In article <1gxlvmw.m9smkqz2ngqoN%neillmassello@earthlink.net >,
neillmassello@earthlink.net (Neill Massello) wrote:

> > The rumor is they'll start at the low end machines and move it up, but
> > what if they do it the other way around, and the first Power Mac with
> > an Intel processor has a G5 _and_ a dual-core Itanium or something?
>
> That makes more sense than the plan described in the Cnet article. But I
> don't see why the whole transition to Intel makes more sense for Apple
> than sticking with PowerPC. How will Apple explain away the charts at
> <http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/>? Can anybody make a case,
> on the basis of speed, cost, and power/heat, for this change?

Here are two interesting links:
http://www.intel.com/products/proces...ium2/index.htm
http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise...0-0-0-121.aspx

It is a move towards the Itanium, which is big endian, just as the IBM
PowerPC chips, developed by Intel and HP together. So it seems to be both
right business and development moves. One should get even more computing
power.

--
Hans Aberg

In article <haberg-0406051358440001@c83-250-193-72.bredband.comhem.se>,
haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <1gxlvmw.m9smkqz2ngqoN%neillmassello@earthlink.net >,
> neillmassello@earthlink.net (Neill Massello) wrote:
>
> > > The rumor is they'll start at the low end machines and move it up, but
> > > what if they do it the other way around, and the first Power Mac with
> > > an Intel processor has a G5 _and_ a dual-core Itanium or something?
> >
> > That makes more sense than the plan described in the Cnet article. But I
> > don't see why the whole transition to Intel makes more sense for Apple
> > than sticking with PowerPC. How will Apple explain away the charts at
> > <http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/>? Can anybody make a case,
> > on the basis of speed, cost, and power/heat, for this change?
>
> Here are two interesting links:
> http://www.intel.com/products/proces...ium2/index.htm
> http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise...0-0-0-121.aspx
>
> It is a move towards the Itanium, which is big endian, just as the IBM
> PowerPC chips, developed by Intel and HP together. So it seems to be both
> right business and development moves. One should get even more computing
> power.

Having worked with HP Itanimum boxes, the Itanimum chip is not all that
fast compared to other chip offerings.

The Itanium chip runs hot really really hot. We had to move all of our
Itanium boxes from the normal lab into a lab in a different building,
and even there we had to upgrade the lab airconditioning systems, and
power capacity (granted we had over a 100 of 2, 4, and 8 CPU HP Itanium
boxes, but we had 100's of Alpha's in the the other labs that did not
need the same power and cooling demands.

Based on my HP experiences, I would find it hard to imaging getting an
Itanium into a laptop.

So either this is not true, or intel got Steve to drink the coolaid :-)

Just my opinion.

Bob Harris

In article <nospam.News.Bob-454577.11240504062005@news.verizon.net>, Bob
Harris <nospam.News.Bob@remove.Smith-Harris.us> wrote:

> Having worked with HP Itanimum boxes, the Itanimum chip is not all that
> fast compared to other chip offerings.
>
> The Itanium chip runs hot really really hot. We had to move all of our
> Itanium boxes from the normal lab into a lab in a different building,
> and even there we had to upgrade the lab airconditioning systems, and
> power capacity (granted we had over a 100 of 2, 4, and 8 CPU HP Itanium
> boxes, but we had 100's of Alpha's in the the other labs that did not
> need the same power and cooling demands.
>
> Based on my HP experiences, I would find it hard to imaging getting an
> Itanium into a laptop.
>
> So either this is not true, or intel got Steve to drink the coolaid :-)

Interesting facts. The energy consumption of a chip, though, is
proportional to the square of the CPU clock frequency. So one might play
around with that, and other developing facts, to get new, less, energy
consuming processor chips.

And it will probably quite difficult to switch from a big endian CPU to a
little endian one, as a great deal of memory data would have to be
converted for upwards compatibility. So it should be a big endian Intel
chip.

And if Steve Jobs does not have something more advance to come up with
than the G5, it's probably time to look for a new job.

So these facts together might indicate that there some kind of new chip on
the move.

--
Hans Aberg

Those remembering the 1994 68x to PowerPC move, will recall that Apple had
an ad campaign "Full Speed Ahead". Then it turned out that the PowerPC
emulation of 68x ate a lot of power, so it took some time for this
promised speed to reach the consumers. The "Full Speed Ahead" was
mentioned as a joke. Apple would not want to repeat that mistake. So a
move to Intel processors would require a work-around of that problem. Also
this speaks for a new, powerful chip.

Also, business analysts have been sceptical about this rumored Apple-Intel
move, as the 1994 move cost Apple market shares. One could turn this
around: as Apple made that move in the past, they should know what it
takes to do it again, cost and benefits. So this speaks for such a move.
In the past, Apple has always settled for new technologies, when needed.

--
Hans Aberg

Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> The energy consumption of a chip, though, is
> proportional to the square of the CPU clock frequency.

Taken at face value, this is not true: energy consumption of a normal
electronic circuit is proportional to the clock frequency, not its
square. Every clock tick electrons flow into some of the little
capacitors on the chip, and some flow out of other capacitors. Double
the pace of the clock, and the number of electrons that is pumped around
will double. Half the pace of the clock, and half the original number of
electrons will be pumped around.

It /is/ true that at a lower clock frequency it is usually possible to
lower the supply voltage of the CPU a bit, which gives you an extra
energy saving, but the overall result is not a nice clean
square-of-frequency relationship.

Hans Aberg wrote:
>
> Here are two interesting links:
> http://www.intel.com/products/proces...ium2/index.htm
> http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise...0-0-0-121.aspx
>
> It is a move towards the Itanium, which is big endian, just as the IBM
> PowerPC chips, developed by Intel and HP together. So it seems to be both
> right business and development moves. One should get even more computing
> power.
>

Itanium is crap - and even intel knows it - they have basically stopepd
marketing it

Hans Aberg wrote:
> Those remembering the 1994 68x to PowerPC move, will recall that Apple had
> an ad campaign "Full Speed Ahead". Then it turned out that the PowerPC
> emulation of 68x ate a lot of power, so it took some time for this
> promised speed to reach the consumers. The "Full Speed Ahead" was

uh, not quite. the articles/literature at the time stated 680x0
system/app code would run at the same speed (roughly) on the initial ppc
hardware via emulation with only high-use core components converting to
ppc-native first. as more components went from emulation to native,
overall OS speed would increase. the left over bits that were
infrquently called or used would never be converted; saved until a time
to be rewritten (as in transition from os7 to os8, os8 to os9).

of course, given the typical os updates also increase hardware
requirements i would actually bet the general performance between
os7/os8 were equivalent: more pieces in 8 were native and faster than
their 7 counterparts.. but had more 'functionality' and were 'slower'
than if pieces had been simply converted.

-r

In article <aJGdnXKb6-ouxz_fRVn-rA@comcast.com>,
"Fetch, Rover, Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote:

> Hans Aberg wrote:
> >
> > Here are two interesting links:
> > http://www.intel.com/products/proces...ium2/index.htm
> > http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise...0-0-0-121.aspx
> >
> > It is a move towards the Itanium, which is big endian, just as the IBM
> > PowerPC chips, developed by Intel and HP together. So it seems to be both
> > right business and development moves. One should get even more computing
> > power.
> >
>
> Itanium is crap - and even intel knows it - they have basically stopepd
> marketing it

x86 is crap too. It doesn't make sense that Apple would want to switch
to a processor architecture burdened by such an old instruction set.
This rumor makes me wonder if Intel is working on a new CPU. For Apple,
Intel would be a chance to free themselves from chipmakers that don't
care much about desktop class components. For Intel, Apple would be a
proof of concept so they can market the new chips to Microsoft.

Of course the rumor could be totally blown out of proportion. It's
possible that Apple is doing nothing more than offering OS X Server as a
OEM option for x86 servers. OS X Server doesn't usually run desktop
apps so Apple would only have to re-compile the OS and the bundled
open-source packages to have a completely functional system.

In article <mcmurtri-EED143.19365304062005@corp-radius.supernews.com>,
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> In article <aJGdnXKb6-ouxz_fRVn-rA@comcast.com>,
> "Fetch, Rover, Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hans Aberg wrote:
> > >
> > > Here are two interesting links:
> > > http://www.intel.com/products/proces...ium2/index.htm
> > > http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise...0-0-0-121.aspx
> > >
> > > It is a move towards the Itanium, which is big endian, just as the IBM
> > > PowerPC chips, developed by Intel and HP together. So it seems to be both
> > > right business and development moves. One should get even more computing
> > > power.
> > >
> >
> > Itanium is crap - and even intel knows it - they have basically stopepd
> > marketing it
>
> x86 is crap too. It doesn't make sense that Apple would want to switch
> to a processor architecture burdened by such an old instruction set.
> This rumor makes me wonder if Intel is working on a new CPU. For Apple,
> Intel would be a chance to free themselves from chipmakers that don't
> care much about desktop class components. For Intel, Apple would be a
> proof of concept so they can market the new chips to Microsoft.

This switch is not a rumor, Jobs announced the switch today. The
motivating factor is that IBM is not willing or able to have a good
growth path for the G5 chip. Notice that IBM has yet to produce a G5
that could run cool enough to be used in Powerbooks, nor has IBM
produced a G5 that meets or exceeds 3Ghtz in speed. From what I have
read, IBM isn't shedding any tears about this change on Apple's part
because IBM wants to focus its microprocessor division on producing
chips for the Xbox 360 and other video game consoles.

By going with Intel, Apple will hopefully get a faster 64-bit chip for
its desktop Macs and a 64-bit chip for use in future Powerbooks. Nothing
I have seen indicates that Apple will use the Itanium, but than again,
that is a logical assumption. As for Intel not marketing the Itanium,
that's just silly. All the major PC companies are producing some
computers that use the Itanium. I think if Apple keeps Intel under a
tight agreement, this could be a big win for Apple.

> This switch is not a rumor, Jobs announced the switch today. The
> motivating factor is that IBM is not willing or able to have a good
> growth path for the G5 chip.
ever hear of 'Cell'??
or
Power 5

> Notice that IBM has yet to produce a G5
> that could run cool enough to be used in Powerbooks, nor has IBM
> produced a G5 that meets or exceeds 3Ghtz in speed.
agreed that this is an issue

>From what I have
> read, IBM isn't shedding any tears about this change on Apple's part
> because IBM wants to focus its microprocessor division on producing
> chips for the Xbox 360 and other video game consoles.
>
> By going with Intel, Apple will hopefully get a faster 64-bit chip
what? Itanium? it cant get out of its own way - hell even HP dropped it.


> its desktop Macs and a 64-bit chip for use in future Powerbooks. Nothing
> I have seen indicates that Apple will use the Itanium, but than again,
> that is a logical assumption.
intel does NOT have an other 64bit chip

> As for Intel not marketing the Itanium,
> that's just silly. All the major PC companies are producing some
> computers that use the Itanium. I think if Apple keeps Intel under a
> tight agreement, this could be a big win for Apple.
yeah big win! (not)

are you going to go and buy a G5 tower today? or any time between now
and June 2006?

thought not
---
you going to redevelop your software -again- to meet the new hardware ?

probably not - as this costs $ and there is not, and does not appear to
be any market worth targeting.
---

are you going to continue to develop (not just support) any new software
for the G5? probably not

---

are you going to develop any new hardware for the Mac platform? nothing
like a video card or other internal mod/upgrade since the G5s cease to
exist in a year - no time to get your $ back
-------

intel inside for apple means they are going to be competing again Dell,
and Linspire -
do you *really* think apple can produce a computer (with monitor) for
$300 - dell does. how about a computer for $100? Linspire does.
-------

This move is the death of Apple as a hardware (computer) and OS vendor

the iPod, and other devices like it will allow apple to continue to
exist, and maybe even grow - but not as a computer vendor.
--------
taking all the above in consideration -
are you - a consumer who just found his/her multi thousand dollar
computer turned into a deadened paperweight going to buy another apple
computer (or even product of any nature)?

not me.

I have been an apple supporter for a LONG time - I have a complete 512K
just to give you an idea. I have a dual 2.5 tower I am writing this
message with - $3k - gone.

I expect - there will be a class-action suit, I may even start it, to
get my $ back.

In article <d6WdnTPFRc1oYjnfRVn-iw@comcast.com>,
"Fetch, Rover, Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote:

> taking all the above in consideration -
> are you - a consumer who just found his/her multi thousand dollar
> computer turned into a deadened paperweight going to buy another apple
> computer (or even product of any nature)?
>
> not me.
>
> I have been an apple supporter for a LONG time - I have a complete 512K
> just to give you an idea. I have a dual 2.5 tower I am writing this
> message with - $3k - gone.

wow, is it really true that all G5's have been disabled by Apple?
Doesn't even turn on?
Did you sue Apple for killing your 512K, too?
Mine must have escaped somehow, it still turns on and I can still play
Tetris on it.

On 2005-06-07 08:13:49 +0300, "Bjorn Olsson d.ä"
<bjorn@justingenstans.com> said:

> In article <d6WdnTPFRc1oYjnfRVn-iw@comcast.com>,
> "Fetch, Rover, Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote:
>
>> taking all the above in consideration -
>> are you - a consumer who just found his/her multi thousand dollar
>> computer turned into a deadened paperweight going to buy another apple
>> computer (or even product of any nature)?
>>
>> not me.
>>
>> I have been an apple supporter for a LONG time - I have a complete 512K
>> just to give you an idea. I have a dual 2.5 tower I am writing this
>> message with - $3k - gone.
>
> wow, is it really true that all G5's have been disabled by Apple?
> Doesn't even turn on?
> Did you sue Apple for killing your 512K, too?
> Mine must have escaped somehow, it still turns on and I can still play
> Tetris on it.

Apple should be stopped by US government right now and they shouldn't
be allowed to sell any PPC machines without a huge remark mentioning
their END OF LIFE support and the new issues with Intels.

I can smell the lawsuit coming, they must be really smoking pot there.

Ilgaz