That certainly is a perspective not being covered by the various
pontificators batting things around out there on the 'Net.
Jerry
p.s. There is a mostly anonymous writing on http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
explaining some of the thoughts that Apple put into evaluating things
in making this decision. Not sure how much credence to give it, being
mostly anonymous as it is
Excerpts FTA:
1) "Rosetta [Rosetta is the name given to the emulator to run current
Mac based apps -- Jerry] is amazing. (see earlier post on limitations
of the Rosetta emulator - it's a G3 emulator basically - will not run
Altivec code, etc. and performance isn't going to be as good as native
code, but most Mac apps will run on a G3.-Mike) The tests I've run,
both app tests and benchmarks, peg it at between a dual 800 MHz G4 and
and a dual 2 G5 depending on what you are doing. (I mentioned to him
the limitations of Rosetta (posted below)-Mike) It's true Rosetta does
not support Altivec, but most apps run on a G3, right? Rosetta tells
PPC apps that it is a G3. Apps should fall back to their G3 code tree.
Everyone I tested did.
2) "This transition is not about current P4 vs G5. It is about the
future directions of the processor families. Intel is committed to
desktop/notebook and server in a big way. Freescale/IBM are chasing the
embedded market and console market. Apple would have been in a lurch in
2 years.
Also, all the cell people and the AMD people need to be quiet. Apple
evaluated both. AMD has the same, if not worse, supply problems as IBM.
Their roadmap is fine, but the production capacity is not.
They tested Cell as well. That processor is NOT intended for PC
applications. (it was designed for game systems, not as a general use
CPU) The lack of out of order execution and ILP control logic creates
very poor performance with existing software. Having developers rewrite
for cell would have been MUCH more work than reworking for Intel. And
that's what this is, you rework your codebase in ALL cases, not rewrite
it. "
This should be pretty interesting.
Jerry
On Jun 08, 2005, at 10:15 PM, Marta Edie wrote:
> First of all, thanks, folks, for this intense and back and forth
> discussion on the chip, I gained some insights- I call it the
> Jel-chip, jelling together Intel and Apple. While of course I don't
> understand what it ultimately signifies, - take it this way : nothing
> is eaten as hot as it is cooked ( Nichts wird so hei? gegessen, wie's
> gekocht wird) and then- 2007 is a long way off. We may be dead by
> then, we may not be able to breathe the air anymore the way this
> administration drags its feet on the global warming, , the clean air
> act etc, We might have suffocated by then, or we all might have lost
> all our money due to the national debt which is skyrocketing and by
> then they may have everybody out of work and no chips are being made,
> or the administration might freeze our assets and change the money
> into perhaps red paper dollars of which we all might receive $ 50.00
> -- the rest being lost in the government 's deep deep pit of debt( as
> happened in Germany after WWII ), which might pay for a shirt or a
> Pair of cheap shoes - and then it would take us decades to save up
> enough for some extra memory or some software, but hardly enough for a
> new computer. So let's pray and hope - and we should be happy if
> nothing more drastic happens in this country than an intel chip in an
> apple computer. Amen.
> Marta
> On Jun 8, 2005, at 1:31, Bill Holt wrote:
>
>> I hope you're right, Jerry.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 8, 2005, at 12:33 AM, Jerry Yeager wrote:
>>
>>> I forgot to put in the speculation part. Soooorrrryyyy!!!
>>>
>>> Teaming with IBM got Apple a lot of notice, especially after the
>>> projects like the Virginia cluster were so successful. XServe and
>>> Xraid showed they had a place in the corporate network computer
>>> room. But only a place, not the entire room. the corporate buyer
>>> still replaced machines in mass regularly, on schedule, with new
>>> critters that "have the Intel inside" stickers and did begin to nod
>>> to the Mac folks, but it has only been a nod.
>>> [Your market share numbers are a bit deceiving, home users with Macs
>>> tend not to replace them every couple of quarters like the corporate
>>> buyers do. 3% is actually a lot of new buyers with some replacers in
>>> there.]
>>>
>>> Now with the ability to get serious attention from corporate buyers
>>> who tend to influence home buyers that but what they use at the
>>> office, Apple COULD make hay while the sun shines. (and yes still
>>> give those that pine after PPC machines something to use as well).
>>>
>>> That was some of the speculation part.
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>>
>>> On Jun 08, 2005, at 12:03 AM, Jerry Yeager wrote:
>>>
>>>> But the safety is probably on ... (to continue your analogy).
>>>>
>>>> Consider the facts that have been presented to us.
>>>> 1) Marklar is real rather than the stuff of "Apple legend and lore
>>>> on the 'Net". It has been going on for 5 years. [Well okay, much
>>>> longer than that if you count the years OS-X was being developed at
>>>> NeXt where it was built totally for x86 general computers -- ones
>>>> NeXt and now Apple could not controil the extra hardware being
>>>> added on by builders.]
>>>> 2) OS-X runs on Intel hardware now and was demonstrated to do so on
>>>> a Pentium 4 machine. Developers can lease a P4 machine with OS-X on
>>>> it now.
>>>> 3) Except for Altivec based apps, most apps are supposed to be
>>>> fairly easy to re-compile, especially Cocoa apps and X-code stuff.
>>>> Altivec based apps will take slight to moderate work to translate
>>>> to Intel architecture code.
>>>>
>>>> This means that motherboards and peripherals are also ready to go
>>>> now. It sounds like if the need was there, Apple could have lots of
>>>> machines on the shelves by September. So why the year to two year
>>>> wait on the transition?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps Mr. Jobs and that gang of wiley rascals in Cupertino are
>>>> trying to open up some more options. Bring heat on IBM to produce
>>>> the G5 and later chips they way they should be. Perhaps to make
>>>> sure that Intel really can kick out high quality 64 bit dual core
>>>> chips. Opterons and better perhaps? Maybe to give AMD time to gear
>>>> up to meet the challenge (now that the idea of using more than the
>>>> PPC processors is out there for the masses to digest).
>>>>
>>>> Certainly there is some room for speculation here.
>>>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 07, 2005, at 11:14 PM, Bill Holt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well Henri, I could be wrong and hope that I am, but I think that
>>>>> Apple finally, with this one, remembered to put the bullet in the
>>>>> gun before putting the gun to its head. Again, I would prefer to
>>>>> be wrong. But with the share of sales hovering in the 3% range,
>>>>> and the sales that are going to be lost because of this, I think
>>>>> that market share is likely to drop to the point that critical
>>>>> mass is lost. Heaven know, if you allow your life to be run by
>>>>> common perceptions, you're in for a lot of disappointment. But
>>>>> common perception is the meat of the market-place, and if common
>>>>> perception is that Apple can't hold more than a trivial share,
>>>>> common perception will be that Apple's not to be taken seriously.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hate it, because except for the Gil years, Apple's been the
>>>>> source of the best machines out there - when you factored in the
>>>>> OS. My PB5300 still serves me well. Heck I'm about to replace
>>>>> the screen on my Newton 2100 because it is so useful to me. But
>>>>> my lust for the duel G5 is dampened with apprehension ... it's not
>>>>> really an orphan already, but it will suffer some of the pain. My
>>>>> cad software will not be optimized to take advantage of the power
>>>>> of this unit. That's a big deal. And already, Filemaker Inc -
>>>>> wholly owned by Apple - gives the Mac portion of its buyers second
>>>>> tier treatment. I say this because there are some critical
>>>>> functions which have not worked on the Mac side since 7.0.0, and
>>>>> now that 7.0.3 is out, they still don't work. They've worked on
>>>>> the Windoze side since day one ... and the situation is critical
>>>>> to my work to the degree that I will probably have to rework all
>>>>> my marketing lit and actually go with a Windoze server approach.
>>>>> I can see it now. Instead of boasting about the stability of UNIX
>>>>> and data security, I'll have to write something like, "Well, we're
>>>>> not proud to use Windoze, because it sucks, but at least it
>>>>> works."
>>>>>
>>>>> Today I had to make a trip to the office supply place and Breck
>>>>> and Dutchmans, whatever it's name is, and while I was there I
>>>>> looked at the line of notebooks they had on display. This was not
>>>>> lust, it was looking in the same way you can't help but look at an
>>>>> automobile accident as you drive by. Some of the units gave the
>>>>> impression of being of reasonable quality construction - a
>>>>> minority - but they were all running the current Windoze system
>>>>> ... and it surely does suck. From the moment I went for the
>>>>> "Start" button (XP - what an idiotic interface design!) I was
>>>>> reminded of how distinctly unresponsive it is (slow menu pops and
>>>>> button responses) and that it is actually ugly, in a 1957 Desoto
>>>>> sort of way. The only marriage of form and function is one of
>>>>> convenience, apparently made with the help of a shotgun.
>>>>>
>>>>> And finally, and I"ll shut up after this, it's so frustrating for
>>>>> Apple to miss a real chance penetrate further into the market with
>>>>> this stupidity. As best as I can tell, it will be at least a year
>>>>> or two before the Intel chips can match current cost-performance
>>>>> of the PPC series. Sure, Intel has promised great things in the
>>>>> future, but I'm not overly impressed by their history of delivery.
>>>>> From what I've read, the AMD dual core is vastly superior to the
>>>>> Intel version, which was apparently hurried for the specific
>>>>> reason of creating the perception that they were in the lead ...
>>>>> that perception thing again. So, instead of taking advantage of
>>>>> the opportunity that M$ has presented with it's laggardly
>>>>> development schedule for the next generation of WinCrap, Apple
>>>>> ignores that very large opportunity and aligns itself to compete
>>>>> with companies that can eat it's lunch by selling things that look
>>>>> as good as Apple's machines, to the non-critical eye, for less
>>>>> money. And since some of the security problems on the Windoze
>>>>> side are due to the Intel architecture
>>>>> (http://www.cio-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=12300002FPRC), in
>>>>> addition to the glitchy OS, I think switching to Intel is roughly
>>>>> equivalent to hiring a typhoid carrier to cook your meals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill Holt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2005, at 08:34 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/6/05, Bill Holt <billholt at iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> As a dedicated user and developer since March 1984, who's
>>>>>>> promoted the
>>>>>>> platform at almost every opportunity, I hate it that the
>>>>>>> following song
>>>>>>> is what comes to mind: Our D I V O R C E, become final
>>>>>>> today ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mine was a month ago, the powerbook was finally sent to hibernate
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the basement a week ago. I write this on a dual Win/Lin cheapie
>>>>>> Dell
>>>>>> laptop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My current feeling is that it would be too embarrassing to
>>>>>>> continue the
>>>>>>> "relationship" and that I'll just be a user of convenience. I
>>>>>>> anticipate embracing the lukewarm, moldy smell of platform
>>>>>>> neutrality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I got tired of the other half in the relationship taking
>>>>>> advantage of me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, Apple make the best laptops out there. IBM were next,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> they've sold the business and I'm not confident the Thinkpad will
>>>>>> be a
>>>>>> class act in 2 years when I buy a replacement to my 4 year old
>>>>>> powerbook (the Dell is a 2 or 3 year old stopgap).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I could triple boot an Apple (OS X, Win XP and x86 Linux),
>>>>>> then I
>>>>>> would have the perfect machine. The biggest problems with that
>>>>>> idea
>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a) One-button mouse. Windows/SuSE Linux on a Powerbook will be
>>>>>> painful
>>>>>> unless Apple start shipping two button laptops. Three button with
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> scroll-wheel would be best.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> b) Only Apple machines are likely to run OS X. I can't see Apple
>>>>>> supporting all the Intel hardware out there, it'll just be a small
>>>>>> subset. You'll either buy an Apple, or you'll choose your bits
>>>>>> very
>>>>>> carefully. That said, the open-darwin project means that some
>>>>>> things
>>>>>> (network cards, hard-drives) will be well supported. Graphics
>>>>>> cards
>>>>>> (for full OS X features) and wireless would be my main worries,
>>>>>> especially for a laptop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've also heard that there are likely to be differences at the
>>>>>> BIOS
>>>>>> level on the machine, no idea if that would be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still, a triple-boot machine would be very nice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> | The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will
>>>>>> | be July 26. The LCS Web page is <http://www.kymac.org>.
>>>>>> | List posting address:
>>>>>> <mailto:macgroup at erdos.math.louisville.edu>
>>>>>> | List Web page: <http://erdos.math.louisville.edu/macgroup>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> | The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will
>>>>> | be July 26. The LCS Web page is <http://www.kymac.org>.
>>>>> | List posting address: <mailto:macgroup at erdos.math.louisville.edu>
>>>>> | List Web page: <http://erdos.math.louisville.edu/macgroup>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>> Someday, I will come up with a clever signature line. I am not sure
>>>> if I will use it or not, but I will come up with one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> | The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will
>>>> | be July 26. The LCS Web page is <http://www.kymac.org>.
>>>> | List posting address: <mailto:macgroup at erdos.math.louisville.edu>
>>>> | List Web page: <http://erdos.math.louisville.edu/macgroup>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> -----------------------------------
>>> Someday, I will come up with a clever signature line. I am not sure
>>> if I will use it or not, but I will come up with one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> | The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will
>>> | be July 26. The LCS Web page is <http://www.kymac.org>.
>>> | List posting address: <mailto:macgroup at erdos.math.louisville.edu>
>>> | List Web page: <http://erdos.math.louisville.edu/macgroup>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> | The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will
>> | be July 26. The LCS Web page is <http://www.kymac.org>.
>> | List posting address: <mailto:macgroup at erdos.math.louisville.edu>
>> | List Web page: <http://erdos.math.louisville.edu/macgroup>
>>
-----------------------------------
Someday, I will come up with a clever signature line. I am not sure if
I will use it or not, but I will come up with one.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 14742 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.math.louisville.edu/pipermail/macgroup/attachments/20050608/6837d7a0/attachment.bin
