even MORE apple and AMD rumors

[beaker]

Speculation, but still interesting:
http://www.mosr.com/

[manuel]

AMD support is mentioned as a new feature in Jaguar on the apple website itself. It's near the bottom of the list:http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/compare.html

[Array]

hmmmm....i wonder if this has anything to do with the opteron's delay? it was supposed to be out allready according to the original schedual.

[parallax]

Well, Amd could mean anything, but then again, if its true,
i dont know what to think anymore.

[feefunk]

Originally posted by manuel
AMD support is mentioned as a new feature in Jaguar on the apple website itself. It's near the bottom of the list:http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/compare.html

sorry to burst the bubble... but Amd means (drum roll please) automount daemon (/usr/sbin/amd)


See this link (http://www.am-utils.org/) for more info.


:p



But I'd still love to see OS X run on AMD's 64 bit processors!

[Gentle Fury]

With all the rumors circulating about it already, you can pretty much rest assured that the Apple/AMD partnership will be big news come Tuesday.


wonderful, you know what this means right!??!?!??!?

If apple has anything to do with amd as more then just a supporter they are going to steal the archetecture (purchase the company/steal the tech, whats the dif, they still dont develop ANYTHING!!!!!!) then take it off the PC user market.......as always.

I know none of this has been said nor implied.......but that is apples "thing" and if they get more of a say in AMD.......buh-bye AMD pc's!!!!!

[undoz]

http://slashdot.org/articles/02/11/24/0556252.shtml?tid=142

[Array]

In a shift away from the slowing personal computer industry, where Intel and AMD have significant stakes, AMD said it would begin working with a wider variety of companies to sell its products

Apple anyone? :bounce:

[Per-Anders]

i would love to see this become reality... i love the apple interface... but hate the current performance/price ratio. apples with decent chips and motherboards would rock.

[Gentle Fury]

so much for a competitive industry!!!!!!!

this sux so bad!!!!!

why would AMD do this????

basically what that article is saying is that now that AMD is out of the running Intel can start charging whatever the hell they want and noone can say anything about it.

Once again apple bullies into the top again..........i hate this

why do they have to be #1 by default?????? why not just come up with a good product???????????

so does this mean that Nvidia is going to have to start supporting Intel??

or will they finallly start making a real CPU that works perfectly with their mobo????

If Nvidia announces that they are going to start making cpus this wont be such a downer.

[Array]

thats not at all what the article says, thats what slashdot says. read it carefully :)

[Gentle Fury]

Originally posted by Array
thats not at all what the article says, thats what slashdot says. read it carefully :)

i know, that was in response to the slashdot article :)

[beaker]

Gentle Fury:
What does that shift away from PC's have anything to do with Apple? Apple has no way of bullying AMD into doing anything. It just looks like they are trying to broaden the usage of their processor for imbedded chips, routers, pda, etc.. There is lots of money to be made in other sectors and it is much better to manufacture for more than just one market. Don't put all your chickens in one basket as my mom used to say. If the PC arena were to go totally bust then AMD would be SOL.

Just like many other processor makers out there, there is more to the world then just a personal computers. Ie: MIPS, Hitachi, IBM, Motorola, NEC, Ti, Sony, Fujitsu.

AMD's stock being at only $5 is a good reason for this move.

[Thalaxis]

That will never happen... it would be suicide.

Apple jumping on board and using Hammer is possible (at least technically, at any rate), but for AMD to become an Apple-only CPU supplier would mean the end of AMD, pretty much. They'd never be able to recoup their R&D costs if they cut their market down that much.

There is also no way that AMD would ABANDON the PC market... there's too much money in it. What they're doing is changing strategies a bit. They're pushing the server market (high margins) and jumping into the 32-bit embedded market (volumes that dwarf even the massive x86 market volumes).

They're just diversifying; the fact that they also announced a Barton core Athlon with a 400 MHz FSB should be proof enough that they're not abandoning the PC market.

BTW, the Hammer delays had nothing to do with Apple -- even if they are planning on using Hammer processors, that wouldn't change the fact that AMD has been having a bit of trouble getting their .13 micron SoI fabs fully armed and operational. If there is any causal relationship there it would be the OTHER way.

Originally posted by Gentle Fury
wonderful, you know what this means right!??!?!??!?

If apple has anything to do with amd as more then just a supporter they are going to steal the archetecture (purchase the company/steal the tech, whats the dif, they still dont develop ANYTHING!!!!!!) then take it off the PC user market.......as always.

I know none of this has been said nor implied.......but that is apples "thing" and if they get more of a say in AMD.......buh-bye AMD pc's!!!!!

[minus]

It's no secret that AMD is huring financially.... and they are a very capable chip maker.... and Motorola has shown they can't really meet the needs of Apple....

BUT I think everyone is going to be really dissapointed when it's anounced AMD will be making PPC chips for Apple if anything instead of Apple running on X86 chips.

Course... I don't really know anything and would love to run Apple on X86 as much as the next guy.... but I just don't see this happening.

[minus]

Well....this line of thinking actually makes a little sense....*and* gets me excited! :)

Taken from http://www.macrumors.com/

What about rumors of OS X on Intel?

Marklar is even more of a going concern than ever. Contrary to circulating rumors, it is not meant to be a Power PC exit strategy. Rather, it is intended to be offered to X86 users when Apple sees market conditions being fit for it. What it means by this is regarding Intel's Lagrande technology, and Microsoft's Palladium technology. Apple intends on releasing OS X on Intel, when consumer dissatisfaction falls to an all time low for Microsoft when users become restricted to what they can do on their PC's due to Lagrande and Palladium. Likely it will be released in the event that Microsoft chooses to stop developing for the Mac platform altogether.

[dark_lotus]

Even if Apple were to use AMD/Intel chipsets - they would still use a closed architechture that would prevent OSX from running on PCs.

Besides which, i've heard that Apple are buying their next generation processors (1.8 GHZ) from IBM (which uses the same architechture as the PowerPC chipsets)

Add to that, Intel were sued, and apparently can no longer manufacture Itanium chips!

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by dark_lotus
Even if Apple were to use AMD/Intel chipsets - they would still use a closed architechture that would prevent OSX from running on PCs.

Besides which, i've heard that Apple are buying their next generation processors (1.8 GHZ) from IBM (which uses the same architechture as the PowerPC chipsets)

Add to that, Intel were sued, and apparently can no longer manufacture Itanium chips!

a) Probably right. It keeps the blessing/curse of a proprietary platform, but it also keeps them out of MS' playing field.

b) That's still uncertain, and the PPC970 isn't even close to the same architecture as the other currently available PPC processors.

c) I think they settled that case. They are making Itanium2's, and in fact Dell just announced that they will be reselling them.

It is, however, orthogonal -- the Itanium2 isn't particularly well suited to mainstream applications. (It's expensive, massive, power-hungry, and doesn't even run x86 code well.)

[beaker]

>>b) That's still uncertain, and the PPC970 isn't even close to the same architecture as the other currently available PPC processors.

It may be a different design, but it is stil binary compatible and it has altivec built in. So all the current apps will be able to run just fine on the processor. Only need to recompile if you want to access the 64 bit side of things, but the chip is 32 bit backward compatable so it will run current apps fine.

>>c) I think they settled that case. They are making Itanium2's, and in fact Dell just announced that they will be reselling them.

They did settle in a weird way, but intel is appealing the decision. Intel has to pay more depending on if they loose the appeal in the settlement. I guess since intel is appealing, the judge lifted the ban on selling the itanium.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-964009.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-961695.html

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by beaker
[B]
It may be a different design, but it is stil binary compatible and it has altivec built in. So all the current apps will be able to run just fine on the processor. Only need to recompile if you want to access the 64 bit side of things, but the chip is 32 bit backward compatable so it will run current apps fine.

They did settle in a weird way, but intel is appealing the decision. Intel has to pay more depending on if they loose the appeal in the settlement. I guess since intel is appealing, the judge lifted the ban on selling the itanium.


a) It implements the same instruction set (they can't use the name altivec because of trademark issues, but that didn't apply to the instruction set). The compatibility comes from the fact that the instruction set is the same -- but don't confuse that with architecture. The PPC970 is derived from a processor that was made for large-scale server loads, while the G4+ is derived from an embedded microcontroller. Even if the PPC970 shipped at the same speed as the G4+, it would likely deliver 2x the performance... if not more, even excluding altivec (not that I think that the 970 will ship at that slow a speed).

b) I seriously doubt that Intel will get off easy on this, but I am also quite certain they won't let Itanium drop, not after the amount of time, effort, and money that they and HP have poured into it over the years. The smart thing to do would be to simply license the required IP from Intergraph, but while I have confidence in their engineering and manufacturing teams, I have none in their management.

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.