Forums | MacLife

I am actually pretty happy to hear this.

With Intel also being in competition with AMD, I think they will try their damn best to make this work well.  And I wouldn't worry about quality issues... I could see Apple putting high standards on the chips.

After reading the article in the New York Times, I was convinced that it was time for Apple to move on.  The whole issue with IBM not producing low-heat, low-power consumption, high output processors for PowerBooks, why stay with them?  Intel is an entire company focused on processors.  I am dreaming of a great outcome.

Hopefully.

Screw IBM.

after-life wrote:

Jesus Christ, it really happened.

Could this mean the death of Mac native applications? I can see Quark and other guys cutting costs and forcing us to run the Windows versions in some sort of WINE layer.

I don't think it was worth the risk.

I doubt that would happen. Native apps are going to run better no matter what, and when it comes to mission critical software you want things to be as smooth and painless as possible. This is one of the reasons that Hearst publishing just handed Quark its walking papers and is switching everything over to InDesign (admittedly, the primary reason is that Hearst's prepress is coming in-house, but millions of annoyances with Quark's software were, from my POV, definitely a factor).

Anyway, figure Hearst has a few million dollars invested in Macs, and it's much easier to change software than hardware. If Adobe turned around and made us run indesign in some sort of emulation mode, it'd have to be as good as native in every way or they'd start looking for something new -- either give Quark another shot by letting them meet our needs, or by letting the market know that Hearst has needs that aren't being met. Darn tootin' somebody would answer that call.

oatmeal wrote:

Looks like Microsoft's investment in VPC just got the legs kicked out from under it.

Did it?

akb825 wrote:

Um, in case you haven't realized, AMD 64 is made by AMD, not Intel...

I'm sure that Intel has some sweet new chips out for the future, including 64 bit.

Errr well, no.

Intel adopted AMD's 64 superset to the x86 architecture (with some minor revisions). However, Intel calls it "EM64T" as opposed to "AMD64."

Intel CURRENTLY makes processors that have implementations of the AMD64 architecture. Post-prescotPentium 4's and Xeons support x86-64.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD64

So that would mean that "OS X" should "die" in the next few years. (hold on, I'm setting up the next part of this post)  Who wants to get a copy of OS X.Intel?

TheConfuzed1 wrote:

oatmeal wrote:

Looks like Microsoft's investment in VPC just got the legs kicked out from under it.

Did it?

Didn't it?  It's entirely possible that I misunderstand the way the wind is blowing, but is VPC likely to be necessary to emulate the processor any more?

Kirk wrote:

My first concern, besides the DRM issues, is service life.  The Intel chips are designed for a three year service life.  The PowerPC chips had a ten year design life.  Handing down your computer to your kids or reselling them just got killed.  This is effectively a hidden cost.

Nah. Intel chips go the long haul for sure. I've still got a few 486 and 386 systems that boot and run great. Nothing to worry about here as Intel makes quality stuff.

Not true, HJ.  Our thermal analysts derate computer parts all the time for high temperature operations.  We don't even bother trying to use Intel chips in our hardware.  At elevated temperatures they won't even survive half a year where a PPC part is good for five years.  And before the rest of you jump on me about consumer electronics being different, remember that electronics lifetimes obey the Arrhenius relationship.  A 10 C increase in operating temperature cuts the part lifetime in half.

"OS X Intel"=666
"OS X IBM"=0
(the new roman numeral meanings)

Last edited by TiMeLoRd (2005-06-06 7:01 pm)

kirk wrote:

Not true, HJ.  Our thermal analysts derate computer parts all the time for high temperature operations.  We don't even bother trying to use Intel chips in our hardware.  At elevated temperatures they won't even survive half a year where a PPC part is good for five years.  And before the rest of you jump on me about consumer electronics being different, remember that electronics lifetimes obey the Arrhenius relationship.  A 10 C increase in operating temperature cuts the part lifetime in half.

I'm gonna jump on you anyway.  I have two computers worth mentioning:  An Apple //e enhanced, and a Vendex 80186 PC and they both work as good as ever.  They're 25 years old, and I see no end in sight.  But assuming they both die tomorrow, I can certainly live with a 12.5 year lifespan.  Hell, I'm typing this on a 700MHz PIII overclocked to 867MHz.

Last edited by Mr. T (2005-06-06 7:09 pm)

oatmeal wrote:

TheConfuzed1 wrote:

oatmeal wrote:

Looks like Microsoft's investment in VPC just got the legs kicked out from under it.

Did it?

Didn't it?  It's entirely possible that I misunderstand the way the wind is blowing, but is VPC likely to be necessary to emulate the processor any more?

No way. VPC is a valuable piece of intellectual properly.  If anything, VPC could be a death blow to MacOS if Apple doesn't handle their developers properly. Mac developers, especially game developers,  are already sweating. 

Ok, so Microsoft has to scrap the old code and rebuild VPC for Mactel. Sure, that sucks, but the development time won't be too long, and this could have huge benefits for MS.  VPC will run apps and games at near full speed.

That's very cool, and very scary.
http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/stor … leID=11417

A quote from Intels front page:

"If Intel had not turned 'Moore's Law' into a reality, cell phones could be the size of cars. And the Internet might not exist."

Now THATS supremacy.