PowerPC History and Future Name Change? [Archive]

MacRumors

Dec 18, 2005, 01:20 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

IBM updated (http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-powerppl/index.html?ca=drs-) an article entitled "POWER to the people" which runs down the history of the Power Architecture which developed into the PowerPC processor used in Apple's Macintoshes.

The PowerPC came from the Apple, IBM, Motorola alliance and introduced in 1993, the PowerPC saw its first commercial use in the Power Macintosh 6100 (http://guides.macrumors.com/Power_Macintosh_6100).

Since 1993, the PowerPC ecosystem has of course evolved; Apple is no longer actively involved in PowerPC, and Motorola's PowerPC (and other microprocessor) development work has been spun off into the independent semiconductor company known as Freescale (http://guides.macrumors.com/Freescale).

In summer of 2005, Apple announced it would be abandoning the PowerPC processors in favor of Intel processors (http://guides.macrumors.com/PowerPC_to_Intel_Transition). The transition is expected to begin as early as January of 2006.

Freescale and IBM are moving on with their PowerPC processors which may even see a name change sometime in 2006, according to this article:

Top-of-the-line custom processors, such as the next-gen Microsoft® Xbox 360® processor, are based on the PowerPC architecture, and IBM remains firmly committed to the PowerPC family as an important component of its microprocessor lineup (note that Freescale hints the PowerPC might undergo a name change in 2006!).

Lacero

Dec 18, 2005, 01:21 PM

I'd like to see the name change to Cell Broadband Engine.

Aren't they moving towards the Cell architecture, anyways?

Super Dave

Dec 18, 2005, 01:24 PM

I'd like to see a name change.

Aren't they moving towards the Cell architecture, anyways?

What would you call it?

David:cool:

ZorPrime

Dec 18, 2005, 01:26 PM

I'd like to see a name change.

Aren't they moving towards the Cell architecture, anyways?

It's sad to see the PPC nameplate end but time moves on. Cell is going to be interesting since, Apple hasn't had much, if anything, to do with its development, Sony, Toshiba, and IBM will be holding the patents.

As for the Xbox, who would have though Big Bill would be paying Jobs royalties for a computing technology. :cool:

redAPPLE

Dec 18, 2005, 01:35 PM

What would you call it?

David:cool:

PC = PowerCell ;)

GFLPraxis

Dec 18, 2005, 01:58 PM

I'd like to see the name change to Cell Broadband Engine.

Aren't they moving towards the Cell architecture, anyways?

No, they're not. The Cell is:
1) Extremely specific in the type of tasks it is good at. It sucks for normal computing, terribly, especially running an operating system.
2) Made by IBM only. There's no way Freescale would call it the Cell Broadband Engine.

steve_hill4

Dec 18, 2005, 02:02 PM

Well, let's hope development continues as well without Apple on baord as it did with Apple. Who's to say that in another 5-10 years Apple will switch back, let's make sure there is something worth switching back to.

As for the name, I think it would be nice called something which still contains the word Power, but moves away from PPC, to a more general name. I don't think the word Cell should appear in it though, as already stated, that is an IBM thing, not Freescale.

Photorun

Dec 18, 2005, 02:07 PM

I've got some suggestions:

SD Processor (SD = "slow development")
Nevermake3 (GHz)
The G6!
Not-Intels

~Shard~

Dec 18, 2005, 02:10 PM

Just as with Apple's decision to move to Intel, time goes on and things change.... I wonder what they'll rename the line if this does indeed happen...

inkswamp

Dec 18, 2005, 02:29 PM

Am I wrong in thinking that Apple still owns a stake in the PPC? Don't they own the technology jointly with IBM and Motorola? I wonder how that plays out in the future of the chip.

MacFan782040

Dec 18, 2005, 02:32 PM

Ugg..should have stayed with PPC.

hvfsl

Dec 18, 2005, 02:34 PM

It's going to be called velocity engine.

EricNau

Dec 18, 2005, 02:40 PM

I wonder if IBM is getting just a little worried, now that they don't have Apple.

d.perel

Dec 18, 2005, 02:40 PM

how significant..... I'm just waiting for my $400 Intel-based mac mini with DVR and cable tuner built in...

EricNau

Dec 18, 2005, 02:43 PM

No, they're not. The Cell is:
...
2) Made by IBM only. There's no way Freescale would call it the Cell Broadband Engine.
It's also made by Sony, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., and Toshiba.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press_Archive/200411/04-1129E/

EGT

Dec 18, 2005, 02:52 PM

We need a neutral vote for the front page news.

I don't see how this is significant. *yawn*

plastique45

Dec 18, 2005, 02:54 PM

They should call them Expensive Slo-Mo's.

generik

Dec 18, 2005, 03:00 PM

They probably will change to "Intel"

You see... the last WWDC was a hoax! :D

EGT

Dec 18, 2005, 03:02 PM

They probably will change to "Intel"

You see... the last WWDC was a hoax! :D

Imagine if that was the keynote. How funny would that be!?

:D

Lacero

Dec 18, 2005, 03:03 PM

I don't see how this is significant. *yawn*
Sure it's significant. It's all marketing. See, when Apple introduced the G4 with Velocity Engine™, I went gaga and purchased my first Mac, because I wanted a supercomputer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/435250.stm) on me desktops.

Me gots a supercomputer!! YAY! :D

Cell Broadband Engine sounds rather dumb. I'd prefer something like maybe Synergon Cells™? Sounds dumb initially too, but hey, most folks didn't like when AMD called their new K's Athlons.

Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

Fiveos22

Dec 18, 2005, 03:25 PM

We need a neutral vote for the front page news.

I don't see how this is significant. *yawn*

Its a slow Sunday...this is a good read...time to go out an ski now that finals are done!

EricNau

Dec 18, 2005, 03:31 PM

ZorPrime

Dec 18, 2005, 03:37 PM

Am I wrong in thinking that Apple still owns a stake in the PPC? Don't they own the technology jointly with IBM and Motorola? I wonder how that plays out in the future of the chip.

I think you addressed a really important point. :cool: Apple doesn't own any patent rights to the Power, PowerPC, or other hardware architecture or technological derivative implementation. What it does have co-ownership of is the floating point and integer SIMD instruction set technology, aka AltiVec(tm moto), VMX(tm IBM), and Velocity Engine(tm Apple). Anything that uses AltiVec is subject to licensing and the associated royalties... meaning, as long as RISC chips use AltiVec, Apple get a few $$. :cool:

gangst

Dec 18, 2005, 03:41 PM

If the G4 is a supercomputer, what does that make my G5? :eek: :confused: :cool:

A superduper computer :D

ZorPrime

Dec 18, 2005, 03:43 PM

I wonder if IBM is getting just a little worried, now that they don't have Apple.

I don't think IBM's worried, since they've been divorcing themselves from the consumer computer market for a while. Apple needed IBM more than IBM needed Apple. Also, Sony has deeper R&D pockets than Apple and Toshiba's all about semi-conductors. They're not going to have the supply-chain issues like with AIM. It's a win win for IBM. :cool:

just my 2¢

rolandf

Dec 18, 2005, 04:03 PM

I wonder if IBM is getting just a little worried, now that they don't have Apple.

2006 will bring certainly some changes, like the awareness of power consumption, transition to 65nm etc. Therefore IBM has also to deliver solutions in a timely manner, that address these issues.

However, it could be well the case that they are a little nervous to loose the big "infotainment market", which Intel is also trying to address. For IBM a lot depends on how the Playstation 3 will be received as a hub for the living room.

If Apple succeeds in delivering an Intel solutions that matches any of the
game consoles, but with cutting edge and innovative software, then this will be critical.

I think it is a pity that the Apple IMB collaboration ended, which the later may also realise.

justinshiding

Dec 18, 2005, 04:05 PM

Sure it's significant. It's all marketing. See, when Apple introduced the G4 with Velocity Engine™, I went gaga and purchased my first Mac, because I wanted a supercomputer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/435250.stm) on me desktops.

Me gots a supercomputer!! YAY! :D

Cell Broadband Engine sounds rather dumb. I'd prefer something like maybe Synergon Cells™? Sounds dumb initially too, but hey, most folks didn't like when AMD called their new K's Athlons.

Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

I actually kind of like the name cell. It's simple, and yet actually is relavent to the product. Athlon , pentium, celeron, they're pretty meaningless. Cell makes sense. Cells are composed of different smaller parts (I'm no biologist...but this seems right...[disclaimer: it's been 8 years since high school bio]) and the cell processor has it's main powerpc processor and then eight spe's (from what I remember they're basically vector processing units.)

It's classy sounding too.

AidenShaw

Dec 18, 2005, 04:15 PM

If the G4 is a supercomputer, what does that make my G5?
Lame Duck? (last of the PPC line....)

MacQuest

Dec 18, 2005, 04:21 PM

If the G4 is a supercomputer, what does that make my G5? :eek: :confused: :cool:

SuperDuperComputer.

CRAP! I just noticed that "gangst" posted this same response.

dernhelm

Dec 18, 2005, 04:26 PM

They probably will change to "Intel"

You see... the last WWDC was a hoax! :D

No - this past year was all a dream. :D

steve_hill4

Dec 18, 2005, 04:35 PM

It's also made by Sony, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., and Toshiba.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press_Archive/200411/04-1129E/
I think the reference to IBM only was merely referring to "out of the PPC partnership", so to call a PPC after a processor only one of the companies has anything to do with would be a little odd, to say the least.

2nyRiggz

Dec 18, 2005, 04:40 PM

well im hoping that PPC(or whatever they want to call it) stays in there and make a killing....besides after apple dukes intel who will they run to next:)

Bless

SiliconAddict

Dec 18, 2005, 04:44 PM

I wonder if IBM is getting just a little worried, now that they don't have Apple.

HAHAHA! http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/rotfl.gif *wipes away a tear* Thanks.

BRLawyer

Dec 18, 2005, 04:58 PM

Fact is, the PPC as we know is dead and deeply buried...the Quad Core is Apple's last stand with it, since IBM abandoned the ordinary microprocessor market in benefit of embedded markets and consoles.

Cell is crap for normal computing, and IBM screwed up big time with the G5...now even MS is feeling the heat with bad yields for the X360...really funny times.

And yeah, I couldn't care less about Freescale and its ghost chips...it's amazing how people still believe the 8641D will be presented in some of Apple's portables...Freescale is dead meat; go figure.

steve_hill4

Dec 18, 2005, 05:14 PM

And yeah, I couldn't care less about Freescale and its ghost chips...it's amazing how people still believe the 8641D will be presented in some of Apple's portables...Freescale is dead meat; go figure.
Yeah, I can't see Apple deciding to use any updated PPC chips in their portables before Intels find their way in them. It wouldn't make a great deal of sense, apart from to perhaps lengthen the lifetime of the current iBook, while they wait for single core Yonahs. That seems as likely as me getting a PPC embedded into my arse crack though.

SiliconAddict

Dec 18, 2005, 05:29 PM

They can call it Happy Fun Time Processor for all I care. Its borderline irrelevant for Apple at this point.

Randall

Dec 18, 2005, 05:51 PM

I wonder if IBM is getting just a little worried, now that they don't have Apple.HAHAHAHAHAHA http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/rotfl.gif Oh man thanks dude. I haven't laughed like that in a long time. That was hilarious. http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/rotfl.gif

Randall

Dec 18, 2005, 05:54 PM

now even MS is feeling the heat with bad yields for the X360...really funny times.Really? This is news to me. What exactly about the PPC in the Xbox 360 is considered bad yield? IBM made a choice to focus on gaming consoles, and can you blame them? They make way more money with Xbox and Playstation then they ever dreamed with Apple.

GregA

Dec 18, 2005, 05:59 PM

Yeah, I can't see Apple deciding to use any updated PPC chips in their portables before Intels find their way in them. It wouldn't make a great deal of sense, apart from to perhaps lengthen the lifetime of the current iBook, while they wait for single core Yonahs. That seems as likely as me getting a PPC embedded into my arse crack though.I'm one of the people who suggested that possibility (8641D... not a PPC embedded in your arse crack!).

I actually think it's incredibly unlikely. My wonderings were because many, many people have predicted that the iBook will come before the Powerbook - but this would leave the powerbook significantly underpowered (relatively). Many others have said the Yonah is far more expensive than a PPC - so I wondered if this meant there was any life left for PPC in an Apple product.

As I said - I think it's incredibly unlikely. When Steve said "we still have a lot of great PowerPC products coming out over the next years"... I figured that was just a spiel (except for the PowerMac).

Randall

Dec 18, 2005, 06:05 PM

I'm one of the people who suggested that possibility (8641D... not a PPC embedded in your arse crack!).

I actually think it's incredibly unlikely. My wonderings were because many, many people have predicted that the iBook will come before the Powerbook - but this would leave the powerbook significantly underpowered (relatively). Many others have said the Yonah is far more expensive than a PPC - so I wondered if this meant there was any life left for PPC in an Apple product.

As I said - I think it's incredibly unlikely. When Steve said "we still have a lot of great PowerPC products coming out over the next years"... I figured that was just a spiel (except for the PowerMac).Powerbook comes first. You can mark that down. I personally guarantee it. The dual core 2 GHz Pentium M "Yonah" is going to be for top of the line laptops only. Meet the Powerbook M1!!

MCroft

Dec 18, 2005, 06:08 PM

What I've been wondering about the XBox 360 3 core, 3.2 GHz chip is if it would be possible to gank it out of an XBox and use it as a processor upgrade for a PowerMac?

I've no idea if it's cost effective, pin-compatible, has capacity, but even if it's G3 class, putting two of them in place of the dual 450 G4s in my old desktop would make a pretty sweet system, and wouldn't be too expensive. Plus, it's something to do with all the no-HD Xbox 360s.

Stonecoldcleric

Dec 18, 2005, 06:40 PM

Who cares about this story except you processor gurus? this article could have more exciting if it somehow involved a one-legged gerbil. Fact is, there is no news right now because there's big news coming!

illegalprelude

Dec 18, 2005, 06:58 PM

No, they're not. The Cell is:
1) Extremely specific in the type of tasks it is good at. It sucks for normal computing, terribly, especially running an operating system.
2) Made by IBM only. There's no way Freescale would call it the Cell Broadband Engine.

im glad you know alot about the Cell, minus the alot of course.

GregA

Dec 18, 2005, 07:11 PM

Powerbook comes first. You can mark that down. I personally guarantee it. The dual core 2 GHz Pentium M "Yonah" is going to be for top of the line laptops only. Meet the Powerbook M1!!Powerbook M1?

Actually I have heard the Powerbook-Yonah stuff too, from a non-online source :)

bodeh6

Dec 18, 2005, 07:16 PM

POWER6

Under wraps for the most part; but IBM is taking the next step in the POWER line's evolution by involving customers more in setting the requirements for the design of the POWER5+ and higher iterations. The POWER6 is said to be code-named Eclipz, is expected to be based on the 65-nanometer process, and is expected by many to debut in the 2006-2007 timeframe

I guess with the Intel switch we won't ever see that Quad Dual Core (8 cores total) PowerMac G6 with 32GB of RAM with dual 512MB ATI video cards that I wanted so bad to drive 4 - 30" ACDs.
http://home.comcast.net/~craig.presley/homer_drool.gif

Loke

Dec 18, 2005, 08:07 PM

im glad you know alot about the Cell, minus the alot of course.

Yes, its always interesting to read about expert opinions on a chip which hasnt been introduced in the market yet. Makes you all warm and fuzzy inside...

Maxx Power

Dec 18, 2005, 08:16 PM

No, they're not. The Cell is:
1) Extremely specific in the type of tasks it is good at. It sucks for normal computing, terribly, especially running an operating system.

Yeah, reminds me of the G4 and the so called velocity engine.
Good for DSP work and in Cisco's network switches, but terrible at general computing unless optimized the hell out of it.

illegalprelude

Dec 18, 2005, 08:23 PM

Yes, its always interesting to read about expert opinions on a chip which hasnt been introduced in the market yet. Makes you all warm and fuzzy inside...

I know. for example, I can tell you that the new intel chips coming out, are gonna be sweet for everyday functions but using Final Cut on it, when digitizing HD images just dosent run as good, not sure why. Damn you new intel chip sets :rolleyes:

Randall

Dec 18, 2005, 09:02 PM

Powerbook M1?

Actually I have heard the Powerbook-Yonah stuff too, from a non-online source :)Well THey can't call it a G5 (unless it's referred to as Generation) but that will still be confusing. I think Powerbook M1 (for Intel Pentium M) or maybe Powerbook I1 (for Intel) I dunno.

devman

Dec 18, 2005, 09:59 PM

I've got some suggestions:

SD Processor (SD = "slow development")
Nevermake3 (GHz)
The G6!
Not-Intels

WRAT (we raped apple twice)

JoeG4

Dec 18, 2005, 10:10 PM

Motorola's "still doesn't burn a hole in your lap" line, and IBM's "Doesn't dim the lights in your house when you turn it on" line.

I can't believe the hypocrisy flying around. Either you guys are raging hypocrites, or the PPC fans all dropped hanging out on rumor sites and a bunch of new idiots who are going to whine when the machines that come out cost more than similarly equipped Dell crapboxes.

Yes, I said Dell crapbox. Those things are the computer equivalent of a daewoo.

Of course I'm sure my post will be written off as a troll, after all, I mustn't be a Mac fan if I hate Intel processors to this day. No, I didn't eat marketing BS, but I still don't, maybe that's where we differ.

Maxx Power

Dec 18, 2005, 10:40 PM

EricNau

Dec 19, 2005, 01:10 AM

I wonder if IBM is getting just a little worried, now that they don't have Apple.

HAHAHA! http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/rotfl.gif *wipes away a tear* Thanks.
HAHAHAHAHAHA http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/rotfl.gif Oh man thanks dude. I haven't laughed like that in a long time. That was hilarious. http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/rotfl.gif
Well, I'm starting to feel a little stupid... :o
...but really, Apple was giving a lot of money to IBM, and now not only are they losing that, but it's going straight into Intel's pocket.
And some of the comments that have come from IBM after the Intel-Apple announcement have made it seem that they might be a little worried. Kinda like they are trying to cover up the fact that they are ****ing their pants.
I know that overall Apple was a small percent of IBM's income, but who knows, it could have a snowball effect.
I don't know. (but I know this isn't a good thing for IBM, and they aren't happy about it.)

devman

Dec 19, 2005, 01:30 AM

Well, I'm starting to feel a little stupid... :o

no need to. What you said wasn't THAT silly. You're being picked on - just a little bit.

...but really, Apple was giving a lot of money to IBM, and now not only are they losing that, but it's going straight into Intel's pocket.

correct. (of course, there's a lot more involved here - such as the east fishkill plant was losing money).

I don't know. (but I know this isn't a good thing for IBM, and they aren't happy about it.)

they most certainly were not happy about the way it played out.

Bastich

Dec 19, 2005, 02:47 AM

That's easy... they're going to be called the Macintosh G86.

B)

BRLawyer

Dec 19, 2005, 03:41 AM

Really? This is news to me. What exactly about the PPC in the Xbox 360 is considered bad yield? IBM made a choice to focus on gaming consoles, and can you blame them? They make way more money with Xbox and Playstation then they ever dreamed with Apple.

Well, Steve Monkey Ballmer said it himself...MS wasn't able to meet demand because of some limited yields by IBM...we've heard this story before...check the news around.

(edited to add "monkey")

inkswamp

Dec 19, 2005, 04:08 AM

I think you addressed a really important point. :cool: Apple doesn't own any patent rights to the Power, PowerPC, or other hardware architecture or technological derivative implementation. What it does have co-ownership of is the floating point and integer SIMD instruction set technology, aka AltiVec(tm moto), VMX(tm IBM), and Velocity Engine(tm Apple). Anything that uses AltiVec is subject to licensing and the associated royalties... meaning, as long as RISC chips use AltiVec, Apple get a few $$. :cool:

So, assuming what I first speculated on is accurate, that Apple still owns a stake in that part of the PPC, then what are the chances then that the XBox, which uses PPC chips, actually uses Altivec/VMX/Velocity Engine? And if it does, then does that mean Apple is actually making a few pennies in licensing fees off each XBox that MS sells?

MCroft

Dec 19, 2005, 07:20 AM

Well, Steve Monkey Ballmer said it himself...MS wasn't able to meet demand because of some limited yields by IBM...we've heard this story before...check the news around.

Yep, that sounds much better than saying that the company made fewer than they knew they needed because they thought it would help long-term sales if they created an environment of artificial scarcity. It's probably true that they didn't get all the chips they ordered, but it's not necessarily why they didn't meet demand.

ZorPrime

Dec 19, 2005, 07:41 AM

So, assuming what I first speculated on is accurate, that Apple still owns a stake in that part of the PPC, then what are the chances then that the XBox, which uses PPC chips, actually uses Altivec/VMX/Velocity Engine? And if it does, then does that mean Apple is actually making a few pennies in licensing fees off each XBox that MS sells?

I was thinking the same thing, so I checked out the tech specs and according to Wikipedia and some other sources the 360 has three VMX SIMD units, one per core. I'm pretty certain Apple's making some money off the box, as to how much... I have no idea but Apple's going to be making money off of all of the new consoles. :cool: :D

ZorPrime

Dec 19, 2005, 07:54 AM

Yep, that sounds much better than saying that the company made fewer than they knew they needed because they thought it would help long-term sales if they created an environment of artificial scarcity. It's probably true that they didn't get all the chips they ordered, but it's not necessarily why they didn't meet demand.

I think you put the point perfectly. Rush to market and give the appearance of a shortage to cover up the low demand. By doing a Global launch, they automatically created an artificial supply shortage, here in the States. There are tens of thousands of xbox 360s sitting in Japan, that aren't being sold. People are actually cancelling their xbox pre-orders in Japan. Seems to me, knowing the historically poor reception of their box, gates wouldn't have wasted so much of their limited supply of PPC chips on a weak demand market....

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/fun.games/12/13/japan.xbox360.ap/index.html

Randall

Dec 19, 2005, 09:40 AM

Well, I'm starting to feel a little stupid... :o
...but really, Apple was giving a lot of money to IBM, and now not only are they losing that, but it's going straight into Intel's pocket.
And some of the comments that have come from IBM after the Intel-Apple announcement have made it seem that they might be a little worried. Kinda like they are trying to cover up the fact that they are ****ing their pants.
I know that overall Apple was a small percent of IBM's income, but who knows, it could have a snowball effect.
I don't know. (but I know this isn't a good thing for IBM, and they aren't happy about it.)Honestly I didn't mean to make you feel silly, but I was cracking up when I read that. IBM chose to go the course of gaming console processors, because it's proving far more lucrative for them then the Apple PowerPC sales were. Apple didn't give IBM the R&D money that they required for to make G5 happen in laptops. There is no question that IBM lost money because of Apple switching to x86, but the amount of money lost is insignificant compared to the amount of money IBM gained with PPC focusing on gaming. Sorry to give you the bad news. But on the plus side, Intel x86 is going to be fantastic for Apple. They have a great roadmap, which includes 64-bit multiple core processors by the end of 2006. Exciting times are ahead. :)

Loke

Dec 19, 2005, 09:58 AM

http://news.com.com/Is+the+PowerPC+due+for+a+second+wind/2008-1006_3-5983157.html?tag=st.prev

Because there is no innovation left on the PC?
Mayer: It's not that the PC is dead. It's a huge business.

We are most probably going to revitalize our PowerPC. I don't know if it's going to be called PowerPC. A lot of people have questions on the PowerPC architecture and what's going on. I think IBM and us need to make a very strong statement that, "Hey, a lot of applications are using that architecture, it's alive, it's there to last, don't get confused because there are many more PowerPC chips than IBM's Power architecture chips sold in the world."

Because people have that personal link to that PC, they tend to equate processing with PCs, and they don't realize that there are increasingly tens, if not hundreds, of processors that you use every day, and those things are quickly becoming much more powerful.

You're going to be shocked I'm sure, but the PowerPC drives the engine control, the power train application in some automobiles. And by next year, 50 percent of car (models) in the world will have PowerPCs.

That's a lot of processing power for fuel injection in a car. Does it really need a microprocessor like a PowerPC?
Mayer: Yes.

Why?
Mayer: Because you have hundreds of thousands of lines of code running on some car systems already. People don't realize how complex cars have become.

Name a car.
Mayer: The BMW 7 Series v6...it sits on the side of the six cylinders. Today, it is a 16-bit PowerPC chip.

And next year it'll be a 32-bit?
Mayer: 32-bit.

So right now, if I tore apart a BMW and took out all the silicon, how many Freescale chips would I find?
Mayer: 52 Freescale chips in both the 7 Series and the 5 series.

And they control…?
Mayer: Air bag deployment, moving the seats, the power train, Telematics, OnStar, entertainment systems, the transmission...

So instead of sitting in front of your PC, you're actually driving your PC?
Mayer: Right.

BRLawyer

Dec 19, 2005, 10:13 AM

I think you put the point perfectly. Rush to market and give the appearance of a shortage to cover up the low demand. By doing a Global launch, they automatically created an artificial supply shortage, here in the States. There are tens of thousands of xbox 360s sitting in Japan, that aren't being sold. People are actually cancelling their xbox pre-orders in Japan. Seems to me, knowing the historically poor reception of their box, gates wouldn't have wasted so much of their limited supply of PPC chips on a weak demand market....

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/fun.games/12/13/japan.xbox360.ap/index.html

Yep, it's a flop in Japan, especially if compared to the original XBox launch and smaller consoles...only US MS fanboys are buying that piece of junk...I couldn't care less.

devman

Dec 19, 2005, 10:26 AM

Apple didn't give IBM the R&D money that they required for to make G5 happen in laptops.

That's a brilliant piece of IBM spin.

BRLawyer

Dec 19, 2005, 11:55 AM

That's a brilliant piece of IBM spin.

Exactly...anyways, the PPC is through. Feel free to check it in flawed XBox consoles around the globe...I don't like Intel, but we didn't really have a choice...screw IBM.

Randall

Dec 19, 2005, 12:34 PM

That's a brilliant piece of IBM spin.Sometimes the truth hurts. Welcome to x86 :p

devman

Dec 19, 2005, 10:36 PM

Sometimes the truth hurts. Welcome to x86 :p

Where did I say it wasn't true? I said it was a brilliant piece of spin.

Thanks for the welcome. I hope to enjoy the stay :p

dmw007

Dec 19, 2005, 11:03 PM

That's easy... they're going to be called the Macintosh G86.

B)

Wow, that would make the next generation of Macs seem like such a big improvement (G5 -> G86). ;) :)

Uragon

Dec 20, 2005, 02:00 AM

WRAT (we raped apple twice)

I agree....

Scottgfx

Dec 20, 2005, 02:41 AM

I was thinking the same thing, so I checked out the tech specs and according to Wikipedia and some other sources the 360 has three VMX SIMD units, one per core. I'm pretty certain Apple's making some money off the box...

It would explain why Microsoft was using Mac G5's as the development platform.

Tilmitt

Dec 21, 2005, 06:04 PM

Scottgfx

Dec 21, 2005, 08:45 PM

Rock on PowerPC!!!! Everyone, the margins of this post cannot contain the hate I have for your hypocrisy and heartless summision to the wrongs of the world. You are all as ugly as x86. It's fitting that you take after your new master.

Where were you when Apple moved from Moto 68040's? Those were deamed to be much more elegant than Intels offerings at the time. Yes we lose some things in the move to x86, but we gain alot more in other areas. Areas that are going to become more important to the future of personal computing. Get over it.