Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
was the a G5 powerbook ever possible ?
- Thread starter Macmadant
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
the chip was too plain hot; and in the long term the move to intel is a good one
we can bitch and moan about not having a G5 PB in this thread, but it won't make Apple release one
Apple is about one thing, the software, so don't worry about weather you have an IBM, Intel, or whatever inside, it's about the OS.
we can bitch and moan about not having a G5 PB in this thread, but it won't make Apple release one
Apple is about one thing, the software, so don't worry about weather you have an IBM, Intel, or whatever inside, it's about the OS.
It wouldn't have come from IBM, but from PA Semiconductor. IBM either couldn't or weren't interested in making a low-power G5 variant, but PA Semi developed a prototype as part of the Power Alliance. As far as I know though, if Apple had gone with this route, we'd still be waiting into 2007 for anything to actually ship.
Imagine this coming September if all your PC friends had Core Duo based laptops and your choice was a brand-new 1.8GHz PowerBook G4 costing the same. You'd probably end up going PC, even if you put Linux on it. Apple had to go x86.
Imagine this coming September if all your PC friends had Core Duo based laptops and your choice was a brand-new 1.8GHz PowerBook G4 costing the same. You'd probably end up going PC, even if you put Linux on it. Apple had to go x86.
I think the question you should ask is "was Apple prepared to invest enough dough into the PPC architecture to get a G5 into a PowerBook?".
As I understand it, IBM was not willing to fund the development and hoped Apple would help. Apple (cunningly
) discovered intel had some sweet processors down the line, that it wouldn't have to invest into their development, and that OS X already ran on them.
So in short, yes but no.
Yes, it was technically possible;
No, it would have cost too much.
I think blaming it all on IBM was an easy cop out for Apple. IIRC Apple invested tons of cash into developing the earlier PowerPC chips when these were miles ahead of anything intel could make. Now that intel apparently spanks PowerPC's backside, what's the point in investing in them?
Just my 2¢.
As I understand it, IBM was not willing to fund the development and hoped Apple would help. Apple (cunningly
) discovered intel had some sweet processors down the line, that it wouldn't have to invest into their development, and that OS X already ran on them.So in short, yes but no.
Yes, it was technically possible;
No, it would have cost too much.
I think blaming it all on IBM was an easy cop out for Apple. IIRC Apple invested tons of cash into developing the earlier PowerPC chips when these were miles ahead of anything intel could make. Now that intel apparently spanks PowerPC's backside, what's the point in investing in them?
Just my 2¢.
whocares said:
Apple put forth that cash because they were lead (deceivingly) to believe that PPC development would continue to advance, along whatever path they needed & required, well into the next 2-3 decades.
When they discovered that IBM was not willing to proceed in that manner, they did what any sound business/company would do.......they dropped them like a hot potatoe!
Not because they necessarily wanted to, but because they needed a long-term plan for sucess, and they already had the X86/Intel option planned & available to them, and just waited to see what IBM would do.......
IBM had been planning to get out of the consumer PC/chip biz for years, and forcing Apple to find another chip supplier was just one of many calculated steps in that plan......
IBM did announce low power variants of the 970FX at speeds upto 1.6GHz while drawing around 16W, but it was after Apple had announced they were moving to Intel. At those speeds, the G5 in a single processor configuration is not any faster than a G4 anyways.
Yes, it was possible, but not up to Apple standards. There are/were Windows laptops that run off P4 chips. The G5 is hot and consumes a lot of power, but I am fairly certain the P4 is even worse. What do you get? A brick-like, thick, 10 lb laptop that runs for 30 minutes on a charge. And shockingly Apple chose not to do that.
IBM getting out?
According to a previous poster, IBM had been planning on getting out of the PC Chip business, but they just finished building a multi-billion dollar factory and recruited all the console companies business. That doesnt seem like a company trying to chop off one of its divisions to me...
According to a previous poster, IBM had been planning on getting out of the PC Chip business, but they just finished building a multi-billion dollar factory and recruited all the console companies business. That doesnt seem like a company trying to chop off one of its divisions to me...
The G6 would likely have been possible as a portable, it included a bunch of tricks to reduce power -- along with a key process advancement.
Alas the chip was canned when the G5 proved to be a flop in the marketplace -- the G4 was just too hard for IBM to beat -- and Apple didn't want to pony up $100 million for the CPU, easier to switch.
Basically trying to replace a lawnmower engine with a jet turbine -- simply a radical shift in complexity for these small shops, and too expensive for them to "hire" IBM "consultants" to help them develop prototypes. Basically killed the switch to IBM for a lot of G4 manufacturers.
Alas the chip was canned when the G5 proved to be a flop in the marketplace -- the G4 was just too hard for IBM to beat -- and Apple didn't want to pony up $100 million for the CPU, easier to switch.
Basically trying to replace a lawnmower engine with a jet turbine -- simply a radical shift in complexity for these small shops, and too expensive for them to "hire" IBM "consultants" to help them develop prototypes. Basically killed the switch to IBM for a lot of G4 manufacturers.
ericsthename said:
the factory is for research, stuff you and i won't see in pc's for atleast a decade
and if you think that there are as many consoles as there are PC's you're wrong
apple wanted to switch because they got a platform out of it. intel makes chipsets, processors, networking gear, and soon to be graphics cards when they use their lisencing agreements to bring back PowerVR GPU's.
they were also planning for the long term, the processors coming down the pipeline in the next 5 years will look nothing like the ones out today. who better to be on top of that segment then intel.
ericsthename said:
PC chips v console chips are very different business models.
A console has a chip designed for it which will be the 'current' console for 3-5 years if not longer. Yes, it takes time and R&D cash to develop it but then you just manufacture shedloads of them over the next few years in your billion dollar factory. Low cost per chip. You have a couple of years leeway before your customers want a new faster chip.
PC chips are different. There's a demand for faster and faster chips more or less continuously with an expectation that Moore's law will continue to hold true. So you spend a lot more on R&D and push out lower number of chips. High cost per chip.
LoveMacMini said:instead they sell intel easy bake ovens that loop the old McDonald soundtrack
LOL, thankfully, I would not be able to hear the bitching about the quality of the laptop because the fans would be so loud that they would drown it out!
It wasn't about the G4 being a better chip -- it was a less expensive chip to work with and consuming less power than the G5.Macmadant said:
For routers, the G4 worked and the G5 was silly complex and too expensive to bother with.
Basically the G4 kicked the G5s butt where it mattered, marketshare.
Didnt apple also get cut at IBM for making chips that weren't fast enough? I heard that IBM never reached even 2.5GHz; they were all overclocked eg the 2.7GHz G5 was overclocked from 2.4 or something.
Also the lack of portable would have not been very impressive.
8 months ago, if someone said i would be typing on MacRumors forums on an Intel-based iBook, i would have looked at them with a very strange look on my face. Now, i have one of the fastest laptops in the world sitting in front of me, and it only set me back 1600. Last year, a dual-core laptop was not heard of, and dual core desktops were pretty expensive.
It has been a big transition for Apple, and one which is going to take a while to settle in. I reckon its going good so far, and im glad they switched.
Also the lack of portable would have not been very impressive.
8 months ago, if someone said i would be typing on MacRumors forums on an Intel-based iBook, i would have looked at them with a very strange look on my face. Now, i have one of the fastest laptops in the world sitting in front of me, and it only set me back 1600. Last year, a dual-core laptop was not heard of, and dual core desktops were pretty expensive.
It has been a big transition for Apple, and one which is going to take a while to settle in. I reckon its going good so far, and im glad they switched.
I think this about sums it up the Risc architecutre was good and worked very well in the G chips and could have destroyed most pentium chips, then the core came along and well now look what people have to say about its performance, I mean this chip compares well to a G5-a desktop chip!!!!- that is pretty damn impressive. Give intel their credit where its due and say (possibly goodbye to AMD) in the consumer desktop realm, (other then the nuts at dell) who still need 1,000,000 chips from them, in 5 years AMD will be strictly a graphics processor company, once intel shows those 45nm chips what is amd going to do.
LoveMacMini said:
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not speculating on these matters so much as the fact that I don't think that IBM is getting out of the chip business any time soon.