IBM's PPC 970, AMD's Opteron, and Apple 520
Pharmboy writes "I haven't seen enough info on the new IBM PowerPC 970 CPU expected shortly. I found some info direct from IBM here plus more info in a couple other places. For those of us wanting to get away from Windows, but feel Linux is still not ready for the desktop yet, this might make Apple a more viable alternative. This also raises issues about the potential partnership with Apple and AMD. Will we see Mac OS X running on two different platforms/CPUs? Could we be that lucky?"
i object ! (Score:5, Funny)
watch who you're calling shorty, farm boy.
Re:i object ! (Score:5, Funny)
two suppliers (Score:5, Informative)
Apple need another supplier so they limit their risk. They maybe getting AMD to fab a PowerPC type chip.
Alternatively....
Maybe they are just going to use AMD64 chips to build 8 and 4 way XServes?
NeXT used to have fat binaries compatibility across NeXT Black hardware, Intel, Sun, HP and Alpha.
Anthony
Re:two suppliers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:two suppliers (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that the instruction decode unit is a modular part of AMD's chip offerings... As in, the AMD chips execute their own native sub-instruction internal code, and they have a programmable front-end to translate the x86 stuff. If you wanted a PPC chip from AMD, Apple would only have to give them the specs, and EXISTING AMD chip cores could be quickly (software) adapted to execute PPC machine code.
All that's left is the pinouts and power/heat-dissipation requirements to sort out. The AltiVec is another side issue, to which I'm sure AMD would gladly offer a next-gen solution...
Re:two suppliers (Score:4, Informative)
Some of this I believe may have had something to do with the processor being manufactured by IBM around the same time as OS/2 PowerPC edition was being finalized... That all fell apart however.
Re:two suppliers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:two suppliers (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux, the cousin of BSD (the parent of OS X) runs on many processors, as do many of the other *nix varients. It would be much easier to run a *nix based OS on multiple platforms than Windows, because it already runs on other platforms, and was designed to from the very beginning. Berkeley designed 4BSD to do exactly this. Windows' support of other CPUs, is a less sucessful story.
Even though the o
Re:two suppliers (Score:5, Insightful)
There are several big differences though.
1. Most people using Unix on non-i386 platforms (or just Linux at all), are far more advanced than your average Windows/Mac users.
2. Most applications used on Unix are open source... That means the CPU hardly matters at all.
For Windows/Mac OS X, most software is binary-only, and companies are going to decide that it's not worth the effort of supporting processor X, when it only has a fraction of the users. So, which ever gains popularity will be the defacto only system to use, and users of the other will be out of luck.
Re:two suppliers (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is exactly why I said Apple on AMD, if it ever occured, would be on the server side, where the source is available because most is open source. Apple ships Apache with OS X, for example. Porting over t
Stolen, but insightful. (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, the disclaimer: this is my pet theory, i.e., a total, wild, pulled-of-out-my-*ss speculation, okay. I have no inside info or contact with people who might know this, but here is my speculation of why this AMD thing keeps coming up despite the fact that the use of the IBM 970 is almost a certainty.
Put this AMD thing into a bigger context of recent events.
We've heard that 10.3 will include a more integrated Classic environment where Classic Mac OS apps will be given many of the benefits of Aqua.
Apple quietly releases their implementation of XWindows system, X11. Despite the fact that this news set Slashdot buzzing for days on end and probably should have had some mention from Steve Jobs in the keynote he'd given a few days prior, it was released very quietly. Interesting.
Next, the somewhat unexpected news that Microsoft was buying Virtual PC. What on earth could Microsoft want with VPC? We can speculate that they want greater control over emulation of Windows on the Mac, but that sounds weak. They still control the operating system that gets installed on VPC so from that perspective they've gained nothing by buying out VPC.
And then these weird, peristent, inexplicable rumors that Apple is in talks with AMD about something or other. Who knows what. It's very doubtful that it's about a chip that would replace the PPC since we've read many, many well-informed examinations of such a move and the technical hurdles would likely ruin Apple.
So what could all this possibly point to? Apple has given us a system that can basically run software from three different operating systems: the classic Mac OS, Mas OS X (the Next OS), and Unix. They recently brought the Unix world closer with the release of X11. Wouldn't it be amazing if hardware in the near-future included an "add-on" chip (something like Altivec that works in conjuction with the PPC processor) that emulated the x86 hardware? Maybe it would give Mac users the ability to run Windows and PC software, not via software emulation, but with hardware assistance. Imagine the interest Apple could draw if they presented the world with a machine that runs the Classic, OS X, Unix and Windows applications... all in one environment and almost seamlessly.
Now does Microsoft buying VPC make sense? Maybe? Maybe not. Maybe MS Mac Business Unit caught wind of this and wants to one-up Apple somehow. Any thoughts?
AMD would be a likely partner is such a move since one could imagine the problems with Intel assisting Apple with this. If it was popular, Intel would be killing their own business. AMD, on the other hand, wouldn't, if I understand the situation correctly.
Anyway... like I said... wild speculation, but that's what all this says to me.
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again the fact they've done it so many times before could mean they're likely to bash their head against this particular wall one more time
Re:success (or lack thereof) of PC cards in Macs (Score:5, Informative)
In the heyday of these offerings, it was about the same price to buy a complete, seperate PC system. Many folks said "Where's the logic in adding PC support to my Mac when I can own a full PC system for the same money?"
The only market they really captured was the niche of people wanting to run both PC and Mac applications, but not willing to give up any more space in their home or workplace for another computer.
Also, these devices were still add-on cards, which always lack some of the integration of having the compatibility truly "built in" to the system. The beauty of a PC, in many ways, is the "box of slots" nature of the thing. You have thousands of possibilities in the way of PCI, AGP (or in the past, ISA or EISA) cards. Want a special purpose graphics card? Just buy it and drop it in! Special high-speed serial ports for a multi-line BBS system, perhaps? Just buy a "Digiboard" and get 8 or more ports. With a PC on a card, you're limited to what's actually on the card itself, or what it's able to use on the Mac's own board.
While I'm not so sure Apple has any interest in going the "PC compatibility" route again - I do think it would be a much different story if the compatibility was truly on the motherboard.
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wild speculation or not, it's fun to think about.
Someone had to say it.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:5, Informative)
Ummm...I'm pretty sure Apple already tried this once. They sold some PowerMacs with cards that had 486 processors on them so you could write Windows on it. Wasn't that thing a dismal failure?
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:3, Funny)
And what do you think the Windows users did? And why do you think they hated the Mac?
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:3, Informative)
The CAD and scientific workstation markets. It used to be that you had to spend $25K on a Sun workstation in order to do high-end CAD or scientific applicat
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:5, Informative)
That would be cool.
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:5, Informative)
The early days of PPC were wild. Apple and IBM working together on hardware and software (Taligent and Pink, some of which got rolled into OS/2's System Object Model). The possibility of running OS/2, Windows *and* MacOS all on the same computer all at the same time via Microkernel... Cool stuff.
A lot of things were attempted but never worked. The 615 is an example: a PPC with a 486 core (IBM has rights to Intel CPU's second only to Intel themselves). The 620 was another: an Itanium-like (without the VLIW) CPU with tons of pipelines and multiprocessor capabilities that never made it into production. Then there's PREP, CHRP, OS/2 for the PowerPC...
1994 was a wild time for vaporware...
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:3, Informative)
I've seen OS/2 for PowerPC, though I was not fortunate to have run it myself. However, it never existed as a product; hence, vaporware.
Interestingly, there are a *ton* of products that IBM has built all the way to the point where the are ready to ship, but never shipped them. There's a good reason. When IBM ships something, they then must support it. Nearly forever.
PowerPC 615 (Score:3, Informative)
In the early 1990s, Apple decided that the Motorola 680x0 series was not keeping up with the Intel 80x86 series, largely because PCs were Intel's primary market, while Motorola CPUs were used more in embedded systems. RISC designs were simpler and could be improved with less effort, so Apple switched to the PowerPC CPU in 1994 (after prototypes in 1991 using the 88K), but to maintain compatibility,
AMD thing in bigger context (Score:5, Informative)
1. One of HyperTransport's most commonly supported speeds is 6.4GB/sec;
2. Apple is desperately in need of a revamp of the entire desktop architecture, especially memory and system bus (aside from processor itself);
3. The IBM PowerPC 970 cooincidentally supports a system bus speed of 6.4GB/sec.
Doesn't the HyperTransport relationship seem a bit more logical than all this off-the-wall stuff about Marklar, Apple switching/adding processors, etc.?
Re:AMD thing in bigger context (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. A year ago it might have made sense for Apple to switch to x86, but with the impending 970 release it would be silly. It would substantially reduce the currently huge demand for the 970, as buyers would fear the machines being obsoleted if Apple abandoned the PowerPC entirely. But HyperTransport is win-win for everybody (well, not MS and Intel, darn).
Re:AMD thing in bigger context (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the speculation - I doubt Apple is going to switch to Opteron. The PowerPC 970 will be the easiest transition to current performance hardware t
Re: That would mean the end of Mac apps (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft and VPC (Score:5, Insightful)
The Itanium's x86 emulation is only so-so. VPC makes a product which allows an entirely alien architecture to run x86 apps almost perfectly providing you have an x86 OS. It would be possible for the VPC guys to take their PPC code and recreate it for Itanium to create the same level of compatability for Itanium architectures. That would be functionality that Microsoft would want to offer their customer base.
Re:Microsoft and VPC (Score:5, Insightful)
As strange as this may seem at first, it makes sense: Microsoft is now in the process of stopping support for Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0. But some customers still have to run applications that requires these operating systems, and VPC will allow them to do just that:
Quote from an article in Server Watch [serverwatch.com]:
There is NO conspiracy theory, AMD isn't just x86 (Score:5, Interesting)
This has nothing to do with Macs and x86, AMD produces a LOT more than just athlon chips, they'll be pumping out AMD-970s with their extra capacity.
Re:There is NO conspiracy theory, AMD isn't just x (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you have this backwards. AMD just recently signed up to use IBM's new manufacturing plant to increase production yield on chips and allow for higher process manufacturing (.09 micron.) IBM wouldn't be disrupting anything to "just" manufacture chips for Apple. Since AMD will be booming in the embedded business when/if HyperTransport takes off, they'll need the extra manufacturing space to produce their chipsets.
You're also overlooking a very obvious clue to the PowerPC 970 being the chip of choice for Apple: the fact that IBM has included an AltiVec engine (and by that name, too.) IBM has stated before and stated again that they will not be using AltiVec, that it's simply there for 2nd and 3rd party vendors to take advantage of.
Can you name one practical vendor that utilizes AltiVec other than Apple? I highly doubt IBM is catering to Amiga.
The whole thing about Apple being in talks with AMD is more plausible if it's put in terms of HyperTransport chipsets and software compatability, and not switching their entire platform over to AMD64. As noted before, IBM and Apple are both on the HyperTransport consortium, it's only reasonable that they need to talk to each other now and again regarding HyperTransport issues. If you see on The Register or some other place about Apple being a purchaser for chips from AMD, please keep in mind that it's most likely HyperTransport chipsets and not Opterons.
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember that the feasibility of something is quite apart from the practicality and advisability of following that course.
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:3, Insightful)
I know. The point I was making was that just because you can it doesn't mean you should.
Where would Apple place Opterons on their marketing? Would they market to the high-end desktop crowd? If they did, would the makers of high-end software actually create two versions of their code, one optimized for each platform (Opteron might be fast but it won't have Altivec)? Even assuming that develop
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stolen, but insightful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Niche marketing can be counter-intuitive, but it's also the classic question of whether you want to be a big fish in a little pond, or a little fish in a big pond. Apple chose the former, exerts great influence in its chosen market, and makes a profit in probably some of the worst years ever in the industry.
There are far worse business models, and technically it's nearly impossible to provide the kind of hardware-software integration that Apple currently sells without controlling the hardware. It's not so much they like being a hardware and software company as that they can only distinguish themselves in the market by also selling hardware.
Let's examine your business plan, where:
Apple could make a very nice transition to Opteron/Athlon64. [...] I also feel Apple should stick with PPC on the notebook side.
which in effect nearly triples the development effort for a Mac software vendor. First, you need to build and test an Athlon version (which is not going to be compatible with the Windows version), build and test a PPC version, and then test the PPC emulation version. Thereby making Apple's already small marketshare even more fragmented, when the obvious sensible thing to do is to get a new high end PPC CPU, drop the G3, and improve G4 compiler optimizations.
If PPC 980 (or whatever) turns out to be a big win over Opteron2, it's not that big of a deal to switch back.
That would be plainly insane. Apple's third party software vendors tend to be smaller, and would have a very hard time hopping from platform to platform. Even some big ones have not completed the OS X transition, and you're talking about going to x86 and back?
Re:I doubt it (Score:3, Informative)
There were some good OS/2 native apps at different times. You really need to be specific about years here. Lan man
All About the Hardware (Score:3, Interesting)
If... (Score:5, Insightful)
Application Split (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe for a while... (Score:4, Interesting)
If we do, I think it would probably be only for a brief transition period, like when they switched from the 68K line of processors to PPC. But who knows. I really hope they don't switch to AMD, that would make people less inclined to write software that is still compatible with the PPC architecture I own (assuming they don't make binaries compatible with both... i don't think they can, can they?).
Re:Maybe for a while... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Maybe for a while... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the biggest reason I've doubted the Apple/Opteron rumors from the start. When Apple switched from 68k to PPC they chose a processor that was capable of emulating the old platform at full speed to ensure a seamless transition from the user perspective. I doubt Apple would be interested in anything but a seamless transition this time as well. Opteron, however, doesn't have enough registers (among other problems) to do a good job at emulation the PPC architecture. I would guess that there would have to be AMD chips that are 10x faster than PPC chips (they're getting there, but PPC isn't that far behind yet) or Apple would not be satisfied with the PPC emulation experience. I would believe the use of Itanium more that the use of Opteron, just because Itanium is much better suited to PPC emulation. Unfortunatly a single Itanium CPU costs more than most complete Apple systems right now, so that's probably unrealistic as well.
As for all the people that say the 970 is vaporware because of the lack of hype, well there's always been much less hype from IBM and Motorola about their new CPUs than from Intel, AMD, and (formerly) Digital (remember the old Digital Alpha CPU ads back in the late 80s/early 90s? "We're on our third generation 64bit architecture. Our compitition hasn't even started designing their first." It was the first CPU specific TV ad I remember seeing. Classic). IBM markets to manufacturers, not to end users, so unless you're a developer you don't see the hype. IBM and Apple are well suited for each other because IBM has a history of licensing portions of their CPU cores and using them to put together custom processors for the customers. Apple would love to have that kind of control, and they won't get it anywhere else.
Apple could do it with Mono (Score:2)
MacOS on x86 talk yet again? (Score:3, Insightful)
More info from IBM (Score:5, Informative)
PowerPC 970 2002 Microprocessor Forum presentation [ibm.com]
This contains a link to IBM Senior PowerPC Architect Peter Sandon's detailed presentation in PDF format.
Eh? (Score:4, Funny)
Please mod story as (-1, Flamebait).
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Funny)
"Could we be that lucky?"
Approx. 8 million (+5, Insightful) comments in stories past have pointed out that:
NO, MORON, WE WILL NOT BE THAT LUCKY.
Re:Eh? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Move away from Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Missed an option: (Score:2, Interesting)
You forgot "and have the extra cash". Lets face it. The only reason I haven't gotten myself an iMac, is because I don't have the extra grand or so to buy one.
Now if AMD jumps into the mix, things may get interesting...
Re:Missed an option: (Score:5, Insightful)
True - the desktops are still somewhat pricey. $1000 more? No. Not if we're talking iMacs, and if you're comparing them to a machine purchased from a major manufacturer like Dell or Compaq - If you're talking beige-boxes, well then yes. Apple computers are $1000 more than a beige box
But keep in mind, Apple is really focusing on the portable market segment this year, so that's where most of the value is going to be.
Re:Missed an option: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. At least with the Dells et al. you have an alternative where you can be in the same league. People keep going on about how much you get for your money with a mac. I don't dispute that. I also don't want half that crap.
If I just want an x86, to run linux, I have to spend about $300.
If I want anything that will run OSX, it's going to cost me at least $1000. I don't have that kind of
An obvious explaination.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they could make some money off selling OS/X. However, they would then have to become MUCH more interested in ensuring their software is not being pirated, and that means some kind of DRM. A lot of folk love Apple because of their anti-DRM stance, and a lot of that love would disappeaer if Apple went down this route. As it is, Apple don't seem THAT concerned about piracy of their software, instead relying on those that want to 'do the Right Thing' with Apple, which is a fair percentage of their user base.
Instead, this is my theory on the Apple/AMD relationship, if there is one.
- It would be STUPID of Apple to rely on a single-source for their new processors, so, who better than to ask as a 'second source' than AMD? Yes, I'm sure Apple/IBM will get a leetle percentage out of all the chips that AMD make, but I'd bet my dollars that's what's going on.
Of course, the other possiblity is that AMD HAD talks with Apple, and they consisted of "Hey, lets go do lunch." "No."
Re:An obvious explaination.... (Score:5, Interesting)
And even if Apple made the OS free-standing for any x86 machine, that would not stop Apple from being able to build ultra-stylish, high-priced, boutique x86 machines and put their own OS on it now would it? They'd probably sell exactly the same # of machines that way as the die hard Apple aficinados would probably still prefer to buy apple branded machines, AND it would grow their OS market share tremendously, maybe even driving their branded machine sales higher in the future.
Frankly I think not porting OSX to x86 was a huge blunder that will hold the company back another 5 years till the next actual achetecture change is forced upon them.
Re:An obvious explaination.... (Score:2)
Again, if Apple release OS/X for the x86 platform, they're going to have to get a lot more interested in DRM. This isn't just a policy change; it's a complete about-face.
Re:An obvious explaination.... (Score:2)
The DRM question of "Will Apple have DRM" no longer exsists, but is now just "How will it be used?" is left to see.
Re:An obvious explaination.... (Score:2)
Their still dragging developers and users kicking and screaming into OS X. Having to support x86 and PowerPC would be BAD.
You'd need Photoshop, [insert other mac app here], etc. ported to x86, and PowerPC....
Re:An obvious explaination.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardware is a tough place for Windows PC makers to make money. Apple has been doing pretty well there. Dell and Gateway have problems and losses because they're in competition with each other and with your cousin who makes PCs in his garage. Your suggestion that Apple would make more money by competing with Dell and your cousin is strange.
Re:An obvious explaination.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you mean MacOS X's market share, not Apple-branded computers. In any case, why would it?
Is it because of the iApplications? Well, a Windows user needs to throw away all his old apps and pay $130 to get them. I think most switchers see them as a nice bonus, but not a primary factor.
Is it because of Mac-only applications? I think we can safely rule that out.
Is it because of a Unix core? Since Linux hasn't exact
Re:An obvious explaination.... (Score:3, Interesting)
GNU-Darwin, x86 compatibility (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple did make an "x86-compatible" Mac a few years back, I think it had a 486 chip alongside the PPC (or even 040?) I don't remember too much about this, I think it worked by pressing Cmd-return, at which point it would switch to the 486, while maintaining state on the PPC. Essentially like the Orange Micro PC compatibility cards they used to make. (NuBus what!)
I'd love to see an Apple/AMD collaboration, either a licensed port of the whole Mac OS X to x86 architecture, or a dual-processor machine. It'd be pretty badass.
PowerPC 970 and Power4 (Score:2, Interesting)
If so, that could let Apple break out of just the 1U market and compete with 2U and 4U servers with more than just two processors.
Re:PowerPC 970 and Power4 (Score:2)
If you asking will a Power4 32-bit application work on the PPC970 the answer is yes. If you would have read this [ibm.com], you would have answered your own question.
Enough already! (Score:4, Insightful)
-psy
Re:Enough already! (Score:2)
Manifestations of Wishful Thinking.
(Still... NeXT ran on multiple hardware platforms
Re:Enough already! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because so many x86 users want Mac OS X on their cheap-ass boxes, and so many Mac users want Mac OS X on a cheap-ass box. Put simply: wishful thinking.
Stop it. AMD + Apple == Hypertransport (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, are they or any of the Mac software vendors going to support two versions of their Mac products? No.
Re:Stop it. AMD + Apple == Hypertransport (Score:2)
AMD doesn't run incredibly hot any more - check out the Barton and Opteron chips some time.
Re:Stop it. AMD + Apple == Hypertransport (Score:4, Insightful)
A common claim. Unfortunately it's wrong. Athlon XP doesn't really run any hotter than Pentium 4 does for example. In fact, you coulöd say that XP runs cooler than P4 does.
For facts on this issue, go here:
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=5000036
Hypertransport (Score:5, Insightful)
AMD == Hypertransport && IBM == P970
Lucky? (Score:4, Insightful)
Define "lucky". You mean, not only having to find Mac software, but now having to find software for your particular Mac platform? appleppc.slashdot.org along with appleamd.slashdot.org? Developers throwing up their hands in disgust and walking away when confronted with a platform redesign two years after the last one? Sounds lucky to me.
Seriously, give whatever Jobs has up his sleeve a chance. If he wants a decent PowerPC chip, he'll get one.
Something It Seems Everyone's Forgetting (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has heavily optimized OS X and the so-called iLife apps (iTunes, iPhoto, etc.) for AltiVec, the special vector instruction set that the G4 has. That's why OS X runs much more nicely on G4's (which have AltiVec) than on G3's (which don't). The reason all the buzz started about Apple migrating new Macs to the 64-bit IBM chips in the first place was that IBM introduced AltiVec workalike instructions for their new chips, so Apple could move up without sacrificing the AltiVec optimizations. Moving to x86-ish hardware would mean that they'd lose all the AltiVec optimizations they've made, so it seems unlikely to me.
desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on, don't hide behind "not ready yet". Just spit it out: "I don't like the Linux desktops". Now, that wasn't too hard, was it?
That's fine, I don't like the OS X or Windows desktops either. That's why they make so many different kinds. But let's not pretend that there is a single desktop that is oh-so-much-better for everybody than any of the others.
Your statement makes about as much sense as saying that "vanilla ice cream isn't ready yet for the kids of America, but strawberry, which is clearly so much better, is too expensive".
Dont forget (Score:2, Informative)
Speculation du jour (Score:3, Informative)
We can talk until the cows come home about how CISC/Hybrid MHz are not RISC MHz, but the fact is we all want our machines to be faster. Even if they're already really, really fast.
But I can't see Apple making a transition to a platform that's not binary-compatible with PPC. It was painful enough when they went from 68xxx to PPC, and then to force everyone to buy all their applications again with the transition from OS 8/9 to OS X.
To do it again, within a year or two of the last major transition, would be disastrous. While I'm sure the software companies wouldn't much mind forcing everyone to buy a new version of all of their applications, how many users would put up with this? How long would people wait for Photoshop 8?
(* at least all the Apple users, and maybe a fair number of Unix/BSD users)
Re:Speculation du jour (Score:3, Insightful)
I think everyone(*) wants their computer to be able to take care of what they want it to, and everyone(**) is probably pretty happy with where Apple's hardware is right now, because everyone(***) knows how muc
Mac OS X on PPC and X86? (Score:2, Informative)
It is rumored that Apple do currently have Mac OS X running on x86 in the form of project Marklar and that it is kept up-to-date with the PPC version. It is also true that NeXTStep ran on 68K, x86, Sparc and PA-RISC so this shows that the Mac OS X team is likely to capability to easily p
Apple will not use two platforms (Score:5, Insightful)
Using two simultaneous platforms is a big problem for sales and developer relations. Which is better? Why even bother with the other platform then? Or, why is the new platform so much better yet it has little available software? Why bother porting to the second platform when sales are sluggish on that platform? Then existing customers get angry. Why is my platform being abandonned? New customers feel the same if the gamble doesn't pay off and gets killed. The only partial exception is if one platform does not substitute for the other, say appliances vs. desktops and servers. Think Sun's purchase of Cobalt.
all wrong... (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's pull it all together... (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, NO.
Firstly, as everyone knows, Apple makes money off one thing, and one thing only - HARDWARE. They make great software only to sell their hardware.
The benefits of controlling the hardware are
- A better user experience
- Lower tech support costs
- Better quality control
- Specialized/customized designs with an eye toward aesthetics
They CANNOT allow others to create hardware upon which their software will run. This means that they have to use a special BIOS, and manufacture their own boards. IF they switch to an OS that can be run on an x86 processor (and custom mothboard/bios/etc), you will find, the very next day, a crack for the software which will allow it to run on any generic motherboard, and further down the line a BIOS image which will allow an unmodified software to run on a non-custom motherboard.Right now they can control it because a 'commodity' PPC motherboard costs more than the same apple motherboard. It would surprise me if Apple wasn't applying some pressure to various suppliers to prevent the widespread availability of commodity PPC equipment which is very similar to Apple's own. This is common in the industry. Furthermore, they may even have a slightly altered/customized version of the various PPC chips they use.
The only way for Apple to play against WINTEL is to not compete - not competing means selling essentially different products. Apple would die if they had to sell their OS and try to make a profit at it - the company is simply not designed to compete against MS. (Although if they did Windows would improve dramatically)
Put another way, Apple is a whole user experience company. They don't want the user to go to a generic theatre, sit in seats made by some strange company, eat food purchased from GFS, and watch a movie made by three different movie studios. They want you in their theater, their seats eating their food, and watching their entirely controlled movie.
This is good for those who only want to deal with one company, and are willing to pay for it. They know their market. They may be trying to expand it a little towards the geek segment that play with software but don't care about hardware (we run unix!). It is unlikely that they will ever capture the imagination of the hardware geek, they know it, and they aren't courting us.
So stop posting freaking stories about OS X on any commodity hardware, ok?
-Adam
Why do we need x86? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why do we need x86? (Score:4, Informative)
What ever happened to CHRP? (Score:4, Interesting)
The Common Hardware Reference Platform (CHRP) Specification describes a family of machines based on the PowerPC(tm) processor that are capable of booting multiple operating systems including Mac OS, Windows NT, AIX® and Solaris(tm).
Wouldn't that have been cool? What ever happened to that idea? Here's the old documentation. [firmworks.com]
It appears that IBM has some information [ibm.com] on their site that is still recent, dated Sept. 2002. Weird. I'd love to have one of those machines. PowerPC 970? Forget about it.
You do not have enough info on the Chip..... (Score:4, Informative)
* Inside the IBM PowerPC 970 Part I: Design Philosophy and Front End
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc97
* Ars Technica Newsdesk A Brief Look at the PowerPC 970
http://arstechnica.com/archive/news/10347562
* Ars Technica - CPU and Chipset Guide
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/
Hope it helps fill that Gap.
Multiprocessor 970 is a benefit for apple (Score:3)
BTW, I think AMD are trying to pull off a similar trick with the multiproc. Opterons, and eventually Athlons.
970 info at Ars Technica (Score:5, Informative)
While we're discussing chips (Score:3, Interesting)
If you produced a Pentium 1 core or even a 2 using a
Just something I never figured out. Thanks for any replies.
How Does a Cheaper CPU = Less Profit for Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
I also suspect that OSX (if written properly for a small set of sound/video cards) would be faster than Windows on the same machine. Even if it isn't, people crave the Mac experience. Mac users have never minded paying more. They don't even care that Macs are the slowest on the block right now. It's about the user experience folks. Plain and simple.
AMD and Intel chips are too hot for Apple's taste (Score:3, Insightful)
More importantly, a 1.2 GHz PPC 970 burns only 19 W, which makes it possible for Apple to design cool and sexy fortables without huge heat sinks or noisy fans.
The low energy consumption is also critical for 24/7 servers, it reduces electricity bills and hardware failures. So I can't really see why Apple or anyone else should be too excited about the hot chip.
Re:PPC 970 == Vaporware (Score:5, Informative)
What's more, the PPC 970 is not shrouded in secret, (at least from an apple hardware point of view) If you think the 970 is shrouded in secret and is vaporware, I wonder what you think of the Moto G5.
Motorola "G5" already shipping (Score:2)
They're just not at all interested [motorola.com] in the desktop market anymore.
PowerPC 7400 was "vaporware" too (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple probably can't play those same kind of "keep it secret until we announce our product" games with IBM, but keep in mind the only thing IBM has really done was introduce the concept for the processor at MPF. Judging from how Apple has rolled out new processors in the past, it wouldn't be surprising to find if further information about the 970 is being withheld at Apple's request (Apple being a potentially huge customer for this chip).
Also, remember that before CeBIT, IBM posted press releases on its German site talking about 970, the fact that it featured AltiVec, and how IBM was going to be demoing several 970-based blade servers at CeBIT. The press release suddenly got pulled and there was no further information about the 970 from IBM.
One way this could be interpreted is that the 970 is vaporware.
The more likely scenario, however, based on how apple has done releases of new processors in the past, including several iterations of the 7400 family, is that more information is being withheld until Apple releases a system featuring this processor. Then the floodgates will open.
The only reason we may know anything of it at all is that IBM felt it fundamentally important enough to present at MPF - we haven't heard a peep since.
this is NOT offtopic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reading OSnews lately? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's always been a case of "just wait, the next release will solve everything!". Zealots chant it as their mantra.
It's not going to happen. FOSS, by it's very nature, will never produce anything more than a patchwork clone of other desktops.
There's no technical reason that a desktop as slick as OS/X couldn't be built on top of linux the way OS/X is on top of BSD, but that kind of effort requires management and discipline. Only a corporate
Re:AMD fabbing 970 Chips? (Score:3, Informative)
IBM is another of those companies that fabless chipmakers (such as Cyrix, when they were building chips) came to when they needed extra capacity. IBM makes an unbelievable number of chips, from PPC processors to x86 processors (there are still a *lot* of embedded designs that use 80186's, for example) to memory controllers, to you name it.
In fact, AMD doesn't have a lot of capacity for their own stuff. Their biggest problem is on the high end: .13 micron fabs. They have lots of lower-end f
Re:apple hardware is dead (Score:5, Insightful)
The PowerPC isn't a proprietary processor. If you'd like to design a motherboard that uses it, go ahead. No one's stopping you (unless it infringes on an Apple design, that is). The hard part would be selling it...
Apple will not destroy its PPC customer- and developer-bases by tossing them aside after all the time, money, and effort expended on Mac OS X. Apple will adopt the PPC 970, take Motorola out of the CPU development loop, and provide Mac OS X for a tightly proscribed x86 configuration (including its own branded boxes--almost everything but the CPU in a Mac is now commodity parts, so that perceived barrier is long gone).
Steve Jobs is a patient man when it comes to the world-at-large. He knows that Apple probably won't ever replace Microsoft as the dominant player in the x86 market, but he also knows that this is probably the perfect time to give them some competition. Microsoft faces a number of challenges to its dominance: its attitude toward DRM, its "trusted computing" initiative, the quiet debacle it's weathering vis-a-vis virtual weekly security updates to XP and other critical software, the growing popularity of open source software, its enterprise licensing scheme, and the increased scrutiny it's under after losing the anti-trust case (like IBM before it, the loss itself will prove more damaging than the punishment).
Apple will continue to produce Mac OS X for PPC. The x86 version would be--in the beginning--a loss-leader. It would get noses into the tent from every market segment. That interest would fuel developer interest (notice how quickly the "there's no software for the Mac" discussion abated in the flood of Open Source offerings it now enjoys).
Once that interest is cultivated, Apple has a whole slew of products/ideas "on the shelf" that would benefit from this renewed interest. There's an advantage to being ahead of your time if you survive long enough.
Re:IBM PPC 970? huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
IBM PowerPC -- In the Hand, On the Desk,
and Everywhere else
Lisa Su
Director, PowerPC and Emerging Products
PowerPC 970 is the first in a family of new 9xx 64-bit Microprocessors
Key Features:
Based on award-winning Power4 technology
Up to 1.8 GHz
Proven 64-bit microprocessor architecture with native
32-bit application compatibility
Up to 6.4 GB/s system interface
Implements SIMD coprocessor
Full Symmetric Multiprocessor (SMP) support
Target Applications
64-bit Lin
Re:Conversions & Consumers (Score:3, Insightful)
If Apple splits its market in to two incompatible processor technologies, it would be even LESS likely that new software would be ported, and it would have to be ported twice. That means twice as many SKUs, twice the inventory and shipping problems, twice the testing issues, all for what? Perhaps 20% grater market share?