Moto's G5?

[Royal Pineapple]

wtf is this? they are claming that moto has a g5.
granted this was published in 2001 but still, they cant call it a g5, why didnt apple get pissed?
prolly cuyz in 2001 they didnt care abut anything being called the g5
eidt: oops forgot the link
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/21692.html

 

[eyelikeart]

ha!

What a load of crap! It is funny, however, so see an article from over 2 years ago on this topic.

 

[zulgand04]

moto does have a G5, i don't think its called that, but it the same concept chip that was origonally suposed to be for the mac, but due to production problems never were mass produced, but they are now useing this chip for they'er very big imbedded processor market.

-Neal

 

[Mr. Anderson]

It was always my understanding that the G# was an Apple thing. Motos their own names for the processors - numbers, actually...

D

 

[zulgand04]

moto does use #'s, but on their roadmaps they do use the G# also, I think the reasoning that apple is useing the G5 name is for marketing and to also make it easier for buys to tell what their buying. Instead of back in the perfoma, and early powermac days of the 603, 604e, ect.



-Neal

 

[Freg3000]

I used to hate Motorola. Now I pity them.

 

[LimeLite]

Wow. Imagine if Motorla had had its act together and we had the G5 Q1 2002. That would have been incredible. If the moto chips were/are as good as the IBM ones, and if they had them in Q1 of 2002, Apple would have been a year ahead of where they are now, and thus created a huge gap between Apple and PC.

 

[macphoria]

Moto should, or should have kept their mouth shut. It is largely their fault that Macs fell behind PC's in processor war. Hopefully the real G5/IBM 970 will make up for time wasted by Moto.

 

[MacFan25]

Heh...they got quite a few things wrong in that article. They said that 10.2 would be offered at 64-bits.

 

[Ensoniq]

If you really read the article with an open mind, it's quite believable. Evidence to support this:

1 - Their description of the SouthBridge chip is dead on. (802.11, FireWire 800, USB 2.0, Bluetooth) The PowerMac G5 has it all.

2 - That article was posted 3 months before MacWorld of 2002, and claimed Moto would be shipping in January. Remember, THAT was the MacWorld with Apple web site saying ... "Beyond the rumor sites...way beyond..." A published story from that time (a rumor site story, however) indicated that Apple was readying the release of the PowerMac G5 using Motos chip for that MacWorld, and Moto found design flaws that caused them to need to halt things for no less than 3 months. It's my feeling THAT is why the "beyond the rumor sites" message ended up seeming overkill. It's because Apple had to NOT announce something they had planned, which led to Steve screaming at Moto and led them further into getting things moving with IBM.

3 - At that time, over a year ago, the next chip Moto was working on WOULD have been "the G5" as far as we were concerned. The real name was the Motorola 7500, just like IBM's real name is the PPC 970. The "G5" name comes from Apple, not Motorola nor IBM...and if the 7500 had been in a new machine at that MacWorld, it would have been called the G5. And we all agree that the PowerMac line has been in trouble for well over 2 years. A year ago is exactly when Apple would have needed a redesign. One more hint that they had to back out of plans due to Motorola.

4 - Rumors at that time indicated that beta testers had machines in welded shut enclosures they were testing from Apple that were significantly faster than G4 machines. What they were testing was most likely this Motorola chip.

5 - THe comment about Jaguar being 64-bit also makes sense at the time. The story is 100% accurate based on when it was written...10.2 WOULD have had to be 64-bit aware, just like Panther will be 64-bit aware, because that G5 would have been out before Jaguar shipped. So the article is not wrong, or mistaken, or full of lies. It is simply outdated due to Motorola being unable to deliver what they had promised to Apple.