Ars Technica Interviews 970 Designers

11223 writes "John "Hannibal" Stokes has interviewed Pete Sandon, the PowerPC 970's main designer, and David Edelsohn, a compiler writer from IBM, and clarified several points about the 970 regarding group formation, vector issue queues and performance, and more. The interview is a very interesting read for anyone who has been following his earlier articles on the processor that Apple calls the G5."

Comments

CLIT FP for straight crackers everywhere

[Sexual Asspussy]

_ h , y .
|flgikhsfl lkj gec CLIT PRESENTS:
_ i kblh kshj dhs fhs ggjff
Wlkdnjnfj dhsjs skwbsvah s zy
klanal vietnam you fucking coxxy. A GAY NIGGER PICTORIAL
jkalnnfnlha xvzjvekahlh agsdfg kaay.
ll aa shl lkkjjhsl bring your skills.
aum shingnvduag or don't waste my Ny
l riknj _ gsgjoi fucking time :Iy
Iyov _ s' fuTK. * uf' D. hGy , U
_ k hk--sal . d Vha v'
I _ .efee kW k ee l `- I
_ l, e' _,-- _ : j
e_ @)y
C _ l
_ .l
C _D ` . ' l
_ -' _ _ D
_ l L.-,z
,-.' t#t.Dl _ l - .
_ y _)t#t#V '
l , ( ty-' ,h
i y i v ,
_ l _ i ` -' FOR MORE GNAA INFO, LOOK AT THE POSTS
; b WHICH DIDN'T COME FIRST
l _ i
_ I j _ A PUBIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM
i _ d _ _ SEXUAL ASSPUSSY AND THE CABAL
j i _ OF LOGGED IN TROLLS
l k
j _ k
%A% V l
%GH%Q sa03

p.s. http://cgi.goatse.info/cgi-bin/shitstory Shitstory WWW beta 1

Re:CLIT FP for straight crackers everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Incredible! You do the CLIT proud!

Re:CLIT FP for straight crackers everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Maybe this is why you never get any respect from the troll crowd.

Arse Technica

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave it to lunix zealots to name a site like that.

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats great, I really had some burning questions about group formation and vector issue queues. I'm glad this article cleared it up for me. In other words... HUH???

Anybody else

[Pxtl]

misenterpret this to mean "ars interviews nine-hundred and seventy different people"?

Re:Anybody else

[VersatilePrimate]

Phew.. I am not the sole complete idiot for thinking the same.

Re:Anybody else

[Just3Ws]

Yep, I was wondering if any of the nine hundred and seventy designers would have had anything to say about the /. gamers section?

Re:Anybody else

[double-oh three]

Only 970?

Re:Anybody else

[Anonymous Coward]

"Argh! My eyes, you bastards!"?

Re:Anybody else

[cK-Gunslinger]

I did. I just thought Ars was trying to 1-up Anantech on their 13- Motherboard CEOs interview.

Re:Anybody else

[5KVGhost]

Yup. Wow, imagine the lunch tabs alone. Those folks at Ars are a dedicated bunch.

Re:Anybody else

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I was thinking "I bet they'll need a good long hot bath after talking to that many people from the IT industry. Am I the only person who has a shower every day? Hello? It's summer? You sweat. Sweat smells. Sort it out!

Re:Anybody else

[Chundra]

Anybody else read that as "defecated bunch"? Whew.

Re:Anybody else

[Alan Partridge]

You didn't misinterpret it, because that's exactly what was written. Basic English skills are in short supply 'round here.

Re:Anybody else

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, your lack of reading comprehension is +5 funny. Of course all posts conforming to "Did anyone alse read X as Y?" are equally (un)hilarious.

Re:Anybody else

[sean23007]

Hmmm. I thought they were trying to 957-up Anandtech. Oh, well.

Re:Anybody else

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the rest of the passengers on the short bus.

Re:Anybody else

[YourMissionForToday]

The kindergarten class at the State Home for the retarded could one-up Anandtech. Of course, the state home for the retarded don't get click-through rates from other retards that read their site to find out which video card gets 3 more FPS for Quake.

Re:Anybody else

[11223]

You idiot. It is perfectly appropriate to abbreviate the "PowerPC 970" to "970". The other reading is syntactically valid, funny, and completely semantically wrong. When did brain cells become a short supply around here?

Re:Anybody else

[Anonymous Coward]

About the time of the first post.

Re:Anybody else

[Alan Partridge]

Can you equally explain away the random capitalisation of "designers"?

Thought not.

Re:Anybody else

[11223]

"Random"? Excuse me, sir, but in title all words but articles, conjunctions, and short prepositions are capatalized. This includes the word "Interview" and "Designers". Next time make sure you're right before correcting someone, you under-haired excuse for a Wookie.

Must have been noisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats a lot of developers to interview. It must have taken forever!

WHy do I get logindialog for some ads site?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probally offtopic but..

Whats with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you cat fanatics? I've been sitting here on my sofa in front of a cat (a sealpoint siamese) for about 20 minutes now while attempting to get it's attention away from a bug on the floor. 20 minutes. At home, with my labrador cross, which by all standards should be a lot dumber than this cat, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this attention seeking attempt, my children's attention is also held by the cat. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even trying to get the remote from my partner fails.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while dealing with other cats, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a cat that fetches as much as it's canine counterpart, despite the cat's faster ambulatory system. My terrier with one ingrown toenail runs consistently faster than this siamese at times, as the cat is often completely asleep. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the cat is a superior animal.

Cat addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a cat over other faster, cheaper, more affectionate animals.

Re:Whats with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

hey if your going to use my troll keep it on topic okay?

Re:Whats with this?

[teamhasnoi]

You might want to upgrade to cat 2.0, which addresses some of these issues while adding new features such as toilet training and Stay-DuL(TM) claw technology.

I have found a few bugs, such as loud 3 am meowing, but I think you'll find a greatly improved user experience. It also scales to the 970 PPC processor, making your cat the fastest ever!

Re:Whats with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funnier than yours

Re:Whats with this?

[Tumbleweed]

> I've been sitting here on my sofa in front of a cat (a sealpoint siamese) for about 20 minutes now while attempting to get it's attention away from a bug on the floor. 20 minutes.

I guess that the labrador cross is smarter than you. I doubt it'd spend 20 minutes trying to get the cat to do anything. Another thing you should consider is that having an attention span of under 2 minutes isn't exactly a resounding vote for 'intelligence' in an animal.

> I've never seen a cat that fetches as much as it's canine counterpart

You clearly don't understand cats. Cats don't fetch. Dogs fetch. Humans fetch. Cats do not fetch.

> From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the cat is a superior animal.

There is no measurable ROI for a cat. If that's what you want out of a pet, get a dog. Clearly you prefer dogs, so why not just stick with dogs? Dogs are like Windows. Cats are like Linux. Cats just aren't for you - why put yourself through the aggravation? :)

Re:Whats with this?

[Zeriel]

Actually, skilled cat users know that they CAN indeed be taught to fetch.

I call user error on all cat/dog bashing posts. As a seasoned veteran of both cats and dogs, I should know.

Okay, this is getting dumber by the sentence.

But my cat DOES fetch.

Re:Whats with this?

[swb]

Cats do not fetch.

Most cats don't fetch. My cousin had one that would fetch most any object it could get into its mouth, although its favorite was a comb.

We sat around one afternoon and played fetch with the comb and the cat -- it'd grab it from almost anywhere, and would actually bring it back to us. I thought it was rather unusual, and my cousin said that they don't remember doing anything specific to condition the cat to fetch -- one day they tossed something and the cat grabbed it and brought it to them. Lather, rinse, repeat and the cat is a retriever.

Re:Whats with this?

[Thud457]

Yeah, but most of the time, it's fetching half dead small furry / feathered / slimy things which flail around getting blood on your carpet and drapes until you catch it.

You should really be less pitiful as a hunter. You're emberassing your cat.

Re:Whats with this?

[Tumbleweed]

> My cousin had one that would fetch most any object it could get into its mouth

That's a defective cat. Please take it to the nearest authorized service center immediately. Be careful with it - it could explode at any moment!

Re:Whats with this?

[customjake]

just for clarification, my cat does fetch. Ok, he'll only fetch his rubber "squeaky" fish, and only when i throw it down the stairs, but he does fetch it. 'my cat cand beat up your cat"

Re:Whats with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its pretty clear that your cat thinks you are far less interesting than a bug. That your dog can be distracted from a study of insect life in less than two minutes really just speak's to the dog's poor attention span.

And as for affection, if you consider noisy, slobbering, panting attentions desirable then you're welcome to them. A cat's affections are far more refined and require that you learn to actually invest in a meaningful relationship to get what you want. In short, a cat makes you a better person (and there is less drool to deal with).

I would recommend that you re-evaluate your priorities, and rather than going in for the flashy, impulsive stuff you ought to learn to value the deeper nature of a feline relationship.

Re:Whats with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

cat's are far clevererer than dogs, they just don't care - which proves how clever they are

dog lovers/ cat haters are insecure need to feel powerful and loved and are rewarded by the uncontitional adoration a dog produces 24/7. Cats make them feel insignificant and unloved, which they are.

Do you think a cat is too stupid to chase a stick?

NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

SHUTUP

Disappointed with McIntosh :((

[JismTroll]

I've heard many good things about the McIntosh recently, and my family
and I decided we needed to buy a new computer to replace our old
Windows machine. Having heard of its ease of use, we decided to go the
McIntosh route. We recently purchased an 800 mHz G4, with OSX. We
thought we were getting a good deal. But unfortunately things turned
out quite different.

Upon putting together the system we discovered that our mouse appeared
the be broken. Although it wasn't cracked or shattered, it only had
one button. When I spoke with our McIntosh dealer, we were told that
the upgrade to a real two-button mouse would require more money.
Apparently the mice with one button were only a "trial version" of the
hardware. I feel that this is a very deceptive practice on Apple's
part, and have written a letter to the Better Business Bureau to
protest this. I felt as though I'd bought a car but to make it go past
35mph we'd have to pay more money!

Rather than pay the exhorbitant sum of money for a real mouse, I went
to CompUSA and bought one out of my own pocket.

Strike one for McIntosh!

Secondly, one of the reasons that we went with McIntosh is because its
new OS was based on the Linux kernel. Since my company uses Linux
heavily (and its an OS I'm highly familiar with) I thought it would be
nice to be able to run my work applications at home. Imagine my shock
upon hearing that McIntosh was actually based on an incompatible fork
of Linux - a fork known as BSD. Since our computers at work ran Linux
- and not BSD - it was clear that I'd be unable to compile them on my
Apple! Strike two for McIntosh.

The final straw came last night. I received an email from a friend
alerting me to numerous holes in Microsoft's Internet Explorer. When I
went to MS' home page to download a patch
(http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downlo ads/cri tical/q321232/default.asp),
I was stunned to see this patch only applies to Windows machines!
Given the tiny user base of McIntosh, apparently software patches
aren't made frequently - if at all - for McIntosh. I refuse to use an
OS that is as ridden with holes as swiss cheese. Thus I'm going to be
returning my McIntosh and purchasing a Windows XP box.

I hope this message reaches someone at McIntosh headquarters. Maybe
their CEO, Steve Ballmer(?) will get this and fix their business
practices. Until such changes are made, however, I fear that McIntosh
will continue to be a bit player in the computer world.

Thank you for your time,

JT

Re:Disappointed with McIntosh :((

[Anonymous Coward]

The word is Macintosh not McIntosh or any other fucked up variant. And your problems 1 and 2 could have been found out before purchasing the system. The 3rd one could have been too, although I do see that as a valid concern.

Re:Disappointed with McIntosh :((

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a tool. What should we expect from a McIntosh fag though?

1-800-759-0700

[Anonymous Coward]

1-800-759-0700

mac problems

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.

Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:mac problems

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem is that your PC doesn't actually copy the file. it just pretends to copy it.

any attempts at trying to access your copied file on the nt computer will cause it to crash

so the mac is taking more time because it's doing it a right way, after all, new electrons have to be created by ionizing the oxygen in the atmosphere to put on your drive, electrons don't just pop up from nowhere

accept no substitute that windows nt offers you with those recycled piece of crap electrons

Re:mac problems

[Anonymous Coward]

how is this offtopic? it is true! windows uses recycled electrons to store data, the same electrons that have been god-knows-where before

lunix and bds do the same

Re:mac problems

[redwoodtree]

It's offtopic because this guy is a troll, he posts the same message around the internet over and over and over again. He's not interested in actually fixing his "slow drive" problem but in fact it's a troll. No you know.

Re:mac problems

[Anonymous Coward]

are you denying that windows, lunix and bds use recycled electrons to store data?

Re:mac problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Unrefuted testimony is presumed fact. I ao declare, the person you are responding to is in-fact denying that Windows and Lunix and BDS are using *RECYCLED* electrons to store data!

This was proven by the ol' Old Testament biblical concept of unrefuted testimony presumed fact:

Planet Earth was proven to be flat. You can't prove otherwise until astronaughts go into space and take a picture while on the pancake-shaped moon. That is why the lunar landing missions to the moon are all fake! Fake! The moon is flat, same with planet Earth! You can't trust pictures taken from space probes looking at planet Earth, because we know freely-available technology is availble to manipulate and doctor-up space evidence! Doo-doo-Im-not-listening-doo-doo.

This interview is perfectly timed!

[Anonymous Coward]

It coinciedes with Apple's release of G5 laptops. Of course the two button trackpad is interview worthy as well...

Re:This interview is perfectly timed!

[Anonymous Coward]

IHBT

970 designers!

[HardcoreGamer]

Ars Technica Interviews 970 Designers

970 designers! Holy nerd-fest Batman! That's where Gotham's entire supply of throat lozenges disppeared to!

Re:970 designers!

[Anonymous Coward]

970 designers! Holy nerd-fest Batman! That's where Gotham's entire supply of throat lozenges disppeared to!

*ahem.
That's a verry cromulent observation, Robin^H^HLimo. Say, is that a lousenge in your spandex underwear or are you happy to have saved some from the grasp of the Penguin's evil henchmen?

Important Note

[Anonymous Coward]

A dollar given to an islamic charity is a dollar's worth of ammunition given to your murderer.

Dear Apple:

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Apple:

I bought an Apple computer because of its native support for teledildonics. I bought a USB FUFME and MacOS immediately recognized it and installed drivers instantly! As a gay Catholic priest who often can't be at the altar all the time, you can understand how the ability to have sex with children whilst on the airplane with my Powerbook and wireless internet service is a lifesaver.

I just have a single question, will Apple be releasing a firewire version of the FUFME anytime soon?


With much gayness,

Father Michael "Arminass" Sims

CALL ME!!! 1-800-759-0700

[Anonymous Coward]

CALL ME NOW!!! 1-800-759-0700

Re:CALL ME!!! 1-800-759-0700

[Anonymous Coward]

Busy. Must've gotten Slashdotted. :-P

Good Job.

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep up the good work!

Love Always,
News For Turds

P.S. I'll be back soon. :)

question

[donald knuth troll]

Does anyone know if they used literate programming (WEB) for writing the compiler?

867-5309

[Anonymous Coward]

867-5309

Unfortunately

[turgid]

...this is largely irrelevant to slashdot readers, since it doesn't run Windows, and most of the readers don't understand why.

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

...this is largely irrelevant to slashdot readers, since it doesn't run Windows, and most of the readers don't understand why.
I'm really interested! Maybe they can give me some good tips how to spice up the looks of my computer, I dont like dull gray.

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

how is an interview with 970 different windows developers irrelevant? rtfa you scum-sucking piece of goose excrement

Altivec execution

[BWJones]

I was interested to find out find out they used the older Altivec instruction unit rather than the one from the G4e. Is there anyone that can comment of differences between the two Altivec units?

Re:Altivec execution

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there anyone that can comment of differences between the two Altivec units?

Alas I doubt it. This is slashdot. The probability of something factually acurrate and rational are slim.

Re:Altivec execution

[turgid]

Bekuz Linux faggotz R GHEY and pentium 4 and Windowz is 1ee7 and will kick your lame homo Linux faggot Apple ass.

Re:Altivec execution

[Jon Abbott]

The following was snipped from this message:

"The AltiVec subunits are more independant than in the 7400, i.e. there isn't just a single vector ALU, instead the vector FPU, vector simple IU, and the vector complex IU can now accept AltiVec instructions concurrently (up to two vector instructions per clock); this means technically, the G4e does have 4 AltiVec units, while the MPC7400 has only two, but in practice the G4e merely relaxes some instruction scheduling restrictions that the 7400 has to adhere to."

Re:Altivec execution

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll probably get better information from the discussion over in Ars' Mac Forum. See here and here

Re:Altivec execution

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I guess that proves that none of the moderators actually follow links or can read. Might as well put a Goatse in there.

Re:Altivec execution

[Jon Abbott]

Anonymous Coward, the Gods shall smite thee! How dare thou claim that my post is in error!

ObFamilyGuy

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn you, Tommy Tutone!!

IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ?

[peterprior]

1) I never thought I'd see the day.
2) That logo clashes like hell with the sexy aqua theme 8|

Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ?

[SweetAndSourJesus]

1) That day was a long time ago.
2) No Icons (disable topic icon images on stories)

Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ?

[Raster Burn]

Strange... the eight bar logo lines up with the aqua-style bars perfectly.

conspiracy!

Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ?

[Drakonian]

1) That day was a long time ago.

I'm assuming it was even longer than that. IBM has made the G3 for Apple for ages.

Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ?

[peterprior]

Don't normally reply to myself, by I just thought about it further and realised that the IBM equivalent of the Imac girl would be Optimus Prime

..Scary stuff :|

Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ?

[valkraider]

Why is Apple+IBM such a new thing?

How about October, 1991?

More info about the PowerPC alliance.

Apple never said that IBMs *technology* was no good. They said that IBM made boring corporate Personal Computers that didn't foster individuality and creativity amongst it's users. I would say that is still correct.

Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ?

[Ominous Coward]

Motorola makes the G3 and G4, no?

Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ?

[garymm]

Both Moto and IBM make them, i believe, with Moto supplying the designs.

Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You really shouldn't sit like that for very long. It can be very bad on your knees long term especially for younger people still developing.

Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ?

[clarkcox3]

IBM makes the G3's that Apple currently uses (i.e. in the iBooks), Motorola makes the G4's.

Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ?

[Anonymous Coward]

YEah, then you end up walking (well, waddling) funny, with your knees in. Damn, that's a gross turn off, but mostly confined to fat chicks.

Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ?

[Hes Nikke]

and don't forget about the PPC 601. oh and Taligent with there snazzy new OS - Pink!

Re:IBM in the apple.slashdot.org section ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Moto, IBM, and Apple collaborated on the G3 design. The design groups have since gone their separate ways but the overall architecture is a joint effort.

Dear Father Sims

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Father Sims

Thank you for your kind letter! Being a former Catholic priest myself, I know exactly what you are talking about! It has been our dream at Apple Computers ever since we began in the 80's to shape the homosexual experience with the ultimate computer.

I can answer your letter by saying that YES we will indeed be making a firewire version of the FUFME. With the additional bandwidth offered by the firewire bus, we will be able to more accurately record and deliver more minute and subtle movements that the USB FUFME simply couldnt support due to lack of bandwidth. You will be able to recognize our firewire FUFME in stores by the fancy holographic logo of a cock entering an Apple.

We are glad to help loyal customers such as yourself. If you ever have any more questions, feel free to drop a line (or connect to my teledildonic FUFME server on fufme://cockman.apple.com).

Hugh G. Cockman President Homosexual Liaison Services Apple Computer, Inc.

Re:Dear Father Sims

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knew I could be gender-confident just by the mere act of running Windows.

I was going to purchase a Windows XP machine but it's bright, playful colors only confused me.

Can it have to be any variant or is it more "hetro" to run Server 2K3 vs. 98?

Do I use Windows Update automatically, or must I always run it "man"ually?

And what of DOS and Windows 3.1? Does PocketPC count? Must I carry it with me always?

Does this also mean that PalmOS is not recommend for maximum manly-ness?

Also, is it ok for a woman to own a Mac?

-
Confused in Cupertino

mad props

[Anonymous Coward]

moderators: +1 funny, plz. ok thx.

g5 is dead!

[Anonymous Coward]

mac is deader then an old cow who ate to much sheep!

moderators on crack

[Anonymous Coward]

rtfa!

The Reality Distortion Field

[Jon Abbott]

One of the best quotes from the interview was from David Edelsohn: "IBM is not gonna try to compete with Apple's reality distortion field :)"

Re:The Reality Distortion Field

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a brave man, my friend (or is this to deep for the zealmods?)

Re:The Reality Distortion Field

[BitGeek]

How could it be too deep when you're replying to a zeolot making the quote?

Re:The Reality Distortion Field

[Anonymous Coward]

no

Re:The Reality Distortion Field

[Durindana]

Heh.

As an Apple enthusiast, I thought Hannibal's reply was even funnier:

Hannibal: Haha. I don't think that anybody can, and if you did then they would maybe sue you for look and feel or something.

Re:The Reality Distortion Field

[Jon Abbott]

How could it be too deep when you're replying to a zeolot making the quote?

Hey, watch who you are calling zealot, punk. :^)

Windows based 970?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I think if you read the end of the article where they are talking about the possibility of straight non apple boxes with 970 inside, you'll notice that they can not reply. Why not? It would be obvious to have linux based servers on top of the platform, so to have no responce to that makes me wonder if they aren't talking to soemone else about something nonobvious. What is the most non obvious step that would really get it in trouble with apple? Another deal with Microsoft. Heck the NT Kernel is portable and is currently being ported to itanium2 and amd64 why not ppc 970? I don't know how closely apple has tied panther to Their chipset, but if it isn't too tight this could mean cheap apple clones( they wouldn't ship with osx, but it could be installed). Now that would kill apple, and as a guy who had advance knowledge of it, I would simply say "No Comment" when asked about non apple based ppc 970 platforms.

Re:Windows based 970?

[pv2b]

Not legally.

You still need a licence to run Mac OS X, and I think it would be trivial for Apple to add a clause (if it's not already there) that would forbid installing the software on non-apple hardware.

There is also a port of Mac OS X for Intel processors being maintained in parallell, mainly because it CAN be done very easilly with minimal effort. Covering all bases...

Remember, Apple is a hardware company, and will protect their core business, which currently is and always has been hardware.

Re:Windows based 970?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Heck the NT Kernel is portable and is currently being ported to itanium2 and amd64 why not ppc 970?

Um, because people buying ppc 970 hardware have more important things to do than fuck about with windows, which is something you can do for cheap or relatively cheap on an ordinary PC or x86 xeon server setup anyway?

Re:Windows based 970?

[binaryDigit]

Another deal with Microsoft. Heck the NT Kernel is portable and is currently being ported to itanium2 and amd64 why not ppc 970?

It is already ported to PPC (maybe not 970, but PPC) and has been since 3.51. Even with that, I _highly_ doubt that Microsoft will venture down that road again. Back in the late 80's/early 90's when RISC was the "NEXT BIG THING", M$ was hedging their bets by making sure that NT was available for all manner of RISC flavours. Now that RISC is "NOT THE NEXT BIG THING", I really don't think M$ cares anymore, to them it's just another platform they'd have to support and probably wouldn't make any money off of.

Now having it run Linux is a no brainer. IBM is obviously in Linux in a big way, so having some 970 based boxen are obvious. Now having "generic" white box 970's designed to run Linux is a different story. I don't know if this would make sense from a market perspective. Perhaps cheaper commodity based servers? Perhaps giving Dell a run for their money in the Linux market for higher end workstations? Hard to say, esp the latter since IBM is notorious for not wanting to cannibalize their higher end sales by having lower end box's with better price/performance ratios.

BTW, you can kiss off the Apple clone notion. Makes absolutely no sense for Apple unless they can assure themselves of at least doubling Mac market share by such a move. Anything less would mean a repeat of their previous foray, which Stever would never allow to happen.

Re:Windows based 970?

[sergeantmudd]

Windows on 970 would kill Apple?? Hell, it would save Apple. How many times, on slashdot even, have you heard "I would buy OS X if the barrier to entry wasn't so high." The number one complaint against Apple isn't high price, it's high priced systems that aren't flexible. If I have an expensive PC with Linux and I end up hating Linux, I can put one of a bizillion different OSes on it. But I can only put a handful on the PPC box, and I can't run Windows. But if WindowsPPC becomes a reality, you will start hearing "Hey, I'll buy Apple and if OS X doesn't work out for me, I'll throw Windows on it"

Re:Windows based 970?

[pv2b]

Apple doesn't want you to buy OS X, they want you to buy a Mac.

I repeat, Apple is a hardware company.

Re:Windows based 970?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Yeah, thats what I'm saying. What would stop people from doing it ( if its technically possible some people will do it regardless of leagality)? Here's a riddle for everyone to think about: If apple's a hardware company what unique piece of hardware does it actually make? The motherboard?
I think apple is really a software company that has managed to force people to buy hardware from it( at high margins) so their software can be run. As obvious as that statement is, I think many people forget it.

Re:Windows based 970?

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Windows NT 3.51 and 4.0 supported PowerPC. Was dropped because of bad sales. Solaris had a PowerPC port too if you can believe it. This ws all when PowerPC was shiny and new and PowerPC was going to take over the world, giving a consistent platform free of all that x86 cruft. Problem was NT in that day wasn't compatible yet with loads of software, and Windows 3.1 and 95 were very much x86 only, so the software market never followed to PowerPC. Intel threw enough silicon at the problem to make x86 performance acceptable, and the RISC world withered.

The most interesting thing for me with all this "cheap PowerPC" stuff is it seems to be the rebirth of CHRP, which Apple kind of scotched becasue they were fearful of clones back then. Maybe they realize they need to kill some of the "hardware premium price" and get costs more in line with Intel boxes.

Re:Windows based 970?

[sergeantmudd]

But people would be much more likely to buy a Mac if it could Windows too. The 970 is a great chip, but it doesn't put Intel to shame. And without being fantastically better, people would just buy the Windows/Intel instead of Windows/PPC. But if Microsoft would release WindowsPPC, you would see alot of people buying a Mac and a copy of Windows to dual boot. Far more than people would buy Windows/PPC and illegally run a hacked copy of OS X.

Re:Windows based 970?

[pv2b]

People hacking OS X to run on their non-apple machines is not a real threat to Apples.

COMPANIES selling non-Apple machines running OS X are a real threat to Apple.

The legal issues won't stop the first crowd (but then again, Apple won't have lost a great deal), but the people who actually buy computers and work with them as well as Joe home user will not go to any lengths to save a few bucks just to run OS X on a non-Apple box.

That's where Apple gets its money -- and it's pretty well protected.

Apple does make the entire computer, which is much more than a sum of its parts.

I'm not sure how many of the components that go into a car (I'm not a car nut) are actually made by the car company themselves, but let's for the sake of argument say that the car company doesn't make any of the components in the car. But the design of the car and putting the car together is still something the car company does, and that is the value they add.

This is basically what Apple does, to make a product you don't neccecarilly have to make your components yourself.

Re:Windows based 970?

[sergeantmudd]

I mean far less, far less people would buy Windows/PPC and illegally run a hacked copy of OS X

Re:Windows based 970?

[bnenning]

You still need a licence to run Mac OS X

You don't need a license to run software that you buy. See 17 USC 117.

Re:Windows based 970?

[pv2b]

Not quite.

Windows could be ported to PPC, sure, but it still wouldn't run any of those programs which are only compiled for Intel. As you suggest, most people would just buy Windows/Intel anyway, since it's cheaper, so it makes no sense to develop for Windows/PPC.

It is possible to run Windows on an Mac today. I run Virtual PC on my iBook for those rare moments when I need to run Windows-only software. (Not very often). It runs with the performance of a Pentium II 400 MHz, approximately, and I assume one of those Dual G5's would do a pretty good job of emulating a low-end PC. :-)

Virtual PC is far more useful than a port of Windows to PPC could ever be, because it runs Intel software.

Re:Windows based 970?

[pv2b]

The post was written with an assumptions that EULA's are legitimate and valid. I forgot my disclaimer for that part. :-)

Anyway, you don't buy the software. You buy the installation media and a license to run it -- although the way software is sold today is very confusing.

I don't wnat to get into a discussion of whether EULA's are valid or not here, mainly because I haven't researched this thoroughly enough to have a discussion about it -- still an assumption that they are is valid.

Re:Windows based 970?

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Now having "generic" white box 970's designed to run Linux is a different story.

Hmm...or IBM branded, consumer or corp grade desktops, with 970s, running Red Hat, Yellow Dog Linux, or IBMnix? I think the big advantages would be IBM QA and warranty on the hardware, and a linux optimized for the 970. Commodity parts, no M$ tax, the processor at cost since it's being sold by the fabber=cheap cheap and powerful. Say, $4-500 for a very competent office/workstation machine.

I can see these on a lot of desktops moving from Windows to Linux...I wonder if IBM knows any?

Re:Windows based 970?

[shotfeel]

"The motherboard?"

Well, the chip set for the motherboard. See the second page of the article, under Miscellany, the second question "I also asked at one point about the Apple-designed chipset..."

I was really hoping we'd find out more about the chip set used in the 970 blades. Oh well.

Re:Windows based 970?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dual Booting is pretty much confined to techies and people playing around. It's not a real market solution and would make no impact on sales.

Also, people buy Windows to run the apps, which aren't going to magicially appear on non-x86 platforms. (Even though NT/Alpha had virtually every major server/workstation app ported, AND a pretty good emulator, but couldn't shake the repuation of not having apps...)

I'd love to see NT/PPC64 too, but face it -- unless IBM goes insane and pays MS $1Billion to support it, it's not going to happen.

Re:Windows based 970?

[Zimm]

I repeat, Apple is a hardware company.

Really? What hardware do they make? Last I checked they have gone the commodity PC hardware route for their hardware, and IBM for their CPU's. Apple ties software they make to other companies hardware, and charge for the combination. Apple may be a hardware marketing company, but they are not a hardware company like say Sun microsystems.

Re:Windows based 970?

[pv2b]

A computer is hardware. Hardware is made by hardware companies. Apple makes computers. Ergo, Apple is a hardware company!

A computer is more than the sum of its parts. You wouldn't say a car company wasn't a car company merely because it used commodity parts?

This is redundant of course, since I posted the exact same argument in this thread in this post.

Re:Windows based 970?

[SlashDread]

"Why not? It would be obvious to have linux based servers on top of the platform, so to have no responce to that makes me wonder"

God man dont make me shiver! MS has no business on that cool platform, but since SCO -remember- , IBM has all the more reason to hush about linux adventures!
Your wrong! Your Wrong! Windows! On Mac hardware! VPC is hard enough, alright! -spit- /Dread

Re:Windows based 970?

[shotfeel]

Does that mean Dell isn't a hardware company either?

Re:Windows based 970?

[shotfeel]

Ignore my previous post, I didn't grok the "hardware marketing company" vs. "hardware company" difference you were making, though I don't agree with that distinction either.

One thing to note is that Apple has always designed their own motherboards, including the chip sets. They still do. That would seem to make them a hardware company even as you've defined it.

Also consider that the PPC architecture is designed by the AIM (Apple-IBM-Motorola) alliance. Thus Apple has had some input in the CPU design as well (how much, I don't know).

Re:Windows based 970?

[bnenning]

Anyway, you don't buy the software. You buy the installation media and a license to run it

Well, that's what publishers may claim, but whether it's actually true is a different matter (see Softman v. Adobe). But this is getting off topic, so I'll save further EULA rants for a more appropriate thread.

Re:Windows based 970?

[michrech]

Yes. Dell is a VAR.

Re:Windows based 970?

[frankie]

What hardware do they make? Last I checked they have gone the commodity PC hardware route

• Bridge & board: "The chipset is an Apple design"
• Servers
• Peripherals and Standards

User-serviceable parts (RAM, HD, AGP, etc) are commodity, but the hard stuff is designed in Cupertino.

Re:Windows based 970?

[garymm]

i hope so, but it doesn't seem so. Just look at the price hikes on the G5s versus the G4s, which were already fairly high-priced boxes. I think most of the cost may come from uncommon and new components like Serial ATA and PCI Extreme.

Re:Windows based 970?

[WNight]

What reason is there to expect that EULAs are valid?

They're post-sale contracts. This sort of thing has never been legit.

When they show you the license in the store, and you must overtly agree to it to buy the product, then they may be legal. Until then they're lies.

But, they'll have to be a lot simpler. Judges are already invalidating long small-print contracts for regular consumers. If it takes a law degree to understand, you can't possibly enter into it knowingly. Thus, the company should reasonably know that nobody reads (and hence, nobody agree to) their contracts.

Further, the concept of post-sale restrictions was decided in the early 1900s, with the First-Sale doctrine. Books were being sold with 'contracts' inside the cover limiting resale rights. It didn't work then, it won't work now, even if the many issues keeping EULAs from being valid contracts were fixed.

(Such as, they disclaim consumer rights they aren't allowed to disclaim under the Magnuson-Moss warranty act. Many EULAs disclaim all responsibility even if the product doesn't function at all, etc. Not allowed, and in fact, likely criminal to claim.)

You do everyone a disservice by saying that EULAs might be valid. It's misleading and can be very damaging.

Re:Windows based 970?

[andrewski]

The PPC970 can be had down at the shop for a hunered dollars an yall can git yerselfs sum addem motha breads at the bakery.

Re:Windows based 970?

[greygent]

The NT kernel WAS portable. It has been said by MS kernel engineers that with Windows 2000, the changes made to the kernel made it very non-portable. While I doubt this is actually as drastic as it sounds, I reckon a port to the 970 is nowhere near "trivial".

Re:Windows based 970?

[ePhil_One]

Well this is a little different. Usually the first thing people say when they get whiff of non-Apple PPC computers is "Mac Clones". Excellent choice in choosing "Windows clones"

1) Microsoft stopped porting Windows to PPC with NT 4. I dont this all the service packs even made it. Which is just as well, because finding PPC hardware that would run, or any additional software that would run on it, was just about impossible. Also, most of the 64 bit porting you describe is making the code 64 bit clean, not reimplementing it on a new instruction set.

2) IBM is not about to enter a spat with Apple. They have their own OS that runs on PPC (AIX) and a huge commitment to Linux, which also runs on PPC. They have an opportunity to introduce 64 bit Linux on a "inexpensive" platform with the 970, and they are going for it. Personally I like they idea, because I go several apps that could benefit for 64 bitness, but management seems adverse to buying Apple's to install Linux on for support reasons.

Re:Windows based 970?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft stopped making PowerPC (and MIPS) versions of NT with version 4.0. Current NT (aka XP) only runs on Intel.

Re:Windows based 970?

[WiggyWack]

There are Apple ROM chips on the Mac motherboard that are made by Apple. So it's not just a software thing, it's a hardware thing.

I don't know how easy it is to "make your own Apple ROM". I would assume that it's NOT easy, because this could have been done before.

Motorola has been making the G4 for years. IBM has been making the G3. So why would this "conspiracy" of your just come out now?

Re:Windows based 970?

[Anonymous Coward]

The hard stuff?

The hard stuff is the CPU and GPU.

Apple designs neither.

For a long time now, Apple's hardware has mostly been a dongle to keep you buying Apple hardware if you want to use MacOS.

Re:Windows based 970?

[Anonymous Coward]

What Apple does is make sure the hardware and software work together, and if you don't think that's difficult, you've never dealt with drivers.

One of the Apple clones back in the day wouldn't run one of the big graphics packages (Corel? Photoshop? I don't use them, so don't remember). Of course the people blamed Apple, not the clone maker.

Re:Windows based 970?

[tmy47]

"Last I checked they have gone the commodity PC hardware route for their hardware,"

Yeah, a hardware company that designs and and integrates the first 1 ghz FSB, Serial ATA, Firewire 800, etc into a desktop. They just got this stuff "off the shelf" right?

Re:Windows based 970?

[YourMissionForToday]

A Windows security blanket, that's all you pussies want.

You wouldn't even be running Linux if you couldn't cuddle up with Windows 98 to play your games. So if you don't want to be sucking Gates' cock for the rest of your life, pull out your credit card and support the only real alternative...

which is, my hard honkin erection whipping you in the face (what did you think I was gonna say?) =)

Re:Windows based 970?

[TheNetAvenger]

The NT kernel WAS portable. It has been said by MS kernel engineers that with Windows 2000, the changes made to the kernel made it very non-portable.

I'd like to see this quote, since the majority of the Win2k development cycle (including up to beta 2) supported the Alpha CPU.

So if Microsoft made NT (Win2k) non-portable did they do it in the Release Client a month or two before release just to screw with people or maybe in a mysterious service pack? Give me a break.

Win2k WAS designed for FULL Alpha support, and since the ALPHA development was cancelled LATE in the Beta, I seriously doubt they went back to the drawing board and rewrote the NT kernel after 10 years of portable design just to lock it into the x86 platform.

Besides, do you NOT get that the Itanium support in WindowsXP is not BASED upon x86, but a NATIVE NT Kernel running on the Itanium CPU, which has been available for almost two years now? Additionally the Windows 2003 Server support for the Itanium is a FULL 64 bit OS with a 64bit NATIVE kernel sitting on the Itanium processor. Geesh.

From the developers we worked with at Microsoft in the past year, even Windows 2003 server (which would include Win2k and XP) still have the basic HAL underpinning design and the lower NT kernel itself is STILL written in portable C.

According to the 'official' NT kernel development team, NT has been portable, stands by a portable design, and STILL is fully portable even TODAY.

So if you have some magical information that even the NT designers don't have, please share...

Re:Windows based 970?

[TheNetAvenger]

Microsoft stopped making PowerPC (and MIPS) versions of NT with version 4.0. Current NT (aka XP) only runs on Intel.

But that does not mean that the (XP) NT Kernel and HAL layer are not fully portable, just as they were first designed in the early 90s.

Don't get the Win32 kernel (Windows) confused with the NT kernel.

XP is just as portable as NT4 was, as you can witness with how easily the Native 64bit Itanium port of WindowsXP came about two years ago. And it is a full native 64bit native support of the Itanium CPU, not a x86 OS sitting on Itanium.

So don't think it couldn't happen. If a CPU market that surpassed Intel or AMD arrived, Microsoft could easily move to it.

Even after all these years the biggest mistake of competitors is that they CONTINUE to underestimate Microsoft and what their architectural plans allow them to do.

All that R&D money is doing more than just making cute furry bunnies that spin on the screen. :)

Re:Windows based 970?

[brettper]

Well just maybe there was some problem they ran into during that late Beta stage that was way too much trouble to fix on Alpha?

Re:Windows based 970?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been done already. I've seen Windows running on an RS/6000. Windows just hasn't been able to shake Intel. Dead version of Windows: Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC. Did I miss one?

Re:Windows based 970?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple designs the board layout and the chipset and a few custom ASICs. For public info, read through the Linux PPC stuff to find drivers for all those interesting chips Apple's created over the years.

The closest PC manufacturer to this case would be Sony, which the Vaio laptops and newer Clies point out.

On a lighter note....
Imagine Dell designing a P4 chipset....... Oh, the horror!

Re:Windows based 970?

[11223]

Nope. DEC (er, Compaq) pulled out of the project, amazingly enough. MS was perfectly willing to ship Windows 2000 on Alpha, but Compaq suddenly got cold feet. FWIW I think some internal release candidates of 2K supported Alpha. And given that Win2K is available on Itanic, chances are it's still just as portable.

Re:Windows based 970?

[11223]

Oh, and that system controller is all soft and squishy?

Re:Windows based 970?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I could be wrong, but I thought they did away with those. But thinking again, I remeber they weren't putting a substaial part of the operating system into the rom liek they used to. They still might just be using it as a security measure. That might prohibit the self builder from making mac clones, but if there was a win xp build for ppc one could probaly install xp ontop of a mac. As for the "conspiracy" part, remeber that you can only stab some one in the back if they are not suspecting it. Keep your friends close, and your enimies even closer. Again, I'm not saying I *know* anything is going on. I was just trying to explore the potential consequences of such a move. You can only be suprised if you didn't see something comming. Trust no one.

Re:Windows based 970?

[TheNetAvenger]

Well just maybe there was some problem they ran into during that late Beta stage that was way too much trouble to fix on Alpha?

Um... Maybe not... Win2k on Alpha was a fully running version, and when DEC was sold to Compaq, Compaq pulled the plug on the Alpha.

(Win2k on Alpha was at the Beta 2 stage, which means that not only was it running, but stable, and full featured.)

Microsoft was still willing to ship Win2k for Alpha, but Compaq was going to phase out Alpha - intentionally as it competed with their own server lines. In the end, Compaq all but killed the Alpha chip technologies.

PS (Just a hint, my tech team was in the Win2k Beta, and we were testing Win2k on Alpha as well. So you are barking up the wrong tree if you think I am giving misinformation.)

So try again...

Re:Windows based 970?

[babbage]

There is also a port of Mac OS X for Intel processors being maintained in parallell, mainly because it CAN be done very easilly with minimal effort. Covering all bases...

This is a popular meme, and it seems to come up whenever Apple hardware does. But whenever someone makes this claim, it's always offered as a naked assertion, with no more proof offered than, well, you know, everybody knows that.

Care to cite a source?

This rumor has been going around for as long as OSX has, but not once have I for one ever encountered an authoritative citation for where it comes from. Can anyone offer such a reference? Even a "my best friend works for Apple, and she kind of hinted at it" would be more substantial than anything I've ever read before.

I'm starting to think this is an urban legend...

Re:Windows based 970?

[mink]

I bought an Alpha machine that seems to have come from Microsoft itself (has an MS serial id tag). It's CD-ROM happened to contain a cd-r (laser printed label affixed) that said MS internal test (or something) WIN2k Rc3 build #(I forget).
So it exists, and it lets me use the USB ports on my alpha.

Re:Windows based 970?

[Anonymous Coward]

PPC chips are hardly MAC only hardware.

Re:Windows based 970?

[TheNetAvenger]

I bought an Alpha machine that seems to have come from Microsoft itself (has an MS serial id tag). It's CD-ROM happened to contain a cd-r (laser printed label affixed) that said MS internal test (or something) WIN2k Rc3 build #(I forget).

Yep... Exactly.

Re:Windows based 970?

[Anonymous Coward]

The hard stuff is the CPU and GPU.

Yep, the only "hardware companies" in the world are IBM, Intel, ATI, Nvidia, and maybe SGI.

Asus, Shuttle, etc, are just pikers.

Re:Windows based 970?

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally! After all those posts over the last two years promoting the idea that Apple should move their hardware to Intel chips due to the Megahertz Gap, someone now proposes that MicroSoft should move their operating systems to PowerPC 970, ha! The irony is killing me. The fact that NT4 was already ported to PowerPC and dropped makes the idea no less funny.

For those who think that buyers of "cheap" IBM 970 boxes would be able to pick up a copy of Mac OS X to run on them you also need OpenFirmware and the Apple Boot ROM to boot up. These would have to be supported in hardware. Neither IBM nor Apple would have any good reason to do this. Apple licensing IBM to make clones? We know what Steve Jobs thinks about clones. He would have to be paid more profit from an IBM clone than from an Apple Mac and then they would no longer be "cheap".

So, Apple is a hardware company. As much or more so than Dell. They designed the Northbridge controller chip, the motherboard, and Firewire. They contributed to the design of the PowerPC architecture and HyperTransport, AFAIK.

They don't build hard drives, memory chips or optical drives, but what other computer maker does except maybe IBM? They do design many custom ASICs which have always contributed to the uniqueness and higher cost of Macs.

They designed the operating system technologies to run on this hardware, specificly Rendezvous, QuickTime, QuartzExtreme, Carbon, Cocoa, Classic and the rest of Mac OS X. Apple as a white box assembler! Don't make me laugh...

Apple as a software company? Pro level software, yes. Consumer software they mostly give away. OS software they sell at what I would guess as below cost price.

I can't wait..

[turgid]

...to see what this thing will be like running Windows Longhorn woth its cool 3D UI. It'll give AMD a run for their money. I bet Visual Basic code runs reel fast on this baby!

Re:I can't wait..

[SuperBanana]

Windows Longhorn woth its cool 3D UI

Lost you there. Oh, oh, MacOS X. Gotcha, sorry.

I bet Visual Basic code runs reel fast on this baby

Visual Basic, fast? Oh god, please...someone mod the parent up as funny, he/she deserves it :-)

Re:I can't wait..

[Tumbleweed]

I can't _wait_ to see MS port anything to the PPC970! :)

Re:I can't wait..

[Mononoke]

...to see what this thing will be like running Windows Longhorn woth its cool 3D UI.

You already can, because their R&D dept already released it. It's called Mac OSX.

Re:I can't wait..

[cactopus]

> Windows Longhorn woth its cool 3D UI

Lost you there. Oh, oh, MacOS X. Gotcha, sorry.

> I bet Visual Basic code runs reel fast on this baby

Visual Basic, fast? Oh god, please...someone mod the parent up as funny, he/she deserves it :-)

Indeed... MS finally admits future technology will contain cheese....this certainly would be a quantum leap in computing...I can't wait till I can run SETI@Home on a block of cheddar or colby...then of course we'd have to come up with a cooling system because that would be really nasty on a hot day.

Re:I can't wait..

[Anonymous Coward]

Humor was lost on this moderator.

ahh, but

[cliveholloway]

What I want to know is, what are the other 499 server errors that happen when they get slashdotted?

cLive ;-)

Improvements to GCC?

[Realistic_Dragon]

At one point in the interview it looks like IBM and Apple are working together on GCC improvements and donating the code back to the FSF.

This is a fairly big deal as people have pointed out before that GCC on PPC isn't as hot as it should be, but with that kind of muscle and money behind it it should go forwards by leaps and bounds.

With the new GCC improvements it looks like Linux on those new, remarkably cheap, P970 IBM boxes is going to be a real winner. And AFAIK Gentoo already runs on PPC fine - no one is going to be bitching about compile times with 4 1gig+ CPUs crunching away at it!

Re:Improvements to GCC?

[Jon Abbott]

This is a fairly big deal as people have pointed out before that GCC on PPC isn't as hot as it should be, but with that kind of muscle and money behind it it should go forwards by leaps and bounds.

There are some issues with the FSF accepting patches from IBM though, for a number of reasons... This message on the ArsTechnica discussion list explains all of these reasons well, so I won't repeat them here...

Re:Improvements to GCC?

[__past__]

"Donating" the code back to the FSF? They pretty much have to release it under a GPL-compatible license anyway, if they don't plan to keep their improvements inhouse.

Apple (or probably rather NeXT, but who cares nowadays) already tried once to improve GCC without releasing their changes, esp. the Objective C support. Turned out not to be such a good idea.

Re:Improvements to GCC?

[cactopus]

This box -- i.e. even future inexpensive ones are really designed to be Itanium and Xeon killers in addition to Sparc killers. They're basically going to be priced in the 3G-10G range for quite a lot of 64 bit computing muscle and the ability to run AIX. When you outgrow them you can move to POWER4+ on pSeries quite smoothly. A trusted and proven architecture.

These are basically this generation's Alphas... but with a better market positioning and without Digital/Compaq/HP at the helm. (we all know their pilot is dead at the wheel)

Re:Improvements to GCC?

[Anonymous Coward]

FSF projects (including GCC) requires contributors to sign over their copyrights before any patch can be added to the mainline. This is to avoid IP issues such as with SCO & Linux.

Re:Improvements to GCC?

[WatertonMan]

As that post mentioned, Apple and IBM have the option of doing a fork. I'd personally be very surprised were Apple to not in the end do this.

Re:Improvements to GCC?

[WatertonMan]

The issue isn't whether they'd release changes to the FSF. The issue is what to do with changes that the FSF doesn't want.

It may well be that the changes that IBM and Apple want to do to gcc are such that it would violate the basic model and methadology that gcc is following. At that point IBM can simply stick with Visual Age, accept a flawed compiler, or go with a fork. Apple's in a bit more of a pickle due to not owning Visual Age. There are rumors floating around about a port of Visual Age for OSX. However the problem of obj-C and so forth makes me think that this wouldn't help Apple as much as many think. Also it is in IBM's Linux plans to have a good gcc to make porting easier. So I think both want gcc to be as good as possible.

Even if they make a fork, I think everyone using PPC chips would use the Apple/IBM fork. So, outside of some likely contention with FSF, I don't think this would really cause that many problems. And the benefits definitely outweight the costs. (Assuming FSF doesn't get too pissed)

Re:Improvements to GCC?

[Big Jason]

As a Sun fanatic, I must admit that the POWER architecture is pretty nice. AIX OTOH is a steaming piece of garbage, and I'd rather be a Wintel admin than have to deal with it again. Hell, HP-UX 9.0 would be a step up.

I really wish Sun would ditch the ailing SPARC line and adopt the POWER/PPC line.

Re:Improvements to GCC?

[Duncan3]

Yes, it is great. Unfortunately in the next couple questions he goes on to say that the underlying engine GCC uses is completely unable to deal with the complexities of the 970 and other deep and wide architectures.

So either GCC needs a serious reworking on a fundamental level, or more likely since it already exists, they will just release a separate compiler that doesn't suck.

I just hope they release the proprietary compiler for OS X sometime before the G5 hits. The 2-3x performance hit of GCC is really starting to hurt Apple, and piss off all the developers. If IBM only releases the good compiler for their OSs and Linux, they are effectively telling people that OS X is not welcome on the 970.

Noone seriously considers using gcc on x86 now that the Intel compiler is free (root beer). And frankly that alone makes AMD chips totally unattractive for a computation farm (that and the nuclear plant you need to power the things).

IBM needs to step up and do the same.

Re:Improvements to GCC?

[Jeremy Erwin]

They're basically going to be priced in the 3G-10G range for quite a lot of 64 bit computing muscle and the ability to run AIX.
Ah, now I see IBM's strategy. If you sell one computer for 3 gigadollars, you've basically earned enough money to pay off SCO's pesky $3 billion lawsuit.

Re:Improvements to GCC?

[Realistic_Dragon]

Yes, it is great. Unfortunately in the next couple questions he goes on to say that the underlying engine GCC uses is completely unable to deal with the complexities of the 970 and other deep and wide architectures.

It has been stated that GCC is attempting to be a 'good' solution for all architectres rather than the 'best' for any one. It's not incapable of adapting to be the best for the P970, but that would require a permanent fork from the general GCC code.

So either GCC needs a serious reworking on a fundamental level, or more likely since it already exists, they will just release a separate compiler that doesn't suck.

The advantage of using GCC is that developers can write with reasonable confidence for any platform with GCC available. I have done some heavy porting work between code written for TC/TCC and code written for GCC and it's no fun at all. By comparison code for GCC for PPC and x86 isn't that bad to chop and change.

Given the nature of Apple (who seem to like being able to use open source apps written for GCC) and IBM (who want Linux - developed for GCC - to compile on their boxes) I think they will prefer to optimise GCC as far as possible for the P970.

Given the competence of IBM and Apple programmers (especially the former) I suspect that they will do a pretty good job.

Re:Improvements to GCC?

[Duncan3]

It has been stated that GCC is attempting to be a 'good' solution for all architectres rather than the 'best' for any one. It's not incapable of adapting to be the best for the P970, but that would require a permanent fork from the general GCC code.

You mean, say, for example, if the Intel guys REALLY wanted a faster compiler for Intel, they could fork gcc into something else, lets call it egcs, and then, once the engine generated better (but not good compared to Intel's own compiler, or Microsoft's, or...) code just for Intel, they could suck the rest of gcc back into themselves and rename the result gcc.

Resulting in a gcc that works decent, for values of decent near bad, on Intel.

GREAT IDEA! You should patent that. Good luck with that Microsoft embrace and extend prior art ;)

I love gcc for it's portability, which is the whole point, but the resulting binaries are just so slow because of it.

Re:Improvements to GCC?

[Halo1]

Apple already has a fork. The gcc that comes with Mac OS X has some 30+ optimizations (both PPC-specific and generic) which aren't in FSF gcc, because FSF refused the patches. Apple does try to keep that kind of stuff at a minimum though, since it means more maintenance work for them as they have to merge those patches with every new gcc version and update them if necessary.

Re:Improvements to GCC?

[Carewolf]

Actually the intel compiler is an excellent compiler for AMD chips, so in that area it makes no difference. Also because of the number of x86 developers, gcc is a really good compiler on i386 (within 5-10% of icc), most people just dont know the right buttons to push.

The biggest problem for gcc is the confusing switches (I've still not seen a single benchmark use the aggresive optimization of gcc correctly) and the fact that it not really got onto the RISC movement and is basically still a CISC compiler at heart (trying to use as few registers as possible).

Re:Improvements to GCC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ack. Please shoot me before bringing HP-UX up again.

Intel

[gilesjuk]

Wonder how long it will be until Intel headhunt these guys?

Wouldn't be the first time

Link to story

Re:Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

You might have to see Intel set up offices in Burlington, Vermont first. They'd be following the lead of several other semiconductor firms poaching IBM talent in the Burlington area.

Re:Intel

[gilesjuk]

You'd think with all the talent at Intel that they could do something better than Itanium which has been described by Linus as a good design but not a real world design.

-1 sex starved windows troll (nt)

[jo_ham]

nt.

970 designers?

[PetWolverine]

That's a lot of designers! Are they planning on making the site look a little better?

The Clause Is There

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been there for a while. It is mentioned on the mac-on-linux pages.

Don't their mouthes get fuzzy?

[Qbertino]

I mean after interviewing 100 designers *my* voice would go hoarse. I suppose professional interviewers are a bit better. But 970 designers? Gee, my, that must be a long month of chittychat if you do an average of 30-40 interviews a day.

WE WILL MAKE THE WORLD BUY A COKE! OR ELSE!

[Anonymous Coward]

On a hilltop in Italy we assembled young people from all over the world to bring you this message from Coca-Cola Bottlers all over the world.
It's the real thing - Coke.
And they sang...

I'd like to buy the world a home / And furnish it with love / Grow apple trees and honey bees / And snow white turtle doves.

Chorus:
I'd like to teach the world to sing / In perfect harmony / I'd like to buy the world a Coke And keep it company / That's the real thing.

(Repeat chorus)
I'd like to teach the world to sing / In perfect harmony / I'd like to buy the world a Coke / And keep it company

That's the real thing

Chorus 2:
What the world wants today / Coca-Cola /(background) Is the real thing

(Repeat chorus 2)
What the world wants today / Coca-Cola /(background) Is the real thing

I'd like to teach the world to sing / Sing with me / (background) In perfect harmony / I'd like to buy the world a Coke / And keep it company / That's the real thing

(Repeat chorus)
I'd like to teach the world to sing / In perfect harmony / I'd like to buy the world a Coke / And keep it company / That's the real thing.

(Chorus 2)

What the world wants today / Coca-Cola / (background) Is the real thing

(Repeat chorus 2)
What the world wants today / Coca-Cola / (background) Is the real thing

Yes, and I was wondering

[SuperKendall]

how they managed a team of that size! It seemed like an awful lot of designers for one chip.

English!!

[starlabs]

OK, for a moment there I thought they actually interviewed NINE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY designers and engineers.

Next time, try using "970's designers".

*sigh*

Re:English!!

[Anonymous Coward]

next time read the comments before posting a comment that is so redundant it isn't even funny!

Re:English!!

[Z0mb1eman]

Ahh, but then people would try to make wisecracks about 70's designers, and/or complain about writing 970's instead of 1970's or just 70's...

Damned if you do, damned if you don't :)

Re:English!!

[Anonymous Coward]

But then that would sound too much like 1970's designers.

Hey hey hey. Anyone see my design of the Warp Pipe yet?

Yesiree, we've been beta-testin' it as wee speeeek. *hic --Excellent smoke retention.

Offtopic, I know....

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, I agree... Dude - that OP image kicks butt... ;) Thanks for the link!

Interview marathon

[darthaya]

Ars Technica Interviews 970 Designers, creating a new guinness world record.

Re:Interview marathon

[Anonymous Coward]

Most redundant. Comment. Ever.

All I have to say is...

[Anonymous Coward]

What a pain in the Ars.

Not to mention

[Space Coyote]

.. the Apple Network Server which ran AIX (!).

Another interview...

[arhines]

...you might be interested in is here. It's a pretty funny talk with Apple's Senior VP of Hardware.

" DMN: Now, you're saying it's the first 64-bit desktop machine. But isn't there an Opteron dual-processor machine? It shipped on June 4th. BOXX Technologies shipped it. It has an Opteron 244 in it.
Rubinstein: Uh...
Akrout: It's not a desktop.
DMN: That's a desktop unit.
Akrout: It depends on what you call a desktop, now. These... From a full desktop per se, this is the first one. I don't know how you really distinguish the other one as a desktop.
DMN: Well, it's a dual processor desktop machine, just like that one.
Akrout: It's not 64, then.
DMN: Yes, it's a 64-bit machine with two Opteron chips in it. It started shipping June 4th.
Akrout: That we'll double check, but in my mind, it wasn't. "

know whats really funny?

[Scudsucker]

The interviewer in question, Charlie White, is an asshole. BOXX is a small manufacturer of Opteron systems and its unlikely that many people have heard of them. If you were talking about a larger company, like HP, Dell, Gateway, hell even Acer, it probably would have been a different story. The best part though, is that the BOXX computers are marketed as graphical workstations, not desktops.

Re:know whats really funny?

[90XDoubleSide]

There's also the issue of price... spec out a 3DBoxx with the same drives as the G5 and dual Opterons and you're looking at $4,500. Now, I don't know where the line between PC and workstation is, and the $3K G5 might be over it too, but at least you can pick up G5s starting at $1,800.

Re:know whats really funny?

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

So is the HP XW4100, which is really just a single P4 processor system with a standard Canterwood board - the same things you could find in a PC at Best Buy.

There really isn't a difference between a "workstation" and a "desktop" anymore.

Also, it doesn't matter if "anyone has heard of them". Apple is claiming that they have created the world's first 64-bit personal computer. It is extremely arguable that BOXX's 64-bit Opteron system for around $2200 is a personal computer. It has AGP, it comes in a desktop box. It's clearly not intended as a server.

From m-w.com:

"Personal Computer: a general-purpose computer equipped with a microprocessor and designed to run especially commercial software (as a word processor or World Wide Web browser) for an individual user"

So, the BOXX system is general purpose (you can play games, surf the net, edit photos, do music, and a lot more - hell, it's standard IA-32 compatible). It is designed to run commercial software too, Office + Internet Explorer + Windows is about as commercial as you can get. It has a microprocessor too. And it's designed for an individual user as well (not a server).

So, the BOXX system is a "personal computer". It's $2200. And it has 64 bit Opterons.

Re:know whats really funny?

[TheNetAvenger]

Charlie White, is an asshole. BOXX is a small manufacturer of Opteron systems

Ok, that clears it all up, since he is an asshole, then the Opteron machines that 'various' small manufacturers have released no longer exist. Poof, magic of an asshole reviewer can do miracles. Geesh.

BTW, considering market share, wouldn't Apple be considered a 'small manufacturer'? Hmm...

Get over it, the G5 is not, and will not be the first 64bit Desktop Computer. Additionally, Panther isn't even a 64bit OS, so where do all those 64bit benefits go?

WindowsXP for Itanium (Both a real 64bit OS, and a real 64bit processor) have been available for over a year now, in fact I think WindowsXP 64, is approaching its two year release date.

Apple is SO innovative (with marketing maybe)....

Give me a break...............

Re:know whats really funny?

[Lars T.]

BTW, considering market share, wouldn't Apple be considered a 'small manufacturer'? Hmm...

Ten bucks that Apple will sell more G5s in the first week than BOXX will sell computers ever.

Re:know whats really funny?

[Scudsucker]

Give me a break...

How about giving you a clue instead?

Ok, that clears it all up, since he is an asshole, then the Opteron machines that 'various' small manufacturers have released no longer exist. Poof, magic of an asshole reviewer can do miracles. Geesh.

Go read Charlie's commentary on Apple's announcement of the G5. To sum it up: you could order an Opteron from some small no-name manufacturer at the time of the announcement, and Apple didn't use the bestest best PC SPEC numbers obtained with a highly optimized compilers for the comparisons, therefore Jobs is a sniviling, slimy liar. He also grumples about how Apple was being a PR whore, and that AMD has "considerably more credibility than Apple", ignoring the fact that AMD markets its chips with some made up number, rather than how man megahertz it has. So yes, Charlie White is still an asshole.

BTW, considering market share, wouldn't Apple be considered a 'small manufacturer'? Hmm...

What an ignorant thing to say. Rather than comparing Apple's marketshare against ALL pc manufacturers COMBINED, why not compare Apple to Dell or HP? Not to mention the fact that they're one of the few companies that hasn't lost scads of money since the bubble burst. Saying Apple is a 'small manufacturer' would be like saying Honda has a small marketshare compared to Ford, GM, Daimler-Chrysler, Toyota, etc etc combined.

Get over it, the G5 is not, and will not be the first 64bit Desktop Computer.

They never said desktop computer, they said personal computer. If you check out the BOXX website, all their systems are built and marketed as either workstations or as rendering nodes. So unless BOXX starts selling to the consumer market by August or Dell throws some Opterons in their Dimension series, Apple will have a perfectly legit claim to have the first 64 bit personal computer.

WindowsXP for Itanium (Both a real 64bit OS, and a real 64bit processor) have been available for over a year now, in fact I think WindowsXP 64, is approaching its two year release date.

In no way could the Itaniums currently be considered for personal computers. But hey, if you want to buy an Itanium for a lot more money that will perform far more slowly than a P4 or an Athlon, be my guest. And I wonder why it would take Microsoft so long to release a 64 bit version of XP, considering they had NT running on Alphas, PowerPC's and I think Sparcs as well.

Apple is SO innovative (with marketing maybe)....

I don't see where the sarcasm applies, since Apple has innovated far more than Linux and Microsoft combined. The only company that could compete with Apple for the title of Most Innovated Computer Company, Ever would be IBM.

Re:know whats really funny?

[Scudsucker]

So, the BOXX system is a "personal computer". It's $2200. And it has 64 bit Opterons.

As you say, workstation/personal computer mostly boils down to semantics, but I think a distinction can still be made. A workstation has some additional horsepower than an ordinary desktop would not - whether its multiple processors or i/o, it has some kind of specilization that sets it apart. While they might have similar specs, the difference between BOXX and Apple is that Apple is making the G5 to be a high end personal computer while BOXX is making systems to be used as graphical workstations or as rendering nodes.

One last thing seperating workstations from PC's is price - and a dual Opteron from BOXX with the same features as a G5 will cost you over $1,000 more.

Re:know whats really funny?

[TheNetAvenger]

Ten bucks that Apple will sell more G5s in the first week than BOXX will sell computers ever

Maybe, but PC users don't look at 'vendors'; they look at products from MANY vendors. - Which somehow seems to be a foreign concept to Mac zealots.

How about let's bet ten bucks there have been more AMD 64bit desktop computers sold & shipped before ANY Apple 64bit Desktop is ever sold & shipped...

Additionally, I will also put 10 bucks that by the end of August there will be more 64bit Desktop AMD systems sold & actually shipped (by various manufacturers) than all of Apples G5s.

Re:know whats really funny?

[TheNetAvenger]

In no way could the Itaniums currently be considered for personal computers. But hey, if you want to buy an Itanium for a lot more money that will perform far more slowly than a P4 or an Athlon, be my guest. And I wonder why it would take Microsoft so long to release a 64 bit version of XP, considering they had NT running on Alphas, PowerPC's and I think Sparcs as well.

How do you get that it TOOK SO LONG for Windows XP 64bit edition to ship? It was released only a month or two after Windows XP was released back in 2001? Where have you been?

Two months from the major release is really not 'considered a long time', especially considering that the final manufacturing Itanium CPUS were just becoming available.

In addition it WAS THE Professional 'desktop' version of WindowsXP for PERSONAL computers, not a server version. So sweep the idea that it was not meant for personal computer use out the window, ok.

How about giving you a clue instead?

I love these posts, people are so quick to jump into a post to 'enlighten' everyone, and they don't have a clue about what they are even talking about.

I am not going to debate whether Charlie White is an asshole or not, it has NOTHING to do with the issue. He was correct in pointing out that even if they are only several 'small' manufacturers, that there are already PERSONAL computers shipping with 64bit CPUS, and even Dual 64bit Cpu configurations that DO cost less than what Apple is offering.

If you want to believe the Apple lie that they are 'the great innovator and the first to do this or that, then pledge allegiance to them and admit it, but if you want to look at the real world, THEY ARE NOT.

Considering how portable the whole *nix world is (Panther's roots) it is AMAZING that Apple won't even have a 64bit OS for the machines when they ship, or anytime in the near future. People will be dropping a 64bit version of Linux on them before Apple even has their own 64bit OS.

It would be nice for the applications to have access to not only the additional data pipelines, but the 64bit addressing and be able to access at minimal 512GB of RAM using 48bit addressing in the CPU instead of the big 8GB Apple touts as if it is supposed to be impressive.

Dual Processor 32bit x86 systems have employed 36bit addressing for SEVERAL years now, allowing OSes like Win2k to access 64GB of RAM on dual processor machines.

Geesh Apple, what are you thinking? And it is embarrassing that they are touting 8GB of RAM access as a superior feature.

WindowsXP for Intanium (The Personal Computer DESKTOP version - that has been shipping since 2001, even supports 16GB of RAM. Funny Apple couldn't even keep up with a two year old Microsoft OS.

I don't see where the sarcasm applies, since Apple has innovated far more than Linux and Microsoft combined. The only company that could compete with Apple for the title of Most Innovated Computer Company, Ever would be IBM.

You have to be kidding right? It took them over 10 years to even offer Mac users an OS that was not tied to the System OS underpinnings with its poor memory management, and lack of simple things like pre-emptive multitasking. I am so amazed at new OSX users when they are happy to be able to play MP3s, browse the Net and run other tasks without the Music skipping... DO you NOT realize that NT has been like that since 1993?

As for other 'Apple' innovations, I could go on all day but just don't have the time.

Here take a couple of QUICK examples of 'innovations' that YOU use on almost any OS, EVEN a Mac that was designed by Microsoft and CHANGED the way users worked forever.

#1.) Highlight a word or sentence in your word processor, then click on the toolbar to change its Font or alignment. Guess, what, this is a Microsoft innovation from the mid 1980 designed by the Microsoft Word team. The concept is called - 'Selected and Modify' (Also look up highlighted spell check, and almost 120 other inn

Re:know whats really funny?

[Scudsucker]

How do you get that it TOOK SO LONG for Windows XP 64bit edition to ship?

I took "two year release date" to mean that it was due two years after the regular XP, not that it had been out for two years. But hey, feel free to harp on this small point endlessly, you'd make Charlie proud.

I love these posts, people are so quick to jump into a post to 'enlighten' everyone, and they don't have a clue about what they are even talking about.

Funny you should say that....

He was correct in pointing out that even if they are only several 'small' manufacturers, that there are already PERSONAL computers shipping with 64bit CPUS

Really? Show me some. I couldn't find any at Dell, Acer, Gateway, Sony, HP or IBM. And don't be half-assed like Charlie, go find an Opteron system that is actually targeted for the consumer pc market and isn't a bare bones box.

You have to be kidding right? It took them over 10 years to even offer Mac users an OS that was not tied to the System OS underpinnings with its poor memory management, and lack of simple things like pre-emptive multitasking.

The buzzwords were the easy part, my friend. The hard part was comming up with a feasible migration path so developers wouldn't have to rewrite all of their applications from scratch. You must really hate using x86 with all the cruft thats been kicking around in there for over 20 years.

As for other 'Apple' innovations, I could go on all day but just don't have the time.

I would say you're lazy, but thats just me.

Highlight a word or sentence in your word processor, then click on the toolbar to change its Font or alignment.

Woo! Thats pretty earth shattering! But are you SURE that concept was actually thought up by Microsoft? The list of 'Microsoft inventions' that were actually thought up by other companies is pretty long, such as how DOS wasn't written from scratch by Microsoft, they bought it from somebody else, the 3-button mouse that was invented by somebody else, and the sub pixel rendering of Clear Type that was done a couple of decades previously on the Apple II.

From things like the Client/Server Kernel to the Object and Token Based Security System that is at the heart of NT. THINGS THAT STILL ARE NOT IN ANY *nix or other OS.

And it was so successful at keeping NT bug and exploit free!

If you want to believe the Apple lie that they are 'the great innovator and the first to do this or that, then pledge allegiance to them and admit it, but if you want to look at the real world, THEY ARE NOT.

Hey, its a free country, belive whatever you want. There's probably a flat-earther colony somewhere in the US, you'd feel right at home there.

Well for one thing thats a hack. From the IA-32 Intel Architecture Software Developer s Manual:

1. A program or task cannot address locations in this address space directly. Instead it addresses individuallinear address spaces of up to 4 GBytes that are mapped to the larger 64-GByte physical address space through the processor s virtual memory management mechanism. A program can switch between linear address spaces within this 64-GByte physical address space by changing segment selectors in the segment registers. The use of extended physical addressing requires the processor to operate in protected mode and the operating system to provide a virtual memory management system.

For another thing, how many of those 36 bit Intel systems started out at $2,000?

Considering how portable the whole *nix world is (Panther's roots) it is AMAZING that Apple won't even have a 64bit OS for the machines when they ship, or anytime in the near future.

The whole thing doesn't have to be 64 bit, it only has to allow 64 bit programs to use that much memory.

There are some really 'smart' things that have come from Apple, but to say that they 'innovated' the whole computer UI marke

Re:know whats really funny?

[TheNetAvenger]

I apologize for replying to you, I mistakenly assumed you were not a bloviating troll...

However, I did enjoy your last post; it was quite a demonstration of your lack of perspective and knowledge. I couldn't have tried to discredit you myself better than you were able to do so with your own words.

Re:know whats really funny?

[Scudsucker]

"Trolls" don't use hard facts to back their points up. Please, allow me to translate your post: I whipped out a big old pile of hard evidence that Apple has been a huge force of innovation in the computing industry, but rather than take the time to make a reasoned reply with "perspective and knowledge", you just declare victory and try to walk away. I don't think so. Far from "discrediting" me, you are merely intellectually lazy.

Re:know whats really funny?

[Lars T.]

Well, I'd be willing to bet $10 that 1000>0 too. But wait - if we count units shipped to developers, the G5s probably already outnumbers AMD 64bit desktops.

Re:know whats really funny?

[TheNetAvenger]

Well, I'd be willing to bet $10 that 1000>0 too. But wait - if we count units shipped to developers, the G5s probably already outnumbers AMD 64bit desktops.

Even one of my independant companies has shipped several hundred dual processor Opteron systems.

If you think Apple is GOD and can do no wrong, just live with it, quit trying to make excuses...

As I said before, I actually like Apple, but their marketing likes to stretch the truth too much.

Re:know whats really funny?

[TheNetAvenger]

Trolls" don't use hard facts to back their points up. Please, allow me to translate your post: I whipped out a big old pile of hard evidence that Apple has been a huge force of innovation in the computing industry, but rather than take the time to make a reasoned reply with "perspective and knowledge", you just declare victory and try to walk away. I don't think so. Far from "discrediting" me, you are merely intellectually lazy.

Some people work and aren't 15 year olds living with mom. I'm glad you have the luxury of time.

However, I will prepare a response for your last post, even though there is so much CRAP in it, it will not be a quick response.

Re:know whats really funny?

[TheNetAvenger]

I took "two year release date" to mean that it was due two years after the regular XP, not that it had been out for two years. But hey, feel free to harp on this small point endlessly, you'd make Charlie proud.

Considering you couldn't even read the wording in the post and figure out what was said, says something in and of itself. Secondly, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you WOULD HAVE KNOWN that WindowsXP 64bit edition had been shipping since 2001. Almost everyone else here, and most people in the world seem to know this, so if you have such great understanding, even if you mis-read the post, you would have known better.

He was correct in pointing out that even if they are only several 'small' manufacturers, that there are already PERSONAL computers shipping with 64bit CPUS

Really? Show me some. I couldn't find any at Dell, Acer, Gateway, Sony, HP or IBM. And don't be half-assed like Charlie, go find an Opteron system that is actually targeted for the consumer pc market and isn't a bare bones box.

Like I said before the PC market is not just made up of Large Vendors. You would be surprised to know that close to 50% of PCs sold are made by small OEM companies and not just LARGE vendors. Unlike Mac users, PC users are not tied to BIG vendors and are an OPEN SYSTEM that can be designed and sold by many small companies. Just because the specific company that Charlie referenced is small is more of a reflection that many PC are sold by SMALL companies and just just DELL, Gateway or the other Manufacturers listed.

Even one of my independent computer companies has been shipping Opteron based systems for quite some time as well.

Get your head out of the BIG NAME only thoughts. They are not the ONLY players in the market. When our company designed systems for the government, and even the pentagon, we put in our own CUSTOM branded servers, not something from a large vendor.

This is the power of not being locked into a proprietary hardware and software offering from one vendor like Apple.

Got it yet?

You have to be kidding right? It took them over 10 years to even offer Mac users an OS that was not tied to the System OS underpinnings with its poor memory management, and lack of simple things like pre-emptive multitasking.

The buzzwords were the easy part, my friend. The hard part was comming up with a feasible migration path so developers wouldn't have to rewrite all of their applications from scratch. You must really hate using x86 with all the cruft thats been kicking around in there for over 20 years.

That is why Microsoft designed WindowsNT, it has NO allegiance to any architecture. If you had any knowledge, you would have known that version 4.0 of NT shipped for RISC, Alpha, and EVEN Power PC based computers.

Additionally, with the 'legacy' free PC specifications, what you consider the 'cruft' (not even a word) of the x86 architecture is NOT really a part of the current PC. There was this thing called legacy free PC specifications designed by Microsoft and several hardware vendors that eliminated the 'antiquated' pieces of the x86 system.

For example, the Laptop I am using today, is a 'Legacy Free' PC architecture, it has NO Serial, Parallel ports or controllers, as well it has does not have any ISA bus architecture, nor does it have any of the 'restricting' controllers that the 'older architectures' of the x86 systems were limited by.

Just because the main CPU itself supports the basic x86 instruction set, in NO way defines the chipsets of the computer itself.

You need a Computer Architecture 101 class bad.

Woo! Thats pretty earth shattering! But are you SURE that concept was actually thought up by Microsoft? The list of 'Microsoft inventions' that were actually thought up by other companies is pretty long, such as how DOS wasn't written from scratch by Microsoft, they bought it from somebody else, the 3-button mouse that was in

Another Apple Interview

[heli0]

From Digit Media Online

DMN: Now, you're saying it's the first 64-bit desktop machine. But isn't there an Opteron dual-processor machine? It shipped on June 4th. BOXX Technologies shipped it. It has an Opteron 244 in it.

Rubinstein: Uh...

Akrout: It's not a desktop.

DMN: That's a desktop unit.

Akrout: It depends on what you call a desktop, now. These... From a full desktop per se, this is the first one. I don't know how you really distinguish the other one as a desktop.

DMN: Well, it's a dual processor desktop machine, just like that one.

Akrout: It's not 64, then.

DMN: Yes, it's a 64-bit machine with two Opteron chips in it. It started shipping June 4th.

Akrout: That we'll double check, but in my mind, it wasn't.

Waitaminute...

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Apple, the G5 is the fastest desktop computer in the world, as well as the first 64-bit desktop system. Something doesn't sit right with me, though. Aside from the nigh-universal ranting about skewed benchmarks that has been circulating recently, there's another aspect the Power Mac G5 not many have touched upon.

Mac OS X is a 32-bit operating system, and since the PowerPC 970 is a 64-bit chip, Mac OS X will effectively be running at 800, 900, and 1,000MHz in the new Power Macs. Not 1.6, 1.8, and 2.0GHz as Apple claims. Let's stick to the specs and stats and look a little deeper into this problem.

Mac OS 10.0 debuted in March 2001. By October 2001 it was superseded by Mac OS 10.1. which optimized the code in the operating system for G3 and G4 chips-- until this point, a lot of the components in the operating system still had optimizations for PowerPC 603 and 604 models.

Apple continued this trend with Jaguar, a.k.a. Mac OS 10.2, by deleting all source code pertaining to the 60x family. In doing so, they were finally able to push the system to its limits with Velocity Engine tweaks. Try installing Jaguar on a G2 system-- it just can't happen. Now, however, with the 970, Apple is in a different pickle.

One just can't scale an operating system to 64-bit mode on a whim. In two months we have the G5 systems shipping to consumers, with an operating system that will half the clock since it can't use half the bits of the chip it will run on! There will be a gap of four months between the 64-bit G5 ships and the 64-bit-friendly Panther, a.k.a. Mac OS 10.3, arrives.

Tell me, Mac users, what are we going to do in the meantime? This is worse than when Apple downgraded the speed on their Power Mac G4 systems while keeping the prices the same. Your new G5 system will run at half clock!

I wouldn't pay $3,000 for year 2000 performance. Apple better have something marvelous up their sleeve during what I like to call this four-month "bits drought" we're all facing. Otherwise, I'll be planting my foot firmly in their ass, and so should you.

Re:Waitaminute...

[MikeMo]

You are *so* wrong.

1) There is no relationship of the "bitness" of an OS to the MHz of the processor. Clearly, you are an informed dickhead who thinks that MHz is a speedometer, not a tachometer.

2) Jaguar *can* be installed on a G2. I have a machine right here under my desk...in fact, it's an old Mac clone built by PowerComputing. The thing that prevents Jaguar from installing on G2's is the boot rom -- and there are ways around it.

3) There is no real difference between the 60x instruction set and the G3/G4 instruction set. They did not "delete" that stuff. They added new code that takes advantage of the Altivec in the G4.

4) There is no "nigh-universal ranting" about "skewed" benchmarks -- there's a lot of support for them, and a lot of concern over them, but it's not universal.

In other words, STFU until you get a clue.

Re:Waitaminute...

[Anonymous Coward]

2) Jaguar *can* be installed on a G2. I have a machine right here under my desk...in fact, it's an old Mac clone built by PowerComputing. The thing that prevents Jaguar from installing on G2's is the boot rom -- and there are ways around it.

3) There is no real difference between the 60x instruction set and the G3/G4 instruction set. They did not "delete" that stuff. They added new code that takes advantage of the Altivec in the G4.

From the source itself:

XPostFacto 2.2 works with Mac OS X 10.2, aka Jaguar (as well as previous versions of Mac OS X). There are a couple of issues with Jaguar on unsupported systems. The most serious is that Jaguar simply does not work with the 603 or 604 processor--it will only work if you have a G3 or G4 upgrade installed. It may be possible to fix this eventually

Re:Waitaminute...

[thisgooroo]

you should have waited a minute before posting this::

Aside from the nigh-universal ranting about skewed benchmarks that has been circulating recently, there's another aspect the Power Mac G5 not many have touched upon.

benchmarking is an art where you can twist anything that you can get the tresults you want. OSnews recently had an article comparing powerpc and x86 architecture. he also made a few remarks about the dispute about this benchmark dispute: he seems to think that apple's figures are more realistic as far as a normal user is concerned (not having looked at either benchmark, i can't offer an opinion, but from the reasons he gave, it's at least credible).

Mac OS X is a 32-bit operating system, and since the PowerPC 970 is a 64-bit chip, Mac OS X will effectively be running at 800, 900, and 1,000MHz in the new Power Macs. Not 1.6, 1.8, and 2.0GHz as Apple claims. Let's stick to the specs and stats and look a little deeper into this problem.

this is absolute nonsense. the hardware still is 64 bits and runs at the stated speed. it's only that most programs will perform integer operatins on 32 bit date, not really a big deal in most cases.

One just can't scale an operating system to 64-bit mode on a whim

i suspect what apple is planning is to gradually move the system to 64 bits. the first step will be to enable applicatoions running in 64 bit mode, and you should be able to see that very soon (if it isn't there yet)

In two months we have the G5 systems shipping to consumers, with an operating system that will half the clock since it can't use half the bits of the chip it will run on!

no offense, but this is absolute crap. please tell us what you are smoking. it must be pretty potent stuff. alternatively, you might consider getting a clue before postin

Re:Waitaminute...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir.

Please post instructions on how to install Jaguar on G2 Macintosh systems.

Thank you.

Re:Waitaminute...

[dmdimon]

It's installer that tells you that you can't install Jag on that hardware - at first It's incompatibility with default initialisation of HD controller on 8500-8600 like machines AFAIK Both causes are resolvable. First I can and did by myself, second-like was done by time of G3 upgrades

Re:Waitaminute...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir.

Please post instructions on how to install Jaguar on G2 Macintosh systems.

Thank you.

Re:Waitaminute...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir.

Please post instructions on how to install Jaguar on G2 Macintosh systems.

Thank you.

Re:Waitaminute...

[dmdimon]

No way

1. While I'm doing it for my own interest on my own Mac - it's ok. When I'll redistribute this to public - I can be sued in many ways.

2. in 9.2 times when full installer does not work, individual installers still works on same Mac

3. Did Jag, pre-installed on compatible Mac, worked on target Mac?

4. Do you know what Resourcerer/ResEdit, The Fragmalyzer and Carbon Copy Cloner is?

5. If what I said already is not enough for you - you can't do it by yourself.

Re:Waitaminute...

[Anonymous Coward]

2. Yes, familiar with this.
3. What!?
4. Yes.
5. ???
6. PROFIT!!!

Re:Waitaminute...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir.

Please email me the instructions.

Thank you.

Re:Waitaminute...

[dmdimon]

To clean-up p.3:

Install 10.2 on ANY compatible with it Mac.
Get that HD and set it to target "incompatible with 10.2" Mac.
Take off ALL unnecessary cards and periferia. All HD, mouse, modem/network, scsi, video (use onboard), etc.
Will it boot in some way? Normal, shifted, single-user?
What it says if no? On which stage?
Have you possibilities to remote debug that?
Have you possibilities to try to use alternate kernel loader?
Alternate debugger?
Have you looked into source of stuff that hunged booting?
Have you looked into source of same stuff (inits of memory/pci) from Motorola docs?

on p.5: I did it on one partial Mac. I almost sure that my way will not work for you (or anybody else). In addition, it was not some kind of algorithm - more like shamaning-voodooing. Sorry, but I just can't show here step by step solution (for Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24, @12:52PM (#6523034)).
Instead I tried to point places where you can find the way to do that - and I not recommend to do that - it will work WERY slow on that Macs, in will be inexpectedly, inpredictably buggy, and I don't know will it still work after software update session.
I personally can't see any practical reason to do that, I did it coase I had time and interest. I looked once and saw that old system is far more practical on old Mac. OS X on old machines is plain unusable.

So, I will not do it again. For other partial config of Mac with other partial config of PCI cards etc., which I even not own.
And so, you have to do that by yourself on your Mac.
And "If what I said already is not enough for you - you can't do it by yourself"

to p.6 - honour is mine ;)

P.S. Keep in mind - english is my 3-rd lang, so may be I'm not as clean as I wish and may be I can't strictly understand you

Re:Waitaminute...

[dmdimon]

Install 10.2 on ANY compatible with it Mac.
Get that HD and set it to target "incompatible with 10.2" Mac.
Take off ALL unnecessary cards and periferia. All HD, mouse, modem/network, scsi, video (use onboard), etc.
Will it boot in some way? Normal, shifted, single-user?
What it says if no? On which stage?
Have you possibilities to remote debug that?
Have you possibilities to try to use alternate kernel loader?
Alternate debugger?
Have you looked into source of stuff that hunged booting?
Have you looked into source of same stuff (inits of memory/pci controller of your old Mac, 99.5% sure if it will not boot as single user) from Motorola docs?
Into source of same stuff from Linux build that that works on your Mac?

Do you really think that anybody will do it with your Mac remotely?
Only you, by your own brain and hands.

GCC

[eadint]

So whats the deal.
1) would it be possible to fork GCC so that it is completely optimized for the 970, if this is possible than GCC will be a good compiler.
2) from personal experience GCC sucks, its inefficient and wastes cycles, borland or Solarises compilers beat the crap out of GCC on their respective platforms. so when is apple going to have a highly optimized 970 based compiler that will make x86 whine in the corner after being raped, and made to look like the bad market whore that it is.
3) if a GCC970 can be separated, optimized and made into a special compiler, than well have something t talk about.

Re:GCC

[thisgooroo]

2) from personal experience GCC sucks, its inefficient and wastes cycles, borland or Solarises compilers beat the crap out of GCC on their respective platforms. so when is apple going to have a highly optimized 970 based compiler that will make x86 whine in the corner after being raped, and made to look like the bad market whore that it is.

IBM has a very good optimizing compiler for the PoerPC (xlc, aka VisualC++). i believe it's available for macs

Re:GCC

[eadint]

do they have a c version of this?

Re:GCC

[Anonymous Coward]

how else would they compile AIX?

You are the asshole.

[Anonymous Coward]

You cocksucking faggot.

Re:You are the asshole.

[Scudsucker]

Hey Charlie, I didn't know you read Slashdot!

Alpha platform

[Anonymous Coward]

I get sick and tired of non-enlightened computer users knocking a modern (Alpha) architecture just because the company selling them didn't price them low enough for use in the present.

The Alpha's problem was shitty marketing. When the marketers couldn't think of somthing better to market than "It is the Windows NT dream workstation", there was a problem... People didn't buy it because it was too expensive, and in-turn the numerous companies (Samsung, API Networks, IBM, Penguin Computing, DEC) selling the hardware would only raise the price to make-up for low sales (2% market share). The result: an architecture 3 years more advanced than anything Intel and Sun could put out, combined, stuck in a prison of Federal Reserve Notes. Alpha burned. It's followers were the IT technologists that held onto them when their companies upgraded to even better Alphas. You know a Good Thing(TM) when it is tossed in the dumpster for an upgrade, and performs 2x faster than the latest Pentium3 out-of-box-trashcan.

To make a short story shorter, there is a growing intelect repository on the Alpha architecture. Some people want to purchase the patents from Intel and AMD, in order to open-source the Alpha architecture in favor of a 100% open-source computing platform. This will work wonders; 64bit clean architecture, consistent instruction set, wonderfuly optimized native C compiler for Linux.

As of note, someone on LinuxGames or HappyPenguin was talking about a homebrew dual Alpha (ev5/6/7?) based PDA. Would'nt that rock? Open-source arch, PDA-sized modules, SMP, portable; what more can you ask other than some good power managment support? Well, I dunno about low-power; the purpose of the project is portability and small-size super-computing on a 100% free and 100% documented architecture. Remember, a mere 400MHz Alpha ev6 out-performs a Pentium4 at 2000MHz as well as a mere old-school Alpha ev5 out-powerforms a Pentium3 1000MHz; and Alpha ev5 and ev6 are still ontop of a 100MHz BUS!

Alpha rocks!

Alpha Platform..

[Anonymous Coward]

I get sick and tired of non-enlightened computer users knocking a modern (Alpha) architecture just because the company selling them didn't price them low enough for use in the present.

The Alpha's problem was shitty marketing. When the marketers couldn't think of somthing better to market than "It is the Windows NT dream workstation", there was a problem... People didn't buy it because it was too expensive, and in-turn the numerous companies (Samsung, API Networks, IBM, Penguin Computing, DEC) selling the hardware would only raise the price to make-up for low sales (2% market share). The result: an architecture 3 years more advanced than anything Intel and Sun could put out, combined, stuck in a prison of Federal Reserve Notes. Alpha burned. It's followers were the IT technologists that held onto them when their companies upgraded to even better Alphas. You know a Good Thing(TM) when it is tossed in the dumpster for an upgrade, and performs 2x faster than the latest Pentium3 out-of-box-trashcan.

To make a short story shorter, there is a growing intelect repository on the Alpha architecture. Some people want to purchase the patents from Intel and AMD, in order to open-source the Alpha architecture in favor of a 100% open-source computing platform. This will work wonders; 64bit clean architecture, consistent instruction set, wonderfuly optimized native C compiler for Linux.

As of note, someone on LinuxGames or HappyPenguin was talking about a homebrew dual Alpha (ev5/6/7?) based PDA. Would'nt that rock? Open-source arch, PDA-sized modules, SMP, portable; what more can you ask other than some good power managment support? Well, I dunno about low-power; the purpose of the project is portability and small-size super-computing on a 100% free and 100% documented architecture. Remember, a mere 400MHz Alpha ev6 out-performs a Pentium4 at 2000MHz as well as a mere old-school Alpha ev5 out-powerforms a Pentium3 1000MHz; and Alpha ev5 and ev6 are still ontop of a 100MHz BUS!

Alpha rocks!

Re:Waitaminute... solution!

[dmdimon]

Go there:
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo /macosx/ 11168

utility name is XPostFacto