<http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>

-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

James L. Ryan:
> <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
> 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>

That doesn't bother me in the least. It's all about the operating
system, and I don't care what processor the Mac OS runs on.

Will this mean dual-boot systems -- Mac OS and Windoze? That might be
handy for those of us who have occasional need of a piece of Windoze
trashware.

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Davoud  <star@sky.com> wrote:
 > James L. Ryan:
 > > <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
 > > 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
 > 
 > That doesn't bother me in the least. It's all about the operating
 > system, and I don't care what processor the Mac OS runs on.

It may turn out to be good news.  If Apple is moving to x86-ish
chips (meaning AMD chips are also option), then the competition
in that space ought to keep chip prices down and some of the
savings might even reach the consumer.

On the other hand the smell of BS is pretty strong right now
given the years of "PowerPC > Pentium" propaganda we've had to
listen to.

In article <030620052327313644%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> James L. Ryan:
> > <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3
> > -
> > 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
> 
> That doesn't bother me in the least. It's all about the operating
> system, and I don't care what processor the Mac OS runs on.

Will they provide a PPC emulator on the Intel systems, like they did 
when they switched from 680x0 to PPC?  If not, users who switch to the 
new machines will have to get all new applications.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

If they do this, they will end up twilighting us who have PowerPC based
systems in the next two years and then what.

I had quite an investment in 68K machinery at one time and got burnt on the
transition from that.

At least one thing is that the architecture of the Intel based Macintosh
won't be that of a PC, which is of course a 25 year old design.

I skipped all the OS 9 horse manure and just recently got back in cause I
liked the architecture.

Another thing that bothers me on this is the horse pucky that Intel puts
out.
I was at Toms Hardware reading up on Pentium M, aka Pentium III chips and
they in almost all instances outperformed Pentium 4 chips. These were 2GHz
chips doing work faster than 3 GHz chips. How's that one for inefficient
chip design. It needs a higher cock to calculate slower and burn more
energy, and you pay a higher price.

If they do this, it's a bad move.

Maybe we should have some industry consolidation here, make the Apple OS
Open Source and kill Apple. That'd be the end of Linux now wouldn't it?

"James L. Ryan" <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BEC665040000F9CBF0407550@news.supernews.com...
>
<http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3
-
> 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
>
> -- 
> James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Davoud wrote:
> > That doesn't bother me in the least. It's all about the operating
> > system, and I don't care what processor the Mac OS runs on.

Barry Margolin replied: 
> Will they provide a PPC emulator on the Intel systems, like they did 
> when they switched from 680x0 to PPC?  If not, users who switch to the 
> new machines will have to get all new applications.

There are many questions to be answered. I didn't mean to trivialize
this; it's /big/ for Mac users. I'm wondering if my two new Dual G5's
will bring maybe $20 each at a garage sale...

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

In article <barmar-30EF2D.00255204062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <030620052327313644%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> > James L. Ryan:
> > >
> > > <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006
> > > _3
> > > -
> > > 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
> > 
> > That doesn't bother me in the least. It's all about the operating
> > system, and I don't care what processor the Mac OS runs on.
> 
> Will they provide a PPC emulator on the Intel systems, like they did 
> when they switched from 680x0 to PPC?  If not, users who switch to the 
> new machines will have to get all new applications.

The rumor is they'll start at the low end machines and move it up, but
what if they do it the other way around, and the first Power Mac with
an Intel processor has a G5 _and_ a dual-core Itanium or something?

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.

In article <030620052327313644%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
wrote:

> That doesn't bother me in the least. It's all about the operating
> system, and I don't care what processor the Mac OS runs on.

What about the software we already own?

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:33:14 -0500, Richard Tomkins wrote (in article 
<42a12ff1$1_1@spool9-west.superfeed.net>): 

[commenting on the suspected switch by Apple from IBM to Intel chips. 

> If they do this, they will end up twilighting us who have PowerPC based 
> systems in the next two years and then what. 
> 
> I had quite an investment in 68K machinery at one time and got burnt on the 
> transition from that. 

I can certainly cite many instances where computers and peripherals I have 
purchased from Apple have been obsoleted because of the introduction of newer 
models. To me this is a "fact of life" and not an instance of "being burned." 
I've often stated to others that when one buys an item of computing equipment 
they buy it because it has value to them at the time of the purchase, and 
that obsolescence is inevitable. 

-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

I'm a bit skeptical as to why they would do this so soon after
introducing Tiger. 

I mean, Tiger was heavily promoted (and rightly so), and now here come
the Intel processors - which means Tiger will probably have to be
re-written to run on such processors (it's not like we can take our
existing software and pop it into an Intel Mac, right?).

People are saying that all Macs will be PCs now. In what way won't they
be? Will an Intel Mac run Windows?

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

I sincerely hope that they don't actually put a Pentium in there.  
have no respect for that CPU at all, I've never heard anything goo
about it from anyone but PC vendors.

I'm not gonna lie; this hurts.  I'd get angry but it's pointless; it'
all about money, and that's that.  The day Apple makes a Pentium-base
Mac it will totally break my heart.  I may or may not go on using them
but Macs will never again seem as magical to me as they do now

--
brianleah

10.4 Good Buddy  :cool: 
G5 Dual 2GHZ / 160GB / 1GB RAM / Superdrive
Apple 20" Cinema Display
SmartDrive 120GB Firewire HD
Maxtor 250GB SATA


Visit my wife's eBay store - hand crafted gifts!
http://stores.ebay.com/Catchy-Creations-by-brendaonlin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
brianleahy's Profile: http://www.macosx.com/forums/member.php?userid=45
View this thread: http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22252
macosx.com - The Answer to Mac Support - http://www.macosx.co

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 00:25:59 -0500, Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote
(in article <040620050025597257%no@spam.invalid>):

> I'm a bit skeptical as to why they would do this so soon after
> introducing Tiger. 

Things we won't know until next week......

a) Is it really true that Apple will make the switch. (I personally believe 
that part of the rumor will prove to be true.)

b) What Intel chip or chips will Apple be using. The CNET article doesn't 
say. For all we know Intel will be manufacturing a new chip line just for 
Apple.

c) What effect a change will have on existing software. For all we know there 
might be a form of hardware emulation.

Conclusion -- let's wait and find out before moaning and groaning and such.

-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

Doesn't make sense if this article from today is true:

<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1823587,00.asp>

>>>>Analysts: Dual-Core PowerPC G5s Due for Apple 
Power Macs and PowerBooks could gain new power plants in the near 
future, analysts say.

IBM's chip group has been mum on details relating to its PowerPC 
processor line of late, but analysts expect it to deliver a dual-core 
PowerPC 970 and possibly a single-core sibling with less of a power 
appetite. Apple Computer Inc., in turn, could use the two chips to 
refresh its high-profile Power Mac desktop and PowerBook mobile computer 
product lines.<<<<<

Jerry Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> The rumor is they'll start at the low end machines and move it up, but
> what if they do it the other way around, and the first Power Mac with
> an Intel processor has a G5 _and_ a dual-core Itanium or something?

That makes more sense than the plan described in the Cnet article. But I
don't see why the whole transition to Intel makes more sense for Apple
than sticking with PowerPC. How will Apple explain away the charts at
<http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/>? Can anybody make a case,
on the basis of speed, cost, and power/heat, for this change? 

In comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc James L. Ryan <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 00:25:59 -0500, Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote
> (in article <040620050025597257%no@spam.invalid>):

>> I'm a bit skeptical as to why they would do this so soon after
>> introducing Tiger. 

> Things we won't know until next week......

> a) Is it really true that Apple will make the switch. (I personally believe 
> that part of the rumor will prove to be true.)

> b) What Intel chip or chips will Apple be using. The CNET article doesn't 
> say. For all we know Intel will be manufacturing a new chip line just for 
> Apple.

> c) What effect a change will have on existing software. For all we know there 
> might be a form of hardware emulation.

> Conclusion -- let's wait and find out before moaning and groaning and such.

We will find out next week if there is any truth to the rumor, or how
far it actually goes.  I am somewhat skeptical af any sudden change,
the problems involved in going from using a big-endian processor like
the G4 and G5 chips to a little-endian x86 chip speak against this
happening quickly.

 Joe

Neill Massello <neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote:
 > Jerry Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:
 > 
 > > The rumor is they'll start at the low end machines and move it up, but
 > > what if they do it the other way around, and the first Power Mac with
 > > an Intel processor has a G5 _and_ a dual-core Itanium or something?
 > 
 > That makes more sense than the plan described in the Cnet article. But I
 > don't see why the whole transition to Intel makes more sense for Apple
 > than sticking with PowerPC. How will Apple explain away the charts at
 > <http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/>?

Heh.  We'll see if that link still works next week.

In article <040620050025597257%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> I'm a bit skeptical as to why they would do this so soon after
> introducing Tiger. 

It's probably going to take them a while to make the switch.  Unless 
they've already done lots of the work, I figure we're talking a year at 
minimum.  So by the time anyone sees the new machines, it won't be "so 
soon after Tiger".

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

In article <0001HW.BEC6A8160010B20EF0407550@news.supernews.com>, James
L. Ryan <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> What effect a change will have on existing software. For all we know there 
> might be a form of hardware emulation.

Uh oh....

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

James L. Ryan <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> b) What Intel chip or chips will Apple be using. The CNET article doesn't
> say. For all we know Intel will be manufacturing a new chip line just for
> Apple.

That's what I was thinking. I actually can see Apple using Intel in some
capacity, I just don't see them using x86 any time soon. I can sort of
see iSteve saying to them "if you can make a chip that is 99.99%
compatible with PowerPC but faster, go for it". If they can get it close
enough so that all that's required is a .1 update to the OS, they'll do
it.

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk        AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
Lost: Stack Pointer. Small reward offered if found.

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <040620050025597257%no@spam.invalid>,
>  Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > I'm a bit skeptical as to why they would do this so soon after
> > introducing Tiger. 
> 
> It's probably going to take them a while to make the switch.  Unless 
> they've already done lots of the work, I figure we're talking a year at
> minimum.  So by the time anyone sees the new machines, it won't be "so
> soon after Tiger".

They'll be farther along in their process if they announce now. If they
do (which I personally doubt), I'd not be surprised if they actually
have hw up the sleeve already. 

The reason is the same as all the secrecy Apple has always sworn to when
introducing new models: It kills the sales of existing models. That
effect will be an order of magnitude or so greater if you introduce a
whole new architecture, because all your old gear (or the gear that you
might have bought in the interval before the new stuff actually hits the
streets) will be more or less worthless in the second hand market. Right
now a used DP 2GHz G5 is still worth something. Now - try to make
someone invest in a 2.7GHz DP G5 @ $2500 when he _knows_ that a 4GHz
DP/QP AMD/Intel-based machine at maybe $2000 is coming in six months. No
way.
-- 
/Z
Remove NOT..INVALID to email

James L. Ryan <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
> 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>

Bill Palmer <http://www.billpalmer.net> has a piece interpreting this
news as Intel making PPC chips under license. Would make more sense than
a straight switch to x86.

Dave
-- 
There's a fine line between stupid and clever.

In comp.sys.mac.system Joe Heimann <heimann@ecs.umass.edu> wrote:

> We will find out next week if there is any truth to the rumor, or how
> far it actually goes.  I am somewhat skeptical af any sudden change,
> the problems involved in going from using a big-endian processor like
> the G4 and G5 chips to a little-endian x86 chip speak against this
> happening quickly.

I agree we'll have to wait, but Itanium is, of course, big-endian.

Itanium sadly won't solve the high performance laptop issue. I certainly
don't want an Itanium laptop - "I don't love the smell of cooking
thigh in the morning :-)"
-- 
Huw Davies           | e-mail: Huw.Davies@kerberos.davies.net.au
Melbourne            | "If soccer was meant to be played in the
Australia            | air, the sky would be painted green" 

In article <1gxlvmw.m9smkqz2ngqoN%neillmassello@earthlink.net>,
neillmassello@earthlink.net (Neill Massello) wrote:

> > The rumor is they'll start at the low end machines and move it up, but
> > what if they do it the other way around, and the first Power Mac with
> > an Intel processor has a G5 _and_ a dual-core Itanium or something?
> 
> That makes more sense than the plan described in the Cnet article. But I
> don't see why the whole transition to Intel makes more sense for Apple
> than sticking with PowerPC. How will Apple explain away the charts at
> <http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/>? Can anybody make a case,
> on the basis of speed, cost, and power/heat, for this change? 

Here are two interesting links:
  http://www.intel.com/products/processor/itanium2/index.htm
  http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/cache/80518-0-0-0-121.aspx

It is a move towards the Itanium, which is big endian, just as the IBM
PowerPC chips, developed by Intel and HP together. So it seems to be both
right business and development moves. One should get even more computing
power.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

> > b) What Intel chip or chips will Apple be using. The CNET article doesn't
> > say. For all we know Intel will be manufacturing a new chip line just for
>
> That's what I was thinking. I actually can see Apple using Intel in some
> capacity, I just don't see them using x86 any time soon. I can sort of

PowerPC is a licensed core. Intel might be making a custom
PowerPC-based SoC for some future Apple machine.

Or maybe Apple is planning a toe in some specific market based around
an XScale processor, which is much lower on the power consumption scale
than PPC.

Or maybe Apple is planning to leverage Intel's vast experience in
making motherboard chipsets and other support parts. Maybe this is not
about processors at all.

Really, there are so many possibilities and so many ways this message
could have been garbled before reaching our ears that there is no way
to be sure.

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 12:01:47 +0200, Dave Devine <dave_devine@spamcop.net> wrote:

> James L. Ryan <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
>> 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
>
> Bill Palmer <http://www.billpalmer.net> has a piece interpreting this
> news as Intel making PPC chips under license. Would make more sense than
> a straight switch to x86.
>
Well, supposedly the powerpc ISA is an open standard and anyone can produce
compatible processors.

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/newto/#3

IBM will even license (for money) a core to produce your own if you want
though I think Intel is capable of doing that on their own.  Apple may
even have the rights to a core for Intel to use in the unlikely event
Intel hasn't developed a core already.

A core is a synthesizable logic design.   There are standard tools and
programs that can generate the necessary stuff from the core to actually make the
chips.

-- 
Joe Seigh

When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
When you get hardware, you make software.

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 05:01:47 -0500, Dave Devine wrote
(in article <1gxmrza.10z4thwmlpqpoN%dave_devine@spamcop.net>):

> Bill Palmer <http://www.billpalmer.net> has a piece interpreting this
> news as Intel making PPC chips under license. Would make more sense than
> a straight switch to x86.

Thanks for the reference! Bill Palmer's article seems to be a reasonable 
speculation as to just how Intel will be involved. The delay times until the 
introduction of Intel chips seems appropriate given the ramp-up time needed.

-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

In article <opsrumntfuqm36vk@grunion>, "Joe Seigh" <jseigh_01@xemaps.com> 
wrote:

> IBM will even license (for money) a core to produce your own if you want
> though I think Intel is capable of doing that on their own.  Apple may
> even have the rights to a core for Intel to use in the unlikely event
> Intel hasn't developed a core already.

WHatever happend to Motorola's involvement in the PowerPC?  I thought the 
original idea was that both Moto and IBM would be running fabs.  Is Moto 
still making them?

Neill Massello:
> That makes more sense than the plan described in the Cnet article. But I
> don't see why the whole transition to Intel makes more sense for Apple
> than sticking with PowerPC. How will Apple explain away the charts at
> <http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/>? Can anybody make a case,
> on the basis of speed, cost, and power/heat, for this change? 

Case: There is no G5 PowerBook. Too hot.
Case: G5 not usable in Mac Mini. Too hot.
Case: Steve Jobs promised a 3GHz G5 several years ago. IBM is unable to
deliver.
Case: Apple turned to IBM because with Motorola G4 processors Macs were
behind Intel/AMD in processor speed. Now it's happening with IBM's G5.

No ax to grind. Just the facts as I understand them...

Davoud
Looking forward to FCP on a 10GHz processor...

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

In article <030620052327313644%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> James L. Ryan:
> > <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3
> > -
> > 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
> 
> That doesn't bother me in the least. It's all about the operating
> system, and I don't care what processor the Mac OS runs on.
> 
> Will this mean dual-boot systems -- Mac OS and Windoze? That might be
> handy for those of us who have occasional need of a piece of Windoze
> trashware.

And for those who want to play with OS X without getting ass-raped by 
Apple hardware!

Dan

In article <haberg-0406051358440001@c83-250-193-72.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <1gxlvmw.m9smkqz2ngqoN%neillmassello@earthlink.net>,
> neillmassello@earthlink.net (Neill Massello) wrote:
> 
> > > The rumor is they'll start at the low end machines and move it up, but
> > > what if they do it the other way around, and the first Power Mac with
> > > an Intel processor has a G5 _and_ a dual-core Itanium or something?
> > 
> > That makes more sense than the plan described in the Cnet article. But I
> > don't see why the whole transition to Intel makes more sense for Apple
> > than sticking with PowerPC. How will Apple explain away the charts at
> > <http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/>? Can anybody make a case,
> > on the basis of speed, cost, and power/heat, for this change? 
> 
> Here are two interesting links:
>   http://www.intel.com/products/processor/itanium2/index.htm
>   http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/cache/80518-0-0-0-121.aspx
> 
> It is a move towards the Itanium, which is big endian, just as the IBM
> PowerPC chips, developed by Intel and HP together. So it seems to be both
> right business and development moves. One should get even more computing
> power.

Having worked with HP Itanimum boxes, the Itanimum chip is not all that 
fast compared to other chip offerings.

The Itanium chip runs hot really really hot.  We had to move all of our 
Itanium boxes from the normal lab into a lab in a different building, 
and even there we had to upgrade the lab airconditioning systems, and 
power capacity (granted we had over a 100 of 2, 4, and 8 CPU HP Itanium 
boxes, but we had 100's of Alpha's in the the other labs that did not 
need the same power and cooling demands.

Based on my HP experiences, I would find it hard to imaging getting an 
Itanium into a laptop.

So either this is not true, or intel got Steve to drink the coolaid :-)

Just my opinion.

                                        Bob Harris

In article <nospam.News.Bob-454577.11240504062005@news.verizon.net>, Bob
Harris <nospam.News.Bob@remove.Smith-Harris.us> wrote:

> Having worked with HP Itanimum boxes, the Itanimum chip is not all that 
> fast compared to other chip offerings.
> 
> The Itanium chip runs hot really really hot.  We had to move all of our 
> Itanium boxes from the normal lab into a lab in a different building, 
> and even there we had to upgrade the lab airconditioning systems, and 
> power capacity (granted we had over a 100 of 2, 4, and 8 CPU HP Itanium 
> boxes, but we had 100's of Alpha's in the the other labs that did not 
> need the same power and cooling demands.
> 
> Based on my HP experiences, I would find it hard to imaging getting an 
> Itanium into a laptop.
> 
> So either this is not true, or intel got Steve to drink the coolaid :-)

Interesting facts. The energy consumption of a chip, though, is
proportional to the square of the CPU clock frequency. So one might play
around with that, and other developing facts, to get new, less, energy
consuming processor chips.

And it will probably quite difficult to switch from a big endian CPU to a
little endian one, as a great deal of memory data would have to be
converted for upwards compatibility. So it should be a big endian Intel
chip.

And if Steve Jobs does not have something more advance to come up with
than the G5, it's probably time to look for a new job.

So these facts together might indicate that there some kind of new chip on
the move.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
> WHatever happend to Motorola's involvement in the PowerPC?  I thought the 
> original idea was that both Moto and IBM would be running fabs.  Is Moto 
> still making them?

They still do the G4.

-- 
                              / http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/

> > IBM will even license (for money) a core to produce your own if you want
> > though I think Intel is capable of doing that on their own.  Apple may
>
> WHatever happend to Motorola's involvement in the PowerPC?  I thought the

Motorola, or rather Freescale, makes a lot of SoCs based around PPC
cores. General-purpose CPUs are a specialized and very small market
compared to these embedded parts.

I imagine Apple's volumes are negligible compared to the volumes used
in NAS appliances, thin clients, crypto boxes, etc.

In article <0001HW.BEC6A4F4000FF607F0407550@news.supernews.com>,
 James L. Ryan <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:33:14 -0500, Richard Tomkins wrote (in article 
> <42a12ff1$1_1@spool9-west.superfeed.net>): 
> 
> [commenting on the suspected switch by Apple from IBM to Intel chips. 
> 
> > If they do this, they will end up twilighting us who have PowerPC based 
> > systems in the next two years and then what. 
> > 
> > I had quite an investment in 68K machinery at one time and got burnt on the 
> > transition from that. 
> 
> I can certainly cite many instances where computers and peripherals I have 
> purchased from Apple have been obsoleted because of the introduction of newer 
> models. To me this is a "fact of life" and not an instance of "being burned." 
> I've often stated to others that when one buys an item of computing equipment 
> they buy it because it has value to them at the time of the purchase, and 
> that obsolescence is inevitable.

I think the difference is that they'd be announcing the obsolescence 
before having something to replace the current line with.  If this is 
true, I think it would be foolish to buy any Mac hardware until the new 
product line is out and had some beta testing (ie, wait for the 2nd 
version).  I think Apple's HW sales will take a big hit while people 
wait for the new computers.  I've been needing to replace my linux 
desktop and had planned to do it with the 2nd generation Mac Mini.  But 
if they announce a change to x86, I'll probably skip the Mac and find a 
compact x86 box to install linux on.  Is there an AMD Mac Mini clone out 
there?

Steve

Those remembering the 1994 68x to PowerPC move, will recall that Apple had
an ad campaign "Full Speed Ahead". Then it turned out that the PowerPC
emulation of 68x ate a lot of power, so it took some time for this
promised speed to reach the consumers. The "Full Speed Ahead" was
mentioned as a joke. Apple would not want to repeat that mistake. So a
move to Intel processors would require a work-around of that problem. Also
this speaks for a new, powerful chip.

Also, business analysts have been sceptical about this rumored Apple-Intel
move, as the 1994 move cost Apple market shares. One could turn this
around: as Apple made that move in the past, they should know what it
takes to do it again, cost and benefits. So this speaks for such a move.
In the past, Apple has always settled for new technologies, when needed.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <brianleahy.1q37na@nomx.macosx.com>,
 brianleahy <brianleahy.1q37na@nomx.macosx.com> wrote:

> I sincerely hope that they don't actually put a Pentium in there.  I
> have no respect for that CPU at all, I've never heard anything good
> about it from anyone but PC vendors.
> 
> I'm not gonna lie; this hurts.  I'd get angry but it's pointless; it's
> all about money, and that's that.  The day Apple makes a Pentium-based
> Mac it will totally break my heart.  I may or may not go on using them,
> but Macs will never again seem as magical to me as they do now.

I wouldn't panic just yet.  For Apple to do this, they'd have to take a 
serious hit on Mac HW sales since many people will delay buying a new 
Mac until the new product line comes out (and maybe even wait until the 
early adopters test the new architecture).  Or, like myself, they'll 
just buy a decent x86 box and put linux on it.  It seems unlikely that 
Jobs is naive enough to believe that people will continue to buy the 
current Mac HW after Apple announces such a significant change, so I 
have serious doubts that Apple will change from PPC to x86 for the 
Macintoshes.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Steve

"I'm a bit skeptical as to why they would do this so soon after
introducing Tiger.

Note that Tiger has moved many functions earlier reserved for AltiVec
over to the GPU. Apple has been apparently been trying to work away
from its performance dependence on AltiVec for awhile. With multi-core
technology, moving much faster on the Intel side.... a G5 may be the
low-end soon enough.

In comp.sys.mac.misc Kristoffer Lawson <setok@fishpool.com> wrote:
> In comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
>> WHatever happend to Motorola's involvement in the PowerPC?  I thought the 
>> original idea was that both Moto and IBM would be running fabs.  Is Moto 
>> still making them?

> They still do the G4.

Well sort of.  Motorola spun off its chip division as Freescale last
year.  Freescale is still making G4's for Apple and PowerPC chips for
the embedded applications manufacturers.  As best as I can tell from
a quick look at the description of the spin-off, Motorola retained no
share in Freescale.

 Joe

>  I'm wondering if my two new Dual G5's
> will bring maybe $20 each at a garage sale...

Don't wait! I'll give you fifty for the pair now.
-- 
Phil Stripling           | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer   | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/    | http://www.civex.com/     is read daily.

Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> The energy consumption of a chip, though, is
> proportional to the square of the CPU clock frequency.

Taken at face value, this is not true: energy consumption of a normal
electronic circuit is proportional to the clock frequency, not its
square. Every clock tick electrons flow into some of the little
capacitors on the chip, and some flow out of other capacitors. Double
the pace of the clock, and the number of electrons that is pumped around
will double. Half the pace of the clock, and half the original number of
electrons will be pumped around.

It /is/ true that at a lower clock frequency it is usually possible to
lower the supply voltage of the CPU a bit, which gives you an extra
energy saving, but the overall result is not a nice clean
square-of-frequency relationship.

In article <roy-E4DDE6.10425504062005@reader1.panix.com>,
 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <opsrumntfuqm36vk@grunion>, "Joe Seigh" <jseigh_01@xemaps.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> > IBM will even license (for money) a core to produce your own if you want
> > though I think Intel is capable of doing that on their own.  Apple may
> > even have the rights to a core for Intel to use in the unlikely event
> > Intel hasn't developed a core already.
> 
> WHatever happend to Motorola's involvement in the PowerPC?  I thought the 
> original idea was that both Moto and IBM would be running fabs.  Is Moto 
> still making them?

Moto spun off their CPU business. They're not doing PowerPC anymore.

Hans Aberg wrote:
> 
> Here are two interesting links:
>   http://www.intel.com/products/processor/itanium2/index.htm
>   http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/cache/80518-0-0-0-121.aspx
> 
> It is a move towards the Itanium, which is big endian, just as the IBM
> PowerPC chips, developed by Intel and HP together. So it seems to be both
> right business and development moves. One should get even more computing
> power.
> 

Itanium is crap - and even intel knows it - they have basically stopepd 
marketing it

Hans Aberg wrote:
> Those remembering the 1994 68x to PowerPC move, will recall that Apple had
> an ad campaign "Full Speed Ahead". Then it turned out that the PowerPC
> emulation of 68x ate a lot of power, so it took some time for this
> promised speed to reach the consumers. The "Full Speed Ahead" was

uh, not quite. the articles/literature at the time stated 680x0 
system/app code would run at the same speed (roughly) on the initial ppc 
hardware via emulation with only high-use core components converting to 
ppc-native first. as more components went from emulation to native, 
overall OS speed would increase. the left over bits that were 
infrquently called or used would never be converted; saved until a time 
to be rewritten (as in transition from os7 to os8, os8 to os9).

of course, given the typical os updates also increase hardware 
requirements i would actually bet the general performance between 
os7/os8 were equivalent: more pieces in 8 were native and faster than 
their 7 counterparts.. but had more 'functionality' and were 'slower' 
than if pieces had been simply converted.

-r

In article <aJGdnXKb6-ouxz_fRVn-rA@comcast.com>,
 "Fetch, Rover, Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote:

> Hans Aberg wrote:
> > 
> > Here are two interesting links:
> >   http://www.intel.com/products/processor/itanium2/index.htm
> >   http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/cache/80518-0-0-0-121.aspx
> > 
> > It is a move towards the Itanium, which is big endian, just as the IBM
> > PowerPC chips, developed by Intel and HP together. So it seems to be both
> > right business and development moves. One should get even more computing
> > power.
> > 
> 
> Itanium is crap - and even intel knows it - they have basically stopepd 
> marketing it

x86 is crap too.  It doesn't make sense that Apple would want to switch 
to a processor architecture burdened by such an old instruction set.  
This rumor makes me wonder if Intel is working on a new CPU.  For Apple, 
Intel would be a chance to free themselves from chipmakers that don't 
care much about desktop class components.  For Intel, Apple would be a 
proof of concept so they can market the new chips to Microsoft.

Of course the rumor could be totally blown out of proportion.  It's 
possible that Apple is doing nothing more than offering OS X Server as a 
OEM option for x86 servers.  OS X Server doesn't usually run desktop 
apps so Apple would only have to re-compile the OS and the bundled 
open-source packages to have a completely functional system.

> x86 is crap too.  It doesn't make sense that Apple would want to switch
> to a processor architecture burdened by such an old instruction set.

It's more than senseless, it's practically impossible.

* x86's design is hampered by a need for backwards compatibility with
ancient software stretching back to DOS. Apple has no need of this
history.
* Apple makes its money on hardware sales. Making Macs into generic PCs
with an Apple logo puts them into the commodity business alongside
Dell. It'll never happen.
* Therefore it is most unlikely that a switch to x86 is planned.

> This rumor makes me wonder if Intel is working on a new CPU.  For Apple,

The world doesn't need a new CPU architecture. If Intel is working on
custom silicon for Apple it's almost certainly something PPC-based. For
instance they might be supplying a CPU and northbridge chipset, maybe
with integrated WiFi support, that meets Apple's needs.

Personally my favorite theory is that the next generation of video iPod
will be based on an XScale variant, and hence the Intel connection.

> possible that Apple is doing nothing more than offering OS X Server as a
> OEM option for x86 servers.  OS X Server doesn't usually run desktop
> apps so Apple would only have to re-compile the OS and the bundled
> open-source packages to have a completely functional system.

You missed a couple of words; that would be a completely functional
*and practically useless* system. OSX on x86 would be like Windows NT
on PPC - it existed, was barely supported, and practically no software
was ever released in dual-platform formats.

In article <1117946109.861656.28050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 larwe@larwe.com wrote:

> > x86 is crap too.  It doesn't make sense that Apple would want to switch
> > to a processor architecture burdened by such an old instruction set.
> 
> It's more than senseless, it's practically impossible.
> 
> * x86's design is hampered by a need for backwards compatibility with
> ancient software stretching back to DOS. Apple has no need of this
> history.

I think that's more of an issue for Windows than the x86 processors.

> * Apple makes its money on hardware sales. Making Macs into generic PCs
> with an Apple logo puts them into the commodity business alongside
> Dell. It'll never happen.

I don't think they're talking about adopting the PC architecture, just 
possibly the CPU.

BTW, does anyone remember when Apple was first talking about the new OS 
that eventually became OS X?  They were talking about producing multiple 
versions for different hardware architectures, including a version that 
would run on Intel-based PCs (I think this was called "Yellow Box").

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

<larwe@larwe.com> wrote:

> * x86's design is hampered by a need for backwards compatibility with
> ancient software stretching back to DOS. Apple has no need of this
> history.
> * Apple makes its money on hardware sales. Making Macs into generic PCs
> with an Apple logo puts them into the commodity business alongside
> Dell. It'll never happen.
> * Therefore it is most unlikely that a switch to x86 is planned.

Most sensible posting yet. :-)
-- 
/Z
Remove NOT..INVALID to email

> > > x86 is crap too.  It doesn't make sense that Apple would want to switch
> > > to a processor architecture burdened by such an old instruction set.
> >
> > It's more than senseless, it's practically impossible.
> >
> > * x86's design is hampered by a need for backwards compatibility with
> > ancient software stretching back to DOS. Apple has no need of this
> > history.
>
> I think that's more of an issue for Windows than the x86 processors.

My point was that the reason x86 sucks is because it is held back by
all these legacy issues; it's a 30-year-old architecture that cannot
evolve significantly because of the need for backwards compatibility.
Apple doesn't care about those legacy issues - they are meaningless to
current MacOS users - and therefore has no reason to choose this
elderly architecture.

In article <1117946109.861656.28050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
larwe@larwe.com wrote:

> > This rumor makes me wonder if Intel is working on a new CPU.  For Apple,
> 
> The world doesn't need a new CPU architecture. If Intel is working on
> custom silicon for Apple it's almost certainly something PPC-based. 

I think this the most likely; if it is not an April Fool's joke propagated
in time. It does not make sense to think Steve Jobs, who likes to enthuse,
making an announcement of any of the lesser options.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:

>BTW, does anyone remember when Apple was first talking about the new OS 
>that eventually became OS X?  They were talking about producing multiple 
>versions for different hardware architectures, including a version that 
>would run on Intel-based PCs (I think this was called "Yellow Box").

There was also Star Trek, which ran the classic OS (IIRC) on x86. Apple
Confidential 2.0 discusses this in detail; highly recommended reading.

--
      Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
                personal page: http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/
  ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
                  ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **

Davoud <star@sky.net> writes:
> 
> Will this mean dual-boot systems -- Mac OS and Windoze? That might be
> handy for those of us who have occasional need of a piece of Windoze
> trashware.

First off, what makes you think the article is accurate?  We've heard
this rumor for over 10 years and it hasn't happened yet.

Second, what makes you think "Intel" means the same as x86?  Intel may
well be interested in licensing/manufacturing PPC-type chips, since
consumer demand for them is going to become very high very soong (with
the newest game consoles from Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo all using
them.)

Third, even if it is x86, what makes you think a Mac/x86 is going to be
PC/Windows compatible?

-- David

In article <1117950012.212902.276910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 larwe@larwe.com wrote:

> > > > x86 is crap too.  It doesn't make sense that Apple would want to switch
> > > > to a processor architecture burdened by such an old instruction set.
> > >
> > > It's more than senseless, it's practically impossible.
> > >
> > > * x86's design is hampered by a need for backwards compatibility with
> > > ancient software stretching back to DOS. Apple has no need of this
> > > history.
> >
> > I think that's more of an issue for Windows than the x86 processors.
> 
> My point was that the reason x86 sucks is 

First of all, it doesn't suck.

>because it is held back by
> all these legacy issues; it's a 30-year-old architecture that cannot
> evolve significantly because of the need for backwards compatibility.

Like Unix isn't 30 years old?    Talk about "legacy issues"!

> Apple doesn't care about those legacy issues - they are meaningless to
> current MacOS users - and therefore has no reason to choose this
> elderly architecture.

Since your premise is silly, your conclusion is silly.

Dan

> > My point was that the reason x86 sucks is
>
> First of all, it doesn't suck.

I see. x86 is an elegant architecture unhindered by silly 8-bit legacy
considerations, is it? Have you ever worked with x86 at an assembly
language level? Ever worked with PPC, ARM, SPARC, PA-RISC or any other
32-bit RISC platform? Compare and contrast.

Even the old 68000 was more elegant than the contemporaneous 80286
(well, 68K predates 286 by a while, but you get the point). The 68K ran
slowly, with clock cycles thrown away like they cost nothing, but the
instruction set was sensibly designed at least.

> > Apple doesn't care about those legacy issues - they are meaningless to
>
> Since your premise is silly, your conclusion is silly.

Uh-huh. Perhaps before you continue this discussion you might want to
buy my first book off Amazon and read the first chapter where I talk
about how to select a core for your next 32-bit (or higher-end) design.
The title is "Embedded System Design on a Shoestring" and you can buy
it digitally as well as in paper form.

x86 is only the processor of choice when designing PC-compatible
devices to run PC operating systems.

In article <1118021348.773400.80000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 larwe@larwe.com wrote:

> x86 is only the processor of choice when designing PC-compatible
> devices to run PC operating systems.

Or when you're porting an OS and you want users to be able to run it on 
easily-available, inexpensive hardware.

Since Apple is in the hardware business, they didn't care whether their 
OS ran on commodity hardware.  But it's not surprise that x86 was the 
first processor that Linux was distributed for.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 19:50:28 -0500, James L. Ryan wrote
(in article <0001HW.BEC665040000F9CBF0407550@news.supernews.com>):

> <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
> 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>

Today John Markoff wrote an interesting article in The New York Times

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06apple.html?ex=1275710400&en=3f
a62e7f37e44e02&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>


-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

In article <1118021348.773400.80000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
<larwe@larwe.com> wrote:

> > > My point was that the reason x86 sucks is
> >
> > First of all, it doesn't suck.
> 
> I see. x86 is an elegant architecture unhindered by silly 8-bit legacy
> considerations, is it? Have you ever worked with x86 at an assembly
> language level?

Nobody does that anymore.  They have "compilers" to do that.

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.

In article <m28y1opn5w.fsf@qqqq.invalid>, David C. <shamino@techie.com> wrote:
>Davoud <star@sky.net> writes:
...... 
>Third, even if it is x86, what makes you think a Mac/x86 is going to be
>PC/Windows compatible?

One potential advantage of x86 based OSX machines is that
they could, with some glue code, emulate enough of the windows
environment to allow windows software to run native. This doesn't
help migration directly, but companies that already have windows
versions of software could offer cross-registration of these
windows packages to old mac owners.

(null) <pack@pack.eos.ucar.edu.ucar.edu> wrote:

> In article <m28y1opn5w.fsf@qqqq.invalid>, David C. <shamino@techie.com> wrote:
> >Davoud <star@sky.net> writes:
> ..... 
> >Third, even if it is x86, what makes you think a Mac/x86 is going to be
> >PC/Windows compatible?
> 
> One potential advantage of x86 based OSX machines is that
> they could, with some glue code, emulate enough of the windows
> environment to allow windows software to run native. This doesn't
> help migration directly, but companies that already have windows
> versions of software could offer cross-registration of these
> windows packages to old mac owners.

In the unlikely event of this happening (Macs getting ix86 CPUs and
Windows-capable architectures), and judging from what happened to OS/2,
I say:

"Be afraid. Be very, very afraid."
-- 
/Z
Remove NOT..INVALID to email

> > I see. x86 is an elegant architecture unhindered by silly 8-bit legacy
> > considerations, is it? Have you ever worked with x86 at an assembly
> > language level?
>
> Nobody does that anymore.  They have "compilers" to do that.

Firstly, that's not true ("nobody..."), and secondly it doesn't matter
- I'm talking about the architecture, which is the same whether you see
it or not.

It is much easier to write an optimizing compiler for an orthogonal
instruction set like PPC's or ARM's than it is to write one for the
ancient register-starved, special-functions-for-special-registers Intel
architecture.

x86 has a lot of drawbacks that stem directly from the design
requirement to be able to run old real-mode code. This requirement
would be meaningless for a Mac, so all the drawbacks would be pure
baggage without any upside.

If you're not understanding this fact when couched in the above terms,
I'm not sure it can be made any simpler.

larwe@larwe.com wrote: 
>   > x86 is crap too.  It doesn't make sense that Apple would want to switch
>   > to a processor architecture burdened by such an old instruction set.
>   
>   It's more than senseless, it's practically impossible.
>   
>   * x86's design is hampered by a need for backwards compatibility with
>   ancient software stretching back to DOS.

But the Itanium is apparently not hampered by x86 compatability,
even though it has it.

[ has visual aids ]
http://www.faculty.iu-bremen.de/birk/lectures/PC101-2003/05cpu64/amd_intel.htm
#    
#    The Itanium processor still is backwards compatible and supports IA-32
#    instructions. The modes, in which Itanium can run are similar to AMD's
#    operating modes. It is capable of both, running a mixture of IA-32 and
#    IA-64 applications on top of an IA-64 (64-bit) operation system, as well
#    as running IA-32 operating system with IA-32 applications.
#    
#    The IA-64 instruction set is completely incompatible with IA-32.
#    
#    Although Itanium is capable of running IA-32 instructions, they are
#    always passed on to "IA-32 Compatibility Execution Engine".

Unless you're running a (really fast ;-) Virtual PC, one is not using
legacy compatability.

Didn't the original article say that IBM didn't want to further support
Apple because of the low number of sales involved?

X86 was CISC, Itanium is RISC, like the PowerPC.

I just hope being on the same platform as Wintel won't mean viruses.

If all this is true. It could be just a great way to get press.

In article <050620052031188895%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid>,
 Jerry Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1118021348.773400.80000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> <larwe@larwe.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > My point was that the reason x86 sucks is
> > >
> > > First of all, it doesn't suck.
> > 
> > I see. x86 is an elegant architecture unhindered by silly 8-bit legacy
> > considerations, is it? Have you ever worked with x86 at an assembly
> > language level?
> 
> Nobody does that anymore.  They have "compilers" to do that.

And yet within the last year I've found myself writing small amounts of 
x86 code because the compiler was missing a fairly obvious optimization.

I don't think the prior poster was saying "x86 sucks because it's 
unpleasant for assembly coders." Rather I read into the post the 
implication that unless you've gotten intimate with it you may not be 
aware of how awkward some aspects of the design are.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.

larwe@larwe.com wrote: 
>   
>   PowerPC is a licensed core. Intel might be making a custom
>   PowerPC-based SoC for some future Apple machine.

Yet they tout the Itanium as a way to escape from "proprietary
RISC processors." Even if they have AMD chasing them, it's still
proprietary, isn't it?

Gregory Weston wrote:

> I don't think the prior poster was saying "x86 sucks because it's 
> unpleasant for assembly coders." Rather I read into the post the 
> implication that unless you've gotten intimate with it you may not be 
> aware of how awkward some aspects of the design are.
> 

I think one of the more fascinating books I ever read was "Zen of 
Assembly Language" - it's a bit out of date now, but still very interesting.


-- 
Tony Lawrence
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X  resources: http://aplawrence.com

Well, there is now five hours until the keynote and after reading here, 
there, and everywhere about the switch to Intel I've paired my own 
predictions down to two; Apple will contract with Intel to manufacture the 
Power PC, or Apple will use Transitive's emulator to have an x86 emulate a 
Power PC.

Time will tell!

-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

TL> I think one of the more fascinating books I ever read was "Zen of
TL> Assembly Language" - it's a bit out of date now, but still very interesting.

All of the Zen books are fairly great, especially considering their age. I
just finished the Zen of Graphics Programming, and although I'll likely
never be writing assembly code to directly manipulate frame buffers, it
was awesome to behold the contortions that game programmers and the like
had to go through in order to squeeze out a couple more FPS in the old DOS
days.

Although for all I know, that sort of thing still happens. I gag at the
thought of having to insert your own instructions between gobbets of
openGL or DirectX library code...

In any case, many of the points made about the weakness of the x86
architecture also lead me to believe that we'll be seeing something
custom-built from Intel for the newgen Macs. Linux was built on x86, IMO,
b/c Linus fully intended for Linux to take over the desktop world, and
that world was dominated by the x86. It was a necessity over optimality
sort of thing.

Again, just my opinion.

-M.D.

On 2005-06-06, Debo <mddibern@NOSPAM.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Linux was built on x86, IMO, b/c Linus fully intended for Linux to take
> over the desktop world, and that world was dominated by the x86. It was a
> necessity over optimality sort of thing.

Wrong. Linux was built on the x86 because Linus wanted to learn how the x86
could do task switching, and because he was a frustrated Minix user (which
was developed on the 8086); thus, he used the hardware he had. Linus didn't
intend to take over the world.

Slashdot points to a very good debunking of the whole idea of Apple moving
to x86.

Jay Maynard wrote:
>
> Slashdot points to a very good debunking of the whole idea of Apple moving
> to x86.

So .. whatever Steve Jobs says today, Slashdot knows better?

In article <1118051172.113016.175030@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<larwe@larwe.com> wrote:

> > > I see. x86 is an elegant architecture unhindered by silly 8-bit legacy
> > > considerations, is it? Have you ever worked with x86 at an assembly
> > > language level?
> >
> > Nobody does that anymore.  They have "compilers" to do that.
> 
> Firstly, that's not true ("nobody..."), and secondly it doesn't matter
> - I'm talking about the architecture, which is the same whether you see
> it or not.
> 
> It is much easier to write an optimizing compiler for an orthogonal
> instruction set like PPC's or ARM's than it is to write one for the
> ancient register-starved, special-functions-for-special-registers Intel
> architecture.

That is why gcc produces much more efficient code for x86 than it does
for PowerPC, I guess.

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.

JM> Wrong. Linux was built on the x86 because Linus wanted to learn how the x86
JM> could do task switching, and because he was a frustrated Minix user (which
JM> was developed on the 8086); thus, he used the hardware he had. Linus didn't
JM> intend to take over the world.

Well, that was intended to be sort of tongue-in-cheek, but I didn't
actually know about the whole Minix thing. Thanks for that.

JM> Slashdot points to a very good debunking of the whole idea of Apple moving
JM> to x86.

I'll have to look into that sometime soon.

-M.D.

In article <030620052327313644%star@sky.net>, Davoud  <star@sky.com> wrote:
>itch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
>> 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
>
>That doesn't bother me in the least. It's all about the operating
>system, and I don't care what processor the Mac OS runs on.
>
>Will this mean dual-boot systems -- Mac OS and Windoze? That might be
>handy for those of us who have occasional need of a piece of Windoze
>trashware.

Which means even less incentive for Windows developers to port to
Mac OS.

A switch to x86 means the end of Apple as a computer company.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <barmar-BAD77D.02482104062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Barry Margolin  <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <040620050025597257%no@spam.invalid>,
> Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I'm a bit skeptical as to why they would do this so soon after
>> introducing Tiger. 
>
>It's probably going to take them a while to make the switch.  Unless 
>they've already done lots of the work, I figure we're talking a year at 
>minimum.  So by the time anyone sees the new machines, it won't be "so 
>soon after Tiger".

And what happens to Apple hardware sales in the interim?
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <1gxmrza.10z4thwmlpqpoN%dave_devine@spamcop.net>,
Dave Devine <dave_devine@spamcop.net> wrote:
>James L. Ryan <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
>> 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
>
>Bill Palmer <http://www.billpalmer.net> has a piece interpreting this
>news as Intel making PPC chips under license. Would make more sense than
>a straight switch to x86.

Intel's not that kind of processor company; they don't fab other
company's designs.  But _no_ interpretation of the rumor really makes
any sense, so I guess this one is as good as any.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <roy-E4DDE6.10425504062005@reader1.panix.com>,
Roy Smith  <roy@panix.com> wrote:
>
>WHatever happend to Motorola's involvement in the PowerPC?  I thought the 
>original idea was that both Moto and IBM would be running fabs.  Is Moto 
>still making them?

Motorola is a cell phone company.  They spun off their semiconductor
division as Freescale Semiconductor, which still makes PowerPCs.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

On 03/06/2005 11:41 PM, Kyle Jones wrote:
> Davoud  <star@sky.com> wrote:
>  > James L. Ryan:
>  > > <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
>  > > 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
>  > 
>  > That doesn't bother me in the least. It's all about the operating
>  > system, and I don't care what processor the Mac OS runs on.
> 
> It may turn out to be good news.  If Apple is moving to x86-ish
> chips (meaning AMD chips are also option), then the competition
> in that space ought to keep chip prices down and some of the
> savings might even reach the consumer.
> 
> On the other hand the smell of BS is pretty strong right now
> given the years of "PowerPC > Pentium" propaganda we've had to
> listen to.
> 
"Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel
chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in
mid-2007, *sources said*."

"The announcement *is expected* Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer
Conference in San Francisco..." [emphasis mine]

This is still a rumour and nothing else.  Interesting that CNet is not
really reporting this as rumour anymore, which implies they are pretty
sure about what is going on.  So is the Wall Street Journal (which is
really just repeating the CNet story -- they have no further independent
information.)

I wouldn't put it past Apple to have generated this rumour on purpose to
drive up media coverage for the WWDC.

I suggest taking a look at
<http://daringfireball.net/2005/06/see_you_intel> for a differing view.
 There are so many reasons for Apple not to switch to Intel that this
hardly makes sense.  Only if Jobs _really_ wanted to stick it to IBM for
some insane reason, and potentially wreck the Mac as a platform.  It
would be an expensive and useless "fuck you."

My crystal ball is showing that this is a load of shit.

Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:54:08 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net suggested:
: In article <1gxmrza.10z4thwmlpqpoN%dave_devine@spamcop.net>,
: Dave Devine <dave_devine@spamcop.net> wrote:
:>James L. Ryan <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:
:>
:>> <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
:>> 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
:>
:>Bill Palmer <http://www.billpalmer.net> has a piece interpreting this
:>news as Intel making PPC chips under license. Would make more sense than
:>a straight switch to x86.
: 
: Intel's not that kind of processor company; they don't fab other
: company's designs.  But _no_ interpretation of the rumor really makes
: any sense, so I guess this one is as good as any.

What about a switch to IA64? Seems like that would make more sense than
x86 if they were starting on a new platform anyway, and might save the
IA64 architecture.

-- 
 agreenbu @ nyx . net                             andrew michael greenburg

In comp.sys.mac.system huw.davies@kerberos.davies.net.au wrote:
> In comp.sys.mac.system Joe Heimann <heimann@ecs.umass.edu> wrote:

>> We will find out next week if there is any truth to the rumor, or how
>> far it actually goes.  I am somewhat skeptical af any sudden change,
>> the problems involved in going from using a big-endian processor like
>> the G4 and G5 chips to a little-endian x86 chip speak against this
>> happening quickly.

> I agree we'll have to wait, but Itanium is, of course, big-endian.

Strictly speaking, Itanium is bi-endian.  For example, HP-UX runs
Itanium big-endian. Linux runs Itanium little-endian.  I forget what
FreeBSD does. You can also switch ends as it were without resetting
the chip - the HP-UX Linux binary support will run the little-endian
Linux/IPF user space binary while the HP-UX kernel remains running
big-endian.

rick jones
-- 
No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause.
There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision.  - Jobert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

In article <X-GdnSZlIsDX7DnfRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net>,
 russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
 
> And what happens to Apple hardware sales in the interim?
[if they actually announced an architecture switch]

The answer to that is obvious, and I can testify to part of it first 
hand, without requiring speculation. The hardware sales take a horrible 
beating.

The personal testimony is that I have personally been planning to buy an 
iMac for home. (Already have a powerbook here at work, plus another 
powerbook for my daughter at home). I was just waiting about another 
month to get over a temporary cash shortfall (caused by investing all my 
spare cash in a small apartment building, but nearly back to "normal"). 
But if a major architecture switch is announced - no way. I don't have 
to speculate about the reaction of other people. I *KNOW* my own 
reaction, and it would be to cancel my purchase plan.

I'm not about to spend $2k (20" iMac) on a system that won't be able to 
run new software, once vendors start releasing software that runs only 
on the new architecture. Nor would I plan to buy a new system that won't 
run the existing software base. I'll change my purchase plans instead.

Note that it doesn't even matter whether there are claims that some 
emulation mode will make everything "just work". Even if it is true, I 
personally would wait to see it instead of putting my money at risk. In 
making purchase decisions, my perception is important, even if it turns 
out not to be a correct perception.

I know I'm a bit of an oddball, (In our family, "normal" is considered 
to be an insult, :-)), but I can't be the *ONLY* person in the world who 
would react like that.

-- 
Richard Maine                       |  Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain  |  experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov              |        -- Mark Twain

Richard E Maine wrote:
> In article <X-GdnSZlIsDX7DnfRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net>,
>  russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>  
> 
>>And what happens to Apple hardware sales in the interim?
> 
> [if they actually announced an architecture switch]
> 
> The answer to that is obvious, and I can testify to part of it first 
> hand, without requiring speculation. The hardware sales take a horrible 
> beating.
> 
> The personal testimony is that I have personally been planning to buy an 
> iMac for home. (Already have a powerbook here at work, plus another 
> powerbook for my daughter at home). I was just waiting about another 
> month to get over a temporary cash shortfall (caused by investing all my 
> spare cash in a small apartment building, but nearly back to "normal"). 
> But if a major architecture switch is announced - no way. I don't have 
> to speculate about the reaction of other people. I *KNOW* my own 
> reaction, and it would be to cancel my purchase plan.

...

> 
> I know I'm a bit of an oddball, (In our family, "normal" is considered 
> to be an insult, :-)), but I can't be the *ONLY* person in the world who 
> would react like that.
> 

You surely are not.  I have a two year old iBook and have been thinking 
about upgrading.. but this stops that dead, for exactly the same reasons 
you mentioned.



-- 
Tony Lawrence
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X  resources: http://aplawrence.com

In article <slrnda8mmm.ie0.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>,
 Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:

> On 2005-06-06, Debo <mddibern@NOSPAM.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > Linux was built on x86, IMO, b/c Linus fully intended for Linux to take
> > over the desktop world, and that world was dominated by the x86. It was a
> > necessity over optimality sort of thing.
> 
> Wrong. Linux was built on the x86 because Linus wanted to learn how the x86
> could do task switching, and because he was a frustrated Minix user (which
> was developed on the 8086); thus, he used the hardware he had. Linus didn't
> intend to take over the world.
> 
> Slashdot points to a very good debunking of the whole idea of Apple moving
> to x86.

In my opinion, they will port the OS to run on PCs. And thusly they will 
primarily become a software company. Jobs will continue to be creative 
and come up with new niche machines. I'd like to try OSX on my Shuttle 
computer which now runs only Linux.

Al

pack@pack.eos.ucar.edu.ucar.edu ((null)) writes:
> 
> One potential advantage of x86 based OSX machines is that they could,
> with some glue code, emulate enough of the windows environment to
> allow windows software to run native. This doesn't help migration
> directly, but companies that already have windows versions of software
> could offer cross-registration of these windows packages to old mac
> owners.

Why would this be an advantage?

If such a thing would be developed, software developers would
immediately cease development of Mac apps and would focus exclusively
on Windows apps.  They would (correctly) decide "why bother developing
for the Mac when the Windows apps will run there anyway."

Shortly after this, customers would decide to stop buying Macs
altogether.  They would (correctly) think "why bother buying a Mac when
I'm only going to run Windows apps on it anyway."

Unless you think Apple plans to become an iPod-only company, the
"feature" you describe would put them out of business in a few years.

-- David

On 2005-06-06, Phil Wheeler <w6tuh-ng4@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jay Maynard wrote:
>> Slashdot points to a very good debunking of the whole idea of Apple moving
            ^^^^^^^^^
>> to x86.
> So .. whatever Steve Jobs says today, Slashdot knows better?

Slashdot didn't say it. Someone else did, and Slashdot pointed to it.

So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?

Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> writes:
> So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?

Already happened.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html

-- 
Richard W Kaszeta
rich@kaszeta.org
http://www.kaszeta.org/rich

In article <slrnda9442.j55.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard
<jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:

> So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?

It's over.

It's true.

-- 
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>

In article <FL_oe.9077$5u4.29981@nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
 clvrmnky <clvrmnky-uunet@coldmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> My crystal ball is showing that this is a load of shit.

Well, we now know which is the load of shit! You STINK!
-- 
johnny galt <jgalt@deathtospam.org.invalid>

In article <060620051212032607%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, Dave
Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <slrnda9442.j55.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard
> <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
> 
> > So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
> 
> It's over.
> 
> It's true.

Fuck.  So all Macs will essentially be Wintel boxes.

Dammit.

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

In article <060620051212032607%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <slrnda9442.j55.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard
> <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
> 
> > So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
> 
> It's over.
> 
> It's true.

......better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.

In article <060620051324167867%no@spam.invalid>, Keeper of the Purple
Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> Fuck.  So all Macs will essentially be Wintel boxes.
> 
> Dammit.

Nonsense. It just means a change in CPU.

Like from 68K to PPC.

-- 
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>

In article <mar.sv-E1A66C.13354106062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
 rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:

> .....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
> that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
> not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.

Why?

It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't 
offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a 
year before Longhorn sees the light of day.

-- 
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

rocky wrote:
> In article <060620051212032607%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
>  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <slrnda9442.j55.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard
>><jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
>>
>>It's over.
>>
>>It's true.
> 
> 
> .....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
> that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
> not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.


Apple has been having to put out dual machines to compete with Windows 
boxes.  They are still putting out G4 iBooks and Powerbooks.  I'm 
thrilled that they are moving to a platform that will enhance adoption. 
  They've been doing dual development for 5 years now and Mathematics 
took all of two hours to port to x86 OS X to show how easy it will be 
for shops to port current OS X apps.

In article <cirby-A99DBE.14432006062005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
Chad Irby <cirby@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> In article <mar.sv-E1A66C.13354106062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
>  rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
> 
> > .....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
> > that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
> > not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
> 
> Why?
> 
> It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't 
> offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a 
> year before Longhorn sees the light of day.

But how long will OS X (or any other Mac software for that matter)
continue to be available for PPC-based Macs?

I just bought an iMac G5. I didn't just waste three grand, did I?

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

On 06/06/2005 12:23 PM, clvrmnky wrote:
[...]
> My crystal ball is showing that this is a load of shit.

That thing hardly ever works for anyone.  Intel/DRM/MacOnMac emulation
here we come.

In article <060620051241228154%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, Dave
Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <060620051324167867%no@spam.invalid>, Keeper of the Purple
> Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Fuck.  So all Macs will essentially be Wintel boxes.
> > 
> > Dammit.
> 
> Nonsense. It just means a change in CPU.
> 
> Like from 68K to PPC.

This is a lot more serious change.

Who knows what kind of performance hit we're going to take here? 68k
software ran slower in emulation mode on PPC. It's happening all over
again. :(

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
> In article <cirby-A99DBE.14432006062005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Chad Irby <cirby@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <mar.sv-E1A66C.13354106062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
>> rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>.....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
>>>that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
>>>not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't 
>>offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a 
>>year before Longhorn sees the light of day.
> 
> 
> But how long will OS X (or any other Mac software for that matter)
> continue to be available for PPC-based Macs?
> 
> I just bought an iMac G5. I didn't just waste three grand, did I?
> 

Did that machine and it's accompanying software suddenly become useless 
to you?  They want to be switched over in 2 years and I'd guess that 
support will go on for 3-5 years.  Hell I think Windows 2000 was 
Microsoft's best operating system and it is about to get it's last 
update.  Demand will determine the sales of software for the G5 
architecture I'm sure.

Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
> In article <060620051241228154%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, Dave
> Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <060620051324167867%no@spam.invalid>, Keeper of the Purple
>>Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fuck.  So all Macs will essentially be Wintel boxes.
>>>
>>>Dammit.
>>
>>Nonsense. It just means a change in CPU.
>>
>>Like from 68K to PPC.
> 
> 
> This is a lot more serious change.
> 
> Who knows what kind of performance hit we're going to take here? 68k
> software ran slower in emulation mode on PPC. It's happening all over
> again. :(
> 

If Wolfram can port Mathematica in a few hours, it is within the realm 
of possilbity to think that other software houses will be able to port 
as quickly.

In article <HvadnbvYKr9cBznfRVn-ig@pcisys.net>, Jason Bowen
<ha@nospam.net> wrote:

> Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
> > I just bought an iMac G5. I didn't just waste three grand, did I?
> > 
> 
> Did that machine and it's accompanying software suddenly become useless 
> to you?

No, but it *will* be useless if I can't get new software for it.

And even if I bought a new Wint...uh, Mac box, who wants that kind of a
performance hit? Even if existing OSX stuff like Tiger would be able to
run out of the box on a Mactel (is this even confirmed?), it'd be slow
as molasses. Look at Virtual PC; trying to run Windoze stuff on a Mac
is obviously no picnic, so why should it be any easier the other way
around?

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
> In article <HvadnbvYKr9cBznfRVn-ig@pcisys.net>, Jason Bowen
> <ha@nospam.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
>>
>>>I just bought an iMac G5. I didn't just waste three grand, did I?
>>>
>>
>>Did that machine and it's accompanying software suddenly become useless 
>>to you?
> 
> 
> No, but it *will* be useless if I can't get new software for it.
> 
> And even if I bought a new Wint...uh, Mac box, who wants that kind of a
> performance hit? Even if existing OSX stuff like Tiger would be able to
> run out of the box on a Mactel (is this even confirmed?), it'd be slow
> as molasses. Look at Virtual PC; trying to run Windoze stuff on a Mac
> is obviously no picnic, so why should it be any easier the other way
> around?
> 

Ahhh... you are crying without informing yourself...  You obviously have 
internet access, go to http://www.macworld.com and read about the 
presenation.

Richard Tomkins wrote:
> If they do this, they will end up twilighting us who have PowerPC based
> systems in the next two years and then what.
> 
> I had quite an investment in 68K machinery at one time and got burnt on the
> transition from that.
> 

Or Apple could make dual binary distribution a requirement on their systems.
That would happen, if, for example, Apple introduced x86 notebooks and still
sold PowerPC desktops.

Why should Apple piss off their customers with a wholesale switch ? They
can mix and match the two processor types for any length of time. Vendors
have already just gone through a processor switch, the next one, which
will remain in the OS X family, will be much simpler, everyone has
had practice.

In article <FYmdnQbTBb_ZBDnfRVn-vA@pcisys.net>, Jason Bowen
<ha@nospam.net> wrote:

> rocky wrote:
> > In article <060620051212032607%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
> >  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>In article <slrnda9442.j55.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard
> >><jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
> >>
> >>It's over.
> >>
> >>It's true.
> > 
> > 
> > .....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
> > that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
> > not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
> 
> 
> Apple has been having to put out dual machines to compete with Windows 
> boxes.  They are still putting out G4 iBooks and Powerbooks.  I'm 
> thrilled that they are moving to a platform that will enhance adoption. 
>   They've been doing dual development for 5 years now and Mathematics 
> took all of two hours to port to x86 OS X to show how easy it will be 
> for shops to port current OS X apps.

Mathematica and Adobe are already cross platform, so huge Chunks of
their code was already written for x86. That's not so for most Mac Only
products and deffintely not so if you rely heavily on Altivec code for
speed - Like QuickTime or most image procesisng code. Steve didn't show
any QuickTime based applicaitons at all - I wonder "why"?

And don't expect to see another PPC application after 2007 either.
Small developers will not be supporting both of them - just like no one
supports Os 8/9 anymore - so your exisitng hardware will be as usaeful
as a door knob after that.

So you'll be buying all new software (drivers, applications, QuickTime
components etc.) and hardware. And Apple already stated that you have
to use an Intel Mac to use OSX - they won't support any x86 box other
than their own - which will depedn custom ASIC chips in it to prevent
it from happening.

Have a nice day..

Milton
Mac developer since 1986..
www.outcastsoft.com

Milton Aupperle wrote:
> In article <FYmdnQbTBb_ZBDnfRVn-vA@pcisys.net>, Jason Bowen
> <ha@nospam.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>rocky wrote:
>>
>>>In article <060620051212032607%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
>>> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <slrnda9442.j55.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard
>>>><jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
>>>>
>>>>It's over.
>>>>
>>>>It's true.
>>>
>>>
>>>.....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
>>>that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
>>>not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
>>
>>
>>Apple has been having to put out dual machines to compete with Windows 
>>boxes.  They are still putting out G4 iBooks and Powerbooks.  I'm 
>>thrilled that they are moving to a platform that will enhance adoption. 
>>  They've been doing dual development for 5 years now and Mathematics 
>>took all of two hours to port to x86 OS X to show how easy it will be 
>>for shops to port current OS X apps.
> 
> 
> Mathematica and Adobe are already cross platform, so huge Chunks of
> their code was already written for x86. That's not so for most Mac Only
> products and deffintely not so if you rely heavily on Altivec code for
> speed - Like QuickTime or most image procesisng code. Steve didn't show
> any QuickTime based applicaitons at all - I wonder "why"?
> 
> And don't expect to see another PPC application after 2007 either.
> Small developers will not be supporting both of them - just like no one
> supports Os 8/9 anymore - so your exisitng hardware will be as usaeful
> as a door knob after that.
> 
> So you'll be buying all new software (drivers, applications, QuickTime
> components etc.) and hardware. And Apple already stated that you have
> to use an Intel Mac to use OSX - they won't support any x86 box other
> than their own - which will depedn custom ASIC chips in it to prevent
> it from happening.
> 

Hmmm I didn't read that anywhere, an Intel OS X 4.1 is supposed to be 
available today, which doesn't make sense if the hardware isn't ready. 
I guess they could do a bait and switch.

> Have a nice day..
> 
> Milton
> Mac developer since 1986..
> www.outcastsoft.com

In article <m2d5qzwfu0.fsf@qqqq.invalid>, David C. <shamino@techie.com>
wrote:

> pack@pack.eos.ucar.edu.ucar.edu ((null)) writes:
> > 
> > One potential advantage of x86 based OSX machines is that they could,
> > with some glue code, emulate enough of the windows environment to
> > allow windows software to run native. This doesn't help migration
> > directly, but companies that already have windows versions of software
> > could offer cross-registration of these windows packages to old mac
> > owners.
> 
> Why would this be an advantage?
> 
> If such a thing would be developed, software developers would
> immediately cease development of Mac apps and would focus exclusively
> on Windows apps.  They would (correctly) decide "why bother developing
> for the Mac when the Windows apps will run there anyway."
> 
> Shortly after this, customers would decide to stop buying Macs
> altogether.  They would (correctly) think "why bother buying a Mac when
> I'm only going to run Windows apps on it anyway."
> 
> Unless you think Apple plans to become an iPod-only company, the
> "feature" you describe would put them out of business in a few years.

Yes, this is exactly what will happen.  Microsoft owns Virtual PC for
Windows and Mac.  There's also the open-source WINE, which merely needs
some investment from a major patron (e.g. Adobe) to be ready for prime
time.  By the time the first Intel-based Mac ships, you WILL be able to
run Windows apps on it at nearly hardware speed, possibly with Aqua UI
widgets, and likely not inside a sandbox as is currently required with
VPC.  We'll all be running Windows versions of Photoshop and Word
within two years -- count on it.  Apple has given up the game to
Microsoft today.

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.

In article <HvadnbrYKr-oBjnfRVn-ig@pcisys.net>, Jason Bowen
<ha@nospam.net> wrote:

> Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
> > In article <060620051241228154%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, Dave
> > Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>In article <060620051324167867%no@spam.invalid>, Keeper of the Purple
> >>Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Fuck.  So all Macs will essentially be Wintel boxes.
> >>>
> >>>Dammit.
> >>
> >>Nonsense. It just means a change in CPU.
> >>
> >>Like from 68K to PPC.
> > 
> > 
> > This is a lot more serious change.
> > 
> > Who knows what kind of performance hit we're going to take here? 68k
> > software ran slower in emulation mode on PPC. It's happening all over
> > again. :(
> > 
> 
> If Wolfram can port Mathematica in a few hours, it is within the realm 
> of possilbity to think that other software houses will be able to port 
> as quickly.

Well, the only software I use that didn't come with OSX is Thoth and
PodWorks. Thoth is obviously dead, development-wise, but there's other
newsreaders...so if they just port PodWorks, I guess I can live with
that. :)

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

In article <no.spam-CB0036.13220006062005@news.verizon.net>,
Al  <no.spam@wanted.com> wrote:
.....
>In my opinion, they will port the OS to run on PCs. And thusly they will 
>primarily become a software company. Jobs will continue to be creative 
>and come up with new niche machines. I'd like to try OSX on my Shuttle 
>computer which now runs only Linux.

The initial reports are that Apple intends to build their macos-specific
intel boxes and not "allow" the macos to run on standard wintel machines.
Since the base of macos is Darwin that already runs on wintel, this might
be nontrivial to enforce. If they can't enforce this, then they will have
trouble remaining a hardware company. 

In article <060620051344431760%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <cirby-A99DBE.14432006062005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Chad Irby <cirby@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <mar.sv-E1A66C.13354106062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> >  rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > .....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
> > > that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
> > > not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
> > 
> > Why?
> > 
> > It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't 
> > offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a 
> > year before Longhorn sees the light of day.
> 
> But how long will OS X (or any other Mac software for that matter)
> continue to be available for PPC-based Macs?

Jobs said "years and years" during the keynote today.  The development 
tools Apple sells are set up to make dual binaries, after all.  They 
also have to worry about selling software to fifteen or so million 
legacy users, they're not going to abandon them because a new platform 
comes out.

> I just bought an iMac G5. I didn't just waste three grand, did I?

Naah.  Heck, I'm still planning on buying a Mini this summer.

-- 
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

In article <HvadnbTYKr-4ADnfRVn-ig@pcisys.net>,
 Jason Bowen <ha@nospam.net> wrote:

> Milton Aupperle wrote:
> > In article <FYmdnQbTBb_ZBDnfRVn-vA@pcisys.net>, Jason Bowen
> > <ha@nospam.net> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>rocky wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <060620051212032607%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
> >>> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>In article <slrnda9442.j55.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard
> >>>><jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
> >>>>
> >>>>It's over.
> >>>>
> >>>>It's true.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>.....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
> >>>that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
> >>>not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
> >>
> >>
> >>Apple has been having to put out dual machines to compete with Windows 
> >>boxes.  They are still putting out G4 iBooks and Powerbooks.  I'm 
> >>thrilled that they are moving to a platform that will enhance adoption. 
> >>  They've been doing dual development for 5 years now and Mathematics 
> >>took all of two hours to port to x86 OS X to show how easy it will be 
> >>for shops to port current OS X apps.
> > 
> > 
> > Mathematica and Adobe are already cross platform, so huge Chunks of
> > their code was already written for x86. That's not so for most Mac Only
> > products and deffintely not so if you rely heavily on Altivec code for
> > speed - Like QuickTime or most image procesisng code. Steve didn't show
> > any QuickTime based applicaitons at all - I wonder "why"?
> > 
> > And don't expect to see another PPC application after 2007 either.
> > Small developers will not be supporting both of them - just like no one
> > supports Os 8/9 anymore - so your exisitng hardware will be as usaeful
> > as a door knob after that.
> > 
> > So you'll be buying all new software (drivers, applications, QuickTime
> > components etc.) and hardware. And Apple already stated that you have
> > to use an Intel Mac to use OSX - they won't support any x86 box other
> > than their own - which will depedn custom ASIC chips in it to prevent
> > it from happening.
> > 
> 
> Hmmm I didn't read that anywhere, an Intel OS X 4.1 is supposed to be 
> available today, which doesn't make sense if the hardware isn't ready. 
> I guess they could do a bait and switch.
> 
Ever heard of prototypes?

You can bet your butt you can't boot OSX 4.1 (or whatever) on your handy 
dandy Dell.

In article <060620051202436234%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid>,
 Jerry Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> We'll all be running Windows versions of Photoshop and Word
> within two years -- count on it.  Apple has given up the game to
> Microsoft today.

Actually, Windows will be running ported versions of Mac apps in a 
couple of years, since the development environment will be based off of 
the Macs...

-- 
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

In article <060620051324167867%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <060620051212032607%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, Dave
> Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> > In article <slrnda9442.j55.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard
> > <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
> > 
> > > So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
> > 
> > It's over.
> > 
> > It's true.
> 
> Fuck.  So all Macs will essentially be Wintel boxes.
> 
> Dammit.

At least one source quoted Phill Schiller as saying that MacOS X for x86 
won't run on white box PCs (implying no OS X on Dell).

There is a lot more to computer architectures than the CPU.

In article <mar.sv-E1A66C.13354106062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
 rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:

> In article <060620051212032607%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
>  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> > In article <slrnda9442.j55.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard
> > <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
> > 
> > > So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
> > 
> > It's over.
> > 
> > It's true.
> 
> .....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
> that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
> not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.

Want to lay money on that?

If you check the keynote logs, xCode applications written to Cocoa will 
output dual binaries, running on both x86 and PowerPC Macs.

No viruses on either.  :}

In article <060620051344431760%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <cirby-A99DBE.14432006062005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Chad Irby <cirby@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <mar.sv-E1A66C.13354106062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> >  rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > .....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
> > > that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
> > > not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
> > 
> > Why?
> > 
> > It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't 
> > offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a 
> > year before Longhorn sees the light of day.
> 
> But how long will OS X (or any other Mac software for that matter)
> continue to be available for PPC-based Macs?
> 
> I just bought an iMac G5. I didn't just waste three grand, did I?

There's no reason why the PPC Macs wouldn't be supported for years to 
come; it's not like you'd have to switch between application development 
environments to develop for both.

In article <cirby-A99DBE.14432006062005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
 Chad Irby <cirby@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> In article <mar.sv-E1A66C.13354106062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
>  rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
> 
> > .....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
> > that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
> > not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
> 
> Why?
> 
> It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't 
> offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a 
> year before Longhorn sees the light of day.

Because screw me once shame on you screw me twice shame on me.

In article <sehix-9765E2.12205106062005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Steve
Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:

> If you check the keynote logs, xCode applications written to Cocoa will 
> output dual binaries, running on both x86 and PowerPC Macs.

But how long will they keep doing this?

There'll almost certainly be a point where all new Mac software will be
x86-only.

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

Jerry Kindall wrote:

>>It is much easier to write an optimizing compiler for an orthogonal
>>instruction set like PPC's or ARM's than it is to write one for the
>>ancient register-starved, special-functions-for-special-registers Intel
>>architecture.
> 
> 
> That is why gcc produces much more efficient code for x86 than it does
> for PowerPC, I guess.
> 

If Apple does the switch, I'll bet its very unlikely that they would not
also have a version of OS X already compiled for x86, and well understand
the numbers on both processors.

clvrmnky <clvrmnky-uunet@coldmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> My crystal ball is showing that this is a load of shit.

Time for a new crystal ball. 

Didn't you see that coming? 

Keeper of the Purple Twilight:
> //gratuitous obscenity//  So all Macs will essentially be Wintel boxes.

Nonsense. For you and me it's about the OS. I don't care if it runs on
a Sunbeam toaster, as long as it's still the Mac OS.

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <HvadnbTYKr-4ADnfRVn-ig@pcisys.net>,
>  Jason Bowen <ha@nospam.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Milton Aupperle wrote:
>>
>>>In article <FYmdnQbTBb_ZBDnfRVn-vA@pcisys.net>, Jason Bowen
>>><ha@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>rocky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <060620051212032607%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
>>>>>Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <slrnda9442.j55.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard
>>>>>><jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's over.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's true.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>.....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
>>>>>that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
>>>>>not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Apple has been having to put out dual machines to compete with Windows 
>>>>boxes.  They are still putting out G4 iBooks and Powerbooks.  I'm 
>>>>thrilled that they are moving to a platform that will enhance adoption. 
>>>> They've been doing dual development for 5 years now and Mathematics 
>>>>took all of two hours to port to x86 OS X to show how easy it will be 
>>>>for shops to port current OS X apps.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mathematica and Adobe are already cross platform, so huge Chunks of
>>>their code was already written for x86. That's not so for most Mac Only
>>>products and deffintely not so if you rely heavily on Altivec code for
>>>speed - Like QuickTime or most image procesisng code. Steve didn't show
>>>any QuickTime based applicaitons at all - I wonder "why"?
>>>
>>>And don't expect to see another PPC application after 2007 either.
>>>Small developers will not be supporting both of them - just like no one
>>>supports Os 8/9 anymore - so your exisitng hardware will be as usaeful
>>>as a door knob after that.
>>>
>>>So you'll be buying all new software (drivers, applications, QuickTime
>>>components etc.) and hardware. And Apple already stated that you have
>>>to use an Intel Mac to use OSX - they won't support any x86 box other
>>>than their own - which will depedn custom ASIC chips in it to prevent
>>>it from happening.
>>>
>>
>>Hmmm I didn't read that anywhere, an Intel OS X 4.1 is supposed to be 
>>available today, which doesn't make sense if the hardware isn't ready. 
>>I guess they could do a bait and switch.
>>
> 
> Ever heard of prototypes?
> 
> You can bet your butt you can't boot OSX 4.1 (or whatever) on your handy 
> dandy Dell.

I wouldn't own a Dell, nevertheless, any real references for this?

rocky wrote:
> .....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out
> that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and
> not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.

Has Jobs announced whether the 8086 version of MACos would have a
PowerPC emulator ?  (similar to the PowerPC version of MACos having a
68k emulator). ?


This move will really really hurt Apple at a time where OS-X was just
starting to emerge as a viable contender. Apple has to start from
scratch in 2 years in terms of mind share, and during those 2 years,
nobody in their right ind will buy an Apple product unless their
existing machine broke down and they really need an immediate
replacement. Apple's stock is bound to go way down during the next 2 years.

And how will developpers port their software if they must wait for
proprietary Apple branded hardware that may take 2 years to be available ?

Apple needs to go out on a huge information release campaign to release
all the details of its policies and schedule. So far, what the media has
released is totally inadequate.

Will Linux or Windows run on Apple hardware ???? :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-)

Where I see potential is if Apple licenses MACos to companies like DELL
who could then load MACOS on its custom made PCs instead of loading
Windows based on customer preference. If Apple retains the same
proprietary hardware policy, then it remains a status quo, except with
an even smaller inventory of available software. The MAC then becomes
more of an appliance with whatever software APPLE bundles with the machines.

This is a very serious move for Apple. But it seems to have been a PR
exercise to raise Intel's fortunes, at the cost of Apple's credibility
because Apple hasn't released the details of this really important move
the minute Jobs began to speak. This is too important to limit this
information to just developpers.

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:57:40 -0500, Milton Aupperle wrote
(in article <060620051257406361%spam@mustdie.com>):

> And don't expect to see another PPC application after 2007 either.
> Small developers will not be supporting both of them - just like no one
> supports Os 8/9 anymore - so your exisitng hardware will be as usaeful
> as a door knob after that.

NeXT went through this when NeXTSTEP ran on 68000 and '86 processors.  The 
developer just needs to flip a checkbox saying what kind of binaries to 
include in the package.  You check them both and it is automatically built 
for both platforms.  Worked as smooth as silk.

The engineers at Apple (who were at NeXT) have been through this before.  You 
will be able to get Universal binaries for quite some time.

Of course, the software I develop is in Java.  Due to its cross-platform 
nature, I don't even need to compile a universal binary.

-- 
Bill Tschumy
Otherwise -- Austin, TX
http://www.otherwise.com

Chad Irby wrote:
> It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't
> offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a
> year before Longhorn sees the light of day.

You are assuming that Apple will be continuing development of OS-X at
the same speed. That is not the case. Porting requires a lot of
resources and that means that OS-X improvements will not come as fast,
and that will allow Microsoft to narrow the gap between its product and
that of Apple.

And if Apple doesn't maintain a common code base for both 8086 and Power
architectures, then you will see the versions quickly diverge. 

Some of the older software that is no longer developped won't make it to
the 8086. And some of the software ported to the 8086 will no longer be
released on the PowerPC platform either because they woN,t see a market
or because they will make use of features available on the 8086 version
but not on the Power version.

This is why Apple needs to release factual and complete information ASAP.

In article <barmar-30EF2D.00255204062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> 
> Will they provide a PPC emulator on the Intel systems, like they did 
> when they switched from 680x0 to PPC?  If not, users who switch to the 
> new machines will have to get all new applications.

What about the other way around? Existing PPC Macs will not be able to
run 'native' Mactel software. How long will Mac software continue to be
made for both PPC and Intel?

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
> Who knows what kind of performance hit we're going to take here? 68k
> software ran slower in emulation mode on PPC. It's happening all over
> again. :(

68k emulation on PowerPC was palatable because the PowerPC was much
faster thus compensating for the inefficienty of emulation.

Moving from PowerPC to 8086 won't bring a huge improvement in
performance, so emulation will be much slower.

In article <42A4A7D8.45958E65@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> Moving from PowerPC to 8086 won't bring a huge improvement in
> performance, so emulation will be much slower.

Ah-HA!

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

Jason Bowen wrote:
> If Wolfram can port Mathematica in a few hours, it is within the realm
> of possilbity to think that other software houses will be able to port
> as quickly.

Getting a module to compile is one thing. Getting a application suite
all the way to shrinkwrapped version, fully tested, documentation
updated, dealing with licensing issues (can someone transfer a PowerPC
software to 8086 for free or must he buy an upgrade etc etc), well all
that costs developpers a lot of money, especially if they must start to
maintain 2 code bases for their software.

Another question to ask Jobs: will he provide an 8086 emulator for
existing PowerPC users so that new software available only for 8086
versions could still run on Power macs ?

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article <mar.sv-E1A66C.13354106062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
>  rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <060620051212032607%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
>> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <slrnda9442.j55.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard
>>><jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
>>>
>>>It's over.
>>>
>>>It's true.
>>
>>.....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
>>that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
>>not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
> 
> 
> Want to lay money on that?
> 
> If you check the keynote logs, xCode applications written to Cocoa will 
> output dual binaries, running on both x86 and PowerPC Macs.
> 
> No viruses on either.  :}

Dual binaries is not a problem now. Disk space for releases is not a
problem (either to distribute the application, or place on hard disk).
The reason dual binaries failed to take hold the last time was there
was no real need, since nobody ran the same operating system on
multiple CPU types. That just changed.

Apple has undercut this (IMHO) by stating that they are "switching", which
implies that they will drop support for PowerPC entirely at some point
in the future, but Apple third party vendors don't need to do that,
and in fact, it makes no sense.

JF Mezei wrote:
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> 
>>If Wolfram can port Mathematica in a few hours, it is within the realm
>>of possilbity to think that other software houses will be able to port
>>as quickly.
> 
> 
> Getting a module to compile is one thing. Getting a application suite
> all the way to shrinkwrapped version, fully tested, documentation
> updated, dealing with licensing issues (can someone transfer a PowerPC
> software to 8086 for free or must he buy an upgrade etc etc), well all
> that costs developpers a lot of money, especially if they must start to
> maintain 2 code bases for their software.
> 
> Another question to ask Jobs: will he provide an 8086 emulator for
> existing PowerPC users so that new software available only for 8086
> versions could still run on Power macs ?

You'll run Virtual PC on your PPC mac which will be running a copy of 
Mac OS X Intel Edition! ;-)

Now that we're all in hell at absolute zero....

Why on earth would anyone buy a new Mac during this "transition"? Seems 
to me that what SJ really did today was mainly to insure that Mac sales 
will absolutely TANK until June, 2006. My memory is failing, but during 
the 68K>PPC transition did we not have PPC computers for sale almost 
immediately when the transition was announced? Was there a gap of 1-2 
years while we all waited to buy computers with the new chip?

Other question: Rosetta runs PPC binaries on Intel chips. Does it also 
run Intel/Mac binaries on PPC? Or is the assumption that this is not 
needed since the rare bird will (initially anyhow) be the Intel/Mac 
binary code?

Predictions: 

Very poor Mac sales for the next year. I can't think of any reason that 
anyone would buy one now.

OTOH, there will probably be some really good prices on PPC Macs soon! 
If you think that developers will continue to support PPC code for 
awhile, these could be some good deals.

In article <1pOdnbMh6IRsNDnfRVn-tA@pcisys.net>, Jason Bowen
<ha@nospam.net> wrote:

> > Another question to ask Jobs: will he provide an 8086 emulator for
> > existing PowerPC users so that new software available only for 8086
> > versions could still run on Power macs ?
> 
> You'll run Virtual PC on your PPC mac which will be running a copy of 
> Mac OS X Intel Edition!

Screw that. If they do that, I *will* switch to Windoze.

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
> Fuck.  So all Macs will essentially be Wintel boxes.
> 
> Dammit.

I don't usually do those LOL things, but this deserves one. I mean, what are 
we going to have to be smug about at the hardware level? In the 68k days I 
touted SCSI. In PowerPC I touted RISC. 

Steve Hix wrote:
> At least one source quoted Phill Schiller as saying that MacOS X for x86
> won't run on white box PCs (implying no OS X on Dell).
> 
> There is a lot more to computer architectures than the CPU.

And if Apple insists on having its own chipsets to make its machines
proprietary, then Apple will not reap any benefits from switching to a
commodity chip. Dell/HP/etc are not manufacturers, they are assemblers
of a total solution provided by Intel which includes far more than just
the chip.

If Apple develops and uses it sown chipsets around the 8086, then Apple
computers will continue to be more expensive.

Charles Bouldin wrote:
> Now that we're all in hell at absolute zero....
> 
> Why on earth would anyone buy a new Mac during this "transition"? Seems 
> to me that what SJ really did today was mainly to insure that Mac sales 
> will absolutely TANK until June, 2006. My memory is failing, but during 
> the 68K>PPC transition did we not have PPC computers for sale almost 
> immediately when the transition was announced? Was there a gap of 1-2 
> years while we all waited to buy computers with the new chip?

iPod sales will more than make up for it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4442775.stm

[snipped]

> 
> Predictions: 
> 
> Very poor Mac sales for the next year. I can't think of any reason that 
> anyone would buy one now.
> 
> OTOH, there will probably be some really good prices on PPC Macs soon! 
> If you think that developers will continue to support PPC code for 
> awhile, these could be some good deals.

Hope so. I've got another year to run on this iBook. I'll be looking for 
a good deal when I replace it and don't care whether it's an Apple/Intel 
or Apple/PPC. If it looks like an iBook, runs OSX and all my apps why 
should I care.

To be honest, Apple had to do this. With IBM using PPC for all of the 
systems from the RS6000 upwards and Sony and Microsoft using PPC for the 
PS3 and XBox, why would IBM have the time or inclination to build better 
PPC CPUs for Apple?

On the other hand if, as it appears, Apple have been considering this 
for some time it shows a lot of foresight which should be applauded.

My only concern is how they they tie the OS to their own hardware so 
that they still retain the same margins and stay in business as an 
alternative.

Andy

In article <060620051425137275%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <sehix-9765E2.12205106062005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Steve
> Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> 
> > If you check the keynote logs, xCode applications written to Cocoa will 
> > output dual binaries, running on both x86 and PowerPC Macs.
> 
> But how long will they keep doing this?
> 
> There'll almost certainly be a point where all new Mac software will be
> x86-only.

Probably. There hasn't been a lot of Mac software written for M68K in 
quite a while, either.

On the other hand, with xCode outputting dual binaries, it doesn't cost 
developers much at all to issue code for both, and some downside to not 
generating the dual binaries.

In article <zcidnWYiEdClODnfRVn-og@pcisys.net>, Jason Bowen
<ha@nospam.net> wrote:

> > You can bet your butt you can't boot OSX 4.1 (or whatever) on your handy 
> > dandy Dell.
> 
> I wouldn't own a Dell, nevertheless, any real references for this?

<http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+aligns+with+Intel/2100-734
1_3-5733756.html>

"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller
addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no
plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't
preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he
said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac
OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac
OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."

-- 
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>

In article <42A4A75A.66C8D42B@teksavvy.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
> > It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't
> > offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a
> > year before Longhorn sees the light of day.
> 
> You are assuming that Apple will be continuing development of OS-X at
> the same speed. That is not the case. Porting requires a lot of
> resources and that means that OS-X improvements will not come as fast,
> and that will allow Microsoft to narrow the gap between its product and
> that of Apple.

According to the keynote, Apple has been creating PPC and x86 versions 
of MacOS X for a couple years now. Some parts were not ready for the x86 
version, such as OpenGL stacks, but it apparently has been running on 
both architectures for quite a while. And it looks as though all the 
major pieces are now ready on both sides.

In article <42A4A75A.66C8D42B@teksavvy.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> This is why Apple needs to release factual and complete information ASAP.

Get you developer's account now. (Be the first in your neighborhood, 
etc.)

In article <42A4A7D8.45958E65@teksavvy.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
> > Who knows what kind of performance hit we're going to take here? 68k
> > software ran slower in emulation mode on PPC. It's happening all over
> > again. :(
> 
> 68k emulation on PowerPC was palatable because the PowerPC was much
> faster thus compensating for the inefficienty of emulation.
> 
> Moving from PowerPC to 8086 won't bring a huge improvement in
> performance, so emulation will be much slower.

Transitive.

In article <060620051447593365%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <42A4A7D8.45958E65@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei
> <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
> 
> > Moving from PowerPC to 8086 won't bring a huge improvement in
> > performance, so emulation will be much slower.
> 
> Ah-HA!

Google for Transitive in relation to today's keynote.

In article <d82808$1k9$2@news1nwk.SFbay.Sun.COM>, Scott Moore
<samiamsansspam@Sun.COM> wrote:

> If Apple does the switch, I'll bet its very unlikely that they would not
> also have a version of OS X already compiled for x86, and well understand
> the numbers on both processors.

The Steve made it clear that they have done so for five years, and that
a developer kit will be available in a couple of weeks for $999
(rental, to be returned at the end of 2006).

-- 
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>

In article <42A4A890.6CF378E6@teksavvy.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> Jason Bowen wrote:
> > If Wolfram can port Mathematica in a few hours, it is within the realm
> > of possilbity to think that other software houses will be able to port
> > as quickly.
> 
> Getting a module to compile is one thing.

Wolfram didn't port a module, they ported the entire application.

In about two hours of work.

> Getting a application suite
> all the way to shrinkwrapped version, fully tested, documentation
> updated, dealing with licensing issues (can someone transfer a PowerPC
> software to 8086 for free or must he buy an upgrade etc etc), well all
> that costs developpers a lot of money, especially if they must start to
> maintain 2 code bases for their software.

In this case, one code base for two CPU architectures.

> Another question to ask Jobs: will he provide an 8086 emulator for
> existing PowerPC users so that new software available only for 8086
> versions could still run on Power macs ?

Why would anyone writing OS X for x86 applications *not* flip the switch 
to generate dual binary output?

In article <060620051257406361%spam@mustdie.com>,
Milton Aupperle  <spam@mustdie.com> wrote:
>
>Mathematica and Adobe are already cross platform, so huge Chunks of
>their code was already written for x86. That's not so for most Mac Only
>products and deffintely not so if you rely heavily on Altivec code for
>speed - Like QuickTime or most image procesisng code. Steve didn't show
>any QuickTime based applicaitons at all - I wonder "why"?

Eh?  Apple already has Quicktime for Windows and Adobe has Photoshop
for Windows.  They are already cross platform too.

-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <42A4A75A.66C8D42B@teksavvy.com>,
JF Mezei  <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>Chad Irby wrote:
>> It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't
>> offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a
>> year before Longhorn sees the light of day.
>
>You are assuming that Apple will be continuing development of OS-X at
>the same speed. That is not the case. Porting requires a lot of
>resources and that means that OS-X improvements will not come as fast,
>and that will allow Microsoft to narrow the gap between its product and
>that of Apple.

Wrong.  They've been developing the x86 and PowerPC versions in
parallel for years, or so Steve says.  No major porting effort
required; it has already been made.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <chuckb84-B60231.15580806062005@news.giganews.com>,
Charles Bouldin  <chuckb84@comcast.net> wrote:
>Now that we're all in hell at absolute zero....
>
>Why on earth would anyone buy a new Mac during this "transition"? Seems 
>to me that what SJ really did today was mainly to insure that Mac sales 
>will absolutely TANK until June, 2006.

Yep.  Guess that's why Apple has been building up its cash reserves.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <sehix-F70394.13192406062005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Steve
Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:

> > Moving from PowerPC to 8086 won't bring a huge improvement in
> > performance, so emulation will be much slower.
> 
> Transitive.


What about it?

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

In article <0001HW.BECA24C40000A319F02B45B0@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
Tim Murray  <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote:
>Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
>> Fuck.  So all Macs will essentially be Wintel boxes.
>> 
>> Dammit.
>
>I don't usually do those LOL things, but this deserves one. I mean, what are 
>we going to have to be smug about at the hardware level? In the 68k days I 
>touted SCSI. In PowerPC I touted RISC. 

Firewire?  But you've got a real point; Apple loses a major
differentiator here.  If Apple boxes are percieved as "The same as
Dell, only more expensive and with less software", Apple dies.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:36:06 -0400, jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com suggested:
: 
: Will Linux or Windows run on Apple hardware ???? :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
::-) :-)

Linux already runs on current Apple hardware. I bet that Microsoft could
make a Windows that did if they wanted to.

-- 
 agreenbu @ nyx . net                             andrew michael greenburg

In article <sehix-F70394.13192406062005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
Steve Hix  <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>In article <42A4A7D8.45958E65@teksavvy.com>,
> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Moving from PowerPC to 8086 won't bring a huge improvement in
>> performance, so emulation will be much slower.
>
>Transitive.

What about them?  They make some breathless claims about emulation
without performance penalty, but why should anyone believe them?
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <3gjq67Fcmm6rU1@individual.net>,
andrewunix  <agreenbu@nyx.net> wrote:
>Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:36:06 -0400, jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com suggested:
>: 
>: Will Linux or Windows run on Apple hardware ???? :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
>::-) :-)
>
>Linux already runs on current Apple hardware. I bet that Microsoft could
>make a Windows that did if they wanted to.

Or a Virtual PC version for X on X86.  Which, not having to emulate
the processor, would probably perform a whole lot better than VPC for
X on PPC.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> I don't usually do those LOL things, but this deserves one. I mean, what 
>> are we going to have to be smug about at the hardware level? In the 68k 
>> days I touted SCSI. In PowerPC I touted RISC. 
> 
> Firewire?  But you've got a real point; Apple loses a major
> differentiator here.  If Apple boxes are percieved as "The same as
> Dell, only more expensive and with less software", Apple dies.

In my experience of the old SCSI days, I could plug in darned near anything 
into darned near anything else, and if I had a terminator and nothing shared 
the same SCSI ID, then it would work.  I presently don't own any FireWire 
products, but have heard a lot of issues with drivers, compatibilities, and 
so on.

Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
> In article <1pOdnbMh6IRsNDnfRVn-tA@pcisys.net>, Jason Bowen
> <ha@nospam.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Another question to ask Jobs: will he provide an 8086 emulator for
>>>existing PowerPC users so that new software available only for 8086
>>>versions could still run on Power macs ?
>>
>>You'll run Virtual PC on your PPC mac which will be running a copy of 
>>Mac OS X Intel Edition! ;-)
> 
> 
> Screw that. If they do that, I *will* switch to Windoze.
> 

You removed the wink which implies sarcasm.

In article <d82808$1k9$2@news1nwk.SFbay.Sun.COM>,
Scott Moore  <samiamsansspam@Sun.COM> wrote:
......
>If Apple does the switch, I'll bet its very unlikely that they would not
>also have a version of OS X already compiled for x86, and well understand
>the numbers on both processors.

They demonstrated Tiger on an intel based machine.
The more interesting question about performance is how
will current altivec code move over. The fact that they
will get a low end intel based box out first but will take
another year or so to get a high end one out may mean that
they are going to do more engineering at the high end.
Perhaps an altivec-like hardware addition to the cpu?

Thanks for the link.  I think it is a moot point if they are cost 
competitive and can keep production up if it is a hit.  Seriously 
though... the timing is odd, it is going to destroy current sales.  I 
guess this is a last ditch effort at staying a computer company?  I hope 
they don't go away, I've always loved Mac though I got fed up with the 
old Mac OS in the mid 90s.

In article <chuckb84-B60231.15580806062005@news.giganews.com>,
 Charles Bouldin <chuckb84@comcast.net> wrote:

> Now that we're all in hell at absolute zero....
> 
> Why on earth would anyone buy a new Mac during this "transition"? Seems 
> to me that what SJ really did today was mainly to insure that Mac sales 
> will absolutely TANK until June, 2006. My memory is failing, but during 
> the 68K>PPC transition did we not have PPC computers for sale almost 
> immediately when the transition was announced? Was there a gap of 1-2 
> years while we all waited to buy computers with the new chip?
> 
> Other question: Rosetta runs PPC binaries on Intel chips. Does it also 
> run Intel/Mac binaries on PPC? Or is the assumption that this is not 
> needed since the rare bird will (initially anyhow) be the Intel/Mac 
> binary code?
> 
> Predictions: 
> 
> Very poor Mac sales for the next year. I can't think of any reason that 
> anyone would buy one now.
> 
> OTOH, there will probably be some really good prices on PPC Macs soon! 
> If you think that developers will continue to support PPC code for 
> awhile, these could be some good deals.

All PPC computers were obsolete as of today.  I just purchased a G5 a 
couple weeks ago so you can imagine how I feel, screwed.  This just 
might be what it takes to go back to the dark side after 16 years.

In article <0001HW.BECA2CB500027FB6F02B45B0@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
Tim Murray  <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>> I don't usually do those LOL things, but this deserves one. I mean, what 
>>> are we going to have to be smug about at the hardware level? In the 68k 
>>> days I touted SCSI. In PowerPC I touted RISC. 
>> 
>> Firewire?  But you've got a real point; Apple loses a major
>> differentiator here.  If Apple boxes are percieved as "The same as
>> Dell, only more expensive and with less software", Apple dies.
>
>In my experience of the old SCSI days, I could plug in darned near anything 
>into darned near anything else, and if I had a terminator and nothing shared 
>the same SCSI ID, then it would work. 

You had, shall we say, an unusual experience.  There's a reason SCSI
has gotten associated with black candles and animal sacrifices :-).

>I presently don't own any FireWire 
>products, but have heard a lot of issues with drivers, compatibilities, and 
>so on.

The only major Firewire problems I've heard of are the Oxford chipset
firmware incompatibility problems.  But I only have one firewire
device.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <060620051447593365%no@spam.invalid>, Keeper of the Purple
Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <42A4A7D8.45958E65@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei
> <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
> 
> > Moving from PowerPC to 8086 won't bring a huge improvement in
> > performance, so emulation will be much slower.
> 
> Ah-HA!

Well, it probably won't be as painful as you might think, because even
emulated apps will still be calling fully native APIs in the OS.  Most
apps spend most of their time in the libraries anyway.  And Mac OS X
will be fully native on Intel, unlike the original Mac OS which still
had some 68K code in it right up to the end.

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.

In article <0001HW.BECA2CB500027FB6F02B45B0@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote:

> Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >> I don't usually do those LOL things, but this deserves one. I mean, what 
> >> are we going to have to be smug about at the hardware level? In the 68k 
> >> days I touted SCSI. In PowerPC I touted RISC. 
> > 
> > Firewire?  But you've got a real point; Apple loses a major
> > differentiator here.  If Apple boxes are percieved as "The same as
> > Dell, only more expensive and with less software", Apple dies.
> 
> In my experience of the old SCSI days, I could plug in darned near anything 
> into darned near anything else, and if I had a terminator and nothing shared 
> the same SCSI ID, then it would work.  I presently don't own any FireWire 
> products, but have heard a lot of issues with drivers, compatibilities, and 
> so on.

LOL.  Man, Firewire is SO much better than SCSI ever was.

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.

Andy Mulhearn wrote:
> To be honest, Apple had to do this. With IBM using PPC for all of the
> systems from the RS6000 upwards and Sony and Microsoft using PPC for the
> PS3 and XBox, why would IBM have the time or inclination to build better
> PPC CPUs for Apple?


That was a big mistake for IBM. Accountants at IBM may have decided that
Apple's size didn't warrant development of laptop version of Power, but
this means a great lack of vision.  What happens when Sony et all want
laptop version of their game consoles ? And this means that the Power
platform lacks the scalability to make it a viable platform, and while
Apple may have represented only 2% of IBM's FAB capacity, that may have
been the 2% that made its chiop operations just big enough to be profitable.


It could also be a case of Jobs having told IBM years ago that APPLE
would eventually move to Intel, in which case, it was quite normal for
IBM to stop wasting development money on Apple specific version of
Power. We don't know the full story. We only know the spin released by Jobs/Otellini.

What surprises me is that Apple didn't start using standard IBM Power
chips and then get IBM to embed Apple speciofic features on all Power
chips. That would have allowed IBM to design fewer chips for that
architecture and made the whole architecture more viable.

Charles Bouldin <chuckb84@comcast.net> wrote:

> My memory is failing, but during the 68K>PPC transition did we not have
> PPC computers for sale almost immediately when the transition was
> announced? Was there a gap of 1-2 years while we all waited to buy
> computers with the new chip?

The AIM alliance was formed in 1991. The first PowerMac shipped in March
1994. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM_alliance>. 

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 15:49:55 -0500, rocky wrote
(in article <mar.sv-013D57.15495506062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>):

> All PPC computers were obsolete as of today.  I just purchased a G5 a 
> couple weeks ago so you can imagine how I feel, screwed.  This just 
> might be what it takes to go back to the dark side after 16 years.

You were *NOT* screwed, you bought a computer that at the time of purchase 
was perceived to be useful and worth the price. The computer you bought will 
still run all Mac applications released within the next several years, a time 
period which will be sufficiently long enough until you feel the need to 
upgrade to a new Mac. Am I *screwed* because the car I bought a few months 
ago has been superseded by a new model? 

-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

Jason Bowen wrote:
> Thanks for the link.  I think it is a moot point if they are cost 
> competitive and can keep production up if it is a hit.  Seriously 
> though... the timing is odd, it is going to destroy current sales.  I 
> guess this is a last ditch effort at staying a computer company?  I hope 
> they don't go away, I've always loved Mac though I got fed up with the 
> old Mac OS in the mid 90s.

Why would any of this matter ? If you own a PowerPC mac (as I do), you are
either going to keep your current apps, or if you need to upgrade, you will
find the upgrade with dual binaries. If you planned to buy a mac in the
near future, again, it would make no difference, since dual binaries
are going to be available long after that machine is obsolete.

All of this matters only if you forsee Apple or other vendors dropping
PowerPC support anytime soon, which is very unlikely. If you bought a
new PowerPC, and planned to use it longer than 5 years, then it might
have an impact, but nobody expects a computer to stay leading edge for
longer than about 5 years.

As a developer, the move from OS 9 to OS X was a much bigger deal.

"(null)" wrote:
>> will get a low end intel based box out first but will take
> another year or so to get a high end one out may mean that
> they are going to do more engineering at the high end.
> Perhaps an altivec-like hardware addition to the cpu?

2007 is a magic year for Intel. The 8086 gets a brand new chipset and
gets scalability to data centre. I suspect Apple wants to wait for that
to be available before releasing high end MACs.

In article <mar.sv-013D57.15495506062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
 rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:

> All PPC computers were obsolete as of today.  I just purchased a G5 a 
> couple weeks ago so you can imagine how I feel, screwed.  This just 
> might be what it takes to go back to the dark side after 16 years.

I feel badly for you, Rocky!

In fact, I feel so bad that I'll give you half of what you paid for that 
computer RIGHT NOW, IN CASH, even though it's obsolete.

Deal?

{STP}

In article <42A4A7D8.45958E65@teksavvy.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
> > Who knows what kind of performance hit we're going to take here? 68k
> > software ran slower in emulation mode on PPC. It's happening all over
> > again. :(
> 
> 68k emulation on PowerPC was palatable because the PowerPC was much
> faster thus compensating for the inefficienty of emulation.
> 
> Moving from PowerPC to 8086 won't bring a huge improvement in
> performance, so emulation will be much slower.

Good thing we're not moving to 8086 then.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.

In article <060620051425137275%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <sehix-9765E2.12205106062005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Steve
> Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> 
> > If you check the keynote logs, xCode applications written to Cocoa will 
> > output dual binaries, running on both x86 and PowerPC Macs.
> 
> But how long will they keep doing this?
> 
> There'll almost certainly be a point where all new Mac software will be
> x86-only.

Yeah, but that's far enough out to let current machines get *really* 
obsolete.  And even then, you'll be able to run the old apps on the new 
machine, so you won't need to go out and get all new apps for the new 
Mac Mini 4 GHz that will be the bottom end at that point...

-- 
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

In article <mar.sv-A3B57F.14232506062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
 rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:

> In article <cirby-A99DBE.14432006062005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
>  Chad Irby <cirby@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <mar.sv-E1A66C.13354106062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> >  rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > .....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
> > > that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
> > > not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
> > 
> > Why?
> > 
> > It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't 
> > offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a 
> > year before Longhorn sees the light of day.
> 
> Because screw me once shame on you screw me twice shame on me.

....yet you're talking about switching over to an OS and a company that 
screws people daily, in ways that aren't much better than what Apple 
just did.

-- 
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

In article <42A4A75A.66C8D42B@teksavvy.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
> > It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't
> > offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a
> > year before Longhorn sees the light of day.
> 
> You are assuming that Apple will be continuing development of OS-X at
> the same speed. That is not the case. Porting requires a lot of
> resources and that means that OS-X improvements will not come as fast,
> and that will allow Microsoft to narrow the gap between its product and
> that of Apple.

Apple's been doing the "porting," in parallel, FOR THE LAST FIVE 
YEARS... with the Intel version running the *same* version of OS X as 
the PPC version.

-- 
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

In article <D23pe.7711$K66.7346@fe02.lga>, {STP} <stp@nospam.now> 
wrote:

> In article <mar.sv-013D57.15495506062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
>  rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
> 
> > All PPC computers were obsolete as of today.  I just purchased a G5 a 
> > couple weeks ago so you can imagine how I feel, screwed.  This just 
> > might be what it takes to go back to the dark side after 16 years.
> 
> I feel badly for you, Rocky!
> 
> In fact, I feel so bad that I'll give you half of what you paid for that 
> computer RIGHT NOW, IN CASH, even though it's obsolete.
> 
> Deal?
> 
> {STP}

thanks, but I'm processing some photos now and tonight I'm working over 
some audio files.
-- 
 

In article <sehix-D08271.13224206062005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
 Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:

> Why would anyone writing OS X for x86 applications *not* flip the switch 
> to generate dual binary output?

Because they can't test it and thus can't in good faith claim to work?

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.

In article <0001HW.BECA24680018353BF0407550@news.supernews.com>,
 James L. Ryan <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 15:49:55 -0500, rocky wrote
> (in article <mar.sv-013D57.15495506062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>):
> 
> > All PPC computers were obsolete as of today.  I just purchased a G5 a 
> > couple weeks ago so you can imagine how I feel, screwed.  This just 
> > might be what it takes to go back to the dark side after 16 years.
> 
> You were *NOT* screwed, you bought a computer that at the time of purchase 
> was perceived to be useful and worth the price. The computer you bought will 
> still run all Mac applications released within the next several years, a time 
> period which will be sufficiently long enough until you feel the need to 
> upgrade to a new Mac. Am I *screwed* because the car I bought a few months 
> ago has been superseded by a new model?

If it gives me four years I'll be happy.

On 2005-06-06, Bill Tschumy <bill@otherwiseDELETE.com> wrote:
> NeXT went through this when NeXTSTEP ran on 68000 and '86 processors.  The 
> developer just needs to flip a checkbox saying what kind of binaries to 
> include in the package.  You check them both and it is automatically built 
> for both platforms.  Worked as smooth as silk.

What about those of us developing UNix apps and depending on the fact that
OS X is a Unix to get OS X compatibility? The only time I fire up Xcode is
by accident (double-clicking on a C file int he Finder). Will building
dual-architecture, or cross-compiling, be that simple for those of us using
more traditional Unix tools like make and gcc and GNU libtool?

In article <42A4AD5D.98E234AF@teksavvy.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
> > At least one source quoted Phill Schiller as saying that MacOS X for x86
> > won't run on white box PCs (implying no OS X on Dell).
> > 
> > There is a lot more to computer architectures than the CPU.
> 
> And if Apple insists on having its own chipsets to make its machines
> proprietary, then Apple will not reap any benefits from switching to a
> commodity chip.

Availability of product and continued aggressive development of the line 
count for something, I would think.

G

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.

In article <mar.sv-E1A66C.13354106062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
 rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:

> In article <060620051212032607%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
>  Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> 
> > In article <slrnda9442.j55.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard
> > <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
> > 
> > > So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
> > 
> > It's over.
> > 
> > It's true.
> 
> .....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
> that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
> not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.

Why would they do that? Most users aren't _really_ that religious about 
the CPU. They want a reliable, stable system and nothing about this 
should change the experience. I'm marginally surprised and marginally 
disappointed by this turning out to be real. I see both pragmatic 
benefit and some real potential for concern. But I'm in the group that I 
think is hit hardest by this and I really don't get the whole "sky is 
falling" bit.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.

Chad Irby wrote:
> Yeah, but that's far enough out to let current machines get *really*
> obsolete.  And even then, you'll be able to run the old apps on the new
> machine, so you won't need to go out and get all new apps for the new
> Mac Mini 4 GHz that will be the bottom end at that point...

Apple is betting that most customers switch machines as fast as they
change cars. (every couple of years). However, past a certain point, you
don't really need additional CPU horsepower for what you do and
upgrading for the sake of upgrading isn't worth it. 

When you look at the 68k/Power migration, FAT binaries didn't really
last that long. And in fact, it didn't take long for ISVs to stop
producing 68k version of software, especially with shareware/freeware. 

Remember that Jobs sugar coated his presentation big time to make
everything look fine and easy. In reality, i suspect that many problems
will en encountered, especially if MACOS switches to little endian like
other 8086 based operating systems.

Apple is a business. It won't continue to generate new version of MACos
for PowerPC is not enough people are willing to pay for the upgrades.
And when yoy're on a dead platform with no new version of apps, people
tend not to upgrade becayse it riosks breaking their existing applications.

Manufacturers and software vendors look at sales figures. Users look at
their installed software. As a user, your installed software doesn't
generate any revenus for the vendor.  If you don't buy a new machine or
upgrade the OS or applications, you don't exist and don't count in their decisions.

And new application that don't exist today will start to come just for
the 8086 model, especially when developpers won't be able to buy new
power based machines to test their software on.  Rememeber that
compiling is just a small portion of porting to a new platform. You need
to test that applictaion too.

In article <42A4A75A.66C8D42B@teksavvy.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
> > It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't
> > offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a
> > year before Longhorn sees the light of day.
> 
> You are assuming that Apple will be continuing development of OS-X at
> the same speed. That is not the case.

A fascinating claim, considering that apparently that's what they've 
been doing all along.

> Porting requires a lot of resources and that means that OS-X
> improvements will not come as fast,

Porting requires a lot of resources if the product was not designed with 
multi-platform availability in mind. If you did it right up-front, it's 
not that bad for most projects. Considering that what became OS X was 
acquired by Apple already available for multiple platforms, I would 
think they've got it pretty well down now.

> And if Apple doesn't maintain a common code base for both 8086 and Power
> architectures, then you will see the versions quickly diverge. 

Um. Yeah. That's borderline QED. If a rock falls on my head, my head 
will hurt.


G

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 15:36:06 -0400, JF Mezei wrote
(in article <42A4A59D.244C016C@teksavvy.com>):

> rocky wrote:
>> .....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
>> that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
>> not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN. 
> 
> Has Jobs announced whether the 8086 version of MACos would have a 
> PowerPC emulator ?  (similar to the PowerPC version of MACos having a 
> 68k emulator). ? 

Yes, it will. It's called Rosetta. 

> This move will really really hurt Apple at a time where OS-X was just 
> starting to emerge as a viable contender. Apple has to start from 
> scratch in 2 years in terms of mind share, and during those 2 years, 
> nobody in their right ind will buy an Apple product unless their 
> existing machine broke down and they really need an immediate 
> replacement. Apple's stock is bound to go way down during the next 2 
> years. 

I don't see a reason why any user need to worry about this. If Apple 
handles this transition like they did the 68k -> PPC one, then it 
shouldn't matter. Of course, the IF is a big one. 

Everything at this point is speculation. No one knows how this Rosetta 
really works. 

Is it a software based emulator like the old 68K one? 

Is it a translator that could go over the PPC binaries once and saves an 
Intel version onto disk? 

or could it be a hardware based emulator? A hardware subsystem that read 
the instructions and hand the Pentium processor compatible instructions?

> And how will developpers port their software if they must wait for 
> proprietary Apple branded hardware that may take 2 years to be 
> available ? 

Read the news again. As of now developers will have access to a 
development kit that includes an Intel 3.6 Ghz based Mac for $999. 

So theoretically, developers should have no barrier that stops them from 
starting to work on a Macintel version of their software immediately and 
be ready in a year's time when the new Macs hit the street. 

I believe Apple has the hardware ready to go on sale now or could within 
couple of months; for them to have development kits available to any 
developer that wants one means only one thing: they've been working on 
this for a while hardware wise. Theoretically, what they need to really 
do is just to figure out the way to stop OS X from running on generic 
Intel motherboards, so basically they just need to create custom, 
encrypted BIOS. I think the one year delay is to allow all developers to 
get their software ready.

> Apple needs to go out on a huge information release campaign to 
> release all the details of its policies and schedule. So far, what 
> the media has released is totally inadequate. 

No amount of info availability is of any help if you're not able to 
read. Most of the necessary info is already available and it seems you 
missed most of it. 

Chad Irby wrote:
> Apple's been doing the "porting," in parallel, FOR THE LAST FIVE
> YEARS... with the Intel version running the *same* version of OS X as
> the PPC version.


No, Apple has been compiling its OS on the 8086 for last 5 years, mainly
because the kernel alrteady ran on the 8086 so there was really no
porting effort required.

However, there is a HUGE difference between compiling an OS and
applications, doing a staged DEMO at a conference, and fully
productizing a product all the way to the shelves.

Apple's only been doing the compiling for the past 5 years.

Doing simulatneaous releases of two versions of the OS still requires
APPLE spend mega money on testing both versions, upgrade documentation
etc. And remember that the 8086 version will not be the same as PowerPC
since it will have the built-in emulator which should be hooked pretty
deeply inside the OS.

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:30:24 -0500, Jay Maynard wrote
(in article <slrnda9g3a.jq6.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>):

> On 2005-06-06, Bill Tschumy <bill@otherwiseDELETE.com> wrote:
>> NeXT went through this when NeXTSTEP ran on 68000 and '86 processors.  The 
>> developer just needs to flip a checkbox saying what kind of binaries to 
>> include in the package.  You check them both and it is automatically built 
>> for both platforms.  Worked as smooth as silk.
> 
> What about those of us developing UNix apps and depending on the fact that
> OS X is a Unix to get OS X compatibility? The only time I fire up Xcode is
> by accident (double-clicking on a C file int he Finder). Will building
> dual-architecture, or cross-compiling, be that simple for those of us using
> more traditional Unix tools like make and gcc and GNU libtool?

With NeXT, there was a compiler switch you passed to the compiler.  The GUI 
made it easier, but was not necessary.

-- 
Bill Tschumy
Otherwise -- Austin, TX
http://www.otherwise.com

In article <060620051425137275%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <sehix-9765E2.12205106062005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Steve
> Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> 
> > If you check the keynote logs, xCode applications written to Cocoa will 
> > output dual binaries, running on both x86 and PowerPC Macs.
> 
> But how long will they keep doing this?

If they're intelligent, they'll do it as long as it makes sense for 
their market.

> There'll almost certainly be a point where all new Mac software will be
> x86-only.

Well, yeah. Like how right now virtually all new Mac software requires a 
G3 or higher. Precious little support for 68k, 601, 603 or 604 machines 
in June 2005.

G

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.

In article <slrnda9g3a.jq6.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>,
 Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:

> On 2005-06-06, Bill Tschumy <bill@otherwiseDELETE.com> wrote:
> > NeXT went through this when NeXTSTEP ran on 68000 and '86 processors.  The 
> > developer just needs to flip a checkbox saying what kind of binaries to 
> > include in the package.  You check them both and it is automatically built 
> > for both platforms.  Worked as smooth as silk.
> 
> What about those of us developing UNix apps and depending on the fact that
> OS X is a Unix to get OS X compatibility? The only time I fire up Xcode is
> by accident (double-clicking on a C file int he Finder). Will building
> dual-architecture, or cross-compiling, be that simple for those of us using
> more traditional Unix tools like make and gcc and GNU libtool?

Sure, gcc has supported cross-compiling forever. Xcode uses gcc for 
compiles, in fact, and I'm sure the new version will as well. There's 
not, as far as I'm aware, any kind of neat way to package up two 
different versions of a command-line program so the appropriate one will 
automatically run on each processor, but knowing which binary to 
download is not going to be a problem for people actually using *nix 
stuff.

-- 
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
   -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

In article <42A4AD5D.98E234AF@teksavvy.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
> > At least one source quoted Phill Schiller as saying that MacOS X for x86
> > won't run on white box PCs (implying no OS X on Dell).
> > 
> > There is a lot more to computer architectures than the CPU.
> 
> And if Apple insists on having its own chipsets to make its machines
> proprietary, then Apple will not reap any benefits from switching to a
> commodity chip

You're missing the point: Apple is not picking up Intel as a commodity 
solution, they're going there because Intel has more to offer than does 
IBM with their 970 and follow-on families.

> Dell/HP/etc are not manufacturers, they are assemblers
> of a total solution provided by Intel which includes far more than just
> the chip.

Apple is not Dell, is it?

> If Apple develops and uses it sown chipsets around the 8086, then Apple
> computers will continue to be more expensive.

That's the way it's going to be. Even if, by "expensive", it means 
"comparable with other major manufacturers, not white box or cheapie 
houses."

In article <060620051530398416%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <sehix-F70394.13192406062005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Steve
> Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> 
> > > Moving from PowerPC to 8086 won't bring a huge improvement in
> > > performance, so emulation will be much slower.
> > 
> > Transitive.
> 
> 
> What about it?

Your performance concerns are addressed by it.

Don't expect VPC-class performance.

In article <d82dv0$5s7$1@news1nwk.SFbay.Sun.COM>,
 Scott Moore <samiamsansspam@Sun.COM> wrote:

> Jason Bowen wrote:
> > Thanks for the link.  I think it is a moot point if they are cost 
> > competitive and can keep production up if it is a hit.  Seriously 
> > though... the timing is odd, it is going to destroy current sales.  I 
> > guess this is a last ditch effort at staying a computer company?  I hope 
> > they don't go away, I've always loved Mac though I got fed up with the 
> > old Mac OS in the mid 90s.
> 
> Why would any of this matter ? If you own a PowerPC mac (as I do), you are
> either going to keep your current apps, or if you need to upgrade, you will
> find the upgrade with dual binaries.

Which takes away the whine about "they limited my options for upgrade 
hardware".

Some people will see this as a Bad Thing(tm).

In article <uce-CFAEA1.17424306062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> Porting requires a lot of resources if the product was not designed with 
> multi-platform availability in mind. If you did it right up-front, it's 
> not that bad for most projects. 

unless you used codewarrior.

In article <060620051425137275%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <sehix-9765E2.12205106062005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Steve
> Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> 
> > If you check the keynote logs, xCode applications written to Cocoa will 
> > output dual binaries, running on both x86 and PowerPC Macs.
> 
> But how long will they keep doing this?
> 
> There'll almost certainly be a point where all new Mac software will be
> x86-only.

Sure, at least for apps where there's slightly more involved in a 
cross-architecture build than clicking a checkbox. But Apple's OS 
support with OS X has only ever extended back five or six years anyway, 
and their support window for old hardware with other software, like 
Final Cut Pro, has been even smaller. Odds are a switch to Intel won't 
result in a PPC Mac you buy today to become obsolete any faster than it 
would have if Apple decided to stick with PPC.

-- 
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
   -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

In article <42A4A7D8.45958E65@teksavvy.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
> > Who knows what kind of performance hit we're going to take here? 68k
> > software ran slower in emulation mode on PPC. It's happening all over
> > again. :(
> 
> 68k emulation on PowerPC was palatable because the PowerPC was much
> faster thus compensating for the inefficienty of emulation.
> 
> Moving from PowerPC to 8086 won't bring a huge improvement in
> performance, so emulation will be much slower.

Emulation technology has come a very long way in the last 11 or 12 
years. Moreover, while Intel chips don't have any clear edge right now 
at the high-end, Intel's mobile chips *are* a decent bit faster than the 
G4 chips Apple is using right now. And we don't know what the roadmaps 
looked like; it's possible that what Intel will be able to deliver on 
the desktop in 18 months will be quite a lot faster than what IBM would 
have been able to deliver. (We may never know that.)

-- 
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
   -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> >I don't usually do those LOL things, but this deserves one. I mean, what are 
> >we going to have to be smug about at the hardware level? In the 68k days I 
> >touted SCSI. In PowerPC I touted RISC. 
> 
> Firewire?  But you've got a real point; Apple loses a major
> differentiator here.  If Apple boxes are percieved as "The same as
> Dell, only more expensive and with less software", Apple dies.

I remember a conversation I had with somebody when Apple announced they 
were moving from the 68k to the PowerPC.  "You won't be able to buy a 
Macintosh any more", he said.

The processor is the least interesting piece of the hardware.  From a core 
hardware perspective, a Macintosh and a PC are pretty much the same thing; 
a CPU, some memory, a video card and display, a hard drive, a CD/DVD drive 
of some flavor, a power supply, a bus, a keyboard and mouse, and some 
random collection of I/O and network ports.

What sets Apple apart is the software, and how they package the hardware 
from a human factors point of view.  As far as hardware goes, I'm much more 
interested in how the trackpad feels under my thumb and how much my laptop 
weighs (and how long the battery lasts) than in what instruction set is 
being executed on some hunk of silicon I can't even see.

As long as they make the emulation mode work well enough that my existing 
software continues to work, I'm cool with the idea.

The interesting thing here is that this is the 2nd time Apple has done a 
processor switch.  The first time the did a pretty good job, and presumably 
they've learned how to do it even better this time.  The fact that they've 
had the OS running on both platforms for years is pretty good evidence that 
they're reached a level of platform independence in their code base that 
most of us can only dream about.  Imagine what happens N years from now 
when somebody comes out with a new processor architecture which totally 
blows away the x86 line in terms of both price/performance and power 
requirement (i.e. heat).  My guess is Apple will be ready to jump on the 
bandwagon as soon as it makes sense to do so.  Maybe by the third or forth 
time they switch platforms, nobody will notice any more.

clvrmnky wrote:
> On 03/06/2005 11:41 PM, Kyle Jones wrote:
> 
>>Davoud  <star@sky.com> wrote:
>> > James L. Ryan:
>> > > <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
>> > > 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
>> > 
>> > That doesn't bother me in the least. It's all about the operating
>> > system, and I don't care what processor the Mac OS runs on.
>>
>>It may turn out to be good news.  If Apple is moving to x86-ish
>>chips (meaning AMD chips are also option), then the competition
>>in that space ought to keep chip prices down and some of the
>>savings might even reach the consumer.
>>
>>On the other hand the smell of BS is pretty strong right now
>>given the years of "PowerPC > Pentium" propaganda we've had to
>>listen to.
>>
> 
> "Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel
> chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in
> mid-2007, *sources said*."
> 
> "The announcement *is expected* Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer
> Conference in San Francisco..." [emphasis mine]
> 
> This is still a rumour and nothing else. 
> 
> My crystal ball is showing that this is a load of shit.

No longer a rumor -- unless you don't thing Steve Jobs speaks for Apple.

Looks like you need a new crystal ball.

Gregory Weston wrote:
> In article <sehix-D08271.13224206062005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
>  Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Why would anyone writing OS X for x86 applications *not* flip the switch 
>>to generate dual binary output?
> 
> 
> Because they can't test it and thus can't in good faith claim to work?
> 

Not exactly true. With emulation, you can even test a cross binary. Sure,
emulation may slow it down a lot, but that dosen't impact testing.

Then, there is always just having both types of machines, hardly a
barrier for any developer.

In article <uce-CFAEA1.17424306062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <42A4A75A.66C8D42B@teksavvy.com>,
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
> 
> > Chad Irby wrote:
> > > It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't
> > > offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a
> > > year before Longhorn sees the light of day.
> > 
> > You are assuming that Apple will be continuing development of OS-X at
> > the same speed. That is not the case.
> 
> A fascinating claim, considering that apparently that's what they've 
> been doing all along.

Steve Jobs stated at MacWorld or WWDC last year (whichever was the
first to preview Tiger), that OS development would not continue at the
same pace following the release of Tiger.

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <060620051324167867%no@spam.invalid>, Keeper of the Purple
> Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Fuck.  So all Macs will essentially be Wintel boxes.
>>
>>Dammit.
> 
> 
> Nonsense. It just means a change in CPU.
> 
> Like from 68K to PPC.
> 


Yeah .. "tel" maybe, not "win"

In article <cirby-D78B50.17254906062005@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com>,
 Chad Irby <cirby@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> In article <mar.sv-A3B57F.14232506062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
>  rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <cirby-A99DBE.14432006062005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> >  Chad Irby <cirby@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <mar.sv-E1A66C.13354106062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> > >  rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > .....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
> > > > that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
> > > > not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
> > > 
> > > Why?
> > > 
> > > It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't 
> > > offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a 
> > > year before Longhorn sees the light of day.
> > 
> > Because screw me once shame on you screw me twice shame on me.
> 
> ...yet you're talking about switching over to an OS and a company that 
> screws people daily, in ways that aren't much better than what Apple 
> just did.

 Yes, do like OSX better, no doubt about it, but the hardware is much 
cheaper.  Buying top grade Apple stuff is getting to be a very dicey 
deal.  How much do you think Macconnection will be selling the 2.7 G5 
after today?  I wonder how much of a hit the MacConnections, MacMall ect 
are going to take?  I'm sure Apple has not made many friends today.

In article <42A4A59D.244C016C@teksavvy.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> rocky wrote:
> > .....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out
> > that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and
> > not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
> 
> Has Jobs announced whether the 8086 version of MACos would have a
> PowerPC emulator ?  (similar to the PowerPC version of MACos having a
> 68k emulator). ?

Yes, he called it "Rosetta".  It converts the code on the fly, much like 
the 680x0 processor emulation does on a PPC Mac.  According to 
MacWorld.com, Jobs demonstrated it by running several unmodified Mac PPC 
apps on Intel hardware.

I expect Rosetta will probably cache the converted code, so it doesn't have 
to convert it more than once during a single run.


> And how will developpers port their software if they must wait for
> proprietary Apple branded hardware that may take 2 years to be available ?

Developers can start working on it right now; the new Xcode 2.1 can build 
dual-binary apps, like the old "fat apps" we had during the transition  
from 68K to PPC.  Of course they'll need Intel hardware for testing.

Jobs said the first Intel Macs will be available by this time next year, 
and they'll finish the transition (i.e. stop selling PPC Macs) by the end 
of 2007, so developers will have plenty of time to buy new Macs before the 
last of their customers do.

And I won't be surprised if Apple lets the big developers have Intel Macs 
long before the general public gets them.

In article
<wayne.morris-AA1689.17411406062005@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>, Wayne
C. Morris <wayne.morris@this.is.invalid> wrote:

> And I won't be surprised if Apple lets the big developers have Intel Macs 
> long before the general public gets them.

Order today, delivery in a couple of weeks. $999 US, and the kit has to
be returned at the end of 2006.

-- 
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>

In article <060620051425137275%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <sehix-9765E2.12205106062005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Steve
> Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> 
> > If you check the keynote logs, xCode applications written to Cocoa will 
> > output dual binaries, running on both x86 and PowerPC Macs.
> 
> But how long will they keep doing this?
> 
> There'll almost certainly be a point where all new Mac software will be
> x86-only.

True, but will that really be any different from what we have now, where 
most new Mac software is OS X-only, and therefore won't run on older 
PowerMacs?

In article 
<wayne.morris-AA1689.17411406062005@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>,
 "Wayne C. Morris" <wayne.morris@this.is.invalid> wrote:

> In article <42A4A59D.244C016C@teksavvy.com>,
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
> 
> > rocky wrote:
> > > .....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out
> > > that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and
> > > not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
> > 
> > Has Jobs announced whether the 8086 version of MACos would have a
> > PowerPC emulator ?  (similar to the PowerPC version of MACos having a
> > 68k emulator). ?
> 
> Yes, he called it "Rosetta".  It converts the code on the fly, much like 
> the 680x0 processor emulation does on a PPC Mac.  According to 
> MacWorld.com, Jobs demonstrated it by running several unmodified Mac PPC 
> apps on Intel hardware.
> 
> I expect Rosetta will probably cache the converted code, so it doesn't have 
> to convert it more than once during a single run.
> 
> 
> > And how will developpers port their software if they must wait for
> > proprietary Apple branded hardware that may take 2 years to be available ?
> 
> Developers can start working on it right now; the new Xcode 2.1 can build 
> dual-binary apps, like the old "fat apps" we had during the transition  
> from 68K to PPC.  Of course they'll need Intel hardware for testing.
> 
> Jobs said the first Intel Macs will be available by this time next year, 
> and they'll finish the transition (i.e. stop selling PPC Macs) by the end 
> of 2007, so developers will have plenty of time to buy new Macs before the 
> last of their customers do.
> 
> And I won't be surprised if Apple lets the big developers have Intel Macs 
> long before the general public gets them.

I won't be surprised if not many (if any) developers by the old PPC macs.

JF Mezei  <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
 > Steve Hix wrote:
 > > At least one source quoted Phill Schiller as saying that MacOS X for x86
 > > won't run on white box PCs (implying no OS X on Dell).
 > > 
 > > There is a lot more to computer architectures than the CPU.
 > 
 > And if Apple insists on having its own chipsets to make its
 > machines proprietary, then Apple will not reap any benefits
 > from switching to a commodity chip. Dell/HP/etc are not
 > manufacturers, they are assemblers of a total solution
 > provided by Intel which includes far more than just the
 > chip.
 > 
 > If Apple develops and uses it sown chipsets around the 8086,
 > then Apple computers will continue to be more expensive.

Who buys Apple computers to save money?  Macintosh is a premium
brand.  If they try to wallow in the commodity muck with the
likes of Dell, then you will indeed be justified in predicting the
company's doom.  I don't see that happening.

rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
 > All PPC computers were obsolete as of today.  I just purchased a G5 a 
 > couple weeks ago so you can imagine how I feel, screwed.  This just 
 > might be what it takes to go back to the dark side after 16 years.

I'd say your G5 is obsolete when you can no longer buy the
applications you need compiled to run natively on the G5.  That
won't be for at least two years and more likely at least five.
What are you worried about?  My wife's G4 iMac that we bought
three years ago is barely usable compared to today's machines.
I don't know why you'd expect anything different with your G5
not matter what the CPU of the models 2-5 years from now.

I don't think Macs will be nearly so dependent on emulation this
time around.

In article <mcmurtri-EED143.19365304062005@corp-radius.supernews.com>,
 Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> In article <aJGdnXKb6-ouxz_fRVn-rA@comcast.com>,
>  "Fetch, Rover, Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Hans Aberg wrote:
> > > 
> > > Here are two interesting links:
> > >   http://www.intel.com/products/processor/itanium2/index.htm
> > >   http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/cache/80518-0-0-0-121.aspx
> > > 
> > > It is a move towards the Itanium, which is big endian, just as the IBM
> > > PowerPC chips, developed by Intel and HP together. So it seems to be both
> > > right business and development moves. One should get even more computing
> > > power.
> > > 
> > 
> > Itanium is crap - and even intel knows it - they have basically stopepd 
> > marketing it
> 
> x86 is crap too.  It doesn't make sense that Apple would want to switch 
> to a processor architecture burdened by such an old instruction set.  
> This rumor makes me wonder if Intel is working on a new CPU.  For Apple, 
> Intel would be a chance to free themselves from chipmakers that don't 
> care much about desktop class components.  For Intel, Apple would be a 
> proof of concept so they can market the new chips to Microsoft.

This switch is not a rumor, Jobs announced the switch today. The 
motivating factor is that IBM is not willing or able to have a good
growth path for the G5 chip. Notice that IBM has yet to produce a G5 
that could run cool enough to be used in Powerbooks, nor has IBM 
produced a G5 that meets or exceeds 3Ghtz in speed. From what I have 
read, IBM isn't shedding any tears about this change on Apple's part 
because IBM wants to focus its microprocessor division on producing 
chips for the Xbox 360 and other video game consoles.

By going with Intel, Apple will hopefully get a faster 64-bit chip for 
its desktop Macs and a 64-bit chip for use in future Powerbooks. Nothing 
I have seen indicates that Apple will use the Itanium, but than again, 
that is a logical assumption. As for Intel not marketing the Itanium, 
that's just silly. All the major PC companies are producing some 
computers that use the Itanium. I think if Apple keeps Intel under a 
tight agreement, this could be a big win for Apple.

In article <EPednY4xn4BFRjnfRVn-2w@seanet.com>,
 kyle_jones@wonderworks.com (Kyle Jones) wrote:

> rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
>  > All PPC computers were obsolete as of today.  I just purchased a G5 a 
>  > couple weeks ago so you can imagine how I feel, screwed.  This just 
>  > might be what it takes to go back to the dark side after 16 years.
> 
> I'd say your G5 is obsolete when you can no longer buy the
> applications you need compiled to run natively on the G5.  That
> won't be for at least two years and more likely at least five.
> What are you worried about?  My wife's G4 iMac that we bought
> three years ago is barely usable compared to today's machines.
> I don't know why you'd expect anything different with your G5
> not matter what the CPU of the models 2-5 years from now.
> 
> I don't think Macs will be nearly so dependent on emulation this
> time around.

Maybe I need to calm down...LOL

I'm still concerned.  I really like X.  I'd hate going back to windows.

I'll sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over.

 > > And I won't be surprised if Apple lets the big developers
 > > have Intel Macs long before the general public gets them.
 > 
 > I won't be surprised if not many (if any) developers by the old PPC macs.

Er, won't they have them already?  Since that's what we're using now?

In article <1118021348.773400.80000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 larwe@larwe.com wrote:

> Uh-huh. Perhaps before you continue this discussion you might want to
> buy my first book off Amazon and read the first chapter where I talk
> about how to select a core for your next 32-bit (or higher-end) design.
> The title is "Embedded System Design on a Shoestring" and you can buy
> it digitally as well as in paper form.

No thanks.   Your "book" doesn't apply here, does it?   We're not 
talking embedded systems, are we?   We're talking chips for mass market 
computers - you know, the very thing that Intel does best.
 
> x86 is only the processor of choice when designing PC-compatible
> devices to run PC operating systems.

Which is what Apple now is.    Get used to it.

Apparently x86 doesn't suck after all, since Macs now run on it.

Dan

In article 
<cirby-2A5019.15153806062005@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com>,
 Chad Irby <cirby@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> In article <060620051344431760%no@spam.invalid>,
>  Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <cirby-A99DBE.14432006062005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > Chad Irby <cirby@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <mar.sv-E1A66C.13354106062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> > >  rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > .....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
> > > > that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
> > > > not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
> > > 
> > > Why?
> > > 
> > > It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't 
> > > offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a 
> > > year before Longhorn sees the light of day.
> > 
> > But how long will OS X (or any other Mac software for that matter)
> > continue to be available for PPC-based Macs?
> 
> Jobs said "years and years" during the keynote today.  The development 
> tools Apple sells are set up to make dual binaries, after all.  They 
> also have to worry about selling software to fifteen or so million 
> legacy users, they're not going to abandon them because a new platform 
> comes out.
> 
> > I just bought an iMac G5. I didn't just waste three grand, did I?
> 
> Naah.  Heck, I'm still planning on buying a Mini this summer.

Agreed.  My brother (Windows user for about a decade now) was asking 
my advice on a Mac laptop, and after today's keynote I've decided to 
recommend that he go ahead and get an iBook or Powerbook.  I'm 
reasonably confident it will do just fine for him over the expected 
life of the machine (4 years or so).

 - geoff

In article <EPednY4xn4BFRjnfRVn-2w@seanet.com>,
 kyle_jones@wonderworks.com (Kyle Jones) wrote:

> rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
>  > All PPC computers were obsolete as of today.  I just purchased a G5 a 
>  > couple weeks ago so you can imagine how I feel, screwed.  This just 
>  > might be what it takes to go back to the dark side after 16 years.
> 
> I'd say your G5 is obsolete when you can no longer buy the
> applications you need compiled to run natively on the G5.  That
> won't be for at least two years and more likely at least five.
> What are you worried about?  My wife's G4 iMac that we bought
> three years ago is barely usable compared to today's machines.
> I don't know why you'd expect anything different with your G5
> not matter what the CPU of the models 2-5 years from now

I just (as in last week) got a 2 GHz G5 iMac.  This was to replace a 5 year 
old 400 MHz G4.  I didn't really *need* a new machine, but there were 
enough things about the iMac that made me figure it was time for an upgrade 
(Tiger, the bigger screen, wireless, faster processor, more memory, DVD).  
Not to mention that my monitor was starting to fritz out and I'd probably 
be looking at $500-ish for a new display pretty soon.

The interesting thing about the timing is that rather than feeling ripped 
off because I invested in hardware that's just been "rendered obsolete", I 
think I actually hit the timing just right.  If this machine lasts me 
another 5 years (or even just 3 or 4), by the time I buy my next new 
machine, the x86 Macs will have been around for a couple of years and I 
won't be buying the first generation of x86 hardware.  By the time I'm 
ready for my next upgrade, they'll have all the kinks worked out (sort of 
like how I didn't upgrade to OSX until 10.2 came out).

I've had a Plus, II-ci, 7200, 400 MHz G4, 1 GHz 12" Powerbook (now about 
1-1/2 years old), and now the 2 GHz iMac.

In article <060620051533057712%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> Keeper of the Purple Twilight:
> > //gratuitous obscenity//  So all Macs will essentially be Wintel boxes.
> 
> Nonsense. For you and me it's about the OS. I don't care if it runs on
> a Sunbeam toaster, as long as it's still the Mac OS.

Sunbeam toaster support is apparently coming with OS X 10.7.

 - geoff

In article <roy-7C1964.19554406062005@reader1.panix.com>,
 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <EPednY4xn4BFRjnfRVn-2w@seanet.com>,
>  kyle_jones@wonderworks.com (Kyle Jones) wrote:
> 
> > rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
> >  > All PPC computers were obsolete as of today.  I just purchased a G5 a 
> >  > couple weeks ago so you can imagine how I feel, screwed.  This just 
> >  > might be what it takes to go back to the dark side after 16 years.
> > 
> > I'd say your G5 is obsolete when you can no longer buy the
> > applications you need compiled to run natively on the G5.  That
> > won't be for at least two years and more likely at least five.
> > What are you worried about?  My wife's G4 iMac that we bought
> > three years ago is barely usable compared to today's machines.
> > I don't know why you'd expect anything different with your G5
> > not matter what the CPU of the models 2-5 years from now
> 
> I just (as in last week) got a 2 GHz G5 iMac.  This was to replace a 5 year 
> old 400 MHz G4.  I didn't really *need* a new machine, but there were 
> enough things about the iMac that made me figure it was time for an upgrade 
> (Tiger, the bigger screen, wireless, faster processor, more memory, DVD).  
> Not to mention that my monitor was starting to fritz out and I'd probably 
> be looking at $500-ish for a new display pretty soon.
> 
> The interesting thing about the timing is that rather than feeling ripped 
> off because I invested in hardware that's just been "rendered obsolete", I 
> think I actually hit the timing just right.  If this machine lasts me 
> another 5 years (or even just 3 or 4), by the time I buy my next new 
> machine, the x86 Macs will have been around for a couple of years and I 
> won't be buying the first generation of x86 hardware.  By the time I'm 
> ready for my next upgrade, they'll have all the kinks worked out (sort of 
> like how I didn't upgrade to OSX until 10.2 came out).
> 
> I've had a Plus, II-ci, 7200, 400 MHz G4, 1 GHz 12" Powerbook (now about 
> 1-1/2 years old), and now the 2 GHz iMac.

Good thoughts Roy,  makes me feel better...I'm still sweating though.  
Need to take another stress pill, LOL...

rocky wrote:
> In article <roy-7C1964.19554406062005@reader1.panix.com>,
>  Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <EPednY4xn4BFRjnfRVn-2w@seanet.com>,
>> kyle_jones@wonderworks.com (Kyle Jones) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
>>> > All PPC computers were obsolete as of today.  I just purchased a G5 a 
>>> > couple weeks ago so you can imagine how I feel, screwed.  This just 
>>> > might be what it takes to go back to the dark side after 16 years.
>>>
>>>I'd say your G5 is obsolete when you can no longer buy the
>>>applications you need compiled to run natively on the G5.  That
>>>won't be for at least two years and more likely at least five.
>>>What are you worried about?  My wife's G4 iMac that we bought
>>>three years ago is barely usable compared to today's machines.
>>>I don't know why you'd expect anything different with your G5
>>>not matter what the CPU of the models 2-5 years from now
>>
>>I just (as in last week) got a 2 GHz G5 iMac.  This was to replace a 5 year 
>>old 400 MHz G4.  I didn't really *need* a new machine, but there were 
>>enough things about the iMac that made me figure it was time for an upgrade 
>>(Tiger, the bigger screen, wireless, faster processor, more memory, DVD).  
>>Not to mention that my monitor was starting to fritz out and I'd probably 
>>be looking at $500-ish for a new display pretty soon.
>>
>>The interesting thing about the timing is that rather than feeling ripped 
>>off because I invested in hardware that's just been "rendered obsolete", I 
>>think I actually hit the timing just right.  If this machine lasts me 
>>another 5 years (or even just 3 or 4), by the time I buy my next new 
>>machine, the x86 Macs will have been around for a couple of years and I 
>>won't be buying the first generation of x86 hardware.  By the time I'm 
>>ready for my next upgrade, they'll have all the kinks worked out (sort of 
>>like how I didn't upgrade to OSX until 10.2 came out).
>>
>>I've had a Plus, II-ci, 7200, 400 MHz G4, 1 GHz 12" Powerbook (now about 
>>1-1/2 years old), and now the 2 GHz iMac.
> 
> 
> Good thoughts Roy,  makes me feel better...I'm still sweating though.  
> Need to take another stress pill, LOL...

I think the hardware has probably already had a generation or two.  I 
watched the keynote and was very impressed that they've been building an 
x86 and PPC version side by side the whole time.  Jobs was using an 
Intel machine for the whole presentation too.

In comp.sys.mac.system Geoffrey F. Green <geoff-usenet2@stuebegreen.com> wrote:
> In article <060620051533057712%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> wrote:

>> Keeper of the Purple Twilight:
>> > //gratuitous obscenity//  So all Macs will essentially be Wintel boxes.
>> 
>> Nonsense. For you and me it's about the OS. I don't care if it runs on
>> a Sunbeam toaster, as long as it's still the Mac OS.

> Sunbeam toaster support is apparently coming with OS X 10.7.

But will the toaster support include SNMP?-)

rick jones
-- 
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

In comp.sys.mac.system Scott Moore <samiamsansspam@sun.com> wrote:
> Gregory Weston wrote:
>> Because they can't test it and thus can't in good faith claim to work?
>> 

> Not exactly true. With emulation, you can even test a cross
> binary. Sure, emulation may slow it down a lot, but that dosen't
> impact testing.

That is still one leap of faith away from testing on the actual
machine hardware rather than the two one would be just flipping the
"compile for foo bit." 

Might be "good enough" for some situations, but certainly not all.  I
don't think I'd want to go that way for apps described by those
wonderfully vague terms like "enterprise" or "mission critical."

As for emulation simply slowing things down and not affecting testing
- how about timing bugs.

> Then, there is always just having both types of machines, hardly a
> barrier for any developer.

Barrier, no, but it is an increase in the size of their testing matrix.

rick jones
-- 
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Roy Smith wrote:
> The interesting thing here is that this is the 2nd time Apple has done a
> processor switch.  The first time the did a pretty good job, and presumably
> they've learned how to do it even better this time.


Looks like technically, they know how to pull it off. HOWEVER, there is
one main difference: At the time of the first conversion, Apple was
atill at about 10-13% market share and still living off the software
from its heydays, with Windows still unable to do much of what the MAC could.

Since then, Apple's market share is down to low single digits, and
software availablility way down compared to Windows with very little
software running on MAC that doesn't run on Windows.

In fact, when you look at all the software Apple now bundles with MAC
OS, it is also an indication that there is much less 3rd party software
available for the mac and Apple had to step in to fill the gaps.  (It
isn't bad per say, but it is an indication that ISV support for MACOS
isn't as high.

If Rosetta works fine, then perhaps it won't have much impact. But if
pre-MACOSX software will simply not run period on the 8086 under
Rosetta, then there are some issues with people still having a vew
classic apps that are no longer available for MACs. (SoundEdit for instance).

Gregory Weston wrote:

> Why would they do that? Most users aren't _really_ that religious about 
> the CPU. They want a reliable, stable system and nothing about this 
> should change the experience. I'm marginally surprised and marginally 
> disappointed by this turning out to be real. I see both pragmatic 
> benefit and some real potential for concern. But I'm in the group that I 
> think is hit hardest by this and I really don't get the whole "sky is 
> falling" bit.

I don't particularly like what this means for developers who have
devoted time and effort to work altivec into their programs to get
performance.
I always saw Altivec as great tool for making -really- fast programs.
I wonder whether SSE will be equivalent to Altivec...

A couple of other things I'm curious about...

*  32/64 bit software.
   PowerPC made it build the software, and it would just run.
   Is there anything different you would need to ship 32/64 bit apps?

*  PowerPC allowed for multi CPU architectures because of their
   better cache coherency/ability to reorder writes. Will we suffer
   because of this?

I wonder whether (as many have speculated) that Apple felt it was
going to be at the end of the queue for processors, now that so many
others are using PowerPC, and that it would have stayed with PowerPC
otherwise.


Dale

-- 
dstanbro@spam.o.matic.bigpond.net.au

In article <42A4C3F1.EB966C72@teksavvy.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
> > Apple's been doing the "porting," in parallel, FOR THE LAST FIVE
> > YEARS... with the Intel version running the *same* version of OS X as
> > the PPC version.
> 
> 
> No, Apple has been compiling its OS on the 8086 for last 5 years, mainly
> because the kernel alrteady ran on the 8086 so there was really no
> porting effort required.
> 
> However, there is a HUGE difference between compiling an OS and
> applications, doing a staged DEMO at a conference, and fully
> productizing a product all the way to the shelves.
> 
> Apple's only been doing the compiling for the past 5 years.
> 
> Doing simulatneaous releases of two versions of the OS still requires
> APPLE spend mega money on testing both versions, upgrade documentation
> etc. And remember that the 8086 version will not be the same as PowerPC
> since it will have the built-in emulator which should be hooked pretty
> deeply inside the OS.

The "built-in emulator" doesn't appear to be an emulator or to be 
"hooked deeply inside the OS." It's an on-the-fly, on-demand translator 
that runs in the application's address space.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.

In article <1118021348.773400.80000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 <larwe@larwe.com> wrote:
>> > My point was that the reason x86 sucks is
>>
>> First of all, it doesn't suck.
>
>I see. x86 is an elegant architecture unhindered by silly 8-bit legacy
>considerations, is it? Have you ever worked with x86 at an assembly

x86 is fast.  You can foam all you want about how it's inelegant and
crusty and old and bla bla bla bla bla bla bla (oh, and by the way it
will never be fast) but, ultimately, you're spitting at the rain: the
plain fact of the matter is that Intel and AMD have proven to be
better at making x86 go fast, and do so within a reasonable power
budget and at a reasonable die size, than IBM and Freescale have proven
to be with PowerPC.

Of course, x86 with more, larger registers is (a little bit) faster,
though with out of order execution and register renaming instruction
set matters less than you seem to think it does.  But it's noteworthy
that *that* -- the amd64 instruction set -- is what's shipping in all
the new processors from both Intel and AMD these days.

-- 
 Thor Lancelot Simon	                                      tls@rek.tjls.com

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be
 abandoned or transcended, there is no problem."		- Noam Chomsky

In article <d82ido$89j$1@news1nwk.SFbay.Sun.COM>,
 Scott Moore <samiamsansspam@Sun.COM> wrote:

> Gregory Weston wrote:
> > In article <sehix-D08271.13224206062005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> >  Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Why would anyone writing OS X for x86 applications *not* flip the switch 
> >>to generate dual binary output?
> > 
> > 
> > Because they can't test it and thus can't in good faith claim to work?
> > 
> 
> Not exactly true. With emulation, you can even test a cross binary. Sure,
> emulation may slow it down a lot, but that dosen't impact testing.

I've done dual-platform development. Emulators aren't sufficient for 
anyone who gives a darn.


> Then, there is always just having both types of machines, hardly a
> barrier for any developer.

Actually that depends quite a bit on the developer. For the short-term, 
post-Intel-introduction, future finding both architectures to test on 
won't be that difficult, but over time it may become harder for new 
developers to find viable PPC test machines if they care to. Meanwhile 
even those who can find such machines may not have the money or space to 
actually keep them around, plus this effectively doubles their testing 
time and increases the complexity of support. And if you're tempted to 
suggest that such developers are too small to be concerned about, I 
think you should look at the historical and ongoing contribution that 
small developers have made to the Mac.

G

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.

In article
<geoff-usenet2-1E13FA.19535206062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Geoffrey F. Green <geoff-usenet2@stuebegreen.com> wrote:

(other attributions snipped - apologies)

>> Jobs said "years and years" during the keynote today.  The development 
>> tools Apple sells are set up to make dual binaries, after all.  They 
>> also have to worry about selling software to fifteen or so million 
>> legacy users, they're not going to abandon them because a new platform 
>> comes out.
>> 
>> > I just bought an iMac G5. I didn't just waste three grand, did I?
>> 
>> Naah.  Heck, I'm still planning on buying a Mini this summer.
>
>Agreed.  My brother (Windows user for about a decade now) was asking 
>my advice on a Mac laptop, and after today's keynote I've decided to 
>recommend that he go ahead and get an iBook or Powerbook.  I'm 
>reasonably confident it will do just fine for him over the expected 
>life of the machine (4 years or so).

Indeed. I didn't see any reference in this thread to Jobs' assertion
today that Apple will still be launching plenty of exciting new
PPC-based hardware going forward. They must reckon that someone will be
up for buying it.

Stan

In article <MrNoSpam-9B0B37.10371907062005@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
 Dale Stanbrough <MrNoSpam@bigpoop.net.au> wrote:

> Gregory Weston wrote:
> 
> > Why would they do that? Most users aren't _really_ that religious about 
> > the CPU. They want a reliable, stable system and nothing about this 
> > should change the experience. I'm marginally surprised and marginally 
> > disappointed by this turning out to be real. I see both pragmatic 
> > benefit and some real potential for concern. But I'm in the group that I 
> > think is hit hardest by this and I really don't get the whole "sky is 
> > falling" bit.
> 
> I don't particularly like what this means for developers who have
> devoted time and effort to work altivec into their programs to get
> performance.
> I always saw Altivec as great tool for making -really- fast programs.
> I wonder whether SSE will be equivalent to Altivec...

Should be, and gcc does some fairly decent work at auto-vectorizing if I 
recall correctly. For those who hand-coded vector intrinsics there's 
nearly a 1:1 correspondence.


> I wonder whether (as many have speculated) that Apple felt it was
> going to be at the end of the queue for processors, now that so many
> others are using PowerPC, and that it would have stayed with PowerPC
> otherwise.

Even without the game consoles, IBM hasn't kept up its end of the 
bargain. In particular, they haven't provided Apple with a good portable 
CPU while more than half of Apple's computer business is for portables.

G

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.

In article
<wayne.morris-61F240.17591906062005@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>, Wayne
C. Morris <wayne.morris@this.is.invalid> wrote:

> > There'll almost certainly be a point where all new Mac software will be
> > x86-only.
> 
> True, but will that really be any different from what we have now, where 
> most new Mac software is OS X-only, and therefore won't run on older 
> PowerMacs?

There is a magnitude of difference between hardware based and operating
system based. Even a circa 1998 Beige G3 can run OS X in one form or
another, and a circa 1999 B/W G3 can run Tiger. Think a new dual
processor G5 will make it to 2011?

In article <060620051356386349%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid>, Jerry
Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> And Mac OS X
> will be fully native on Intel, unlike the original Mac OS which still
> had some 68K code in it right up to the end.

I remember how long it took, though, for OS X to become fully PPC
native. Are you saying it *won't* take that long to get Intel native?

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

In article <0001HW.BECA24680018353BF0407550@news.supernews.com>, James
L. Ryan <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

> Am I *screwed* because the car I bought a few months 
> ago has been superseded by a new model? 


No, because any car can drive on any road.

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

In article <060620051503043142%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <uce-CFAEA1.17424306062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > Porting requires a lot of resources if the product was not designed with 
> > multi-platform availability in mind. If you did it right up-front, it's 
> > not that bad for most projects. 
> 
> unless you used codewarrior.

If switching tool chains is a huge deal for you, I would suggest you 
probably didn't do it right up-front.

G

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.

In article <cirby-758964.17243606062005@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com>,
Chad Irby <cirby@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> > > If you check the keynote logs, xCode applications written to Cocoa will 
> > > output dual binaries, running on both x86 and PowerPC Macs.
> > 
> > But how long will they keep doing this?
> > 
> > There'll almost certainly be a point where all new Mac software will be
> > x86-only.
> 
> Yeah, but that's far enough out to let current machines get *really* 
> obsolete.  And even then, you'll be able to run the old apps on the new 
> machine, so you won't need to go out and get all new apps for the new 
> Mac Mini 4 GHz that will be the bottom end at that point...

What if I still have my PPC Mac? I don't exactly have money to burn...

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

In article <060620051725028312%reply.to@newsgroup.INVALID>,
 Chris Moore <reply.to@newsgroup.INVALID> wrote:

> In article <uce-CFAEA1.17424306062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <42A4A75A.66C8D42B@teksavvy.com>,
> >  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Chad Irby wrote:
> > > > It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't
> > > > offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a
> > > > year before Longhorn sees the light of day.
> > > 
> > > You are assuming that Apple will be continuing development of OS-X at
> > > the same speed. That is not the case.
> > 
> > A fascinating claim, considering that apparently that's what they've 
> > been doing all along.
> 
> Steve Jobs stated at MacWorld or WWDC last year (whichever was the
> first to preview Tiger), that OS development would not continue at the
> same pace following the release of Tiger.

That's true. But the prior poster was indicating that the need to build 
for two architectures would be causal.

-- 
Goal 2005: Convincing James Hetfield to cover the Strawberry Shortcake
"Are You Berry Berry Happy?" song.

In article <sehix-24CA31.14543106062005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Steve
Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:

> > > Transitive.
> > 
> > 
> > What about it?
> 
> Your performance concerns are addressed by it.
> 
> Don't expect VPC-class performance.

Why not? Emulators are emulators.

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

In article <EPednY4xn4BFRjnfRVn-2w@seanet.com>, Kyle Jones
<kyle_jones@wonderworks.com> wrote:

> rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
>  > All PPC computers were obsolete as of today.  I just purchased a G5 a 
>  > couple weeks ago so you can imagine how I feel, screwed.  This just 
>  > might be what it takes to go back to the dark side after 16 years.
> 
> I'd say your G5 is obsolete when you can no longer buy the
> applications you need compiled to run natively on the G5.  That
> won't be for at least two years and more likely at least five.
> What are you worried about?  My wife's G4 iMac that we bought
> three years ago is barely usable compared to today's machines.
> I don't know why you'd expect anything different with your G5
> not matter what the CPU of the models 2-5 years from now.

What exactly is barely usable about the G4? Your wife do a lot of 3D
animation rendering? I would guess that a G4 is more computer than the
average person needs for simple Internet/Word Processing/etc.

In article <070620050203121371%man@pr100.com>, Stan The Man
<man@pr100.com> wrote:

> Jobs' assertion
> today that Apple will still be launching plenty of exciting new
> PPC-based hardware going forward

He said that, did he?

I know that Apple won't be switching the entire line to Intel all at
once, but I confess I'm confused as to why (on the eve of announcing
that major switch) Apple would ever make Macs based on a processor that
within two years will never appear in a Mac again.

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> If switching tool chains is a huge deal for you, I would suggest you 
> probably didn't do it right up-front.

At a certain theoretical level, that's true.  But, it's also true that 
there's a lot of code that is not as portable as you might like it to be.  
Complaining that it wasn't "done right up-front" won't change that.

In article <0001HW.BECA24680018353BF0407550@news.supernews.com>, James
L. Ryan <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 15:49:55 -0500, rocky wrote
>(in article <mar.sv-013D57.15495506062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>):
>
>> All PPC computers were obsolete as of today.  I just purchased a G5 a 
>> couple weeks ago so you can imagine how I feel, screwed.  This just 
>> might be what it takes to go back to the dark side after 16 years.
>
>You were *NOT* screwed, you bought a computer that at the time of purchase 
>was perceived to be useful and worth the price. The computer you bought will 
>still run all Mac applications released within the next several years, a time 
>period which will be sufficiently long enough until you feel the need to 
>upgrade to a new Mac. Am I *screwed* because the car I bought a few months 
>ago has been superseded by a new model?

It is Job's vision of multimedia delivery in the home which has surely
driven Apple to switch to Intel. With high definition movies and TV
programming now a reality all over the world, Apple must have hardware
that can handle it. At the time of writing, only the dual G5 2.5Ghz Mac
and upwards can even play back high definition video - and at its
price, it has no chance of realising Job's vision of a home media hub.
And professional movie makers are struggling on today's high end Macs
to create and edit high definition video. They matter too -- but not
nearly as much as the mass market of HD movie consumers. For them,
Apple has no choice but to switch to a different chip.

Stan

In article <060620052011405896%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <060620051356386349%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid>, Jerry
> Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > And Mac OS X
> > will be fully native on Intel, unlike the original Mac OS which still
> > had some 68K code in it right up to the end.
> 
> I remember how long it took, though, for OS X to become fully PPC
> native. Are you saying it *won't* take that long to get Intel native?

Eh?  Mac OS X has always been PPC native.  And my impression from the 
fact that they've been building OS X on Intel chips since 2001 or so 
is that those builds were done without the benefit of any PPC 
emulation on the Intel side.

 - geoff

In article <060620051725028312%reply.to@newsgroup.INVALID>,
 Chris Moore <reply.to@newsgroup.INVALID> wrote:

> In article <uce-CFAEA1.17424306062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <42A4A75A.66C8D42B@teksavvy.com>,
> >  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Chad Irby wrote:
> > > > It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't
> > > > offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a
> > > > year before Longhorn sees the light of day.
> > > 
> > > You are assuming that Apple will be continuing development of OS-X at
> > > the same speed. That is not the case.
> > 
> > A fascinating claim, considering that apparently that's what they've 
> > been doing all along.
> 
> Steve Jobs stated at MacWorld or WWDC last year (whichever was the
> first to preview Tiger), that OS development would not continue at the
> same pace following the release of Tiger.

Yeah, it went from yearly to an 18 month cycle.

Which is why the next version of OS X is aimed at the end of 2006.

-- 
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

In article <060620052013312553%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <cirby-758964.17243606062005@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Chad Irby <cirby@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > If you check the keynote logs, xCode applications written to Cocoa will 
> > > > output dual binaries, running on both x86 and PowerPC Macs.
> > > 
> > > But how long will they keep doing this?
> > > 
> > > There'll almost certainly be a point where all new Mac software will be
> > > x86-only.
> > 
> > Yeah, but that's far enough out to let current machines get *really* 
> > obsolete.  And even then, you'll be able to run the old apps on the new 
> > machine, so you won't need to go out and get all new apps for the new 
> > Mac Mini 4 GHz that will be the bottom end at that point...
> 
> What if I still have my PPC Mac? I don't exactly have money to burn...

If you can't come up with another $500 between now and 2008, you've got 
other issues in your life.  Try to put $3 or so back per week, and 
you'll be fine.

-- 
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

Chris Moore  <reply.to@newsgroup.INVALID> wrote:
 > In article <EPednY4xn4BFRjnfRVn-2w@seanet.com>, Kyle Jones
 > <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com> wrote:
 > 
 > > rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
 > >  > All PPC computers were obsolete as of today.  I just purchased a G5 a 
 > >  > couple weeks ago so you can imagine how I feel, screwed.  This just 
 > >  > might be what it takes to go back to the dark side after 16 years.
 > > 
 > > I'd say your G5 is obsolete when you can no longer buy the
 > > applications you need compiled to run natively on the G5.  That
 > > won't be for at least two years and more likely at least five.
 > > What are you worried about?  My wife's G4 iMac that we bought
 > > three years ago is barely usable compared to today's machines.
 > > I don't know why you'd expect anything different with your G5
 > > not matter what the CPU of the models 2-5 years from now.
 > 
 > What exactly is barely usable about the G4? Your wife do a lot of 3D
 > animation rendering? I would guess that a G4 is more computer than the
 > average person needs for simple Internet/Word Processing/etc.

Graphic design plus the other stuff you mentioned.  The 800Mhz G4
iMac that we bought three years ago maxed out at 512MB, so the box
swaps when she has all her applications open.  Applications take a
while to open because the CPU is slow by today's standards.  I put
a newer Mac in front of her, with more memory and more CPU and she
now has to wait on her machine a lot less.  The old Mac is still
usable, but frustratingly slow.

In article <42A4C3F1.EB966C72@teksavvy.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
> > Apple's been doing the "porting," in parallel, FOR THE LAST FIVE
> > YEARS... with the Intel version running the *same* version of OS X as
> > the PPC version.
> 
> No, Apple has been compiling its OS on the 8086 for last 5 years, mainly
> because the kernel alrteady ran on the 8086 so there was really no
> porting effort required.
> 
> However, there is a HUGE difference between compiling an OS and
> applications, doing a staged DEMO at a conference, and fully
> productizing a product all the way to the shelves.
> 
> Apple's only been doing the compiling for the past 5 years.

....and the testing.  Not to mention that they have a whole YEAR to get 
the rest nailed down.

-- 
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

In article <uce-470217.17281806062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <sehix-D08271.13224206062005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
>  Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> 
> > Why would anyone writing OS X for x86 applications *not* flip the switch 
> > to generate dual binary output?
> 
> Because they can't test it and thus can't in good faith claim to work?

Yet they managed when we switched from 68k to PPC.

Is everyone forgetting that Apple has been through this before, and 
there were no dire consequences?

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

In article 
<wayne.morris-AA1689.17411406062005@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>,
 "Wayne C. Morris" <wayne.morris@this.is.invalid> wrote:

> And I won't be surprised if Apple lets the big developers have Intel Macs 
> long before the general public gets them.

They already are.  $999 for certain levels of developers, comes with the 
porting tools and a P4 3.6 GHz Intel Mac.

-- 
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

In article <060620052011405896%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <060620051356386349%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid>, Jerry
> Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > And Mac OS X
> > will be fully native on Intel, unlike the original Mac OS which still
> > had some 68K code in it right up to the end.
> 
> I remember how long it took, though, for OS X to become fully PPC
> native. Are you saying it *won't* take that long to get Intel native?

I don't think it will.

The original MacOS had *lots* of processor-dependent code.  Much of the 
GUI was finely-tuned assembly language, which is how they got decent 
performance on the early machines.

OS X, on the other hand, is written in high-level languages, and is 
based on a code base that's already been ported to other processors.  
I'll guess that less than 5% of the code will need to be tweaked.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

> This switch is not a rumor, Jobs announced the switch today. The 
> motivating factor is that IBM is not willing or able to have a good
> growth path for the G5 chip.
ever hear of 'Cell'??
   or
Power 5

> Notice that IBM has yet to produce a G5 
> that could run cool enough to be used in Powerbooks, nor has IBM 
> produced a G5 that meets or exceeds 3Ghtz in speed. 
agreed that this is an issue

>From what I have 
> read, IBM isn't shedding any tears about this change on Apple's part 
> because IBM wants to focus its microprocessor division on producing 
> chips for the Xbox 360 and other video game consoles.
> 
> By going with Intel, Apple will hopefully get a faster 64-bit chip
what? Itanium? it cant get out of its own way - hell even HP dropped it.


> its desktop Macs and a 64-bit chip for use in future Powerbooks. Nothing 
> I have seen indicates that Apple will use the Itanium, but than again, 
> that is a logical assumption.
intel does NOT have an other 64bit chip

> As for Intel not marketing the Itanium, 
> that's just silly. All the major PC companies are producing some 
> computers that use the Itanium. I think if Apple keeps Intel under a 
> tight agreement, this could be a big win for Apple.
yeah big win! (not)

are you going to go and buy a G5 tower today? or any time between now 
and June 2006?

thought not
---
you going to redevelop your software -again- to meet the new hardware ?

probably not - as this costs $ and there is not, and does not appear to 
be any market worth targeting.
---

are you going to continue to develop (not just support) any new software 
for the G5?  probably not

---

are you going to develop any new hardware for the Mac platform? nothing 
like a video card or other internal mod/upgrade since the G5s cease to 
exist in a year - no time to get your $ back
-------

intel inside for apple means they are going to be competing again Dell, 
and Linspire -
do you *really* think apple can produce a computer (with monitor) for 
$300 - dell does.  how about a computer for $100?  Linspire does.
-------

This move is the death of Apple as a hardware (computer) and OS vendor

the iPod, and other devices like it will allow apple to continue to 
exist, and maybe even grow - but not as a computer vendor.
--------
taking all the above in consideration -
are you - a consumer who just found his/her multi thousand dollar 
computer turned into a deadened paperweight going to buy another apple 
computer (or even product of any nature)?

not me.

I have been an apple supporter for a LONG time - I have a complete 512K 
just to give you an idea. I have a dual 2.5 tower I am writing this 
message with - $3k - gone.

I expect - there will be a class-action suit, I may even start it, to 
get my $ back.

In article <42A4AD5D.98E234AF@teksavvy.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
> > At least one source quoted Phill Schiller as saying that MacOS X for x86
> > won't run on white box PCs (implying no OS X on Dell).
> > 
> > There is a lot more to computer architectures than the CPU.
> 
> And if Apple insists on having its own chipsets to make its machines
> proprietary, then Apple will not reap any benefits from switching to a
> commodity chip. Dell/HP/etc are not manufacturers, they are assemblers
> of a total solution provided by Intel which includes far more than just
> the chip.

Apple already tried allowing competitors to create Mac-compatible 
computers, and they didn't like it.  If they didn't like it when the 
competitors were tiny, I can't imagine them wanting to take on the likes 
of Dell and HP.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

In article <060620052018441310%no@spam.invalid>, Keeper of the Purple
Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <070620050203121371%man@pr100.com>, Stan The Man
><man@pr100.com> wrote:
>
>> Jobs' assertion
>> today that Apple will still be launching plenty of exciting new
>> PPC-based hardware going forward
>
>He said that, did he?

Yes he did. See it at apple.com. He might have been lying though..

>I know that Apple won't be switching the entire line to Intel all at
>once, but I confess I'm confused as to why (on the eve of announcing
>that major switch) Apple would ever make Macs based on a processor that
>within two years will never appear in a Mac again.

Stan

In article <060620051344431760%no@spam.invalid>,
 Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <cirby-A99DBE.14432006062005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Chad Irby <cirby@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <mar.sv-E1A66C.13354106062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> >  rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > .....better believe it's over.  When the faithful followers find out 
> > > that developers will pay their attention to Intel based computing and 
> > > not the PPC, you know where they'll head for....LONGHORN.
> > 
> > Why?
> > 
> > It's not like Longhorn is going to offer anything that OS X doesn't 
> > offer *now*, and OS X will be available on Intel-based machines a half a 
> > year before Longhorn sees the light of day.
> 
> But how long will OS X (or any other Mac software for that matter)
> continue to be available for PPC-based Macs?
> 
> I just bought an iMac G5. I didn't just waste three grand, did I?

When Apple came out with the PowerMac, how long was it before they 
stopped supporting 68k Macs?  And their existing customer base was much 
smaller then.

They can't afford to abandon their existing customers.  My guess is that 
PPC Macs will continue to be supported for a few years.  Your G5 won't 
be obsolete until close to the time when you probably would have been 
thinking about upgrading anyway.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

In article <060620052018441310%no@spam.invalid>, Keeper of the Purple
Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <070620050203121371%man@pr100.com>, Stan The Man
> <man@pr100.com> wrote:
> 
> > Jobs' assertion
> > today that Apple will still be launching plenty of exciting new
> > PPC-based hardware going forward
> 
> He said that, did he?
> 
> I know that Apple won't be switching the entire line to Intel all at
> once, but I confess I'm confused as to why (on the eve of announcing
> that major switch) Apple would ever make Macs based on a processor that
> within two years will never appear in a Mac again.

Because it's the best they've got now?

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.

In article <060620052011405896%no@spam.invalid>, Keeper of the Purple
Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <060620051356386349%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid>, Jerry
> Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > And Mac OS X
> > will be fully native on Intel, unlike the original Mac OS which still
> > had some 68K code in it right up to the end.
> 
> I remember how long it took, though, for OS X to become fully PPC
> native. Are you saying it *won't* take that long to get Intel native?

It is _already_ Intel native.  (And it was PowerPC native on the day it
was introduced.)

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.

In article <9G1pe.1574$751.268@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
 Bill Tschumy <bill@otherwiseDELETE.com> wrote:

> The engineers at Apple (who were at NeXT) have been through this before.  You 
> will be able to get Universal binaries for quite some time.

So have the engineers who weren't at NeXT.  They went through it when 
Mac switched from 68k to PPC.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

In article <slrnda9g3a.jq6.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>,
 Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:

> On 2005-06-06, Bill Tschumy <bill@otherwiseDELETE.com> wrote:
> > NeXT went through this when NeXTSTEP ran on 68000 and '86 processors.  The 
> > developer just needs to flip a checkbox saying what kind of binaries to 
> > include in the package.  You check them both and it is automatically built 
> > for both platforms.  Worked as smooth as silk.
> 
> What about those of us developing UNix apps and depending on the fact that
> OS X is a Unix to get OS X compatibility? The only time I fire up Xcode is
> by accident (double-clicking on a C file int he Finder). Will building
> dual-architecture, or cross-compiling, be that simple for those of us using
> more traditional Unix tools like make and gcc and GNU libtool?

Don't you already have to use OSX-specific stuff to package the code 
into proper Macintosh applications?  I expect that you'll be able to 
compile the two versions of the executable with appropriate compiler 
options, and then put them both into the resulting application bundle.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

James L. Ryan wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 15:49:55 -0500, rocky wrote
> (in article <mar.sv-013D57.15495506062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>):
> 
> 
>>All PPC computers were obsolete as of today.  I just purchased a G5 a 
>>couple weeks ago so you can imagine how I feel, screwed.  This just 
>>might be what it takes to go back to the dark side after 16 years.
> 
> 
> You were *NOT* screwed, you bought a computer that at the time of purchase 
> was perceived to be useful and worth the price. The computer you bought will 
> still run all Mac applications released within the next several years, a time 
> period which will be sufficiently long enough until you feel the need to 
> upgrade to a new Mac. Am I *screwed* because the car I bought a few months 
> ago has been superseded by a new model? 
> 
NOT true -

as of this moment (actually approximately 1pm edt) all PPC based macs 
became obsolete.

You/we are *VERY* unlikely to see any new hardware offerings (that are 
not already nearly complete) as there will be insufficient time for the 
manufacturers to get their $ back.

same for software - if I have to rewrite **AGAIN** (I likely did for X.1 
and again for X.2 and again for X.3 and once more [if it has been 
completed] for X.4) why?
There is only about a year to try to regain their investment.

BTW - you can expect to see same new software released in he next couple 
of weeks - most of them will be crap - rushed out the door to try to get 
the investment $ back.

more likely developers will just say "Fuck it* and either stop mac dev 
altogether, and just dev their PC apps, or if the app is Mac only, just 
port it windows and be done.

so...
my dual 2.5 is obsolete. as are your macs.

Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
> I know that Apple won't be switching the entire line to Intel all at
> once, but I confess I'm confused as to why (on the eve of announcing
> that major switch) Apple would ever make Macs based on a processor that
> within two years will never appear in a Mac again.


Apple may have a few PPC based machines in the pipeline and those will
continue and come to fruition between now and 2007. But don't expect new
PPC projects to start. Apple has its hads full with creting a whole
family of 8086 based machines in 2 years, and that is a daunting task.

In article <d8272r$44j$1@news.ucar.edu>,
 pack@pack.eos.ucar.edu.ucar.edu ((null)) wrote:

> In article <no.spam-CB0036.13220006062005@news.verizon.net>,
> Al  <no.spam@wanted.com> wrote:
> ....
> >In my opinion, they will port the OS to run on PCs. And thusly they will 
> >primarily become a software company. Jobs will continue to be creative 
> >and come up with new niche machines. I'd like to try OSX on my Shuttle 
> >computer which now runs only Linux.
> 
> The initial reports are that Apple intends to build their macos-specific
> intel boxes and not "allow" the macos to run on standard wintel machines.
> Since the base of macos is Darwin that already runs on wintel, this might
> be nontrivial to enforce. If they can't enforce this, then they will have
> trouble remaining a hardware company. 

If the device drivers only support Apple's hardware, it could take 
serious work to get it to run on other systems.

There's also licensing issues.  When Apple stopped licensing their 
architecture, all the competitors selling Mac-compatibles disappeared.  
Nothing technically prevented them from continuing what they were doing, 
as well as reverse-engineering future systems.  But they would be 
risking lawsuits from Apple.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

We did this at Digital with FX!32 on Alpha to run x86 code on Alpha under
Windows NT.

The binary translator worked, sort of. x86 Windows code would be translated
to Alpha Windows code and what remained ran in an emulator.

It didn't work very well. There was an awful lot of work involved in trying
to make this work, but the original code pool of x86 stuff was such a moving
target all the time that stability just couldn't be had. You know what
happened of course. Compaq dropped FX!32 and then dropped Windows on Alpha
also.

Twighlight time has arrived for us PPC users I am afraid.

All this Rosetta stuff is great University study stuff, but it won't last
very long, it will take too many resources to keep it going and it won't be
included in the long term because it won't do anything for market share.

rtt


"Jerry Kindall" <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:060620051356386349%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid...
> In article <060620051447593365%no@spam.invalid>, Keeper of the Purple
> Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <42A4A7D8.45958E65@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei
> > <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Moving from PowerPC to 8086 won't bring a huge improvement in
> > > performance, so emulation will be much slower.
> >
> > Ah-HA!
>
> Well, it probably won't be as painful as you might think, because even
> emulated apps will still be calling fully native APIs in the OS.  Most
> apps spend most of their time in the libraries anyway.  And Mac OS X
> will be fully native on Intel, unlike the original Mac OS which still
> had some 68K code in it right up to the end.
>
> -- 
> Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>
>
>         Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
>         This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article <y6xy89ncq44.fsf@pomme.me.umn.edu>,
 Richard Kaszeta <rich@kaszeta.org> wrote:

> Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> writes:
> > So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
> 
> Already happened.
> 
> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html

Know what I don't see in that announcement?  Any mention of a specific 
processor, just the name "Intel".

Everyone is assuming x86 -- has Apple officially said this?

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

In article <odOdnUgWguJLnzjfRVn-uw@comcast.com>, Fetch, Rover, Fetch
<Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote:

> James L. Ryan wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 15:49:55 -0500, rocky wrote
> > (in article <mar.sv-013D57.15495506062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>):
> > 
> > 
> >>All PPC computers were obsolete as of today.  I just purchased a G5 a 
> >>couple weeks ago so you can imagine how I feel, screwed.  This just 
> >>might be what it takes to go back to the dark side after 16 years.
> > 
> > 
> > You were *NOT* screwed, you bought a computer that at the time of purchase 
> > was perceived to be useful and worth the price. The computer you bought
> > will 
> > still run all Mac applications released within the next several years, a
> > time 
> > period which will be sufficiently long enough until you feel the need to 
> > upgrade to a new Mac. Am I *screwed* because the car I bought a few months 
> > ago has been superseded by a new model? 
> > 
> NOT true -
> 
> as of this moment (actually approximately 1pm edt) all PPC based macs 
> became obsolete.

They run Macintosh software faster than any other computers available
on the open market.  That's a strange definition of "obsolete."

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.

iPOD is a flash in the pan. It's sales have already started to level off and
the are enough wolves biting at it's heals that it will be in decline in a
few months.

rtt


"Andy Mulhearn" <mully@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3gjp3hFcpoiqU2@individual.net...
> Charles Bouldin wrote:
> > Now that we're all in hell at absolute zero....
> >
> > Why on earth would anyone buy a new Mac during this "transition"? Seems
> > to me that what SJ really did today was mainly to insure that Mac sales
> > will absolutely TANK until June, 2006. My memory is failing, but during
> > the 68K>PPC transition did we not have PPC computers for sale almost
> > immediately when the transition was announced? Was there a gap of 1-2
> > years while we all waited to buy computers with the new chip?
>
> iPod sales will more than make up for it:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4442775.stm
>
> [snipped]
>
> >
> > Predictions:
> >
> > Very poor Mac sales for the next year. I can't think of any reason that
> > anyone would buy one now.
> >
> > OTOH, there will probably be some really good prices on PPC Macs soon!
> > If you think that developers will continue to support PPC code for
> > awhile, these could be some good deals.
>
> Hope so. I've got another year to run on this iBook. I'll be looking for
> a good deal when I replace it and don't care whether it's an Apple/Intel
> or Apple/PPC. If it looks like an iBook, runs OSX and all my apps why
> should I care.
>
> To be honest, Apple had to do this. With IBM using PPC for all of the
> systems from the RS6000 upwards and Sony and Microsoft using PPC for the
> PS3 and XBox, why would IBM have the time or inclination to build better
> PPC CPUs for Apple?
>
> On the other hand if, as it appears, Apple have been considering this
> for some time it shows a lot of foresight which should be applauded.
>
> My only concern is how they they tie the OS to their own hardware so
> that they still retain the same margins and stay in business as an
> alternative.
>
> Andy



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Steve Hix wrote:

> 
> At least one source quoted Phill Schiller as saying that MacOS X for x86 
> won't run on white box PCs (implying no OS X on Dell).
> 
> There is a lot more to computer architectures than the CPU.

Believe that and I have a few bridges to sell you.

how long until there is a hack for this??

I man look at things like archicad - what $3000 requires a hard dongle -
cracked like an old peanut - run any version, for free.

In article <060620052018252534%reply.to@newsgroup.INVALID>, Chris Moore wrote:
 
> What exactly is barely usable about the G4? Your wife do a lot of 3D
> animation rendering? I would guess that a G4 is more computer than the
> average person needs for simple Internet/Word Processing/etc.

My G3 iBook is perfectly usable right now for me.

My gut reaction to the news was "oh shit" but let's keep a sense
of perspective.

I often think back to a talk by Tim O'Reilly I attended at City
University in London in June 2003. He did his presentation on a
PowerBook and was a big Mac OS X fan - yet despite his enthusiastic
embrace of the platform he was of the opinion that in the longer
term it is doomed.

Current offerings from Apple are excellent, but unless I decide
to splash out and replace my ageing iBook within the next year
I fully expect that my next computer will be commodity hardware
running Linux.

The big advantage Mac OS X users will have over Windows users in
the long term is that the far better support for standards will
make the inevitable transition to Linux that much easier (specially
since you can already run tens of thousands of Linux apps on you
Mac). Sure, if I had to switch now I would miss the elegent Mac
UI and may have problems getting X to play with the graphics
hardware - but those things will be worked on.

Of course I could be completely wrong!

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <3gjp3hFcpoiqU2@individual.net>,
 Andy Mulhearn <mully@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

> Charles Bouldin wrote:
> > Now that we're all in hell at absolute zero....
> > 
> > Why on earth would anyone buy a new Mac during this "transition"? Seems 
> > to me that what SJ really did today was mainly to insure that Mac sales 
> > will absolutely TANK until June, 2006. My memory is failing, but during 
> > the 68K>PPC transition did we not have PPC computers for sale almost 
> > immediately when the transition was announced? Was there a gap of 1-2 
> > years while we all waited to buy computers with the new chip?
> 
> iPod sales will more than make up for it:
> 
    Apple still gets more revenue from Macs than ipods. I do not think 
ipod can carry Apple, nor do I want it to.
> > 
> > Predictions: 
> > 
> > Very poor Mac sales for the next year. I can't think of any reason that 
> > anyone would buy one now.
> > 
> > OTOH, there will probably be some really good prices on PPC Macs soon! 
> > If you think that developers will continue to support PPC code for 
> > awhile, these could be some good deals.
> 
> Hope so. I've got another year to run on this iBook. I'll be looking for 
> a good deal when I replace it and don't care whether it's an Apple/Intel 
> or Apple/PPC. If it looks like an iBook, runs OSX and all my apps why 
> should I care.
> 
> To be honest, Apple had to do this. With IBM using PPC for all of the 
> systems from the RS6000 upwards and Sony and Microsoft using PPC for the 
> PS3 and XBox, why would IBM have the time or inclination to build better 
> PPC CPUs for Apple?

I understand the remarks about IBM; Apple had become a very minor 
customer. Now consider Intel, which sells 200 million P4/year. Apple 
will buy, what, 4 million if it converts the whole product line? So 
Apple is a minor customer for Intel. Intel will treat Apple exactly as 
IBM has and for the same reasons.

Steve Hix wrote:

> There's no reason why the PPC Macs wouldn't be supported for years to 
> come; it's not like you'd have to switch between application development 
> environments to develop for both.

when was the last time you saw a vendor selling a new product (not new 
stock) for:
68xxx
OS9
Win 3.1
Win 95
win 98
even Win NT

Yeah, well some smart people will figure it out and that will be the end of
their hardware games.

After all, many smart people have already figured out how to run Linux and
NetBSD etc... on Intel hardware.

rtt


"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:060620051417222395%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> In article <zcidnWYiEdClODnfRVn-og@pcisys.net>, Jason Bowen
> <ha@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > > You can bet your butt you can't boot OSX 4.1 (or whatever) on your
handy
> > > dandy Dell.
> >
> > I wouldn't own a Dell, nevertheless, any real references for this?
>
> <http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+aligns+with+Intel/2100-734
> 1_3-5733756.html>
>
> "After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller
> addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no
> plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't
> preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he
> said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
>
> However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac
> OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac
> OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."
>
> -- 
> ~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
> ------------------------------------------------------
> One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
> The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article <uce-DAB302.21125206062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <060620051503043142%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <uce-CFAEA1.17424306062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> > Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Porting requires a lot of resources if the product was not designed with 
> > > multi-platform availability in mind. If you did it right up-front, it's 
> > > not that bad for most projects. 
> > 
> > unless you used codewarrior.
> 
> If switching tool chains is a huge deal for you, I would suggest you 
> probably didn't do it right up-front.

you are welcome to suggest all you want, but...

codewarrior let me write for both mac and pc on a mac with a single
ide, allowing me to write cross platform code, and with far more
pleasure than if i were to have used xcode, visual studio and two
computers (or virtual pc which is less than ideal for development). and
for the times i travelled with my powerbook, i only needed one laptop,
not two. 

furthermore, i am substantially more productive in codewarrior than in
xcode, in addition to just simply preferring it.  and for non-cross
platform projects, powerplant was wonderful.

i also seem to recall one plugin sdk (maybe quark, i'm not totally sure
which one) which used codewarrior (as many plugin sdks did) and hinted
that trying to use xcode was really not the best use of one's time.
other sdks did not seem as bold to suggest not bothering.  i assume the
next version of these sdks will be xcode... 

sometimes it is not as simple as steve wants one to think.

In article <chuckb84-A18A80.22334606062005@news.giganews.com>, Charles
Bouldin <chuckb84@comcast.net> wrote:

> I understand the remarks about IBM; Apple had become a very minor 
> customer. Now consider Intel, which sells 200 million P4/year. Apple 
> will buy, what, 4 million if it converts the whole product line? So 
> Apple is a minor customer for Intel. Intel will treat Apple exactly as 
> IBM has and for the same reasons.

Except that, well, IBM is not in the business of making processers for
desktop PCs (the PowerPC is an embedded processor) and Intel... is in
that business.  Apple's needs as far as processors go are about the
same as Dell's or anyone else's.

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.

Charles Bouldin wrote:
> I understand the remarks about IBM; Apple had become a very minor
> customer. Now consider Intel, which sells 200 million P4/year. Apple
> will buy, what, 4 million if it converts the whole product line? So
> Apple is a minor customer for Intel. Intel will treat Apple exactly as
> IBM has and for the same reasons.

Not quite.

When you combine all 8086 based laptop sales from Apple, Dell, HP,
Lenovo, gateway etc, the market is big enough to get Intel's attention
and get intel to prioritise the production of low power chips.

Apple just isn't big enough to get IBM to generate customized Apple
versions of Power chips, and even less to produce such chips in low
power format for laptops. Remember that Apple didn't buy off-the-shelf
Power chips, it had IBM create Apple customized versions. Had Apple been
able to use the standard off the shelf power chips (and IBM willing to
integrate Apple's special instructions in the default power
architecture, then the relationship may have worked better.

What is interesting however is that IBM learned before Intel that Mhz
wasn't the only metric. Intel admitted it not long ago. IBM produced
real dual cores with coherant single cache years ahead of Intel, and
Intel's just released dual cores won't even have a coherant cache. (each
core has its own cache). So the performance argument presented by Jobs
about IBM not delivering the 3ghz chip doesn't really do much to
convince me since Power is the fastest chip these days.

I think the real reason was that Apple wasn't big enough to get IBM to
produce customized chips and for some rteason, IBM didn't want to
integrate Apple's instructiosn into the real Power architecture.

It will probably take custom chips and a custom bios.  Unless they steal 
the source or reverse engineer, which Apple would nail them under the 
DCMA for, it won't be happening.

Richard Tomkins wrote:
> Yeah, well some smart people will figure it out and that will be the end of
> their hardware games.
> 
> After all, many smart people have already figured out how to run Linux and
> NetBSD etc... on Intel hardware.
> 
> rtt
> 
> 
> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
> news:060620051417222395%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> 
>>In article <zcidnWYiEdClODnfRVn-og@pcisys.net>, Jason Bowen
>><ha@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>You can bet your butt you can't boot OSX 4.1 (or whatever) on your
> 
> handy
> 
>>>>dandy Dell.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't own a Dell, nevertheless, any real references for this?
>>
>><http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+aligns+with+Intel/2100-734
>>1_3-5733756.html>
>>
>>"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller
>>addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no
>>plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't
>>preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he
>>said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
>>
>>However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac
>>OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac
>>OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."
>>
>>-- 
>>~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
>>------------------------------------------------------
>>One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
>>The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Not true.

Go to Tom's Hardware and read up on the Pentium III and Pentium 4
comparison.

A 2.2Ghz Pentium III consuming 8 watts beats out a 3.2Ghz HT Pentium 4
consuming 25 watts.

Why, the Pentium 4 is a por design, but Intel had to seel them cause the
stopped making pentium 3's and needed income. Why, because they were
spending a fortune trying to mak ethe VLIW (Intanium) processor work.

The Intanium is not even half the processor the Alpha is. Optimization on
the Itanium is done at compile time. Problems is, a lot of users do
unpredictable things while running their systems so the compiler could not
even begin to optimize for user interactivity. The Alpha on the other hand
does all it's optimization at run time, so when a user starts one app. and
then changes his mind and cancels that and starts up another app. the
processor can just drop the instructions it was about to execute. On the
Itanium, it will have to execute the code until it figures out that that the
application is terminating.

The speed benifits that the x86 architecture enjoys comes as a direct result
of copyright infringement against the Alpha chip. Digital filed a lawasuit
on something like 13 different processor design issues that Intel had copied
directly. Intels penance at the time was to purchase a recently completed
Fab facility from Digital and a few thouasand employees that they had to
keep employed. The plant had to be ready to build Alpha's on a moments
notice from Digital, but, Digital never did order any Alpha's from Intel,
they were purchased from IBM (Contract Manufacutre) and Samsung. So Intel
sat on an expensive plant and workforce thta played cards for two years,
which must have pissed them off. When Compaq bought Digital, they let Intel
off the hook almost immediately, and let them have all the secrets too.

Intel at the time did not do R&D chip making processes, they purchased the
technology from others such as Digital who did an enormous amount of R&D in
making chip making processes. So when their chips kept getting faster and
faster in comparison to Digitals chips, something didn't smell right in
hogtown.

The Alpha Architecture had a 20 year lifespan, that woul dhave taken the
chip (RISC) towards 20Ghz by the time it had maxed out. That architecture
unfortunately for Intel does not translate to 20Ghz for x86 (CISC), it maxes
out around 3.5 Ghz. SO they have had to go to this HyperThreading thing and
now so-called Dual Core, which in fact is just two CPU dies on the same
carrier running Dual Processor. If it were truly Dual Core, the whole thing
would be on the same chunk of silicon.

I put it to you folks that Intel, MS and now Apple are pulling the marketing
wool over your eyes.

What we realy need is a new computer company with a new hardware and
software architecture, done in a fashion similar to that of VAX/VMS.

rtt

"Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d82rle$qnf$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <1118021348.773400.80000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>  <larwe@larwe.com> wrote:
> >> > My point was that the reason x86 sucks is
> >>
> >> First of all, it doesn't suck.
> >
> >I see. x86 is an elegant architecture unhindered by silly 8-bit legacy
> >considerations, is it? Have you ever worked with x86 at an assembly
>
> x86 is fast.  You can foam all you want about how it's inelegant and
> crusty and old and bla bla bla bla bla bla bla (oh, and by the way it
> will never be fast) but, ultimately, you're spitting at the rain: the
> plain fact of the matter is that Intel and AMD have proven to be
> better at making x86 go fast, and do so within a reasonable power
> budget and at a reasonable die size, than IBM and Freescale have proven
> to be with PowerPC.
>
> Of course, x86 with more, larger registers is (a little bit) faster,
> though with out of order execution and register renaming instruction
> set matters less than you seem to think it does.  But it's noteworthy
> that *that* -- the amd64 instruction set -- is what's shipping in all
> the new processors from both Intel and AMD these days.
>
> -- 
>  Thor Lancelot Simon
tls@rek.tjls.com
>
> "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be
>  abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Richard Tomkins wrote:
> iPOD is a flash in the pan. It's sales have already started to level off and
> the are enough wolves biting at it's heals that it will be in decline in a
> few months.
> 

Market share for iTunes and iPod keeps growing.  All things level off, 
do you have any business acumen?

> rtt
> 
> 
> "Andy Mulhearn" <mully@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3gjp3hFcpoiqU2@individual.net...
> 
>>Charles Bouldin wrote:
>>
>>>Now that we're all in hell at absolute zero....
>>>
>>>Why on earth would anyone buy a new Mac during this "transition"? Seems
>>>to me that what SJ really did today was mainly to insure that Mac sales
>>>will absolutely TANK until June, 2006. My memory is failing, but during
>>>the 68K>PPC transition did we not have PPC computers for sale almost
>>>immediately when the transition was announced? Was there a gap of 1-2
>>>years while we all waited to buy computers with the new chip?
>>
>>iPod sales will more than make up for it:
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4442775.stm
>>
>>[snipped]
>>
>>
>>>Predictions:
>>>
>>>Very poor Mac sales for the next year. I can't think of any reason that
>>>anyone would buy one now.
>>>
>>>OTOH, there will probably be some really good prices on PPC Macs soon!
>>>If you think that developers will continue to support PPC code for
>>>awhile, these could be some good deals.
>>
>>Hope so. I've got another year to run on this iBook. I'll be looking for
>>a good deal when I replace it and don't care whether it's an Apple/Intel
>>or Apple/PPC. If it looks like an iBook, runs OSX and all my apps why
>>should I care.
>>
>>To be honest, Apple had to do this. With IBM using PPC for all of the
>>systems from the RS6000 upwards and Sony and Microsoft using PPC for the
>>PS3 and XBox, why would IBM have the time or inclination to build better
>>PPC CPUs for Apple?
>>
>>On the other hand if, as it appears, Apple have been considering this
>>for some time it shows a lot of foresight which should be applauded.
>>
>>My only concern is how they they tie the OS to their own hardware so
>>that they still retain the same margins and stay in business as an
>>alternative.
>>
>>Andy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Do you have a vested interest that explains your FUD?

Richard Tomkins wrote:
> We did this at Digital with FX!32 on Alpha to run x86 code on Alpha under
> Windows NT.
> 
> The binary translator worked, sort of. x86 Windows code would be translated
> to Alpha Windows code and what remained ran in an emulator.
> 
> It didn't work very well. There was an awful lot of work involved in trying
> to make this work, but the original code pool of x86 stuff was such a moving
> target all the time that stability just couldn't be had. You know what
> happened of course. Compaq dropped FX!32 and then dropped Windows on Alpha
> also.
> 
> Twighlight time has arrived for us PPC users I am afraid.
> 
> All this Rosetta stuff is great University study stuff, but it won't last
> very long, it will take too many resources to keep it going and it won't be
> included in the long term because it won't do anything for market share.
> 
> rtt
> 
> 
> "Jerry Kindall" <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:060620051356386349%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid...
> 
>>In article <060620051447593365%no@spam.invalid>, Keeper of the Purple
>>Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <42A4A7D8.45958E65@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei
>>><jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Moving from PowerPC to 8086 won't bring a huge improvement in
>>>>performance, so emulation will be much slower.
>>>
>>>Ah-HA!
>>
>>Well, it probably won't be as painful as you might think, because even
>>emulated apps will still be calling fully native APIs in the OS.  Most
>>apps spend most of their time in the libraries anyway.  And Mac OS X
>>will be fully native on Intel, unlike the original Mac OS which still
>>had some 68K code in it right up to the end.
>>
>>-- 
>>Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>
>>
>>        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
>>        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

As a small side note: If the iPod fad wears out by, say, this time next
year and we haven't seen any of the new x86 macs out by then, that could
potentially be a really good (or really bad) time to buy some Apple stock
:)

Perhaps 'really cheap' might be the way to phrase it.

Incidentally, there was only a net drop of 40 cents or so today.

Sorry for the pointless speculation.

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Jerry Kindall wrote:

JK> In article <chuckb84-A18A80.22334606062005@news.giganews.com>, Charles
JK> Bouldin <chuckb84@comcast.net> wrote:
JK>
JK> > I understand the remarks about IBM; Apple had become a very minor
JK> > customer. Now consider Intel, which sells 200 million P4/year. Apple
JK> > will buy, what, 4 million if it converts the whole product line? So
JK> > Apple is a minor customer for Intel. Intel will treat Apple exactly as
JK> > IBM has and for the same reasons.
JK>
JK> Except that, well, IBM is not in the business of making processers for
JK> desktop PCs (the PowerPC is an embedded processor) and Intel... is in
JK> that business.  Apple's needs as far as processors go are about the
JK> same as Dell's or anyone else's.
JK>
JK> --
JK> Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>
JK>
JK>         Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
JK>         This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.
JK>

In article <odOdnUgWguJLnzjfRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
 "Fetch, Rover, Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote:

> same for software - if I have to rewrite **AGAIN** (I likely did for X.1 
> and again for X.2 and again for X.3 and once more [if it has been 
> completed] for X.4) why?
> There is only about a year to try to regain their investment.

Huh?  Apple has always been very good about backward compatibility.  
It's very rare that application developers have to rewrite when a new OS 
comes out.  Most users who just upgraded from Panther to Tiger are 
happily running all their applications.  The only major applications 
that had significant compatibility issues are Virtual PC (Virtual Switch 
networking doesn't work in Tiger) and Retrospect (Tiger has added some 
new file attributes, so they had to come out with a new version that 
knows how to back them up).

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

"Barry Margolin" <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:barmar-7BDE11.22235106062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <y6xy89ncq44.fsf@pomme.me.umn.edu>,
>  Richard Kaszeta <rich@kaszeta.org> wrote:
>
> > Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> writes:
> > > So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
> >
> > Already happened.
> >
> > http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
>
> Know what I don't see in that announcement?  Any mention of a specific
> processor, just the name "Intel".
>
> Everyone is assuming x86 -- has Apple officially said this?
>

It's pretty obvious now:

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/tradeshows/2005/WWDC/p436.jpg

Yeah, lot's of folks are trying hard to put a rosy picture on this and how
trivial it should be to flip a compile target switch. From practical
knowledge, I know that this is not trivial or easy or cost effective, no
matter how fancy a spin old Stevie puts on it.


"Jason Bowen" <ha@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:DMGdnZ-2A5qOjTjfRVn-uQ@pcisys.net...
> Do you have a vested interest that explains your FUD?
>
> Richard Tomkins wrote:
> > We did this at Digital with FX!32 on Alpha to run x86 code on Alpha
under
> > Windows NT.
> >
> > The binary translator worked, sort of. x86 Windows code would be
translated
> > to Alpha Windows code and what remained ran in an emulator.
> >
> > It didn't work very well. There was an awful lot of work involved in
trying
> > to make this work, but the original code pool of x86 stuff was such a
moving
> > target all the time that stability just couldn't be had. You know what
> > happened of course. Compaq dropped FX!32 and then dropped Windows on
Alpha
> > also.
> >
> > Twighlight time has arrived for us PPC users I am afraid.
> >
> > All this Rosetta stuff is great University study stuff, but it won't
last
> > very long, it will take too many resources to keep it going and it won't
be
> > included in the long term because it won't do anything for market share.
> >
> > rtt
> >
> >
> > "Jerry Kindall" <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:060620051356386349%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid...
> >
> >>In article <060620051447593365%no@spam.invalid>, Keeper of the Purple
> >>Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <42A4A7D8.45958E65@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei
> >>><jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Moving from PowerPC to 8086 won't bring a huge improvement in
> >>>>performance, so emulation will be much slower.
> >>>
> >>>Ah-HA!
> >>
> >>Well, it probably won't be as painful as you might think, because even
> >>emulated apps will still be calling fully native APIs in the OS.  Most
> >>apps spend most of their time in the libraries anyway.  And Mac OS X
> >>will be fully native on Intel, unlike the original Mac OS which still
> >>had some 68K code in it right up to the end.
> >>
> >>-- 
> >>Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>
> >>
> >>        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
> >>        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and
viruses.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
> > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On 2005-06-07, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <slrnda9g3a.jq6.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>,
>  Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
>> What about those of us developing UNix apps and depending on the fact that
>> OS X is a Unix to get OS X compatibility? The only time I fire up Xcode is
>> by accident (double-clicking on a C file int he Finder). Will building
>> dual-architecture, or cross-compiling, be that simple for those of us using
>> more traditional Unix tools like make and gcc and GNU libtool?
> Don't you already have to use OSX-specific stuff to package the code 
> into proper Macintosh applications?

No. It's a straight Unix appl, run from a Terminal window, and installed
into /usr/local/{bin,lib,etc}. If you want to see for yourself, check out
http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules .

> I expect that you'll be able to compile the two versions of the executable
> with appropriate compiler options, and then put them both into the
> resulting application bundle.

What application bundle?

That said, I suspect I'll be able to build both versions and use a preflight
installer script to select which one to install - that is, if
cross-compiling isn't difficult. Right now, I can't even get the doggone
thing to build under Tiger. :-(

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 19:50:28 -0500, James L. Ryan wrote
(in article <0001HW.BEC665040000F9CBF0407550@news.supernews.com>):

> <http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-
> 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>

As an amusin aside, do I win the "award" for initiating what is perhaps the 
longest thread ever in comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc, comp.sys.mac.misc, or 
comp.sys.mac.system? I could use another fancy certificate to mount on the 
wall above my Mac.   :-)

-- 
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

"James L. Ryan" <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BECA81E6002E1EFEF0407550@news.supernews.com...
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 19:50:28 -0500, James L. Ryan wrote
> (in article <0001HW.BEC665040000F9CBF0407550@news.supernews.com>):
>
> >
<http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3
-
> > 5731398.html?part=rss&tag=5731398&subj=news>
>
> As an amusin aside, do I win the "award" for initiating what is perhaps
the
> longest thread ever in comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc, comp.sys.mac.misc, or
> comp.sys.mac.system? I could use another fancy certificate to mount on the
> wall above my Mac.   :-)
>

It's not that long.  Yet.

Greg

Actually, when you talk about x86 architecture, then you have to talk about
all the support chips for it as well. These are standard family chips made
by Intel and VIA and one or two others. All these chips follow a very close
design path so that you can get AGP and PCI and PCI-e and memory busses
hooked up to a x86 and have it run.

So a Mac with an x86 is not going to have many if any custom chips in it, is
it. The reason that Apple i s going to x86 is that the custom chips they
wanted from IBM were not forthcoming and if that is the truth, who would
want to make custom support chips for x86 for Apple only.

No, sad to say, the Mac is about to become a retro computer, based on x86
architecture which is based on a design from 25 years ago and carries a lot
of miserable design baggage as well.

Any good PC hardware Engineer will be able to tell you about the
shortcomings in the x86 architecture. That was the nicest thing about a
PowerPC based system from Apple, it was a modern design, that used a
processor with a stronger future. the x86 has run out of steam.

rtt


"Jason Bowen" <ha@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:DMGdnZ22A5rikjjfRVn-uQ@pcisys.net...
> It will probably take custom chips and a custom bios.  Unless they steal
> the source or reverse engineer, which Apple would nail them under the
> DCMA for, it won't be happening.
>
> Richard Tomkins wrote:
> > Yeah, well some smart people will figure it out and that will be the end
of
> > their hardware games.
> >
> > After all, many smart people have already figured out how to run Linux
and
> > NetBSD etc... on Intel hardware.
> >
> > rtt
> >
> >
> > "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
> > news:060620051417222395%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> >
> >>In article <zcidnWYiEdClODnfRVn-og@pcisys.net>, Jason Bowen
> >><ha@nospam.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>You can bet your butt you can't boot OSX 4.1 (or whatever) on your
> >
> > handy
> >
> >>>>dandy Dell.
> >>>
> >>>I wouldn't own a Dell, nevertheless, any real references for this?
> >>
> >><http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+aligns+with+Intel/2100-734
> >>1_3-5733756.html>
> >>
> >>"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller
> >>addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no
> >>plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't
> >>preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he
> >>said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
> >>
> >>However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac
> >>OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac
> >>OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."
> >>
> >>-- 
> >>~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
> >>------------------------------------------------------
> >>One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
> >>The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
> > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article <roy-7C1964.19554406062005@reader1.panix.com>,
 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:

> > rocky  <mar.sv@mars.com> wrote:
> >  > All PPC computers were obsolete as of today.  I just purchased a G5 a 
> >  > couple weeks ago so you can imagine how I feel, screwed.  This just 
> >  > might be what it takes to go back to the dark side after 16 years.

I guess you haven't looked at Windows recently.  I switched in March 
2004, and don't see a CPU change is enough to make me return to Windows.  
The PC hardware (Toshiba and IBM) ran just fine, as hardware.  That 
wasn't the problem.

> I just (as in last week) got a 2 GHz G5 iMac.

> The interesting thing about the timing is that rather than feeling ripped 
> off because I invested in hardware that's just been "rendered obsolete", I 
> think I actually hit the timing just right.

I also just (last week) got a 2 GHz G5 iMac.  I also feel I got the 
timing just right.  What I would really have liked would have been a 
faster Powerbook than my 1.25Ghz 15 inch aluminum Powerbook I could use 
as a desktop replacement (I travel a lot).  However it was really 
obvious that there was simply no chance of that happening.  No sign of a 
suitable CPU from IBM, no indication they could do much of a speed bump.

Now I can use my iMac as a large display desktop, and backup system, 
with lots more disk space than any notebook will have, and it will 
probably work fine that way for 3-5 years.  Meanwhile, I finally have a 
chance at a much faster Apple notebook computer with a Pentium M in a 
year or so.  I just didn't see that happening with the IBM and Freescale 
CPU.  I couldn't see any expansion path for the notebook system 
previously.

-- 
http://www.ericlindsay.com

Barry Margolin  <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
 > In article <y6xy89ncq44.fsf@pomme.me.umn.edu>,
 >  Richard Kaszeta <rich@kaszeta.org> wrote:
 > 
 > > Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> writes:
 > > > So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
 > > 
 > > Already happened.
 > > 
 > > http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
 > 
 > Know what I don't see in that announcement?  Any mention of a specific 
 > processor, just the name "Intel".
 > 
 > Everyone is assuming x86 -- has Apple officially said this?

Jobs was running his demo in the keynote on a 3.6 Ghz Pentium.
He pulled the processor information up via "About This Mac".

Apropos to nothing, the keynote crashed Quicktime Player 7.0.1
repeatedly for me.  13 seconds in... *crash*.  I had to go back
to 10.3.9 and QT Player 6.5.2 to watch it.

In article <42a51963$1_2@spool9-west.superfeed.net>, Richard Tomkins
<tomkinsr@istop.com> wrote:

> No, sad to say, the Mac is about to become a retro computer, based on x86
> architecture which is based on a design from 25 years ago and carries a lot
> of miserable design baggage as well.
> 
> Any good PC hardware Engineer will be able to tell you about the
> shortcomings in the x86 architecture. That was the nicest thing about a
> PowerPC based system from Apple, it was a modern design, that used a
> processor with a stronger future. the x86 has run out of steam.
> 

So you're saying that Apple should have stuck with PPC as their CPU and
waited for the Intel platform to die around it? Or that Microsoft is
suddenly going to abandon Intel for the PPC architecture?

ROFLMAO!

-- 
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>

In article
<geoff-usenet2-478328.21415106062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Geoffrey F. Green <geoff-usenet2@stuebegreen.com> wrote:

> > I remember how long it took, though, for OS X to become fully PPC
> > native. Are you saying it *won't* take that long to get Intel native?
> 
> Eh?  Mac OS X has always been PPC native.

The Finder took awhile, though.

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

In article <cirby-0AC7EA.21512806062005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
Chad Irby <cirby@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> In article <060620052013312553%no@spam.invalid>,
>  Keeper of the Purple Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <cirby-758964.17243606062005@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > Chad Irby <cirby@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > If you check the keynote logs, xCode applications written to Cocoa
> > > > > will 
> > > > > output dual binaries, running on both x86 and PowerPC Macs.
> > > > 
> > > > But how long will they keep doing this?
> > > > 
> > > > There'll almost certainly be a point where all new Mac software will be
> > > > x86-only.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, but that's far enough out to let current machines get *really* 
> > > obsolete.  And even then, you'll be able to run the old apps on the new 
> > > machine, so you won't need to go out and get all new apps for the new 
> > > Mac Mini 4 GHz that will be the bottom end at that point...
> > 
> > What if I still have my PPC Mac? I don't exactly have money to burn...
> 
> If you can't come up with another $500 between now and 2008, you've got 
> other issues in your life.  Try to put $3 or so back per week, and 
> you'll be fine.

I don't want a Mac *that* cheap.

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

In article <d6WdnTPFRc1oYjnfRVn-iw@comcast.com>,
 "Fetch, Rover, Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote:

> taking all the above in consideration -
> are you - a consumer who just found his/her multi thousand dollar 
> computer turned into a deadened paperweight going to buy another apple 
> computer (or even product of any nature)?
> 
> not me.
> 
> I have been an apple supporter for a LONG time - I have a complete 512K 
> just to give you an idea. I have a dual 2.5 tower I am writing this 
> message with - $3k - gone.

wow, is it really true that all G5's have been disabled by Apple? 
Doesn't even turn on?
Did you sue Apple for killing your 512K, too?
Mine must have escaped somehow, it still turns on and I can still play 
Tetris on it.

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> So you're saying that Apple should have stuck with PPC as their CPU and
> waited for the Intel platform to die around it? Or that Microsoft is
> suddenly going to abandon Intel for the PPC architecture?

Apple is competing against the Wintel solution, and as well as Linux on 8086.

This is a hardware and software combination. 

The Power architecture is superior to that of the 8086. And thus has
greater potential. Had Apple been able to fully leverage the Power
architecture and use off-the-shelf IBM chips (as opposed to custom
designed ones for Apple), the relationship may have been much better. 
Apple *could* have had a great competitive advantage with Power. But as
things turned out, no matter whose fault it was, it didn't work out and
Apple couldn't keep up with the 8086 in the medium term.


The 8086, for all its roots as a toy controller was succesfully turned
into a credible and respectable high performance CPU. When Alpha came
out, there was never any thought that the 8086 might one day compete
against a high performance chip like Alpha. In the end, Intel narrowed
the gap significantly. (and yes, Intel stole from Alpha and probably
others to convert its toy controller into a respectable chip). Intel
also completed the toy into a full system with defined interfaces which
made it possible for a good OS to run reliably on machines built by
different vendors.


Intel, in the mid to late 1990s, thought that its IA64 would replace the
8086 alltogether and become the industry standard commodity chip from
laptop to datacentre. It failed, and Intel has slowly narrowed IA64's
niche to just big iron. Intel didn't want the 8086 to cannabalise the
fragile IA64 market so Intel wasn't interested in scaling the 8086
upwards. Comes AMD with a high performance 8086 with 64 bit support, and
Intel has to do an about-face and annoucne that it would now allow its
8086 to also scale up. By 2007, the Intel 8086 will have the same system
interfaces and support chips asn IA64, allowing it to be used in the
same big-iron system and this making IA64 irrelevant.

With this in mind, Apple could see that the 8086 has a bright future
with AMD keeping Intel in check and forcing Intel to keep boosting the
8086's performance.

Apple would not have committed to the 8086 if there wasn't a clear
future for the 8086.

In article <barmar-5382D4.22061106062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > But how long will OS X (or any other Mac software for that matter)
> > continue to be available for PPC-based Macs?
> > 
> > I just bought an iMac G5. I didn't just waste three grand, did I?
> 
> When Apple came out with the PowerMac, how long was it before they 
> stopped supporting 68k Macs? 

Not very.

> They can't afford to abandon their existing customers.  

Ah, but just because that's the logical thing to do, doesn't mean it
will actually BE done, does it?

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

In article <11aa63nbk3r65e@corp.supernews.com>, G.T.
<getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> > As an amusin aside, do I win the "award" for initiating what is perhaps
> the
> > longest thread ever in comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc, comp.sys.mac.misc, or
> > comp.sys.mac.system? I could use another fancy certificate to mount on the
> > wall above my Mac.   :-)
> >
> It's not that long.  Yet.

But it does have a pretty good start and we haven't even rehashed the
George Bush debate in it yet.

Shawn Hearn wrote:
> 
> By going with Intel, Apple will hopefully get a faster 64-bit chip for 
> its desktop Macs and a 64-bit chip for use in future Powerbooks. 

Isn't the rule of thumb that the data throughput of
a PowerPC is equal to that of an Intel chip double
the clock rate?  However, Intel's material science
(semi process) would trump on the power front, that
is important for laptops (and in five years, desk-
tops will be an antiquated concept).

For performance, especially from big-endian code,
and overall power/data throughput, why not MIPS?

My prediction: this time next year, Intel porting
experiments with Tiger will look disappointing and
IBM will come out with a Cell processor offering
a migration path for G5 desktops and G4 laptops.

gld

Scott Moore <samiamsansspam@sun.com> wrote: 
>   Jerry Kindall wrote:
>   
>   >>It is much easier to write an optimizing compiler for an orthogonal
>   >>instruction set like PPC's or ARM's than it is to write one for the
>   >>ancient register-starved, special-functions-for-special-registers Intel
>   >>architecture.
>   > 
>   > 
>   > That is why gcc produces much more efficient code for x86 than it does
>   > for PowerPC, I guess.
>   > 
>   
>   If Apple does the switch, I'll bet its very unlikely that they would not
>   also have a version of OS X already compiled for x86, and well understand
>   the numbers on both processors.

I hear the SPARC chip is on its way out too...

How's that master Intelist McNealy hired doing?

G.T. <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote: 
>   "Barry Margolin" <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
>   >  Richard Kaszeta <rich@kaszeta.org> wrote:
>   > > Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> writes:
>   > > > So...when's Jobs's big speech, anyway?
>   > >
>   > > Already happened.
>   > >
>   > > http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
>   >
>   > Know what I don't see in that announcement?  Any mention of a specific
>   > processor, just the name "Intel".
>   >
>   > Everyone is assuming x86 -- has Apple officially said this?
>   
>   It's pretty obvious now:
>   
>   http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/tradeshows/2005/WWDC/p436.jpg

   GET SHORTY!

Jerry Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote: 
>   David C. <shamino@techie.com> wrote:
>   
>   > I'm only going to run Windows apps on it anyway."
>   > 
>   > Unless you think Apple plans to become an iPod-only company, the
>   > "feature" you describe would put them out of business in a few years.
>   
>   Yes, this is exactly what will happen.  Microsoft owns Virtual PC for
>   Windows and Mac.  There's also the open-source WINE, which merely needs
>   some investment from a major patron (e.g. Adobe) to be ready for prime
>   time.  By the time the first Intel-based Mac ships, you WILL be able to
>   run Windows apps on it at nearly hardware speed, possibly with Aqua UI
>   widgets, and likely not inside a sandbox as is currently required with
>   VPC.  We'll all be running Windows versions of Photoshop and Word
>   within two years -- count on it.  Apple has given up the game to
>   Microsoft today.

< DEEP VOICE >

   LUKE, IT IS YOUR DESTINY

< /DEEP VOICE >

You're silly, I like youz.

Apple might well pay some companies - Adobe - to be sure
they port their programs so both platforms are covered
for three years (AppleCare period ;-)

AT&T paid several dozen companies to port their software
onto the new computers PC6300, PC6300+, PC7300, 3B20, 3B15, etc.
(many moons ago, when AT&T tried to get into the computer biz)

Hey, ever hear of a C compiler (every platform has an optimizing one),
and tweaking whatever needs it in the ported app (certain misc things)?

Intel must have major applications ported to its IA64 architecture,
and now so does Apple. Agreements with Apple and their main third-party
vendors might already be in place. Jobs has been through this change
both with Next and Apple hardware already. Don't underestimate him.

He has his own jet.

    Zaphod has his own spaceship.

----

Previously, elsewhere in this thread, I wrote:

http://www.faculty.iu-bremen.de/birk/lectures/PC101-2003/05cpu64/amd_intel.htm
#    
#    The Itanium processor still is backwards compatible and supports IA-32
#    instructions. The modes, in which Itanium can run are similar to AMD's
#    operating modes. It is capable of both, running a mixture of IA-32 and
#    IA-64 applications on top of an IA-64 (64-bit) operation system, as well
#    as running IA-32 operating system with IA-32 applications.
#    
#    The IA-64 instruction set is completely incompatible with IA-32.
#    
#    Although Itanium is capable of running IA-32 instructions, they are
#    always passed on to "IA-32 Compatibility Execution Engine".

Unless you're running a (really fast ;-) Virtual PC, one is not using
legacy compatability.

Didn't the original article say that IBM didn't want to further support
Apple because of the low number of sales involved?

X86 was CISC, Itanium is RISC, like the PowerPC. 

I just hope being on the same platform as Wintel won't mean viruses.

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote: 
>   Keeper of the Purple Twilight wrote:
>   > Who knows what kind of performance hit we're going to take here? 68k
>   > software ran slower in emulation mode on PPC. It's happening all over
>   > again. :(
>   
>   68k emulation on PowerPC was palatable because the PowerPC was much
>   faster thus compensating for the inefficienty of emulation.
>   
>   Moving from PowerPC to 8086 won't bring a huge improvement in
>   performance, so emulation will be much slower.

Intel's only 64 bit architechure is the Itaniam's IA64.

The Itanium also has a "chip" on the side to handle Ye Olde IA32.
http://www.faculty.iu-bremen.de/birk/lectures/PC101-2003/05cpu64/amd_intel.htm

Why wouldn't Virtual PC run natively under IA32?

And there's no reason a sandbox will not still be in place for V-PC.

Jason Bowen wrote:
> Do you have a vested interest that explains your FUD?

Unfortunately in this case he is correct. Dec tried it with the move 
from Vax to Alpha and again with NT on Alpha. It was a technical 
masterpiece and completely unusable. This is not the same approach as a 
VMWare or Virtual PC, it's a whole different thing.

Andy
> 
> Richard Tomkins wrote:
> 
>> We did this at Digital with FX!32 on Alpha to run x86 code on Alpha under
>> Windows NT.
>>
>> The binary translator worked, sort of. x86 Windows code would be 
>> translated
>> to Alpha Windows code and what remained ran in an emulator.
>>
>> It didn't work very well. There was an awful lot of work involved in 
>> trying
>> to make this work, but the original code pool of x86 stuff was such a 
>> moving
>> target all the time that stability just couldn't be had. You know what
>> happened of course. Compaq dropped FX!32 and then dropped Windows on 
>> Alpha
>> also.
>>
>> Twighlight time has arrived for us PPC users I am afraid.
>>
>> All this Rosetta stuff is great University study stuff, but it won't last
>> very long, it will take too many resources to keep it going and it 
>> won't be
>> included in the long term because it won't do anything for market share.
>>
>> rtt
>>
>>
>> "Jerry Kindall" <jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:060620051356386349%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid...
>>
>>> In article <060620051447593365%no@spam.invalid>, Keeper of the Purple
>>> Twilight <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> In article <42A4A7D8.45958E65@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei
>>>> <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Moving from PowerPC to 8086 won't bring a huge improvement in
>>>>> performance, so emulation will be much slower.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah-HA!
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, it probably won't be as painful as you might think, because even
>>> emulated apps will still be calling fully native APIs in the OS.  Most
>>> apps spend most of their time in the libraries anyway.  And Mac OS X
>>> will be fully native on Intel, unlike the original Mac OS which still
>>> had some 68K code in it right up to the end.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>
>>>
>>>        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
>>>        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet 
>> News==----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 
>> 120,000+ Newsgroups
>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption 
>> =----

JF Mezei wrote:
> Andy Mulhearn wrote:
> 
>>To be honest, Apple had to do this. With IBM using PPC for all of the
>>systems from the RS6000 upwards and Sony and Microsoft using PPC for the
>>PS3 and XBox, why would IBM have the time or inclination to build better
>>PPC CPUs for Apple?
> 
> 
> 
> That was a big mistake for IBM. Accountants at IBM may have decided that
> Apple's size didn't warrant development of laptop version of Power, but
> this means a great lack of vision.  What happens when Sony et all want
> laptop version of their game consoles ? And this means that the Power
> platform lacks the scalability to make it a viable platform, and while
> Apple may have represented only 2% of IBM's FAB capacity, that may have
> been the 2% that made its chiop operations just big enough to be profitable.

The long discussion on Slashdot quoted a CNet, IIRC, source that 
suggested IBM were not making money on the Apple business. When Steve 
wanted a price cut, that was it for the deal.

> 
> 
> It could also be a case of Jobs having told IBM years ago that APPLE
> would eventually move to Intel, in which case, it was quite normal for
> IBM to stop wasting development money on Apple specific version of
> Power. We don't know the full story. We only know the spin released by Jobs/Otellini.

As I said, I think this is a brave but correct decision for Apple. If 
PowerPC has bigger markets in other areas and the Apple requirement is a 
small part of the overall business, then there is no future for the 
arrangement.

> 
> What surprises me is that Apple didn't start using standard IBM Power
> chips and then get IBM to embed Apple speciofic features on all Power
> chips. That would have allowed IBM to design fewer chips for that
> architecture and made the whole architecture more viable.


Can't comment, don't hsve the level of knowledge required. I'm looking 
at this as a business saving decision rather than a technical change.

Andy

Charles Bouldin wrote:
> In article <3gjp3hFcpoiqU2@individual.net>,
>  Andy Mulhearn <mully@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Charles Bouldin wrote:
>>
>>>Now that we're all in hell at absolute zero....
>>>
>>>Why on earth would anyone buy a new Mac during this "transition"? Seems 
>>>to me that what SJ really did today was mainly to insure that Mac sales 
>>>will absolutely TANK until June, 2006. My memory is failing, but during 
>>>the 68K>PPC transition did we not have PPC computers for sale almost 
>>>immediately when the transition was announced? Was there a gap of 1-2 
>>>years while we all waited to buy computers with the new chip?
>>
>>iPod sales will more than make up for it:
>>
> 
>     Apple still gets more revenue from Macs than ipods. I do not think 
> ipod can carry Apple, nor do I want it to.

Me neither. But if the iPod revenue can carry Apple over the sales hump 
while people are unsure about buying an old or new Mac, who are we to care?

> 
>>>Predictions: 
>>>
>>>Very poor Mac sales for the next year. I can't think of any reason that 
>>>anyone would buy one now.
>>>
>>>OTOH, there will probably be some really good prices on PPC Macs soon! 
>>>If you think that developers will continue to support PPC code for 
>>>awhile, these could be some good deals.
>>
>>Hope so. I've got another year to run on this iBook. I'll be looking for 
>>a good deal when I replace it and don't care whether it's an Apple/Intel 
>>or Apple/PPC. If it looks like an iBook, runs OSX and all my apps why 
>>should I care.
>>
>>To be honest, Apple had to do this. With IBM using PPC for all of the 
>>systems from the RS6000 upwards and Sony and Microsoft using PPC for the 
>>PS3 and XBox, why would IBM have the time or inclination to build better 
>>PPC CPUs for Apple?
> 
> 
> I understand the remarks about IBM; Apple had become a very minor 
> customer. Now consider Intel, which sells 200 million P4/year. Apple 
> will buy, what, 4 million if it converts the whole product line? So 
> Apple is a minor customer for Intel. Intel will treat Apple exactly as 
> IBM has and for the same reasons.

Errr, no they won't. IBM is in the business of selling servers bassed on 
PPC, you may have noticed the sold off their Laptop business recently 
which means they're less than fascinated with the desktop/laptop market 
compared to servers and now the console market.

Intel are the reverse, focussed on both the desktop and low-end server 
market. The deal is in no way the same.

Andy

In article <slrndaa5is.ks1.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>,
 Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:

> On 2005-06-07, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article <slrnda9g3a.jq6.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>,
> >  Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
> >> What about those of us developing UNix apps and depending on the fact that
> >> OS X is a Unix to get OS X compatibility? The only time I fire up Xcode is
> >> by accident (double-clicking on a C file int he Finder). Will building
> >> dual-architecture, or cross-compiling, be that simple for those of us using
> >> more traditional Unix tools like make and gcc and GNU libtool?
> > Don't you already have to use OSX-specific stuff to package the code 
> > into proper Macintosh applications?
> 
> No. It's a straight Unix appl, run from a Terminal window, and installed
> into /usr/local/{bin,lib,etc}. If you want to see for yourself, check out
> http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules .

OK, but that's not typical OS X applications.  Maybe the folks who 
create these types of applications will have to do a little more work.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***