7470 PPC and Why no G5's.

[mozez]

ibm

ibm has the right to use the altivec engine, they choose not to b/c it's inefficient for their purposes. they can do whatever they want to it because they helped break the speed barrier that motorola had. ibm can do whatever they'd like to the altivec, and if apple was smart, they'd drop motorola, and just hire ibm. motorola is great, but they don't give apple enough attention. they do embedded processors, mobile, wireless, not cpus, not enough money towards r&d. ibm has the money, they know how risc works, they have proven it time and time again. all apple has to do, is pay them to do what they do best, and maybe put apple back in the game.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Re: irony

mozez-

Care to back any of what you said up with URLs, or some sort of concrete evidence?

The truth is that ANY chip manufacturer can find tests that show their particular processor has superior performance to someone elses. We all know that Moto is behind in many respects, but saying their chips/chipsets are slower for ALL uses is preposterous.

 

[The Bender]

Fol-de-roll

Please do not feed the Troll.

 

[eirik]

Soylent Green is made of People!!!

A couple of posters have made a really appropo point: what doth a "G5" make? The "G5" that finally comes out could turn out performance akin to that of the Itanium family when it first came out, for all we know.

What does a CPU, or for that matter, what does a PowerMac have to do to satisfy us? The easy answer, it has to irrefutably beat the crap out of anything comparable in the x86 world.

Well, one of the essential elements to success is managing expectations. Vague expectations make a difficult target. And, wanting faster computers than the other guys just locks us and them in a costly cycle of upgrades.

That said, I'm not denying the existance of a legitimate need for speed. Hell, on my Windoze box, which I'll use until a PowerMac and other things are available that suit my needs (another topic), can't play highly compressed videos worth a damn because of a desperate lack of horsepower.

With all the energy put into this and other forums, I'm disappointed that we have little to no specific benchmarks. I'd really love to see us gather ten or twenty (or more) performance measures to benchmark--real world, not just Photoshop. How long to convert a 600MB mpeg-2 to an avi-divx3? How long to render some standard file... GUI performance measures too.

You see, we yearn for something unqualified. What is it we really want? Is this just a contest of us (Mac) versus them (x86)? If that's all this is about, then maybe we're all just a bunch of suckers, making the chip and computer makers shareholders wealthier because we constantly buy the newest throughbred to one-up somebody.

This would all seem so much more rationale if we had some specific performance objectives that suit our real-world needs.

Just imagine the impact (progress proceeds more rapidly when there are specific, measurable objectives) on Apple and its partners if the Macrumors forum published a specific, realistic, comprehensive list of performance objectives: near- and short-term.

Eirik😱

 

[groovebuster]

Re: Re: irony

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
mozez-

The truth is that ANY chip manufacturer can find tests that show their particular processor has superior performance to someone elses. We all know that Moto is behind in many respects, but saying their chips/chipsets are slower for ALL uses is preposterous.

But you have to be true about it, that tests over a long time showed, that a G4 processor has about the same overall performance at the same clockspeed compared to an Athlon. We have to face the truth. Of course we have here and there tasks that one particular processor can handle better, but the overall perfomance is what counts in daily life. When you really need just high performance these days you go with a Dual Athlon. If pure performance isn't really what you need, you stick with the Mac. That's what I do meanwhile... and don't think I am happy with it, I would prefer to do all my work with a Mac.

It doesn't help to just ignore that the performance gap is widening more every day, because "it just can't be"! I see the difference almost every day during my work. It is not by accident, that Apple is shutting up pretty much about the "MHz Myth" lately, because it is just not true anymore. It was true compared to a Pentium IV (maybe 30% clockspeed difference), but when a processor is clocked more than double, it is faster anyway, even a P4 with it's ****ty architecture.

I am concerned about the future a little bit, because Apple is losing ground in the pro market.

And let's be true... even if the G5 will be there one day, it is not that AMD and Intel won't do anything until it's released. They also want to upgrade to the next processor generation. Consider the hammer (AMD). What if it has comparable performance to the G5? Nobody can say no, as long as the G5 is not released. And if Moto is running after in clockspeed again we maybe will have the same stupid game again like nowadays....

The G5 won't be the answer to everything, if Motorola is performing as bad again to increase the performance of the processor.

groovebuster

 

[ozzy_rover]

how much longer?

The question is not if but when.

Consider :

Apple makes it's money from the hardware.
Apple uses the software as a selling point to justify purchasing of it's pricey hardware.

Okay after a very long (almost too late IMHO) wait we finally get new software to once again replace the seriously outdated OS & differeniate the mac from the PC.

Apple hardware is seriously outdated but because of Apple's reliance on Motorola is not in a position to do anything major soon.

So we get minor incremental improvements that does nothing to Apple's market share & barely keeps us existing users.

Where to from here?
Depends on how long Jobs can successfully keep stringing us along until new hardware is ready... RDF is an amazing thing, the press are certainly on side at present...

How much longer are *you* willing to keep paying premium prices for mutton dressed as lamb?

 

[groovebuster]

Re: how much longer?

Originally posted by ozzy_rover
The question is not if but when.

How much longer are *you* willing to keep paying premium prices for mutton dressed as lamb?

That is exactly the question... I know that _I_ am not willing to buy any new Apple hardware in the near future, if there is not a significant performance boost. Time is money and if I have the feeling that I get more power for less money somewhere else, I'll place my money there. At first I have to earn the money I spend for my hardware and I am not willing anymore to pay still more for "high end" Apple Hardware than for performant PC Hardware, just to have OS X and the Apple Logo on my machine. I hate M$, but I hate it even more to be maybe not competetive anymore because I use Apple hardware for time intense jobs. It's harsh, but the barenaked truth.

It is nice to have a cool OS like MacOS X, but that doesn't help on the long run, when I can finish my jobs significantly faster on other hardware than Apple. The argument of the Usabilty of MacOS is melting away with every day day the Apple hardware is more outdated. I don't only buy a computer because of it's OS, the whole package must be OK. And as I said before, a nice OS doesn't help, if the hardware is more and more like a snail compared to other platforms available.

Don't get me wrong. the Mac has a nice concept, but it doesn't help when it can't keep up with other platforms on speed issues.

groovebuster

 

[Rocketman]

Re: how much longer?

Originally posted by ozzy_rover
The question is not if but when.

Consider :

Apple makes it's money from the hardware.
Apple uses the software as a selling point to justify purchasing of it's pricey hardware.

Okay after a very long (almost too late IMHO) wait we finally get new software to once again replace the seriously outdated OS & differeniate the mac from the PC.

Apple hardware is seriously outdated but because of Apple's reliance on Motorola is not in a position to do anything major soon.

So we get minor incremental improvements that does nothing to Apple's market share & barely keeps us existing users.

Where to from here?
Depends on how long Jobs can successfully keep stringing us along until new hardware is ready... RDF is an amazing thing, the press are certainly on side at present...

How much longer are *you* willing to keep paying premium prices for mutton dressed as lamb?

For anyone who has tried to custom configure a computer on a peecee to do what a Mac does soon realizes it costs almost as much to do either.

One of the side benefits of Apple releasing servers (headless CPU in an LC size case rackmountable and stackable) is that people with a true need for speed can finally incrementally add it.

Imagine your HOME CPU soon. You have 3 CPU's in a stack that cost $900 each (combined comparable to a midrange powermac) and you start doing videos. You NEED more power but do not want to give up your work environment, your peripherals, your physical set-up. You add 2-3 more servers. It doubles your computing power.

These are consumer prices too.

Servers everywhere, raid everywhere.

Sales geek: "How many CPU's do you need on your system? 2, 3, or 4?"

Rocketman

 

[quiddzz]

Motorola = bad news

I'm not expecting anything from Motorola. Their Microprocessor division is a joke. The moment they'll release a G5 chip at 1.6Gh, Intel will have a P5 4Gh chip available.

I don't care if the G5 clock cycle will be 3 times faster than the P5's. As far as Consumer Perception is concerned, the G5 will always be MUCH slower than anything out there.

That's the bottom line and it's going to hurt Apple.

 

[BigBen]

so sad..

Apple definitly has to do something about their image when it comes to speed. I´m a student in Germany and none of my firends would buy a Mac, simply because they can´t afford a G4 and an Imac? with that graphic-card. For that price (they are much more expensive over here) . And in the End I get a Computer with 800Mhz. You can get a ultra fast AMD with much better graphiccard etc. for at least 500$ less.

 

[edenwaith]

However, if someone wanted to be positive about things, perhaps the G4 improvements are for the G4 iMacs and Ti notebook, and the G5 will be introduced in the next line for the Powermac.

Certainly not saying it will happen, but it might still be a possibility.

 

[edenwaith]

Re: the birds tell me

Originally posted by Spidermanjohn

Why is it no windoze only user understands Mac??? I use both platforms in my line of work and each has its strengths. Had an employee at CompUSA tell me he hates the Mac. I asked him if he had tried the Mac, he said no?!? I asked why he hated the Mac? My dad says it sucks!!! So you never try things for yourself and make a decision on your own huh??? Well, you know the rest of the story.

I had a similar experience recently. A guy I work with who is from India started to insult my iBook because it was a 'Mac', and then he wanted to know what was so great about my Mac. So I began to explain, starting out with I've had good experiences with Mac hardware, being more reliable than cheap PC hardware. His response was, "That's not a reason." Sounds like a great reason for me. All things considered, after I had fun showing off my Mac and OS X, he shut up. I guess I don't have to crucify him just yet.

He explained that back in India he hadn't ever seen Macs, so he decided not to like them. Yeah, Microsoft's not a monopoly! That's why there are no other choices in some countries....sheesh!

 

[mcrain]

Re: Motorola = bad news

Originally posted by quiddzz
I don't care if the G5 clock cycle will be 3 times faster than the P5's. As far as Consumer Perception is concerned, the G5 will always be MUCH slower than anything out there.

That's the bottom line and it's going to hurt Apple.

With your permission, I would like to add my take on your comment. I'm a PC user right now, and a former mac basher, so I can say pretty confidently that you are correct in that there is a perceived speed deficit when you purchase a mac.

Then again, as a PC user who has had the opportunity to use a few macs, and who has had the time and incentive to read up on macs, there is definately an advantage to macs that PC's can't seem to fix. Reliability.

My computer refuses to do certain things. Repeatedly starts up into an error screen. Tries to go into safe mode all the time. Crashes for no apparent reason. Locks up, dies, crashes, freezes, etc... Control-Alt-Delete is a common occurence, as is hitting save every 5 minutes or so.

I've watched my buddy working on a complicated cad document for 1-2 hours, walk away, eat, come back, work on it some more, and then, only when he felt the changes were done, hit save. Unbelievable confidence in the stability of the machine (and electricity source, but Apple has no control over that).

Apple may be perceived as slower, but ask anyone who has used one for any amount of time, and there is a definate stability benefit to the Macs.

I'm willing to trade Mhz bragging rights if it means that I don't have to feel my blood pressure rise every time my computer crashes. I'm sure my health will benefit in the long run.

 

[groovebuster]

Re: Re: how much longer?

Originally posted by Rocketman


For anyone who has tried to custom configure a computer on a peecee to do what a Mac does soon realizes it costs almost as much to do either.

One of the side benefits of Apple releasing servers (headless CPU in an LC size case rackmountable and stackable) is that people with a true need for speed can finally incrementally add it.

Imagine your HOME CPU soon. You have 3 CPU's in a stack that cost $900 each (combined comparable to a midrange powermac) and you start doing videos. You NEED more power but do not want to give up your work environment, your peripherals, your physical set-up. You add 2-3 more servers. It doubles your computing power.

These are consumer prices too.

Servers everywhere, raid everywhere.

Sales geek: "How many CPU's do you need on your system? 2, 3, or 4?"

Rocketman

Where do you want to take me? What do you mean by „what a Mac does soon“?

And maybe it costs the same to have a PC with the same features as a Mac, but it is still significantly faster than a Mac. And that is the point (that is concerning me).

To add power by just adding some more servers is also not necessarily the way to go. Where do I put the rack for the Servers? Office Space is expensive and a Rack beside every desk can’t be a solution for 98% of the users (not to mention heat and noise issues). They need ONE machine with maximum power. The server farm is maybe good for long and performance hungry rendering jobs, but if you just do modelling it doesn’t help you a lot. The overall performance of your workstation is what counts then. Not for every task clustering of servers helps to increase performance.

And especially for the private home user I don’t see any need to fiddle with server stacks. Again you would need a lot more space for a whole rack of servers compared to a G4 or an iMac. And I don’t think that a lot of people find a big rack so atractive that they want to put it right beside the couch in the living-room. And again the question of noise and heat.

Rack mounted servers are for pros. There is no way in the near future to bring them to home users. To change processor cards would be a nice way to upgrade your Workstation for more power, but that’s what people do already since a while... But since Apple depends on hardware-sales they will never put people in the position to easily upgrade their machines (again). They want to sell new machines and not to make the people stick with their old boxes. I still remember my PowerMac 7500. That was a cool machine and I upgraded it 2 times with an processor upgrade card and all kinds of other stuff. Overall I used it more than 4.5 years, and not only for word-processing. A long time for a computer. And it is still running at a friend’s place for easy music jobs.

So I want one machine with all the power I can get.... and I would prefer it being a Mac. Steve, c’mon!!

groovebuster

 

[mcrain]

Re: ibm

Originally posted by mozez
ibm has the right to use the altivec engine, they choose not to b/c it's inefficient for their purposes. they can do whatever they want to it because they helped break the speed barrier that motorola had. ibm can do whatever they'd like to the altivec, and if apple was smart, they'd drop motorola, and just hire ibm.

Sorry mozez, but you haven't a clue.

Motorola may not be the best developer out there, but they did develop and, more importantly, patent their altivec (that is my understanding, although I have not researched the patent). Assuming a patent exists, others can do their own vector stuff so long as it does not include the altivec technology, but no one can use altivec without Moto's approval. As such, moto can block IBM's, or anyone elses, use of altivec.

Next time you want to make broad sweeping legal conclusions, please include citations and your legal background. Me, I've been doing this for 5 years, and I have a background in corporate, health, and tax law, with a legal education which included elective coursework on intellectual property (to go along with my engineering degree).

Nice try. Next.

(One more thing... isn't mutton lamb?)

 

[ftaok]

Re: Motorola = bad news

Originally posted by quiddzz
I'm not expecting anything from Motorola. Their Microprocessor division is a joke. The moment they'll release a G5 chip at 1.6Gh, Intel will have a P5 4Gh chip available.

I don't care if the G5 clock cycle will be 3 times faster than the P5's. As far as Consumer Perception is concerned, the G5 will always be MUCH slower than anything out there.

That's the bottom line and it's going to hurt Apple.

Yeah yeah. MOT's a joke.

But what is Apple's alternative? And don't tell me AMD.

Bottom line is that Motorola IS the first company to ship a 1Ghz chip based on the PowerPC architecture. NOT IBM.

 

[Newborn77]

Originally posted by Silver Dragon

...
Another option would be to allow Intel to produce PPCs for Apple, but I *highly* doubt that will happen any time soon
...

There was a rumor sometime ago on Mac OS Rumors about Apple talking to AMD, IBM and others about manufacturing the G5s if Motorola fell too far behind schedule. Maybe they will do that.

 

[Mausabiest]

I still love the Mac

The Mac is more reliable than a PC. Even Win. 2001 or XP are not so reliable. If you are into computers and like to screw, change graphiccards and build your own hardware because you know afterwards what you have stick with the PC, it is cheaper probably has more speed and it is ugly. But who cares if it´s cheap. If you like to configure your Hardware all the time a PC is the better choice.

I used to been a PC user for over 12 years I didn´t even know about the Mac until my wife told me that she wanted to have one because she does pre-press-work. And I think there is the biggest problem about the Mac, people here in Europe don´t even know that they have an alternative to the PeeCee. Since I have a Mac, I still have my PC but it is used very, very seldom well thinking about it allmost never.

I use a mac because it is so easy to use. You can say a mac is slow, you can say the hardware isn´t up to date but you can´t say that it is hard to understand how to work on a mac. It is so easy, even someone like me figured it out relativly quickliy. If you have no idea how to use a computer and if you have never used a computer before I would definatly recommend a Mac, even if the price is a littel bit higher.

If you have to work on a computer speed is a very important factor. But reliability is as well. The PC at my work a P4 1,7MHz Computer in a Network needs 5 Minutes to start with Win 2001. This is crazy so I leave it on all the time. The networkadministrator knows about the problem but he has no idea why it takes so long.

A Mac is maybe not the fastest computer but leaving the of course importand speed issue aside there are a lot of pros for a Mac besides the negative speed factor.

 

[Q-bert]

Interesting observation...

Somewhat OT here, but isn't it funny that:

a) One one hand, over here people are screaming for the latest cutting edge hardware, saying that Apple isn't on the ball because they aren't delivering it fast enough to keep up, and that we're all dying to buy new hardware if Apple would only provide it;

b) And meanwhile on some other forums, people are loudly complaining that Apple isn't on the ball because one aspect of the new software, Quartz Extreme, ONLY supports their latest cutting-edge hardware and doesn't work with older and low-end systems - and that we have no interest in buying new hardware at all but would rather use our current systems?

I'd hate to be Apple. It's hard to know who to listen to... 😉

 

[TyleRomeo]

ok i think i have an easy way show the speed comparison between a MACs and PCs.

ok what would you rather have, a Dodge Viper or an Acura NSX?

what has more horsepower?
the viper ofcource, about 200 more then the NSX.

but what car is faster to 60?

the NSX

it's not only horsepower that shows how fast a car is
there are tons of little factors involved
the cars weight
its transmision
ect

the same issue goes for macs
i'll elaborate more on this analogy later when i have more time
i hope this makes sense to someone out there

 

[jasonpaul75]

Running a corporation is just like...

leading a country. You certainly listen at some point to the masses...but you certainly don't do as they ask all of the time. Besides with only 5 percent (or less) of the market as card carrying mac users....the odds are that you do things that draw new converts....satisfying ever whim of the rabid loyal populace would be wasteful...mac users have proven time and time again that they can be wizzed on and they will stay active advocates for the mac cause..."because in comparison to what else is available why not"

Does any of this make sense to anyone other than me...

I am a mac loyalist...i have been jilted a great many times....

audio in/outs
microphone in
propietary monitor connectors
terrible palm support
my Epson 5700i thats less than a year old and won't work on OSX
I could go on...but why I love my macs...and the other options out there give me cold chills


"believe"

 

[groovebuster]

Re: I still love the Mac

Originally posted by Mausabiest
I used to been a PC user for over 12 years I didn´t even know about the Mac until my wife told me that she wanted to have one because she does pre-press-work. And I think there is the biggest problem about the Mac, people here in Europe don´t even know that they have an alternative to the PeeCee. Since I have a Mac, I still have my PC but it is used very, very seldom well thinking about it allmost never.

If you have to work on a computer speed is a very important factor. But reliability is as well. The PC at my work a P4 1,7MHz Computer in a Network needs 5 Minutes to start with Win 2001. This is crazy so I leave it on all the time. The networkadministrator knows about the problem but he has no idea why it takes so long.

Hallo Nachbar! I don't know from which part of Germany you are, but I am also from there and I always knew that the Mac was existing and an alternative. If you would have said you never used one, OK.... but not even knowing that it exists is close to complete ignorance. So you are never interested in your environment and the tools you are working with? You never saw a Mac magazine somewhere in a book-store? You never saw an Apple commercial or ad your whole life? Wow!!!! Good performance! 😉 Because even Apple's market share is around 2,5% in Germany and they are not very present in public, you still can see Macs at a lot of places... and media, e.g. movies.

I really wonder about all the horror stories that people still tell about Windows Computers. Since Windows2000 they are much more reliable than before. They are still not very pretty, but they work OK. All the PCs I had in my life I never had remarkable problems with. They did what they were supposed to do, without all the repairing 24/7 that other people are talking about!

And if your admin can't figure out why your machine boots that slow, then the problem is maybe him and not the computer. What did he do before? Construction worker? So you prefer to waste a huge load of energy during the year just because you don't have the 5 minutes in the morning to boot your computer? You could do other stuff during that time... like going to get a coffee. Don't tell me that you are working on your PC right from the first minute you are in your company. You are a weird guy buddy....

Don't get me wrong, I also love Macs and prefer them to PCs, but all those ferry-tales about how bad PCs work are just not true anymore.

May I ask what kind of work you are doing with your computer at work? A P4 with 1,7 GHz seems a pretty big puppy to me just for word-processing...

groovebuster