TubeNet

Windoze on your Mac or Mac OS on your PC? Should be pretty straightforward, no?

SousyHawk wrote:I'm sure Apple will work on a PC "Emulation" type of system, but will never, ever allow Mac OS X to be supported on non-Apple hardware.

Remeber the PPC clones? I think Apple (Jobs) has finally figured out they cannot make hardware and make a profit. So I expect OS-X will run on standard x86 systems with limitations on the hardware. The real issue will be emulation PPC for old software. moving to x86 is a lot different than the 68k-PPC move.

Odd too they inked a deal with *ntel instead of AMD. I really expected them, to got to Athlon64, for the highend performance, especially the large memory, which is good for the A/V stuff Apples get used for.

The Mac OS will not run on non-Apple hardware, even with Intel chips inside; so says Phil Schiller, Apple PR head. So, no OS X on a Compaq box.

IBM's PPC development has not really favored Apple, even though the new XBox 360, PlayStation 3, and maybe even the next Nintendo console ("Revolution", I think) will all be using PowerPC chips. Apple is not IBM's focus.

The Rosetta layer will not run AltiVec-enhanced code or audio stuff, if I remember correctly.

The makers of Mathematica -- a big, big mathematics application with some code probably as old as the Mac itself -- was recompiled for the Intel-based Mac, becoming operable in two hours' worth of work. Check out the keynote address; the CEO of Mathematica's developer company is quite funny.

Dig around on macsurfer.com and the forums at AppleNova, and sift through the speculation to find some real news.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/06/08/ ... s.x.on.pcs

Apple won't allow non-mac computers to run Mac OS X, but that's not to say that hackers won't find a way to make it happen.

FWIW, I was a little suprised to hear of the switch, but I think it will be good for the company. Apple will no longer have to try (in vain) to convince people that Power PC processors are comparable in speed to intel chips. My only hope is that the Mac remains a distinct platform, and that Apple doesn't become just another PC vendor.

Well, I guess this means that Mac programmers will have to think in little-endian terms, just like the other 98% of the market.

Apple computers will still be Apple computers, built in aluminum and smooth white plastics as before (unless they make a design change to something even more hip).

What surprises me completely were the comments that Intel's chips run faster and run cooler. I just don't buy that at all.

Leland wrote:Apple computers will still be Apple computers, built in aluminum and smooth white plastics as before (unless they make a design change to something even more hip).

What surprises me completely were the comments that Intel's chips are run faster and run cooler. I just don't buy that at all.

As a very long-in-the-tooth veteran of benchmarking, it all depends what you mean by "fast". It's like "better"--very dependent on context. (As an aside, more than one supercomputer company has included extensions and optimizations in their hardware designs to do nothing but run Linpac very fast.)

Apple's looking at the future. Neither Freescale nor IBM has any particular compelling motive to spend the R&D to develop a faster PPC to compete in performance with the AMD/Intel giant. Heck, IBM just sold off their PC business, why woiuld they be interested in staying in that market?

I guess this finally settles the old argument about which is better, the Z80 or the 6800...

Chuck(G) wrote:I guess this finally settles the old argument about which is better, the Z80 or the 6800...

The 6502 of course:)


The 6800? Don't know but the 68k was/is great. Not so sure about PPC.

The x86 line just got into IBM-PC and and we got stuck. UInternally the current x86 isn't,. I keep wishing AMD would offer an AMD mode to buy pass the instruction decoder and allow access to the real instructions set of the Athlon.

PPC does well on some stuiff, so does PA-RISC and Sparc. The biggest proble, they have is the don't do x86 code, ie Windoze. That's where the volume is, and you need the volume for R&D dollars. Remember what DEC did with the 0.35 um Alpha? Imagin what that chip could do on 90nm Si.

ThomasDodd wrote:

Chuck(G) wrote:I guess this finally settles the old argument about which is better, the Z80 or the 6800...

The 6502 of course:)


The 6800? Don't know but the 68k was/is great. Not so sure about PPC.

Oh, I'm going pretty far back--actually, it should be between the 8080 and the 6800. Basically, the little-endian Intel philosophy vs. the big-endian Moto one. Remember that the original Apple I (I almost bought one) could be jumpered for either 6502 or 6800 because Moto was suing MOS Tech over the 6502 design and Jobs and Woz weren't sure how the lawsuit would come out.

Now that Apple's switched horses, it's probably curtains for the 68K line, except for a few 68xx embedded applications. It's a shame really; I was a fan of the cleaner architecture of the 68K. I guess we've standardized on Intel now whether we like it or not; since Alpha, Clipper, MIPS and a whole host of others are pretty dead.

It's interesting that exposed RISC architecture has pretty much been beaten out by CISC, even if the chip has a RISC core. I suspect the same thing will happen with exposed VLIW--it might well be there, but it'll be hidden while your CPU goes on executing REP MOVSBs.

I doubt that AMD's going to open their core for general programming; Intel's not--it ties their hands when it comes to future implementations if they have to retain backward compatibility. I don't think that the engineers at Intel much like implementing the DAA instruction, but it's baggage from the 8080 and they're stuck with it.

Sort of like making sure that your new Jag still has reins for steering and knows what Gee and Haw mean.

So I suppose this means the iMac G5 I bought last December, that I already consider to be a worthless hunk of junk, will be considered that way by everyone else when Apple goes to the Intel chip?

MA, who could have spent half what she did and got a PC that actually works

MaryAnn wrote:So I suppose this means the iMac G5 I bought last December, that I already consider to be a worthless hunk of junk, will be considered that way by everyone else when Apple goes to the Intel chip?

MA, who could have spent half what she did and got a PC that actually works

What's wrong with it?

It won't be worthless -- it'll still be ridiculously easy for developers to support both chipsets, so that iMac will probably have another three to five years' worth of useful life before the features of the latest Macs and OS X.7 are just too tempting to ignore.

I have a 1999 iBook that, apart from its small hard drive and lack of FireWire, is perfectly adequate for my purposes.

"We've already ported our app to Intel," said Wil Shipley, CEO of Delicious Monster Software. "All we had to do was click one button. It took about 40 seconds. It ran perfectly on the sneak-preview Intel Macs here at WWDC."

Taken from this article:
http://news.com.com/Developers+get+tast ... 39589.html

MaryAnn wrote:So I suppose this means the iMac G5 I bought last December, that I already consider to be a worthless hunk of junk, will be considered that way by everyone else when Apple goes to the Intel chip?

MA, who could have spent half what she did and got a PC that actually works

Now, Mary Ann--you could always make your G5 part of a collection.

Chuck(G) wrote:

MaryAnn wrote:So I suppose this means the iMac G5 I bought last December, that I already consider to be a worthless hunk of junk, will be considered that way by everyone else when Apple goes to the Intel chip?

MA, who could have spent half what she did and got a PC that actually works

Now, Mary Ann--you could always make your G5 part of a collection.

LOL

MaryAnn wrote:So I suppose this means the iMac G5 I bought last December, that I already consider to be a worthless hunk of junk, will be considered that way by everyone else when Apple goes to the Intel chip?

MA, who could have spent half what she did and got a PC that actually works

I'd be happy to take that worthless hunk of junk off your hands...

Seriously, the switch to intel doesn't make the G5 obselete. If anything, G5 users might be an advantagous position since they can run PPC applications natively. Developers will be supporting the PPC processors for years to come, but it may be a little while before all our apps are moved over to intel.

Where the heck am I?

I thought this was TubeNet. Perhaps I clicked on my link to www.osnews.com ....or perhaps Slashdot

No no....this is definately TubeNet. The messages in this forum are actually CONstructive. If this were Slashdot, there would be 3 pages of...

"Apple Sucks"
"No, M$ sucks!"
"No no, APPLE sucks!"
"Yo momma!"

Okay I had an interesting thought about this topic. First of all, what is this going to mean for the IBM/Motorola processor market?

Secondly, since intel is gonna make all the chips for just about EVERY major PC manufacturer, what is this going to mean in terms of quality and innovation? will it mean that quality will increase because of a company that is growing, or will it mean that the company is gonna be way too big, causing them to get lax and complacent about quality and innovation?

Also, where does this leave AMD? This is a concern of mine because I greatly favor their processors. I consider them to be better at what I want them for. The same questions I have about Intel apply to AMD. Whats gonna happen?

An interesting off topic note is that ATI is probably going to be making the graphics processors for ALL of the next generation gaming consoles. This should be interesting to see if ATI completely switches over to the console market and leaves the pc field for NVIDIA.....

HMMMMMM

The opinions on osnews and slashdot do seem to be from true believers of both stripes, don't they?

But the thing that strikes me is that it's the games who seem to have the most interest in this subject. No app that I run even begins to tax my (P4) system's capacity to any extent. I don't do games. It was the news that someone was porting Linux to the PS3 that generated the most traffic on osnews.

I used to be a rabid upgrader, springing good dollars to replace my S-100 2 MHz 8080 with a 4 Mhz Z80, cranking my PC up to 8 MHz from 4.77; getting a blistering 16 MHz (and shaky performance) out of my PC-AT--but I haven't upgraded in a few years, because I've seen no need to. The last major investment was to go to a nice LCD monitor from my 21" Sony tube.

Maybe I'm getting too old to be interested in this battle of the CPUs thing--it's been done to death before.

...my money was on the National PACE anyway..

.