Rumored Timeline: G4, 970 and Beyond

[MacRumors]

MacBidouille posts (http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-05-05#5434) (english translation provided on their site) a timeline based their rumors. It's unclear how much of it is based on substantiated rumors vs. speculation.

The timeline starts with PPC 970 Based PowerMacs and Xserves in June/July 2003, and promises faster G4 iMacs and Gobi G3 based iBooks by year's end. Jan/Feb 2004 brings the PPC 970 to the iMac and a second generation 970 to the PowerMacs/Xserves.... with the possibility of the 980 in March of 2004.

Also mentioned is a high-end "Xstation" with up to 64 processors, as well as a Xserve Enterprise Edition.

Readers will remember first mention of both an "Xstation" as well as an Xserve Enterprise Edition in an unusually detailed anonymous report (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/11/20021124221123.shtml) from November 2002, posted here on MacRumors. In it, the writer mentions the following:

An eight way 2U Xserve is currently in the works, and will be based on the 970, and will switch over to the Power 5. It will be Apple's high end server, and the name Xserve enterprise edition has been proposed. A high end multiprocessor workstation class pro model is also in the works. The name XStation has been proposed for it, and it could debut a year from now. It will feature Nvidia's highest end Quadro or equivalent graphics card, and it will feature the upcoming Power 5 chip from IBM.

[rubikcube]

This sounds a bit shady...

[Grimace]

Faster G4s? Not for much longer I hope...

They must have a mole in Apple.

[mproud]

Interesting it talks about everything except the Powerbooks... the 970 known to be perfect for the Powerbooks. I wonder how this fits in with this timeline, if this is somewhat closish to what happens.

[CybrCyfr]

After redirecting our (my software company) technology goals tward the perception that Apple will soon tackle the high-end Enterprise markets, this is very good news! I was hoping not to sink the ship in hopes of "Apple Enterprise".

Arn, what confirmations have you came across with regards to the XStation and/or XServer Enterprise?

I would love to see Apple competing with the high-end Sun SunFire (maybe even the Sun Enteprise 10000?) and HP Nclass (maybe even the HP Superdome) servers.

I know it is comming, but how soon? Are we really talking about dual fibre channel (Xserve/XRaid already has this), up to sixtyfour processors, and secure management enviroments? (drooling)

And where is Apple heading with it's storage stratigy? The XRaid is a great start, but what about true SAN solutions with Apple quality integration?

Arn, what do you know?

[arn]

Originally posted by mproud
Interesting it talks about everything except the Powerbooks... the 970 known to be perfect for the Powerbooks. I wonder how this fits in with this timeline, if this is somewhat closish to what happens.

970 powerbooks are mentioned in March 2004

arn

[herocero]

with the g4? if the 970 can be ready for all the lines in june, why not do em? i hope there are enough reasons for a clean sweep of the g4 in the PM, PB and xserve and toss that 970 in there.

i love the possibility of apple picking up the power4 and 5s for some high end enterprise stuff. maybe steve got ticked off that the best rendering farm pixar could use was an intel/linux box . . .

dump the g4. now. ok, please? :)

[arn]

Originally posted by herocero
with the g4? if the 970 can be ready for all the lines in june, why not do em?

Why does the eMac need a 970? Or the iMac? Clearly there's plenty of reasons not to put the 970 across the line - esp when there will only be a certain number of speed-points available. Why don't PC makers put Pentium 4's in every computer? The G4 will certainly be a cheaper chip than the 970 when it first comes out.

Besides... I see everyone's getting their hopes up... and getting a little greedy... personally, if they _demo_ the 970 at WWDC, I'll be pleased. You'll be lucky if "only" the PowerMacs get the 970 as early as June.

arn

[fpnc]

Well, it is my opinion that these rumors about soon-to-be-released PPC970 Macs are entirely wrong. I don't expect that we will see PPC970 based Mac desktop systems until VERY late this year or more likely in early 2004. PowerBooks probably won't appear until well into year 2004. Just because Apple is in desperate need for faster systems won't make them just happen (all wishful thinking aside).

Some may remember rumors at about this same time last year concerning the then soon-to-be-released Motorola G5. It was reported that benchmarks on those prototypes were so good that they could actually run Windows under VirtualPC at a speed that was comparable to a high-end PC.

At about that time I posted a note to a discussion forum stating that it was my opinion that the __G4__ would probably be the last desktop PPC processor that Motorola would ever produce and that we should forget about ever seeing a Motorola-based G5 PowerMac. I also said that Motorola would be out of the desktop processor market in less than two more years.

I received a fair amount of "flack" for those comments, but it seems that time has proven me correct, and I suspect that I will also be correct about the PPC970.

Of course, these are only my opinions and I have no direct, inside knowledge about anything that is happening at Apple, Motorola, or IBM. My opinions are just based upon common sense and my over twenty years experience in the computer and semiconductor industries.

And now for my disclaimer, if Apple does release a PPC970 before the end of July 2003 I will not only be surprised (and humbled) but I will be first in line to buy one. ;-)

[arn]

Originally posted by fpnc
I don't expect that we will see PPC970 based Mac desktop systems until VERY late this year or more likely in early 2004.


I also think June 2003 is very optimistic. But... we'll see. Maybe MacBidouille knows something we don't. :)

arn

[shadowfax]

they'll pull a crazy "look we have these, check out the new powermac that isn't coming out for 6-7 months, but we are showing it to you and here is panther with 64 bit support..."

i believe it's not too far fetched to announce them next month or so, justt for powermacs at least. that doesn't mean anything, it'll just get developers pepped (and cut their prices on current ones, one would hope).

thinking about that, it seems odd to imagine that apple could take 6 months of people waiting to buy a new mac, but i suppose stranger things have happened... (3.5 month wait on 17 powerbooks?)

[a9mike]

Besides... I see everyone's getting their hopes up... and getting a little greedy... personally, if they _demo_ the 970 at WWDC, I'll be pleased. You'll be lucky if "only" the PowerMacs get the 970 as early as June.

I fully agree Arn, it's always nice to dream, and everyone wants to see the next gen proc asap... but let's not get too ahead of ourselves. It will take time from the introduction of the 970 in the PowerMac to the point where it is in all systems. It always takes time (G3 --> G4), especially with Apple. They like to have a decent gap between their Pro & Consumer lines.

I'd like to see official confirmation/roll-out of the 970 in any system. From there we can speculate more accurately.

I'm running a 450 Sawtooth and can't wait to own one of these monsters when they debut... er... maybe 2nd gen, if I can wait.

[luke_s]

just one question: if apple announces 970 based pm or pb in june or may and say: look at these computers and buy them in 6 months, what will they be selling the next 6 months? no one will buy any g4 mac anymore.......

[Rai]

WoW this getting exciting.:cool:

MacBidouille, has posted three detailed posts, about the release of the 970. With the confidence, and regularity of these posts, MacBidouille is staking the reputation of there name in the mac rumor game, on this one rumor.:D

Either they have some pretty concrete evidence, or there hoping there wild speculation comes true, and making them insanely popular.

I personnally would like to believe the former.

I'm a window user, and first came to this site a month ago, when i was looking to buy an ipod, thanks to your great defective work, i waited into the release of the new ipod.

I thing while reading this message board (finding out info on ipod), has warped my mind i know find myself looking to buy a Mac.:p

Anyway waiting for the 970 to be released, before making the switch, so sooner the better.:D


Rai

[herocero]

i didn't mention the emac or imac cause i assumed my grandma or the library comp lab don't need 64-bit computing power :) i'll clarify a bit more next time :rolleyes:


Originally posted by arn
Why does the eMac need a 970? Or the iMac? Clearly there's plenty of reasons not to put the 970 across the line - esp when there will only be a certain number of speed-points available. Why don't PC makers put Pentium 4's in every computer? The G4 will certainly be a cheaper chip than the 970 when it first comes out.

Besides... I see everyone's getting their hopes up... and getting a little greedy... personally, if they _demo_ the 970 at WWDC, I'll be pleased. You'll be lucky if "only" the PowerMacs get the 970 as early as June.

arn

[Shaktai]

Originally posted by mproud
Interesting it talks about everything except the Powerbooks... the 970 known to be perfect for the Powerbooks. I wonder how this fits in with this timeline, if this is somewhat closish to what happens.

Re-read the first line of the actual article, not just the post. (they do offer it in English.) It clearly states faster G4 processors at 1.25ghz for Powerbooks.

Sorry, no 970 Powerbooks yet. Probably no redesigned motherboards. May still be some issues with adequate chip supply too. Dont' everyone panic though, everything seems to be moving faster then expected. Just remember that all time lines are "estimates" subject to change and not locked in stone.

[leo]

Originally posted by Shaktai
Sorry, no 970 Powerbooks yet. Probably no redesigned motherboards.

But this is exactly what MacWhispers claims: 970 PBs soon and new motherboards. This is really getting interesting. Let's see who's gonna win this game, MacBidouille or MacWhispers... :D

[beeblebrox87]

There is now an editor's note on the MacBidouille article:

[NDR] Actuellement, le nom Xstation appartient à IBM. Allons nous vers une fusion des pôles serveur d'Apple et d'IBM ?

This roughly translates to:

Currently, the name Xstation belongs to IBM. Are we now moving towards a fusion of the server systems (?) of Apple and IBM?

Anybody who can provide a better translation?

[deadduck]

Apple has competition and must act sooner than later

http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/Motherboards/abitic7g_asusp4c800.shtml


This articles describes P4 boards running with 800Mhz FSB's this will increase speed better than processor increase in Mhz Not only that they inlcude SATA RAID firewire, Gigabit ethernet etc all those hardware bits I normally expect built into a mac, not a pc

[Falleron]

I think that IF apple is going to make an enterprise server it will need the credability of IBM. Therefore, I suspect it will be a partnership. However, I still have my doubts about Apple making an enterprise server.

[G4scott]

HOLY *****!!!

This is cool...

Everybody say "***** Motorola!"

It looks like Apple has a very nice processor plan for the coming year, and if IBM keeps up the good work, we'll be kickin pee-cee ass, AND taking names... So many names, you'll need that 64-way xStation to process them all...

Man I feel good...

What a wonderful way to start the week

And these are just rumors...

Everybody say it again! "***** MOTOROLA!!!"

hehe :cool:

oh, and deadduck, while those certainly are nice for games and all, they're just an over-hyped 800mhz bus. It's only really a 200mhz bus that's been quadrupled... Besides, the 970 can handle that wonderful 6.4gb/s throughput, just like those mobos. That, and the 970 will require a 450, or even 900mhz system bus...

I'm sure that the 970 will wipe the floor with everything the pee-cee world can offer...

oh, and everybody say "***** MOORE'S LAW!!!" (I just thought that was necessary :D )

[pilotgi]

So, they're going to put a new and improved Gobi G3 in the iBook and the same old 0.18 micron G4 in the PowerBook?

And at 1.25 Ghz it will be even hotter!

Doesn't make sense to me.

[deadduck]

Originally posted by G4scott

oh, and deadduck, while those certainly are nice for games and all, they're just an over-hyped 800mhz bus. It's only really a 200mhz bus that's been quadrupled... Besides, the 970 can handle that wonderful 6.4gb/s throughput, just like those mobos. That, and the 970 will require a 450, or even 900mhz system bus...


No this is what database developers like me to sell our customers high bandwidth with raid sub-systems


I'm sure that the 970 will wipe the floor with everything the pee-cee world can offer...


I'm sure it will but If 10,000 PC's are sold with these specs thats 10,000 less 970 upgrades in the next 2 years

[ryanweb]

Remember how everybody expected Chimera to become the new Apple browser, and then, boom, we've got Safari based on KDE?
Why everybody is so sure that Apple will even use PPC 970?
Why not Opteron from AMD? I've read an interview with head of AMD and he sounded very confident about this new chip, like he already have a very big customer to sell it to.
Just a thought.

[Mr. Anderson]

I'm floored by the XStation specs....if it truly can have upto 64 processors, well, damn, that's amazing.

I wouldn't be able to afford one, though, but maybe one with 8 processors....3D animation would be quite snappy :D

Don't know if I'll be able to wait for one of those, however. Probably I'll get a 970 when a dual becomes available.

D

[silvergunuk]

Come on apple announce a quad set up, I can do with some serious power for my 3d work but I refuse to buy a pc. I dont want an xserve because I would like to see my 3d files up on screen and would love to move the camera angels around picking up extra detail..Also with the arrival of new macs let hope they bring out softimage for mac....mmmmmm quad processors!

I'm currently running a 400 mhz G4 tower with 1.25 gigs of ram and an ati 8500 and its getting a little too s.l.o.w..the speed increase will be a welcome.

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by ryanweb
Remember how everybody expected Chimera to become the new Apple browser, and then, boom, we've got Safari based on KDE?
Why everybody is so sure that Apple will even use PPC 970?
Why not Opteron from AMD? I've read an interview with head of AMD and he sounded very confident about this new chip, like he already have a very big customer to sell it to.
Just a thought.

Why the hell would Apple switch to Opteron with the 970 available in the near future? It would only require either a) writing a PowerPC emulator or b) forcing ISVs to port their software, again to a new processor platform, and right after most of them finally released software for MacOS X. There is ZERO reason for Apple to switch to AMD, x86 or any other non-PowerPC processor architecture at this time, if only due to the massive PR nightmare that it would cause.

As for AMD's big customer, I believe that honor goes to IBM. And before you bring up mentions of Apple & AMD talking about anything, realize that they are both in the HyperTransport consortium, and thus likely talk about it often.

[Trekkie]

I don't see the current PowerPC 970 in the PowerBook. But then I could be surprised. It's pretty warm from what I've heard. I've seen a presentation about it being in a Blade server.

I asked if it'd run Mac OS X and they kinda chuckled but wouldn't say yes or no, which I found intriguing a tiny bit.

personally, I'm really hoping on the July time frame. Though I don't know if I could swing what I'd want if it came out (high end system, lotsa ram and big LCD.

Though I'd mortgage a few things to do it. The PowerPC 970 is an amazing chip. just hope Apple doesn't raise prices too much to use it, hope they come in about where the PowerMacs are now.

[nuckinfutz]

You won't be seeing 64 proc systems from Apple. That's going in the opposite direction of the industry.

IBM, Sun and Intel are are looking to move to more efficient systems using Multithreaded Cores. A Processor like the PPC 970 requires a FSB for EACH processor. That's one hell of a complex board if you're talking 64 Procs. Not going to happen.

What you may see is eventual Dual and even Quad cores as we move to 90nm and 65nm Fab technology. Then you will see SMT to each core giving you a Logical 64 Processor system with as little as 8 Physical Procs. Now THAT's an Motherboard you can build and not go broke.

[zephc]

Originally posted by silvergunuk
...I dont want an xserve because I would like to see my 3d files up on screen...

I assume you mean you want a monitor attached to the machine, which you can do with an XServe, please see the tech specs at http://www.apple.com/xserve/design.html

Nevertheless, an XServe is probably not what you need as a workstation (this is why they are in the 1U form factor - they are meant as servers :) )

[DharvaBinky]

I just gotta say...

Since Apple seems to be trying to push away their continuing problems with the "Megahertz Myth" by upping the ante to 64-bits, and AMD seems to have the same idea, there will be a great deal of "buyer education" on the part of Intel showing that 64-bitness is not the be-all-end-all of performance. They'll produce benchmarks that show you get little or no benefit from the new chips. BUT, I believe these benchmarks (as they usually are) will be blurry because they'll do something like run the 32-bit version of Photoshop on a 970 (or Opteron) vs their latest P4 and say "Look how slow your precious 64-bits are!". Only when the 64-bit native software starts coming in will the difference be noted.

TO THAT END, here's what I think we'll see at WWDC.

Announcement and Demo of the PPC970
Announcement and Demo of Panter with 64-bit support
Announcement and Demo of Metrowerks and other dev packages with 64-bit support

and then the "Oh, and one more thing..." will be

Announcement of immediate availability of "YIKES-style" systems that sport the basic motherboard of the coming 970 powermacs (inside the el capitan case) as a high end (and probably expensive) development/test station so developers can start bringing their software to 970 compatibility before the systems hit the street en masse.

I mean... Intel swears up and down that Itanium 1 was a development platform... and scooted the chip out in expensive, limited quantities to lots of their major software developers. Now, I'm sure that Adobe has had their paws on the 970 for quite a while, but smaller developers need to get a hold of these things quickly now, and it seems to me that WWDC is the place to offer proto-development models of the systems.

Ya think?

Dharvabinky

[illumin8]

I was believing most of this information just fine until I came across this:The Xstation is a highly professional super computer with up to 64 processors (mini. 4). It will be equiped with the latest GPU and support a high quantity of memory. Price between 10000 and 75000$ (maybe more).The Xstation will aim people using some big apps as Maya and other CAD and high resolution video softwares.
I work for Sun Microsystems as an SSE and I've worked first-hand on the Enterprise 10000, which features 64 processors, as well as SunFire 12000 and 15000 which feature up to 100+ processors.

Let me tell you, you do not want to be working in the same room as one of these beasts, let alone on a Cinema Display attached to a video card inside one of these things. The fan noise and environmental issues would be considered a hazardous working environment if you spent 8 hours a day in the same room as one.

I seriously cannot see Apple trying to compete in the supercomputing market. If they were to have a supercomputer offering, it would not have a graphics card option. It would be used for rendering Maya projects or After Effects or compositing or some other highly processor intensive task that could be offloaded from a PowerMac workstation to it.

Also, Sun spends $2 billion a year on R&D developing these systems. Apple would not spend that kind of money and try to enter an already crowded market to compete with the likes of Sun, Fujitsu, HP, and IBM.

We might see 2U 4-way or (highly unlikely, just too dense) 8-way boxes.

[macrumors12345]

Originally posted by leo
But this is exactly what MacWhispers claims: 970 PBs soon and new motherboards. This is really getting interesting. Let's see who's gonna win this game, MacBidouille or MacWhispers... :D

You know it is possible for them to both be wrong. It is not a binary outcome variable.

[macrumors12345]

Originally posted by deadduck
No this is what database developers like me to sell our customers high bandwidth with raid sub-systems


Wow, you sell your customers single processor Pentium 4 machines for their databases? That sounds very unimpressive.

Remember, unlike the 970, the P4 that you are referring is incapable of multiprocessing. That alone is a major advantage for the 970. The 970 will also have a superior FSB to the P4 (450 mhz double pumped vs. 200 mhz quad quad pumped). It should match up very well and beat the P4 based machines by a substantial margin in many tasks.

[illumin8]

Originally posted by CybrCyfr
After redirecting our (my software company) technology goals tward the perception that Apple will soon tackle the high-end Enterprise markets, this is very good news! I was hoping not to sink the ship in hopes of "Apple Enterprise".
I don't mean to offend, but if you have bet your entire company's enterprise server strategy on a product that doesn't even exist yet, you're probably going to be losing your job soon...

Seriously, Apple cannot compete with the likes of Sun, HP, IBM, and Fujitsu in the Enterprise server (larger than 4 procs) market, and the Xserves are not competing on price/performance with the Dells in the entry level server market.

The only thing Xserves are good for are some specialty niche markets like AfterEffects rendering and such.

Apple makes great workstations, and I love their PowerBooks, but they have a long way to go if they want to play in the Enterprise server market, and I think if they were smart they would stay out of it. Especially the low-end market... Dell is just killing everyone in that market and a cheap 2-way or 4-way Linux server is going to give you way more price/performance than a similarly configured Xserve.

[BlainKBanquier]

Mac Biduouille now has benchmarks (http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-05-5) for the 970...

[herr_neumann]

"i didn't mention the emac or imac cause i assumed my grandma or the library comp lab don't need 64-bit computing power i'll clarify a bit more next time "

If the threadsharing feature is a reality, these computers could be part of the library search engine, or a render farm for other work.....



Apple has no choice but to have the 970 shipping by august. If they go any later than that, they miss the back to school purchases, which is a big market. There is no way Apple wont target this market. I would like to think they have learned a thing or two from their last fizzuckups.

Now they need to start a ad campaign targetted at all those entering freshmen. Something along the lines of (you will have enough stress with classes), (ready to use your campus t1 outta the box), or (everything a dorm room needs{theater, music, place to do work,etc}).

Now that is how to add market share, that and slightly more aggressive student discount.

[MorganX]

I guess I can hold out for a 970 based FP iMac. I hope at a minimum they put in a GeforceGo FX.

For the most part I'm happy with the 1Ghz G4 performance and there still seems to be room for improvement there with OS X and Quartz optimization.

Things look pretty decent on the Apple front. It's still a work-in-progress but looking good.

[Silencio]

Originally posted by BlainKBanquier
Mac Biduouille now has benchmarks (http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-05-5) for the 970...
Oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please let these numbers reflect actual reality!

I assume all those benchmarks use Altivec, and, if they're accurate, they really show the true power of the technology and how much it was hamstrung on the G4 by glacial bus speeds.

If MacBidouille is right, I'm going to have to borrow my new .sig from them:

"Mes amis fans de Mac, notre attente va être récompensée. Nous avons fini de défendre une cause difficile. Apple va devenir le roi du monde!"

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by BlainKBanquier
Mac Biduouille now has benchmarks (http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-05-5) for the 970...

WOW. WOW. WOW. If these are real, we are in for a treat.

The photoshop actions test took a Dual 1.42 G4 72 seconds. A dual 1.8 970 took 24 seconds.... and a single 3.06 P4 took 58 seconds.

Again, _if_ these are accurate we are in for a return to the top of the heap. They also claim the dual processor performance, due to the motherboard, will go from a 50% speed increase on G4's to 90% on ther 970s.

It looks as though a lot of this is due to the new motherboards.

[beatle888]

Originally posted by G4scott
HOLY *****!!!

This is cool...

Everybody say "***** Motorola!"

It looks like Apple has a very nice processor plan for the coming year, and if IBM keeps up the good work, we'll be kickin pee-cee ass, AND taking names... So many names, you'll need that 64-way xStation to process them all...

Man I feel good...

What a wonderful way to start the week

And these are just rumors...

Everybody say it again! "***** MOTOROLA!!!"

hehe :cool:

oh, and deadduck, while those certainly are nice for games and all, they're just an over-hyped 800mhz bus. It's only really a 200mhz bus that's been quadrupled... Besides, the 970 can handle that wonderful 6.4gb/s throughput, just like those mobos. That, and the 970 will require a 450, or even 900mhz system bus...

I'm sure that the 970 will wipe the floor with everything the pee-cee world can offer...

oh, and everybody say "***** MOORE'S LAW!!!" (I just thought that was necessary :D )


g4scott, dont blow your wad just yet. these are rumors.

[Toe]

Apple has slowly, steadily been making their move on the Enterprise.

Here's what they've come up with so far: OS X Server - This puppy has full enterprise management capabilities. It can do everything that a major enterprise can do in Unix... but easier. It can manage the heck out of Mac clients, and also does wonders with Windows and Unix clients. And it has unlimited users, which makes it a killer deal compared to Windows.

OS X Client - A wonderful network citizen, OS X is made for enterprise admins. Tools like Mac Manager give admins the ability to control anything they want... or nothing. OS X makes a great client of any server on any network OS. Also things like Safari, native XML, native PostScript, Rendezvous, and so many other features of OS X make it extremely capable for a huge variety of functions (look at how many Safari plug-ins there are, and it's not even released yet!).

Xserve and RAID - these are great for traditional mac markets like educational labs, video capture, Quicktime streaming, etc. But they also make great enterprise tools. You can run a mid-sized corporation off one of these no problem. And they cluster nicely. And they run all the big-time powerful Unix tools. AND they cost a fraction of the comparable Sun and SGI boxes.

eMac - This is a great enterprise desktop. A big screen, nice features, and a low price. It's the Mac that is un-flashy enough to get budget approval.

PowerBook/iBook - The PowerBook is hands-down the best laptop out there, and the iBook is a great package for the price. Corporations are going increasingly mobile, and these great tools for them.

Keynote - Finally Apple moves into Microsoft's sacrosanct domain. Of course we all hope this is just the beginning.

iCal, Addressbook, Mail.app - all of these are pretty primitive now, but they hint at great things to come. I expect these to all get many more features and tighter integration with the next integer release of each one.

So that's what they have so far, all of which points to a pretty good package for the enterprise. And what's supposed to be coming down the pipe? Xstation or whatever - Sounds like this puppy will be big enough to run most enterprises (I understand that for a bank, a mere 64 processors is laughable). And the clustering capabilities of the Xserve can only get better. Rumor is that Apple is working on a lot in this direction.

PPC 970 or whatever - Apple is aware of and addressing the MHz gap and the perceived performance gap. They've also been making great strides to decrease the price gap.

iPad or whatever - Rumors of a tablet continue, and the enterprise is the most obvious place to deploy them.

Appleworks or whatever - many believe that Keynote was just the first blow in an attack on the dominance of MS Office. Apple is allegedly making Office compatibility a priority so that Mac users can be totally free of buggy MS crap.
Apple is truly showing a capability for dominance in the consumer market with the intense consumer capabilities of 10.2, iLife, iTunes Store, etc.. Meanwhile their move on the enterprise is going on quietly and rather unnoticed. Corporations are installing Xserves all over the place. Once the IT staff gets their hands on one of those... they go out and buy a PowerBook. Then they're totally sold, and it's just a matter of making the argument to their execs. As Apple provides more tools, that argument will get stronger and stronger.

I don't expect Apple to take over the world this year... but maybe this decade.

[illumin8]

Originally posted by Toe
So that's what they have so far, all of which points to a pretty good package for the enterprise.Admit it... You work for Apple, don't you? ;)

Anyone that thinks a company looking for a high end transaction processing system, such as a bank or a telco with an Oracle server sitting in front of 20 or 30 terabytes of customer account and billing records is going to switch to a platform designed by Apple just because the CIO likes his powerbook, is seriously wack!

Apple is a non-player in the enterprise market.

Name one company that runs Oracle on an XServe.

I don't even think Oracle has been ported to OS X.

[Toe]

Admit it... You work for Apple, don't you?
Maybe I should. I don't even work for an enterprise... just a small, all-Mac company.

Anyone that thinks a company looking for a high end transaction processing system, such as a bank or a telco with an Oracle server sitting in front of 20 or 30 terabytes of customer account and billing records is going to switch to a platform designed by Apple just because the CIO likes his powerbook, is seriously wack!
But once they realize that that ultra-cool PowerBook runs full, unadulterated BSD Unix, they are impressed. I've shown my TiBook to Unix geeks and seen the light spread over their faces like dawn on the beach. It's like all their dreams come true.

They might not switch OSes... until they need an upgrade or until they want to deploy a new system. One advantage of the Mac is the ZERO per-user licensing fee, which can result in MILLIONS in savings. That's not chump-change, even for the big boys. The incredible low price of the Xserve doesn't hurt either, nor does the incredible ease of management. They can deploy a rack-full of Xserves before they can get a single regular Unix box running stably.

Apple is a non-player in the enterprise market.
Pretty-much... for now. I don't think that is the future though. Plenty of companies have bought an Xserve to try it. i doubt they're disappointed. And it's not like they have to do major porting... it's just unix. It can run mySQL as well as a Sun box.

Name one company that runs Oracle on an XServe.
No. Well... I can't. But I think the Post Office does. And I've been to Xserve seminars where there are geeks from the big IT departments at enterprises, and they seem very impressed. The best i can tell you is that the American Chemical Society (a BIG association) is working on deploying Xserves. But I can guarantee that some larger businesses are as well.

I don't even think Oracle has been ported to OS X.
Ellison, the president of Oracle, sits on Apple's board and is buds with Steve. I don't know if 9i works in Aqua, but it certainly runs in command-line, which is all enterprise IT geeks expect anyway.

[Toe]

P.S. I don't think banks will use Xserves either (for now)... they use room-sized computers. But I do think that regular enterprise companies that just do normal business functions will consider Macs for both servers and clients. Why not, when the cost savings is so huge?

And also, the single-source cargument is a load of crap. If companies really believed that they can't rely on a single company, then why the heck do they rely on Microsoft fo all of their software? Apple is single-source hardware (which is extremely high-quality hardware, BTW), and allows for complete open-source on the software, which is the really important aspect.

[DakotaGuy]

I disagree with the people that say..."Apple has to shift every computer they build to the 970 right from the start or they won't be able to sell them anymore." The eMac and iMac have a much different customer base. They should stay with the G4 increasing clock speed until it proves economical to make these systems 970 based.

Not every PC out there are running 3.06Ghz PIV processors. The G4's still will out muscle consumer Celeron and Duron processors. A lot of the lower price point computers run these processors. I think we will see a single 1.25 and 1.33 Ghz G4 in the iMac and eMac before they move to a 970 based system. I would rather see an iMac for $999 (if that would ever happen) with a 1.25G4 then one for $1,999 with a 1.4Ghz 970. The G4 is still a great consumer processor and is very capable and fast for everyday tasks. Value needs to be addressed first when it comes to the e and i series.

For now anyways...where is that 1Ghz eMac combo drive for $999???? That is what I would like to see so I can afford to upgrade my old iMac 400...

[iLilana]

I was reading an Ingram Micro distribution magazine and saw a full page add for windows server enterprise edition.

put that rumor to rest

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
thinking about that, it seems odd to imagine that apple could take 6 months of people waiting to buy a new mac, but i suppose stranger things have happened... (3.5 month wait on 17 powerbooks?)

What the heck we've waited years, whats 6 months?
Hey I would love it if it were to happen in June, but its not just about the processor for me or many others or we would have bailed long ago. life is good!
daniel

[iLilana]

Personally I would be happy if they just improved the bus speeds in lower end models. 100mhz in a g4 machine really limits the processor. Maybe standerdizing a faster bus speed would help. My eMac is super cool but it could have been better.

[zach]

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
For now anyways...where is that 1Ghz eMac combo drive for $999???? That is what I would like to see so I can afford to upgrade my old iMac 400...

It's here! Let us all rejoice now in the first Apple to break one GHz for less than 1000 bucks!!! HALLELUJAH!!!!!!

Uh, sorry... Guess i got a little carried away....

[pudrik]

If Apple is able to beat Intel to the 800MHz FSB, it would be a huge marketing windfall, even for the uneducated crowd. (Yeah, their processor runs faster, but our whole machine runs faster.)

Personally, though, I will always have a PC desktop for gaming, but I need a laptop for work/school, so I especially hope the 970 Powerbook rumors are true, although they will probably have a slower FSB.

Apple seems to finally be putting it together... The agony is having to wait for it to happen.

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

Originally posted by ryanweb
Remember how everybody expected Chimera to become the new Apple browser, and then, boom, we've got Safari based on KDE?
Why everybody is so sure that Apple will even use PPC 970?
Why not Opteron from AMD? I've read an interview with head of AMD and he sounded very confident about this new chip, like he already have a very big customer to sell it to.
Just a thought.

Simple.

Because Apple is "JUST NOW" getting things ported to PowerPC using a myriad of Carbon/Cocoa. Cocoa = very portable. Carbon = "pretty portable", but in that same sense... look at how long it's taking Quark to get to PPC via Carbon in OS X?

Moving to AMD would require "EVERYONE" to rewrite. Trust me... I doubt Adobe would jump at the chance, Microsoft didn't even want to support Cocoa, and supported Carbon because "It was supposed to be easy", but judging by Macromedia, Adobe, and ultimately Quark taking forever to get to market with their applications... it's not as easy as it would seem...

PPC 970 = backwards compatible with other PowerPC's. That means ::gasping:: Doesn't have to rewrite the OS, doesn't have to make any changes to applications to work (and eventually you can optimize with the next generation version of your apps. to take full advantage, and... ::gasping:: Panther could take advantage of the 64-bit nature of the chipset too through optimization), and can focus on making the machine work better on the myriad of PPC's, from G3-G4-970. It's not the processor speed... it's the inefficiency of the OS. Also known as "bloat". If Apple can increase the threadedness of OS X sufficiently... a low-end G3 would be more than adequate to be responsive and productive. 970's would scream.

Oh, and if Apple wasn't going IBM... why would IBM even bother to include an AltiVec compatible SIMD? That was one of the major reasons they balked on the G4 roadmap according to Motorola, sold the Somerset manufacturing plant to Motorola, and was set to focus on their own needs. Apple wanted SIMD, IBM had little reason to develop it (Linux and AIX don't support it, and there's little logic to support it if you understand that the beauty of Unix OS's that are based on a monolithic kernal, is that a simple port of a POSIX application is easier when you're not writing for all sorts of specific hardware to tie it to; consider that IBM's PowerPC and Power# efforts are tied to Enterprise where it's not a graphics intensive area where vector-processing is a major focus... and you'll understand ever more that SIMD in a chipset isn't a priority to "IBM" for "IBM's Machines") and didn't want SIMD because their machines "DIDN'T" need it. Therefore, IBM continued to sell uprated G3's to Apple, while developing "NEW" G3 models to suit their needs that were faster in the areas they needed for Enterprise. Many of which were 64-bit and suitable for their own Enterprise needs.

Yet in the process their revenues from selling PowerPC's shrank, and the R&D costs increased because they weren't getting bucketloads of $ from Apple, nor were they focusing on the more lucrative PowerPC embedded market that Motorola spends 99% of their PowerPC development on. BTW, embedded "DOESN'T" include PowerPC desktops, where it's quite obvious Motorola simply doesn't give a damn, and only improves things when they feel like it.

Fact is, after Apple killed off the clone industry, and put a "permanently parked" sticker on Motorolas G3 PowerPC Platform (PPCP; previously known as CHRP for Common Hardware Reference Platform; an open-design spec for hardware that multiple OS's including MS Windows NT supported) PowerMacs. Ever since then... Motorola has been bitter. My ex-girlfriends (still friends) mom worked at Motorola. It wasn't very long after that, that Motorola sold off or gave away "EVERY" single piece of Mac hardware they had, switching over to Windows-based PC's.

So for those wanting AMD... not unless AMD builds PowerPC's with SIMD that make the 970 look sick and can run Jaguar with some minor patches/updates/tweaks.

:)

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

As far as the PPC 970 being suitable for laptop duty... actually it's between the current micron process high end and the low end G4 in heat. Since the current "Low end" is considered hot enough to fry eggs and been something that many have b!tched about for some time... it's not likely that the "SAME" desktop G4 that makes up the high end will be used in Powerbooks. It's just waaaaaaaay too hot, so I expect a smaller micron sized G4 for Powerbooks 'til a future PPC 9xx processor is suitable for the application. It's also safe to say since the PPC 970 is hotter than the current laptop range processors, it won't see application in any Powerbooks until the smaller die and more efficient (based on rumors) PPC 980 ships.

It's also not logical for Apple to launch every new machine at one time when processor yields on first gen processors tend to be sketchy. Betting the farm by launching "EVERYTHING' on it is sort of like betting the farm on a 50/50. A political coup in the light of what happened with the first generation Pentium with it's floating point flaw stands to mind as something Apple would struggle with far more than Intel in the bad PR it'd bring.

What machines can deal with excessive heat, and need the most extreme power?

Pro Desktops

Pro Servers

They're the first for early adopters because they're the top of the heap; the machines that people that want "POWER" buy. Expect 970's in both of these, and then if the rumormill is correct... expect Power# based IBM chips in Apple's mid-high end Enterprise stuff, as they try to transition from a consumer-pegged company into something much grander in all directions (consumer electronics, consumer computers, workstations, SOHO servers, and Enterprise). Apple won't beat Sun and IBM and HP and the like at their own game over night (much less Sony and Panasonic and Best Buy and Musicland), but give them time and they could become a player... and then work on maximizing to all reaches. After all... Enterprise is the cash cow. Sub $700 PC's are the things that you do only when you're making $ hand over fist to prompt a loss leader; and even then... when you're competing against Koreans building the equivelant of a $900 PC for $500, it's hard to beat them (eMachines) and has killed or maimed countless competitors (even hurt Acer who is Korean, killed off Packard Bell, and crippled Compaq enough to let HP take them over).

Which Apple can't afford.

Anything new goes in the above 2 first... it'll also take the greatest and swiftest changes as necessary in hardware because it turns the largest turnaround per item in profit, in terms of margins. Apple easily makes more on a single XServe than it does on a iMac or iPod or eMac. Given Enterprise tendency to charge for services on a much grander scale than even their hardware profits... imagine buying a machine at a premium in terms of profit margin to Apple, and in turn paying a fee yearly to provide support for those that need it. At a yearly pay scale, much like Sun and HP and the others provide... this is a "MAJOR" cash cow without even giving a piece of hardware for that expenditure. Selling Enterprise hardware is like a gift that keeps on giving, especially if a company doesn't have it's own IT department.

It's just common sense...

I doubt we'll see new eMacs, they just shipped with new architectured motherboards. Likewise, I think the iMac will shore up on the high-end of the G4 lineup and continue. What I do expect is to see the PowerMac G4 and XServe G4 processors make their way into the eMac and iMac the very minute the PPC 970 launches. This might require some revamped I/O technology to make them match the PRO predescessors... but it's only logical that this is the way it'll go.

As for the Powerbooks...

G4. It'll be this way until the more efficient PPC 9xx chips are available that'll not burn your lap to a crisp or require you to wear liquid cooled knickers inside a Nomex fire suit. The current high-end G4's are not suitable for laptops, the PPC 970's are too hot, and right now only the low-watt G4 and extremely low-watt G3 in the iBook are. Since Apple has just released the 12" and 17" Powerbook, I expect Apple to eek the line out as is for a bit, then uprate the Powerbook line, replacing the Ti 15" with an Al 15.x" and then uprating the processors across the line to a new smaller die size, more efficient G4 model that matches or beats the current G4 desktops in power.

iBook...

G3. Why? Cheap, cheap, cheap. Apple's 12" Powerbook is a relative bargain, and moving the iBook to G4 would seriously put it in competition against the G4 Powerbooks. Not very logical. When the Powerbook goes PPC 9xx, then and only then will we likely see a revamped and uprated Powerbook motherboard being slid inside the iBook casing with a G4 processor in the Ziff. Like to see a faster G3, and knowing the great efficiencies of the G3, which is coming in at a whopping 7w of power consumption (very little), pushing the G3 up a bit in power, perhaps sacrificing a "teeny-tiny" bit of the efficiency for more grunt could make the G3 a decent competitor 'til it's time to move to G4, and then... to a low-end PPC 9xx once everything else is screaming along on 2nd or 3rd generation 9xx-based processors.

PPC 9xx in everything right off the bat is downright moronic. Why? Pricepoints. If all of your machines are the same processor... then what you're basically saying is that there's no needs for a desktop PowerMac because the Powerbook does everything you need. The fact is a PowerMac doesn't need to worry about battery life or heat in the same vain that a Powerbook does...

You also have pricing...

Why buy a high-end PowerMac Pro Desktop "workstation" when you can get a consumer iMac that is the same speed? Or hey... consumer eMac. Even if the processor speeds between one or the other is "close", the differences are there in terms of I/O and expandability, bus, cache sizes, etc. etc. that the Pro line is still significantly faster, and as a result... more expensive. Yet, you get what you pay for....

Out of the box, for IBM to produce dozens of variations just for Apple's needs is fruitless and time consuming and likely would come down to the consumer in terms of jacked up prices (plus, mind you... it's been said before that IBM will use these processors themselves, so I half-expect IBM to take up a good body of production for their own needs as well). Wait 'til the machines go through a generation of teething, and the developers find ways to make them more cost effective... as well as more efficient in energy consumption and battery usage, and in generating less heat, and you'll find them in lots more applications than launch.

Only other place I expect to see PPC 970's outside of Apple Pro Desktops and Apple Servers once they're launched (less a *IF* but a *WHEN*)?

IBM Servers.

Yeah, they don't need SIMD... but a 64-bit low cost processor that they can use in multiple segments and sell to customers while also using? Are you kidding... Apple's investment in this helps subsidize and offset the costs of development of a processor that IBM can maximize to their needs. Granted, Altivec-style SIMD is along for the ride as a passenger, not a driver... but IBM can maximize the PPC 970's benefits to them, and ignore the rest they don't need... or yet... they can even consider building a variant that is sans SIMD if they want.

[dongmin]

Originally posted by arn
Besides... I see everyone's getting their hopes up... and getting a little greedy... personally, if they _demo_ the 970 at WWDC, I'll be pleased. You'll be lucky if "only" the PowerMacs get the 970 as early as June.

arn

Ahh, the voice of reason--rather rare on this forum.

I have to think that moving the date and place of the WWDC has to be significant in some way. There has to be more than Panther. (Jaguar was a bigger upgrade and it didn't demand a date switch and bigger venue.) There has to be some sort of 970 announcement.

For my money, I think Apple will announce 970 powermacs, publicly, and ship them within 6 weeks. And within that same time frame, they'll announce faster G4 PowerBooks, just to quash any false hopes of 970-powered PB debuting any time soon.

So by the end of summer, we should see:

Powermacs: 970, up to dual 1.8 ghz
PowerBooks: G4, up to 1.25 ghz (7457s?)
iMacs: G4, up to 1.25 ghz
iBooks: G3, up to 1 ghz

I'll be happy with these announcements (especially since I'm waiting to buy a Powermac), but I'm sure a lot of people on this forum will be bitchin and moanin.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by IVIIVI4ck3y27
Expect 970's in both of these, and then if the rumormill is correct... expect Power# based IBM chips in Apple's mid-high end Enterprise stuff, as they try to transition from a consumer-pegged company into something much grander in all directions (consumer electronics, consumer computers, workstations, SOHO servers, and Enterprise). Apple won't beat Sun and IBM and HP and the like at their own game over night (much less Sony and Panasonic and Best Buy and Musicland), but give them time and they could become a player... and then work on maximizing to all reaches.

People keep saying Apple is going to take on the enterprise and will be a player but for the life of me, I cannot understand why.

I am in a large company's CIO organization and have purchases millions of dollars of enterprise class servers over the past few years. I cannot see any situation in which Apple servers would be even remotely interesting.

An enterprise server has four variables: hardware, software, reliability and managability and services support.

Apple cannot really distinguish itself in the hardware area because the main differentiator is the CPU and Apple will be doing nothing more than reselling IBM CPUs. An Xserve 970 is nothing more than a 1U IBM server with a prettier faceplate and ATA drives instead of SCSI. BFD.

Apple's Mac OS X actually is a hindrance in my opinion because even though it is built upon FreeBSD, Apple has munged enough of the UNIXness of the system that it would require retraining sysadmins already familiar with thing like Linux, Solaris and AIX. If Apple is doing nothing more than reselling IBM CPUs, I may as well buy the servers from IBM and run AIX or Linux and forego the retraining costs.

Apple's reliability does not seem to be any better with their Xserve than any other 1U server. Given their reliance on ATA drives, it is probably worse over the long run. While Apple's management software may be better for managing one or two servers (and even that is open to some debate), enterprise customers have dozens or even hundreds of servers to manage. And not all of them are the same platform. In this case you are managing your systems with third party applications anyway.

Apple does not provide services in the same sense that IBM, HP and Sun do.

I guess Apple could change a lot and try to go after this market, but it just seems to make no sense to me. Apple really brings nothing unique to the table in this market space and it is not even close to parity in a lot of the important enterprise qualities.

Apple seems to me to be too smart of a company to throw good money down the toilet so I would be very suprised if they tried to be anything more than a niche player. I could see them going after the back offices of content creation houses. I find it hard to see them targetting someone like me who purchases generic UNIX servers to run databases, Web, file and e-mail servers.

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by fpnc
Well, it is my opinion that these rumors about soon-to-be-released PPC970 Macs are entirely wrong. I don't expect that we will see PPC970 based Mac desktop systems until VERY late this year or more likely in early 2004. PowerBooks probably won't appear until well into year 2004.

Well, mate I think you are spot on. Macbidouille has certainly put its reputation on the line and maybe they are somewhat right but... If so, Apple would have to have their product line with 970s ready to go on the day of the announcement, or else, not ONE Mac will sell from that moment on. Now, Apple could weather that potential disaster by offering the most amazing firesale on all extant computers in stock and/or offer a substantial inducement for people to lay out money immediately on the 970s in order to keep up the cash flow. I can't see any of this happening.
Still, let's hope that Apple can pull the rabbit out of the hat.

[wms121]

let's examine a few more issues here..

Apple's so-called "new enterprise approach" with the 970 may make sense..if we assume they mean the "home-business compatible" server. If a POWER5 based box can make it in anyone's locality ..and subjected to consumer pricing points..Apple still has a sale that IBM can't make yet.

Secondly...beyond Infiniband 32X..and 256 bit processors ...and global
grid resourcing..what else is on tap for the high end?

Artificial Intelligence...the REAL STUFF.

It needs more than a TeraFLop of processing power..and terabytes of memory to work properly. What applications...ALL
applications if sentience could be demonstrated...even collective expert systems would be trainable for "home-based operations"..
business or otherwise.

Check out the requirements they are evaluating for Internet2 and beyond...some sentience is assumed..some implied. After system
bandwidths go beyond the Infiniband 32X metric...only geeks will truly know how much real power some of these machines may have. I used to hear crazy stories about overclocked 25 MHz Intel
80386's running at 80-100 MHz. Something similar may happen to a.i. . They have never managed to make full use of the compression-decompression algorithms out there..1000:1 data rates are possible in neural pattern sets.

IBM optical chips in Power Macs? Yep.

Internet3-4 capability by 2010 for Apple..yes...they are already pushing beyond the Internet2 specs.

A.I. machines for rent via the Apple Store? Shared teraflops with IBM? Ask IBM...they have wanted their "sexy Apple friend with the nice consumer spread" much closer to them for a long time.

Moto may be back doing 2N20's if AMD starts doing PPC's

<--wants a 980 laptop

[nuckinfutz]

PPC 970 systems will be coming way before 2004. Come on people. Even IBM's pdf docs on the 970 says "VOLUME" production 2H 2003. And this was shortly after the Microproccesor forum in 2002. You have to truly pessimistic to believe it will take Apple until 2004 to release these systems.

Where the hell are they going to go? 130nm G4's from Moto aren't due until Q4 2003. The current 1.42 G4's have to be costing Apple a FORTUNE...I bet yields suck on that thing.

I don't see Apple going "Enteprise" for years. Shipping a 1U Server doesn't make you Enteprise yet. They'll continue to improve. Apple said they "humbly" enter the Server space. It'll take time.

Powerbooks may or may not get 970s this year. The 1.1volt 1.2Ghz chip dissipates 19watts and could possibly be shoehorned in. Or Apple could wait until the 970 is 90nano making it an easy fit.

Lots of option coming.

[noel4r]

no 970 in iMacs until next year? damn, i bet intel will be up to 4Ghz by then....

[Shaktai]

My two cents worth.


970s this summer with July Availablity. PowerMacs only, followed by X-serve. Initial units will run a patched version of Jaguar until Panther is released, with a free Panther upgrade for the 970 models. Top end premiers at dual 1.8 ghz. Faster models will follow when faster chips are available in quantity. (Yes faster 970 exist now, but not enough to meet demand)
No 970 powerbooks yet - as much as I would like to see that. Speedbumps? Maybe. Faster GPU? Good chance. Wait until 2004.
Speedbumps only for iMacs. Nothing major in changes until MWSF 2004, then maybe a redesign to coincide with 970.
No changes to iBook until Fall, then speedbumps with the new G3 chips. No G4.
Apple's Enterprise multi-chip solutions will actually be modified IBM server solutions optimized for OS-X and intended specifically for the creative and certain scientific markets. They will be marketed in conjunction with IBM who will provide support, but not before next year.
Next PowerMac will be called the G6, because the G5 was aborted by Motorola.


I would really like to see a 970 in a Powerbook this summer, but don't believe it will happen. I could imagine a dual 1.2 ghz 970, 17inch powerbook but think it will have to wait.

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by noel4r
no 970 in iMacs until next year? damn, i bet intel will be up to 4Ghz by then....

Yeah but it will still be like the time I had a
55' Chevy with a 327, lots of power but bad mpg and basically good just for raw speed. I sold it, I like my 93 corolla alot better
:D

[RC23]

hmm.. if mac is switching to IBM cpu's.. would it be dumb to get a g4 now?

[beatle888]

it would be if you can wait.

[NeXTDev]

Originally posted by IVIIVI4ck3y27
[B]Simple.

Because Apple is "JUST NOW" getting things ported to PowerPC using a myriad of Carbon/Cocoa. Cocoa = very portable. Carbon = "pretty portable", but in that same sense... look at how long it's taking Quark to get to PPC via Carbon in OS X?

Moving to AMD would require "EVERYONE" to rewrite.

A re-write isn't necessary. Most of the big apps are architected for portability anyways. The endianess issue is already dealt with for most apps since a substantial amount of the code base must work on Windows. As long as the underlying APIs stay almost the same, it would be a trivial port. The difficulty is in re-factoring code for new API's where the fundamental assumptions may differ significantly. In this case, we're talking about the same API's, just ported to a new chip architecture. Most code will move easily, but anything written in assembly would have to change - most likely that is a small portion of anyone's code base.

Of course, Cocoa is designed to be very portable, but even then the same issues of making sure you bit swap for bit fields and making sure you don't make stack assumptions are important - Cocoa just isn't architected around specific machine or platform issues except for the possible 32 bit assumptions in some places. Even that should be a relatively minor cleanup.

But there are many other good reasons to not go to the x86 side, including things like losing a near full speed Classic environment, the lock step with the rest of the PC world, the lack of mystique, and the need/want to support all sorts of various x86 configurations and peripherals. SGI tried to go the x86 route, and it has been a disaster except possibly where they can leverage their NUMA experience in making big compute servers.

[ddtlm]

macrumors12345:

The 970 will also have a superior FSB to the P4 (450 mhz double pumped vs. 200 mhz quad quad pumped). It should match up very well and beat the P4 based machines by a substantial margin in many tasks.
But its more complex than "look at the mhz" and "low pumpedness is good". Remember that the 970's bus has 1 byte in 9 overhead, and remember that it is made of 2 unidirectional 32-bit busses vs a single 64-bit bidirectional bus. I don't think anyone here is qualified to talk about which is better, so its time to stop making baseless pro-Mac statements.

herr_neumann:

Apple has no choice but to have the 970 shipping by august. If they go any later than that, they miss the back to school purchases, which is a big market. There is no way Apple wont target this market. I would like to think they have learned a thing or two from their last fizzuckups.
Back to school doesn't mean squat if the chip's arent ready.

Silencio:

I assume all those benchmarks use Altivec, and, if they're accurate, they really show the true power of the technology and how much it was hamstrung on the G4 by glacial bus speeds.
Don't you think that if the G4 was held back by bus speeds then someone could provide benchmarks showing this? In particular, I would love it if someone would link me some benchmarks where the 17" AluBook defeats the 15" TiBook in processor tasks. I also can't remember any PMac benchmarks that clearly showed the 25% faster FSB and RAM doing and good, but the PBooks are particularly good test subjects because the CPU and L3 did not change at all.

Frobozz:

The photoshop actions test took a Dual 1.42 G4 72 seconds. A dual 1.8 970 took 24 seconds.... and a single 3.06 P4 took 58 seconds.
Photoshop!?! It is forever tainted because of the G4 performance myth (lie?) that it perpetuated for so long. Lets see something new, something credible.

pudrik:

If Apple is able to beat Intel to the 800MHz FSB, it would be a huge marketing windfall, even for the uneducated crowd. (Yeah, their processor runs faster, but our whole machine runs faster.)
Intel chips with the 800mhz FSB have been available for sale for weeks I think. People have already overclocked the FSB into the 1ghz+ range.

ktlx:

People keep saying Apple is going to take on the enterprise and will be a player but for the life of me, I cannot understand why.
Nor can I.

[solvs]

Wow, when did you get so cynical?

All I can say is, if the 970 is available in the next couple of months, with all the info I've heard of it (substantiated details, not rumors) it may not beat the pants off of the fastest PCs, even the ones shipping now, but it should at least bring the Macs closer to parity. AMD like. Over the next year things look interesting in the price/performance areas already.

I hope they do come out, and I'll be disappointed if they don't, but the world won't end.