[cygy2k]

What if IBM stops the PowerPC line to make the CELL? Will Apple survive?

--Not a Troll, I Love Apple and want to switch, but realistically should I?

Really nervous about buying Mac. I have just purchased an iMac G5 and a new Gateway 7422GX Laptop. Both are great. The Gateway by the way is the new Athlon 64, 1GB memory, Dual Layer DVD, etc. Top of the windows laptop line. I was thinking about getting a PowerBook 15� or iBook 14� instead. I am selling the iMac because I need something that can sit with me on the couch, that is it. I like Macs but am very worried about the future of them. The software is far and away the best but the hardware seems to have hit a wall unlike any we�ve seen. The G5 is all but stalled and no G6 really around the corner. The G4 is slow and aging fast. I would love to get a Mac laptop but am concerned about what they can release in the next year or two to stop the Mac line of Hardware from dissolving. I realize that x86 has stalled some but they are adding extra benefits and they have a clear future for the processors. I really am confused on if I should use the Gateway or if the iBook 14� will do just as good. I don�t play games, but I would like to edit my wedding video on iMovie. I just don�t want to switch if there really isn�t going to be 3ghz in the next year on the desktop and what if IBM pulls out? There is no clear sign they will continue the PowerPC line with the CELL being so �cool�. Please advise on what to do.

Thanks!

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by cygy2k:
Please advise on what to do.

Panic! Be scared! Check alert level daily!

[Millennium]

First of all, it's "Apple" and "Cell". Neither of these is an abbreviation.

This is very unlikely. The Cell processor is based on the POWER architecture, and thus shares a common ancestry with the PowerPC line used by Apple. The PowerPC chip is also becoming popular in the embedded market, thanks in no small part to IBM's aggressively pushing it for the past couple of years. Cell has been in development this whole time, and it would make little sense to do this if they were going to push Cell for this market (which they can't; it consumes way too much power). Also worth noting is the fact that production of POWER processors -the direct ancestor of PowerPC- has not stopped or even slowed down during the ten years since the first PowerPC was released; it is still used in many of IBM's higher-end offerings.

The architectures are, in fact, so similar that most code written for PowerPC processors will still run on Cell, and vice versa. Cell even supports AltiVec. There is some talk about using the Cell processor in the next generation of Macs, actually, because the upgrade path would be so smooth. Even if Cell becomes the G6, production of the older PowerPC chips will not cease, because they are used in too many other areas.

End result: there is no need to worry about Apple's future. Even if IBM were to leave Apple dead in the water -which, as we've discussed, is quite unlikely- Apple has switched architectures once before (from the venerable 680x0 architecture to PowerPC), and it can do so again if the need arises.

[akuma-x]

Originally posted by cygy2k:
What if IBM stops the PowerPC line to make the CELL? Will Apple survive?

--Not a Troll, I Love Apple and want to switch, but realistically should I?

Really nervous about buying Mac. I have just purchased an iMac G5 and a new Gateway 7422GX Laptop. Both are great. The Gateway by the way is the new Athlon 64, 1GB memory, Dual Layer DVD, etc. Top of the windows laptop line. I was thinking about getting a PowerBook 15� or iBook 14� instead. I am selling the iMac because I need something that can sit with me on the couch, that is it. I like Macs but am very worried about the future of them. The software is far and away the best but the hardware seems to have hit a wall unlike any we�ve seen. The G5 is all but stalled and no G6 really around the corner. The G4 is slow and aging fast. I would love to get a Mac laptop but am concerned about what they can release in the next year or two to stop the Mac line of Hardware from dissolving. I realize that x86 has stalled some but they are adding extra benefits and they have a clear future for the processors. I really am confused on if I should use the Gateway or if the iBook 14� will do just as good. I don�t play games, but I would like to edit my wedding video on iMovie. I just don�t want to switch if there really isn�t going to be 3ghz in the next year on the desktop and what if IBM pulls out? There is no clear sign they will continue the PowerPC line with the CELL being so �cool�. Please advise on what to do.

Thanks!

What are you talking about?! If anything the Cell chip is a good thing.
It is a PPC chip in so many words and I totally see Apple using these chips at some point.
We are talking multicore Dual 4Ghz Power Macs here

[hudson1]

Originally posted by cygy2k:
I don�t play games, but I would like to edit my wedding video on iMovie. I just don�t want to switch if there really isn�t going to be 3ghz in the next year on the desktop and what if IBM pulls out? There is no clear sign they will continue the PowerPC line with the CELL being so �cool�. Please advise on what to do.

OK, you want to edit your wedding video on iMovie but you're afraid that Apple won't come out with a 3GHz machine this year? Call me stupid but I don't have any idea what one has to do with the other.

Does it make sense for Apple to continue to hitch their wagon to an outfit that's continuing to push the envelope with microprocessor design concepts? Yes, I think it does. Is there any real evidence to suggest that IBM is doing that better than Intel? Yes again.

[cpac]

Originally posted by cygy2k:
Really nervous about buying Mac.

Relax.

Apple's been through FAR FAR worse times than today, including Performa madness, completely switching operating systems, (a couple times), and I'm sure, just in case disaster strikes, that Apple has an x86 build of OS X.

If you need the "safety" of being in a large herd - stick with you wintel, and enjoy those pesky things like viruses (which unlike an uncertain future, could actually hurt you *today*).

[jasong]

Actually, IBM has already stopped making processors for APPLE, since they went out of business 7 months ago. It's a good thing you didn't switch, I would hate for you to have wasted all that time and money.

-- Jason

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by jasong:
Actually, IBM has already stopped making processors for APPLE, since they went out of business 7 months ago. It's a good thing you didn't switch, I would hate for you to have wasted all that time and money.

-- Jason

Apple was bought by Sony who is switching iTunes from AAC to ATRAC.

[alphasubzero949]

Yeah, my 1 GHz G4 is so slow to the point I can't make movies or run GarageBand anymore. I can't run Panther, check e-mail, or surf the web on my G3s because 600 MHz is too slow. And I can't run OS 9 on my 133 MHz PowerPC 603e. Damn Apple for not coming out with a 3 GHz machine.

[msuper69]

Dang!

I must remind my 500mhz TiBook that it should immediately desist and stop processing all those iMovies! That's only for 3ghz or better CPUs.

Wow. You sure spend a lot of time worrying about things beyond your control. What is in your control is latching onto a nice Mac running OS X and not waste what little time you are allotted screwing around with Windows.

[chris v]

Remember, if Apple stops making Power Macs, you CPUs will all stop working exactly on that day, when they throw the big huge OFF switch in Cupertino.

[lngtones]

Originally posted by chris v:
Remember, if Apple stops making Power Macs, you CPUs will all stop working exactly on that day, when they throw the big huge OFF switch in Cupertino.

OMG is this true!?!?!? Steve Jobs should burn for not telling us! Class action lawsuit!!

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by cygy2k:
What if IBM stops the PowerPC line to make the CELL? Will Apple survive?

--Not a Troll, I Love Apple and want to switch, but realistically should I?

Really nervous about buying Mac. I have just purchased an iMac G5 and a new Gateway 7422GX Laptop. Both are great. The Gateway by the way is the new Athlon 64, 1GB memory, Dual Layer DVD, etc. Top of the windows laptop line. I was thinking about getting a PowerBook 15� or iBook 14� instead. I am selling the iMac because I need something that can sit with me on the couch, that is it. I like Macs but am very worried about the future of them. The software is far and away the best but the hardware seems to have hit a wall unlike any we�ve seen. The G5 is all but stalled and no G6 really around the corner. The G4 is slow and aging fast. I would love to get a Mac laptop but am concerned about what they can release in the next year or two to stop the Mac line of Hardware from dissolving. I realize that x86 has stalled some but they are adding extra benefits and they have a clear future for the processors. I really am confused on if I should use the Gateway or if the iBook 14� will do just as good. I don�t play games, but I would like to edit my wedding video on iMovie. I just don�t want to switch if there really isn�t going to be 3ghz in the next year on the desktop and what if IBM pulls out? There is no clear sign they will continue the PowerPC line with the CELL being so �cool�. Please advise on what to do.

Thanks!

You funny.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by cygy2k:
--Not a Troll, I Love Apple and want to switch, but realistically should I?

Is this kind of like those junk e-mails that I get that say "This is Not Spam!" at the top?

[nforcer]

It's kind of funny. All of the "Apple should switch to Intel" arguments and now it appears everyone is switching to something PowerPC-based for the next generation of consoles and what not.

This seems like a good thing. More people becoming familiar with the tech that is related to, or runs, our platform of choice. It could lead to more "switchers" and software coming our way.

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Is this kind of like those junk e-mails that I get that say "This is Not Spam!" at the top?

yes.

[Goldfinger]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Panic! Be scared! Check alert level daily!

OMG OMG the current level is "Elevated" !!!

[theolein]

Originally posted by cygy2k:
What if IBM stops the PowerPC line to make the CELL? Will Apple survive?

--Not a Troll, I Love Apple and want to switch, but realistically should I?

...Please advise on what to do.

Thanks!

Fuck off.

The Cell has a PowerPC core alongside the 8 SPE's, so Apple will most likely be using it in the future.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Goldfinger:
OMG OMG the current level is "Elevated" !!!

Has it ever been lower than that?

[Sophus]

Originally posted by akuma-x:
What are you talking about?! If anything the Cell chip is a good thing.
It is a PPC chip in so many words and I totally see Apple using these chips at some point.
We are talking multicore Dual 4Ghz Power Macs here

I agree. If anything, Apple should be happy that other investors are helping to fund the investment in PPC architecture research and IBM processor develpment. This is good news.

[Goldie]

C'mon guys this has to be a joke. Noone buys a top of the line notebook pc and asks such a question.

[Kate]

Originally posted by theolein:
Fuck off.

The Cell has a PowerPC core alongside the 8 SPE's, so Apple will most likely be using it in the future.

Maybe, maybe not. To actually use the SPE's there is much to be done by each party, including developers and core OS developers. It's more needed than just a quick 'n dirty recompile according to IBMs latest presentation of Cell. I do not see an "easy" upgrade path from PowerPC to this so far. But IBM din't spill all beans yet.

Know more about code sharing efficiency between either CPU?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Kate:
Maybe, maybe not. To actually use the SPE's there is much to be done by each party, including developers and core OS developers.

That's if you want to take advantage of the new stuff. The situation with AltiVec is quite similar, and yet programs compiled for a G3 will still run on a G4 or G5.

It's more needed than just a quick 'n dirty recompile according to IBMs latest presentation of Cell.

It's more than a quick 'n dirty recompile if you want to take advantage of Cell's new features, but an older binary should still run, and that's what matters when you're trying to upgrade. Optimizations can come in later versions.

Certainly Apple will need to rewrite portions of OSX to take full advantage of the Cell, but it has to do this anyway whenever a new generation of chips is released. It had to do this for the G3, the G4, and the G5. Cell is not any different as far as that's concerned. Other makers of performance-critical apps such as Adobe with Photoshop are in a similar boat, but once again it's not likely to be any different from optimizing for a new chip in the same architecture. As long as old code still runs -and from all indications, it will- then they have time to do these optimizations if they choose to do them, and that's what really matters.

[Goldfinger]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Has it ever been lower than that?

No idea

[alphasubzero949]

It must be a joke; he double posted in this forum and cross-posted in another.

[Kate]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Certainly Apple will need to rewrite portions of OSX to take full advantage of the Cell, but it has to do this anyway whenever a new generation of chips is released. It had to do this for the G3, the G4, and the G5. Cell is not any different as far as that's concerned. Other makers of performance-critical apps such as Adobe with Photoshop are in a similar boat, but once again it's not likely to be any different from optimizing for a new chip in the same architecture. As long as old code still runs -and from all indications, it will- then they have time to do these optimizations if they choose to do them, and that's what really matters.

I think this holds true if the OS/compiler is capable of doing the heavy lifting (or part thereof) for the developers. A CPU that shifts essentials like e.g. branch prediction from hardware to software space needs a spiffy compiler at least to not compromise this backward efficiency. Or did I get this one wrong?
Old code may still be able to run, but it may come at the cost of lesser than expected performance. But the performance of the PPC core in Cell cannot yet be determined. So this is a bit premature.

I am in a little doubt as to what extent Adobe and such companies are willing to revise their code base. They have not done much to make use of AltiVec, and even less to optimize for the G5 it seems to me.

[P]

Originally posted by theolein:
Fuck off.

The Cell has a PowerPC core alongside the 8 SPE's, so Apple will most likely be using it in the future.

I doubt it. Those vector units do not support Altivec, so any program that relies on Altivec would have to be recompiled for the new instruction set. And no, not recompiled to be faster, recompiled to even work.

The G5 is based off the Power4. The Power5 has already been released, and IBM has commited to making at least Power6 and Power7. They're not killing that line for the Cell.

Now, if we were still stuck in Motorola G4-hell I'd be more excited.

[cygy2k]

I asked the question because nobody ever talks about the reality that could bite Apple. I understand everybody wanting to hype their beloved little Apple and all but you have to really consider the small market share and the costs others (ie Adobe, Microsoft, etc.) would experience if Apple had to switch to a new processor. Most of the code would have to be either adapted/recompiled or rewritten for some areas. I am not a Mac hater, I love Apples, I however, am not like some of you that can spend $3k a year on Apple computers. I need to get a product and expect the company to be growing and not having hit a wall that nobody actually knows that they can break through.

What do we know about Apples processor future? That they can maybe reach 3ghz by next year. They might have a dual-core that they can release by next year. IBM might be ableto release a higher clocked G5. Freescale might be an option. We might be able to use the CELL processor. With Intel/AMD you know what they have up their sleeves and it's actually quite impressive. I would give anything to have Mac rule the world.

Don't slam me for asking the real question that all of you are affraid of not having an answer to.

[cpac]

Originally posted by cygy2k:
I asked the question because nobody ever talks about the reality that could bite Apple. I understand everybody wanting to hype their beloved little Apple and all but you have to really consider the small market share and the costs others (ie Adobe, Microsoft, etc.) would experience if Apple had to switch to a new processor. Most of the code would have to be either adapted/recompiled or rewritten for some areas. I am not a Mac hater, I love Apples, I however, am not like some of you that can spend $3k a year on Apple computers. I need to get a product and expect the company to be growing and not having hit a wall that nobody actually knows that they can break through.

What do we know about Apples processor future? That they can maybe reach 3ghz by next year. They might have a dual-core that they can release by next year. IBM might be ableto release a higher clocked G5. Freescale might be an option. We might be able to use the CELL processor. With Intel/AMD you know what they have up their sleeves and it's actually quite impressive. I would give anything to have Mac rule the world.

Don't slam me for asking the real question that all of you are affraid of not having an answer to.

Your posts seem to conincide remarkably well with a troll over in the iPod forum.

You've shown you have little regard for reality and simply want to provoke people. You asked if you should be worried, we told you no. If you have any real questions, ask them, otherwise, go troll elsewhere...

[cygy2k]

Its funny that you call me a troll just because I have questions that you don't like the tone of. You may call me a troll but I really think you need to reevaluate your thoughts on how people talk and carry out discussions. I simply asked if you guys carried any of the similar concerns and what/if I should do about my concerns. The fact is that I just bought a new PowerBook 15" today at the Apple Store. I love Apple products but am starting to think the whole Mac community needs to take a deep breath and stop being so darn cocky or you will definetly stop most people that have concern about switching from switching.

If you want to build the Mac community and marketshare, help people and stop making the whole Mac family seem so stuck up. Something most people already perceive of the Macinites.

[chris v]

Originally posted by cygy2k:
Its funny that you call me a troll just because I have questions that you don't like the tone of. You may call me a troll but I really think you need to reevaluate your thoughts on how people talk and carry out discussions. I simply asked if you guys carried any of the similar concerns and what/if I should do about my concerns. The fact is that I just bought a new PowerBook 15" today at the Apple Store. I love Apple products but am starting to think the whole Mac community needs to take a deep breath and stop being so darn cocky or you will definetly stop most people that have concern about switching from switching.

If you want to build the Mac community and marketshare, help people and stop making the whole Mac family seem so stuck up. Something most people already perceive of the Macinites.

I think you have some mis-conceptions about what Cell is. I'm not sure I understand it either, but it seems to be based on the same family of chips that the G5 is. When there are 3 GZ chips, Apple will use them ASAP, I'm sure. The whole industry just hit a pretty major brick wall, but the best and brightest are chiseling away at it. Apple, I'm sure, has long-term contingency plans, that in a worst-case scenario (IBM pulls an Enron) has them on Intel processors.

They're in great financial shape, and things are moving forward. Don't sweat it. and read up on Cell a little bit. We might have good reason to get happy about it in the Mac world.

[cpac]

Originally posted by cygy2k:
Its funny that you call me a troll just because I have questions that you don't like the tone of. You may call me a troll but I really think you need to reevaluate your thoughts on how people talk and carry out discussions. I simply asked if you guys carried any of the similar concerns and what/if I should do about my concerns.

And we told you that your concerns were ill founded and you should ignore them.

The fact is that I just bought a new PowerBook 15" today at the Apple Store. I love Apple products but am starting to think the whole Mac community needs to take a deep breath and stop being so darn cocky or you will definetly stop most people that have concern about switching from switching.

Most people who are thinking about switching ask real questions - not rhetorical ones about the uncertainty of the future. I welcome real switchers, and like to help suggest solutions for them. You however, come off as a troll without any real concerns.

Frankly, I don't believe you bought a Powerbook today.

The bottom line is - if you have real questions, ask them. If all you've got is rhetoric and worry/doom, then there's no point in asking.

PS if you "just purchased an iMac G5 and a new Gateway 7422GX Laptop" and now just purchased a 15" Al book, you have plenty of money to cope if Apple ever happens to go under for some reason.

[Brass]

Originally posted by cygy2k:
the costs others (ie Adobe, Microsoft, etc.) would experience if Apple had to switch to a new processor. Most of the code would have to be either adapted/recompiled or rewritten for some areas.

Sheesh... the cost of recompiling? are you serious? They have to recompile the software for every little release they do. And Apple have been smart enough in the past to make it entirely unnecessary to do any "adapting" or "rewriting" for their new chips (eg, with the 68k to PowerPC change).

It's a complete no-brainer for the developer. It's called hardware abstraction, and Apple does it very well. Actually so does Unix.

[hudson1]

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

[jasong]

Originally posted by hudson1:
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

Why . . . erg . . . they . . . ack

-- Jason

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by hudson1:
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

That has got to be th......... ah.

[tooki]

Moving to Lounge: this was NOT a Mac OS question!!!

tooki

[Eug Wanker]

Just to reiterate...

Originally posted by cygy2k:
What if IBM stops the PowerPC line to make the CELL?

Cell is PowerPC. I will ignore the rest of your post.

Originally posted by P:
I doubt it. Those vector units do not support Altivec, so any program that relies on Altivec would have to be recompiled for the new instruction set. And no, not recompiled to be faster, recompiled to even work.

Cell supports Altivec already. The PowerPC core in it does Altivec, even if the SPEs don't.

That said, I don't see a huge bonus for Apple to be on Cell at the moment. Maybe they'd use Cell without the funky memory bus and with less SPEs later on, but even then, dual-core 970 derivatives with increased cache might be more useful (when paired with the appropriate GPU).

[OreoCookie]

Check out Power.org. It looks like IBM wants to spread PowerPC based chips into every element of the market. Cell (which reminds me of the PowerPC 350, or rather, what I heard of it in the grapevine) and even incorporates Altivec. The question is rather: what can cell cpus be used in in Apple's (future) product line-up.

From the looks of it, IBM wants to move in the direction of ARM, but with a far more complete portfolio. (Not that IBM will go fabless any time soon, but I mean that they license their core to third parties which can adjust and tweak it to their needs.)

[Superchicken]

See this is the problem when Apple suggests that people who are down right stupid switch platforms... sometimes they do... and we have to put up with moronic posts like this...

[effgee]

Originally posted by cygy2k:
... Please advise on what to do.

Action items, for your perusal - do not change their order and act quickly!

[X] Send an email to Samuel J. Palmisano, asking for his advice.
[X] Send an email to Steve Jobs, asking for his advice.
[X] Send an email to Bill Gates, asking for his advice.
[X] Sell the iMac ... NOW!
[O] Know what you are talking about.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by P:
I doubt it. Those vector units do not support Altivec...

No, but the core does, so the point is moot. AltiVec code will not be as fast as these new vector units, but it will still run.

[Millennium]

Look people, this is pretty simple. If you compile code for a G3, it will run on a G4 without recompiling. It won't be able to take advantage of the features introduced in the G4, but it will still run.

The same is almost certain to be true of the Cell core. If you compile code for a G5, it will run on a Cell without recompiling. It won't be able to take advantage of the new features of the Cell (such as these enhanced vector units), but it will still run. The only code which isn't likely to run will be code which has been specifically optimized for the latest versions of AltiVec -in particular the G5's version- but this is not a big deal, because every app which includes such code today also includes code for older versions of AltiVec so that it can run on those chips. Assuming that the AltiVec-enhanced code checks for chip features properly, there will once again be no need to change.

In other words, Apple should be able to switch to the Cell with very little trouble.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Millennium:
In other words, Apple should be able to switch to the Cell with very little trouble.

Well, not really. It has an entirely different memory bus for example. I dunno if Apple would really be wanting to build desktops using XDR memory at this point.

Furthermore, the G5 is less than 70 mm�. Cell is well over 3X the size. ie. $$$

I suspect that if Apple were to use the Cell core, the overall chip wouldn't look like the design that IBM unveiled this week. It'd probably have less SPEs or no SPEs and a different I/O bus and memory bus.

Would that still really be Cell?

[Eriamjh]

Originally posted by Goldfinger:
OMG OMG the current level is "Elevated" !!!

That means that something might happen somewhere at some time.

[Ratm]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:

I<-----LOoKy!

Eug, has your blog sunken so low that you're despret enough to look for hits here? So this is the bottom of the barrel, huh. Should have known it be MacNN.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Ratm:
Eug, has your blog sunken so low that you're despret enough to look for hits here? So this is the bottom of the barrel, huh. Should have known it be MacNN.

Heheh. I was wondering if anyone would notice that little stealth link.

[Ratm]

Good read by the way.

[wdlove]

After the investment that IBM has made to produce the G5 chip don't thing that will exit anytime soon. Would expect that when the Cell is available then their will be cooperation again between IBM & Apple.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Well, not really. It has an entirely different memory bus for example. I dunno if Apple would really be wanting to build desktops using XDR memory at this point.

Furthermore, the G5 is less than 70 mm�. Cell is well over 3X the size. ie. $$$

I suspect that if Apple were to use the Cell core, the overall chip wouldn't look like the design that IBM unveiled this week. It'd probably have less SPEs or no SPEs and a different I/O bus and memory bus.

Would that still really be Cell?

Cell is not a CPU, it's a concept. It's about customization. So if Apple wants a specific version, then they'll get it (if they are willing to pay for it). My guess is that you could make the cell chip with 4, 8 or 12 vector units without too many complications.

Intel has switched from MMX to SSE and extended it three times. So I don't see a problem if Apple would switch to a different type of vector unit.