For all you whinners with the "Faultering Loyalty"...

[psyjax]

http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-2.html

Don't worry, Apple will be around for a VERY long time.

[Pantso]

NIICE ARTICLE! By the way, there are some disturbing rumours that Apple will turn to Intel and x86 chips some time in the near (?) or distant future!   :confused:  Is it true or just rumours?

[rtgwbmsr]

Rumors...switching to x86 would be hardware quality suicide for Apple.

[Pantso]

quote:Originally posted by The_Muffin_Man/B0b:
Rumors...switching to x86 would be hardware quality suicide for Apple.

I definitely agree to that, that's why I was a bit disturbed to hear those rumors.  

[slave]

quote:Originally posted by The_Muffin_Man/B0b:
Rumors...switching to x86 would be hardware quality suicide for Apple.

That's because Apple makes all its money by locking people into a specific hardware platform if they want to run their OS.  These arguments about how the quality of the hardware would be ruined are bogus.  My PC has excellent hardware and I couldn't ask for better reliability.  Besides, if people want to buy OS X from Apple and put it on third party machines, so what, if they have trouble then they can't expect Apple to help them, can they?  Not everyone is a computer idiot who needs Apple to build computers that "just work" for them.  The past 3 computers I've owned I built myself, and until Apple allows me to do this then I can't see myself buying anything from them.

[davebrock]

in a way I agree with Window XP User about being locked in to a proprietary format, but it is your choice!.... I think, to be honest the whole point of Apple computers, for many, MANY years has been that it IS your choice, if you buy Apple you are buying a complete package, hardware and software! in the past it meant you were completely locked in to Apple (MacOS), but now with the advent of OS X, + Lin/Bsd, it is more of a hardware choice and, dare I say it, for 'consumer' desktops it is the ONLY alternative HARDWARE choice (for a desktop) if you want to avoid Intel/Amd/MS? Believe me I am a Linux advocate, but I have to say OS X has seriously moved the goalposts, maybe one day we'll see MS make as big a move as Apple has (but then again remember the move from 68k to PPC? can you imagine a corp like MS being able to do that?)
Sorry, i know I'm ranting, but X86 OS X? NO, X86 Darwin YES
PS as a dream what I would like most of all would be for Apple to adopt the now defunct Alpha, how cool would that be?

[davebrock]

Or even do a deal with Sun? Imagine SPARC powered Macs?

[davebrock]

And then again, maybe this should be a new topic? But does anyone else see the intel/amd X86 cpu's as a complete dead end?

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by hmd:
And then again, maybe this should be a new topic? But does anyone else see the intel/amd X86 cpu's as a complete dead end?

All standard CPU architecture is a dead end rout. They speculate that in about 10-15 years, the size of transitors, and the electrical conduits that make up microprocessors will be so small (assuming the speeds increese at the same rate they have been) that they will only be a few atoms across. This causes problems because circutrie that small will never be able to guide electrons consistently on their required paths.

Alterantive methods will need to be thought of. IBM amongst other companies are researching the fesability of Light powerd CPU's that use lightwaves refracted thrugh cristalls in order to do their calculations.

[davebrock]

Too true but, correct me if I'm wrong i seem to recall ultra powerfull MIPS and ARM/StrongARM machines that are only now reaching 166MHZ? I s'pose what I'm saying is that the Intel architecture is wholly designed with MHZ in mind, actual power means nothing to the marketing minds :-(
imagine a 10 GHZ P4? Big fucking deal.........when a 200MHZ Mips/StrongARM/RISC (power4/PPC 970?) cpu beats it hands down!
WTF?

[DJ]

I read an article (I will post it if I find it) that said the new G5 processors will be hyper-threading. Aren't the new PIV 4.0 Ghz or whatever also going to   include hyper-threading?

DJ

[voidmain]

Intel is going with the Palladium threaded model.

[ravuya]

It isn't the product I'm displeased with, it's the company. Their customer relations are getting pretty shitty IMO.

[MacUser3of5]

Bah, the 970 isn't really proprietary... it's a slimmed down Power4, IBM has it too (they plop linux on them, and uh, IBM makes them). The only thing that is proprietary is the Apple rom or whatever that is that makes a Mac a Mac, but hey, you can put linux on them...

Also, I would be sickened if Apple went with Sun's chip or the Alpha... you want to talk about dead-ends...

 

quote: when a 200MHZ Mips/StrongARM/RISC (power4/PPC 970?) cpu beats it hands down!

Erm, the power4 (which is NOT the same as the 970) is looking to be midly competitive right now (at 1 Ghz vs. 2.8 Ghz P4, certainly not at all competitive if the 970 were at 200 Mhz)... if you expect it to blow away the P4, you're going to be very dissapointed. It should be pretty close in some areas, and a little ahead in others.

The 970 should stop making Apple's pro line look so laugable, and I'll finally not be utterly ashamed to buy one (I won't, until reasonable performance for $3k). If anything, with IBM backing chip production (well, anyone BUT Moto!!), we should see a good speed ramp, rather than being stuck at 500 Mhz for a year... I say 'should' because we 1) Don't know when this will be used in a Mac, and 2) if Apple will use this chip or not (unlikely, but hey, you never know.) ApplePi will need to be finalized, OS X will need to be altered (not a big deal, it seems), but it certainly won't be a bitch like the 68k to PPC jump (for users, it should be mostly transparent), in fact, the 970 will be backwards compatible to 32-bit modes (incl. Altivec)... though I'm adopting a wait and see attitude, considering some of the 'interesting' moves Apple has done in the past.


Be careful when you rail against Intel about Mhz... the Itanium 64 (which is around 1 Ghz now, if I remember correctly) handily beats the P4 with a barbed stick in most things...

 

quote: I read an article (I will post it if I find it) that said the new G5 processors will be hyper-threading.

Hmm, haven't read that... but it doesn't matter really, considering the G5 was supposed to happen a long time ago... in other words, vaporware. It is funny though, watching all of the rampant speculation regarding that thing...

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: MacUser3of5 ]

[hm_murdock]

I certainly hope Apple will be around for years... if they're not, then I won't have OS X!