Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple have demonstrated time and again that they are happy to break existing functionality if it suits their aims.
What's your best 2 examples?
OSX and Intel processors...
The End of x86?
71–80 of 119 posts
Re: The End of x86?
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
However, if x86 has neither a process or a compatibility advantage, then even a tiny technical disadvantage turns into a tiny extra cost, which can be important for high volume chips. Not true. The marginal cost of pretty much anything on a chip itself is close to zero. For example, most 3 core chips are actually 4 core chips with one disabled. Putting the extra silicon on the chip is effectively free. The money goes…
Putting the extra silicon on the chip is effectively free. If you need that silicon to actually work, then it's not free. Floor-sweeping is necessary because the more stuff you put on a chip, the more likely it is to have defects. That really is an extra cost. I don't think there is any way around that.
Ok. Yes, there is extra silicon. But it's so insignificant that it doesn't matter.
But I think you are overestimating how low-end these chips are. See http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2008/02/small-wonder-ins... for example, which shows that the Silverthorne architecture (1st Gen Atom) has pretty much the same transistor count as a Pentium 4.
No one thought that the fact the Pentium 4 had to support x86 was a significant factor vs other architectures. For the chips we are talking about, the cache memory takes more transistors, so the quality thing is pretty insignificant too.
Re: The End of x86?
#73As I wrote in a similar thread I think Intel and x86 is already dead - the writing is on the wall - Intel just doesn't know it yet. Below is how I believe a key customer has already planned to leave the x86 architecture as nothing but a footnote in their history (alongside the remnants of PowerPC). --- Currently Apple relies on Intel for a major component in a key product. Strategically, Apple doesn't like to have to…
What's next? Will Apple design their own GPUs instead of using third parties to design one for every product in the Apple Store just to control the costumer experience? What kind of business advantage Apple will have compared to NVidia that sells its technology? I think that Steve Jobs understands these questions very well, and that's partly what separate him from the Average Joe Tech-loving guy.
Apple has already licensed Imagination Technologies PowerVR graphics cores (both this and next generation) and hold a large portion of their stock (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLQ64592720090626).
Moving Macs to ARM means they can use these as the graphics cores, customise them, modify them and not deal with Nvidia if they don't want to.
Re: The End of x86?
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
That can't be correct, since I remember running Windows NT 4 on a PowerPC system.
PowerPC (except PPC970 aka G5, as I recall) is bi-endian (configurable endianness); so are Alpha and Itanium which also had Windows NT ports.
Alpha is most definitely not a bi-endian architecture; it's little-endian only. PowerPC chips can be either, but the vast, vast majority are big endian.
Re: The End of x86?
#75In the article it states people are holding onto their PCs longer because they are satisfied with the capabilities of their older machine. I wonder if this is really proven or a misread caused by the XP -> Vista transition problems.
Re: The End of x86?
#76As I wrote in a similar thread I think Intel and x86 is already dead - the writing is on the wall - Intel just doesn't know it yet. Below is how I believe a key customer has already planned to leave the x86 architecture as nothing but a footnote in their history (alongside the remnants of PowerPC). --- Currently Apple relies on Intel for a major component in a key product. Strategically, Apple doesn't like to have to…
I don't think the one supplier thing is the base problem. I think Intel's handling of NVIDIA and Intel's failure to provide a decent replacement with OpenCL compatibility is the major cause of tension. The comments Intel's executives are making about the iPad don't help either.
Re: The End of x86?
#77As I wrote in a similar thread I think Intel and x86 is already dead - the writing is on the wall - Intel just doesn't know it yet. Below is how I believe a key customer has already planned to leave the x86 architecture as nothing but a footnote in their history (alongside the remnants of PowerPC). --- Currently Apple relies on Intel for a major component in a key product. Strategically, Apple doesn't like to have to…
I don't think the one supplier thing is the base problem. I think Intel's handling of NVIDIA and Intel's failure to provide a decent replacement with OpenCL compatibility is the major cause of tension. The comments Intel's executives are making about the iPad don't help either.
Yes, I agree to an extent. However if Intel weren't the only viable supplier then the handling of Nvidia and OpenCL compatibility issues wouldn't be as problematic for Apple as they are as they'd have an option to go to another supplier.
They currently don't have that option in the x86 space.
Re: The End of x86?
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
PowerPC (except PPC970 aka G5, as I recall) is bi-endian (configurable endianness); so are Alpha and Itanium which also had Windows NT ports.
Alpha is most definitely not a bi-endian architecture; it's little-endian only. PowerPC chips can be either, but the vast, vast majority are big endian.
Incorrect. The Cray T3E used Alpha processors in big-endian mode.
Re: The End of x86?
#79As I wrote in a similar thread I think Intel and x86 is already dead - the writing is on the wall - Intel just doesn't know it yet. Below is how I believe a key customer has already planned to leave the x86 architecture as nothing but a footnote in their history (alongside the remnants of PowerPC). --- Currently Apple relies on Intel for a major component in a key product. Strategically, Apple doesn't like to have to…
Big problem with Step 5 - people couldn't run Windows on their Macbooks except under emulation. That would be a deal breaker for a lot of potential customers (pretty much all the gamers for example) and Apple knows it.
Personally, I don't think the transition to ARM on the Mac will happen any time soon. Apple will just try to convince more people to buy iOS devices instead.
Re: The End of x86?
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your best 2 examples?
OSX and Intel processors...
OS X supported OS9 apps until long after people were puking at the mere sight of OS9 apps.
And when they converted to Intel, they also provided Rosetta, a completely ridiculous binary translation system to make PPC apps work.
Those are bad examples.