64-bit or 32-bit Intel?

Look at the Intel website on the Core Duo. Intel classifies it as part of the Centrino family of processors.

64 bit architectures mostly sacrifice clock speed (due to longer carry chains in adders) and power consumption for the ability to directly address more than 4 G RAM.

I don't see this as a very good choice for anything other than big server boxes for some time.

Of course, when it comes to x86 chips, the 64 bit chips also have an updated architecture, most importantly they now get a whopping 16 registers! (A fair improvement from 8, even though it's still not as good as the PPC's 32 registers.) This actually makes 64 bit x86 chips something to look forward too. Sort of.

I must question the entire Intel move though. Freescale now have new low-power PPC chips that share the advantages of Intel's core duo chips: dual cores and a vastly improved FSB.

Plus the speedup of an onchip memory controller...

PowerBooks with these beautiful chips would have been - at the very least - just as fast as MacBooks, while sucking less power, and Apple wouldn't have had to switch to the architecturally FAR INFERIOR x86-platform.

So, why Intel then?

Only thing I can think of, is someone at Freescale must have rubbed Steve's ego the wrong way.

Freescale now have new low-power PPC chips
that share the advantages of Intel's core duo
chips: dual cores and a vastly improved FSB.

I keep seeing this posted in various places and I always ask for the same thing, proof that these chips exist. So far, nothing says that they have ever been manufactured. The marketing information on Freescale's website is 2 years old and hasn't been updated. So, I'll ask again, can you show any evidence that these chips exist?

64 bit architectures mostly sacrifice clock speed
(due to longer carry chains in adders) and power
consumption for the ability to directly address more
than 4 G RAM.

I don't see this as a very good choice for anything
other than big server boxes for some time.

Of course, when it comes to x86 chips, the 64 bit
chips also have an updated architecture, most
importantly they now get a whopping 16 registers! (A
fair improvement from 8, even though it's still not
as good as the PPC's 32 registers.) This actually
makes 64 bit x86 chips something to look forward too.
Sort of.

I must question the entire Intel move though.
Freescale now have new low-power PPC chips that share
the advantages of Intel's core duo chips: dual cores
and a vastly improved FSB.

Plus the speedup of an onchip memory controller...

PowerBooks with these beautiful chips would have been
- at the very least - just as fast as MacBooks, while
sucking less power, and Apple wouldn't have had to
switch to the architecturally FAR INFERIOR
x86-platform.

So, why Intel then?

Only thing I can think of, is someone at Freescale
must have rubbed Steve's ego the wrong way.

Either that or Steve has bigger plans for Apple's future than simply faster PPC-based machines. With Intel there is certainly one thing that you get w/o much trouble -- windows and the ability to run windows applications at near-native speeds with the new virtualization technology (eg: see Parallels). I'm guessing that most people are spot on (no pun intended) about the upcoming Virtualization technology (Xen perhaps?) in Leopard. A faster/lower-power PPC chip (even if it was available today, in mass production with a performance/price ratio similar to the Duo Core) still wouldn't allow you to woo away windows users. And despite what this board may lead you to believe -- those users are still the majority of computer users out there. The ability to tap into this market may just be serendipitous, or they may be a well-thought calculated move on Apple's part. Either way, I think they're better off w/ Intel then sticking w/ PPC.

You're probably right about the politics. Apple chose a path, and history will probably show it to have been a winning choice.

Even so:

The fast FSB, dual-core, low-power G4 chips I talked about **are** available now!

They should definitely have been incorporated into the last generation PowerBooks, but Steve wanted the PPC to look bad, so everyone would ooh and aah over the core duo's. This is dishonest and a disservice to customers, and frankly, I'd prefer honest business behaviour any day. But sadly, dishonest businesses eat honest businesses alive, and so we end up with what we have today: Basically a Microsoft mainstream monopoly, with Apple as a niche monopoly.

For the same reason, when the dust settles in the processor market, Intel will be the sole standing winner, even though IBM, Freescale and AMD each have better technology.

I can't see anything else happen, unless humanity suddely evolves, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Oh, these things don't quite work that way.

As a big potential customer (Apple) turned their back on the project, the project may have been scrapped, or at least put on hold. As there is marketing information available, it is very natural to assume prototype chip are in existence. But mass production of these chips will probably not happen, unless there's an immediate market. Apple pulled the rug from under Freescale's feet here, and I expect someone's a bit ******.

To prove that PPC chips indeed are strong contenders, and existing **today**, we must instead take a look at the Xbox 360.

Here we find the 'Xenon' chip, which is a PPC design, including the vector extensions known from the G4/G5. The Xenon is cheap enough for a console, low-power enough to put in a small enclosure, TRIPLE-CORE, and operates at 3.2 GHz!

The Xenon chip exists, because it was ordered by a big customer.

A PowerBooks with something similar to a Xenon in it would certainly smoke the MacBook. But Apple chose to take another route, and they chose to lie through their nose about the whole thing, as they always do.

Of course, you'll probably think I'm just full of BS. You're free to believe the hopelessly dated x86 architecture is the best mankind has been able to come up with.

I am assuming these new Intel machines are still the
old 32-bit style. Is this correct? What are we
sacrificing for back stepping?

There has never been a 64-bit Apple laptop so it is incorrect to say that the MacBook Pro is back stepping. The latest PowerBooks used the G4 which was also a 32-bit processor.

Oh, these things don't quite work that way.

As a big potential customer (Apple) turned their back
on the project, the project may have been scrapped,
or at least put on hold. Apple pulled the rug
from under Freescale's feet here, and I expect
someone's a bit ******.

That's not very likely. Apple hadn't gotten an updated architecture from Freescale for years and years. If Freescale could have produce the dual core chip on a timescale that made it competitive, Apple would certainly have used it. Face it, the e600 is vapor and has never been proven. Perhaps it would have been a great chip or it could be a complete dog which is why nobody on the planet wants one. Given the realities of chip design, I would bet on the latter.

To prove that PPC chips indeed are strong contenders,
and existing **today**, we must instead take a look
at the Xbox 360.

Here we find the 'Xenon' chip, which is a PPC design,
including the vector extensions known from the G4/G5.
The Xenon is cheap enough for a console, low-power
enough to put in a small enclosure, TRIPLE-CORE, and
operates at 3.2 GHz!

The Xenon is not a desktop processor. They get high clock speeds by not having out of order execution. You won't get good performance with that chip for anything but very specialized uses like a gaming console. As a desktop or server chip it will be a dog. If IBM was so capable of producing a fast PowerPC CPU, where is the 3 GHz G5? More vapor from the PowerPC makers.

A PowerBooks with something similar to a Xenon in it
would certainly smoke the MacBook. But Apple chose to
take another route, and they chose to lie through
their nose about the whole thing, as they always do.

There is no chance that a Xenon would smoke a Core Duo. And it is a very power hungry and hot chip. The Core Duo smokes it by a huge margin when you measure performance/watt. You wouldn't be able to put a Xenon in a laptop any more than you can put a G5 in a laptop.

Of course, you'll probably think I'm just full of BS.
You're free to believe the hopelessly dated x86
architecture is the best mankind has been able to
come up with.

I don't think you are full of BS. I just don't think you know what you are talking about. Comparing vapor and unsuitable CPUs to an existing processor which is gaining widespread praise based on its benchmarks doesn't help your credibility.

RAID overcomes the speed limitations of a single spindle.

thats great. now show me a 1 ich thick laptop with more than one hard drive so you can RAID them and overcome speed limitations. were talking about laptops, not workstations.

You are sacrificing exactly nothing. The only significant benefit of a 64-bit architecture over 32-bit is the ability of an application to address more than 4GB of memory at once, which is pretty useless in a notebook with a maximum RAM of 2GB. It's great for high-end servers, especially big databases, and can be useful in fully loaded desktop machines.