R10000s; at 150Mhz, they're showing their age but STILL keep up with the PC in rendering speed). Sun's problem is not technology, it's sales. IBM is just killing them in marketing. I talked to a guy the other day that's getting ready to begin replacing their 1800 Sun servers with AIX boxes. He concedes the Suns are superior, but they have been convinced from the confidence bestowed by IBM's superior marketing skills. It's widely known that Sun has superior tech, inferior business sense.
I totally agree with you that it's BS the people that say 'current CPU speed is all we'll ever need', but it's equally BS to assume that the 'faster' Intel chips are actually the 'fastest' chips out there because of some marketing-driven clockrates. Superior architecture trumps clockrates any day of the week, and Intel is still lacking in the former. Incidentally, I'd take a single processor Ultra Sparc III box at 1.05 Ghz over a 2.0Ghz PC, even running *nix, any day of the week. As a matter of fact, I usually do.
True, but Carbon is most certainly a stopgap measure, while Cocoa is more a long-term solution. From Apple's pages:
Carbon is designed to provide a gentle migration path for developers transitioning from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X.
---
Cocoa provides developers starting new Mac OS X-only projects the fastest way to full-featured implementations
slashdot!=valid HTML
The big potential losers if Apple should switch chips would be software developers. They would be forced -- perhaps for the second time in two years -- to rewrite their programs, this time to make them work with a Pentium-based Mac. That's no small task -- and could be a disaster for the Mac community, since many of its developers are small shops. And without software support, the Mac would truly be dead.
Oh, yeah. That's why.
Imagine running an x86 Mac that has no native version of Office or Photoshop and runs PPC-based versions like molasses, but runs Windows versions at native speed. Imagine trying to convince developers to write for OS X instead of Windows at that point. Why should they bother?
--- Work, worry, consume, die. It's a wonderful life. -- Bill Griffith
Yeah - look at the way Jaguar and Porsche suffer from being confined to a tiny part of the overall car market.
That analogy is flawed because Jaguars and Porsches are a lot faster than the average car.
Mac people are like the guys who buy jags, mgs and so on. Sure it will always be a small part of the market but that doesn't mean Apple can't make money doing it.
To carry the analogy further, Macs are like niche cars that can't use the same fuels, oils, or tires as "normal" cars. That's the problem that Apple has: In order to be successful, they have to convince software publishers to create Mac titles. Those companies have to be convinced that it's a financially sound decision to hire Mac software engineers, Mac support staff, and to buy Macs to be used for development, testing, and support.
Apple is always on the hairy edge. If there were fewer Mac titles, they'd lose market share. Then there would be fewer Macs and the incentive to develop Mac titles would be less -- which would mean even fewer titles. I think you see where this is going.
I wish Apple well, but the only way that I think they have a chance in the long run is to bit the bullet, change CPU families, and create Macs that perform as well as PCs at similar price points.
If they try to become a software house like Microsoft by selling OS-X for generic x86 PCs, they will probably be destroyed by Microsoft. If Microsoft actually viewed Apple as a competitor (rather than a faux competitor that keeps the FTC off of their backs), life would get ugly at Apple. Microsoft would likely not produce a version of Office for OS-x86 (clever name, eh?). Microsoft would discourage Windows developers from creating titles for OS-x86. Microsoft could withold support or even actively sabotage titles with "service packs" to punish software publishers who released OS-x86 titles.
Just my $.02 on the subject.
Never mind that that useless pipeline easily outperforms the current best offerings from AMD and Motorola (though Intel and AMD are playing leapfrog, Intel's on top at this moment.) Do you even know what processor pipelines are for? Do you know that Apple's past comments comparing pipeline depths of powerpc processors to the pentium 4 was complete and utter FUD? Have you even looked at fair and reasonable benchmarks?
The plain truth is that powerpc processors and Macs have been lagging behind in performance for a long time. Top of the line G4s use 1.25Ghz processors. Even if they were twice as wide superscalar (I don't believe they are) AND the majority of programs could take advantage of all the extra execution units most of the time (which is not often the case on any superscalar CPU), they would still not match the performance of a top-of-the-line P4. Not to mention the fact that the Apple hardware would STILL be much more expensive.
How long has Apple been demonstrating performace superiority by relying on artificial benchmarks that consist of a select group of Photoshop filters? Preciesely as long as they've been lagging behind in performance. They've even given up on the performance edge lie completely now (though plenty of Mac cultists think comparisons made five or ten years ago are still relavent.)
Unfortunately, Apple's current marketing campaign sucks. Instead of showing some snob talking in vague ambiguous terms about how OSX is so much better than Windows, actually SHOW OFF THE OS. Demonstrate how easily you're able to open you're co-worker's MS Office documents (the Mac version of Office is much better than the XP version IMO). Then start minimizing and maximizing crap. After they cream their shorts, lots of PC users will be lining up to pay for overpriced Apple hardware.
This post is not a dig against Hammer. OSX running on Hammer would be pretty damn sweet. If I could run OSX on commodity PC hardware, I'd do it in a hot minute (or at least dual boot to it). In fact, there's nothing stopping Apple from dressing up PC hardware nice and pretty and running OSX on it. Unfortunately, they'd almost certainly make it proprietary hardware using an x86 processor (and probably still nVidia graphics hardware, which would be nice). Anything else would probably be suicide, even if they decided to just be an OS company.
My dream would be if Apple made OSX more conformant to unix standards (i.e. the unix standard filesystem layout). Imagine running the Aqua gui on your *nix of choice. I'd drop X11 like the dirty slut that it is.
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
Why do we assume that if Apple changed chip manufacturers, they would also change platforms and architecture? It seems to me a much more likely senario that if Apple were to change processor vendors, they would either
A) develop a new architecture
or
B) continue development on the PPC architecture, just with a new company.
After all, IBM makes x86 chips, but they're developing PPC chips for Appple too. It seems to me that if Apple could provide them with the correct tools to do the job, AMD or another manufacturer would be happy to take on the extra revenue that the PPC chips could bring in. Assuming they can justify the R&D costs.
On a side note, if Apple does switch, it seems highly unlikely that they would switch to Intel. Maybe IBM, maybe AMD, but they've spent too much time bashing Intel that to switch over to them would be a worse PR move than the M$-Apple alliance.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I suggested Apple needs to do this yesterday in a thread and was called a troll and stupid....
Put OSX on a pentium and watch XP die a quick death. Even if it costs apple the office suite, given a year that will be all M$ has to offer and they will be porting it for anyone willing to pay.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Yes, IDE has had busmastering for a long time. I think 7 years is even pessimistic, it's been bus mastered for a very long time. However, with IDE the bus mastering seems to just interrupt the CPU less for disk transfers, not totally absolve it from those duties. This is why SCSI has historically had a 2-3% CPU utilitization with the bus maxed.
While you make a good argument for purchasing an aftermarket IDE controller (which can perform tasks with the CPU utilization of SCSI), the reality of the matter is that virtually zero OEMs ship a system that way, they use whatever is built in on the motherboard. Which almost always consume a large amount of CPU time when performing disk I/O.
This is why the only people who build enterprise-class database servers with IDE drives at their core are idiots. That or they're penny-wise and dollar-stupid.
Moof!
I've chimed in on this myself with the following story on Forbes.com:
Will Apple Put Intel Inside?
August 9, 2002
Rumors are buzzing that Apple computers may one day be stamped "Intel Inside." It won't happen.
http://www.forbes.com/2002/08/09/0809apple.html
Also, while the guy is right that the transition would be a big pain for the developers, in the long run it might make things easier for them, because most of them keep a seperate branch of x86-optimized code because they also sell it for Windows. Post-transition, these two branches would be able to have much more in common. That might make things easier in the long run.
Alright--here is a reason for not making the transition: the upcoming desktop Power4's from IBM. I am almost certain these will be in Macs sometime in 2003, and when they are, most of our beige pc keyboards will be covered with drool.
Please help!
I am in the roofing business and recently my boss took away my hammer and gave me a handsaw instead. Now it takes MUCH longer to pound in my roofing nails. Saws suck! Who designed these things anyhow? There are sharp bits all along one edge and I often cut my hands as this crazy saw flaps back and forth. =(
GIVE ME BACK MY OLD HAMMER!
- Toby
It looks like a lot of people have already challenged your assertion that IDE is just as good as SCSI. However, no one brought up the particular issue that plagues my experience with IDE - hardware write caching.
Most modern IDE drives have write caching enabled by default. However, under every OS I've tested this configuration can lose data, even with a journaling filesystem. The problem is that the filesystem thinks that the data is successfully written to disk, but it's actually in the drive's cache buffer. If you lose power at the wrong moment, you lose that data. I've reproduced this problem with Western Digital, Seagate, and Maxtor 7200rpm 4MB buffer 80GB IDE drives under both Linux 2.4.X kernels and Microsoft 98/2000/XP platforms.
I've written in to each of those drive manufacturers and they have confirmed that the cache buffer isn't backed by some battery or other type of power reserve, and that data can be lost when power is removed.
Apparently this isn't an issue in SCSI land because SCSI drives respect a flush command, while some IDE drives do not.
The bottom line is that if you want a reliable system with IDE drives you need to disable write caching, which drastically increases disk access latency and results in reduced throughput for many tasks.
I'd love it if a kernel hacker can provide some more details as to why journaling filesystems can't forceably flush the IDE disk's buffer... I've found many older threads on the issue on the linux kernel list but haven't found any definitive resolution or action items recently.
As the situation stands now, my iozone benchmarks show a 15k RPM 80GB SCSI drive performing 2x to 3x better across all tests than a 7.2k RPM 80GB IDE drive with write caching disabled, DMA turned on, and all other hdparm options optimized for maximal performance. That is a pretty large difference. Yes, I did verify that the hdparm tuning options were working correctly.
And yes, the 3ware IDE RAID controllers have the exact same problem. They have an on-board raid cache, but it's not battery backed, so it is not a good idea to enable write caching in most cases. The 3ware cards are great and cheap, but they don't perform as well as their scsi equivalents.
Before someone tries to flame me, yes I have heard of a UPS, but for the machines I'm trying to protect I can't trust that the UPS will be properly maintained, not overloaded, strong enough to survive a long outage, or that the customer won't hit the power button themselves out of ignorance when they think that the system has "hung".
I looked into this once tryong to convince myself to buy an LCD panel instead of a CRT for my next computer.
For an 18" LCD vs a 19" CRT, I'd have to keep the LCD for something like 17 years before it paid for the price difference in power costs, compared to a CRT running 9 hours per day. (Home computer, where I'm at work or asleep most of the day and so the CRT is turned off or in powersave mode when I'm not in front of it.) $200 for the CRT, $600 for the LCD, and 7cents per kilowatt-hour. Don't remember where I got the power usage figures, I think it was from NEC CRT and LCD monitor spec sheets.
I did not include power costs for running the AC extra in the summer. Bear in mind, though, that you run the heater less in winter too, so it is possible that you will balance this out. I didn't look into this, but it may be a wash.
This let me know that power consumption/cost alone was not a reason to get an LCD monitor for a desktop computer.
You don't realize how little power really costs... An extra 50watts, used 24 hours per day, increases a power bill about $30 per year. Takes a long time to make up for $1000 difference in system price at $30 per year.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?