G5 in 2 flavors?

[Shrek]

I'm willing to speculate that the next generation of PowerPC processors will come in two flavors:

[LIST=A]
64-bit G5s without Altivec from IBM based on the Power4 design

AND

32-bit G5s with Altivec from Motorola based on 90-nanometer technology
[/LIST=A]

Wanna make a bet? <--- j/k :D

EDIT: To put it into perspective, splitting the chips between two companies is the way things have been done at Apple for years now, so this is probably the most likely thing to happen. ;)

[MacsRgr8]

Dont' you mean AND instead of OR?

64-bit = Towers (Pro)

32-bit = iMac's (Consumer)

Could be...

[Shrek]

Fixed it. ;)

[P-Worm]

While I have no idea, i don't think I like the idea of splitting the computers by making some have certain companie's chips and some have others. it seems to me that companies make their chips differently, so they should respond differently to the OS and the apps.

Is this true, or am I just saying stuff to raise my post count? :eek:

P-Worm

[MacsRgr8]

Well there's one dramatic difference:
64 - bit only OS X 10.3.... so no more Mac OS 9 boot (just Classic mode).
32 - bit should still be able to boot OS 9

[Shrek]

Originally posted by MacsRgr8

32 - bit should still be able to boot OS 9

That's not gonna happen given the news (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/sep/10macosx.html) that Apple will be dropping the ability to boot into OS 9 in it's next version of OS X, but Classic Mode will still run inside OS X. Sorry dude. :p

[MacsRgr8]

Yes, I even heard Steve himself say this at the Paris keynote....(good to be there!)
But I think that the 32 - bit version, will only be "firmware hacked" so that the bootloader will not allow you to boot OS 9. This could be Steve's ultimate attempt to make the rest step over to Mac OS X.
Try xlr8yourmac.com to post a patch to fix this:)

[Shrek]

You know what I think would be good for Apple? I'd like see them completely skip over using G4 chips in the iBook and go straight to using G5 chips from Motorola in the iBook. This would likely sell more iBooks which would benefit Apple and consumers (considering that the iBooks are already way behind in technology).

That's my $0.02 ;)

[Shrek]

Originally posted by P-Worm
While I have no idea, i don't think I like the idea of splitting the computers by making some have certain companie's chips and some have others.

Well, frankly, that's the way things have been done at Apple for years now, so this is probably the most likely thing to happen. ;)

[MacsRgr8]

Yes that would be gr8!
This could give Apple alot of options:
All pro-Macs: 64 bit IBM (maybe even quads:) )
All consumer-Macs: 32 bit Moto (maybe even duals)
A very flexible line up. Mhz no issue. I believe that Apple is not using the 1GHz Saharas for the iBook just for the reason that "it sounds more" than an 800 MHz G4. (so much for the MHz-myth campaign
:( ). Being able to sell 64 bit- Mac's will sound gr8, no matter the Mhz.
And this would also settle the score for being totaly dependant of one chip manufacturer.

I like your bet, so I will not bet against it!

[Mr. Anderson]

you guys are all talking like the G5 chip is here. Am I missing something or is all this just hopeful speculation and talk out your ^ss?

Until we actually see the damn thing, its really not even worth worrying about - how long has talk of the G5 been going on now anyway, years!?

I'd wait until IBM's little talk in October, that at least might shed some light one way or the other about what the next CPU will be.

D

[Shrek]

Duke, why do you have to talk so negative about this? Besides, this is a rumors and speculation forum. We have the right to speculate here. :p

[Shrek]

I would also like to see Apple put a G5 from Motorola in the eMacs as well. The reason why the eMacs are so much cheaper than the iMacs right now is because they have CRT displays, and boasts slightly slower system bus and slightly slower memory.

The eMacs should have the same G5 processors as in the iMacs and run at the same speeds but have slightly slower system bus and slightly slower memory just like they are today.

That's my $0.02 on future eMacs. ;)

[theranch]

Originally posted by Shrek
Duke, why do you have to talk so negative about this? Besides, this is a rumors and speculation forum. We have the right to speculate here. :p
I agree with him... the talk about a G5 has gone on way too long. Nobody has an idea if there's going to be one or when it is coming so let's drop it until some solid evidence is shown. 2 cents given.

[Shrek]

If you don't want to hear about it ranch, then don't click on the thread. 2 cents given.

[Mr. Anderson]

Before we get into a flame war, lets all settle down.

My point was there will be some new info coming out soon (in October) that could change things. There have been dozens of threads on the G5 this, the G5 that. Wouldn't it be great to have a G5. Of course it would! I was so hoping for a G5 this year, but things just didn't work out and we'll be going into 2003 still on the G4 platform.

I've seen too many what ifs, I'm just waiting to see 'what is' - any speculation is just spinning our wheels. If you want to speculate, go right ahead, but I'm allowed my opinion and you shouldn't take offense at it becuase it differs from yours.

I'm not exactly negative either - I'm just resigned in knowing that there is nothing we can do until they actually deliver the next gen chip - which I hope kicks butt. However, saying that it should go right into the iBook/iMac/eMac just isn't right - if a new chip comes along its going to go in the PowerMacs first and then slowly filter its way down into the other machines. Look at things realisticly here, at least, since we're speculating. Apple is not going to redesign all their machines for a new chip at the same time - it just won't happen. Retooling the manufacturing process is no trivial matter in time and money. Nope, look for the new chips in the high end machines first.

that's my 2¢!

D :D

[Shrek]

Originally posted by MacsRgr8

This could give Apple alot of options:
All pro-Macs: 64 bit IBM (maybe even quads:) )
All consumer-Macs: 32 bit Moto (maybe even duals)
A very flexible line up. Mhz no issue. I believe that Apple is not using the 1GHz Saharas for the iBook just for the reason that "it sounds more" than an 800 MHz G4. (so much for the MHz-myth campaign
:( ). Being able to sell 64 bit- Mac's will sound gr8, no matter the Mhz.


No, I don't think it's very smart to use dual processors in consumer computers. That's makes it look like Apple is trying too hard to manufacture faster systems. Besides, only workstations use more than one processor--consumer machines do NOT.

Instead, Motorola should take advantage of 90-nanometer technology and manufacture chips at clock speeds that easily rival Intel/AMD processors; that would mean pushing for 3GHz and beyond.

IBM has said (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-257421.html) it wants to hit 2GHz by the end of 2002, but I think they're going to be a little late releasing it since Apple's next OS (10.3/Panther) likely want be here until January 2003 as Apple has indicated (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/sep/10macosx.html); if IBM's 64-bit G5 is truly coming in January then I expect Apple's next OS to be 64-bit/32-bit backward compatible.

That's my $0.02 on that. ;)

[dethl]

Seeing how Motorola has been slacking off as it would seem, I wouldn't expect the G5 chip for a long time, possibly until late 2003. I looked at a PDF of Motorola's PPC processor chart, made in November 2001, and it then was talking about the G5. I was in Austin, TX attending a computer camp and heard that some guy leading the tour group talked about not only a G5 chip, but a G6 chip as well, and this was about 2 YEARS ago.

Unless theres something being hidden from public eyes, like what the new power macs will be sporting in Jan 2003, I don't see the possibility of a G5 chip yet. Though it is a possibility that there are gonna be some faster (much faster) chips now that OS X is gonna dominate.

My 2 cents as well.

[Mr. Anderson]

How's this for speculation -

http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2002-09-09#3391

translated at altavista-
- IBM and AMD with Cupertino! - Lionel - 06:01:53 According to an American source, that we will keep anonymous, the future of G5 are compromised. Financial difficulties and of production of Motorola return its exit for difficult January trés. People from IBM and AMD were seen on several occasions in the buildings of APPLE with Cupertino. obviously, nothing did not filter meetings which were held. One would however say well that APPLE is actively seeking a substitute in failing Motorola.

doh!

like I said, wait until after October to start your speculation.....

[Shrek]

I'm not getting into this argument. My only excuse for this is that I'm pretty new to the Apple world and talk about the G5 is new to me, so I like to talk about it. If the G5 doesn't come soon, then eventually I will get tired of it. 'Nuff said.

[King Cobra]

Duke's got a point, guys.

And, let's take it a step further...

Remember back to Jan. 2002 when so many people thought the G5 was coming out because of all the news reports on chip updates and this Apple countdown? (Two separate instances, I know...) Motorola has only provided sht on a stick for Apple to use in the PowerMacs, especially, the new updates. Why would there be such a radical design?

This time, we have a conference to decide what is going to happen with Apple and future processors. If Motorola doesn't have anything for Apple, then ********** ditch them for high-end processors and use them for the slower G4s (eMacs, iMacs, etc.).

:D

[Shrek]

I just don't understand why I have to get thrashed and bashed every time I post a new thread. :(

[King Cobra]

Shrek:

When you posted a thread about your sending suggestion messages to Apple (copyright-protection for CDs, which failed miserably, is one example), they were rather unintelligent suggestions and not researched well, if at all.

Second, you just happened to pick a wrong time to discuss the "rumored" G5. Maybe it's Murphy the lawmaker speaking :rolleyes: but this just isn't the best time to spark such radical ideas for controversy. After the conference you can start posting threads about the G5 (IF, at all, it is brought up) and make rumors from there that have not been widely/generally discussed.

I think some posters think they're high on themselves for deluding themselves to thinking that they can bash others on the forums around like this, but I think (and I'm not deluding myself to it) those people need to learn respect.

On the other hand, someone has to get screwed over with every new thread. It's just society. :D

[Shrek]

Stay out of my threads!

[vniow]

And you were wondering why you get thrashed and bashed with every thread you post.:rolleyes:

[dongmin]

Yeah, right on dude. Apple should put the G6s in the pro machines and save the G5s for the eMacs and iBooks. But wait, what about the iWalk??? Ok revise: G5s in the iWalks, G6s in the low end, and G7s in the Pros. Makes perfect sense, don't you think?

But you know what'd be really great? A system that sports dual architecture, i.e. both the PowerPC and x86 on a single motherboard!!! Different processors kick in for different tasks, e.g. if you're running photoshop filters, the PowerPC does the work, but if you're playing games or something, the AMD kicks in. How cool would that be?


(FYI, there are rumors, and then there are pure fantasies...)

[Catfish_Man]

...without a vector unit that can somehow be made to support Altivec would be really dumb for Apple. Even if it was faster at scalar code than Altivec is at vector (fat chance) it would be like saying to developers (especially Adobe): "We hate you! We're going to fsck up all your optimization work for the past 3-4 years. Have a nice day!". The only consolation would be that Apple's products would be the worst off. If a chip doesn't have Altivec support, Apple will not (and should not) use it.

(note: not Altivec, just Altivec support. I don't know whether you could write a runtime translater from Altivec to another similar vector unit, but it would be pretty cool)

[Mr. Anderson]

Shrek, its not personal - if you put a little thought into your threads there wouldn't be a problem. Like KC said, it might just be poor timing.

Again, I'm not out to sabotage your thread - what you had posted just didn't make any sense to me and I was responding. So don't let this stop you from starting a thread in the future.

And as for King Cobra - ask him about his Vacuum Of Infinite Density - or better yet, do a search for that. You're not the only one to get a little flak! :D

D

[Shrek]

Originally posted by dongmin
Yeah, right on dude. Apple should put the G6s in the pro machines and save the G5s for the eMacs and iBooks. But wait, what about the iWalk??? Ok revise: G5s in the iWalks, G6s in the low end, and G7s in the Pros. Makes perfect sense, don't you think?


Um, I was only saying that Apple might use G5s from two different companies. I never said a word about any G6's or G7's.


(FYI, there are rumors, and then there are pure fantasies...)


FYI, there are rumors, and then there is intelligent speculation. ;)

[Shrek]

Well, a lot of guests (http://forums.macrumors.com/online.php?s=) have been looking at this thread; it has gotten an unusual number of hits in a relatively short amount of time. These guests seem to be really interested in this thread. Makes you wonder if a vast majority of them are Apple spies! HA! They'll probably all flee as soon as they read this post. :p

[snoopy]

Originally posted by Shrek
I'm willing to speculate that the next generation of PowerPC processors will come in two flavors:
[LIST=A]
64-bit G5s without Altivec from IBM based on the Power4 design

AND

32-bit G5s with Altivec from Motorola based on 90-nanometer technology
[/LIST=A]


Nope. The 64-bit IBM PPC has an SIMD engine, which is surely Altivec. IBM has rights to Altivec.

The second chip is just a 90-nanometer, faster G4. Why would they call it a G5? Steve will want to keep these two chips distinct. The 64 bit architecture and Power4 technology clearly gives the G5 a distinction.

[Shrek]

Originally posted by snoopy

Why would they call it a G5?

For the sake of marketing.

[Shrek]

Originally posted by snoopy

Nope. The 64-bit IBM PPC has an SIMD engine, which is surely Altivec. IBM has rights to Altivec.


Nope. Look here (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/09/20020906125535.shtml)!

[Mr. Anderson]

Yes, but if you look at the macbidouille.com link i posted earlier, it says something exactly opposite.

We won't be able to know any more until October - unless Apple comes out with something in the mean time. But since they haven't even been able to ship the new 1.25s yet, I hardly think that will be the case.

D

[Shrek]

Somehow I have this gut feeling that by the time the 1.25s are ready to ship, Motorola's G5s will be heading our way, but not in professional systems. No, they will be unveiled in the iMac, iBook, and eMac. But the prices on the 1.25 PowerMacs will drop significantly as a result and will eventually be phased out as the IBM G5s arrive. :)

Dukestreet, the difference between you and I is that you are focusing entirely on rumor websites (in which many cannot be trusted) alone for your resources, while I am focusing on the rumors but adding in logic and common sense to them as well. ;)

[vniow]

Originally posted by Shrek
Somehow I have this gut feeling that by the time the 1.25s are ready to ship, Motorola's G5s will be heading our way, but not in professional systems. No, they will be unveiled in the iMac, iBook, and eMac. But the prices on the 1.25 PowerMacs will drop significantly as a result and will eventually be phased out as the IBM G5s arrive. :)

Okay, for sake of argument lets say this actually happens. Moto releases what will be known as a G5 and Apple puts it in the iMacs, eMacs and iBooks. So since the 1.25s are going to be shipping soon, (way before January) then the iMac will have a G5 of say 1ghz and the Powermac will have a dual G4. Now what looks more powerful on paper, a G4 or a G5? Here's what I predict:
In January, Apple releases new hardware. The Powermac line gets converted to G5 while the 'i' line gets a speed bump. They will recieve a low-heat-and-power Moto G5 or maybe a further derivative of the IBM Power4 in the summer.:)

[Dr_Floyd]

Man i love reading these posts :) :D

[vniow]

You should read some of his 'letters to Apple' threads.:p
kdng Shrek.:D

[Shrek]

Originally posted by edvniow


Okay, for sake of argument lets say this actually happens. Moto releases what will be known as a G5 and Apple puts it in the iMacs, eMacs and iBooks. So since the 1.25s are going to be shipping soon, (way before January) then the iMac will have a G5 of say 1ghz and the Powermac will have a dual G4. Now what looks more powerful on paper, a G4 or a G5? Here's what I predict:
In January, Apple releases new hardware. The Powermac line gets converted to G5 while the 'i' line gets a speed bump. They will recieve a low-heat-and-power Moto G5 or maybe a further derivative of the IBM Power4 in the summer.:)

The reason why I insisted that they give the iMac, iBook, and eMac a G5 first is because I think it would be stupid if they gave the PowerMac, PowerBook, and XServe a G5 first and then had to replace it with a 64-bit G5 just a couple months later! Too much effort in too little time IMO. Besides, those PowerMac G4's are still DP. Hey, even in the PC world most servers and workstations don't get moved to next generation chips first. It is always the desktops and notebooks that are the first to get the new chips. ;)

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Shrek

The reason why I insisted that they give the iMac, iBook, and eMac a G5 first is because I think it would be stupid if they gave the PowerMac, PowerBook, and XServe a G5 first and then had to replace it with a 64-bit G5 just a couple months later!

Ok, what planet are you pretending to be on this week? There's no way Apple would put a faster, more powerful chip in the consumer and low end machines first. It would make no sense what so ever. Regardless of the fact that the new PowerMacs are just rolling out.

The new chips will go in the bigger, more expensive machines first.

D :rolleyes:

[Shrek]

Nope. I disagree entirely.

Consumer machines are more popular than professional machines, so it is critical that consumer machines get the new chips first. :)

[vniow]

Originally posted by Shrek
Nope. I disagree entirely.

Consumer machines are more popular than professional machines, so it is critical that consumer machines get the new chips first. :)

Popular, yes, but image and marketing are also present. How do you think Apple would look if they put more powerful chios in their 'i' machines before the Pro ones? Which need it more? :confused:

[Shrek]

Again I say, PowerMacs and XServes are already DP, so would they would still initially have more power than the "i" Series machines. As for the PowerBook, those should get DP upgrades to turn them into mobile workstations.

[vniow]

Originally posted by Shrek
Again I say, PowerMacs and XServes are already DP, so would they would still initially have more power than the "i" Series machines. As for the PowerBook, those should get DP upgrades to turn them into mobile workstations.

Let's play around with this scenereo a little biit shall we? The G4 gets bumbed up to say dual 1.8 Ghz, just to be optimistic. Now the pro line (all duals) tops out at that while the 'i' line gets a 1.6 Ghz G5. Lets look and see how this appears on paper:

Pro line: Dual 1.8 Ghz G4
Consumer line: 1.6 ghz G5

The average consumer will wonder why the pro line isn't a dual-G5 and why they should spend the extra money for an extra, outdated processor.
Yes, a Dual 1.8 G4 might be more powerful than a single 1.6 ghz G5, but if you just look at the specs, it appears that you're spending an extra amout of money for an inferior processor. :)

[JamesDP]

http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/events/images/troll.jpg

[vniow]

Shrek's not a troll, he just doesn't always think when he makes his threads. He's a lot better at it than when he started that's for sure and his ideas have sparked some helpful debate. He's not a troll.

[Mr. Anderson]

I have to ask this. Shrek - what are you going to be when you grow up? You're how old, 22? Have you graduated college? What's your background?

You're making assumptions here that have not been thought through fully, more emotional than practical or realistic. Like edvniow said - why put a more powerful chip in an i-machine? Consumers are a big part of Apple, but there are also quite a few pros out there. And you're also missing something - look at some of the DV software they've been buying up - this stuff needs 'super' power, multiprocessors and tons of memory. Apple will eventually get around to putting new chips in their i-machines but it won't be until later.

If what you're saying was valid, why haven't they upgraded the iBooks with G4s? Get to use the alti-vec code in the software and run faster? It won't happen any time soon and just realize that you might be trying to push your point too hard.

Sit back a wait and see what happens.

D

[Gaz]

Originally posted by dukestreet
I have to ask this. Shrek - what are you going to be when you grow up? You're how old, 22? Have you graduated college? What's your background?

Hey Duke, it seems you're wondering the same things as me. I did ask Shrek before as I'm just interested as he's of a similar age to me so I wanted to understand where his thoughts come from. I do love the enternal optismism though, it's a refreshing change to all the doom and gloom about.

I think the basic idea is sound enough and that it attempts to mimic the current situation of G4s and G3s. However from a marketting stand point you don't want to be calling to completely different chips the same thing. People get easily confussed and these forums clearly display this. The PowerMacs are a flagship for a reason. I don't know any manufacturer who puts their highest performing parts in their midrange machines (even for a month or two). I understand Shrek's logic and in essence the idea is ok but in practise it would never work.

Here's another though, the ibook and PowerBook (maybe imac and emac) will get speed bumps in the near future before the OS 9 restrictions are imposed, thus if this switch is hardware imposed in gives Apple a clear Window to start with introducing new PowerMacs and then filter in the other products in good time.

[iGav]

Originally posted by JamesDP
http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/events/images/troll.jpg

:p :p :p That raised a smile JamesDP...... ;) (I too though do not think the Shrek is a troll.....)

Anyway's back to topic at hand....... G5's will be in the Pro machines first, and then filter down to the consumer models later.......

it'd more likely look like this.....

Pro line: Dual 1.8 Ghz G5
Consumer line: 1.6 ghz G4


Fact is, Apple ain't gonna put the most powerful processors in a bl@*dy eMac...... simple as that....... :rolleyes: :p

[JamesDP]

Maybe if he actually had a Mac, he might have some credibility. As I've posted before, the whole "I'll switch as soon as all of my demands are met" thing is way played out.

I understand it's a rumor site and I enjoy the speculation as much as the next guy (this site has quickly become my number 2 hangout), but puh-leez. I sold my PC at a loss (hard to imagine since they depreciate so fast) just so I could afford to buy a Mac. And as I sit here giddily waiting for it to show up (since it was shipped a couple of days ago) I can't help but think that all of the time spent on poorly thought out suggestion letters and fantasies that have no basis in reality could have been better spent ... on a Mac.

[redAPPLE]

Originally posted by Shrek
I just don't understand why I have to get thrashed and bashed every time I post a new thread. :(

Yo shrek.

You should have started a thread re: next-gen processors or Gxx or G4+ :)

[primalman]

Originally posted by snoopy
Nope. The 64-bit IBM PPC has an SIMD engine, which is surely Altivec. IBM has rights to Altivec.

Actually, IBM has no rights to Altivec, they would have to liscence the tech and name from Motorola in order to build what is commonly refered to as the G4.

That is why IBM still makes 'G3' named chips, the 750 line.

I am sure that if Apple paid the liscencing fees to Motorloa for IBM, they may make the 'G4' for Apple then.

I wonder if anyone has ever asked that in these forums? Let Apple buy out from Motorloa the rights and tech of the G4, or the entire PPC line for that matter, and give 'free' liscene to IBM to do the devlopment and fab.

Hmmmmmm...

[ftaok]

Originally posted by primalman
I wonder if anyone has ever asked that in these forums? Let Apple buy out from Motorloa the rights and tech of the G4, or the entire PPC line for that matter, and give 'free' liscene to IBM to do the devlopment and fab.

Hmmmmmm... It's been asked and the answer is that Motorola would have no interest in selling just the PPC or Altivec to anyone. Motorola currently makes a profit by selling G4 chips to many clients, which Apple is just one. If they were to sell off their PPC properties or Altivec, then what would become of their other clients.

Realistically, Motorola would love to liscense out Altivec to IBM or Apple. It's a no-brainer since they'd get a cut of every chip sold. IMO, what's holding this deal back is that Motorola is probably insisting that IBM could not market to Motorola's core customers OR that IBM just doesn't want to use Altivec because it would validate Motorola's chips as being superior.

Motorola has offered, in the past, to let IBM use Altivec, but IBM declined and went their own way with PPC development. Apple hitched their wagon with Motorola. The rest is history.

[primalman]

Originally posted by ftaok
It's been asked and the answer is that Motorola would have no interest in selling just the PPC or Altivec to anyone. Motorola currently makes a profit by selling G4 chips to many clients, which Apple is just one. If they were to sell off their PPC properties or Altivec, then what would become of their other clients.

Who else does MOT sell the 75xx desktop chip to? I know that they sell the embedded varient of the G3, G4 and now the 'G5' to mainly coimmunications companies.

What's to stop them from giving up on desktop?

If Apple says "hey, we like IBM, we are going to go to them and develop an AV alterenative, or you can sell us your desktop PPC rights and the right to use the AV tech and get some cash out of the deal."

MOT is bleeding so much cash right now, I do not see how they caould pass this up. Plus, Apple surely has some legal mumbo-jumbo in the PPC consortium papers to lean on, I would think

[Shrek]

Originally posted by dukestreet
I have to ask this. Shrek - what are you going to be when you grow up? You're how old, 22? Have you graduated college? What's your background?


I am a BIG GREEN UGLY OGER, and I like my privacy. :p


You're making assumptions here that have not been thought through fully, more emotional than practical or realistic. Like edvniow said - why put a more powerful chip in an i-machine? Consumers are a big part of Apple, but there are also quite a few pros out there. And you're also missing something - look at some of the DV software they've been buying up - this stuff needs 'super' power, multiprocessors and tons of memory. Apple will eventually get around to putting new chips in their i-machines but it won't be until later.

If what you're saying was valid, why haven't they upgraded the iBooks with G4s? Get to use the alti-vec code in the software and run faster? It won't happen any time soon and just realize that you might be trying to push your point too hard.

Sit back a wait and see what happens.


For the sake of marketing, Apple's PowerMacs should be called workstations, not desktops. I've argued this countless times before, BTW, and I can't understand why anyone won't get it through their thick skull!

Everything I'm mentioning here is the way things are done in the PC world. If Apple truly wants to convert more PC users to the Mac, then they need to mimic how the PC world works as closely as possible to make 'switchers' more familiar and more comfortable making the switch. Of course, they should still use PPC hardware and still continue to be just as innovative as they have always been.

I'm not saying that this is the way things will happen. What I'm saying is that this is the way things SHOULD happen.

[Shrek]

Originally posted by edvniow
Shrek's not a troll, he just doesn't always think when he makes his threads. He's a lot better at it than when he started that's for sure and his ideas have sparked some helpful debate. He's not a troll.

Well that's a first. The last forum site I use to use, people always called me a troll when they disagreed with me. But of course that site gets a lot of incredibly insane posts, mostly because it has poor management. :(

That site is www.apolyton.net (http://www.apolyton.net/), BTW.

[barkmonster]

I was reading an interesting article in the an old issue of the UK Macworld magazine from way back in April of '98.

A lot of technologies and Altivec related info we're seeing pop up about the G5 or new IBM chip were covered in the article :

The Engineering lobby at the IEEE International Solid State Circuit Conference in San Franciso heard presentations on a 480Mhz PowerPC G3 and a PowerPC archtechture that will run at 1,100Mhz. The prototype processor, which contains 1 million transistors, can run three times faster than today's quickest Intel Chip. We've lost that one by miles!!!

IBM officials say chips running at this speed are unlikely to be commerically available before 2001. The 480Mhz G3, while still a prototype, draws on IBM's new copper-based manufacturing process.

Sources say similar copper processes will speed PowerPC G4 processors. While the smaller, faster 1.8 volt chips will use the basic 750 architechture, the G4 processor series will also include a range of add-on technologies. Apple and vendors of embedded applications will be able to pick and choose which technologies to implement.

Now the really interesting bit that mentions VMX Altivec ?

A G4 technology - code named Desktop 98 - will offer VMX (Video and Multimedia Extensions) enhancements to the PowerPC architechture. VMX will accelerate graphics and provide a range of traditional digital signal processing capabilities.

Optimised for a range of graphics and video standards, VMX will not switch context between floating-point and DSP instructions, as does Intel's current MMX chip technology.

Now the multiple core stuff people have been going on about for years in some mythical future PowerPC chip

Also on the G4 road map is Desktop 99, the code name for the technology that will roll multiple 750 processors into a single chip. Sources said the scaleable design will support symmetric multiprocessing with two or four processors and pack up to 1MB of L2 cache. "There's plenty of room for cache and another processor with the 0.18-micron copper process", a source said. This is funny in so many ways I don't even want to start commenting on it

Now a comparison to the new IBM PowerPC chip we'll find out about in a month...

Desktop '98 : VMX
Desktop '99 : Multiple Cores

The IBM chip : SIMD (VMX/Altivec), Multiple Cores

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Shrek
I am a [B]BIG GREEN UGLY OGER, and I like my privacy. :p

um, that's ogre - and its starting to prove you lied about your age......I asked that question in all sincerity :rolleyes:

For the sake of marketing, Apple's PowerMacs should be called workstations, not desktops. I've argued this countless times before, BTW, and I can't understand why anyone won't get it through their thick skull!

Don't start arguing semantics here - regardless what they're called, they are the top end of the macs - that was the what I was refering to them as.

Everything I'm mentioning here is the way things are done in the PC world. If Apple truly wants to convert more PC users to the Mac, then they need to mimic how the PC world works as closely as possible to make 'switchers' more familiar and more comfortable making the switch. Of course, they should still use PPC hardware and still continue to be just as innovative as they have always been.

Ah, this is a dead end arguement - not really even worthy of a response - your profile has you listing a Dell as your computer - do you even use macs? Macs for most people are much easier to use than PCs, if you don't agree, well, you're entitled to your own opinion. Personally I would never want to see Apple try and be more like a PC, period.

So if you continue with your inflamitory remarks, this thread will be closed. Try and take a more rational approach to your responses, ok?

D

[Gaz]

I have to agree with Duke (damn I hate sucking up to people with power). We only asked what you background is so we can understand you points better

e.g. if you only just got in to computing or you have been bought up witih a computer as your only friend could make us understand your comments.

Since you're meant to be 2 months older than me, I'll begin by giving my background. I've just complete a degree in Computer Science at Loughborough in England. I'm new to the mac world but have had a strong interest in computers for a long time. Now that wasn't so hard. Now when you read anything I write you can see I know nothing about economics and just bluffing my way through but I have a sound understanding of both software and hardware (of course that could have been I only just passed my degree ;) !). Mainly I'm a PC guy and very much a m$ programmer but I bought a mac last year and I firmly believe in using the right tool for the task and as such enjoy both machines for their respective strengths.

i dont understand why you are so concerned with Apple winning market share, I believe they are happy as they are and although they want to grow killing the PC world is just silly and not a realistic expectation. At the end of the day competition is good and the person that wins is the consumer, therefore we need PCs to stay so we have something to better.

Gaz

[Shrek]

Originally posted by dukestreet

um, that's ogre - and its starting to prove you lied about your age......I asked that question in all sincerity :rolleyes:


A mispelling offers no proof that I'm lying about my age, and I'm not lying about it either.


So if you continue with your inflamitory remarks, this thread will be closed. Try and take a more rational approach to your responses, ok?


Bad form. Just because you disagree with something, doesn't give you the right to close the thread.

[vniow]

A mispelling offers no proof that I'm lying about my age, and I'm not lying about it either.

He wasn't talking to you about your age, he said that because you haven't been very mature in some of your responses.


Bad form. Just because you disagree with something, doesn't give you the right to close the thread.

The thread's not going to get closed because dukestreet disagrees with it, if it were to get closed it would be because you've been rude to some of the other posters.

[Mr. Anderson]

everything edvniow said is correct

D

[MacBandit]

I highly doubt that they would do that. For one it would mean an even more bloated system to support to different chips the IBM power4 PPC architecture vs. the Motorola PPC architecture. Let alone having the system support both 64bit and 32bit simultaneously.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by primalman
Who else does MOT sell the 75xx desktop chip to? I know that they sell the embedded varient of the G3, G4 and now the 'G5' to mainly coimmunications companies.

What's to stop them from giving up on desktop? If you look at Motorola's documents, the 74xx (I'm assuming that you made a typo), is intended for desktops and high-end embedded applications. I know that Cisco is a big customer for the new Apollo (7455 and 7445) chips. They use them in their routers and switchers. As for Motorola giving up their PPC desktop operations, I ask why? If they continue to develop the 74xx chips for Cisco and they are usuable for Apple, then why stop? It's just gravy money.

If Apple says "hey, we like IBM, we are going to go to them and develop an AV alterenative, or you can sell us your desktop PPC rights and the right to use the AV tech and get some cash out of the deal."

MOT is bleeding so much cash right now, I do not see how they caould pass this up. Plus, Apple surely has some legal mumbo-jumbo in the PPC consortium papers to lean on, I would think Like I said before, Motorola is not gonna sell out their desktop PPC operations unless it helps the bottom line. In your scenario, I don't see it happening. But hey, stranger things have happened.

BTW, MOTO is not bleeding cash right now. In fact, they will be returning to profitability by the end of the year. The projections are calling for about 12 cents per share for the whole year. That's pretty good considering that they took losses for both Q1 and Q2. Next year is looking better, now that their cell phone line-up has straightened out.

[Shrek]

Originally posted by edvniow


He wasn't talking to you about your age, he said that because you haven't been very mature in some of your responses.

The thread's not going to get closed because dukestreet disagrees with it, if it were to get closed it would be because you've been rude to some of the other posters.

I have no idea where you're coming from. :confused:

[Cappy]

"Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference."

Think about this one guys. There are alot of folks in this thread guilty of this right now.

[scem0]

That would be great. WHy doesnt apple do what AMD does and assign numbers to their processors like the AMD 2400 XP etc. Probably because the dual 1.25 is about a 2500 and the p4 is up to 2800, which shows someone who doesnt know anything about computers that as of now PCs are faster.

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by scem0
That would be great. WHy doesnt apple do what AMD does and assign numbers to their processors like the AMD 2400 XP etc. Probably because the dual 1.25 is about a 2500 and the p4 is up to 2800, which shows someone who doesnt know anything about computers that as of now PCs are faster.

Because Apple realizes a bad idea when they see it. Unlike the many PC Manufacturers Apple doesn't have to "differentiate" it's products from it's virtually identical competitors by focusing in on Clock speed or HD size or whatever catagory you want to use. They simply provide a nice neat solution at a given price. I guess you could say it's the advantage of "ruling the roost".

Apple is not concerned right now with highlighting speed because they are in fact behind so what they must highlight is that advantages of their os and included iApps.