Slashdot Mirror
Dvorak Thinks Apple Will Switch to Intel
SeanTobin was among several users who noted that Dvorak's latest column discusses the possibility of Apple going to Intel for future macs. Yeah, this rumor pops up pretty often, but I wonder how long before we'd get binary compatibility between other x86 unix OSs.
He's an idiot!
Takes something with a shred of truth (the people being at said conferences) and blowing it into something "newsworthy".
For one thing, Dvorak thinks Apple will use Itanium. Not exactly binary compatible with other x86 unices...
Between this article, and this article; I expect to wake up monday and find out this weekend never happened!
Here is a good insight on Apple on Itanium:3 07
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=3076#83
Apparently, P4 makes more sense than Itaniums for Apple...
It would most likely be a still apple-only proprietary system. Perhaps the BIOS would be different, or something. Who knows.
If they started using x86, it would mean possibly cheaper CPU's but also hotter ones (temperature) and less performance per-Mhz.
I don't see this happening anytime in the near future. They abandoned their x86 versions of OSX long ago. Doesn't seem to me like they would be willing to spend all the time, effort, and money on something that they don't really need to do.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
There's no mention of Apple's most likely upgrade path in the next 12-18 months, the IBM PPC 970. Uh... hello?
What is this? Bizzaro World?
[/comicbookguyvoice]
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
If Mr. Dvorak had bothered to do the slightest bit of research before writing another baseless artice, he would know that Apple is switching to IBM processors, not Intel.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
Next month, Dvorak will have exclusive information on the release date for Duke Nukem: Forever!
MacOS on Intel platform opens up lots of interesting "what ifs." Would you be able to order your Dell with XP or MacOS X? The real question then becomes, what would happen to MacOS support (i.e. MS Office for MacOS) from Microsoft once Apple and MS were competing on the same hardware platform.
Since OS X runs on a BSD base, would MS change its tune regarding Linux?
Could be an interesting time!
Whoever heard of Intel switching to Apple?
I say we combine the standard rumors. Apple is being bought by Intel! Apple will go out of business shortly after using Intel chips! Or, perhaps, for maximum efficiency of rumor: Apple will go bankrupt, be bought by Intel, which will then be bought by Microsoft! Excuse me, my tinfoil hat needs adjusting.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
You can tell high-level languages are the standard when someone proposes to switch a whole architecture to the x86 platform.
Remember the times the x86 was pointed at because of its lack of registers ? Recently read an pentium to-the-metal optimization guide, and discovered you had to recode your optimizations backwards to port them from p3 to p4 ?
I can't possibly understand how a switch to intel processors can possibly benefit Apple...
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
Dvorak needs to say these things every now and then to maintain his position as public enemy #2 (after Bill) to Mac users. As I recall, he had some interesting predictions on those newfangled "mouse" thingies as well.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
people, this is the same idiot who claimed the mouse would never catch on... the same pin-headed moron who said Apple would never last and he predicted Apple's death for about a decade or so...
Apple will go with Intel when Osama bin Laden converts to Judaism.
Dvorak is suggesting that Apple will switch to Itanium, which according to the roadmaps is nowhere near being ready for the desktop. At present, Intel is jamming larger and larger caches into Itanic until it will float against other processors in the server space, giving it an otherworldly transistor count not ready for the desktop in THIS decade -- the fabrication is simply too complex (read: $$$$), the power requirements are through the roof, and the compiler technology for IA-64 is many years from maturity. The Merced core for Itanic is absolutely useless, and I won't even get into the questions about whether even future generations will be viable.
A better 64 bit choice, particularly for Apple, will be IBM's upcoming PPC 970, which doesn't require massive retooling.
I wonder how long before we'd get binary compatibility between other x86 unix OSs.
Using an Intel CPU doesn't mean they have to repeat all IBMs mistakes from the past. They have the oportunity to design a BIOS from scratch that doesn't have to be backwardcompatible. It can become a lot better from that. I hope, that if they really go Intel, at least they bitch realmode and go in protected mode as fast as possible. While an OS that runs on both platforms does not come for free, it shouldn't be a problem to reuse userspace code on very different hardwareplatforms, as long as the CPU is the same. Of course it requires a reasonable OS design. I bet it won't be a long time after such a Mac has been released before you can run Linux on it with all the binary executables you already have for x86. Even WMWare might work, which would be kind of interesting. I wonder how long time it will be before MS ships a Windows that runs natively on Mac. I also wonder how Apple feels about that possibility.
I however still wonder why anyone would design a new architecture with an obsolete CPU. A much better decission could be to use AMDs new soon to be released x86-64.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
A blogger predicts that Linux on the desktop will really take off in 2003. Yeah, this rumor pops up pretty often, but I wonder how long before we'd get a working Windows emulation environment.
This guy thinks that Apple's experience in creating SMP G4 systems somehow translates into experience integrating Itanium and PowerPC processors in a multiprocessor environment.
Look, I like the design of the Itanium. I like the PowerPC. I think that the proposed design would be pretty cool from a cross platform compatibility point of view (just like the LCs with a 486 on a PDS card). I doubt it will happen. IF it does, it won't be for the reasons stated in the article.
t'nera semordnilap
Such a wild conjecture probably has more validity than most Dvorak articles anyway.
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
This wouldn't be the first time that the Mac has changed processors. (680x0 -> PPC) It's unlikely that Apple would keep the crappy PC style architechture though. Take a look at the base 1 MB and the terrible interrupt controller cascade. Apple wouldn't want to inherit this, plus if they stay far enough outside the PC, they can maintain their individuality.
I can picture geeks buying x86Mac hardware to run Linux on as it should be more stable than current x86 hardware. I can also picture x86 virtualization software (VirtualPC) being useful. Apple no longer has to deal with the low clock speed stigma.
This sounds like it would be a good thing.
While the idea makes a lot of sense on paper, Apple is never going to use an Intel powerplant in their systems for the following reasons:
1) They simply badmouthed Intel too much. They couldn't cave in to the MHz myth after proclaiming their G4 procs 30 to 50000000% faster.
2) They don't need to. Apple isn't selling 2 for 1's down at the local Piggly Wiggly and they don't even want to be confused with value. Apple's main market is someone who WANTS to pay more for something because less people will have it.
As long as a Photoshop filter exists that can give the G4 a perception of competition with the Pentium it will be heralded as the most powerful technology on the planet.
This sounds like 1988... yes, 15 years ago. That's when the first "Apple will switch to Intel" story came out in MacWorld.
Of course it could happen. But is it likely? I don't think so. Apple's manrta is "being differnet". Using the standard PC processor out there isn't that different.
Of course, there could be a huge advantage to Intel if the Itanium CPU is picked up by Apple. Apple sells a lot of machines... although perhaps only 2% of the new machines are Apple, that's still a lot of hardware. ANd the fact that lots of folks look at Apple as a premium brand (unlike lots of the crap you can buy at Circuit City), Intel would have a winner.
Here is how the Inquirer reported the story on friday: April fools day comes early?
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
Dvorak is the grumpy old man of tech journalism. His MO is to take his own oversimplifications and biases, mix them with rumors everyone else was talking about months ago and add a dash of self-promotion. He's almost as bad as Geraldo Rivera or Olliver North.
Riiiiight...
And finally, by choosing the Itanium, Apple will have an ally in Intel, who will put its design team to work for Apple and perhaps even invest in the company, knowing AMD is not in the picture.
Intel are so embedded in Microsofts arsecheeks it's not funny. Take a look at Centrino, there's absolutely no documentation on the inner workings/drivers for it except to Windows machines. Linux developers are already stuck out in the cold on this one, and no way will MS allow Intel to give Apple more strength.
Or, alternatively, people just buy cheap PCs and install OS X on 'em, cannibalizing Apple's hardware market - Apple's primary source profit comes from selling ancient but cool-looking hardware for premium prices. Among the Mac users in my school I think maybe one of them actually bought OS X.2 - the rest just pirated from the school. The operating system isn't as profitable as the hardware - witness the power computing fiasco. Also, the Intel and PowerPC archetectures are simply not compatible - in order to run all the old software, we need an emulator, and as far as I know, there aren't any PowerPC mac emulators out yet. The switch would break ALL current software - and since the market would now have all PCs that could run the windows version anyway...
Of course, Apple could rig up OS X so that can't run on regular PCs by virtue of its requiring a certain BIOS or something... But requiring the recompilation of its software in order for it to run would be some feat, considering the state of PowerPC Macintosh emulation today.
Another decent manufacturer that's gonna go into the shitter for chosing a Piece of Shit architecture that's a throwback from the 80s. Repeat after me: Altivec is Good Food(tm). Processors don't need to be running at 34098210498234Thz to be "Fast".
If they started using x86, it would mean possibly cheaper CPU's but also hotter ones (temperature) and less performance per-Mhz.
Yeah, and Mhz speeds upto 3 times those of a G4. Wouldn't that suck?
Apple has already seeded out prototype systems running on AMD chips, but still with the Apple hooks so you can't run OSX86 on normal x86 hardware. I don't know if any actual boxes will be in consumer hands by the time Panther comes out though.
And I smoke crack.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
1) Jobs' ego. Jobs has said on the record that he'll resign before he builds an Apple box with an Intel chip. (I honestly don't remember where that rivalry originates.)
2) Developer opinion. Dvorak is primarly a PC man -- I think he missed much of the outcry that occurred when we switched from 68K to PPC. For that matter, there's still bits of Carbon that date back to 68K, such as setting and unsetting the A5 world register for callback routines. Also consider that the killer apps of the Mac world (Adobe products, Quark, etc) are just now becoming native to OS X. The outcry if we had to switch to a new OS would be massive. There's also the fact that the PPC ISA is backwards compatible with the 68K -- all existing apps for Apple would have to be emulated. Can you say "fuck no," children?
3) Architecture differences. True, you can recompile the Darwin microkernel for Intel. There's a lot of differences though in the hardware -- for example, Macs directly work with the INT# lines on the PCI bus, they don't have IRQs. It would be incredibly costly for Apple to eschew the current standards in PC motherboard design and make their own chipset.
4) IBM. The PowerPC architecture is not slow in and of itself -- it's just a spec for a RISC instruction set. The problem lies in Motorola, who no longer relies on Apple for business now that their wireless division supports the company, and who has been dragging their heels on their PPC line. IBM's new PowerPC 970 is a desktop version of their Power5 server processor (including its unusual pipeline design) planned to debut at 1.8GHz on a 0.13 micron process. Yum.
There's also the point that Dvorak is known as a rumor-spouting gasbag... and one who has a chip on his shoulder for Apple. The guy used to write for MacWorld until he had a falling out with Apple management, and has become notorious for his anti-Apple bias ever since.
He makes a point that they could release a dual CPU machine with an Itanium and a PPC chip, but this would be slower than a single CPU model for most things (dual CPU where each CPU is a different architecture is tricky and leads to performance hits). Since all Apple's current top of the line models have 2 PPCs, the new machine would be slower than the old ones.
On the other hand, the PPC 970 is comming into production, a 64-bit PPC with 2GHz+ clock speeds. 64 is twice as big as 32, so marketing can claim it's as fast as a 4GHz Pentium 4 (actually it might be almost that fast, since the P4 is famous for high clock rates and low performance per clock). Being a PPC, this chip is also backwards comaptible. Oh, and it has 2 AltiVec units, so all that AltiVec code Apple has been pushing for the last couple of years should really sing. A 900MHz FSB reduces the old memory bottleneck present in current PPCs. I'm not sure how much the PPC970 will cost, but I doubt it will be much more than Itanium, and it's far more attractive from Apple's point of view. This Dvorak guy seems to have forgotten that the Apple IBM Motorola alliance had 3 members...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Seriously, Apple should strip out aqua and use kde for MAC OS 11, it would provide the open source utopia we dream of.
KDE already runs on OSX, and apples using a huge load of kde code already, so I think the next step would to be to switch to kde.
KDE is the best desktop enviroment in terms of architecture, customisability, flexiblity, applications , ease of use, i18n (over 80 languages!). So replace X11 with Quartz and you have one blazing system!
People are really letting their imagination run riot, aren't they? I mean, only yesterday we discussed Microsoft going open source, and now Apple switching to Intel. What's next? Sun embracing C#? ;-)
In a development that will shock both the PC and pharmaceutical industries, PC pundit John Dvorkak will be "switching platforms."
Long known for his schizophrenic pronouncements concerning the Macintosh platform, sources close to him have confirmed Dvorak's musings have been caused by an adverse, though subtle reaction, to his psychotropic drug regimen.
"Yeah, he's said some crazy things in the past," quotes Dr. Sanghar Mumji, Dvorak's long-time psychiatrist. "You've got to cut him some slack though. Psychiatry isn't an exact science."
Industry analysts predict the dawn of a new day for Dvorak. One analyst, wishing to remain anonymous, remarks, "John has got a long road back, but I've got faith in him. I hear he's working on a Newton story."
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
John Dvorak observes Steve Jobs playing "mirror mirror on the wall" and theorizes that within 18 months Apple will drop Motorola in favor of processors built on Jobs bloated ego. Porting OS X to run on Jobs' ego may be a thorny issue but promises binary compatibility between other xNapoleonic platforms.
Azerty think Apple will switch to Alpha!
still its interesting to speculate. TO keep up its tradition apple woul dneed to specify a reference platform considerably different than the usual bios driven, low end crap we are trapped in the intel world. So it would not just be a mac running on PC box. The interesting thing would be if PC manufactureres adopted the refernce platform on their high end units. by adotping a full featured platform with uniform specs there might be a breaktrhough in PC compatibility with its drivers making the world more mac-like
then we might have dual or tri-boot computers. (linux,mac,windows). Its hard to guess how that would shake out. I have no idea. one the one hand a lot of mac users might give in and become PC users now that the barrier is less. on the otherhand the reasons to use linux might vanish. Or maybe everyone would discover that the mac is the prefect compromise beteeen unix and ease of use. any one want to speculate? lots of room for disagreement
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I'm no mac user, but I can't see the benefits of using an Intel chip in a mac.
Personally, I'll take my high clocked hot as hell Athlon over a Mac anyday.
The x86 chips are fast now a days. The gap has gotten a lot smaller in the performance per Mhz between them and Apple's PPC chips. And, via brute-force (lots more Mhz) they outperform the PPC chips.
However, this doesn't seem like a forward step IMO.
Plus, Dvorak said "Intel" and in this case he meant "Itanium." Was my misunderstanding. Either way it's a load.
You know, I bet if Apple DID release MacOS for the x86 chips, it would do pretty well. I'd run it (for some stuff) and I bet it would get a lot of support. Unfortunately, it would probably also mean the demise of their hardware line, and it would be a lot of work. Of course, if it failed, Apple would probably go out of business.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Apple has clearly stated it believes in a laptop future. There is also no way they can drop current Mac application compatibility.
Current speculation in the Mac community is the use of the IBM PowerPC 970 processor which should debut soon at 1.8Ghz. IBM have clearly stated it will support AltiVec instructions - previously only implemented by Motorola with IBM having no plans to use this technology themselves. Couple this with the rumours that some Apple OEM partners claim to have seen PPC970 based motherboard designs...
And then we have Dvorak who goes out on his own to claim a switch to Intel Itanium with a PowerPC inside for backwards compatibility. Quite how the hardware and OS would cope with two totally different processors is quite beyond me but surely the important question is how this would fit with a laptop.
The Itanium processor is not available in laptop form. It's current form requring around 100W vs the PowerPC 7455 (G4 processor used in PowerBooks) mere 20W range and you'll see that just isn't happening. Put both in the same box as Dvorak suggest? The heat and power consumption alone would make it impossible.
[)amien
On the PC side of the fence, no Z-80 maker survived even the transition to the 8080.
Not surprising given that Z-80 was a faster, cheaper, more capable version of the 8080.
Dvorak needs to study his history.
I was going to moderate the above up, but then I wouldn't be able to reply to say: totally. It's not flamebait, it's just true. Dvorak is a drooling idiot. If you just take what he says and expect the opposite, you will forever be ahead of the curve.
I repeat: Dvorak is a moron. This is not a troll, or a flame -- it's an astute observation.
-Waldo Jaquith
I only skimmed Dvorak's article (after reading the first few lines). Did I miss his commentry on IBMs new chips likely ending up in the next generation of Macs?!
Also, while Apple *could* switch to Intel...it'd make it much harder for them to control the user's experience in hardware and software...which is probably Apple's biggest selling point -- the relative uniformity of the user experience.
-psy
I really don't believe this man one bit-- but you never know. Steve Jobs is good buds with Andy Grove... not to mention Steve presenting the keynote at Intel's sales conference. Pixar recently switched over to intel as well.
Steve likes a little controversy, so you never know anything is possible
Dvorak?!
It's time for Johnny-boy to retire or switch careers..
Yes, I am talking directly to you, Mr. Hot Air Dvorak.
Steve Jobs would be shooting himself in the foot, the
ankle, the shin, the kneecap, the thigh, and uh.. you
get the picture.. if he switched architectures so radically.
Think of it.. if there was a switch to Intel, the PowerPC
*emulation mode* would need to run present-day apps
*faster* than the current G4. Otherwise why switch
anytime in the next two years it would take for all
major Mac OS X apps to go native? Quark would
throw their hands in the air and give up
Much greater chance that the IBM 970 Mac will debut at the
January MacWorld, if not before.
Now that Al Gore is on Apple's board of directors he secretly wants to turn all Macs into boring beige Wintel machines! Stop him before it's too late!
Dvorak says, "Pixar announced that it would become an Intel shop". IIRC, Pixar didn't want to throw out Macs, but replace their old heavy SGI metal with clusters of PC boxen, saying they're powerful enough now and much cheaper. Does anyone know better/more about that?
When I read, "Apple will announce its Intel initiative by showing a transition machine that uses both the Intel and Motorola processors. [...] This will be a high- end machine optimized to run Photoshop.", I thought now he's finally gone mad. Sure, we've seen high-end workstations that have x86 procrssors on add-on boards for cross-compiling, debugging and whatnot. That was cheap David processors in Goliath machines. But putting two expensive processors in a Mac to make it even more expensive? While degrading performance at the same time, since Photoshop perfectly supports the current dual processors? He can't be seriously meaning to use both processors at once, one for the new MacOS, the other for legacy Mac applications, and both for updated applications?
And how does teaming up with Intel fit in with the anti-MS attitude?
but what do i know, i'm just a model.
There are millions upon millions of gameboys worldwide that have used the z80 processor. Nintendo used them up until 1998 (with an 8MHz z80-esque processor made by sharp). There was still a market for them, possibly a larger market then the 8080 processors. The z80 passed test of time, while the 8080 just disappeared into oblivion.
heres a website with a lot of info on the z80
If Dvorak were to work for Apple they would be bankrupt by now. Apple would always operate on rumors and not business decisions.
Think of the average consumer walking into a retail store. Doesn't know the difference between a PC, MAC or a motherboard and a CPU. If you tell him that this Windows computer runs an Intel processor and so does the Mac but the PC is cheaper which would he buy? Why would a techie buy a MAC if they can get a desktop with the same/similar CPU for less and be able to run FreeBSD or Linux?
Apple needs to reduce the price of the Itaniums by producing larger quantities. If Apple wants to use it, they'll also have to lower the power consumption since Apple will have to sell it in Powerbooks. Never mind the potential software and OS incompatabilites.
Buying an Itanium leaves nothing for the lower budget consumer. I'd like to see them sell try t get the laptops still in the $1200 - $1500
range with an Itanium when they first enter market. And what of the iMacs?
As a Linux switcher to OS X (and for the folks who are making their Linux apps compilable on OS X - thanks!), I can see the good and bad of this. Right now, my main desktop/laptop are Mac boxes, but I still have another 3 machines in the house still running Windows - my wife's work machine (soon to be retired after we move and she doesn't have to work), my Game box (because Raven Shield probably doesn't run under Wine), and my Linux server for my web server/mail server/etc.
I would love to switch my Linux box to a Mac OS X server box, mainly just to play around with another OS I haven't tried yet, and because I think it will be easier to maintain. For $1000 for an unlimited server licence, I could deal with that. (Yes, I could just go 10 for $500, but I'm evil that way.) The problem is that even finding an old Mac (like a G4 cube) is around $1000 even on Ebay.
The good part about OS X on Intel is that the machines would be damn cheap. I could probably take my current Windows P-800 machine and turn it into a decent - not great, but decent OS X server box. Cheap boxes with a great OS would be the true "Microsoft desktop killer" we've been waiting for. The operating system (OS X) is tried and true now, it's excellent, stable, and kicks Microsoft's ass all over the place.
But the problem in moving to the Intel platform is threefold:
1. Performance. Going from the PPC with all of its registers to Intel's platform will cost some performance - especially if some sort of PPC emulator is used to make all of the old apps run.
2. Drivers. Right now, Apple can ensure that every video card that's qualified to run on a Mac will run, and run without a problem. I've stuck all sorts of hardware into my Mac so far, and it all works flawlessly. Apple will lose that ability.
3. Cheap hardware. Yes, Apple's hardware costs more. And it depreciates a hell of a lot slower than just about any other PCs out there - look at my Cube situation again. These machines are like a rock - they run and run and run. A Compusa employee I once knew mentionted that he hated it when people came into his store and bought a Mac - because he never saw them again, while the Windows guys were in every few months because they "had" to upgrade. So you'll have hardware that won't last as long or as well.
Unless of course, Apple basically brands their own Intel based PCs and ensures that OS X only runs on "certified" machines. Remember - they make money from hardware, not software (though, if OS X became popular and runs on all Intel systems, they could become the next Microsoft in many ways, only with a decent desktop and server system).
I honestly don't believe that it's going to happen. Apple will most likely shift to IBM's new Power970 line - it's the most like the PPC, so no translators/emulators. IBM has a vested interest in making these chips fast and plentiful for their server systems, unlike Motorola which is making PPC chips for - well, pretty much Apple.
Anyway, there's my $0.02. And of course, I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
too "cute" and without "critical" componants such as a floppy and card expansion..
and the (original) ibook will not sell becoase it isn't "manly enough" (or some other tripe..)
The guy is an idiot. was, and still is.
Macwhispers reports that several suppliers are bidding to manufacture a 970 based motherboard for Apple. The bid deadline is in a week.
Sure, MacWhisper's predictions turned out to be all wrong, but their actual supplier information has been quite accurate. At least, there's no evidence to the contrary so far.
John C. Dvorak is dumb like a brick. He's predicted Apple's imminent demise like four times in the past eight years. He'll say absolutely anything to get attention. I have more insight in my left testicle than he has exhibited over the course of his entire carreer.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Wow, If I was American, I'd want to distance myself from that racist, ignorant comment fast. I hope you only speak for a "select" few low life, narrow minded, ...
You reflect poorly on yourself and your country.
The article's about Itanium.
- ALl they would hvae to do is port darwin, and recompile the rest. That's not the momentous task you make it out to be... in fact, it's one of the reasons for using a microkernel in the first place.
- Developers would NOT be writing for a "new OS". They would be compiling for a different target architecture.... not the same thing at all. Look at linux, and all the apps that work in ppc, linux, alpha, etctera.
- The PPC was not 68k compatable.. they had to emulate the 68k completely.
I have a book here called "Dvorak predicts" from 1994 which states inter alia 'Apple will die if it merges', 'Apple needs to make a run-time Mac', 'the real Unix operating system is an archaic command line', 'Unix has no advantage except it's easy to program', 'Unix is old fashioned in its design and OS/2 or Windows NT architectures are the wave of the future'.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Apple merged and did not die, there is no rt mac archiecture available (excepting some good hacks that no one would use for business critical processes), unix based servers dominate the internet and MS are scared stiff that an old fashioned unix-like os is going to fillet their business.
Mr Dvorak is as entitled as anyone else to make his predictions, but that doesn't mean he is any good at it.
It makes sense for Apple to drop Motorola as their processor vendor of choice. Motorola has made it known to the public that they are "refocusing on their core business" that means they are trying to take back share in the communications business (read: Cellular phones and infrastructure). Nokia has been beating the pants off of them for years and Moto has decided to take back the market it invented.
Processors are not in this strategy. So, what does Apple do? Obviously change CPU vendors. I thought Apple would go with an AMD hammer type chip. It fits nicely into their desktop/server strategy. The problem is the APPS! Apple has got to get the rest of the software guys to re-compile their stuff for the x86 platform. A daunting prospect at best.
But wait, there's more. IBM has a Power 4 drived 64-bit chip that has respectable performance and DOESN'T require that Mac developers recompile their apps! Everyone wins!
What do you think Apple is going to choose?
Info on PPC970 here.
-ted
Somebody ought to ask Dvorak if he is running a Chang modification on his PC.
For those who don't know the story, back in the days of the 286, a Taiwanese company claimed to be able to run 286's much faster than anyone else, it was called a "Chang modification". Dvorak touted it as a breakthrough technology. Of course anyone who understood technology realized the claim was ridiculous. It turned out all Chang was doing was reprogramming the timer chip so that it didn't keep time correctly - thus making benchmarks look more impressive.
In other words Dvorak's technical knowledge level is absurdly low. The man has great contempt for anyone who does have technical knowledge; he thinks we are inferior 'droids' to be ruled by assholes like him. He truly is the prototype of Dilbert's abysmally ignorant Pointy Haired Boss.
Dvorak really is dumb enough to think that Apple would change to Intel; the change from the 68000 to the Power PC almost destroyed Apple. Switching processor architecture destroys your software base - you have to run in place for years just to get back to where you were. That is the reason that Apple was in so much trouble after the processor change. Another change would be suicide.
And yes, I know that things are written in C these days, and we all know C is 'portable' so the change over 'running in place' period might only be 6 months to a year today. But 6 months to a year of additional progress lost by Apple would pretty much be the last nail in the coffin. Such a change would expose them to the ruthless pricing levels of the PC industry which Apple could never survive.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
* Scientists will soon develop a safe and efficient cold fusion mechanism
* Microsoft will soon source for Windows under OSS license
* A vaccine for AIDS will soon be available
Have a nice day.
E
http://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
This is, after all, the same Dvorak that suggested Microsoft be nationalized by the federal government because operating system software was too important to allow private industry to manage.
jd has officially not only run out of new ideas, but has run out of ways to run out of new ideas. the boy needs to go vanilla sky in an alternate reality where apple is a footnote, if only to shut him the hell up. it's like limbaugh - if the dems went belly up tomorrow he'd have to revert to baby talk, having nothing left to say (sic).
look, remember when with an even bigger market share, apple couldn't support two brand names, never mind two processor families.
next month he'll be reporting that bmw is going to switch to using ford focus engines.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Until the Itanium gets cheaper and demonstrates clear advantages over the P4, I don't see anyone adopting it in a widespread manner.
I was duped into believeing Dvorak might have a few good points to make, but it was really all an attempt to get his page Slashdotted and sell lots of banner ads. For once, shame on you people for actually R'ing TFA!
Check this out, Blockquothe the Article:This goes on to speculate Apple will use Itanium chips. Without even getting into endian issues (which make buses and shared disk & memory slow and a pain in the ass), this is a huge transition from their current invenstment in PPC-only motherboards, and I imagine it will be power hungry, hot, and probably noisy, considering that current Apple chips needed a special case for cooling and Intel's chips are still known for running hotter (Sidenote: I'm unsure if this applies to the Itanium).
And let's not leave out price? An Apple box with (by then I'd assume it to be) a G5 AND an Intel Itanium? This would sell for $16,000 with no hard drives at minimum. Itanium is too expensive, and at this point designing a dual-architecture mobo is just not worth the trouble. A high end machine to run Photoshop? Guess again, most Mac users don't use Photoshop or anything of the sort, and Apple sure doesn't center their design process around anything Adobe does. And does anyone remeber Marklar having anything to do with dual architecture? I thought it was a software port of the closed-source elements of OS X?
Never trust a guy named after a weird keyboard layout.
Interesting story to note, however: Apple has already made Intel x86 compatable machines! Check out Apple Technical Note 1076, last updated Oct. 1st, 1996. Most notable: Apple created Intel PCs on PCI and NuBus cards (which were at the time fast enough to be a reasonable design) and actually shipped one bundled with the PowerMac 7200. From the Technote:Apple might be researching this whole Intel thing, and they even have prior experience in the area. I believe, however, that any such effort is a backup plan, so when IBMs yields are low enough to make the 970 too expensive and Motorola starts pushing clock speeds into the high 2.7GHz range while each new chip they release gets progressively slower, Apple isn't up shit creek without a paddle.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
"Folks, the Mac platform is through..." - John C. Dvorak, 1998
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I highly doubt Itanium. I think a more likely is that:
A) Intel has an oh-so-secret RISC processor that is mac compatible. Keep in mind that RISC is not foreign to them. They do make ARM processors. Granted, the linked CPU would be too slow, but they still understand RISC.
B) Intel will use IBM's new chip design and fab them, rebranded as some equally stupid marketing name as the Itanium.
Neither case is likely, but 100x more likely then Itanium being used.
Dvorak is one smart man.
What happened to being recent!
Does this guy ever stop coming up with Apple rumors? I remember when he used to write the back page article for MacUser magazine. He always ranted and raved about something. Then, he became a Windoze pundit and started up with the "Apple is going out of business! Here's why!" bullshit.
He's gotta be one of the most punditlicious journalists out there. Maybe we outta start calling him Vroomfondel or Majikthise.
Jory
The concept of an itanium notebook, considering their current power usage (current power... geddit?) is almost laughable.
Powerbooks are a huge part of Apple's market now, and even if their desktops fared the equal of a PC in pure grunt, would still be a major source of revenue.
Pick an option - Itanium all through the line including powerbooks, or PPC Powerbooks and Itanium desktops. It doesn't seem likely to me.
Then again, Itanium XServes doesn't sound quite as far-fetched.
http://www.flickerdown.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p= 28501#28501 ---
---
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,939886,00.asp
by John C. Dvorak
Prediction: Apple Computer Corp. will switch to Intel processors within the next 12 to 18 months.
Counter-Prediction: You're a moron, and here's why...
The story starts with January's Intel sales conference. The surprise keynote speaker was Steve Jobs. And then, in the front row of Steve Jobs's keynote address at the last Macworld Expo were top Intel executives. Shortly thereafter, Pixar announced that it would become an Intel shop. That was all step one. Step two is coming.
So what? Intel has long realised that as a marketing company, Apple is bar-none the best one out there. If Intel exec were in the audience, it was more to learn from Steve "Sno-blowing" Jobs than anything else. Anyone have a count of how many shares Intel has in Apple? In regards to Pixar, it was a logical step. Use of their entirely antiquated systems from sgi, et al. forced the move more than anything else. Ever heard of TCO? By moving to a commodity processing platform Pixar is able to cut operating losses in off-seasons and dynamically increase their performance...
Apple has been concerned about Motorola dragging its heels in the processor wars and failing to achieve clock speeds that are even half of what AMD and Intel are achieving. Apple has attempted to rationalize clock-speed issues, but the company knows that it cannot do this forever. Worse is the feud between Motorola and Apple, which began after Apple suddenly pulled the plug on the license it gave Motorola to clone the Mac.
Thats the first intelligent (but already stagnant) idea you've written in recent times.
Change is good. Apple has a unique ability to get away with changing processors radically. It has used the 6502, then the 68K, and now the PowerPC. Each transition happened almost flawlessly. On the PC side of the fence, no Z-80 maker survived even the transition to the 8080. Apple has also cultivated a fanatical following, who have long since accepted the fact that Apple eschews long-term backward compatibility. The legacy concept does not hold the power over Apple users that it does in the PC universe.
That's more a testament to Jobs', et al. stubborness in the face of ever-shrinking margins. A "price cut" to Apple amounts to a maximum of 5% off the top of their systems. Compare this to the whopping cuts you see from AMD and Intel and you get the picture.
Apple's only concern is cannibalization. It cannot change architectures with a pipeline full of PowerPC products. So expect a slow transition that will start with the high-end workstations. Apple's concern is that Motorola may muddy the situation, so Jobs will have to convince Motorola and customers that the PowerPC will not be phased out but will remain as part of a dual-processor architecture.
How the heck are they going to do that? You're already building a pay-as-you-go OS on top of the FreeBSD/Unix operating system. Gee, how many x86 ports are out there? Motorola has already moved on. There is more money to be made in the consumer electronic market than there is in Apple's kludgedom. And, I would shy away from calling anything that Apple makes "high-end".
Scenario. Apple will announce its Intel initiative by showing a transition machine that uses both the Intel and Motorola processors. "So current Mac owners will not have to worry." This will be a high-end machine optimized to run Photoshop. Apple is adept at creating dual-processor architectures, so this won't be too radical. We've heard rumors of this kind of scenario for some time, under the code name Marklar.
Prove it. How are you going to saddle two
developer http://flamerobin.org
This thread is false... Apple is releasing Safari as a PUBLIC BETA on their website : http://www.apple.com/safari/. Which is still up and running
Hey, not for a looong time, is my guess. They tried to do this quite a while ago (before Linux), and it didn't go anywhere.
Apple probably won't release MacOS for x86, sure I'd buy it, OSX is great... but OS's are swiftly becoming a commodity. It's doubtful that OSX would be able to keep them afloat. Apple is a hardware company for the most part... they always have been.
Apple is already at a 2/1 price performance
disadvantage. Now add in a processor that is at
a 4/1 price performance disadvantage (or worse,
what does an Itanium I sell for on pricewatch,
something like $2700...) and the apple Itanium will be a sales disaster. Anybody rememember the Intels 432 processor? Itanium is another 432, fabulos technology and terrible price/performance.
... Dvorak's an idiot and an attention ho.
Steve Jobs will anounce the new PPC 970 processor architecture at WWDC this summer. Prototypes of the machines are already tested, Apple is searching partners for mass-production right now, and the next major release of MacOS X, Panther, is optimised for 64bits processors. The PPC 970 compilers are in Beta state and have been seeded to select members of ADC programs.
Peter Sandon, designer of the PPC 970, has a keynote planned for the WWDC. I can bet that PPC 970 Macs will already be in production by that time.
Source : Hardmac.com
Dvorak didn't say Apple would switch to Pentium.
First Dvorak says Apple wouldn't have to rationalize lower closkspeed (MHz myth) anymore if it switched to Intel. Then he suggests Apple will choose Itanium? Last time I checked Itanium 2 was no faster than a G4 in clock speed. Dvorak should inform himself about Intel's products if he wants to be credible.
Apple-OS (Any flavor) rocks because apple knows what they will be working with down to the last transistor - Other-OS is generally made to work on a wide range of machines - This is why windows 95 was so awful - bad device support
Apple on i386 = not so good
This is the most ridiculous thing in the whole article. Obviously he has forgotten the 68k emulator after the PowerPC changeover, as well as the Classic environment on OS X, both of which have worked perfectly in my experience.
Furthermore, I think there is a higher proportion of old Apple machines still running than equivalent old PC's. I saw an SE/30 doing a fine job as a mail server not that long ago. How many people are still using 286/386 vintage stuff?
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
If Dvorak says something will happen in reguards to Apple that is proof that it will not happen.
So, why is Apple going with Intel again?
"The perfect ploy would be to make an Itanium-only Mac OS with some sort of backward compatibility with Microsoft code."
Oh, I see... Wonderfull idea - I bet that is just what they have mind.
More of Dvorak's insight:
"You'll discover that all the flavors of Linux and the open-source software that runs on it are getting more and more like Windows. This may cause big companies to dump Windows in favor of the cheaper open-source software, but none of it is quite as good as Windows-based software."
"After all, Linux was designed for the x86. This is the simple but overlooked fact of the Linux revolution: Its roots are in Wintel."
"So just as Microsoft has copied Apple's inventions out of necessity, the Linux community copies the inventions of Microsoft out of necessity."
Ha... What a wanker.
The home of the Windows POWER user.
http://www.dvorak.org/
Apple will switch to Intel chips
Microsoft will become open source
Apple will become a software company
People will pay to send email
The air will be made of chocolate
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I speak with some of the higher-end devs from time to time, and they seem to believe that the next line of macs, or if not, the line after them, will be using the PPC 970. I see no real reason to doubt this, and I find it to be a wonderful thing as well, seeing as how IBM has been developing some nice chips lately, and they supposedly have the patent on a new chip technology which will do the same work as current chips but use less electricty. (Ergo, less heat)
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
ITANIUM?!! No, I don't think so John. The Itanium gets it's raw horsepower from all the cache it has. I just can't see this thing as a viable desktop processor. Hell, even as a server chip it looks dubious compared to the upcoming competition.
My bet, if anything, would be on the Opteron.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
So don't be surprised if there's a follow-up to this saying as such.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
Hrrrmmm... If Windows can move to the new 64-bit AMD Athlon/Opteron x86-64, why can't Apple move to x86?!
SCOOP: Windows for the new platform will be presented in four weeks, one day before the new 64-bit AMD platfom is shown off.
I wonder if there will ever be Itanium support from Redmond. If not, Itanium may sink deep.
Apple has a problem. Well, a couple problems. But the biggest one is reliability of their processor manufacturers.
The 970 is NOT going to be cheap. It is designed for IBM and their servers, everything else last. There is a reason Jobs isn't talking much about 970 - it's not a done deal. Can IBM be trusted to keep up the clock speed and improvements? Well, to the extent that it might help IBM's business. This doesn't actually translate into assist Apple with theirs.
AMD has shown themselves to be competitive (at least in the past six years or so), and that's far better than what either PPC manufacturer has done for Apple in the same time period.
X86-64 would be a brilliant move. Done like the X-box, Apple could have the best of both worlds here.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Hey Dvorak, will that happen before or after Apple goes broke?
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
1. Performance. Going from the PPC with all of its registers to Intel's platform will cost some performance - especially if some sort of PPC emulator is used to make all of the old apps run.
What if the number of switchers (Windows to new OSX on Intel) is greater than those who worry about running their old apps?
2. Drivers. Right now, Apple can ensure that every video card that's qualified to run on a Mac will run, and run without a problem. I've stuck all sorts of hardware into my Mac so far, and it all works flawlessly. Apple will lose that ability.
Because of the huge difference in size between the Apple and Wintel markets, there is a huge amount of hardware that is available for wintel that isn't for Apple. Right now it's easy for Apple because the amount of hardware that they have to worry about supporting is small, yes?
A Compusa employee I once knew mentionted that he hated it when people came into his store and bought a Mac - because he never saw them again, while the Windows guys were in every few months because they "had" to upgrade.
You say this is due to the fact that the wintel hardware is of lower quality. I think it is due to the fact that there is much more hardware availale for Wintel. The users "have" to upgrade because they "have" to have that new video card that just came out (and will probably not be supported under Mac, so the mac user doesn't "have" to upgrade).
I honestly don't believe that it's going to happen.
I agree... unless Microsoft makes the foolish choice and releases it's new Palladium-powered spy system. In that case, Apple should release its x86 build of OSX (which I believe they already have). I would sooner run that (with its fewer apps and games) than Palladium. The only thing that keeps me from switching now is the hardware problem -- I'm forced into a very limited selection of hardware if I choose Mac. The claims of "higher quality" hardware are not enough to get me (and probably many others) to switch.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Dvorak assumes the switch will be to Itanium, but even if it's to x86 or x86-64, we'll never see binary compatability with Windows-x86 - It's been tried, and it killed OS/2. That would drive the nail into the coffin of Apple's PC business.
Binary compatability with Linux and other Unices would be a different story however...
"This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
My absolute favourite was in 1999, his prediction that Compaq and Intel were going to merge. He laid out some really bad logic, and I wish I had the article here to quote some of it.
Please, post some other ones I missed...
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
Future of user/subscriber go-everywhere & do-everything (GoDo for short) computing would include communications (GSM, WiFi 802.11x, Bluetooth, and IR/RF capabilities included). Still ... I would select
Transmeta code-morphing processors as the technology edge for that future not
Intel, Motorola, or TI ... though TI does now have a chip set that comes closer
to the above stated goal for digital transmission systems. Transmeta
code-morphing processors provide the ability to redefine operational spectrum
requirements as you travel locally and globally with (I suspect, don't know?)
less complex circuits/chip sets. The technology is known as Software Definable
Radios (SDR). The future looks good to me ....
Related Links:
SDR.org - http://www.sdrforum.org/sdr_primer.html
TI DR Chip Set - http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020109S0063
Transmeta - http://www.transmeta.com
Airship - http://wireless.iop.org/articles/feature/1/1/3/1
http://www.airship.com/prod/uses_telecoms_frames.h tm
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
A few points: 1) I do not engage in sex with other men. 2) Regardless, your idiotic use of the word gay is very offenceive. 3) Yeah, they really should use the new IBM 970's 4) Intel sucks.
It's interesting to see slashdot wonder about binary compatibility, since the typical slashdot reader is into "free" software. Why bother with binary compatibility when the source is available for recompiling?
Is there the equivalent of IRC's /ignore command for this kind of stuff. The first couple of times I heard it, didn't bother me too much, now it just irks me to hear this over & over. I'm honestly not trying to flame here, I just wish we could stop rehashing this ancient rumor/wish/whatever.
:)
*sigh* *breathe* ok, now i feel better
--honest, I just don't see any financial or practical benefits for apples business model. they tried clones, even at that level they started running into the same problems that plague intel architecture, drivers, incompatabilities, glitches started showing up. I remember my sister bought a clone, she had problems with it that I never saw, dang if I can remember now though, but to both of us it was weird at the time, that I remember. Apple would be gone or nearly gone as a company if they had followed that path. You already have x86 architecture to play with, that market is saturated. Apple is a niche market, that sells integrated hardware and software. It's the only way they found to guarantee a higher level than an industry "norm" of quality. They opened up part of their development on their OS they sell,darwin, that's about as far as they could go and still be profitable. A better bet for them is to just get more advanced chips from IBM if motorola can't or won't do it. Their other business decisions are sound, and they really don't care if they sell a few more copies of their OS just so it can run on x86 stuff. They are a design and useability company, they aren't a lowest common demoninator hardware and software company even though that's the stuff they sell on a basic level, they are selling what they do with hardware and software in combination. They sell an idea that is well thought out and integrated and implemented. When they stick to innovative hardware designs combined with an OS that works pretty well for their customer base, they sell stuff, make money. Just can't see them getting into the ford business when there's a ford dealer on every corner allready. We got all the fords ya need, any size, can stick any engine in them ya want,except their top of the line engine, and that's it, you can mix and match,even use one of their engines that isn't quite top of the line, but their particular designs would just fall through the cracks once they started to duplicate the other ford companies. What would happen is initially they'd get a surge of orders, then that would drop to 1% or something, way below what they are doing now.
Just an opinion. I think it's good we have different chips and designs and OSs, I don't want to see just x86 completely take over anything. I own several of each, I like them for what they do good. I was happy with my old classic macs for years, I never really went through driver hell and incompatabile hardware and hardware that broke like all my PC friends did, never. what came with the machine always worked, anything I added that said 'works on the mac" did exactly that, it worked. It was a good thing, worth the few extra bucks to me.
I haven't used osx yet, I might sometime but not now, I admit it's from cost, but that's my problem, I can't afford a mercedes either, I don't own a very large size screen television, and I'd like to have a whopper diesel 4wd tractor with every posible attachment but ain't got the scratch for that either.. When the used hardware prices drop enough and I am inclined I intend to get the appropriate hardware and osx and try it, if then I don't like it I'll sell it or something else, but I just wouldn't like it if it was just cheap stuff. I got x86 boxes, the one I am on is nice, it runs linux well, I am happy with that now but not totally married to it, it's a piece of machinery when you get down to it.
Maybe they will do it, don't know, I think if they do they'll go out of business though.
If they want to make some more money now, they need to re think the newton, re release the best pda/phone/media player combo *thing* ever even conceived of. That's what apple is good at, being inventors and designers, and making sure their stuff works as advertised. It makes no sense for them to just mirror and duplicate 1,000 other companies efforts, and compete in that market. There's two basic business models, sell millions of things cheap, make a few bucks. Or sell thousands of things, and because of what you get, people pay mor
OK, when you say "I'd run it" was that "I'd run it legally by going to buy a box on a shelf at $129.95" or "I'd run it if I could get somebody to give me a copy, or if I could download one from Kazaa."?
Regardless of the way you'd answer, a lot of people would answer the second way. So what's the benefit for Apple?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I should have known you were the one posting this, info.
Ino
It seems like Apple switching to Intel would be a support nightmare. Between people hosing their system by running BSD or Linux binaries and people swapping in PC hardware, it could be very, very ugly.
Dvorak needs to switch to like CarboLife gold or something for his weight loss. Whatever he is on, it is imparing his judgement......
Bull Honkey
Dvorak did his job, as always just continualy stiring his anti-mac stew.
He must be out of his mind if he thinks that apple would change to x86. That would be the equivent of... oh i don't know... Putting a gun to thier head, taking some pills, and jumping off the roof of thier headquarters.
Silence Bossy Meat Creatures!
Yeah, like Dvorak has ever been right about Apple. He was the guy who said that the mouse would fail, that nobody would ever want to use 3.5" floppies, that a GUI was more confusing than a command-line, especially for beginners.
No, Dvorak has never been right about anything. In fact, when he comes out and says something very strongly, you can bet that the exact opposite will happen.
So, following the Dvorak has never been right about anything logic -- Apple will NOT switch to Intel CPUs.
Apple could go MIPS (the CPUs used in SGI IRIX systems). At this point in time they don't have HUGE gamer GHZ numbers, but they are fast and don't turn water to steam. Much more efficient than Intel Intanic. Plus apple wouldn't have to sell out to Intel / AMD.
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
Apple will undoubtedly choose to go with whichever processor will provide their users with the best balance of price/performance. The fact that they have stuck with PPC for so long is merely a coincidence.
Much like SGI using MIPS processors (although they did end up buying the company), and their official stance being whatever provides the best performance (be it Intel, MIPS, Sparc, PPC) is what they will in turn use.
OS X being direct descendant of OpenStep/NextStep, is a very portable OS (If you will recall it ran on x86, PPC, and Sparc Hardware). The only reason that I can argue that Apple has not gone to x86 compatible hardware up to this point is Microsoft's influence. Microsoft will not continue with Office for the Mac if it is going to lead to people choosing the Mac OS over Windows.
There is already some talk about Microsoft dropping Office for the Mac because of "low sales figures", which is fine by me as I tend to use OppenOffice.org anyway. Frankly as soon as Sun realizes the market for OpenOffice.org on MacOS, they will start marketing it under the StarOffice name and provide support, all at a price that Microsoft can not even begin to compete with.
If Apple does choose to go to an "x86" processor, it would be more than likely an offering from AMD (in the form of a Hammer) than Intel. Any thought of the Itanium processor is merely wishful thinking on the part of Intel (remember these things cost nearly $3000 per processor, and Apple has joined the SMP revolution).
If you were to see OS X on "Intel" hardware, I would expect that you would see it in a strange combination of technologies. For example, you would likely see is special PCI card which would be the boot media (Kernel in Flash) with special system identifiers in ROM, to insure that is is a Apple authorized installation. This would be the configuration of the "Clones". The "real" Apple hardware would have these components integrated into the mainboard. The real Apple hardware would not support booting Windows (much the same as you can not boot AIX on a Mac (except for the ANS) even though it is a compatible platform on which to do so. Obvious omissions from the firmware are noted.).
...just from all the heat thrown off by the Intel processors. Seriously, if I had the money, I'd buy Apple solely so I could go fanless.
I think they might switch to an x86 platform but it would be proprietary version just like they have now with Motorolla. I'm sure Intel would be glad to oblige them since they would be sending large amounts of cash their way. This way they could still make money of hardware and software and still be different.
Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
Has no read MacWhispers post title New PowerMac Motherboards To Use PPC 970???
Apple has bids out for PPC 970 mobos. Doesn't sound like they're switching to x86.
I'm not even going to bother reading the comments below. Apple's system is based on the PPC. Switching to x86 chips would be stupid. They're still trying to get developers and consumers switched to OS X, and to ask people to move to a completely different architecture so soon after a major OS change would be suicide.
Please, once and for all, Apple is not moving to the x86. It's a stupid rumor and only flames those idiots who say "I'd use OS X when it comes out for x86" and "I'll buy a Mac as soon as they use the faster x86 chip."
How about a post saying BSD's dead? Vi's better then emacs? RMS say something great/stupid?
Like most people so far in this thread, I agree that Dvorak's prediction is a bit absurd...but does anyone have an explanation for the seeming development of a relationship between Apple (or at least Steve Jobs) and Intel hinted at by the three things Dvorak mentioned (Intel sales conference keynote, Pixar switching to Intel, Intel executives at Macworld)?
It makes me wonder, and I haven't read any alternate theories.
How someone with horrible design skills like this, can be a writer at a major computer magazine is beyond me. He could at least have the sense to pay someone to design it for him . .
You have to admit, Dvorak has a pretty sweet gig. Somehow he's figured out a way to get paid to be an uninformed, foaming nutwad. Even years on, when his predictions have turned out to be no better than (if not worse than) random guessing, he's still making it work for him.
A very good question! The answer is probably related to the reason Apple doesn't try licencing clone vendors again. People want the MacOS as cheap, or free, as possible, but Apple wouldn't survive either going software-only or with clone vendors.
I'm also sure that OS X on x86 would mean FAR more tech support people at Apple than there are now.
"Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
Run NetBSD if you want binary compatability.
This rumor has been going around for many years. I think it would be rather stupid for Apple to do something like this. However, I think they could do something that would have huge technical advantages... add an x86 processor to the Mac, while leaving the existing Motorola processor, in a hybrid architecture. Their operating system would be modified to know the difference between the two processors and to put code compiled for each processor on the correct processor. Advantages include the ability to natively run applications made for PCs without the need for virtualization software that slows everything down.
Dvorak recycles a troll for the nth time, and it makes slashdot?
If Apple ever *does* ship OS X on Intel, (sometime in the next decade), I'll bet Dvorak will be crowing that he was right all along, despite having made the prediction for about ten years running that Apple would do so "in the next 18 months".
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Consider:
- Apple spends a lot of time and money and wastes a lot of goodwill doing "680X0->PPC II" by going to X86.
- Apple chooses "wrong" and goes with Itanium instead of Opteron.
- Apple chooses "wrong" and goes with the Opteron.
- Apple either has to do another major switch to the "winning" x86 64-bit architecture, or just go back to the 64-bit 970 PPC.
So the safest bet is to eliminate risk, reduce costs, leverage legacy of a clean modern ISA, and just go with the logical next step: IBM 970.but Dvorak is an excellent composer... have you heard his Cello Concertos? I had no idea he did the "switch"!
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Hasn't apple said (or albut said) they'd be switching to ibm chips. btw, how will those fair in laptopshes. Should i wait to pick up a tibook until they use ibm 970s or are the G4s gonna be easier on the battery?
I'm not even sure it's possible to build a system using two CPUs with different ISA's. (Instruction Set Architectures.) I'm sure it can be done, but it would probably be a nightmare to design, and an even bigger nightmare to ever upgrade. It probably wouldn't be that fast either. The real solution is to embed an emulator into your operating system. (On a side note, the x86 architecture is already a nightmare of design.)
-EndBabble
...and I mean that quite literally: by churning out his monthly doses of pseudo-controversial pabulum, Dvorak assures PC magazine a minimum number of readers, comprising the hapless dolts who (God help them) take this sort of crap seriously and those who, out of morbid curiosity, can't help but wonder what the shyster will say next.
It truly saddens me to see Dvorak stoop to this level of prostitution - it wasn't always this way. Although the man has never exactly been what one would call a visionary, during the eighties he was at least a respectable commentator. In fact, during his heyday, Dvorak was one of the industry's most influential columnists. Today, he rarely makes anyone's list of major industry pundits, and the reason is simple: Dvorak has become a professional troll.
Today, Dvorak's columns come in three principle flavors: banal, inane, and inflammatory. Whether the specific content that appears in his articles is determined by Dvorak's own fancy or the ebb and flow of PC magazine's monthly sales is uncertain, but what is clear is that Dvorak's writing has now sunk to a level such that it maintains only grammatical superiority to the output of the average slashdot troll. Although I must add that with his latest contribution, I feel I may be doing our resident troll population a disservice.
Is Dvorak even a commentator any longer? Frankly, it's becoming rather hard to tell; the man's headlines could just as easily be the titles of random crank bbs posts. "Apple should discontinue the Macintosh," "IBM is a doomed company," and now the almost incomparably über-trite "Apple to switch to x86!" I wonder, was his postulation of Itanium as Apple's choice CPU a tacit acknowledgement of the comical premise of the whole piece? After all, God knows that Apple has tons of headroom in Macintosh pricing at this point, so absorbing the obscene cost of Itanium hardware should be a piece of cake. Heck, who wouldn't go for an $8,000 iMac, right? Even Dvorak's bullshit threshold should've been tripped on that one, especially after the PPC 970 announcement. All of this is just further illustration of the extent to which Dvorak has decayed as an industry columnist. What's next, "BSD is dying?"
I'm sure that I speak for more than a few people when I say that I now read Dvorak for the same reason that one might read the Star or the Enquirer - purely for the entertainment value. It's been a very long time since I've read his work for anything else. But then again, I'm beginning to suspect that keeping us reading is the only point after all. Perhaps it's time to apply that classic Internet admonition to Dvorak's writing as well: don't feed the trolls.
If Dvorak actually posted this crap to /. his act would be see through: just another troll. But for some odd reason slashdot goes out of their way to post a story that can do nothing but inflame the readers.
Reminds me of a comment I read here sometime:
Rob: I'm bored I think ill start a flame war.
Users: We will take that flame war!
Just an observation. The person writing the article is the real story. Apple switching to Itanium has less credibility than Apple going back to Moto 68000's and doesn't really even warrant a response.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
This is never mentioned in the article, but why would Apple choose intel processors over the IBM 970?
I think that a software release of Mac OSX for x86 processors is much more likely than apple branded Intel machine. Of course this is also a very unlikely event as long as Apple is still doing OK in the hardware arena.
As an Apple user, I would be very disappointed to move off of the PowerPC processor line.
Anyone who claims Cocoa is "native" and Carbon is not does not know what they are talking about in regards to Mac OS X.
Apple could start distributing MacOs for x86-32 or 64 in about six months. The only reason it would take that long would be to write basic drivers. If you just want an OS that runs on x86, they could probably do it in a week. So, if they really wanted to change they could do it at will. If the G4 isn't up to the task then why haven't they? Anyone who has followed the development of OS X knows the answer. Most apps would need to be rewritten. The OX X version of Quark is just coming out now. Do you think they would just go and rewrite it again? No, of course not. Apple's future depends on the PowerPC and that means the 970. If the 970 sucks, Apple is fucked.
Third, if Apple optimizes the OS X kernel for the Itanium, the likelihood of the Apple OS being ripped off by normal PC users is nil.
Can someone please decode what he was trying to say here? I have no idea. Ripped off? Like piracy? Because no one uses Itanium? It's not like Apple would be using completely Intel/PC-based architectures and just running their software on it! Or does he mean copying the kernel? The kernel is completely open source, no?
What an idiot.
Random is the New Order.
Why anyone would need or want binary compatability is beyond me. Personally I much prefer to run code that is optimized for the system it is running on and to have hardware that isn't kludged together in order to be backwards compatable.
----
All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
Dvorak has time and time again shot massive holes through his credibility when it comes to the topic of Macintosh and Apple. I'm surprised he's not so thoroughly embarrassed by this point to avoid the subject completely. It's likely he only put this column up to kick up hits to his column which is precisely why I'm not going to it.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
From what I've gathered, Steve Jobs was at the Intel conference representing Pixar, not Apple. As you may remember, Pixar recently began to drop their Sun-powered render farm in favor of a cheaper Intel-powered one. This had nothing to do with Macs vs PCs, Motorola vs Intel, etc.
;) ), and those customers would drop Apple if they thought it was "just another PC."
Similarly, while Apple and Motorola certainly haven't been getting along for a good while now, it doesn't make sense for Apple to switch to a CPU with an entirely new instruction set. Regardless of whether or not OS X runs on x86, all of the Mac OS X software would have to be ported.
What's more, Apple would lose a lot of their customer base, because there's a certain air of eliteness that comes with using a Mac (or, at least there is in the minds of some Mac users
And yet more still, it would be like SGI's Intel boxes: nobody wants to pay through the nose for x86 (c'mon SGI, $30 thousand for an Intel box? No thanks), especially when they can get it for cheaper by ordering it from Dell, HP, or building it themselves.
No, I think Dvorak is just being his usual idiot self. Besides, hasn't Apple already announced (maybe not officially) that they're going with IBM's 970 PPC processor? That would certainly make more sense, since Mac developers wouldn't have to port their software to a whole new architecture, and would only require a new motherboard and some small changes to the OS to handle the 64-bit pointers and such.
- Apple is being bought by Intel! -
Holy Shit! Before I even read the rest of this comment (or the article, or other comments or really any facts whatsoever) Im going to run out and write this up on my blog and then see if Slashdot will take it for a story. Thanks for the scoop!
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
They wouldn't be able to do, due to the device drivers that need to be written would overwhelm them and the fact that there are those people that won't change operating systems because they already have one that came to their computer. They wouldn't be able to get that tight intergration as the PPC computer they sell because of so many different combinations. I know that there are a lot of PPC combination but not as much as other computers. Itanium perhaps, but does that mean anyone with and Itanium can run it or does it have to be a prebuilt system from Apple or select OEMs. I would buy OS X legally because it looks so cool and it Unix. If OS X is ever released on x86 it would be a last resort to keep the company afloat. I also recall that Steve Jobs has never denied any claim of changing archs, always keeping the public wondering and leaving the door open, and not making him look like and idiot if they do.
Yes it is likley to happen,
I think that Apple is always waving the Intel stick to keep Motorola on track.
There is x86 binary versions of the basic MacOSX, Darwin, there was Yellow Box which would have much of the current application base portable to intel.
Mr Dvorak is boring!
see subject
"but I wonder how long before we'd get binary compatibility between other x86 unix OSs."
NEVER... dumbass
Agreed. Although if he had said Opteron instead of Itantium, I might have half belived it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Well.. it's quite interesting. It would be helpful to Apple Computer and its users.
However, I don't think that it's quite mandatory thing to do now.
Do FreeBSD execution files run on Linux x86, or vice versa?
Do X86 Solaris execution files run on Linux, or vice versa?
What is more important is "source code compatibility.".
Also.. you even now need to modify sources for current Unixes, when you wrote some codes on Solaris and make it run on Linux.
However binary compatibility is, I think, good idea.
Back in 1983 I was working for Convergent Technologies, a company that originally specialized in Intel-based workstations. (I think they may even have coined the word.) Dvorak reported a rumor that we we're working on a Motorola 68000-based portable computer. He discounted the rumor, since everybody knew that we only did Intel boxes.
Dvorak was wrong in two different ways. First he or his source combined two different rumors. There was a portable computer, but it was based on a Hitachi 6303. There was a 68000-based computer, but that was a completely separate project.
Which I was hired to help document. The MegaFrame actually used both 68000 and 80186 processors in its Unix config. (It could also be configured as a workstation server using only 80186 processors.) So in fact we were not only not committed to 80x86 architecutre, we were into two other architectures.
(The 6303 was also a Motorola architecture, being based on the Motorola 6800. But that's completely different from the 68000, because Motorola decided to make a clean break when then went from 8-bit to 16-bit processors. Unlike Intel, which made the 8086 vaguely backward compatible with the 8080. Which is part of the reason Intel's chips are standard and Motorola's are dead. But I digress.)
Dvorak's other error seemd particularly stupid: the assumption that all programmers targeted specific CPUs. Which might have actually been true in the homebrew micro culture he came from, but was never true of programming in general.
Actually, Dvorak might be a very smart guy, behind all the stupid stuff he keeps saying. A lot of computer pundits are people who have some Big Insight that's either completely bogus or only valid in a certain context. They hold onto these ideas for years, against all logic. I guess they'd lose too much face by admitting they're wrong.
One example is Vernor Vinge, who used to be one of my favorite SF writers. But now he considers himself a computer expert, based on a lot of second hand knowledge, and some practical experience with things like client-server computing. The way his pseudo-knowledge dominates his stories completely destroys my ability to enjoy his work. Which is a shame -- in many ways he's grown a lot as a writer.
Another example is Neal Stephenson, who's still one of my favorites, despite all the non-sequiturs in books like Snowcrash. (Come on people, do you really think that you can design seriou VR in machine language???!!!) The Big Idea that really drives me crazy is Stephenson's belief that a Turing Machine is something you can actually build. (Neither Radio Shack nor CDW stock infinite-length tapes. I'll apologize if anybody can point me to a source.) So far, his work is original and creative enough to make me overlook crap like this. But give him time!
First of all, the Mac is the last surviving proprietary desktop platform. That has more to do with its decline than all other factors combined.
Second, the big backward compatibility problem with Macs was not a change to the processor (68000s are not that hard to emulate) but to the bus. How many PowerPC early adopters felt burned when they discovered their systems couldn't run the latest Mac OS?
Third, the PowerPC was touted as being the ultimate in backward compatibility. Systems based on this chip were supposed to be able to emulate not just 680x0 systems, but also 80x86 systems. So this was supposed to be Apple big chance to compete directly with Intel boxes! Pity the numbers were bogus.
Finally, Apple just couldn't continue to rely on a chip that Motorola had specific plans to discontinue.
Great work on saying how there is no unix x86 application ..not like anytone has heard of sco,BSD,Solaris,Linux and many many other unix-ishy platforms that support x86....
This place might actually be worth going to if crackhead taco stopped posted retarded shit
...that came from Dvorak was an exceptionally good keyboard layout.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
YHBT. HAND.
Love,
John Dvorak
The ocean parts and the meteors come down
Laid out in amber, baby.
...that JKH is working on an UltraSparc port.
Sparclar is coming!
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Sorry but I have heard that before, it didn't happen then and it won't happy now.
Apple is still in the loop in designing the PowerPC chip with IBM and Motorola, they have too much invested to switch right now.
I just do not see it happening. BTW nice of Apple to pick up Al Gore, Al needed a job.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
[queue stupid music] So I was writing my report, on the PowerPC, and it was really slow ... and then my alarm was like BEEPBEEPBEEPBEEPBEEP .... 'cause it was almost time for class ... so I finished it ... but I had to write it fast, so it wasn't as good... it was kind of ... a bummer ...
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
As we all know the only x86-compatible processor it would make sense for Apple to use is AMD's Hammer. I find it unlikely that they will go this route for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it will make it easier to hack MacOSX to get it to run on commodity hardware, something Apple obviously doesn't want (or they would have made it possible by now.) Also, using an x86-compatible processor would remove one item which differentiates themselves from the competition. This is precisely the reason why they will NOT use any x86 processor available today, they've been claiming for some time that the G4 is superior to all of them. We know this to be untrue (in that it is superior in some areas but not in others, making it competitive, not superior) but that is irrelevant because plenty of people have probably bought macs because of just those very ads. Suckers.
So what else could Apple use? There's the new transmeta chip, that would be in keeping with Apple's trend of using slower, lower-power processors, but given that industry giant Motorola had trouble providing Apple with enough processors, I doubt they'd take a chance with Transmeta. ARM is all but gone, having become XScale, and it was never really fast enough anyway. (If it had kept going, it might have got there eventually...) MIPS is pointless, why bother when you already have a nice RISC architecture? HP-PA is going away. Alpha is going away. Sparc is expensive and also pointless when you consider that you already run on a RISC architecture.
In short, there are only three processors that it would make sense to put into the next generation of macs. They are the new PPC, Transmeta Astro, or AMD Hammer. The new PPC is obviously the most likely for a wide variety of reasons, many of which I have detailed above. (Familiarity with the PPC ISA is another good one. No porting, just new hardware to assemble, and some drivers to write. Yay for Open Firmware.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
As a practical matter, switching to a machine with a different endian architecture means all the software has to be worked over to be made endian-independent. A switch to a new CPU with the same data formats is usually just a recompile.
The article almost had me there until I hit the paragraph claiming Apple would use Itanium for it's machines. Is this guy Dvorak for real?
Turing machines are actually quite straightforward to build, and have been built on numerous occasions. They aren't terribly practical if what you are looking for is a fast general purpose computing machine, but they can be built to perform any computable function if you are into masochism.
Note: It is of course much easier and faster to build a Turing machine in simulation than out of hardware and real paper tape, but in prinicple there is no difference in what they do.
See here for some examples of real Turing machines built for mathematical research into the nature of computing:
http://grail.cba.csuohio.edu/~somos/busy.html
The misconception is that Turing machines actually require an infinite length of tape. What is actually required is an _unbounded_ length of tape, which is easily achieved if you simply allow yourself the freedom to extend your finite length of tape if you ever reach the end.
Any calculation that can actually be computed in a finite amount of time will only use a finite amount of tape. The reason that the tape must be unbounded is that you don't necessarily know beforehand how much tape the computation will take, if it halts at all.
Incidently, this is also the reason we use virtual memory to trick our computers into thinking that they have infinite memory- but that is a topic for another post.
Precisely. MacOS will never run out of the box on commodity PC hardware. If it did, a lot of its advantages would go away. PC hardware follows Sturgeon's law: 90% of it is crap.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
NeXTSTEP was running at most on 4 architectures at the same time (M68K, Intel X86, Sun Sparc and HP PA) and most of the applications are compiled to fat binary with one app having binaries for all architecture. This has been done and it's almost 10 years ago by the same engineering team in Apple now.
NeXTSTEP, now Cocoa, is a very clean framework that properly abstract the ysstem services so few applications needs to use anything low level in the system. The API is consistent across architecture and applications relying on the API can easily be compiled and run on any architecture.
It's possible for Apple to switch to another architecture once more then 90% of the apps coded to Cocoa spec rather then Cocoa/Carbon mix. At that time, it's just a matter of compile and run.
OS X is gaining momentum and getting 3rd parties supprt. It would take another two years for enough apps to ported to Cocoa to archive the critical mass necessary to make the "switch."
Dvorak has already stated that he believes that the Apple platform is already dead, so why would a dead platform even bother switching. Further, why would he care?
That was really funny.
And why is that bull smirking?
Stephenson's books are as much about ideas as about telling a story. It's more obvious in The Diamond Age, where the ideas are less silly. But even though books like "Snow Crash" and "Cryptonomicon" have lots of silly ideas, they're not meant to be silly books. Because to Stephenson, the ideas are not silly.
You mention Neuromancer. I would argue that this is actually less "hard" SF than anything Stevenson has written. In Gibson's books, technology is just part of the setting. He never brainstorms about strange ways in which technology might be used. He simply takes established ideas and build stories around them. Maybe this is just his preference or interest, but I suspect that Gibson believes that tech has to be kept in the background or it overwealms the story. "Hard" SF writers (such as Stephenson) just don't care if that happens.
Slashdot needs to put this in the already-been-discussed or the dumbass section. He always knows how to piss someone off, I'm sooooo thankful that TechTV canceled his show.
- Danny
Dvorak will convert to Qwerty.
-- (Score:i, Imaginary)
Apple doing dual PPC/X86 machines for backward compatibility?
who are we, AMIGA?
let's just throw a 68040 in there too so i can run OS6.
and Itanium? won't those cost a little much for an iMac?
he completely leaves out the IBM solution when mentioning the Moto fued. Power4 baby, that's the future. maybe G5s in the iMacs and iBooks to throw Moto a bone.
but Intels? why would they invest in an architecture which from what i understand, is hitting a ceiling in performance?
haven't they made changes which make the itanium more like a PPC in the way it operates? well, we're already there.
Evil is the money of all root....
This is the same Dvorak that gave Network Solutions his Award for Technical Excellence. 'Nuff said!
All this hoopla about Jobs and Apple cozying up with Intel. I don't see an across the board transition to Intel chips as a logical extension of this. However, using itanium or even pentium processors in Xserve boxes, seem completely logical. Provide Mac OS X Server ease, Unix functionality, and an Intel core so as not to scare away administrators, and it's a great match. For that matter, all Mac OS X Server systems could become intel-based, which would provide a great opportunity for Apple to boost Business marketshare without cannibalizing the consumer lines.
Go hang a salami, I'm a lasagna hog