15 inch Aluminum PowerBook Soon [Archive]

Snowy_River

Apr 3, 2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by jamilecrire
The 970 will not be in the 15". That is the dumbest rumor yet. How would it be in a laptop before a tower? The tower is significanly easier to build and integrate.

I wouldn't say that it'd be in a PB before a PM. If Apple follows its history, then they will likely be released at the same time. On another thread, someone suggested that the 15"PB could be introduced with a 1.2G 970, with the low-end PM getting a 1.4G 970, both shipping immediately. While also announcing 1.6G and 1.8G 970 based PMs for the Faster and Fastest models, these shipping some weeks later.

I think that this is a very reasonable concept, and it goes along with Apple's history. If they have a new chip that can be released in a PB, then they release it in the PB and the PM at the same time. They didn't do that with the G4 because it's never been well suited to being a mobile chip. But the 970, like the G3, is.

Stelliform

Apr 3, 2003, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
YES.... model the Powerbook after a dell... cause that's a good idea.

I have to agree with Navy, have any of you guys actually worked on a Dell 15"? The text is so microscopic that you need a magnifying glass. And if you reduce the resolution so that it is easier to see, the text gets fuzzy. (So bad that even PC people complain about it. :))

Dell just releases screens with those numbers to sell laptops. In the long run they are hurting sales. I have had more clients swear off Dell this year than I have had in the last 2 years....

:D

chazmox

Apr 3, 2003, 01:45 PM

Arn, why did this qualify as a "Page 1" rumor??? Is there more credence to this rumor than to other recent 15 inch PB rumors?

Also, I do doubt that the PB will be released with a 970 soon. MacWhispers' rumor does not meet the common sense test. They say that production has started. That means that shipping should begin inside 3 months; however, Panther will not released until September. Will the 970 need to have Panther or can it run Jaquar??? It's my belief that the 64 bit uP will need a 64 bit OS but I could be wrong. If Panther is needed and will not be released until Sept, then why would 970 models be in production now?

I do not see a problem with PB and PM being released with the 970 at the same time; the 970 low power consumption is perfect for a portable and would be a great answer to Pentium M marketing. Also, Apple does not need to worry about killing the sales of other PB's. That is what a technology company is suposed to do - obselete itself before the competition can...

If the PB 15 inch is released soon then MacWhispers may become the "anti" rumor site. If they say its coming soon then it will be late - if they say that its late then its right around the corner...

;)

Phrogz

Apr 3, 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Stelliform
[B]I have to agree with Navy, have any of you guys actually worked on a Dell 15"? The text is so microscopic that you need a magnifying glass. And if you reduce the resolution so that it is easier to see, the text gets fuzzy. (So bad that even PC people complain about it. :))
I love non-Apple bashing as much as the next Mac user, but the above simply isn't true. I have a 15" Dell Latitude C840 running at 1600x1200, and I love its screen.

Running any LCD at anything other than its native resolution (forcing pixel scaling) is never a good idea. Try it with your Apple Laptop and you'll see just as disgusting results. At native reslution the dell screen is crisp and glorious (especially with ClearType turned on).

To complain that the text is too small because the screen is high-resolution is like complaining that your printed-out-paper is hard to read because the printer is too high a resolution. A modern OS like OS X and XP allows the user to increase the font size across the board, resulting in smooth text that's easier to read than on a lower-resolution screen.

I like my 17" AlBook's screen a lot (particularly for the viewing angle and brightness) but it's low resolution is disappointing.

-hh

Apr 3, 2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by cubist
Ramping up production now; getting ready to go to Aluminum in a month.

IOW, they are producing a lot of the current TiBooks now; in another month they expect to change over to AlBooks.

FWIW, that's not how I interpret the statement: it is not logical to ramp up production of a product that you're discontinuing. Consequently, I interpret the statement to read (adding some more words to clarify it):

"Production of the 15" TiBook has ceased, and they're ramping up production now of its replacement, the 15" AlBook, and they are getting ready to publically announce the change-over to Aluminum in a month."

In any event, this does seem to be early for the 970 to be implimented into a 15" PB, given what we think we know about the 970 motherboard production, namely that the April 15th bidder deadline, which infers a September product release, which we assume will be fore PowerMacs.

But I wouldn't quite write off the possibility still quite yet.

First, there is uncertainty with all of these rumorous tidbits. For example, we are assuming that the estimated September product roll-out is for the PowerMacs - - but what are the implications if we got that wrong?

For example, what if there were board venders who were tight-lipped, as Steve can only like, and the motherboards that we've heard about are for the 970 implimentation of the iMacs, and word on the Powerbook and PowerMac hasn't leaked?

Well, since the iMac probably isn't going to be the first 970 product released, so if its in September, the schedule for the Powerbook & PowerMac would have to be pushed forward in time, and this would make a late June announcement of the 970 quite possible.

We'll see when we'll see.

-hh

aasmund

Apr 3, 2003, 01:52 PM

I think it will use a 970. Apple probably makes more money off of portables anyway.

Death2PCs

Apr 3, 2003, 01:56 PM

A PPC970 processor is HUGE. I don't think that Apple will put one out anytime before MWSF 04. Look at the history of MWSF:

2003: PowerBooks
2002: iMacs
2001: PowerMacs, PowerBooks, and iApps
2000: OS X, and iApps

I think based off of this pattern we will most likely see the new processors at MacWorld (if thats what they will even call it).

I don't think that Apple will put a PPC970 in the 15in AlBook. The have to update it to be "on par" with the 12in and 17in AlBooks, then do atleast one more revision of the three before you see PPC970's in them. I figure it this way (dates are approx.):

15in update: 4/03
12, 15, 17 update: 9/03 (long overdue, but held off due to the 15in)
12, 15, 17 update: 02/04 (this is probably where the PPC970's will come in, after MacWorld, and just after the PowerMacs see the PPC970)

It's too soon to see PPC970's. All the pieces of the "puzzle" are not in FULL production, and probably will not be for a couple more months. And Apple knows (see the 17in AlBook) that you can release a product before it ships, but not 3 months before.

The prediction of the PPC970 this soon (in Mac's) is unrealistic.

Thats my 2¢ worth.

GeneR

Apr 3, 2003, 01:59 PM

There's just something very sleek about the idea of having a black keyboard to make the actual letters and numbers stand out and look way cool.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that they now have light-up characters for the new Al but it they could at least make the keyboard a different color than the rest of the Al body, I'd be a lot more interested in the new 17" PB.

Otherwise it looks a bit bland. And really not terribly striking to look at. (IMHO).

:D

pyrotoaster

Apr 3, 2003, 02:05 PM

We're all assuming that Apple will announce the 970 at the WWDC. There's no concrete evidence to suggest that (in all fairness, there are many signs that point to such a release). All I'm saying is what if the 970 comes sooner?

esome

Apr 3, 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by szark
The numbers show that the 1.2 GHz 970 runs much cooler than the current 1 GHz G4 in the PowerBooks, so people think it will be used immediately.

Where are these numbers? I'd like to check them out. Can you post a link? Thanks!

G4scott

Apr 3, 2003, 02:35 PM

I was thinking to go with the 12" PowerBook right now, or wait for a 15" Aluminum. I went for the 12" because I knew that it would still be more portable, and I don't need all of the super new power user stuff.

The thing I would wish, is that they did put higher resolution screens in the bigger screened PowerBooks. Either with the same pixel density as the 12" PB (106 pixels per inch, I think) or the HD display (not sure how many PPI there are). I don't mind the smaller pixels, and I'm sure that many pro users would appreciate a sightly higher resolution (not microscopic pixel resolution.)

idkew

Apr 3, 2003, 02:35 PM

it WILL NOT be a 970.

Period.

Sorry to the dreamers, but it won't.

idkew

Apr 3, 2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by GeneR
There's just something very sleek about the idea of having a black keyboard to make the actual letters and numbers stand out and look way cool.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that they now have light-up characters for the new Al but it they could at least make the keyboard a different color than the rest of the Al body, I'd be a lot more interested in the new 17" PB.

Otherwise it looks a bit bland. And really not terribly striking to look at. (IMHO).

:D

agreed. i do love the looks of my TiBook. Absolutely beautiful. I sometimes stop and think how lucky i am to have the best looking laptop made.

matznentosh

Apr 3, 2003, 03:00 PM

So far in this thread people have said that the 970 is

cooler
uses less battery power
is markedly faster than a G4 at the same clock speed
is too big for a laptop.

I've seen some of the proposed specs, but I for one am not sure what it means in real world terms. I'll bet you anything that the 970 is moderately faster, but not 4 times faster than the G4, as people have said on other threads. And the rest of the system will have a lot to do with speed. Don't forget the hard disk is only so fast, as is the system bus.

It apparently uses less voltage, but not miraculously less voltage; so it probably would not drain the battery as fast, or be as hot - - but how much? do you know? I don't.

Too big: specs I've seen show it to be only slightly bigger in square mm than the G4. So size may not be a factor. Maybe.

Everyone is throwing around opinions about the 970 chip when it hasn't been seen yet, at least not by anyone who doesn't have a non-disclosure agreement.

shakespeare

Apr 3, 2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Phrogz
A modern OS like OS X and XP allows the user to increase the font size across the board, resulting in smooth text that's easier to read than on a lower-resolution screen.

I agree with you about the need for a higher resolution than the 17-inch offers, but, unless I'm very much mistaken, there is no Apple-supported way to change the system text size in OS X.

truedat

Apr 3, 2003, 03:41 PM

Has Apple ever released a new revision that has had the same processor speed as the revision it replaces? If the new 15inch PB is coming out soon, will it be 867 and 1ghz or faster? If faster, how will they justify the 17incher?

digitalbiker

Apr 3, 2003, 03:44 PM

I can't believe that Apple would dare to release a 15 inch powerbook with a 970 in just a few weeks.

Given that many 17 inch powerbook customers have not even received their orders yet. I bet a large percent would be extremely angry! They put in orders for the lastest and greatest. Only to have a much greater product released and delivered before they even took receipt. Now that is a fast obscelence rate!

:)

NavyIntel007

Apr 3, 2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
We're all assuming that Apple will announce the 970 at the WWDC. There's no concrete evidence to suggest that (in all fairness, there are many signs that point to such a release). All I'm saying is what if the 970 comes sooner?

Dude, you're so right. We're so used to waiting until these trade shows to see new products when Apple clearly stated they want to move beyond all that.

Although I hate to do the comparisons, the PC companies really don't have a structured upgrade schedule. I'm sure this helps fend off the "I'm waiting for two more releases" types that frequent Apple's customer base. I think Apple's user base is increasing and may be over 5% for the first time in a while. I've seen more Apple laptops around campus than I saw three years ago and when ever any friends see mine they seem very interested in shopping for one.

Apple could tomorrow decide to upgrade the entire lineup if they wanted to regardless of who just bought their 17" powerbooks in February. They did the same things to those who bought powerbooks in November and then upgraded them to 1 Ghz a month later. It's where Apple is headed, why not start now?

eric_n_dfw

Apr 3, 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by matznentosh I'll bet you anything that the 970 is moderately faster, but not 4 times faster than the G4, as people have said on other threads. And the rest of the system will have a lot to do with speed. Don't forget the hard disk is only so fast, as is the system bus.Hehe - after reading that I had the horible thought of Apple putting out a 970 based machine with the current bus architecture! (Effectively crippling the 970)

NOOOOO!!!

bignumbers

Apr 3, 2003, 04:06 PM

Glad to hear the 15" will be back on par with the 12/17". Obviously it'll have airport extreme and FW800. Will it have a backlit keyboard? Bluetooth standard, or optional?

I also think the 970 is quite unlikely. Cool thought, but silly.

I vote for keeping the resolution the same. (It would be neat to have a BTO option for a higher-res screen though.)

szark

Apr 3, 2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by esome
Where are these numbers? I'd like to check them out. Can you post a link? Thanks!

Actually, I had been relying on information for the G4 as posted by other members. However I just researched this and my statement does not appear to be true from the information I can find.

According to this PDF (http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/PPCSALESFACT.pdf) (Page 5) on the Motorola site, and this PDF (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/A1387A29AC1C2AE087256C5200611780/$file/PPC970_MPF2002.pdf) (Page 14) on IBM's site, the 1 GHz G4 (7455) and the 1.2 GHz 970 seem to be very similar in power dissipation.

Of course, the 970's numbers are all theoretical anyway. ;)

pyrotoaster

Apr 3, 2003, 04:07 PM

I keep hearing: "How will Apple justify doing this?!" and "How will Apple justify doing that?!"

The answer is that Apple doesn't have to justify anything. In fact, there'll probably be a period of time later this year when Apple simply isn't justifying something. It's unavoidable.

Apple has a ton of stuff to roll out. New towers. New laptops. New tablets (and such). All with a new processor and OS version, just to make things more difficult. They can't release everything at once, so things are going to be a little odd for a while. Deal with it.

It makes sense for Powermac 970s and Powerbook 970s to be announced (possibly released) at the same time. It happened with the G3, and the 970 itself is both faster and less power consuming (on the lower clock speeds, that is) than the G4. I'm actually beginning to wonder if Apple will skip the G4 alltogether in the iBook and go straight to low-speed 970s.

Fender2112

Apr 3, 2003, 04:36 PM

I notice in my latest MacMall catalog that there are price drops on the 15" PowerBook, iBook, and eMac.

On another note in reference to delayed shipments... an Apple rep mentioned that many of the products are stuck in shipping containers on the west coast. Due to recent world events, secuity inspections are taking a lot longer to clear these containers.

Snowy_River

Apr 3, 2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by idkew
it WILL NOT be a 970.

Period.

Sorry to the dreamers, but it won't.

Tell me, idkew, do you have some inside information? Or are you just stating your opinion as a fact? So far as I'm aware, most (if not all) people who are commenting here are simply stating opinions. None of us has the true information on what it will or won't be, or when it will be, for that matter.

So, call me a dreamer, say I'm silly stupid for thinking that it might be possible, but, unless you'd care to share a reliable source for your information, please don't assert that it's impossible when you don't know any better than the rest of us...

[I am a dreamer, but sometimes dreams do come true... :D]

Death2PCs

Apr 3, 2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
I'm actually beginning to wonder if Apple will skip the G4 alltogether in the iBook and go straight to low-speed 970s.

Ha ha... you wish.

pyrotoaster

Apr 3, 2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Death2PCs
Ha ha... you wish.
I'll admit that I do wish Apple would do that, and while I'll also admit it's unlikely, it does make some sense. There hasn't been a major iBook revision is ages. It's getting to the point where it feels like Apple's putting off the release for some super secret reason.

That said, my iBook comment had little to do with the point I was trying to make. The only connection would be (here's something to satisfy you justification fans) that Apple would simultaneously put 970s in the Powermac, Powerbook, and iBook. Of course, that alienates the iMac, so why don't they put in there to? Now everything's justified! :rolleyes:

DrGonzo

Apr 3, 2003, 05:03 PM

I just wish Apple would release a date for the announcement of official specs for the 15" or something like that, whether or not they're going to sell them right away. I want one so bad.

blueflame

Apr 3, 2003, 05:21 PM

I know I am new here, but lok at intel, they have their new mobile technology, mabye apple is going to have 2 processors, their mobil platform, and their desktop platform, i cant imagine hat apple would mae the 15 inch the BIG ONE, it would truely piss off overyone that just bought the 17 inch becasue it was the latest and greatest. I really think that aple just may keep the G4 and 5 line for the notebooks, and have the 970 for desktops, all of apple is basically the same, they are not going to make a different product right in the mix of their new ones.
what do ya'll thsnk?
~blueflame

DHagan4755

Apr 3, 2003, 05:27 PM

This is a wild thought:

Could Apple have transitioned to aluminum because they needed a material that was better suited to dissipate heat for dual processors?

(Pinches self)
Ah, nevermind. :o

iSmell

Apr 3, 2003, 05:45 PM

There's no way the 15" powerbooks will have a 970 in them when the 17" ones still have G4s. Just no way.

If you want a G4 iBook, go buy one. It's called the 12" powerbook. Yes, it's overpriced, but it's there.

The only reason iBooks haven't gotten any faster is because powerbooks aren't fast enough for apple to make ibooks faster and still have a gap between consumer and pro lines. I'm sure they could get G3s up to 1GHz or more if they really wanted to, but it's not a priority.

I would guess that iBooks won't see a major revision until 970s get into powerbooks (announced in September at the way outside chance earliest). At that point, they'll probably get 1-1.25 GHz G4s, which will all of a sudden seem slow compared to the 970s.

The G4 is holding everything up, and it will continue to do so for a while longer. We're all getting excited because the 970 seems so close, but that doesn't mean it's going to spring up next week in powerbooks. Remember the G5? Any day now...

areyouwishing

Apr 3, 2003, 07:29 PM

Why would apple spend a bunch of money developing a new 15" mobo with Bluetooth and what not when the 970 is just down the corner?

From apples perspective, *most* people that want a 15" are either going to buy a 17, live with the current 15, or go to the 12 because of the portability and new features. They won't wait for new 15".

I think the delay of the 17 really screwed apple with their dev dollars, because instead of working on new 17" 970 designs, they had to spend a bunch of money fixing the g4 version, and delaying everything, so now they are going to have to shift some things around, and not work on certain projects, i.e. the 15" update.

(Devil's Advocate : You could look at it that they pushed the release of the 970 powerbook back, because of the problems with the 17" and they will come out with a 15" inch update because the 970 laptop won't be for a while)

I bet apple is putting all of its dev dollars into 970's for all form factors. Its also putting its dev dollars into G4's for the Ibooks.

The 12" Powerbook is to hold over the people that want an ibook but want the Bluetooth features, as well as all the other bells and whistles that the ibook doesn't have, the reason why they need to hold over the ibook people is because the next iteration of the ibook is going to be a G4, and its going to be a whole new form factor as well. I can't say it enough, with the release of a new chip coming soon, apple would never throw dollars at g3 designs.

I honestly think the next time apple updates its laptop line in any significant form it will be across the board, both ibooks, and powerbooks, and the 12" powerbook will be the starting point for the new G4 ibooks.

I wouldn't even be surprised if they hold off completely the rest of this year, and release 2.5ghz desktops, g4 i books, 1.42 g4 imacs, and 1.6 Powerbooks all in san fran in jan.

DHagan4755

Apr 3, 2003, 08:09 PM

As far as the 970 in the PowerBook is concerned, who would have thought in November when Apple bumped the Titaniums, that in January they would come out with a 12-inch and 17-inch ALUMINUM PowerBook? So as much as that was a surprise, the people who say the 970 in a PowerBook is not likely soon, may be just as surprised as the January announcements brought.

Trekkie

Apr 3, 2003, 08:46 PM

I just bought the 12" Powerbook :)

john123

Apr 3, 2003, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by bignumbers
Glad to hear the 15" will be back on par with the 12/17". Obviously it'll have airport extreme and FW800. Will it have a backlit keyboard? Bluetooth standard, or optional?

I also think the 970 is quite unlikely. Cool thought, but silly.

I vote for keeping the resolution the same. (It would be neat to have a BTO option for a higher-res screen though.)

"back on par"? I for one think the current TiBook is a superior machine to the 12" and the 17". You can keep Airport Extreme and FW800 (FW400 almost never saturates its bus, so the point of having FW800 at this point in the game is beyond me). A flashlight (or USB light) and a bluetooth dongle and we're nearly equivalent, features-wise.

The TiBook is the fastest notebook Apple has ever produced, simply because it's 1Ghz and can run in the much snappier OS 9.

Stelliform

Apr 3, 2003, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by Phrogz
I love non-Apple bashing as much as the next Mac user, but the above simply isn't true. I have a 15" Dell Latitude C840 running at 1600x1200, and I love its screen.

I guess my annoyance comes from customers getting mad at me because of the small fonts. And they invariably have some program that will not scale. I did have one client that adjusted the fonts and lived with the ones that wouldn't scale. Others just got an external monitor and used them as a desktop. (However most of these were Inspirons. I always recommend Latitudes, but sometimes my clients go against my recommendations because of the cheaper prices...

ewinemiller

Apr 3, 2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Stelliform
I have to agree with Navy, have any of you guys actually worked on a Dell 15"? The text is so microscopic that you need a magnifying glass. And if you reduce the resolution so that it is easier to see, the text gets fuzzy. (So bad that even PC people complain about it. :))

Dell just releases screens with those numbers to sell laptops. In the long run they are hurting sales. I have had more clients swear off Dell this year than I have had in the last 2 years....

:D

I'm not using the latest 1920x1200 dell, but I am using a 1600x1200 15" dell and I love it. As long as I turn on the Cleartype font smoothing it looks great and is very readable. I actually find that I'm more comfortable on my 15" lcd at 1600x1200 than I am on my 21" crt. I end up running my crt at 1280x960.

ddtlm

Apr 3, 2003, 09:16 PM

There sure is a lot of wild speculation going on here. People need to step back and look at things realistically. If it is released anytime soon, it is very likely that the 15" AluBook will be a G4 toping out not far above the current 1.0ghz because of the twin problems of heat and the 1.0ghz G4 in th 17" AluBook. In fact I think that the fact Apple launched the 17" machine with a 1.0ghz chip demonstrates that they did not see the 15" model getting anything faster than that for the entire lifespan of the current 17" model... probably 6 months. The 17" would have been able to cool a faster chip better than a 15", and a faster chip would not have been out of line given the high-end positioning. Yet Apple didn't take the chance to do this, and now they are in a situtation where any upgrade to the 15" model risks embarrasing the 17" model, or alternatively, risks embarrasing Apple as the 2nd laptop upgrade in a row not to make any meaningful performance headway. I think this means that Apple was not and is not planning a new 15" AluBook for several months still. As far as the other components of a 15" AluBook, the chipset, graphics, motherboard and most features would probably be very similar to the 17" AluBook because thats good for Apple's bottom line.

There will be no 970 because there is no reason to believe that it will be available any time within the next few months. Also, a 970 would either mean that the 17" AluBook is obsolete or that a new 17" AluBook would arrive at the same time, niether of which is likely given the very short lifespan of the 17" so far. Apple just can't afford to launch things, ship them months late, and then all the sudden cancel them for something radically faster, as a 970 laptop would be.

If a 15" AluBook shows up any time soon I expect very minimal actual progress.

nickgold

Apr 3, 2003, 09:34 PM

AllenPSU

Apr 3, 2003, 09:53 PM

I hope this includes a price drop.

herr_neumann

Apr 3, 2003, 10:35 PM

Forgive my bluntness as this is my first post.

Why does everyone assume that apple cares about pissing off the people that just bought a 17? Early adopters always pay a premium. They did not care about pissing me off when I bought my ibook 14" 700. A month later the released the 800 and droped the price. The 14 is now very much cheaper than when I bought mine.

Now who says they wont utilize the same motherboard on the 15 and 17. They can then kill the ibook having the 12 fill it's role. Or, work something out with ibm as part of the contract for buying 970s in huge numbers, to get really really cheap/fast G3s. This would make the ibook compete in the sub $900 market. They can then keep the pricing structure the same for the PB having the screen size be the difference between the 15 & 17. If they use the same motherboard this lowers prooduction cost on the units.

I am probably wrong, but, it does make more sense from a buisness prospective. Apple wants market share. How to do this? Lower cost, increase revenue, increase advertisements, increase Gov't/School usage and build a better server. A quad processor xserve with clusterablity will make it better for buisnesses, especially if it lowers matainence costs. With a mac smaller companies can have their servers without the techies, making the xserve an even better value thereby increasing market share.

Like I said dont mean to offend. On another note, i have been reading macrumors for ~2 months and am glad to have actually registered and posted..... hopefully my thoughts pan out.

ktlx

Apr 3, 2003, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Hehe - after reading that I had the horible thought of Apple putting out a 970 based machine with the current bus architecture! (Effectively crippling the 970)

How could they do that? The FSB on the G4 and 970 are so completely different, it would be impossible to share without developing a bridge chip. The only purpose of that chip would be to increase cost, increase power utilization, increase system complexity, decrease reliability and decrease performance.

It would be considerably cheaper to just create a new chipset even if IBM did not provide one.

Someone will need to develop a new chipset anyway because the PowerPC 970 is going to require either a dual channel DDR or RDRAM set up in order to feed it. A single channel DDR set up won't cut it with a 900Mhz bus and no L3 cache.

The Shadow

Apr 4, 2003, 01:17 AM

Welcome aboard. Like you, I've been a reader for ages, and decided recently I wanted to contribute. Don't worry about offending anyone by simply having a different opinion.

Originally posted by herr_neumann
Why does everyone assume that apple cares about pissing off the people that just bought a 17? Early adopters always pay a premium.

Now who says they wont utilize the same motherboard on the 15 and 17. They can then kill the ibook having the 12 fill it's role. Or, work something out with ibm as part of the contract for buying 970s in huge numbers, to get really really cheap/fast G3s. This would make the ibook compete in the sub $900 market.

Like you, I agree Apple cannot not afford to worry about offendingn early adopters by bringing out newer and better products at a rapid rate. In any case, like any product people order, you take a risk when you don't buy from current stock. If you don't like it, don't take the risk.

Having said that, like a few earlier posts, I can't see anything too radical coming if the new PB comes out soon - it'll merely be brought into line with the 12" and 17".

It won't have a PPC970, if posts about this chip in other threads are correct, because the OS hasn't been fine tuned yet. So, from what I've read we can't get a 970 before we get Panther - and we know Panther will be shown off at end of June.

And don't worry, Apple won't have any immediate plans to dump the iBook - unless Apple can completely change it's business model for the PB and drastically reduce their price. Apple sells a lot of iBooks, because their cheap. As you pointed out, that's important!

ddtlm

Apr 4, 2003, 03:14 AM

ktlx:

A single channel DDR set up won't cut it with a 900Mhz bus and no L3 cache.
Why does everyone assume that Apple is going to use the maximum FSB, or even if they do, that they will use it on all the systems?

reflex

Apr 4, 2003, 03:41 AM

Let's talk dates. I say April 29th or 30th. Why ? Because that's around the time the Powerbook was updated last year. With new iBooks to follow about a month later :D

pdickins

Apr 4, 2003, 07:13 AM

It's patently obvious that increased screen resolution is a good thing - no matter what sort of digital media people use there is no substitute for higher resolutions be they audio or visual. There is no excuse to limit resolutions due to small indeciferable text - in the Mac OS X Finder you can change Text and Icon size from 10-16pt and 16x16-128x128 in View/Show View Options. People like the 15" and 17" PB's, 17" iMac and Cinema Displays because of the extra working space they have on their desktops. I'd certainly trade the 22" Cinema display I have at work for the 23" Cinema HD display if I could.

Sun Baked

Apr 4, 2003, 07:33 AM

Amazing, we know the replacement for the TiBook is coming soon -- possibly May/June.

Hopefully Steve doesn't hold it back so he can trot it out during WWDC.

But to get the rumor twisted to the point people believe the PB 15 wasn't released was so it could have a PPC 970 slapped in it, is a bit strange -- when an easier explanation is that it was part of Apple keep OS 9 alive strategy.

Of course the Easter Bunny is going to be busy this year. ;)

ktlx

Apr 4, 2003, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by ddtlm
Why does everyone assume that Apple is going to use the maximum FSB, or even if they do, that they will use it on all the systems?

I don't see where I make that assumption anywhere.

According to the media reports about the PowerPC 970, the 1.8Ghz version uses a 900Mhz FSB. I have not see any indication that it can use a slower one and I have never seen a CPU made that provided more than two choices for a FSB speed at a single speed. Typically those differences are no more than 25%.

The slowest FSB claim I have seen is 600Mhz for 1.2Ghz part. This would still require either a dual channel DDR or RDRAM set up to work best although it is close enough that DDR400 wouldn't be too bad.

The only assumption that I make is that Apple will try to match its chipset to memory bandwidth and chipset to CPU bandwidth as much as possible. Given the size of the PowerPC 970's pipe, that really implies a dual channel DDR selection although Apple could go with an RDRAM set up.

Latino

Apr 4, 2003, 08:51 AM

quote:Originally posted by pyrotoaster[i]
I'm actually beginning to wonder if Apple will skip the G4 alltogether in the iBook and go straight to low-speed 970s.

[i]Originally posted by Death2PCs
Ha ha... you wish.

Well, it may not be that silly an idea after all. Think about it for a second.

When/if apple releases a mac with a 970, they will try to use the 64bit feature as a marketing bonanza. To go with it, they will have to release a 64bit version of OS X. When Apple does this, it would make a lot of sense to move every computer in their lineup to be 64bit machines as soon as possible, because otherwise, they would have to support two OSs, a 64bit version and a 32bit version, which would cost $$.

There are also the developers for the Mac platform. They would, most likely, not start developing 64bit applications until the 64bit use base was large enough. Moreover, many of these developers would not want to have to support two versions of their software, but at the same time, I'm sure they would love to be able to have a 64bit compatible label on their products, if only as a marketing gimmik.

I don't have any figures, but I wouldn't be surprised if Apple sold a lot of ibooks compared with powerbooks and powermacs. So ibook users probably make up for a big chunk of users.

Now if Apple had an entire lineup consisting of 64bit computers, they could shift development to a 64bit version of OS X, and developers could move to 64 bits without worrying about 32 bits (once the userbase was large enough that is).

Of course, apple will have to release 64bit and 32bit versions of OS X for a while, or those of us with 32bit machines would be rather pissed off otherwise.

Apple could cripple an ibook with a 970 badly enough so as to still have separation between a pro line and the consumer line. Think reduced clock speed, reduced memory bandwidth (970fsb is 900Mhz but memory bandwidth could be far less), mediocre video, etc... But it would still be a 64bit machine, capable of running a 64bit OS X and 64bit applications.

This means that a while after the release of this new lineup of computers, (one year? two?), there would be a considerable 64bit enabled userbase. Those who didn't have a 64bit mac would have had their machines for a while, and it would be reasonable to drop OS X 32bit and concentrate on 64bit

Still, I don't think we'll see a 970 in a mac soon. My guess is that they'll first appear on the XServes, and slowly will trickle down to the rest of the lineup. Since 970 is not slated for mass production until September, I would say Sep/Oct for XServer 970, and probably Dec/Jan for the rest (Powermac, powerbook, may be imac...)

Now, the interesting thing is, will upgrade card companies be able to do some black magic, and produce an upgrade card with a PPC 970 for current G4 owners? What holds me from getting a mac is that soon enough, 970s will appear, which would lead me with a 32bit box unable to run 64bit OS X when it appears....

Anyway, this is my first post in this forum, so don't be too harsh on me.

Latino

NicoMan

Apr 4, 2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Amazing, we know the replacement for the TiBook is coming soon -- possibly May/June.

Hopefully Steve doesn't hold it back so he can trot it out during WWDC.

But to get the rumor twisted to the point people believe the PB 15 wasn't released was so it could have a PPC 970 slapped in it, is a bit strange -- when an easier explanation is that it was part of Apple keep OS 9 alive strategy.

Of course the Easter Bunny is going to be busy this year. ;)

Even if I would love to see a 970 soon in a Mac, i don't think the soon to be released 15" will feature that chip. I think everyone has forgotten about the 7457. Now I know what you guys are saying: not another G4. Well for one the mobo redesign would be minimal (take the 17" and make a smaller one) and the heat/battery life is dealt with. Now a month or so later they update the chips in the 12" and 17" with 7447s and 7457s and maybe a new graphics chip or something. Here you go. Job done until the official announcement of the 970 (august ??).

NicoMan

jamilecrire

Apr 4, 2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Latino
Well, it may not be that silly an idea after all. Think about it for a second.

When/if apple releases a mac with a 970, they will try to use the 64bit feature as a marketing bonanza. To go with it, they will have to release a 64bit version of OS X. When Apple does this, it would make a lot of sense to move every computer in their lineup to be 64bit machines as soon as possible, because otherwise, they would have to support two OSs, a 64bit version and a 32bit version, which would cost $$.

There are also the developers for the Mac platform. They would, most likely, not start developing 64bit applications until the 64bit use base was large enough. Moreover, many of these developers would not want to have to support two versions of their software, but at the same time, I'm sure they would love to be able to have a 64bit compatible label on their products, if only as a marketing gimmik.

I don't have any figures, but I wouldn't be surprised if Apple sold a lot of ibooks compared with powerbooks and powermacs. So ibook users probably make up for a big chunk of users.

Now if Apple had an entire lineup consisting of 64bit computers, they could shift development to a 64bit version of OS X, and developers could move to 64 bits without worrying about 32 bits (once the userbase was large enough that is).

Of course, apple will have to release 64bit and 32bit versions of OS X for a while, or those of us with 32bit machines would be rather pissed off otherwise.

Apple could cripple an ibook with a 970 badly enough so as to still have separation between a pro line and the consumer line. Think reduced clock speed, reduced memory bandwidth (970fsb is 900Mhz but memory bandwidth could be far less), mediocre video, etc... But it would still be a 64bit machine, capable of running a 64bit OS X and 64bit applications.

This means that a while after the release of this new lineup of computers, (one year? two?), there would be a considerable 64bit enabled userbase. Those who didn't have a 64bit mac would have had their machines for a while, and it would be reasonable to drop OS X 32bit and concentrate on 64bit

Still, I don't think we'll see a 970 in a mac soon. My guess is that they'll first appear on the XServes, and slowly will trickle down to the rest of the lineup. Since 970 is not slated for mass production until September, I would say Sep/Oct for XServer 970, and probably Dec/Jan for the rest (Powermac, powerbook, may be imac...)

Now, the interesting thing is, will upgrade card companies be able to do some black magic, and produce an upgrade card with a PPC 970 for current G4 owners? What holds me from getting a mac is that soon enough, 970s will appear, which would lead me with a 32bit box unable to run 64bit OS X when it appears....

Anyway, this is my first post in this forum, so don't be too harsh on me.

Latino

The thing you're missing is the 64bit 970 would be binary compatable with the 32bit G3/4. This was in the initial design of the G series processors. It's like the SPARC processors in the Sun/Solaris world. Everyone that built server apps (internal) would migrate to bigger hardware but their 32bit apps would run without recompilation on the newer 64bit processors.

If you're the head of a company that has been developing internal apps for the last 4 years and two new platforms come out. One that works with your existing code and one that doesn't, which would you choose (reprogramming is very expensive)?

This is the flop that Intel introduced to the market the Itanium (Itanic as most are calling it). AMD and Apple have an excellent opportunity like they will possibly never get again. Don't F* this up Jobs.

NicoMan

Apr 4, 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Latino
Now, the interesting thing is, will upgrade card companies be able to do some black magic, and produce an upgrade card with a PPC 970 for current G4 owners? What holds me from getting a mac is that soon enough, 970s will appear, which would lead me with a 32bit box unable to run 64bit OS X when it appears....

Anyway, this is my first post in this forum, so don't be too harsh on me.

Latino

I don't think the transition from 32bits to 64bits will be "just like that". The 970 is supposed to be able to run 32bits code so when it is released I don't see Apple forcing developpers toward producing 64bit code. They will educate developper to produce 970-friendly 32bits code at first. After all the majority of machines will be running on G3s and G4s...
I don't know but I see people holding off buying a new machine because of the 970, and it doesn't make sense to me. For one the PowerMac (the way it is today) is a design tried and tested and unless you do massively CPU-intensive tasks, a dual 1.25 today will take everything you throw at it, and with ease. If you need a new mac for your job or money-making trade, get it now. When the 970 comes out, it will suffer from a few quirks/problems that all first series suffer from. And that's some time away from now.

My 2 cents....

NicoMan

Latino

Apr 4, 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by NicoMan
I don't think the transition from 32bits to 64bits will be "just like that". The 970 is supposed to be able to run 32bits code so when it is released I don't see Apple forcing developpers toward producing 64bit code. They will educate developper to produce 970-friendly 32bits code at first. After all the majority of machines will be running on G3s and G4s...

I don't think apple will force developers to 64bits. However, I can see apple releasing a new 64bit OS X, say, a year after the introduction of the 970. It could be 10.4.x, and they could not release a 32bit version of it. That means that everyone who hadn't bought a new mac in the previous year would have to upgrade.

Now, Apple is a business, like any other. And they must make money to survive. Forcing users to move to 64bit machines to run the latest software would bring in revenue from users upgrading machines. They did it when OS X was released (old macs not supported), and I think they could easily do it again.

I don't know but I see people holding off buying a new machine because of the 970, and it doesn't make sense to me. For one the PowerMac (the way it is today) is a design tried and tested and unless you do massively CPU-intensive tasks, a dual 1.25 today will take everything you throw at it, and with ease. If you need a new mac for your job or money-making trade, get it now. When the 970 comes out, it will suffer from a few quirks/problems that all first series suffer from. And that's some time away from now.

There is a lot of truth in what you say. However, if I bought a dual 1.25 today, I would expect to use it for about three years at least. Now, if Apple releases a 64bit only OS X in a year and a half, I would be left in the dust. If I knew I could buy an upgrade card with a 970 in it to use the new OS, I would probably get a powermac now (although the slow memory bandwith would be a big issue)

I don't need the performance of the 970, so that's not my reason. I want something that will be future proof, somewhat.

Latino

ddtlm

Apr 4, 2003, 10:18 AM

ktlx:

According to the media reports about the PowerPC 970, the 1.8Ghz version uses a 900Mhz FSB.
The FSB can probably run at any fraction of the core speed that the computer maker chooses. It does not appear that 900mhz for the 1.8ghz chip is a set rule by any means.

NicoMan:

It seems the 7457 will take longer to ship than the 970. Other than that it is a natural choice for Apple, and probably no changes would need to be made to the laptops to use it (there would be no need for a mobo redesign).

NicoMan

Apr 4, 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Latino
I don't think apple will force developers to 64bits. However, I can see apple releasing a new 64bit OS X, say, a year after the introduction of the 970. It could be 10.4.x, and they could not release a 32bit version of it. That means that everyone who hadn't bought a new mac in the previous year would have to upgrade.

Now, Apple is a business, like any other. And they must make money to survive. Forcing users to move to 64bit machines to run the latest software would bring in revenue from users upgrading machines. They did it when OS X was released (old macs not supported), and I think they could easily do it again.

There is a lot of truth in what you say. However, if I bought a dual 1.25 today, I would expect to use it for about three years at least. Now, if Apple releases a 64bit only OS X in a year and a half, I would be left in the dust. If I knew I could buy an upgrade card with a 970 in it to use the new OS, I would probably get a powermac now (although the slow memory bandwith would be a big issue)

I don't need the performance of the 970, so that's not my reason. I want something that will be future proof, somewhat.

Latino

A 64bit only OSX, I don't buy it. That is WAY too close to the OS9-OSX transition. And the Apple followers will still be traumatized by it in 2 to 3 years. No you will still be able to get the latest software for 32bits machine in 3, 4 years. It's just that some of the apps will be able to run optimized for a 64 bit chips (the same way that some apps can autosense a G4 and make use of Altivec. But it doesn't mean they don't run on a G3...). I think if you get a dual 1.25 you are somewhat future-proof (at least 2 years...).
But hey that is a very personal opinion.

NicoMan

blueflame

Apr 4, 2003, 10:58 AM

i for one think that if apple does release a new 64 bit OS it will have to be a while down the road. I mean, they just barely released a truely workable version of X. Also, just curious, is it a fact the apple is even going to use the 970, or is that also a rumor, bucasue im gettin the sense that this is a rumor inside of a rumor.
~Blue

ktlx

Apr 4, 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by ddtlm
The FSB can probably run at any fraction of the core speed that the computer maker chooses. It does not appear that 900mhz for the 1.8ghz chip is a set rule by any means.

Could you point to a link that says this? So far I have not seen this in any article I have read about the PowerPC 970.

In fact, I have seen just the opposite in the two articles that are specific. Both have said the bus is locked at 1/2 the core frequency. These are from ArsTechnica and a Real World Technologies article pointed it.

No other CPU, that I am aware of, allows the computer manufacturer to set the speed of the FSB. They are always fixed by the processor manufacturer. In fact, Intel is the only one I am aware of that has given the choice of two FSB speeds for a single core frequeny and that only happened where the 100/133Mhz and 400/533Mhz multipliers happened to coincide.

idkew

Apr 4, 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Tell me, idkew, do you have some inside information? Or are you just stating your opinion as a fact? So far as I'm aware, most (if not all) people who are commenting here are simply stating opinions. None of us has the true information on what it will or won't be, or when it will be, for that matter.

So, call me a dreamer, say I'm silly stupid for thinking that it might be possible, but, unless you'd care to share a reliable source for your information, please don't assert that it's impossible when you don't know any better than the rest of us...

[I am a dreamer, but sometimes dreams do come true... :D]

i am basing my opinion on history.

but, since positng, i have modified my opinion a bit.

it would make little sense for apple to modify the 15" motherboard for a faster g4 if the 970 is right around the corner. if it isn't, there will be one more update.

either way, i will bet you bragging rights that the 970 will ship first in a desktop.

i dream too, but i try to be a realist also.

idkew

Apr 4, 2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by NicoMan
A 64bit only OSX, I don't buy it. That is WAY too close to the OS9-OSX transition. And the Apple followers will still be traumatized by it in 2 to 3 years. No you will still be able to get the latest software for 32bits machine in 3, 4 years. It's just that some of the apps will be able to run optimized for a 64 bit chips (the same way that some apps can autosense a G4 and make use of Altivec. But it doesn't mean they don't run on a G3...). I think if you get a dual 1.25 you are somewhat future-proof (at least 2 years...).
But hey that is a very personal opinion.

NicoMan

has everyone forgoten about the 040 to PPC switch?

apple can and probably will support 32bit machines for quite a while. whether or not adobe and other "performance" app makers support 32bits past 3 or so years out is different.

anyone know how long it took classic to go all PPC? did it ever?

blueflame

Apr 4, 2003, 01:57 PM

so guys, can he ppc 970 processor be a rumor at all? is apple definitly even going to use them?

Latino

Apr 4, 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by jamilecrire
The thing you're missing is the 64bit 970 would be binary compatable with the 32bit G3/4. This was in the initial design of the G series processors. It's like the SPARC processors in the Sun/Solaris world. Everyone that built server apps (internal) would migrate to bigger hardware but their 32bit apps would run without recompilation on the newer 64bit processors.

Yes, a 64bit mac can still run 32bit OS X and 32bit apps, and I suppose a 64bit OS X would be able to run 32bit Apps. The problem here is that a 32bit machine would not be able to run 64bit OS X.

When/if Apple eleases a PPC970 Mac, they'll probably release a 64bit OS X to go with it. And then, it will only be a matter of time before they drop support for 32bit OS X. Supporting both OSs would be costly.

And that means no iTunes 6? Safari 2? whatever.

Developers may still sell 32bit and 64bit versions of their apps, but one of the most compelling features of the Mac platform are its innovations. If I can't get the new software from apple (itunes, iphoto, mail, ichat...) to run on my 32bit G3/G4, I'm stuffed

Rincewind42

Apr 4, 2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Latino
Yes, a 64bit mac can still run 32bit OS X and 32bit apps, and I suppose a 64bit OS X would be able to run 32bit Apps. The problem here is that a 32bit machine would not be able to run 64bit OS X.

Well, technically you could run a 64-bit OS on a 32-bit chip, but it wouldn't be as fast :D. And yes, you would be able to run 32-bit applications by definition, the PowerPC 970 supports a no-penalty 32-bit mode. Task switching would simply switch the CPU into and out of this mode as necessary.

When/if Apple eleases a PPC970 Mac, they'll probably release a 64bit OS X to go with it. And then, it will only be a matter of time before they drop support for 32bit OS X. Supporting both OSs would be costly.

There is no reason to believe that Apple will release a 64-bit version of MacOS X to compliment the PowerPC 970. The 970 can and does run 32-bit OSes just fine and with very minor modifications.

Developers may still sell 32bit and 64bit versions of their apps, but one of the most compelling features of the Mac platform are its innovations. If I can't get the new software from apple (itunes, iphoto, mail, ichat...) to run on my 32bit G3/G4, I'm stuffed

Not all applications will be 64-bit, there just isn't a need. Making, for example, iTunes 64-bit would be pointless, as it doesn't need 4GB of memory. Oracle Database however would probably debut as 64-bit since it most certainly can use that much memory.

-hh

Apr 4, 2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by idkew
has everyone forgoten about the 040 to PPC switch?

...

anyone know how long it took classic to go all PPC? did it ever?

I haven't forgotten -- I still have a few "FAT" applications on my hard drive! :D

A piece of relevent Apple History dates from the transition from System 6 to System 7: Apple announced in advance to the Developers that they should write "32 Bit Clean" code.

IIRC, there was even a System 7 Control Panel that allowed you to switch between 24 and 32 bit addressing.

Done it before ... they can do it again.

-hh

ddtlm

Apr 4, 2003, 08:46 PM

ktlx:

In fact, I have seen just the opposite in the two articles that are specific. Both have said the bus is locked at 1/2 the core frequency. These are from ArsTechnica and a Real World Technologies article pointed it.
Arstechnica said on this page (in a quote): http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q02/powerpc.html
It's two 32 bit links: one from CPU to "companion chip" [the northbridge], and one back from that chip to the CPU. Each link runs at 900 MHz (1.8 GHz CPU core. the interface link runs at integer fraction of the CPU core, in this case 1/2)
Anyway, back to you:
No other CPU, that I am aware of, allows the computer manufacturer to set the speed of the FSB. They are always fixed by the processor manufacturer.
It all depends on perspective. Clock speed is multiplyer times FSB, and the FSB-to-core fraction is just another way of saying multiplyer. Any way you look at it, the PPC-970 is going to have a much wider range of FSB speeds than any chip I am familiar with, and in fact being able to set the FSB as a fraction of core speed is the way to get the fewest FSB's (i.e. be the most normal). Also, remember that it is not uncommon for computer makers to be able to set multipiers themselves, in fact only Intel and AMD have gotten away from that, to combat remarking. G4's come from the factory without a multiplyer lock, and as far as I know, their multiyers can still be set by a little soldering on Apple's CPU daughtercard.

In fact, Intel is the only one I am aware of that has given the choice of two FSB speeds for a single core frequeny and that only happened where the 100/133Mhz and 400/533Mhz multipliers happened to coincide.
A few examples: G4's are available at 1.0ghz with 100mhz (upgrades), 133mhz and 166mhz FSB's. Athlons were available at 1.2ghz with 200mhz and 266mhz FSB's.

Latino

Apr 5, 2003, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Well, technically you could run a 64-bit OS on a 32-bit chip, but it wouldn't be as fast :D. And yes, you would be able to run 32-bit applications by definition, the PowerPC 970 supports a no-penalty 32-bit mode. Task switching would simply switch the CPU into and out of this mode as necessary.

I'm aware that the CPU can do that, but it will require support from the OS. Then again, Apple would be quite foolish not to include this feature in OS X 64

There is no reason to believe that Apple will release a 64-bit version of MacOS X to compliment the PowerPC 970. The 970 can and does run 32-bit OSes just fine and with very minor modifications.

I would be surprised if Apple didn't release a 64bit OS X shortly after the release of PPC970 macs. Think XServes here. I'm sure they could benefit from extended RAM addreseability, as would some RDBMSs (Oracle, ...). It would also be a good selling point.

Not all applications will be 64-bit, there just isn't a need. Making, for example, iTunes 64-bit would be pointless, as it doesn't need 4GB of memory. Oracle Database however would probably debut as 64-bit since it most certainly can use that much memory.

Yes, 64bit iTunes is pointless. But it would require OS X 64bit, which in turn would require a 64bit mac, which means many of us would have to reach deep into our pockets to get a new Mac. And that would bring in $ for apple

May be I'm being paranoid here, but when it comes to spending so much money on a computer, I rather be safe than sorry

DHagan4755

Apr 5, 2003, 09:19 AM

For those of you who are skeptical that Apple will put the 970 in the PowerBook first...what would you have said if I told you in December that the new, faster version of FireWire (firewire 800) would debut in the PowerBooks first?

DHagan4755

Apr 5, 2003, 10:08 AM

And I just have to write again to say that I just visited the Apple Online Store. Both the Ti 867 and the Ti GHz have returned to 1-2 day availability (from 5 to 7 days earlier this week).

Rincewind42

Apr 8, 2003, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Latino
I'm aware that the CPU can do that, but it will require support from the OS. Then again, Apple would be quite foolish not to include this feature in OS X 64

Of course it will be a feature of a 64-bit version of MacOS X, Apple knows that no one will upgrade to a 64-bit OS or 64-bit processor if they can't run their old applications (which would include classic btw).

I would be surprised if Apple didn't release a 64bit OS X shortly after the release of PPC970 macs. Think XServes here. I'm sure they could benefit from extended RAM addreseability, as would some RDBMSs (Oracle, ...). It would also be a good selling point.

Panther is due in September. If Apple released a PPC970 based machine today I can guaruntee that it will not have have support of any kind for 64-bit functionality until at least September.

The logic for this is exactly this. If you are going to develop something, especially an operating system, you always do it based on shipping/shipable hardware. Unless Apple releases a PPC970 based machine within the next 2 months, max (i.e. at least a month before WWDC), then Panther will not support a 64-bit operating mode. In order to support 64-bit, Apple must develop and debug new APIs, brief developers on these changes, and provide develoers with hardware capable of developing these kinds of applications. That last reason is why they would have to release 970 hardware before WWDC. While I'm sure that the big wigs in Apple's corner have prerelease hardware, they cannot ship based on prerelease hardware, just as Apple cannot ship an OS based on prerelease hardware. The hardware has to come before the software so that you can assure compatability.

Yes, 64bit iTunes is pointless. But it would require OS X 64bit, which in turn would require a 64bit mac, which means many of us would have to reach deep into our pockets to get a new Mac. And that would bring in $ for apple

May be I'm being paranoid here, but when it comes to spending so much money on a computer, I rather be safe than sorry

But you can make the same argument about nearly any capability that a computer provides. Your iPod forces you to get FireWire. Your airport card makes you get a base station. Your DVD-R drive makes you want to burn DVDs. Every new capability is a reason to replace your old hardware, and if Apple required any of this new hardware to run their OS they would be out of business in no time.

Apple isn't going to try to use an application that would ignore the new capability in it's entirety - that is completely against everything they do. If Apple puts out any 64-bit apps when the time arrives, then it will be an application that fully utilizes the functionality. But they also have the good sense to realize that not everyone will be able to use the new functionality. Just look at Final Cut Pro 4. I can easily see it having a use for a 64-bit system. And if you look at it's current requirements it's minimum system is nearly 4 years old - a G4/350 - in a time where you can get a machine that is over 8 times faster! Given the nature of the app, Apple could have easily made the minimum requirements something much more recent without much grumbling. And while I can't see how productive you would be with a G4/350, I can definately see students/universities being greatful that the software will work on such an old system.

So while I do believe that a 64-bit version of Mac OS X will appear eventually, I doubt that it will be soon, and I seriously doubt that it will start a trend towards 64-bit everything from Apple.