how-to block ads
|
Aaron
join:2001-12-04
Dayton, OH
| Re: betrayed said by FLECOM  :does anyone feel betrayed by apple going to x86? and intel of all things? No. Apple is making the best decision it can to stay competitive, and I see that as reaffirming rather than negative.
said by FLECOM :for years we heard g5 was soooooo much better than P4, now its... well, we lied, its not, so we are switching... I think many would agree that the PPC architecture is technically superior to x86. (That debate is beyond the scope of this post.) However, when your chip supplier can't make enough chips and doesn't assign priority to developing new chips for you, technological superiority means very little. Nobody lied (that's a pretty inappropriate accusation), it turned out after a few years that Apple wasn't getting the treatment they wanted from IBM and Intel offered a product that will better meet Apple's future needs. It's nothing as sinister as a "lie". It's supply and roadmap.
said by FLECOM :does this mean that developers had x86 copies of macos x for testing? or is it just a compiled release they hope will work? hrmm A prototype Intel-based Mac and the accompanying x86 OS X is available to ADC select and premium members for $999. It's likely the Firefox folks have one. | |
|  
Tech-2005
@pacbell.n
| Re: betrayed PPC is not technically superior to x86 . Both architectures have different functions. The fact is that AMD's x86-64 based Opteron runs circles around IBMs PPC chips in application tests using Mac OSX vs. Windows XP. The current run of x86 chips are designed for backwards compatibility. Sure they could gut the slow parts of the x86 chips and improve the performance quite a bit but the fact that you can run 25 year old x86 operating systems (DOS) and any x86 based operating system since then (Windows 3.1, IBM OS2,
Win95, Win98, Win2K, XP, Linux, BSD Unix, SCO Unix, etc. etc.) on the latest x86-64 chips is really amazing. To engineer a CPU with compatibility in mind is much more difficult than designing a brand new CPU from the ground up for performance only. The fact that these latest x86 chips are ALSO competitive with the newer PPC chips is beyond incredible. I would also include backwards compatibility a form of technical superiority that the x86 has over PPC. I think it is outrageous that Mac enthusiasts put up with having to pay big money to upgrade all their software applications ever few years when Apple decides to change their hardware or OS. | |
| |
Aaron
join:2001-12-04
Dayton, OH
| Re: betrayed said by Tech-2005:
PPC is not technically superior to x86 . Fine, you're entitled to your opinion. There are a number of people who would disagree with you. I don't know enough to argue one way or another and, as I originally stated, it's beyond the scope of my post. I stated that opinion to help illustrate the point that chip architecture issues are not the reason for Apple's transition. Future development and supply are the issues.
said by Tech-2005:
I think it is outrageous that Mac enthusiasts put up with having to pay big money to upgrade all their software applications ever few years when Apple decides to change their hardware or OS.
That's inaccurate. Apple has only had a single OS changeover in its history. Mac OS 9 ran (runs? I haven't used it.) inside OS X to provide an environment for older applications to run, no upgrades required. No owner or purchaser of a current Mac will have to pay to upgrade any software. Their current PPC-based software will always work, and no developer in his right mind will compile Intel-only code for 7-10 years. Current PPC software will work on Intel-based Macs via Rosetta. Future Mac applications will be universal binaries, a more politically correct name for the fat binaries that assisted Apple's previous transition from old Moto CPUs to PPC. Nobody is paying to upgrade anything. | |
| | |
Tech-2005
@pacbell.n
| Re: betrayed I look forward to hearing how well your older PPC based OSX machine runs all the next generation MacTel OSX based application software a few years from now. Sure Apple will try to calm the fears of current Mac owners by claiming that they will have compatibility of applications for both systems . We have heard that line since the original Mac was released in the early 1980s and if you want to believe Apple's propaganda then go ahead. If you want to look at history then I urge you to try to run applications from Mac OS 1,2,3...etc all the way up to OS 8 and 9 and see if they all run on your current PPC Mac with OSX. One more note about the PPC. I am not saying that the PPC is a "bad" design but I am only saying that when they engineered it they did not have to worry about being 99.9% compatible with 25 years of software the way x86 is. Try running an application from a Mac OS 1 on your PPC.
On the other hand can you run an application from an early version of DOS from the early 1980s on an Athlon 64, Opteron, or Pentium 4 or Pentium D ? I even have a friend who runs a version of that ancient CP/M OS (remember the KayPro computer's OS from the late 1970s) for x86 on a recent Pentium based system. An x86 version of CP/M was actually considered to be the original OS for the IBM 8088 based PC but Microsoft's DOS eventually was chosen. Yes, you can even run applications from the 1970s on a x86 computer and we are talking about compatibility on the x86 hardware level and not simply just using a software emulation. Enough said regarding technical superiority of the PPC vs. x86. Beyond the compatibility factor the current x86 designs are truly engineering marvels and to downplay that fact is to not really understand how complex and state of the art these CPUs are. | |
| | | |
Tech-2005
@pacbell.n
| Re: betrayed There is a small correction I need to point out regarding my reply. IBM had an 8088 version of CP/M that they were considering to put on the original IBM PC. An x86 version of CP/M was released later (which is the version my friend uses) that allows you to run older 1970s CP/M software applications. | |
| | | |
Aaron
join:2001-12-04
Dayton, OH
| said by Tech-2005:
I look forward to hearing how well your older PPC based OSX machine runs all the next generation MacTel OSX based application software a few years from now. Considering that all of the "next generation" software will consist of single universal binaries that run on both platforms, I have no doubt that Mac software for the next 7-10 years will run fine on the machines I already own.
said by Tech-2005:
Sure Apple will try to calm the fears of current Mac owners by claiming that they will have compatibility of applications for both systems . It's not a claim. Apple already has universal binary-based versions of its own applications running on PPC and Intel right now, and they have for 5 years. Developers are compiling the same universal binaries of their own applications as we speak, like Firefox.
said by Tech-2005:
We have heard that line since the original Mac was released in the early 1980s and if you want to believe Apple's propaganda then go ahead. If you want to look at history then I urge you to try to run applications from Mac OS 1,2,3...etc all the way up to OS 8 and 9 and see if they all run on your current PPC Mac with OSX. Any application compiled for PPC under Mac OS 9 and below will run via Classic on my OS X Mac. Applications compiled for Moto 680x0 will not, but those applications are 10+ years old and no longer relevant. And at the time of Moto to PPC transition, Apple provided a way for both to be run, protecting users' current software investments. Nobody has been "forced" to upgrade anything, and this time is no exception. The fact that 20 year-old software doesn't run on the latest machines doesn't make Apple wrong for progressing and doesn't invalidate any of the successful strategies they've used, current or past, in their transitions. The fact that they've successfully accomplished so many transitions is an indicator that they've done well.
And "propaganda"? That's childish. Someone else has already used the word "lied" inappropriately. The topic doesn't need accusatory sensationalism.
said by Tech-2005:
One more note about the PPC. I'm not discussing PPC vs. Intel, as I've stated several times before. It's not the point of my post. | |
| | | | |
Tech-2005
@pacbell.n
| Re: betrayed Who knows what Apple will do next ? You are asking us to believe the words of a company that said that PPC was superior to Intel x86 CPUs and that PPC was their future hardware then not too many years later Apple says that they are going exclusively with Intel CPUs.
Neverless, I actually think it is a good business move for Apple that should have been done a long time ago. I think that the real reason for Apple switching is having to read performance comparisons for the past two years between the AMD Opterons and P4s vs. dual CPU G5 based OSX systems and seeing that those "technologically inferior" x86 systems costing far less money have been edging those supposedly superior expensive G5s in benchmark after benchmark. Maybe I am missing something here but how can you call a much more expensive PPC based computer system superior when it gets whipped in performance benchmarks across the board by less expensive x86 systems for several years ? Go ahead and Google G5 Mac vs. Windows XP Opteron or P4 systems and see what you come up with.
Having read the reviews your argument about PPC seems absurd. Now maybe the problem is with Apple's OSX and not the PPC. Ok, then there might be an argument there and maybe the PPC really could blow away the newer x86 CPUs if they had a decent OS to run on it. The problem is I haven't read a single review, test, or article where the PPC has performed much better than newer x86 systems.
Also, regarding someone's comment that this thread being outside the topic. The topic as I remember is Firefox on MacTel systems. I think that comparing application performance on PPC vs. x86 systems is a legitimate thread in line with the original topic. | |
| | | | | |
Aaron
join:2001-12-04
Dayton, OH
| Re: betrayed said by Tech-2005:
Who knows what Apple will do next ? I'm not talking about what Apple will do next, I'm talking about what Apple and developers are doing now, and that is compiling universal binaries that run on PPC and x86, as the Firefox developers in the original article have most likely done.
said by Tech-2005:
You are asking us to believe the words of a company that said that PPC was superior to Intel x86 CPUs and that PPC was their future hardware then not too many years later Apple says that they are going exclusively with Intel CPUs. I believe Apple said that because they believed it to be true. But how many times do I have to say this? I'm not arguing the superiority of one CPU architecture over another because architecture differences are not the reason Apple is starting a CPU transition. Your implication that Apple was wrong about PPC, so therefore nothing they say can be believed, is extremely fallacious.
said by Tech-2005:
I think that the real reason for Apple switching is having to read performance comparisons for the past two years between the AMD Opterons and P4s vs. dual CPU G5 based OSX systems "Real reason"? You have no special insight into this the rest of us are missing. The reasons Apple gave last month made perfect sense. IBM has been slow about developing chips Apple wants, and IBM can't reliably supply the chip volumes that Apple requests. There doesn't need to be any more to it than that. There doesn't need to be some "real" reason that's being hidden from us. Give me a break.
said by Tech-2005:
and seeing that those "technologically inferior" x86 systems costing far less money have been edging those supposedly superior expensive G5s in benchmark after benchmark. Get over it! I'm not arguing technological superiority of anything here, yet you keep bringing it up. Now I have to state this one more time: Apple's CPU transition is due to supply and roadmap issues, not architectural differences. If you want to have the PPC vs. x86 discussion, have it with someone else.
said by Tech-2005:
Maybe I am missing something here Yes! You're missing my point! (And just about everything else I've said.)
said by Tech-2005:
but how can you call a much more expensive PPC based computer system superior I didn't. (See this post and all of my previous posts.)
said by Tech-2005:
Having read the reviews your argument about PPC seems absurd. You don't even know what my argument is. I'm not arguing in favor of PPC or x86 or any CPU architecture.
Here, let me state my argument for you for clarity, and we'll see if you can form an appropriate response to what I'm actually saying:
Many people think the PPC architecture is superior to x86, and Apple was among PPC's supporters for many years. (***NOTE!!!*** I'm not arguing that PPC is or is not superior, since I don't know enough about the topic. RESTATED: I'm not arguing PPC vs. x86. ***READ THIS***) I mention some peoples' preference for PPC to counter the idea, stated by the original poster, that Apple "lied", which means they purposely mislead customers. I seriously doubt that to be the case. I think Apple sincerely believed in PPC.
Which technology is superior today is beyond the scope of this post. (Psst... that means I'm not arguing or making any statements for or against any CPU architecture.)However, more than a decade later, the supplier of Apple's PPC chips has let them down. IBM cannot supply the chips Apple wants, and IBM is taking far, far too long to develop G5 variants for portable devices, etc. Apple is transitioning to a new CPU type because of supply and roadmap issues, not because of CPU architecture differences.
At this moment, Apple has OS X for x86 running on par with the PPC version. They've had it for 5 years. Apple has the vast majority of its applications compiled and running for both PPC and x86 as universal binaries. It has for 5 years. At this moment, developers, like the developers for Firefox, are compiling universal binaries that run on both PPC and x86. Apple has gone out of its way to provide the tools necessary for a smooth transition from one CPU architecture to another.
said by Tech-2005:
Also, regarding someone's comment that this thread being outside the topic. said by Anonymous Coward:
You know, actually reading a post is a good idea before replying:
I think many would agree that the PPC architecture is technically superior to x86. (That debate is beyond the scope of this post.) More to the point, they said you're not reading my posts. | |
|
Anonymous Coward
@gci.net | You know, actually reading a post is a good idea before replying:
I think many would agree that the PPC architecture is technically superior to x86. (That debate is beyond the scope of this post.) | |
| | | | | |
|
