If Longhorn runs on Power PC, what need for Intel?
- Thread starter caz67
- Start date
Dude Its just an xbox 2 We dont know diddly about the specs. I will not believe anything about Xbox 2 PS3 or N5's specs untill I have the console in my hands or Its on microsoft's website.
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,161
- 1,807
- 126
NT runs on PowerPC (with little software support though) and I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft keeps a simplified internal build of Longhorn that will run on G5 Power Macs and/or IBM PowerPC 970 systems.
But The Inq is simply speculating out of its @ss. That buying Apple to dump Intel speculation is just stup... err... strange. It's true that Intel has been showing a few weaknesses lately. eg. x86-64 and a 64-bit OS, 90 nm woes, etc., but Intel is still by far the biggest guy in the market. Microsoft will write an OS for whatever is dominant and will make money for MS. And that will likely be Intel for some time.
Indeed, dumping x86 would simply to serve make Linux on x86 a MUCH more desirable option.
But The Inq is simply speculating out of its @ss. That buying Apple to dump Intel speculation is just stup... err... strange. It's true that Intel has been showing a few weaknesses lately. eg. x86-64 and a 64-bit OS, 90 nm woes, etc., but Intel is still by far the biggest guy in the market. Microsoft will write an OS for whatever is dominant and will make money for MS. And that will likely be Intel for some time.
Indeed, dumping x86 would simply to serve make Linux on x86 a MUCH more desirable option.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,999
- 307
- 126
Think about the leeway that MS has left itself if it is true. They've moved away from hardware-specific dependencies in programming to an abstrat script-based language designed from the bottom up to run on any number of processors in parrallel. The real target is not INTEL's IA64, it is IBM's lower end of big iron. Mind you, this is not to compete with big iron, its to fill in the market segments that it cannot currently reach and to just possibly build enough market force to span it down low enough as a possible replacement to the familiar x86-family of workstations. Killing off both IA64 and x86 would benefit IBM and MS, the biggest two bad boys on the block, and at the same time undermine the future of the other big players in both commercial and consumer markets. Quite genius.
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
If you develop a lot of software, but not the hardware it rus on, keoping your options open is a good idea.
That's really all thee is to it.
Could they relase a G5 version of XP? Probably within a year (and that due to rivers).
But Macs are to small a peice of the market no to worry about.
That's really all thee is to it.
Could they relase a G5 version of XP? Probably within a year (and that due to rivers).
But Macs are to small a peice of the market no to worry about.
If microsoft makes a version of Longhorn that runs on PPC that doesn't mean they are abandoning X86. With yellow dog you can easily get Linux to run on a PPC. Whats wrong with Microsoft seting its self up to follow the market where ever it goes?
x86 have tone of applications therefore it won't be gone away anytime soon even if PPC have full Windows support. And, G4/G5 cost more than Duron/Celeron/Athlon/Optron/Pentium.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,999
- 307
- 126
IBM has taken the Power PC core to a level that will be 'commoditized', as Anandtechies like to call it, once the XBOX2 production kicks in. The size of the core has never been all that large to make it unaffordable. Apple's marketing strategies is what has crippled its market penetration. IBM will finally have the size of order, from Microsoft's XBOX2 project, to make a non-Apple attempt on the market worthwhile. The chip is powerful, its small, and it runs cool - everything that Prescott is not. Microsoft and IBM have that rare combination of name recognizition and marketing power that the two of them could just end up pulling this off.
What idiotic speculation. Not even AMD has the fab capability to produce enough chips to replace Intel.
IBM certainly doesn't.
IBM certainly doesn't.
The "fab capacity" has nothing to do with it. That's a commodity at anything other than the bleeding edge.
If MacOS runs on IA32 (and it pretty much does - Apple's developers use Dell boxes for development), what need for PowerPC?
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
Actually, PPC is quite nice. Is there a real need? No, but Apple would lose what little market it had if that aluminum trash can (I really do think it looks cool, but I can't help myself here
) had an Intel Inside stocker. Us normal folk could move to PPC easier than the other way around.PPC is huge. Apple is but a fraction of it.
Freescale, formerly Motorola SPS, has revenue of about 5 billion annually. They are not the only producer of PPC chips.
Freescale, formerly Motorola SPS, has revenue of about 5 billion annually. They are not the only producer of PPC chips.
This comment is directed at me? It's fairly common knowledge within the industry that parts of OSX run can run on an Intel platform. A simple google search turns up quite a bit on it, and you can search at Slashdot for it as well. Steve Jobs and his staff regularly field the question at the shareholder meetings, and they admit that it would not be a hard port because most of is based on code that was originally ran on the IA32 platform. It seems to come up fairly frequently during the Q&A session at the end of the conference call - at least once every couple of quarters, although not so much recently. Mac OS X is built on the same Mach kernel that NeXT used and Next OpenStep ran on the IA32 platform. And of course Darwin is based on BSD, and BSD has been ported to IA32 - in fact the Darwin development team demostrated Darwin running on an IA32 box several years ago.
Besides the fact that the subject comes up frequently in both the media and at Apple's shareholder meetings, I know several Apple developers and they have told me that they use Dell computers to debug code. They said that it enables them to remove one more variable out of the problem when they are debugging - if they can recreate the problem on the code running on the IA32 box, it eliminates the possibility of a porting issue specific to the PowerPC platform. I gather, however, that this is less common now than it was during OSX development.
"This comment is directed at me?"
Yes.
The Mach kernel has been around since the mid eighties. It has run on a bunch of platforms.
Darwin runs on BX based motherboard w/ PIIX4 IDE controllers. That chip has ISA support - this is old stuff. It also runs on the IBM a21m, w/ Intel enet only. This is a 3 year old notebook. That is the supported x86 hardware from the Darwin docs in toto.
The first NeXT machines were based on the Motorola 608030 and 608040.
I've read many, many coments on x86 Darwin being "broken". For HFS, fsck does not even work!
Developing on another platform eliminates variables? It adds in a whole other set while subtracting the ones your users will be sharing with you. Perhaps those folks were working on Windows iTunes or Quicktime.
There is no Cocoa on x86.
Apple has made local changes to GCC which have not all been approved by and/or submitted to the FSF.
Altivec? All the Core Services? Dev tools?
Personally I think the fact that Apple did not even bring the much loved HyperCard over to X and where Darwin stands(kinda) on x86 demonstrate just how porting crazy Apple is not, for both OS and HW ports.
Porting issues? PPC is the native platform.
Yes.
The Mach kernel has been around since the mid eighties. It has run on a bunch of platforms.
Darwin runs on BX based motherboard w/ PIIX4 IDE controllers. That chip has ISA support - this is old stuff. It also runs on the IBM a21m, w/ Intel enet only. This is a 3 year old notebook. That is the supported x86 hardware from the Darwin docs in toto.
The first NeXT machines were based on the Motorola 608030 and 608040.
I've read many, many coments on x86 Darwin being "broken". For HFS, fsck does not even work!
Developing on another platform eliminates variables? It adds in a whole other set while subtracting the ones your users will be sharing with you. Perhaps those folks were working on Windows iTunes or Quicktime.
There is no Cocoa on x86.
Apple has made local changes to GCC which have not all been approved by and/or submitted to the FSF.
Altivec? All the Core Services? Dev tools?
Personally I think the fact that Apple did not even bring the much loved HyperCard over to X and where Darwin stands(kinda) on x86 demonstrate just how porting crazy Apple is not, for both OS and HW ports.
Porting issues? PPC is the native platform.
gsellis
Diamond Member
- Dec 4, 2003
- 6,061
- 0
- 0
After successfully building OS/2 into the empire it is today, you expect IBM to take over? And after successfully maintaining their PC dominance with the Model series, you expect IBM to surplant Intel?
BTW, PPC versions of NT had issues running some X86 Win software. So, like Linux, the areas that need to buy into it are not willing to trash every piece of software they have invested in and are maintaining to switch. It has to be Wow to push them to make the effort to go over big hills or they don't have big hills they need to push over.
BTW, PPC versions of NT had issues running some X86 Win software. So, like Linux, the areas that need to buy into it are not willing to trash every piece of software they have invested in and are maintaining to switch. It has to be Wow to push them to make the effort to go over big hills or they don't have big hills they need to push over.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,999
- 307
- 126
OS/2 never reached the "commoditized" word in its day. Win95 stole its steam, and there never was a "gee whiz" app for it. OS/2 was relegated to play the Apple game, a small percent of the market but damn good money per sale. We all know what happened with Win95, it launched the Pentium into everyone's home.
Don't forget, Power PC was first to take 64-bits to the Joe Smoe home user. Radio Shack started these marketing trends when it brought forward the TRS-80, with its Z80 and BASIC operating system. Next up was Apple II with its 6502 processor and BASIC, but now with floppy drives and DOS to offer people serious storage for their programs. And then we had several others using the same 6502 processor trying to copycat them, and who knows how many flavours of DOS and BASIC were out there, but together they all played part to bring 8-bits to the home user. Then Apple stole the show with its 16-bit RISC technology, something unmatched by anyone else, and along came its "Windows" GUI, which today is still the de facto standard for the home user. Contrary to popular belief, the 286 sucked pondwater in comparison. Microsoft ripped a page from Apple's success and collaborated with Intel to make the 386, the first mainstream 32-bit processor, and Win3.0 a staple of the home users. Pentium was the first to take superscalar and Win95 to them playing along the same tune.
Fast forward to 2005. Now we have Longhorn simultaneously able to catapult wither AMD64 or Power 970's technology, or even both in parrallel. If IBM and Microsoft can get the Power PC sales to take off like the Pentium then one day everyone will pretty much want one. Otherwise Intel has an established market and would love to continue its partnership with Microsoft.
Don't forget, Power PC was first to take 64-bits to the Joe Smoe home user. Radio Shack started these marketing trends when it brought forward the TRS-80, with its Z80 and BASIC operating system. Next up was Apple II with its 6502 processor and BASIC, but now with floppy drives and DOS to offer people serious storage for their programs. And then we had several others using the same 6502 processor trying to copycat them, and who knows how many flavours of DOS and BASIC were out there, but together they all played part to bring 8-bits to the home user. Then Apple stole the show with its 16-bit RISC technology, something unmatched by anyone else, and along came its "Windows" GUI, which today is still the de facto standard for the home user. Contrary to popular belief, the 286 sucked pondwater in comparison. Microsoft ripped a page from Apple's success and collaborated with Intel to make the 386, the first mainstream 32-bit processor, and Win3.0 a staple of the home users. Pentium was the first to take superscalar and Win95 to them playing along the same tune.
Fast forward to 2005. Now we have Longhorn simultaneously able to catapult wither AMD64 or Power 970's technology, or even both in parrallel. If IBM and Microsoft can get the Power PC sales to take off like the Pentium then one day everyone will pretty much want one. Otherwise Intel has an established market and would love to continue its partnership with Microsoft.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter