PDA

View Full Version : No More Motorola?


arn
Jul 30, 2002, 08:33 AM
Relative rumor newcomer, iRumors.net claims that Apple and Motorola will be parting ways:

Within the next few months, Apple will have ditched Motorola processors for its high end computers.


Various rumblings over the past few months have hinted at a focus on IBM processors, but not quite to this extreme.

update: the site in question admitted that this rumor was simply from an email rather than from any legitimate source Subsequently has been removed from the main site.

Backtothemac
Jul 30, 2002, 08:47 AM
OMG! Thank God. I hope that AMD and Apple would partner to build the PPC chips. That would be much better, even more so than IBM and Apple. AMD can put out a really good proc, and we all know that Apple needs it.

gandalf55
Jul 30, 2002, 08:56 AM
if motorola can't pull their weight, too bad. apple needs better, faster procs. than what's been produced so far. big time. ya, Mhz Myth... but know what? PCs are indeed faster right now.

sjs
Jul 30, 2002, 08:57 AM
This is the best possible move. Apple will never get switchers to move in large numbers when trailing 3ghz to 1 ghz in the perceived speed race.

If you can't beat em, join em. Welcome IBM, Athlon and Intel!

sturm375
Jul 30, 2002, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
OMG! Thank God. I hope that AMD and Apple would partner to build the PPC chips. That would be much better, even more so than IBM and Apple. AMD can put out a really good proc, and we all know that Apple needs it.

I second that. I too hope Apple and AMD will come together. It almost makes sence since AMD and nVidia have teamed to produced the nForce2. With the rumors about the next apple Mobo having nForce2 chipset, an AMD processor would be natural.

Plus, according to the AMD "roadmap" later this year they will be releasing the 0.13u Multipule Process (MP). That means essensially up to 2.5 Ghz (or more) effectivly (comparitive rating against the P4), in the dual processor line-up, and less power and heat. Then of course they are 6-12 months away from releasing the 64-bit processors.

Sounds good to me.

Mr. Anderson
Jul 30, 2002, 09:05 AM
To say the least, this sort of change would be huge, do we say goodbye to the AltiVec Engine? Its actually a bit worrisome - but if this was in the works, I'm sure Apple has a plan - I just hope it works.

The other options for processors are a little limited - and would IBM be able to handle all the MacProcessors? What do they have that would go in the pro line. And I new B2TM would be in here yelling 'AMD, AMD, AMD'

I'd like to see some more facts though - the timeline in the article isn't exactly solid.

D

mcrain
Jul 30, 2002, 09:08 AM
Wow, even after all the grumblings here, I didn't actually expect this.

What will they use in the high end computers? A heavily upgraded G3? What about altivec? I know IBM has those Power4 chips, but aren't they pricey?

This would be a major event.

Maybe the Power4 chip requires a 7 pound aluminum heat sink????

danman
Jul 30, 2002, 09:11 AM
Enter the AIA alliance (Apple, IBM, AMD)!!

IBM and AMD are already relative buddies. Can't see this being a problem.
And if the Nvidia rumors are true, is Apple poised to capitalise on the economies of scale and energy in the x86 (Nvidias mainboard parts, and AMD's fabs for processors) world whilst not giving up any of the advantages of the PowerPC platform?

Then again, there may be no AMD atall, IBM are lining up Power4's little brother (perfect for Mac workstations) and Power5 (targetted straight at workstation markets and servers alike)

Things are beginning to get interesting, even if it's all wrong and Motorola -does- deliver on G5 for the desktop.

dwishbone
Jul 30, 2002, 09:14 AM
what does IBM have that could go in a pro line?
if you stick one of their G3 processors in a board with DDR RAM and overall increased motherboard speed it would smoke any G4 model currently shipping. IBM has G3 chips much faster than anything Apple is allowed to sell due to a licensing agreement between Apple, IBM, and Motorolla. IBM supposedly has had G3 series chips running at or near the 2 Ghz range for some time now. Take a look at the new Sahara series G3. That thing is a freakin hause compared to previous G3 chips. Also, look at the Gecko, the modified G3 that they have running in the Nintendo Gamecube. That thing is awesome and can hang with anything that the PS2 and the XBox can dish out.

obeygiant
Jul 30, 2002, 09:15 AM
hey. I don't much about this stuff, but won't they have to rewrite all their programs?

danman
Jul 30, 2002, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by obeygiant
hey. I don't much about this stuff, but won't they have to rewrite all their programs?

Unlikely. Apple will probably stick with the PowerPC platform (no move to x86 chips), eEither by continuing development of the G4/G5 in house with IBMs help, or by moving to the Power4 (which is also a PowerPC chip.. just designed differently for a different market (servers))

G4scott
Jul 30, 2002, 09:20 AM
Now this is a really stupid rumor.

Apple may ditch motorola in the future, but not within the next couple of months. Apple has hyped Alti-Vec as a 'wonder' tool, and now that there are major apps optimized for Alti-Vec (photoshop, FCP, iDVD), Apple would have to be insane to drop motorola, unless Apple buys Alti-Vec from motorola, and lets another chip maker use the technology, or they have a blazingly fast processor that runs these apps fast enough so that Alti-Vec is not needed.

If Apple buys the Alti-Vec technology and lets another chip maker use it, it would probably set Alti-Vec back, since Motorola knows more about it than anyone else. If Apple did away with Alti-Vec, it would be a big waste. Apple, and other major companies have optimized their code for Alti-Vec, and all of that work would go to waste.

I would count on Apple sticking with Motorola for at least another year. Apple can't afford to play around with things like this right now. They'll probably wait until the economy is in better shape before making any drastic changes...

gopher
Jul 30, 2002, 09:22 AM
I suspect Apple will work on acquiring the patents for Altivec from Motorola and start making their own chip manufacturing plant. It would be to the benefit of Apple to produce its own chips since software/hardware integration happens at all levels right down to the processor. The problem contracting work to others is you never maintain total control over production.

zimv20
Jul 30, 2002, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by dwishbone
IBM has G3 chips much faster than anything Apple is allowed to sell due to a licensing agreement between Apple, IBM, and Motorolla.
where did you hear/read/see this?

bretm
Jul 30, 2002, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by obeygiant
hey. I don't much about this stuff, but won't they have to rewrite all their programs?

I don't believe so. That is what an operating system is for. The interface between the programs and the hardware.

mcrain
Jul 30, 2002, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by gopher
I suspect Apple will work on acquiring the patents for Altivec from Motorola and start making their own chip manufacturing plant. It would be to the benefit of Apple to produce its own chips since software/hardware integration happens at all levels right down to the processor. The problem contracting work to others is you never maintain total control over production.

That would be a huge mistake. There is no way apple would be able to profitably make chips from scratch in a brand new facility. They would be far better off keeping the status quo over building their own chip plant.

topicolo
Jul 30, 2002, 09:29 AM
I agree. It is utterly insane to think that Apple would build a chip foundary. Do you know how much those things cost? Billions ($5-10 billion). Apple (the entire company) is only worth $5 billion right now. There's no way that's going to happen!

Still, I applaud the fact that Apple may possibly be ditch that good-for-nothing Motorola. I just just hope Apple jumped that sinking ship in time to protect their own assets. Motorola's cratering, and anyone who are still with them will be left in the dust

Macmaniac
Jul 30, 2002, 09:34 AM
But what about the G5 chip from moto? By ditching moto this put us back to square one. It would take a long time for AMD to make Apple compatible chips and IBMs top chip costs too much. I think if Apple is to drop Moto they should get the G5 out first then make sure they have a chip that is similar so they can replace moto.
My real 2 cents is that this is total BS..... but who knows:confused:

iGav
Jul 30, 2002, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet
To say the least, this sort of change would be huge, do we say goodbye to the AltiVec Engine? Its actually a bit worrisome - but if this was in the works, I'm sure Apple has a plan - I just hope it works.

The other options for processors are a little limited - and would IBM be able to handle all the MacProcessors? What do they have that would go in the pro line.

I'd like to see some more facts though - the timeline in the article isn't exactly solid.

D

I second that......... it'd be interesting to know exactly what chips IBM manufacture that Apple could use in the high end macs..... it sure as hell isn't going to be a G3..... and judging by the pricing scales of the Power4 it's unlikely to be that either....... (we still don't know if IBM do have a scaled down Power4 for Apples to use)

Switching to AMD is also unlikely unless AMD have developed a PPC...... because I really cannot imagine Apple switching chip architecture........

What ever happens though the coming few months certainly look to be filled with very interesting developments......... :)

DakotaGuy
Jul 30, 2002, 09:59 AM
Relax and take a breath, this is only a rumor. Who knows what Apple has going on behind closed doors. I think we can be safe to say that the PowerPC is going to stay. It is a good design, Apple has always sworn by it, and Apple needs to truly be different and with PowerPC it is, you have to be different if you are trying to get dissatified people away from WinTel.

Anyhow like it was said before, who is going to build the G5? Maybe the G5 is in fact an IBM product. Alti-Vec can be licensed and used, even if IBM is hesitant about it, they would do it if Apple asked. I still think if you took the new "Sahara" G3 from IBM and slapped Alti-Vec on it, pumped that baby to 1.6GHz or more, which I think IBM can do, throw in your famous DDR RAM, you would have an AMD/Intel ass kicker. Just my two cents.

SPG
Jul 30, 2002, 10:09 AM
The whole things seems way too fishy to me. The site is pretty weak on specifics and their other stories aren't really any better... I can't see them being a credible source, even for a rumors site.
Ditch Motorola? Hang on a sec, we're all a little bit annoyed with the seemingly slow progress in the G4's, so this rumor is a good way to get the anti Moto crowd fired up, but in reality this kind of switch would set Apple back further and faster than anything. Altivec is the engine that makes all the serious powered media apps go, and now it is becoming a big part of OS X too. All the claims of IBM having a 2ghz or 22ghz Sahara chip are flat out BS. IBM always claims things before they can actually do them, and then claims theoretical limits as the next specs. If they could do it, we'd have it.
I do not want to lose Altivec unless there is something much much better. Not a ghz rating that doesn't do me any good, that's why I use macs instead of a 2ghz PC that can't do what I need it to.

DakotaGuy
Jul 30, 2002, 10:20 AM
I don't know if the rumors about a 2GHz G3 Sahara are all that untrue. Correct me if I am wrong and please don't flame on me, cause I don't do any of this stuff for a living, but isn't the G3 only a four stage processor? If they can make a 4 stage processor run at 1GHz which they have done, we just don't see it in the iBook yet, because it would blur the line between it and the TiBook, then what happens when you give this chip more pipeline stages, like Intel did with the P4? I don't think you need to add many more to get this puppy's clock spinning at 2GHz. Then you slap Alti-Vec on it...now what on earth is wrong with that? Except the marketing that says, Apple's new PPC 2 GHz G3, w/Velocity Engine...people would be like..what the hell is going on here....hehe a G3 replaces a G4??? Hey it's good for a laugh and some discussion.

sturm375
Jul 30, 2002, 10:35 AM
Why not AMD?


1) Won't the developers have to re-write their code for the new processor?
a. They shouldn't. If they follow standards, they should be programming for the OS APIs, not directly to the hardware. It's Apple's job to program for the hardware and provide the "hooks" for the developers. They might have to re-compile, but that is/should be a very minor thing.

2) OS X isn't ready for the x86 architecture.
a. It's kernel is BSD (or a form of it), which can be comiled for the x86 world. Apple might have some serious tweaking for the other layers of the OS, like Darwin, Aqua, etc, but I'll bet somewhere there is already a prototype OS running on an x86 box.

3) OS X won't be propriatary anymore, and support will go to hell.
a. Apple will be making a propratary Mainboard, and just has to state they will not support any other. Use it at your own risk on any other Mainboard.

Am I missing something?

Future Man
Jul 30, 2002, 10:39 AM
Why is Motorola Canada president Frank Maw talking to irumors.net?

mischief
Jul 30, 2002, 10:47 AM
Before you all go off on how a G3 is nowhere near as cool as a G4 go read the stats and architecture for the 750FX. This and IBM's core-connect architecture could make G5 a cluster of several CPU's all linked core-to-core.....

How about a high speed IBM switch chip with 2 AMD's and 2 750 FX's running through it to a 2 Ghz bus?


http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/coreconnect/

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/products/PowerPC_750FX_Microprocessor?opendocument&dsort=date

eirik
Jul 30, 2002, 10:51 AM
Despite the horrible grammer, this new site quotes and IDENTIFIES its source, that's refreshing.

As for the rest of the article, its a bit incoherent as far as the writing goes. The writing of the article resembles that of a post in macrumors: subject/verb agreement; ambiguous pronouns, too many grammatical subjects per paragraph; spelling errors; and discontinuous segues from paragraph to paragraph.

Eirik

Mr. Anderson
Jul 30, 2002, 10:55 AM
now the idea of two different types of cpus on the same board? hmmm, I'm thinking OSX would need to be rewritten a bit to handle that.

I agree that this whole thing doesn't smell quite right.

codecrafter
Jul 30, 2002, 11:00 AM
The level of industry investment behind x86 (both processors and associated components) is too high for Apple to ignore. Apple needs to concentrate on what it does best (system design and OSX), and buy the rest. Motorola quite focusing on best-of-breed microprocessors long ago. Their core business is cell phones.

With OSX, it shouldn't be hard to support multiple processor architectures at the same time. Developers just compile an executable for each architecture and bundle each executable in the application's .app bundle.

sergeantmudd
Jul 30, 2002, 11:01 AM
I am so sick of everyone and their damn Power4 rumors. POWER and PowerPC are NOT the same architecture. The AIM alliance took the POWER architecture, took out all the old crud and added some stuff. The result is the PowerPC architecture. The architectures are very similar, but they are not the same thing. Now as for the Power4, it understands both POWER and PowerPC instructions. It does this the same way the Pentiums understand the x86 instructions, it breaks the instructions down and runs a more efficient internal RISC machine. The Power4 is NOT a native PowerPC chip.

sturm375
Jul 30, 2002, 11:03 AM
Another way to look at this is economically. Since Apple doesn't produce it's own CPUs, it is a consumer of said product. As a consumer, it is always best to have venders competing for your $. In the PPC world, there are 2 manufactuers: IBM and Moto, and Moto has as much said they don't wish to continue non-imbedded CPU R&D. Which leaves one, and I don't believe IBM is very intrested in selling non-imbedded CPUs. They have already sold off their Hard Drive manuafacturing division, I doubt they want to expand right now.

Comptition is good!

There are at least 3 manufactures of x86 CPUs: Intel, AMD, and Transmeta. Apple being the largest single computer manufacture, each of these companies would be jumping at the chance to sell CPUs to them. Also compitition brings more development, and faster, better product.

Also, Steve Jobs has been quoted recently as saying Apple is always looing for options. Choice is good!

Backtothemac
Jul 30, 2002, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by topicolo
I agree. It is utterly insane to think that Apple would build a chip foundary. Do you know how much those things cost? Billions ($5-10 billion). Apple (the entire company) is only worth $5 billion right now. There's no way that's going to happen!

Still, I applaud the fact that Apple may possibly be ditch that good-for-nothing Motorola. I just just hope Apple jumped that sinking ship in time to protect their own assets. Motorola's cratering, and anyone who are still with them will be left in the dust

Well, actually, Apple is worth more than 5 billion. They have 4.5 Billion in cash reserves. The company is probably worth somewhere between 20 and 30 billion.

BenRoethig
Jul 30, 2002, 11:28 AM
A couple of things.

1. I thought Apple had the option of buying all desktop PowerPC assets, Altivec included, from Motorolla.

2. AMD chips aren't true x86 chips. They use a x86 compatibility layer. I wonder if it would be possible to develop a PPC compatiblity layer.

3. I heard Motorolla was looking to sell the plant that in which the G4s are made. The potential buy was said to be AMD.

akos33
Jul 30, 2002, 11:41 AM
Just one thing. First they write about this the 28th of July 2002.

"Firstly, Powermacs. Next month, they will recieve a new look and slightly faster processors (1.2Ghz - dual 1.4Ghz). Then, in the middle of 2003, we will welcome the G5. This new supercomputer will feature a processor with speeds in excess of 1.6Ghz, and early versions will top out with a dual 1.8Ghz processor. The system bus on all machines will also be boosted."

And 2 days later the 30 of July 2002.


"after a discussion with Motorola Canada president Frank Maw on July 25, he quite happily told our sources that product developement has already ceased on non-imbeded PowerPC processors."

Now how is that for contradiction? I don't belive in "Irumors" anymore.

:cool:

sjs
Jul 30, 2002, 11:46 AM
Apple is worth:
355.7 million shares oustanding
X the share price of $15.23
= about $5 billion at this moment in time.

Apple will not build a chip plant. Period.

synergy
Jul 30, 2002, 11:53 AM
SJS is right, their market capitalization is around the 4-6 billion mark.


As for these rumor sites they seem to be popping everywhere out of the woodwork. What is it these days with rumor sites?

pgwalsh
Jul 30, 2002, 12:00 PM
It's only a rumor and since I haven's seen it printed by a more reputable source, I find it skeptical. However, I could see Apple buying AltiVec from Moto and then licensing it to IBM or AMD. Maybe they could buy the PPC architecture for the G4 too and have one of the above companies fab the chips.

Archer
Jul 30, 2002, 12:01 PM
Taken from an article entitled Is Apple swithcing to Intel? (http://www.shaneanderson.com/iwrite/02/isappleswitching.html).



Is Intel the best choice? There are other processors out there, even other RISC processors, the same technology behind the PowerPC. In fact, AMD's Athlon is a RISC processor with a hardware RISC to CISC emulation engine, and it also features a vector instruction co-processor remarkably similar to the G4's AltiVec, or what Apple calls the Velocity Engine. They've been having their own speed differences and have joined Apple in trying to shine light on the so called Megahertz myth.

Take it for what it's worth. Cheers, more fuel to the fire. :p

lordsinforge
Jul 30, 2002, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by bretm


I don't believe so. That is what an operating system is for. The interface between the programs and the hardware.

You are mistaken here. Essentially teh OS is a collection of programs that work together do do things like divy up memory and clock cycles, and to remember what the prossessor does with the resources. If what you were saying were true then we could all run win32 apps on OSX with just a minor tweek to the os. But in fact you would have to emulate the x86 chip and change x86 machine code into PPC machine code on the fly (taking up a lot of resources.

So while yes it is possible that we could run ppc osx apps on a theoretical osx box running on a x86 chip the ammount of system resources that you would have to dedicate to doing instruction conversion would make it inpractical. It would slow down a x86 chip slower that it already seems in comparision to ppc hardware.

And think about it Apple wopuld not only have to rewrite osx for the x86 but also os9.x so that you could user your classic apps on your new machine.

Therefore the only practical solution for software if Apple switches to x86 hardware is to make the developers tweek their software and recompile it for the x86 boxes. And developers would not be happy with having to support both a PPC and a x86 version of their software. For both osx and os9 if they already have a 9 version of the software. Not happy at all

No it would be rather impractical for Apple to go to x86 hardware. If they do leave moto they will stick with the PPC architecture

LS

Archer
Jul 30, 2002, 12:08 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I know you guys will if I am, but isn't OSX basically NextStep (BSD), which is OpenStep, which is native on x86. The port from Jobs and company was to move their tech from x86 native to PPC. Wouldn't it be far easier to move the lot back to x86?

The Firmware hardcoded into the system and you'll still have pretty Apple boxes. If Apple would go on the cheaps perhaps they can outsource their hardware like they do with the iPod. Perhaps the iPod is reflecting the future of Apple. Let others spend R&D on hardware, pick best of breed technology, that's including Procs. and add that special Apple touch to the design, inerface, and software to the mix and you may have the future of all Apple products.

Oh, screw OS 9, it's dead. If you want to use 9 get on Ebay and buy an older Mac.

Wes
Jul 30, 2002, 12:12 PM
To be honest I've never heard of transmeta.

drastik
Jul 30, 2002, 12:32 PM
Well, one thing can be said of Moto, their execs are either incredibly ballsy or just to stupid to see whats happening in corporate america:

Front Page, NY Times:

Christopher B. Galvin, the chairman and C.E.O. of Motorola, sold 40,000 shares in the company last Wednesday, the day before it announced the resignation of its president, Edward D. Breen.

sturm375
Jul 30, 2002, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by lordsinforge


You are mistaken here. Essentially teh OS is a collection of programs that work together do do things like divy up memory and clock cycles, and to remember what the prossessor does with the resources. If what you were saying were true then we could all run win32 apps on OSX with just a minor tweek to the os. But in fact you would have to emulate the x86 chip and change x86 machine code into PPC machine code on the fly (taking up a lot of resources.


It is you who are mistaken. You are thinking of the GUI, not the OS. The GUI is not the OS. So while it is true that there would be some tweaking done at Apple to refine the GUI, and re-compile it for x86, it is by far not impossible. Look at KDE, a Linux/Unix Desktop GUI. Runs on both x86, and PPC. KDE would be similar to Aqua (I think thats the right layer), anyway the program that draws the pretty pictures of translucent buttons on you OS X windows. That is just one, of many desktop GUIs that run on both types of CPUs.

check out this difinition of an Operating System:

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/o/operating_system.html

I have taken Computer Science classes, and do know what I am talking about when it comes to these concepts.


Originally posted byW-_-W
To be honest I've never heard of transmeta.



Transmeta is a revolutionary processor that is extreamly power effecient. It will scale down depending on the amount of use it gets, so if on a normal computer you are getting 99% idle time, the Transmeta will reduce speed accordingly.

http://www.transmeta.com/

TechLarry
Jul 30, 2002, 12:46 PM
Halla-freakin'-luya!

If this happens, we need to have a street party all around the nation :)

TL

eirik
Jul 30, 2002, 12:54 PM
While I was a bit critical of the writing, I am impressed with the fact that they actually quote and name the source. That is iRumors has a quote from an officer of the company, albeit Motorola Canada. That's pretty solid. I wouldn't go out and build a house on it but its damn good. Quoting officers from corporations, that's what credible news outlets do!

MOSR credited old 'school pals'. I like MOSR but their source and hence their quad CPU statement lacks credibility.

TechLarry
Jul 30, 2002, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by sjs
Apple is worth:
355.7 million shares oustanding
X the share price of $15.23
= about $5 billion at this moment in time.

Apple will not build a chip plant. Period.

Um, I guess Assets, Accounts Receivable, Cash-On-Hand, and Stevies Helicopter don't count...

:)

TL

mischief
Jul 30, 2002, 01:00 PM
Darwin runs on x86:

http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/Darwin/IOKit/IOKitFundamentals/index.html

http://sourceforge.net/projects/xonx

"What is Darwin? Darwin is the core of Mac OS X. The Darwin kernel is based on FreeBSD and Mach 3.0 technologies and provides protected memory and pre-emptive multitasking. Darwin runs on PowerPC-based Macintosh computers and a version is also available for x86-compatible computers."

peterh
Jul 30, 2002, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by sergeantmudd
I am so sick of everyone and their damn Power4 rumors. POWER and PowerPC are NOT the same architecture. The AIM alliance took the POWER architecture, took out all the old crud and added some stuff. The result is the PowerPC architecture. The architectures are very similar, but they are not the same thing. Now as for the Power4, it understands both POWER and PowerPC instructions. It does this the same way the Pentiums understand the x86 instructions, it breaks the instructions down and runs a more efficient internal RISC machine. The Power4 is NOT a native PowerPC chip.

According to IBM, the "POWER4 is a 64 bit PPC ISA chip," no matter what it does internally, so was the POWER3. That means it used the PowerPC Instruction Set Architecture. If you want to program for it you need to used the PPC ISA because that is how it talks to the world. The P4 and Athlon are both IA-32 ISA chips for the same reason. IBM abandoned the POWER architecture when the designed the POWER3, there may be some of the ISA left for compatibility though. In other words, if you wrote and compiled a 32 bit program to run on AIX on a 604, it would run, without any software compatibility on a POWER4 machine. You do have to recompile AIX4 64 bit binaries though to run on AIX 5. Therefore, if Apple created a motherboard, and did some minor changes to the root level of OS X, you could run Photoshop 7 on a POWER4 based machine.

As for the sahara G3, actually the PPC750Fx, IBM lists it as availible in up to 1GHz, not 2 GHz. I don't know what it would take to get it to 2 GHz. As for it outperforming the G4, it all depends on how it is used. In scalar integer performance, I believe the two chips are pretty near equivalent. The mult/div latency on the MPC745X is slightly longer but has the same throughput. The latency oon add/sub is still one cycle. The scalar FPU when using single precision numbers is also similar. Longer latency on the G4 but the same throughput (5:1 for the 745X, vs 3:1 for the 750Fx), remember if you can keep the functional units fed, on heavy, independent calculations the throughput has more bearing on performance. For double precision the G4 outclasses the G3 significantly, since there is not change in latency:throughput. On the G3 using the Fused-Multiply-Add (FMA), which is used for all DP adds, multiplies, and add-multiplies, if the multiplier is not 1 the latency throughput goes from 3:1 to 4:2, in other words the FPU slows down by a factor of two. Incidentally the POWER4 FPU is a 6:1 unit. Then there is the Altivec VPU, which works on Fixed point vectors, and single precision FP vectors Both chips have similar size L1 cache, and on die L2 cache. The PPC750Fx has 512K, and the MPC7455 has 256k. Additionally the 7455 allows for up to 2MB DDR L3 cash running at up to 533 MHz, effective. Neither chip supports DDR system bus access. The PPC750Fx officially supports a FSB of ~200MHz vs. ~133MHz for the 7455 (though most will work on a faster bus). The PPC750Fx, does not have nearly as complete SMP support as the MPC7455.

Where does this leave us? Well if you write code the uses data larger than 256K, and smaller than 512K, the PPC750Fx will most likely be faster than the 7455 at the same clock speed, even with AltiVec. This is due to the L3 cache and main memory latency being so high >38 cycles. However, if the data is less than 256K the 7455 will hold its own, and exceed the 750 for double precision and vector computations. If the data is greater than 512K but less than 1 or 2 MB the 7455 will clean the 750's clock. Larger still data sizes will tend to favor the 7455 because of its deeper cache structure. The POWER4 of course will win outright because it has twice as many fully functional fixed anf floating point units per core as the PPC750, it has two cores per die, and 1.4MB of L2 cache on die, which looks to the cores to be ~467K in size, for lower latency. The L2 throughput is about 100GB/sec. It also has a huge DDR L3 cache.

In conclusion the 750Fx will not smoke the 7455. In fact since its memory bus isn't really any higher bandwidth and its caches are shallower, it will be slower Mhz for MHz than the 7455 for most operations that don't fit in the 256K<X512K data sizes. Also multiprocessing is more efficient on the 7455, meaning that a much greater boost in performance can be achieved by MPing a 7455 machine. Therefore, if Apple really wants significantly improved performance from an IBM chip they need one that has a DDR FSB, a high throughput FPU, good SMP, 512K L2, and capability to used an L3 (no matter what you do a 2MB L3 will be lower latency than 512MB-1GB main memory, even at the same effective clock speed. Can Apple get IBM to do this? Most likely, if they are wiling to pay enough.

BenRoethig
Jul 30, 2002, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by akos33
Just one thing. First they write about this the 28th of July 2002.

"Firstly, Powermacs. Next month, they will recieve a new look and slightly faster processors (1.2Ghz - dual 1.4Ghz). Then, in the middle of 2003, we will welcome the G5. This new supercomputer will feature a processor with speeds in excess of 1.6Ghz, and early versions will top out with a dual 1.8Ghz processor. The system bus on all machines will also be boosted."

And 2 days later the 30 of July 2002.


"after a discussion with Motorola Canada president Frank Maw on July 25, he quite happily told our sources that product developement has already ceased on non-imbeded PowerPC processors."

Now how is that for contradiction? I don't belive in "Irumors" anymore.

:cool:

iRumors didn't talk to the Motorola guy, Mac Buyers Guide did.

PyroTurtle
Jul 30, 2002, 01:24 PM
i guess apple will make do and just make proc's faster, sence moto sucked at it...i'm sure that whatever we're left with will be just fine and satisfy all our needs...

Backtothemac
Jul 30, 2002, 01:27 PM
Hey TL,

Well said, well spoken. There is more to a company's value than market capitalization.

BenRoethig
Jul 30, 2002, 01:29 PM
Sorry, double post.

myrdred23
Jul 30, 2002, 01:41 PM
To the person who said that iRumor's posts contradict each other and that they said 1.6ghz g4s will be released:

They say DEVELOPMENT of new procs has stopped thus if they have already developped the 1.6ghz why not sell them? But they wont come out with higher ones etc.

Another thing, the rumor that there will be Quad Proc G4s also makes sense with this one ---> moto stopped making faster units so apple aware of this and not having alot of options decided to stick 4 of those on a board to achieve decent speed etc.

Also to all those people wanting AMD: do you know how hot they get? even though they are more efficient than the P4s per mhz, doesnt mean they eat the same amount of energy as G4s, In fact they are much hotter than the pentiums! Of course the new motherboard with the 7lb heatsink would support this, but also quad G4s so who knows.

Oh and to the rumors of 2ghz g3s, I have not been following this closely but they released info of a 1ghz g3 almost (if not longer than) a year ago, so it would be possible that they have a 2ghz one right now - the reason apple doesnt put those in ibooks is that how would consumers react if a 1200 dollar ibook would be higher clocked than the top end towers?

Joshlew
Jul 30, 2002, 02:17 PM
If Apple releases quad G4s on the 5th, then I'll want one!!!!!!!!:eek: :D :D
(Guarenteed!!!!!!!!!!!);)

This wont be the case if Apple adopts AMD's processors however...........:(

mischief
Jul 30, 2002, 02:53 PM
that if CPU manufacturing moves to AMD that it will be an AMD chip and not a PPC designed by IBM and APPLE to be BUILT by AMD.:rolleyes:

Time for a "what if".

What If:

Apple buys out their options at Moto per the AIM contract. Apple then turns to IBM and AMD/nVidia to design a custom architecture sharing IBM's G3, Moto's Altivec and AMD's High speed mobo architecture. The resulting chip would be a BEAST and require a "Custom ASIC" Bus interface that could easily include toys like nForce, Rapid I/O and DDR.

So: Take an IBM 750FX, add AltiVec, DDR support, Core-Connect (IBM), L3 Cache Support, Rapid I/O, 3DNOW (AMD), and throw it all in a blender with a little Vodka.....:D :cool: :eek: :p ;) :rolleyes:

G4scott
Jul 30, 2002, 03:03 PM
Ok... Let me start out by saying this... Apple will not ditch the PowerPC line of chips for at least 3 years. We will see 1.4-1.5 Ghz G4's in August, and we will see the G5 in the middle of next year. Apple knows that even if Motorola can't keep up in the microprocessor world, IBM is more than willing to jump in and pick up where Motorola left off.

When Apple first introduced the G4's, IBM had to make some of them because Motorola couldn't churn out enough working 500mhz chips. I'm pretty sure that IBM can make chips with alti-vec on them, and if the need arises, then they will.

Apple will NOT and I emphasize, NOT switch to the x86 platform any time soon. That would be a disaster, and then we'd be stuck with the same problem m$ will be stuck with when the x86 platform can't go any faster... The x86 architecture is OLD. It's like OS 9, it's been upgraded and patched so many times, it's hard to tell what it is now. The x86 platform is heading straight towards a brick wall at 3 Ghz, and Apple wants to stay clear from that disaster.

Motorola has plenty of tricks up their sleeves, but they just can't seem to get high speed chips out in enough numbers to make Apple happy. But, if Motorola fails Apple, there will always be IBM. Besides, Motorola is taking hard hits with the economy and losses. They're just trying to save their asses, so that there will be a Motorola 2 or 3 years from now.

Apple has too much at stake to ditch the PowerPC platform. Whether they keep up with Motorola, or switch to IBM, your Mac will still be using a chip with the PowerPC architecture.

Oh, and a note on Mac processors, there will be 1.4-1.5 Ghz G4's with DDR in August, and we will have G5's by this time next year. I am positive of this, and not just because of reading some rumor sites. The immediate future of Apple and Motorola may look grim, but we've been through worse, and we have to endure this downturn in the economy and see things through.

Stick with Apple, and you will see...

topicolo
Jul 30, 2002, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by TechLarry


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by sjs
Apple is worth:
355.7 million shares oustanding
X the share price of $15.23
= about $5 billion at this moment in time.

Apple will not build a chip plant. Period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Um, I guess Assets, Accounts Receivable, Cash-On-Hand, and Stevies Helicopter don't count...



TL

so you're saying that Apple can only fund stuff with its liabilities? :rolleyes: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :rolleyes:

jettredmont
Jul 30, 2002, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by bretm


I don't believe so. That is what an operating system is for. The interface between the programs and the hardware.

Well, sort of true. The OS provides services that the source code takes advantage of. However, once a program is compiled, it is in "machine code" for the particular target CPU. That's not portable to a different CPU architecture unless you use a heavy, performance-killing VM/emulation layer (think VirtualPC).

If Macs were to move from PPC to AMD Hammer, for instance, or Intel Itanium, or Sun SPARQ (heaven forbid not x86!), no matter how nice the OS is, all apps would need a recompile to run at "respectable" levels.

But, that having been said, I can hardly see Apple changing processor immediately after the OS X changeover ... this would be a huge PR mistake. You either change them both at once, or space out the changes so that people don't end up buying the same app three times in the space of a year.

jettredmont
Jul 30, 2002, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by codecrafter
The level of industry investment behind x86 (both processors and associated components) is too high for Apple to ignore.

Why not? Intel is ignoring it (Itanium is not x86 compatible ... two years from now x86 is essentially dead unless AMD's Hammer hybrid takes off).

light
Jul 30, 2002, 04:08 PM
I have just three words....... RISK verses CISK. Which one would you rather have? Personally, I think the RISK processor technology has way more potential than the aformentioned.
No thanks on the x86 chips.

jettredmont
Jul 30, 2002, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by sturm375


It is you who are mistaken. You are thinking of the GUI, not the OS. ... Look at KDE, a Linux/Unix Desktop GUI. Runs on both x86, and PPC. KDE would be similar to Aqua (I think thats the right layer), anyway the program that draws the pretty pictures of translucent buttons on you OS X windows. That is just one, of many desktop GUIs that run on both types of CPUs.


Yes, the OS provides a whole set of services. But, again, look at your example: unless you are downloading source code and compiling it yourself on Mandrake Linux for PPC and Mandrake Linux for Intel, every app you download in binary form will have one for the PPC architecture and one for the Intel architecture. The hardware is not COMPLETELY insulated from the application unless you go to a VM (Java-style) model where the "application" instructions get translated to hardware instructions. An application is compiled for a specific processor, and that is where it runs.

Which, again, leaves Apple with providing a VirtualPC type of layer (but in reverse), or leaves all developers to recompile all applications for the two architectures, and possibly distribute both versions side-by-side. Or, more likely, both (provide the slow but workable VM for apps not yet recompiled and re-bought, and ask developers to support both platforms for a time). For the consumer, you end up with both confusion (same product name and version for two different architectures on the store shelves) and frustration (history shows that even though it's just a recompile, the developers will generally charge full price to move from one platform to the other, or will at least charge something for the "upgrade").

barkmonster
Jul 30, 2002, 04:13 PM
I can't see Apple ever moving to x86 based chips.

Like people have said, Apple have the option of buying the rights to altivec and the desktop PPC line from motorola, IBM could and already have in the early stages of the G4s introduction make G4s for apple.

DakotaGuy
Jul 30, 2002, 04:25 PM
Okay what if Apple does what some of you would like to see and go with an x86 chip. Then Apple says what the heck, everyone knows the Intel name, so lets use that one. Some of you will be overjoyed to get your hands on that 3GHz Pentium 4 Power Mac, then of course we could put a big blower in the TiBook and get one of those nifty Mobile P4's in there. What do they run at... 1.2GHz. Okay now on to the consumer line...well we might as well throw out that G4 iMac, cause we can't have some PPC and some x86, so lets stick about a 1.6 P4 in there. Okay now we have to keep the price down on the eMac and the iBook, so we dump the G4 out of the eMac and stick a PIII running around 1.2Ghz and last that poor iBook...well heck if we are having this much fun dump that crappy G3 "Sahara" and stick in the worlds famous Celeron.

I DO NOT like this idea at all. Maybe you will go ahead on the pro machines, but the consumer machines will be crap. If you go Pentium 4 across the line...it would turn into a GHz marketing nightmare...this is all a dumb idea. Stick with Power PC...If Motorola won't do it, then buy out their part of the alliance and work with IBM.

sturm375
Jul 30, 2002, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont


Yes, the OS provides a whole set of services. But, again, look at your example: unless you are downloading source code and compiling it yourself on Mandrake Linux for PPC and Mandrake Linux for Intel, every app you download in binary form will have one for the PPC architecture and one for the Intel architecture. The hardware is not COMPLETELY insulated from the application unless you go to a VM (Java-style) model where the "application" instructions get translated to hardware instructions. An application is compiled for a specific processor, and that is where it runs.

Which, again, leaves Apple with providing a VirtualPC type of layer (but in reverse), or leaves all developers to recompile all applications for the two architectures, and possibly distribute both versions side-by-side. Or, more likely, both (provide the slow but workable VM for apps not yet recompiled and re-bought, and ask developers to support both platforms for a time). For the consumer, you end up with both confusion (same product name and version for two different architectures on the store shelves) and frustration (history shows that even though it's just a recompile, the developers will generally charge full price to move from one platform to the other, or will at least charge something for the "upgrade").

I hope you are wrong on this, however if you are right, the application programmers should be shot. The way I understand application programming, which I am doing right now. You program in something, for instance C++, you then run a compiler program. The compiler program makes an exicutible file, that has married the C++ code to the OS APIs. This compiler can be issued from Apple, or some third party vendor. Therefore you can take the written C++ code and port it into any OS/Hardware combo as long as you have a compiler available for that platform.

Going from OS 9.x to OS X was very different because even though OS X is a mix of some existing technology, it was pretty much new. They needed to build new APIs, the APIs that they had are completly different than any before.

If what you are saying is true, than C programming would be completely different on a PPC machine, compaired to a WinTel machine. This I know is not true.

I will concide this, Apple will probably not go to the x86 processer, but not because of technical details. It will be because they are too proud to use a processors that they have been bashing for years. It's simple, they are too darn proud to allow us consumers the oppertunity for less expensive computers. They've got you, and your wallet.

pgwalsh
Jul 30, 2002, 04:37 PM
Everybody wants me and my wallet. Too bad there's nothing in it. :D

ibookin'
Jul 30, 2002, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by mcrain


That would be a huge mistake. There is no way apple would be able to profitably make chips from scratch in a brand new facility. They would be far better off keeping the status quo over building their own chip plant.
I agree. Apple is in no position to either design or manufacture its own CPUs. I think that Apple would do much better by persuading IBM to license the AltiVec patent from Motorola and then use the 1.5-2GHz G3 in their machines. A G3-based PowerMac with AltiVec and a GeForce 4 would smoke both the current line of PowerMacs and PCs. I don't think Apple should abandon the PowerPC platform just yet, but they should stop using Motorola's chips.

pianojoe
Jul 30, 2002, 04:45 PM
Sorry if this is a stupid question:

Has Apple ever announced, or admitted, that it will use a new processor called "G5" in forthcoming machines, or is it just our "common sense" to assume that after the G3, and the G4, there must be a G5?

I understand that this assumption is based on Motorola's roadmap, but did Apple ever comment on this?

jettredmont
Jul 30, 2002, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by sturm375


I hope you are wrong on this, however if you are right, the application programmers should be shot. The way I understand application programming, which I am doing right now. You program in something, for instance C++, you then run a compiler program. The compiler program makes an exicutible file, that has married the C++ code to the OS APIs. This compiler can be issued from Apple, or some third party vendor. Therefore you can take the written C++ code and port it into any OS/Hardware combo as long as you have a compiler available for that platform.


First of all, the compiler handles the CPU, not the OS frameworks and libraries. It won't, for instance, change your Aqua windowing calls to MS Windows windowing calls. It wont change your OpenTransport network calls to WinSock (but if you used posix instead you'd be 90% of the way there...). But, yes, as has been stated: if OSX itself, and all related Apple services, were on x86 hardware, moving an application over should just require a recompile (except that there are a significant number of apps that rely upon specific hardware characteristics, like the endian ordering of integers, that would require a bit of extra love and care).

You are missing the point.

Recompiling isn't difficult (usually). What is difficult is that you then have to distribute two different versions of your application.

Say you, as a consumer, own a copy of Adobe Photoshop 7. You go out and buy a new Mac today, move Photoshop over to the new computer (removing it from the old computer of course), and the world is okay. However, if the "new" Mac was an x86 machine running OSX/86, you wouldn't be able to just move your Photoshop copy over. You'd have to go to the store and "upgrade" to the same program compiled for the new processor.

This makes upgrading hardware inordinately expensive for anyone with any software investment whatsoever. You know how much success Apple has always had getting WinTel users to switch over to the Mac? Having to rebuy all their software is the biggest reason.

And, of course, lest you think there might be a silver lining on that cloud, no, WinTel users would not find the WinTel -> Mac switch easier. They would still have to buy new software, not because the machine code would be utterly different, but because the OS and related services are completely different (and that difference is not just a recompile on the part of the application programmer).

ktlx
Jul 30, 2002, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by light
I have just three words....... RISK verses CISK. Which one would you rather have? Personally, I think the RISK processor technology has way more potential than the aformentioned.
No thanks on the x86 chips.

I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but people should pop over to ArsTechnica.com (http://www.arstechnica.com) and read some articles about processor design. At one time there were significant differences between RISC and CISC but over time those differences have faded. RISC processors have become more CISC like and vice-versa. There is an article comparing and contrasting the P4 and G4 which is the most appropriate to this discussion.

Overall the discussion about ISAs in this forum seems pretty silly. I doubt anyone writing and complaining about various ones or expounding on others develop at the level where an ISA even matters. Unless you are developing in very specific parts of a kernel, the ISA of the underlying architecture is of almost no concern. The frameworks and OS APIs are what matter to nearly all developers these days.

That said, anyone who seriously thinks Apple will turn to AMD and AMD will embrace Apple in the near team (2002-2003) is on crack.:D As others have said so much better than I, Apple has way too much invested in G4 and AltiVec and too much on their plate with Mac OS X transitioning to even think about that. Similarly, AMD is not going to do anything right now that would jeopardize their 64-bit effort.

Frobozz
Jul 30, 2002, 05:47 PM
What I find so alarming is that people in this forum are saying we'll jump ship to AMD or Intel. Not's not bloodly likely, folks... not unless they're doing the manufacturing of a PPC chip. It's far more likely that IBM will simply pick up the reigns for PPC chip production, and include AltiVec-- which Apple or IBM can purchase the rights from Motorola.

In order to change the actual chip platform, it'd require another "dark-age" of transition. Apple doesn't want or need this right now. Do you _really_ think they'll get all these publishers who just got done with an Carbon app to now make it a Carbon x86 app? Thay're not even making Cocoa apps yet! A lot of the perceived slowdown in OS X is because software engineers are not building exclusively for OS X in it's native language-- objective C. When was the last time you used a Cocoa app that seems slow? Never.

Concerning AltiVec-- they won't drop that any time soon. It's a MASSIVE speed boost over comparable CPU's per clock cycle. If they don't license it from Motorola, they can always make their own version (like Intel), but make it compatible with AltiVec. After all, if they make a AltiVec eXtreme, it could be so fast as to emulate original AltiVec code. Apple has done work with people who even do real time code-morphing.

To summarize: if the manufacturer of the chip changes, it will be to take the place of PPC/Altivec manufaturing... and NOT to change computing platforms.

kenohki
Jul 30, 2002, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont

Recompiling isn't difficult (usually). What is difficult is that you then have to distribute two different versions of your application.

Say you, as a consumer, own a copy of Adobe Photoshop 7. You go out and buy a new Mac today, move Photoshop over to the new computer (removing it from the old computer of course), and the world is okay. However, if the "new" Mac was an x86 machine running OSX/86, you wouldn't be able to just move your Photoshop copy over. You'd have to go to the store and "upgrade" to the same program compiled for the new processor.

This makes upgrading hardware inordinately expensive for anyone with any software investment whatsoever. You know how much success Apple has always had getting WinTel users to switch over to the Mac? Having to rebuy all their software is the biggest reason.

And, of course, lest you think there might be a silver lining on that cloud, no, WinTel users would not find the WinTel -> Mac switch easier. They would still have to buy new software, not because the machine code would be utterly different, but because the OS and related services are completely different (and that difference is not just a recompile on the part of the application programmer).

Apple's OS X package architecture allows you in theory (haven't seen it done in application yet with OS X) to package two different binary executables within a folder renamed with a .app extension. The OS can then manage the execution of the correct binaries based on the hardware profile.

akos33
Jul 30, 2002, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by myrdred23
To the person who said that iRumor's posts contradict each other and that they said 1.6ghz g4s will be released:

They say DEVELOPMENT of new procs has stopped thus if they have already developped the 1.6ghz why not sell them? But they wont come out with higher ones etc.


If you read more closly. They talk about the G5 NOT the G4.

"Then, in the middle of 2003, we will welcome the G5. This new supercomputer will feature a processor with speeds in excess of 1.6Ghz, and early versions will top out with a dual 1.8Ghz processor."

It's all right here. Also note: "and early versions..." This means they don't have a clue of what they are talking about.

alex_ant
Jul 30, 2002, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by peterh
IBM did do a design of a POWER4 based processor for desktop and potentially laptop applications for Apple. Apple was working on a chipset to support it. IBM actually fabbed samples of this chip. They were development samples, but actual silicone none the less. What does this mean? In the grand scheme of things, very little. It is up to Apple to decide if they have any use for such a chip, considering it has been "done" for 9 or so months.
Do you have any links that address this?

Johnny7896
Jul 30, 2002, 06:19 PM
After the huge mess when moto couldn't produce Faster G4 over 500 mhz, apple should have dropped them. Even now, IBM puts out a 1mhz G3 before Moto puts out their 1Mhz G4. What a slap in the face. Moto sucks at making modern day processors period. They need to stick to communications products only. The G4 is not much faster than the G3 still, but it has more enhancements. Then main reason they moved to the G4 so quick was to distance themselves from the IBM G3. Apple guessed wrong. They should have asked IBM to support a new chip with enhancements. I'm sure Apple was promised the sky by Moto, but Moto had no idea what the were getting into. IBM would have kept it real and produced on time results. I hope Apple will move to Amd or IBM soon.

alex_ant
Jul 30, 2002, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by light
I have just three words....... RISK verses CISK. Which one would you rather have?
I've never heard of CISK. RISK is great though - I usually fight for North America early on, then stock my guys up in Mexico and Alaska and Iceland as the game progresses, and finally burst forth and take the entire world!

alex_ant
Jul 30, 2002, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by pianojoe
Sorry if this is a stupid question:

Has Apple ever announced, or admitted, that it will use a new processor called "G5" in forthcoming machines, or is it just our "common sense" to assume that after the G3, and the G4, there must be a G5?

I understand that this assumption is based on Motorola's roadmap, but did Apple ever comment on this?
As far as I know, no. They never comment on forthcoming machines in fear of hurting sales of their present machines.

alex_ant
Jul 30, 2002, 06:28 PM
Steve Jobs hates x86. He only ported OpenStep over as a last-ditch effort. If money were not a concern, I think he'd rather port OS X back to M68K than go to x86. :D

ktlx
Jul 30, 2002, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by kenohki

Apple's OS X package architecture allows you in theory (haven't seen it done in application yet with OS X) to package two different binary executables within a folder renamed with a .app extension. The OS can then manage the execution of the correct binaries based on the hardware profile.

You know this whole x86 thing brings up an interesting question. If Apple were to go x86 or Itanium, would their major software parnters follow suit? Let's say I am Adobe, Macromedia or Microsoft. What incentive do I have to recompile and ship an x86 or Itanium version of my application? Microsoft Windows is already running on that processor architecture with over a 95% market share. How many of my customers are going to buy the new systems and can I justify the increased distribution and support costs? Sure recompiling is trivial but distribution and support are not.

The same question goes for the publishing and graphics industry. If I am going to go through the pain of moving to an x86 or Itanium system, why not go the full distance and switch to Microsoft Windows? My guess is that most publishers and graphics artists are not computer zealots and faced with this level of change may decide to go all the way and put themselves on a commodity hardware and software platform. For myself, once I am in Photoshop, I don't really notice too much whether I am on Mac OS or Windows beyond the very superficial level.

switchfiend
Jul 30, 2002, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by sturm375


It is you who are mistaken. You are thinking of the GUI, not the OS. The GUI is not the OS. So while it is true that there would be some tweaking done at Apple to refine the GUI, and re-compile it for x86, it is by far not impossible. Look at KDE, a Linux/Unix Desktop GUI. Runs on both x86, and PPC. KDE would be similar to Aqua (I think thats the right layer), anyway the program that draws the pretty pictures of translucent buttons on you OS X windows. That is just one, of many desktop GUIs that run on both types of CPUs.

For starters, KDE is not a GUI. KDE is not even an application. KDE is a suite of applications which work together to form a user environment. KDM (which is the default K Desktop Manager), isn't even a 'GUI', its just a Window Manager.

X Windows is a GUI. X Windows is the 'GUI' that runs on top of almost all other unix based operating systems. You can run X windows under OS X if you want. Fink has a version that installs easilly, or you could build your own. FYI, X windows pretty much sucks, its just a 20 year old windowing starndard that is very hard to replace due to the incredible amount of software that has been used to interface with it, and its very usefull "networkability".

Aqua is the 'GUI' that runs on top of OSX. Aqua would need to be changed to run on another architecture. Whether it has to be changed a lot, or a little, I would venture no one outside of Cupertino really knows, as the source isn't open (unlike the majority of the rest of the code to OSX).

Mac OSX is a collection of programs, kernal, libraries, windowing system, etc. and each part would have to be rewritten to work on another architecture. The kernal is based on BSD, so that should be pretty portable. All of the rest of the OS would be a significant project.

Any Freshman College CS student jackoff can write their own 'OS' by coming up with a barebones kernal. It takes significantly more effort to come up with a useable operating system.

check out this difinition of an Operating System:

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/o/operating_system.html
I have taken Computer Science classes, and do know what I am talking about when it comes to these concepts.

Transmeta is a revolutionary processor that is extreamly power effecient. It will scale down depending on the amount of use it gets, so if on a normal computer you are getting 99% idle time, the Transmeta will reduce speed accordingly.

http://www.transmeta.com/

The Crusoe Processor isn't all that revolutionary. The 'Code Morphing' technology sounded great, but so far hasn't panned out to be that usefull. Power savings are not nearly as good as were originally advertised, and a significant overhead in processor cycles and memory is used by the processor to run. Transmeta is actually in pretty rough shape, as with a few sub-notebook exceptions, they haven't had a very widespread adoption of their processors.

ktlx
Jul 30, 2002, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Johnny7896
Moto sucks at making modern day processors period. They need to stick to communications products only. The G4 is not much faster than the G3 still, but it has more enhancements.

You know, I realize it is fashionable to call Motorola evil, but let's face some facts. Motorola is a business and out there to make money. The writing is on the wall for the PowerPC architecture. It is a wonderful embedded processor (almost without equal) but the 32-bit version has no hope of competing against Intel and AMD on the desktop. Apple simply is too marginal of a player to make that a large market. It would not suprise me in the least, given Motorola's situation, that someone important has decided that desktop processors for Apple simply does not fit into Motorola's future plan.

And before you say Motorola screwed Apple and blah, blah, look at Apple. I am sure if Apple had any hope of seriously increasing their market share and total sales of top of the line G4 processors, Motorola would pony up the R&D dollars to keep Apple in the game. But Apple has not. Their market movers are based on the G3 and lower end G4 processors. Apple makes wonderful products but so far has not demonstrated in any way the ability to significantly grow their market share. Since Apple cannot demonstrate they are able to increase market share, Motorola can hardly be faulted for focusing on the telecommunications market where the PowerPC is very attractive.

Selling to the Cisco's, Lucent's, Nortel's and Ericsson's of the world are Motorola's future. Not Apple.

peterh
Jul 30, 2002, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Do you have any links that address this?

Unfortunately no, I hate posting rumors that I can't back-up, but this time I did. I did see images of the layout of this CPU. I have no idea what it's performance was, power consumption, or if Apple ever intended to use it. My main point is that IBM would do some amount of work for Apple, if Apple was willing to pay for it. Apple switching to IBM for fab is definitely believable. Apple could pay for the AltiVec license if IBM didn't want to. The great thing about business is that if you are willing to pay enough for something, someone will sell it to you.

avkills
Jul 30, 2002, 08:29 PM
What if Apple has secretly had Motorola developing the Altivec as a stand alone co-processor. How do we know that Altivec 2 is actually a separate processor which would allow Apple to do this:

IBM makes the core processors because they have the R&D bank to compete with Intel, and I bet they would love for Apple to stick it to them and Microsoft. IBM G3's (hell just call them G5s...who cares, the G4 is pretty much just a G3+Altivec, clocked up to whatever they can produce, which I think is 1.5Ghz at the moment.

Motorola keeps on developing Altivec, because it is highly useful in the embedded market where high-powered DSP is needed. Motorola keeps making money from Apple, which keeps them happy.

Apple can now bump up the processor speeds and still keep altivec at whatever speed Motorola, who is lazy, currently offers.

I am banking on a 2-4 processor IBM G? based machine with 1-2 altivec co-processors from Motorola. Apple has generally designed their own chips to do what the nForce does, so I am skeptical about Apple using the nForce. And the Xserve does not really even need the altivec unless it is being used to compress and stream video in real time.

It seems like a win-win-win for the AIM alliance.

-mark

scem0
Jul 30, 2002, 08:45 PM
I am very glad to hear this, I have been hoping Apple would do this. Apple makes the best quality computers out there, even if they arent the fastest. I think that Apple's innovation and quality, mixed with IBM/AMD/maybe intel, will make a GREAT computer. THe only thing I cant deicde is to wait for the g5 (if it is released) from motorola, or wait for a IBM/AMD processor mac. THe longer I wait the better computer I can get, so I guess I will wait. :D :( Waiting is bad....:rolleyes:

tjwett
Jul 30, 2002, 09:33 PM
Yipee! I hope it's true. I don't think they will go x86 though. Hopefully we'll see some adaptation of the IBM Power4. This is the best rumor I've ever heard. If anything else surfaces I'll surely be holding out on buying anything until the big change. I'm hoping no x86. I hope they stay PPC but I'll be psyched no matter what. As long as I don't see a TiBook with an "Intel Inside" sticker on it.

kaneda
Jul 30, 2002, 10:52 PM
Chipmakers Advanced Micro Devices and Infineon, together with foundry United Microelectronics Corp., are collaborating to create faster, cooler and more power-saving processors expected to be at the heart of the next generation of computers

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-947131.html

iH8Quark
Jul 30, 2002, 10:57 PM
na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey............good riddance.

I still think there's something significant about MIPS hiring the former Apple chief AltiVec Engineer.

Everyone who's anyone in high-end post uses SGI machines for finishing. I think there's something in the works there. The nVidia nForce card is strikingly similar to the graphics coprocessor in an SGI machine that makes them so outrageously powerful. Perhaps they're porting OS X to run on MIPS architecture? IRIX is nearly identical to BSD UNIX. As far as writing, or rewriting, software, it should be similar to making a web page work properly in IE and Nutscrape. The fundamentals are identical, the syntax is slightly different.

Who knows. But I would LOVE an AltiVec enabled 64-bit MIPS-based G5 with an nForce 2. There's little reason why that can't happen rather quickly. Remember, Shake runs on IRIX, and Apple has no plans to stop development on that platform.

*hopes* ;)

G4scott
Jul 31, 2002, 12:58 AM
Apple's used AMD chips before in older products... See if you can guess which products they were...

Rower_CPU
Jul 31, 2002, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
Apple's used AMD chips before in older products... See if you can guess which products they were...

Who the what?!?!

That's news to me...which ones?

tjwett
Jul 31, 2002, 01:46 AM
this may have been posted before but this is a very good article regarding the current state of the Mac. it's a few pages long but well worth it.

http://macbuyersguide.com/reviews/editorial-mac_on_intel.html

3G4N
Jul 31, 2002, 02:16 AM
this rumor that "moto's out" is very close to what
my friend who works there told me two weeks
ago.

He said that they just finished what they called
Apollo 7 (which should be in this next round of
macs), and that IBM was going to make the next
few rounds of PPCs for Apple (he didn't say it,
but I am assuming the G5).

He also said that they have just begun to work
on the early phases of the G7.

He works at Motorola, and is not the type to
pull legs, so I believe him.

I posted more of what he said in an earlier rumor
on the IBM Power4 and the G5, but nobody
seemed to notice...

tjwett
Jul 31, 2002, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by 3G4N
this rumor that "moto's out" is very close to what
my friend who works there told me two weeks
ago.

He said that they just finished what they called
Apollo 7 (which should be in this next round of
macs), and that IBM was going to make the next
few rounds of PPCs for Apple (he didn't say it,
but I am assuming the G5).

He also said that they have just begun to work
on the early phases of the G7.

He works at Motorola, and is not the type to
pull legs, so I believe him.

I posted more of what he said in an earlier rumor
on the IBM Power4 and the G5, but nobody
seemed to notice...

it makes perfect sense. Moto makes all their money from the embeded market and the communications stuff. i really think designing chips for Apple has been low on the priority list for quite sometime now. it's probably best for both parties to part ways. and i never noticed until i started looking but Moto has chips in ALOT of stuff, all over my own house!

mangis
Jul 31, 2002, 02:38 AM
do you really think that a 1.5 ghz chip will be released next week? Do not kid yourself. That would be a 50% speed increase. That doesn't happen all at once. Look for 1.2 or so.

AMD is in trouble so they may be looking for new markets. I don't think that they are gonna be around very long as intel kills them in the next 3-5 years.

I just hope that apple doesn't go out of business, cuz the wintel machines are much faster. Megahertz myth my ass. Well, OK, somewhat of a myth, but 3 ghz chips smoke.

danman
Jul 31, 2002, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by mangis
do you really think that a 1.5 ghz chip will be released next week? Do not kid yourself. That would be a 50% speed increase. That doesn't happen all at once. Look for 1.2 or so.


Actually, if there was to be a 1.5GHz machine.. what with DDR, improved chip interconnect speeds and improved Graphics subsys, youd prob be looking at a machine closer to twice as fast.. hey ho.. we can only hope.

G4scott
Jul 31, 2002, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Who the what?!?!

That's news to me...which ones?

LaserWriter 16/600 PS
LaserWriter 16/640 PS
LaserWriter 8500
LaserWriter Select 310
LaserWriter Select 360
LaserWriter 4/600 PS
Color LaserWriter 12/600 PS
Color LaserWriter 12/660 PS

These are all that I can find, but they all have either a 25 or 30 Mhz AMD 29030 Processor. I wonder if it's a form of the Motorola 68030???

Anyways, I have a calculator with a Motorola 68000 running at 18 Mhz...

tucker
Jul 31, 2002, 10:20 AM
First many comment in these posts are possible, which ones that will come true, well we will just have to wait and see.

Just because Moto is ending future development doesn't mean they wont be supplying G4's to apple for a year or two to come, it also doesn't mean that Moto will not improve their Fab yields and speeds over that time period. This will bring faster G4's over time just not big improvements? This is in Moto's best interest as well ( less waste) I believe it will take at least two years for the g4 to work it's way threw the line.( iBook)

IBM has made G4's for apple before, under license from apple and Moto but I believe they couldn't sell anything faster than what Moto produced under that agreement.

IBM it seems to me has the advantage in regards to being the next chip "Faber" for apple. Moto designs very well, it is in the manufacturing that things aren't up to speed. I do think IBM is better at this side than Moto which means better things short term for apple and it's customers.

This could also lend credibility to apple designing it's future chips in house and having a contractor produce those chips. with this close relationship (which seems to be developing ) between IBM amd apple then it is also possible that apple could design a chip for the mac based on the power4/5 from IBM.

One thing is for sure the next two years will be very interesting and I for one am looking forward to it.


:D

Johnny7896
Jul 31, 2002, 02:21 PM
IBM is opening a new chip plant......Why?