Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > PowerPC Macs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 23, 2013, 08:42 PM   #76
powerpcguy
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Everyone knows the best PowerPC of all time was the 12" PowerBook.
__________________
PowerMac G4 MDD (Dual 867 GHz, 2 GB Ram); PowerBook G4 17" (1 GHz, 2 GB Ram); PowerBook G4 12" (1.33 GHz, 1.25 GB Ram). "Trailing edge" computing.
powerpcguy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2013, 09:42 PM   #77
ppcfanforever1
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcalifornia View Post
It wasn't that Apple were not able to get a laptop friendly G5 processor. I think it was IBM fault.

IBM was working really close with Toshiba and Sony to get the Cell Processor up and running. And after getting the Cell Processor done, they had to mass produce it for Sony.

Not only that, it was a Win-Win situation to leave Apple in the dust. Now they use Cell Processor on IBM Main frames, and still produce for Sony.

Probably IBM could have come up with a better G4 processor, may be a dual G4 for the iBook/Powerbook line up. Why did they never come up with a dual G4 ibook/powerbook?

----------



Motorola and Freescale are like Italy... They leave you and do something else when you most need them...
No don't blame it on ibm, Steve rushed them, Steve opened his mouth too early and promised faster g5 processors and since he did this without ibm having the ability to release fast enough all g5 products died including the laptop ones.
ppcfanforever1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 10:36 AM   #78
Goftrey
macrumors 68000
 
Goftrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Llantwit Major, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by ppcfanforever1 View Post
No don't blame it on ibm, Steve rushed them, Steve opened his mouth too early and promised faster g5 processors and since he did this without ibm having the ability to release fast enough all g5 products died including the laptop ones.
Regardless of whether Steve pushed IBM or not, I very much doubt that IBM would have ever been able to (feasibly) design a 3ghz+ desktop CPU, and a laptop CPU that wouldn't panini your lap. Especially when there were the Athlon 64 X2's from AMD & the Core Duo's from Intel around.
__________________
Mac Pro 4x 2.66GHz, 6GB, HD5770 | MacBook 2x 2.0GHz, 2GB, 9400M | 20" Alu Cinema Display
PowerMac G4 2x 1.42GHz, 2GB, Ti4600 | PowerBook G4 1.67GHz, 1GB, 9700 | Sony Xperia S 32GB | Canon 350D
Goftrey is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 11:49 AM   #79
ihuman:D
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by oscar92070 View Post
A dual G4 laptop would be extremely hard to cool and definitely not feasible.
Look here at the MPC864x section.
__________________
iMac G4 17'' 1.25GHz PowerBook G4 15'' Hi-Res 1.67GHz iMac 2012 21.5" 2.9GHz i5
It's spelled "Aluminium"
It's "Couldn't care less" not "Could care less"
ihuman:D is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 12:13 PM   #80
seveej
macrumors 6502a
 
seveej's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Quote:
Originally Posted by ppcfanforever1 View Post
No don't blame it on ibm, Steve rushed them, Steve opened his mouth too early and promised faster g5 processors and since he did this without ibm having the ability to release fast enough all g5 products died including the laptop ones.
LEM disagrees:
http://lowendmac.com/musings/08mm/power-mac-g5.html
"Based on promises from IBM, Steve Jobs promised the Apple faithful that the Power Mac G5 would reach 3.0 GHz within a year."

RGDS,
__________________
MP 3,1 'nuff RAM, 3 HDD's, 1 SSD, AMD 5770, 10.6
MBP 13" 2,66 C2D, 8GB, 160SSD, 10.6
2009 Mini
, and a lot of other gear.
seveej is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 01:36 PM   #81
Southern Dad
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Monroe, GA
I like the G5's but you specified portable... so much for that idea with those heavy metal desktops.
__________________
Pro, 2 X 2.8 Ghz Quad-Core ;13" MacBook ; iPhone 4S ; iPad 64 GB WiFi AT&T 1st Gen ; Macbook Pro ; Apple TV2 ; iPad 64 GB AT&T 3rd Gen ; iPhone 5S ; iPad 128 GB AT&T
Southern Dad is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 01:49 PM   #82
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by seveej View Post
LEM disagrees:
http://lowendmac.com/musings/08mm/power-mac-g5.html
"Based on promises from IBM, Steve Jobs promised the Apple faithful that the Power Mac G5 would reach 3.0 GHz within a year."

RGDS,
I'd rather have a quad 2.5 than a dual 3...
GermanyChris is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 24, 2013, 02:34 PM   #83
rjcalifornia
macrumors 6502a
 
rjcalifornia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: El Salvador
Overall, IBM was more interested in their Cell Processor thing. Apple should have funded IBM...

Sometimes Apple puts their money in the wrong basket. Remember how they did invested in the HD DVD? lol
__________________
CEO, Lead Developer and Sales Manager of SW Social Web LLC PowerPC Blog iBook G4 1.2 Ghz 60 GB HDD, Black Macbook Core 2 Duo, Powerbook G4 & iMac G4 700 Mhz Owner.
rjcalifornia is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 02:36 AM   #84
seveej
macrumors 6502a
 
seveej's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcalifornia View Post
Overall, IBM was more interested in their Cell Processor thing.
I think Apple's original decision to embrace PowerPC was an ideological decision. The Wintel world used Intel (x86), so Apple, trying to differentiate itself, put its money in another basket. You could debate whether Apple's original decision to go PowerPC was misguided.
In a way, PowerPC held great promise (at the moment of selection), but I bet many saw that the platform would ultimately fail after it did not gain traction. Since about 2000 (you may disagree on the date) it was obvious that PowerPC would not become a serious contender for the crown.

Once the AIM-alliance stopped being serious about creating a generally viable alternative to Intel in desktop (and mobile) processors, Apple was in a bind.

The G5, while in many ways revolutionary was in some ways an exercise in desperation: Apple allying itself with IBM (ask yourself: what types of processors does IBM have a vested interest in) instead of Intel (what types of processors were Intel focussing on?) was basically the most non-sensical move in Apple's history. Especially as it was clear, that IBM had no viable mobile processor design.

One could argue, that Apple saw the situation for what it was, but deemed the timing to be bad for a PPC->Intel transition and decided to postpone the operation (Apple was still in the midst of its transition to OS X).

RGDS,

P.S. Mind you, I am not saying that PowerPC was inherently non-viable, but IMNSHO, the structure behind Apple's PowerPC's (namely AIM) was not on par with the machinery Intel could bring to bear. If standard wars in high-tech have taught us anything, it's that the winner is not selected based on quality/performance but on compatibility and related affects.
__________________
MP 3,1 'nuff RAM, 3 HDD's, 1 SSD, AMD 5770, 10.6
MBP 13" 2,66 C2D, 8GB, 160SSD, 10.6
2009 Mini
, and a lot of other gear.
seveej is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 06:09 PM   #85
rampancy
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihuman:D View Post
Look here at the MPC864x section.
Yes, and that's a G4 derived chip targeted at the embedded market. Compare that to what Intel had available with the Core 2 Duo at the same time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcalifornia View Post
Overall, IBM was more interested in their Cell Processor thing. Apple should have funded IBM...
The math wasn't in Apple's favor. Put yourself in IBM's shoes: where are you going to put your R&D and chip fabbing resources? Into desktop and portable-class CPUs for Apple, which would get you several millions of sales over a five or so year period...or into making PPCs for MS, Sony and Nintendo for an entire console gen, which would get surely you hundreds of millions of sales over almost a ten year period?

The whole promise/premise of the PPC was that it was going to crush WinTel, or at least garner a segment of the desktop market that was significant enough to drive R&D for PPC CPUs for desktops and notebooks. That sadly never materialized (due to Moore's Law favouring x86, interference from Microsoft, etc.), so Motorola (later Freescale) and IBM turned their attentions to the markets which were far and away far larger than Apple and the Mac: the embedded market, servers, and consoles.

Apple may have the clout do things like strong arm Intel into crazy stuff like the custom shrunken Core 2 Duo for the original MacBook Air, or CrystalWell (supposedly Haswell with 64-128 MB of CPU on-die RAM linked to the integrated GPU via a 512-bit bus), but back then, Apple didn't have the market power or the money to single handedly fund desktop PPC development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcalifornia View Post
Remember how they did invested in the HD DVD? lol
Huh? Apple never shipped an HD DVD drive in their Macs. It wouldn't make sense anyway since Apple is on the Blu-ray Disc Association (Jobs' "bag of hurt" comment notwithstanding). You're probably thinking of DVD-RAM, an early rewritable DVD format that Apple shipped on the first Sawtooth G4 Macs. It wasn't a bad format for it's time; it was actually quite technically impressive... it was just was prohibitively expensive to implement, and was eventually rendered obsolete by DVD+/-R/RW.
rampancy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 07:45 PM   #86
rjcalifornia
macrumors 6502a
 
rjcalifornia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: El Salvador
Quote:
Originally Posted by rampancy View Post

The math wasn't in Apple's favor. Put yourself in IBM's shoes: where are you going to put your R&D and chip fabbing resources? Into desktop and portable-class CPUs for Apple, which would get you several millions of sales over a five or so year period...or into making PPCs for MS, Sony and Nintendo for an entire console gen, which would get surely you hundreds of millions of sales over almost a ten year period?
I'll say over a 5 years period. Rumor has it that both Sony and Microsoft will make the switch to AMD/Intel in their next gen game consoles. It has to do with more processing power with less energy consumption.

Quote:
The whole promise/premise of the PPC was that it was going to crush WinTel, or at least garner a segment of the desktop market that was significant enough to drive R&D for PPC CPUs for desktops and notebooks. That sadly never materialized (due to Moore's Law favouring x86, interference from Microsoft, etc.), so Motorola (later Freescale) and IBM turned their attentions to the markets which were far and away far larger than Apple and the Mac: the embedded market, servers, and consoles.

Apple may have the clout do things like strong arm Intel into crazy stuff like the custom shrunken Core 2 Duo for the original MacBook Air, or CrystalWell (supposedly Haswell with 64-128 MB of CPU on-die RAM linked to the integrated GPU via a 512-bit bus), but back then, Apple didn't have the market power or the money to single handedly fund desktop PPC development.
Well, yeah. IBM was not and never will be like Intel. Intel has a good experience dealing with small costumers with funky chip requests in short time.

Quote:
Huh? Apple never shipped an HD DVD drive in their Macs. It wouldn't make sense anyway since Apple is on the Blu-ray Disc Association (Jobs' "bag of hurt" comment notwithstanding). You're probably thinking of DVD-RAM, an early rewritable DVD format that Apple shipped on the first Sawtooth G4 Macs. It wasn't a bad format for it's time; it was actually quite technically impressive... it was just was prohibitively expensive to implement, and was eventually rendered obsolete by DVD+/-R/RW.
Nope, HD DVD. Don't you remember that you could 'burn' Blue Ray discs but not read them (for a while) Apple backed HD DVD over Blue Ray. I remember seeing endless fights/threads about why people couldn't watch BD discs movies.
__________________
CEO, Lead Developer and Sales Manager of SW Social Web LLC PowerPC Blog iBook G4 1.2 Ghz 60 GB HDD, Black Macbook Core 2 Duo, Powerbook G4 & iMac G4 700 Mhz Owner.
rjcalifornia is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 08:01 PM   #87
quasinormal
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia.
The last revision 15" and 17" Powerbooks with DDR2 RAM and high resolution screens are my favourites. The last revision G5 and 17" G4 imacs were great too.

I know people that still quite happily use these machines.
quasinormal is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 08:04 PM   #88
rampancy
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcalifornia View Post
I'll say over a 5 years period. Rumor has it that both Sony and Microsoft will make the switch to AMD/Intel in their next gen game consoles. It has to do with more processing power with less energy consumption.
The Seventh Generation of video game consoles "officially" started in 2005 with the XBox 360, and it's been about eight years now since then. It's interesting that both MS and Sony have gone x86 now with the "XBox 720" and the "PS4", but Nintendo still has the PPC in the Wii U. Nevertheless, IBM got much more profit out of the Seventh Gen Console Wars than it did (and would have done) in the same time frame with PPC and Apple.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcalifornia View Post
Nope, HD DVD. Don't you remember that you could 'burn' Blue Ray discs but not read them (for a while) Apple backed HD DVD over Blue Ray. I remember seeing endless fights/threads about why people couldn't watch BD discs movies.
DVD Studio Pro eventually received the ability to burn HD DVDs, but Final Cut Pro later supported Blu-ray too. Regardless, Apple never shipped HD DVD drives on their Macs (or Blu-ray for that matter). If Apple issued any actual clear statement saying that it fully and publicly backed (and put money into) HD DVD, I'd like to see it.
rampancy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 08:40 PM   #89
MisterKeeks
macrumors 68000
 
MisterKeeks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by quasinormal View Post
The last revision 15" and 17" Powerbooks with DDR2 RAM and high resolution screens are my favourites. The last revision G5 and 17" G4 imacs were great too.
I'm not sure if they use a DDR2 controller (or even DDR).
MisterKeeks is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2013, 10:09 PM   #90
rampancy
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterKeeks View Post
I'm not sure if they use a DDR2 controller (or even DDR).
The later model PowerBooks did indeed use DDR2 memory, using the same architecture originally used on the Xserve (e.g. where most everything got pushed onto the System Controller chip to get around the bandwidth limitations of the G4.)
rampancy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 07:25 AM   #91
MisterKeeks
macrumors 68000
 
MisterKeeks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by rampancy View Post
The later model PowerBooks did indeed use DDR2 memory, using the same architecture originally used on the Xserve (e.g. where most everything got pushed onto the System Controller chip to get around the bandwidth limitations of the G4.)
I know, I just seem to remember sometime here when it was brought up that the PowerBooks didn't have a DDR controller, it just used DDR for marketing purposes. I could very well be wrong, though.

----------

Here it is:


Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegong View Post
If its like the late PBG4's (and I'm 90% sure it is) then it doesn't have a DDR memory controller so the DDR benefit over SDR is hardly used at all.
DDR memory was used as that was the current memory type and was easier to source as SDR RAM was becoming obsolete (of course synics might say it was used so it would show "DDR" on the spec list which would indicate it was a true DDR machine when it wasn't)...
MisterKeeks is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 08:14 AM   #92
rampancy
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterKeeks View Post
I know, I just seem to remember sometime here when it was brought up that the PowerBooks didn't have a DDR controller, it just used DDR for marketing purposes. I could very well be wrong, though.

----------

Here it is:
I think the confusion arose from the fact that the G4's bus didn't have the bandwidth to handle DDR-type memory. From my understanding, Apple's solution was to route everything - RAM, graphics, and I/O into the System Controller instead so that memory access could, as much as possible, bypass the CPU. It was, IMO, a sign that Apple was getting desperate in its attempts to move past the problems it was having with the G4 and its development.

In any case, I'm not sure what that other person was talking about anyway, because DDR and DDR2 DIMMS are not physically compatible with SDRAM DIMMS (so Apple couldn't just trivially put them into previous generation PowerBooks) and as I mentioned before the System Controller was fully capable of handling DDR2 and DDR memory; the weakest link was the CPU bus.
rampancy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2013, 11:56 AM   #93
rjcalifornia
macrumors 6502a
 
rjcalifornia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: El Salvador
Quote:
Originally Posted by rampancy View Post
I think the confusion arose from the fact that the G4's bus didn't have the bandwidth to handle DDR-type memory. From my understanding, Apple's solution was to route everything - RAM, graphics, and I/O into the System Controller instead so that memory access could, as much as possible, bypass the CPU. It was, IMO, a sign that Apple was getting desperate in its attempts to move past the problems it was having with the G4 and its development.

In any case, I'm not sure what that other person was talking about anyway, because DDR and DDR2 DIMMS are not physically compatible with SDRAM DIMMS (so Apple couldn't just trivially put them into previous generation PowerBooks) and as I mentioned before the System Controller was fully capable of handling DDR2 and DDR memory; the weakest link was the CPU bus.
So, Intel was the smartest move.
__________________
CEO, Lead Developer and Sales Manager of SW Social Web LLC PowerPC Blog iBook G4 1.2 Ghz 60 GB HDD, Black Macbook Core 2 Duo, Powerbook G4 & iMac G4 700 Mhz Owner.
rjcalifornia is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > PowerPC Macs

Tags
awesomest, computer, cool, fast, ppc

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:40 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC