Other Uses for the PowerPC 970

[MacRumors]

News.com (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-984353.html?tag=fd_top) reports that IBM plans on introducing more "Blade" systems this year.

The Power blades, first demonstrated in October, will use the PowerPC 970 processor. The 1.8GHz processor is expected to arrive later this year, IBM said

These Power Blades were first demonstrated (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-963111.html) in October 2002. These machines will run Linux as their operating system. In October, IBM would not disclose the procesor that would be used in these machines:

[i]Dougherty didn't disclose which member of IBM's Power processor family the blade servers would use, but acknowledged that it could use a repackaged version of the Power4 processor used in IBM's high-end Unix servers. In current products, the Power4 is packaged in groups of four into large, power-hungry "multichip modules" ill-suited for skinny blade servers.

The company said that it plans to build servers that use the Power4 processor without the multichip module.

This Power4 derivative will apparently be the PowerPC 970. This information simply reiterates a 2003 release for the PowerPC 970.

[springscansing]

Bah, I am dying for some new info!

[dricci]

This is _great_ news because with other uses for the processor besides in Macs, the 970 will always have some type of demand so they will constantly be updated and won't risk becoming stale like Motorola has let the current G4s.

[branko]

Considering that IBM just sold 5000 blade servers last year, which is peanuts compared to the number of PowerMacs...
They might make the 970 available immediately for Apple as well, unless the yields are very low...

[job]

Originally posted by dricci
This is _great_ news because with other uses for the processor besides in Macs, the 970 will always have some type of demand so they will constantly be updated and won't risk becoming stale like Motorola has let the current G4s.

Also good to see that this chip was made for the high end server market, much unlike the embedded-legacy G4.

[3G4N]

Mmmm...

Racks of 4U XServes with a dozen 970 blades apiece
(running OSX &/or linux), mated with XServe RAIDs...

Down the line, but happening. Within Apple's Vision.

Render, Composite, and Compress, and Stream/Serve
mounds of hollywood video.

[effectivity]

If IBM is going to be shipped servers based on the PowerPC 970 in 4Q03, is it likely that Apple will be shipping in the same timeframe?

Basically I am wondering if it is worth purchasing a new G4 PowerMac between now and then. I've found a 500Mhz PowerMac (768MB RAM) to be very sluggish on OS X and have wondered if getting the dual 1.42 is the ticket to some speed on OS X.

But I don't want to spend this money and then six months later have all new 64 bit PowerMac machines come out that REALLY can run OS X fast.

Any thoughts? If IBM can put their plans in print, why can't Apple? It would help many people with their buying decisions.

e

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by effectivity
If IBM is going to be shipped servers based on the PowerPC 970 in 4Q03, is it likely that Apple will be shipping in the same timeframe?

Basically I am wondering if it is worth purchasing a new G4 PowerMac between now and then. I've found a 500Mhz PowerMac (768MB RAM) to be very sluggish on OS X and have wondered if getting the dual 1.42 is the ticket to some speed on OS X.

But I don't want to spend this money and then six months later have all new 64 bit PowerMac machines come out that REALLY can run OS X fast.

Any thoughts? If IBM can put their plans in print, why can't Apple? It would help many people with their buying decisions.

e

if you NEED a new computer for some reason, don't sit around waiting for the next big thing. there will always be something on the horizon, especially with apple. if you don't really need one badly, of course you can wait, but i wouldn't rely on the assumption that apple is going to use 970s in the pmacs this year. there's nothing conclusive pointing to that in the least.

[Sol]

I second that last comment. Nothing official has been declared about the next generation PowerMacs so I would not be delaying any purchases waiting for that. A new PowerMac will certainly give you a faster OS X experience than the 500 MHz system you speak of. So long as you have two processors and a lot of RAM OS X should run fine.

[Awimoway]

Just to clarify / calm my nerves...

Do we have any solid evidence or confirmation that Apple will even be using the 970?

Apple is poised to crush our optimism should all our assumptions be in vain. Imagine the mass exodus from the platform if the Next Big Thing is a G5 1600 or some such garbage.

I'm not usually so gloomy. I just want to verify that all of our hopes are based on some kind of factual news that I somehow missed.

[Sol]

Neither Apple nor IBM have announced anything about 970s running OS X.

If there would be a mass exodus because of the processors in Apple hardware it would have allready happened. This might sound a bit cinical but whatever processor Apple uses next, people will still believe that Windows computers are faster.

[effectivity]

Why would Apple want to keep a new 64 bit machine secret? If I knew it was coming, I could budget for it. As I don't know it's coming, I'm not able to plan ahead. I can stick with a slow machine for 6 more months if I know the new machine is going to be much faster than what is available now.

I guess this is why it's important to know someone at Apple as otherwise, customers are pretty much kept in the dark. Even on the machines that in the store now, it doesn't say when the Radeon 9700's are going to be ready. It just doesn't make sense.

[dongmin]

Originally posted by effectivity
Why would Apple want to keep a new 64 bit machine secret? If I knew it was coming, I could budget for it. As I don't know it's coming, I'm not able to plan ahead. I can stick with a slow machine for 6 more months if I know the new machine is going to be much faster than what is available now.

I guess this is why it's important to know someone at Apple as otherwise, customers are pretty much kept in the dark. Even on the machines that in the store now, it doesn't say when the Radeon 9700's are going to be ready. It just doesn't make sense.

If they announced 970-based Powermacs to be available in 6 months, NO ONE except for the truly clueless and desperate would buy the higher end models for the next 6 months. It would kill sales and Apple would be stuck with months of inventory that they can't get rid of. It would be suicide.

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by effectivity
Why would Apple want to keep a new 64 bit machine secret? If I knew it was coming, I could budget for it. As I don't know it's coming, I'm not able to plan ahead. I can stick with a slow machine for 6 more months if I know the new machine is going to be much faster than what is available now.

I guess this is why it's important to know someone at Apple as otherwise, customers are pretty much kept in the dark. Even on the machines that in the store now, it doesn't say when the Radeon 9700's are going to be ready. It just doesn't make sense.

Er, because no one would buy a current machine! :confused:

In response to the earlier post about hanging on - I'm in exactly the same position - using a G4 500, and wanting to upgrade. I figured I'd wait but then got an AMAZING deal on the Dual 1.42 (cheaper than the dual 1.25!!!) so I couldn't resist.

I also figured, as with the G3s and G4s, I wouldn't buy a Rev.1 of the Power4 machines if/when they materialise.

[awulf]

Since IBM will use these CPU's it may be that these processors aren't aimed at Apple and therefor may not be included in Macs.

But I really hope we will see PowerMac 970's this year. The Motorola CPU's are dead.

[Blackcat]

Servers have no real need for Altivec, so the fact it is included means something.

[BenRoethig]

On the good side: The more 970s are produced, the lower the price per chip. It also would be in IBM's best interest to keep the chip competitive.

On the bad side: As awulf said, the chip could be destined for IBM's servers only and never see the inside of a PowerMac.

However, I might be wrong here, but MacOS X is currently the only operating system to take advantage of Altivec. If IBM did not have a use for Altivec, they wouldn't have included it.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by Blackcat
Servers have no real need for Altivec, so the fact it is included means something. Agreed,thats in there for apple! I think we will see a 970 in the mac announced this summer! maybe iam just optimistic but when moto comes out and says we are going to have are fastest g4 that will run at 1.3 ghz and apple is allready marketing dual 1.42 g4s i think this is telling us all something. Time will tell

[straphound]

When the 970 makes it into Apples this year (hopefully), how far down their line do you think they will go with it? If they come out with the top Power Macs with 970's Apple could finally make a cheap "prosumer" tower that still uses the G4 and say, bump up the iBooks to G4's also.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by straphound
When the 970 makes it into Apples this year (hopefully), how far down their line do you think they will go with it? If they come out with the top Power Macs with 970's Apple could finally make a cheap "prosumer" tower that still uses the G4 and say, bump up the iBooks to G4's also. Boy thats a tuff guess, i would thank that they would show in the pro machines and continue g4's in the consumer line. I would love a 970 imac but dont really think that will happen!

[jamilecrire]

Originally posted by effectivity
If IBM is going to be shipped servers based on the PowerPC 970 in 4Q03, is it likely that Apple will be shipping in the same timeframe?

Basically I am wondering if it is worth purchasing a new G4 PowerMac between now and then. I've found a 500Mhz PowerMac (768MB RAM) to be very sluggish on OS X and have wondered if getting the dual 1.42 is the ticket to some speed on OS X.

But I don't want to spend this money and then six months later have all new 64 bit PowerMac machines come out that REALLY can run OS X fast.

Any thoughts? If IBM can put their plans in print, why can't Apple? It would help many people with their buying decisions.

e

Just go to www.clubmac.com and get a dual 867. It runs 9 & 10 and it's cheap so you won't feel like you've wasted some change.<br>

I've got a QS 733 and just got a 22" Cinema so I'm as happy as a drunk sailor in a strip club (?). lol... Mmmm..... Cinema Display </homer>

[Tue12]

There may not be any 'hard proof' that the PPC970 will be used by Apple, however, the presence of an Altivec unit on the chip is awefully convenient.

:)

[TheMightyG]

Originally posted by effectivity

But I don't want to spend this money and then six months later have all new 64 bit PowerMac machines come out that REALLY can run OS X fast.

e

I wouldn't be rushing to buy a Rev A of a 970....can you imagine the potential number of bugs that will crop up both insoftware and hardware? OS X will need at least a partial recompile....the motherboard and bus will be different, what about drivers for all your peripherals?

I say get a dual 867 as someone else has recommended which should hold you until the major kinks in the new architecture are worked out.

Granted, I'm a bit of a chicken about being a first adopter......I like to think that "v1.0" actually means "shipping beta with a price tag"

[drastik]

The rumors about the 970 have been pretty steady, there seems to be a lot of undelying tide about the new chips. I like to think that we have a good chance to get the chips. If there were any information declaring it dead wrong, I think Arn would let us know.

Think of it, a PowerPC w/Altivec is produced by one of Apples bigest and most respected friends. You think Steve's going to let that walk away?

[GPTurismo]

Maybe Apple is going to work with IBM and release MOSX for the PPC970 Blades O:-)

Maybe that's what apple is doing with marklar too, all those wonderful 100+ processor intel systems out their with MOSX on them.... oh that would be nice...

Mainly because what I have read about Marklar, the interface is very clunky but runs very good as a server O:-)

So maybe the mid range or higher server market is where they are going with it :)

But a PowerMac G5/PPC970 is just a wonderful thought.

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by GPTurismo
Maybe Apple is going to work with IBM and release MOSX for the PPC970 Blades O:-)

Maybe that's what apple is doing with marklar too, all those wonderful 100+ processor intel systems out their with MOSX on them.... oh that would be nice...

Mainly because what I have read about Marklar, the interface is very clunky but runs very good as a server O:-)

So maybe the mid range or higher server market is where they are going with it :)

But a PowerMac G5/PPC970 is just a wonderful thought.

If Apple developed a version of OSX server to work on these 970 blade systems (and possibly even an X86 version for Xeon and Itanium systems), it could be a very good business move.

[sedarby]

Originally posted by BenRoethig


If Apple developed a version of OSX server to work on these 970 blade systems (and possibly even an X86 version for Xeon and Itanium systems), it could be a very good business move.

Yes, and then they can just get out of hardware all together!;)

Think about it, they could drop this whole have to catch up with Windows thing and just push the software to new levels. Of course, this would probably be the end of Apple as we know it.

[praetorian_x]

Originally posted by dongmin


If they announced 970-based Powermacs to be available in 6 months, NO ONE except for the truly clueless and desperate would buy the higher end models for the next 6 months. It would kill sales and Apple would be stuck with months of inventory that they can't get rid of. It would be suicide.

This is moderately true. Apple has enough cash on hand to deal with this situation though. Really, if apple wants to make any serious movement in the corporate world, they are going to have to adopt a more standardized roadmap based system. Currently, it is just too hard to plan around future platform changes. Uncertainty breeds a wait-and-see attitude, which further depresses sales.

Honestly, anyone who has bought a powermac in the last year and a half has probably had a niggling suspicion that their purchase was a stop-gap measure on the way to The Next Big Thing. Yes, a roadmap would hurt apple in the short run. But, long term, by smoothing out demand and eliminating uncertainty, it would likely be beneficial to them. And it would certainly be beneficial to their customers.

Cheers,
prat

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by sedarby


Yes, and then they can just get out of hardware all together!;)

Think about it, they could drop this whole have to catch up with Windows thing and just push the software to new levels. Of course, this would probably be the end of Apple as we know it.

Think about this, the high end server/workstation market is dominated by unix variants. Mac OS X server has the potential become the standard OS in this market the way Windows has (unfortunately) become the standard OS on the desktop. No other operating system has the power, ease of use, and x11 compatibility that OSX has.

Why would this be the end of Apple? Apple does not currently build a high end server/ workstation. The desktop/ lowend server operations would be unaffected. In the end Apple could get some profits out of this which would only help the desktop systems.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by dongmin


If they announced 970-based Powermacs to be available in 6 months, NO ONE except for the truly clueless and desperate would buy the higher end models for the next 6 months. It would kill sales and Apple would be stuck with months of inventory that they can't get rid of. It would be suicide.
That's right.

Many call it the "Osborne Effect" after the defunct "luggable" PC clone maker in the 80's.

Google search turned up this clip from a Wired Magazine article (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.10/neweconomy.html?pg=5) (third paragraph from the bottom):
Announcing an upcoming product so as to freeze your rival's sales is a classic example of this strategy. But be careful. If you announce a spiffy new product, sales of your current product might suffer just like your competitors'. This outcome is known as the Osborne Effect, after the defunct pioneer portable-computer firm. Osborne was so successful in convincing people how great its next model would be, they waited for it, killing Osborne's cash flow.

[arn]

Yep... there is very little hard evidence that Apple will be using the 970's.

Most of it is speculation due to the design of the processor.

That being said, there have been minor rumors floating around that Apple will be using it... but most of what you've seen on the websites has been speculation.

arn

[ffakr]

Originally posted by Blackcat
Servers have no real need for Altivec, so the fact it is included means something.
Wrong! Encryption/Decryption algorithms tend to parallize very well. Internet servers running secure services take a big performance hit when the number of secure connections rise.
This is why a number of companies sell plug in encryption cards for servers... and they don't tend to be cheap.

Altivec can be extremely important to a server, especially as more services rely on encryption. Long live SSL and SSH!

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by arn
Yep... there is very little hard evidence that Apple will be using the 970's.

Most of it is speculation due to the design of the processor.

Well a better way to state that would be: "Yep... there is very little hard evidence THAT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO GO PUBLIC WITH that Apple will be using the 970's."

;) :p

Dave

[arn]

Originally posted by DaveGee


Well a better way to state that would be: "Yep... there is very little hard evidence THAT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO GO PUBLIC WITH that Apple will be using the 970's."


heh... :) Like I said... there have been rumors floating around less public places... but most of what is on the mac-web has been speculation.

;)

arn

[jho4th]

Hey... this is a silly question, but is the designation "G4" a motorola term or an apple term? What I'm asking is, if apple goes to the ibm970, will it be the "G5" or will they have to use something else?

Totally insignificant, pointless, etc... but just curious.

[ffakr]

Originally posted by jho4th
Hey... this is a silly question, but is the designation "G4" a motorola term or an apple term? What I'm asking is, if apple goes to the ibm970, will it be the "G5" or will they have to use something else?


I believe the "G" generational moniker has been adopted by both Apple and Motorola. The G4 is marketed by Motorola under the proper series number... ie. PPC 7455... but Motorola does present their processors on their roadmaps as G4, G5, G6 (well, at least they used to ;-)

[Foocha]

Think about this, the high end server/workstation market is dominated by unix variants. Mac OS X server has the potential become the standard OS in this market the way Windows has (unfortunately) become the standard OS on the desktop.

Much as I love Mac OS X, I think it's optimistic to imagine that it could take on Linux in server space, which has the advantage of:
- being free
- running on cheaper hardware
- being a lot faster
- better documentation

In my view, OS X Server has more of a role in file serving in a mixed client environment, where it competes toe-to-toe with Windows 2000 Server, not UNIX.

Let's hope that Apple has got something up its sleeve on the hardware-front. It's pretty key to the future of the company right now - however good the OS and the Apps are, without a great hardware platform to run them on, Apple will be doomed (Be teaches us that a software-only option is no option at all...)

[Sol]

My guess is that it will be called the G5.

Considering all the talk about blade systems I am surprised no one has mentioned the XGrid (a recent Apple trademark/future product). I imagine software that could use the processing power of networked computers running some application, plug-in, etc. The software exists all-ready in 3D software, compositing, and other high end applications.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by effectivity
Any thoughts? If IBM can put their plans in print, why can't Apple? It would help many people with their buying decisions.

The difference between the 500 MHz system you are on now and a dual 1.42 will be night and day. You will NOT be disappointed by the speed increase. I have a dual 1 gig that I upgraded from a single 400... WOW WOW WOW it is faster. It's not just the CPU speed that makes the difference... it's all the other components.

My guess is that the 970 will debut with 1.8 GHz clock speed that will be incrementally faster than the existing dual 1.42's. It's not going to be so much faster that you won't believe the difference. It certainy will be from what you have now, but if you need something NOW then you should just get the dual 1.42.

Personally, I will be waiting for the second revision of the 970 based macs.

[GPTurismo]

A) Apple should not get out of the hardware business. It's to much money to be lost.

B) If they do market osx for other systems, it should be for servers only, and then they can continue making consumer and professional level desktops and workstations. But if the there were more server choices for Netinfo networks, more abilities for graphic workstations to tie directly to the "Render Farms" people would more seriously look at OSX >_>

C) I love arn :\

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by effectivity
Why would Apple want to keep a new 64 bit machine secret? If I knew it was coming, I could budget for it. As I don't know it's coming, I'm not able to plan ahead. I can stick with a slow machine for 6 more months if I know the new machine is going to be much faster than what is available now.

If you knew the 64-bit 970 was coming, then you wouldn't buy a 32-bit G4 today. You said it. That's why Apple doesn't pre-release product plans.

Add to that, of course, the fact that once you publicly state you will be using something like the 970 it becomes a lot harder to back down, and you lose influence over your suppliers (for instance, right now IBM knows that Apple could switch over to another processor line and/or just plain skip the initial 970 should the 970 production not match up to IBM's statements; if Apple were on record saying they'd have a 970 out late this year then IBM gains a lot more influence in the relationship than it enjoys now).

And, of course, Apple has often derided the PC industry for substance-free hype and vaporware, and pre-announcing products that aren't at least 90% of the way out the door starts down that same path that MS and Intel have so often taken advantage of.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Agreed,thats in there for apple! I think we will see a 970 in the mac announced this summer!

Not to rain on you parade, but this news makes an early debut of the 970 on Mac hardware much less likely.

An "early debut" before IBM's production facilities are in full swing would only be possible if IBM's primary use for the processor was Apple, and only if Apple was only going to ship a limitted amount of this processor immediately (say, in the XServe line).

I seriously doubt that IBM will be inclined to give Apple its pre-full-production chips instead of debuting the chip in their own blades. Of course, contracts might be drawn up to the contrary, but this news makes that at least somewhat less likely.

I strongly suspect that IBM and Apple continue to negotiate over the 970. In that view, IBM stating the 970 will have a home in its own blades can be seen as a negotiating move which will increase it's position in the negotiations.

[Foocha]

Apple's "no comment on unannounced products" is all very well for consumer products like iPod and iLife, but is entirely inappropriate if they are serious about getting into enterprise servers.

When you're making serious decisions about what server platform you're going to adopt, Apple's absence of a road map or any adequate level of documentation makes it impossible to make an informed decision.

We need a road map on the future for OS X Server, and some indication of what Apple plans for X Serve hardware in the future.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by BenRoethig


Think about this, the high end server/workstation market is dominated by unix variants. Mac OS X server has the potential become the standard OS in this market the way Windows has (unfortunately) become the standard OS on the desktop. No other operating system has the power, ease of use, and x11 compatibility that OSX has.


First, I hope everyone here recognizes that the X11 work Apple has done and what it has in Beta right now is the piece that lives on the "workstation", not on the server. If you are operating your servers headless (which is true the majority of the time in high-end server farms, less so in lower-end corporate servers...) then Apple's recent X11 work doesn't affect your server at all. You have always been able to run your X11 apps there on an XServe or the like; you just need a computer with a good X11 client to see the graphical output (and Windows, unfortunately, only has passable X11 systems available for it).

Second, Apple's current offerings are definitely not "high end servers". They are low-end servers. High end servers are nearly exclusively 64-bit and nearly exclusively headless, and nearly exclusively managed using standard, tried-and-true Unix tools without any Apple enhancements. Breaking into this market would be nice, but OS X isnt a huge advantage here; it just isn't a liability as Windows is.

That, of course, does not mean that Apple couldn't work its way into the high-end server market the way it has the low-end server market. But, one step at a time. Apple is doing this the right way, with caution and humility, and that is the only way it will be able to displace any high-end players.

[Blackcat]

Originally posted by jettredmont

I seriously doubt that IBM will be inclined to give Apple its pre-full-production chips instead of debuting the chip in their own blades. Of course, contracts might be drawn up to the contrary, but this news makes that at least somewhat less likely.


Servers are mission-critical things, especially IBM servers. It makes sense to sell the first batch to Apple then put the next batch in your own stuff once production has ramped up.

Also, Apple could sell several hundred thousand 970 PowerMacs by 2004 if they're as good as we hope. IBM won't sell that many Blades at $28,000 for a 14 unit rack ($4800 minimum).

[MOSiX Man]

I think that Apple should differentiate the PPC 970 from the rest of the PPC family, by giving it a new classification. Maybe something along the lines of:

'the PowerPC X1'

Considering that many jaded hardware junkies see the current PPC family as slow, differentiation may be good for marketing. Also, the 970 is really a distant cousin, in many respects, to all of the 'G' series PPCs. And, of course, the X ties into Apple's OS, too.

[Foocha]

I agree - it's time to drop the G - but I think Apple's overusing the X as it is (XServe is their worst example yet!)

[Blackcat]

Originally posted by Foocha
I agree - it's time to drop the G - but I think Apple's overusing the X as it is (XServe is their worst example yet!)

According to Steve that's "ten"Serve anyway :D

I'm going for PowerMac Extreme myself.

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by MOSiX Man
I think that Apple should differentiate the PPC 970 from the rest of the PPC family, by giving it a new classification. Maybe something along the lines of:

'the PowerPC X1'



I just hope they don't call it "PowerPC Extreme."

I don't know about anyone else, but I was a bit embarrassed when they announced the name 'Airport Extreme'... it sounds so 1999. :D

Edit: Just saw the post above. I guess there are opposing viewpoints. :confused:

[ryan]

Originally posted by Frobozz

[snip]My guess is that the 970 will debut with 1.8 GHz clock speed that will be incrementally faster than the existing dual 1.42's. It's not going to be so much faster that you won't believe the difference. It certainy will be from what you have now, but if you need something NOW then you should just get the dual 1.42.
[snip]
By IBM's accounts the 970 is 2x as fast as a G4 running at the same MHz, so a 1.8GHz 970 would be like having a 3.6GHz G4, almost a full 1GHz faster than the combined speed of a dual 1.42GHz G4. Given than most apps and parts of OSX are not able to take full advantage of dual processors I bet the 970 would/will be blazingly fast even in comparison to today’s fastest G4 PowerMac.

But given all that I would agree with your overall assessment, if you need a faster machine now, buy one now. Or as I like to say, the fastest machine of tomorrow won't get the work you need done today completed any quicker.

[jamilecrire]

Originally posted by Foocha


Much as I love Mac OS X, I think it's optimistic to imagine that it could take on Linux in server space, which has the advantage of:
- being free
- running on cheaper hardware
- being a lot faster
- better documentation

In my view, OS X Server has more of a role in file serving in a mixed client environment, where it competes toe-to-toe with Windows 2000 Server, not UNIX.

Let's hope that Apple has got something up its sleeve on the hardware-front. It's pretty key to the future of the company right now - however good the OS and the Apps are, without a great hardware platform to run them on, Apple will be doomed (Be teaches us that a software-only option is no option at all...)

First off I'm a software engineer that maintains my companies and other companies servers (and develops sw for these platforms). Personally I love Linux on the server side (in fact this site runs on linux). However, I run Windows on 1/2 the servers because of a client need or desire. Personally I cannot stand MS products (server side).

I run Solaris, Linux, Windows and OS 9/X at my company and I am seriously considering adding an OS X Server to the mix. All I'm waiting on is Oracle to make it out of release candidate stage (if it ever will). With the available UNIX apps and Oracle I can justify an OS X Server because the UI Controls far exceed what's available on Linux (mind you I've been using Linux since '95). Don't get me wrong, I'll need a lot of proof before I migrate from Linux to OS X Server, but the seed is planted. All Apple needs to continue doing is making good interfaces to the available UNIX based server apps.

Oh yeah I'm waiting on 64bit as well. Oracle needs 64bit, hence Solaris on SPARC.

[TMay]

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/030214/051157.html

It looks like IBM has brought in a couple of design houses to support the PPC design process, and, IBM is Licensing the PPC core of (at least) one of the embedded processors.

Throwing down the gloves to ARM and XScale or just an evolutionary business practice? Will Steve put it into one of the Digital Lifestyle devices?

[chabig]

Apple's "no comment on unannounced products" is all very well for consumer products like iPod and iLife, but is entirely inappropriate if they are serious about getting into enterprise servers.

I don't know, but I'd guess that if you are a large customer and you are in the market for a lot of enterprise servers, Apple might give you a bit of inside information on their future plans along with an NDA. So although they don't make public comments, they probably aren't keeping all of their customers in the dark...just a guess.

Chris

[Foocha]

Big customers under NDAs - maybe, but we're not all big business customers, and we need to make a proper evaluation before making the commitment involved in becoming a big customer.

The likes of Sun and Oracle let you download software for evaluation. The also normally provide product roadmaps that enabled their customers to plan.

It would be good to see Apple adopting some of these practices. When we recently purchased a copy of Mac OS X Server for evaluation, the guys at the Apple store told us that we "may" get a discount on an Xserve if we mention that we previously purchased the server software for evaluation. The only reason we agreed to pay at all was because we're Apple junkies - I suspect regular business customers just wouldn't have considered it, and would have selected another platform instead.

[Tim Flynn]

Originally posted by Blackcat
Servers have no real need for Altivec, so the fact it is included means something.

On Motorola's website is a document on TCP/IP performance improvements using the Altivec unit. So ... perhaps Altivec is very important for servers!

[Tim Flynn]

Originally posted by Tim Flynn


On Motorola's website is a document on TCP/IP performance improvements using the Altivec unit. So ... perhaps Altivec is very important for servers!

The link to info on Altivec and TCP/IP
http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/ALTIVECTCPIPWP.pdf

[praetorian_x]

Originally posted by ryan

By IBM's accounts the 970 is 2x as fast as a G4 running at the same MHz, so a 1.8GHz 970 would be like having a 3.6GHz G4, almost a full 1GHz faster than the combined speed of a dual 1.42GHz G4. Given than most apps and parts of OSX are not able to take full advantage of dual processors I bet the 970 would/will be blazingly fast even in comparison to today’s fastest G4 PowerMac.


Two 1.42 Ghz g4's is *not* equivilent to 2.84 ghz. Dual processing imposes a cost regardless of the architecutre becuase of added complexity. Dual processing as ghetto and FSB-choked as Apple's is even worse.

This is why the 970 is going to kick so much ass, even compared to a dual g4 system clocked similarly: the memory throughput is going to be *gigantic*. And, if the 970 is released as a dual system on the high end, they will likely be using a hypertransport based system, which will make dualies scale better than the current shared bus system.

The 970 will get Apple back in the game.

Originally posted by ryan

But given all that I would agree with your overall assessment, if you need a faster machine now, buy one now. Or as I like to say, the fastest machine of tomorrow won't get the work you need done today completed any quicker.

See above. If you are buying a powermac right now, you had better *really* need one. That's why no one is buying them, especially in the pro space. Everyone can see that Apple either has to go with something new or is going to fade away in the workstation market.

I'm an optimist on this one: I think that the 970's will be announced at MWNY in July. I think that the current move to a single proc low end, dual proc mid and high end is a precursor to get the market "adjusted" to the idea of a single processor system on the low end, so that they don't have to go all duals with the 970.

I also think that they can't put the g4 too much further than the current lineup because of Mhz marketing considerations. The 970 is supposed to be released at 1.2 and 1.8 ghz. Apple is currently at 1 ghz and 1.42 ghz with the g4. They will look silly to the mhz-obsessed tech press if the g4->970 transition doesn't involve at least a small mhz bump. 1->1.2 and 1.42->1.8 would be good. They *might* be able to get away with 1.1->1.2 and 1.6->1.8. But not likely.

So, it is my prediction, based on the usual six month upgrade cycle of the pm's, that we will see the 970's announced in July, shipping in late august/september.

Just speculation,
prat

[nickgold]

If you are some mad-scientist dude who works for the government and wants to build a cheap cluster for folding DNA or whatnot, an Altivec-bearing 970-based Xserve grid would be pretty good. Those kinds of applications tend to take advantage of vector processing in a big way.

[Foocha]

There are maybe one or two customers out there who work in biotech and love Apple's use of PowerPC, but for the rest of us, the RISC chip that we used to be so proud of has become something of an embarrasment.

I hope praetorian_x is correct - it all *sounds* great ;)

[Sol]

I am not embarassed of my two RISC chips. RISC is the more sophisticated way of doing things. If it was not for RISC chips Apple would not have produced industry leading portables and fan-less desktops.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by Foocha
There are maybe one or two customers out there who work in biotech and love Apple's use of PowerPC, but for the rest of us, the RISC chip that we used to be so proud of has become something of an embarrasment.
"The rest of us" don't use iMovie, iDVD, Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, iTunes, or iPhoto or much, eh?

All of these, plus OS X's GUI, get major speed boosts on th G4 due to AltiVec. (iDVD doesn't even come up on a G3)

The BEST upgrade I put into my B&W was a G4/400. Many Final Cut Pro renders are 2 to 3 times faster or more!

[Foocha]

Sorry - I didn't mean for my post to sound like I was presuming to speak for everyone.

Don't get me wrong - I love Apple software (when it works ;)) but imagine how much better it would run on a faster chip...

The Intel world overtook PowerPC a long time ago, and PowerPC failed to keep up. Sure, AltiVec is nice for this and that, and enables Apple to keep some pride by doing Intel speed comaprisons with selected Photoshop filters - but for the average Photoshop user, I think they benefit from the overall performance of Pentium.

Who knows, perhaps PowerPC 970 will change all that, but with clock speeds of just 1.8GHz for launch, I'm not holding my breath.

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by Foocha
Sorry - I didn't mean for my post to sound like I was presuming to speak for everyone.

Don't get me wrong - I love Apple software (when it works ;)) but imagine how much better it would run on a faster chip...

The Intel world overtook PowerPC a long time ago, and PowerPC failed to keep up. Sure, AltiVec is nice for this and that, and enables Apple to keep some pride by doing Intel speed comaprisons with selected Photoshop filters - but for the average Photoshop user, I think they benefit from the overall performance of Pentium.

Who knows, perhaps PowerPC 970 will change all that, but with clock speeds of just 1.8GHz for launch, I'm not holding my breath.

1.8ghz is if it stays at 0.13. It might go to 0.09 before production starts. IBM and Apple may want to look at a numbering system similar to that of AMD.

[Foocha]

IBM and Apple may want to look at a numbering system similar to that of AMD.

...agreed. And that says it all, doesn't it? That PowerPC is in the same boat as AMD.

I don't know how Intel are doing it, but they're doing something right. Sadly, problems with legacy code in Carbon apps means it's unlikely we'll see Apple switching to Intel for their desktops any time soon - Xserve, however, may be a different matter all together.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Foocha


...agreed. And that says it all, doesn't it? That PowerPC is in the same boat as AMD.

I don't know how Intel are doing it, but they're doing something right. Sadly, problems with legacy code in Carbon apps means it's unlikely we'll see Apple switching to Intel for their desktops any time soon - Xserve, however, may be a different matter all together.

why would apple be more likely to switch the Xserve to x86 without also changing the rest of its line?

[Foocha]

Hi Shadowfax,

I'd guess that most users don't run Carbon apps on an Xserve, so there's less of an obstacle to migrating OS X servers to Intel.

It's all the desktop apps like Photoshop & Internet Explorer that are Carbon - the OS X Server stuff is all C, C++, Java & Cocoa, quite easy to port to Intel, (and presumably already running on Maklar).

If Apple ever were to decide to migrate to a new chip, I suspect they'd need to do it in stages, and I suspect the server line is the natural place to start. Imagine the reaction of an average iMac user when they double click on an Internet Explorer icon only to get a dialogue box explaining that this app does not have the required binary.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by Sol
I am not embarassed of my two RISC chips. RISC is the more sophisticated way of doing things. If it was not for RISC chips Apple would not have produced industry leading portables and fan-less desktops.

The fact that the PowerPC followed the RISC design philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with its power characteristics. In fact, nearly all of the RISC processors used in servers are just as bad for heat and power as Intel's.

The PowerPC has a high performance to heat ratio because the embedded market was so important to Motorola. That led to a set of design tradeoffs to keep the power and heat requirements low. Sun with their UltraSPARC, IBM with their Power4, DEC/Compaq/HP with their Alpha and SGI with their MIPS 1x000 did not have that focus and their RISC chips uses lots of power and generate lots of heat.

The RISC versus CISC debate is for the most part irrelevant. Neither side is very much RISC or CISC any more as the traditional RISC designers have added more CISC-like features and the CISC designers have made their cores more RISC-like and left the CISC ISA more to instruction decoders. ArsTechnica.com has some good papers talking about this and comparing what processors are really doing under their hoods.

And AltiVEC is definitely not in keeping with the RISC design philosophy. It is a wonderful example of pragmatism overriding dogma by adding a great idea from vector processors to enhance an already good design.

[Zaid]

On a different note, if Apple does go with the 970, presumably the first place that we would see them is in an XServe and/or a Powermac; but what do you think are the chances of seeing one in a Powerbook soon thereafter?

From what I've read (an ArsTechnica article (http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html) ) the 970 at 1.2Ghz is cool enough to go into a laptop straight away, and that is if IBM is still using a .13 process when the chip debuts.

Just wondered what everyone's thoughts on the subject were.



* first post btw* :)

[BenRoethig]

I don't think we'll see a 970 in a Powerbook until around 6 months after they reach the Powermacs and the Xserve.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Foocha
If Apple ever were to decide to migrate to a new chip, I suspect they'd need to do it in stages, and I suspect the server line is the natural place to start. Imagine the reaction of an average iMac user when they double click on an Internet Explorer icon only to get a dialogue box explaining that this app does not have the required binary.

Hmm. I don't think they'd be likely to do it in more than two stages. If Apple moved the PowerMac line to a different CPU architecture, what do you think would happen to their consumer and portable sales? Who would want to buy a computer based on a chip that would soon (within a year or so) be unsupported by new software?

I can maybe see XServe being moved over, then the rest of the lines, but there only because the "servers are different" argument is a whole lot easier to make than the "expandable desktops are different from consumer desktops and portables" argument.

That having been said, for many reasons, I seriously doubt Apple is going to move from PPC to any of the Intel/AMD architectures any time soon (def. not x86; Itanium and Hammer would be the only possibilities, but which would Apple pick? Intel hasn't even made up its mind completely yet!)

[GeneR]

Nobody's mentioned the fact that if you crumble the 970 into little pieces and sprinkle it on top of a chocolate sunday, it makes for a nice topping...

:D

Good grief! Just bring those hush-puppies on, already! My knees are killing me from all the begging and waiting...Just kidding!



;)

[Foocha]

The neat thing about OS X's application bundles is that you have have multiple binaries withing a single application icon.

If an OS X app can be compiled for Intel, then it should be relatively simple for it to be compiled for PowerPC as well - the obstacle to application developers is migrating from Carbon to Cocoa - once this is done, developing cross platform apps should be relatively straightforward.

My point is that whilst Internet Explorer is unlikely to ever run on OS X for Intel since it is a Carbon app ported from OS 9, your iMac user shouldn't have problems running Cocoa apps developed with an Intel-based PowerMac in mind, since the developer will probably have included binaries for both Intel & PowerPC (remember the 68k / PowerPC transition, it wasn't such a biggie!)

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by jettredmont
if IBM's primary use for the processor was Apple, and only if Apple was only going to ship a limitted amount of this processor immediately (say, in the XServe line).

This is what I have been saying since the rumour debuted.

A X-serve debut then migrate down to high end powermacs, possibly even positioned as workstations.

Rocketman

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by Foocha
The neat thing about OS X's application bundles is that you have have multiple binaries withing a single application icon.

If an OS X app can be compiled for Intel, then it should be relatively simple for it to be compiled for PowerPC as well - the obstacle to application developers is migrating from Carbon to Cocoa - once this is done, developing cross platform apps should be relatively straightforward.

My point is that whilst Internet Explorer is unlikely to ever run on OS X for Intel since it is a Carbon app ported from OS 9, your iMac user shouldn't have problems running Cocoa apps developed with an Intel-based PowerMac in mind, since the developer will probably have included binaries for both Intel & PowerPC (remember the 68k / PowerPC transition, it wasn't such a biggie!)
While you are right, in general, about the cross-platform development possibilities that Cocoa has (and OpenStep had) - there are still going to be parts of the major applications that will need different code for the different platforms. (AltiVec vs. MMX/SSE for instance)
How big of a deal it would be is still an unknown though. (at least to us outsiders)

And as for the 68k / PowerPC transistion: I was not a Mac user then, but from what I've read it sounds like there was a year or so where the PPC machines really sucked because of the amount of 68k emulation going on under the hood.

[beatle888]

Originally posted by Foocha
Don't get me wrong - I love Apple software (when it works ;))


you MUST be a troll, if not, something must
be wrong with your set up. are you running
minimum system requirements for the apple
software? oh and by the way....what apple
software are you reffering to?




.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by beatle888
you MUST be a troll, if not, something must
be wrong with your set up. are you running
minimum system requirements for the apple
software? oh and by the way....what apple
software are you reffering to?




.

is it automatically someone else's fault when apple software goes south?

what about safari and 10.2.4?

[Foocha]

Take Keynote - it has lots of potential, but it doesn't work.

Let's be honest, no one is perfect - not even Apple.