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

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
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!

First of all thanks for getting us back on topic. You are probably right. They don't want us excited, but they do want us to buy the machines which is just as bad.

Now on topic:
Hopefully, the 970FX will be fast enough soon enough that the whole Mac line can go to 64-bits faster than they all went to G4. I almost wonder if the do not want to bother with a 2.0 GHz, Dual 2.2 GHz, Dual 2.4 GHz line if the really think it could be 2.6 GHz, Dual 2.8 GHz, Dual 3.0 GHz by June (wasn't 3.0 GHz with the next year Steve's promise?).
If that happens, there is no reason not to put the slower (ie < 2 Ghz) PPC970's into the the consumer lines. Then there would be value in Apple's low-end models (the iBooks could even stay G4 if it the had the 1.25 and 1.33's and offered a SuperDrive option).

I already broke my promise... now I am really going to take a break for the forums.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
You know Snowy_River, I think in some ways we agree more than we disagree.

I think that you're right...

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.

Well, yes and no. If it was $800 because it was a PoS, made with the cheapest parts, etc., this would ultimately come back and byte them in the end. Now, if it was something like a headless iMac (something that many people, including myself, have been calling for), then it could work. It would allow the consumer level user to choose whatever monitor they want, and it would eliminate the $700-$1000 cost of the monitor on the iMac. So, I'd suggest that we all pray for a new Cube!

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.

There are other huge risks with such a move. I'll see if I can track down the article that talked about that back in the day...

...nothing in the current Apple line-up with my budget seems worth the money. So I just wait impatiently for something to change.

Yeah, I'd agree, if you don't need a consumer level computer then now isn't the time to be buying one...

...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.

Me too. See ya!

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
First of all thanks for getting us back on topic. You are probably right. They don't want us excited, but they do want us to buy the machines which is just as bad.

Just because they still have the product available does that mean that they want/expect us to buy them? Would you rather that they discontinued offering any consumer level products until they had something new/more competitive to offer? They're providing us with what they have to offer...

Now on topic:
Hopefully, the 970FX will be fast enough soon enough that the whole Mac line can go to 64-bits faster than they all went to G4. I almost wonder if the do not want to bother with a 2.0 GHz, Dual 2.2 GHz, Dual 2.4 GHz line if the really think it could be 2.6 GHz, Dual 2.8 GHz, Dual 3.0 GHz by June (wasn't 3.0 GHz with the next year Steve's promise?).
If that happens, there is no reason not to put the slower (ie < 2 Ghz) PPC970's into the the consumer lines.

Except the design work that would need to go into creating these whole new products...

Then there would be value in Apple's low-end models (the iBooks could even stay G4 if it the had the 1.25 and 1.33's and offered a SuperDrive option).

There is another consumer option that has been rumored. That is the 750VX, the G3 class processor that has Altivec. So, the 750VX could be called a G4, and is rumored to scale up past 1.5GHz, and run cooler than the current G4s, at least at the same clock speeds. So, having the G4 in the consumer line may not go away just yet, but simply superceded by the 750VX-G4.

I already broke my promise... now I am really going to take a break for the forums.

Oops, so did I...

Hasta...

 

[NusuniAdmin]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I think that you're right...
Well, yes and no. If it was $800 because it was a PoS, made with the cheapest parts, etc., this would ultimately come back and byte them in the end. Now, if it was something like a headless iMac (something that many people, including myself, have been calling for), then it could work. It would allow the consumer level user to choose whatever monitor they want, and it would eliminate the $700-$1000 cost of the monitor on the iMac. So, I'd suggest that we all pray for a new Cube!

Well my dads emac is great, been running flawlessly for a half year with no problems whatsoever. Ya a new cube would be great.......oO(the iCube).....lol

 

[neilw]

One note about the clones.

As a past satisfied owner of a Power Computing machine, I was pretty upset when Apple pulled the rug out from under them. Nowadays I understand their reasons better, and believe they did what they had to do at the time.

However, what is sometimes extraordinarily frustrating about being a Mac owner is that, in the absence of the clones, Apple has taken an anti-choice approach, at least with regards to the desktop line. They feel that they can shoehorn their customers into their narrow categories, and I guess they can because there's nowhere else to turn.

If clones were still around, you can obviously assume that something equivalent to a headless iMac would be available, because there is demand for it. But for now, we are subject to Apple's (and maybe just Steve's) marketing whims.

It would be nice if Apple, knowing that they're the only game in town for Mac users, elected to make sure they covered the bases pretty well, so that at least *most* potential Mac users would have machines suitable for them. Instead, they have decided that all desktop users are served by either a giant workstation-class system, or a non-expandable all-in-one, and if you don't like it than tough luck. It's really amazing they've gotten away with it, though based on market share numbers you could argue whether they actually have.

Clearly, the pre-Jobs product line was ridiculous, but Apple has taken it way too far in the other direction. Obviously I'm hoping at some point for an affordable non-AIO machine, but at the very least make the AIO machines competitive. Right now that means G5. I hope that once the 970FXs are really flowing, the whole line will get updated, and the sooner the better.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Well my dads emac is great, been running flawlessly for a half year with no problems whatsoever. Ya a new cube would be great.......oO(the iCube).....lol

Yeah, the eMacs are pretty nice. I've known several people that have bought them and been very satisfied with them. They are definitely an example of what Apple can do with low end machines. If they were to use that same chipset and processor installed in a basic mini-tower or a desktop like the cube that had some minimum level of expandability, it would be great and could cost as little as $600.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by neilw
One note about the clones.

As a past satisfied owner of a Power Computing machine, I was pretty upset when Apple pulled the rug out from under them. Nowadays I understand their reasons better, and believe they did what they had to do at the time.

However, what is sometimes extraordinarily frustrating about being a Mac owner is that, in the absence of the clones, Apple has taken an anti-choice approach, at least with regards to the desktop line. They feel that they can shoehorn their customers into their narrow categories, and I guess they can because there's nowhere else to turn.

If clones were still around, you can obviously assume that something equivalent to a headless iMac would be available, because there is demand for it. But for now, we are subject to Apple's (and maybe just Steve's) marketing whims.

It would be nice if Apple, knowing that they're the only game in town for Mac users, elected to make sure they covered the bases pretty well, so that at least *most* potential Mac users would have machines suitable for them. Instead, they have decided that all desktop users are served by either a giant workstation-class system, or a non-expandable all-in-one, and if you don't like it than tough luck. It's really amazing they've gotten away with it, though based on market share numbers you could argue whether they actually have.

Clearly, the pre-Jobs product line was ridiculous, but Apple has taken it way too far in the other direction. Obviously I'm hoping at some point for an affordable non-AIO machine, but at the very least make the AIO machines competitive. Right now that means G5. I hope that once the 970FXs are really flowing, the whole line will get updated, and the sooner the better.

I share your hopes, but for now, I think that Apple is trying to stay to a fairly narrow and safe course.

 

[Jonnod III]

I agree that splitting the company would solve some of the problems,

What problems???

Apple is profitable. Granted the sales fluctuate - but I bet almost all other computer manufacturers would kill for Apple's profitability.

Apple haver one of top 5 most recognisable brands in the world. Of anything, not just computers.
Apple design products that change the world. Think translucent plastic. Think iPod. Think iTunes.

It's easy to speculate about which processor should be used where - but just try doing it when the future of your company depends on it and your speculatation is a tad more important than just to impress some posters on this forum

I'm just happy that Apple are still here, are healthy, are profucing knockout product (ok, maybe not as knockout as it could be... ).... without their underpowered machines, their lack of a 'headless iMac' etc etc, I'd have to use a machine from the Axis of Evil.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Does anyone remember that a seriously low-profile mini-tower NEVER existed on the MS PC platform until after the Cube??

I do.

Now, for those of you calling for a mini-tower or Cube rennaissance, of consumer headless; I personally think your off your rocker, but I understand.

I'm hoping that the 970FX will eventually allow all Macs except low end consumer line to go fully 64-bit, OS and all.

A non-upgradeable Cube like machine will just piss most of you off again - man we're already having this conversation in various threads as it is. When the Cube was out hardly anyone bought it, the cracks really annoyed some, and until they pulled the plug everyone avoided them like the plague except for a few astute ones, wish I had the cash then. Collectors are now loving it. PoS Cube I don't think is needed - as the iMac FP replaces it sweetly, as its head can be swung around to show clients the breakdown of pricing to solve discrepancies. Furthermore, they take up SOooooOO much less space, and USB/FIrewire connectors for laser/IR scanners/printers etc. Its all there just open your mind a little. Sure the pricing is expensive but imagine it with OLED or the new AOLED that Sony is gonna put into their future PDA's.

Most of us actually hated the iMac FP when it was introduced as well, but we all had to see it in person and see it in use to fully appreciate it. Same with the PowerMac G5; I personally loved it at first sight along with the Cube. There are target markets that need certain kinds of Targets, yet I think Apples research team is doing a fine job of shoe-horn fitting because of the lack of design on the other side currently.

Thus far its working pretty well according to the numbers (profitability, sales, etc)

I see Apple surprising us with increased speed bump on Steve's 3Ghz promise late summer, but not before tantilizing us with a revised iMac line....maybe called a new system with a Mac name in it of course.

 

[Toreador93]

It took me an hour and a half to read all 7 pages of this!

I've been going back and forth between getting a Powerbook and a PC.
Especially today, my girlfriend is using her professor's PB 667MHz, and while she was working at our Residence Building's front desk, people kept commenting on how cool it was. She got a kick out of it.

Recently, though, I've discovered a high-end PC manufacturer. Actually, I think I first saw it in one of MacRumor's threads. Voodoo PC

Their Pent M notebooks are 1.1" thick, and all notebooks are painted with 8 layers of auto paint & clearcoat (your choice of color), 72 hour burn-in, and ability to upgrade.
Voodoo Notebooks

Their Pent Ms get 4hr+ battery life, while their AMD 3200/3400 gets over 3 hours. So I don't understand why eMachine's battery rating was low.

I understand this is a Mac forum, but some people question the availability of good looking, performance tuned PCs. While I haven't taken the plunge either way yet, a Voodoo looks very tempting.
_________

I would love to use OS X, and have that sexy Al case, but Apple really has to do something with the internals.
I like to game, but still want the perks of OS X. If there were "Clones", I'm sure they would've come out with this machine already. And with the availability of these machines, I think game makers would take a second look at the Mac, which I know would make a lot of people happy.

But as long as Apple is happy with their 5% market share, this will never happen.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Prom1
Does anyone remember that a seriously low-profile mini-tower NEVER existed on the MS PC platform until after the Cube??
...

Just for the record, there's a big difference between a Cube and a mini-tower. Most PCs today are mini-towers. Technically, the G5 is a mini-tower. What I was talking about was the reintroduction of a mini-tower that was aimed more at the consumer market. It could be more 'mini' than the G5, but more expandable than the iMac/eMac/Cube. Best of all worlds...

(A full tower has no less than six card slots...)

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Toreador93
...I understand this is a Mac forum, but some people question the availability of good looking, performance tuned PCs. While I haven't taken the plunge either way yet, a Voodoo looks very tempting....

Actually, I think that there are relatively few people around that would deny that there's some very nice hardware on the PC side. It's just that most of it isn't. And that the default OS is... less than desirable.

...
I would love to use OS X, and have that sexy Al case, but Apple really has to do something with the internals.
I like to game, but still want the perks of OS X.

My friend, I'm not sure that a Mac is the best option for you. In general, with anyone who says 'I like to game', I immediately tend to point them toward PCs. Sure, Macs have games, but the lack of releases and the delayed releases of most games tend to frustrate gamers to no end. In the end, the gamers that I've known who bought Macs ended up selling them, and telling everyone they know how much Macs suck because they couldn't get game XYZ.

If there were "Clones", I'm sure they would've come out with this machine already. And with the availability of these machines, I think game makers would take a second look at the Mac, which I know would make a lot of people happy.

As I've already discussed, if there were clones, there probably wouldn't be a Mac platform, at this point. I don't see the point in discussing it further.

But as long as Apple is happy with their 5% market share, this will never happen.

This has been said many times now. Who says they're happy with 5%? Perhaps they're happy with where they're at right now (which is how I interpret most comments that come from Cupertino on this subject), but that doesn't mean that they don't want to grow. There's a difference between content and complacent...

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Jonnod III
What problems???...

Splitting the company into a hardware and a software company would be an enormously expensive endeavor. It could easily result in an immediate loss of confidence from Wall Street, making Apple almost worthless. It would risk the tight integration between the hardware and software that we all love about the Mac systems. If it were done in concert with openning up licensing for clones, then the sudden proliferation of cheap PoS Mac clones could result in significant degredation of the overall stability of Macs, and thus tarnish their otherwise stellar reputation (yes, there are those who've had bad experiences, but the are vastly in the minority...). With a tarnished reputation, people would be more likely to go the Windows route, driving Mac marketshare even lower. Even the OS branch would then face big problems. If they chose to produce an x86 version of Mac OS X, they'd just be another little operating system in a very big pond, going head-to-head with Windows. In the end, they'd very likely face the same fate as BeOS, a better operating system that died.

 

[army_guy]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Just for the record, there's a big difference between a Cube and a mini-tower. Most PCs today are mini-towers. Technically, the G5 is a mini-tower. What I was talking about was the reintroduction of a mini-tower that was aimed more at the consumer market. It could be more 'mini' than the G5, but more expandable than the iMac/eMac/Cube. Best of all worlds...

(A full tower has no less than six card slots...)

G5 is a midi tower in height, not in expandability. Full tower is too tall for my liking I prefere 4u and 5u rackmount chassis anything else is too big or too noisy due to small fans.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by Snowy_River

...snipped out good points about splitting up software and hardware...

If they chose to produce an x86 version of Mac OS X, they'd just be another little operating system in a very big pond, going head-to-head with Windows. In the end, they'd very likely face the same fate as BeOS, a better operating system that died.

It would have one advantage though. It would already have a large PPC installed user base, and many of us (ourselves, friends or family) also have an x86 machine from which we would gladly remove Windows or at the very least make it a dual boot system.

I don't think the answer is splitting the company or releasing an x86 version of OS X either. I just wish that there were other was to get an OS X capable computer then always going through Apple.

And, I would like to make this point. If Apple OS X were the dominant OS in the world. Apple would be in the position that MicroSoft is in. Everything else they made (software, the iPod, and PowerMacs) would be scrutinized to be sure that they were not using there power as the dominant OS to push their other products.

I also had a marketing idea today that I already posted here that would help to grow market share IMHO.

 

[pishnaris]

Mac OS on PC's?

Steve tried to catch that wave back in '92, I think, when he released NeXTStep on the Intel chip. It worked, but didn't really catch on. The apps were still too expensive.

Of course, OS 10 is NeXTStep, essentially, and maybe the time has come for this to be tried again. Everyone in the world is fed up with Windows Whatever. It truly sux.

 

[leftbanke7]

How about this idea

Based on all of what I have read on this thread, I have come up with a product line that might appease most everybody:

Pro Line:
G5 with the new IBM chips
(keep them at the same price or maybe a 100 dollar drop)

Laptop line:
PB with underclocked G5 chip
(1600.00-2100.00)
iBook with the beefed up Altivec enabled G3*
(low end at around 700.00-750.00 to about 1100.00 for top end)

Consumer Line
iMac with underclocked G5 with 3 screen sizes (15", 17" 20")
(1400.00-2000.00)
Headless iMac with underclocked G5
(1100.00 - 1300.00)

Budget Models
iMac with Altivec enabled G3 and 2 screen sizes (15", 17")
(800.00 - 1000.00)
Headless iMac with Altivec enabled G3
(500.00 - 700.00)
eMac with Altivec enabled G3
(800.00 - 1000.00)

*There needs to be a new name for these chips as G3 tells people that the technology is 5-6 years old and G4 tells people that they are getting crappy MotoSlowa chips.

Suggestions? Additions? Comments? Complaints (which on this site there should be many of them)?

 

[Rincewind42]

Re: How about this idea

Originally posted by leftbanke7
Altivec enabled G3

Can we please stop with the altivec enabled G3? It makes no sense now, it never made any sense in the past, and it makes less sense as time goes on. The G4 already goes faster than IBM's current G3s, a G3 w/Altivec would use as much power as a G4 at the same speed and with the 970FX drawing a dozen watts at 1.4Ghz there really isn't any point to making a G3 w/Altivec running at the same speed and consuming the same amount of power.

The 750VX rumor never made sense, can we please let it die?

 

[NusuniAdmin]

Re: Re: How about this idea

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Can we please stop with the altivec enabled G3? It makes no sense now, it never made any sense in the past, and it makes less sense as time goes on. The G4 already goes faster than IBM's current G3s, a G3 w/Altivec would use as much power as a G4 at the same speed and with the 970FX drawing a dozen watts at 1.4Ghz there really isn't any point to making a G3 w/Altivec running at the same speed and consuming the same amount of power.

The 750VX rumor never made sense, can we please let it die?

Uhhhgg I have said this tons of times, IBM IS MAKING A ALTIVEC G3, called the 750GX this is a REAL chip that ibm will start manufacturing very soon, in fact it might be already since according to articles on ibm.com it said planning stopped in december. The 750 VX is a dumb rumor from someone who does NOT real ibm.com articles. lol ok its ok...im ok ....im ok

 

[Sun Baked]

Re: Re: Re: How about this idea

Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Uhhhgg I have said this tons of times, IBM IS MAKING A ALTIVEC G3, called the 750GX this is a REAL chip that ibm will start manufacturing very soon, in fact it might be already since according to articles on ibm.com it said planning stopped in december. The 750 VX is a dumb rumor from someone who does NOT real ibm.com articles. lol ok its ok...im ok ....im ok

I cannot find the Altivec included stuff in the PowerPC 750GX Product description

Where is it?

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: How about this idea

Originally posted by Sun Baked
I cannot find the Altivec included stuff in the PowerPC 750GX Product description

Where is it?

I cannot find it either. Also, it only lists speed up to 1.1 GHz. Hardly a replacement for the Moto Chips.

 

[Rincewind42]

Re: Re: Re: Re: How about this idea

Originally posted by Sun Baked
I cannot find the Altivec included stuff in the PowerPC 750GX Product description

Where is it?

The 750GX doesn't have it. At least, IBM has never come out and said that it has Altivec. The only PPC that IBM has said has Altivec is the 970, and given the design of the 750 I seriously doubt that they expect anyone to use it for high performance computing - the spec sheet specifically calls it out as a low-power CPU that just happens to be capable of good performance if you need it - and then you clock back down to low power on idle.

It's pretty simple - there is no reason to put Altivec in a the 750 - if you want Altivec in that kind of CPU, you can get it in the 74xx from Motorola.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about this idea

Originally posted by Rincewind42
The 750GX doesn't have it. At least, IBM has never come out and said that it has Altivec. The only PPC that IBM has said has Altivec is the 970, and given the design of the 750 I seriously doubt that they expect anyone to use it for high performance computing - the spec sheet specifically calls it out as a low-power CPU that just happens to be capable of good performance if you need it - and then you clock back down to low power on idle.

It's pretty simple - there is no reason to put Altivec in a the 750 - if you want Altivec in that kind of CPU, you can get it in the 74xx from Motorola.

Basically then, unless the 750VX really does exist and IBM is keeping it a secret until Apple releases it in a Mac, the G3/G4 is really dead and the next step (for processors) if the PPC970 (or some version) of it in all Mac models.

Essentially, everything will go G5 because there is nowhere else to go.

 

[NusuniAdmin]

hmmmm

I swear I have read, maybe it was a misread, anyways I will look around for that article i saw it on.

 

[rdowns]

Re: How about this idea

Originally posted by leftbanke7
Based on all of what I have read on this thread, I have come up with a product line that might appease most everybody:

Pro Line:
G5 with the new IBM chips
(keep them at the same price or maybe a 100 dollar drop)

Laptop line:
PB with underclocked G5 chip
(1600.00-2100.00)
iBook with the beefed up Altivec enabled G3*
(low end at around 700.00-750.00 to about 1100.00 for top end)

Consumer Line
iMac with underclocked G5 with 3 screen sizes (15", 17" 20")
(1400.00-2000.00)
Headless iMac with underclocked G5
(1100.00 - 1300.00)

Budget Models
iMac with Altivec enabled G3 and 2 screen sizes (15", 17")
(800.00 - 1000.00)
Headless iMac with Altivec enabled G3
(500.00 - 700.00)
eMac with Altivec enabled G3
(800.00 - 1000.00)

*There needs to be a new name for these chips as G3 tells people that the technology is 5-6 years old and G4 tells people that they are getting crappy MotoSlowa chips.

Suggestions? Additions? Comments? Complaints (which on this site there should be many of them)?

Underclocked, you must have went to the Steve Jobs School fof Marketing.

Apple needs to put the G5 in its entire line.

PowerMacs needs latest G5s, all dual processor.

No underclocked G5s in the iMac line. Single, fastest G5s they have. Limited expandability and single processors are enough differentiation from the PM line. Stop crippling this line. Drop the 15" and offer 17" and 20". Want a 15", buy the headless model and choose your own monitor.

Powerooks should use the same chips as the iMac. The motherboards could be similar with regard to heat issues. All wide screen line. Could lead to better economies of scale for Apple.


I like the idea of slower G5s in a headless design. Keep it simple, 2 models tops. This becomes their "budget" (can you use that word for Apple products?) line. If you look at the iMacs today, they are "budget" lines already if you take away the expensive LCD. (The 20" Cinema LCD costs $1299, the 20" iMac $2199. There's your under $1,000 "budget" computer although the delta is wider if you use the 17" as a comparison but you have a wide screen on the iMac.)

As for eMac, return to its roots as an education machine. The only reason Apple released it to consumers was because of its price point. The headless G5 would replace it in the Apple lineup.

Slower G5s in the iBook 6 months after the PowerBook G5 comes out. Diffrentiate these models by speed, RAM expandability, video card, video out and no wide screen models.

G5s everywhere. Hasten the move to all an all 64 bit lineup and move to 64 bit OS and apps within 3 years. Lay out a roadmap for your developers and consumers. (yeah, like that will ever happen)

Rant over, off to buy some over priced roses (Apple must have something to do with this) for my sweetie.