IBM's PowerPC 970FX... at 2.5GHz?

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
...No one pushes Apple...

While you keep saying this, I keep disagreeing. In fact, at least where style is concerned, Apple is the one that does almost all the pushing in the computer industry. But, on the hardware front, if Apple doesn't maintain its hardware, as best it can, it faces having people switching from Mac to Windows. When their hardware is in good standing, then they get switchers from Windows to Mac. So, I'm sure that they're working on the next big thing. I'm sure that new iMacs, eMacs and PowerBooks are coming (iBooks will probably stick with the G4 for a bit longer). These lines will be converting over to the G5 as soon as it's economical for Apple to do it. But it's certainly not a simple matter to slap a G5 into an iMac, for example. In fact, it's probably as challenging to produce a G5 iMac, given the current - and likely future - form factor, as it is to produce a new G5 PowerBook.

 

[NusuniAdmin]

ok

ok thanks, i was a little confused on that, i guess the source that i heard that from is wrong.

[edit: hmmmm imagen.....the albook g4 a little over 5-7 pounds ( a estimate) the pbook g5.......a little over 50 pounds....includes 17 fans and a 20" screen haha]

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
...Apple's proprietary OS on proprietary hardware is not good for us, the Mac users...

...Right now, the best thing Apple has going is OS X... and the G5's...

Contradicting yourself?

Besides, in what way is Mac OS more proprietary than Windows? My understanding is that it's much less...

 

[army_guy]

Re: @ snowdog

Originally posted by ionas


the opteron and co are great chips; for servers and high performance workstations; but not for much else.

Its a great workstation chip especially againt the Itanium 2 and Power 4 and Ultra Sparc workstations, engineers wanting to work at home (like me) have been waiting for a high performance 64-bit platform to run the EDA applications, until now we were stuck with 32-bit machines and still are. Due to engineer demand companies such as MENTOR, CADENCE and SYNOPSIS are working hard to update thier current 64-bit apps to support Opteron, compare this to Itanium which only has half a dozen or so EDA apps in the 10 years its existed. Cadence entire tool set is roadmapped for release 2004-2006 for OPTERON.

 

[Jonnod III]

It's always interesting looking at figures like 'iMac sales down by 30%'.

But all these figures have to be looked at in context. What have comparable machines been up to - have they gone down/up etc. and at this time in the product's life - is this an acceptable sales drop? The chioces of colours in the original iMac changed within a year - from what I remember - then we were on to spotty dog ones....

I love all this market share stuff too - Apples market share is now x% but this is a huge drop from y% in the mid 1990's. Yes true - but was Apple prifitable then? They could get buckets of market share if they sold iMacs at 400 dollars. Company would fold pretty quick.

Lets face it - they are a cutting edge company, making a profit, with a small market share. If they had 40% of the market most of their effort would go into keeping it - not innovating. Then we'd all be Longhorners of some kind or another.

 

[army_guy]

Originally posted by Frobozz
Oy. Based on what?

Current Opterons (unlocked at 800MHz HT clock, ie not overclocked) can clock at 2.5GHz using air-cooling (Ive got them higher but using 4 phase power again using air-cooling) , as the 970 is half the size (and using the same process) I think it would be able to clock at least 2.6-2.8 and maybe 3GHz. Then again it has a bigger die so it would run cooler due to the larger contact area.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by wrldwzrd89
I disagree with the statement an earlier poster made about all the Macs besides the PowerMacs not being competitive. Why would the average Mac user care about whether their eMac/iMac/iBook/PowerBook was competitive with the equivalent Intel/AMD machine when their primary concern is whether the computer they have is fast enough for their needs? That's the way I see it now and the way I saw it when I bought my 17" iMac. Sure, a PowerMac G5 is nice, but it's only meant for those doing heavy-duty work that requires the extra power.

I would suggest that you are in a minority. Perhaps a significant minority, but a minority none the less. What's more, you're in a minority that Apple doesn't have to worry too much about. So long as they can offer you a newer, better, faster machine, you're happy.

On the other hand, there are a lot of people out there, including professionals, who look at both PCs and Macs, and weigh the pros and cons of switching one way or the other. If I was working in an industry where I need as fast and powerful a machine as possible, even if I've been working on a Mac, I'll consider switching to Windows if it means that my main software application would run a lot faster...

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
As previously mentioned, Apple killed the clones because the clone makers wanted to release the latest technology faster and cheaper than Apple.

That's simply not true. When Apple authorized clones the result was that the clones gained marketshare and Apple lost marketshare. The net marketshare of Mac OS based computers was fairly static. However, as Apple was losing market share, they were going into a financial tailspin. If they hadn't reigned in the clones, Apple likely would have gone out of business. So, the choice to end the clone program was in our best interest.

 

[Wonder Boy]

i used a clone for the first time today at an elementry school i taught at. it was cool. it worked very well, while "looking" inexpensive. no wonder the clones are dead.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I would suggest that you are in a minority. Perhaps a significant minority, but a minority none the less. What's more, you're in a minority that Apple doesn't have to worry too much about. So long as they can offer you a newer, better, faster machine, you're happy.

On the other hand, there are a lot of people out there, including professionals, who look at both PCs and Macs, and weigh the pros and cons of switching one way or the other. If I was working in an industry where I need as fast and powerful a machine as possible, even if I've been working on a Mac, I'll consider switching to Windows if it means that my main software application would run a lot faster...

Thanks for letting me know this, Snowy_River. Now that I know my views are in the minority, I can worry less about my purchase, my future Mac purchases, and why my posts aren't quoted very often.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
... Heck Apple even underclocks the G4 chips to keep their rigidly segmented product line intact...

Just to keep the record straight, do you know that Apple was sent this chip as a 1.33GHz rated chip? If Moto sent this chip to Apple as an 800MHz chip, but knew that it was rated to 1.33GHz, then the blame should be pointed there.

Also, almost all chips can be overclocked to some extent or another. There is a margin of error, there. So, just because this person was able to overclock his eMac doesn't mean that Apple underclocked it from the beginning.

My point is that we don't know. You're assuming the worst. Why add so much negativity to the world?

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
That's simply not true. When Apple authorized clones the result was that the clones gained marketshare and Apple lost marketshare. The net marketshare of Mac OS based computers was fairly static. However, as Apple was losing market share, they were going into a financial tailspin. If they hadn't reigned in the clones, Apple likely would have gone out of business. So, the choice to end the clone program was in our best interest.

It was then, but is it still know. Apple would not have lost market share if the clones were doing something right to get people to buy them instead of "true" Apples.

Now Apple has a UNIX-based OS that many agree blows away the competition, but the cost of the hardware required to change to it is too high. From companies who can buy Dell's (like mine does) at bargain prices and set them up as workstations to consumers who put price first. There are plenty of people out there who would consider Mac, but for one thing cost.

And, now a clone question for some one who understand these things better than me: Would it be possible for a company to reverse-engineer the chip (I believe it is the Boot ROM or the BIOS) that makes a Mac a Mac and not just another PPC computer. If so could they then start making OS X compatible computers without Apple's blessing? Isn't that how Compaq made the original IBM clones?

 

[MorganX]

Originally posted by Jonnod III
It's always interesting looking at figures like 'iMac sales down by 30%'.

But all these figures have to be looked at in context. What have comparable machines been up to - have they gone down/up etc.

They would have to collectively have gone up by 30%, which is a huge increase, to offset.

As a previous iMac owner, it is seriously underpowered for the price premium. It needs the FX. I have a feeling it's going to get it sooner rather than later. A 30% drop in sales year over year is a 30% drop in sales year over year.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Just to keep the record straight, do you know that Apple was sent this chip as a 1.33GHz rated chip? If Moto sent this chip to Apple as an 800MHz chip, but knew that it was rated to 1.33GHz, then the blame should be pointed there.

Also, almost all chips can be overclocked to some extent or another. There is a margin of error, there. So, just because this person was able to overclock his eMac doesn't mean that Apple underclocked it from the beginning.

My point is that we don't know. You're assuming the worst. Why add so much negativity to the world?

What I took from the article is that Apple is using essentially the same chip in the 800 MHz - 1.33 GHz G4's and setting to run at a specific speed. I realize that they would not be the only ones doing this if it were true, but Apple has become so rigid in it's product structure even the BTO options are going down. One used to have the chose of Combo or SuperDrive on all the iMac's. Now the 15" comes with combo the 17" and 20" with Super. No up or downgrading allowed. The iBook has no SuperDrive option (ostensibly to keep it seperated from the PowerBook).

I love OS X, what a world it would be if I could go into any computer store and get something that ran it or *gasp* put one together myself (buying G3 mobos on eBay doesn't count).

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Contradicting yourself?

Besides, in what way is Mac OS more proprietary than Windows? My understanding is that it's much less...

Maybe proprietary is not the correct word here. I am trying to say that if I want OS X I have to buy an Apple. If I want to use Windows I do not buy the computer from MicroSoft I buy it from Dell, Sony, HP, etc. There are choices.

 

[windowsblowsass]

AND we were doing so well we had at least 3 threads in a row with no mention of g5 powerbook on the first page

 

[invaLPsion]

Originally posted by windowsblowsass
AND we were doing so well we had at least 3 threads in a row with no mention of g5 powerbook on the first page

I know, I'm tired of talking about the G5 powerbook. G5 updates are a lot more plausible at this time. Wait a few months until even conceiving that the powerbook G5 will be released soon.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
Maybe proprietary is not the correct word here. I am trying to say that if I want OS X I have to buy an Apple. If I want to use Windows I do not buy the computer from MicroSoft I buy it from Dell, Sony, HP, etc. There are choices.

As I indicated in an earlier post about why Apple pulled the clones, there is good reason why there isn't choice in hardware. If other companies were allowed to create clones again, Apple would face the same financial problem again. I read an article a number of years ago that addressed this issue. According to the economic analysis in that article, if/when Macs get up to about 10%-15% (IIRC) marketshare, then not only will it be in Apple's best interest to start licensing clones again, but they will have to if they want to be able to keep up with demand. In this sense, you really can't compare the PC market to the Mac market. If you try to apply the same rules then you'll destroy the Mac platform. If you want to see more choices, clones, etc., then help Apple grow their market share. So long as they are stuck at <10% they have to keep their hardware manufacturing in-house, or face big problems.

(Now, those big problems could be addressed by radical steps, like splitting Apple into two companies, one for hardware and one for software. However, such radical steps are equally likely to drive our beloved Mac platform into the ground...)

 

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
It was then, but is it still know. Apple would not have lost market share if the clones were doing something right to get people to buy them instead of "true" Apples.

I remember the clone days pretty well. Up until the end, all the clone makers but one were basically offering the exact same thing Apple was cheaper. Why? Because Apple was still the one making mother boards for most of them. Power Computing was poised to be the first to market with a G3 when Apple killed the clones.

And, now a clone question for some one who understand these things better than me: Would it be possible for a company to reverse-engineer the chip (I believe it is the Boot ROM or the BIOS) that makes a Mac a Mac and not just another PPC computer. If so could they then start making OS X compatible computers without Apple's blessing? Isn't that how Compaq made the original IBM clones?

There already is enough information to do that, it's the same info that is used towards things like PPC Linux etc. There is just no one currently willing to go up against Apple to do it, mostly because the Mac OS X license would allow Apple to sue anyone that did...

What I took from the article is that Apple is using essentially the same chip in the 800 MHz - 1.33 GHz G4's and setting to run at a specific speed.

That's wrong. Currently the only machines using G4s capable of reaching 1.33 Ghz are the PowerBook G4s. The PBs are using 7447 chips, the rest of the line uses 7445/7455 chips.

And as someone else said, Apple gets their G4s from Motorola, which rates them in their own way. Generally the CPU industry rates CPUs by determining how many they need at a particular speed, checking them at that speed, and accepting/rejecting until they get the number they need. Then they go to the next lower speed and do the same. So it is entirely likely that they will get a huge number of chips in the bottom rank that could have gone in the top rank (it was well known a couple years ago that you could easily overclock a P3 Celeron by 50% for example, not because it was a good chip, but because of how the lots were determined)

 

[billyboy]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
...., there are a lot of people out there, including professionals, who look at both PCs and Macs, and weigh the pros and cons of switching one way or the other. If I was working in an industry where I need as fast and powerful a machine as possible, even if I've been working on a Mac, I'll consider switching to Windows if it means that my main software application would run a lot faster...

Not being funny, but if rocket scientists are happy choosing Powerbooks over anything else, they cannot be all that bad for the rest of the real world users!
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/32837.html

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Thanks, you answered several questions of mine.

Originally posted by Rincewind42
I remember the clone days pretty well. Up until the end, all the clone makers but one were basically offering the exact same thing Apple was cheaper. Why? Because Apple was still the one making mother boards for most of them. Power Computing was poised to be the first to market with a G3 when Apple killed the clones

But what about the ones that didn't Apple didn't make the mobos for. Basically, they were able to make a Mac OS compatible computer and sell it cheaper than Apple. They also, in Power Computing's case, wanted to release technology (the G3) before Apple. This my original point about the clones. Not only were other people making Mac-clones cheaper than Macs, but the were ready to put out G3's before Apple. If Power Computing hadn't been there could it have taken even longer for Apple to release the G3?
I only remember the Mac-clones vaguely. In 1996 I almost got rid of my IIx and got a UMax machine (don't remember the model name any longer). Do to some financial trouble at the time (as in I quit my job and went back to school to change careers) the IIx survived until the purchase of my current iMac DV SE in 2000.

There already is enough information to do that, it's the same info that is used towards things like PPC Linux etc. There is just no one currently willing to go up against Apple to do it, mostly because the Mac OS X license would allow Apple to sue anyone that did...

This is the big part. I did not realize that there was language in the OS X license that said that it was illegal to install it on a non-Apple computer. Or are we only talking about pre-installing for resale. In which case, could you make a computer that was capable of running OS X, but sell it with no OS?

That's wrong. Currently the only machines using G4s capable of reaching 1.33 Ghz are the PowerBook G4s. The PBs are using 7447 chips, the rest of the line uses 7445/7455 chips.

And as someone else said, Apple gets their G4s from Motorola, which rates them in their own way. Generally the CPU industry rates CPUs by determining how many they need at a particular speed, checking them at that speed, and accepting/rejecting until they get the number they need. Then they go to the next lower speed and do the same. So it is entirely likely that they will get a huge number of chips in the bottom rank that could have gone in the top rank (it was well known a couple years ago that you could easily overclock a P3 Celeron by 50% for example, not because it was a good chip, but because of how the lots were determined)

I guess I did not fully understand this part before. I thought they basically made one chip and set it up to run a different clocks speeds. What you are saying that a chip just has to be able to run at or above 800 MHz to get that specification. It may be able to run faster but if that was all they were looking for then that is the rating it will get.

My main complaint is that Apple still want us to get excited about 1 GHz G4's. The first one came out two years ago. Even if today's 1 GHz G4 is a different chip, it is the same basic architecture and same clock speed as then. Is the any real world difference between the 7455, 7441, 7445 and 7447 chips running at the same clock speed? It would be one thing if these chips were in a $500 machine or even just the very bottom of the Apple line, but they are in everything except the PowerMacs.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
n the other hand, there are a lot of people out there, including professionals, who look at both PCs and Macs, and weigh the pros and cons of switching one way or the other. If I was working in an industry where I need as fast and powerful a machine as possible, even if I've been working on a Mac, I'll consider switching to Windows if it means that my main software application would run a lot faster...

I agree totally. There are also a lot of industries where companies use software (databases, etc.) that are designed specifically for them. I work at a TV station for one of the biggest media companies in the world. While there are Mac for the design department because they want/need Photoshop, After Effects, etc., and PC's in accounting because the want/need PowerPoint, Excel, etc. Many of the programs we use are written specific by or for our company. So our companies buys Dells (by the tens of thousands - no I am no proud) because they are cheap and they are really only used as workstations (the only programs on most of the are for viewing news wires, or laying out a show, or editing video) so they could have been anything.

I know the IT guy at my station, and he wishes he did not have to deal with a building full of WindowsNT machines, but that is what they buy and what they design software for because they are so friggin' cheap.

I am not saying that it would happen, but if some one turned out Mac-clones at comparitive prices, and they had a much more solid OS behind them, thing could change.

 

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
But what about the ones that didn't Apple didn't make the mobos for. Basically, they were able to make a Mac OS compatible computer and sell it cheaper than Apple. They also, in Power Computing's case, wanted to release technology (the G3) before Apple. This my original point about the clones. Not only were other people making Mac-clones cheaper than Macs, but the were ready to put out G3's before Apple. If Power Computing hadn't been there could it have taken even longer for Apple to release the G3?

Power Computing was pretty much the only one willing to do their own design. And the reason why even they could sell cheaper than Apple is simple, Apple has a lot more overhead than any of the other clone makers, even Power Computing. So in order for Apple to survive (esp at the time of the clones) they needed to make more gross profit from each machine, thus Apple's price couldn't go down, while everyone else could. The clones sucked Apple dry...

This is the big part. I did not realize that there was language in the OS X license that said that it was illegal to install it on a non-Apple computer. Or are we only talking about pre-installing for resale. In which case, could you make a computer that was capable of running OS X, but sell it with no OS?

My understanding (second hand mind you) is that the license agreement doesn't allow you to install Mac OS X on a non-Apple machine. This would prevent someone else from pre-installing
or advertising support for an install of Mac OS X. However, IANAL so I cannot tell you if that is entirely correct, or if that is all it does.

I guess I did not fully understand this part before. I thought they basically made one chip and set it up to run a different clocks speeds. What you are saying that a chip just has to be able to run at or above 800 MHz to get that specification. It may be able to run faster but if that was all they were looking for then that is the rating it will get.

Exactly, each chip is different, even on the same wafer. Some can run well above their rating safely, and some can't even run stably at the minimum rating that the chip is sold at. There have been people that have overclocked P4s up to 4Ghz, but Intel won't sell them above 3.2 because of the extreme situations required to make the chip stable at such speeds (such as cooling to -40!).

My main complaint is that Apple still want us to get excited about 1 GHz G4's. The first one came out two years ago. Even if today's 1 GHz G4 is a different chip, it is the same basic architecture and same clock speed as then. Is the any real world difference between the 7455, 7441, 7445 and 7447 chips running at the same clock speed? It would be one thing if these chips were in a $500 machine or even just the very bottom of the Apple line, but they are in everything except the PowerMacs.

I don't think Apple expects us to get excited by 1Ghz, I give them enough credit that they realize that Motorola's G4 has been a painful part of their history. But when the G5 was introduced it was a great step ahead, but not perfect. At the moment, the 970FX is looking to be a great replacement in the entire line, so hopefully we'll see some nice G5 iMacs & PowerBooks soon as well as a rev to the PowerMac.

So for those who were worried about topic, we've gotten back on!

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
As I indicated in an earlier post about why Apple pulled the clones, there is good reason why there isn't choice in hardware. If other companies were allowed to create clones again, Apple would face the same financial problem again. I read an article a number of years ago that addressed this issue. According to the economic analysis in that article, if/when Macs get up to about 10%-15% (IIRC) marketshare, then not only will it be in Apple's best interest to start licensing clones again, but they will have to if they want to be able to keep up with demand. In this sense, you really can't compare the PC market to the Mac market. If you try to apply the same rules then you'll destroy the Mac platform. If you want to see more choices, clones, etc., then help Apple grow their market share. So long as they are stuck at <10% they have to keep their hardware manufacturing in-house, or face big problems.

(Now, those big problems could be addressed by radical steps, like splitting Apple into two companies, one for hardware and one for software. However, such radical steps are equally likely to drive our beloved Mac platform into the ground...)

You know Snowy_River, I think in some ways we agree more than we disagree. Everything you wrote above is true, but Apple is not going to increase market share when it's cheapest computer is $800 and all but impossible to upgrade. Apple has stated that they are happy with their market share. So long as they are making money they are happy. Right now, they are making their money selling iPods, and those of us who want lower cost OS X machines are going to have to wait in line.

I agree that splitting the company would solve some of the problems, but I disagree that it would kill the software/OS part. I just think it might kill the hardware part unless Apple decides that more sales and lower margin is the only way to survive.

I had no idea I was so opinionated on this subject. Really it all stems from the fact I love my Mac (and pre OS X, thought about giving it up), but it is four years old and I want to try iDVD and GarageBand, but nothing in the current Apple line-up with my budget seems worth the money. So I just wait impatiently for something to change.

Then mocked me for saying that someone might make a computer that was a better value than a Mac, and it really drives me crazy when people are like Mac's rule and PC's suck no matter what. Apple has made a lot of mistake. The Motorola G4's have not been what was expected. Apple has a lot of deficiencies just like any big corporation, but sometimes people around here seem to think they are flawless and here to save us from Bill Gates. I just wish people would take a step back and look at some of the things Apple does and try to judge them objectively. Let's face it Apple has us in their own little monopoly. We love the OS so we need to buy our hardware from them or vice versa.

I have made too many posts in the last hour. I am going to go back to my real life for a while and take a break from these forums.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
... While there are Mac for the design department because they want/need Photoshop, After Effects, etc., and PC's in accounting because the want/need PowerPoint, Excel, etc.

Just for the record, PowerPoint, Excel, etc., are available on the Mac...

Many of the programs we use are written specific by or for our company.

I realize that many big companies use custom software. For them, they may be locked into whatever platform they originally had it written on, unless there's some very significant reason to change. I know a lot of companies choose a *nix flavor for this reason. It allows much more portability between hardware platforms, and the OS isn't M$.

...but that is what they buy and what they design software for because they are so friggin' cheap...

And, at least for the foreseeable future, PCs are going to continue to corner the market on cheap machines. No question. Really, no point in arguing about it.

I actually get paid to be a computer technology advocate. Part of my job is understanding that there are some things that PCs running Windows are best suited for, some things that PCs running Linux are best suited for, and some things that Macs are best suited for. Trying to fit one in where another fits better is always painful. Not such a good thing to do...