Freescale Confirms Dual Core G4

[shamino]

You've left out the bit about emulating 68000 code on a PowerPC which is very far from trivial...

Absolutely true. I wasn't thinking along those lines.

Fortunately, Apple had a huge speed advantage to leverage when they wrote that emulator. The slowest PowerMac ever built (a PM 6100) was a 60MHz PPC 601. This is substantially faster than the fastest 68K box ever built (a Quadra 840av) with its 40MHz 68040. A 50% increase in clock speed, plus a more efficient architecture gave Apple enough headroom to write a 68K emulator that would always perform at least as fast as actual 68K boxes.

But even with those advantages, you're right - it must've been a bear to get the system working and stable. Although lots of people have written emulators, one that works well enough to run legacy device drivers (as Apple's can do) is very difficult to get right.

Again, my thesis here is that different chips are better for different applications. I think 64bits just won't be right for a laptop until the memory is needed, and when it is I think there will be a better portable solution than the G5. The philosophy of the G5 seems to have been performance at the expense of power, which doesn't seem right for a laptop. You can bring the power down by tweaking it, but you could still get a better laptop design with a different architecture while keeping performance degradation limited.

We will have to agree to disagree here.

While I agree that power consumption is critical for a laptop, I am confident that IBM will have lower-power G5-class chips in the future.

I think your criticism of the "G5" is really a criticism of the PPC 970. It is likely that all of IBM's forthcoming 64-bit PPC chips, including any low-power versions, will be called "G5" by Apple (until some future change is substantial enough to deserve a "G6" moniker.) I think a hypothetical PPC 970LC (or whatever they end up calling it), designed for low power consumption will work well in a laptop.

Although I agree 64 bit apps are rarely necessary for a laptop user, I disagree that having a 64 bit processor is in any way detrimental. Especially if the chip is capable of running 32-bit apps without an emulation layer. (The OS doesn't necessarily have to be built around 64-bit code to support 64-bit apps - it only has to provide 64-bit APIs and have a memory manager that can manipulate 64-bit page tables.)

 

[Maxx Power]

So you'd refuse the computer, no matter how fast and powerful it might be, based entirely on whether Apple marketing puts the name "G4" on the box or not?

I hope you're not making any importat decisions where you work.

That's some top notch entertainment. On the other hand, i'm sure apple has more than a dozen of those folks working for them so they can better address the buyer population that thinks along the lines of 5>4 hence spend spend spend. As well, I absolutely loathe apple marketing for those reasons, they keep on manipulating the truth, sometimes, well most times, a bit too far for honest tastes like mine. Photoshop tests ? Come on, it doesn't take a scientician (funny name) to realize the number of people who would buy a multithousand dollar machine to strictly use photoshop, especially not a luxury computing machine dressed up in a fancy coat on the outside with pseudo-gamer hardware on the inside...

 

[GregA]

Forgetting about G5 vs Freescales 'next-generation' G4s.... the real good news seems to be

1) Freescale chips look to be built with extra functionality (ethernet, PCI, memory controllers, etc) which could be great for some really small, light, well integrated computers.
2) There will be 2 chip choices for Apple for their laptops in about a years time. Choice is good, Apple can work with whoever is best when the time comes.

 

[Analog Kid]

That's some top notch entertainment. On the other hand, i'm sure apple has more than a dozen of those folks working for them so they can better address the buyer population that thinks along the lines of 5>4 hence spend spend spend. As well, I absolutely loathe apple marketing for those reasons, they keep on manipulating the truth, sometimes, well most times, a bit too far for honest tastes like mine. Photoshop tests ? Come on, it doesn't take a scientician (funny name) to realize the number of people who would buy a multithousand dollar machine to strictly use photoshop, especially not a luxury computing machine dressed up in a fancy coat on the outside with pseudo-gamer hardware on the inside...

Funny how selective benchmarking to a core market stands out like a dead raccoon in a world of honest marketing, isn't it? There's so many other cross-platform media apps to choose from...

 

[morgoth29]

ugrade market

What interests me the most is whether any of these new processors have much scope for application by the likes of sonnet,powerlogix or giga designs. I would be interested to see if an e600 would fit on an upgrade daughter board. Regardless of support for higher bus speeds, it would be interesting to see if the onboard memory controllers and things would cause problems. Pin compatible is a pretty mysterious phrase at this stage I feel!

Even if an e600 variant would not be used it would be interesting if the 7448 made its way into the upgrade market. Does anyone know if it would work in this application, as I always thought the upgrade companies still overclocked older 745x chips?

 

[G4-power]

The slowest PowerMac ever built (a PM 6100) was a 60MHz PPC 601.

That's the computer we had before this G4! (see signature)
Hehe, funny of you saying that, I'm always so frustrated when I use the old machine...half a day to boot System 7.5.3, the other half to open Netscape. But it was a speedy machine nevertheless, having a PPC chip and all, and ours is a 66 MHz speed-bump model anyway.

 

[Maxx Power]

Funny how selective benchmarking to a core market stands out like a dead raccoon in a world of honest marketing, isn't it? There's so many other cross-platform media apps to choose from...

I'm just criticizing on a filthy corporation by filthy corporation basis, this is a Mac site, so I did my duty. There is no such thing as honest marketing, as the more perceptive of us would already realize, but how would you appreciate the efforts of capitalism when your kids grow up corporate not knowing the difference between eating junk food and eating healthy because the marketing funds of the media ensures that by the time your kid has money in their wallets, they have received orders of magnitudes more advertising they see on TV, billboards, newspapers, internet, word of mouth, posters... than you have spent time parenting to them about proper eating habits. Marketing is inherently evil, it sprouts from a evil entity. To nitpick while you can is the least I can do, before they find a way to legally silence that as well, regardless which corporation in discussion, they are all evil, it is a matter of relative evilness.

As for benchmarks, at least it could adopt something that appeals to a greater audience, and stop showing people numbers with optimizations for the mac version and disabled optimizations for the PC version. Even adobe, the maker of photoshop tells people via its website that the PC platform is the preferred choice because it is so and so faster. Knowing those things and telling others that while we benchmark the machines, they are faster translates into marketing, or as more of us would associate to real life before post-neo-capitalism - cheating. Besides, apple's incesistant rants about the RISC architecture is really starting to become bothersome. It means nothing these days, both camps have merged at a singular evolution point. Some of the more generally accepted benchmarks include SPEC, with something like SPECopc Viewperf 7.1.1 which I'm sure one can obtain a mac version of, since we are all so very confident that there is a ton of software for the mac platform. For other purposes, you can also use Quake 3, UT2004 (but that makes the mac platform look real real bad), most new games exist for both platforms, as well as graphics hardware, a fair comparison is only a marketing-brick-wall away.

 

[groovebuster]

Soon I'll be in the market for a new PowerBook! So bring it on!

groovebuster

 

[G4-power]

Soon I'll be in the market for a new PowerBook! So bring it on!

groovebuster

Lucky you, I'm waiting to get rid of this...well, I don't want to get rid of this G4 but I need something faster...iMac G5 or PowerMac G5 please. This thing doesn't even burn CDs, nor will it run Quartz Extreme.

On to the topic, only thing Apple laptops nowadays lack is speed, all the gigahertz goodness. Pentium M's and AMD mobile chips are far away in speed. In other features, Apple laptops are in a good shape.
Minor speed-bumps what we've seen in the past aren't enough, the PowerBook should regain it's name, and get some power. The 7448 would be a good step onto developing a newer PowerBook, possibly around the e600 chips.

 

[kotovasii]

Just what is it that 'a lot of people' need a portable G5 for .....

Well for a start it is because we cannot afford in the academia to buy two computers - a desktop and a laptop. And the code for many Biosciences applications is written especially for a G5 - that is why all the noise about it from Apple - just check their .../pro/ section - G5, G5, G5 ... and yes of course we do not need G5 to do word processing, but then we do not need anything to do word processing higher than IBM PC 386 - I can still do it on it. The point here is that Apple wants more customers and they are pushing their G5 as the ultimate "weapon" for research, so give it to us then?!

 

[kotovasii]

Very Clever :-(

How many biotech labs do you know of where the scientists want to (or are even allowed to) do their research on laptops?

ehhhh, should I say most of them?! I am not talking about Biotech companies – these guys do not use Apple products they sit on IBM and Dell, and actually to answer your question it is for example: Prizer, GlaxoSmithKline, these companies first give you your laptop, and then your security pass badge. (I worked there unlike the author above here….) And again I was talking about Academic departments – and I run my lab and my research I do not have anybody to ask – I am the boss and make my own decision as to what is beneficial to me providing I have £2.5K to spend on a computer.

I hope you're not making any importat decisions where you work.

I do make important decision and this is exactly why I want to spend my research money on something that would give the best output and will be most practical – i.e. PowerBook G5. Wake up dear “shamino” we live in a real world and not funded by Bill Gates, but by British Government…

 

[veebs]

Well for a start it is because we cannot afford in the academia to buy two computers - a desktop and a laptop. And the code for many Biosciences applications is written especially for a G5 - that is why all the noise about it from Apple - just check their .../pro/ section - G5, G5, G5 ... and yes of course we do not need G5 to do word processing, but then we do not need anything to do word processing higher than IBM PC 386 - I can still do it on it. The point here is that Apple wants more customers and they are pushing their G5 as the ultimate "weapon" for research, so give it to us then?!

I think i have stood by watching this thread for long enough now, and i'll add my opinion on the matter...

Whilst the G5 Powerbook (assuming it will one day exist, and Apple doesn't take the dual-core route) will certainly be more powerful than the current line, i don't think we should lose track of a very important point: Powerbooks are never as powerful as the pro desktops.
kotovasii, if the code is written specifically for a G5, it is obviously pretty intense - why the hell would you want to use a portable to compute that? Apple markets the Powerbook as a no compromise machine, which is true in relation to other notebooks, but they don't hold a candle to a desktop. Slower HD, System Bus, GPU, Memory, Smaller screen, and far less expandable. On top of all that, the G5 runs so hot and power hungry that it is a massive feat of engineering to get one in a laptop - how do you intend they fit 2 in, to make it comparable to the PowerMac, for which your code was written? Laptops have their place - i prefer my old iBook 500 G3 over the iMac 800 G4, but then again, i'm not computing bioscience stuff on a regular basis.

 

[thatwendigo]

Well for a start it is because we cannot afford in the academia to buy two computers - a desktop and a laptop.

Any sensible academic institution would go with a machine that fits their needs better, regardless of what they are. If you need portability, then it's laptop time. If you need power, there isn't a laptop in the world that can touch what you could do with a well-chosen box. On either side of the fence - mac or PC - you just can't do it for reasons of power, heat, space, and other concerns that make a portable solution a joke.

Pick any PC laptop you want. This is an open challenge. Pick anything you want and give me the price for it, and I will slam the hell out of it in performance with a cheaper solution.

And the code for many Biosciences applications is written especially for a G5 - that is why all the noise about it from Apple - just check their .../pro/ section - G5, G5, G5 ...

HOLY HELL! You mean Apple marketing has been tooting the horn for their most recent change in system design? What a surprise!



The G5 is good at some things, but those strengths are much, much lower at the single processor, cut-rate bus, limited power sort of environment you'd see in a PowerBook. How are you planning on having more than 4GB of RAM in a portable? Going to have space and cooling for that second processor that makes the calculations speed up? Oh, I know... It must be the fact that Apple had to cut the bust to a 3:1 rate in order to even fit the chip in a small formfactor quietly! That's the advantage!

Also, those programs were hardly written "espeically for a G5." They might have extensions and libraries that let them use certain features of the overall system, but most of those are gone in a portable.

The point here is that Apple wants more customers and they are pushing their G5 as the ultimate "weapon" for research, so give it to us then?!

Look, I'm going to be nice for a minute and pretend that you didn't just say that. This is my honestly trying to get through to you.

There is no one "research" that can be pointed at as some kind of magical indicator of what will work well in all cases. What my dad, as a signal processing engineer, does is quite possibly not going to help someone who mostly does 3D modeling of DNA molecules, someone who's purely doing theoretical math relating to primes and pseudorandom numbers, or someone who's crunching statistical data for a psychological sample. Chips have different strengths, and the G5's is in moving data around the internal system.

For at least some things, the e600 could slaughter the 970 series of processors without breaking a sweat. The G4 still has a better vector math unit, which you're leaving out, and will have a far better memory management system that couples to four times the cache. Do you just not understand chips at all?

 

[Analog Kid]

Calm down folks...

Easy people. Wendigo, I edited out what I could of your most inflammatory comments and tried to leave the stuff that I think is helpful and makes sense.

You're talking to someone who is skilled in their field and that field isn't CPU architectures. Information without the heat is much more useful to everyone.

Kotovasii-- giving more detail about your situation helped. Check out this link about BLAST performance, as I assume that's closest to what you're using.

Look at the two red lines that are supposed to get your attention-- one for the G4 and one for the G5. They both have pretty much the same slope (that is to say positive versus the other packages), so they both scale about the same with complexity. Most important to notice is that the G4 line is about half the performance of the G5 but the G4 clock is less than half the rate of the G5.

The two classes of CPU are about equal to the task at hand. The slightly steeper slope of the G5 curve is likely due to the faster memory architecture of the 970 but that's a benefit you're going to lose in a laptop anyway for the reasons Wendigo was shouting about quite loudly...

It's the CPU performance tied to the system with a deep memory that makes the G5 the "ultimate research weapon" in a rack of Xserves. It's just not a pocket rocket. As soon as you limit the system around it, like you have to for a laptop, the G5 falters.

From what I read quickly, the main advantage Apple has in these apps is their vector processor which is well adapted for DNA work. If that's the case then having two Velocity Engines tied to CPUs at half the clock is probably better than having one tied to a single CPU at twice the clock.

DNA work is very parallel by nature and will be more efficient than most tasks when spread across two CPU cores.

You mean Apple marketing has been tooting the horn for their most recent change in system design?

Actually, if you look at the Apple sciences page they're more G5 happy than they are almost anywhere else in the site. They consistently say the apps are optimized for the G5 without indicating that Altivec (the Velocity Engine) is the real source of the magic.

If you're looking for a rack of servers like the picture implies, the G5 with it's better memory handling is probably the better choice. If you're limited to a laptop format the dual core is better.

If you've never seen an XServe, they're huge. Surprisingly huge. With lots of big, loud fans. They look sleek in pictures, but in person they're monsters.

The G5 is good at some things, but those strengths are much, much lower at the single processor, cut-rate bus, limited power sort of environment you'd see in a PowerBook. How are you planning on having more than 4GB of RAM in a portable? Going to have space and cooling for that second processor that makes the calculations speed up?

Also, those programs were hardly written "espeically for a G5." They might have extensions and libraries that let them use certain features of the overall system, but most of those are gone in a portable.

Chips have different strengths, and the G5's is in moving data around the internal system.

For at least some things, the e600 could slaughter the 970 series of processors without breaking a sweat. The G4 still has a better vector math unit, which you're leaving out, and will have a far better memory management system that couples to four times the cache.

All of this is correct-- going to the laptop format throws away much of the advantage of the G5 memory performance.

Regarding your earlier post, kotovasii, I think you really would want a triple processor G4 for a laptop especially if that meant three Altivecs. You've got a nice parallel application. Unfortunately if you're matching to a large database, you probably also want deep memory which just won't be an option in laptops for another year or two.

What you really want is a juicy grant to buy a rack of Xserve G5s that you can interface to from your Powerbook using Xgrid while you're in the lab while keeping an efficient laptop for the road...

 

[kotovasii]

Thank you finally ;-)

Easy people. Wendigo, I edited out what I could of your most inflammatory comments and tried to leave the stuff that I think is helpful and makes sense.

You're talking to someone who is skilled in their field and that field isn't CPU architectures. Information without the heat is much more useful to everyone.

Yes it is me - I am not a CPU engineer. I read Apple adverts and try to be sensible with my research money. It is up to Apple and perhaps forums like that to clarify things. And to all those "specialists" who enjoyed banging me for what I said - well I do my job - Biology NOT computing. I have come across a lot of nonsense on these forums before without having an IT degree, especially regarding OS X...

 

[AidenShaw]

I read Apple adverts and try to be sensible with my research money.

Pardon me, but this sentence is almost an oxymoron!


I hope that you simply left out that you also check reviews, benchmark tests, your vendor's information, and other sources before plunking your money down....

Unless you're completely dependent on AltiVec, there's a lot of non-Apple hardware and software that can get the job done - often faster and cheaper.

And before you say "it's bio - it's gotta have AltiVec" take a look at how Novartis AG built a 5 TFLOP cluster using spare cycles from their desktop PCs.

Peter Sany, Novartis corporate CIO, commented, "Computing resources are a key driver of shortened timelines, facilitating Novartis' goal of bringing more novel drugs to patients faster.

We have projects we calculate would take 6 years on a single supercomputer. Today, the run time is 12 hours. Before, you wouldn't bother starting such a process.

Now, because of our Pentium 4 processor-powered Grid, it's completely practical and affordable."

Yes, bio is big on Intel as well - too many people look at one single bio benchmark (BLAST) and think that Macs are king. If all you run is BLAST, then get a Mac. If you run a mix of applications, it might be more sensible to look around.

 

[Maxx Power]

Pardon me, but this sentence is almost an oxymoron!


I hope that you simply left out that you also check reviews, benchmark tests, your vendor's information, and other sources before plunking your money down....

Unless you're completely dependent on AltiVec, there's a lot of non-Apple hardware and software that can get the job done - often faster and cheaper.

Yep, in other words, unless you want to satisfy your greedy desires for luxury computing, a ever shrinking niche, regular computing will suffice.

 

[dongmin]

Nice to see people starting to believe a dual core G4 is the way to go for laptops. I'd genuinely prefer one of these over a G5 laptop. Remember, Freescale is streets ahead of IBM in the embedded space. Embedded is where performance per watt matters. IBM's "big iron" approach is just about performance. The G5's a great desktop chip, but not a mobile chip.

What?! Is the G3 not an embedded processor? If I remember correctly a lot of people were on the the G3+ bandwagon not too long ago, even arguing that it would kick the G4's butt if it had a vector unit. Freescale has more invested in the embedded space, but that doesn't mean that IBM can't play that tune too. They have plenty of experience in the embedded space.

As for the G4 v. G5 debate, it's all moot until someone actually ships in quantity a mobile processor. Then, and only then, can we compare the merits of A vs B. Even though IBM is now about 6 months behind schedule on the G5, I still trust them more.

Remember that Steve Jobs at one point said that they're trying to release a G5 PowerBook by the end of this year. Now, that was a while ago, and it wasn't officially a promise so it's anyone's guess where the development is now. BUT he would not have said that then unless they had a definite plan for the G5 in the mobile space. They MUST have had working prototypes by then or else he would not have made such a remark.

To me it's clear that the 970fx is NOT the chip that will go into the PowerBooks. But guess what, IBM has a lot more going on than the 970fx. There are a plenty of other possibilities, from the GR-UL to a brand new 64-bit mobile chip designed from the ground up (and not a hacked server chip). The dual-core G4 won't ship until the second half of 2005 at the earliest. That's a year from now! A lot could happen to the G5 in a year. Apple and IBM is rumored to have a contract for five generations of chips (or is that five years?). We're now at 1.5. We have long ways to go people.

Tout the features of the dual-core G4 all you want, but it's all vaporware until they actually ship something. If Freescale is able to deliver the 7448s THIS FALL (next spring is too late in my opinion), then, their roadmap gains more credibility.

 

[kotovasii]

.......Yes, bio is big on Intel as well - too many people look at one single bio benchmark (BLAST) and think that Macs are king. If all you run is BLAST, then get a Mac. If you run a mix of applications, it might be more sensible to look around.

True again, but there is also one little thing - I actually would love to have a Mac not just a grey box, as I hope most of people on this forum. So I just hoped to get Mac and get the best out of it!
And as far as G4 is concerned - now I have read enough to say that in January when the time comes for my IBM ThinkPad to retire I shall pay for PB regardless of the processor, because I love Macs and I want one.

 

[AidenShaw]

...I shall pay for PB regardless of the processor, because I love Macs and I want one.

So much for the claim of being "sensible" with your budget!

 

[thatwendigo]

Easy people. Wendigo, I edited out what I could of your most inflammatory comments and tried to leave the stuff that I think is helpful and makes sense.

Someone who tries to sound like an expert on something they plainly don't understand needs to be taken down a peg. I'll admit when I'm wrong, but Kotovasii was doing his best to avoid the inevitable and I wasn't letting him weasel out of what he said to begin with.

If he wants to know what would be best, he needs to ask that. There's a difference between actively shoving around ignorance and asking for information. Guess which one I think he was doing.

Yep, in other words, unless you want to satisfy your greedy desires for luxury computing, a ever shrinking niche, regular computing will suffice.

Good to see we still have active trolls.

What?! Is the G3 not an embedded processor? If I remember correctly a lot of people were on the the G3+ bandwagon not too long ago, even arguing that it would kick the G4's butt if it had a vector unit.

The same arguments applied to the still-missing 750vx can be used here, actually. What we have is a core that is lower power, has a shorter pipeline, and significant technological advantage in a number of areas that promote one processor over another in a given application. The 8461D dual-core chip is supposed to draw between 15 and 25 watts running at full speed (1.5ghz per core), has twice the L2 cache of the 970 (1MB per chip, 2MB total) per processor, on-die DDR and DD2 memory control to 667mhz (more than the current U3 controller on the motherboard handles), on-die hardware acceleration for IPv4/IPv6/TCIP/UDP/other networking tasks, a HyperTransport like system bus, PCI Express control on-die, and a shorter pipeline than the 970 core.

This chip is like my wishlist for the processor Apple should have used!

Now, that was a while ago, and it wasn't officially a promise so it's anyone's guess where the development is now. BUT he would not have said that then unless they had a definite plan for the G5 in the mobile space. They MUST have had working prototypes by then or else he would not have made such a remark.

...like he wouldn't promise 3 gigzhertz by summer?

To me it's clear that the 970fx is NOT the chip that will go into the PowerBooks. But guess what, IBM has a lot more going on than the 970fx. There are a plenty of other possibilities, from the GR-UL to a brand new 64-bit mobile chip designed from the ground up (and not a hacked server chip).

From the rumor:

According to this report, the upcoming mobile PowerPC will be part of a 300 series of processors from IBM. This new mobile processor is not due to debut until 2005.​

IBM's PowerPC part list.

Hmmm... I see 440 variants, 405 variants, 750 variants, 604e, 603e, 970...

No, there doesn't seem to be a 300 family of processors, and the naming scheme they use right now would suggest that such a chip would be a low-performance, low-power, entirely embedded-focused design. As such, I think that the odds of this rumor being true are even lower than the usual ones being lobbed around.

By contrast, Freescale has shipped two new designs since Crolles2 went online. They've gone from sample to production relatively swiftly, and are rolling parts out the door as we speak.

Tout the features of the dual-core G4 all you want, but it's all vaporware until they actually ship something. If Freescale is able to deliver the 7448s THIS FALL (next spring is too late in my opinion), then, their roadmap gains more credibility.

Freescale's roadmap is already more on-target than IBM's was with the 970. I suppose that just doesn't count with some people, though.

 

[Maxx Power]

Good to see we still have active trolls.

You must have spent years with 0's and 1's from the internet to have mastered such a forum lingo.

With time any better spent, you might have understood and fought against corporations instead of becoming a better puppet called the ideal consumer. Apple's business practices, refer to numerous posts here and there in this forum, are sub-par. They hate the truth (refer to barefeats.com and their fiasco with apple on benchmarking in apple stores), they stiff their own dealers (refer to www.tellonapple.org), they stiff their own customers (check out those outrageous iPod battery replacement prices, repair prices on any of their hardware disregarding the broken parts), they pollute the environment just as well as any other corporation (I have a few PDF's saved about apple's case with the federal investigators), they take advantage of kids (superbowl commercial), highly materialistic (all profit based corporations share this trait), they pollute the mind through marketing and advertising shaping and molding ideal consumers to secure their market base (more or less big corporations only), they use cheap offshore slave-like labour (like Nike's sweat shops), they are only responsible toward their shareholders and not you (again, most corporations), the list goes on and on. I'd apologize if i hurt your feelings you had with Apple or their computers, but then, having an emotional attachment toward an inanimate object is a sign of mental illness (refer to the website where the guy gutted a G5 and put in PC parts, it was a hoax).

Finally, as for regards in luxury computing, do you have a mind that can utilize your computer's wit ? If you don't, buying a luxury computer is like a hermit crab with a oversized shell, it just doesn't fit other than to satisfy your hunger for materialistic status.

 

[dongmin]

By contrast, Freescale has shipped two new designs since Crolles2 went online. They've gone from sample to production relatively swiftly, and are rolling parts out the door as we speak.

And these designs are? Can you provide links that say Freescale is shipping the e500 in volume? The e500 is significant b/c it's on the 90 nm process. If I'm not mistaken, the e300 is on the 130 nm process and is basically a modified 603e, so it's really not a good indicator of what Freescale is capable of. (Kind of like saying because IBM did well producing the 750gx it must do well with the 970fx.)

Freescale's roadmap is already more on-target than IBM's was with the 970.

That's debatable. Freescale does not have enough of a history to say that it's been more 'on-target.' Basically, according to you, they've just started shipping a couple of low-end designs. They haven't even gotten to the second iteration. So based on this bit of info, you're saying they're doing better than IBM??? That's absurd. IBM was basically ahead of schedule when they released the 2.0 ghz 970s (they were originally promissing 1.8 ghz). They're now six months off target due to problems with their 90 nm process. Now they've gotten most of the problems worked out and are now shipping enough 90nm chips to supply both the PowerMacs and iMacs.

Look, I love Apple laptops; I've owned two of them. And these dual-core Freescale chips sound great--better than anything IBM has announced--for the PowerBooks. But it's one year away, at best. I just refuse to get excited about anything so far away, and so loaded with history of failure.

 

[thatwendigo]

With time any better spent, you might have understood and fought against corporations instead of becoming a better puppet called the ideal consumer.

I'm far from the ideal consumer, but I suppose it's far easier to hurl accusation than it is to even ask what my position is. No, I don't think Apple is lily-white on their business practices, but I'd rather they play a little dirty and stay alive than die off entirely and leave us with basically no alternative to the crap-fest that is Windows.

I was forced to use Windows an awful lot of my younger life, and I still can't escape it because I'm too nice to refuse the cries for help from friends, coworkers, and even random strangers I meet that overhear me talking about computers. I buy macs because they're just a better value for me, with even a "slow" mac being more usable than the fastest PC because of the interface, software, integration, and other aspects of the platform. My daily use machines - one bought new, the other at auction - are a 700mhz eMac and a 600mhz G3 iBook.

I know all about building computers, because I've done it for others and wished them well. For the largest part, Windows just isn't for me and I'll pay the "Apple tax" in order to use a system that feels right.

<snip long-winded rant>

Ah, right. I'm sure whatever computer you're using isn't made from PCBs and other volatiles that, by their very existence, give off free monomers and otherwise polute the environment. It was obviously crafted by skilled labor in a free country, rather than in factories in China and Taiwan, has no marketing budget to speak of, and in fact takes in and feeds stray puppies on a daily basis.

Please.

If you're going to assault my liking of one computer platform over another, at least don't be a hypocrite about it. It's not like you're using the GreenPC and it's magical eaerth-powers.

Finally, as for regards in luxury computing, do you have a mind that can utilize your computer's wit ? If you don't, buying a luxury computer is like a hermit crab with a oversized shell, it just doesn't fit other than to satisfy your hunger for materialistic status.

Computers have no wit, nor are they sentient. They are tools and devices, to be put to the uses we decide for them. For someone making claims about anthropomorphizing and improperly revering machinery, you've got an odd turn of phrase.

My computer is a macintosh because I'm comfortable with them, I don't have to fix things constantly, and I know how to work the small details pretty efffectively. To borrow from the company I supposedly worship, if you're to be believed, it just works.

 

[kraeloc]

Waddya think? Is an eMac revision imminent?

I've been saving and earning money for a few months in order to buy a new eMac. I've got just enough and I was gonna order it this weekend.

Now I want your honest opinions: d you think there will be an eMac revision anytime soon?

Cos I don't want to be like one of those people who bought an iMac G4 in late July, and ended up kicking themselves a week later.