G5 PowerMacs MWNY -- Read this...

[j763]

I'm just fueling the rumor fire here, but...

I had a quick look around the Apple Website and noted that the G4 iMac is on the main iMac page at http://www.apple.com/imac , whereas the G3 iMac's page is http://www.apple.com/imac/g3 . If Apple were to release a G5 PowerMac at MWNY, the logic that would follow would be that the G5's would be on the main powermac page, that is: http://www.apple.com/powermac and the G4's page would be http://www.apple.com/powermac/g4 . Well... here's where it gets interesting. I thought I'd type in http://www.apple.com/powermac/g4 and suprise suprise, it redirects me to the main powermac page _but_ here's the main point: they've already set up that directory ready to move the G4 page onto it. Therefore, I'd expect to see some new PowerMacs soon (mwny is best bet probably) -- not G4s... If you try going to http://www.apple.com/powerbook/g4 or any other model computer, you'll see a Page Not Found message.

Interesting! The G4 PowerMacs will be moved to a subpage for something bigger and better.

Did I hear someone say G5? I think we can put aside rumors of a Quadruple G4 PowerMac for now...

[teabgs]

I just checked it out and you're absolutley correct. Very curious indeed...The only problem I have with this is that its so far from MWNY to get the site ready for updates. Could it be that G5 is coming out for WWWDC? I doubt it but hey....It could happen

[macstudent]

That is some kicka$$ thinking. I am impresed.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by teabgs
I just checked it out and you're absolutley correct. Very curious indeed...The only problem I have with this is that its so far from MWNY to get the site ready for updates. Could it be that G5 is coming out for WWWDC? I doubt it but hey....It could happen

Well, even it is unlikeley... you never know! Why would Apple release the new PowerBooks one week before the WWDC? Maybe to concentrate on something even bigger that's gonna be introduced? Would be too good to be true...

Imagine SJ would show MacOS X 10.2 on a PowerMac G5!!!! I know, I know... but isn't it allowed anymore to dream once ina while? ;)

groovebuster

[TiMacLover]

Nice Work, us mac user's are soo smart :D

[macstudent]

I have a question.

How long have you been doing this? I mean, have you been checking this daily for a year now, or is this something you just tried out tonight and it worked.

If today was the first day they changed it, then new wonderful machines are afoot!

[Rower_CPU]

Well done! This could definitely be taken as a sign from Apple themselves that we're due for a change very soon.

[cb911]

i read a rumor right here in Macrumors that Apple was going to change the look of their site. maybe that's all they are doing, i think it's a little too early for the G5's. although i would love Apple to prove me wrong.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by TiMacLover
Nice Work, us mac user's are soo smart :D

... or have too much time on their hands! ;)

[Geert]

That is indeed a nice theory, let's hope that we'll see an updated powrmac lina any time soon now.
very nice thinking;)

[BeerDrinker29]

Oh my, that is not really compelling evidence IMO. But I'm sure it was a great timewaster :)

[Megaquad]

Only mac users are able to make such conspiracy theory's ;)
and concerning g5's,if you check http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M98653 you'll see there aren't any cpu's faster then 1 GHz,all we may see in future is perhaps bump to 1.2 GHz

[cb911]

the MPC7455 is the same chip used in the G4's. the G5's would have to be way faster than 1.2GHz.

[sparkleytone]

motorola isnt going to put the consumer g5s on their info pages or roadmap until they are released by apple.

[Geert]

Here's a roadmap of the powerpc.
http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M983989030230

[mmmdreg]

Originally posted by groovebuster

Imagine SJ would show MacOS X 10.2 on a PowerMac G5!!!! I know, I know... but isn't it allowed anymore to dream once ina while? ;)

groovebuster
Your dream might actually come true...say he previews MacOSX v.10.2 and at the same time he shows off the new G5 but only as a preview...with no solid specs...just form and general info...then Apple would have built enough suspense to keep us happy until the time it is released...but thinking about it again, if they do demo a G5, it would kill G4 sales because everyone will be waiting for the new one...but anyway...

[ftaok]

I think that Apple is changing the way that they are releasing new (and updated) systems. It used to be that they'd wait unitil one of the big shows and WHAMMO! Now, in addition to the shows, they seem to be introducing new products at special events and just whenever. I think it has something to do with the stock price letdown whenever a MW begins.

They're trying to train us to not expect everything at a Macworld event. Training us to expect the unexpected.

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by ftaok
They're trying to train us to not expect everything at a Macworld event. Training us to expect the unexpected.

Oh and all the hype right before MWSF was nothing? 'Way beyond the rumor sites' I think was one of their taunts on the home page.

I think that you're mostly right here. They don't want to do small updates, incremental speed bumps and such at a MacWorld. They want to save the keynotes for something much bigger. They haven't been doing any self-hype for WWDC, so who knows, time will tell if they've got any surprises for us. But lets also wait and see what happens right before MWNY if the G5s or what ever haven't come out by then. I believe that for a big item, the new LCD iMac is a good example, that they'll want as much hoopla as possible. For the new PowerMac Desktop, you can almost be assured it will happen at a large event. But there's nothing stopping Apple from calling a press conference either.

[Gyroscope]

Psssstt!

G6(previous. known as G5) + OSX 10.2 64-bit version

G5(RapidIO,DDR 1.6 Ghz,32-bit) + OX 10.2 32-bit version


Don't say I didn't tell you so :p

[Geert]

I'dd already settle for a improved architecture which offers faster system bus, faster RAM and stuff (those should be preparations to implement a G5 chip in future Mac hardware) that way, the DP G4@1Ghz, would outrun even that AMD DP 1800+ monster.(ugly piece of ...)
and then afterward Apple just plugs in the G5 chip itself and boooom byebye wintel suckers.

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Gyroscope

G6(previous. known as G5) + OSX 10.2 64-bit version

G5(RapidIO,DDR 1.6 Ghz,32-bit) + OX 10.2 32-bit version


Posting such a thing without backup doesn't really count for much even if you're right.

Let me guess the G5 is previously known as the G4, but it has all the mobo chnages? Motorola has a couple chips that have the rapidIO based on their e500. You can see that on their pages, but its a totally different chip than the G4. Shovel some more dirt here....

[teabgs]

Originally posted by Geert
I'dd already settle for a improved architecture which offers faster system bus, faster RAM and stuff (those should be preparations to implement a G5 chip in future Mac hardware) that way, the DP G4@1Ghz, would outrun even that AMD DP 1800+ monster.(ugly piece of ...)
and then afterward Apple just plugs in the G5 chip itself and boooom byebye wintel suckers.

AGREED!

I'm in the market for a new tower but I cant get myself to get the Dual 1GHZ. I just feel like I should have a faster bus and faster RAM. I really hope they at least have this in the new towers. I'll be so happy with it if they do. If not...I'll still buy but I won't be so happy. I just cannot afford to wait any longer if I want to get any work done. Silly 603e....I want OSX!

A reworked G4 architecture that has a faster bus and uses DDR if fine with me.

[j763]

Originally posted by MacStudent
I have a question.

How long have you been doing this? I mean, have you been checking this daily for a year now

I don't have _that_ much time on my hands

Originally posted by MacStudent
or is this something you just tried out tonight and it worked.


Yep...

Originally posted by BeerDrinker29
Oh my, that is not really compelling evidence IMO. But I'm sure it was a great timewaster

Actually I was on the Apple Hardware (http://www.apple.com/hardware) page and noticed the URLs for the iMac G3 + G4 when my cursor was over them, so I didn't waste much time. And how the hell do you think I'd find "compelling evidence" on Apple.com of something they're trying to keep secret??? Although, I do think the information is quite interesting, to say the least. I would be very suprised if we don't see a new processor soon (again, mwny is best bet, but a demo @ wwdc is still possible).

Originally posted by TiMacLover
Nice Work, us mac user's are soo smart :D

:D !

[sparkleytone]

Originally posted by cb911
the MPC7455 is the same chip used in the G4's. the G5's would have to be way faster than 1.2GHz.

if the chips are 64-bit, then they do NOT have to be "way faster". They could go down in MHz and still sell. The Itanium is still barely hitting a GHz.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by dukestreet
I think that you're mostly right here. They don't want to do small updates, incremental speed bumps and such at a MacWorld. They want to save the keynotes for something much bigger. They haven't been doing any self-hype for WWDC, so who knows, time will tell if they've got any surprises for us. But lets also wait and see what happens right before MWNY if the G5s or what ever haven't come out by then. I believe that for a big item, the new LCD iMac is a good example, that they'll want as much hoopla as possible. For the new PowerMac Desktop, you can almost be assured it will happen at a large event. But there's nothing stopping Apple from calling a press conference either. That's exactly what I meant. The big stuff will still be reserved for the Macworlds, but they'll keep pumping out stuff all year long.

This is a smarter way to introduce stuff as there won't be a huge letdown when Apple doesn't meet everyone's ridiculous demands. Keeps the stock in check and Wall Street likes that.

Plus, when they get everyone thinking with this mindset, Apple will be more comfortable. I'm saying this because, currently, everyone waits until MW to buy new stuff. Kinda hurts sales of current stuff. If people are unsure when Apple is releasing stuff, there would be a more steady sales stream.

Agghh, that's my opinion.

[Bradcoe]

The PPC roadmap says the G5 will be 32 and 64bit. Apple won't call the G5 a 32bit and the G6 a 64bit. If they [apple] are switching the OS to a 64bit architechture, they should let developers know FIRST. Hey, what a coincidence because WWDC in coming up. So I guess that means 10.2 will be 64bit since it is what they are showing a sneak preview of. Of course it will run on 32 bit processors as well, apple wouldn't pull an ADB/Floppy/SCSI maneuver on its only OS...would they? I think the preview at wwdc will be to show developers how easy it is to write code for macs new OS. Sooner than later this will have to be 64bit code because of motorolas roadmap. The G5 WILL be 64bit. Apple WILL put this in their computers. Maybe theyll have a PRO OS with a 64bit chip, and a OS X with 32bit chip, who knows.

[Hemingray]

Considering that they will move the G4's to powermac/g4, and the old iMac is at imac/g3, it looks like they will be keeping the old PowerMac G4's around like the CRT iMacs. Interesting! This probably means the G5's will be introduced at a higher price...

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Hemingray
Considering that they will move the G4's to powermac/g4, and the old iMac is at imac/g3, it looks like they will be keeping the old PowerMac G4's around like the CRT iMacs. Interesting! This probably means the G5's will be introduced at a higher price...

Ha, now there's a no brainer. Any new machine will be more expensive, but I think there will be a limit to how high they would actually go. It can't be too much more than the top of the line machines out there now.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by dukestreet


Ha, now there's a no brainer. Any new machine will be more expensive, but I think there will be a limit to how high they would actually go. It can't be too much more than the top of the line machines out there now.

Of course the price can be higher. The pro line is designed for pros. Most pros are considered pros because they are professionals (right?) What I read that to mean is that pros do what they do for renumeration, i.e. cash. They compute for profit. They use their 'puters to do their work.

As such, if you do, say, a small amount of work, you could probably get by with an imac or other consumer level machine. If you do a lot more work, but maybe still have a tight budget, you probably need a Powermac or Powerbook. Now, there is nothing between the Powermacs and superexpensive machines or multicomputer setups.

So, I'm certain there are businesses and professionals who would pay 1.5-4 times what a current top of the line computer costs if it was far better/faster/more productive.

We just have to remember who the target audience is. If it is me, they can't go much more expensive. If it's pros, price is a far less limiting factor.

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by dukestreet


Ha, now there's a no brainer. Any new machine will be more expensive, but I think there will be a limit to how high they would actually go. It can't be too much more than the top of the line machines out there now.

No kidding. That's my point. If it's TOO high, people won't buy them (except the people who can afford to drop $3.5K on a 23" HD display.)

[wrylachlan]

A 64-bit G5 makes no sense to me at this time and here is why:

1. What would it be used for?
64-bit does NOT speed up most computing operations. If you have 2 32-bit numbers and you wish to add, subtract, multipy, etc. them, this operation is not one bit faster on a 64-bit computer than a 32. If you are working with 64-bit numbers then yes, you do see a performance gain. But the truth is that the vast majority of applications will see no performance gain, because they have no need of that level of precision. Take photoshop for instance. I'm sure someone will come up with some operations in Photoshop that use 64-bit. But the majority will not. Why? Because the color depth you're working with is only 32-bit. So every pixel can be expressed as a 32-bit number.

What is 64-bit good for? Why do people want 64-bit chips? Databases. Very large databases get a huge boost from 64-bit. But the database market on the Mac is pretty tiny. Would Apple release a chip with a price premium just for the database market? I don't think so.

There is one thing I could see Apple going to 64-bit for, and that is film editing. Film has a much greater than 32-bit color depth. Even 64-bit is not quite up to film standard. If Apple wants to really be aggressive about going after the film editing market, it would make sense to modify the OS, FCP, and Cinema Tools so they could make use of 64-bit color depth and then go to a 64-bit chip to speed that all up. BUT...

2. How will developers write code for it?
This I think is the stronger reason not to beleive in a 64-bit G5.

In order for software to take advantage of 64-bit hardware, developers will have to re-write and re-compile their code. Depending on the 64-bit implementation it may be a total rewrite/recompile (like IA64) or a partial rewrite/recompile (x86-64).

It wouldn't make sense to not give developers a heads-up BEFORE you release a chip that requires this work. Look at both IA64 and x86-64. The specifications for both were out years before their introduction. When Motorola added the Altivec unit, Apple gave all the information necessary to develop for it to their developers well, well before the introduction of the G4 (and still there are many, many applications that are not Altivec aware).

When Apple transitioned from 68K to PPC developers knew about it years before it happened, and I'd be willing to bet that there is still a good deal of 68K code in use on Macs today.

Bottom line: When has ANY company EVER added instructions to a chip and NOT informed developers BEFORE they released the chip? NEVER!



Alright, that being said, there is a powerful argument for the Rapid-IO chip being called a G5. It will be manufactured using 5th generation lithography tools. It will run significantly faster than a G4. It will have a very advanced IO solution. And maybe I'm wrong on this one, but I thought I read somewhere that the Altivec unit will be improved in this chip, Altivec II or something...

I for one would be well pleased if they released a G5 at MWNY that was a 32-bit Rapid-IO, Altivec II running in the mid 1Ghz range.

This is not to say that I don't beleive Apple will ever release a 64-bit processor. But I can gaurantee we will know about it long before it hits the shelves.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
A 64-bit G5 makes no sense to me at this time and here is why:

1. What would it be used for?
64-bit does NOT speed up most computing operations. If you have 2 32-bit numbers and you wish to add, subtract, multipy, etc. them, this operation is not one bit faster on a 64-bit computer than a 32. If you are working with 64-bit numbers then yes, you do see a performance gain. But the truth is that the vast majority of applications will see no performance gain, because they have no need of that level of precision. Take photoshop for instance. I'm sure someone will come up with some operations in Photoshop that use 64-bit. But the majority will not. Why? Because the color depth you're working with is only 32-bit. So every pixel can be expressed as a 32-bit number.

What is 64-bit good for? Why do people want 64-bit chips? Databases. Very large databases get a huge boost from 64-bit. But the database market on the Mac is pretty tiny. Would Apple release a chip with a price premium just for the database market? I don't think so.

There is one thing I could see Apple going to 64-bit for, and that is film editing. Film has a much greater than 32-bit color depth. Even 64-bit is not quite up to film standard. If Apple wants to really be aggressive about going after the film editing market, it would make sense to modify the OS, FCP, and Cinema Tools so they could make use of 64-bit color depth and then go to a 64-bit chip to speed that all up. BUT...

2. How will developers write code for it?
This I think is the stronger reason not to beleive in a 64-bit G5.

In order for software to take advantage of 64-bit hardware, developers will have to re-write and re-compile their code. Depending on the 64-bit implementation it may be a total rewrite/recompile (like IA64) or a partial rewrite/recompile (x86-64).

It wouldn't make sense to not give developers a heads-up BEFORE you release a chip that requires this work. Look at both IA64 and x86-64. The specifications for both were out years before their introduction. When Motorola added the Altivec unit, Apple gave all the information necessary to develop for it to their developers well, well before the introduction of the G4 (and still there are many, many applications that are not Altivec aware).

When Apple transitioned from 68K to PPC developers knew about it years before it happened, and I'd be willing to bet that there is still a good deal of 68K code in use on Macs today.

Bottom line: When has ANY company EVER added instructions to a chip and NOT informed developers BEFORE they released the chip? NEVER!



Alright, that being said, there is a powerful argument for the Rapid-IO chip being called a G5. It will be manufactured using 5th generation lithography tools. It will run significantly faster than a G4. It will have a very advanced IO solution. And maybe I'm wrong on this one, but I thought I read somewhere that the Altivec unit will be improved in this chip, Altivec II or something...

I for one would be well pleased if they released a G5 at MWNY that was a 32-bit Rapid-IO, Altivec II running in the mid 1Ghz range.

This is not to say that I don't beleive Apple will ever release a 64-bit processor. But I can gaurantee we will know about it long before it hits the shelves.

I agree. I seriously doubt that a 64 bit chip would be like IA-64, because that would be as big a transition as the transition from 68k to PPC. I thing it's much more likely to be like x86-64 when it comes, and I think MWNY is going to have a 32 bit chip. A very speedy 32 bit chip though :)

[sparkleytone]

...




im tired of newbies pretending to know $h1t about computers on these forums. your statements about 64-bit processing make you look truly stupid. 64-bit processing in personal computers at an extremely low price (sub-$1000 processors) is a holy grail of computing. shut your mouths, do some research, and complain somewhere else.

vector-based and matrix math. extremely high-res video acceleration. increased thirdparty hardware capabilities. insane multitasking. enhanced compilers. severe multiprocessing. basically, windows95 and its variants are a result of the move to 32-bit processing. 32-bit still has to "fake it" in order to do high level math functions and such. OS X will be the first consumer level 64-bit OS with a consumer level 64-bit processor.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
vector-based and matrix math. extremely high-res video acceleration. increased thirdparty hardware capabilities. insane multitasking. enhanced compilers. severe multiprocessing. basically, windows95 and its variants are a result of the move to 32-bit processing. 32-bit still has to "fake it" in order to do high level math functions and such. OS X will be the first consumer level 64-bit OS with a consumer level 64-bit processor.

You know, no matter how few things a consumer might do that would require 64 bit processors, there is a lot of software those same consumers use that could benefit from the change.

I mean, if all i ever do is word processing, watching video, using the internet, etc., but the software running it, and the OS is far superior to what we have today because it makes use of a 64 bit processor, I'm all for it.

I don't have to multiply a 64 bit number by a 64 bit number to want a 64 bit processor.

Oh, and don't tell me if some bad *ss game came out that required 64 bit processors, everyone wouldn't be clamoring for the new chip.

Horsepower is a funny thing. You can't have too much.

[sparkleytone]

mcrain that was spot on. just because we consider ourselves enlightened and intelligent; that doesnt mean we have to deny that we have completely human characteristics, such as wanting bigger better faster. i have a new favorite saying i think, and its going to become my signature...stay tuned......

[pc_convert?]

hey sparkleytone chill,

The issues Cattfish_Man and wrylachlan made are vaild points.

Also would you care to elaborate on the random statements you made

vector-based and matrix math. extremely high-res video acceleration. increased thirdparty hardware capabilities. insane multitasking. enhanced compilers. severe multiprocessing. basically, windows95 and its variants are a result of the move to 32-bit processing. 32-bit still has to "fake it" in order to do high level math functions and such. OS X will be the first consumer level 64-bit OS with a consumer level 64-bit processor.

How exactly does 64-bit procesing help vector and matrix operations when they are performed in the AltiVec unit?

Please let me know how 32-bit 'fakes' high level math function, and what exactly you term 'high level math functions'.

do some research

unless Apple releases a 64bit processor before Q1'03 then OS X will not be the first consumer level 64-bit OS. Versions of both Windows and Linux are ready for the release of the AMD's X86-64 processors.

[sparkleytone]

again, be smarter with your words. Consumer Level OS. Linux is not consumer level, and 64-bit Windows is not a product that can be bought off of the shelf.

And also, while AMD's 64-bit offerings look promising, the Clawhammer isn't due for a good while. They will roll out their server offerings first, and the consumer level chips are well down the road.

[pc_convert?]

If you check AMDs roadmaps consumer Hammer based solutions are planned to ship Q1'03.

Okay Linux isn't consumer based, but WinXP-64 is ready, of course it's not on the shelves because there's no Hammer CPU's available to consumers currently.

[sparkleytone]

ahhh roadmaps...'nuff said.

getting off the point though, i'll say something that has no real base at all.

i just have this feeling that XP-64 is going to fall flat and m$ is going to scramble to revert to 32-bit. It's just a feeling. AMD and m$ are going to be at each others throats while intel kind of rides the waves. I could easily be wrong :O

[krossfyter]

why is it all of a sudden getting hot in here.

ouch. i must put my head in the freezer now before I pass out.

[PCUser]

AMD is releasing the Athlon (ie consumer) version of the Hammer line (aka 'ClawHammer') first, and the Opteron (ie server) version of the Hammer line (aka 'SledgeHammer) later. (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q2/020424/opteron-01.html) Whether or not they get it out on time is up in the air (I kind of doubt it, they're way late with the Athlon XP 2200+... announced to be available at the end of March).

How is Linux not a "consumer level" OS? Many popular distros (RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE) have a version intended for consumers. (In fact, I'm writing this post from one... Linux Mandrake 8.1 Standard Edition)

64-bit processors don't intrinsically work any faster then 32-bit processors. They just work on 64-bit words as opposed to 32-bit words. It gives you integers larger 4 billion. Say I want to multiply 3,850,345,765 by 2... with a 32-bit processor, the result would be out of range and it would return incorrect results. A 64-bit processor would perform the operation and return the correct results, because it's well within the range. However, the 64-bit processor can't perform the operation any faster by nature of being 64-bit.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
ahhh roadmaps...'nuff said.

getting off the point though, i'll say something that has no real base at all.

i just have this feeling that XP-64 is going to fall flat and m$ is going to scramble to revert to 32-bit. It's just a feeling. AMD and m$ are going to be at each others throats while intel kind of rides the waves. I could easily be wrong :O

Or more likely, the 64 bit version of Win XP will have twice as many security holes as the 32 bit version!!!

[sparkleytone]

people want to be able to install programs that they think are cute and fun. they also dont want the install to require a masters in CS. This has yet to happen for Linux, please don't even start the crap about how it has if you were thinking it. Linux is total ***** as a consumer OS, I don't care how many grandmas are fabled to be using it.

[PCUser]

Installing a program doesn't require a masters in CS. I download an RPM of a program, double-click the icon, have the RPM Manager pop up, click "Install"... and it installs. I decide I don't want the program, so I open up the RPM Manager, click on the program, and say "Remove"... and voila! it's gone. Even installing from source is easy... "make" to run the makefile, "make install" to install, and if there is an uninstall included "make uninstall" to get rid of it.

Yes, there are problems with depedencies during installs, but those can easily be worked around.

But for a consumer OS (running email, web browsing, text editing, etc), it works quite well. Yes, there are failings, and running Windows apps obviously doesn't work (wine's coming along, but it still isn't good enough, IMO).

[pc_convert?]

sparklytone said

i just have this feeling that XP-64 is going to fall flat and m$ is going to scramble to revert to 32-bit. It's just a feeling. AMD and m$ are going to be at each others throats while intel kind of rides the waves. I could easily be wrong :O

I'm pretty sure MS is working closely with AMD from what I've read, but WinXP-64 will have two versions one for x86-64 and one for the fabled intel skunkworks 64-bit extensions.

Either way I agree that XP-64 will fall flat on it's face, XP won't become a great OS just because it has 64 bit extensions.

Linux is total ***** as a consumer OS,

I think that comment was a bit dismissive. Okay linux isn't as easy to use as windows or mac OS for the average joe, but it wasn't originally intended for the average joe. If you use a recent release of any major distro the user friendliness has increased by orders of magnitude in a small amount of time, it's still not on a par with a commerically funded OS, but dismissing it a ***** is unfair to many hundreds (if not thousands) that freely give their time to try and make computers more accessible.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by mcrain


Or more likely, the 64 bit version of Win XP will have twice as many security holes as the 32 bit version!!!

Yes mcrain, I agree completely. Windows has more holes than a sieve, and any new version of windows that is more complicated than the current version is certain to be full of bugs and security problems. :o

[pc_convert?]

It's good to see you agree with yourself mcrain:D

I once had an argument with myself and I'm still not talking to myself:confused:

[macstudent]

What happens when you ask yourself a question, and you get a response?

[Catfish_Man]

...will not succeed because it's 64 bit, it will succeed because it's running on AMD Hammers. I don't care if you don't like x86 (I don't either), the Hammer is an awesome chip. Hopefully the G5 will have an on chip DDR controller like it does. To give you an idea (this is according to AMD):
the move from DDR 133MHz bus (266MHz effective speed), to DDR166 (333) on chip controller provides a 20% performance gain. With Macs (if the G5 has the same system), it'll be the move from SDR133 bus (133), to DDR166 (333) on chip controller. Imagine the performance gains from that...

[sparkleytone]

RDRAM would actually be a better choice if the g5 is going to be as highperformance as rumored. take a look at any highend p4 benchmarks with DDR v. RDRAM, and Rambus wins hands down. It's just plain faster.

[j763]

Originally posted by krossfyter
why is it all of a sudden getting hot in here.

ouch. i must put my head in the freezer now before I pass out.

Like an Intel chip?

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
...
im tired of newbies pretending to know $h1t about computers on these forums. your statements about 64-bit processing make you look truly stupid. 64-bit processing in personal computers at an extremely low price (sub-$1000 processors) is a holy grail of computing. shut your mouths, do some research, and complain somewhere else.
lets take this point by point.
1. Because my post count is low I don't know ***** about computers? This is just plain flame bait.
2. 64-bit is the holy grail of computing? Is it? Why?
3. Because I disagree with you you assume I didn't do research???
4. Complain? Where was I complaining. Exactly the opposite, I was saying how content I would be with a faster 32-bit processor. I never said I specifically wouldn't want a 64-bit processor. If Apple released one tomorrow I would be extremely happy. All I was saying was that I don't think (from my researched knowledge of what 64-bit is) that I or the vast majority of computer users would see a great performance increase just from the fact of it being 64-bit.


Originally posted by sparkleytone
...vector-based and matrix math. extremely high-res video acceleration. increased thirdparty hardware capabilities. insane multitasking. enhanced compilers. severe multiprocessing. basically, windows95 and its variants are a result of the move to 32-bit processing. 32-bit still has to "fake it" in order to do high level math functions and such. OS X will be the first consumer level 64-bit OS with a consumer level 64-bit processor.

5. Vector-based and Matrix math are already taken care of in the Altivec unit. This is very specifically what the Altivec unit is for.
6. If you had read my post, I did mention that film editing could make use of 64-bit. But high-res video would not at this time. All of the video standards DV, DVCPRO, DVCPRO-50, Digital Beta, even the High Definition standard use a color depth of 32 bits. That means each pixels color information can be fully represented by 32 bits. Any transformations that need to be done on those pixels would be 32 bit operations not 64. The only case in which 64 bit would be useful is (as I said before) for editing for film which has a much greater color depth.
7. Third Party hardware capabilities? Give me an example of a piece of hardware that requires the chip to have a certain bitness.
8. Multitasking is a function of numer of pipelines, not bitness. A 10 pipeline 32-bit processor will be a better multi-tasker than a 5 pipeline 64-bit processor any day.
9. Enhanced compilers? Huh? This is a benefit of 64-bit? 64-bitness will not enherently enhance compilers. The compilers will have to be rewritten to take advantage of the 64-bitness. And if history tells us anything about the addition of instructions to an instruction set (MMX, SSE, Altivec) it is that it takes a long time for compilers to come out that efficiently use the new instructions. So when the 64-bit chip first comes out you will have poor compilers not enhanced ones.
10. The internal bitness of a chip has nothing at all to do with its ability to work in a multi-processor set-up. The only time 64-bitness would help a multi-processor set up is in its ability to address more memory. But since multi-processor macs won't hit their addressing max on memory for years going at their current rate I don't think this is a problem.
11. 32-bit has to "fake" high end math. Whoever called Sparklytone on this (I don't remember who that was) sorry to say but he's right on this one. If you need to do a math function that requires 64-bit precision on a 32-bit processor you do have to use a work-around. I won't argue this point. However the number of times that these type of problems arise is very, very small.

I think that just about covers all of Sparklytone's points. I think I have been specific enough that I certainly don't deserve to be called a "newbies pretending to know $h1t about computers ". If you disagree please cite the specific points I was incorrect about and I'd be happy to look into them and entertain the idea that maybe I goofed. (It happens).

Oh, and one last thing. I thought that my strongest argument about why Apple would not release a 64-bit G5 at MWNY was the developer support issue. If anyone can point out the fault in that logic, I would like to hear it. I noticed that Sparklytone didn't mention that at all...

[sparkleytone]

you spelled my name wrong. ;)

going back to sleep...

[pc_convert?]

macstudent said
What happens when you ask yourself a question, and you get a response?

I can't ask myself a question directly because I'm not speaking to myself, fortunately I am schizophrenic so I get another me to ask myself a question. The other me then relays the response back to me.

Generally I don't believe the responese I get from myself since the arguement, I tend to lie to myself or do I double bluff myself???:D

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by wrylachlan

I think that just about covers all of Sparklytone's points. I think I have been specific enough that I certainly don't deserve to be called a "newbies pretending to know $h1t about computers ". If you disagree please cite the specific points I was incorrect about and I'd be happy to look into them and entertain the idea that maybe I goofed. (It happens).


at first i thought sparkley was referring to gyroscope saying:

Psssstt!

G6(previous. known as G5) + OSX 10.2 64-bit version

G5(RapidIO,DDR 1.6 Ghz,32-bit) + OX 10.2 32-bit version


Don't say I didn't tell you so


but he didn't correct you in thinking he was talking about you so i don't know..

either way, i think that the basis of "newbie" as a reason to disregard someone's information/opinion/insight is unsound. whereas clearly gyroscope said something that was not backed up and he didn't expand on it, just spit it out there, which i could see having a problem with. but to act as though that's a "newbie" thing is kinda dumb. even the oldest veterans of the forums sometimes say things like that. anyhoo

[phantommaul]

man or woman i dont know your gender but i must say you really made some analyitic thinking and found a nice evidence on our upcoming, long awaited friend G5 i just wanted to congragulate you for your nice work :)

This is a Different thinker :)
continue to do so
apple for life

[porovaara]

Originally posted by wrylachlan

10 pipeline 32-bit processor will be a better multi-tasker than a 5 pipeline 64-bit processor any day.


I am not sure this is true. If you have a longer pipeline and your chip makes a poor branch prediction you end up with much more wasted space in the pipeline. This in turn, would cause poorer multitasking performance unless you had awesome branch prediction (ala the Hammer). The longer pipeline chip is going to be fast though if it hits everything just right or the predictions are dead on.

(at least this is how I understand it)

[dongmin]

Humor me here. I'm just an average Joe Mac user who's heard all this hype about the G5.

My question is, How is the G5 really gonna help me? Will it make my 3D games run faster? Will Photoshop benefit from it? iMovie? Web surfing? Or is the G5 mainly useful for high-end scientific and database applications?

I've heard so much, yet no one's really been able to say, in concrete terms, what kind of boost it'll give to my Mac experience.

One thing I've read is that the G5 supports DDR Ram whereas the G4 doesn't. What other new technologies will the G5 incorporate to make things faster, better?

On a separate note, I don't think they're gonna introduce a bluetooth mouse unless bluetooth came standard on a system. So maybe they're introducing a new Pro tower, with bluetooth built in, to go along with the new mouse...

[j763]

man or woman i dont know your gender but i must say you really made some analyitic thinking and found a nice evidence on our upcoming, long awaited friend G5 i just wanted to congragulate you for your nice work

This is a Different thinker
continue to do so
apple for life

thanks phantommaul... :D


Humor me here. I'm just an average Joe Mac user who's heard all this hype about the G5.

My question is, How is the G5 really gonna help me? Will it make my 3D games run faster? Will Photoshop benefit from it? iMovie? Web surfing? Or is the G5 mainly useful for high-end scientific and database applications?

I've heard so much, yet no one's really been able to say, in concrete terms, what kind of boost it'll give to my Mac experience.


dongmin -- The obvious guess would be that the G5 improved performance. The entire system (OS and Apps) will benifit from this. I would imagine that the general consumer market will be fine with G4 Macs, the G5 will be for the pro market (for now anyway). We'll see the G5 PowerMac and then tibook.


On the subject of bluetooth, Apple will most likely build it into the G5 PowerMacs... They're really pushing the Blueooth Technology (WWDC Sessions etc.) which is good for all users!

Also, it is becoming increasingly likely that Apple will charge for an upgrade to 10.2 from 10.1 ... Why bother releasing 10.1.5 otherwise?? I guess we'll find out soon enough...

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by dongmin
Humor me here. I'm just an average Joe Mac user who's heard all this hype about the G5.

My question is, How is the G5 really gonna help me? Will it make my 3D games run faster? Will Photoshop benefit from it? iMovie? Web surfing? Or is the G5 mainly useful for high-end scientific and database applications?

I've heard so much, yet no one's really been able to say, in concrete terms, what kind of boost it'll give to my Mac experience.

One thing I've read is that the G5 supports DDR Ram whereas the G4 doesn't. What other new technologies will the G5 incorporate to make things faster, better?

On a separate note, I don't think they're gonna introduce a bluetooth mouse unless bluetooth came standard on a system. So maybe they're introducing a new Pro tower, with bluetooth built in, to go along with the new mouse...

Possible G5 performance boosts (+ what it effects):

1) Higher clock frequency (everything, processor heavy stuff most)
2) On chip memory controller (everything, memory heavy stuff most, multi processor systems most)
3) DDR RAM (everything, memory heavy stuff most)
4) 64 bit (mostly scientific stuff, a few other things)
5) Hypertransport (everything, not sure what most)
6) general architecture improvements (varies, probably everything)
7) RapidIO (same as mem controller [not as good for multi proc systems], mutually exclusive with it)
8) PCI-X (PCI cards)
9) ATA100 or greater (many things, hard drive heavy stuff most)
10) AGP 8x (supports faster graphics cards)
11) USB 2 (peripherals)
12) FireWire2 (peripherals)
13) Improved Altivec (Altivec optimized stuff)

note: this is ALL the reasonable G5 rumors I've heard (that I can remember). Some are almost definitely not true.

[DannyZR2]

So should I expect to see a new PowerMac G5 before or after an updated iMac G4? say 1ghz/firewire2/1284x??? monitor bitdepth/GeForce 4.

I'm selling my Pismo500/60GB/640MB/DVD/airport/warranty for $1600 so I can get a new G4 system (or better if it comes) to do video/DVD burning.

I'm wondering if I should hang around a bit to see if Apple speedbumps it's iMacG4 and to see what the new PowerMac's look like.... well, actually, I will be waiting, but I want to know what to expect first:

revised iMac or new PowerMac


REMEMBER: the original bondi blue iMac (I've got one, also for sale) was updated to a new graphics card in just 3 Months! :rolleyes:

[Nipsy]

I think that comment was a bit dismissive. Okay linux isn't as easy to use as windows or mac OS for the average joe, but it wasn't originally intended for the average joe.

And since Joe Average == "consumer", you've just proven the point you were trying to disprove.

Thanks.

[pc_convert?]

Nipsy said,

And since Joe Average == "consumer", you've just proven the point you were trying to disprove.

I said

I think that comment was a bit dismissive. Okay linux isn't as easy to use as windows or mac OS for the average joe, but it wasn't originally intended for the average joe.

Note the use of the word originally. Have you seen the modern linux distros mandrake,suse, redhat they are definately aimed at the average joe.

[mmmdreg]

Originally posted by pc_convert?

Have you seen the modern linux distros mandrake,suse, redhat they are definately aimed at the average joe.
But then you get distro's like slackware and debian which definitely aren't aimed at the average joe..

[PCUser]

So? That's saying, "The distros NOT aimed at consumers are hard for consumers, therefore, Linux is not easy for the consumer!" :rolleyes: Those distros are NOT meant for the average joe. Those are for experienced Linux users. Not all Linux distros are meant for the beginning users. Some distros are (RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE) and some distros are not (SlackWare, Debian, LFS).

(Whoever implied that all distros are aimed at consumers is incorrect. However, there are many ones that are aimed at consumers, and they do a good job of it, IMO.)

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by porovaara


I am not sure this is true. If you have a longer pipeline and your chip makes a poor branch prediction you end up with much more wasted space in the pipeline. This in turn, would cause poorer multitasking performance unless you had awesome branch prediction (ala the Hammer). The longer pipeline chip is going to be fast though if it hits everything just right or the predictions are dead on.

(at least this is how I understand it)

You are absolutely right. A longer pipeline does cause problems with branch prediction. However reread my original post. I was not talking about a 10 STAGE pipeline. I was talking about 10 discrete pipelines. Most (if not all) chips today use multiple discrete pipelines. My point was that if you want a processor to be good at multitasking it is better to spend your transistor count on more 32-bit pipelines than fewer 64-bit pipelines.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man


Possible G5 performance boosts (+ what it effects):

1) Higher clock frequency (everything, processor heavy stuff most)
2) On chip memory controller (everything, memory heavy stuff most, multi processor systems most)
3) DDR RAM (everything, memory heavy stuff most)
4) 64 bit (mostly scientific stuff, a few other things)
5) Hypertransport (everything, not sure what most)
6) general architecture improvements (varies, probably everything)
7) RapidIO (same as mem controller [not as good for multi proc systems], mutually exclusive with it)
8) PCI-X (PCI cards)
9) ATA100 or greater (many things, hard drive heavy stuff most)
10) AGP 8x (supports faster graphics cards)
11) USB 2 (peripherals)
12) FireWire2 (peripherals)
13) Improved Altivec (Altivec optimized stuff)

note: this is ALL the reasonable G5 rumors I've heard (that I can remember). Some are almost definitely not true.

All of these things would be great, and I'm not arguing that we may see these in the next Towers, but 8-12 are not actually done in the processor. The processor communicates with another bridge chip which communicates with the various periferals. And if Hypertransport is implemented in the G5 then it will be the standard the processor uses to communicate with the various other bridge chips.

I also have a question if anyone out there knows... Is rapidIO solely a memory IO subsytem, or is it similar to hypertransport and used to connect to bridge chips for PCI, etc? Maybe I need to do some more reading.

[j763]

.posting to move this up to the top of the forums so that people who haven't seen this thread can have a look. and no, i'm not that desperate for my 'tar.