Originally posted by Shrek
I just don't understand why I have to get thrashed and bashed every time I post a new thread.
Yo shrek.
You should have started a thread re: next-gen processors or Gxx or G4+
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
G5 in 2 flavors?
- Thread starter Shrek
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yo shrek.
You should have started a thread re: next-gen processors or Gxx or G4+
Re: Re: G5 in 2 flavors?
Actually, IBM has no rights to Altivec, they would have to liscence the tech and name from Motorola in order to build what is commonly refered to as the G4.
That is why IBM still makes 'G3' named chips, the 750 line.
I am sure that if Apple paid the liscencing fees to Motorloa for IBM, they may make the 'G4' for Apple then.
I wonder if anyone has ever asked that in these forums? Let Apple buy out from Motorloa the rights and tech of the G4, or the entire PPC line for that matter, and give 'free' liscene to IBM to do the devlopment and fab.
Hmmmmmm...
Actually, IBM has no rights to Altivec, they would have to liscence the tech and name from Motorola in order to build what is commonly refered to as the G4.
That is why IBM still makes 'G3' named chips, the 750 line.
I am sure that if Apple paid the liscencing fees to Motorloa for IBM, they may make the 'G4' for Apple then.
I wonder if anyone has ever asked that in these forums? Let Apple buy out from Motorloa the rights and tech of the G4, or the entire PPC line for that matter, and give 'free' liscene to IBM to do the devlopment and fab.
Hmmmmmm...
Re: Re: Re: G5 in 2 flavors?
Realistically, Motorola would love to liscense out Altivec to IBM or Apple. It's a no-brainer since they'd get a cut of every chip sold. IMO, what's holding this deal back is that Motorola is probably insisting that IBM could not market to Motorola's core customers OR that IBM just doesn't want to use Altivec because it would validate Motorola's chips as being superior.
Motorola has offered, in the past, to let IBM use Altivec, but IBM declined and went their own way with PPC development. Apple hitched their wagon with Motorola. The rest is history.
It's been asked and the answer is that Motorola would have no interest in selling just the PPC or Altivec to anyone. Motorola currently makes a profit by selling G4 chips to many clients, which Apple is just one. If they were to sell off their PPC properties or Altivec, then what would become of their other clients.
Realistically, Motorola would love to liscense out Altivec to IBM or Apple. It's a no-brainer since they'd get a cut of every chip sold. IMO, what's holding this deal back is that Motorola is probably insisting that IBM could not market to Motorola's core customers OR that IBM just doesn't want to use Altivec because it would validate Motorola's chips as being superior.
Motorola has offered, in the past, to let IBM use Altivec, but IBM declined and went their own way with PPC development. Apple hitched their wagon with Motorola. The rest is history.
Re: Re: Re: Re: G5 in 2 flavors?
Who else does MOT sell the 75xx desktop chip to? I know that they sell the embedded varient of the G3, G4 and now the 'G5' to mainly coimmunications companies.
What's to stop them from giving up on desktop?
If Apple says "hey, we like IBM, we are going to go to them and develop an AV alterenative, or you can sell us your desktop PPC rights and the right to use the AV tech and get some cash out of the deal."
MOT is bleeding so much cash right now, I do not see how they caould pass this up. Plus, Apple surely has some legal mumbo-jumbo in the PPC consortium papers to lean on, I would think
Who else does MOT sell the 75xx desktop chip to? I know that they sell the embedded varient of the G3, G4 and now the 'G5' to mainly coimmunications companies.
What's to stop them from giving up on desktop?
If Apple says "hey, we like IBM, we are going to go to them and develop an AV alterenative, or you can sell us your desktop PPC rights and the right to use the AV tech and get some cash out of the deal."
MOT is bleeding so much cash right now, I do not see how they caould pass this up. Plus, Apple surely has some legal mumbo-jumbo in the PPC consortium papers to lean on, I would think
I am a BIG GREEN UGLY OGER, and I like my privacy.
For the sake of marketing, Apple's PowerMacs should be called workstations, not desktops. I've argued this countless times before, BTW, and I can't understand why anyone won't get it through their thick skull!
Everything I'm mentioning here is the way things are done in the PC world. If Apple truly wants to convert more PC users to the Mac, then they need to mimic how the PC world works as closely as possible to make 'switchers' more familiar and more comfortable making the switch. Of course, they should still use PPC hardware and still continue to be just as innovative as they have always been.
I'm not saying that this is the way things will happen. What I'm saying is that this is the way things SHOULD happen.
Well that's a first. The last forum site I use to use, people always called me a troll when they disagreed with me. But of course that site gets a lot of incredibly insane posts, mostly because it has poor management.
That site is www.apolyton.net, BTW.
I was reading an interesting article in the an old issue of the UK Macworld magazine from way back in April of '98.
A lot of technologies and Altivec related info we're seeing pop up about the G5 or new IBM chip were covered in the article :
The Engineering lobby at the IEEE International Solid State Circuit Conference in San Franciso heard presentations on a 480Mhz PowerPC G3 and a PowerPC archtechture that will run at 1,100Mhz. The prototype processor, which contains 1 million transistors, can run three times faster than today's quickest Intel Chip. We've lost that one by miles!!!
IBM officials say chips running at this speed are unlikely to be commerically available before 2001. The 480Mhz G3, while still a prototype, draws on IBM's new copper-based manufacturing process.
Sources say similar copper processes will speed PowerPC G4 processors. While the smaller, faster 1.8 volt chips will use the basic 750 architechture, the G4 processor series will also include a range of add-on technologies. Apple and vendors of embedded applications will be able to pick and choose which technologies to implement.
Now the really interesting bit that mentions VMX Altivec ?
A G4 technology - code named Desktop 98 - will offer VMX (Video and Multimedia Extensions) enhancements to the PowerPC architechture. VMX will accelerate graphics and provide a range of traditional digital signal processing capabilities.
Optimised for a range of graphics and video standards, VMX will not switch context between floating-point and DSP instructions, as does Intel's current MMX chip technology.
Now the multiple core stuff people have been going on about for years in some mythical future PowerPC chip
Also on the G4 road map is Desktop 99, the code name for the technology that will roll multiple 750 processors into a single chip. Sources said the scaleable design will support symmetric multiprocessing with two or four processors and pack up to 1MB of L2 cache. "There's plenty of room for cache and another processor with the 0.18-micron copper process", a source said. This is funny in so many ways I don't even want to start commenting on it
Now a comparison to the new IBM PowerPC chip we'll find out about in a month...
Desktop '98 : VMX
Desktop '99 : Multiple Cores
The IBM chip : SIMD (VMX/Altivec), Multiple Cores
A lot of technologies and Altivec related info we're seeing pop up about the G5 or new IBM chip were covered in the article :
The Engineering lobby at the IEEE International Solid State Circuit Conference in San Franciso heard presentations on a 480Mhz PowerPC G3 and a PowerPC archtechture that will run at 1,100Mhz. The prototype processor, which contains 1 million transistors, can run three times faster than today's quickest Intel Chip. We've lost that one by miles!!!
IBM officials say chips running at this speed are unlikely to be commerically available before 2001. The 480Mhz G3, while still a prototype, draws on IBM's new copper-based manufacturing process.
Sources say similar copper processes will speed PowerPC G4 processors. While the smaller, faster 1.8 volt chips will use the basic 750 architechture, the G4 processor series will also include a range of add-on technologies. Apple and vendors of embedded applications will be able to pick and choose which technologies to implement.
Now the really interesting bit that mentions VMX Altivec ?
A G4 technology - code named Desktop 98 - will offer VMX (Video and Multimedia Extensions) enhancements to the PowerPC architechture. VMX will accelerate graphics and provide a range of traditional digital signal processing capabilities.
Optimised for a range of graphics and video standards, VMX will not switch context between floating-point and DSP instructions, as does Intel's current MMX chip technology.
Now the multiple core stuff people have been going on about for years in some mythical future PowerPC chip
Also on the G4 road map is Desktop 99, the code name for the technology that will roll multiple 750 processors into a single chip. Sources said the scaleable design will support symmetric multiprocessing with two or four processors and pack up to 1MB of L2 cache. "There's plenty of room for cache and another processor with the 0.18-micron copper process", a source said. This is funny in so many ways I don't even want to start commenting on it
Now a comparison to the new IBM PowerPC chip we'll find out about in a month...
Desktop '98 : VMX
Desktop '99 : Multiple Cores
The IBM chip : SIMD (VMX/Altivec), Multiple Cores
Originally posted by Shrek
I am a BIG GREEN UGLY OGER, and I like my privacy.
um, that's ogre - and its starting to prove you lied about your age......I asked that question in all sincerity
Don't start arguing semantics here - regardless what they're called, they are the top end of the macs - that was the what I was refering to them as.
Ah, this is a dead end arguement - not really even worthy of a response - your profile has you listing a Dell as your computer - do you even use macs? Macs for most people are much easier to use than PCs, if you don't agree, well, you're entitled to your own opinion. Personally I would never want to see Apple try and be more like a PC, period.
So if you continue with your inflamitory remarks, this thread will be closed. Try and take a more rational approach to your responses, ok?
D
I have to agree with Duke (damn I hate sucking up to people with power). We only asked what you background is so we can understand you points better
e.g. if you only just got in to computing or you have been bought up witih a computer as your only friend could make us understand your comments.
Since you're meant to be 2 months older than me, I'll begin by giving my background. I've just complete a degree in Computer Science at Loughborough in England. I'm new to the mac world but have had a strong interest in computers for a long time. Now that wasn't so hard. Now when you read anything I write you can see I know nothing about economics and just bluffing my way through but I have a sound understanding of both software and hardware (of course that could have been I only just passed my degree !). Mainly I'm a PC guy and very much a m$ programmer but I bought a mac last year and I firmly believe in using the right tool for the task and as such enjoy both machines for their respective strengths.
i dont understand why you are so concerned with Apple winning market share, I believe they are happy as they are and although they want to grow killing the PC world is just silly and not a realistic expectation. At the end of the day competition is good and the person that wins is the consumer, therefore we need PCs to stay so we have something to better.
Gaz
e.g. if you only just got in to computing or you have been bought up witih a computer as your only friend could make us understand your comments.
Since you're meant to be 2 months older than me, I'll begin by giving my background. I've just complete a degree in Computer Science at Loughborough in England. I'm new to the mac world but have had a strong interest in computers for a long time. Now that wasn't so hard. Now when you read anything I write you can see I know nothing about economics and just bluffing my way through but I have a sound understanding of both software and hardware (of course that could have been I only just passed my degree
!). Mainly I'm a PC guy and very much a m$ programmer but I bought a mac last year and I firmly believe in using the right tool for the task and as such enjoy both machines for their respective strengths.i dont understand why you are so concerned with Apple winning market share, I believe they are happy as they are and although they want to grow killing the PC world is just silly and not a realistic expectation. At the end of the day competition is good and the person that wins is the consumer, therefore we need PCs to stay so we have something to better.
Gaz
Originally posted by dukestreet
um, that's ogre - and its starting to prove you lied about your age......I asked that question in all sincerity
A mispelling offers no proof that I'm lying about my age, and I'm not lying about it either.
Bad form. Just because you disagree with something, doesn't give you the right to close the thread.
He wasn't talking to you about your age, he said that because you haven't been very mature in some of your responses.
The thread's not going to get closed because dukestreet disagrees with it, if it were to get closed it would be because you've been rude to some of the other posters.
I highly doubt that they would do that. For one it would mean an even more bloated system to support to different chips the IBM power4 PPC architecture vs. the Motorola PPC architecture. Let alone having the system support both 64bit and 32bit simultaneously.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: G5 in 2 flavors?
BTW, MOTO is not bleeding cash right now. In fact, they will be returning to profitability by the end of the year. The projections are calling for about 12 cents per share for the whole year. That's pretty good considering that they took losses for both Q1 and Q2. Next year is looking better, now that their cell phone line-up has straightened out.
If you look at Motorola's documents, the 74xx (I'm assuming that you made a typo), is intended for desktops and high-end embedded applications. I know that Cisco is a big customer for the new Apollo (7455 and 7445) chips. They use them in their routers and switchers. As for Motorola giving up their PPC desktop operations, I ask why? If they continue to develop the 74xx chips for Cisco and they are usuable for Apple, then why stop? It's just gravy money.
Like I said before, Motorola is not gonna sell out their desktop PPC operations unless it helps the bottom line. In your scenario, I don't see it happening. But hey, stranger things have happened.
BTW, MOTO is not bleeding cash right now. In fact, they will be returning to profitability by the end of the year. The projections are calling for about 12 cents per share for the whole year. That's pretty good considering that they took losses for both Q1 and Q2. Next year is looking better, now that their cell phone line-up has straightened out.
That would be great. WHy doesnt apple do what AMD does and assign numbers to their processors like the AMD 2400 XP etc. Probably because the dual 1.25 is about a 2500 and the p4 is up to 2800, which shows someone who doesnt know anything about computers that as of now PCs are faster.
Because Apple realizes a bad idea when they see it. Unlike the many PC Manufacturers Apple doesn't have to "differentiate" it's products from it's virtually identical competitors by focusing in on Clock speed or HD size or whatever catagory you want to use. They simply provide a nice neat solution at a given price. I guess you could say it's the advantage of "ruling the roost".
Apple is not concerned right now with highlighting speed because they are in fact behind so what they must highlight is that advantages of their os and included iApps.