apple moving to x86
James Bowman Sineath, III
sineathj1 at citadel.edu
Tue Jun 7 23:49:46 GMT 2005
I forwarded this discussion to a friend of mine that is an Apple fanatic.
Thought his response was interesting:
I watched the Keynote address on Apple's transition to Intel.
Apple has actually been running OS 10 on Intel for 5 years (just in
case they wanted to make the switch). The main reason for the
transition is the Performance per Watt ratio. The PowerPC will give
about 15 and Intel will give about 70. This basically means future
Intel processors will get more performance with less power
consumption. So, they want to build machines that will run cooler.
This will allow them to make laptops with speeds like PowerMacs. So,
64 bits will run with less power consumption (longer battery) and
help control the heat and cooling issues that come with having high
powered processors (this will help with laptops and iMacs).
They have actually already made OS X processor independent since the
very first release. So, they have been making sure 10.0-10.4 would be
able to run on both. They just released XCode 2.1 which will help
compile Universal Binaries for developers which will actually compile
the application for Power PC and Intel architectures. The machine
will then load whichever it needs. They also created Rosetta which
allows for PowerPC programs to run natively on Intel with no
necessary boots into some virtual environment. But Mathmatica was
recompiled in XCode in 2 hours! So, it won't take long for companies
to release Mac/Intel software because the recompile is effortless
since Mac has been secretly working this for 5 years.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Duo" <duo at digitalarcadia.net>
To: <freebsd-chat at freebsd.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: apple moving to x86
> David Kelly wrote:
>>No, that is NOT Apple's plan. Apple's plan is to use Intel CPUs. It has
>>nothing to do with "make the mac x86 compliant" or to use commodity PC
> Uhm, for the last several years, they have been using alot more
> "commodity" hardware, from AGP Video cards, etc. I cannot speak to x86
> compliance, but, using commodity hardware, they most certainly have been
> doing. What do you call PCI/VGA? How about USB? USB wasnt even
> considered a commodity until it was slapped into an iMac.
> As someone who cut his teeth with Apple hardware, this is a glaring
> piece of misinformation. Sorry for the harsh tone, but, the days of "mac
> only" monitors, the Mac boot ROM, etc, have been long gone for awhile now.
> About the only difference in the boot ROM dept, would be the use of
> OpenFirmware, which is forth based, as opposed to BIOS, which in my
> opinion, has made it far more functional than a traditional bios. What
> happens with OF now is somewhat of a mystery. But, I think, by and
> large, this makes Macs a bit more extensible.
> As for Apple's insistance they "wont allow" OS X to be run on anything
> other than sanctioned Mac hardware, id like to point to similar
> statements from the MPAA regarding DVD, etc. I give it two weeks from
> the retail release of OS X for intel, before we see a slashdot entry.
>>I think Apple will cause the PC market to clean up their act. To make
>>hardware that actually does what it says it will do. Something Microsoft
>>either never understood or lacked the guts to enforce.
> On this, I do agree. I think Mac hardware lives up to a better standard
> of quality than most x86 machines, BUT, I would also surmise, as
> Microsoft consistantly has sold products to people who knew they were
> flawed, that this is a 50/50 proposition. At best.
> One thing, that I am insanely curious about, is, will this make endian
> issues in sourcecode not ported to PPC go away for the most part?
> Specifically in regard to networking (client/server)?
> freebsd-chat at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-chat