- Jobs did not say Pentium, he said Intel
- Apple said coding should work for Intel if the code worked for the G3 PowerPC. This places the Pentium 4 used in the devloper boxes in the same class as a G3 PowerMac. Making the Pentium a third class citizan in the Mac world. This could roughly be equated as a baseline for the Mactel.
- Coding for the Pentium instruction set is not the same as coding for the Pentium CPU. The instruction set can be emulated by the alpha for instance.
- The Pentium, by ALL accounts is out-of-gas at 4Ghz, this isn’t a future, it the past. any new procesor will have to have either a faster, or a much wider future. 128bit anyone?
- And what of the Altivec thing, such a good idea should not go to waste
Apple
Yohan and the Mac
Every one in the Mactel discussion is talking Yohan, or the Pentium D as the new laptop chip for Apple. But I’m not convinced. There is another chip in the works. One with Apple fingerprints on it. And while the developer boxes are only using a Pentium 4s now, I will NOT expect the new Mactel IntBooks (read PowerBook) or IntMacs (read PowerMac) to be generic Pentiums.
Can you imagine the names if they used Yohan, YoBooks or YoMac. It just sounds wrong.
Upgrading to Mac OS X Tiger
I have just upgraded to OS X Tiger and I have to say I’m happy, No, Impressed! I’m am using WordPressDash widgit to post, and I have to say it’s very useful. I can now post without a browser login. widgets are great, and further more Spotlight is more than I expected. I have disk images from the three previous Macs I owned, and I can find things from all of them, from along time ago. Very cool.
Apple, XML and Podcasting
Seems like Apple is in hot water about Podcasting with many people accusing them of making the podcasting used in the iPod, proprietary. The whole nature of XML is that is is extensible, by anyone. While I’m not in the loop about current podcasting formats, it looks like there is no standard as yet. And most of the podcasting is being made up as they goo along. As far as I can tell of Apple development, they generally try and make it usable by the general user, not the Geek or earlier adopter.
Seem like the market is wide open to XLM formats, and Apple is not wrong to develop one to suit Apple and it’s customers.
The Future of Technology
I recently watched the latest Star Wars movie and while the plot was well known to me, I was very happy that the threads in the movie did a fair job of connecting the movie to the original three episodes. I have observed that the technology displayed in the movies is also interesting in that it does two very interesting and different things. The first is something that should be in everyone’s requirements documents during any IT project, or for that matter any software or technology project.
First in the movies there is a common use of technology, very high tech, but not intrusive in that the technology is what used to be called ‘Appropriate Technology’. Often this has been used in third world countries to describe technology that fits the situation. As in use of solar electronic devices in an area where distributed power is not common, or skipping the ‘Industrial Age’ in favor of the Digital Age. In any case the technology is enough to help, but not enough to intrude. Making the technology a comfortable chair rather than a large lounger/vibrator/bar/desk object that takes up half a room. This could explain the iPod fad, it’s not intrusive, and does only what it was designed to do. The technology should just work for you, you shouldn’t have to work at the technology. This could apply to most things, Operating Systems, entertainment systems, IT information systems. Always available, doing just as needed, and not intrusive.
The other point gleaned from the movies is related but different and that is culture, the technology reflected the various cultural differences, but still provided similar benefits. The spaceships reflected the culture of the planet that operated them. In Ireland, and Europe in general, that is reflected today in automobiles. The cars here are smaller, shaped differently and in some cases are dead ugly functional. Even the heavy equipment here has identifiable differences to those in the U.S. Some of this is due to the environment in which they operate, smaller streets, more expensive fuel, ect. Even McDonalds has adapted their menus here. The one size fits all is not, and should not be a requirement of the technology. It should recognize that there are different cultural and environmental elements to accommodate in the development of technology. I cannot count the number of E-Commerce systems that attempt to sell in Ireland and require an area code or a street number. Here a house address could be a proper name, associated with a village or an estate name, no zip code and no street address. The mapping sites operating on the Internet are going to go crazy here, where the only real way to find some houses are GPS coordinates and the help of the local postman.
Anyway, the point is this, development of technology is as much an element of culture and lifestyle as any other object in use today, and should be incorporated into any requirements analysis for future development. The shape of a computer case, the color of a keyboard, the data entry screen, the controls on an MP3 player must all be taken into consideration. Apple more or less knew this with the creation of colored iMacs and iPods. And the PC industry has often copied this with no real understanding as to why one should do this. This is why! Discrete useful, culturally integrated technology is the goal.
Plumbing supplies, Apple, Linux and Windows
Living in another country has been a learning experience. Coming from the U.S. I had been spoiled with choices. My house in Seattle had different faucets in almost every bathroom and in the kitchen. The fixtures were even from different venders, some very good venders. The kitchen faucet broke once, it was from a vendor that had a lifetime warrant. And they honored it, after I called the support number, told them the problem and the part number. They sent me the replacement part, twice! The first kit they sent was for a newer version of the same faucet, not the older version I had. (Some of you know where this is going, I’ll bet.)
In Ireland I was struck by the ‘primitive’ nature of the plumbing fixtures. But when I was trying to fix a faucet in the bathroom recently, the primitive part was an easy fix, and every DIY (Do It Yourself) store in town had the part. And it fit, and was cheap. This was not a small part, bits and bobs of brass, washers and seals. Fairly complete piece, but the broken piece just screwed out and back in with the new. Even the old handle worked.
Now some of you who skipped ahead saw this coming. Linux, Apple, and Windows have been selling to the U.S. market. A market where everyone expects choice, and products all try to differentiate them selves to provide value. And this has lead to hundreds of different Desktops (GUI) in Linux Distros. The Linux advocates call this freedom to choose. but a vast majority of the population just want things to work. Like the plumbing, choice is good, when you have a support infrastructure and lifetime warrantees from the vendor. But if the plumbing is available at the corner hardware store and can be replaced by anyone, why can’t Linux’s parts do the same? Any Geek could I’m sure, but if we talk about Ma and Paw user, not a prayer.
Looking at Windows, it takes a different tack. It puts every part into the kit, to fit every possible plumbing issue. And that’s a lot of parts. Apple on the other hand, builds the parts and puts in only the parts it makes into the kit. Clean and simple. It’s no wonder that OS-X is so much more stable. No second hand, third party parts in the plumbing. But then you can’t get the plumbing parts from anyone but them. Heck, you can barely find the whole system for sale here in Cork, and they have a factory in town!
This is not a new concept, everyone knows the story of interchangeable parts. I always like the flintlock part. Instead of custom flintlocks with custom parts the parts were all the same. Not as pretty, maybe not as good, but faster to make and easier to fix when broken. And yes, even custom parts do break, even it they are better made. But replacing is not so simple. Interchangeable parts made weapon (read product) production easy.
Operating systems have become this way. Windows trying to fit everything, and locking the customer into their custom parts. Linux providing so may parts, it’s hard to choose, and then some of them don’t fit without rebuilding the house (kernel). And trying to use Windows parts in Linux (read drivers) don’t fit either.
Now everyone will state the obvious Standards (there is even a plumbing supplier called Standard, but do you have one?) but then that’s the nice thing about standards, there are so many to choose from.
The point I’ve been trying to reach is Linux will have to start standardizing it’s plumbing parts. These Distro ‘choices’ are going to have to be dropped to save Linux. The FUD about Linux fragmenting isn’t FUD, Linux IS fragmented! It will never be a desktop replacement until it becomes as common and familiar as DIY faucets. Microsoft will have to drop all the legacy plumbing parts in the Longhorn release (or fail). Apple will have to open DIY shops (and stores) everywhere. And I have to get this bit of a drip from the faucet stopped, and clean up the floor.
Apple’s Piracy Marketing
There is an article and an idea Mac OS X on Intel: Try before you buy?. That just tickles my fancy. This would be a great marketing idea, Piracy as a marketing tool. Apple releasing OS-X for Intel to the Pirate world without having to support it. But still alluding to it as the future of Mac’s.
Getting everyone a try at OS-X then requiring them to buy a Mac for future versions of the OS. It converts PC users, clobbers Longhorn, promotes the Mac on Intel idea sooner, and opens up a new platform to developers not currently signed up as Apple developers.
Lots of goodness here. I hope the leaked software gets a wide spread, maybe I can get it installed on my wife’s broken Sony.
More Mactel things
I received an email with a good point about my rant on MacIntel’s
We’ll see, I guess. I think the CPUs themselves will be standard,
but that the motherboard designs will not.
Why use standard CPUs? Because they’d be cheaper than custom fabs.
In the past Apple boards utilized fewer chips than PC’s instead relying on software and CPUs and ASIC’s. This would make a Pentium unable to perform as fast running windows as a PC type board would. While this would still work, no one would want to install and run Windows on an Apple Intel system. Running Windows Applications, Yes, Windows OS NO! Custom ASICs are more expensive than dedicated chips for I/O etc. So Apple is going to go cheap, then a generic PC mother board via Intel. And we are back into what distinguishes Apple from Dell. Something in hardware is got to give.
But from the Rosette emulation only translating G3 code currently on the Pentium 4 that makes the P4 a third class citizen to the PowerPC G5. The Pentium 4 will need to take two steps forward to put Apple back into the same place it’s at. Again making the idea of a different Pentium being in the works. Not custom, but a new Pentium that doesn’t comply with generic Windows design.
One other note, Why not a new Pentium customized for Linux, It’s the Hear no evil, See no evil, Do no evil. I don’ hear any manufacture asking for a Pentium for Linux, I don’t see anyone building a system for Linux, and I don’t do custom CPU’s without a customer.
OS-X Intel Development Platform
I’m wondering if anyone has had a chance to compile a Intel Binary and tried to execute it on a Darwin installation running on a generic PC platform?
This seems like a logical step. Darwin is OS-X ported to PC’s it would make sense that the binaries would work. The only question is rather, does Darwin have all the API’s necessary to operate the Interfaces?
Mactel questions and speculation
I have been reading all of the pro’s and con’s for this CPU change, and I smell a ulterior motive.
A) The Pentium CPU is nearly at it’s end of life. Hence the Itatium story.
B) The Pentium 4 is maxing out at sub 4Ghz
C) The Pentium 4 is very hot.
The Pentium M is would make a better choice. But a better question is this, is the Pentium D (double) a dual core Pentium 4 or Pentium M?
So the future is Yonah? Some at the presentation were calling it a Xeon?
Is the future dual core and quad core? Are we going wide instead of fast?
Seems like a mixed future. I can only believe Apple is in possession of more interesting information than is currently available to the rest of us. Leading me to believe that there are unspoken words here, like DRM. The Hollywood connection. Lots of good conspiracy here in these unspoken words.
Another note, some of the ‘Experts’ have been claiming that there are serious Kernel problems porting over to Intel. What are they thinking, they saw a demo on stage of a Pentium 4 (so they say) that means the kernel has been ported. And what the heck, Darwin IS the kernel and it’s been on Intel, in parallel for ages.
Just a speculation, I have always been grateful that my old iBook G3 has gotten faster with each release of OS-X. And I could hardly expect this as the G3 does not have Altivec in it. Could it be, that Apple has been pulling Altivec code out of the kernel all along in anticipation of this change? This would make a lot of sense.
Apple and Alpha
All the talk about Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips had be thinking one of the worlds greatest CPU’s was the Alpha. This chip was created by DEC and landed in Intel’s hands. And while Intel still produces it, I don’t think anyone uses it. It still contains revolutionary technology. The hyper threading in the Pentium 4 is a derived from the Alpha. But the amazing thing is that that the Alpha is micro encoded, and can emulate ANY instruction set. At DEC it was developed to emulate the aging VAX CPU. And guess what, it could emulate the PPC instruction set of the PowerPC, without requiring a PowerPC template or a license. Interesting thought, looking forward to Monday’s announcement.
Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips
This story on CNN Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips is burning up the wires Mac wise, and there is a ton of commentary pro and con, positive and negative. I won’t hazard a guess. The news coming the day before the Apple developers conference can only fuel this discussion. Let me inject my two bits worth.
Using Intel does not mean that the OS-X and the entire Mac line will switch to the Pentium CPU from Intel. Intel makes a lot of good CPU’s that are NOT x86 architecture. ARM, Alpha, xScale all come to mind. The truth be told there are intel chips are already in Apple Mac’s as controllers and what not.
What would make more sense is if Apple contracted Intel to produce PowerPC chips for the next generation of Mac’s. This makes more since for both as Intel has been cut off from the next generation of game consoles producing a competing PowerPC chip would be good for them. The amount of money to be make from Intel selling CPU’s to Apple, will pale in comparison to the game console market it could be buying into.
And for Apple, it could get the speed increase, power reduction, and those architectural enhancements that it has be unable to get IBM to provide in the current PowerPC line.
Win = Win or rather Mac = Mac
One more note: How about OS-X on the new Intel motherboard with firewire? How would that affect Longhorn?