Apple to switch from IBM to Intel -- to be announced Monday at WWDC
James L. Ryan
5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
--
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
Davoud
> <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
> 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
That doesn't bother me in the least. It's all about the operating
system, and I don't care what processor the Mac OS runs on.
Will this mean dual-boot systems -- Mac OS and Windoze? That might be
handy for those of us who have occasional need of a piece of Windoze
trashware.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
Kyle Jones
> James L. Ryan:
> > <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
> > 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
>
> That doesn't bother me in the least. It's all about the operating
> system, and I don't care what processor the Mac OS runs on.
It may turn out to be good news. If Apple is moving to x86-ish
chips (meaning AMD chips are also option), then the competition
in that space ought to keep chip prices down and some of the
savings might even reach the consumer.
On the other hand the smell of BS is pretty strong right now
given the years of "PowerPC > Pentium" propaganda we've had to
listen to.
Barry Margolin
wrote:
> James L. Ryan:
> > <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3
> > -
> > 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
>
> That doesn't bother me in the least. It's all about the operating
> system, and I don't care what processor the Mac OS runs on.
Will they provide a PPC emulator on the Intel systems, like they did
when they switched from 680x0 to PPC? If not, users who switch to the
new machines will have to get all new applications.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Richard Tomkins
systems in the next two years and then what.
I had quite an investment in 68K machinery at one time and got burnt on the
transition from that.
At least one thing is that the architecture of the Intel based Macintosh
won't be that of a PC, which is of course a 25 year old design.
I skipped all the OS 9 horse manure and just recently got back in cause I
liked the architecture.
Another thing that bothers me on this is the horse pucky that Intel puts
out.
I was at Toms Hardware reading up on Pentium M, aka Pentium III chips and
they in almost all instances outperformed Pentium 4 chips. These were 2GHz
chips doing work faster than 3 GHz chips. How's that one for inefficient
chip design. It needs a higher cock to calculate slower and burn more
energy, and you pay a higher price.
If they do this, it's a bad move.
Maybe we should have some industry consolidation here, make the Apple OS
Open Source and kill Apple. That'd be the end of Linux now wouldn't it?
"James L. Ryan" <talies...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BEC66504...@news.supernews.com...
>
<http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3
-
> 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
>
> --
> James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Davoud
> > That doesn't bother me in the least. It's all about the operating
> > system, and I don't care what processor the Mac OS runs on.
Barry Margolin replied:
> Will they provide a PPC emulator on the Intel systems, like they did
> when they switched from 680x0 to PPC? If not, users who switch to the
> new machines will have to get all new applications.
There are many questions to be answered. I didn't mean to trivialize
this; it's /big/ for Mac users. I'm wondering if my two new Dual G5's
will bring maybe $20 each at a garage sale...
Jerry Kindall
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <030620052327313644%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
> wrote:
>
> > James L. Ryan:
> > >
> > > <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006
> > > _3
> > > -
> > > 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
> >
> > That doesn't bother me in the least. It's all about the operating
> > system, and I don't care what processor the Mac OS runs on.
>
> Will they provide a PPC emulator on the Intel systems, like they did
> when they switched from 680x0 to PPC? If not, users who switch to the
> new machines will have to get all new applications.
The rumor is they'll start at the low end machines and move it up, but
what if they do it the other way around, and the first Power Mac with
an Intel processor has a G5 _and_ a dual-core Itanium or something?
--
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>
Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.
James L. Ryan
<42a12ff1$1...@spool9-west.superfeed.net>):
[commenting on the suspected switch by Apple from IBM to Intel chips.
> If they do this, they will end up twilighting us who have PowerPC based
> systems in the next two years and then what.
>
> I had quite an investment in 68K machinery at one time and got burnt on the
> transition from that.
I can certainly cite many instances where computers and peripherals I have
purchased from Apple have been obsoleted because of the introduction of newer
models. To me this is a "fact of life" and not an instance of "being burned."
I've often stated to others that when one buys an item of computing equipment
they buy it because it has value to them at the time of the purchase, and
that obsolescence is inevitable.
James L. Ryan
(in article <040620050025597257%n...@spam.invalid>):
> I'm a bit skeptical as to why they would do this so soon after
> introducing Tiger.
Things we won't know until next week......
a) Is it really true that Apple will make the switch. (I personally believe
that part of the rumor will prove to be true.)
b) What Intel chip or chips will Apple be using. The CNET article doesn't
say. For all we know Intel will be manufacturing a new chip line just for
Apple.
c) What effect a change will have on existing software. For all we know there
might be a form of hardware emulation.
Conclusion -- let's wait and find out before moaning and groaning and such.
brianleahy
I sincerely hope that they don't actually put a Pentium in there. I
have no respect for that CPU at all, I've never heard anything good
about it from anyone but PC vendors.
I'm not gonna lie; this hurts. I'd get angry but it's pointless; it's
all about money, and that's that. The day Apple makes a Pentium-based
Mac it will totally break my heart. I may or may not go on using them,
but Macs will never again seem as magical to me as they do now.
--
brianleahy
10.4 Good Buddy :cool:
G5 Dual 2GHZ / 160GB / 1GB RAM / Superdrive
Apple 20" Cinema Display
SmartDrive 120GB Firewire HD
Maxtor 250GB SATA
Visit my wife's eBay store - hand crafted gifts!
http://stores.ebay.com/Catchy-Creations-by-brendaonline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
brianleahy's Profile: http://www.macosx.com/forums/member.php?userid=456
View this thread: http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222527
macosx.com - The Answer to Mac Support - http://www.macosx.com
Joe Heimann
We will find out next week if there is any truth to the rumor, or how
far it actually goes. I am somewhat skeptical af any sudden change,
the problems involved in going from using a big-endian processor like
the G4 and G5 chips to a little-endian x86 chip speak against this
happening quickly.
Joe
Kyle Jones
> Jerry Kindall <jerryk...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > The rumor is they'll start at the low end machines and move it up, but
> > what if they do it the other way around, and the first Power Mac with
> > an Intel processor has a G5 _and_ a dual-core Itanium or something?
>
> don't see why the whole transition to Intel makes more sense for Apple
> than sticking with PowerPC. How will Apple explain away the charts at
> <http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/>?
Heh. We'll see if that link still works next week.
Barry Margolin
Keeper of the Purple Twilight <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> I'm a bit skeptical as to why they would do this so soon after
> introducing Tiger.
It's probably going to take them a while to make the switch. Unless
they've already done lots of the work, I figure we're talking a year at
minimum. So by the time anyone sees the new machines, it won't be "so
soon after Tiger".
Jim
> b) What Intel chip or chips will Apple be using. The CNET article doesn't
> say. For all we know Intel will be manufacturing a new chip line just for
> Apple.
That's what I was thinking. I actually can see Apple using Intel in some
capacity, I just don't see them using x86 any time soon. I can sort of
see iSteve saying to them "if you can make a chip that is 99.99%
compatible with PowerPC but faster, go for it". If they can get it close
enough so that all that's required is a .1 update to the OS, they'll do
it.
Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
Lost: Stack Pointer. Small reward offered if found.
Zaphod B
> In article <040620050025597257%n...@spam.invalid>,
> Keeper of the Purple Twilight <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I'm a bit skeptical as to why they would do this so soon after
> > introducing Tiger.
>
> It's probably going to take them a while to make the switch. Unless
> they've already done lots of the work, I figure we're talking a year at
> minimum. So by the time anyone sees the new machines, it won't be "so
> soon after Tiger".
They'll be farther along in their process if they announce now. If they
do (which I personally doubt), I'd not be surprised if they actually
have hw up the sleeve already.
The reason is the same as all the secrecy Apple has always sworn to when
introducing new models: It kills the sales of existing models. That
effect will be an order of magnitude or so greater if you introduce a
whole new architecture, because all your old gear (or the gear that you
might have bought in the interval before the new stuff actually hits the
streets) will be more or less worthless in the second hand market. Right
now a used DP 2GHz G5 is still worth something. Now - try to make
someone invest in a 2.7GHz DP G5 @ $2500 when he _knows_ that a 4GHz
DP/QP AMD/Intel-based machine at maybe $2000 is coming in six months. No
way.
--
/Z
Remove NOT..INVALID to email
Dave Devine
> <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
> 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
Bill Palmer <http://www.billpalmer.net> has a piece interpreting this
news as Intel making PPC chips under license. Would make more sense than
a straight switch to x86.
Dave
--
There's a fine line between stupid and clever.
huw.d...@kerberos.davies.net.au
> We will find out next week if there is any truth to the rumor, or how
> far it actually goes. I am somewhat skeptical af any sudden change,
> the problems involved in going from using a big-endian processor like
> the G4 and G5 chips to a little-endian x86 chip speak against this
> happening quickly.
I agree we'll have to wait, but Itanium is, of course, big-endian.
Itanium sadly won't solve the high performance laptop issue. I certainly
don't want an Itanium laptop - "I don't love the smell of cooking
thigh in the morning :-)"
--
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.D...@kerberos.davies.net.au
Melbourne | "If soccer was meant to be played in the
Australia | air, the sky would be painted green"
Hans Aberg
neillm...@earthlink.net (Neill Massello) wrote:
> > The rumor is they'll start at the low end machines and move it up, but
> > what if they do it the other way around, and the first Power Mac with
> > an Intel processor has a G5 _and_ a dual-core Itanium or something?
>
> That makes more sense than the plan described in the Cnet article. But I
> don't see why the whole transition to Intel makes more sense for Apple
> than sticking with PowerPC. How will Apple explain away the charts at
> <http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/>? Can anybody make a case,
> on the basis of speed, cost, and power/heat, for this change?
Here are two interesting links:
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/itanium2/index.htm
http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/cache/80518-0-0-0-121.aspx
It is a move towards the Itanium, which is big endian, just as the IBM
PowerPC chips, developed by Intel and HP together. So it seems to be both
right business and development moves. One should get even more computing
power.
--
Hans Aberg
la...@larwe.com
> > b) What Intel chip or chips will Apple be using. The CNET article doesn't
> > say. For all we know Intel will be manufacturing a new chip line just for
>
> That's what I was thinking. I actually can see Apple using Intel in some
> capacity, I just don't see them using x86 any time soon. I can sort of
PowerPC is a licensed core. Intel might be making a custom
PowerPC-based SoC for some future Apple machine.
Or maybe Apple is planning a toe in some specific market based around
an XScale processor, which is much lower on the power consumption scale
than PPC.
Or maybe Apple is planning to leverage Intel's vast experience in
making motherboard chipsets and other support parts. Maybe this is not
about processors at all.
Really, there are so many possibilities and so many ways this message
could have been garbled before reaching our ears that there is no way
to be sure.
Joe Seigh
> James L. Ryan <talies...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
>> 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
>
> Bill Palmer <http://www.billpalmer.net> has a piece interpreting this
> news as Intel making PPC chips under license. Would make more sense than
> a straight switch to x86.
>
Well, supposedly the powerpc ISA is an open standard and anyone can produce
compatible processors.
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/newto/#3
IBM will even license (for money) a core to produce your own if you want
though I think Intel is capable of doing that on their own. Apple may
even have the rights to a core for Intel to use in the unlikely event
Intel hasn't developed a core already.
A core is a synthesizable logic design. There are standard tools and
programs that can generate the necessary stuff from the core to actually make the
chips.
--
Joe Seigh
When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
When you get hardware, you make software.
James L. Ryan
(in article <1gxmrza.10z4thwmlpqpoN%dave_...@spamcop.net>):
> Bill Palmer <http://www.billpalmer.net> has a piece interpreting this
> news as Intel making PPC chips under license. Would make more sense than
> a straight switch to x86.
Thanks for the reference! Bill Palmer's article seems to be a reasonable
speculation as to just how Intel will be involved. The delay times until the
introduction of Intel chips seems appropriate given the ramp-up time needed.
Roy Smith
wrote:
> IBM will even license (for money) a core to produce your own if you want
> though I think Intel is capable of doing that on their own. Apple may
> even have the rights to a core for Intel to use in the unlikely event
> Intel hasn't developed a core already.
WHatever happend to Motorola's involvement in the PowerPC? I thought the
original idea was that both Moto and IBM would be running fabs. Is Moto
still making them?
Davoud
> That makes more sense than the plan described in the Cnet article. But I
> don't see why the whole transition to Intel makes more sense for Apple
> than sticking with PowerPC. How will Apple explain away the charts at
> <http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/>? Can anybody make a case,
> on the basis of speed, cost, and power/heat, for this change?
Case: There is no G5 PowerBook. Too hot.
Case: G5 not usable in Mac Mini. Too hot.
Case: Steve Jobs promised a 3GHz G5 several years ago. IBM is unable to
deliver.
Case: Apple turned to IBM because with Motorola G4 processors Macs were
behind Intel/AMD in processor speed. Now it's happening with IBM's G5.
No ax to grind. Just the facts as I understand them...
Davoud
Looking forward to FCP on a 10GHz processor...
Bob Harris
hab...@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:
Having worked with HP Itanimum boxes, the Itanimum chip is not all that
fast compared to other chip offerings.
The Itanium chip runs hot really really hot. We had to move all of our
Itanium boxes from the normal lab into a lab in a different building,
and even there we had to upgrade the lab airconditioning systems, and
power capacity (granted we had over a 100 of 2, 4, and 8 CPU HP Itanium
boxes, but we had 100's of Alpha's in the the other labs that did not
need the same power and cooling demands.
Based on my HP experiences, I would find it hard to imaging getting an
Itanium into a laptop.
So either this is not true, or intel got Steve to drink the coolaid :-)
Just my opinion.
Bob Harris
Hans Aberg
Harris <nospam....@remove.Smith-Harris.us> wrote:
> Having worked with HP Itanimum boxes, the Itanimum chip is not all that
> fast compared to other chip offerings.
>
> The Itanium chip runs hot really really hot. We had to move all of our
> Itanium boxes from the normal lab into a lab in a different building,
> and even there we had to upgrade the lab airconditioning systems, and
> power capacity (granted we had over a 100 of 2, 4, and 8 CPU HP Itanium
> boxes, but we had 100's of Alpha's in the the other labs that did not
> need the same power and cooling demands.
>
> Based on my HP experiences, I would find it hard to imaging getting an
> Itanium into a laptop.
>
> So either this is not true, or intel got Steve to drink the coolaid :-)
Interesting facts. The energy consumption of a chip, though, is
proportional to the square of the CPU clock frequency. So one might play
around with that, and other developing facts, to get new, less, energy
consuming processor chips.
And it will probably quite difficult to switch from a big endian CPU to a
little endian one, as a great deal of memory data would have to be
converted for upwards compatibility. So it should be a big endian Intel
chip.
And if Steve Jobs does not have something more advance to come up with
than the G5, it's probably time to look for a new job.
So these facts together might indicate that there some kind of new chip on
the move.
--
Hans Aberg
Kristoffer Lawson
> WHatever happend to Motorola's involvement in the PowerPC? I thought the
> original idea was that both Moto and IBM would be running fabs. Is Moto
> still making them?
They still do the G4.
la...@larwe.com
> > IBM will even license (for money) a core to produce your own if you want
> > though I think Intel is capable of doing that on their own. Apple may
>
> WHatever happend to Motorola's involvement in the PowerPC? I thought the
Motorola, or rather Freescale, makes a lot of SoCs based around PPC
cores. General-purpose CPUs are a specialized and very small market
compared to these embedded parts.
I imagine Apple's volumes are negligible compared to the volumes used
in NAS appliances, thin clients, crypto boxes, etc.
Steve Sivier
James L. Ryan <talies...@mac.com> wrote:
I think the difference is that they'd be announcing the obsolescence
before having something to replace the current line with. If this is
true, I think it would be foolish to buy any Mac hardware until the new
product line is out and had some beta testing (ie, wait for the 2nd
version). I think Apple's HW sales will take a big hit while people
wait for the new computers. I've been needing to replace my linux
desktop and had planned to do it with the 2nd generation Mac Mini. But
if they announce a change to x86, I'll probably skip the Mac and find a
compact x86 box to install linux on. Is there an AMD Mac Mini clone out
there?
Steve
Hans Aberg
an ad campaign "Full Speed Ahead". Then it turned out that the PowerPC
emulation of 68x ate a lot of power, so it took some time for this
promised speed to reach the consumers. The "Full Speed Ahead" was
mentioned as a joke. Apple would not want to repeat that mistake. So a
move to Intel processors would require a work-around of that problem. Also
this speaks for a new, powerful chip.
Also, business analysts have been sceptical about this rumored Apple-Intel
move, as the 1994 move cost Apple market shares. One could turn this
around: as Apple made that move in the past, they should know what it
takes to do it again, cost and benefits. So this speaks for such a move.
In the past, Apple has always settled for new technologies, when needed.
--
Hans Aberg
Steve Sivier
brianleahy <brianlea...@nomx.macosx.com> wrote:
> I sincerely hope that they don't actually put a Pentium in there. I
> have no respect for that CPU at all, I've never heard anything good
> about it from anyone but PC vendors.
>
> I'm not gonna lie; this hurts. I'd get angry but it's pointless; it's
> all about money, and that's that. The day Apple makes a Pentium-based
> Mac it will totally break my heart. I may or may not go on using them,
> but Macs will never again seem as magical to me as they do now.
I wouldn't panic just yet. For Apple to do this, they'd have to take a
serious hit on Mac HW sales since many people will delay buying a new
Mac until the new product line comes out (and maybe even wait until the
early adopters test the new architecture). Or, like myself, they'll
just buy a decent x86 box and put linux on it. It seems unlikely that
Jobs is naive enough to believe that people will continue to buy the
current Mac HW after Apple announces such a significant change, so I
have serious doubts that Apple will change from PPC to x86 for the
Macintoshes.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Steve
daystartech
introducing Tiger.
Note that Tiger has moved many functions earlier reserved for AltiVec
over to the GPU. Apple has been apparently been trying to work away
from its performance dependence on AltiVec for awhile. With multi-core
technology, moving much faster on the Intel side.... a G5 may be the
low-end soon enough.
Joe Heimann
> In comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc Roy Smith <r...@panix.com> wrote:
>> WHatever happend to Motorola's involvement in the PowerPC? I thought the
>> original idea was that both Moto and IBM would be running fabs. Is Moto
>> still making them?
> They still do the G4.
Well sort of. Motorola spun off its chip division as Freescale last
year. Freescale is still making G4's for Apple and PowerPC chips for
the embedded applications manufacturers. As best as I can tell from
a quick look at the description of the spin-off, Motorola retained no
share in Freescale.
Joe
Phil Stripling
> will bring maybe $20 each at a garage sale...
Don't wait! I'll give you fifty for the pair now.
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Kees van Reeuwijk
> The energy consumption of a chip, though, is
> proportional to the square of the CPU clock frequency.
Taken at face value, this is not true: energy consumption of a normal
electronic circuit is proportional to the clock frequency, not its
square. Every clock tick electrons flow into some of the little
capacitors on the chip, and some flow out of other capacitors. Double
the pace of the clock, and the number of electrons that is pumped around
will double. Half the pace of the clock, and half the original number of
electrons will be pumped around.
It /is/ true that at a lower clock frequency it is usually possible to
lower the supply voltage of the CPU a bit, which gives you an extra
energy saving, but the overall result is not a nice clean
square-of-frequency relationship.
Steve Hix
Roy Smith <r...@panix.com> wrote:
Moto spun off their CPU business. They're not doing PowerPC anymore.
Fetch, Rover, Fetch
>
> Here are two interesting links:
> http://www.intel.com/products/processor/itanium2/index.htm
> http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/cache/80518-0-0-0-121.aspx
>
> It is a move towards the Itanium, which is big endian, just as the IBM
> PowerPC chips, developed by Intel and HP together. So it seems to be both
> right business and development moves. One should get even more computing
> power.
>
Itanium is crap - and even intel knows it - they have basically stopepd
marketing it
No Body
> Those remembering the 1994 68x to PowerPC move, will recall that Apple had
> an ad campaign "Full Speed Ahead". Then it turned out that the PowerPC
> emulation of 68x ate a lot of power, so it took some time for this
> promised speed to reach the consumers. The "Full Speed Ahead" was
uh, not quite. the articles/literature at the time stated 680x0
system/app code would run at the same speed (roughly) on the initial ppc
hardware via emulation with only high-use core components converting to
ppc-native first. as more components went from emulation to native,
overall OS speed would increase. the left over bits that were
infrquently called or used would never be converted; saved until a time
to be rewritten (as in transition from os7 to os8, os8 to os9).
of course, given the typical os updates also increase hardware
requirements i would actually bet the general performance between
os7/os8 were equivalent: more pieces in 8 were native and faster than
their 7 counterparts.. but had more 'functionality' and were 'slower'
than if pieces had been simply converted.
-r
Kevin McMurtrie
x86 is crap too. It doesn't make sense that Apple would want to switch
to a processor architecture burdened by such an old instruction set.
This rumor makes me wonder if Intel is working on a new CPU. For Apple,
Intel would be a chance to free themselves from chipmakers that don't
care much about desktop class components. For Intel, Apple would be a
proof of concept so they can market the new chips to Microsoft.
Of course the rumor could be totally blown out of proportion. It's
possible that Apple is doing nothing more than offering OS X Server as a
OEM option for x86 servers. OS X Server doesn't usually run desktop
apps so Apple would only have to re-compile the OS and the bundled
open-source packages to have a completely functional system.
la...@larwe.com
> to a processor architecture burdened by such an old instruction set.
It's more than senseless, it's practically impossible.
* x86's design is hampered by a need for backwards compatibility with
ancient software stretching back to DOS. Apple has no need of this
history.
* Apple makes its money on hardware sales. Making Macs into generic PCs
with an Apple logo puts them into the commodity business alongside
Dell. It'll never happen.
* Therefore it is most unlikely that a switch to x86 is planned.
> This rumor makes me wonder if Intel is working on a new CPU. For Apple,
The world doesn't need a new CPU architecture. If Intel is working on
custom silicon for Apple it's almost certainly something PPC-based. For
instance they might be supplying a CPU and northbridge chipset, maybe
with integrated WiFi support, that meets Apple's needs.
Personally my favorite theory is that the next generation of video iPod
will be based on an XScale variant, and hence the Intel connection.
> possible that Apple is doing nothing more than offering OS X Server as a
> OEM option for x86 servers. OS X Server doesn't usually run desktop
> apps so Apple would only have to re-compile the OS and the bundled
> open-source packages to have a completely functional system.
You missed a couple of words; that would be a completely functional
*and practically useless* system. OSX on x86 would be like Windows NT
on PPC - it existed, was barely supported, and practically no software
was ever released in dual-platform formats.
Barry Margolin
la...@larwe.com wrote:
> > x86 is crap too. It doesn't make sense that Apple would want to switch
> > to a processor architecture burdened by such an old instruction set.
>
> It's more than senseless, it's practically impossible.
>
> * x86's design is hampered by a need for backwards compatibility with
> ancient software stretching back to DOS. Apple has no need of this
> history.
I think that's more of an issue for Windows than the x86 processors.
> * Apple makes its money on hardware sales. Making Macs into generic PCs
> with an Apple logo puts them into the commodity business alongside
> Dell. It'll never happen.
I don't think they're talking about adopting the PC architecture, just
possibly the CPU.
BTW, does anyone remember when Apple was first talking about the new OS
that eventually became OS X? They were talking about producing multiple
versions for different hardware architectures, including a version that
would run on Intel-based PCs (I think this was called "Yellow Box").
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Zaphod B
> * x86's design is hampered by a need for backwards compatibility with
> ancient software stretching back to DOS. Apple has no need of this
> history.
> * Apple makes its money on hardware sales. Making Macs into generic PCs
> with an Apple logo puts them into the commodity business alongside
> Dell. It'll never happen.
> * Therefore it is most unlikely that a switch to x86 is planned.
Most sensible posting yet. :-)
--
/Z
Remove NOT..INVALID to email
la...@larwe.com
> > > x86 is crap too. It doesn't make sense that Apple would want to switch
> > > to a processor architecture burdened by such an old instruction set.
> >
> > It's more than senseless, it's practically impossible.
> >
> > * x86's design is hampered by a need for backwards compatibility with
> > ancient software stretching back to DOS. Apple has no need of this
> > history.
>
> I think that's more of an issue for Windows than the x86 processors.
My point was that the reason x86 sucks is because it is held back by
all these legacy issues; it's a 30-year-old architecture that cannot
evolve significantly because of the need for backwards compatibility.
Apple doesn't care about those legacy issues - they are meaningless to
current MacOS users - and therefore has no reason to choose this
elderly architecture.
Hans Aberg
> > This rumor makes me wonder if Intel is working on a new CPU. For Apple,
>
> The world doesn't need a new CPU architecture. If Intel is working on
> custom silicon for Apple it's almost certainly something PPC-based.
I think this the most likely; if it is not an April Fool's joke propagated
in time. It does not make sense to think Steve Jobs, who likes to enthuse,
making an announcement of any of the lesser options.
--
Hans Aberg
Ilgaz Ocal
Massello) said:
> Jerry Kindall <jerryk...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The rumor is they'll start at the low end machines and move it up, but
>> what if they do it the other way around, and the first Power Mac with
>> an Intel processor has a G5 _and_ a dual-core Itanium or something?
>
> That makes more sense than the plan described in the Cnet article. But I
> don't see why the whole transition to Intel makes more sense for Apple
> than sticking with PowerPC. How will Apple explain away the charts at
> <http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/>? Can anybody make a case,
> on the basis of speed, cost, and power/heat, for this change?
>
Hi,
As a home user I can assure those charts are true. 1600 mhz g5 here
does 2.5 ghz wintel performance on many games.
Well I sorted it out. Playstation 3+ Sun Solaris on Sparc ;) This is my
evil plan. ;)
I am not an accountant to use Intel *g*
Ilgaz
Cameron Kaiser
>BTW, does anyone remember when Apple was first talking about the new OS
>that eventually became OS X? They were talking about producing multiple
>versions for different hardware architectures, including a version that
>would run on Intel-based PCs (I think this was called "Yellow Box").
There was also Star Trek, which ran the classic OS (IIRC) on x86. Apple
Confidential 2.0 discusses this in detail; highly recommended reading.
--
Cameron Kaiser * cka...@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
personal page: http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/
** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
David C.
>
> Will this mean dual-boot systems -- Mac OS and Windoze? That might be
> handy for those of us who have occasional need of a piece of Windoze
> trashware.
First off, what makes you think the article is accurate? We've heard
this rumor for over 10 years and it hasn't happened yet.
Second, what makes you think "Intel" means the same as x86? Intel may
well be interested in licensing/manufacturing PPC-type chips, since
consumer demand for them is going to become very high very soong (with
the newest game consoles from Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo all using
them.)
Third, even if it is x86, what makes you think a Mac/x86 is going to be
PC/Windows compatible?
-- David
la...@larwe.com
>
I see. x86 is an elegant architecture unhindered by silly 8-bit legacy
considerations, is it? Have you ever worked with x86 at an assembly
language level? Ever worked with PPC, ARM, SPARC, PA-RISC or any other
32-bit RISC platform? Compare and contrast.
Even the old 68000 was more elegant than the contemporaneous 80286
(well, 68K predates 286 by a while, but you get the point). The 68K ran
slowly, with clock cycles thrown away like they cost nothing, but the
instruction set was sensibly designed at least.
> > Apple doesn't care about those legacy issues - they are meaningless to
>
> Since your premise is silly, your conclusion is silly.
Uh-huh. Perhaps before you continue this discussion you might want to
buy my first book off Amazon and read the first chapter where I talk
about how to select a core for your next 32-bit (or higher-end) design.
The title is "Embedded System Design on a Shoestring" and you can buy
it digitally as well as in paper form.
x86 is only the processor of choice when designing PC-compatible
devices to run PC operating systems.
Barry Margolin
la...@larwe.com wrote:
> x86 is only the processor of choice when designing PC-compatible
> devices to run PC operating systems.
Or when you're porting an OS and you want users to be able to run it on
easily-available, inexpensive hardware.
Since Apple is in the hardware business, they didn't care whether their
OS ran on commodity hardware. But it's not surprise that x86 was the
first processor that Linux was distributed for.
James L. Ryan
(in article <0001HW.BEC66504...@news.supernews.com>):
> <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
> 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
Today John Markoff wrote an interesting article in The New York Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06apple.html?ex=1275710400&en=3f
a62e7f37e44e02&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>
--
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
Jerry Kindall
> > > My point was that the reason x86 sucks is
> >
> > First of all, it doesn't suck.
>
> I see. x86 is an elegant architecture unhindered by silly 8-bit legacy
> considerations, is it? Have you ever worked with x86 at an assembly
> language level?
Nobody does that anymore. They have "compilers" to do that.
--
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>
Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.
Roger Johnstone
> In article <1118021348....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> <la...@larwe.com> wrote:
>
>> > > My point was that the reason x86 sucks is
>> >
>> > First of all, it doesn't suck.
>>
>> I see. x86 is an elegant architecture unhindered by silly 8-bit
>> legacy considerations, is it? Have you ever worked with x86 at an
>> assembly language level?
>
> Nobody does that anymore. They have "compilers" to do that.
Ah, but what do the compiler writers use?
--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
http://vintageware.orcon.net.nz/
________________________________________________________________________
No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?
Kryten, from the Red Dwarf episode "The Last Day"
Heather Donahue
Roger Johnstone <roj...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
> In <050620052031188895%jerryk...@nospam.invalid> Jerry Kindall wrote:
> > In article <1118021348....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > <la...@larwe.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > > My point was that the reason x86 sucks is
> >> >
> >> > First of all, it doesn't suck.
> >>
> >> I see. x86 is an elegant architecture unhindered by silly 8-bit
> >> legacy considerations, is it? Have you ever worked with x86 at an
> >> assembly language level?
> >
> > Nobody does that anymore. They have "compilers" to do that.
>
> Ah, but what do the compiler writers use?
Compiler compilers
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler-compiler>
--
Heather Donahue
If you *really* need to e-mail me, send it to:
usenet at hughesvideo dot com
(null)
>Davoud <st...@sky.net> writes:
.....
>PC/Windows compatible?
One potential advantage of x86 based OSX machines is that
they could, with some glue code, emulate enough of the windows
environment to allow windows software to run native. This doesn't
help migration directly, but companies that already have windows
versions of software could offer cross-registration of these
windows packages to old mac owners.
Zaphod B
In the unlikely event of this happening (Macs getting ix86 CPUs and
Windows-capable architectures), and judging from what happened to OS/2,
I say:
"Be afraid. Be very, very afraid."
mato...@acm.org
> In article <20050606163...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Roger Johnstone <roj...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
> > In <050620052031188895%jerryk...@nospam.invalid> Jerry Kindall wrote:
> > > In article <1118021348....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > > <la...@larwe.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> > > My point was that the reason x86 sucks is
> > >> >
> > >> > First of all, it doesn't suck.
> > >>
> > >> I see. x86 is an elegant architecture unhindered by silly 8-bit
> > >> legacy considerations, is it? Have you ever worked with x86 at an
> > >> assembly language level?
> > >
> > > Nobody does that anymore. They have "compilers" to do that.
> >
> > Ah, but what do the compiler writers use?
>
> Compiler compilers
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler-compiler>
You still have to write a backend dealing with all the architecture
idiosyncrasies.
la...@larwe.com
> > I see. x86 is an elegant architecture unhindered by silly 8-bit legacy
> > considerations, is it? Have you ever worked with x86 at an assembly
> > language level?
>
> Nobody does that anymore. They have "compilers" to do that.
Firstly, that's not true ("nobody..."), and secondly it doesn't matter
- I'm talking about the architecture, which is the same whether you see
it or not.
It is much easier to write an optimizing compiler for an orthogonal
instruction set like PPC's or ARM's than it is to write one for the
ancient register-starved, special-functions-for-special-registers Intel
architecture.
x86 has a lot of drawbacks that stem directly from the design
requirement to be able to run old real-mode code. This requirement
would be meaningless for a Mac, so all the drawbacks would be pure
baggage without any upside.
If you're not understanding this fact when couched in the above terms,
I'm not sure it can be made any simpler.
Gregory Weston
Jerry Kindall <jerryk...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1118021348....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> <la...@larwe.com> wrote:
>
> > > > My point was that the reason x86 sucks is
> > >
> > > First of all, it doesn't suck.
> >
> > I see. x86 is an elegant architecture unhindered by silly 8-bit legacy
> > considerations, is it? Have you ever worked with x86 at an assembly
> > language level?
>
> Nobody does that anymore. They have "compilers" to do that.
And yet within the last year I've found myself writing small amounts of
x86 code because the compiler was missing a fairly obvious optimization.
I don't think the prior poster was saying "x86 sucks because it's
unpleasant for assembly coders." Rather I read into the post the
implication that unless you've gotten intimate with it you may not be
aware of how awkward some aspects of the design are.
--
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.
Tony Lawrence
> I don't think the prior poster was saying "x86 sucks because it's
> unpleasant for assembly coders." Rather I read into the post the
> implication that unless you've gotten intimate with it you may not be
> aware of how awkward some aspects of the design are.
>
I think one of the more fascinating books I ever read was "Zen of
Assembly Language" - it's a bit out of date now, but still very interesting.
--
Tony Lawrence
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
James L. Ryan
there, and everywhere about the switch to Intel I've paired my own
predictions down to two; Apple will contract with Intel to manufacture the
Power PC, or Apple will use Transitive's emulator to have an x86 emulate a
Power PC.
Time will tell!
Debo
TL> Assembly Language" - it's a bit out of date now, but still very interesting.
All of the Zen books are fairly great, especially considering their age. I
just finished the Zen of Graphics Programming, and although I'll likely
never be writing assembly code to directly manipulate frame buffers, it
was awesome to behold the contortions that game programmers and the like
had to go through in order to squeeze out a couple more FPS in the old DOS
days.
Although for all I know, that sort of thing still happens. I gag at the
thought of having to insert your own instructions between gobbets of
openGL or DirectX library code...
In any case, many of the points made about the weakness of the x86
architecture also lead me to believe that we'll be seeing something
custom-built from Intel for the newgen Macs. Linux was built on x86, IMO,
b/c Linus fully intended for Linux to take over the desktop world, and
that world was dominated by the x86. It was a necessity over optimality
sort of thing.
Again, just my opinion.
-M.D.
Jay Maynard
> Linux was built on x86, IMO, b/c Linus fully intended for Linux to take
> over the desktop world, and that world was dominated by the x86. It was a
> necessity over optimality sort of thing.
Wrong. Linux was built on the x86 because Linus wanted to learn how the x86
could do task switching, and because he was a frustrated Minix user (which
was developed on the 8086); thus, he used the hardware he had. Linus didn't
intend to take over the world.
Slashdot points to a very good debunking of the whole idea of Apple moving
to x86.
Phil Wheeler
>
> Slashdot points to a very good debunking of the whole idea of Apple moving
> to x86.
So .. whatever Steve Jobs says today, Slashdot knows better?
Jerry Kindall
<la...@larwe.com> wrote:
> > > I see. x86 is an elegant architecture unhindered by silly 8-bit legacy
> > > considerations, is it? Have you ever worked with x86 at an assembly
> > > language level?
> >
> > Nobody does that anymore. They have "compilers" to do that.
>
> Firstly, that's not true ("nobody..."), and secondly it doesn't matter
> - I'm talking about the architecture, which is the same whether you see
> it or not.
>
> It is much easier to write an optimizing compiler for an orthogonal
> instruction set like PPC's or ARM's than it is to write one for the
> ancient register-starved, special-functions-for-special-registers Intel
> architecture.
That is why gcc produces much more efficient code for x86 than it does
for PowerPC, I guess.
Jerry Kindall
<mato...@acm.org> wrote:
No, I don't. _Someone_ does, but fortunately they've done a good job
of it. The "inelegant" x86 assembly language doesn't seem to have
stopped language developers going back to Turbo Pascal from getting
excellent performance out of the architecture. I mean, there's "as
fast as possible," and then there is "freakin' fast." Intel developers
are satisfied getting "only" the latter from their tools.
Mind you, my first assembly language was 6502 and my second was IBM
mainframe, which has legacy cruft out the wazoo, so I know elegant from
inelegant, but so few people program assembly these days that what
matters is not the elegance of the architecture, but how it performs,
and x86 performs fine.
Debo
JM> could do task switching, and because he was a frustrated Minix user (which
JM> was developed on the 8086); thus, he used the hardware he had. Linus didn't
JM> intend to take over the world.
Well, that was intended to be sort of tongue-in-cheek, but I didn't
actually know about the whole Minix thing. Thanks for that.
JM> Slashdot points to a very good debunking of the whole idea of Apple moving
JM> to x86.
I'll have to look into that sometime soon.
-M.D.
Matthew Russotto
>itch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
>> 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
>
>That doesn't bother me in the least. It's all about the operating
>system, and I don't care what processor the Mac OS runs on.
>
>Will this mean dual-boot systems -- Mac OS and Windoze? That might be
>handy for those of us who have occasional need of a piece of Windoze
>trashware.
Which means even less incentive for Windows developers to port to
Mac OS.
A switch to x86 means the end of Apple as a computer company.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Matthew Russotto
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <040620050025597257%n...@spam.invalid>,
> Keeper of the Purple Twilight <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I'm a bit skeptical as to why they would do this so soon after
>> introducing Tiger.
>
>It's probably going to take them a while to make the switch. Unless
>they've already done lots of the work, I figure we're talking a year at
>minimum. So by the time anyone sees the new machines, it won't be "so
>soon after Tiger".
And what happens to Apple hardware sales in the interim?
Matthew Russotto
Dave Devine <dave_...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>James L. Ryan <talies...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
>> 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
>
>Bill Palmer <http://www.billpalmer.net> has a piece interpreting this
>news as Intel making PPC chips under license. Would make more sense than
>a straight switch to x86.
Intel's not that kind of processor company; they don't fab other
company's designs. But _no_ interpretation of the rumor really makes
any sense, so I guess this one is as good as any.
Matthew Russotto
Roy Smith <r...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>WHatever happend to Motorola's involvement in the PowerPC? I thought the
>original idea was that both Moto and IBM would be running fabs. Is Moto
>still making them?
Motorola is a cell phone company. They spun off their semiconductor
division as Freescale Semiconductor, which still makes PowerPCs.
Debo
JK> mainframe, which has legacy cruft out the wazoo, so I know elegant from
JK> inelegant, but so few people program assembly these days that what
JK> matters is not the elegance of the architecture, but how it performs,
JK> and x86 performs fine.
Just out of curiousity (since I don't really know much about these
things), are there certain compiler optimizations that could be written
for some architectures (say, PowerPC) that would be impossible to write
for others (say, x86) because of the differences in design? That is, could
inelegance or age prevent some optimizations from being performed?
andrewunix
: In article <1gxmrza.10z4thwmlpqpoN%dave_...@spamcop.net>,
: Dave Devine <dave_...@spamcop.net> wrote:
:>James L. Ryan <talies...@mac.com> wrote:
:>
:>> <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
:>> 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
:>
:>Bill Palmer <http://www.billpalmer.net> has a piece interpreting this
:>news as Intel making PPC chips under license. Would make more sense than
:>a straight switch to x86.
:
: Intel's not that kind of processor company; they don't fab other
: company's designs. But _no_ interpretation of the rumor really makes
: any sense, so I guess this one is as good as any.
What about a switch to IA64? Seems like that would make more sense than
x86 if they were starting on a new platform anyway, and might save the
IA64 architecture.
--
agreenbu @ nyx . net andrew michael greenburg
Rick Jones
> In comp.sys.mac.system Joe Heimann <hei...@ecs.umass.edu> wrote:
>> We will find out next week if there is any truth to the rumor, or how
>> far it actually goes. I am somewhat skeptical af any sudden change,
>> the problems involved in going from using a big-endian processor like
>> the G4 and G5 chips to a little-endian x86 chip speak against this
>> happening quickly.
> I agree we'll have to wait, but Itanium is, of course, big-endian.
Strictly speaking, Itanium is bi-endian. For example, HP-UX runs
Itanium big-endian. Linux runs Itanium little-endian. I forget what
FreeBSD does. You can also switch ends as it were without resetting
the chip - the HP-UX Linux binary support will run the little-endian
Linux/IPF user space binary while the HP-UX kernel remains running
big-endian.
rick jones
--
No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause.
There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision. - Jobert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
Richard E Maine
russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> And what happens to Apple hardware sales in the interim?
The answer to that is obvious, and I can testify to part of it first
hand, without requiring speculation. The hardware sales take a horrible
beating.
The personal testimony is that I have personally been planning to buy an
iMac for home. (Already have a powerbook here at work, plus another
powerbook for my daughter at home). I was just waiting about another
month to get over a temporary cash shortfall (caused by investing all my
spare cash in a small apartment building, but nearly back to "normal").
But if a major architecture switch is announced - no way. I don't have
to speculate about the reaction of other people. I *KNOW* my own
reaction, and it would be to cancel my purchase plan.
I'm not about to spend $2k (20" iMac) on a system that won't be able to
run new software, once vendors start releasing software that runs only
on the new architecture. Nor would I plan to buy a new system that won't
run the existing software base. I'll change my purchase plans instead.
Note that it doesn't even matter whether there are claims that some
emulation mode will make everything "just work". Even if it is true, I
personally would wait to see it instead of putting my money at risk. In
making purchase decisions, my perception is important, even if it turns
out not to be a correct perception.
I know I'm a bit of an oddball, (In our family, "normal" is considered
to be an insult, :-)), but I can't be the *ONLY* person in the world who
would react like that.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain | experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
Tony Lawrence
> In article <X-GdnSZlIsD...@speakeasy.net>,
> russ...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>
>>And what happens to Apple hardware sales in the interim?
>
> [if they actually announced an architecture switch]
>
> The answer to that is obvious, and I can testify to part of it first
> hand, without requiring speculation. The hardware sales take a horrible
> beating.
>
> The personal testimony is that I have personally been planning to buy an
> iMac for home. (Already have a powerbook here at work, plus another
> powerbook for my daughter at home). I was just waiting about another
> month to get over a temporary cash shortfall (caused by investing all my
> spare cash in a small apartment building, but nearly back to "normal").
> But if a major architecture switch is announced - no way. I don't have
> to speculate about the reaction of other people. I *KNOW* my own
> reaction, and it would be to cancel my purchase plan.
..
>
> I know I'm a bit of an oddball, (In our family, "normal" is considered
> to be an insult, :-)), but I can't be the *ONLY* person in the world who
> would react like that.
>
You surely are not. I have a two year old iBook and have been thinking
about upgrading.. but this stops that dead, for exactly the same reasons
you mentioned.
Al
Jay Maynard <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
In my opinion, they will port the OS to run on PCs. And thusly they will
primarily become a software company. Jobs will continue to be creative
and come up with new niche machines. I'd like to try OSX on my Shuttle
computer which now runs only Linux.
Al
David C.
>
> One potential advantage of x86 based OSX machines is that they could,
> with some glue code, emulate enough of the windows environment to
> allow windows software to run native. This doesn't help migration
> directly, but companies that already have windows versions of software
> could offer cross-registration of these windows packages to old mac
> owners.
Why would this be an advantage?
If such a thing would be developed, software developers would
immediately cease development of Mac apps and would focus exclusively
on Windows apps. They would (correctly) decide "why bother developing
for the Mac when the Windows apps will run there anyway."
Shortly after this, customers would decide to stop buying Macs
altogether. They would (correctly) think "why bother buying a Mac when
I'm only going to run Windows apps on it anyway."
Unless you think Apple plans to become an iPod-only company, the
"feature" you describe would put them out of business in a few years.
-- David
Jay Maynard
> Jay Maynard wrote:
>> Slashdot points to a very good debunking of the whole idea of Apple moving
>> to x86.
> So .. whatever Steve Jobs says today, Slashdot knows better?
Slashdot didn't say it. Someone else did, and Slashdot pointed to it.
So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
Richard Kaszeta
> So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
Already happened.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
--
Richard W Kaszeta
ri...@kaszeta.org
http://www.kaszeta.org/rich
Dave Balderstone
<jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
> So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
It's over.
It's true.
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
Jim
> In article <slrnda9442....@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard
> <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
>
> > So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
>
> It's over.
>
> It's true.
The sky is falling..!
Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons
Dave Balderstone
<j...@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
> The sky is falling..!
That popping sound you hear off in the distance?
Mac fanatics' heads exploding...
;-)
Dave Balderstone
Twilight <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> Fuck. So all Macs will essentially be Wintel boxes.
>
> Dammit.
Nonsense. It just means a change in CPU.
Like from 68K to PPC.
Chad Irby
rocky <mar...@mars.com> wrote:
> .....better believe it's over. When the faithful followers find out
> that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and
> not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
Why?
It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't
offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a
year before Longhorn sees the light of day.
--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.
Jason Bowen
> In article <060620051212032607%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <slrnda9442....@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard
>><jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
>>
>>It's over.
>>
>>It's true.
>
>
> that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and
> not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
Apple has been having to put out dual machines to compete with Windows
boxes. They are still putting out G4 iBooks and Powerbooks. I'm
thrilled that they are moving to a platform that will enhance adoption.
They've been doing dual development for 5 years now and Mathematics
took all of two hours to port to x86 OS X to show how easy it will be
for shops to port current OS X apps.
Jason Bowen
> In article <cirby-A99DBE....@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> continue to be available for PPC-based Macs?
>
> I just bought an iMac G5. I didn't just waste three grand, did I?
>
Did that machine and it's accompanying software suddenly become useless
to you? They want to be switched over in 2 years and I'd guess that
support will go on for 3-5 years. Hell I think Windows 2000 was
Microsoft's best operating system and it is about to get it's last
update. Demand will determine the sales of software for the G5
architecture I'm sure.
Jason Bowen
> In article <060620051241228154%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, Dave
> Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <060620051324167867%n...@spam.invalid>, Keeper of the Purple
>>Twilight <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fuck. So all Macs will essentially be Wintel boxes.
>>>
>>>Dammit.
>>
>>Nonsense. It just means a change in CPU.
>>
>>Like from 68K to PPC.
>
>
>
> Who knows what kind of performance hit we're going to take here? 68k
> software ran slower in emulation mode on PPC. It's happening all over
> again. :(
>
If Wolfram can port Mathematica in a few hours, it is within the realm
of possilbity to think that other software houses will be able to port
as quickly.
Jerry Kindall
<Pine.GSO.4.58.05...@cpu18.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca>, Debo
<mddi...@NOSPAM.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
The PowerPC has more registers, which are basically memory locations on
the chip itself. Accessing the registers is much faster than acessing
memory. So an optimizing compiler for PowerPC could in theory use
these registers to avoid accessing main memory, and this optimization
would work better on PowerPC than on Intel. Intel's strategy has
simply been to increase the speed of main memory and of cache, which
means this edge simply isn't as great as it once was.
--
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>
Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.
Jason Bowen
> <h...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
>>
>>>I just bought an iMac G5. I didn't just waste three grand, did I?
>>>
>>
>>Did that machine and it's accompanying software suddenly become useless
>>to you?
>
>
>
> And even if I bought a new Wint...uh, Mac box, who wants that kind of a
> performance hit? Even if existing OSX stuff like Tiger would be able to
> run out of the box on a Mactel (is this even confirmed?), it'd be slow
> as molasses. Look at Virtual PC; trying to run Windoze stuff on a Mac
> is obviously no picnic, so why should it be any easier the other way
> around?
>
Ahhh... you are crying without informing yourself... You obviously have
internet access, go to http://www.macworld.com and read about the
presenation.