PDA

View Full Version : Poll:MWSF


MacManiac1224
Nov 14, 2001, 05:27 PM
What do you guys think will come out in MWSF? My thoughts are:
--------
maybe LCD based iMac, most likely between 700mhz-1ghz
G5 based processor at speeds of 1.2ghz, 1.4ghz, and possibly 1.6ghz
Maybe another piece to the digital hub puzzle
Most likely not updates to ibook and powerbook, or very small
Maybe 19 inch flat screen display
cuts in prices for flat screen displays
possibility of new mouse or keyboard, but not likely
release of some sort of software, maybe Final Cut Pro for OS X, or small update to OS X
New G5 in servers, config of 1.2, 1.4, dp 1.4, and maybe a quad 1.2.
--------
I think that sums it up, what do you guys think?

oldMac
Nov 14, 2001, 05:33 PM
No LCD iMac.
No G5.

Speed bumps for iMacs and G4s
Lower prices
FCP for OS X

1 surprise.

jefhatfield
Nov 14, 2001, 05:33 PM
sounds like what i think too, except for the server thing and the 19" LCD monitor...but those two things would be really cool, too

sweetaction
Nov 14, 2001, 06:08 PM
yeah. no 19" they will get the cost of that 22 down eventually.

I think we'll see some burly g3s.

I doubt the G5s. They aren't far enough along yet. They will need to have those G5s be such a large step above the G4 to help push the sales. Heck, these G4s weren't as big of a jump as they should have been. They jsut look cooler.

G3 = light, new user

G4 = getting your feet wet in graphics, film, audio

G5 = professionals


I think that they will continue to trickle out little wiz-bang things for OSX as well. I wish the PIN option for the tool bar didnt need to be a hack.

SPG
Nov 14, 2001, 06:52 PM
Ahh, I sure wish Apple would get a DPG5 out soon, I need more power!!! I have a huge amount of FCP compositing in a 30sec TV spot i have to do and the renders are killing me!
I think there might be one of those Apple "Look at this! Isn't it great? You can have one in two months." announcements at this MW.
___________________
Prepared for dissapointment, but optimistic nonetheless.

SPG
Nov 14, 2001, 06:59 PM
I wonder what they're really working on right now at Apple. They were able to get the iPod out without everybody knowing exactly what it was, there were some close guesses, but none of the boards had photos of it, or knew exactly what it was capable of.
I would really like to be surprised (pleasantly) at this year's MW. Last year I was on an extended shoot in the mountains and away from real internet access so when I took a day to come out of the hills and check out MW, I was surprised by just about everything there.
_________________
Surprise me Apple, don't scare me.

Purdue CS
Nov 14, 2001, 09:37 PM
i like the idea of a G5 announcement... or at least some sort of mention of it.

moreover my crystall baller seems to note a very large jump in G4 speed. it sees the new post 1 ghz chips waiting to get into the powermacs...

i really would like apple to finally take its entire desktop lineup past that wall... whether it means anything or not. its become more of a psychological barrier than anything really significante...


heres to the one more thing we love so much


jai

jefhatfield
Nov 14, 2001, 11:25 PM
psycological sells computers when it comes to 1 GHz (unfortunately) and a lot of it is marketing...G4 or G5, we need 1 GHz because the celeron is beyond that now

...but we know a G4 533 could smoke that!

btw, congrats SPG on SM

jefhatfield
Nov 14, 2001, 11:27 PM
actually, i would even take a G4 400 over a 1 GHz celeron if i had to have just one computer

ThlayliTheFierce
Nov 15, 2001, 01:32 AM
I think that if the G5 isn't ready, we'll at least hear about it from Apple. Also, I'm hopeful for Apollo chips, at least in the power Macs. Just don't get your hopes up only to have them dashed like MWNY last July.

SPG
Nov 15, 2001, 01:47 AM
An announcement that there are G5 chips without a firm release date within 60days of MWSF would kill current sales too much. In the current climate I'm not sure Apple would do that. They'd keep their mouths shut, sell a few more G4's then announce when they could actually ship them. We'd be bummed, type a lot of irate posts, then buy them when they finally come out.

Thanks Jeff, I may not be posting in volume for long though, looks like work's about to pick up again.
¿mymemmory how do you get the ~ over the n so I can be called Sen˜or Member?˜

Buggy
Nov 15, 2001, 02:30 AM
more features for iPod...it will grow beyond a MP3/hd (but don't think PDA...think different) one of these features may be mentioned at the DV Expo by Shiller.

no G5 also no mention of G5

no LCD iMac, but an update of iMac...possibly lower prices

G4 mhz bump, super drive in all top three G4's with an entry G4 without a burner (like the current education one)

THEY BETTER HAVE FCP by this time!!

more OSX features added that should have been there on the first shipping date.

Adobe will have announcements here.

spikey
Nov 15, 2001, 10:54 AM
No LCD imac, we will see price drops in the imac before then.

No G5, just not ready yet.

Speed bumps possibly.

agreed Adobe will announce stuff.

Im wondering if there is space for apple to have three Processors? G5, G4, G3
I know intel do that with the celeron,P3,P4.

I would like apple to drop the G4 completely, but thats just my opinion.

Ensign Paris
Nov 15, 2001, 11:43 AM
In many other sites it says that JR says that the G5 is ready he just wants to test it a bit more.

G5s will be released, (But DONT quote me!)

Some change to iMac.

Thanks,
Guy

britboy
Nov 15, 2001, 05:13 PM
to get the ñ, and become Señor Miembro, (using a mac of course!) you type alt + n, n. As in, alt and n together, and then n again on its' own.

If you're using a pc (heaven forbid!), then type alt + 0, 2, 4, 1. As in, hold down alt, and punch in the sequence 0, 2, 4, 1.

Clear enough?

Enjoy!

Señor Facey

SPG
Nov 16, 2001, 11:20 AM
Gracias Britboy,
Señor Spikey, what is it about the G4 that makes you want to see it dissapear? You dont think it should be used in the new iMac?
I'm not taking any sides, I'm just curious about your opinion of the G4.
__________________
¿ñøüå鮆¥?

Ensign Paris
Nov 16, 2001, 02:13 PM
The G3 is fantastic but then again so is the G4, I have got both a G3 500 PB and a G4 667, the G3 is very fast but the G4 seems to be more efficent in Pshop, Illustrator and the net etc...

Whats is FANTASTIC is that at work I have a G4 800DP which KICKS the AMD XP1800+ Arse.

MACS RULE! COME ON G5 SHOW THEM WHAT WE ARE MADE OF!

Guy

spikey
Nov 16, 2001, 02:21 PM
Because motorolas G4 has pretty much destroyed the market gain the imac gave apple.
It got to 500Mhz and then it just stopped.
Even now it isnt scaling as well as it should.
And now that IBM are saying they can make a 1Ghz G3 i just think the G4 is pathetic in comparison.
Agreed altivec is a plus, but not being able to scale the clock speeds has put apple well behind the PC competition.
So i think its timew to cut their losses and drop the G4.

I would rather have a 1Ghz G3 in an imac rather than a G4, heat issues might be a problem. The imac is for the home user so it doesnt really need altivec.
The G3 should still be able to scale the clock speeds, it would be made by IBM so it has a lot of money put into it.

Im not sure whether it is motorola or just the design of the G4 but for some reason it still isnt moving fast enough, Apple needs to cacth up to PCs in clock speed and the speed the consumer sees. The G4 is holding apple back.

I doubt keeping the G4 would do much for apple really.
Maybe these apollos will prove me wrong.

spikey
Nov 16, 2001, 02:24 PM
Its not to do with what chip is better but what chip is going to be better for apples future. This is what apple should have thought of before they decided to go with the G4.

Onyxx
Nov 16, 2001, 10:24 PM
Current G4's just plain old stink. Sure they're fast, I'm not desputing that, but compared to the achitecture of the 7410 G4's with the full megabyte L2 cache, they are just sacrificing processor eficency to obtain higher Mhz numbers. Right now a great example of this is the new powerbook G4's the 667 Mhz G4 was beaten in 5 out of the 8 tests performed by Barefeats. The bottom line is that the G5 peaked out when the dual 533's were out. These new generation G4's are being made to run at clock speeds that don't improve them! Give me a 7410 series chip running at 800 Mhz in a dual confirguration and i'll bet that it will trounce the new dual 800. So I say drop the G4 and long live dual G5's (can anyone say semi-realtime in FCP? - i can only hope)

Robrecord
Nov 17, 2001, 12:15 AM
G5 don't think so...last time I checked it was in revision .6 or .7 as much as we want it, it'll probably be better to wait until it actually works like we want it to. LCD imacs...possibly I mean LCD prices have improved but the fact is they are still a hell of lot more expensive to make. I agree about anouncemnt stuff for OSX. All the major manufactures have been talking about if for while..when they are releasing etc. January would be a good way for them to kick off the new year.. with X versions. I think FInal Cut and DVDSP for X will be making the headlines..I hope!

Spedly
Nov 17, 2001, 08:33 AM
Unless you have hard evidence, a debate concerning future processors is pointless. Nobody on this board has a clue about Apple's future processor plans, period.

I think you can speculate on things like form factor and support hardware because Apple has a well established pattern of incremental improvement in this regard. This doesn't mean Apple has to stick to its pattern; rather, this is the only area where raw speculation has any merit.

As such, given the fact that every piece of harware Apple sells is dressed in some variation of off-white or gray, there will be a new iMac. I don't have a clue about LCD or not, but I would suggest a new form factor is coming. I hope we get all hard drives up to ATA 100, GEForce 2 in the iMac, and DDR RAM in the power pc desktop. A surprise would be DVD-R in the high-end iMac.

Just my thoughts of course. However reading the many previous posts makes me think most are taking a WAG (wild-ass guess) at processor improvements.

spikey
Nov 17, 2001, 10:37 AM
No spedly.

you are taking the processor debate out of context. This is a Rumor forum so these are all rumors and assumptions, so most of the debates are not based on hard facts but rumored facts.

As for future processor plans, well actually we do have a clue. This is the point of a rumor site spedly, it gives away clues.

If this site was based on hard facts it would be called maccentral.com. but it isnt.

the one thing i think i might agree with you on is that we must take the rumors wth a pinch of salt, we dont want a repeat of MacworldNY.

jefhatfield
Nov 17, 2001, 11:17 AM
http://www.motorola.com

...and i am not saying this sarcastically, just visit the hyperlink and be prepared to spend hours on the site

a huge, huge, site but bits and pieces of clues here

i also cruz intel, amd, and other corporate sites for clues and this has proved pretty reliable

[Edited by jefhatfield on 11-17-2001 at 12:20 PM]

joey j
Nov 17, 2001, 11:59 AM
sweetaction> I doubt the G5s. They aren't far enough along yet.

The 8500 has been taped out for months now.


> They will need to have
those G5s be such a large step above the G4 to help push the sales.

I fail to see what relevance this point has with your previous point. The
only interpretation which constructs any sort of relevance is that you are
asserting that the G5 requires more development time. This makes no sense
given that the G5 is already taped out.


> Heck,
these G4s weren't as big of a jump as they should have been.

The G5's quota of technological advancement is independent of the G4's,
unless you can enlighten me further upon this.


> They jsut
look cooler.

(*rolls eyes*) Now you're becoming really abstract. You're either jumping
from processors in the past few paragraphs to commenting on Apple's
current case design, or you're admiring the actual G4 processor's
appearance (`look cooler') as opposed to the 7xx series (how all this
relates to the G5 is beyond me.)


>G4 = getting your feet wet in graphics, film, audio

>G5 = professionals

This is precisely the sort of fragmentation Jobs reduced straight off the
bat in 97, by reducing the profusion of product lines and eventually
forming the 2 x 2 matrix with which we are all by now comfortably
acquainted.

Second, your dividing `professionals' and amateurs (to me) counts as an
unnecessary division. Precisely how would the two sets of systems differ?
Surely the role to which you have ascribed the G4 could be shoehorned in
to either the `consumer' or `professional' side of the equation.

jefhatfield
Nov 17, 2001, 12:38 PM
...but what are you talking about with the 2 times 2 matrix?

...this ain't 1997, let me explain...

the cube did not fit that, the digital hub does not fit that, and now where do you put the ipod?

the 2 times 2 matrix was great for the time when jobs needed to simplify a company bleeding to death

but now that imminent death is out of the picture, apple cannot simply have 4 products and hope that carries them through this intensely complex field of IT right in the heart of silicon valley where inoovation is a way of life

the matrix could be said to be 2 times 2, but in reality apple is expanding its horizons and needs to in this digital devices revolution because the "IBM beige desktop wintel revolution" that has 95 percent of the market right now is saturated and apple is going to be one of the early adopters of the hub and devices...they do not want to miss out on this one

[Edited by jefhatfield on 11-17-2001 at 01:41 PM]

Ensign Paris
Nov 17, 2001, 05:42 PM
Apple have got good servers (At work we have 4 G4 DP800s) but they need BETTER ones, maybe rack mount.

I think we will see 1ghz iMacs
G5 PowerMacs
G4 Cube come back
New Servers
**Possibly a new Digital Device**

What about the London Expo?? May we see things there, its only 1 week away!

Guy

SPG
Nov 17, 2001, 05:53 PM
Sorry to reply so far down the thread but I've been busy,
The one thing that I think keeps the G4 alive is the altivec. Sure the clock speeds are lower, but I can't do serious video editing on a G3 because it can't render fast enough. I think that any sort of software based DVD encoding is also going to be completely out of the question for a G3 imac, unless it's done with a new hardware encoder built in to the future ones.
I just had to make a TV commercial on my G4 that had up to nine layers of video, and the render times were not even long enough to get up and stretch.
The G4 has definitely been lacking in scalability, but at this point that may be moot if the G5 is what people are saying it wil be.
The new iMac? iDVD will probably be a part of the high end machine so that means one of two things, either a G4 or a hardware encoder.
The desktops? G5's.
iBook? who knows.
tiBook? hmmm, G5 laptop with a CDR/DVD player? probably not, but it would be nice.

spikey
Nov 18, 2001, 08:00 AM
Yeah true it would all be irrelevent if the G5 is what it is meant to be.
the interesting thing now is what will happen to the G4.
The G4 cant go in an imac because:


If you think about it an average consumer doesnt need altivec.
An average consumer looks at Ghz.
The G4 doesnt scale well.
IBM G3 looks very promising scalability wise.

At the end of the day, whether the G4 is better at graphics or not it is just not what the consumer needs or looks for.

joey j
Nov 18, 2001, 12:34 PM
spikey>The G4 cant go in an imac because:

>If you think about it an average consumer doesnt need altivec.

*ahem*

Apple is targeting data-heavy stuff like video editing (iMovie, iDVD) and
audio (e.g. mp3 rippage in iTunes) at `average consumer[s]'. Yes, these
consumers do indeed need altivec.


>An average consumer looks at Ghz.

... the average consumer is a tightass and won't pay the premium to fund
Apple's R&D of cool products anyway. So pandering to consumers by
sacrificing some important things for clockspeed is errant nonsense. It
will result in poorer performance for everyone and will make no difference
to the only lamers who give a toss about clockspeed anyway (the same
lamers who buy PCs based on how many dollars they pinch/dpi of
printer|scanner/how much (as opposed to `quality of' software is bundled
etc). A gigahertz iMac is fine at the top end, 600 mhz is fine for any
normal mortal.


>The G4 doesnt scale well.

The reports trickling in over the past few months sound okay as to the
7460's ceiling. I'd wager that moto's got it right with the 7460.


>IBM G3 looks very promising scalability wise.

so does the 7460.


>At the end of the day, whether the G4 is better at graphics or not

i'd have thought graphic performance was a video card thing. silly me.


> it is
just not what the consumer needs or looks for.

You need to think before you open your virtual mouth. Given that the G3
is very similar to the G4 (the G4 is nothing more than a G3 with Altivec
and beefier float) it's impossible to assert, as you do, that one is
indeed `what the consumer needs' and that the other isn't. And as I
pointed out above, the consumer indeed needs Altivec for Apple's media
convergence apps. So conceivably Apple could ship G3s w/Altivec, but extra
float is a bonus still (think: iPhoto, 3D gaming <-- real consumer
stuff). There's not much of a pricing delta between the two (and the delta
would be adequately compensated by the pros mentioned) so the only benefit
of G3 usage which emerges is its higher clockspeeds, only to be shot down
by the 7460's yields which are reportedly very strong at 1.33 ghz, well
beyond IBM's vaporware 750FX and with the float+altivec benefits mentioned
above.

jefhatfield
Nov 18, 2001, 09:39 PM
joey,

spikey has comments i agree and disagree with and so do you (but both of you are very knowledgeable and sound like you are techs or at least techs in training) but we need to discuss the possibilities, sometimes without "thinking" because many of the most "outrageous" suggestions and comments on macrumors since its inception have come true

ipod predictions were shot down as ridiculous as well as cube predictions here and on other sites related to mac and IT...and those naysayers who predicted "slow movement" in the G4 were ostracized but they too ended up right

when it comes to guessing what apple, ibm, or motorola will do, the newbie's guess is just as valid as the guess of the IC engineer in san jose

either way, i like the G3, G4, and the "idea" of a G5 and 1GHz on one or more of these processors is important "sales-wise"

sweetaction
Nov 18, 2001, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by joey j
sweetaction> I doubt the G5s. They aren't far enough along yet.

The 8500 has been taped out for months now.


> They will need to have
those G5s be such a large step above the G4 to help push the sales.

I fail to see what relevance this point has with your previous point. The
only interpretation which constructs any sort of relevance is that you are
asserting that the G5 requires more development time. This makes no sense
given that the G5 is already taped out.


> Heck,
these G4s weren't as big of a jump as they should have been.

The G5's quota of technological advancement is independent of the G4's,
unless you can enlighten me further upon this.


> They jsut
look cooler.

(*rolls eyes*) Now you're becoming really abstract. You're either jumping
from processors in the past few paragraphs to commenting on Apple's
current case design, or you're admiring the actual G4 processor's
appearance (`look cooler') as opposed to the 7xx series (how all this
relates to the G5 is beyond me.)


>G4 = getting your feet wet in graphics, film, audio

>G5 = professionals

This is precisely the sort of fragmentation Jobs reduced straight off the
bat in 97, by reducing the profusion of product lines and eventually
forming the 2 x 2 matrix with which we are all by now comfortably
acquainted.

Second, your dividing `professionals' and amateurs (to me) counts as an
unnecessary division. Precisely how would the two sets of systems differ?
Surely the role to which you have ascribed the G4 could be shoehorned in
to either the `consumer' or `professional' side of the equation.


Ahahaehhehe. Easy brotha. Whoever started this asked for ideas. I was rambling. Computers are not the biggest deal in the world. Heck, we may as well be talking about chicks or cars. This is all chit chat.

Buggy
Nov 19, 2001, 10:41 AM
uuuh... and the point of this post was (notice the past tense)...MWSF. Create another post for these other rants.

I hope they will have Halo ready for SF.

jefhatfield
Nov 19, 2001, 11:00 AM
lighten up, we try to post on topic but forums on the internet never stay directly on topic

...for exact topic related issues, buy scott mueller's 1500 page book, "Upgrading and Reparing PCs" and read it at least ten times (and yes, there is good stuff for mac techs...and this way, when you go to MWSF, you can cut through the ******** when non-techies state tech stats on performance!!!)

spikey
Nov 19, 2001, 11:14 AM
shut the ***** up joey.

Firstly, the consumer doesnt need altivec if it means compromising speed in non-altivec appz. In altivec enabled appz then yes its fine, but in normal appz you might aswell have a G3.
and if you put a G4 instead of a G3 you will indeed be compromising performance. Aslong as you consider that IBMs G3 is at 1Ghz and has a 400Mhz bus, and going by the record of what the latest G4s are like the 7460 will be a weak excuse for upping the clock speed.


You are right the average consumer is a tight ass, so putting a G3 in an imac will cut on costs as opposed to putting a G4 in.
aswell as the fact that the G3 if anything else will sound faster to the average consumer.


From what you "hear" of the 7460???
From what i know of the past G4s/ the current G4 design, i can tell you that the G4 does not scale well. So what the hell makes you think the 7460 will???
because its at 1.33 Ghz???
that isnt an indication of scalability joey.


you know aswell as i do i meant Graphics appz not graphics, Stop trying to act like a smug little f*ckhead.

me stop opening my virtual mouth? then you stop talking out your virtual ass, f*ckhead.

what is the relevance of the similarity of the G3 & G4 compared to what the consumer needs???
Your talking ****
It doesnt matter how similar a chip is you can still make conclusions at what each chip is good at.

And as for IBMs vapourware???
tell me the G4 has a 400mhz bus and i will accept your statement.

And after all that tell me joey, who has a better track record over recent years. IBM or motorola?

Sure apples media appz are nice with a G4, but are the majority of consumer based appz altivec friendly??? no they are not you blind *****.
Is it easy to create an altivec enabled app???
no it is not D*ckhead.

So sh*thead, go and ***** yourself over this when you read it. You will see that the majority of my statements are right, and your last post belongs in a cyber-bin.
If you dont see that then you are either stupid or blind, or probably both from what i can tell of your last post.
just be quiet.

spikey
Nov 19, 2001, 11:25 AM
Thats an interesting analysis jef.

It is true.
but alot of the wild predictions that have come true are really just pot luck guesses.
and just to go by pot luck is quite stupid.

sometimes though i think you have to accept that there are more than one way of looking at things. And the way to realsie this is to keep your own ideals whilst looking at the other opinion.
that way it is easy to analyse: why the other person thinks that way,
more interestingly it allows you to find out what the variable is in the debate ,that creates 2 opinions.

and what opinion the average person would take.




[Edited by spikey on 11-19-2001 at 12:38 PM]

jefhatfield
Nov 19, 2001, 11:25 AM
...both your idea spikey (fast regualr apps imac with 1+ GHz G3/400 MHz bus) and joey (G4 graphics apps imac) are both good ideas

...if apple had the money and time, which i don't know if they do,

then why not an entry imac at 1 GHz G3, second level imac with G4, and imac special edition with dual G4s...in the event that we don't get that LCD in MWSF

sure those numbers and ideas i post sound crazy but remember those pc guys are going to be at 2.5 GHz by january ans some speculate 3.7 GHz by the end of 2002 so my ideas are more suggestions to apple

jefhatfield
Nov 19, 2001, 11:32 AM
i know there are guesses in things like the G4 following the G3 and 600 MHz imac following the 500 MHz imac...i will accept those as pot luck guesses and i agree with you there

but how did mac sites like ours and others guess the cube? there had to be a leak on that one

and how did those same sites on the internet come up with the exact name ipod...i would have accepted imp3, ipad, and even ipda or ipalm...but ipod...it sounds like a plant to me

spikey
Nov 19, 2001, 11:37 AM
True
but then there would be trouble if one processor doesnt scale fast enough.

but it would open up more options for the imac. Which is very useful seeing as the mac market is expanding and people want moer options.

spikey
Nov 19, 2001, 11:40 AM
oh yeah without doubt there were leaks.
But its what people assume from those leaks that really sounds like pot luck guesses.

jefhatfield
Nov 19, 2001, 11:43 AM
and its those pot luck guesses that keep me coming back!

spikey
Nov 19, 2001, 11:46 AM
dont know about keeping me coming back.
but it makes me get slightly p*ssed off.

jefhatfield
Nov 19, 2001, 11:50 AM
that's the difference between you and me

i don't get pissed off now that i have this great heart medication for my old age...premature old age

and even if i desperately try to get the last word, being 6000 miles away, you always seem to have more posts than me!!!

[Edited by jefhatfield on 11-19-2001 at 12:53 PM]

spikey
Nov 19, 2001, 12:08 PM
hehe

I wont have more posts for much long

You are about to become the most prolific poster.

joey j
Nov 19, 2001, 11:35 PM
>Firstly, the consumer doesnt need altivec if it means compromising speed
in non-altivec appz.

So you'd advocate a 5% gain in performance in integer apps (say) so the
consumer has a 50% longer wait in iMovie? In any case you seem to pull
this from nowhere. Where is a G3 faster than a G4 of equal clockspeed?


> In altivec enabled appz then yes its fine, but in
normal appz you might aswell have a G3.

... so the question posed is `is there a significant enough mass of
altivec-enabled apps now/in the near future'. As I pointed out already,
yes there is.


> and if you put a G4 instead of a G3 you will indeed be compromising
performance.

Where?


> Aslong as you consider that IBMs G3 is at 1Ghz and has a 400Mhz bus, and
going by the record of what the latest G4s are like the 7460 will be a
weak excuse for upping the clock speed.

Pfffht. A 2.5x multiplier? The CPU would be the bottleneck. 266 would do
just fine.


>You are right the average consumer is a tight ass, so putting a G3 in an
imac will cut on costs as opposed to putting a G4 in.

Apple saves what, $20 bucks per unit? I've already pointed out the
benefits of stronger float and altivec. Don't tell me that's not worth the
extra ~$20.


> aswell as the fact that the G3 if anything else will sound faster to the
average consumer.

... assuming the G3 can ramp up to higher clockspeeds than the G4.


>From what you "hear" of the 7460??? From what i know of the past G4s/

Which apple no longer uses.


>the current G4 design, i can tell you that the G4 does not scale well.

... which is why Apple is looking at the 7460 for low power and high
clockspeeds.


> So what the hell makes you think the 7460 will???

... because if the 7460 _didn't_ scale upward well, Apple wouldn't be
interested in it, would they?


> because its at 1.33 Ghz??? that isnt an indication of scalability joey.

True, the _yields_ Moto is getting at 1.33 ghz is the indication of
scalability. Moto's minting 7460s now. I'd be greatly surprised if they
weren't.


>you know aswell as i do i meant Graphics appz not graphics,

1) no, i didn't.

2) graphics apps would be greatly accelerated with altivec and multiple
execution units due to the parallelism of the apps in question.


>what is the relevance of the similarity of the G3 & G4 compared to what
the consumer needs???

Your argument centers around Apple 1) saving a few bucks per unit so they
can forgo beefier float and altivec, both of which they need, as i've
pointed out repeatedly and 2) gaining higher clockspeeds which the 7460
can do anyway.


>It doesnt matter how similar a chip is you can still make conclusions at
what each chip is good at.

... the G4 is a G3 w/altivec and better float. So they're ~equal in
integer apps, the G4 wins in simd and float. (of course there's
caveats, the processor with more execution units might win parallel
computation, cache sizes, pipeline design etc.)


>And as for IBMs vapourware???

Erm, i don't see any reports of IBM minting the 750FX. Remember Moto
announced their high-clockspeed G4s long before Apple started using them.


>tell me the G4 has a 400mhz bus and i will accept your statement.

"An incarnation of the G4 architecture could conceivably run on a FSB
clocked at 400 MHz".

erm, i hate to tell you this, the `bus' is on the logic board, genius.
`400 MHz' is only one of the FSB speeds the processor can accept, and it's
probably the highest (marketeering goes here).


>And after all that tell me joey, who has a better track record over
recent years. IBM or motorola?

You're only as good as your last game so their `track records' are
irrelevant -- IBM hasn't produced any FXs for Apple and the 7460/8500
rumors are too conservative to be false, Apple wants them ASAP.


>Sure apples media appz are nice with a G4,

... and many of them are intended at consumers, so it follows that Altivec
is a desired feature.


> but are the majority of consumer based appz altivec friendly???

Should they be? iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, anything that involves the same
operation repeated ad infinitum. So Apple has an interest in SIMD units.


> no they are not you blind *****.

Pfffht, Apple NEEDS altivec in the consumer machines if their consumer
apps (theirs and third-party) _can_ be vector-optimized. As I've already
pointed out repeatedly, YES, there is plenty of scope for altivec
enhancement (re examples above).


>Is it easy to create an altivec enabled app??? no it is not D*ckhead.

Altivec enabled apps can be developed in C. Lots of developers use CW for
example, its compiler works fine w/altivec.

Or you could try a vectorizing compiler. I don't know if one exists
though.

In any case it's easier than SSE/SSE-2.


>that the majority of my statements are right,

And precisely which statements of yours would they be?

Kethoticus
Nov 20, 2001, 03:10 AM
...not what I think will be, since there is NO way to know that. (And expecting wonderful things at a MWExpo can be hazardous to one's emotional health.)

a) Redesigned iMac. Really should include a larger monitor of at least 17", LCD or CRT. It is loooooong overdue to bury this 15" crap.

b) More X-compatible apps, like FCP and Photoshop.

c) At least 7460s, if not 8500s, in all new "professional" boxes. It is time we broke the GHz clock speed barrier, whether or not it makes a significant, real-world difference.

d) DDR-RAM mobos.

e) 1394b.

f) ATA-100 in iMacs, ATA-133 in higher-end models.

g) Geforce3 standard in all higher-end Macs, Geforce2 or Radeon in iMacs.

h) Audio-in (again).

i) Minor revisions to the laptop line, including:
1- speed-bumps (yes, again);
2- better graphics acceleration options;
3- fix that keyboard problem in the iBooks;

I believe all of the above are overdue, and none should fail to make their debut this upcoming January. Of course, I felt that way about many of these things this past July, and look where that got me.

Oh... one more thing, and not from Apple: trans-500MHz G4 upgrades for older Macs. I think it is long past the time for 700 and 800MHz G4 upgrades to be made available.

Kethoticus
Nov 20, 2001, 03:24 AM
...let me commend you on your patience with Spikey. You didn't lower yourself once to respond with the same crudeness he used in his posts. I'm not sure I agree (or understand) with everything you posted, but nothing of yours that I read deserved that kind of a response.

Now if you were in here laying out flame bait because you had nothing else more interesting going on in your life, then I could understand his anger (altho a post laden with profanity is STILL the wrong way to go because it gives the flame-baiter exactly what he wants).

Let's stick to informative, constructive discussion folks. If someone's wrong or you think they are, gently state your case to them and ask them why they feel the way they do. But unless they're barbarians, no one deserves to be verbally raped.

Kethoticus
Nov 20, 2001, 03:30 AM
....let's not forget one thing: whether or not the consumer "needs" altivec to accelerate their most-used apps is irrelevant. They need it to accelerate OS X's quartz drawing engine. That OS is drenched with eye candy and needs all the help it can get to run well.

I say at least 7410s for the consumer boxes, as soon as higher-end G4s (or G5s) are available for the professional/server markets.

ThlayliTheFierce
Nov 20, 2001, 03:43 AM
Have you been reading the boards long? Spikey's just like that. You get used to it after a while. Buried under the *'s are some good points.

oldMac
Nov 20, 2001, 07:55 AM
Hi all,

I'm not sure you could run a G4 in an iMac without a fan. Does anybody know how warm the iMac case gets with a G3? Yes, I realize that more heat comes from the CRT, but the airflow is caused by the temp differential between the motherboard and the tube.

I really don't think the economy is ready for an LCD iMac. I would hope more for a 17" iMac. Or, though I doubt it would happen, a smaller, G3-based cube at $600.

joey j
Nov 20, 2001, 08:12 AM
Kethoticus>What I think SHOULD be at MWSF2002...

...not what I think will be, since there is NO way to know that. (And expecting wonderful
things at a MWExpo can be hazardous to one's emotional health.)

I know the feeling. It's part annoyance (`so when's it going to come out
then?') and part disappointment.

a) Redesigned iMac. Really should include a larger monitor of at least 17", LCD or CRT. It
is loooooong overdue to bury this 15" crap.

Agreed. 15" monitors are old hat. 17" is the new baseline.

b) More X-compatible apps, like FCP and Photoshop.

Agreed, and there will be a constant stream of these, rather than just being
announced at expos etc.

c) At least 7460s, if not 8500s, in all new "professional" boxes. It is time we broke the
GHz clock speed barrier, whether or not it makes a significant, real-world difference.

Hrmm. I wouldn't want Apple to release 1.0 - 1.13 GHz processors as it gives the
impression that Apple is only just sneaking over the line (particularly if
shipment is delayed for some reason). I'd rather see ~1.3 Ghz G4s at the top end
of the G4 line (assuming Apple doesn't release the G5 in January, which I
doubt).

d) DDR-RAM mobos.
e) 1394b.

Shoe-ins. (Shoes-in? :p)

f) ATA-100 in iMacs, ATA-133 in higher-end models.

I hardly think it makes a difference.

g) Geforce3 standard in all higher-end Macs, Geforce2 or Radeon in iMacs.

Agreed. Apple needs to shore up their video performance. Making sure the
customers have the choice between the latest ATi and nVidia offerings wouldn't
hurt.

h) Audio-in (again).

*scratch* Did apple remove 16-bit audio-in?

i) Minor revisions to the laptop line, including:
1- speed-bumps (yes, again);
2- better graphics acceleration options;
3- fix that keyboard problem in the iBooks;
I believe all of the above are overdue, and none should fail to make their debut this
upcoming January.

Agreed, waiting for well-overdue things is majorly annoying. Personally the G5
is the acid test for me. If the G5 isn't what it's shaping up to be, screw this,
I'll build a PC.



Kethoticus> Joey...

...let me commend you on your patience with Spikey. You didn't lower yourself once to
respond with the same crudeness he used in his posts. I'm not sure I agree (or understand)
with everything you posted, but nothing of yours that I read deserved that kind of a
response.

Thankyou. [ /me looks down and admires the grass on the moral high ground 8-) ]



Kethoticus> For all the G3 vs G4 talk in here... ....let's not forget one
thing: whether or not the consumer "needs" altivec to accelerate their most-used
apps is irrelevant. They need it to accelerate OS X's quartz drawing engine.

*clap* *clap*

I was going to raise precisely the same point w/Spikey, but I didn't as I wasn't
sure as to the extent of Altivec optimizations that could be made; not
everything can be optimized.



And to conclude, points I should clarify:


spikey> you know aswell as i do i meant Graphics appz not graphics,

... these go a whole lot faster thanks to Altivec.


spikey> [some G3 400 mhz bus thing]

Now how much do you think 400 MHz DDR is going to cost, hrmm? Sort of undoes the
cost benefit of the G3 don't you think?

jefhatfield
Nov 20, 2001, 09:32 AM
400 MHz bus and DDR is not as high as it once was, but if we don't get that flat pnael lcd in the imac, then apple might get that new G3 AND G4 into the imacs if we get something like a short necked CRT, which also would be cool

...i would buy one and it would fit my needs since i am not a high end graphics person or someone who absolutely has to travel on airplanes

i like the idea of a G4 in the imac even though my needs as a mac user are truly modest

spikey
Nov 20, 2001, 10:34 AM
Ketohticas or some greek cr*p like that.
I dont give a flying ***** as to what you think of my language, because as thayli pointed out i do occasionally have some good points.
Stop being such a ******** prude you d*ckhead, its conservative little f*cks like you that hold back society.

spikey
Nov 20, 2001, 10:40 AM
As far as the argument goes joey i agree on some things and not others.

The quartz drawing engine, yeah fine. but i doubt that would constitute as a huge difference in speed for the average consumer.

I think this debate will only be finished when the G3 and 7460 are launched.

Then we will see whether the average consumer appz are more effective with with the G3 or the 7460.

I believe the the G3 will be faster, and cheaper. DDR RAM wouldtn cost a hell of alot more.

spikey
Nov 20, 2001, 10:45 AM
And as for the ammount of altivec appz compared to the amount of non altivec.
I just dont think there is.

this convo can only be finished when both cpus are released. then we can see the performance difference, price difference, etc.

joey j
Nov 20, 2001, 11:15 AM
spikey> I think this debate will only be finished when the G3 and 7460 are
launched. Then we will see whether the average consumer appz are more effective
with with the G3 or the 7460. I believe the the G3 will be faster, and cheaper.

No member of the G3 has shown to be faster in floating point operations than the
G4. In integer ops the two are virtually tied. What makes you think the FX will
be different? The 7460 is nearly a 7450 anyway so I believe that a 750CX/CXe vs.
7450 comparison can be extrapolated to an FX vs. 7460 comparison. As i said,
integer performance is similar so no major win either way. The G4 has way
superior float and Altivec. They both have upwardly mobile clockspeeds and low
power consumption. On this basis I recommend the G4 for the future iMacs.


> DDR RAM wouldtn cost a hell of alot

At 400 Mhz? It doesn't exist yet. RAM fabs are hoping to ride out the slump
(like most companies ride out most slumps) on higher margin items. DDR 333 is
only just coming out of the fabs now. Forget the price, i'm wondering if apple's
going to be able to _get_ it.


> And as for the ammount of altivec appz compared to the amount of non
altivec. I just dont think there is.

Marginalizing Altivec's consumer presence isn't going to help it. The fact of
the matter is that there are many consumer uses for altivec and there are
already altivec enhanced apps. Given time there will be even more. So I fail to
see the logic in disposing of altivec so this non-existent G3 performance
advantage can be realised.


> this convo can only be finished when both cpus are released. then we can see
the performance difference, price difference, etc.

The 7460 is just a G4 and the FX is just a G3. Don't expect any major surprises.
[Has apple committed to using IBM's 750FX yet?]

spikey
Nov 20, 2001, 11:33 AM
But that is just not the point i am making.

Its not the performance gains of the G3.
Its the fact that if the 7460 is closely based on the G4 it will not scale the clock speeds well, or it will encounter a problem in its design which will prevent iot from scaling easily.
IBM puts more moeny into developing chips than motorola, so if they do come across a problem then they should be able to solve it faster.
The value for money factor is most important in an imac seeing as its a consumer machine, I dont believe a 1.3Ghz G4 will be cheap enough compared to a 1Ghz G3.
and when it comes to non altivec appz the G3 does a very decent job of things.
As for DDR, i based my assumption onm the fact that 266Mhz DDR wasnt hellishly more expensive than normal SDRAM.

spikey
Nov 20, 2001, 11:37 AM
I would recomment the G3 because i dont think a consumer needs altivec, i think a G3 is fast enough for a consumer, i think it would be cheaper, right now the imac is way overpriced so it NEEDS a cheaper chip, i think it would offer great value for money, i think the 400Mhz bus would be a great selling point, and i would rather have IBM behind apple than motorola going by the recent past.

But i do agree that the G4 would be a faster chip.

spikey
Nov 20, 2001, 11:40 AM
and the fact that while the G4 might be at 1.33 Ghz,
the G3 would have a 400Mhz bus. And the fact that bus speed is one of the biggest bottlenecks in a system would give it quite a big advantage/selling factor.

SPG
Nov 20, 2001, 12:09 PM
I'd just like to point out that with a product like the iMac the marketing comes into play pretty heavily, probably even more than performance.
Another incarnation of the imac2 as a G3 machine will have the press calling it a reskinned iMac, a G4 iMac2 will be something new all together. What Apple really needs is to breathe new life into the iMac and regain the mass market sales the original iMac saw.

Oh, and before you start saying that a 1.3ghz would be smarter marketing than a 1ghz G4 I would like to point out that Apple has always marketed capabilities over numbers. A G4 iMac2 would be capable of running FCP, iDVD, even DVD studio pro. That would sell a hell of a lot more machines than 1ghz v 1.3ghz. Remember it needs to be the center of your digital hub.

jefhatfield
Nov 20, 2001, 01:10 PM
agreed!

spikey
Nov 20, 2001, 01:31 PM
True yeah.

But there are disadvantages to marketing when it comes to putting a G4 in an imac.
The problem with the imac right now is that it needs to be reduced in price by about £200. I dont see how putting a 1.3Ghz G4 in it will do the job.
Macs need to come down in price, price is a huge selling point of PCs over macs.

SPG
Nov 20, 2001, 03:27 PM
Not everyone can drive a nice car, some have to take the bus.

Kethoticus
Nov 20, 2001, 04:00 PM
From your angry little heart you typed:

"Ketohticas or some greek cr*p like that.
I dont give a flying ***** as to what you think of my language, because as thayli pointed out i do occasionally have some good points.
Stop being such a ******** prude you d*ckhead, its conservative little f*cks like you that hold back society."

My Lord. I didn't realize that by learning to express myself in a more adult manner I was holding back the whole of society. But I guess that in order to justify your tirade, that was the best you could come up with.

But you know what Spike-aroo? I think you need a hug! Come here! That's right. Eeeeaaasssyyy boy. It's okay. That's right. Let it out. I'm here for you. I understand your pain. There's no shame in a man crying. Now wait... don't get snot on my shirt... here's a kleenex...

Now Spike, I want you to do something for me, okay? Okay?? (Spikey humbly nods.) Good. Do you see that mirror over there? I want you to look at yourself. Yes Spikey, you must look at yourself. I know it's hard, but I'm your friend, so you need to trust me, okay? Good. Now look at that mirror. What do you see? Yes... lol... you see a Spikey... that's true... but I'll tell you what else you see: you see someone who's good enough, who's smart enough... and doggonit, people like you!

Now say that over to yourself over and over again every day so that you can learn to see the beautiful person that lies beneath all that spikiness.

jefhatfield
Nov 20, 2001, 04:22 PM
do you also give full body massages to the macrumors community, too

[Edited by jefhatfield on 11-20-2001 at 05:28 PM]

SPG
Nov 20, 2001, 04:46 PM
Just say no thanks to John123/ Methodicus when he offers you the "happy ending" to the massage!

SPG
Nov 20, 2001, 04:47 PM
And Jef, I thought you were a married man!

Kethoticus
Nov 20, 2001, 04:48 PM
Jeff wrote:

"do you also give full body massages to the macrumors community, too"

I need to be slapped. Touch my monkey! LOVE HIM!! TOUCH MY MONKEEYY!!!


(Um... I hope you understand that this is not a statement of my truest desires but rather a playing with certain SNL material.)

jefhatfield
Nov 20, 2001, 08:59 PM
WE MUST REALLY ALL BE FRIENDS NOW


WHAT IS A MONKEY?

Kethoticus
Nov 20, 2001, 10:22 PM
"WE MUST REALLY ALL BE FRIENDS NOW"

Special friends. Very special friends.


WHAT IS A MONKEY?"

heh heh... you child

SPG
Nov 20, 2001, 11:13 PM
Didn't you just tell him to "Never Assume"? If we are not to make any assumptions then Jef's question is legitimate, and I still believe that you are a reincarnation of a previous or current poster.
__________________
Assume everything unless proven otherwise.

joey j
Nov 21, 2001, 01:13 AM
spikey> But that is just not the point i am making. Its not the performance
gains of the G3.

Hrmm, well, that's good, considering there _are_ no performance gains to be had
from the G3.


> Its the fact that if the 7460 is closely based on the G4 it will not scale
the clock speeds well, or it will encounter a problem in its design which will
prevent iot from scaling easily.

You're making two points out of one. Anyway the 74xx series only needs to scale
to (max) ~2 GHz, by then Apple can switch the iMacs to the G5 while the G6 hits
the market.


> IBM puts more moeny into developing chips than motorola,

... they put more money into developing POWER. Their PPC commitment is way
behind Moto's.


> so if they do come across a problem then they should be able to solve it
faster.

... so given that the G4 is the problem-ridden architecture, just let IBM fab it
while Apple solves the problems. Moto's G4 design isn't hampered by their
engineers, it's their fabs, the G4 is a horrendously complex processor as it
would appear.


> The value for money factor is most important in an imac seeing as its a consumer machine,
> I dont believe a 1.3Ghz G4 will be cheap enough compared to a 1Ghz G3.

Go to http://www.mot-sps.com and actually CHECK OUT the volume pricing (i remember
seeing it here, it was buried way in the site somewhere). There's hardly
anything to save, unless you want to sacrifice 40%+ of your float performance to
save ~$20-30 max.


> and when it comes to non altivec appz the G3 does a very decent job of things.

... only in integer. In float it gets thrashed by the G4. And as i've repeatedly
justified, the consumer needs altivec.


> I would recomment the G3 because i dont think a consumer needs altivec,


How many times do I need to justify Altivec's benefit to the consumer?


> i think a G3 is fast enough for a consumer,

It needs altivec and better float --> G4.


> i think it would be cheaper,

Apple would hardly save anything. Apple has a ~30% gross profit margin on Macs
(this is why they're so expensive). Apple needs to fund R&D.

> right now the imac is way overpriced so it NEEDS a cheaper chip,

Once again, Apple would only save a few bucks while reducing performance
drastically.


> i think it would offer great value for money, i

> think the 400Mhz bus would be a great selling point,

Not really. How many of these `average consumers' you speak of know what a FSB
is? Do any whitebox stores you know of or brand-name vendors push the 400 mhz
FSB of the P4s they produce?


> and i would rather have IBM behind apple than motorola going by the recent past.

Apple needs to design the PPC by itself. Optimally they should buy the IP from
Moto and spin it off into a joint venture with IBM (IBM could contribute their
POWER IP and engineers).


> and the fact that while the G4 might be at 1.33 Ghz, the G3 would have a 400Mhz bus.

... if it's such a big deal, then Apple would use a 400 mhz fsb on the G4s. Bus
multipliers don't hamper performance until we get past 6x or so.


> And the fact that bus speed is one of the biggest
bottlenecks in a system would give it quite a big advantage/selling factor.

All you're suggesting is that Apple shuffle the bottleneck somewhere else.


> True yeah.
But there are disadvantages to marketing when it comes to putting a G4 in an imac.
The problem with the imac right now is that it needs to be reduced in price by about £200.
I dont see how putting a 1.3Ghz G4 in it will do the job.

You think that putting a G3 rather than a G4 would save 200 quid? Try 20 max.


> Macs need to come down in price, price is a huge selling point of PCs over macs.

Apple sells their machines on capability. A person who cares more about price
doesn't care about the capabilities of their box, they already know what they
want to run on it. Telling them what they _can_ do on an imac won't change them.

jefhatfield
Nov 21, 2001, 02:58 AM
i am with you, let's get that G4 imac out

and i am not a child, but what is a monkey...i promise i won't get offended

and i passed spikey up with this post asking about monkeys?

Kethoticus
Nov 21, 2001, 04:16 AM
a) I'm not a revirtualization of any previous poster. This is my first foray into these particular fora.

b) "Monkey" is colloquial for penis. It comes from a Saturday Night Live character invented by Michael Myer called "Dieter". He's an ultra-queer, new wave German guy into all sorts of bizarre stuff. Seems to enjoy both the giving and receiving of pain, among other things.

c) I don't really believe you (Jef) are a child. All part of the joke.

d) I love you guys.

spikey
Nov 21, 2001, 05:22 AM
"spikey> But that is just not the point i am making. Its not the performance
gains of the G3.

Hrmm, well, that's good, considering there _are_ no performance gains to be had
from the G3. "

irrelevant to the point i was making. Irrelevant to the point you were making. thats a bo***cks reply that says nothing.



"> Its the fact that if the 7460 is closely based on the G4 it will not scale
the clock speeds well, or it will encounter a problem in its design which will
prevent iot from scaling easily.

You're making two points out of one. Anyway the 74xx series only needs to scale
to (max) ~2 GHz, by then Apple can switch the iMacs to the G5 while the G6 hits
the market. "

I wasnt making two points out of one, i was making two points using the same subject.
Scale to a max of 2Ghz???
Going by the performance of the 7450 you expect it to scale from 1.33 Ghz to 2Ghz???
I assume you are going by past record because there is nothing else to go by.
You didnt reply with a an argument at all to my comment on scaling clock speeds.



"> IBM puts more moeny into developing chips than motorola,

... they put more money into developing POWER. Their PPC commitment is way
behind Moto's. "

What??? this is madness. They put more money and commitment into developing cpus than any other company, its a fact.
What made you think IBM got apple out of the 500Mhz dead end that motorola got them into?



"> so if they do come across a problem then they should be able to solve it
faster.

... so given that the G4 is the problem-ridden architecture, just let IBM fab it
while Apple solves the problems. Moto's G4 design isn't hampered by their
engineers, it's their fabs, the G4 is a horrendously complex processor as it
would appear. "

firstly you think that IBM would want to do that?
they are a huge company that puts mega amounts of money into developing CPUs, so you think they will let Motorola design a cpu that IBM are expected to build?
Secondly it is the over complex design of the G4 that hampers its performance, if you look at its design you will see alot of the problems encountered have been due to altivec. Hence why it doesnt matter who fabs it, if the design in the first place is troubled then you will always encounter problems.
and no-one said that the G4 is a problem ridden architecture, you cant just assume that. You can only tell its problem ridden until you try to improve it.




"> I would recomment the G3 because i dont think a consumer needs altivec,


How many times do I need to justify Altivec's benefit to the consumer? "

Well how many to you ********** think?
this is a debate, in a debate you try to p[rove yor points. you have not proven them, you have only stated your opinion, which conflicts with mine.




"> i think it would offer great value for money, i

> think the 400Mhz bus would be a great selling point, "

Not really. How many of these `average consumers' you speak of know what a FSB
is? Do any whitebox stores you know of or brand-name vendors push the 400 mhz
FSB of the P4s they produce? "

None, the sellers of P4 machines concentrate on Clock speed of the cpu, if they advertised the bus speed it would only confuse the consumer and it would detract from the appeal of high clock speed.
On a mac though it would not detract, it would be a bragging point.




"> and i would rather have IBM behind apple than motorola going by the recent past.

Apple needs to design the PPC by itself. Optimally they should buy the IP from
Moto and spin it off into a joint venture with IBM (IBM could contribute their
POWER IP and engineers). "

But the fact is no-one knows if this is going to happen, so right now its all make believe. The best option would be that, but of the options available rioght now IBM is the way to go as i have stated.



"> and the fact that while the G4 might be at 1.33 Ghz, the G3 would have a 400Mhz bus.

... if it's such a big deal, then Apple would use a 400 mhz fsb on the G4s. Bus
multipliers don't hamper performance until we get past 6x or so. "

you think IBM would let out a technology like that on a motorola product???
Madness, it aint gonna happen.



"> And the fact that bus speed is one of the biggest
bottlenecks in a system would give it quite a big advantage/selling factor.

All you're suggesting is that Apple shuffle the bottleneck somewhere else. "

What the hell???
he bottleneck isnt a constant throughout the system.
There are several of them, getting rid of one of the biggest would increase performance alot.




"> Macs need to come down in price, price is a huge selling point of PCs over macs.

Apple sells their machines on capability. A person who cares more about price
doesn't care about the capabilities of their box, they already know what they
want to run on it. Telling them what they _can_ do on an imac won't change them."

wrong. The biggest and best way to tap into the Pc market is to give valuye for money. That is the while point of capability of a machine, you get more capability for less price. Hence why value for money is the way to tap into the PC market.



One of the most important facts about this debate is not what a cpu can do, but what future it has. about 2 years ago apple went with the G4. And it was a great processor of its time, one of the best if not the best. But it had no future and ultimately has put apple in the ******.
The mistake they made then is not looking at the long term effects. If they go with a motorola design again which is based on the original G4 then they are asking for the same kind of trouble. If they go with IBM then they are going with a design that could kill many PCs, but more importantly will give apple a future.

IBM put money into developing for the future, motorola have not and do not. infact they havent commited to the powerpc nearly as much as IBM have offered to.

Oh, and this 750FX is meant to have altivec like accelaration. so it ouwldnt be that far off the new G4. Or not nearly as much as the current 750cx is.

britboy
Nov 21, 2001, 07:00 AM
Spikey, that has just got to be the most articulate you have been in a long while...

britboy
Nov 21, 2001, 07:01 AM
by my count there are only 3 * words in there! That must be a now low for you

spikey
Nov 21, 2001, 09:16 AM
har........har, watch me laugh.

spikey
Nov 21, 2001, 09:21 AM
yeah i apologise for the lack of swearing but my heart just isnt in this subject.

searing doesnt affect the amount of content in my posts.


I swear when i get p***ed off.

Right wing people p**s me off
People who want combo drives in their laptops p***s me off.
Ignorant people p***s me off.
Snobs p***s me off.

but thats enough of a go at john. ;)




[Edited by spikey on 11-21-2001 at 10:24 AM]

jefhatfield
Nov 21, 2001, 10:58 AM
wow, right wingers, snobs, and ignorant people piss me off too!

but a combo drive in a laptop is cool, so cool, kind of like being a man and being able to relieve oneself on the underground platform when no one is watching as opposed to being the opposite sex who have to either find a proper wc or a thick grove of trees

joey j
Nov 21, 2001, 11:35 AM
spikey>>> But that is just not the point i am making. Its not the
performance gains of the G3.

>>Hrmm, well, that's good, considering there _are_ no performance gains to
be had from the G3. "

>irrelevant to the point i was making. Irrelevant to the point you were
making. thats a bo***cks reply that says nothing.

On the contrary, your initial statement ("it's not the performance gains
of the G3") presupposes that there are some sort of performance gains to
the G3, which there aren't.



>>> Its the fact that if the 7460 is closely based on the G4 it will not
scale the clock speeds well, or it will encounter a problem in its design
which will prevent iot from scaling easily.

>>You're making two points out of one. Anyway the 74xx series only needs
to scale to (max) ~2 GHz, by then Apple can switch the iMacs to the G5
while the G6 hits the market.

>I wasnt making two points out of one, i was making two points using the
same subject.


1) "if the 7460 is ... based on the G4 it will not scale ... well"

2) "or it will encounter a problem ... which will prevent it from scaling
easily."


The first statement is (1) "the 7460 won't scale if it's a G4". The second
statement is (2) "it might run into a problem preventing it from scaling".
Now what could possibly cause "the 7460" to not "scale" (statement (1))?
Little gremlins called "problems preventing it from scaling" (statement (2)).
Hence the two points are the same; your first point implies the second.



>Scale to a max of 2Ghz???

It shouldn't need to go past that; Apple should be preparing to shift the
G5 into the low-end by then and have the G6 taped out and in final testing
revisions, ready for a pro launch.


>Going by the performance of the 7450

The performance of a processor does not necessarily reflect upon its
scalability in clockspeed. In fact, it usually doesn't.


> you expect it to scale from 1.33 Ghz to 2Ghz???

Apple would want to shift the consumer lines to the G4 for reasons I have
already outlined. It thus follows that Apple want high clockspeed G4s;
hence Apple will be in pursuit of processors of a 74xx design which can be
scaled upward to high frequencies.


>I assume you are going by past record because there is nothing else to
go by.

(past record of what?) On the contrary I am basing my conclusions on the
premises outlined above.


>You didnt reply with a an argument at all to my comment on scaling clock
speeds.

There isn't an argument to reply to apart from the largely vacuous "the
7460 won't scale".


>>> IBM puts more moeny into developing chips than motorola,

>>... they put more money into developing POWER. Their PPC commitment is
way behind Moto's. "

>What??? this is madness.

Have you ever seen an IBM product which uses G3s? Does IBM develop the
G4 architecture? Are they actively developing the G5?


> They put more money and commitment into developing cpus than any other
company, its a fact.

More than Intel?


>What made you think IBM got apple out of the 500Mhz dead end that
motorola got them into?

IBM's fabs, which required no further capital input ("IBM puts more
[money]") to fab the 7410s (as motorola had already designed the 7410,
and hence IBM's labs did not have to make any input which would require
IBM's capital).

IOW IBM's money-pouring into CPU development ("They put more money and
commitment") was NOT what supplemented Apple's G4 supply, rather, it was
IBM's fabrication plants, which are technologically ahead of Motorola's.


>>> so if they do come across a problem then they should be able to solve
it faster.

>>... so given that the G4 is the problem-ridden architecture, just let
IBM fab it while Apple solves the problems. Moto's G4 design isn't
hampered by their engineers, it's their fabs, the G4 is a horrendously
complex processor as it would appear. "

>firstly you think that IBM would want to do that?

For the right price.


>they are a huge company that puts mega amounts of money into developing
CPUs, so you think they will let Motorola design a cpu that IBM are
expected to build?

If there's money in it. See above.


> Secondly it is the over complex design of the G4 that hampers its performance,

You need to look at Moto's estimated SPEC95 numbers. Try
http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PPCCPUSUMM.pdf

The G4's performance is not hampered compared to the G3s, as the estimated
SPEC scores will demonstrate.


> if you look at its design you will see alot of the problems encountered
have been due to altivec.

Which problems would they be and why would they be due to Altivec?


> Hence why it doesnt matter who fabs it, if the design in the first place
is troubled then you will always encounter problems. and no-one said that
the G4 is a problem ridden architecture, you cant just assume that. You
can only tell its problem ridden until you try to improve it.

Hence one redesigns it a la 7460.


>>> I would recomment the G3 because i dont think a consumer needs
altivec,

>>How many times do I need to justify Altivec's benefit to the consumer?

>Well how many to you ********** think? this is a debate, in a debate you
try to prove yor points. you have not proven them,

On the contrary I have already justified Altivec's contribution and
possible future contribution to the consumer uses of the Mac.


> you have only stated your opinion, which conflicts with mine.

I've already given factors which correlate my opinion (`apple should
pursue a G4 imac as the g4 has altivec acceleration and stronger float
performance which will greatly benefit apps such as itunes et al'). Hence
my opinion is valid.



>>> i think it would offer great value for money, i think the 400Mhz bus
would be a great selling point,

>>Not really. How many of these `average consumers' you speak of know what
a FSB is? Do any whitebox stores you know of or brand-name vendors push
the 400 mhz FSB of the P4s they produce? "

>None, the sellers of P4 machines concentrate on Clock speed of the cpu,
if they advertised the bus speed it would only confuse the consumer

So you assert that "[advertising] the bus speed [of a P4] ... would only
confuse the consumer".


> and it would detract from the appeal of high clock speed.

I hardly see how or why, even if it did, lower multipliers aid performance.


>On a mac though it would not detract, it would be a bragging point.

So fresh from asserting that "[advertising] the bus speed [of a P4] ...
would only confuse the consumer", you assert that pushing the Mac's FSB
speed "would be a bragging point." Precisely how is advertising of FSB
speed going to aid the Mac and detract from PCs as far as advertising
value is concerned?


>>> and i would rather have IBM behind apple than motorola going by the
recent past.

>>Apple needs to design the PPC by itself. Optimally they should buy the
IP from Moto and spin it off into a joint venture with IBM (IBM could
contribute their POWER IP and engineers). "

>But the fact is no-one knows if this is going to happen, so right now its
all make believe. The best option would be that, but of the options
available rioght now IBM is the way to go as i have stated.

Apple could always contract someone else to fabricate the various G4
designs for them. You presuppose that the G4 is flawed such that no
company can replicate it en masse. On the contrary IBM reportedly had
great success with the 7410 at high clockspeeds whereas Motorola didn't.
This suggests to me that quality of facilities, rather than architectural
design, is at fault. Hence get a better fab onto the job when it comes to
G4s.


>>> and the fact that while the G4 might be at 1.33 Ghz, the G3 would have
a 400Mhz bus.

>>... if it's such a big deal, then Apple would use a 400 mhz fsb on the
G4s. Bus multipliers don't hamper performance until we get past 6x or so.

>you think IBM would let out a technology like that

What technology would this be?


>on a motorola product??? Madness, it aint gonna happen.

And precisely what technology will IBM stand in the way of? I can't see
anything in the above which IBM has an interest against.


>>> And the fact that bus speed is one of the biggest
bottlenecks in a system would give it quite a big advantage/selling factor.

>>All you're suggesting is that Apple shuffle the bottleneck somewhere
else.

>What the hell??? The bottleneck isnt a constant throughout the system.

I didn't say bottlenecks were constant; I suggested that bottlenecks would
be present, but moving the bottleneck somewhere else isn't going to solve
speed problems.


>There are several of them, getting rid of one of the biggest would
increase performance alot.

You presuppose that the FSB is the greatest bottleneck.


>>> Macs need to come down in price, price is a huge selling point of PCs
over macs.

>>Apple sells their machines on capability. A person who cares more about
price doesn't care about the capabilities of their box, they already know
what they want to run on it. Telling them what they _can_ do on an imac
won't change them.

>wrong. The biggest and best way to tap into the Pc market is to give
valuye for money.

... and one of the best ways to do that is to bundle and develop cool
software, funded by sales of hardware. How is that `wrong'?


> That is the while point of capability of a machine, you get more
capability for less price.

The reason why PCs are so cheap is because a breakdown of the typical
price tag looks much like:

tangibles (parts, windows licence) + labour + skinny margin

Apple's equation looks more like:

tangibles (parts) + labour + bigger margin

The bigger margin supports R&D of the OS (presumably much more than the $x
OEMs pay for a 9x/XP licence) and other software. Also, Apple develop a
lot of their own chipsets and ICs (re their purchase of raycer graphics)
and contribute to the PPC (more in the recent past). Hence Apple's
products have a higher price tag. Critically though, it can't be lowered.
Apple _needs_ the 30% gross margin to fund R&D. Particularly, with the OS,
Apple doesn't have economies of scale working in its favour. Apple and MS
both develop full-featured consumer OSes and hence spend (at least
roughly) similar amounts on them. MS can spread the cost over 95% of the
PC market; Apple has only 5%.


> Hence why value for money is the way to tap into the PC market.

If Apple could reduce the price of Macs further they would. If they
haven't, it's for a reason (outlined above).


>One of the most important facts about this debate is not what a cpu can
do, but what future it has.

True, there's no point using a high performance architecture only to bang
one's head into the wall eventually.


> about 2 years ago apple went with the G4. And it was a great processor
of its time, one of the best if not the best. But it had no future and
ultimately has put apple in the ******. The mistake they made then is not
looking at the long term effects. If they go with a motorola design again
which is based on the original G4 then they are asking for the same kind
of trouble.

I can't see your point. Perhaps IBM should mint G4s for Apple?


> If they go with IBM then they are going with a design that could kill
many PCs, but more importantly will give apple a future.

Using a processor that debuted before 98 is hardly going to `give apple a
future'.


>IBM put money into developing for the future, motorola have not and do
not. infact they havent commited to the powerpc nearly as much as IBM
have offered to.

Since when has IBM committed to the PPC?


>Oh, and this 750FX is meant to have altivec like accelaration.

Perhaps. IBM licenced Altivec a while ago and are rumored to be in
negotiations to purchase it.


> so it ouwldnt be that far off the new G4. Or not nearly as much as the
current 750cx is.

Apple could conceivably settle for that, but as the G3 still needs better
floating point performance the G3s would need one or both of 1) higher
clockspeeds or 2) stronger float (perhaps the FX is a serious redesign of
the G3).

akuma
Nov 21, 2001, 12:42 PM
Thats quite a long post.

spikey
Nov 22, 2001, 10:44 AM
I know jef, it was really just a go at john123.

spikey
Nov 22, 2001, 11:02 AM
I dont have time to defend the top part of the post joey, because you split up parts of my post and subsequently took them out of context.




">>... they put more money into developing POWER. Their PPC commitment is
way behind Moto's. "

>What??? this is madness.

Have you ever seen an IBM product which uses G3s? Does IBM develop the
G4 architecture? Are they actively developing the G5?"

No, that is down to apple choosing whether to go with motorola or IBM, and a hell of alot of paperwork which stops them from changing ship.
no IBM product uses the G3s, it is irrelevent, the imac uses IBMs G3.
No they arent actively developing the G5, they arent allowed to, apple chose motorola to do it. But IBM invested a hell of alot into their design of the G5, apparently apple chose motorolas because of altivec..... or so i hear.
IBM got the G4 out of the 500Mhz dead end. Since then they have not been assigned to make the G4.

IBMs commitment is undoubtedly bigger than motorolas, they put more money into it. They have developed several new fabrication technologies, etc.



It doesnt matter when the G3 debut was, the point is it can apparently scale up quite high. therefore having a good future. And the fact it still has good performance per clock.

Hmmm im not sure about licensing altivec, but i think they have another SIMD engine like it. i read somehting about another SIMD engine on an IBM site. And that would also be my guess.


i want the G3 in an imac still, but i think this thread is getting irrelevant.
My guess is the G3fx will stay in laptops, but the G4 7460 will move into an imac.

joey j
Nov 22, 2001, 12:26 PM
spikey>I dont have time to defend the top part of the post joey, because
you split up parts of my post and subsequently took them out of context.

One thing I learned on usenet was when one poster claims that another is
taking their post out of context, they're usually ********ting. Since you
appear not to have time to spare, give me just one or two examples of
passages which I took out of context. Apologies if I did; nuance is indeed
handled better verbally.


>>Have you ever seen an IBM product which uses G3s? Does IBM develop the
G4 architecture? Are they actively developing the G5?"

>No, that is down to apple choosing whether to go with motorola or IBM,
and a hell of alot of paperwork which stops them from changing ship. no
IBM product uses the G3s, it is irrelevent, the imac uses IBMs G3.

Aha. So what's IBM's motive to develop the G3 if they never planned to use
it? If they planned to use the G3 arch they would have by now... it has
been around for some time now. They can't be developing the G3 purely for
Apple, and so I doubt IBM's PPC commitment (for now, a joint venture
w/apple would produce results IMHO).


> No they arent actively developing the G5, they arent allowed to, apple
chose motorola to do it.

So you assert that Apple's anointing of Motorola as the official G5 go-to
company prevented IBM from "actively developing the G5". Why? Surely it's
IBM's business whether or not they develop the G5? Your statement above
implies that IBM wasn't "allowed to" develop the G5 due to Apple choosing
Motorola (which doesn't at all imply that IBM _can't_ develop the G5).


> But IBM invested a hell of alot into their design of the G5, apparently
apple chose motorolas because of altivec..... or so i hear.

So Apple could always switch to their design, although I know of no G5
commitment by IBM. However it shares technologies with IBM's POWER4
(emphasis on parallelism, multicoring).


> IBM got the G4 out of the 500Mhz dead end.

I have already pointed out that IBM's R&D was not at all necessary for
this to happen; there was no intrinsic benefit of "IBM" that made this
happen, apart from the completely separate matter of their fabs'
technological advancement.


> Since then they have not been assigned to make the G4.

IBMs commitment is undoubtedly bigger than motorolas, they put more money
into it. They have developed several new fabrication technologies, etc.

Motorola develops new fabrication technologies, the G5 will be fabricated
on their HiP 7.0 [i think that's the correct capitalisation... but don't
ask me what it stands for :p] process, apparently, and they are developing
8.0 according to MOSR.


>It doesnt matter when the G3 debut was, the point is it can apparently
scale up quite high. therefore having a good future. And the fact it still
has good performance per clock.

Cut to me-justifying-G4. Altivec, float, etc...


>Hmmm im not sure about licensing altivec,

I recall reading it in two places, not a big deal was made of it. ~end of
1999 IIRC.


> but i think they have another SIMD engine like it. i read somehting
about another SIMD engine on an IBM site. And that would also be my guess.

If IBM did licence Altivec, the terms of the agreement could be quite
lenient given that IBM and Moto are technology partners. Despite the
demise of the AIM alliance, IBM's Altivec licence could be slack enough to
allow them to develop derivatives. This allows IBM to get at a SIMD unit
without having to develop one, and then shelve their work should they
purchase Altivec from Motorola. I believe this arrangement is plausible as
it compenses Motorola for their research while allowing IBM access to a
SIMD architecture -- all the while futureproofing IBM, if an altivec sale
is anticipated -- if IBM is allowed under the terms of the contract to
actually research and develop a derivative (rather than just use AV in
their processors and G4s they fab for Apple), it saves IBM from the
scenario where they research their own, incompatible, SIMD ISA in parallel
with an AV licence (for fabbing apple's G4s/for future POWERs) only to
shelve the work should IBM buy Altivec. Also it saves possible
incompatibilities -- if IBM implemented a custom SIMD unit in a future
POWER, and they bought altivec, it would cause obvious problems and
porting pains (ISA transitions are always a PITA).

Notice that Apple named Altivec `Velocity Engine'. They abstracted it with
an Apple-specific name. This may be for the reason that should IBM
develop an AV-compatible derivative and should Apple use it, Apple can
pass it off as the Velocity Engine with no further comment -- the critical
issue here being that Motorola would not assent to IBM's derivative being
given the Altivec name (and hence Apple would not be able to advertise
`Altivec' in ads for IBM-minted G4s. Just a thought.


>i want the G3 in an imac still,

Haven't I made the G4's advantages clear enough?


> but i think this thread is getting irrelevant.

Ah, how convenient -- we'll claim that the thread has moved into
irrelevance, another usenet parry.


> My guess is the G3fx will stay in laptops,

Maybe. Apple's been slow to bump up ibook specs imho.


> but the G4 7460 will move into an imac.

About time. thank God for that.

spikey
Nov 22, 2001, 04:04 PM
Irrelevent thread convenient??? no, just the truth.

Instead of debating the core issues which would put one cpu ahead of another we are debating subjects like whether i make 2 points out of one or not.

">Scale to a max of 2Ghz???

It shouldn't need to go past that; Apple should be preparing to shift the
G5 into the low-end by then and have the G6 taped out and in final testing
revisions, ready for a pro launch. "

read the rest of what i wrote after/before it and you will see the point i am making, it isnt the point you thought i was. you took it out of context, appology accepted in advance.


Ok, these posts are irrelevent.
The core issues we have to sum up are:

value for money.
performance for consumer.
Bottlenecks.
marketability.
future scalability.

value for money, if the G3 does have altivec like ability and it closes the gap and it has a bus speed advantage, in comparison to G4s clock speed advantage and altivec. in my opinion its equal.

Performance for consumer, G4 wins.

Bottlenecks, G3 has less of a bus bottleneck. Bottlenecks arent a constant, you do not move a bottleneck round a system, by improving the speed at where the bottleneck is the you cancel out the bottleneck so there is no bottleneck hence improving performance. G3 wins.

Marketability, both over a1Ghz. Its whether you want a 400Mhz bus with altivec like acceleration or altivec and 1.33ghz. personally i prefer the sound of a 400Mhz bus.

Future. The most important part. Going by recent past then motorola is likey to make a balls up of something. IBM is mega rich, wants to be a bigger part of powerpc plans seeing as it has made models for each of the upcoming powerpcs.
The G4 looks scalable, but so did the 7450.
G3 looks scalable, IBM hasnt made a balls up so far.
In my opinion the G3 wins that.

spikey
Nov 22, 2001, 04:07 PM
and i cant highlight enough how important the "future" category is. It is what apple have overlooked before now, they have paid the price.
Must not let the stuck at 500Mhz fiasco come up again.

joey j
Nov 23, 2001, 02:29 AM
>The core issues we have to sum up are:

>value for money.
>performance for consumer.
>Bottlenecks.
>marketability.
>future scalability.

>value for money, if the G3 does have altivec like ability and it closes
the gap and it has a bus speed advantage, in comparison to G4s clock speed
advantage and altivec. in my opinion its equal.

The G4's cost in volume is not much higher than the G3's. One pays _once_
for the processor, but its performance and SIMD units (or lack thereof)
are with it forever [spare a few extra bucks for ~50% better float?];
surely the G4 wins [50% higher float for a few extra bucks?]


>Performance for consumer, G4 wins.

No argument there.


>Bottlenecks, G3 has less of a bus bottleneck.

You are clearly basing your conclusion on the purported 400 mhz FSB of the
FX. If apple is planning for ~1.2ghz+ G4s they'll probably be planning
sufficiently fast FSBs. This 400 mhz FSB is probably a maximum anyway.
Would apple go from 100 mhz (i think) to 400?

Expect DDR ~266 in the pro G4 lines; SDR 133 in the imacs.


>Bottlenecks arent a constant, you do not move a bottleneck round a
system, by improving the speed at where the bottleneck is the you cancel
out the bottleneck

True...


>so there is no bottleneck

It eliminates that one bottleneck in question, but what happens is that
one winds up having a smaller bottleneck somewhere else. This is what
drives innovation -- companies are always fixing the next bottleneck...


> hence improving performance. G3 wins.

Assuming Apple uses this mythical [as I demonstrate below] 400 mhz bus,
which they will not. If you're expecting to see 400 mhz [FSB] imacs next
year, you will be sorely disappointed.


>Marketability, both over a1Ghz.

In IBM's release (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2001/1017_750fx.html),
it clearly (as in, at the top) says "operating at speeds up to one
gigahertz". Not "over ... [1 GHz]" as you would assert. This may very well
even be the upper limit of the processor.


> Its whether you want a 400Mhz`bus

Apple is not going to ship a G3 with a 400 mhz FSB any time soon. I don't
know why you keep thinking this, particularly as the IBM release
asserts that "the chip supports bus frequencies of up to 200MHz", which
is only HALF of this 400 mhz which you continually assert.


> with altivec like acceleration or altivec and 1.33ghz.

... the 7460 may very well have been designed to handle FSBs well in
excess of the current Apple speeds. It may very well handle 400 mhz FSBs,
unless you know specifically to the contrary.


> personally i prefer the sound of a 400Mhz bus.

Excellent. We can wait for the bus to idle rather than the processor,
assuming of course that Apple uses a 400 mhz FSB in (a G3 mac like the)
imac, which they won't [for a few years], given that they're only up to
~100 mhz FSBs in the imac.


>Future. The most important part. Going by recent past then motorola is
likey to make a balls up of something.

This could be solved by a purchase from Moto of the PPC IP. Failing that,
if Apple shifts its focus to IBM, Moto will not need to develop
high-performance PPCs and may as well sell the IP to IBM or Apple anyway.
So either way, as long as IBM creates a useful, Altivec-compatible SIMD
unit to couple w/the PPC, there shouldn't be a problem. The problems lie
in the fabrication of the processors rather than the design (although the
attrition of engineers from Moto as reported by MOSR is worrying; the G3
was intended to have Altivec, the G4 a multicored design etc.)


>IBM is mega rich,

IBM is drowning in debt (http://biz.yahoo.com/p/i/ibm.html -- debt/equity
of 1.30 [up from ~1.21 last quarter IIRC], way behind Moto's (still not
altogether wonderful) 0.65. Neither touches Apple's 0.08 or Dell's 0.11
for example). It's probably worth pointing out that IBM has less cash in
the bank than Apple ($4.01b vs 4.33b), although they may very well have a
massive R&D budget (which could be directed towards future PPC
development, which would be a good thing).


> wants to be a bigger part of powerpc plans seeing as it has made models
for each of the upcoming powerpcs.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Still, I wouldn't be surprised,
although I didn't hear of any specifics.


>The G4 looks scalable,

(7460 specifically?) That sounds like an aboutface, if I didn't know
better...


> but so did the 7450.

The 7450 (V'Ger IIRC) was only intended for ~700-1000 mhz.


> G3 looks scalable, IBM hasnt made a balls up so far.

This phrase betrays your apparent inability to distinguish between the
technological advancement (generally speaking, i'm not a fab expert so I
can't be specific) of a fab ("ibm's got better fabs than moto") and the
ability of the engineers to design scalable processors. The G4 could very
well be scaled up to high frequencies, it may need to be redesigned
(and it has, multiple times, in the same fashion as the G3s have been
redesigned by Moto and now by IBM).

IOW

spikey> "G3 looks scalable"

(because IBM's fabs happen to be of further advancement than Moto's)

spikey> "IBM hasnt made a balls up"

(neither has motorola, you're speaking from the point of procesor design.
both can _design_ processors up to Apple's needs. Where it falls apart is
their respective fabs' capability to turn out processors that run reliably
at ever-increasing clock speeds. moto has failed this, IBM hasn't, but the
G4s that IBM minted for Apple were _designed_ by Moto. Hence if IBM can
get the G4s to high clockspeed, the premise that "Motorola" [i.e. their
semiconductor engineers] itself is the problem has been demonstrated as
false.

Rather, it is the capabilities of Moto's _fabs_ [inadequate] which caused
their G4 plans to "balls up", quite distinct from your blaming "Motorola"
(i.e. their engineers)).


> In my opinion the G3 wins that.

So far; however, it's all about the fabs; you don't acknowledge that, for
some reason.


>stuck at 500Mhz fiasco

Then Apple should contract fabrication to IBM, or AMD, or TSMC...

[Edited by joey j on 11-23-2001 at 12:05 PM]

spikey
Nov 23, 2001, 11:02 AM
"> with altivec like acceleration or altivec and 1.33ghz.

... the 7460 may very well have been designed to handle FSBs well in
excess of the current Apple speeds. It may very well handle 400 mhz FSBs,
unless you know specifically to the contrary. "

your statements of yours made so far have been based on rumor, trying to prove something in a debate this close only determines one thing. that either opinion is good. But in this last quote you arent even basing your idea on rumor, you are basing it on your own assumption. And how can you say know specifically to the contrary? no-one knows, it was as assumption that you made up on the spot, how am i meant to know a fact about something like that. Backing up your facts like that is just plain ridiculous.


"> personally i prefer the sound of a 400Mhz bus.

Excellent. We can wait for the bus to idle rather than the processor,
assuming of course that Apple uses a 400 mhz FSB in (a G3 mac like the)
imac, which they won't [for a few years], given that they're only up to
~100 mhz FSBs in the imac. "

That is another ridicolous comment, if you eliminate a bottleneck then you are increasing the overall speed of the system. You wont need to wait if you eliminate a bottleneck which is a bus. The processor can still process fast enough for the info to be sent through the bus without making the processor the bottleneck. The information will just run through it faster than before. Idle???



>Future. The most important part. Going by recent past then motorola is
likey to make a balls up of something. IBM is mega rich, wants to be a
bigger part of powerpc plans seeing as it has made models for each of the
upcoming powerpcs.

"This could be solved by a purchase from Moto of the PPC IP. Failing that,
if Apple shifts its focus to IBM, Moto will not need to develop
high-performance PPCs and may as well sell the IP to IBM or Apple anyway.
So either way, as long as IBM creates a useful, Altivec-compatible SIMD
unit to couple w/the PPC, there shouldn't be a problem. The problems lie
in the fabrication of the processors rather than the design (although the
attrition of engineers from Moto as reported by MOSR is worrying; the G3
was intended to have Altivec, the G4 a multicored design etc.) "

Agreed.



">The G4 looks scalable,

(7460 specifically?) That sounds like an aboutface, if I didn't know
better...


> but so did the 7450.

The 7450 (V'Ger IIRC) was only intended for ~700-1000 mhz. "

again you have split up my point, taking a part of it out of context.

the 7450 was only intended for 700-1000mhz? well since its release date in january i do believe can you tell me how far it has risen?
it isnt anywhere near the 1Ghz it is planning and it has been nearly 11months since its launch it has moved form 667 to 867 Mhz. that 200 whole Mhz. and it took 11 months. How is that for a bad moto recent history.


"(neither has motorola, you're speaking from the point of procesor design.
both can _design_ processors up to Apple's needs. Where it falls apart is
their respective fabs' capability to turn out processors that run reliably
at ever-increasing clock speeds. moto has failed this, IBM hasn't, but the
G4s that IBM minted for Apple were _designed_ by Moto. Hence if IBM can
get the G4s to high clockspeed, the premise that "Motorola" [i.e. their
semiconductor engineers] itself is the problem has been demonstrated as
false. "

Im wasnt just speaking from the point of processor design,its besides the point, whether moto can or cant deesign a good cpu design the fact is that for the last 2 years it has produced below average cpus, for whatever reason. Yes probably the fabrication facilities. But not only that. I might remind you that the balls up on the 7400 was not just to do with the fab, IBM had to help alter its design and create a new G4 to be able to get past the blunder.







">value for money, if the G3 does have altivec like ability and it closes
the gap and it has a bus speed advantage, in comparison to G4s clock speed
advantage and altivec. in my opinion its equal.

The G4's cost in volume is not much higher than the G3's. One pays _once_
for the processor, but its performance and SIMD units (or lack thereof)
are with it forever [spare a few extra bucks for ~50% better float?];
surely the G4 wins [50% higher float for a few extra bucks?] "

You dont know it has a higher float seeing as IBMs so called altivec like acceleration has not been developed yet.





">Bottlenecks, G3 has less of a bus bottleneck.

You are clearly basing your conclusion on the purported 400 mhz FSB of the
FX. If apple is planning for ~1.2ghz+ G4s they'll probably be planning
sufficiently fast FSBs. This 400 mhz FSB is probably a maximum anyway.
Would apple go from 100 mhz (i think) to 400?

Expect DDR ~266 in the pro G4 lines; SDR 133 in the imacs. "

"Assuming Apple uses this mythical [as I demonstrate below] 400 mhz bus,
which they will not. If you're expecting to see 400 mhz [FSB] imacs next
year, you will be sorely disappointed. "

to discard a rumor and call it false or "its not going to happen" when all we can base our ideas on are these rumors is just madness. Whether you think it will be developed or not you must take it and debate using it, or you should just admit that is where both of us differ.
But you cant just turn it around, say it wont happen and then use it as a fact to back up your point.
This means 2 things, either you take in the rumor and say that the G3 will have less bottlenecks, or you say that in your opinion it wont happen.
I take the former, you take the latter.





">Marketability, both over a1Ghz.

In IBM's release (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2001/1017_750fx.html),
it clearly (as in, at the top) says "operating at speeds up to one
gigahertz". Not "over ... [1 GHz]" as you would assert. This may very well
even be the upper limit of the processor. "

Read the article and you will see that it is so far capable of speeds up to 1Ghz. The chip hasnt been made yet, it is still being developed. Only the expected performance has been released.
It can support up to 200Mhz bus.....so far.
If apple isnt going to use the G3 til next year on later then it can only mean this G3 is going to get better.

Again it depends whether you want to believe rumor or not. Rumor says it can go higher. IBM hasnt got that high yet, or so they say.
Which demonstrates why this discussion has got ridicoulous, you are trying to prove something which i can just turn back to you. Each of us is right, this is based on opinion whilst using rumors or statements to back up our opinion. you havent accepted this for some reson and you still think you are proving why you think you are right. No-one is right in this particular debate, it is too close to call. you say somehting to me, i respond equally as well. I say something to you, you respond equally as well.
Why dont you try to stop consistently thinking you are right and accept that this is too clos to call. It has not been one sided enough because the subjects are just too close for one to be the outright winner.

jefhatfield
Nov 23, 2001, 11:26 AM
on anything too close to call, it is not a black and white issue as very little is in life, especially the IT field and other fellow techies on this board, mac and pc, know what i am talking about

and both joey and you have brought up great points, for anyone watching this last debate,for us to ponder

G3s and G4s are still viable as far as i can see this late in the game and only solid proof, like the next macworld's expo in san francisco, will let us know for sure

spikey, congrats in advance for 400...you wanna race?

spikey
Nov 23, 2001, 11:36 AM
Congrats yerself jef.

Its been a classic 400. a mighty fine innings, full of a variety of strokes, each timed to precision.

spikey
Nov 23, 2001, 11:37 AM
a race???

spikey
Nov 23, 2001, 11:37 AM
let me think a minute.........

spikey
Nov 23, 2001, 11:38 AM
......hmmmmmm.......

spikey
Nov 23, 2001, 11:39 AM
........errmm........

spikey
Nov 23, 2001, 11:40 AM
.........ok then.

spikey
Nov 23, 2001, 11:41 AM
ooops is that cheating?

joey j
Nov 23, 2001, 11:57 AM
>>> with altivec like acceleration or altivec and 1.33ghz.

>> ... the 7460 may very well have been designed to handle FSBs well in
excess of the current Apple speeds. It may very well handle 400 mhz FSBs,
unless you know specifically to the contrary.

>your statements of yours made so far have been based on rumor,

"may very well have" <-- i'm speculating, I don't need rumor sites to help me speculate.


> trying to prove something in a debate this close only determines one
thing. that either opinion is good. But in this last quote you arent even
basing your idea on rumor, you are basing it on y our own assumption. And
how can you say know specifically to the contrary? no-one knows, it was as
assumption that you made up on the spot,

On the contrary, I have asserted the most commonsense solution (the 7460
is being designed to handle higher-clockspeed FSBs) to any high-multiplier
problem (your bottlenecking scenario) that arises for Apple. So while I am
indeed speculating, it is the most obvious scenario and hence a safe
speculation.


> how am i meant to know a fact about something like that.

I didn't ask nor expect you "to know a fact" about the above; I'm
speculating on the safe side.


> Backing up your facts like that is just plain ridiculous.

Hrmm?


> personally i prefer the sound of a 400Mhz bus.

Excellent. We can wait for the bus to idle rather than the processor,
assuming of course that Apple uses a 400 mhz FSB in (a G3 mac like the)
imac, which they won't [for a few years], given that they're only up to
~100 mhz FSBs in the imac.


>That is another ridicolous comment,

/me mops up irony


>if you eliminate a bottleneck then you are increasing the overall speed of the system.

I am aware of that.


> You wont need to wait if you eliminate a bottleneck which is a bus. The
processor can still process fast enough for the info to be sent through
the bus without making the processor the bottleneck. The information will
just run through it faster than before.

I am aware also of that.


> Idle???

You appear to have completely missed my point. Let's say that Apple does
dramatically increase the imac's clockspeed and FSB speed. Now the hard
drive (say) is the bottleneck. Let's say apple ships faster HDs. Now the
IDE bus is the bottleneck...


>>> but so did the 7450.

>>The 7450 (V'Ger IIRC) was only intended for ~700-1000 mhz. "

>again you have split up my point, taking a part of it out of context.

Then would you put it into context for me?


>the 7450 was only intended for 700-1000mhz? well since its release date
in january i do believe can you tell me how far it has risen? it isnt
anywhere near the 1Ghz it is planning and it has been nearly 11months
since its launch it has moved form 667 to 867 Mhz. that 200 whole Mhz. and
it took 11 months. How is that for a bad moto recent history.

Once again you betray your inability to distinguish between Motorola's
engineers and their fabs. The "200 whole Mhz" is a moto fab issue. The
processor architecture itself is complete, and hence hardly indicative of
"a bad moto recent history".


>>"(neither has motorola, you're speaking from the point of procesor
design. both can _design_ processors up to Apple's needs. Where it falls
apart is their respective fabs' capability to turn out processors that run
reliably at ever-increasing clock speeds. moto has failed this, IBM
hasn't, but the G4s that IBM minted for Apple were _designed_ by Moto.
Hence if IBM can get the G4s to high clockspeed, the premise that
"Motorola" [i.e. their semiconductor engineers] itself is the problem has
been demonstrated as false. "

>Im wasnt just speaking from the point of processor design,its besides the
point, whether moto can or cant deesign a good cpu design the fact is that
for the last 2 years it has produced below average cpus,

(*1*)


> for whatever reason. Yes probably the fabrication facilities.

(*2*)


spikey> "moto... has produced below average cpus" <---- (*1*)

spikey> "[the fault of] probably the fabrication facilities" <---- (*2*)


So you wander from blaming Motorola's engineers in 1) to their fabs in 2).



> But not only that. I might remind you that the balls up on the 7400 was
not just to do with the fab, IBM had to help alter its design and create a
new G4 to be able to get past the blunder.

On the contrary, the 7400 and 7410 are virtually the same
(http://www.mot.com/SPS/PowerPC)... although it appears that they may have
rejiggered their site somewhat, it may be hard to find documentation.


>>>value for money, if the G3 does have altivec like ability and it closes
the gap and it has a bus speed advantage, in comparison to G4s clock speed
advantage and altivec. in my opinion its equal.

>>The G4's cost in volume is not much higher than the G3's. One pays
_once_ for the processor, but its performance and SIMD units (or lack
thereof) are with it forever [spare a few extra bucks for ~50% better
float?]; surely the G4 wins [50% higher float for a few extra bucks?] "

>You dont know it has a higher float

On the contrary, the SPEC marks have given me a very good indication indeed.


> seeing as IBMs so called altivec like acceleration has not been
developed yet.

I fail to see what the G4s (or the G3's) float performance have to do with
IBM's SIMD work.


>>Assuming Apple uses this mythical [as I demonstrate below] 400 mhz bus,
which they will not. If you're expecting to see 400 mhz [FSB] imacs next
year, you will be sorely disappointed.

>to discard a rumor and call it false or "its not going to happen" when
all we can base our ideas on are these rumors is just madness.

Learn to distinguish between what follows naturally ("if apple is going
for high clockspeeds in the 7460 the FSB will need to be fast to minimise
CPU idling") and what is unadulterated hogwash (your comments on the 400
mhz FSB that isn't even a _rumor_ and that ~100 mhz FSB --> 400 mhz FSB
doesn't follow naturally.)


> Whether you think it will be developed or not you must take it and
debate using it, or you should just admit that is wher e both of us
differ. But you cant just turn it around, say it wont happen and then use
it as a fact to back up your point. This means 2 things, either you take
in the rumor and say that the G3 will have less bottlenecks, or you say
that in your opinion it wont happen. I take the former, you take the
latter.

Your point would be valid if all speculations were equally valid. However
not all speculations are equally valid (above).


>>>Marketability, both over a1Ghz.

>>In IBM's release (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2001/1017_750fx.html),
it clearly (as in, at the top) says "operating at speeds up to one
gigahertz". Not "over ... [1 GHz]" as you would assert. This may very well
even be the upper limit of the processor. "

>Read the article and you will see that it is so far capable of speeds up
to 1Ghz.

I am aware of that. You asserted "over ... [1 GHz]" when even IBM did not
make that claim; I merely pointed that out.


> The chip hasnt been made yet, it is still being developed.

Not a whole lot of use to apple given tha the 7460 has been taped out
since ~august.


> Only the expected performance has been released. It can support up to
200Mhz bus.....so far.

Out of interest, where did this `400 mhz bus' thing come from?


> If apple isnt going to use the G3 til next year on later then it can
only mean this G3 is going to get better.

So far it appears as if the FX will be eclipsed by the 7460.


>Again it depends whether you want to believe rumor or not. Rumor says it
can go higher. IBM hasnt got that high yet, or so they say. Which
demonstrates why this discussion has got ridicoulous, you are trying to
prove something which i can just turn back to you. Each of us is right,
this is based on opinion whilst using rumors or statements to back up our
opinion. you havent accepted th is for some reson and you still think you
are proving why you think you are right. No-one is right in this
particular debate, it is too close to call. you say somehting to me, i
respond equally as well. I say something to you, you respond equally as
well.

>Why dont you try to stop consistently thinking you are right and accept
that this is too clos to call. It has not been one sided enough because
the subjects are just too close for one to be the outright winner.


I have much enjoyed your weaseling out. Once again, learn to distinguish
between the probable (7460 == high clockspeeds (therefore) apple will
design a faster FSB to keep up) and the improbable (`apple should use the
FX because of its 400 mhz bus'). Yes, they are both speculation, but one
is believable and one is ridiculous. Can you pick which one?

jefhatfield
Nov 23, 2001, 08:37 PM
joey,

congrats on your 30, you did it in record time from what i have seen

...also did you see spikey beat me with those short posts?

jeez, next forum war, i will be on your side whether you are right or wrong

wait, i am on your side, if i can get the money up, i will get that G4 running imac

joey j
Nov 24, 2001, 01:28 AM
jefhatfield> joey,

congrats on your 30, you did it in record time from what i have seen

:) Thanks. The posts just kept piling up did they not; I didn't believe I
was at `27' posts until I re-read the rest. I was thinking more like ~15
posts :p


>...also did you see spikey beat me with those short posts?

The sneaky...


>jeez, next forum war, i will be on your side whether you are right or
wrong

Ah, but I thought you were The Neutral Guy? jef "switzerland sweden
lebanon" hatfield? [okay maybe not lebanon so much...]


>wait, i am on your side,

Aha. My supporters are emerging from the proverbial woodwork ;)


> if i can get the money up, i will get that G4 running imac

I'm just waiting for the G5s so I can replace this mac here. It needs
to be put out to pasture, doing my firewalling and proxying, nat, local
dns maybe... nothing too stressful :p

jefhatfield
Nov 24, 2001, 11:40 AM
to beat spikey, you have to use clever semantics, not hardware stats

stats quoted in small shots never prove anything and they are like the bible, you can take any isolated fact or stat out of context as me (a protestant) and my employee (a jehovah witness) do going around and around about the minutae of religious apologetics and who said what and when and if they had long hair or not, etc...

it is also like politics as i being a democrat go around and around with my mac client, who is a republican, about the details of the florida results...but now i am happy my man gore wasn't in the hot seat when 9/11 happened...i hope there is a peacful resolution to the reported surrender and that we get food out to all the starving people on both sides, or all 30 sides!

better yet, do you wanna make afganistan our friends for life...send them macs!

ignorance is never bliss

joey j
Nov 24, 2001, 12:52 PM
>to beat spikey, you have to use clever semantics,

As I found out. I turned the eloquence way up, just for him. :p


>not hardware stats

The 200 Mhz bus thing was a balls up. He kept going on and on about this
400 MHz bus. I'm just sitting here thinking `what 400 mhz bus?'. Turns out
the vaunted 750FX FSB was 200 mhz. Probably some DDR confusion here; I
don't know what else.


>stats quoted in small shots never prove anything and they are like the
bible, you can take any isolated fact or stat out of context as me (a
protestant) and my employee (a jehovah witness)

JWs annoy me intensely. Ask them about their predictions which were all
wrong. Britain falling to the Nazis, man will never leave earth's
atmosphere... etc. Worked [note past tense ;)] wonders on the JWs that
came around my place.

As a Catholic I don't care [ex ecclesiam nulla salus -- "i'm going to
heaven and you're not! Narf!" and other odd condemnations go here]; notice
also that Catholic apologetics websites are more factual and tactful than
rabblerousers like Jack Chick. [no not all American Protestants are bad...
e.g. you ;) ] Why the JWs came around so many times I don't know. Can't
they tell my entire neighbourhood is happy being catholic/orthodox?


> do going around and around about the minutae of religious apologetics
and who said what and when and if they had long hair or not, etc...

The whole was-jesus-a-long-haired-hippie thing is big to them. Apparently
the bible prohibits long hair for men. Then again, they hardly count as
christians, paying deference more to the old than new testament.


>it is also like politics as i being a democrat go around and around with
my mac client, who is a republican, about the details of the florida
results...but now i am happy my man gore wasn't in the hot seat when 9/11
happened...i hope there is a peacful resolution to the reported surrender
and that we get food out to all the starving people on both sides, or all
30 sides!

Food and infrastructure. If the US gives Afghanistan a hand up and in 50
years they're some wealthy first-world country, the US can notch that up
in their book as another Props-To-Us(tm) Moment ;) They need electricity
(sustainable -- afghanistan has a lot of natural gas, use that), reliable
(clean) water, schools, the basic stuff. As long as a few jobs can be
created that should be enough to get the ball rolling. And of course...
democracy... and separation of church and state (mosque and state? :p)...
And a constitution which guards civil liberties... a lot hrmm?


>better yet, do you wanna make afganistan our friends for life...send them
macs!

Agreed! Next century belongs to Asia, remember :p [according to the
Inquirer (or the Reg, i forget), Apple's opening a head office in China.
The article's not there anymore, damn...)

Make sure they have infrastructure first though! Was it the US (not
flaming you, or your country, i'm just not certain as to the country in
question) who sent PCs to some part of some poor country... that didn't
have electricity? :p

spikey
Nov 27, 2001, 01:38 PM
And i have only been away a couple of days.

BTW congrats jef, first to the 400 run mark.

jefhatfield
Nov 27, 2001, 02:19 PM
now's the time to go for 500 since barry bonds did it last season

say wha?

spikey
Nov 27, 2001, 02:22 PM
barry mcguigan???
.........dunno about him, but Brian Lara got to 501.

Are we talking cricket?

SPG
Nov 27, 2001, 03:27 PM
"Chirp, chirp, chirp."
Translation: "I am talking Cricket, but with a grasshopper accent."

britboy
Nov 27, 2001, 03:33 PM
he might have gotten to 501, but that was only in county cricket, not a test, so it's not as impressive as it sounds. Still, a record is a record...

spikey
Nov 28, 2001, 08:59 AM
Getting to 501 is actually very impressive.
The amount of mental concentration to get to 100 never mind 501 is incredible. Once you get past 100 you go into a careless mind set, so to get to 501 is hellishly impressive at county level or not.
also the physical drain of getting to 501 is huge, the amount of body fluids lost doing that would be a hell of alot.

Agrred at test level it would have been a greater achievement, but not as much as you would think. Test cricket isnt just a higher level of cricket but its a completely different style of the game which nees completely different mind set and a completely different style of play. Which is why many Test match players dont make it at county level, they cant get used to a new style of play.
many parts of county cricket isnt much harder its just different to test match cricket.
BTW not all the credit should go to Lara, he had a great Warwickshire side behind him, with Dermot Reeve as his captain.

Well done spg, funny joke.

spikey
Nov 28, 2001, 09:03 AM
This thread has gone way off topic.

jefhatfield
Dec 7, 2001, 12:00 PM
but just the way we like it

look at how many posts you and i have, we must be the wicky wicky culprits