64-Bit Jaguar and 970 PowerMacs

[MacRumors]

eWeek (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1121730,00.asp) provides some corroboration of rumors floating around regarding the upcoming release of 970 based PowerMacs:

Sources said that the IBM chip will make its first appearance in a new Power Mac known internally as Q37. However, sources said, Q37 won't ship with a 64-bit version of Mac OS X, limiting OS performance gains in the initial release. Instead, Q37 will launch with a special build train of the current Mac OS X Version 10.2, a k a Jaguar.


Code named Smeagol, this newest Jaguar update will provide compatability for the new machines while Panther is in the works. According to eWeek, Smeagol may not be complete for a month or so after WWDC, suggesting new machines would not be able to ship until that time.

[Polyktor]

Well...I guess we all want the whole package (OS updates, processor, kitchen sink) but at least things appear to be moving forward. -R

[k2k koos]

Well there you have it, something is definitely going to happen! :-)

Let's hope Apple is goign to sort their OS niggles out soon to get these machines out on the shelves, howevr a little patience is okay too if that means the product is even better...

Good news regardless!

[macphisto]

Just read it. Great informative article. I think that it fills in the gap where many of the rumor sites leave off.

Smeagol,...great build name. As well as, my other favorite ApplePI! :) (Apple Processor Interconnect)

[pyrotoaster]

Q37, eh? Bring it on. ;)

[Mr. Anderson]

Almost a rumor round up, really, but the specifics on the GCC compiler issue just add more validity to the whole thing.

Fantastic - I can't wait to see the new machines.

One question - how much 'performance' boost will we see with Panther?

D

[neilt]

just heard a message from an apple rep...though he said nothing at all about specifics, he did say that there are going to be "interesting" things announced that the scientists where i work would be interested in....

can't wait
neil

[trebblekicked]

nice. outside rumor-site speculation/reporting of the 970. i just hope their "sources" aren't macwhispers and macbid. ;)

is this the first we've heard of hardware codenames? i think it is. and the smeagol name is priceless.

[macphisto]

I certainly hope that it significantly improves the os performance, to make things a little snappier.

Along with Mr. Anderson, my question is:

How long before we see ports of the major design apps to 64bit? (Well, at least the programs that would benefit from such architecture, such as video and 3D.)

[BenRoethig]

I don't think Eweek would be printing this unless they were very sure it was true.

[rjstanford]

Hmm.

Not that eWeek has the best reputation, but its better than most (all?) of the Mac rumor mills around...

The timing makes some sense, especially since the systems could indeed be shown at WWDC and then released in time for back to school, following eWeek's suggested schedule.

Of course, there's only one problem. Can anyone confirm the gcc issues? Is this really so significantly different? If so, that would mean that software built for the G4 series wouldn't run on the 970 without modification, which is something that I have a hard time believing (from previous statements and from IBM history).

I could easily see this being two things. One, a stronger confirmation of what's been suspected for some time, that the 970 is what's next and that its release is imminant. Two, that someone is not wanting too many people to hold off on purchasing macs until after WWDC.

I admit that my thought after reading this was, "Well, time to pick up a current generation system instead of waiting." Makes you wonder. Its not like Apple hasn't proved themselves shrewder than the media before (although that's nearing the dangerous territory of "They didn't say it wasn't so, and so of course it must be!"

Hmm.

[Tequila Grandma]

Very very exciting! Apple's recent history has been to be incredibly organized in their releases, so I hope that all of this OS business will run quite smoothly with no confusion for buyers.

Arigato,
Brook

[arnette]

Am I the only one not getting the 'Smeagol' reference??

And secondly, it's always fun to get into the rumor train of thought, but I'm just waiting for Panther to come out on the new 15" PowerBook.
And I'm with you Macphisto... 10.3 damn well better be snappy. I was sorely disappointed in my 12" PB's performance.

[Mr.Hey]

I have never been so aroused by the combination of words like IBM chip will make its first appearance in a new Power Macs and 64-bit and 970....I ****ing love being a Mac USER!!!!!!!



p.s I love how Safari v80 shows me all my spelling mistakes automatically...now all they need to work on is my grammar (:()

[dongmin]

The specificity of this report is indeed quite intriguing. So a WWDC intro and early-August shipping? Sounds about right to me. The only thing that seems strange is that they're suggesting it's the software that's holding up the release, not hardware. And is it really likely that a 64-bit OS X would offer major performance benefits over a 32-bit version???

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by macphisto


Smeagol,...great build name. As well as, my other favorite ApplePI! :) (Apple Processor Interconnect) Is that referring to Golum or something else?

[kylos]

We're finally starting to get some corroboration here. Yes!!!

[CaptainScarlet]

This is more what I thought they would do. And for me that's fine. I can wait until Fall.....

[Freg3000]

This is good, eWeek is by far the most reputable site that has confirmed Apple's use of the 970-and they have even laid out a similar timeline to when they will be released when compared to what MacB has been claiming for weeks.

I just have to figure out a way to justify buying a revision B Power Mac G5 in Jan 04'! :)

[Eric-C]

I can't wait for the keynote for this one...

"And with the Q37, I dub 2003 - the year of the desktop!" :D

Oh well. I'm happy and sad. ;)

[Gymnut]

Is the "precious" the 970?

[mohaukachi]

SWEET! at least now we know that its a pre september release! its dissapointing that they may not be available immediately after wwdc. still im hoping that they at least reveal it at the keynote.

[ac2102]

I thought that Panther was going to be ready by the WWDC? Surely the OS will be ready before the hardware comes into the shops. Or does it take a while after the WWDC for the new OS to be released? Can anyone explain this to me.....

[JoeRadar]

Originally posted by dongmin
So a WWDC intro and early-August shipping?

I think Apple may have some short term pain in the quarterly financial statements. Their PowerMac shipment were already falling in their last statement, and I have to believe that rumors this quarter about a revolutionary jump in hardware has hurt PowerMacs even more for this quarter.

If Apple announces and then doesn't ship for six weeks or more, I can't imagine anyone buying a G4 during that time (not without a huge discount). That would be half a quarter with almost no revenue from the PowerMac line.

In the long term it won't matter, but I could see it hurting Apple's quarterly profits and stock value for a few months.

Hoping for shipment this month!

[-hh]

Originally posted by arnette
Am I the only one not getting the 'Smeagol' reference??


'Smeagol' is from JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.

It is the actual (original) name of the character most people know as 'Gollum', who was known to refer to the One Ring as "My Precious".

history info link (home.tvd.be/ws35756/Tolkien/ chars/Gollum/Gollum.htm)

- - -

FWIW, insofar as 'Q37', I was just thinking about Q-Ships today.

(to preemptively explain another likely obscure reference, Q-Ships was a military term for warships disguised as mere freighters. They were designed to look like sitting ducks to lure attacks from German U-Boats and then pound the snot out of them.

The term was later used to describe high performance sports cars that were similarly "disguised", although more in Europe than in the USA, where we called them "Sleepers".

A modern example of a Sleeper or Q-Ship automobile would be something like the Audi RS4 Quattro Avant. It looks like a normal compact station wagon, but its engine has been worked over by Porsche: 0-60mph is <5 sec, 0-100ph is <12sec, and 0-125 is 17sec. Coming back down, you find that Porsche's worked on the suspension/braking systems too: 70mph-0 in 155ft.


It would be nice to have a Macintosh Q-Ship :D


-hh

[fpnc]

I don't think Apple would announce or show new PPC970-based Macs at WWDC and then wait a month or more before they actually ship. This isn't going to be a simple speed bump or change in appearance. When the PPC970 __is__ announced it will immediately make obsolete every G4-based PowerMac that is still unsold or on store shelves. Thus, I don't expect any PPC970 announcements from Apple until they are actually very, very close to ship (one week would probably be "stretching" it).

In any case, I'm not expecting any PPC970-based Macs until late summer or early fall (at the best).

[Quark]

Originally posted by trebblekicked
...is this the first we've heard of hardware codenames? i think it is...

No, it is not a hardware codename.

It is the internal build name for the "enhanced" Jaguar OS (software) that is compatible with the 970.


I am very excited about what is going to be shown on the week of the 23rd and what is going to be released soon after.

Quark:D

[djtet]

Just thought I'd add that in the latest issue of Macaddict magazine (at least I think it was Macaddict...could've been Macworld - I'll check later), they have a section on "Shake" which was used in the production of the movie "The Lord of the Rings". Could there be a connection with this codename Smeagol and apples participation in the lord of the rings movies???

[nixd2001]

Originally posted by rjstanford


Of course, there's only one problem. Can anyone confirm the gcc issues? Is this really so significantly different? If so, that would mean that software built for the G4 series wouldn't run on the 970 without modification, which is something that I have a hard time believing (from previous statements and from IBM history).


Not quite the right view. Software from existing GCC will run correctly on the 970 - the thing it won't know how to do is to make all the different internal units work in parallel as much as they are capable.

So don't get worried about "not working": there won't be any such issues.

What it does mean is that the true performance of the 970 won't be apparent from the initial machines - that's what GCC 3.3 (or whatever version) will bring.

Tweaking and tuning compilers to get the best from a new CPU is a fairly typical part of the semiconductor industry. It's the sort of thing that can take a good few months to get really optimised. Referencing this does add credibility to the report.

[yzedf]

Originally posted by fpnc
I don't think Apple would announce or show new PPC970-based Macs at WWDC and then wait a month or more before they actually ship. This isn't going to be a simple speed bump or change in appearance. When the PPC970 __is__ announced it will immediately make obsolete every G4-based PowerMac that is still unsold or on store shelves. Thus, I don't expect any PPC970 announcements from Apple until they are actually very, very close to ship (one week would probably be "stretching" it).

In any case, I'm not expecting any PPC970-based Macs until late summer or early fall (at the best).
Why not announce and not ship for a month or 2? Thave already done it a few times this year (AlBooks 12" and 17")...

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by arnette
Am I the only one not getting the 'Smeagol' reference?? Probably a reference to an ugly hack. (to get the thing out the door)

[nagromme]

People think Apple has daid Panther will be out at WWDC. They never said that.

They said they would PREVIEW Panther--which says pretty clearly to me that Panther will NOT be ready to ship by WWDC.

But 64-bit vs. 32-bit isn't the main performance issue with the 970 at all, so if new Macs are ready by August and Panther isn't, they can still run very well.

[billyb]

Originally posted by yzedf
Why not announce and not ship for a month or 2? Thave already done it a few times this year (AlBooks 12" and 17")...

I guess because though the 12 and 17 PBs added some features that the 15 didn't have (BT, AE, lighted keys), they didn't make it obsolete--it's still selling. and because there were no prior 12s or 17s to make obsolete :p .

-bb

[Foxer]

"Good Smeagol always helps the master of the precious."

It could be Apple's new slogan/ad campaign.

[maradong]

Originally posted by nagromme

But 64-bit vs. 32-bit isn't the main performance issue with the 970 at all, so if new Macs are ready by August and Panther isn't, they can still run very well.
are you sure ?
if i understood the article well, it says that to run jaguar, it needs to get an update.
perhaps it will not run otherwise ? They certainly know why they are bringing that update on, no ?

[nicolas]

Originally posted by -hh
'Smeagol' is from JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. ...A modern example of a Sleeper or Q-Ship automobile would be something like the Audi RS4 Quattro Avant. It looks like a normal compact station wagon, but its engine has been worked over by Porsche: 0-60mph is <5 sec, 0-100ph is <12sec, and 0-125 is 17sec. Coming back down, you find that Porsche's worked on the suspension/braking systems too: 70mph-0 in 155ft.


It would be nice to have a Macintosh Q-Ship :D


-hh
you are confusing that with the audi RS2.
that car had porsche brakes and wheels...:P

[Mr.Hey]

Why would anyone vote negative :confused: evil bastards :D

[phranque27]

Originally posted by trebblekicked
is this the first we've heard of hardware codenames? i think it is.

The dual-USB iBooks, announced in May 2001, were known internally as "P29", right? So Q37 is certainly in keeping with this format.

[barkmonster]

Q37 ?

I have a theory on the name.

:D

37 is the answer to the totally BS "I'm so clever and psychic" Question, "Think of a number between 10 and 50". Especially so for people so crap they say "think of a number between 10 and 90 without using 2 of the same digit". and still think their david blaine.

[Laurent]

I think that the Jaguar update won't be required, but Apple want to offer something 64-bit optimized so that the difference between G4 an 970 be greater...

I really hope that they are planing on introducing a headless alluminium mini-tower for consumers, not professionals! I consider myself a plain consumer... ~_~

[hvfsl]

The PPC970 is faster than the G4 at the same clock speed running 32bit apps (going by the performance numbers of the chips floating around the net), so a 1.8Ghz PPC970 should be at least as fast as a 2Ghz G4 should be. It will be even faster running optimised 64bit apps.

One very good thing about the PPC970 is that a dual 1.8Ghz PowerMac will be segnificantly faster than the fastest P4 at 3.06Ghz with its 800Mhz bus and 1066Mhz Rambus RAM.

[centauratlas]

Smeagol is good though, the "good" side of Gollum. Perhaps a reference to there being a different build of it (for now) given the two sides of the personality.

[Hozie]

Indeed, Smeagol is one of the faces of the creature Gollum. This is a reference to the fact that Jag will run on both G4's and 970's, methinks...

[scem0]

hmmmmmmm from cats to MTV award show winners..... :rolleyes:

Well, I am thoroughly convinced that apple will be releasing new PowerMacs at the WWDC. Now let's hope they go past 1.8.... ;)

http://www.my-smileys.de/signs/77430bbce83afc89881430e177cabb9b.png

[trebblekicked]

just FYI:
i know smeagol is the special jag build codename; i was wondering if "Q37" is the first rumored codename for the 970 powermac. i've only noticed fancifully code-named projects in the past (yosemite, yikes, sawtooth, jaguar, etc), and this seemed kind of lame for an apple codename. but if the ibooks had an alphanumeric...

otherwise:
i'd assume a 64-bit chip would need a special build of the 32-bit OS for optimization. this update may or may not be available/necessary for non-970 machines.

[JLL]

Originally posted by trebblekicked
just FYI:
i know smeagol is the special jag build codename; i was wondering if "Q37" is the first rumored codename for the 970 powermac. i've only noticed fancifully code-named projects in the past (yosemite, yikes, sawtooth, jaguar, etc), and this seemed kind of lame for an apple codename. but if the ibooks had an alphanumeric...

The MDD Power Macs were named P57 and P58.

[rog]

Originally posted by fpnc
I don't think Apple would announce or show new PPC970-based Macs at WWDC and then wait a month or more before they actually ship. This isn't going to be a simple speed bump or change in appearance. When the PPC970 __is__ announced it will immediately make obsolete every G4-based PowerMac that is still unsold or on store shelves. Thus, I don't expect any PPC970 announcements from Apple until they are actually very, very close to ship (one week would probably be "stretching" it).

In any case, I'm not expecting any PPC970-based Macs until late summer or early fall (at the best).

The thing is, they are going to have to announce at WWDC that 10.3 will be a 64 bit OS. If they announce that, it confirms that they are going to be using the 970 soon. but then everyone would just have questions and who would buy anything? So it makes sense they pre-announce even though they aren't ready, ship them 6 weeks later (not atypical for a big announcements--the 17" PB took about 12 weeks to ship) and let the orders start pouring in. I don't see know how they can announce 64 bit support without at least giving a timetable as when to expect 64 bit capable macs. They have to announce them! And they have to announce 64 bit 10.3 because they need developers to start optimizing programs to support and take advantage of the advancements that 10.3 and the 970 have to offer.

[richard5mith]

I certainly agree with those who find it odd Apple would announce this in a couple of weeks time and then not actually ship it for 6-8 weeks after that. And there's pretty much no chance they won't announce this, because they need to get the developers up to speed on 64-bit/new processor optimising now. It would seem a bit stupid to those developers if they were told to do this without actually being shown a 64-bit processor. :)

Power Mac sales are already sluggish because of the world economy and so many people knowing a new machine is on the horizon, properly announcing a new model would completely halt all sales until the new models were shipping - incredibly bad for business.

It would make much more sense to announce and release at WWDC and then just make the OS X updates available as they are ready. We already know the 970 can run 32-bit code, so even if the performance isn't quite there yet, why not just release anyway?

Perhaps it's just a first impressions thing, they don't want their new processor to appear slow straight after release.

[macphisto]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
Is that referring to Golum or something else?

More then likely gollum. Someone at Apple must be a fan of The Lord of Rings. If you have read through all of the posts in this thread almost every theory has been covered. :)

[rog]

Originally posted by Mr.Hey
Why would anyone vote negative :confused: evil bastards :D

People like myself often vote negative to comment on the believability of the story. If there was a story about Quad 970s coming out tomorrow with 10.3 for only $499 I'd hit the negative button. You can rate the content of the message, or the reliability of the message itself.

[nagromme]

The article says that without Panther, the 970 will run with the performance of a G4. (But at slightly higher MHz than we have now, and with a faster system bus.)

I have to question that. I can't see Apple releasing 970 Macs, yet dilluting their impact by having only minor speed increases until a sofware update months later. If the impact of Panther were THAT important, I'd expect Apple to wait for it. But every other report seems to suggest that Panther is NOT needed for big speed gains on the 970.

[fred]

Well....I believe it would probably be wiser to wait until Panther is ready rather than give bashers the chance to benchmark the systems running Smeagol and find them lacking..... So much for all the BS going around that stated that OS X was 64 bit ready and the work required would be trivial...

[szark]

Well, don't forget that Apple has to put support into the operating system for the new hardware. (new CPU, new chipset, etc.) That's why it needs a new build of Jaguar.

My question: will the preview release of Panther being given to developers at WWDC run on the new machines? :D

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by scem0
hmmmmmmm from cats to MTV award show winners..... :rolleyes:

Well, I am thoroughly convinced that apple will be releasing new PowerMacs at the WWDC. Now let's hope they go past 1.8.... ;)

http://www.my-smileys.de/signs/77430bbce83afc89881430e177cabb9b.png i thought you would make a comment about them naming this project after you, gollum.

i wonder why everyone thinks they are going to release 64 bit processors before their 64 bit OS. it seems to me that it would simplify thingss to wait.

[chetwilliams]

Originally posted by Laurent
I think that the Jaguar update won't be required, but Apple want to offer something 64-bit optimized so that the difference between G4 an 970 be greater...


The "Smeagol" 10.2.7 update will serve two purposes:
1. Support the new 970 processor -- this will be a relatively small change to ensure that the 970 runs all code in 32-bit mode properly; it also might include some more extensive changes to support >4GB memory
2. Support the new motherboard -- more extensive changes to support the new motherboard chipset and all of its goodies (hopefully all of the following: fast bus, USB2, Serial-ATA, AGP 8X)

[andyduncan]

Originally posted by nagromme
The article says that without Panther, the 970 will run with the performance of a G4. (But at slightly higher MHz than we have now, and with a faster system bus.)

That actually sounds pretty good to me.

I have to question that. I can't see Apple releasing 970 Macs, yet dilluting their impact by having only minor speed increases until a sofware update months later.

You mean like, for instance, releasing Powermacs that ran the vast majority of mac code slower than the 68k machines they replaced? It was the 9500 that was the first powerpc mac to actually emulate 68k code faster than the Quadras ran it natively. And that was more than a few months later.

Besides, as has been mentioned by myself and several other people, you have to have the machines in the hands of developers before the apps get optimized.

Id say the timing sounds perfect.

[jettredmont]

Sources said Apple's goal for Smeagol is to deliver Mac OS X performance at least "on par" with what Jaguar could achieve on Motorola G4 chips running at the same speed


ON PAR with the G4?!?

My goodness, I hope that was just thrown in as an easily-achievable goal, kinda like "Make MS Word run at least as fast as on a 386SX-16 running Windows 3.0 with 2MB of RAM ..."

[richard5mith]

Originally posted by jettredmont
ON PAR with the G4?!?

My goodness, I hope that was just thrown in as an easily-achievable goal, kinda like "Make MS Word run at least as fast as on a 386SX-16 running Windows 3.0 with 2MB of RAM ..."

Well realise that means make it run like OS X would on a 1.8Ghz G4, which would still be faster than ever.

The difference is that now you have the promise of even better performance in a couple of months with the OS X upgrade and then again with Panther. And all without needing a new machine.

[phanguye]

i would assume that the reason they choose "Smeagol" as the code name is because Smeagol is what Gollum is before he gets the precious and even when he has it but before it totally consumes him...

"Smeagol" the jaguar version will have the precious but will not totally be what is should be (will not be consumed) until it gets panther

that is just my guess

[eric_n_dfw]

Did those of you bitching about the lack of OS X being 64 bit ready even read the article?

my emphasis added
Part of the issue with OS compatibility lies with Mac OS X's compiler, GCC 3, which lacks scheduling support for the PowerPC 970. Apple and IBM are reportedly working to add 970-specific support to the latest version, GCC 3.3. The development effort is proceeding well, sources report, but the compiler isn't yet ready for full use.

While Smeagol will be built using GCC 3.1, Apple plans to compile Mac OS X 10.3 with GCC 3.3.The fact that they can build Smeagol on GCC 3.1 proves that the code is at least clean enough to run on the chip. 10.3 will give the 64 bit code and GCC 3.3 will alow it to run at more optimized speeds.

How about reading the article the next time.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by jettredmont
ON PAR with the G4?!?

My goodness, I hope that was just thrown in as an easily-achievable goal, kinda like "Make MS Word run at least as fast as on a 386SX-16 running Windows 3.0 with 2MB of RAM ..." Sounds like very conservative estimates - especially if the GCC 970 scheduling optimizations get put in place. I, for one, am just dieing to see the AltiVec unit(s) take off when they get a taste of that DDR FSB!

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by rjstanford
Of course, there's only one problem. Can anyone confirm the gcc issues? Is this really so significantly different? If so, that would mean that software built for the G4 series wouldn't run on the 970 without modification, which is something that I have a hard time believing (from previous statements and from IBM history).


Your G4 software will not work on a 970 if your software happens to be an OS kernel.

The gcc modifications are kernel-level. OS X apps will not require G4-970 modification from all indications.

Do note that IBM is on record saying that there are "minor" changes required to the OS for the 970 relative to the G3/G4 lines. "Minor" to the hardware vendor rarely means "minor" to the software provider ...

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by jettredmont
ON PAR with the G4?!?

My goodness, I hope that was just thrown in as an easily-achievable goal, kinda like "Make MS Word run at least as fast as on a 386SX-16 running Windows 3.0 with 2MB of RAM ..."
You know internaly the 970 is pretty different from the 7450, for instance it has only 2 integer execution units compared to 4 for the G4e, and the AltiVec unit will probably behave differently too.

Running code that has been optimized for the G4 on the 970 could hurt, and the article pointed out that a suitable GCC 3.3 was not finished...

[andyduncan]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
The fact that they can build Smeagol on GCC 3.1 proves that the code is at least clean enough to run on the chip.

How does that prove anything?

[ParadisePete]

Originally posted by trebblekicked
and the smeagol name is priceless.
There already is (http://www.zotteljedi.de/smeagol/) a Smeagol.

[ddtlm]

richard5mith:

Well realise that means make it run like OS X would on a 1.8Ghz G4, which would still be faster than ever.
But still miserably behind the curve set by the competition. If Apple releases a single 1.8ghz PPC970 with single 1.8ghz G4 performance and expects people to be excited... well maybe people will be, but noone who thought about it for very long. A new version of the OS will mean little for performance I might add, since its the applications that need to be fast, not the OS.

andyduncan:

You mean like, for instance, releasing Powermacs that ran the vast majority of mac code slower than the 68k machines they replaced? It was the 9500 that was the first powerpc mac to actually emulate 68k code faster than the Quadras ran it natively. And that was more than a few months later.
The PPC970 does not emulate 32-bit PPC instructions so your example does not relate. The entire cause for concern is that the code that is out there may not be sufficiently optimized for the PPC970, which would be very dissapointing if true. To put it mildly, the G4 is not a benchmark that the 970 should be proud of defeating.

jettredmont:

My goodness, I hope that was just thrown in as an easily-achievable goal, kinda like "Make MS Word run at least as fast as on a 386SX-16 running Windows 3.0 with 2MB of RAM ..."
Well said. :)

eric_n_dfw:

I, for one, am just dieing to see the AltiVec unit(s) take off when they get a taste of that DDR FSB!
You are assuming that a decent chipset exists, hopefully not only supporting dual channel DDR-400 but also doing so well. I'm really not sure that Apple is up to that task... perhaps they'll buy someone else's chip... but we shall eventually find out. Anyway, the bandwidth probably won't much increase the things the G4 did best, just increase the range of things that go quickly.

[Stike]

Comp Lab:
Developer1: "Mr. Jobs, here is the new prototype of the PowerMac 970 with Jaguar finally running on it!" (sweats)
SJ: "Okay, leave me alone, I will test it."
(exit Developer)
In front of the Comp Lab:
Developer1: "He is in there since 48 hours. I wonder if he is alright.."
Developer2: "Lets take a look then!" (opens door)
SJ can be seen in a completely dark room, only illuminated by the pale screen light.
SJ: "Get out!! Leave the lights out! I need morE testing! MorrE! moOOorrree!"
(Developer2 instantly closes door)
SJ: "My precioussss...!!"

---

BTW, if we go with the alphabetical order in codenames like in OS X (6L60 and so on) and the old MDD PMacs are P57/58, we can imagine that Q37 is a step beyond...!

[andyduncan]

Originally posted by ddtlm
The PPC970 does not emulate 32-bit PPC instructions

I never said it did, I only said that Apple has in the past released machines with new architectures that aren't always as fast as people think they should be on day one, or even day 365. And I think that relates perfectly.

The entire cause for concern is that the code that is out there may not be sufficiently optimized for the PPC970, which would be very dissapointing if true.

Of course its true, its a different chip. How could it possibly be otherwise? Even different versions of the G4 need compiler optimizations to acheive their full potential. Remember when the G4 powermacs jumped into the 800 range? The chips were less efficient for a number of reasons, but many of those were due to the compilers being optimized for the previous generation (half generation). We're talking about a whole new chip that shares only a portion of the ISA with the processors that the compilers have been tweaked for. There's bound to be optimization issues.

edit: mis-matched tag

[JLL]

Originally posted by Stike
BTW, if we go with the alphabetical order in codenames like in OS X (6L60 and so on)

6L60 is a build number - not a code name.

[JLL]

Originally posted by jettredmont
ON PAR with the G4?!?

My goodness, I hope that was just thrown in as an easily-achievable goal, kinda like "Make MS Word run at least as fast as on a 386SX-16 running Windows 3.0 with 2MB of RAM ..."

Perhaps you didn't notice the At Least part.

And he could mean that it would run at least as fast as a 1.8GHz G4 with a 900MHz FSB ;)

[ddtlm]

andyduncan:

Of course its true, its a different chip.
You overlooked my use of "sufficiently." Clearly the fact that the PPC970 is a different chip does not imply that existing code is not "sufficiently" opimized. The Athlon, for example, does great on old x86 code. I think it would be very dissapointing if the PPC970 couldn't beat the IPC of a G4 on existing code. I have been very dissapointed with the gutlessness of G4's compared to x86 compeditors on code that I have written.

[beatle888]

Originally posted by fpnc
I don't think Apple would announce or show new PPC970-based Macs at WWDC and then wait a month or more before they actually ship. This isn't going to be a simple speed bump or change in appearance. When the PPC970 __is__ announced it will immediately make obsolete every G4-based PowerMac that is still unsold or on store shelves.

its already been reported that PowerMac stock is extremely low. its time. but still. im gonna want more power than what they'll have to offer. however it is progress.

[andyduncan]

Originally posted by ddtlm
You overlooked my use of "sufficiently."

Bah.

Clearly the fact that the PPC970 is a different chip does not imply that existing code is not "sufficiently" opimized. The Athlon, for example, does great on x86 code.

And yet there are still compiler optimizations that can bring out more speed for athlon systems, just look at some of the good linux software. In addition, the athlon was designed to do well on x86 code that had been optimized for intel peculiarities, while the power4 was targeting it's own market. Sure the 970 is targeting the same market as the g4, but why redesign the chip just so someone doesn't have to recompile on the next point release? It runs, just not as well as it could. and its not the end of the world if we have to wait for the next version of gcc before the compiler starts putting instructions in a 970-friendly order.

I think it would be very dissapointing if the PPC970 couldn't beat the IPC of a G4 on existing code. I have been very dissapointed with the gutlessness of G4's compared to x86 compeditors on code that I have written.

Well then I guess there's a sufficiently probable chance that you'll be disappointed.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by ddtlm
I have been very dissapointed with the gutlessness of G4's compared to x86 compeditors on code that I have written. LOL
LOL
LOL

sorry, that's pathetic. you should learn to write G4-optimized code before you get all disappointed. it still is a pretty competitive chip with the right software.

to be disappointed that a chip won't outperform another chip with an OS that is specifically written for that chip and not for the new one is kinda stupid, too, IMO.

[joost538]

at least the part about gcc3.3 is accurate.


from the GCC3.3 page at gnu.org:

The following changes have been made to the PowerPC port:
Support for IBM Power4 processor added.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
sorry, that's pathetic. you should learn to write G4-optimized code before you get all disappointed. it still is a pretty competitive chip with the right software.

How do you know? Are you a developer?

Originally posted by Shadowfax
to be disappointed that a chip won't outperform another chip with an OS that is specifically written for that chip and not for the new one is kinda stupid, too, IMO.

This isn't like 68K->PPC. This is a new chip with almost the same (or is it exactly the same?) instruction set as its 3 year old predecessor. It had damn well better be a lot faster, with the same code. Fine, optimizations help...but they don't excuse. Expect better from Apple.

[nixd2001]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Your G4 software will not work on a 970 if your software happens to be an OS kernel.

The gcc modifications are kernel-level. OS X apps will not require G4-970 modification from all indications.

Do note that IBM is on record saying that there are "minor" changes required to the OS for the 970 relative to the G3/G4 lines. "Minor" to the hardware vendor rarely means "minor" to the software provider ...

I think we're losing track here a bit.

1) Most peoples' code isn't kernel stuff - just the way it is.

2) Instruction scheduling applies to anything - not just kernel code. No modifications are required for correct operation, but it's highly likely that modifications are required for optimal performance.

3) If a system has been sensibly designed - and Mac OS X seems to score on this basis - then the vast majority of time is spent in user code. This is where GCC optimisations will provide performance benefit - but that ain't the same as it will be incorrect (or "not work") without such changes.

[ddtlm]

Shadowfax:

sorry, that's pathetic. you should learn to write G4-optimized code before you get all disappointed. it still is a pretty competitive chip with the right software.
I'm pathetic because I don't waste my time hand-coding for a obsolete processor? Kiss my rear end! What drives you to defend such a hopelessly loosing position to the point where you attack people who won't waste their time keeping some illusion of compeditive performance alive?

andyduncan:

Bah.
:) d00d I'm slippery!

And yet there are still compiler optimizations that can bring out more speed for athlon systems, just look at some of the good linux software.
And this would be fine by me on a PPC970 too... I just wanted more Athlonism and less Pentiumfourism.

Sure the 970 is targeting the same market as the g4, but why redesign the chip just so someone doesn't have to recompile on the next point release
Of course they shouldn't redesign it now, but up to this point there was little reason to expect such bad IPC on legacy code. I have always thought that it didn't suffer from this legacy code IPC problem at all, and perhaps in the end that will be the case. But regardless of that discussion, my opinion remains that G4 IPC on legacy code is not very good at all.

Edit, added: It may be that a PPC-970 at 1.8ghz is more-or-less as fast as a Athlon barton at 2.2ghz (the 3200+ perhaps). The Athlon does good on old code, why can't we expect (in an uneducated way) the same from a PPC970? I wasn't looking for a technical response to that, its just one of those philosophical questions.

[RandomDeadHead]

All I know is that we need them fast, real fast!

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by nixd2001
2) Instruction scheduling applies to anything - not just kernel code. No modifications are required for correct operation, but it's highly likely that modifications are required for optimal performance.


I must have misread the article. It said "scheduling"; I thought "process scheduling" (which is a kernel-level concept that ordinary processes would all benefit from performance-wise but need not be recompiled).

You could be correct in that the gcc optimizations eWeek is talking about are instruction scheduling optimizations (which I took as a given for any processor out there ... every compiler can benefit from processor-specific instruction scheduling...) That would mean you'd have to recompile your apps to get the benefit (obviously) except where you're calling into system libraries that already take advantage of the latest gcc.

[bertagert]

Originally posted by Stike
SJ can be seen in a completely dark room, only illuminated by the pale screen light.

SJ: "Get out!! Leave the lights out! I need more testing! MorrE! moOOorrree!"
(Developer2 instantly closes door)

SJ: "My precioussss...!!"

That was great!!!!

For everyone else: We only have two weeks to find out whats going on. No one here can say how well things will perform on the 970. Lets wait a little and find out.

[bertagert]

Originally posted by RandomDeadHead
All I know is that we need them fast, real fast!

I second that!

[copperpipe]

So it's coming. In a couple of weeks, it, they, will be here. It will be a big leap for the speed of our beloved Macs. It might, it just might, be a HUGE leap. But we will have to wait an exhausting T-minus 14 days. Some of us might not make it. Blown fuses, overheating systems, and insufficient brakes will probably take a few out before the event. Poor bastards will be laying in a puddle of their own vomit, while muttering "powa-mah nine-seveny". I don't know about you guys, but I'm gonna drink solidly over the next two weeks in order to keep the pressure down.

;)

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
LOL
LOL
LOL

sorry, that's pathetic. you should learn to write G4-optimized code before you get all disappointed. it still is a pretty competitive chip with the right software.

to be disappointed that a chip won't outperform another chip with an OS that is specifically written for that chip and not for the new one is kinda stupid, too, IMO. If you follow some of the discussions of the compilers you'll see that they whine about the sad state of the actual "optimization" for the G4 that the compiler generates.

Since Apple is using the same tools as they offer to the developers, so there is an incentive to improve the tools for everyone.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by soggywulf
How do you know? Are you a developer? whatever the validity of your point. this is a stupid question. you don't have to work at a mint to know a little something about the value of money. don't bait me.

[ddtlm]

Shadowfax:

you don't have to work at a mint to know a little something about the value of money
Nor do you have to be a programmer to know the usefullness of software. Neither statment has anything to do with your claims about the merit of hand-optimizing for G4's, which is something a programmer is much more likely to know than most, hence the question soggywulf posed.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Shadowfax:


I'm pathetic because I don't waste my time hand-coding for a obsolete processor? Kiss my rear end! What drives you to defend such a hopelessly loosing position to the point where you attack people who won't waste their time keeping some illusion of compeditive performance alive? i never said you were pathetic, i said that your comment that the code you write works better on x86 than on the G4 was. i am sorry. i don't honestly know that much about what i am talkinf about, but i do know that the mac platform gets a lot of pisspoor performing games and other apps because of poor porting skills. but whatever. sorry.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Shadowfax:


Nor do you have to be a programmer to know the usefullness of software. Neither statment has anything to do with your claims about the merit of hand-optimizing for G4's, which is something a programmer is much more likely to know than most, hence the question soggywulf posed. the analogy wasn't intended to be that perfect. i can also appreciate the merits of optimizing code, not being a programmer (yet). you stop baiting me too.

[ddtlm]

Shadowfax:

Ah, I see. No hard feelings here. Well, anyway the best porting jobs are the ones where all you need know is how to recompile. :) Honestly I don't have time to hand-code for any chip, I much prefer to try to make things easy for compilers to speed up where I can. You'll find that even the really good programmers like Carmack are heading that way.

Sun Baked:

Yeah with better compilers I bet the G4 would fare better, but they claimed GCC 3.x was a lot better than 2.9.x anyway. I never really noticed anything major.

[Silencio]

Q37.... Q37...

If the first PowerMacs were released in March 1994, then PowerPCs have been in Apple machines for just 9-1/4 years, or 37 fiscal quarters. Q37.

Well, that's my best guess.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by rjstanford

Of course, there's only one problem. Can anyone confirm the gcc issues? Is this really so significantly different? If so, that would mean that software built for the G4 series wouldn't run on the 970 without modification, which is something that I have a hard time believing (from previous statements and from IBM history).

I'm late to this thread, so someone may have addressed this, but here's my take.

The above issue really isn't as dire as it sounds. Essentially, everything will work just fine on a 970 based Mac with the modified GCC 3.1 compiled Jaguar branch. The only real issue is when can Apple sync GCC 3.3 with Panther 10.3 for a release. Obviously, when they can do this, they will have all the advantages of the 970 CPU's taken into account.

Right now, it seems that the 970 _chips_ with the 10.2 branch will be on speed par with a G4 of the same speed (if you were to put it in the same hardware and run the same OS.) This does _not_ take into account architectural speed differences in the computers, which will make the machines seem much faster than if you just plopped a 1.8 G4 in an existing machine.

Overall, a good article to fill in some gaps.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by Gymnut
Is the "precious" the 970?


boo-yah!

Smeagol. Such an interesting name. Has so many interpretations. Now, I hope they didn't pick it just because they liked the movie.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by ac2102
I thought that Panther was going to be ready by the WWDC? Surely the OS will be ready before the hardware comes into the shops. Or does it take a while after the WWDC for the new OS to be released? Can anyone explain this to me.....

Oddly, I'd bet the hardware is done. Since so many last minute fixes, enhancements, etc. factor into the announcment Jobs will make, I have no doubt that the release date can vary. In fact, I don't think any rumor site can predict with 100% certainty until 24 hours before the keynote. There's simply too many factors. I'm happy if they are released ASAP in June, but I'd be just as happy with a July to August timeframe. I won't be buying until revision 2 anyway, since I have a dual 1 GHz machine now. In many ways, this machine has held up much better, performance wise, than my previous computers.

[AidenShaw]

Using a new compiler to optimize for the 970 would more than likely imply that it will slow down the G4 (unless the gcc today is really that poor on PPC).

The other side of the coin is that massively o-o-o (out-of-order execution) chips like the 970 should be less sensitive to instruction scheduling. The chip itself is able to dynamically re-order the instructions to fit the memory model and execution units.

An improved compiler will seldom give you more than a few percent faster. (This is assuming that the compiler was already nearly optimum for the previous chip implementation.)

I would be extremely surprised if the new gcc gives more than 5% speedup to the 970 - unless the old version was criminally bad at PPC optimizations. (If that's the case, G4 systems should get radically faster as well....)

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by nagromme
The article says that without Panther, the 970 will run with the performance of a G4. (But at slightly higher MHz than we have now, and with a faster system bus.)

I have to question that. I can't see Apple releasing 970 Macs, yet dilluting their impact by having only minor speed increases until a sofware update months later. If the impact of Panther were THAT important, I'd expect Apple to wait for it. But every other report seems to suggest that Panther is NOT needed for big speed gains on the 970.

Well, I think the article has some ambiguity in it. I interpret the statement you are referencing to mean that if you were to NOT take into account motherboard changes, this would be try. However, my interpretation could be wrong. :-)

[ddtlm]

Frobozz:

I interpret the statement you are referencing to mean that if you were to NOT take into account motherboard changes, this would be [true]. However, my interpretation could be wrong.
I wonder how they would be able to separate motherboard performance from processsor performance and declare which is responsible for what. Hopefully this launch is more dramatic than the arrival of the G4-733.

[Sun Baked]

Here is a discussion on Apple's Compiler Future (http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=3960930965) that was broken off the Future Processor Thread.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
i never said you were pathetic

Well, yeah you kinda did. Anyway, water under bridge etc.

Originally posted by Shadowfax
but i do know that the mac platform gets a lot of pisspoor performing games and other apps because of poor porting skills.

I don't think it is poor porting. I recall that a number of seemingly highly talented developers are porting to the Mac (id, Omni, the guy who did Unreal--forget his name, etc). OTOH, it is for sure that our hardware is slow at the moment. That is more likely the cause of poor game performance.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
An improved compiler will seldom give you more than a few percent faster. (This is assuming that the compiler was already nearly optimum for the previous chip implementation.)

I would be extremely surprised if the new gcc gives more than 5% speedup to the 970 - unless the old version was criminally bad at PPC optimizations. (If that's the case, G4 systems should get radically faster as well....)

This makes the most sense to me. I think the new systems are going to be hella fast right out of the box, even with Denethor or Bombadil or whoever.

As long as they include a 9800 or 5900, of course. :)

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by soggywulf
Well, yeah you kinda did. Anyway, water under bridge etc.
there's a difference between telling someone "you are pathetic" and telling someone "what you just said was pathetic. if you care to reread my post. you'll note that it falls on the aft side of that particular spectrum. but hey, i wasn't even talking to you; we've resolved our differences, more or less. you should have left it be.
I don't think it is poor porting. I recall that a number of seemingly highly talented developers are porting to the Mac (id, Omni, the guy who did Unreal--forget his name, etc). OTOH, it is for sure that our hardware is slow at the moment. That is more likely the cause of poor game performance. i haven't messed with UT, it's not my style at all. i had BG2 in mind, which was "updated" to work in OS X. it has a "built for mac OS X" sticker on it--bah. also, more recently, a game called "BloodRayne" ported by Aspyr. it's a terribly dirty game in terms of performance. and it's not my hardware's fault.

in the case of BG 2, it runs better on my OLD PC--933 MHz P3, 512 MB of RAM and a GeForce 3, all of which are slower than the specs in my TiBook, barring the hard drive speed.

[job]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
also, more recently, a game called "BloodRayne" ported by Aspyr. it's a terribly dirty game in terms of performance. and it's not my hardware's fault.

You have to remember that Bloodrayne was a console game first. The engine was made for consoles and thus the engine limitations were carried over in the port.

It has nothing to do with porting, just the limitations of the actual engine - coded by the actual developers, not the Mac port house or publisher.

[Gymnut]

I hope Apple doesn't pattern its case design in accordance to Gollum/Smeagol. He's one ugly SOB if you ask me.

-The 970 is the precious!

[jhmccoy]

Another sign that Apple is clearing it's inventory of Powermac G4 computers and paving the way for the 970???

The individual educational pricing for Powermacs have decreased at my school, and probably all schools. It used to be only $100 discount on the lowend 1ghz and $300 on the highend configured 1.42ghz. The discount has increased by $100--no telling what the discount is for school purchases.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by job
You have to remember that Bloodrayne was a console game first. The engine was made for consoles and thus the engine limitations were carried over in the port.

It has nothing to do with porting, just the limitations of the actual engine - coded by the actual developers, not the Mac port house or publisher. well, i believe the PC port was done much better, with adjustments to the screen resolution and so on permitted. they could have made it perform much better. furthermore, it eats ram and won't clean itself out, so after about an hour of play, the whol game slows down insanely so it's like playing CS on a 56K. that's not the engine's fault.

[mccoma]

I would imagine the situation is not as dire as some would believe. Apple has to make changes to support the new hardware (heck they had to make new builds for non-processor changes in the past).

Beyond that, I would bet Apple will be compiling using a 970 optimized GCC. So, at release time, Apple's code will be optimized. This will speed up most programs (we are calling libraries after all).

I wouldn't worry too much. It will be fast and get faster.

[thebimbo]

nicolas got things mixed up:

'Smeagol' is from JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. ...A modern example of a Sleeper or Q-Ship automobile would be something like the Audi RS4 Quattro Avant. It looks like a normal compact station wagon, but its engine has been worked over by Porsche: 0-60mph is <5 sec, 0-100ph is <12sec, and 0-125 is 17sec. Coming back down, you find that Porsche's worked on the suspension/braking systems too: 70mph-0 in 155ft.

The RS2 is the one that was co-developed with Porsche, RS4 has NO Porsche components but has 380 horseposer engine from Audi Cosworth - that's 0-100km at 4.8 secs. RS4 is faster than RS2 ... and on track faster than RS6.

Some of us have further 'hobbies' apart from our Macs :-)

=thebimbo

[ZildjianKX]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
i thought you would make a comment about them naming this project after you, gollum.

i wonder why everyone thinks they are going to release 64 bit processors before their 64 bit OS. it seems to me that it would simplify thingss to wait.

Well, the Dual G4s came out before OS X did, and that was the first Mac OS to support dual processors...

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Frobozz:


I wonder how they would be able to separate motherboard performance from processsor performance and declare which is responsible for what. Hopefully this launch is more dramatic than the arrival of the G4-733.

Amen, brotha.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Well, the Dual G4s came out before OS X did, and that was the first Mac OS to support dual processors... Heck, the dual and quad 604 machines came out well before the dual G4s.

[mathiasr]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Using a new compiler to optimize for the 970 would more than likely imply that it will slow down the G4 (unless the gcc today is really that poor on PPC).
The G4 will never run the 64 bits version of Panther. 64 bits libs and kernel will be 970 optimized; this could also mean that at installation time even 32 bits part of Panther could be delivered with the right sheduling for the 970.

Will Apple let the opportunity to run a 32 bits Panther kernel on the 970? To my knowledge all 64 bits vendors (SGI, Sun, IBM...) have let their customer choose between a 32 and a 64 bits kernel on 64 bits hardware for a few years.

Only a few apps would benefit from a 32 to 64 bits port (remember AltiVec is a powerful 128 bits SIMD engine), most would infact slow down.
This means developers would have to optimize 32 bits apps against 2 and a half (G3&G4, G4e, 970) different CPU cores, and 3 (7400, 7450, 970) different AltiVec implementation.
We are still far from the x86 instructions extension mess (MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNow!, 3DNow! Pro...).
Anyway I have no doubts about the fact that CPU specific builds are going to be pretty rare, most of today apps are targeted to the G3, and developers that do not overlook the 7400/7450 differences are God send.

[hayesk]

Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Well, the Dual G4s came out before OS X did, and that was the first Mac OS to support dual processors...

Yes, but there were a few major apps that supported them. Photoshop and, IIRC, Strada Studio, and a few other high-end apps supported multiple processors. Otherwise, Daystar would never have released their Quad-processor Mac.

[PaisanoMan]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
well, i believe the PC port was done much better, with adjustments to the screen resolution and so on permitted. they could have made it perform much better. furthermore, it eats ram and won't clean itself out, so after about an hour of play, the whol game slows down insanely so it's like playing CS on a 56K. that's not the engine's fault.

Okay, I'm not trying to perpetuate an argument that was laid to rest, but as a software developer (not for the Mac, unfortunately), let me tell you that this is not the result of a lack of hand-optimized code.

There are other programmers who disagree, but I don't see enough benefit from writing hand-optimized assembly (SIMD notwithstanding) to make it worthwhile these days. Most games are even offloading a lot of their most intense [graphics] calculations into the increasingly powerful GPUs we have, where we still have higher-level languages like GLslang/HLSL/Cg.

Failing to release memory and the like is really just poor programming practice, not a lack of optimized code. The performance issues are a separate story; it's my personal opinion that it's simply that we Mac users deserve (and desperately need) faster hardware.

[GregGomer]

People keep talking about wether the smeagol version of 10.2 is for 64 bit support support or not.

My understanding is that 970s can run 32 bits apps natively, no need for emulation. This being one of the great features of . So my guess is, hey smeagle isn't for 64 bit support, but rather new hardware support. I.e. you have to have support for the new motherboard, chips, controllers, buses, USB 2.0, any other new technology like hypertransport or gigawire etc etc etc.

To me it makes more sense that Smeagle is to support the new hardware basics, rather then opt for 64 bit support. And it would make sense that Apple would ship these sooner then later. I believe they shipped alot of what they announced right before Jaguar, with 10.1. I.e. 17inch iMacs and MDD powermacs rather then waiting a week or two for 10.2, so why would they wait a month or two, if they didn't even wait a week or two?

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by PaisanoMan
Failing to release memory and the like is really just poor programming practice, not a lack of optimized code. The performance issues are a separate story; it's my personal opinion that it's simply that we Mac users deserve (and desperately need) faster hardware. yeah, i guess i am just being argumentative. it is a pretty crappily written port, optimization or no. we definitely need hardware updates. motorola has royally screwed apple and its users on performance.

[jdstoddard]

So correct me if I'm wrong but if the 970's are 64bit does this mean that panther will not work on a G4 nor would any software developed for the 970? Wouldn't this leave every single mac user in the dark for updates and new software?

[shadowfax]

with any luck, they will do both a 64 and 32 bit version of panther. apple would probably destroy itself doing that, though they have done some pretty mean things to their customers as far as leaving them in the dark for progress.

[3.1416]

Originally posted by GregGomer
My understanding is that 970s can run 32 bits apps natively, no need for emulation.

I believe there are still minor OS changes required. Basically just to initialize the 970 and tell it, "hey, go to 32-bit mode and stay there".

[bones]

Originally posted by Silencio
Q37.... Q37...

If the first PowerMacs were released in March 1994, then PowerPCs have been in Apple machines for just 9-1/4 years, or 37 fiscal quarters. Q37.


Your post is a joke i know, but in seriousness:

Apple has always called their prototype machines PXX, like P53, P54, etc. They may have moved to the QXX series for the new architecture.

[3.1416]

Originally posted by jdstoddard
So correct me if I'm wrong but if the 970's are 64bit does this mean that panther will not work on a G4 nor would any software developed for the 970?

Of course not. Apple will either ship separate 32 and 64-bit versions of Panther, or more likely include both sets of code and have the OS select which one to run (like PowerPC/68k fat binaries). Most software will still be released as 32-bit, with only the minority that can take advantage of a 64-bit CPU having separate versions.

[mccoma]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
with any luck, they will do both a 64 and 32 bit version of panther. apple would probably destroy itself doing that, though they have done some pretty mean things to their customers as far as leaving them in the dark for progress.

Well, other vendors have done 32-bit and 64-bit versions of their software (HP-UX for example) without much problem. I do not think this will cause Apple any great harm. 64-bit apps will of course only run on the new machines.

I would say, on the whole, Apple has been a lot nicer than Microsoft on the whole forced upgrade thing. The 3.1 to 95 was a nightmare and the dropping of support for NT, 2000 to force an XP upgrade was not fun. The only blip has been the duration people could run 98 (and I would assume that was because of how bad M.E. was). If Apple acted like Microsoft, machines would not have been able to boot OS 9 at least a year before that option was taken.

[solvs]

I don't know what's funnier - the fact that some of you are complaining about how slow a chip is that hasn't even come out yet or that a lot of you, it seems, haven't actually read the article. Or you're reading too much into this (pun intended) and either over-reacting, or wandering a little off topic (like that ever happens).

Not to criticize, but if the article is anywhere near correct, we have a lot to be thankful for.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by mccoma
the dropping of support for NT, 2000 to force an XP upgrade was not fun.
Good story, but check the Microsoft website. Windows 2000 is still supported, and some support is still available for NT 4.0 (esp server).

For example, see http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/infotech/aboutit/stories/w98nonsupport.htm or http://www.idg.net/ic_1041385_9707_1-5066.html

Windows NT Server users who were worried that they might be running an unsupported operating system next year got some welcome news from Microsoft Corp.

A Microsoft spokeswoman said yesterday that pay-per-incident and premier support for Windows NT Server 4.0 will run through Dec. 31, 2004. Nonsecurity hot fixes, however, will no longer be available as of Jan. 1, 2004.

Now, what's Apple's position on OS 9? A coffin, I believe. ;)

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Now, what's Apple's position on OS 9? A coffin, I believe. ;) Let's see what happens with the education market over the next year, the iBook/eMac updates may point to them keeping these OS9 bootable machines around another year -- may not.

This coffin call for OS 9 is starting to look like a bad sequel to "Return of the Living Dead Operating Systems"

[copperpipe]

I thought the Q37 deduction was pretty damn cool. I mean, c'mon, to go and figure that out, wow. Maybe it's true? Who cares? Either way, kudos for the deductiveness of it all.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
This coffin call for OS 9 is starting to look like a bad sequel to "Return of the Living Dead Operating Systems"

A classic Joy of Tech

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/333.html


(pun intended)

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
i never said you were pathetic, i said that your comment that the code you write works better on x86 than on the G4 was. i am sorry. i don't honestly know that much about what i am talkinf about, but i do know that the mac platform gets a lot of pisspoor performing games and other apps because of poor porting skills. but whatever. sorry.

Um, no, it has nothing to do with "porting skills".

The gcc compiler in general does a poor job of optimizing code for the G4 relative to, say, MSVC's compiler optimizing for the P4.

Personally, I've gone through many long performance-optimization sessions with high-level Apple engineers. We've been able to get sometimes 3-5% performance improvement through our Sampler/optimize rounds, which they said is fairly low because my code tends to follow the G4-programming guidelines as it is (ie, reduce cache misses above all else, compute static variables instead of pull them from memory, etc). in all, we've pulled about a 50% performance improvement out of our hats, which isn't bad.

We then copied the improved code over to the Windows compiler, ran through the same tests, and what do you think we found? In all cases (except one), a 3-5% improvement on the OS X side corresponded to a 5-8% improvement on Windows. The overall performance gain on Windows was over 100% (ie, twice as much work done in the same amount of time).

Before these improvements, the G4 and P3 were neck-and-neck for overall performance by clock cycle. Afterwards a 500MHz P3 runs faster than a 733MHz G4.

About my application: there are a lot of unavoidable cache misses as we work with a complex and inter-related data set. SIMD (Altivec or SSE, take your pick) cannot be used in any manner (at least, not that I could find, and not that our Apple friend could find either).

Yes, this is anectdotal, and, no, I'm not going to drop names. But take it from me, it's not "poor porting" that is the cause of the G4 performing piss-poor compared to Intel's line. It is the overall architecture of the chip.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
yeah, i guess i am just being argumentative. it is a pretty crappily written port, optimization or no. we definitely need hardware updates. motorola has royally screwed apple and its users on performance.

The point is, if the problem is memory leaks, it is highly unlikely (not impossible, but unlikely) that this came about during the port. The leaks are more than likely present on the Windows port as well.

on the other hand, Windows is a bit more forgiving of memory leaks than OS X ... leaked memory gets shuffled away into VM fairly quickly so doesn't affect ongoing performance as much as it does on OSX ... I tend to find my memory leaks on OSX, not Windows :)

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by JLL
The MDD Power Macs were named P57 and P58.

Yup, all Apple projects have a name - such as Yosemite, Yikes or whatever, plus a "P" number. The latter is the 'official' name, the former is to make it easier to remember!

Mike.

[Sol]

Since Apple has already announced that they will be previewing OS X.3 at the WWDC then it may be that attendees will leave with their beta of the operating system. 970 towers could be announced and updated G4 Powermacs could be cleared from stock with heavy discounts.

[JoeRadar]

Originally posted by Sol
G4 Powermacs could be cleared from stock with heavy discounts.

I like that idea - give developers a really deep discount (much more than the current one). That might pacify a good chunk of the people until the 970s come along. Given the build-up in hype and anticipation leading up to WWDC, Apple will have a difficult time just avoiding disappointing the masses.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Sol
Since Apple has already announced that they will be previewing OS X.3 at the WWDC then it may be that attendees will leave with their beta of the operating system.

That's not a "maybe".

That's a "pretty much assuredly".

Apple moved the WWDC date so that developers could "take home" a preview of Panther. I didn't take this to mean "take home a memory of a preview of Panther". And, it fits with last year's Jaguar preview, which was a developer take-home release.

I strongly doubt that developers will be walking away from the WWDC with nothing more than an expired admission badge and memories.