AMD new licensee, Apple

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
**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. :D

**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 :D **edit**
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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. ;)
 
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.
 
...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.
 
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
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top