IBM's 750VX Finalized?

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by ITR 81
Is the 750 VX 64 bit? I would hope so, so Apple can introduce it's 64 bit OS sooner.

Apple can work towards a fully 64-bit OS anytime they want. And they won't have to leave 32-bit only CPUs behind - they just won't be able to run 64-bit only OS components. The OS Core is 64-bit clean, and some parts of it do run as if they are in a 64-bit memory space (Virtual Memory for one). If you installed it on a 32-bit CPU you'd just not get the 64-bit parts and would run as a you do now. The biggest hurdles right now are the fact that many of the frameworks are not fully 64-bit clean, and that you would need to ship twice as much code (a 32-bit and 64-bit version of every currently 32-bit library). So while they could introduce a 64-bit OS that still supported 32-bit CPUs, it will not likely be soon.

 

[Daaavek]

750VX in Mirrored Drive Doors?

Originally posted by macphoria
What are your thoughts on third party hardware developers using this chip to make processor upgrades? I'd like to see a 2Ghz G4 processor upgrade card for my old G4 PowerMac. This chip looks like a great candidate for such use also.

If the 750VX 400MHz frontside bus capable, does that mean that it could take full advantage of the DDR RAM that you have to stuff in the MDD Macs? If so, that combined with an increase in clock speed would probably provide an awesome upgrade for those machines in particular. Thoughts???

 

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

Re: 750VX in Mirrored Drive Doors?

Originally posted by Daaavek
If the 750VX 400MHz frontside bus capable, does that mean that it could take full advantage of the DDR RAM that you have to stuff in the MDD Macs? If so, that combined with an increase in clock speed would probably provide an awesome upgrade for those machines in particular. Thoughts???

Ummmm... it'd make a good upgrade, but you'd not be able to realize the performance advantages from it in utmost. The reason? The big bottleneck with most G4 machines that limits the success of DDR RAM is the bus itself. While you're correct in presuming that the 400 Mhz. frontside bus would be a major boon, I don't particularly see this overcoming the on-board difficulties of the motherboard which are the real problems as always. The added horsepower would do wonders, but like shoe-horning a G4 into a 9600 (my poison of choice)... you might have a processor churning out 700 Mhz. but it's still going through a tighter bus than a Graphite G4, and therefore will not have anywhere near the speed that a purpose-designed machine with less bottlenecks would have. It's still quite livable if you ask me... but I'm obviously looking around for a good deal on a graphite G4 to upgrade to next, as even running at the same Mhz. the machine would be faster (plus it'd run OS X natively rather than doing the XPostFacto Hoola-hoop dance). I just don't have the $ to buy new, and I kind of am fond to my 21" CRT monitor. The 750vx to me is a viable processor upgrade... just keep in mind that if Apple elects to put the 750vx into a low-cost desktop, buying *NEW* will be at a supreme advantage because the I/O of the G4 desktops would be antiquated, and the bus of the G4 machines is far slower than what the 750vx is vying for. In a nutshell... always buy new if you can afford it.

That said...

If Apple would give us a headless eMac... I'd be saving my pennies in a heartbeat. That'd the be ticket for the 750vx too, as it's cheap and has adequate performance for some of us that aren't ready to drop $1,500+ on a new computer sans monitor. All it'd need is Firewire 400/800, USB 1.1/2.0, a decent video card, and that's it. It wouldn't remotely begin to compete with the G5 and it'd have more people buying "NEW" machines from Apple than investing processor upgrades from Sonnet, Newer Tech, Powerlogix, and OWC. I don't even need a rash of PCI or PCI-X slots (maybe 1, if any). If I have good onboard video and sound (with potential for upgraded video over time) and USB/Firewire I have all of the expansion I need. It'd just need to come in around $400-500 and Apple would struggle keeping them on the shelves. eMac LC anyone? Video input... I could do with a DV through Firewire, or buy an ADS solution. Sound? I'm sure M-Audio would gladly devise a solution that'd work fine, as they have some USB-based inputs that would work smashingly well for a lot of people's needs. Drive bays should be standardized ATA/SATA. I'm sure I could perform a drive swap if there's necessary space and nowhere near the hurdles of the original cube. What I want isn't a fetish item (cube part 2)... I think the iMac covers that nicely for some. A nice, simple, compact desktop or tower would be nice. It could even be a larger cube if it makes Steve happy.

Then again if anyone wishes to donate to the "Help Marcus buy a G5 fund..." I'll gladly work on securing a P.O. Box for the foundation. I'm sure I could work out a deal to send you to a secret website where the fruits of your donations would be visible as you look on with glee at me operating the machine monthly. I'd personally respond to every email with loving care. Pretty-please?!?

 

[Telomar]

Re: Remember Virtual PC

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Another glaring exception is the PPC970's lack of little-endian support....

This is not part of the PPC ISA and as such is not an exception. All PPCs follow the PPC ISA.

 

[AidenShaw]

Wrong, Dilbert!

Originally posted by Telomar
This is not part of the PPC ISA and as such is not an exception. All PPCs follow the PPC ISA.

What about the PPC instructions: Load Half Word Byte-Reverse Indexed (lhbrx), Load Word Byte-Reverse Indexed (lwbrx), Store Half Word Byte-Reverse Indexed (sthbrx), and Store Word Byte-Reverse Indexed (stwbrx)?

Do some research....

 

[Telomar]

Re: Wrong, Dilbert!

Originally posted by AidenShaw
What about the PPC instructions: Load Half Word Byte-Reverse Indexed (lhbrx), Load Word Byte-Reverse Indexed (lwbrx), Store Half Word Byte-Reverse Indexed (sthbrx), and Store Word Byte-Reverse Indexed (stwbrx)?

Do some research....

All are still present and supported with the PPC970. What broke VPC was not the lack of a PPC instruction. You're free to validate this on your own time. I might suggest first ensuring you are familiar with the PPC 970 by referring to the PPC 970's programming documentation located here.

 

[blue&whiteman]

why are so many of you down on motorola? they have been making apple cpus since the first mac in 84 and even before that. they have been there with apple 100% even when it wasn't much of a profit any longer.

motorola has had a big part in making macs what they are and always have been so give them some slack. just because they can't live up to the expectations of all you speed freaks doesn't mean they should be just up and forgotten. they have helped make apple what they are today.

 

[IVIIVI4ck3y27]

Originally posted by blue&whiteman
why are so many of you down on motorola? they have been making apple cpus since the first mac in 84 and even before that. they have been there with apple 100% even when it wasn't much of a profit any longer.

motorola has had a big part in making macs what they are and always have been so give them some slack. just because they can't live up to the expectations of all you speed freaks doesn't mean they should be just up and forgotten. they have helped make apple what they are today.

I'm not so much down on Motorola as I do understand that companies are only appreciated when they produce and meet demand. In Apple's case, it was a scenario where Motorola was not up to task, and like any "worker" in a business, they're being collectively put out to pasture in favor of those that do perform.

Let's face it... I've always thought Motorola was a cool company. I always thought it'd be neat to have a Mac with a pair of the "Batwings" on it because I've always thought Motorola to be pretty cool (although their consumer electronics have always been more intriguing than their desktop attempts, with exception to the PPCP/CHRP machine, and none of us have seen it in person). Very true, they did create the 680x0 lineup of processors that was used in all early Macintosh computers from the original to the final Quadra and Performa lineup. Hell, goes back to before the Macintosh if you really want to get clinical.

So yes, Motorola is a very cool company... fact is though, they didn't perform after being kicked to the curb by Apple when Apple nixed the clones. Can I particularly blame them? Not entirely... if I was Motorola I'd probably be pi55ed off too. Yet, when you sign a contract with a company and don't produce what you say you're going to produce, when you're going to produce it... there comes a time for loyalty, and a time for reality. Motorola's time of loyalty has long since been over. That's the bottomline.

Yet I also feel their reason to support the Macintosh platform and Apple was in limbo the day Apple put a fork in their release of their original G3 machines. If that day hadn't come about, and Apple had reworked an agreement where Motorola and *ONLY* Motorola was allowed to build and *ONLY* build clones that didn't affect Apple's current marketshare and bottomline, I feel Motorola would've produced on the G4, we'd not even be concerned about the PowerPC 970, and things would be kosher. So it's a bit of give and take here. I know there are many Apple zealots trolling on here, much as there are PC zealots trolling on here and elsewhere bashing Apple... but the fact is, Apple and Motorola both have committed their own acts. It's probably best to let bygones be bygones and let Motorola and Apple both move on in their separate ways.

Apple and IBM is the future of the Mac...

 

[wizard]

If what you say is true about virtual memory being 64 bit on todays G4 Macs, how come we are limited to 4Gb of addressable virtual memory range on G4 Macs? It seems to me if what you say is true, a process should have a much larger virtual address space available to it. Maybe I got some info crossed but this is my current understanding of the G4 environment.

I'm not disagreeing with you about 32 bit support, there is a lot of potential life left in 32 bit hardware. Well there would be if Aple had a decent supplier for 32 bit hardware. Of course that is what this thread is all about.

Thanks
Dave

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Apple can work towards a fully 64-bit OS anytime they want. And they won't have to leave 32-bit only CPUs behind - they just won't be able to run 64-bit only OS components. The OS Core is 64-bit clean, and some parts of it do run as if they are in a 64-bit memory space (Virtual Memory for one). If you installed it on a 32-bit CPU you'd just not get the 64-bit parts and would run as a you do now. The biggest hurdles right now are the fact that many of the frameworks are not fully 64-bit clean, and that you would need to ship twice as much code (a 32-bit and 64-bit version of every currently 32-bit library). So while they could introduce a 64-bit OS that still supported 32-bit CPUs, it will not likely be soon.