15 inch Aluminum PowerBook Soon

[-hh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Justification, shmushtification!

Originally posted by idkew
has everyone forgoten about the 040 to PPC switch?

...

anyone know how long it took classic to go all PPC? did it ever?

I haven't forgotten -- I still have a few "FAT" applications on my hard drive!

A piece of relevent Apple History dates from the transition from System 6 to System 7: Apple announced in advance to the Developers that they should write "32 Bit Clean" code.

IIRC, there was even a System 7 Control Panel that allowed you to switch between 24 and 32 bit addressing.

Done it before ... they can do it again.


-hh

 

[ddtlm]

ktlx:

In fact, I have seen just the opposite in the two articles that are specific. Both have said the bus is locked at 1/2 the core frequency. These are from ArsTechnica and a Real World Technologies article pointed it.

Arstechnica said on this page (in a quote): http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q02/powerpc.html

It's two 32 bit links: one from CPU to "companion chip" [the northbridge], and one back from that chip to the CPU. Each link runs at 900 MHz (1.8 GHz CPU core. the interface link runs at integer fraction of the CPU core, in this case 1/2)

Anyway, back to you:

No other CPU, that I am aware of, allows the computer manufacturer to set the speed of the FSB. They are always fixed by the processor manufacturer.

It all depends on perspective. Clock speed is multiplyer times FSB, and the FSB-to-core fraction is just another way of saying multiplyer. Any way you look at it, the PPC-970 is going to have a much wider range of FSB speeds than any chip I am familiar with, and in fact being able to set the FSB as a fraction of core speed is the way to get the fewest FSB's (i.e. be the most normal). Also, remember that it is not uncommon for computer makers to be able to set multipiers themselves, in fact only Intel and AMD have gotten away from that, to combat remarking. G4's come from the factory without a multiplyer lock, and as far as I know, their multiyers can still be set by a little soldering on Apple's CPU daughtercard.

In fact, Intel is the only one I am aware of that has given the choice of two FSB speeds for a single core frequeny and that only happened where the 100/133Mhz and 400/533Mhz multipliers happened to coincide.

A few examples: G4's are available at 1.0ghz with 100mhz (upgrades), 133mhz and 166mhz FSB's. Athlons were available at 1.2ghz with 200mhz and 266mhz FSB's.

 

[Latino]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Justification, shmushtification!

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Well, technically you could run a 64-bit OS on a 32-bit chip, but it wouldn't be as fast . And yes, you would be able to run 32-bit applications by definition, the PowerPC 970 supports a no-penalty 32-bit mode. Task switching would simply switch the CPU into and out of this mode as necessary.

I'm aware that the CPU can do that, but it will require support from the OS. Then again, Apple would be quite foolish not to include this feature in OS X 64

There is no reason to believe that Apple will release a 64-bit version of MacOS X to compliment the PowerPC 970. The 970 can and does run 32-bit OSes just fine and with very minor modifications.

I would be surprised if Apple didn't release a 64bit OS X shortly after the release of PPC970 macs. Think XServes here. I'm sure they could benefit from extended RAM addreseability, as would some RDBMSs (Oracle, ...). It would also be a good selling point.

Not all applications will be 64-bit, there just isn't a need. Making, for example, iTunes 64-bit would be pointless, as it doesn't need 4GB of memory. Oracle Database however would probably debut as 64-bit since it most certainly can use that much memory.

Yes, 64bit iTunes is pointless. But it would require OS X 64bit, which in turn would require a 64bit mac, which means many of us would have to reach deep into our pockets to get a new Mac. And that would bring in $ for apple

May be I'm being paranoid here, but when it comes to spending so much money on a computer, I rather be safe than sorry

 

[DHagan4755]

For those of you who are skeptical that Apple will put the 970 in the PowerBook first...what would you have said if I told you in December that the new, faster version of FireWire (firewire 800) would debut in the PowerBooks first?

 

[DHagan4755]

And I just have to write again to say that I just visited the Apple Online Store. Both the Ti 867 and the Ti GHz have returned to 1-2 day availability (from 5 to 7 days earlier this week).

 

[Rincewind42]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Justification, shmushtification!

Originally posted by Latino
I'm aware that the CPU can do that, but it will require support from the OS. Then again, Apple would be quite foolish not to include this feature in OS X 64

Of course it will be a feature of a 64-bit version of MacOS X, Apple knows that no one will upgrade to a 64-bit OS or 64-bit processor if they can't run their old applications (which would include classic btw).

I would be surprised if Apple didn't release a 64bit OS X shortly after the release of PPC970 macs. Think XServes here. I'm sure they could benefit from extended RAM addreseability, as would some RDBMSs (Oracle, ...). It would also be a good selling point.

Panther is due in September. If Apple released a PPC970 based machine today I can guaruntee that it will not have have support of any kind for 64-bit functionality until at least September.

The logic for this is exactly this. If you are going to develop something, especially an operating system, you always do it based on shipping/shipable hardware. Unless Apple releases a PPC970 based machine within the next 2 months, max (i.e. at least a month before WWDC), then Panther will not support a 64-bit operating mode. In order to support 64-bit, Apple must develop and debug new APIs, brief developers on these changes, and provide develoers with hardware capable of developing these kinds of applications. That last reason is why they would have to release 970 hardware before WWDC. While I'm sure that the big wigs in Apple's corner have prerelease hardware, they cannot ship based on prerelease hardware, just as Apple cannot ship an OS based on prerelease hardware. The hardware has to come before the software so that you can assure compatability.

Yes, 64bit iTunes is pointless. But it would require OS X 64bit, which in turn would require a 64bit mac, which means many of us would have to reach deep into our pockets to get a new Mac. And that would bring in $ for apple

May be I'm being paranoid here, but when it comes to spending so much money on a computer, I rather be safe than sorry

But you can make the same argument about nearly any capability that a computer provides. Your iPod forces you to get FireWire. Your airport card makes you get a base station. Your DVD-R drive makes you want to burn DVDs. Every new capability is a reason to replace your old hardware, and if Apple required any of this new hardware to run their OS they would be out of business in no time.

Apple isn't going to try to use an application that would ignore the new capability in it's entirety - that is completely against everything they do. If Apple puts out any 64-bit apps when the time arrives, then it will be an application that fully utilizes the functionality. But they also have the good sense to realize that not everyone will be able to use the new functionality. Just look at Final Cut Pro 4. I can easily see it having a use for a 64-bit system. And if you look at it's current requirements it's minimum system is nearly 4 years old - a G4/350 - in a time where you can get a machine that is over 8 times faster! Given the nature of the app, Apple could have easily made the minimum requirements something much more recent without much grumbling. And while I can't see how productive you would be with a G4/350, I can definately see students/universities being greatful that the software will work on such an old system.

So while I do believe that a 64-bit version of Mac OS X will appear eventually, I doubt that it will be soon, and I seriously doubt that it will start a trend towards 64-bit everything from Apple.