why Microsoft isn't surprised by Boot Camp

[thrunner]

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060406.html

Microsoft LOVES Boot Camp and I am sure they'll say that shortly. After all, Boot Camp sells more copies of Windows without threatening more sophisticated products like Microsoft's own Virtual PC.

One reason why Microsoft isn't surprised by Boot Camp is because Microsoft has been working with Apple to make sure that Windows Vista runs well on IntelMacs. Apple will support Vista dual boot, though I don't know if they will become a Vista OEM, but I can't imagine why they wouldn't if it will help sales.

Cringely:

I predict that Apple will settle on 64-bit Intel processors ASAP (with FireWire 800 please), and at that time will announce a product similar to Boot Camp to allow OS X to run on bog-standard 32-bit PC hardware, turning the Boot Camp relationship on its head and trying to sell $99 copies of OS X to 100 million or so Windows owners.

[A Nonny Moose]

Apple will settle for a chip comparable to the G5's power (and we've only seen maybe 20% of that chips power before the switch). Meaning, it needs 64 bit and something akin to Altivec built into the chip.

[CSMatt]

Apple will settle for a chip comparable to the G5's power (and we've only seen maybe 20% of that chips power before the switch). Meaning, it needs 64 bit and something akin to Altivec built into the chip.

The folks at Intel have already created non-released 64-bit processors. They're just probably having heat issues or something similar with their prototypes.

 

Microsoft will naturally not care, simply because they only sell software and not hardware (at least not PC hardware). This is also why Office for Mac and Virtual PC are released; Microsoft just wants to mooch off of the niche market of Macintosh users, even if they don't use Windows.

[sigxcpu]

Apple will settle for a chip comparable to the G5's power (and we've only seen maybe 20% of that chips power before the switch). Meaning, it needs 64 bit and something akin to Altivec built into the chip.

 

There is already vector acceleration into the chip. It is called MMX/SSE/SSE2/SSE3. Altivec is just a marketing name, nothing else. All the technologies (SSE/3dNow/Altivec) are very similar.

[bofors]

There is already vector acceleration into the chip. It is called MMX/SSE/SSE2/SSE3. Altivec is just a marketing name, nothing else. All the technologies (SSE/3dNow/Altivec) are very similar.

 

Actually, Apple's marketing name for Altivec is the "Velocity Engine". Altivec is not just a marketing name, it represents an instruction set that is not the same as MMX, SSE, SSE2 or SSE3, each of which are "evolutions" of Intel's vector processing (SIMD) instruction set. Implemenations of SIMD on x86 have paled in comparison Altivec so far, however Intel's NGMA (aka the "Core" architecture) will change that:

 

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ars/4

 

On a related note, the Cell architecture, which will appear in the PlayStation 3, is in some ways the next generation of Altivec.

[A Nonny Moose]

Intel's next step into copying Altivec *might* make it equal to Altivec itself. Let's not jump the gun here and say it will be equal before a slab of silicon even comes out with it.

[brainbone]

Intel's next step into copying Altivec *might* make it equal to Altivec itself.

 

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Microarchitecture

 

Intel will continue to improve SSE. Stepping up to 1 cycle throughput, from 2 cycle, for SSE in the next generation Core Duos (also supporting EM64T) is, and will continue to be, Intel’s path. Expect some additional features and extensions to SSE3 (SSE4?), but not a complete shift to reproducing Altivec.

 

Also see:

http://developer.apple.com/hardwaredrivers/ve/sse.html

 

and for a less technical, but good, explanation of the similarities and differences, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AltiVec