PDA

View Full Version : No G5's until (late) 2003


arn
Jun 21, 2002, 09:52 PM
MacBidouille posted (http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2002-06-21#2827) a rumor regarding the G5. English translation is provided by Sammy:


- Jaguar server will make it possible to netBoot os X and remote administration.
- the factory which will manufacture new the G5 microprocessor will be in Grenoble. It is not finished yet.
- G5 will not even be available until the end of 2003, on the other hand it really exists and runs reliably. The manufacturing is, however, not very reliable in terms of loss and is too expensive for the moment.
- G4s will evolve -- but very little -- it is motherboards using Hypertransport (that of Xserve) and cache systems which will evolve.
- the new models of motherboards do not support os 9, it is thus finished definitively on the next machines.
- the core following of jaguar will be clusterisable on the system level... one then supposes a very evolutionary machine out of turn of xServe. (On a standard 42u rack, 39 Xserve dual 1Ghz machines and an xserve Raid with 1,68 To, using only one screen)
- For the first time of the history of Apple, a standard machine is made with recycled materials (Aluminum, etc) (??? not sure of this translation ???)
- The system composes of a main server and a slave server. The xServe slave autoswitchs to a Master, (in the event of breakdown of the Master), reswitches automatically when the solution of the breakdown is found! the user sees nothing there, only the administrator receives a message of breakdown of the first server.


Thanks to Sammy for the translation.

tweedy7736
Jun 21, 2002, 10:04 PM
"-Pour la première fois de l'histoire d'Apple, une machine est fournie en standard avec des pièces de rechanges (alim., ...)"

For the first time in the hostory of Apple, a manchine created out of standard recycleable parts (aluminum, ...)

:D

King Cobra
Jun 21, 2002, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by tweedy7736
"-Pour la première fois de l'histoire d'Apple, une machine est fournie en standard avec des pièces de rechanges (alim., ...)"

For the first time in the hostory of Apple, a manchine created out of standard recycleable parts (aluminum, ...)

:D

Well, I guess I won't need Babelfish ever again...I'll just ask tweedy to translate! :cool:

I am now getting concerned about what will happen w/the G4. What if there were 1.2GHz G4s for New York, 1.4GHz for SF2003, and more slower increments to follow?

I think Apple needs to take much bigger jumps than 200MHz every six months, since it doesn't seem to be very impressive. Think about it: If in early 2003 the fastest we have will be 1.4GHz, then that means Apple needs to catch up IMO.

As for no G5s, this most likely means G4s for New York. But I was expecting G5s for San Fransisco.

etoiles
Jun 21, 2002, 10:24 PM
not sure if tweedy is just making fun of the tranlation or translating wrong...but here is the correct translation:

"For the first time in the history of Apple, a machine comes standard with spare parts (power supply,...)"



:rolleyes:

King Cobra
Jun 21, 2002, 10:29 PM
All right. Now you guys got me confused.

tweety, I'll admit I know nothing about French, but I do know how to use Babelfish.

The translation from the website states plain and simple: "For the first time of the history of APPLE, a machine is provided out of standard with spare parts (alim....)"

:cool:

TypeR389
Jun 21, 2002, 11:13 PM
Well, I am not an expert in french either, but I trust babelfish about as far as I can throw it. It is close on getting the GENERAL meaning, but it has big problems, especially with tech stuff. Try converting something from english to german, and then it's german back to english. You would think it would be close, but sometime is can be quite funny!

I wonder if what they are trying to say is that a new model is going to use common swappable modules. I am not sure how the tech would work for this, but maybe a case countain 12x module slots. you would need a min of 1 general, 1 power, 1 storage, 1 graphic. but then if you need more disk, just plug in another module, another cpu etc. Some people need a mcahine with gobs of cpu power, others need alot of disk, others need screaming video. If you have cash, get a ton of all of them. It's a long shot, but I think it is a cool idea, and Apple is good at making cool ideas practical...And from the EE background I have, I think this could be done is a practical and cost effective (as macs go) manner.

G4scott
Jun 21, 2002, 11:31 PM
Well, at least Apple is focused on more than just processor speeds, but I hope that they will be able to upgrade their motherboards and OS so that they compare with the wintel boxes until G5's are available.

Apple is smart by focusing on more than just the processor, because the intel world will soon run into a brick wall with their x86 architecture, and I don't think that their itanium processors are very fast.

I'm just wondering how fast the G4 will go before it is discontinued. It's funny. I found an old web page that said that when the G4 was introduced, it would be well over 1 ghz...

I just hope the G5 on a souped-up motherboard will kick pee-cee @$$...

Draft
Jun 21, 2002, 11:39 PM
If Jeremy is correct, this is some huge news. New machines won't support OS 9, is a huge step. I know that Steve Jobs was saying that OS 9 was done, but this seems fairly soon and abrupt.

Draft

Scab Cake
Jun 22, 2002, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Draft
I know that Steve Jobs was saying that OS 9 was done, but this seems fairly soon and abrupt.

Draft

Well, think about it this way...OS X is HOW old? It's been out for well over a year and people STILL aren't using it. Apple is transcending to the magical land of OS X and Steve Jobs is not one who likes to leave a gray area (some people using 9, some using X). Think about what Apple has done in the past... No floppy drives... no serial ports... no standard connectors on their LCD displays :)

I, for one, think this is great as I have been pushing everyone I know to use X. The only reason I, and the people I work with, have 9 installed on their machines is because of Pro Tools. However, the (probably carbonized) software is in beta and should be released within months.

Besides, I don't think this move to go X-only in the next-rev of power macs is NEARLY as dramatic as having a funeral procession for OS 9 at WWDC. :D

thopter
Jun 22, 2002, 12:10 AM
No OS9 on new machines + No Quark for OSX = No new sales to printers until 2003?! Seems for every step forward, Apple takes another towards oblivion.

etoiles
Jun 22, 2002, 12:26 AM
trust ME on the translation thing...so what the French wording says is that when you buy a machine, it will come with extra parts in case something breaks...sounds like some server maintenance thing.

'alim.' stands for 'alimentation' which is the French word for powersuppy. See, you might even learn something :p

Regarding the G5: I sure hope they will boost the G4, or are they gonna start putting multiple processors into all new machines ? If you go to www.highend3d.com and check out their rendering benchmark for Maya, you will notice that macs are waaaaaaaay behind the fastest intel/amd machines. Ok, maybe Maya is not fully optimized (it only uses one processor), but even if it was twice as fast it would not make it very far. If Apple wants to push into the 3D market, they will have to come up with something... I am sure they will ;)

Choppaface
Jun 22, 2002, 12:27 AM
ya...if they cut OS 9 support now, they've got over a year of turmoil before everything gets sorted out on the app side and the G5 comes out. cutting out OS9 is really going to alienate the graphics community. just because PS7 is out for X doesnt mean that everything is ok now. epson is yet to put out satisfactory drivers that offer proper color support, and PS 7 needs filters now like crack addict with no money. and although from what I've seen indesign seems a lot better than quark, that point is quite valid.

at least this wont be much of a problem for converts......

and it fits in with job's comment that they will catch up with intel in late 2003...lets hope so :(

Sayer
Jun 22, 2002, 12:28 AM
Frankly everything is going to Digital Video at Apple it seems.

I lost count of the number of digital video software companies has purchased so far. This doesn't include hardware companies that were swallowed up as well.

Microsoft is going after Enterprise and Manufacturing while Apple is chasing Education and pouring itself into Digital Video/Film full tilt.

Losing a handful of print shops for a bit while picking up high margin digital video shops, I think Apple can live with that.

Frankly its up to Quark to get onto OS X as well as printer cos, not Apple. The OS has been out for a long time and we have two developer conferences behind OS X too. The train has left the station, Quark is running late.

etoiles
Jun 22, 2002, 12:41 AM
Quark 'demonstrated support' for OSX already a year ago, I guess they really are running late...
http://www.quark.com/about/presscenter/prview.jsp?idx=156

now they say "We'll ship a Mac OS X native version of QuarkXPress when we're confident that you'll be able to execute a productive and reliable Mac OS X workflow."

(http://www.quark.com/products/xpress/macosx.html)

:rolleyes:

Ballresin
Jun 22, 2002, 01:10 AM
Okay...I have to say this, even if I get laughed at.

I heard (I don't know where) that the G5 would use a positive ground, rather than negative, and thus would apply a rule of physics in which the chip would actually run cold rather than hot.

Please...tell me either that I am wrong, or that we are in for a helluva ride.
(retarded) (super-fast hertz)

I doubt something this big could be overlooked, but is it possible?

Scottgfx
Jun 22, 2002, 01:20 AM
I'm using OS X full time now at home, but at work it's another story. For the past few years we've been using a server running Novell Netware 3.x (?) with Appletalk to transfer graphics to a really old DOS based video still-store. I've just started testing OS X at work on our Dual G4/500, and it won't talk to the old Novell server.

One solution from our IS guy is to replace the Novell server with a Win2K machine.

What I want to try is to get a Linux PPC Novell client running under OS X. www.macslash.com has a thread talking about this, but I've not heard of anyone getting it to work yet. I don't know if anyone has even tried.

Any ideas?

(The other thing I'm not happy about it Wacom not providing support for 2 year old Intuos Serial tablet. :P )

Yau Choy
Jun 22, 2002, 02:23 AM
Just because Mac OS X has beenout for a year doesn't mean it's time to yank Mac OS 9. Frankly, I'm not satisfied with the currently release of X to make it my main system. Length of time has nothing to do with whether Mac OS 9 support should be dropped or not. The quality of Mac OS X has everything to do with it.

The interface remains flawed, and there are various foibles still with the system. I don't want to use it for my primary system at this point.

However....

I think Jaguar may well mark the point where it is good enough to use as my regular system. I have to play with it, but I am optimistic that is it. I don't think everything is fixed, but enough might be. I still want to see more changes to the interface (including not having multiple windows for the same folder popping up. How stupid is that, anyway?)

Just because it's Apple, just because Steve said so... these are not reasons to do anything. Apple users need to be as demanding as we ever were. That is part of why Apple products, and third software and hardware, tend to be superior to Windows products and are better able to crossover. Apple users demand higher quality, and they get it.

redAPPLE
Jun 22, 2002, 02:24 AM
I hope this would stop the G5 threads popping up every 4 days. :D

Well this would stop the "I WANT MY G5 RIGHT NOW!" threads too. :)

ultrafiel
Jun 22, 2002, 02:58 AM
Really, I don't see a problem getting rid of OS 9. Right now I don't even have it on my computer, OS X only baby. Of course I've had to make a few adjustments, but I'm enjoying things, and hardly ever have a problem. However, making machines that won't run 9 would seem strange to me. If I were apple I'd say, "well you can run 9 but don't expect much support or anything new coming out for it." If someone wants to buy a computer, who cares how they use it, or what they run on it. Personally, I'm committed to OS X now, and am looking forward to Jaguar. Of course at work I'm still on older computers that run 9 or even 8.6, which can be annoying, but everything is usable, I just which corporate would upgrade photoshop because running at 5.5 is ridiculous. At the other place I work we switched to X but have to go to classic a lot. That's mostly the fault of managment buying software (I really dislike PageMaker 7) without consulting someone who really knows what is going on. Still I think Apple will just discontinue software support for 9, persuading more users to upgrade. They have already said no more updates to Final Cut Pro for 9, there is no classic version of iPhoto, and I think the same will hold true for all new digital hub apps and updates. Other companies are also abandoning 9. Microsoft has stated new Explorer updates will be X only, and so will Office. Expect more companies to do so. Why Quark is lagging behind beats me, but they are making a mistake not to get a carbon version out ASAP. That's my rant, flame me.

crassusad44
Jun 22, 2002, 03:15 AM
This rumor is silly. It's the only rumor that says the G4 will not evolve, when we know it will. And why the **** would a Power Mac come with spare parts??????? Changing the power supply would void warranty. This is something Apple does not want the regular Joe to do. Either this rumor applies to the XServe ONLY, or the author of this rumor is plain stupid....

iGav
Jun 22, 2002, 04:26 AM
I'd be most surprised if this rumor was true....... I still reckon the G5 will be out at MWSF 03........... the G4 still has a lot of potential left in it's life....... atleast 2 years in the iMac G4 and the iBook....... so I would guess it's still got alot of scalability left in it's design.

Maybe Apple does have quite a bid speed increase waiting for us at MWNY if the G5 is going to delayed though.......

For people worrying about Quark..... why not try Adobe Indesign... it's a far superior product for print design...... it's super intuitive, interfaces with Adobes products such as Photoshp and Illustrator 1000x better than Quark.... and can open Quark docs....... I'd never go back to Quark...... :) and it's antiquated software. :D

Kethoticus
Jun 22, 2002, 04:28 AM
...I may give up on the Mac platform. Unless the mobo improvements (hypertransport, DDR-RAM, etc.) make up for the lack of processor evolution, I can see no reason to stick with the platform.

I have no desire to leave the Mac experience. I have no desire to drop OS X or any of my favorite Mac apps & applets. I sincerely hope this rumor is bull. But coming out with hardware that is increasingly behind, not coming out with a revolutionary new chip for another 2 years, and even then one that will probably be a year or so behind the competition STILL, I just do not see the reason anymore for calling myself a Mac fan (well, I'll always be a Mac fan, just no longer a Mac user... *sigh*).

I consider myself a power user. I edit video, study 3D apps at home, on rare occasions take 3D work home, etc. I need more than a machine that's half as fast for 50% more money than its x86 competition, especially when the 3D apps I use run better (or even exclusively) on that x86 hardware.

Apple, do something about this. Stop farting around and do something. Start a line with AMD processors. Buy out Motorola's semiconductor unit (you're buying everyone else out). But do something. You know, that bugs me now that I think about it. Apple's concerned more about locking up the video market by shear default rather than providing machines that in real-world tests kick the crap out of (or at least keep pace with) their competition.

I hope I'm getting upset over nothing and that this rumor is just that.

Okay, my rant's over. Flame me. Tell me that I'm really a PC user in disguise or that I should just buy a PC and get out of these fora. But at least make the flames fresh & entertaining. I'm tired of the same old nonsense.

imct
Jun 22, 2002, 04:33 AM
It means SPARE PARTS, it has nothing to do with recycling.
PARTES DE RECAMBIO, PEZZI DI RICAMBIO, PIECE DE RECHANGE, SPARE PARTS in Spanish, Italian, French, and English. Clear enough?

Also, aluminum (English) is aluminum (French), same spelling, so alim. does not mean that! It means alimenteur = power supply
(from alimenter = to feed, and in this case to feed a machine with power)


I am fluent in Italian, English, Spanish and French, and I've tried Babelfish with all these languages... all I can say is that it's good for a laugh when you've got nothing to do, or else to translate lists of words, or to get a general idea of what a page is about. But don't trust it for the details. TRUST HUMAN BRAIN FOR THE DETAILS. For subtle meaning issues Babelfish sucks, just as any form of automatic translation, because the system tends to translate one word at a time, so that long expression, sayings, etcs. don't stand the ghost of a chance of making it to the other language....

But then again if some narrow-minded people decide to trust the machine just because "it's a computer so what it does is always right", well good luck waiting for your Recycled Macintosh.... Good god, how can people even think that a machine is 100% true and correct all the time! Get a copy of 1984 or watch 2001 a Space Odissey for god's sake.

iGav
Jun 22, 2002, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by Kethoticus
...I may give up on the Mac platform. Unless the mobo improvements (hypertransport, DDR-RAM, etc.) make up for the lack of processor evolution, I can see no reason to stick with the platform.

I have no desire to leave the Mac experience. I have no desire to drop OS X or any of my favorite Mac apps & applets. I sincerely hope this rumor is bull. But coming out with hardware that is increasingly behind, not coming out with a revolutionary new chip for another 2 years, and even then one that will probably be a year or so behind the competition STILL, I just do not see the reason anymore for calling myself a Mac fan (well, I'll always be a Mac fan, just no longer a Mac user... *sigh*).

I consider myself a power user. I edit video, study 3D apps at home, on rare occasions take 3D work home, etc. I need more than a machine that's half as fast for 50% more money than its x86 competition, especially when the 3D apps I use run better (or even exclusively) on that x86 hardware.

Apple, do something about this. Stop farting around and do something. Start a line with AMD processors. Buy out Motorola's semiconductor unit (you're buying everyone else out). But do something. You know, that bugs me now that I think about it. Apple's concerned more about locking up the video market by shear default rather than providing machines that in real-world tests kick the crap out of (or at least keep pace with) their competition.

I hope I'm getting upset over nothing and that this rumor is just that.

Okay, my rant's over. Flame me. Tell me that I'm really a PC user in disguise or that I should just buy a PC and get out of these fora. But at least make the flames fresh & entertaining. I'm tired of the same old nonsense.

Man have you've got issues....... :p

foniks2020
Jun 22, 2002, 05:06 AM
Personally I wouldn't be surprised to find out that HyperTransport ie faster front bus speeds, combined with a G4 PPC would be much much faster than an equivalent x86 chip.

For the longest time we Mac users have been using machines with processors whose potential has been largely untapped due to the lack of thsi front side bus bottleneck.

It seems that the x86 crowd has been evangelizing the speed of their chips while silently congratulating themselves on having achieved this faster bus technology which makes their 'HyperClocked' chip technology appear to be a faster processor when in reality it is merely an adequate chip matched with a really nice hardware connector.

There is a lot of evidence that points to this, no quotes here but think about it.

Why has it taken soooo long for PPC to integrate faster front bus speeds? Why is x86 at like 400mhz now and PPC is still at 133mhz?

It's got to be architecture issues. Intel/AMD decided to put more effort into getting what their chips could do out faster, instead of actually doing the processing faster... hence faster clock speeds and subsequently the need for a faster bus. PPC/IBM/Moto decided to do more with their CPU cycles and then send out more information at slower bus speeds = early gains but long term losses.

We all know about the mhz myth... this makes sense. Soooo when the PPC can finally do more processing per cycle and then transfer that larger amount at faster speeds, will it catch up with the 'do less per cycle but push it out faster' x86?

I think it will. I think we'll all be surprised when the benchmarks for G4's using HyperTransport at 266 or 333 mhz appear.

Not to mention finally getting support for DDR RAM at 266 mhz speeds as well.

alex_ant
Jun 22, 2002, 05:07 AM
There were a lot of people reckoning that the G5 would be out before the last MWSF, and it didn't happen of course. Then they expected it at the last MWSF, five months ago. When there was no sign of it, they thought MWNY for sure, and now it looks like it won't happen at MWNY, either.

Personally I think we should be very disappointed. Weren't there rumors of 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6GHz sample chips earlier this year? Even if the G5 had hit the scene last January at 1.4GHz, it still would have been behind the x86 competition performance-wise. I hope Motorola manages to triple those speeds by late 2003, because that's what it will take to match x86 by that time. Kethoticus made a very valid point about feeling the urge to switch to a faster platform, and I'm sure he's not the only one out there feeling that way. I want a fast G5, and I want it TODAY. Yes, I am aware that today is a Saturday. I don't care! TODAY!! Take yer RapidIO and HyperTransport and shove it - even a 100% speed boost on the current G4s will not be nearly enough.

Alex

sluthy
Jun 22, 2002, 05:37 AM
Alex_ant is going to get flamed any time now... :cool:

b8rtm8nn
Jun 22, 2002, 06:06 AM
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.

Nothing to do with the desktop.

robguz
Jun 22, 2002, 07:01 AM
Apple would have to be nuts not to make any new mac bootable in 9. I love OSX but still find myself booting into 9 all the time to do simple things such as transferring files between drives, running games that refuse to work in classic, using disk repair utilities. I wouldn't use a machine that can't give me the functionality that 9 gives me that OSX won't let me do. Of course the real answer is to have X address these bizarre problems. for example, just trying to drag my documents folder to an external drive just doesn't work for some stupid reason, and I am the only user on my mac. I've had times where big movie trailer files begin to be copied, and I can hear the drives working, it shows up for a split second on an external drive, and then disappears. There are so many little quirks that 9 didn't have that X does, and until every single one of these is fixed in X, there is no way Apple can eliminate 9 totally. I wouldn't buy a new mac that doesn't do what I need it too. Even if it had quad G5s and cost $1500. I really hope Apple doesn't do this.

dantec
Jun 22, 2002, 07:29 AM
I just reinstalled my Powermac 5 days ago. Only OS X, NO CLASSIC!

I've only used Classic once, and that was when I needed to install the Sims. Instead of installing classic, I mounted my iBook's firewire disk and used classic over firewire. Everything worked!

Some Apple technology is amazing, some is truely not (G4 processor & moto)!

Living in Switzerland I understand French (I live in the french part of Switzerland, don't speak a word of German). It definatively means replacement or spare parts.

If the G5 doesn't come at Macworld San Francisco next year, it will be a joke. Then the Apple platform will really fall behind. Do any of you think that a G4 will make it to 3ghz by MWSF (about the mhz rating the P4 will get at that time)? We need a fast G5 which starts at 3 ghz or at least 2.5.

Sometimes I wonder why apple doesn't go all the way. Since we are sooo behind in terms of mhz, why not give us 8 G4's in one Powermac and make the ultimate 8ghz machine, and sell that to the public (as the high end). Why doesn't Apple add 2 processors to the iMac (makes it a 2ghz machine, so the public thinks it's as fast as the others)?

The thing I'm getting at is : In the PC world you can build almost anything, without restraints from one company controlling the whole show. Now don't get me wrong, clones of the Macintosh would be even worse, but Apple needs to give us more freedom.

They choose the design of the product, and we should have the benefit of choosing EXACTLY what goes inside!!!

gopher
Jun 22, 2002, 07:45 AM
Don't believe those Mhz ratings. It is a myth. Why a Pentium IV is actually slower at RC5 than a Pentium III, and 5 times slower than a G4. Check the ratings at

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_test.html
Another place where the G4 is 5 times faster then the Pentium IV:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html

Now this just means you need to demand that more of your Macintosh apps became Altivec native, and tell the developers of those programs how to make their applications Altivec native:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mac/2002/04/05/altivec.html

The secret is Altivec. At 128 bit processing any program enhanced for Altivec will just scream past the Pentium IV. It is time to get more developers to join the bandwagon


Originally posted by Kethoticus
...I may give up on the Mac platform. Unless the mobo improvements (hypertransport, DDR-RAM, etc.) make up for the lack of processor evolution, I can see no reason to stick with the platform.

I have no desire to leave the Mac experience. I have no desire to drop OS X or any of my favorite Mac apps & applets. I sincerely hope this rumor is bull. But coming out with hardware that is increasingly behind, not coming out with a revolutionary new chip for another 2 years, and even then one that will probably be a year or so behind the competition STILL, I just do not see the reason anymore for calling myself a Mac fan (well, I'll always be a Mac fan, just no longer a Mac user... *sigh*).

I consider myself a power user. I edit video, study 3D apps at home, on rare occasions take 3D work home, etc. I need more than a machine that's half as fast for 50% more money than its x86 competition, especially when the 3D apps I use run better (or even exclusively) on that x86 hardware.

Apple, do something about this. Stop farting around and do something. Start a line with AMD processors. Buy out Motorola's semiconductor unit (you're buying everyone else out). But do something. You know, that bugs me now that I think about it. Apple's concerned more about locking up the video market by shear default rather than providing machines that in real-world tests kick the crap out of (or at least keep pace with) their competition.

I hope I'm getting upset over nothing and that this rumor is just that.

Okay, my rant's over. Flame me. Tell me that I'm really a PC user in disguise or that I should just buy a PC and get out of these fora. But at least make the flames fresh & entertaining. I'm tired of the same old nonsense.

thopter
Jun 22, 2002, 08:00 AM
Pro-tower sales are down because those 'handful of print shops' aren't buying. Without those customers Apple would be a memory already.

kansaigaijin
Jun 22, 2002, 08:26 AM
if you buy the top end Xserve and the service pack you get some spare parts, including a motherboard!

Not surprising new machines won't boot into 9, supporting 9 maybe part of whats holding things up.

You can still use 9 on your old machines, does everyone need to cash in your old machines to get new ones? Even small enterprises? What will you get for them when you are all basically saying they are useless now, you want a new one so bad?

How long did Apple support the Apple II after the hardware was discontinued?

G5s manufactured in Grenoble? Motorola got a chip plant there? Or are they going to build one from sctratch just to make the G5? in France?

Kid Red
Jun 22, 2002, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by thopter
No OS9 on new machines + No Quark for OSX = No new sales to printers until 2003?! Seems for every step forward, Apple takes another towards oblivion.

Well, I guess I can't be too harsh on you, OS9 will not be BOOTABLE but will still run as classic mode for awhile according to a AI thread. So not sure where the step towrds oblivion would be especially since no one needs to upgrade their hardware to run Quark and inDesign is gaining marketshare.

sparkleytone
Jun 22, 2002, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by b8rtm8nn
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.

Nothing to do with the desktop.

exactly. don't worry about your desktops. u can still run os9. they are just going to advance the server hardware to a point where os9 would be too costly to update.

Foocha
Jun 22, 2002, 10:21 AM
I suspect that Quark are having a devils own job in carbonizing QuarkXPress - it is such an out of date app, it was hardly even an OS 8 app - the last time I used it (QuarkXPress 5) it did not have platinum menus, and it didn't use navigation services. It was done the wrong way in the first place, and as any software developer will tell you, cutting corners in this way may save you a few bucks in the short term but will cost you dear in the long term.

It makes perfect sense for XServe to not support OS 9 - who needs a rackmounted OS 9 "server" any way - you could hardly describe OS 9 as a server OS. Ending desktop OS 9 support is a bigger risk, but would probably enable a more modern hardware design - the big question is, would this move break the Classic environment in OS X?

The processor issue is a big, big issue - I agree with all of the posters expressing their concern about this. Let's just hope that Apple pulls something out of the bag.

Titian
Jun 22, 2002, 10:41 AM
No G5 until end of 2003? 1.2 Mhz for MWNY?

if this will be the truth then Apple hasn't learnt the lesson of the last quarter, where the sales went down drastically (with the shares!).
If Apple wants to really gain customers, as they are telling everybody now, then they should find out how potential new customer think and what they want.
If most of them don't know anything about computers except for their processor speed and the cost, then Apple should do something in that direction.
This shouldn't be done by "educating" everybody telling them that the processor speed is not everything and so on. That is a waist of money: people will still look at the processor speed as they did 10 years ago. You can say that they are stupid but it won't change anything: they won't by Macs. Most of these guys don't care if they see people telling why they switched from PC to Mac (waist of money, these adds).
To gain customers, the Macs must be MUCH better than PC's in all sectors. And if Intel brings out a 3 MHz then Apple has to bring out a unit with the same processor speed for less money. Then you will see how many people will by Macs...

On the other side if Apple does that, it will have another problem: what shall it bring out next, that the customers would buy.

So here is the dilemma:
1) make the speed go up very slowly so that the Mac community would buy constantly new models. In this case not many PC or any other potential users will buy a Mac. Actually I would think that some Mac users will get pissed off and buy PCs.

2) Give the potential customers today what they want so they would buy a Mac. I am sure that also very many mac users would buy a new mac but the problem for Apple would come later. Who would buy new computers if their old ones are fast enough? If you would buy a G5 with let say 2 MHz (may be dual), would you buy in the next 5 years another faster computer?

It isn't easy for Apple... and for us..

kevinibook
Jun 22, 2002, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
I hope Motorola manages to triple those speeds by late 2003
Alex [/B]

We would be lucky if Motorola doubled those speeds by that date. :( They don't invest that much in R&D of their semiconductor division, and quite frankly they don't care that much about. Thery care more about their telecomunications divisions.
Never expect too much from Motorola:p

Catfish
Jun 22, 2002, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by b8rtm8nn
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.

Nothing to do with the desktop.

True. Here's a thought or two.

1. Is it possible there is a 64 bit G5 and a 32 bit G5 indevelopment? 64 bit for Server, 32 bit for desktop? This could mean although the 64 bit server chip won't be available until late 2003, the desktop chip might be ready earlier. This is like the way AMD is introducing their desktop 'Clawhammer' before their server chip 'Sledgehammer'.

2. As far as the spare parts controversy goes, perhaps what it means is that this is the first Apple you can buy spare parts for, i.e. you could buy just a motherboard, or just a CPU, and upgrade what you want and keep the same case. Like an option for power users.

ktlx
Jun 22, 2002, 11:19 AM
We would be lucky if Motorola doubled those speeds by that date. They don't invest that much in R&D of their semiconductor division, and quite frankly they don't care that much about. Thery care more about their telecomunications divisions.

Motorola focuses on their embedded processor sales. There is no way Motorola can compete head to head on R&D for desktop sales. Their only customer is part of Apple's product line which is not enough to justify the expense.

Motorola's engineering choices are more catered to the embedded market where power consumption and heat are typically more important than raw power. Very few embedded systems could use processors like the Athlon XP, Pentium III and Pentium 4 because of heat and power.

As long as Apple sticks with the PowerPC line, that is going to be a fact of life. They will always be behind AMD and Intel. The only reason the G4 even is in the ballgame is the Altivec unit and that only helps certain types of applications. Of course Steve is going to use Photoshop as the benchmark! It is an example of an application that can take advantage of AltiVec. ;)

Now that IBM is scaling down their Power line of chips, that is probably the better long term processor for Apple. It is 64-bit, IBM is pouring tons of money into it and it scales to multiprocessor systems very nicely. Imagine a PowerMac with four 64-bit cores, 3MB of L3 cache per core and AltiVec. :D

Ouroboros
Jun 22, 2002, 11:36 AM
So everybody is believing this French rumor which states that Motorola can't make the G5 unless they build a plant in France???

Come on, Apple isn't THAT stupid. Think about it! They can't just release new mhz upgrades to their AMAZING towers unless they can do the tiresome Photoshop bake-offs. They can't win the bake-offs now, so they have to put something out to win a bake-off. So I think they've got things worked out. Steve Jobs likes to be on top, he even had a meeting with top 3D people and point blank asked them what the hardware needed for them to switch to Mac.

Do you think that they are going to wait until the END of 2003?! That's foolhardy, if we are all concerned about this like we are, imagine what it would be like on the Apple campus. I'm sorry, it is easy to be pessimistic sometimes when a tradeshow comes around, but this is silly to think that apple is going to wait almost two years FURTHER.

I don't think it is going to happen like this...

DarkNovaMatter
Jun 22, 2002, 11:43 AM
I went through a nice little searching at motorola's website and came up with this
http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,1519_1169_23,00.html (hopefully the link works). Either it confirms the rumors (something about the french nuclear corporation, since they have these people there they are making it) or else dissproves it by making the article look like Grenoble was just something on here.

Cappy
Jun 22, 2002, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by ktlx
Imagine a PowerMac with four 64-bit cores, 3MB of L3 cache per core and AltiVec. :D

One problem with that scenario is that IBM doesn't do altivec although they are said to be working on their own unit with some similar functions. Who knows how long that will take? It took Moto seemingly forever to bring altivec to market.

eunuchs
Jun 22, 2002, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Ballresin
Okay...I have to say this, even if I get laughed at.

I heard (I don't know where) that the G5 would use a positive ground, rather than negative, and thus would apply a rule of physics in which the chip would actually run cold rather than hot.

Please...tell me either that I am wrong, or that we are in for a helluva ride.
(retarded) (super-fast hertz)

I doubt something this big could be overlooked, but is it possible? This is bunk, plain and simple. Voltages are relative measures (another term for voltage is "potential difference"). Every chip has a "positive ground" and "negative ground". In modern CMOS, the positive rail is usually called VDD and the negative or ground rail is called VSS. What really matters is the difference in potential between the two (ie, 1.5V, 1.8V, whatever). Using VDD as your "ground" does nothing for you except reverse all your logic. The mechanism for heat dissipation hasn't gone anywhere.

What causes heating in chips is the flow of electric current through the resistive elements of transistors. Think of it like a light bulb being switched on and off really quickly. When it's off, there is no current flowing through the filament and thus it does not heat up. When it's on, the filament glows hot because there is current flowing through it and electrons are bumping against each other and the metal: friction.

CMOS gates (made up of transistors) are similar to this. With a standard inverter gate, in both the "on" AND "off" state, there is very little current flowing and the transistors stay cool. The problem is that when a gate is switched, there is a very brief instant where current does flow and heat is generated. The amount of energy dissipated is infinitesimal. But when you have a chip with 4 million transistors switching 1 billion times per second, you can see where the problems start. Making the transistors smaller (ie, CMOS 0.13 micron technology vs. CMOS 0.18 micron) helps to alleviate the problems associated with faster speeds.

There is no magic solution to the heat problem. Making chips smaller and reducing voltages are the obvious measures - but they introduce problems of their own.

beatle888
Jun 22, 2002, 12:38 PM
I understand how some mac users would want
to switch platforms to gain speed. I feel that
way my self. But I do hope that Apple catches
up cause no UI is pretty enough if you can't
push your files around. And that's what's beginning
to happen.

Also, whats with the new Apple ads talking about
a CLUNKY (PC) user experience? Have you used OSX on
a tibook? Sorry but waiting 1 second after you click
on a menu is pretty CLUNKY to me (ok maybe 1/2 second).
There are other examples that escape me right now
but believe me, I use a ti every day and jeeze, OSX is
CLUNKY, powerful, and pretty.

G4scott
Jun 22, 2002, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by crassusad44
This rumor is silly. It's the only rumor that says the G4 will not evolve, when we know it will. And why the **** would a Power Mac come with spare parts??????? Changing the power supply would void warranty. This is something Apple does not want the regular Joe to do. Either this rumor applies to the XServe ONLY, or the author of this rumor is plain stupid....

Actually, If Apple makes the power supply easily accessible, changing out a faulty power supply would have less potential to do damage to your machine than installing RAM. Besides, these are future machines, and unless you are the lawyer writing up the warranty policy, then don't argue about voiding the warranty on a machine that doesn't exist.

As far as everyone complaining about the inability to run OS 9 on a machine that does not yet exist... THE RUMOR SAYS THAT IT WILL COME OUT LATE 2003!!! That's more than a year from now. In that time, Mac OS X will speed up, it will gain more features, and more apps will be released. As long as you support only OS 9, you will be hurting the progress of the Mac OS. OS X is a must. It is faster, more stable, more powerful, and more flexible than any classic Mac OS. We need Mac OS X for the future. Give Mac OS X a try, even if you don't use it for much. Try to find a way to use it productively. Give Apple feedback, and tell them what you think, so that Apple can improve on Mac OS X. Write to software companies stressing why support for OS X is important, so that they hurry up with the transition. The classic OS is a dying OS. It doesn't have much life left in it for the future. If Apple is going to make forward progress, they need to lay OS 9 to rest (to the public, since he already buried it for the developers :D )

Also... for those who complain that OS X takes too long to open menus and the such, you must realize that OS X is doing much more in the background than OS 9. Quartz Extreme will probably help with this, but OS X will still feel a little slow, until it's refined more, and we have faster machines. I do agree, though, that Apple should work on a tuned-down interface, for pros or people who just want a snappier system that doesn't always have to be working with translucency effects. Maybe have the 'aqua' theme, and a 'opaque aqua' theme. This way, the processor can do real work in applications, instead of drawing menus and UI elements. I'm sure that if OS X ran a classic UI natively, it would appear quite faster.

I'm not sure what to say about processors, though. The G3 lasted in pro computers for just under 2 years. If you look at the past, The G3 was in pro and consumer computers for 1 year. January 2003 will be the 1 year mark for the G4 being in both the consumer iMac and PowerMac. Going by what Apple has done in the past, you would expect for them to release new processors, or some major feature in January 2003. It isn't good to be using the same processors in the consumer desktops as you do in the pro desktops. Bad marketing. It's good for consumers, but not for the pros, and with Apple focusing on the digital video market, and other pro markets, Apple need some good news before many people would consider going to Macs.

But, you never know... Steve may have something up his sleeve this July or January... We never saw the iMacs going G4 with super drives and LCD's...

Oh, and one more thing...

jbouklas
Jun 22, 2002, 01:48 PM
An 800 MHz mac is faster than any 800 MHz PC. That is a fact. The only problem is the price difference between the two. Apples are becoming cost ineffective unless Apple can put some fire under Motorola's ass. I am an Apple fan till the end, but I want to start seeing some real improvements soon. I've had my G4 for over two years now. My 7400 G4 is a great chip, but I want a good reason to upgrade. I want to see the next generation chip, AFTER OVER TWO AND A HALF YEARS! It is unheard of for any company to keep a chip in production for that long. Granted, it had that much life in it, but enough is enough. Apple needs to pump out their next generation chip sooner rather than later. The timing is right for MWNY, but it won't happen. That means for another year, the entire Apple line will be G4s, no high-end G5 (the iBooks will probably move over to G4s in the next 4 months). Apple is caught between a rock and a hard place. My friend has an $800 1.4 GHz Athlon PC system at home, and it is amazing. If Apple had something with a comparable speed at a comparable price, I'd own it right now. But, I doubt they ever will.

-Jim

spuncan
Jun 22, 2002, 02:14 PM
Look almost everyone here and most the Mac comunity relates to Intel. At this point the dual 1ghz is about the same speed as a 2.1ghz Intel it's just that Moto and Intel chose two different things to focus on from the get go in they're chips. Think about AMD they're coming out w/ a true 64/32 bit processor in late september (ships in October) that will blow away Intel in everying same w/ mac. Already the Athlon XP kicks both processors ass in rendering so stop worrying bout intel. Intels true 64/32bit isn't coming out for a year now. As for these rumors they sound fine for me. Major Mobo updates and speed up to 1.5 by MWSF seems likely. The no 9 support sounds fine to me cept Poser isn't going to X completely for a few months. All this will do is force my dad to buy a new computer seeing that this 233 G3 can barely run X.
Oh yeah BTW Il'l be gone for the next day or 2 because Im switching to X

numb_brain
Jun 22, 2002, 02:54 PM
Everybody seems to be so upset because the G5 isn't coming. I admit I'm a bit dissappointed too, but that doesn't mean Apple is standing still. In a couple of weeks we'll be seeing the new version of G4. Because of the deeper pipeline-stages, getting higher clockspeeds should be easier, and that's why I'm convinced we'll see clockspeeds of 1.4 GHz. That alone would mean performance boost of at least 50%. And they wil boost up the bus speed to 266 MHz, which should ad another improvement of at least 50 %. Think about it: they are going to be doubling performance at MWNY!!!!

Then at the end of august, Jaguar will come out, which will improve the startup and general OS-speed with about 30 % by making much better use of the graphic card.

And in response of the people who say Apple's speed is way behind PC with Maya and other 3D rendering software: that's not Apple's fault. It's the software that needs to be updated drastically (Maya still has a lot of evolving to undergo on Mac OSX). But believe me, they will...

Just looking on the bright side of things of course...

mymemory
Jun 22, 2002, 03:02 PM
I'm running OS X for third time and I'm really glad I have a new WINDOW just like the PCs have, that wWINDOW that allows me to choose what aplication I want to FORCE QUIT. It is very usefull because I'm using it A LOT lately.

BTW, how come here in Venezuela I can get a 1Ghz PC for $400 while the same thing in Apple cost $3.000? I know about the differences but, don't you think we are falling in to a fanatic users market?

What is the price an Apple computer should have to make a PC a better deal? 10.000?

alex_ant
Jun 22, 2002, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Don't believe those Mhz ratings. It is a myth. Why a Pentium IV is actually slower at RC5 than a Pentium III, and 5 times slower than a G4. Check the ratings at

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_test.html
Another place where the G4 is 5 times faster then the Pentium IV:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html

Now this just means you need to demand that more of your Macintosh apps became Altivec native, and tell the developers of those programs how to make their applications Altivec native:
OK, so we're supposed to nag the very developers who have just spent months carbonizing their apps to vectorize their fp-intensive code in a manner incompatible with the programming architecture of the CPU comprising >90% of their market. That is, IF the apps do not rely on double-precision fp, which AltiVec cannot handle.

Some of us want our computers to be faster at tasks OTHER than RC5, SETI, and certain Photoshop filters. The Megahertz Myth is a myth that doesn't hide the fact that the G4's floating-point unit sucks BIG-TIME, and that doesn't hide the fact that its integer speed is on par only with an equivalently clocked Pentium III, according to the latest SPEC scores (which were published unofficially because Apple is presumably ashamed of the results).

Alex

alex_ant
Jun 22, 2002, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by ktlx
Now that IBM is scaling down their Power line of chips, that is probably the better long term processor for Apple. It is 64-bit, IBM is pouring tons of money into it and it scales to multiprocessor systems very nicely. Imagine a PowerMac with four 64-bit cores, 3MB of L3 cache per core and AltiVec. :D
Better than that, imagine running OS X on a pSeries... Zany! :)

I actually believe POWER will be involved in the Mac's future somehow. It is an architecture unto itself, not just a processor, and I agree that Motorola is pretty much guaranteed to be behind x86 from now on, while POWER technology is being used today in chips much faster than Pentium 4s.

Alex

eunuchs
Jun 22, 2002, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by numb_brain
Everybody seems to be so upset because the G5 isn't coming. I admit I'm a bit dissappointed too, but that doesn't mean Apple is standing still. In a couple of weeks we'll be seeing the new version of G4. Because of the deeper pipeline-stages, getting higher clockspeeds should be easier, and that's why I'm convinced we'll see clockspeeds of 1.4 GHz. That alone would mean performance boost of at least 50%. And they wil boost up the bus speed to 266 MHz, which should ad another improvement of at least 50 %. Think about it: they are going to be doubling performance at MWNY!!!!

Then at the end of august, Jaguar will come out, which will improve the startup and general OS-speed with about 30 % by making much better use of the graphic card.

And in response of the people who say Apple's speed is way behind PC with Maya and other 3D rendering software: that's not Apple's fault. It's the software that needs to be updated drastically (Maya still has a lot of evolving to undergo on Mac OSX). But believe me, they will...

Just looking on the bright side of things of course... Wow, I've got to wonder about the 50% + 50% numbers you're coming up with. Those seem pretty arbitrary.... 30% "general-speed" improvement for Jaguar? Doubling performance at MWNY? Doubtful.

Look, the truth is Macs aren't as fast as your neighbourhood-geek-built Athlons or P4s. I'm not even talking about benchmarks (which Athlons win handily). I'm talking about firing up a web browser, FPS in Quake, and hell, even moving files around in Finder/Explorer. Basic user experience. Windows is ... snappier.

I have no doubt that there is definitely room for improvement with OS X and I'm as hopeful for Jaguar as anyone else. But let's not kid ourselves... the G4, with Apple's current mobos, is no speed demon compared to what's out there in PC-land. This isn't going to change overnight. First of all, Apple needs to move out of 1999 and start including some newer technology in their motherboards. DDR RAM, RapidIO or HyperTransport, etc... this is what we need. I'm hopeful we'll see improvements along these lines at MWNY. They are LONG overdue. IMHO, they are also far more important than a 100-200 MHz speed boost for the G4.

Wry Cooter
Jun 22, 2002, 03:20 PM
Actually the only interesting and promising part of the French rumor to me that there the bit about Moto building a new plant. I always figured the reason other Chip makers do NOT have the same yield problems as they do is, they have more modern facilities and methods. All MOTO really has in their camp is the altivec design... nothing else about the corporation works in concert towards getting out a g5 in usable yields (which most of us feel would probably be out already had the design been farmed out to IBM or AMD or someone to manufacture). And everything else about Motorola is really pure 1970s thinking.

I think Quark will have a carbonized Xpress by MWSF, the problem here is, will all of the myriad plug ins designed for production workflow be ready by then as well?

and No, I don't buy the g5 can't do Classic stuff at all.

alex_ant
Jun 22, 2002, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Cappy
One problem with that scenario is that IBM doesn't do altivec although they are said to be working on their own unit with some similar functions. Who knows how long that will take? It took Moto seemingly forever to bring altivec to market.
One cool thing about POWER4 for example, though, is that it's so damned fast it doesn't need AltiVec. I don't think Apple would opt for POWER4 itself, but I do think a scaled-down chip utilizing POWER technology and still having a faster FPU than a G4's AltiVec unit would certainly be possible. Add that to the fact that software developers would no longer have to spend weeks vectorizing their code to explicitly take advantage of AltiVec... they'd get mad performance compared to x86 with much less painstaking optimizing.

Ouroboros
Jun 22, 2002, 03:22 PM
Everything is a muddled, jumbled mess. We are all grasping at straws. I have a feeling that there isn't ANYTHING that really points to what Apple is going to do. Someone sees something in France, Belgium, Germany, and then it turns out to be bunk or silly. Nothing from Motorola, nothing from IBM. We just don't know. If you tool around other Mac rumor sites, the same thing is happening, there isn't any substantial rumor -- ANYTHING. A bunch of crap really. It is surprising because usually by this point we have SOME idea. This might be a good sign, that maybe Apple has learned how to really tighten the whispers, and that something great is going to come our way this July.

But I'm starting to notice on ALL the sites as well that Apple better do something soon, or people or going to not be there when they finally do "DO" something. It is really frustrating going to a computer store these days lemme tell ya...

alex_ant
Jun 22, 2002, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by jbouklas
An 800 MHz mac is faster than any 800 MHz PC. That is a fact. The only problem is the price difference between the two.
Two points:

1) That's only if you take AltiVec into account... if you look at basic integer and floating-point performance, an 800MHz G4 is pretty much neck-and-neck with an 800MHz PIII in integer speed, and considerably behind the PIII in floating-point. Consider that AltiVec apps account for only a small fraction of all Mac apps and you'll understand why people are so concerned about the Mac falling behind speed wise.

2) Even if an 800MHz Mac is "faster" than an 800MHz PC, that's irrelevant because nobody sells 800MHz PCs anymore. They're running at well above 2GHz now. And don't compare the dual GHz G4 to the 2GHz P4, because that's unfair - compare it to the dual 2GHz Athlon, which will piss all over it at most anything except RC5 and Photoshop filters.

Alex

Grokgod
Jun 22, 2002, 04:04 PM
Alex_ant is totally right!

Comparisons tween a 800 mac and a 800 Wintel is foolish ignorance!

There isnt any freakin 800 Wintel that isnt in a landfill or hiding in someones closet or a room that looks like a closet.

There isnt a company that is selling 800 pIII's so why the hell make such a useless comparison.

You have to compare what is available on the market!

Thats the realworld. I would never buy a 800 powermac because of what is available out there in the market.

I did buy a 800 Ti because i saw a lot of laptops that are out around the 1.2 range and thought that maybe its close enough, and worth it, uhh maybe.
But the real reason I buy APPle after giving it plenty of thought, is that I HATE WINTEL. its a crappy operating system!!

If there was another company out there, then I would be buying that and lauging at APPLE with their old hardware and slow os and the megahertz myth and all the weird propaganda that people come up with to justify and make themselves feel better.

But if there was a BEos box with appz for it and good hardware, Hell I would beon it in a second!

Wouldn't you?

As for the pissing, well I ahve never seen a computer piss! :)

But i had an Athalon once and it had 7 fans in it and when it booted, it created a cyclone in my room that then created a black hole which I am now typing this from. Its kinda like farscape! love that show!

yet, my Ti is totally silent most of the time. :) I love this thing, ohcrap , I have a fondness for APple , like a slow witted niece with pretty blond hair.

Was this post too long?

King Cobra
Jun 22, 2002, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Grokgod
Was this post too long?

Think of it this way...there is no ************* in it. :cool:

But I have to agree with the fans. My father has a Yosemite downstairs and it is rather loud, since it has one fan. I can't imagine what 7 fans would be like. You probably have to yell over the phone!

I would not want to switch over to a fanned computer. Mostly this is because I can't hear my computer run, which is fanless, at all when I am listening to Disturbed. :cool:

dantec
Jun 22, 2002, 05:54 PM
I've got an idea. Why doesn't Apple brand their processors as being 2ghz? That would make sense to the average consumer.

Although the G5 won't come out this summer, I hope we see 1.5-1.7 ghz Powermacs. If they can't achieve higher than 1.5 then at least they should have dual processors across the line!

Whatever happened to the rumors of Appollo being multi-cored?

King Cobra
Jun 22, 2002, 05:59 PM
I think Apple doesn't call it 2GHz because it isn't 2GHz. I guess it would make consumers think that there is a 2GHz chip when Apple has not used a 2GHz chip.

But the idea of total processor speeds for listed speeds makes me wonder if Apple puts a Quad GHz chip in their PowerMac they will call it 4GHz. [Yes, I'll keep dreaming :cool:]

Kid Red
Jun 22, 2002, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by beatle888
I understand how some mac users would want
to switch platforms to gain speed. I feel that
way my self. But I do hope that Apple catches
up cause no UI is pretty enough if you can't
push your files around. And that's what's beginning
to happen.

Also, whats with the new Apple ads talking about
a CLUNKY (PC) user experience? Have you used OSX on
a tibook? Sorry but waiting 1 second after you click
on a menu is pretty CLUNKY to me (ok maybe 1/2 second).
There are other examples that escape me right now
but believe me, I use a ti every day and jeeze, OSX is
CLUNKY, powerful, and pretty.

You obviously don't own a dual gig. Either that or you have no idea what you are talking about.

TypeR389
Jun 22, 2002, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Kid Red


You obviously don't own a dual gig. Either that or you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have never really played much ona dual gig machine, but not to offend anyone, you shouldn't need a dual gig machine to make simple menu operations responsive. That is IMHO apple's biggest problem. the AVG consumer isn't using photoshop or other stuff like that, they are surfing, emailing, word processing, mp3ing etc. Now with the exception of the mp3 encoding, the G4 does not significantly speed up any of these operations compared to the G3. Just go to barefeats, the 700 iBook actually beat the 800 TiBook in several consumer app benchmarks, and it is half the price! I just think the ROI for a lot of people isn't there on the hig end stuff right now...

My $.02...

quickly ducks to avoid flames to the head...

mmmdreg
Jun 22, 2002, 07:48 PM
so this is basically what we've been expecting right? (well at least the next year part of it)...but there's those G4's coming to watch for..can't wait.

ktlx
Jun 22, 2002, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by jbouklas
An 800 MHz mac is faster than any 800 MHz PC. That is a fact. The only problem is the price difference between the two.

I don't know about 800Mhz machines, but I had an 867Mhz PowerMac G4 with 1GB of memory. This was the top of the line single processor PowerMac released at least year's MWNY. At the same time I had an 867Mhz Pentium III with 512MB of memory. Both used PC133 SDRAM and I used OS 9.1 and OS X on the PowerMac and Windows 2000 on the PC.

I ran a series of application-oriented benchmarks on the two machines. These were things like bulk editing of large text files, manipulating images, printing photos and so forth. All of the things that I normally do to maintain my Web site, make prints from digital photos and so forth plus day to day personal things like messing with spreadsheets and Quicken. The PowerMac was slower in all comparisons except for one.

When I compared the two machines for running Photoshop filters, the PowerMac smoked the Pentium III. However, there was nothing else that I did where the Mac was faster in either OS 9 or OS X. After I ran the filters and tried to save the files (~70MB TIFF images), the writes were so much faster on the PC that unless I applied a lot of filters, the overall time spent with the image was longer with the PowerMac.

Scanning the image at 4000dpi on a Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 using the latest drives (at the time) from Nikon yielded results that could not even compare. The PC was routinely two to three times faster to scan the image than the PowerMac. Sure, applying the filters on the PowerMac saved me two or three minutes per image. But scanning and saving the images cost me 10 to 15 minutes. So I sold the PowerMac and started saving for an Athlon XP or Pentium 4.

I hope Apple can get their performance to price ratio and OS X performance in better shape. I like OS X much better than Windows XP. But my current Athlon XP 2100+ machine with 768MB of memory cost me under $1000. The software costs alone to return to Apple are far more than my current PC hardware. And I get better support from hardware manufacturers like Nikon, Epson, etc.

iH8Quark
Jun 22, 2002, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by thopter
No OS9 on new machines + No Quark for OSX = No new sales to printers until 2003?! Seems for every step forward, Apple takes another towards oblivion.

We view this as a GOOD thing. Finally this should be the end of that total ***** piece of software that has been plaguing the design community since its release. InDesign totally rocks. Finally, death to Quark.

Party at my place!! I'm getting a keg! :D ;) :p :D

iH8Quark
Jun 22, 2002, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
There were a lot of people reckoning that the G5 would be out before the last MWSF, and it didn't happen of course. Then they expected it at the last MWSF, five months ago. When there was no sign of it, they thought MWNY for sure, and now it looks like it won't happen at MWNY, either.

Personally I think we should be very disappointed. Weren't there rumors of 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6GHz sample chips earlier this year? Even if the G5 had hit the scene last January at 1.4GHz, it still would have been behind the x86 competition performance-wise. I hope Motorola manages to triple those speeds by late 2003, because that's what it will take to match x86 by that time. Kethoticus made a very valid point about feeling the urge to switch to a faster platform, and I'm sure he's not the only one out there feeling that way. I want a fast G5, and I want it TODAY. Yes, I am aware that today is a Saturday. I don't care! TODAY!! Take yer RapidIO and HyperTransport and shove it - even a 100% speed boost on the current G4s will not be nearly enough.

Alex


Here here. If this is true, it's almost a coffin nail.

iH8Quark
Jun 22, 2002, 08:48 PM
Okay, one last time. AltiVec SUCKS!!!! It's a marketing smoke and mirrors job. Everyone can do this test at home. Run ANY flash movie on a Mac, then run the same flash file on a PC. These are PURE VPU and / or FPU calculations. The PC (ANY PC) will be insanely faster. Yes, FCP 3 is amazing, but Apple DID write it. I would hope that it runs amazingly on their hardware.

AltiVec is a huge part of the problem, it is NOT the solution.

(I promise I will NEVER ever triple post again. Please don't pie me) ;)

Cappy
Jun 22, 2002, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by iH8Quark
Okay, one last time. AltiVec SUCKS!!!! It's a marketing smoke and mirrors job. Everyone can do this test at home. Run ANY flash movie on a Mac, then run the same flash file on a PC. These are PURE VPU and / or FPU calculations. The PC (ANY PC) will be insanely faster. Yes, FCP 3 is amazing, but Apple DID write it. I would hope that it runs amazingly on their hardware.

AltiVec is a huge part of the problem, it is NOT the solution.

(I promise I will NEVER ever triple post again. Please don't pie me) ;)

You need some help.

You fail to point out where Altivec is a part of the problem in your frustration to state any sort of point. Perhaps you have fallen to the smoke and mirrors of the altivec hype in expecting that it would speed up more than it really can do?

theranch
Jun 22, 2002, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by iH8Quark
Okay, one last time. AltiVec SUCKS!!!! It's a marketing smoke and mirrors job. Everyone can do this test at home. Run ANY flash movie on a Mac, then run the same flash file on a PC. These are PURE VPU and / or FPU calculations. The PC (ANY PC) will be insanely faster. Yes, FCP 3 is amazing, but Apple DID write it. I would hope that it runs amazingly on their hardware.

AltiVec is a huge part of the problem, it is NOT the solution.

(I promise I will NEVER ever triple post again. Please don't pie me) ;)
Chalk that up to the browser being built into the OS on a PeeCee. Testing systems based on Flash performance is no benchmark comparison. Blame that difference on macromedia or the browser companies. Macs have more horsepower than peecees and that has been proven. Anyway...I read this thread when it was one page long and people are still not getting it. The main story is about servers and it's only a rumor.

dantec
Jun 23, 2002, 12:25 AM
He has a point though. Alvitec is not the solution. It's the reason we are here in the first place.

Apple originally thought, developers would use the alvitec extensions and therefore moving the highspeed barrier even higher. The shamefull thing, is many Apple things that you do 'not' buy (like FCP) aren't Alvitec enabled.

Hell, I don't even thing QT is alvitec enabled.

Think of it this way: If Apple hadn't switched to G4's with Moto's 'alvitec promise', IBM could have scaled G3's farther, and would have scaled a proper G4, without cache issues which kept it at 500mhz so long.

At this point, since moto is sooo interested in the 'embedded' market, why doesn't Apple contract out AMD to build PPC processors? From what I can put together, they both use the same raw materials, and AMD has more plants that Moto and would have more dedication to Apple. Would AMD have to build new wafers for PPC chips?

Kethoticus
Jun 23, 2002, 12:26 AM
"Anyway...I read this thread when it was one page long and people are still not getting it. The main story is about servers and it's only a rumor."

Yes, but do you not think that the servers will be an indication of what to expect in the highest end? If these rumors come true for the servers, imagine how much more pathetic the desktops will be. Altho I imagine that the OS 9 part of the rumor is the part that applies to servers specifically. I can not believe that Apple would discontinue installing this mainstay just yet.

But here's to hoping that we have much better things to get from Apple in the coming months.

alex_ant
Jun 23, 2002, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Cappy


You need some help.

You fail to point out where Altivec is a part of the problem in your frustration to state any sort of point. Perhaps you have fallen to the smoke and mirrors of the altivec hype in expecting that it would speed up more than it really can do?
I'll help him point it out - I wouldn't say AltiVec sucks, but it is not ideal. It:

1) Requires software developers to re-write the parts of their code suitable for vectorization specifically for AltiVec, a laborious process.

2) Is not compatible with any other common CPU technology. If you want to run AltiVec-optimized code on x86, forget about a simple recompile, unless you don't care that it will run incredibly slowly. This is a problem, because approximately 95% of the desktop computer market uses x86 machines. Of course Apple owns niches outside the desktop computer market, but they are just that: niches. What happens to Apple when it becomes a mere niche player is that it becomes another Amiga.

3) Is only of any use on single-precision floating-point operations. If you want good integer or double-precision float performance with your G4, forget it.

What Apple needs is either 1) an auto-vectorizing compiler (good luck w/ that), or 2) a robust, general-purpose floating point unit to take the place of AltiVec in its machines. AltiVec is a hack only suitable for a limited set of tasks, and the G4's FP performance as it stands is atrocious.

Alex

alex_ant
Jun 23, 2002, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by theranch

Chalk that up to the browser being built into the OS on a PeeCee. Testing systems based on Flash performance is no benchmark comparison. Blame that difference on macromedia or the browser companies.
First of all, it has nothing to do with the browser being built into the OS, because Flash is a third-party plugin that has nothing to do with how the browser is implemented. I agree that it's not a good benchmark, but it is a good real-world example of what happens when a company writes cross-platform code and implements it on multiple platforms. I'm guessing this is what Macromedia did:

- They wrote a cross-platform browser plugin
- They compiled it once for x86, and once again for PPC

It's not like they would sit there and tweak the hell out of the x86 version while allowing the PPC version to languish, because they need the plugins they deploy to be as compatible and standard among different platforms as possible. The fact that Flash sucks on the Mac is no great conspiracy, it's simply evidence that 1) the G4 is far behind x86 in performance, AltiVec notwithstanding, and/or 2) GCC, the compiler Apple ships with its developers kit (or whatever it's called), sucks. Probably some combination of the two. But don't fool yourself into believing that even the fastest G4 is not currently choking on x86's dust at the moment.
Macs have more horsepower than peecees and that has been proven.
By who, Apple? Pretty much nobody besides the Mac zealots and the brain-damaged believes that Macs generally have more "horsepower" than PCs these days. If you're cracking RC5 or running select Photoshop filters, sure. Under the great majority of other circumstances, there is no comparison.

Alex

alex_ant
Jun 23, 2002, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by dantec

At this point, since moto is sooo interested in the 'embedded' market, why doesn't Apple contract out AMD to build PPC processors? From what I can put together, they both use the same raw materials, and AMD has more plants that Moto and would have more dedication to Apple. Would AMD have to build new wafers for PPC chips?
From what I understand, AMD has barely enough manufacturing resources to produce its own chips as it stands. I don't know how keen it would be to manufacture chips for a competitor, considering it would then either have to raise the prices of its Athlons etc. or take a bigger financial hit than it already is.

SheepAnonymous
Jun 23, 2002, 01:19 AM
i've been a mac user since 1994 and have owned 6 macs in that time. however, i am looking to get a new computer for the upcoming college year and this news isn't helping much. the current cheapest g4 on the market is $1100, which sports an exciting 133 mhz bus, while on the other hand you can get a 1.5 ghz pc with a 400 mhz bus for $500 (throw in a monitor and a copy of windows and you're up to $800)... i remember when a friend bought a dual-processor g4/500 and how nice it was 2 years ago, and now i think about how it can still run fairly well compared to current versions of the chip...
yeah... i'm gonna repeat a few people from earlier for emphasis. either there needs to be some serious price drops or there needs to be some serious speed increases because i can't handle spending twice as much for something equally fast (if that). what worries me is that lots of other dedicated mac users can't either... i'm ready to wait until MWNY to see if anything spectacular comes out, but otherwise the current iBoob for $1500 is just too overpriced for me...
if anyone wants to know where i got that figure, it was just from searching price.com (http://www.price.com/computing/jump.html?id=-2145640411&vendor_id=-2147483199&epg=3112&sitecode=price.computing)

Cappy
Jun 23, 2002, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by dantec
He has a point though. Alvitec is not the solution. It's the reason we are here in the first place.

Apple originally thought, developers would use the alvitec extensions and therefore moving the highspeed barrier even higher. The shamefull thing, is many Apple things that you do 'not' buy (like FCP) aren't Alvitec enabled.

Hell, I don't even thing QT is alvitec enabled.

Think of it this way: If Apple hadn't switched to G4's with Moto's 'alvitec promise', IBM could have scaled G3's farther, and would have scaled a proper G4, without cache issues which kept it at 500mhz so long.

At this point, since moto is sooo interested in the 'embedded' market, why doesn't Apple contract out AMD to build PPC processors? From what I can put together, they both use the same raw materials, and AMD has more plants that Moto and would have more dedication to Apple. Would AMD have to build new wafers for PPC chips?

You must be talking to Miss Cleo because that's one of the biggest load of crap I've seen in this thread. You're flat out making stuff up to attempt to rationalize your opinion.

On altivec Apple felt that was the best decision for their platform to take. Don't even think for a second that Apple felt that altivec would be the be all, end all. They knew there was only so many things it could do so only a limited number of developers could or rather would even bother to support it. Despite what some may think Apple does know a thing or two about cpu's.

Very little of what Apple does affects how IBM scales the G3. Face it folks IBM is just as guilty at clockspeeds stagnating with the PPC chips as Moto. They're not really all that far ahead if at all. Don't get caught up in the religious battles that folks seems to be creating over this.

As for AMD well...why? IBM is a more likely candidate with better, more available resources. Besides consider that AMD has their hands full already and then some. Much of the media and the tech enthusiast places them on a pedastal since they've been making Intel chips look bad but they're hurting financially. They're literally fighting for their life especially now and wouldn't want those distractions.

Frankly there isn't a real strong cpu manufacturer out there when you start digging into things. Intel is the evil empire yet constantly is shooting itself in the foot so often that nothing seems to be a sure bet unless they throw their money around(which they have). AMD is struggling with even the 64 bit stuff as well as the clockspeed and performance issues when compared to Intel. Moto and IBM always seem to have something cool waiting in the wings but by the time they're here and the hype is over, we wonder what happened. Moto's G4 took forever and no matter how elegant of a chip can be considered a flop in many people's eyes. IBM still hasn't delivered their promised multi-cpu on a chip. We've heard about that for years and still nothing. Moto is said to be working on one as well but they keep pushing it back also. Going to multi-cpu on a chip is likely Apple's best chance to get back in the performance race again besides making heavy improvements to their motherboards.

Actually I feel that if Apple can do well(great would be better of course) performancewise in the laptop field that they're marketshare can grow more overall than if they just focused on their desktop market. Most Windows folks interested in the Mac are mostly talking about the laptops where they know they won't be playing the latest games that Macs won't always have or need to crunch out tons of rendering, etc.

Rocketman
Jun 23, 2002, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by King Cobra


I am now getting concerned about what will happen w/the G4. What if there were 1.2GHz G4s for New York, 1.4GHz for SF2003, and more slower increments to follow?

I think Apple needs to take much bigger jumps than 200MHz every six months, since it doesn't seem to be very impressive. Think about it: If in early 2003 the fastest we have will be 1.4GHz, then that means Apple needs to catch up IMO.

.

1. The G5 when finally released will go to Xserve first.

2. The bottleneck on a consumer/desktop mac right now is bandwidth or motherboard speed. There are several ways to address this.

a. Up the processor speeds to multi- Ghz ranges.
b. Cripple the application sufficiently to run on one or more slower systems.
c. Employ supplemental or clustered processing.

Now that Xserve is here, it is not far behind for home servers or SOHO servers to become widespread. Airport was an element of tis evolution and OSX on a consumer mac was the keystone. Not long from now Congress will mandate bandwidth everywhere and all that unused fiber will have a new life.

The Macs of today cannnot easily handle 4 TV resolution Quicktime channels operating in the background almost constantly. The home server wll. It has been known in the past as a "set-top box". I assume it will TiVo and more.

Satellite internet arrived.

G4 has life since it was only this month introduced into low-end products. I assume 3-4 years. This is post war, post tech bust, post market crash times.

Apple will solve for highest profit timeline, not most tech advancing (in numerical terms) hardware. This is too bad and a fact of life at the bleeding edge.

BUT you will soon have Bluetooth, Firewire2, USB2 and 802.11b, which has already arrived and keeps up with gigawire if multiplexed.

We still have no capability to make a computer use some revolutionare GUI to get rid og the keyboard. Star Trek is not here yet. BUT more and more people will switch to the server client model and therefore be fully compute mobile ala cell phones.

Rocketman

http://v-serv.com/-upload/avatar.jog

Cappy
Jun 23, 2002, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by SheepAnonymous
i'm ready to wait until MWNY to see if anything spectacular comes out, but otherwise the current iBoob for $1500 is just too overpriced for me...

I might tend to agree with the current features. If they upped the memory limitations to at least 1 GB then I would revisit my opinion. If I could play Steve at Apple, I'd be pushing those current ibooks down in price as quick as possible and slide something else with higher memory limitations and slimmer form factor into it's current slot. Those ibooks are nice for lowend but they're really not priced well for lowend now like they once were. The market has passed them by in the eyes of the consumer.

Rocketman
Jun 23, 2002, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by King Cobra


I am now getting concerned about what will happen w/the G4. What if there were 1.2GHz G4s for New York, 1.4GHz for SF2003, and more slower increments to follow?

I think Apple needs to take much bigger jumps than 200MHz every six months, since it doesn't seem to be very impressive. Think about it: If in early 2003 the fastest we have will be 1.4GHz, then that means Apple needs to catch up IMO.

.

1. The G5 when finally released will go to Xserve first.

2. The bottleneck on a consumer/desktop mac right now is bandwidth or motherboard speed. There are several ways to address this.

a. Up the processor speeds to multi- Ghz ranges.
b. Cripple the application sufficiently to run on one or more slower systems.
c. Employ supplemental or clustered processing.

Now that Xserve is here, it is not far behind for home servers or SOHO servers to become widespread. Airport was an element of tis evolution and OSX on a consumer mac was the keystone. Not long from now Congress will mandate bandwidth everywhere and all that unused fiber will have a new life.

The Macs of today cannnot easily handle 4 TV resolution Quicktime channels operating in the background almost constantly. The home server wll. It has been known in the past as a "set-top box". I assume it will TiVo and more.

Satellite internet arrived.

G4 has life since it was only this month introduced into low-end products. I assume 3-4 years. This is post war, post tech bust, post market crash times.

Apple will solve for highest profit timeline, not most tech advancing (in numerical terms) hardware. This is too bad and a fact of life at the bleeding edge.

BUT you will soon have Bluetooth, Firewire2, USB2 and 802.11b, which has already arrived and keeps up with gigawire if multiplexed.

We still have no capability to make a computer use some revolutionare GUI to get rid og the keyboard. Star Trek is not here yet. BUT more and more people will switch to the server client model and therefore be fully compute mobile ala cell phones.

Rocketman

http://v-serv.com/-upload/avatar.jpg

Grokgod
Jun 23, 2002, 02:43 AM
This thread is making me very unhappy.

Someone said that the iBook beat the 800 Ti without pointing to the specs or tests. I refuse to believe that without some very hardcore information and testing!

All these guys with Pcheeses posting and talking crap about Mac's whats up with that. I understand that you can't afford a New MAC and will once again buy Gates pet. But why are we hearing about it.

I just find it strange, there have been a lot of threads about people needing to be convinced to NOT buy a Dell or a whatever Pcheese.

I can understand that people waver tween the current choices.

Still it seems that there is something in the air! I think that there is alot of frustration with ApPLE, I think that it is growing. Perhaps it is growing to an uncontrollable level in people heads, maybe people are thinking that its better to deal with the monolithic demon of M$ than with the frustraion of having a 3000 dollar that cant run its own OS properly in the year 2002.

Yet, I have both computers, a P4 and an APPLE Ti 800.
The P4 is very fast has all the best specs, its black box of pure speed.

Strangely since I got my Ti, I havent booted the P4 yet!

Yea, I get the beachball, and it makes me wince but I still havent moved to the Wintel machine. Its been a few weeks.

Wonder what will happen when I have to render some 3d files?

Hopefully it won't be before july 19 and I can order a New PowerMac which will hopefully be much faster.

Or maybe all this frustration will create the final song of doom for APPLE.

alex_ant
Jun 23, 2002, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by Cappy

Very little of what Apple does affects how IBM scales the G3. Face it folks IBM is just as guilty at clockspeeds stagnating with the PPC chips as Moto. They're not really all that far ahead if at all. Don't get caught up in the religious battles that folks seems to be creating over this.

...

IBM still hasn't delivered their promised multi-cpu on a chip. We've heard about that for years and still nothing.
I agree that IBM has allowed the PPC to stagnate, but you're forgetting PPC's big brother, the POWER series. POWER4 is currently whipping pretty much everyone else's butt at the moment, and I do mean everyone, including Itanium and Alpha and all the rest. And it does qualify as a "multi-CPU on a chip," with 2-4 cores per die. IBM is ahead of its competition at the moment, nevermind the fact that the least expensive machine available with a POWER4 (pSeries?) costs around $40k...

Alex

s10
Jun 23, 2002, 04:28 AM
It's sooo funny to read all these comments just because of some rumors from who knows who based on what.
I mean even if they were real, you still can't comment as they are so fragmentated and uncomplete.

iwantanewmac
Jun 23, 2002, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by mymemory
I'm running OS X for third time and I'm really glad I have a new WINDOW just like the PCs have, that wWINDOW that allows me to choose what aplication I want to FORCE QUIT. It is very usefull because I'm using it A LOT lately.

BTW, how come here in Venezuela I can get a 1Ghz PC for $400 while the same thing in Apple cost $3.000? I know about the differences but, don't you think we are falling in to a fanatic users market?

What is the price an Apple computer should have to make a PC a better deal? 10.000?

yeah. I know a lot of people who ant to switch, but they don't because those towers are too expensive. Most of them only play games, and an Imac is not n option because it is not upgradable and too slow.

ktlx
Jun 23, 2002, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Cappy

IBM still hasn't delivered their promised multi-cpu on a chip. We've heard about that for years and still nothing.

What do you think is running in IBM's top of the line servers? What do you call the Power4 line? They have two cores per chip and are moving toward four cores per chip. If you do not believe me, look at IBM's site under the pSeries 670 and pSeries 690 high end servers.

Cappy
Jun 23, 2002, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by ktlx


What do you think is running in IBM's top of the line servers? What do you call the Power4 line? They have two cores per chip and are moving toward four cores per chip. If you do not believe me, look at IBM's site under the pSeries 670 and pSeries 690 high end servers.

<sigh>

We're talking about PPC desktops here, are we not? Something that fits with Apple's motherboard architecture. I haven't forgotten about the Power4 line. It really doesn't apply except for some of the ideas that trickle down.

ktlx
Jun 23, 2002, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Cappy


<sigh>

We're talking about PPC desktops here, are we not? Something that fits with Apple's motherboard architecture. I haven't forgotten about the Power4 line. It really doesn't apply except for some of the ideas that trickle down.

Well then stick to the point if you want to talk about PPC desktops. Point to some place where IBM ever said that it would bring multi-core PowerPC architecture chips to the desktop. Otherwise don't go bouncing around criticizing companies for not meeting promises they never made.

So far as I can determine, IBM has never claimed it would bring multi-core chips to the desktop in any architecture in the foreseeable future. IBM does not claim to even be considering bringing multi-core chips to the low end server lines. The only thing I have ever heard them say is they would like to disable some of the functionality so they could use the same architecture across their server lines.

topicolo
Jun 23, 2002, 01:23 PM
All I have to say is: ***** Motorola. They've screwed with Apple for TOO LONG. Apple needs to begin doing R&D to convert their OS to x86 processors. I mean, whether you admit it or not, the x86 world is advancing faster than the PPC world. AMD's gonna release their 64bit hammer chips by Q1 2k3, and Intel's gonna be at 3Ghz. If the G4s don't keep up (very likely considering Moto), they're gonna be left in the dust.

Cappy
Jun 23, 2002, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by ktlx


Well then stick to the point if you want to talk about PPC desktops. Point to some place where IBM ever said that it would bring multi-core PowerPC architecture chips to the desktop. Otherwise don't go bouncing around criticizing companies for not meeting promises they never made.

So far as I can determine, IBM has never claimed it would bring multi-core chips to the desktop in any architecture in the foreseeable future. IBM does not claim to even be considering bringing multi-core chips to the low end server lines. The only thing I have ever heard them say is they would like to disable some of the functionality so they could use the same architecture across their server lines.

Listen. It was a simple statement based off what I have heard in the past. What you've heard does not necessarily give you're statement anymore credibility.

I will; however, check and see if I can find those statements that I had *heard* about long ago and am willing to admit if I'm wrong. Are you? You have stock in IBM or something?

eunuchs
Jun 23, 2002, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by topicolo
All I have to say is: ***** Motorola. They've screwed with Apple for TOO LONG. Apple needs to begin doing R&D to convert their OS to x86 processors. I mean, whether you admit it or not, the x86 world is advancing faster than the PPC world. AMD's gonna release their 64bit hammer chips by Q1 2k3, and Intel's gonna be at 3Ghz. If the G4s don't keep up (very likely considering Moto), they're gonna be left in the dust. Repeat after me, "Apple will not go to x86". It would be suicide for them. Their bread and butter is hardware sales with hefty margins. Going to x86 would at once force them to drop their margins to compete and increase support costs. It was bad enough with PPC clones, it would be orders of magnitude worse with x86.

Also, P4 will hit 3 GHz, sure. But Itanium is way back there in processor clock speed. There are reasons for this. Many of them are the same reasons the G4 is still hovering around 1 GHz. Clock speed is NOT everything. There are many factors that count toward performance. Bus speeds and bandwidth are arguably MORE important these days than raw MHz. It's like having a Ferrari with the governor kicking in at 50 mph. Granted, the G4 is no Ferrari. But even a Ford Focus can hit 100 mph.

What worries me is that at this stage, Apple doesn't have any of the factors in the performance equation going for them on the consumer end. I'm hoping XServe is merely the tip of the iceberg. We need DDR and HyperTransport in PowerMacs soon. Just these two technologies would make a world of difference in day-to-day computing on Macs.

Cappy
Jun 23, 2002, 02:52 PM
Without delving too deep into this mess here is the IBM roadmap that mentions multicore ppc cpu's beginning at 1 Ghz. Of course there is no time frame given but from what I recall that roadmap was changed long ago to keep them from being held more accountable.


http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/rdmap/roadmap_small.jpg

Now if I'm reading that wrong, feel free to correct me but it matches up with what has been said in articles dating back to 1999. Mackido was one such site that mentioned it at least once or twice that IBM and Moto were looking into multicore technology. Say what you will but I lend alot of credibility to many, if not all, of Mackido's articles.

ktlx
Jun 23, 2002, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Cappy
Now if I'm reading that wrong, feel free to correct me but it matches up with what has been said in articles dating back to 1999. Mackido was one such site that mentioned it at least once or twice that IBM and Moto were looking into multicore technology. Say what you will but I lend alot of credibility to many, if not all, of Mackido's articles.

Nope, you are right. IBM has talked about multi-core PowerPC chips in the past. I have only seen IBM talk about multi-core server chips until now. But if you look at the technology on their roadmap, it is still tough to take them to task for not delivering yet. They are talking about implementing multi-core with sub-0.13u processes. That is 2003-2004 kind of stuff. Hell, 0.13u processes will be 2003-2004 for some processor makers. :D

BTW, no, I don't have stock in IBM. I respond when I think someone has taken an unjustified shot at any manufacturer. I have defended Motorola against the clueless who think they should spend as much as Intel to create a 2+Ghz G5 when Apple's market share cannot justify the expense.

ktlx
Jun 23, 2002, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by eunuchs
Also, P4 will hit 3 GHz, sure. But Itanium is way back there in processor clock speed. There are reasons for this. Many of them are the same reasons the G4 is still hovering around 1 GHz.


On the other hand, Intel has tons more R&D money to make Itanium work quickly. And as Intel works the kinks out of the CPU, they will continue to shrink the process and boost the spped. Itanium is a much newer and more complicated processor than the PowerPC and Intel will blow past it by sheer force of dollars and numbers.

Clock speed is NOT everything. There are many factors that count toward performance. Bus speeds and bandwidth are arguably MORE important these days than raw MHz.

And bringing up bus speed and bandwidth issues works against the G4. It has lower bus speeds and memory bandwidth available to it compared to the AMD and Intel processors.

Rocketman
Jun 23, 2002, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Grokgod


Yet, I have both computers, a P4 and an APPLE Ti 800.
The P4 is very fast has all the best specs, its black box of pure speed.

Strangely since I got my Ti, I havent booted the P4 yet!



Need you say more? My experience with Macs since their own Day 1 is they have always been more expensive, a little slower, but capable of ALOT more tasks right out of the box and I have never had a PC useful for more than 4 years (my 10Mhz 286 AT clone), and most are unsuitable after 2 years.

I have not had a Mac yet that was not good for 6 years.

Getting stuck in the details of raw numbers is not indicitative of why you wand and need to own a Mac. It does more things, and it does them for a much longer lifespan prior to upgrading.

Not to say you should not upgrade your recent Mac, you should. But then give the "old" one to someone knowing it is still very useful for daily tasks and knowing you are not giving someone your $100 value trash with a STEEP learning curve.

Rocketman

http://v-serv.com/-upload/avatar.jpg

eunuchs
Jun 23, 2002, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by ktlx
On the other hand, Intel has tons more R&D money to make Itanium work quickly. And as Intel works the kinks out of the CPU, they will continue to shrink the process and boost the spped. Itanium is a much newer and more complicated processor than the PowerPC and Intel will blow past it by sheer force of dollars and numbers.Yes, Intel has more money and will undoubtedly improve Itanium. Please don't get me wrong here, I am by no means suggesting the G4 has any sort of claim for parity with the Itanium. I'm only trying to point out - once again - that clock speed is just one indication of performance. And no, I'm not just recycling the "MHz Myth". As hokey as that whole thing is, there are certain truths in it. Those truths do little to mask the PowerMac's poor performance though.And bringing up bus speed and bandwidth issues works against the G4. It has lower bus speeds and memory bandwidth available to it compared to the AMD and Intel processors. Surely you don't mean to suggest that the present Apple motherboard+G4 combo is as maxed out performance-wise as it can get??? The lower bus speeds and memory bandwidth on Macs have a lot to do with less-than-stellar Mac motherboards. Call me crazy, but I think the addition of DDR RAM and advanced bus technology like HyperTransport could do wonders for improving performance of PowerMacs. That's all I'm trying to say.

alex_ant
Jun 23, 2002, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by topicolo
All I have to say is: ***** Motorola. They've screwed with Apple for TOO LONG. Apple needs to begin doing R&D to convert their OS to x86 processors.
NO!!!!

Enough said. :)

iwantanewmac
Jun 23, 2002, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by eunuchs
Repeat after me, "Apple will not go to x86". It would be suicide for them. Their bread and butter is hardware sales with hefty margins. Going to x86 would at once force them to drop their margins to compete and increase support costs. It was bad enough with PPC clones, it would be orders of magnitude worse with x86.

Also, P4 will hit 3 GHz, sure. But Itanium is way back there in processor clock speed. There are reasons for this. Many of them are the same reasons the G4 is still hovering around 1 GHz. Clock speed is NOT everything. There are many factors that count toward performance. Bus speeds and bandwidth are arguably MORE important these days than raw MHz. It's like having a Ferrari with the governor kicking in at 50 mph. Granted, the G4 is no Ferrari. But even a Ford Focus can hit 100 mph.

What worries me is that at this stage, Apple doesn't have any of the factors in the performance equation going for them on the consumer end. I'm hoping XServe is merely the tip of the iceberg. We need DDR and HyperTransport in PowerMacs soon. Just these two technologies would make a world of difference in day-to-day computing on Macs.

Clockspeed is not everything. I agree.
Bus speeds and bandwith are important. sure
You've checked the latest G4's bus speed? it S*ucks

SheepAnonymous
Jun 23, 2002, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Rocketman

I have not had a Mac yet that was not good for 6 years.
http://v-serv.com/-upload/avatar.jpg

6 years is defintely stretching it, unless all you do is write papers on it... I bought my iBook two years ago and it barely ran things well last year... I bought a 256 meg ram chip (bringing it to 320) and got every bit of juice out of it, but it still doesn't perform very well with new software. Photoshop lags and takes a good chunk of time for filters, loading, and saving, Bryce 4 has always been slow, games run horribly (Diablo 2, Monkey Island 4, Baldur's Gate 2, etc) and don't even get me started on finalcut... The only good thing I see in it is when I turn off VM and crank up a ram disk I can get a good 6-8 hours of battery life. I don't see how the old iBooks have a good sell value, but it's still worth a good $400 or so and I'm definitely taking advantage of that...

It's not like I've seen a PC that can last a good chunk of time before going bad, but it's not like macs last much longer before going horribly obsolete. The only use I have for my old computers are to buy a huge hard drive and play music on them, store old files on them via ethernet, or set them up as webservers...

UnknownPoster
Jun 23, 2002, 06:28 PM
All of this is a (highly educated) guess as to what Apple could release
if they wanted to. No Apple Confidential Internal information was used
in these proposed designs.


=======================================================================

Desktop Macintosh Tower for Pro Graphics/Pro Audio/Cad/Science/Software Development

4x Motorola PPC 7455 Apollo G4 CPUs @ 1Ghz
2x Tundra Tsi890: PowerPC Universal Interconnect Switch (Northbridge)
2x TI 1394b OHCI controllers (64bit 66mhz PCI)
2x Key Largo ASICs (Southbridge, USB, IDE, ATA/100)
1x PMU99 Power Management Controller

A system with the above chips would have:

9,000 MIPS for PPC Server Applications
14,000MegaFlops forAltivec Applications
2x PCIX - PCI64/66 Controllers (up to 8 PCI slots)
2x DDR 333 Memory Controllers (up to 5.3 GigaByte/sec I/O)
4xGigabit Ethernet Ports (Built-in Gigabit Hub/Router)
4xSerial Ports
8xDMA Controllers
4x USB 1.0 Ports
6x 1394b 800Mbps FireWire Ports (FireWire Raid 0/1/5/5+Hotswap)
2x IDE/ATAPA Ports
2x IDE/Ultra ATA 100 Ports (IDE Raid 0/1)

Price $3000-$4000

=======================================================================

Rackmount Macintosh Server for Render Farms, Graphics and Video

6x Motorola PPC 7455 Apollo G4 CPUs @ 1Ghz
1x Tundra Tsi500: RapidIO 6 Port Switch
6x Tundra Tsi890: PowerPC Universal Interconnect Switch (Northbridge)
6x TI 1394b OHCI controllers (64bit 66mhz PCI)
2x Key Largo ASICs (Southbridge, USB, IDE, ATA/100)
1x PMU99 Power Management Controller

A system with the above chips would have:

14,000 MIPS for Integer Applications 55,000 Megaflops for ALTIVEC
6x PCIX - PCI64/66 Controllers (up to 24 PCI slots)
6x DDR 333 Memory Controllers (up to 16 GigaByte/sec I/O)
12xGigabit Ethernet Ports (Built-in Gigabit Hub/Router)
12xSerial Ports
24xDMA Controllers
4x USB 1.0 Ports
36x1394b 800Mbps FireWire Ports (FireWire Raid 0/1/5/5+Hotswap)
2x IDE/ATAPA Ports
2x IDE/Ultra ATA 100 Ports (IDE Raid 0/1)

Price $5000-$7500

=======================================================================

tweedy7736
Jun 23, 2002, 07:35 PM
Oops, sorry guys. I didn't realize I wasn't clear there. I was definitely joking. I didn't realize that a :D wasn't enough. :rolleyes:

For your CORRECT information, "est fournie en" means, "is furnished with."
Also, "rechanges" means, "replacements."

So, etoile is correct. By no means would Apple make a machine out of recyclable parts...Seriously.

Next time I'll be sure and make myself more clear :)

Inhale420
Jun 23, 2002, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Ballresin
Okay...I have to say this, even if I get laughed at.

I heard (I don't know where) that the G5 would use a positive ground, rather than negative, and thus would apply a rule of physics in which the chip would actually run cold rather than hot.

Please...tell me either that I am wrong, or that we are in for a helluva ride.
(retarded) (super-fast hertz)

I doubt something this big could be overlooked, but is it possible?

lay off the crackpipe for few days.

Cappy
Jun 23, 2002, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by ktlx


Nope, you are right. IBM has talked about multi-core PowerPC chips in the past. I have only seen IBM talk about multi-core server chips until now. But if you look at the technology on their roadmap, it is still tough to take them to task for not delivering yet. They are talking about implementing multi-core with sub-0.13u processes. That is 2003-2004 kind of stuff. Hell, 0.13u processes will be 2003-2004 for some processor makers. :D

BTW, no, I don't have stock in IBM. I respond when I think someone has taken an unjustified shot at any manufacturer. I have defended Motorola against the clueless who think they should spend as much as Intel to create a 2+Ghz G5 when Apple's market share cannot justify the expense.

No sweat. I understand completely. I was just making a bad attempt at putting a little humor into it(forgot the smiley). Rumors are all based on talk typically so sometimes it's necessary to call someone out on something to show some sort of facts to back up what they say.

Cappy
Jun 23, 2002, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by eunuchs
We need DDR and HyperTransport in PowerMacs soon. Just these two technologies would make a world of difference in day-to-day computing on Macs.

Just keep in mind that these technologies are not unique to the Mac. PC's will have this too. Essentially then once motherboard technology is equal as we're talking, you come back to the cpu being a major bottleneck in comparison to the other cpu architectures.

For Apple to beat the others in performance(if they really need to), only something unique and not shared by the industry will accomplish that. Mac OS X, a rumored Apple video card, or a new high-performance PPC chip are about all that can accomplish this. I've stated this before but if Apple could beat the industry to dual channel ddr then they could at least beat the others at their own game by getting there first.

Cappy
Jun 23, 2002, 09:00 PM
I'm wondering if it's time for the mods to lock this thread. While I like discussions to be open and honest, many of the comments seem to be taking a very negative spin.

People need to remember that performance isn't everything or we'd see everyone with Porsches and Corvettes. iMacs and your el cheapo PC's(under $500) would not exist. Not everyone can be the fastest. The key is for Apple in this case to learn how to sell without worrying about performance too much. They've done that somewhat just by having cool looking and easy to work on case design and providing a powerful OS with very easy to use software. I personally feel that Apple needs to put more Apple products in Windows users hands that are above average without a Mac and yet takes advantage of the Mac(when connected to it) and its features to be even better. ipod comes to mind and maybe even some sort of pda or portable device.

So in essence for what it's worth people might want to tone things down on the negativity. Honesty is ok but don't go overboard trying to get your point across. It does turn away new folks who could have fresh perspectives on things down the road. Most of us are frustrated but it's certainly not the end of the world for Apple. People may not have noticed this but they're not really the same Apple that we used to know. They are changing in many ways and I think their markets will be changing as well. That can have good and bad effects on us to bring out our frustration but we just need to make sure we don't go overboard about it.

At any rate my rant is done. The mods will do what they feel is best but I hope others consider what I have posted.

Kethoticus
Jun 23, 2002, 10:28 PM
"I'm wondering if it's time for the mods to lock this thread. While I like discussions to be open and honest, many of the comments seem to be taking a very negative spin."

You're joking, right? Many of us here are negative because we're discouraged about the developments of our favorite platform. That's legitimate discussion about very relevant subject matter, and there's no sense in keeping people in the dark about our legitimate concerns. And don't you think that many of these newer people may have the same concerns?

If the "negativity" is bad enough to turn newer people away, then they have other issues that would manifest themselves at some point in the future anyway.

Let's save the locking up of threads for extreme things only, like uncivilized behavior and such.

eunuchs
Jun 23, 2002, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by Cappy
The key is for Apple in this case to learn how to sell without worrying about performance too much.EXACTLY. The problem is that you can only do this when performance isn't a serious issue. Right now, it is.

Personally, I hold out great hope for Jaguar. If Apple can address the piddly performance problems which really are a nuisance (eg, Finder and GUI responsiveness), they will be in good shape - even without blazing CPU speeds. Faster CPUs and better architectures would be a boon (imho, a big one).

It boils down to this: give Jane User enough power to do her everyday work without hindrance and you'll have satisfied customers.

There is a lot to be said for perceived performance.

Kethoticus
Jun 23, 2002, 10:48 PM
"Repeat after me, "Apple will not go to x86". It would be suicide for them. Their bread and butter is hardware sales with hefty margins. Going to x86 would at once force them to drop their margins to compete and increase support costs. It was bad enough with PPC clones, it would be orders of magnitude worse with x86."

How would going to x86 hardware force them to drop their prices and compete? I imagine that the x86 hardware is probably much cheaper than what they're currently using. So, if anything, they'd be able to make competitively-priced Macs more easily.

Besides, they could SLOWLY introduce such a system into the Mac world by selling x86 and PPC systems side-by-side, slowly phasing out the PPC as software developers catch up and produce OS X/x86 apps.


"What worries me is that at this stage, Apple doesn't have any of the factors in the performance equation going for them on the consumer end. I'm hoping XServe is merely the tip of the iceberg. We need DDR and HyperTransport in PowerMacs soon. Just these two technologies would make a world of difference in day-to-day computing on Macs."

Yeah, they would. But keep in mind that the PC cloners will also be having these subsystems in machines as well, PLUS the 2+ GHz CPUs.


Apple needs a fast CPU solution and the sooner the better. The more they fall behind in speed, the more their market share is likely to dwindle. What is it now, 3.7% overall, worldwide? Wasn't it about 5.2% two years ago? What happened since then?? They've been profitable, but they're not expanding their market. A little speculation here, but isn't possible that Apple is hurting their survival as a company by being greedy instead of being more concerned with spreading their platform around a bit more?

eunuchs
Jun 23, 2002, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Kethoticus
How would going to x86 hardware force them to drop their prices and compete? I imagine that the x86 hardware is probably much cheaper than what they're currently using. So, if anything, they'd be able to make competitively-priced Macs more easily. I doubt if the price of parts (to Apple who sells millions of units annually) is appreciably different. Apple could make far cheaper machines right now! But they have shareholders who prefer fat dividends cheques. The reason they can get away with such high margins is that they have no direct competition. Who else sells a consumer-level PPC machine?

Now imagine this scenario:

"White box" P4 2 GHz = $700
Apple "iIntel" P4 2 GHz = $2000
(all other specs the same - and they could be)

You can upsell OS X and everything that's great about a Mac... but it's going to be pretty fricken tough convincing Joe Sixpack that he's not being had by Apple.Besides, they could SLOWLY introduce such a system into the Mac world by selling x86 and PPC systems side-by-side, slowly phasing out the PPC as software developers catch up and produce OS X/x86 apps.Apple has a great history of reinventing their own platform and not losing every last developer they have. BUT, I think if they switched to x86 at this point in time - just when developers have finally managed to Carbonize and Cocoa-fy, not without some expense - they would successfully alienate all but the hardcore developers. Those who remain, would have their exit route clearly illuminated for them (once you eliminate the problem of writing code for two different architectures).Yeah, they would. But keep in mind that the PC cloners will also be having these subsystems in machines as well, PLUS the 2+ GHz CPUs. Undoubtedly. All the more reason for Apple to get on board NOW.What is it now, 3.7% overall, worldwide? Wasn't it about 5.2% two years ago? What happened since then?? They've been profitable, but they're not expanding their market. A little speculation here, but isn't possible that Apple is hurting their survival as a company by being greedy instead of being more concerned with spreading their platform around a bit more? Again, remember Apple's raison d'etre: profits. Apple has successfully weathered a downturn that has just about every tech company reeling. Not only weathered it, but managed to stuff several billion into the proverbial coffers. Marketshare is important, but so is the bottom line. They've taken care of the latter, and with "Switch", it looks like they're starting to go after the former.

Grokgod
Jun 24, 2002, 01:08 AM
I despise it when a individual calls out for moderators to control what they think is negative thinking!

That is an incredibly juvenille perception!

THis is an actual discussion and sometimes in a debate people are going to say things that you may think are negative.

Taking the contrary postion in a subject is not always something that should be suppressed, because you feel that its negative. Your feelings are not the issue here!

So called Negative feedback is very important to deconstruct the issue, analyze it and extrapolate a course of action . With greater understanding and an appreciation of where the future may lies.

I will not try to stop what I consider your very negative words spouted in a childish attempted to call on moderation to water down the posts.
Maybe you think that we should all post only good things like mindless drones?

I will instead realize that your views are part of a total conversation in this thread and allow you, your rights of freedom of speech on this board.

Obviously if alot of people feel negative about what has been happening with APPLE then it needs to addressed!~
Hiding or pushing these things under the rug will create nothing but immense trouble for APPLE and could lead to it final downfall.

APPLE needs to hear the voices of its followers or soon there will be noone there.


There is NO doubt that APPLE is in trouble, they realize this and are trying to work it out. Wether or not they are successful is another story.

Just the idea tht the G5 is not coming out till 2003 has sparked this thread that has been viewed by over 5000 people, now thats the sign of a good thread!

Micael
Jun 24, 2002, 05:42 AM
Waves makes professional audio SW processors for music and they are publishing performance figures for optimized versions of their plugs.

Waves figures for 1.7 GHz P4 and 933 G4 and dual 1GHz G4

P4 1.7

C4 16
Ren Comp 33
Ren EQ 102
Ren Reverb 10
Ren VOX 34
TrueVerb 20

G4 933

C4 12
Ren Comp 42
Ren EQ 54
Ren Reverb 7
Ren VOX 37
TrueVerb 13

Dual G4 1GHz

C4 22
Ren Comp 96
Ren EQ 109
Ren Reverb 12
Ren VOX 72
TrueVerb 24

The dual G4 is the champ in all categories by far although the 1.7GHz P4 is close in EQ and reverbs. The P4 beats the 933 MHz G4 in only 4 of 6 categories although it has double GHz.

The G4 is still competitive.. Fear the G5!!

So the fine Pentium with all the DDR memory and much faster processor isn't that fast.

Micael

rugby
Jun 24, 2002, 08:08 AM
Micael,

Too bad you're comparing a $2700 G4 with a $800 PC. Apple needs to do something to make up the speed difference.

GPTurismo
Jun 24, 2002, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
Apple is smart by focusing on more than just the processor, because the intel world will soon run into a brick wall with their x86 architecture, and I don't think that their itanium processors are very fast.

I agree. All my friends that work for IBM and SGi think the itaniums are pure trash. Basically Intel and MS needed something fast so they can actually try and compete in the real server market (high end aix, irix, solaris) and they rushed out a 64 bit processor and archetecture.

It's not a very capable archetecture.

The biggest thing apple could do to win this war is do away with bus speeds like SGi's and other higher end servers. That requires more intelligent components that can talk directly to each other at full speed, but if they could get that at an affordable cost, their systems would fly...

robguz
Jun 24, 2002, 09:49 AM
Micael,
On some of those tests, the dual Ghz is only 20% than an 18 month old PC. PCs have been at 2.4Ghz for some months now. So a fair comparison would be with a dual 2.4. So just take all you results for the PC, double them, then add another 30% for the clockspeed difference, and you can see that the mac is not impressive at all.

Yes, certain benchmarks like RC5 can show high end macs are faster, and by all means, if all you want to do with your PC is run RC5 all day, then go for the high end mac.

The true Mhz myth now is that Mhz do not matter. Of course they do. Yes, scaling Mhz generally does not get you a one to one improvement, but you do get an improvement. And macs suffer the same as PCs, as the 733 Mhz G4s were only slightly faster than the older 533 because of more pipeline stages. But it WAS still faster. Maybe all this Mhz myth stuff was a decent argument 3 years ago when the P3 was at 600Mhz and the G4 was at 450, even though the G4 was still only faster at Altivec optimized functions. To say today that a 1Ghz G4 is faster than a 2.4Ghz P4 is just delusional. I wish G4s were faster, but they aren't, and no PC users is going to "switch" once they try out a machine that is slower in the UI than the PC they through out 2 years ago and costs 2-3 times more!

gopher
Jun 24, 2002, 10:04 AM
Photoshop, and Genentech Blast. And if you want to go further
the folks at Yellow Dog Linux http://www.yellowdoglinux/ have made Black Lab Linux which is Altivec optimized. So before you get to saying the G4 1 Ghz is not faster than the Pentium IV 2.4 Ghz, there are many other applications that use Altivec where it is faster. And it is those applications which require it, are where it counts. The Mhz myth is a myth, and we should ask how many floating point calculations a second the Pentium and AMD can do. The G4 dual 1 Ghz machine can do 15 billion floating point calculations a second. Now to get those developers to learn how to use Altivec to their best advantage. They focus too much on graphics cards and not on the processors.

Grokgod
Jun 24, 2002, 10:43 AM
Either its TOO early in the morning for me or RobGuz is suffering from a massive delusion!

Double the results for the Pcheese?
Why? 1.7 and 1.7 doesnt equal 2.4 it equals 3.2...
then add 30% !!>??

What in the world are you talking about?

APPLE has a plan to speed up the UI its called QE.

I am really pleased to see that the dual 1 ghz are out running the 1.7 p4.

It shows what the g4 can really do even without DDR , which is coming this MWNY! When that happens we will really see some interesting benchmarks.

Also good to see some truth in what APPLE is always saying about MAC clock speed being different.

Doesnt this prove it yet again.

And you complaining that the test needs to add more to the score of the P4
I think your missing the point here, totally!

As for the costs! We already know that MAC's cost more!

Thats one of the reasons I buy them, they are better SO they cost more.

sedarby
Jun 24, 2002, 01:44 PM
Could the "spare parts" be referring to redundant power supplies? This would make sense since most servers have this feature anyway.

If raw performance is your bag then quit looking at consumer computers and move on over to SGI, Sun, IBM, etc.

Apple has never been about performance but the user experience which they win hands down. It would be nice to see a more advanced architecture though. This would mean the ENTIRE architecture not just the processor.

etoiles
Jun 24, 2002, 04:26 PM
Could Apple start using x86/AMD cpu's but still build macs (propriatory box, does not run windows) ? OSX would still only run on Apple's machines...

I do not understand a lot about hardware, so this is a question more than a suggestion ;) I understand that the software side of things could be a bit tricky, but I am sure they could come up with something...(remember the time when Windows was running on different processors intel, alpha ?)

At least they would not have to worry about matching PC processor speeds any longer...

rcpmac
Jun 24, 2002, 05:19 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by foniks2020
[B]Personally I wouldn't be surprised to find out that HyperTransport ie faster front bus speeds, combined with a G4 PPC would be much much faster than an equivalent x86 chip.

For the longest time we Mac users have been using machines with processors whose potential has been largely untapped due to the lack of thsi front side bus bottleneck.


YES YES YES!
That and fast fast video!
Go Man!

eunuchs
Jun 24, 2002, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by etoiles
Could Apple start using x86/AMD cpu's but still build macs (propriatory box, does not run windows) ? OSX would still only run on Apple's machines...I don't think Apple could avoid clones if they went to x86, for the following reasons...

Current impediments for clone makers:
[list=1]
PowerPC sluggishness - Apple has a hard enough time convincing people that PPC is acceptable - no 3rd party would be insane enough to try this too
All the great software is compiled for PPC - there is no decent way to interpret PPC binaries on x86 and (see #1)
Mac ROM is proprietary
OS X is written by Apple to run on Apple machines
[/list=1]If Apple moves to x86, they will immediately eliminate problems 1 and 2. Problem 3 would likely be solved by a competent reverse-engineering team in short order. The only remaining hurdle is getting OS X to run on the fictional clones.

One of several things could happen:[list=1]
Manufacturers could not attempt to clone, citing OS X compatibility as a concern
Clones could happen with third-parties providing patches or drivers for OS X
Apple could decide to support third-party clones
[/list=1]Of this list, I think #1 is quite likely. But there's always a chance that somebody could decide to go after a piece of the Apple pie (I'm so witty). Who would have thought there would be ANY aftermarket CPU upgrade providers for Mac? Much less competition. But there is.

So we're faced with the possibility of either third-parties doing all the support of their own products (and subsequent problems when Apple releases updates) or Apple supporting even more hardware (and subsequent problems when Apple releases updates).

The end result is poorer stability and a general devaluation of the Mac experience. People would begin to confuse hardware issues with software issues. The buck gets passed and customers get pissed. The way it is now - we know who to blame if something doesn't work. That's a GOOD THING.

Maybe Apple could come up with a way to make an x86 Mac proprietary in some way. But I doubt it could last. More likely, measures aimed at locking down the Mac platform would probably just embitter their customers and competitors alike.

alex_ant
Jun 24, 2002, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Photoshop, and Genentech Blast. And if you want to go further
the folks at Yellow Dog Linux http://www.yellowdoglinux/ have made Black Lab Linux which is Altivec optimized.
Wooptie-doo!
So before you get to saying the G4 1 Ghz is not faster than the Pentium IV 2.4 Ghz, there are many other applications that use Altivec where it is faster. And it is those applications which require it, are where it counts.
Agreed. But generally, the G4 is much slower than pretty much all of its competition.
The Mhz myth is a myth, and we should ask how many floating point calculations a second the Pentium and AMD can do. The G4 dual 1 Ghz machine can do 15 billion floating point calculations a second.
That's according to Apple marketing, with perfectly tuned code under perfectly controlled conditions. It's also 15 billion single-precision, not double-precision, FLOPS. If you want to listen to Apple marketing, that's fine, but if you want to listen to reality, here's a little dose of that for ya:

SPEC_CPU2000 - the most widely accepted and accurate CPU benchmark currently in existence:
1GHz PowerPC G4: 306 int / 178 fp (peak, per CPU)
1.13GHz Pentium III: 461 int / 320 fp (base - peak is higher)
2.2GHz Pentium 4: 790 int / 779 fp (base - peak is higher)

Why, the 1GHz G4 can't even hold its own against the Intel Sh*tanium:

800MHz Itanium: 358 int / 715 fp (base - peak is higher)

Of course AltiVec will make those results less embarrassing, but ONLY with single-precision floating point code. So the G4 excels at a few specific, limited tasks - it really does suck at most everything else.
Now to get those developers to learn how to use Altivec to their best advantage. They focus too much on graphics cards and not on the processors.
Why should they? Where's the market? They've optimized Photoshop and FCP and whatever other niche products, but where is their incentive to completely re-write and fork the fp-intensive parts of their code to make them faster on the Mac but incompatible with x86, when they can write that code once and have it run almost as fast as it possibly could on what comprises 95%+ of the desktop market without any special optimization whatsoever. This is why I say PPC needs a robust and capable FPU in the place of, or alongside, AltiVec.

Alex

alex_ant
Jun 24, 2002, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Micael
Waves makes professional audio SW processors for music and they are publishing performance figures for optimized versions of their plugs.

...

The dual G4 is the champ in all categories by far although the 1.7GHz P4 is close in EQ and reverbs. The P4 beats the 933 MHz G4 in only 4 of 6 categories although it has double GHz.
So a machine 3x more expensive with 2x as many CPUs beats an obsolete Intel machine which was never that great in the first place at running specialized music plugins in all categories. Impressive.

Alex

Micael
Jun 25, 2002, 03:53 AM
Waves have used a lot of effort optimizing the performance both for Pentiums, Athlon XP 1700 and the G4. Using Altivec and also the counterparts in the other processors and the G4 is not behind. Actually there are no big gap between the 700 MHz P3 and the 1.7 GHz P4 the performance gain is clearly less then doubled (about 50-70%). The AMD is more or less equal to the 1.7 Pentium.

A calculated 2.53GHz Pentium would do a 3-3 vs the dual G4.

The point is that Intel is by extending the pipeline increasing the MHz without getting proportional performance gain. And then fooling people by marketing to think their new processor is that much more powerful. It is a clear myth.

OK there is performance gain but not by far compared to the MHz gain..

Also it is not cheap to buy a dual processor workstation with Intel 2.4 GHz processors.

So there is a company doing processor intensive realtime SW trying hard to optimize their plugs for both platforms and the latest plugs v3.5 show these results. Also the PC market is probably much bigger so there is no reason to think they focysed more on G4 optimization..

Ouroboros
Jun 25, 2002, 04:27 AM
Well I can't stand Windows! But, sometimes the major downside I am starting to see in all of this besides Windows and having to buy new software and moving to the darkside and saving a lot of money and getting more power and getting an uninspiring design is:

Fan Noise.

My god those PC boxes are louder than my fridge, louder than a car almost! I used to live in a loft, which was literally a 1600 square foot room. Sometimes I had the PC box on, and the thing was SO loud I could hear it through earplugs and through my door to my bedroom. And for some reason, all the CD drives in PC's these days sound like they're going to take off they're so loud.

So if anything, I couldn't ever change because of the fan noise :D :D :D

topicolo
Jun 25, 2002, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by eunuchs
I doubt if the price of parts (to Apple who sells millions of units annually) is appreciably different. Apple could make far cheaper machines right now! But they have shareholders who prefer fat dividends cheques. The reason they can get away with such high margins is that they have no direct competition. Who else sells a consumer-level PPC machine?


Just for the record, Apple does NOT pay ANY dividends to its shareholders, just like most tech companies.

sturm375
Jun 25, 2002, 11:02 AM
Apple is intersted in making money, and only secondarly(sp?) what the consumer wants. To that end, you will never see an Apple on the market with an x86 processor. Even though it would benifit the conusmer greatly, it would open Apple up to much more compitition, and thus Apple would be forced to reduce prices, and "loose" money.

I am a hardware geek and love the WinTel world (sits down and waits for the WA [Windows Annonomus] meeting to start). I have no doubt that MS screws us, and have already sworn off Intel( I only buy AMD). However there is much more room for a tinkerer like myself in this world. As soon as I learn Linux well enough, I will be spending much more time in that OS than Win2K. At that time I will belong to the LinAMD world:D

You will never see Apple fully adopt de facto standards because they want you to buy their stuff at inflated pricing. Of all the computer manufactures, Apple produces the most, so don't tell me that thier hardware costs them more, on the contrary, I'll bet they spend less for each motherboard that Dell, or Compaq.

As for the release of the G5, does it really matter. The Mac fanatics, for all their whinning, will still not give up on Apple. They could tease the G5 until 2010, and still hold onto 2.5% of the market share, as long as SJ can hold up his favorite PhotoShop filter and say "Still beats the P VIII, using XYZ filter, under a blue moon, without fans, and looks cool on your desk!"

And before I get flamed to death, I do own a Mac: TiPB 500. I waited until OS 10.1 came out to get it, because I have come to dispise OS 7,8,9.x as well as Win 3.x, 9x, Me. Face it, crashing sucks!. Why deal with it when OSs out there, available to the public, have 99% solved that problem.

It all depends on what you want in a computer. I like to tinker, so I use a self-built Athlon PC Desktop. I want a portable reliable stable notebook, with enough power to be competitive for 3-5 years: TiPB. The irony is that I have already had the logic board of the TiPB replaced once. Not a single hardware problem with my desktop!

Lets talk fans. I have 7 fans in my desktop, by choice. It breaks down like this: 2 standard case fans, one optional. 2 processor fans (dual processor MotherBoard). One processor on the GeForce3 Ti200. One fan in the 400 Watt Powersupply. Yes it is noisy, I like it that way. It's like having a muscle car, you want to be noticed for the loud exauhst. Those of you who hate all that noise, pay your extra money to Apple, and don't complain when the noisy PC beats your butt in benchmarks. Simple law of physics, the faster a machine runs, the more heat it generates. Innovations in streamlining will only go so far. And by the way, my TiPB's fan is noisier than any single fan on my PC, plus it is true, I could almost cook on the back of my notebook.:rolleyes:

Flame ON!

BOOMBA
Jun 25, 2002, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by mymemory


BTW, how come here in Venezuela I can get a 1Ghz PC for $400 while the same thing in Apple cost $3.000? I know about the differences but, don't you think we are falling in to a fanatic users market?

What is the price an Apple computer should have to make a PC a better deal? 10.000?

That is actually pretty funny, and yet sad at the same time because it is true.

I think the best thing Jobs could announce at MWNY is a $1000 price cut across the board. They really need to drop their prices to gain market share.

I know it may be unthinkable for some, but the best way to do this is probably to switch to AMD processors, which are produced in such numbers that the price of the system would be bound to come down.
I think the main reasons PCs blow isn't the hardware so much as the Windows OS, so put OSX on an AMD and show them what it can do at those speeds.

eunuchs
Jun 25, 2002, 01:58 PM
/me has a nervous breakdown.

King Cobra
Jun 25, 2002, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by eunuchs
/me has a nervous breakdown.

All right, I feel that was useless...

mymemory, if you are worried about paying 10.000 big ones, the cost for the Twentieth Aniv. was $10000 in USA dinero. So be grateful. :cool:

suzerain
Jun 25, 2002, 03:00 PM
OK, so a few people have mentioned the POWER4, and how it's currently blowing everyone else (Intel, AMD, PowerPC, etc.) away.

Since in IBM's marketing materials, it doesn't look the POWER4 runs at a particularly high clock speed (~1.3 Ghz?), can anyone point to the benchmarks that back up the "nlowing everyone else away" arguments?

Not being a troll; I just know nothing about the chip, frankly, and would like to learn more.

sturm375
Jun 25, 2002, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by suzerain
OK, so a few people have mentioned the POWER4, and how it's currently blowing everyone else (Intel, AMD, PowerPC, etc.) away.

Since in IBM's marketing materials, it doesn't look the POWER4 runs at a particularly high clock speed (~1.3 Ghz?), can anyone point to the benchmarks that back up the "nlowing everyone else away" arguments?

Not being a troll; I just know nothing about the chip, frankly, and would like to learn more.

This might be old, but here is a website that has a list of top prefomance processors:

http://www.ideasinternational.com/benchmark/spec/specfp_s2000.html

alex_ant
Jun 25, 2002, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by suzerain
OK, so a few people have mentioned the POWER4, and how it's currently blowing everyone else (Intel, AMD, PowerPC, etc.) away.

Since in IBM's marketing materials, it doesn't look the POWER4 runs at a particularly high clock speed (~1.3 Ghz?), can anyone point to the benchmarks that back up the "nlowing everyone else away" arguments?

Not being a troll; I just know nothing about the chip, frankly, and would like to learn more.
IBM's technical overview:
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/whitepapers/power4.html

SPEC_CPU2000 results:
http://www.mtl.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~nminoru/memo/spec_cpu2000.html (In Japanese, but the graphs are still readable)

An article about TPC-C results for the pSeries Regatta, in comparison to competitive servers:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/25443.html

If there's any MHz Myth in existence today, I think this CPU epitomizes it. Unfortunately, most Mac users would have to trade in not only their Macs, but also their second kidneys, to be able to afford one, and they haven't ported OS X to the pSeries yet. :)

Alex

rice_web
Jun 25, 2002, 06:16 PM
From what I've read, OS X would merely need, basically, a driver--a 64-bit one--to support the Power4 processor as it stands today. However, Power4 processors run about $80,000 or so. Oh well.

alex_ant
Jun 25, 2002, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by rice_web
From what I've read, OS X would merely need, basically, a driver--a 64-bit one--to support the Power4 processor as it stands today. However, Power4 processors run about $80,000 or so. Oh well.
That's probably not far off... I don't think OS X would need a driver to support the CPU itself, because POWER is supposed to be PPC-compatible, but it would need some updating to support the vastly different architecture of POWER4 machines... or else the POWER4 itself would need to be scaled down to the level of a consumer-level Mac-like computer.

Entry-level POWER4 servers start at just over $40k, but I think the actual CPU module runs around $3k.

And then there is the issue of getting a chip that draws 125 watts into a TiBook... :)

Alex

tjwett
Jun 25, 2002, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by iH8Quark
Okay, one last time. AltiVec SUCKS!!!! It's a marketing smoke and mirrors job. Everyone can do this test at home. Run ANY flash movie on a Mac, then run the same flash file on a PC. These are PURE VPU and / or FPU calculations. The PC (ANY PC) will be insanely faster. Yes, FCP 3 is amazing, but Apple DID write it. I would hope that it runs amazingly on their hardware.

AltiVec is a huge part of the problem, it is NOT the solution.

(I promise I will NEVER ever triple post again. Please don't pie me) ;)

Flash performance sucks on Macs because A:the plug-in was designed on and built for PC and was then ported to the Mac. You are right though because B:It is pure processor intensive and mhz matters in this area. If it was "AltiVec enabled" it would be better but I don't know how much. I think Apple should switch processors and drop the whole AltiVec thing all together. It's stupid and doesn't do anything for getting PC converts. Most of the apps that do use AltiVec are pro graphics apps and if you do pro graphics you've most likely already been a Mac user for years. Personally, I'm getting a little tired of dealing with the slowness of the Mac. Yeah, it's pretty but it cost too much money to have something that's slowing me down. I will NEVER use Windows so I'm here for now but they really need to get it together. Yeah, we are getting alot of software being made OSX ready but most of them are just carbonized and fairly buggy. Do these carbonized apps even use AltiVec the way they did in 9? They don't act like it. All I'm saying is Apple has an important thing going with OSX. BUT if you are going to make an OS that takes 128mb RAM just to run the desktop then by God make some serious hardware to run it on and use a chip that doesn't require special authoring to use the velocity engine. Because obviously no one is getting on board. I do pro audio and video and a recent app came out that was ready for OSX. Carbonized. It's a little upsetting when a 600mhz Windows machine with 128 RAM is getting more DSP(stereo tracks, effects, etc.) than my maxed out 933. The point is that these developers did not even bother to program for AltiVec. I don't blame them. Why should companies go out of their way to rebuild an entire app for the musicians inside 2 percent of the market share when they can just port it and carbonize it? If they continue to charge all this $ for their "pro" machines maybe they should pay these companies to develop for AltiVec so the machines are actually worth something. Otherwise get rid of AltiVec AlltoGether.

TechLarry
Jun 26, 2002, 01:30 PM
G4's will evolve, but little?

G5's won't be available until the END of 2003?

Folks, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I've got my ass kicked over this before, and I'm sure I'll get it kicked again...

Apple needs to look at it's future, and DUMP Motorola processors!

Motorola is not doing us any favors, and it's looking worse and worse all the time.

Do you have _any_ idea where AMD and Intel will be in 2 years? Look how far they move in just 6 months these days!

I'm serious. Unless Mac's are destined to become $499 computers, which is about where they will be able to compete at the rate things are going, it's time to work out a deal with AMD.

It has GOT to be done.

TL

Me go duck now...

TechLarry
Jun 26, 2002, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by iGAV


Man have you've got issues....... :p

He may have issues, but he also has good points.

The time for horseplay is over. Apple needs to do something about this processor problem RIGHT NOW.

G5 in late 2003? My god, AMD and Intel will be running 4-5 Ghz by then, most likely, and we'll just be getting 1.5Ghz G5's. Maybe.

Motorola needs to be FIRED. Be done with them.

TL

TechLarry
Jun 26, 2002, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Don't believe those Mhz ratings. It is a myth. Why a Pentium IV is actually slower at RC5 than a Pentium III, and 5 times slower than a G4. Check the ratings at

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_test.html
Another place where the G4 is 5 times faster then the Pentium IV:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html

Now this just means you need to demand that more of your Macintosh apps became Altivec native, and tell the developers of those programs how to make their applications Altivec native:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mac/2002/04/05/altivec.html

The secret is Altivec. At 128 bit processing any program enhanced for Altivec will just scream past the Pentium IV. It is time to get more developers to join the bandwagon




Oh, please. Let's not start this processor speed myth crap again.

Apple is way behind. Period. G4's are NOT 6 times faster than P4's, or whatever the claim of the month is.

I want to see Apple survive, dammit. And until we get a grip on reality ourselves, as Apple's customers, there's no way the company is gonna get a grip on _itself_ and do what they have to do.

Which is to FIRE Motorola and move on.

TL

tjwett
Jun 26, 2002, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by TechLarry


Oh, please. Let's not start this processor speed myth crap again.

Apple is way behind. Period. G4's are NOT 6 times faster than P4's, or whatever the claim of the month is.

I want to see Apple survive, dammit. And until we get a grip on reality ourselves, as Apple's customers, there's no way the company is gonna get a grip on _itself_ and do what they have to do.

Which is to FIRE Motorola and move on.

TL

Right On! Obviously the majority of software is not and will never take advantage of AltiVec. So GET RID OF IT! As a pro audio guy I'm seeing less reasons everyday to spend the money on a G4 when it's not doing anything for me. Forget AltiVec. Forget the G4. Get a new processor and motherboard and see how high mhz will work for us? Because this velocity engine crap is not cutting it anymore.

iH8Quark
Jun 26, 2002, 03:05 PM
Do you think Apple reads these forums and knows how unhappy everyone is? I mean, I've never really seen people this unhappy on this forum, and it seems to be getting worse. They must know they're in big trouble, right? I mean, Steve's gonna pull out the big guns soon, isn't he?

i shudder to think what will happen if he doesn't. :eek: :confused: :(

Ouroboros
Jun 26, 2002, 03:39 PM
If Steve "read these forums" and COULD give us what we wanted, he would have long ago. I'd be frankly embarrassed with my "top of the line" - but only with certain applications. They are great, and then not great at all. We know what is possible, what the market and competition holds, etc. A dual gig is MORE than enough for most people. But if a company thought that way, they'd be dead. The fact is, the world knows that more bang for the buck can be gotten, and Apple needs this addressed.

Getting back to if Steve had the power he'd do it. Well the biggest problem with Apple is that they don't seem to have a lot of power. Look at the sad 18 month drought. If he had a choice, he'd go to IBM to increase the speed. But its been talked so much to death, you all know the specifics. What I'm saying is, don't get your hopes up. And I agree with you. I have NEVER seen people so dissatisfied with Apple.... and I've been using Macs since the first one came out.

It is strange because in the past year or so, Apple has come out with some amazing looking things, amazing software, an amazing operating system. Guess that isn't enough.:(

etoiles
Jun 26, 2002, 03:40 PM
not sure about pulling the big guns, but Jobs certainly knows how to pull rabbits...out of his hat. What is the technical term again ? Oh yes, smoke and mirrors.
:D

Just kidding.
I am sure the guys at Apple have put a lot more thought into this than the rest of us combined. They want to survive, hell, they want to be successful, so I am sure they wont just sit back and watch things happen...

TV shows could learn a lot from Apple: all the drama, anticipation and surprise...whow, I cannot wait for mid-July.

tjwett
Jun 26, 2002, 04:05 PM
everyone is getting restless. excuse while i vent for a moment. right now i have a hot lap and a fan whining in my ear from my TiBook. today was a hot day in NYC. i'm trying to render some video and my machine is too slow. ok, i feel better. now, i've been a mac user since day one but i really think the horizon is looking increasingly grim. we have an amazing OS. but it's very hungry. so are our apps. the apps are getting more demanding and the machines are staying the same. i'm excited about MWNY but i can't help but think we are all going to be a bit disappointed. if 1.2 is the top, dual proc and DDR or not, i won't be impressed enough to buy it. UNLESS, it's fairly priced, which would never happen. Like someone said earlier, people are very unhappy with Apple right now. i love Apple but i've never been more dissatisfied with their hardware. let's hope that these recent rumors on the new specs are all just disinformation, purposely leaked to make us nuts. if not, how could Apple possibly catch up at this point?

thopter
Jun 26, 2002, 04:07 PM
"I am sure the guys at Apple have put a lot more thought into this than the rest of us combined."
Yeah, that's why they're selling off their stock options.

hackamacj
Jun 26, 2002, 05:11 PM
I haven't read through all the posts, but believe me, I am not ready for this, neither is anybody I know. We all use laptops, with one new iMac, and remember Adobe, the big company? Well, to install some of its apps, you have to have a Classic folder, are they going to go all 10 right away, if so, I WANT IT NOW!! and with them out of MacWorld, you can expect they won't have it then, remember its like 2 or even less years until the G5 supposedly comes out. Granted I would like the G5, but I want it in a tiBook, not a desktop. I just don't think the small "Mom and Pop" software companies that I use are not ready for the transition to 10, they still use the 9 for development, along with the occassional games. I could convert every single app that I use, its all under FileMaker Pro, but thats work, and I am too Damn lazy to do that. Now, I believe that not supporting OS9 on the new board, which, by the way, how would they tell if you put 9 on there?, will lose some of the business which they have built up over the years. I go to a high school where 90 % of the Mac computers run OS 9, then another 10 % run 10, which I have to install, now do you tell me that if we upgrade, we have to upgrade to solid 10, most of the apps aren't even out. Making The Grade, Some sort of mathmatical tool, all I do is get on the internet, but still, teachers and some students use them. WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO??????????:confused:

Wry Cooter
Jun 26, 2002, 05:57 PM
Seems like a vector graphic applet like flash would be ideal for altivec, but the only way Apple is going to get dvelopers to optimize their code for altivec, is if they pay someone from Apple to go in and do the work for them.

Motorola has been consistantly holding Apple 2 years behind for at least a decade. Have someone that can get decent yields, such as IBM or AMD to make the PPCs.

beatle888
Jun 26, 2002, 06:15 PM
what they wanted in a workstation?
I don't think apple would of asked
them that question without feeling
confident about making thier dream
machine into a reality.

They asked the server market what
they needed and delivered a nice
solution.

I think i'll save my fatalistic meanderings
until after the end of the year.

I think we will be happy in july
and at the end of the year.

Keep a stiff upper lip, if it comes down
to it we can always tell our grandchilred that
we used a Mac as our main system in the old days.

alex_ant
Jun 26, 2002, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by hackamacj
I go to a high school where 90 % of the Mac computers run OS 9, then another 10 % run 10, which I have to install, now do you tell me that if we upgrade, we have to upgrade to solid 10, most of the apps aren't even out. Making The Grade, Some sort of mathmatical tool, all I do is get on the internet, but still, teachers and some students use them. WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO??????????:confused:
Well, the rumors are saying that the new machines won't be able to run OS 9. They'll probably still be able to run OS 9 software via the Classic environment. I wouldn't be too worried - you'll have access to even more software than you did before - practically the entire library of both OS 9 and OS X software. So you can keep using whatever OS 9 software you're using now, unless it's Pro Tools or something that doesn't work in Classic...

Alex

alex_ant
Jun 26, 2002, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by TechLarry
I'm serious. Unless Mac's are destined to become $499 computers, which is about where they will be able to compete at the rate things are going, it's time to work out a deal with AMD.

It has GOT to be done.

TL

Me go duck now...
I don't know what you mean by "work out a deal," but if you mean "get AMD to start manufacturing PPCs," that's probably not possible because AMD needs every bit of production capacity it can muster at the moment to compete against Intel. I can't see how they would be keen on manufacturing chips for a competitor when they don't even have the resources to do so.

Secondly, I don't think it would be wise for Apple to have anything to do with AMD, because it has shown that it is unable to turn a substantial profit even though its product is better than its main competitor's. It is forced to sell its chips practically at or below cost just to keep them competitive with Pentiums price-wise. I don't think their long-term prospects are very rosy - one wrong move and they're screwed. Remember the Intel F00F bug fiasco? If that happened to AMD, it would be all over for them.

How about Apple put P4s in its Power Macs? (JOKE) Heehee, I would predict a mass suicide of Mac fanatics if that were to happen. :)

Alex

iamspooky
Jun 27, 2002, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Well, the rumors are saying that the new machines won't be able to run OS 9. They'll probably still be able to run OS 9 software via the Classic environment. I wouldn't be too worried - you'll have access to even more software than you did before - practically the entire library of both OS 9 and OS X software. So you can keep using whatever OS 9 software you're using now, unless it's Pro Tools or something that doesn't work in Classic...

Alex
Aloha,

I read most of the threads and are we to believe that there is a high probability that OS 9 will not work on the new line of Macs scheduled to be released at MWNY ?? This concerns me because I am a Protools user with plans to purchase one of the new Mac G4's or (G5??) in July specifically for Protools.

I don't think Digidesign is will have PT OS X ready soon, so that leaves a big gap, (at least for ProTools users). If anyone could elaborate or comment on this I would appreciate the input.

What exactly is the rumoured change in the new Mac hardware design that won't allow OS 9 to load??

Hmm...Maybe I should grab one of the good deals on present stock of Mac G4s happening now ??

Regards,
Mark :confused:

Wry Cooter
Jun 27, 2002, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by iamspooky

Aloha,

I read most of the threads and are we to believe that there is a high probability that OS 9 will not work on the new line of Macs scheduled to be released at MWNY ?? This concerns me because I am a Protools user with plans to purchase one of the new Mac G4's or (G5??) in July specifically for Protools.


I don't give too much weight to the "OS 9 will not run on the next generation of desktop Macs, or on G5s"... I have heard no compelling technical reason why this should be so. Even in this thread this rumor was phrased to say, "OS 9 won't work, but classic will" Umm, if classic will, why not OS 9?

The truth is, OS X will be the default Boot OS, and there will be no more development of OS 9, and Steve Jobs did a little stage play where he buried OS 9 in a slide presentation. This does not equate with "OS 9 will not work on new hardware." I bet you will still be able to boot into 9 for some time to come, The move of legacy apps will take longer. It is just that you will have less and less reason to do so.

The rumor is a conflation of other attitudes, mostly attitudes geared towards marketing. Such as " Man, Apple would never put USB 2.0 on a motherboard they want to sell firewire" ( the little guy (apple) cannot close out the larger market, he can only remain compatible), or "I can't wait til I toss OS 9 off my Hard disk forever! Wooo-EEE!". That is, to move ahead you must throw the past away. Not necessarily so. There is a difference between lighting a fire under the slow-to-upgrades tail, and cutting off their legs altogether, and the latter is not an intended goal. It is just that there has to be some push, to keep the developers developing.

MWNY and NAMM are right on the heels of each other... I don't think you have any worries regarding Pro Tools, and you will certainly know more before you could possibly take delivery on either a new Mac Tower or Pro Tools.

alex_ant
Jun 27, 2002, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by Wry Cooter
I don't give too much weight to the "OS 9 will not run on the next generation of desktop Macs, or on G5s"... I have heard no compelling technical reason why this should be so. Even in this thread this rumor was phrased to say, "OS 9 won't work, but classic will" Umm, if classic will, why not OS 9?
"Classic" is actually two pieces: OS 9 and the Yellow Box in which it runs. The Yellow box is a sort of wrapper, or... box, around OS 9 that allows it to boot into a special environment, as its own OS X process, where it is not allowed to touch the hardware directly.

OS 9 running in the Yellow Box does not follow the same boot procedure that OS 9 running by itself does. Keeping Classic running on future machines will be a matter of keeping the Yellow Box updated to support newer revisions of OS X (if necessary). Keeping OS 9 running as its own OS on future machines would be a matter of directly updating OS 9, with new point releases - which would be a lot more work.

If I'm not mistaken, most new hardware releases in recent years have been accompanied by point revisions of the (classic) Mac OS which included changes necessary to accomodate the new hardware. If you need an example of how an OS that is allowed to languish can eventually become unbootable and or otherwise buggy/unusable, look at BeOS - not updated since 2000 and now won't boot on newer systems because they're just too different from what BeOS was written/compiled to support. Or for a Mac example, look at the PowerBook G4, on which any OS <9.2 won't run.

Alex

alex_ant
Jun 27, 2002, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by iamspooky

Aloha,

I read most of the threads and are we to believe that there is a high probability that OS 9 will not work on the new line of Macs scheduled to be released at MWNY ?? This concerns me because I am a Protools user with plans to purchase one of the new Mac G4's or (G5??) in July specifically for Protools.

I don't think Digidesign is will have PT OS X ready soon, so that leaves a big gap, (at least for ProTools users). If anyone could elaborate or comment on this I would appreciate the input.

What exactly is the rumoured change in the new Mac hardware design that won't allow OS 9 to load??

Hmm...Maybe I should grab one of the good deals on present stock of Mac G4s happening now ??

Regards,
Mark :confused:
It's certainly a possibility that the upcoming Power Macs won't run OS 9 natively. The Xserves don't, and the new Macs are rumored to use similar new technology. In order for the new Macs to run OS 9, there will have to be a new OS 9 release at MWNY (9.2.3 or 9.3) to accompany them. Jobs has stated that there would be no more OS 9 releases, and this is consistent with the lack of recent activity on the OS 9 front (not much happening in the Software Update control panel, no iPhoto for OS 9, etc...). Sooooo... I'm guessing you will have to either wait for that Carbonized Pro Tools or not buy a new Power Mac. But I would wait 'til MWNY to make a decision, because who knows if Apple will give OS 9 a stay of execution... you could get lucky. :)

Alex

Nipsy
Jun 27, 2002, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by BOOMBA


That is actually pretty funny, and yet sad at the same time because it is true.

I think the best thing Jobs could announce at MWNY is a $1000 price cut across the board. They really need to drop their prices to gain market share.

Sign me up for a slew of $99 eMacs!

barkmonster
Jun 27, 2002, 05:57 AM
I got OS 8 with my beige G3, it had a system enabler in the system folder so it was compatable, of course I updated to OS 8.5 as soon as I could but it still ran OS 8 just as well as it runs OS 9.1 now.

I think the rumours of the new G4s not being compatable with OS 9 are based on the Xserver, not some actual fact that OS 9 is too archaic to run on a newer motherboard. The Xserver comes with Mac OS X server, obviously it's not going to ship with OS 9 because it's not needed. Also, maybe there's some drivers needed to access some of the extra hardware the Xserver has that the desktops don't and it only works with OS X because apple didn't need OS 9 running on them so didn't add drivers to OS 9 that work with the Xserver.

Maybe I'm wrong and apple are going to release speedy new powermacs with DDR and then alienate a large proportion of their existing userbase just to push them into using OS X. I really doubt that though.

Cappy
Jun 27, 2002, 12:39 PM
Apple has the ability to make it very difficult to run older OS's on new hardware. We will really just have to wait and see.

TechLarry
Jun 27, 2002, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by eunuchs
I doubt if the price of parts (to Apple who sells millions of units annually) is appreciably different. Apple could make far cheaper machines right now! But they have shareholders who prefer fat dividends cheques. The reason they can get away with such high margins is that they have no direct competition. Who else sells a consumer-level PPC machine?

Now imagine this scenario:

"White box" P4 2 GHz = $700
Apple "iIntel" P4 2 GHz = $2000
(all other specs the same - and they could be)

You can upsell OS X and everything that's great about a Mac... but it's going to be pretty fricken tough convincing Joe Sixpack that he's not being had by Apple.Apple has a great history of reinventing their own platform and not losing every last developer they have. BUT, I think if they switched to x86 at this point in time - just when developers have finally managed to Carbonize and Cocoa-fy, not without some expense - they would successfully alienate all but the hardcore developers. Those who remain, would have their exit route clearly illuminated for them (once you eliminate the problem of writing code for two different architectures).Undoubtedly. All the more reason for Apple to get on board NOW.Again, remember Apple's raison d'etre: profits. Apple has successfully weathered a downturn that has just about every tech company reeling. Not only weathered it, but managed to stuff several billion into the proverbial coffers. Marketshare is important, but so is the bottom line. They've taken care of the latter, and with "Switch", it looks like they're starting to go after the former.

Dropping an AMD Athlon XP in a Mac does not make it a PC.

It is simply a Mac with an x86 processor inside.

Why are some folks thinking that just because a Mac has a x86 under the hood, it's a PC all of sudden?

A Mac is a Mac. The Mac is made by it's OPERATING SYSTEM and build design/quality, not by it's processor.

I firmly believe a Mac can be a Mac without having Motorola involved.

TL

TechLarry
Jun 27, 2002, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by GPTurismo


I agree. All my friends that work for IBM and SGi think the itaniums are pure trash. Basically Intel and MS needed something fast so they can actually try and compete in the real server market (high end aix, irix, solaris) and they rushed out a 64 bit processor and archetecture.

It's not a very capable archetecture.

The biggest thing apple could do to win this war is do away with bus speeds like SGi's and other higher end servers. That requires more intelligent components that can talk directly to each other at full speed, but if they could get that at an affordable cost, their systems would fly...

Are we to repeat the mistakes of the past?

I was one of those people sitting in the meeting for Apple Dealers in Reston, VA, years ago when they were showing the charts where the PPC was rocketing higher and higher and higher, and the Pentium was stuck at 450Mhz forever.

I think you see where I'm going with this...

The x86 crowd KICKED Apple/Motorola's Ass. It doesn't matter who's fault it was (Motorola), the fact is it happened, and we can't just keep assuming the same old stupid things.

It's time to move on, move up. Move on to a company that can provide the processors we need NOW, not 5 years from now (if ever).

TL

TechLarry
Jun 27, 2002, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by etoiles
Could Apple start using x86/AMD cpu's but still build macs (propriatory box, does not run windows) ? OSX would still only run on Apple's machines...

I do not understand a lot about hardware, so this is a question more than a suggestion ;) I understand that the software side of things could be a bit tricky, but I am sure they could come up with something...(remember the time when Windows was running on different processors intel, alpha ?)

At least they would not have to worry about matching PC processor speeds any longer...

Absolutely.

Dropping in an x86 does not turn a Mac into a PC, like some here have insinuated.

It's still a Mac, with a different processor inside.

When Apple switched from 68K to PPC, there was no noticible change. The same thing can be done again.

TL

TechLarry
Jun 27, 2002, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by iH8Quark
Do you think Apple reads these forums and knows how unhappy everyone is? I mean, I've never really seen people this unhappy on this forum, and it seems to be getting worse. They must know they're in big trouble, right? I mean, Steve's gonna pull out the big guns soon, isn't he?

i shudder to think what will happen if he doesn't. :eek: :confused: :(

It's called venting. It's theraputic :)

TL

TechLarry
Jun 27, 2002, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

I don't know what you mean by "work out a deal," but if you mean "get AMD to start manufacturing PPCs," that's probably not possible because AMD needs every bit of production capacity it can muster at the moment to compete against Intel. I can't see how they would be keen on manufacturing chips for a competitor when they don't even have the resources to do so.

Secondly, I don't think it would be wise for Apple to have anything to do with AMD, because it has shown that it is unable to turn a substantial profit even though its product is better than its main competitor's. It is forced to sell its chips practically at or below cost just to keep them competitive with Pentiums price-wise. I don't think their long-term prospects are very rosy - one wrong move and they're screwed. Remember the Intel F00F bug fiasco? If that happened to AMD, it would be all over for them.

How about Apple put P4s in its Power Macs? (JOKE) Heehee, I would predict a mass suicide of Mac fanatics if that were to happen. :)

Alex

AMD is stronger than you give them credit for...

TL

cooker22
Jun 27, 2002, 02:51 PM
I'm a newbie here, been lurking in the shadows for a while, trying to learn as much as I can, but forgive me if I break thread rules.

My question goes back to Alex_ant's concern about ProTools. I'm about to be a convert to a Mac, planned on picking up the 933, but then decided to wait for MWNY to either pick up a better machine, or get a better deal on the 933.

Reading the rumor that ProTools isn't going to be compatable with OSX and the new lineup causes a big concern. ProTools is the sole purpose of picking a Mac up. So my question boils down to this (and I realize there is much speculation here, but everyone here knows more than I do, so I need some advice):

Do I take advantage of rebates now and pick up a 933 that is ProTools certified, or wait for MWNY and see if the rumored less than spectacular line up, and hope that there will be a version of 9 that can run ProTools?

(Like I said, I'm a beginner, so any replies, - Try not to lose me technically. Thanks.)

eunuchs
Jun 27, 2002, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by TechLarry
Dropping an AMD Athlon XP in a Mac does not make it a PC.At what point did I say this? I was merely pointing out that the price comparison for the average consumer would be much more stark. Right now, Apple can hide behind statements that the PPC and x86 architectures are too different for direct price comparisons. If they plop in x86 processors, they remove that proviso and they'll have to rely on the Apple mystique alone...When Apple switched from 68K to PPC, there was no noticible change. The same thing can be done again.No noticeable change?? Ask developers if they thought there was no noticeable change...

Cappy
Jun 27, 2002, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by TechLarry


Absolutely.

Dropping in an x86 does not turn a Mac into a PC, like some here have insinuated.

It's still a Mac, with a different processor inside.

When Apple switched from 68K to PPC, there was no noticible change. The same thing can be done again.

TL

That was a completely different scenario and, yes, ask developers how they liked it. The thing people forget about is that there are issues like big and little endian when it comes to cpu's. 68k went one way while x86 is the other. Forgive me while I claim temporary amnesia on forgetting which is which. PPC lets you do both so it made life easier to migrate to it from 68k.

Now that's not to say that Apple might have some technology from Next on dealing with both since they used multple platforms. I don't know for a fact but I've heard rumors that they do. Either way it's not easy technically. The other thing is that an emulator would be needed. Developers I spoke with were always quick to point out that a 68k emulator was very easy to write. A PPC emulator is a whole other story.

It really comes down to is it doable? Probably. Is it useable? I might have my doubts unless the P4's and AMD's get much faster in proportion to Moto's. Is it worth it? Only Apple can answer that. People don't give them enough credit for the financial job and forecasting that they have done. They're problem has always been execution.

agoldweber
Jun 27, 2002, 03:48 PM
I'm in a near panic.

my palms: clamy. my back: tense, aching. my chest: jumpy with anxiety.

here I was getting comfy as I new the recent rebates would come and go and give way to better ones after MWNY. or better yet: better towers with added analog audio input, speed bumps and other forgetten goodies.

yes, I was content to wait to buy until August. but now, with the prospect of no OS 9 on the new machines--eek!

here's hoping this is a false rumor and that the run on OS 9-capable machines doesn't get bloody--cos it's gonna happen.

tjwett
Jun 27, 2002, 04:13 PM
wouldn't Apple feel better if they just dropped in a high mhz AMD chip and called it good? i mean, they wouldn't have to deal with dispelling the whole mhz myth, which is becoming harder to prove everyday. They would, like the competition, have a 2ghz+ processor which would leave the PC converts left to make only one decision, the OS. And I think it's pretty clear that OSX rocks anything out there right now. With all the effort spent trying to convince John Q. Public that mhz doesn't matter they should just spend the time and money severing their ties with Motorola and move on. if I was Steve Jobs (yeah right) i'd love to have the mhz off my back and just concentrating on what Apple does best; making beautifully designed machines that run a great OS, only now they would be just as fast as the competition, and any Joe Schmo could see it without having to learn about floating point calculations and gigaflops.

Wry Cooter
Jun 27, 2002, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by cooker22


Do I take advantage of rebates now and pick up a 933 that is ProTools certified, or wait for MWNY and see if the rumored less than spectacular line up, and hope that there will be a version of 9 that can run ProTools?



I don't think you will be hurt either way by waiting a week after MWNY after the immediately following NAMM and Digiworld. The new product will not be shipping until closer to fall anyway. From what I can tell at their site, Digi says that the big system is not currently OS X compatible but they are working diligently towards that end. Their Ads and Promo materials are definately showing Macs more visibly than ever before (I would take this as a good sign that it will be OS X ready as soon as possible).

And if you are dropping a minimum of 8 grand on a ProTools system, there will always be old compatible hardware available to you in that price range. I think MBox IS already Os X compatible, which I would take as another positive sign if I were you.

Any big piece of software with a lot of plug in architecture and drivers does tend to lag making it to a new OS. Probably the stragglers will be the plug ins, they usually wait until the installed base is up to snuff before refiguring their code if necessary.

My personal bet... if you want to use Pro Tools in OS X, you will have to be running Jaguar. I know I would want to be running Jaguar.

beatle888
Jun 27, 2002, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by cooker22

Do I take advantage of rebates now and pick up a 933 that is ProTools certified, or wait for MWNY and see if the rumored less than spectacular line up, and hope that there will be a version of 9 that can run ProTools?

(Like I said, I'm a beginner, so any replies, - Try not to lose me technically. Thanks.)


Oh, you definetly should wait a few weeks. Any machine released this
MWNY will run PROTOOLS and I bet in the future PROTOOLS
will be released under OSX.

The rumor about dropping support for OS9 implies that it will not happen
till late 2003 so I wouldnt let it effect any of your hardware purchases
at present since thats more than a year away. Think about that, no support
for OS9 in a year and a half, WHO CARES? Any software company planning
to stay with the MacOS will have OSX versions by then anyway.

You state above that reply's should refrane from being to technical.
Buddy right there that tells you that you should get a Mac, you have
more important things to do with your time than to try and work our
the problems of a PC.

Good luck with your music and check out the latest from
David Bowie "Heathen". Pete Townsend and him mailed a CD with the
PROTOOLS mix back and forth over the POND (atlantic) as it was
the most convenient way do so due to timing constrants.

alex_ant
Jun 27, 2002, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by TechLarry


AMD is stronger than you give them credit for...

TL
Thank you for your logical, in-depth and insightful response.

alex_ant
Jun 27, 2002, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by TechLarry
Absolutely.

Dropping in an x86 does not turn a Mac into a PC, like some here have insinuated.

It's still a Mac, with a different processor inside.
Yes, a Mac that is faster but inferior to the real Mac it is replacing, and a Mac that few will buy because of this. Will people buy the Athlon Mac, or the faster Athlon Windows machine with gobs more available software for the same price? The only reason Apple is alive today is because it is able to compete on a non-level playing field thanks to its different hardware. Once that distinction is gone, Apple will get eaten alive by much larger companies like Dell and Compaq who are able to sell faster, cheaper machines for less than Apple. It doesn't matter if Apple makes its own x86 machines or not. It doesn't matter if Apple has a superior OS or not - nobody cares, as evidenced by Be, who had the superior OS but was unable to GIVE it away. If an x86 Mac were such a great idea, it would have been done by now.

When Apple switched from 68K to PPC, there was no noticible change. The same thing can be done again.
No noticeable change for the end user. Ask the developers how much they loved the transition - I'm sure they'd be happy to tell you.

Apple: "OK, Adobe, we've got this new OS coming out and we want you to painstakingly update all your software to run on it."

Adobe: "Um, what? You have like 5% of the market."

Apple: "Just do it, wink wink, nudge nudge."

Adobe: "Okay.........."

Apple: "Change of plans, we're porting our new OS to x86 now. We need you to port all your software over. Thanks for Carbonizing it by the way."

An x86 Mac, proprietary or not, would be suicide. 1) The conversion would take years. 2) Developers would abandon Apple en masse. 3) Users would abandon Apple en masse. What more evidence do you need? I agree that Apple needs a faster CPU, but the Athlon is not it.

Alex

Wry Cooter
Jun 27, 2002, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

I agree that Apple needs a faster CPU, but the Athlon is not it.

[/B]

Apple needs someone who can provide fast CPUs that they already use, in usable yields in a timely manner. They should have gone with IBM and bypassed Altivec completely... they would probably be getting equal or better performance now without it, or with a solution from a more able partner.

This problem with Motorola is by no means new. It goes back before the days of mac clones... Motorola could easily keep a new Mac from the market for over 6 months because they were dribbling out their small yields to the smaller customers, such as those selling 68k upgrade cards, rather than saving up inventory in the numbers Apple needed for a product launch. Its not necessarily those in Chip design at Moto that are at fault, its the entire rest of the company, from manufacturing and quality control, to general management.

I wonder if Apple has ever threatened to pull their business from Motorola, in an attempt to get them to farm the manufacture of their design over to more competent hands.

Cappy
Jun 27, 2002, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Wry Cooter


Apple needs someone who can provide fast CPUs that they already use, in usable yields in a timely manner. They should have gone with IBM and bypassed Altivec completely... they would probably be getting equal or better performance now without it, or with a solution from a more able partner.

Doubtful. Mac OS X would have been even slower in the eyes of the media and public plus IBM still doesn't have their G3 anywhere within Intel/AMD highend speeds. Don't let frustration blind you.


Originally posted by Wry Cooter

This problem with Motorola is by no means new. It goes back before the days of mac clones... Motorola could easily keep a new Mac from the market for over 6 months because they were dribbling out their small yields to the smaller customers, such as those selling 68k upgrade cards, rather than saving up inventory in the numbers Apple needed for a product launch. Its not necessarily those in Chip design at Moto that are at fault, its the entire rest of the company, from manufacturing and quality control, to general management.

That was a problem with Apple and their execution. Moto did what a company should do...sell to its customers.

People need to realize that even though we can point fingers all day long at who we think is responsible for Apple's cpu's being slow, the Mac is fighting a goliath in the x86 platform. It's not just Intel, AMD, MS, Compaq, or Dell. Linux is coming on strong. The x86 platform provides more flexibility to customers by using competition to weed out the various motherboard manufacturers and such. Lets not forget IBM is still associated in terms of mindshare to the platform. I still hear lots of folks mention IBM compatible.

All of these things carry alot of weight that works against Apple. I'm flat out amazed that Apple has been able to remain where they are. Everyday is truly a struggle on multiple fronts. I'm not trying to make excuses for them but can anyone ever look at Apple as being the #2 or even #3 platform and be happy for a change? Apple has never had more than a 10-15% marketshare and their amount of marketshare now is a much higher number productwise than ever before. Other than Linux there really isn't much else out there in the end unless you start looking at niche areas in more detail. Someone has to fill in those 1, 2, and 3 slots. Those are it. I'd prefer to look at Apple as #3 than last. Optimism works better at selling a system than pessimism.

Yes, they need to improve but you know, everyone else says and does the same thing. Going with Intel or AMD guarantees nothing in terms of sales. Remember, for every action there is a reaction.

Wry Cooter
Jun 27, 2002, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Cappy


That was a problem with Apple and their execution. Moto did what a company should do...sell to its customers.



It was Apples problem that they happened to have a large order already in line (naturally enough) but motorola could only make a smaller number at a time, so the smaller orders were being filled first, for a period of six months or more after a publically announced product including the same chip? Even when Apple was the first to have their order in, in fact may have even pushed the development of the product that was being dribbled out in smaller numbers to others?

(This happened for those that were not around, in the 68030 and 68040 iterations of Macintosh product, if not other times)

Apparently Motorola is the king of small yields, and not being able to build inventory to meet initial large orders, despite standing backorders.

fitzg2md05
Jun 27, 2002, 10:45 PM
Its kinda painful to hear some of you talk that way. The only true reason I use Macintosh is for the OS. be it 9 or X. Its mac. Hell it could be running on a AMD, an intel machine, or whatever combination of hardware you throw at it for all I care. As long as it WORKS. Macs have a long history of WORKING. Hence the beauty. No one here can say that our G4s are faster or as fast in everyday use than a comparable priced Windows machine. Mind you it does matter what you consider "every day use", but reguardless...thats a hardware issue. I say, if apple can make it WORK like always, and then implement the faster processor that is plausible. Apple very well may consider a *86 derivative not plausible. However, to say that that would ruin the mac platform is simply being an apple zealot. Its the same idea of some people saying not to buy or use M$ products because of the fact that its from M$. Thats silly. I dont know about you, but I use what works. M$ office works. Nicely. A *86 processor will not "kill the mac". And for those of you who feel that stacking a 2 Ghz apple machine (*86) against a similar spec windows machine is any different that what we have now, I have a question for you. Why did you buy a Mac? If it was because it was the fastest available processor and bus etc, then may i insist you have your head checked. Its obvious that for the most part macs are not on the cutting edge of speed. However...the Mac OS is what runs that hardware. Ok, ill stop preaching here...but one last thing. If apple can sussesfully create a platform that is on the cutting edge of speed and combine the consistant quality of its OS, then im all for it. If it cant maintain that quality...then forget it. Cuz that IS the reason i use macs.

alex_ant
Jun 27, 2002, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by fitzg2md05
The only true reason I use Macintosh is for the OS. be it 9 or X. Its mac. Hell it could be running on a AMD, an intel machine, or whatever combination of hardware you throw at it for all I care. As long as it WORKS. Macs have a long history of WORKING. Hence the beauty. No one here can say that our G4s are faster or as fast in everyday use than a comparable priced Windows machine. Mind you it does matter what you consider "every day use", but reguardless...thats a hardware issue. I say, if apple can make it WORK like always, and then implement the faster processor that is plausible.
And it's not possible, so end of story. X86 WOULD kill the Mac by destroying compatibility, disgusting developers, infuriating end users, obliterating currently rich revenue streams, and ultimately bankrupting Apple. Again, I don't care if it's a proprietary machine or not - it would happen.

If you want to call me, an owner and user of one Mac, one Linux PC and one SGI a Mac zealot, feel free, but keep in mind that I've criticized the Mac's speed more than just about anyone else here, and I would be using a dual 2GHz PPC G6 laptop running BeOS R7 instead of a TiBook right now if the gods had smiled upon it.
If apple can sussesfully create a platform that is on the cutting edge of speed and combine the consistant quality of its OS, then im all for it.

Well of course, who wouldn't be. If they were able to, though, they would have done it already. It's not like these Motorola problems just materialized out of thin air yesterday - Motorola-Apple relations have been sour since the early '90s. It's not like Jobs is sticking with PPC because he gets off on red ink.

Alex

topicolo
Jun 28, 2002, 10:18 AM
The problem is, moto's goals don't align properly with apple's goals as well as amd's or intel's goals do. Moto's into the embedded processor market where the speed competition isn't as great as the mainstream cpu market so they're lazy and not doing anything productive. Since it seems that the wintel side is pulling away from the ppc camp at an accelerating rate, I don't find it hard to imagine that at one point, x86 based processors will be 2-3x faster than powerpcs. Because of this, Apple WILL need to switch to the x86 platform eventually. I don't think this is a good time right now, but apple should start preparing and maybe begin the switch in 1.5-2 years. The mac IS the OS and hardware with little more class. If apple moved to x86 processors, they'll still be able to distinguish themselves by making macs that are designed to stand out. Would any one of you be willing to buy a 2.53GHz P4 Mac with a 533Mhz bus, 512mb DDR 333 ram, a GF4 4600, and a 120Gb hard drive in the same quicksilver enclosure for the same price as a 933Mhz G4? I know I would. Apple needs to ditch Moto. Just look at what they did to palm; Moto kept the palm at 33Mhz for 2 years! Could this happen with the PPC? Maybe.
I don't want to find out though.

TechLarry
Jun 28, 2002, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by eunuchs
At what point did I say this? I was merely pointing out that the price comparison for the average consumer would be much more stark. Right now, Apple can hide behind statements that the PPC and x86 architectures are too different for direct price comparisons. If they plop in x86 processors, they remove that proviso and they'll have to rely on the Apple mystique alone...No noticeable change?? Ask developers if they thought there was no noticeable change...

I'm speaking of the END USER Experience, which is what is important here.

Developers know how to be Developers. I have faith in them and their ability to deal with such a change. They've done it before.

TL

TechLarry
Jun 28, 2002, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Thank you for your logical, in-depth and insightful response.

You're welcome :)

If you would like further info, try google.

TL

TechLarry
Jun 28, 2002, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by fitzg2md05
Its kinda painful to hear some of you talk that way. The only true reason I use Macintosh is for the OS. be it 9 or X. Its mac. Hell it could be running on a AMD, an intel machine, or whatever combination of hardware you throw at it for all I care. As long as it WORKS. Macs have a long history of WORKING. Hence the beauty. No one here can say that our G4s are faster or as fast in everyday use than a comparable priced Windows machine. Mind you it does matter what you consider "every day use", but reguardless...thats a hardware issue. I say, if apple can make it WORK like always, and then implement the faster processor that is plausible. Apple very well may consider a *86 derivative not plausible. However, to say that that would ruin the mac platform is simply being an apple zealot. Its the same idea of some people saying not to buy or use M$ products because of the fact that its from M$. Thats silly. I dont know about you, but I use what works. M$ office works. Nicely. A *86 processor will not "kill the mac". And for those of you who feel that stacking a 2 Ghz apple machine (*86) against a similar spec windows machine is any different that what we have now, I have a question for you. Why did you buy a Mac? If it was because it was the fastest available processor and bus etc, then may i insist you have your head checked. Its obvious that for the most part macs are not on the cutting edge of speed. However...the Mac OS is what runs that hardware. Ok, ill stop preaching here...but one last thing. If apple can sussesfully create a platform that is on the cutting edge of speed and combine the consistant quality of its OS, then im all for it. If it cant maintain that quality...then forget it. Cuz that IS the reason i use macs.

Fitz "Gets It". Nice post...

TL

TechLarry
Jun 28, 2002, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant

And it's not possible, so end of story. X86 WOULD kill the Mac by destroying compatibility, disgusting developers, infuriating end users, obliterating currently rich revenue streams, and ultimately bankrupting Apple. Again, I don't care if it's a proprietary machine or not - it would happen.

If you want to call me, an owner and user of one Mac, one Linux PC and one SGI a Mac zealot, feel free, but keep in mind that I've criticized the Mac's speed more than just about anyone else here, and I would be using a dual 2GHz PPC G6 laptop running BeOS R7 instead of a TiBook right now if the gods had smiled upon it.

Well of course, who wouldn't be. If they were able to, though, they would have done it already. It's not like these Motorola problems just materialized out of thin air yesterday - Motorola-Apple relations have been sour since the early '90s. It's not like Jobs is sticking with PPC because he gets off on red ink.

Alex [/B]

Well, hell Alex. I guess we're all just doomed to sit back and watch Apple fade into the sunset.

Because I tell ya right now. MOTOROLA is not going to improve their performance. Just home many years are we supposed to give them? Jeez, they just announced thousands and thousands of layoff's. That does not improve this situation.

Whatever Apple does, MOTOROLA HAS TO GO. They are not doing what is necessary to bring the Mac back in line, and competitive with the PC Platform.

All of Apple's Megahertz speak isn't going to cut it any more. You know, it never really even cut it back when it first started, it's just that the Gap was a hell of a lot narrower back then than it is now, and people didn't bring it to task as quickly.

Apple is getting their ass kicked, and hard decisions need to be made.

The only other alternative is this. Apple will have to back off the whole performance angle, and shift to a totally new Marketing strategy that doesn't even MENTION processors or performance.

It will have to be a 100% solutions based campaign. "Here's what you can really do with a Mac, and how you go about doing it".

In closing, either the Processor/Performance Angle has to be completely obliterated from from the Mac as a component of the product, or Apple has to fire Motorola and move on.

They simply cannot keep doing things the way they are.

I'm sorry if this upsets folks, but it's the way it is. I like Mac's, and I own Mac's, including a new LCD iMac SuperDrive. I also own several PC's, including servers and client machines.

Mac users are going to have to face the reality of this terrible situation we're in, and accept that fact that change is needed.

TL

Ifeelbloated
Jun 28, 2002, 03:19 PM
Wow. I'm not too concerned. Whatever the reason for the G5 hold up, I'm sure it's a good one. Steve and company know the future of the company rests on their ability to deliver this baby and make sure it kicks ass. And kick ass it must. We'll see.
I got a feeling though that when the G5 is finally unleashed, Steve will be saying, 'Oh ye of such little faith, why did you doubt?'.

Wry Cooter
Jun 28, 2002, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by TechLarry


Because I tell ya right now. MOTOROLA is not going to improve their performance. Just home many years are we supposed to give them? Jeez, they just announced thousands and thousands of layoff's. That does not improve this situation.

TL

Maybe they are laying off the middle management deadwood they most certainly probably have. so they can build a modern plant (as hinted in the french article) that actually CAN provide timely and useful yields.

In fact with their past performance, if there was to be a g5 at ALL by MWSF, they would have to do exactly this... build a modern plant that can push out the product. The design is in place, it is simply their management and manufacturing that holds things back 2 years by not being able to follow through. That is why legions are screaming for Moto to farm out the actual work to someone who CAN do it. (and why the Chicken Littles say there is no recourse BUT to go with AMD)

Ouroboros
Jun 28, 2002, 03:26 PM
Regarding Motorola's fabbing, I seem to remember reading a press release on Motorola's site a couple of days ago saying that they were going to use the fabbing plant of some renowned third party. If this is so, we won't have to wait for an entire plant to be built from the ground. I think things will work out. :)

Wry Cooter
Jun 28, 2002, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Ouroboros
Regarding Motorola's fabbing, I seem to remember reading a press release on Motorola's site a couple of days ago saying that they were going to use the fabbing plant of some renowned third party. If this is so, we won't have to wait for an entire plant to be built from the ground. I think things will work out. :)

You speaking of Taiwan? Hey what else is assembled in Taiwan? Hmm...

---Moto Farms Out---
TSMC is the world's largest dedicated semiconductor foundry, providing the industry's leading process technology and the foundry industry's largest portfolio of process-proven library, IP, design tools and reference flows. The company has one advanced 300mm wafer fab in production and one under construction, in addition to six eight-inch fabs and one six-inch wafer fab. TSMC also has substantial capacity commitments at two joint venture fabs (Vanguard and SSMC) and at its wholly-owned subsidiary, WaferTech. In early 2001, TSMC became the first IC manufacturer to announce a 90-nanometer technology alignment program with its customers. TSMC's corporate headquarters are in Hsin-Chu, Taiwan. For more information about TSMC please go to http://www.tsmc.com.

alex_ant
Jun 28, 2002, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by TechLarry
Because I tell ya right now. MOTOROLA is not going to improve their performance. Just home many years are we supposed to give them? Jeez, they just announced thousands and thousands of layoff's. That does not improve this situation.

Whatever Apple does, MOTOROLA HAS TO GO. They are not doing what is necessary to bring the Mac back in line, and competitive with the PC Platform.

All of Apple's Megahertz speak isn't going to cut it any more. You know, it never really even cut it back when it first started, it's just that the Gap was a hell of a lot narrower back then than it is now, and people didn't bring it to task as quickly.

Apple is getting their ass kicked, and hard decisions need to be made.
I agree completely with everything you said up to this point.
The only other alternative is this. Apple will have to back off the whole performance angle, and shift to a totally new Marketing strategy that doesn't even MENTION processors or performance.

It will have to be a 100% solutions based campaign. "Here's what you can really do with a Mac, and how you go about doing it".
That's an alternative, but it's not the only alternative. I see a number of alternatives in addition to switching to x86 and in addition to emphasizing usability over performance (which I don't think would work very well):

- Use dedicated on-board DSPs/ASICs to accelerate specific hardware functions dramatically, Amiga-style. I think this would be a great idea. What was the name of that company Apple bought a few months back with which it was rumored to be doing just this?
- Switch to IBM PPCs or POWER derivatives.
- Farm out PPC manufacturing to companies like Samsung and Toshiba, who can do it right.
- Rely more on multiprocessing. If, five years into the future, the Moto PPC turns out to be 4x slower than the Intel P5, why not utilize 4 or more low-power PPCs in an SMP or NUMA configuration?
- On a related note, re-write the OS X kernel and system libraries for pervasive multithreading, BeOS-style, for massive speedups on both uni- and multi-processors.
- Wait.

Obviously Apple has a number of options - even more than I listed here. Each of these I believe would be better than moving to an AMD x86 chip, except probably the last one.
In closing, either the Processor/Performance Angle has to be completely obliterated from from the Mac as a component of the product, or Apple has to fire Motorola and move on.

They simply cannot keep doing things the way they are.

I'm sorry if this upsets folks, but it's the way it is. I like Mac's, and I own Mac's, including a new LCD iMac SuperDrive. I also own several PC's, including servers and client machines.

Mac users are going to have to face the reality of this terrible situation we're in, and accept that fact that change is needed.
This I agree with too. But rather than adopting AMD and making their systems more similar to everyone else's, I think Apple needs to do just the opposite: Make them less similar. I think they should distance themselves as much as they can from PCs, because it's the uniqueness factor of the Mac that has always and I believe will continue to be their mass-market appeal. Make the Mac more like an appliance, a tool, a digital hub, something that isn't offered anywhere else. I do believe x86 would be a death spell for Apple any way it's sliced.

Alex

skunk
Jun 29, 2002, 03:42 PM
Perhaps I've got this all wrong, but my impression is that Apple kit, besides being a hell of a lot nicer to use and have about the place, actually achieves at least as good a workrate as the best PCs in most areas. Isn't this what matters? It sounds as if MWNY will bring a pretty good quantum leap in performance, too.

gopher
Jun 29, 2002, 04:07 PM
With Xserve performance like this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nf/20020628/bs_nf/18421

RC5 performance like this:


http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_test.html#storytop

Blast performance like this:

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html

It is obvious the Mac can be much faster than the PC with EXISTING processors. The question is, will more developers catch up and use Altivec as explained on:

http://www.xml.com/pub/r/1327
and

http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2002/04/05/altivec.html

By the way, you can forget PC benchmarks:

http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/september/010927_Pandering/010927_Pandering.htm

Altivec is even on the eMac and Flat Panel iMac.

It isn't the question of is the G4 fast enough. It is the question of whether developers will develop for the G4 more now that the iBook and older 15" CRT iMacs are the only G3s left standing.

TechLarry
Jul 1, 2002, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by skunk
Perhaps I've got this all wrong, but my impression is that Apple kit, besides being a hell of a lot nicer to use and have about the place, actually achieves at least as good a workrate as the best PCs in most areas. Isn't this what matters? It sounds as if MWNY will bring a pretty good quantum leap in performance, too.

A very reasonable observation, and one I do not disagree with.

Unfortunatley, this has turned out to be an un-marketable aspect of the Mac.

Not because it isn't true, but because people simply aren't willing to listen to it.

Stupid Humans :)

TL

skunk
Jul 3, 2002, 09:04 AM
Going right back to the original post for a minute, my technical French is not quite up to scratch, but surely "pieces de rechange" means redundant (power supply, etc). Otherwise it makes no sense at all. What spare parts would they ship with?

Scottgfx
Jul 4, 2002, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Of course Apple owns niches outside the desktop computer market, but they are just that: niches. What happens to Apple when it becomes a mere niche player is that it becomes another Amiga.
Alex

It least it would be an Amiga with much better management. Commodore had the desktop video market all sewn up. Upper management (Irving Gould and Medhi Ali) installed a new director of engineering... The guy who came up with the IBM PC Jr! This guy put the new high end systems on the shelf and made the team design a bunch of systems that nobody wanted. Ever heard of the Amiga 600? Basically an Amiga 500 redone with surface mount chips and it cost a lot more to build! Other systems developed (Amiga 1000+) never saw the light of day. The Amiga 4000 was supposed to be the Amiga 3500 and was released years late. By that time the upper management had built their tax shelter in the Bahamas and skipped town. I see Commodore as an Enron, before Enron.

In Apple, I see some hope. Gawd!, was April 29, 1994 really that long ago? And why do I remember the date of Commodore's collapse?