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! :-)
