The stupid Intel rumors are back (make it stop part II)

I really like the PPC, but I'm not confused about its power. The power of a computer is its ability to get work done for me, as I request it to. In this regard, Mac OS X vs Mac OS 9 is more important than a doubling of CPU power.

I like the G3 best of all. Cheap, fast, cool, stable. I just wish I could run 4 of them SMP style. I have a dual G4 450. I don't want a machine that runs hotter than that.

That said ...

the PPC lives in RISC, which is sweet.

Also true is that x86 chips now live in RISC as well, they just happen to run different instructions than the programs are written in. AMD and Intel chips have been interpreting into micro-ops and running really RISC like since ~200MHz.

This is interesting in that the language for the internals of a chip can be optimized for speed, for that chip, without regard to needs from the compiler, or consistency with the language used in the previous chips. It's a runtime hardware interpreted language. (Just think if Intel really went at Java. ;-)

So this allows x86 CPU's to probably outperform PPC's in raw number crunching, but you have to spend more time designing them. Intel has man hours to spare regarding chip design. AMD's guys are apparently just good.

However, this realtime language converter is as complex as the CPU itself, so x86 CPU's will never run as cool as a true RISC implementation. They're effectively 2 CPU's to do the work of one in a different language. PPC's win in energy and design efficiency.

With simple dependency and integer operations like those in AI algorithms or in lots of games, AMD chips will perform roughly the same per clock cycle as PPC's. With this type of code, there is almost no performance difference between the 603, 604, G3 or G4. This code is common. But I don't want or need that type of speed. I want a responsive OS. That is software engineering and systems engineering. CPU's don't solve ALL problems. So I see the PPC as not superior in performance, but more appropriately matched to the task at hand. Run stable and long in any environment, fast enough that the user doesn't have to wait.

I'll probably buy an iBook shortly.

As to "will Apple switch CPU's?" Probably. But not to x86, and probably not to IA64 either. Power maybe. Maybe clockless CPU's?
 
CPUs:
I don't give a crap who makes the CPUs that go inside my Mac any more than I care who makes the fan. I don't care if it's RISC/CISC or FLISC (I just made that up). I don't care if Motorola, AMD, Intel, IBM or Mircosoft makes it.

What I do care about is that it's fast and runs OS X. Actually, let me rearrange that statement...that it runs OS X and that it's fast. OS X I actually see on the screen and intereact with. The CPU is just a little thing I never see in side of a box. As far as I know, my Mac may actually have an Intel in it. Just give me faster Macs that keep running X better and better.

I have no evidence for this, by my personal opinion is that Apple is constantly readying an 086 compatible version of OS X as the last ditch backup plan, just in case PPC really gets too far behind. I don't care what kind of Altivec processing you want to come up with, at some point you ain't cathing up to a processor that is three times faster in pure MHZ. Apple knows that better than any of us and I trust they are on top of it.

It's really kind of a miracle that Apple can deliver a quality machine and quality OS given their dire market share and the fact that they are using non-086 chips from a slumping company whose real profits don't even come from computer chip sales anyway. I really can't believe Apple keeps delivering such quality. Imagine that we would have if they could get a serious CPU supplier.

Linux:
Anyone who thinks the average person has any clue as to the details of Linux is nuts. I'll bet you $100 if you poll 100 people [off the street, and maybe a block or two down from your tech office. Poll doesn't count if conducted in Silicon Valley] about what Red Hat is, you won't get five that even relate it to Linux, let alone be able to explain more from there. Hell, I don't even really know (what is it, a variant, a company, both?). I use this OS, maybe you've heard of it, it's called OS X. It actually has professional grade applications and stuff. You know, to get work done.
 
Originally posted by gibbs
Im getting tired of the arguements about what platform is magically superior. Just because the G4 is a more efficient processor at any given mhz rating, that doesnt make it a better choice for a platform.

If the motorola chips continue the current pace of slowing behind the "other" alternatives, its pretty clear which platform will be obsolete.

Sometimes I think people who use apple and like the motorola chips just because they "arent intel or amd". If the chips inside your mac were a slower version of AMD, you would surely be upset that its trailing behind the other machines. But because its OS X and running on G4's/G3's etc, suddenly its okay because the "architecture is technically superior".

Im sorry, but that just doesnt mean anything until Motorola chips catch back up.
Click to expand...

Have you ever used an Athlon XP 2100? PentiumIV 2,53? Dual G4/1000? I've used every single one of them in PhotoShop, Corel 10, DVD mastering, basic OS apps (Win2k & XP for PC, OS X for G4) and you know what? You DO NOT understand the f..king difference :mad:

On the contrary ANYONE who sees the dual g4 in action gets his pants wet! Why? Because it can have Win2k server running under Virtual PC uploading content to the internet, play mp3, burn CD, have a load of apps loaded and continues to perform that PhotoShop/Corel action while having Classic apps downloading content from the Internet... Even on Pentium IV 2,53 running 2k/XP such a similar thing becomes a nightmare! Apps DON'T respond like in G4 and most of the time they seem like going to crash... Most of the people base the speed of the processors with benchmarks and how fast Windows compared to Mac OS X draw windows on the screen. BS. And anyone who saw a dual g4 in action and any of the above x86 rigs in action knows what I'm talking about... and right about now smiles, BIG time... :D

Oh, did I mention that the x86 rigs run with DDR/266/333 memory, FASTER Geforce cards, ATA-133 hard disks, etc? Wait till Apple gives us such things... Even without faster Gx processors we will see MORE speed coming from a G3/G4 box because you know what? The OS is another speed factor and Mac OS X with more speed is just around the corner :D
 
IA-64 would not be that bad of a platform for the Mac to go to...trust me when I say that the Mac will NEVER run on x86...for the reasons just said...it's a fast chip, but it's not very efficient. It's one of the reasons that Windows is so instable. PPC is actually ahead.

Don't be surprised if IBM and Apple came up with a better option. Moto just fscked up so badly with the production and the advancement of G4 that I see no way that Motorola will be able to be the leaders in G5 development. If IBM can't do better than the Hammer...Apple will go with the Hammer...but Steve cannot go with a x86 chip. It will be a dead architecture in two years.

P4 is the final chapter in the x86 architecture.
 
Personally, and no offence to any of you who posted in this thread,
I beleive your discution turned into something way too technical
and not enough about passion and experience...

The PowerPC is serving us well and has make a lot of things possible.
We evolved a long way since the Performa 5200.

Now look around, I am quite certain that Apple has a ton of really good
worker in the shop with fantastic experience and love of the architechture
of our mac we use now. And their ideas are based on what they know

The question, I think is not about whats the best Processor
But what is the Best processor WE are good at.

And beleive me.. THAT is in Steve's head
more than x86 or PowerPC

Please excuse my non-technical approach

(Dont remember if my history book is up to date so...)

-Sighter
 
While you're absolutely right, Sighter, it's also absolutely true that Steve Jobs will do EVERYthing to keep Apple a profitable company. Now he sure knows more than any one of us about whether Motorolas G5 will ever see the light of a PowerMacintosh's Cinema Display or whether that new reduced Power4 processor of IBM will be a viable solution for the Mac, but if Motorola turns out to 'just' produce G4s for some more years with a _bit_ of Mhz increments (in turn for more pipeline stages, like it's doing right now) and IBM 'only' produces a Power4 that is too hot and too heavy (in price) for a desktop workstation like the PowerMac (sub 5'000$), then Apple actually _will_ need more options some time next year.

He WANTS to be different, but not at the cost of the company. Apple as a full subsidiary of, say, Disney, isn't the company Steve Jobs wants to be the head of. Unless he can also take a good seat at Disney itself, that is. (Like he's done with the 'NeXT buyout of Apple'.) :p
 
Great arguments all over and no disrespect to anyone, BUT

OS X is nothing more than a replacement for X-Windows. The world (outside of Redmond) has been trying desperately to find a good GUI for the more stable *NIX OS for quite sometime. Linux has not caught on outside of the techie world, because next to Windows it sucks! How many of you would like to own a car that you could easily (2-3 hours) tear your transmission (put any car part in here) out and replace it, if for no other reason to do it? Well that is how most non-computer related people feel, it is not worth it. Pay more for an "inferior" product, than less for something they can tinker with for fun.

OS X is a great platform, built on UNIX. It brings the ease of a GUI to the stability and security of a *NIX OS. That is what 2000/XP is supposed to be, as well. M$ re-engineered the OS to be more like UNIX, less flat file. That and with .NET and the CLR, they will port .NET to Linux and FreeBSD soon. This is simply copying the Java/JVM model.

I think Apple should open their OS to other platforms, or they will never be anything more than ~10% market share. Their servers are nice, but not cost effective against Linux.

Give the server market to Linux, let anyone build the hardware, and port the OS (or at least the GUI layer) to smaller devices.

Just a suggestion
 
Who keeps starting these threads when there're already others on the front page? :)

At least this one seems to be a little more technical and less dogmatic. The G4 is definitely a much more efficient and well-designed chip than an x86 processor at the same clock rate. Unfortunately, with the x86 line having gained more than twice the clock rate, the fact it's better isn't going to help the G4.

And to whoever thought the idea of Apple using a special BIOS to prevent OS X from being on other non-Apple hardware would be in order to load the OS from it... well, that's not what it'd take. It'd take something similar to what the Xbox has. Of course, the XBox was cracked.

OS X would never amount to anything on x86 as direct competition to Windows. I'm sorry, it just wouldn't. BeOS tried, and failed. Microsoft is so deeply embedded that only Linux has a chance, and that'll take years to materialize as even a possibility. People would not buy OS X for one simple reason: They never see software for it. All the Mac shelves in game stores, in Circuit City, they're all gone. It would be foolish to do anything like compete with Windows head on without a distribution network deeply entrenched. And I don't mean Apple stores. I mean places people go to get PC's.

Granted, Linux is not ready for the desktop. I think it may be, but it will take a radical shift in the community's goal to pull it off. They'll need t odevote as much effort as Apple has into making the whole experience seamless.
 
There is a market for each OS in respect. The reason for each OS is each holds a strength in a certain area. There is no one OS that is perfect for 100% of the market and there never will be. You can read the threads in here alone to see that.

Apple is a hardware company you forget. By porting out there OS they are flirting with death like they did when they cloned last time. If they DO go that way, they will need to change their business model to a software only company to stay profitable. This will be a big transition, considering we are in a transitional period now moving to OSX from OS9. I see at least 1-2 years for that to be complete. Once that is complete then these options will be worth looking into more seriously. Trying to transition OSes AND hardware at the same time is a bit risky there in a niche where there is little room for error.

The big deal with OSX being UNIX based is they can sell systems that can integrate with other variants of *NIX very easily and even Windows much easier now. That will make adoption much easier in mixed environments. So they do have grow potential now as a workstation.

Linux is great for servers because it is cheap and can scale. With Windows you must worry about client and server licenses which can cost you into the hundred thosands, we all forget. Linux will give you unlimited client and server licenses as well as the flexability for whatever modifications need to be made. Linux will always be a player in this market, more-so that our economy is in the toilet right now, with all the downsizing.
 
Regarding Red Hat: I'd take that $100 bet in a heartbeat. Red Hat was a big stock, people have heard of it outside the geek community. I can say the same about my company, Cisco. The guy who owns my local gas station asks me when it's going back up. So did my doctor. People know companies because their stock makes the news.

Regarding x86: I like the quote about not caring about who make the CPU or the fan. My only concern would be binary compatability. If we switch CPUs we'll have to recompile everything when we install like we do on linux. (Or, we'll have to know which file to d/l). For that reason, power4 would be nice.

Regarding this thread: I always smile when somebody starts a new thread asking people to stop talking about their topic.

Vanguard
 
What we are seeing is the soap opera that has plagued computing for many years now and made a mess of the tech stock market .

Really rich men who have rock star like status making lamo decisions .

So many wanna bees in the 90's talking about computers and they have no idea what they are going on about .

Maybee Apple can merge with transmeta .

LOL
 
Back on topic...

I guess, the 'Mac OS X on X86' rumors will stop when

a) Steve Jobs comes out and says: "We're proud to present Mac OS X for PC Compatibles."

or

b) Steve Jobs comes out and says: "We will never release Mac OS X for PC Compatibles."

Although b) might even make those rumours bigger. Denial often is misinterpreted as proof by some people.

Still, Apple _does_ have an X86 port. Only we can't have it.
 
I hear Steve Jobs is dating Shania Twain , this after Bill Gates left hate mail with Hillary Clinton over her cheating with is wife ?

Confused , you wont be on the next issue of

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