intel cranks out 3 ghz chip.

Originally posted by terran74


Since Darwin is based on a mach kernel, making it run on a different platform is the biggest hurdle in getting apps to work on it. The nice thing about Mach is that "in theory" you could essentially have it so that when you compile a binary it compiles FAT for both platforms with no rewrite of code.

The technology has been there all along. If we remember, NeXT ran on x86 and 68k. You used one binary for both platforms because they were compiled FAT. If darwin was based on a monolithic design then there would be issues in converting apps from one platform to another.

Oh yeah, and moving to x86 would be easier in this regards because darwin already includes the necessary information to compile x86/PPC FAT binaries.

Does anyone know if the current core unix binaries are FAT in the darwin distrobutions?
Click to expand...

This is not exactly the same OS as the NeXT days anymore. OSX now has carbon APIs. Unless an app is complete cocoa it will need to be updated to run across another cpu (x86) to address that. Also Aqua and the top layer will need to be rewritten and you can forget about classic. Being we still need classic for teh transition already in place this will be a mess to bring in porting to new hardware at this time. You saw how long it took developers to make that converstion to carbonize apps just for OSX alone. To do that they are running on carbon APIs and for some apps both. We will be in the same loop we are in now as far as waiting for companies to recarbonize apps to run on an x86 processor. I don't think that will work out for us much, because we will be in ANOTHER transitional period with people are already crying about as being too long. I'm sure companies do NOT want to go through that deja vu.

I do agree Motorola has to go, but the move to x86 I don't think is the answer. I think Apple is better off teaming with IBM, because they know the architecture and IBM can meet demand, unlike Motorola. Sure me would have to ditch Altivec, but we gain the potential for a much better process which can run fast enought to negate that loss.

Just my 2 cents...
 
people are already overclocking p4 to 3 ghz (air cooled)
there are no enhancements to the p4 architecture

..so why do we have to know this
 
Originally posted by azosx
As for AltiVec, if only Apple and Adobe optimize their software for it, then no, it's not a good solution. Unless of course Apple is only wanting to cater to a specilized market like Sun and SGI do with their SPARC and MIPS processors. I don't think this is the case though considering their recent Switch campaign.

Apple wants to compete against the PC and they aren't going to do it with a dual 1GHz G4 with AltiVec. Do you own an SMP box? I do. And unless programs are optimized to take advantage of SMP, you're in the same boat as AltiVec. 2 1GHz G4s is not the same as 1 2GHz G4.
Click to expand...

You continue to belittle both SMP and AltiVec when they have obvious benefits. As has been discussed in other threads, the iApps and much of the system software would be pretty slow in OS X without G4 AltiVec optimization (especially iDVD). Furthermore, SMP is very beneficial even when you don't have apps optimized for it. Like you said, the CPU assigns applications to either processor, so you will have some extra processor time for each application, since there are less applications running on each processor. This has a real performance benefit that you seem to overlook.

I don't know why you're always so angry. Relax.
Click to expand...

I'm not angry. I'm just trying to put in perspective the "desperate situation" that Apple is in. And I'm also pointing out the real benefits of the G4 processor that you seem to neglect.
 
Originally posted by terran74


Since Darwin is based on a mach kernel, making it run on a different platform is the biggest hurdle in getting apps to work on it. The nice thing about Mach is that "in theory" you could essentially have it so that when you compile a binary it compiles FAT for both platforms with no rewrite of code.

The technology has been there all along. If we remember, NeXT ran on x86 and 68k. You used one binary for both platforms because they were compiled FAT. If darwin was based on a monolithic design then there would be issues in converting apps from one platform to another.

Oh yeah, and moving to x86 would be easier in this regards because darwin already includes the necessary information to compile x86/PPC FAT binaries.

Does anyone know if the current core unix binaries are FAT in the darwin distrobutions?
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about getting the OS to run on x86. That would be a hurttle, but nothing major.

It was applications that are going to be a bitch, and while its possible to create a FAT binary, think about all the apps that are on OS X now that arn't fat, and the number of apps that probably wouldn't be made FAT do to lack of support.

Moving to a new Power (PowerPC was based on the Power arch) based arch would be rather easy to do, most of your apps would just run. Moving to x86 would make all of your apps need upgrades to run.
 
Originally posted by Excalibur

I do agree Motorola has to go, but the move to x86 I don't think is the answer. I think Apple is better off teaming with IBM, because they know the architecture and IBM can meet demand, unlike Motorola. Sure me would have to ditch Altivec, but we gain the potential for a much better process which can run fast enought to negate that loss.

Just my 2 cents...
Click to expand...

Ouch, I hope I did not give the impression I am all for moving to the Pentium. I was just pointing out the benefits of Apple going with a Mach kernel. Pretty much what I meant to say was that whatever chip they decide to move to, it will be fairly easy for them to make the transition.

I think since they own assets in the AIM I don't see any reason that they cannot figure out a way to work with someone to make a hybrid chip to whatever platform they are moving over to. Take AMD. They somehow have a way to take Intel intructions and interpret them for the AMD chip. Why could they not do this on the mac to take those simple instructions for PPC and have them converted to whatever instructions they need.

As for altivec, Isn't motorola open to licensing the technology to other companies? I thought IBM just turned down the opportunity to work with it for more embedded PPC designs. Couldn't Apple just take Altivec with them and have special altivec enabled processor made for the macs?

I pointed out in another thread that if they do decide to move the best opportunity to move will be when they decide to go to a 64 bit platform. The power of a 64 bit chip should allow them to work with 32 bit PPC binary emulation either in software or hardware for backwards compatibily. Im just making an assumption but I feel this would make the transition to a new chip rather smooth.

Remember, when we go to a 64 bit platform, we will need all new apps to take advantage of the new chip. If apple were to move, that would be the ideal time to move. Whether it is a G5, SparC, Power4, AMD 64, or Itanium is yet to be seen.
 
okay before I start the meat of my post let me clarify where I think without a doubt which directions Apple isn't going: Apple will never have a mac with a Power4, x86 intel CPU (32bit or 64bit), or x86 from AMD although a custom PPC chip is not out of the question. So without futher adue here we go...

For starters lets analyze that link about the 3Ghz P4 shall we.. first off look at this quote: "Intel will be selling a Pentium 4 chip running at 2.8 gigahertz, compared with 1.8 gigahertz for AMD" This tells us AMD is having its own issues with Mhz against intel but also benchmarks show that the Athlon is generally an equal to faster performer than the P4.. why? Because intel isn't making the P4 for performance, its making for profit and for marketing reasons nothing more.

Next take a look at this: "Last year Intel poured $7.3 billion into capital spending, much of it on chip-making equipment that can etch smaller lines onto semiconductor wafers and for gear that can handle wafers that are about a foot in diameter, compared with the previous diameter of about 8 inches." Having the fasted chip on the block doesn't come cheap, they have updated all their manufacturing plants to support this latest increase and the amount they poured in is staggering.. Motorola's manufacturing plant is very outdated and uses many older technologies, many used to build the older PPC chips used in a lot of our older macs. Motorola in this economy is in no position to update their manufacturing plants for such a small account like Apple, so this is a negative for them and a sign they should move to someone with better manufacturing facilities such as IBM who sustains itself with PPC products and thus has more advanced manufacturing processes.

Then they state: " Intel said it was on track to roll out the 3.0 gigahertz Pentium 4 by the end of the year. But continued manufacturing efficiencies are allowing it to pull in its introduction, the source said." This means that the 7.8Billion or so dollars they put into their manufacturing has sped up by HALF A YEAR their roadmap to faster CPUs, I hate to say it but motorola should be writing down these techniques because we can hate intel all we want they know how to keep in competition and rule the market.

Take a look at this: "Hector Ruiz, AMD's president and chief executive, said the recent and current environment has been the most competitive he had seen in his career. Before coming to AMD, the chip veteran worked for mobile phone and chip maker Motorola Inc." An ex Motorola employee who works for AMD even states that this market is the most competitive its been in YEARS people. Motorola is spending so little on R & D and to update its older manufacturing facilities that it amazes me we made it to 1Ghz riding on motorola.

Simply cut and dry its impossible or nearly so for motorola to move with the current speed of the market and motorola while it may be a sentimental connection to the AIM allience, it may be time to either cut them off or offer a join spendature to update their manufacturing facilities to better speed up production, but as stated earlier its rough because of their financial condition. IBM already can do many of the things Apple needs and I think it a wise desicsion to move to them although that never happen because Jobs is extremely stubborn when he thinks he is right.. so soon we will see how big of a tole this kind of competition will take on out favorite fruit flavored computer company.

~David
 
Originally posted by terran74

I think since they own assets in the AIM I don't see any reason that they cannot figure out a way to work with someone to make a hybrid chip to whatever platform they are moving over to.
Click to expand...
You are correct, take IBM, they have produced a G3 (750fx) that is almost the same as a G4, mainly because the G4 is basically an add-on to the G3's archtecture.

Originally posted by terran74

As for altivec, Isn't motorola open to licensing the technology to other companies? I thought IBM just turned down the opportunity to work with it for more embedded PPC designs. Couldn't Apple just take Altivec with them and have special altivec enabled processor made for the macs?
Click to expand...

Stunning you knew this, but as you might not know IBM reverse engineered the altivec technology and now Apple uses one of the resulting G3s, the 750fx in the iBook and it can boost Altivec compatibility on a G3.


Welp thats my replies

~David
 
The thing about AltiVec is that the things it does, it does extremely well. Consider that my 446MHz G4 runs the distributed.net client faster than a 2.4Ghz Pentium 4 (4,109,033 vs. 4,052,723 keys/s), and I'm sure Phil Schiller has nailed the Photoshop numbers into your brain by now. It's also very important for all the digital video suff Apple is doing; DV can be damn tedious on a P4.

Consider also that besides graphics editing and video editing, the only other thing I do on my machine that actually uses 100% of the processor is gaming, and that's why we have video cards to take the strain off the processor, and Apple has done a good job making sure we can get the latest graphics cards, although at higher prices.

Also remember that AMD's best chip right now is the Athlon XP 2200+, which runs at 1.8Ghz, so if Apple can pull off a 1.6Ghz G4 in the coming months, they won't be far behind at all.
 
Originally posted by yoshi
Stunning you knew this, but as you might not know IBM reverse engineered the altivec technology and now Apple uses one of the resulting G3s, the 750fx in the iBook and it can boost Altivec compatibility on a G3.
Click to expand...

This is serious news. When did IBM reverse engineer Altivec? This is GREAT! Now we can hopefully get some faster chips from IBM and Apple can give Motorola the bird.

Do you have supporting evidence? Links? Articles?

Apple has to do something about this performance gap. It can't slide that much longer as all the switch commercials in the world aren't going to convince the public that Apple is a via option to the PC and Windows.
 
Originally posted by chemistry_geek


This is serious news. When did IBM reverse engineer Altivec? This is GREAT! Now we can hopefully get some faster chips from IBM and Apple can give Motorola the bird.

Do you have supporting evidence? Links? Articles?

Apple has to do something about this performance gap. It can't slide that much longer as all the switch commercials in the world aren't going to convince the public that Apple is a via option to the PC and Windows.
Click to expand...

I don't know if this helps but here are some links concerning IBM's G3 speed demons:
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/17712.html
http://www.geek.com/procspec/apple/750fx.htm
http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/rdmap/roadmap_small.jpg

This is a link showing Motorola's PPC road map:
http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PPCRMAP.pdf

Have some good reading :D
 
Originally posted by terran74


Ouch, I hope I did not give the impression I am all for moving to the Pentium. I was just pointing out the benefits of Apple going with a Mach kernel. Pretty much what I meant to say was that whatever chip they decide to move to, it will be fairly easy for them to make the transition.

I think since they own assets in the AIM I don't see any reason that they cannot figure out a way to work with someone to make a hybrid chip to whatever platform they are moving over to. Take AMD. They somehow have a way to take Intel intructions and interpret them for the AMD chip. Why could they not do this on the mac to take those simple instructions for PPC and have them converted to whatever instructions they need.

As for altivec, Isn't motorola open to licensing the technology to other companies? I thought IBM just turned down the opportunity to work with it for more embedded PPC designs. Couldn't Apple just take Altivec with them and have special altivec enabled processor made for the macs?

I pointed out in another thread that if they do decide to move the best opportunity to move will be when they decide to go to a 64 bit platform. The power of a 64 bit chip should allow them to work with 32 bit PPC binary emulation either in software or hardware for backwards compatibily. Im just making an assumption but I feel this would make the transition to a new chip rather smooth.

Remember, when we go to a 64 bit platform, we will need all new apps to take advantage of the new chip. If apple were to move, that would be the ideal time to move. Whether it is a G5, SparC, Power4, AMD 64, or Itanium is yet to be seen.
Click to expand...

Oh my fault there thought you were on the move to x86 bandwagon there too. LOL Ooops. We pretty much have the same view there basically though.

As far as AltiVec, Motorola own the rights to it so IBM would have to license it. They don't want anything to do with it so that is why Motorola have primarily been the single G4 provider and IBM help with just manufacturing during the 'stuck at 500' year. LOL

The big deal about the G5 being 64 bit was that apps wouldn't have to be rewritten. It 'in theory' will be able to run 32 bit and 64 bit native without emulation. so there will be no performance hit running 32 bit apps on it. This will give developers time to move apps over when they can instead of ASAP for support. However the G5 is pretty much just 'talk' now hard to tell now what will happen... I guess we'll have to wait and see.
 
Lets get one thing straight here, you all like to believe that AMD beats intel with lower mhz ratings that is NO longer the case the fastest athlon is now way behind the new 533mhz FSB P4s. That is a fact, when the 3Ghz does come out AMD are gonna need a massive FSB boost or the Hammer procs too compete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top