We're talking history here. 
I remember that from one of my textbooks in high school 10 years ago.
Tell you what - I'll do some searching, and YOU do some searching and see what we can find.
It IS possible it's FUD from a Mac fanatic back in the day.
I remember that from one of my textbooks in high school 10 years ago.Tell you what - I'll do some searching, and YOU do some searching and see what we can find.
It IS possible it's FUD from a Mac fanatic back in the day.
The Xserve uses DDR ram.
They would also have to recompile quartz and then cocoa, carbon, then mac manager and the list goes on.
And the ported version is missing things that apple took out of the source they distribute.
What ported version? Last I heard, OSX was not ported to x86. Darwin, the BSD-based core, was in x86 long before it was in a Mac.
You either did not read what I wrote or you did not understand. If you didnt understand its ok, Im no expert. From what I have read, the current G4s cannot utilize the bandwidth provided by the DDR, much like the p3 could not utilize the bandwidth provided by RDRAM. The next incarnation of the G4 is rumored (check motorola's site, its supposed to be there somewhere) to utilize the DDR.
I wasnt aware they removed anything from Darwin when they ported it to x86...
I dont think it was (Im not 100% positive). I think Apple put Darwin together themselves... They took the MACH kernel (which was available for quite a while) and some userland from FreeBSD (and other places) and packaged it as Darwin.
This is the insanse rambling often heard from those that support the struggling Apple Computer company.
They are struggling and making losses because:
a) their products suck when compared to the overwhelming flexibility, and power of the PC competition.
b) they are way too expensive
I used to work as an Technology Analyst for SRI Consulting.. they insisted on using MACS.. they had IT people that were old and hopeless and knew nothing about computers.. the myth had just survived that Apples were somehow intrinsically better.
Apples are crap.. I give Apple 10 years before it goes under.
They are over-rated, underpowered, overpriced, and as for the design?? It's just a dress.. they are not serious computers. With the advent of Windows 2000 and XP - you cannot even claim that they are more stable anymore.
Goodbye (Cr)Apple.
They are struggling and making losses because:
a) their products suck when compared to the overwhelming flexibility, and power of the PC competition.
b) they are way too expensive
I used to work as an Technology Analyst for SRI Consulting.. they insisted on using MACS.. they had IT people that were old and hopeless and knew nothing about computers.. the myth had just survived that Apples were somehow intrinsically better.
Apples are crap.. I give Apple 10 years before it goes under.
They are over-rated, underpowered, overpriced, and as for the design?? It's just a dress.. they are not serious computers. With the advent of Windows 2000 and XP - you cannot even claim that they are more stable anymore.
Goodbye (Cr)Apple.
what profit?
Apple is struggling.. it's profits are slightly up.. but it is still a poor performer..
It's strategy is stupid. An economics/business/engineering undergrad could tell you that....
Let's see now:
Our mission is to compete against the huge competition that have all chosen the same standards. The fact that the PC has such interchangeability does not worry us. Nor the fact that you can upgrade adinfinitum with a PC whereas you are left with a dead box with a crapple. We are not worried about these things. Our strength is the fact that we make nice cases. Admittedly, a Lian Li cased PC running 2000/XP is cheaper, looks heaps better, and performs better on every task you can think of. We are not worried about these things. We shall just carry on with coloured polyprop and perspex and hugely underpowered late 1990 PC performance machines. We do not know what we are doing. We are Crapple.
Apple is struggling.. it's profits are slightly up.. but it is still a poor performer..
It's strategy is stupid. An economics/business/engineering undergrad could tell you that....
Let's see now:
Our mission is to compete against the huge competition that have all chosen the same standards. The fact that the PC has such interchangeability does not worry us. Nor the fact that you can upgrade adinfinitum with a PC whereas you are left with a dead box with a crapple. We are not worried about these things. Our strength is the fact that we make nice cases. Admittedly, a Lian Li cased PC running 2000/XP is cheaper, looks heaps better, and performs better on every task you can think of. We are not worried about these things. We shall just carry on with coloured polyprop and perspex and hugely underpowered late 1990 PC performance machines. We do not know what we are doing. We are Crapple.
Yeah ok mate...
Instead of just spouting junk.. why not put the words Apple and struggling into Google...
Then tell me they are doing well. You'ff find their full financial history - which is poor.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/earns/2002-07-16-apple-earns_x.htm
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid={BD6A202E-904C-4B88-B013-DCD614295788}&siteid=mktw
And as for niche product differentiating itself from the competition. This is a stupid strategy. The PC is the only platform of merit. The Apple is a has been that belongs to a past era. The Apple belongs back pre-mass internet and pre-mass business computing.. i.e. upto around 1994. The Apple is all but dead.
Instead of just spouting junk.. why not put the words Apple and struggling into Google...
Then tell me they are doing well. You'ff find their full financial history - which is poor.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/earns/2002-07-16-apple-earns_x.htm
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid={BD6A202E-904C-4B88-B013-DCD614295788}&siteid=mktw
And as for niche product differentiating itself from the competition. This is a stupid strategy. The PC is the only platform of merit. The Apple is a has been that belongs to a past era. The Apple belongs back pre-mass internet and pre-mass business computing.. i.e. upto around 1994. The Apple is all but dead.
Oh I see..
So an overpriced colured chunk can successfully compete aginst a cheaper more flexible commodity product?
So an overpriced colured chunk can successfully compete aginst a cheaper more flexible commodity product?
You are talking junk. Do you work for Apple?
I am a musician.. let me tell you something.. the reason many musicians favour Apples is because of tradition. Musicians are by and large not computer savvy.. they know Sonar, Cubase, etc.. but most have little understanding of computers. They therefore rely on hearsay and myth and they buy a Crapple.
Same for Graphic design studios.. myth, hearsay, tradition, and the fact the box looks nice in the decor...
Crapple.
I am a musician.. let me tell you something.. the reason many musicians favour Apples is because of tradition. Musicians are by and large not computer savvy.. they know Sonar, Cubase, etc.. but most have little understanding of computers. They therefore rely on hearsay and myth and they buy a Crapple.
Same for Graphic design studios.. myth, hearsay, tradition, and the fact the box looks nice in the decor...
Crapple.
I see we have a retard in the house. Were you abused by macs as a small child?
Stop there. It's been shown they just turned a profit. Read up a bit before you spout off.
Their products dont suck, but I will agree that they are certainly too expensive. Another reason for Apple to get off the motorola bandwagon and goto someone else that can provide chips for cheaper and who is willing and capapble of continously working to make it faster.
They are not serious computers? Yeah, OK. That's why in every newspaper I've interned, worked at, or visited, they use mac's in the backroom photo department to prep for the next day's paper. Toy? Phffft. D
What, are you a stock analyst now? First you say that they are losing money, then you admit they are making money, but suck anyways....boy, I'd hate to have you as my analyst.
Maybe you should get off your ass and look at mac's nowadays. Nearly everything short of the motherboard is upgradeable, what are you talking about? And using standard PC parts too. RAM is the same, hard drives are the same, you can use PCI cards, upgrade the AGP video, the list goes on and on. Who's calling who stupid again?
Dumbass, read the article again.
Apple Computer (AAPL) reported a slide in quarterly earnings and revenue, a blow to the financial recovery it began last year that Apple blamed on market weakness felt by personal computer rivals as well.
It wasnt just Apple stupid. And re-read the part where it said "$32 million profit".
You know not what you speak of!
Were you abused by macs as a small child?Stop there. It's been shown they just turned a profit. Read up a bit before you spout off.
Their products dont suck, but I will agree that they are certainly too expensive. Another reason for Apple to get off the motorola bandwagon and goto someone else that can provide chips for cheaper and who is willing and capapble of continously working to make it faster.
They are not serious computers? Yeah, OK.
That's why in every newspaper I've interned, worked at, or visited, they use mac's in the backroom photo department to prep for the next day's paper. Toy? Phffft. DWhat, are you a stock analyst now? First you say that they are losing money, then you admit they are making money, but suck anyways....boy, I'd hate to have you as my analyst.
Maybe you should get off your ass and look at mac's nowadays.
Nearly everything short of the motherboard is upgradeable, what are you talking about? And using standard PC parts too. RAM is the same, hard drives are the same, you can use PCI cards, upgrade the AGP video, the list goes on and on. Who's calling who stupid again? Dumbass, read the article again.
Apple Computer (AAPL) reported a slide in quarterly earnings and revenue, a blow to the financial recovery it began last year that Apple blamed on market weakness felt by personal computer rivals as well.
It wasnt just Apple stupid. And re-read the part where it said "$32 million profit".
You know not what you speak of!
No. The altivec is used for vector operations, not integer. Here, read this comparison of both processors:
G4 versus k7
When is comes to 128-bit vector calculations, the G4 is a damned fast processor. The altivec is what allows the G4 (and therefore all current powerpc towers) to achieve workstation-level performance for certain, specially-designed apps. The athlon, on the other hand, kills the G4 in integer and floating point calculations (which is what windows-native programs require, including games). According to this article, which I have no reason to doubt (lay off mac fanboys, he actually prefers the G4), the original K7 simply has more brute force than the G4, with 9 fully-pipelined functional units, as opposed to 6 on the motorola chip. Also note that both processors are "post-RISC", not RISC or CISC. The athlon actually emulates the x86 ISA, effectively changing the x86 instructions before processing them. Ultimately, both CPUs are very good at what they do, they just do different things.
OSX wouldn`t run nearly as well on AMD hardware as it does on the G4 due to a lack of a good vector FU. The athlon, for example, must use two of its three FPUs to do vector calculations, enabling it to caculate 64-bit vectors, as opposed to the 128-bit per cycle provided by altivec. OSX's pretty interface (and fast operation on higher-end macs) is a result of the optimizations made available by the altivec. 3DNow, MMX and SSE simply can't compete with the Velocity Engine.
For obvious reasons, PC apps and games are optimized for fast FP and integer performance, which is why so many of them run slower on macs, whereas mac apps (eg. quicktime) run better on the G4.
As to why apple doesn't open it's market. It's not just about being a niche. By keeping all hardware and software under one roof, they are able to to ensure that the two mesh together to form as cohesive a system as possible. You don't have as many bugs, and those that you have are easier to fix. Imagine Microsoft, AMD (or Intel), IBM, Klipsch, Logitech, Maxtor, etc... all working in one building making sure that all their products function perfectly together. That's *kinda* what you get when you buy a mac. All too often on PCs we have a product X that won't won't install because product Y is causing a conflict with product Z...and so on. While for the members of this forum these kind of problems are fixed rather quickly
, some people don't want to put up with that.But PCs are cheaper, and more familiar, and so they sell. For others, the options and customizability available on PCs are what convince them to buy. For me, it's both. Just like the processors that power them, PCs and Macs cater to different needs, and both play important roles in the computer industry as a whole.
Hi Stig. Welcome to the forums. Thanks for sharing your narrow, opinionated views on things you don't fully understand.
I have both Mac and Windows boxes under my desk hooked to a KVM. Why? Because they are BOTH useful tools. Get that? A computer is a tool. Is a wooden-handled claw hammer outdated because a nail gun is available? No, they are both tools that do things well.
I have both Mac and Windows boxes under my desk hooked to a KVM. Why? Because they are BOTH useful tools. Get that? A computer is a tool. Is a wooden-handled claw hammer outdated because a nail gun is available? No, they are both tools that do things well.
Just saw this on Slashdot:
Reuters asks Jobs the question I posed here.
(Last few lines of the article)
---
A LOT of you guys are off on a tangent. Basically Macs already support most PC hardware as long as it has Mac drivers (which most high-quality hardware does I believe, even if they're not exactly up to date). OSX is already developed by Apple with GCC (I believe that's what I've heard), for the most part porting their software to PC would simply require changing the architecture GCC is compiling for. There would be some hardware specific variations that need to be accounted for by hand probably, but I haven't done any cross-platform work at that level. Of course any assembly code (which most apps avoid now anyway) would have to be rewritten but porting everything to x86 would be that hard.
I'm not suggesting that they support NEW hardware (other than changes required to handle the x86 chipset and motherboard itself) and I'm not suggesting they sell OSX to non-Apple x86 systems (that could be limited by checking BIOS). So they wouldn't be competing with MS.
The main thing that prompted me to post the original question is that _I_ wouldn't mind buying a PowerBook if I could run XP & x86 apps on it. I did NOT post the question to start a flame war.
Reuters asks Jobs the question I posed here.
(Last few lines of the article)
---
A LOT of you guys are off on a tangent. Basically Macs already support most PC hardware as long as it has Mac drivers (which most high-quality hardware does I believe, even if they're not exactly up to date). OSX is already developed by Apple with GCC (I believe that's what I've heard), for the most part porting their software to PC would simply require changing the architecture GCC is compiling for. There would be some hardware specific variations that need to be accounted for by hand probably, but I haven't done any cross-platform work at that level. Of course any assembly code (which most apps avoid now anyway) would have to be rewritten but porting everything to x86 would be that hard.
I'm not suggesting that they support NEW hardware (other than changes required to handle the x86 chipset and motherboard itself) and I'm not suggesting they sell OSX to non-Apple x86 systems (that could be limited by checking BIOS). So they wouldn't be competing with MS.
The main thing that prompted me to post the original question is that _I_ wouldn't mind buying a PowerBook if I could run XP & x86 apps on it. I did NOT post the question to start a flame war.
Currently, Apple's chipsets support the standard AGP interface along with PCI. I don't see much of a problem with hardware compatibility. The problem is software. So many games won't run on OSX or on the PPC platform. Opensource software is usually only for the x86/Windows/Linux platform. If Apple were to switch to x86, they'd open themselves up to all of this. As for stability, they'd still be able to run OSX. It's BSD-based so porting software to an x86 version of it shouldn't be hard at all. They'd still be able to limit what hardware goes into their machines because they build their own computers anyway. I mean, every single stability arguement raised has been due to Windows. You don't have to run Windows on an x86 platform. Why don't people see that?
If I'm not mistaken, the AltiVec SIMD unit on the G4 is capable of Integer data vectors. 4 32-bit Integer data values in 1 128-bit vector. SIMD part of the P4 and G4 says it all. The latest Palomino Athlon also has SSE support, which gives it the ability to execute 128-bit SSE data vectors. Granted this isn't as flexible as SSE2 in that it can't execute 2 64-bit FP data types in 1 128-bit SIMD vector, however, it is capable of 4 32-bit FP datatypes and 4 32-bit Integer datatypes if I recall.
As for the execution units of the G4. The advantage it has is it's RISC-like ISA. It doesn't have to deal with many of the limitations of x86 or x87 FPU extensions that the Athlon depends on for it's "pure" FPU performance. While it has a slight disadvantage in that it's FP execution units are pipelined rather than parallel, its FP register stack is flat address. Meaning no more need for FXCH move instructions (or whatever the corresponding instruction is for the PPC ISA). Having fixed-length instructions also help total throughput so that in the end, it's FP power is only slightly less than that of the Athlon.
While the G4 does have less execution units, they are almost never the limitation. Data dependencies not to mention x86's limitation of 3 x86 instruction decodes per clock make it so the Athlon almost never utilizes all 9 of its execution units. The G4 has a huge amount of registers to store data on the processor and is not limited by x86's clunky decoding methods. This gives it the ability to utilize it's execution units more efficiently. Not to mention the fact that it has dedicated execution units to handle AltiVec SIMD instructions and a vast 32 x 128-bit SIMD registers.
Again, just switching the processor doesn't mean you'd HAVE to add support for anything. It's a nice option and Apple could certainly afford to include some of the software titles out there into their machines but they don't have to. After all, they'd still be making both the computer and the OS. And the OS could have limited support and only software that adheres to the guidelines of the OS can run on it. Simple as that. No stability lost. The benefit (especially with a P4 in it) would be the ability to run a lot of x86 titles like games faster while still maintaining the SIMD power that the G4 has (SSE2 is very comparable in terms of capability to that of AltiVec). And Hammer is suppose to include SSE2 support as well. I'm sure Apple could use that along with better x87 FP operations for games and other such things that can't be vectorized. Not to mention Prescott will include SSE3, which we don't really have any information on but, I'm hoping, would provide a scalar extension to FP operations (i.e. a replacement for x87).
you people miss the obvious reason why apple hasnt switched to x86... if they did, they would be DIRECTLY competing with both Microsoft on the software side, and Intel and AMD on the hardware side... This would put them in the crosshairs of some extremely powerful competitors, and could easily ruin them if something went wrong... It would be a risky move at best
No. Apple could easily limit x86-OSX to run on Mac hardware only. Not only that, but switching to x86 would allow (depending on how they do it) Macs to run XP, making both MS and their users (who might want XP or want to dual boot) happy.
Apple is ALREADY competing with Intel and AMD by going the PowerPC route. Switching to Intel or AMD chips would mean that they're BUYING Intel or AMD products, not competing with them. No-one is suggesting Apple develop their own x86 chip, that would be insane.
If Apple switched to x86, it is ENTIRELY possible that EVERYTHING about the Mac and how Apple does business could remain the same as it is now. They could limit OSX to Apple hardware only. They could use a non-standard x86 chipset and not develop drivers so that standard x86 OSes don't run on them (though that's not what I'd want). If they did that, everything from a business and user standpoint would be the EXACT SAME, except most applications would run faster than before and porting software that's written (at least partially) in assembly would be easier. Personally I think it would be stupid to switch to x86 and not allow x86 oses (other than x86-OSX) to run on it would be a stupid move though.
Zane... I didnt realize that about the hardware side...
However, what I was referring to with competition with Microsoft was that if Apple develops x86 architecture and allows XP to be run on Mac machines, they would be directly competing with Microsoft to produce the better operating system (for Mac hardware).
However, what I was referring to with competition with Microsoft was that if Apple develops x86 architecture and allows XP to be run on Mac machines, they would be directly competing with Microsoft to produce the better operating system (for Mac hardware).
Dear Mong...
£32 Million is ah heck all. They predicted 10 times that. A company that size should be looking to bring in ten times that.
I hadn't realised that Apples had become more flexible regarding upgrades...
But Apples are used a lot in music because there exists a belief that they are more stable. Apples are used in Graphic design purely because they have always been used there.. it is their niche...
Mong.
Thanks for being hostile. I am not going to post on this forum again...
Dr G L BEng MEng IMechE IEE CEng
Competition for Microsoft is bad? Apple has the exclusive right to include OSX with all Apple computers. Nobody else except Apple are allowed to build Macs. Therefore, Apple will still have the same amount of market with the OSX as before. Even if people did buy WinXP to run on a Mac, they'd have to buy the Mac WITH OSX first and then replace it. Apple would still gain sales from that. And then, there's the ability to run OSX on other platforms (if Apple decides to allow that, they don't have to). They could take quite a bit away from Microsoft's market. Plenty of people would like to run OSX on their computers.
Who's mong?
If you come in here spouting off crap in an anti-apple tirade, dont cry about hostility when someone calls you on it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter