[Ken_F2]

According to the story...

Nevertheless, these observers report that Apple has been serious enough about its ace in the hole to seed a few lucky civilians with prototype boxes � delivered heavily swaddled in layers of cloak-and-dagger security, natch. Specifically, recent testers report taking delivery of Athlon-powered boxes that Apple had assiduously welded shut to prevent prying eyes from ogling whatever other gremlins might be lurking inside these nondescript beige chassis.

Apparently, Apple is shipping Athlon-based tests systems with versions of OS X, Final Cut Pro, and other OS X applications. As you might expect, the article reports that Final Cut Pro is much faster with an Athlon than on a Mac.

If true...Well, one can't fault Apple for having a backup plan, just in case the IBM 970 is delayed, is too expensive, or does not deliver on claimed performance.

[jasonxz]

Maybe this is one reason why Apple has been saying that next year's Macs will only boot into X.

[Mac Zealot]

You know this isn't true. LOL!

[Eriamjh]

Hmmmm. I'll believe it when I buy it.

[gadster]

oh *happy days* (if this is true). About freakin time we got the world's best OS on the world's best hardware.

[Spliffdaddy]

old news to some of us...excluding the 'Final Cut Pro' reference, anyhow.

[D'Espice]

Do NEVER believe everything you read on the Net... 90% of it is pure crap.

[reader50]

Even if this rumor is true, "FCP running faster on an Athlon" may be deceptive. FCP on PPC is feature-complete. This rumor sounds like early application builds with features disabled. Game demos usually run faster than the feature-complete full games, regardless of platform.

[ReggieX]

It's a misquote from the real MacEdition story: http://www.macedition.com/nmr/nmr_20021112.php

While the applications exhibited a few rough edges, eyewitnesses attest, FCP �flew� on the AMD box compared with its performance on current PowerPC hardware.

Emphasis added.
In other words, "duh!"

[gumby5647]

Originally posted by Ken_F2:
According to the story...


Apparently, Apple is shipping Athlon-based tests systems with versions of OS X, Final Cut Pro, and other OS X applications. As you might expect, the article reports that Final Cut Pro is much faster with an Athlon than on a Mac.

If true...Well, one can't fault Apple for having a backup plan, just in case the IBM 970 is delayed, is too expensive, or does not deliver on claimed performance.

so......how do they know it's an Athlon if the case is sealed shut?


Nothing to see hear....move along.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
Hmmmm. I'll believe it when I buy it.

I'm with this guy.

[Rabid Duck]

Oh please... Apple shipping prototype units to beta testers? And then welding the computers shut as a 'security' measure? I'd be more inclined to believe the story if it asserted the units were stolen from Apple in the darkness of the night...

[dfiler]

Wow, that article was Mac The Knife-esque.

I can believe apple is seeding sealed, test hardware to beta-testers.
Athlon inside? That's probably stretching it a bit.

[Deal]

Why would they need to ship it to beta testers? Don't they have enough Mac users at Apple? Wouldn't they have a FCP user there somewhere that could evaluate speed?

Sounds like a fishy story.

I like it!

[bartman00]

LOL.. I'm with DEAL! it sounds even more crazy when you say it like that.

I'm just not buying it.. err.. I would love to buy one but I'm not buying the story. It is believable that Apple has a small team that works on a Intel/AMD version of X for dooms day sort of stuff. You can't be a company that dosn't have a plan B.. plan C.. and plan D just incase things go wrong with plan A.

Bart

[:XI:]

how about these machines have a (or 'the') new ibm/motorolla chip and have an amd sticker on the case and/or the testers were told they were amd.

huh? huh?



oh, hold on� somebody at the door�

it was steve with my amd-mac

[JNG]

I don't understand...it was welded shut but they know what CPU is inside? How? I mean, you could say information could be gained from built-in utilities, but then why would it be welded shut exactly? Why would these be given to outsiders? How would it be running a popular Mac OS X only browser? A lot of this doesn't seem like it makes very much sense.

[Deal]

Well, I heard that AMD would not let Apple use one of their chips because the Apple system profiler would let everybody know what mhz their "code" named chips were running at!

Kidding asside...

If future Apple computers ship with IBM chips, wouldn't it be great if they launched an ad campaing that said, "IBM inside"

I live in an IBM town and people buy PCs here because of it. Little do they know there is more IBM in Mac than any Gateway or Dell they'll ever get.

[Mark Tungston]

2 words

ass attack

[:XI:]

Originally posted by Deal:
I live in an IBM town

I knew IBM liked to make everything the customer could want but the TOWN!

[McDriver]

There have been rumors that Apple have been running os x or at least bsd on x86 machines for a long time, and I would if I were Apple. This is to test if it works and to have a backdoor if Motorola and IBM falls behind in computing power. So if you can get in to Apple's labs you will see these machines. But sending them to beta testers eeehhhh hmmmzz

If you see a rumour first ask yourself : Is this something I would have done beeing a Apple executive?

[Deal]

If I were Steve..... (cloudy misty transition)

If you can't beat'em, joint'em (LOUD RECORD SCRATCH)

Lets try that again.

If I were Steve..... (cloudy misty transition)

If you can't beat'em, that's not an option. BEAT"EM OR YOUR FIRED!

[Cipher13]

I said it, years ago.

It's happening, trust me.

But, I think the article is BS. These machines would be kept at Apple.

Reader50 is right - there'd be little speed advantage of an Athlon over a PPC, given FCP's awesome altivec acceleration.

[scottiB]

Wow, that article was Mac The Knife-esque

Naked Mole rat is Mac the Knife under a different nom de plume (which some believe is eWeek's Mathew Rothenburg).

Anyway...

FCP �flew� on the AMD box compared with its performance on current PowerPC hardware. (bold emphasis mine)

Gee, no kidding. I'm sure it flew in contrast to current G4s. Let's see how is stacks up to the 970 (because you know FCP will be 64-bit closely following that Apple box's arrival. It'll be a real-time rendering cornucopia).

Again, it's the memory-bandwidth that's the bottleneck, not the G4 chip, which can't get data fast enough.

[:XI:]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
It's happening, trust me.

what is? the switch to x86? to amd/intel? your weening from macnn?

OK, I'm going to say Apple are releasing new powermacs over and over, then when it happens I'm going to say 'see? told ya! I'm so smart I knew what apple were doing!'

Why would apple switch to x86?
why swap one bunch of 'problems' for another?
First they'll cut corners by switching to cheaper cpus� then they'll fire IDg and use crappy pressed steel boxes from taiwan� then they'll save more money by ending development of Mac OS X and install winXP on 'macs' then we'll end up with another IBM-clone, in a shitty box with a shitty OS, an apple logo and an extra 300 on the price.

in short: not gonna happen. hopefully�

[MacManMikeOSX]

Originally posted by McDriver:
There have been rumors that Apple have been running os x or at least bsd on x86 machines for a long time, and I would if I were Apple. This is to test if it works and to have a backdoor if Motorola and IBM falls behind in computing power. So if you can get in to Apple's labs you will see these machines. But sending them to beta testers eeehhhh hmmmzz

If you see a rumour first ask yourself : Is this something I would have done beeing a Apple executive?

If they fall behind, they are behind.

[Deal]

I'm sure Apple is checking out all possible paths. Like most smart companies do. The choice is where they differ.

Microsoft: Chooses the path of most control

Intel: chooses the path of least resistance

Apple: chooses the path of MOST FREAKING AWSOME, BLOW"EM OUT OF THE WATER, SEE YA LATER, BYE BYE

sorry, lost my mind for a moment.

I would say Apple will choose the IBM and that will be that. They will still have Moto and IBM to supply them (two suppliers is better than one) and we can still have show downs at MacWorld (and snail ads, steam roller crunching laptops etc... You know. The things we really love).

[mac-at-kearsarge]

As I'm reading this. watching episode II, I defiantly feel that this thread diserves a "StarWars" referance (although they area completely unrelated):

"This is not the combination x86 and MacOS you're looking for"

[clarkgoble]

Whether Apple choses IBM depends upon when the 970 comes out and how it compares to Intel offerings. Right now even best predictions put it in the middle of the expected x86 pack. If there are delays then things may be more problematic. Then you have to factor in cost. All of this makes even the best case scenario (an early delivery of a 970 that is cheap) a situation where Apple is behind the Windows curve.

The fact that many OSX apps are not at all well written for multitasking or using Altivec means that even the advantages Apple can provide can only help so far.

If Apple feels that the PowerPC won't keep up to equivalent PCs then they'd have no choice but to convert. OSX is a vastly better OS to XP in my opinion. But it is more power hungry and providing further advantages to XP will likely involve more processor usage.

Even now many of the Apps Apple has been buying perform better on PCs than Macs. Whereas the performance curve used to be on the Mac side unless you went upscale to SGIs, that is no longer true. Given recent Apple purchases I think Apple wants a high end worstation that can compete with Microsoft. Can IBM provide that? Perhaps. If not, we might have Apple providing both PowerPC and Intel Macintoshes for a time - likely with Intel chips on higher end workstations with niche oriented programs like Maya.

Since Worstations would be running primarily a few Apps, Apple could emphasize the recompile for those applications and do emulation for the rest. The emulations would likely be horrible, given the problems of emulating a PowerPC.

The other alternative might actually be an Intel based Mac with a low cost G3 co-processor board for those applications that won't run on the Intel chip. That might actually be easier. But who knows. (And I imagine that communication between the bus and the co-processor would be a nightmare with mixed Intel and PowerPC chips)

[Evangellydonut]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
Do NEVER believe everything you read on the Net... 90% of it is pure crap.

99.9% of the statistics are false, and 90+% of them are made up on the spot, including this one

[Todd Madson]

I've worked in the R&D department of a company that made products
that received test systems from both Apple and Intel.

Nothing this big would be shipped outside Apple Computer's doors.

And nothing would need to be "welded shut" - what a bunch of kiddie
made-up garbage.

You would see decals indicating "property of xyz, do not remove"
and it would be over the area where the case can be removed.

Most of the systems I saw were in nondescript mini-ATX style cases.

There's no point in having super fancy cases for these things since
they'll eventually go back to the manufacturer and dissected anyway.

[k_munic]

so, did you ever try to use a pioneer 04 OUTSIDE an apple machine to burn dvds (via firewire or whatever)?

did you try to use a cordless noname mouse on an apple computer?

did you try to connect some korean-dingsbumms didicam to an apple computer?

and now, we should believe, apple is transporting its unix-system to run on such an "open standard" hardware as intel/amd????

hey, kiddies! NO WAY!!
or: "please use MacOsXDOS just with te following hardware-specs. blablablablablablablabla............."

except ONE possibility: DELL is selling a sealed machine with OsX pre-installed, no hardware-changes possibile...........

[dfbennett]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't OS X on x86 chips mean that Carbon wouldn't work? Doesn't carbon incorporate parts of the old Mac OS toolkit that was written for the PPC? I could be wrong but if I'm right, that'd mean Cocoa only apps. If so, that's not only doubtful but won't be happening(if ever) for a long long time.

[clarkgoble]

They would have to provide an emulator. When Apple first switched to PowerPC's from the 68040 they wrote an emulator. I wouldn't be surprised if there were still code in OSX that is actually emulated 68040.

The problem is that while a PowerPC can easily emulate a x86 (albeit slowly) the reverse is not true. Thus the trick Apple used going to PowerPC wouldn't work that well. Given that they'd have to convince all the application authors to do a port to an x86 and most large companies have a 2 year development cycle, it would mean Apple would be stuck with a computer with little or no software. The only way to achieve what they want is develop a reasonable interpreter. However then you'd have people running Photoshop or Illustrator on the same hardware, only with one OS having this crippled interpreter. Even though right now there is a speed problem due to problems with PPC chips, that would make it horrible.

The only solution would be a dual processor system that is both x86 and PPC. However as I mentioned, that has its own set of problems.

Realistically Motorola's incompetence in getting the next generation chips out has really, really hurt Apple. Steve Jobs did an amazing job getting OSX out. However he really needs to pull a rabbit out of a hat to deal with the hardware issues.

[l008com]

Obviously a joke. First off I'd bet the farm that apple is using IBM's new chip. Second, if apple did ever go to amd, which they won't, they still would NOT switch to X86. AMD would have to start making thier own PowerPC chips for apple. Which is possible, but not likely. Very not likey. I'm telling you, its the new 64 bit IBM all the way.

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Whether Apple choses IBM depends upon when the 970 comes out and how it compares to Intel offerings. Right now even best predictions put it in the middle of the expected x86 pack.

Based on what MHz? A MHz-to-MHz comparison of an intel-to-G4 is already way off. How much faster would a 2 GHz 64bit PPC proc with velocity engine be than your fantastic 3 GHz P4? Also if 32+64 bit architectures are going to be completely cross compatible, which they will pretty much have to be, then its make sense that as soon as Apple found out about IBMs new chip, surely long before we did, then they have already been optimizing for 64 bit to an extent.

[clarkgoble]

The 3 GHz P4 is out now. The ~2 GHz 970 is out in a year. Between now and then we should expect speed increases with the P4.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love IBM to have their chips out early, underprice and faster than expected. But that seems a bit too much to expect.

[Superchicken]

soo what's yer point? Intel reaches what 4.5 Ghz next year? the 970s are expected to be roughtly twice as fast as a G4, and a G4 is faster than a P4, so if the 970 isn't as fast it should sure as heck be close!

[OwlBoy]

Originally posted by jasonxz:
Maybe this is one reason why Apple has been saying that next year's Macs will only boot into X.

Insightful, never thought of that.

Its either G5 or x86

-Owl

p.s. just think how much VPC would rock on that sys (x86) minus the fact it runs windows o'course.

[l008com]

But that would mean one version of Mac OS X and every Mac app for imacs, ibooks, powerbooks and emacs, and a completely different x86 version of macos and every app for the new Powermacs. Hmmmm

[OreoCookie]

They allegedly also shipped Motorola G5 test boxes to developpers. Will such a machine ever see the light of day? I don't think so.

[TimmyDee51]

Originally posted by jasonxz:
Maybe this is one reason why Apple has been saying that next year's Macs will only boot into X.

No, that's actually been proven untrue. As the Apple Turns notes that a reader called Apple with a concern about booting into OS 9 for repair issues and the tech support person said that booting into OS 9 will be available from CD. This means that the non-OS 9 from a HD will be crippled via some firmware deal. This is simply Apple forcing people and companies (Quark) to move beyond OS 9 and embrace OS X. It does not necessarily mean that there will be new, OS 9 compatible hardware. Besides, if the 970 can run 32-bit instructions with no penalty, why couldn't it run OS 9?

Also, in terms of performance, the 970 at 1.8 GHz gets a SPECint2000 score of 937 and a SPECfp2000 score of 1051. Compare this to the Pentium4 at 3.06 GHz which gets a SPECint score of 1099 and a SPECfp score of 1077. These numbers are pretty close, and who knows how IBM may tweak the product in the near future. What I'm saying is that the 970 is competitive at half the clock rate. This doesn't even begin to take into account AltiVec/VMX, multiprocessors, cache design, or the wide 900 MHz bus that will supply these processors with data. Overall, I think the 970 will be very competitive in the next year and even more so when Intel is forced to jettison 32-bit design.

[iChristopher]

The thing that puzzles me if you assume it's all true is this... If they are shipping beta machines to select customers, that would indicate to me that these machines are destined to be production models. Why would they let prototype hardware out of the lab? What's the benefit? If it were true then I'd say look for Athlon Macs in the next year.

[rambo47]

Apple having a "Plan B" that includes Mac OS X on x86 is easy to believe. In fact I'd call it just plain smart.

Apple shipping AMD-based PowerMacs to testers is just plain ludicrous. If you believe it, then see me about a bridge I can sell you.

[MacManMikeOSX]

apple could decide to open up the 86x osx to cloning and keep the native ppc apple only would make alot of sense.

[clarkgoble]

Also, in terms of performance, the 970 at 1.8 GHz gets a SPECint2000 score of 937 and a SPECfp2000 score of 1051. Compare this to the Pentium4 at 3.06 GHz which gets a SPECint score of 1099 and a SPECfp score of 1077.

The problem is that the P4 is out now and will continue to improve. The 970 won't be available for probably a year. So by then Intel will, if recent trends continue, be considerably faster than the 970. Of course that assumes that the 970 performs at stated performance. It is possible that IBM will deliver it with a higher clock or more optimizations. I wouldn't count on it though.

Most likely the 970 will at best keep the present speed difference from the Intel crowd, not equalize performance. It is exciting simply because we won't be stuck with current G4s. Further the bus sounds exciting. But will it be enough? Its hard to say. I suspect Apple will be forced to continue selling dual processor systems to even remain competitive.


Apple could decide to open up the 86x osx to cloning and keep the native ppc Apple only would make alot of sense.

The problem with cloning is the wide array of hardware on the PC. I think that would be very difficult for Apple. Further Apple generates much of its revenue from hardware. The last time they allowed Mac clones it was a bad idea and hurt Apple. Were Apple getting the support from hardware manufacturers and software manufacturers that the PC is then it might be different. But right now they can't really sell copies of an x86 OSX that doesn't run right. It would alienate their customer base.

So if Apple goes x86 (doubtful because of the emulation issues I mentioned earlier in the thread) they'd still likely only sell their name brand x86 and perhaps allow IBM to sell them. That is the wildcard. I half wonder if IBM will sell 970 systems running either OSX or Linux.

[JNG]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
<b><i>Also, in terms of performance, the 970 at 1.8 GHz gets a SPECint2000 score of 937 and a SPECfp2000 score of 1051. Compare this to the Pentium4 at 3.06 GHz which gets a SPECint score of 1099 and a SPECfp score of 1077. </i></b>

The problem is that the P4 is out <i>now</i> and will continue to improve. The 970 won't be available for probably a year. So by then Intel will, if recent trends continue, be considerably faster than the 970. Of course that assumes that the 970 performs at stated performance. It is possible that IBM will deliver it with a higher clock or more optimizations. I wouldn't count on it though.

Most likely the 970 will at best keep the present speed difference from the Intel crowd, not equalize performance. It is exciting simply because we won't be stuck with current G4s. Further the bus sounds exciting. But will it be enough? Its hard to say. I suspect Apple will be forced to continue selling dual processor systems to even remain competitive.


<b><i>Apple could decide to open up the 86x osx to cloning and keep the native ppc Apple only would make alot of sense.</i></b>

The problem with cloning is the wide array of hardware on the PC. I think that would be very difficult for Apple. Further Apple generates much of its revenue from hardware. The last time they allowed Mac clones it was a bad idea and hurt Apple. Were Apple getting the support from hardware manufacturers and software manufacturers that the PC is then it might be different. But right now they can't really sell copies of an x86 OSX that doesn't run right. It would alienate their customer base.

So if Apple goes x86 (doubtful because of the emulation issues I mentioned earlier in the thread) they'd still likely only sell their name brand x86 and perhaps allow IBM to sell them. That is the wildcard. I half wonder if IBM will sell 970 systems running either OSX or Linux.

SPEC scores aren't everything.

Your statement that clones were "a bad idea and hurt Apple" is a wildly debatable one. Pluses or minuses of any new scenario like this would be strongly dependent upon the specific implementation. The "cloning" taking the limited form of IBM PPC 970-driven machines that could run OSX (even if not so packaged) is an intriguing proposition.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by :XI::


what is? the switch to x86? to amd/intel? your weening from macnn?

OK, I'm going to say Apple are releasing new powermacs over and over, then when it happens I'm going to say 'see? told ya! I'm so smart I knew what apple were doing!'

Why would apple switch to x86?
why swap one bunch of 'problems' for another?
First they'll cut corners by switching to cheaper cpus� then they'll fire IDg and use crappy pressed steel boxes from taiwan� then they'll save more money by ending development of Mac OS X and install winXP on 'macs' then we'll end up with another IBM-clone, in a shitty box with a shitty OS, an apple logo and an extra 300 on the price.

in short: not gonna happen. hopefully�

Not x86. Why switch to x86? That's a dead end.

They have an OSX variant that will run on Athlons, or whatever, 'just in case'.

I'm not saying they'll release it - but, if worst comes to worst, they could release this and still have their foot in the door to rebuild themselves.

[Jansar]

I must be missing something here. I thought the Motorola PowerPC G4's were the fastest chips. I mean, when Mac users disprove the megahertz myth, isn't that the reason?

[Spliffdaddy]

don't be making negative comments about the Mac.

you'll end up getting this thread locked or moved to the Lounge.

[:XI:]

Originally posted by Cipher13:


Not x86. Why switch to x86? That's a dead end.

They have an OSX variant that will run on Athlons, or whatever, 'just in case'.

I'm not saying they'll release it - but, if worst comes to worst, they could release this and still have their foot in the door to rebuild themselves.

ok, i thought your were saying a switch to x86 was a dead cert.

i'll get off my high horse now.