iMeowbot said:
Sounds interesting. So how much success does the Transgaming product have on Linux? I know that some Windows games can be run on Linux/x86 successfully, but is it common, or does it only work with particular games?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
IBM Announces the PowerPC 970MP
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sounds interesting. So how much success does the Transgaming product have on Linux? I know that some Windows games can be run on Linux/x86 successfully, but is it common, or does it only work with particular games?
Apple will utilize the 970MP as soon as possible
Apple will move all the PowerMacs (except maybe the 2.7) to the 970MP as quickly as possible. The higher integration will allow them to reduce the price of the machines while improving their margins. Look inside a DP PowerMac and notice all the stuff that goes away when there is only one processor. It doesn't matter that they will switch to Intel in 1-2 years - they will not ignore their current business for that period of time.
Apple will move all the PowerMacs (except maybe the 2.7) to the 970MP as quickly as possible. The higher integration will allow them to reduce the price of the machines while improving their margins. Look inside a DP PowerMac and notice all the stuff that goes away when there is only one processor. It doesn't matter that they will switch to Intel in 1-2 years - they will not ignore their current business for that period of time.
updates when?
with the minor speed bumps to the PowerMac and Powerbook line last time, along with jobs saying "we have great PPC products in the pipeline" should we expect updates soon? I think so.
only line that wouldn't be updated would be the iMacs since they had a recent boost.
ibooks pushed to a 1.5 ghz max
powerbooks pushed to a 1.8 or 2.0 dual G4 (wishful thinking since I'm in the market for a laptop)
powermacs at dual dual 2.5? or market it as a quad G5?
whens the next event?
:
I don't want to buy the latest laptop then later on get trumped
with the minor speed bumps to the PowerMac and Powerbook line last time, along with jobs saying "we have great PPC products in the pipeline" should we expect updates soon? I think so.
only line that wouldn't be updated would be the iMacs since they had a recent boost.
ibooks pushed to a 1.5 ghz max
powerbooks pushed to a 1.8 or 2.0 dual G4 (wishful thinking since I'm in the market for a laptop)
powermacs at dual dual 2.5? or market it as a quad G5?
whens the next event?
: I don't want to buy the latest laptop then later on get trumped
I refer the honourable gentlemen to the quote I gave some moments ago
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/135332/[/URLMass Hysteria said:
My take
Too little too late? The PPC970 is just as fast as anything Intel is currently shipping and the clock speed has increased more quickly than Intel has managed lately. I'd rather be looking at a dual core 2.5GHz than a single core 3.0GHz processor, wouldn't you?
Which products Apple moves to Intel first is clearly an area for debate, but it's the laptops where Apple has most significantly fallen behind. Centrino based machines offer much better performance than the G4 without using too much power. With laptops now accounting for 50% of sales, Apple was forced to look elsewhere when Freescale and IBM both failed to keep up with Intel. The Mac mini is a bit gutless, but 1.0 products are usually not the best value. The iMac G5 would be great if it didn't overheat. There's really no pressing need for anything there except lower warranty repair costs. In the towers Apple has a very strong performer albeit a pricey one. Asking people to pay more for an iMac in an aluminum box (the last single 1.8 tower) than one with a 17" LCD was clear evidence that Steve still puts too much value on expandability and shows just how much Apple pays to have such fancy cases.
I think Apple will transition completely to Intel for reasons other than processor performance. It's clear that "security" proposals from Intel and Microsoft will be accepted by corporations eager to keep outsiders and whistle blowers from leaking internal documents. Whether it's best for customers or not, Microsoft and Intel will get their DRM into your computers and they will ultimately determine what you can and can't do with them. If Apple's machines don't have the same digital rights management built in, they will be denied access to "secured" networks, thus completely shutting them out of the enterprise. The 1984 commercial is coming true. The only difference is that Big Brother isn't being played by IBM and the hammer thrower is now sitting in the second row just as entranced as the rest of them.
wizard said:
Too little too late? The PPC970 is just as fast as anything Intel is currently shipping and the clock speed has increased more quickly than Intel has managed lately. I'd rather be looking at a dual core 2.5GHz than a single core 3.0GHz processor, wouldn't you?
Which products Apple moves to Intel first is clearly an area for debate, but it's the laptops where Apple has most significantly fallen behind. Centrino based machines offer much better performance than the G4 without using too much power. With laptops now accounting for 50% of sales, Apple was forced to look elsewhere when Freescale and IBM both failed to keep up with Intel. The Mac mini is a bit gutless, but 1.0 products are usually not the best value. The iMac G5 would be great if it didn't overheat. There's really no pressing need for anything there except lower warranty repair costs. In the towers Apple has a very strong performer albeit a pricey one. Asking people to pay more for an iMac in an aluminum box (the last single 1.8 tower) than one with a 17" LCD was clear evidence that Steve still puts too much value on expandability and shows just how much Apple pays to have such fancy cases.
I think Apple will transition completely to Intel for reasons other than processor performance. It's clear that "security" proposals from Intel and Microsoft will be accepted by corporations eager to keep outsiders and whistle blowers from leaking internal documents. Whether it's best for customers or not, Microsoft and Intel will get their DRM into your computers and they will ultimately determine what you can and can't do with them. If Apple's machines don't have the same digital rights management built in, they will be denied access to "secured" networks, thus completely shutting them out of the enterprise. The 1984 commercial is coming true. The only difference is that Big Brother isn't being played by IBM and the hammer thrower is now sitting in the second row just as entranced as the rest of them.
JasonElise1983 said:G5 POWERBOOKS NEXT TUESDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
can't believe no one said it yet....
Dont be THAT guy.
It hasn't been funny since the 16,345th time it was posted.
I propose a one week ban on anyone who posts this. Second offense, lifetime ban.
broken_keyboard said:
The "low-end first" comments were presented in the report on CNet (and confirmed by the WSJ) prior to the keynote.
Appleinsider said:
from http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1110
Squire
<edit> Tex210 beat me to it back in post #77.
alexf said:
I agree. Announcing the transition to Intel was a very, very risky business move on Jobs part. Few details were given, in fact, the ease of transition was the thrust of his announcement.
Apple announced a transition, not a, we're waiting 9-18 months to do anything new. He said there were PPC products in the pipeline. Of course Apple intended to use them and introduce new computers. If this chip can be squeezed into a PB, it will be.
For those of you who want to read the press release, here's a translation:
http://translate.google.com/transla...fe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=/language_tools
http://translate.google.com/transla...fe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=/language_tools
rdowns said:
Makes sense to me too. This may solve Apple's iBook/PowerBook dilemma, whereby any upgrade to the iBooks would make them virtually identical to the PowerBooks. Intel to the rescue - give the PowerBooks a smoking (hopefully not literally!) Intel chip and a major overhaul, and then make the new iBook line the same as the existing PowerBook line, for all intents and purposes. This upgrades the iBooks quite nicely, and allows for substantial product differentiation between them and the PowerBooks, which will be sporting new technology and Intel Inside.
Bregalad said:
I think Apple is well aware of other companies asking for another High Quality Desktop solution, instead of the Microsoft one. Your Microsoft fanatic can complain how it isn't fair that Microsoft is looked upon as the worst OS vendor in the industry, that successful attacks don't happen with the latest release...
But, the fatigue has set in. I think we all are tired of the cycle.
Apple on Intel gives businesses something to think about in their next Buying Cycle. They could get Apple Intels and give it a test. If it doesn't work out, they don't need to ditch that hardware investment, just load XP.
Apple may still get back to 20% of the market. Higher then that may be asking too much though.
Still, in a perfect world I'd rather be running on a Dual Core Ultra Tech 970MP Laptop! Or, Freescales offering. But, that's just me.
My only thought is that with IBM's official announcement, Apple held off so they could get things ready for new Powerbooks with these new chips and have EVEN MORE stuff to announce besides stuff Music/iPod/iTunes related.Mudbug said:
afsammie said:
Congratulations! It's a good thing you finally made the jump. I know of some posters who have actually held off buying a PB for a year waiting for a G5 PowerBook. Makes you wonder if they really needed it in the first place if they've been able to wait so long without the non-existent laptop.
I think the best thing you could do is stay away from these forums when you're trying to actually buy a new computer. Go at the Apple's website and take a look at the specs. Read desktop and laptop reviews, or other articles that might actually contain FACTS on the computer you're interested in and others like it that might interest you. Try not to pay much attention to the rumors or other possible announcements that are made here.
The forums are great to get mac news and rumors on what might be coming in the future, but I don't think it's wise to read the rumors forums to make up your mind on buying a computer. Maybe you could ask for advice from others on the forums section by beginning a new thread. But be careful. You might end up very dissapointed and be waiting and waiting for quite a while...
Just my humble opinion on deciding to purchase a Mac you actually need.
Good thing afsammie decided to finally switch.
sithlord said:
Silly me but I think your statement is foolish. Apple announced a transition, not a stop in products until it's done.
Do you really think all Apple needs to do is slap an Intel chip in a new motherboard (where are they going to get that?) and ship it? What about Apple (do you really think all their software is ready?) and third party software. Then there's the small issues of training their support staff and their current contractual agreement with IBM.
Need for Speed G5
Just Placement in a Powerbook isn't the only problem, aside from heat.
There's still the BENCHMARK problem. There's got to be a G5 1.8 FX for the Powerbook, otherwise a G4 1.67 will kick the S*** out of a G5 1.6 in most benchmarks. Unless IBM has enhanced the Altivec unit and added other performance enhancements like a larger cache. Apple can't sell a Slower Performing Powerbook vs. an IBook.
Hopefully, they've resolved this.
~Shard~ said:Makes sense to me too. This may solve Apple's iBook/PowerBook dilemma, whereby any upgrade to the iBooks would make them virtually identical to the PowerBooks. Intel to the rescue - give the PowerBooks a smoking (hopefully not literally!) Intel chip and a major overhaul, and then make the new iBook line the same as the existing PowerBook line, for all intents and purposes. This upgrades the iBooks quite nicely, and allows for substantial product differentiation between them and the PowerBooks, which will be sporting new technology and Intel Inside.
Just Placement in a Powerbook isn't the only problem, aside from heat.
There's still the BENCHMARK problem. There's got to be a G5 1.8 FX for the Powerbook, otherwise a G4 1.67 will kick the S*** out of a G5 1.6 in most benchmarks. Unless IBM has enhanced the Altivec unit and added other performance enhancements like a larger cache. Apple can't sell a Slower Performing Powerbook vs. an IBook.
Hopefully, they've resolved this.
I must say, I find the lack of speed improvement on these new PPC chips to be pathetic. Max is 2.5 Ghz? That's it? I don't care if it's Dual Core, that's still pathetically slow even for a PPC.
Apple made the right choice about moving to Intel. IBM obviously has hit the end of their usefulness.
Apple made the right choice about moving to Intel. IBM obviously has hit the end of their usefulness.
bosrs1 said:
If these specs are accurate I think Apple will be offering a Quad Power Mac with 2 dual core chips. Otherwise, you, for example would have no reason to upgrade.
I've got a Powerbook 1.5 g4. I'm still waiting for Apple to give me a good reason to upgrade. A 1.6 G5 fx isn't much of a reason, sorry to say. But, there should be some announcement from Apple pretty soon so we'll see.
MikeAtari said:
Exactly. That's why, (as long as there is an Intel chip which can outperform the existing G4s which I'm pretty sure there is!), I think it makes sense for the next PowerBooks to have Intels. G5s would be nice, yes, but as you say, there are quite a few technical hurdles Apple would have to overcome (and has no doubt been laboring over and becoming frustrated with the past 2 years!) before a G5 PowerBook becomes not only a reality on its own, but a decent system as well. Just having a G5 in a PowerBook doesn't mean it would be light years ahead of the existing G4 PowerBooks, which in some respects defeats the purpose.
I tend to think any G4 machine is first in line for Intel/Yonah chips - but it is quite possible to have a Powerbook release and have PPC and Intel Powerbooks overlapping for a few months or more.powermac666 said:
Transitive technology (as used by Rosetta), also has the capability of translating Intel to PPC (according to their website).iN8 said:
I agree that in general it'll all be universal binaries, but it'd be nice to know an Intel binary would run on a Powermac through emulation, just in case.