This apple thing

[luigi1]

Just that I trust you guys to have an reasoned opion on technical issues. I hate m$, I hate there marketing, I hate the fact they have never gone back to there core and cleaned the stuff up. But I enjoy playing computer games, the whole stick on up grading to get a better experience. Never owned an apple product, yet who can naysay the importance of the mac classic? I just feel I guess that this could be huge, of course it could be a flash in the pan. I've felt for 15 years at least that the X86 history was an anchor on innovation. Is this the beginning of a breakout? Or is this a viable path away from m$? Or is this just the start of a series of stylish cpu"s? Please share your thoughts.

 

[Nothinman]

You'll still need OS X ports of games just like you do for Linux, the fact that it runs on x86 is irrelevant.

Overall I think this might be the death of OS X, if Apple can't find a way to bind it tightly to their x86 hardware they'll die. If OS X ever gets cracked to the point that it can run on any pos x86 box Apple will lose probably 80% of their PC sales because lord knows that just by declaring the switch a lot of their userbase has probably gotten all pissed off and swore never to buy another one again.

 

[notfred]

My though t is that the OP hasn't a clue.

What marketing does MS have that you hate so much? I think I've seen one TV spot for MS. They have very little marketing.

How do you know what the core of windows looks like if you don't work for MS? It's not like the source code is available.

You felt that x86 was stifling x86 in 1990? How old were you in 1990? What is it about x86 that stifles x86? Can you event tell me what the fundamental difference between an x86 chip and a powerpc chip is?

Have CPUs ever been stylish? Why would a P4 in a mac be more stylish than a P4 in a Dell?

You sound like you don't know WTF you're talking about.

 

[bamacre]

If it wasn't for MS and their push for morons to own computers, we'd all be using 800mhz cpu's today, and they'd probably be $2000. Mass production. It was good for the industry, and in the long run, good for consumers.

 

[XBoxLPU]

Apple is not moving to x86.

They are changing the CPU supplier.

 

[Snapster]

Thread title: This apple thing
Thread content: I hate Microsoft

Anyway back to the whole Apple choice, although it was rumoured a while back no-one really took it seriously as they believed they were using Intel to get a better deal with IBM. Funny how things turn out! I found the amount of "Apple has chosen the dark side in Intel" amusing, where logically for Apple it's by far the best choice. AMD despite their fan boy base who think they can do no wrong, simply aren't the best fit for supplying Apple with custom processor / chipsets on a mass market level. Apple using Intel gives them a strong base to start with, and if successful there's no doubt that AMD will be in the picture in the future.

The target launch date is another interesting point, if Longhorn doesn't get delayed too much than it will probably do could be going head to head, one would say a brave move by Apple if they plan on sniping a few of Microsoft's users.


And notfred, lol, you're definitely right.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: notfred
What marketing does MS have that you hate so much? I think I've seen one TV spot for MS. They have very little marketing.
.

I see a microsoft advertisement everytime i see a Dell, Gateway, IBM, HP, etc. commercial, i also see an intel advertisement in the same one.

"Dell Reccomends Microsoft Windows XP * edition"

"Dell PCs use Intel Pentium IV"

 

[luigi1]

quote
You felt that x86 was stifling x86 in 1990? How old were you in 1990? What is it about x86 that stifles x86? Can you event tell me what the fundamental difference between an x86 chip and a powerpc chip is?
/quote

I was 38 in 1990, thanks for asking.

PPC is a reduced instruction set chip, x86 is a complex instruction set chip. I'm sure there a ton of other differences but thats a difference in design.

You dont think apple has style nor that microsoft has marketing. I agree that someone in this thread has no clue.

In this mornings article its stated that mac x86's will be able to boot windows but that pc's will not be able to boot osX. If they can pull that off and maintain security on the internet while selling mac-mini like pc's I really think this could be very popular.

 

[Nothinman]

What is it about x86 that stifles x86? Can you event tell me what the fundamental difference between an x86 chip and a powerpc chip is?

I can't say whether they were stifling innovation, but the lack of registers and backwards compatibility sure hurt performance.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU
Apple is not moving to x86.

They are changing the CPU supplier.

Uh, yes they are

 

[luigi1]

With the existing pc community as we know and love it, can apple lock out osX86 in bios or by hardware? One side of my brain says if a man can build it a another man can tear it down. Yet if this can be done its an oppruinity to leave 640k, irq, and all that other stupid baggage behind. Can intel make a chip (or amd) to take us to the next level? I think theres no question, if we can leave the x86 leagcy behind. I dont know, the origional post asked a question of the community. Apple brings a very real sence of style and an kinda acceptable level of preformance and a user base. Part of why this is happening is that apple could not get the preformance they wanted from ibm. Is there more here? Does steve J see an oppuritiny? Theres no huge love between him and mr. gates. Hes really the last man standing here.

 

[Nothinman]

Yet if this can be done its an oppruinity to leave 640k, irq, and all that other stupid baggage behind

Huh? 640k was gone 15 years ago, once the CPU is put into protected mode the full VM address space is made available. And IRQs gone? WTF are you smoking? Every architecture that I know of uses IRQs for hardware event notification, you can't get rid of it without breaking every piece of hardware currently available.

if we can leave the x86 leagcy behind

Technically, won't happen. There would be way too much breakage for any company to get behind such a move. Look at how poorly IA64 is doing.

 

[luigi1]

First let me thank you for your responce. The post was asking for the thoughts of users of this site more knowlagabe than myself. Its my understanding that 640k is still there, ya you no longer hit the hard disk to page it in. but in microcode theres a better place to put modules and its totally fabricated its lagency no more no less. Itntrupets? sure there desired, but why the limit on the number? because of the 80286 spec no other reason. Our cpu's could do so much more. Its the fact that m$ has never wiped the chalkboard clean thet were left with these artifacts. Again thank you for your thoughts. Its all together possible that I wont live to see the day I'm speaking of. I thought it was apperent when the 386 was news.

 

[DaveSimmons]

People buy a computer to run software. With >95% of the desktop market, 99% of that software will continue to be written for Windows first, and almost always Windows only.

It adds anywhere from 25% - 100% to development costs to add a Mac version of an application, money that most small companies can't justify spending just to get a chance to sell to the other < 5% of the desktop market.

It's not just cash, but also developer and management resources. It usually makes sense to spend the cash and time on a new Windows project instead, since the potential market is 19 times the size.

So even if Macs were priced the same as Windows, how many people will buy a Mac (without also buying or stealing a copy of Windows)? Not many.

Gates and Ballmer are not trembling with fear. The revolution is not underway it's long dead.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Its the fact that m$ has never wiped the chalkboard clean thet were left with these artifacts.

People have always required backwards compatibility with existing applications. In the Windows 3.0/3.1 and even Win95 days many people were still running x86 DOS applications in their homes and businesses.

Yes, most everyone on Windows runs MS Office, but they also have other non-MS programs that they need or want.

There has never been a good time where MS could say "we're breaking completely with the past in OS-Foo!" because very few people would have been willing to throw away runing applications to make the switch, though MS did get rid of the 8-bit underbelly of 9x/ME when forcing all users to move to 32-bit NT code in Windows XP.

 

[luigi1]

Dave thats a very compelling argument. Its certenly what I've seen the last 25 years. Tell me, you can never see this changing? 100 years from now our childrens children are inputing data into IBM PC combatables?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Actually, we're getting closer and closer to a point when a switch from x86 is possible.

Even 3D action games are written almost entirely in C/C++ instead of assembly these days, soon assembly usage will be entirely in device drivers (and not much there either).

So while Windows itself won't disappear any time in the next decade or two, the need for the x86 architecture for compatibility will be gone in just a few more years.

You see a similar example with Apple OSX, where Apple claims it takes almost no code changes to switch the underlying CPU for applications from PowePC to x86.

 

[notfred]

PPC is a reduced instruction set chip, x86 is a complex instruction set chip. I'm sure there a ton of other differences but thats a difference in design.

Do you have any idea what that actually means? What are the advantages of one over the other? Saying "one is RISC and the other is CISC" means nothing if you can't explain the difference. And even if you can explain the difference, you still haven't shown how x86 was holding anything back in 1990, or even today.

You dont think apple has style nor that microsoft has marketing. I agree that someone in this thread has no clue.

I said that CPUs don't have style, regardless of whether Apple sells them or not. Do you find PowerPC chips to be stylish? Do you think the average consumer buying a G5 tower or iMac even knows what a CPU looks like, let alone whether it's stylish looking or not?

And microsoft has very little marketing aimed at consumers. You can feel free to disagree, just show me examples.

 

[luigi1]

Notfred I'm not trying to make an enimy here. Though my posts are few i've been lurking for awile here and I dont mean a personale attack. I took an asso. of engineering in electronics engeneering techonology in 1977 with highest honors. As part of the courses I took was a course on the 8080 microprosser which consisted of of machine launguage programming of it. I took it as a presonall chalange when the 8086 came out to define the differences (mostly irq handeling). Yes I know what the difference between risc and cisc means. Its pretty appenent at this stage of technology that cisc is the better technology. If you dont think apple has a style I can accept that. I think they do. As to m$ marketing ill leave that as an exercise to the student.

 

[Nothinman]

Its my understanding that 640k is still there, ya you no longer hit the hard disk to page it in

It's there in real mode, meaning at the initial POST and if you boot DOS, but if you use a semi-modern OS it's not there.

Itntrupets? sure there desired, but why the limit on the number? because of the 80286 spec no other reason.

If you use ACPI there is no limit, at least none that matters. I'm using a 4 year old motherboad and my USB controller is currently in IRQ 19.

Our cpu's could do so much more.

In what way? Everything you've mentioned so far is irrelevant.