WWDC Coming...

[arn]

Several readers have forwarded an email from Apple promoting the World Wide Developer's Conference next month:


On June 23, WWDC 2003 attendees will be the first to explore the powerful new capabilities of the next major release of Mac OS X, codenamed "Panther." This year's conference is shaping up to be the biggest in Apple's history.

If you want to create products that fully exploit the next generation of innovative technologies from Apple, deliver the most compelling media experiences for your users, or leverage the open source and open standards approach of Apple's server solutions within your enterprise, then you definitely want to be at WWDC.


While such colorful talk should simply be regarded as pre-expo marketing hype... many users are looking to WWDC as a potential launching ground for new technologies from Apple.

Apple has already confirmed that a preview of their next major update to Mac OS X (Panther) will be shown, and many rumors hint that we will see more information regarding IBM's PowerPC 970 from Apple.

[maradong]

let it come :D
i really hope they will introduce the 970 s..
it s just so important. it they wont. i ll have to buy a g4, sure it s fast enough, but it can never be to fast.

[mangoman]

Apple PDA! (don't throw fruit!):D

[Mr. Anderson]

If they come out with a prototype 970 for the show, it will be in they're interest to get it to market fast. Sales will drop off on the G4s in expectation of something much better.

Most likely they'll do what they've done before - allow you to order a new machine and have to wait a month or two for delivery.

I really hope it all happens.

D

[Ja Di ksw]

After they show it, will there to a preview of the new features on Apple's website, like they had with Jaguar?

[MacManiac1224]

i hope they release the 970 at WWDC

[visor]

Panther,
PPC970 in PowerMacs
secret features in Ipod revealed,
ipot input hardware making it a PDA,
New PowerBook15",
Current G4 Powermac running out

Updates to
isync,
Safari,
ical,
iphoto,
Keynote.

Adobe announces cocoa Port of it's Products for Panther.

Finalcut Pro 4 will finally be released and have 64bit native support.

Panther will finally be able to unmount broken network share connectios without reboot (well ok thats unrealistic)

what else?

[nickmcghie]

If LoopRumors is correct that Foxconn has already received shipments of over 90 thousand 970 chips, then hopefully we'll not only see the announcement of new powermacs at WWDC, but that they'll ship soon afterwards!

[iJed]

Apple also says in the email: "Don't forget, all WWDC 2003 attendees will receive a preview release of the next major version of Mac OS X, along with post-conference access to sessions online, and a WWDC 2003 Sessions DVD set."

I don't see why Apple cannot include this in the monthly developer mailing for people who cannot go to WWDC. After all they do this with all other client OS releases so why not the preview disk too. You would think Apple would actually want developers to get their software tested and taking advantage of the features in the new OS version.

[Fukui]

Adobe announces cocoa Port of it's Products for Panther. It'll never happen...too easy.
Adobe is a big company, you wont see them split thier windows/mac code base like that. Its the smaller developers who use and leverage cocoa that will bring you your Photoshop Cocoa, even if its not from Adobe....

[DharvaBinky]

After reading all the 970 threads for months and months and months now...

people have so much *emotionally* invested in the PPC970 and Apple that if Steve doesn't make stunning announcements at WWDC... it'll be like dropping a tear gas grenade in a crowd of angry rheesus monkeys who'll then start hurling feces at a fleeing iCEO.

:rolleyes:

Dharvabinky

[Snowy_River]

Well, I've decided to lower my sights, given some of the rumors that are scuttling around. I don't want to get too disappointed if the 970 isn't released.

For a while I was maintaining a balanced optomism. But as more rumors kept coming out, I'm afraid that I really started to buy into it as a given. Now, I'm backing way off. I'd like to get back to that balanced optomism, so I can be happy and excited if the 970 is released, but not overly depressed if it isn't (yet).

[Sayer]

If you want to create products that fully exploit the next generation of innovative technologies from Apple,

We will show you more ways to replace Carbon code with Cocoa even though your Carbon app works just fine and can use POSIX code, pthreads, Quartz, Text to Speech, QuickTime without more convoluted Objective-C classes that you would have to write yourself.

...deliver the most compelling media experiences for your users,

Start using QuickTime even though there are no Cocoa frameworks for it, so you must use Carbon despite our desire to push Carbon as deep into the OS as possible. We will also tell you all the gaps in Quartz that must be filled with your hand-rolled code that replicates built-in features of that icky QuickDraw and QuickTime that no one wants to use (that whole Carbon thing). How often do people need to quickly draw shape primitives or drop shadows anyways? Look! We can create bloated PDF files!

or leverage the open source and open standards approach of Apple's server solutions within your enterprise,

We borrowed a whole bunch of UNIX code to short-cut the delivery of the "world's most advanced" OS and created a feature set that, frankly, no one understands how it all works except us so pay attention.

then you definitely want to be at WWDC.

We could really use the money - have you seen our PowerMac sales in the past year or so? The 99 cents per song in iTunes will just pay our electric bills for a few months. We need CASH!

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Sayer
...
We could really use the money - have you seen our PowerMac sales in the past year or so? The 99 cents per song in iTunes will just pay our electric bills for a few months. We need CASH!

Feeling a little negative toward Apple for some reason?
:rolleyes:

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by arn
Several readers have forwarded an email from Apple promoting the World Wide Developer's Conference next month:

[...]

While such colorful talk should simply be regarded as pre-expo marketing hype... many users are looking to WWDC as a potential launching ground for new technologies from Apple.


This letter got my heart beating. Apple has not hyped WWDC like this before, and the phrase "This year's conference is shaping up to be the biggest in Apple's history." is ... well, it means a lot. I'd held my hopes back on WWDC until this point, but when i got that letter from Apple ...

WWDC is going to be big, folks. Just to be clear, that doesn't mean that we get a 15"-screen 970-based tablet Mac that surfs iTMS over WiFi and folds down to a size smaller than the current iPods.

Introducing the 970 here is big: incredibly big. I think that with this amount of hype, the 970 introduction at WWDC is pretty much assured.

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by visor

ipot input hardware



Would that be the iBong? Or is that considered output hardware?

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Fukui
It'll never happen...too easy.
Adobe is a big company, you wont see them split thier windows/mac code base like that. Its the smaller developers who use and leverage cocoa that will bring you your Photoshop Cocoa, even if its not from Adobe....

Huh?

A Cocoa port of an application allows you to make it more cross-platform, not less. You don't need to be using the Cocoa API's down in the guts of your program (use Win/Unix common POSIX-ish APIs there instead). Cocoa is great as a UI framework (and Objective C/C++ is a great UI language, but its type-unsafe nature makes it next to impossible to use for a real "workhorse" or complex app!). If Adobe is using Carbon to date they gain OS 9 compatibility, but they also necessarily maintain OS9-specific code fairly deep in their application (as Carbon/OS9 are not POSIX and so share neither the specific API nor even the basic design paradigms with Windows regarding basic building blocks like threads, sockets, and file system IO).

Let me be quite clear here: If you have a cross-platform application and don't need to support OS8/9, Cocoa will save you massive development resources in the fairly short run (and more in the long run). The ONLY reason to be using the Carbon API's is if you need to maintain OS8/9 compatibility, as these are fundamentally different from Windows' paradigms and so difficult to abstract away.

[nuckinfutz]

End of story.

Sheesh all the "What ifs" in the world aren't going to change the Truth. Adobe is not going to rewrite for Cocoa.

[3d on a Mac]

I can't wait for the new machines!!!!!!

I was about to order the dual "buckle your seat belts" 1.42 g4, but decided to wait till Macworld (creative whatever) expo in NY this June.

I set myself up when I bought the first g4 (pci graphics) only to have the agp graphics come out weeks later.

So hurry Apple let us know what going on. My money is burning a hole in my pocket!

3d on a Mac
http://www.geocities.com/ericmooreart

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
If they come out with a prototype 970 for the show, it will be in they're interest to get it to market fast. Sales will drop off on the G4s in expectation of something much better.

Do you really think they could drop off anymore? Anyone who's into the rumors will wait for the next generation machines, and if you're not up on the info, you've got no expectations.

What I'm really hoping for when/if the 970s are released is a Pentium bake-off that doesn't revolve around hand-picked, Alvitec-optimized Photoshop filters. These tests have such a giant wall of cynicism surrounding them (rightfully so), so the new machines need to use some standard benchmarks, preferably ones where the Wintel boxes have normally wiped the floor with our butts.

Combine that with a 10.3 that includes multiple simultaneous log-ins and I'll be impressed... - j

[job]

or leverage the open source and open standards approach of Apple's server solutions within your enterprise, then you definitely want to be at WWDC.

I wonder if they are including hardware with that comment, and not just OS X Server... ;)

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by 3d on a Mac
I can't wait for the new machines!!!!!!

I was about to order the dual "buckle your seat belts" 1.42 g4, but decided to wait till Macworld (creative whatever) expo in NY this June.

I set myself up when I bought the first g4 (pci graphics) only to have the agp graphics come out weeks later.

So hurry Apple let us know what going on. My money is burning a hole in my pocket!

3d on a Mac
http://www.geocities.com/ericmooreart

Don't be burned again. New machines are likely to have kinks (turbo-fans, anyone?) and refined versions will follow within a few months.

Buckle your seats for the dual 1.42 g4? Our current crop of machines is more Flintsonesque than Speed Racer relative to the PC world. Let's hope that the Mac's next jump makes the past two years look like a waste of time... - j

[chubakka]

How far apart are WWDC and the CREATIVEPRO thingamajig in NYC?

3 Weeks.

In terms of getting attention for the WWDC...
a hardware unveiling would do the trick.
And it's totally Apple's show... showing off the
integration of Hardware and Software.

It seems that the Create Expo is focusing more on
solutions and seminars for Creative Pros. The biggest
buyers of PowerMacs.

Which should/would Apple take advantage of?

[czman]

did anyone check the press release about steve jobs keynoting wwdc?

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/may/08wwdc.html

among the usual fluff is has this quote:

"expanded labs with the latest Mac systems where developers can port and test their code and get technical assistance from the Apple engineers directly responsible for the technologies"

PORT and test thier code? port to what? basicly everyone that matters alwredy ported to osX. does this mean port to 64 bits?

[visor]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle

Buckle your seats for the dual 1.42 g4? Our current crop of machines is more Flintsonesque than Speed Racer relative to the PC world. Let's hope that the Mac's next jump makes the past two years look like a waste of time... - j

Quite right. I wouldn't even consider buying a Powermac right now. They are rather slow at almost everything but very special tasks and waaay overpriced for what they offer.

The new machines for the same price will be more tempting.

[visor]

Originally posted by Flowbee
Would that be the iBong? Or is that considered output hardware?

ipot is the alternative to releasing the 970 on wwdc. It will calm people a bit. Quite innovative, but yet the idea has been seen in catholic churches before.

[deputy_doofy]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Do you really think they could drop off anymore? Anyone who's into the rumors will wait for the next generation machines, and if you're not up on the info, you've got no expectations.

What I'm really hoping for when/if the 970s are released is a Pentium bake-off that doesn't revolve around hand-picked, Alvitec-optimized Photoshop filters. These tests have such a giant wall of cynicism surrounding them (rightfully so), so the new machines need to use some standard benchmarks, preferably ones where the Wintel boxes have normally wiped the floor with our butts.

Combine that with a 10.3 that includes multiple simultaneous log-ins and I'll be impressed... - j

I agree with the bakeoff thing but I think they should include the G4. I don't actually mind the Altivec part of the equation, either. Show me the P4, show me the G4 with AND without Altivec, and show me the 970 with AND without Altivec. I want to see how new and old generation PPC chips compare with each other as well.

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Buckle your seats for the dual 1.42 g4? Our current crop of machines is more Flintsonesque than Speed Racer relative to the PC world. j

Guess it depends what apps you use, and whether you use multiple apps at the same time. Final cut rocks now, and Protools is the best on the Mac. For now games and render farms are a little faster on windoz.......for now.
daniel

[patmcfar8]

June 23rd eh? Well if Apple is going to announce the 970 at WWDC, then I imagine they'll start some pretty crazy promo's with the current PowerMac line at the beginning of June. Only a few weeks from now...

I'm trying to keep a nice calm, realistic optimism about this. I fully expect to see the 970 in Apple hardware soon, but I think WWDC might be a little too soon... at least for Apple to announce it's future intentions.

And while I fully expect the 970 to be leaps and bounds ahead of our current proccesor predictiment, I don't think it's going to "destroy" the current crop of PC chips either.

Is anybody else bothered by those on forums that overhype every Apple event with unrealistic expectations based on rumors and wild speculation, and then pronounce their extreme dissapointment along with the "end of Apple" upon the passing of the event that hasn't lived up to their every hope and dream?

Sometimes I think us crazy Mac fans are our own worst enemies.

Having said all of that, I'd love to be working on a dual 2ghz 970 runnin' 10.3 by the end of this summer. Here's to eternal optimism... ;)

[Knox]

Originally posted by czman
PORT and test thier code? port to what? basicly everyone that matters alwredy ported to osX. does this mean port to 64 bits?

I think it's more "port from what". I would suspect that it's aimed at non-mac developers who are bringing their applications to the mac, rather than developers with existing mac applications.

Besides, they haven't even announced a 64 bit strategy yet - I wouldn't expect there to be hands-on actual "porting" but more just information giving, then the developers could go and investigate how they can use the new technologies in their applications. Assuming of course that there is a 64 bit strategy in the first place :)

[Fukui]

Huh?

A Cocoa port of an application allows you to make it more cross-platform, not less. You don't need to be using the Cocoa API's down in the guts of your program (use Win/Unix common POSIX-ish APIs there instead). Cocoa is great as a UI framework (and Objective C/C++ is a great UI language, but its type-unsafe nature makes it next to impossible to use for a real "workhorse" or complex app!). If Adobe is using Carbon to date they gain OS 9 compatibility, but they also necessarily maintain OS9-specific code fairly deep in their application (as Carbon/OS9 are not POSIX and so share neither the specific API nor even the basic design paradigms with Windows regarding basic building blocks like threads, sockets, and file system IO).

Let me be quite clear here: If you have a cross-platform application and don't need to support OS8/9, Cocoa will save you massive development resources in the fairly short run (and more in the long run). The ONLY reason to be using the Carbon API's is if you need to maintain OS8/9 compatibility, as these are fundamentally different from Windows' paradigms and so difficult to abstract away.
Sorry, I guess my sarcasm wasn't very noticable...;)

(The "Too Easy" part should have given it away...)

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by Knox
I think it's more "port from what". I would suspect that it's aimed at non-mac developers who are bringing their applications to the mac, rather than developers with existing mac applications.

Besides, they haven't even announced a 64 bit strategy yet - I wouldn't expect there to be hands-on actual "porting" but more just information giving, then the developers could go and investigate how they can use the new technologies in their applications. Assuming of course that there is a 64 bit strategy in the first place :)

ORACLE 10

[painandgreed]

I think that we're going to see MacOS 10.3, 970 chips, and developer tools all at this WWDC and they'll be ready for sale (< 1 month). If they were just showing off 10.3, they wouldn't have had to move the original WWDC date. They could have just done a mock up and said it would be done in a month and described the new features. In order to need to delay the event, they either would need some hardware that it would need to run on or wait for said hardware to be ready to ship. If the 970's weren't going to be ready till months after this WWDC, they could have just ignored it and wouldn't have need of moving the date back.

Multiple people, while trying not to violate NDA, have informed me that I should believe the rumors. Other people talking shop at parties have informed me that the 970 is real, MacOS would handle 64 bit, and the developer tools for said MacOS would handle 64 bit. Too much of what they are previewing depends on hardware. Waiting for the hardware is why I think the WWDC was moved back in the first place. I think we'll see the hardware at or soon after the WWDC. Maybe not the day after, but some amount of time dependant on the average time it takes to fill out and get approval for a major companies PO.

New PDA? I think we've already seen it. I think the iPod is our Apple PDA. With the next upgrade, I suspect we'll see feature bloat to include text editing, some more programs, and some neat dockable add ons that will make it comparable to other PDAs. They'll do this slow, keeping the iPod as a successful music player first and foremost, so if it flops as a PDA, they aren't saddled with another Newton (and without worring about getting enough of the PDA market away from other more established companies).

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by painandgreed
Multiple people, while trying not to violate NDA, have informed me that I should believe the rumors.

Trying not to violate it? Isn't it pretty cut and dry? Aren't the rules layed out pretty plainly?

Or are they using nods and hand signals? :D

How about trying not to get caught obviously violating it? Information was conveyed, eh?

I try not to pick my nose, but then... - j

[Vonnie]

Originally posted by painandgreed
If they were just showing off 10.3, they wouldn't have had to move the original WWDC date.

I disagree. The point of WWDC is enabling third-party developers to make sure their software will continue to work on Panther, and to use new Panther features in their next version of the software. That's why you need a somewhat complete Panther at WWDC, and be able to give developers a pre-release.

[painandgreed]

Trying not to violate it? Isn't it pretty cut and dry? Aren't the rules layed out pretty plainly?

Or are they using nods and hand signals?

How about trying not to get caught obviously violating it? Information was conveyed, eh?

Who knows. I've never seen a NDA before, and I have no idea if the people who gave the links of other peoples rumors to read had either. What do you expect from drunk people at parties or on anonymous forums? With half of every real press release made by companies dealing with vapor products, there's no use in holding rumors up to too high of a standard?

[boxcar]

Not sure what this means, but on the apple wwdc page they have listed the conference agenda. here's one i found interesting:

507 - Mac OS X High Performance Math Libraries
Apple offers supercomputing performance to both consumers and professionals with Velocity Engine and the PowerPC G4 processor in its entire line of desktop computers. Processor-bound operations such as memory copies, string compares, and page clears can be offloaded to the vector engines of the G4. This session provides an overview of the Velocity Engine vector libraries, including recently optimized double-precision FFTs, MDCT, and BLAST. Apple's numerics engineers will discuss techniques for general vectorization and for identifying code that can be vectorized.


you would think they wouldn't be having a session on the G4 if the ppc970 was coming out.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by boxcar
you would think they wouldn't be having a session on the G4 if the ppc970 was coming out.

That session is on AltiVec libraries.

Since the 970 should be compatible with AltiVec, this session should be applicable to both.

Maybe after the keynote, the abstract will be modified to say "Velocity Engine and the PowerPC G4 and G5" ;)

[aarond12]

I would LOVE to see Uncle Steve come out with a snail with a P4 on its back on the large projection screen. IF Panther is 64-bit optimized and IF the PowerMacs have 970s inside, then Mac owners will have bragging rights for many months to come.

I think that the new 15" PowerBook will come out at WWDC, but I'm concerned about the older 15" PowerBooks that retailers still have. Smalldog still has new 667MHz 15" PowerBooks in stock selling for $1799. Apple needs to give retailers a kickback for selling older PowerBooks to flush the old models. I'm not going to buy a 667MHz 15" PowerBook for $1799 when I can buy a new 867MHz 12" PowerBook for the same price.

I don't think Apple will reveal or enable the new iPod's recording features yet. This is too soon after the new iPod came out. They can wait and get some more value by waiting for the demand for the new iPod to drop slightly, then release the new feature as a "software update".

Apple PDA? Well, we can dream...

-Aaron-

[GulGnu]

Originally posted by boxcar
Not sure what this means, but on the apple wwdc page they have listed the conference agenda. here's one i found interesting:


you would think they wouldn't be having a session on the G4 if the ppc970 was coming out.

Perhaps, but the G4 is staying around a while - it has a huge installed base, and will prob be in the low end machines for some time to come. Wouldn't draw any large conclusions from it.

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

[boxcar]

hmm... but since developers have been working with the G4 for awhile now do they really need new sessions on it? perhaps i'm being naive. I was hoping for the conference agenda page to say something like "announcing the ppc970!!" or something blatantly obvious. I'm dying to buy my first mac, but am feeling the need to wait it out.

[Freg3000]

I really hope this is it. I just bought a Power Mac in December, and I an even considering selling it to get a "G5." :)

[deepkid]

Introducing the 970 here is big: incredibly big. I think that with this amount of hype, the 970 introduction at WWDC is pretty much assured. [/B]

How the HELL do you people draw these sorts of conclusions???

That is about as ludicrous as saying "hey, he LOOKS guilty and everybody seems to think he is, so HE IS".

Until Apple makes an announcement, its all speculation.

Let's keep an open mind and see what WWDC actually brings.

[Shaktai]

Originally posted by boxcar
hmm... but since developers have been working with the G4 for awhile now do they really need new sessions on it?

The workshop mentioned is regarding the utilization of Altivec on the G4. A great many current developers are not fully familiar with Altivec and how it can be used to speed up performance. Also keep in mind that more and more developers who never wrote for Apple before are starting to, and that there are always new young developers coming along. Education is an ongoing process, not a one time deal. That is why WWDC is an annual event. However, lessons learned in a workshop like this, would easily carry over to the 970 as well. The instructions set are essentially the same.

[pkradd]

Apple will not introduce new PowerMacs at WWDC. They are history. A completely new form factor and NAME will be unveiled along with the preview of "Panther". We'll see a bunch of new software apps from third party vendors (including that long-awaited and delayed one!) and the first non-beta version of Safari.

[emdezet]

have ibm ever put out 8xx ppcs? just took a quick browse of their site. didn't find any reference to any.

[Rincewind42]

If you have a Carbon application there is no reason to convert it to Cocoa. There are fewer and fewer Cocoa (and Carbon) specific features with every release of MacOS X. So use what you prefer (and Adobe may prefer Carbon because they already have their own cross platform framework that they would have a hard time justifying rewriting to use Cocoa).

At some point Apple would like Carbon & Cocoa to be completely interchangable interfaces. The easiest way to do that is for them to share a common architecture. And likely that architecture will be Carbon.

Outside of the frameworks themselves, there is nothing on MacOS X that you can only use from Cocoa or only use from Carbon. They are mearly two high-level interfaces to the user interface.

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by GulGnu
Perhaps, but the G4 is staying around a while - it has a huge installed base, and will prob be in the low end machines for some time to come. Wouldn't draw any large conclusions from it.
I doubt that, actually. The G3 is coming along and Apple doesn't want to deal with Moto anymore. I have predicted that Apple will sue out of their G4 obligations with the contractual failure by Moto with the G5, and we will see an all G3/970 line as soon as "Gobi" or whatever becomes a reasonable low-end processor.

Bye-bye Moto!

[jcr]

jettredmont said: " Objective C/C++ is a great UI language, but its type-unsafe nature makes it next to impossible to use for a real "workhorse" or complex app!"

This is simply incorrect.

iDVD, DVD Studio Pro, Apple's Project Builder, and the Apple Store are all examples of "complex" apps based on Objective-C. I personally have worked on derivatives-trading apps for a number of wall street firms that were written in Objective-C, and we've never wished we had the inflexibility that comes from so-called "type safety."

-jcr

[ipman]

This site is getting really good at this whole predicting the future of the Mac thing: "WWDC is coming". I'll bet anything that they're right about this one.

LoL. Sorry, couldn't help laughing when I read that headline.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by boxcar
you would think they wouldn't be having a session on the G4 if the ppc970 was coming out.

... except for the fact that the Velocity engine's 162 instructions are identical on both the 970 and the G4. It doesn't matter if they put G4 or 970 in there, really, the 970 just does it faster. I'm referencing the recent ArsTechnica article concerning the AltiVec support in the 970.

[Vonnie]

Originally posted by jcr

iDVD, DVD Studio Pro, Apple's Project Builder, and the Apple Store are all examples of "complex" apps based on Objective-C. I personally have worked on derivatives-trading apps for a number of wall street firms that were written in Objective-C, and we've never wished we had the inflexibility that comes from so-called "type safety."

-jcr

And the other thing is, that you can get static type binding if you so desire. You can always do a NSString* myString instead of id myString.

But the added flexibility is a serious advantage, not a disadvantage, also in big projects. It requires a bit more discipline, but I don't have to start writing interfaces/protocols, or create weird inheritance hierarchies to do basic polymorphism.

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by pkradd
Apple will not introduce new PowerMacs at WWDC. They are history. A completely new form factor and NAME will be unveiled along with the preview of "Panther".
Do you mean "Xstation" based on "Xserve"?
A name change alongside the hardware overhaul sounds logical.

[Bengt77]

Originally posted by mathiasr
Do you mean "Xstation" based on "Xserve"?
A name change alongside the hardware overhaul sounds logical.

No way it'll be Xstation. Where's the iStation then? The 'i' vs 'Power' naming scheme has always existed. (Well, at least since July 1998, with the introduction of the original iMac.) So it'll never be called the Xstation, for there's no iStation. There is an iMac though, so if Apple decides to take over the 'x' from the Xserve for it's entire Pro line of computers, the Power Mac will probably be renamed the xMac.

I never liked the capital 'X' and lowercase 'serve' name-parts of the Xserve; think they should have named it xServe. Then, the xMac name would make sense (note that it sounds like Axe Mac: the Mac that'll finally take good care :D of all PCs). They could even rename the PowerBook (indeed very strange Power Mac is two words, while PowerBook is only one) the xBook. Sounds pretty cool, don't it?!

[job]

Originally posted by deepkid
Let's keep an open mind and see what WWDC actually brings.

I'm beginning to wonder what will happen if the 970s are not released at the WWDC.

Mass riots? ;)

[blueBomber]

Originally posted by job
I'm beginning to wonder what will happen if the 970s are not released at the WWDC.

Mass riots? ;)

I imagine the conference hall will look something like the prison at the end of the movie Natural Born Killers:D

[BaghdadBob]

xMac sounds too much like x-Pac. Who is x-Pac? I don't remember...something about rapping. Not that I haven't thought of that myself.

How about PMX, as in PowerMacX...
"P-M-X!
"You thinkin' what if we got it, Billy we wid it, all you gotta do is buy it baby!
"Mac or die!
"What y'all PCs want...*unh, unh*...What y'all PCs want..."

:rolleyes:

:D

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by patmcfar8
...
Is anybody else bothered by those on forums that overhype every Apple event with unrealistic expectations based on rumors and wild speculation, and then pronounce their extreme dissapointment along with the "end of Apple" upon the passing of the event that hasn't lived up to their every hope and dream?

Sometimes I think us crazy Mac fans are our own worst enemies.

Having said all of that, I'd love to be working on a dual 2ghz 970 runnin' 10.3 by the end of this summer. Here's to eternal optimism... ;)

Yes, those people bother me to no end. We must live in the real world, and while it's fun to hope and dream of the uberMac, if Apple isn't putting it out there is a good reason. Getting mad at Apple won't change that. Apple, after all, isn't really looking to screw us. They aren't trying to put out slower computers than the PC world...

Having said that, I'd love to be working on a new 1.6 GHz 970 15" PowerBook running 10.3 by the end of this summer. To eternal optimism...


<What?!? The new 15" PowerBook only has a 1.4GHz 970 in it?! Man that just sucks!! Apple is always short changing us! They could at least cut us a break and sell it at half the price of the old 15" TiBook!> :p

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by painandgreed
...
Multiple people, while trying not to violate NDA, have informed me that I should believe the rumors...


Which rumors, though? The rumors are all over the place. That the 970 is real? That's really not a rumor, as IBM has pubicly announced the existance of this chip. That the 970 is coming this year? Well, it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that. That the 970 is coming for WWDC? Or that it's not coming for WWDC? There are rumors both ways. And what about PowerBooks? There are rumors both ways there, too.

Saying 'believe the rumors' really isn't enough information.


New PDA? I think we've already seen it. I think the iPod is our Apple PDA. With the next upgrade, I suspect we'll see feature bloat to include text editing, some more programs, and some neat dockable add ons that will make it comparable to other PDAs. They'll do this slow, keeping the iPod as a successful music player first and foremost, so if it flops as a PDA, they aren't saddled with another Newton (and without worring about getting enough of the PDA market away from other more established companies).

While you may be right about the iPod being, effectively, a new PDA, I just thought I'd offer a reality check. The Newton was not a flop. The plug was pulled years ago, and yet Newtons are still sold today. New software is still written today. New hardware expansion are designed (and sometimes even marketed and sold, rather than just being shared gratis). So, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the Newton was a flop.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by deepkid
How the HELL do you people draw these sorts of conclusions???

That is about as ludicrous as saying "hey, he LOOKS guilty and everybody seems to think he is, so HE IS".

Until Apple makes an announcement, its all speculation.

Let's keep an open mind and see what WWDC actually brings.

While I don't agree with the statement that it is 'assured', it is a good bit of perspective. Apple is really pushing the WWDC this year. That does suggest that they have something big up their sleeves. And it does seem reasonable that that something would be the 970. Not assured, but reasonable.

However, I'm not going to hold me breath...
(Yes, I admit it, I'm addicted to air. Really, I'd try to quit, but the withdrawls are killer... ;) )

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by pkradd
Apple will not introduce new PowerMacs at WWDC. They are history. A completely new form factor and NAME will be unveiled along with the preview of "Panther". We'll see a bunch of new software apps from third party vendors (including that long-awaited and delayed one!) and the first non-beta version of Safari.

You seem awefully sure of yourself. I'm not saying that it couldn't be true, but we may have Power Macs around for a while longer...

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
I doubt that, actually. The G3 is coming along and Apple doesn't want to deal with Moto anymore. I have predicted that Apple will sue out of their G4 obligations with the contractual failure by Moto with the G5, and we will see an all G3/970 line as soon as "Gobi" or whatever becomes a reasonable low-end processor.

Bye-bye Moto!

Well, even if Apple gives Moto the boot, I'd expect the IBM 750GX processor (G3 + Altivec compatibility) to be called a G4. Maybe the G4i, as it comes from IBM and would be used in the 'i' line? (i.e. no more G4 based Power Macs or PowerBooks...)

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Bengt77
No way it'll be Xstation. Where's the iStation then? The 'i' vs 'Power' naming scheme has always existed. (Well, at least since July 1998, with the introduction of the original iMac.) So it'll never be called the Xstation, for there's no iStation. There is an iMac though, so if Apple decides to take over the 'x' from the Xserve for it's entire Pro line of computers, the Power Mac will probably be renamed the xMac.

I never liked the capital 'X' and lowercase 'serve' name-parts of the Xserve; think they should have named it xServe. Then, the xMac name would make sense (note that it sounds like Axe Mac: the Mac that'll finally take good care :D of all PCs). They could even rename the PowerBook (indeed very strange Power Mac is two words, while PowerBook is only one) the xBook. Sounds pretty cool, don't it?!

Actually, the 'Power Mac' terminology comes from the advent of the PowerPC chip. The new chips gave rise to the new line of 'Power Macintosh' computers. Now, the PowerBook is another matter, as it had that name before the 603e chip (the first PowerPC chip that was mobile-friendly) was available. The only mobile Mac that didn't bear the name PowerBook (until the iBook came along) was the very first 'Macintosh Portable'.

Indeed, this may well explain why 'Power Mac' is two words, and 'PowerBook' is one. It comes from their different heritage. It is only in more recent times that we have come to think of there being a 'Power' line and a consumer or 'i' line. While there have always been Macs aimed at the power users and Macs aimed at the consumers, we've only had the nameing conventions for a few years now.

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Well, even if Apple gives Moto the boot, I'd expect the IBM 750GX processor (G3 + Altivec compatibility) to be called a G4. Maybe the G4i, as it comes from IBM and would be used in the 'i' line? (i.e. no more G4 based Power Macs or PowerBooks...)

Hmmmm...interesting theory. Wouldn't there be some copyright restrictions? Maybe it'll be good enough to be the real G5. But, from a markting standpoint that really makes sense. I guess I won't give you crap for making a different post for all five of your replies because you make pretty good points ;)

Fission is the future :D

[blueBomber]

that is a good theory... probably one of the most sensible ones heard in this thread yet

[fpnc]

Frankly, I think we'll see PPC970-based Macs shipping at a time that is almost closer to NEXT year's WWDC than it will be to June 2003. That's my totally controversial leadoff statement. :-)

IMO, it will be a truly amazing feat if Apple ships the PPC970 before the very end of this summer let alone June or July 2003. Late fall or early winter seems very likely to me and it's possible that we will still be waiting come January 2004.

As for the various rumors over the last few weeks, I think that many of these have been largely debunked. In fact, the recent Arstechnica paper on the PPC970 should have placed the last nail in the coffin on those rumored performance benchmarks.

As far as configurations, I expect that we will see SINGLE processor 970's replacing the current price points, with perhaps a more expensive "ultra" option with dual-970's (and Xserves). In the meantime we will likely see a speed bump in the G4 desktops, followed by a price reduction later in the year. And, of course, we're going to see a new and improved 15" PowerBook (completely new form factor).

When the 970's arrive they should be very nice machines but they won't be setting any new price-performance marks in the PC industry. They certainly will represent a new and vastly improved phase for the Macintosh but I won't be expecting miracles (such as dual 970's at less than $2K or single-processor machines that CLEARLY outperform high-end P4-based systems on a wide range of tasks).

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Hmmmm...interesting theory. Wouldn't there be some copyright restrictions? Maybe it'll be good enough to be the real G5. But, from a markting standpoint that really makes sense. I guess I won't give you crap for making a different post for all five of your replies because you make pretty good points ;)

Fission is the future :D

Well, what can I say? I post replies as I read through the thread. Just because they all happen to pile up at what is the end of the thread when I'm reading it...

Thanks for not giving me crap about it... ;)

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by fpnc
...
IMO, it will be a truly amazing feat if Apple ships the PPC970 before the very end of this summer let alone June or July 2003. Late fall or early winter seems very likely to me and it's possible that we will still be waiting come January 2004.


I think that what's missing here is the impact that the chip producer has on the timeline. If the rumors are true and the 970 has had far fewer problems in production than anticipated, then they could well have production quality 970s shipping to Apple already. And please don't say that Apple needs time design the systems around these chips. Apple has probably been designing those systems since before the 970 went into final sampling. All they're doing once they get the production chips is fine tuning the systems to address any last minute bugs. And Apple can speed a process like that up, at least a little, if there is sufficient impetus to do so.


As for the various rumors over the last few weeks, I think that many of these have been largely debunked. In fact, the recent Arstechnica paper on the PPC970 should have placed the last nail in the coffin on those rumored performance benchmarks.
...

Yes, but the benchmark rumors are a far cry from being the only rumors regarding the 970 that have been floating around. To dismiss them all just because the benchmarks are questionable is dubious...

...
When the 970's arrive they should be very nice machines but they won't be setting any new price-performance marks in the PC industry. They certainly will represent a new and vastly improved phase for the Macintosh but I won't be expecting miracles (such as dual 970's at less than $2K or single-processor machines that CLEARLY outperform high-end P4-based systems on a wide range of tasks).

I think that it really comes down to the fact that we really don't know what the price-performance marks will be like. We could well be in for a time when we will recapture the 'Golden Age' of the Power Mac. Remember 'The G3 in every Power Mac is up to twice as fast as the Pentium', or 'Here at Apple, we'd like to appologize for publicly toasting the Pentium'? Ah, those were the days. I'm still hopeful that the 970 could bring back some aspects of those glory days.

[GregA]

Originally posted by fpnc
When the 970's arrive they should be very nice machines but they won't be setting any new price-performance marks in the PC industry. They certainly will represent a new and vastly improved phase for the Macintosh but I won't be expecting miracles (such as dual 970's at less than $2K or single-processor machines that CLEARLY outperform high-end P4-based systems on a wide range of tasks). Yes ArsTechnica shows that the 970 will not be up to the P4 speed. Except for number crunching/Altivec(Velocity Engine).
Originally posted by Shaktai
The workshop mentioned is regarding the utilization of Altivec on the G4. A great many current developers are not fully familiar with Altivec and how it can be used to speed up performance. <snip>
However, lessons learned in a workshop like this, would easily carry over to the 970 as well. ArsTechnica mentioning that the Altivec/Velocity Engine would be the 970s greatest strength tends to argue for optimizing to it.

Once there is a 970 and a G4 - it would be interesting to compare the hardware speed (using Linux on both?).
And then a test of OS X vs Windows XP speeds, to see how good the OSes are.

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by GregAussie
Yes ArsTechnica shows that the 970 will not be up to the P4 speed. Except for number crunching/Altivec(Velocity Engine).
Hmmm... I would not draw such a conclusion based on Ars Technica article. They said nothing about the instruction set, these guys dig deep inside the chip and tend to overlook some points. For instance they did not try to compile a simple piece of C code and simulate its execution to actually have an idea in how many IOPs and µ-ops it will break, it's my feeling that the x86 code will generate more of those micro instructions to produce the same work amount.

Many people will tell you that x86 and PowerPC instruction sets are hard to compare. The PowerPC instruction set is based upon the fact that the architecture offers 32 registers of each type (integer, floating point, vector), most instructions have 3 operands (2 sources, 1 destination), PowerPC is also a load/store architecture. The x86 instruction set has only 8 registers (they do not pass their function parameters using registers), and its floating point unit was based on a stack structure, instructions have usually only 2 operands (1 source, 1 source/destination).

You cannot simply ignore these facts when you compare those chips. You cannot compare IPC (Instructions per Cycle) of two different ISAs, without saying that the instructions in question are not the same. What actually does the work is a flow of dozens, hundreds, thousands of instructions... how could you draw meaningfull conclusions when you base your analysis solely on a few single instruction trips through the CPU?
I'm not saying that Ars Technica did not a great job, just that they focus to much on the CPU back-end and do not take the instruction set into account, which would lead to a better overall picture.

[the future]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
However, I'm not going to hold me breath...
(Yes, I admit it, I'm addicted to air. Really, I'd try to quit, but the withdrawls are killer... ;) )

Yeah, me too. The Soundtrack to "Virgin Suicides" was really great...

[dongmin]

Originally posted by fpnc
As for the various rumors over the last few weeks, I think that many of these have been largely debunked. In fact, the recent Arstechnica paper on the PPC970 should have placed the last nail in the coffin on those rumored performance benchmarks.

...

When the 970's arrive they should be very nice machines but they won't be setting any new price-performance marks in the PC industry. They certainly will represent a new and vastly improved phase for the Macintosh but I won't be expecting miracles (such as dual 970's at less than $2K or single-processor machines that CLEARLY outperform high-end P4-based systems on a wide range of tasks). Well it's always nice to get a bit of the pessimism to douse the frenzy here. At this point, all the benchmarking and performance estimations are purely speculative. And here I'm referring to both the sensational reports of MacBidouille as well as the more conservative (and technical) opinion of Ars. Yes the MacBidouille benchmarks have a lot of holes but we simply don't know enough about how the 970s will be implemented by Apple to say how it'll perform real-world tasks. We don't know how much the increased bandwidth will affect Altivec performance, which could potentially be huge. We also don't know if Apple is implementing any new bus & interface technologies (RapidIO, Hypertransport, the rumored 'Apple Proccessor Interconnect Bus'). Too many unknowns at this point.

The closest to an 'official' performance estimate we have is IBM's SPEC estimates which show the 1.8 ghz 970 to be roughly on par with the 3 ghz P4 and double the G4's at the same clock speed. This is the main source of optimism for me. I have no doubt we'll see a dual 1.8 ghz system which should surpass the performance of any single CPU x86 system and compete with dual Xeon systems.

On the other hand, such performance levels would be an unprecedented, massive jump over the previous generation.Would Apple make such a bold move? Or would they 'phase in' the performance gain to give themselves some head room for growth and to make people feel better about their G4 purchases? That's my big concern, that Apple would hold back the 970 for non-technical reasons.

And regarding the cost of these systems, I expect Apple to stay with the existing scheme. The 'Fast' system sporting a single 1.4 ghz 970 at around $1500-1600, 'Faster' dual 1.6 ghz system at $2000-2200, and 'Fastest' dual 1.8 ghz system at $2700-3000. Just for kicks, I can see Apple providing a limited run of dual 2 ghz systems with all the bells and whistles, calling it the 'Workstation' config, for $4000. The sole reason for the last system would be for bragging rights--the fastest desktop computers in the planet!

[wallinbl]

Or would they 'phase in' the performance gain to give themselves some head room for growth and to make people feel better about their G4 purchases? That's my big concern, that Apple would hold back the 970 for non-technical reasons.
[/B]

Nah. They would just be wasting the opportunity to sell! If the 970 based Mac was 2x as fast as the G4, even more people would ditch their G4 for the 970.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by fpnc
As for the various rumors over the last few weeks, I think that many of these have been largely debunked. In fact, the recent Arstechnica paper on the PPC970 should have placed the last nail in the coffin on those rumored performance benchmarks.

I completely disagree with your analysis. I think the ArsTecnica article just supports our claims for speed. The speed of the machines has a lot to do with the architecture of the final 970 with Altivec, which the author did not have his hands on-- he mainly had Power4 references. Additionally, the speed relies on the architecure of the Computer. He said quite distinctively that, given the right architecture, the 970 will scream.

Apple will be releaseing the 970 based mac no later than the release of Panther... but I really do believe that it could be at, or right after, WWDC. There's just way more logic to support this-- Apple can't afford to sit on their a$$ for much longer.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by dongmin
...Would Apple make such a bold move? Or would they 'phase in' the performance gain to give themselves some head room for growth and to make people feel better about their G4 purchases? That's my big concern, that Apple would hold back the 970 for non-technical reasons...

There is one point here that I think some people who are afraid of this are missing. What would the public reaction be if the fastest new Power Mac had 1.6GHz 970 processors, but the new IBM Blades had 2.2GHz 970 processors? There would be some monumental negative backlash for Apple if they didn't use the fastest 970s available, and this time Apple isn't the only company that will be using these processors in computers. So, we'll have a touchstone to compare where the machines' speeds are at...

[Vonnie]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
There is one point here that I think some people who are afraid of this are missing. What would the public reaction be if the fastest new Power Mac had 1.6GHz 970 processors, but the new IBM Blades had 2.2GHz 970 processors? There would be some monumental negative backlash for Apple if they didn't use the fastest 970s available, and this time Apple isn't the only company that will be using these processors in computers. So, we'll have a touchstone to compare where the machines' speeds are at...

They would be shocked.

Then they would look at the price tag of an IBM Blade server.

[fred_lj]

I was just thinking: if there's no QTTV stream of the keynote (since it's a paid admission-type thing), are there going to be people there that will post whatever happens to sites such as this/other rumor sites?

Wait, never mind. If they announce anything that will be big to the consumer marketplace, it'll make its way to the media somehow...somehow I had this strange momentary impression that whatever came out of WWDC pretty much stayed among developers.

[nuckinfutz]

Originally posted by fpnc
[B]
IMO, it will be a truly amazing feat if Apple ships the PPC970 before the very end of this summer let alone June or July 2003. Late fall or early winter seems very likely to me and it's possible that we will still be waiting come January 2004.

Overly pessimistic. As of Oct of 2002 IBM stated in docs from the Microprocessor that "Volume" production of PPC 970s will commence 2H 2003. It's altogether likely that IBM was able to beat these estimates. Fabbing at .13um is a piece of cake for the Fishkill Foundry. I believe Apple could easily announce Machines in June for preorder and shipment in August.

As for the various rumors over the last few weeks, I think that many of these have been largely debunked. In fact, the recent Arstechnica paper on the PPC970 should have placed the last nail in the coffin on those rumored performance benchmarks.

Arstechnica debunked nothing. They explained the processor in more detail but none of us knows how Altivec will funtion with 4x the bandwidth available with the 970s FSB. I'm afraid this change in hardware is going to be a little too hard to accurately predict the speed.

As far as configurations, I expect that we will see SINGLE processor 970's replacing the current price points, with perhaps a more expensive "ultra" option with dual-970's (and Xserves). In the meantime we will likely see a speed bump in the G4 desktops, followed by a price reduction later in the year. And, of course, we're going to see a new and improved 15" PowerBook (completely new form factor).

That's too many Models. Apple must remain committed to shipping Dual Processor systems. 3-4 years ago they announced that Dual was the future of Powermacs. They must keep this intact. The OS is optimized as well as many third party apps. If IBM's yields are extremely high on the 970s then I expect the 970s to be cheaper overall than G4s. Just imagine how much Apple is paying for the 1.42Ghz .18um G4s. Plus they STILL need to shell out for L3 cache as well. IBM moves to 300mm Wafers and the price drops even more per chip. I say 970s at current pricing Dual Configs on Midrange and High End.

When the 970's arrive they should be very nice machines but they won't be setting any new price-performance marks in the PC industry. They certainly will represent a new and vastly improved phase for the Macintosh but I won't be expecting miracles (such as dual 970's at less than $2K or single-processor machines that CLEARLY outperform high-end P4-based systems on a wide range of tasks).

That depends. If Apple does as you believe and ships Uniprocessor systems then the Powermacs won't be setting any new benchmarks. However if you are incorrect and they ship Dual configs then yes we will have faster machines that should outperform P4s. Prescott will probably exceed 1200/1200 specint and specFP plus use hyperthreading but I like a dual 1.8 system to provide 1900/2200 specint SpecFP combined. That's a smokin' system.

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
What would the public reaction be if the fastest new Power Mac had 1.6GHz 970 processors, but the new IBM Blades had 2.2GHz 970 processors?
This is an IBM blade:
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/bladecenter/i/img_hs20.gif
They could face overheating problems if they try to stick a high frequency chip inside. For this same reason the current Xserve runs only at 1.33 GHz, the bigger enclosure of the Power Mac allows better cooling. I would not be surprised if the the high-end 970 processors appear only in Apple boxes.

[etoiles]

Originally posted by Bengt77

I never liked the capital 'X' and lowercase 'serve' name-parts of the Xserve; think they should have named it xServe. Then, the xMac name would make sense (note that it sounds like Axe Mac: the Mac that'll finally take good care :D of all PCs). They could even rename the PowerBook (indeed very strange Power Mac is two words, while PowerBook is only one) the xBook. Sounds pretty cool, don't it?!

...and if they release a gaming console they will call it xbox, right ? ;)
Is anybody else getting tired of the whole 'X' thing, or is it just me ? Common, give me a Z ! Zmac ! Zbook !Give me zee power !
:D

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

And, of course, we're going to see a new and improved 15" PowerBook (completely new form factor).
Oh, it's going to be round you say?

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by etoiles
...and if they release a gaming console they will call it xbox, right ? ;)
Is anybody else getting tired of the whole 'X' thing, or is it just me ? Common, give me a Z ! Zmac ! Zbook !Give me zee power !
:D

I have just one thing to say to this (and you're going to groan...):

Why?

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by mathiasr
This is an IBM blade:
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/bladecenter/i/img_hs20.gif
They could face overheating problems if they try to stick a high frequency chip inside. For this same reason the current Xserve runs only at 1.33 GHz, the bigger enclosure of the Power Mac allows better cooling. I would not be surprised if the the high-end 970 processors appear only in Apple boxes.

I realize that there are form factor heat issues. But, we really don't know how that's going to come into play with the 970. We have no firm numbers on how hot these chips will run (other than to say that they are cooler than the current crop of G4s).

[wallinbl]

Originally posted by mathiasr
This is an IBM blade:
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/bladecenter/i/img_hs20.gif
They could face overheating problems if they try to stick a high frequency chip inside. For this same reason the current Xserve runs only at 1.33 GHz, the bigger enclosure of the Power Mac allows better cooling. I would not be surprised if the the high-end 970 processors appear only in Apple boxes.

Yes, but those things are run in rooms with 55 degree temperatures and tremendous air flow.

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by wallinbl
Yes, but those things are run in rooms with 55 degree temperatures and tremendous air flow.
Right, I think that's what he was saying.

That's what I loved about working in a scanner room for a few months, I could always wear my sweatshirts in there. And then everyone who came in to pester us would be all freezing :D

[fpnc]

If I seem a bit pessimistic about the recent PPC970 rumors I think it is only fair to point out that some of the optimists may be overlooking an important issue concerning the performance of any PPC970-based Mac. What makes the optimists think that Apple will be able to produce a motherboard and chipset architecture that will take FULL advantage of the PPC970? When these Macs ship I suspect that as a SYSTEM they will perform somewhat below IBM's raw estimates for the PPC970 itself. No, I'm not saying that Apple can't do good work, but the first of anything is seldom as good as it could be.

In any case, I think that the PPC970 ship date and performance rumors need to be taken will a great deal of skepticism. I would go as far as saying that there is absolutely no chance that they will be introduced at this year's WWDC. And, of course, that's a win-win attitude because I'm either going to be proven right (no PPC970 at WWDC) or in just over one month we're going to have one of the most important product announcements in the history of the Macintosh.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by fpnc
...In any case, I think that the PPC970 ship date and performance rumors need to be taken will a great deal of skepticism.

Skepticism is one thing, but this...


I would go as far as saying that there is absolutely no chance that they will be introduced at this year's WWDC...

seems a bit extreme. Absolutely no chance? I'd say that's as irrational as saying that it is assured that they will be released...

[etoiles]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I have just one thing to say to this (and you're going to groan...):

Why?

why am I tired of the X ? Well, look around you: the x is everywhere. Plus, I think 'extreme' and 'experience' is as cheesy in a product description as 'new and improved formula'. I know OS X comes from 10, but not only: see AirportExtreme, QuartzExtreme...

I am probably overreacting :p
But remember, there is already products called xbox, xstation, xscale etc. so using the x might also be confusing in terms of marketing. Although they already started using it for the Xserve...oh well.

Now Blade, that is a cool name for a server. Or what SGI uses for their workstations: O2, Fuel, Octane (or before that: Indigo, Crimson, Onyx...). Something with character.

Actually, I am just focusing on meaningless things like naming, because I am afraid to speculate (and be disapointed) on the actual products. I am not a hero, I know :D

[blueBomber]

Originally posted by etoiles
...Actually, I am just focusing on meaningless things like naming, because I am afraid to speculate (and be disapointed) on the actual products. I am not a hero, I know :D

I think your right about the names. Remember, naming is a cornerstone of Apple's product strategy. How many i-whatevers came out after they introduced the imac? Lots. Steve's Apple is well known for coming up with identifiable and, for lack of a better word, cool names. But, I'm going to go on the record here and say that we will probably not see a full 970 system, but it wouldn't hurt if Steve acknowledged that Apple is looking at some new hardware.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by mathiasr
They could face overheating problems if they try to stick a high frequency chip inside.

Well, I've got a bunch of those with dual 2.8GHz Xeon chips. This seems to blow that argument right out of the water!

If you'd check the docs (ftp://ftp.pc.ibm.com/pub/pccbbs/pc_servers_pdf/59p6546.pdf) you'd see that the BladeCenter is rated at 35 degrees at up to 914m altitude (that's 95F/3000ft for you backwards folks). No need for a refrigerator to put 78GHz of Xeon power in a 7U system.

Come on people, open your eyes to what's available outside of Cupertino!

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by etoiles
why am I tired of the X ? ...

Okay, I guess I was too cryptic. I'll try again.

If you're tired of ex, why zee?

[fpnc]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Absolutely no chance? I'd say that's as irrational as saying that it is assured that they will be released...

Yes, but the problem with maybe this and maybe that is that you really aren't saying much of anything. I'm willing to go on record (for what it's worth) as saying that there will be no PPC970 introduction at WWDC. By "introduction" I'm talking about an actual product demo followed by a reasonable number of shipments within 30 days of WWDC. If I'm wrong then I'll be wrong. However, if I said that there was little chance of an introduction and then they are introduced what does that mean? Was I 50% wrong, 70% wrong, mostly correct if they don't ship until after July 15? If we're going to make predictions then we might as well be bold.

So, what I'm saying is no PPC970-based Macs until at least LATE summer. No significant change in the price points over what we have today ($1500 to $2700 with ultimate well over $3000). And a likelihood of more single processor configurations replacing the existing dual G4s. That doesn't mean more models, I'm just saying that I expect that a single processor PPC970 will replace one of the configurations that is currently occupied by dual G4s.

Why will Apple move to more single processor configurations? They'll do it to maintain profit margins and to set the tone for positioning the PPC970 as a direct competitor to single processor WINTEL systems. It will also give them a buffer in case initial supplies of the PPC970 become tight. We'll see multi-processor PPC970 systems at the very high-end and in Xserves and I expect as the months and years go by we'll see more of a return to dual processor configurations, but as a general business model I think Apple would like to return to single-processor systems -- at least during the initial transition. Save the dual-970s for when and where they will really be needed.

[etoiles]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Okay, I guess I was too cryptic. I'll try again.

If you're tired of ex, why zee?

I was not serious, just trying to be funny saying "give me zee power !" with a German accent...
Oh well, either the accent doesn't come accross too well or I am really trying too hard :D

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by fpnc
...If we're going to make predictions then we might as well be bold.
...

I guess I take the stance of trying to avoid being wrong. Maybe it's the scientist in me. There's insufficient data to make an accurate prediction at this time.

If I wanted to be bold, I'd rather predict something I'd like to be right about than something I'd like to be wrong about. So I'd predict that we will see 970 based Macs at the WWDC.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by etoiles
I was not serious, just trying to be funny saying "give me zee power !" with a German accent...
Oh well, either the accent doesn't come accross too well or I am really trying too hard :D

Yes your implied accent came across just fine. My joke is still getting lost, though. Oh well. I give up...

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Well, I've got a bunch of those with dual 2.8GHz Xeon chips. This seems to blow that argument right out of the water!
You're d*mn right!

[leo]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Come on people, open your eyes to what's available outside of Cupertino!

Exactly.
This is why it will be all about the price point. The dual 970 configurations will not be much faster than the dual Xeon systems available today, if at all (estimating from the SPEC-benchs here).
Especially in the world of blade servers, Apple will need highly competitive pricing just to be taken serious. These folks are really hard to convince.

[_aa_]

when will the ppc 970 be in our computers?

i have read a whole lot on the subject, but as every rumor monger knows; we'll just have to wait & see, every opinion is worth as much as the next; wich doesn't rule out interesting discussions however...

just had to post my best guess; ppc 970 will ship with the release of Panther

so, does anybody know something more than the fact thet each attandee at wwdc will recieve a pre-release?

[_aa_]

ehhm,

also, i believe in a new name

PowerBox possible?

[BaghdadBob]

I would but PowerBox in the same place as the PowerDolphin. Or put the two together...

I'm sorry. I just had to :D.

MUWAHAHAHAHAHA! I laugh at my own jokes...

[GregA]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Okay, I guess I was too cryptic. I'll try again.
If you're tired of ex, why zee?
Originally posted by etoiles
I was not serious, just trying to be funny saying "give me zee power !" with a German accent...
Oh well, either the accent doesn't come accross too well or I am really trying too hard :D Originally posted by Snowy_River
Yes your implied accent came across just fine. My joke is still getting lost, though. Oh well. I give up... Gave me a laugh!
In fact I may have been more interested in reading if etoiles missed the 2nd hint than the will-it/won't-it discussion :)

So etoiles,
"ex, why zee?" eh? be see-ing U!
(I know, cheap)

[JLL]

Originally posted by fred_lj
I was just thinking: if there's no QTTV stream of the keynote (since it's a paid admission-type thing), are there going to be people there that will post whatever happens to sites such as this/other rumor sites?

The keynote is open to the press - the sessions are under NDA.

Btw. this WWDC will be bigger than ever because QuickTime Live! is now part of it, and there is also a new Enterprise IT track.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by GregAussie

Gave me a laugh!
In fact I may have been more interested in reading if etoiles missed the 2nd hint than the will-it/won't-it discussion :)


Good to know that it didn't get missed by everyone. :D

IMAB. RUAB2?

CU!

[etoiles]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Good to know that it didn't get missed by everyone. :D

IMAB. RUAB2?

CU!


Oooooooookay....sorry, it was late...I am slow...never give up !
:p

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by jcr
jettredmont said: " Objective C/C++ is a great UI language, but its type-unsafe nature makes it next to impossible to use for a real "workhorse" or complex app!"

This is simply incorrect.

iDVD, DVD Studio Pro, Apple's Project Builder, and the Apple Store are all examples of "complex" apps based on Objective-C. I personally have worked on derivatives-trading apps for a number of wall street firms that were written in Objective-C, and we've never wished we had the inflexibility that comes from so-called "type safety."

-jcr

Okay, to each his own. That should have been prefixed with "IMHO" anyways.

I've just seen too much really bad code in ObjectiveC (almost the same ratio as in Visual Basic) to consider it a real maintainable language for non-UI work.

Regarding Apple's apps being Obj-C through and through: I'm not so sure that's the case. I mean, to start with, Apple Music Store is, if I recall correctly, run on WebObjects, which while it can use Obj-C, is more likely to be using Java these days (if for no othe reason than that Java programmers are easier to find and less expensive to hire than Obj-C programmers). Project Builder, if I recall correctly, is fundamentally C++ (one of the developers mentioned this last WWDC).

[tazznb]

Originally posted by fpnc
Frankly, I think we'll see PPC970-based Macs shipping at a time that is almost closer to NEXT year's WWDC than it will be to June 2003. That's my totally controversial leadoff statement. :-)

IMO, it will be a truly amazing feat if Apple ships the PPC970 before the very end of this summer let alone June or July 2003. Late fall or early winter seems very likely to me and it's possible that we will still be waiting come January 2004.

As for the various rumors over the last few weeks, I think that many of these have been largely debunked. In fact, the recent Arstechnica paper on the PPC970 should have placed the last nail in the coffin on those rumored performance benchmarks.

As far as configurations, I expect that we will see SINGLE processor 970's replacing the current price points, with perhaps a more expensive "ultra" option with dual-970's (and Xserves). In the meantime we will likely see a speed bump in the G4 desktops, followed by a price reduction later in the year. And, of course, we're going to see a new and improved 15" PowerBook (completely new form factor).

When the 970's arrive they should be very nice machines but they won't be setting any new price-performance marks in the PC industry. They certainly will represent a new and vastly improved phase for the Macintosh but I won't be expecting miracles (such as dual 970's at less than $2K or single-processor machines that CLEARLY outperform high-end P4-based systems on a wide range of tasks).

This is a "rumors forum", and your OPINION is yours to express, but here are a few HARD FACTS:
This is the very most "barebones system that you can currently buy at Dell right now, with only THE MOST ESSENTIAL ITEMS ADDED.

You won't find the price, (for what you get to be "so great" either:

Note: I used Xeon instead of P4 since they are dual capable, and support larger memory.

The setup below as configured will cost almost $1,900.00
Dell Precision™ Workstation 450 0Desktop: Intel® Xeon™ Processor, 2.00GHz, 512K Cache
2ND PROCESSOR (Must match speed selection above): Intel® Xeon™ Processor, 2.00GHz, 512K Cache
Memory: 256MB,DDR266 SDRAM Memory,ECC (2 DIMMS)
Keyboard: Entry Level, PS/2, No Hot Keys
Monitor: No Monitor Option
Graphics Cards: ATI, Radeon™ VE, 32MB, VGA (dual monitor capable) RADEONV
First Hard Drive: (3 Drives Max)
40GB ATA-100 IDE, 1 inch (7200 rpm)
Floppy Drive: 1.44MB FDD,Full-size,no-bezel,F3 bay-1ST SOURCE
Operating System (not as much choice as some proclaim; you get Windows, or Windows)
Dell PCs use genuine Microsoft® Windows® ONLY
Operating System: Microsoft®Windows® 2000 Professional (SP3) with Media using NTFS
Mouse: PS/2,Dell, 2 button w/no scroll
CD-ROM, DVD, and Read-Write Devices: 48X CD ROM
You'll also be FORCED to purchase....
Productivity Software: Microsoft Office XP Small Business and ADOBE ACROBAT 5.0
Hardware Support Services: 3Yr Parts + Onsite Labor (Next Business Day)
Installation Services: No Installation
Other Options: 1394 Controller Card
Intel Hyper-Threading: Hyper-Threading feature preset to "ON." Can be disabled/enabled in BIOS.
Security Software - Shipped Separately: Symantec Antivirus CorpEd 8.0 (1 user license)
Dell PowerConnect Switches: PowerConnect 2124 24-pt 10/100 +1GB unmgd w/ 1-yr NBD Parts
:rolleyes:

[Fukui]

Regarding Apple's apps being Obj-C through and through: I'm not so sure that's the case. I mean, to start with, Apple Music Store is, if I recall correctly, run on WebObjects, which while it can use Obj-C, is more likely to be using Java these days (if for no othe reason than that Java programmers are easier to find and less expensive to hire than Obj-C programmers). Project Builder, if I recall correctly, is fundamentally C++ (one of the developers mentioned this last WWDC).
First, Obj-C is C. Its a runtime etc, that is built on standard C. That means, unlike VB it is a REAL PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE. If you drop down and start using functions (many standard parts of cocoa use C funtions for speed) means you can mix and match to your hearts content. A lot of people try to make Obj-C behave like C++, but its NOT C++. Dont even try, its much more dynamic than C++ or Java, you just need to work with it, instead of against it. There is a lot of bad code out there (an opinion) I guess because people don't know how to optimize things correctly, just give it some time, and dont forget that just because you use C in a cocoa app, somehow its not using Obj-C/Cocoa at its core, there the same thing, the difference is one is behaving like an object, the other is dealing with primitve data...

[GulGnu]

Originally posted by tazznb
This is a "rumors forum", and your OPINION is yours to express, but here are a few HARD FACTS:
This is the very most "barebones system that you can currently buy at Dell right now, with only THE MOST ESSENTIAL ITEMS ADDED.


Xeons in a SP system? Get real. (The point of Xeons is that Intel gets to differentiate the workstation market from the desktop market somewhat more, raking in som bonus profits...) As for buying a barebones system - well, you don't get those from Dell.

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

[tazznb]

Originally posted by GulGnu
Xeons in a SP system? Get real. (The point of Xeons is that Intel gets to differentiate the workstation market from the desktop market somewhat more, raking in som bonus profits...) As for buying a barebones system - well, you don't get those from Dell.

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

I think you misunderstand what I posted; You CAN purchase a xeon SP system (if that's what you want, or you can get a DP xeon (like I have), I just wanted to get the falseness out of the previous post stating that you'd get such a "fantastic buy" if you were to get a xeon system.

By the way the Dell xeon system I posted in my previous post was almost a bare bones system, and to say people won't buy them in this config is ludicrous.

[sparkplug]

render farms are a little faster on windoz


A little faster! thats quite an ostrich impersonation you have going there. The PC by my testing ( as opposed to fabricated wishfull thinking) is over twice as fast. Here is a link to the maya render bench scene file.

http://www.highend3d.com/tests/maya/testcenter/download.3d

Feel free to try it for yourself. I have and I have found this.

This scene renders in exactly 3.00 minutes square on a dual 1.4 G4 with 1 gb of ram. It renders in 1:12 on a dual 1.5 athlon
with the same amount of memory. It renders in 1:23 on a single 2.4-P4 with half as much ram.

Add to this the fact that both pc's together where still less than the single mac plus they have been considerably more stable in our production enviroment. It brings a whole new meaning to the term "sad mac"

And yes Maya is HIGHLY multithread optimised.

Here is a link to the rest of highends test database, notice the total absence of mac scores.

[tazznb]

Originally posted by fpnc
Yes, but the problem with maybe this and maybe that is that you really aren't saying much of anything. I'm willing to go on record (for what it's worth) as saying that there will be no PPC970 introduction at WWDC. By "introduction" I'm talking about an actual product demo followed by a reasonable number of shipments within 30 days of WWDC. If I'm wrong then I'll be wrong. However, if I said that there was little chance of an introduction and then they are introduced what does that mean? Was I 50% wrong, 70% wrong, mostly correct if they don't ship until after July 15? If we're going to make predictions then we might as well be bold.

So, what I'm saying is no PPC970-based Macs until at least LATE summer. No significant change in the price points over what we have today ($1500 to $2700 with ultimate well over $3000). And a likelihood of more single processor configurations replacing the existing dual G4s. That doesn't mean more models, I'm just saying that I expect that a single processor PPC970 will replace one of the configurations that is currently occupied by dual G4s.

Why will Apple move to more single processor configurations? They'll do it to maintain profit margins and to set the tone for positioning the PPC970 as a direct competitor to single processor WINTEL systems. It will also give them a buffer in case initial supplies of the PPC970 become tight. We'll see multi-processor PPC970 systems at the very high-end and in Xserves and I expect as the months and years go by we'll see more of a return to dual processor configurations, but as a general business model I think Apple would like to return to single-processor systems -- at least during the initial transition. Save the dual-970s for when and where they will really be needed.

You have a good point there. I hope Apple will make a change for the better, and offer single, and dual processor customizations.

Their choices have always been too rigid.

[GulGnu]

Originally posted by tazznb
I think you misunderstand what I posted; You CAN purchase a xeon SP system (if that's what you want, or you can get a DP xeon (like I have), I just wanted to get the falseness out of the previous post stating that you'd get such a "fantastic buy" if you were to get a xeon system.

By the way the Dell xeon system I posted in my previous post was almost a bare bones system, and to say people won't buy them in this config is ludicrous.

Ah - sorrees. =P

But MS Office in a "Barebones system"? I'd cut that out at least.

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

[geerlingguy]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Okay, to each his own. That should have been prefixed with "IMHO" anyways.
What does "IMHO" mean? :confused:

[GulGnu]

Originally posted by geerlingguy
What does "IMHO" mean? :confused:

In my humble opinion

Regards / GulGnu

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Fukui
First, Obj-C is C. Its a runtime etc, that is built on standard C. That means, unlike VB it is a REAL PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE.


I wouldn't say VB isn't a real programming language. It is just hopelessly complex (strangely enough) for the level of power it provides the programmer.

If you drop down and start using functions (many standard parts of cocoa use C funtions for speed) means you can mix and match to your hearts content.


Today, you can mix C++ and Obj C and C to your heart's content. Time of last year's WWDC, C++ and Obj-C could not be in the same source file (and the C++ code had to have an 'extern 'C'' front-end to it). That was when the PB developer said that they were using C++ underneath an Obj-C UI layer (which was in response to a question about how feasible such a model would continue to be in the upcoming Jaguar Project Builder IIRC ... I remember this quite clearly because I had the same question for my project).

But, yes, point taken: Obj-C is just C with object-ish extensions (like C++, but in a less strictly typed manner regarding the objects). Of course, actively viewing it as such pretty much destroys the veneer of an OOPL (I have a peeve with people doing straight C in C++ when it's not performance-necessary, and the same would be true of C in Obj-C). And, yes, today C++ and Obj-C code can at least coexist in a single source code file although of course you can't be passing a C++ object to Obj-C or vice-versa (and you have to make sure your C++ headers don't use Obj-C keywords like "id" ...).

By "poorly written code" I mean code where massive bugs showed up at runtime (only when the user does 'X' then 'Y' then 'Z') which, in a language like C++, would have been found at compile time. Yes, there are also problems (memory management especially) which are more likely to show up at runtime in C/C++ than C/Obj-C (memory management is slightly "easier" with Obj-C, roughly akin to using a "smart" pointer system in C++). But, as I said, this is personal opinion here ... I really like Obj-C for the UI, and the NS UI library is about the best I've come across.

I just haven't seen with my own eyes a successful project based on Obj-C through and through, and have seen many projects (including the aforementioned from Apple) which consciously chose to use Obj-C for the front-end while coding in C or C++ on the back end.

Language war end ...

[jcr]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Okay, to each his own. That should have been prefixed with "IMHO" anyways.

I've just seen too much really bad code in ObjectiveC (almost the same ratio as in Visual Basic) to consider it a real maintainable language for non-UI work.

Regarding Apple's apps being Obj-C through and through: I'm not so sure that's the case. I mean, to start with, Apple Music Store is, if I recall correctly, run on WebObjects, which while it can use Obj-C, is more likely to be using Java these days (if for no othe reason than that Java programmers are easier to find and less expensive to hire than Obj-C programmers). Project Builder, if I recall correctly, is fundamentally C++ (one of the developers mentioned this last WWDC).

Ok, in no particular order: I was talking about the Apple Store (you know, the web site that takes a few billion dollars in orders for hardware every year), not the the Apple Music Store.

Secondly, I'd like to know what programs you're referring to when you mention really bad Obj-C code. I think that Nisus Writer, OmniWeb, OmniGraffle, Keynote, and Create! are all pretty impressive examples.

Thirdly, Project Builder is a Cocoa Objective-C app, and I'm quite sure that nobody from the Developer tools group said otherwise.

As for Objective-C's maintainability, I can personally attest to having used it in trading-floor apps that were revised as often as nightly. I shudder to think what a nightmare it would have been to attempt the same thing with C++ or the like.

-jcr

[Fukui]

But, yes, point taken: Obj-C is just C with object-ish extensions (like C++, but in a less strictly typed manner regarding the objects). Of course, actively viewing it as such pretty much destroys the veneer of an OOPL (I have a peeve with people doing straight C in C++ when it's not performance-necessary, and the same would be true of C in Obj-C). And, yes, today C++ and Obj-C code can at least coexist in a single source code file although of course you can't be passing a C++ object to Obj-C or vice-versa (and you have to make sure your C++ headers don't use Obj-C keywords like "id" ...).


Right, since Objective-C is really C, I mean really C, you could theoretically program an Obj-C app in pure C, though it would be a horrendous undertaking. Yea, the Appkit is probably the best framework for UIs ever, but dont ignore the Foundation either, I think with Obj-C most people just concentrate in Utilizing the Appkit, but the Foundation is also very very powerful. And just because you use C to implement a method doesnt mean an object cant be an object, that IMO is what is so special about Obj-C, unlike Java, C++, or C# (uses C syntax with additions, but not trully "Built in" C), it really has all the power and flexibilty of C, and is trully built on C, so i think apps with the bugs you mentioned are because people haven't really researched how things occur at runtime and consequently run into problems, IOW, they are probably just relying on the compiler checking things at compile time, and then saying, my code should be fine now like in C++ or C...thats wrong, its not final until you run it, thats all, but that is particularly what makes it so powerful (and slightly slower).

Anyways, I dont think there is any language war, its just that Obj-C is so different people aren't used to it.

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by sparkplug
A little faster! thats quite an ostrich impersonation you have going there. The PC by my testing ( as opposed to fabricated wishfull thinking) is over twice as fast. Here is a link to the maya render bench scene file.


Well I don't do 3d but I guess that's why Steve went to intel for pixar. But I think you are also putting your head in the sand, in your support for MS, maybe you remember some of the stories of their theft and MS getting sued for it? Maybe if my business relied on rendering I would think about a widoz pc...naa
I am curious why your Mac isn't as stable as a pc, that's a first!
I've been very happy with the Mac apps for the last 8 years, stability wise.
peace
daniel

[3.1416]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Regarding Apple's apps being Obj-C through and through: I'm not so sure that's the case.

You do know who jcr is, right? If he says an Apple app is Cocoa/ObjC, there's a pretty good chance he's correct :) You're right that the Apple store back end is Java (being WebObjects), and iTunes is Carbon because it was originally written for OS 9. But virtually all of Apple's OS X apps, including Project Builder, are Cocoa (Finder being the most prominent exception).

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Well, even if Apple gives Moto the boot, I'd expect the IBM 750GX processor (G3 + Altivec compatibility) to be called a G4. Maybe the G4i, as it comes from IBM and would be used in the 'i' line? (i.e. no more G4 based Power Macs or PowerBooks...)

Honestly... Apple could pull a fast one in this instance and make this so-called 750GX (if it exists) called something <name here>, and the PPC 970 called something else <different name here>. I mean... Intel sells Celerons and Pentiums and Itaniums. Perhaps Apple, to ditch the current "G#" nomenclature, switches everything away? Hell, who knows what it'll be called... but since Apple could call Motorola's cryptic "AltiVec" the "Velocity Engine"... who knows what the next generation of Mac processors will be called?!? It depends on our favorite CEO and how creative he's feeling that day...

Perhaps they keep Motorola G4's around 'til time comes when they transition to a future PPC 9xx that is designed for portables. Lord knows the 970 has shown to have more wattage and no accoune><ff power management features (not like IBM is going to use these things in servers if they're geared mostly for laptops, and first generation chips usually produce smaller yields and have higher power consumptions 'til the chipset evolves and shrinks in die size, and efficiency efforts take place) than a Pentium M Centrino-based laptop (12-25w). The low-watt G4's in the laptops are considered hot at their current temperatures... and the high-end desktop G4's are waaaaaay too hot for laptops, and the 970 23w current falls closer to the high-end G4 30w than the low-end G4 12w; and is nowhere near the iBook G3 at 7w. Anyone have any specs on the 750GX wattages? Be curious to see... you guys might be on to something if this is indeed true and if it has speeds and wattages better than what Motorola has or will get with their G4's here soon. It'd at least buy some time 'til IBM scales the 9xx down to less intense wattages and adds some power management features to make it speedy, but also make less of a dent on batteries. I don't see IBM going hog wild on updating a G3 to be a G4, and don't see much point to it when a shrunken die PPC 9xx with power management functionality would likely drop the power down to near 12w, if not lower.

As far as licensing... IBM made the PowerPC... if Motorola sues over the chosen name, IBM can sue over the PowerPC name, which they own. I'm not saying that Motorola won't... but I'm just pointing out a genuine fact. I really think it's more of a case really where Motorola "WANTS" to get out of the desktop game now, and their contractual agreement I feel has been more than served by Apple. This would be a way to amicably split... if not on the best of terms, at least on terms that frees Motorola to pursue what they seemingly want to focus on (embedded) while IBM who uses their processor technology in a more "server" focus can now have a light-server and even workstation processor that they also sell in volumes to Apple and gain some considerable sales to offset it's development costs in servers and workstations, with consumer desktops, and laptops down the road.

The fact IBM didn't support SIMD prior because of no Linux/AIX build accessing it and being rather "unimportant" for the most part in IBM's field... tends to point to a client that talked them into it after they previously said "NO" to it at the time of Motorola and IBM splitting their PowerPC roadmaps in separate directions. Apple has invested a "TON" in AltiVec, they have the instruction calls, their OS is optimized for it, they've just gotten almost everyone except Quark (coming soon) moved over to PowerPC in OS X with AltiVec... so the logic is that:

1) Apple is not leaving PowerPC.

2) Apple is not wanting to lose AltiVec and reoptimize everything.

3) Carbon, overall, hasn't been fused with Cocoa and paired down enough or merged altogether to go jumping to any new processor.

4) AMD/Intel is not going to build a PowerPC, and Apple is not going to jump everything over to x86 this soon and start over.

5) Motorola has no G5 plans anymore... Itanium has no AltiVec-compatible SIMD, neither does AMD's Hammer... neither does Sun's SPARC. The only one that has it? PPC 970 from IBM. Why? Unless someone else is going to use it... good question... for enterprise, Vector processing isn't a major focus, and it's performance features would be "minimal" compared to hardware-based proprietary solutions that better fit enterprise and cost less time to ramp up and mfg.

The fact is... the PPC 970 client seems most likely to be Apple, as Apple has everything to lose by sitting stagnant without a processor future from Motorola (no G5), and IBM has everything to lose on PowerPC if the platform base shrivels and shrinks into nothing... as IBM's desktop G3 sales in iBooks would go out the window if Apple switched to anything but faster PowerPC's as it's "HIGHLY" unlikely that Apple would support 2 platforms simultaneously.

So, by taking the PowerPC back in at their own labs in a big way... and pulling Apple in as a customer (and IBM fits Apple better than Motorola since the axeing of clones anyhow, as Motorola has been bitter and embedded isn't something that Apple is huuuge on, with exception to laptops which are "reasonable" at 12w consumptions... even if a bit warm compared to a iBook at 7w)... IBM keeps their G3 sales for now, adds any interim processor sales to the lower-end power-conscious machines (if Apple doesn't stick with G4's for the near term in low ends... I'd expect to see something like this 750GX to be true... I'm more believing in G4's 'til next spring in Powerbooks, iMacs, and eMacs... when the 9xx efficiency model transitions in and takes over Powerbooks, eMacs, and iMacs while the iBook moves to G4, and then PPC 9xx eventually), and transitions to a new age PowerPC that helps both Apple *&* IBM in machines that "BOTH" sell. IBM focuses on producing powerful chips... Apple needs powerful chips and actually wants "FAR" more powerful chips than they've sat stuck with compared to Intel and AMD. Motorola's biggest sales aren't too Apple... but to embedded chipset customers that use them in everything from printers to automotive to consumer electronics and other gadgetry where efficient, low-power consumption processors reign.

All roads point this way if you analyze it... but how fast we're going down that road... that's where ya'll need to keep your wheels under you before you go spinning in the grass rather than staying on the tarmac. In other words... relax, take a deep breath... be cool, calm, collected, accept the reality of here and now, and don't predict the future and buy what you need when you need it.

As I've said before... will Apple release at WWDC? No telling. The Mac Creative Expo? No telling. Q1 2004? Possibility, but unsure 'til it happens. Don't get so wound up you're losing sleep over it... but rest assured that this "WILL BE" the direction Apple takes in eventuality. For how long? Uncertain... but I don't think Apple will be porting people away from a PPC-based architecture anytime in the next 5 years, and unless Motorola breaks out something wicked... and even if they do... I expect Apple to make usage of the PPC 970 as I don't see them dropping any ties if they can avoid it, no matter how miffed they are. If Motorola decides on a G5 and launches one... Apple "MIGHT" support it, but they'll never bind into a "Motorola-only" contract again.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by 3.1416
You do know who jcr is, right?


Umm, no I don't. Who is "jcr"?


If he says an Apple app is Cocoa/ObjC, there's a pretty good chance he's correct :)


If he has inside information on that, I certainly defer to his knowledge. I questioned it based on a comment made in one of the Project Builder WWDC sessions last year. But certainly, I could have misunderstood the comment (although I recall it being quite straightforward) or the developer doing the commenting could have been mistaken (hey, I've been in lots of companies where dev people sent to conferences talk about things they don't fully grasp ... no one corrected him, but whatever ...) or he could have been correct that PB is Obj-C with C++ bits embedded, but not mentioned that the C++ bits are fairly inconsequential to the whole of Project Builder (which sounds more plausible than the other possibilities).

So, if "jcr" has more than secondhand knowledge concerning this, I completely cede the argument, because I only have "hearsay" ... :)


You're right that the Apple store back end is Java (being WebObjects),


Actually, I was mistaken on that one too I believe :) I misread and thought he was talking about the newly-launched iTunes Music Store, not the venerable Apple Store.

While the Apple Store is definitely WebObjects, it dates back to when WebObjects was Obj-C through and through (pre WO 5 I think ... <4.3?), and so unless the Apple Store has been fairly extensively rewritten since then (not unheard of, but far more likely that it hasn't) it's probably still Obj-C, at least the vast majority.


and iTunes is Carbon because it was originally written for OS 9. But virtually all of Apple's OS X apps, including Project Builder, are Cocoa (Finder being the most prominent exception).

Note that there is a distinction between a Cocoa app and an Obj-C app. All Cocoa apps will have Obj-C in them (or Java, in theory), but that does not mean that the app is "pure" Obj-C. A "pure" Obj-C app (1) will have its business logic is centered around an object model (ie, not strictly procedural) and (2) the core object model will be implemented in Obj-C rather than C++ or even straight C (yes, you can OOP in C, and we did so for years before Stroustroup's C++ reared up and gained legitimacy ... it's just messy ...). Yes, this can be a fairly subjective definition, depending on where you delineate between your "core business logic" and "the rest", as it is not uncommon at all to have various flavors of design mixed in to a single product.

It is very easy (and IMHO natural) to graft a "Cocoa" front end onto a core business logic centered around a C or C++ cross-platform (yes, Obj-C is cross-platform, but are there any projects that use it as such? I have a hard time trusting a compiler that hasn't been thoroughly "battle tested"!) business logic core, taking full advantage of the Cocoa services for the UI and such while keeping the relative safety of cross-platform code around the company jewels.

Sorry to all for elongating this discussion ... I'll bow out now, my predjudices regarding Obj-C having been thoroughly aired :)

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by IVIIVI4ck3y27
Perhaps they keep Motorola G4's around 'til time comes when they transition to a future PPC 9xx that is designed for portables. Lord knows the 970 has shown to have more wattage and no power management features.
...
The low-watt G4's in the laptops are considered hot at their current temperatures... and the high-end desktop G4's are waaaaaay too hot for laptops, and the 970 23w current falls closer to the high-end G4 30w than the low-end G4 12w; and is nowhere near the iBook G3 at 7w. Anyone have any specs on the 750GX wattages?

1) We don't know if the PPC970 has power management features or not. There has been no word from IBM either way, and there is an incredible lack of information available (aside from the PDF originally presented that while informative, is at the same time uninformative). So on this front, we cannot say if the 970 as it stands will be usable in a laptop

2) You have your wattages mostly wrong. PPC970 @ 1.2Ghz is 19watts, which is a 1.1v part. G4 @ 1Ghz is either a 15w(1.1v), 21w (1.3v) or 30w(1.6v). It has been suggested that (given battery capacities for various powerbook models) that the 15" uses the 21w part, and the 17" uses the 15w part. Either way, the wattage isn't that much different between the 970 and the G4 at the same speed (the 970 is just has a higher clock frequency - est PPC970@1Ghz on the 1.1v core is 16w - just 1 watt hotter than the G4 1.1v part at 1Ghz). So no, the 970 isn't that much hotter than the G4, but it is much faster.

3) There is no information anywhere about the 750GX - it is a complete rumor at this point, as IBM hasn't announced anything about it (or if it is even in planning!)

3) Carbon, overall, hasn't been fused with Cocoa and paired down enough or merged altogether to go jumping to any new processor.

Carbon would go right along with any processor transition that Apple could think of, regardless of it's state respective to Cocoa. There is nothing in Carbon that truly ties it to a particular processor (the MacOS X implementation is completely different from the MacOS 9 implementation. There may have been shared ideas between the two implementations, but rather little shared code).

Carbon and Cocoa will eventually 'fuse', but I predict it will be more along the lines of Cocoa being redeveloped to run over Carbon. Both libraries have similar pitfalls currently, so there is probably a lot of pressure to make it work, and only do the work once. And there is no reason for Apple to build a C interface to an ObjC library when they can instead put the functionality into a C library and wrap it in ObjC (although admittedly, this will depend on which group gets the functionality developed first). So everyone out there clamoring for Cocoa everything will probably find that some day in the future that they will really be running Carbon Apps wrapped in Cocoa :D.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Carbon and Cocoa will eventually 'fuse', but I predict it will be more along the lines of Cocoa being redeveloped to run over Carbon. Both libraries have similar pitfalls currently, so there is probably a lot of pressure to make it work, and only do the work once. And there is no reason for Apple to build a C interface to an ObjC library when they can instead put the functionality into a C library and wrap it in ObjC (although admittedly, this will depend on which group gets the functionality developed first). So everyone out there clamoring for Cocoa everything will probably find that some day in the future that they will really be running Carbon Apps wrapped in Cocoa :D.

My understanding was that both Carbon and Cocoa are fairly "thin" (Cocoa being a bit thicker than Carbon) wrappers over the Core OS X code. In other words, these are not two separate implementations, just two separate interfaces into a common implementation. Which implementation is in C (going with the BSD subsystem).

IIRC, "Cocoa" and "Carbon" are APIs, not implementations.

If this is correct, then one can imagine the functionality of both APIs perhaps being made to have more in common (although I sense that the Carbon APIs are stagnating), but one API isn't really built "on" the other, nor would such a re-architecting make sense.

[Fukui]

Originally posted by jettredmont
My understanding was that both Carbon and Cocoa are fairly "thin" (Cocoa being a bit thicker than Carbon) wrappers over the Core OS X code. In other words, these are not two separate implementations, just two separate interfaces into a common implementation. Which implementation is in C (going with the BSD subsystem).

IIRC, "Cocoa" and "Carbon" are APIs, not implementations.

If this is correct, then one can imagine the functionality of both APIs perhaps being made to have more in common (although I sense that the Carbon APIs are stagnating), but one API isn't really built "on" the other, nor would such a re-architecting make sense.
I don't think that Cocoa is a wrapper for BSD subsystem (OPENSTEP ran on Windows too and windows only utilized the BSD TCP/IP stack). It is for some objects AFAICT, but not all, and carbon, isnt that just a re-implementation of the Toolbox API from classic? Personally I would rather deal with Objects in Cocoa, and use UNIX style functions when I need speed (which cocoa does use on occasions when objects arent needed)...you could though I guess wrap carbon into cocoa objects, but looking at NSMovie (QT Movie Wrapper) as an example I say YUCK....

Apple, please do QT in cocoa!!

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Rincewind42

2) You have your wattages mostly wrong. PPC970 @ 1.2Ghz is 19watts, which is a 1.1v part. G4 @ 1Ghz is either a 15w(1.1v), 21w (1.3v) or 30w(1.6v). It has been suggested that (given battery capacities for various powerbook models) that the 15" uses the 21w part, and the 17" uses the 15w part. Either way, the wattage isn't that much different between the 970 and the G4 at the same speed (the 970 is just has a higher clock frequency - est PPC970@1Ghz on the 1.1v core is 16w - just 1 watt hotter than the G4 1.1v part at 1Ghz). So no, the 970 isn't that much hotter than the G4, but it is much faster.

Drat, you beat me to it... But my understanding is that the 1.1v G4s are very low yeild at 1GHz, so the PowerBooks are all almost definitely running on the 1.2v 1GHz G4s, if not the 1.3v 1GHz G4s. If I'm right, then the 1.2 GHz 970 is cooler than the current 1GHz G4s in the PowerBooks. (However, that may be a big 'if'.)


3) There is no information anywhere about the 750GX - it is a complete rumor at this point, as IBM hasn't announced anything about it (or if it is even in planning!)


Actually, we do know that the 750GX exists, at least on some drawing board somewhere, as there is a document from IBM that mentions it (I don't have the url to the pdf handy right now...), but it is only mentioned in passing and gives no technical details. So, what the 750GX is is a matter of rumor, but that it exists is not.

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by jettredmont
My understanding was that both Carbon and Cocoa are fairly "thin" (Cocoa being a bit thicker than Carbon) wrappers over the Core OS X code. In other words, these are not two separate implementations, just two separate interfaces into a common implementation. Which implementation is in C (going with the BSD subsystem).

IIRC, "Cocoa" and "Carbon" are APIs, not implementations.

If this is correct, then one can imagine the functionality of both APIs perhaps being made to have more in common (although I sense that the Carbon APIs are stagnating), but one API isn't really built "on" the other, nor would such a re-architecting make sense.

It depends on which parts of Carbon/Cocoa that you actually mean. The interface toolboxes in Carbon & Cocoa are not thin at all, as they both implement the all of the functionality. The event system is based on lower level functionality. All windows are based on a common window API, but each toolkit adds additional functionality over this API. And the lowerlevel Carbon functions (like the File Manager) are based directly on BSD APIs. Cocoa also uses these Carbon functions as well as the BSD layer directly.

What I meant by saying that Cocoa would be foisted over Carbon is just the interface toolbox and the event system. That is all they would need to allow Carbon & Cocoa windows & widgets to coexist in the same application.

As for Carbon, it is not stagnating, but in fact growing to gain much of Cocoa's functionality, as evidenced by a number of Carbon oriented sessions at WWDC.

[3.1416]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jettredmont
I questioned it based on a comment made in one of the Project Builder WWDC sessions last year.

I may have been at that session. If it's the one I'm thinking of there was a chart showing the major components of PB, along with the lines of code in each. The large majority was ObjC, but there was some C++ (don't remember for what).

Note that there is a distinction between a Cocoa app and an Obj-C app...It is very easy (and IMHO natural) to graft a "Cocoa" front end onto a core business logic centered around a C or C++

Good point. This is how we get a lot of ported Unix apps like vlc and mplayer. While I have no direct knowledge, I would expect Apple's ObjC development to be more "pure".

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Actually, we do know that the 750GX exists, at least on some drawing board somewhere, as there is a document from IBM that mentions it (I don't have the url to the pdf handy right now...), but it is only mentioned in passing and gives no technical details. So, what the 750GX is is a matter of rumor, but that it exists is not.
On the other hand, the PowerPC 7457 is still around the corner, I've found some new references :

PowerPC 7447/57 (http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/SNDF2003_DALLAS_H1102.pdf) compared to the other G4s.

PowerPC 7455/57 benchmarks (http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/SNDF2003_DALLAS_H1112.pdf) includes SPECint_base2000 on a PowerMac 1.25 GHz running Linux.

AltiVec tuning (http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/SNDF2003_DALLAS_H1108.pdf)

Older material with power comsuption (http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/PPCSALESFACT.pdf) 7.5W @1.0 GHz, 16.6W @1.3 GHz (typical)

Now whether Apple is gonna use it or not, is another question.

[babu]

I think that at the WWDC we will see something pretty amazing. Do you remember when Jobs/God said that this year would be the year of the laptop, well, I know that everybody remebers that. But maybe what the big new thing that will be announced is a dual or prehaps, a 970 powerbook. I think this because it hasn't really been that big of a laptop year, but what he also said and the article about the number of powerbooks in Britain is growing above that of powermacs. So what if Jobs was teasing us in January, and then in the summer we will see a new line of macs, where the powerbook is the new pro machine. Maybe. . . I mean the new book iss 17in and that is the size of most of the displays that people get, also it's on the iMac. What if the new secret project has a special dock so that you can trun it into a major station, like the XServe. And also does anybody rember the post on the new caseings that were being made, the were like some kind of metal that was supposed to chemicaly etched, and those posts about the machines being like The Cube (The first desktop that I owned, but majorly testy, the touch buttons, weren't like the ones on the new pods, but would react to what ever touched them) but able to be networked together and have the ability of joiattaching to one another so that you could have as many processors, and as much speed as possible. I don't know maybe this is just a waste of space, but I am almost positive that the new direction that apple is going to go is with superbook, and then the old iBooks, would become what the powerbook is now, and then the iMac would be more or le3ss the powermac, but available in a range of speed, for people that want a desktop. In summery, I guess I think that Apple is going to majorly transforming, what the accepted generic build of a desktop is going to be totaly differant than anything that we can imagine, it will be something that revolutionizes the industyr, something that micros, will drool over, and rock our minds.

[patmcfar8]

hmmm... or maybe not. ;)

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by mathiasr
On the other hand, the PowerPC 7457 is still around the corner, I've found some new references :

PowerPC 7447/57 (http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/SNDF2003_DALLAS_H1102.pdf) compared to the other G4s.

PowerPC 7455/57 benchmarks (http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/SNDF2003_DALLAS_H1112.pdf) includes SPECint_base2000 on a PowerMac 1.25 GHz running Linux.

AltiVec tuning (http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/SNDF2003_DALLAS_H1108.pdf)

Older material with power comsuption (http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/PPCSALESFACT.pdf) 7.5W @1.0 GHz, 16.6W @1.3 GHz (typical)

Now whether Apple is gonna use it or not, is another question.

Despite this information, I am very dubious about the 7457. Even if Moto were shipping these processors now, I really don't trust Moto not to mess up somehow. I honestly hope that Apple gets away from Moto ASAP. After all, Moto has made little secret of the fact that they want to be out of the desktop processor business...

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by babu
... So what if Jobs was teasing us in January, and then in the summer we will see a new line of macs, where the powerbook is the new pro machine....

I honestly can't see Apple doing this. There are still professionals that need to be able to configure systems with custom interface boards and that sort of thing, and if Apple did this they would be permenantly shutting themselves out of this portion of the market. It's not always about speed and number of processors. Sometimes it is about how flexible a machines configuration is, and that is something that the tower design offers which simply cannot be achieved with more FireWire and USB ports...