Leopard Receives Unix Certification

[EFI]

Also, I heard that they dropped IBM and Motorola for the PPC CPU's because they couldn't meet a 3Ghz agreement.

 

Precisely , it was a small dispute between IBM and Apple for that speed acheivement. It was I believe the final nail in the coffin for PPC. Again, I don't blame Apple for wanting a 3Ghz processor at the time, becuase Intel had already broken into the 3.2Ghz range at that time...and all was amidst the Mhz race. In the mean time, ie during the ditching process was when the Quad G5's came along...to neutralize the power imbalance between PPC and X86. PPC took a turn for the worst, but it would come as a payoff for Apple later on (as in today/currently).

[A Nonny Moose]

Precisely , it was a small dispute between IBM and Apple for that speed acheivement. It was I believe the final nail in the coffin for PPC. Again, I don't blame Apple for wanting a 3Ghz processor at the time, becuase Intel had already broken into the 3.2Ghz range at that time...and all was amidst the Mhz race. In the mean time, ie during the ditching process was when the Quad G5's came along...to neutralize the power imbalance between PPC and X86. PPC took a turn for the worst, but it would come as a payoff for Apple later on (as in today/currently).

 

While I love PPC, it was a huge problem for Apple from the moment the G4 came into play. Now it was an awesome chip for the systems of their time (133 MHz bus, PC 133 RAM, etc). What happened was we got stuck...badly.

 

First off, they got stuck speed wise at 450 MHz (then it went to 500) for two years. That's a long time in computer land. Then, it got stuck at under 1 GHz. Then it got stuck because it couldn't adapt to meet a DDR system (and everything else could).

 

Then we got the G5, which was an improvement, but we got stuck at 2.7 GHz (without liquid cooling). Getting stuck is a bad thing in computer land, as evidenced by the G4 situation. So the Intel switch happened.

[ToGr82B4Gotn]

I read in this thread all of the angst and ire directed towards Apple for leaving the PPC out of the loop so soon.

There were several reasons that they switched from PPC to Intel.

IBM being slow in providing chips.

Intel was a much faster solution. THe PPC was S L O W W W W W.

Lower total cost of motherboards ( chipsets ) from Intel.

But I think the most compelling reason has been demonstrated by the number of PC users who have purchased MAC's lately.

Now they can have a MAC that runs Windows.

 

Those guys upstairs finally caught on.

And the fact that they have stepped away from the PPC owners is sad yes, but in the PC world, after 2 years your PC is obsolete anyway.

 

 

Apple is run by intelligent people, who have seen that they have made the right decision. Just look at the sales figures.

[antst]

Because a lot of PPC users will be using Leopard?

 

And what? Had you read my post?

 

*ahem*There are still lots of us out here - at least 40%, I would say.Not everyone can afford the latest and greatest Apple hardware

 

Again, will it be problem for PPC Leopard users that PPC Leo dosn't have unix cert?It is not a "feature" which you will loose. Technically Tiger is "unix enough". They just spent money to be able to call it "UNIX" oficially. That's all. It is not some feature which you will loose.

Nobody going to build two different versions of OS. Leo for PPC just doesn't have this label "Unix certified". This label can be important for someone who is going to buy new XServe (again, not iMac!) tomorrow. But this label will bring NOTHING to current PPC XServe users. It will just cost extra money for company, which will be spent for totally nothing. It is marketing!

Does Apple still have to advertise PPC XServe machines(which they don't sell anymore), to make current PPC users happy?

 

 

You never know maybe they will adopt the Cell processor since it has a Power Architecture

 

I think that it is very probably that we will se some day new PPC models. I think they introduce and keep this "Universla Binary" idea partly aiming that. Next time, when IBM will make good PPC, they can just asemble new mac on it and sell. Users will have already OS and programs for it. It will not require some additional efforts from software vendors.Now new Power6 came to market. And if IBM will make PPC based on this core. it could be quite good PPC.

 

Never in a million years.The rumor is that as soon as Jobs came back (late 90s) he passively told Motorola in a meeting (G3s at the time) that they were already on their way out the door. It just took him years to actually do it. Intel Macs were never plan B, they were plan A all along.And now he's calling Apple a "Software company" above all else. Once the iPhone and iPods are making Apple enough money to place that bet, you might just see Mac OS X retail boxes for other PCs.Maybe... but it wouldn't surprise me anymore.=)

 

Even more. One day you can see retail box of Mac OS X universal binary for Intel/PPC/Itanium/Sparc/etc :)They already have experience. And, keep in mind, that NeXTStep was delivered for something like 4-5 platforms.And this can be damn good option! You can pickup any hardware you like, hardware that suits your needs best and use the same OS on all platforms. And even use the same software on all of them. This is kind of heaven!

 

They really can break the barrier between different hardware platforms.

 

I guess after all story of NeXT(and after story of MS) Jobs can see that software is something which makes future and which makes money. But, again, as result of NeXT experience (and BeOS experience) he knows that is difficult to "just come" to market with "yet another OS" (even if OS is nearly perfect) and compete with MS. So, increasing of Mac market share can be a good point to start to sells of retail boxes with OS. When your OS already has 20-30% of market, it means that your OS supported by sufficient number of software vendors and external hardware (like webcams/printers/scanners etc) vendors. It means that it is much easer to come to rest of market.

Basically, it is how unknown MS became the company which we know now.

Initially all IBM's PCs were sold with DOS. If they weren't, MS couldn't jump so high and so fast.

 

But before jumping to generic PC market(and jumping to direct competition with MS), thay have to make sure that Mac OS X market share (not Mac market share) is big enough and stable enough. And that their software sells (like iWork etc) big and stable enough also. Otherwise it can be again one more lost battle. And, generally, introduction of Intel Macs can be step in this direction (not due to CPU performance and rest of this kind of {censored}). By this they make sure that at the day, when they'll go to generic Intel PC market, OS will be supported by a lot of software already. Even by Microsoft Office. And for MS it will be very diffcult to discontinue Office for Mac product line without questions from antitrust guys at this point

 

Similar, actiually, with iPod. I guess that iPod and, especially, AppleTV isn't a hardware products itself. It is products which has to generate sells for ITunes store. I don't think that AppleTV is really profitable (I'm not sure that it is profitable at all). It is kind of similar idea to one which works on maket of game consoles. You buy iPod and AppleTV only once, but then go to iTunes store again and again to spend some more and more money. When you are going to spend $400 - you think about it. When you are going to spend $1 - you don't, so you can spend $1 more and more and more, even at the end you'll spend the same $400.

 

That and PPC produced more heat as far as I recall. Also, I heard that they dropped IBM and Motorola for the PPC CPU's because they couldn't meet a 3Ghz agreement.

 

Yes. And Intel has been investing a lot of money to "Megahertz marketing".

[cmdshft]

Wasn't it also revealed that Apple had been planning the switch for years? They had a secret test version of OS X that ran on Intel CPU's prior to making the switch to see how much of a performance gain they would get or something that?

 

Seems to me that they took their time making what seems to be a worthwhile decision, since it has opened up compatibilities on a plethora of hardware, all it takes for Apple is writing a driver and supporting it now, as long as they choose they want to support it.

[pyrates]

I never avoided that. I'm just saying your blanket statement of "PPC suxx0rs!!!!!one!!!!" is an inherently flawed statement.

All I merely pointed out was that the fastest PPC was slower compared against the fastest intel at the time and even slower when compared against the fastest AMD at the time. That is all I said. Just say yes or no to that. If not, I'd sure like to hear your excuse.

I think that it is very probably that we will se some day new PPC models. I think they introduce and keep this "Universla Binary" idea partly aiming that. Next time, when IBM will make good PPC, they can just asemble new mac on it and sell. Users will have already OS and programs for it. It will not require some additional efforts from software vendors.Now new Power6 came to market. And if IBM will make PPC based on this core. it could be quite good PPC.

This universal binary, which uses rosetta, only works for PPC apps ran on an intel based pc. Not the other way. So they aren't switching unless it's another 10 years from now. And if you look at the latest software programs for intel mac's, they are NOT universal binaries. Atleast the big ones aren't like Adobe Photoshop CS3. So again when Apple makes the switch back to PPC, if they do but I don't think they will, you will have to wait until the software makers then comes out with a new version of their program. But the biggest reason is that you can now run Windows on it. Despite what some mac users think, it is useful to run Windows. And they are getting a lot of sales because of it.

Even more. One day you can see retail box of Mac OS X universal binary for Intel/PPC/Itanium/Sparc/etc :)They already have experience. And, keep in mind, that NeXTStep was delivered for something like 4-5 platforms.And this can be damn good option! You can pickup any hardware you like, hardware that suits your needs best and use the same OS on all platforms. And even use the same software on all of them. This is kind of heaven!

Now I'm sorry but this won't even happen. Apple is way too stubborn to allow other oem manufacturers to make Mac Clones. They are a hardware company and because of that, they won't ever have as big a market as the PC market is. And the PC market is as big as it is, is because their is lots of competition. Just like any other market out their. No one competitor ever owns an entire market.

I read in this thread all of the angst and ire directed towards Apple for leaving the PPC out of the loop so soon.There were several reasons that they switched from PPC to Intel.IBM being slow in providing chips.Intel was a much faster solution. THe PPC was S L O W W W W W.Lower total cost of motherboards ( chipsets ) from Intel.But I think the most compelling reason has been demonstrated by the number of PC users who have purchased MAC's lately.Now they can have a MAC that runs Windows.

Yep, all are so true.

Those guys upstairs finally caught on.

Took em long enough didn't they? Now it gives PC users a reason who rely on some Windows software, to buy a Mac. Their only fault is how they implemented the mighty mouse with it's 2 button mouse. When a 12 dollar usb mouse can beat it, that tells ya how badly and overly designed it was.

And the fact that they have stepped away from the PPC owners is sad yes, but in the PC world, after 2 years your PC is obsolete anyway.Apple is run by intelligent people, who have seen that they have made the right decision. Just look at the sales figures.

But your software isn't obsolete after 2 years. Remember that. Sure the hardware may be too slow, but you can use the piece of software forever if you want. As long as the OS you are running can still run it. And that is the one nice thing about Windows. Backwards compatibility is their.

[A Nonny Moose]

It was slower and Apple LIED about it until they were forced to switch. It's time to upgrade.

 

Actually, that's what you originally said and now you're backtracking and adding {censored} to your original flawed statement since I went and trashed your main point.

[Dwight F]

Despite what some mac users think, it is useful to run Windows. And they are getting a lot of sales because of it.

DING! I was explaining to my boss today why he's going to drop the cash to buy me a Mac Mini.

1) It doesn't matter if he has no intention of me writing software for OSX, it is for all intents and purposes a PC.

2) For it's performance level in that form factor it's cheaper than anything else on the "PC" market.

3) Boot Camp means it ain't no big thang to install Windows Vista. Apple provides the required [32-bit] drivers Although it is offically still in beta until Leopard in Oct and I did sort of skip over the fact that Boot Camp doesn't provide 64-bit drivers. But the later is mostly just an issue for the non-standard peripheral hardware in it like the bluetooth.

 

The first time I explained it to him yesterday it didn't sink in. He basically didn't believe it, he was holding on hard to the assumptions from the past. But the fact is that the Intel Macs are now more Vista compatible than a huge swath of the existing Windows PCs. And damn straight it matters. A lot. It gets Apple in the door to places that it'd never have running the PPC. Being able to run legacy and purpose specific x86 executables reliably and natively on the processor means a LOT. Intel had that brought home to them in a most unpleasant way when one day they came out their front door and found the market had dumped the battered corpse of Itanium on their front porch.

 

I have every intention of booting OSX often and even venturing into exploritory software research on it. I'm just looking deeper into the future than my boss is and I foresee a day when the Mac will matter to our traditionally DOS/Windows only products. Being able to dual boot to Windows on a Mac has made it finacially feasible for me to spend the capital on what would otherwise be a high risk venture and it will likely result in another increase in software support for OSX.

 

Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! ......

[pyrates]

Actually, that's what you originally said and now you're backtracking and adding {censored} to your original flawed statement since I went and trashed your main point.

 

Oh now you're being funny. You never trashed my original point. Please outline exactly what you said to trash my original point. I'd like to see it.

 

Apple still lied about how fast their processors were compared to the fastest intel at the time and the even faster amd at the time. And once again you refuse to say that was the truth. You don't say it's a lie either apparently. You just ignore as if it didn't exist. Stop twisting words and skewing facts. You lost. I won. Accept it.

 

Anyone else care to disagree?

[A Nonny Moose]

Oh now you're being funny. You never trashed my original point. Please outline exactly what you said to trash my original point. I'd like to see it.Apple still lied about how fast their processors were compared to the fastest intel at the time and the even faster amd at the time. And once again you refuse to say that was the truth. You don't say it's a lie either apparently. You just ignore as if it didn't exist. Stop twisting words and skewing facts. You lost. I won. Accept it. :)Anyone else care to disagree?

See, this is called a "brush off," where he is trying to sweep things under the rug. I did trash your point by stating the Megahertz Myth and then publicly stating (in this very topic nonetheless) why the PPC platform failed, despite being faster than the Intel processors clock for clock. So you're obviously (censored to keep from getting a warning) by not even trying to read what I posted here and instead you're resorting to shout downs and brush offs (which is the mark of someone who doesn't have anything to contribute).

Never in a million years.The rumor is that as soon as Jobs came back (late 90s) he passively told Motorola in a meeting (G3s at the time) that they were already on their way out the door. It just took him years to actually do it. Intel Macs were never plan B, they were plan A all along.

We do know that each iteration of OS X had an Intel cousin, just in case Apple would ever switch off to Intel. Chances are, each iteration was coded better for Intel, as NeXT was originally an x86 based OS (if I remember right. Someone will hopefully scream I'm wrong if I am) and you run into all sorts of problems when you change from x86 to PPC code (ask any game developer).

And now he's calling Apple a "Software company" above all else. Once the iPhone and iPods are making Apple enough money to place that bet, you might just see Mac OS X retail boxes for other PCs.Maybe... but it wouldn't surprise me anymore.

I still don't think this is likely...yet. I'm not saying it will never happen, because everything Apple has done in the last few years has surprised me. Right now, there isn't enough demand to justify opening up OS X as people want their Windows insecurity blanket.What I can see happening sooner is a DIY Mac kit (with a Big Fat Disclaimer on it about parts and support and stuffs).

[Paranoid Marvin]

I think Apple wouldn't have gone too wrong to stick with PPC and take the Power6/Cell route.

They *are* quite fast.

 

It just seems the x86 is cheaper and better for compatability

[pyrates]

See, this is called a "brush off," where he is trying to sweep things under the rug. I did trash your point by stating the Megahertz Myth and then publicly stating (in this very topic nonetheless) why the PPC platform failed, despite being faster than the Intel processors clock for clock. So you're obviously (censored to keep from getting a warning) by not even trying to read what I posted here and instead you're resorting to shout downs and brush offs (which is the mark of someone who doesn't have anything to contribute).

 

Hold on...so you're point is that the PPC was faster clock for clock then a p4 at the same speed? Despite knowing full well that when comparing the fastest Intel at the time and the fastest AMD that they both ended up beating the fastest PPC? Who cares. Certainly you do by pointing out this obscure little fact. The only one you can point to. No one compares 2 processor architectures by doing clock for clock speed comparisons. They compare the 2 most fastest chips. That's how every reviewer has ever done it. I'd like you to point me to one reviewer who compares it the way you do. This is not me "brushing" aside this. This is me deliberately pointing out something that makes you look incredibly stupid. Because at the end of the day, the fastest x86 beat the fastest PPC. That is a fact which you cannot dispute. Are you trying to dispute this fact? Anyone else disagree with this fact? I'd like to hear your reasons.

[A Nonny Moose]

Hold on...so you're point is that the PPC was faster clock for clock then a p4 at the same speed? Despite knowing full well that when comparing the fastest Intel at the time and the fastest AMD that they both ended up beating the fastest PPC? Who cares. Certainly you do by pointing out this obscure little fact. The only one you can point to. No one compares 2 processor architectures by doing clock for clock speed comparisons. They compare the 2 most fastest chips. That's how every reviewer has ever done it. I'd like you to point me to one reviewer who compares it the way you do. This is not me "brushing" aside this. This is me deliberately pointing out something that makes you look incredibly stupid. Because at the end of the day, the fastest x86 beat the fastest PPC. That is a fact which you cannot dispute. Are you trying to dispute this fact? Anyone else disagree with this fact? I'd like to hear your reasons.

 

This entire time, I've agreed with you, but for different reasons. If you can't see that, please retire your account.

 

So let me repeat this--WE'RE AGREEING for different reasons.

 

rant:

 

Quit trying to engage in a pissing contest, learn to comprehend what you're reading, and figure out we're in agreement for different reasons.

 

/rant

[bluedragon1971]

It was slower and Apple LIED about it until they were forced to switch. It's time to upgrade.

 

If it was truely slower, as you say, then why were some of the top computers in the supercomputer list Power and PowerPC based? Very few in the top 20 were x86 based.

[Colonel Ingus]

That's how every reviewer has ever done it.

LOL

[antst]

If it was truely slower, as you say, then why were some of the top computers in the supercomputer list Power and PowerPC based? Very few in the top 20 were x86 based.

 

I really like it!

If you would know what is top500 and what supercomputers really is, you'll never write it.

 

But if you think that you really know, you probably remember times, when ASCII Red was #1 for a long time.

Even when CPUs on which it was build, began to be, probably, worst CPUs which you could find in this list

[pyrates]

This entire time, I've agreed with you, but for different reasons. If you can't see that, please retire your account.So let me repeat this--WE'RE AGREEING for different reasons.rant:Quit trying to engage in a pissing contest, learn to comprehend what you're reading, and figure out we're in agreement for different reasons./rant

Then we're in agreement that x86 is faster then ppc. I just never saw the point in you saying that ppc was only faster clock for clock at the time. Why point that out is what I'm asking?

If it was truely slower, as you say, then why were some of the top computers in the supercomputer list Power and PowerPC based? Very few in the top 20 were x86 based.

Most in that list are main frames actually. See here for a current list of the top 500 supercomputers.

[bixit]

All I merely pointed out was that the fastest PPC was slower compared against the fastest intel at the time and even slower when compared against the fastest AMD at the time. That is all I said. Just say yes or no to that. If not, I'd sure like to hear your excuse.This universal binary, which uses rosetta, only works for PPC apps ran on an intel based pc. Not the other way. So they aren't switching unless it's another 10 years from now. And if you look at the latest software programs for intel mac's, they are NOT universal binaries. Atleast the big ones aren't like Adobe Photoshop CS3. So again when Apple makes the switch back to PPC, if they do but I don't think they will, you will have to wait until the software makers then comes out with a new version of their program.

 

You don't know as much about Macs as you think you do, so STFU. A Universal Binary application contains both PPC and Intel code (it does not use Rosetta). Same application runs at native (non-emulated, non-Rosetta) speed on both PPC and Intel platforms. And in many cases, a G4 of the same clock speed as a P4 is faster. One reason is Mac OS X manages memory and prefetching better than any other OS I know of. My 1.4GHz G4 PowerMac can run Doom 3 - show me any Intel cpu prior to the Core architecture that can do that @ 1.4GHz. I use both Intel and PPC Macs, and they're both fast. The best thing, to me, about Apple's Intel switch is that I can now build my own "white box" Mac for 1/2 the price or less. Woot on that for awhile.

[Colonel Ingus]

the fastest PPC was slower compared against the fastest intel

You don't know as much about Macs as you think you do, so STFU.

LOL

[A Nonny Moose]

Then we're in agreement that x86 is faster then ppc. I just never saw the point in you saying that ppc was only faster clock for clock at the time. Why point that out is what I'm asking?

 

Because you and several others run around like retards screaming "PPC SUXXORS!!!!!!ONE!!!!!ELEVEN" without even thinking as to why PPC has really lagged behind its Intel competition. If PPC chips weren't so gimped when it came to max clock speeds, Apple wouldn't have abandoned them.

[EFI]

Alright guys (or girls?)....lets think about future. Who's on the Cell boat?

[Dwight F]

And in many cases, a G4 of the same clock speed as a P4 is faster. One reason is Mac OS X manages memory and prefetching better than any other OS I know of. My 1.4GHz G4 PowerMac can run Doom 3 - show me any Intel cpu prior to the Core architecture that can do that @ 1.4GHz.

Curiously enough the offical Doom3 minimum CPU speed requirements are the same G4 as they are for the P4, 1.5GHz (EDIT: and lower memory size requirements on the Intel for some reason). You can play on less than that if you stick to lower resolutions, have at least 512MB, and a good video card. I personally ran it on a 800MHz (!) Intel (EDIT: yes I know they didn't sell a P4 that slow, that was a PIII ) with 768MB and a Radeon 9600, and it was entirely playable.

[Dwight F]

Re: Cell.Given the AMD/ATI merger it is a good bet you are going to see the equivalent of the Cell on an Intel x86/x64 chip before too long. AMD has indicated they intend to put a GPU on-die with the CPU. Which is basically what the Cell is, steam processing units coupled with a more traditional CPU core. Intel likely is working on following suit, if they aren't already ahead of the game. Not to say that that core is exactly the same as x64 cores, it is different. But sticking with Intel, or possibly switching to AMD but that's riskier given their current financial woes, would likely give a smoother transition path.

 

BTW, a really farout thought is that Apple could currently buy AMD lock, stock, and sinking barrel with cash. But I wouldn't see that as much of a fit since AMD has never really had any market traction with their mobile computing CPUs and that's what Apple uses the most. Although ironically AMD has a bit of a history of migrating laptop CPU power saving tech into thier desktop CPUs.

[Colonel Ingus]

AMD has never really had any market traction with their mobile computing CPUs

That would only be an issue for the first year or so. Then once they got new management (read 'Apple' management) in there it would be a whole new ballgame. Could you imagine if Apple could make their own processors? The sky would be the limit, and they could take processors (and OS X) in whole new direction

[A Nonny Moose]

Curiously enough the offical Doom3 minimum CPU speed requirements are the same G4 as they are for the P4, 1.5GHz (EDIT: and lower memory size requirements on the Intel for some reason). You can play on less than that if you stick to lower resolutions, have at least 512MB, and a good video card. I personally ran it on a 800MHz (!) Intel (EDIT: yes I know they didn't sell a P4 that slow, that was a PIII ) with 768MB and a Radeon 9600, and it was entirely playable.

 

It's because they don't optimize for anything other than Intel. We lose Altivec for a timely port.