• Announcements

    • SNIPER62

      64-bit is LIVE   03/27/2020

      CHIMM: 64-bit client is now LIVE and Campaign 172 continues!  
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
raptor

Apple to transition to Intel processors

36 posts in this topic

Who knows what the "truth" is on this.

However, as some writers have noted it's likely IBM just wasn't interested in putting $$$ into Apples request in Apples timeline.

Jobs seemed to have little of the "smugness" he usually has when talking of what is to come.

I think this is more of Job's taking his "ball" home because IBM wasn't playing the way he liked to play rather than any kind of inferior aspect to the IBM path.

This was a business based decision more than a architecture lack I think.

Doesn't matter now though because its all done and over....onto Intel

for better or for worse.

Here's something you might find interesting from the powerbook list I am on....

It has long been said that history repeats itself. It has more recently been mentioned that history is speeding up. But who knew that it had gotten so fast that giant corporations would line up to blow their brains out exactly the same way within three years of one another?

April 1998: a horrible accidental suicide begins, a suicide which will take upwards of three years to run its gory course. It begins as a strategic alliance. The victim is SGI which, seduced by Intel, decides to streamline its operations by focusing on making systems and software; SGI intends to cut hardware development costs by turning to Intel for all its processor needs. 64-bit MIPS chips look dull compared to the Intel Powerpoint-performance specs for IA64, so SGI spins off its MIPS business and bets the farm on IA64 being out by late 1999.

Intel sure pushes good crack. Craig Barrett, president and CEO of Intel: "We'll work closely with SGI to help them produce best-of-class Intel-based systems throughout their product line - from personal through high-end workstations to servers and supercomputers... Both Intel and SGI will work further on 64-bit systems as Intel's Merced processor becomes available in 1999 and SGI ports the IRIX operating system to Merced."

Midway through 2001 SGI still hadn't shipped an IA64 system because, well, Intel hasn't really shipped a usable IA64 just yet.

SGI's 1997 assets of $3.3 billion have, by now, been whittled away to $1.5 billion, with almost $800 million in losses reported in 2000 alone. Since the 2000 annual report came out, in fact, SGI has sold off another $100 million in property and yet, in spite of that, has burned through half its cash in about six months.

The writing is on the wall. SGI is bleeding out. And this is why it's so surprising that history is repeating itself so dramatically, so soon...

June, 2001: a horrible accidental suicide begins, a suicide which will take upwards of three years to run its gory course. It begins as a strategic alliance. The victim is Compaq which, seduced by Intel, decides to streamline its operations by focusing on making systems and software; Compaq intends to cut hardware development costs by turning to Intel for all its processor needs. 64-bit Alpha chips look dull compared to the Intel Powerpoint-performance specs for IA64, so Compaq gives all the Alpha technology to Intel and bets the farm on a high-performance IA64 being out well before 2004.

Intel sure pushes good crack. Craig Barrett, president and CEO of Intel: "This agreement with Compaq furthers our shared vision of delivering customer value by advancing high-performance, high-volume building blocks. Our agreement will bring higher levels of performance, availability and scalability to systems based on the Itanium processor family."

The writing is on the wall. Compaq's wrists are slit.

June, 2005: a horrible accidental suicide begins, a suicide which will take upwards of three years to run its gory course. It begins as a strategic alliance. The victim is Apple Computer which, seduced by Intel, decides to streamline its operations ...

http://projects.csail.mit.edu/gsb/archives/old/gsb-archive/gsb2001-06-29.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.

Though I think it'll take Apple a bit longer than SGI to run the full race, but I do indeed believe we've heard the bartender saying "Final order, gents!"

So! This is what it takes to get everyone on Wintel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that Intel's upcoming Itanium Montecito processor (a dual core 64-bit chip) could find its way into PowerMacs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current G5 level is 2.7 ghz and its not slow, its a professional workstation.

I wouldn't buy a iMac g5 (brand new) but I would buy that 2.7 ghz one. Whatever Steve says, that machine rocks, will continue to rock :)

I am only afraid if Apple gives a single P4 to their G5 using community as "upgrade", nobody will buy it, they will go and buy Alienware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nice thing about the PPC was that it could handle 64 or 32 bit seeml

essly. Not so with Intel's stuff....you go with the 64 bit ...everything from the OS up has to be 64 bit

Good bye old app's etc...

I think that is what the quote I provided was indicating...in a way...

Intel promises but hasn't really delivered and in doing so some companies have gone or are going the way of the Dodo. (extinct bird).

Heck I still use an OS 9.2.2 system on my old 1998 supermac clone and its still going strong with a G3 chip. It's very fast at 450mhz. The finder remains much more responsive than any of the os X stuff.

No I don't own vintage cars .... :D

who knows what will really happen, but it should be interesting.

I just wonder what CRS's response will be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRS' response is simple, for the next few years they will write WW2OL for both PPC & Intel Macs. Their workload for the Mac version of WWIIOL will be increasing. (Of course, CRS might find the extra cost of supporting two Mac versions to much to bear and drop Mac support. Eeek. I doubt it though. The new box release should boost their resources.)

After a few years they'll drop PPC support based on their Mac playerbase demographics and only support Intel Macs and their workload for the Mac version will drop A LOT since supporting the Intel architecture is much simpler. They no longer have to worry about CPU optimization and endian issues. They'll be happy as peas in a iPod. Market issues aside, game developers are thrilled about the Intel switch, the cost & time needed to port Mac games is going to decrease in a big way and the performance results will be much better.

But long before then the Intel Mac players will be enjoying vastly better game performance and FPS in WWIIOL.

Will Mac gaming suffer? No. Although Windows will run on the Intel Macs, it won't be directly supported. The installation & driver issues alone will be strictly for the techies who love to tinker. The average person won't. VirtualPC is a $500 piece of software and that's not going to change and very few players will stomach it. The Intel Mac market will still need Mac version games. Given the lower cost of porting games to Intel Macs, the converse is going to happen, the Mac gaming market is going to be better than ever. Especially so if this Intel switch grows the overall Mac marketshare.

The Adobe CEO was right when he said, "wtf took Apple so long?" :) This Intel switch is gonna be great for the Mac community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anyone ever then write for an OS that is going to go head-to-head with the most popular ever, from a company that has used illegal business practices just to insure monopoly?

OS X for the PC is only going to exist at the graces of MS. If they choose to "compete" with it, say "goodbye!" to OS X, just like OS/2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would anyone ever then write for an OS that is going to go head-to-head with the most popular ever, from a company that has used illegal business practices just to insure monopoly?

OS X for the PC is only going to exist at the graces of MS. If they choose to "compete" with it, say "goodbye!" to OS X, just like OS/2.

Noob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if we are going down the market share road, lets. It is not good for the public to have any major supplier of a certain commodity. Ideally we should have at least three major suppliers. An example could be Win 1/3, Mac 1/3 and Linx 1/3 in order for us consumers to get good products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the mac OS remains superior (and generally it is for so many reason which I won't elucidate here) there will be a contingent of people who will seek out that OS regardless of hardware platform.

Apple lives by innovation which helps them evade the monopoly forces somewhat (aren't they their own small monopoly? :-)), but they have proven their ablity as a collective to not get squished by the microsoft elephant as it clomps along.

More selection (to a point) is good for the consumer, no doubt. I am still lamenting BeOS :-), Linux is still not desktop friendly in a consumer sense and microsoft...well. Still choice is good for "healthy" competition.

Of course Longhorn may offer OS X some serious competition even its not entirely as good as OS X.

I just wonder if Job's and the boy's will be able to really work OS X up to some great benchmarks before Longhorn busts out of the gate.

Interesting times indeed.

regards to all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.