PowerBook To Get Dual-Core G4?

[drsuse]

i read something on ars technica about how the supposed built in gigabit ethernet meant that the dual core g4 was intended for embedded markets. can anyone elaborate?

[macsrus]

i dont think apple is trying to tell us what we want so much as their trying to figure out what the masses want and how their going to meet that need and make a profit. you make it sound like SJ's some horrific dictator.


I have to admit .... I laughed for at least 5 minutes when I read your reply....

Obviously.... My post was sarcastic.

[G4-power]

What if you want a more powerful CPU, or a PC Card slot, or 1394b - but you feel that the 15" and 17" are just too darn big and heavy?

Yeah, and the fact remains, you can't fit everything in that 12" enclosure.
It will also add more cost, if the 12" had to be as fast as bigger ones.

[AidenShaw]

Yeah, and the fact remains, you can't fit everything in that 12" enclosure.

Huh? The faster chip isn't any larger, and Dell puts a PC Card (and an SD memory slot) in the 12.1" Latitude X300 that's 40% smaller than the 12" PB. Surely those innovators at Apple could figure it out if they wanted to (that is, if LGJ ordered it).

It's a simple matter of upsell - to get any one of the features, you have to buy the more expensive model and pay for other features that you may not need or want.


It will also add more cost, if the 12" had to be as fast as bigger ones.

Great - so there are two different speeds of 12" PBs at two different prices. Why is that bad? Why is choice bad?

[idkew]

...Dell puts a PC Card (and an SD memory slot) in the 12.1" Latitude X300 that's 40% smaller than the 12" PB....?

there is no bluetooth or wireless built in with this dell.

there is no internal cd-rw/dvd-rw drive in this dell.

apples to oranges.

[MikeBike]

i read something on ars technica about how the supposed built in gigabit ethernet meant that the dual core g4 was intended for embedded markets. can anyone elaborate?

http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/20040818-4112.html

Having read the article,
I'd like to know, what's the problem with option 2:
redesign the io system for Rapid IO.

This is what I'd expect Apple to do.
What's the timeframe on a motherboard redesign?
Anybody know?

[G4-power]

Huh? The faster chip isn't any larger, and Dell puts a PC Card (and an SD memory slot) in the 12.1" Latitude X300 that's 40% smaller than the 12" PB. Surely those innovators at Apple could figure it out if they wanted to (that is, if LGJ ordered it).

It's a simple matter of upsell - to get any one of the features, you have to buy the more expensive model and pay for other features that you may not need or want.
I know the faster chip isn't any larger, but it does produce more heat. I know, they probably could put that 1.5 GHz in there. I know its not nice, but even if it was possible to put FW800 and a PC Card slot there, without taking anything out or making it bigger, like you said, Apple won't do it because they want you to pay more for bigger laptops.

Great - so there are two different speeds of 12" PBs at two different prices. Why is that bad? Why is choice bad?
I never tried to say that, even if you heard like that. Choice is good, but Apple probably will keep the hardware line-ups as few as possible, for simplicity's sake, (and production/R&D cost, too.)

[G4-power]

http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/20040818-4112.html

Having read the article,
I'd like to know, what's the problem with option 2:
redesign the io system for Rapid IO.

This is what I'd expect Apple to do.
What's the timeframe on a motherboard redesign?
Anybody know?

The problem there is, like the article says, that Apple is doing a motherboard redesign, only when moving to the G5. I say, if the dual-core G4 chip is as good as it sounds, get them and make a new design of the motherboard. Though, if Apple wants to move to the G5 as soon as possible, they would have to make two new motherboard models, and this would add cost. It's a matter of money and time. Do they want to put more money to PB R&D, and do they have the time for two major revisions in such a small time. I'd expect the G5 to come to the PB's some time next year, or early 2006. At that time, they have to do SOMETHING to the PB's.

[pigwin32]

The problem there is, like the article says, that Apple is doing a motherboard redesign, only when moving to the G5. I say, if the dual-core G4 chip is as good as it sounds, get them and make a new design of the motherboard. Though, if Apple wants to move to the G5 as soon as possible, they would have to make two new motherboard models, and this would add cost. It's a matter of money and time. Do they want to put more money to PB R&D, and do they have the time for two major revisions in such a small time. I'd expect the G5 to come to the PB's some time next year, or early 2006. At that time, they have to do SOMETHING to the PB's.
Apple already spend proportionally more on R&D than assemblers like Dell. Given the G5 is a known quantity and has been available for some time Apple will have G5 PB motherboards and chipsets for testing right now. The e600 will only debut in October and unless Mot has substantially improved quality control the chip will remain a largely unknown quantity until it actually reaches production. If I was Apple I know where I would be focusing. Of course Apple has far more actual information available to them to make that decision where we have access to small amounts of data from which we extrapolate wildly to fuel the rumour boards.

Given the state of the current PB lineup I would suggest Apple needs to do something well before 2006 to inject some innovation. I like the news about Tiger including a resolution independent GUI, that will pave the way for new hi-res displays which must be high on the list of features for a new PB. I guess we could see Tiger and a new PB debut at the same time which would at least save me the expense of buying Tiger seperately.

[AidenShaw]

Apple already spend proportionally more on R&D than assemblers like Dell.


The R&D would be covered by the dual-core G4 iBooks that follow the dual G4 PB and the G5 PB.

[lazymuoio]

The R&D would be covered by the dual-core G4 iBooks that follow the dual G4 PB and the G5 PB.

yea your right the ibook will become dual core g4 in january when the powerbokk will go g5 creating a bigger porfessional consumer gap the ibook will then adopt the g5 a year later or whenver the g6 or next processor enters the powermac

[drsuse]

yea your right the ibook will become dual core g4 in january when the powerbokk will go g5 creating a bigger porfessional consumer gap the ibook will then adopt the g5 a year later or whenver the g6 or next processor enters the powermac

so you think there will be two powerbook revs in 5 months? no way.

[thatwendigo]

yea your right the ibook will become dual core g4 in january when the powerbokk will go g5 creating a bigger porfessional consumer gap the ibook will then adopt the g5 a year later or whenver the g6 or next processor enters the powermac

Uh. Right.

You do realize that a dual-core G4 with any kind of clockspeed performance increaase would SMOKE a single G5, don't you? Take a look at Barefeats and compare the dual G4s (with much higher latency, no on-die control, and the older MPX bus) to the single G5 of your choice. Notice the lack of a huge gap, despite the higher clock of the 970?

Ramp the G4 to 2.0ghz, feed it properly with a modern architecture, and eliminate much of the system slowdown by cutting the northbridge out of the picture. Raise the clock and keep the pipeline as short as possible. Give it access to high speed memory and full DDR/DD2 support. Put it on a low latency chip interconnect and make some good logical algorithms for deailing with the potential issues or dual cores...

Sure.

The G5 makes so much more sense in a laptop. :rolleyes:

Unless Freescale completely screws up the implementation, the e600 should kill the 970 on the desktop, too.

[webmatthijs]

if thats a yes, then its a definite no no for the powerbook g5.

:(

[G4-power]

Apple already spend proportionally more on R&D than assemblers like Dell. Given the G5 is a known quantity and has been available for some time Apple will have G5 PB motherboards and chipsets for testing right now. The e600 will only debut in October and unless Mot has substantially improved quality control the chip will remain a largely unknown quantity until it actually reaches production. If I was Apple I know where I would be focusing. Of course Apple has far more actual information available to them to make that decision where we have access to small amounts of data from which we extrapolate wildly to fuel the rumour boards.

Given the state of the current PB lineup I would suggest Apple needs to do something well before 2006 to inject some innovation. I like the news about Tiger including a resolution independent GUI, that will pave the way for new hi-res displays which must be high on the list of features for a new PB. I guess we could see Tiger and a new PB debut at the same time which would at least save me the expense of buying Tiger seperately.

Yep, I agree quite much. The thing is, do they have the G5 PB ready when they are doing the dual-core G4's. Well, if they will be doing them. If they aren't upgrading now straight to the dual-cores, will theyhave another speed-bumped MPC 7447A, or are we waiting for a G5 now.

The R&D would be covered by the dual-core G4 iBooks that follow the dual G4 PB and the G5 PB.
Yeah, you're right. Dual-core iBooks, why not. Unless someone here's working at Apple on the PowerBook, we don't really have to worry about what they put in the PB/iBook. I'm sure they'll come up with something.

[AidenShaw]

Yep, I agree quite much. The thing is, do they have the G5 PB ready when they are doing the dual-core G4's. Well, if they will be doing them. If they aren't upgrading now straight to the dual-cores, will theyhave another speed-bumped MPC 7447A, or are we waiting for a G5 now.


Why do you want a PPC970 in a PowerBook (a "G5 PB") ??


You might want a *faster* PB, but a dual-core e600 with faster bus would certainly fit that bill.

Do you need a 64-bit PB ?? Not really - unless you need 8 GiB of RAM in your PB 64-bit won't do much for you. (And besides, a PB with 8 GiB of RAM would be big, hot and heavy!!!)

Maybe someday in the next year or two there will be enough 64-bit applications (absolutely none for OS X today, none) and memory will shrink so that 8 GiB will fit in 2 SO-DIMMs.

And, that someday in the next year or two, the dual-core e700 with 64-bit addressing will be available.
_________________________

Think about it - doesn't it make sense to continue to base the PB on chips from a low-wattage embedded heritage rather than from a heritage of bad-ass liquid cooled servers?

A G4 derivative with a fast bus, better memory, dual-core would be a great chip for a high end laptop.

You want performance, right? Does it matter which chip is used if the results are good?

I wonder if Apple will be smart enough to *never* put a G5 (or G6) in a PB....

[oldMac]

Back in the "G5 next week" (a year before it happened) days, i remember the argument being made that Apple might take the newer revision of the G4 and call it a G5 for marketing purposes.

While I'm glad they didn't do it then, maybe they're thinking about it again now? Awfully tempting to the marketing folks, don't you think? :)

[pigwin32]

Unless Freescale completely screws up the implementation, the e600 should kill the 970 on the desktop, too.
Yeah, what are the odds of Freescale screwing up? Actually I'm a believer, the question remains, how long has Apple had access to these chips. Apple are unlikely to drop G5 PB development and start from scratch using the e600.

So we are left with a number of scenarios; Apple has had the chip for some time and have quietly been building a PB around it, in which case we could see a product in the next PB release; or Apple are sick of dealing with Mot and wouldn't touch the e600 with someone else's barge pole, instead focusing on shoehorning the G5 into a PB; or Apple now ditch their current G5 PB effort and start over with the e600, meaning the next PB release will be another minor speed bump while the e600 PB is being developed.

Frankly, the last scenario is unlikely, and the first scenario requires Steve to think with his brain instead of his ego, a possibility but given the frosty relations he's had with Mot in the recent past I think it is most likely the next PB will be a G5. Industry is littered with examples where the best tech didn't make it for whatever reason. Maybe YDL (http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/ydl_home.shtml) could package the e600 into a Linux laptop, then I wouldn't have to hang round MacRumors waiting for my next PB rumour fix.

[AidenShaw]

Apple are unlikely to drop G5 PB development and start from scratch using the e600.


Drop *what* development? Did I miss an announcement from Apple about the upcoming PB G5?

Maybe there is no PPC970 development project - maybe e600/e700 is what is being worked on now.

It would make more sense than trying to shoe-horn a hot server chip into a laptop. (Unless, they're adding the "Portable PowerMac G5" series in a larger form factor than the Ti/Al books....)

[BostonGekko]

It sounds to me like G5 yields at IBM have been a big impediment. Has anyone heard if yeilds have gotten better? :confused:

[pigwin32]

Drop *what* development? Did I miss an announcement from Apple about the upcoming PB G5?

Maybe there is no PPC970 development project - maybe e600/e700 is what is being worked on now.

It would make more sense than trying to shoe-horn a hot server chip into a laptop. (Unless, they're adding the "Portable PowerMac G5" series in a larger form factor than the Ti/Al books....)
Sure, if Apple's relationship with Mot wasn't in the toilet. Right now I don't need an argument about which chip, I want a new PB and I'm not buying until the current G4 is replaced.

obDisclaimer: check my previous posts, I've been wrong every time I've speculated about a new PB.

[quagmire]

As I said in my 5 computers updates coming soon thread, the pbook numbers 7,1 and 7,2 use the MacRISK4 architecture. The Pmac G5, the Xserve G5, and the upcoming imac G5 also use the MacRISK4 architecture. So that pretty much confirms for me the next rev of the pbook is going to be G5 and they are going to kill or cripple the 12" pbook.

[MikeBike]

As I said in my 5 computers updates coming soon thread, the pbook numbers 7,1 and 7,2 use the MacRISK4 architecture. The Pmac G5, the Xserve G5, and the upcoming imac G5 also use the MacRISK4 architecture. So that pretty much confirms for me the next rev of the pbook is going to be G5 and they are going to kill or cripple the 12" pbook.

That's too bad if you're right...
A dual G4 is the way to go for Max Performance.

In you are right, we will get a G5 powerbook,
and probably have to wait 2 years to get a dual-core G5.

Whereas, If apple stuck with the G4,
we'd get dual-core in the next revision,
and give us breathing room to wait for IBM's G5 Dual-Core.

Now, for a personal Dual-Coor.
Pop pop, chink chink, slurp-slurp-slurp, glug-glug-glug... Ahhhh...

:D

[maxvamp]

I don't know about this one, as it has many temptations.

On one hand, you have a on die controller, and a faster, more advanced altivec engine...

On the other hand you have a released processor that has a lot of fanfare.

I would venture to say that Apple may be wanting to just move to the G5.. here is my reasoning:

- Apple has been through the Fat Binary thing in the past, I doubt that they really want to spend any more time in promoting fat binaries than they have to. You can optimize for a G5 without being 64-Bit, and this may be a motivation factor to move to this platform.


- We know that the G5 has powertune. We do not know how close IBM is to offering a variation of the G5 that could be used in notebooks, but at this point, the Freescale has not even been presented.

- In the past, it has take ~8 months from the presentation of a processor to the time mass production starts. If IBM is closer than 8 months to a G5 that is mobile ready ( and a new iMac makes me think that they are ), then I doubt we will see the dual e600. We may, however one day find a e700 in an iBook, or a eMac.

Oh, I wish I had my on die controller......

Max.

[drsuse]

hey, any validity to this? if it's real, that really suggests "a supercomputer in your lap" as the next logical step.

http://spinbox.techtracker.com/DA/6615/totem_apple_expo_pro_uk.gif

[CmdrLaForge]

Why do you want a PPC970 in a PowerBook (a "G5 PB") ??

Do you need a 64-bit PB ?? Not really - unless you need 8 GiB of RAM in your PB 64-bit won't do much for you. (And besides, a PB with 8 GiB of RAM would be big, hot and heavy!!!)


It has been said many times, but I can repeat it: there are users who don't upgrade every other year, but like to keep their equipment for 5-7 years ! The G4 is old tech and 64 bit is the future for Apple products in 3 years there will be no 32 bit offering any more and the OS will go completly 64 bit.

Got my point ?

[G4-power]

Why do you want a PPC970 in a PowerBook (a "G5 PB") ??


You might want a *faster* PB, but a dual-core e600 with faster bus would certainly fit that bill.

Do you need a 64-bit PB ?? Not really - unless you need 8 GiB of RAM in your PB 64-bit won't do much for you. (And besides, a PB with 8 GiB of RAM would be big, hot and heavy!!!)

Maybe someday in the next year or two there will be enough 64-bit applications (absolutely none for OS X today, none) and memory will shrink so that 8 GiB will fit in 2 SO-DIMMs.

And, that someday in the next year or two, the dual-core e700 with 64-bit addressing will be available.
_________________________

Think about it - doesn't it make sense to continue to base the PB on chips from a low-wattage embedded heritage rather than from a heritage of bad-ass liquid cooled servers?

A G4 derivative with a fast bus, better memory, dual-core would be a great chip for a high end laptop.

You want performance, right? Does it matter which chip is used if the results are good?

I wonder if Apple will be smart enough to *never* put a G5 (or G6) in a PB....
What you say makes absolutely sense. My wording was not correct, so my point was not understood as I meant it to be. Anyway, I don't think in any way that it would be wise to put a 970 in a PB. But as someone earlier said, to the market nowadays they don't always look at the performance, but what they look at is "Another G4? G5 is newer, it'll smoke that." To answer your question "Does it matter which chip is used if the results are good?" To me, the chip inside is not important, if it just gives performance. The market looks at the number after the G, unfortunately.

I agree that Apple should keep on putting low-wattage chips, rather than server-chips in the PB's.

The future for Apple's partnership with FreeScale looks quite good too, if the (G4-derivative?) e600 and e700 are what they seem to be. I agree that today 64-bit is next to useless in PowerBooks, before we get higher capacity SO-DIMMs and a 64-bit system.

I guess that's all I had to say.

[G4-power]

It has been said many times, but I can repeat it: there are users who don't upgrade every other year, but like to keep their equipment for 5-7 years ! The G4 is old tech and 64 bit is the future for Apple products in 3 years there will be no 32 bit offering any more and the OS will go completly 64 bit.

Got my point ?

I know this post was addressed to AidenShaw, but I kinda agree with you.
There has been occasions when an Apple computer comes up with "Max memory something", like for example the iMac G4 (1GB). Then the 1GB DIMMs came and the max memory was bumped to 1.5 GB (2 GB?) Well, this could happen, but another point, that CmdrLaForge said. Some people keep the equipment for many many years. Like in the G5 intro "The computers of the future will be 64-bit. But the future is now at Apple" If OS X and new apps are "fully" 64-bit in 3-4 years, it will speed up the G5. But oh well, they may come up with a 32-bit chip for the next PB speed-bump, and it will be fast now (I hope), but not as fast as the G5-based would be.
We can see the same now with G3/G4. In non-altivec code G3 wins easily. But in AltiVec code a 350 MHz G4 smokes a 500 MHz G3 (well, 600 and 800 too). Take for example AltiVec Fractal Carbon. 500 Mhz G3 achieved 430 Mflops, 350 MHz G4 1220 Mflops. I know, all programs haven't gone the AltiVec way yet, but I'd say most. And this will happen for 64-bit too, I hope.

[CmdrLaForge]

I know this post was addressed to AidenShaw, but I kinda agree with you.
There has been occasions when an Apple computer comes up with "Max memory something", like for example the iMac G4 (1GB). Then the 1GB DIMMs came and the max memory was bumped to 1.5 GB (2 GB?) Well, this could happen, but another point, that CmdrLaForge said. Some people keep the equipment for many many years. Like in the G5 intro "The computers of the future will be 64-bit. But the future is now at Apple" If OS X and new apps are "fully" 64-bit in 3-4 years, it will speed up the G5. But oh well, they may come up with a 32-bit chip for the next PB speed-bump, and it will be fast now (I hope), but not as fast as the G5-based would be.
We can see the same now with G3/G4. In non-altivec code G3 wins easily. But in AltiVec code a 350 MHz G4 smokes a 500 MHz G3 (well, 600 and 800 too). Take for example AltiVec Fractal Carbon. 500 Mhz G3 achieved 430 Mflops, 350 MHz G4 1220 Mflops. I know, all programs haven't gone the AltiVec way yet, but I'd say most. And this will happen for 64-bit too, I hope.


Exactly, and thats the problem. E.g. iDVD. Comes with every Mac. But I can't use it on my G3 iBook even so it was delivered with the iBook as part of iLife.

And that will happen with many new apps (maybe Motion 2 ?) or even the OS itself.

For me - I would buy a dual core 2 GHz powerbook in a second if they release that - but many people just like to know that there equipment is future proof.

Cheers
LaForge

[AidenShaw]

It has been said many times, but I can repeat it: there are users who don't upgrade every other year, but like to keep their equipment for 5-7 years !

Good point, but Apple's track record has been to force more frequent hardware upgrades.

I would be surprised if the first generation G5 PowerBooks will support much larger SO-DIMMs than the max at introduction. Apple would prefer that you buy 2nd or 3rd generation systems, rather than take the effort (expense) of firmware upgrades for older systems to support new technology. Just like the iPod upgrades aren't released for older iPods, it's not in Apple's profit plan to keep upgrading old systems.

Too many times "future-proofing" means that you spend more than you needed to today, only to find that the newer technology won't work down the road. (What if those 4 GiB SO-DIMMs are only available in DDR3 format, and your 1st gen system only supports DDR?)

You can waste money over the long run and be stuck for years with slow CPUs and other components - when compared to a strategy of buying less expensive machines more often. This is especially true when prices are on a general downward trend, and a price/performance is on a steep downward trend.
____________

Plus, devices are inter-related today, so the "5 to 7 year" goal might be a masochistic approach.

For example, I replaced my Compaq laptop after about 2 1/2 years.

Was it not doing as well as it originally was doing? Of course not, it was still as fast as ever.

But, when I got the Compaq I had a 1 megapixel digital camera. I now have a 5 megapixel SLR-like model and a 4 megapixel pocketsize. The Compaq was too slow at processing these much larger pictures.

Especially in a laptop, no amount of "future-proofing" would have compensated for the fact that the CPU was just too slow. The CPU is in a socket, but the chipset couldn't handle a newer generation CPU. The chipset also supported SDRAM, so I couldn't add new, denser DDR SO-DIMMs.

So, I replaced it with a system with a CPU 4 times faster, 3.5 times the memory, faster bus and memory, GigE -- at half the price of the Compaq!


The G4 is old tech and 64 bit is the future for Apple products in 3 years there will be no 32 bit offering any more and the OS will go completly 64 bit.

I find this extremely unlikely - Apple's installed base is too large compared to their market share to so quickly abandon all the G3 and G4 systems out there. Can you imagine the class action lawsuits, let alone the bandwidth of whining on message boards? ;) Apple also has to consider how much of their installed base would move to Longhorn instead of buying a G5....

Sure, there will be high-end *applications* that will be 64-bit only - but most apps have no use for 64-bit. Couple a huge 32-bit hardware base, and "no advantage to 64-bit" for most applications - I just don't see Apple taking such an arrogant step as moving to 64-bit only. (Look at the situation with the G3 today - still going strong after years of G4 and a year of G5.)

Note that Sun, which has no 32-bit SPARC hardware (AFAIK), still builds and sells 32-bit Solaris for SPARC. This is even though 64-bit Solaris runs the 32-bit Solaris applications natively.

[rareflares]

hey, any validity to this? if it's real, that really suggests "a supercomputer in your lap" as the next logical step.

http://spinbox.techtracker.com/DA/6615/totem_apple_expo_pro_uk.gif






is this real?

[AidenShaw]

hey, any validity to this? if it's real, that really suggests "a supercomputer in your lap" as the next logical step.


The logical step would be a reference to the G5 iMac.

Maybe "a supercomputer on your wall" if the rumours of a detachable, wall-mountable screen/system are true.


BTW, don't you find Apple's "supercomputer" hype to be a bit tiring, especially since most of the benchmarks show the G5 to be roughly the same speed as a Pentium/Xeon system (win some, lose some)?

[cloud 9]

The logical step would be a reference to the G5 iMac.

Maybe "a supercomputer on your wall" if the rumours of a detachable, wall-mountable screen/system are true.


BTW, don't you find Apple's "supercomputer" hype to be a bit tiring, especially since most of the benchmarks show the G5 to be roughly the same speed as a Pentium/Xeon system (win some, lose some)?

why do i want a computer on my wall? to look at? so i take a chair, sit down and stare at my wall? and a mouse and keyboard on my lap? :rolleyes:

the logic step would be, something for at home and something for on the road :) and not something for on the wall :D but that's my opinion

yes, i find the supercomputer hype also a bit over the top, but apple is very much into marketing, and super is better than mega, hyper, ultra, or an animal/tiger/fruit/... name for computer...imagine 'a megamac with tiger'...or a 'g5 gazelle' or something... :D

[G4-power]

BTW, don't you find Apple's "supercomputer" hype to be a bit tiring, especially since most of the benchmarks show the G5 to be roughly the same speed as a Pentium/Xeon system (win some, lose some)?

At least I'm getting bored to the supercomputer hype. I think we all agree that the G5 is a much better chip, altogether, and clock-to-clock at least, compared to Pentium/Xeon. Just the thing that PPC is RISC-based rather than CISC makes it a lot faster.

And btw, the speed results Apple post showing that the G5 is superior to Wintel machines are a bit biased. Macs are generally slower on Photoshop because Adobe doesn't optimize it well enough for Macs. Apple chose the filters that work better on the Mac. But the biasing isn't as much that on the PC market, with MS claiming that Windows Server 2003 would be 500 % faster than Red Hat linux, yeah right.

[AidenShaw]

Just the thing that PPC is RISC-based rather than CISC makes it a lot faster.

1. PPC has many CISC-like instructions, and Pentiums and AMD chips have a RISC-like core, so the old distinctions are passée.

2. It's not a lot faster !! Sometimes it wins big, sometimes it loses big, usually it's in the same ballpark.

For example:

http://www.barefeats.com/image04/p4-ogl.gif
http://www.barefeats.com/image04/p4-mp.gif
http://www.barefeats.com/image04/p4-sp.gif

http://www.barefeats.com

[G4-power]

1. PPC has many CISC-like instructions, and Pentiums and AMD chips have a RISC-like core, so the old distinctions are passée.

2. It's not a lot faster !! Sometimes it wins big, sometimes it loses big, usually it's in the same ballpark.
http://www.barefeats.com

1. I know that nowadays the RISC/CISC battle is gone (x86 still sucks) but the x86 RISC-like-core and PPC CISC-like-instructions was news to me.

2.Yeah, I know. I wouldn't like to argue, but both Photoshop and Cinebench aren't very well optimized for Macs. But true, usually it's in the same ballpark.

[AidenShaw]

I know that nowadays the RISC/CISC battle is gone

It's gone because the two camps have basically merged, and are using the best features of both.


but the x86 RISC-like-core and PPC CISC-like-instructions was news to me.

The original RISC philosophy from 1974 was that one could get by with a small number of very simple instructions, which could be made blindingly fast.

Complex operations would need sequences of the simple instructions, but it would still be fast because the simple instructions were so fast. And, since much of the time only simple operations are needed, the overall program is also very fast.

Of course, the original RISC papers are from a time when top clock speeds were a few MHz and a few hundred thousand transistors on a chip were a lot.

Try to figure out how a chip with AltiVec could be called RISC by the early definition, or how it could have instructions like sqrt and the graphics instructions....
____________

Starting with the P6 architecture, Pentiums have used a RISC-like core that executes "micro-ops", and have a front end that translates the x86 instruction set into "micro-ops" for the core. Note that the P4 doesn't have an "instruction cache" in its specs, but instead lists a "trace cache". From Intel's site:

FAQ:
What does the Execution Trace Cache do?

Solution:
The Execution Trace Cache is an innovative way to implement a Level 1 instruction cache.

It caches decoded x86 instructions (micro-ops), thus removing the latency associated with the instruction decoder from the main execution loops.

In addition, the Execution Trace Cache stores these micro-ops in the path of program execution flow, where the results of branches in the code are integrated into the same cache line. This increases the instruction flow from the cache and makes better use of the overall cache storage space (12KB micro-ops) since the cache no longer stores instructions that are branched over and never executed. The result is a means to deliver a high volume of instructions to the processorâ??s execution units and a reduction in the overall time required to recover from branches that have been mispredicted.

http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/cs-001649-prd24.htm
___________


Here's another relevant quote (on a page with other interesting info):

Post-RISC
As the world enters the 21st century the CISC Vs. RISC arguments have been swept aside by the recognition that neither terms are accurate in their description.

The definition of 'Reduced' and 'Complex' instructions has begun to blur, RISC chips have increased in their complexity (compare the PPC 601 to the G4 as an example) and CISC chips have become more efficient.

The result are processors that are defined as RISC or CISC only by their ancestry.

The PowerPC 601, for example, supports more instructions than the Pentium. Yet the Pentium is a CISC chip, while the 601 is considered to be RISC.

CISC chips have also gained techniques associated with RISC processors. Intel describe the Pentium II as a CRISC processor, while AMD use a RISC architecture but remain compatible with the dominant x86 CISC processors.

Thus it is no longer important which camp the processor comes from, the emphasis has once-again been placed upon the operating system and the speed that it can execute instructions.

http://www.amigau.com/aig/riscisc.html

[jhu]

hmm... the risc/cisc debate still rages for some reason. i wish people would get it into their heads that there is no longer a risc/cisc distinction.

[G4-power]

Okay, thanks for the info AidenShaw.

[AidenShaw]

hmm... the risc/cisc debate still rages for some reason. i wish people would get it into their heads that there is no longer a risc/cisc distinction.

Agree, but first we have to get it into the heads of the marketing people !!

As long as "people" keep reading marketing hype about RISC, they'll think that it means something.


BTW, at the foot of the Amiga page that I quoted is a link to a long and thorough discussion of the topic at Ars Technica.

http://ars-technica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html

In this paper, I'll argue the following points:


RISC was not a specific technology as much as it was a design strategy that developed in reaction to a particular school of thought in computer design. It was a rebellion against prevailing norms--norms that no longer prevail in today's world. Norms that I'll talk about.

"CISC" was invented retroactively as a catch-all term for the type of thinking against which RISC was a reaction.

We now live in a "post-RISC" world, where the terms RISC and CISC have lost their relevance (except to marketing departments and platform advocates). In a post-RISC world, each architecture and implementation must be judged on its own merits, and not in terms of a narrow, bipolar, compartmentalized worldview that tries to cram all designs into one of two "camps."

[CmdrLaForge]

Good point, but Apple's track record has been to force more frequent hardware upgrades.

I would be surprised if the first generation G5 PowerBooks will support much larger SO-DIMMs than the max at introduction. Apple would prefer that you buy 2nd or 3rd generation systems, rather than take the effort (expense) of firmware upgrades for older systems to support new technology. Just like the iPod upgrades aren't released for older iPods, it's not in Apple's profit plan to keep upgrading old systems.

Too many times "future-proofing" means that you spend more than you needed to today, only to find that the newer technology won't work down the road. (What if those 4 GiB SO-DIMMs are only available in DDR3 format, and your 1st gen system only supports DDR?)

You can waste money over the long run and be stuck for years with slow CPUs and other components - when compared to a strategy of buying less expensive machines more often. This is especially true when prices are on a general downward trend, and a price/performance is on a steep downward trend.
____________

Plus, devices are inter-related today, so the "5 to 7 year" goal might be a masochistic approach.

For example, I replaced my Compaq laptop after about 2 1/2 years.

Was it not doing as well as it originally was doing? Of course not, it was still as fast as ever.

But, when I got the Compaq I had a 1 megapixel digital camera. I now have a 5 megapixel SLR-like model and a 4 megapixel pocketsize. The Compaq was too slow at processing these much larger pictures.

Especially in a laptop, no amount of "future-proofing" would have compensated for the fact that the CPU was just too slow. The CPU is in a socket, but the chipset couldn't handle a newer generation CPU. The chipset also supported SDRAM, so I couldn't add new, denser DDR SO-DIMMs.

So, I replaced it with a system with a CPU 4 times faster, 3.5 times the memory, faster bus and memory, GigE -- at half the price of the Compaq!

I find this extremely unlikely - Apple's installed base is too large compared to their market share to so quickly abandon all the G3 and G4 systems out there. Can you imagine the class action lawsuits, let alone the bandwidth of whining on message boards? ;) Apple also has to consider how much of their installed base would move to Longhorn instead of buying a G5....

Sure, there will be high-end *applications* that will be 64-bit only - but most apps have no use for 64-bit. Couple a huge 32-bit hardware base, and "no advantage to 64-bit" for most applications - I just don't see Apple taking such an arrogant step as moving to 64-bit only. (Look at the situation with the G3 today - still going strong after years of G4 and a year of G5.)

Note that Sun, which has no 32-bit SPARC hardware (AFAIK), still builds and sells 32-bit Solaris for SPARC. This is even though 64-bit Solaris runs the 32-bit Solaris applications natively.

Well, you have some valid points, but still, people want the G5 in the powerbook because they want a more future proof system. Period.

And yes, Apple will release a 64 Bit OS ONLY ! They will not really care about all those G3 and G4 owners. Do you remember what they did with OS X in comparison to 9 ? That was a even huger step and they made it. And its good. Its one of the reasons why Windows is soo much worse. Because they always keep the compatibility.

[AidenShaw]

And yes, Apple will release a 64 Bit OS ONLY ! ... Do you remember what they did with OS X in comparison to 9 ? That was a even huger step and they made it.


I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.

I was arguing that I found your timescale (3 years to 64-bit only) to be "extremely unlikely". I said that Apple wouldn't "so quickly abandon all the G3 and G4 systems". I was unclear with a later statement "moving to 64-bit only" - I should have repeated the "so quickly" qualification in some form on that line.


Surely there will come a time when Apple (and Microsoft) abandon the 32-bit systems. Of course, by that time we'll be expecting 4 GiB to 8 GiB of video RAM on our graphics cards, and the final PowerMac G4s will seem as quaint as an Apple [] .... ;)

The other comment is about the "hugeness" of the step. If you don't need more than 4 GiB of RAM per process, then a 64-bit operating system isn't even a step - it's of no benefit....

[MikeBike]

It has been said many times, but I can repeat it: there are users who don't upgrade every other year, but like to keep their equipment for 5-7 years ! The G4 is old tech and 64 bit is the future for Apple products in 3 years there will be no 32 bit offering any more and the OS will go completly 64 bit.

Got my point ?

You're not getting our point.
The G4, clock for clock, is Stronger then the G5.
So, the G5 must clock higher to give better performance.
Then, there's the DualCoreG4, which should give you from 80-100% better performance in 1 processor cycle.

But, you want a single core G5, HOPING for OS X to Optimize it into giving you More Than 100% increase in performance, In The Coming Years.
If Apple improves the performance of the OS by 20% a year, wouldn't it take you 4 YEARS or more, to equal the performance of the DualCoreG4, which you could enjoy for 4 years?!?

The Current G5 doesn't have a lot of tricks to increase it's performance relative to the current G4. In the future, rumor has it, IBM will improve altivec( in the Hardware ) and then there's SMT-symetric multi-threading coming in the G6. But, again, that's a hardware improvement.

Today, you're best bet to Future proof your machine would be to Hope you could buy a DualCoreG4.

But, that's just my two cents.

[AidenShaw]

You're not getting our point.
The G4, clock for clock, is Stronger then the G5.
So, the G5 must clock higher to give better performance.
Then, there's the DualCoreG4, which should give you from 80-100% better performance in 1 processor cycle.

You're missing the point.

"5" (as in "G5") is bigger than "4" (as in "G4"), therefore the "G5" is obviously better than "G4" - so we must have it.


[/sarcasm]


It doesn't matter if a dual-core G4 makes a lot more sense, marketing is pushing a "G5"....

[CmdrLaForge]

You're not getting our point.
The G4, clock for clock, is Stronger then the G5.
So, the G5 must clock higher to give better performance.
Then, there's the DualCoreG4, which should give you from 80-100% better performance in 1 processor cycle.

But, you want a single core G5, HOPING for OS X to Optimize it into giving you More Than 100% increase in performance, In The Coming Years.
If Apple improves the performance of the OS by 20% a year, wouldn't it take you 4 YEARS or more, to equal the performance of the DualCoreG4, which you could enjoy for 4 years?!?

The Current G5 doesn't have a lot of tricks to increase it's performance relative to the current G4. In the future, rumor has it, IBM will improve altivec( in the Hardware ) and then there's SMT-symetric multi-threading coming in the G6. But, again, that's a hardware improvement.

Today, you're best bet to Future proof your machine would be to Hope you could buy a DualCoreG4.

But, that's just my two cents.

I really got your point and as I earlier said, I would buy a dual core G4 powerbook in a second and would definitly prefer it a G5 system at the same clock speed.

But I was talking about many other users that just don't see it that way, wanting a more "future proof" system.

Cheers

[CholEoptera36]

I really got your point and as I earlier said, I would buy a dual core G4 powerbook in a second and would definitly prefer it a G5 system at the same clock speed.


Yeah I agree too CmdrLaForge, just like the majority of people on here can see that dual-core is the way of the future. A single dual-core processor can do what dual CPU chipsets can do.

Here's a good question though (if I over-read it from someone earlier then sorry), how many cores can you put on an IBM die?:confused:

-I know that by 2007 the quad-core AMD models are supposed to be released, and I've heard a couple different answeres as to how many cores can exist on a 939 pin chip like their current FX models. I've heard some numbers like 77, even 666 cores on the current chips. I can't seem to get a legit answer from articles so far. Would we just keep seeing more cores and more cores over and over again, much like how we expand more lanes for drivers in major cities? It definitely is a much better alternative than adding more CPUs like what IBM did with dual G5's, but what's the core limmit per chip?

-Also it's interesting to think that Apple would make a move toward AMD. If so, kudos to Apple for getting smarter. I know that IBM and AMD are currently in a joint development of multi-core technology, but AMD by far is the backbone of multi-core architecture as they designed it from the ground up.

-Hopefully by the time Apple releases a multi-core chip they won't have to worry about it being G4 still. Most likely all effort is going into the move to 100% 64bit CPUs first, then multi-core.

[thatwendigo]

Here's a good question though (if I over-read it from someone earlier then sorry), how many cores can you put on an IBM die?:confused:

It's mostly limited by transistor count, cache, and other components of the actual chip. The current Power5 is technically a dual-core design, but it's sold in four chip bundles that very nearly make it an octuple core. With SMT enabled, it presents itself to an operating system as sixteen logical cores.

-Also it's interesting to think that Apple would make a move toward AMD. If so, kudos to Apple for getting smarter. I know that IBM and AMD are currently in a joint development of multi-core technology, but AMD by far is the backbone of multi-core architecture as they designed it from the ground up.

Uh, no. I can understand why you'd want to believe that AMD is some kind of amazing leader in dual-core and multi-core technology, but the truth of the matter is that other companies have been doing it for a long, long time in the server market. IBM, in fact, had the dual-core Power4 quite some time ago (roughly 2001), and that's just the first dual core I can name off the top of my head.

Also, it wouldn't at ALL be "smarter" for Apple to move to an x86-based architecture, because it opens a Pandora's Box of problems. You could kiss the open usage model goodbye on Mac OS X, because they'd have to use copy protection or some kind of hardware detection to keep it from being pirated. People would have to replace their applications because they wouldn't run on the alternate processor and PC emulation of macs is less efficient than the other way around. More than anything, though, IBM owns the patents that other people are licensing to work on these designs of theirs... Apple's in a partnership with the company that files the most computer-related patents (and overall patents, I believe) in the world, every year.

-Hopefully by the time Apple releases a multi-core chip they won't have to worry about it being G4 still. Most likely all effort is going into the move to 100% 64bit CPUs first, then multi-core.

Why is any of that hopeful? The G4 is still a good chip, if a few changes were made to the basic systems. Guess what? The FreeScale e600 makes those changes! Everything that you like about AMD chips, other than the x86 instruction set, is going to be there - one die memory control, fast system busses, and so on.

People have latched onto the 64-bit thing way too quickly. It won't make a single bit of difference to home users for a while yet, because they're not going to have more than 4GB or RAM or be using 64-bit math. Basically, it's the same thing as what happened with the G5... Numbers got higher and it dazzles those who don't understand it.

[CholEoptera36]

It's mostly limited by transistor count, cache, and other components of the actual chip. The current Power5 is technically a dual-core design, but it's sold in four chip bundles that very nearly make it an octuple core. With SMT enabled, it presents itself to an operating system as sixteen logical cores.

Interesting, I'mma read up some more on it. But why does cache effect how many cores can be put on a die?

Also, it wouldn't at ALL be "smarter" for Apple to move to an x86-based architecture, because it opens a Pandora's Box of problems.

I never said move to x86 architecture, I'm not a moron. Are you suggesting AMD cannot produce CPU's for Apple? If Motorolla can do it, then what do you think...

Why is any of that hopeful? The G4 is still a good chip, if a few changes were made to the basic systems. Guess what? The FreeScale e600 makes those changes! Everything that you like about AMD chips, other than the x86 instruction set, is going to be there - one die memory control, fast system busses, and so on.

No one made it out that the G4 sucks. All I was saying is that I'm placing my bets that Apple will develop all chips in 64-bit before going dual-core. Why would they go dual-core on G4's when in a few years you might not even be able to use them on upcomming Operating System upgrades? And BTW AMD is an outstanding company with lots of proof in the short period of time they've come to play with the big dogs. And no one else is even close to multi-core anything in a personal computer, I wasn't talking about servers. Although everybody's gotta get technical now and then so my mistake for not saying "personal computer multi-core chips." :rolleyes: AMD's already got multi-core chips for personal computers. Where does IBM stand on that? What have they got in multi-core that isn't for servers? (this whole thread is about PowerBooks let me remind you, scratch the servers).

[AidenShaw]

People have latched onto the 64-bit thing way too quickly. It won't make a single bit of difference to home users for a while yet, because they're not going to have more than 4GB or RAM or be using 64-bit math.

Well, we're all using 64-bit floating point and 64-bit integer math, and have been for a very long time. ;)

Real native 64-bit floating point has been in the hardware in most modern machines (386 and later, all power/powerpc, alpha, vax, sparc, pa-risc,....).

On 32-bit machines, 64-bit integers are presented as native by the compilers - but executed as a sequence of 32-bit integer operations.


I think what you meant instead of "not be using 64-bit math" was something like "not be doing performance-critical operations on 64-bit integers".

All computers are doing 64-bit integer operations today, but if you're crunching a lot of them a 64-bit CPU with native 64-bit integer support will have a big advantage.

[CholEoptera36]

All computers are doing 64-bit integer operations today, but if you're crunching a lot of them a 64-bit CPU with native 64-bit integer support will have a big advantage.

I agree with that. It's known by now(or atleast you'd think so) that running a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit processor will increase performance no matter what machine it's on, no matter what the usage is for. Yeah, as of the moment in time... there are applications that would need a 64-bit processor to run 64-bit performance-critical applications. And this might as of the time, rarely apply to the home user. But it won't be too long before today's performance-critical 64-bit apps are tomorrows normal apps. I guess it just makes more sense to me for Apple to move all out 64-bit first and establish that much and get everyone on the same page. A lot of Apple's strategy with upgrades is to move everone at a certain pace to keep us all upgrading togather. The G4 is falling further and further behind as time goes by. Now only eMacs and the Apple notebooks are left to upgrade to G5s. I think that should come first before Apple thinks about having anything multi-core. JMO

[AidenShaw]

It's known by now (or atleast you'd think so) that running a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit processor will increase performance no matter what machine it's on, no matter what the usage is for.

This is simply wrong - a fantasy based on the "bigger is better" belief (think "MHz Myth") and encouraged by Apple marketing.

Most programs will run *no faster* on 64-bit OS X, and many will run a bit slower compared to an identical 32-bit program running on a 32-bit OS X.

There are two main cases on OS X where a 64-bit CPU is an advantage over a 32-bit CPU of the same speed.


A program does extensive 64-bit integer operations
An application can improve its speed by using more memory (> 2 to 4 GiB)


In the first case, note that a 32-bit program on a PPC970 can take advantage of 64-bit integers by using a compiler option - there's no need to have a 64-bit OS. So, 64-bit integers are independent of a 64-bit OS.

The second case is the only true performance advantage of having a 64-bit OS. Here I use "64-bit OS" to mean an OS that gives applications 64-bit virtual address pointers and an individual application can address more than 2 to 4 GiB of RAM in a flat virtual address space. (Due to OS requirements, many 32-bit Os limit the application to something less than 4 GiB - for example Windows limits an app to 3 GiB of user space)

The typical example of the second case is a database application. On a 32-bit machine, the database is limited to caching 2 GiB (or so) of data in memory, and has to go to disk when the cache is full. On a 64-bit machine, the cache can be 4, 8, 10 or more GiB - and the database runs faster because fewer disk accesses are needed.


Why a 64-bit OS can be slower than a 32-bit OS

The increased memory capability comes at a cost - pointers are 64-bits (8 bytes) instead of 32-bits (4 bytes). This has two disadvantages:


It takes twice as much memory bandwidth to load and store pointers, which reduces the memory bandwidth available for other data and code
Pointers occupy twice as much space in cache, reducing the effective amount of cache available for other data and code


While this effect is usually quite small, some applications have a huge number of relatively small data structures with a number of pointers to other structures (e.g. doubly-linked lists, trees and meshes). Some applications can run significantly slower in 64-bit mode due to the larger pointers.


Summary - a 64-bit OS is of no advantage unless both...


You actually have more than 2 to 4 GiB of RAM installed
You have individual applications that need more than 2 to 4 GiB of RAM each.


It should be obvious that the database example won't run any faster unless you have the 6, 10 or more GiB of RAM installed. Same for almost any other 64-bit application - if it's not able to allocate more than 32-bits of RAM, it won't have any 64-bit advantage. And I used the word "both" because you don't need 64-bits for the system to support more than 4 GiB of RAM - Windows 32-bit supports up to 64 GiB of physical RAM per system.

Because of these factors, you should not be surprised when you discover that most programs won't be re-written for 64-bit addressing - they'll continue to be 32-bits forever. Why go to the expense and headache of developing and testing and support for 64-bits when your application won't need that much RAM?


Some exceptions....

As with most things in computer science, you can't use the words "all", "none", "always" and "never" when talking about a 64-bit OS. ;)

The above was written with OSX in mind, comparing a G4 to a PPC970. Some fuzzy points or counter-examples are:


For a system with between 2 GiB and 4 GiB of RAM, there may be some cases where a 64-bit OS lets a program use more memory than a 32-bit program due to operating system overhead issues.
For x64 systems (Intel's EM64T and Athlon64/Opteron), the processor instruction set is very different in 64-bit mode. There are more general purpose registers and some new instructions. Therefore an x64 program could be faster even if it doesn't need lots of RAM.
There are some "sparse addressing" algorithms that can use huge amounts of virtual memory, but very little real memory. Such a program could use 64 GiB of virtual memory, yet run happily on a 512 MiB system without paging.
Some applications simply need more than 4 GiB to hold their data -- but since these won't run on a 32-bit system, it's not an issue of being "faster" on a 64-bit system. :)



Fight the 64-bit Myth !!

[aus_dave]

AidenShaw you obviously know your stuff - what's the background behind MiB and GiB? I see those terms around a bit but the standard usage is MB and GB so I'm a bit confused :confused:.

[AidenShaw]

AidenShaw you obviously know your stuff - what's the background behind MiB and GiB? I see those terms around a bit but the standard usage is MB and GB so I'm a bit confused :confused:.

The "small i" in the suffix means that it is a binary multiple, not decimal.

The official international meaning of a prefix like "mega" is decimal ("mega" is 1,000,000 (10^6), not 1,048,576 (2^20)).

This is the reason that your new 250 GB disk seems small, the operating system will show you that it's 233 GiB. It's really the full 250 GB, it's just an accounting error in the OS display. (There's a myth that the 17 GB was lost in "formatting", but that's not true.)

The standards bodies are pushing for the "i" to distinguish the correct use of the decimal multiples from the binary forms.

See http://members.optus.net/alexey/prefBin.xhtml for a well written summary of the issue and proposals, with many links to statements from the official bodies like SI, IEC, IEEE, ISO, NIST and others.

The new prefixes are slowly being adopted by Linux and some members of the open source community.

There's currently a class-action suit charging computer companies with "deceiving" customers about the size of their hard drives - hopefully that will spur more operating systems to either shift to decimal displays or at least label their displays with "GiB" instead of "GB"

[aus_dave]

Ok, that's what I thought it might be - I've seen new hard drives lose 5% of their "space" straight out of the box before :). Thanks for the comprehensive explanation.

Just out of interest, a 'gib' is a male cat (especially a castrated one) according to Dictionary.com. Watch that capitalization :D.

[AidenShaw]

Just out of interest, a 'gib' is a male cat (especially a castrated one) according to Dictionary.com. Watch that capitalization :D.


Does that mean if Tiger adopts the binary prefixes we won't have to worry about little tiger kittens all over the place ?? :)

[CholEoptera36]

Most programs will run *no faster* on 64-bit OS X, and many will run a bit slower compared to an identical 32-bit program running on a 32-bit OS X.

Okay okay, I gotta be a little more careful how I word things.

All of what you said about ram and a 64-bit OS isn't news to me. I didn't mean that every application you run will be at an advantage at all, I meant you can see an increase in performance(which obviously depends on variables). But I guess you can take that to the moon if you wanted because it can be taken a lot of ways, so my mistake. I also wasn't relating what I said to any myth about 64-bit = speed... You said that not me. I said increased performance. And I also didn't say when or where you would find the increase in performance either. I wasn't talking about EVERY single app you run. I definitely understand that some apps actually run slower in 64-bit, and I understand all that stuff about how some companies won't be changing to 64-bit software(for PC software that would be like, updating drivers I think) This is actually why anyone who gets 64-bit Windows won't get jack out of it because there are hardly any 64-bit drivers so far. Correct me if I'm wrong AidenShaw I think that's right? Anyway I didn't say too much about where I was directing my statement so I guess I got no one to blame but myself for how you took it. Just so you know, I was not equating 64-bit with speed at all. I don't even want to be associated with a statement like that unless I said it which I didn't.

Interesting stuff you said though, about Gib and MiB I never knew that. I had always wondered when I got my first 40GB HD why it said something like, 37GB when reformatted. I just figured that a few gigs were taken up in system files that were automatically installed when the OS is installed. So that's interesting :)

[AidenShaw]

Okay okay, I gotta be a little more careful how I word things.

All of what you said about ram and a 64-bit OS isn't news to me. I didn't mean that every application you run will be at an advantage at all, I meant you can see an increase in performance(which obviously depends on variables). But I guess you can take that to the moon if you wanted because it can be taken a lot of ways, so my mistake. I also wasn't relating what I said to any myth about 64-bit = speed... You said that not me. I said increased performance. And I also didn't say when or where you would find the increase in performance either.)

Now you've confused me.... :o

Your previous post said "running a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit processor will increase performance no matter what machine it's on, no matter what the usage is for". The "no matter what the usage is" phrase sounds to me like everything will be faster.

What is "increased performance" if it is not "higher speed"? Can you give any concrete examples?

In other words, is it fair to paraphrase your latest post as "no application will run any faster, but you'll have increased performance" ??? ( ;) Of course it's not fair, but what do you really mean?)

And I'll take a pretty strong stand that if you have 2 GiB or less of RAM you almost certainly will not see any increase in performance or higher speed due to 64-bit virtual addressing support in the OS.

(And again, since 32-bit systems can support more than 4 GiB of RAM, higher performance due to large memory doesn't require a 64-bit OS. I have Windows 32-bit servers that are using most of their 32 GiB of RAM - and they are getting much higher performance than if they had 4 GiB.)


This is actually why anyone who gets 64-bit Windows won't get jack out of it because there are hardly any 64-bit drivers so far.

There are plenty of drivers for new hardware, but compared to the enormous number of legacy drivers available for 32-bit Windows it would seem like there's "hardly any".

Realize, of course, that anyone using 64-bit Windows is buying a new machine with a new CPU and motherboard - so it's not that a big of a problem to make sure that the new hardware that you buy for your new system has drivers available.

It's something to look out for, but I'd think that any Mac person is well aware of the need to check driver support before buying a piece of hardware !!

[CholEoptera36]

Now you've confused me.... :o

Your previous post said "running a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit processor will increase performance no matter what machine it's on, no matter what the usage is for". The "no matter what the usage is" phrase sounds to me like everything will be faster.

Yeah that's the exact statement I apologized for. I didn't mean "no matter what the usage is for" to be something like, "no matter what app under all circumstances." I concede that was a bad choice of words, definitely. I meant you can use 64-bit to increase or enhance performance no matter if it's at home or office, that's what I meant by usage. I don't like to get into all the "concrete evidence" stuff cause then everybody loves to pick you apart on every technical thing you say. But.. Okay I will show you a few articles I've bookmarked from the past which might shed light on where I was comming from.

Here's something interesting I read about SQL Server 2000:
http://whitepapers.zdnet.co.uk/0,39025945,60092563p-39000372q,00.htm

Didn't you say you run a MS server with 32Mib of ram? That would be nice to get a second oppinion from you on this article since I don't run a server, I just read what it has to say on this site.

Here's another article on how to optimize programing with 64-bit. It's a little old, so I dunno about the validity of the situation as of the moment with programing. But if you want to read it here it is:
http://bmagic.sourceforge.net/bm64opt.html

Now do you have to have anything more than a home computer to be a programer? I'm not a programer, I'm an HVAC tech which is why I'm asking.

Now you can find a lot of benchmarks on the web by now that show examples of how you would be at a greater advantage to staying with 32-bit, this is just to show you an example of how I agree that 64-bit can definitely run slower depending on what apps you're running. In this case for gamers, 32-bit is built up so well that it wouldn't do you much justice at all to go 64-bit:
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=39&page=1

I don't mean to be confusing, but it's hard for me to word my possition without it comming off that way. I tell you what though, I didn't include articles from like, AMD or other companies like that and I'll tell ya why. I gave you some articles and a benchmark from other parties that perhaps might not be bias. I wouldn't want to provide a link on here from like, AMD who makes a 64-bit CPU. There is info out there from companies like that who will state that you will see an increase in system performance per say to them making a sale. Like you said Apple marketing strategy does this too.

I'm not really objecting to anything, my statements were rather nebulous. If I'm just totally wrong about what I'm saying it's because of things I've read or learned when I was in college. If I'm missunderstanding that you can optimize performance by using 64-bit then it's because of the sources I get info like anyone else. Either I am missuderstanding what they mean, or they're not very legit. What they're saying makes sense to me though.

[AidenShaw]

I'm not really objecting to anything, my statements were rather nebulous.

OK, I looked at your references, and we're more or less saying the same thing (except for that "all usage" line ;-) ).

Your first two links fall into the "if you have more than 4 GiB, *and* you have a 64-bit application that can use more than 4 GiB, then 64-bit will be a win" category. In fact, your SQL Server link is exactly my "database cache" example.

The third link is an Unreal Tournament review where they looked at how the "extra stuff" that you get with 64-bit on x64 really helps. Again, something I mentioned in my "exceptions" section because it is irrelevant to 64-bit on OS X.

(The PowerPC "book e" architecture is a 64-bit architecture, with a specific subset for a 32-bit implementation that has 32-bit pointers and omits all the 64-bit integer operations. G4 is 32-bit "book e", the PPC970 is a 64-bit "book e" except that it didn't implement the "little-endian" support that Virtual PC has been using).

[gekko513]

(The PowerPC "book e" architecture is a 64-bit architecture, with a specific subset for a 32-bit implementation that has 32-bit pointers and omits all the 64-bit integer operations. G4 is 32-bit "book e", the PPC970 is a 64-bit "book e" except that it didn't implement the "little-endian" support that Virtual PC has been using).
Ouch ... how will that affect the performance of Virtual PC on the G5 when the new version comes out?

It sounds like it would slow to an even slower crawl than before.

[gekko513]

You're missing the point.

"5" (as in "G5") is bigger than "4" (as in "G4"), therefore the "G5" is obviously better than "G4" - so we must have it.


[/sarcasm]


It doesn't matter if a dual-core G4 makes a lot more sense, marketing is pushing a "G5"....
ah .. noh noh no ...

a dual-core G4 makes it a G8, hence better than G5 :p

[AidenShaw]

ah .. noh noh no ...

a dual-core G4 makes it a G8, hence better than G5 :p

:)

[AidenShaw]

Ouch ... how will that affect the performance of Virtual PC on the G5 when the new version comes out?

It sounds like it would slow to an even slower crawl than before.


No information, but I suspect that the repeated delays in getting the G5 version out are related to getting the performance back to "slow crawl" on a G5.

Apple shouldn't have let IBM give them "most of a PowerPC" in the 970 - they should have realized that implementing the full spec was important.

[thatwendigo]

This is completely unrelated, because you've basically argued every point I would have (and possibly better ;) ), but it's been bugging me for a while. Is that your cat in your avatar, Aiden?

If so, what's the breed? I have my suspicions, but I don't want to tip my hand just yet.

[aswitcher]

This is completely unrelated, because you've basically argued every point I would have (and possibly better ;) ), but it's been bugging me for a while. Is that your cat in your avatar, Aiden?

If so, what's the breed? I have my suspicions, but I don't want to tip my hand just yet.

I am guessing a Maine Coon, perhaps a brown tabby

[AidenShaw]

If so, what's the breed? I have my suspicions, but I don't want to tip my hand just yet.

Yes. Maine Coon, classic tabby with white.

Thanks for the good word....

[thatwendigo]

Yes. Maine Coon, classic tabby with white.

Thanks for the good word....

Ah, yes.

I adore Maine Coons, which is why I have three of them. One's a brown mackeral tabby, one a silver-point tabby with white socks, and one a brown calico. The first two came from the same breeder, the last from another when our originaly 'dealer' (because, face it, these rumply monsters are like drugs) moved across the country and took her cattery with her.

[AidenShaw]

(because, face it, these rumply monsters are like drugs)

Big cats, small voices. And always into any open water....

We've got two, same tom, different moms, six months apart. The other is a solid black. The black's mom is a silver tabby (http://www.coonyham.com/gifs/baci1.jpg). They're not too big, only 17-18 lbs each (at 2 years).


Here's the dad - Lone Star, a decorated show cat (http://www.coonyham.com/males.html) - he has a thing for ladders, which the black one picked up.

http://www.coonyham.com/gifs/lonestar11.jpg

Tabby's mom - Dixie Chick

http://www.coonyham.com/gifs/dixie-16.jpg

Black's mom - Baci

http://www.coonyham.com/gifs/baci1.jpg


Enough pictures of the kid's ;)

[pigwin32]

Big cats, small voices. And always into any open water....

We've got two, same tom, different moms, six months apart. The other is a solid black. The black's mom is a silver tabby (http://www.coonyham.com/gifs/baci1.jpg). They're not too big, only 17-18 lbs each.

Man you guys should get a room, or maybe find an appropriate news group. Here we are on the cusp of a new PB, well ok maybe not the cusp but RSN, and you're talking about small furry animals?

[AidenShaw]

Man you guys should get a room, or maybe find an appropriate news group. Here we are on the cusp of a new PB, well ok maybe not the cusp but RSN, and you're talking about small furry animals?

Agreed, but this thread is more or less dead now....

[CmdrLaForge]

With all that cats, can't help but wonder where has this thread gone ???

Back to topic: I guess with the new iMac the G5 Powerbooks is not that far away :D :D :D :D :D :D

[thatwendigo]

Back to topic: I guess with the new iMac the G5 Powerbooks is not that far away :D :D :D :D :D :D

To go back on-topic...

iMac G5 dimensions: 1930.66in^3
PowerBook 17" dimensions: 157.08in^3
PowerBook 15" dimensions: 143.17in^3
PowerBook 12" dimensions: 110.61in^3

There's at least three times the mass and ten times the colume to dissipate heat from the iMac. This means absolutely nothing for a PowerBook.

[CmdrLaForge]

To go back on-topic...

iMac G5 dimensions: 1930.66in^3
PowerBook 17" dimensions: 157.08in^3
PowerBook 15" dimensions: 143.17in^3
PowerBook 12" dimensions: 110.61in^3

There's at least three times the mass and ten times the colume to dissipate heat from the iMac. This means absolutely nothing for a PowerBook.

Are you kidding me ? How much place do you think does the display itself need ? And how much space is there for the actual computer.

G5 powerbook - here it comes. I guess we see it in January.

[aswitcher]

Are you kidding me ? How much place do you think does the display itself need ? And how much space is there for the actual computer.

G5 powerbook - here it comes. I guess we see it in January.

Well thats a possibility but they'll have to shave another inch off the thickness and still keep it cool... I wouldn't be surprised its still a year away.

[CmdrLaForge]

Well thats a possibility but they'll have to shave another inch off the thickness and still keep it cool... I wouldn't be surprised its still a year away.

I don't think its a year away. Now with a that fast iMac (1.8GHz) for little money the powerbooks are lacking a little bit behind performance wise (in a price-performance comparison) If they knew that they couldn't get the G5 in a powerbook for another year it seems unlogical for me that they released the G5 iMac now. They could have speed bumped the iMac first. But they didn't. Thats another reason why I think we see updated G5 Powerbooks sooner then a year.

[aus_dave]

G5 powerbook - here it comes. I guess we see it in January.See it in January - shipping in June :D.

I think there is something funny going on with PBs, there are supply problems (in Australia anyway) and the iPod promotion is designed to run out stock. So they are definitely starting to clear the decks if you ask me.

[CmdrLaForge]

See it in January - shipping in June :D.

I think there is something funny going on with PBs, there are supply problems (in Australia anyway) and the iPod promotion is designed to run out stock. So they are definitely starting to clear the decks if you ask me.

If we see another update now in October or November then it can take a while. I guess June 05.

[pigwin32]

If we see another update now in October or November then it can take a while. I guess June 05.
Average update is 171 days and we're now at 134 days, guess there may be an update imminent. How sad if we're offered a minor increment in GHz when G5's are appearing elsewhere.

I want my 2GHz PB G5 (or G4 dually).

[MikeBike]

Average update is 171 days and we're now at 134 days, guess there may be an update imminent. How sad if we're offered a minor increment in GHz when G5's are appearing elsewhere.

I want my 2GHz PB G5 (or G4 dually).

Well, you guys dying for a G5 Powerbook, I think you've got your wish.
It's not exactly a powerbook,
but, it's definitely far more portable then the old IMac.

- Apple needs to sell a case with wheels for it.
- It's a great deal 20 inch screen and G5 1.8.

If that's what you guys really wanted, I think Steve was listening.

Looking at that board layout,
it looks like it will be a while before there's a board shrink for a PowerBook.

[pigwin32]

Well, you guys dying for a G5 Powerbook, I think you've got your wish.
It's not exactly a powerbook,
but, it's definitely far more portable then the old IMac.

- Apple needs to sell a case with wheels for it.
- It's a great deal 20 inch screen and G5 1.8.

If that's what you guys really wanted, I think Steve was listening.

Looking at that board layout,
it looks like it will be a while before there's a board shrink for a PowerBook.
Hmmm, actually in the G5 iMac I was looking for a small aluminium headless cube but that's just me. And why would the board layout for the G5 iMac bear any resemblance to the PB? I don't want a skinny iMac, I want a PowerBook and I think Apple might use alternative engineering techniques for producing mobile motherboards.

[Bobcat37]

Average update is 171 days and we're now at 134 days, guess there may be an update imminent. How sad if we're offered a minor increment in GHz when G5's are appearing elsewhere.

I want my 2GHz PB G5 (or G4 dually).

Bleh, well personally I can't really wait any longer. I'm just going to risk it an order a 12" PB sometime this weekend probably. As long as they don't make any major upgrades (as in G5 or dual-G4) in the next few months I'll be happy.

[CmdrLaForge]

Well, you guys dying for a G5 Powerbook, I think you've got your wish.
It's not exactly a powerbook,
but, it's definitely far more portable then the old IMac.

- Apple needs to sell a case with wheels for it.
- It's a great deal 20 inch screen and G5 1.8.

If that's what you guys really wanted, I think Steve was listening.

Looking at that board layout,
it looks like it will be a while before there's a board shrink for a PowerBook.

And you are right !! Since yesterday I really started thinking about getting the 20" version. You can easily carry it around in your house. Just one plug. The iMac could really be an alternative.

[gian]

Well, you guys dying for a G5 Powerbook, I think you've got your wish.
It's not exactly a powerbook,
but, it's definitely far more portable then the old IMac.
...
Looking at that board layout,
it looks like it will be a while before there's a board shrink for a PowerBook.

It seems you're right.
From http://www.macitynet.it/macity/aA18865/index.shtml, reporting on the Expo:
Some journalists met Greg Joswiak who said that the iMac is an important step forward, but a portable G5 is still "quite far" from being released.

[MikeBike]

It seems you're right.
From http://www.macitynet.it/macity/aA18865/index.shtml, reporting on the Expo:
Some journalists met Greg Joswiak who said that the iMac is an important step forward, but a portable G5 is still "quite far" from being released.

The way I see it, with a carrying case with wheels, you get a G5 Transportable, 20 inch screen, for around $2200, with extra memory, firewire and bluetooth including case(?). That's a heck of a deal.

Esp. since the G4 1.5 Powerbook 17" goes for around $2900.

[CmdrLaForge]

It seems you're right.
From http://www.macitynet.it/macity/aA18865/index.shtml, reporting on the Expo:
Some journalists met Greg Joswiak who said that the iMac is an important step forward, but a portable G5 is still "quite far" from being released.

Unfortunatly you are right, i read that interview as well. I guess I will go with a iMac instead

[cloud 9]

well, it's so obvious now why there isn't any word on a new g5 powerbook.

if the new g5 book now came out, the imac wouldn't sell at all, it's all marketing...

[aswitcher]

Unfortunatly you are right, i read that interview as well. I guess I will go with a iMac instead

Well the 20" to me seems like a good buy. G5PB second rev is likely 18months to 2 years away. You could always sell your iMac at that time under Applecare if you really want a portable G5

[iAtom]

well, it's so obvious now why there isn't any word on a new g5 powerbook.

if the new g5 book now came out, the imac wouldn't sell at all, it's all marketing...

That's not the reason they haven't released a G5 Powerbook. They just can't get a G5 into that small a package, and it consumes way to much power. The current G5 chip probably won't ever be in a Powerbook. They will probably come out with a MoblieG5 chip or something that consumes less power and runs cooler.

[CmdrLaForge]

Well the 20" to me seems like a good buy. G5PB second rev is likely 18months to 2 years away. You could always sell your iMac at that time under Applecare if you really want a portable G5

Or I keep my iMac and get the Powerbook in addition
:eek: :D :D :eek:

I will not buy a new Mac for the next 8 month anyway, because I am traveling. But on my return I neeeed a new Mac, because of all the video material and photos I have collected.

[aswitcher]

Or I keep my iMac and get the Powerbook in addition
:eek: :D :D :eek:

I will not buy a new Mac for the next 8 month anyway, because I am traveling. But on my return I neeeed a new Mac, because of all the video material and photos I have collected.

8 months...I dare say you'll see a second rev iMac by then ... 2.0GHz, 128 meg vram :)

[CmdrLaForge]

8 months...I dare say you'll see a second rev iMac by then ... 2.0GHz, 128 meg vram :)

Yes, I thinks so too. Should be at least around the corner. So... I will get a second rev iMac
:D :p ;)

I really like the new design, I think that even so its just announced its already a classic.

[slipper]

i think with a dual core processor, the new powerbooks will be more powerful than the new g5 iMacs

[CmdrLaForge]

i think with a dual core processor, the new powerbooks will be more powerful than the new g5 iMacs

Yes, I think so too (at the same clock speed) Thats why I would buy one in a second (if the next 8 month are over)

[cloud 9]

That's not the reason they haven't released a G5 Powerbook. They just can't get a G5 into that small a package, and it consumes way to much power. The current G5 chip probably won't ever be in a Powerbook. They will probably come out with a MoblieG5 chip or something that consumes less power and runs cooler.

well, it was the first thing that popped into my mind after seeing the imac. :)

[rich22]

i just had a thought, would it be possible to change the power supply, as apple say its upgradable, and replace it with a battery? and also i heard that the display was upgradable. Would this mean we could change the iMac into a portable tablet? Or is the G5 really that power hurry as apple say it is?

One other thing, i wouldn't mind betting on a bluetooth dock for the iPod before to long, so that there really is only one wire on your desktop.

Info here:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=636

[~kilroy~]

Yes, I think so too (at the same clock speed) Thats why I would buy one in a second (if the next 8 month are over)

I agree... A dual core G4 at 1.5 Ghz would smoke a G5 in a imac.
They will not get a G5 in a powerbook at anything more than 1.6 GHZ if at all(its just too hot of a chip).

[thatwendigo]

i just had a thought, would it be possible to change the power supply, as apple say its upgradable, and replace it with a battery? and also i heard that the display was upgradable. Would this mean we could change the iMac into a portable tablet? Or is the G5 really that power hurry as apple say it is?

Yes, the 970 is that power hungry, which is why there isn't a portable and the only small form factor is using a lower clocked part. Also, just why would you want an eighteen pound "portable tablet?"

One other thing, i wouldn't mind betting on a bluetooth dock for the iPod before to long, so that there really is only one wire on your desktop.

Uh...

I really shouldn't be doing this while my head is alredy hurting, but I'm going to finish this before I sleep.

Let's do a little basic math.

Bandwidth:
FireWire 400 -- 400Mbit/s = 50MB/s
FireWire 800 -- 800Mbit/s = 100MB/s
USB 2.0 -- 480Mbit/s = 60MB/s
802.11b -- 11Mbit/s = 1.375MB/s
802.11g -- 54Mbit/s = 6.75MB/s
Bluetooth -- 1Mbit/s = 0.125MB/s

Take a song that's 4MB in size, then apply the speeds:
FireWire 400 = 0.08s
FireWire 800 = 0.04s
USB 2.0 = 0.067s
802.11b = 2.92s
802.11g = 0.59s
Bluetooth = 32s

If you transfer just one CD at low sample rate, that's less than a second for the data to be sent (more for the actual writing) with the current FireWire or USB 2.0 linkages. Make it Bluetooth and you lose all ability to charge while transferring, while also boosting load time to over six minutes for just twelve songs.

[aswitcher]

Let's do a little basic math.

Bandwidth:
FireWire 400 -- 400Mbit/s = 50MB/s
FireWire 800 -- 800Mbit/s = 100MB/s
USB 2.0 -- 480Mbit/s = 60MB/s
802.11b -- 11Mbit/s = 1.375MB/s
802.11g -- 54Mbit/s = 6.75MB/s
Bluetooth -- 1Mbit/s = 0.125MB/s

Take a song that's 4MB in size, then apply the speeds:
FireWire 400 = 0.08s
FireWire 800 = 0.04s
USB 2.0 = 0.067s
802.11b = 2.92s
802.11g = 0.59s
Bluetooth = 32s

If you transfer just one CD at low sample rate, that's less than a second for the data to be sent (more for the actual writing) with the current FireWire or USB 2.0 linkages. Make it Bluetooth and you lose all ability to charge while transferring, while also boosting load time to over six minutes for just twelve songs.

And this is why in time for Christmas (hunch) a wifi attachement for the iPod will appear that allows streaming to AX and synching wth a mac...

[thatwendigo]

And this is why in time for Christmas (hunch) a wifi attachement for the iPod will appear that allows streaming to AX and synching wth a mac...

I seriously doubt that we'll see broadcastable iPods, just because the RIAA would burst an artery over digital portable transmitters. They don't mind the phones so much, I gather, because of some kind of DRM management, but Apple's FairPlay is already somewhat weakened by the efforst of DVD Jon.

Without hardcore encryption, it won't happen.

[aswitcher]

I seriously doubt that we'll see broadcastable iPods, just because the RIAA would burst an artery over digital portable transmitters. They don't mind the phones so much, I gather, because of some kind of DRM management, but Apple's FairPlay is already somewhat weakened by the efforst of DVD Jon.

Without hardcore encryption, it won't happen.

Well an iPod attachment that supported airtunes and encrypted (WPA) comms for link with a mac would be perfectly legal and fine with fairplay because effectively nothing has chnaged to the existing arrangements...merely another device has been added to the mix. Sure DVD Jon has pocked holes in it but if you let hackers terrorise you from making a lot of legit money then your never going to progress anything technology based because there are always problems...just look as MS...maybe they should can their OS because of all the problems its causing ;) I think that an attachement allowing control of music from the iPod wirelessly would promote sales, and flow onto sales at the iTunes store which should make the RIAA members happy. The state of affairs with illegal downloads is being led by Apple...the RIAA would be foolish to hamper that growth.

I am not sure about building AE into the pod but an attachment should be fine given the 2.4GHz spectrum is regulated internationally as "public" for the scientific, medical and industrial use.

[thatwendigo]

Well an iPod attachment that supported airtunes and encrypted (WPA)... Sure DVD Jon has pocked holes in it but if you let hackers terrorise you from making a lot of legit money then your never going to progress anything technology based because there are always problems...

The RIAA has sued even more file traders (8/25/04 story) (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&ncid=689&e=1&u=/nm/20040825/music_nm/media_music_suits_dc)

BMI posts record profits. Again. (http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/20040903-4156.html)

It's become increasingly clear that the RIAA doesn't give a damn about fair use or the rights of consumers, which proves that it's entirely possible to do something about the hackers. They're making obscene profits, the governments are playing along, and we all get screwed.

You play their game or you get sued. That's the reality.

just look as MS...maybe they should can their OS because of all the problems its causing ;) I think that an attachement allowing control of music from the iPod wirelessly would promote sales, and flow onto sales at the iTunes store which should make the RIAA members happy. The state of affairs with illegal downloads is being led by Apple...the RIAA would be foolish to hamper that growth.

I'm sorry... You seem to be laboring under the idea that the RIAA [i]isn't[i] foolish to begin with, as you could plainly see if you remembered they're suing the demographic that provides most of their money. Also, Apple's sales are - overall - negligible, when compared to their tried and true hardcopy recordings, especially with the protections they're doing on their own.

I am not sure about building AE into the pod but an attachment should be fine given the 2.4GHz spectrum is regulated internationally as "public" for the scientific, medical and industrial use.

Is broadcasting music scientific, medical, or industrial?

[aswitcher]

The RIAA has sued even more file traders (8/25/04 story) (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&ncid=689&e=1&u=/nm/20040825/music_nm/media_music_suits_dc)

BMI posts record profits. Again. (http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/20040903-4156.html)

It's become increasingly clear that the RIAA doesn't give a damn about fair use or the rights of consumers, which proves that it's entirely possible to do something about the hackers. They're making obscene profits, the governments are playing along, and we all get screwed.

You play their game or you get sued. That's the reality.


If they are successfully suing inappropriate use of their music then I agree you have big business and the government (law makers and enforcers) to blame.


I'm sorry... You seem to be laboring under the idea that the RIAA [i]isn't[i] foolish to begin with, as you could plainly see if you remembered they're suing the demographic that provides most of their money. Also, Apple's sales are - overall - negligible, when compared to their tried and true hardcopy recordings, especially with the protections they're doing on their own.



Well if they are a rabid dog then no logical discussion is going to get us anywhere.

Piracy is rampant and the artists are pissed, so the RIAA going after them is not just big business, so beware demonising these actions when the law supports them.

As for Apple, ITS is having a positive impact in reducing the growth of illicit downloads so that has to impress the RIAA who will never win a legal battle against illicit file sharing through the US courts against a world population and increasingly clever file sharing systems...imho


Is broadcasting music scientific, medical, or industrial?

Its an internationally recognised public band where as long as you stay under the db limits your ok...although transmitting music might violate copyright unless you have an appropriate protection like AirTunes...

[Raiden]

Apple works with Motorola, and IBM starts doing neat stuff whilst Motorola spins in the toilet. Apple jumps ship. IBM goes into a tailspin. Motorola starts doing neat stuff. Murphy's law. You switch lanes in traffic, the faster lane you switched to will grind to a halt and the lane you just got out of starts moving.

reminds me of the beginning of the movie 'Office Space'. So true...

[MacFan26]

reminds me of the beginning of the movie 'Office Space'. So true...
Haha, indeed. I love the part where Samir is swearing :D

[nxent]

On a side note: Anyone think that M$ bought up all the G5s from IBM (for a few hundred million in untraceable notes) for their next generation X-Box? (Isn't it rumored to use 3 of them?) Forcing a G5 shortage for Apple to bring them down?[/QUOTE]


i highly doubt this consideration how much control they have over their products. my guess is apple has some agreement with ibm that doesn't allow g5 chips to be sold to anyone other than apple itself.