Mac and CMx2

[Vanir Ausf B]

From what I've read, AMD simply doesn't have the extra manufacturing capacity available.

[aka_tom_w]

I don't know enough about AMD but I am pretty sure Apple really wanted the low heat and High speed mobile (laptop) processors like the Centrino technology that Intel offers.

the G5 is a great chip and it is almost fast enough but it runs really hot (the high end Mac G5 destop machine is liquid cooled, it runs THAT hot!) so IBM could not make the Laptop version of the G5 run cool enough to put in a Powerbook, hence there are NO G5 Powerbooks and there never will be and this is a big problem for Apple to stay competitive.

I don't know what AMD could offer in the way of FAST (and cool) mobile/laptop processors ?? I am guessing Intel is ahead of AMD in that field.

(but I could be wrong because I am Mac guy and I don't know anything about AMD)

-tom w

[RMC]

Are powerbooks more important in the Mac universe than desktops?

AMD is currently beating Intel in the desktop environment in performance and heat/power dissipation. Intel has run into a wall with the P4 architecture. It would make more sense to me to go AMD if desktop capability is more important to the Mac market than mobile capability.

The resource issue is probably telling. As I understand it, the reason Dell doesn't offer AMD systems is that AMD cannot deliver the quantities that Dell needs. At first blush I would think that the Mac market is small enough that this isn't a problem, especially with a gradual transition.

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by RMC:

Are powerbooks more important in the Mac universe than desktops?

As a self confessed "Mac Head" I would have to say yes

my next computer purchase (MAC or PC)

will definitely weigh the benefits of using a laptop

(with or without external monitor)

With Laptop graphics cards rivaling those in towers

(at least close enough for my needs)

and with USB2 and FireWire available for external drives and devices

the need for a tower is less apparent

and the benefits of Laptop portability become more important

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by RMC:

Are powerbooks more important in the Mac universe than desktops?

Yes

Jobs has promised the mac faithful a G5 laptop, or at least "improved" or "competitive" laptop (Powerbook) speed and performance and he just HATES not being able to deliver on that technologically, because IBM could not make the Power PC 970 (by IBM renamed the "new" G5 by Apple, it was a originally a RISC based 64 bit chip used in servers where heat is not a consideration) perform cool enough to run in a laptop.

from here IBM web page

"Apple, of course, is the obvious customer for the 970, and as I'll discuss in a moment IBM's newly announced chip would fit well with their general needs and direction. In this respect, then, the 970 could fill another gap in the computing landscape: the enormous desktop PPC performance gap left by Motorola as their G4 line continues to stagnate and the fate of their rumored G5 remains uncertain. "

Soooo...... Apple and IBM have tried for two years now to shoehorn this mighty RISC based 64 bit server chip into a Powerbook but it has presented the "mother of all technological challenges" because they can't find a way to cool it effectively enough in a laptop enclosure to prevent it from way over heating. So Mac users are stuck with now 2-3 year old Motorola G4 chip technology in all Apple Powerbooks.

Soooo.... Yes the mobile laptop market is the most important thing for Apple.

-tom w

[ June 29, 2005, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[RMC]

That doesn't really answer the question. Just because they are working on the mobile problem doesn't it mean that it is the larger share of the Mac market.

AMD is trying to get competitive in the mobile market again too.

If Jobs is talking about gradual phase in of intel processors over a couple of years, that doesn't solve the current mobility problem.

Perhaps Apple could try a combined strategy. They could use AMD in the desktops and the Pentium M for the laptops since they both run the same X86 code.

[Kurtz]

The Apple laptops will be the first to be upgraded. The G5 Powermacs have enough power and no real heat issues.

AMD might be better desktop cpu:s right now, but who knows what Intel comes up with in 2 years time when the desktops will be replaced (just guessing about the timeframe).

And as I said, it's about logistics. To speak in CM terms: it doesn't matter if you have the best tank in the world if the roads collapse and you run out of fuel and ammo for it.

[tar]

I think the real problem with "heat" in laptops isn't the cooling, but rather the battery life. Producing all that heat requires power, which is always in short supply in a mobile platform. The more energy the chip consumes, the more heat it will produce, and also the more electricity it needs to run.

[aka_tom_w]

I think it is the Heat

they run too hot in the laptops with the G5 and its just not safe

too hot IMHO

sure it uses more battery power but IBM cannot make a safe and cool (ish) G5 laptop and they are out

the intel centrino is much much cooler IIRC

-tom w

[ July 02, 2005, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by RMC:

Perhaps Apple could try a combined strategy. They could use AMD in the desktops and the Pentium M for the laptops since they both run the same X86 code.

If they were going to do that, they'd be better off going IBM desktop/Intel laptop

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RMC:

Perhaps Apple could try a combined strategy. They could use AMD in the desktops and the Pentium M for the laptops since they both run the same X86 code.

If they were going to do that, they'd be better off going IBM desktop/Intel laptop </font>

[jeffsmith]

yes all Intel by 2007

[Michael Emrys]

Thanks. Saved me reading all those dreary releases.

Michael

[tar]

Well, a hot laptop isn't always such a bad thing:

We're cooking, now!

[Michael Emrys]

That boy needs to find a job.

Michael

[Wicky]

Apple on Intel Deal: FACE!

In a startling turn of events, Apple announced today that the entirety of last week's momentous announcement that the company was switching to processors from Intel was nothing but an elaborate prank.

At a press conference today, a visibly pleased Apple CEO Steve Jobs revelled in the moment.

Rolling on the floor and laughing, Jobs howled "Oh, my god, you should have seen your face! Ha-ha-ha-ha! That was classic! Classic!"

Jobs pulled himself up off the floor in order to high-five and then low-five Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller.

"This is something Phil and I cooked up about six months ago," Jobs explained. "The hardest part was getting [intel CEO] Paul Otellini to go along with it.

"I was like, dude, you've got to! And he was like, uhhh, I dunno, we might get in trouble. And then Phil was like, dude, don't be a wuss."

"Ha-ha!" Schiller laughed. "Wuss!"

"Shut up, dude," Jobs said sternly. "So he did it! Ha-ha! I couldn't believe it!"

According to sources, the entire lead up (including reports indicating the two companies were in negotiations), last Monday's announcement and the details that have come out in the past week were all a ruse to dupe Mac users and members of the technology industry.

Many in the technology industry were not amused.

"That's not funny," said a red-faced Infoworld columnist Tom Yager. "You know... you know... you think you're so funny. But you're not."

Yager then bolted from the room in tears prompting howls of laughter from Jobs and Schiller.

Mac users, meanwhile, feigned nonchalance about today's revelation.

"Oh, I knew that," said Your Mac Life's Shawn King. "I totally knew that.

"Pff. Intel. Right! As if!"

[RMC]

so anyway...

Does the switch to Intel processors mean the adoption of x86 architectures and chipsets? Will a user be able to build a Mac the way they can build a PC?

[Pzman]

I sure hope not, the last thing we need is cheapo clones destroying the market again.

[tar]

Short answer: Apple hasn't said.

Speculation: Macs will remain distinct hardware and you will most likely not be able to build your own. I would guess that the only major change in Mac hardware design will be in the processor itself, and all of the other Mac-specific parts will remain more-or-less as they are now.

[karch]

anyone see the new chips IBM announced today.

Low power 1.2-1.6 GHz G5s and Dual Core G5s up to 2.5GHz.

I wonder how a 1.6GHz G5 compares to a 1.6GHz G4. As for the dual core jobs. For single threaded apps, dual cores will do nothing, but for highly threaded server apps, this sounds great.

the Windows world is getting a taste of this too. Sounds like the next round of performance increases will be far more on the developer's ability to create and manage multiple threads across multiple processors. No more just raw speed increases.

[aka_tom_w]

web page

This is interesting:

real tech details for a change:

"

Apple is expected to start by using Intel's Pentium M chip, and to use EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface) versus a standard BIOS for waking up its processor and other hardware bits. But it has yet to detail whether it will use off-the-shelf Intel processors and chip sets or take another route.

Right now, the company uses standard IBM PowerPC 970FX chips and designs its own chip sets for them, analysts say. Having details on Intel's hardware plans in hand, along with details on the software drivers for the systems, will be vital to getting Windows to run natively on Mactel hardware.

Read more here about why Apple is expected to use Intel's Pentium M chip in its new computers.

Running Windows as "a primary OS on [Mac/Intel] hardware is going to require OS support at the driver level. There may or may not be BIOS issues and that sort of thing," said Dean McCarron, analyst with Mercury Research. "Going off the assumption that the [intel] Mac hardware is not a PC—that it's their own layout hardware-wise—in order to make Windows run on that, it's going to have to have the appropriate drivers."

This means that supporting Windows on Mactel would require Microsoft Corp. or others to gain in-depth knowledge of the Apple hardware, McCarron said. Apple would have to weigh the potential benefits of making its machines somewhat more attractive versus risking helping people who seek to use Mac OS X on other hardware."

and also from the web page listed at the top of the post:

"

Even if full hardware support isn't offered, there's a fallback position for more enterprising Mactel owners. Virtualization technology built into Intel chips—desktop Pentium 4 chips will sport built-in virtualization this year and the Pentium Ms will gain it next—will allow the machines to be partitioned to run numerous different types of software at the same time. Thus, there is no reason the machines couldn't run Windows or Linux and all of the associated applications on top of Mac OS X.

Click here to read Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols' commentary arguing that Apple's Intel move threatens Linux and Longhorn desktops.

"In theory, you could run Windows on top of Mac OS, which is how it works on Mac today with Virtual PC," McCarron said. "The difference is, with hardware virtualization, you'd be running at almost full speed. By and large you'd end up with a full-speed virtual system."

More here

"Apple may choose Intel's Pentium M to become the first Intel chip inside a new generation of portables and small desktop computers.

The computer maker, which on Monday announced plans to move to Intel processors starting in 2006, is expected to make the Pentium M its first stop, analysts say."

-tom w

[ July 10, 2005, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Emrys]

Jeez, sounds like Apple is skating on some thin ice here. This course is definitely not without its risks. I hope they know what they're doing.

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

I don't think it is such a big risk and I do think Jobs knows what he is doing:

web page

"Apple Risks It with Intel

RELATED LINKS

Apple-Intel Chip Deal Outcry Keeps Growing

Porting Mac OS X to Intel Will Be a Snap

Intel Gets Big on Mini PCs

Up Next: Intel Everywhere?

I believe Apple is switching because Steve Jobs has his eye on the big prize—a substantial share of the personal computer marketplace.

In fact, I believe Steve Jobs has been working toward this goal since he returned to Apple in 1997.

Remember, it was Jobs nemesis John Sculley who presided over the switch from Motorola's 68000 processors to the PowerPC architecture, missing the opportunity to gain PC compatibility.

It seemed like a good idea at the time. IBM's Power architecture was part of a wave of RISC (reduced instruction-set computing) technology that promised to sweep x86 away.

Intel couldn't make the switch, but Apple could; Sculley believed RISC's inherent advantages would give Apple a compelling advantage over x86 PCs.

What RISC proponents didn't predict was that Intel (and AMD) could create new x86 processors built around RISC-like cores.

Their higher production volumes more than compensated for the slight inefficiencies of this approach.

The new PowerPC platform also turned out to be less compelling than Sculley expected.

By forcing its customers and software developers to choose between two fundamentally incompatible platforms—the well established PC platform and Apple's proprietary designs—Apple forced itself into a small market niche from which it could not escape.

Even with this year's remarkable growth in Mac sales—40 percent year over year—Apple still has less than 4 percent of the U.S. personal-computer market.

The transition to x86 will cut into Power Mac sales in the short term, but the new strategy gives Apple an opportunity for growth rates that would be otherwise unimaginable.

Click here to read more about the outcry over the Apple-Intel deal.

How might this strategy play out?

I think the keys to Apple's success now lie in the "platformization" strategy of Intel's new CEO, Paul Otellini.

Otellini is behind Intel's new emphasis on technology beyond simple microprocessor design—the Centrino platform, Intel's Virtualization Technology and the security features code-named LaGrande Technology.

Apple, arguably the most platform-oriented computer vendor, will now contribute its considerable skills in hardware/software integration to Intel's chipset developers.

Apple will show Intel how to make software-friendly hardware, and Intel will put its unmatched manufacturing muscle into Apple's service.

The ideal future x86 Mac will run Mac OS X and Windows, but I think it's unlikely that Apple will release a version of Mac OS that runs on non-Apple PCs.

Apple relies heavily on hardware sales to subsidize Mac OS development.

A shrink-wrapped Mac OS that runs on Dell machines, for example, would cut into Mac system sales.

Jobs did not address this question in his speech Monday, but we should learn the answer later this year.

If Apple had adopted the Intel architecture instead of PowerPC, this would have been a difficult problem to solve.

Apple would have been forced to make its systems fundamentally incompatible with the standard PC platform to prevent hackers from making their own Mac clones.

Today, Intel has the answer. LaGrande technology provides an unbreakable cryptographic lock that can keep Mac OS from booting on systems not made by Apple.

The LaGrande solution allows full PC compatibility, so Macs could be able to boot Windows, but dual-boot systems have never been particularly successful. Users don't want to be forced to choose between multiple operating systems when they start their computers.

The ideal solution would offer access to all the software and all the data on the machine at the same time.

Next Page: Virtualization technology."

"Enter another one of Intel's platform pieces, VT (Virtualization Technology).

VT makes it possible for one machine to run several different operating systems at once.

Intel has partnered with software virtualization pioneer VMware to implement its own software layer for VT; Microsoft will have another.

VT demos have been fairly primitive so far, forcing users to switch from one virtual desktop to another to run software in different partitions.

Microsoft has the technology to create a more natural windowed environment, but so does Apple—and Apple has proved more agile in developing user-interface technology over the last few years.

Again, Jobs said nothing about this prospect, but I know Apple could make this work, and I doubt they'll overlook the opportunity.

Properly implemented, an x86 Mac wouldn't need to boot Windows to run Windows software.

Mac OS would be the primary operating system, but if the customer wants Windows, Windows could get its own partition.

With Windows running on the same machine, Apple can make Windows applications part of the Mac OS X environment.

Apple could end up with the best of all worlds—simultaneous Mac OS and Windows operation on a wide range of commodity platforms.

Today, it isn't practical for Apple to develop its own tablet computers or eight-way servers because of hardware engineering costs.

With suitable hardware available off the shelf in the PC industry, Apple can create such systems just by doing the necessary software development. Most of this work, in fact, has already been done.

Reaching this promised land will still take a lot of hard work by Apple and its independent software developers.

Apple is targeting the 64-bit mode of Intel's x86 processors (the mode originally developed by AMD and dubbed AMD64).

Apple already has 64-bit support in Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger), but almost none of the Tiger code runs in 64-bit mode. Apple will have to make the transition to x86 and 64-bit operation at the same time.

It's unclear how much of this work has been done. Jobs announced that for the last five years, it has pursued a cross-platform development strategy; Apple's operating systems and applications have all been built and tested for x86 and PowerPC compatibility.

But Apple hasn't had access to 64-bit x86 platforms for all this time. I think it's likely that the 64-bit transition is still under way in Cupertino.

It's ironic that up in Seattle, Microsoft is moving the other way.

We usually think of Microsoft as a software company, but it sells many more Xbox consoles than Apple sells Macs.

With similar needs for multimedia processing and price/performance, and a large installed base of x86 software, Microsoft selected PowerPC for its next-generation Xbox 360.

For similar reasons, Sony is moving from MIPS processors to PowerPC in PlayStation 3, and Nintendo is sticking with PowerPC for its forthcoming Revolution system.

IBM designed all three of these new PowerPC processors; together, the three consoles will ship almost as many processors as Intel.

Apple's future includes less RISC, but more risks.

Faced with a straight-up choice between Windows Longhorn and Mac OS X "Leopard" on the same hardware, some Microsoft customers will switch—but will there be more switchers than Apple would have attracted to the PowerPC platform?

And what about Apple's short-term prospects? Pending the arrival of better Intel microprocessors, the first generation of x86-based PCs won't be dramatically better than the new Power Macs Jobs promised us.

Power Macs will also have better software support for years to come, but will Apple's existing customers be comfortable buying a platform that is scheduled for cancellation?

Apple is looking at a year or two of combining nervous uncertainty with the hope of fantastic success. Realizing this dream will require a lot of engineering effort from Apple and Intel, and a lot of faith from Apple's faithful.

Peter N. Glaskowsky is an analyst with the Envisioneering Group in Seaford, N.Y., a former editor of the Microprocessor Report newsletter and an architect with MemoryLogix, a microprocessor design firm." web page

[Michael Emrys]

Words like 'unbreakable' make me edgy. But, oh well, time will tell.

Michael

[Ales Dvorak]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

But, oh well, time will tell.

Time needs a hero, but only time will tell....