Inside the PowerPC 970: Part II [Archive]

MacRumors

May 14, 2003, 02:48 AM

ArsTechnica has posted (http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/ppc970/ppc970-0.html) a long awaited Part II to their "Inside the PowerPC 970" article.

Part I (http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html) was posted shortly after the announcement and presentation of the IBM PowerPC 970 at the Microprocessor Forum in October 2002.

This second article goes into significant technical detail, as well as revealing the author's opinion about the purpose of the IBM PowerPC 970:

...a close examination of IBM's PowerPC 970 reveals that it was made with Apple in mind as the primary customer. Furthermore, it's almost certain that Apple will introduce a new high-bandwidth frontside bus and memory subsystem design for towers based on the new processor. In a short, we now know what Apple has been up to for the past two years while their desktop line has languished.*

maxterpiece

May 14, 2003, 02:48 AM

sounds pretty darn exciting

Niknar

May 14, 2003, 02:51 AM

Sounds like good news :-)

woodsey

May 14, 2003, 02:57 AM

briliant news!
cant wait

Bengt77

May 14, 2003, 03:03 AM

So now I can throw overboard all my fears of Apple maybe not going the PPC970 route?! Great!

Go, Apple; go and spank the x86 world hard!

Darn, I hope they'll introduce the new Power Macs soon. Although I'm mostly past the waiting excitement; I have a (for my needs, that is) plenty capable Mac and really don't need the extreme power of a PPC970. But it would be nice to see them soon, won't it?!

ArsTechnica is pretty good; they know their stole well.

alset

May 14, 2003, 03:11 AM

Again, I have to ask why everyone is so hell bent on the idea that this is a sure thing? Why take so many rumors as the word of god?

Lots of people setting themselves up for a fall, right about now. Rumors have let us all down before. If Apple doesn't deliver there will be people screaming for blood, and it won't be Apple's fault.

Dan

caveman_uk

May 14, 2003, 03:13 AM

At last! A proper article that sticks to facts and tells the (albeit complicated) full story rather than the usual biased flame wars, inaccuracy and hype from both sides...

lou tsee

May 14, 2003, 03:55 AM

my only concern is the one of pricing.
apple MUST price those machines competitively by any means!

hvfsl

May 14, 2003, 04:02 AM

Apple should have a big sign on their website saying something like, 'Prepare for the future of computing'. ATI does this before it is going to release a new graphics card.

Also people have been saying that the new chips will most likely go in Xserves, but I do not think this is true. First more people buy PM rather than Xserves. Looking at the number of chips being sent it looks they will only be single chip systems or they would not be able to keep up with demand, Apple could release a dual PPC970 later.

Blackcat

May 14, 2003, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by alset
Again, I have to ask why everyone is so hell bent on the idea that this is a sure thing? Why take so many rumors as the word of god?

AltiVec.

IBM has no need whatsoever to add AltiVec to a processor. If they just wanted a SIMD unit they would have used their own better version.

Shaktai

May 14, 2003, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by alset
Lots of people setting themselves up for a fall, right about now. Rumors have let us all down before. If Apple doesn't deliver there will be people screaming for blood, and it won't be Apple's fault.
Because people like to hope, and that is a good thing. :D

Disappointments fade quickly, but as they say, "Hope springs eternal." Besides, this time there is plenty of credible evidence to support it, and a processor that is real and in production. Behind many rumors is usually a little bit of truth.

ipiloot

May 14, 2003, 04:47 AM

Shaktai

May 14, 2003, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by Blackcat
If they just wanted a SIMD unit they would have used their own better version.

What better version? IBM is one of the co-developers of Altivec. Altivec is just Motorola's "trademarked" name for it. IBM calls it VMX I think and Apple calls it "Velocity engine". Same thing by any name. It would appear from the article, that it is a bit of a hack to the original design, but could very well be better integrated in a future version. (980?) The important thing is that it works.

the future

May 14, 2003, 05:01 AM

What I found most exciting – apart from the overall performance estimations themselves – was the fact that the author of the article is SURE there will be dual systems from the beginning AND PRETTY MUCH SURE that IBM and/or Apple are working on quad systems. 4x 2.5 GHz PPC 970 – eat your heart out, Intel/AMD/Microsoft!

Pinto

May 14, 2003, 05:38 AM

This must be the most exciting Apple news in a very very long time.

I hope they aren't just playing with our emotions, if it all turns out to be bollocks it's going to be VERY disappointing.

Roll out the arse-kicking mac of tomorrow

Blackcat

May 14, 2003, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by Shaktai
What better version? IBM is one of the co-developers of Altivec. Altivec is just Motorola's "trademarked" name for it. IBM calls it VMX I think and Apple calls it "Velocity engine". Same thing by any name. It would appear from the article, that it is a bit of a hack to the original design, but could very well be better integrated in a future version. (980?) The important thing is that it works.

IBM distanced themselves from the original Altivec SIMD because they wanted one which did not require special coding. This is the main reason why there were G1/G2/G3 chips by Moto and IBM, but G4 chips only by Moto. IBM felt it was the wrong approach and AIM went all tits-up. (I'm over simplifying here)

So if IBM just wanted a SIMD unit on a Workstation POWER chip, I think they would use a more refined VMX without Altivec compatibility.

windwaves

May 14, 2003, 05:57 AM

that is quite right: LANGUISHED ... for the past 2 years. Is this the price, time wise, we are paying for a once again competitive machine ?

Chryx

May 14, 2003, 06:12 AM

I have to say, I feel that Hannibal is being a tad unfair to Apple when he blames them for the lousy bus interface on the G4

Unfortunately, the vector performance of the G4e has been consistently bottlenecked by Apple's lackluster motherboard and chipset designs--specifically the anemic frontside bus and memory subsystems that Apple has saddled the PowerMac line with.

Just what were Apple supposed to do?, use a focused ion beam on every G4 Moto shipped them to reengineer the bus interface logic?

I personally think they've done a pretty good job chipset wise.

AidenShaw

May 14, 2003, 06:36 AM

...but to summarize, Mac users should not expect any inherent performance benefits from the move to 64 bits. The 970's performance advantages will come from the many microarchitectural features that I'll cover in this article, and not from the fact that it's a 64-bit processor.

A pretty clear statement to counter the "64-bit is 2X as fast" cheering section! :D

Raiden

May 14, 2003, 06:56 AM

Wow, Im excited!!

Man, it would be so cool to goto college next summer w/ a stalk iMac 970@1.6ghz w/ 1gig ram. All for 1200 bucks. That is what I am hoping...

MacsRgr8

May 14, 2003, 07:17 AM

with the Radeon 9800 Pro...

Blackcat

May 14, 2003, 07:35 AM

If the 970 ships as planned, expect sales of G4 systems to halt. I fully expect a 100% switch to 970 from G4 - it's cooler, faster and cheaper.

Who will buy a 1.4Ghz G4 iMac at $1300 if a 1.4Ghz Powermac at $1500 decimates it?

I really hope Apple dumps Moto totally.

medazinol

May 14, 2003, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Blackcat
If the 970 ships as planned, expect sales of G4 systems to halt. I fully expect a 100% switch to 970 from G4 - it's cooler, faster and cheaper.

Who will buy a 1.4Ghz G4 iMac at $1300 if a 1.4Ghz Powermac at $1500 decimates it?

I really hope Apple dumps Moto totally.

Steve Jobs recently said this at their shareholder meeting on April 24: (From ThinkSecret Report)

A concern about hardware speeds was expressed. Jobs first made point that clock speed does not necessarily tell the whole story, and that even Intel is emphasizing diminishing importance of clock speed as it release new portable processors that are faster at slower clock speeds. He then acknowledged that it is a problem, and that Apple is very aware of the issue. He said "there will be a time" when Apple would speak about its relationship with Motorola, and that the particular shareholder who asked the question would be invited, if he desired.

So there you go right from Steve. Apple will tell us what they think of Motorola when the time is right (ie: When we've moved our high-end stuff to the 970 then the world will know what we think of Motorola and their lack of interest. Oh and its payback for dropping the G5)

jayscheuerle

May 14, 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by lou tsee
my only concern is the one of pricing.
apple MUST price those machines competitively by any means!

Agreed. Apple's low-end towers have never been priced competitively. Many people take the elitest viewpoint that Apple shouldn't focus on the low end, shouldn't devote the R&D, which is absurd. A low-end tower would only cannibalize iMac sales if the iMacs were priced too high. There is no R&D if all you're doing is offering the lowest speed processor with a CD-ROM, 40 gig drive and a low-end graphics card. It's just a configuration, and a configuration that would give us a place to install all the CDRWs, DVDs, 120 gig drives and high-end graphics cards that are working perfectly well in our current machines.

When you can get a system like this (http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offers/specials_m_dimen4550.htm) for $998...

Pentium® 4 Processor at 2.66GHz w/533MHz front side bus/ 512K L2 Cache

256MB DDR SDRAM at 333MH

60GB2 Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM Hard Drive

64MB DDR NVIDIA_ GeForce4 MX? Graphics Card with TV-Out

48x CD-RW Drive with Roxio's Easy CD Creator®

Logitech® Optical USB Mouse

Harman Kardon HK-395 Speakers with Subwoofer

56K3 PCI Data/Fax Modem

... Now sorry, but that's no lame system, and you can bet their warranty is better than Apple's. Not everyone out there wants an all in one system and not everyone out there is running Final Cut Pro. Apple is alienating a huge segment of the population by not offering a competitive low-end system.

Bring 'em in, and bring 'em in on target. - j

Mudbug

May 14, 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Agreed. Apple's low-end towers have never been priced competitively. Many people take the elitest viewpoint that Apple shouldn't focus on the low end, shouldn't devote the R&D, which is absurd. A low-end tower would only cannibalize iMac sales if the iMacs were priced too high. There is no R&D if all you're doing is offering the lowest speed processor with a CD-ROM, 40 gig drive and a low-end graphics card. It's just a configuration, and a configuration that would give us a place to install all the CDRWs, DVDs, 120 gig drives and high-end graphics cards that are working perfectly well in our current machines.

When you can get a system like this (http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offers/specials_m_dimen4550.htm) for $998...

Pentium® 4 Processor at 2.66GHz w/533MHz front side bus/ 512K L2 Cache

256MB DDR SDRAM at 333MH

60GB2 Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM Hard Drive

64MB DDR NVIDIA_ GeForce4 MX? Graphics Card with TV-Out

48x CD-RW Drive with Roxio's Easy CD Creator®

Logitech® Optical USB Mouse

Harman Kardon HK-395 Speakers with Subwoofer

56K3 PCI Data/Fax Modem

... Now sorry, but that's no lame system, and you can bet their warranty is better than Apple's. Not everyone out there wants an all in one system and not everyone out there is running Final Cut Pro. Apple is alienating a huge segment of the population by not offering a competitive low-end system.

Bring 'em in, and bring 'em in on target. - j

Please don't shoot the messenger, but he's right. There needs to be a single processor low end 970 machine with all the simple goodies at a price point around $800-$1000 to get home users to buy. Don't worry about including displays, but just offer discounts on Apple models if purchased together, much like they do now. And include 3 years of AppleCare for free with the purchase of a new or refurbished system.

I know you folks are going to say "well, home users aren't the market we're going after" - but they are. You want to use the same machine at home as you do at work, and the only way to persuade enough people to switch their offices over is if they have access to a mac that's better and cheaper at home than thier wintel box at work. Fortune 500 companies don't have thousands of P4 hotrods on desktops, they have netware boxes that are basically just end nodes of the network. What about just a simple network "appliance" (again, don't shoot me) for the enterprise that fits needs but doesn't overachieve?

Sun Baked

May 14, 2003, 09:23 AM

I have to say, I feel that Hannibal is being a tad unfair to Apple when he blames them for the lousy bus interface on the G4

>Chryx

Yes it is a bit unfair about Hannibal & Co. blaming Apple for some of the motherboard problems, but Apple used to be on the bleeding edge of pushing the memory, chipset technology, and new hardware ideas in the pre-PCI days -- even if this led them down some dead ends.

But lately Apple has been lagging the market by quite a bit in adopting the next generations of current standards, and you can't blame Motorola solely for that.

Rincewind42

May 14, 2003, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Blackcat
IBM distanced themselves from the original Altivec SIMD because they wanted one which did not require special coding. This is the main reason why there were G1/G2/G3 chips by Moto and IBM, but G4 chips only by Moto. IBM felt it was the wrong approach and AIM went all tits-up. (I'm over simplifying here)

So if IBM just wanted a SIMD unit on a Workstation POWER chip, I think they would use a more refined VMX without Altivec compatibility.

Due to the architecture of the PowerPC (and most CPUs in general) it would be impossible to add vector extensions to the instruction set without having to code for it specifically.

The reason that IBM & Motorola went in seperate directions was that they needed different things. IBM wanted to focus on multicore chips for their 4th generation, while Motorola wanted to focus on vector operations. Since multicore G4s never materialized (embedded systems would rarely use two G4s so why bother with the expense) there would have been no reason for IBM to be interested in the design. Conversely, once Motorola had sold Apple on Altivec there would be no reason for Apple to switch to a multicore chip without it (there have been times when Apple added hardware as The Next Big Thing then took it away - developers have learned not to use a new Apple technology until it hits second generation - sad but true).

Finally, VMX IS Altivec. It's the original name of the technology. And IBM still isn't using it in their operating systems, which makes it pretty obvious that it was put there for another customer - Apple.

eric67

May 14, 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
... Now sorry, but that's no lame system, and you can bet their warranty is better than Apple's. Not everyone out there wants an all in one system and not everyone out there is running Final Cut Pro. Apple is alienating a huge segment of the population by not offering a competitive low-end system.

Bring 'em in, and bring 'em in on target. - j

it is so true that I still do not understand why it has not been done yet. Why can we not by a low end model then update it with time, let say change processor, better graphic cards, more RAM (stupid Apple certified RAM).....
this is why PC are popular, because people can order/built their own configuration from A-Z, not us...
maybe it is time for a change soon....

benoda

May 14, 2003, 09:41 AM

If the 970 does come to Apple, how is Apple going to deal with creating an optimized version of OS X along with pushing software creators to optimize for 64-bits etc. while still having G4's and G3's in the lower end? Seems like a bad idea to say "program XYZ is made for a powermac 970, but you other mac users are SOL."

Mr. MacPhisto

May 14, 2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by alset
Again, I have to ask why everyone is so hell bent on the idea that this is a sure thing? Why take so many rumors as the word of god?

Lots of people setting themselves up for a fall, right about now. Rumors have let us all down before. If Apple doesn't deliver there will be people screaming for blood, and it won't be Apple's fault.

Dan

Yes it will be. Here we have IBM coming in with a new chip based on their POWER4 series. They want to expand their Blade market, but why would they just make this chip for Blade servers see as they don't sell a ton @ this point?

And I do KNOW Apple is using these things based on what friends at IBM tell me. In fact, I know that Apple is the one that specifically asked IBM for help.

nicmac

May 14, 2003, 09:51 AM

Wasn't there information recently that apple was offering Power Macs to their employees for a large discount.
Or do they always offer large discounts?
Or was that just a rumor?

Mr. MacPhisto

May 14, 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Mudbug
Please don't shoot the messenger, but he's right. There needs to be a single processor low end 970 machine with all the simple goodies at a price point around $800-$1000 to get home users to buy. Don't worry about including displays, but just offer discounts on Apple models if purchased together, much like they do now. And include 3 years of AppleCare for free with the purchase of a new or refurbished system.

I know you folks are going to say "well, home users aren't the market we're going after" - but they are. You want to use the same machine at home as you do at work, and the only way to persuade enough people to switch their offices over is if they have access to a mac that's better and cheaper at home than thier wintel box at work. Fortune 500 companies don't have thousands of P4 hotrods on desktops, they have netware boxes that are basically just end nodes of the network. What about just a simple network "appliance" (again, don't shoot me) for the enterprise that fits needs but doesn't overachieve?

Agreed. I also believe Apple needs to make ALL their machines upgrade friendly. That means making it easier for people to purchase chips, motherboards, etc - even if only from Apple.

As reported by my sources, I reported in an earlier post that IBM would be making workstations and (later) consumer-end OS X based systems. Apple needs to lower their pricepoint so they can allow for a limited amount of cloning and give the consumer (and the business) more options. If Apple's machines are better looking, more innovative, and the same price as the competition, then what is their to worry about?

I've also had a thought about bringing back the cube on the low-end. The iCube maybe? Only question is how can it be made upgradeable. I have some ideas and drawings on how to do this with the eMac, iMac, etc cause I think this is extremely important.

If I were Apple, I would allow for upgrades and license the ability to manufacture the upgrades out to several companies. Heck, I might even license out MoBo designs, giving the Apple user more options when checking out a MoBo. Just one of several ideas I have.

areyouwishing

May 14, 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by eric67
it is so true that I still do not understand why it has not been done yet. Why can we not by a low end model then update it with time, let say change processor, better graphic cards, more RAM (stupid Apple certified RAM).....
this is why PC are popular, because people can order/built their own configuration from A-Z, not us...
maybe it is time for a change soon....

This might be of interest to you...
Core Crib (http://www.2khappyware.com/corecrib.html) (Barebones Apple Gigabit Machine that you can build from the ground up.)

The one drawback to this is that the processor runs on the older 100mhz bus (gigabit model), but you get the opportunity to upgrade anything you want...even to Dual 1.2ghz G4 processors.

pi radians

May 14, 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by eric67
it is so true that I still do not understand why it has not been done yet. Why can we not by a low end model then update it with time, let say change processor (http://www.sonnettech.com/product/cpu_upgrades.html), better graphic cards (http://mirror.ati.com/products/builtdesktopmac.html), more RAM (stupid Apple certified RAM) (http://www.crucial.com/store/listProductLine.asp?cat=RAM&mfr=Apple&submit=Go).....
this is why PC are popular, because people can order/built their own configuration from A-Z, not us...
maybe it is time for a change soon....

Upgrading a system and building one from scratch are two totally different things. You will never be able to build a complete Apple computer from scratch. Upgrading a Mac is just as easy as upgrading a Wintel system.

While the cost may not be at a point you like, that is the cost of wanting a product with only 3% of the market. If Apple had a 95% marketshare, x86 companents would be as rare and expensive and the Apple compatible components would be cheap. It has nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with the market economics.

mcs37

May 14, 2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Blackcat
Who will buy a 1.4Ghz G4 iMac at $1300 if a 1.4Ghz Powermac at $1500 decimates it?

It's conceivable that Apple would do a complete shift-over: PowerMacs immediately, PowerBooks within a few more weeks, and the iMacs within a month. Not sure about the eMacs.

Phazer80s

May 14, 2003, 10:11 AM

.
.
.
The final paragraph from the Ars Technica article:

As with all things Apple, though, the big question is price. Will Apple drop its margins drastically and sell these machines at a competitive price point in order to increase market share, or will it continue to price itself into the increasingly non-existent luxury/lifestyle computing niche? I'm hoping for the former, because I'd love to give my TiBook and iPod some company with a 970-based PowerMac. If the answer is the latter, though, my Apple products will likely find themselves interoperating with an x86-64 Windows box._

A very good point. Makes you wonder how Apple will play this next move, no matter what new processor they choose. The number of people (professionals included) who can justify Apple's HW prices is shrinking rapidly. It's like they just don't get it.

Hardware price is probably their greatest weakness given the innovative and cost-effective software they've introduced lately. They need to make Macs popular!!! Truely competitive prices will make Apple's quality stand out all the better from other PCs.

Get it right, Apple. We're rooting for you (thin wallets and all.)

gwangung

May 14, 2003, 10:14 AM

Many people take the elitest viewpoint that Apple shouldn't focus on the low end, shouldn't devote the R&D, which is absurd.

No, it isn't absurd.

What I find absurd is people who don't know the first thing about business, spouting off about going after this market and that market, without knowing the facts and figures. The only figure they talk about is price....which is only part of the equation.

I know of NO company that can be all things to all people. A company that tries, particularly coming from a position such as Apple's, is going to go down the tubes.

Rincewind42

May 14, 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by benoda
If the 970 does come to Apple, how is Apple going to deal with creating an optimized version of OS X along with pushing software creators to optimize for 64-bits etc. while still having G4's and G3's in the lower end? Seems like a bad idea to say "program XYZ is made for a powermac 970, but you other mac users are SOL."

Apple may like to push developers to 64-bit immediately (because this will sell their hardware...maybe) but they will likely not. Why? Because 99% of the software out there today has no need to be 64-bit. The software that does need 64-bit is software that is currently bumping into the 4GB memory ceiling of 32-bit CPUs and using hacks to get around it (if possible). For example, you won't see Apple release 64-bit iLife anytime soon, because there is little in the applications that can use it (yes, iMovie could take advantage of 64-bit CPUs, but that would relegate it to 970 based systems - something that I doubt Apple wants to do in the near term).

As far as optimization goes, yes there are chip specific optimizations that you can do for the 970. But most of them have nothing to do with the fact that it is a 64-bit CPU and these kinds of optimizations won't break compatibility with G4s & G3s (which 64-bit usage will).

And it's not new for software to require specific hardware to run. FCP 4 will only run on G4 based machines, as does other software that requires the Altivec Unit. But this is generally the exception, not the rule.

jayscheuerle

May 14, 2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by gwangung
No, it isn't absurd.

What I find absurd is people who don't know the first thing about business, spouting off about going after this market and that market, without knowing the facts and figures. The only figure they talk about is price....which is only part of the equation.

I know of NO company that can be all things to all people. A company that tries, particularly coming from a position such as Apple's, is going to go down the tubes.

So you're saying that it takes additional R&D to take out a SuperDrive or put in a lesser video card? I'm glad you're not my mechanic! Price may be only part of the equation, but Apple shouldn't hold onto the promise of their fans paying over 50% more for comparable systems to those in the PC market. When money's tight, people demand to get something for it and Apple is not making this "something" obvious enough. Integration with iApps is nice, but isn't enough to justify such inflated prices.

Apple doesn't need to be all things to all people. Unfortunately, they are nothing to most people and unless they can attempt to address that, their precious 3% can drop to 2%.

Blackcat

May 14, 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by mcs37
It's conceivable that Apple would do a complete shift-over: PowerMacs immediately, PowerBooks within a few more weeks, and the iMacs within a month. Not sure about the eMacs.

Going 100% 64bit would be a marketing coup.

Frobozz

May 14, 2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by benoda
If the 970 does come to Apple, how is Apple going to deal with creating an optimized version of OS X along with pushing software creators to optimize for 64-bits etc. while still having G4's and G3's in the lower end? Seems like a bad idea to say "program XYZ is made for a powermac 970, but you other mac users are SOL."

Good point, but I think it's more simple than you think. I suspect the G3 will be nuked in favor of a G4... in due time. Maybe not initially. In either case I do believe they will continue to use G4's in the consumer space for a while until the .09 970's are available.

As far as the OS goes, the 970's will run any existing stuff just fine-- and faster. Most programs will have fat-binaries that execute code in 64bit or 32bit chunks based on which machine you're using-- just like they would use Altivec only if you have it. In other words, the transition is much less presecent to the user. In fact, only certain applications will really want to process data in 64bit chunks, as there is no speed boost unless you're dealing with complex math or with large chunks of memory.

Frobozz

May 14, 2003, 11:03 AM

Can anyone give hard evidence of the price for a 970 chip? Or, for that matter, of the new systems?

A lot of people are worried that, although these systems will run fantastically fast, they will be more expensive than they are today. I, for one, do not agree with this. I've heard (conjecture) that the 970 will be, or currently ARE, less expensive than the G4's. I'm sure an arguement can arise about when that price threshold will actually come about, but the point remains. I think Apple knows full well that price is a concern and will keep their prices in line with what they have today. I supposed you could argue that they'd need to recoup some R&D costs, but that's not the case. You don't pass on R&D costs to the consumer like that unless you're looking to go out of business.

jayscheuerle

May 14, 2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Frobozz
You don't pass on R&D costs to the consumer like that unless you're looking to go out of business.

But Apple's been going out of business for years! :D

tcmcam

May 14, 2003, 11:37 AM

I think we would all like to see the 970 have a positive effect on Apple's marketshare.

What is preventing market share growth now?

1. Price. Yes, Macs are expensive. It's no coincidence that the Apple Stores are put in the "fancy" malls (next to Tiffany's) not the low-end next to Sears. As Steve Jobs says "Dell is the Walmart, we're not". Only people with fat wallets can afford to buy Macs (especially in this economy).

2. Upgradeability. Except for PowerMacs (which are even more pricey), most Macs can only be upgraded externally. Grant you, the ease and elegance of adding a firewire drive is great. The positive here is that "non-tech" computer users don't get themselves in trouble. The negative is that it costs you a lot more to just add another 40 GB. I sometimes wish the iMac had a "hard drive" access port that made it easy to upgrade the hard drive. And let's ditch the "Apple Slot" memory, heck, even most Apple Store employees hate changing that out.

3. Performance. After paying a lot for your sexy Mac, you still know that some dolt who just bought a Dell for $800 is running circles around you in Photoshop. Let's hope the 970 fixes this.

4. Windows at Work, wanting Windows at home. Even though many users hate WinTel's complexity, if Mom or Dad use a PC at work, they think they should use one at home. We could even extend that to "Windows at School, windows at home" because so many school systems now have Dell boxes and have thrown out their Macs. This is why MSFT Office is still a CRITICAL application for the mac.

Finally, I don't think Apple can simply lower prices to increase market share. One thing Steve should be commended for is making Apple a profitable company. They have to be careful lowering prices too much because Apple lives off those hardware margins. The only great software you have to buy is Final Cut and the other high-end media stuff. To Apple, "software upgrade" revenue comes from a customer buying a new Mac, not from buying a slew of new iApps or OS X.

The 970 is great. I loved the article, but what it really says is that Apple will finally have parity (better at floating point, worse at integer) with the Intel/AMD world.

I think the only issue that the 970 solves is the performance issue, Apple has to figure out the other 3 issues because those are management and engineering issues.

Tim Flynn

May 14, 2003, 11:50 AM

An interesting point on teh Ars article was that to fully get the benefit of the 970, the code needs to be recompiled for the 970. I am assuming 32 bit only code.
Since the ISA is the same between a G4 and the 970 for 32 bit code, the G4 or G3 should be able to run 970 optimized code.
So my question is; what is the effective speed difference of running 970 optimized code on a G3 or G4?

Apple/IBM seems to have an advantage over the x86 world. If you optimize code for a P4, it may not run on a Pentium III or below.

The advantage to software vendors (& Apple) is that they just need to optimize for the 970 and get the speed benefit. The code will still run on older G3s and G4s albiet slower, but runs. One code base!
Perhaps good planning pays off :D

cubist

May 14, 2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
... I've also had a thought about bringing back the cube on the low-end. The iCube maybe? Only question is how can it be made upgradeable. ...

The Cube IS upgradable. I have added RAM, upgraded my hard drive, video card and processor. See http://www.cubeowner.com

jayscheuerle

May 14, 2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by cubist
See http://www.cubeowner.com

$899 for a 450MHz G4, non-expandable (though upgradable!) system?

Somebody's paying an extra $500 for the form factor, but I guess that's why they were bought in the first place, eh?

Gorgeous machines. Obscene pricepoints. Apple should be able to introduce a new cube with a contemporary processor for $899 NEW!

Dream a little dream... - j

-hh

May 14, 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Frobozz
Can anyone give hard evidence of the price for a 970 chip? Or, for that matter, of the new systems?

Anyone with access to hard pricepoints is most certainly under a NDA.

A lot of people are worried that, although these systems will run fantastically fast, they will be more expensive than they are today. I, for one, do not agree with this. I've heard (conjecture) that the 970 will be, or currently ARE, less expensive than the G4's. I'm sure an arguement can arise about when that price threshold will actually come about, but the point remains.

I don't see it as a huge worry. Between the 970, G4 and the P4, the P4 is the largest die set (increases costs), and largest volume (lowers costs), whereas the G4 is the smallest die set (lowers costs), and smallest volume (increases costs).

The 970 is in the middle for both factors. Don't forget that its volume is going to include whatever IBM builds with it.

So as good of guess as any is "somewhere between the G4 and P4 for price", which means that it shouldn't be a major factor.

And insofar as recouping R&D costs, that applies to all Apple models, regardless of which chipset they use.

-hh

Booga

May 14, 2003, 01:09 PM

I see most people overlooked the paragraph about halfway through comparing the overall speed of the 970 against that of the P4. It more or less says that unless the 970 can keep within 2/3 of the clock speed of the P4, it will end up being generally slower, and 3/4 of the clock speed or better for integer. Considering the P4 is already over 3GHz, I sure hope the 970 debuts at 2GHz or more.

But at least it indicates the Mac will be back in the ballgame in terms of performance.

Rincewind42

May 14, 2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
An interesting point on the Ars article was that to fully get the benefit of the 970, the code needs to be recompiled for the 970. I am assuming 32 bit only code.
Since the ISA is the same between a G4 and the 970 for 32 bit code, the G4 or G3 should be able to run 970 optimized code.
So my question is; what is the effective speed difference of running 970 optimized code on a G3 or G4?

The advantage to software vendors (& Apple) is that they just need to optimize for the 970 and get the speed benefit. The code will still run on older G3s and G4s albiet slower, but runs. One code base!

The speed difference between optimized for 970 and not optimized for 970 probably won't generally amount to more than 5% on average. There are pathelogical cases (which is pointed out in the Ars article) but for the most part there it won't make a huge difference.

And you will get a speed boost on the 970 regardless of if you recompile the code or not. You will just get more of a speed boost if you tell the compiler to produce code optimized for the 970 instead of for the G4 or a generic PowerPC.

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
So you're saying that it takes additional R&D to take out a SuperDrive or put in a lesser video card?

That's not the problem. The problem is that if a user percieves that they can get more for their money buying the $800 system and upgrading it (even if this is not true) than they can from buying the $1500 system, then they will buy the $800 system. This will eat into Apple's margins, which leads to less R&D dollars, which leads to less new technology, which leads to Apple not being able to afford to innovate (opinions on how well Apple has innovated is beside the point here). Yes, Apple will be selling more systems selling them at $800 than at $1500, but it is what is called the death of plenty - Apple would sell many many more systems, but because the margins are so much lower they make less profit, to the point that they actually end up losing money while selling more systems.

It is better to make 15% margins on 3% of the marketplace than it is to make 1% margins on 10%. Compaq, HP and even Dell learned this the hard way when they were each selling $500 systems with razor thin margins (<1%). They sold so many of these systems that they were forced to discontinue them because of the amount of money they were losing. It really is true, there is just some business that you don't want.

jamilecrire

May 14, 2003, 01:33 PM

How will this affect the DIY system builders? If IBM releases mobos, procs, and memory for this setup running Linux. Why couldn't someone install OS X 10.3???

Apple is looking more like Sun. Two companies in a 1980s management model. I guess we just need to hope for the best.

And for the love of god release the 15" Aluminum Powerbook.

AidenShaw

May 14, 2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
If you optimize code for a P4, it may not run on a Pentium III or below.

This is not really true. As far as the publicly accessible instructions, only the SSE2 extensions are unique to the P4. (Trying to do SSE2 on a PIII is the same as trying to do AltiVec on a G3). There are privileged instructions, but only the kernel needs those.

The kinds of optimizations being discussed here are code scheduling optimizations. If the compiler knows that a chip has 2 integer units, it can spit out the instructions in an order to exploit that. For a chip with only 1 integer unit, a slightly different sequence of the same instructions might be slightly faster.

If the compiler knows that there are a certain number of rename registers, or if cache and memory reads are a certain size and alignment - it can generate code to take advantage of those resources.

Sometimes minor changes to the source program can help, but often it's just a new compiler and new optimization switches.

For the most part here I think people are talking about changes where a 32-bit program will run correctly on G3/G4 and PPC970, but where the PPC970 speed is improved a bit even at the cost of slightly lower performance on the G3/G4.

chetwilliams

May 14, 2003, 01:52 PM

nuckinfutz

May 14, 2003, 02:25 PM

My Anecdotal story of the day.

I was a Salesman selling Apple the first time that Memory bottomed out. I used to think like alot of you. I said "now that people can buy twice the memory for the same cost they'll all do it" and sure enough many did. But, many did not. I would probably say it varied 60/40 either way. Many chose to simply pocket the money they would have spent. Others took advantage and bought more memory. They reason why I say this is because those who have seen scenarios like this will concur. Lower prices are NOT guaranteed to raise marketshare. Some people will buy more...some buy less. In the end it is simply margin that makes the difference

jayscheuerle

May 14, 2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Lower prices are NOT guaranteed to raise marketshare. Some people will buy more...some buy less. In the end it is simply margin that makes the difference

My $1000 budget does not allow for even Apple's bottom of the line tower. I'm holding my troubled beige G3 together with prayers and duck-tape. When it dies, I'll only be able to afford a used Mac, a CoreCrib or a PC. I know that the repurchasing software is an issue for the PC, but I primarily use this machine for managing music and accessing the web, so software's not a biggie.

I don't know what I'll do when the time comes. My heart says Mac and my wallet's saying PC. I'm hesitant to buy a used machine, especially since I don't believe anything but the most powerful Macs run OSX smoothly (snappy!). The CoreCribs look like a good deal, but I'm counting on the 970s to make OSX feel as responsive as OS9 and thereby tempting me to sink into unjustifiable debt!

Perhaps the beige box will hang on for eternity (or until it isn't supported at all). Even then, all its current software will work fine and only my desire to upgrade will make it obsolete... - j

Rincewind42

May 14, 2003, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
My $1000 budget does not allow for even Apple's bottom of the line tower. I'm holding my troubled beige G3 together with prayers and duck-tape. When it dies, I'll only be able to afford a used Mac, a CoreCrib or a PC. I know that the repurchasing software is an issue for the PC, but I primarily use this machine for managing music and accessing the web, so software's not a biggie.

I don't know what I'll do when the time comes. My heart says Mac and my wallet's saying PC. I'm hesitant to buy a used machine, especially since I don't believe anything but the most powerful Macs run OSX smoothly (snappy!). The CoreCribs look like a good deal, but I'm counting on the 970s to make OSX feel as responsive as OS9 and thereby tempting me to sink into unjustifiable debt!

What's wrong with a 1Ghz eMac? You'd want to add some RAM to it, but either way it would be loads faster than your Beige G3 and just as fast as the top of the line PowerBook.

I said this on another thread, but I'll say it again. Speed isn't about how fast a window pops up for you. Remember in MacOS before 8.5 (9.0?) when you would get info on a folder - the entire machine stopped waiting for the Finder to finish that counting. Then the Finder started doing it in another thread. Someone timed it once and found that when the Finder did the count in a thread it took 10% longer (or something like that) - But when it didn't hog your entire system it felt faster - you could get more work done. MacOS X is exactly that taken to the entire system. Sure, the little things are a little slower, it may take a tenth of a second longer to open a Finder window, but when you do it doesn't focus your entire computer on that one silly little task. If all your doing is web surfing and managing (not making) music, then you could even get away with the 800 Mhz eMac.

Not everyone needs a Dual 970 Tower. And you certainly don't need one to get good performance out of MacOS X. Heck, I was getting decent performance from a 400 Mhz TiBook up until November - the only thing that convinced me to upgrade was Warcraft III =).

nuckinfutz

May 14, 2003, 03:06 PM

Jay save that $1k. In a few months you're going to be the beneficiary of Mac users looking to get ANYTHING for you to take their Powermac so they can grab a 970 system. I think your option are going to multiply rapidly.

I have a Pentium III 450 and 700 which I homebuilt. While the experience has been great my $2000 investment paid a little over 2 years ago is worth practically nothing. PC's are fun for the cheap thrill but they don't hold their value well...never have really. If you are able to score a sweet deal on a Mac this summer from an Offloader" it will be worth the wait. If you could score a Dual 867 for under a $1000 you'll be sitting pretty.

Honestly my next computer is a Mac. When I built these computers PC Websurfing was way faster than Macs. Not so. I have so much damn spyware and crap I have to root out(Serves me right for using P2P I suppose) that I can't use Internet Explorer anymore(I use Phoenix/Firebird) because Spyware companies have links to IE which severly hamper speed and useability.

You do have options..and those options will increase. My PC's have been fun...but they definitely haven't quench my thirst for a new Mac. BTW my Macs are 7200 and 7500 so I'm not even G3<sniffle>

mathiasr

May 14, 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
An interesting point on teh Ars article was that to fully get the benefit of the 970, the code needs to be recompiled for the 970. I am assuming 32 bit only code.
Since the ISA is the same between a G4 and the 970 for 32 bit code, the G4 or G3 should be able to run 970 optimized code.

This is perhaps false, due to its POWER4 roots the PowerPC 970 will probably implement some optional PowerPC instructions like fpsqrt (Floating point square root), this is not a 64 bits instruction (FPU infact) it could be called in 32 bits mode.

Rincewind42

May 14, 2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by mathiasr
This is perhaps false, due to its POWER4 roots the PowerPC 970 will probably implement some optional PowerPC instructions like fpsqrt (Floating point square root), this is not a 64 bits instruction (FPU infact) it could be called in 32 bits mode.

True, but this doesn't mean that any Mac compilers will start emmiting these instructions either. Too bad there isn't more information about this chip out there, or we could answer all these silly little questions ourselves =).

mustang_dvs

May 14, 2003, 03:25 PM

jayscheuerle

May 14, 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Speed isn't about how fast a window pops up for you...Someone timed it once and found that when the Finder did the count in a thread it took 10% longer (or something like that) - But when it didn't hog your entire system it felt faster - you could get more work done. MacOS X is exactly that taken to the entire system. Sure, the little things are a little slower, it may take a tenth of a second longer to open a Finder window, but when you do it doesn't focus your entire computer on that one silly little task. If all your doing is web surfing and managing (not making) music, then you could even get away with the 800 Mhz eMac.

Aaaaargh!!! I'm so sick and tired of people mentioning the eMac!! It's a swell machine if you don't mind having a 50 lb. box on your table, but my machine's hidden in a closet (it's a beige G3, wouldn't you hide it? ;) ) with the keyboard and Sony lcd (black) monitor cables snaking through a wall. The keyboard's hidden on a pull-out drawer and the mouse is wireless. It's the most inobtrusive system I could imagine. Is making an affordable tower really so difficult?

Actually, speed IS about how fast a window pops up for me, how quickly I can click on a file and rename it or switch between open apps. Sometimes, silly as it may be, I want to focus on one little task and I want it done quickly. My beige box is fine for my tasks right now & I'd rather not have to replace it. These elements of slowness of which I complain are visible in every machine now running OSX. Whether you see them or not is more a matter of tolerance than performance and the combination of 10.3 and the 970 had better put this issue to rest for even those of us who are accused of imagining the slowness (even at the Apple Store!).

The eMac is like a turbo-charged minivan. Everyone wants to push them as being such a great practical bargain, but nobody wants to own one.

Really, this can't be this difficult... - j

jayscheuerle

May 14, 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by mustang_dvs
Perhaps you should look at an iBook. I used to have a 600MHz late-2001 dual-USB model and I absolutely loved it. Aside from some problems with high-end games (it had an anemic 16mb GPU), it ran everything as well as my G4/733 (save some high-end Photoshop filters). The only reason I replaced it with a TiBook was for the larger screen (and a freak mobo-capacitor fire), and now part of me wishes that I would have kept with the smaller form factor, cooler temperatures and better Airport reception.

The iBook will run everything that your Beige G3 will and will do it faster. And best of all, you can pick one up for $999, or $1250 with a 900MHz G3 and a combo-drive.

I do love the iBooks and have recommended them to friends, but it isn't a substitute for a sturdy tower. Speed isn't an issue, but the need to have multiple drives (redundant backup for 30 gigs of mp3s- 95% ripped from my CDs) and two optical drives (for straight CD copies) and a Zip are important to me.

jayscheuerle

May 14, 2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Jay save that $1k. In a few months you're going to be the beneficiary of Mac users looking to get ANYTHING for you to take their Powermac so they can grab a 970 system. I think your option are going to multiply rapidly.

If you could score a Dual 867 for under a $1000 you'll be sitting pretty.

Let's hope! :)

Rincewind42

May 14, 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Is making an affordable tower really so difficult?

Well, there was the Cube. But that tanked because regardless of the rave reviews, no one wanted one when they could have a more expandable Tower instead (regardless of if it was percieved need or actual need). Somehow I think that if the Cube had survived to a second generation it's price would have naturally come down to something that would have been very affordable =).

Actually, speed IS about how fast a window pops up for me, how quickly I can click on a file and rename it or switch between open apps. Sometimes, silly as it may be, I want to focus on one little task and I want it done quickly. My beige box is fine for my tasks right now & I'd rather not have to replace it. These elements of slowness of which I complain are visible in every machine now running OSX. Whether you see them or not is more a matter of tolerance than performance and the combination of 10.3 and the 970 had better put this issue to rest for even those of us who are accused of imagining the slowness (even at the Apple Store!).

I guess I will just have to agree to disagree here :). All I know is that the last time I was in OS 9 I found myself waiting for all the big things to complete because all the little things were slowing them down. To each their own I guess...

drastik

May 14, 2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Aaaaargh!!! I'm so sick and tired of people mentioning the eMac!! It's a swell machine if you don't mind having a 50 lb. box on your table, but my machine's hidden in a closet (it's a beige G3, wouldn't you hide it? ;) ) with the keyboard and Sony lcd (black) monitor cables snaking through a wall. The keyboard's hidden on a pull-out drawer and the mouse is wireless. It's the most inobtrusive system I could imagine. Is making an affordable tower really so difficult?

Actually, speed IS about how fast a window pops up for me, how quickly I can click on a file and rename it or switch between open apps. Sometimes, silly as it may be, I want to focus on one little task and I want it done quickly. My beige box is fine for my tasks right now & I'd rather not have to replace it. These elements of slowness of which I complain are visible in every machine now running OSX. Whether you see them or not is more a matter of tolerance than performance and the combination of 10.3 and the 970 had better put this issue to rest for even those of us who are accused of imagining the slowness (even at the Apple Store!).

The eMac is like a turbo-charged minivan. Everyone wants to push them as being such a great practical bargain, but nobody wants to own one.

Really, this can't be this difficult... - j

This is a cynical viewpoint, but hear me out. Apple has provided a machine for your needs and your pricerange. IF you want the luxury of a less obtrusive system (it is a luxury, really, as it has nohing to do with how well it works) you have to pay more. Apple wants to make money. Not just for R&D for better products and not just for advertising for biger marketshare. This is a business.

It is a profitable business (very rare right now), it has a big stack of cash in the bank. Share price has gone up 30% in the last two weeks! (good for me and my stock). That's the key. It ain't marketshare, its shareprice. Admittedly Apple loves its users more than most companies, but it loves its shareholders more.

Mercedes will charge you a hundred grand for a car. IF you want a still good car with less bells and wistles, they'll charge you thirty grand for a car. They won't charge you sicteen grand for either of those cars and if you don't have the money, they don't want your business. Sad but true, luxury good are luxury goods. If you can afford the ground floor, be happy with that, most can't.

From a shareholders perspective, the company is running just fine. Apple is not going to bak away from its pricing scheme as long as the market yeilds it.

All of that said, the prices have actually been comming down. As these lower prices and some performance increases with the 970 become more visible, they will probably lower there margin some more. Jsut keep in mind, as long as the copmpnay is profitable and selling systems at a premium, they will keep doing it. ITs what the market will bare.

So, no, it isn't hard to deliver an $800 tower with what you want in it, its just a silly thing to do right now.

Mr. MacPhisto

May 14, 2003, 03:52 PM

jayscheuerle

May 14, 2003, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Rincewind42
I guess I will just have to agree to disagree here :). All I know is that the last time I was in OS 9 I found myself waiting for all the big things to complete because all the little things were slowing them down. To each their own I guess...

Don't get me wrong. I really don't like going back to OS9 for all the typically listed reasons. I get much more done in OSX and I do like it. I've been using it since the useless beta, but it just doesn't have that snappy feel that 9 had (has?). Perhaps there are technical reasons why it can't, but it interrupts my creative flow...

Of course, this may be primarily because Adobe's applications are all slugs in OSX, but that's another discussion! :)

BaghdadBob

May 14, 2003, 04:00 PM

I have a 400 MHz G3 iMac, and it runs OS X pretty well on 512 megs of RAM. No complaints.

On the 970 article, I'm with Neo here. It seems that the 970 will be good, but improvements in rev 2 will take out a lot of the performance issues such as with Altivec that have resulted from (necessary) haste.

I do like the sound of dual and quad 970s. The top of the line 970-based macs will be super-fast.

I just hope they're willing to take losses for a while to sell the freakin things. They've only got 4 billion dollars to play with. At $1000 loss a piece, they would have to sell 4,000,000 units to go broke. And I imagine with their current profit margins, they wouldn't have to sell at a $1000 loss to bring the price down $1500 on some models.

jayscheuerle

May 14, 2003, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by drastik
Apple is not going to bak away from its pricing scheme as long as the market yeilds it.

All of that said, the prices have actually been comming down. As these lower prices and some performance increases with the 970 become more visible, they will probably lower there margin some more. Jsut keep in mind, as long as the copmpnay is profitable and selling systems at a premium, they will keep doing it. ITs what the market will bare.

So, no, it isn't hard to deliver an $800 tower with what you want in it, its just a silly thing to do right now.

Of course, Apple's not making much money selling towers these days are they? The music business is doing great (hence the stock jump) and the iBooks are wonderful, but everything else is not humming along.

I would guess that for every switcher that jumped to Apple from the Wintel world for the "it just works" aspect, there's an anti-switcher who jumped to Wintel because they're more affordable.

Might be a bad guess... hope so...:cool:

drastik

May 14, 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
I have a 400 MHz G3 iMac, and it runs OS X pretty well on 512 megs of RAM. No complaints.

On the 970 article, I'm with Neo here. It seems that the 970 will be good, but improvements in rev 2 will take out a lot of the performance issues such as with Altivec that have resulted from (necessary) haste.

I do like the sound of dual and quad 970s. The top of the line 970-based macs will be super-fast.

I just hope they're willing to take losses for a while to sell the freakin things. They've only got 4 billion dollars to play with. At $1000 loss a piece, they would have to sell 4,000,000 units to go broke. And I imagine with their current profit margins, they wouldn't have to sell at a $1000 loss to bring the price down $1500 on some models.

man, I feel like the old crumudgeon today, but I have to say it.

This is terrible business.

A: People won't neccesarily buy more at this price. Apple will still have to deal with PC dominance. It won't happen overnight.

B: Why would anyone who bought one of these cutrate Macs ever upgrade once they restored real prices which they would have to do to make money.

Most Important:

B: If they start to sell at a loss, every shareholder will dump all of thier shares as quicjly as possible. The company would tank in a week.

first I fixed spelling, then I accidentaly quoted myself instead of editing, then I deleted and fixed it all. I think I need to give up coffee

drastik

May 14, 2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Of course, Apple's not making much money selling towers these days are they? The music business is doing great (hence the stock jump) and the iBooks are wonderful, but everything else is not humming along.

I would guess that for every switcher that jumped to Apple from the Wintel world for the "it just works" aspect, there's an anti-switcher who jumped to Wintel because they're more affordable.

Might be a bad guess... hope so...:cool:

Your right, the PowerMac line is stagnant, but they are supposedly doing something about that (let us hope the 970) What I mean to say is that the eMac and iMac are created specifically for you, people wiht your needs. Apple considers expanability a premium and they price accordingly.

Frobozz

May 14, 2003, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
But Apple's been going out of business for years! :D

haha. :-) indeed... :-)

saint.duo

May 14, 2003, 04:38 PM

Looks like a $999 eMac to me. Unless you're in to games, the GeForce4 64MB DDR won't mean anything to you, and if you are that big into games, you can build that system for less.
You buy a Mac, you're buying quality. You think you can drop a $1000-$1800 PC w/ LCD off of a 3.5ft counter top, and have it keep running through the fall, and survive, minus a few plastic pieces breaking? NO. I've seen a 1Ghz iMac do this. (Not that I would RECOMMEND dropping a ~$2k computer, but stuff happens)

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Agreed. Apple's low-end towers have never been priced competitively. Many people take the elitest viewpoint that Apple shouldn't focus on the low end, shouldn't devote the R&D, which is absurd. A low-end tower would only cannibalize iMac sales if the iMacs were priced too high. There is no R&D if all you're doing is offering the lowest speed processor with a CD-ROM, 40 gig drive and a low-end graphics card. It's just a configuration, and a configuration that would give us a place to install all the CDRWs, DVDs, 120 gig drives and high-end graphics cards that are working perfectly well in our current machines.

When you can get a system like this (http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offers/specials_m_dimen4550.htm) for $998...

Pentium® 4 Processor at 2.66GHz w/533MHz front side bus/ 512K L2 Cache

256MB DDR SDRAM at 333MH

60GB2 Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM Hard Drive

64MB DDR NVIDIA_ GeForce4 MX? Graphics Card with TV-Out

48x CD-RW Drive with Roxio's Easy CD Creator®

Logitech® Optical USB Mouse

Harman Kardon HK-395 Speakers with Subwoofer

56K3 PCI Data/Fax Modem

... Now sorry, but that's no lame system, and you can bet their warranty is better than Apple's. Not everyone out there wants an all in one system and not everyone out there is running Final Cut Pro. Apple is alienating a huge segment of the population by not offering a competitive low-end system.

Bring 'em in, and bring 'em in on target. - j

greenapple

May 14, 2003, 04:50 PM

Hi all!

Well - I for one have given in and just placed my order for a 17-inch PB to upgrade from my Beige G3!

Should arrive in a week or so and at the worst I will be very, very, ecstatically happy for at least five weeks! ;)

saint.duo

May 14, 2003, 05:04 PM

Actually, my girlfriend has an emac on a very nice wood and glass desk, and it looks fine. Just looks like a nice flat 17" monitor. You already have an LCD, so that hurts you (you don't need a display).
MOST consumers either do not have a monitor at all, or have one they want to upgrade anyways. The eMac is targeted at them, the normal home users. Home users do not need to upgrade video cards, hard drives, etc. By the time they get to that point, they're looking at half the price of a new machine, even in the PC world. Most home users will just replace the machine at that point.
People wanting upgradability at a low price usually either don't know what they need it for (they just WANT it), or they have a specific need. If it is the latter, build your own using something like the corecrib kit, or ebay parts and literally build your own. A good friend of mine just built an 500Mhz G4 for about $500, and used a PC case.
As far as owning an eMac, I would, except for the fact that I have half a TB in drives already, and really do need a tower.

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Aaaaargh!!! I'm so sick and tired of people mentioning the eMac!! It's a swell machine if you don't mind having a 50 lb. box on your table, but my machine's hidden in a closet (it's a beige G3, wouldn't you hide it? ;) ) with the keyboard and Sony lcd (black) monitor cables snaking through a wall. The keyboard's hidden on a pull-out drawer and the mouse is wireless. It's the most inobtrusive system I could imagine. Is making an affordable tower really so difficult?

The eMac is like a turbo-charged minivan. Everyone wants to push them as being such a great practical bargain, but nobody wants to own one.

macrumors12345

May 14, 2003, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by saint.duo
Looks like a $999 eMac to me. Unless you're in to games, the GeForce4 64MB DDR won't mean anything to you, and if you are that big into games, you can build that system for less.
Originally posted by saint.duo
Looks like a $999 eMac to me.

Yes, if it weren't for the fact that the eMac's processor is half as fast as the Dell system that was posted, the two systems would be very comparable (besides the fact that the OS and software on the Mac is infinitely better, of course!). Actually, the eMac is better in many ways from a hardware perspective because for the price of the Dell plus a 17" CRT (i.e. $1250+), it includes things like the Superdrive, a larger HD, Firewire, and built in antennas for Airport. However, there is, once again, the problem that the processor is much slower (in real terms, not just in terms of clock speed).

If you put a 1.6 Ghz G4 with DDR333 (and a processor FSB that can actually run double pumped), then I would say that the eMac would be very competitive with the Dell from a hardware perspective (and blow it away from a software perspective). But of course the problem is that Motorola isn't producing a G4 with a double pumped FSB, and their highest clocked G4s are sensibly reserved for the Pro towers. Hopefully the arrival of the PPC 970 will change this. In the best case scenario, we would actually see a new "G4" type chip (possibly by IBM) that would support the higher frequencies and a double pumped FSB, and this would be used in the eMac and/or iMac lineup. But even in the suboptimal scenario (i.e. that we must continue to use Motorola G4s because IBM has no replacement chip to bridge the gap between the G3 and the 970), by going with the 970 in PowerMacs, Apple will hopefully be able to put higher clocked G4s with faster bus speeds (but unfortunately still not DDR) into the consumer Macs. That will at least make them remotely competitive (in terms of processor speed...particularly when the MPC 7457 is released later this year) with the $1,000 PCs, even if it not entirely closing the performance gap.

hbwill

May 14, 2003, 07:41 PM

The comments about market share vs. margin, and Apple positioning itself as a higher value (luxury?) item makes me think of the auto industry as an interesting analgy. According to the recent Harvard Business Review, IT infrastructure has reached its peak and is no longer an issue of strategic advantage for corporations. It is now moving toward a cost-driven necessity -- similar to the rapid adoption of electricity, telephones, trains, or automobiles.

Looking at automobiles, one may equate Dell with Ford (low cost utility), or Microsoft with GM (multi-class products). I would think of Apple as a Mercedies or BMW -- inovation/quality/style driven products that maintain significant premiums and maintain value. These cars, for example do not generally attempt to increase market share by lowering price at the expense of inovation/quality/style. Instead they focus on a premium consumer experience and an association with higher-quality and status.

Personally, I wonder if Apple is indeed focused on maintaining the education markets (even though it is a historical market) and instead is focused on premium product differentiation in an increasingly competitive market place.

If this is the case, then its "consumer" products would be geared toward inovation/style/quality and ease of use at a premium.

Since IT infrastructure is now moving to a cost-driven model, it would also make sense for Apple to focus its business markets in areas were there is clear competative opportunity (i.e. multi-media). Thus, the drive toward performance seemes to be focused on satisfying the media professional needs -- where it can possibly be a market leader.

Price points for the "consumer" markets would remain as high as possible to maintain margin. If this were the case, the idea of low-cost machines would be counter-intuitive. Inovation would be geard toward premium consumer experience (e.g., ipod, powerbook, imac) and the needs of the multi-media industry (e.g., 64 bit processing, HD screens, xserve, xraid), with some cross-over (e.g., 803.11g for business and home device networking, professional multimedia apps and iapps).

I wouldn't expect apple to develop competative "productivity" apps, since they fit into the low-cost/broad-market utility model - unless there was a niche opportunity that took advantage of unique apple technology (e.g., mulit-media apps such as safari, keynote, quicktime, itunes). My point is, I don't expect Apple to try to capture large shares of business or consumer markets. They will focus on higher-value premium markets.

My thoughts, anyway.

anjaki

May 14, 2003, 07:43 PM

This time IBM will also be using this 970 thingermebob, I bet it will only be a matter of time before IBM brings out its own OS X machine (probably part of the deal, why else would they have shoehorned in the altivec unit? IBM doesn't need it in it's blade servers).

This would have the automatic effect of immediately increasing Apple's share of the market, people would then be using OS X at work and then be more inclined to buy it for home as well. The knock on effect.

If I'm not mistaken Apple has bought a ton of software firms recently, Shake and Logic for example, I bet these bits of software suddenly appear in 64 bit versions very soon, if not on the day of the launch of the 970. Its certainly an original way of garanteeing that the apps get written on time.

Another thought, maybe the iTunes song shop is just a marketing gimmick and really there just to raise the profile of Apple, after all when it reaches the other 97% it will be an "in your face" Apple app. How many TV ads and banners is that worth, particularly if its making you a modest amount of money at the same time!

The Ars Technica article was a good read and did point out that Apple has obviously been working flat out on something big for the past 2 years, I wouldn't be suprised if everything is related in some big way!

jettredmont

May 14, 2003, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by benoda
If the 970 does come to Apple, how is Apple going to deal with creating an optimized version of OS X along with pushing software creators to optimize for 64-bits etc. while still having G4's and G3's in the lower end? Seems like a bad idea to say "program XYZ is made for a powermac 970, but you other mac users are SOL."

Quite simple. You (the developer) compile twice: once with G3/G4 optimizations and once with 970+ optimizations. Or, you compile just once with 970+ optimizations and tell your customers that for better performance they can buy newer hardware ... not great CR, but better than being slower than the competition on high-end hardware!

The installer will install the correct version of shared libraries and your app, or your app will link to the correct version of shared library after an initial gestalt.

Note that these are optimizations only, meaning that the code itself will still run on "legacy" chips, albeit slower than code optimized for those chips. You still have to appropriately handle unsupported instructions (like Altivec on a G3 or 64-bit operations on a G3/G4) in conditional code. But that's nothing new for most developers (and, truthfully, most of it is handled via standard system libraries anyways ...)

jettredmont

May 14, 2003, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by nicmac
Wasn't there information recently that apple was offering Power Macs to their employees for a large discount.
Or do they always offer large discounts?
Or was that just a rumor?

Apple always offers large discounts to employees, and the specific percentages in the rumour (30% off) are incorrect according to employees I know.

Rumour completely ignorable.

DHagan4755

May 14, 2003, 09:27 PM

The employee discount is 25%.

kcmac

May 14, 2003, 09:36 PM

I can't quite figure out what the problem is that some of you have with apps running faster on the 970 if they are optimized for it vs. a G4 or G3.

Apps work better on my G4 than my G3 now just as one would expect.

Apps will still run on the "older" machines when the 970 comes out. Plus it sounds like the 970 will be faster than the G4 and certainly the G3 so apps will run faster on the 970 even if the apps are not optimized for it.

What's the problem?

ktlx

May 14, 2003, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by anjaki
This time IBM will also be using this 970 thingermebob, I bet it will only be a matter of time before IBM brings out its own OS X machine (probably part of the deal, why else would they have shoehorned in the altivec unit? IBM doesn't need it in it's blade servers).

IBM added the AltiVec unit so that the PowerPC 970 would have one more market where it is attractive. Although IBM has said they are going to use it themselves in blade servers (and probably workstations), as others have said, IBM has not penetrated that market well yet.

There is a lot of risk in building the PowerPC 970 just for the blade server market and possibly the embedded market in the future. By adding the AltiVec unit, they almost certainly guaranteed that Apple would be a customer which would mitigate the risk.

The embedded market still likes the 750FXes a lot and although the 970 looks really cool, it is hard to see them jumping at it until at least it goes to the 90 nm process. Even then, if the later versions of the 750 really can go to 2Ghz, they still might not find the 970 attractive.

The blade server market is attractive but how many blade server customers are willing to choose a PowerPC blade over an Intel blade? Theoretically, if you are running Linux, it should not really matter. But many companies that run UNIX/Linux also run Windows NT/2000/2003 Server and may decide to standardize on Intel blades to reduce total costs, spare parts and maintenance contracts.

I don't believe you can make any assumptions about IBM bringing out a Mac OS X based machine themselves. In fact, that seems counter to their business strategy. I firmly believe the reason for AltiVec was to mitigate the business risk and improve the case for developing the PowerPC 970. Without the unit, the justification for even doing the PowerPC 970 at all is pretty weak.

herr_neumann

May 14, 2003, 10:37 PM

I got this email fromIBM Microelectronics today (I added to the listserve) so enjoy if anything is new:

Standard products

64-Bit PowerPC 970 Targets Entry-Level Servers and Desktops

This Microprocessor Report excerpt, by the Reed Electronic Group, reviews the PowerPC 970: "IBM has created an impressive and affordable PowerPC chip for smaller servers, graphics workstations and desktop computers."

This report will be available for a limited time at:_http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/A2CE393ABF2CE99787256D21006AE8A2

BaghdadBob

May 15, 2003, 12:50 AM

You know, I have to admit I've thought of it this way myself.

However, a car is a self-contained object. You buy it, and all you have to do is maintain it with factory parts and put tires on it and gas and other fluids in it. Nobody has to design a road that works specifically for your make of vehicle so you have something to drive on.

This is the crucial difference. You see, it takes just as much manpower to develop a program for the PC market as it does for the Mac market. Except you have a ton more users on the PC side (NOTE: You have to eliminate a good percentage of this on big soulless corporate LANs). Although most of the design considerations for an application will be universally applicable, you still have to write good code and localize it to each OS. So having a small market share does hurt.

It also hurts to have to charge more for the hardware you sell to cover R&D costs because you have less of a user base to recoup those costs with. And this is two-edged too, because they have to pay more of a premium for specialized parts they get from 3rd parties the less of them they buy for inclusion in their computers.

I live in an area where there's a lot of Lowrider Customization, Eh, so I've seen a lot of customization parts around. You know what the easiest thing to find parts for is? Hondas. You know why? Because any given light structure can fit into like four years worth of Hondas, and there are a TON on them on the road, many of the drivers of which like to customize. But go look for a '92 Lincoln Mark VII sealed light enclosure. I bet you can't find one.

Anyway, I see your point, and I agree that Apple should not sacrifice quality for market share, but they do need to tighten their belts and sacrifice profit for market share (once they have a marketable product again), because this will only be a self-perpetuating process. The more market share you have the less margins you need, the less margins you need, the cheaper you can sell the same quality product, the cheaper it is the more people buy it = the more marketshare you have.

I'm done with my ranting Swede impression now ;) "That's ranty!"

mathiasr

May 15, 2003, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by ktlx
IBM added the AltiVec unit so that the PowerPC 970 would have one more market where it is attractive. Although IBM has said they are going to use it themselves in blade servers (and probably workstations), as others have said, IBM has not penetrated that market well yet.

There is a lot of risk in building the PowerPC 970 just for the blade server market and possibly the embedded market in the future. By adding the AltiVec unit, they almost certainly guaranteed that Apple would be a customer which would mitigate the risk.
I think that the PowerPC 970 could be part of IBMs strategy to kill the Itanium architecture. They try to bash it to death in the high-end server market with the POWER4+ and the upcoming POWER5.
The 970 could have been ironed to nip in the bud the Itanium workstation market with Apples help.
PowerPC64 proliferation is a strategic move, if Linux and Mac OS X could gain momentun as 64 bits platforms before IA-64 it would be a victory for IBM.

AidenShaw

May 15, 2003, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by ktlx
The blade server market is attractive but how many blade server customers are willing to choose a PowerPC blade over an Intel blade? Theoretically, if you are running Linux, it should not really matter.

If you are only running the base Linux operating system components, you are right that it shouldn't matter. Get a PPC version of Linux, and go.

If you have additional programs that you've written (or open source programs that you've downloaded), and a team of programmers to port them to PPC, then test and debug them, it's a little more work and expense. Usually not much work, but sometimes significant work.

If you need to run third party software, you'll need a PPC version of the product. Not much is available - for example, try to find any Oracle products for PPC Linux.... Try to download the Sun Java for PPC Linux....

hbwill

May 15, 2003, 02:06 PM

"This is the crucial difference. You see, it takes just as much manpower to develop a program for the PC market as it does for the Mac market. "

I agree that is a crucial difference, but I wonder if Apple's move to adopt standardization and open source is an attempt to mitigate that cost (e.g., Unix base, rendezvous, safari).

BaghdadBob

May 15, 2003, 02:46 PM

That's true, but Unix portability doesn't help as much as Windows portability would. But it is cool (if you use Unix stuff) and the open source movement is one of my greatest sources of pride in Apple right now. Not to mention what a stark contrast it is with Microsoft.

Good point.

jettredmont

May 15, 2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
This is the crucial difference. You see, it takes just as much manpower to develop a program for the PC market as it does for the Mac market. Except you have a ton more users on the PC side (NOTE: You have to eliminate a good percentage of this on big soulless corporate LANs). Although most of the design considerations for an application will be universally applicable, you still have to write good code and localize it to each OS. So having a small market share does hurt.

Actually, other than thick-UI apps (which is generally a very poor way to program in any case, even without cross-platform issues!), it is actually fairly simple to use about 90% of your code base across platforms, and the remaining 10% (UI) should really be the easiest part of your app to write anyways.

OS X is largely POSIX-compliant. That means i can use things like BSD sockets and pthreads and stat and signal and mutex. Windows emulates most POSIX code. Know how difficult it is to take a Windows socket app run on OS X? Change the winsock header file to socket.h. Done. Know how difficult it is to change threading from Windows to OS X? Change the function call you use to start the new thread. Know how difficult it is to change file manipulation between Windows and OS X? Other than byte-order issues if you have them, there are really no changes necessary at all.

I work on cross-platform applications. Supporting OS X and Linux and Solaris in addition to Windows adds about 1% to my development schedule, and nearly all of that is solely in making sure a particular change didn't have an unintended effect in the other platforms (ie, regression testing). Yes, my apps are quite UI-light, but unless you're doing really complicated and unique things in your UI (meaning, you have to code and support your own widgets), the UI is the easiest bit to put together (certainly in OSX; in Windows the tools are more curmudgeonly, and I haven't even tried Linux or Solaris UI tools so I won't comment there).

Adding OS X support to any existing product should not add more than 5-10% cost on the first version, and 2-5% cost in additional releases. Of course, if you're not going to get 5-10% more sales the profitability doesn't add up.

But, still. It is far from twice as costly to support Win and Mac as it is to support just Win or Mac. Granted, there will always be those who can not afford the costs and for them Windows-only is really the most obvious target market. But for the rest ...

BaghdadBob

May 15, 2003, 03:38 PM

OK, but what scale software does this apply to? For apps that require a high amount of optimization, don't you have considerable porting costs? Look, at this point I will readily admit to being over my head -- I'm a Photoshopper at my best -- so I will pose this to you as a question: does it not take a considerable (more than 1-10%) extra time to port your product when it needs to be well optimized, such as graphics/rendering/video/games/etc.?

I can see for smaller apps or widgets how porting, especially in the new OS X environment, isn't as difficult as it used to be. But at that higher level, aren't the expenses considerably greater?

In any case, as was my original point, the smaller the market share the less motivation there is to do this -- unless that 3% is ALL professionals who each will need a license for that software. But I guess that will be relative to how exactly difficult that is to do, eh?

dongmin

May 16, 2003, 06:59 AM

Look people, if all you care about is comparing hardware specs, you should get a PC. It's as simple as that. For my part, I choose Macs because of:

1. innovation
2. industrial design
3. the OS
4. basic apps like iSync, iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, etc.
5. integration of hardware, software, & services

For all this, the mark-up in price is worth it to me. You can't expect Macs to be price-competitive with Dell for the simple fact that Apple depends so much on R&D and invests heavily in it. It's one company doing all the R&D for the software, industrial design, motherboard, services, etc.

My main complaint with Apple is that Macs have stalled in performace, relative to the demands of software, over the last few years. I'm willing to take out loans or whatever (I'm a grad student now) to get that $3000 system from Apple. But when I spend that much, I want to get top-of-the-line performance. They're not delivering that now. With the 970, hopefully, Apple will get that performace edge back.

And no, Apple does not need to compete in the sub-$1000 tower market to be a viable platform. Not to be an elitist or anything, but Apple simply cannot survive as an innovator competing in that razor-thin-margin market. Apple is doing pretty well with it's 3% market share; I would be super happy with 6% market share and class-leading performance.

In 2000, Apple sold 1,436,000 Power Macs, according to their K-10 filing (http://biz.yahoo.com/e/021219/aapl10-k.html). That number went down to 766,000 in 2002. There is a lot of pent-up demand right now Power Macs. If they introduce the 970 at up to dual 1.8 ghz, that unit sales figure could easily double. That means another $1.5 bil in sales and a percentage point or two in market share. And the introduction of the 970 (and G4 7457) should have coat tail effects throughout Apple's lineup.

Blackcat

May 16, 2003, 07:22 AM

dongmin, while I agree with you that all computers shouldn't cost the same (do all hifis? TVs? ovens? cars?) Apple could really do with a sub $900 tower and drop the need for ADC and custom ROMs in gfx cards.

If people could buy a no frills PowerMac, I think more would. 1 AGP, 2 PCI, 1 FW, 2 USB, CDRW, 256MB RAM, 30GB HDD. No ADC, no audio in, no airport, no bluetooth. Give it CPU daughtercard and sell upgrades as well.

AIOs are great, but lots of poorer geeks want towers, not everybody needs a built-in monitor.

Maybe the 970 is a good chance to do this.

Rincewind42

May 16, 2003, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Blackcat
dongmin, while I agree with you that all computers shouldn't cost the same (do all hifis? TVs? ovens? cars?) Apple could really do with a sub $900 tower and drop the need for ADC and custom ROMs in gfx cards.

ADC probably adds $10 to the design but more importantly adds a lot of convienence. And Apple had a tower that could have gone in this direction: The PowerMac Cube. It tanked remember?

And Apple doesn't use custom ROMs in the gfx cards they sell - they use the Mac version of the ROM from the manufacturer. The reason why you can't get an nVidia card in the store and flash it is because to my knowledge the ROM code isn't out there. It has been in the past for ATi cards, but I don't know about recent models (yes, I would love to be able to order a Radeon 9800 in a new tower too).

If people could buy a no frills PowerMac, I think more would. 1 AGP, 2 PCI, 1 FW, 2 USB, CDRW, 256MB RAM, 30GB HDD. No ADC, no audio in, no airport, no bluetooth. Give it CPU daughtercard and sell upgrades as well.

If your gonna sells a stripped down model, then you don't need PCI slots or a CPU daughter card, both of which cost additional money to implement. And Apple doesn't sell CPU upgrades anymore - they learned their lesson with the old beigh 601 & 604 lines, if you sell CPU upgrades, people won't buy your newer systems. ADC & Audio In probably aren't worth squat on cost (after all, even low-end PCs often ship with audio hardware capable of sound input). AirPort & BlueTooth might add a cost worth removing for this theoretical model.

AIOs are great, but lots of poorer geeks want towers, not everybody needs a built-in monitor.

If your a poorer geek then you probably want the speed of a tower, but aren't going to need the expansion of it at all (if only becuase you are too poor to fill the case to the brim). But not all things are available to all people, so to the poorer geeks out there, you will just have to compromise. A cheap Tower wouldn't help you because it will be a cheap Tower - it will be yesterdays system, the old Low end of the PowerMac line with a single processor and subpar systems. Do you really want that [for the same price as an AIO]?

drastik

May 16, 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by dongmin
You can't expect Macs to be price-competitive with Dell for the simple fact that Apple depends so much on R&D and invests heavily in it. It's one company doing all the R&D for the software, industrial design, motherboard, services, etc.

As the rest of the industry has been taking design and architecture cuers from Apple for years, they are in away doing this for the whole industry.

imaswitcheryeah

May 17, 2003, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
I've also had a thought about bringing back the cube on the low-end. The iCube maybe? Only question is how can it be made upgradeable. I have some ideas and drawings on how to do this with the eMac, iMac, etc cause I think this is extremely important.

Originally posted by Mudbug
Fortune 500 companies don't have thousands of P4 hotrods on desktops, they have netware boxes that are basically just end nodes of the network. What about just a simple network "appliance" (again, don't shoot me) for the enterprise that fits needs but doesn't overachieve?

Here's a cool idea.

Bring the cube back as an office network node. Small form factor... cheap cause it's not so big... easy to sell in large quantities with a great package price. Make them with 970's and you got a great machine.

Maybe even make a mini-(or non-mini)tablet for offices where an easy wireless network environment is key for productivity.

Here's another idea for enterprise: MAKE XSERVES WITH POWER4's OR EVEN POWER5's. If Apple ever got into the big enterprise market, a Power5 Xserve would be awesome. Ya think?

AidenShaw

May 17, 2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by imaswitcheryeah
MAKE XSERVES WITH POWER4's OR EVEN POWER5's. If Apple ever got into the big enterprise market, a Power5 Xserve would be awesome. Ya think?

Do you mean "expand the server line to more capable systems" or "cram a POWER4 chip into a 1U Xserve box with limited expandability and availability"? I'd hope that it's the former.

A simpler, faster way would be to simply rebadge some of the IBM server line, and port OS X to the IBM POWER systems. Good way to test the waters for high-end servers without a huge upfront R&D cost.

For example, the pSeries 630 6C4 (http://www-132.ibm.com/content/home/store_IBMPublicUSA/en_US/eServer/pSeries/entry/6306C4.html) - a 4-way POWER4+ in a 4U chassis. Base configs from $14K (single 1.2GHz, 1GB) to $40K (quad 1.45GHz, 8GB). Memory expansion to 32GB, 6 PCI-X (64bit/133MHz) slots....

BTW, about the hot rod P4, try to find a business desktop from HP or Dell with less than a 2GHz P4 (or P4 Celeron). True that they're not "hot rods", but they're pretty fast machines nevertheless.

imaswitcheryeah

May 17, 2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Do you mean "expand the server line to more capable systems" or "cram a POWER4 chip into a 1U Xserve box with limited expandability and availability"? I'd hope that it's the former.

A simpler, faster way would be to simply rebadge some of the IBM server line, and port OS X to the IBM POWER systems. Good way to test the waters for high-end servers without a huge upfront R&D cost.

For example, the pSeries 630 6C4 (http://www-132.ibm.com/content/home/store_IBMPublicUSA/en_US/eServer/pSeries/entry/6306C4.html) - a 4-way POWER4+ in a 4U chassis. Base configs from $14K (single 1.2GHz, 1GB) to $40K (quad 1.45GHz, 8GB). Memory expansion to 32GB, 6 PCI-X (64bit/133MHz) slots....

BTW, about the hot rod P4, try to find a business desktop from HP or Dell with less than a 2GHz P4 (or P4 Celeron). True that they're not "hot rods", but they're pretty fast machines nevertheless.

Sure, whatever.:) I don't know much about enterprise servers and such... I just thought it would be pretty cool if Apple adopted the entire IBM processor line. I know the 970's were basically made specifically for Apple (so Apple can finally have a new generation chip). I was just painting a pretty picture of, let's say, 970's across the product line (yeah, even ibooks), with an xserve enterprise edition featuring the Power4-5 chips. Something along those lines.

Didn't I see somewhere around the rumor mill there might actually BE an xserve enterprise edition? I remember it being along side a rumor of xstations, a 2-4 way mac workstation. Word up, thanks for replying about my idea!!