Motorola just recently announced third quarter availability for the 7457, before that, it was the fourth quarter.
Maybe they should just outsource chip production. Ti would be a good source, better fab equipment and better technology as well.
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.
Motorola and PowerBook, iMac Delays
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Motorola just recently announced third quarter availability for the 7457, before that, it was the fourth quarter.
Maybe they should just outsource chip production. Ti would be a good source, better fab equipment and better technology as well.
Re: Re: grrrr...
Actually, in many cases their quality was lower then the competition. The failure rates were far higher and they had software problems that took them years to finally acknowledge and fix.
As soon as they started to produce digital phones, their quality went down hill. No one could beat their analog phones; those were virtually indestructible.
Actually, in many cases their quality was lower then the competition. The failure rates were far higher and they had software problems that took them years to finally acknowledge and fix.
As soon as they started to produce digital phones, their quality went down hill. No one could beat their analog phones; those were virtually indestructible.
Well, if you look at the PowerPC it deals more with the instruction set then the actual processor. There are many different PowerPC processors out there. Some networking gear uses a PowerPC processor. The G5, which is the IBM 970, uses the Power4 core, which IBM owns. Much like Motorola owns the G4. The instructions sets are pretty much the same, but are different chips. Motorola would have to allow someone else to produce the chips.
If they were going to outsource it, it would be IBM or Ti. Ti is actually ahead of IBM in terms of chip technology. Setting up a pre-production run would take several months at a minimum.
But the vendor of the new processors would have been...........?
Moto simply couldn't/can't make them. Apple and Moto have contracts in place, the lower prices on the G4' is probably part of the 'penalty' for not meeting Apple's needs... but that still doesn't change the fact that Moto can't do any better. Reports abound on their terrible harvesting of quality chips. IBM is the answer, it seems and we have to wait til the G5s come pouring out of Fishkill. There is not ONE other solution to this dilemma.
So, I don't agree that Apple management is to be held responsible for this. The alternative was to produce nothing since Apple can't make Moto improve on the physical disaster of Moto's manufacturing setup. At least Apple tried to improve on the rest of the computer line during this 'wait and see' period. It's far from wonderful but before we go nuts about this, has anyone's computer stopped doing what it did well, before we knew the G5 was coming?
Apple is at fault too......
Yes Motorola is crappy at meeting deadlines for Processor revisions and have had rampants supply problems from the get go back all the way too the G4's of 1999. Motorola has had a history of taking time with the G4 chip as far as improvements and meeting supply needs.
Apple should have been well aware of this and planned accordingly by using the G4 chip in the most resourcefull ways by equipping all it's G4 computers leaving the factory with as much power as possible to lenghthen the product lifespan this is especially true with the G4 based imac and PowerBook lines. Seeing how both these machines are non upgradeble and Knowing Motorola's delays Apple should have equipped it's entire PowerBook and imac lines with level 3 Cache. Faster Graphics Cards would have helped as well.
Ex.
The 12" Powerbook 867Mhz G4 should have been released from the get go with at least 1Mb of level 3 cache instead of none and should have utilized the 167Mhz bus instead of the 133Mhz bus. Apple could have also done better by using a faster chipset than the Nvidia Geforce 4MX 420 Go chipset. They should have offered it with at least the 440MX Go or better yet the Radeon 9000Pro Mobility. Also they should have sported FW800 and USB 2.0 from the get go.
The 17" 1Ghz should have also been equipped from the get go 2Mb of L3 cache which would have been Possible. Also Apple would have been wise to use a faster chipset than the Geforce 4Mx 440Go . Apple should have Used the Radeon 9000Pro Mobility which does perform better than 440MX which is odd considering the mid range Powerbook 15" offers the Radeon 9000Pro. An even better option would have been to use something like the Geforce Ti4200 Go or equivalnent.
Putting 5200 RPM notebook drives also would not have hurt either.
imac 17" 1Ghz should have also shipped from the beggining with 1MB of level 3 cache and maybe even the 167Mhz bus.
Also Apple could have choose to use a faster Graphics Card than the Geforce 4MX in the imac which is a 440MX to be exact. It would have cost apple very little to implement the 460MX card or for that matter just use the Radeon 9000Pro.
Bottom line is Apple can control things on their end of the stick, they just choose not too. Often times they hamper themselves from the Get go. Steve should have foreseen delays form Motorola and Should have made sure all 2003 G4 machines leaving Apple's doors were equipped to be the longest Cycle holdout attempt ever.
Yes Motorola is crappy at meeting deadlines for Processor revisions and have had rampants supply problems from the get go back all the way too the G4's of 1999. Motorola has had a history of taking time with the G4 chip as far as improvements and meeting supply needs.
Apple should have been well aware of this and planned accordingly by using the G4 chip in the most resourcefull ways by equipping all it's G4 computers leaving the factory with as much power as possible to lenghthen the product lifespan this is especially true with the G4 based imac and PowerBook lines. Seeing how both these machines are non upgradeble and Knowing Motorola's delays Apple should have equipped it's entire PowerBook and imac lines with level 3 Cache. Faster Graphics Cards would have helped as well.
Ex.
The 12" Powerbook 867Mhz G4 should have been released from the get go with at least 1Mb of level 3 cache instead of none and should have utilized the 167Mhz bus instead of the 133Mhz bus. Apple could have also done better by using a faster chipset than the Nvidia Geforce 4MX 420 Go chipset. They should have offered it with at least the 440MX Go or better yet the Radeon 9000Pro Mobility. Also they should have sported FW800 and USB 2.0 from the get go.
The 17" 1Ghz should have also been equipped from the get go 2Mb of L3 cache which would have been Possible. Also Apple would have been wise to use a faster chipset than the Geforce 4Mx 440Go . Apple should have Used the Radeon 9000Pro Mobility which does perform better than 440MX which is odd considering the mid range Powerbook 15" offers the Radeon 9000Pro. An even better option would have been to use something like the Geforce Ti4200 Go or equivalnent.
Putting 5200 RPM notebook drives also would not have hurt either.
imac 17" 1Ghz should have also shipped from the beggining with 1MB of level 3 cache and maybe even the 167Mhz bus.
Also Apple could have choose to use a faster Graphics Card than the Geforce 4MX in the imac which is a 440MX to be exact. It would have cost apple very little to implement the 460MX card or for that matter just use the Radeon 9000Pro.
Bottom line is Apple can control things on their end of the stick, they just choose not too. Often times they hamper themselves from the Get go. Steve should have foreseen delays form Motorola and Should have made sure all 2003 G4 machines leaving Apple's doors were equipped to be the longest Cycle holdout attempt ever.
What delay?
In February of this year Motorola had a press release announcing the 7457. It clearly states that the chips would become available in the fourth quarter. This is now the beginning of the third quarter. As far as I can tell the supposed delays are just wild speculation based on rumors.
Motorola has been slow getting a PowerPC processor made on a 130-nm process. But that is true about all of their chips and not just the ones made for Apple. This slow progress is probably greatly due to Motorola losing money for several quarters in a row. There have been severe cutbacks at Motorola and slowing down the pace of manufacturing process advancement was probably greatly influenced by this.
In February of this year Motorola had a press release announcing the 7457. It clearly states that the chips would become available in the fourth quarter. This is now the beginning of the third quarter. As far as I can tell the supposed delays are just wild speculation based on rumors.
Motorola has been slow getting a PowerPC processor made on a 130-nm process. But that is true about all of their chips and not just the ones made for Apple. This slow progress is probably greatly due to Motorola losing money for several quarters in a row. There have been severe cutbacks at Motorola and slowing down the pace of manufacturing process advancement was probably greatly influenced by this.
IBM has disappointedly failed to deliver as promised
In October of 2000 IBM announced the 750FX. IBM stated that it would run up to 1 GHz. Now IBM lists the topend speed for the 750FX as 900 MHz. Just recently IBM announced that the 750GX will be produced in December of this year and it will run up to 1.1 GHz. Great, the 750 G3 gets to 1 GHz over two years after IBM announced a 1 GHz version. This has caused a delay in upgrading the speeds of iBooks. So I'd hardly call IBM a company without disappointments for Apple.
In October of 2000 IBM announced the 750FX. IBM stated that it would run up to 1 GHz. Now IBM lists the topend speed for the 750FX as 900 MHz. Just recently IBM announced that the 750GX will be produced in December of this year and it will run up to 1.1 GHz. Great, the 750 G3 gets to 1 GHz over two years after IBM announced a 1 GHz version. This has caused a delay in upgrading the speeds of iBooks. So I'd hardly call IBM a company without disappointments for Apple.
Re: Motorola
Perhaps they should sell their processor business (including plants) to AMD ...
As much as I despise Motorola, Apple needs multiple CPU sources. Perhaps "needs" is a bit strong, but it's certainly better to have two suppliers than one (you can draw a very strong parallel to the G4 conundrum ... at the beginning, it was IBM that said it wouldn't do the G4 or Altivec, leaving Apple with a single-supplier situation if it wanted to actually use its one processor advantage ...)
Motorola just "going away" is bad for Apple. Very bad. Even worse than them just being second-rans that Apple might be able to fall back on if IBM completely screws the pooch on the G5s.
Of the likely contenders, an AMD buyout would be both most likely (Intel is unlikely to want Moto's SC business) and the most Apple-friendly (Apple and AMD are on pretty good terms, and AMD has a record of funding processor development that Moto can't touch).
Brings a whole new light to those old "Jobs meeting with Ruiz" Apple-AMD rumors, huh?
Perhaps they should sell their processor business (including plants) to AMD ...
As much as I despise Motorola, Apple needs multiple CPU sources. Perhaps "needs" is a bit strong, but it's certainly better to have two suppliers than one (you can draw a very strong parallel to the G4 conundrum ... at the beginning, it was IBM that said it wouldn't do the G4 or Altivec, leaving Apple with a single-supplier situation if it wanted to actually use its one processor advantage ...)
Motorola just "going away" is bad for Apple. Very bad. Even worse than them just being second-rans that Apple might be able to fall back on if IBM completely screws the pooch on the G5s.
Of the likely contenders, an AMD buyout would be both most likely (Intel is unlikely to want Moto's SC business) and the most Apple-friendly (Apple and AMD are on pretty good terms, and AMD has a record of funding processor development that Moto can't touch).
Brings a whole new light to those old "Jobs meeting with Ruiz" Apple-AMD rumors, huh?
Re: Re: IBM's G3's instead...
Not officially, and according to rumors this is a ways from release.
Yes, Apple likely has contracts with Moto (although I think Apple could easily get out of them given Moto's repeated business failings).
Not officially, and according to rumors this is a ways from release.
Yes, Apple likely has contracts with Moto (although I think Apple could easily get out of them given Moto's repeated business failings).
Re: IBM has never shipped a G5 on time
Well, IBM has a long history of meeting or beating target dates.
Motorola has a long history of missing target dates.
This is an opinion with a long history. If IBM were to miss its date on the 970, that would be forgiven (to some extent) because it will be a relatively new phenomenon and unlikely to happen again.
Well, IBM has a long history of meeting or beating target dates.
Motorola has a long history of missing target dates.
This is an opinion with a long history. If IBM were to miss its date on the 970, that would be forgiven (to some extent) because it will be a relatively new phenomenon and unlikely to happen again.
Re: Re: Move everything to the G5...
Bigger screen == bigger case (although some space may be reduced in thickness, width and depth of the notebook are directly related to screen size ... until oled's fold out from a smaller enclosure of course ...)
Bigger case == more optimal component spacing
more optimal component spacing == easier heat dissipation
better heat dissipation == can use more heat-generating components (higher-frequency processors)
&&
Bigger case == bigger battery
bigger battery == can use more energy-consuming components (higher-frequency proessors)
Bigger screen == bigger case (although some space may be reduced in thickness, width and depth of the notebook are directly related to screen size ... until oled's fold out from a smaller enclosure of course ...)
Bigger case == more optimal component spacing
more optimal component spacing == easier heat dissipation
better heat dissipation == can use more heat-generating components (higher-frequency processors)
&&
Bigger case == bigger battery
bigger battery == can use more energy-consuming components (higher-frequency proessors)
I don't believe Apple has announced a new Powerbook, so I'm not sure what the delay you referring to is. The current Powerbooks are selling well, so why would they upgrade them for no reason? But then again are you one of those who will complain when Apple releases new G4 Powerbooks and state that they're going to wait for the G5s?
Whatever
In case you're not joking:
You have a good description of vectors in physics; unfortunately "vectors" in computers are a completely different beast.
In computing terms, a "vector" is an arbitrarily-sized array of values. A "vector unit" will typically deal with vectors of 32-bit ints, 16-bit ints, 8-bit bytes, and 32-bit floating point numbers more efficiently than by dealing with each element of data individually. In Altivec, the vector processing size is 128 bits, so if you have 32-bit ints in your vector the Altivec unit can process those ints four at a time (4x32 = 128). However, you can only do this when you are doing the same thing to every int (for instance, multiplying each by 3). Another name for a vector unit is "SIMD", which stands for "Single Instruction, Multiple Data".
This is a good thing for "multimedia" applications as they often do the same thing on multiple bits of data. Other apps ... well, there's not much opportunity for SIMD in a word processor, for instance.
No, I have no idea why they chose the name "vector" for this, but they did, and we must live with it 🙂 The term persists in several computer languages as well (C++ and Java, for instance).
Snowy_River
macrumors 68030
Re: IBM has disappointedly failed to deliver as promised
With regards to these comments, don't you understand that the IBM G5 (PPC970) is Apple's plan B? It is their answer to the 'single point failure'? It was about two years ago that Moto truly demonstrated their failure, when they discontinued their development of the G5 (PPC8500?). That was when (if we are to believe what evidence we have at our disposal) Apple approached IBM to start development of the PPC970.
It's clear that Apple is trying to move away from Moto entirely. However, this is a process that takes long term planning. On the plus side, if the rumors of Mohave are correct, then we might well see it in the near future, as IBM will have a 'G4' type chip for Apple to use for it's lower end products.
This is something that it's hard to blame IBM for. I think that this is likely the fault of Apple marketing and Moto. Apple marketing has long held that consumer level products shouldn't outperform their Pro-level machines. So, because the G4 was lingering at a maximum of 800 MHz by 2001, there were not going to be any 1GHz G3 to be found. Even now, the fastest PowerBook is at 1GHz, so you don't find anything faster the 900MHz in the iBook (which is now the only G3 processor in the Apple line).
This is a long standing issue that has been debated ad-nausium. Some may not agree with Apple's choices in this area, but at least try to understand them.
With regards to these comments, don't you understand that the IBM G5 (PPC970) is Apple's plan B? It is their answer to the 'single point failure'? It was about two years ago that Moto truly demonstrated their failure, when they discontinued their development of the G5 (PPC8500?). That was when (if we are to believe what evidence we have at our disposal) Apple approached IBM to start development of the PPC970.
It's clear that Apple is trying to move away from Moto entirely. However, this is a process that takes long term planning. On the plus side, if the rumors of Mohave are correct, then we might well see it in the near future, as IBM will have a 'G4' type chip for Apple to use for it's lower end products.
This is something that it's hard to blame IBM for. I think that this is likely the fault of Apple marketing and Moto. Apple marketing has long held that consumer level products shouldn't outperform their Pro-level machines. So, because the G4 was lingering at a maximum of 800 MHz by 2001, there were not going to be any 1GHz G3 to be found. Even now, the fastest PowerBook is at 1GHz, so you don't find anything faster the 900MHz in the iBook (which is now the only G3 processor in the Apple line).
This is a long standing issue that has been debated ad-nausium. Some may not agree with Apple's choices in this area, but at least try to understand them.
jbomber
macrumors 6502a
I was always a bit skeptical of that announcement. It seemed kinda weird for them to bump expectations up from Q4 to Q3 unless they'd had a few huge breakthroughs. that kind of thing only tightens the timeline of expectation and magnifies any slowdown in production. They should have kept the Q4 marker, and then we'd all be pleasantly surprised when Motorola beat the predictions. Now instead of being the hero, they're the goat.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Move everything to the G5...
I think the answer goes more to economics. Would Joe Consumer really get it if the 12" costs more than the 17" even if the specs are greater on the 12"? Remember Apple deals in consumer products and must appeal to the lowest common denominator meaning bigger is better rules. It would be nice to have a 15" dual 2 Ghz machine but unless the 17" is at least that powerful it won't happen.
I think the answer goes more to economics. Would Joe Consumer really get it if the 12" costs more than the 17" even if the specs are greater on the 12"? Remember Apple deals in consumer products and must appeal to the lowest common denominator meaning bigger is better rules. It would be nice to have a 15" dual 2 Ghz machine but unless the 17" is at least that powerful it won't happen.
(lost my first reply with login weirdness--it makes no sense to me: I typed in my password, but when I went to post it asked me to login again; usually when I do that I get a "no thread specified" error and lose my post, so I hit "back", and thus lost my post anyway...)
Anyway, the answer is "sort of". I'm not sure about the 603 vs. 604 thing someone mentioned--I have heard that thrown around but I've also seen a rebuttal to it.
But the other key difference is the FSB--the G4 has a different (better) one. No, not in terms of MHz. 🙂 It has some features that make it more efficient than the G3's. You should be able to find out more about this in any Developer Note about a G4 machine (pick one at random).
FYI: the G3's bus is "60x"; the G4's is "MPX" or "MaxBus".
HTH
WM
Phil Of Mac
macrumors 68020
The G3 has lineage from the 603e. The G4 has lineage from the G3, except with a much better floating point unit and AltiVec. I think 604e was a dead end 🙂
Or IBM? 🙂
It's rather standard in the computer industry to update your products often. It's called innovation 🙂
Ach! Well, I guess that's that then. I would have thought it was really cool if they could calculate physics vectors like that. Well, thanks for the clarification.
Or IBM? 🙂
It's rather standard in the computer industry to update your products often. It's called innovation 🙂
Ach! Well, I guess that's that then. I would have thought it was really cool if they could calculate physics vectors like that. Well, thanks for the clarification.
Do you get all of your information from rumor sites?
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe Apple has had production problems making computers?
The 12" iBook and 12" PowerBook are almost exactly the same size. There should no technical reason why Apple could not put a G3 inside a 12" PowerBook other than the fact it will run at a much lower frequency and its performance will be much slower.
Where does Apple state this? This is obviously all based on rumors.
You could also say that Apple is stuck over a barrel with IBM and Motorola. There are two companies that make PowerPC processors and not just one. I would hardly call IBM's 750 processors a match in performance to Motorola's 7500 series chips.
Motorola is just coming out of severe losses for the last two years. Projects were put on hold and cutbacks were made. Apple didn't help the situation any with falling Mac sales.
No, Motorola had a press release which stated the chip would be sampling in March to major customers and it would go into production in the fourth quarter of this year. That's in writing from Motorola and what you are stating seems to be based on information from rumor sites.
Almost all of what you have stated is based on rumors and not facts.
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe Apple has had production problems making computers?
The 12" iBook and 12" PowerBook are almost exactly the same size. There should no technical reason why Apple could not put a G3 inside a 12" PowerBook other than the fact it will run at a much lower frequency and its performance will be much slower.
Where does Apple state this? This is obviously all based on rumors.
You could also say that Apple is stuck over a barrel with IBM and Motorola. There are two companies that make PowerPC processors and not just one. I would hardly call IBM's 750 processors a match in performance to Motorola's 7500 series chips.
Motorola is just coming out of severe losses for the last two years. Projects were put on hold and cutbacks were made. Apple didn't help the situation any with falling Mac sales.
No, Motorola had a press release which stated the chip would be sampling in March to major customers and it would go into production in the fourth quarter of this year. That's in writing from Motorola and what you are stating seems to be based on information from rumor sites.
Almost all of what you have stated is based on rumors and not facts.
Re: Re: IBM has disappointedly failed to deliver as promised
Jon Rubenstein has publicly stated that Apple started working with IBM three years ago to get the Power4 made into a PowerPC processor. Regardless if Motorola had a next generation of PowerPC processor available, Apple was intent on getting a Power4 derivitive.
That is not clear whatsoever. Apple would be foolish to base all of their computer production around a single source for processors. Motorola has plans for a dual-core G4 and there are virtually no other major customers that would be interested in it other than Apple. Motorola would not commit to such a large project unless Apple agreed to buy large quantities of these upcoming processors.
What nonsense. If IBM believed there was a great opportunity to make a large amount of money selling higher performance G3 processors to Apple, then IBM would have produced them. Obviously IBM did not see any great opportunity for fortunes to made selling greatly faster G3 chips only to one customer that had falling sales.
IBM has made the commitment to make a PowerPC version of the Power4 chip due to IBM also wanting to use it their own computers. If Apple would have been the only customer for it, then IBM would be much less interested in making it for the prices that Apple would be willing to pay.
Jon Rubenstein has publicly stated that Apple started working with IBM three years ago to get the Power4 made into a PowerPC processor. Regardless if Motorola had a next generation of PowerPC processor available, Apple was intent on getting a Power4 derivitive.
That is not clear whatsoever. Apple would be foolish to base all of their computer production around a single source for processors. Motorola has plans for a dual-core G4 and there are virtually no other major customers that would be interested in it other than Apple. Motorola would not commit to such a large project unless Apple agreed to buy large quantities of these upcoming processors.
What nonsense. If IBM believed there was a great opportunity to make a large amount of money selling higher performance G3 processors to Apple, then IBM would have produced them. Obviously IBM did not see any great opportunity for fortunes to made selling greatly faster G3 chips only to one customer that had falling sales.
IBM has made the commitment to make a PowerPC version of the Power4 chip due to IBM also wanting to use it their own computers. If Apple would have been the only customer for it, then IBM would be much less interested in making it for the prices that Apple would be willing to pay.
Re: Re: IBM has never shipped a G5 on time
In October of 2000 IBM announced that the 750FX would hit speeds up to 1 GHz and as of yet there has been no 1 GHz 750FX produced. In fact IBM is now stating that the 750FX will only go to 900 MHz.
You are conveniently ignoring the fact that IBM has up until now been unable to produce a PowerPC processor that can match the speeds of Motorola's PowerPC processors. Yet you claim IBM is the good guy and Motorola is the bad guy. Geez...
In October of 2000 IBM announced that the 750FX would hit speeds up to 1 GHz and as of yet there has been no 1 GHz 750FX produced. In fact IBM is now stating that the 750FX will only go to 900 MHz.
You are conveniently ignoring the fact that IBM has up until now been unable to produce a PowerPC processor that can match the speeds of Motorola's PowerPC processors. Yet you claim IBM is the good guy and Motorola is the bad guy. Geez...
Bottom Line
No matter who's to blame, the bottom line is this:
Apple should've done something to not let this happen. They knew that Moto was jerking them around so they should've had a plan B. Shifting the blame is weak and it makes one wonder if there really was a 15.4" ??
All of us whom are waiting for Apple to release this wonderful Pbk. have been dupped. If Mr. Jobs was so upset and unhappy earlier this year and later last year, then why could'nt he forsee this happening?? To re-coup some of the losses from people changing to PC's maybe Apple should seek an action against Moto for lost revenue becuase the 4th Quarter is going to really hurt them.
Another piece of food for thought: If they decide to release it in Q4, then the technology would still be behind because there are Dell Laptops and (GACK) Gateway Lappers that are ahead of Apple's 15"in terms of features and at a lower price. Apple's product still looks better!
😱
No matter who's to blame, the bottom line is this:
Apple should've done something to not let this happen. They knew that Moto was jerking them around so they should've had a plan B. Shifting the blame is weak and it makes one wonder if there really was a 15.4" ??
All of us whom are waiting for Apple to release this wonderful Pbk. have been dupped. If Mr. Jobs was so upset and unhappy earlier this year and later last year, then why could'nt he forsee this happening?? To re-coup some of the losses from people changing to PC's maybe Apple should seek an action against Moto for lost revenue becuase the 4th Quarter is going to really hurt them.
Another piece of food for thought: If they decide to release it in Q4, then the technology would still be behind because there are Dell Laptops and (GACK) Gateway Lappers that are ahead of Apple's 15"in terms of features and at a lower price. Apple's product still looks better!
😱
Snowy_River
macrumors 68030
Re: Re: Re: IBM has disappointedly failed to deliver as promised
Uh.. I don't see how you're not actually agreeing with me. Apple didn't want a faster G3 processor because of the marketing decisions and where it would put it relative to the G4. Thus, IBM didn't make a faster G3.
Yes, of course IBM is planning on using the G5 (970) in their own computers. But, to what extent did they ever use the G3? And, regardless of whether or not IBM plans on using the G5 in their own computers, it is clearly a chip that has been aimed directly at Apple's needs.
Uh.. I don't see how you're not actually agreeing with me. Apple didn't want a faster G3 processor because of the marketing decisions and where it would put it relative to the G4. Thus, IBM didn't make a faster G3.
Yes, of course IBM is planning on using the G5 (970) in their own computers. But, to what extent did they ever use the G3? And, regardless of whether or not IBM plans on using the G5 in their own computers, it is clearly a chip that has been aimed directly at Apple's needs.
Action against Moto
Keep in mind, IBM's G5 *is* Plan B. They rushed to IBM when Moto said they couldn't make a G5 because they couldn't work out design flaws. (Does this surprise anyone?) The powerbook issue really could not have a plan b. If Moto gave Apple enough warning that they wouldn't have a G5 at all (like they are under contract to do so), then Apple could have partnered with IBM sooner, and thus they might have been able to get a logic board design for PB G5 sooner than this January, however, Apple didn't have any indication back in mid May of *how* late Moto was going to be on delivery, thus they wouldn't have had the foreknowledge to have rushed development of a PowerBook G5 which could be the only Plan B to this mess, which realistically, was never possible in the first place. Basically, Moto has stuck it to Apple, and BAD.
And just wait until Apple posts profits for Q4. You should see legal action against Moto after said announcement.
Jaedreth
Keep in mind, IBM's G5 *is* Plan B. They rushed to IBM when Moto said they couldn't make a G5 because they couldn't work out design flaws. (Does this surprise anyone?) The powerbook issue really could not have a plan b. If Moto gave Apple enough warning that they wouldn't have a G5 at all (like they are under contract to do so), then Apple could have partnered with IBM sooner, and thus they might have been able to get a logic board design for PB G5 sooner than this January, however, Apple didn't have any indication back in mid May of *how* late Moto was going to be on delivery, thus they wouldn't have had the foreknowledge to have rushed development of a PowerBook G5 which could be the only Plan B to this mess, which realistically, was never possible in the first place. Basically, Moto has stuck it to Apple, and BAD.
And just wait until Apple posts profits for Q4. You should see legal action against Moto after said announcement.
Jaedreth
- Status