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.
More Details on Apple's Intel Mac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
tdewey said:
Ok, The cell processor not like most processors really, Now its not really a "special purpose chip", Its intended to be a very genral perpose chip, The understanding I got from looking at some of sony material was the the SPU's are programmable, so say if i wish to do a say vector calculation, I program them accordingly. So each SPU is a customizable processor, Kinda neat and really genral, you can do whatever you want.. Really
anyway so what does the PPC do ? I mean theres one in the cell..
the powerpc controls to q's to the processors and sends the data off on its merry little way to the processor... So the reason why this chip is apparently going to be Gods gift to processors.
The difficalty explaining the cell processor comes from the fact that at this stage not alot of it is publicly avalible.
If we wait a week we will learn alot more...
2. And exactly where is the Cell processor for notebooks?
Good question and who knows, Its indended to run in embedded devices, so I would assume that It would be able to run in a laptop..
Sony says "speed to cost" and "speed to power consumption" are both very good on the cell chip and I bleave these are two factors the STI group took into account while creating the processor...
Now the Cell chip is exceedingly scalable too, (this kinda goes with the question what about in two years), apparently its easy to add extra SPU's to the chip 16 insted of 8 etc...
And really, Apple always said they where supercomputers, now they really could be
massive SMP is also a feature..
I don't think Apple has access to the cell technology though and I feel that is the real reason they are not using it... But I guess only time will tell
hulugu said:
People had fears over OS X, five years ago. They were worried about Unix, they were worried about the existence of a command line and thought that users would be subject to some hellish DOS-like experience.
There are still some holdouts who grumble about this or that aspect of earlier Mac OS's that has gone away, and there is room for improvement, but for the most part, OS X seems to have been a brilliant success. The fears of the fearful were not realized.
I expect the same will happen in this case, and that Apple's decisions will be made with a high standard of quality and usability.
animefan_1 said:
It's actually not a $999 computer, it just costs that much to lease it for a year. I imagine the hardware is actually significantly more expensive than that.
But your post was right on the money. The Dev kit was obviously put together quickly with as little fuss as is possible -- designing a motherboard is still hard work, even in 2005. I can't wait to buy a Pentium M Powerbook. Start saving now
markie said:
I don't want a retail box because I guess I'm elitist in that I want the standards and quality for the things I use to remain high while their price goes down. However, in the case of a retail box, sold at Best Buy the quality of the box and the quality of experience goes down. Yep, it's more fun to go to a small store that is well-staffed and buy an elegant box that works all the time than it is to go to a huge store manned by fools to buy a box that doesn't work out of the box or fails soon thereafter leading me into exchange hell (ala eMachines). If that makes me elistist than so be it. I want the best experience for my money and I want Apple's focus to remain on the best experience for my money.
pont said:You show me a Mac I can buy for the same price as my duel opterons and beat it
Seriously, if you're only here to bash Macs, go somewhere else. There are plenty of generic "Windoze-roolz" sites out there where you can discuss 19th-century OS's.
kester said:
I meant like have a dual boot of OSX and Windows or is Virtual PC going to run full speed by then since Mac is using Intel? I just want to have both OSX and Windows because some programs are still exclusive to only Windows and games especially are more dominant on the PC.
matznentosh said:
Actually, NeXT was probably at its peak for a few years after they dropped hardware. NeXT's corporate customers (investment banks, for instance) wanted them to go to Intel, and didn't particularly enjoy having to buy proprietary 68k boxes. And it didn't help that Motorola was having problems improving the 68040 or providing an alternative.
What really hurt NeXT was probably the advent of Java and all its hype. Between being free, and cross-platform, and super-hyped, and easier than C++, it really stole the object-oriented development spotlight from NeXT.
The shrinking corporate installed base, sales of WebObjects, and Jobs' money helped keep NeXT running from 1995 until they were able to take over Apple.
Im not bashing mac's im just saying the hardwares not very cost effective..
also back onto the cell, since where talking about running multiple operating systems (I thought this was really cool) the cell can run multiple operating systems simutainiously... (I wonder how you would switch from one to the other, I wonder if the other would pause while you where in the other operating system too.. or if its true simutanious..)
steeldrivingjon said:
OSX worried me for about 0 minutes because I had a chance to use a NeXT machine and really liked it, but you're right change is scary. I'm not saying Apple shouldn't do it, I'm saying they should tread carefully and avoid throwing away things that make the current machines so great, like OF instead of a BIOS. (No, I can't let that go.)
I'm also worried about the implications of Intel's DRM on the chip, especially in light of Microsoft's pursuit of Palladium and the MPAA/RIAA's love for such measures. I really like that autorun doesn't work on the Mac and that DRM'd CDs play without any hassle and I don't want to lose this either. I want my Mac to be better, faster, hardier and I don't want to lose any of the features I've already gotI'm greedy. Sosume.
I have an open question:hulugu said:
If i understand you correctly, alot of ppl are upset about PC BIOS, because Mac uses Open Firmware?
So since im a new Mac user, and i know what a BIOS is, i tried to find info about OF.
I found this on: http://www.openfirmware.org/
Open Firmware Home Page (OpenFirmware.ORG)
Open Firmware is the name given to the IEEE-1275 Standard for Boot (Initialization Configuration) Firmware: Core Requirements and Practices.
Firmware is typically stored in read-only memory (ROM) and executed immediately after a computer is turned on. The most familiar version is the standard PC x86 BIOS.
Open Firmware is essentially a specification for a largely machine-independent BIOS based on ANS Forth that is capable of probing and initializing plug-in cards that have on-board IEEE-1275 compliant Fcode in their ROMs.
The Open Firmware Working Group is an ad-hoc organization that promotes Open Firmware by publishing bindings, clarifications, extensions, and working practice documents to the IEEE 1275 standard.
The IEEE-1275 Open Firmware standard was not reaffirmed by the OFWG and has been officially withdrawn by IEEE. Unfortunately, this means it is unavailable from the IEEE.
Doesnt this mean that BIOS is OF?
Could someone please explain?
Thanx!
I don't believe Steve Jobs wants to phase out the PPC. I believe IBM has left him with little option. They have become the Motorola of the 21st century. Apple placed their trust in IBMs promises to deliver large quantities of fast, powerful PPC processors, and committed to delivering faster and better ones in the future (most likely on a timetable ... i.e. "3 GHx in a year"), but IBM failed to deliver on their promises. I've read many posts over the past year with people complaining that Apple was not upgrading their systems fast enough, that Apple was not delivering a faster Powerbook solution, that Apple was neglecting its customers for the iPod, that Steve Jobs didn't care about the people that made Apple what it was ... but in truth, IBM was to blame. I rarely read posts saying that IBM let customers down, that IBM was falling short, or that IBM bore any responsibility for the failed deliveries of promises by Apple. I'm certain that Steve would have preferred to stay with PPC and not have to eat his own words (based on promises from IBM), but was left with little choice if he wanted to continue to grow his company into the future, especially in the areas of portability. Neither IBM, nor Freescale, has offered cool solutions for laptop expandability, the fastest growing area of computer purchases in the market, so Steve Jobs had to decide what was best for the future. It appears that the Pentium-M is the cool choice.spinko said:
pont said:
Have you used a Cell enhanced machine? Do you have any benchmarks or real world data to suggest that the Cell is really the orgasmic delight of processors ever? The Cell sounds great, but until it exists in a real-world application, we don't really know anything about it.
As for Mac hardware, we get it you love Linux, you like using x86 on beige (or blue with LEDs, whatever) boxes. Good for you, but I'd really prefer you stop bleating the "Mac are expensive" meme and tell us more about the Cel processors.
ZLurker said:
No, it just means that BIOS and OpenFirmware are two kinds of firmware.
Same kind of thing, serving the same general purpose, but going about it differently.
ok, enough is enough
I have read posts on this forum for some time and have never got envolved, but I think now is the time...
First, enough about Mac going down the tubes and we are all going to be using Dell's with OSX. If you watched the WWDC keynote you would have heard that Jobs/Apple has been working and thinking about this for 5 years. I am quite sure they will not put out generic boxes with OSX in them. I am quite certian that they will have their own motherboards ect. They are replacing their chip manufacturer not the entire guts of the machine. I am sure this is not a shoot from the hip move for Apple.
Second, if some of you would take the time to read things other than what is posted on this forum I think you might be a little more at ease. Like read about the new chips that Intel are coming out with (Merom, Conroe, ect.) you will see that they are pretty much being re-designed from the ground up. AND! they are similar to the PPC chip in the sense that they are going to be slower clock speeds and shorted pipelines. They too have realized that more mghz does not mean better. And when are these chips coming out... 2006 & 2007, sound familiar?
GOOD GOD people, get out more and read more!
I have read posts on this forum for some time and have never got envolved, but I think now is the time...
First, enough about Mac going down the tubes and we are all going to be using Dell's with OSX. If you watched the WWDC keynote you would have heard that Jobs/Apple has been working and thinking about this for 5 years. I am quite sure they will not put out generic boxes with OSX in them. I am quite certian that they will have their own motherboards ect. They are replacing their chip manufacturer not the entire guts of the machine. I am sure this is not a shoot from the hip move for Apple.
Second, if some of you would take the time to read things other than what is posted on this forum I think you might be a little more at ease. Like read about the new chips that Intel are coming out with (Merom, Conroe, ect.) you will see that they are pretty much being re-designed from the ground up. AND! they are similar to the PPC chip in the sense that they are going to be slower clock speeds and shorted pipelines. They too have realized that more mghz does not mean better. And when are these chips coming out... 2006 & 2007, sound familiar?
GOOD GOD people, get out more and read more!
hulugu said:
Don't worry. This is Apple that we're talking about. If they had to ditch OF they did it for technical or logistical reasons. I'm sure that whatever takes its place will be just as user friendly as ever and keep the same functionality that OF had. Because, this is Apple.
Apple fans
I'm excited to see the new design of PowerMacs.
Just look at the pics of the development machine, and all the space left without the G5's small-house heatsink and 11 fans. Apple's Industrial Design team is going to have a field day with these motherboards.
Start your mock up engines once again.
Also, has anyone speculated that this is going to be called the G6?
I'm excited to see the new design of PowerMacs.
Just look at the pics of the development machine, and all the space left without the G5's small-house heatsink and 11 fans. Apple's Industrial Design team is going to have a field day with these motherboards.
Start your mock up engines once again.
Also, has anyone speculated that this is going to be called the G6?
gotohamish said:
Probably not.
(G1) PPC 601
(G2) PPC 603-604
(G3) PPC 750
(G4) PPC 7400
(G5) PPC 970
hulugu said:
Black, Oviously have not played around with a cell, seen 48 mpegs being decoded at once but thats it and yes thats my point it sounds like a damn cool processor and Im really waiting for the PS2 to come out so I can invest in one.
As I keep saying, I don't think Apple would have access to this technology, the STI group are prolly exceedingly exclusive, as you would be if you had invested billions into a new processor. For a while I wouldn't hope to see anything not badged IBM, Tosiba or Sony with a cell chip