Motorola 7457 in Q4 2003

[MacRumors]

The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31031.html) details the upcoming PPC 7457 from Motorola which is reported to ship in Q4 2003.

The 7457 was announced in February, 2003 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/02/20030210112913.shtml) and according to The Register, is "essentially a die-shrink of the current 7455 (aka 'Apollo 6') as Motorola moves from a 0.18 micron to a 0.13 micron process".

The new processor is said to support a 200MHz system bus and larger L2 cache. While the processor is targeted at embedded markets, The Register speculates that faster versions of the chip may make their way into consumer Macs.

[RHutch]

I like the idea of Apple having more options, but they are only really options if Motorola can deliver on time. I'm afraid of counting on them only to have things get pushed back or fall through completely.

[barkmonster]

I've said it before, now there's proof that it could be a reality at last.

Standardise on PC3200 (DDR400) across the whole mac range!

It could actually lower the cost of a lot of models by the sheer volume of RAM apple would need to buy. It would make it easier for people to buy RAM, either get the laptop or desktop version of PC3200.

the 7457 could be used in the powerbook, emac and iMac. A system controller similar to the current one in the powerbook bumped up to 400Mhz would be perfect.

Whether the powermac and/or xserve end up using the PPC970 or the 7457, it will be using either PC3200 or dual channel PC3200.

[krube73]

whooppee, a 200 Mhz FSB. C'mon Moto, my toaster runs at 200 Mhz! get with the program bozos. You can only tout Velocity Engine and AltiVec for so long. Sure it helps, but so does blinding speed in the 2Ghz+ range.

[Hattig]

Available Q4 2003 rules that chip out of any Apple machines coming out before October.

Which lends credence to even the PowerBooks being upgraded to use 970's.

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by Macrumors

....The Register speculates that faster versions of the chip may make their way into consumer Macs.

"Consumer Macs"... i.e. iMac, iBook.
That'll be OK, assuming we'll be getting tha 970 in PowerMacs :rolleyes:

[Sun Baked]

Looks like there is a possiblity that the top PowerMac may end up with the XC7457, DDR400 memory, 200MHz FSB, and possibly USB2 this round of speed bumps.

Whether it's 1.75 or 1.5 GHz 7457s PowerMacs sporting a modified case, it's not what people are expecting.

---

And the only reason I'm saying this is the 7455 Rev 3.3s made it into the top PowerMac 1.42, and it's just hitting volume production shipments this month for everyone else.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Motorola dropped the ball, and the other team scored. Then they took a nap while still on the field. I dont think apple needs motorola as a cpu maker. IBM can make all the chips apple needs and wont be sitting on their laurels as motorola did. I think these new chips which are really just slightly increased g4's will be in my next toaster, maybe phone or car but not in the next Mac I buy.

[pyrotoaster]

Maybe the iMac will move to this "new" G4, but once the Powermac has a 980 under its hood, I think the iMac 970 is a sure thing. But that does leave time for another G4 iMac revision later this year, as the 980 isn't expected in early next year.

I doubt the iBook will ever have a G4 in it. I suspect we'll see it adopt a GOBI chip manufactured by IBM in the coming months.

What's interesting is that this still fits with MacWhispers prediction that Apple will operate on IBM chips exclusively by next Spring (at the earliest).

To hell with the G5, let's see 970s! :D

[groovebuster]

Good morning Motorola....

What? No, it's OK! You didn't miss anything, just go to bed again! :D

groovebuster

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Motorola dropped the ball, and the other team scored.
Aren't you worried about "counting your chickens before they've hatched"?

I haven't seen or heard of any actual PPC970 chips, and my IBM salesman is saying that the PPC970 in IBM's own blades won't be available until very late cyQ3 or cyQ4 !!!

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by groovebuster
Good morning Motorola....

What? No, it's OK! You didn't miss anything, just go to bed again! :D

groovebuster
Yeah, I wonder if Moto will actually be shocked when Apple announces its move to IBM...

The Mac development department doesn't work on Macs anymore, and the G5 doesn't actually exist. I'd say those are signs that they know, if they weren't things that happened about a year ago...

It's more like Motorola has stopped trying and doesn't care...

[Tux Kapono]

Whenever I read anything about Motorola anymore - I slot it right into Apple's market share-growing $599 G4s. Apple's $ future is in software, so market share is key. Thanks Motorola, for inspiring the $599 PMac and allowing a smooth transition to the more professional IBM line.

[soggywulf]

400 Mhz. Q4 2003. LMAO. What rubbish.

Honestly...at this stage we need 1.6 gig 970s with 800 mhz FSB in imacs and emacs, just to keep up with PCs. And we need it today. 400 mhz bus at the end of the year?? No thanks.

Some competition would be nice... But hopefully IBM won't need competition from motorola to keep them on their toes (ala Intel vs AMD), due to the fact that they will be using the 970 and other derivatives themselves.

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Aren't you worried about "counting your chickens before they've hatched"?

I haven't seen or heard of any actual PPC970 chips, and my IBM salesman is saying that the PPC970 in IBM's own blades won't be available until very late cyQ3 or cyQ4 !!!
What do the salespeople know, anyway? Besides, there could be dozens of reasons that IBM doesn't have 970 Blades ready quite yet.

You also have to consider the fact that any person at IBM who knows about any plans with Apple is most definitely under some kind of Apple Legal "Pain of Death" Non-Disclosure Agreement.

All signs point to 970s at WWDC. And I didn't need to count any poultry to figure that out! :p

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Aren't you worried about "counting your chickens before they've hatched"?

I haven't seen or heard of any actual PPC970 chips, and my IBM salesman is saying that the PPC970 in IBM's own blades won't be available until very late cyQ3 or cyQ4 !!! IBM's fishkill plant is allready pumping 970's out.they didnt build the new plant just to sit on chips for 6 months. No you will be hearing about the new 64 bit O.S and the computer that will run it in a few weeks. also how you going to run a 64 bit system on a old 32 bit g4? answer -you wont because you will need a chip that is built for it such as the 970.

[RHutch]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Aren't you worried about "counting your chickens before they've hatched"?

I haven't seen or heard of any actual PPC970 chips, and my IBM salesman is saying that the PPC970 in IBM's own blades won't be available until very late cyQ3 or cyQ4 !!!


Does this mean that 970's won't be ready sooner? Maybe there are other issues with IBM's servers that prevent them from being ready earlier, not the 970's. Or couldn't it be that Apple is getting the 970's first, preventing IBM from using them sooner. I don't know why this would happen, but coudn't it?

[yzedf]

Sounds ok for the iBook if the Gobi doesn't happen.

Or it could end up being just another G4 revision, and the 970 is not coming to Apple. Who knows.

[yzedf]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
IBM's fishkill plant is allready pumping 970's out.they didnt build the new plant just to sit on chips for 6 months. No you will be hearing about the new 64 bit O.S and the computer that will run it in a few weeks. also how you going to run a 64 bit system on a old 32 bit g4? answer -you wont because you will need a chip that is built for it such as the 970.
64bit OS X supposedly runs on 32bit hardware natively. If not, Apple shouldn't be calling it 10.3 It would be OS XI. And then you are once again dealing with 2 different branches to update. That would be stupid. Guess I can't rule it out! ;)

[Dont Hurt Me]

I really think the 970 was apple's baby. I think a year ago apple engineers and IBM were allready working on all of this. Apple was getting screwed by motorola, Steve new this and set things into action. The 970 wasnt given altivec for nothing. It was put there for 1 customer and that being apple. If you look at all the deals right now on a lot of powermac stuff you will see they are clearing the channels for whats to come. Steve will be making some major announcements soon. I had thought a sept 970 release but am pretty convinced from many rumors and many facts that the 970 production fired up smoother then motorola ever had with the g4. Now iam looking for a late june or early july release. Heck IBM was all ready talking about 2.3 ghz for the new chip. So these things are showing more advancement in the begining of production then motorola ever had in 3 yrs????

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
You also have to consider the fact that any person at IBM who knows about any plans with Apple is most definitely under some kind of Apple Legal "Pain of Death" Non-Disclosure Agreement.
What does it have to do with Apple?

We're talking about IBM putting announced IBM chips into announced IBM products. My salesman is giving me non-disclosure info on IBM systems to be announced in the next 12 months. Want to know the first order date for a POWER5 system? Want to know the next speed bump for POWER4+, or the new system that will get the dual-core POWER4+? He's telling me all that and more.

If IBM isn't going to be using 970 chips for quite a few months, I have to entertain the possibility that maybe the chips aren't yet ready.

All these "64-bit signs" basically point back to MacB's stories, anyway....

[Sol]

According to the Register article Motorola will offer these new CPUs at less than half the price of the current models. I wonder if all the rumors about the IBM 970s were used by Apple to re-negotiate prices with Motorola. Hard to tell right now but hopefully some insider will spill the beans to one of these rumor sites.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
What does it have to do with Apple?

We're talking about IBM putting announced IBM chips into announced IBM products. My salesman is giving me non-disclosure info on IBM systems to be announced in the next 12 months. Want to know the first order date for a POWER5 system? Want to know the next speed bump for POWER4+, or the new system that will get the dual-core POWER4+? He's telling me all that and more.

If IBM isn't going to be using 970 chips for quite a few months, I have to entertain the possibility that maybe the chips aren't yet ready.

All these "64-bit signs" basically point back to MacB's stories, anyway.... or you are getting fed crap from this salesman. so lets see the 970 is in production but ibm isnt going to use it for months??? then who are these chips for???IbM didnt build fish kill to stand on inventory and chips. they built it to produce and sell chips.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
I haven't seen or heard of any actual PPC970 chips, and my IBM salesman is saying that the PPC970 in IBM's own blades won't be available until very late cyQ3 or cyQ4 !!!

Well, the 970 does currently exist... dispite any of us having empirical evidence (hands-on). I'm sure that IBM is not allowed to hog any 970's for use in their own Blade servers before Apple can ship a certain quantity of machines. That would substatiate an early or mid summer release.

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
What does it have to do with Apple?

We're talking about IBM putting announced IBM chips into announced IBM products. My salesman is giving me non-disclosure info on IBM systems to be announced in the next 12 months. Want to know the first order date for a POWER5 system? Want to know the next speed bump for POWER4+, or the new system that will get the dual-core POWER4+? He's telling me all that and more.

If IBM isn't going to be using 970 chips for quite a few months, I have to entertain the possibility that maybe the chips aren't yet ready.

All these "64-bit signs" basically point back to MacB's stories, anyway....
It has everything to do with Apple!

I doubt your salesperson has any knowledge of IBMs actual plans with the 970. Apple gets it first. Why? Because Apple needs it. Then again, maybe your salesperson knows a whole lot, but can't say a thing (those NDAs usually convince people to shut up).

Fishkill's been up and running for a reason. They're producing 970s for Apple. IBM doesn't need the 970 now. They've got their POWER4s and POWER5s. Hell, maybe Apple has IBM waiting until the 980 is ready for Powermacs before Big Blue's servers are going to get to use 970s (just thinking aloud there).

What matters is that the 970 is ready for Apple. The reason IBM isn't ready with their servers could be as simple as they haven't started building the motherboards yet, or they haven't finalized the exterior design.

The bottom line: Apple & 970 @ WWDC.

BTW, am I the only person who thinks the name "Fishkill" is kinda funny? ;)

[3.1416]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
my IBM salesman is saying that the PPC970 in IBM's own blades won't be available until very late cyQ3 or cyQ4 !!!

That is actually good news. Apple has almost certainly arranged to introduce 970 Macs before IBM introduces their blades. Which I'm sure is fine with IBM; being more conservative they'll be happy to let Apple be the guinea pig. So if the salesman's statement is accurate, it indicates that Apple will be shipping 970 Macs by September at the very latest, and likely earlier.

[AidenShaw]

_____________________

If Steve Jobs speaks words to this effect at WWDC, it'll be the biggest disturbance in the Force since Alec Guiness had to take a seat on the Millenium Falcon.

I'm amazed at the faith y'all have in a fabric that's been woven from the threads of a few rumours.

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by 3.1416
That is actually good news. Apple has almost certainly arranged to introduce 970 Macs before IBM introduces their blades. Which I'm sure is fine with IBM; being more conservative they'll be happy to let Apple be the guinea pig. So if the salesman's statement is accurate, it indicates that Apple will be shipping 970 Macs by September at the very latest, and likely earlier.
It'll be before September for sure. Apple's got to at least ship low-speed models by late July/early August. The reason is quite simple: Nobody in their right mind is going to buy a Powermac G4 after the 970 is announced.

Apple can't take such a hit to their sales for more than about a month. Of course, Powermacs aren't selling that well to begin with (thanks to the fine folks at Motorola), but in this economy Apple can't risk a big stock loss (especially after those sweet iTMS gains...). This whole timing issue is probably one of the factors in the delay of the WWDC.

[job]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
If Steve Jobs speaks words to this effect at WWDC, it'll be the biggest disturbance in the Force since Alec Guiness had to take a seat on the Millenium Falcon.

"It is as if a million voices cried out..." ;) :p

I'm amazed at the faith y'all have in a fabric that's been woven from the threads of a few rumours.

It reminds me of the whole "iPods next Tuesday" rumors from January. People seem to believe in something rumored so much that they convince themselves that it is real.

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
If Steve Jobs speaks words to this effect at WWDC, it'll be the biggest disturbance in the Force since Alec Guiness had to take a seat on the Millenium Falcon.

I'm amazed at the faith y'all have in a fabric that's been woven from the threads of a few rumours.
There's plenty of facts - along with a whole bunch of rumors - behing Powermac 970 talk. Don't just think that all 970 speculation leads back to MacBidouille.

Here's an example, why else would IBM seeming graph an AltiVec unit on to the 970? They don't need it. Apple does.

BTW, I think Obi Wan took that seat, though (all for the greater good of the universe, too). But I'm more of a Star Trek person. :p

[yzedf]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
There's plenty of facts - along with a whole bunch of rumors - behing Powermac 970 talk. Don't just think that all 970 speculation leads back to MacBidouille.

Here's an example, why else would IBM seeming graph an AltiVec unit on to the 970? They don't need it. Apple does.

BTW, I think Obi Wan took that seat, though (all for the greater good of the universe, too). But I'm more of a Star Trek person. :p
Blade servers (true use of the 970) use the Altivec just fine. IBM is a firm believer in the "cya" mentality. They would not produce something as involved as the 970 solely for Apple.

As for needing Altivec, if the proc had been designed properly to begin with (G4 I mean) than there would have been no need for it. Suddenly you don't need special apps. Altivec is a kludgey add-on to compensate for poor design. The fact that all apps are not Altivec aware seems to prove this. Same for dual proc systems, the single proc is to weak to keep up with single proc Pentium 3/4 systems.

[ZeeOwl]

I think this is great news for Apple. They need some faster chips to upgrade the eMac, iMac & PowerBook (I think they'll stick to a faster 750FX for the iBook, for now). Hopefully, Motorola will actually deliver these chips within a reasonable amount of time. That's the BIG if.

Personally, I don't think we'll see PPC 970 PowerBooks this summer. Three reasons:
a) The PPC 970 requires some pretty fancy motherboard architecturing. Doing it in laptop dimensions is even more complicated.
b) The PowerBooks, at the moment, are still pretty competitive (speed-wise) with Wintel laptops. Apple doesn't need (marketing-wise) to supercharge them right now. I don't think we'll see the 970 in PowerBooks before at least January.
c) The PowerMac and XServe lines are really suffering from lack of speed at the moment. They're being ridiculed by Intel/AMD boxes running Windows or Linux. I'm only talking speed here. Apple still obviously has the upper hand in user interface. This is where Apple needs to concentrate their efforts first. They have limited resources, and can't do everything at once.

I think (hope! hehe) that if they announce a 64-bit aware OS, and PPC 970 PowerMacs & XServes at WWDC, I'll be very happy and impressed. 970 PowerBooks in 6 months, and they've got their edge back.

So I think a faster lower-power G4 would really help Apple at the moment. They could stick it in the PowerBooks, until they have the time/money to redesign them for 64-bit. And as for the consumer lines, I really don't see the need to put such a powerful processor in those. The G4 is plenty fast for the average consumer. I see the eMac/iMac/iBook staying 32-bit for quite a while still. Maybe with 1.5 to 2 GHz 750GXs... Or even better, a 750GX+Altivec (760GX?) Already overkill for the needs of the average consumer.

[Hattig]

Originally posted by yzedf
As for needing Altivec, if the proc had been designed properly to begin with (G4 I mean) than there would have been no need for it. Suddenly you don't need special apps. Altivec is a kludgey add-on to compensate for poor design. The fact that all apps are not Altivec aware seems to prove this. Same for dual proc systems, the single proc is to weak to keep up with single proc Pentium 3/4 systems.

This shows an astonishing lack of knowledge regarding the uses for a vector processing unit on a processor for a system that is used a lot for media work. The fact that the units are useful for other work is simply another benefit.

Altivec is regarded to be one of the better designs of vector unit in consumer processors as well. It certainly isn't kludgy.

What is kludgy is that the G4 has 3 of these Altivec units, but no-where near enough bandwidth to actually make good use out of them.

[Dont Hurt Me]

insanely great mac points to the same article and they point out that the 1.25 and 1.42 were overclocked g4 1 gigers. They also mention that the 7457 will clock at up to 1.3 ghz. so does this mean it will be ok to overclock them to 1.5 or 1.6??? I allways thought that was the case and proves again why apple should dump motorola.

[ddtlm]

yzedf:

As for needing Altivec, if the proc had been designed properly to begin with (G4 I mean) than there would have been no need for it. Suddenly you don't need special apps.
Rubbish. AltiVec provides a very efficient way of doing certain specialized work and is a very viable alternative to gobs of scalar units paired with massive superscalar and out-of-order execution abilities (ala Athlon). Even the PPC970 will benefit from AltiVec, although it won't need it to perform well.

Altivec is a kludgey add-on to compensate for poor design. The fact that all apps are not Altivec aware seems to prove this.
This proves nothing. I could write a program that is not "floating point aware" and clearly floating point would not be rendered a kludge by my actions.

[ddtlm]

Hattig:

What is kludgy is that the G4 has 3 of these Altivec units, but no-where near enough bandwidth to actually make good use out of them.
4 of them, actually. :)

[Hattig]

Originally posted by ZeeOwl

Personally, I don't think we'll see PPC 970 PowerBooks this summer. Three reasons:
a) The PPC 970 requires some pretty fancy motherboard architecturing. Doing it in laptop dimensions is even more complicated.


The 970 is 25mm by 25mm in size, and doesn't use L3 cache. That is smaller than the G4 with off-die L3 cache that is in the 15" and 17" PB. A low voltage version running at 1GHz or 1.2GHz should be easily possible - the only issue would be regarding power saving technology, and whether it is implemented in the 970.

The FSB should be a doddle to implement, it only has to connect the processor to the northbridge.


b) The PowerBooks, at the moment, are still pretty competitive (speed-wise) with Wintel laptops. Apple doesn't need (marketing-wise) to supercharge them right now. I don't think we'll see the 970 in PowerBooks before at least January.


I disagree. Apart from the sexiness factor of the Apple laptops, they aren't competitive speed-wise with Intel/AMD based laptops which are both into the 2GHz range now, or 1.7GHz for the Pentium-M which is used in slim notebooks.


c) The PowerMac and XServe lines are really suffering from lack of speed at the moment. They're being ridiculed by Intel/AMD boxes running Windows or Linux. I'm only talking speed here. Apple still obviously has the upper hand in user interface. This is where Apple needs to concentrate their efforts first. They have limited resources, and can't do everything at once.


Agreed, this area really needs looking at. Servers don't need a good user interface, and they don't need to look sexy. They need to get the job done. I'm sure that 970 based machines for both these systems will be produced in time. I'm also sure that there is enough resources to get a PowerBook design out as well.

So I think a faster lower-power G4 would really help Apple at the moment. They could stick it in the PowerBooks, until they have the time/money to redesign them for 64-bit. And as for the consumer lines, I really don't see the need to put such a powerful processor in those. The G4 is plenty fast for the average consumer. I see the eMac/iMac/iBook staying 32-bit for quite a while still. Maybe with 1.5 to 2 GHz 750GXs... Or even better, a 750GX+Altivec (760GX?) Already overkill for the needs of the average consumer.

You missed the part about these faster, lower power cheaper G4's not arriving until Q4 of this year.

And the average consumer might only need a 1GHz G4, but they will WANT a much faster machine. Don't make that simple mistake. Apple need to make a machine that people want.

[3.1416]

Originally posted by job
People seem to believe in something rumored so much that they convince themselves that it is real.

The 970 is real. Nobody seriously disputes that Apple will use it. The only relevant question is when Apple can ship them, and plenty of circumstantial evidence points to sooner rather than later.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by 3.1416
The 970 is real.

Real vaporware, you mean. Certainly it's been announced, with presentations at semiconductor conferences.

In real life, though, it's MIA - and AWOL.

Note this story from February:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2131244,00.html

IBM pumps PowerPC up to 2.5GHz
15:24 Friday 28th February 2003
Matthew Broersma

At CeBIT next month, IBM will show off some of its latest technology -including its next-generation PowerPC 970 chip that eventually will reach 2.5GHz speeds and could soon appear in Apple computers

IBM is to show off a prototype of its PowerPC 970 processor at the CeBIT trade show next month, the company said. The speedy chip, expected to arrive on the market in the second half of this year and reach 2.5GHz speeds in a future incarnation, will benefit certain types of servers, but also desktop systems -- with Apple a likely customer.

IBM is planning to demonstrate a blade server running on the PowerPC 970, a prototype from its development laboratory in Boblingen, Germany. The PowerPC 970 is targeted to the low-end server and desktop markets, but is derived from IBM's Power4 chip, used in higher-end servers.

Well, CeBIT came and went - but no PPC970 showed up. Yet the rumour boards have people claiming that it's trouncing shipping chips from Intel.... Every bit of "news" from MacB is eagerly digested, and added to the growing "970 myth".

And, about that Apple angle - if you really think that Apple is behind an IBM blackout on news about this chip - why did Apple allow IBM to give those papers at the conferences? Doesn't make sense....

I'm inclined to believe my IBM salesman, and believe that the chips just aren't ready yet. Maybe in a couple of weeks I'll learn that my IBM salesman has been feeding me a line, but if that happens he'll lose most of my business (except for AIX, I don't need IBM hardware...).

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Well, CeBIT came and went - but no PPC970 showed up. Yet the rumour boards have people claiming that it's trouncing shipping chips from Intel.... Every bit of "news" from MacB is eagerly digested, and added to the growing "970 myth".

And, about that Apple angle - if you really think that Apple is behind an IBM blackout on news about this chip - why did Apple allow IBM to give those papers at the conferences? Doesn't make sense....

I'm inclined to believe my IBM salesman, and believe that the chips just aren't ready yet. Maybe in a couple of weeks I'll learn that my IBM salesman has been feeding me a line, but if that happens he'll lose most of my business (except for AIX, I don't need IBM hardware...).
Have you ever considered the idea that your IBM salesman might not have access to highly sensitive trade secrets?

Anyway, you keep acting as if MacBidouille is the only source for 970 rumors. They aren't! And I don't know anyone who's blindly putting 100% of their faith with MacBidouille's rumors. They sound a little fishy, but interesting nevertheless, to me. I definitely don't think Apple's making an Xstation or bringing back the desktop server. If MacBidouille's info is right, it's just the motherboard for a new Xserve (IF...)

Also, I'm not expecting a 2+ GHz 970. Sure, I'd be wildly thrilled if Apple announced such a clock speed, but I don't think they will. 970s at such speeds are still in development. Right now, Fishkill is only putting together slower 970s (i.e. 1.2 to 1.8 GHz).

Here's an idea: Maybe IBM's holding back on the 970 because they want it at faster clock speeds, like 2.5 GHz. Those processors aren't ready though, so IBM is waiting and letting Apple snatch up the slower ones.

Apple would probably love to wait for a 2+ GHz 970 too, but Steve knows that he doesn't have the luxury of time. We need faster processors, and we need them now (to hell with Motorola!).

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
Or even better, a 750GX+Altivec (760GX?) Already overkill for the needs of the average consumer.

The "average consumer" buys a PC. They are much faster, have far more apps and games, and most people couldn't care less between the GUIs of OSX and XP (unix? what's that?). And if the average consumer has a kid that plays one or two games (not exactly unlikely), the iMac/eMac/etc will struggle pathetically with any modern game...while a PC for about $1000 will be fine.

So let us not be blinded by our love...the current Macs are in fact severely underpowered for their price across the line, and there is no such thing as "overkill" for any consumer, average or otherwise. If more performance can be had for the same price, who are we to tell the buyer "Oh, you don't need the extra power, buy the Mac instead"? Then why are we so excited about 970s?

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Looks like there is a possiblity that the top PowerMac may end up with the XC7457, DDR400 memory, 200MHz FSB, and possibly USB2 this round of speed bumps.

Whether it's 1.75 or 1.5 GHz 7457s PowerMacs sporting a modified case, it's not what people are expecting.

---

And the only reason I'm saying this is the 7455 Rev 3.3s made it into the top PowerMac 1.42, and it's just hitting volume production shipments this month for everyone else.

You know Motorola didn't say anything about the XC7457, only the MPC7457 embedded processor. Motorla may have stopped desktop development with the XC7455

[job]

Originally posted by 3.1416
The 970 is real. Nobody seriously disputes that Apple will use it. The only relevant question is when Apple can ship them, and plenty of circumstantial evidence points to sooner rather than later.

Sure, circumstantial evidence points to the possibility of a 970 based Mac, but there is no hard evidence that Apple will use the 970. No press release, no official announcement, nada. Just rumors, rumors that cannot be confirmed or denied. Remember how everyone though the G5 was right around the corner? The only difference between the G5 rumors and the 970 rumors is that we know the 970 is an actual, planned chip. Who knows where the G5 stuff came from.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see a 970 based Mac, but I think a vast majority of Mac users are setting themselves up for a vast dissappointment if the 970s are not released/announced at the WWDC

[Dont Hurt Me]

I think if apple doesnt announce a new powermac at WWDC they are going to be the one dissappointed with lack lustersales.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
Have you ever considered the idea that your IBM salesman might not have access to highly sensitive trade secrets?

On the contrary - IBM is very good about sharing product futures with their sales force and customers. They know that I need to budget my purchases each year, and that I need to forecast what is coming when in order to do that.

IBM knows that if they surprise me with something new - that I won't have any money to buy it!

That's why they're telling me when to expect POWER5 systems, and what roughly to expect to pay for them. That's why they're telling me when the faster Xeons and Xeon MP systems will be out - when the last order date for upgrades for my x440 is and when the x440 replacement will be shipping.

And that's also why I'm hearing that cyQ4 is when the PPC970 will be shipping.... It won't be available before then....

[Dont Hurt Me]

Lets hope not ,Apple needs a faster cpu by a large margin this qtr.

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
On the contrary - IBM is very good about sharing product futures with their sales force and customers. They know that I need to budget my purchases each year, and that I need to forecast what is coming when in order to do that.

IBM knows that if they surprise me with something new - that I won't have any money to buy it!

That's why they're telling me when to expect POWER5 systems, and what roughly to expect to pay for them. That's why they're telling me when the faster Xeons and Xeon MP systems will be out - when the last order date for my x440 upgrades in and when the x440 replacement will be shipping.

And that's also why I'm hearing that cyQ4 is when the PPC970 will be shipping....
Yeah, your salesperson knows all about IBM's plans. Not Apple's.

In fact, if he did know (which I doubt he does), he'd have no reason to tell you. Can you imagine this guy walking up to you and saying: "We're not producing a 970 server until later this year, but Apple's got one coming real soon!" That's a business move as sound as Microsoft launching an ad campaign telling people to switch to Macs (that would be sweet, though).

And, once again, there's a whole host of reasons why IBM is waiting longer. Here are a couple possibilities.
1. IBM's holding out for 2 GHz + clock speeds.
2. Faster chips haven't entered production yet.
3. They want to wait for some market reason (there are dozens of possibilities there).
4. Motherboards aren't ready, or
5. Some other major part isn't ready.

Come on, "Because IBM isn't shipping 970 servers until Q4" isn't a good reason to say that Apple isn't shipping Powermac 970s next month (and I suppose I shouldn't even get you started on the Powerbook...).

Sure, the Powermac 970 is one part rumor. But it's also one part fact and one part common sense.

[ddtlm]

My guess is still for an announcement in September, and no PMac changes prior to that. It would not surprise me if Apple shipped systems somewhat before IBM does, do to the desperation factor at Apple which IBM could transform into nice fat profits.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I think if apple doesnt announce a new powermac at WWDC they are going to be the one dissappointed with lack lustersales.

Agreed.

[3.1416]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
And, once again, there's a whole host of reasons why IBM is waiting longer. Here are a couple possibilities.

The most likely possibility is that Apple's agreement with IBM says that they get the initial shipments. If that's the case, then IBM shipping 970 blades late Q3/early Q4 is consistent with Apple announcing 970 Macs at WWDC and shipping them a month or so later.

Originally posted by job
there is no hard evidence that Apple will use the 970

Technically true, but they'd be complete idiots not to.

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by ddtlm
My guess is still for an announcement in September, and no PMac changes prior to that. It would not surprise me if Apple shipped systems somewhat before IBM does, do to the desperation factor at Apple which IBM could transform into nice fat profits.
And Apple would scr*w its developers? When would they teach them the benefit of 64bits computing, how to use the new tools, which libraries to link against?
Developers are part of Apples future, Apple needs to take care of them.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by mathiasr
And Apple would scr*w its developers? When would they teach them the benefit of 64bits computing, how to use the new tools, which libraries to link against?
Developers are part of Apples future, Apple needs to take care of them.

If a 64-bit OS X is under development, Apple has already been screwing with them by not giving them advance tools. Surprising the developers with a shipping 64-bit system in June is absurd.

When other companies rolled out 64-bit systems, the equivalent of the ADC had the 64-bit tools available long before any working hardware.

MSDN has had 64-bit tools and 64-bit previews at least a year before Itanium.

Apple's "cult of secrecy" is self-destructive. Let the developers onboard early, and let the customers plan their purchases.

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by soggywulf
The "average consumer" buys a PC. They are much faster, have far more apps and games, and most people couldn't care less between the GUIs of OSX and XP (unix? what's that?). And if the average consumer has a kid that plays one or two games (not exactly unlikely), the iMac/eMac/etc will struggle pathetically with any modern game...while a PC for about $1000 will be fine.

Yes, the "average consumer" does buy a PC. Why, because they're cheaper. And because the average computer store clerk doesn't know a Mac from a hole in the ground. The "far more apps" argument is ignorant saleman speak. What apps used by the average person are not available on the Mac? I can't think of any. And I do some pretty far-out stuff. Games, true, there are more on the PC. Most of them are just clones of each other though. How many hundred first-person shooters does the average human need? As for not caring about user interface, I disagree. A few of my computer shopping acquaintances who were lucky enough to see my flat-panel iMac in action were quite impressed by the user interface, both in appearance and ease of use. Sure, they don't care if it's UNIX based or not. I do, but I certainly don't want to have to learn UNIX. That's why I run OS X instead of Linux. Most of the people I know who have any knowledge of Macs, and who bought a PC anyways, did it for only 1 reason: price. And maybe because some ignorant salesperson told them "Oh, don't buy a Mac, there's no software for them.".

While I agree with you that a 1,000$ PC will handle most modern games quite well, I disagree that a low-end Mac (albeit more expensive) will struggle with them. My 700 MHz G4 iMac has no trouble with any of the games that I or my kids play (I have about 20 to 30 on my machines). No, I don't own Quake. Not my style. :) But I have a few pretty demanding ones, like X-Plane and Summoner. The iMac has no trouble with them at all, even if it's slower than the current low-end machines. Even my 5-year-old 350 MHz G3 does pretty good with them.

It's true that consumer's usually will want the fastest machine they can afford. Actually, they don't really want the fastest machine, they want the one with the most GHz. :D They wouldn't buy a PPC 970 PowerMac either because it only has 1.8 GHz, and it's 3,000$. Man, those Apple dudes are NUTS if they think I'm going to pay 3,000$ for a 1.8 GHz computer. :p Not much Apple can do about that, unless they want to start selling Intel/AMD-based machines, and begin shouting "GigaHertz!". Those types of buyer's are lost causes. Forget them. But some people just want a computer that works, and is easy & fun to use. They don't care if it's a H67+A processor in there or a KJ7-21. Show them something that works, is affordable & fun, and they'll buy it. Apple's doing pretty good in the base consumer market, IMHO. They only need to get their prices a bit lower. More in line with low-end PCs.

The high-end/server/pro markets, now those are really suffering right now. The educated buyer doesn't care about GHz, but they do care about benchmarks. PPC 970 saves the day... :) Oh, and while I agree with you that a server OS doesn't have to be pretty, I don't think it's a bad thing. Actually, those IT types probably love it, but would never admit it in front of witnesses... hehe It does have to be well designed, easy-to-use and efficient though. And from what I've heard, OS X Server has it all, including pretty. :)

[ddtlm]

mathiasr:

Important developers will probably be taken care of quite well, I'm sure you can stop worrying about Apple screwing it up.

When would they teach them the benefit of 64bits computing, how to use the new tools, which libraries to link against?
If you have to tell developers why 64 bits are or are not useful to their project then... there is a problem with the developer. The tools have essentially not changed. Linking to libraries is not a big deal. You seem to be vastly overestimating the changes required for this "exciting" new 64-bitness.

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
If a 64-bit OS X is under development, Apple has already been screwing with them by not giving them advance tools. Surprising the developers with a shipping 64-bit system in June is absurd.

When other companies rolled out 64-bit systems, the equivalent of the ADC had the 64-bit tools available long before any working hardware.

MSDN has had 64-bit tools and 64-bit previews at least a year before Itanium.

Apple's "cult of secrecy" is self-destructive. Let the developers onboard early, and let the customers plan their purchases.
The Itanium? Yeah, there's a processor on its way into consumer machines. :rolleyes:

As for the "cult of secrecy," its actually useful for Apple. Sure, it's also a little weird, but it keeps Apple's "Always ahead of the curve" development secret to grabby PC companies (*cough, Dell, *cough*cough, Microsoft, cough*).

[delton05]

I don't think the 'cult of secrecy' is at all of benefit to Apple, it's been going on for FAR TOO LONG, and certainly not to it's decreasing size of happy users, with all these endless rumors, and a spectacular lack of direction.

There is nothing more satisfying in 'user' experience than a more snappy interface on the fastest computer (Pro PC users, particularly those that couldn't wait for Apple/Moto/IBM any longer know that) ... that is why people are crying out for faster CPUs in Macs ... the OSX benefits only takes you so far. However unreliable PCs may have been in the past, seems they're really happy with XP.

I had a saleman tell me that 'Apple Macs are so far behind PCs and that no one knows when, or if, they will ever catch up ... but hey if you want to cling to rumors and pay too much for a small speed bump, go right ahead ...' It has become a huge joke to them!

Maybe Intel knows something. Seems they will annouce their new 3.2GHz P4 early (June 16) for 'marketing reasons' instead of June 23...maybe to try and dent the 970 announcement???? at WWDC.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/30982.html

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Real vaporware, you mean. Certainly it's been announced, with presentations at semiconductor conferences.

In real life, though, it's MIA - and AWOL.



I am not sure what MIA and AWOL mean.

Go here and have a look:
[url]http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/photolibrary/photo10.nsf/WebViewNumber/39611DB39E16B4CA87256C530055DB49

This would imply it isn't vapourware. It may not be OUT there but that doesn't mean anything either. IBM though, is clearly not shy in showing off this chip... and in the detail of the image on the website, it contains lots of details and is not likely to be fake... as if!

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by delton05
I don't think the 'cult of secrecy' is at all of benefit to Apple, and certainly not to it's decreasing size of happy users, with all these endless rumors, and a spectacular lack of direction.

I had a saleman tell me that 'Apple Macs are so far behind PCs and that no one knows when, or if, they will ever catch up ... but hey if you want to cling to rumors ...'

Maybe Intel knows something. Seems they will annouce their new 3.2GHz P4 early (June 16) for 'marketing reasons' instead of June 23...maybe to try and dent the 970 announcement???? at WWDC.
While I agree that Apple's secrecy has its downsides, consider this: In January, Apple announces plans to switch Powermacs to the 970 in June. Who the hell is going to buy a Powermac now? Apple's market share is too small to lose business because they let some info slip.

Also, imagine if Apple had trusted Motorola's when they had their little roadmap for the G5. Apple would have said something like: "G5-January 2002." Whoops! Moto's a deadbeat and the G5 doesn't actually exist! You see my point.

I'm not saying Apple's secrecy is all good, but it's done for a reason.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by rjwill246
I am not sure what MIA and AWOL mean.
...
it contains lots of details and is not likely to be fake... as if!
MIA = Missing In Action
AWOL = Absent WithOut Leave

It may not be a working chip either.... At the Alpha EV-5 introduction Digital was handing out business cards with a dud chip laminated to the card. Digital also glued dud MicroVAX II chips to one year's annual reports.

If all you've got to show is a photo of a chip with feathers, that says a lot!

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Real vaporware, you mean. Certainly it's been announced, with presentations at semiconductor conferences.

In real life, though, it's MIA - and AWOL.
The 970 isn't MIA or AWOL, but the G5 is. Call me just a little bitter towards Motorola for that. :mad:

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by Hattig
The 970 is 25mm by 25mm in size, and doesn't use L3 cache. That is smaller than the G4 with off-die L3 cache that is in the 15" and 17" PB. A low voltage version running at 1GHz or 1.2GHz should be easily possible - the only issue would be regarding power saving technology, and whether it is implemented in the 970.

The FSB should be a doddle to implement, it only has to connect the processor to the northbridge.

Well, I'm no computer design engineer. But I would have thought it would be pretty complicated. The fact that the PPC 970 is 64-bit, and that's it's FSB is completely different from the 74xx. Needs new motherboard design, new support chips, etc... Don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong. :D

I disagree. Apart from the sexiness factor of the Apple laptops, they aren't competitive speed-wise with Intel/AMD based laptops which are both into the 2GHz range now, or 1.7GHz for the Pentium-M which is used in slim notebooks.

Don't discount the sexiness factor so quickly. hehe Most PowerBook owners are business types :p And as for speed, I'm sure a 1 GHz G4 holds it's own against a 1.7 GHz Pentium. The really high-end ones might be a touch faster. But the problem there is minimal compared to the destop situation. More speed wouldn't hurt, but I don't think it would help much either.

And the average consumer might only need a 1GHz G4, but they will WANT a much faster machine. Don't make that simple mistake. Apple need to make a machine that people want.

Ah, GigaHertz, SchmigaHertz. Tell it to the hand! :D (See my earlier post on this)

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I think if apple doesnt announce a new powermac at WWDC they are going to be the one dissappointed with lack lustersales.

Yup. My next new PowerMac will be a dual processor 1.8 GHz PPC 970, with at least 200 MHz true DDR RAM. Not going to settle for less. I'll hold out as long as it takes. Still got plenty of upgrade options coming for my Blue & White. :D

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by BenRoethig
You know Motorola didn't say anything about the XC7457, only the MPC7457 embedded processor. Motorla may have stopped desktop development with the XC7455 Oopps guess I misread the part number thingie... :eek:

[check again]

Nope, same way as the 7455...

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by ddtlm
You seem to be vastly overestimating the changes required for this "exciting" new 64-bitness.
To some extend, yes :)
I would still have some questions pending: will 32 bits kernel extensions (drivers) run on the 64 bits kernel, how to ensure a CPU has AltiVec units, when compiling a generic 32 bits app should I optimise for G3/G4 or 970 instruction scheduling, since the 970 has twice as much L1 instruction cache should I try more aggressive loop unrolling, if the cache-lines are 4 times bigger on the 970 how would this impact dcbt hints, is there a way to customize the message displayed when a 64 bits app is launched on a 32 bits kernel...

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
The "far more apps" argument is ignorant saleman speak. What apps used by the average person are not available on the Mac? I can't think of any.

VPN client software. PeopleSoft. Custom-built oracle stuff. Any other custom apps that the company you work for uses. DSP control/programming software. Any kind of specialized hardware interface programs. Various types of CAD programs (e.g. PCB design). Sophisticated audio measurement software. The list goes on.

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
Games, true, there are more on the PC. Most of them are just clones of each other though. How many hundred first-person shooters does the average human need?

This is not really true. There is a great variety of games on the PC, and a great many of them are very good and yet not ported to the Mac. And when they are ported, many of them don't run very well...and this is usually due to anemic hardware and drivers on the Mac side, not the quality of the porting developers (the latter usually seems very good actually).

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
As for not caring about user interface, I disagree. A few of my computer shopping acquaintances who were lucky enough to see my flat-panel iMac in action were quite impressed by the user interface, both in appearance and ease of use.

My friends are also impressed with my Mac when they see it...but really, I think their understanding and appreciation of it is far less than you or I. :) Certainly it is not enough to persuade most of them to get a Mac.

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
While I agree with you that a 1,000$ PC will handle most modern games quite well, I disagree that a low-end Mac (albeit more expensive) will struggle with them. My 700 MHz G4 iMac has no trouble with any of the games that I or my kids play (I have about 20 to 30 on my machines). No, I don't own Quake. Not my style. :) But I have a few pretty demanding ones, like X-Plane and Summoner. The iMac has no trouble with them at all, even if it's slower than the current low-end machines. Even my 5-year-old 350 MHz G3 does pretty good with them.

The word "game" covers a broad spectrum. It can refer to everything from Solitaire to Doom 3. If we are talking about the former, naturally anything can run it. But what about Warbirds 3, WWII online, Neverwinter Nights, Everquest, Jedi Knight 2, Unreal 2003, etc etc etc etc. Try these on any new Mac you can get under $1500...then try them on a $1200 PC. You will see exactly how outdated Mac hardware is.

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
It's true that consumer's usually will want the fastest machine they can afford. Actually, they don't really want the fastest machine, they want the one with the most GHz. :D

The sad truth is the Mac is behind in both GHz and real performance, at all price points. This fact in and of itself is not the problem, since it has been true for almost the entire history of the Mac. The problem now is, we are way behind the price/performance curve; IOW, we are paying a relatively huge premium for the priviledge of running OSX.

At the present time, personally, I feel that this premium is too high...right now, I would rather get an XP/Linux box than a G4 OSX box. If the MacB rumors pan out and we get 970s shipping next month...then we will still be behind the price/performance curve, but the gap will be closer and the "OSX premium" will be lower; if that happens, then I will personally see the Mac as a better deal than the PC. So I am waiting. :)

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
But some people just want a computer that works, and is easy & fun to use. They don't care if it's a H67+A processor in there or a KJ7-21. Show them something that works, is affordable & fun, and they'll buy it. Apple's doing pretty good in the base consumer market, IMHO. They only need to get their prices a bit lower. More in line with low-end PCs.

Correct me if wrong, but the sense I am getting here (and in many other posts) is, "the average consumer doesn't need anything more powerful than an iMac, because he is just doing email and web and word and a few low power games." But then by the same token, the average user doesn't need the power and capabilities and advantages of OSX. Objectively, all the above tasks are easily accomplished in XP; the OSX advantage is extremely marginal in this case.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by rjwill246
I am not sure what MIA and AWOL mean.

Go here and have a look:
[url]http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/photolibrary/photo10.nsf/WebViewNumber/39611DB39E16B4CA87256C530055DB49

This would imply it isn't vapourware. It may not be OUT there but that doesn't mean anything either. IBM though, is clearly not shy in showing off this chip... and in the detail of the image on the website, it contains lots of details and is not likely to be fake... as if!

MIA : Missing In Action
AWOL : Away WithOut Leave

[job]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
The 970 isn't MIA or AWOL, but the G5 is. Call me just a little bitter towards Motorola for that. :mad:

I want closure.

Did the 'G5' as Apple users understand it (i.e. not the embedded 'G5') ever exist?

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by soggywulf
VPN client software. PeopleSoft. Custom-built oracle stuff. Any other custom apps that the company you work for uses. DSP control/programming software. Any kind of specialized hardware interface programs. Various types of CAD programs (e.g. PCB design). Sophisticated audio measurement software. The list goes on.

That's far from "average user" stuff, but I'll do my best to address it anyways. I have a PBC design program (DesignWorks Pro). It's even OS X native. Quite good too. There are at least a half-dozen excellent CAD programs on the Mac. Vellum & RealCADD come to mind. I've seen a few good ones specifically for architects too, like ArchiCAD. But since that's not my specialty, I really can't comment on them. I'm more into animation. On the specialized enterprise/server stuff, you've lost me. I know nothing about it. I'm sure you can do quite a bit with OS X Server. And I've heard there are some high-end database apps available under it, in either OS X or UNIX environments. I don't know the specifics, of course.

This is not really true. There is a great variety of games on the PC, and a great many of them are very good and yet not ported to the Mac. And when they are ported, many of them don't run very well...and this is usually due to anemic hardware and drivers on the Mac side, not the quality of the porting developers (the latter usually seems very good actually).

I'm just relaying my impression from looking at the shelves in the typical gaming aisle. They all look pretty much the same to me. Half of them are first-person shooters, and most of the rest are third-person shooters. :D But I do occasionally see an interesting looking one. And the only one of those I've ever seen that was not ported to the Mac :( was Pharoah. All the ones I've bought run fine on both my Macs, even the 350 MHz G3. Only Falcon 4 and X-Plane are a bit sluggish. But the machine is 5 years old. Cut it some slack. 800 Mhz G3 upgrade on it's way... hehe

My friends are also impressed with my Mac when they see it... but really, I think their understanding and appreciation of it is far less than you or I. :) Certainly it is not enough to persuade most of them to get a Mac.

Well, as we both mentioned, price is a major incentive for the average human... :)

The word "game" covers a broad spectrum. It can refer to everything from Solitaire to Doom 3. If we are talking about the former, naturally anything can run it. But what about Warbirds 3, WWII online, Neverwinter Nights, Everquest, Jedi Knight 2, Unreal 2003, etc etc etc etc. Try these on any new Mac you can get under $1500...then try them on a $1200 PC. You will see exactly how outdated Mac hardware is.

I don't own any "Solitaire" category games. I know a lot of PC owners who do though! lol I don't have Doom (or Quake or Jedi Knight), not my style. Warbirds III runs fine though, as does Summoner, X-Plane, Falcon 4, Pod Racer, Caesar III, Sim City 3000, Tropico. Those are pretty system taxing games. Maybe it's just the shooter's that don't run well... I don't have any. :D

The sad truth is the Mac is behind in both GHz and real performance, at all price points. This fact in and of itself is not the problem, since it has been true for almost the entire history of the Mac. The problem now is, we are way behind the price/performance curve; IOW, we are paying a relatively huge premium for the priviledge of running OSX.

It's been behind in GHz most of it's existence, true. In raw performance, I disagree. That only started about 3 years ago. Now, way behind in price/performance, I 100% agree. For the average consumer, I don't think that that is such a huge issue. It's more the price than the performance that's a problem, for Apple's consumer sales. The buyer who only (out of pseudo-expertise) cares about GHz will never buy a Mac, ever, case closed. For the pro/high-end enterprise markets though, it is becoming a huge problem. I feel the pain, I'm an animator. I actually need fast machines.

At the present time, personally, I feel that this premium is too high...right now, I would rather get an XP/Linux box than a G4 OSX box. If the MacB rumors pan out and we get 970s shipping next month...then we will still be behind the price/performance curve, but the gap will be closer and the "OSX premium" will be lower; if that happens, then I will personally see the Mac as a better deal than the PC. So I am waiting. :)

I don't really mind paying the premium for OS X. I think it's worth it. But the lack of speed is starting to actually hurt me. And that's why Apple needs to get these PPC 970s in their pro lineup. Macs will never compete with Wintel boxes on price/performance (if the definition of performance is limited to speed, mine is a bit vaster ;)). And frankly, I don't care. As long as they're fast enough to get the job done. That's what's been missing lately. Just don't take away my high-performance hardware design and user interface, because that's why I'm willing to pay the premium price.

Correct me if wrong, but the sense I am getting here (and in many other posts) is, "the average consumer doesn't need anything more powerful than an iMac, because he is just doing email and web and word and a few low power games." But then by the same token, the average user doesn't need the power and capabilities and advantages of OSX. Objectively, all the above tasks are easily accomplished in XP; the OSX advantage is extremely marginal in this case.

I partially agree with you. The average user doesn't need all the power of OS X. Heck, I don't need all the power of OS X. And I'm a programmer/animator/semi-power-user/geek. :D I just want a powerful, stable, user-friendly & fun OS. I've yet to see a viable alternative to X. I think the average user has the same needs, less maybe the powerful. In this case also, I know of no superior OS to X. :D And for the übergeek/power-user, there's the Terminal. But I'm too lazy to bother learning UNIX commands. I love my GUI. haha. All of the tasks you mentioned are accomplishable in XP, true. But I don't think as easily, or as enjoyably as in X.

You know, this thread is really starting to get interesting.

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by job
I want closure.

Did the 'G5' as Apple users understand it (i.e. not the embedded 'G5') ever exist?
The G5 was definitely an idea at Motorola at one point, but who knows if they ever even tried building one.

Forget closure, I want sweet revenge. ;)

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
Forget closure, I want sweet revenge. ;)

when does..."sweet revenge" become the same as "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

If these Moto chips come to pass as cheap, fast, timely high performance engines - would you suggest that Apple should sell more expensive, slower IBM chips?

I thought not....

[job]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
If these Moto chips come to pass as cheap, fast, timely high performance engines

That's almost an oxymoron. Almost. ;)

It would be nice to see Moto getting back into the desktop market, but it seems unlikely, given their concentration on the embedded market, a market in which they seem to do rather well.

[Sol]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I think if apple doesnt announce a new powermac at WWDC they are going to be the one dissappointed with lack lustersales.

I agree. The 970 hype will probably derail any new G4 PowerMac announcement and eager Mac users will most likely choose to wait for another year or so before upgrading. I remember the MacWorld from 2 years ago when everyone was expecting the flat-panel iMac and it did not get unveiled. There was definitely a lot of disappointment in the Mac community after that and the same (or worse) could happen at the end of this month.

[sparkplug]

I'm sure a 1 GHz G4 holds it's own against a 1.7 GHz Pentium.

Why are you sure? Have you actually tested this assertion personally? No.
Indeed have you compared any p4 to g4, and no not just a comparision you read on a mac booster web site. No

How can I be so sure the answer is no you ask? because I have.
The P4 is so much faster than the g4 ACROSS THE BOARD, even a slow p4, that the phrase "holds it's own" simply shouldn't be used in the same conversation. It's a bad joke.

The g4 holds its own allright, it then gets arrested for indecency in a public place and is led off sobbing pitifully while an outraged audience of mac faithfull mumble "it cant be true, he was such a nice boy and a neat dresser to"

A dual 1.4 g4 is less than half as fast as a mildly configured p4@2.4 , and costs over twice as much. Open your eyes, the emperor has no clothes!

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
If these Moto chips come to pass as cheap, fast, timely high performance engines - would you suggest that Apple should sell more expensive, slower IBM chips?


First, let's get back to the presence or lack thereof of the 970s. It is almost ridiculous, but it certainly seems silly, to suggest that these chips don't exist. Yes, I know you can say they don't but the data strongly suggest they do. I know that the sun may not come up tomorrow... but it is nonsensical to suggest same... and IBM has these chips and sooner or later, it matters not which, they will be in Macs.
Now, Moto chips, if cheaper and if Apple and Moto can come to some reasonable arrangement, may end up somewhere in the Mac line- but IBM is touting cheaper at higher efficiency, therefore WHILE Apple may stay only with Moto, it is not highly likely, given that Moto has been a dead loss for about 2 years.
One definition of insanity, is after all, doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. Listen, mate, THAT is not Steve Jobs! That said, who knows what stunt(s) Moto will pull to sell their chips? But, on the surface of it, I suspect it is too little, too late... NOT impossible- just not bloody likely.

If by the end of the year, Apple has no 970 line and they are still diddling around with whatever junk Moto is proferring, I'll shout you a beer... of your choice... but it's got to be Aussie. Fair dinkum!

[Sol]

Originally posted by rjwill246
...who knows what stunt(s) Moto will pull to sell their chips?

According to The Register article Motorola will be selling their new G4 CPUs to Apple for less than half the current price. That seems very competitive with the prices IBM is rumored to be offering Apple (25% to 35% lower than the current G4 price according to MacWhispers).

Something tells me that Apple will try to have its cake and eat it too by buying Motorola and IBM processors, in order to differentiate their professional and their consumer computers.

[futurmac]

Very interesting discussion here.
First, I am reading many Mac forums because I don't have a mac (I have a PC) and I want to get one. So I can relate to some comments made here about PC users that will or will not switch depending on caracteristics and price offered by a Mac.

I am not a professional in graphic arts/animation .... or in any processor demanding sort of tasks. In fact, I am a hospital pharmacist using my personnal computer mostly for usual tasks like word processing, email, syncing my Palm Tungsten T, spreadsheet, PowerPoint to teach other health care professionals etc... BUT yes if I finally buy a Mac I want it to be at least as fast as my cheap 1 GHz AMD Duron running XP!! And to tell you the truth, when I went to play with Macs (FP iMac 1 GHz and PB 17" 1 GHz) at a dealer here I was a little disappointed with the speed of those very expensive beauties. What am I talking about? Just the fact that those nice machines running this OS X wonder were just not very snappy. I don't need to run complicated applications to see that I should expect more speed at that price (I am not talking about the esthetic here and how user friendly they are). We all become very "speed hungry" with computers when we use them many hours a day and the second more it takes to open a window is enough to upset you when you are used to faster, there is no way back in that part of the user experience. That is why I use a snappy Palm device and not a slow Pocket PC! So even for the average user, the speed (not GHz) is important too for a good experience! It is even more important when the machine you buy is not very upgradable. It is also important if you plan to keep it for a couple of years and you know that you will ALWAYS need more speed in future apps. Do you think that the average user would be happy with those first Macs or 383 wintel anymore just because they are average users? You need speed even just to run the OS properly, no need for fancy graphic applications.
BTW, since I have XP running on my machine, the stability is not an issue anymore, so people should stop bringing that up, it is not true anymore.

So why would I bother looking for a Mac and not just grab a faster wintel machine to upgrade?
Here is why (some of those reasons may seem silly to some but this is my reality):
1- I have always found wintel machines very ugly, all of them even those fancy "no beige" ones, they just don't keep up with the esthetic of Macs and I want that even if it is not important to most people in the PC world.
2- I want to use that beauty of OS X (in all its aspects)
3- I want a quiet machine!!
4- I want one of those Mac displays.
5- I want to explore new possibilities with Mac software like iMovie, Keynote, iTunes, iDVD etc
6- I don't want to be like everyone else!:D

BUT, I am holding back until WWDC to see if those rumors about the early coming of PPC 970 machines are true. If it is, I will be ready to pay the premium to get a "BMW type of computer". It is just that when you pay the premium for a BMW, speed comes with taste and elegance .... If those new processors are not coming soon, I will be the most sad person since I will still have the same reasons mentioned to buy a Mac but will be tortured at the idea to pay more without getting the speed with it. Hope to be one of yours soon!:p

[elmimmo]

I am amazed at the rating. People seems to be desiring Motorola not to be having any decent processor for the Mac more now or in the future, and be stuck with only one processor provider once again, which is precisely what got Apple into the situation of being way below PCs speed-wise.

I really hope both Moto and IBM release powerful PPC and keep investing as much money in its processor R&D team.

[isgoed]

Originally posted by krube73
whooppee, a 200 Mhz FSB. C'mon Moto, my toaster runs at 200 Mhz! get with the program bozos. You can only tout Velocity Engine and AltiVec for so long. Sure it helps, but so does blinding speed in the 2Ghz+ range.

Don't forget that neither Intel or AMD has faster motherboards. The 800mhz board for intel (based on SiS chipset) is a 200mhz board quad pumped) The 400mhz board for Athlon (based on nVidia's nForce 2 chipset) is a 200mhz double pumped board.

This makes me wonder wether the Macboard will be pumped. It will not be quad pumped since G4's do not run fast enough but they can certainly be double pumped.

In previous article they spoke about a possible 2Ghz processor (next generation). I am quite dissapointed that the official speed is only 1.33Ghz (slower than the current 1.42Ghz). Sure they can also overclock these chips. And reading between the lines suggest that if a 1.6V can do 1.6Ghz, a 1.85V can do 1.8Ghz, which is not bad.

But good power comes from the PPC 970 which runs (natively?) on 1.8Ghz and delivers a 90% performance boost when adding a dual processor instead of the 50% of the G4. Also the PPC970 supports a 900mhz system bus. How must I interpret that. Is it an unpumped 900mhz bus or more somethin like a tripple pumped 300mhz bus. Can busses be tripple pumped? .... Need more information.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by isgoed
Is it an unpumped 900mhz bus or more somethin like a tripple pumped 300mhz bus. Can busses be tripple pumped? .... Need more information.

It has two dual-pumped narrow (32-bit) 450MHz busses. The bus is at half the CPU speed, so the 1.8 GHz chip has 450MHz, the 1.6GHz chip has 400MHz....

Check out http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html

[The Shadow]

For Apple to stay with Moto they will have to majorly demo that they indeed have both the current goods AND the future plans.

One or the other will not do. They only way I see it happening is, as some such as Pyrotoaster suggest, as a revision of the current line until the 970 arrives, and then possibly as a stop gap in the consumer line until the 970 and the Gobi are produced in suifficient numbers.

Then, I imagine...

"The King is dead!. Long live the King!"

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
That's far from "average user" stuff, but I'll do my best to address it anyways. I have a PBC design program (DesignWorks Pro). It's even OS X native. Quite good too. There are at least a half-dozen excellent CAD programs on the Mac. Vellum & RealCADD come to mind. I've seen a few good ones specifically for architects too, like ArchiCAD. But since that's not my specialty, I really can't comment on them. I'm more into animation. On the specialized enterprise/server stuff, you've lost me. I know nothing about it. I'm sure you can do quite a bit with OS X Server. And I've heard there are some high-end database apps available under it, in either OS X or UNIX environments. I don't know the specifics, of course.

You're right that these aren't average apps. But I look at it this way. Every average user is an individual person, unique in some way. Someone might be completely average, except that he needs to hook up to a Behringer EQ to set up his sound system. Can he use a Mac? No. Another guy is totally normal except he needs to access his company's payroll databases with a custom app. Can he use a Mac? No. Another guy needs to VPN through his company's firewall. No again. The point is that this is a real issue...when you have 3% marketshare and shrinking, lack of app support becomes a real problem--not just a myth in the minds of foolish sales clerks.

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
I'm just relaying my impression from looking at the shelves in the typical gaming aisle. They all look pretty much the same to me. Half of them are first-person shooters, and most of the rest are third-person shooters. :D But I do occasionally see an interesting looking one. And the only one of those I've ever seen that was not ported to the Mac :( was Pharoah. All the ones I've bought run fine on both my Macs, even the 350 MHz G3. Only Falcon 4 and X-Plane are a bit sluggish. But the machine is 5 years old. Cut it some slack. 800 Mhz G3 upgrade on it's way... hehe

You know what people say about music they don't like: "it all sounds the same". :)

Anyway, I think this is an eye-of-the-beholder thing. Let us stick to WB III, since we are both familiar with that. I haven't played it in a while, but I just downloaded the latest version and fired it up for a test run. I have a good machine to test with, since it is a QS867 which should be about on par with today's consumer Mac. I used low res (1024x768) and selected "medium quality" graphics. Hopped in a 109 and rolled off the tarmac to play with the default drones offline. Now to me, at these settings the graphics quality was pretty weak...the low resolution especially was pretty awful. But the worst part was the frame rates. 25 fps average!! And maybe 35 fps peak! On a 2-year old game with dated graphics! Subjectively, this was unplayable for me. If a PC user suffered with these frame rates with such an old game, he would throw the machine in the trash.

So what kind of Mac do I have? QS 867 with a GeForce 3 and a gig of RAM. Compare that to the new Macs you can get for less than 1500. Let's see...we have an iMac 800 with a <gag> geforce2mx. A 2mx?? A card that was obsolete two years ago when it came out? My Mac and the new iMac will be comparable in general purpose apps, but I guarantee that I will trounce the iMac in game speed. I estimate maybe 10 fps in WB 3 under similar settings. Let's be generous and say 15. So we have a $1300 (+ RAM) computer that does 15 FPS on a 2 year old game at low resolution. I call that inadequate power for the money.

Now compare that to a PC. Let's take the example of that Dell machine that somebody posted to these forums about recently. IIRC he got the whole package for $1200-$1300. That's with an 800MHz bus, 2.6 (or 3?) GHz P4, a gig of RAM and a ATI 9800. My guess is that machine will get 150-200 FPS in WB III with those settings. That's probably a low estimate, actually.

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
I don't really mind paying the premium for OS X. I think it's worth it. But the lack of speed is starting to actually hurt me. And that's why Apple needs to get these PPC 970s in their pro lineup. Macs will never compete with Wintel boxes on price/performance (if the definition of performance is limited to speed, mine is a bit vaster ;)). And frankly, I don't care. As long as they're fast enough to get the job done. That's what's been missing lately. Just don't take away my high-performance hardware design and user interface, because that's why I'm willing to pay the premium price.

What about the hardware is high performance?

I think we agree on most of this. On one side of the scale we have PCs with faster hardware at any given price and better app/game support; on the other side we have the comparative advantage of OSX minus XP. For most of the Mac's history, the premium for MacOS has been reasonable. Objectively, IMO the premium right now is too high. If the 970 doesn't come out RSN, it will be higher still. If our only hope is 1.3 gig G4's in 1Q 2004, a hopeless situation turns into despair.

So what is the point of all this? Basically, we as consumers have power. Don't let Apple shaft it to you with poor hardware, saying it's "good enough"! They have a lot of cash in the bank. Let them use it to give us a reasonable deal! I'm not asking for PC price/performance...as we agree, that will never happen. But the current situation is really too much. We should expect and demand better, and not let our love for the Mac blind us to the absurd value-gap that exists right now. If we do not demand it, Apple will keep milking us with weak hardware until it is too late and even the most fanatical of us will have turn to the dark side in despair. Perhaps we have passed that point already...but the 970 at least offers some hope. This G4 announcement (the subject of this thread) certainly does not.

There now, wasn't that a powerful harangue. :)

[Sol]

Originally posted by elmimmo
I am amazed at the rating. People seems to be desiring Motorola not to be having any decent processor for the Mac more now or in the future, and be stuck with only one processor provider once again, which is precisely what got Apple into the situation of being way below PCs speed-wise.

Having one CPU provider was meant to be an advantage. The clones where around when Motorola signed on with Apple. When the clones were stopped Motorola got burnt. How that affected the progress of the G4 is for others to decide.

It would have been interesting to see quad-processor PowerMacs but that pipe dream never materialized for OS X. If OS X.3 offers quad G4 support that would be a boost performance-wise way past any GHz gap between G4s and x86 processors.

By selling quad G4 Powermacs Apple would not only give users more power than PCs but also Motorola with twice the processors to sell to their biggest customer. Sure they would cost more than PCs, but if you want the BMW, with speed, etc. you have to pay the BMW price.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by Sol
If OS X.3 offers quad G4 support that would be a boost performance-wise way past any GHz gap between G4s and x86 processors.

Two serious problems with this....

First, adding processors does not scale linearly - except for a few applications or running a large number of applications at once. (This is why servers are more often SMP, they are usually doing lots of things at once.) Your Quad Mac wouldn't be 4 times faster.

Second, there are many 4-way, 8-way, 16-way and even higher Intel systems available. How would your quad Mac compare against an IBM x440 with quad Xeon MP CPUs, hyper-threading, 2MB full-speed on-chip L3 cache, and 32MB of L4 cache shared per quad? (That's 128MB of L4 for a 16-way x440 system.)

Or, how about an x450 quad Itanium 2, with 6MB of L3 per chip and 64MB of L4 cache shared per quad?

You can't ignore quad Intel boxes when you compare performance - that's just not honest!

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by elmimmo
I am amazed at the rating. People seems to be desiring Motorola not to be having any decent processor for the Mac more now or in the future, and be stuck with only one processor provider once again, which is precisely what got Apple into the situation of being way below PCs speed-wise
Truth be told, Motorola probably can't produce the new processors they're touting. Definitely not any time in the near future.

The 970 will start at 1.8 GHz, and may break 2 GHz by the end of the year. And next year, the 980 gets introduced. That's a promising processor future with IBM.

Motorola is cornered. They're saying just about anything to get Apple's attention again. Next thing you know they'll be talking about the non-existant G5!

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by Sol
It would have been interesting to see quad-processor PowerMacs but that pipe dream never materialized for OS X. If OS X.3 offers quad G4 support that would be a boost performance-wise way past any GHz gap between G4s and x86 processors.

I think that's a little like putting a V12 into a Ford Focus, and then sticking a banana up the exhaust pipe.

[Sol]

Originally posted by soggywulf
I think that's a little like putting a V12 into a Ford Focus, and then sticking a banana up the exhaust pipe.

Very true. Apple would surely update the motherboard to prevent that situation... only without the banana, obviously.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by Sol
Very true. Apple would surely update the motherboard to prevent that situation... only without the banana, obviously.

Are you sure? They left the banana (SDR) in the Xserve/PowerMac mobo! ;) ;) ;)

[ddtlm]

Apple really can't get away from the SDR "banana" because it is required by the current G4's.

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Apple really can't get away from the SDR "banana" because it is required by the current G4's.
And yet another reason to move to the 970!

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
While I agree that Apple's secrecy has its downsides, consider this: In January, Apple announces plans to switch Powermacs to the 970 in June. Who the hell is going to buy a Powermac now? Apple's market share is too small to lose business because they let some info slip.

Also, imagine if Apple had trusted Motorola's when they had their little roadmap for the G5. Apple would have said something like: "G5-January 2002." Whoops! Moto's a deadbeat and the G5 doesn't actually exist! You see my point.
Sun Microsystems just announced that the UltraSPARC IV previously expected during Q4 2003 will not be available until Q1 2004, and UltraSPARC V is pushed back in 2006.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/31040.html

May be we should ask them if they still sell UltraSPARC III boxes ;)

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by sparkplug
Why are you sure? Have you actually tested this assertion personally? No.
Indeed have you compared any p4 to g4, and no not just a comparision you read on a mac booster web site.

Well, I have some render tests with a dual G4 1.42GHz and a Pentium 4 3GHz. The Dual G4 clocks in roughly at the speed of a Pentium 2.8 GHz. So, taking into account that both processors are sharing the same bus, a single G4 will be about the speed of a 1.6GHz Pentium. Not too shabby for a system with a 167MHz SDR bus. And my 1GHz G4 to 1.7GHz P4 comparison was for a laptop. Apple has the edge on those, because the G4 is not highly penalized by that environment. It runs pretty cool, at only 1GHz, and the 167MHz SDR bus isn't so much of a bottleneck at the clock rate. I've never heard of an 800MHz quad-pumped DDR FSB in a laptop. But Apple uses the same bus in their laptops as in their desktops. So PowerBooks are nearly as fast as (single-processor) PowerMacs (or to the woe of high-end Mac users, PowerMacs are not much faster than PowerBooks). The situation in the PC world is quite different. PC laptops are much slower than PC desktops, because a PC desktop motherboard design would explode in a laptop. Heck, it's pretty close to exploding in a desktop. :p Just teasing.

A dual 1.4 g4 is less than half as fast as a mildly configured p4@2.4, and costs over twice as much. Open your eyes, the emperor has no clothes!
lol I thought Apple had a copyright on the "Reality Distortion Field"!

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by rjwill246
One definition of insanity, is after all, doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.

Yup, I hear ya mate! :D

[ZeeOwl]

Originally posted by Sol
Something tells me that Apple will try to have its cake and eat it too by buying Motorola and IBM processors, in order to differentiate their professional and their consumer computers.

Fine with me. I think the G4 is a fine processor for the consumer line. Even for the mainstream "pro". I only want a pair of Dual PPC 970 XServe Cluster Nodes for rendering. :D My G3 900 is fast enough for modeling, and texturing.

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
Fine with me. I think the G4 is a fine processor for the consumer line. Even for the mainstream "pro". I only want a pair of Dual PPC 970 XServe Cluster Nodes for rendering. :D My G3 900 is fast enough for modeling, and texturing.
Ah, if only every PC user thought the same thing... :p
Apple needs faster processors to sell more machines. Period.

[ddtlm]

ZeeOwl:

Well, I have some render tests with a dual G4 1.42GHz and a Pentium 4 3GHz. The Dual G4 clocks in roughly at the speed of a Pentium 2.8 GHz. So, taking into account that both processors are sharing the same bus, a single G4 will be about the speed of a 1.6GHz Pentium.
So based on some rendering test, hopefully more than one such test, you conclude that overall performance of these machines is simular? What is someone gets crasy and plays a game, or does anything other than rendering?

And my 1GHz G4 to 1.7GHz P4 comparison was for a laptop. Apple has the edge on those, because the G4 is not highly penalized by that environment.
The only thing at 1.7ghz in Intel laptop land is the Pentium M, which is not the same thing as a Pentium 4. The Pentium 4's in laptops are at 2.4ghz easy, and I think a lot higher although I've never tried to find anyone selling above 2.4ghz. The Pentium M, on the other hand, doesn't need that sort of clock speed, or even a super fast FSB. It has a full 1mb of L2 on die at full speed... rather nice compared to the backside L3. Of course it does have the 400mhz FSB to back that up still, plus DDR-266. The Pentium M is more along the lines of Athlon performance per clock than Pentium 4 performance, and it runs quite cool. Dell and IBM, along with everyone else, offer nice 5 pound 1" thick 1.6ghz (or 1.7 but thats really new) machines, even sometimes with Radeon 9000's and all the other goodies. Intel is planning on having 90nm Pentium M's with 2mb of L2 in Q4 of this year, so for the sake of Apple's laptop sales I hope they get some help soon.

It runs pretty cool, at only 1GHz, and the 167MHz SDR bus isn't so much of a bottleneck at the clock rate.
The only 15" vs 17" tests I've seen actually failed to demonstrate any processor performance difference, despite this FSB and DDR boost. Perhaps you can provide a more informative link for me?

[solvs]

It's not so much that no one wants a new G4. I think it's more about Moto promising a new chip, and not delivering. Too little too late. They can put out all the specs they want, but it won't mean a thing. If they can deliver, more power to them. As far as IBM's 970 being vaporware, it does exist. It's being manufactured as we speak. It's not available to purchase yet, but it exists. So does the Moto G5. An embedded-only, 8500 series chip. No Apple desktop G5. Never happened (wonder if it ever got past the pdf). The APPLE DESKTOP 970 is the question. This we don't know about. Nor do we know if OS X.3 is 64-bit.

But we're hoping. We don't want to get our hopes up too much and be too disappointed. But we NEED, desperately, a new chip, just to keep up. This is why all the excitement about the 970.

This is why we all want Moto to stick it.

And when asked about the future, the smile on Steve's face was all the proof I need that he knows something REALLY good is coming.

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Two serious problems with this....


Or, how about an x450 quad Itanium 2, with 6MB of L3 per chip and 64MB of L4 cache shared per quad?

You can't ignore quad Intel boxes when you compare performance - that's just not honest!

Honest... there's a word that gets a little twisted.
I have no idea why you keep putting these wierd slants on other people's honest appraisals or questions but this reply of yours is obfuscation at its best.
So, let's look at the kind of examples you bring up.

IBM has a Quad Xeon( go to IBM and start configuring the x360's) with 74 Gig HD, a CD-ROM (not even a writer), ethernet (not even Gig) 2 Gigs of memory, OS of choice ( I chose Red Hat linux to save a little cause since it's a server- DO YOU EVER PAY- at $399 US per client or in their example 39,000 BUCKS (Mac Server is , well, zip!)
Well, anyway it came to $28,509.95 without the $39,000 100-client license... I just couldn't bring myself to go there and include that amount, so I stuck with one.
Oh, and the Xeons were a BLINDING 2 Gig... a breathtaking speed, we all know!

Well, IF Apple ever decides to do a quad 970 in a server, there won't be additional license costs (after one), there will be Gig ethernet, there will be OSX Server and all the stability that that entails and it sure won't cost 30 thousand dollars, or SEVENTY if you want a hundred clients. (Surely, there must be a discount here but no mention of it on the website.)

Point is you are comparing Apples and IBMs and making it seem, well, comparable. NOT! Let's get a little honesty. I know you love to give Apple big bites... but really!!!!!

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by solvs
And when asked about the future, the smile on Steve's face was all the proof I need that he knows something REALLY good is coming.
Have you noticed this strange insert at about 2/3 that says "And one more thing... a great keynote!":
http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/video.html

And there are still 8 untitled sessions tuesday morning:
http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/tuesday.html

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by rjwill246
IBM has a Quad Xeon( go to IBM and start configuring the x360's)... Well, anyway it came to $28,509.95

Well, I did a quad x255 Xeon. 1.9GHz, 1MB L3 cache, 1GB, 36GB for $17,000. Did you know that the 2.0GHz Xeon has 2MB of L3 cache, and is much more expensive than the 1.9GHz with 1MB?????

Hot swap SCSI RAID, up to 12 internal disks, redundant power, ... lots of things that the Xserve doesn't have. And, BTW, if you think that Apple is going to build a quad on the cheap - I've got a bridge to sell you. There's a lot of availability and redundancy that's expected in systems of that class - if Apple does another low-end system like the Xserve they'll be laughed at. If they make it comparable to other quad servers, they'll be similarly priced.

Also, you're confused about that $39,900 "100 user" license - that's a license for the IBM Director Server Management software - to manage 100 servers! See http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/xseries/systems_management/director_spp.html.

Look at shopper.com, you can get 100 Windows client licenses for under $3200

A similar quad 1.9GHz from Dell is under $20,000.

And, of course, the IBM and Dell systems have 3 years parts and labor warranty...apparently Apple has about 1/3 the faith in the Xserve.

[Plutoniq9]

Damn.... some of these replies make you wonder!
Do some of u even know why u r using a Mac? I know why I chose a modest 250mhz G3 Powerbook over my old 700mhz Athlon PC..... rock solid stability, both OS & Hardware. I'm suprised people really believe that the P4 is something that G3/G4's should be "shooting for".

You know, the P4 really had to compromise on CPU performance to achieve the clock speeds it has...... the pipeline length of the P4 is 20-stages long! Aside from the penalty of CPU cycles spent in branch prediciting, when it actually does get the branch-predicton wrong.....well lets just say it's bad for realtime performance, it takes a lot more than 20 cpu cycles to "get it together' again. Heat is another issue of increased pipeline stages.

Compare this with the current G3, the IBM 750FX. With a minimal 5-stage pipeline and a power consumption of 3.6w @800mhz..... 512k L2 cache (256 bits wide running at full CPU speed)...... thats just the obvious advantages of the chip. The Gobi will clock higher, double the L2 cache, run cooler......

I believe most Mac users dissapointed in the current performance are mainly Gamers.... I don't know what the fastest AGP 3D graphics card is available for the Mac, but I'd imagine an underpowered Graphics card in your Mac causes more of a performance hit in games than the CPU.....

Anyways....my original point was..... macs are rock-solid for production work, I personally don't care about graphics performance because my main use of the computer is for Audio production. I external console ca take care of that for me. I really don't care how "far-ahead" the P4 is in clock cycles, as any educated Mac user knows the price it pays for being "the fastest mhz cpu".... in the end, i gave up tearing my hair out trying to iron out the creases on my desktop Athlon windows nightmare, for real-time performance I will NEVER go back to Windows PC....... cause you never get those ***** machines to perform smoothly, the overhead is just not worth it compared to peace of mind in reliable Mac computing. PC user 5 years and frustrated, Mac user 1 year and lovin' it!

It's funny how off-topic this all got, this was about the new G4 motorola has planned.... Anything that gets those TI Powerbooks movin' along is fine with me...... faster TI's mean faster Ibooks..... Faster Ibooks mean faster IBM G3's for Powerlogix to incorporate into there Pismo upgrades! I'm just waiting for that damn Gobi to be available..... hopefully this month hey!

Ryan

[soggywulf]

Yeah, I agree. Windows is a schlocky piece of garbage, and I love MacOS too. Win2K is fine right after a fresh install, but within a week it will be bloated and slow and steadily go downhill from there. Haven't tried XP, but I assume the same for that.

But I disagree with hardware. Forget pipeline stages and MHz. I don't think we know enough about these things to see all implications of a any particular microprocessor design choice. The basic fact is that Mac hardware is slow and overpriced...at this time, by a lot. Games are an easily available high-CPU load which can demonstrate this fact; and the host CPU/mobo play a very large role in this performance, especially in the case of poor results as I have demonstrated above.

How long are we going to tolerate it? Maybe you don't need the speed and you don't want the speed. Fine, but then you are in the extreme minority...IMO there are not enough people with that attitude to support a company that can develop and support a complicated OS like MacOS X, not to mention hardware.

Before you shrug this off as yet another Apple doomsday prediction, remember that current powermacs are in fact selling really poorly compared with current PCs, as well as compared with their previous track record at a time when Mac hardware was more competitive. Marketshare is shrinking, and you can't go below 0%.

So here's hoping for 970's soon. Or 3 GHz G4s with 1.5 GHz FSB available cheaply and in quantity next month would be acceptable as well.

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by soggywulf
Yeah, I agree. Windows is a schlocky piece of garbage, and I love MacOS too. Win2K is fine right after a fresh install, but within a week it will be bloated and slow and steadily go downhill from there. Haven't tried XP, but I assume the same for that.

Yeah. XP isn't much different. Good for games, but it'll drive you nuts if you use it everyday.

[pyrotoaster]

Originally posted by BenRoethig
Yeah. XP isn't much different. Good for games, but it'll drive you nuts if you use it everyday.
Now if the Mac could only become a superior or comperable gaming machine. That would bring over a couple million switchers...

[HornetOSX]

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
Now if the Mac could only become a superior or comperable gaming machine. That would bring over a couple million switchers...


Now here is my Take on the whole game performance issue ..........

I HONESTLY belive that 90% of the poor mac performance on games is BAD PROGRAMMING. (the other 10% being the lower speeds of course)

You cant tell me that Final Cut Pro or photoshop or some ofthese other high end Video apps or high end audio aps aree less hard on the system then some game ..... yet the mac can directly compete with the pc there... so that means one other thing ... Programming

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by HornetOSX
I HONESTLY belive that 90% of the poor mac performance on games is BAD PROGRAMMING. (the other 10% being the lower speeds of course)

Nah. Half of it is the lack of good cards...but now that we <finally> have the 9700 we are now somewhat closer in that regard. Too bad the 9700 is only available on "Pro" machines that are not supposed to be for games anyway. LOL. The consumer Macs are stuck with graphics cards from the bronze age. Poor programming for the drivers on these cards might be an issue...maybe.

The other half is slowness of the machines.

Originally posted by HornetOSX
You cant tell me that Final Cut Pro or photoshop or some ofthese other high end Video apps or high end audio aps aree less hard on the system then some game ..... yet the mac can directly compete with the pc there... so that means one other thing ... Programming

So is Photoshop still faster on the Mac? Have there been any bakeoffs recently? I suspect the mac is slower at the moment...like a $3000 Mac is slower than a $1500 PC.

Besides...many games tax the system as much if not more than real work. The days of Pac-Mac and Tetris are long gone. :D

[ddtlm]

HornetOSX:

I HONESTLY belive that 90% of the poor mac performance on games is BAD PROGRAMMING. (the other 10% being the lower speeds of course)
Perhaps bad programming in OSX.

I'm a guy who has written a couple "games" for my own amusement, using SDL, OpenGL and C/C++. Using SDL I am able to compile on many OS's, including Windows of course, and Linux, OSX and even OS9. OSX is without question the crappiest performing of them all. Even when the frame rate is OK the game lacks smoothness. On OS9, I have smoothness, so immediately I can see that OSX is the problem. Of course OS9 has it easy because the program totally takes over, which is ideal. It allows OS9 to be essentially perfect, so long as I don't exceed the performance of the G4 powering things.

You cant tell me that Final Cut Pro or photoshop or some ofthese other high end Video apps or high end audio aps aree less hard on the system then some game
Its not that games are harder on the system, the problem is that games are much harder to hand-optimize for AltiVec. Without AltiVec the G4 is toasted by modern PC processors. I run into this problem myself if I set the number of objects in my screwy game too high. The Mac drops out of the race long before the x86 hardware has problems. The Linux machine is actually less impressive hardware than the Mac too, its a dual 700mhz Xeon, 100mhz FSB&RAM, and a Matrox G400 Max... the Mac is a dual 800mhz G4, 133mhz FSB&RAM, ATI Radeon 8500. (All the major components of the Linux machine are a full year older than the Mac.) Of course I'm not about to sit down and hand-code AltiVec to hold the G4's hand... the P3-Xeon doesn't need its hand held, the Athlon doesn't need its hand held.

soggywulf:

Nah. Half of it is the lack of good cards...but now that we <finally> have the 9700 we are now somewhat closer in that regard.
This is not the problem at all. Macs have not recently trailed PC's in graphics by nearly as much as they still do in processor performance. (And OSX isn't helping matters.)

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by ddtlm
This is not the problem at all. Macs have not recently trailed PC's in graphics by nearly as much as they still do in processor performance. (And OSX isn't helping matters.)

It most certainly is a problem for the consumer macs. Consumer machines are intended for games, right? The options I see are ATI 7500 and GeForce 2MX.

Even the pro machines are behind with the 9700; and "behind" means "behind a $1K PC". But I will grant that at least the Pro machines are in the same ballpark as a $1K PC. If we get the 9800 and FX5900 in a couple months, then we will be back in the black as far as acceptable hardware lag, in terms of consumer video cards.


BTW...what is your theory as to the slowness of your game in OSX vs OS9? Personally, I do not think it is OSX itself, but rather the cross-platform libraries you are using are perhaps not optimized for OSX. After all, if you are not running anything else, the CPU is more than 95% idle...that's slim enough.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Of course I'm not about to sit down and hand-code AltiVec to hold the G4's hand... the P3-Xeon doesn't need its hand held, the Athlon doesn't need its hand held.

That's a very good point. People have to understand the programming is a massively complex task these days, expecially for complicated systems that must interact cooperatively. Take into account that PowerPC decided "less is more", thinking people would optimize (and not knowing we'd slog down in the MHz race). The Wintel world said "more is more." Well, what does this mean for Mac users today?

It means that if we had a 3.1 GHz G4 versus a 3.1 GHz P4, we'd be well ahead of them. When we start having less MHz, we start having to rely on "good programming." Right now programmers have to optimize their code for months just to get the same performance as an unoptimized Wintel box. Folks, I am the most die hard Mac advocate, but raw speed is always important to the pro-sumer and professional markets and always will be.

[job]

Originally posted by soggywulf
BTW...what is your theory as to the slowness of your game in OSX vs OS9?

Mac OS X does not allow one single application (i.e. a game) to gobble up all available system resources, RAM, etc.

In OS9 all available computing power is used for the game.

As a rule of thumb, most games will run faster in OS 9 than in OS X. A few exceptions to this include Myth II (v1.4) and possibly Quake3.

[job]

Originally posted by soggywulf
It most certainly is a problem for the consumer macs. Consumer machines are intended for games, right? The options I see are ATI 7500 and GeForce 2MX.

Eh. Kinda, sorta.

Just check out the hardcore gaming rigs available from Northwest and Alienware. Although the average consumer may want to play a few rounds of UT2k3 at a hideously low resolution, the majority of your PC gamers know that performance doesn't come cheap. I don't think your basic consumer Wintel clone tower is designed or intended for gaming.

On the Mac side of things, I'd have to say our consumer line-up does an OK job of handling games, as opposed to your consumer Wintel box. Speedwise, the Mac won't be able to hold it's own all the time, but for what it's worth, I think the consumer Macs do a decent job when it comes to games.

[ddtlm]

soggywulf:

Consumer machines are intended for games, right? The options I see are ATI 7500 and GeForce 2MX.
OK, it's a big problem with consumer Macs. Doh.

BTW...what is your theory as to the slowness of your game in OSX vs OS9? Personally, I do not think it is OSX itself, but rather the cross-platform libraries you are using are perhaps not optimized for OSX.
I rule out SDL for several reasons, one being that it doesn't suck up any CPU, it just neatens up keyboard/mouse input, sound, networking, threads and so on that that they look the same on many platforms. I also rule out SDL because it does work fast on OS9... and thats not a platform they spend a lot of time optimizing for these days. :) Also, I didn't really mean to imply that OSX was the slowest, it is just the crappiest. Its choppy even when the framerate is OK, and I think that is because the kernel is screwing around and interrupting all the time. I think Apple needs to work on that more... they'll make it better I'm sure.

After all, if you are not running anything else, the CPU is more than 95% idle...that's slim enough.
Hmmm, is your line of thought that this 5% figure represents the OS overhead all the time? If so, thats not entirely right. It probably uses 5% or whatever all the time, but it also additionally has a hand in all sorts of things, like talking to keyboards and showing graphics. Now some OS things are going to be done without any program switch (smooth), but others will be buffered and handled latter with a program switch (at which point my game might register a chop).

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by job
Mac OS X does not allow one single application (i.e. a game) to gobble up all available system resources, RAM, etc.

The difference between 95% CPU utilization and 99% utilization should not account for any perceptible speed difference...

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by job
On the Mac side of things, I'd have to say our consumer line-up does an OK job of handling games, as opposed to your consumer Wintel box.

In another thread on these forums, someone bought a Dell machine for about $1200 with an ATI 9800. That's on the high side of consumer prices, but that Dell will be more than an order of magnitude faster than an iMac, at games. You have to drop down to about $500 to find a PC as slow as the $1300 iMac. See http://www.portatech.com/7841/viewitem.htm

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Hmmm, is your line of thought that this 5% figure represents the OS overhead all the time? If so, thats not entirely right. It probably uses 5% or whatever all the time, but it also additionally has a hand in all sorts of things, like talking to keyboards and showing graphics. Now some OS things are going to be done without any program switch (smooth), but others will be buffered and handled latter with a program switch (at which point my game might register a chop).

Yeah, that makes sense actually. You're right...this is definitely something they need to work on then. "Jitter" is much more perceptible than a low average.

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by job
Eh. Kinda, sorta.

Just check out the hardcore gaming rigs available from Northwest and Alienware. Although the average consumer may want to play a few rounds of UT2k3 at a hideously low resolution, the majority of your PC gamers know that performance doesn't come cheap. I don't think your basic consumer Wintel clone tower is designed or intended for gaming.

On the Mac side of things, I'd have to say our consumer line-up does an OK job of handling games, as opposed to your consumer Wintel box. Speedwise, the Mac won't be able to hold it's own all the time, but for what it's worth, I think the consumer Macs do a decent job when it comes to games.

I beg to differ. I got my Compaq 8000Z for less than $900. It has a AthlonXP 1800+ and the GeForce4 MX420. It may be a bottom of the line hardware, it can handle even the newer games like UT2K3 at 1024 resolution very well. The Macs problem is in the processor. Even the Dual 1.42 G4 cannot use the 9700 to its full effect. If you buy a mac, you're buying it more for the operating system than you are the hardware. That's why the low end machines are flurishing and PowerMacs sales are rather lackluster. The latest advancements in the PowerMac line are more a marketing ploy than anything. Without a DDR FSB, PC2700 Ram isn't going to be much faster than PC133 and for most practical purposes, only one CPU is used. Hopefully in just over two weeks a lot of things will change.

[ddtlm]

My take on the whole CPU vs video argument is thus: if you have extra CPU such that it always is waiting for the graphics card to get done drawing things, then you'll have a good game experience because scenes that you are drawing present a semi-constant workload over short periods of time to dedicated hardware, so framerate has no sharp spikes or dips (still has ups and downs). However if your CPU is the problem, then every time that something needs to happen in the background all progress stops, every time more of the level needs to be loaded progress stops, every drive access, every periodic game task, everything has the potential to cause a visual disturbance.

I think a PPC970 with a GF2MX would be a nicer gaming box than a G4-1.42 with a Radeon 9700. It's probably the difference between 30fps smooth enough to play, and 100fps that chops badly a few times per second.

[job]

Originally posted by BenRoethig
I beg to differ. I got my Compaq 8000Z for less than $900. It has a AthlonXP 1800+ and the GeForce4 MX420. It may be a bottom of the line hardware, it can handle even the newer games like UT2K3 at 1024 resolution very well.

My post was in response to this:

Consumer machines are intended for games, right?

Did you buy your Compaq 8000Z specifically for games?

Gaming has carved out it's own hardware niche. Most serious gamers are willing to spend just as much as a G4 tower to play games. Thus, I didn't see soggywulf's point about consumer gaming machines as a valid one. Consumer PCs are not intended for games.

soggywulf:

You have to drop down to about $500 to find a PC as slow as the $1300 iMac.

I was thinking more along the lines of the midrange eMac for a grand. Compared to previous Apple machines it packs a nice punch for the price.

Considering that the eMac is the baseline Apple model, compare it with the baseline Dell and I think game performance wise, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

[solvs]

I get this a lot. People say Macs aren't gaming machines. Maybe it's the code, or lack of games. Maybe it's the graphics card, or the CPU, or whatever.

Who knows, who cares.

You want to play games, buy a PS2 or an xBox or a cheapy PC. Whenever someone says they won't get a Mac because you can't play games on it, my response is always the same.

"You can play on your PC, I'll get work done on mine" (not to be confused with "working on" a PC, or trying to get it to "work" when it won't).

For the record, I use both Macs and PCs. I love Macs. I tolerate Windows (barely).

[tazznb]

Originally posted by ZeeOwl
The G4 is plenty fast for the average consumer. I see the eMac/iMac/iBook staying 32-bit for quite a while still. Maybe with 1.5 to 2 GHz 750GXs... Or even better, a 750GX+Altivec (760GX?) Already overkill for the needs of the average consumer.

If Apple keeps this mentality for the avg. consumer they'll never take any portion of the gaming market.

G4 anything needs to be sped up, and redesigned (with newer faster moboard) in a big way, or toss it out, all together.

[NicoMan]

I think Apple has to address that gaming performance problem. Why? I would say that at years go by, the new generations (of people) are more and more sensitive to a good game on their computer. Not that many people are hardcore gamers in the 50+ age bracket, but start looking at the 15/25 bracket, and you realize that PC gaming is not an isolated phenomenon.

We have to stop thinking that game performance is not important, because to a lot of people it matters. Ok not all games are power-hungry (Sims is the best-seller of all times), but games like UT and the other FPS are becoming ubiquitous. Apple are trying to woe people away from PeeCees, but as things stand (hopefully the trend will start reversing at WWDC) they don't stand a chance with gamers.

Of course those game performance issues will de-facto be addressed by the 970, if (when?) it makes into the Macs, and IF it lives up to the hype.

NicoMan

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by NicoMan
Not that many people are hardcore gamers in the 50+ age bracket, but start looking at the 15/25 bracket, and you realize that PC gaming is not an isolated phenomenon.

Another thing in that line of thought: another reason Apple should pay attention to gamers. More often than not they are their future customers. Imagine a 7-10 kid playing a good game on his PeeCee (think UT2k3 or something... something he cannot do on a Mac and he sort of knows it). By the time he is 18-20 and gets his first credit card, he is a PeeCee user through and through and has been one for his last 10 years or so. How are you going to make him switch??

NicoMan

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by job
Considering that the eMac is the baseline Apple model, compare it with the baseline Dell and I think game performance wise, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

If we compare the $1000 eMac to a totally base $600 Dell, I am willing to entertain the possibility that they will be equal in games; perhaps the Mac wil even be slightly better! We have "Intel Extreme 3D graphics" in that PC, which sounds pretty dubious. OTOH, the rest of the hardware favors the PC. So it's a toss up. But I wouldn't call either of these machines "decent" for games. I'm not talking top of the line extreme game machine. Just decent, able to run the latest games at decent res. Neither of these machines will do that.

Move the PC up to $1000, and it's no contest. The PC becomes a decent game platform, according to the definition above. Point is, you can get a PC (even a Dell) in the consumer price range that plays games fairly well. You cannot do the same on the Mac side.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by solvs
Who knows, who cares.

Oh yeah? well.... well.... Who cares about games anyway? Games are for babies! :rolleyes:

[Sol]

Originally posted by soggywulf
...you can get a PC (even a Dell) in the consumer price range that plays games fairly well. You cannot do the same on the Mac side.

You can select any model of Apple's current line-up and it would be ready, out of the box to play any game available for OS X. The games may not be the reason most people buy Macs but there is a good library of titles for the platform.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by Sol
You can select any model of Apple's current line-up and it would be ready, out of the box to play any game available for OS X. The games may not be the reason most people buy Macs but there is a good library of titles for the platform.

The discussion was about performance, not availability...

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by soggywulf
Oh yeah? well.... well.... Who cares about games anyway? Games are for babies! :rolleyes: The only ones that dont care for games are dried up old prunes who are living in retirement homes. I'm 42 yrs old,wife 41, and my wife, me and kids all game on are mac's every night so get off the macs are not for gaming garbage and take yourself to inside mac gaming for some enlightment! The new macs do play games and are getting only better. sorry for off topic post.

[soggywulf]

What kind of Mac do you have, Don't Hurt Me?

[isgoed]

Glad this deviated to Gaming. Four points:

1 While the top of the line has a Radeon 9700, it is only AGP 4X. That is just stupid. Many parts in the PowerMac are not high quality while you pay a high quality price.

2 I have a real budget athlon 1.2Ghz (not even XP) for only 900$ including a Geforce 4 titanium. With this system I can play every game at max quality @ 1024x768. I am talking Need For speed Hor Pursuit II / UT2003 / Black hawk down. Put A geforce Ti / FX5600 / Ati9500 in a iMac and Gameperformance is extreme. I would really want to see a GameMac, the gMac with upgradable parts (videocard / processor / ram / HD)

3 OSX does lack game support. As a developer I know. Where is the support for (net/sound/input/draw-sprocket). And why is OpenGL the only descent graphics Lib? Quark is sooo slow. And OpenGl is not suitable for 2D.

4 OSX is the slowest OS. Why did they even bother to make that stupid bouncing-loading animation. I just want textedit to open immediately. OS9 and Windows can do it. I even play American MCGee's allice (Quake3_engine) in OS9 instead of OSX because it is faster and more stable

[RogueLdr]

soggywulf,

As far as VPN clients are concerned, I use VPN Client 3.7.3(A) from Cisco Systems on a G4 running OS X v.10.2.6. (And, for what it's worth, you can create a VPN connection with Internet Connect which comes with OS X.)

[NW80pdx]

This processor will not end up being announced at WWDC. its the wrong stage for such an event, this year at WWDC, Apple is showing us 10.3 and maybe a few new software products.. WWDC is a developers conference. we all know at some point there will be a new processor from either IBM, or Motorola, however just not at this time.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by soggywulf
What kind of Mac do you have, Don't Hurt Me? 800 powermac/10.2.6 with a geforce 3 and a gig of memory. It is able to run UT2003 on the inside levels but go outside and its to much at 800x600. Plays wolfenstein,fine, medal of honor well but a little laggy, Nascar 2002 usually run it at low detail with 13 other cars on the track. My family are all gamers and my son plays warcraft3 fine on it.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by RogueLdr
soggywulf,

As far as VPN clients are concerned, I use VPN Client 3.7.3(A) from Cisco Systems on a G4 running OS X v.10.2.6. (And, for what it's worth, you can create a VPN connection with Internet Connect which comes with OS X.)

Hey , cool... Can you VPN to a hardware-token-based entry point? Like, SecureID from RSA?

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
800 powermac/10.2.6 with a geforce 3 and a gig of memory. It is able to run UT2003 on the inside levels but go outside and its to much at 800x600. Plays wolfenstein,fine, medal of honor well but a little laggy, Nascar 2002 usually run it at low detail with 13 other cars on the track. My family are all gamers and my son plays warcraft3 fine on it.

I guess it's in the eye of the beholder, as I mentioned before. My Mac is almost identical to yours (867/10.2.6/1gig/geforce3), yet I find my Mac's game performance to be horrendous. In particular, Jedi Knight 2 and Warbirds 3. You can download Warbirds 3 for free to play offline, if you would like to check it out...www.warbirdsiii.com

No matter though, these new 970s should kick some serious ass. I hope the rumors pan out.

[ColoJohnBoy]

Perhaps with the threat of Apple moving entirely to IBM chips, Moto will get in gear and start producing chips as quickly as they should be. It might be nice to see a G4 based iBook, or Tablet of some sort. But only if Moto shapes up.'


Visit Blue Pudding!
http://bluepudding.1hwy.com

[3.1416]

Originally posted by isgoed
While the top of the line has a Radeon 9700, it is only AGP 4X. That is just stupid.
AGP 8x has virtually no benefit over 4x. See http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,640194,00.asp

And why is OpenGL the only descent graphics Lib?
What do you want, Direct3D? OpenGL is a fine library, and there are wrappers for it like SDL.

Quark is sooo slow. And OpenGl is not suitable for 2D.
You mean "Quartz", I assume. And OpenGL can be used for 2d, look at the dissolving slide show screensavers.

I even play American MCGee's allice (Quake3_engine) in OS9 instead of OSX because it is faster and more stable
One buggy program does not mean that the OS is to blame.

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
800 powermac/10.2.6 with a geforce 3 and a gig of memory. It is able to run UT2003 on the inside levels but go outside and its to much at 800x600. Plays wolfenstein,fine, medal of honor well but a little laggy, Nascar 2002 usually run it at low detail with 13 other cars on the track. My family are all gamers and my son plays warcraft3 fine on it. And that's the big difference.

Any halfway decent $1000 Dell will be able to play those same games with high detail, with no lag, and ad significantly higher resolutions than 800X600. Seriously. I mean, I love Macs, I'm posting this on a Mac as we speak, but please stop defending their game performance. Even the apple.com site that has quake 1024X768 framerate numbers just shows how low they are in comparison to bargain basement PC hardware these days.

Can it play the game? Sure. Can it play it well (as in, taking advantage of everything the game designers put into the game)? Not really.

-Richard

[hacurio1]

Originally posted by soggywulf
The difference between 95% CPU utilization and 99% utilization should not account for any perceptible speed difference...

Well, yes if aqua and the finder in OS X use a lot more resources than the finder in OS 9. I bet OS X uses at least 15-40% more resources that 9, so even if the CPU is idle other system resources are used. OS X is a great and smooth OS, but it is a lot heavier than OS 9; therefore, we need faster hardware. The G4 was ok for OS 9, but X it’s in another league.

[RogueLdr]

Originally posted by soggywulf
Hey , cool... Can you VPN to a hardware-token-based entry point? Like, SecureID from RSA?

I haven't had to use these features, but I did find references to their use on cicso's pages:http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/secursw/ps2308/products_administration_guide_chapter09186a008015cfdc.html#41800 Maybe that will help?

[soggywulf]

Thx for that info Wedge. Unfortunately, it looks like it won't work since we use a Nortel gateway, not a Cisco one:

The Cisco VPN Client is compatible with the following Cisco products:

Cisco VPN 3000 Series Concentrator Software Version 3.0 and later

Cisco VPN 3000 Series Concentrators

Cisco IOS Software Releases 12.2(8)T and later

Cisco PIX Firewall Software Version 6.0 and later

However, this prompted me to check Nortel's site, and to my amazement they in fact do offer a VPN client for both 9 and X!

http://www130.nortelnetworks.com/cgi-bin/eserv/cs/main.jsp?cscat=software&tranProduct=10621

So I stand corrected on the VPN issue. Too bad I can't download the client for free, or I'd try it right now. :( Really...why make people pay for the client SW, when it only works with the gateway you are selling for many tens of thousands??