Dual G4 PowerBooks?

[Photorun]

Originally posted by JoE950
where do you get this crap. they wouldnt have even considered the processors if they wouldnt run the apps... they specifically stated that osx (undoubtedly including all the apps supported excluding vpc) would run on that architecture, but they chose ibm.. please dont exaggerate and lie, its not becoming...

Ah, the knee jerk Maczealot reaction, gotta love it. "Nooo, waahh, not Intel or something peecee in my Mac?!?" Get over it, Jobs said the roadmap for now (NOW) looks great with IBM, you can relax (for now).

You're almost kinda sorta right in that almost all apps would need to be recompiled for different chips for the current architecture or approximage of PPC. Hard? Yes. Impossible? No, not at all. I work with someone who makes dual platform (X to XP) and porting isn't that tough, one platform will take a performance hit mind you, but not tough. Adobe ports some of their software too, not from the ground up on both platforms, again, parts take advantage of a chip, others just run their coding and are on their merry way a bit regardless of what chip or architecture it's on.

OS X can most certainly run on Intel or (preferably) AMD though, and I'm sure it's been thought of a few times. As long as IBM comes through ('cause Moto ain't) and we have at least SOME timelines we'll be using IBM's offerings. Should that slip, you never know. Just remember it would, for all intent and purpose, mean most apps would have to be recompiled, and that would get sticky.

 

[beefstu01]

Originally posted by JoE950
where do you get this crap. they wouldnt have even considered the processors if they wouldnt run the apps... they specifically stated that osx (undoubtedly including all the apps supported excluding vpc) would run on that architecture, but they chose ibm.. please dont exaggerate and lie, its not becoming...

Primalman is right- you won't be able to run any current Mac app on it. All applications written for the Mac right now are compiled as to work with the current architecture (PPC). Linux is a great example of this- it runs on every platform I can think of, but you can't swap programs between platforms without recompiling the code.

For my two cents, I really doubt this will happen.

1) Two processors will draw a lot of charge (more than one will, at least), so your battery life will go to sh*t. Look at what apple did for the current revision of the PowerBook- it shrunk the battery to save weight (and to fit), so unless the PowerBooks are about to get bigger and heavier, I doubt we'll see duals with a respectable battery life.

2) Two processors will get a lot hotter than just one guys. My 15" isn't TOO hot, but it gets warm... imagine adding a second processor. "But both won't be used as much..." blah blah blah. Point is that two processors will still put out a decent amount of heat.

3) Have you looked inside a PowerBook? Have you seen how much space is in one? Just where the heck do you propose that Apple sticks a second processor? Everything is so packed in there... I think there was some voodoo magic that went on to get everything to fit. Remember, by adding a second processor you'll need space not only to add the processor, but you'll need to modify your controller, all the wiring, futz with your heat pipe, blah blah blah.

4) Put two and two together people- look at what Apple did with the iBook. When everything was getting AirPort Extreme, FireWire 800, etc..., the iBook got a lousy speed bump. A few months later, it got overhauled, all the goodies and a G4. I think Apple's at the same stage with the PowerBooks- we'll probably see one more revision, maybe two, before we see the G5. I don't think it would make sense to spend lots of cash on R&D for just one revision.

Once again, just my two cents.

 

[sjc1204]

Missing an important point

Everyone's so focused on CPU for the Powerbooks but we are all missing a very important factor which is hard drive speed.

If we want a huge performance increase, we should be wanting 7200 rpm / 8 mb cache drives that stay cool and use very little power.

For example, I recently replaced the original 5400 rpm drive in my G4 AGP 466 MHz with a new Maxtor 80 GB 7200 rpm and it's like having a new machine.

Desktop replacement can't truly happen on a performance level until the drives are take care of.

 

[Photorun]

two verses one debate (debacle)

The thing is two chips really aren't faster, or that much faster than one. Go to macspeedzone.com or barefeats.com or ones run by macaddict.com, only apps that take advantage of two chips are actually faster on two chips. This really serves how much of the entire Mac market? 10% Maybe? Probably not even? Sure some hard core Photoshop user would be itchy to do a Guassin blur in 4 seconds instead of 7 seconds, but c'mon, what's it really about? Bragging rights, that's what, "I got two chips.. .WOOT!" When in fact the extra bucks could have easily been spent on RAM which for most things will see a better increase in speed than two chips. Two chips is a bit of an Apple smoke screen. Brag factor? 10. Reality factor? 1.

Just wait for the single processor G5 late next year or early 2005, two chips isn't going to give most people any real gains, only losses to their wallets.

 

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by spinner
I personally feel that any R&D money that they put into a dual G4 PB will be a complete waste. The G5 is the future and the sooner its in the PB the better. I really hope they don't put any money or manpower into this just for bragging rights.

i think its an excellent way for apple to work on its cooling system. two g4s put off less heat than a single g5 as i understand it. figure out how to cool two g4s in a powerbook, then figure out how to make the g5 work later

 

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by spinner
I personally feel that any R&D money that they put into a dual G4 PB will be a complete waste. The G5 is the future and the sooner its in the PB the better. I really hope they don't put any money or manpower into this just for bragging rights.

Yeah. They'd have to develop a new architecture and use it for... 4-5 months, probably. Real useful.

 

[Photorun]

Re: Missing an important point

Originally posted by sjc1204
For example, I recently replaced the original 5400 rpm drive in my G4 AGP 466 MHz with a new Maxtor 80 GB 7200 rpm and it's like having a new machine.

Correct, which is such a joke of Apple to put a 4200 in their laptops. I work with Protools, audio recording software, the thing chokes on the paltry cheap drives Apple uses. There's some GREAT 5400 and even 7200 drives that don't consume any more power than the cheapy 4200 Apple sticks in the machines. A faster drive is like a new machine. We've put some Travelstar 7200 in a Powerbook 800 and it now can outsmoke the PB 15 1 GHz with the same RAM and OS. Hard drive speeds mean faster access times, file moving times, everything. People should be up in arms over Apple's choices of hard drives, they've been hobbling their Powerbook line since day one.

(Note: I say Powerbook because iBooks are using 5400s which is why the iBook G3 900 could often BEAT the Powerbook G4 1 GHz in tests, while the G4 was hunting, reading, writing and accessing the G3 iBook had already gotten and performed with all the info)

 

[Dunepilot]

Originally posted by swissmann
I had a dual 500 G4 tower and an 800 MHz G4 iMac. The dual processor machine was way faster and more functional, not just marginally so. I also had a 667 TiBook which was slower than both of course. From my experience I would rather have 2 processors each at half the speed than one fast processor. I'd probably buy a dual 1 GHz 17 inch G4 over a Single 2 GHz G5 laptop. 2 processors seem to work well with multitasking, which is something I do all the time. By the way when I had my TiBook, 90% of the time it was plugged in the other 10% of the time it was on the road for selling. Battery life wasn't that big of a deal for me like it would be for a college student. Ideally I would like to see a dual processor G5 laptop. I love my Dual 2 GHz G5 tower. I'm not talking about practicality just what I would like.

Couldn't agree more - my Dual proc G4 Powermac is a lovely machine to work with, and I can't see myself ever buying another single-processor desktop.

What amazes me is that everyone's treating this as if Apple only just thought that a dual-G4 laptop was a possibility. There's every likelihood that they've had prototype dual proc machines for every generation of G4 Powerbook. It's only now that the heat problems are being lessened by the new G4 models that such an idea becomes practical.

As for Apple admitting that their machines don't cut it by introducing duals, if that were the case they would never have gone the (Moto-enforced) dual route with the Powermac.

 

[illumin8]

Originally posted by swissmann
From my experience I would rather have 2 processors each at half the speed than one fast processor.

Can I please have some of whatever it is that you're smoking? In all seriousness, you never get the same level of performance from the second processor as you do from the first. On a good unix kernel you might get 90% or even 95% of the performance of the first processor on your second. There is some overhead due to the scheduler having to swap threads around between processors. Also, there are cache coherency issues and memory access issues with both processors trying to work on the same memory.

So a single 2 ghz. machine will always beat a dual 1 ghz. machine, all other components being equal, in every single benchmark. Especially if we are talking single G5 vs. dual G4.

 

[the_mole1314]

I'm kinda ticked off whenever someone says "Oh, there's a Mac Zelot". It makes me mad. I mean, we arn't going out there and say "MACS ARE BETTER JUST BECAUSE! PCS BURN IN HELL!", we are giving reasons, especially in AMD and Intel architecture. P4 and AMD machines are better than most G4s, most, but their mobile companions, still suck since heat is a big issue. As for OSX on Intel, it would be hard to port something AS GOOD as it on a PPC, but if you want to do a half ass attempt, it could take up to 6 months to do it. It's not like there are apps like 'Adobe Mac to PC App Conversion' or vice versa.

 

[the_dalex]

Pre-planning still costs money, just like planning. Considering the current models don't have a slot for a second processor, we'd be talking about a new logic board at the very least, but likely more. If they had another logic board ready to go that they had already spent the money on, then the cost would just be shifting to new logic board production and the loss in economies of scale, which is still significant considering it would be several hundred dollars more than that of the 17" models.

I place the dual-G4 powerbook rumor in the "Less than one percent chance" category.

 

[iPC]

Originally posted by swissmann
I had a dual 500 G4 tower and an 800 MHz G4 iMac. The dual processor machine was way faster and more functional, not just marginally so. I also had a 667 TiBook which was slower than both of course. From my experience I would rather have 2 processors each at half the speed than one fast processor. I'd probably buy a dual 1 GHz 17 inch G4 over a Single 2 GHz G5 laptop. 2 processors seem to work well with multitasking, which is something I do all the time. By the way when I had my TiBook, 90% of the time it was plugged in the other 10% of the time it was on the road for selling. Battery life wasn't that big of a deal for me like it would be for a college student. Ideally I would like to see a dual processor G5 laptop. I love my Dual 2 GHz G5 tower. I'm not talking about practicality just what I would like.

You realise the G5 gets more work done per clock cycle than the G4 does, right? The whole point of the move to the G5 was because of this. It is NOT just a clock cycle thing.

I see the MHz-Myth lives....

 

[jamilecrire]

Originally posted by Over Achiever
Interesting. So dual G4s might see the light of day (I predicted it wouldn't happen!). But i'll still wait for a G5 powerbook even though having a dual proc laptop is quite a feat. Imagine the battery life on reduced speed, one processor (for really long batt life), and dual processors for plugged in intensive encoding.

Meh, I'll still wait for a fast (2 GHz G5) laptop.

-O.A.

Maybe you'll get a dual either way. If the 980 is multi-core then you may get the best of both worlds, G5 Dual Processor.

 

[~Shard~]

Originally posted by the_dalex
Pre-planning still costs money, just like planning. Considering the current models don't have a slot for a second processor, we'd be talking about a new logic board at the very least, but likely more. If they had another logic board ready to go that they had already spent the money on, then the cost would just be shifting to new logic board production and the loss in economies of scale, which is still significant considering it would be several hundred dollars more than that of the 17" models.

I place the dual-G4 powerbook rumor in the "Less than one percent chance" category.

I think you hit the nail on the head: new logic board = more $$$ = loss in economies of scale = much more expensive PB. And unless you're doing hardcore Photoshopping, or using FCP, how many people would actually benefit from DPs? A very small % I'm thinking... If you absolutely need DPs, get a tower!

 

[backdraft]

Apple could easily have IBM produce faster G4's (2.0ghz+) add a faster bus and faster RAM. No need for dual chips yet.

Though it could be fun

-backdraft

 

[ITR 81]

Only if the G5 PB doesn't make it here by summer.

Before any dually pops out I expect to see in the next 3 months a change in G4 processors.

17inch = 1.42GHz
15inch = 1.33GHz
12inch = 1.25GHz


I believe the iBook will also see a similar processor change since they are now using the G4 processor.

 

[pgwalsh]

I could see dual processor G4's if they had some type of bus slewing or the following:

Mobile 1 Processor running
Plugged in 2 Processors running..

No idea if this is possible.

 

[MikeAtari]

Great for Java Dev

I'd like to see Dual Laptop G4/s.

I don't see the problem if Motorola can actually deliver a Dual Core G4. Would be great if Motorola left the picture on a high note.

For Java Dev, these would be perfect machines.
And we don't need high ghz. 1.0 would be fine.

Simply, the ability to test multi-threaded apps on a laptop would be great. Since Apple already has the OS running on the G4 Desktop, I don't see any major expense in the OS department.

Can't really test threaded code on a single processor.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I think a dual proc would be nice to see in the 17" PB. I mean, it's already a desktop replacement (how many people are going to tote around a 17" like they would a 15" or 12") so why not give it the extra juice? The screen size plus dual procs would easily make it the best mobile/on location video editing solution out there. Why ship/transport a tower, monitor, and kb/m when you could just ship a dual proc 17". And with companies making external solutions for render assitance/RT FX and capturing uncompressed video laptops aren't as handicapped as they used to be.


Lethal

 

[MikeAtari]

Would be hot demand for a G5 Laptop if...

Would be hot demand for a G5 laptop if
Apple finishes the OS X rewrite for 64 bits
and Sun puts out a 64 JVM.

Still, a dual core G5 would be nirvana for Java Dev.

 

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by the_dalex
I would be surprised to see a dual G4 in a laptop mainly because it would be a lot of expensive re-engineering for a small market for a short period of time. Battery life and heat issues would make it difficult and less useful, and a G5 Powerbook is inevitable.

My thoughts exactly, heat and power consumption, of a dual sysetem are much greater, that would limit battery life, so I don't see it happeing.

 

[MikeAtari]

Difference is

There is a difference between a dual core and a dual chip.
A dual core would be, presumably, in the 90 nm size.

I don't see Apple coming out with a Dual Chip,
maybe a one off for Steve.

But, again, if Moto can deliver, a Dual Core with memory mgmt built in would be cooler that a single and seperate MMU.

 

[manitoubalck]

Re: Difference is

Originally posted by MikeAtari
There is a difference between a dual core and a dual chip.
A dual core would be, presumably, in the 90 nm size.

I don't see Apple coming out with a Dual Chip,
maybe a one off for Steve.

But, again, if Moto can deliver, a Dual Core with memory mgmt built in would be cooler that a single and seperate MMU.

Moto @ 90nm HA, your joking right. There the only major chip maker still using 180nm tech, and they only just made the swap to 130nm. Moto @ 90nm maybe in 2005/6.

 

[swissmann]

Originally posted by iPC
You realise the G5 gets more work done per clock cycle than the G4 does, right? The whole point of the move to the G5 was because of this. It is NOT just a clock cycle thing.

I see the MHz-Myth lives....

Yes I understand that. That is why I am working on a Dual G5 machine right now and have two Dual 1 GHz G4s to either side of me. All tech notes and benchmarks aside. If I can have one processor rendering my video and borrow the other processor to work in photoshop I find my work day more productive than having one faster processor render video more quickly and waiting for it to finish before working in photoshop, or dedicating the fast processor to switching over to photoshop and work with the foreground app and have the video rendering slow way down in the background. The way I work benefits more from two processors than one faster one. Of course two super fast processors is the most productive.

 

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by dongmin
uhh, the Register predicted that Apple was gonna release a Moto-based G5 two Januaries ago. In another words, don't believe a single prediction that the Register makes, especially regarding a Moto processor.

Motorola themselves did announce that a dual core was on the way, it's not just a Register thing. Here's the presentation, the multicore stuff is covered on pages 32 through 35. With a goal of up to 2 GHz, that's a discussion of current/near-term processes, and they clearly show this integrated stuff as a 2004 development.