OS X-64 and AMD Hammer :)
This is a discussion about OS X-64 and AMD Hammer :) in the Slack Space category; I'll be damned. . . check this Although the article sounds a bit too enthusiastic, it's certainly gonna make some waves. .
I'll be damned...check this
http://www.theinquirer.net/30010215.htm
Although the article sounds a bit too enthusiastic, it's certainly gonna make some waves.
http://www.theinquirer.net/30010215.htm
Although the article sounds a bit too enthusiastic, it's certainly gonna make some waves.
Participate in our website and join the conversation
This subject has been archived. New comments and votes cannot be submitted.
Responses to this topic
Damn, talk about a dedicated Mac fan. The idea is cool enough, but I am not sure about the art gallery interface . Also, if Adobe is so dedicated, why haven't they put out Photoshop 6 for OS-X yet? Hmmm....
erm...is it just me, or does the guy think that an OS and software written for a PowerPC processor will run on an AMD (i.e Intel-compatible) processor...? Or that Apple can knock up a 64-bit version of OS X just like that?
Or did I miss something (have to admit to getting bored after the first couple of paragraphs )
AndyF
Or did I miss something (have to admit to getting bored after the first couple of paragraphs )
AndyF
I'm begining to like apple alot, but they arent gonna be making any big contributions to the 64 bit os any time soon.
They just now are releasing GHZ cpu's for thier high machines.
They just now are releasing GHZ cpu's for thier high machines.
Quote:
Or did I miss something (have to admit to getting bored after the first couple of paragraphs )
AndyF
Ditto, but I was thinking more along the lines of the concept alone. It seems like that would be interesting since OS-X was supposed to have an x86 port anyway, so why not just focus on a 64-bit version and make true workstations? The AMD Hammer would work in both modes, so they could get one working and see what the market is like while testing a 64-bit version. I found the remarks about servers funny though. Well, any thought of an Apple server is funny.
Or did I miss something (have to admit to getting bored after the first couple of paragraphs )
AndyF
Ditto, but I was thinking more along the lines of the concept alone. It seems like that would be interesting since OS-X was supposed to have an x86 port anyway, so why not just focus on a 64-bit version and make true workstations? The AMD Hammer would work in both modes, so they could get one working and see what the market is like while testing a 64-bit version. I found the remarks about servers funny though. Well, any thought of an Apple server is funny.
OP
@ Andy
FreeBSD (Open*,Net*) runs on PowerPC and x86...
Solaris runs on Sparc and x86...
Linux runs on PowerPC, Sparc, x86 AND Sony's PS2
Why shouldn't OS X run on x86, since it's BSD based?
And I'm not a dedicated Mac fan, I just love to see competition...we would only benefit from it.
-------------
@ Clutch
Sorry but Cocoa beats the lights out of M$'s Luna UI...or do you think otherwise?
FreeBSD (Open*,Net*) runs on PowerPC and x86...
Solaris runs on Sparc and x86...
Linux runs on PowerPC, Sparc, x86 AND Sony's PS2
Why shouldn't OS X run on x86, since it's BSD based?
And I'm not a dedicated Mac fan, I just love to see competition...we would only benefit from it.
-------------
@ Clutch
Sorry but Cocoa beats the lights out of M$'s Luna UI...or do you think otherwise?
It isn't that I am saying one is better than the other, I just feel that he went a bit over the top in his description of the interface. But then again, the entire article was way over the top, and I was just pointing out one aspect.
Quote:
They just now are releasing GHZ cpu's for thier high machines.You're comparing oranges to apples here (no pun intended)... The processors on an Apple are a completely different architecture than the x86 platform, and cannot be compared on a clock-for-clock basis. This is much like you can't directly compare clocks of a P4 to an Athlon, but the difference here is much more drastic. Ars Technica has some good cpu articles if you are interested in the difference between types of processors.
They just now are releasing GHZ cpu's for thier high machines.You're comparing oranges to apples here (no pun intended)... The processors on an Apple are a completely different architecture than the x86 platform, and cannot be compared on a clock-for-clock basis. This is much like you can't directly compare clocks of a P4 to an Athlon, but the difference here is much more drastic. Ars Technica has some good cpu articles if you are interested in the difference between types of processors.
OP
Lol @ Clutch,
Maybe I misunderstood you, when u said "talk about a dedicated Mac fan". I think you were referring to the article's author, not me (even if I supported Macs in some other thread, earlier on )
Yea the dude sounds like he's on Apple's payroll, but the idea is not that bad at all (article's idea, not that he's being on Apple's payroll)
Maybe I misunderstood you, when u said "talk about a dedicated Mac fan". I think you were referring to the article's author, not me (even if I supported Macs in some other thread, earlier on )
Yea the dude sounds like he's on Apple's payroll, but the idea is not that bad at all (article's idea, not that he's being on Apple's payroll)
I have to agree, the concept sounds good, it's just that the author didn't really know what he was talking about, or what's involved in porting an OS to another processor and from 32-bit to 64-bit...
AndyF
AndyF
That guy makes it sound like apple and amd are about to take over the world or something. Sounds great in principal but i doubt it will work out like that guy thinks/hopes.
Quote:
Lol @ Clutch,
Maybe I misunderstood you, when u said "talk about a dedicated Mac fan". I think you were referring to the article's author, not me (even if I supported Macs in some other thread, earlier on )
Yep.
I remember thinking the same way about Apple systems when I first fiddled with one in my high school Biology class ('89). I couldn't believe how fast it was and how many cool things it could do compared to the PC and its DOS prompt we used in the computer lab. My, how times have changed...
Lol @ Clutch,
Maybe I misunderstood you, when u said "talk about a dedicated Mac fan". I think you were referring to the article's author, not me (even if I supported Macs in some other thread, earlier on )
Yep.
I remember thinking the same way about Apple systems when I first fiddled with one in my high school Biology class ('89). I couldn't believe how fast it was and how many cool things it could do compared to the PC and its DOS prompt we used in the computer lab. My, how times have changed...
Quote:
You're comparing oranges to apples here (no pun intended)... The processors on an Apple are a completely different architecture than the x86 platform, and cannot be compared on a clock-for-clock basis. This is much like you can't directly compare clocks of a P4 to an Athlon, but the difference here is much more drastic. Ars Technica has some good cpu articles if you are interested in the difference between types of processors.
Correct. The main point is that you are comparing top-of-the-line vs. top-of-the-line between AMD and Intel, since they can run the same OSs and applications. There used to be many comparisons between Apple and PC performance when Photoshop was the benchmark. However, processor development for the Apple systems slowed down and once they hit a clock speed roadblock in their design the x86 architecture took over. Now, nobody even cares anymore. I was hoping that a properly designed cross platform OS would bring interest back in head-to-head competition, but it doesn't look too promising.
You're comparing oranges to apples here (no pun intended)... The processors on an Apple are a completely different architecture than the x86 platform, and cannot be compared on a clock-for-clock basis. This is much like you can't directly compare clocks of a P4 to an Athlon, but the difference here is much more drastic. Ars Technica has some good cpu articles if you are interested in the difference between types of processors.
Correct. The main point is that you are comparing top-of-the-line vs. top-of-the-line between AMD and Intel, since they can run the same OSs and applications. There used to be many comparisons between Apple and PC performance when Photoshop was the benchmark. However, processor development for the Apple systems slowed down and once they hit a clock speed roadblock in their design the x86 architecture took over. Now, nobody even cares anymore. I was hoping that a properly designed cross platform OS would bring interest back in head-to-head competition, but it doesn't look too promising.
I have to agree with CUViper. If Apple is trying to play the megahertz game, they've lost a long time ago. I'd be thrilled if the OS X did make the port to the x86, but only time will tell. I think Apple is doing their own thing instead of trying to compete now that they are so far behind the x86 PC's. I think it's important to point out that speed isn't everything. Obviously, more power is a good thing, but not if it's gonna interfere with the rest of the system's integrity. Apple hit a roadblock and were smart enough to not push their luck.
i was the biggest mac lover / bill gates hater you could find back when macs were cool. Like clutch said i had a power pc with os 7.something and i had a pc with ms dos like 6 and a half dozen batch files that i made to do repedative tasks. Macs were the sh1t! (the key word there is were)
It gose like guys apple dosen't want crash microsoft party if apple did do it all hell will brake losse hehehe.
Quote:
I'd be thrilled if the OS X did make the port to the x86, but only time will tell. This is happening, indirectly. Check out GNU-Darwin. Darwin the basically the core of OSX, and this is an attempt to make it a more general OS, including a port to x86. I haven't tried it yet, as I don't want to risk a dual-boot screwing up (it is only beta, after all), and I have heard it won't run under VMWare.
I'd be thrilled if the OS X did make the port to the x86, but only time will tell. This is happening, indirectly. Check out GNU-Darwin. Darwin the basically the core of OSX, and this is an attempt to make it a more general OS, including a port to x86. I haven't tried it yet, as I don't want to risk a dual-boot screwing up (it is only beta, after all), and I have heard it won't run under VMWare.
Quote:
This is happening, indirectly. Check out GNU-Darwin. Darwin the basically the core of OSX, and this is an attempt to make it a more general OS, including a port to x86. I haven't tried it yet, as I don't want to risk a dual-boot screwing up (it is only beta, after all), and I have heard it won't run under VMWare.
Hmmm...I also seem to remember reading somewhere that it would only run on Intel processors too (not sure whether that was the Apple port or the GNU port - or are they the same thing?). Bummer!
AndyF
This is happening, indirectly. Check out GNU-Darwin. Darwin the basically the core of OSX, and this is an attempt to make it a more general OS, including a port to x86. I haven't tried it yet, as I don't want to risk a dual-boot screwing up (it is only beta, after all), and I have heard it won't run under VMWare.
Hmmm...I also seem to remember reading somewhere that it would only run on Intel processors too (not sure whether that was the Apple port or the GNU port - or are they the same thing?). Bummer!
AndyF
