Originally posted by: RemyCanad
Like I said, Im not an expert on this, but Ive tried to read as much as I could on this type of thing. The PPC arch intrigues me
All I can think of is the gui crap.
Apple has working x86 code. If I could prove it I would guarantee that Apple has a working x86 Mac OS X, gui and all. They obviously see something in the PPC arch that we dont.
It was a fair question. One that has been asked many times. If you read my first post in this thread, you'll see the only answer that matters.
FWIW, there was a time not too long ago, that Apple, IBM and others were working on a completely new platform. It was based on the PowerPC architecture and was called the Common Hardware Reference Platform (CHRP). It was going to be what you want, just not on x86 CPUs. Microsoft was developing Windows for it and it would have let a person buy a standard box and install their OS of choice on it. But as so often happens in the industry another CPU and chipset developer strongly suggested to MS that it wasn't in their best interests to support this new platform. And so it goes.
Transmeta processors could run both x86 and OS X if you really want to get right down to it. I hardly think Transmeta will sell any processors to Apple in the near future.
It might happen if they get superior price : Performance... In fact, with intel breathing down x86 laptop makers' necks pressuring them not to buy transmeta, I'd be surprised if they're not knocking VERY loudly on apple's door...
It might happen if they get superior price : Performance... In fact, with intel breathing down x86 laptop makers' necks pressuring them not to buy transmeta, I'd be surprised if they're not knocking VERY loudly on apple's door...
If Apple does switch to x86, i think that the 'MAC OS' would only support one type of motherboard, only a few types of video card, 1 type of CPU (AMD's clawhammer sounds interesting) etc etc.. so as to disallow direct competition with Windows XP (good, so MS won't get too annoyed) and prevent clones (which could still happen, but they would have to buy the exact same components as a x86 MAC - bit hard if the mobo is proprietory).
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,999
- 307
- 126
<<If Apple does switch to x86, i think that the 'MAC OS' would only support one type of motherboard, only a few types of video card, 1 type of CPU (AMD's clawhammer sounds interesting) etc etc.. so as to disallow direct competition with Windows XP (good, so MS won't get too annoyed) and prevent clones (which could still happen, but they would have to buy the exact same components as a x86 MAC - bit hard if the mobo is proprietory).>>
Nothing wrong with a hardware lock built into the motherboard to keep the O/S non-functional on non-Apple motherboards. Would be sweet for them to support either the Pentium4 or Hammer, though, so that users could upgrade the speed of their system by switching out the CPU with a standardized processor.
Is there anything the G4/G5 will be able to do specifically that the Hammer family will not? Seems like the Hammer is deep in registers as compared to past x86 processors, too.
Nothing wrong with a hardware lock built into the motherboard to keep the O/S non-functional on non-Apple motherboards. Would be sweet for them to support either the Pentium4 or Hammer, though, so that users could upgrade the speed of their system by switching out the CPU with a standardized processor.
Is there anything the G4/G5 will be able to do specifically that the Hammer family will not? Seems like the Hammer is deep in registers as compared to past x86 processors, too.
Well, the G4 does have some advantages in certain software and even with Hammer's extended registers, it still doesn't have as much as the G4, but asside from that, I don't think there are any advantages to sticking with the PPC. I don't know about the G5, maybe it'll be mindblowing or something.
Originally posted by: RemyCanad
don't forget the G5 could be a P4
Unlikely. If it is a P4, then I doubt Intel will let Apple sell it under another name. And Apple certainly isn't designing their own processors.
Originally posted by: imgod2u
Originally posted by: RemyCanad
don't forget the G5 could be a P4
Unlikely. If it is a P4, then I doubt Intel will let Apple sell it under another name. And Apple certainly isn't designing their own processors.
Why would they? They are part of the PPC working group (or whatever its called), so they have a hand in the development of the PPC line along with Motorola and IBM.
I got bored reading the same arguements everyone has been pushing for a while now so I didnt finish the article. Maybe Ill get back to it when I have patience for the same s all over again. Anyhow, did they answer the most important question? The one I asked previously that none of the x86 zealots have an answer for? I doubt it. And I still havent figured out what kind of "Windows compatibility" people keep mentioning. Do these people want to run Windows code on a Mac? Why?! One of the reasons to use a Mac is to get around the "code" Microsoft uses.
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I got bored reading the same arguements everyone has been pushing for a while now so I didnt finish the article. Maybe Ill get back to it when I have patience for the same s all over again. Anyhow, did they answer the most important question? The one I asked previously that none of the x86 zealots have an answer for? I doubt it. And I still havent figured out what kind of "Windows compatibility" people keep mentioning. Do these people want to run Windows code on a Mac? Why?! One of the reasons to use a Mac is to get around the "code" Microsoft uses.
Actually, these are considerations on how would be a switch to x86 ... not very in-depth, but worth my read.
Kuk
Originally posted by: kuk
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I got bored reading the same arguements everyone has been pushing for a while now so I didnt finish the article. Maybe Ill get back to it when I have patience for the same s all over again. Anyhow, did they answer the most important question? The one I asked previously that none of the x86 zealots have an answer for? I doubt it. And I still havent figured out what kind of "Windows compatibility" people keep mentioning. Do these people want to run Windows code on a Mac? Why?! One of the reasons to use a Mac is to get around the "code" Microsoft uses.
Actually, these are considerations on how would be a switch to x86 ... not very in-depth, but worth my read.
Kuk
I did end up skimming over most of it. Like I said, its the same old S. The solution was already proposed (I think I mentioned it in here). But this is barely anything. It is a small technical detail, but does not mention how this could help drive Apple out of business. Although I thought the server only thing an intriguing idea...
Anyhow, did they answer the most important question? The one I asked previously that none of the x86 zealots have an answer for? I doubt it.
Which question was that you asked? the only one i could find was "does x86 have anything to compare to altivec?"
And I still havent figured out what kind of "Windows compatibility" people keep mentioning. Do these people want to run Windows code on a Mac? Why?! One of the reasons to use a Mac is to get around the "code" Microsoft uses.
Maybe they're nostalgic to play "rogue" ?? Who cares why they want to run XXX windows program, it's their business. Why ask why, when asking HOW is much more useful?
Which question was that you asked? the only one i could find was "does x86 have anything to compare to altivec?"
And I still havent figured out what kind of "Windows compatibility" people keep mentioning. Do these people want to run Windows code on a Mac? Why?! One of the reasons to use a Mac is to get around the "code" Microsoft uses.
Maybe they're nostalgic to play "rogue" ?? Who cares why they want to run XXX windows program, it's their business. Why ask why, when asking HOW is much more useful?
How they would stop from losing all of their developers because they switched platforms... AGAIN.
Because it is possible *NOW*. Because I dont understand the "why." It was a mini-rant, I didnt expect an answer (especially one like yours that was a little more thoughtful than "OUTLOOK ROX!")
That's rediculous. Apple switches platforms more often than Angelina Jolie switches husbands. From the original PowerPC to the G3's to OSX. Their developer base has always supported them. I don't see why they won't with the move to yet another platform. This "they can't switch platforms" arguement is rather shortsighted, I mean, one could've made the same arguement about the switch to OSX. Shoudl they not have switched to OSX then?
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
The question is, who really cares at this point? The only thing which is constant with Apple is that it's a turd of a company with second-rate products. For those wishing they had an apples-to-apples comparison for Macs vs. PCs, here's the one that proves the point perfectly....
Apple
vs.
Intel
and
Microsoft
To paraphrase Russ, Apple lost, get over it.
Apple
vs.
Intel
and
Microsoft
To paraphrase Russ, Apple lost, get over it.
How they would stop from losing all of their developers because they switched platforms... AGAIN.
Ok, I don't have a very good answer, but my best is:
a) mac zealot developers will always stick around for the mac
b) there's a thousand x86 developers just waiting to take the place of each ppc developer that jumps ship =)
Just my thoughts...
Ok, I don't have a very good answer, but my best is:
a) mac zealot developers will always stick around for the mac
b) there's a thousand x86 developers just waiting to take the place of each ppc developer that jumps ship =)
Just my thoughts...
Angelina Jolie has been married twice. Apple has switched platforms twice.
m68k -> PPC
OS ? -> OS X
It took them waaaay too long to get their favorite software (photoshop) ported to OS X. If Adobe had to start over... again.... they would be pretty pissed.
Some would. Some wouldnt. Would that be enough?
Like? Name some companies that would love to develop OS X for x86 software, please.
The question is, what would they jump ship to? x86? *Gasp* guess what ISA OSX is using? If anything, developers like Adobe would love it if Apple switched to x86 as their primary ISA. It'd mean that they'd have to spend a lot less effort porting, that's right, porting their Windows software (and yes, it is primarily developed for Windows now) to the MacOS.
Ummm, Apple developes OSX and whether they'd want to develope it for x86 is what we're discussing. But generally, the vast majority of software is for x86. Some are merely ported to the PPC architecture because they want the Apple market as well (for old times sake I guess). It'd be a lot easier to port it to OSX that ran on an x86 platform. Developers would imbrace that. I'll bet you Photoshop 7 wouldn't have taken nearly as long to port to Mac if OSX was on x86.
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: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter