Re: Apple_ARM ?
Not really. The iPhone is running a stripped down version of OS X. So they already have it wrote, and would just add back the parts that they stripped from it. I don't think they will move away from the intel because they have been starting to used the i7 and i5 cpu's, which is what people have been after. Not saying those of us who wish they would move back to the IBM series, but to everyone else. On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Matevž Markovič ivwcorporation.mat...@gmail.com wrote: So Apple will just stick to intel on high-performance models, while using ARM for everything else? That seems too optimistic to be true... that would mean that Apple would have to develop 2 parallel versions of OS X at the same time, one for ARM and other for Intel. This actually is nothing new, Apple is messing with multiple different architectures at the same time for the last 20 years (if not more), so they have vast experiences in that field. Anyway, I would love to see old-new PowerPCs in modern macs, but that is not going to happen, I am afraid... As it was said, IBM is past 7th generation, but Power architecture is meant for high-performance computing, not for laptops and iMacs. Apple has actually the ability to build high-performance PowerPCs (from PASemi), but I do not think that they are going to use this. Btw. I thought that SSE3 has everything that Altivec offers. Can you explain a little bit more, please? Matevž -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Apple_ARM ?
I'm sorry, I take some of that back. I didn't have a chance to read up on it till now. I could see the move for the very low end products, but for the higher end I don't see them keeping them all ARM. That would cause a strong drop in business(and student for some applications) base. On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Alexander Gomes alexcomputersolut...@gmail.com wrote: Not really. The iPhone is running a stripped down version of OS X. So they already have it wrote, and would just add back the parts that they stripped from it. I don't think they will move away from the intel because they have been starting to used the i7 and i5 cpu's, which is what people have been after. Not saying those of us who wish they would move back to the IBM series, but to everyone else. On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Matevž Markovič ivwcorporation.mat...@gmail.com wrote: So Apple will just stick to intel on high-performance models, while using ARM for everything else? That seems too optimistic to be true... that would mean that Apple would have to develop 2 parallel versions of OS X at the same time, one for ARM and other for Intel. This actually is nothing new, Apple is messing with multiple different architectures at the same time for the last 20 years (if not more), so they have vast experiences in that field. Anyway, I would love to see old-new PowerPCs in modern macs, but that is not going to happen, I am afraid... As it was said, IBM is past 7th generation, but Power architecture is meant for high-performance computing, not for laptops and iMacs. Apple has actually the ability to build high-performance PowerPCs (from PASemi), but I do not think that they are going to use this. Btw. I thought that SSE3 has everything that Altivec offers. Can you explain a little bit more, please? Matevž -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Apple_ARM ?
Thank you Dan, that actually makes a lot of sense looking at it from that standpoint. On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Dan dantear...@gmail.com wrote: At 8:37 AM + 5/7/2011, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote: An opinion. [zdnet link] LOL. This was all done in the press as minor stories back in January. It's only now that they've picked it up again during this slow news cycle. Ok... The facts: ARM is an up and coming architecture whoze implementation is getting faster and faster with each generation. However, it is currently 32-bit only. Back in January, at CES in Las Vegas, ARM made the announcement that they're going 64-bit and their intention is to get into the server-grade processor market. ETA for delivery is a year or less. At that same CES, Microsoft announced they're going to port Windoze to ARM. No ETA commitment. A few microseconds later, a loud *plotz* was heard from one end of Intel's management to the other, and the higher mucketies probably choked on their skittles. So much for the facts. Now the guesswork, however founded it may be: Apple has little tolerance for companies that fail to make their commitments. eg: It is believed the main reason for the switch to Intel x86 is that IBM/Moto/Freescale fell behind their own delivery commitments, unable to produce faster low-power (laptop) class processors etc. eg2: Last year's MBA had the same'ole Core 2 Duo a second time around. hum. Apple's experience with the 68x-ppc and ppc-x86 transitions have given it the tools necessary to make moving onto another platform s easy. IOW, Apple is pretty much architecture independent. All that matters is performance - speed and power. Of course, that makes Intel's recent 3d transistor announcement silly hype. The bottom line is what's fastest. iOS is based on a stripped down fork of Mac OS X. And quite a few touch-screen type features are being moved from iOS into Lion (OS X 10.7). ETA this summer. Now, why would Apple have any interest in maintaining *two* operating systems? That's a lot of unnecessary work! And remember that patent for the touch-screen iMac? Yea, baby! After Lion, or perhaps during Lion's life cycle, there will be a complete merge of iOS' features into OS X. So... The state of the art by this summer will be... 32-bit ARM at the low end, and 64-bit Sandy Bridge x86 at the high end. Atom is a joke. Ivy Bridge is coming. Faster ARM is coming. 64-bit ARM is coming! My bet: IF Intel gets its butt in gear and is on time delivering Ivy Bridge and its follow-ons -- ie, faster low power x86 processors, then Apple will stick with them. But if Intel blinks, and 64-bit ARM beats one of their that x86 generation, Apple will move ARM into the MacBook, MacBook Pro, and iMac lines during the next release cycles. That's right... iPod, iPhone, iPad, MacBook, MacBook Pro, and iMac will become the same product line, +/- a few peripherals and a dock. As to the speculation of who fabricates what... pt. Doesn't matter. ARM makes no chips! All that fabrication is out-sourced anyway, generation by generation. As Atom fails, Intel will have more and more fabrication capacity available. Bidding war. Yea, Intel will make ARM processors for whoever pays. *yawn* - Dan. -- - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Apple_ARM ?
And here's Jean-Louis Gassée's take on this mess: http://www.mondaynote.com/2011/05/08/intel-3-d-transistors-why-and-when/ ...A side note: Many of the chip engineers I've spoken with regard Intel's 3D announcement as simply hype. Transistors, on an integrated circuit, have always been made with *layers* of doping material - so really, they've always been 3D! And many chips have functional layers on top of that... I guess it's possible that Intel ultimately intends to make uber thick chips ?cubes?. Not sure how that jives on the macro scale, of products being engineered to be thinner and thinner tho. - Dan. -- - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Apple_ARM ?
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Dan dantear...@gmail.com wrote: ...A side note: Many of the chip engineers I've spoken with regard Intel's 3D announcement as simply hype. The point of view over at AnandTech seems to be different IMO. www.anandtech.com/show/4313/intel-announces-first-22nm-3d-trigate-transistors-shipping-in-2h-2011 My take after reading the AnandTech piece is that what Intel announced was about a manufacturing process more than about transistor technology per se. The changes Intel is implementing under the marketing label of 3D do seem to be anything new or surprising to the industry. The underlying theory behind it appears to be well understood. What makes it arguably newsworthy is that Intel apparently has found a way to turn the theory into a product feature. Intel is not just doing this as a lab trick but as a large scale manufacturing process. And while it is probably more evolutionary than revolutionary, it will still result in either increased performance or using less power in the chips it is applied to. No, it won't in itself do anything to displace ARM. But it is still an impressive improvement. There are certainly things that Intel does that I would consider less special. Their semiconductor manufacturing is NOT one of these. One of the many reasons why it may happen that Apple would ask Intel to build ARM chips for them is simply because Intel is very good at semiconductor manufacturing. My understanding is that they have been a generation ahead of the rest of the industry in terms of scale for quite a while now. And I don't see anyone else catching up to them any time soon. FWIW, -irrational john -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Apple_ARM ?
An opinion. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/apple-dumping-intel-for-arm-pros-cons-and-a-lot-of-questions/48419?tag=nl.e589 -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Apple_ARM ?
Wow! If Apple goes to ARM on laptops, wouldn't that be like going back to the PowerPC. I know that the times are different today and that ARM is way better off than PowerPC was in 2005 as far as Apple is concerned, but still, what would the performance of say future equivalent of MacBook pro be? And what will they stick into MacPros and iMacs? Is there a ARM chip in the roadmap that can match current Xeon generation? Is there even a ARM chip that can match PowerPC 970gx? I just hope that Apple knows what they are doing, and that they are not going to abandon their technical and academic community in favor of normal users, who just use Apple products out of fashion or because they don't like Windows. Think again, Apple! -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Apple_ARM ?
If Apple goes to ARM on laptops, wouldn't that be like going back to the PowerPC. I know that the times are different today and that ARM is way better off than PowerPC was in 2005 as far as Apple is concerned, but still, what would the performance of say future equivalent of MacBook pro be? And what will they stick into MacPros and iMacs? Is there a ARM chip in the roadmap that can match current Xeon generation? Is there even a ARM chip that can match PowerPC 970gx? IBM has expended considerable $$$ on the Power. For Apple, they stopped at Generation 5 (AKA, G5), but IBM is way past Generation 7 now, and almost everybody who is anybody is incorporating Power processors as cores within their own silicon. In fact, the largest network routers use Power. And, my SUV has fiver Power processors in its various control systems. It would make more sense to go back to Power for desktops, but Apple will not do that. No, I expect that ARM will be used on phones and tablets and possibly on extra-low-power-consumption laptops, but not on conventional laptops nor on desktops. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Apple_ARM ?
At 13:49 +0200 5/7/11, Matevzť Markovicť wrote: Wow! If Apple goes to ARM on laptops, wouldn't that be like going back to the PowerPC. I know that the times are different today and that ARM is way better off than PowerPC was in 2005 as far as Apple is concerned, but still, what would the performance of say future equivalent of MacBook pro be? And what will they stick into MacPros and iMacs? Is there a ARM chip in the roadmap that can match current Xeon generation? Is there even a ARM chip that can match PowerPC 970gx? The ARM chips do not have the AltaVec stacked arithmetic capability that the Gx series have. The idea is that vector operations which have a lot of identical processes applied to a list of values can be stacked up to that after, say 100 , clock pulses a new result comes out for each clock pulse, with a 100 pulse overall delay. That's very useful to scientists, engineers, and three-D games. Modern Intel chips don't have that either. It turns out that threaded processing available on video plug-in boards behaves in a similar fashion and it's possible to pass off mathematics to the video board in a way that's similar to AltaVec. It's what makes those 3-D views in the games react to a mouse or game control unit. S. It looks like Intel with plug-in cards can multiply quickly. Probably not so for portables. -- -- Give me liberty or give me Obamacare -- -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Apple_ARM ?
So Apple will just stick to intel on high-performance models, while using ARM for everything else? That seems too optimistic to be true... that would mean that Apple would have to develop 2 parallel versions of OS X at the same time, one for ARM and other for Intel. This actually is nothing new, Apple is messing with multiple different architectures at the same time for the last 20 years (if not more), so they have vast experiences in that field. Anyway, I would love to see old-new PowerPCs in modern macs, but that is not going to happen, I am afraid... As it was said, IBM is past 7th generation, but Power architecture is meant for high-performance computing, not for laptops and iMacs. Apple has actually the ability to build high-performance PowerPCs (from PASemi), but I do not think that they are going to use this. Btw. I thought that SSE3 has everything that Altivec offers. Can you explain a little bit more, please? Matevž -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Apple_ARM ?
At 8:37 AM + 5/7/2011, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote: An opinion. [zdnet link] LOL. This was all done in the press as minor stories back in January. It's only now that they've picked it up again during this slow news cycle. Ok... The facts: ARM is an up and coming architecture whoze implementation is getting faster and faster with each generation. However, it is currently 32-bit only. Back in January, at CES in Las Vegas, ARM made the announcement that they're going 64-bit and their intention is to get into the server-grade processor market. ETA for delivery is a year or less. At that same CES, Microsoft announced they're going to port Windoze to ARM. No ETA commitment. A few microseconds later, a loud *plotz* was heard from one end of Intel's management to the other, and the higher mucketies probably choked on their skittles. So much for the facts. Now the guesswork, however founded it may be: Apple has little tolerance for companies that fail to make their commitments. eg: It is believed the main reason for the switch to Intel x86 is that IBM/Moto/Freescale fell behind their own delivery commitments, unable to produce faster low-power (laptop) class processors etc. eg2: Last year's MBA had the same'ole Core 2 Duo a second time around. hum. Apple's experience with the 68x-ppc and ppc-x86 transitions have given it the tools necessary to make moving onto another platform s easy. IOW, Apple is pretty much architecture independent. All that matters is performance - speed and power. Of course, that makes Intel's recent 3d transistor announcement silly hype. The bottom line is what's fastest. iOS is based on a stripped down fork of Mac OS X. And quite a few touch-screen type features are being moved from iOS into Lion (OS X 10.7). ETA this summer. Now, why would Apple have any interest in maintaining *two* operating systems? That's a lot of unnecessary work! And remember that patent for the touch-screen iMac? Yea, baby! After Lion, or perhaps during Lion's life cycle, there will be a complete merge of iOS' features into OS X. So... The state of the art by this summer will be... 32-bit ARM at the low end, and 64-bit Sandy Bridge x86 at the high end. Atom is a joke. Ivy Bridge is coming. Faster ARM is coming. 64-bit ARM is coming! My bet: IF Intel gets its butt in gear and is on time delivering Ivy Bridge and its follow-ons -- ie, faster low power x86 processors, then Apple will stick with them. But if Intel blinks, and 64-bit ARM beats one of their that x86 generation, Apple will move ARM into the MacBook, MacBook Pro, and iMac lines during the next release cycles. That's right... iPod, iPhone, iPad, MacBook, MacBook Pro, and iMac will become the same product line, +/- a few peripherals and a dock. As to the speculation of who fabricates what... pt. Doesn't matter. ARM makes no chips! All that fabrication is out-sourced anyway, generation by generation. As Atom fails, Intel will have more and more fabrication capacity available. Bidding war. Yea, Intel will make ARM processors for whoever pays. *yawn* - Dan. -- - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Apple_ARM ?
About your bet, Dan, what do you think will happen to the Mac Pro line? At the time I see no alternative to Xeon Nehalems. The reason I am concerned about this is because I use computers also to compute number sequences and there you need all the power you can get. And more cores mean more intervals at the same time, where current 12-core Mac Pro is clearly the winner. Well, current gen. Mac Pro is still somehow out of reach for me :) I can theorise about such computers but in real life I use my humble PowerMac G4 MDD Dual 1.25, which is, if you ask me, one of the best computers of all times (next to PowerBook G3) :D -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Apple_ARM ?
At 12:35 AM +0200 5/8/2011, MatevÏ Markoviã wrote: About your bet, Dan, what do you think will happen to the Mac Pro line? It's going to be a few years before ARM can compete with the high end Core line, if ever. And I doubt L'Jobs will bless us with a Power based system. The reason I am concerned about this is because I use computers also to compute number sequences and there you need all the power you can get. And more cores mean more intervals at the same time, where current 12-core Mac Pro is clearly the winner. From your description, GUI is moot - so there's no requirement for OS X. A 12 core machine is nice, but quite limited for serious computing. Think GPUs, Grid, and Cloud. - Dan. -- - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
