Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
About that PenguinPPC site that ARN listed as the source for this tidbit of info: did anybody notice that little blurb titled 'Tibook 800 now runs at 800' ? It said that all Tibooks boot up at 667Mhz, but the operating system actually changes the clock speed to 800Mhz. DOes this mean that the Tibook 667Mhz can be overclocked to 800 a la ibook?

It would be interesting if a macrumors uber-hacker would look into this :)
Puleeeze?
 
Originally posted by Blitzkrieg


VMX was the original name of Altivec:
Vector Multimedia eXtension

And developed by IBM, by the way...:D

I thought Motorola owned the Altivec technology? If it was developed by IBM then why are there discussions about Apple buying altivec from Motorola?

:D
 
Re: Not a Power4

Originally posted by ffakr
People, please read the Microprocessor report blurb again. It clearly states this is a POWERPC, Not a Power4 processor.
The posts, especially in this thread, seem to finally be recognising this but there are still people calling the new chip a Power4. It isn't.
It uses the PowerPC instruction set, with design cues from the Power4 processor.

This will be a HUGE difference when it comes time for Apple to implement this processor.
The Power4 ISA is a cousin of the PowerPC ISA. OSX and all of the apps would need to be recompiled to run on a Power4. This chip just needs hardware support and we should be able to use it.


Not true, the POWER4 implements the full 64 bit PPC ISA; therefore, AIX 32 bit executables compiled for the RS6000 using a PPC604e run natively on a POWER4 based machine. This is directly from the IBM tech docs.
 
to the person that agrees that IBM probably wouldnt be talking about it if Apple was going to use it...750FX. Info came out about 7 months before we saw one.

Altho this is definitely exciting, it will also pretty much be the chopping of the head off of OS9. When Apple goes 64-bit, OS9 will be out the window, due to the ridiculous amount STILL of oldass instructions for oldass chips.
 
Originally posted by Bear
I find it very likely that IBM would be talking about a chip Apple is contract to use.

IBM is a much larger company than Apple and use the PPC chip in its own machines. Apple is Motorola's biggest PPC chip customer. So while Apple may get to control the news Motorola reports, IBM would never agree to delaying announcements for another company when it needs the chip for itself.

This of course is just my 2 cents on the issue.

I find it unlikely also. And I doubt SJ could throttle IBM, as the original article states *grin*. SJ would be mad as hell tho IF these chips were going in new Mac's soon and it was leaked out :D

How about this, IBM making a PPC peecee, with OS X as the OS? Could it be done? And would Apple like it?
 
Originally posted by daRAT
How about this, IBM making a PPC peecee, with OS X as the OS? Could it be done? And would Apple like it?

Wouldn't that just be a Mac? It would also be a clone, and we all know how Steve Jobs feels about clones... :rolleyes:
 
All i can say is, Apple, its time to grab your shotgun and put Motorola out to pasture. This thing is going to have some serous Pentium crushing skills if it can get 5+ instructions per clock average and 8 max. Can we say P4(hell and even the Athalon)=DEAD. if i remember right the P4 has 1.something per clock. LOL GO IBM/Apple:D :D :D :D
 
huh...

VMX.. it might be the original name of altivec but uh...

Roman Numerals..
V for 5.. as in the G type
M for 1000 (mhz?)
X for the OS

VMX is 1015, which has no obvious mulitiple of a fsb.. who knows..
the story said "draw your own conclussions" these are mine, although i'll admit far fetched...
 
A numerological analysis

Originally posted by cr2sh
VMX.. it might be the original name of altivec but uh...

Roman Numerals..
V for 5.. as in the G type
M for 1000 (mhz?)
X for the OS

VMX is 1015, which has no obvious mulitiple of a fsb.. who knows..
the story said "draw your own conclussions" these are mine, although i'll admit far fetched...
No, no, you've got it all wrong:

V, the 21st letter of the alphabet. How old do you have to be in both New York and California to buy alcohol? 21. And what did Steve do after his last MWNY keynote? He got really drunk. This one is obvious.

M, the 13th letter of the alphabet. How many years after the introduction of the original Macintosh did it take for Steve to return to Apple? 13. What's 21 - 13? 8. And this new chip is superscalar to what degree? That's right - the 8th.

X, the 23rd letter of the alphabet. What's 23 - 8 (the number of instructions per cycle this new chip is theoretically capable of performing)? 15. That's only ONE LESS than 16, which is the letter P. Hmm. X... P... XP.

It's so obvious: Apple will be phasing out OS X and converting to Windows XP. With no OS to port, this will dramatically simplify their x86 conversion. No longer will they have to worry about poor sales of their slow and expensive hardware - they will reap huge profits selling their iApps for $99 each and discontinuing all other non-core-competency products. I mean... how could you NOT see that? This Power4-derived chip is small beans compared to the glory of the Intel Pentium 4.
 
Re: A numerological analysis

Originally posted by alex_ant


It's so obvious: Apple will be phasing out OS X and converting to Windows XP. With no OS to port, this will dramatically simplify their x86 conversion. No longer will they have to worry about poor sales of their slow and expensive hardware - they will reap huge profits selling their iApps for $99 each and discontinuing all other non-core-competency products. I mean... how could you NOT see that? This Power4-derived chip is small beans compared to the glory of the Intel Pentium 4.

Are you TRYING to get tarred an feathered ? :D
 
I Believe....

If the power 4 is AltiVec compatible then it's a shoe-in for the mac. IBM wouldn't build AltiVec in any processor for it's self. Also, to see so many people wanting Apple to move towards the power4; it seems hard to believe that Apple would stick with the Moto G5. I'm sure Steve understandings this also. I'm sure behide closed doors IBM, Apple, and other companies are working on projects. I think it would be wonderful, if apple let IBM use MAC OS X for their servers only.

Because!!!
1. Linux sucks.
2. Linux sucks.
3. Mac OS X kicks A$$.
4. OS X needs to get out into the big IT enviroment.
5. IBM needs a better OS.
6. This is a win-win for both companies.
7. It would really Pi$$off Micro$$$$$.
 
I find it very interesting that this information appeared so soon after all of the analyst's opinions saying that "Apple needs to go Intel."

Seems rather coincidental...
 
Originally posted by daRAT


I find it unlikely also. And I doubt SJ could throttle IBM, as the original article states *grin*. SJ would be mad as hell tho IF these chips were going in new Mac's soon and it was leaked out :D

How about this, IBM making a PPC peecee, with OS X as the OS? Could it be done? And would Apple like it?

IBM already made a PPC PC and put OS/2 for PPC and AIX on it. It didn't sell well, they didn't market it well, and it died. They're not likely to think about another product like that, even with Mac OS X, even if Steve Jobs would licence it.
 
Re: VMX

Originally posted by Blitzkrieg
Found this link yesterday:

http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~dianam/ics02/ics-3.pdf

A research paper (dated back to June 23, 2002) from IBM about an LPX processor (low-power with VMX - tapeout early 2003), about circuits running at 3.3 GHz up to 4.5 Ghz and so on. In one graph this processor compares to a Power4 - sounds interesting to me :D

Blitzkrieg, I'm afraid I cannot fully agree with you about the article you alerted us to (BTW, thank you for doing so!). You see, if I could understand what the hell it was talking about I'd of found it MORE interesting. Nevertheless, I did find it interesting, albeit very confusing.

Of note, however, the particular processor the authors discussed would tape-out in early 2003. Didn't IBM's new cell CPU just tape-out? Now, doesn't 'tape-out' mean that design has been completed and then prototypes are developed and eventually production comes around. Well, if the Cell is two years out and this Power4 offspring is running behind the cell in terms of progress toward production, then I find this article disturbing. VERY DISTURBING!!!

On trying to be an optimist, IBM undoubtedly has a number of different CPU concepts under design, most of which never reach production I suspect. This article seems to be about various ways to decrease power density while minimizing performance trade-offs. Consequently, this article COULD be about the successor to the offspring to be discussed at the Microprocessor forum.

Question, is it common for presentations to be made on overall processors, not just some new element technology, that are pre-taped-out? Is the Cell, for example, which just taped-out, going to be discussed at the forum?

You all see where I'm coming from here? That article, while interesting for what little of it I could comprehend, poses some rather unpleasant product release date prospects. I prefer to think, however, that the first offspring from the Power4 has already taped-out. If not, two years is a long time.
 
Re: I Believe....

Originally posted by Johnny7896
I think it would be wonderful, if apple let IBM use MAC OS X for their servers only.

Because!!!
1. Linux sucks.
2. Linux sucks.
3. Mac OS X kicks A$$.
4. OS X needs to get out into the big IT enviroment.
5. IBM needs a better OS.
6. This is a win-win for both companies.
7. It would really Pi$$off Micro$$$$$.
Linux makes a terrific server. If you take ease of use out of the equation, it pisses all over OS X from the standpoints of speed, reliability, and maturity, and robustness. OS X is a great desktop OS, but it is not a very good server platform yet. Whether it will ever be able to catch up to Linux here is debatable as well.

Alex
 
Re: Re: I Believe....

Originally posted by alex_ant

Linux makes a terrific server. If you take ease of use out of the equation, it pisses all over OS X from the standpoints of speed, reliability, and maturity, and robustness. OS X is a great desktop OS, but it is not a very good server platform yet. Whether it will ever be able to catch up to Linux here is debatable as well.

Alex

Linux is a good server platform (this site runs on linux)... however, I don't think you can say that OS X is not a good server platform. OSX = FreeBSD.

arn
 
Re: Re: Re: I Believe....

Originally posted by arn
Linux is a good server platform (this site runs on linux)... however, I don't think you can say that OS X is not a good server platform. OSX = FreeBSD.
Maybe I should have said relatively not very good... although FreeBSD appears on OS X's family tree, OS X mysteriously manages to be much slower. Or maybe it's only slower with Quartz running... It has the potential to be great, but it needs a lot of performance optimization and better filesystem offerings, among other improvement.

Alex
 
They've since added the source:

http://www.mdronline.com/mpf/conf.html

Quote:

Breaking Through Compute Intensive Barriers - IBM's New 64-bit PowerPC Microprocessor
Peter Sandon, Senior Processor Architect, Power PC Organization,
IBM Microelectronics IBM is disclosing the technical details of a new 64-bit PowerPC microprocessor designed for desktops and entry-level servers. Based on the award winning Power4 design, this processor is an 8-way superscalar design that fully supports Symmetric MultiProcessing. The processor is further enhanced by a vector processing unit implementing over 160 specialized vector instructions and implements a system interface capable of up to 6.4GB/s.

End Quote
 
Why switch now...

I spoke to some friends at Apple, it's funny what a few beers on Friday night will buy you, and there will be a new Professional computer released this week and it will not be "your grandfather's" G4. It will not be available until late August/early September and everyone is going to be surprised.

Please note that this press release will occur right after President Bush's CEO and CFO sign. deadline, the stock market will be hitting new lows at that time and Apple and IBM will need something to bring them back (beyond signing on the dotted line).

IBM will not be creating Mac Clones, but look for OS X server to be appearing soon on IBM's new Sun/SPARC killers.

Hey maybe I'm just making all of this up, but...
 
To those who say Linux sux, well it is a good system, and very good for Internet Service Providers to have. It is vastly more secure than Microsoft servers, and doesn't go down as frequently, and costs less. However, for ease of configuration and security, and uptime you need Mac OS X. Oh and it still costs less than Microsoft.

End of story.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.