Lower power consumption [LWN.net]

Lower power consumption

Posted Jun 7, 2005 22:49 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
In reply to: There goes the only good reason to use a Macintosh. by HoserHead
Parent article: Yellow Dog Linux sticks with PowerPC

Of course I would notice. For one, the fans would start spinning (on iBooks that's almost as rare as a solar eclipse) and drive you mad. Then, the thing would get hotter and hotter, up to the point where it stops being a *laptop*. Finally, your battery would last about half the time -- all for a marginal gain in speed. Suspend and sleep would probably stop working too, although that can be solved given some time.

The performance gain would completely be offset in Mac OS X by the emulation layer whenever I had to use a legacy application compiled for PowerPC. It's true that when running e.g. Debian the only noticeable effect for software would be less problems, partly because of stronger vendor support in i386 than in PowerPC and partly due to a bigger number of hackers.

(Log in to post comments)

Lower power consumption

Posted Jun 7, 2005 23:01 UTC (Tue) by HoserHead (subscriber, #828) [Link]

I've got an iBook too.

I think you wildly underestimate a) Apple's commitment to the full experience - there's no way they're going to drop a processor into a laptop that'll make it behave as bad Windows laptops do - and b) Intel's quality. Apple isn't going to put desktop CPUs into their laptops, they'll put the Pentium M, which from all accounts is a pretty damned good chip, and getting better all the time.

Yes, the PowerPC emulation will mean a hit in performance, but if, as you say, you run mainly Linux, it won't matter: Debian is native on x86 and PowerPC.

Basically, I can't fathom how people think the prescence of an Intel chip will mean Apple suddenly forgets everything they've dedicated the business to the past 20 years.

Lower power consumption

Posted Jun 8, 2005 0:06 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Intel have publicly said that the move to 65 nm will solve all of their current leakage problems (which, by the way, are similar to those that have plagued IBM in the G5 at their current 90 nm process). Jobs has said that Intel chips will be better in a year: as reported by The Register, that

"By mid-2006, Intel will have about five times the performance per watt of IBM".

So all we have are promises and roadmaps, and not very credible ones. But if Intel comes up with a Pentium M that runs as cool as a G4 and with twice the power, then of course it will be welcome. Then again, with a variety of suppliers, who cares about Apple.

Basically, I can't fathom how people think the prescence of an Intel chip will mean Apple suddenly forgets everything they've dedicated the business to the past 20 years.

Many people think that Apple's biggest asset is their operating system. But since I switched to GNU/Linux, I think it's a liability. What I like is their hardware, and it's getting better all the time: I love my mac mini. If Apple gets to do an Intel-inside mac mini, then more power to them. It's only that their new friend Intel may still beat them to it.

Lower power consumption

Posted Jun 9, 2005 3:06 UTC (Thu) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]

man_ls, my fellow Linux on Mac brother. I whole-heartedly agree that Mac *hardware* is what's relevant. I do feel that PPC or not, if Apple can show the same care with x86/x86-64 hardware that they show PPC you and I have nothing to worry about.

A little off-topic, I can't see any reason Mac on x86 could hurt Linux. We run on PPC and we run on x86. One less platform that another OS doesn't run on matters none to us, except possibly in terms of cheap hardware availability. The only casualty I can see would be consumer-targetted PPC.

I bought a Mac Mini *only* to run Linux. My first night of having the thing I put Debian on it. I think people need to realize Apple is more than OSX.

Lower power consumption

Posted Jun 9, 2005 13:32 UTC (Thu) by jcm (guest, #18262) [Link]

I've decided I will eventually get a Mac Mini to replace my desktop, but only because it is a PowerPC system. I have no interest in buying a cheap Apple x86 box when there are a million other ones on the market.

If anything, this will benefit Linux users because they'll be less tempted to run OS X on Apple kit as a consequence of this announcement. Overall, I expect it will increase sales and be beneficial to the company - but they'll lose a few percent of customers who used to be die hard fans.

That said, deep down, I somehow want this to fail and for Steve to exit stage left again - it won't happen, but it's just so hard to understand how he can get away with such a radical change yet again.

Jon.

Lower power consumption

Posted Jun 9, 2005 13:50 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

A little off-topic, I can't see any reason Mac on x86 could hurt Linux.

Probably the most on-topic comment in the whole thread :)

I would say you are right, for Linux as an operating system. Some distribution may suffer (like YDL), but Linux can take on Mac OS X at any time.

Still, it's a pity that we move a step closer to processor monoculture. In the end, the worst architecture wins all; right when the underlying processor is becoming more and more irrelevant thanks to free software. Indirectly, this hurts Linux.

Pentium M does well...

Posted Jun 8, 2005 0:54 UTC (Wed) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]

...mostly 'coz it's a P3 at heart, not a P4.

However, AMD are dancing some pretty fancy steps these days as well. Besides, if Apple built some of their boxes with AMDs, particularly multi-CPU servers since HyperTransport makes that so easy, it would help to keep Intel in line.

Pentium M does well...

Posted Jun 8, 2005 3:52 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

Absolutely. In fact, according to Tom's hardware, P4 is one of the most power hungry monstrosities ever created. Especially when you "step on it". So, this "5 times more performance per watt than PPC" thing surely must be some new thing, not P4.

The only advantage P4 has over other chips is marketing. Your average mums and dads are more likely to buy something that is "3 GHz" than something that's _only_ "2 GHz". That's why Intel crippled the chip in order to achieve high clock rates.