G5 and AMD Opteron
- Thread starter djhpr
- Start date
Koelling
I Think Different
It's not happening.
Apple is a hardware company and they sell hardware because it's the best software. If they opened the platform to x86 then they might as well make everything open source, close up shop and find day jobs. The only way I see them going x86 is if they hired a company to make a proprietary Apple X86 chip so OS X would still not run on AMD or Intel.
Apple is a hardware company and they sell hardware because it's the best software. If they opened the platform to x86 then they might as well make everything open source, close up shop and find day jobs. The only way I see them going x86 is if they hired a company to make a proprietary Apple X86 chip so OS X would still not run on AMD or Intel.
Let's not forget that the Power PC chip is the product of a consortium consisting of Apple, IBM and Motorola. Also, chips with RISC architecture have much shorter "pipes" in regard to how long each instruction is executed, and RISK is at the beginning of the development curve, while x86 LISC architecture is at the top of its curve and flattening out.
Given all that, and Apple's commitment to innovation, "thinking different" and Steve Jobs' commitment to actually changing our social culture (see MacDirectory magazine, Spring 2002, pp 67-72 - a great article about Jobs) I can't imagine such a huge backward step. It seems to me that would only be likely at the point of shear desperation due to a truly failing company.
What would make sense to me would be for Apple to port OS X to run on Wintel boxes and give you-know-who a *real* run for their money. Imagine for a minute what all the Windows folks might do and think if presented with an OS that actually worked!
Given all that, and Apple's commitment to innovation, "thinking different" and Steve Jobs' commitment to actually changing our social culture (see MacDirectory magazine, Spring 2002, pp 67-72 - a great article about Jobs) I can't imagine such a huge backward step. It seems to me that would only be likely at the point of shear desperation due to a truly failing company.
What would make sense to me would be for Apple to port OS X to run on Wintel boxes and give you-know-who a *real* run for their money. Imagine for a minute what all the Windows folks might do and think if presented with an OS that actually worked!
phatsharpie
Futuristic Robotic Cat
Even if Apple does use AMD chips, which I HIGHLY doubt they will, the hardware would still be created in house. In other words, despite using the AMD chip, the motherboard would still be designed and manufactured by Apple, and Apple would make sure that proprietary boot codes are used, ensuring that OS X would not load on anything but Apple machines.
I don't see much benefite for Apple switching to AMD right now. Apple is still in the transitioning period to AMD, and I think they would spread themselves too thin by going to another platform at the same time. I can't imagine 3rd party software developers liking it too much either. Think how long it took software developers to develop for OS X from OS 9, now they have to develop for ANOTHER chip?! Not likely...
we discussed this 'letter', which is about 'let's speculate' (as it says itself), when it was new.
the G5 is an officially announced project by motorola. you can read about their G5 processor plans at motorola.com. won't get MUCH information, but it's clear that the G5 is not an X86 based processor (whatever kind).
the G5 is an officially announced project by motorola. you can read about their G5 processor plans at motorola.com. won't get MUCH information, but it's clear that the G5 is not an X86 based processor (whatever kind).
I have been a huge dismisser of MacOS x86. I don't see it happening and frankly don't see why it would be so great.
1.) AMDs 64 bit chip will be x86 based. Intels 64 bit chip will not. This means the platform will now split in a huge chunk. Now you will have WinAMD's and WinTels. You have that noq but the lines are grayed because even though AMD is not x86, it takes in x86 code and processes the code in its own way. Now you will have two new processors with two new binaries based on 2 new platforms.
2.) If Apple did build machines on this new AMD chip with 64 bit x86 chip it should be on a proprietary hardware design sanctioned by AMD and Apple. However, you would still have binaries made for x86. Anyone could still adapt the darwin kernel to run on other x86 AMD motherboards and have "un supported" x86 macs like they have "unsupported" powerpc macs today.
3.) Apple doesn't have a licensing system for MacOS because they know sales from the OS don't even come close to the money made from hardware. Once you have people building unsupported MacOS x86 clones, Apple not only loses money from hardware but software. How many of those x86 people will buy a legit copy of MacOS x86? How long would free iApps and free iTools be free?
The better idea would be for Apple to work with AMD to create an x86 front end to the PowerPC. They already have a nice "switch" mode in the chip to change the "Endian" to match the x86. All they need to do is share some powerpc innovations with innovations in interpreting x86 code and processing it the same way AMD processes it. This way you get "live hardware emulation" in the PowerPC chip.
Since Intels chip will now *finally* be RISC, AIM can do the same thing with x86 interpretation that AMD does currently. They can take the Itanium binary and look at the code and interpret it "live" from within the chip. Tis means you get hardware emulation of Itanium in the PowerPC chip.
They can then make their own version of WINE and take their experience from the Classic environment and build a "Redbox" Environment. You would be able to open Windows or Linux Appllications from within MacOS via the Redbox. It would get its own window manager look and feel to match Windows or Linux but it would do so from within your normal MacOS. Just like Classic. It would not be 100% native but it would eliminate the need for buying an x86. They could also force it to all intstall under a directory calls /PC System so that you don't get all that pc crap at root level.
This would be an awesome example of the power under the Unix core of MacOS. Apple has had the ability to do this with the Mach kernel for some time. WINE could work, but no one has done it. The qusetion is: Why haven't they?
1.) AMDs 64 bit chip will be x86 based. Intels 64 bit chip will not. This means the platform will now split in a huge chunk. Now you will have WinAMD's and WinTels. You have that noq but the lines are grayed because even though AMD is not x86, it takes in x86 code and processes the code in its own way. Now you will have two new processors with two new binaries based on 2 new platforms.
2.) If Apple did build machines on this new AMD chip with 64 bit x86 chip it should be on a proprietary hardware design sanctioned by AMD and Apple. However, you would still have binaries made for x86. Anyone could still adapt the darwin kernel to run on other x86 AMD motherboards and have "un supported" x86 macs like they have "unsupported" powerpc macs today.
3.) Apple doesn't have a licensing system for MacOS because they know sales from the OS don't even come close to the money made from hardware. Once you have people building unsupported MacOS x86 clones, Apple not only loses money from hardware but software. How many of those x86 people will buy a legit copy of MacOS x86? How long would free iApps and free iTools be free?
The better idea would be for Apple to work with AMD to create an x86 front end to the PowerPC. They already have a nice "switch" mode in the chip to change the "Endian" to match the x86. All they need to do is share some powerpc innovations with innovations in interpreting x86 code and processing it the same way AMD processes it. This way you get "live hardware emulation" in the PowerPC chip.
Since Intels chip will now *finally* be RISC, AIM can do the same thing with x86 interpretation that AMD does currently. They can take the Itanium binary and look at the code and interpret it "live" from within the chip. Tis means you get hardware emulation of Itanium in the PowerPC chip.
They can then make their own version of WINE and take their experience from the Classic environment and build a "Redbox" Environment. You would be able to open Windows or Linux Appllications from within MacOS via the Redbox. It would get its own window manager look and feel to match Windows or Linux but it would do so from within your normal MacOS. Just like Classic. It would not be 100% native but it would eliminate the need for buying an x86. They could also force it to all intstall under a directory calls /PC System so that you don't get all that pc crap at root level.
This would be an awesome example of the power under the Unix core of MacOS. Apple has had the ability to do this with the Mach kernel for some time. WINE could work, but no one has done it. The qusetion is: Why haven't they?
Alexandert
gonneawaycameback
AMD ROCKS!!!
RISC - Reduced Instruction Set Computing - a processors command set, in this case reduced to increase and optimize performance
x86 processors are CISC (Complete Instruction Based Computing) based, with more commands available to low-level software, not as streamlined as RISC, but more functional?
WINE - Open-Source Windows for use over any UNIX os
x86 processors are CISC (Complete Instruction Based Computing) based, with more commands available to low-level software, not as streamlined as RISC, but more functional?
WINE - Open-Source Windows for use over any UNIX os
phatsharpie
Futuristic Robotic Cat
Machine codes for RISC processors are "simpler". This allows the processor to process many, but simple codes. So the performance improvements is that the processors are generally more efficient - like a well run assembly line - do simple things at a time, but do MANY of them. CISC on the other hand, has more complex machine codes. So its strength is that it handles more complex codes at once, but it can only handle few of them.
These are theoretical however. The differences between RISC and CISC processors have blurred in recent years. The PowerPC processor shares many traits with traditional CISC processors while the AMD and Intel processors have RISC like cores.
Also AIM = Apple/IBM/Motorol alliance. The alliance behind the PowerPC architecture.
phatsharpie
Futuristic Robotic Cat
WINE is an implementation of Windows API over UNIX. Thus a program's Windows' API calls are mapped to UNIX calls instead.