Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

starman · Jul 18, 2002, 12:14 PM

Has anyone looked at the main Macnn.com page this morning?

"We like to have options".

WOW!

<a href="http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=121 4469" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=121 4469</a>

Mike

Sealobo · Jul 18, 2002, 12:19 PM

I guess he's just leaving the door open.

The G5 is still coming out right?

Dan Szwarc · Jul 18, 2002, 12:22 PM

I belive it when I buy it.

However, imagine this: OSX on Intel P4 3GHz on an Apple mobo. Switch a click, and reboot, now you're running Windows XP natively. Click again, now you're running OSX within XP. Reboot, now running OSX with Xp inside.

Imagine that OSX doesn't run on other PC mobos, but XP can run natively on Apple's! Apple doesn't get screwed on hardware sales because only its mobos can run OSX (sorry, but classic may have to go!).

Possibility? Sure. Likely? 1000 to 1 it will happen within 5 years. 10 to 1 after that.

The_Equivocator · Jul 18, 2002, 12:24 PM

Quick clarification:

This does not even hint at OS X running on your average PC. It means that Apple is looking at the possibility of different chip providers since Motorola is not working out as well as it did in the past.

thunderous_funker · Jul 18, 2002, 12:25 PM

Apples always been in the luxory PC market segment. It's been profitable, but many feel like that segment won't remain much longer as younger generations are more Tech savvy.

The argument has always been that Apple is a hardware company first and foremost and moving to Intel would be death. Hard to argue against that.

However, the advent of 64-bit CPU in the very near future and MS continued problems with building a 64-bit OS might create a unique opportunity for Apple to partner with AMD or Intel. The OS X core should be fairly easy to move to 64-bit. I don't know about Aqua.

Wow is right. I've never seen any reason to consider the Apple on x86 fantasy, but if Steve really said that in that context who knows?

Ken_F2 · Jul 18, 2002, 01:27 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />However, the advent of 64-bit CPU in the very near future and MS continued problems with building a 64-bit OS might create a unique opportunity for Apple to partner with AMD or Intel. The OS X core should be fairly easy to move to 64-bit. I don't know about Aqua.<hr /></blockquote>Microsoft has already demo'd and announced that they have a 64-bit (x86-64) version of XP coming for the next-generation AMD Athlon, also known as "Hammer" or "Athlon 64", that ships in December. The next-generation Athlon natively supports both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows, but is supposed to see a 15% to 30% performance boost from the 64-bit version (by taking advantage of additional x86-64 registers).

driven · Jul 18, 2002, 01:29 PM

They could build their entire motherboard around Hammer (or some such 64-bit chip other than Itanium.)

The similarity with a PC could stop there. An x86 based computer does not HAVE to follow IBM's age old "open architecture". It does not have to run Windows either at the hardware level OR the firmware level.

Apple could still be VERY innovative using an Intel or AMD chip.

starman · Jul 18, 2002, 01:55 PM

There are two reasons why I want Apple to move to Intel:

1) Get away from Motorola. They're seriously holding Apple back.

2) I don't know what this new hardware will be like, but it would be nice to have the same perks that you do on the PC in terms of swapping out the CPU, mobo, etc. Make the mobo ATX compatable so that we can casemod up the wazoo.

3) All the hardware you can buy off the shelf at CompUSA won't need firmware upgrades to work on the Mac platform, just new drivers.

Mike

ckohler · Jul 18, 2002, 02:28 PM

I just want to say that if anybody here thought the transition from OS9 to OSX was bumpy, then you'd be in for a very rough ride if Apple some day tries to move to Intel processors. Do you really think Adobe, Microsoft or the other thousands of developers are going to want to code their stuff for both sides of the Mac camp (Intel *and* PPC)?

For a transition to be successful, both platforms have to exist for a while at the same time, just like what is currently happening with OS9 and OSX. If adoption doesn't happen quickly enough, it'll fail because of the catch 22 that goes on between developers having enough market to produce their wares for.

At least with our current transition, Apple was able to create Carbon to allow software makers to keep building new apps that they know would work on both sides of the OS9/OSX fense. Something like that simply won't be possible if the fundimental hardware (the central processor) is what is changing. Developers would have to code all of their new software TWICE for both PPC and Intel. I just can't imaging any of them wanting to spend the man hours doing this.

Amorya · Jul 18, 2002, 04:38 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ckohler:
I just want to say that if anybody here thought the transition from OS9 to OSX was bumpy, then you'd be in for a very rough ride if Apple some day tries to move to Intel processors. Do you really think Adobe, Microsoft or the other thousands of developers are going to want to code their stuff for both sides of the Mac camp (Intel *and* PPC)?

For a transition to be successful, both platforms have to exist for a while at the same time, just like what is currently happening with OS9 and OSX. If adoption doesn't happen quickly enough, it'll fail because of the catch 22 that goes on between developers having enough market to produce their wares for.

At least with our current transition, Apple was able to create Carbon to allow software makers to keep building new apps that they know would work on both sides of the OS9/OSX fense. Something like that simply won't be possible if the fundimental hardware (the central processor) is what is changing. Developers would have to code all of their new software TWICE for both PPC and Intel. I just can't imaging any of them wanting to spend the man hours doing this.<hr /></blockquote>*cough* 68k-to-PPC */cough*

Amorya

jblakeh1 · Jul 18, 2002, 04:47 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />This does not even hint at OS X running on your average PC. It means that Apple is looking at the possibility of different chip providers since Motorola is not working out as well as it did in the past.<hr /></blockquote>It doesn't even hint that much. All he said is they like to have options. How you guys read so much into this is beyond me.

starman · Jul 18, 2002, 06:54 PM

Well what exactly do you think an 'option' is?

Apple's been criticized HARSHLY for it's lack of speed increases. Yes, it's a better architecture than Intel, but the gap is getting wider and wider and eventually you have to look at your hardware and ask "can we do better?".

Now, this doesn't mean that Intel is the only 'option', but it seems logical to move that way simply because the speed increases on that platform moreso than Moto-based chips.

Mike

juanvaldes · Jul 18, 2002, 07:11 PM

IBM people? <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" />

milhous · Jul 18, 2002, 07:21 PM

The Power4?

Yes!

<a href="http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ibmpower4/" target="_blank">Take a look at this</a>. Look at that Power4 smoke the competition.

That's what we need to end the megahertz wars once and for all. It's time that Apple scraps Motorola completely and switches to IBM.

No need for recompiles or any of that sort of thing.

starman · Jul 18, 2002, 07:24 PM

Milhous,
Good find. Quite the possibility.

Mike

MikeM32 · Jul 18, 2002, 07:38 PM

I've given up on Apple. This is the end of days.

Wintel here we come <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Very scarey stuff!!!

Mike

Scotttheking · Jul 18, 2002, 07:54 PM

Um, WTF is with this intel crap?
If apple switches to x86 it had better be to AMD.
AMD at least makes good performance chips.

juanvaldes · Jul 18, 2002, 08:09 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by milhous:
The Power4?

Yes!

<a href="http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ibmpower4/" target="_blank">Take a look at this</a>. Look at that Power4 smoke the competition.

That's what we need to end the megahertz wars once and for all. It's time that Apple scraps Motorola completely and switches to IBM.

No need for recompiles or any of that sort of thing.<hr /></blockquote>dream on, the Power4 costs like 3 times a PowerMac on it's own.

olePigeon · Jul 19, 2002, 12:46 AM

$400 PC or $3000 Mac for the EXACT same feeling. Good luck, Apple. OS X on Intel would be the death of them.

My suggestion is to switch to Texas Instrament. They'll still have to work on the "MHz myth" but a 1.02 GHz UltraSparc 4 will clean the clocks (excuse the pun. Hehe.) out of everything else out there. Plus, the UltraSparc series was designed around scalability. 2, 4, 6, even 8 processor "Pro" Macs aren't unthinkable.

Plus, the UltraSparc series of microprocessors are similar in architecture to the G3s. Porting MacOS X, indeed every OS X native app, wouldn't be too dificult.

IUJHJSDHE · Jul 19, 2002, 01:07 AM

If apple went x86 they would have to stop making there own hardware or use there own cases with other hardware. if they did switch it would be the end of the PPC. Also meening the loss of a LOT of software. This would be one of the riskyest moves apple would of ever done.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Scotttheking:
Um, WTF is with this intel crap?
If apple switches to x86 it had better be to AMD.
AMD at least makes good performance chips.<hr /></blockquote>Agreed.

milhous · Jul 19, 2002, 01:17 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by juanvaldes:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by milhous:
The Power4?

Yes!

<a href="http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ibmpower4/" target="_blank">Take a look at this</a>. Look at that Power4 smoke the competition.

That's what we need to end the megahertz wars once and for all. It's time that Apple scraps Motorola completely and switches to IBM.

No need for recompiles or any of that sort of thing.<hr /></blockquote>dream on, the Power4 costs like 3 times a PowerMac on it's own.<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, but if Apple can cut a deal with them, they'll go down in price, no question about it.

nonhuman · Jul 19, 2002, 01:21 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by IUJHJSDHE:
If apple went x86 they would have to stop making there own hardware or use there own cases with other hardware. if they did switch it would be the end of the PPC. Also meening the loss of a LOT of software. This would be one of the riskyest moves apple would of ever done.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Scotttheking:
Um, WTF is with this intel crap?
If apple switches to x86 it had better be to AMD.
AMD at least makes good performance chips.<hr /></blockquote>Agreed.<hr /></blockquote>Why would they stop making their own hardware? Why wouldn't they just use their own motherboard design that was the only motherboard that would run OS X.

olePigeon · Jul 19, 2002, 02:27 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Amorya:
*cough* 68k-to-PPC */cough*

Amorya<hr /></blockquote>Eh, BIG difference here. First of all, both 680x0 series and PowerPC are RISC architecture. It was easy to embed 68k instructions on the PPC for an easy migration. Not to mention Motorola was developing both at the same time.

Trying to embed PowerPC architecture onto an Intel or AMD brand CISC processor will be next to impossible. Do you really think IBM and Motorola are going to give Intel access to some of their key technologies? I don't think so.

Intel tried embedding CISC into RISC with their predecessor to the Itanium, it never made it out the door and was THREE YEARS behind scheduel during development. Too hot, too slow, too big. IF (and that's a big if) Apple were to turn to AMD or Intel, it would be cold turkey. No easy migration. The only exception might be dual processor boxes. And I mean having both a PPC and an x86. Slowly migrate all instructions to run on the x86 side until they release a Macintosh with just an x86 CPU.

All in all, I think it's a bad idea to go over to x86. I think Apple should turn to a more related company such as MiPS, IBM, or Texas Intrament. Some other company that's developing great RISC based technology. IBM the obvious choice with Texas Instrament, imho, being the best choice. MiPS wouldn't be too far fetched, they make excellent scalable processors as well as embedded.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 19, 2002, 02:36 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Scotttheking:
Um, WTF is with this intel crap?
If apple switches to x86 it had better be to AMD.
<hr /></blockquote>Agreed. Although Intel is getting it's act together in a big way with the 2.5Ghz P4. That thing is just a monster performer, no matter what the mhz. hand wringers want to believe.

Personally I don't care who ultimately wins the processor wars. Just give me a system with the best sh;t in it, Mac or PC.

OSX somehow made to run on a sweet top of the line Athlon or P4... all I can say is most people would never look back- except in disgust at what would become known as 'the dark ages' of being stuck with Slomorola.

theolein · Jul 19, 2002, 03:32 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by olePigeon:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Amorya:
*cough* 68k-to-PPC */cough*

Amorya<hr /></blockquote>Eh, BIG difference here. First of all, both 680x0 series and PowerPC are RISC architecture. It was easy to embed 68k instructions on the PPC for an easy migration. Not to mention Motorola was developing both at the same time.

Trying to embed PowerPC architecture onto an Intel or AMD brand CISC processor will be next to impossible. Do you really think IBM and Motorola are going to give Intel access to some of their key technologies? I don't think so.

Intel tried embedding CISC into RISC with their predecessor to the Itanium, it never made it out the door and was THREE YEARS behind scheduel during development. Too hot, too slow, too big. IF (and that's a big if) Apple were to turn to AMD or Intel, it would be cold turkey. No easy migration. The only exception might be dual processor boxes. And I mean having both a PPC and an x86. Slowly migrate all instructions to run on the x86 side until they release a Macintosh with just an x86 CPU.

All in all, I think it's a bad idea to go over to x86. I think Apple should turn to a more related company such as MiPS, IBM, or Texas Intrament. Some other company that's developing great RISC based technology. IBM the obvious choice with Texas Instrament, imho, being the best choice. MiPS wouldn't be too far fetched, they make excellent scalable processors as well as embedded.<hr /></blockquote>Motorola 68k i.e. 68x00 processors are *NOT* RISC. There were no 68k instructions "embedded" in the PPC. All the 68k code that Apple left in the OS was emulated by the PPC.

olePigeon · Jul 19, 2002, 04:06 AM

You are correct, sir. Goofed that.68k was an improvement over CISC (in terms of registers and data cache) but was only 16-bit. Motorola made the leap to 32-bit RISC with the 88000 sereis. Then IBM introduced the PowerPC.

However, I was correct with the 68k being embedded. It's embedded on the processor and converts the 68k instructions into the proper RISC PPC instructions (emulation.) For it to do that it needs a full set of 68k instructions.

BlackGriffen · Jul 19, 2002, 04:28 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by olePigeon:
You are correct, sir. Goofed that.68k was an improvement over CISC (in terms of registers and data cache) but was only 16-bit. Motorola made the leap to 32-bit RISC with the 88000 sereis. Then IBM introduced the PowerPC.

However, I was correct with the 68k being embedded. It's embedded on the processor and converts the 68k instructions into the proper RISC PPC instructions (emulation.) For it to do that it needs a full set of 68k instructions.<hr /></blockquote>I could have sworn that the 680x0 series processors were all 32 bit <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" /> . I also vague remember the system extensions used for 68k emulation in System 7 (I threw them out of that old Performa with the 68040 proc).

IIRC, Macs have always run on 32 bit architecture.

BlackGriffen

olePigeon · Jul 19, 2002, 05:15 AM

Well, sort of. The 68000 and (Apple didn't use the 68010) some of the 68020s had 32-bit registers but only a 16-bit data bus. The 16-bit bus limited it to only half the data it could crunch.

That's when the 68030 came in with a 32-bit data bus. This aloud for twice the data to scream through. There was a 68020 on a 32-bit bus but it was very short lived. I think the Mac II had one. Anyway, it's the 68030 that Apple started doubling all the clock speeds. You'd see stuff like 15/30 68030. It was only 15MHz but could push twice the data, so technically it was 30MHz.

I guess you could say it was the predecessor to the "MHz myth," heh.

This is how I understood it anyway, I could be wrong. Feel free to double check.