It's official

Apple hardware/software and related topics.
Forum rules
Any posts concerning pirated software or offering to buy/sell/trade commercial software are subject to removal.
User avatar
zafunk
Posts: 1060
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 11:51 pm
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Unread postby zafunk » Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:27 pm

R-ten-K wrote: But unless someone can come up with something better they and AMD will be the ones pushing the envelope for the mass market of desktop processors.


And that's really what's sad here. There's one less choice in processors for the desktop. Along with the demise of MIPS, the landscape is looking pretty barren.

What I find odd about Apple's decision to move to Intel is that they are practically begging people to hack OS X and get it running on commodity hardware. This could in turn, hurt Apple in a big way.

I noticed that quite a bit of the keynote was focused on reasuring developers that the transition will be easy. I have a feeling that won't be the case. How many developers will abandon OS X because of this change?

Either way, I don't care what's under the hood, as long as it works. Let's just hope Apple made the right decision.

User avatar
nekonoko
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 8145
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:31 am
Location: Pleasanton, California
Contact:

Unread postby nekonoko » Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:28 pm

Ben Lamb wrote:I just have to say that Apple using intel chips is the most pathetic thing I have heard for a long time. I think this will be the death for Apple in the future, they must be bonkers, they are taking the sgi route and it will lead nowhere. There is now no hardware to differentiate an Apple from a pc. If thet think they can sell a system on an OS alone they are wrong, they would of been better using the Opteron as at least it has a bit of credability.


No, the SGI route was to drop IRIX and go with Linux on Intel. Apple's not dropping Mac OS X. I don't think this is going to be a big deal when all is said and done; all the key developers are on board already. The transition is going to be pretty transparent to the end user. All this moaning and hand wringing is just silly.
Last edited by nekonoko on Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Twitter: @neko_no_ko
IRIX Release 4.0.5 IP12 Version 06151813 System V
Copyright 1987-1992 Silicon Graphics, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.

User avatar
nekonoko
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 8145
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:31 am
Location: Pleasanton, California
Contact:

Unread postby nekonoko » Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:30 pm

zafunk wrote:I noticed that quite a bit of the keynote was focused on reasuring developers that the transition will be easy. I have a feeling that won't be the case. How many developers will abandon OS X because of this change?


None that I'm aware of:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/08 ... /index.php
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/08 ... /index.php
Twitter: @neko_no_ko
IRIX Release 4.0.5 IP12 Version 06151813 System V
Copyright 1987-1992 Silicon Graphics, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.

mountview
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:42 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Unread postby mountview » Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:50 pm

I must say you are right Nekonoko in sayinq apple will retain osx. Their decision is not quite as bad as sgis but then again mips was in a bad way when sgi switched to intel. IBMS powerpc processor could of been delivered in 3ghz given a push. I think apples move is hasty, there was no need, Intel inside will upset a lot of people. Powerpc was accepted, due to it being new and inovative at the time when risc was all the rage. Aplle is meant to be about inovation, Intel Inside is not inovation.

User avatar
R-ten-K
Posts: 1889
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:36 pm
Location: Nor Cal

Unread postby R-ten-K » Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:48 pm

zafunk wrote:And that's really what's sad here. There's one less choice in processors for the desktop. Along with the demise of MIPS, the landscape is looking pretty barren.


Well, it is sort of a cyclic thing in the industry really. 20+ yrs ago, there was pretty much the 68K or the X86 when it came to desktop processors (plus a few 8bit architectures). So it is not like there has been that much difference really.

Sure, we may be converging to a single instruction set... but there are multiple implementations of such. A P4 and a K8 are significantly different that even though they share the same ISA, that is pretty much about it. So as long as AMD and Via produce their own designs, I do not see it as that much of a drastic prunning of choices.

In the end it is survival of the fittest. And the semiconductor business is developing to an extreme in which frankly designing a new processor is in the billions of dollars range. This puts the entry fee at a significant price point.

I noticed that quite a bit of the keynote was focused on reasuring developers that the transition will be easy. I have a feeling that won't be the case. How many developers will abandon OS X because of this change?


Well, OSX is pretty much NeXT/OpenStep so the concept of Fat binaries is right there. The transition is pretty easy, at some point NS supported 4 different architectures, and you could deploy a single fat binary for them w/o any problem. The application toolkits for Cocoa are elegant enough, that most developers don't partycularly have to do much besides a simple recompile. Or offer trasitional fat binaries for PPC/Intel OSX versions.

User avatar
somecodemonkey
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 12:51 pm
Location: Oxford UK
Contact:

Unread postby somecodemonkey » Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:34 pm

roosmcd wrote:And to think of those suckers buying mac mini's in the belief they were deserting the Intel camp :).


Err well we have you see we don't own an intel pc now... so we have. No one says I HAVE to buy a mac in the future and depending on what happens I might and I might not so watch the "suckers" or you will be getting the business end of this fella :wink:

Image
1995: Real Audio released, allowing users to listen to halting bursts of static in real time.

User avatar
Dr. Dave
Posts: 2311
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:37 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada >burp<

Unread postby Dr. Dave » Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:38 pm

"Here's the museum - this was the last of the Z80 computers, this was the last of the 6502 machines. Over here is the last of the MIPS boxes, next to the last of the PA-RISC boxes. And over here was the last of the PowerPC Apples..."

Times change, but the originals live on...

User avatar
GeneratriX
Posts: 4250
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:07 am
Location: Rosario / Santa Fe / República Argentina

Classics

Unread postby GeneratriX » Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:18 am

Dr. Dave wrote:Times change, but the originals live on...


Sure!; They are CLASSICS!
Same as those songs performed by Frank Sinatra and Carlos Gardel! ;)

Image

Image

User avatar
hamei
Posts: 10435
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: over the rainbow

Unread postby hamei » Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:43 am

R-ten-K wrote: There is a difference between a WHOLE computer and the MICROPROCESSOR. Buy a top of the line server machine from IBM for example with an Intel processor, and chances are that it may run circles around most other computers in terms of quality.

And they're noticeably faster, too. IBM builds damn good stuff, in general. (Except those "top of the line" Intel servers are often Intel mainboard machines. I've noticed the quality more in the Intellistation line than with the servers. 'Course, my stuff is generally old :-) )

User avatar
semi-fly
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 5:29 am
Location: Ypsitucky, MI
Contact:

Unread postby semi-fly » Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:55 pm

nekonoko wrote:Eh, I'm not going to be an elitist about it. If it runs my Mac OS X apps at a decent clip I'm happy; what's inside the computer is less important than what the computer can do. I'm in it for the OS.

I aggree - OS X is simply fantastic for desktop usage. if apple can develop faster, more powerful, cheaper hardware with intel processors, while still maintaning a decent level of quality then I'm all for it. People really overemphasize the importance of the processor for modern platforms. It's a processor. It processs instructions. And with single processor systems evloving into dual core, high frequency multi-processor machines, individual processor specification will continue to lose importance - I stopped caring about CPU specs years ago (along with 99.9% of the population). Many problems associated with the PC line have absolutly nothing to do with the actual processor. Cheap power supplies, bad case design, in-properly tested mother boards, non-stop cost cutting, competition, and a poorly engineered OS with 20 years of lagacy compatiblity. Also, Apple is clearly desperate to upgrade thier PowerBook line, and the pentium moble / centrino processors would be a perfect fit. Companies, endusers, and universities that *need* apple hardware will probably continue to purchase equipment regardless of the platform - apple will support OS X for PPC until PPC hardware is extinct. I mean, it's not like they need to port the OS or anything. Plus, Apple's desktop sales haven't exactly produced mind-blowing figures, so end users eating crow or buying skiing tickings to old hades and waiting for that first intel Mac to make upgrades probably won't dent Apple's over all sales. it might suck in the shot term for developers, but ultimately Apple needs to do this to survive - they need to indirectly attack the PC industry, not try to out class it with high-priced, under performing desktop's, or buttom-rung, ultra cheap commodity junk. :)
Last edited by semi-fly on Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
configure complete, now type 'make' and pray.

User avatar
semi-fly
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 5:29 am
Location: Ypsitucky, MI
Contact:

Unread postby semi-fly » Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:02 pm

Ben Lamb wrote:I just have to say that Apple using intel chips is the most pathetic thing I have heard for a long time. I think this will be the death for Apple in the future, they must be bonkers, they are taking the sgi route and it will lead nowhere. There is now no hardware to differentiate an Apple from a pc. If thet think they can sell a system on an OS alone they are wrong, they would of been better using the Opteron as at least it has a bit of credability.


LOL - *that* is the most pathetic thing I've heard in a long time. Please tell me why this will be the death of apple, Why they are bonkers, and how, with an intel processor, a Mac is no diffrent from a PC (despite the fact that they run totally diffrent operating systems)?
configure complete, now type 'make' and pray.

User avatar
Cory5412
Posts: 567
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 6:08 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Unread postby Cory5412 » Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:15 am

I guess it is time to define where the "soul" of the macintosh computing experience lies.
Is it in the experience and the design of the operating system?
The industrial design of the machine itself?
OpenFirmware or the ROM of the computer? (going back all the way into the powerpc and 68k eras ;))
The Apple logo?
The Moto/IBM 68k/PPC processor?

For me, it used to be all of that combined, but now that the openfirmware is gone, along with PPC... I think that we'll have to rely on the charm of Apple Computer and the Mac OS X experience.

This is enough for many people though, such as nekonoko and more than one developer friend of mine, so I don't see why it shouldn't be enough for me. :P

Actually, the developer friend supports the move somuchso that he has already told me not to buy another mac until a new Mactel system that I like comes out, which for a desktop, won't be until 2007... I can't imagine doing that, but I might do it anyway, for a number of reasons. :P
I [heart] the Performer Town Demo

mountview
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:42 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Unread postby mountview » Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:03 am

semi-fly wrote -

LOL - *that* is the most pathetic thing I've heard in a long time. Please tell me why this will be the death of apple, Why they are bonkers, and how, with an intel processor, a Mac is no diffrent from a PC (despite the fact that they run totally diffrent operating systems)?

>>> If mac users are happy with the change, then I suppose thats all that matters. I dont have a mac anymore and I guess mac users will be able to run dual boot OS X and windows systems now :evil:

As for the mac being no different to a pc, you tell me, what is the difference (hardware wise)? I presume the new macs will still have some of the os in a rom on the motherboard ?
What is there now to tempt new customers to a mac, when it is sat next to a pc in the shop with the same spec ? Cant exactly have a powerpc is faster than any desktop marketing drive now can they.
I think this move of apples is completely two faced but the machines do look cool especially those white all in one widescreen things, sexiest looking computers I have ever seen, if they keep em looking that good they will still sell I suppose.
The death of Apple could of been going a bit far but then again I am bonkers :D

philv
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:39 pm

Unread postby philv » Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:57 pm

Uggh, I feel like a turncoat in saying this, but having received some "propaganda" from Intel (read: freebies), I've got high hopes for the Pentium M line. They're nice processors from just about every standpoint. While most Apple zealots have done the "OMG, STEVE SAYS IT IS GOOD, SO IT IS GOOD! ALL PRAISE STEVE!" routine, my motives are slightly different.

For instance, Apple now has the opportunity to manufacture sub-1700 dollar (that's Canadian) PowerMacs: Intel Chipsets and CPUs are far cheaper than custom north and south bridge ASICs (I can't remember for the life of me what Apple called their ASIC), as well as PowerPC processors. So from a business standpoint it ultimately is a good decision Apple made.

I remember people making the same "OH MY GOD, APPLE IS FINISHED!" declarations when the m68k to PowerPC transition took place. It is boring, please stop, they're still here 11 years later, I'll bet we'll still see Apple around in another 11 years.

Though, why they chose to use a Phoenix BIOS I will never know, since Phoenix is an aberration. I was disappointed we wouldn't see x86 machines with OpenFirmware inside. But c'est la vie.

Nonetheless, I'm no real fan of the IA32 architecture, simply because it just feels gross, especially when developing software targetted at it... you can tell it was extended in a gradual fashion, as certain behaviours change based on who implemented it/when it was implemented. Not a good "feature" for a CPU.

Also, I know this sounds like a troll, and I love MIPS for embedded work as much as the next person loves it as a workstation -- hell, I love my SGI workstations too, they're just great machines -- however, MIPS is dead on the desktop. There is no future for it in that role. But, if the Pentium M is all it promises to be, I shall for sure purchase a PC with a Pentium M CPU -- and run Linux on it! ;)

I must say, I'm going to support R-10-K's statement about Intel's fab. They're virtually second to none, and I know some extremely skilled EEs working there who are doing a great job of meeting mutually exclusive goals (backwards compatibility with previous generations of IA32 CPUs and implement and innovate new technology). I hope to join their ranks one of these days (after the MSEE and PhD are done I suppose, heh).

But seriously, for your next computer purchase, consider a Pentium M! It's well worth it!

User avatar
lisp
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 5:23 am
Location: England
Contact:

Unread postby lisp » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:07 pm

philv wrote:They're nice processors from just about every standpoint.


<compsci hat="on">Nonsense - architecturally x86 is a dog and always will be. Register starved, horrible special purpose registers, flabby non-orthogonal instruction set, etc. - the list goes on and on. It's the canonical example of how a pig can fly if you throw enough money at it.</compsci>
--
lisa


Return to “Apple”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest