970 at WWDC?

[Frobozz]

Re: Re: yeah yeah yeah

Originally posted by andrewlandry
people really need to get over the idea that there are no practical needs for faster computers. creative proffessionals need faster computers. i make music on my dual-gig and i still have songs that it can't handle without bouncing tracks. working in Final Cut Pro and not having to render effects (without buying a Matrox card or something) would be nice.

There are tons of people who are not grandmas and who are also not insecure weenies. That's great that you think your computer is fast enough for you. But to say that anyone who wants their computer to be faster isn't a "real Mac user" or whatever is not accurate.

I totally agree. Those that do not need more speed than we have now should be buying iMacs. I need more power. I do 3d modeling, amongst other things, and if you've ever tried to do photon maps or caustics on high poly scenes, you're in for a LONG-ASS wait. I have a dual gig quicksilver, so I think you and I are in the same boat!

 

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Huh, I thought that OSX was actually 100% ready for PPC. At least it seems to run 100% right most of the time on G3 and G4's which are PPC's.

Okay I am being a little sarcastic...but you get the point.

Yeah, it must be that they were saying they'd roll in changes necessary for the 98xx series processors, which are based off of Power5. I guess this makes sense since they are doing a for-pay 10.3 release anyway...

 

[dudemeister]

'scuse-me??!

Originally posted by maxterpiece
You are right, we need speed. Speed, however, is not Apple's concern.

Aside from being plain wishful thinking to have some sort of excuse to give to Wintel users, it's just simply WRONG, sorry. If it were so, everyone might as well switch NOW since it would be a simple question of time b4 Apple disappeared into meaninglessness. You don't go around buying companies like Nothing Real and kill Windows support for apps like Shake, if you don't inteand to provide the users (such as myself) with comparable speed they had on their PCs ASAP, otherwise don't bother buying it cause the users are gonna be gone SOON. I'm a video professional (and the PROS are still the most important user base for Apple, not the Grannies!) that is going to move his entire production to PC (along with many others I work with) if something doesn't happen soon. Time is big money in my biz and I'm on average 2,5 times faster on my PCs in production. Which I HATE having to admit, believe me...

Apple will find a chip that is competitive enough. They will make the hardware end of their system be at least viable. You are right when you say that businesses that are looking to be productive are going to be interested in speed.

Hell yeah. And they better be quick about it, cause if something doesn't happen soon, then even the alleged 2,5 GHz are going to look like a bad joke. AMD and Intel aren't exactly asleep at the wheel! Besides, "businesses that are looking to be productive are going to be interested in speed"???! Great, so to be the most productive I have to buy a PC...?! 😕 😕

Let's get one thing clear then, Apple is in no position to compete on price/performance with PCs.

Let's get another thing clear: wrong again. Macs are priced below PCs in many cases, and that's not even counting the amount of money and time we save just in tech-support- (meaning DOWN-) time with Macs. Just cause you can't get a Mac for as little as a PC overall doesn't mean diddley. Feel free and put together a computer at DELL's home-page that is comparable to a current Mac. The price difference isn't even in the 3-digits.

Apple has sacrificed price/performance (they killed the clones) on the principle that hardware is not what's really important to a computer.

Sorry, wrong again. The death of clones had entirely different reasons, and if you ask me, GOOD reasons. I had a couple way back when... BIG mistake and Apple knew that.

Notice that each keynote concentrates less and less on processors, and more on the true innovating that apple is doing.

Oh please. They're only not doing their usual (questionable) Photoshop "bench-testing" anymore because it doesn't matter anymore?! 🙄 .... hardly. They're not doing it because it would simply be painfully embarrassing, plain and simple. What you're saying is equal to Stevie going on stage and saying "Hey, we're only one THIRD as fast as the rest... but dude, we've got iMovie and it's FREE!!" The auditorium would clear in record time!

So what I'm saying is that, apple is never going to get those businesses that want straight up performance to run apps that are going to be the same on a PC or Mac. The closest to a business scene Apple will get is a small business user whose business does not operate in such a strictly mechanical way.

Dude, think about what you're saying. If that were in any way true, then what reasoning do you see behind the various companies and sw-packages they've been buying??!! Are those just tax-shelters or something? You're contradicting yourself entirely. Small businesses are exactly the ones that are the least interested in Macs, purely due to the aforementioned price/performance aspect that YOU brought up. The non-production (secretary and the likes) part of my office doesn't need performance! A P3 at 800MHz, Word, email and solitaire does the job perfectly and costs me HALF (worst-case) of anything with an Apple on it. Which makes a huge difference if I need 3 or even more such machines... buy two get one free! My secretary doesn't need FW or CD-R etc., so why the hell should I pay for it? (note: I'm being the devil's advocate here since my secretary has a Mac 😀) I don't think you understand you're arguing against the Mac here... or is that your intention and I simply ain't gettin' it?! Because I really DON'T get your point, sorry. It doesn't make any sense.

S/He doesn't have a network administrator. S/he might use his/her computer for more than just one task.

Yepp. That's why they get a PC.

So the "PPC 970s" will come every few years, and maybe they will shake up Apples market share for a year, but they are always going to come, and are not going to change apple's fortunes in the long run.

And this is okay in your book??! Bottom line, plain and simple: if Apple doesn't catch up in terms of speed soon, they be reminiscing about the good old days where they had a whopping 3% market share, whether you think speed is important or not (and if you don't, you're buying into Steve's "reality-distortion-field" big time). Joe Average DOES (why he does is irrelevant) and what else could make him think about choosing a Mac?! Maybe the fact that 98% (if not 100%) of his buddies and/or business partners don't have one either? Hmmmmm...😕

 

[type_r503]

wwaaaaaahhhhh!

You guys are a bunch of cry babies!

First you're like, "I can't wait for the 970", "We need faster processors"

And when they are finally on the horizon all you can talk about is killing sales. We have to have faster processors to survive. Intel has sold the world on the importance of proc speed. Let alone the fact the the G4 is about 1.5 years behind or a cycle of Moore's Law. Imagine if you could do all your photoshop work in 1/3 the time or burn a DVD in 1/4 of the time.

As far as killing sales go, these computers aren't suppossed to be for consumers anyways. Corporate buying is much more important (larger quantities) and will continue simply because how hard it is for large companies to change their minds. If the chip is 1+ years out then a MW intro would be stupid, but I don't think anyone at apple or IBM is that stupid.


I say bring on the speed and 64bit processing power that comes with the 970.

type R

 

[Marianco]

SPEED DOES MATTER - DUAL CONFIGS MATTER

A single PPC 970 is not fast enough.
If you haven't had a dual-G4 machine, you won't understand how much speed or flexibility a dual processor machine gives you.

Despite the 64 watt per processor power requirement, this is still less than a dual Athlon or P4 configuration.

Dual processors are necessary for use in the video and film industry, scientific research, and anywhere else where the fastest speeds are needed. Heck, even quad processors are needed.

Thus it is possible and also necessary for Apple to not abandon dual processor designs. Apple just needs to work on the cooling system. Or, Apple can copy the cooling systems on exisiting Athlon systems.😡

 

[GPTurismo]

Re: Hmm ...

Originally posted by macmunch
So a Realease for MWNY03 seems very good or ??

Steve could show the nearly final version of 10.3 (same last year with 10.2)

An will say they ship the OS and G5(PPC970) in August/September !!


What do you think ?

I jsut hope they don't do the same thing as OSX 😉

10.0 PRB, 10.0, 10.1, and finally the true "fully workable" OSX 10.2 :S

 

[dudemeister]

Re: wwhaaaaaa...t?

Originally posted by type_r503
You guys are a bunch of cry babies!

Good one. Out makin' friends, are we? 🙄

First you're like, "I can't wait for the 970", "We need faster processors"
And when they are finally on the horizon all you can talk about is killing sales.

So? What's your point? It's a completely legitimate concern that is relevant! As opposed to Wintellers, we're not total egomaniacs worried about what benifits US most, whatever the price, but also what benifits "our" company APPLE as well and a sales slump isn't a GOOD thing! Hardly much point in quad-8GHz CPUs if there ain't a box to put them in, is there??!

Imagine if you could do all your photoshop work in 1/3 the time or burn a DVD in 1/4 of the time.

😕 what exactly is your CPU doing to accelerate the burning of your DVDs??!

I say bring on the speed and 64bit processing power that comes with the 970.

You need to read up on the principal/meaning of a 64bit bus/CPU and that's not even the best part of the Power4/5 CPUs either. It's a tad more complicated then just "pop it in and letter rip!". If you i.e. don't have other components up to speed it can just as well back-fire on you...

 

[Gus]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
As far as ppc98 goes i think this is a reference that the 970 is able to run all the 32 bit stuff from when the ppc made its appearence sort of speak. wasnt that about 1998?

I am assuming that you are either young, or are new to the Apple community? The PowerPC made its first appearance in a Mac in March of 1994-

http://www.apple-history.com/frames/?

The beautifully expandable PowerMac 6100.

Just an FYI. 😉

Regards,
Gus

 

[nuckinfutz]

A single PPC 970 is not fast enough.
If you haven't had a dual-G4 machine, you won't understand how much speed or flexibility a dual processor machine gives you.

Hey man let me save you from a little embarrasment in the future.

1. a PPC 970@ 2.5Ghz would probably spec at SpecFP-1350 Specint- 1300 that's faster than Intel right now and AMD

P4 cannot be run in SMP systems. You have to purchase Xeons for that.

 

[foniks2020]

PPC98 and other thoughts

I'm agreeing with an earlier poster who said PPC98 probably refers to being backward compatible with 1998 PPC 32bit instructions... the same ones we have now, in 2003, FIVE years later!

That really puts the sad state of the current PPC chips into perspective, of course x86 has been around even longer but Intel decided early on to add on speed patches instead of worrying about the chip architecture too much.

I can easily see prototypes being demo'd at WDDC. ADC Select members includes companies like: Adobe, Quark, Alladdin, Macromedia, Microsoft MBU, etc. as well as newer member companies like Oracle and Novell who have been working hard to support OS X lately, not to mention the hardware vendors who need to know about driver support issues (HP, Epson, Phillips, Toshiba, etc.).

I'm wondering if the first PPC 970s will even be in 'desktop' machines. It's entirely possible that Apple will release a new XServe model with these chips in them initially... as they did with DDR(lite) support and a few other mods that then trickled down to the towers.

Anyways, there is plenty of good reasons to believe this rumor and absolutely no reason to think it will have any bearing on final released products until 3rd Q this year (though we can always hope for a surprise).

 

[foniks2020]

Originally posted by Gus
I am assuming that you are either young, or are new to the Apple community? The PowerPC made its first appearance in a Mac in March of 1994-

Well I still stand by the previous posters view until something better comes along ;-p I'll rationalize this by stating that I don't think the PPC instruction set from the 6100 was mature at the time as Mac OS still relied on a lot of legacy code at the time 860xx? I always forget the exact number string.

Anyways I seem to remember there was a freak out back then when it got to the 7200 line and up due to firmware where some stuff wasn't backwards compatible with the 1st Gen PPC machines.

 

[eirik]

Re: SPEED DOES MATTER - DUAL CONFIGS MATTER

Originally posted by Marianco
A single PPC 970 is not fast enough.
If you haven't had a dual-G4 machine, you won't understand how much speed or flexibility a dual processor machine gives you...
...Dual processors are necessary for use in the video and film industry, scientific research, and anywhere else where the fastest speeds are needed. Heck, even quad processors are needed.

Given the horrendous FSB limitation of the current G4's, even a single 970 with its relatively massive FSB potential (6.4 GB/s vs 1.3 GB/s max. theo. thru-put) ought to be able to blatantly smoke a pair of dual 1.4's on high volume, high computations such as video rendering. The 1.4's are choked, waiting for data to make its way through the FSB's. Theoretically, a single 1.4 GHz 970 could get almost 5 times the data throughput than that of the dual 1.4's. I wonder if the single 970 would be able to keep up with all that data?

Nonetheless, provided IBM and Apple don't disappoint us on the 970 FSB w.r.t. multiple CPU configurations, two or four 970's should truly rock.

I'm not disagreeing w/ Marianco, just pointing out the silver lining (FSB relief) should we not initially get dualies or very highly clocked CPU's. All this Iraq and UN stuff is depressing, a little good news elsewhere would be most welcome.

Eirik

 

[-hh]

Re: wwaaaaaahhhhh!

Originally posted by type_r503
You guys are a bunch of cry babies!

First you're like, "I can't wait for the 970", "We need faster processors"

And when they are finally on the horizon all you can talk about is killing sales. ... If the chip is 1+ years out then a MW intro would be stupid, but I don't think anyone at apple or IBM is that stupid.

Agreed, and similarly, the customers -- especially business -- aren't stupid either.

I'm of the opinion that PowerMac sales are pretty much already virtually dead - - we're really beating an old, dead horse over and over: anyone who's a knowledgable consumer knows what the deal is, and will avoid buying right now if he can. Most of the current sales are to those who know that they can't wait.


Afterall, Apple's Quarterly Reports have been reporting for quite awhile the increasingly poor sales of the PowerMacs. I'm having some challenges finding reliable numbers, but it looks like PowerMac sales were down 20-25% last quarter, and another 38% in the quarter before that. Any way you want to slice it, the numbers are already seriously down, with no end in sight.

Currently, the PowerMac is only ~8% of total sales (58K of 724K units sold in the quarter = 8%), which means that 8% reduction in total sales is the absolute worst impact that can occur if we assume that the PowerMac suddenly stops selling completely because of a formal 970 announcement.


The handwriting that I see is that any possible additional sales erosion due to a formal 970 announcement functionally cannot do any further harm to PowerMac sales, because "dead is dead": a 99% reduction in effectively zero sales is still effectively zero.


-hh

 

[bentmywookie]

Originally posted by iJon
i could believe this. weret we all saying the same thing when arn posted tomorrow there would be 17 and 12 inch powerbooks, and we all talked about how it would kill ibook and possibly 15 inch powerbooks sales. anyways, im guessing this could be true and it wont be long till we find out whats goin on. maybe a new powermac will be shown, with 10.3 being a 64 bit operating system to debut. i have a question for someone real smart. with 10.3 probably 64-bit with all the rumors, does having a 64-bit system tied in with a 64-bit processor make things faster, or does other things benefit from the processor.

iJon

iJon, as far as I know (and if I am wrong please, someone, correct me) - a 64 bit processor would not make anything faster unless it involved 64 bit numbers, since this processor now can handle 64 bit arithmetic and logic instructions.

The only other benefit of a 64-bit processor that I know of besides that is that you greatly increase the size of addressable memory from 4 GB (I think) on a 32 bit processor to something huge (2^64 bytes).

 

[zulgand04]

maybe a new era?

I know im going to hear it from everyone but i'll still say my opinion.
We'll i just thought of something maybe considering the chip is 64bit, that this will be a new era for Apple. That said it could be a possibility that Apple could come out with a totally new line not a macintosh but something else, this could be like when Apple cahnged from the name Apple to Macintosh, and i can just imagine a tv comercial simular to the freaky mac intro one. If Apple did this it would totally be a new era and a great beginning for Apple as a major player in the PC market.


just my insaine dream
-neal

 

[technocoy]

he he he he he...

I am starting to believe this really is going to be the best year for apple... at least as far as new recognition goes... i guess next year would be the best monetarily... I love it!! i love every minute of it!

technocoy😀

 

[MorganX]

Originally posted by GPTurismo

Speed only matters to little overclocker boys and packet monkeys :S

Anyone working with Video needs speed. Converting video formats on an iMac is so slow, I'm not even trying anymore.

Sony announced the PS3 would be available this year. Perhaps rumors of them also using a 970ish CPU are true after all.

 

[Rustus Maximus]

Originally posted by hh
The handwriting that I see is that any possible additional sales erosion due to a formal 970 announcement functionally cannot do any further harm to PowerMac sales, because "dead is dead": a 99% reduction in effectively zero sales is still effectively zero

hh is exactly right. The 970 is coming, and soon. There is no reason to delay because of the fear of hurting presently available PowerMac sales. You either hurt them now or you hurt them later, either way, there is going to be a dead zone during the transition period. The way to lessen that is to make a FAST transition. Which is why I'm falling on the side of a WWDC intro for the 970 and a desktop system release at MWNY, whether or not Steve gives the keynote. I think we are all about to be pleasantly surprised.

Rustus

 

[yzedf]

The whole point of ditching the G4 is to get back to single processor machines. This will help with costs in a big way! Simpler mobo, 1/2 cost for proc and fan, etc. And, it's performance will actually compare with the newer wintel stuff again. And then sell the dual proc 970 machine as a true workstation, ala Dell and other full line companies.

Of course, when this all can happen is still up in the air 😉

<edit>
As to these rumors hurting PowerMac sales presently; yes it is a problem. But I think that is more of a indication of the current level of machinery available, then the fact that "an update is coming."
</edit>

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Does anyone have any idea how fast a single 2.0 GHz or so 970 would be? Are there any specs on these machines? And would they be fast enough to forego having dual processors on first release.

D

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by MacAndy
One person replied earlier, "What if the 'Year of the laptop' was really a bluff, insinuating that the 970 may be released before the end of the year. Reading that made me think that maybe the reason this year is the year of the laptop is because Jobs and Apple have already resigned themselves to the fact that when they confirm the 970, powermac sales are going to be next to nothing until they release the new chip. That would make sense then why this year is for laptops. They are focusing on laptops this year because releasing the 970 is going to kill powermac sales until it comes out. In my mind, this allows the possibility for the 970 being prototype at WWDC because they have already decided that this year is for laptops and next year is going to be the year for powermacs.🙂 🙂 🙂

MacAndy

Unless the 970 is announced for XServe only (which is quite logical ... XServe applications need a relatively cheap 64-bit implementation ...), and PowerMacs don't get it until next year.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Unless the 970 is announced for XServe only (which is quite logical ... XServe applications need a relatively cheap 64-bit implementation ...), and PowerMacs don't get it until next year.

and that would be the death of apple - or more likely, jobs would get death threats by all the irate people who would see that move as clearly incompetent shortsidedness. They couldn't do that - its not like you'd be dangling a carrot in front of the donkey to get it to move faster. It would be more like baiting a bear with a side of bacon on a rope from a tree. The bear would either climb the tree or knock it over to get to the bacon - and you 😉

D

 

[hacurio1]

Re: Re: Hmm ...

Originally posted by GPTurismo
I jsut hope they don't do the same thing as OSX 😉

10.0 PRB, 10.0, 10.1, and finally the true "fully workable" OSX 10.2 :S

It's not like they will relase a new OS. They will only relase 10.3!!! An upgrade if you ask me!!!

 

[Pedro Estarque]

Originally posted by GPTurismo
Speed only matters to little overclocker boys and packet monkeys :S

Let's just quit this "we don't need more speed" nonsense shall we?
As a Pro User a NEED more speed then both Apple and Intel can provide me combined X^2.
A home user doesn't NEED a machine that can render HDTV in realtime to browse the web or print word docs, true. But no one likes to wait, we want to click and have it, not click and wait.
Until ( if ever ) we get a mac that can simple abolish the progress bar or the bouncing apps from the doc and have a realtime computer experience, then we can say it's fast enough.
I don't think we will ever get there, because as computers get faster we expect then to do more. Realtime HDTV rendering won't be enough when a new standard arrives that has, for example, twice the resolution plus 3D.

 

[porovaara]

Originally posted by bentmywookie
iJon, as far as I know (and if I am wrong please, someone, correct me) - a 64 bit processor would not make anything faster unless it involved 64 bit numbers, since this processor now can handle 64 bit arithmetic and logic instructions.

Right, but everyone needs to remember this new chip requires a new bus and memory toplogy. The current bus sucks. There is no way around it, it is severely bandwith limited for memory to the point where dual proc machines are starved for data. Current G4s would be faster if they were on a better bus... the 970 is on one hell of a bus.