Why cell wasn't chosen for Mac

[cthellis42]

Sorry didn't know apple droped thier desktop pc line too

Yes, but... er... I specifically mentioned laptops and your QUOTE there specifically mentioned laptops, so...?

Desktops aren't as much of a concern. As they showed with current PowerMacs, they can still fit even hot chips in a well-designed and quiet casing to be usable. Not to mention the difference between high-end, hot-running chips aren't all THAT mighty, so they're more likely to be swayed by price and convenience than not.

It's their laptop line that's been idling for too long, didn't appear to have much future in G5-land, and would best benefit from Intel right now. (Things may change in the future. I agree with another one of Anand's comments, too: Right now, Apple has no intentions of confusing their marketplace. Let the transition from PPC to x86 take place, and then worry about Apple supporting AMD. I think they'll likely have full x86 capabilities down the line, and probably keep PowerPC supported as well, because hey... you can always move back. )

 

[Entropy]

Also, all the cell people and the AMD people need to be quiet. Apple evaluated both. AMD has the same, if not worse, supply problems as IBM. Their roadmap is fine, but the production capacity is not.

Offhand, it seems like the guy is making things up. From what info's been flying around out there, no one had "production capacity" issues... (What was IBM's statement? 2% of East Fishkill's production capacity made 50% of Apple's chips? Something like that... don't know how accurate it is in the long run.)

It is easy to accuse him of making it up, but there have been supply issues. Specifically IBM has not been able to provide in volume the 3GHz+ PPC chips within the timeframe they indicated to Apple. They are very late on those actually. So there is a supply issue with IBM for the chips they want.

AMD makes everything of interest in Dresden. A single fab.
Any kind of problem with that single fab, and you're in a bad position. How long did it take AMD to get their Hammers out? They look good now, but will they be able to drive their process technology forward at the same pace as Intel? How secure is their financial position? Motorola used to look good. IBM looked good and said all the right words. Neither of them, in the end, followed up on their assurances. IBM has production capacity at Fishkill, just like AMD, but that hasn't ensured good yields or weight behind Apples products.

Intels future products from Merom/Conroe and onward look good, and Intel has the economic strength and even more importantly both the commitment and ability to compete in the arena which is important to Apple. If AMD makes significantly better products than Intel in the future, Apple always has the option to switch or add suppliers. This is the company that has had internal versions of OS-X and their applications running on x86 for years as a contingency measure after all. Changing x86 suppliers is absolutely trivial in comparison, if it would seem like a good move in the future.

Of course Apple considered their options carefully. I don't see how anyone could believe otherwise. There are very good reasons to go with Intel that are plain for all to see. Add business politics and sugar-coated economic deals, as well as unknown engineering support/collaboration for future products as important factors we know nothing about. Much as I would like to see Apple subsidize a push into new architectural paradigms, going with Intel simply makes a lot of sense.

 

[PC-Engine]

I wonder if you can run Longhorn natively on a Apple computer in the near future...

 

[London Geezer]

I wonder if you can run Longhorn natively on a Apple computer in the near future...

I don't expect anything like that happening in the near future. Though my near future might be nearer than your near future.

 

[PC-Engine]

I wonder if you can run Longhorn natively on a Apple computer in the near future...

I don't expect anything like that happening in the near future. Though my near future might be nearer than your near future.

What I meant is if say you had a second HDD that had Windows installed that you could boot from, would it work with the rest of the hardware. Will there be driver issues etc.

 

[Entropy]

I wonder if you can run Longhorn natively on a Apple computer in the near future...

I don't expect anything like that happening in the near future. Though my near future might be nearer than your near future.

What I meant is if say you had a second HDD that had Windows installed that you could boot from, would it work with the rest of the hardware. Will there be driver issues etc.

This is what is publicly known:

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.

 

[London Geezer]

I wonder if you can run Longhorn natively on a Apple computer in the near future...

I don't expect anything like that happening in the near future. Though my near future might be nearer than your near future.

What I meant is if say you had a second HDD that had Windows installed that you could boot from, would it work with the rest of the hardware. Will there be driver issues etc.

Of courese there will be drivers issues!! There are drivers issues as it is, imagine under a double configuration with Win and OSX on the same system... I'm nearly fainting just thinking about it...

 

[Magnum PI]

And probably Apple was looking for someone who doesn't build chipsets part time.
wrt AMD vs Intel, chipset seems to be an important factor. Intel can provide Apple with main CPU + Chipset now. .

as can AMD.. they developped a chipset for each of their line of processor.

we don't even know if apple will use Intel chipset... they could well turn to ATI or nvidia for that, especially if they integrate one of their GPU.

the choice of Intel isn't because of this very reason.

 

[Magnum PI]

Of courese there will be drivers issues!! There are drivers issues as it is, imagine under a double configuration with Win and OSX on the same system... I'm nearly fainting just thinking about it...

you mean a MS OS for pc gaming and OS X for the rest ?

 

[PC-Engine]

This is what is publicly known:

Ah thanks Entropy. If Apple sells a reasonably priced Intel based system, I might get one just for the style factor.

 

[crystalcube]

as can AMD.. they developped a chipset for each of their line of processor.

we don't even know if apple will use Intel chipset... they could well turn to ATI or nvidia for that, especially if they integrate one of their GPU.

the choice of Intel isn't because of this very reason.

this is not the reason but I am sure it counted. Also you are missing the point AMD does not build chipset now. And as I said before probably Apple doesn't want to negotiate with multiple parties now.

Moving to x86 obviously gives Apple choice to use AMD in future but at this time its Intel.

 

[Magnum PI]

this is not the reason but I am sure it counted.

surely, if they happen to use an Intel chipset.
but despite they have announced they'll use Intel microprocessor, Apple didn't announce the manufacturer of the chipset. which maybe intel, maybe not.

Also you are missing the point AMD does not build chipset now.

i must have dreamed when i saw all these opteron motherboards with
AMD-8000â„¢ Series chipset: http://www.tyan.com/products/html/opteron.html

and using some of these boards on my servers i can attest these things are a reality.

 

[Cobra101]

IBM doesn't have as comprehensive a road map for mobile CPUs

I don't think IBM had a roadmap period. :?

 

[chlovinka]

Or if you believe this guy, it's because Intel wants to merge with Apple to form a superpower that will finally beat Microsoft once and for all.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

Haha, fat chance of that happening as long as Apple adheres to the closed system mentality. Yes, proprietary hardware has been beneficial in many ways for Apple. OTOH, it's had the effect of turning them into a niche player.

Apple would've been better off if they had just licensed their OS eons ago IMO. I'm a former Mac LC owner so, I'm not hatin' on them- just the facts as I see them.

 

[a688]

Or if you believe this guy, it's because Intel wants to merge with Apple to form a superpower that will finally beat Microsoft once and for all.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

Haha, fat chance of that happening as long as Apple adheres to the closed system mentality. Yes, proprietary hardware has been beneficial in many ways for Apple. OTOH, it's had the effect of turning them into a niche player.

Apple would've been better off if they had just licensed their OS eons ago IMO. I'm a former Mac LC owner so, I'm not hatin' on them- just the facts as I see them.

What do you mean by "...Licensed their OS"?

 

[Magnum PI]

Apple would've been better off if they had just licensed their OS eons ago IMO.

you mean like MS and windows ?
if macos was to support the ibm pc plateform, that would mean they lose a lot of the advantages their closed plateform give them.
in the end macos X could be plagued with the same problems as MS oses.

 

[mariuz]

Also, all the cell people and the AMD people need to be quiet. Apple evaluated both. AMD has the same, if not worse, supply problems as IBM. Their roadmap is fine, but the production capacity is not.

Offhand, it seems like the guy is making things up. From what info's been flying around out there, no one had "production capacity" issues... (What was IBM's statement? 2% of East Fishkill's production capacity made 50% of Apple's chips? Something like that... don't know how accurate it is in the long run.)

It is easy to accuse him of making it up, but there have been supply issues. Specifically IBM has not been able to provide in volume the 3GHz+ PPC chips within the timeframe they indicated to Apple. They are very late on those actually. So there is a supply issue with IBM for the chips they want.

AMD makes everything of interest in Dresden. A single fab.
Any kind of problem with that single fab, and you're in a bad position. How long did it take AMD to get their Hammers out? They look good now, but will they be able to drive their process technology forward at the same pace as Intel? How secure is their financial position? Motorola used to look good. IBM looked good and said all the right words. Neither of them, in the end, followed up on their assurances. IBM has production capacity at Fishkill, just like AMD, but that hasn't ensured good yields or weight behind Apples products.

AMD has 2 fabs : one in dresden and one with Chartered
It's fud that AMD can't produce more chips,

http://www.amdboard.com/chartered.html

What kept Apple/DELL from Amd is called dollar power
and some of Cringley's words are true
Apple is more dependent on Intel than Dell , Call it Intel's fashion
subsidiary . Intel needed nice package for centrinio (aka p-iii M) and
Apple's marketing (aka distorsion field).
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
Also Intel needed Ipod and Itunes under their protective arm
Got nothing to do with "inovative" area of companies
If i think well mini-mac is a ripp-of af mini-itx with apple label
http://www.mini-itx.com/
Amd innovates more than intel (64bit instructions,dual core done right,integrated memory controller)
Ibm just relesed "the" CELL cpu - and that sounds like inovation
It's quite different than reviving p3 core on Intel's part.
Multiple Vectorial units (SPU's) on a single die requires "thinking
different"

 

[chachi]

Ibm just relesed "the" CELL cpu - and that sounds like inovation
It's quite different than reviving p3 core on Intel's part.
Multiple Vectorial units (SPU's) on a single die requires "thinking
different"

There was another NYT article about this, this point seemed relevant for this board:

As it happens, Intel's was not the only alternative chip design that Apple had explored for the Mac. An executive close to Sony said that last year Mr. Jobs met in California with both Nobuyuki Idei, then the chairman and chief executive of the Japanese consumer electronics firm, and with Kenichi Kutaragi, the creator of the Sony PlayStation.

Mr. Kutaragi tried to interest Mr. Jobs in adopting the Cell chip, which is being developed by I.B.M. for use in the coming PlayStation 3, in exchange for access to certain Sony technologies. Mr. Jobs rejected the idea, telling Mr. Kutaragi that he was disappointed with the Cell design, which he believes will be even less effective than the PowerPC.

I don't agree with everything Apple does but as much as I'd have liked to see them stay with PPC this probably makes the most sense from a business perspective.

 

[Carl B]

@ Mariuz: It's not that AMD has a fab 'at Chartered,' it's that they have an agreement with Chartered for Chartered to manufacture for AMD some chips. So not saying the infrastructure aspect would or would not have played a role in Apple's decision, but if it did I still see Intel as appearing like the stronger player inthat respect.

 

[DudeMiester]

Fab36 is supposed to start producing later this year from what I've heard, and it should have a very large capacity.