The value of Apple stock is due to iPod not Mac. There is a euphoria surrounding iPod. Unfortunately when, not if, a major competitor such as Sony puts together a viable competitor the stock may come crashing down. That said, stock price has little to do with Apple being an excellent company with excellent products.
Wrong. If Apple wanted DRM they could have simply implemented it on the motherboard. I suspect you have it wrong with respect to Intel as well, new DRM is probably implemented via a PCI chipset or some other motherboard component, not the CPU itself. The CPU's involvement is probably only a serial number of some sort, if that. The motherboard could have the serial number, Apple used to do this.
Possibly.
The other theory goes like this:
Jobs always wanted Mac OS X on Intel and that was always the plan, hence 5 years of OS X running secretly on Intel boxes.
Well that is a theory, albeit a poor one. Here is a more realistic one: As a business contingency, as a way to ensure that code remained portable, and as a way to improve QA and debugging Apple maintained an internal x86 build of Mac OS X. Much as Microsoft keeps building Windows internally on non-x86. This is simply good software development.
Those people who are enthusiastic about computing obviously care about what technologies are adopted and what aren't. This is a good thing.
Do you really think that computing would've advanced to what it is now if everyone in computing considered it "just a job"? While changes such as this are obviously dictated by markets and business relationships, progress isn't driven purely through capitalism (although it needs capitalism to enable it), but also through genuine enthusiasm.
Your comment is valid. As someone who has programmed IBM PC and Apple systems in assembly language (8086, 80386, 6502, 68000, PowerPC) I do value enthusiasm for technology. As someone who hires programmers I value those who have an inherent interest in programming, as opposed to those who are looking for a paycheck. However your comment is thoroughly misapplied to the GP post. That wasn't enthusiasm, that was fanboi'ism.
If the SPUs can be harnessed or even parts of/entire OS's rewritten to utilise the chip properly Cell could wipe the floor with anything Intel could come up with.
The SPUs are not for the OS, they are for high level libraries or apps. They are for highly specialized computationally intensive jobs. Maybe OpenGL could benefit but not the OS. FYI:
"Unlike existing SMP systems or multi-core chips, only the general purpose PowerPC core, is able to run a generic operating system, while the SPUs are specialized on running computational tasks. Porting Linux to run on Cells PowerPC core is a relatively easy task because of the similarities to existing platforms like IBM pSeries or Apple Power Macintosh, but does not give access to the enormous computing power of the SPUs.
Only the kernel is able to directly communicate with an SPU and therefore needs to abstract the hardware interface into system calls or device drivers. The most important functions of the user interface including loading a program binary into an SPU, transferring memory between an SPU program and a Linux user space application and synchronizing the execution. Other challenges are the integration of SPU program execution into existing tools like gdb or oprofile."
Why would it be cool for the kernel to consume a vital finite resource that should be left to user land apps or higher level system libraries? The kernel does not have any specialized computationally hard jobs to perform. Now if you wanted to argue that a system library like OpenGL should use the SPUs that would make much more sense.
What's the point of better architectures when Apple is moving to the brain-fucked x86 ISA? It's hard to be enthusiastic about computing when you know the beast just got a new lease on life.
Perhaps you are in the wrong business or hobby. If inconsequential details like what CPU is sitting at the heart of Apple's proprietary design causes you emotional distress you really need to reconsider your life. Assuming of course that you are not in advertising and needed the faux x86/PPC conflict. If so please continue with your distress, otherwise, have you considered forestry?
"Unlike existing SMP systems or multi-core chips, only the general purpose PowerPC core, is able to run a generic operating system, while the SPUs are specialized on running computational tasks. Porting Linux to run on Cells PowerPC core is a relatively easy task because of the similarities to existing platforms like IBM pSeries or Apple Power Macintosh, but does not give access to the enormous computing power of the SPUs.
Only the kernel is able to directly communicate with an SPU and therefore needs to abstract the hardware interface into system calls or device drivers. The most important functions of the user interface including loading a program binary into an SPU, transferring memory between an SPU program and a Linux user space application and synchronizing the execution. Other challenges are the integration of SPU program execution into existing tools like gdb or oprofile."
The same way it works in Switzerland, or the Caymans, or whereever it is that they take banking privacy seriously this decade.
No, that was previous decades, when money laundering and facilitating criminal/terrorist activities was considered quaint and harmless. It's a very different world this decade. Things are not as private or as anonymous as it used to be.
In other words, go ahead and open an "anonymous" account at such an institution. All you will really accomplish is that your file will be maintained by a 3-letter agency that is not the IRS.;-)
If we create legistlation that makes losing customer's personal information a criminal offense, then maybe these giant megalomerates will stop collecting (and abusing) it.
Regarding your collecting comment: just how is it inappropriate for your bank to have your name, address, SSN, and additional financial info like the accounts and mortgage you have with them?
My worry is that the move to x86 will only cause stability issues for the OS. This is from Apple's own transition doc.
That's PR spin, you missed the bait-and-switch. A vairable is passed by value in a register but arrays are passed by reference. PC instability is a result of the OS not the hardware. Take a look at OpenBSD for an example of x86 security and stability, www.openbsd.org.
Well they got up on stage and said "yes". Nothing has changed since yesterday. Why would Microsoft care what CPU proprietary Apple hardware uses? Mac OS X is not coming to a PC clone near you. Apple is a hardware company, they develop software to sell their hardware. To offer Mac OS X on a PC clone would be suicidal.
Why buy Mac? Same answer yesterday and today
on
Apple Switching to Intel
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If it runs the same processor as my $300 Dell, why should I go spend all the money and get a Mac? Just for the OS? I'm wondering.
And how is that any different from yesterday? Apple's OS and bundled software are the only reasons to buy a Mac, PowerPC or x86. Other than the rare zealot no one really cares what CPU is inside, many Mac users probably would be surprised to find out they had a "different" CPU. The whole PPC vs. x86 thing was just marketting BS(*), hopefully you already knew this.
(*) In general PPC offered a 25-30% advantage over an x86 of the same clock. This advantage was nullified by large clock discrepancy. Apple reacted to this by offering dual CPUs. This was a fine short term stop-gap measure but a pretty expensive long term one. There are a few applications out there that really benefit from a RISC architecture but they are not what normal users are running. If Apple decides to use 64-bit x86 then these apps will not suffer much, if at all. When you build your app for 64-bit x86 you get some architectural improvements, more registers for example.
PowerMac was only needed to distinguish 68K Macs from PPC, I believe there was a timeframe where both were available. With 68Ks being so long ago they could simply go back to plain Mac. Look at the mini, I expect that they will probably follow "Mac Mini" naming convention and the pro stuff will be "Mac ".
This is just a wild-ass guess but MacOS X should be 64-bit only. With the extra registers and other architectural improvements the transition from PPC to x86 would be much smoother.
However this is nothing new to long term Apple users, we already have our Parka's from when IBM was transformed from the "Satan" of the Apple universe into a partner. Keep in mind that unlike Intel, IBM was an actual competitor. Intel was merely a supplier to competitors, well, that and a convenient whipping boy for marketting material of questionably accuracy.
... That's where companies like Id Software come in, who spend all their time working on the technology and only a sliver on the story anymore....
Only part of id's business is games, the other part, maybe the biggest part, are game engines. That is why their game's can have rediculously high system requirements. Their games are partly engine technology demos, advertisements for their engine. By the time someone licenses the engine and adds an interesting world and story years have past and the necessary hardware is now common. If id took the time to create and interesting world and story it would delay the game and hurt the licensing side of the business. You really need some kind of game as a proof-of-concept to sell the engine.
3d immersive shooters have only really been around since Quake came out, for about a decade. Pretty much anything before Quake wasn't realized fully as games like Doom were missing the x/y/z.
That's an implementation detail of the engine. From a gamer's perspective Wolfenstein and Doom were 3D shooters. They were quite groundbreaking and immersive in their day on that old hardware. The true 3D nature of later games was an incremental improvement.
I'll take $30 for something that has a dead and irreplaceable battery. Although it would make a pretty snazzy paperweight.
Ignoring the fact that iPod batteries are replacable, when a hard-drive based iPod is no longer viable as a player due to the battery charge it is still quite useful as an external HD.
you know the world is coming to an end when the best golfer is black, the best rapper is white, apple goes to x86 and microsoft goes powerpc.
No, to use Apple terminology, "been there done that" . An alliance with Intel is less shocking than the alliance with IBM. How soon people forget that IBM was once the "Satan" of the Apple universe. IBM actually was a competitor unlike Intel who merely supplies competitors.
As for as MS going PowerPC, well, "been there done that" again. Windows NT 4's retail CD has x86, MIPS, Alpha, and PowerPC binaries. I remember Byte magazine comparing WinNT4 dual PPC 604s against WinNT4 dual pentiums. The verdict, dual PPC scaled better under WinNT4. The only problem was no one cared, Alpha had the performance, Intel had the price, unless you could dual boot the box into WinNT4 or MacOS there was no real point to PPC.
Don't be rediculous. Apple has a history of going into business with arch rivals, be they actual or perceived. IBM was a real rival, IBM once "enjoyed" the position of "Satan" in the Apple universe. Then the Universe turned upside down and Apple partnered with IBM, it was quite Orwellian. So now if, and that is a pretty big if, Apple partners with Intel, a perceived rival rather than an actual one - Intel does not sell computers or operating systems unlike IBM, we have yet another swapping of enemies and allies, again quite Orwellian.
Personally I doubt it will happen, Intel sells many chips that are not CPUs. Although for low-end models like the Mini where people will probably not buy much software and pretty much stick to the bundled software I supposed it could work. It would not be as smooth as 68K -> PPC, x86 and PPC are too close performance-wise for effective emulation.
It's entirely conceivable that either Intel will create a new PPC chip
That's another more realistic possibility. Remember the original PowerPC slogan, twice the performance for half the price. Neither happened of course but it was not so much of failure on the PPC side but one of unexpected miracles on the x86 side. No one expected Intel would be able to get x86 performance to where it is today, they are miracle workers in some respect. If they can apply the same sort of resources to desktop PPC we might see some amazing things. Unfortunately IBM seems more interested in high end workstations and such and Motorola is more interested in embedded. Maybe it makes sense to add Intel to the PowerPC fammily to get some desktop attention.
There is more to being an IBM PC Compatible than using an x86 CPU. Apple could basically take their current proprietary designs and replace the CPU, leave everything else as is as much as possible. It makes no difference for them, the only OS they need to worry about is their own. As a matter of fact, doing anything else would be insane. They would destroy their business if they built yet another PC clone. Keep in mind that they are a hardware company, their excellent software is merely the incentive to buy their expensive hardware, Mac Mini not withstanding.
Slashdot Mirror
The value of Apple stock is due to iPod not Mac. There is a euphoria surrounding iPod. Unfortunately when, not if, a major competitor such as Sony puts together a viable competitor the stock may come crashing down. That said, stock price has little to do with Apple being an excellent company with excellent products.
Wrong. If Apple wanted DRM they could have simply implemented it on the motherboard. I suspect you have it wrong with respect to Intel as well, new DRM is probably implemented via a PCI chipset or some other motherboard component, not the CPU itself. The CPU's involvement is probably only a serial number of some sort, if that. The motherboard could have the serial number, Apple used to do this.
Possibly. The other theory goes like this: Jobs always wanted Mac OS X on Intel and that was always the plan, hence 5 years of OS X running secretly on Intel boxes.
Well that is a theory, albeit a poor one. Here is a more realistic one: As a business contingency, as a way to ensure that code remained portable, and as a way to improve QA and debugging Apple maintained an internal x86 build of Mac OS X. Much as Microsoft keeps building Windows internally on non-x86. This is simply good software development.
Those people who are enthusiastic about computing obviously care about what technologies are adopted and what aren't. This is a good thing. Do you really think that computing would've advanced to what it is now if everyone in computing considered it "just a job"? While changes such as this are obviously dictated by markets and business relationships, progress isn't driven purely through capitalism (although it needs capitalism to enable it), but also through genuine enthusiasm.
Your comment is valid. As someone who has programmed IBM PC and Apple systems in assembly language (8086, 80386, 6502, 68000, PowerPC) I do value enthusiasm for technology. As someone who hires programmers I value those who have an inherent interest in programming, as opposed to those who are looking for a paycheck. However your comment is thoroughly misapplied to the GP post. That wasn't enthusiasm, that was fanboi'ism.
If the SPUs can be harnessed or even parts of/entire OS's rewritten to utilise the chip properly Cell could wipe the floor with anything Intel could come up with.
t ails.html?talkid=156
The SPUs are not for the OS, they are for high level libraries or apps. They are for highly specialized computationally intensive jobs. Maybe OpenGL could benefit but not the OS. FYI:
"Unlike existing SMP systems or multi-core chips, only the general purpose PowerPC core, is able to run a generic operating system, while the SPUs are specialized on running computational tasks. Porting Linux to run on Cells PowerPC core is a relatively easy task because of the similarities to existing platforms like IBM pSeries or Apple Power Macintosh, but does not give access to the enormous computing power of the SPUs. Only the kernel is able to directly communicate with an SPU and therefore needs to abstract the hardware interface into system calls or device drivers. The most important functions of the user interface including loading a program binary into an SPU, transferring memory between an SPU program and a Linux user space application and synchronizing the execution. Other challenges are the integration of SPU program execution into existing tools like gdb or oprofile."
http://www.linuxtag.org/typo3site/freecongress-de
Why would it be cool for the kernel to consume a vital finite resource that should be left to user land apps or higher level system libraries? The kernel does not have any specialized computationally hard jobs to perform. Now if you wanted to argue that a system library like OpenGL should use the SPUs that would make much more sense.
What's the point of better architectures when Apple is moving to the brain-fucked x86 ISA? It's hard to be enthusiastic about computing when you know the beast just got a new lease on life.
Perhaps you are in the wrong business or hobby. If inconsequential details like what CPU is sitting at the heart of Apple's proprietary design causes you emotional distress you really need to reconsider your life. Assuming of course that you are not in advertising and needed the faux x86/PPC conflict. If so please continue with your distress, otherwise, have you considered forestry?
http://data2.itc.nps.gov/digest/usajobs.cfm
"Unlike existing SMP systems or multi-core chips, only the general purpose PowerPC core, is able to run a generic operating system, while the SPUs are specialized on running computational tasks. Porting Linux to run on Cells PowerPC core is a relatively easy task because of the similarities to existing platforms like IBM pSeries or Apple Power Macintosh, but does not give access to the enormous computing power of the SPUs.
Only the kernel is able to directly communicate with an SPU and therefore needs to abstract the hardware interface into system calls or device drivers. The most important functions of the user interface including loading a program binary into an SPU, transferring memory between an SPU program and a Linux user space application and synchronizing the execution. Other challenges are the integration of SPU program execution into existing tools like gdb or oprofile."
The same way it works in Switzerland, or the Caymans, or whereever it is that they take banking privacy seriously this decade.
;-)
No, that was previous decades, when money laundering and facilitating criminal/terrorist activities was considered quaint and harmless. It's a very different world this decade. Things are not as private or as anonymous as it used to be.
In other words, go ahead and open an "anonymous" account at such an institution. All you will really accomplish is that your file will be maintained by a 3-letter agency that is not the IRS.
If we create legistlation that makes losing customer's personal information a criminal offense, then maybe these giant megalomerates will stop collecting (and abusing) it.
Regarding your collecting comment: just how is it inappropriate for your bank to have your name, address, SSN, and additional financial info like the accounts and mortgage you have with them?
My worry is that the move to x86 will only cause stability issues for the OS. This is from Apple's own transition doc.
That's PR spin, you missed the bait-and-switch. A vairable is passed by value in a register but arrays are passed by reference. PC instability is a result of the OS not the hardware. Take a look at OpenBSD for an example of x86 security and stability, www.openbsd.org.
As a former Apple II user I find it reassuring and comfortable that IBM is once again the "bad guy". Apple is so Orwellian.
I thought we had always been at war with PowerPC?
You mean: "I thought we had always been at war with IBM?"
... This isn't a stock, off the shelf pentium 4 from my understanding ...
You misunderstand. The code conversion is done by software. For reference lookup FX32! for the Dec Alpha, JIT compilation, etc..
Will Microsoft support Apple hardware?
Well they got up on stage and said "yes". Nothing has changed since yesterday. Why would Microsoft care what CPU proprietary Apple hardware uses? Mac OS X is not coming to a PC clone near you. Apple is a hardware company, they develop software to sell their hardware. To offer Mac OS X on a PC clone would be suicidal.
If it runs the same processor as my $300 Dell, why should I go spend all the money and get a Mac? Just for the OS? I'm wondering.
And how is that any different from yesterday? Apple's OS and bundled software are the only reasons to buy a Mac, PowerPC or x86. Other than the rare zealot no one really cares what CPU is inside, many Mac users probably would be surprised to find out they had a "different" CPU. The whole PPC vs. x86 thing was just marketting BS(*), hopefully you already knew this.
(*) In general PPC offered a 25-30% advantage over an x86 of the same clock. This advantage was nullified by large clock discrepancy. Apple reacted to this by offering dual CPUs. This was a fine short term stop-gap measure but a pretty expensive long term one. There are a few applications out there that really benefit from a RISC architecture but they are not what normal users are running. If Apple decides to use 64-bit x86 then these apps will not suffer much, if at all. When you build your app for 64-bit x86 you get some architectural improvements, more registers for example.
PowerMac was only needed to distinguish 68K Macs from PPC, I believe there was a timeframe where both were available. With 68Ks being so long ago they could simply go back to plain Mac. Look at the mini, I expect that they will probably follow "Mac Mini" naming convention and the pro stuff will be "Mac ".
I hope Apple supports the best x86 chips, AMD64.
This is just a wild-ass guess but MacOS X should be 64-bit only. With the extra registers and other architectural improvements the transition from PPC to x86 would be much smoother.
Man, it is cold in hell today.
However this is nothing new to long term Apple users, we already have our Parka's from when IBM was transformed from the "Satan" of the Apple universe into a partner. Keep in mind that unlike Intel, IBM was an actual competitor. Intel was merely a supplier to competitors, well, that and a convenient whipping boy for marketting material of questionably accuracy.
... That's where companies like Id Software come in, who spend all their time working on the technology and only a sliver on the story anymore. ...
Only part of id's business is games, the other part, maybe the biggest part, are game engines. That is why their game's can have rediculously high system requirements. Their games are partly engine technology demos, advertisements for their engine. By the time someone licenses the engine and adds an interesting world and story years have past and the necessary hardware is now common. If id took the time to create and interesting world and story it would delay the game and hurt the licensing side of the business. You really need some kind of game as a proof-of-concept to sell the engine.
3d immersive shooters have only really been around since Quake came out, for about a decade. Pretty much anything before Quake wasn't realized fully as games like Doom were missing the x/y/z.
That's an implementation detail of the engine. From a gamer's perspective Wolfenstein and Doom were 3D shooters. They were quite groundbreaking and immersive in their day on that old hardware. The true 3D nature of later games was an incremental improvement.
I'll take $30 for something that has a dead and irreplaceable battery. Although it would make a pretty snazzy paperweight.
Ignoring the fact that iPod batteries are replacable, when a hard-drive based iPod is no longer viable as a player due to the battery charge it is still quite useful as an external HD.
you know the world is coming to an end when the best golfer is black, the best rapper is white, apple goes to x86 and microsoft goes powerpc.
No, to use Apple terminology, "been there done that" . An alliance with Intel is less shocking than the alliance with IBM. How soon people forget that IBM was once the "Satan" of the Apple universe. IBM actually was a competitor unlike Intel who merely supplies competitors.
As for as MS going PowerPC, well, "been there done that" again. Windows NT 4's retail CD has x86, MIPS, Alpha, and PowerPC binaries. I remember Byte magazine comparing WinNT4 dual PPC 604s against WinNT4 dual pentiums. The verdict, dual PPC scaled better under WinNT4. The only problem was no one cared, Alpha had the performance, Intel had the price, unless you could dual boot the box into WinNT4 or MacOS there was no real point to PPC.
Reading this news made me physically ill.
Don't be rediculous. Apple has a history of going into business with arch rivals, be they actual or perceived. IBM was a real rival, IBM once "enjoyed" the position of "Satan" in the Apple universe. Then the Universe turned upside down and Apple partnered with IBM, it was quite Orwellian. So now if, and that is a pretty big if, Apple partners with Intel, a perceived rival rather than an actual one - Intel does not sell computers or operating systems unlike IBM, we have yet another swapping of enemies and allies, again quite Orwellian.
Personally I doubt it will happen, Intel sells many chips that are not CPUs. Although for low-end models like the Mini where people will probably not buy much software and pretty much stick to the bundled software I supposed it could work. It would not be as smooth as 68K -> PPC, x86 and PPC are too close performance-wise for effective emulation.
It's entirely conceivable that either Intel will create a new PPC chip
That's another more realistic possibility. Remember the original PowerPC slogan, twice the performance for half the price. Neither happened of course but it was not so much of failure on the PPC side but one of unexpected miracles on the x86 side. No one expected Intel would be able to get x86 performance to where it is today, they are miracle workers in some respect. If they can apply the same sort of resources to desktop PPC we might see some amazing things. Unfortunately IBM seems more interested in high end workstations and such and Motorola is more interested in embedded. Maybe it makes sense to add Intel to the PowerPC fammily to get some desktop attention.
There is more to being an IBM PC Compatible than using an x86 CPU. Apple could basically take their current proprietary designs and replace the CPU, leave everything else as is as much as possible. It makes no difference for them, the only OS they need to worry about is their own. As a matter of fact, doing anything else would be insane. They would destroy their business if they built yet another PC clone. Keep in mind that they are a hardware company, their excellent software is merely the incentive to buy their expensive hardware, Mac Mini not withstanding.