# AMD new licensee, Apple



## kendall (Nov 18, 2002)

Could it be?  Tommorow will tell!  Though I highly doubt anyone but the man himself (Steve Jobs) would be announcing something this big.  Does anyone know if he's at Comdex? 

Move over AIM, here comes AA!   Story first seen here.


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 18, 2002)

I Followed the link there to http://www.amdzone.com and sure enough in their news on the main page there is a blurb about a large amount of Apple people attending Comdex...with rumored attendance at Hector Ruiz's keynote for AMD where they are going to announce a new lisencee (I can't spell)...scroll down more they say AMD possibly delayed release of the 64-bit Hammer processor to give Apple time to finish porting OS X....scrolling down further is a blurb (yes I like the word 'blurb' damnit!) that on Apple's open-source site there are some links for developers about the x86-64 platform for compiling applications...basically a lot of interesting little blurbs. But what could this all add up to? Were we foolish to expect Apple to wait an entire year for IBM's PPC 970 stuck with sh*tty Moto G4's? A year is a long time...the G4 is dying quickly ( mostly due to incompetence on Moto's part, but nevertheless still dying... ). AMD's new 64-bit Hammer processor is right on the horizon...Apple could really be in place to take it and blow the consumer market apart with 64-bit desktop machines....I don't think they'll abandon the G4 completely right away...keep it in the i/eMac and shove it into the next iBooks, possibly keep it in the TiBooks even for one more revision. I've never taken the Apple on x86 rumors too seriously until now...and with all the past ones it adds up, I think something is definately brewing here. Perhaps Apple will still use the PPC 970 when it finally is released...give consumers the option of a PPC or x86 chip in their PowerMac...or maybe instead of all that I just said I'm just totally off my rocker and going insane. Either is quite possible at this point. What do all of you think?

Also just noted that the weekly poll on the main amdzone.com page is "Next AMD Customer?
Is Apple or Dell more likely to be the next AMD customer?"
0 Apple is really thinking different!
0 Dude, Dell!

Interestingly enough Apple is favored 58.48% to Dell's 41.52%...
Just a stupid poll but makes me wonder even more...


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 18, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 18, 2002)




----------



## kommakazi (Nov 18, 2002)

There's one giant hole I can poke in this whole theory though: AltiVec. Too much has already been moved toward AltiVec to just drop it off suddenly, major developers and the scientific community would be outraged at such an action... It is possible that AMD could aquire a liscence to it or already have...though I'm sure we would have heard about this already if they had. Any thought on this?


----------



## kendall (Nov 18, 2002)

Moving away from PPC would be the smartest thing Apple could possibly do.


----------



## wiz (Nov 18, 2002)

and i thought PPC was better than the x86


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *Who cares about RISC processing? It's over, man, we've been through this before...
> *



Interestingly enough, the AMD Opteron (and even the Athlon) has many features of RISC processors: it supports out-of-order execution, has multiple floating-point units, and can issue up to 9 instructions simultaneously. Detailed info here: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~steen/web02/opteron.html


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by X-wiZeroS _
> *and i thought PPC was better than the x86 *


It is, it just never "caught on" so to speak... x86 "caught on", PPC didn't despite technilogical superiority. VHS vs. Beta, MacOS vs. Windows, there's more I'm sure...all same situation. PPC sells slow, so the technology advances at a comparable rate. x86 advances so rapidly due to the higher volume of chips sold...more $ made = more $ for research = more reason to advance the technology faster = better x86's at a faster rate.


----------



## kendall (Nov 18, 2002)

The problem with the G3 and G4 is that they hardly evolved.

It would be like Intel still making the orignial Pentium and just increasing the speed.


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by itanium _
> *It would be like Intel still making the orignial Pentium and just increasing the speed. *


Not quite...if that was the case then Apple would still be selling PPC 601's, just increasing the speed. The G4 is an evolution of the G3 is a evolution of the 604e of the 604 of the 603e of the 603 of the 601 (forgive me if I left one out? 601e? I don't think those exist though)... Just as the PIV goes back to the original PI. The G3/4 just didn't scale speeds as well due to a lack of research/support from Motorola...refer to my above post.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Nov 18, 2002)




----------



## kendall (Nov 18, 2002)

Like I said, the G3 circa 1997 and the G4 circa 1999.  Almost four and six year old technology still powering or Macs.  Wouldn't be any different if Intel had decided to keep the original Pentium and just increase the speed.

As for x86 "wouldn't solve anything."  If it could make my Mac as quick and responsive as a PC running Windows, then it could sure solve a whole hell of a lot.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Nov 18, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 18, 2002)




----------



## kendall (Nov 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chemistry_geek _
> *Windows [insert favorite version here] doesn't use an anti-aliasing technology comparable to Apple's Aqua technology.  The Windows desktop is hardwired/written right into the kernel of the operating system.  The Finder and windowing system are programs running on top of the OS, they are not part of it.  And if you think that Windows is superior, then it wouldn't crash as often as it does.  I'd rather have a slower more stable computer than an ultra super-duper blazing fast computer to cruise the net and write letters and theses.  The last time I checked, Windows system font was still a single pixel font - doesn't take much computational crankage to do drop down menus.  Aqua has to compute everything on screen to make reading easier for longer periods of time. *



**edit**. Windows 2000 and XP have been just as stable for me as OS X.  Windows XP uses ClearType font smoothing which utilizes anti-aliasing.  XP has the same shadowed drop down menues and transparent effects as OS X.  If anything OS X should be faster considering its hardware accelerated.  

_Windows desktop is hardwired/written right into the kernel of the operating system._ 

I assume you mean Explorer and no, it is not "hardwired" into the kernel.  It can be started and stopped without impacting the kernel whatsoever.

I think you should get your facts straight before **edit**.


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by chemistry_geek _
> * It wouldn't be difficult for AMD to implement its own vector processing unit with instruction remapping.  Hell, IBM improved on AltiVec from what I read in the ArsTechnica review of the PPC 970.*


Never even thought of that...duh me. I think IBM just added a few extra instructions in their version, at least that's what I gathered from various articles I've read.


> *Going to x86-64 would not solve any problems that Apple currently has.  An Apple x86-64 would still have Apple-proprietary hardware in it, and it prolly won't run Windoze either.  And it would still be high priced relative to the rest of the PC's out there because Apple CONTROLS EVERYTHING that goes into a Mac.  You aren't going to be able to drop-in any piece of PC hardware into it, you'll still need Mac OS X drivers for it.  And unless you're exceptionally gifted in programming like most of the Slashdot crowd, you're going to be up $4!+ crick without a paddle.*


I agree with you, to an extent.
-Some hardware would indeed have to be Apple proprietary, but what really is the downside of this? This is a strength of theirs, the strong hardware-software integration. Allowing you to drop any peice of genero-PC hardware into your new x86-64 Mac would defeat this strongpoint that Apple's had over the years.
-I doubt such a machine would run Windows as well, but that's not what Apple wants, they want you to run OS X.
-The price may still drop though, AMD is likely to produce these chips in greater masses than Moto ever did the G3/4, resulting in a lower cost per chip: basic economics. Apple wouldn't be the only licensee of the Hammer/Opteron/whatever you want to call it, resulting in a lower cost. No, these machines still wouldn't be at or below the lowest cost PC-box you can find, but you are paying extra for that nice Apple software-hardware integration with resulting better support and an overall easier to manage system. That along wit the ability to run OS X on a rapidly advancing platform would be well-worth the cost to most.
-It would solve the one main problem I already touched on: Motorola doesn't support the G4 nearly enough. Apple is their only major customer, so a relatively small number of chips are needed...blah blah refer above. AMD would be producing these chips for many customers...more chips made, more research, more $...blah blah. This puts Apple standing on a rapidly advancing high-speed platform, the exact opposite of what they are on as of now. This is what they need, this is what many consumers need to make that switch. The 'Megahertz Myth' is dead. Not false, but x86 processors just advanced so much faster that you can't really apply it anymore. If G4's had scaled at the same rate, it would still apply.


> *Another problem with going x86 is that AMD and Intel are, to theirs and the environment's detriment, locked in a battle over Megahurts.  Increasing the clock rate doesn't necessarily make the computer run faster.  Higher clock rates require more electricity which means these components run HOT all the time, shortening their lifetimes.  NASA did a study that shows the Apple Macintoshes provide a cost effective way to achieve scientific computing (http://www.apple.com/scitech/research/papers/acg/).  It's more cost effective to use Macs with PowerPC G4's as workstations because they get more work done PER KILOWATTS COMSUMED!*


Increasing the clock rate of chips on the same platform will indeed make them faster than previous chips of the same platform at lower speeds. The increase in elecrical consumption is a definate and undeniable downside. But if thats what it takes to get a decent processor inside my Mac, it's worth it. The G4 is dead, Apple just keeps pushing it beyond the grave. The new 1.25ghz G4s run extremely hot and require a massive amount of extra cooling equipment. You get a really hot processor with either platform, the G4 consumes less power but is in turn less powerful. Where's the gain?


> *IBM has the right idea: use lower clock rate chips that have wide and shallow pipelines.  Even the graphics card companies (NVidia and ATi) use this design to give us blazzing fast frame rates in our favorite games.  Their 128-bit processors run at 300 MHz - "VERY SLOW by today's standards".  Clock rate is what the public is BS'd into thinking is important in computers.  It's not.*


-Minor correction: the IBM PPC 970 takes a wide and deep approach...Motorola's G4e takes the wide and shallow approach.
-Wide and deep is definitely a superior approach to that of current processors, combining obvious strengths of both, but the PPC 970 also isn't due out for at least another year. Can Apple really wait that long? I don't think Motorola's going to suddenly gear up research on the G4, it's more likely to go in the opposite direction.
-I agree fully that clock rate is overrated, especially in a cross-platform duel between chips with completely opposite design philosophies (G4e vs. PIV). The jump to 64-bit in AMD's Hammer nudges them farther from the narrow and shallow philosophy of current 32-bit Intel and AMD chips. Throw on an AltiVec-compatable vector processing unit and you've already got what the G4 currently has that x86 chips don't. AltiVec _is_ the main reason that a 500mhz G4 will indeed run faster than a 600mhz PIV running _special *AltiVec* enhanced Photoshop filters!_ Think what would happen should AMD throw such a unit on their Opteron. 
-The Opteron also has far superior potential in MP systems through use of HyperTransport (which Apple just so happens to be a current licensee of). In short, HyperTransport gives far superior processor communication in MP systems by giving processors dedicated lines to "speak" with each other over. Each processor also, in turn, has it's very own memory controller and bus rather than all sharing the same bus: a _*major*_ weakness of MP G4 systems which I also see reoccuring in the upcoming PPC 970.


> *IBM likes to make processors for mainframe and server class machines.  I wouldn't be surprised if IBM licensed the PowerPC 970 to AMD to scale the clock rate of that chip for Apple.  Apple simply couldn't take on the manufacturing load of microprocessors, that isn't its gift, software-hardware integration is. *


I doubt IBM would license the PPC 970 to AMD, nor would AMD care to be a licensee when they have their own competing 64-bit processor on the market. Where was it suggested that Apple take on the manufacturing load? And I completely agree with you on that last sentence.


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 18, 2002)

I do not believe that MacLuv said Windows was superior to OS X...just that he wished OS X was just as _responsive_ as Windows. I will myself admit that Windows has a more responsive GUI, it is far less complicated that Aqua. I do not think for one minute that this makes Windows superior to OS X though. Windows crashes more, it's a rip off of the Mac OS, _etc, etc, etc,_ *blah, blah, blah* ....all the same age old arguments we all agree with to some extent and do not need to go over, _again_. This isn't another OS X vs. Windows XP thread, so please don't turn it into one.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Nov 18, 2002)




----------



## kommakazi (Nov 18, 2002)

*[/FLAME]*

Observe and comply, I beg you all. This is _*NOT*_ WinXP vs. MacOS X deathmatch round infinity. We are discussing platforms, not OS's. The point of this is to run MacOS X, our beloved OS, on a potentially better platform, not convert to WinXP.


----------



## edX (Nov 18, 2002)

> The increase in elecrical consumption is a definate and undeniable downside. But if thats what it takes to get a decent processor inside my Mac, it's worth it.



not for everyone. i definitly am not willing to pay more in electricity to save an inth of a second every time i initiate a process. not to mention the heat. i already go sit in front of my computer when i'm in cold rather than turn the heat on when it gets cold. and i work up a sweat sitting in front of it on a comfortable day. 

processors have long surpassed the amount of speed neccesary for the average computer user to need more. i can't imagine needing anything over 1 ghz anytime soon. as an average user, i can't imagine needing anything over 800mhz right now. hell, i'm happy enough with the 400mhz i have. 

what apple, and especially 3rd party developers need to do is spend more effort into making the software work better on the chips we've got. the mhz myth may be dead (not), but the competition shouldn't be concerned with how many mhz, but rather how much can you get out of the least amount of mhz. 

i see it over and over still. some developers write great apps and they respond beautifully. others seem to slap code together and send it out and then blame the lack of responsiveness on apple and/or hardware. 

frankly i don't care what brand of chip is in my mac, but i do care that it uses as little electricity as possible and generates a liveable amount of heat. maybe apple should seek out an energystar rating for their computers like they have for other major appliances. then a lot more people might see some of the underlying costs a lot clearer.


----------



## kendall (Nov 18, 2002)

**edit** Dude,  just chill.  You don't need writing paragraphs that are completely off topic about NASA, Linux and Excel among other things.  Stick to the issues you originally brought up.  Stop creating additional confusion. **edit**

**edit** You are still mistaken **edit**, the Windows desktop  is executed in the same process as Explorer.  This goes for Windows NT, 2000 and XP.  If you restart Explorer, the desktop  will also restart.  How could you restart the desktop if it was "hardwired, hard coded, hard-boiled, whatever" into the kernel?  Once again, Explorer makes up the Windows desktop.

Not Internet Explorer, just Explorer as in "Explorer.exe."  If you have any other questions about Windows, just ask me before **edit* making an incorrect statement. **edit**

_It's a very well known fact that Windows would function quite well without Explorer._

Once again, consult me before **edit** making an incorrect statement. **edit**  If you were to delete Explorer.exe, the Windows desktop would not start.  Anyone care to try?

Anyway, **edit** if you work for a pharmaceutical company that uses Windows computers, you have a great opportunity to learn a little bit more about them. **edit**

**edit** _If I'm wrong, I'll admit it and learn from my mistakes._ **edit**

Just admit you're wrong and move on. 

**edit** Also, you didn't address the fact that Windows uses ClearType anti-aliasing technology and features the same graphical effects as OS X but far more efficently without the use of hardware acceleration.  Are you going to admit you were wrong about that as well? **edit**

**edit** There were no curse words in this specific post in case anyone was wondering  **edit**


----------



## edX (Nov 18, 2002)

thank you all. the 24 hours are up and you have dealt with this yourselves.

now please continue to keep in mind that this is a discussion. 

PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG WITHOUT BEING CHASTISED AND BELITLED !!! 

if you can show them the error of their ways in a polite manner, then fine, otherwise be content with your own knowledge and express it as civily as possible. people who read will either pick up on the truth or not. and frankly, this speculative subject isn't going to be effecting anyone's life by our debate of it.


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by itanium _
> *Like I said, the G3 circa 1997 and the G4 circa 1999.  Almost four and six year old technology still powering or Macs.  Wouldn't be any different if Intel had decided to keep the original Pentium and just increase the speed.*


P4 is 2 years old, P3 is 3 years old. The P2 was released in 1997. Not quite your P1 there. G3's and G4's have also advanced since their debuts as well: there are many revisions of the G3 and G4. They just advanced much slower. And yes, they are older. All the more reason for Apple to find a current chip avaiable now and not wait a year for the PPC 970 while the G3 and G4 grow that much older.


----------



## kendall (Nov 19, 2002)

my point was that they are OLD and have advanced very little technologywise compared to the Pentium or Athlon.  Lets face it, the G4 can't even handle DDR memory.  Its a dinosaur!


----------



## kendall (Nov 19, 2002)

Like Ed said, I don't care who produces Apple's CPUs.  I would just like to see Apple have a competitive advantage against the PC market considering the small war they are trying to wage with it.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 19, 2002)




----------



## JetwingX (Nov 19, 2002)

Would it be posable for apple to install both a G4/(G if it ever comes ><) and an (or is "a" proper damn english :-\) X86 in the same system and let people develop things the work in differen systems? Like Final Cut, Photoshop on PPC and Games and such on X86 and make it dule bootable or do they have to change a whole lot of internal stuff to get x86 to work?


----------



## edX (Nov 19, 2002)

if you paid my electric rates, you'd be worried about energy consumption as well. within the last few years we've bought a new refrigerator, a new washer and dryer and a new dishwasher. with each purchase, our electricity bill has dropped by about $20 or more. these items are literally paying for themselves. 

we see noticable changes in our electric bill when we have our extened house guests and there are more iights on. so add much more energy consuption to our computers and we're going to feel it. Since neither of us uses our computers for anything really processor intensive, this kind of big mhz boost would be a waste for us.

my point in all this, as was perhaps CG's, is that the majority of computer users are never going to spend for the big chips anyway. It's not realistic to believe that the lack of an ultra fast chip is going to doom apple. while they once survived as a graphics specialty computer, today their real bread and butter seems to come from the consumer line. which works great and provides plenty of speed for the average user.  so any changes that apple makes to please the smaller pro market would have to be compatible with the current consumer line. 

also, something that always gets overlooked in these "slow mac" discussions is the way that os x alternates processes. as is, no app is going to run as fast if you have others competing for processor time. on the other hand, this is what gives the mac and os x a stability that is unriveled with this nice of a GUI. there is a very nice thread somewhere, about a year old, in which the way this works was explained to me in great detail. 

as for the mhz myth - notice how now they compare equal mhz's to os x, not os 9. that's because the mhz myth was defeated when you use os 9. my understanding of this is that when you match a mac with an equal wintel, it can process faster. but when it does, it is just as likely to crash as the wintel. now i have already given up certain speed aspects of os 9 for the stablity and faster firewire capabilities of os x. and i did so with the full knowledge that what i was getting in return was me being faster because i'm not rebooting for crashes and i can run several apps at once much more smoothly.

which brings me back to my big point, that it is the system and the software that needs to improve, not the mhz. more can be done with less. there are certain limitations that are going to keep even the best mac from being instaneous all the time because of alternating processes (which is the thing all the power using speed freaks don't seem to accept), but there is still a long way to go before apple and their developers really make this work the best it can.  and 9 out of 10 apps that i see that are slow, i blame the developer.  use browsers as a good example. they all are suppossed to do the same thing, but look at the differences in how well they do it.


----------



## iMan (Nov 19, 2002)

I have to say I agree with Ed- I think there's alot to do on the software side, optimize it for what there is. Just look at the palystation 1, grafic just got better and better but the hardware were just the same, the game developers worked with what they had and tried to get as much out of it as they could. That's what's wrong with the computer world, they're so used to people buying new faster hardware that they don't have to optimize there code and make it run faster.

Viktor


----------



## edX (Nov 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by viktor _
> *....That's what's wrong with the computer world, they're so used to people buying new faster hardware that they don't have to optimize there code and make it run faster. *



and this is something that we as consumers help perpetuate - especially the people who insist upon buying the newest and best for the sake of saying they have the newest and the best. This kind of instant obsolesence just fuels the situation. if we're busy demanding better hardware and assuming that any software will run better once we get a faster processor, then developers are bound to spend more of their time figuring out how to eat up more of the processor, not less.

we're always comparing computers to cars around here so l'm going to do it again. for years cars kept focusing on going faster and eye candy appeal. Cars literally only lasted a 100,000 miles or less for most people in those days. at a certain point, it was realized that the average consumer doesn't want a car that does much more than 80 mph and even fewer need one that fast. what they needed were cars that used less gas and lasted longer. We started getting more from less. and now most cars last a couple of hundred thousand miles or more. they certainly are still worth a lot more when their five year warranty expires.  i would like to hope that computers have almost reached that point where making them work more efficiently is more important than making them blazing fast. where a computer will still be worth something of real value to someone else when it is 3-5 years old.  and frankly, i think apple has probably come the closest to moving in this direction of anybody. and why are pc's still chasing the mhz down the salt flats - because it's the only way they know to keep selling something new and supposedly exciting. sooner or later people will tire of this and see thru it and entire industries that have been built around 'going faster' will decline, just as american automakers declined when they failed to recognize the shifts in perceptions and kept hammering out gas guzzling muscle cars.

ok that's my analogy and my mythical vision for how it should go. 

we always get the occasional naive pc user who peeks in and asks if osx will run his pc. and that is because they want the best os out there but aren't willing to pay to run it. but when you figure in those extra costs other than the intial purchase price, it's a better deal than respending your money every couple of years to keep up. and the reason you don't have joe newb coming around here asking if he can run windows on mac hardware is not because of the quality of the mac hardware. only a real speed geek would know that much. i'm guessing there are as many people becoming mac users because they are fleeing windows as there are because they want a mac. which is not to say either is better, just that different people have different perceptions of what they expect out of a computer. and if what you want out of your computer is a drag racer or a modified stock car, best to stick with the pc.

soo if apple can use a moto or an ibm or an amd or whatever and still deliver my perception of what a computer should be, then i'll be happy. although i still secretly like intel because one of their chief execs helps buy up open space for preservation in the area where i live.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 19, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 19, 2002)




----------



## threesixty (Nov 19, 2002)

As a developer, I find theres a fine line between optimising code for increased speed and completely wasting your time. Problems that you overcome by spending  6 months optimising something can be solved by the client just upgrading their computer. That 6 months could have been spent implementing new technology. The increased speed of computers in the last few years has directly contributed to the exploration of new technology. Software like multi track audio, graphics software etc.. would never have been developed if programmers didnt think that consumers would have faster hardware in the  future. I just saw a demo of a a new version of Quake which no commercially available computer can run yet. Its looks totally like nothing else I have ever seen, but the programmers have pushed the boat out in hope that we will catch up with them. Thats the ways software is nowadays. The only reason you optimize is if you have no choice (i.e. Playstion) because the machine cant be upgraded. 

As to the AMD debate. I am a fairly recent Mac convert (1 year) and I like the platform. However you just cant deny the a PC at the same price point totally destroys a Mac for speed in both in OS 9 and OS X. The fact that the latest Macs have dual processors as standard just to maybe match a top end PC is crazy. And Apple is only just getting away with this. When the new Pentium and AMD processors come out the party is over. 
Apple know this. Speed/Price is why Apple cant gain PC market share. 

People will pay premium for well engineered, good looking, reliable product. That is without question. However, no normal consumer is gonna take a huge performance AND price hit at the same time just because a machine is well engineered, good looking and reliable (thats debateable anyway). Its like buying a Bang and Olufsen TV where the picture quality is WORSE than a Samsung! Its not gonna happen.

All Apple have to do is rebrand the AMD chip so its not exactly the same name as the PC one (keep the snobbery going). And pop it in the new PowerMacs and Bobs your uncle! You;ve got a great SPEEDY OS that will probably burn any PC. Its such an easy solution to the problem, that it would be crazy for Apple to do anything else. AMD is not INTEL so its a politically sound move. Some OS X code that is very low level may not work anymore, but hey, Id rather do this now than in 2 years time when a whole load of programs wont work.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 19, 2002)




----------



## AppMan (Nov 19, 2002)

I don't care if Apple puts a pototo chip in their boxes... just make it faster.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 19, 2002)




----------



## serpicolugnut (Nov 19, 2002)

...would not be a bad thing - IF - it were handled in the correct manner...

This, is how it would have to go down...

1st - Apple would need to have OS X running under x86, obviously, and it needs to run FASTER. A simple port that runs at about the same speed is not worth the risk/headache.

2nd - Apple needs to insure that Carbon apps will run just fine too when recompiled. If this is a Cocoa only port, it's dead in the water.

3rd - Apple has to get assurances from the major developers - Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft, Corel, etc, that they will committ to releasing recompiled versions of OS X apps for x86. About the only one Apple could afford to lose here would be Microsoft, and only if Apple has an in house Office competitor in the works (not Appleworks).

4th - Items 1,2 and 3 would need to be addressed and readied before the next step could be taken, and that would be a simultaneous announcement and launch date of the first AMD/Apple computer. There would also have to be assurances that apps could easily be compiled for both versions of OS X, so  the current installed PPC base doesn't suddenly see their investment as a dead end, and up and switch to Windows.

As you can see, that is a lot to get done, and much of it is out of Apple's control. While I would love to see Apple break free of the PPC malaise, my money is on the IBM970.


----------



## Pengu (Nov 19, 2002)

Well. Haven't we all had fun posting 400 lines at a time, and then reading the whole lot till your eyes start bleeding. Everyone has their own opinion about EVERYTHING. i personally think that Apple should stick to either IBM or Motorolla chips, OR an AMD build PPC chip. x86 chips are proven to be less efficient. AMD chips (im talking 32bit chips, Duron, Athalon, K-Series) aren't even true x86 chips. They EMULATE the x86 chip, essentially. and yet they are still more efficient than Intel chips. (some amd's have heat issues apparently). Anyways. the point is. while that is MY opinion, and i could rant on about how half of you are wrong, and what ever else, it isnt worth it. *I* know, that when some idiot at TAFE (like uni for you yankee's and whatnot) says 'Macs are crap, they can't do [insert anything related to computing at all here] (as well as windows), then i just smile and say 'ahuh'. If someone says 'ohh G4s are crap, they dont run at 49 Gigahertz, i just say, 'ahuh, and?'
What im getting at is, while i do get annoyed when people assume that common belief is true, if they keep fighting and insisting they're right about something that is FACT, (and not your personal OPINION) then there is no point to it. I drive an '88 EA Ford Falcon. those in Au, or NZ would know what im talking about. I KNOW it is more fuel efficient, and has better performance, than an equivelant Commodore. (VN). I also think (read: my opinion) that it LOOKS better, and has a nicer/better quality interior. So while i will argue with my friend about this fact, we both know we each have our side of the fence, and can respect each other for our decisions. but as for this x86/AMD/Intel/IBM/Motorola/Apple/OS X/Windows debate.. some is fact, some is opinion, some is speculation, and some is frickin' CRaZy. But let's be honest. I can't see Apple changing the CPU Model/Manufacturer for 5/6 of their product lines, based on the opinions/speculations/dribble on an internet forum. And as for the fact? Well. I'm pretty sure we can assume they already have the important facts about the situation, don't you?

*-Edit.
Also, to correct... someone. The new XServe and PowerMacs, DO use DDR Ram.

Pengu


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 19, 2002)

Yes the XServe and new PowerMacs do _use_ DDR RAM but are unable to take any advantage of DDR RAM at all. It's been proven in various benchmark tests, Similarly equipped PowerMacs with SDRAM were just as fast as the DDR ones. The G4 chip is not capable of taking advantage of DDR RAM. Apple just shoved it in as a marketing ploy, because that's what everyone wants. 
AMD chips are more efficent because they implement many features of RISC processors, though they are not RISC in themselves. They also have avoided tacking on all kinds of extra extenisions like Intel did (MMX) by mapping regular FPU's to the same tasks, which turns out to indeed be faster.
I totally agree with threesixy's post as well. Amen. 
All this stuff about marketing...that actually can be a very good reason for Apple to switch to an AMD chip. Consumers like the higher mhz numbers, they know AMD a bit better than Motorola because they see it in their PC boxes. Running OS X on a PC box is many a PC users' wet dream. Talk about marketing... They wouldn't even need the switch ads anymore. And it would still be faster, and that's what everyone wants. The G4 is dead, Apple keeps pushing it beyond the grave. It's time to stop this and get a real processor in our Macs. Right now I think AMD's Opteron is a perfect choice for this. The PPC 970 is too late. A year is too long for Apple to wait. Read all my past posts, it seems that many of you chose to ignore reading many of my points. The Opteron is designed for MP systems. Apple has been pushing MP systems, I doubt they are going to go back to SP systems, they would defeat themselves by doing that. The PPC 970 is MP capable, sure, but they don't have HyperTransport. Thus in a MP PPC 970 system, all processors would share memory and bus just like our current MP G4 systems. What a joke! Our MP systems don't utilize both procesors at all, they are bottlenecked by sharing the same RAM and slow bus. MP G4 systems are also just another marketing ploy by Apple to push the G4 even further beyond the grave, they are no real godsend of processing power unless you run specifically coded apps...and even then there is much lacking.


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 19, 2002)

Interesting little tidbit I just found:
"Dr. Ruiz joined AMD January 2000 as president and chief operating officer. He also serves on the Board of Directors. Prior to joining AMD, Dr. Ruiz served as president of Motorola's Semiconductor Products Sector. In his 22-year career with the global technology firm he held a variety of executive positions in the United States and overseas."


----------



## terran74 (Nov 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *
> Apple can no longer claim the G4 processor as a benefit to it's customers. No matter what real-world advantages the G4 claims over the competition.
> 
> ...



The benefits are still there you just choose not to see them because you are buying into the x86 myth that faster is better.  You are comparing this to a different pipeline, different architecture and different specification.

We do not know exactly how much faster the x86 would be running MacOS X86.  The current OS took us a huge leap into the future.  This OS has interface changes that really SHOULD be on a 64 bit chip, not a 32 bit chip no matter how fast you pump up the cpu speed.

MacOS 10 itself is a great 32 bit OS, the darwin part but when you stick Aqua, Quartz, OpenGL, JFS and all the rest your computer comes hurtling down to a snails speed.  The way to overcome this is to either add more CPU's or move to 64bit.  A 5Ghz 32bit AMD cpu still wouldn't give us what we need right now.  We need to move to on, leave 32 bit behind and stop thinking this si the answer.

If we move to those power consuming AMD chips, expect to have 3-4 fans in your computer just to cool it off.  Watch your electric bills soar.  Say goodbye to quiet moments in front of the computer and watch your computer room turn into a server lab because it's so LOUD with all those fans ROARING like a jet engine.


----------



## terran74 (Nov 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by threesixty _
> *
> The fact that the latest Macs have dual processors as standard just to maybe match a top end PC is crazy. And Apple is only just getting away with this. When the new Pentium and AMD processors come out the party is over.
> Apple know this. Speed/Price is why Apple cant gain PC market share.
> ...



G4 is still speedy and 2 processors are always better than one.  That is why future AMD and Intel chips are going to add a special layer to their chips to emulate dual processor machines with a single chip.  Apple realized this a long time ago.

The PPC 970 is the only answer in my eyes.  Windows XP is speedy because of the technology it uses.  It doesn't have Quartz powering the interface.  It doesn't have an Aqua gui.  Run any unix command line app and it screams because it doesn't need the overhead of the gui.  Put MacOS X on the dinky 32bit Intel or AMD cpu and you'll find it bringing those cpu's down as well.

The answer lies in 64 bit.  We need more data crunching per cycle to do the tasks we need to do on a mac.  The fact remains macs just do more number crunching than a PC.  We are using a modern OS with cutting edge technology underneath.  They need to add more cutting edge to it but only can do so once we've moved to 64bit IBM 970.

It's all about 970.  AMD and Intel are going to fight it out over the 64bit standards on a PC platform.  THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHICH ONE WILL BE THE TRUE 64bit YET!!!  Why is apple going to use technology that might fizzle once the true winner is declared.  If history shows anything, Intel will win.  Itanium may not be the most compatible but peopple trust intel, not AMD.


----------



## jeb1138 (Nov 19, 2002)

Hector Ruiz's keynote should be over now (see http://www.comdex.com/fall/)..... Anybody know what he said?


----------



## stephanec (Nov 19, 2002)

I've been looking all over the net for the details of his keynote, this is the only thing I could find. No mention of apple anywhere, and I for one am very happy about that.

http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?day0/223230394&ticker=amd


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by terran74 _
> *MacOS 10 itself is a great 32 bit OS, the darwin part but when you stick Aqua, Quartz, OpenGL, JFS and all the rest your computer comes hurtling down to a snails speed.  The way to overcome this is to either add more CPU's or move to 64bit.  A 5Ghz 32bit AMD cpu still wouldn't give us what we need right now.  We need to move to on, leave 32 bit behind and stop thinking this si the answer.*


The AMD Opteron _is a 64-bit processor!_


> *If we move to those power consuming AMD chips, expect to have 3-4 fans in your computer just to cool it off.  Watch your electric bills soar.  Say goodbye to quiet moments in front of the computer and watch your computer room turn into a server lab because it's so LOUD with all those fans ROARING like a jet engine. *


Take a look inside the dual 1.25ghz G4, the cooling system is *massive.* Same thing either way. The G4 is dead.


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by terran74 _
> *G4 is still speedy and 2 processors are always better than one.  That is why future AMD and Intel chips are going to add a special layer to their chips to emulate dual processor machines with a single chip.  Apple realized this a long time ago.*


Ummm, no? The G4 is nearly 4 years old, and has only reached 1.25ghz. That is not speedy. The megahertz myth was only upheld truely by AltiVec in special photoshop filters. AMD could easily add an instruction-compatable vector processing unit to their chips for Apple. The dual processor G4 systems are a joke, have you looked at any benchmarks? They are poorly designed: bottlenecked by a extremely slow system bus and RAM that both processors have to share. They do not perform twice as fast like Apple would like you to believe, they are only capable of processing more stuff (though nowhere near twice as much like they should due to mentioned bottlenecks) at once at the same speed. The AMD Opteron is designed for MP systems, there is no "layer" to emulate a dual processor machine, where did you get this from? You can't "emulate" a dual processor machine, it would be utterly pointless! AMD in fact has some of the best technology for MP systems out there: HyperTransport. Each chip gets its own bus, memory controller, and direct pipeline{s} to communicate with {the} other processor{s}. No bottlenecks here.


> *The PPC 970 is the only answer in my eyes.  Windows XP is speedy because of the technology it uses.  It doesn't have Quartz powering the interface.  It doesn't have an Aqua gui.  Run any unix command line app and it screams because it doesn't need the overhead of the gui.  Put MacOS X on the dinky 32bit Intel or AMD cpu and you'll find it bringing those cpu's down as well.*


Once again, missing the point that Apple would be using AMD's 64-bit Opteron...there is no dinkyness about it. Run a DOS command line app on XP. Same thing. The PPC 970 would be an answer, if it were ready for the market right now...too bad it's an entire year away, at least. Not an answer. The G4 is beyond dead.


> *The answer lies in 64 bit.  We need more data crunching per cycle to do the tasks we need to do on a mac.  The fact remains macs just do more number crunching than a PC.  We are using a modern OS with cutting edge technology underneath.  They need to add more cutting edge to it but only can do so once we've moved to 64bit IBM 970.*


Well you got the 64-bit part right but once again failed to recognize AMD's current 64-bit offering... 


> *It's all about 970.  AMD and Intel are going to fight it out over the 64bit standards on a PC platform.  THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHICH ONE WILL BE THE TRUE 64bit YET!!!  Why is apple going to use technology that might fizzle once the true winner is declared.  If history shows anything, Intel will win.  Itanium may not be the most compatible but peopple trust intel, not AMD. *


No, it's not. The PPC 970 is a long ways off. And what is to say that the PPC 970 won't 'fizzle'? Anything could 'fizzle' at any time. Intel provides no backwards compatability for 32-bit apps, AMD does. What would you choose? Perhaps you should read this article to get a little more *real* information:
http://www.matrixlist.com/pipermail/pc_support/2002-May/001416.html
And perhaps this as well to get a better idea of what AMD has to offer:
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~steen/web02/opteron.html


----------



## Nalmar (Nov 19, 2002)

I have a few points I wanted to make here and there while reading :

1- One person said that moving to a x86 architecture would require the major application makers like adobe, microsoft, macromedia... to commit to port their application. This is true and it's the problem here. Microsoft already said it wasn't sure it would make future version of office for mac due ( allegedly ) to poor sales. If apple move to x86, they definitely won't make it. The hacker community is strong and whatever protection apple put in their computer to prevent XP from being installed in mac or more importantly, OSX from being installed in pc WILL be overcome. Apple will be a competitor to microsoft and in this scenario, microsoft will certainly not help apple by porting office.

2- A few post talked about the advantage of G4 being altivec. Altivec is a pretty good SIMD ( single instruction multiple data ) processing unit but every processor has one. Apple just marketed theirs better. MMX, 3Dnow, SSE, SSE2 in pentium and athlon are "equivalents". MMX for one, I can say it's inferior. It's a poor 64bit vector unit extremely limited in it's usage. Each instructions has been designed to do one task and it's so specialized that it's pretty hard to use in for anything else. But the others appeared after MMX and while I don't know them enough to say how they compare to altivec, they are definitely improvement over the MMX.

3- OSX is way more overhead than XP. It offers more possibilities, features, processor intensive eye-candy which makes it slower. It's a design choice. A car that would run without radio, AC, heater, headlights,... just the bare minimum ( like a race car ) would be faster and more efficient but the goal of a car is not only speed, it has to be usable. Heater is necessary in winter and headlights are necessary during night. For computers, it's the same thing. If you want real raw power ( like supercomputers ), get rid of the gui, get rid of the fancy video card and run deamons ( faceless applications, no interface )  or maybe text based interface. No need for a dictionary, text to speech, services, multiple fonts. Everything is about trade-offs and apple decided to go more for "confort and features" and less for "raw power" than microsoft.

4- A few post talked about power consumption and I think missed the real point. The thing is not about electricity price. Do you hesitate to change the 60W bulb for a 100W one when you don't see well enough in a room ? The point is about noise ( +power = + fans ) and more importantly : laptops. iBook claim to have 6 hours of battery life. Someone who has one tell me the real battery life they have. On PC, they don't claim more than 2hrs battery life and I don't know what they do during those 2 hours ( reading web pages ? ) but my programmer friend never got more than 1h30 on it ThinkPad and it's usually less than that.

5- If going to x86, why go AMD ( marketing ? ) because right now, Intel definetly has the advantage. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q4/021114/p4_306ht-10.html

6- And last but not least, discussion came to 64bit over 32bit processor. One thing I want to make clear is that 64bit IS A DISADVANTAVE. It will be necessary one day to overcome the 4gig addressing space limit but it WILL BE A SLOWDOWN. 64bit means bigger memory requirement ( memory is cheap but also think that it also occupies more space in caches ie less element in cache so more cache miss ) slower throughput ( a 128bit bus can move 4 32bit chunks or 2 64bit chunks ) and 64bit integer treatment is mostly useless on consumer machines. Is there a programmer here that can tell me he uses 64bit integer intensively in a consumer application ? The today 32bit G4 uses 32bit address, 32bit instruction and 32bit integer registers and ALU ( arithmetic and logic unit ) but has 64bit floating-point unit and register and 128bit vector ( altivec ) unit and register.


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 19, 2002)

How is Intel at an advantage? They have a 3.06ghz processor, yes, but it's a 32-bit P4. Big deal. We're talking 64-bit processors here.

And I would love to know how you could possibly deduce that 64-bit is a disadvantage over 32-bit?!?!  Perhaps we should go back to 16-bit because 32-bit is a disadvantage? A processor in itself doesn't have memory requirements, so I have no idea how you are saying there is a bigger memory requirement. Next, how can you say that a 64-bit chip has slower throughput? Yes, a 128-bit bus can move 4 32-bit chunks or 2 64-bit chunks. I don't think they're going to leave the bus width the same while increasing that of the processor, it would be self-defeating...it wouldn't be any slower though, it would still be the same speed should bus width stay constant.
A programmer obviously wouldn't be coding for 64-bit when 32-bit is what's out! Think of the future here...with 64-bit processors now available, programmers will code for them. They obviously wouldn't have coded for a non-existant processor. Not to mention that AMD's 64-bit processor is 32-bit backward compatable.
Overall I find that last part of your post is entirely confusing and I can find very little sense in it. Perhaps you could explain this all in a bit more detail and clarity...


----------



## edX (Nov 19, 2002)

> Do you hesitate to change the 60W bulb for a 100W one when you don't see well enough in a room ?



yes. i would add a second lamp to the room and use both when i need them rather than run the 100 all the time since it essentially doubles the cost. you may not do that, but i do. the only 100 watt bulb used in our house is stictly turned on and off on a need to use basis, it is never the constant light for the room.


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 19, 2002)

oops hit 'Quote' rather than 'Edit'


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 19, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 19, 2002)




----------



## Javintosh (Nov 19, 2002)

Microsoft's success stems from their monopoly. 

Didn't you read about their SEC filings? Aside from their OS and Office monopolies, MS is bleeding money everywhere...


----------



## KrinkleCut (Nov 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by threesixty _
> *As a developer, I find theres a fine line between optimising code for increased speed and completely wasting your time. Problems that you overcome by spending  6 months optimising something can be solved by the client just upgrading their computer. That 6 months could have been spent implementing new technology. The increased speed of computers in the last few years has directly contributed to the exploration of new technology. Software like multi track audio, graphics software etc.. would never have been developed if programmers didnt think that consumers would have faster hardware in the  future. I just saw a demo of a a new version of Quake which no commercially available computer can run yet. Its looks totally like nothing else I have ever seen, but the programmers have pushed the boat out in hope that we will catch up with them. Thats the ways software is nowadays. The only reason you optimize is if you have no choice (i.e. Playstion) because the machine cant be upgraded.*



I'm late to this thread, but I just had to respond to this. You'd rather NOT optimise code and pray for faster hardware? That's the solution? Doesn't that seem a little cyclical to you? Develop sloppy software so I can develop new technologies that need newer hardware, so I can develop new technologies, that will need newer hardware, so I can develop new technologies (etc. ad nauseum). 

You will surely say that this is the way that computer development works. But, it's not working, is it?  How are your tech stocks doing? 

Those 6 months optimising code are so that you don't release crappy software, software that has buggy new technologies (yes those ones you explored/discovered/added) that don't work as promised and that aren't essential. If you think that's not true, that they are essential, then what were you developing in the first place? Something that wasn't quite worthwhile until a new technology came along to make it complete? 

It's bloat coupled with poorly written (ie. not optimised) software - what an attractive pair. And for what? Because these technologies would not otherwise be discovered/explored? Bah. If there's a need, a market, it will happen. 

Is Apple's current hardware underpowered? Of course, not many would argue that. But it's sloppy, gimmick seeking software developers (Apple included)  that make it ESSENTIAL for hardware development cycles to be so critical.


----------



## Col. Sanders (Nov 19, 2002)

You're all crazy. I'm not going to get into the technological debate, because there is always someone with a counter point or something to discredit you. Back and forth. If you guys are so friggin' mad with your slow G4s, leave. Some of you guys are using 700 MHz G4s and comparing them to top of the line Athlons. I just got a new dual g4, and it's freaking fast. Fast than and top-of-the-line AMD/Intel processor I've used. Blah


----------



## AppMan (Nov 19, 2002)

but dude, I want to boot up in 30 seconds not 38 seconds!


----------



## Col. Sanders (Nov 19, 2002)

Oh yes, let's move from one dead processor to another (x86 ISA). The x86 was supposed to be dead 3 years ago.


----------



## edX (Nov 19, 2002)

> but dude, I want to boot up in 30 seconds not 38 seconds!



yea, but where will it end? as soon as you get that, you'll want 29.5 sec boots.  

just one quick question? is there anyone here who is arguing for x86 and the assumed speed increases who would actually use them for anything other than games? seriously, just wondering what the players in this discussion have in mind when they claim to need more. i don't think that a concern for apple's profits really counts. apple has managed thru worse times than this, something many competitors have not. There have been plenty of computer makers come and go who would have killed for apple's meager 3-5% market share. so what do you use your computer for that doubling the current speeds would really be noticable to you?


----------



## Nalmar (Nov 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kommakazi _
> *And I would love to know how you could possibly deduce that 64-bit is a disadvantage over 32-bit?!?!  Perhaps we should go back to 16-bit because 32-bit is a disadvantage? A processor in itself doesn't have memory requirements, so I have no idea how you are saying there is a bigger memory requirement. Next, how can you say that a 64-bit chip has slower throughput? Yes, a 128-bit bus can move 4 32-bit chunks or 2 64-bit chunks. I don't think they're going to leave the bus width the same while increasing that of the processor, it would be self-defeating...it wouldn't be any slower though, it would still be the same speed should bus width stay constant.
> A programmer obviously wouldn't be coding for 64-bit when 32-bit is what's out! Think of the future here...with 64-bit processors now available, programmers will code for them. They obviously wouldn't have coded for a non-existant processor. Not to mention that AMD's 64-bit processor is 32-bit backward compatable.
> Overall I find that last part of your post is entirely confusing and I can find very little sense in it. Perhaps you could explain this all in a bit more detail and clarity... *



If you want a reference to what I said, try looking at http://www.arstechnica.com . I think it's somewhere on this site that I've read the best article on the subject.

The computer industry moved from 4 to 8 to 16 to 32 bits computer because the applications ( as in usage, not program ) required it and technology was able to support it. The only advantage of a 32bit over a 16bit computer is that it can treat 32bit data as a whole instead of multiple steps on a 16bit. If all your data is 16bit, a 32bit computer will be a waste. A scientific program ( or like another poster said, heavy database server ) may be requiring 64bit data and would benefit from a 64bit ALU that can add 2 64bit numbers in one pass but for the consumer, there is no need for 64bit computation. And I'm talking here about integer computation because it's the only thing that's not at least 64bit on today cpu. That and address buses which like I said, would only be a benefit if you need more than 4 gigs of address space. Even microsoft will have a hard time inventing "features" to but in office to make it require that much memory.

Ok... there are operations that could be optimized to work faster on 64bit but would they cover the drawbacks  that comes from 64bits ? I don't think so. Time will tell



> _Originally posted by MacLuV _
> *I think that's not true. Read "The Microsoft Way" and you'll understand Microsoft's business strategy. Microsoft wouldn't stop making office if Apple controlled 50% of the market. Unlike Apple, Microsoft's success stems from intelligent business decisions, not personal feelings towards any particular product. *



Microsoft doesn't mind macintosh as long as it's not a menace to it's own products. Windows is what brings microsoft the most money and the day OSX becomes a windows competitor, apple will have the #1 spot on microsoft red list. And if OSX is written for x86, it could and will be cracked to work on regular PCs


----------



## ex2bot (Nov 19, 2002)

I saw those early benchmarks, and they did seem to show that the DDR RAM was no help. But in MacAddict's latest issue (if memory serves) contains a review and benchmarks that suggest otherwise. MacAddict contends that there is a small but significant improvement in the new DP 1 gHz models, despite them having less level 3 cache (again, from memory).

Personally, I'm looking for a 1gHz iMac, thanx. Santa???


----------



## terran74 (Nov 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Nalmar _
> *
> 6- And last but not least, discussion came to 64bit over 32bit processor. One thing I want to make clear is that 64bit IS A DISADVANTAVE. It will be necessary one day to overcome the 4gig addressing space limit but it WILL BE A SLOWDOWN. 64bit means bigger memory requirement ( memory is cheap but also think that it also occupies more space in caches ie less element in cache so more cache miss ) slower throughput ( a 128bit bus can move 4 32bit chunks or 2 64bit chunks ) and 64bit integer treatment is mostly useless on consumer machines. Is there a programmer here that can tell me he uses 64bit integer intensively in a consumer application ? The today 32bit G4 uses 32bit address, 32bit instruction and 32bit integer registers and ALU ( arithmetic and logic unit ) but has 64bit floating-point unit and register and 128bit vector ( altivec ) unit and register. *



And all the naysayers wondered why we moved from 16 bit to 24 bit Macintosh System Software.  They also said we didn't need to go from 24 to 32 bit.

What happened in the move from 16 to 32 and all between?  We got more colors on our monitors, a better finder, bigger hard drives, video playback, more desktop publishing abilities, 3D rendering and the list could go on.

We do not and cannot know what the advantages of 64 bit really are until we move and someone makes the killer APP to take advantage of it.  What about PCs?  Remember 16 bit windows?  See how it got so much better when MS went to 32 bit and Intel moved from 486 to Pentium ?  Thought the 486 was a 32bit chip, it didn't have a large enough bus to handle a true 32bit Operating system.  Once we went 32bit, we saw preemptive multitasking, threading and more.

One thing that would see an immediate boost are databases right?  Well what about swap files and journaled file systems?  Aren't those essentially databases of memory and file systems?  I don't know about you but Mach and the current HFS implementation on MacOS 10 is slow.  Something has to be an issue there and I doubt it is the IDE controller or slow drives.  The drives are the same ones tht ran on MacOS 9 and yet MacOS 9 has a faster disk I/O.

No, all those improvements like a jfs, Aqua, Quartz are not a disadvantage just because they make the current system slow.  Why does everyone think that just because something bogs down your cpu it is bad?  It's good but yes it will be slow and that is why it's time to move on and leave 32 bit in the past.  Good riddens.  I want to see what wonderful new inventions come out of 64bit and I bet you we have a new revolution in killer apps and User Interfaces for the GUI or whatever will replace the GUI.  The desktop paradigm is dated and old  and frankly, it deserves to exist only in one place:

*My PDA* be it a pocketPC or PalmOS.  I think its laughable that those things are catching up to the desktop.  200-400 mhz 32bit ARM risc processing?  Why don't we just all start carrying PDA's and forget using computers anymore and just have a VGA port coming out of the PDA? Geez.  At least it would require less cooling.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 19, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 19, 2002)




----------



## cfleck (Nov 19, 2002)

i am a lowly college student who doesnt actually own a mac, but i do use them at work.  dont hurt me.  i'm saving up for one.

personally, i am against moving to the x86 platform.  for one, i think of mac folk of more of a community than any pc users, windows or other.  and i think that comes mainly from the fact that everything is so different from the hardware up.  once you go x86, you lose that and apple loses their mystique.

there is an upside in that the price of mac hardware would go way down.  but you know what else?  so does your resale value.  macs kill in resale value.  x86's are a dime a dozen.  not to mention that you will then have joe hacker putting osx on his ugly as hell box that he built from 8 different junk pcs.  not the image mac wants.  half the reason i want a mac is because of the way it looks.  take that away, and i'll make due with whatever is handy.  actually, i'll probably just borrow my friends copy of osx and put it on my gateway laptop (not really, but you see my point).  

all of a sudden apple is nothing unique.  just another niche os in a windows dominated market.  stick a fork in em.  they're done.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 19, 2002)




----------



## mindbend (Nov 19, 2002)

In response to Ed's request for reasons why excessive speed is critical. Here's why I need it:

1. Lightwave rendering. Yes, A same MHz G4 is actuallyslightly faster, but guess what? The PCs are over twice as fast now. 

2. Photoshop. In spite of what Apple tries to shove down our throats, I've run a battery of tests and the MHz myth is not a myth. It's a reality. Pound for pound, test after test, a faster Intel chip will win virtually any speed test. For those living in their fantasy world that believe otherwise, I would question whether they've spent the time that I have doing these tests. I work on several hundred megabyte files, I need every ounce of speed I can get.

3. Video rendering. I have not edited video on a PC, but I've got to believe that a PC that's twice as fast is going to be faster than the G4, Altivec or not. Having said that, my DP machines are pretty impressive at rendering video. DV especially.

The rest of my work is 2D design and web design, so I have to particular need for increased speed, though it can always be faster to launch apps etc. Livemotion runs like crap. I'm switching to Flash after last night's edit. Piece of junk software. I hear Flash development is way faster on a PC. 

I also do quite a bit of audio engineering, but currently my demands are easily handled by a mid-range Mac. CuBase SX BTW runs great in X! Very smooth, very snappy. Good example of how an X app should run. A bit buggy yet, but it's a total rewrite, so I'll cut em some slack for 1.0

So, in terms of need for speed, I can only think of three areas, but they are critical for me, so MHz is a big deal. I shouldn't say MHz. I could care less what the MHz is as long as it's fast. If you can make a CPU that runs at 200 MHz, but has a wide bus, DDR ram and all the fixin's including very optimized code, that runs faster than a DP 1 gig, bring it on.

I'm giving Apple two years. (I try to hold on to a machine for two years before buying a new one). If, after two years, there has not been a significant improvement in closing the speed gap, I will very seriously consider bailing. I want a lightning fast GUI, quick launch apps, and fast rendering/processing. If Apple can't give that to me, I'll find someone who will. (This comes from a 15 year Mac vet, who literally loves his machines).


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 19, 2002)




----------



## edX (Nov 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *Hi Ed
> 
> I was just going through the thread again and taking it all in, I thought I'd use your post here to illustrate a very important part of business ...
> *



Hi Macluv 

nicely presented and i wouldn't argue with it. believe it or not, i once earned a 2 year degree in merchandising/marketing so none of this is new to me.

but i think apple makes a lot more profit on their low end normally. only recently has the low end become an old style imac 500 for $649 (source: latest maczone catalog).  which by logic tells me that apple must have made quite a bit of profit off me when i bought the low end imac 400 for $1299 2 years ago. i'm pretty sure that maczone can't sell them for less than what they pay apple for them and that apple isn't selling anything below cost yet. Apple has never shown signs of ofering 'loss leaders'. add to this the fact that you all are telling me there is nothing so special about mac hardware other than it's ability to run apple systems and i have to figure that even the low end models are making a fair share of profit.

and note that the current advertising budget is being spent to target consumers. apple isn't marketing speed. they're marketing something muchless tangible and much more valuable - a simple and effective user experience. and it seems to be working. we get people here regularly (like cf25) who are looking into macs and os x. all the mac sites are seeing these potential switchers poking around and trying to learn more. 
They don't ask questions like "how many mhz does a mac have, or how fast can a mac render a complex photoshop task. they ask if it can do a certain common task they are used to on windows,  or whether they should buy now or later. 

mindbend - thanks for your input - also very well presented. i 'm still waiting to hear the same from the people who are arguing so loudly here. i can appreciate your stance, but i would ask, as you seem to be asking yourself, how much faster does it have to be to satisfy you? twice as fast, 3x, what? or is it a matter of shaving a certain amount of time off of certain tasks you regularly perform? at what point does the trade off between speed and love of all the goood things about macs tilt towards the pc side? i'm curious.


----------



## Nalmar (Nov 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *So are you suggesting that Apple just hides behind a bush for the rest of our lives in hope that people will someday "come around" and buy Apple products? We've  been down this road before.
> ...
> *



No... I'm not saying that apple shouldn't do something... I say that going x86 comes with  downsides.
1- Getting in trouble with a powerful enemy : microsoft witch has control on an important part of OSX : office. As of now, OSX wouldn't have survived without office or without photoshop.

2- Risking of losing a part of it's hardware sales. Every buyer or would-have-been buyer of powercomputing and motorola clones would buy a 400$ walmart pc and put OSX on it. I know I would.




> _Originally posted by terran74 _
> *And all the naysayers wondered why we moved from 16 bit to 24 bit Macintosh System Software. They also said we didn't need to go from 24 to 32 bit.
> *



Macintoshes were always 32-bit. The first macintoshes used 68000 cpu which were 32-bit processors but had a 16bit external data bus ( they were referred as 32-16 ) but were full 32 bit internally. The thing with 24bit was that they used the upper 8-bit of the addresses for status things ( I'm not exactly sure what was their purpose ) leaving 24-bit for addressing (16megs) thought to be more than enough at the time ( like the 1meg limit in original PCs ). Some day, they came to that limit and had to expand. But right now, 32-bit addressing permit 4gig of address space. Are you already choked for memory ?

And for the rest of the cpu, everything is at least 64bit except integer units and registers. And unless you see enough calculation requiring 64bit treatment, the wasted power will result in performance degradation. Databases yes but not swap files and journaled file systems like terran74 said, more like humane genome database or universe modeling.


----------



## edX (Nov 20, 2002)

a snippet i found while doing my 24 hr check on this thread -



> _from macluv_
> With all of the posts in this community, especially the ones regarding OSX vs. XP, I can, without a doubt, say that nobody can argue that OSX on the G4 platform isn't crap.



well, i would argue that it's not crap on my G3 platform. so i would imagine i wouldn't see it as crap on a G4 either. i bring this up becasue it hits at the heart of this discussion in several ways. one - people assuming that everyone's perceptions are or should be the same as theirs. this quote is obiviously an opinion - the kind that is often referred to as flamebait. there is little doubt in my mind that this single statement started the flare of agressions in this thread. and yet it has no factual basis. it is only one person's opinion based upon their perceptions and expectations.  two - the confusions that always arise when we start to discuss hardware. systems and software always seem to override the discussion and become the new focal points. this always makes the points unclear and leads the discussion far from the subject - which in this case is whether apple and amd will partner for further projects. not whether windows are better than osx or even if pc's are better than macs. the real question that is being raised is whether this is a realistic way for apple to move forward.

but to be clear, i'm not pointing a finger at MacLuv. i'm pointing more towards the differences in perceptions that we all bring to this discussion without having experienced the others' perceptions.


----------



## Jason (Nov 20, 2002)

as a graphic designer, i'll keep it simple...

apples hardware is behind

its slow and outdated for the most part

i have a 700mhz pc running winxp sitting right next to my 800mhz g4

the pc runs pretty damned close in any heavy testing (photoshop etc)

but for you casual users, it puts the g4 and osx to shame running "everday normal stuff" everything is snapier and faster

true its not as animated or as pretty, but i couldnt care less about that, i want my tool to work and work well thats all 

i use macs cause i like them simply, but i sure as hell wish they were faster


----------



## threesixty (Nov 20, 2002)

Posted by krinkle cut..,.

I'm late to this thread, but I just had to respond to this. You'd rather NOT optimise code and pray for faster hardware? That's the solution? Doesn't that seem a little cyclical to you? Develop sloppy software so I can develop new technologies that need newer hardware, so I can develop new technologies, that will need newer hardware, so I can develop new technologies (etc. ad nauseum).

Information technology has  competitive advantage.  Its all about having better, faster and more reliable software than your competitor so that your consumer can beat their competitors. Having the same technology as your competitor (albeit more optimized/reliable) is not neccesirly going to  create a significant competitive advantage for your company. The other company can work more hours and match your output and so on. 

However, if you can do stuff differently and better then your competitor cant compete with you, therefore you have competitive advantage. The software industry has found that new technology is what makes that happen. Thats why research and development are so important. If you dont spend a lot on r&d you are always playing catch up and your advantage dwindles and you leave the industry (go bust). 
You may develop technology so good that no one has a hope in hell of catching you and therefore the license it from you (Quake/Doom graphics engine). Its so much better to be ahead of the game.

As a company you have limited resources, so you have to decide whether your gonna spend time & money optimizing or researching new stuff. The IT industry has found that hardware speed grows at a significant rate every year (unless youre a mac user!!) so its best for them to spend more time developing new stuff. Thats the only common sense decision you can make right now. Until hardware development slows down and your competitive advantage comes from optimizing.

Another reason against constant optimization is that your code has to be supported by other programmers who may join the company later. Optimized code tends to use short cuts and less straight forward ways of doing things just to get the speed up. You can then end up with code that is less readable and structured, making it difficult to maintain.  

Im not saying optimizing is bad, but in this environment at the moment it doesnt make business sense to spend to much time and money on it because I piece of hardware will come out next month that fixes the problem for you. Nobody writes in machine code anymore (even though its much faster) because processors are so fast theres no need to put anyone through that type of pain! Thats just the way it is.

An example of the struggle  is this 

Apple developed OS X with 2ghz + proccessors in my mind. Theres no way they would have put so much processor intensive stuff in it if that wasnt the case. They wanted competitive advantage over Windows. So they took a gamble.
Now they cant get those chips the OS looks slow compared to its competitors. All the advantages that Apple have in OS X are marred by slow response in the OS. Now they spend all their time fixing and optimizing stuff (i.e. Quartz Extreme) so that they can be on a level playing field with Windows. If Apple had gotten 2ghz + chips at the time OS X was released Apple would be laughing. Now it all looks quite silly. The  r+d gamble hasnt paid off in this instance. But how else could they beat Windows without taking that gamble? That is why they need AMD or something equivalent by the first quarter of next year or the party is over ..


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 20, 2002)




----------



## StarScream (Nov 20, 2002)

Hi There folks 

I personaly think that AMD is going to make RISC based processors with Altivec
AND Apple is not going to delevop  MACOSX based on a Stupid X86 processor
they cant do that it will cost so much money to drop the whole PPC .

Maybe if Apple goes bankrupt they can think about the X86 Architecture...
for there last Hope..

AMD had RISC based prosescors way in the past ....


----------



## fryke (Nov 20, 2002)

I think you can rule out that AMD will provide PowerPC compatible processors. AMD would have to license the technology from either Motorola or IBM. Unless one of those WANT to get out of this business, this is a no-go, since Apple is the only real buyer for desktop processors of the PowerPC variety. Yes, IBM builds their own for their own machines, but they make the desktop processors for the Macs exclusively right now, they don't have other buyers for the G3 desktop processors. This might change with the PPC 970, but I don't see that happening yet.


----------



## kendall (Nov 20, 2002)

Nintendo is probably IBM's biggest contract for the G3 CPU.


----------



## Jason (Nov 20, 2002)

G3 is in the gamecube?


----------



## Nummi_G4 (Nov 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by BuddahBobb _
> *G3 is in the gamecube? *



 Yeah! isnt that funny. I guess Nintendo has cursed themselves


----------



## terran74 (Nov 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by BuddahBobb _
> *G3 is in the gamecube? *



No, it's not.  The PowerPC in the gamecube is a special version of the G4 for embedded machines.  It runs slightly cooler and doesn't have Altivec and performs special functions for the gamecube.


----------



## kendall (Nov 20, 2002)

duplicate post


----------



## kendall (Nov 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by terran74 _
> *No, it's not.  The PowerPC in the gamecube is a special version of the G4 for embedded machines.  It runs slightly cooler and doesn't have Altivec and performs special functions for the gamecube. *



No, actually its a varient of the G3.  The fact that it doesn't have Altivec pretty much denotes this.    A G4 is a G3 with Altivec.   It has a special instruction set to communicate with the ATI "Flipper" GPU.


----------



## terran74 (Nov 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by itanium _
> *No, actually its a varient of the G3.  The fact that it doesn't have Altivec pretty much denotes this.    A G4 is a G3 with Altivec.   It has a special instruction set to communicate with the ATI "Flipper" GPU. *



Uhm no.  The G4 is not a variant of the G3.  The G3 came from the 601 603 family of PowerPCs.  It is not suitable for multiprocessing and has a smaller cache than the 604 and G4.  The G4 is not just a G3 without Altivec.  Altivec was added to the G4 but could have very well been added to the G3.  IBM chose not to add it because they did  not feel it was as important as producing a low cost low power chip which is wha the G3 is.

Make no mistake about it, The PowerPC in the Gamecube IS in fact a G4 and a variant of the G4 technology.  It is a number crunching chip and much more capable of handling the overhead of large gaming worlds than a G3 would be capable of acheiving.  

It is NOT and in no means similar to the G3 just because it doesn't have Altivec.  That is just like saying a 604 is the same as a 603 because they don't have altivec.


----------



## kendall (Nov 20, 2002)

I hate when people post incorrect information so here.

_
When Satoru Iwata, a well-known game designer who currently works at Nintendo as a creative director, was asked how the GameCube system is built, he said:
The basic design is very simple. You can divide it up into three parts: Gekko, IBM's PowerPC CPU, Flipper, ATI's graphic core, and Splash, a 24MB set of main memory. Gekko is a basic PowerPC750/G3 chip with a vector operation unit, a specialized graphic-chip interface, and a large 256K L2 cache. You see large L2 caches in the iMac and iBook nowadays, but the design we conferred with IBM on was conceived before those computers were released._

Its not a G4 and yes, the G4 is just a G3 with AltiVec, look here
You're wrong, get over it, we all make mistakes, game over!


----------



## cloud1494 (Nov 20, 2002)

Many of you are forgetting how RAM affects the speed of your computer. I remember a couple of months ago equipping my PC with more RAM, and I noticed that apps were loading and running 3 times faster than before. So it sometimes doesn't matter how fast your processor goes but how much RAM you have, like on the software packages that say "128MB RAM Recommended, 64MB needed" or "pentium class processor recommended". Sometimes it doesn't matter how fast your processor goes but how much RAM you have.

If developers can make programs manage RAM better (like Yahoo Messenger, that just eats up RAM) the programs could possibly run faster on lower class processors.


----------



## Nummi_G4 (Nov 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kommakazi _
> *The dual processor G4 systems are a joke, have you looked at any benchmarks?[/url] *



 Well... you might be correct. But in my experience... the duals make a HUGE difference.


----------



## mdnky (Nov 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kommakazi _
> *There's one giant hole I can poke in this whole theory though: AltiVec. Too much has already been moved toward AltiVec to just drop it off suddenly, major developers and the scientific community would be outraged at such an action... It is possible that AMD could aquire a liscence to it or already have...though I'm sure we would have heard about this already if they had. Any thought on this? *



I have to agree...I think we might be surprised in that maybe Apple will drop Moto from the AIM and bring in AMD to produce their chips.

This could be Apple's best kept secret...Many companies have done it in the past with good suscess, even AMD.  Didn't Intel originally manufacturer the 1st AMD chips?


----------



## mdnky (Nov 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by itanium _
> *As for x86 "wouldn't solve anything."  If it could make my Mac as quick and responsive as a PC running Windows, then it could sure solve a whole hell of a lot. *



I believe that's what we're worried about...we all know how "responsive" PCs are running Windows.

What do you need all that speed for?  Can you actually tell the difference in surfing the net between a 2.4 and 3 ghz P4?  Speedwise, no.  The human brain isn't capable of "sensing" things that are that minute.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 20, 2002)




----------



## cfleck (Nov 21, 2002)

> What do you need all that speed for? Can you actually tell the difference in surfing the net between a 2.4 and 3 ghz P4? Speedwise, no. The human brain isn't capable of "sensing" things that are that minute.



maybe not right now.  but if you give me a pentium 233 vs a pentium 550, i definately can tell the difference.  i dont buy a 3 ghz chip so that office opens faster now.  i buy it so office opens faster in 2-3 years.


----------



## mindbend (Nov 21, 2002)

----------------------------------------
Originally posted by kommakazi 
The dual processor G4 systems are a joke, have you looked at any benchmarks?[/url] 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wha? On some level, the DP machines may be considered a "joke" in the sense that the raw power is still woefulyl short of today's better PCs. I agree with that.

However, DP in general is HUGE. I have many times burned CDs, rendered video, downloaded files, browsed the web and typed a word document ALL AT THE SAME TIME. This was simply not doable in OS 9 and is really pushing your luck on an SP machine in X. DP is great and is NOT a joke. If it is, then I'm laughing all the way to the bank in productivity.

(Don't get me wrong, I still want faster CPUs and GUI).


----------



## Stridder44 (Nov 22, 2002)

I just bought a new 17 inch iMac about 2 months ago (I guess you could say Im a "switcher", however I have loved Apple for about 2 years now). Now, correct me if I'm worng, which I probably am, but I thought the G4 was 128-bit. So wouldn't going to 64-bit be bad? (Don't get me wrong tho, I do like the idea of AMD putting it's chips in Macs and do feel the G4 is outdated)


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 22, 2002)




----------



## mdnky (Nov 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *Is this a comment about XP's stability? *



Not stability as much as responsiveness.  I don't care what version of Windows it is, they all have issues, and most are related to speed when loaded with programs.  And this is a variety of computers, all good brands (not hacked bargain basement specials) like Dell, Gateway, & Compaq.

1.6ghz P4 on XP, (2) 1.3ghz Celerons on 2000Pro, 1 Dell Laptop PIII on 2000 Pro, 1.4ghz P4 on ME, (2) 866mhz PIII on 98SE (were ME), 1 PIII 1ghz on 98SE, 1 750mhz Athalon on 98.  I've used these systems in the last 3 months and had issues with everyone of them.  They're either located at home, the fire dept I worked at, and my current real estate office.  Funny thing is on the ME and 98 machines the fix is reformating every month or two.  2000 Pro is stable, but not very responsive.  XP is not worth the upgrade from 2000 Pro.


----------



## mdnky (Nov 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by cf25 _
> *maybe not right now.  but if you give me a pentium 233 vs a pentium 550, i definately can tell the difference.  i dont buy a 3 ghz chip so that office opens faster now.  i buy it so office opens faster in 2-3 years. *



I bought my G3 300 used 3 years ago.  800$ with a 17" Sony monitor and alot of legal software (Quark, Photoshop, UltraDev, Office 98, etc.).  I'm still using it, and it's for design.  InDesign 2, Photoshop 7, Dreamweaver MX, Office X, all under OSX.  

Everyone else I know who bought computers around the time I did have upgraded (CPUs) at least once.  They've paid 1500$ each time.  Only one of those people do anything that requires "speed" and he just upgraded for the second time.  We ordered him a nice new DP 1ghz with 1g of ram...he'll probably keep this one for 3 years.

His reason for switching was after he used my "turtle" Mac...not a crash and for being 5 years old it wasn't as slow as he thought.


----------



## mdnky (Nov 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Stridder44_
> I thought the G4 was 128-bit.



G4 is 32 bit.  Think of it this way...the computer uses a "highway" to move info.  Intel & AMD use a one lane highway that's "32 bit" wide.  Apple was "selling" theirs using a 4-lane highway with "32 bit" wide lanes.  That's were the 128 bit thing came for.

I wish the DP 1ghz and 1.25ghz machines were 128 bit, we'd all have killer machines for intense number crunching.

When I started using Macs they crushed the Intel and AMD chips.  Now they're slower, but they still have a better OS which is stable and well designed.  You can have a 3ghz P4 on M$, I'll keep my G3 300mhz on X...it works.  The 1ghz Ti I just ordered should be even nicer...we'll see.


----------

