Apple drops IBM PowerPC line for Intel chips

Kassen · Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:47 pm Post subject:

So, erm, Mac´s will no longer be IBM compattibles?
*ducks*

mosc · Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:36 pm Post subject:

v-un-v · Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:00 am Post subject:

mosc · Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:34 am Post subject:

Well, in my current financial situation, I woudn't even be able to consider it. At one time I was pretty flush and I should have picked on up then. At least I was smart enough to get a Steinway B at that time. Laughing

Moral: if you every find yourself with extra cash, spend it on a musical instrument before you waste it on a good investment. Laughing

GovernorSilver · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:33 am Post subject:

On the daw-mac list archives one can find complaints about the AMD PCI-X controller issue, how Apple is blaming AMD for it, and how AMD apparently won't do anything about it. Doesn't sound like a promising start to a potential relationship, as far as Apple choosing AMD instead of Intel.

mosc · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:05 pm Post subject:

That last post makes my mind ache. Thanks for not posting a link. Laughing

GovernorSilver · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:41 pm Post subject:

Sorry mosc, I was just being lazy, due to Yahoo Groups having such a painful search feature... Embarassed

Here is one site that indirectly mentions the AMD PCI-X issue. It's none other than UA Audio's:

http://www.uaudio.com/webzine/2005/may/index5.html

The AMD-8131 PCI-X controller doesn't seem to "play nice" with certain devices that employ bus-mastered DMA, including the UAD-1. What is DMA? In simple terms, DMA is just a faster way to transfer data (audio samples in the UAD-1 case) between the host application and a hardware device. The CPU is not involved in the data transfer, so it can spend its time performing other tasks. In other words, DMA is a good thing. The issue with the AMD-8131 and the UAD-1 is that DMA transactions from the host to the UAD-1 card either take way too long, or fail completely. Different hardware devices use different PCI bus arbitration logic, which is why some devices are affected and others are not.

v-un-v · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:18 pm Post subject:

GovernorSilver · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:11 pm Post subject:

That's the beauty of the threaded interface:

If you're bored by a thread, you're free to ignore it anytime. I ignore lots of threads that bore me.

mosc · Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:28 am Post subject:

Yes, I'm not bored by this topic. In fact, this topic is the most interesting computer-related topic to come up in a few years. What makes my mind ache is manufacturers (Apple in this case) bickering with chip vendors - in public. I used to work for in the IC business. When I read:

v-un-v · Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:13 am Post subject:

GovernorSilver · Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:06 pm Post subject:

Apology appreciated and accepted. Someone had asked "Why not AMD?", hence the citation from UA's site.

As a Mac owner, I'm comfortable waiting out this transition phase, but do feel sympathy for those who need to buy soon and are now in this quandary.

Enjoy your weekend too! Cool

seraph · Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:22 am Post subject:

Survey: Intel transition may cool Mac sales

more

seraph · Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:25 am Post subject:

mosc · Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:50 pm Post subject:

paul e. · Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 3:11 pm Post subject:

it is well established that miscrosoft gained it's strength not through fair free market strategies, but by strong-arm monopolistic practices

so it's not fair to say apple is not as dominant as microsoft because the free market has determined their product is not as good..

mosc · Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 3:56 pm Post subject:

True, Microsoft has been a big bully.

But, you can buy a PC from hundreds of manufacturers and XP will install and run on it. You can even build your own PCs from parts and XP will install and run on it. They didn't take the stand that they would only license Windows on certain platforms. They defined, and continue to define, a very robust standard which anyone can conform to who wishes to make computers. They have changed IBM Compatible to Microsoft Compatible.

Kassen · Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 4:01 pm Post subject:

elektro80 · Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:19 pm Post subject:

seraph · Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 2:06 am Post subject:

Apple said earlier this month that it will switch to Intel chips from PowerPC chips as IBM's future PowerPC processors' projected power consumption will make them too difficult to design into future Apple systems.

But IBM begs to differ.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,,1833126,00.asp

elektro80 · Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 2:59 am Post subject:

This is an interesting article. I don´t have any sensible comments though. As I have stated previously, IBM has a series of great CPU designs and the high end products are awesome. Apple has been using scaled down versions for their PowerMac products. If Apple had wanted to enter the ultimate high end enterprise market then IBM cold have provided excellent CPUs. Intel is not making that kind of CPUs.

It seems likely that Jobs has been shown a different Intel roadmap and he knows something we don´t. However, I suggest you guys take a deep look into the packaged files in the latest version of XCODE. It seems that Apple has added some meta-layers and planned future support for both Intel and IBM CPUs. It seems to me that theoretically Apple could move back to IBM chips at any moment. This is not a one way street.

craftid · Joined: Aug 17, 2005 Posts: 6 Location: northern ireland

mosc · Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:18 pm Post subject:

GovernorSilver · Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:40 pm Post subject:

Same here, mosc.

I didn't buy a Mac (2 of them, actually) for the sake of owning an allegedly more expensive computer (PCs vary wildly in price too - ever seen the pricing of Alienware?). I bought a Mac to run Max/MSP.

seraph · Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 12:58 am Post subject: