Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Intel Inside/IBM out of picture' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Intel Inside/IBM out of picture
Authored by: gsgm on Jun 07, '05 03:27:36PM

I think desicon is more a "IBM wouldn't/couldn't" keep upgrading the PPC chip and produce enough quantity to keep Apple happy. We all know the benefits of RISC vs. CISC, and I think if IBM would have gotten a 3+Ghz PPC this wouldn't have happened.

But now that it has, what do I expect?
I want the same look and feel that I get now. I want consistantly easy applications that "just work" without hassles. I want to say "that's cool!" when I turn my Mac on. Since all of this is software, I truly believe Apple will pull this one off.

But what are my fears? For one, the Pentium chip architecture's uses of IRQ. (Mostly conflicts and a limit of the number of devices) How much more "extras" can Intel cram on the chip? (Is there really an improvement besides size if it's the same pentium, but with dual cores?)

But I also wonder what else is up Steve's sleeve. Since all of the recent Apple applications have been developed to work on a Pentium chip, does that mean I can by iLife and install on my Windows machine? (Probably not... why buy a Mac if I can do that on any machine) But what if OS X could run on a Dell? (Not yet for the same reason as above) If X-Code can handle cross compiling for 2 processors, why not 3?



[ Reply to This | # ]
Intel Inside/IBM out of picture
Authored by: Shawn Parr on Jun 07, '05 04:22:31PM

Just because you don't have to deal with IRQ's doesn't mean they don't exist on the Mac.

IRQ's are used for different parts of hardware (and software) to talk to each other.

On the Mac Open Firmware and the Mac OS work together to make this all transparent. I would expect that under the Mac with Intel design they would still be able to handle this. Even though OF will not be used according to the documents so far released. Even XP does a pretty good job of you not having to ever set an IRQ, some people may run across it, but most do not.

Also a lot of people don't seem to understand the timeframe we are looking at. Within 12 months even portable Intel chips could all be 64 bit. We are also probably not really looking at P4 for actual released machines, but something based on Pentium M and Pentium D designs. PD is 64 bit, and Pentium M is amazingly efficient for its power use and low heat output (a 2Ghz easily outperforms a 3.6Ghz P4 in Intel's own demos).

Yes I know that the current developer kit is a P4, but that is the _current_ kit, not what will ship in 12-18 months. That is a couple revisions of machines in computer lifetime.

I am interested to see what will happen with the PM and PD lines now, especially in the way of vector optimization, as that is the one area where the PPC truly rules. Other areas (memory bandwidth, etc) could easily catch up in that time frame.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Intel Inside/IBM out of picture
Authored by: chris_on_hints on Jun 08, '05 06:51:23AM

Steve even said in the description of the P4 boxes that he was selling to the developers that they were only to aid in the transition, and would be nothing like what will be the first IntelMac...

... I take that to mean that the IntelMacs will NOT be running pentiums, which are far hotter and run at higher clock speed than the newer chips Intel makes, and the AMD ones.

...I am hoping to see a nice 64-bit Intel processor in the Mac mini and then in the powerbooks.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Intel Inside/IBM out of picture
Authored by: mireth.com on Jun 07, '05 05:08:14PM

I think it has to do with 3 things:

1. Portables. There is no G5 laptop on the horizon - ever. Yet laptops are a huge part of Apple's business. The currnent G4 laptops are looking pretty sad beside a Wintel box

2. Windows, un*x and OS X GUI all on the same box - nuff said.

3. Future products. The iPod is just the beginning. Remember Steve J.'s vision is for Apple to be the next Sony (not to replace but to be the next). Imagine, if you will, consumer electronics products built on a stipped down OS X running on embedded CPUs.


----- Totally wild speculation on -----

The iPod revenue has also given Apple something it has never had before -- freedom from total dependence on Macintosh hardware revenue. This may tempt Apple to once again try OS licensing (remember the last disaster occurred as a result of hardware revenue lost to OS 7 licencees) secure in the knowledge that the iPod revenue (and even its Application software like iLife being sold as an add on for third party OS licensees) is safe and could cushion things during the licensing transition period. Licensing OS X is a MUCH easier sell if it runs on Intel.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Intel Inside/IBM out of picture
Authored by: chris_on_hints on Jun 08, '05 07:02:41AM

Nice thinking.

1) - absolutely agree. Intel have a range of low power chips for laptops that run cooler and are more efficient than the Pentiums (which are as hot as a G5)

2) - yes, but i wouldnt put XP (or longhorn) on my IntelMac. EVER! But I would like to use Wine to run Windows apps, without the need for windows itself... Maybe developers will stop porting the PPC version to x86 and just make sure their windows x86 binaries will run under Wine... Might be less effort for some of them.

3) - yeah - bring on those future products. Jobs is a smart cookie, and from the "every version of OSX has been compiled for Intel since 10.0" bombshell, it is clear that he is thinking ahead and has a good stretegy.

My speculation would be to suggest that maybe the on-chip DRM that Intel have was the deciding factor. Maybe that would be how Apple could lock OSX down to their machines, and give further security to the iTunes music store components... especially if they are wanting to move into film.



[ Reply to This | # ]