All you diehard Apple fans rejoice now!

JazzMang

JazzMang

He's Junktastic!
Pardon the sarcasm.

Check it out.

Looks like the PowerPC chips just weren't cutting it either.

You know the old phrase: If you can't beat em, join 'em.

Although in this case I think Apple is taking a big step backwards into their own anuses by going with an Intel CPU with (most likely) some bloated architecture consisting of excessive branch prediction errors and unimpressive pipeline lengths (god help us when we go over 32 pipeline stages)

This is indeed shocking news and further reduces my confidence in Apple.

/rant
 
JazzMang said:
Although in this case I think Apple is taking a big step backwards into their own anuses by going with an Intel CPU with (most likely) some bloated architecture consisting of excessive branch prediction errors and unimpressive pipeline lengths (god help us when we go over 32 pipeline stages)
Click to expand...
Well, the article doesn't say what processor Apple will be using, and given the timeline, I'd say it's going to be whatever Intel's calling the next-gen Dothan core.
 
elevate said:
Well, the article doesn't say what processor Apple will be using, and given the timeline, I'd say it's going to be whatever Intel's calling the next-gen Dothan core.
Click to expand...
Too bad Dothan (and its next-gen replacement) is an x86 CPU and all Mac software only runs on CPUs based on the RISC extensions... :rolleyes:
 
Havoc said:
Does anyone really believes this? All they want are cheaper cpu's from ibm.
Click to expand...

Read the more informed non sensationalist analysis's and you will see the talks are concerning some other aspect of Intel- not the processors. Apple has already used some intel chips in their airports and some other products. I knew the Windows fans would not look beyond the rumors. Apple is committed to the PPC processor (for good reason) and has every reason not to port the operating system to Intel.
Please don't trash me as I have studied the reports intensely as one who
feels it would be a mistake of suicidal proportion for Apple to switch.
Peace to all users of both systems- we will know tomorrow. :)
 
macmoondoggie said:
Apple is committed to the PPC processor (for good reason) and has every reason not to port the operating system to Intel.
Click to expand...
Apple maintains a public version of Darwin for x86, so is it that hard to believe that an x86 version of OS X exists? And what are the good reasons Apple is committed to PPC?
 
elevate said:
Apple maintains a public version of Darwin for x86, so is it that hard to believe that an x86 version of OS X exists? And what are the good reasons Apple is committed to PPC?
Click to expand...

No it's not hard to believe it exists as we all know it hs been functioning since the Next Program. Perhaps the following can help explain in better terms than I can write here.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1824223,00.asp

p.s. Why would you want it running on x86? Sorry, but it just doesnt make sense to me. Peace!
 
I highly doubt Apple will make OS X for x86. They'll have Intel make special cpus for them, probably based off of the currect PPC design.

Where can I find this public version of Darwin for x86 and why have I not heard of it before? Is it just the microkernel, or is there anything else they've added?
 
IronFlippy said:
I highly doubt Apple will make OS X for x86. They'll have Intel make special cpus for them, probably based off of the currect PPC design.
Click to expand...

New Intel CPU based off the current PPC design = Instant Lawsuit!

Just add lawyers!

The only similarity would be architectural programming similarity in language base and thats it... anything more borders on patent and/or copyright infringement.
 
macmoondoggie said:
Perhaps the following can help explain in better terms than I can write here.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1824223,00.asp
Click to expand...
That wasn't particularly compelling. His two big points in favor of PPC over x86 is cost and efficiency. I'd like to know where he got his quantity pricing for processors, and all modern Athlon/Athlon 64/Opteron processors are more efficient than G5s, as are the Pentium Ms. Also, he basically admits that Apple's mobile line has no future in terms of processor.
 
noodles2k5 said:
They don't want Joe Schmoe building a computer out of cheap parts and using Mac OS on it.
Click to expand...
This would be an easy problem to fix. Do you think you could buy an eServer from IBM and install OS X on it?
 
elevate said:
This would be an easy problem to fix. Do you think you could buy an eServer from IBM and install OS X on it?
Click to expand...
What do you mean? My whole point was that since Mac OS runs on Apple systems only, they reap the benefits of selling both hardware and software. Now if they went x86, people would buy inexpensive PCs and put Mac OS on it. That's why Apple is committed to PPC. They get more money that way. ALSO I think they realize the performance of PPC is not what it should be as far as price/performance ratio. But rather than admitting it, they're advertising it as "better/faster/etc than an x86 PC".
 
elevate said:
That wasn't particularly compelling. His two big points in favor of PPC over x86 is cost and efficiency. I'd like to know where he got his quantity pricing for processors, and all modern Athlon/Athlon 64/Opteron processors are more efficient than G5s, as are the Pentium Ms. Also, he basically admits that Apple's mobile line has no future in terms of processor.
Click to expand...

Admittedly that wasnt the best example out there, just seemed good enough at the time. Apple makes the best OS, but their revenue is hardware based as stated as stated by noodles2k5.
Well today maybe your dream will come true and you can run OSX on your $299 no name PC. :eek:
 
noodles2k5 said:
What do you mean? My whole point was that since Mac OS runs on Apple systems only, they reap the benefits of selling both hardware and software. Now if they went x86, people would buy inexpensive PCs and put Mac OS on it. That's why Apple is committed to PPC. They get more money that way. ALSO I think they realize the performance of PPC is not what it should be as far as price/performance ratio. But rather than admitting it, they're advertising it as "better/faster/etc than an x86 PC".
Click to expand...

It's not that simple, bro. They could do a propriatary bios and put a "key" in it, and OSX would look for that key upon installation. If it doesn't see that key from the bios that you can only get on an Apple computer, then no install.

Pretty easy for Apple to take care of that.

I think a Powerbook w/ a dual core 2.3+ Centrino set up would be friggin' cool!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top