Amiga.org
The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Alternative Operating Systems => Topic started by: on June 06, 2005, 06:47:00 PM
-
Live macworld.com feed (http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/liveupdate/index.php?lsrc=mwrss)
The rumors are true: Intel will be inside
Jobs talked about the major transitions in the Mac's life -- starting from the Mac's Motorola 68000-series processor to PowerPC. "The PowerPC set Apple up fro the next decade. It was a good move," he said.
"The second transition was even better -- the transition from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X that we just did," he continued. "This was a brain transplant. And even though these operating systems (9 and x) vary only by one in name, they are very different, and this has set Apple up for the next 20 years."
As the Intel logo lowered on the stage screen, Jobs said, "We are going to make the transition from PowerPC to Intel processors, and we are going to do it for you now, and for our customers next year. Why? Because we want to be making the best computer for our customers looking forward."
"I stood up here two years ago and promised you 3.0 GHz. I think a lot of you would like a G5 in your PowerBook, and we haven't been able to deliver that to you," said Jobs. "But as we look ahead, and though we've got great products now, and great PowerPC products still to come, we can envision great products we want to build, and we can't envision how to build them with the current PowerPC roadmap," said Jobs.
Intel processors provide more performance per watt than PowerPC processors do, said Jobs. "When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PoweRPC gives us 15 units of perfomance per watt, but Intel's roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do," he explained.
Transition to Intel by 2007, and yes, Marklar exists
"Starting next year, we will introduce Macs with Intel processors," said Jobs. "This time next year, we plan to ship Macs with Intel processors. In two years, our plan is that the transition will be mostly complete, and will be complete by end of 2007."
Jobs then confirmed a long-held belief that Apple was working on an Intel-compatible version of Mac OS X that some have termed "Marklar."
Mac OS X has been "leading a secret double life" for the past five years, said Jobs. "So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years."
Jobs demonstrated a version of Mac OS X running on a 3.6GHz Pentium 4-processor equipped system, running a build of Mac OS X v10.4.1. He showed Dashboard widgets, Spotlight, iCal, Apple's Mail, Safari and iPhoto all working on the Intel-based system.
-
@Self
Bye bye OS4, bye bye MorphOS.
Hello AROS?
-
apple pressrelease (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html)
-
So does this mean that the G4 chip I've been looking to get for my beige G3 will be cheaper now :lol:
Dam I'm such a c*nt!
-
lorddef wrote:
So does this mean that the G4 chip I've been looking to get for my beige G3 will be cheaper now :lol:
Dam I'm such a c*nt!
Second hand G4 laptops will be cheap on ebay in the next few days methinks!
-
Mmmmmmm
Cheap Apple laptops....yum.
-
mdma wrote:
lorddef wrote:
So does this mean that the G4 chip I've been looking to get for my beige G3 will be cheaper now :lol:
Dam I'm such a c*nt!
Second hand G4 laptops will be cheap on ebay in the next few days methinks!
I likes the sound of that!
-
Meanwhile, behind the stage, the intel bunny, still disfigured from the burns inflicted in apple's old advert was taking an effigy of Jobs from behind shouting "Who own's ye now, eh?" :lol:
-
Jobs is a freaking idiot. Nobody is going to buy any Macs for the next year. He easily just lost half of his loyal fanbase. He banked on the fact that Apple is cash rich for the first time in a long time to leverage such a risk. I give it about 6 weeks before someone finds an openfirmware workaround for current PC bioses, and OS X is running under Windows or something. Moron.
Anyone want to buy a Mac mini?
-G
-
Here's the Intel press-release.
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050606corp.htm
Does anybody have any idea of the number of lost devs during the last arcitectural change apple did (68k->PPC)?
Do note that even I as a PC-guy(in the sence that I am using an a64 for my daily doings) thinks this is a bad bad bad idea. Monopoly is never good. The PPC970 is a vastly great processor, the flip side is that GCC still cannot use Altivec on more than 10 % of the code (don't hang me over the numbers, just correct me will ya?). All in all it means that much of its potential is for naught.
Read here for an architectural review of the PPC970. http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436
-
glitch wrote:
Jobs is a freaking idiot. Nobody is going to buy any Macs for the next year. He easily just lost half of his loyal fanbase.
Maybe even longer than that.
Why didn't they switch to Intel when OSX came out ?
All their happy users upgrading to OSX, paying for new/updated software to run on it, only to be told that they'll have to do it all again in a couple of years as PPC software dries up.
I'd love to be there when Jobs realises there's a limit to how much you can push your customers.
Great, there's a PPC emulator for the Intel boxes, but whats the point in buying a faster mac if it runs all your existing software at the speed of your old one? ..at least with OS4/MorphOS the 68k code ran faster.
Universal Binaries ?? WTF, great idea Steve,I always thought PPC binaries were too small and needed padding out with useless junk :pissed:
Is having to create 2 separate archives too much hassle for developers?
Ah well, I've only just started coding on the mac, but I'll be buggered if I'm gonna buy another one next year just to test my stuff on.
-
Since we are rolling out bad jokes, here's another one:
It seems that Eyetech and Bplan have finally forced Apple out of the PPC market due to stiff competition. Jobs was forced to switch. :-)
-
mdma wrote:
@Self
Bye bye OS4, bye bye MorphOS.
Hello AROS?
Looks to be the case. Without Apple's commitment to the PPC, we may as well consider it dead, because they will never make enough Morph boxes to sustain the Power PC.
-
@bloodline
I may join you in the switch to a g4 :lol:
-
I would LOVE it if IBM came in right now and bought out Apple. They turfed their PC business to Lenovo, now they could have their own MacOS running in their own PPC chips. They tried to do this with OS/2 but this time their takeover target would already be established... I had heard about this a few months ago, but it also fell under the "yeah right" category. I feel as sick today as when CBM went under...
-G
-
nagaflas wrote:
mdma wrote:
@Self
Bye bye OS4, bye bye MorphOS.
Hello AROS?
Looks to be the case. Without Apple's commitment to the PPC, we may as well consider it dead, because they will never make enough Morph boxes to sustain the Power PC.
I think bPlan will buy all the remaining G4 stock from Freescale, and then production will stop. Only G4 based CPU's for embedded use will be made in future.
With bPlan owning all the G4's. What will happen to Eyetech?
-
iwas just gonna post this!
im so angry
-
Martin_Lee wrote:
iwas just gonna post this!
im so angry
Blame Microsoft.
If they hadn't decided on using PPC for the new xbox then IBM wouldn't have had enough of making desktop PPC's. Apple had no choice but to go elsewhere.
-
All this really means is cheaper, faster, cooler (temperature) macs. I mean who really cares what machine-level code your computer runs, unless you're coding assembly - and if you are, get a life. This way Apple doesn't have to develop entire motherboards, just firmware and OS, and they can get motherboards from any number of sources, with no manufacturing ramp-up penalty like Redhouse was talking about in his interview.
x86 Macs will still look cool and they will still have the same OS running on them. Unless you are a developer, there is no downside. Even then - can you complain about a better market share?
Besides, there is much more competition in the x86 arena than there ever was in the PPC world. Intel, AMD, VIA all make x86 CPU's. I doubt Jobs was stupid enough to sign an exclusivity agreement with Intel, so they can choose their sources. Does IBM have a quad-core CPU in the works? Don't think so.
Before you go calling me a fanboy, I must qualify that I was all Amiga right up to 94 (still have my a3000) when I got my first tech job and have never paid for an Intel processor once since then. I prefer AMD but will buy what gives more bang for the buck (which happens to be AMD64 right now).
Sorry if you bought an A1, but did any of you ever think that you would meet anyone in your neighborhood or workplace who even knew what it was?
-
mdma wrote:
I think bPlan will buy all the remaining G4 stock from Freescale, and then production will stop.
With bPlan owning all the G4's. What will happen to Eyetech?
Well, judging by Alans 20 questions, they'll just carry on with their non-amiga work.
Almost every answer he mentions the small user base, add that to the 'no new A1 designs past the uA1-I and the XC', and the 'no production runs until we get a big order' etc etc , it doesn't look rosey. :-(
Then again, maybe Alan's just had an idea about recycling ibooks and powerbooks :-?
-
If this isn't the final nail in the coffin of the PPC-market, then I don't know what...
Now all we need is Dell and Gateway making Mac-clones! :-D
-
whabang wrote:
If this isn't the final nail in the coffin of the PPC-market, then I don't know what...
Now all we need is Dell and Gateway making Mac-clones! :-D
I'd love it if Compaq did to Apple what they did to IBM 20 years ago! :-D
-
mdma wrote:
whabang wrote:
If this isn't the final nail in the coffin of the PPC-market, then I don't know what...
Now all we need is Dell and Gateway making Mac-clones! :-D
I'd love it if Compaq did to Apple what they did to IBM 20 years ago! :-D
It wouldn't be quite the same... Apple would still be able to sell their OS to the clone users :-)
-
bloodline wrote:
mdma wrote:
whabang wrote:
If this isn't the final nail in the coffin of the PPC-market, then I don't know what...
Now all we need is Dell and Gateway making Mac-clones! :-D
I'd love it if Compaq did to Apple what they did to IBM 20 years ago! :-D
It wouldn't be quite the same... Apple would still be able to sell their OS to the clone users :-)
:-D
-
Well lets look the bright side...
we'll get faster laptops and maybe OSX can start to take over Windoze!
who knows we might have windozes apps running better on these {bleep}ing machines!
-
Martin_Lee wrote:
Well lets look the bright side...
we'll get faster laptops and maybe OSX can start to take over Windoze!
who knows we might have windozes apps running better on these {bleep}ing machines!
Well, WINE will be an easy port to these machines at least. :-)
-
arrrggg the more i think about it the more it makes sense.
but i really dont like it!
RISC is just better! and Im guessing that PPC Macs will just be phased out, then what am i spose to do with my powerbook?
I was gonna buy a G5 this year but sod it! Im gonna wait to see if its a waste of money!
-
I think this will hurt Apple in the short term, but might be okay in the long term. It'll also be the final nail for the OS4 line. I'm sure Hyperion are smacking their heads for not writing OS4 for the the Intel/AMD chips. Oh well.
- Mike
-
Yoo-hoo! (http://www.asturcon3.com/emicons/KOLOBOK/aiwan_smiles/tease.gif)
(Sorry, just couldn't resist it, dammit. ;-)
-
I have no more faith in Apple. I mean, how many "about face's" are their users supposed to put up with? Sure we've enjoyed the technical superiority (for about 15 minutes until the Wintel world catches up/surpasses) but it's about a philosophy as much as product. The only people Apple/Jobs are serving are their shareholders! The Amiga has been able to tag along on the anti-x86 wagon, but I have some very serious doubts about the PPC and it being relegated to nothing more than an embedded processor now as others have mentioned...
-G
-
The biggest loser of this shift in core CPU usage is plain Linux.
People buying x86-compatible hardware did, until yesterday, have two choices: Windows or Linux. Windows came with the greedy hand of Microsoft, Linux came with the nerdy hand of an army of old-school hackers who couldn't agree on which hand to wipe their a55 with if their life depended on it. Now users have a truly viable alternative: the userfriendliness of OSX.
I predict a devastating blow to the market share of plain Linux, and a tremendous increase in productivity to get open source applications ported to OSX. No more arguments about Gnome or KDE, either: it will be OSX's GUI first, and the rest later. And who needs the rest save for those who want to be different and not want to think like the crowd? The role of Linux will dwindle, save for a testing ground for old schoole hackers who shun the idea of capitalism and monoculture. Within years, Linux will be once again stuck in the dark, fiery caves where it was forged all those years ago. It will be tended to by a small contigent of loyal fundamentalistic priests.
On the other hand, given the prolific rise in availability of open source applications which, thanks to OSX's Unix core, will compile effortlessly without too many changes, will have senior Microsoft execs wetting themselves for many months and years to come. Linux was viewed as a potential threat, more-or-less-ignored-but-still-in-Bill's-Book-of-Bad-Stuff; Apple on i86 is much, much worse; probably written down somewhere in Bill's-Book-of-Nightmare-Scenarios.
Of course, this is all provided Apple can succeed in the move from PPC to x86. Which I am quite sure will happen without too much trouble. Loyal fans have nowhere to go, and even they must realise the tremendous potential of this idea. Steve Jobs has not been smart over the years; this move however, is majestic.
-
I don't know what to make of the impact this will have on computing in general, but I want to know where I can get ahold of whatever Jobs is smoking:
When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PowerPC gives us 15 units of perfomance per watt, but Intel's roadmap gives us 70.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Intel's x86 chips are the least efficient, hottest, most power-hungry electronics on the market.
Maybe by performance per watt he meant performance per dollar. That's certainly true.
-
What from the unix world could be compiled to run on x86-OSX that would make Bill wizz his pants? Mathmatica?
Based on the recent tests that have been done that proves OS X blows as a server, I don't think Bill's got much to worry about. OS X skin on Linux - Bill would have something to worry about, but not with Mach/BSD trappings under the hood. I think it would be very easy for MS to squash Apple if the antitrust regulators would let them get away with it. Look at their Connectix purchase - it's like a cat playing with a ball of yarn.
-G
-
glitch wrote:
Jobs is a freaking idiot. Nobody is going to buy any Macs for the next year. He easily just lost half of his loyal fanbase.
sounds like an amiga management style move to me :-D
Anyone want to buy a Mac mini?
-G
no thanks
-
glitch wrote:
What from the unix world could be compiled to run on x86-OSX that would make Bill wizz his pants? Mathmatica?
Considering your quite limited view on Unix software, I will not dignify you with an answer.
-
Not to get pissy, but give me some examples???
-G
-
But what will they do about backwards compitability with older software?? cannot be easy to get everyone to recompile/port older software to x86? And i cannot believe that emulation of ppc software will be very efficient.
-
Matt_H wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Intel's x86 chips are the least efficient, hottest, most power-hungry electronics on the market.
when you see things like this, you certainly think so:
http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD0xMjE3
-
They are going to run a PPC emulator called "Rosetta" on the x86 version. Great. Now we've got x86 OSX running a PPC emulator which in theory for alot of users could then be running the OS 9 68K emulator as well...
-G
-
This is a well timed win for Intel. They had to "answer back " because IBM/Power PC has been getting all the attention recently. Apple (Jobs) did not like the fact that they would not be IBM's top PPC customer anymore.They would be 4'th to 5'th after IBM, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo. Intel will be losing IBM x86 business during the same 2006-7 period that Apple will ship Intel systems(I know Leveno will still be around, but no IBM name). Apple actually hindered PPC adoption and development by
- ending Mac clones.
- artificially inflating hardware prices. They were getting G4/G5 for the same prices as comparable Intel P4 models.
- OS X/Mac OS was seen as the only OS solution. OS X is great, but now there other PPC OS options. Microsoft has been keeping up Windows on PPC just like Apple kept OS X on Intel up to date. Other OS:Linux, Amiga OS4, MorphOS etc.
- Absorbing most of the high end PPC CPU production.
Apple have gone from a big fish in the overflowing PPC pond to a small fish in the x86 ocean. Their branding and unique case designs will help them survive. The OS will not be affected. When I saw Windows NT demoed in ~1995 on similar PPC and Pentium systems it visually looked the same. It worked the same and ran the same programs. You had to be told what CPU was in the case. They both looked like clone PC's.
The desktop is important for marketing. Users know what CPU is in their desktop PC, not what CPU is the Server their connected to, or what CPU is in their game console/set top box. The PPC market is stronger now, then last year when Apple and IBM were the only major players. The quickest way for PPC to get back on the desktop is the availability of systemboards and CPU's to the public. IBM has to lead/help here. They have Power/PPC systemboards(yes I work with their servers). Eyetech and Genesi have the right idea but not the budget to make it affordable. They also don't have the name to stand behind.
-
mdma wrote:
@Self
Bye bye OS4, bye bye MorphOS.
Hello AROS?
Helloooooooooooo!
(You must imagine the soundbite from the Seinfeld episode with the talking Belly-Button)
:lol:
-
Cymric wrote:
The biggest loser of this shift in core CPU usage is plain Linux.
People buying x86-compatible hardware did, until yesterday, have two choices: Windows or Linux. Windows came with the greedy hand of Microsoft, Linux came with the nerdy hand of an army of old-school hackers who couldn't agree on which hand to wipe their a55 with if their life depended on it. Now users have a truly viable alternative: the userfriendliness of OSX.
I predict a devastating blow to the market share of plain Linux, and a tremendous increase in productivity to get open source applications ported to OSX. No more arguments about Gnome or KDE, either: it will be OSX's GUI first, and the rest later.
I think you're missing the point. There is nothing to indicate OSX will be availablr for anything except Apple computers, regardless of processor.
Also, even if OSX is available to all x86 type systems, it isn't open source and never will be. There will always be a niche for free open source alternatives. Linux hasn't got to where it is by offering a better desktop than Windows, so I don't see the arrival of MacOSX as being particularly threatening. Commercial developers will post to MacOSX first, but they do that already. Open source developers will keep doing what they are doing now.
-
T_Bone wrote:
mdma wrote:
@Self
Bye bye OS4, bye bye MorphOS.
Hello AROS?
Helloooooooooooo!
(You must imagine the soundbite from the Seinfeld episode with the talking Belly-Button)
:lol:
:lol:
Helloooooooooooo! La la laaaaaaaaaaa
-
Doobrey wrote:
glitch wrote:
Jobs is a freaking idiot. Nobody is going to buy any Macs for the next year. He easily just lost half of his loyal fanbase.
Maybe even longer than that.
Why didn't they switch to Intel when OSX came out ?
Promises from IBM that they could ramp up clockspeeds?
All their happy users upgrading to OSX, paying for new/updated software to run on it, only to be told that they'll have to do it all again in a couple of years as PPC software dries up.
I've heard "This will piss the developers off" but in light of the fact they'll probably resell a bunch of their software, this will probably be offset.
I'd love to be there when Jobs realises there's a limit to how much you can push your customers.
Customers are screaming for faster hardware, Apple was in turn screaming to IBM, IBM was in turn masterbating or playing tetris or anything else that doesn't include answering the cries for speed. This change is a response to the customers screams.
Great, there's a PPC emulator for the Intel boxes, but whats the point in buying a faster mac if it runs all your existing software at the speed of your old one? ..at least with OS4/MorphOS the 68k code ran faster.
Why emulate? This isn't really a big deal, MacOSX, and all of it's developement tools, have been running on x86 since the beginning. in house. lucky for them too, this could be a mess if that wern't the case.
The switchover shouldn't be too hard.
Universal Binaries ?? WTF, great idea Steve,I always thought PPC binaries were too small and needed padding out with useless junk :pissed:
Is having to create 2 separate archives too much hassle for developers?
Developers could do that if they want.
-
whabang wrote:
If this isn't the final nail in the coffin of the PPC-market, then I don't know what...
http://www.mai.com/
The final nail. :-(
-
I think this will hurt Apple in the short term, but might be okay in the long term. It'll also be the final nail for the OS4 line. I'm sure Hyperion are smacking their heads for not writing OS4 for the the Intel/AMD chips. Oh well.
Yup. I bet Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony are thinking the same thing. Doh! Apple dumped PPC, our game consoles are doomed! Cisco will surely have to change the CPU used in their networking equipment too! Man, all those companies got royally screwed by Apple!!!
Back to reality... "Huh?" In the grand scheme of things, Apple is a relatively small player in PPC land. They're the publically known one. They're the desktop general purpose computer one. But in terms of number of all PPC chips sold, they're relatively small percentage. Freescale is already moving G4 into embedded systems-centric packaging. IBM is putting their PPCs into game consoles. There is a shift that has been underway already for a long time, yes, but it has been underway for a long time already.
This isn't the end for PPC based Amigas. It's the end for PPC based Macs, which already aren't part of our market. I don't see doom and gloom here. Perhaps easier to get chips. Perhaps new opportunities. But and end of Amiga or Eyetech or Hyperion due to Apple's CPU choices? Nah.
-
I've heard "This will piss the developers off" but in light of the fact they'll probably resell a bunch of their software, this will probably be offset.
It seems they prepared to switch long ago and now it was right time to do it. Transition is also less painful than original 68k->PPC transition. Original MacOS 68k was piece of sh1t, and while MacOS PPC was only faster piece of sh1t - they got it right with OSX. Now switching from PPC to X86 is lot easier.
-
x86 Macs will still look cool and they will still have the same OS running on them. Unless you are a developer, there is no downside. Even then - can you complain about a better market share?
I wonder how they are going to control the hardware so only MacOS X will run on their X86 Macs. Some of the other postings that I have read today say the these X86 Macs don't have OpenFirmware.
-
Argo wrote:
x86 Macs will still look cool and they will still have the same OS running on them. Unless you are a developer, there is no downside. Even then - can you complain about a better market share?
I wonder how they are going to control the hardware so only MacOS X will run on their X86 Macs. Some of the other postings that I have read today say the these X86 Macs don't have OpenFirmware.
It doesn't matter, Mac-On-Linux will now run x86 OSX VERY soon! :evilgrin:
-
Well, Wouldn't it be smart for Microsoft to jump on the PPC-technology now and start to write a OS that can be run on any PPC-based motherboard? Making own os/program to the x86 they already can and making own program to the PPC they also can, so making a OS for the PPC shouldn't be so difficult for them?!
Where Apple leaves the PPC-customers, Microsoft could continue to support them?
Yeah I know, I don't like Microsoft either, but hey! I really need that PC for surfing the web and for example making cds easy.
-
glitch wrote:
Jobs is a freaking idiot.
He had no choice. IBM can't or won't deliver.
There is no 3+Ghz Desktop. There is no G5 laptop. IBM doesn't care: they own the console market.
Apple will take a HUGE cut in hardware sales in the interim. I'll be waiting for the first Intel PowerBook.
Bitter pill this is. :inquisitive:
-
nagaflas wrote:
Looks to be the case. Without Apple's commitment to the PPC, we may as well consider it dead, because they will never make enough Morph boxes to sustain the Power PC.
Don't be ridiculous. There will be more PowerPCs sold in the next two years than ever before!
Better yet just port MorphOS to one or all of the next-gen consoles.
-
mdma wrote:
Argo wrote:
x86 Macs will still look cool and they will still have the same OS running on them. Unless you are a developer, there is no downside. Even then - can you complain about a better market share?
I wonder how they are going to control the hardware so only MacOS X will run on their X86 Macs. Some of the other postings that I have read today say the these X86 Macs don't have OpenFirmware.
It doesn't matter, Mac-On-Linux will now run x86 OSX VERY soon! :evilgrin:
VMWare support would be the cat's ass!
-
T_Bone wrote:
mdma wrote:
Argo wrote:
x86 Macs will still look cool and they will still have the same OS running on them. Unless you are a developer, there is no downside. Even then - can you complain about a better market share?
I wonder how they are going to control the hardware so only MacOS X will run on their X86 Macs. Some of the other postings that I have read today say the these X86 Macs don't have OpenFirmware.
It doesn't matter, Mac-On-Linux will now run x86 OSX VERY soon! :evilgrin:
VMWare support would be the cat's ass!
Nahh, it would be the dog's bollocks! ;-)
-
@all
I hate to spread fear but I'm a little worried!
How the heck do Apple expect to compete for the desktop market share of x86 opperating systems!. They will be in direct competition for the same userbase as Microsoft now.
Apple could loose ther entire system this way as people may deside they get more performance, functionality and ability from Windows than they would on their Mac.
Sure the hardware will become cheaper, but also, ALL Apples software will need to get compiled to run on x86 and that means, it may as well get ported to Windows!!!! Well it's more than likely it will get ported. I know ProTools "The Audio industry standard" software already has a windows port.
This could be a very dark hour for Apple but what does it now mean for AMIGA OS??
Won't we need a chipset for CEL to make a new hardware mainboard compatible with PCI. Who's going to design up one of those!. IBM have already stated they will make a new desktop Pc around CEL but it's going to be niche, like for graphics specialist houses etc. Sounds realy custom to me and we all know that custom is expensive and generally non standard hardware.
Sorry for the dark tones here, I'm just worried, I really want an AMIGA desktop PC and I really only want to use AMIGA OS, not Windows and not Apple and I want it as a viable soultion $$$ wise and future driven. Everyone can now re-assure me please :))
-
mdma wrote:
Well, WINE will be an easy port to these machines at least. :-)
WINE was ported to Darwin a long time ago.
/Darwine project member
-
one word:
AROS, AROS, AROS!
-
Greetings,
Intel based Amigas doesn't sound bad either. I'm just wondering if PPC based hardware would die a slow death?
Regards,
GiZz72
-
I think I would still prefer a cell based Amiga.
-
@joemango
If I buy a PC everybody will know what it is. If I buy a Mac most people will know what it is but some might think that less of me because of that.
If I buy an A1 noone will know what it's except for a few. Do I care? No I don't. I use it because I like it. For those who like to be lead like sheeps doing what "everybody else" does, go ahead but don't talk down those who got the brains to make up their own mind.
-
Quote: mdma wrote:
Well, WINE will be an easy port to these machines at least.
WINE was ported to Darwin a long time ago.
/Darwine project member
Hmm, An X86 Linux box that can run Mac and Windows programs...
-
@glitch
"I feel as sick today as when CBM went under..."
Yup, me too...
@SHADES
"How the heck do Apple expect to compete for the desktop market share of x86 opperating systems!."
Yup, cheap, cut-throat world-o-cheap-hardware.
Question is... where now. I think I just get into my C-128 and and to hell with the rest of it.
I won't elaborate on my feelings except to agree with SHADE and glitch.
:-(
-
Hmm, An X86 Linux box that can run Mac and Windows programs...
Why the hell would you use Linux :-?
-
by strobe on 2005/6/7 1:40:23
Why the hell would you use Linux
Because Windows sucks and OS-X is almost as annoying? Every time I reboot out of XP and into Fedora, I feel much more at ease. If it wasn't for my love of DAoC, I would never have any reason to boot into XP in the first place.
Dammy
Waiting on FC4's release on June 13th.
-
HotRod wrote:
For those who like to be lead like sheeps doing what "everybody else" does, go ahead but don't talk down those who got the brains to make up their own mind.
Kinda narrow minded way of looking at things don't you think? I use Win XP, OS X and SuSE because they each serve a practical purpose for me, does that make me a sheep?
-
strobe wrote:
Why the hell would you use Linux :-?
Why wouldn't you???
-
Why the hell would you use Linux
because it's FREE ! (in both meanings)
-
So the XBOX 360, PS3, and most likely the Nintendo Revolution will have CPU's running above 3Ghz, and IBM has definatly got faster PPC CPU's than 3Ghz even. I used to think things were pricey, but then again, they can't be that bad if the XBOX is "supposed" to be clocking in at $300 or $350.
None of this makes sence, unless of course they sell all of there new Macs SUPER cheap, but built like a brick Sh*t house. Or of course they could begin creating dual CPU mother boards out of it, in order to compensate what the X86 lacks in comparison to the PPC.
-
Consoles != Laptops.
IBM can't deliver, Apple must switch.
It makes perfect sense.
-
Argo wrote:
Quote: mdma wrote:
Well, WINE will be an easy port to these machines at least.
WINE was ported to Darwin a long time ago.
/Darwine project member
Hmm, An X86 Linux box that can run Mac and Windows programs...
Make that an AROS-box. :-D
-
SHADES wrote:
@all
I hate to spread fear but I'm a little worried!
How the heck do Apple expect to compete for the desktop market share of x86 opperating systems!. They will be in direct competition for the same userbase as Microsoft now.
People have kept on saying this... but Apple already competes in the desktop market... the use of a CPU is totally irrelevant...
people kept on saying, if Amiga went x86 it would die due to windows competiton... IT ALREADY HAS WINDOWS COMPETITION!!
Apple changing CPU's is only relevant to the MAc User, who wants to know if their hardware/software will still be supported a few years down the line.
For Apple (if they can make the transition smooth), this will be a massive step forward... cheap powerful hardware + MacOS X + great case designs.
-
Perhaps this is the moment for IBM to get 'serious' and buy either AOS4 or MorphOS. Then, we'd see a real shooting war. Apple imho is finished.
-
Glaucus: I'm sure Hyperion are smacking their heads for not writing OS4 for the the Intel/AMD chips. Oh well.
Hyperion ignored who was eating up the majority of PPC chips -- embedded developers. I've never had a lot of faith in PPC as a desktop chip.
Didn't piracy hold a part in the decision, too? :-)
glitch: I have no more faith in Apple.
Funny, I said the same thing about Amiga when the PPC announcement was made.
The CPU is only a small part of the total machine, and properly designed software only needs a recompile. It also makes it a LOT easier to get chipsets and other parts. PowerPC is a nice architecture, but getting at a total system together than can compete with a well-tuned x86 board is very difficult.
I'm just worried about old programs where dual compiles don't exist and probably never will. Apple has a very lively history of outright dumping old products and forcing upgrades -- far worse than Microsoft ever has.
Cymric: The biggest loser of this shift in core CPU usage is plain Linux.
I wonder how Linus feels about his shiny new dual G5, now. :-)
Really, it's the design of Linux that is its downfall. No matter how much eye candy you put on it, it's still a UNIX clone and will bite you when you least expect it. Linux people make no-nonsense tools and are experts at stuff the user never sees. They really don't understand high-level interfaces very well.
OSX is UNIX done right.
MattH: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Intel's x86 chips are the least efficient, hottest, most power-hungry electronics on the market.
Depends which one you get. I have a 2.4 GHz Northwood "C" core, and it never goes above 40 degrees not matter how hard I push it -- and that's with my cooler running at 6 volts, not 12.
I must say I'm very impressed with Pentium M, too. Intel is finally doing some real work to get the heat down. AMD has always done well with efficiency, too. My Palamino was a terrific processor and always ran cool (Thouroughbred B is a totally different story, of course). I'd still have an AMD processor if I hadn't incorrectly blamed my nForce2 chipset for stability problems (it was faulty RAM from Corsair -- the ones that didn't run even CLOSE to their rated speed. They should've been sued over their XMS modules!)
glitch: Based on the recent tests that have been done that proves OS X blows as a server, I don't think Bill's got much to worry about.
BSD makes a slow server because of the nature of its microkernel design. Luckily, network throughput isn't everything to end-users, like it is with servers.
glitch: They are going to run a PPC emulator called "Rosetta" on the x86 version. Great.
That'll be interesting to see.
Billt: Yup. I bet Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony are thinking the same thing. Doh! Apple dumped PPC, our game consoles are doomed!
They order custom-built chips based on PowerPC cores, not actual PPC processors. They can afford to have any special modifications made to ramp up performance that will not really be available to the "stock" line of PPC chips.
That's why I didn't buy this corny idea that the future of PPC is bright because all the consoles are using it. So what? The console companies demand custom work that sums up to billion dollar deals. Macs weren't exactly benefiting from work done on Cell.
Billt: Apple is a relatively small player in PPC land.
Yes, but they're pretty much the only ones that require chips with a lot of legacy compatibility. Embedded devices don't really care.
itix: Original MacOS 68k was piece of sh1t, and while MacOS PPC was only faster piece of sh1t - they got it right with OSX. Now switching from PPC to X86 is lot easier.
Yup. Well-designed tools and libraries are the real UNIX advantage (despite all of its other warts).
Argo: Some of the other postings that I have read today say the these X86 Macs don't have OpenFirmware.
Firmware is a crutch, used for things like "safe mode" and "MS-DOS." Drivers do all the real work, these days.
strobe: He had no choice. IBM can't or won't deliver.
Yup. In the end Apple was using Dual CPUs, each one with its own liquid cooler. What were people saying about PPC being cool?
strobe: Better yet just port MorphOS to one or all of the next-gen consoles.
I believe I covered a lot of problems doing this when arguing with you-know-who about AmigaOS on GameCube.
Shades: They will be in direct competition for the same userbase as Microsoft now.
Yeah, having to limit themselves to the same CPU that drives 95% of the computer industry... and hundreds hardware cominations... whatever will they do?
Look, the choice of CPU doesn't matter. They make a desktop OS for "ordinary" people. No matter what, they are competing with Microsoft. It makes no difference if AmigaOS was based on MIPS or ARM or SPARC or eZ80. Whether you compete with Microsoft depends on what software you write, not what hardware you have. Microsoft doesn't make hardware, x86 runs hundreds of OSes, and the x86 market is too large for even M$ to control it.
This could be a very dark hour for Apple but what does it now mean for AMIGA OS?
At least Amiga will have a good example to follow if they decide to get their act together and stop trying to force a particular, unrealistic platform upon the people just because they have been consumed by the age old "technical supiriority" hype.
Amiga should watch Apple very, very closely right now.
I think I would still prefer a cell based Amiga.
I don't buy Sony's deal that Cell will be a superchip that will power all kinds of devices and come in a million flavors. I think it's a one-shot deal that will run only at PS3 speeds until the next PlayStation comes out. Cell is just another custom CPU with a lot of FPU power. It's not any more flexible than any other embedded CPU, of which there are plenty of choices...
...unless you enjoy using devices that get 20 minutes of life per battery charge. Cell runs pretty damn hot.
McNorris:
@glitch
"I feel as sick today as when CBM went under..."
Yup, me too...
It's just a CPU for crying out loud. There's a lot more to a computer than that. Get over it.
XDelusion: None of this makes sence, unless of course they sell all of there new Macs SUPER cheap, but built like a brick Sh*t house.
x86 comes in a lot of flavors, so Apple won't have any trouble making a wider selection of computers with different capabilities -- from cream to crap.
IMO, x86 is not a very unreliable design, either. People tend to buy $40 motherboards and then complain when they don't work, or use the wrong thermal solution and complain when their chip dies. Most people don't know how to build computers (including PC companies). Apple is quite good with design, even if their actual manufacturing leaves a lot to be desired.
Download a picture of an open G5, and put "P5" where the G5 logo is. Ta dah! :-)
-
^^^ ditto!
X86 in Apple Macs, PPC in M$ Xbox360?
The days of CPU loyalty (if they ever really existed outside fanatical niche groups) are well and truely over!
I would think anyone using a classic Amiga in the present day would know that it isnt the hardware, but the software experience that makes a platform worthwhile.
-
amigean wrote:
one word:
AROS, AROS, AROS!
That's three words. MySQL hint of the day : "SELECT DISTINCT ..."
-
If only Amiga OS5 ran on top of DE, being so easily ported (DE that is:-D ) we could use pratically any hardware. I seem to recall something along these lines in (the now defunct.)"Digital" magazine with someone from Tao Systems telling us how "Elate" (on which DE was based), could be ported in a couple of weeks by a single programmer. This was all before KMOS of course :-o , perhaps OS5 will still end up on X86 as well, who knows, I don't.. :-? ...BUT I STILL DON'T LIKE MAC'S :pissed: (I do like some Mac software however :-P ).
Just to add a little twist to the story, we should have Elbox's Dragon 1200 COLDFIRE solution on sale by the end of the month, I wait, I drool.....but most of all...I PRAY :lol:
-
HotRod wrote:
@joemango
If I buy a PC everybody will know what it is. If I buy a Mac most people will know what it is but some might think that less of me because of that.
If I buy an A1 noone will know what it's except for a few. Do I care? No I don't. I use it because I like it. For those who like to be lead like sheeps doing what "everybody else" does, go ahead but don't talk down those who got the brains to make up their own mind.
Hey, I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm pointing out the reality of the situation. If you want to keep up your hobby and keep banging your head against your A1 while I can buy new software that does new things and enjoy tech support on it, go ahead. It's your choice. I didn't buy an A1 for a number of reasons:
-The OS is still Beta, no matter how cool it is.
-$400-$800 (US$) for an under-powered motherboard with glitches.
-Support (and useful software) is practically non-existent.
-No upgrade path. I don't want another expensive monitor stand.
I run a WindozeXP PC and an OSX(panther)G4 on my desk at work, and they both do a nice job. At home, I own a G3 Mac with OSX 10.3 and 3 AMD-based PC's, one an Athlon64 on which I run Windows x64. I would LOVE to put MacOSX on it eventually. Hell, I can upgrade that Athlon64 machine to a dual core without even changing my motherboard or RAM. Yeah, it's an x86- but I don't have a car that runs on hydrogen, so why should I have a computer that is hard to get parts or supplies for?
I have enough trouble finding time to do my audio work after hours. I don't need the hassle of trying to get a non-standard hardware platform to do what I need just because it's cool or underground. Amiga was great when it was something I could go to the store and buy. Now it's a pursuit that requires dedication and extreme amounts of passion, and I just don't have time to tinker. Building my own PC systems is more than enough tinkering for me.
Amiga is a hobby. Alan Redhouse said it himself. Enjoy your hobby of fiddling with your computer and OS just to get it to work while I enjoy my hobby of recording and mastering high-quality multi-track audio without pulling my hair out or wondering whether my next upgrade is going to eat an entire paycheck.
-
Tripitaka wrote:
If only Amiga OS5 ran on top of DE, being so easily ported (DE that is:-D ) we could use pratically any hardware. I seem to recall something along these lines in (the now defunct.)"Digital" magazine with someone from Tao Systems telling us how "Elate" (on which DE was based), could be ported in a couple of weeks by a single programmer. This was all before KMOS of course :-o , perhaps OS5 will still end up on X86 as well, who knows, I don't.. :-? ...BUT I STILL DON'T LIKE MAC'S :pissed: (I do like some Mac software however :-P ).
Just to add a little twist to the story, we should have Elbox's Dragon 1200 COLDFIRE solution on sale by the end of the month, I wait, I drool.....but most of all...I PRAY :lol:
Have you ever spent more than an hour on an OSX mac? The shell is Unix BASH, which IMHO is more flexible than any PC or even the CLI. It really is a very nice system, and reminds me of the Amiga a lot. Give it a chance.
-
> perhaps OS5 will still end up on X86 as well,
I don't have the heart to update him on current events.
:-(
I'll leave it at "perhaps..."
-
T_Bone wrote:
> perhaps OS5 will still end up on X86 as well,
I don't have the heart to update him on current events.
:-(
I'll leave it at "perhaps..."
Maybe by "OS5" he means AROS? :-D
-
Customers are screaming for faster hardware, Apple was in turn screaming to IBM, IBM was in turn masterbating or playing tetris or anything else that doesn't include answering the cries for speed. This change is a response to the customers screams.
The only flaw here is that Intel's Pentium 4 line has kinda hit a wall of it's own. Do you expect to see a 4Ghz P4 any time soon?
What I don't understand is why Apple didn't make a deal with AMD?
Has Apple revealed which Intel chip they plan on using in their next gen Mac? I have a feeling it's not gonna be from the Pentium line up. In which case, all this talk of Windows & Linux is meaningless.
- Mike
-
Considering the rumors about M$ going PPC, that is not that far off, Glaccus! :-)
-
Glaucus wrote:
What I don't understand is why Apple didn't make a deal with AMD?
AMD only has one plant and thus fewer runs. Intel's prices for OEM is likely far better.
Has Apple revealed which Intel chip they plan on using in their next gen Mac? I have a feeling it's not gonna be from the Pentium line up. In which case, all this talk of Windows & Linux is meaningless.
- Mike
The graphic Jobs used was the M-series.
-
strobe wrote:
The graphic Jobs used was the M-series.
Er, I meant Pentium-D
-
Have you ever spent more than an hour on an OSX mac? The shell is Unix BASH, which IMHO is more flexible than any PC or even the CLI. It really is a very nice system, and reminds me of the Amiga a lot. Give it a chance.
With Cygwin, I have bash on windows. Agreed, it's much better than the normal windows command line. But you don't need to switch OS to have it.
srg
-
Screw Apple, Amiga ppc is the way, Amiga PPC or die :-x
Cheers :-D
No I mean it 8-)
-
Greetings,
I think we'll see OSXI on longhorn too. That's never far fetch.
Developers applauded Steve when he said that both processors would be supported for a long time to come, and the core to this will be universal binaries.
Interesting... The bright side in all this, PPC prices will drop, and most ppl will be able to afford cheaper PPC Macs too. Not sure about the Amiga here, but maybe if Amiga would adapt "unversal binaries", Maybe a native AmigaOS on Intel maybe possible or, Aros is stil a good idea of x86 amiga. Intel boards are cheaper for the average users.
Regards,
GiZz72
-
The best one I've heard yet:
"I felt something, a disturbance in the network, as if a million mac zealots cried out in horror and were suddenly silenced," wrote poster "m50d,"
-G
-
Apple is doing this because P is further down the alphabet then G. Also, 7 is higher than 5. Thus they are able to jump from a G5 all the way to a P7 (Pentium 786), P + 7 is further down the line thus a big boost in performance. Also they will not loose their PPC because of the following mathematical formula.
Dual core Pentium or two P's (PP) and still works with x86 Cisc (C)= PP + C=PPC
Got it everyone
-
That's almost as bad as the "Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field".
-
sorry double post
-
Dudes says...
"It's just a CPU for crying out loud. There's a lot more to a computer than that. Get over it."
Get over it? This comeing from a guy hanging out on AMIGA.ORG. I love it. "Just a CPU?" Yup a big hot noisey one at that, but what's not these days right?
Perhaps he has a point. Anyone that has ever used BeOS on x86 knows it.
I dissapointed Apple didn't talk to AMD as well. I think it comes down to the "intel" name. It's all about name dropping.
-
First off Macs will still be Macs. Apple is a hardware company and a damn good one. You can bet they have some serious plans in the works to keep OS X on macs and only on macs. The universal binary is a good idea and software will be made for both PPC and Intel (cant call it x86 much now, you will see why later in this post) for years to come. The current developers are not stupid. They know millions of Mac users still have a PPC system and will for a long time. I have seen the P4 beta developer machines and did a few things with one. Its easy to make the new binaries. Its nothing to do it.
2nd Apple knows what its doing. They had this in the works since OSX was first compiled.
Next, IBM had no solid clue that this was taking place before it happened. The same time we all found out is when IBM found out. "The announcement of Apple-Intel partnership has created a shock inside IBM, especially that it was not known in advance or predictable. A mail has been sent internally to all IBM divisions in order to explain and minimize the impact of Apple's decision to stop current partnership with Big Blue.
Apple's announcement seems to have created a quite big impact outside IBM semi-conductor division since IBM-Apple partnership was for Big Blue a good image for its marketing and CPU technology leadership.
Lastly, Intel is done with 32 bit X86 CPU. All future processors from intel are to be 64 bit and they did that over the past weekend. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1827984,00.asp
So things are looking good. Do you think Apple mentiond a year ahead for the hell of it? Intel has huge plans and IBM cant kep up. I think we are about to see some serious stuff come out of them in the near future.
-
You can bet they have some serious plans in the works to keep OS X on mancs
Ey, our kid, y' seen tha? Only mancs get OS X.
-
Fookin' 'ell! Thas' grand!
-
Lame, come on so I had a simple typo! :-D
-
@Acill
Trust me, if you lived round here, you'd see the funny side of that typo ;-)
-
Karlos wrote:
@Acill
Trust me, if you lived round here, you'd see the funny side of that typo ;-)
Anyone have a link to an audio of Chav-speak, I've only seen it written!
-
T_Bone wrote:
Karlos wrote:
@Acill
Trust me, if you lived round here, you'd see the funny side of that typo ;-)
Anyone have a link to an audio of Chav-speak, I've only seen it written!
Thats the beauty T_Bone, there is no one universal chav speak. They are all so different, yet all exactly the same. :-o
-
Lastly, Intel is done with 32 bit X86 CPU. All future processors from intel are to be 64 bit and they did that over the past weekend. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1827984,00.asp
AMD's 64bits... ;-)