Apple to Use Intel Chips?

Does this mean - by thewldisntenuff · 2005-05-23 01:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

We'll see Mac OS X - x86 anytime soon?

Re:Does this mean - by Ylleks · 2005-05-23 01:29 · Score: 0, Redundant

Going out on a limb here: yes.
Re:Does this mean - by southpolesammy · 2005-05-23 01:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

More likely it will mean that you'll see better pricing on PowerPC-based Macs in the future.

--
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Re:Does this mean - by rovingeyes · 2005-05-23 01:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Good point. But is Apple a software company or a hardware company? If OS X-86 come out then they have to dedicate an entire department for that. Not that Apple cannot afford it, but if they are really a hardware company, it really is not lucrative enough and not to mention inheriting all the troubles of x86 world.
Re:Does this mean - by taskforce · 2005-05-23 01:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

It was rumoured a while back that Apple had an x86 internal build of OS X. It's not unlikely becuase of it's FreeBSD roots that it was part of the development cycle at least for the early versions of OS X. (I don't see why they would continue to develop the later versions on x86 if they wheren't planning this all along)

--
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
Re:Does this mean - by selderrr · 2005-05-23 01:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

I seriously doubt it. Right now, Intel is not really leading he pack in processor terms. All you hear about these days is IBM (both PS3 and XBox360 are IBM powered) and AMD on the 64bit front. With OSX being the most widely spread 64bit consumer OS, I can hardly believe Apple switching to the least-represented CPU manufacturer.

If anything, they could perhaps use some non-x86 intel stuff for portables devices where the PPC sucks up too much power. Remember that Intel is more than only x86

--
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
Re:Does this mean - by oudzeeman · 2005-05-23 01:32 · Score: 1

Darwin compiles on x86, so it's a matter of porting Aqua, Cocoa, Carbon, Quartz...
Re:Does this mean - by Oculus+Habent · 2005-05-23 01:32 · Score: 5, Informative

This could be the same tactic Dell uses with Intel... "We could go with AMD, but about those prices..."

Cheaper because of Intel? I doubt it. Even if Apple does start using x86 - or more likely x86-64 - they would still likely use their own controller chips (Note that Apple uses a single, integrated controller rather than a north/southbridge approach) and custom boards.

It's not impossible that Apple will switch to Intel processors. We already know they keep a copy of the OS up to date on Intel hardware, and even released Darwin x86. The problems come from all the things they would leave behind:

Compatibility - The PowerPC architecture emulates x86 better than the other way 'round. To keep from eliminating all old software with one fell swoop, they would need to emulate PowerPC. This would cause old software to run like death.

VMX - Much of Apple's current power comes from the AltiVec/VMX/Velocity Engine available on the G4 & G5 processors. It is what offers Apple serious performance benefits in certain applications, and makes possible many of the near/realtime capbilities in programs like iPhoto, iMovie, and even Final Cut Pro. Unless Intel tacks on a VMX unit, I don't see Apple switching.

Maybe a dual-processor system: one PowerPC and one Intel? Not likely, I grant you.

--
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Re:Does this mean - by JWW · 2005-05-23 01:34 · Score: 1

That the ticket. A lot of handhelds have intel chips running them.

That what this is about. The is another Apple handheld coming!!!
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

The thing that sets Apple apart from all other companies in this area is that they aren't just a hardware company or a software company. They are both. Most people buy the hardware because of the excellent software they offer on top. It's the combined experience that makes their hardware stand above the rest.
Re:Does this mean - by /ASCII · 2005-05-23 01:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Apple may be planning on using Intel network cards. Or maybe one of intels hardware raid chips. Flash memories, Cellular processors, wireless chips are al possible. But processors? I doubt it.

--
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
Re:Does this mean - by diegocgteleline.es · 2005-05-23 01:35 · Score: 1

You already can use darwin (kernel, basic system utilities) in your x86.

Here's a link for x86 darwin - inside the apple site
Re:Does this mean - by defy+god · 2005-05-23 01:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

safari, iWork, final cut, iCal, iChat, iTunes, iMovie, iDVD (not to mention the PRO versions), MS office (yeah, right..), Photoshop, Illustrator.. okay.. you get the point.

--
hackers of the world unite!
Re:Does this mean - by /ASCII · 2005-05-23 01:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

My guess is they really are planning on using Intel chips - just not processors. Remember, Intel produces wireless chips, Flash memory, Ethernet chips, and Salt and Vinegar chips.

--
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
Re:Does this mean - by garcia · 2005-05-23 01:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

This has been discussed before. Apple uses their x86 kernel as leverage against MSFT so that there is still Office for OS X.

The second that Apple moves into the market with OS X for x86, MSFT is going to pull Office and render OS X basically useless compared to Windows. Yeah, there are open alternatives that sorta work but in the real world people want to use what they are comfortable with. Unfortunately that's Office.

MSFT knows that if they pulled Office for OS X that Apple could easily release OS X for x86 and enter a new competitor into the OS market.
Re:Does this mean - by Shisha · 2005-05-23 01:41 · Score: 0

On Intel they have SSE, MMX etc. units. Sure some software would need optimization.... but the Velocity Engine is not _that_ unique. Apple did a good job marketing it (clearly).

As for emulation, I'd think that Apple won't bother with that at all and use fat binaries instead. (they'd be quite fat if they're to include old 32-bit powerPC code, 64-bit powerPC code and x86 code as well... but it does not matter, disk space is cheap and binaries are usually less than 50% of an application anyway).
Re:Does this mean - by squiggleslash · 2005-05-23 01:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

You'd be surprised how architecturally different Apple's regular offerings are from one another. I believe even Apple's latest PowerBooks use technologies considered obsolete in the rest of the line, such as ADB for the internal bus used for the keyboard and pointing device. The G4 and G5s have much bigger differences between them than the G3s and G4s, and Apple is trying to support a whole range of systems from the ground up.
In that respect, it may be easier for Apple to switch to an entirely new CPU architecture than you might think. The additional support wouldn't be dramatic, it could continue to have a lot in common with the rest of their systems (which heavily use USB and IDE, PCI and AGP, etc), making the CPU and a few other minor details the major changes. It certainly wouldn't need a dedicated department of any serious size to support this version of OS X, it'd just be an additional platform to test the recompiled version upon.

This is, of course, assuming we're talking about Intel chips being used in Macs (with an OS X compiled to run on it) and not a generic version of OS X being developed that'll run on IBM PC clones, which is an entirely different issue.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Does this mean - by baryon351 · 2005-05-23 01:50 · Score: 0

Mod parent up seriously.

Putting apple into the "hardware company" or "software company" box just doesn't work.

Apple are a solutions provider. Generally joe & ada average won't buy a mac because they want say, a 1.42GHz PPC computer with a 2.5" hard drive in a small form factor, and they don't go buy a mac because it runs a unix based operating system, they buy a mac because they want a thing to put pictures on, to play music on, to draw on, to communicate with friends on, and to do it while it sits out of the way and doesn't take up space where a potplant might look better.

that entire thing is what apple sell, the whole package, together. a solution to problems encountered irl.
Re:Does this mean - by NMerriam · 2005-05-23 01:50 · Score: 1

Though it should be pointed out that Apple has already changed processor architecture once, and made it completely transparent to the end-user. Plus, they had very good success providing relatively seamless emulation/virtualization of OS9 on OSX when it came out.

VMX has been a huge center of performance, and it helped bridge the big megahertz gap Apple faced the past few years. But combine the extra gigahertz you get from Intel with the capabilities of Core Image, and they should certainly be able to keep their real-time multimedia prowess.

--
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Re:Does this mean - by bani · 2005-05-23 01:51 · Score: 1

altivec is nothing unique.

the way apple promotes it you'd think apple invented simd.

however, x86 has sse2/sse3/pni. altivec is really needed on g4/g5 in order to compensate for the rest of the platform's performance shortcomings. on x86 it's not so critical.
Re:Does this mean - by geoffspear · 2005-05-23 01:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

Please explain the process whereby Apple will convert everyone's old applications into fat binaries. Without access to the source.

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Re:Does this mean - by Oculus+Habent · 2005-05-23 01:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Fat binaries are great for the transition phase, but don't do anything for old apps. If I just started my DTP company and plunked down $7500 for various software packages, I would not be happy to hear that none of it will run on the next Mac I buy. Just as they emulated the 680x0 on the PowerPC - which is still available under Classic - they would need to emulate the PowerPC under the x86.

--
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:54 · Score: 0

I'm pretty sure all of these are written in C, C++, Objective C, etc, rather than assembler. But you're welcome to show me otherwise and demonstrate that a simple recompile wouldn't actually result in a usable binary.
Re:Does this mean - by Klivian · 2005-05-23 01:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

>Cheaper because of Intel? I doubt it.
Exactly, the big price difference between Apple and generic x86 hardware are not mainly caused by the price of the processor. The price difference lays in the commodity hardware contra Apples custom boards, and the resulting competition where price are one of the driving factors. Since Apple does not have competition on their hardware they can chose a much more comfortable price margin on their hardware. Given that Apple are a hardware company any possible shift to x86 will not give significant lower prices, as Apple still will not open the platform to clone makers.

Besides Apple has already changed processor architecture once, so they have experience with the process involved.
Re:Does this mean - by Gilmoure · 2005-05-23 01:56 · Score: 1

So, what's the code name? Einstein? Pascal? Dvorak?

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:Does this mean - by Halo1 · 2005-05-23 01:57 · Score: 5, Informative

The gigabit ethernet chip in my old G4/400 in fact is an Intel chip.

--
Donate free food here
Re:Does this mean - by peragrin · 2005-05-23 01:57 · Score: 1

First why use intel why IBM has Cell?

Cell chip, PowerPC core with 8 secondary processors.

Altevic on steroids.

Second, Apple uses small chips for other products. The airport base station once used 486 chips, and currently uses embeded AMD chips.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:Does this mean - by tigersha · 2005-05-23 01:58 · Score: 1

And curiously, thos Intel handheld chips are StrongARMS which were not originally developed by Intel.

--
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
Re:Does this mean - by ZephyrXero · 2005-05-23 01:59 · Score: 0

I could care less who's manufacturing these chips if it meant they were going to a more open architechture like x86. If you could buy the parts and build your own Mac they'd be alot more appealing to people...

Whether or not people believe OSX to be open or not, Apple's hardware definitely isn't.

--
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
Re:Does this mean - by /ASCII · 2005-05-23 02:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah that really sets Apple apart from other companies like Sun, IBM and HP... NOT. All the Unix providers have exactly the same control.

You got it backwards. There are many closed architectures with one company dictating hardware and software. It is in fact the x86 that is unique in that multiple companies provide each part of the computer in an open architecture. And though this solution has it's problems, I think it has shown itself to be vastly superior to a closed system like the Mac.

Also keep in mind that if Apple where the dominating computer provider, they could probably had squished open source efforts like Linux in the cradle by closing specs and making new hardware incompatbile. The X86 may not be pretty, but I'd prefer it over a closed architecture any day.

--
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:01 · Score: 0

Specifically, Intel makes StrongARM chips, which were previously used in the Apple Newton. (And Apple used to own a big chunk of ARM.)

Apple handheld != Computer though. Its could be a video iPod or something.
Re:Does this mean - by shaitand · 2005-05-23 02:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

The transition to powerpc was not a change of architecture, it was an upgrade in architecture. x86 is an entirely different architecture with an entirely different instruction set.

Not to mention, the PowerPC processor is the only edge Macs have left on PC hardware. If Apple goes x86 the Mac will simply be an overpriced PC running a pretty gui on top of BSD.
Re:Does this mean - by ZephyrXero · 2005-05-23 02:03 · Score: 0, Troll

Maybe because the Cell has ended up to be all hype...

--
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:03 · Score: 0

OK, but first YOU have to convice Motorola to port Codewarrior to OS X/x86.
Re:Does this mean - by Shisha · 2005-05-23 02:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Valid point. They won't of course. I've been assuming that the major players would release appropriate versions sometime in the future. I know there are problems with this:
- Quark Xpress might take ages (again, remember how long OS X version took).
- Microsoft might actually not want to release office at all.

(actually maybe they could convert things on the fly and then cache the results, sort of a better emulation process... there is some mention of something along those lines on macrumors.com. It'll be a bit like running Java bytecode. They could then profile the things on the fly and optimize the most used parts of the program... JVM do all sorts of clever trickery nowdays.)

Anyway this is all purely hypothetical. Apple's not moving to x86 CPUs. As other people said, it's probably some random chip they might want from Intel.
Re:Does this mean - by /ASCII · 2005-05-23 02:04 · Score: 1

But that is a non-standard add-on card, right?

--
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
Re:Does this mean - by Kyro · 2005-05-23 02:04 · Score: 3, Informative

The latest powerbooks actually have a USB interface for keyboard and mouse. however you are correct, the ibooks, and all previous powerbooks used ADB.

--
save the GNUs!
Re:Does this mean - by ZephyrXero · 2005-05-23 02:05 · Score: 1

I doubt they'd drop their PPC line, this will most likely just be a new addition if anything...

--
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
Re:Does this mean - by larry+bagina · 2005-05-23 02:06 · Score: 1

Maybe a dual-processor system: one PowerPC and one Intel? Not likely, I grant you.
Actually, very likely. See the 6100/66 DOS Compatible (95-96 era), which included a 486 card.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:Does this mean - by /ASCII · 2005-05-23 02:07 · Score: 1

Digital did this with their FX!32 emulator. They could run Windows binaries at pretty decent speeds on NT Alpha.

--
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
Re:Does this mean - by shaitand · 2005-05-23 02:07 · Score: 0

Exactly. Bottom line is that open architecture is superior to closed architecture. x86 is actually a shitty architecture when you get right down to it, but at least it is open.
Re:Does this mean - by Halo1 · 2005-05-23 02:07 · Score: 1, Informative

No, it's a chip soldered on the motherboard.

--
Donate free food here
Re:Does this mean - by cirisme · 2005-05-23 02:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

>> If you could buy the parts and build your own Mac they'd be alot more appealing to people...
No, it wouldn't. A lot more appealing to geeks, perhaps, but not people in general. Most people don't build their own systems, but buy the cheapest crap from Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.
Re:Does this mean - by larry+bagina · 2005-05-23 02:11 · Score: 1

NextStep/OpenStep (originally 68k NeXT hardware only) was ported to run on generic x86 boxes. When OS X (rhapsody) was being developed, they had x86 developer releases.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:Does this mean - by GaryPatterson · 2005-05-23 02:12 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Watch out! You're in grave danger of bringing rationality into this topic.

You'd better post a few lines on how Apple must do this, and bring back cloning, if they're going to survive (because we all know that Microsoft do quite handily in the software market).

I'm sure one of my old Macs had an Intel chip for I/O or a memory controller or something. My memory may be playing tricks on me, but I feel sure of this.
Re:Does this mean - by Quiet_Desperation · 2005-05-23 02:13 · Score: 1

Maybe a dual-processor system: one PowerPC and one Intel?
One has to wonder if that doesn't exist somewhere as a prototype, or at least a sketch. And I mean a truly integrated hybrid motherboard that uses the correct processor automatically when you boot into Windows or Mac OS. Maybe even dual PPCs and dual Pentiums. The real coup would some way to allow one set of processors to use the other set as coprocessors in some way so they are not sitting there wasted when in one OS or the other.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:15 · Score: 0

ahhhhahahaaaa
Re:Does this mean - by drsmithy · 2005-05-23 02:20 · Score: 1

The second that Apple moves into the market with OS X for x86, MSFT is going to pull Office and render OS X basically useless compared to Windows.
OS X on intel[0] would already be basically useless because they're wouldn't be any software for it.

Apple are using OS X on intel as leverage to keep Office for OS X ? Please. Microsoft make buckets of money selling Office for OS X, and OS X for intel would never be a threat to Windows because it would be doomed before it could even get off the ground.

MSFT knows that if they pulled Office for OS X that Apple could easily release OS X for x86 and enter a new competitor into the OS market.

OS X could never compete head to head with Windows on intel. It's a non starter. The very idea should send anyone with a clue into fits of laughter.

Apple had a reason to consider moving to x86 CPUs back when their mainstream CPU was the obselete, crippled G4. With the G5, they don't anymore. Whatever this might be about, it's certainly not Macintosh CPUs.

[0]By which, presumably, you mean OS X on PC clones, not Macs with x86 CPUs, which are two different prospects.
Re:Does this mean - by mschaef · 2005-05-23 02:20 · Score: 1

"Maybe a dual-processor system: one PowerPC and one Intel? Not likely, I grant you. "

It's happened before. 10 years ago, Apple made a version of the Quadra 610 (codename Houdini) that had an 80486 on a plug in card. http://lowendmac.com/quadra/q610dos.shtml Sun did similar things, in addition to a 386 based workstation, they also made add in boards that let Sun workstations run DOS software.

The problem with this approach is that it's a hedge. x86 add in boards (or second CPU's) aren't really a good way to run x86 applications, and eveb if they were, x86 applications aren't the reason to buy non-x86 hardware. Persumably, folks that buy Macs want to run Macintosh software more than they want to run x86 software, therefore Apple would be hard pressed to justify much of a premium for hardware that runs x86 software better.

Another old school example of this is the Commodore 128. It had both a 8502 for 'native' applications and a Z80 for CP/M applications. I doubt those Z80's got used at all, except in the boot process (it got control before the 8502).
Re:Does this mean - by chasingporsches · 2005-05-23 02:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

nope. you might see intel making powerpc though. if apple ports mac os x to x86, thats cool and all, but none of the applications will work, then they'll go back to the mess of the 68k to powerpc switchover, where you have 2 versions of every product. considering powerpc is working so well for apple, and steve jobs just said he's happy with the powerpc architecture, then this story seems to be bogus. not worth apple's effort.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Going out on a limb here: yes.

Keeping my feet on the ground here: No.

We will see Windows on PowerPC long before we ever see the full OS X on x86. There's absolutely no advantage to changing platforms at this point.

Sure, the Intel/AMD world looked very attractive when Apple was relying on Motorola and lagging way behind in CPU speeds, but current PowerPC technologies from IBM are outstanding. The G5 is a terrific chip. Multi-core PowerPC chips offer a great deal of promise in the very near future.

If Apple does move away from the G5 archetecture, it will be to go to Cell chips, not Intel-64.
Re:Does this mean - by lokedhs · 2005-05-23 02:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you could buy the parts and build your own Mac they'd be alot more appealing to people...
In so many words: No, they wouldn't.
Very few people build their own computers. Most buy a box from their local computer store, or order it online from a company like Dell.

Also, no one would run OSX on a standard PC. Just like no one runs BeOS, or ran OS/2. An x86 Apple would probably be a proprietary Apple with an x86 in, and no one would care. Just like no one cares that there is a PowerPC in them today.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:21 · Score: 1, Informative

PPC and 68k are entirely different architectures with different instruction sets.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:23 · Score: 1, Interesting

USB and USB2 are also Intel patents. There's lots of Intel built or licensed stuff in a typical Mac.
Re:Does this mean - by chasingporsches · 2005-05-23 02:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

or Intel XScale processors for a video ipod...
Re:Does this mean - by drsmithy · 2005-05-23 02:23 · Score: 1

OS X on intel[0] would already be basically useless because they're wouldn't be any software for it.
Ugh. Should be "there".
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:25 · Score: 1, Insightful

Maybe because the Cell has ended up to be all hype...

Bad news for Sony, then. Looks like they will have no chips to put in their PS3 next Winter.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

Bottom line is that open architecture is superior to closed architecture. x86 is actually a shitty architecture when you get right down to it, but at least it is open.

Can you give an example of a non-shitty open archetecture to support your point?

Or is your belief that "open architecture is superior" simply a matter of your religious dogma?
Re:Does this mean - by shaitand · 2005-05-23 02:33 · Score: 1

PPC and 68k are entirely different architectures with different but one way compatible instruction sets.
Re:Does this mean - by Trurl's+Machine · 2005-05-23 02:35 · Score: 1

Though it should be pointed out that Apple has already changed processor architecture once, and made it completely transparent to the end-user.

Have you been that end-user in mid-1990's? Apple indeed has made some enormous effort to make it transparent-ish enough, but I doubt that any Mac user with first hand experience would call it "completely transparent". Some applications were available as "fat binaries", but some were distributed as "68k" and "PPC" separately. Some old games of that era refused to run in the new environment (and native PPC ports never came). My old Lucas Arts adventure games are still on my bookshelf, but I can't play them anymore on my new Macs...
Re:Does this mean - by NMerriam · 2005-05-23 02:35 · Score: 4, Informative

Whether you call it an "upgrade" or a change is semantics. The PPC and 680x0 had different instruction sets and required completely different programming at the system level -- that Apple built 680x0 system-level software emulation (and later on-the-fly dynamic recompilation) and made it completely transparent to the end-user was a pretty significant feat.

Not to mention, the PowerPC processor is the only edge Macs have left on PC hardware. If Apple goes x86 the Mac will simply be an overpriced PC running a pretty gui on top of BSD.

Whatever. When Ferarri bulds a car with an automatic transmission, it's just an overpriced Taurus with a pretty body kit, right?

After all, what kind of crazy computer USER would buy a computer based on the USER interface? Everybody knows your decision should be based on whether the system is little-endian or big-endian!

--
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Re:Does this mean - by quelrods · 2005-05-23 02:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

By closed architectures are you referring to the PPC? This is not produced by Apple but by IBM and the architecture docs are quite good (IBM will mail you a hardcopy set of the books for free.) In fact AMD and Intel for the x86 have docs on par with IBM for the PPC. I think you meant to say that some of their peripherials are closed products (like their wireless.)

--
:(){ :|:&};:
Re:Does this mean - by Golias · 2005-05-23 02:37 · Score: 1

Except Apple is a spreadsheet program away from not needing Microsoft for anything ever again.

Pages not only kicks Word's ass, it even frees most Mac users who do page layout from needing Quark.

FileMaker remains a sweet database program, not to mention PostgreSQL and MySQL. Goodbye MS-Access.

Safari is superior in every way to IE.

Mail.app vs. Outlook? LOL. It's not even fair.

Keynote vs. PowerPoint? Okay, now we're just piling on and running up the score. The game's over.

So yeah... Microsoft still makes the best consumer-level spreadsheet program out there... so far. Who wants to bet against Apple coming out with a vastly superior spreadsheet app (which can open Excel workbooks and save to .xls formats) within the year?

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:Does this mean - by arloguthrie · 2005-05-23 02:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Most notably, the XServe Raid runs on an Intel processor. There are tons of reasons Apple would be meeting with Intel. One day, perhaps "the news" will actually be news and not gossip based on "a friend-of-a-friend told me..."

--
----------
Cheese it! It's the FEDS!
Re:Does this mean - by shaitand · 2005-05-23 02:42 · Score: 1

If the Ferarri has replaced every other component in their car with Taurus parts then yes. First the bus, then the hard drives, video cards, usb, and... the processor is the only thing that makes a Mac a Mac and not a pc.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:44 · Score: 0
The XScale is a dog.
There are 2 major problems:
1. No FPU. The XScale doesn't have an FPU, which makes it horribly slow on floating point codes. FP is very common in media processing. Sure many things can be rewritten to used fixed-point math, but ugh.
2. No Cache. The XScales have an itty-bitty L2 cache. Not a huge problem for streaming data, but not good for general-purpose computing.
/me works with the PXA27x all day :(
Re:Does this mean - by DenDave · 2005-05-23 02:45 · Score: 1

Um.. I thought the PowerPC architecture was an open architecture...(with Darwin SourceCode fully available in addition to IBM's Linux Source Code) but hey, maybe I live in a different universe.

--
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
Re:Does this mean - by cloudmaster · 2005-05-23 02:47 · Score: 2, Funny

Yeah, macs are no good for personal computing. If they used Intel chips, then they'd be personal computers; but since they use PPC chips, macs are only suited for server and mainframe usage.
Re:Does this mean - by Inkieminstrel · 2005-05-23 02:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think the GP meant that despite the fact that x86 is a bad architecture, it is the dominant one, and it is dominant because the market favors a bad open architecture over a good closed one.

In this case superior means which one will win in the market, not which one is the best design-wise.
Re:Does this mean - by Tenebrious1 · 2005-05-23 02:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

I seriously doubt it. Right now, Intel is not really leading he pack in processor terms.

No, perhaps not. However, in terms of marketing, Intel is way ahead of all other processors. The masses have been told to buy computer with "Intel Inside", they remember the crazy men in blue, and the guys in the bunny suits. Of course, they don't really know what "Intel Inside" means, but it's easy to remember and ask for. Consumers feel empowered by saying they want a computer with "500 megapixels memory, 60 googlebites hard memory, and Intel Inside".

Would it increase Mac sales by having an "Intel Inside" sticker on it? Maybe not, but it would have a lot more consumer brand recognition.

--
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
Re:Does this mean - by shaitand · 2005-05-23 02:50 · Score: 1

They are seperate issues. Open is more important than technical superiority, technical superiority is seperate and unrelated to openness.

A closed architecture sucks because it can be used to produce vendor lockin and prevent innovation and progress. If a closed platform offers something you can not live without then so be it, but if there is a choice an inferior open platform that can improve is superior to a closed platform that is technically superior today.

The x86 is a shitty architecture from a technical standpoint for a number of reasons, but its openness is ideal. An open platform (there are actually a number of fairly open cpu archs) is more important than technical superiority. That is why 90% of the market is using the technically poor x86 arch and platform.
Re:Does this mean - by /ASCII · 2005-05-23 02:52 · Score: 1

Ok. Had no idea. Thanks.

--
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
Re:Does this mean - by IainMH · 2005-05-23 02:52 · Score: 0, Flamebait

What if Apple became a high-end PC maker? I'd buy one for the pose factor. And I wouldn't have compatability issues with any friends who didn't work in the meeja or graphic design.

I suppose if they did this, they wouldn't last long tho. Unless they were clever. And they seem pretty clever.
Re:Does this mean - by Austerity+Empowers · 2005-05-23 02:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

No I think he meant to say their architecture. The PPC is a pretty well defined processor, I've used it on a number of designs way outside that of a traditional computer, but it's just a processor. You can string it to just about any impossible chain of stuff imaginable, trust me, I have. None of them were compatible with Apple's Macintosh however.

PCs and Apple's have an "architecture" defining how the chips are strung together, how expansion is expected to work, how the interrupt controller works (and yes, which interrupt certain hardwired devices are on), etc. Unlike Apples, for the PC it's not one but many standards defining their function, not one of which defines how the processor should work. Worse still, it's essentially defined as "Be backwards compatible with an PC AT from 20 years ago". No single company really owns it, although many would like to. Even the evil empire has relegated itself to "putting up with cooperation" in this regard.

I find it more likely that Apple will define their own computer architecture using Intel chips. Maybe they will do their own north bridge, in fact much of the traditional PC architecture is emulated in this device, and changing it with something else would make an incompatible system. Let's not forget that much of PC legacy crap is software as well as hardware. If Apple throws all that out the window, they may as well have defined a new Intel based system. You aren't going to install windows on it, nor will you get a regular x86 build of linux to come close to working.
Re:Does this mean - by NMerriam · 2005-05-23 02:57 · Score: 1

the processor is the only thing that makes a Mac a Mac and not a pc

I would bet good money that not 10% of people who buy Macs have ANY idea what kind of processor is in the system -- in fact, the majority of them probably think it has "Intel Inside", since "that's what computers use, right?".

--
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Re:Does this mean - by rssrss · 2005-05-23 03:00 · Score: 1

Maybe the story is wrong way round. Perhaps it is comming from Intel which is blowing smoke up Apple's skirt, hopping to generate some favorable buzz about their products.

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Re:Does this mean - by clarkcox3 · 2005-05-23 03:05 · Score: 1

What exactly do you mean by "one way compatible instruction sets"? The instruction sets are completely different. Neither chip's instruction set is compatible in any way with the other.

--
There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
Re:Does this mean - by poot_rootbeer · 2005-05-23 03:07 · Score: 1

To keep from eliminating all old software with one fell swoop, they would need to emulate PowerPC.

The Mac product line already switched CPU architectures once, from 680x0 to PowerPC in the early 1990's. And their market was much smaller then than it is now, which means that the previous migration would seem painless in comparison, which is wasn't.

The PowerPC architecture is actually growing in popularity these days -- besides Apple, Microsoft and Nintendo both use PPC's, and their big brothers in IBM's POWER line are nothing to scoff at either. I don't see any reason why Apple would WANT to switch to x86.

Maybe a dual-processor system: one PowerPC and one Intel? Not likely, I grant you.

Didn't the Amiga have an add-on daughterboard with a 386 on it, to allegedly allow you to run 386 software? That didn't work out all that well for Commodore.
Re:Does this mean - by /ASCII · 2005-05-23 03:08 · Score: 0, Troll

I don't agree with the statement "it is dominant because the market favors a bad open architecture over a good closed one". A bad open architecture will beat a good closed architecture because of the increased competition in a free market with multiple actors will create a superior product. Saying that the market favors an open architecture makes it sound like a moral choice.

Sure the Mac has advantages because Apple knows and controls everything. But an open archiecture like x86 offer more performance, more software and more hardware. And it does it cheaper and more convenient.

--
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
Re:Does this mean - by jdgeorge · 2005-05-23 03:09 · Score: 2, Informative

Exactly. Bottom line is that open architecture is superior to closed architecture. x86 is actually a shitty architecture when you get right down to it, but at least it is open.

Err... The x86 chip architecture is NOT open. If you want to produce a clone of the chip, you have to license the technology from Intel. For example, AMD has a license which allows it to produce microprocessors that are compatible with the Intel x86 CPUs.

PPC chips are at least as "open" as Intel's:

Apple, IBM, and Motorola collaborated in creating the PowerPC architecture. Apple was buying all its PowerPC parts from Motorola until they started having yield problems that prevented them from producing the high-performance parts that Apple required. freescale semiconductor/a?, Motorola's former chip division, was spun off from Motorola and is currently selling PowerPC processors for embedded applications.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:09 · Score: 0

This just in: Apple zealot likes Apple software better.

Coming up after the break- sky is blue.
Re:Does this mean - by NMerriam · 2005-05-23 03:10 · Score: 1

No, it wasn't COMPLETELY transparent.

It was no worse than any typical major OS version upgrade in terms of user software compatibility. You had to download updates, check versions when installing, and sometimes say goodbye to old games.

--
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:12 · Score: 0

Since you appear to have been living under a rock for the past year or two, the latest PPC offerings from IBM have been outstanding. Why not check out how many G5 based clusters are listed amonst the fastest in the world.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:14 · Score: 1, Interesting

Another thing Apple could use is Intel's fab plants to manufacture their chip designs - Intel has more fabs than anyone else (although much lower "quality"/technology than AMD's Dresden plant or IBM's Fishkill one).

This could mean cheaper chips (at least from Apple's point of view).
Re:Does this mean - by tim256 · 2005-05-23 03:14 · Score: 1

Don't forget potato chips and poker chips.
Re:Does this mean - by Lally+Singh · 2005-05-23 03:14 · Score: 1

(And JVMs are still ass-slow).

--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:14 · Score: 0

Compatibility - The PowerPC architecture emulates x86 better than the other way 'round. To keep from eliminating all old software with one fell swoop, they would need to emulate PowerPC. This would cause old software to run like death.

No, they wouldn't.

The executable format ("Mach-O" I think) that OS X/Darwmin uses allows for multiple types of code to be present in the same binary: the OS figures out which execution path it should take.

At one point NeXT was available on both Motorola and Intel at the same time and companies shipped binaries that could be installed on either architecture.

Apple is using this system now in Tiger (10.4) to allow developers to ship binaries that are 32- and 64-bit from the same code.
Re:Does this mean - by /ASCII · 2005-05-23 03:16 · Score: 1

The Power CPU architecture may be open, but we're talking about the whole Macintosh architecture. And since Apple chose to close various parts of it, it is a 100% one man show.

--
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
Re:Does this mean - by fitten · 2005-05-23 03:17 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Mmmm... salt and vinegar chips... I *love* those. The problem is that they are typically hard to find at sandwich shops :(
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:17 · Score: 0

It is in fact the x86 that is unique in that multiple companies provide each part of the computer in an open architecture.

Actuall that is incorrect. With the SPARC architecture you can get systems from companies other than Sun (e.g., Fujitsu). It is actually possible to license SPARC and UltraSPARC and start your own CPU company.

SPARC is not actually controlled by Sun, but by a separate organization: http://www.sparc.org/

There's also the fact that Sun uses USB, PCI, FireWire, Ethernet, and HyperTransport. All open architectures. Heck, even Open Firemware (the "BIOS") is a IEEE standard (1284) that can run on SPARC, PowerPC (Apple), and x86.

I would say that out of the companies that you listed Sun is one of the most "open".
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:18 · Score: 0

While it's true that anyone can build Open Architecture PowerPC computers, Apple is not a company that does so. The Mac is a closed architecture, period.
Re:Does this mean - by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2005-05-23 03:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

I would bet good money that not 10% of people who buy Macs have ANY idea what kind of processor is in the system -- in fact, the majority of them probably think it has "Intel Inside", since "that's what computers use, right?".

I think you're wrong about this, simply because buying a Mac these days is a deliberate decision. People who just want "a computer" go to Wal-Mart or Best Buy or Office Depot and get a box with Microsoft(r)(tm)(c) Windows(r)(tm)(c) and Intel(r)(tm)(c) Inside(r)(tm)(c), because "that's what computers use, right?". (Windows no less than Intel.) Using a Mac is like installing Linux on your x86 PC, in that there's usually a fair amount of thought and research that's gone into the choice.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Does this mean - by tim256 · 2005-05-23 03:21 · Score: 0

If they provide a version of OS X for the x86 platform, a lot of companies might be able to switch to OS X from Windows without buying new hardware. They would just have to wait for motherboard/chipset manufactures to write drivers for OS X.
I don't think they have the guts to pull off something like that. But, I think they would make more money being mostly a software company peddling OS X, iBooks, iPod, and iTunes.
Re:Does this mean - by coopex · 2005-05-23 03:24 · Score: 0

I'd disagree with calling x86 architecture shitty, according to spec.org the p4 is the fastest microprocessor dollarwise. What I would say is that it's a huge kludge.
It's like comparing a stock BMW M3(G5) to a 69 Mustang with a 600hp engine, sure the Mustang is gonna wipe the floor with the beamer in raw speed, but the BMW achieves its performance with style.

--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Re:Does this mean - by LWATCDR · 2005-05-23 03:24 · Score: 1

As you point out there is more to a computer than a CPU. In that respect the PC also has it's closed portions Video chips, SATA controllers, USB, RAID, Audio, the North and South Bridge chips are closed undocumented bits and pieces to the. I think it is next to impossible to build a totally open PC using modern off the shelf boards. If nothing else the BIOS will be a huge stumbling block. Of course there is the Linux Bios project.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Does this mean - by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2005-05-23 03:25 · Score: 1

Like Unix! ;-)
Ducks

Take this VMS and shove it!

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Does this mean - by fitten · 2005-05-23 03:27 · Score: 1

that entire thing is what apple sell, the whole package, together. a solution to problems encountered irl.

This sounds remarkably like Intel's new mantra ("It's a platform" thing), which is regarded as an excuse and a diversion from their getting their asses handed to them by AMD in performance right now.

The "solution" thing was really big in the 80s and early 90s. It didn't work. Companies sold proprietary software that ran on their proprietary hardware and it was their "solution". The problems were several:

a) It was typically very expensive because the company had to support both hardware and software groups
b) It was "slow" in that companies who focused more on one thing (say, just the hardware or just the software) tended to do better jobs. The proprietary hardware makers couldn't keep up with the likes of Intel (and now AMD) in performance OR price.

Most of the companies that did this sort of thing have either folded completely or have transitioned over to software only or to making their hardware from commodity parts (read: Intel and AMD) or doing both (hardware from Intel/AMD and they do software). Examples: HP, Compaq, Intergraph, SGI, etc. The only holdouts left are Apple and Sun in the workstation/PersonalComputer world. Apple has been valiantly holding on, even having spruts of growth, but they are still considered a minor player by market percentages.
Re:Does this mean - by dgatwood · 2005-05-23 03:35 · Score: 1

And don't forget Open Firmware, a firmware architecture that Apple shares with Sun, Motorola, and IBM (probably among others).

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:35 · Score: 1, Informative

This might be semi-offtopic, but you make it sound like you haven't yet seen this.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:41 · Score: 0

There's even more Itanium clusters on the supercomputer list, but that doesn't mean I want one in my PC. (And most PPC supercomputers are based on very expensive POWER chips, not the ones you find in Macs.)
Re:Does this mean - by NMerriam · 2005-05-23 03:42 · Score: 1

It's certainly a deliberate decision, and no doubt many customers have read about the G5 and its technical prowess, but that's all technical information to make people feel confident about buying a system based on what they really care about -- the Mac OS, and all the iLife apps. Buying a Mac isn't generally a technical decision (except for those of us who love the UNIX underneath).

It would be far more likley that a computer user (Mac or PC) could accurately identify their graphics chip manufacturer than their CPU manufacturer these days.

--
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:50 · Score: 0

If Apple goes x86 the Mac will simply be an overpriced PC running a pretty gui on top of BSD.

Isn't this what it is already?
Re:Does this mean - by NMerriam · 2005-05-23 03:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

"one way compatible instruction sets" means they sprinkled magic CPU pixie dust on early PowerPCs, which meant the PowerPC601 could run 68020 code if it closed its eyes and wished hard enough!

It was called "one-way" because if the PPC wished too hard, for too long, it would stay a 68020 forever! So Apple started writing software that would emulate the 68020 temporarily when the PPC was at risk.

When the Mac OS was all PPC native code (8.1? 8.5?), the one-way compatibility was turned off and all the PPC chips had to grow up for ever and ever.

The End.

--
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Re:Does this mean - by wootest · 2005-05-23 03:59 · Score: 1

Xserve RAID uses an Intel controller card. It was seen on some sort of Intel conference.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:04 · Score: 0

Intel systems an open architecture? ROFLMAO!!!!
Oh, thats rich, too funny. Just because the systems are the
most wideley implemented does not make them open.
Lets see the source to your bios there pretty boy. Oops,
don't have it. Alright, lets the the technical drawings for your
Northbridge/Southbridge or the specs for talking to your
Nvidia/ATI video card., nope not there either. Looks like you x86
architecture isn't that open. Now lets see the information on
howto to implement an Apple/Sun Sparc Bios...Hey IEEE-1275.
Re:Does this mean - by AssFace · 2005-05-23 04:05 · Score: 1

Maybe a dual-processor system: one PowerPC and one Intel? Not likely, I grant you.

Actually, I can remember in 1995 or 1996, Apple had a computer which had an optional card you could plug into it. Said card allowed you to put an Intel chip on there (a 486 I think, but perhaps it was a Pentium).
You could then run Windows apps off of that chip.

As I recall, the larger issue was that at the time, overclocking chips via add on kits was quite big (and how Cyrix and AMD gained big market share back then) and the Mac chip could indeed be overclocked with an add on chip - but the PC chip couldn't.
Which lead to it already being slow and inefficient with the rest of the system, but also lead to it falling behind the upgrade process.

I think the card also had its own separate RAM on it, which was fairly limited as well - I think maybe even only 8MB.

My roommate in college had one, which would be the only reason I would have to see such a thing or know it exists.

--

There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:11 · Score: 0

There was also some engineering/CAD software titles that used custom 68K FPU code, and this stuff just died when they went PowerPC.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:13 · Score: 0

"EVEN CHEAPER"? some morons think mac is cheap NOW?
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:22 · Score: 0

You seem to be thinking mainly about implementation details -- like writing Linux drivers to support someone's advanced featureset. If you were creating your own PC from scratch you wouldn't care about VIA's undocumented northbridge, nothing about a PC AT requires a "northbridge" at all.

The public VESA and ATA specs should be enough to boot any x86 OS, and of course the BIOS has been reimplemented many times over.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:30 · Score: 0, Informative

The gigabit ethernet chip in my old G4/400 in fact is an Intel chip.

I doubt it. I believe the gigabit ethernet controller for the PowerMac G4 clockwork models were Broadcom models, and usually were under a heatsink.

If your G4/400 had an intel chip, it was actually a Intel-branded DEC 21154 for 10/100 fast ethernet. Later on the Apple 10/100 finally worked and the external controller was not needed.
Re:Does this mean - by stilwebm · 2005-05-23 04:30 · Score: 1

VMX - Much of Apple's current power comes from the AltiVec/VMX/Velocity Engine available on the G4 & G5 processors. It is what offers Apple serious performance benefits in certain applications, and makes possible many of the near/realtime capbilities in programs like iPhoto, iMovie, and even Final Cut Pro. Unless Intel tacks on a VMX unit, I don't see Apple switching.

Intel would probably offer optimization help to offset this concern. This would likely range from offering Intel compilers to teaching their developers how to hand-code optimizations using MMX/SSE/SSE2 and other architectural advantages unique to their processors. It wouldn't be a one-to-one comparison with the Velocity Engine, but it could offset the cost of switching and be part of the overall formula.
Re:Does this mean - by TeleoMan · 2005-05-23 04:32 · Score: 0

By that logic, then, if they used AMD chips would they be suited only for Web development work?

/struts away in a huff

--
$6.21 is the number of the beast before sales tax. Meh.
Re:Does this mean - by MarcQuadra · 2005-05-23 04:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Woah there, you're very wrong. The 68k compatability was done entirely in software. There was no magic dust on the early PowerPC chips. The firmware of the PowerPC line had a 68k emulator in it and the OS could supplant it with a newer emulator once it was past the boot stage.

And nobody ever turned it off, my Dad runs HyperCard 2.1, which came out a LONG time before Apple even considered PPC, on his G4 in the Classic environment, which includes the 68k emulation as part of OS 9.

As for what OS version they finally got rid of 68k code? 8.6 still had some 68k code, and I'll bet 9.2 has a few tidbits (I'd have to dig with ResEdit, and I don't feel like it now. Many of the original 'toolbox' APIs for the Mac were hand-crafted in assembler, it was really hard to take the old pascal blueprints and refactor everything for PPC, especially when you know that the Next Big Thing is going to obsolesce the toolbox anyway.

--
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:36 · Score: 0

Thanks for that.
Re:Does this mean - by clarkcox3 · 2005-05-23 04:41 · Score: 1

Wow, I cannot believe that you are seriously trying to refute a post talking about "sprinkled magic CPU pixie dust" and how the PowerPC chip was actually Peter Pan.

Wow, just wow.

--
There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
Re:Does this mean - by ultramk · 2005-05-23 04:42 · Score: 1

Would it increase Mac sales by having an "Intel Inside" sticker on it? Maybe not, but it would have a lot more consumer brand recognition.

Right, because Apple isn't already one of the most recognized brands on the planet.

Intel? Less so. In my experience, your average consumer doesn't give a damn what's inside.

m-

--
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Re:Does this mean - by jericho4.0 · 2005-05-23 04:47 · Score: 1

I believe that that build still exists, or at least significant chunks of it. The rational behind Apple doing it was less about selling an i686 version, and more about an in-house sanity check. If your software compiles reasonably easily on more than one platform (especially with different endianess), you're doing something right.

--
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Re:Does this mean - by ZephyrXero · 2005-05-23 04:53 · Score: 1

Well if I could buy my own Mac type parts, couldn't Dell and HP too? I think you've missed the point...

--
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:57 · Score: 0

Whatever. When Ferarri bulds a car with an automatic transmission, it's just an overpriced Taurus with a pretty body kit, right?

I think that would be more synomymous with saying "When Ferrari builds a car with a Taurus engine..."

After all, what kind of crazy computer USER would buy a computer based on the USER interface?

While the parent said this in sarcasm, its actually a good question. Why would you buy hardware based on a user interface? Or better yet, why should a user have to buy hardware to get a particular user interface? I buy hardware based on what I need to accomplish, and install the OS I like.
Re:Does this mean - by Austerity+Empowers · 2005-05-23 04:58 · Score: 1

I'm not sure what you mean:

- Sata Specifications

- USB

- Anyone can write a raid controller, we all understand the RAID levels and what they mean. What varies is how to program the chips to implement it (software interface).

- I will give you a little on the north bridge, the FSB is NOT standard and I think AMD's is different. But the rest of the north bridge contains well known PC bits: memory controllers, interrupt controllers, PCI(X|E) host bridges, power management, etc. etc. I could build one from scratch if I had a few million dollars laying around.

- The South Bridge could be implemented by anyone, it's got no secrets.

- As for Video, the AGP specification was well documented and freely available (I downloaded it when I was in college for free, I can't recally where). Going forward PCI-Express will be used, they simply use x8/x16 connectors. I think Apple uses the same.

Or did you mean software interfaces are not standardized? It's not as bad as you imply, but it is getting worse. Getting back on topic, Apple could take PC hardware as it stands and require vendors to support a common apple interface (they seem opposed to the device driver model, and I agree with them on that). But then us Linux types could just assume that interface and copy it, without paying the Apple tithe.

I find it more likely they will build a Mac using mostly commodity components (processors, etc.) to get their costs down and leverage that market, while changing the north bridge, which is what makes a PC a PC, and without which we can't really write much software. That combined with new microcode will make a totally incompatible, totally Apple system, just at a lower price. I for one hope they do, only because it may make PCs better.
Re:Does this mean - by jericho4.0 · 2005-05-23 05:01 · Score: 1

Although it's a stretch to say that they are written in assembler, many of the apps that Apple is famous for are highly dependent on the AltiVec, and well tweaked code for it. Porting might be reasonably easy (don't forget about the endianess, though!), but porting performance would be harder. Almost all of the code is in Obj-C, BTW.
IMHO, there is no way in hell that Apple will switch to Intel CPUs. Other components sure, but not CPU. Intel has nothing exiting in the roadmap compared to the AIM alliance.

My prediction for Apple; An alliance with Sony, certainly on the software side (iTunes for PS3) possibly extending to the Cell. Note that IBM has said the Cell will be available in many different configurations. The ones in existence right now have a 64-bit Power core + (possibly limited) Altivec + 8 SPU's, running at 3.2 GHz, with some in dev kits running at 4.0+. Even if the limitations on the core preclude this being used for the next Mac, it's easy to imagine a slightly different Cell that would be perfect.

--
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Re:Does this mean - by EvilTwinSkippy · 2005-05-23 05:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

(Ahem).
I'm a computer professional. A router programming, server building, cable splicing, code hacking computer professional if you care at all. In college I used to build embedded systems and I've have more than my fair share or processor architecture courses.

When I go home, I just want to turn the damn machine on and have it do what I need it to do. And that machine is an iBook. I know it has a G4 processor running a 1Ghz, the memory bus, and most of the I/O architecture. My next desktop is going to be a Mac, because my wife, a professional computer teacher who specializes in Windows, feels the same way.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Does this mean - by Lars+T. · 2005-05-23 05:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

On Intel they have SSE, MMX etc. units.
Yeah, and apart from a lot of differences, they are the same as Velocity Engine.

--
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 05:08 · Score: 0

If Intel copied the entire structure of the AMD64 system, then all x86-64 motherboard will share a similar approach to that north/south bridge problem. The north bridge is on the processor in AMD's 64-bit systems, and there's only a recognizable south bridge on the motherboard.
Re:Does this mean - by composer777 · 2005-05-23 05:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'd be curious to see if the extra registers included in amd64 would be enough to speed up x86 emulation of PPC. How many registers does the PPC have?
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 05:17 · Score: 0

Intel-64 is Itanium. Maybe you mean AMD-64?
Re:Does this mean - by javaxman · 2005-05-23 05:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Please explain the process whereby Apple will convert everyone's old applications into fat binaries. Without access to the source.
If you're going to have a different CPU, clearly you're going to have different binaries. However, I'm not sure you need to be so flippant about it. Do you know about NeXTStep for Intel ? Do you know how hard it was for most companies to recompile their binaries for it? They opened up their projects, pressed "Build" in Project Builder, and it was done. That's how hard it was. The biggest problem was for folks who wrote binary data files ( the endian issue ), but that's pretty easily worked around or avoided, really. The hurdles Apple and it's third party developers would face to provide binaries for *any* gcc-supported CPU are not as huge as many folks seem to think

Yea, if you had a huge investment in current OS X software, you'd have to buy new copies ( more likely upgrades ) if you bought a different machine. That typically wouldn't be the case, though. I'm going to be using my current Macs for years. Most new Macintosh purchases ( like most new WindowsXP purchases ) require buying some new software.

However, just because it could be done doesn't mean it will be done. I just don't think they're going to start making Intel-based Macs any time soon- I can't think of a good reason. If they're in talks, it's likely to be about one of the many other types of non-CPU chips Intel makes.
Re:Does this mean - by shotfeel · 2005-05-23 05:32 · Score: 2, Informative

At one time, IBM was developing a PPC that also included an x86 core. I believe it was the PPC 615.
Re:Does this mean - by fubar1971 · 2005-05-23 05:34 · Score: 1

....or Cow Chips.
Re:Does this mean - by nokiator · 2005-05-23 05:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

My gut feeling is also that the subject of Apple-Intel talks is not x86 chips. There are two other, more viable options:
1. Intel's PXA family. These are mid-rage embedded processors targeted at applications that require very low power consumption but a decent amount of compute power. Assuming that Apple is not likely to bring Newton back, the obvious target would be a video iPod kind of device.

2. To be able to run a iFlix Movie Store, Apple needs much more bandwidth to end customers. Even if this is a background service where customers maintain lists (similar to Netflix) and top few items from the list are downloaded in the background, phone and cable companies that own the last mile will not just sit back and watch Apple make money by using their precious bandwidth. At least in metropolitan areas, one way to bypass Cable and DSL providers is WiMAX. WiMax is especially suiatable for broadcasting (or multicasting) content. Intel is one of the leaders in the WiMax effort and was one of the first vendors to come up with WiMax silicon.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 05:37 · Score: 0

That is sheer fanboy fantasy that gives Apple users a bad rap.

There's a small company named IBM that produces both software and hardware...maybe you haven't heard of it--oh wait, they're the ones that produce the CPUs used by Apple you moron.

In fact, IBM produces more software than Apple AND more hardware than Apple.
Re:Does this mean - by bhpaddock · 2005-05-23 05:40 · Score: 1

Err, Intel has their own version of AltiVec...

They call it SSE/SSE2/SSE3.
Re:Does this mean - by Sebby · 2005-05-23 05:47 · Score: 1

"and Salt and Vinegar chips."

"Man. Them crackers cut my mouth up somthin' bad." - Enus Fry

--

AC comments get piped to /dev/null
Re:Does this mean - by coopaq · 2005-05-23 05:51 · Score: 1

When I go home, I just want to turn the damn machine on and have it do what I need it to do. ... my wife, a professional computer teacher who specializes in Windows, feels the same way.
Maybe the only reason people buy Macs is for escapism...

ya know... really feeling like your not at work anymore when you go home, but you still need to use a computer.
Re:Does this mean - by javaxman · 2005-05-23 05:54 · Score: 1

When the Mac OS was all PPC native code (8.1? 8.5?), the one-way compatibility was turned off and all the PPC chips had to grow up for ever and ever.
Boy is that ever wrong. You can *to this day* run 68k code... in OS X, on a G5 !! I don't know why you would want to, you'd have to be super-cheap not to upgrade your software at some point, but...

In Classic mode, the very first FileMaker Pro *ever* runs on my G5. In OS X 10.3.9. Strange but true. The file date on it? 1991. The icon is a little ugly, and I wouldn't actually use it, but if I wanted to, I could. Actually, I just did, to check the copyright date. 1988-1991. Now, getting that code onto this machine without a floppy drive or SCSI, that's a different issue... but it does run. In no less than two layers of emulation. I'm sure it runs 10x faster than it did on any machine available in 1991...
Re:Does this mean - by EvilTwinSkippy · 2005-05-23 05:59 · Score: 1

Must be why I use them at work too.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Does this mean - by m50d · 2005-05-23 06:01 · Score: 1

Linux SMP balks at using two slightly different x86 chips (an opteron 2200 and 2400 or similar), so I think this would be very hard for getting both processors running. You could probably do a board that was mostly shared with two processors - but it would cost a lot more, like that board that fit Intel and AMD processers only more so, and people wouln't want it. They'd just buy the chip they wanted the most, rather than paying a load more.

--
I am trolling
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:09 · Score: 0

Are you kidding? I would love to have and X86 Apple box, which allows me to run OSX and Linux as well as Windows at native speeds.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:10 · Score: 0

x86 and PPC are exactly the same as far as "openness" is concerned. I think you mean "computer systems that will boot Windows". The booting specifications are just as open for Apple's machines, arguably more open (there's so much more you can do with Open Firmware than what a PC BIOS is designed to do).

What isn't open about Apple's machines are two things: a) what Apple's operating system requires (thus making it difficult to create hardware that will run an Apple operating system); and b) Apple feels free to change the hardware interface at any time, since they can update their OS to handle it. Hardware details in a lot of "commodity" PCs are just as squirrelly. Many of the parts in an Apple machine are the same as in a standard PC - USB, SATA, Ethernet, video. Open Firmware actually lets you figure out most of the details pretty easily.

The ironic thing is that the so-called openness of the PC architecture is also on of its failings - it locks it in to outdated, limited interfaces because too many things from too many independent vendors depend on the details being just so that no one can change anything easily.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:12 · Score: 0

I'd love to hear what you consider an example of that "zealot" being wrong. MS has the weaker product in every comparison he just laid out.
Re:Does this mean - by cowscows · 2005-05-23 06:12 · Score: 1

I'm not sure if that's really such a big deal. I think the actual processor is hidden enough that your average consumer isn't too concerned with it. My mom knows that the IBM laptop she had at her old job worked really well, and that the Dell laptop that her new job gave her is a piece of crap. She doesn't care about what's inside the computer. And although I'd bet Intel is the chip manufacturer who's name she could even thing of, if you brought it up, she'd probably assume that all computers have Intel inside, and wouldn't bother to ask.

I can more realistically believe that some of the technologies that Intel hyped up, like MMX or Hyperthreading or whatever might sway a few people. But even that is becoming irrelevant, because just about any computer you pick up from compUSA nowadays is more than powerful enough for day to day stuff.

And with the success of the iPod, that white Apple logo is all they need to put on a box to get the best brand recognition in town right now.

--
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:14 · Score: 0

Also, no one would run OSX on a standard PC.

No one that is, except for me. I'd love to dual boot with it and Windows. So at least one person would.
Re:Does this mean - by d3vi1 · 2005-05-23 06:15 · Score: 1

We will see Windows on PowerPC long before we ever see the full OS X on x86. There's absolutely no advantage to changing platforms at this point.
Windows NT 3.5, 3.51 and 4.0 were ported to PowerPC. I would assume that Windows NT 5.x is also ported to the PowerPC architecture because of the XBox 360, which, to my knowledge (I could be wrong though) is running on a PowerPC-like architecture, with IBM developed chips.
If I remember correctly, XBox ran a stripped down Windows 2000 kernel. It is safe to assume, right now, that XBox 360 runs a Windows XP/2003 kernel for PowerPC. Trimmed down and optimized, of course, but a PowerPC port of Windows XP/2003 nevertheless

--
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever ones.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:25 · Score: 0

CHRP was an open architecture. That sure took off.

The PC architecture is only dominant because of historical happenstance (IBM choosing the Intel processor, because CP/M and 8080/Z80 processors were dominant, and Bill Gates being shrewd enough to not give over control of DOS to IBM). Almost of the PC "standards" are fairly arbitrary, they just grew out of initial implementations. Those that aren't, for the most part, are also standard in Apple's machines.

Microsoft and Intel are both feeling the pain from those standards - Microsoft wants to move off into much more proprietary and controlled hardware (TCPA) so they can run Longhorn in peace, while Intel has been desperately trying to get away from their hoary past, and failing (Itanium). Are PC manufacturers finally starting to drop support for ISA, parallel ports, crappy serial, IDE, floppy disks, "game ports"? Will the PC world finally switch over to a decent partitioning system (say, Apple's)?

At the very least, switch to Open Firmware instead of inventing yet another proprietary bootstrap protocol (Intel's EFI).
Re:Does this mean - by LionMage · 2005-05-23 06:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

In fact, I worked for Informative Graphics when there was a project underway to get a native port of their Myriad software working under NT on the DEC Alpha processor. The native port worked, but it was substantially slower than the FX!32 emulator running the x86 version, at least after running the x86 version of the app under emulation a few times. (Like the grandparent poster speculated, the emulation cached the results of opcode translation for future reuse. Eventually, almost 100% of the original application was translated and stored in a disk cache.)

Then again, the Myriad code was pretty horribly written, and optimized to only compile well under Microsoft's Visual Studio environment. I was stuck on a horrid project porting the code to HPUX and Solaris using MainWin (which basically was a Win32 implementation on top of X11 / POSIX, a porting library for lazy companies that didn't want to invest time and effort in writing truly portable code or rewriting their UI code). Granted, HP's C++ compiler sucked -- it was AT&T Cfront based, and had to be told how to instantiate templates because it had dain-bramaged template support -- but even when we got this stuff working, it wasn't very performant.

Which brings me to another thought -- if Apple switches to x86 or Itanium, we might be in for similar performance surprises. Some code will obviously benefit from a native recompile, but other code might be more performant with a caching code translation mechanism.
Re:Does this mean - by BitGeek · 2005-05-23 06:30 · Score: 1

And because you chose macs, you get superior performance and cost ratios.

I think its funny that both Microsoft and Sony are moving to PowerPC architecture chips for their next generation high-performance game boxes, but PC fans keep hoping Apple will switch to the IA for their desktops... I think these constant wishful stories are just proof that PC fans realize that the Power PC has better cost/perofrmance/power requirements than the Intel Architecture. (That is, more flops per wat, more flops per dollar, and more flops per square mm of die area, which is related to teh other two factors, resulting in higher performance for the computer.)

The powerPC has been superior to the intel architecutre since it was reduced to a single chip architecture... of course, ti has to be in order to compete, as Intel has an established base for its instruction set.

Choose the computer you like based on your personal criteria-- but its time for people who are insecure about their computer's to stop bashing the underdog in marketshare simply because it has better performance numbers.

--
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:37 · Score: 0

Are you kidding? If you have any real need to use more than one OS you have a valid need for more than one computer. It's not like you have to transfer files via floppy. Rebooting and switching OSes takes a long time and closes down everything you were working on. Take it from someone who codes for FreeBSD from Windows, KVMs context switches are much cheaper than reboots.
Re:Does this mean - by LionMage · 2005-05-23 06:37 · Score: 2, Informative

This "JVMs are ass-slow" argument gets repeated a lot. There have been multiple benchmarks published demonstrating definitively that this is not the case -- in fact, Java can outperform C and C++ in many applications. Here is one reference for you to ponder. Of course, it's easier for most people to parrot hearsay rather than actually rely on empirical evidence to support their opinions.

Note that I'm not saying JVMs are inherently superior for all, or even most, applications. I'm just saying that things are a little more complicated than your one-line zinger would imply. I'm also saying that virtual machines can be very performant, with the right code-translation and caching strategies. (See my other post in another branch of this thread.)
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:51 · Score: 0

As Windows NT for PPC appeared some years ago, perhaps it's time for OS X on x86?
Re:Does this mean - by Emetophobe · 2005-05-23 06:51 · Score: 1

I would much rather use Mac OS X then Windows. I wish I was rich so I could buy a dual G5, this would be the next best thing.
Re:Does this mean - by mrchaotica · 2005-05-23 06:53 · Score: 1

Wait a second -- it would have more consumer brand recognition than Apple?! I know Apple doesn't have the recognition they did in 1984 (at least wrt the Mac), but I'd say they still have more than Intel.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Does this mean - by macmurph · 2005-05-23 06:57 · Score: 1

PortalPlayer already announced that their next gen processor supports video. Its seems unlikely that Apple will abandon PortalPlayer. They choose PortalPlayer over other audio chips based on a lot of factors.
Re:Does this mean - by whyde · 2005-05-23 06:58 · Score: 1

I find it more likely that Apple will define their own computer architecture using Intel chips... Let's not forget that much of PC legacy crap is software as well as hardware.

Gosh, I sure hope so. Jettison all of the legacy crap, and let's get on with our collective lives. Then, the next article will be a rumor about Microsoft porting Windows to it.
Re:Does this mean - by Oculus+Habent · 2005-05-23 07:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just this weekend I came to a realization... Microsoft just recently bought Virtual PC, and I couldn't figure out why. Now, they are offering a PowerPC-based gaming console with backward compatibility to it's x86 system.

I figure three PowerPC processors @ 3.2Ghz should be able to emulate an Xbox without troule.

--
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Re:Does this mean - by macmurph · 2005-05-23 07:10 · Score: 1

PortalPlayer already announced that their next gen processor supports video. Its seems unlikely that Apple will abandon PortalPlayer. They choose PortalPlayer over other audio chips based on a lot of factors.
Re:Does this mean - by geoffspear · 2005-05-23 07:18 · Score: 1

The switch from 680x0 processors to the first PowerPC processors only worked because of 68K emulation.
I don't dispute that applications could be recompiled or that fat binaries would be a part of the solution. But to argue (as grandparent poster did) that such a transition would work through fat binaries and no emulation at all is ridiculous. If Apple does start making machines with Intel processors, you can bet the new machines will be able to run PowerPC binaries through emulation. I don't think they're dumb enough to make all existing Mac software stop working on new machines and think people would be willing to "upgrade" their Apple hardware.

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Re:Does this mean - by slantyyz · 2005-05-23 07:28 · Score: 1

Not to mention, the PowerPC processor is the only edge Macs have left on PC hardware.

Personally, I think that is a load of crap. I didn't buy my Mac Mini because of the chip, I bought it for iLife (in the interest of full disclosure, I'm an "adder", not a die-hard Mac user).

Apple's chip strategy leaves me baffled. How can the PPC provide an edge when users are still waiting for the "promised" 3.0 GHZ chips that were supposed to be available within a year of the G5's release? Even the XBOX360 alpha units, which are G5 towers, are said to be only a third of the power of the console. I might add that we're talking about console that will likely cost only $300. The thing that has always bothered me about Macs is the length of the "speed bump cycle". The x86 world is abuzz about multi-cores and such, and here we are, still stuck with "Power"-books that don't even have G5s.

Offtopic aside: How cool would it be to see Mac on Linux run on an XBOX360 hacked to run Linux?

Fabulous hardware design, a remarkably stable and well thought out OS, and excellent (sometimes unrivalled) media software are the Mac's edge. I like Windows and Linux, but I don't think they do quite as good a job as Apple does in all three of those areas. Change the guts of a Mac and you'll still have more than "an overpriced PC running a pretty gui on top of BSD".

There is infinitely more to the Mac than the CPU that it runs on.
Re:Does this mean - by __aadhrk6380 · 2005-05-23 07:37 · Score: 1

Think Microsoft if you are Apple -

1. Port OS that is not as vulnerable to viruses or spyware to popular hardware.
2. Tout the usability and security.
3. ???
4. Profit!!!

At least, that was my first take on things. If you are Apple, and you want to mainstream your product, you won't be doing that with proprietary hardware. Instead, you ride the *nix wave and go for security and stability as well as user friendly.

IMO, OS X is the market slayer here, not the hardware/software combination. For Apple, profitability goes up as hardware costs go down, and you move your truly marketable commodity to the forefront.

If they have the balls to do it, it could make for an interesting ride.
Re:Does this mean - by mnmn · 2005-05-23 07:38 · Score: 1

Wow I've never met a router programmer. Never knew the title existed.

What language do you use?

--
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Re:Does this mean - by Lally+Singh · 2005-05-23 07:43 · Score: 1, Insightful

Ah yes the denial sits in. Some things to ponder:
1. If it's not the JVMs, then why are all java desktop apps of size slow? Oh sure, blame the programmer, I dare you.

2. The C/C++ argument is fallacious in its very nature. Comparing well-written java code to crap C code doesn't count (O(n) algorithms vs O(n^2) on string ops, please!).

Here's some intuition why it's fallacious: C/C++ can always express everything that a java app can, only it doesnt have the overhead of a JVM. The runtime translation will always take time during execution, while a C/C++ app had all that done at compile time. As the JVM is itself a C/C++ app, it can only add overhead to a java app in comparison to a C/C++ app.

The "Java is faster than C/C++" argument argues this:
interpretation + JVM + C < C
(speaking in overheads).

I call that false.

--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Re:Does this mean - by EvilTwinSkippy · 2005-05-23 07:47 · Score: 1

I hope you are kidding.
If not, there is Cisco's IOS which I don't use anymore.

Most of my day to day routing is done of a Linux box. I use TCL scripts to handle repetitive arguments to the kernel's IPTABLES system. We do some pretty rocket science stuff, maintaining a link to both Internet 1 and Internet 2 at the same time, and making it transparent to our internal users which is which.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Does this mean - by SolusSD · 2005-05-23 08:02 · Score: 1

I would much rather see PCs using PowerPC chips than MACs using x86. Lets face it, x86 needs to die. Conceivably PowerPC chips would be cheaper to produce in large numbers than intels x86 offerings. Less complexity. Intel acheives its low prices through quantity.
Re:Does this mean - by vhogemann · 2005-05-23 08:09 · Score: 1

Even Microsoft agrees...

Look at the XBox, that migrated from x86 to PowerPC. Because it's powerfull, cheap and consumes little power. Look at the Playstation 3 and the Nintendo GameCube, and Revolution. All using PowerPC!!

Why should Apple drop PPC now, when it's proving to be a solid, coerent, well engineered platform?

--
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
Re:Does this mean - by Jerry+Rivers · 2005-05-23 08:10 · Score: 1

The second that Apple moves into the market with OS X for x86, MSFT is going to pull Office and render OS X basically useless compared to Windows.
You put WAY too much stock in Office on a Mac. There are far fewer people using that you think. The Mac is, after all, strongest in publishing, where maybe one copy of Office is kept around for dealing with the oddball amateur jobs that trickle in from time to time. Apple's own software can handle it nearly as well since Office files tend to take a heavy amount of intervention anyway. As for home use, few people spend $150 on the Student/Teacher edition of Office when they can get iLife for free (or very inexpensively) and it's an Apple product.

--
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 08:13 · Score: 0

yer a practitioner of router configuration. Calling it 'programming' is a huge stretch. Most router configuration languages are a) won't pass the turing test as a language which can solve any problem and b) wouldn't be used as such anyways.
I think that's what grandparent was referencing in the comment.
Re:Does this mean - by FCYTravis · 2005-05-23 08:23 · Score: 1

No, they wouldn't. Apple is about developing software that sells hardware. OS X sells the boxes. iTunes sells the iPods. etc. Apple's business model is to provide the complete solution - not piecemeal bits. Everything is symbiotically linked. For example - I have a PowerBook G4, an iPod shuffle and use the iTunes Music Store. All of those pieces fit together to provide me with the one-stop computing solution I need. Everything works together. One source. One company. One logo. That's Apple's magic bullet. Going software-only would defeat that entire model.
Re:Does this mean - by NekoXP · 2005-05-23 08:24 · Score: 1

32, 32bit integer or 64bit integer
32, 64bit floating point
32, 128bit vector

More than AMD64, basically.
Re:Does this mean - by FCYTravis · 2005-05-23 08:31 · Score: 1

Mail.app vs. Entourage is a similarly lopsided fight - except this time it's Apple that loses. Call me a heretic but I enjoy the streamlined, consolidated approach... instead of having mail, address book, ical and whatnot all open at once, I get one stop. Microsoft got Office v.X down pretty good, IMO.
Re:Does this mean - by hawk · 2005-05-23 08:36 · Score: 1

Not only that, but he got his facts wrong.

Those toolbox routines weren't in assembler, but hand-assembled hex code. There *was* no source code for them (well, maybe scribblings on paper).

Had there been assembly code, it would have ben a great start for cross-compiling.

hawk
Re:Does this mean - by Golias · 2005-05-23 08:39 · Score: 1

Call me a heretic

If you insist. ;)

instead of having mail, address book, ical and whatnot all open at once, I get one stop.

I guess... If you like using PC-based calendars for something.

I prefer the individual apps over a suite for the same reason many people prefer Firefox over the full-blows suite of Mozilla: I don't want one app to "do it all" for me, I want an app which just does what I want it to do.

So for my needs, Mail.app still wins by a long shot. Both Outlook and Entourage feature way too much bloat for an e-mail program as far as I'm concerned.

YMMV, obvously.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:Does this mean - by Halo1 · 2005-05-23 08:48 · Score: 1

You're right it's under a heatsink, but for some reason I've been convinced for years it was an Intel chip, I really thought I had read that somewhere. Thanks for setting the record straight.

--
Donate free food here
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 08:54 · Score: 0

Ummm...this is not Insightful at all...

Unless being completely wrong is Insightful.

Ahh...I long for the days when some semblance of intelligence could be found here....

Canonical Anonymous Coward
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 08:55 · Score: 0

While I suspect that a lot of Mac users don't know what processor the machine has (they just know "it's a Mac"), I doubt they have misconceptions about it using an Intel processor - Intel's marketing has been pretty effective, and anyone who knows that Intel makes CPUs expects "Intel [something] Inside" stickers.

Oh and your 10% number may have been close to true 5 years ago, but since MacOS X came out, a much larger percentage of Mac users are knowledgeable about computers, and many are experts. Since OS X, Macs are actually very desirable for knowledgeable people (I'm a programmer for over 20 years, I now have two Macs in addition to 5 PCs, all self-assembled except for the laptop).
Re:Does this mean - by javaxman · 2005-05-23 08:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

If Apple does start making machines with Intel processors, you can bet the new machines will be able to run PowerPC binaries through emulation. I don't think they're dumb enough to make all existing Mac software stop working on new machines and think people would be willing to "upgrade" their Apple hardware
Which is all part of why I don't think Apple is going to abandon the PowePC. It's too invested in Altivec, for starters. It'd be more likely that Apple would release an OS X for Intel, leveraging some existing cheap PC manufacturing, for some sort of low-low-end machine. People with newer Macs ( and PowerPC-only software ) thus wouldn't buy it, and it'd be like "look at this pathetically cheap stuff you Windows folks are forced to work with, but if you want it cheap, you can at least have it nice and OS X-y"... not that they're going to do that. But they could. By actually having some cheap-ass plant in asia somewhere cranking out nearly-standard Intel PC stuff, they could probably do it cheap enough that they'd be able to keep selling the "true" PowerPC Macs as well.

They *could*, in theory, also go the 'fat binaries' route, just like NeXT did. They stopped making their own hardware and sold _just_ software for x86 machines. According to some, it actually sold pretty well. If they did it today with OS X, it'd sell a hell of a lot better. And sure, maybe they'd throw in some sort of PearPC-style emulation engine ( maybe they'd "leverage" the existing open source project, what the heck ), that's not a bad idea, although it's clearly a stop-gap idea. I don't use Classic; people in practice upgrade the things they can and only use emulation where they have no other choice ( unless performance is not an issue at all ). People who really objected to getting new apps and moving to OS X are still clinging to OS 9's cold, dead body, and many of them will stay that way until their machines give up the ghost.

My point is that if Apple went to another CPU across the board ( not happening, folks! ), third-party developers would as a general rule, be able to offer cheap 'upgrades' as porting would be a snap, much like it was in the NeXTStep for Intel case. For most people, this would mean new software; emulation would be the exception, not the rule.

Again, I don't think that's the current strategy, unless they're finding that IBM just won't or can't get it together, in which case anything could happen. I think they'll give IBM another couple of years before doing anything drastic though, and this is just pre-WWDC media confusion. Not that I know anything... but IBM is getting a lot of dollars from these game console makers, which hopefully will fund more chip R&D and manufacturing infrastructure, eventually boosting their offerings for Apple. If not, Apple does have options.

On the other hand, the current G5 machines aren't exactly slow. They're pretty damn fast, actually. I think going Intel would have to be about price, and with the Mac Mini, I don't think that's any longer a very valid reason.
Re:Does this mean - by benwaggoner · 2005-05-23 08:59 · Score: 1

No, PowerBooks dropped ADB in favor of USB back with the Bronze keyboard G3 - 1999? That generation still had SCSI, but the last pre-Titanium had FireWire and AirPort. All the G4 PowerBooks have been USB/1394/802.11.

iBooks never had ADB - they were USB from their introduction, as was the iMac.

Apple machines were using today's standard Windows interfaces ports well before most Windows machines had them :).

--

My video compression blog
Re:Does this mean - by niteice · 2005-05-23 09:07 · Score: 1

Don't the kernel and related files make up most of the architecture-specific code in XP? Perhaps not XP, but maybe Windows Server 2003 PowerPC Edition?

--
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
Re:Does this mean - by Jozer99 · 2005-05-23 09:15 · Score: 1

Why can't Apple use Intel PowerPC chips. PowerPC processor designs can be liscenced from IBM, and there are several manufacturers, limited mostly by demand (well theres Apple, then theres...um...). If Intel can make PowerPCs cheaper and faster than IBM (not very hard to do, we are talking about IBM here) more power too them. On the other hand, perhaps this is only to scare IBM into lowering its prices and producing chip orders on time.
Re:Does this mean - by snuf23 · 2005-05-23 09:17 · Score: 1

Intel now ships 64bit x86 chips known as EMT64.

--
Sometimes my arms bend back.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 09:41 · Score: 0

Dude, MS would be short for MSFT
Re:Does this mean - by RzUpAnmsCwrds · 2005-05-23 09:48 · Score: 2, Informative

The "Java is faster than C/C++" argument argues this"

No, it argues that a JIT compiler can make optimizations at runtime that could not be made at compile time. Which, indeed, is true. Certain specific algorithms are faster in Java than in C++.

Of course, we're talking about technicalities here. I'll agree that C is genarally faster than Java. But Java isn't necessarily slow - take the T-Mobile Sidekick, which has a quasi-Java OS and Java applications, yet maintains excellent performance on a 50MHz ARM CPU.
Re:Does this mean - by antrik · 2005-05-23 09:54 · Score: 1

> Maybe they will do their own north bridge, in fact much of the traditional PC architecture is emulated in this device

Actually, this is mostly the southbridge. The northbridge is primarily responsible for the "modern" stuff like PCI and SDRAM and APIC and whatnot, most of which Apple uses just the same.

--
All my comments get moderated +-0, spotless.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 09:58 · Score: 0

No, the PowerBook lost the ADB port, but up until the last revision used ADB internally for the keyboard. This is why the method of resetting the PMU changed with these new models.

As for the iBook, it's still ADB internally to this day.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 10:10 · Score: 0

Mac will simply be an overpriced PC running a pretty gui on top of BSD

So, it would be different... how?
Re:Does this mean - by laird · 2005-05-23 10:26 · Score: 1

"The transition to powerpc was not a change of architecture, it was an upgrade in architecture. x86 is an entirely different architecture with an entirely different instruction set."

Wow, is this wrong. The 680x0 and the PowerPC have pretty much nothing in common, other than that Motorolla is one of the manufacturers of the PowerPC chips. But the only way that PPC's run 680x0 code is that they run a software emulator.

When Apple moved from 680x0 to PPC they could have easily moved to any other chip architecture. In fact, they (kinda) had MacOS running on SPARC, x86, etc., two different ways. First, the MacOS emulator for UNIX, and second NeXTSTEP -- between the two, that covered running "yellow box" and "blue box". So the choice of PPC wasn't due to any similarity to the 680x0, but purely on other technical and strategic issues (i.e. PPC being faster than x86 at the time and with a cleaner roadmap, the possibility of launching PPC as a competitive platform to x86, etc.).

For perspective, think about that processor companies use when they have a choice. All of the next generation videogame consoles run PPC. Many embedded controllers (e.g. in cars, Tivo's) are PPC's. People only use x86's when they need to run legacy x86 software; PPC's cost less and run faster.

Finally, even if Apple switched to the x86 from PPC, they wouldn't ship MacOS for generic PC's, because there we far too many quality/user experience issues. They toyed it a while back (I used to run Rhapsody for x86) and the idea died because it was impossible for them to generate enough device drivers to have even the slightest change of working on a random PC -- Rhapsody for x86 only ran on specific motherboards, with specific SCSI controllers, specific ethernet interfaces, specific video cards, etc. This was fine for someone building a machine to run that OS, but made it impossible to support more casual switchers.

--
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Re:Does this mean - by shaitand · 2005-05-23 10:31 · Score: 1

If you read PC as IBM-PC Compatible... not until they change the CPU.

Everything else is the same, drives, bus, memory, periphials, io ports, etc. But the processor is not the standard commodity part found in systems that cost half as much and it also needs to use the x86 instruction set (and of course the chipset/firmware to go with that change).
Re:Does this mean - by laird · 2005-05-23 10:35 · Score: 1

I agree that "an x86 Apple would probably be a proprietary Apple with an x86 in" but keep in mind that the reason that nobody ran competitors to Windows on x86 (Be, Linux, etc.) was that MS' licensing terms required licensees to pay for Windows even if they didn't ship it, and prohibited companies from shipping any competing OS installed. The result was that since companies were already paying for Windows, they installed it, and since they installed it, they couldn't install any other OS. This meant that even manufacturers that sold PC's specifically to run BeOS shipped them with Windows installed, and told people to take the BeOS CD's and do the installation themselves.

Needless to say, this wiped out BeOS in the OEM market. This tactic was of course eventually determined to be illegal, but by then Be was dead so it didn't matter.

--
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Re:Does this mean - by laird · 2005-05-23 10:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

"We will see Windows on PowerPC long before we ever see the full OS X on x86."

Ironically enough, we've already seen Windows on PowerPC and OS X on x86. Specifically, Microsoft shipped Windows NT (3.x and 4.0) and Windows CE for PowerPC, and Apple shipped (to developers) Rhapsody for x86, and currently ships WebObjects for many processors, including x86. WebObjects includes the Cocoa runtime, which means that (except for Apple's license prohibiting it) developers could ship their Cocoa applications as a single binary installer for all WebObjects platforms (MacOS X, Windows 2000+, Solaris). I've been told by friends at Apple that they still make sure that MacOS X runs on a wide range of processors (x86, PPC, etc.) in order to make sure that they don't accidentally break the portability that NeXTSTEP gave them. Of course, this doesn't mean that they'll ship it to consumers, but it's important that they keep the option open.

--
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Re:Does this mean - by shaitand · 2005-05-23 10:57 · Score: 1

"Fabulous hardware design"

What part did Apple design again? Wasn't the processor, that belongs to IBM. Apple certainly did not invent the PCI bus, memory modules, periphials, hard drives, drive controllers, drive interfaces, or io interfaces. True they slapped all of this designed by others stuff together on a circuit board but they did not design any of it. They did some nice firmware work, that much I will give them.

The only thing in the box that does not come off a commodity IBM-PC component assembly line is the processor (and the mb that glues the above mentioned technologies together). You say the hardware design is fabulous, I say it was fabulous circa late 1980's when macs were macs and ibm-pc were ibm-pc's.

"a remarkably stable and well thought out OS"

That has little or nothing to do with Apple either. It is a Mach OS, with BSD filling in the blanks to get a usable system. Apple did create the pretty gui I referred to though.

"and excellent (sometimes unrivalled) media software are the Mac's edge"

There is excellent media software for every platform but you hit another excellent point. Apple makes excellent software, they always have. That is where apple should concentrate. Even the early macs were Amiga as much as Apple. 99% of the mac is a pc already, change the last 1%, open source OS X and start selling Media software and other tidbits to enhance it.
Re:Does this mean - by shaitand · 2005-05-23 11:00 · Score: 1

I would have to disagree with you on the PowerPC chip, it uses less juice, runs cooler, and outperforms x86 chips.

"In every respect except the CPU, this is already true. Back in the 80s, Apple designed superior computers, but now Macs are just collections of commodity PC parts, and often quite low-end ones at that."

True enough, but even back in the 80's there was this little company called Commadore... Someday apple will figure out that the only reason people buy their hardware is because of their easy to use software and adjust their business model accordingly.
Re:Does this mean - by ArbitraryConstant · 2005-05-23 11:51 · Score: 1

The XBox PowerPC processors are not designed for general purpose work. They're in-order, they have a long pipline like the Pentium 4 and they have crappy branch predition. Just being PowerPC doesn't make them good at every.

--
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Re:Does this mean - by ArbitraryConstant · 2005-05-23 11:58 · Score: 1

If anything, I think it's more likely that Intel will start making PowerPC processors. IA-64 is relegated to a few profitable but limited areas. PowerPC is everywhere, and Intel could certainly keep up with IBM and Motorola if they were making compatible chips.

--
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Re:Does this mean - by Trillan · 2005-05-23 12:10 · Score: 2, Informative

No, they are not. The PPC does not support m68k code.

m68k support was done through a software emulator in the Mac OS, similiar to Virtual PC for emulating Windows on the Mac or something like MAME for emulating arcade games. The difference is that Apple did such a good job on the emulator that people like you didn't realize it existed. :)
Re:Does this mean - by nullforce · 2005-05-23 12:12 · Score: 1

The Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) takes care of this.
Re:Does this mean - by Trillan · 2005-05-23 12:13 · Score: 1

I can't believe the replies you're getting. Thanks for the laugh. :)
Re:Does this mean - by Trillan · 2005-05-23 12:21 · Score: 1

Not completely, agreed, but I remember it felt less painful than the 68030->68040 transition. In fact, I seem to remember some of the things that the 68040 had broken came back to life... while new things that relied on the new features of the 68040 broke.
Re:Does this mean - by aonaran · 2005-05-23 12:24 · Score: 1

We'll see Mac OS X - x86 anytime soon?

While I'd love to see that, as OSX is the most appealing part of a Mac to me, I think that the truth is more likely that they want Intel to be their #1 ARM supplier for the next round of iPods.
Re:Does this mean - by Trillan · 2005-05-23 12:39 · Score: 1

For day to day work in a cross-platform office, Word owns Pages. For doing really nice-looking documents where cross platform compatibility is not important, I'll grant you that Pages kicks serious ass.

Put it this way: I do design documents in HTML or Word. I keep my resume updated in Pages.
Re:Does this mean - by MBGMorden · 2005-05-23 12:47 · Score: 1

Hmm. Somebody was sleeping during their lectures. The Turing Test has nothing to do with programming languages. It's basically a criteria to verify artificial intelligence. Completely different area of CompSci.

I think what you're thinking of is a Turing Machine, though it certainly can't solve "any problem". Rather, it a Turing machine can solve any solveable problem. There's a whole class of problems categorized as "NP Complete" for which there can be no definate algorithmic solution.

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 12:50 · Score: 0

"Just like no one cares that there is a PowerPC in them today."

I do (and I've actually done low-level coding for more than my fair share of processors). The PowerPC is quite possibly the most elegant chip still in production, especially now that the Alpha has been killed of by corporate interests.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 12:53 · Score: 0

My guess is they are just talking about PCI express. Current PowerMacs use PCI-X, which doesn't seem to be winning.
Re:Does this mean - by Klanglor · 2005-05-23 13:27 · Score: 1

Remember the Tablet Mac Patern posted a few weeks ago;) I would bet that Apple could leverage from the Centrino Technology.

I am not a chip expert, but i think that they are having trouble shrinking the size of the G5.
since it require lots of cooling.

If u follow Steve Job's new product release strategy, he release a technology based on the previous. ( He learned it the hardway, NeXT, Apple 3... Full Feature, All At once state of the art stuff failed again and again) So he released a iPod to fluff up his war chest. Made iTune to feed on Tigers Desktop Search. added video conferencing in Tigers, launch the mini imac... my guess he is going for living room video conferecing next... imagine ur i mac, ur plasma screen, and iChat! Kaboom! Ok on the other end of the spectrum, he made the one piece iMac... didn't work quite well way too big.. he wanted to test out the ability as a tablet Mac.. imagine a ipod that u doc on ur tablet mac.

So do u see where i am going.. if everything goes well the ipod will morph as a PDA (picture/music/contact...) dock it you mini imac in the living room, u got ur music for music, launch, all the stored contact will help u launch ichat to video conference on ur plasma screen. plug it in ur table mac (same form factor as the curent imac but slimer and u got ur but that u can tear off from the stand). the MAC LIVING ENVIROMENT EXPERIENCE. iLife redefined.

All this to say that i would be really cool to have a tablet mac with centrino. cuz G5 is taking darn too much space to be a tabet mac on a podium (like the imac
Re:Does this mean - by shaitand · 2005-05-23 13:42 · Score: 1

last I checked RISC processors have a pretty similar instruction set and the translation required was minimal. So far NOBODY has managed to a decent RISC to CISC translation.
Re:Does this mean - by edalytical · 2005-05-23 13:49 · Score: 1

My guess is they really are planning on using Intel chips - just not processors.
That's what I thought when I heard Microsoft would be using IBM chips in the Xbox 360. Nevertheless, I think your guess is correct.

--
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
Re:Does this mean - by cosmo7 · 2005-05-23 13:49 · Score: 1

Even better than that, the 68K emulator itself used 68K toolbox calls, so it was doing the emulation for it's own execution.
Re:Does this mean - by Trillan · 2005-05-23 14:14 · Score: 1

I'm confused. You do know that the 680x0 is a CISC processor, right...? You might be confusing the 680x0 with the 88000.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 14:32 · Score: 0

PPC 970 runs slower than a Opteron and uses more juice and runs hotter than a Pentium-M, so you are just wrong.
Re:Does this mean - by anthony_dipierro · 2005-05-23 14:50 · Score: 1

Very few people build their own computers. Most buy a box from their local computer store, or order it online from a company like Dell.

OK, but if you could buy the parts and build your own Mac, then Dell could buy the parts and build a Mac for you. Maybe not legally, though. Apple could presumably make it legal to build clones for personal use, but illegal to build them for resale.

Also, no one would run OSX on a standard PC. Just like no one runs BeOS, or ran OS/2.

OSX has a much bigger base of users than BeOS or OS/2. And unlike Be, Apple has a lot of experience delivering complete systems with the OS pre-installed.

An x86 Apple would probably be a proprietary Apple with an x86 in, and no one would care. Just like no one cares that there is a PowerPC in them today.

Most people would care, and use Windows. Some people would care, and use OSX. Some people would care, and use Linux. Some people, including me, would (still) buy the cheapest hardware without regard to what operating system is installed on it. Where Apple would make its biggest gain is with people who want to use OSX, but are forced to use Windows because they are tied to software which is only available on Windows. If Macs ran on X86 chips, then running Windows software on Macs becomes a lot easier - you'd use Wine, and not an emulator.

If they did it right, it'd probably be a win-win situation. Just keep a little bit of the Operating System in ROM, and don't let anyone else sell computers with the OS pre-installed. Sure, you'll get some hard-core geeks who will quickly copy the OS and offer install CDs on some P2P networks, but most people don't install their own OS just to save a few bucks. Meanwhile, you'll make the cost of supporting OSX in addition to Windows come down greatly, and you can probably sell a few OSX CDs to people who already own Intel hardware and are willing to pay to change their OS.
Re:Does this mean - by Razzak · 2005-05-23 14:50 · Score: 1

"VMX - ... It is what offers Apple serious performance benefits in certain applications, and makes possible many of the near/realtime capbilities in programs like iPhoto, iMovie, and even Final Cut Pro."

Eh, all VMX does in my opinion is make macs comparable to PC's in those specific applications. With a faster processor, you wouldn't need it. The G5 is no longer the small efficient processor the G3's were. Hell, we still don't have G5's in laptops.
Re:Does this mean - by SnowZero · 2005-05-23 15:12 · Score: 1

Boot Linux on it and run "cat /proc/pci"; That'll tell you what the chip is immediately. Or run an equivalent OSX command if there is one.
Re:Does this mean - by spectre_240sx · 2005-05-23 15:20 · Score: 1

Well, that "Pretty GUI" allows me to run Photoshop. That's enough to sell me. Now there's a bonus in that it looks nice and that keyboard shortcuts and a lot of application functionality are almost completely standardized accross the platform. In short, it's a kick ass operating system. Let me know when linux can run Photoshop (not GIMP, don't even try to tell me that it's the same thing) and look decent with extra usability features like Expose. At that point, I'd be happy to switch to linux on my desktop. Unfortunately, that's a long way off.

Also, what the hell is wrong with a user interface that looks nice as long as it functions well. I'm all about function over form, but if you can have both, then great! It's nice to work on a system that looks decent. It's just another small thing to help brighten up my day just a little bit.
Re:Does this mean - by Watts+Martin · 2005-05-23 15:31 · Score: 1

Pages not only kicks Word's ass, it even frees most Mac users who do page layout from needing Quark.

You don't do much word processing or desktop publishing, do you? I'm sorry, but as pretty as Pages is, it's pretty anemic as far as all but very basic word processing tasks go. If what you're looking for is a Mac equivalent to Microsoft Publishers, Pages is your program--it's better and far more usable. But for actually, y'know, processing words rather than doing a cute club newsletter, grab the freeware "WordService" add-in for OS X and use TextEdit, and you'll get more functionality. I'm serious.

And as someone who's done desktop publishing professionally: no offense, but Pages isn't even fit to tie the shoelaces of a program like InDesign or Xpress (or, for that matter, LaTeX).
Re:Does this mean - by Trillan · 2005-05-23 15:42 · Score: 1

Sorry, but you're wrong. PowerBooks prior to the most recent revision connect to their internal trackpad via the power management IC. I am not sure if it is exactly ADB, although it looks like ADB at the driver level.

Old block diagram vs. new block diagram. Note that in the older diagram, the trackpad connects via the Power Management IC. In the new one, the trackpad connects via the USB bus.

You can also verify this on an older Powerbook by using Apple System Profiler. Neither keyboard nor trackpad show up in the list of ADB devices, although a BlueTooth adapter will.

(It actually looks like the new Powerbooks still use ADB for the keyboard. Interesting. I suppose this makes sense, given that they're still turned on via keyboard.)
Re:Does this mean - by slantyyz · 2005-05-23 15:46 · Score: 1

Take a look from the big picture.

"fabulous hardware"

While my use of the term "hardware" was ambiguous, I perceive hardware to be how everything is put together. Yes, the Mac is made up of some pretty generic components, but it is how it is _put together_ as an entire system that is fabulous. The iMac, Mac Mini and Powerbooks are excellent examples of hardware design as a whole.

"a remarkably stable and well thought out OS"
Just as my comment related to the hardware above, I see the operating system as more than just its kernel. I primarily use (and like) Windows. I've used (and paid for) several of the more usable flavors of Linux including Xandros and Linspire. None of them are as well "put together" as OS X. They might excel at one thing or another, but they don't make an attempt to give you everything. While I do think that the Finder sucks and that OSX could be snappier, it is probably the most well put together OS I've used since BeOS.

"and excellent (sometimes unrivalled) media software are the Mac's edge"
I would say that most of the rivals to Final Cut, iPhoto (despite being pig ass slow), iMovie et al, have quite a ways to go. I've tried many of the competitors on Windows, but they've always left me wanting in the area of usability or integration with the other types of media tools.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 16:02 · Score: 0

True, computer builders are a minority. However, it helps the goodness of the platform (not necessarily the original manufacturer though). Remember the little company called compaq that replicated IBM's bios. The advent of cheaper clones was definitely one reason why intel based pc's became so common. And now, you have AMD, another cheaper alternative. Free market at work. Sort of, until you get to the software side, but thats a different story. Anyways, when's the last time you built a kick-ass gaming machine running Mac OS. Build your own does feed a whole parts industry. It's a great way if you want to build a custom low end server cheaply for your office, or a killer gaming machine. So, it's definitely not bad for the consumer. For apple? i dunno. Now, would they really go to x86? Maybe to get some server or office workstation market share? special "Mac" systems to fill that area and gain more leverage? Or maybe having intel make proprietary controllers, etc for macs? Who knows, we'll find out soon. I still forsee a long PPC future ahead.
Re:Does this mean - by benwaggoner · 2005-05-23 16:03 · Score: 1

The point was that PowerBooks have been externally modern for some time. There's no practical difference in how the internal bits talk to each other.

--

My video compression blog
Re:Does this mean - by cirisme · 2005-05-23 16:15 · Score: 1

That would make it more appealing to companies, not people.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 16:56 · Score: 0

And that only took you what six, seven months after everyone else figured this out to make this realization....

Wow, you're a quick one.
Re:Does this mean - by rthille · 2005-05-23 17:29 · Score: 1

That's just sick. You just made my head explode. I love it.

It's almost as good as using your compiler to compile itself...

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Re:Does this mean - by Trillan · 2005-05-23 18:31 · Score: 1

The thread went from here:

You'd be surprised how architecturally different Apple's regular offerings are from one another. I believe even Apple's latest PowerBooks use technologies considered obsolete in the rest of the line, such as ADB for the internal bus used for the keyboard and pointing device.

To here:

The latest powerbooks actually have a USB interface for keyboard and mouse. however you are correct, the ibooks, and all previous powerbooks used ADB.

And then you said this:

No, PowerBooks dropped ADB in favor of USB back with the Bronze keyboard G3 - 1999? That generation still had SCSI, but the last pre-Titanium had FireWire and AirPort. All the G4 PowerBooks have been USB/1394/802.11.

Do you really not see how your post is not only incorrect in context, but incorrect in absolute terms? Until the last generation, PowerBooks used ADB for internal connections. Nobody ever suggested that they didn't have USB ports.
Re:Does this mean - by OwnedByTwoCats · 2005-05-24 01:09 · Score: 1

Note that when Apple changed processor architectures last time (1993-1995) they had their fastest market share decline. The engineering resources that they spent making the M68K->PPC transition (which they had to do; M68K was falling further and further behind) could have kept MacOS far ahead of where Win95 was.
Re:Does this mean - by LWATCDR · 2005-05-24 02:09 · Score: 1

If you read up on the LinuxBios project you will find that at a very low level many chip sets are using some "deep magic". There is a whole layer of undocumented closed source stuff hiding at the Bios level on many computers. For instance do you have any idea how to adjust the cpu voltage and FBS on your computer through software? It is possible on many machines.
I do not think Apple will make an X86 machine. There is a lack of apps and no real benefit I see. Cheaper? Why play in the mud with Dell? Keep your margins and your profits.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Does this mean - by Austerity+Empowers · 2005-05-24 02:39 · Score: 1

I believe you that to write a new BIOS you need to know not only "deep magic" about your hardware, but also some things about the specific implementation on the motherboard. Things like what data rates has the main memory bus been qualified for, the fsb, pci etc. What happens to the eye as you increase frequency, what are the clock margins. Then you have to know what registers on the various ASICs to go toy with. These are things overclockers particularly like to play with and often "work", but have subtle implications (which gamers usually don't give a rip about). Us motherboard designers usually wouldn't stake our jobs on how well they work.

I do not think any of these things are part of "PC Architecture", they're specific to particular implementations that support PC Architecture. PC Architecture as another poster said does not say anything about a front side bus, or voltage regulators therein.

Anyway, Apple by virtue of being a monopoly can use x86 hardware and still keep their margins. Instead of selling a $2500 computer for $3000, they can now sell a $500 for $1000, and lure more people to buy it. It's not really clear to me that the pentium 4 could not support PowerPC instructions. All we really know is that it does break down x86 instructions into simpler micro-operations...perhaps with the right volumes it could translate PowerPC instructions (which many have speculated are similar to it's native format anyhow?)

Apple's growth is bottlenecked by expensive hardware, what if they could "play in the mud with Dell" on their own terms? Probably they're just abusing their PowerPC vendors for better pricing, but you never know.
Re:Does this mean - by LionMage · 2005-05-24 04:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is starting to get WAY off topic. However, I should point out that your point number 1 is attributable to many things, none of which are directly VM related. Poor programming is indeed to blame in some cases. You speak of "Java desktop apps," but realistically, this must be broken down into three sub-cases: AWT, Swing, and SWT, the three main GUI toolkits available to Java programmers these days. SWT has performance problems on every platform besides Windows, because SWT has only been optimized under MS Windows. AWT is no longer promoted, and seldom used, mainly because it looks clunky and doesn't provide much flexibility. Swing widgets are supposed to be 100% Pure Java, although Swing has been optimized on some platforms (notably OS X optimizes Swing drawing operations using Quartz 2D or similar, depending on version). Obviously, having GUI widgets that are written in an interpreted/JIT-compiled language is not a recipe for performance, especially for applications with rapid visual updates. But then again, a well-designed Swing app will intelligently handle redraw, something I've noticed is hard for some programmers to cope with. After all, when you can live in a Windows world and rely on hardware-acceleration to conceal the fact that your application redraws the same thing a dozen times, your programming techniques will fall flat in Swing. (I've been around long enough to see examples of GUI code in Java written by people who cut their teeth in Windows and X11, and almost invariably, profiling the code revealed cases where redraw was happening far more than it should have.)

Of course, this "desktop apps" argument is kind of a straw man argument, because these days, almost 100% of commercial Java development is on the server side, in J2EE environments like Websphere and WebLogic. Major corporations use J2EE (and JSP/Servlet engines like Tomcat) because this stuff works. It's easy to develop for, the performance is very good when using the Server VM (as opposed to the client VM, which is optimized for processes that don't run 24/7), and the toolset is very rich, which makes productivity very high.

Let's put it this way: Java wouldn't survive if it weren't performant in the server space. So obviously, for some applications, it's superior to the alternatives.

Your point number 2 is another straw man argument in disguise. The fact is that there is a lot of crap C/C++ code out there, and much of it is in libraries that are leveraged by user-written C/C++ applications. However, even ignoring this fact, you can empirically demonstrate with experiment (not so-called "intuition," which often gives incorrect answers -- ask any real scientist) that for some algorithms, a direct implementation in Java may in fact outperform a similar implementation in C/C++. The paper I cited in fact does this type of comparison -- it is an "apples to apples" comparison, implementing the same algorithms in each language and comparing the results.

Nice job on the straw man arguments, though. It's very easy to misrepresent someone else's argument and then tear it down, because you're not really addressing the other person at all; it only looks like you are.

Now, let's talk about your intuition. Most modern JVMs use what is called JIT (or Just-In-Time) compilation of the Java bytecodes. A VM that is tuned to run long-term, such as the server JVM that Sun ships, will cache the JIT-compiled bytecode for immediate retrieval and execution. As another poster pointed out, there are optimizations that can be performed at runtime by inspecting the running code's behavior; these optimizations can and do outperform compile-time optimizations, where the optimizer can only make assumptions about the run-time profile of the running code. Basically, in any case where a static compile-time optimization fails on the C/C++ side, a code implementation on the Java side will be more performant. So there's the counter-argument to your "intuition." Not that this is likely to conv
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-24 05:06 · Score: 0

TextEdit is for little girls who don't know how to use vi and perl.

90% of the time, Microsoft Word is being used for "cute little newsletters" and crap like that, and Pages does a better job. Only a complete choad would use either of them for text munging.
Re:Does this mean - by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2005-05-24 05:24 · Score: 1

The X86 may not be pretty, but I'd prefer it over a closed architecture any day.

What an amusing assertion. You do realize that x86 was a completely proprietary architecture, with no open spec that was reverse engineered and now is mainly controlled by Intel, with AMD thus far maintaining compatibility for the most part, but with no guarantee of that in the future?

PowerPC on the other hand has an open and published spec and the architecture is implemented by both IBM and Motorola and the spec is managed by a consortium of industry players and built upon OpenFirmware with a completely open and published specification as well. There is nothing stopping anyone from building a macintosh compatible computer. Of course the OS X license forbids you to run it on anything not sold by Apple, but that has nothing to do with the hardware specifications. Windows is only available for the few architectures MS will build and sell it for. Linux or the BSDs can be run on anything and if you want a truly open system, is more "open" on powerpc than x86.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-24 06:11 · Score: 0

The point was that PowerBooks have been externally modern for some time.

Supposedly, the fact that the keyboard is still ADB internally causes hell for people who like to remap their keyboards. Don't know if this is true though.
Re:Does this mean - by Lally+Singh · 2005-05-24 06:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Don't worry about being off topic, once the /. post leaves the front page, nobody else but us cares :-)

The Desktop App example is actually really straightforward: the delays in using Java are immediately visible to the user, and immediately comparable to C/C++ desktop apps. Delays imposed by java on the server side are less visible; as they can only be seen indirectly by a client app (and web browsers are C/C++!), and there aren't many comparable C/C++ apps on the server side.

And, btw, the document you linked to before was all scientific number-crunching. Something that wouldn't run as a server app. And I did read through the source of that, they're reasonably close implementations with each other, in a sec I'll describe why C/C++ is still going to be faster in a production environment (even with the same number-crunching code!). See next paragraph.

As for the intuition claims, what happens when you feed some profiling data back into the compiler (which the better ones accept) ? Any (good) C/C++ app development house will have automated tests running, which provide gobs of good profiling data. And again, a compiler back-end can optimize more aggressively than a JVM can, as it has high-level knowledge of the system (e.g. the source code) vs only the low-level knowledge a JVM has (bytecode only). Not to mention that the low-level implementation of the intermediate representation can be made highly compatible with the target's architecture, vs having one imposed from Sun (which, btw, was made for interpretation, not recompilation, compare with .Net's CLR which was).

And I was being nice about GC, and I'll be nice again. I'll save the debugging arguments for another day -- java programmers tend to fear problems solved in C++ quite easily. Btw, the arguments for JIT are usually similar for GC: in the "big picture" (e.g. a fantasy land where I can claim whatever I want), the overhead is nothing compared to code that we don't actually talk about.

And some more niceness: it's easier to tweak out Java code's performance: the JVM does most of the heavy lifting for you. Java's often easier to develop for (unless you use the libraries too heavily, they're mostly shit), and there are many areas where the dev effort/speed trade off favors java over C/C++. Java has a richer runtime with some nice parts in there (reflection comes to mind).

However, the claim that Java can be faster than C/C++, when good people are put on both side, is false. A C/C++ compiler simply has more knowledge of the system being compiled (the source text vs java bytecode), essentially unlimited time to optimize it (for an extreme case, check out http://www.cs.utk.edu/~rwhaley/papers/icpp05_8.ps ), and full freedom for transformations (a C/C++ compiler, knowing what you originally asked for in the source code, can generate anything it wants that fills your request; a JVM's JIT can only guess at what your source wanted from the bytecode it has to work with, limited to the strict letter of the law given by the bytecode). The paper you listed was an honest attempt at comparison, but GCC isn't optimal on many platforms, most notably intel or ppc.

This is a fair set of tradeoffs; don't let the marketing people and the kool-aide drinkers tell you different.

--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Re:Does this mean - by mmkkbb · 2005-05-24 08:22 · Score: 1

Maybe a dual-processor system: one PowerPC and one Intel? Not likely, I grant you.

That's been done with a 68K mac. Look up the Nutek Duet.

--
-mkb
Re:Does this mean - by LWATCDR · 2005-05-24 08:47 · Score: 1

I do agree that an OS really does not NEED to know what is going on around the Bios level. But then an Application does not NEED to know what an OS does once you get past the API. I was commenting on just how Open the PC really is.
I do not think Apple is hampered at all by there "expensive" hardware. I do not think that the G4 and G5 are that much more expensive than Intel's equivalent CPUs. Unless apple goes with an off the shelf mother board there really will not be the HUGE savings not to mention that Apple would then have to get in line behind Dell at Intel. Then you have the problem with a lack of software. How many companies will recompile and test there software for OS/X X86? I really doubt that Microsoft would come out with an OS/X X86 version of Office.

You are right That Apple needed to get into the cheaper PC market. The Mac Mini is probably the first step. Part of me has to wonder why the PS3 cell has an Altavec engine on the die plus the cells. Could we see it in a new Mac Mini? What about the Xbox360 and Nintendo Revolution? Each are using the PPC core. I just do not see where Apple would gain anything with an X86 version.
The have your $1000 mac already and from what I hear it is selling like hot cakes.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Does this mean - by Paradox · 2005-05-24 10:25 · Score: 1

That has little or nothing to do with Apple either. It is a Mach OS, with BSD filling in the blanks to get a usable system. Apple did create the pretty gui I referred to though.
Bullshit.
First, if you think that the "BSD filling in the blanks" and "usable system" represent non-trivial amounts of work and/or software design, you lack experience in this field. Darwin differentiates itself on several levels, and continues to do so.

Second, there is more to your OS than your raw controller layer and kernel, regardless of what linux folks want to tell you. Apple's system looks less and less like vanilla BSD every day, in a wide variety of ways. Some of this is inheritance from NeXT, but Apple has made huge strides in making thins better. To dismiss that as inconsequential because it's not close enough to the metal to make your arbitrary defintion of "OS" is both unfair and misleading.

For example, did you know part of the core distribution of OSX is a high-performance LAPACK library, complete with hand-tuned Altivec-saavy BLAS routines? Apple uses these routines all over the place, from the obvious places like their imaging library and Quicktime to obscure places like Mail.app. Did you know that Apple worked long and hard to make an Objective-C runtime that is one of the fastest ever made, without sacrificing functionality and making it possible to integrate C++?

And that "pretty gui" represents ground-breaking work in usability. Not all of it is perfect, yet, but they're getting there. It's also usable from a programmer's point of view. There is nothing like developing for Mac OSX. It's painless and quick, and you get amazing results. They give away an amazing developer kit with tools for working from the metal all the way up to their window server.

All this is part of the OS, all of this is designed and implemented in some part by Apple. It represents one of the more impressive success stories of software engineering to date, when you take the timeframe into account. When you buy a machine equipped with OSX, you're buying into a whole set of technologies from the metal on up.

Simply waving your hand and saying, "Ahh, they didn't design anything" is grossly inaccurate.

--
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Re:Does this mean - by lawnboy5-O · 2005-05-24 12:01 · Score: 1

Quark's development cycle for XPress is 18 months; now that it uses its own api for connecting to GDI+, Quartz, etc... I imagine its port would not be difficult at all...

This is of course, the new Quark, not the old Quark. Have you contacted them lately - dont spew crap about which you do not know...
Re:Does this mean - by NMerriam · 2005-05-24 12:23 · Score: 1

Indeed -- my head was spinning for a few minutes there. :)

--
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Re:Does this mean - by shaitand · 2005-05-24 13:16 · Score: 1

" Well, that "Pretty GUI" allows me to run Photoshop."

You can run Photoshop on every major platform.

"Let me know when linux can run Photoshop"

Linux can run the Win32 version of Photoshop.

"Unfortunately, that's a long way off."

No actually, you've been able to run Photoshop on Linux for a couple years now. Disney needed to run Photoshop before they could move all their desktops to Linux, so they paid some programmers $50,000 to port it.

"I'm all about function over form, but if you can have both, then great!"

That sounds great until you realize there is no such thing as both, every single animation and highlight degrades performance.

Honestly, if a pretty gui is your thing then go for it. My complaint is that Macs used to justify the high price tag, they used to have excellent hardware and a slow crappy OS that was useless to all but least advanced user. Now they have a much better OS but the part that makes it superior is already open source, and aside from the processor, the hardware is basically the same cheap crap you get in an x86 pc.

If you want an x86 mac you can get almost the same thing now by purchasing a vaio. It is basically what you could get from another pc vendor for $400 at $1200-$3000 with some housebrand media software on it.
Re:Does this mean - by shaitand · 2005-05-24 13:30 · Score: 1

"Second, there is more to your OS than your raw controller layer and kernel, regardless of what linux folks want to tell you."

No there is not. That is what an operating system is by definition. People who program things other than operating systems expanding the idea to be a usable system for THEM and included C libraries and started debating on whether it included pieces on top of that and end users later mistaking thought it was the portion that provided the foundation for THEM. The operating system is the lowest level layer to the hardware, even the C libraries must go through the kernel (at least on a properly designed operating system). The other applications and libraries bundled with the kernel to provide a foundation someone can work with constitute a minimal DISTRIBUTION, not an operating system.

"And that "pretty gui" represents ground-breaking work in usability. Not all of it is perfect, yet, but they're getting there. It's also usable from a programmer's point of view."

Your point? Or did you just feel like ranting about how great you think their gui and the portions they wrote to support their gui are? There is nothing in your entire post that contradicts my point that the only thing of signficance left to Apple as a HARDWARE vendor is the CPU.

Much as I appreciate your rant, I already clearly indicated that I thought Apple had done some nice software work and that they should wake up and realize that it is software that they do well.

"Simply waving your hand and saying, "Ahh, they didn't design anything" is grossly inaccurate."

Good thing I never said that, you did. I simply did not praise and worship them enough for your taste.
Re:Does this mean - by Paradox · 2005-05-25 03:18 · Score: 1

No there is not. That is what an operating system is by definition.
Well, it would seem the definition of "Operating System" is not something everyone can agree upon. In fact, you even admit this when you say:
People who program things other than operating systems expanding the idea to be a usable system for THEM and included C libraries and started debating on whether it included pieces on top of that and end users later mistaking thought it was the portion that provided the foundation for THEM.
The Operating System manages the basic tasks of a computer and allows other programs to function without having to duplicate core functionality like disk access, raw memory management and paging, and device management. Thusly, the C library and the core set of programs that boot your machine and get it in working order are very reasonably part of the operating system.
The operating system is the lowest level layer to the hardware, even the C libraries must go through the kernel (at least on a properly designed operating system). The other applications and libraries bundled with the kernel to provide a foundation someone can work with constitute a minimal DISTRIBUTION, not an operating system.
Considering the Linux kernel as an example of this, it cannot even start itself up into a reasonable parody of the services you mentioned without outside assistance, I think your point is elitist and politically or socially motivated.
Continuing with linux as an example, the very core of the OS is not just the kernel, but the basic materials that make the machine more than a complex waste of energy are the OS. By your definition, kernel modules are not part of the OS unless they are compiled into the kernel. Otherwise, they're not really part of the OS, even though with just a simple relocation they are.

Your point? Or did you just feel like ranting about how great you think their gui and the portions they wrote to support their gui are? There is nothing in your entire post that contradicts my point that the only thing of signficance left to Apple as a HARDWARE vendor is the CPU.

Much as I appreciate your rant, I already clearly indicated that I thought Apple had done some nice software work and that they should wake up and realize that it is software that they do well.
Now you're evading my point, and I was angry at you because you said precisely that. In this post you said, "That has little or nothing to do with Apple either. It is a Mach OS, with BSD filling in the blanks to get a usable system. Apple did create the pretty gui I referred to though." That's what I'm talking about.
Even if you take your draconian and dated idea of what an OS is to heart, that statement doesn't hold water. Someone had to meld these parts together, and that took design work and careful thought. Making an OS--even one like XNU that has distinct core parts--is not something you approach without a clear design.

I love your excuse for trolling here though. "I really do like Apple, I'm just going to rail on them and then pretend that I didn't."

--
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-25 03:25 · Score: 0

but now Macs are just collections of commodity PC parts, and often quite low-end ones at that.
For the iBook/iMac/iMini line, not outrageously far off the mark-- but those are intended for entry-level users, like your $500 Best Buy moron special PC. Your remark is much less accurate on the PowerBook/PowerMac line. Have you tried to put together a desktop PC with both AGP and 64-bit PCI slots recently? I have. Apple Power* gear is near to top-of-the-line.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-25 05:01 · Score: 0

hah! you mean from 6 to 6.5?

I would have named that release 6.1 Quark doesn't have a development cycle; "cycle" reasonably implies something happening on a fairly regular basis.

Quark hasn't improved appreciably since 4.1; we have high hopes for 7, but basically, everyone in my industry has already shifted to InDesign. Adobe might be Satan, but at least Satan has decent foreign-language support.
Re:Does this mean - by EvilTwinSkippy · 2005-05-25 05:10 · Score: 1

Why do I bother replying to AC's?...
There is a definite problem to be solved. Packet A of type N needs to get to point B. What route to take? Yea gods man, just because you simply pass your traffic to the "default gateway" doesn't mean that there isn't any logic going on up stream.

The description for our setup is a sequence of 396 rules, chained in ladder logic. Place one directive out of place, and you are routing to nowhere. Or worse. Nowhere can route to you. It's about as complex and unforgiving as any programming I've had to do.

And it's certainly a bit more useful than any "Hello World" test you can throw at me.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-25 05:30 · Score: 0

How? Since it won't use a PowerPC chip anymore..
Re:Does this mean - by feloneous+cat · 2005-05-25 07:37 · Score: 1

or Intel XScale processors for a video ipod...

Finally, the ONLY person that gets it!

Why is it that ANYTIME Intel is brought up the
FIRST thing people think of is "Ooooo, Apple is going to switch away from the PowerPC".

Xscale, WiMax, etc... these are all non-x86 things Apple might, JUST might be interested in.

But what do I know... I'm just a software guy.

[sigh]

--
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-25 12:04 · Score: 0

I think Apple already buys a lot of these sorts of things from Intel maybe the conversation was more like....

Intel Guy " so that's a good deal for the Xscale processors, wifi chips,.....","How about buying some x86's as well. Come on you know you could use them somewhere?"
Mr Jobs "No."

That would qualify as Intel talks to Apple about x86 wouldn't it.
Re:Does this mean - by Ender_Wiggin · 2005-05-25 18:22 · Score: 1

No. Apple already had a clone business, which they killed off because it was bleeding them dry.
Re:Does this mean - by Cro+Magnon · 2005-05-26 01:37 · Score: 1

The PPC and 68K are totally incompatible. Apple ran the old 68K software through emulation, and the only reason it wasn't dog-slow was because the PPC was much faster than the 68K.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Does this mean - by EXrider · 2005-05-26 05:19 · Score: 1

Anyway, Apple by virtue of being a monopoly can use x86 hardware and still keep their margins. Instead of selling a $2500 computer for $3000, they can now sell a $500 for $1000, and lure more people to buy it.

Um... We have a $500 Mac already, and it's called the Mac Mini:
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ppleStore.woa/72802/wo/QB73xI1hGDp02T4R5vP168lbIWo /0.0.11.1.0.6.23.1.3.1.0.0.0.1.0

--
grep -iw skynet /etc/services
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-26 20:19 · Score: 0

I think that the far more likely scenario is that if Apple offers OS X on Intel processors, it will be an addition to, not a replacement of the PPC.

Once the third-party developers have shipped fat-binary versions of their apps, then Apple is free to use any combination of IBM, Intel and AMD processors in their product line, and benefit from multiple chip makers competing for their business.

Multi-architecture binaries are a problem that NeXT solved well over ten years ago. NeXT also came up with a solution to "dll hell", but that's another story.
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-30 13:47 · Score: 0

There's a small company named IBM that produces both software and hardware

Not for consumers, they don't. Dumbass.
Re:Does this mean - by laird · 2005-06-02 12:19 · Score: 1

I'd go a bit further with this. My observation from attending various conferences is that since Mac OS X, most technology industry leaders (CTO's, CEO's, writers) are using Mac's, even if they might be making their employees use PC's. For example, at PC Forum two years ago, every single attendee's laptop was a Mac Powerbook, except for one lonely gentleman with a Sony Vaio, who ended up taping an Apple logo to his laptop in order to 'fit in'.

So while Apple's mass market share may not be skyrocketing (though I hear that the Mac Mini is selling quite well), but pretty much every deeply technical person that I know of either works on a Mac, or plans to buy one as their next machine.

Finally, it looks like Windows software development is beginning to die out. My company ships a Windows application (as well as Mac and Linux) and when we went recruiting engineers it was shocking. Every CS major that we interviewed was programming in Python or Ruby, lots of Java, a little .Net. No C or C++. No Windows-specific programming, lots of linux and Mac, mainly using completely portable languages and frameworks.

--
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Re:Does this mean - by Anonymous Coward · 2005-06-05 18:08 · Score: 0

We're all assuming this means a Processor change on the Macintosh range..

What about if the iPod changed from an ARM7TDMI to an Intel Xscale?

The technical issues of migrating Darwin to x86 is not the issue - it's the complete chaos that this would introduce to the applications on OS X. Single-handedly killing your entire application set is not something that I can see Apple doing on the Mac.

Remember: Intel != x86. Apple != Macintosh.

K
Re:Does this mean - by Austerity+Empowers · 2005-06-06 07:52 · Score: 1

I didn't see the value of arguing this further until it was announced, but now with Intel chipsets their $1000 Mac will either a) make more per box or b) cost $750, probably a bit of both. The argument was not whether a Mac exists at that pricepoint, but simply the sales volumes behind PCs will allow Apple to build cheaper hardware.

The advantage they will have over Dell however is not inhereiting all the backwards compatibibility that comes in PCs. This means lower R&D costs, higher "quality" (in terms of how customers perceive the product, not because Wintel hardware is of lower quality, I assure you it is not). And if their software monkeys are doing what I think they are doing, they will also be able to leverage Windows software at native speed (I can only imagine this is at least half of why they waited so long).

Dell on the other hand is going to have to continue to do exhaustive and expensive testing on every single backwards compatible feature in the system (of which there are many), have to pay for extra components to support that, and has to suffer the confusion of Microsoft right now.

It makes sense and something good may come out of this for customers of either product.

Whoops! There goes the planet by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:27 · Score: 0

Cheap Macs?

Damn submitter trolling again. Macs have never been expensive, always remember the difference between price and value.

Re:Whoops! There goes the planet by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:35 · Score: 0

I'll be modded down for this, as pointing out a complex argument may be flawed doesn't usually go down well.
They've usually been poor value too, whether competing against the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga in the 1980s (which generally cost about a third of the price yet were more powerful machines), or been underpowered, 500MHz "Dual G4s" competing against machines with more power for half the price in the early part of the 21st Century.

They've recently had a few good value products out, but this is a recent development. The G5s are ok, though they're competitively priced, not cheap. The Mac mini and eMac are both reasonable, though their lack of expandability means that many of the machines they compete against are ultimately better value in the long term.
Re:Whoops! There goes the planet by LegendOfLink · 2005-05-23 01:37 · Score: 1

Damn submitter trolling again. Macs have never been expensive, always remember the difference between price and value.

That's why Apple released the Mac Mini, right? Apple needed a "cheap Mac" to attract more customers, because their other macs were so inexpensive? Your comment is a clear example of "head-in-the-clouds trolling" or trolling based on fiction instead of facts.

--
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
Re:Whoops! There goes the planet by dj_tsd · 2005-05-23 01:58 · Score: 0

that's even funnier, I get troll modded because I said that the macintosh platform is more expensive. Someone's touchy about their purchase!
Re:Whoops! There goes the planet by mmeister · 2005-05-23 01:58 · Score: 1

Actually, Apple is just playing that Dell game a bit. Yeah, you can start at $399, but when you get a machine that's truly usable, you find out it costs a lot more (I know, I've been looking at "cheap" PCs for my sister).

Of course, Apple also did what it does best -- add a little style to the whole game. We can strip out things like Display and accessories, but we'll still make it cool.
Re:Whoops! There goes the planet by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:43 · Score: 0

I just recently learned the hard way that PC's, with all their "expansion options" most emphatically do not retain value in the long run. I can't get anybody to pay even half of what my 2-year old gaming PC is worth.

To build a machine of similar performance today would cost about $800 worth of new parts. I can't sell the damned thing for $400

Old Macs, on the other hand, routinely sell on eBay for far more than I think they are worth.
Re:Whoops! There goes the planet by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:48 · Score: 0

I know, it's so expensive, because (a) it's impossible to run any software at all on a cheap $400 machine (with $50 monitor, that comes to $450, much higher than any of the Macs), and (b) if you upgrade to something that can play decent games, you end up spending a fortune, I mean, it's usually, like:
$50-100 for a reasonable graphics card, comparable to what you'd get installed in a Mac by default.

$5 for a joystick.

$50 for some extra RAM.

Erm.

That's it.

So on top of your $400, you have to spend $50 on a monitor, and $105 to $155 on hardware upgrades.

I'm really surprised anyone buys PCs when it costs $655 to come up with anything reasonable, as against $500 (+ monitor, keyboard/mouse, controller, +$50-200 of RAM, etc) for a Mac.
Re:Whoops! There goes the planet by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:53 · Score: 0

Wrong "retain value".
An expandable PC is still usable in the future, because you can upgrade it by replacing the existing obsolete graphics card with a new $50 upgrade.

As opposed to throwing the entire thing out and spending $1,000 on a replacement.

That's one reason why they're difficult to sell btw. The people who want them inevitably already have them, upgrading them year to year.
Re:Whoops! There goes the planet by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:22 · Score: 0

Because the $700 PC can play modern games and the $700 Mac really can't.

Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

"John C. Dvorak predicted this for 2004-2005."

Yes but he predicts so much crap of course he'll be right eventually.

Re:Dvorak by TripMaster+Monkey · 2005-05-23 01:32 · Score: 1

Yes but he predicts so much crap of course he'll be right eventually.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

--
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Re:Dvorak by tbone1 · 2005-05-23 01:33 · Score: 4, Funny

If Dvorak predicted it, you can bet it won't happen.
The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a "mouse". There is no evidence that people want to use these things. - John C. Dvorak, SF Examiner, Feb. 1984.

--

The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
Re:Dvorak by taskforce · 2005-05-23 01:36 · Score: 1

It's the best real world example of the metaphor of sitting an infinite number of chimps at an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite ammount of time and knowing for certain that eventually one of them will create a work of Shakespeare to date.

--
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
Re:Dvorak by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · 2005-05-23 01:36 · Score: 1

So in about 12 hours, another Dvorak prediction will come true?

Cue the Four Horsemen (from the Bible, not WWF)
Re:Dvorak by hcdejong · 2005-05-23 01:38 · Score: 1

But that's easily remedied. Just get someone to run him over with a Vauxhall Chevette!
Re:Dvorak by utexaspunk · 2005-05-23 01:39 · Score: 1

I fear the space time continuum will rupture spewing forth a hoard of evil flesh eating time daemons.

i think you mean "demons" -better watch it, as you don't want the BSDers to get their panties in a wad...
Re:Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:42 · Score: 0

So if we put an infinite number of Dvorak's in front of an infinite amount of typewriters - one of them will actually predict something true?
Re:Dvorak by archen · 2005-05-23 01:44 · Score: 0

But a clock that is off by 3 hours is always wrong.
Re:Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:51 · Score: 0

That's true. There was no evidence that people wanted to use Mice. The Mac sold quite poorly early on -- it wasn't until people wrote software that really showed what a mouse could do that it caught on.
Re:Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:55 · Score: 0

"John C. Dvorak predicted this for 2004-2005."

Umm ... people have been saying this will happen for as long as I can remember (5 to 7 years cause I have long term memory loss if I recall correctly) .. just search usenet.
Re:Dvorak by the+unbeliever · 2005-05-23 02:03 · Score: 0

Not really, because it's that time *somewhere* in the world.
Re:Dvorak by wowbagger · 2005-05-23 02:07 · Score: 1

Even a broken clock is right twice a day - once if it is a twenty-four hour clock.

--
www.eFax.com are spammers
Re:Dvorak by aug24 · 2005-05-23 02:07 · Score: 1

Well he's right, most people don't want to use computers and pointing devices. I for one, want a neural lace to communicate with Minds a la Iain M Banks's Culture novels.

But we'll put up with mice and Microsoft in the meantime...

Justin.

--
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Re:Dvorak by mooingyak · 2005-05-23 02:08 · Score: 0

But what if it's off by 3 hours and 15 minutes?

--
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Re:Dvorak by Quiet_Desperation · 2005-05-23 02:09 · Score: 5, Informative

That's an even funnier quote when you consider the mouse had been invented 16 years earlier at SRI. The mouse was hardly "experimental" in 1984, and was already in use in CAD workstations. Dvorak is another one of those dumbass media figures that people inexplicably listen to. Good gig if you can get it.
Re:Dvorak by shaitand · 2005-05-23 02:11 · Score: 1

I'll put up with Mice but you can keep your Microsoft.
Re:Dvorak by ZephyrXero · 2005-05-23 02:16 · Score: 1

If you look at alot of the command-line centric guys, then he was somewhat right... I'm just about the only guy in my entire lug who perfers to use a mouse.

--
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
Re:Dvorak by orkysoft · 2005-05-23 02:27 · Score: 1

Quick! Throw out your Pentium 4s and 64-bit Athlons, and surround yourself with Commodore 64s, Atari 8-bit computers and consoles, and NES systems! The older the better!

--

I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Re:Dvorak by tgibbs · 2005-05-23 02:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

That's true. There was no evidence that people wanted to use Mice. The Mac sold quite poorly early on -- it wasn't until people wrote software that really showed what a mouse could do that it caught on.

Nonsense. The Mac came with software that showed what a mouse can do--MacWrite, MacPaint. Microsoft Excel was available almost immediately. There is very little that a mouse does on modern computers that was not demonstrated in the software included in the very first Macintosh. The Macintosh took a while to catch on because people were locked into legacy DOS software, and because people needed to be convinced that the features offered by the Macinstosh--GUI, mouse control, fully bitmapped screen with software fonts--really were so valuable that they justified the performance hit. Most other computers of the time, with low resolution screens driven by character generators were hardware-incapable of animating a cursor (there were attempts to implement mouse pointers on character mapped displays, but they were horribly ugly and jumpy and unpleasant to use).
Re:Dvorak by lawpoop · 2005-05-23 02:38 · Score: 1

*Do* people want to use these things? It might be the least worst tool for the job. Remember, most people have computers, and only tolerate them in order to get a paycheck and communicate with loved ones.

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Re:Dvorak by uss_valiant · 2005-05-23 02:40 · Score: 1

"John C. Dvorak predicted this for 2004-2005."

Yes but he predicts so much crap of course he'll be right eventually.
This prediction was in March 18th 2003. He was right about the move away from Motorola. But he didn't even mention IBM in his article. And as the date of such a change, he predicted something like And consider the fall 2003 possibility: Comdex.
So he was wrong, Apple moved from Motorola to IBM chips. But maybe, he will be right in the end, if, and only if Apple chooses to introduce Intel based platforms.

That to say: I don't like John C. Dvorak either. He's just good for much ado about nothing.
Re:Dvorak by gotw · 2005-05-23 02:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Invented at SRI, causes RSI. Heh
Re:Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:46 · Score: 0

No such thing as too much Doctor Who.
Re:Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:53 · Score: 0

I would say that MacPaint was a demo/toy program and software like Excel didn't really show the advantage of a mouse becuase you could do these tasks just as well on a console screen. It wasn't until FreeHand/Illustrator/Photoshop came out that people really saw the light, and that's reflected in the Mac's sales figures.
Re:Dvorak by tgibbs · 2005-05-23 03:05 · Score: 1

I would say that MacPaint was a demo/toy program and software like Excel didn't really show the advantage of a mouse becuase you could do these tasks just as well on a console screen. It wasn't until FreeHand/Illustrator/Photoshop came out that people really saw the light, and that's reflected in the Mac's sales figures.

Actually, MacPaint and its companion object oriented drawing program MacDraw were a fully functional drawing programs that were widely used for preparation of newsletters, advertisements, technical diagrams, and scientific illustrations. In terms of mouse usage, they anticipated and defined the fundamental operations that were adopted by subsequent graphics programs such as those you mention (area selection, object selection, pixel level editing, multiple selections, changing line weight, editing shapes by moving handles, altering fills, changing object priority, grouping and ungrouping shapes, alignment, etc., etc.). The main limitation of early Mac graphics programs was not ignorance of the value of the mouse, but rather the lack of reasonably priced output devices capable of producing true publication-quality outpu. The limitation was resolved with Apple's introduction of the first Postscript laser printer, the Apple Laserwriter. Which was the point at which sales for desktop publishing applications took off.
Re:Dvorak by IronicCheese · 2005-05-23 03:14 · Score: 1

I don't think it was Illustrator/Photoshop that did the trick. Check history - I think you'll find it was Pagemaker that was the killer app for the Mac.
Re:Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:20 · Score: 0

RDF too strong today for you? Take off the hat.
Re:Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:23 · Score: 0

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

A broken digital watch shows no time at all.
Re:Dvorak by Monkelectric · 2005-05-23 03:24 · Score: 1

dumbass media figures that people inexplicably listen to
Face it, he's the new john katz around here.

--
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Re:Dvorak by tedhiltonhead · 2005-05-23 03:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

I thought it was invented at Xerox PARC?
Re:Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:51 · Score: 0

I forgot about MacDraw, but it wasn't out when Dvorak said that anyway.
Re:Dvorak by dmarcoot · 2005-05-23 04:04 · Score: 0, Redundant

your absolutely correct. as professional graphic designer, who was taught on Apple systems in 1990, pagemaker was still the bomb. Macpaint, while crappy compared to photoshop 2.0, was still perfectly usable and the mouse is what made it even possible.
Re:Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:14 · Score: 0

Way to bring 1999 screaming back. What ever happened to Jon Katz?

When Dvorak starts writing slasharticles with 800 plus comments, I'm really gonna cut this place off.
Re:Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:16 · Score: 0

thats not a prediction. It is just a statement of fact that may have been true at the time
Re:Dvorak by Genady · 2005-05-23 04:21 · Score: 1

pkill -9 timed

Next problem?

--

What if it is just turtles all the way down?
Re:Dvorak by FranksChickenHouse · 2005-05-23 04:26 · Score: 0

Nope, the original mouse was invented by Doug Englebart's group for their NLS (oNLine System) project. Xerox PARC was formed around 1971, Englebart's research predates this *at least* by several years, with it culminating in a big demo to his ARPA sponsors in fall 1969. Some of the people in Englebart's group, like Bill English, would migrate to Xerox PARC and re-introduce many of their ideas into the R&D that was progressing at PARC.
Re:Dvorak by Suggestive+Language · 2005-05-23 04:39 · Score: 0, Redundant

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

--
I got no problem voting with my feet.
Re:Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:42 · Score: 0

If you look at the story submissions that the editors actually accept, it seems like you must say "John C. Dvorak" in order to actually get accepted.
Re:Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:59 · Score: 0

What ever happened to Jon Katz?

He went to the dogs.
Re:Dvorak by tgibbs · 2005-05-23 05:24 · Score: 2, Informative

I forgot about MacDraw, but it wasn't out when Dvorak said that anyway.

MacDraw was released with the Mac; it was derived from LisaDraw.

What Dvorak said was of course trivially true, but abysmally stupid--there was of course "no evidence" at the time that people wanted to use mice, because when he wrote that statement, hardly anybody except for a handful of Xerox Star and Apple Lisa users had even touched one.
Re:Dvorak by kevcol · 2005-05-23 05:39 · Score: 2, Funny

I would say that MacPaint was a demo/toy program

Sorry, pal-

I used MacPaint to create perfect reproductions of my SJSU report cards to add classes I was not actually taking in order to show I was a full time student to get various discounts (car insurance, American Express student travel program for $120 coast to coast RT flights, etc).

The fact is, MacPaint saved me money!
Re:Dvorak by morgan_greywolf · 2005-05-23 06:54 · Score: 1

Nope. Stanford

--
My blog
Re:Dvorak by tricorn · 2005-05-23 07:19 · Score: 1

What most developers thought was that it was "too difficult" to program for the Mac. Why, you had to have THREE WHOLE MANUALS, and they were each almost an inch thick (I still have the "phonebook" version, about two inches thick).

The amazing thing about MacWrite and MacPaint was that it fit on a bootable 400K diskette that ran on a machine with 128K of RAM and 64K of ROM, and that included 22K of video frame buffer, all on an 8MHz 68000. And people complain about their poor little old 1.5GHz 256MB systems that only have 20GB of disk space.

I started out with a Lisa - compared to what I could get for the same amount of money in a PC, there was no comparison. True, I gave up color for a few years until the Mac II came out, but writing graphics programs was so much better - on a PC under DOS, each program had to have drivers for each video mode it wanted to support (EGA, VGA, XGA, etc). Each program had to have serial chip drivers and support for upgraded serial chips if you wanted to get any kind of performance (i.e. not dropping characters!). Each program had to include support for as many printers as they could, and if yours wasn't included, you were pretty much out of luck. You had to worry about Extended vs Expanded memory, you had to make sure you didn't step on device or frame buffer memory, you had interrupt conflicts and on and on.

When the Mac II came out, all of a sudden you had color, multiple video card support, on-the-fly color depth and resolution switching, 16MHz 68020 (which was capable of doing virtual memory, if you upgraded the "do-nothing faked" MMU chip). People have more cache memory than that thing had RAM (1MB), and video cards with more memory than that thing had disk space (40MB).
Re:Dvorak by groman · 2005-05-23 08:10 · Score: 1

I think it's against Alumni policy to admit you went to SJSU in a public forum.
Re:Dvorak by FCYTravis · 2005-05-23 08:37 · Score: 1

Those "command-line centric guys" are such a tiny fraction of the computing world as to be virtually irrelevant to the discussion. Ask your Aunt Bea how she'd use a computer if she had no mouse.

It's fair to say the invention of the pointing device is what made the personal computer revolution possible.
Re:Dvorak by kevcol · 2005-05-23 09:53 · Score: 1

I went to a Stanford vs SJSU football game once at Stanford (of course- like they would come to Spartan Stadium?). The Stanford students had a banner that read "I would rather drop out of Stanford than graduate from San Jose State." :-) It was pretty funny, but Stanford lost that game. Not being a sports fan, that was my one and only game I attended the time I was in college but at least it gave me a mildly amusing anecdote.
Re:Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 13:25 · Score: 0

I got a good laugh out of that one. Thanks!
Re:Dvorak by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-25 04:28 · Score: 0

And used at the IRS. :)
Re:Dvorak by Cro+Magnon · 2005-05-26 01:46 · Score: 1

"John C. Dvorak predicted this for 2004-2005."

Yes but he predicts so much crap of course he'll be right eventually

How long is his life expectancy?

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.

If true... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:28 · Score: 0

Then it truly is a sign that the end of the world is near.

Dvorak by taskforce · 2005-05-23 01:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

If what Dvorak has predicted is about to come true, I fear the space time continuum will rupture spewing forth a hoard of evil flesh eating time daemons.

--
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)

First Post Try - Nevermind by ballsmccoy · 2005-05-23 01:28 · Score: 0

Shouldn't they be talking to AMD?

Re:First Post Try - Nevermind by fons · 2005-05-23 01:41 · Score: 1

AMD hasn't got the best rep. in delivering big vulumes on time.

That's why Dell still prefers Intel.

AMD? by InsideTheAsylum · 2005-05-23 01:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Wouldn't using AMD be even cheaper..?

Re:AMD? by NextGaurd · 2005-05-23 01:31 · Score: 1

Hopefully they would do it a way that they can use either/both Intel and AMD.
Re:AMD? by El+Cabri · 2005-05-23 01:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why would it be ? You think AMD has some magical trick to make processors at a cheaper cost ? If boxed processors from AMD are cheaper than Intel it's because they HAVE TO. AMD is the challenger, and that's how it works in all domain of economics : the market leader can afford to price higher that's all. Are you privvy to the deals that are actually made between Intel and the likes of Dell or IBM ? What to you know of their high quantitiy pricing policy ?

The fact is, if Apple wants to go x86 (which I think they should), they'll consider both Intel and AMD, talk to them, see what they can get and make a strategic desicison. If Intel decides that it's worth it then they'll underbid AMD. Or maybe Apple might decide that they want a supplier that is more reliable for delivering big quantity orders given that they've themselves been bitten so often by back-ordering problems.
Re:AMD? by lb746 · 2005-05-23 01:44 · Score: 0

Wasn't there another problem with AMD unable to meet the quota for Dell a while back? Now I realize Dell sells a lot more PC's than Apple puts out a year, but in comparison could AMD really meet the demand?

But I really do have to agree some with the root post, AMD seems like it could be a cheaper alternative. Not to mention, I'd like to see an AMD sticker on a mac. I'm not a mac user, but I think it would be a nice underdog pairing for the two companies to team up.

As for mac users, I'm pretty sure the price isn't their biggest concern. Considering it seems like mac users have to throw out their mac and buy a whole new one every so often instead of upgrading piece by piece, it might be a good start into moving mac's into a more upgradable market?
Re:AMD? by UttBuggly · 2005-05-23 03:56 · Score: 1

Well, I had my iPod Shuffle melt down last week, so I used Apple's on-lin repair order system. Got a new iPod THE NEXT DAY and sent the dead one back. Totally impressed. Anyway, they sent me a Customer Satisfaction Survey request and at the end, there's space for a 2000 character comment. I suggested they go with AMD. Tiger on a dual Opteron....yummmm! (Homer Simpson voice) I'd buy that for a dollar!

--
I am my own gestalt.
Re:AMD? by corngrower · 2005-05-23 04:42 · Score: 1

Not if they're planning to use a dual core AMD chip.
Re:AMD? by Creepy · 2005-05-23 08:26 · Score: 1

It's not about the chip, it's about Intel dumping huge amounts of marketing dollars into companies that use their products.

I believe that means Apple would need to brand their products with Intel inside stickers, logos, etc., but the marketing money may be worth it to them. AMD doesn't dump large amounts of cash into co-marketing, so they would be less desirable.

Moving toward standards? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:28 · Score: 0

What would be the reasoning behind this? Would it make the Apple computers cheaper overall?

Re:Moving toward standards? by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · 2005-05-23 01:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

To get a better deal from IBM. That would lower their costs and lower the prices of the Macs.

Essentially they're shifting part of the cost burden to IBM, while keeping their share of the profits intact, in an attempt to boost their sales.

Also, it could be an attempt to make sure that IBM, with its focus on the PS3, Xbox 360 and Nintendo Revolution, does not forget about Apple.

Nope by fr0dicus · 2005-05-23 01:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

ARM for iPods maybe, but otherwise, absolutely no chance. Only a fool would even think this was likely.

Re:Nope by superdan2k · 2005-05-23 02:49 · Score: 1

ARM for a new handheld, perhaps? If they can get something that has the same specs as the LifeDrive that runs a stripped-down version of OS X, I'll be on that thing on opening day.

Again, someone pointed out the concept of having a handheld running Apache, with a copy of the Wikipedia on it. Holy p00p, can you imagine?

--
blog |
Re:Nope by John+Whitley · 2005-05-23 02:50 · Score: 1

ARM for iPods maybe

iPods already use a SoC (system on a chip) main processor based on dual ARM cores, supplied by PortalPlayer, Inc. To be more specific, talks would have to surround StrongARM for iPods or another suitable Intel embedded offering.
Re:Nope by Monkelectric · 2005-05-23 03:36 · Score: 1

You are right, but you don't know WHY you're right. So here's why you're right: because every mac fanboy uses as his first argument "The G5 architecture is better". Intel-Macs would be the same as any PC to these fanboys, and the same to me. Whats the difference between Linux on Intel and Apple on Intel? About 1500$ for the same equipment :-) Plus I *REALLY* don't see how Apple can switch architectures at this point. But stranger things have happened. If they were to do this they would need a damn good reason, and thats whats missing, whats the *REASON*?
(Please note I will not debate on if the G5 architecture is actually better -- I also wont respond to fanboy trolls)

--
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Re:NOPE by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:29 · Score: 0

I'll cheer when they dump Broadcom! Their stupid policy (notopening chip specs) is the reason why linux doesn't support Airport cards at the moment.

Well, I hope, soon enough nobody will care to ask about Broadcom chip specs anymore ...
Re:Nope by javaxman · 2005-05-23 04:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

Plus I *REALLY* don't see how Apple can switch architectures at this point.
They could quite reasonably switch architectures. Or even support and produce both. This was a new reality starting with OS X, and it's strange, but it's true. Pretty much every single bit of the Apple hardware stack could run on a different gcc-supported CPU with a simple recompile. Darwin X86 is totally doable. Device drivers would be the biggest problem, but... just switching out CPUs with a slightly different motherboard and keeping everything else the same should make writing device drivers unnecessary. What wouldn't work would be very old OS 9 applications, but the vast majority of stuff would "just work" with a recompile. The structure already exists to distribute multiple-target binaries in OS X. It's been done before, with NeXTStep, it could certainly be done again.

If they were to do this they would need a damn good reason, and thats whats missing, whats the *REASON*?

Very insightful, that bit. It almost makes up of for the rest of your post... what, indeed, would be the reason ? Unless there's some sort of cost savings, or we're talking about a non-PC device, I don't see it. But it certainly could happen.

Apple hardware is expensive for two reasons, one being volume, and the other being the fact that Apple actually does R&D. But R&D is not the major factor. If they could increase volume... I'm going to guess that's going to be a difference of more like $200 between Linux on Intel and Apple on Intel, and to the average user, it'll be money well spent.

I am among those who are 100% certain that somewhere, in the bowls of 1 Infinity Loop, behind several layers of locked doors, is a PC lab with Darwin, Cocoa, and major portions of the OS X software stack running on Intel ( or AMD ) hardware. It may never see the light of day, but the simple fact that you *can* compile Darwin for X86 tells me it's there...
Re:Nope by tricorn · 2005-05-23 07:40 · Score: 1

I suppose I'm an "Apple fanboy", but my tests show that a dual-processor Opteron system I tested was significantly faster than my dual-processor G5 (both were 1.8GHz with similar amounts of RAM, Opteron was running Linux, G5 running Mac OSX). I suspect that some, but not all of the difference is due to better code generation for the Opteron. The Opteron running 32-bit code was faster than the fastest Intel chips at the time (at least, on my benchmark, which was all I was interested in), the G5 was about as fast as the fastest ones when running 32-bit code as well. My benchmark wasn't very OS dependent.

I don't know enough about the x86-64 architecture to know how happy I am with it, but I don't have any doubts that the PPC architecture is better than IA32, although it isn't quite as clean as it could have been. At least 64-bit processing was designed in from the start (32-bit machines simply didn't implement the 64-bit instructions). Alpha is better than any of them (except for the way PALcode is handled - makes the bootstrap process much more difficult), but that's a lost cause now.
Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 10:48 · Score: 0

Yes and No.

Standard c, c++ or object c code could theoretically be recompiled and most should work but the os and many apps couldn't be simply recompiled or if they could they would run much slower. Apple and other mac programmers have spent alot of time optimizing things for altvec. That would all be lost and wound need to fall back to straight c code if that exsisted at all. Now most things probably have the old c code for compatibility with the older ppc processors that don't have altvec but such a switch would probably loose alot of performance.
Re:Nope by clackerd · 2005-05-23 12:22 · Score: 1

i'm pretty sure apple doesn't have a secret laboratory at 1 Infinity Loop. but i do agree our mutual friends at 1 Infinite Loop have an x86 trick up their sleeve. yes, i nitpick, Sosumi.
Re:Nope by javaxman · 2005-05-23 12:30 · Score: 1

I didn't say secret. i just said the door was locked...

O really? by yurigoul · 2005-05-23 01:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Stuff like this keeps coming up. Seems to be part of the Apple rumour cycle. Can we trust the source??? Using the G5 is par to of the advantage in marketing terms, as a far as i can see: think different!

Re:O really? by TooMuchEspressoGuy · 2005-05-23 01:43 · Score: 0

"think different!"
Actually, the proper English is "think differentLY." But I suppose that would defeat the purpose of the statement.

--
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
Re:O really? by geoffspear · 2005-05-23 01:57 · Score: 1, Offtopic

But I suppose that would defeat the purpose of the statement.
Dear Mr. Grammar Policeman:

Please write yourself a grammar ticket for beginning a sentence with "but."

Have a nice day.

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Re:O really? by Golias · 2005-05-23 02:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, the proper English is "think differentLY."

Only if you are asking people to think in a different manner.

The Apple tag line is suggesting to people that they should think about the concept of being different.

Therefore they say, "think different."

It's not correct formal grammar, but it is perfectly valid conversational English.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:O really? by NMerriam · 2005-05-23 03:20 · Score: 1

There is nothing inherently incorrect about beginning a sentence with the word "but". Such rules provide nice shortcut excuses for 7th grade English teachers, but they have no basis in grammar.

--
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Re:O really? by yurigoul · 2005-05-23 03:38 · Score: 1

In a world where 50% of the english speaking/writing community is not a native speaker, I think not only what is right in conversational English is the norm.

I once coined the term 'Ainglish' for this (it aint English but it is). I am also a writing in Ainglish. http://annomedia.com/texts/ainglish.html
Re:O really? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:57 · Score: 0

Correct. Coordinating conjunctions may begin any independent clause, including those that stand alone as (or begin) a sentence.

-An anonymous English Ph.D.
Re:O really? by Lars+T. · 2005-05-23 04:51 · Score: 1

Yeah, next one: Disney/Sony/Sun buys Apple.

--
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Re:O really? by yurigoul · 2005-05-23 08:20 · Score: 1

You forgot IBM :->

Aw, jeez... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:29 · Score: 4, Funny

...After everyone worked so hard to port Linux to the PowerPC...

bizarro world by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:29 · Score: 0

The Mac is using an Intel chip and the XBOX 360 is using a PowerPC chip? I think I stepped into a parallel dimension.

rumor? by Electric+Eye · 2005-05-23 01:30 · Score: 1

I would normally take this as just another rumor, but the WSJ (I'm a far left liberal and I still think it's a great paper) is VERY accurate when it comes to stories like this. So, I would likely accept it. If true, this would be a coup de tat (is that how you spell it??) as all of a sudden, M$ has even MORE competition on its own turf now. You can't have anymore complaints about price disparity.

Re:rumor? by leomekenkamp · 2005-05-23 01:36 · Score: 1, Informative

coup de tat (is that how you spell it??)

coup d'état

--
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
Re:rumor? by Electric+Eye · 2005-05-23 01:38 · Score: 1

Thank you. I wouldn't even know how to create those characters anyway. :-)
Re:rumor? by Batzerto · 2005-05-23 01:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

This would be GREAT news for Microsoft. No more whining that they are a monopoly that leaves consumers nowhere else to turn.
Re:rumor? by cgenman · 2005-05-23 01:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

The WSJ does have an excellent reputation, but remember what it says... "Chips." Nowhere does it say x86. This could be an agreement for Intel to get into the PPC business, which would be a great supplier coup for Apple, or it could be an agreement to switch to cheaper Intel wireless networking chips. Maybe Intel will build Apple's ROMs. There are a lot more chips in a computer than the main processor, and nowhere does it say they're thinking about switching suppliers for that or the base architecture for that.

And maybe they won't be used at all. The WSJ says they are in talks that "could" lead to using Intel chips. It's known that at least one version of Apple's OS was up and running on an x86 chip, in the same way that Microsoft had Windows up and running on a PPC architecture. It's also known that Apple talks a lot.

I'd say the chance of a complete platform shift is slight, as backwards compatibility from x86 to PPC would be a nightmare. But Intel supplying PPC chips to Apple, after the years of languishing Apple went through before IBM could deliver a G5? That's a lot more likely.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:rumor? by Gilmoure · 2005-05-23 02:03 · Score: 1

On the Mac hit option + e, o, u, etc. and then the letter you want the accent over. For the accented é, the keystrokes are option+e and then e. Cool!

My roomie from Norway loved being able to type up correctly spelled letters for home. Hmmm...short, blond, busty Norwegian roommate...argle...drool (sorry we pissed you off and you moved out. If anyone out there knows Signe Enderssen (sp?), from Kendall College of Art and Design, tell her to drop me a line).

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:rumor? by timster · 2005-05-23 03:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm certainly wondering about the prospects for an Intel PowerPC chip. Maybe the CPU geeks out there can tell me how possible it would be for Intel to develop a microcode (or other relatively simple modification) that would allow for a version of the Pentium-M that ran a PowerPC instruction set. Possibly this could be the chip for the next Powerbook, if indeed the G5 turns out to be too big and too hot to make it into a portable, like, ever. A PowerPentium, as unholy as it sounds, could be a great notebook chip.

--
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Re:rumor? by sld126 · 2005-05-23 04:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's also well known that Apple already uses AMD chips:
http://www.vonwentzel.net/ABS/Evolution/index.html

Doesn't it seem more reasonable that they're upgrading their wireless systems from AMD to Intel, than fundamentally changing their core machines/processes/software? I think so.

--
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me.
Re:rumor? by FranksChickenHouse · 2005-05-23 04:31 · Score: 0

*If* Intel were to supply PPC chips, and it sure sounds weird to me, given their history, wouldn't that be a tacit admission of failure on their part with regards to the Itanium? Wasn't the Itanic supposed to compete in some of the same areas as PPC?
Re:rumor? by M.+Baranczak · 2005-05-23 04:46 · Score: 1

You're absolutely right.

This "Mac OS on x86" rumor comes up every couple of years. And it seems like most people are still falling for it. This too shall pass.

There are plenty of good reasons why Apple will NOT be switching to x86 anytime in the foreseeable future. Most of them have already been brought up elsewhere on this page. Here's another one: they've only just started the transition to 64-bit PPC; they're not about to dump all that work and switch to yet another (completely incompatible) architecture.
Re:rumor? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 05:21 · Score: 0

that would be an unholy beast since the X86 lacks the number of general purpose registers the PPC has it would run dog slowand would probably suffer tremendous hardware exploits since a pentium M or the like already decodes to something amounting to risc86it probably might work
Re:rumor? by vnangia · 2005-05-23 06:58 · Score: 1

But Intel supplying PPC chips to Apple, after the years of languishing Apple went through before IBM could deliver a G5?

Another possible scenario is Apple leveraging Intel's comparatively vast fab facilities. Admittedly, the question would then arise over who owns the IP to PPC architecture (IBM, I'm assuming), but if Apple was able to work out the licensing issues, I would not be surprised to see Intel-manufactured PowerPC chips, much as in earlier generations of the PPC architecture, some chips came from Motorola, others from IBM. From Intel's stand point, this would be a cash cow, even though it may be at the expense of their IP. Ultimately, however, it may work to Intel's benefit to manafacture both architectures and help expand the total market for chips/computers. The question is, will IBM license the PPC architecture to Intel?
Re:rumor? by akuma(x86) · 2005-05-23 08:32 · Score: 1

Nowhere does it say x86. This could be an agreement for Intel to get into the PPC business, which would be a great supplier coup for Apple

Unlikely.

The global PC market produces 200 million PCs a year. Apple sells 3 million of those.

The incremental revenue for Intel is a rounding error. Why would they devote an entire design team to supply such a tiny market when they can get a much higher return on investment with x86? In case you haven't heard - microprocessor development is ridiculously expensive. You need huge volumes to justify the capital and R&D expenditures.

Hmm...I wonder why IBM microelectronics loses money every single year, and AMD barely makes any money even with a superior architecture?

The benefits for Apple are huge. They get far cheaper processors relative to IBM which means Apple can increase profit margins. I'm suprised they haven't gone with Intel sooner - they've probably spent all this time perfecting the software.

Intel can supply chips at will (think 200M units per year vs. Apple needing 3M). IBM has had problems keeping up with the demand for even this small market. They are not cost competitive and cannot deliver in the volumes that Intel can. AMD can't either. Unless you have the capital to invest 5-7 Billion dollars a year on Fabs, you just can't beat Intel on a manufacturing basis which is why Intel is bigger than AMD, Apple and IBM combined (on a market cap basis).
Re:rumor? by antrik · 2005-05-23 12:00 · Score: 1

The Pentium Pro and all it's descendants (Pentium M being claimed to be one of them) internally use a register set large enough to run other instruction sets than x86.

However, it's not as simple as replacing the x86 instruction decoder by a PPC one. Too much of the internal units are catered to x86 needs.

Still, the idea that Intel might use it's Pentium M knowhow to create a notebook-capable variant of PowerPC is actually not that unrealistic... I doubt they would have much interest in that, though.

--
All my comments get moderated +-0, spotless.
Re:rumor? by multipartmixed · 2005-05-23 14:21 · Score: 1

> For the accented é, the keystrokes are option+e and then e.

So how do you do è and ê?

I like the UNIX way.

á: compose a'
à: compose a`
é: compose e'
è: compose e`
ê: compose e^
ç: compose c,
ö: compose o"
ü: compose u"
n-with-a-nina: compose n~ (can't seem to remember the char ent for that one)

etc. Works very well, and is easy as hell to remember.

As long as you remember to set your locale properly, and/or load the right emacs module...

--

Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?

Why move now? by JabrTheHut · 2005-05-23 01:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why move now? Everyone's been hearing about the dual-core PowerPC chips for months, PS 3 and Xbox 180 will be running 3-core versions of this chip, so why go Intel?

--
Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.

Re:Why move now? by NextGaurd · 2005-05-23 01:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

It would be really ironic - Microsoft's Xbox2 goes power PC but Apple goes X86? Something just doesn't feel right.
Re:Why move now? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:35 · Score: 0

This is one of those rumors that seems to surface every 2 years. At least, I encounter it that often.

Something is very wrong behind this rumor, it makes no sense. The Intel offerings, unless we're talking Pentium M, are complete crap right now compared to AMD(just speaking x86 world). The huge cost and potential very bad breakage just doesn't seem worth it. Unless Apple is no longer interested in offering higher end systems and wants to use low end processors, I can't imagine they'd realize a huge cost savings when you consider development and testing to ensure interoperability across chip platforms... Or maybe they pulled some rabbit out of their arses and have figued out how to make it work?

I call bullshit. Another poster mentioned that the "intel chip" rumor is probably related to Flash technology or something like that. That's the only thing believable to me at this point.

The article is quite worthless by antifoidulus · 2005-05-23 01:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

All it says is that "Apple will use intel chips", it doesn't state what kind of chips, but it does repeat itself over and over again. Maybe Apple will use Intel chips in an embedded device, maybe they are considering bringing back the mac/pc hybrid. There is really no "meat" to this story, but we can all speculate anyway.

--
Monstar L

I'll believe it when... by mrch0mp3rs · 2005-05-23 01:30 · Score: 0, Troll

I can boot up Tiger on my craptacular 386.

--
--- -a- "I'd love to change the world, but it'd be easier if the universe exposed its API."

Intel make chips other than CPUs by gilesjuk · 2005-05-23 01:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

This might be video hardware or network chips.

I can't for one minute imagine Apple replacing nice fairly cool and power efficient PPC chips for hot running 100+ watt monstrosities from Intel.

Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by Dominatus · 2005-05-23 01:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

Are you serious? The G5 generates a ton of heat. Why do you think you haven't seen G5 powerbooks yet?
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by matthaak · 2005-05-23 01:37 · Score: 1

Yeah, getting those "fairly cool and power efficient PPC chips" into a laptop has proven so easy to do, Apple would be foolish to leave the G5 behind.

I mean, honestly, what about this graphic says "fairly cool" to you?
http://images.apple.com/powermac/images/indexenclo sure06082004.jpg
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by tbone1 · 2005-05-23 01:37 · Score: 1

This might be video hardware or network chips.
I was thinking the same thing. There are a lot of chips used in computers besides the CPU, and Intel makes a lot of those chips.

--

The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by Loco3KGT · 2005-05-23 01:38 · Score: 3, Funny

I was led to believe we hadn't sacrificed enough virgins.

--
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by pizen · 2005-05-23 01:50 · Score: 4, Funny

Apple doesn't want to lose it's userbase.

ba-ZING!
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by TylerL82 · 2005-05-23 01:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm sure that Apple could make a 2.5" thick MegaBook to compete with the high-end desktop-chip-in-laptop offerings of Dell n' Friends.

Is that what everybody wants from Apple?
An unwieldy leviathan with an hour battery life?
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by TylerL82 · 2005-05-23 02:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

I mean, honestly, what about this graphic says "fairly cool" to you?

The fact that those are large fans that aren't spinning at full speed.
They keep the computer as cool as it needs to be while being much quieter than the 2-3 fan PCs with fans spinning their lil' hearts (motors?) out.
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by imroy · 2005-05-23 02:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Intel bought the StrongARM processor design from Digital a number of years ago. They now produce them under the Xscale brand. They've been used in heaps of devices, including the Compaq iPAQ, and lots of small embedded boards. Apple has previously used AMD's MIPS-based processors in some of their Airport AP's. Given the Xscale's low power/heat and relative processing power, I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple use the Xscale in another funky little portable device.
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:21 · Score: 0

Check out the 2 Ghz Pentium M laptops. They aren't cheap, but they are not megabooks. Same formfactors as Apple's models, battery life is just as good as G4s, and the chips are just as fast as G5s.
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:56 · Score: 0

> Why do you think you haven't seen G5 powerbooks yet?

IBM announced a low power G5 like 2 years ago, so obviously they've fucked up badly.
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by SPY_jmr1 · 2005-05-23 04:34 · Score: 1

Like... I don't know... That iPod thingy they came up with?
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by ultramk · 2005-05-23 04:35 · Score: 1

Fortunately, slashdot provides a never-ending supply.

m-

--
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by Psykechan · 2005-05-23 04:39 · Score: 1

Along those lines, it should also be noted that Apple has used the StrongARM in their Newton Message Pads. The 2000 and and the 2100 used the StrongARM 110 @ 162MHz.

Not that I'm suggesting that Apple would be bringing the Newton back, I'm just pointing out the connection. A 400MHz Xscale Newton would be neat but I would rather have a tablet Mac.
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by Paperweight · 2005-05-23 04:55 · Score: 0

I mean, honestly, what about this graphic says "fairly cool" to you?

Air goes out the left cooler than it came in?
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 05:00 · Score: 0

'cuz they'd all look ugly. pretty sure their thermal and electrical engineers have figured out how to cool the fuckers; the real problem is just how many different ways can you skin a ca...er, mold a titanium finish to look revolutionarily sexy?
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by andrewski · 2005-05-23 06:23 · Score: 0

Just as many clock cycles, of course, but faster? That makes me laugh. A 2 Ghz G5 blows away a 2Ghz P4. Then if you actually want to unplug the thing from AC and take it with you, it cycles way down to clock speeds reminiscent of the mid-1990s. Never mind that most Centrino laptops (all of them?) have crappy neutered Intel integrated video, and all recent Mac laptops at least have a real ATI or NVIDIA GPU onboard.

But I'm sure you and your kind will forever be pleased with your tiny mini form factor Mac Mini frankenstein clones, and notebooks that are either neutered and slow or large and heavy enough to actually crush your thighbones to powder.
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by mrchaotica · 2005-05-23 07:11 · Score: 1

Repeat after me: the Pentium M is not the same as the Pentium 4.

Don't get me wrong; Macs are great. I use one myself. But you're just trolling now, and making us sane Mac users look bad. Stop it.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by matthaak · 2005-05-23 08:13 · Score: 1

I'm not going to disagree that the fans and cooling zones in the G5 tower are efficient and very well engineered. In fact, the point is that they had to be well engineered because the G5 is such a hot chip.

Just because the fans don't run at full speed *most* of the time doesn't mean they don't run full speed *some* of the time, as when one renders a scene in Final Cut Pro and the temperature of a G5 approaches 200 degrees Farenheit. http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac360/comments/12 7/
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by prockcore · 2005-05-23 11:56 · Score: 1

The fact that those are large fans that aren't spinning at full speed.
They keep the computer as cool as it needs to be while being much quieter than the 2-3 fan PCs with fans spinning their lil' hearts (motors?) out.

Do a quick google for "G5 overheat packaging".. if you don't remove the packing tape the G5 will overheat and crash. We're talking about a computer that runs so hot that if the case isn't sealed perfectly, it immediately overheats.
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by EnglishDude · 2005-05-24 02:03 · Score: 1

Hmm I wonder... take an 12" iBook, build it in the size and weight of a 15" MegaBook, but the only difference being the battery capacity. Think about it, an iBook with a week long battery life... now that's nice ;)

Or if you use it a little, coupled with intelligently managed sleep function, you'll have battery life measuring a year in between recharges ;)
Re:Intel make chips other than CPUs by toddestan · 2005-05-24 09:45 · Score: 1

But hey, atleast you can get P4 in a notebook in the x86 world! In the world of Apple, you guys are stuck with the G4. Which, like the PIII, is still a nice CPU - just dated.

The thing with x86 is that there is a huge amount of choice. There are:

*Gaming notebooks with the fastest processors and graphics out there
*Sub compact notebooks, some are VHS tape sized and smaller
*Cool, quiet, small Pentium M based notebooks with long battery life
*Tablets
*Rugged laptops (like the Panasonic toughbook) that are designed to take incredible amounts of abuse
*Laptops with huge screens (didn't Dell just make a 19" laptop?)
*Desktop replacement systems, with all the things you would expect in a full blown PC
*Inexpensive laptops based upon desktop components with the main goal of being cheap (this is apparently what you think all x86 laptops are)

But, I'm sure as an Apple zealot you'll be pleased with whatever piece of pricy hardware Steve Jobs tells you that you need to have.

Depends on what kind of chips by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

Just USB 2.0 chips? Or x64 processors? Or perhaps ARM cpus for next generation iPods/Newtons?

Cell processor? by ewg · 2005-05-23 01:30 · Score: 1

I'm wondering if the new Cell processor, going to market in the PS3, is suitable for desktop use.

It seems a shame for Apple to be looking toward Intel when all the next-generation consoles are using IBM chip technology.

--
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg

Re:Cell processor? by SteeldrivingJon · 2005-05-23 01:35 · Score: 1

They almost certainly won't do this, but it'd be interesting if they built Macs with an x86 as the main CPU, and one of those 3GHz PowerPC-based processors from the XBox360 as a graphics coprocessor.

--
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
Re:Cell processor? by damiam · 2005-05-23 01:40 · Score: 1

Interesting maybe, but stupid. The PPCs in the 360 aren't meant for graphics processing; that's why it's got a monster ATI video card. Even a 3Ghz PPC would probably not be much better at graphics than an old Voodoo3 or TNT, because it has to render everything in software.

--
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Re:Cell processor? by taskforce · 2005-05-23 01:46 · Score: 1

Sony will be shipping cell workstations, basicly because they're needed for PS3 game development and I would expect IBM not to want to throw away their multibillion dollar investment, so Cell desktops would be an evolutionary thing when they make it into workstations.

--
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)

Original source? by ctr2sprt · 2005-05-23 01:30 · Score: 4, Informative

The WSJ reports it, but no link to the WSJ's actual story? Well, here it is.

Re:Original source? by http101 · 2005-05-23 01:34 · Score: 1

What, a link to the WSJ site, but no transcript of the article? :-P

--
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
Re:Original source? by hab136 · 2005-05-23 03:37 · Score: 2, Informative

The WSJ reports it, but no link to the WSJ's actual story? Well, here it is.
Requires a WSJ subscription, that's why.

Here we go again... by tliet · 2005-05-23 01:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

For the n-th time, what would Apple have to gain? Who would buy a Mac when they could buy a Dell. Does anyone seriously believe Microsoft would release Office for Mac OS X for Intel?

The Mac would die the day the CPU would be the same as in a generic PC. Not from a architectural standpoint, I think they could make it happen, but marketingwise.

Re:Here we go again... by Rasta+Prefect · 2005-05-23 01:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

For the n-th time, what would Apple have to gain? Who would buy a Mac when they could buy a Dell.

Maybe someone who doesn't want his Tech support calls forwarded to Bangalore? (Not that I don't have my complaints about Apple support, but at least I could figure out what everyone was telling me, leaving out the ambiguity of figuring out whether they really sucked or whether I just thought they sucked because I couldn't figure out what the hell they were saying.)

--
Why?
Re:Here we go again... by ergo98 · 2005-05-23 01:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

For the n-th time, what would Apple have to gain?

Really. I mean, everyone knows that software companies can't make any money.
Re:Here we go again... by Momoru · 2005-05-23 01:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well for one thing, anyone considering using OS X would only need to buy just the OS, not a whole bunch of expensive hardware as well. I was the biggest macophile in the past, but had to switch to using Windows for work and school...now OS X is the "in" thing, and i'd love to check it out, but I'm not going to buy a bunch of hardware just to play with it. If it were as simple as just installing a dual boot on my current PC, i'd do it in a second.
Re:Here we go again... by squiggleslash · 2005-05-23 01:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Who would buy a Mac when they could buy a Dell. Does anyone seriously believe Microsoft would release Office for Mac OS X for Intel?
Hold on. This isn't the same proposal as has been made before. We're talking about an Intel-chip based Mac, not a Mac that's a PC clone. We're talking about an OS X that runs on an Intel-chip based Mac, not an OS X that runs on a generic IBM PC clone.
People would buy a Mac instead of a Dell for the same reason as they do today - a nice, well integrated, computer system with a decent OS. Few people buy a Mac thinking to themselves "Dude, this has a PowerPC! That's 32 32 bit general purpose registers, and a RISC based architecture based upon IBM's attempt to create a next generation mainframe and minicomputer platform in the late eighties!"

The only downside this would have against a PowerPC Mac is that older software wouldn't run on it. That's not an issue if you don't have any older software. About 95% of computer uses do not have older versions of any software.

And yes, Microsoft shouldn't have a problem releasing an Intel version of Office for OS X: just as long, that is, as Apple doesn't start selling OS X for generic IBM PC clones.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Here we go again... by mmeister · 2005-05-23 01:49 · Score: 1

They make all that money because virtually EVERY PC comes with a Microsoft Tax. It's guaranteed profit.
Re:Here we go again... by dsginter · 2005-05-23 01:49 · Score: 0

For the n-th time, what would Apple have to gain?

Umm, 90% in market share?

There are plenty of people that will never use a completely closed PC solution. Jeepers, can you imagine how much we'd all be bitching right now if Apple was the dominant player? The current Microsoft situation is leaps and bounds better than that would be.

--
More
Re:Here we go again... by Gilmoure · 2005-05-23 01:53 · Score: 3, Funny

Ya' really think Apple would release a generic OS X-X86, that would run on white box parts? Naw, they'd use Intel chip DRM to tie it into just Apple brand boxes. C'mon, they make money pushing plastic, not bits.

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:Here we go again... by GaryPatterson · 2005-05-23 02:05 · Score: 1

They also know not to compete with Microsoft on their own monopoly board.

Apple compete in an area Microsoft cannot - hardware that runs OS X.
Re:Here we go again... by OreoCookie · 2005-05-23 02:20 · Score: 0

For the n-th time RTFA. OS-X would not run on a generic Wintel box. It would require specific support chips that would only be present on Apple hardware.
Re:Here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:27 · Score: 0

Ummmm...

Using Intel chips has nothing to do with opening the architecture up to anyone with access to motherboards and processors.

*NOTHING*

Only a dumbfuck would think otherwise.

90% of the market my ass...you have no clue about the situation nor what people will buy. People buy PCs because

A) they are cheaper
B) they run the dominant OS out there.

As for A) pricing Apple against Dell, you really see little difference. Last I heard, Apple was the 3rd largest PC producer in the US (as in personal computers). That means folks that bring in TOTAL solutions -- not just parts here or there. Lots of little guys can slap together shitty parts and offer a cheap PC. These little guys sell far more than Dell, HP, Compaq and others combined. Apple isn't going to allow them a license to build PCs. As such the truely dominant players, the indy market as you will, will still dominant and will still be making 80% of the PCs out there.

As for B). This isn't going to change in the near future. I've bought Mac Laptops for all my staff -- and we are a PC only office. Its actually a better deal for me, especially as I can deal with the PC environment through VPC and its actually more stable (I store a secondary install on their machine so that they can run a script to reconstruct it if it goes bad). Most of the time, they don't even need this as they have Office and thats all they need on the road or in presentations...the only people that complain are the guys that like to play games.

But all in all, our office is STILL Windows based and as much as I hate it, its not going to change. Neither are most of the millions of offices out there.

BTW Did I mention what kind of fucking dumbass you are? Move out of your parents basement and face the reality infront of you...
Re:Here we go again... by MrLint · 2005-05-23 02:35 · Score: 1

Your conspiracy seems rather unlikely given the fact that the darwin core of osx does not have any such 'drm' to tie it to anything. Darwin runs on both ppc and x86. The official Apple hardware support may limited to Apple only products, but again this isnt some kinda of scheme.

In any case, it doesnt matter if the cpu is ppc or x86. A cpu switch isnt going to suddenly make drivers appear. You cant just magically use W32 drivers for your POS webcam cause osx would run on x86.

At best apple is keeping this strategy in their back pocket as a failsafe.
Re:Here we go again... by necrodeep · 2005-05-23 02:41 · Score: 1

The big problem with this, that always seems to be pointed out, is the 'assumed' non-compete agreement with Microsoft - that is said to have occured when Microsoft helped to bail Apple out a couple of years (and bought stock in Apple). Although, it has never been proven... since it's all under a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

The theory is... if Microsoft will not hit Apple's marketspace... if Apple stays out of the PC arena with their OS...
Re:Here we go again... by master_p · 2005-05-23 02:53 · Score: 1

The day MacOS X runs on my AMD PC, I will instantly erase Windows from my HD and burn all my Windows HDs. I am not buying other hardware though, just for Apple's sake.
Re:Here we go again... by Gilmoure · 2005-05-23 02:55 · Score: 1

What I'm saying is that, if Apple were to make an x86 based computer, they'd tie the OS in so that you couldn't run it on any old x86 box out there. Hell, you can't even run current OS X on anything other than Apple PPC gear now. IBM makes PPC CHRP boards but Apple never made an installer/OS that would run on them. As for using Intel DRM, seems like a perfect use of it, if you want to control hardware/software the way Apple does.

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:Here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:04 · Score: 0

And since Apple is a hardware company, they'd go down like the Titanic in 3 years if they allowed OS X to be installed on beige boxes; and the platform would lose a lot of developers who'd be ticked off at Apple second major change since 2000 requiring rewriting or recompiliing (and the feint to 64-bit ppc being a bust).
Re:Here we go again... by poot_rootbeer · 2005-05-23 03:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well for one thing, anyone considering using OS X would only need to buy just the OS, not a whole bunch of expensive hardware as well.

You'd have to buy OS X and all the software you'd run under OS X.

C'mon, dude. The Mac mini is only $500. Apple has put out a product that seems to address your complaints about "a whole bunch of expensive hardware" as a barrier to checking OS X out, and yet you still complain about the barrier that's no longer there.
Re:Here we go again... by lseltzer · 2005-05-23 03:38 · Score: 1

I don't know about chip DRM, whatever that is, but your basic point is right: Apple wouldn't make software to run on generic x86 PCs unless they want to get out of the computer hardware business, and I doubt that's ever going to happen. No way they could compete against all those other companies.

The only point of this would be to give them more hardware options for designing their own proprietary systems. But I still don't think it's going to happen for 2 major reasons: 3rd party software would have a large number of minor problems because Mac developers have never had to worry about endianness before; MacOS is big-endian and x86 is little-endian. Second, more importantly, there is a mountain of device driver work that would have to be done. The device driver problem is what spooked them off the original "Star Trek" project.
Re:Here we go again... by Momoru · 2005-05-23 03:42 · Score: 3, Informative

With a wireless card (no wires where my office is) on a 1.2ghz mac mini, the price is $578. My current computer, a dell with a 3 ghz p4, with monitor, keyboard, optical mouse etc was only $500. So the mini is still pretty expensive in comparision. But that aside, $580 might be an impulse buy for you, but $600 is an awful lot for some of us just to "try something out". And with those barebones specs of the mini, if I liked it, i would probably have to buy a "real mac" a couple of months later anyways. My point is that I already have some bucks invested in hardware...not having to scrap all that would be a serious selling point for picking up an x86 version of Tiger.
Re:Here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:58 · Score: 0

Do you really think the average Mac buyer knows the difference between a Intel and PPC chip? Apple would just slap a G6 logo on the box and as far as the consumer knows that would be the difference. And they will buy one one because everyone knows that a G6 is better than a G5.
Re:Here we go again... by Waruwaru · 2005-05-23 04:10 · Score: 1

Yeah yeah, it will be just like iTune for Windows, full of bugs, just enough to temp you to switch to real Macs. More razors to sell the blade. Why use imitations when you can just use *BSDs on the intel chips now (well, besides it looks pretty)? Heck, you can "sample taste" OSX on PearPC.
Re:Here we go again... by jbplou · 2005-05-23 04:46 · Score: 1

It only says Intel would make the chips, it does not say they would be x86 chips.
Re:Here we go again... by DebianDog · 2005-05-23 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

If the mini was a $1000 it would still be a bargain. ;-)
- Digital hub (Synergenic Applications)
- Unix based
- No worms, no viruses
- Plenty of freeware/Linux ports/3rd party apps

The Dell is a better deal if time and convenience is of "no value" to you.
Re:Here we go again... by Blakey+Rat · 2005-05-23 06:28 · Score: 1

So why did you buy the AMD PC in the first place instead of a Apple computer?

I find your attitude very strange... if you're so dedicated to MacOS X that you'd instantly format all your Windows drives and burn the CDs, why do you buy a computer that is incapable of running MacOS X?

--
Comment of the year
Re:Here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:30 · Score: 0

and what exactly is keeping me from running unix on my dell? (well, nothing, i do it all the time, i find windows to be a major pain)

so basically, three of your four "reasons" for blowing $500 on half a computer that belongs on the shelves of toys 'r' us are in no way exclusive to macs.
Re:Here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:39 · Score: 0

I thought all those PCs were so open, why would writing device drivers be a problem?

The only endian issue that is different for big-endian vs. little-endian machines is that "network byte order" is big-endian, so forgetting to put in a htonl() on a 68K or PPC won't be picked up. Otherwise, x86 and PPC programmers don't have to think about it unless they are importing data from another system with a different endianness. With the current plague of XML, there's even less of that to deal with.
Re:Here we go again... by lseltzer · 2005-05-23 07:38 · Score: 1

>>why would writing device drivers be a problem?

Because there are about a zillion of them that would have to be written, and they would all be version 0.1
Re:Here we go again... by Magius_AR · 2005-05-23 10:55 · Score: 1

C'mon, dude. The Mac mini is only $500. Apple has put out a product that seems to address your complaints about "a whole bunch of expensive hardware" as a barrier to checking OS X out, and yet you still complain about the barrier that's no longer there.
The Mac mini includes hardware some 3 generations behind modern (such as the 4200 RPM hard drive and the 2 year old video card).

Frankly, for that equipment, I say $500 is overpriced. I bet you could get a crappy eMachine with better/newer parts for cheaper.

Needless to say, cost is still a valid complaint.
Re:Here we go again... by anthony_dipierro · 2005-05-23 15:52 · Score: 1

Who would buy a Mac when they could buy a Dell.

Well, for starters, anyone who currently buys a Mac when they can buy a Dell.

Does anyone seriously believe Microsoft would release Office for Mac OS X for Intel?

Umm, they already do, don't they?

For the n-th time, what would Apple have to gain?

The ability to have binary compatible software, for one thing.

The Mac would die the day the CPU would be the same as in a generic PC. Not from a architectural standpoint, I think they could make it happen, but marketingwise.

Now that's an interesting point of view. There probably are some people who buy Macs because of the chip. In my opinion it's not that big of a selling point, but maybe it is.
Re:Here we go again... by GaryPatterson · 2005-05-23 19:23 · Score: 1

So... you want a high-powered machine in a miniscule form factor at a really low cost.

From Apple?

You're just not the demographic targeted by the Mini. It's not right for you.

The Mini is aimed at people whose needs are limited to productivity apps (Office, iWork), iLife apps and maybe some less demanding games. Or hobbyists with some spare cash and an interest in other platforms.

It's not aimed to replace 3+ GHz PCs, and as soon as you compare it with a tower, you highlight again that you're not the target market.
Re:Here we go again... by master_p · 2005-05-23 20:33 · Score: 1

Because in the country I live, Apple PCs and software for MacOS are very expensive.

I really don't understand Apple. The argument that "they only make money out of hardware" is flawed. The quality of the O/S does not depend on the underlying hardware: 99% of today's hardware is of the exact same quality. What makes hardware different is the capabilities/cost factor. The PC has reached a point where most flaws of the past have been fixed (with the dated BIOS the only problem). Modern technologies like USB, Firewire and Bluetooth make connectivity very easy. SATA and PCI express are here to stay, and there is always SCSI. Linux and other Unix flavors run stable 24/7 on Intel PCs.

So why Apple denies Mac OS on Intel PCs? I don't know. For me, MacOS X is a dream come true: the stability of an advance Unix coupled with best UI. We all want to get rid of the dreadful Windows, especially programmers (the Win32 API is insane).

Not only that, but with MacOS X, Apple has a great chance of getting back to Microsoft: Microsoft hurt Apple by stealing their ideas on UI, now it is payback time, since the Windows world is reached a point of evolutionary dead-end with Windows XP (because new innovations require a re-engineering of the O/S).
Re:Here we go again... by toddestan · 2005-05-24 09:20 · Score: 1

Other than iLife, a cheaper and faster x86 box can fullfill your other requirements. Besides, for $1000 the base model iBook would be a better value anyway.
Re:Here we go again... by DebianDog · 2005-05-24 09:54 · Score: 1

Nope. I have 5 PC's and have ran DOS 3 to Win2000. Really... it can't.
Mainly because Linux does not have the apps and the only other option is windows. viruses, worms, even running virus software for that matter does nothing but dog the box out.

Windows has NO integrated Pro apps like Final Cut Studio either. I do not mind spending the money for a "true" solution.

Lastly, the PS3 and Xbox360 are not running Intel based hardware for a reason... and it is not cost. ;-)
Re:Here we go again... by toddestan · 2005-05-24 10:14 · Score: 1

I agree that Linux is lacking somewhat on the software side, but that's what dual boot is for. I've run many Windows since the 3.0 days, and have only gotten one virus. And I caught it from a floppy disk and almost lost my Windows 3.1 install. Really, running Windows without viruses and worms is pretty easy. Don't use IE, don't use Outlook, use a firewall, and most importantly use common sense. I have a virus scanner installed, but they only thing it seems to catch is the occasional file from my internet cache - probably designed to trip up an IE user but harmless to me.

Macs are pretty nice, but whenever I look at what I can get in the PC world vs. what I can get in the Mac world for the same money, the PC has won everytime.
Re:Here we go again... by DebianDog · 2005-05-24 10:24 · Score: 1

I used to be just like you... about 4 years back ;-) Only thing I miss is the PC game selection.
Re:Here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-26 21:26 · Score: 0

The device drivers are already written. You access the devices the same way regardless of whether it is a PPC or an x86 generating the signals. More to the point, you access it through the exact same busses, using the same exact protocols. Almost all of that code is written in C, not assembly, so why would you have to rewrite it?

NEWTON by necrodeep · 2005-05-23 01:31 · Score: 1

Well, there has been the rumor for years that Apple would restart the Newton line... maybe they are looking at xscale PDA chips?

Re:NEWTON by 4iedBandit · 2005-05-23 02:17 · Score: 1

This actually makes the most sense. The Newton line used ARM processors, which Intel now produces. Switching their bread and butter OS to Intel would be dangerous unless they had a way to make all the powerpc stuff work.

This isn't to say it's not possible. Apple has already made this kind of move once in it's life when they switched from Motorolla's 64K line to the PowerPC. They could do it again, and might if they can't get the PowerPC to close the gap in the Mhz war.

Personally, I really hope this means the Newton is coming back. Damn I miss my 2100. If only it was well integrated with OS X...

--
"The avalanch has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh
Re:NEWTON by necrodeep · 2005-05-23 02:35 · Score: 1

Actually, since OS X is BSD based... having a PDA running a version of OS X would not be to hard... it would probably actually be one of the easier routes for it to occur... especially since Linux based PDA's are becomming more and more common... BSD based OS X is definately not far off the mark.

I would like to see one a new Newton be a little bigger than a standard PDA.... sorta in between a PDA and a tablet system... but that's just dreaming now...
Re:NEWTON by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:03 · Score: 0

I've always thought PDA's are too small; I'd much prefer something about the same size as an A5 piece of paper, and maybe about half an inch thick. Still a lot smaller than most notebook PC's, but enough screen real estate to actually get work done in relative comfort.
Re:NEWTON by b1t+r0t · 2005-05-23 03:04 · Score: 1

Apple has already made this kind of move once in it's life when they switched from Motorolla's 64K line to the PowerPC.
Uh, that's 68K. As in Bill Gates' famous line: "68K should be good enough for anybody"

--

--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
Re:NEWTON by 4iedBandit · 2005-05-23 04:16 · Score: 1

Yup. Less caffine, slow the fingers down...

--
"The avalanch has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh
Re:NEWTON by mrchaotica · 2005-05-23 07:23 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's what I've been wanting too. I always imagine something similar to a PADD from Star Trek: TNG

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

Apple Chips by http101 · 2005-05-23 01:31 · Score: 1

Any word from Motorola yet? I'm sure after losing a little of their sales from Apple, they'd have _something_ to say... Just because Apple will be using some Intel chips, doesn't mean they're sales are going to increase so Motorola can keep selling the same amount of chips to Apple.

--
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!

Re:Apple Chips by turgid · 2005-05-23 01:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

Apple doesn't use Motorola PowerPC chips any more and hasn't for years. It gets them from IBM.
Intel chips are hot, offer poor performance at a given clock frequency, and the 64-bit AMD64-a-like models are in short supply.

No, this is nonsense and a hoax. If Apple were going to switch to the x86 architecture, it would make far more sense technically and economically to choose Opteron/Athlon 64.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along please.

--
Stick Men
Re:Apple Chips by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:39 · Score: 0

Motorola has been losing interest in that market segment for years and is, in fact, getting out of it. Their chip division is now called Freescale.
Re:Apple Chips by squiggleslash · 2005-05-23 01:51 · Score: 1

I thought Motorola produces all the G4s at the moment? My recollection was that IBM doesn't actually make G4s, though it was proposing to make G3s with the velocity engine at some point (these would lack the SMP capability of G4s, but Apple doesn't make SMP G4 machines any more.)

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Apple Chips by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:56 · Score: 1, Interesting

> Apple doesn't use Motorola PowerPC chips

Wrong. All G4 chips are from Motorola/Freescale.

> Intel chips are hot, offer poor performance at a given clock frequency

Wrong again. Intel Pentium-M is much cooler than a G4 chip and runs just as fast as a G5, clock-per-clock.
Re:Apple Chips by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:09 · Score: 0

> Wrong again. Intel Pentium-M is much cooler than a G4 chip and runs just as fast as a G5, clock-per-clock.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*takes breath*
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Re:Apple Chips by turgid · 2005-05-23 03:11 · Score: 1

OK. So Motorola/Freescale still make the G4. So what? It's legacy and confined to Apple's low-end products. The future (and, indeed the present and past 5-10 years for a lot of us) is 64-bit.
Intel does not have a competitive 64-bit processor, either in Pentium VIIV (or whatever) or itanic. Both are turkeys.

Pentium M may be their saviour, but it's only 32-bit at the moment but you can get a better 32-bit part from AMD.

Wake me up when intel decides to compete in the market again.

--
Stick Men
Re:Apple Chips by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:47 · Score: 0

64-bit hardly matters to Mac customers since it isn't fully supported under OS X, and there's zero 64-bit applications available. The Pentium M marketecture will be 64-bit before Apple users start buying 64-bit software.
Re:Apple Chips by turgid · 2005-05-23 04:22 · Score: 1

Absolute hogwash. What nonsense and FUD. Tell me, how are things at intel? Do they pay you to astroturf here?

--
Stick Men
Re:Apple Chips by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:30 · Score: 0

Turgid, you've done nothing but post incorrect facts here. Shut the fuck up.
Re:Apple Chips by turgid · 2005-05-23 05:12 · Score: 1

This is slashdot. Facts are only an interesting aside to the general heat of discussion.

--
Stick Men
Re:Apple Chips by http101 · 2005-05-25 01:42 · Score: 1

All I did was ask if anyone's heard commentary from Motorola... Wow...

I see a few of us are quite passionate about our chips!

But yes, I believe utilizing AMD chips in the new machines is a far smarter move than sticking with Intel. If I had to pick a chip other than Intel and AMDs weren't available as an option, I'd pick a Frito. Chances are I'd get more done, be better entertained and if it starts crashing, I can simply eat it and replace it with another. At $1.49 (US) per bag, it's highly cost efficient!

--
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!

Re:Please help an Intel Newbie by Electric+Eye · 2005-05-23 01:32 · Score: 1

Um, your 8600 is not Intel-run. That' a PowerPC chip, bro. Or are you talking about running Virtual PC? That's different.

Sure by diegocgteleline.es · 2005-05-23 01:32 · Score: 1, Funny

Yeah, I'm sure apple is going to release a x86 apple computer. I mean, PowerPC is not in its best moment, after all xbox 2, PS3 etc are not carrying powerpc chips. Also, a new architecture would mean no binary program for mac os x would work in a x86 computer, 3rd party companies would love such movement.

Jobs would rather let apple die before selling a x86 mac

Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:38 · Score: 0

"after all xbox 2, PS3 etc are not carrying powerpc chips"

Wrong, they both have customized multicore PPC based processors.
Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:50 · Score: 0

Actually the processors in all three next-gen consoles are G5 based so the powerpc isb't doing to bad.

Ninjis
Re:Sure by taskforce · 2005-05-23 01:58 · Score: 1

Just thought I'd point out, he was being ironic ;)

--
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
Re:Sure by Ravnsgaard · 2005-05-23 01:59 · Score: 0

Error: Please recalibrate sarcasm detection unit :)

Apple Denies by nbharatvarma · 2005-05-23 01:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Some links I found some 30 mins ago in Google News

http://www.techsmec.com/index.php/2005/05/23/apple _denies_intel_rumour
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/73057/apple-denies-eye ing-intel-chips.html
http://www.dvhardware.net/article5037.html

Of course, one could argue that Apple wouldn't want this news to be leaked

--
... and I shall strike upon thee with great vegeance, furious anger and a slightly positive karma.

Re:Apple Denies by neo · 2005-05-23 03:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

Historically when news agencies leak Apple news, they end up in court. If Apple hasn't sued anyone about this, then it's not true.
Re:Apple Denies by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:54 · Score: 0

Apple said the news should be placed 'in the category of rumour and speculation'.

Funny they don't say it is false. I always hate when someone doesn't fully deny something.
Re:Apple Denies by Tokerat · 2005-05-23 05:44 · Score: 1

Let's not forget Intel (and AMD, for that matter) are NOT only in the CPU business. They make a variety of products other than their famous x86 line of microprocessors which are used in many devices for many, many purposes.

For exmple, find yourself a Macintosh Performa 400 (circa 1994) and open the lid. Have a look at that motherboard, and there is a chip on it with a nice fat AMD logo. It isn't the CPU, but it is there (I don't recall exactly its function, however).

This rumor probably stemmed from Apple looking into using a controller chipset from Intel. it could have been something simple like improved performance for the USB bus, it could have been Hypertransport, and it might not even have been a serious inquiry, perhaps just some routine business research. If Apple could buy Intel parts instead of another compeditor's and it was cheaper, faster, more reliable, better integrated, etc. then they would most certainly do it, and probably looked into it to see if it was feasible. It's called "Research and Development", something most technology companies don't seem to do properly anymore.

As for the CPU rumor, absolutely not. Apple has commited the long haul to the PowerPC, and to switch to Intel they would need to have every product at least recompiled, and in many cases much more work would have to be done first. MacOS X is not designed for the x86 architecture, and neither is Apple's motherboard design, which would need a complete overhaul as well. Emulation is out of the question as well, as anyone who has tried PearPC can tell you, yes it gets the job done and is improving all the time, but it makes a 3GHz CPU make OS X feel like it was on a 400MHz CPU. That is certainly not a competitive advantage, that is much worse than the situation is now. Anyone who has tried a G5 will tell you those machines are blindingly fast, to switch now would be a step in the opposite direction. It would create an entaglement of hardware and software issues, a rats nest of abstraction which would only serve to grind the machine to a screeching, crashing halt.

That, and having a hardware character generator in a Mac just makes me feel dirty! ;-)

--
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Re:Apple Denies by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-24 07:05 · Score: 0

That's not true, it's almost always a Cease and Desist rather than actual legal action. That's part of what made the ThinkSecret case so exceptional, actually.

The Register says not. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Register already has an analysis on this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/23/apple_inte l/

The conclusions are: Apple already use a lot of non PowerPC chips (iPod, AirPort base stations), so these talks may well have nothing to do with Mac's. Also, it could be a scare tactic to make IBM a bit more eager as a chip supplier.

Re:The Register says not. by syntax · 2005-05-23 01:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Things may have changed from the original base stations, but back then the stations were running a 200Mhz x86 AMD.
Re:The Register says not. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

Nope, it was not a x86 chip.

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=63475&ci d=5908051
Re:The Register says not. by RareEYE · 2005-05-23 03:32 · Score: 1

Is it a scare tactic to get cheap access to Cell processors? Sony's President(?) did make an strange appearance during the MacWorld keynote to push the new HD tech in the iLife apps. Could there be more to that relationship?
Re:The Register says not. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:10 · Score: 0

Mac's

See this quick guide to the apostrophe.

I hate to like this idea. by TempusMagus · 2005-05-23 01:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well, for one, it would make the whole confusing use of clock speeds vs platform processor go away. It would also make it easier to emu windows software and port games. However, the new IBM PPC chips seem to kick all sorts of major ass. Why give that up? I'm betting anything this is for iPod chips.

--
-_-

Re:I hate to like this idea. by xtracto · 2005-05-23 02:55 · Score: 1

but the truth is that you should know better than just looking at clock speeds to measure the performance of a machine.

So what is wrong with a Mac running at 1GHz or a PC running at 3 GH??? if your PC has shitty components (motherboard, graphics card, memory, HARD DISK, etc) it will be shitty compared to a Mac with great hardware...

I think th Megaherz wars are long since over, since AMD started branding their processors with numbers-like GHZ (like the 2500+ or 2400, etc) or with actual "names" like XP, etc.

Like someone said in another thread, there is not really much difference between a 2GHz and 2.3 Ghz processor...

--
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Re:I hate to like this idea. by TempusMagus · 2005-05-23 03:08 · Score: 1

I should know and you should know that clock speeds are not the be-all end-all. However, most people are not that sophisticated.

--
-_-
Re:I hate to like this idea. by enderwig · 2005-05-23 12:23 · Score: 1

Well, for one, it would make the whole confusing use of clock speeds vs platform processor go away.
Huh? What about AMD chips running around 2.4GHz with a label reading 4000+? Not to mention VIA's CPUs... what does their 1GHz mean in relation to AMD's (pick your favorite core design) and Intel's (pick you favorite core design). There is even difference in the different cores for the same processor name!

The mega(giga)hertz-myth was a brilliant marketing strategy for Intel in the 90's. Sadly, it will be a long, long time before people forget. I'm sure salespersonages will be using this myth for a long time to sucker someone in.

Why would they do something so stupid? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:33 · Score: 0

Why would apple bother to use intel's crappy chips? I think the new xbox360 and PS3 , which are both based off multi core PPC chips is a pefect demonstration IBM's PPC chips can smoke Intel or AMD and are way ahead of them in the multicore game.

Re:Why would they do something so stupid? by dick+johnson · 2005-05-23 01:38 · Score: 1

Because Apple can get a better supply of chips from Intel than from IBM.

How many times in the last two decades has Apple had a hit computer that had huge demand, but couldn't meet the demand because Motorola or IBM couldn't produce enough chips?

This just makes sense to me. Plus it should have an AWESOME increase in performance for Windows emulation software (not having to emulate the x86 hardware would make for a huge boost). (I'm assuming that Microsoft won't continue to make Virtual PC for Mac/Intel).

Plus, the old Nextstep OS always had Intel support built in. Nextstep is basically OS X. There's no reason not to do this.

--
- dj
Re:Why would they do something so stupid? by geoffspear · 2005-05-23 02:06 · Score: 1

How many times in the last two decades has Apple had a hit computer that had huge demand, but couldn't meet the demand because Motorola or IBM couldn't produce enough chips?
1? maybe 2?

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Re:Why would they do something so stupid? by mmeister · 2005-05-23 02:11 · Score: 1

If the idea of moving to commodity hardware was so good, why wasn't NeXT more successful with its x86-based OS?

As a developer, this would be a pain in my ass. I've got enough to do without having to add yet another freakin' transition (YAFT). If I'm going eat precious development time doing a transition, I'd want to see a compelling reason. Cheaper hardware is not a compelling reason (I'd just write Windows software if I was after that).

Along with many others here, I think these discussions are likely related to one of many, many hardware projects that are under development, but likely not the Macs.
Re:Why would they do something so stupid? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:51 · Score: 0

There's no reason not to do it you say? How about this one : Customers.
You seriously believe that Apple customers are ready to support another shift to a new architecture?

Because the Mac OSX system can support a shift at the source level doesn't mean that users or firms are ready to buy their favorite applications _again_ for the new platform.
Especially with the fact that the processor power rise isn't going to be enough (if any) to swallow the cost of emulating the PPC on the x86.
Re:Why would they do something so stupid? by dick+johnson · 2005-05-23 05:08 · Score: 1

No one says that by marketing new computers with Intel chips that suddenly your existing Mac will stop working.

The only difference here would be that new machines would run on Intel chips. Applications might need to be upgraded, but most of my applications had a very nominal upgrade fee when I purchased a mac using Power PC 601 chips, rather than 68040 chips.

--
- dj
Re:Why would they do something so stupid? by dick+johnson · 2005-05-23 05:11 · Score: 1

Please.

I've been using Macs since about 85 and I can easily remember a dozen times or more where the supply of chips couldn't meet demand. If I recall, there had been problems obtaining enough G5 chips when they initially introduced those machines.

You need to read more of the Mac Press.

--
- dj

Why cheaper!? by jerde · 2005-05-23 01:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

And why, now, would Intel CPUs be any cheaper?

Currently all of Intel's stuff runs hotter, so Apple would have to work significantly harder at heat dissipation issues in all but their tower designs.

And what, pray tell, do you expect them to do with little-endian issues, backwards compatibility, and all those little details?

Unless Apple thinks that neither IBM or Motorola are ever going to catch up, I just can't see them justifying the huge cost of a major architecture change like this.

- Peter

--
INsigNIFICANT

Re:Why cheaper!? by Reality+Master+101 · 2005-05-23 02:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

Currently all of Intel's stuff runs hotter, so Apple would have to work significantly harder at heat dissipation issues in all but their tower designs.
That's a design issue, not a manufacturing issue.

And what, pray tell, do you expect them to do with little-endian issues, backwards compatibility, and all those little details?

It's commonly known that Apple keeps a version of OS/X for Intel current and ready to go if they should ever have to switch because of supply problems (which has always been a real threat).

The biggest reason they don't switch is because Apple likes incompatibility where they can do it -- it locks people in. If Apple used the Intel architecture, it would be a lot easier to run their software on less expensive hardware.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Re:Why cheaper!? by joephish · 2005-05-23 02:56 · Score: 1

Currently all of Intel's stuff runs hotter

My dual processor G5 is watercooled. And very loud if the CPU load is high for long periods. The maximum power envelope at 2.5Ghz is 100W, which I believe is not a million miles away from Prescott.

--
for n = 0 to 2 those were the days next n
Re:Why cheaper!? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:09 · Score: 0

jesus will you and the original poster learn the meaning of the word "nor"
Re:Why cheaper!? by mnemonic_ · 2005-05-23 03:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, the Pentium M's run far cooler than any G4 or PPC970 processor, and Intel plans to extend the M line more into the desktop market (already some desktops using the Pentium M). The P4's probably run cooler than the PPC970's, after all, P4 mobile chips have been available for several years now, whereas PPC970's have been desktop only for 2 years. Intel's processors are cheaper because they're more massively-produced. Compare to the case of the APG-77 radar, whose price plummeted (by millions of dollars) after common circuitry in the T/R modules became used in consumer wireless ethernet gear (market expansion from .5M chips to 9M+). The 3-5% of the market Apple holds is nothing compared to the dominance x86, especially when you factor in the vicious competition between AMD and Intel that drives prices down further. Competition that does not exist in the cathedral Apple world, unfortunately.
Re:Why cheaper!? by daviddennis · 2005-05-23 03:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Every company in the world supporting the Mac platform would have to recompile and reissue their software for x86. This would be a huge burden on Mac software makers.

That alone seems like a good enough reason for this not to happen short of major disaster for the PowerPC platform. And with the dual cores well on the way, according to most sources, I don't see this as a major problem.

D
Re:Why cheaper!? by Roadkills-R-Us · 2005-05-23 04:09 · Score: 2, Funny

They probably wouldn't be.

But at least we'd see louder Mac Minis, because if they went with Intel CPUs, they'd need those hellaciouly large CPU fans as well.

In a Mini, that might make for a helicopter. Which would be its biggest redeeming featire - thenew, Flying Mac!
Re:Why cheaper!? by skribble · 2005-05-23 04:11 · Score: 2, Informative

Provided Apple does it's job right this isn't too complex. Essentially it's a rebuild for a Cocoa App. (Next/OpenStep ran on multiple platforms). Remember... with the exception of very low level programming (i.e. some drivers, and almost no productivity apps). You write code for an OS not a hardware platform. If the OS is ported properly along with the supporting lowlevel libraries porting an app is trivial.

--
--- Nothing To See Here ---
Re:Why cheaper!? by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2005-05-23 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

I dunno, the G5s can use a LOT of power. At full load, a dual 2.0 G5 is rated for 600W. At idle, the same system still consumes 120W. That is the reason that even the G5 "FX" (PPC 750FX?) uses the liquid cooling system for the 2.5 and 2.7 models. That said, for their compute power, these PMG5s are incredibly quiet. I have very quiet Xeon workstations and my PMG5 is faster and quieter than any of them.
Re:Why cheaper!? by Lars+T. · 2005-05-23 04:56 · Score: 1

It's commonly known that Apple keeps a version of OS/X for Intel current and ready to go if they should ever have to switch because of supply problems (which has always been a real threat).
What bloody good does a OS do, when you have ZERO apps? There are no x86- or Itanium-binary apps for Mac OS X .

--
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Re:Why cheaper!? by Lars+T. · 2005-05-23 04:58 · Score: 1

Yeah, and they are also much more expensive.

--
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Re:Why cheaper!? by Reality+Master+101 · 2005-05-23 05:11 · Score: 1

What bloody good does a OS do, when you have ZERO apps? There are no x86- or Itanium-binary apps for Mac OS X .
You could've asked the same question about the 68,000 => PPC move. Apple would probably supply a cheap-o PPC emulator on the x86, and then developers would just have to recompile their apps.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Re:Why cheaper!? by daviddennis · 2005-05-23 05:42 · Score: 1

You're right ... and wrong.

You are right in the way that the technical problem should not be too complex, since everyone codes in high-level languages nowadays. Endian issues could be a problem for some people, though, especially when trading binary data files between the two platforms. But since that was solved for Windows versus Mac compatibility, that shouldn't be too tough.

The real problems are marketing and technical - getting all those new CDs out, deciding under what circumstances to replace people's CDs, etc. People would get pretty mad if they were handed a CD and it would not work on their computer, even if it was created before the switch to Intel.

I'd consider it a horrendous nightmare for people involved with administration, and in that sense it would be a terrible hardship even if not one line of code was changed.

D
Re:Why cheaper!? by Lars+T. · 2005-05-23 06:17 · Score: 1

So you want to use emulation. Sure, why not, who needs to run apps at a reasonable speed?

--
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Re:Why cheaper!? by Reality+Master+101 · 2005-05-23 06:23 · Score: 1

So you want to use emulation. Sure, why not, who needs to run apps at a reasonable speed?
Most likely app developers would offer a free x86 download of their app for existing customers, so it's just to get people over the hump. As I said, we already have precedent for a move, and it was a lot harder to make the switch before the web.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Re:Why cheaper!? by No-op · 2005-05-25 08:13 · Score: 1

the high-end G5's (at least the FX's) run at over 80C just ticking along. that's pretty warm, which explains the giant heat sinks (and the required liquid cooling units on the 2.5 and 2.7's).

I know the dual 2.0 box under my desk is like a freaking space heater, and really pumps out a lot of heat even just idling. it's nice and quiet, which means I don't notice the sheer quantity of hot air it's pushing out with those giant fans!

--
EOM

PPC chips by JSRockit · 2005-05-23 01:33 · Score: 1

So, this would be Intel making PPC chips then? I would be fine with anyone who could get anything other than a G4 into the PowerBooks.

--
I must be wakewalking through dreams.

Apple already does! by TangoCharlie · 2005-05-23 01:34 · Score: 1

Apple already uses chips from Intel and AMD, and many other suppliers. This does not mean that Apple is going to make a version of MacOS X for generic x86 boxes. There was another story like this a few months ago... and the intel chip in question was the raid controller in the XServe raid boxes.

The main CPU in Apple Macs will remain PowerPC for the concievable future.

The real speculation should be whether Microsoft should /could buy Apple because the G5 CPU is similar to the XBox's CPU.

If you think Wintel is scary.... consider a future where Microsoft makes the OS _and_ the computers.

--
return 0; }

Re:Apple already does! by Gilmoure · 2005-05-23 02:09 · Score: 1

If MicroSoft bought Apple, how long would it be before they shipped an Apple compatible Macintosh? Would it lag for a year or more, they way Halo did?

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:Apple already does! by rikkards · 2005-05-23 02:17 · Score: 1

Actually with regard to MS hardware I have been quite happy with them. Their game controllers (FF steering wheel and joysticks) are top notch. Never used their wireless products but they were the first to actually enable wireless encryption by default. Their keyboards and mice are also relatively robust (of course their mice are made by Logitech but I digress)
Re:Apple already does! by TangoCharlie · 2005-05-23 19:41 · Score: 1

It's not a quality issue (well, not initially anyway) it's a power issue.... here's a scenario:

Microsoft buys Apple.
Microsoft ports Windows to PowerPC.
(Actually, it's already done this: XBox360)
Microsoft starts marketting XBox/Apple hardware
as digital hub.
Microsoft's digital hub starts to compete against
PC.
Microsoft ports Office apps to PowerPC.
Microsoft competes AGAINST Dell!
Microsoft brings out Windows 2007 for PowerPC first.
Microsoft brings out Windows 2009 for PowerPC ONLY!
All PC manufacturers go bust.
Intel goes bust / Microsoft buys intel.
"Mintel" licenses PowerPC technology - starts making it's own PowerPC.
IBM goes bust / Microsoft buys IBM.
Microsoft is the one and only supplyer of PC's
and PC software in the world.
EDS goes bust.
Microsoft becomes world's only supplyer of
"Solutions".
Presedent Bullmer takes over at UN.

OK, so that might be a bit extreme.... but you get the idea!!

Seriously, what would happen ff the "PC" as we know it is "replaced" by the "XBox"? How could Linux survive if all PC's were closed like the XBox? How could linux survive if to port Linux to the "XBox" is a criminal offense under the DMCA?!

--
return 0; }
Re:Apple already does! by TangoCharlie · 2005-05-25 03:11 · Score: 1

Speculation is now flying around that Apple is planning to introduce a Tablet computer... and that this tablet computer is the basis of the Apple-Intel rumours.

Well, it could be true. However, I would guess that the CPU in question would be an XScale (ARM) processor. Remember, Apple used an ARM processor in the Newton.

So could Apple produce a new "Newton" based on the XScale and running a NewtonOS/MacOS hybrid OS?

Well, you heard it here first!!

--
return 0; }

Probably False by SirStanley · 2005-05-23 01:34 · Score: 3, Funny

This is a rumor that keeps getting recycled. It could be true this time... just like it could have been true the last 50 times it's happened.

New headline:
Erroneous Wallstreet Journal Article causes Mac Fans through out the world to riot. Killing 15

--
--------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------

Re:Probably False by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:31 · Score: 0

I agree. With this sort of 'he said, she said' bit, why is it that we're in such a small minority in entertaining the most obvious possibility, that there's nothing more to it than was presented?

OS X on commodity hardware? by Zebra1024 · 2005-05-23 01:34 · Score: 1

It would be nice to see OS X become another choice for an OS for the commodity x86 hardware platform along with Windows and Linux.

Re:OS X on commodity hardware? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:25 · Score: 0

If OS X were available for the Intel platform, I would buy it. Many moons ago, Apple was entertaining this idea - and for whatever reason, they decided not to (perhaps their relationship with the chip manufacturer). But the world is changing, and Apple needs to keep up as well.

It might not be about CPUs by agpenm · 2005-05-23 01:34 · Score: 1

Intel makes more CPUs, and Apple makes a lot of devices other than Macintoshes. This could have something to do Intel's wireless chip sets, or possibly chips to decode H.264 video. I think a device similar to the Airport Express that offered H.264 video decompression for use with home theater set ups is a much likelier candidate for an Apple product based on Intel chips than an Intel Mac.

Re:AMD by trintron · 2005-05-23 01:35 · Score: 1

AMD doesn't exist in Apple world?

PowerPC = IBM ? by jack_call · 2005-05-23 01:35 · Score: 1

Since the PowerPC architecture(I know, wikipedia is not to be trusted, but I can't really be bothered to find another reference) is based on IBM's POWER architecture, and I don't _guess_ that IBM would be licensing it to Intel, isn't IBM going to be pi**ed? or are Apple going to be using IA-64 instead? or x86(no it's not a serious guess, but it would be cool if I could run MacOS X on my P4)

Adopting Intel chips would help ensure that future Macintosh systems could meet the price and performance of products from tough rivals such as Dell Inc. .

Can you really compare Apple and Dell? I don't know any persons(personally) who uses apple for their home computer, but I do know a few who use them for work(video or sound editing)

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine. My sig is my best friend. It is my life.

Maybe it is not for a Mac? by LWATCDR · 2005-05-23 01:35 · Score: 1

In case people forgot Apple does make more than computers and Intel does make things chips besides the x86.
Could it be the Xscale for a PDA, phone, or goodness knows what.
It could also be looking at an x86 based server.
I just can not see an x86 Mac desktop getting any traction. It would almost no software available for it for a good long time and would give no real advantage. The PPC is a good chip and seems to have a good future. I am waiting for the Cell based Mac Mini.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

What really happened ... by maxwell+demon · 2005-05-23 01:37 · Score: 5, Funny

Steve Jobs said he liked the potato chips he was offered during an Intel presentation, and plans to sell the same chips in Apple's cafeteria as well. :-)

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

Re:What really happened ... by rampant+mac · 2005-05-23 05:15 · Score: 1

"Steve Jobs said he liked the potato chips he was offered during an Intel presentation, and plans to sell the same chips in Apple's cafeteria as well. :-)
Jobs is a vegetarian and very health conscious, potato chips are too bourgeois for his reality distortion field.

They were Apple crisps.

;-)

--
I like big butts and I cannot lie.

Predicting the future ain't what it used to be by NMerriam · 2005-05-23 01:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, I suppose since Dvorak predicted it every year since 1988, he might well be right sooner or later. I guess that would be about the third or fourth thing he's gotten right in all that time.

--
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.

I bet it's not by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:39 · Score: 0

to replace the Power chips, but instead for something else, such as they WiFi on a chip.

But does it run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:39 · Score: 0

Finally. I'll get all the benefits - cheaper Apple hardware (Intel) and my favourite Linux distribution all in the same package. It'll be awesome.

Apple on a PC? No chance. by Qwavel · 2005-05-23 01:39 · Score: 1

The article talks about Apple using Intel chips.

If they actually made the MacOS available on PC's that would be fantastic! But extremely unlikely as that would threaten their markup.

Thoughts on this... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:39 · Score: 0

I personally always thought Macs were more expensive not because IBM charged more for their processors, but because Apple enjoyed such large margins. Apple going to Intel on cost alone doesn't seem like it makes a lot of sense.

With the Xbox 360, PS3, and Revolution all coming out - IBM is going to have a means of mass producing PowerPC and Cell processors to a point where it would be cheap enough for each of these boxes to be profitable at a couple hundred dollars per hardware unit (yes, I know this will take time).

All Apple has to do is play the waiting game with IBM to reap the benefits - so why do the dance with Intel, especially since it requires migrating a lot of codebase over to x86?

Of course Apple could be going towards a solution where they sell a stand-alone OS for Intel-based PCs, but we know that will never happen.

So - a question for those more knowledgable than me: If Joe User has written himself an application for Mac OS X - and Apple ports Mac OS X to another hardware architecture - does Joe User need to re-compile his App, or will it work wherever Mac OS X is installed?

Re:Thoughts on this... by dick+johnson · 2005-05-23 01:43 · Score: 2, Informative

The codebase for the OS is already done. Nextstep, currently known as OS X, has always run on Intel chips.

As for the developer base, it's a trivial matter to port native (cocoa, not carbon) applications to Intel from PowerPC

You would need to recompile it. But that is not a huge matter for someone who has programmed their application in cocoa.

--
- dj
Re:Thoughts on this... by mmeister · 2005-05-23 02:16 · Score: 1

While there are a lot of apps written in Cocoa, all the big guys are still Carbon based (iTunes, Adobe products, Dreamweaver, MS Office, Quark Xpress).

What's their incentive? They'd just tell Apple to write a Windows API compatible layer and then run their Windows programs on it. SO much for the Mac OS X software advantage.

There is also an issue of dealing with big vs. little endian differences. Most Cocoa developers have not considered that issue in their development (no reason to).
Re:Thoughts on this... by hcdejong · 2005-05-23 02:17 · Score: 1

Um, I hate to disappoint you, but there are a few slight differences between the last version of Nextstep and OS X 10.4.
Darwin may be available for x86, but there's a whole lot of code (as in 'thousands of man-years') on top of Darwin that's PPC only.
Plus you'd need to write an emulator for PPC because it'll take a while before everyone has x86-versions of their software (see the 68k->PPC transition, and the Classic OS -> OS X transition).

The question is by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:39 · Score: 0

Can x86 or 64bit Intel/AMD handle Quartz extreme and other stuff required by OS X.

I can't imagine this desktop without those frameworks, it will be torture.

Re:The question is by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:44 · Score: 0

of course it can.. performance of athlon 64 is better than G5

Who cares about cheap?! by infofreako · 2005-05-23 01:40 · Score: 1

Give me a mini with enough horsepower to record and play an HDTV signal with full 5.1 sound and I'm in!

-Patrick

--

Broadcasting LIVE from a Bonus Room Over the Gara

Apple makes money from HARDWARE by mlorentz · 2005-05-23 01:41 · Score: 1

Apple makes all their money from selling HARDWARE. All their software products are just to get their hardware out the door. There is no way they will switch to x86. If they just become another Dell with their own OS they could not survive. Build your own mac? Apple would hate to see that day...

Proof, though? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:41 · Score: 0

You know as well as I do they could just be talking about Apple getting a leg up on USB 3.0 or some other tech that Intel makes. Why does it have to be chips? And you know there ARE other types of chips out there...maybe Apple wants to make a really cheap Mac with Intel Extreme graphics.

Why does this have to be about CPUs?

That said, I look forward to being able to buy a dual 3.4 ghz PowerMac for $1500. Bring 'em on, Steve-o!

Summary of issues by G4from128k · 2005-05-23 01:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

Here's why this is not that likely:

It's just Apple trying to get better terms/service from IBM (think Dell's "talks" with AMD)
It will be the death of Apple's hardware division
Apple will have a hard time supporting the myriad boards, chipsets, and peripherals of PCs
Piracy/sharing (pick your preferred new-speak term) will mean a revenue-less expansion of the install base

That said, Apple's done some strange moves in the past. If PC users can just buy OS X86 for $99, they might give Mac a try. It wouldn't take that high conversion rate for OS software profits to easily replace hardware profits. I'd bet that Apple makes nearly as much profit on a sale of Tiger as it does on the sale of it slower-end machines.

--
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

Re:Summary of issues by Dun+Malg · 2005-05-23 03:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

# It will be the death of Apple's hardware division # Apple will have a hard time supporting the myriad boards, chipsets, and peripherals of PCs # Piracy/sharing (pick your preferred new-speak term) will mean a revenue-less expansion of the install base
Why is there always the presumption that a system with an x86 CPU will be PC compatible? Someone postulates that Apple may be considering using Intel CPUs, and everyone makes the giant leap of (il)logic that Apple is considering adopting the PC platform as a whole. It is entirely possible to use the same CPU in a totally incompatible system. Look at the Original 68000 based Macs. Were they compatible with the 68000 based Amiga? It is only logical to assume that were Apple to dump IBM and adopt (say) the Pentium-M as their new CPU it would be installed on a proprietary Apple motherboard, not a $40 Abit or Tyan from Taiwan.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:Summary of issues by mgoff · 2005-05-23 04:23 · Score: 1
It will be the death of Apple's hardware division.

I'm not so sure, for the following reasons:
1. If I could buy a PowerBook G4 form-factor/industrial design and install Windows, I would buy it in a heartbeat. Call me old and set in my ways, but I like Windows. I don't want to learn a new OS.
2. Intel has the best high-performance, low power processor available. There's probably a reason we haven't seen a PowerBook G5.
3. There is much speculation that Apple runs iTMS at razor-thin margins with the sole goal of pushing more iPods out the door. Maybe they're applying that model to their PCs-- barring a catastrophic MS blunder, it's the only way their hardware can break out of their niche.
Apple makes a lot of money off their hardware. I think the frenzy over iPod made them realize that their ID is a major reason instead of the OSX lock-in. When Mac mini launched, they got the same frenzied response, but sales were muted due to peoples' reluctance to start over with a new OS.

If they can keep their existing business and sell into the ultra-premium x86 hardware market, they stand to win big. But, they have to be careful to not crater the OSX business, or they will just become another AlienWare-- with all due respect to AlienWare, it would be a step down for Apple.
Re:Summary of issues by Nasarius · 2005-05-23 04:31 · Score: 1

Apple will have a hard time supporting the myriad boards, chipsets, and peripherals of PCs
Perhaps. On the other hand, Apple might have enough weight and respect to create some kind of universal driver format for open-source OSes, so that Darwin, *BSD, and Linux could all support the same hardware. Just a thought. I realize that even if something like this is possible, it's certainly not trivial, either technically or politically.

--
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Re:Summary of issues by swillden · 2005-05-23 04:43 · Score: 1

Call me old and set in my ways, but I like Windows. I don't want to learn a new OS.

Which Windows do you like? And what will you do when Microsoft end-of-lifes that version of Windows?

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Summary of issues by argent · 2005-05-23 05:34 · Score: 1

Look at the Original 68000 based Macs. Were they compatible with the 68000 based Amiga?

Yeh, actually, someone came up with a hack to boot Mac OS on the Amiga. "AMax" needed a Mac Plus ROM image, which it patched to use the Amiga hardware and then rebooted into Mac OS. I don't know how useful it was (since the Mac Plus ROMs were pretty creaky and old at the time this came out), but it was possible.
Re:Summary of issues by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 11:42 · Score: 0

4. Piracy/sharing (pick your preferred new-speak term)
I like HappyRainbows. eg:
I happyrainbows star wars episode 3 the other day. We should all HappyRainbows Star wars episode three, it's doubleplusgood!
Re:Summary of issues by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 14:42 · Score: 0

A pro-Mac guy should hardly be talking about EOL dates.
Re:Summary of issues by anthony_dipierro · 2005-05-23 15:27 · Score: 1

It's just Apple trying to get better terms/service from IBM (think Dell's "talks" with AMD)

Total speculation, but maybe.

It will be the death of Apple's hardware division

I don't see how using a different chip could possible kill Apple's hardware division. Could you explain? Note that using a different chip wouldn't mean that Apple would have to allow OEMs to distribute hardware with OSX pre-installed. They could, and given a high enough price for the software (to compensate for the lost profits from hardware), they should, but they wouldn't have to.

Apple will have a hard time supporting the myriad boards, chipsets, and peripherals of PCs

They wouldn't have to support anything they don't already support or that they make themselves. Again, using the Intel chip isn't the same as allowing clones. Those who want to install OSX on non-Apple built or sanctioned hardware do so at their own risk.

Piracy/sharing (pick your preferred new-speak term) will mean a revenue-less expansion of the install base

Maybe. This is the biggest worry. But I think Microsoft has shown that most people aren't going to go through the hassle of installing their own operating system just so they can save a few bucks. Installing an operating system is hard, and most people are going to keep whatever they get with their computer.

If PC users can just buy OS X86 for $99, they might give Mac a try. It wouldn't take that high conversion rate for OS software profits to easily replace hardware profits.

This is the key here. It doesn't matter if Apple is making money off software or hardware, as long as they're making money. It does lead to a different problem, though. Most likely the price point for OSX would have to be set a lot higher than the price for Windows in order for Apple to continue making the same amount of profits. With the prices separated out like that, people are going to realize exactly how much more OSX costs. Of course, Apple could make the switch to Intel chips and only sell the OS bundled with its own hardware. One advantage they'd retain would be in the relative ease of porting an application from one OS to another.
Re:Summary of issues by swillden · 2005-05-24 01:37 · Score: 1

I'm not a pro-Mac guy. I'm a pro-F/LOSS guy.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Summary of issues by greed · 2005-05-24 04:46 · Score: 1

The early Macs were mostly a CPU and the Toolbox ROM. They didn't have DMA, or complex on-board I/O; just a little SCSI controller, the desktop bus, and floppy. The video was just a bitmap in RAM, no line drawing, no blitter, nothing.
As a result, the Mac-on-Amiga emulators worked really, really well. One of them, I can't recall if it was the AMax, you plugged the Toolbox ROM chip into a dongle that then plugged into your parallel port.

I believe they actually could go a bit faster than the Macs of the day by using the Amiga's GPU.

The big killer, though, was the floppy drive. Because the Mac 800K floppy was actually a CLV drive, rather than CAV like everyone else, there was only about 30% of the diskette that could be used by both the Amiga and Mac floppy drives. So you needed to use a special disk format to move between a Real Mac and the Amiga.
Re:Summary of issues by argent · 2005-05-24 04:56 · Score: 1

On the other hand today's operating systems are more modular and have modules that are easier to replace. On top of that, things like custom disk drives don't exist any more. Even the video cards on the Powermac and Windows PCs are pretty much the same cards and use the same hardware and software interface.

And on the Mac at least a lot of those drivers are open-source, which is how come I could run OS X on my unsupported Powermac 7500.

Maybe it's just a negotiation ploy by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:41 · Score: 1, Informative

El Reg has thought about it some more.

Intel makes a lot more than CPUs by stratjakt · 2005-05-23 01:41 · Score: 2, Informative

Flash memory, network controllers, raid controllers, memory controllers, etc and so on.

Maybe they just plan to use an intel PIC to control the little blinky power light. Or one of Intel's DSP's to make the iPod not sound like a 70's era 8-track.

It's highly unlikely this means OS/X for the PC. Apple would never give up their fiefdom.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!

Meh.. by Henk+Poley · 2005-05-23 01:42 · Score: 1

Intel also makes stuff other than x86. Several low power ARM CPUs, their knowledge about chipsets could also be retargeted to PowerPC, all kinds of 'accelerator' chips (decoding video, DRM, ..), etc., etc.

I'd find it odd if Apple wouldn't use Intel chips if they were a good fit.

Re:Meh.. by Jacob+Moogberg · 2005-05-23 02:09 · Score: 1

The funny thing is that Apple was previously a co-owner of ARM, along with Acorn and VLSI. These were the chips they used in the Newton PDA. When the Newton was shelved (it was an "old Apple" product sacrificed by Jobs to keep the Mac alive), ARM shares were gradually sold every three months. Otherwise, I don't believe for a second that Apple would migrate its main computers architecture to x86. For instance, without any leak (due to the required extensive beta testing) of Tiger on Intel, the whole story seems entirely implausible.

unbelievable by cg0def · 2005-05-23 01:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

It is amazing how many people still believe that PPC is vastly superior to x86. (and yes it is x86 and NOT 386). What exactly do you think a PPC can do that an x86 cannot? It is not that hard imagining Mac switching over to silicon provided from Intel. The IBM CPUs cost them a bundle and plus Intel has the capacity to produce huge amounts of CPUs while IBM doesn't. Also IBM being so huge and going in so many directions does nothing to promote the CPUs that they make. On the other hand Intel does a great deal of advertising and this will help Mac a lot. Not to mention that an x86 compatible MacOS X will brings a boat load of new customerts for Apple and probably double the value of their shares if not even tripple them. So moving over to x86 especially now that x86 is moving towards multiple core CPUs is a great idea and I am all the way behind Apple if this turns out to be more than a rumor. Hey I'll be one of the first to buy the x86 version of MacOS X.

Re:unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:06 · Score: 0

x86 assembly is nasty and bloated.. years of patching and patching.. PPC on the other hand is not... hrmm.. on this level I can see exactly how the PPC is vastly superior... and FYI.. the PPC is moving over to Dual Core CPU's as well..
Re:unbelievable by dgrgich · 2005-05-23 02:12 · Score: 1

While I will agree that there is little a PPC can do that a x86 can't currently do - besides run Mac software at the moment - the likelihood of Apple using x86 chips as their central CPUs is just ludicrous. If this happened, Apple would need to provide support for two seperate code bases in the x86 and the PPC realm. This means two versions of Final Cut Pro, two versions of Xcode, two versions of Motion, etc. This will alienate their current base of customers and serve to wreck what little momentum they have gained in the PC arena.
This is simply a shot across the bow of IBM; you'll NEVER see the x86 version of MacOS X.
Re:unbelievable by Kjella · 2005-05-23 02:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

It is amazing how many people still believe that PPC is vastly superior to x86.

I don't. But it is considerably much more "on par" than the G4 ever was, and they weren't changing then, why would they now? It is almost impossible to emulate PPC on x86. I don't know if x86-64 is any better, it should be because of the added registers but it'd probably still run slow.

I'm sure apple has a drop-in ready box for running x86/Mac, but it'll essentially be the same box as today except for the CPU socket, at the same price (no, the CPU is a damn little part of the total box). How would that bring any new customers at all? Not to mention x86 OS X is so much easier to pirate than PPC OS X. Chances are if you are running OS X, you probably paid for it at least once every HW upgrade.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:19 · Score: 0

It isn't unbelievable when you consider that most Mac zealots eat up Apple's marketing hype hook, line, and sinker. Just look at how many posts there are that state a switch like this couldn't happen because Intel doesn't have Altivec/VMX... NO, they don't have Altivec or VMX but they do have MMX/SSE/SSE2/SSE3, which are exactly the same thing, i.e. SIMD instruction sets. It's just marketing that separates the two. Go back to a time before the G5, when zealots routinely quoted Apple's claims that the G4 was twice as powerful as a Pentium at the same Megahertz. Or, they'd say things like "My 700MHz TiBook is plently fast for what I do like checking emails and surfing the web...." implying that no one needed the level of speed that PC users were accustomed to. Then the G5 came out, and all of a sudden it was like, APPLE WILL CRUSH WINTEL, ITS THE R0xERs!!!! For zealots, CPU choice is a religion. For everyone else, its just choosing the right tool for the job.
Re:unbelievable by Klivian · 2005-05-23 02:25 · Score: 1

It is amazing how many people still believe that x86 is vastly cheaper than PPC. What exactly do you think make a x86 cost less than a PPC?

And the number of processors produced don't make a big impact on the price since the architecture and complexity of the x86 chips make it initially much more expensive to produce than the PPC.
Re:unbelievable by AKAImBatman · 2005-05-23 02:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is amazing how many people still believe that PPC is vastly superior to x86.

I'm amazed at how many people still think that any performance gap (real or perceived) actually matters. The majority of your PC's performance now comes from the size of the bus, the transfer rate of your disks, and how much memory you have. No one really *needs* a 5GHz processor to run a wordprocessor, email client, MP3 player, or even something more intensive like a graphics editor, video editor, or sound studio. Even games now rely far more heavily on the GPU than they do the CPU.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:unbelievable by palimino · 2005-05-23 02:37 · Score: 1

Who is confusing x86 and 386? And doesn't IBM also use basically these same processors in their mainframe/high end servers? And how do you know how much Apple pays for these processors?
Re:unbelievable by EnglishTim · 2005-05-23 02:44 · Score: 1

Hey I'll be one of the first to buy the x86 version of MacOS X.

Why?
it's not as if you'll be able to run it on your PC. If Apple did decide to do change over to x86, you'd still have to buy an Apple machine to run OSX (OSXI by then?).
Re:unbelievable by bill_mcgonigle · 2005-05-23 02:54 · Score: 1

So why do you think Microsoft moved from x86 to PPC for the XBox 360?

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:unbelievable by metlin · 2005-05-23 03:03 · Score: 1

Well said.

And I'll add one more thing - if an x86 version compatible version of iBook or Powerbook were to come out, I'll be among the first guys to buy one.

No matter how good other notebooks are, they don't come close to Apple's works.
Re:unbelievable by zippthorne · 2005-05-23 03:12 · Score: 1

Which is different than windows how? Most people replace entire computers as their "HW" upgrade, and buy from a vendor that charges them for windows regardless of whether they want it or not.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:21 · Score: 0

you sir are an idiot.
Re:unbelievable by AKAImBatman · 2005-05-23 03:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Good point, but Apple still ships G4 chips with an obsolete 20th century-style bus.

Apple ships G4 chips with low-end hardware (where price > performance) and laptops (where low heat & battery > performance). The PowerMac line has the desktop performance demons that are strong competitors to the latest Wintel offerings.

If PowerPC was truely competitive, Apple would have stopped shipping G4 chips a long time ago.

If Intel/x86 was truely competitive, they would have stopped shipping Celeron and Pentium M a long time ago.

Intel has very good marketing. That's why people think that they're always fastest, even when they're not. Low-end and Laptop PCs suffer from many of the same design aspects as low end Macs. This is an intentional characteristic, as it allows for machines to be cheaper for your average user. The high end user is going to have to pay fairly heavily for a top of the line machine.

As for laptops, Apple has recognized that these machines are not designed to be high-performance machines, but rather computers designed for doing work on the road. So they've designed them to have long battery lives and low heat disappation. Up until the introduction of the Pentium M/Centrino design, x86 laptops tended toward high performance, short battery lives, and massive heat dissapation. (Trust me, it's quite annoying when your Dell is dead after an hour and a half, and the guy with the Mac next to you decides to stop working and throw in a DVD for the next two hours or so.)

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:04 · Score: 0

Do you seriously think Apple LIKES to ship G4 chips? In their high-end laptops? Fuck no, I'm sure Jobs is yelling at IBM to get those promised low-power G5s to market.

Pentium M is vastly superior to a G4 and even desktop P4 chips. Celerons are crippled versions of the latest P4 core, while the G4 is the best that Moto could produce and there's nothing intentional about it's suckiness.
Re:unbelievable by AKAImBatman · 2005-05-23 04:07 · Score: 1

Update to my own post: It looks like iMacs now carry G5's, modern busses, and Serial ATA drives. Considering that they have A flat screen built in, they are very reasonably priced.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:unbelievable by AKAImBatman · 2005-05-23 04:11 · Score: 1

Do you seriously think Apple LIKES to ship G4 chips? In their high-end laptops?

Of course not. But as you said, it's currently the only option for meeting the design of the laptop. The current line of G5s run far too hot and are far too power hungry.

I'm sure Jobs is yelling at IBM to get those promised low-power G5s to market.

I suspect he's doing a lot more than yelling. ;-)

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:unbelievable by Oniros · 2005-05-23 04:17 · Score: 1

It is amazing how many people still believe that PPC is vastly superior to x86.

It's amazing how all the new game consoles (Xbox 360, PS3, etc.) are PPC based/derived. There might be a reason, no?

Also if Apple were using Intel CPU you can bet the Mac would still not be regular PCs (most likely still have custom motherboard/chipsets) and that MacOS X would only run on Apple hardware.
Re:unbelievable by ultramk · 2005-05-23 04:30 · Score: 1

That's a bit of a blanket statement...

As someone who lives in Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator for 45+ hours a week, I wouldn't complain if my filters were twice as fast. Not every cpu-intensive process is bus- or disk-limited.

I regularly peg my dual 2ghz g5s. If it were dual 4ghz, I would peg that too, just not as often.

m-

--
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Re:unbelievable by Zemplar · 2005-05-23 04:31 · Score: 1

"I'm amazed at how many people still think that any performance gap (real or perceived) actually matters. The majority of your PC's performance now comes from the size of the bus, the transfer rate of your disks, and how much memory you have. No one really *needs* a 5GHz processor to run a wordprocessor, email client, MP3 player, or even something more intensive like a graphics editor, video editor, or sound studio. Even games now rely far more heavily on the GPU than they do the CPU."

Of couse they need a 5 GHz processor! They will need it to run Ad-Aware, Spybot Seach & Destroy, Norton Antivirus, ZoneAlarm, Microsoft's "Security Console" and maybe a user application or two.
Re:unbelievable by mpsmps · 2005-05-23 04:41 · Score: 1
It is amazing how many people still believe that PPC is vastly superior to x86. (and yes it is x86 and NOT 386).

Um, you mean because it is?

What exactly do you think a PPC can do that an x86 cannot?

For example,
- Much lower heat
- Much better design for multiprocessor scalability. x86 SMP scalability typically falls way below linear once you exceed 4 processors. Even 32-processor PPC SMP boxes are fairly close to linear. A lot of this stems from intelligent design decisions like using linked-load and store conditional for synchronization.
- Incredibly clean well-designed RISC architecture. I've worked in code generation professionally for much of the last 20 years, and I don't think I've seen a better architecture than PPC. I've seen a couple worse than x86 but not many.
Whether you believe it or not, good processor architecture does make a difference and this is a major contributor to why Apple systems tend to be more reliable, stable, and scalable than PC software.
Re:unbelievable by AKAImBatman · 2005-05-23 04:52 · Score: 2, Informative

That's a bit of a blanket statement...

No, it's not.

As someone who lives in Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator for 45+ hours a week, I wouldn't complain if my filters were twice as fast. Not every cpu-intensive process is bus- or disk-limited.

Your photoshop filter probably *is* bus and memory limited. For one, your processor needs to move the memory in and out of the processor quickly. If the bus is saturated, then it can't feed the CPU any more than it already has. Which means that the CPU can't run any faster than what the bus can feed it. And if you run out of memory, you'll have to start accessing the disk - which is several magnitudes slower than memory. Improved disk performance (e.g. Serial ATA) can help hide some of that swapping.

I regularly peg my dual 2ghz g5s. If it were dual 4ghz, I would peg that too, just not as often.

Pegging a CPU is not the same as getting 100% of the CPU's performance. If the bus can't feed the CPU, it's going to start running wait states which look like normal CPU usage to the OS. Most people would be amazed to know that the time spent in wait states can easily be half or more of a CPU's processing time. i.e. It's all about how efficiently the bus can service the CPU.

Trust me. Every time you get a new machine, most of the performance increase comes from systems other than the CPU.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:unbelievable by Bassman59 · 2005-05-23 04:57 · Score: 1

"It is amazing how many people still believe that PPC is vastly superior to x86. (and yes it is x86 and NOT 386). What exactly do you think a PPC can do that an x86 cannot?"
Altivec, for one. x86 has nothing that compares.

"The IBM CPUs cost them a bundle"

The CPUs cost a lot less than you think.

"and plus Intel has the capacity to produce huge amounts of CPUs while IBM doesn't."

Oh, please, you're talking out of your ass.

"Also IBM being so huge and going in so many directions ..."

So, now they're too big? Make up your mind.

"...does nothing to promote the CPUs that they make. On the other hand Intel does a great deal of advertising and this will help Mac a lot."

Why should IBM (or Motorola, for that matter) advertise a a microprocessor to the general public? The general public is not their end customer, and Average Joe can't go into Radio Shack and buy a PowerPC chip.

Intel, on the other hand, does sell their chips directly to the public (which is why they still come in the expensive but electrically-inferior PGA package), and so advertises like they do because they need to convince the public that their processors are better than AMD's. If AMD didn't exist, Intel wouldn't have those Blue Man Group ads.

Face it, the average person running an Office application suite doesn't -- and shouldn't -- care what sort of CPU is under the hood.
Re:unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 05:00 · Score: 0

Batman, your posts are usually quite insightful. Please don't sink to the level of Appleturfing free advertisments.
Re:unbelievable by swillden · 2005-05-23 05:01 · Score: 1
I think you overstate your case:

No one really *needs* a 5GHz processor to run:
- a wordprocessor -- Agreed
- email client -- Agreed
- MP3 player -- Agreed
- graphics editor -- No way. People who do a lot of graphics editing would like processors that are ten times faster than the are now. There are plenty of graphics operations that are CPU bound
- video editor -- Are you nuts? Have you done any video editing? Transcoding and video effects are extremely CPU intensive. They're I/O intensive as well, but today's slowest drives can swamp today's fastest CPUs.
- sound studio -- Agreed, somewhat. Some audio effects are pretty CPU-intensive, and being able to process audio at much faster than real time would be useful.
Modern CPUs have been fast enough for typical office use for quite some time now. But multimedia applications continue to push them. Hard. I do my video transcoding using an Athlon64 3400+, a Sempron 2800+, a Pentium-M 1.6GHz and two 1.4GHz Athlons. That's something like 10GHz of CPU cycles, and the storage for all of it is some ATA-66 drives on a 500Mhz K6, via a 100Mbps ethernet. Lots of CPU, slow disks, slow file server, relatively slow network... and the job is completely CPU bound. I think I could use four or five 5GHz processors before I/O would become the bottleneck.

While it's true to say that lots of people don't need faster processors, you can't say no one does. Not even for home use (like mine!).
--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:unbelievable by AKAImBatman · 2005-05-23 05:09 · Score: 1

Altivec, for one. x86 has nothing that compares.

I wish people wouldn't do this. SIMD instructions exist on practically all modern processors. e.g. Intel has MMX/SSE/SSE2, IBM has Altivec, and Sun just calls it Sparc SIMD. These technologies are highly comparable, but target very different processing requirements. As a result, each one shows tremendous performance gains in specific situations while falling flat in situations where a competitor does well. That's just the nature of the beast.

Don't fall for the marketing nonsense. Take the time to understand what it means, and how it affects you. It may very well be that Altivec performs better than SSE2 for you, but that isn't a guarantee.

In any case, sorry to interrupt with a does of reality. Carry on. :-)

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 05:18 · Score: 0

Just being complete. :-)

I mentioned the PowerMac as the only G5 machine, which was incorrect. My point was that the iMac line also is a G5 machine with a modern bus.
Re:unbelievable by ultramk · 2005-05-23 05:34 · Score: 1

Nearly all blanket generalizations (CPU speed doesn't matter! CPU speed is the only important thing!) in this area seem to be false to one degree or another.

I still think it is more accurate to say that a fast processor is an important element of a fast system. ...by that logic, my home-built games PC would have seen no significant performance improvement when I replaced the 2.8ghz P4 with a 3.4ghz P4. Of course, this was not the case.
(Mind you, I had taken care to build an optimized system, SATA RAID 0, fast DDR, etc.)

CPU speed isn't the only thing, but it does matter.

Also, I tend to doubt that my g5's ram-limited... 8gb goes a long way.

-m

--
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Re:unbelievable by BeepBeepBiloobop · 2005-05-23 06:31 · Score: 1

I suspect he's doing a lot more than yelling. ;-)

He might be talking to another chip vendor to apply some strategic pressure...

--
I think so, Brain; but where are we going to get a duck and a hose at this hour?
Re:unbelievable by foniksonik · 2005-05-23 07:33 · Score: 1

netioning the GPU is a great point... seeing as how OS X now has it's Core Graphics routines which go directly to the GPU for a whole hell of a lot of it's rendering performance, in both the UI for the Finder/windowing system and it looks like increasingly in all pre and post proecessing of graphics generally across apps. So the question is whether the AltiVec portion of the PPC will even be relied upon in the future.. in fact it looks like Apple has purposefully developed away from relying on the altivec unit in preference to using the GPU for doing vector transforms and other intense rendering calculations.

All this leads me to believe that they are both improving the speed and efficiency of the OS and hedging against reliance on PPC tech for general computing by tying their system more to GPUs than CPUs... a trend that looks to continue.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:unbelievable by AKAImBatman · 2005-05-23 07:54 · Score: 1

So the question is whether the AltiVec portion of the PPC will even be relied upon in the future

Alivec is used heavily in the audio/video decoding programs such as iTunes and Quicktime. That allows these programs to perform far better on OS X than many similar a/v decoders on Windows. In any case, AltiVec is the wrong sort of technology for the type of windowing effects OS X uses.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:unbelievable by Edmund+Blackadder · 2005-05-23 11:18 · Score: 1

I can answer that. It is the same reason they made a version of Windows NT that runs on Alpha. Same reason they support AMD. They want to keep Intel on their toes.

They have never been very happy about sharing a monopoly with Intel. They know very well that the customer can only be squeezed for so much $ and they want most of that to go for MS software rather than Intel hardware.

So they keep supporting competitors of Intel, to ensure Intel's market share is always threatened and thus Intel's prices are always competitive.
Re:unbelievable by Edmund+Blackadder · 2005-05-23 11:30 · Score: 1

This is a good point. But there is a very good reason why Apply likes to stay away from intel processors, and it has nothing to do with the technical merits of PowerPC and x86.

Apple has very large profit margins for the computer industry and wants to keep them by preventing competitors from offering a similar system.

To put it simply they want to make sure there are no "apple clones". The way they make sure of that is they use hardware that is impossible to obtain for a reasonable price, unless it is part of an Apple computer. This hardware is mostly the CPU (the other hardware, such as harddrives, video cards has been steadily changing into versions very similar to the ones found PCs).

If Apple they the CPU to Intel, shitloads of cheap clones will begin to emerge from the Singapore/Taiwan factories six months from now. Of course, apple will still have the monopoly on software, but that is much harder to keep, because of piracy, and because if the financial incentives are high enough a competitor can coble up an OSX lookalike from open source software.

P.S. This is off topic but I must again complain about the moderation of Apple fanboys. It is ridiculous that the parent post was moderated as troll. Look fanboys, just because you do not agree with something does not mean it is a troll.
Re:unbelievable by anthony_dipierro · 2005-05-23 15:43 · Score: 1

Chances are if you are running OS X, you probably paid for it at least once every HW upgrade.

And chances are if you are running anything but OS X, you probably paid for Windows at least once every HW upgrade, whether you use it or not.

Getting a PC without any OS on it and then installing a pirated copy is too hard for the average Joe. I think Apple's fears that people doing this will cause a significant decrease in revenues are misplaced.
Re:unbelievable by poofyhairguy82 · 2005-05-23 17:35 · Score: 1

I still think it is more accurate to say that a fast processor is an important element of a fast system
I used to think this. Its bull. Put 128mb of RAM in any new machine (2.6+ GHZ) and WATCH IT SLOW TO A CRAWL!!! Meanwhile a 512mb upgrade for my old 700Mhz laptop has increased its performance (for most thing like web browsing/ mp3 playing) to the point were it feels almost as fast as my desktop 3 times the CPU speed. That is, until I got a SATA drive for that desktop (replacing an IDE one) and IT felt TWICE as fast. CPU matters, but its not the most important thing. Here is my list, nerds please pick it apart:

1. RAM

2. Hard Disk

3. Memory and system bus speeds

4. CPU

5. GPU (this jumps up the list when games are considered.

Many think that CPU is the most important because that is where the marketing is. But I am sure (because of EXPERIANCE) that huge increases in RAM has been the REAL thing that has made computers faster.

--
Open Source Sushi
Re:unbelievable by stupidkiwi · 2005-05-23 22:22 · Score: 0

Excuse me swillden, I strongly suggest you do a trial run on a Mac.

I used to think just like you. I converted to PC from the Amiga about 7 years ago. I switched to the wrong platform. I do a lot of high end graphics stuff, animation, video, A0 posters, truck skirting etc.

The last PC I purchased was the bleeding edge at the time. This was now 2.5 years ago. Dual 2 Ghz CPUs, 3 Gb Ram (I was going to add another gig to max it out until I gave up), Exagy, 3D imput devices etc... It was rubbish. I couldnt paint up an A3 sized picture in Photoshop on this machine.

I switched almost a year ago to a powerbook. I never in my wildest dreams actually thoughyt thaat a laptop could outperform a PC that had massivly higher specs. I thankfully found I was totaly wrong. I am now doing everything I wanted to do on the PC in realtime, in realtime on this Mac. The mac is a 1.33 Ghz CPU, 1.5 Gb Ram, Bluetooth input devices, usb2 input devices, Firewire 400 and firewire 800, gigabit networking... I had been puting up with the standard artists wait on computers until switching to Macs. The Amiga I am sure would have been here eight or nine years ago if it haddn't come to an untimely end, but I am very happy now. My wife is too now she has her own Mac laptop, and she had to suffer almost two decades of PC use for gfx.
Re:unbelievable by swillden · 2005-05-24 01:35 · Score: 1

Excuse me swillden, I strongly suggest you do a trial run on a Mac.

I have. I edited a video last week with iMovie on my wife's iBook. A little slower than yours (1.2Ghz) and half the RAM (768MB), but it wasn't swapping, so that wasn't an issue. I decided I'll go back to Kino on Linux on my Athlon64 3400+.

thankfully found I was totaly wrong. I am now doing everything I wanted to do on the PC in realtime, in realtime on this Mac.

Everything *you* want to do. And realtime isn't fast enough for me. Ideally, I want to transcode DVD video as fast as I can rip it, which is about 4X.

As I said, just because current-generation machines are fast enough for you doesn't mean they're fast enough for everyone.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:unbelievable by foniksonik · 2005-05-27 11:14 · Score: 1

huh... AltiVec is a vector processing unit correct? My understanding of OS X windowing is that it's all vectors using a pdf rendering engine through core graphics now of course for hardware accelleration via the GPU. What I'm saying is that a GPU could easily be used for such encoding/decoding tasks as well, it's a very specific task and doesn't need a whole co-processor to itself if a portion of the GPU could do the work as well.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.

x86 or Intel? by geoffrobinson · 2005-05-23 01:43 · Score: 0

No AMD?

--
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.

Re:Please help an Intel Newbie by JayPee · 2005-05-23 01:45 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Bwahahahahahah.. this is funny shit. Mod this guy up.

For those of you who don't recognize this, it's the Kottke troll (edited) from way back in 1998, originally posted here. (It's at the bottom)

Why doesn't apple use the Playstation3 chips? by ACK!! · 2005-05-23 01:46 · Score: 1

They are like mega-fast bad-*ss speedy chips right and they are power-pc right?

I can understand what Intel gets them but barely considering how they really make their money off the machines and not the software.

--
ACK /ak/ interj. 2. [from the comic strip "Bloom County"] An exclamation of surprised disgust, esp. i

Re:Why doesn't apple use the Playstation3 chips? by Utopia · 2005-05-23 02:27 · Score: 2, Informative

PS3 CPU makes sense when you have lots of floating point operations.
It isn't any faster when it comes to general purpose functions.
Plus By the time it goes into mass production next year the standard CPUs will be much faster.

Take that... by callipygian-showsyst · 2005-05-23 01:48 · Score: 1

Take that, megahurtz myth!

Apple's spent a lot of PR money convincing its user base that Intel is as evil as Microsoft...I wonder how they'll backpedal this one.

--
Best Buy can have you arrested

Never Happen by kaltekar · 2005-05-23 01:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

'Analysts' have been predicting this for years, saying its cheaper, more flexable, etc. Apple has too buch invested PPC, if Apple switched to x86 EVERY program on the current platform that is optimized for PPC would have to be reworked to run on x86. That and Apple has too much of a proformace advantage with t he G5.

--
Ahh.. The mind what a wonderful trap!

Re:Never Happen by Archimboldo · 2005-05-23 15:09 · Score: 1

I rather doubt it will happen too, but I don't necessarily think it is as big a software rework as some claim.
BeOS was rewritten from PPC to Intel in a few short months and most of their software worked without change. Many even ran FASTER.

Re:Please help an Intel Newbie by 0xdeaddead · 2005-05-23 01:51 · Score: 0

wow I thought they burried this troll 8 years ago...

Weird timing by Per+Abrahamsen · 2005-05-23 01:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

With IBM CPU's powering both the new XBox and Playstation, one would imagine that volume production for cheap Mac's would be possible. Is there any reason you couldn't use a XBox 360 CPU in a Mac?

Cell by mikeee · 2005-05-23 01:53 · Score: 2, Informative

I wouldn't think so. You could, but Cell is a weird chip; not so much like a G6 as a G4 with 7 (!) super-VMX coprocessors.

With proper coding, performance for something like Photoshop might be fabulous, but I doubt it would be efficient for general-purpose computing.

Re:Cell by peragrin · 2005-05-23 02:07 · Score: 1

>>With proper coding, performance for something like Photoshop might be fabulous, but I doubt it would be efficient for general-purpose computing.

Of course with a Pentium 3 being overkill for 90% of the everyday tasks of running web browser, Office, etc what purpose does more have?

You do need those vmx units though to real time, video encoding/decoding, image manipulations, Better sound modulation, all at the same time.

in other words with you can do more real time video conferencing on a cable modem. Through in a scalable video size and your good to go. Oh wait what Apple working on for Quicktime 7?

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:Cell by eric17 · 2005-05-23 05:50 · Score: 1

"Cell" looks like a technology or platform rather than one possible implementation. The 1 PowerPC (PPE), 8 SPE organization of the Cell to be used by Sony is probably not the only organization possible for this _technology_. Microsoft's XBox is basically 3 PPE and no SPEs. For Apple needs, I would expect something like 2 PPE/4 SPE at 90nm or 3-4 PPE/8 SPE at 65nm. Either one of these would be a great laptop processor, giving users reasonable single thread performance, great multi-thread performance, and the ability to encode video from a built-in camera, among other things.
Re:Cell by mrchaotica · 2005-05-23 07:18 · Score: 1

Cell would make a heck of a great vector coprocessor, along with a G5 and maybe a normal ATi/nVidia GPU...

(I don't know enough about Cell -- is it designed to be a GPU itself?)

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

x86 with Apple extensions could work. by guidryp · 2005-05-23 01:54 · Score: 1

If there are really negotiations, how could Apple make a transition to x86 and keep a lock (partial) on the HW side?

One way: They could bargain with Intel for a variant of x86 with small Apple specific extensions, nothing affecting normal operations of the CPU, just a couple of new Apple specific instructions and exclusive license for this CPU. Much like MMX, SSE, this is essentially backward compatible.

Now Apple builds OSX-86 and sells x86 Mac HW to run it, not only that but these machines can easily support your old MS windows stuff in a dual boot and take advantage of economies of Scale of PC HW to compete on price.

The box would be the only machine capable of running both native OSX-86 and native Windows. It would be highly desirable, possible the ultimate switcher machine. I would buy one in a hearbeat.

A nice thought, but in reality this is probably just a rumour float to get better pricing out of IBM.

I'll take your word on it by grouse · 2005-05-23 01:54 · Score: 1

The article is quite worthless

This is why I never RTFA.

Intel do make other things by FidelCatsro · 2005-05-23 01:55 · Score: 1

Like onboard graphics
Controller chips,
Networking chips ,
Arm based procesors ...Remember the rumours a while back about an apple tablet anyone ;) and that patent,

--
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though

Dvorak didn't predict this for 2005 by aardwolf64 · 2005-05-23 01:55 · Score: 1

Dvorak's original article predicting this was written in March of 2003. In the first sentence of the article, he said that Apple would switch to Intel processors within 12-18 months.

That 18 months was over September 2004. How is this 2004-2005???

bollox by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:56 · Score: 0

here's the deal. put simply the IBM chipset WILL decimate the Intel line in respect to performance in the next 12 - 18 months. there's enough chip designers on /. here to acknowledge that fact. expect dual or higher core chips running at ~5Ghz sooner than you'd expect... also, expect some really weird stuff in the areas of chipset cooling as well.

however, Intel may come in as a provider of cheap horsepower for "peripheral devices" like oooh i don't know say something that could interface with a cell processor as it decodes your airport mpg4 stream coming from a mini which was connected to the iTunes store...

this is a marketing fud people of a special kind. it's "kinda" true. so wrapping up, don't think out of the box, think in the cell... ;)

Re:bollox by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:00 · Score: 0

by "weird" i meant very cool and not just literally.

Is this a dupe? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 01:57 · Score: 1, Funny

I'm sure I have read about Apple's imminent switch to x86 before...

Low end Itanium possible - Apple software stack by tarpitcod · 2005-05-23 01:57 · Score: 1

Here's the Pro's:

1) Apple controls the entire software stack, so they can port it all to Itanium and optimize it for that.
2) Apple has experience doing a port like this (68K -> PPC)
3) Intel gets to ship more Itanium -- increasing volume ( Good for Intel )
4) Apple could suck up the low end of Itaniums which nobody wants for servers or (the almost totally dead workstation market)
5) Intel can put some pressue back on Microsoft.

This is not an entirely crazy idea. There are advantages for both Intel and Apple. Apple controling the entire software stack is in my view a point of critical importance. Intel getting to save Itanium and ship more Itanium volume is great for them.

Who does this really hurt if it happens? AMD with x86-64 and Dell. If I was Dell I would be sweating bullets right about now -- because you may have to chose between staying with Microsoft -- and supporting multicore PPC (like XBOX 360) for the future, or sticking with Intel as they stop focussing on x86 and go for Itanium.

Itanium looked like a turd because it was over-promised. If you have the compiler technology it can do damn well at some things. I'd bet an Itanium optimized photoshop -- or other Apple media development software would rock.

--Tarp

Re:Low end Itanium possible - Apple software stack by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:23 · Score: 0

The problem with this theory is that HP and Microsoft have abandonded Itanium workstations. Which leads one to believe that Intel is not planning on making an I64 chip cheap enough to put into Macs.
Re:Low end Itanium possible - Apple software stack by telbij · 2005-05-23 02:34 · Score: 1

This is not an entirely crazy idea.

There are some definite pros from a business perspective, but look at the facts. After dumping Motorola, Apple's machines are finally starting to catch up to the field. Dual 2.7g G5s are not the fastest machines out there, but you have to admit that with the 1.35ghz bus they're more competitive than they've been in the past.

Now factor in the amount of disruption to the code base, the sheer number of hours Apple would have to invest to bring everything up to date, not to mention the difficult transition period for the Mac development community.

Then after it's all done, Apple would be stuck in the same boat with the PC market with little chance for architecture differentiation.

No, the more I think about it, the more crazy an idea it really does seem.
Re:Low end Itanium possible - Apple software stack by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:46 · Score: 0

And while everything you've just said is completely true, you've completely ignored the fact that SGI quickly filled in the gap with their first ever Linux workstation. You might like to visit sgi.com

And just a few weeks ago, Fujitsu announced an Itanium chipset, "Pleiades", supporting PCI-Express. Could make for some pretty serious workstations if they deicde to go that way.

In short, I hardly think it's beyond Apple's engineering ability to put together an Itanium workstation, and a fairly nice one at that. It's probably not likely to happen though, for price reasons more than anything else. I just don't see Apple moving into the $10k-$20k workstation market anytime soon.
Re:Low end Itanium possible - Apple software stack by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:46 · Score: 0

Apple's machines are finally starting to catch up to the field. Dual 2.7g G5s are not the fastest machines out there, but you have to admit that with the 1.35ghz bus they're more competitive than they've been in the past.

Clock speed wise, they are actually faster than AMD's 64-bit CPU's...which are the fastest x86 CPU's available. Funny how things change.
Re:Low end Itanium possible - Apple software stack by AJWM · 2005-05-23 04:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not really that crazy. I hypothesized the Itanium idea in another message before I'd read the parent.

The code base isn't that much of an issue. At the base, it's Unix, and porting Unix-based apps from one architecture to another is relatively painless. (Endianness is an issue, but the IA-64 can handle either big- or little-endian data (instructions are always little-endian)). Of course, a PPC emulator would be required for migration, more easily done on IA-64 than x86[-64].

The Itanium had speed issues, but this has been addressed with the Itanium2. As far as floating point goes, the IA64 has always been a screamer. Virtualizing an x86 PC would be a breeze.

There are still plenty of other explanations for Apple and Intel to be talking (if indeed they are) which make more sense, explanations that have nothing to do with Mac CPUs, but the Itanium idea isn't that whacky. Going to the PPC in the first place was pretty much an inspired leap, Apple may be gearing up for another one.

--
-- Alastair
Re:Low end Itanium possible - Apple software stack by tarpitcod · 2005-05-23 04:56 · Score: 1

Does anybody know how well Itanium does emulating a RISC ISA like PPC versus CISC ISA like x86? Maybe an Itanium could virtualize a PPC and go at a pretty good clip.

I'm wondering if there is anyone who did an emulator for Alpha VMS binaries for Itanium VMS reading this -- or anyone else who might have an idea.

I looked for SPECFP / SPECINT numbers for 2.7 GHz G5's on spec.org -- but couldn't see them. Does anyone have the numbers so we can validate the '2.7Ghz G5 kicks-butt as is posts?'

--Tarp

Everyone else is moving away from Intel by Junks+Jerzey · 2005-05-23 01:58 · Score: 1

Xbox 360: modified PowerPC
PlayStation 3: PowerPC core + Sony custom extensions
Nintendo Revolution: PowerPC (supposedly)

The primary reason is because the PPC chips use significantly less power. Now, now they stack up against the Pentium-M series is a good question.

It's not about CPUs by CptSkippy · 2005-05-23 01:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

Who said this had anything to do with CPUs?

Intel = Flash Memory God

iShuffle = Flash Memory MP3 Player

Re:It's not about CPUs by andrewski · 2005-05-23 06:07 · Score: 0

This is exactly what I thought. Well, I thought about USB2, but close enough.

Why is everybody flipping their shit about Apple using X86 chips, when they have an extremely nice 64 bit system of their own? I think this is more of an ending of the Firewire / USB2 war with Apple conceding defeat, judging from the USB2 interfaces included with the Shuffle and the iPod. Now they are suing for peace, and perhaps even looking at a slice of the Centrino pie, or at least the 915 chipset for integrated audio / video / USB2 / SATA / etc?

Chips and Dips by catdevnull · 2005-05-23 02:00 · Score: 1

Intel makes all kinds of "chips"--not just CPUs. I think it's a little early to jump to conclusions. If it ends up that Apple switches to Intel CPUs, MacOS X will be all that much closer to running on your x86 PCs. In that case, Dvorak would actually be right about something (shudder).

I, for one Mac user, welcome our new dark corporate overlords.

--

I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...

Re:Chips and Dips by catdevnull · 2005-05-23 07:24 · Score: 1

Oh, and maybe the Intel chips might be for a product that *is not* the Mac (i.e., the iPod?).

--

I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...

Mac mini toaster by cyfer2000 · 2005-05-23 02:00 · Score: 0

Finally, Apple is going into toaster market. If this is true, only.

--
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.

Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Apple by adzoox · 2005-05-23 02:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apple no longer owns a stake in ARM (sold it all to Intel), but they do have experience and could easily hire/rehire programmers that worked on Apple/ARM devices (read as Newton)

My guess is that this will be for a new ARM processor for the iPod - the custom chip is probably too weak for advanced features.

Intel has been wanting to move to RISC chips for some time - maybe they want to become a CELL/PowerPC production partner to catch on the wave - 100% of the gaming world will be using PowerPC or PowerPC deritives in the next year - year and a half -

Intel now owns the largest stake in ARM (bought from Apple) - this is the processor in the majority of PocketPCs, Palms, and GPS units. So - this Intel processor is most likely for a new device or even the iPod.

Also take into account that USB2.0 chipsets are currently made by Intel (and others) and that Apple uses Intel chips in the XServe line for RAID I/O.

--
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny

Small minds by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:01 · Score: 0

Computer companies use many chips from many manufacturers. Why is it that most people here can't think beyond the CPU when they hear about a chip?

Grammar, grammar, grammar. by mjpaci · 2005-05-23 02:01 · Score: 1

Only if you're a simple minded dolt.

It could be an exclamation like, THINK PINK! or DROP DEAD! Different is being used as a noun here and the sentence/idea could also be written as "Think (in a way which is) different" or "Think Different" rather than "Think Same" and be like everyone else. You're not thinking differently, you're thinking of different ideas. Now go back to ESL class.

--Mike

Xscale processors for iPOD more likely by martin · 2005-05-23 02:03 · Score: 1

Given the fact NON of the current PPC applications would run on the Intel P4 without a nasty emulation layer I doubt they'll be moving.

What's more likely is the use if the Xscale (ARM based) processors for the iPod based stuff - phone/player combo etc.

PCI boards? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:03 · Score: 0

Has anyone considered that they might be intending to stick a Intel processor on a PCI board or something?

For people who still need to run Windows applications and feels VirtualPC is too slow this could be a thing that could push a would-be switcher over the edge...

Re:PCI boards? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 09:00 · Score: 0

How the hell would you fit a modern Intel processor on a PCI card? That hasn't been practical since the PII appeared. Modern chips need such a large apparatus to remove the heat they put out, the computer would have to be built larger, with additional space to accomodate the stuff sticking out of the card, or you'd have to give up the use of the other two slots due to overhang.

Neither is an attractive option-- have you seen how tight it is in the G5? Sure, it's a huge machine, but the open space that's in there is only for air-moving purposes. everything else is occupied.

He actually prediicated it for 2003/2004 didn't he by smithberry · 2005-05-23 02:03 · Score: 1

The John Dvorak article linked to appears to be dated 03.18.03, and he is making the prediction for 2003/2004 isn't he? So even if it happens he was wrong by a year or two.

Apple has been there by cloudness+is+x · 2005-05-23 02:05 · Score: 1

Not exactly a hybrid-dual-processor system, but during the mid-90s Apple has already used both Intel and PowerPC CPUs under the same hood. They did it with the DOS compatibility card, a PCI card that could boot DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, and even Linux. The best ones sported a Pentium 166 processor.

Now that Virtual PC is in Microsoft's hands, it would be interesting to see a comeback for those cards.

Dvorak by jusdisgi · 2005-05-23 02:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

PCMag's John C. Dvorak predicted this...

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...

In all seriousness, though....that article is a good chuckle. He was calling for Apple to switch to Itanium for Christ's sake, and then license OS X for non-Apple hardware with a Windows compatibility layer. Bwahahaha! Come now, John, how do you dream this shit up?

Equally hairbrained is his theory of a dual-processor PowerPC/Itanium machine; he seems to have the idea that they could just duck-tape two motherboards together and have it pick and choose which processor to run what executable on...clearly, he's using drugs.

If Apple does this (which I am extremely skeptical of at this point) I expect it will be at the very lowest end....completely backwards from what Dvorak predicted. The reason is simple: IBM's Power architecture is plenty fast, and they aren't going to get a performance improvement by switching to Intel. The only benefit available from such a switch is cost.

--
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.

Apple is all about spectacular announcements! by 3770 · 2005-05-23 02:07 · Score: 1, Insightful

Apple is all about spectacular announcements!

And if they announce a machine based off of any Intel technology I'd be more "Why?" than "Wow!".

If I was Apple I'd be far more interested in creating a machine based on the CELL processor.

It is fast. It is cheap (at least it should be considering it is in the PS3). It is not compatible with the PC market. It is based off of POWER which will make it easy for Apple to use it.

And finally, the CELL is _sexy_.

Photoshop seems to be a very important benchmark for Apple. If they go with CELL that has one main CPU and 8 auxilliary CPU's (and with Photoshop being suitable for multiprocessor systems) the CELL would likely "kill" any Intel platform in benchmarks.

--
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!

Straw man, meet the overrated rumor troll by ianscot · 2005-05-23 02:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't see any "PPC is vastly superior posts" -- other than yours, which refutes this seeming non-starter of an argument by scattering a bunch of the usual rumor rationales in the hopes that some of the seeds will take root.

Meanwhile none of your points address the obvious problems pointed out elsewhere: that Apple has denied the rumor (for the umptieth time), that Apple's a hardware shop that might not compete with Dells that could run the same OS, and so on. Breathless arguments on the level of "probably double the value of their shares if not even tripple (sic) them" are even less convincing than a John Dvorak prediction, which is pretty far down the food chain for me.

If this is true, it means Apple has decided to go head to head with MS as an OS shop and make its money that way. That's what people call a "paradigm shift," and a radical one, at a moment when every recent example shows us that Jobs is continuing to do what he does best: sell the hardware by using the OS and interface grace points as a break-even loss leader. (iTunes as loss leader for iPods, iLife suite to sell each new generation of boxes, and so on.)

--
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.

Re:Straw man, meet the overrated rumor troll by m50d · 2005-05-23 06:16 · Score: 1

iTunes as loss leader for iPods
That's a myth that's getting repeated far too much. iTMS is a profit center and a pretty big one, look at their reports to shareholders.

--
I am trolling

Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap by Phil+John · 2005-05-23 02:08 · Score: 4, Informative

100% of the gaming world will be using PowerPC or PowerPC deritives in the next year - year and a half -

You couldn't be more wrong. 100% of the next-gen console gaming world will be in the next year and a half, however, everyone who plays handhelds (nintendo ds, gameboy advance, sony psp etc) and all us PC gamers (of which there are considerable numbers) will still be using other chips besides PowerPC/CELL

--
I am NaN

what about this by coreboarder · 2005-05-23 02:09 · Score: 1

get an el cheapo intel chip.
stick it on a card, hammer it into a g5 enclosure
power on
use it to run stuff like MS Project...

WiMax Uses A Chip... by testtrack321 · 2005-05-23 02:10 · Score: 1

So they say "Intel Chip" and everyone thinks "PENTIUM! Cheap MACS!" I say "First adoption of the WiMax standard". Intel's WiMax uses a chipset, Apple was the first major company to widely adopt 802.11b, so why not WiMax? I see it as a more logical and probable thing than porting every single Mac application to x86 based architecture.....

StrongARM by Megane · 2005-05-23 02:10 · Score: 1

Uh, folks, I hate to interrupt your "OS X on x86" fanboy wankfest here, but Intel doesn't just make x86 CPUs.

They have this little thing they got from the ruins of DEC called "StrongARM", which is a pretty nice implementation of the ARM architecture. In fact, Apple has even used ARM CPUs before. So what this means is...

APPLE IS BRINGING BACK THE NEWTON!

Okay, maybe not the Newton, but it would be a great way to get some extra CPU power for that video iPod people keep rumbling about.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }

Why does it have to be a computer by killtherat · 2005-05-23 02:12 · Score: 1

So apple may be using intel chips, it doesn't mean that we'll be seeing a PC from apple based on it. Remember, the iPod isn't powered by PowerPC chips either, they use something like a custom ARM processor. If Apple wants to up the CPU power on one of their hand held devices, they'll probably need a another type of chip. Shoving a 970 PowerPC chip into a hand held may be a bit much, and even the lower power PPC chips may be cost prohibitive if you are trying to get a cheap device out.
I'm thinking it's a move to get a cheap CPU, with a moderate amount of power, that can be used for embedded systems.

And why would they do this? Two words: Video iPod

One other thing to consider -- by RawDigits · 2005-05-23 02:13 · Score: 1

IBM can't create a Power processor that works well in Laptops. The Pentium M is currently the uncontested king of mobile processing due to heat/power efficiency.

Just something to consider...

Re:Only one thing left to do! by GaryPatterson · 2005-05-23 02:14 · Score: 2, Funny

You sicko!

Why do you want to tape a duck? Is that some sick animal bondage fetish you have? Some sort of Beatty-esque perversion, but with less hamsters?

Or... did you mean *duct* tape?

No... the animal bondage thing seems a simpler and more believable explanation.

Wd be strange for Mac, Intel isn't just x86..... by Lemming+Mark · 2005-05-23 02:15 · Score: 1

It'd be strange to see Apple switch *now*. In the days of the G4 when Motorola were having difficulty scaling up the CPU frequency it might have made sense: for the foreseeable future, x86 CPUs are going to be at least as fast as any others (at the same price point).

Nowadays, with CPUs coming straight from IBM, keeping up the speed seems like much less of a problem. IBM's CPU fabrication technology is within a few months of Intel's (Intel are probably still the market leader in fabrication technology but they are losing lead) and the Power architecture is pretty neat. Also, with Cell, etc, IBM clearly has plans for greater world domination.

It's worth remembering, as others have pointed out, that Intel is not just x86. There's also:
* IA-64 (very unlikely Apple would use that!)
* the IXP network processors (not inconceivable Apple would use those to accelerate network-intensive performance but relatively unlikely IMHO)
* The XScale (which is an enhanced StrongARM)

I tend to agree with other posters that the XScale would be a good choice for either an enhanced iPod or a new Newton. ARM is the de facto standard in mobile CPUs these days.

A really neat trick to pull off if they do bring back the Newton is to support Pocket Windows apps using a Wine-like library. I imagine that an Apple-supplied set of apps would be more than adequate for most uses, though.

Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap by stevel · 2005-05-23 02:15 · Score: 2, Informative

Intel now owns the largest stake in ARM (bought from Apple)

Sigh - how soon they forget. Intel's ARM technology was acquired from DEC, not Apple. It was DEC's StrongARM that was "bought" by Intel as part of the settlement of the patent infringement lawsuit brought by DEC. Not just the rights to the processor and the architecture license, but the Hudson, MA chip fab that made the processors.

As far as I know, Apple has had no involvement in ARM.

Move Along. Nothing to see here. by Frobozz0 · 2005-05-23 02:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

*ahem* bullsh*t.

There's a saying about hell freezing over and _something_ to do with Steve Jobs using Intel CPU's.... hmmmm.

I think these people misinterpreted the evidence for CPU's. Apple uses Intel chips in their computers NOW... just not CPU's. And for good reason:

1) Intel chips are NOT cheaper. Any difference is negligable.
2) They don't run faster (AMD keeps pace, but not Intel.)
3) They'd have to recompile every app made for one architecture to run on another.
4) They run hotter.
5) Steve doesn't like Intel CPU's.
6) Steve doesn't want to piss off Microsoft by being THAT agressive in their turf.

--
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."

Re:Move Along. Nothing to see here. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:32 · Score: 0

1) Intel chips are NOT cheaper. Any difference is negligable.

-- Which it? Not cheaper or is there a difference? Here is a intel Pentium 4 540J Prescott 800MHz FSB 1MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor - Retail. $213.00. Show me a comparable CPU from Apple at the same price.

2) They don't run faster (AMD keeps pace, but not Intel.)

-- Anandtech proves you wrong.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2410&p=14

'What we did find interesting was that while AMD generally maintains a large performance advantage in single threaded applications, our multitasking scenarios were a mixed bag of results between AMD and Intel. The multitasking gaming tests were obviously very strongly in favor of AMD, but the general usage tests were more mixed between AMD and Intel. In many cases, Intel's Pentium D actually pulled ahead in terms of performance.'

3) They'd have to recompile every app made for one architecture to run on another.

-- True.

4) They run hotter.

-- Proof?

5) Steve doesn't like Intel CPU's.

-- Proof?

6) Steve doesn't want to piss off Microsoft by being THAT agressive in their turf.

-- Proof?

Oh, and be sure to take some mouth wash after removing your foot from your mouth.
Re:Move Along. Nothing to see here. by Bassman59 · 2005-05-23 04:27 · Score: 1

"1) Intel chips are NOT cheaper. Any difference is negligable (sic)."
"-- Which it? Not cheaper or is there a difference? Here is a intel Pentium 4 540J Prescott 800MHz FSB 1MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor - Retail. $213.00. Show me a comparable CPU from Apple at the same price."

Um, you're an idiot. Two reasons:

a) Do you really think that any hardware vendor pays retail prices for their CPUs or for any other component?

b) It's not like you can simply buy a PowerPC chip and plug it into the socket on your motherboard. Unless you've got BGA re-work equipment, fuhgetaboutit.

x86 daughtercard? by mclaincausey · 2005-05-23 02:17 · Score: 1

Perhaps Apple is looking into offering an x86 daughtercard to handle Windows emulation. That would be a real boon to swithcers.

--
(%i1) factor(777353); (%o1) 777353

Re:x86 daughtercard? by Rick+Genter · 2005-05-23 04:31 · Score: 1

Not again! :-)

--
Don't underestimate the power of The Source

Minimal effort analysis... by Senor_Programmer · 2005-05-23 02:19 · Score: 1

2ND quarter 05,
"Apple shipped 1,070,000 Macintosh® units and 5,311,000 iPods during the quarter, representing a 43 percent increase in CPU units and a 558 percent increase in iPods over the year-ago quarter."

With this sort of growth in Macs, what motivation could possibly exist for major changes other than some architectural limitation leaving Macs in a state akin to salted slugs in comparison to newer AMD CPU offerings. Switch to Intel CPU would, even in this context, is crazy. PPC is keeping up handily so scenario is imaginary...

The only thing that makes sense is second sourcing some parts that might become 'tight' in the market if sales growth continues. Shortage of Macs and Ipods as a result of Not keeping tabs on the supply chain would be BIG news. Adding source to accomodate growth is not.

Itainium by essinger · 2005-05-23 02:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Is it possible that Intel has found someone who wants to buy their Itanium cpus?

Re:Itainium by m50d · 2005-05-23 06:07 · Score: 1

I *want* to buy one, I'd just have to mortgage my grandmother to afford it.

--
I am trolling

misconceptions by 21chrisp · 2005-05-23 02:20 · Score: 1

Seems like most people aren'y thinking this through all the way.

First, it's likely that Intel would create a chip specifically for Apple. Volumes would still be high enough to make this possible. Intel does have experience with RISC chips. It seems very unlikely that Intel would migrate the P4 to Mac as that seems impractical. Pentium-M may be more likely, but I would still expect to see a RISC based chip (which Intel likely already has multiple design possibilities for). Intel has tried several times to break away from x86, this may factor into those attempts.

Second.. heat issues?! I keep hearing that Intel chips run too hot for Macs. Since when has the G5 been any cooler?! In any case, Intel is likely to create a RISC based chip which means a new design and most likely less heat.

Talks between Intel and Apple go way back. This isn't a new discussion. For various reasons Apple has never decided to go with Intel. Motorola was hopeless, and even IBM is a bit behind the game in terms of performance. The cost/performance ratio is still much better on the PC (by what seems like a factor of 2). If Apple is trying to drive prices down (which it seems like they are), this is an important factor.

Their best options would be AMD or Intel and AMD (IIRC) doesn't have much experience with RISC.

newton revival by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:21 · Score: 0

to me this seems as if apple may be in talks about the strongARM line of processors, it wouldnt suprise me if apple turned around and made a palm top to further capitalise on the halo effect of the ipod

As long as its still PPC by nurb432 · 2005-05-23 02:22 · Score: 1

If they are sticking with the same architecture and specs, does it really matter who is supplying them?

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Fat Binaries my not solve everything by LWATCDR · 2005-05-23 02:24 · Score: 1

One thing that you are forgetting is that Intel chips are little endin while the PPC is big endin. Yes I know that some of the PPCs can change there endin on the fly but I am talking about native mode. So any program that stores it's data in a binary mode with have a huge issue with compatibility. You will not just be able to recompile and be done with it.
This is on issue that XML was supposed to deal with but not every application uses XML.
Before anyone says how dumb it is to use binary data files just remember that at one time a 16mhz 386 or 68020 was considered a fast chip. Even now to process an XML data file of a new megabytes can take a lot more time than many users want to spend. Yes an a program that I am working on just moved from a binary storage system to an XML one.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Re:Fat Binaries my not solve everything by fitten · 2005-05-23 03:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Technically, those PPCs that can flip endianness on the fly are actually native in either mode. Set the mode and until you change it back, the PPC *is* a little endian CPU (or big endian, depending on how you set it).

Data storage is an issue but not one that is that complicated. In fact, it's not that painful to do endian swaps on x86-64 processors, for example, because there's a dedicated instruction in the ISA to do it. If the binary data files have an identifier in them (version number, etc.) then the swap can be done on the fly pretty fast and easily. I worked on a product (back in the early 90s) that had to have all I/O (network, HDD, etc) able to handle endianness issues on the fly because our product ran on both big- and little-endian machines and all were expected to work together in any combinations (server side on either type independently of client side being either type). It's not that hard if your software is written reasonably well (all particular I/O handled in libraries inside your code instead of spread out all over Hell's 40 acres).

And I agree with you about XML being a pig... it uses a lot of CPU cycles but at least it's a memory hog, too /rolleyes
Re:Fat Binaries my not solve everything by spiralscratch · 2005-05-23 07:29 · Score: 1

Technically, those PPCs that can flip endianness on the fly are actually native in either mode. Set the mode and until you change it back, the PPC *is* a little endian CPU (or big endian, depending on how you set it).

Just an FYI:

The G5 does not support this feature. It cannot switch endian modes as the earlier PPC chips the Mac used could. This is why releases of Virtual PC before 7.0 would not run on a G5 Mac.

http://www.shahine.com/omar/VirtualPCAndTheNewG5.a spx

God, Shut up already by Snap+E+Tom · 2005-05-23 02:24 · Score: 1

* Apple will release a tablet
* Apple will release a new PDA
* Apple will release a cell phone
* Apple will move to Intel chips

The same damn rumors keep popping up over and over and over and over and over again. Enough already. If I was Jobs, I'd swear never to do any of the four just to piss people off.

Dvorak by rbanffy · 2005-05-23 02:26 · Score: 1

As said earlier, John Dvorak is always wrong.

This will simply not happen.

--
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com

Slow Down Folks by Prien715 · 2005-05-23 02:26 · Score: 1

Apple already uses x86 chips. If one looks inside their airport, it's powered by an AMD 486. As AMD moves toward a higher end market, I think it'd make sense for Apple to use low-end Intel chips for some of their products.

--
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.

Re:Only one thing left to do! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:29 · Score: 0

It is called 'Duck Tape' here...
You keep taping your ducts, we'll keep taping our ducks. Until we get Snickered, anyway. :)

Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:29 · Score: 0

nit picky detail that only you misunderstood

It's getting chilly here by magpie · 2005-05-23 02:29 · Score: 1

It's getting chilly here.

Satan.

What do you think Darwin for the X86 project is? by adaminnj · 2005-05-23 02:30 · Score: 1

X86 Darwin only runs on specific Arc. do you think that was some random thing?

--
I'd Tell you all my secrets but I lie about my past

[OT] There is nothing ungrammatical about it! by nonsuchworks · 2005-05-23 02:31 · Score: 1

A little learning truly is a dangerous thing ...

Be edified.

Dvorak - Contrarian Indicator by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:32 · Score: 0

Dvorak is what we call a contrarian indicator. As the parent correctly stated - the opposite of what he says will actually happen. Such people still are useful, though - they are an accurate measure of what the idioten think.

Re:Dvorak - Contrarian Indicator by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:59 · Score: 0

How the hell did VAXen turn into idioten :(
Re:Dvorak - Contrarian Indicator by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:39 · Score: 0

Scandinavian influence? En idiot - idioten - idioter - idiotene.
Re:Dvorak - Contrarian Indicator by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 07:00 · Score: 0

Dvorak is the Beano Cook (college football "authority") of the tech world. Both just annoy the hell out of me with their sanctimonious ramblings, which are usually wrong...

Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap by adzoox · 2005-05-23 02:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

Apple Sells ARM shares after discontinuing Newton, upon Steve Jobs return to Apple

Apple WAS a MAJOR developmental partner in ARM for the Newton - the processor line was GREATLY enhanced during the Newton run.

So was Sharp - probably shoulda googled before that statement!

--
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny

Two reasons by NextGaurd · 2005-05-23 02:33 · Score: 1

The competition/bidding you are talking about wouldn't have to be a one time thing.

And while AMD doesn't have "magic" they do have competing technology that may put them in the lead.

MOD PARENTS UP! by johansalk · 2005-05-23 02:33 · Score: 1

I agree; ARM for iPods or mobile processors for their forthcoming tablet. You won't see any OSX machine on intel.

Re:MOD PARENTS UP! by dukerobillard · 2005-05-23 05:53 · Score: 1

Yah, that's it...and the tablet isn't a tablet, it's a video iPod (vPod?).
That's my prediction--the new Apple vPod will have an Intel chip.

XServe uses Intel by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:35 · Score: 1, Informative

The Xserve currently uses an Intel Raid controller chip. I can see them using more non-cpu Intel chips.

Yeah, they'll go to Intel just as soon as... by haaz · 2005-05-23 02:36 · Score: 1

...they take over the PDA market.... ...the iTunes-enabled Motorola cell phone comes out... ...the Mac mini gets a hard drive with decent speed built into it... ...they go out of business for the 2604th straight time, as predicted here on Slashdot...

--
-- haaz.

SLOW DOWN - It says APPLE not MACs by Alexander · 2005-05-23 02:37 · Score: 1

It very well could be an ARM chip for an upcoming ipod upgrade - video ipod, whatever...

-

--
"oohhh... I didn't know Schopenhauer was a philosopher!" ..."uhhh yeah, he's the one that begins with

Re:SLOW DOWN - It says APPLE not MACs by searcher · 2005-05-23 03:22 · Score: 1

Actually, from the first line in the article:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Apple Computer Inc. has been in talks that could lead to a decision soon to use Intel Corp. chips in its Macintosh computer line, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
Emphasis mine.

Power Mac G4 (Gigabit Ethernet) by extra88 · 2005-05-23 02:38 · Score: 1

Power Mac G4 (Gigabit Ethernet)

That's the official product name from Apple's specs page. Introduced in July 2000, the 400MHz model was at the lowest end (highest was dual 500MHz).

Power Macintosh G4 (Gigabit Ethernet)
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=431 07

Their specs pages typically don't get into component manufacturers (except graphics cards) but in 2000 it's quite likely they would have used a chip from Intel for gigabit Ethernet.

Read carefully by UnknowingFool · 2005-05-23 02:39 · Score: 1

First of all, the Dvorak article is from 2003. In it, Dvorak is half right. Apple was unhappy with Motorola and was probably dumping them. But he predicted the CPU would be Intel's Itanium. Nowhere did IBM come into his predictions. In retrospect, IBM made sense. Apple did not abandon the PowerPC platform. They just choose another chip supplier besides Motorola, and IBM is the only other chip supplier for PowerPC.

From the article:

Apple could choose to add some Intel-based models to its product line or make a complete shift to Intel's chip technology in what would be seen as a serious blow to IBM's microprocessor business, the newspaper said.
Adopting Intel chips would help ensure that future Macintosh systems could meet the price and performance of products from tough rivals such as Dell Inc.

The article is thin but it ignores the possibility that the Intel chips will not be CPUs for Apple computers. Intel like IBM and AMD makes more than CPU chips. They make controller chips and embedded devices as well.

I would think that embedded devices would be why Apple is talking to Intel. It would be a huge fundamental change to switch Macs from PowerPC to x86. More likely, Apple wants to switch the architecture of iPods especially if video iPods are on the way.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

John Dvorak predicted it? by atomm1024 · 2005-05-23 02:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Yeah, big deal. He predicts that every year. Maybe he was lucky this time. :)

--
Signature.

Auxiliary x86? by Eslyjah · 2005-05-23 02:42 · Score: 1

It would be cool if Apple made PPC motherboards that included an auxiliary x86 processor to allow Mac users to run Windows programs without virtualizing x86 hardware. They could create an environment like "Classic" and just run it off the x86 chip.

Re:Auxiliary x86? by stupidkiwi · 2005-05-23 12:49 · Score: 0

Yes, this would be nice, but when the Amiga came out, Commodore added this exact feature. Some people used the feature, but the vast majority did not. It added extra cost to the machines for a feature that many did not use. In fact the Amiga system added a whole 286 on a card, then later 386 and finally a 486, so there was no emulation of any part of the system. You could run both "computers" simultaniously.

Not for Macs.... by SJ · 2005-05-23 02:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

XServe RAID already uses an Intel IO chip.

Airport Base Stations use (or at least they used to use) a 486.

iPod probably has (or will have) some sort of ARM chip in it.

The XNU Kernel has the ability to assign certain types of tasks to certain types of CPU. There is no reason why a Mac could not use both a PPC and an x86 in the same box.

Intel make kick-arse network chips.

Who said anything about these going into a Mac? (New product?)

Re:AMD by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:48 · Score: 0

no, they would be worse off with AMD. not to mention the fact that if they _really_ wanted to use AMD chips they could just buy AMD.

Great news, is true by MattFlower · 2005-05-23 02:50 · Score: 1

I recently bought a 12" Powerbook G4. I loved it, but I had to return the thing. It was definitely fast enough for doing daily tasks in the Mac environment, but it was far too slow to complete *my* work.

When I returned it, all the optimization I could do (including increasing the ram to 1.25gig) lead to a clean compile time of 425 seconds. In comparison, my 3 year old toshiba laptop could manage 240 seconds.

I sold it and bought a new Intel Pentium M 770-based machine. My compile time now is 70 seconds.

It isn't an entirely fair comparison, the 12" powerbook is the ultra portable one, but I doubt the 15" would have made much difference.

I loved OS X though, I would buy again if they could get rid of the nagging speed problem.

-M

Re:Great news, is true by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:08 · Score: 0

If an Intel-CPU-based Mac happens, my bet is that it's a laptop using Pentium M where Intel has a huge advantage over AMD, Motorola and IBM in performance/watt.

Only problem is that it could mean a return to "fat' binaries and double the testing for ISVs. At least disk space is cheaper than in the 68k/PPC days.
Re:Great news, is true by badmonkey · 2005-05-23 05:16 · Score: 1

that's probably disk speed related. Doing lots of compilation on slow 4200 and 5400 rpm laptop drives is dumb.
Re:Great news, is true by MattFlower · 2005-05-25 04:53 · Score: 1

Thanks for that. I like having my actions and efforts being called dumb -- especially by someone who doesn't know all the particulars of my case. I did actually try quite dilligently to make this work well. You forget that I *wanted* to make this work. I'm not just some mac hater that was being beaten with a stick.

It turns out that I'm not exactly new at hardware or compilation either.

Prior to upgrading to a Hitachi 7k60 in my 3 year old laptop, I used a 5400 rpm Toshiba drive which is not entirely unlike the drive that came in the PowerBook. The net difference in the compilation speed when I upgraded drives in my old laptop was about 65 seconds. The 7k60 is regarded as one of the fastest (if not the fastest) hard drives available for laptops.

Though I don't know it for certain, I'm guessing that some time in the last 3 years 2.5" hard drive performance has improved at least a little.

So, by your suggestion, the brand new 5400rpm drive packaged by Apple is not only slower than 3 year old technology, it is SO much slower that it accounts for an additional 120 seconds? Did they have to try to make it this slow?

My guess is slightly different. I'm guessing that either Apple's hardware is slower than the newest Intel-Architecture laptops, or that the Java platform is not as well optimized on Apple's operating system. Perhaps elements of both are present.

I'm sure your post was well-meaning. I'm sorry though, I don't think the difference can be explained by a dismissive comment regarding hard drive performance.

This could mean several things by Eccles · 2005-05-23 02:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Intel could be arranging to supply Apple with non-CPU chips.

Intel could conceivably be arranging to be a source for G5 or G5-compatible chips. As one of the world's largest chip manufacturers, they've got lots of resources and access to technology. It's more central to their business than chips are to IBM.

The OS X on x86 path seems the least likely to me. App writers don't want to support what is essentially another platform, nor does Apple.

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.

They're a hardware Co that provides great software by momus_radar · 2005-05-23 02:51 · Score: 0

While I agree with you, I have to say that Apple provides key software to specific markets specifically to sell Apple hardware. This makes them more a hardware company than anything else.

For example if a production company could run Final Cut Studio, Logic Pro or Shake on a no-name budget x86 box then they simply would.

multiple proc systems by FaasNat · 2005-05-23 02:51 · Score: 1

It would be interesting if Apple found a way to use both PPC and x86 procs in their systems. So the new PowerMacs would be dual proc G5s and x86-64 or some combo. Would be neat....possibly.

--
There's never enough when you have too little

Who? Millions, that's who. by archdetector · 2005-05-23 02:51 · Score: 1

As pointed out by others, Apple could/would still make the machines proprietary. This isn't about cost, or speed, or supply, etc. This is about Steve Jobs wanting the other 95% of the market. Apple writes a nice tidy version of Virtual PC that lets users seamlessly run any windows app out there, right in OS X, just as fast as it would on a regular pc. Get a top notch OS, cool hardware, and the ability to run all your existing apps. Who *wouldn't* buy this?

I seriously doubt it. by momus_radar · 2005-05-23 02:54 · Score: 1

Apple is a hardware company that makes great software to sell more hardware.

See second paragraph of /. entry #12611991.

This foreseen by recent joint actions by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:55 · Score: 0

Just a few weeks ago, Intel and Genentech filed a joint brief in support of Apple's lawsuit against ThinkSecret over its disclosure of trade secrets. Genentech's participation was easily explained by its CEO also being a member of Apple's board, but Intel?? The best explanation I had was that the two, Apple and Intel, had something BIG to hide.

Xscale perhaps...??? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 02:57 · Score: 0

Seems there's so much wishful thinking going on here, how about that Apple might be investigating the feasibility of using an Xscale processor in a new Newton...???

The power of an Apple OS combined with an Xscale CPU would be vary appealing, and I'm sure they'd sell boat loads of them.

Timeline nitpick by Ratbert42 · 2005-05-23 02:58 · Score: 1

Interestingly, PCMag's John C. Dvorak predicted this for 2004-2005. 03.18.03 ... Prediction: Apple Computer Corp. will switch to Intel processors within the next 12 to 18 months.

He predicted they'd switch between March 2004 and September 2004. Not June 2005.

Take into account the PS3 by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:00 · Score: 0

PowerPC chips in mass market.

Of all the people... by Evro · 2005-05-23 03:00 · Score: 1

Of all the people who ever suggested Apple shifting to Intel processors (which I've been hearing since at least 1997), why credit Dvorak with this groundbreaking idea?

--
rooooar

Dvorak coments mean nothing... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:01 · Score: 0

Dvorak has been spouting this for 10 years now. He has also been preaching the demise of Apple for 10 years.

If you throw enough shit at the wall, eventually some of it will stick.

time daemons by mnemonic_ · 2005-05-23 03:01 · Score: 1

Time daemons? Like launchd plist daemons, which only halfassedly replace cron?

Re:Only one thing left to do! by kin_korn_karn · 2005-05-23 03:05 · Score: 1

calm down, you're quacking up.

Generic Apple commodity hardware? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:05 · Score: 0

So you could run Mac OS X on a cheap generic wintel pc instead of paying for that expensive high margin Apple hardware? It's not like Apple makes anything off of the hardware side of their business, right?

Maybe it's not a switch to Intel by jim_v2000 · 2005-05-23 03:05 · Score: 1

This is way out there on the speculation limb, but maybe rather then switch to Intel, they want to create a separate product that will work with X86...

--
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.

Not likely by Mr.+Underbridge · 2005-05-23 03:06 · Score: 1

This is, of course, assuming we're talking about Intel chips being used in Macs (with an OS X compiled to run on it) and not a generic version of OS X being developed that'll run on IBM PC clones, which is an entirely different issue.

I won't bet against Apple switching to Intel chips (it would shut the whole *Motorola is teh SuXorz!* argument down fast), but Mac OS will never run on clones so long as Apple is getting most of their money from hardware.

Probably for something completely different by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:11 · Score: 0

I think they're gonna make an Airport remote controller, tablet-like, but not a full-blown PC. It will act as a media center and require a bit more horses than your usual little peripheral, ergo, Intel chippys.

Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap by stevel · 2005-05-23 03:12 · Score: 1

Nevertheless, Intel acquired its ARM technology from DEC, not Apple. It was DEC's StrongARM, an offshoot of ARM, that Intel turned into XScale.

Intel are more than just processors by el_womble · 2005-05-23 03:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

I can't imagine why Apple would want to move towards x86 hardware, but there are many reasons why I can see Apple and Intel having a lot to talk about.

Intel make a lot of chips. Apple / IBM in comparison do not, but that doesn't mean that Apple doesn't want to. Intel could become a licensed manufacturer, and pick up the slack if volumes get too much for IBM to handle (in the wake of PS3 and XBox 360s).
Intel know a lot about 90nm technology. They have several patents that would no doubt make IBMs life a lot easier when it comes to making a G5 that works in a laptop (without sterilizing the user) and pushing the G5 beyond the 3GHz barrier
Intel make other technologies that Apple would be interested in, WiMax being the most obvious
Intel, have the potential to be great innovators. They're reaching the limits of what they can achieve with x86 because Microsoft are unlikely to want to support a new architecture anytime soon. Apple could offer them an oppertunity to try something new, and maybe make the next big thing in processors (if they don't already have it up their sleves).
I could even imagine a 'G6' or similar with a x86 instruction decoder. We all know that x86 instructions are internally reduced to RISC like microcode, why not bolt one onto the the front of a G5 and remove the software emulation in virtual PC? (ok, this is scraping the barrel)
Intel inside sells 200 million units a year, maybe that badge could make a difference to Apple sales - even if they used a different instruction set

--
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!

Re:Intel are more than just processors by Aggamemnon · 2005-05-23 04:24 · Score: 1

WiMax seems interesting, no-one else has mentioned that. Could be that they want to update the Airport line possibly for a video update to Airport Express. Possibly it could be nonsense!
Re:Intel are more than just processors by ScifiterX · 2005-05-23 04:38 · Score: 1

Indeed. Truth be told. Apple has been using Intel chips for a long while. USB, PCI, PCI-E, & AGP were all Intel developments and there's little doubt you could find an Intel controller chip to one if not all of the the devices that have them.
Re:Intel are more than just processors by antrik · 2005-05-23 11:45 · Score: 1

> Intel know a lot about 90nm technology. They have several patents that would no doubt make IBMs life a lot easier when it comes to making a G5 that works in a laptop (without sterilizing the user) and pushing the G5 beyond the 3GHz barrier

Intel's 90nm Technology actually turned out to be a big flop when it comes to pushing frequency barriers -- at least for Pentium4. Pentium M profited somewhat from 90nm; but so did PPC970 (G5)... If Intel has anything interesting to offer in terms of chip *manufacturing*, then it's the upcoming 65nm technology.

Of course, there may be other interesting things Intel has to offer... Well, let's see.

--
All my comments get moderated +-0, spotless.
Re:Intel are more than just processors by anthony_dipierro · 2005-05-23 15:34 · Score: 1

I can't imagine why Apple would want to move towards x86 hardware

Probably the number one reason would be software compatibility. By moving to x86 hardware, and then customizing Wine, Apple could offer seemless integration of Windows software on OSX.

Dvorak by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2005-05-23 03:16 · Score: 5, Funny

Self-cancelling statement: "Interestingly, Dvorak predicted..."

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Intel chips, not CPUs by dr00g911 · 2005-05-23 03:17 · Score: 1

Apple has been using Intel chips in Macs for years -- ethernet controllers are one example I can pull off the top of my head.

Using intel chips on the mainboard vs. switching to Intel processors is a completely different ballgame, however. With the current state of affairs, I don't think switching to Intel CPUs would offer any price *or* performance improvement over the multi core G5s or AMD chips these days, if Apple were to even think about transitioning to an x86 architecture.

It's not Intel in Macs, it's MacOS X on Intel by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:22 · Score: 0

1. before MacOS X, there was:

- Rhapsody, that worked on PowerPC and Intel platforms;
- NeXTStep, that worked on 680x0 and Intel (and some rumors were that NeXT had ported NeXTStep to the PowerPC before dropping their hardware products);
- and OpenStep that worked on WindowsNT/Intel, Solaris/Sparc and HP/UX...

Now let's think: OpenStep worked on Windows... now imagine what a new Cocoa for Windows would represent... :-)

2. rumors said some months ago that three major hardware manufacturers were begging Apple for a MacOS X for Intel... that's not the same as "Apple will use Intel in their Macs"

OMG! by fdawg · 2005-05-23 03:24 · Score: 1

What are the chances of seeing an x86 port of OSX??

Now that I've said that aloud, I realize how impossible it is. Its probably intel based peripherals and nothing more. ...But I can dream.

Re:OMG! by nullhero · 2005-05-23 04:13 · Score: 2, Informative

What are the chances of seeing an x86 port of OSX??

There is it's called OpenDarwin. It runs on the x86 the only thing is what make Mac OS X a Mac OS X is it's window server and os libraries - core foundation, cocoa, etc. Check out the site for Darwin: http://developer.apple.com/darwin/. They have a link to the x86 port.

--
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
Re:OMG! by fdawg · 2005-05-23 08:28 · Score: 1

True, darwin does exist for the x86, but Darwin alone does not OSX make. (I sound like yoda.) Its a glorified BSD box that wont run anything that comes packaged for OSX, ie garage band, final cut, safari, MS Office, etc. In my opinion, useful desktop apps are what makes OSX what it is and Darwin does not fill the X86 gap in that regard.

Don't forget Airport by sjf · 2005-05-23 03:25 · Score: 1

For what it is worth, the Airport also uses a low end 486 processor.

Also, there are plenty of other vendors for ARM chips besides Intel.

It seems to me that IBM/PPC has won the race for games console chips. XBox, Revolution and PS3 are all using some PPC variant or other. The Cell processor is very exciting and the dual core 970s will surely deliver Apple a powerful high end quad processor machine. On the other hand, the Mac Mini looks like a success. It is probably the nearest thing Apple has to a machine designed for "switchers". The key thing about a switcher is that they don't have legacy Mac software that would be made reundant by a switch to x86. Equally, they DO have software that might run well in a compatibility environment on x86.

If this is true, my guess is that this is for low end, poor expandability devices. In the same way that the iPod has become vector for Mac purchases, how about a low cost x86 based Mac Mini that can run Windows software at near native speeds ? With the intention of 'bringing the "Mac-way" to more Windows users.'

-S

Re:Don't forget Airport by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2005-05-23 04:47 · Score: 1

For what it is worth, the Airport also uses a low end 486 processor.

Maybe some models, but this one uses an AMD microcontroller:

dead airport
Re:Don't forget Airport by sjf · 2005-05-25 05:43 · Score: 1

The SC400 is an Am486 core with a bunch of on chip peripheral controllers.

http://www.gensw.com/pages/prod/bios/chipsets/sc40 0.htm

In other news. by JFMulder · 2005-05-23 03:28 · Score: 1

Hell called : it froze.

i call bullshit by b17bmbr · 2005-05-23 03:28 · Score: 1

ain't gonna happen. the minute apple becomes another PC they die. and besides, the processor is not the most important part of the computer anymore. anyone want to tell me the actual difference between a 2 and 3 Ghz pentium for most people. no, apple knows it is the whole experience, not just price. x86 will cuase so a headache so large they'll rue the day they ever do something stupid like that. and besides, who listens to dvorak?

--
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.

Not X86... Alpha! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:31 · Score: 0

They're obviously going to switch to Alpha processors! I can't wait to be able to dual boot Mac OS X and VMS on the same laptop! :-)

Yes, that was a joke.

NOPE by kaiwai · 2005-05-23 03:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'd say the most likely scenario, as outlined by some:

1) ScaleX (ARM) based processor for the iPod, possibly to be able to power the H264 videos that they'll be selling soon - music videos first, then work up to movies once the studios feel comfortable with the idea - I'm sure Steve will win them over with his charm.

2) Another supplier for the wireless chipset. Currently Broadcom supplies the wireless chipset for Apples Air Port Extreme; coupled with the use of Intel NICs, and the move to try and lower costs with the mini-Mac, you might just find that Apple might try to negotiate a better deal if the computer chipset + wireless + nic were all Intel.

Re:They're a hardware Co that provides great softw by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:35 · Score: 0

I highly doubt it, if I could run Final Cut Studio on this Windows XP box i wouldn't do it. Mac hardware has some serious performance advantages.

There is software competing with Final Cut Studio on the PC, none of it is really close to as good but it still works. If you wanted to use that you could, your results would looke the same, just it would take you about twice as long to complete the project.

The difference is in the quality of the software, easy of use, efficiency and such other things. But the hardware is also faster. A comparable performance Dell workstation to the Dual 2.7Ghz PowerMac G5 system costs about the same or slightly more. When you start getting into dual processor systems (especially from Intel) the cost of the system is about on par with the Apple machine. And lets face it when you put OS X into the mix and all of the other Apple software it just wins out over the "open" x86 systems every time. In the real world.

Why is everybody confused on this point by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:35 · Score: 0

"who would buy a Mac when they could buy a Dell."

If Apple changed to using x86 based CPU's, that does not imply they would be using generic, dell/gateway/white box PCs.

They could be as proprietary as they'd like.

Theory no. 539 by gagol · 2005-05-23 03:36 · Score: 1

Apple is designing it's new ultrathin tablets with multiple arm processors (4 to 8 processors... multicore ?).

I don't know the specs for ARM processors tought. It may enable extra long battery life devices.

And since we are here, a partership with Nintendo for a commom reference platform would be very nice! Imagine if you could play GB/NES/SNES/N64 games on your iPod and Gamecube, Revolution titles on your Next gen PowerMac and eventually PowerBooks.

An option kit with controllers, a game and little extra hardware from nintendo to make profit.

It would solve the lack of games availability.

But a much sompler solution would be a dual proc G6/cell with proper Nvidia card with playstation 1,2,3 compatilibity and controllers would be nicer tough.

--
Tomorrow is another day...

NeXTStep and Mac Os X by chipset · 2005-05-23 03:42 · Score: 1

Let me see...

How many things has Jobs gone back on?

One Button Mouse? Is it still there?

Check.

Now, a long time ago, Jobs used to run a company called NeXT. NeXT had the coolest hardware and great software. The hardware was expensive. So, NeXT decided to release different versions of NeXTStep, including NeXTStep 486. I had it.

However, just like any other OS that has been ported to x86 from the 680x0 and PowerPC lines, it didn't do that well on the x86 platform. Remember BeOS. Cool, but didn't sell well.

NeXTStep had a concept of fat binaries, which included the binary code for the platforms it supported, like x86 and 680x0. Which meant that users had to determine if the application would actually run on thier hardware. Most users do not want to do that.

In addition to this, by turning NeXT into more of a software company, they had some successes, like WebObjects but the OS suffered a bit. When purchasing NeXTStep 486, you had to make sure that your hardware was compatible. Its much like Linux is/was. You need to make sure you are not on the bleeding edge, as your video card may not work. BeOS anyone?

Now, due to Mac OS X's lineage, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a OS X x86 version is kept around, and perhaps in use at some lab in Cupertino.

However, supporting Mac OS X on x86 is more than just CPU support. The chipsets, graphic cards, IDE controllers and myriads of hardware configurations have to be supported. That is a lot of work.

Ask Be. Ask NeXT. Ask those Linux users on laptops that switched to Macs due to better support for certain hardware devices.

Mod parent wrong by calambrac · 2005-05-23 03:43 · Score: 5, Funny

This is false! Kids, listen: If you want to get laid, buy a Powerbook, get some black-rimmed glasses and a dog-eared copy of a Thomas Pynchon novel, and go find a good coffeehouse near a university. Grab a table near a napkin dispenser. Do not open the Powerbook but place it conspicuously on the table in front of you. Pretend to read the novel. Make eye contact with the grad student across the way and smile.

If things go well, she will decide that she needs some napkins, and while gathering them together will accidentally drop some on the floor. Help her pick up the excess paper and make a stupid little joke, something like "Oops, there go some trees." She will then say something like "I love Pynchon" at which point you reply "Have you seen Zak Smith's illustrations for Gravity's Rainbow?" You will then open the Powerbook and visit the site via a bookmark in a folder named 'Diversions'. It is important that she not see the folder marked 'Linux stuuf' or 'pron'. Spend the next thirty minutes saying things like "I really do think media is ultimately the message" etc. If you successfully complete this sequence of steps, sex is all but guaranteed.

Re:Mod parent wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:14 · Score: 0

well, it doesn't seem to have worked for YOU yet.
Re:Mod parent wrong by Gauchito · 2005-05-23 05:04 · Score: 2, Funny

How that will actually go with a Slashdotter:

1) Grad student notices that book is held upside down and slashdotter's eyes are staring unblinkly at student's breasts, as in a vain attempt to use the Force to rip open shirt and unhook bra (act that said slashdotter is incapable of with two friends helping and a 200 page instruction book).

2) Mac dies a short-circuiting death after being drowned in 5 inches of said slashdotter's drool, and in an ironic twist wipes 5 years of carefully and selectively collected porn.

3) Ducks are seen swimming in coffehouse's newly created indoor lake.
Re:Mod parent wrong by freeweed · 2005-05-23 08:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Man.

A hooker is every so much cheaper than a Powerbook.

Plus, they don't care if you never call them again.

Additional bonus in not having to be nauseatingly pretentious.

--
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Re:Mod parent wrong by radish · 2005-05-23 09:25 · Score: 5, Funny

I don't know what's funnier - the post itself, or the fact it has a +1 Informative. :)

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:Mod parent wrong by Electron · 2005-05-23 09:52 · Score: 1

Only on Slashdot is this modded as Informative :)
Re:Mod parent wrong by sokoban · 2005-05-23 10:42 · Score: 1

>
Plus, they don't care if you never call them again.

Nor does a powerbook.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
Re:Mod parent wrong by dcam · 2005-05-23 11:09 · Score: 2, Informative

On no circumstances actually open the Pynchon novel. You will be scarred for life.

I made the mistake of reading Gravity's rainbow on the recommendation of an (at the time) girlfriend. In my entire life I do not believe I have come across a more useless and unpleasant way to spend my time.

--
meh
Re:Mod parent wrong by brwski · 2005-05-23 15:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

Do not listen to this advice!

Gravity's Rainbow is well worth reading. It does, however, require that you pay attention. There is no hand-holding in this novel. Give it a chance --- this book is *funny*, while also being a great WWII novel.

--
brwski
"Because without beer, things do not seem to go as well''
Re:Mod parent wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 17:00 · Score: 0

Dude, there's no chicks around. Drop the act!
Re:Mod parent wrong by dcam · 2005-05-24 10:39 · Score: 1

Hardly.

Don't get the idea that I don't read much and was just picked up this book. I read omnivorously and an awful lot. I read and enjoy novels (and histories) from pretty much any genre (except romance). I don't expect hand holding.

Pynchion was just rubbish. Just another boring attempt to screw with your mind. Something for faux intellectuals to read and pretend they are so 1337. Which is basically the point of the grandparent post.

My view of novels is that the author is in a position of power and should not abuse that position. This is a contract between the author and the reader.

An example of how an author might abuse that position is in a mystery, where the author puts up stacks of evidence that X committed the murder and none that Y committed the murder. In the final sequence the murder is revealed to be Y. That is an abuse of the position of author.

Or to take a real book: "The French Lieutenant's woman". The author continuously jumps asks the question (directly), as the author I can do this now, or I can do something else. Equally at the end he has two endings. Hi John Fowles, we realise that you are the author. We also realise that we are just along for the ride. There is no need to rub it in.

If you want to read a good WWII novel, I suggest you pick up Catch 22 (Heller), The Thin Red Line (Jones), From Here to Eternity (Jones), The Last Enemey (Hillary) Evenlyn Waugh's war series (name has escaped for the moment), or Adrian Powell's series "A Dance to the music of Time". Powell's series covers WWII only in passing, but is an excellent read.

Or for something slighlty different, "Legion of the Damned" - Sven Hassel. Less weel written, but an interesting (if depressing) read. You might need to get that one second hand.

--
meh
Re:Mod parent wrong by brwski · 2005-05-28 01:59 · Score: 1

Sorry to hear you're missing the boat on Pynchon. Yes, Fowles is a great writer (so long as you stay away from his non-fiction). Heller is a blast. Waugh is amusing. But to say that P. is simply "screw[ing] with your mind" is nonsense.

No sense in trying to convince you. However, these folks ask that you give him another try.

brwski

--
brwski
"Because without beer, things do not seem to go as well''

Not likely by piznut · 2005-05-23 03:45 · Score: 1

Im not holding my breath for any of it.

But lets assume that it is true.

"Are even cheaper Mac Minis coming?"

Apple has historically charged a premium for the intangible/immeasurable, or so you would be led to believe when arguing the benefits of mac vs pc with the typical mac zealot. What I see are not cheaper mac minis, but a bigger mac mini profit margin for Apple.

500 bucks by 5n3ak3rp1mp · 2005-05-23 03:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

500 bucks, about as much as buying Windows XP Pro, for the Mac Mini, will get you a seat. Set up a KVM switch and get the OS X-perience ;)

You WILL like it, and find a use for it, even if it doesn't become your primary machine.

Disclaimer: I use a Windows laptop for work and have a beloved G5 at home.

Re:500 bucks by toddestan · 2005-05-24 09:23 · Score: 1

500 bucks, about as much as buying Windows XP Pro, for the Mac Mini,

Since when has Windows XP cost $500? I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but atleast get your facts straight.

Intel makes more than just CPUs by MagnusDredd · 2005-05-23 03:46 · Score: 1

Intel makes some very nice ethernet controllers... as well as some decent embedded CPUs for raid controllers and the like, i960.

Apple could very simply be trying to add Intel EEPro network cards to their line up. They rule. I just wish that intels desktop CPUs were as baddass in comparison to what their NIC controllers were in their respective markets.

BS - x86 and PPC are totally different by mveloso · 2005-05-23 03:52 · Score: 1

Everything about the chips is different - exception handling, ISA, etc.

This statement is completely wrong.

The only reason that the transition was seamless to users is the excellent 68k emulator that Apple wrote that operated so well that people can make incorrect statements like the one above.

Not for Desktop or laptop CPUs by theolein · 2005-05-23 03:52 · Score: 1

When one looks at how the whole gaming world is switching to various PPC derivatives in the XBox 360, PS3 and Nintendo Revolution, and how that will push PPC prices down, I seriously doubt that Apple will be wanting to use x86 variants. It just doesn't make sense.

Considering the hush hush attitude, my gues is that Apple is either looking at XScale (ARM) or Pentium M chips for a future iPod or a new type of tablet/remote device. That is the area where Intel shines. PPC is the future in commodity CPUs in desktops and laptops.

PlayStation-3 XBox 360 - all PowerPC Based... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 03:53 · Score: 0

It would not make sense to switch away from the PowerPC platform, when PlayStation 3 and XBox 360 are both PowerPC based, using the new Cell Chip technology.

Actually Apple should Boost the Mini Mac to become a game console worthy Mac. Apple could gear their product line to match the Mac Mini to outperform the Play Station 3 - and have all other Macintosh systems much more powerful than that.

In the long run, an Apple Mini Mac Game console would have more usefulness than a Playstation 3 - but the Xbox 360 is designed to be a home computer killer - targeting Gaming, Yahoo! and eBay and Google all in one fell swoop.

The new game systems represent the next jump in computing technology, like from 8bit to 16bit CPUs. Forget a simple Dual-Core 64 bit chip on a Dual CPU Mac - the Multi-Core system is set to bring HD Video quality games and interactive experiences to the marketplace. The XBox 360 will have built in VoIP service, and video chat service too, I believe.

Why Drop $3000 for the latest Mac when a PS3 or Xbox360 can do much more, for far less $$$?

I hope Apple will take a long hard look at the PlayStation 3 specs and build a next generation Mac Mini to beat it.

In other news... by anderm7 · 2005-05-23 03:54 · Score: 1

1. Apple going out of business
2. G5 Powerbook Coming out tomorrow

I'm not sure why this x86 myth persists. It would make absolutely no sense to Apple to get into the Intel space. This is one in the long line of rumours that refuse to die.

Re:Only one thing left to do! by Darth · 2005-05-23 03:55 · Score: 1

Or... did you mean *duct* tape?

there is actually a Duck Tape brand duct tape.

--
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre

No, it means - by AJWM · 2005-05-23 03:58 · Score: 1

That we'll see Mac OS X - IA64. Itanium-based Macs, anyone?

(No, I'm not serious, but it makes about as much sense as an x86 based Mac -- maybe more sense. Why would Apple talk with Intel instead of AMD if they wanted to go x86? Why make such a radical architecture change anyway? But if you're going to make a radical change...I'm sure Intel would be willing to offer a good deal to try to rescue the image of the Itanic. If you happen to hear of an Apple project nicknamed "Carpathian", you'll know what's up.)

--
-- Alastair

This is rumor control by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:00 · Score: 0

1) Apple and IBM have a five year plan.
2) Intel has no RISC chips. The Mac OS is written for RISC chips, rewritting the whole OS and applications to x68 would be ...impossible, and building a chip to fit or exeed Apple's demands takes years. (It took IBM the better part of two years if you remember, from the Power 4 chip to the PPC970...)
3) WSJ has no clue about anything IT.
4) Dvorak is an idiot.

Say it ain't so!! by borgheron · 2005-05-23 04:03 · Score: 1

Having just bought a Dual G5, this is suprising news. :)

GJC

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep

Apple Article: 2006 by quakeroatz · 2005-05-23 04:07 · Score: 1

Apple: ***Get photoshopping realtime with the new G6, 200% faster than the Pentium 5 and AMD x64!***

PC User: Hey doesn't the G6 use the same Pentium 5 and PCs?

Jobs: These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Intel fabbed PPC chips? by parvenu74 · 2005-05-23 04:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Doesn't Intel have all kinds of chip fabrication capacity that could -- in theory -- be converted over to stamping out PPC chips instead of x86 chips? IBM would need to license such a move or sell the IP, but is that such a reach considering that IBM has been spinning off their hardware businesses (Hitachi hard drives, Lenovo Desktops) of late?

And if Intel were going to produce a CPU for Apple, why is the assumption x86? Mac OS X Server on Itanium, anyone?

Mostly likely, though, is that Intel's wireless chips are on the menu. WiMax is around the corner and we all know how Apple oh-so-loves to be on the bleeding edge of technology...

Cheaper, but bigger? by Tylerious · 2005-05-23 04:13 · Score: 1

"Are even cheaper Mac Minis coming?"

Considering how much heat those Pentium 4s are generating now, I doubt Apple could manage to simply replace the Mini's innerds. Even if the board and controllers were updated, Apple will still have to deal with cooling issues, which might require fans and/or other cooling equipment to manage a Pentium 4.

Re:Cheaper, but bigger? by argent · 2005-05-23 07:41 · Score: 1

The mini is basically a laptop design, it'd use Pentium III or Mobile or whatever the current name Intel's using for those things is.

Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap by norwoodites · 2005-05-23 04:17 · Score: 2, Informative

Apple uses ARM in the iPod already and hired a person to work on GCC for ARM. (this was all based on public knowledge).

Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:18 · Score: 0

NO - Intel was the MAIN purchaser of stock from Apple - Apple had a HUGE developmental role in the StrongARM processor - DEC or NO DEC

PPC not an edge / x86 Mac not a PC clone by AHumbleOpinion · 2005-05-23 04:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not to mention, the PowerPC processor is the only edge Macs have left on PC hardware.

Not true. Apple has two edges. (1) Complete control of hardware and operating system. (2) Mac OS X. Neither of these are PowerPC dependent.

If Apple goes x86 the Mac will simply be an overpriced PC running a pretty gui on top of BSD.

Also not true. An x86 Mac would not be yet another PC clone. Apple could keep much of its current proprietary design and ignore IBM PC compatibility. A computer's architecture is much more than it's CPU.

Re:PPC not an edge / x86 Mac not a PC clone by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 10:18 · Score: 0

An x86 Mac would not be yet another PC clone.

Errmm... Apples are PCs. At least, most of them are. True, they're not x86 PCs, but they're PCs nonetheless.

A computer's architecture is much more than it's CPU.

True. But, if Apple starts using x86 CPUs, then I think it would be valid as a customer to ask why the hell they wouldn't also use a good deal of already developed x86 architecture. The only reason I could think of for doing something like this is to ensure the incompabitility between Macs & standard x86 machines and to be able to gouge consumers with overpriced hardware by tying all of their customers into their proprietary solution.

If this is what they plan on doing, then I'd think it would be smarter to just stick with IBM, because there's no way in hell this would be acceptable to anyone but the most die-hard of mac-fanatics.
Re:PPC not an edge / x86 Mac not a PC clone by shaitand · 2005-05-23 10:43 · Score: 1

"Not true. Apple has two edges. (1) Complete control of hardware and operating system. (2) Mac OS X. Neither of these are PowerPC dependent."

I said hardware, OS X is software. That was the pretty gui running on top of BSD part I mentioned. On the hardware side, Apple already uses IBM-PC commodity parts for everything but the CPU. Even the Apple branded stuff is commodity pc hardware that is rebranded. Lets look at the parts list from the hardware side.

x86 processor (if they change)
standard pci (and AGP) bus
commodity ram
ide/sata drives and connections

All the hardware interfaces would be 100% compatible with a pc. Even if Apple shipped custom firmware to restrict hardware used with the platform it would be trivial to reflash. Nope, once they go x86 Apple has no more firm a grip on the hardware than any other pc vendor.

Even if the firmware restriction would be such a blatant price gouge that all but the worst Apple apologists would be outraged.
Re:PPC not an edge / x86 Mac not a PC clone by AHumbleOpinion · 2005-05-23 13:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

x86 processor (if they change)
standard pci (and AGP) bus
commodity ram
ide/sata drives and connections
All the hardware interfaces would be 100% compatible with a pc.

You are not getting low level enough. Think timers, interrupt controllers, etc. All this low-level baggage being carried around from 8088 days. Now toss in the various glue logic ...

In other words you are only referring to things that plug into the motherboard, I am referring to how things are implemented on the motherboard.
Re:PPC not an edge / x86 Mac not a PC clone by anthony_dipierro · 2005-05-23 15:03 · Score: 1

All the hardware interfaces would be 100% compatible with a pc. Even if Apple shipped custom firmware to restrict hardware used with the platform it would be trivial to reflash. Nope, once they go x86 Apple has no more firm a grip on the hardware than any other pc vendor.

I'm curious. Other than the motherboard/operating system/case, what hardware does Apple make serious money on? They definitely don't have a monopoly on hard drives for the Mac, and I'm pretty sure you don't need Apple's permission to make a PCI card. So how would Apple lose, exactly?

Yeah, people could download a CD off the Internet, reflash their BIOS, and install OSX on their PCs. But how many people are actually going to do that? How many people buy computers without OSes and then install a pirated copy of Windows? Not a whole lot, percentage-wise. So I don't think many people would do it for OSX either.

As long as Apple can stop people from reselling computers with OSX pre-installed, they'll still maintain their ability to charge people who use Macs. Sure, you can say Apple makes money off hardware and Microsoft makes money off software, but when most of the people buying Windows are getting it bundled with the hardware anyway, is there really a difference?
Re:PPC not an edge / x86 Mac not a PC clone by shaitand · 2005-05-24 13:02 · Score: 1

"As long as Apple can stop people from reselling computers with OSX pre-installed, they'll still maintain their ability to charge people who use Macs. Sure, you can say Apple makes money off hardware and Microsoft makes money off software, but when most of the people buying Windows are getting it bundled with the hardware anyway, is there really a difference?"

Apple can not do that anymore than anyone else can, the law explicitly prohibits it.
Re:PPC not an edge / x86 Mac not a PC clone by anthony_dipierro · 2005-05-24 23:29 · Score: 1

Apple can not do that anymore than anyone else can, the law explicitly prohibits it.

Can't do what, restrict people from distributing their software without permission? Sure they can.
Re:PPC not an edge / x86 Mac not a PC clone by shaitand · 2005-05-25 11:56 · Score: 1

Copyright law explicitly allows resale. I have every right to sell you my copy of Office, and I have every right to sell you my copy of MacOS, neither Microsoft nor Apple have any say in the matter.
Re:PPC not an edge / x86 Mac not a PC clone by anthony_dipierro · 2005-05-25 23:50 · Score: 1

I suppose you could take out the hard drive and sell me the hard drive with the OS on it, and that'd fall under first sale. But not many people want to install their own hard drives, and Apple would probably put part of the OS in the ROMs anyway.
Re:PPC not an edge / x86 Mac not a PC clone by shaitand · 2005-05-27 04:19 · Score: 1

We were talking about Apple computers not just the OS. I have every right to resell my Mac, software and all.
Re:PPC not an edge / x86 Mac not a PC clone by anthony_dipierro · 2005-05-31 14:34 · Score: 1

Just a misunderstanding, then. I was talking about clones. In other words, non-Apple computers with the OS installed on them.

Apple possibly fed up with IBM internal PowerPlay( by Been+on+TV · 2005-05-23 04:22 · Score: 3, Informative

Having worked in Apple product management and been recruited to and used to work for IBM at a time when they wanted to put Mac OS on IBM PPC hardware (gosh, that's got to be a decade ago...), I would think that the article in the Post is a sign that Jobs has just about had it with IBM internal politics.

There are parts of IBM that do not give didley about Apple - actually a lot of IBM-ers talk about Apple as they wished it off the surface of the earth. There are of course folks in Microelectronics and some Linux on Power guys who care, but the rest...

If IBM really cared about getting more PPC based systems into the market, they'd have IBM Software make sure Apple was properly supported both on the client side, but also on XServe with their server software products. You don't see much of that.

The PowerPlay(TM) that is going on inside of IBM, and what is probably seriously hampering Apple these days, is that IBM is trying by all means to protect its high-end server business. In which the POWER processors (and dual core) play an all important role both in the iSeries (former AS/400) and pSeries (former RS/6000). These are low volume, very high margin products that sustain two ecosystems in IBM with revenues and margins that far exceeds any business IBM will do with Apple this century.

With Apple eagerly wanting to use dual-core PPC chips in, not only dual processor systems (customers chairing on the side), but possibly bringing both 4 and 8 processor systems - both workstations and servers, to the market, IBM's Enterprise Division will increasingly see this as a threat to the i and pSeries servers. Apple will, with a completely different price-point on servers in particular, significantly threaten to alter the margins IBM has on the low-end to midrange i and pSeries systems.

IBM got a very rude awakening seeing Apple XServe hardware finding the way into some of the worlds fastest supercomputer configurations at a fraction of the cost of then priced IBM hardware.

Now, with a possible 4 and 8 processor XServe out the doors, the rocking of IBM's boat would still continue. Why? Well, IBM is to a larger and larger degree touting both iSeries and pSeries ability to run Linux software both natively in AIX and OS/400, but also in logical partitions, as one of its major features and selling points. Guess what? Apple can run Linux software too.

The relative ease by which Linux software can be made to run natively under Mac OS X combined with much lower priced hardware, will make IBM's iSeries and pSeries customers increasingly ask why not to switch if all they want is the ability to run Linux software on PPC.
Such a scenario could put tremendous strain on the Enterprise Division's margins. Which is why there are forces internally in IBM who do not want Apple to have the powerful PPC chips Steve Jobs needs to transform Apple into a success in the enterprise market. They probably try to put all kinds of restrictions on what systems he can build with those chips, if he gets them.

Intel does not play these games. Which is why a processor switch may be attractive for Jobs.

Of course there are all kinds of problems with the existing installed base in terms of binary compatibility of software, but they have lived through this before without too many problems. Apple knows how to handle a processor switch from before and I think the OS will handle another chip excellently given the long time Apple has had to prepare for this.

Now for the market? As another guy so excellently put it in a post; 95% of the market does not have the problem of binary compatibility of software under Mac OS X.

--
The future is in beta

I've got a better Idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:23 · Score: 0

...just port OS X and everything around it to a reasonable subset of existing intel hardware.

No need to sell your sole to Intel for what is nothing more than software problem.

If you do that (build OS X for commodity Intel platforms), they will come... and you *WILL* be bigger than Microsoft!

Re:I've got a better Idea... by chez69 · 2005-05-23 04:36 · Score: 1

if you sold your sole then you wouldn't be able to walk home and use your computer.

--
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
Re:I've got a better Idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 16:50 · Score: 0

I never leave my parent's basement. Why would I need to walk somewhere?

Pentium in a Mac? by The_Minkis · 2005-05-23 04:28 · Score: 1

A Pentium in a Macintosh? Talk about a baked apple... At least now I can use my Mac Mini as a hot pad. Nothing like cooking up a nice bowl of Ramen while I'm compiling.

--
#define QUESTION ((bb) || !(bb))

Intel makes plenty of chips by iabervon · 2005-05-23 04:29 · Score: 1

Aside from using xscale in iPods or other handhelds, they could be looking at Intel for graphics and sound hardware, USB drivers, PCI bridges, or any of a number of other purposes. It's not like Intel exclusively makes x86 processors.

Cell in Apple's future? by ikewillis · 2005-05-23 04:31 · Score: 1

Imagine if Apple adopted the Cell processor, with its PowerPC core and massive parallelism via SPEs. AltiVec, for example, could be emulated on the SPEs while the OS executes on the primary core. Then, new applications could be written to take advantage of the SPEs directly, leading to unheard of performance (200+ GFLOPS out of a single CPU)

And since the primary core is PPC to begin with, writing the emulation code for AltiVec and adding SPE support to OS X would be a HELL of a lot easier than integrating a PowerPC emulation into OS X. Look at how slow PearPC runs! Can you imagine running a large application like Photoshop through PPC/x86 emulation? It would be horrible!

Re:Cell in Apple's future? by bnenning · 2005-05-23 05:03 · Score: 1

Imagine if Apple adopted the Cell processor, with its PowerPC core and massive parallelism via SPEs. AltiVec, for example, could be emulated on the SPEs

No need; the PPE supports Altivec directly. I agree that Apple could get a lot of leverage out of the Cell. Look at the CoreImage API for example; it dynamically determines whether code should execute on the CPU or GPU depending on what hardware you have. It would be entirely possible for Apple to add support to CoreImage for Cell SPEs, which wouldn't require any application-level code changes at all.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.

Stop the rumors, let us look a possibilities. by Orion+Blastar · 2005-05-23 04:32 · Score: 1

The rumor is that Apple will use Intel chips to run OSX on and switch everyone over. I think that is BS, and that there are other possibilities that people have not yet considered.

#1 Apple contracts with Intel, and licenses the PowerPC IP to Intel to start making G4 and G5 chips. Intel is able to switch over some of their factories to make them in bulk, cheaper, and faster, than IBM or Morotola. Apple does not abandon the PowerPC platform, but finds a way to make the chips more cost effective.

#2 Apple does not want to use Intel CPUs in Macs, but rather starts making PCs. Apple branded PCs that run Darwin X86. This is in order to pick up where NeXTOS/NeXTStep left off. Apple is trying to capitilize on the cheap PC market, and knows that $499 is the cheapest price for a Macintosh. In order to reach a $300 price tag, an Intel CPU based system running Darwin X86 would be more likely. Apple will then try to cut into the Linspire, Xandros, and other OSes that run on $300 PC systems. Perhaps Apple makes a deal with Wal*Mart to sell the $300 Apple Darwin PC?

#3 Apple wants Intel chips, just not the CPUs. Maybe the Intel chips that do wireless networking, bluetooth, audio, video, etc. This is an attempt to make a cheaper Mac Mini to break the $499 retail price.

#4 Apple wants to subcontract out part of the PowerMac making to Intel. Intel wants to make their own PC, and has been making different PC designs, and now it has caught Apple's eye. Intel can make the motherboard, case, power supply, keyboard, mouse, monitor, etc. Apple can stick the PowerPC chip on the motherboard at the Apple factory when the Intel made bare bones PowerMacs are shipped.

#5 This is all a plot to try and boost both Apple and Intel stock by issuing yet another rumor that Apple will use Intel chips. Someone here is a master manipulator and is making a fortune selling off Intel and Apple stock, while the rumor is still hot.

#6 Apple has been subcontracted to make PCs for one of the PC makers (Dell, Compaq/HP, Gateway, etc) and made an advance order for Intel chips. The PC Maker is tired of poor quality standards from overseas factories, and feels that Apple has better quality control standards.

--
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.

Facts (not) interfering with the fun by mihalis · 2005-05-23 04:32 · Score: 2, Informative

I contacted a reporter who filed this story for one of the on-line financial news websites. He confirmed the WSJ did actually say Intel CPUs for Apple PCs.

Itanium 2 by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:33 · Score: 0

Did everyone forget that Intel's long term 64-bit strategy is still to ultimately transition back to it's EPIC/Itanium 2(3?) instruction set? Intel's x86-64 effort is a stop-gap effort that's inferior to AMD's solution, as if intended, in order to transition desktop processors into the 64-bit realm but keeping it's superior 64-bit EPIC on the backburner as it's ace in the hole. Everyone and their brother in terms of Unix vendors have clammored to the new chip. I seriously doubt they're going to let their investment go to waste. Don't expect Apple on x86 - there's no reason for it. But, Apple on EPIC... Now *that's* interesting!

Other alternatives by lullabud · 2005-05-23 04:37 · Score: 1

It could be an Intel CPU, just not used in a computer. After all, the original Airport Base Station ran a 486.

Transparent in a way. The PPC version was slower. by HornWumpus · 2005-05-23 04:38 · Score: 1

Even though the chip was faster emulating 68K code made it an incredible dog. And this was'nt just apps it was the file system, the stack etc.

Remember this was when apple was run by a suger water salesman. They did'nt fix the stack for years. Only fanboys had anything good to say about them.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2005-05-23 04:43 · Score: 1

Apple may have played a role earlier in the development of ARM processors, the current Xscale processors are direct descendants of Dec's StrongARM processor.

The wikipedia entry for StrongARM only mentions that Apple was a buyer of StrongARM chips from DEC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StrongARM

they already ARE! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 04:44 · Score: 0

remember, the PPC was developed by Intel and Motorola?

Yellow Box by toph42 · 2005-05-23 04:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

I noticed something profound: QuickTime 7 is built on Cocoa (that's why it is Mac-only right now). In order to run on Windows, Apple will have to revive the "Yellow Box" (the Cocoa frameworks on Windows), at least in part. I'm hoping that this means they are about to re-release the Yellow Box with full updates. That would immediately and immensely increase the market for Cocoa apps. And if the Cocoa frameworks are simply included in the QuickTime 7 install, then Cocoa apps compiled to x86 for the Yellow Box could simply list QuickTime 7 as a system requirement. :)

Re:Yellow Box by jcr · 2005-05-26 20:12 · Score: 1

I noticed something profound: QuickTime 7 is built on Cocoa (that's why it is Mac-only right now).

I don't know what you think you noticed, but you are mistaken.

Tiger has added the QTKit, which is an Objective-C framework that makes QuickTime easy to use from Cocoa apps, but QT 7 itself is still a C-based framework.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:Yellow Box by SteeldrivingJon · 2005-05-28 10:36 · Score: 1

I believe the reference was to QuickTime.app, which is now a Cocoa app, not the QuickTime framework.

--
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA

Intel inside? by jafac · 2005-05-23 04:53 · Score: 1

I'm sure Intel does have *something* to offer Apple, they make a lot of chips. (some of them are even marginally acceptible).

But whenever a new intel box comes into the lab, I peel off the "Intel Inside" sticker, and stick it on my trash can, it's been covered with them since 1996 or so when that campaign started. It's a more appropriate place for them.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Good for apple. OS X will eventually die! by vensub · 2005-05-23 05:04 · Score: 0

The chances of windows users moving to OS X/Mac is next to zero. But if Mac itself adapts intel, its good for apple. Better desktop/server sales for apple and more completition for dell/hp. Good for the open source community too. OS X will eventually die!Nobody needs that.

Usually... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 05:08 · Score: 0

But not if it reports time in Zulu!

Macs on x86 != standalone OS X for x86 by saddino · 2005-05-23 05:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

As usual per rumors of this type (although I suppose this source is somewhat more credible than Dvorak's wild guesses), people assume that such a move (Mac hardware based around x86) means that Apple would sell a standalone version of OS X that runs on any x86 hardware. My guess: not likely.

Apple would still be selling a closed-box solution and thus provide drivers for their platform only. OS X would still run on Macintoshes only, notwithstanding their x86 internals. A custom chipset similar to the old MacOS ROM could also help prevent tinkerers from trying to "extend" OS X to non-Apple machines. As others have mentioned, Apple doesn't want to get into the "support every x86 platform" game..."it just works" is still a motto for them.

Speaking of running like death by bradleyland · 2005-05-23 05:09 · Score: 1

Classic apps don't exactly run well under classic on OS X. It's not a question of would Apple abandon backward compatability at the expense of performance, so much as would they do it again.

wireless chipsets? Re:Maybe it is not for a Mac? by javaxman · 2005-05-23 05:09 · Score: 1

It could also be for some sort of wireless device, like the rumored "Airport Express for video" thing.

Intel has some pretty decent wireless chipsets. I'm guessing it's that, if anything. Just a hunch.

Although I know it's technically possible for Apple to ship an Intel-based Macintosh, somehow I don't think the time is right for that. If NeXT could make NeXTStep for Intel, why not? Except business reasons... NeXTStep for Intel didn't exactly take off, and although you could pick apart why a million different ways... now wouldn't be the time for Apple to make Intel-based motherboards, I don't think.

If they're in talks, it's likely for something that's not a PC.

Oh, for Pete's sake.. by jcr · 2005-05-23 05:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

This same rumor has popped up just about every year since 1984. Dvorak has been predicting that Apple will go x86 every time he wanted to troll for ad hits.

Apple buys a bunch of parts from many companies, including Intel. If Apple execs are meeting with intel execs, its' just as likely to be about ethernet controllers or wi-fi transceivers.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Re:Oh, for Pete's sake.. by burns210 · 2005-05-23 06:28 · Score: 1

It wouldn't be unreasonable to see Apple migrate to intel for their centrino/wireless setup. Airport Extremes are nice(I am using it right now) but the power to manipulate the card (promisc. mode, MAC spoofing... for legit use, of course) isn't supported and that is a big lacking feature for *nix users.
Re:Oh, for Pete's sake.. by bnenning · 2005-05-23 08:52 · Score: 1

Of course, but keep it quiet. We might as well enjoy the AAPL runup :)

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Re:Oh, for Pete's sake.. by anthony_dipierro · 2005-05-23 15:30 · Score: 1

If apple goes up whenever this rumor comes out, I guess the shareholders think they should actually do it. How long until the shareholders vote in a board of directors who will follow this?

Anyway, I'm enjoying the INTC runup, which makes a lot more sense economically.
Re:Oh, for Pete's sake.. by Compulawyer · 2005-05-23 16:15 · Score: 1

Agreed. Although I predict that AAPL is negotiating for WiMax connectivity for the next-gen Airport (AirMax?).

--
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.

Why would this make Mac minis any cheaper? by argent · 2005-05-23 05:15 · Score: 1

The price difference between the Mac mini and a comparably equipped PC is about the same as price of the software shipped with the Mac mini. If Apple sold an x86-based mini, why do you imagine they'd sell it more cheaply than the current version? It's not like the processor makes that much difference in cost.

Maybe Intel could make a PowerPC Chip? by soft_guy · 2005-05-23 05:21 · Score: 1

The PowerPC architecture was originally intended to be clonable. What was that company that was going to make some high end chips for Apple at one time? I forget their name - they ended up suing Apple when it was all done, but the G3 ended up being faster than their fastest chip and that killed them. But, Intel could make PowerPC chips. Maybe even make an x86/PowerPC hybrid chip.

More likely Apple was having a regular conversation with Intel (since Apple uses several Intel parts) and someone misinterpreted the purpose of the meeting and leaked incorrect info.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score

They said Intel, not x86 by cbreaker · 2005-05-23 05:21 · Score: 1

Intel is quite capable of producing other chips besides x86. Who knows? Maybe it could be a branch from Itanium. Or something new altogether. Or a type of Intel PowerPC chip. Macs are a pretty closed system - meaning, Apple runs the show with hardware and OS. Because of this, they have the ability to integrate support for completely different things like CPU's into their OS seamlessly. Maybe emulation layers would be slower, but they would work. Well, mostly.

So who knows. My guess at this point is that the whole article is likely bogus. One of those "we'll see what happens" type deals.

--
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -

PearPC ... fast free by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 05:22 · Score: 0

I'm sure apple can emulate it's original "home field" CPU as well as these guys

pearpc.sf.net

2004-2005? by Myrkridian42 · 2005-05-23 05:22 · Score: 1

Dvorak's exact quote is:"Prediction: Apple Computer Corp. will switch to Intel processors within the next 12 to 18 months."

He said this 26 months ago!

Re:2004-2005? by UtSupra · 2005-05-23 08:21 · Score: 1

So what you are saying is: he was almost right? ;-P
Re:2004-2005? by MacDaffy · 2005-05-23 09:40 · Score: 1

Apple will not switch; Apple will broaden its product line to include Apple-branded or OEM-licensed x86 machines running Mac OS X. They will be "legacy-free" (i.e. no PS/2, parallel or serial ports). Once the G5 chip is able to fit into a portable form-factor, the G4 will be jettisoned and every PowerPC Mac will be a G5.

There's too much upside to the G5 to abandon it. There's also a vast reservoir of legacy software that Apple users still own and enjoy. Apple wouldn't dare alienate them. Rather, Apple will go head-to-head with Microsoft for system software dollars in the x86 space. This move is why Microsoft has been so adamant about nipping open source in the bud.

Apple doesn't want the headache of supporting the thousands (maybe millions) of people who are dissatisfied with Windows on their current machines, so the hardware profile is probably going to be severely proscribed. Heck, Apple Support might become just as inaccessible as Microsoft's!

The CELL processors have no VM and no MMU by argent · 2005-05-23 05:23 · Score: 1

To use the Cell as the primary processor in the Mac, and actually have the extra cores doing something other than being a test load on the power supply, Apple would have to build a protected mode server or kernel module that implemented a sandboxed environment for multiple applications to hand off jobs to the special purpose cores. Which would mean coming up with APIs that did useful things that could still be used in a multi-user multi-tasking environment. There are some APIs they could use... OpenGL of course, the NovodeX Physics API, maybe Renderman... but it'd be a hell of a lot more work than Sony's had to do in an unprotected environment like a console.

Apple to Use Cloned Software by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 05:33 · Score: 0

Genentech and Intel filed a joint brief in support of Apple's lawsuit against ThinkSecret for its disclosure of trade secrets. I think we can reliably take away from this that not only will Apple be using Intel hardware, but clones from Genentech will power then next release of Mac OS X, code named "Liger" (a lion crossed with a tiger).

Re:Transparent in a way. The PPC version was slowe by tricorn · 2005-05-23 05:40 · Score: 1

Well, I switched from a Mac II to a 601, and the 68K emulation was definitely faster!

The only programs that had problems with the emulation were ones which used a couple very-rarely-used instructions that Apple left out of the emulation, and programs that didn't play nice with going from MacOS 6 to MacOS 7. In other words, the change to a new OS was more of an issue than the fact that the 68K code was being emulated.

Intel != CPU by mike3k · 2005-05-23 05:40 · Score: 1

Remember, Intel makes a lot of other chips besides CPUs. Maybe Apple is interested in their ethernet controller, WiFi, audio, bluetooth, or other support chips.

The XBOX Factor? by tjstork · 2005-05-23 05:41 · Score: 1

At some point, someone at Apple had to notice that the xbox 360 is going to ship with 3 PowerPC chips, each of which having a higher Ghz rating than the top of the line Apple G5...

Hmmm, me thinks Jobs might have been upset about that?

--
This is my sig.

Re:The XBOX Factor? by tf23 · 2005-05-23 11:44 · Score: 1

Nah. Jobs has got to be more upset with him blurping out the 3.0GHz quote a few years back. He's been being bit by that for the past couple of years now.

My guess is that Apple has had >2.7GHz G5 chips, for a while now. However, they don't sell as much h/w as Dell et all. So they must make more small increases incrementally over a longer timeperiod. This lets them sell more hardware over the long haul.

--
http://slashdot.org/~tf23/journal

Which chime? by Sebby · 2005-05-23 05:41 · Score: 1

As long at they don't switch to Intel's annoying "ding-ding-dong-dong" chime your hear in the commercial as an Intel-based new Mac's new startup chime, I'll be fine!

--

AC comments get piped to /dev/null

April Fooled? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 05:59 · Score: 0

Sh*t! Is it April 1st again already?

In other news : by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:00 · Score: 0

MS Windows 2007 is now the dominant OS on Apple computers.

After the successfull change of hardware platform in early 2006 and the following release of Microsoft Windows for Mac, Apple's own OS is now dead.

I suppose this is more than enugh reason for Apple not to change CPU...

Microsoft goes PowerPC with xbox 360... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:00 · Score: 0

And Apple goes Intel?

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

why Apple would be PC-compatible or bust by G4from128k · 2005-05-23 06:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why is there always the presumption that a system with an x86 CPU will be PC compatible?

I agree with you that Apple does not necessarily have to go PC compatible. But there are two very strong reasons that Apple would only buy Intel CPUs as part of a conversion to PC-compatible hardware.

First, Apple has always suffered from the "its more expensive" criticism (some, including I, disagree that Apple is more expensive, but that's beside the point of public perception). Adding an Intel chip will do nothing for Apple's costs (may even increase them). Only if Apple goes PC compatible will it gain access to ultra-low prices associated with Intel hardware. Apple will never beat Dell at the low-cost PC game, but could co-opt Dell's economies of scales by releasing OS X for x86.

Second, Apple gains access to a massive install base of PCs. Apple sells only 3 million machines per year versus worldwide PC production of 200 million machines per year. I'd bet there are more than half a billion PCs that have the heft needed to run Tiger (from what I have seen, Tiger can run on a 400 MHz G3). If just 3% of those PCs converted, Apple sells 15 million copies of Tiger immediately and another 6 million copies per year afterward. This, alone, would triple Apple's marketshare. Given the high gross margins on software (vs hardware), Apple could afford to lose some hardware sales. But this is only possible if Apple sells a true PC-compatible version of OS X.

--
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

Re:why Apple would be PC-compatible or bust by poofyhairguy82 · 2005-05-23 17:21 · Score: 1

But this is only possible if Apple sells a true PC-compatible version of OS X.
But you see, this is the problem. X86 land is a mess. There are BILLIONS of combinations of hardware and peripherals for IBM compatible computers. Part of the reason MS moves so slow is that they are dragging a lot of dead weight behind them. Much of this hardware is junk (this said after wasting a weekend on a new Linksys card with drivers that were so poorly made that it would cause hard lockups every hour or so), and its crappy nature would mess up Apple's reputation.

Look, tonight was my first night to mess with OSX because my suster got a new powerbook. And you know what I noticed was the difference between it and Windows/Linux (I use both A LOT)? That everything works. The wireless worked out of the box. Every piece of hardware worked well, no messing with drivers or any of that crap.

X86 land is like General Motors products. There are plenty of cheap add on parts, service is cheap and prices are low but big problems can come about with lots of use. Apple is like BMW- hardware is expensive and add ons are fewer but everything just works (tm).

You will NEVER see OSX for x86 because Apple doesn't want to deal with piracy and dead weight. It would cost them more money than they could make (and it makes a nice profit now).

--
Open Source Sushi
Re:why Apple would be PC-compatible or bust by argent · 2005-05-24 02:17 · Score: 1

Look, tonight was my first night to mess with OSX because my suster got a new powerbook. And you know what I noticed was the difference between it and Windows/Linux (I use both A LOT)? That everything works. The wireless worked out of the box. Every piece of hardware worked well, no messing with drivers or any of that crap.

Funny, that's the same experience I get with a Thinkpad.

I'm still having problems with my Mac-compatible and Mac-marketed Macally webcam on my Mac mini. Works from Windows just fine. Oh, and I wasn't able to use the floppy, serial ports, or Adaptec Mac-branded SCSI card in my G3 after I upgraded it to Jaguar.

Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap by wkcole · 2005-05-23 06:01 · Score: 3, Informative

As far as I know, Apple has had no involvement in ARM.

As you appear to be completely ignorant of ARM's origins, why bother making such a statement?

See http://www.arm.com/aboutarm/milestones.html and scroll down to where ARM describes their origin as an independent company. ARM was initially a joint venture of Apple, Acorn, and VLSI. Selling off their shares of ARM was part of what kept Apple alive in the late 90's.

BS by hector_uk · 2005-05-23 06:07 · Score: 0

no way in hell, it's probably miss interpreted apple uses intel chips in the xserver RAID at the moment it's probably something to do with that ot pure BS, to switch to x86 would be the stupidest move ever the architecture is on it's last legs it's done well to get as far as it has, macs are not expencive because of the hardware, the motherboard are made by asus and foxconn the HD's by maxtor/seagate the graphics card by ATI/nvidia the only thing that is different is the cpu and the case and the cpu is not slower or more expensive than intel chips, it's the case that costs more, the most expensive part int he emac is the case

Re:they already AREN! by JackAxe · 2005-05-23 06:10 · Score: 1

You mean "IBM" and Motorola; not Intel. :)

Re:they already AREN'T! by JackAxe · 2005-05-23 06:17 · Score: 1

OK, that was weird, my page submited itself before I was finished. Bleh. Anyways, IBM, Motorolo and Apple all came together in the early ninties to develop a PowerPC for personal computers. Besides Apple's 6100 Dos compatible, which they realeased with a 486/66 daughter card, Apple hasn never used Intel as a central processor.

Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap by Apathetic1 · 2005-05-23 06:20 · Score: 1

The parents says, "Intel has been wanting to move to RISC chips for some time".

Even if 100% of the gaming world won't be using PowerPC, the console world - including handhelds - will be using RISC processors. Nintendo's portables use ARM processors which are RISC (ARM-7 for the GBA and an ARM-7 and ARM-9 in the DS); the PSP has a MIPS processor in it - that leaves only PC gamers on x86.

--

My username does not make me Apathetic. It's irony, get it?

Other product lines by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:23 · Score: 0

I wonder if this has any connection to the news that Apple has patented a tablet mac design. Consider: A stripped down version of OS X running on a Centrino based tablet? Too wacky?

How about Apple contracting to have Intel manufacture a g4 cored centrino chipset? Intel has a lot of fab capability, and I don't think demand has them saturated yet. Or perhaps they're going to make a cell phone ipod? Intel has chipsets there too.

It is also possible, as people have suggested, that Apple's bringing back something Newton-like, some offshoot of the iPod line, which would make strongarm a reasonable choice. Guess who now makes Strongarm?

Hell, they could just be buying flash from the big I for ipod minis.

article misquoted by eqkivaro · 2005-05-23 06:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wall Street Journal reports that Apple will agree to use Intel chips

What the article really reports:

Apple Computer Inc. has been in talks that could lead to a decision soon to use Intel Corp. chips in its Macintosh computer line, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday

Apple hasn't agreed to anything.
-c

Where is AsSeenOnTV? by IdahoEv · 2005-05-23 06:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

ASOT is strangely silent in this thread.

--
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.

Re:Where is AsSeenOnTV? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 19:47 · Score: 0

"Out of the office", as the parlance goes.

No, I'm not him, I just had the same thought as you but the initiative to check his most recent posts. Lo and behold, the information appears.

An Intel co-processor for running Windows apps? by zeuqsav · 2005-05-23 06:33 · Score: 1

Perhaps Apple aren't interested in switching to x86, but in fact are thinking of adding a lower end x86 to the Mac as a co-processor for running Windows applications at full speed on the Mac, with Mac OS X providing the underlying services (disk, networking etc) as Virtual PC does.

Re:An Intel co-processor for running Windows apps? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 08:17 · Score: 0

Perhaps Apple aren't interested in switching to x86, but in fact are thinking of adding a lower end x86 to the Mac as a co-processor for running Windows applications at full speed on the Mac...

Worst. Idea. Ever.

The effect of such a move would be this: Software companies who currently write their software for both platforms would stop doing so and tell Mac users, "Just run the Windows version on the co-processor."

The only reason they don't do it now is because Virtual PC is a dog, performance-wise and their customers wouldn't stand for it.
Re:An Intel co-processor for running Windows apps? by zeuqsav · 2005-05-23 08:36 · Score: 1

Problem is, almost everyone I know with a Mac has to use Virtual PC, but as you point out, it's a dog. This is quite offputting to people thinking of adopting the Mac and being able to run Windows apps faster would be cool. I'm not suggesting that Apple do what the IBM AS/400 does and run an entire Windows on the co-processor, but use something like Wine but instead of emulating x86, use the co-processor.

There are many reasons for a native Mac OS X application, Aqua look and feel, 64-bit/dual CPU, security etc. I think those companies interested in building a native version of their application will anyway (or use something cross platform like QT).

At the end of the day, Apple want to ship more boxes, if they make it easier to run Windows apps, then they'll remove a barrier to entry and accomplish that goal

Exactly. by JZ_o8 · 2005-05-23 06:46 · Score: 1

Why would the switch from IBM PPC chips to Intel PPC chips be any different than the switch from Motorolla PPC to IBM PPC. Same platform, different supplier.

Itanic by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 06:49 · Score: 0

Congratulations on being the last technical person on the planet to realize that Itanium is dead. Doornail time. Pushing up the Daisies. Worm food. An ex-solution.

Itanium is slower and less capable than the AMD sourced 64 bit solutions, and Intel's own x86 line will shortly surpass the Itanium.

The Itanium will ultimately have less success than the long-forgotton i860/i960 line.

Did I mention it was dead technology?

Re:wireless chipsets? Re:Maybe it is not for a Mac by LWATCDR · 2005-05-23 06:52 · Score: 1

Actually NeXTStep for Intel did do quite well for a time. Much as Sco Unix did. It fit a niche and did pretty well there.
Intel OS/X would fail it would come down to do I buy a x86 from Apple and have a very limited selection of software or do I buy an x86 from dell with a lot more software.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

One word: by mrchaotica · 2005-05-23 06:59 · Score: 1

Compatibility.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Mac user too, but at this point iWork wouldn't be able to replace MS Office just because it's not Office. The merits and features of the programs have nothing to do with it.

An Office replacement wouldn't just have to be better; it would have to support VBScript, work seamlessly with Exchange and whatnot, and act excatly like Office users expect it to.

It's sad because it's true.

(For what it's worth, you're right -- all the Mac apps you've mentioned do kick Microsoft's ass.)

--

"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

Re:One word: by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 07:20 · Score: 0

I find that Pages integrates better with MS-Office for Windows than MS-Office for Mac does.

As for not supporting VBScript... In this day and age I consider that a valuable feature.
Re:One word: by mrchaotica · 2005-05-23 07:27 · Score: 1

As for not supporting VBScript... In this day and age I consider that a valuable feature.
So do I, but then again I don't have millions of lines of legacy VBScript applications gluing my company's workflow together...

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

Hey by Konster · 2005-05-23 07:07 · Score: 1

Has anyone considered the notion of Apple offering BOTH PPC and x86 products?

Re:Hey by dick+johnson · 2005-05-23 07:22 · Score: 1

I think you're probably right. Maybe offering Xserves with Intel processors. That would be a logical first step.

--
- dj

Punditry by hey! · 2005-05-23 07:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

The chief measure of successful punditry is not accuracy, but credibility. Credibility is not based on any particular insight on the part of the public, but on three factors:

(1) Telling people what they already know or are being told by other credible sources.
(2) Being considered a credible source.
(3) Thinking of arguments that sound good suporting what everyone thinks is going to happen.

If there is a bit of recursion going on here, it's simply because the basis of credibility is so flimsy. It also means that credibility is self-reinforcing, which means the hardest thing about being credible is getting on the credibilty gravy train. Which is good, because there are limited spots avaiable.

Mr. Dvorak used a time honored method for obtaining credibility of getting in early, on the ground floor.

From a technical perspective he's a bit late on the Mac/x86 speculation though, which has been rife for nearly twenty years now. However, this is actually a highly sophisticated bit of punditry timing. Apple had been off the punditry radar screen for nearly a decade at the time. You simly cannot excercise punditry on something nobody else is thinking about -- novel ideas have no basis for sounding credibile (see above).

However, by 2004, it was apparent that Apple was no longer irrelevant, that it had not only stopped the bleeding but had built a successful business, established valuable and powerful brand identity, and had reasserted its influence as a design leader, not only in the computer field, but beyond. So people started thinking about Apple again. And, in the same way that old English roads still bear the ruts of Roman chariots, their thoughts naturally fell into the grassy ruts of the MaxOS x86 idea.

Mr. Dvorak's 2004 prediction bears the hallmarks of expert punditry. First the conclusion is public property so well broken-in that nobody is apt to mind if it takes a bit of additional abuse. Secondly , of course, is the exquisite timing that only an ear planted firmly on the ground of public opinion can execute, falling on the heels of Apple's successful iMac by a mere six years. This is probably, ifyou will permit me a bit of nelogizing, the minimal period needed for effective punditric credibilogenesis. Any shorter and you're talking about something that nobody is thinking about yet -- disaster. Any longer and all the good theories for what everyone expects to happen will have been taken, and the whole idea will have to be put back on the shelf for five or more years.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

CPU does not a Price tag make by RapmasterT · 2005-05-23 07:26 · Score: 1

The point missing from this discussion is that a cheaper CPU does not have the capability to reduce the overall system price much at all.

Over the entire build of a $3000+ computer (Mac, PC, etc), no one component is going to change the price all that much.

The strategy behind this move probably has very little to do with price, and will very likely result is little change in price.

Re:CPU does not a Price tag make by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 16:24 · Score: 0

Agree. Cheaper CPU does not necessarily reduce the price of the high end system.

More CHOICE of CPU speed and features can produce very different economics to the type of computers you can design. This can generate higher volume sales and thus reduce the price per system.

However, since Apple is notorious in putting minimal resources in a product line until it prove itself to be successful, I cannot quite understand why they would pour more resources into the mac business, such as adopting a different CPU.

Getting the OS to run on an Apple Design Intel platform is not the hard part (they are already done) but getting all vendors to recompile/port their apps to Intel platform will be really hard. See how long it takes a vendor to upgrade and test their app to make their Panther apps Tiger compatible.

IF IBM is abandoning Apple. That would be a good reason for Apple to start talking to Intel.

Other existing Intel CPU products in the Apple product line today generate insignificant revnues for Apple but it does open a dialog between Apple and Intel.

It could be the other way by Laurance · 2005-05-23 07:28 · Score: 1

Intel might be looking in to moving *its* company over to PowerPC to make chips for apple and possibly others. After see how many Game consol makers, even M$, went after the PPC 970, maybe they want a cut of the PPC action.

It's The Software Stupid! by fupeg · 2005-05-23 07:28 · Score: 1

Go to an Apple Store and ask people buying Macs there "Why are you buying a Mac instead of a Dell?" Do you really think that *anybody* will mention "PowerPC" vs. "x86"? People will only mention the G5 processor because its as much a brand/trademark as it is a processor. Nobody knows/cares about the CPU architecture.

People buy Macs because of the user experience. It's the way everything (hate to say it) "just works." It's the intuitive interface and software. It's never getting a BSOD or a virus or spyware. It's being able to create your own DVD by plugging in your camcorder and picking pictures and music that you already had sitting there loaded with other programs. It's about being able to hate computers and computer people but loving your Mac.

Now of course it is much easier for Apple to give that experience by controlling the hardware that their software runs on. However, it's doubtful that will change even if Apple decides to use non-IBM/Motorola CPUs. It's hard to imagine that you'll be able to buy a new motherboard/cpu for your Mac.

As mentioned in the story, this is not really surprising. Apple clearly thought that IBM could deliver faster G5s than they have been, given the now infamous 3 GHz claim when the G5 debuted two years ago. Now we see that IBM is making a PowerPC based, three core processor for Microsoft that scoots along at 3.2 GHz, yet the single core G5 tops out at 2.7 GHz.

You have to wonder if they talked to AMD at all. As the PC Mag article mentioned, there's never been much talk between Apple and AMD. It would seem like the Athlon64/Opteron architecture is more similar to the PowerPC architecture, at least in terms of its memory controller. Plus AMD has been the 64 bit pioneer in the x86 world, though Apple has never really shown a real conviction about going 64 bit for their software.

Re:It's The Software Stupid! by EXrider · 2005-05-26 10:02 · Score: 1

Go to an Apple Store and ask people buying Macs there "Why are you buying a Mac instead of a Dell?" Do you really think that *anybody* will mention "PowerPC" vs. "x86"? People will only mention the G5 processor because its as much a brand/trademark as it is a processor. Nobody knows/cares about the CPU architecture.

OK, you're right, for 99 percent of the people who buy Macs, buy them for the experience, and applications available on the Macintosh platform. But there are a number of people out there who want the G5 for it's industry leading efficiency, google for the interviews of institutions who've built clusters out of G5's, like UIUC, Virginia Tech, or the US Army. The number one reason why? Because for the price, you can't build a cluster that will be faster, and run cooler, and use less wattage than the Xserve G5. These folks sure as hell care about the CPU.

You have to wonder if they talked to AMD at all. As the PC Mag article mentioned, there's never been much talk between Apple and AMD.

The G5 Power Mac's and Xserve's use AMD's baby, HyperTransport:
http://www.hypertransport.org/products/productdeta il.cfm?RecordID=51

And all sorts of Apple products have contained AMD and Intel chips for various functions over the years. I'm sure they talk to Intel and AMD all the time. I don't really think this whole thing is as big a deal as everyone's making it out to be.

Plus AMD has been the 64 bit pioneer in the x86 world, though Apple has never really shown a real conviction about going 64 bit for their software.

Apple released their 64-bit Power Mac G5's 4 months after AMD released their Opteron. It's a year later now and where's Windows XP 64-bit edition? Or even Longhorn for that matter. Apple has a 64-bit capable OS now, and 64-bit development tools in 10.4. What makes you think they're not interested in 64-bit?

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/64bit/

--
grep -iw skynet /etc/services

Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap by Twid · 2005-05-23 07:29 · Score: 1

You couldn't be more wrong.

To be fair, I can think of many ways in which he could be more wrong. For example:

100% of the gaming world will be using chips grown from genetically-engineered bananas in the next year - year and a half

I think we all can agree that this is more wrong than the original statement.

--
- "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho

plus the Gamecube by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 07:52 · Score: 0

Gamecube already uses PPC.

And also note that PC games are a miniscule percentage of the marketplace. And it's going to get smaller, if this year's E3 is any indication.

All PC game companies who make FPSes were showing their games on Xboxes now. Any PC game company that wasn't making FPSes on Xbox was making MMO games (including a MMOFPS!).

PC gaming is shrinking quickly.

It is the Itanium Apple is going to use by terminal.dk · 2005-05-23 08:08 · Score: 0

My deep inside sources tells me, that Apple and Intel has made a deal to use the Itanium processor in future macs. HP/Compaq will be allowed to manufacture clone machines - Since they helped the birth of the CPU.

HP/Compaq has seen, that the PC will be dead within 18-24 months, now that Microsoft is launching the PowerPC based XBox 2, which does all what home users uses a PC for today. Surfing the net, e-mail and games.

Since Microsoft is launching a PowerPC box at a loss, Apple knows it is only a matter of days before it runs OS X, and will undermine the sales of even the Mac Mini. So Apple needs to "upgrade" to a new architecture to prevent hackers killing their market.

Itanic - The CPU that would not go down.

StrongARM for Newton by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 08:41 · Score: 0

That's want it is. I'll bet a dollar.

This by sentientbrendan · 2005-05-23 08:59 · Score: 1

Is obvious bullshit.

It would be nice to see some editorial control on slashdot.

in related news... by nilbog · 2005-05-23 09:16 · Score: 1

In related news, car manufacturer BMW will now be purchasing and using Yugo engines.

....riiiiggghhtt

--
or else!

Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap by adzoox · 2005-05-23 09:59 · Score: 1

Well, now you a contribution chance to the wikipedia don't you?

--
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny

what about the cell cpu by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 10:23 · Score: 0

Doesn't IBM still make ppc, I know they started working on the cell cpus, so why wouldnt apple just switch to cell, I've been hearing that its based on ppc, but havent looked at it much myself. Personally Id rather use ppc or cell. as for all the complaints about the mac mini, its great, im using one now, 1.25ghz g4 512mbram 80gb hdd os 10.4.1, no lag with any apps, no overheating, and its really easy to take to lan parties and such.anyway im kinda hopping they either keep ppc(if possible) or switch to cell, i dont think id buy an x86 based mac, what would be the point?, it be like having another generic pc.

Most Likely the case by eadint · 2005-05-23 10:59 · Score: 1

IBM has traditionally been stellar in R&D and horrible in implementation. as far as my information has been IBM is tapped out and at max capacity as far as chip production. intel could probably produce twice as many p970's at half the costs of IBM and still pay a licensing fee to Motorola,IBM and make a pretty profit. I would see the most likely case scenario being wintel being ported to PPC over the next 5 years and x86 dying out (thank god) i would see this as the death knell for x86 not ppc because p970 is far superior (engineering, performance and capability wise) than x86 can or will ever be. also it would be much easier to port wintel to ppc than os x to ppc. ( does anyone remember the hal)

PowerBook G5 "the mother of all thermal challenges by MojoStan · 2005-05-23 11:08 · Score: 1

And why, now, would Intel CPUs be any cheaper?

That's not the only reason Apple might be considering using Intel chips. An Intel chip might be a better and more modern solution for some Apple hardware. I think that "cheaper Mac mini" comment was just fun speculation by the submitter.

Currently all of Intel's stuff runs hotter, so Apple would have to work significantly harder at heat dissipation issues in all but their tower designs.

Not all of Intel's stuff. The Pentium M and Mobile 915 chipset were designed specifically for notebooks and run very cool (unlike the Pentium 4 architecture). Just this past January, Apple's VP of Worldwide Sales and Operations called a PowerBook G5 "the mother of all thermal challenges." A Pentium M PowerBook would not be a thermal challenge at all.

For desktops and servers, the G5 is great and I see no good reason to use Intel chips for those platforms. For 1" think PowerBooks, however, the G5 may never be a good solution because of thermal challenges. The G4 processor is so slow and outdated (but maybe "good enough" for now), that Intel's budget notebook processor, the Pentium M-based Celeron M, is better than the fastest G4.

And what, pray tell, do you expect them to do with little-endian issues, backwards compatibility, and all those little details?

That's a good point, and I have no idea. That's why I say the Pentium M might be a good chip for PowerBooks.

--
TO START PRESS ANY KEY

Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

So is Dvorak by Bozdune · 2005-05-23 11:54 · Score: 0

"Z80 PC makers weren't able to transition to the 8080." Idiot. The 8080 pre-dated the Z80.

Typical Dvorak bilge, can't even get stupid stuff right.

Re:Transparent in a way. The PPC version was slowe by Trillan · 2005-05-23 12:27 · Score: 1

As I recall, the low end PowerPC Macintosh (the 6100/60) was about 60% of the high end 68040 system when it came to running 68LC040 code. Of course, it couldn't emulate 68040 code at all.

Later, Apple switched to an emulator that supported dynamic recompilation, and even the 6100/60 could beat out the Quadra. There's lots of conspiracy theories over this -- some thing the DR emulator was ready from the start, and Apple held it back so that developers would actually port their code to PowerPC. Who knows? But I don't really believe this. Probably the DR emulator needed more tuning before it was ready to go.

was there ever a time this *wasn't* predicted? by walterbyrd · 2005-05-23 12:52 · Score: 1

If so, I don't think I remember. Maybe in the very early days of the MAC? I'm sure this has been predicted since 1990.

A better article by geekee · 2005-05-23 12:54 · Score: 1

Here is a better article from news.com

--
Vote for Pedro

Windows compatibility card? by Sometimes_Rational · 2005-05-23 13:27 · Score: 1

I haven't seen anyone speculating on this yet, but what if Apple wants to come out with a Windows compatibility card similar to the one they used to offer many, many years ago? That is, a pci card with an Intel CPU that would allow them to run Windows natively inside OS X? This would free them from being so dependent on VirtualPC for Windows compatibility. They would probably have to use a cool, slow notebook processor to cope with heat issues, but even that would run many times faster than VirtualPC can.

This would make an interesting Windows -> Mac migration path for users of older windows machines. The licenses for older versions of Windows are not tied to the processor, so the users of these older machines could just transfer their existing license to their new mac without having to pay for a new copy of Windows. This really could induce a flood of "switchers". There seem to be a significant number of people who would like to use a Mac, but are held back because an essential application they use is Windows only and VirtualPC is too slow.

The thing I like about this theory is that it explains why Apple might be looking to use Intel CPU's and still not have OS X on Intel.

--
Warning: The intelligence of this post may be larger than it appears.

Apple switching to Intel by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 13:38 · Score: 1

Maybe a dual-processor system: one PowerPC and one Intel? Not likely

That's what Dvorak argues, dual processors on the high end using PowerPC and Intel Itaniums.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Apple should go AMD Specific by benw1979 · 2005-05-23 13:48 · Score: 1

If, in moving to the "Intel" platform, Apple would choose to make their OS compile for AMD only, they would make Intel chips incompatible for once, and encourage OEM's to consider AMD more seriously for compatibility's sake (i.e. "Supports MacOS X!" logos on competitors marketing.)

Make compatibility a competitive point, and make Intel incompatible by being a super- and not a sub-architecture.

To the dark Side... by deviantphil · 2005-05-23 14:04 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh no....apple is going to the dark side.

Re:Does this mean - DEC Technology by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 14:10 · Score: 0

It's possible to run PowerPC binaries at near-native speed on Intel. DEC did this with WindowsNT on the Alpha. The technology basically converted Intel to Alpha code on first-run. After that, it would use the native code at full speed. So the first time running a non-native app would be slow, but after that, you would have native performance.

Assuming they could license the technology (if necessary) they could run all the native PowerPC Mac apps on Intel at full speed.

Apple switching to Intel by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 14:28 · Score: 1

Microsoft might actually not want to release office at all.

MS may not release a new Office for Macs however they'd have a problem then as far as being called a monopoly and lawsuits. One of the things they used as a point they weren't a monopoly was that they had the Mac version of Office. However even if they do stop the Mac version, Apple now has Keynotes and iWorks. What's missig from these those are spreadsheet and database apps though Appleworks has both though I don't know how well they are, for all I know they may be like M$'s Works. Though I don't know for sure I've been told new Macs come with MySQL installed.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

FX!32 by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 14:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Digital did this with their FX!32 emulator. They could run Windows binaries at pretty decent speeds on NT Alpha

Not even close. I got an Alpha several years ago setup as a dualboot with NT and Linux, but I've hardly even used NT because I wasn't able to install that many apps even using FX!32. The only commercial software I was able to install was Borland C++ Powerbuilder. I got the Alpha because it was said you could install almost any app that ran on NT but came to find out later only "well behaved" apps will install. Now what "well behaved" means I don't know.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

running windows in Mac OS by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 15:31 · Score: 1

If Macs ran on X86 chips, then running Windows software on Macs becomes a lot easier - you'd use Wine, and not an emulator.

You can already run not just Windows apps but Windows intself on a Mac. With Virtual PC you can install Windows in a VM in Mac OS.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Re:running windows in Mac OS by anthony_dipierro · 2005-05-24 10:03 · Score: 1

Yes, it's already possible, but "if Macs ran on X86 chips, then running Windows software on Macs becomes a lot easier".

Re:Apple Already Uses Intel-Intel Uses What Was Ap by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 15:38 · Score: 0

PC gamers smell like cum.

anybody remember OrangeMicro? by cwg_at_opc · 2005-05-23 15:42 · Score: 1

wouldn't it be pretty cool to have a PCI Express card with a dual core Pentium(or maybe an athlon64X2) and all the requisite goodies on a single card?(albeit a LARGE, HOT and powerhungry card ;-)

let's see,
- CPU
- memory controller(looking more like AMD)
- a couple slots for RAM(2Gigs!),br> - gigE?
- WiMax?
- Gameport?
- a few extra USB2 ports?

This would make your dual-G5 _really_ kick some serious @ss. woof. multi-core, multi-CPU, multi-OS. you could run XP/Longhorn/Gentoo/UML _AND_ OSX simultaneously with no need to recompile any applications or operating systems(well, maybe a few parts of the host OS...)

whew, OK, i'll stop, i'm sweating now.

--
"...that's as white as it gets; all the bits are on..."

Wow! what an insult by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · 2005-05-23 15:53 · Score: 0

Wow!

Apple is thowing x86 in the face of all the diehard Apple fans that use x86 as a big reason why PC's are crap compared to Apples.

So far I haven't seen anyone screaming about dropping apple's forever now that they are traitors to their architecture. Why is that?

Are you Apple fans suddenly in love with x86?

--
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"

Re:Wow! what an insult by aristotle-dude · 2005-05-24 04:54 · Score: 1

Wow you are falling for a hoax by none other than Paul Thurrott. He claims to be the one that broke the story being reported on the WSJ.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Re:Wow! what an insult by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · 2005-06-03 15:32 · Score: 1

Wow, you really have proven yourself to be a total dumbass.

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/04/ 0238235&tid=118&tid=3&tid=137

--
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Re:Wow! what an insult by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · 2005-06-06 14:33 · Score: 1

Just because you deserve to have it really really rubbed in ...

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/06/ 1752234&tid=118&tid=179&tid=3

hahahahahahahaha! apple admits that x86 is the way to go.

--
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"

Mac users by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 16:23 · Score: 1

Maybe the only reason people buy Macs is for escapism...

This may be true for some Mac users but not for many. Although I use WinTel now, I started using Macs before Windows even came out, 1985/86, though I also used DOS a little. And the next computer I get will be a Mac. Both of these aren't the only systems I've used. To my right I have a DEC Alpha setup to dualboot NT and Linux and I used to have an Amiga. Of all the systems I've had Amiga is still my fav, I just wish they kept up with development of it. I've heard they're working on Amiga OS 4 but haven't been able to get any details. Now what I'd like to do is multiboat Amiga, Linux, Mac OS, and Windows.

I also know Graphic artists who won't use anything but a Mac. Some photographers feel the same, I also knew a web developer who used a Mac.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

ugh by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 16:31 · Score: 0

how many times is this rumor going to need to be squashed?

What about the apps? by CreateWindowEx · 2005-05-23 16:50 · Score: 1

Even if Apple did port their OS to x86 or x86/64 (clearly possible since NeXTSTEP ran on x86 as does Darwin), none of the apps would work. Apple was able to smooth out the 68K/PowerPC transition with emulation and whatnot, but it would still be a huge black eye for Apple if all current apps could only run on this archictecture under emulation, which would be horribly slow.

Whatever differences their are between G3, G4, and G5, it pretty much has zero effect on 99% of the code out there because it's all running the same instruction set. While OSX probably has vestigal support for NeXT's "fat binaries" (One application with executables for multiple architectures), getting developers to recompile all existing apps, fix any endian-related bugs (in theory nobody has these, but in practice they crop up everywhere and can be hard to track down). Since it's already hard enough to get third-party developers to support OS X as it is, I can't imagine that a slightly cheaper CPU would be worth that price to Apple. Now if Intel made a PowerPC-compatible CPU, that would be another story.

Re:What about the apps? by squiggleslash · 2005-05-25 01:45 · Score: 1

I don't think it'd be that big a deal, quite honestly. Apple could continue to sell PowerPC versions of Macs to those who need it, but use an Intel CPU in a "switcher" machine. Most Mac software vendors would compile fat binaries of their existing products. Apple, the largest, would certainly do so, and make sure that the Intel-based Mac has all the software the majority of users would need (as opposed to want) right off the bat.
Imagine a Mac mini selling at around the $500 mark that's significantly more powerful than the existing unit. There are people who'll say "Well, I'm switching from Windows" who'll not see a problem with getting such a unit. And there are those who'll say "Well, I already have a Mac, I don't want to have to lose the sofware I have", who'll avoid it and get the PowerPC based units. It'd be essentially a win-win for Apple, and wouldn't really remove any choices for consumers.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Things Apple must do to switch me to OS X on Intel by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 17:02 · Score: 0

1 - PXE/iBoot like diskless iSCSI network booting
2 - a factor of 2x increase in all bus speeds
3 - 10gbps network port(s)
4 - software reconfigurable wideband wireless tranceiver
5 - OLED display @ 250dpi +17"
6 - holigraphic storage
7 - large laptop form factor
8 - titanium + hot blown brushed aluminum (if you don't know, don't bother asking); if the damned thing is going to be a work of art, they it had better fscking last.
9 - and a whole bunch of other things that don't exist yet.

If they can't do the above, they should just wait until IBM has a low powered, mobile version of their cell processors out.

What part did Apple design again? by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 17:36 · Score: 1

Wasn't the processor, that belongs to IBM.

PowerPC, PPC, was a joint effort between Apple, IBM, and Motorola. Here's a post on /. that mentions it, Linux And The PowerPC Architecture

"a remarkably stable and well thought out OS"

That has little or nothing to do with Apple either. It is a Mach OS, with BSD filling in the blanks to get a usable system

It has very much to do with Apple, the Mac OS has been stable since before OSX and BSD. I've been using Macs since the mid '80s and I only have had one problem with them, a hardware problem I had with a Mac SE 4 or 5 years ago and the SE was from '89 if I recall right. However every PC I've had (4) had either hardware and/or software problems. Of them the one with the least problems is a DEC Alpha running NT, but then I couldn't get much installed software wise on it. Maybe that makes it more troubling than the others, but that was the only problem I had with it. Heck, though I don't have either Win2000 or XP I have used them in classes I took in college, but within the first month of a class Win2000 crashed a number of tymes and XP crashed the first tyme I used it.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

64-bit not fully supported by OS-X? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 18:21 · Score: 0

Pentium M will be 64-bi before ... ?

What _have_ you been drinking?

Find a better source for your "news".

So would I by lokedhs · 2005-05-23 18:26 · Score: 1

In all honestly, I would too.

But you have to realise that slashdot is a very small minority. Small enough to not even be noticed on the bottom line for these companies.

There isn't a doubt in my mind that in hard numbers, the number of OSX users would increase after the release of a hypothetical OSX for x86. However, the number of "cool owners of equally cool mac boxes" would quite possibly go down, or at the very best stay on the same level as today. This would have a very negative effect on the brand awareness.

At the end of the day, Apple is about making money and staying in business. I believe it has been shown that releasing an alternative consumer OS for generic x86 boxes is not a good way to do that. [insert list of failed alternative OS'es here]. Apple has a pretty good business model here, my bet is that they will continue with it.

plugin boards by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 18:28 · Score: 1

It's happened before. 10 years ago, Apple made a version of the Quadra 610 (codename Houdini) that had an 80486 on a plug in card. http://lowendmac.com/quadra/q610dos.shtml Sun did similar things, in addition to a 386 based workstation, they also made add in boards that let Sun workstations run DOS software.

Amigas also had plugin boards to run Windows, well DOS, and Mac OS on.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Amiga by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 18:38 · Score: 1

Didn't the Amiga have an add-on daughterboard with a 386 on it, to allegedly allow you to run 386 software? That didn't work out all that well for Commodore.

It did, you could run DOS on it. However it's not that it didn't work well so much as Commodore sucked at marketing. With daughter boards you could run DOS as well as Mac OS, and Mac software ran faster than on a Mac. I found it weird watching an Amiga running Mac software faster than the Mac next to it. Of all the OSes I've seen, used, Amiga is my favorite. Too bad it was almost allowed to die, I've heard Amiga 5 was about ready but...

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Your deep inside sources by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-23 18:40 · Score: 0

are heading to porcelain destinations.

G5 and cooling by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 18:50 · Score: 1

I am not a chip expert, but i think that they are having trouble shrinking the size of the G5. since it require lots of cooling.

Cooling is the problem they're having with the G5 Powerbook, it gets too hot for a laptop. Hope they get a G5 laptop out soon. When it does I'd love to get one but probably won't be able to afford one. But it'll drive the prices of G4 Powerbooks down, maybe enough to get a 23" display too.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Re:Does this mean - DEC Technology by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 19:13 · Score: 1

DEC did this with WindowsNT on the Alpha.

FX!32, which is the converting code, sucks. I know as to my right sits an Alpha with NT I haven't booted up in about a year and haven't used hardly at all in the last several year, since about 1998. I tried to install one app after another and the only commercial app I was able to get installed was Borland C++ Powerbuilder. I was able to get a few more shareware apps installed but not much, the one I used mostly was Coffeecup HTML. Heck I couldn't even get Netscape installed, and when I called their tech support they said there was no way to install it. I searched the DEC website but the only thing I could find was something about making sure the newest version of FX!32 was installed, which it was. Tell yah, if I could do it all over again knowing what I know now I just would of gotten a Mac.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Apple, Redhat, and Sun by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 19:35 · Score: 1

Most of the companies that did this sort of thing have either folded completely or have transitioned over to software only or to making their hardware from commodity parts (read: Intel and AMD) or doing both (hardware from Intel/AMD and they do software). Examples: HP, Compaq, Intergraph, SGI, etc. The only holdouts left are Apple and Sun in the workstation/PersonalComputer world. Apple has been valiantly holding on, even having spruts of growth, but they are still considered a minor player by market percentages

This reminds me on an article I read a couple of years ago in a business magazine, I'm thinking either "Forbes" or "Fortune" although it might of been Bloomberg's, about how Apple, Redhat, and Sun should merge(as if they aren't profitable as is). It was something along the lines that they can all contribute their individual talents into a profitable mover and shaker technology company.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Re:Apple, Redhat, and Sun by kumel · 2005-05-27 03:43 · Score: 1

I have read a lot about this discussion and it's good to see that someone else has posted with regards to the obvious collaboration between sun and apple, os x is already unix based, wouldn't it make more sense, if there is a switch, to the SPARC processor???

are open platforms better by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 19:56 · Score: 1

The x86 is a shitty architecture from a technical standpoint for a number of reasons, but its openness is ideal. An open platform (there are actually a number of fairly open cpu archs) is more important than technical superiority. That is why 90% of the market is using the technically poor x86 arch and platform.

How is the X86 more open than the PPC? I'm not asking about Mac vs PC but the processors. I bet if you try to fabricate your own X86 without paying Intel for license you'll be slapped with a lawsuit. Maybe what you really mean is that the WinTel platform is more open than the Mac platform is as far as hardware is concerned. Then again when I look at hardware I see most devices can be used for either PCs or Macs. The OS? As long as you have the skills you can write just as much software for Macs as you can for Windows.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Re:are open platforms better by shaitand · 2005-05-24 13:33 · Score: 1

Ok, please re-read my post, the part about there being a number of open CPU archs and that it is the platform that is open. And btw, there have been so many x86 processor clones it is not even funny. There is more to being IBM-PC compatible than the processor exclusively.

hmm.. by Cryptnotic · 2005-05-23 20:02 · Score: 2, Informative

You weren't paying attention either. NP Complete problems are definately not unsolvable algorithmically. They are problems for which there exists a solution solvable by a non-deterministic machine (a fictional machine which can be in any number of states at a time) in a polynomial amount of time (i.e., O(N^i), where i is some constant integer). NP Complete problems are also such that they can be mapped onto other problems in NP Complete. The problem with these though is that they usually require exponential or even factorial time and/or space in order to solve them. Sometimes these solutions are "try every possible solution, pick the best one". It's a definate algorithm, but as the problem size grows, it will be impractical.

The fundamental question in computability theory is "Does P equal NP?". (Recall that P is the set of problems which can be solved by a deterministic machine (more like a real machine) in polynomial time). NP-Complete is interesting, because if a mapping were found from a P problem to an NP-Complete problem, all of the problems in NP-Complete would be solvable in polynomial time on real machines. Last time I checked, the answer to this question was unknown (no one has been able to proove that P and NP are different). Obviously, P is a subset of NP, but is it a strict subset or could the two be equal?

So, anyway, P and NP both consist of algorithmically solvable problems. For an example of an unsovable problem, look up the "halting problem". The problem basically is, "given an input turning machine A and input I, decide whether or not the machine, if run, would ever halt (finish)." It's generally impossible (other than a few simple examples) to figure out without running or emulating machine A. That problem is unsolvable.

--
My other first post is car post.

Mac or PC by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 20:47 · Score: 1

I was the biggest macophile in the past, but had to switch to using Windows for work and school...

They said a PC was required, and not just Windows? Though I have used PCs and Windows for several years, I plan on getting a Powerbook hopefully soon and when I do I'll also get Virtual PC with Win2000. That way I can use Windows on my Mac.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Good point... by Phil+John · 2005-05-23 20:57 · Score: 1

...well made ;o)

--
I am NaN

Apple and Microsoft by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 21:16 · Score: 1

The big problem with this, that always seems to be pointed out, is the 'assumed' non-compete agreement with Microsoft - that is said to have occured when Microsoft helped to bail Apple out a couple of years (and bought stock in Apple). Although, it has never been proven... since it's all under a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

A problem with this is that one reason Microsoft "helped" Apple was so they could say they weren't a monopoly. But also at the same tyme M$ bought shares in Apple, non voting shares, they also settled a lawsuit. Now if it came out they had Apple sign a non compete agreement MS would have more than a pie in the face.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

PC and Mac by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 21:27 · Score: 1

I use a Windows laptop for work and have a beloved G5 at home.

By the end of the year I hope to be the opposite, I'm using a PC at home now but I'm hoping to get a Powerbook. Here's hoping they get the G5 Powerbooks out soon.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Virtual PC by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 21:36 · Score: 1

Apple writes a nice tidy version of Virtual PC that lets users seamlessly run any windows app out there, right in OS X,

Excuse me but Microsoft is who puts out Virtual PC not Apple. It used to be Connectix before MS bought it.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

why Apple denies Mac OS on Intel PCs? by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 21:46 · Score: 1

Apple is both a hardware and a software company. Releasing Mac OS for PCs will cut into their hardware sales for one. This wouldn't matter much if they sold enough Mac Os to cover this, but because Apple controls their hardware they don't have to think about writing a bunch of drivers and what not for PC hardware. Personally I'd rather run Mac OS, preferably on a Mac, but it'd still be better on a PC than Windows is.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Re:why Apple denies Mac OS on Intel PCs? by master_p · 2005-05-24 03:41 · Score: 1

Apple can control the PC hardware too. Mac's hardware is the same as the PC's, except for the CPU and main board. Macs use IDE ATA and SATA drives, SCSI, VGA monitors, VGA video cards etc etc.

Microsoft Office by falconwolf · 2005-05-23 22:15 · Score: 1

The second that Apple moves into the market with OS X for x86, MSFT is going to pull Office and render OS X basically useless compared to Windows. Yeah, there are open alternatives that sorta work but in the real world people want to use what they are comfortable with. Unfortunately that's Office.

There's one problem with this, MS used the fact that they had Office for Macs to show they weren't a monopoly. If they stopped development of Office for Macs they could find themselves in hot water, as it is they're in it now in the EU.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Probably ARM by funkboy · 2005-05-23 22:15 · Score: 1

This is likely a result of a discussion between Apple and Intel on the use of the ARM architecture (Intel's "XScale" which, come to think of it, fit's Apple's product naming of Xthis and Xthat :-) in either a next-generation iPod or for some other portable computing device that has been circulating in the rumor mill recently. It could also be for some other as-yet-unknown Apple product or prototype using one of a bazillion different technologies Intel develops, such as network processors.

The odds of Apple switching Macintosh processor architectures given their membership and investment in the PowerPC platform are extremely low.

no, they won't by CyberdogOSX · 2005-05-24 01:37 · Score: 0

again, the reason Apple uses the PPC architecture is because it's superior.

the only reason they keep it running on Intel, is in case IBM decides to get out of the chip business and Apple doesn't want to get into the chip business.

it's a fallback plan. why would they go to an inferior platfrom if they had a choice?

Reply to the MAC coming onto x86 by mitulc24 · 2005-05-24 03:40 · Score: 0, Troll

Hey Guys, Even though the MAC may ship on x86 architecture based chips, it can't beat the Windows based PCs in the real world as far as performance is concerned and lets be real. WINDOWS IS BETTER THAN THE MAC OS ANYDAY. MITUL

why?! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-24 07:50 · Score: 0

PowerPC chips have always been more efficient the their x86 counterparts so why would apple look at migrating to x86?

If they do, wouldn't that lead to an end of their hardware platforms since x86 systems are cheaper to build and apple does not control the patents.

Why buy a mac if the mac OS could run on x86. I guess it's Alien-Ware for me next upgrade cycle :-)

The never ending VM debate by LionMage · 2005-05-24 09:15 · Score: 1, Interesting

This is a fair set of tradeoffs; don't let the marketing people and the kool-aide drinkers tell you different.

OK, jackass, you just crossed the line into insulting me. First off, I have a Master's Degree in Computer Science. Secondly, I have been a professional software engineer for well over a decade now. You, on the other hand, are coming across as an amateur, and probably one with a specific axe to grind.

I tried to be as polite as possible, to counter your "arguments" with facts and observations based on years of experience in the field. But you choose to believe your little fantasies. Fine.

Here's a postcard from reality: I've worked on projects where the scientific number crunching that you claim would never be present in a server app, was in fact present in a server app. Here's another postcard from reality: In a real production environment, you're lucky if you get a chance to profile your code once or twice to identify the top two or three areas with the most CPU utilization (or the biggest I/O bottlenecks, whatever). This is typically not done as part of automated testing, as it is time consuming, and automated testing is usually intended to handle QA issues and to insure that bugs stay fixed (i.e., regression testing).

You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims that further bolster my previous assertion that you're simply ignorant and talking out of your ass. For instance, you claim that the Java class libraries are "mostly shit," but that's a pretty broad blanket statement that actually flies in the face of years of experience to the contrary. Essentially unlimited time to optimize in static compilation? That's great, assuming that the optimizer is (a) guaranteed to generate equivalent code and not break your logic, and (b) actually has runtime knowledge of your code in order to make more effective optimizations. Neither of these is automatically true. The former is often not true -- even commercial compilers such as those offered by Microsoft can generate broken code in optimization, necessitating disabling the optimizer. The latter case is almost always untrue for C and C++ (and similar languages). Even if your compiler is designed to take profiling data as input, all that does is provide hints to the optimizer on where it should spend its time being the most aggressive. There are only so many tricks you can bring to bear in compile-time optimization.

Again, you're arguing in abstractions. I challenge you to put up or shut up, and by that, I mean show me definitive empirical tests. You don't like the paper I cited because it has lots of scientific computation? Fine. Pick your own test case. But you can't deny that there are always going to be some cases where I'm right, and Java will come out on top -- not because it's a better language, not because virtual machines are just that good, but simply because you can always come up with a few cases where Java simply will perform better.

Of course, I don't care about "performs better." I only care about "performs about as well as." And that's certainly the case almost 100% of the time, except for some very low-level bit banging type applications (e.g., video transcoding, audio processing, etc.)

But there's really no point in abusing this thread any further, since it's obvious that no matter what I say, you're going to insist that I'm wrong, even though I never claimed that Java was always faster than C/C++, or even most of the time; I only ever claimed that Java was roughly equally performant to natively compiled languages like C/C++, and that it could outperform such languages in certain cases. I proved my point by citing a research paper.

Your claim is that C/C++ is always more performant, and I proved that your claim is wrong because it is absolute. Your only response was to dismiss the research paper I cited because, to paraphrase you, "nobody does lots of scientific computation in the real world." That's also an

Re:The never ending VM debate by Lally+Singh · 2005-05-25 02:25 · Score: 1

The flame level here's getting higher than my tastes. Have a nice day and enjoy Java.

--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!

OS X with two types of processors. by rice_burners_suck · 2005-05-24 13:50 · Score: 1

This is what it means: There are a lot of people who want to run Linux applications, and also applications from some system called Doors or Walls, or maybe it's Windows... Anyway, I've never heard of it, but they say lots of people run it and applications made for it, and supposedly that system is for x86. Anyway, it's too slow to run this kind of code on the PowerPC chip through emulation, so Steve [Jobs] said he's going to be building dual-processor computers where one of the processors is a G5 and the other one is an Intel chip. The OS, its libraries, and all system calls will continue to execute in the PowerPC processor. However, applications compiled for Intel processors (say, for Linux) will run natively on the Intel processor, providing high speed and the ability to run these applications. An additional licensing scheme, currently in the works with some company called Microsoft, which is apparently connected to the whole Doors/Walls thing, will bring that system's APIs to OS X, so that these applications will run totally natively within the UNIX context, without running the risk of having OS X crash through a bug in a Doors application, or vice versa.

Re:OS X with two types of processors. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-25 18:34 · Score: 0

Why Save Gush Katif? So Jewish settlers will become homeless, as will the Palestinian refugees who lived on the same land decades ago. The diffrence here is that Israel is offering them money to move, the Palestinians left with nothing except the clothes on their backs.
Re:OS X with two types of processors. by rice_burners_suck · 2005-05-29 17:20 · Score: 1
I'm afraid you are mistaken. Bias in the popular news channels is a significant factor in misinformation spread about Israel, its history, and the history of the so-called Palestians. (Sometimes, things aren't what they seem.) Please refer to:
- http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html
- http://www.ict.org.il
- http://www.idf.il (Hebrew site, click for English version.)
That ought to straighten things up a bit.

Intel and 64-bit by homer+dulu · 2005-05-24 14:53 · Score: 1

It's surprised me that no-one has actually brought this up yet.

Since the 64-bitness of the G5 and Panther/Tiger's new 64-bit support was loudly trumpeted, it would be extremely stupid to go with an Intel 64-bit chip. It's common knowledge that the EM64T chips suffer HUGE performance hits in 64-bit mode, while Athlons are much much faster in 64-bit mode and everyone knows that the PPC is already designed for 64-bit. So why go Intel? Apple should be talking to AMD instead.

It seems like that the people who believe that the G5s in the Macs will be replaced by an Intel x86 chip curiously neglected this fact...most of the things that people have based their opinions on are to do with Intel's 32-bit architecture, and fail to consider that Apple are starting to move to 64-bit.

And after the pain of the 680x0 switch to PPC, Apple wouldn't want to go down that path again. For starters, PPC emulation, even with the fastest Athlon 64/EM64T processors would be slower than the fastest G4 processors! So what would the point of that be?

And it would be even longer before the emulation reaches current G5 speeds. By then, IBM would have already released a much faster G5 - or even the G6 chip!

And also, it would take anywhere from months to years before the vendors of professional applications(Adobe, Microsoft, Macromedia, even Apple itself) would release x86-compatible versions of their software. Sure, most people say that they "just need to recompile it for x86" but how long did it take before OS X-compatible versions of OS 9 software (Quark I am looking at you) came out, even though they both used Carbon?

That's why I highly doubt apple will move away from the G5 to an Intel-based x86 processor. Switching to x86 would put Apple back a few years...and lose the ground that they had already mostly made up to Intel and AMD...and I highly doubt any sane company would want to do that.

Re:Intel and 64-bit by homer+dulu · 2005-05-24 16:33 · Score: 1

In regards to laptops, by the time Apple and the other developers release x86 versions of their software, there would most likely be a G5 (or G6) Powerbook available by then.

And using Itanium? Sounds like a great idea. Except that the G5 and G6 chips will be much much much cheaper than the Itanium. So it's pointless if they want to build more affordable Macs.

The writing was on the wall. by Alpha_Traveller · 2005-05-24 15:58 · Score: 1

Bottom line the writing was on the wall that Apple would head to Intel to solve a basic problem:

The laptop line can't grow without the G5 getting smaller and (mostly) heat-free.

Apple does a long-anticipated end run around the problem of the G5 heat problem by allowing Intel Chips to finally run the OS. If Intel can make a cool-running but fast laptop-chip (something much better than the Centrino, which should be possible if they use something of Apple's and Motorola's methods) Apple will be ahead of the game. They can continue to have G5's, and continue to have them be better. But this releases the Laptop line from a critical stress point.

Good job Apple. Go for it.

--
"Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)

Re:The writing was on the wall. by aristotle-dude · 2005-05-24 17:20 · Score: 1

So tell us how to run all that G4 and G5 optimized software at native speed on your mythical hardware and OS.
It's the software dummy. Porting the OS will not make the software run.

What are you going to do with it? Play with the dock? Use Safari?

Jcr is or was an Apple employee and he said it's not going to happen.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.

Apple should do it by kitzilla · 2005-05-25 08:13 · Score: 1

I've been thinking about this for a few days.

Maybe there's finally something to this hoary old rumor -- and it's not just an Intel chip for some new non-PC appliance.

Maybe Apple has decided this is the Perfect Moment (tm) to leverage all the R&D they've put into OS X. They could do this, without destroying PPC hardware sales, by incorporating Transitive Technologies "Dynamite" technology -- if it works as rumored.

IF (a big "if") Dynamite really will run PPC binaries on x86 at something like 80% native speeds, then they could release OS X for PC into the wild without making third-party developers' heads explode. Apple can then pitch the ultimate switch: liberate yourselves from Windows on your existing hardware. Get OS X goodness right now without buying new application software or selling your Dell. You needn't suffer the relative inconvenience of Linux. Run practically anything and say goodbye to Windows malware (yeah, I know, Mac malware would follow).

"Near native" speeds will never do for true Mac partisans. They'll keep buying Apple PPC hardware, which will move upstream as performance gear. But 80% performance would be a great trade for those who don't know any better or who want off Windows right away.

Assuming Mac binaries will run passibly on OS X for PC, there will be little reason for Mac developers to port. And that's cool: Apple will suggest that if you love your new Mac experience, buy Apple hardware next time and run all the programs you're buying for OS X PC your speedy new cell processor or G5-based Powermac.

Meantime, Apple goes after Dell's price point with a new line of slick-looking, inexpensive x86 PCs. They'd be cheaper than the existing iBook/eMac/iBook boxes. All come with an integral iPod dock.

Apple gets to have most of its cake and eat it, too.

Just an idea. If I were Steve Jobs, I'd go ahead.

--
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.

Could be Itanium by Junks+Jerzey · 2005-05-26 01:35 · Score: 1

If Apple is looking high-end, Itanium is a much better option than x86. Intel poured a lot of money into its development, and I'm sure they'd love to have an outlet for them. I could see them giving Apple a sweet deal, as the Itanium is on the verge of a total failure otherwise.

920 comments