Apple and AMD have been working together of late, a senior AMD official admitted at the launch of the chip maker’s 64-bit Opteron processor this week. Also, The Register is hosting an article about Piles, a feature to reportedly be found on 10.3 Pather: They were developed by Gitta Salomon and her colleagues at Apple’s Advanced Technology Human Interface Group and announced to the world at the CHI conference in May 1992.
Apple, AMD Working Together; Deep Inside Apple’s Piles
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I would find it EXTREAMLY hard to believe that macs would ever use AMD processors, but considering AMDs experience making chipsets for use with their own 64-bit cpus, maybe Apple is tapping them for the 970s? Seems strange, but Im trying to imagine what else they could be working on…
Cheap, small Flash chips… This is the primary market of AMD (not CPUs) and very few people realize it.
Will this rumor ever die? Yes, it would be cool if Apple and AMD were working on Mac x86; because Apple wouldn’t die. But Apple is arrogant and is clinging to the PPC. Of course, if Apple did move to x86 I have only 2 words: w00t, w00t.
does this mean adding the ROM’s back or a new BIOS? Particually as it will NOT be Mac on x86.
“Piles” is a common word for hemorrhoids. “Deep Inside Apple’s Piles” isn’t an image I particularly want in my head.
hehe, you got to love Andrew’s headlines.
Couldn’t it also be possible that AMD might be selected as a second source to ibm to fab G4s or G5s. Motorola is just so far behind in terms of speed that that it might make sense to lose motorola altogether.
Anyone remember the ATI/Cube thing?
I really don’t see what would be so surprising if Apple put out a x86-64 based xServe. Mac OS X Server is much more similar to Next/OpenStep which ran on x86.
A Open Firmware based x86 server would be pretty cool. Imagine being able to boot between OS X Server, Solaris, and Linux (others?).
I wouldn’t see this as damaging Apple’s core buisiness at all, and it would certainly push more hardware (whereas as port of Mac OS X to generic x86+BIOS would be stupid).
Just my two cents.
A Open Firmware based x86 server would be pretty cool. Imagine being able to boot between OS X Server, Solaris, and Linux (others?).
With the exception of Solaris, people are already running Linux on Mac hardware. Debian, SuSE, Mandrake, Yellow Dog, just to name a few.
RE: AMD chipset for the 970?
Why would Apple hire AMD to work on the chipset? Isn’t that IBM’s job?
I agree with the idea of Apple using AMD fabs to produce 970 chips, Dresden Germany comes to mind. IBM is helping AMD produce Hammer chips as well. Looks like Motorola will be dropped from this trinity and it will become “A.I.A” as in Apple, IBM, AMD.
The only reasonable explanation is that Apple would like AMD’s fabs to help produce IBM’s 970 processors.
Hello, Moto? Goodbye, Moto!
“A Open Firmware based x86 server would be pretty cool. Imagine being able to boot between OS X Server, Solaris, and Linux (others?).”
interesting perspective but i think it makes more sense for apple to push the powerpc platform into new segments than to adopt the x86. Apple’s short-term future (5 years) is tied to the powerpc since porting software to x86 after the OS X ports would probably kill developer support. Apple’s problem has never been x86 vs. powerpc. it has always been a lack of volumes and hence eonomies of scale. The better strategy for apple is to encourage adoption of the Powerpc. IBM also seems dedicated to the task. In fact IBM goal for teh powerpc sounds a lot like that of the ARM core. Plus even motorola is doing a decent job gaining volumes, in embedded apps.
I don’t know where AMDs capacity utilization stands but it might not hurt to have another customer.
Can you people read? THe article itself dismisses much relevence and says the most likely area that they are working on together is HyperTransport. I do think there are other possibilities–AMD becoming a licensed manufacturer of PPC chip, etc… But wouldn’t the MOST reasonable explanation be: this is yet another crappy story from the Register that is: a) a lie, b) a misinterpretation, c) actually about very minor business dealings, or d) means next to nothing since there isn’t even an inkling of a clue as to what they are working on together?
It is most likely that Apple and AMD are working on Hyper Transport together. With a chip like the PPC970, Apple needs a motherboard that can handle the I/O. The G4s current bottleneck is the motherboard. It would also be nice to see AMD help fab some chips and take the all the responsibility off of IBM, but this may not be as likely.
Petty. The ATG was one of the first things Jobs killed. Along with the Newton. Pretty much the two things I liked most about Apple.
To see piles in action, go here:
http://homepage.mac.com/rdas7/piles.html
This is just my opinion, but if that’s what the final functionality is going to be, I’m staying away from it. I find it rather annoying to be honest.
Would it not be concievable that if Maybe just maybe Apple WILL in fact create a version of Mac OS X for x86 to keep themselves marketable and to open up their options for going into the enterprise level, Opteron you can sell better than a PowerPC 970 because companies dont go for speed they go for price.
“Couldn’t it also be possible that AMD might be selected as a second source to ibm to fab G4s or G5s.”
“The only reasonable explanation is that Apple would like AMD’s fabs to help produce IBM’s 970 processors.”
Okay, *several* things wrong with this:
* The PPC970 core design belongs to IBM, not Apple
* IBM’s fabrication facilities and technology are well beyond those of AMD. Opterons use a SOI process, one licensed from IBM.
* By all accounts, PPC970 production is way ahead of schedule. There’s no need for someone like AMD to help fab the chips. Remember, IBM is *not* Motorola, they don’t have problems producing these things in volume.
As for the chipset, that will most likely come from IBM as well.
I think it should be fairly obvious what Apple and IBM’s relatonship is… they’re both working with HyperTransport. With Apple’s increased interest in SMP, this only makes sense. Current SMP PowerMacs suffer I/O bottlenecks, especially between the chipset and RAM. Apple will most likely be doing whatever they can to solve this problem in the next generation of PowerMacs.
“Okay, *several* things wrong with this:
* The PPC970 core design belongs to IBM, not Apple
* IBM’s fabrication facilities and technology are well beyond those of AMD. Opterons use a SOI process, one licensed from IBM.
* By all accounts, PPC970 production is way ahead of schedule. There’s no need for someone like AMD to help fab the chips. Remember, IBM is *not* Motorola, they don’t have problems producing these things in volume”
The logic sounds good for the ppc970 but apple has generally had two sources for their powerpcs chips (mot for G4 and ibm for G3). Is ibm then going to fab the G4s as well. do G4’s get dumped (highly unlikely) or does MOT continue to supply apple with G4s (i sure hope not).
1) Apple and AMD are both into the HyperTransport design.
2) IBM is working with AMD on process research and faberaction.
3) IBM is working with Apple to customize the 970 to Apple’s new bus design (most likely HyperTransport).
4) It wouldn’t take much for AMD to produce the 970, but it’s not required.
With AMD & Apple both using HT, then the cost to build Apple computers should stay low. Currently, the Apple mother boards are using an Intel PCI chip set; this let’s them use standard ram and PCI devices without having to develope a custom chip set. As long as Apple and AMD work together on HT, then Apple should be able to just drop any HT chipset on the Apple mother board (for big cost savings).
I agree with the artical that Apple wont be using AMD64 chips to replace the PPC.
Yes, it would be cool if Apple and AMD were working on Mac x86; because Apple wouldn’t die. But Apple is arrogant and is clinging to the PPC.
Apple is arrogant? Apple is still amidst a change between OS X and x86 and you’re suggesting they switch ISAs? Does this not seem like an incredibly boneheaded idea to you? How is that arrogance?
Apple will *not* be switching ISAs for a long, long time. They pulled it off once, yes, but at that time they weren’t in the process of converting their userbase to a brand new operating system.
Steve Jobs has said repeatedly that their primary focus at the current time is converting the current Macintosh userbase to OS X. Right now there’s an enormous group of people in preprint still using OS 8/9 simply because the tools and plugins they need still aren’t available for OS X.
Would it not be concievable that if Maybe just maybe Apple WILL in fact create a version of Mac OS X for x86 to keep themselves marketable and to open up their options for going into the enterprise level, Opteron you can sell better than a PowerPC 970 because companies dont go for speed they go for price.
So now the Mac-hating troll is trying to sound reasonable.
Just what do you know about “companies”?
Let me say this: the PPC970 release will come shortly before Quark releases QuarkXPress 6, at which time several newspapers, magazines, and other print shops will begin upgrading their hardware and move to OS X. For them price is irrelevant. They want the tool that they can use to get the job done.
The complaint against PCs I’ve heard time and time again. It’s a simple one, but one which makes a great deal of sense, and comes not only from QuarkXPress users but from Photoshop users.
When you have multiple documents open in Windows, they all coexist within a parent window, one with a grey background. Why Microsoft implements MDI like this I’ll never know, but the result is no matter what you’re stuck with an obtrusive gray background covering up all the documents on the desktop.
These people certainly see the benefits of OS X, it’s just the applications aren’t there yet. When they are, it will also be an excellent time to purchase new hardware. And I can assure you, the hardware they will be purchasing will be PPC-based PowerMacs.
AMD and Apple working together is nothing new. When the XServe was introduced Apple France did a tour to present the server, I attended at one of the presentation, and a speaker clearly stated that the chipset at the heart of the XServe had been ingineered with AMDs help and that it was the begining of a collaboration that will probably center around HyperTransport.
You’ll see the Apple logo among the top 3 members of the HyperTransport Consortium leaded by AMD.
http://www.hypertransport.org/
The ATG’s most considerable projects and those of NeXT continue on. This includes Zilla, advanced algorithm and cryptography research, etc… Just because the ATG name isn’t used doesn’t mean that Apple no longer does advanced computational research.
Well I love to disagree when it comes to Apple, but Im trying to be nice and not troll on Eugenias forums as to keep her level of e-mail and sanity down. Bascule I disagree with you. In an economy like this everyone is pinching pennies and no matter how enticing Macs may look, PCs win costwise. Sun and SGI learned that lesson the hard way. Sure Macs are targeted at another user group, so let me ask you this what does QuarkXpress for Mac OS have that QuarkXpress for Windows does not have, and dont go on technical merits of Windows 98, Windows XP is a good solid platform and when you buy new hardware you get licensed for the new machines without spending a fortune on upgrades. I have had my Windows XP Professional computer running for 3 months without an unintentional reboot, and everything on Windows works. You say you have heard many complaints from Photoshop users yet I know several Graphics Artists that go to my college who have nothing but praise for Windows XP and being college students they put XP and Photoshop through the paces, my GF went from the Mac ( which I hated ) and bought a Sony Laptop with Windows XP. In an upgrade situation what does reasonable consist of and why would anyone want to purchase a more expensive computer to run software that can be had for alot cheaper price ?
Um, how is OS X Server closer to NeXTSTEP/OpenStep? Yes, Mac OS X Server 1.x was- it wasn’t much more than OpenStep with a Mac skin. However, the current version of OS X Server is just regular Mac OS X with some extra server stuff. It is no more like OpenStep than regular OS X is.
Sure Macs are targeted at another user group, so let me ask you this what does QuarkXpress for Mac OS have that QuarkXpress for Windows does not have
Seth, look up. I gave an extensive explanation of why Mac users don’t like the Microsoft approach to MDI.
Beyond that, keep in mind that a lot of the 3rd party plugins and ones developed in-house are only for Macs.
You say you have heard many complaints from Photoshop users yet I know several Graphics Artists that go to my college who have nothing but praise for Windows XP
Try talking to some newspaper photographers who keep the photos they’re working on for the most recent issue on the desktop. It’s very nice to be able to have Photoshop open and still see thumbnails of your other pictures on the desktop. This isn’t possible with the Microsoft MDI implementation.
In an upgrade situation what does reasonable consist of and why would anyone want to purchase a more expensive computer to run software that can be had for alot cheaper price ?
Because they have chosen to standardize on a platform, and that platform just happened to be the Apple Macintosh, just like the rest of the business world standardized upon commodity x86.
There’s a lot more that goes into business decisions than just price, Seth.
ColorSync and color management in general.
Better font management.
Keyboard mappings making every special symbol easily accessible and logical without requiring silly numerical codes–symbols are just accessed from where they should logically be.
Windows horrible text selection and end of line treatment. This may work well for developers but content producers and graphics pros prefer Apple’s method. (Why the fck does Windows try to grab the blank spaces when I select a word? Horrible.)
Graphics pros make their living working in small environments; 1-5 man operations are not uncommon, in fact, they are the norm. There is no time, room, or budget for tech support.
Mac networks can be much simpler–sometimes a graphics studio’s netowrk can provide all the functionality they need without even having a single server. Try to do the same thing without a DC, email server, file server, print server, etc… with a Windows environment.
IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT APPLICATION FEATURE PARITY. EVEN CLAIMING FEATURE PARITY IS MUCH DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF THE INTERFACE DIFFERENCES.
I believe that six VERY good reasons why GDs prefer Macs and why they will remain the platform of choice.
As for college friends, come on, I had friends who went straight from their BFA to their MFA and their freelance experience did not equip them to consider themselves graphic designers, nevermind pros. A graphic designer will have a client base, the cash flow to support hardware costs, application costs, stock photography and illustrations, fonts (good ones are expensive), and they will need to know how to run a studio operation affectively–i.e. have the power and capacity to handle whatever project they have without wasting any time with technology. This is very hard to accomplish while you are a full-time student. Most people cannot appreciate this without several years of experience, and even then most are running rinky-dink little operations.
Opteron you can sell better than a PowerPC 970 because companies dont go for speed they go for price. <p>
Somehow I think that if Apple develops AMD64 based hardware (they certainly ain’t porting to stock hardware), the price level-for-level would be identical (actually, probably a bit lower for the PPC). They would want to pick up buyers who need x86 for whatever reason, not draw buyers away from PPC.
m, how is OS X Server closer to NeXTSTEP/OpenStep? Yes, Mac OS X Server 1.x was- it wasn’t much more than OpenStep with a Mac skin. However, the current version of OS X Server is just regular Mac OS X with some extra server stuff. It is no more like OpenStep than regular OS X is. <p>
Maybe I’m completely wrong (I could be), but I thought at least on major sub system hadn’t been changed. I thought it was still using Display Postscript? <p>
Would be interested to know if it is or not.
You’re wrong. RevAaron is right.
And Now You Know.
And Knowing Is Half the Battle.
That ain’t even 10%.
Give me a version when they changed the display system.
… but you showed up, and that is worth a good amount of the battle.
Greetings trolls and fanatics,
I am not very in to the MacWorld(tm.) can anybody tell me the estimated date of release for the PPC 970, clockspeed etc, or point me to an article about it.
I am not very in to the MacWorld(tm.) can anybody tell me the estimated date of release for the PPC 970, clockspeed etc
Depends who you ask. Most people are anticipating the release of 64-bit dev tools at the next WWDC, with the release of PPC970 driven 15.4″ Aluminum PowerBooks coming shortly thereafter (probably at 1.2GHz)
The release of PPC970 PowerMacs will happen at or before the next MacWorld (early 2004) and they will most likely debut at 1.8GHz.