Also... powerPC is NOT dead

solrac

solrac

Mac Ninja
In the WWDC keynote, one slide showed the PowerPC chip fading away, as the Intel chip faded into view, past 2007.

This is misleading, I believe.

You see, XCode now has TWO checkboxes. Compile for PPC and Compile for Intel.

After 2007 is past, do you really think apple will remove the first checkbox?

Do you think Apple will stop compiling versions of OS X for PPC? NO!

If IBM makes a breakthrough, and releases the G6 that kicks every other chip's ass, Apple will be able to incorporate it into new boxes OVERNIGHT.

The slide in the keynote should have been a little different. It should have showed the PPC never fading away, and the Intel Fading in, so that the two lines were side by side. And perhaps in 2008 +, an AMD chip fading in, with three lines side by side.

These chip companies are not going away. They are going to continue to compete with each other to make the best chips, and Apple is simply moving in the direction to be able to use ANY OF THE CHIPS, WHICHEVER IS BEST.

They would be stupid to "delete" all useability of the PPC, or any chip for that matter. Apple is ADDING compatibility, and not removing ANY.

To add to this message... they ARE "transitioning" from PPC to Intel, as jobs said... but there may always be a "transition" BACK as well. (Which is not much of a transition, at that point it will just be a preference.)
 
solrac said:
If IBM makes a breakthrough, and releases the G6 that kicks every other chip's ass, Apple will be able to incorporate it into new boxes OVERNIGHT.
Click to expand...

I don't think there will be a G6 soon. Also, there are I don't know how much millions of dollars on the table between Intel and Apple, that a switch overnight back to PowerPC seems very much unlikely. A switch back to PowerPC itself seems unlikely at all.

However, of course, support for PowerPC will still be there for quite some time, but at some stage, Apple does no longer support them.
 
HomunQlus said:
I don't think there will be a G6 soon. Also, there are I don't know how much millions of dollars on the table between Intel and Apple, that a switch overnight back to PowerPC seems very much unlikely. A switch back to PowerPC itself seems unlikely at all.

However, of course, support for PowerPC will still be there for quite some time, but at some stage, Apple does no longer support them.
Click to expand...

This I just can't believe. If apple removes all compatibility with PPC, I will eat my own poo.
 
HomunQlus said:
Over time, they will. This is why they made the switch.
Click to expand...

Nope. What I'm trying to say is... Apple might make ALL of it's computers Intels in 2007 or 2008. That is "no more" PPCs. Fine.

But if IBM comes out with the G6 (or equivalent) in 2009, for example, Apple WILL be able to use it at the drop of a hat. Apple will NOT have to re-transition BACK to it. Apple will simply be able to offer Intel based macs, and the new G6 macs. And the developers will be able to compile for either, effortlessly.

Mark my words.
 
Well, the going theory is that one of the driving forces behind Apple's decision here is Intel's chip-level DRM. I don't think IBM will ever have any part of that, and if that's the case, then it'll have to be all Intel.

That said, no of course the PPC is not dead. I'm already getting sick of people saying it is, and saying the G5 is "end-of-life". It's not. It's still the top dog, and apparently still will be for the next 2 years. It will be supported for some time after that. And it will be used for a helluva long time after that.
 
Why on earth would IBM want to try and devlop a G6 anyway if Apple no longer buy from them ? The games console market is far more lucrative with higher numbers of units being shifted than Apples ever were.

Plus Apple history of backwards compatability is not good, next release of OSX may be a hybrid PPC/x86 development, but my bet would be that the one after that will be Intel only.
 
Tommo said:
Why on earth would IBM want to try and devlop a G6 anyway if Apple no longer buy from them ? The games console market is far more lucrative with higher numbers of units being shifted than Apples ever were.

Plus Apple history of backwards compatability is not good, next release of OSX may be a hybrid PPC/x86 development, but my bet would be that the one after that will be Intel only.
Click to expand...

There IS no backwards compatibility.
G5 and Intel are both supported NOW.
If Apple stops buying G5, and only Intel, that may be TEMPORARY. But if something like a G6 comes out, Apple can now CHOOSE to buy it, with NO technology BARRIERS.

This is simply Apple creating the POWER OF CHOICE for themselves. The current choice is G5. The next choice is Intel. Perhaps the next choice after that may go back to G5 or G6?

DRM thing aside, I know nothing about that.
 
That DRM thing really _is_ just a theory, though. And even if it's in Apple's consideration, I think there are other reasons that are of more interest. Performance. Power. Heat. Etc.
 
From what i read, Cocoa can run on any CPU that has a Cocoa library for it (is that with or without re-compile?)

and we know Carbon WON'T WORK on intel. so they push everyone to cocoa. then they can pick and choose from ANY cpu, at the drop of a hat, with little more than a recompile at best (except those apps that use machine code or direct Altivec/SSE(1|2|3) calls..

also. does this mean the finder will become cocoa soon!??!?
 
Carbon DOES run on intel, as long as it's an Xcode/Carbon project and you recompile it as Universal Binary.
 
Well, G5 will fading away same with MacOS X support Classic Mode and finally will stop support for 10.5. 10.5 will still support both Intel and G5. I believe that at 10.6 or 10.7 will stop support PPC. That why Apple is smart to keep MacOS X support both hardwares. However the newest Mac will use INTEL not PPC.
 
Pengu said:
also. does this mean the finder will become cocoa soon!??!?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone care whether the finder was programmed using cocoa or carbon? It's the end result that matters. The fact that it's carbon is not the reason for it being so crappy, I think this has been gone over quite a few times. :)
 
MacFreak said:
Well, G5 will fading away same with MacOS X support Classic Mode and finally will stop support for 10.5. 10.5 will still support both Intel and G5. I believe that at 10.6 or 10.7 will stop support PPC. That why Apple is smart to keep MacOS X support both hardwares. However the newest Mac will use INTEL not PPC.
Click to expand...

10.6, 10.7, 10.8.... ETCETERA ETCETERA... ad nauseum... WILL HAVE PPC SUPPORT.

Many customers will have their dual G5s for YEARS, and they will always be able to upgrade Mac OS X. PERIOD. And when a new PPC comes out that's the best thing in the world, apple will make boxes with it. PERIOD.

I see a NEAR future with a new, revamped PPC chip, such as a G6 (or new G5), and Intels in the powerbooks.

In 2007, I see Intels replacing PPC completely, just because they'll be faster, and perhaps with a new 64 bit Intel chip

In the LATER future, I see Intel, PPC, and AMD chips perhaps all used for different purposes, for different macs, all running OS X harmoniously. Apple will never stop supporting an architecture. The MOST they'll do temporarily is "grey out" one of the checkboxes....
 
why are you sooooo stuck on apple never dropping support on the ppc? how long did it take them to drop os support for the 680x0? if there has been one thing that i have learned about computers, never ignore history. if apple is really going to goto x86 intel like jobs said, then i see 10.5, and maybe 10.6 supporting the ppc, 10.5 dropping the g3, and 10.6 dropping the g4, but it would make no sence to keep ppc code in 10.7. it would be soooo bloted. remember 8.1? remember all the fat software? its not cost effective. which is one reason that apple is going to intel, intel would sell them chips cheaper then ibm. look at the mini, apple is trying to bring out low cost computers, and they can't do that with top of the line ppc chips from ibm.
don't get me wrong, i hate the idea of my mac being intel inside, BUT if it nessasery for the servivle of my pressous macintosh, then so be it.
 
sinclair_tm said:
why are you sooooo stuck on apple never dropping support on the ppc? how long did it take them to drop os support for the 680x0? if there has been one thing that i have learned about computers, never ignore history. if apple is really going to goto x86 intel like jobs said, then i see 10.5, and maybe 10.6 supporting the ppc, 10.5 dropping the g3, and 10.6 dropping the g4, but it would make no sence to keep ppc code in 10.7. it would be soooo bloted. remember 8.1? remember all the fat software? its not cost effective. which is one reason that apple is going to intel, intel would sell them chips cheaper then ibm. look at the mini, apple is trying to bring out low cost computers, and they can't do that with top of the line ppc chips from ibm.
don't get me wrong, i hate the idea of my mac being intel inside, BUT if it nessasery for the servivle of my pressous macintosh, then so be it.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. It's much simpler than you are making it. There will be no bloat. One Mac OS X box will simply have an "Intel" logo on it. The other will have a "PPC" logo on it. Or "insert chip logo here".

Apple will compile OS X for whatever chipset they are selling.

I am sure they'll offer a PPC version of 10.8 for those with dual G5s, even if all new macs are Intels. To do otherwise would be suicide.
 
Actually, I guess they'll even create _one_ box containing both versions. Because if you buy the retail version of OS X, it's not bound to a machine (only to a user).
 
I wanted to start a new thread to express my thoughts, but it's just as good here.

Motorola is focused on making embedded chips for cell phones, and whatever market there is for them. Can't expect them to put R & D into making desktop/workstation chips to compete with that particular market.

IBM's POWER4 was stripped down to be the G5. It's clear that when it comes to general purpose CPUs, IBM is more interested in making servers and big iron. Chips such as POWER4 and 5 are way overkill to put in a Mac (heat and power, look at current G5 PowerMacs). I hear people suggesting Cell. It still seems too console specific. I understand there's this grand scheme of putting Cell processors in EVERYTHING (smirk) but it's not available yet. We have no idea how it holds up in a general purpose environment rather than as a gaming chip.

Intel on the otherhand has been making desktop/workstation chips for the longest time. They took a crack at making a big iron server chip, Itanium, it sucks. Between Intel and AMD, they both have very specific business agendas to make desktop/workstation CPUs. That's what Apple needs. A chip provider that's focused on making desktop CPUs. IBM is spread out too thin with so many projects and technologies. I dare say IBM is inconsistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top