970 Ahead of Schedule? [Archive]

allpar

Apr 4, 2003, 12:37 PM

One thing I learned in the rumors game is that rumor sites with positive news get much more traffic. If MacWhispers is run by that guy from MacTable, it wouldn't be too sleazy to simply make up optimistic rumors. Let's face it, we all want the 970 to be introduced tomorrow across the whole line, preferably in dual form. Rumors of an LC wouldn't be too unpopular, either :)

Just a little cold water. I could indeed be wrong. But others have extrapolated production times from Apple's RFPs and such which suggest that though an announcement for a top-end machine may come sooner, the actual machines will be around August at best.

I'm rooting for an entry-level 970 ASAP of course. I need a new machine, but am not willing to be outdated so quickly. I keep computers for 6-7 years...so six months or so to get into a next-generation pays off.

herr_neumann

Apr 4, 2003, 01:08 PM

IMHO.... Apple needs to have the new Shiznit shipping by the back to school market. Period. That is it. How many new college students will be getting computers as graduation presents? They should be making them availible to order by june shipping by august (finally one situation were semester schools are good for something, long live the quarter system).

This also coincides with educational purchasing. I know the UC System Departments spend every last dime of their budgets on the last day of their financial year, old computers line the halls here at Davis. (good place to get a monitor or old system for FREE)

Even though I am probably wrong, it just makes sense to me.

dongmin

Apr 4, 2003, 01:17 PM

Yeah MacWhispers has really been beating the 970 drum recently. I don't think they have much of a track record (other than the fact that the site is run by the MacTables guy); I can't recall them being particular right or wrong on anything yet.

Basically, if I believe their rumors, I'm expecting new 970 PowerMacs AND new 970 PowerBooks at the June WWDC at the latest. They're now saying that the actual production of 970 PowerBooks are being ramped up. If these babies don't make it to market within 3 months, I'm calling MacWhispers a big fat liar. And for PowerMacs, I'll accept nothing less than a dual 1.8 ghz 970 machine within a couple months of the WWDC.

Personally, I think it's all speculation on their part. I can't believe that a brand spanking new rumor site has these unbelievable sources in all parts of the industry telling them all these juicy, detailed insider info. It's all a bit too much. As someone else mentioned, this guy probably going off on all these rumors to increase traffic to his site and make a quick buck.

strider42

Apr 4, 2003, 01:30 PM

how cool is it to hear, even if its speculation, that something related to mac processors are AHEAD of schedule. With IBM's state fo the art facilities and their planning for the future as they will be using the chip themselves, I think things could get a lot better really quick. Hopefully nothing unexpected turns up that will hold the chip back a bit in future incarnations, as happened with the G4 early on. It doesn't even have to be true that its ahead of schedule, but the fact that its even a possibility is exciting and a nice change.

wdlove

Apr 4, 2003, 01:47 PM

It does seem possible that the change of the WWDC to June and cancelling a visit to MWNY points to something. The preview of "Panther" is already a given. To release the PPC 970 also would be a real coup. It would be good timing for the upcoming Christmas & school season. Alas only Steve knows for sure!

Snowy_River

Apr 4, 2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by AllenPSU
I have read a lot of things that point toward Apple being closer than expected to a completed 970 product, but I haven't read anything saying that IBM was ready to supply the 970 in large quantities. Maybe I just missed it, but if IBM isn't ready to produce large quantitties of the chip I wouldn't get my hopes up for a product until later this year or early next year.

There was as a rumor/news piece about a month ago that stated that the production of the new 970 was going surprisingly well, that yields of higher speed chips were much higher than expected. I'll look for a link...

Originally posted by GeneR
By the way, what goes into making a chip which would take it so long? I really don't want specifics, I just have this conspiracy theory that little green elves are responsible for developing all the computer chips in the world, and that they have been sitting on their thumbs about Apple's plight... But I could be wrong...

Simply put, it is a manufacturing process that goes on at the microscopic level. As with any manufacturing process, there are bugs that need to get worked out. However, being at such a small scale, the process is also vulnerable to a whole new level of 'bug' having to do with quantum interference, from the very odd behavior of matter once you start dealing with individual atoms. Physics still doesn't have a complete model of how things behave at these levels, so there is a lot of trial and error. However, it would seem that IBM isn't having as much error in their efforts...

blueflame

Apr 4, 2003, 01:54 PM

Guys, im new here, hut is it even possible that this 970 processor wont even be used at all?, isnt the fact the apple is going to use an IBM processor a rumer?
~blue

strider42

Apr 4, 2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by blueflame
Guys, im new here, hut is it even possible that this 970 processor wont even be used at all?, isnt the fact the apple is going to use an IBM processor a rumer?
~blue

yes, thats possible, nothing is confirmed yet. But all indications are that apple is going to use this chip: its specs are right, its lineage (powerPC) is right, its even got altivec (supposedly at the behest of apple). its setup for the future with is Multiprocessor capabilities and 64 bit status, not to mention the up to 900 mhz front side bus. There is no other chip that we know of that seems to fit so well with apple.

greenstork

Apr 4, 2003, 02:15 PM

If Apple holds true to its history, 970 machines will be announced this month and shipping will begin in September.

This makes all of the rumors correct so it makes perfect sense.

GeneR

Apr 4, 2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Snowy_River

Simply put, it is a manufacturing process that goes on at the microscopic level. As with any manufacturing process, there are bugs that need to get worked out. However, being at such a small scale, the process is also vulnerable to a whole new level of 'bug' having to do with quantum interference, from the very odd behavior of matter once you start dealing with individual atoms. Physics still doesn't have a complete model of how things behave at these levels, so there is a lot of trial and error. However, it would seem that IBM isn't having as much error in their efforts...

Ah, so there really ARE green elves...! ;) :D

Thanks Snowy!

greenstork

Apr 4, 2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by strider42
There is no other chip that we know of that seems to fit so well with apple.

Yeah, that probably includes Motorola as well.

Frobozz

Apr 4, 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by blueflame
Guys, im new here, hut is it even possible that this 970 processor wont even be used at all?, isnt the fact the apple is going to use an IBM processor a rumer?
~blue

An excellent question! Apple NEVER comfirms hardware prior to a release. That's Apple. This rumor is collaborated by so many independant sources that it is without a doubt the most certain "rumor" of recent memory. Apple will have 970 based macs by no later than Sept... and I think it's much more likely to be in June/July timeframe.

To put it frankly, they can't afford to wait.

mahakali

Apr 4, 2003, 03:21 PM

I'm more convinced about 970 after reading motorola already made G5 (http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?14@49.ZW8MavU9j6c.782918@.3bbff83f) that doesn't even have Altivec support.

EponymousCow

Apr 4, 2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by blueflame
Guys, im new here, hut is it even possible that this 970 processor wont even be used at all?, isnt the fact the apple is going to use an IBM processor a rumer?
~blue

Any IBM processor? Not a rumor. The iBook uses IBM PPC 750FX chips. Heck, my PowerMac 7100/66 used an IBM PPC 601 chip (all the 601s were from IBM). The open question here is whether Apple will use this particular chip from IBM.

If Apple doesn't, there is going to be a lot of shock amongst Mac users. Motorola has more or less abandoned the high end desktop/low end server market with their chips. IBM is specifically targetting this chip for that market.

Mr.Hey

Apr 4, 2003, 03:57 PM

More confirmation on the time-table for the PPC 970
http://www.architosh.com/news/2003-04/2003c-0404-ibm-push.phtml

deputy_doofy

Apr 4, 2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by greenstork
If Apple holds true to its history, 970 machines will be announced this month and shipping will begin in September.

This makes all of the rumors correct so it makes perfect sense.

That's one of the funiest thing I've read in a long time. :)

Don't get me wrong. I like Apple and have always bought their computers, BUT they are bad with timing. Maybe there's a conspiracy between Motorola and all of Apple's suppliers to keep things running slow.

Ok, I'm done.

jettredmont

Apr 4, 2003, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by mahakali
I'm more convinced about 970 after reading motorola already made G5 (http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?14@49.ZW8MavU9j6c.782918@.3bbff83f) that doesn't even have Altivec support.

Motorola's "G5" has nothing to do with Apple's "G5". Moto's G5 is, in fact, an embedded applications chip, not overall adaptable to a general purpose personal computer at all. Moto has, in fact, said that they are no longer going to put as many resources into PC CPU development, and are concentrating on embedded markets now.

That having been said, the "Mac G5" from Motorola (dubbed G5 by rumor-heads, not Moto) has not been released, although rumors abound as to both why and if it ever will be. There are also rumors of PC-aimed "G6" and "G7" designs coming in the next few years, but given Moto's track record and professionality thus far, I'm not exactly holding my breath there either.

QCassidy352

Apr 4, 2003, 04:49 PM

so... what will the PPC 970 be called? Will it just be referred to as the PPC 970? Or will it be the G5? Or the G6 (with the G5 never having made it in to actual computers)?

dricci

Apr 4, 2003, 05:19 PM

bentmywookie

Apr 4, 2003, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by dongmin
Yeah MacWhispers has really been beating the 970 drum recently. I don't think they have much of a track record (other than the fact that the site is run by the MacTables guy); I can't recall them being particular right or wrong on anything yet.

Basically, if I believe their rumors, I'm expecting new 970 PowerMacs AND new 970 PowerBooks at the June WWDC at the latest. They're now saying that the actual production of 970 PowerBooks are being ramped up. If these babies don't make it to market within 3 months, I'm calling MacWhispers a big fat liar. And for PowerMacs, I'll accept nothing less than a dual 1.8 ghz 970 machine within a couple months of the WWDC.

Personally, I think it's all speculation on their part. I can't believe that a brand spanking new rumor site has these unbelievable sources in all parts of the industry telling them all these juicy, detailed insider info. It's all a bit too much. As someone else mentioned, this guy probably going off on all these rumors to increase traffic to his site and make a quick buck.

I feel similarly. I think info from MacWhispers should be taken with a grain of salt, until some of the rumors that they post prove to be true. I also thought MacWhispers was changing its format to move away from speculation and instead just post facts that they found out like "Apple bought 1000 clear plastic cases" (assuming they are facts).

This is in no way meant to bash MacWhispers, it's just hard to believe their rumors until some of them pan out. They were really pushing iPod rumors a month or so ago and nothing happened with those.

MacWhispers

Apr 4, 2003, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by bentmywookie
I feel similarly. I think info from MacWhispers should be taken with a grain of salt, until some of the rumors that they post prove to be true. I also thought MacWhispers was changing its format to move away from speculation and instead just post facts that they found out like "Apple bought 1000 clear plastic cases" (assuming they are facts).

This is in no way meant to bash MacWhispers, it's just hard to believe their rumors until some of them pan out. They were really pushing iPod rumors a month or so ago and nothing happened with those.

Yep. The iPod fiasco taught me to take a much more cautious approach to what's actually published on MacWhispers. If you'll notice, postings went from 5 to 7 per week down to 2 or 3 per week, or less. I'm screeening what I hear in my OEM communications with a much more jaded eye now, before deciding to publish.

MacWhispers is teaching me to take what my business contacts tell me with a very large grain of salt. At this point, there are only a handful of regular contacts I accept as being truly reliable. Anything not from these few people, I try to double source... something very difficult to do with "whispers."

chazmox

Apr 4, 2003, 07:54 PM

I really gotta wonder about some of this...

I mean MacWhispers has thrown so much against the wall that some it has to stick... if the 15 inch comes out with either the G4 or the 970 then MacWhispers can claim a win - it has both bases covered...

Also, does this pass the common sense test. Can Apple release the 970 without an operating system that is 64 bit ready ( Panther )? And Panther is not due till Sept...

Being an engineer I seriously doubt that 2 things are remarkably ahead of schedule...

wdlove

Apr 4, 2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Mr.Hey
More confirmation on the time-table for the PPC 970
http://www.architosh.com/news/2003-04/2003c-0404-ibm-push.phtml

A very good article, coorobating what I have been reading. I think we have alot to look forward to at WWDC in June. More reason why the date was changed so that product will be available in a timely manner. :) Hopefully the wait won't be like the PowerBook! ;)

MacQuest

Apr 4, 2003, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by bentmywookie
They were really pushing iPod rumors a month or so ago and nothing happened with those.

I'm no MacWhispers advocate, but what rumor site wasn't?

MacQuest

Apr 4, 2003, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Mr.Hey
More confirmation on the time-table for the PPC 970
http://www.architosh.com/news/2003-04/2003c-0404-ibm-push.phtml

:D HOLY $h!t!! :D

Bring it on Apple and IBM...:D

Rincewind42

Apr 4, 2003, 10:48 PM

.Originally posted by chazmox
Also, does this pass the common sense test. Can Apple release the 970 without an operating system that is 64 bit ready?

Yes they can. The PowerPC 970 can run 32-bit operating systems with ease, IBM has said this whenever they talk about the 970. You would need to make a few changes to the base system, but the changes are minor. If Apple did release a 970 based PowerMac before Panther is released then it would ship with a modified version of 10.2 (10.2.7?) that specifically could boot on a 970 machine. The abilities to make these kinds of changes are why Apple moved to Mac OS X :).

Mr. Anderson

Apr 4, 2003, 11:05 PM

Well this sounds really nice, if its true. Makes the June WWDC debut seem more reasonable.

I just hope we don't have to wait until September for delivery.

D

mangoduck

Apr 5, 2003, 12:23 AM

green elves? (from page one)

my money says not elves but gnomes are at the core of this. i happen to have inside sources and know what their plan is...

step 1: buy materials and equipment for making processors
step 2:
step 3: profit

actually, i don't have any reason to doubt that things are ahead of schedule - the first rumors and or speculations of apple/ibm cooperations happened long ago, and even then it was said to have been going for months. considering how several threads of information are converging, i would expect to see something bigger than just a panther demonstration.

sparkleytone

Apr 5, 2003, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by mangoduck
green elves? (from page one)

my money says not elves but gnomes are at the core of this. i happen to have inside sources and know what their plan is...

step 1: buy materials and equipment for making processors
step 2:
step 3: profit

if you are going to troll slashdot style, do it right :D

step 1: buy materials and equipment for making processors
step 2: ??????
step 3: PROFIT!!!!

hacurio1

Apr 5, 2003, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by chazmox
I really gotta wonder about some of this...

I mean MacWhispers has thrown so much against the wall that some it has to stick... if the 15 inch comes out with either the G4 or the 970 then MacWhispers can claim a win - it has both bases covered...

Also, does this pass the common sense test. Can Apple release the 970 without an operating system that is 64 bit ready ( Panther )? And Panther is not due till Sept...

Being an engineer I seriously doubt that 2 things are remarkably ahead of schedule...

Yes I agree on the (the two things ahead of schedule,) but remember what happened when the first dual g4s were released? OSX was not out yet, and it took about six months until it was released. That means Dual proc. machines running OS 9, which was no very firendly with dualies at all. I remember I had to erase the system extention that allowed me to run the second proc. because the computer kept crashing. So....if PB 970 are released and then they release 64bit panther a couple of months latter it won't be such a pleoblem. The 970 are 32bit backward compatible right?

The Shadow

Apr 5, 2003, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by hacurio1
Yes I agree on the (the two things ahead of schedule,) but remember what happened when the first dual g4s were released? OSX was not out yet, and it took about six months until it was released. That means Dual proc. machines running OS 9, which was no very firendly with dualies at all. I remember I had to erase the system extention that allowed me to run the second proc. because the computer kept crashing. So....if PB 970 are released and then they release 64bit panther a couple of months latter it won't be such a pleoblem. The 970 are 32bit backward compatible right?

We've waited this long for "the next big thing" I think we can wait 2 or 3 months longer. I just think it's really important for Apple to do this thing right.

Having said that, BRING IT ONNNN !!!!

chazmox

Apr 5, 2003, 08:55 AM

Rincewind, thanks for answerinng the 32bit/970 question. Do you have a link - I'd like to read more...

I DO still have my doubts but that would remove one roadblock - then again Apple probably feels pressure from the Centrino/Pentium M crowd ( reason for jumping to 970 early... ) so they would have some strong motivation.

Rincewind42

Apr 5, 2003, 10:31 AM

Here are the quotes and links.

The exact quote is this:
In addition to its support of new 64-bit solutions, the 970 retains full native support for 32-bit applications. This not only protects 32-bit software investments, but provides these 32-bit applications with the same high-performance levels that it extends to 64-bit uses. This native, nonemulated, 32-bit support is not limited to application code, which runs unmodified. 32-bit operating systems with minor updates can also take advantage of the PowerPC 970's outstanding performance.
From here: http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/dec2002/newproductfocus2.html

In addition:
IBM made its way around this problem by adding a 32-bit native mode to the processor that essentially changes the PowerPC 970's instruction registers, allowing it to run as a 32-bit processor. Sandon stressed that this was not any sort of emulation.

"All 32-bit applications can run as is on the 970," Sandon said. "Changes are needed to make a 32-bit OS run on the 970, but the list of changes is small."

Sandon said that IBM has a 64-bit version and a 32-bit version of Linux running on the PowerPC 970 in the lab.
From here:http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0210/16.ibm.php

There is also the presentation that IBM shows the world when they unvieled the PowerPC 970. You can download it here: http://www.simdtech.org/apps/group_public/download.php/23/IBM_PPC970_MPF2002.pdf

macrumors12345

Apr 5, 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by MacQuest
:D HOLY $h!t!! :D

Bring it on Apple and IBM...:D

Just to keep things in context, Architosh has also had their share of miscalls. Back in 2001 they claimed that their "sources" were using test versions of a G5 class chip that was "wiping the floor" with everything that Intel and AMD had to offer. But obviously these machines either never existed or Apple never released them (I find the latter possibility extremely unlikely). And I remember this because I actually e-mailed the guy in charge of the site with a correction about one of the publicly available details in his article, and in his reply he assured me that his "sources" explicitly told him they were testing this amazing processor and he saw no reason why they would have any desire to mislead him.

Now, I believe what he told me, but it clearly seems as if his sources were inaccurate back then (and probably intentionally inaccurate). So while I am not claiming that the rumor is clearly false, I would not take it as reliable confirmation of the impending shipment of the PPC 970.

The only rumor site that I've found to be consistently pretty accurate is Think Secret. And As The Apple Turns used to be pretty good when posting their *own* rumors (as opposed to quoting someone else's), but they're not publishing much these days...

hvfsl

Apr 5, 2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
Just to keep things in context, Architosh has also had their share of miscalls. Back in 2001 they claimed that their "sources" were using test versions of a G5 class chip that was "wiping the floor" with everything that Intel and AMD had to offer. But obviously these machines either never existed or Apple never released them (I find the latter possibility extremely unlikely).

Actually the Moto G5 was a real chip and was produced, but not on mass. Apple has used it for testing but after 9/11 Moto cancelled the G5 and the rest is history.

macrumors12345

Apr 5, 2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by hvfsl
Actually the Moto G5 was a real chip and was produced, but not on mass. Apple has used it for testing but after 9/11 Moto cancelled the G5 and the rest is history.

I would love to see a reliable source for that, because it makes ABSOLUTELY NO economic sense. If you have already spent money developing the chip - and it is as great as claimed - why not produce it? Maybe you won't get the return on investment that you had hoped for if the market is softer than expected, but it's not as if you will somehow recoup all of your R&D expenditures by not producing the chip! The R&D is a sunk cost - it can't be recovered!! And if they were already sampling this chip, then clearly the development phase was coming to a close and production (at least in limited quantities) had already begun. So the only reason you would want to cancel the chip at this point is if you were getting horrible yields and it was performing terribly. But according to your story, the chip was performing great, and they still decided to cancel it anyway and throw away all of their R&D investment. Again, that makes NO SENSE.

Given that there has NEVER been ANY reliable confirmation that the Motorola G5 existed, it strains credibility to think that it was developed, went into sampling, performed great, and then for some inexplicable and totally illogical reason was canceled due to some great Motorola conspiracy.

A far more likely explanation is that the rumors of its existence, none of which came from a credible source, were simply false to begin with (as with a vast majority of the rumors out there). Don't believe everything that you read!!

chazmox

Apr 5, 2003, 02:58 PM

Rincewind... thank you again - the quoted text was very helpful, on target, and interesting and I will take a look at the links...

Macrumors12345: I agree with your doubt about the G5; however, I worked for Motorola for 7 years and, out of around 20 projects I worked on in some form or fashion, only five of those actually shipped. Motorola is notorious for getting something almost to shipping and then cancelling because marketing has changed a target... I could tell so many stories...

And it does make NO SENSE and does wonders for the morale of the engineers on the projects...

Snowy_River

Apr 5, 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
I would love to see a reliable source for that, because it makes ABSOLUTELY NO economic sense. If you have already spent money developing the chip - and it is as great as claimed - why not produce it? Maybe you won't get the return on investment that you had hoped for if the market is softer than expected, but it's not as if you will somehow recoup all of your R&D expenditures by not producing the chip! The R&D is a sunk cost - it can't be recovered!! And if they were already sampling this chip, then clearly the development phase was coming to a close and production (at least in limited quantities) had already begun. So the only reason you would want to cancel the chip at this point is if you were getting horrible yields and it was performing terribly. But according to your story, the chip was performing great, and they still decided to cancel it anyway and throw away all of their R&D investment. Again, that makes NO SENSE.

As I recall (though I don't have a link to it), those G5 chips that were functional did perform quite well. The problem was the Moto was having massive problems with yields, and little to no luck with solving those problems. Further, there was a lot of politics going on between Apple, Moto, and IBM at that time, and Moto was essentially feeling that further investment in the non-embedded field was wasted money. That is when they cancelled the G5. It was still a long way from being production ready...

However, do take all of this with a grain of salt. It is all rumor and scuttle-but. But, to play devil's advocate, the converse doesn't make much sense either. To assert that there was no G5 would be to say that Apple has been happily sitting on its laurels knowing that they didn't have a chip to go to after the G4, until last year when IBM came up with the 970. That, too, makes no sense.

If Moto didn't have a chip in the works, then Apple would have been working with IBM a lot sooner to try to get a new chip. Or the infamous Marklar would have been more than just a back-up plan. For that matter, why not move to x86 at the same time as converting over to OS X, if there was no processor roadmap to take them forward with PPC chips after the G4?

No, I'm quite sure that there was a G5 (non-embedded), and that it had some major problems with production. It only makes sense.

:)

SuzanneA

Apr 5, 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by chazmox

Also, does this pass the common sense test. Can Apple release the 970 without an operating system that is 64 bit ready ( Panther )? And Panther is not due till Sept...

Yes, they can, the 970 has a 32bit compatibility mode, all it would take would be for OpenFirmware to boot the 970 machines in 32bit mode and then WHEN OS level 64bit support is available, have the OS re-enable 64bit mode after the initial boot, if a 64bit PPC is detected. Thats assuming OS-wide 64bit mode is required, remember, Mach is a microkernel, it could just enable 64bit mode for the MM portion of the kernel, and for apps that require 64bit addressing/data.

Doing it this way would be a bit similar to how ALL PCs boot in 16bit mode, even in these days of 32bit OSs everywhere.

Also, this method would mean that only one version of 10.3 (or any future 10.x release) would be required for both G3/G4 and 970 based machines. The postings saying '2 versions of 10.3 will need to be written' or '10.3 will be required for the 970' postings have been annoying me for a while.

socokid

Apr 6, 2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by QCassidy352
so... what will the PPC 970 be called? Will it just be referred to as the PPC 970? Or will it be the G5? Or the G6 (with the G5 never having made it in to actual computers)?

Wouldn't there be legal rights owned by Moto on the G5 name? After all the G-series machines were directly named via the Moto chip generation number.

I would suspect the death of the Gx name from Apple if the 970 is used.

Zeke

Apr 6, 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
I would love to see a reliable source for that, because it makes ABSOLUTELY NO economic sense. If you have already spent money developing the chip - and it is as great as claimed - why not produce it? Maybe you won't get the return on investment that you had hoped for if the market is softer than expected, but it's not as if you will somehow recoup all of your R&D expenditures by not producing the chip! The R&D is a sunk cost - it can't be recovered!! And if they were already sampling this chip, then clearly the development phase was coming to a close and production (at least in limited quantities) had already begun. So the only reason you would want to cancel the chip at this point is if you were getting horrible yields and it was performing terribly. But according to your story, the chip was performing great, and they still decided to cancel it anyway and throw away all of their R&D investment. Again, that makes NO SENSE.

Given that there has NEVER been ANY reliable confirmation that the Motorola G5 existed, it strains credibility to think that it was developed, went into sampling, performed great, and then for some inexplicable and totally illogical reason was canceled due to some great Motorola conspiracy.

A far more likely explanation is that the rumors of its existence, none of which came from a credible source, were simply false to begin with (as with a vast majority of the rumors out there). Don't believe everything that you read!!

Actually, economically this makes sense. Generally companies do R&D on tons of stuff (even making prototypes) which never go into production. The major cost of producing something is the tooling and marketing. If you never make the plant to produce the chips all you're out is R&D (which in the big scheme of things is not that much). So Moto probably did have the chips but either they were having problems with yields or more likely they just decided the market wasn't big enough to justify the massive amount of money a facility would require for nice processors. There's a reason why only big companies like IBM and Intel are building facilities. $$

dongmin

Apr 6, 2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by wdlove
A very good article, coorobating what I have been reading. I think we have alot to look forward to at WWDC in June. More reason why the date was changed so that product will be available in a timely manner. :) Hopefully the wait won't be like the PowerBook! ;)

Uhh, the Architosh article doesn't say jack to corroborate any rumors. The only thing significant they say is "IBM is under increased pressure to ramp up production at new microprocessor fabrication plants in order to make way for new contracts."

This bit of info, even if it's real, doesn't specify what chip they are under pressure to produce. As they say themselves, it could be Nvidia chips. All Architosh is saying is that 1) the new fab facility is 'under pressure' to ramp up production, of what we can only speculate; and 2) that it makes sense for this new fab to be producing the 970 for Apple, but this is pure speculation on their part. As someone else noted, their rumoring record is not so hot.

macrumors12345

Apr 6, 2003, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Zeke
Actually, economically this makes sense. Generally companies do R&D on tons of stuff (even making prototypes) which never go into production....So Moto probably did have the chips but either they were having problems with yields or more likely they just decided the market wasn't big enough to justify the massive amount of money a facility would require for nice processors. $$

In order to have yield problems, Motorola would actually have to have the production lines up and running (as they would need if they were sampling the chip). And that would imply a big investment that they could not recoup simply by canceling the chip. So I am still very skeptical that this would make good business sense...there is a big difference between building a prototype versus actually sampling a chip and sending batches of them off to prospective customers (like Apple).

But really, that is neither here nor there, because, again, there were NO credible reports that the G5 ever existed in the form you are referring to (e.g. an ultra-high performance processor near production). If you know of any, then please provide the URL. Otherwise, my statement stands. Virtually all of the reports about the G5 and its breathtaking performance (easily exceeding that of a 4 Ghz Pentium 4, according to the reports) back in late 2001 came either from The Register or other articles quoting the The Register (the only "independent" source I ever saw that also said there might be a new processor coming was, ironically, Architosh). In retrospect, those articles were obsviously a hoax - presumably The Register was sincere in its reporting, but apparently they did not or could not verify the credibility of their "sources" (who were clearly misleading them). Why do we know this? Because the articles explicilty stated that Motorola was already G5 processors in quantity for Apple, and the Apple production lines were supposedly churning out new PowerMac G5 towers only weeks before MWSF 2002. If Apple already had so many of these magnificent processors available and was producing new towers, there is NO WAY that they would have canceled this machine. They might have delayed it, if there were some technical glitches, but they would never have canceled it. So the rumors were clearly false. There is no doubt of that, so don't kid yourself otherwise. Somebody had their fun, and whoever it was misled a large portion of the (admittedly gullible) Mac rumors community. And hey, I'll be the first to admit that even I believed the rumors might be true at one point in time. But in retrospect they were CLEARLY FALSE. Once again, THERE IS NO DOUBT about this. Oh, did I mention yet that the rumors were false? Because I wanted to be totally clear about that.

Now, is it possible that there was SOME OTHER (real) Motorola G5 that we NEVER heard anything about and that was entering production yet suddenly got canceled? Conceivably, that could be true. But since, again, we have NEVER heard any rumors about this chip, there is absolutely no reason why we would think that it would exist, especially since it would make no economic sense.

NavyIntel007

Apr 6, 2003, 08:25 PM

Don't doubt that moto would pull the plug so fast on the G5. Look at the auto industry. They spend millions in designing outragious cars for auto shows. Some morph into real car models, others die a quiet death. Even some of the ones that die have engines and all the fixings.

Hell, look at the space program. They were billions into the replacement for the space shuttle and Bush cancelled it. I even saw the prototype lander in Houston.

Don't even think there ever will be physical proof. This is Apple we're talking about. They aren't exactly open with their development plans. If they were, sites like this wouldn't exist.

MisterMe

Apr 6, 2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Don't doubt that moto would pull the plug so fast on the G5. Look at the auto industry. They spend millions in designing outragious cars for auto shows. Some morph into real car models, others die a quiet death. Even some of the ones that die have engines and all the fixings.Apples and oranges. Show cars are a part of research, not a product of it. Even here, that is changing. More and more we are seeing show cars that are intended as product previews rather than research exercises. The development of computer models have eliminated the need for most physical models as research exercises.
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Hell, look at the space program. They were billions into the replacement for the space shuttle and Bush cancelled it. I even saw the prototype lander in Houston. Apples and oranges. Contractors have to spend billions to research and produce proposals, such as the prosposed Shuttle replacement. The decision to accept such a proposal for implementation is informed by technical, economic, and political considerations.
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Don't even think there ever will be physical proof. This is Apple we're talking about. They aren't exactly open with their development plans. If they were, sites like this wouldn't exist.That's just it. The most important resource in this technology era is the idea. When your chief competitor has the ability to expropriate your ideas with near impunity, then your ability to maintain the confidentiality of your ideas until they are products is key to your survival.

Grimace

Apr 7, 2003, 01:02 AM

We’ll see the 970 in desktops at WWDC this summer right on schedule. Powerbooks will have them around August 1st, in time for back-to-school; a market that Apple still has an enormous interest in.

ddtlm

Apr 7, 2003, 02:44 AM

carletonmusic:

We’ll see the 970 in desktops at WWDC this summer right on schedule.
On schedule huh? Doesn't mean much when noone here knows what the schedule is.

Frobozz

Apr 7, 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Zeke
Actually, economically this makes sense. Generally companies do R&D on tons of stuff (even making prototypes) which never go into production.

Yeah, I agree. R&D is not a lost resource, because you learn from any mistakes and can use your R&D on a given failed product on a new, prosperous product.

That's not to say the guy a couple messages up was wrong about Moto never having a G5, but my guess is that it had them and canned them. Just my gut. Other evidence supports this, as some people have deduced. I think the theory of "Moto G5 cancelled and IBM picking up slack" is more likely.... otherwise we'd be using Athlons (eeek) if there was never a G5.

Snowy_River

Apr 7, 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
Now, is it possible that there was SOME OTHER (real) Motorola G5 that we NEVER heard anything about and that was entering production yet suddenly got canceled? Conceivably, that could be true. But since, again, we have NEVER heard any rumors about this chip, there is absolutely no reason why we would think that it would exist, especially since it would make no economic sense.

I think that I'd have to disagree. I'd guess that some (maybe not all, or even most) of the rumors that we've heard about the G5 over the years were about the 'real' G5 from Moto. Just because some rumors are unfounded doesn't mean that all of them are. So, I maintain that we do have reason to believe that it did exist, also noting my previous comment that Apple's current situation with processors makes no sense otherwise. ;)

DakotaGuy

Apr 7, 2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by socokid
Wouldn't there be legal rights owned by Moto on the G5 name? After all the G-series machines were directly named via the Moto chip generation number.

I would suspect the death of the Gx name from Apple if the 970 is used.

I thought G-series was an Apple thing. The current G3 (750fx) is an IBM, designed and built by them, yet Apple still calls it a G3 processor. I don't think Moto has to build it for it to be called a G5. My guess is it will infact be called a PowerMac G5 and Powerbook G5, because for marketing reasons the common consumer sees it and knows exactly what it is....better then a G3 or a G4 and it would be the 5th generation of a PowerPC chip used by Apple.

What I don't want to see is the old number system, 6100, 6500, 7100, 8500, etc, etc, that was SO confusing!!!

macrumors12345

Apr 7, 2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I think that I'd have to disagree. I'd guess that some (maybe not all, or even most) of the rumors that we've heard about the G5 over the years were about the 'real' G5 from Moto. Just because some rumors are unfounded doesn't mean that all of them are. So, I maintain that we do have reason to believe that it did exist, also noting my previous comment that Apple's current situation with processors makes no sense otherwise. ;)

What rumors did we hear of a G5 that was about to ship (with magnificent performance, no less) besides the ones from The Register (www.theregister.co.uk)? I follow the Mac rumors scene quite closely, and the only rumors of a G5 being in production that I ever heard were either from The Register (or Architosh, whose credibility is what began this debate) or from stories quoting The Register (for example, www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/ptech/12/03/G5.mac.idg/). But there were so many Register articles (at least a half dozen) and so many other articles quoting the Register, that many Mac rumor addicts began to accept the existence of the G5 as fact, rather than unsubstantiated rumors. And apparently it got so bad that people STILL live under the fantasy, even today, that there was actually a G5 that was about to ship, and for some reason Apple and Moto just decided to cancel this chip, because they were afraid that they might start actually making money or something terrible like that, God forbid.

I challenge you to find even ONE remotely credible article about a Motorola G5 that was ABOUT to ship (as opposed to simply referencing an undated Moto Roadmap) and that is NOT from The Register and is NOT simply rehashing The Register's G5 rumor. This is the Internet, and there is a pretty good search engine called Google. If there were any non-Register generated Motorola G5 production reports out there, then you ought to be able to find them in a matter of minutes - it's not very hard. But UNTIL THEN I ask you to STOP spreading this nonsense that "we do have reason to believe that (the G5) did exist (in a shipping form)", because you have, in fact, given us NO REASON to believe that it exists. Give me a credible link, and then there will be a reason. Until then, talking about the existence of the G5 is almost as silly as talking about the existence of unicorns. Just because this is a rumors forum doesn't mean that we have to COMPLETELY eschew common sense and respect for factual information and live in a fantasy, make-believe land. So once again I challenge the Motorola G5 advocates: either put up a CREDIBLE link to support your claims of a sampling, production quality G5, or admit that you are wrong! It is your choice, one or the other.

Flynnstone

Apr 7, 2003, 10:02 PM

Whats the point about all this talk about the Motorola G5?
Its all wasted bits!
Is it likely that Apple has designed their new systems using a proverbial G5 ... No.

Anyone disagree ?:confused:

wdlove

Apr 8, 2003, 08:33 PM

>
> 2003--PowerPC 970 released.
> 2004--Apple's market share reaches 30%.
> 2045--100th anniversary of war ending. Apple becomes monopoly :)
>
> (To get us back on topic.)
>
> Phil

from infiniteloop.com - any comments on the possibilites of above? I think the PPC 970 2003 is almost set in stone. :)

Snowy_River

Apr 8, 2003, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
What rumors did we hear of a G5 that was about to ship (with magnificent performance, no less)...?

This debate, while pointless, is curious. I think that we're arguing at cross purposes here. You seem to be asking me to provide some proof that there was a G5. Of course I can't do that. Very few people could ever do such a thing, and most (if not all) of them never would, anyway.

I've read the Register article, and neither I nor it make the claim that there was a chip that was 'about to ship'. The claim is that said chip was in a final development stage. Here's a quote:

The 8500 update is revision 0.6, and is said to fix the cache coherency bug we reported a little while back. There still appears to be an issue with the G5's AltiVec performance, so while that has been improved with this revision, it's still only around 85 per cent of the third-generation G4-class processor...

You say that I have given no reason to believe that a G5 ever existed. But I'd say that all I've tried to do is provide reason, not proof. Reason dictates that Apple would not sit on its laurels using the G4 processor without having a next generation processor in the works, probably before the G4 was originally shipping. If Apple was so foolish as to do this, then Apple would have gone belly up long ago. Again, reason dictates that if there hadn't been something like a G5 in the works, including sampling chips, Apple would have moved in a different direction before now. Perhaps gone over to the x86 world. We 'know' that there have been versions of the MacOS running on x86 architecture as far back as System 7.6.

Further reason would say that Motorola continued to try to make its own production schedules. Surely they don't want to stab their customers in the back by telling them they'll have a chip, and then not delivering...

All of that said, here are a few links that I found. The first two concern Motorola's processor road map, and the last is (heaven forbid) an Architosh article that refers to the earlier article that predicted the G5

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/9909/24.g5.shtml

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0009/27.mot.shtml

http://www.architosh.com/news/2002-10/2002c-1023-mcp7457-rm1.phtml

P.S. As I said to start with, this is a rather pointless debate. I know that I don't know for sure that there was or wasn't a G5 anywhere other than on paper in Motorola's published roadmaps, and I really doubt you know any better than I do. I'd suggest that we agree to disagree at this point. :)