No doubt you've all probably read this by now: http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-... If this is really true, it'll be interesting to see how this is going to affect existing Mac users (who will have probably invested lots of money in software already) and existing PC users assuming that Apple opens up and allows anybody to run Mac OX for x86 processors. M.
On Saturday 04 June 2005 9:40 pm, Martyn Drake wrote:
No doubt you've all probably read this by now:
http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3 -5731398.html?tag=nefd.lede
I think that CNet may have the wrong end of the stick, it wouldn't be the first time. For a start they are assuming that intel=x86, Apple may have enough rights to the PPC to get someone else other than IBM or Motorola to build it. A clue is that they are moving the mini first and then higher end models later. I can't believe that they are going to be selling two different architectures side by side. Also parts of OSX rely heavily on the Altivec/Velocity Engine/VMX, so without a major rework some things would slow down quite a bit. Unless Intel can graft a VMX instruction layer on X86. Unless Apple have some clever (and bloody fast) code morphing technology up their sleeves that allows PPC code to run at full speed on x86. The platform just cannot survive another architecture shift. A lot of software has only just caught up with OSX on PPC, Apple cannot go back to those developers and ask them to rebuild their apps for X86.
If this is really true, it'll be interesting to see how this is going to affect existing Mac users (who will have probably invested lots of money in software already) and existing PC users assuming that Apple opens up and allows anybody to run Mac OX for x86 processors.
You will never see OSX running native on standard PC hardware. Even Darwin is very fussy about what chipset it is running on. Even if Apple went the X86 route then you can be sure that OSX will only run with an Apple Bios and possibly a specific Apple chipset. Although this would make the PearPC guys life a lot easier. If OSX ran on standard PC's then Apple would fail as a hardware business and OSX would be in direct competition with Windows...For a start this probably means that they could wave goodbye to any new versions of MS Office. Scary though, whatever the announcement.
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 09:14:13AM +0100, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
Also parts of OSX rely heavily on the Altivec/Velocity Engine/VMX, so without a major rework some things would slow down quite a bit. Unless Intel can graft a VMX instruction layer on X86.
I was under the impression that lots of OSX was based on NeXT technology, which originally ran on m68k and x86, I'm quite certain that Apple have been building an x86 version of OSX for some time and that the changes they would need to make to the OS to get it running on x86 would be minimal. Although, like you mentioned I wouldn't be surprised if the move isn't to Intel x86 but to a different Intel architecture, or possibly even an AMD platform?.
The platform just cannot survive another architecture shift. A lot of software has only just caught up with OSX on PPC, Apple cannot go back to those developers and ask them to rebuild their apps for X86.
But aren't many of these apps already built for x86 as they run on Windows? Certainly I was under the impression that most Apple users fave software was either made by Apple *or* Adobe. So again the porting wouldn't be disastrous (and given that if they were going to shift to x86 Adobe would already know this and probably have been given Mac OSX on x86 to build apps with).
You will never see OSX running native on standard PC hardware. Even Darwin is very fussy about what chipset it is running on. Even if Apple went the X86 route then you can be sure that OSX will only run with an Apple Bios and possibly a specific Apple chipset. Although this would make the PearPC guys life a lot easier.
Hmmmn, I was just thinking... Isn't it time for a Mac OS XI? I don't think it would be beyond Apple to start producing software for x86 with a limited range of hardware support (say only recent Nvidia and ATI gfx cards, limit it to fast cpus, Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 and above only and you can then ignore lots of the problems with old hardware as you don't support it). God knows if they will actually produce a version of Mac OS X that runs on standard x86 hardware, I can see that if they did it would be interesting, as I'm sure that many Windows users would be happy to pay 100 quid for a copy rather than the 200-300 quid that M$ want for Windows upgrades.
If OSX ran on standard PC's then Apple would fail as a hardware business and OSX would be in direct competition with Windows...For a start this probably means that they could wave goodbye to any new versions of MS Office.
You forget the funky thing that Apple can do if M$ say "no more office for Mac OS" they can just bundle technology similar to wine with a funky wrapper/installer and then run all the popular Windows software natively. It makes a huge difference to launching what would essentially be a new OS with the tagline "runs 90% of existing Windows software, while giving you the ease of use of Apple Mac OS X". Either way, everything is just speculation until Monday. I reckon perhaps they are just going to announce iCrack where you give Apple money and they give you addictive hard drugs and then tell everyone how wonderful Apple is and how they are your friend really ;) Thanks Adam -- jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li AFFS || http://www.affs.org.uk/ || Not a filesystem
On Sunday 05 June 2005 11:47 am, Adam Bower wrote:
I was under the impression that lots of OSX was based on NeXT technology, which originally ran on m68k and x86, I'm quite certain that Apple have been building an x86 version of OSX for some time and that the changes they would need to make to the OS to get it running on x86 would be minimal. Although, like you mentioned I wouldn't be surprised if the move isn't to Intel x86 but to a different Intel architecture, or possibly even an AMD platform?.
I think the NeXT technology is present in OSX in terms of idealology. I doubt there is that much actual NeXT code in there. Jobs has practically admitted that Apple do have a running X86 build of OSX....but running and running as well or better than it does on a PPC are different things. I agree though that AMD would seem like a more logical choice. Perhaps because the last two suppliers for Apple CPU's have had problems meeting delivery targets and in Motorola's case pushing the PPC arch forward at the rate Apple needed, Apple have decided to go with the bigger player this time. It does seem like a bit of a shame to drop the G5 arch though (if that's what they are going to do) I thought it was a great chip and I have heard that there is still some clockspeed headroom in the design.
But aren't many of these apps already built for x86 as they run on Windows? Certainly I was under the impression that most Apple users fave software was either made by Apple *or* Adobe. So again the porting wouldn't be disastrous (and given that if they were going to shift to x86 Adobe would already know this and probably have been given Mac OSX on x86 to build apps with).
Well sort of I suppose but Adobe can't just take the Win32 code and run it on a X86 Mac. It would certainly make the port easier knowing that they already have a x86 codebase but building for a X86 Mac is bound to be a bit different from building for Win32 Also you have to consider things like 3rd party drivers and the OSS comunity efforts to port code over to OSX PPC, neither of those two camps are going to be so thrilled about having to rebuild (and probably introduce new bugs into) their existing work.
Hmmmn, I was just thinking... Isn't it time for a Mac OS XI? I don't think it would be beyond Apple to start producing software for x86 with a limited range of hardware support (say only recent Nvidia and ATI gfx cards, limit it to fast cpus, Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 and above only and you can then ignore lots of the problems with old hardware as you don't support it). God knows if they will actually produce a version of Mac OS X that runs on standard x86 hardware, I can see that if they did it would be interesting, as I'm sure that many Windows users would be happy to pay 100 quid for a copy rather than the 200-300 quid that M$ want for Windows upgrades.
I just can't see Apple ever supporting their OS on a clone architecture, they tried it years ago and it didn't really fly for them. Also to me half the thing about Apple is that you are buying a package (hardware and software) which pretty much guarantees a degree of compatability and reliability. Even if you set high minimum specs you are still going to encounter some crufty chipset that requires third party drivers to work properly. I think that Apple don't really make money out of OSX it's just a reason to get you buying Apple hardware, so unless there was some hugely profitable licensing deal to be had I can't see them ever supporting running their operating system on someone else's hardware
You forget the funky thing that Apple can do if M$ say "no more office for Mac OS" they can just bundle technology similar to wine with a funky wrapper/installer and then run all the popular Windows software natively. It makes a huge difference to launching what would essentially be a new OS with the tagline "runs 90% of existing Windows software, while giving you the ease of use of Apple Mac OS X".
Apple wouldn't want to do that. Wine or Virtual PC is great when you have no option but to run some Windows code but to actually rely on it for a desktop strategy would be a little silly. If you look at say Office 2004 on the Mac you will see that it's much more than just the Win32 version running on a Mac, the integration with the rest of the OS and the matching Widgets etc. The way things like the preferences dialogue etc all behave is very different on the Mac product (actually Word on the Mac is far nicer than the Windows version) It would just be an ugly situation and there would be no guarantee that Microsoft doesn't either make it a licensing requirement that Office is run on a MS operating system or somehow breaks compatability in a future version. Also potentially you could open up OSX to all the Windows spyware,malware and viruses. Admittedly the better default security policies of the Mac would make this less likely. But worse than that (for Apple) It would turn OSX into a closed alternative to Linux.
Either way, everything is just speculation until Monday. I reckon perhaps they are just going to announce iCrack where you give Apple money and they give you addictive hard drugs and then tell everyone how wonderful Apple is and how they are your friend really ;)
They already do that in a way, The iPod whispers subliminal messages watermarked over the Owners music in real time by the AAC compression. If you close your eyes and listen real hard you can hear "Buy Apple....Buy a Mac....Apple are your friends.....Having a Powerbook makes you look cool and intelligent" :-) But as you say on Monday we may even hear that some big wires have been crossed and that actually they are looking at Intel to provide some supporing chips (Wireless or perhaps chipset) or perhaps they are going to get back into PDA's and need an ARM chip.
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 05:27:47PM +0100, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
I think the NeXT technology is present in OSX in terms of idealology. I doubt there is that much actual NeXT code in there. Jobs has practically admitted that Apple do have a running X86 build of OSX....but running and running as well or better than it does on a PPC are different things.
Hmmn, from what I heard (especially from one guy I used to work with who was a NeXT fan/user) parts of Mac OS X (well, this was more in the beta period and early OS X releases, I can't speak for the past few years) were exactly the same as NeXTstep. I would be very surprised if parts of the Mac OS X codebase *wasn't* based on and originally used in NeXTStep.
Well sort of I suppose but Adobe can't just take the Win32 code and run it on a X86 Mac. It would certainly make the port easier knowing that they already have a x86 codebase but building for a X86 Mac is bound to be a bit different from building for Win32
Yup, but I don't think it a huge leap as any bits they have which are PPC assembler for example they will have copies of as x86 assembler. The rest of it should work with a bit of clever hacking given the Unix/NeXT heritage in Mac OS X.
Also you have to consider things like 3rd party drivers and the OSS comunity efforts to port code over to OSX PPC, neither of those two camps are going to be so thrilled about having to rebuild (and probably introduce new bugs into) their existing work.
Well, much OSS stuff already builds on an alarming amount of architectures and operating systems the stuff that builds on Mac OS X PPC should be pretty simple to take and just compile for Mac OS X. I do know of one software porting effort where a large Unix codebase which was built for many architectures had a customer requirement for an OS X version, the actual port to OS X took around 24 hours.... As for drivers, again I don't see this being a huge problem. Linux has lots of drivers and it runs on lots of platforms and how many people who produce Mac drivers don't produce an x86 driver? Again there will be porting work here but given that Apple wouldn't say "as of tomorrow we are only selling x86 kit" people will have plenty of time to develop new drivers. (I thought the rumor said that x86 Macs would be available in 2006).
I think that Apple don't really make money out of OSX it's just a reason to get you buying Apple hardware, so unless there was some hugely profitable licensing deal to be had I can't see them ever supporting running their operating system on someone else's hardware
Agreed, I also don't see why they would go to x86 but then, we shall see. It certainly would be interesting if they did.
Apple wouldn't want to do that. Wine or Virtual PC is great when you have no option but to run some Windows code but to actually rely on it for a desktop strategy would be a little silly.
I'm talking about them adding some extra Apple magic, and I have worked in an environment that relied upon Codeweavers crossover office for running apps on Linux and tbh, everything did "just work".
It would just be an ugly situation and there would be no guarantee that Microsoft doesn't either make it a licensing requirement that Office is run on a MS operating system or somehow breaks compatability in a future version.
How do you say anti-trust :) Future versions would mean that Apple would fight back. It may sound ugly, but then under the hood lots of Mac OS X stuff is already ugly so it wouldn't be unknown territory for them.
Also potentially you could open up OSX to all the Windows spyware,malware and viruses. Admittedly the better default security policies of the Mac would make this less likely.
I'm sure that Apple would have an installer wrapper that made you install an app before it would run. I don't think they would make it quite the same as a click the .exe to run.
They already do that in a way, The iPod whispers subliminal messages watermarked over the Owners music in real time by the AAC compression. If you close your eyes and listen real hard you can hear "Buy Apple....Buy a Mac....Apple are your friends.....Having a Powerbook makes you look cool and intelligent" :-)
Heh, I always suspected this. :)
But as you say on Monday we may even hear that some big wires have been crossed and that actually they are looking at Intel to provide some supporing chips (Wireless or perhaps chipset) or perhaps they are going to get back into PDA's and need an ARM chip.
Which In all likelyhood seems to be what will happen as I do tend to agree with you that it is a strange and unlikely move for Apple to make, but having said that I don't see it as an impossibility... Oh well, all the Mac fanboys should only have about 24 hours to wait now :) I'm just hoping that there are no mass suicides from devoted Apple fans ;) Adam -- jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li AFFS || http://www.affs.org.uk/ || Not a filesystem
Perhaps the reverse is true.. http://www.xcom2002.com/doh/index.php?s=04090314eco M.
Adam Bower <adam@thebowery.co.uk> writes:
Hmmn, from what I heard (especially from one guy I used to work with who was a NeXT fan/user) parts of Mac OS X (well, this was more in the beta period and early OS X releases, I can't speak for the past few years) were exactly the same as NeXTstep. I would be very surprised if parts of the Mac OS X codebase *wasn't* based on and originally used in NeXTStep.
Cocoa uses Objective-C, the class names start 'NS', etc ... even without knowing NeXTStep you can tell that that's what it is. The BSD-on-Mach software architecture also comes from NeXT, though in Macs it's FreeBSD rather than BSD 4.3; I wouldn't know how much of the work there was carried across to the newer BSD and how much was re-done from scratch. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Well, this is apparently true - they ARE going to the x86 platform: http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/wwdc/05/ What's not mentioned is whether Mac OS X is going to be BIOS locked to Apple BIOSes or whether me or you can just buy OS X off the shelf and install it ourselves. M.
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:12:58PM +0100, Martyn Drake wrote:
Well, this is apparently true - they ARE going to the x86 platform:
http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/wwdc/05/
What's not mentioned is whether Mac OS X is going to be BIOS locked to Apple BIOSes or whether me or you can just buy OS X off the shelf and install it ourselves.
I did think about this earlier, I wouldn't be surprised to see a version for Apple branded x86 hardware which is bundled with the machine and 100 quid for an upgrade, but 300 quid to buy and 150 quid (or more) upgrades for a version that runs on any x86 box. Adam -- jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li AFFS || http://www.affs.org.uk/ || Not a filesystem
On Monday 06 June 2005 7:12 pm, Martyn Drake wrote:
Well, this is apparently true - they ARE going to the x86 platform:
Well I for one am shocked. I really thought Apple were going to pull some Power PC IP out of the bag and get Intel to build/develop PPC chips for them. I can't help thinking that this is going to be quite bad for Apple (at least in the short term) and if it does indeed run on beige box hardware then I think it may be a little damaging to the linux comunity as well. A lot of potential switchers (Windows to Linux) will suddenly have another option without the previous barrier of buying new hardware. (from an end user perspective) OSX can look a bit more accessible and attractive......Hmm interesting times ahead.
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:05:33PM +0100, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
I can't help thinking that this is going to be quite bad for Apple (at least in the short term) and if it does indeed run on beige box hardware then I think it may be a little damaging to the linux comunity as well.
Aye, I can't see many people buying expensive (or even a cheap mac-mini) power macs between now and next year. If I was about to buy a Mac I would seriously be considering buying a cheap PC instead.
A lot of potential switchers (Windows to Linux) will suddenly have another option without the previous barrier of buying new hardware.
Depends on if Apple actually release OSX for x86 or just for Apple branded x86. Adam -- jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li AFFS || http://www.affs.org.uk/ || Not a filesystem
On Monday 06 June 2005 10:11 pm, Adam Bower wrote:
Aye, I can't see many people buying expensive (or even a cheap mac-mini) power macs between now and next year. If I was about to buy a Mac I would seriously be considering buying a cheap PC instead.
Well that is exactly the boat I am in. Was at the point of buying either a Mini or a bottom end iMac. Now I am going to wait and see how this pans out over the next few months...and then maybe wait until the new arch is available. I mean it's all very well them saying that they have some fancy technology that will code morph the PPC code to run pretty well on x86. But when you end up sitting on a PPC Mac (and all new ones are x86) are they going to supply the technology to do this the other way round, or are application developers going to give us PPC versions of their latest stuff for years to come. How long will they release OSX versions for PPC once x86 is out ? Also don't Intel's 64bit offerings suck a bit compared to AMD64 (I thought that was the case) It's a shame really, we haven't even seen what a G5 can do with a full 64bit version of OSX yet (although I suspect that on general applications it makes little difference) On the plus side ( I need cheering up because on the whole I am sceptical about this ) A machine running OSX on x86 would have about the bigest selection of software. A OSX wine port for Windows apps, and a lot of Linux/Unix applications are already ported (or easy to port) plus the PPC and x86 OSX software catalogue.
A lot of potential switchers (Windows to Linux) will suddenly have another option without the previous barrier of buying new hardware.
Depends on if Apple actually release OSX for x86 or just for Apple branded x86
Well I am betting that this will be on Apple kit only, but they have shocked me once so we will have to see.
On Mon, June 6, 2005 11:17 pm, Wayne Stallwood said:
Well I am betting that this will be on Apple kit only, but they have shocked me once so we will have to see.
Well, you're right. From news.com: "However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said" Interesting times ahead. Regards, Martyn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Martyn Drake <martyn@drake.org.uk> wrote:
On Mon, June 6, 2005 11:17 pm, Wayne Stallwood said:
Well I am betting that this will be on Apple kit only, but they have shocked me once so we will have to see.
Well, you're right. From news.com:
"However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said"
Interesting times ahead.
Nope, not interesting at all really, means they only have to cope with a limited subset of hardware (only stuff that they want to support), and that all the current mac developers, unless they've been writing generic cross platform/architecture code, have got a hell of a lot of work to do... Should be good, though... when they go x86, the ppc kit should become cheap, and then, then I shall buy some ppc kit... not for OS X, but for a shiny beast called debian sarge (which will probably still be stable by then, it was *RELEASED* yesterday evening! Yay! go Debian!). Interesting *pah*, Apple shooting them selves in the foot is more likely. Thanks, - -- Brett Parker web: http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ email: iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCpVbMEh8oWxevnjQRAng1AJ9QWkaiyJ4D4yuoYvtYiUQIjbVCJgCfYpbe nypRALrjdpgdRDZv3v/x1r8= =Oaw4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:11:56AM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
do... Should be good, though... when they go x86, the ppc kit should become cheap, and then, then I shall buy some ppc kit... not for OS X, but for a shiny beast called debian sarge (which will probably still be stable by then, it was *RELEASED* yesterday evening! Yay! go Debian!).
Except this now means PPC kit will probably go the way of the Alpha..... :( Adam -- jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li AFFS || http://www.affs.org.uk/ || Not a filesystem
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 10:45 am, Adam Bower wrote:
Except this now means PPC kit will probably go the way of the Alpha.....
:(
Maybe not for a while, The new Xbox is going to be PPC based and the core in the Cell processor architecture Sony are using is PPC based. Actually is is probably the development of these two that has gotten up Steve's nose. IBM don't seem able to deliver a 3Ghz G5 but have turned up with a 3.2Ghz 3 core PPC chip for the Xbox, I guess Steve and IBM have had an argument about where R&D costs should be going.
Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> writes:
Nope, not interesting at all really, means they only have to cope with a limited subset of hardware (only stuff that they want to support), and that all the current mac developers, unless they've been writing generic cross platform/architecture code, have got a hell of a lot of work to do...
My experience is that it is not particularly hard to write code that will run on multiple similar platforms (specifically, multiple flavours of UNIX). Writing code that runs on the same OS on a different architecture is easier than that. The only serious difficulty arises is if you write significant amounts of assembly. But who does that? Even then anyone who is targetting Windows and Mac will have the x86-friendly bits written already. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
If this is really true, it'll be interesting to see how this is going to affect existing Mac users (who will have probably invested lots of money in software already) Interesting.. will Apple support their back-catalogue if there is an architecture change?
I bet the 'classic' fiasco still smarts for Apple users who thought Apple had finally learned from their own history not to alienate their userbase with complete changes. It's tempting to see x86 migration in the pipeline, but x86 isn't the only technology Intel have. If they address the issues with the underlying platform, which might be less difficult now than with classic Mac OS, then hey - a lot of apps can be ported or recompiled - and if they're commissioning the design of the chip to their own spec even the altivec/etc stuff can be supported, or at least recompilable on their new hardware platform. To be honest, though, what killer task is happening in a PPC-specific way that {can't be done/isn't being done/hasn't got source available} on other architectures? If they want to support instruction set x or have a richer register setup than my plebeian x86 products, or have something better in the pipeline, we'll find out - but if Apple Computer has a req/spec they need, then Intel will probably meet it to win a contract. There's always the fact that Intel can probably bring the most incredible manufacturing might to the table and produce cheap horsepower, in millions, manufactured, quality guaranteed and delivered on time. That could be the decisive factor - the Germans had lots of superior military hardware during ww2, but they didn't bank on trying to out-manufacture Detroit :) Maybe they just need someone who can make enough chips for 'em.
and existing PC users assuming that Apple opens up and allows anybody to run Mac OX for x86 processors.
I'd buy "a" commercial desktop environment for x86 unix designed by Apple Computer (by which I mean an OS X type affair - and crazily, I know plenty who would). Wouldn't want to pay for the underlying OS though. Apple are pretty old-school as a computer company aren't they - from an era when even the best of computer companies had fairly closed hardware policies. They were pretty happy to stick with that, even before the law of the jungle galvanised it for them (let's face it, the Microsoft bogeyman's under the PPC bed, just waiting for them to *dare* getting out of it). Suppose if Apple slashdotters' worst nightmares were realised and the whole thing went x86_64 on them - there may well still be something a little proprietary going on in the hardware to make sure it didn't *exactly* equate to an MS platform. Having said that - there are vicious rumours about Microsoft moving to PowerPC too - which begs the question - if apple leave PPC, did they jump, or were they pushed? Curiouser and curiouser.. </ramble> Ten -- There are 10 types of people in this world -those who understand binary, and those who don't.
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 18:36:52 +0100 Ten <runlevelten@gmail.com> wrote:
If this is really true, it'll be interesting to see how this is going to affect existing Mac users (who will have probably invested lots of money in software already) Interesting.. will Apple support their back-catalogue if there is an architecture change?
I bet the 'classic' fiasco still smarts for Apple users who thought Apple had finally learned from their own history not to alienate their userbase with complete changes.
why not an Apple port to Xen, Apples contributed to konqueror why not hardware support via Xen and Linux, you could then sell cool stuff on a daughter card with a PowerPC CPU for backwards compatibility. I like to imagine the speedy rise of people saying "Apple does, Linux Does, Why you cant you run windows on Xen?".
It's tempting to see x86 migration in the pipeline, but x86 isn't the only technology Intel have.
I am sure also sorts of things are possible.
If they address the issues with the underlying platform, which might be less difficult now than with classic Mac OS, then hey - a lot of apps can be ported or recompiled - and if they're commissioning the design of the chip to their own spec even the altivec/etc stuff can be supported, or at least recompilable on their new hardware platform.
I think recompiling software in disorganised release management teams, this could on occasion be hard.
To be honest, though, what killer task is happening in a PPC-specific way that {can't be done/isn't being done/hasn't got source available} on other architectures?
If they want to support instruction set x or have a richer register setup than my plebeian x86 products, or have something better in the pipeline, we'll find out - but if Apple Computer has a req/spec they need, then Intel will probably meet it to win a contract.
Definitely might make an Intel's diversify strategy seem apparent.
There's always the fact that Intel can probably bring the most incredible manufacturing might to the table and produce cheap horsepower, in millions, manufactured, quality guaranteed and delivered on time.
I don't know, AMD are winning market share. Suddenly Intel must plan with Unix in the form of Linux head on, a hardware neutral platform opening up the market for innovation.
That could be the decisive factor - the Germans had lots of superior military hardware during ww2, but they didn't bank on trying to out-manufacture Detroit :)
Lets not be down hearted Alugs full of engineers, but Germans are lucky and have two words for engineer and the later is held with such respect that everyone on this list probably would like to be known as such.
Maybe they just need someone who can make enough chips for 'em.
Well who knows why has UNIX lasted? because its central goal was portability. After all it was written in C. An operating system first!
and existing PC users assuming that Apple opens up and allows anybody to run Mac OX for x86 processors.
I'd buy "a" commercial desktop environment for x86 UNIX designed by Apple Computer (by which I mean an OS X type affair - and crazily, I know plenty who would). Wouldn't want to pay for the underlying OS though.
Would you, I'd run Linux :) Going to play with 2.6.12 soon.
Apple are pretty old-school as a computer company aren't they - from an era when even the best of computer companies had fairly closed hardware policies.
I don't know, Apples a Company with a work force it wants to keep, and a brand that has a high marketing value.
They were pretty happy to stick with that, even before the law of the jungle galvanised it for them (let's face it, the Microsoft bogeyman's under the PPC bed, just waiting for them to *dare* getting out of it).
Interesting point. <ramble>
</ramble>
Ten
-- There are 10 types of people in this world -those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Will the world change with Internet Go? Owen Synge Beginners could start at yahoo games, but some other alternatives are forming, he he.
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 00:56 +0100, Owen Synge wrote:
why not an Apple port to Xen, Apples contributed to konqueror why not hardware support via Xen and Linux,
Apple will never want their OS running on commodity hardware let alone Xen, Apple is a hardware company.
you could then sell cool stuff on a daughter card with a PowerPC CPU for backwards compatibility.
With Rosetta it doesn't really matter and a PPC CPU isn't needed, That said I have heard that Rosetta's performance when running PPC apps is somewhat limited and anything that requires the Altivec won't run period. Also having a PPC on a daughter board completely negates one of the biggest reasons for Apple to have gone the intel route ( High performance, lower power chips for laptops ) Also don't forget that software will probably stay in Universal Binary format for years to come (there is a large install base of what have traditionally been long lived machines out there) So all in all either way (whether you buy one of the new breed Mac's when they become available, of if you have just bought a PPC machine) it doesn't really matter. In fact I'd go as far to say that even at the point of release a PPC Mac will be a better bet than than the first generation Intel ones.
participants (7)
-
Adam Bower -
Brett Parker -
Martyn Drake -
Owen Synge -
Richard Kettlewell -
Ten -
Wayne Stallwood