PDA

View Full Version : Apple switching to Intel?


Aooogah
05-23-2005, 03:30 PM
ZDNet (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5716580.html)

I wonder if this means that the PowerPC will only be used in consoles and perhaps IBM computers now? That would be a shame, the PowerPC was definitely more powerful than the Pentium. Not only that but most Apple software is optimized for the PowerPC. Is Apple sacrificing perfomance for compatibility?

opus13
05-23-2005, 04:29 PM
considering apples habit of

1. a big processor release
2. a jump to the head of the market
3. followed by nothing for a couple years
4. a reliable decline to the bottom (at the same price)
5. rinse, repeat

it could be a good thing. then again, they would really be just another dell competitor with a pretty case and a laughable price tag. with ibm handling their processors, they get played second fiddle to AMD because of their infitismal market share. they might fare better joinging the commodity fray if they can figure out how to lock their applications to their own specific brand of x86, without some crafty individuals releasing ilife/shake/logic on a bsd varient.

gginther
05-23-2005, 04:40 PM
heh heh. this rumor has been around for years, it's funny to see how many people still bite on it.

richcz3
05-23-2005, 05:07 PM
The Wall Street Journal is not some pitiful rumor rag that bases it's news on analyst speculation. I subscribe to the WSJ online and their tech writers are pretty straight shooters albeit not on the cutting edge all the time.

Most of the rumors from the past came from market analyst speculation opinion, which was then boiled to steam on forums (like this one). The last bruhaha was just before Apple ditched Motorola. Now with IBM falling far behind on its 3 GHz roadmap, one has to wonder how long Jobs is willing face up to a new market of dual core chips. IBM and Apple haven't done any mutual press releases singing each others praises.
That being written, sacking up with Intel would probably shake the hallowed grounds of the Macinite faithful.

Intel Spokesman: Search your feelings Steve. You know it to be true.
In order to give Apple (Padme) life Steve, you must become a Intel agent (Sith lord). Steve..as Apple slowly turns into a regular PC vendor......NOOOooooooooooooooooooooo!

harlan_hill
05-23-2005, 06:14 PM
True; this rumor has reared it's head numerous times in the past, but it's being reported a little differently this time.

Reuters, WSJ, Yahoo, CNet, AP, are all covering the story adding a hint of relevance to the rumor this time around. It's also interesting to note that this rumor is coming out the day after Jobs attended the "D: All things Digital Conference" put on by the WSJ.

Interesting - none the less.

js33
05-23-2005, 11:15 PM
Apple should do it. Of course AMD chips may be a better fit than Intel right now. Then Apple could license OSX to the PC world and they would have more money than they know what to do with. IBM seems focused more on game consoles now than Apple and Steve doesn't like being second fiddle.

Cheers,
JS

Beamtracer
05-23-2005, 11:15 PM
It could also be a ploy. Apple spreads rumor about talks with Intel to get a better deal with IBM. Before Apple decided to go with the IBM 'G5' processors, they had talks with Intel back then. I think they always talk with Intel before deciding on a new processor. It doesn't necessarily mean they'll switch.

If anything did happen, it wouldn't surface for some years because Apple has to plan these things years ahead. I think Apple signed a 5 year deal to get PowerPC (G5) processors from IBM, so it's probably time to plan ahead.

It would be a shame if Apple dropped PowerPC for x86. PowerPC is much faster than a lot of people think. Apple's main problem was getting slack software developers to optimize for PowerPC. However, Apple's own apps (which are usually highly optimized) are the fastest in their class (eg. Motion, DVD Studio Pro etc).

In 3D, Luxology (http://www.luxology.com/) will be the first company to design a renderer specifically for OS X, using all the modern compiling tools to optimize it, which is why I anticipate its release.

PowerPC processors also have advantages for laptop use. They draw less power than x86 (Intel) processors, which is why Apple laptops generally can run longer on batteries than similar Intel ones.

There are 2 manufacturers that supply processors to Apple: IBM and Freescale (formerly Motorola).

It would benefit Intel's profits if Apple switched. However, Intel users benefit from the existence of an alternate viable platform (PowerPC). It creates competition. If Intel controls everything it will just get lazy, which is why it also benefits Intel users to have AMD around for competition.

For many years now, deep inside Apple's labs, they've maintained a version of OS X that runs on x86 processors. Apps like Final Cut Pro have been running on x86 processors behind closed doors. If Apple wanted to, they could release OS X for x86 and sell it to everyone with an Intel box. I think Intel users would love it, but I can't see Apple ever doing this.

js33
05-23-2005, 11:54 PM
Well Apple recently got a patent for some kind of tablet computer. It could be talking to Intel about making a processor for that product. I also doubt Apple would switch their main machines to use Intel because the of the costly reengineering involved. Of course the main point is to kick IBM in the pants and to keep their options open. The G5 is going to look dated pretty fast once Intel and AMD dual core machines blanket the market. Especially the dual dual-core machines.

Cheers,
JS

richcz3
05-24-2005, 12:17 AM
Apples recent stock growth has been attributed to phenomenal iPod sales. That market can swing faster than consumers tastes for PC's. I am betting Jobs will play IBM against Intel, but in the end IBM just isn't producing. Say maybe its a foregone conclusion. Going to intel can either embolden Apple business to other markets or destroy its long fought stand alone, counter image.

Beamtracer
05-24-2005, 12:51 AM
The PowerPC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerpc) processor is a damn good processor.

Otherwise, why do you think Microsoft dumped Intel and is going with IBM's PowerPC processors in the next generation xbox? Now we will have all 3 game console makers, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft all on PowerPC processors.

As for the question of whether Apple purchases processors from Intel or AMD, well you could say that is technically correct because it already happens. There are already Intel and AMD processors inside Apple's products, controling functions such as Wi-Fi access and other things. It's just that the main processor is a PowerPC.

So this whole story could just boil down to Apple buying more Intel processors to put inside its iPod. It's probably a fuss over nothing.

richcz3
05-24-2005, 01:11 AM
OK Mr. Beam.
Knowing how passionate you are about Apple. If Apple went with Intel, Would you tear Steve Jobs poster from your wall? :D
sacrilege sacrilege burn burn burn.

Lorecanth
05-24-2005, 01:43 AM
The PowerPC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerpc) processor is a damn good processor.

Otherwise, why do you think Microsoft dumped Intel and is going with IBM's PowerPC processors in the next generation xbox? Now we will have all 3 game console makers, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft all on PowerPC processors.

As for the question of whether Apple purchases processors from Intel or AMD, well you could say that is technically correct because it already happens. There are already Intel and AMD processors inside Apple's products, controling functions such as Wi-Fi access and other things. It's just that the main processor is a PowerPC.

So this whole story could just boil down to Apple buying more Intel processors to put inside its iPod. It's probably a fuss over nothing.

Again with the heavy evangelism and lightness of facts. IBM designed individual chips for each console, and as far as sony's cell goes it's rather far from the power PC chip. The power 5 is indeed a good processor, but what I'm really hoping for is a cell enabled Mac.

Chaz
05-24-2005, 05:46 AM
OK Mr. Beam. Knowing how passionate you are about Apple. If Apple went with Intel, Would you tear Steve Jobs poster from your wall?

I don't think it's on his wall, I think it's hanging right over his bed. :eek:

In all seriousness, there's talk that OSX Server might come to x86 hardware in the near future. Among others, Dell is in talks with Apple looking for a replacement for Windows Server. Perhaps Apple is thinking about revamping their XServe line with lower cost Intel-based models.

mummey
05-24-2005, 06:47 AM
I don't think it's on his wall, I think it's hanging right over his bed. :eek:

In all seriousness, there's talk that OSX Server might come to x86 hardware in the near future. Among others, Dell is in talks with Apple looking for a replacement for Windows Server. Perhaps Apple is thinking about revamping their XServe line with lower cost Intel-based models.

Apple's RAID server already uses intel chips.

gelfie
05-24-2005, 07:13 AM
It's not going to happen.

The reason why is the mac developer community. Hell, the only reason the Carbon environment exists on OS X, is because the developers didn't want to have to recode their Applicaitons in Cocoa.

And even with carbon, it took the big guns (Adobe, Microsoft, etc) forever to release OS X native versions of their applications.

I'm sure they would just love to hear that, four years later, they have to do it all over again.

There would be a mutiny. Apple can not afford that. Not in such a short time frame.

Besides, there are a million and one reasons why Apple would be talking to Intel. News flash peeople: Intel make a hell of a lot more than CPUs. The network and RAID controllers in the XServes are Intel chips, for a start.

Lets not also forget that IBM is on a bit of a streak right now, whereas Intel is on a bit of a downer. IBM also has a lot going for it in terms of a technology "pool", as it were. The G5, being based on their Power4 server CPU. That leaves their Power5 as a future precursor to the G6. Not to mention their work on the Cell with Toshiba. IBM has access to a lot of cool stuff that could very easily trickle down into future products. What has Intel got by way of future gadgets? They're betting heavily on the x86, and their only attempt to move away from that architecture, the Itanmium, was not exactly a success.

ngrava
05-24-2005, 07:26 AM
And don't forget that OSX is really just NeXT's Open step OS which was built for the intel chip. Well, it eventually landed there at least. Does anyone remember that when the developer preview of Rhapsody was first released, it was only available for Intel machines? I know it's just a rumor but I've heard that Apple keeps a current build of OSX for Intel for debugging purpose. It's possible that it's also a "Just in case" build. ;)

I for one welcome Apple to use Itel chips. It will help reduce the costs of machines. It might even allow developers to port there software to Mac more easily. We can't loose really.

-=GB=-

P.S. If the Power PC uses less power then Intel chips, why is there no Power Book G5 and why does the Power Mac G5 need to be liquid cooled?

mummey
05-24-2005, 08:24 AM
Lets not also forget that IBM is on a bit of a streak right now, whereas Intel is on a bit of a downer. IBM also has a lot going for it in terms of a technology "pool", as it were. The G5, being based on their Power4 server CPU. That leaves their Power5 as a future precursor to the G6. Not to mention their work on the Cell with Toshiba. IBM has access to a lot of cool stuff that could very easily trickle down into future products. What has Intel got by way of future gadgets? They're betting heavily on the x86, and their only attempt to move away from that architecture, the Itanmium, was not exactly a success.

One could make the argument that Dual-Core Xeons are doing well and let's not forget the centrino chipset.

shingo
05-24-2005, 02:59 PM
Oh here you go again Beam.

The processor that is in the XBOX has nothign whatsoever in common with the PowerPC.

The fact is that the IBM processors are lagging behind and they seem unable to compete with the AMD dual Core technology, so Apple are being forced into this descision in order to remain cometitive.

The PowerPC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerpc) processor is a damn good processor.

Otherwise, why do you think Microsoft dumped Intel and is going with IBM's PowerPC processors in the next generation xbox? Now we will have all 3 game console makers, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft all on PowerPC processors.

As for the question of whether Apple purchases processors from Intel or AMD, well you could say that is technically correct because it already happens. There are already Intel and AMD processors inside Apple's products, controling functions such as Wi-Fi access and other things. It's just that the main processor is a PowerPC.

So this whole story could just boil down to Apple buying more Intel processors to put inside its iPod. It's probably a fuss over nothing.

gelfie
05-24-2005, 03:18 PM
Oh here you go again Beam.

The processor that is in the XBOX has nothign whatsoever in common with the PowerPC.

The fact is that the IBM processors are lagging behind and they seem unable to compete with the AMD dual Core technology, so Apple are being forced into this descision in order to remain cometitive.

The processor in the XBOX 360 has everything in common with the PowerPC. It *is* a PowerPC.

What it may not have a lot in common with is the G5.

Dual core G5's are on the horizon. Granted they were really needed in the last update. But they will come. IBM pioneered dual core technology in 2000 with the Power4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER4

They've got some issues with yields at the moment, there is no denying it. But its nowhere near serious enough for Apple to switch CPUs.

If they switch CPUs developers need to recode and recompile their apps and keep a PPC version of their apps up to date and shipping for at least several years in order to support current mac machines.

No developer is going to undertake this lightly. And emulation is not an option.

The fact is that Apple couldn't switch CPU architectures in the near term even if they wanted to.

Thalaxis
05-24-2005, 04:36 PM
PowerPC processors also have advantages for laptop use. They draw less power than x86 (Intel) processors, which is why Apple laptops generally can run longer on batteries than similar Intel ones.


This is just your usual mindless drivel... since the 970FX is actually nearly as hot as Prescott, and
thoroughly outclassed in anything vaguely resembling a mobile application by both Dothan and the
upcoming Turions.


The PowerPC processor is a damn good processor.


Considering how many processors that refers to, that statement is pretty much meaningless.

richz3,
The iMac mini is helping, also. Even though the G5 sales have been tailing off pretty sharply and the
XServes are barely moving, Apple's overall computer volumes have increased considerably. According
to Apple's SEC submission, the lion's share of their hardware sales have been (unsurprisingly) iPods and
iMac mini's.


And don't forget that OSX is really just NeXT's Open step OS which was built for the intel chip.


It was actually designed to be platform neutral, just like OSX. The amusing part came from the news
when they ported from the $10k NeXTStation to a $3k Dell box in about two days and found it to be
far more responsive.


The processor that is in the XBOX has nothign whatsoever in common with the PowerPC.


The processors in the XBox360 (the same as the main processor on the Cell) is the same ISA, but a
different vector instruction set. So they do have something in common -- and they're both based on an
older PPC core that's been extended, simplified, and tweaked for clock speed.


If they switch CPUs developers need to recode and recompile their apps and keep a PPC version of their apps up to date and shipping for at least several years in order to support current mac machines.


Ironically, it would require considerably less effort to port from OSX on PPC to OSX on x86 than it would
to port from Linux x86 to Windows.


The fact is that Apple couldn't switch CPU architectures in the near term even if they wanted to.


That's true. The iPod and iMac families don't need state of the art processors in order to continue to
succeed anyway, so realistically they really don't need to as long as the volumes on those continue to
grow.

IMO the funniest thing to see that probably won't happen would be for Apple to announce a Montvale-
based system for 2006. It would make for quite an impressive machine, assuming they could convince
Intel to price it affordably enough for them ;)

imashination
05-24-2005, 05:19 PM
Apple's main problem was getting slack software developers to optimize for PowerPC.

PowerPC processors also have advantages for laptop use. They draw less power than x86 (Intel) processors, which is why Apple laptops generally can run longer on batteries than similar Intel ones.

1) So every software developer is slacking then? Im sure this has nothing at all to do with the lack of development tools, nope, completely unrelated im certain. The mighty apple never falters.

2) So you haven't used a recent g4 laptop then? A current high end intel centrino is about twice as fast as the best G4 chip, yet you can use it on your lap. The fastest powerbook will burn off your balls in about 3 seconds.

If you're refering to the possibility of putting the G5 into a laptop, I don't see many x86 machines which come with water cooling as standard.

Apoclypse
05-24-2005, 07:12 PM
But why intel and not AMD. Is it because AMD is working with IBM on the cell? I would think if Apple wanted to go the x86 route they would go with AMD because in the end they might have more control than they would with intel. the AMD chips support 64 bit right out of the box and their dual core chips will probably run far cooler than intels. Ths is no a bash on intel just a wondering why Apple would go with intel over AMD.

You know if Apple takes out an X86 vesion of MacosX then goodbye windows. I doubt anyone would stick with windows if they had a choice of going with macosx, I'd probably be the first in line infact I'm running pearpc right now.

Thalaxis
05-24-2005, 07:21 PM
But why intel and not AMD. Is it because AMD is working with IBM on the cell? I would think if Apple wanted to go the x86 route they would go with AMD because in the end they might have more control than they would with intel. the AMD chips support 64 bit right out of the box and their dual core chips will probably run far cooler than intels. Ths is no a bash on intel just a wondering why Apple would go with intel over AMD.


Most likely because it has nothing to do with x86. It's actually more likely that Apple's interest is in the
XScale than in any x86 processor, but there is a remote chance that they're going after one of the
next-generation Itanium products.


You know if Apple takes out an X86 vesion of MacosX then goodbye windows. I doubt anyone would stick with windows if they had a choice of going with macosx, I'd probably be the first in line infact I'm running pearpc right now.

That's highly unlikely. It's very likely that OSX on x86 would be extremely successful, the but the odds of
actually taking Windows out of the market are nearly nil.

Simon Wicker
05-24-2005, 07:36 PM
1) So every software developer is slacking then? Im sure this has nothing at all to do with the lack of development tools, nope, completely unrelated im certain. The mighty apple never falters.

Xcode is completely free with every single boxed version of os X and has been since its introduction. the question is whether or not developers wish to switch to using the apple tools to develop for macos or stick with what they currently have.

cheers, simon w.

richcz3
05-24-2005, 07:55 PM
That's highly unlikely. It's very likely that OSX on x86 would be extremely successful, the but the odds of
actually taking Windows out of the market are nearly nil.
I believe that to be correct for a number of reasons. Most of them just plain practical.
The problem with ports is that history hasn't played kindly with them. BeOS and Amiga for starters.
The more I read these posts, the more I suggest Jobs steer clear of the x86 mine field. If not handled right, it could turn into Apples biggest dissaster scenario.

Thalaxis
05-24-2005, 08:58 PM
I believe that to be correct for a number of reasons. Most of them just plain practical.
The problem with ports is that history hasn't played kindly with them. BeOS and Amiga for starters.
The more I read these posts, the more I suggest Jobs steer clear of the x86 mine field. If not handled right, it could turn into Apples biggest dissaster scenario.

It would depend on Apple. BeOS was dead before it started, due to some very poor decisions early on,
like not supporting IDE in its first x86 release. That was simple stupidity.

However, it could have been very successful, and with the PR problems MS has right now, it's a great
opportunity for Apple to ride the Linux wave as it were, since OSX already has what Linux lacks most
for the consumer market: a coherent and comprehensive GUI.

(Yes, there are coherent GUI's for Linux, but comprehensive they're not.)

shingo
05-24-2005, 09:13 PM
That's even less likely than Appple going x86. There are far more software vendors inveted in Windows that Apple, and that will continue for a while yet, no matter what happens.

Seriosuly, I think OSX is superb, but apart from Apple themselves, you could count the number of significant software vendors that are keeping OSX viable on one hand.

But why intel and not AMD. Is it because AMD is working with IBM on the cell? I would think if Apple wanted to go the x86 route they would go with AMD because in the end they might have more control than they would with intel. the AMD chips support 64 bit right out of the box and their dual core chips will probably run far cooler than intels. Ths is no a bash on intel just a wondering why Apple would go with intel over AMD.

You know if Apple takes out an X86 vesion of MacosX then goodbye windows. I doubt anyone would stick with windows if they had a choice of going with macosx, I'd probably be the first in line infact I'm running pearpc right now.

beaker
05-24-2005, 09:14 PM
Besides, there are a million and one reasons why Apple would be talking to Intel. News flash peeople: Intel make a hell of a lot more than CPUs. The network and RAID controllers in the XServes are Intel chips, for a start.Yup, exactly. Anyone ever heard of PCI-Express? That would require an intel license/chip in order to use in a mac. They are a little long overdue too.

hmurchison
05-24-2005, 09:43 PM
I don't know why these rumors keep popping up. OS X could be run on a PC but Apple simply wouldn't have the resources to make sure they had device drivers. It's hard enough to find some dd that work in OSX PPC let alone adding another strain.

After moving from 68k chips to PPC and then from OS9 to OS X I don't think Apple better expect developers and consumers to make yet another transition and one that will bear little fruit.

BigJay
05-25-2005, 12:04 AM
Device drivers are not a problem for apple. they are as hardware and software vender so they only need the drivers for the parts that they install.


I just read this on register.co.uk
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/23/why_apple_wont_embrace_intel/

I think IBM straining to get chips out to Xbox 360, PS3 and Revolution (when did this happen, they win Every way) has them putting Apple as a second thought.

In any case I don't think they Apple is on the ropes yet that they need to switch to x86. Besides I agree with everyone who has said they would go to AMD since there may be more room there for them to influence what instructions get added to the next processors.

Thalaxis
05-25-2005, 12:07 AM
Yup, exactly. Anyone ever heard of PCI-Express? That would require an intel license/chip in order to use in a mac. They are a little long overdue too.

No, that's PCI-X, not PCI-Express. PCI-Express is an open standard supported by the PCI
SIG. PCI-X is not likely to become all that wide an industry standard, simply because it's an
in-house Intel spec, and this time, there are more than one alternative (the most successful
alternative so far is HyperTransport, or whatever they're calling it today ;)).

Thalaxis
05-25-2005, 12:42 AM
Device drivers are not a problem for apple. they are as hardware and software vender so they only need the drivers for the parts that they install.


The difficulties they had with OpenGL drivers when OSX launched make it quite clear
that they do have to deal with drivers. Just the level of effort ATI and nVidia have
dedicated to drivers should evidence enough of the fact that good drivers aren't easy to
develop.


I just read this on register.co.uk
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/23/why_apple_wont_embrace_intel/


That was pretty amusing. TheReg usually is :)


I think IBM straining to get chips out to Xbox 360, PS3 and Revolution (when did this happen, they win Every way) has them putting Apple as a second thought.


The GameCube has a custom PPC made by IBM in it also, so that wasn't news. IBM's been
losing a LOT of money in semiconductors, because their fabs have been very underutilized.
They lost a couple of large contracts with Xilinx and nVidia, which probably didn't help,
and it costs a lot of money to let a fab sit idle. Even selling processors at a small loss
would be better than letting the fab sit idle. And also their specialty is custom processor
design, not something Intel's into. Nor AMD, for that matter. So they undercut Intel by
offering MS a customized, low-cost processor, amortize development costs by using the
same core for both the PS3 and the XBox360, and lose millions of dollars less the next
year after the two consoles launch.


In any case I don't think they Apple is on the ropes yet that they need to switch to x86. Besides I agree with everyone who has said they would go to AMD since there may be more room there for them to influence what instructions get added to the next processors.

It depends on how you define "on the ropes". The powermac is struggling, but the iMac
mini isn't, and neither is the iPod. IMO had they implemented TiVo-like functionality in
the mini, TiVo would be filing for bankruptcy by now. Had they done that, I'd have bought
one of those instead of a TiVo system.

But in spite of the fact that the powermac sales are pretty far down, and xserve sales
are pretty much dead in the water, their computer volumes will probably reach a 5-year
record this year due to the mini, based on its sales so far. How that will affect revenues
is harder to predict, since the profit margins on each family are not public knowledge.

hmurchison
05-25-2005, 06:01 AM
But in spite of the fact that the powermac sales are pretty far down, and xserve sales
are pretty much dead in the water, their computer volumes will probably reach a 5-year
record this year due to the mini, based on its sales so far. How that will affect revenues
is harder to predict, since the profit margins on each family are not public knowledge.

Spot on. I sell to SMB and I can testify to the fact that the latest round of Powermacs haven't caused a stir. Tiger hasn't really even made many waves.
Xserves are slow and the need to spend $100 and add a video card have hurt sales to markets where they need every bit of expansion. Plus Apple has little applications that would require a Xserve so basically they are purchased as adjuncts to other servers. Apple needs to decide on if they want to be a player in SMB-Enterprise. If so they need a biz level office suite, Collaboration/Groupware, more Server tools and more. The current "hey buy and Xserve and everything will be fine" is not working. Geez I never thought i'd say this but if it wasn't for the iPod Apple would be back in the dark days.

policarpo
05-25-2005, 06:59 AM
I am just depressed at the moment, because my Dual G5 2.5 with 4GB of RAM is slower than my Dual Xeon 3.06 with 2GB of RAM.

The same 600 frame animation in C4D took 4 minutes longer to render on the Mac...those 4 minutes=getting the sequence into AE and composited and color corrected. :(

I thought the G5 was a speed demon. What the heck gives?

Ho hum...I love Apple...but they have to get a grip...they have great apps...but come on...catch up in the 3D world already. Yeesh!

DevilHacker
05-25-2005, 12:23 PM
You know if Apple takes out an X86 vesion of MacosX then goodbye windows. I doubt anyone would stick with windows if they had a choice of going with macosx, I'd probably be the first in line infact I'm running pearpc right now.

Untrue.
I know that most people who have tried the MacOS (including myself) just donít like it, and will stick with windows. The problem isnít the speed and extremely high price that bothers most, itís the OS!

JDex
05-25-2005, 12:59 PM
Untrue.
I know that most people who have tried the MacOS (including myself) just donít like it, and will stick with windows. The problem isnít the speed and extremely high price that bothers most, itís the OS!

:rolleyes:

Actually it's quite the opposite situation from just about everyone I know.

beaker
05-25-2005, 01:18 PM
Yea, paying that $129 for osx just breaks the bank. :)

martinw
05-25-2005, 02:04 PM
It would be a shame if Apple dropped PowerPC for x86. PowerPC is much faster than a lot of people think. Apple's main problem was getting slack software developers to optimize for PowerPC.


You have to look at it from the developer side. It's a lot of work to optimize code for one specific platform. Why should developers spend a bunch of time optimizing for one particular architecture, which is likely a minority of their sales, when that time could also be put to use in adding features, fixing bugs etc? Everything is a tradeoff, and time spent recoding to optimize for one platform is time not spent on other stuff. Not a question of being slack, just a question of priorities.

PPC is really fast at some things. However it just happens that there are certain common operations that perform reasonably fast on x86 but are really slow on PPC (eg floating divide, memory access.) The real hope is that future revisions of the PPC and Mac architecture address these issues and then everyone benefits.

DigiLusionist
05-25-2005, 05:11 PM
JDex, that may be the case with those you know, but not with those I know. Like DevilHacker, I would never switch to Mac OS. It has workflow quirks that annoy me, too.


And, no, BigJay. In response to what you've posted below, the OS is the problem. I use both OSs and I prefer to work in the Windows environment. Your sweeping statement is not valid.

BigJay
05-25-2005, 05:14 PM
Don't get me started on the lack of video cards in the xserve. We thought OK we can SSH into it and all is good. Those things sometimes needs someone right in front of it to kick it in the a!!. We finally broke down and purchased a video card. So much for headless xserves.

hell maybe Apple went to Intel to see about integrating their graphic chipset into the mobo.

Thalaxis: What I mean about device drivers and any hardware related development is that Apple can choose the hardware then make the drivers. I never said they where good drivers :) just that they can focus their efforts to get something that would work in some form like we have now with OpenGL.

You can turn a mini into a tivo with the right parts. there are usb devices to bring TV shows into the computer. I forgot their name but gives you tivo ability with pc or mac.

On the ropes means loosing money and need to change the situation. With ipod and all the other new things out I am sure they can weather the lack of processor improvements till they get it worked out.

Apple will have to make a new technology to make more money. The ipod is a perfect example. Maybe they will go the iTablet route and make it all solidstate with a blue tooth external CD/DVD drive. Apple seems to find existing technology and present it in novel ways.

BigJay
05-25-2005, 05:38 PM
The problem is not the OS when it comes to switching platforms. If it was then everyone would of switched to mac long ago. People need SOFTWARE not an os. An OS is simply a way to get to my software. that's it. no more.... wait there is more. they want to get to their files.

Really all people want is a way to run the stuff they need when they need to and be able to retreive anything they save. They don't EVER want to think about corrupt anything, lack of memory, disk space issues or anything else but what they got to do.

Developers want as many bells and whistles as they can get for free to integrate into their software.

I've had to tech alot of Mac users to use PCs and PC users to use Macs and both hated the other one and that is just the way it is, So in the end I think PC users will remain PC users and Mac users will remain Mac users. I use both and really I don't miss either one when I am on the other. I DO miss Photoshop, Lightwave and Final Cut Pro.

Thalaxis
05-25-2005, 06:25 PM
Don't get me started on the lack of video cards in the xserve. We thought OK we can SSH into it and all is good. Those things sometimes needs someone right in front of it to kick it in the a!!. We finally broke down and purchased a video card. So much for headless xserves.


That's probably why most servers have cheap integrated graphics adapters, just sufficient for basic
VGA :)


Thalaxis: What I mean about device drivers and any hardware related development is that Apple can choose the hardware then make the drivers. I never said they where good drivers :) just that they can focus their efforts to get something that would work in some form like we have now with OpenGL.


That's not as much of a win as it sounds. Microsoft doesn't write most of the drivers for Windows, the
majority of them come from the hardware vendors. That Apple is writing their own drives is probably
one of the reasons that they still don't have a fully 64-bit OS on the market. They probably just haven't
gotten Quartz 64-bit-ized yet -- not a small task by any measure... and they still have to support several
graphics cards from nVidia and ATI, so they're not winning there, either.


You can turn a mini into a tivo with the right parts. there are usb devices to bring TV shows into the computer. I forgot their name but gives you tivo ability with pc or mac.


True, but had they shipped the machine configured that way, they could have made it cost less, added
a subscription fee for the service, and made a killing, and at the same time made some serious
headway into the living room market before the XBox360 and the PS3 start gunning for it.


On the ropes means loosing money and need to change the situation. With ipod and all the other new things out I am sure they can weather the lack of processor improvements till they get it worked out.


Of course, they could just morph into a consumer electronics company and stop worrying about
processors altogether ;)


Apple will have to make a new technology to make more money. The ipod is a perfect example. Maybe they will go the iTablet route and make it all solidstate with a blue tooth external CD/DVD drive. Apple seems to find existing technology and present it in novel ways.

The iPod demonstrates that they don't need to make new technology to make it successful. So does
the iMac mini. An iTablet would probably be a good idea, especially since MS has already gone to
great lengths to generate interest in it. And it's pretty clear that the biggest new segment in the PC
market is mobile, so there you go. :)

DevilHacker
05-25-2005, 07:13 PM
The iPod demonstrates that they don't need to make new technology to make it successful. So does the iMac mini.
Na, it just proves that people like things that are small and shiny, and are willing to pay more for them.
:D

Thalaxis
05-26-2005, 08:31 PM
Na, it just proves that people like things that are small and shiny, and are willing to pay more for them.
:D

Right, so in other words Apple could even buy iRiver MP3 players, put them in cute, shiny cases, and
sell them at a markup in order to make money ;)

richcz3
05-26-2005, 09:08 PM
The problem is not the OS when it comes to switching platforms. If it was then everyone would of switched to mac long ago. People need SOFTWARE not an os....
....There are far more software vendors inveted in Windows that Apple, and that will continue for a while yet, no matter what happens.
Seriosuly, I think OSX is superb, but apart from Apple themselves, you could count the number of significant software vendors that are keeping OSX viable on one hand.For me and most businesses it all boils down to developers. If you have two let alone one software product to choose from, the price points and features are less likely to be competative. For companies that support both Windows and the Mac. I am always reading about instability or perfomance deficiencies for the Mac. If Apple moved to the x86, I don't believe the developer issues would change much. It's not entirely unlike the browser market. Change is always a long fight and every inch is drawn out battle. example: Had AMD not won Microsofts native support for 64bit, AMDs market share could have been shaken down. Had IBM not thrown in the official internal support for Firefox, it may have stayed mired at 8-10% Once you get past the early Adoptors/Adapters, you have to win the minds of the average Joe.
Moving to the x86 architecture is not an easy win at any level.

Renderman_XSI
05-27-2005, 01:04 AM
Well Apple recently got a patent for some kind of tablet computer. It could be talking to Intel about making a processor for that product. I also doubt Apple would switch their main machines to use Intel because the of the costly reengineering involved. Of course the main point is to kick IBM in the pants and to keep their options open. The G5 is going to look dated pretty fast once Intel and AMD dual core machines blanket the market. Especially the dual dual-core machines.

Cheers,
JS

I honest, think the best processor for Apple would be the STI Cell,if they switch at all. forget the slow dual core Intel or AMD..Cell has 8 SPU and 1 PPE.

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=163106213

KayosIII
05-27-2005, 01:18 AM
I would like to BeOS revived ported to the CELL and with some decent Multimedia content production Apps....
That would be sweet.

js33
05-27-2005, 11:45 AM
I honest, think the best processor for Apple would be the STI Cell,if they switch at all. forget the slow dual core Intel or AMD
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=163106213

Well the Cell was mainly developed for game machines. So it's usefulness as a general PC has yet to be proven. Also there would likely be as much reengineering needed for Apple to use the Cell as there would for x86. We will see maybe on June 6th what Steve is thinking. :D

Cheers,
JS

Thalaxis
05-27-2005, 02:25 PM
Well the Cell was mainly developed for game machines. So it's usefulness as a general PC has yet to be proven. Also there would likely be as much reengineering needed for Apple to use the Cell as there would for x86. We will see maybe on June 6th what Steve is thinking. :D


Specifically, actually; not just mainly. The architecture itself isn't purely games oriented, but the designers
made some compromises that are good for gaming consoles but bad for other applications. The only
thing that would prevent Toshiba & Sony from developing an implementation of Cell that would be suitable
for other applications would be Toshiba and Sony. IBM says that they're not planning to do any of that,
surprisingly, though they said at the same time that they will help anyone who wants help in getting their
designs implemented in IBM's fabs.

CGTalk Moderation
05-27-2005, 02:25 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.