Mac OS X

[MLapointe]

What do you think of this.

Microsoft won't be coming out with a main stream consumer OS for 64-bit platform anytime soon.

Intel doesn't have a 64-bit processor that's backwords compatible with out current 32-bit processors like the Celeron and Pentium 3 & IV processors.

AMD is coming out with a 64-bit processor that's "IS" backword compatible with our current 32-bit processors and software application.

Mac OS X and most of its programs are 32-bit compatible right now. Apple is working on a 64-bit version of Mac OS X but current Motorla processors won't run this 64-bit version of Mac OS X. But Motorla's new processor will run the 64-bit version of Mac OS X but will be unable to run the old 32-bit Mac OS X and previous software applications. As we all know Apple have had many problems with Motorla in the past and maybe right as we speak.

We all know thier are rumors that Mac OS X might be ported to the x86 platform. But here's what I think based on what I've read so far.

Maybe Apple is working on an x86 AMD version of Mac OS X 64-bit addition that will be able to run on AMD's new 64-bit processor(clawhammer) that will be able to run Mac OS X 32-bit and 64-bit applications. As I like to say the best of both worlds for Mac Users. I say why would I want to have to buy a brand new iMac 1 year later to run the new 64-bit apps but I have to get rid of my existing 32-bit apps...I say no to apple and tell them if I have to buy a new computer I'm GOING to be able to run my existing Mac software and the new 64 bit Mac software or I won't buy a new computer at all and I'll just keep what I have.

Apple know this as well as I do. With the problems Apple has had with Motorla in the past I think Apple is going to move away from Motorla to prevent the possibility of Motorla hurting them in the worst way at the worst time. Like I say why wouln't Motorla do something like that and I like to reply with this.

When there's no competition against Motorla they can pretty much do whatever they please. And what is Apple going to threaten them with...We'll just find some other chip maker...no Apple won't be able to say that if they haven't ported their OS to another chip design. Or in other words Motorla has got Apple by the balls until Apple ports their OS to another chip design. That's just business. It may not be right but that's just the way it is in corporate america.

[Advocate]

I reckon you're pretty close in what you're saying. The DREAM is that Apple are actually porting OSX to x86 but ONLY for the Hammer range (ie 64bit CPU's). As MS aren't going to have a 64bit OS AT ALL at that point it would be the ideal time for Apple to nip in and steal some market share.

What will probably happen is that AMD will become the supplier of CPU's for Apple computers and Apple will continue to charge ridiculously high prices for "reasonably" specced systems.

/me crosses his fingers and waits

[AshUK]

For some reason I thought the G4 processor processed data in 128bit chunks thus making it 128bit

[Wickedkitten Veteran]

Originally posted by MLapointe

What do you think of this.

Microsoft won't be coming out with a main stream consumer OS for 64-bit platform anytime soon.

Intel doesn't have a 64-bit processor that's backwords compatible with out current 32-bit processors like the Celeron and Pentium 3 & IV processors.

AMD is coming out with a 64-bit processor that's "IS" backword compatible with our current 32-bit processors and software application.

Mac OS X and most of its programs are 32-bit compatible right now. Apple is working on a 64-bit version of Mac OS X but current Motorla processors won't run this 64-bit version of Mac OS X. But Motorla's new processor will run the 64-bit version of Mac OS X but will be unable to run the old 32-bit Mac OS X and previous software applications. As we all know Apple have had many problems with Motorla in the past and maybe right as we speak.

We all know thier are rumors that Mac OS X might be ported to the x86 platform. But here's what I think based on what I've read so far.

Maybe Apple is working on an x86 AMD version of Mac OS X 64-bit addition that will be able to run on AMD's new 64-bit processor(clawhammer) that will be able to run Mac OS X 32-bit and 64-bit applications. As I like to say the best of both worlds for Mac Users. I say why would I want to have to buy a brand new iMac 1 year later to run the new 64-bit apps but I have to get rid of my existing 32-bit apps...I say no to apple and tell them if I have to buy a new computer I'm GOING to be able to run my existing Mac software and the new 64 bit Mac software or I won't buy a new computer at all and I'll just keep what I have.

Apple know this as well as I do. With the problems Apple has had with Motorla in the past I think Apple is going to move away from Motorla to prevent the possibility of Motorla hurting them in the worst way at the worst time. Like I say why wouln't Motorla do something like that and I like to reply with this.

When there's no competition against Motorla they can pretty much do whatever they please. And what is Apple going to threaten them with...We'll just find some other chip maker...no Apple won't be able to say that if they haven't ported their OS to another chip design. Or in other words Motorla has got Apple by the balls until Apple ports their OS to another chip design. That's just business. It may not be right but that's just the way it is in corporate america.

right first lets clear up any misconceptions here:

1. g4's are 128bit with the inclusion of the velocity engine

2. 64bit x86 processors are for enterprise level users. The average pc user wouldn't be interested in one and thats why MS has no plans to make a mainstream OS for them other than the 64bit version of xp which once again will be aimed at enterprise level users

3.

Apple is working on a 64-bit version of Mac OS X but current Motorla processors won't run this 64-bit version of Mac OS X. But Motorla's new processor will run the 64-bit version of Mac OS X but will be unable to run the old 32-bit Mac OS X and previous software applications.

That statement is pure crap, osx is already 128bit so why would they make a version that runs slower?

4.

We all know thier are rumors that Mac OS X might be ported to the x86 platform.

the only people that are repeating that rumour are pc users that drool of osx but refuse to buy macs. Apple = hardware company, port osx to x86 and where will they make a profit?

5.

Maybe Apple is working on an x86 AMD version of Mac OS X 64-bit addition that will be able to run on AMD's new 64-bit processor(clawhammer) that will be able to run Mac OS X 32-bit and 64-bit applications. As I like to say the best of both worlds for Mac Users.

how is that the best of both worlds for mac users? do you actually think that steve jobs is stupid enough to make a processor that is slower than the current g4's which run at 128bit?

6.

When there's no competition against Motorla they can pretty much do whatever they please. And what is Apple going to threaten them with...We'll just find some other chip maker...no Apple won't be able to say that if they haven't ported their OS to another chip design.

:ponder: lets see motorola is in a triumvirate with ibm and apple. if motorola fails to satisfy their end of the bargain apple can get chips from ibm and license the altivec bit from motorola. Motorola is then left out in the cold.

Give it up, osx on x86 is a pipedream at best

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Wickedkitten

right first lets clear up any misconceptions here:

1. g4's are 128bit with the inclusion of the velocity engine

Can you give me a link that confirms this please?

2. 64bit x86 processors are for enterprise level users. The average pc user wouldn't be interested in one and thats why MS has no plans to make a mainstream OS for them other than the 64bit version of xp which once again will be aimed at enterprise level users

I'm pretty sure AMD are releasing two 64bit processors, an enterprise one called Opteron and a consumer one called Athlon (funnily enough) so MS are mistaken.

3. That statement is pure crap, osx is already 128bit so why would they make a version that runs slower?

Again a link would be nice, I can't remember the fanfare from Apple announcing that OS X was a 128bit OS.

4. the only people that are repeating that rumour are pc users that drool of osx but refuse to buy macs. Apple = hardware company, port osx to x86 and where will they make a profit?

There is more money to be made in software than hardware (mind you not at the price of the average MAC) so it DOES make sense to port OS X. What would YOU rather have, a small market for $2000 - $3000 machines or an absolutely MASSIVE market (in the order of 1,000,000 times larger) for a product that sells for $100?

5. how is that the best of both worlds for mac users? do you actually think that steve jobs is stupid enough to make a processor that is slower than the current g4's which run at 128bit?

Macs and PC's, if you want to be honest about it, are currently about neck and neck in the speed stakes. With the difference being that a top end PC is about half the price to build than a top end Mac. The Hammer could possibly change that.

Give it up, osx on x86 is a pipedream at best

It may be a pipedream but it's a potentially profitable pipedream, only thing is only PC owners seem to realise this :rolleyes:

...and YES I do own a Mac as well as a PC.

[unspec]

Why would changing to an AMD chip make a Mac cheaper?

Just wondering why you have that opinion.

--

unspec

[Advocate]

Porting OS X to x86 would make OS X powered PC's cheaper :)

[thuggers]

AMD i think will be responsible for the G6 processors, i think the G5 is still going to be motarolla.

[unspec]

Why would Apple lower the price of a Mac because it had an x86 processor inside?

--

unspec

[Advocate]

Originally posted by unspec

Why would Apple lower the price of a Mac because it had an x86 processor inside?

--

unspec

*SIGH*

I NEVER said that having an AMD CPU inside would make Macs cheaper but I can see how this comment made you think I did

the hammer could change that

What I meant was the Hammer could give PC's the lead in the speed stakes...

The idea/thread isn't about having an x86 CPU inside a Mac it's about Apple porting OS X to the x86 architecture. PC's are cheap where as Macs aren't. Porting OS X to x86 would mean owning an OS X platform will be cheaper.

The average Joe will not buy a Mac just to run OS X but let him buy a cheap PC and give him OS X as an option and he will probably go for it.

This is getting a bit repetitive ;)

[kairon]

Why even bother to make a mac x86 processor and not use Intel?

[Advocate]

Originally posted by kairon

Why even bother to make a mac x86 processor and not use Intel?

Because Intel have fumbled the ball and their 64bit CPU is both an underperformer and overpriced?

Basically Intels execution of late has been very poor while AMD look to have a very rosy future.

I don't even know where your comment came from? Do Intel currently (or look to have available soon) have a 64bit CPU for consumers? Look at the debacle with Rambus vs DDR etc...

I need to lie down :right:

[Wickedkitten Veteran]

Originally posted by Advocate

Can you give me a link that confirms this please?

as per the apple site; www.apple.com/powermac/processor.html

Behind the PowerPC G4?s phenomenal performance is its aptly named Velocity Engine. The Velocity Engine processes data in huge 128-bit chunks, instead of the smaller 32-bit or 64-bit chunks used in traditional processors (it?s the 128-bit vector processing technology used in scientific supercomputers ? except that we?ve added 162 new instructions to speed up computations). In addition, the PowerPC G4 can perform four (in some cases eight) 32-bit floating-point calculations in a single cycle ? two to four times faster than processors found in PCs.

I'm pretty sure AMD are releasing two 64bit processors, an enterprise one called Opteron and a consumer one called Athlon (funnily enough) so MS are mistaken.taken.

the consumer one with is the one with the barton core is still 32 b

Again a link would be nice, I can't remember the fanfare from Apple announcing that OS X was a 128bit OS.it OS.

as per http://www.apple.com/macosx/technologies/

Apple has also provided direct VelocityEngine( aka Altivec) support for OpenGL, allowing all OpenGL applications to be accelerated via the 128bit vector unit.

and what is one of the layers that osx is built on? oh thats right opengl

There is more money to be made in software than hardware (mind you not at the price of the average MAC) so it DOES make sense to port OS X. What would YOU rather have, a small market for $2000 - $3000 machines or an absolutely MASSIVE market (in the order of 1,000,000 times larger) for a product that sells for $100? $100?

You don't get it, apple is making a profit regardless. They get more money from hardware from the software. If they ported osx to x86 they would have to go through the bother and expense of making sure that the software that they make worked with thousands of different computer configurations.

Macs and PC's, if you want to be honest about it, are currently about neck and neck in the speed stakes. With the difference being that a top end PC is about half the price to build than a top end Mac. The Hammer could possiblyssibly change that.

It may be a pipedream but it's a potentially profitable pipedream, only thing is only PC owners seem to rea:rolleyes::rolleyes:

YESYES I do own a Mac as well as a PC.

that whole statement about a top end pc being half the price to make is utter rubbish. Compare Sony to Apple. Compare a Dell Dimension 8100 to Apple.

[unspec]

Originally posted by Advocate

*SIGH*

I NEVER said that having an AMD CPU inside would make Macs cheaper but I can see how this comment made you think I did

What I meant was the Hammer could give PC's the lead in the speed stakes...

The idea/thread isn't about having an x86 CPU inside a Mac it's about Apple porting OS X to the x86 architecture. PC's are cheap where as Macs aren't. Porting OS X to x86 would mean owning an OS X platform will be cheaper.

The average Joe will not buy a Mac just to run OS X but let him buy a cheap PC and give him OS X as an option and he will probably go for it.

This is getting a bit repetitive ;)

However, Apple cannot support OS X on an open x86 platform and all the technical problems it produces.

It is also reliant of harware sales, OS X is a "killer app" for the Mac hardware.

Apple cannot let OS X run on an open platform, it's as simple as that.

--

unspec

[Advocate]

I'm sorry to say this Wickedkitten but I think you are misunderstanding this whole 64bit thing.

The 128bit Velocity Engine is merely Motorolas implementation of a technology called SIMD (single instruction, multiple data) that has been around for quite a while now from the original Pentium MMX through to todays Athlon XP and Pentium 4. It is an internal engine, this does not make the G4 a 128bit CPU if it does then the Athlon and P4 are also 128bit CPU's. The G4 does have a more efficient architecture however, which is why for lower mhz you can get the same performance.

btw the Apple technologies page does not mention 128bit OS anywhere on that page.

Apple don't make more money from hardware than they could potentially make from software, to say that is utter rubbish. Apple is a hardware company, Microsoft is a software company, which one is bigger? Which one is making more money? 'nuff said.

Apple would not have to ensure that OS X will run with the myriad of configurations out there, it is up to the hardware manufacturers to supply drivers not Apple. Come to think of it aren't Nvidia and ATi currently working on 64bit OS X drivers? That's where this whole rumour stems from.

As regards the desktop CPU's from AMD, if I'd meant the Barton core I'd have said the Barton core but I didn't. I said Hammer. If you want proof that AMD are releasing 64bit CPU's for desktops take a look at http://news.com.com/2100-1001-845621.html where they say The first Hammer chips, code-named Clawhammer, will hit the market toward the end of the year and will be found in desktops. Server versions will follow in 2003.

Now then, onto the price thing... :)

As of 30 seconds ago to get a Powermac G4 with 512 ram (sdram at that), 80gb hdd, cdrw, GF4 Titanium (doesn't say which Ti tut tut) and OS X costs $2520 + tax (whatever that is in the US)

To build a PC containing an Athlon 1900+, 512 DDR memory, 80gig hdd, cdrw, gf4 Ti4600, Audigy player costs $1279 + tax

Neither system included speakers or a monitor. Again, 'nuff said.

I think I've proved my point here, no doubt you will have an answer ;)

[flameshield on]I look forward to it[/flameshield on]

:)

[Advocate]

Originally posted by unspec

However, Apple cannot support OS X on an open x86 platform and all the technical problems it produces.

It is also reliant of harware sales, OS X is a "killer app" for the Mac hardware.

Apple cannot let OS X run on an open platform, it's as simple as that.

--

unspec

See above post for the answer to the technical problems.

Think about this for a minute......you make say $500 on each machine you sell and you sell 10,000 a year (not researched figures just a guess), that's $5,000,000 a year profit.

Now lets say you make $50 on each copy of OS X you sell, and you have a market of 100,000,000 machines to sell to....at $100 a pop it would be fairly easy to sell to 5,000,000 people a year. That being the case they wouldn't need to be reliant on hardware sales anymore.

I'm just saying porting it makes sense both financially and just to stick it to MS. Like I said before OS X is the "killer app" for Apple I just wish they'd capitalise on it.

:):)

[WebOrbiter]

Originally posted by Wickedkitten

the consumer one with is the one with the barton core is still 32 bit

"Now I don't want to go off on a rant here", but I just wanted to throw in the fact that the Barton core is the last of the 32-bit Athlon cores(http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q2/02061...ughbred-06.html), what Advocate was referring to was the next processor in line, the consumer 64-bit AMD Hammer, also known as "Clawhammer"(Please don't get this confused with "Sledgehammer" which is the server version "Opteron". It's consumer name will be a variation of Athlon, perhaps "Athlon 64" or "Athlon Ultra", something of that nature. And to back this up, read this: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020227/

Anything Apple does is well built and whatever decision they come up with, will be the best one for them, and for us as well.

(P.S.: It looks as though Barton has been moved on the roadmap to be released after the Clawhammer, so I think AMD is doing to the 32-bit Athlon what Apple did to the G3. So Athlon-32 will replace the soon-to-be-defunct Duron as the cheap value processor. Just a hypothesis but the roadmap doesn't lie. :bandit:

[Wickedkitten Veteran]

Originally posted by Advocate

I'm sorry to say this Wickedkitten but I think you are misunderstanding this whole 64bit thing.

The 128bit Velocity Engine is merely Motorolas implementation of a technology called SIMD (single instruction, multiple data) that has been around for quite a while now from the original Pentium MMX through to todays Athlon XP and Pentium 4. It is an internal engine, this does not make the G4 a 128bit CPU if it does then the Athlon and P4 are also 128bit CPU's. The G4 does have a more efficient architecture however, which is why for lower mhz you can get the same performance.

as per the site you listed below:

The Hammer family of processors will differ from other AMD chips--and other Intel processors--in that they will be able to run conventional 32-bit applications found on Windows PCs today as well as 64-bit applications. The bit numbers refer to the amount of data the processor can digest at once.

as per the apple site yet again

The Velocity Engine processes data in huge 128-bit chunks, instead of the smaller 32-bit or 64-bit chunks used in traditional processors (it?s the 128-bit vector processing technology used in scientific supercomputers. :ponder:

Apple don't make more money from hardware than they could potentially make from software, to say that is utter rubbish. Apple is a hardware company, Microsoft is a software company, which one is bigger? Which one is making more money? 'nuff said.b>

Thats just silly, when MS starts producing hardware in addition to software like Apple does then we can see how their profit starts dropping when people don't want to buy their product.

Apple would not have to ensure that OS X will run with the myriad of configurations out there, it is up to the hardware manufacturers to supply drivers notb> Apple. Come to think of it aren't Nvidia and ATi currently working on 64bit OS X drivers? That's where this whole rumour stems from.

Like I said, why would Apple downsize by going 64 bit instead of the 128 bit opengl layer that is built into their os?

[quotAs regards the desktop CPU's from AMD, if I'd meant the Barton core I'd have said the Barton core but I didn't. I said Hammer. If you want proof that AMD are releasing 64bit CPU's for desktops take a look at http://news.com.com/2100-1001-845621.html where they saThe first Hammer chips, code-named Clawhammer, will hit the market toward the end of the year and will be found in desktops. Server versions will follow in 2003. i>b> I already know about the Clawhammer, I have known about them since last year and they arnot aiming these at the average consumerb>. You wanted a mainstream 64bit os and sorry but it's not happening anytime soon.

Now then, onto the price thing..:):)

As of 30 seconds ago to get a Powermac G4 with 512 ram (sdram at that), 80gb hdd, cdrw, GF4 Titanium (doesn't say which Ti tut tut) and OS X costs $2520 + tax (whatever that is in the US)

To build a PC containing an Athlon 1900+, 512 DDR memory, 80gig hdd, cdrw, gf4 Ti4600, Audigy player costs $1279 + tax

Neither system included speakers or a monitor. Again, 'nuff said.

I think I've proved my point here, no doubt you will have an answe;);)

[flameshield on]I look forward to it[/flameshield on]

You're right I do have an answer. First off the powermac come with speakers included. Second if you are going to do top of the line come up with a top of the linretailb> price. I've already asked in another post for someone to come up with a better price on a prebuilt system that uses the same parts or better than ones that came with an alienware computer and guess what? No one could do it.

As for the mac, as of 10 seconds ago I could get a 933 g4 tower with 512 ram, 60gb hd, superdrive, and dual geforce4's for 2299 with a 300 dollar rebate if I get an ipod.

Just goes to show you should shop around a bit more.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Wickedkitten

as per the site you listed below:

The Hammer family of processors will differ from other AMD chips--and other Intel processors--in that they will be able to run conventional 32-bit applications found on Windows PCs today as well as 64-bit applications. The bit numbers refer to the amount of data the processor can digest at once.

as per the apple site yet again

The Velocity Engine processes data in huge 128-bit chunks, instead of the smaller 32-bit or 64-bit chunks used in traditional processors (it?s the 128-bit vector processing technology used in scientific supercomputers. :ponder:

Thats just silly, when MS starts producing hardware in addition to software like Apple does then we can see how their profit starts dropping when people don't want to buy their product.

Like I said, why would Apple downsize by going 64 bit instead of the 128 bit opengl layer that is built into their os?

I already know about the Clawhammer, I have known about them since last year and they are not aiming these at the average consumerb>. You wanted a mainstream 64bit os and sorry but it's not happening anytime soon.

You're right I do have an answer. First off the powermac come with speakers included. Second if you are going to do top of the line come up with a top of the line retailb> price. I've already asked in another post for someone to come up with a better price on a prebuilt system that uses the same parts or better than ones that came with an alienware computer and guess what? No one could do it.

As for the mac, as of 10 seconds ago I could get a 933 g4 tower with 512 ram, 60gb hd, superdrive, and dual geforce4's for 2299 with a 300 dollar rebate if I get an ipod.

Just goes to show you should shop around a bit more.

Wickedkitten you just won't give this up will you?

The Velocityengine is a SIMD engine very similar to Intels P4 SSE2 128bit SIMD engine or AMD's Athlon XP 3DNow Pro 128bit SIMD engine....iDOES NOTb> make the CPU a 128 bit cpu regardless of what you think you are reading or seeing.

As for the price well add a ouple of hundred dollars to the price of the pc for a top end set of speakers. Still well cheaper than the Mac. Oh and insisting that I buy a pre-built PC is just ridiculous, why the hell should I? I am quite capable of shopping around to get the best prices on PC components and building my own thank you very much. For that price of the G4 933 (and btw a $300 rebate if you buy a $300 iPod means the price is the same not cheaper) I could build a PC that would BLOW the G4 out of the water.

I suppose that's what this is about really isn't it? With the PC market I have what is commonly known as "choice", with Apple I have no choice. Pay their prices or don't have one. How very very sad that someone can defend and even chamion denial of choice.

[Advocate]

Oh and if I sound like I'm getting sick of this thread it's because I am.

You are blind to the benefits of a free market and blind to the benefits that the x86 architecture could bring both you and Apple.

Being a fan of a product is one thing but taking that to the extreme of paying over the odds for their products is just silly.

I can't remember whether I've said this or not but YES I own a PC and YES I own a Mac (iBook) and YES I'd love to own a Mac desktop. BUT, the prices are too high for the tech inside.

I love the Mac, I just hate the prices.

[kawai]

Advocate is right, G4/K7/P4 is not true 64/128bit processor, SIMD is doing its stuff @ 128bit, but that does not mean your CPU is @ 128

Easiest way to find out is how much memory the cpu support, none of these CPU can support more than 2GB of memory

G5 will be true 64bit, but it also supports 32bit instructions navtivly (unlike IA-64 which uses an emulator to emulate 32bit x86 instructions)

x86-64 (aka hammer) is also 64bit CPU since it supports more than 2GB of memory.

Whoever listens to Apple's marketing completely ain't all that smart to begin with. sigh...

[MLapointe]

I own right as we speak one of the new flat panel iMacs and I love them. I didn't mention that I own a mac because I wanted to provide my opinion about what I would like apple to do as a "consumer" on a PC level not an apple level. I think my PC runs faster than my iMac on most of my day to day tasks. Macs win in the area of graphics processing (ie photoshop...). I've used the iMac for some time now and I have to say that I love it. My point is that there's so much more potential for a better Mac OS X operating system that's all. I"ll just say this...

How do I or anyone elso know that an iMac can run Mac OS X better than a PC. Have you tried running Mac OS X on a PC yet...No. I think a 2Ghz Pentium 4 processor with 512MB of DDR SDRAM and a high end Graphics card from nVidia would beat the hell out of the flat panel iMac. But how can I or anyone else say that it will or won't when we haven't even tried it on a PC.

Some of the other forums I go to (soundandvisionmag) these people tell me digital cable sucks and satellite's the best. The next question I ask them is have you had digital cable before and they reply well no I haven't had digital cable I've always had Satellite. That get's me so mad when people say that somethings way better than the other when they have only used one of the services.

Don't say that Microsoft Windows is better than Mac OS X until you've used Mac OS X.

Don't say that Mac OS X is better than Microsoft Windows until you've used Microsoft Windows.

And by golly don't keep on saying that a Mac will run Mac OS X better than a x86 based machine until you've tried Mac OS X on an x86 machine. You can't say a Mac is better at running OS X than a PC until you've run OS X on a PC in which none of us have.

[Advocate]

Some good points made there m8. Hope you don't mind me clarifying that I wasn't saying OS X would run better on either platform, I just think a port makes sense is all. :)

[unspec]

Apple don't make more money from hardware than they could potentially make from software, to say that is utter rubbish.

OK, well you're entitled to your opinion. Make no mistake, that is just an opinion.

It is a fact that Apple is a hardware company and intends to stay a hardware company. The iPod is the first of several devices intended to seamlessly integrate with a "Digital Hub" AKA a Mac. It's a mistake many people make to compare Apple to Microsoft or Dell, Apple is not competing with MS, they're not in the same business.

iPhoto, iTunes, iDVD...

These are all software applications that add value to the hardware range. Apple can't compete with OEM's pumping out the latest and greatest Intel/AMD CPU's, and they don't want to. They want to make a nice profit on the hardware rather than cutting margins to the bone.

Are you also forgetting the last time they allowed clones, it almost killed Apple? The licence fees weren't nearly enough to cover the software/hardware R&D and the clone producers undercut Apple's own range, stealing its hardware sales and income.

Apple is a hardware company, Microsoft is a software company, which one is bigger? Which one is making more money?

Which one has a massive monopoly of the OS market? Which one has a massive monopoly of the "Office Type" software market?

It's just scale, illegal business practices and good luck. Hardly a sound business plan ? try and beat MS at its own game.

Pfizer is made more money that MS in 2001. Does that mean that Apple and MS should go into the pharmaceutical business? Of course not.

Apple would not have to ensure that OS X will run with the myriad of configurations out there, it is up to the hardware manufacturers to supply drivers not Apple.

I guess Be should have just told everyone that was up to the hardware manufacturers to supply drivers then. That would have saved them.

They won't write the drivers until there is a large enough market share to make it worthwhile. You're talking about entering a market where there is already a massively dominant competitor. Be tried this with a fantastic OS, they even gave it away for free to OEMs to build market share - would Apple do that?

No.

You also missed the most important reason why Apple won't become a software company.

Steve doesn't want to.

--

unspec

[Wickedkitten Veteran]

Originally posted by kawai

Easiest way to find out is how much memory the cpu support, none of these CPU can support more than 2GB of memory

G5 will be true 64bit, but it also supports 32bit instructions navtivly (unlike IA-64 which uses an emulator to emulate 32bit x86 instructions)

x86-64 (aka hammer) is also 64bit CPU since it supports more than 2GB of memory.

Whoever listens to Apple's marketing completely ain't all that smart to begin with. sigh...

Since when was the amount of ram that a cpu can support the sign of how many bits it was. I guess you have never seen the old servers that could run up to 64gb of ram off of a 450 pentium xeon which was 32 bit :roll:

as for the 64bit 65 rumour, from the register last year in september:

We don't know the ship date either, though we've been told that Apple is shooting to get boxes out for a January launch. If Motorola is sampling the G5 now or is about to, then we'd estimate that volume won't begin until early to mid Q1 2002, which would enable Apple to launch at Macworld Expo San Francisco and ship the higher end boxes in, say, February, as it's done before.

Apple will launch Mac OS X 10.2 around the same time, we're told, and offer it as a 64-bit version. To do so would surely limit users of older hardware to 10.1 and its updates, but that hasn't stopped the company making such moves in the past. The G5's 32-bit support will allow apps to be carried forward, and developers have been told they will be able to make '64-bit clean' apps with a simple recompile.

these things are called rumours for a reason